% BOOKTITLE = Play the French (4th Edition)
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 {. The wait is over. Finally it's here... the much anticipated 4th
edition of John Watson's 'Play the French' - the must-have book for all French
Defence players for over 20 years! --- Watson's highly acclaimed work presents
a repertoire for Black in the French Defence against all of White's recognized
options. Just as in previous editions, Watson often arms the reader with not
just one, but a choice of two or sometimes even three choices against the main
lines. He also provides a thorough grounding on the positional and tactical
aspects of the opening, and outlines the typical plans for both White and
Black. Watson is renowned for his creativity and expertise in the opening, and
once again this edition features an abundance of innovative ideas for Black.
Watson also provides an update of many other lines he considered in previous
editions.} 2. -- {International Master John Watson is an award-winning author
and one of the world's leading chess writers. He writes a column on the French
Defence for the prestigious site ChessPublishing.com, and produces weekly
video lectures for Chess.FM at the Internet Chess Club.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

{Why another edition of 'Play the French'? Over the past two or three years,
after all, numerous books on the French Defence have appeared, most of them
written by very competent and insightful authors. As is the wont with modern
opening works, these books usually centre their recommended variations around
an instructive and/or entertaining game, without great depth but with
sufficient detail to show the main branches and explain basic ideas. This is
absolutely legitimate and is in fact the direction towards which I have
gravitated in some of my own works. But it leaves room for a book on the
French with fewer generalities and more nitty-gritty chess substance, one in
which you have a better chance of finding precisely how your latest adventure
with} 1. e4 e6 {corresponds to a set of moves in the book, whether or not
those moves are flawed. 'Play the French 4' is first of all a repertoire book,
with a wider-than-normal choice of lines; but it is also as a reference work
which tries to anticipate as many of your opponents' logical moves as possible.
--- The repertoire itself is highly flexible, consisting of both mainstream
variations and experimental forays. At most key junctures, the reader is
offered two or more distinct variations to choose from, providing sound
alternatives should some line of play prove unsatisfactory or in need of
repair. Of course, a book that tries to cover so many byways will necessarily
be dense and in some spots difficult to read. Therefore you may want to skim
over chapters before settling in to a closer examination. But I would urge you
to pay particular attention to the alternatives I've given to what are
(temporarily) the 'main lines'. This both prepares you to meet moves that are
likely to be played, but also informs you of key ideas that may not be
explicitly described elsewhere. Notice, too, that I've let many subvariations
speak for themselves. Not that Play the French was ever excessively chatty,
but I have often sacrificed verbiage to make room for specifics. I've also
devoted much more space to original analysis, with less resort to bare game
excerpts.} 2. -- {What's new in this edition? It's been nine years since 'Play
the French 3', seemingly a lifetime given the rapidity with which theory
changes in such a popular opening. I have therefore updated and re-analysed
the great majority of variations, often in depth. I've also presented new
solutions. For example, in the Advance Variation (3 e5), apart from changing
some fundamental ways of playing 5...Qb6 in the main line, I have added a
chapter on 5...Nh6. Versus the Tarrasch (3 Nd2), I have returned to 3...Nf6,
not only on the basis of proven merit but also because very little, if
anything, has changed in a fundamental sense in the 3...c5 lines. In the
Winawer (3 Nc3 Bb4), you will see a new chapter on 6...Qa5 (which I call the
'Portisch-Hook Variation'), and a return to the Winawer Poisoned Pawn in the
main 7 Qg4 line. There are two new chapters on the McCutcheon Variation (3 Nc3
Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4, replacing 4...dxe4), which is an active approach in the spirit
of the Winawer; and you'll also find a new main line in the Classical System
(3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5). --- These variations and similarly new approaches in lesser
systems by no means indicate the failure of corresponding solutions from
previous editions; on the contrary, most of them are still fully playable. But
they do show how wonderfully flexible the French Defence is, and how you
needn't despair of it should a particular system fail to satisfy your needs.
Finally, in terms of coverage, I have tried to pay deeper and more respectful
attention to variations which are not currently in fashion and/or which have a
strong following at lower levels of play.} (2. -- {Another change concerns the
natural bias in such a book. The 'author-advocate' form is a difficult one;
for this volume, at the harsh insistence of computer engines, I've spent more
time modifying or rejecting my own previous suggestions than in any book that
I've previously written. In the past, moreover, I've made the assumption that
the reader will understand how I have tended to choose excerpts to illustrate
how Black can do well (hence the use of 'e.g.' or 'for example'). That is
still true, but this time I have attempted to be clearer with regard to lines
that are truly balanced, not by writing some sort of objective thesis but by
indicating when the French player is looking to dig up chances in an equal
position, rather than trying to prove any theoretical advantage. In other
words, I have tried not to claim too much. In a related way, I've often
undertaken to identify who has the easier position to play in a theoretically
equal situation. --- It's difficult these days not to over-rely upon computer
engines for analysis, and I've undoubtedly been guilty of this in some cases.
But I have also found that engines are capable of systematic bias in certain
pawn structures, as well as with some unusual piece configurations. So when
you use a computer to analyse the material from this and other books, be a
little careful. If you disagree with my or the computer's assessment of a
position (or are simply curious), don't just set up the position and let the
engine run. Instead, suggest moves for the side you think has a better
position than the computer believes. Give the engine a lot of time to respond,
and keep playing against the engine with the moves that you think correct,
until either you change your assessment or it does. Although the machine will
probably prove correct more often than not, you'll be surprised how often it
defers to your judgment.}) (2. -- {Finally, I want to thank just a few of the
many people who have made suggestions or otherwise contributed to this book,
in particular John Hartman, Franz Steenbekkers, and Joachim Wintzer. Thanks
also to the many contributors to the ChessPublishing Forum, not to mention its
columnists Neil McDonald and Goh Wei Ming, and of course the owner and
webmaster Tony Kosten. A special nod to Viktor Moskalenko for writing the most
inspiring French books in recent years, easily the biggest influence on this
edition. The publications Kaissiber (Stefan Bücker, editor) and Secrets of
Opening Surprises (Jeroen Bosch) are remarkable for their contributions to the
theory of lesser-known lines. Most importantly, thanks to the insights and
hard work of my editor, Jonathan Tait.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1. Advance: Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 {.The Advance Variation was initially one of the most
popular responses to the French Defence, and today 3 e5 is still a major
system, not much behind 3 Nd2 in mass appeal (whereas 3 Nc3 is very much the
leading choice). With 3 e5, White establishes a wedge in the centre which
serves two major functions: 1. It hinders the natural development of the
opponent's pieces (for example, Black's knight can't go to f6 and his bishop
is denied access to d6); 2. It stakes out territory on the kingside, where
White's pieces will have more room to move about. --- Normally in a pawn-chain
structure like this, White would have the goal of attacking on the kingside
with f4-f5; but in the Advance Variation he seldom achieves that, mainly
because Nf3 must be played early on, blocking the f-pawn. Nevertheless,
restricting Black's movement on that side of the board can assist in attacking
there, and you will also see White expand on the queenside (by a3 and b4) to
further deny Black room to manoeuvre. --- The outlines of Black's conventional
opening strategy are fairly simple to describe. He wishes to break up White's
central pawns, usually with the moves ...c5 and ...f6. After 3...c5, White
will usually support the pawn by 4 c3 (be sure to take note the important
exceptions which follow). This leads to one of two situations: --- (a) Black
exchanges pawns on d4, then develops so as to put pressure upon the d-pawn
(with knights on c6 and f5, for example, and/or a queen on b6). At some point
Black tries to break down White's centre by means of ...f6 (trying to
establish a central majority, which can be a powerful asset); or exchanges on
e5 and targets the remaining pawn there with pieces. If White successfully
defends the pawn on d4, Black's pressure on it might serve to tie down White's
defending pieces so that other attacks such as ...g5-g4 succeed. --- (b) Black
pressures but does not capture on d4, trying to force White to surrender his
control by dxc5 or, again, to distract White's forces so that an alternate
attack is successful. Occasionally, the move ...c4 can be useful. ---
Obviously, since 3 e5 has been used in tens of thousands of master games, the
implementation of these basic ideas is enormously complex, and actual play is
full of exceptions to these strategies, as well as alternate approaches.
Nevertheless, to be successful as Black, you will almost always do well to
concentrate upon breaking up the d4/e5 pawn centre.} c5 {. Here White has four
primary approaches, the last of which dominates master practice:} 4. -- ({1.1 -
} 4. dxc5) ({1.2 -} 4. Qg4) ({1.3 -} 4. Nf3) ({1.4 -} 4. c3) (4. -- {I don't want to spend excessive time on the alternatives to 4 c3, which have the serious
drawback of letting Black break up White's pawn chain. You should know that
they all allow for multiple solutions by Black, so if you're not satisfied
with my proposed remedies, others can be found, either in the literature or by
means of your own analysis:}) ({(a)} 4. b4 $6 {
is a modified Wing Gambit (compare Chapter 17)} cxd4 5. a3 {and now:} -- (5...
a5 {is a good solution; e.g.} 6. b5 Nd7 7. Nf3 (7. f4 Nh6 8. Nf3 Nf5 9. Bd3 Ne3
{and ...Bc5}) 7... Qc7 8. Bf4 Ne7 9. Be2 Ng6 10. Bg3 Bc5 $17 {
Cherkasov-Nikolenko, Czestochowa 1992.}) (5... Nc6 6. f4 (6. Nf3 Qc7 7. Bf4
Nge7 {intends ...Ng6, when} 8. b5 Ng6 {is advantageous,} ({but} 8... g5 $1 {
is at least as strong})) 6... Nh6 ({or} 6... a5 7. b5 Nce7 8. Nf3 Nf5 9. Bd3
Ngh6 $15 {intending ...Bc5 and ...Ne3, Frenkel-Rao, Boston 1988}) 7. Nf3 a5 8.
b5 Ne7 9. Nxd4 Nef5 $17 {with multiple ideas, including ...Qb6 and ...Bc5.})) (
{(b)} 4. f4 {shores up e5, but Black takes a large lead in development and
activity following} Nc6 ({or} 4... cxd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 {with a promising game after
} 6. Nbd2 ({or} 6. Nxd4 Qb6) 6... Nh6 7. Bd3 Ng4 $1 8. Nb3 Bb4+) 5. c3 {
(equivalent to 4 c3 Nc6 5 f4)} Qb6 6. Nf3 Nh6 7. b3 (7. Qb3 cxd4 8. Qxb6 axb6
9. cxd4 Nf5 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Bxc6 bxc6 {of Pulnikov-Iljin, Togliatty 2001,
leaves Black with a pair of bishops versus White's very bad one}) ({, while} 7.
Bd3 Bd7 8. Qb3 {is well met by} Qc7 $1 {, threatening ...c4, when} 9. Qc2 cxd4
10. cxd4 Qb6 $1 {wins material}) 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Kf2 Ng4+ $1 10. Kg3
({not} 10. Kg1 $6 Be1 $1 {with the idea} 11. Qxe1 $2 Nxd4 12. Be3 Nxf3+ 13.
gxf3 Nxe3 $19) 10... h5 11. h3 $2 ({but} 11. Bd3 Bd7) ({, and} 11. Be2 Nh6 {
clearly favour Black}) 11... h4+ $1 12. Nxh4 (12. Kxg4 f5+ 13. exf6 e5+) 12...
Rxh4 $1 13. Be2 (13. Kxh4 Nf2 14. Qh5 Be7+ 15. Kg3 Nxh1+ 16. Kh2 Qxd4) 13...
Nf2 $1 14. Kxf2 Nxd4 15. Be3 Bc5 {and White has no satisfactory move.}) ({(c)} 
4. Bb5+ {develops, but trading White's 'good' bishop for Black's 'bad' one is
generally frowned upon:} Bd7 ({or} 4... Nc6 {; e.g.} 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nge7)
5. Bxd7+ Nxd7 6. Nf3 (6. c3 Qb6 7. Nf3 Ne7 8. O-O Nc6 {
leaves White on the defensive}) 6... cxd4 (6... Ne7) 7. Qxd4 Ne7 8. O-O Nc6 9.
Qa4 g6 $5 10. Bf4 Bg7 11. Re1 O-O 12. Na3 (12. Qb5 f6 $1 13. exf6 Qxf6) 12...
f6 $1 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. Bd6 Rf7 {and Black intends 15...e5, even after 15 Rad1.
}) ({(d)} 4. Be3 cxd4 (4... Nc6 5. c3 {transposes to 4 c3 Nc6 5 Be3}) 5. Bxd4 {
leaves White's bishop subject to attack:} Nc6 6. Nf3 Nge7 7. c3 ({or} 7. Bb5
Nf5 8. O-O Bd7 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. b3 c5 11. Bb2 Be7 $17 {
with ...0-0 and ...Bc6 cementing the bishop-pair advantage}) 7... Nf5 8. Bd3
Nfxd4 9. cxd4 Qb6 10. Qd2 Bd7 11. Be2 {
, and one instructive sequence (because it comes up so often) is} g5 $5 (11...
Be7 12. Nc3 f6 $15 {is calmer and objectively preferable}) 12. h3 Nxd4 $1 13.
Nxd4 Bc5 14. Nb3 $1 Bxf2+ 15. Kd1 (15. Kf1 Bg3 16. Bd3 Rf8 $1) 15... a5 $1 {
with a powerful attack and sufficient compensation for the piece.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.1 4 dxc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 {. Rather than defend d4, White shifts his
attention to bolstering e5 with pieces, so that after ...f6, he will be able
to occupy the outpost on e5. This capture is typical in several lines of the
French, but in this case ceding d4 so quickly seems too co-operative. Black
gains a small lead in development and will target e5 next. Although the
variation isn't that important, the way in which it develops is quite
instructive.} Nc6 ({Avoiding} 4... Bxc5 5. Qg4 {, when} Ne7 6. Qxg7 Ng6 {
allows White to draw by} 7. Bd3 Bf8 8. Qf6 Be7 9. Qg7 Bf8 $11 {.}) 5. Nf3 $1 (
5. Bf4 $6 Bxc5 {is already miserable for White, who not only needs to defend
b2 and f2 against ...Qb6, but can't prevent the dissolution of his centre:} 6.
-- (6. c3 f6 {(easiest)} ({although} 6... Nge7 7. Nf3 Ng6 8. Bg3 f6 $1 9. exf6
Qxf6 {is also strong; e.g.} 10. Bd3 Nf4 11. O-O O-O 12. Bh4 Qh6 13. Bg5 Qh5 14.
Bxf4 Rxf4) 7. Nf3 (7. Bb5 Bxf2+ $1) 7... Qb6 ({or} 7... fxe5 8. Bxe5 Nf6) 8.
Qe2 g5 $5 (8... fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nf6 $15) 9. Bg3 $6 (9. Bc1 g4 10. Nfd2 Nxe5) 9...
g4 10. Nh4 Nxe5 11. Bxe5 $2 fxe5 12. b4 Bd6 13. Qxg4 Nf6 14. Qe2 O-O {
and White is lost.}) (6. Qg4 Nge7 $1 (6... Qb6 7. Qxg7 Bxf2+ 8. Kd1 Qxb2 9.
Qxh8 Nce7) {, intending} 7. Qxg7 $2 (7. Bd3 $2 Qb6) (7. Nc3 Ng6 8. Qg3 O-O 9.
Nf3 Nxf4 10. Qxf4 Qb6 $17) 7... Rg8 8. Qxh7 Qb6 {and wins.})) 5... Bxc5 6. Bd3
{White needs to get castled.} ({(a)} 6. Bf4 $6 Qb6 7. Bg3 Qxb2 8. Nbd2 Nge7 {
leaves White with no compensation for the pawn.}) ({(b)} 6. a3 {is slow after}
f6 ({or} 6... Qb6 {with the idea} 7. Qe2 ({or} 7. Qd2 Nd4 $1 $15) 7... f6 8. b4
Be7) 7. b4 Bb6 $1 8. b5 $5 (8. exf6 Nxf6 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O e5 $1 11. b5 Nd4
$17) 8... Nxe5 9. Nxe5 fxe5 10. Qh5+ Kf8 11. Qxe5 Qf6 ({or} 11... Bc7 12. Qe3
Qf6 13. Ra2 Ne7 14. Bb2 e5 $15) 12. Qxf6+ Nxf6 13. Bb2 e5 $1 14. Bxe5 Kf7 {
with an attack; e.g.} 15. Bxf6 Re8+ 16. Be2 Kxf6 {.}) 6... f6 {
The clearest course, since it liquidates the centre.} ({
For those wishing for a game of a more closed nature,} 6... Nge7 {
is a sound alternative. Briefly:} 7. -- (7. O-O Ng6 8. Qe2 (8. Re1 O-O 9. c3
f6) 8... O-O 9. c3 Bd7 ({or} 9... Qc7 10. Re1 f6) 10. Re1 (10. Be3 Be7 $1)
10... f6 11. Bxg6 hxg6 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Be3 Bxe3 14. Qxe3 e5 $1 $15 {intending
} 15. Qh6 Ne7 16. c4 Rf7 $1 17. cxd5 Nxd5 18. Qxg6+ Rg7 19. Qc2 Nf4 20. g3 Bc6
21. Nbd2 Qd7 {with a strong attack.}) (7. Nc3 Ng6 8. Bxg6 fxg6 $5 9. O-O O-O {
yields a common structure in which the bishops and f-file co-ordinate; e.g.}
10. a3 Rf5 11. b4 Bb6 12. Re1 Bd7 13. Bb2 g5 $1 14. h3 h5 {with the initiative.
}) (7. Bf4 Qb6 (7... Ng6 {is also logical}) 8. O-O Ng6 9. Bg3 ({Keres suggests
} 9. Qc1 Nxf4 10. Qxf4 {, when} Qxb2 11. Nbd2 f5 $1 {is good}) 9... Qxb2 10.
Nbd2 Ngxe5 $1 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Rb1 Qc3 13. Rb3 Qd4 14. Bxe5 (14. Bb5+ Nc6 $17)
14... Qxe5 15. Bb5+ {, T.Johansson-E.Berg, Bergen 2001, and} Ke7 {was fine,} ({
but} 15... Kf8 $1 {is safer; e.g.} 16. Re1 Qc7 17. Qh5 g6 18. Qh6+ Kg8 {
and Black has a decisive advantage with two extra pawns, the bishop pair, and
mobile central pawns.}))) 7. Qe2 $1 (7. Bb5 $2 Qb6 {intending} 8. Qe2 Bxf2+ {
is weak, and the others are fun for Black:}) ({(a)} 7. exf6 $6 Nxf6 8. O-O O-O
9. c4 (9. Re1 e5 $1) (9. Qe2 e5 $1 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Qxe5 Ng4 12. Qh5 g6 $17)
9... Qd6 (9... e5 $5 10. cxd5 e4 11. dxc6 Qxd3 12. Qxd3 exd3 $15 {
Van Scheltinga-Van der Tol, Netherlands 1946}) 10. Nc3 a6 $15 11. Bg5 $2 Ng4 $1
{intending ...Rxf3, Camilleri-Debarnot, Malta Olympiad 1980.}) ({(b)} 7. Bf4 $2
{is also weak:} fxe5 ({or} 7... Qb6) 8. Bxe5 (8. Nxe5 $2 Qf6 $17 {; e.g.} 9.
Nxc6 Qxf4 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Bxg6+ Kf8 12. Ne5 Nf6 13. Qe2 Qc1+ 14. Qd1 Qxd1+ 15.
Kxd1 Bd4 $19 {Rohel-Keitlinghaus, Badenweiler 1990}) 8... Nxe5 9. Nxe5 Qg5 10.
Bb5+ Ke7 11. Nf3 Qxg2 12. Rf1 Nf6 {with an extra pawn.}) 7... fxe5 (7... Qc7 $5
8. Bf4 g5 $5 9. Bg3 g4 {is a dynamic alternative: Black wins a key central
pawn at the cost of exposing his king; for example,} 10. Nfd2 $1 (10. Nh4 fxe5
11. Qxg4 Nf6 12. Qg5 Qf7 {favours Black's mobile centre}) 10... Nxe5 11. Nc3 (
11. Bb5+ Kf7 $1) 11... Bd7 12. O-O-O (12. h3 gxh3 13. Rxh3 O-O-O) 12... Nxd3+
13. Qxd3 Qc6 {with mutual chances.}) 8. Nxe5 {You'll see a variety of
positions like this in the French. White endeavours to blockade the centre and
doom Black's light-squared bishop to passivity, but Black's central majority
is a plus, and his active piece play can thwart White's plans.} Nxe5 {
Leading to a degree of simplification, but there remains an imbalance in the
position; in particular, White won't be able to maintain his control of e5.} ({
Instead,} 8... Nf6 {can be played for simplification, or even for a win if
Black is willing to take some risks. Black threatens ...Nxe5 and ...Bxf2+; e.g.
} 9. Bf4 (9. O-O Nxe5 10. Qxe5 {transposes to the main line}) (9. Nxc6 bxc6 10.
Nd2 O-O 11. Nf3 {can also be met by} e5 $1 12. Nxe5 Re8 {intending} 13. O-O ({
or} 13. h3 Qd6) 13... Bg4) 9... O-O (9... Qb6 $5 {
is more ambitious and practically forces White to gambit; for example,} 10. O-O
Qxb2 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nd2 Qa3 13. Nf3 O-O 14. Be5 {
with some compensation for the pawn}) 10. O-O Qe8 $5 {
(intending ...Nh5 or in some cases ...Qh5)} ({; otherwise} 10... Bd4 {
equalizes following} 11. Nc3 $1 Ne4 ({or} 11... Bd7)) ({, while} 10... Qb6) ({
, and} 10... Qe7 {are good alternatives}) 11. Nxc6 (11. Nd2 Nd7 $1 12. Nxd7
Bxd7 13. Bg3 e5) 11... bxc6 12. Nd2 Nd7 $5 13. Bg3 e5 14. Rae1 Qf7 {
with a dynamically balanced game,} ({whereas} 14... e4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Bxe4
Kh8 {is obscure.})) 9. Qxe5 Nf6 (9... Qf6 {tries to get to an ending that will
be favourable by virtue of Black's central majority. White can probably hold
the balance with} 10. Bb5+ (10. Qh5+ g6 11. Bb5+ Kf7 {transposes to 10 Bb5+}) (
{; instead} 10. Qc7 $6 {is speculative after} Qxf2+ 11. Kd1 Bd7 $1 12. Rf1 Rc8)
(10. Qxf6 Nxf6 {threatens ...Ng4 and ...e5}) (10. Bf4 Ne7 11. Qxf6 gxf6 {
intending ...e5 is at least equal}) (10. Qg3 Ne7 11. Nc3 O-O 12. O-O Nf5 13.
Qh3 {, Heidsiek-T.Schmidt, corr 1988, when} Bd7 {is solid and good}) 10... Kf7
$1 11. Qh5+ $1 (11. Qg3 Ne7 12. O-O Rd8 {intending ...Bd6}) (11. Qe2 Ne7 12.
Nd2 Rf8 13. Nf3 Kg8) 11... g6 12. Qe2 Ne7 13. Nd2 a6 14. Bd3 Nc6 $11 {.}) 10.
O-O ({White can't be happy with} 10. Bf4 $2 Bxf2+) ({or} 10. Bb5+ $6 Kf7 {
, when ...Qb6 and/or ...Rf8, and ...Kg8 will follow; for example,} 11. O-O Qb6
12. Be2 Rf8 13. Nd2 Kg8 14. Qg3 e5 $1 {.}) 10... O-O ({Or} 10... Bd6 11. Qg5
O-O 12. Nc3 e5 13. f3 Be6 {with a central advantage.}) 11. c4 Ng4 $1 ({Or} 
11... Qb6 {, again threatening ...Bxf2+! and answering} 12. Qe2 {with} e5 $1 {
, threatening both ...e4 and ...Ng4.}) 12. Qh5 Rxf2 13. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 14. Kh1 Nf6
15. Qe2 Bb6 {
, and White has some, but not fully sufficient, compensation for the pawn.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.2 4 Qg4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Qg4 {. Nimzowitsch's radical idea. White
abandons d4 and intends to overprotect e5 by means of, for example, Nf3, Qg3,
and later Bf4 and/or Re1. Bringing the queen out before the other pieces is
not necessarily bad; but if she loses more time and fails to create weaknesses
in the enemy camp, as happens here, such a foray is unlikely to succeed. For
my main line, I will show a less tested and generally simpler response that
solves Black's problems and creates ones for White. It was played by Botvinnik
as far back as 1937 and has been revived to good effect in recent times:} Qa5+
{Meeting a queen move with a queen move! Black's idea is to be sure that
White's queen will lose time to ...Nh6 by diverting the c1-bishop from a
potential capture on h6. At the right moment ...f5 can also be useful.} ({
Alternatively,} 4... Nc6 {affords Black several routes to equality and
apparently some advantage. I'll just indicate a few of several satisfactory
approaches for Black (see also 'PTF3'):} 5. Nf3 cxd4 ({; note that here} 5...
Qa5+ 6. Bd2 ({and otherwise} 6. c3 cxd4 {transposes to our 4...Qa5+ main line})
6... Qb6 {attacks b2}) ({; finally, Moskalenko speaks favourably of} 5... Nge7
6. c3 Nf5 ({and here} 6... cxd4 7. cxd4 Nf5 {may be better still}) {
, with the main line} 7. Bd3 cxd4 8. O-O Qb6 ({or} 8... g6)) 6. Bd3 {
and now two systems are worth mentioning:} -- (6... Qc7 {was analysed in
detail in the previous editions, and you can employ databases to flesh out a
repertoire. Very generally, this is how it breaks down:} 7. -- ({
. Moskalenko recommends} 7. Bf4 {for White, perhaps correctly, although I
don't think that Black has anything to fear. As outlined in 'PTF3', the reply}
Nb4 $1 {poses White the most problems. Briefly:} 8. O-O (8. Na3 $6 Nxd3+ 9.
cxd3 Qb6 10. Bc1 Nh6 $1 11. Qxd4 Bc5 12. Qa4+ Bd7 13. Qc2 Bb4+ $5 14. Bd2 Rc8 {
, Cornelison-Dirr, email 1994, when} 15. Qb3 $1 Bxd2+ 16. Nxd2 {
avoids disaster, but} Qa5 {retains a solid advantage}) (8. Nxd4 $6 Nxd3+ 9.
cxd3 Qb6 10. Nb3 Qb4+ {, and now} 11. Ke2 ({not} 11. N1d2 $4 g5 $1 {
, winning a piece}) 11... Ne7 12. h3 $1 Nc6 13. Nc3 Bd7 $15) 8... Nxd3 9. cxd3
Qc2 10. Nxd4 Qxb2 11. Nb3 {, and my 'PTF3' recommendation was} h5 $1 ({
somewhat more accurate than Moskalenko's} 11... Bd7 {, I think}) 12. Qf3 $1 Bd7
13. Rc1 Rc8 14. Rxc8+ Bxc8 15. Nc3 Bd7 {; e.g.} 16. Bd2 Qa3 17. Rb1 Bb4 18. Qg3
Ne7 19. Qxg7 Rg8 20. Qh7 Bxc3 21. Bxc3 d4 $5 22. Bxd4 Bc6 23. g3 Qxa2 24. Rb2
Qa4 {intending ...Bd5 with good prospects.}) (7. Qg3 f6 $1 8. exf6 (8. Bxh7 $6
Nxe5 9. Bg6+ Kd7 $1) 8... Qxg3 9. f7+ Kxf7 10. hxg3 Nf6 $15 {; e.g.} 11. Ng5+
Kg8 12. f4 h6 13. Nf3 Ne4 {.}) (7. O-O f6 $5 ({
Black can also play for a win with} 7... Nxe5 8. Nxe5 Qxe5 9. Bf4 Nf6 10. Qg3
Qh5) 8. Bxh7 (8. Bf4 fxe5 {, and White can virtually equalize after} 9. Qh5+ ({
instead of} 9. Nxe5 $6 Nf6 $1) 9... Qf7 10. Qxf7+ Kxf7 11. Nxe5+ Nxe5 12. Bxe5
Ne7 {with the idea of ...Nc6 and ...Bc5}) 8... Nxe5 9. Nxe5 fxe5 10. Bg6+ (10.
Re1 Nf6 11. Bg6+ Kd7 $1) 10... Kd8 11. h3 (11. Qg3 Bd6) 11... Nf6 12. Qd1 {
, Smyslov-Lisitsin, Moscow 1942, and after} Bc5 $1 $15 {
, Black threatens to mobilize with ...e4, whereas} 13. Nd2 Bd7 14. Nb3 Bd6 15.
Bd2 Be8 {doesn't help White.})) ({
. Another traditional line that is looking strong is} 6... Nge7 7. O-O Ng6 8.
Re1 Qc7 9. Qg3 f6 $1 {(a standard theme in this variation; it's worth giving
the pawn back to exchange queens)} 10. Bxg6+ hxg6 11. Qxg6+ (11. exf6 Qxg3 12.
f7+ Kxf7 13. hxg3 Be7 14. Bf4 Bf6 $17 {- Moskalenko}) 11... Qf7 12. Qxf7+ (12.
Qg3 Bd7 $1 ({here} 12... Bc5 {was not bad either}) 13. c3 Bc5 $15 {- Moskalenko
}) 12... Kxf7 13. Bf4 $2 (13. Nbd2 Rh5 $1) 13... g5 14. Bg3 g4 15. Nfd2 fxe5
$19 {.})) 5. c3 {The most enterprising reply. 4...Qa5+ is a pragmatic move
that counts upon the drawbacks of each response.} ({(a)} 5. Nd2 $6 Nc6 (5...
Nh6 {is also good}) 6. Ngf3 (6. dxc5 Qxc5 {hits c2 and e5}) 6... Nh6 {
exploits the fact that the c1-bishop no longer covers h6; the knight will
often come to f5:} ({an alternative is} 6... Nb4 $1 7. Kd1 c4 $1 8. a3 Bd7 {
- compare what follows}) 7. Qf4 (7. Qg5 Nb4) 7... Nb4 $1 {
(forcing the king to move)} 8. Kd1 (8. Nb3 $2 Qa4) 8... c4 {
(now White has to defend against attacks on c2)} 9. c3 (9. a3 Bd7 10. b3 Rc8 $1
) (9. Nb1 $6 Nxa2 $1 {
and White has no way to exploit the pin, while Black threatens to play ...Nc3+}
) 9... Nc6 {(intending ...b5-b4)} (9... Qa4+ 10. b3 cxb3 11. Nxb3 Nxa2 12. Kc2
Bd7 13. Nfd2 Rc8 {gives Black a small advantage after complications}) 10. Be2
b5 11. Ke1 b4 12. Nb1 Be7 $17 {
intending ...0-0 and ...f6 in combination with ...Rb8.}) ({(b)} 5. Bd2 {
is objectively best:} Nh6 (5... Qb6 6. Nc3 $1 Nh6 7. dxc5 $1 Nxg4 8. cxb6 Bc5
9. f4 Bf2+ 10. Ke2 Bxb6 11. h3 Nf2 12. Rh2 {with approximate equality}) 6.
Qxe6+ (6. Bxa5 Nxg4 7. h3 Nh6 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Bc3 Nf5 $15) (6. Qg3 Qb6 7. Qb3 Nc6
8. Nf3 cxd4 9. Qxb6 axb6 $15) 6... fxe6 7. Bxa5 Bd7 $5 (7... Nf5 $5 8. dxc5 Nc6
9. Bc3 $1 Bxc5 10. Nf3 O-O) 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Bc3 Rc8 $15 {
. These 5 Bd2 lines are close to equal, but Black has slightly better chances.}
) 5... cxd4 6. Nf3 $5 {Gambiting a pawn may be best.} ({The alternative} 6.
Qxd4 Nc6 {is easy for Black to play. The stem game for 4...Qa5+ is
Rabinovich-Botvinnik, Moscow 1937, which went} 7. Qf4 Nge7 8. Bd3 Ng6 ({here} 
8... d4 9. Nf3 Nd5 {is also interesting}) 9. Bxg6 hxg6 10. Nf3 Qa6 ({
Moskalenko suggests the thematic} 10... Qc7 11. O-O f6 $1 {; then} 12. Qg3 Nxe5
13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Qxg6+ Ke7 {would win the centre and intend ...Qh5}) 11. Ng5
Nd8 12. Nd2 Qd3 $5 13. Nb3 {, and while} b6 {was mildly advantageous,} (13...
Be7 $1 {
with the idea of ...f6, and in some cases ...Rh5, looks better still; e.g.} 14.
Qd4 Qxd4 15. Nxd4 f6 16. Ngf3 Nf7 17. Nb5 Kd7 {, after which Black will soon
achieve a mobile central majority to go with his bishops.})) 6... Nc6 7. Nxd4 (
7. Bd3 {is poorly timed due to} dxc3 ({or} 7... f5 $5 8. Qg3 dxc3 9. bxc3 Nh6
$1) 8. Nxc3 (8. bxc3 d4 ({or simply} 8... b6 9. O-O Ba6)) 8... f5 $1 (8... d4
$5 9. Nxd4 Qxe5+ 10. Be3 Nf6 {is also good, if less clear}) 9. Qf4 Nge7 10. O-O
Ng6 11. Qg3 Be7 {and it's hard to see White's compensation for the pawn.}) 7...
Qc7 ({I analysed} 7... Nxe5 $5 8. Qg3 f6 ({and} 8... Ng6 {
in 'PTF3', but the text is more straightforward.})) 8. Bf4 $5 (8. Nxc6 bxc6 {
strengthens Black's centre; e.g.} 9. Qg3 Ne7 10. Bd3 Ng6 11. f4 Be7 12. O-O
Qb6+ 13. Kh1 Ba6 {.}) 8... Nxd4 (8... Nh6 {
is also worth considering, since after} 9. Bxh6 gxh6 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Qg3 {
, then} Rb8 12. b3 f6 $1 13. exf6 Bd6 {grabs the initiative; e.g.} 14. Qh4 O-O
15. Qxh6 Bf4 16. Qg7+ Qxg7 17. fxg7 Kxg7 {followed by ...e5.}) ({After} 8...
Nxd4 9. cxd4 {, Black again grabs the initiative with} Qb6 $1 {
(hitting b2 and d4)} 10. Nc3 ({if} 10. Bc1 {,} Nh6 11. Qf4 Nf5 {wins the d-pawn
}) 10... Bd7 11. O-O-O Rc8 {
with queenside pressure (...Ba3 is a threat) and easy development to follow.})
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.3 4 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 (4... cxd4 5. Bd3 Nc6 {transposes.}) 5.
Bd3 {With the text move, White sacrifices the d4-pawn in order to shore up e5
with pieces. This was also his philosophy with 4 dxc5 and 4 Qg4, but one could
argue that Nf3 and Bd3 are the optimal combination if quick development is the
goal.} (5. c3 {is 1.4 (the main line)}) ({and} 5. dxc5 {
transposes to 4 dxc5 (1.1).}) (5. Bb5 {is generally a mediocre move in Advance
Variation structures (barring White having an outpost on e5), because it is
White's good bishop that will be exchanged if Bxc6 follows, and in most cases
that strengthens Black's centre after ...bxc6. This position is no exception,
and Black has more than one way to try for a minor positional advantage,
including} Qb6 {and:} (5... Bd7 {(threatening 6...Nxe5)} 6. Bxc6 bxc6 7. O-O
cxd4 8. Qxd4 c5 9. Qg4 Ne7 ({or} 9... h5) 10. Nc3 h5 11. Qh3 Qb8 12. Rb1 Nf5
$15 {.}) (5... cxd4 6. Qxd4 (6. Nxd4 Nge7 7. O-O Bd7 8. Re1 Nxd4 9. Bxd7+ Qxd7
10. Qxd4 Nf5 11. Qd3 Bc5 $15) (6. O-O Nge7) 6... Nge7 7. O-O Bd7 8. Bxc6 Nxc6
9. Qf4 Nb4 10. Na3 Rc8 $15 {.})) 5... cxd4 6. O-O f6 {I'm putting this as the
leading move because it's thematic and leads to relatively forced lines (if
White is to avoid disadvantage), thus minimizing study time. 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 Bd3
cxd4 6 0-0 is a line against which Black has numerous good answers.} ({
In the two previous additions, I've suggested} 6... g6) ({and} 6... Bc5 {
has done respectably well over the years.}) ({Here are some thoughts about} 
6... Nge7 {, a well-regarded and practical solution:} 7. -- (7. Re1 Ng6 8. Nbd2
Qc7 9. Bxg6 fxg6 $5 (9... hxg6 10. Nb3 f6 $5 (10... Be7 11. Nbxd4 $11) 11. Bf4
g5 12. Bg3 Qb6 13. Qd3 Kf7 {is complex}) 10. Nb3 Bd7 11. Nbxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4
Bc5 13. c3 O-O {with ...Rf7 to come.}) (7. Bf4 {is by far the most popular
continuation, because White wants to get Bf4-g3 in before ...Ng6 prevents him.
There follows} Ng6 8. Bg3 {and now} Bc5 {
and 8...Qc7 are known main lines, or Black can play with a twist:} (8... Be7 9.
Nbd2 {is played in most games, and now a radical approach is} f5 $5 (9... Bd7
10. Nb3 Rc8 $11 {is less ambitious}) 10. exf6 $1 ({
Black is planning ...0-0 and ...f4, while a cruel trick is} 10. Re1 $4 f4 $1
11. Bxg6+ hxg6 12. Bxf4 g5 13. Bg3 g4 {and White's knight is trapped}) (10. Qe2
{avoids that, but} O-O 11. h3 Bd7 12. Nb3 Qc7 {contemplates ...f4 forcing
favourable simplification: play might continue, for example,} 13. Rfe1 Bb4 14.
Rf1 f4 15. Bxg6 fxg3 16. Bd3 gxf2+ 17. Rxf2 Qb6 18. Raf1 h6 19. a3 Be7 20. Qd2
Rf7 {, when even ...Rxf3 followed by Nxe5 becomes a theme}) 10... gxf6 {
(Black plays shamelessly for a central pawn roller)} 11. Nh4 $1 {, Spraggett-M.Gurevich, Havana 1986. This is thought to be very strong for White, but} f5 $1
{maintains Black's extra pawn and at least dynamic equality; for example,} 12.
Nxg6 hxg6 13. Bb5 $1 {('+/-' Spraggett, but:)} O-O 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Be5 ({not
} 15. Nf3 $2 f4) 15... c5 16. Nf3 {, and Black can allow a draw with} g5 ({
or keep some pieces on with} 16... Rf7 $5 {intending ...g5-g4 and ...Rh7}) 17.
Nxg5 $1 Bxg5 18. Qh5 Bf6 19. Qg6+ Kh8 20. Qh6+ {etc.}) ({
. Having seen that, the idea of} 8... f5 9. exf6 gxf6 {
looks more effective here (than after 8...Be7 9 Nbd2) in the key line} 10. Nh4
$5 (10. Nxd4 Nxd4 11. Bxg6+ hxg6 12. Qxd4 Kf7 $15) (10. Re1 Be7 11. Nh4 f5 12.
Nxg6 hxg6 13. Bb5 Qb6) 10... f5 $1 11. Nxg6 (11. Qh5 Qf6 12. Nd2 Bd7 $15 {
and ...0-0-0}) 11... hxg6 12. Bb5 Bg7 13. Re1 O-O 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Be5 Bxe5
16. Rxe5 c5 17. Nd2 Rb8 18. b3 g5 {with the idea} 19. Qh5 Rb7 {.}))) 7. Qe2 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 7. Re1 $2 fxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 Nf6 {, and:} ({or} 9...
Bd6) 10. -- (10. Bg5 $6 Bd6 11. Bb5+ Kf7 12. Re1 Qb6 $5 (12... h6 13. Bh4 a6
14. Be2 e5 $15) 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Qh5+ Kg7 15. Qg4+ Kf8 16. Bd3 Rg8 17. Qh4 Rg7
18. Qxf6+ Kg8 19. Nd2 Bd7 {intending ...Rf8.}) (10. Bb5+ Kf7 11. Qxd4 Bd6 12.
Re1 (12. Re3 e5 13. Qd1 Rf8) 12... Qc7 (12... a6 13. Bf1 Qc7 14. h3 e5 $15) 13.
h3 Rf8 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 7. Bf4 $2 g5 $1 (7... fxe5 8. Nxe5 Nf6 9. Qe2 {
transposes to 7 Qe2}) 8. Bg3 g4 9. Nh4 (9. Nxd4 $5 Nxd4 10. Qxg4 Nc6 11. Qh5+
Kd7 12. Nc3 Qe8 {and White has some attack, but not enough for a piece}) 9...
fxe5 ({or} 9... f5 $15 {intending ...Be7 and ...f4}) 10. Qxg4 Nf6 $17 {
; Black has a pawn and huge centre, and intends moves like ...Bd6, ...Qb6, and
...e4.}) ({(c)} 7. Bb5 {is White's safest move: it contests e5 but also costs
a full tempo, so Black has no problems:} Bd7 (7... Qc7 $5 {
is an unusual move that keeps a more open position on the board; e.g.} 8. Qxd4
fxe5 9. Qxe5 Bd6 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Qg5 Bd7 {, intending ...Nge7 and ...0-0-0}) 8.
Bxc6 $1 (8. Nxd4 Nxd4 9. Bxd7+ Qxd7 10. Qxd4 Rc8 $1 {
with ideas of ...Rxc2, ...Bc5, ...fxe5, and/or ...Rc4}) 8... bxc6 9. Qxd4 f5 (
9... c5 {and} 10. Qh4 ({or} 10. Qf4 Qb8) 10... f5 11. Bg5 Be7 12. c4 h6 13.
Qh5+ Kf8 14. Bxe7+ Nxe7 $11) (9... fxe5 {is the most direct move:} 10. Nxe5 Nf6
11. Bf4 Be7 12. Nd2 O-O $11) ({, or} 9... Qb6 10. Qh4 h5 $5 {
with the idea of ...g5, when there might follow} 11. h3 Kf7 12. Qf4 Qc7 13.
Ng5+ Ke8 $11) 10. Qf4 Nh6 11. Ng5 Be7 12. Qg3 Nf7 $1 13. Nxf7 Kxf7 14. c4 $6 d4
15. Nd2 c5 16. Nf3 h6 $15 {with two bishops and moves like ...Rb8, ...Bc6 and ...g5 in store, Gamback-Kiriakov, Skellefteå 2001.}) 7... Qc7 {
I use this as the main line because it is a dynamic way to play for a win;} ({
and also because there is less theory than after} 7... fxe5 8. Nxe5 {
, when I've analysed both the complex} Nf6 {. The former can lead to} ({
and the safer} 8... Nxe5 {in previous editions.}) 9. Bf4 (9. Bg5 Nxe5 10. Qxe5
Bd6 11. Bb5+ $5 Kf7 12. Qxd4 Qc7 $15) 9... Bd6 10. Nd2 O-O 11. Ndf3 {
. Here Black has a few ways to play, among them:} -- (11... Qe8 $5 12. Bg3 (12.
g3 Nh5 13. Bd2 Rxf3 $5 14. Nxf3 e5 {is a promising exchange sacrifice}) 12...
Nh5 13. Nxc6 Nxg3 14. fxg3 bxc6 15. Ne5 Rb8 16. Rxf8+ Bxf8 17. b3 g6 {
with the ideas ...Bd6, ...c5, and ...Rb7-c7. This is unclear.}) (11... Nxe5 12.
Bxe5 (12. Nxe5 Ne4 {with the idea} 13. Bxe4 Rxf4 14. Bd3 Qf6 15. Rae1 Qxe5 16.
Qxe5 Bxe5 17. Rxe5 Bd7) 12... Ng4 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Bxh7+ Kxh7 15. Ng5+ Kg8 16.
Qxg4 e5 17. Qg3 (17. Qh5 $6 Bf5) 17... Bd7 18. Nf3 Rae8 19. Nxd4 Rf6 $15 {.}) (
11... Qc7 12. Bg3 ({a cute miniature followed} 12. Rae1 Ne4 13. Nxc6 Bxf4 14.
Ncxd4 e5 15. Nb3 Bg4 16. Kh1 $4 Ng5 {0 1 in Aagaard-N.McDonald, Budapest 1996})
12... Bd7 $11 ({or} 12... g6 {intending ...Nh5.}))) 8. Bf4 $5 (8. Bb5 {
controls e5 but again at the cost of a tempo and activity. Black has an easy
time of it} fxe5 9. Nxe5 (9. Qxe5 Bd6 10. Qxd4 Nf6 $15) 9... Nf6 (9... Bd6 $5
10. Qh5+ g6 11. Nxg6 Qf7 12. Nf4 Nf6 $15) 10. Nd2 (10. Bg5 Bd6 11. Bxf6 O-O $1
{is a nice trick; if White undertakes to win material by} 12. Bxg7 Qxg7 13.
Nxc6 bxc6 14. Bxc6 {
, then the two bishops, two open files and huge centre dominate following} Rb8
{; e.g.} 15. Bb5 Rb6 16. Nd2 e5) 10... Bd6 11. f4 (11. Ndf3 O-O {
and Black wins the centre while White hasn't even won his pawn back}) 11... O-O
12. Ndf3 Ne4 $15 ({or} 12... Nxe5 13. fxe5 Bc5 {.})) 8... g5 $1 9. Bg3 g4 10.
Nh4 (10. Nfd2 fxe5 11. Qxg4 (11. Bb5 Bg7 12. Qxg4 Nh6 $1 13. Qxd4 Nf5 14. Qc3
O-O {is good for Black}) 11... Qf7 12. Bb5 e4 13. Nb3 Bg7 14. Qd1 Nge7 15. Nxd4
O-O $17 {.}) 10... fxe5 $1 {A true central majority (four pawns to none!).} 11.
Qxg4 ({Or} 11. Bb5 Bd6 12. Qxg4 Nf6 13. Qg5 Kf7 $17 {.}) 11... Nf6 12. Qe2 Bd6
13. Bb5 O-O 14. Nd2 e4 {. Black has a significant advantage;} ({and} 14... Na5
{is also strong. As in so many lines of the Advance Variation, Black's
unopposed central pawn mass is the most important factor on the board.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.4 4 c3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 {. This is easily White's most popular choice;
he supports d4 before committing his pieces.} Nc6 5. Nf3 {Here we have the
main line of the Advance Variation. White has some irregular options at this
point:} ({(a)} 5. Qg4 $2 cxd4 6. cxd4 Qb6 7. Nf3 Nh6 $1 8. Qf4 (8. Bxh6 $2 Qxb2
) 8... Nf5 $17 {and Black wins a pawn.}) ({(b)} 5. f4 Qb6 ({or} 5... Nh6) 6.
Nf3 Nh6 {transposes to 4 f4.}) ({(c)} 5. a3 $5 {could transpose,} -- ({, after
} 5... Qb6 6. Nf3 {, to 6 a3 in the next chapter.}) ({
. Black has a few options such as} 5... Nge7) ({, and the thematic} 5... f6 {
, which gives chances for an advantage following} 6. Nf3 fxe5 ({or} 6... Qc7 7.
Bf4 Nge7 {with the idea} 8. Bg3 Nf5 9. exf6 Nxg3 10. fxg7 $5 Bxg7 11. hxg3 cxd4
12. cxd4 Nxd4 $1 13. Nxd4 Qe5+ $15) 7. Nxe5 (7. dxe5 Qc7 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. Bf4 Ng6
10. Bg3 c4 $5 $15) 7... Nf6 (7... Nxe5 8. dxe5 Ne7 $11) 8. Bb5 Qb6 9. Qa4 Bd7
10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. O-O Bd6 12. Re1 O-O $1 {with the idea} 13. Rxe6 Qc7 (13...
Rae8 $5) 14. g3 cxd4 15. Qd1 $1 Nc5 16. Re1 Qf7 17. f4 Rfe8 $15 {.})) ({(d)} 5.
Ne2 Qb6 ({or} 5... f6 6. f4 Nh6 $1) 6. g3 f6 7. exf6 (7. Nf4 Qc7) 7... Nxf6 8.
Bg2 {, Neretljak-Brynell, Rodeby 1998;} Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. Qb3 Qa6 $1 $15 {.})
({(e)} 5. Be3 {is Kupreichik's move, the most appealing of these alternatives
to 5 Nf3. By getting the bishop into play, White is able to meet ...Qb6 with
Qd2. On the other hand, the bishop is rather passive on e3 and Black can
continue with his plan to break up the centre by various means:} -- (5... Nh6 {
is a standard idea in the Advance Variation; here Bxh6 isn't advisable as it
constitutes a loss of time for White. Play can go} 6. Bd3 ({or} 6. Nf3 Nf5 7. Bd3
Nxe3 8. fxe3 Qb6 9. Qd2) 6... Qb6 7. Qd2 {
(this has also arisen via 5...Qb6 6 Qd2 Nh6 7 Bd3)} Ng4 8. Nf3 Nxe3 9. fxe3 Be7
(9... f6 $5) 10. O-O O-O 11. Kh1 {, Kupreichik-Vasiljevic, Cetinje 1993; when}
(11. Qc2 g6 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. Rf2 Rac8) 11... g6 {was fine,} ({but} 11... f6 12.
Qc2 (12. exf6 Rxf6) 12... f5 $1 13. Nbd2 Bd7 {
and ...Rac8 gives Black immediate queenside pressure, whereas} 14. Rg1 Rac8 15.
g4 $6 {is too slow after} cxd4 16. gxf5 exf5 17. exd4 Nb4 18. Qb1 Nxd3 19. Qxd3
f4 $1 {.})) ({. Williams suggests} 5... f6 6. exf6 (6. Nf3 {
, intending 7 Bb5, can be met by} Qb6 $11) 6... Nxf6 7. dxc5 e5 {
with sufficient central play for the pawn.}) ({. The normal move is} 5... Qb6
6. Qd2 {with a variety of ideas:} -- (6... cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. Nc3 Rc8 (8...
Bb4 $5 9. Nf3 Rc8) 9. Nf3 Na5 {is a simple solution; e.g.} 10. Rc1 Bb4 11. Bd3
Nc4 12. Bxc4 Rxc4 {with a comfortable game, Starostits-Glek, Baden-Baden 2001.}
) (6... Bd7 7. Nf3 Rc8 ({or} 7... f6 {, transposing to 6...f6 below}) 8. Bd3 $6
({play is level after} 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Bxc5 Qxc5) ({, or} 8. Be2 cxd4 9. cxd4
Bb4 10. Nc3 Na5) 8... cxd4 9. cxd4 $4 (9. Bxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 f6 $1) 9... Nb4
10. b3 $2 {(there's no good defence)} Rc1+ $1 {(W.Conrad).}) (6... f6 7. Nf3 ({
Black left his king in the centre but won all the key squares after} 7. f4 Nh6
$5 8. exf6 gxf6 9. Be2 Nf5 $1 10. Bh5+ Kd8 {
, Filimonov-Shorokhov, Smolensk 2001}) 7... Bd7 (7... fxe5 8. Nxe5 Nf6 9. Bd3
$6 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Ng4) 8. Bd3 fxe5 9. dxe5 ({or} 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Nh6 $5
11. O-O Nf7 12. f4 g5 $1 {unclear}) 9... Nh6 10. O-O Nf7 11. Bf4 Be7 12. Re1
O-O-O $15 {Westerinen-Ulibin, Benidorm 1993.}))) ({(f)} 5. g3 $5 {, Murey's move, has the original idea of Bh3 to exchange a knight that might get to f5.} --
({. As far as I can tell,} 5... Qa5 $1 {hasn't been played at all, but it
looks awfully good, because it's hard to prevent ...cxd4. So} 6. Nf3 (6. Bd2
Qb6) ({, and} 6. dxc5 Qc7 $15 {can't appeal to White}) 6... Nxd4 (6... cxd4 7.
Bd2 {is a speculative gambit}) 7. Nxd4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 Ne7 {, and Black's
advantage is limited. Nevertheless, 5...Qa5 is a practical refutation of 5 g3
- Black shouldn't have an advantage on move 5 of any opening!}) ({. If need be,
} 5... Qb6 6. Ne2 f6 ({and} 6... Nge7 {are also fine.}))) 5... Qb6 {. This is the traditional and most direct move, putting pressure on d4 and, by eyeing b2,
preventing White from moving his queen's bishop just yet.} 6. -- ({
In this chapter we will look at everything except the main line} 6. a3 {
, which is the subject of the next chapter:}) ({1.41} 6. Be2) ({1.42} 6. Bd3) (
{Others are almost never seen, but 6 Na3 is of interest: -- (a)} 6. b3 $2 cxd4
7. cxd4 Bb4+ 8. Ke2 Bd7 9. a3 Be7 $17 {.}) ({(b)} 6. g3 f6 (6... Bd7) 7. Bg2 (
7. Bh3 cxd4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 fxe5 11. dxe5 Nge7 12. O-O O-O
$15 {Hazai-Farago, Hungarian Ch. 1979}) (7. Nh4 g6 $1) (7. Bd3 fxe5 8. dxe5 Nh6
) 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 fxe5 9. dxe5 Nh6 10. O-O Nf7 11. Nc3 Be7 12. Qe2 O-O $11 {.
}) ({(c)} 6. dxc5 $6 Bxc5 7. Qc2 (7. Qe2 Qc7 8. b4 Bb6 {with the idea} 9. a4
Nd4 $1 10. Nxd4 Bxd4 11. cxd4 Qxc1+ 12. Qd1 Qb2 13. Bb5+ Bd7 14. Bxd7+ Kxd7 $15
) 7... Qc7 8. Bf4 Nge7 9. Bd3 {, Okhotnik-Zaid, Kiev 1986; here after} f6 $1 {
, White can only protect e5 by} 10. Qe2 (10. Bxh7 Nxe5 11. Bxe5 fxe5) (10. Bg3
Nxe5 11. Nxe5 fxe5 12. O-O Bd7 13. Re1 Bd6 $17) 10... fxe5 11. Bxe5 Nxe5 12.
Qxe5 Qxe5+ 13. Nxe5 O-O 14. O-O Nc6 15. Nxc6 bxc6 {with ...e5 soon to come.}) (
{(d)} 6. Na3 {has been played by the creative Zvjaginsev and seems a good
choice if one is seeking original positions.} -- ({. Then} 6... Bd7 7. Nc2 f6 {
is thematic}) ({, as is the immediate} 6... f6 {; e.g.} 7. Bb5 $5 (7. Qb3 Qa5
8. Qb5 Qd8 $1) 7... cxd4 8. Nxd4 Qc7 9. Bf4 a6 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. Qh5+ g6 12.
Qe2 c5 13. Nf3 Bh6 $5 $11 {,} ({or here} 13... g5 14. Bg3 g4 15. Nd2 f5 $1 {.})
) ({. These ...f6 plans look satisfactory, but by far the most popular choice
has been} 6... cxd4 7. cxd4 Bb4+ 8. Bd2 {and now,} -- ({, instead of} 8... Nxd4
$4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Qa4+ {, Black has options:}) (8... Nge7 9. Nb5 (9. Nc2
Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Qxb2 {improves slightly over 'c3' below}) (9. Bc3 O-O 10. Bd3 f6
$1 {has the idea} 11. exf6 gxf6) 9... Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 O-O 11. Be2 f6 12. exf6
Rxf6 $11 {Haskamp-Heyken, German League 1991.}) (8... Bd7 9. Nc2 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2
f6 $5 (10... Qxb2 {- 'obligatory', according to Vitiugov -} 11. Bd3 Nge7 12.
O-O Qb6 13. Qg5 $5 Ng6 {
, when 'White has compensation, Black has an extra pawn' - Vitiugov; then} 14.
Rab1 Qc7 15. Qg3 O-O {is unclear}) 11. Bd3 (11. exf6 Nxf6 12. Bd3 O-O 13. O-O
Nh5 14. Rfe1 $5 Rxf3 $1 15. gxf3 Rf8 {and ...Nf4=}) 11... fxe5 12. dxe5 Qxb2 $5
(12... Nh6 13. O-O O-O 14. Rae1 Rxf3 $5 15. gxf3 Rf8 16. f4 Qd8 17. b4 Qh4 {
gives sufficient compensation for the exchange, but no more}) 13. O-O Nxe5 {
(risky, but two pawns is a lot); e.g.} 14. Nfd4 (14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Rfe1 Qd6 16.
Qg5 Ne7 17. Qxg7 O-O-O) 14... Qb6 15. Rab1 (15. Qg5 Nf7 $1) 15... Qd6 16. Rxb7
Nf6 17. Nb5 $1 Bxb5 18. Bxb5+ Ned7 19. Ne3 $1 O-O 20. Nc4 Qc5 21. Bxd7 Nxd7 22.
Rxd7 Qxc4 23. Rc1 Qb5 24. Rxg7+ {with a draw.}))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.41 6 Be2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 {. This is the
traditional move, which has been slowly replaced by 6 a3, but still has
high-level adherents. I will present two solutions out of several available
ones:} -- ({1.411} 6... cxd4) ({1.412} 6... f6) ({I featured} 6... Nh6 {
in past editions, but it requires more study and is rather space-consuming.
These are simpler approaches. Nevertheless, just to show that there's something 
for everyone, you can find two suggestions in the main line} 7. Bxh6 gxh6 8.
Qd2 Bg7 9. O-O O-O 10. Na3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Bd7 12. Nc2 {
in Chapter 3, section 3.4, the note on 7...Qb6.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.411 6...cxd4 7 cxd4 Nh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nh6 {
. This is one of the oldest lines in the Advance Variation. It's safe and
established, and thus provides a counterpoint to 6...f6. At this point, in
response to the threat of ...Nf5 (winning the d-pawn), White has traditionally
played one of two moves:} 8. -- ({1.4111} 8. Nc3) ({1.4112} 8. b3) ({(a)} 8.
Bxh6 {, often queried, is better than its reputation; although that primarily
means that White has a number of drawing possibilities after} Qxb2 {and:} 9. --
(9. Nc3 Nxd4 $5 {(a good move which, however, gives White a drawing option)} (
9... Qxc3+ 10. Bd2 Qa3 {is hardly clear but keeps winning chances - then with}
11. O-O a6 $1 {Black intends to develop and consolidate;} ({instead, after} 
11... Be7 12. Qc2 {, Mantovani-Yemelin, Kalithea 2008, Vitiugov gives} O-O $5
13. Rab1 {and calls the situation 'very complicated'})) 10. Qxd4 $1 (10. Qc1
Qxa1 $5 {is ultimately unclear,} ({so perhaps} 10... Qxc1+ 11. Bxc1 Nc2+ 12.
Kd2 Nxa1 13. Bb2 Bd7 14. Bxa1 a6 {
, intending ...b5 and/or ...Bc5, is the best way to search for an advantage}))
10... Qxa1+ 11. Bd1 gxh6 12. O-O Qb2 13. Ba4+ Kd8 14. Rb1 Qa3 15. Nxd5 exd5 16.
Qxd5+ Kc7 {½-½ Maslik-Turcan, corr 2001, in view of} 17. Rxb7+ Bxb7 18.
Qd7+ Kb8 19. Qe8+ {etc.}) (9. Nbd2 gxh6 10. O-O (10. Rb1 Qxa2 11. O-O {
seems well answered by} Qa5 {;} ({Vitiugov recommends} 11... Nb4 $5 {, but} 12.
Bb5+ Bd7 13. Bxd7+ Kxd7 14. Ne1 {
, intending f4 with Rf2 and/or f5, looks dangerous})) 10... Nxd4 (10... a6 $5)
11. Rb1 Nxe2+ 12. Qxe2 Qc3 ({I think I prefer} 12... Qa3 $5 13. Qb5+ Bd7 14.
Qxb7 Rc8 $5 {; e.g.} 15. Nb3 Bg7 16. Rfc1 Ke7) 13. Rfc1 Qa5 14. Nd4 a6 15. N2b3
({and here} 15. Nf1 $1 {
with the idea Ng3-h5 is an interesting try, maybe 'dynamically equal'?}) 15...
Qd8 16. Qe3 Rg8 {. According to Vitiugov, the position 'is quite reliable for
Black' and White's compensation is 'hardly sufficient for two missing pawns'.
Hmmm, perhaps. At any rate, Black has as many chances as White, and can't
complain about drawishness!})) ({(b)} 8. Bd3 {has been played relatively often
at master levels, especially over the past decade. It is a strange-looking
move, seemingly wasting a tempo (Be2-d3) to prevent ...Nf5, which results in
an exact position from the Milner-Barry Gambit (see 6 Bd3 below) with the
extra move ...Nh6 for Black. But now that White has gained c3 for his knight,
Black's own commitment of a knight to h6 helps White in some ways:} -- (8...
Nf5 9. Bxf5 exf5 10. Nc3 Be6 {is a standard type of position which arises in
several variations (it is also the same as 8...Bd7 9 Bc2 Nf5 10 Bxf5 exf5 11
Nc3 Be6, although in that case Black has the extra possibility of 11...Bb4 -
see 'b3'). --- White has extra space with a strong centre that is difficult to
assail. Black has two bishops (versus White's bad one), while his doubled
f-pawns seriously reduce White's chances of doing any damage on the kingside;
in fact, he has to pay attention to Black's potential expansion with ...g5.
--- Sveshnikov has hopes for a White advantage in this type of position,
whereas Moskalenko says that 'White has nothing in this structure'. I would
lean towards the latter, at least in the sense that Black's position should
never be worse. Remarkably, Moskalenko has even written an article promoting
Black's position a full tempo down after 6 Bd3 (see the Milner-Barry) 6...
Nh6!? 7 0-0 cxd4 8 cxd4 Nf5 9 Bxf5 exf5 10 Nc3 Be6. Furthermore, he claims
that when White has b4 and Bb2 in, the Bxf5 exchange 'favours Black in almost
every case'; White has gained valuable space, but used time and created
weaknesses, so that has to be worked out case-by-case. Overall, I'd say that
these Bxf5/...exf5 positions are objectively equal. In practice, however,
White seems more often to be lacking in positive chances. Since this structure
comes up extremely often, I'll give several examples:} 11. -- (11. Ne2 h6 12.
h4 {(keeping the rook usefully on h1, at the cost of a clumsy king)} O-O-O $5 {
(ambitious and double-edged - Black wants to play on the kingside with ...g5
and/or ...f4, although he reserves the idea of queenside play)} ({instead,} 
12... Be7 13. Kf1 O-O {
is a sound set-up, intending moves such as ...Rac8 and ...Qa6; e.g.} 14. Nf4
Nb4 {with the idea ...Nb4}) 13. Kf1 Kb8 ({or} 13... Be7 {
first, to discourage Nf4 without the need for h5}) 14. Kg1 (14. Nf4 $5 {
can be met in similar fashion by} Be7 ({or} 14... g6 15. Kg1 Be7 {
, contemplating a timely ...g5}) 15. h5 Rd7) 14... Be7 15. Rb1 (15. a3 Na5 16.
b4 Nc4 17. Nf4 g6 18. Rh3 Qc6 19. Qb3 Rdg8 {
and ...g5 tends to follow - sometimes as a pawn sacrifice, or after ...Qe8}) (
15. Nf4 $6 g5 16. hxg5 hxg5 17. Rxh8 Rxh8 18. Nxe6 fxe6 19. Bxg5 Bxg5 20. Nxg5
Nxd4 $15) 15... f4 $1 (15... Rc8 {is safer}) 16. Nxf4 (16. Bxf4 {can be met by}
Ka8 {, with the ideas of ...Bf5 or ...Bg4,} ({or by} 16... Bf5 $1 17. Rc1 Qxb2
18. e6+ Bd6 19. exf7 Rhf8 $15)) 16... Bf5 17. Ra1 Be4 (17... Bg4 $1 18. Be3
Qxb2 $15) 18. Ne2 $1 f6 19. Rh3 $1 Rhf8 (19... Ka8 $1) 20. Bf4 Ka8 21. exf6
Bxf6 22. Ne5 Bxe5 23. dxe5 {
, Benjamin-Shaked, Kona 1998; and here Black can try the active solution} Nxe5
24. Be3 d4 $5 25. Bxd4 Bxg2 $1 26. Kxg2 Qg6+ 27. Kf1 Qf5 28. Ra3 Nc6 {
with an ongoing attack which likely ends in repetition.}) (11. Kf1 h6 12. h4
Be7 13. Ne2 O-O-O (13... O-O {is also logical}) 14. Kg1 Kb8 {
transposes to 11 Ne2.}) (11. O-O {subjects White to a potential kingside
attack after ...0-0-0 or ...Kd7 in conjunction with ...g5, but playing safely
is at least as good; e.g.} Rc8 ({or} 11... h6 12. h4 Be7 13. Ne2 Rc8 14. b3 g6
15. Bf4 Kf8 16. Qd2 Kg7 $11 {Movsesian-Vallejo Pons, San Sebastian 2009}) 12.
Rb1 Be7 13. Ne2 h6 14. h4 {
, McShane-Harikrishna, Goa 2002; and Black's simplest course is} O-O {
, intending to double on the c-file while protecting his kingside; if White
attacks h6} 15. Be3 Qa6 16. Qd2 {, then} Rfe8 $15 {makes room for defence by ...Bf8 if necessary. I'll revisit the important topic of ...Nf5 and Bxf5 in
Chapter 3.})) (8... Bd7 9. Bc2 (9. Nc3 {
doesn't produce quite enough compensation; e.g.} Nxd4 10. O-O a6 11. Rb1 Bc6
$15) {, and here the violent} 9... g5 $5 {of Vandervorst-Lundgren, corr 1994,
and later games stands unrefuted. That's worth investigating, but these moves
are steadier and fully satisfactory:} (9... g6 $5 {, intending to recapture on
f5 with the g-pawn, is an attractive way to create original play; for example,}
10. Nc3 Nf5 11. Bxf5 (11. Na4 Bb4+ 12. Bd2 Qb5 {is unclear}) 11... gxf5 12. O-O
Rg8 13. Rb1 Rc8 14. Bf4 Rg6 15. Qd2 Na5 $11 {.}) (9... f6 10. exf6 (10. Bxh6
gxh6 {hits b2, and} 11. O-O fxe5 12. dxe5 Qxb2 ({or} 12... O-O-O) 13. Nbd2 Qa3
{looks to favour Black}) 10... gxf6 (10... Nf7 11. Nc3 $1 gxf6 {transposes})
11. Nc3 Nf7 12. O-O Bd6 13. Re1 O-O-O 14. Na4 Qc7 15. Nc5 (15. a3 Rdg8 16. Be3
f5 $5 17. Rc1 f4 18. Bd2 Ng5 {with mutual dynamic chances}) 15... Bxc5 16. dxc5
Kb8 17. a3 Rhg8 18. g3 (18. Bxh7 $2 Rg7 19. Bc2 e5 $17) 18... e5 19. Qxd5 Bg4
20. Qb3 Bxf3 21. Qxf3 Nd4 22. Qc3 f5 {with a strong attack.}) (9... Nf5 10.
Bxf5 exf5 11. Nc3 {, and now Black can play} Bb4 ({otherwise} 11... Be6 {
transposes to 8...Nf5 9 Bxf5 exf5 10 Nc3 Be6 above - with an added move for
both sides}) 12. Kf1 O-O 13. Kg1 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Rfc8 15. h4 Nd8 $5 (15... Na5
$15) 16. Bd2 {, Benjamin-Gretarsson, Bermuda 1999; and} Ne6 {was best, since}
17. Rb1 Qa6 18. Qb3 Rc7 $1 19. Qxd5 Bc6 20. Qb3 Rd8 21. Rh3 Bd5 22. Qd1 f4 {
gives Black full compensation.}))) ({(c)} 8. Na3 $5 {
can be answered in various ways, the most direct of which is the capture} Bxa3
$5 (8... Nf5 9. Nc2 Be7 {is also possible}) 9. bxa3 Nf5 10. Be3 Qa5+ 11. Qd2 (
11. Bd2 $5 Qxa3 12. Bc1 Qb4+ 13. Bd2 Qe7 $15) 11... Bd7 $5 12. Rb1 b6 {
with a structural advantage which outweighs the bishops.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.4111 8 Nc3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nh6 8. Nc3
Nf5 9. Na4 (9. Kf1 Nfxd4 $1 10. Be3 (10. Na4 Qb4 11. Bd2 Qe7 12. Bg5 f6 13.
exf6 gxf6 14. Nxd4 fxg5 $15 15. Bh5+ Kd8 16. Rc1 Nxd4 17. Qxd4 Bg7 $17 {- Boey}
) 10... Qxb2 11. Nxd5 Qxe2+ $1 12. Qxe2 Nxe2 13. Nc7+ Kd7 14. Nxa8 Nc3 $17 {
Schümans-Claesen, Belgian Ch. 1987.}) 9... Qa5+ (9... Bb4+ 10. Kf1 (10. Bd2 Qa5
{transposes to the main line}) 10... Qd8 11. -- ({, and now} 11. Bg5 Be7 12.
Bxe7 Qxe7 $11) ({, while} 11. g4 $5 {is a little loosening after} Nh4 12. Nxh4
Qxh4 {. Now} 13. Bf4 {has been recommended and played, but} h5 $1 {looks like a complete reply. For the significance of 9...Bb4+, see note 'b' to 10 Bd2 below.}
(13... --))) 10. Bd2 ({Instead: -- (a)} 10. Kf1 {attempts to preserve White's
space advantage, but leaving his king in the centre is quite a price to pay:}
-- (10... b5 11. Nc3 b4 12. Nb5 Ba6 $5 ({or} 12... a6 $1 13. g4 axb5 14. gxf5
exf5 $15) 13. Nc7+ Qxc7 14. Bxa6 Qa5 15. Be2 h5 $11 {.}) (10... Bd7 $1 {
indirectly attacks a4; e.g.} 11. Bd2 Qd8 12. Bg5 (12. g4 {is now answered by}
Nh4) 12... Be7 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. h4 f6 15. g4 (15. exf6 Qxf6 {wins the d-pawn})
15... Nfxd4 $1 16. Nxd4 Nxd4 17. Qxd4 fxe5 18. Qd1 O-O $15 {
, when Black has two pawns for the piece and intends ...d4 and ...Bc6.})) ({(b)
} 10. Nc3 Qb6 11. Na4 Qa5+ 12. Nc3 {
repeats, so if Black wants to win, he should play the 9...Bb4+ order.}) 10...
Bb4 11. Bc3 b5 (11... Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3 Qb6 {leads to a balanced game:} 13. Bb5 {
(virtually forced)} Bd7 14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. Qd2 Bb5 16. Nxb5 Qxb5 {
with equality or perhaps slightly better prospects for Black.}) 12. a3 Bxc3+
13. Nxc3 b4 14. axb4 ({Alternatively: -- (a)} 14. Bb5 Bd7 15. axb4 Qxb4 {
transposes to the main line.}) ({(b)} 14. Nb5 bxa3+ 15. Kf1 {
(Soltis) isn't intimidating after} O-O 16. Rxa3 Qb6 17. g4 {(what else?)} Nfe7
{with ideas of ...f6, ...Ng6 or simply ...Rb8; Black has the chances.}) 14...
Qxb4 15. Bb5 {The principal line. White has two serious alternatives.} ({(a)} 
15. Qa4 Bd7 16. Bb5 $5 (16. Qxb4 Nxb4 {is equal after} 17. O-O ({or} 17. Kd2
O-O) 17... Nc2 18. Rad1 O-O 19. Rd2 Nb4 20. Ra1 Rfb8 $11) 16... Qxb2 $5 ({
or simply} 16... Qxa4 17. Rxa4 O-O 18. Kd2 Rfb8 19. g4 Nfe7 20. Rha1 Rb7 $11)
17. Nxd5 ({or} 17. Ra3 $5 Nfe7 18. O-O Qb4 {, when} 19. Rb1 Qxa4 20. Nxa4 O-O
21. Nc5 Rfd8 {gives White enough for a pawn, but no more}) 17... exd5 18. O-O
Nfxd4 19. Rfb1 Nxf3+ 20. gxf3 Qc3 21. Rc1 Qb4 22. Bxc6 Qxa4 23. Rxa4 Bxc6 24.
Rxc6 Ke7 {with a very small edge, Kupreichik-Ulibin, Moscow 1989.}) ({(b)} 15.
O-O $5 {is an enterprising but speculative gambit:} Nfxd4 16. Nxd4 Nxd4 17. Bd3
(17. Ra4 Nxe2+ 18. Qxe2 Qb6 $15) 17... Bd7 {(versus Ra4)} 18. Qg4 g6 19. Qg5 {
, Kuzmin-Lempert, St Petersburg 1993, when} O-O $1 {was safe enough; , e.g.} (
{instead of} 19... Nc6 $5 {, giving Black a small edge after} 20. Qh6 Qf8 21.
Qf4 Qg7) 20. Rae1 Nc6 21. Re3 Qe7 22. Qh6 f5 23. exf6 Qxf6 {.}) 15... Bd7 16.
Bxc6 (16. Qa4 {transposes to 15 Qa4.}) ({Not} 16. O-O $2 Nxe5 $1 17. Ra4 ({or} 
17. dxe5 Bxb5 18. Nxb5 Qxb5 19. g4 Ne7 20. Nd4 Qb4 $15 {- Sveshnikov}) 17...
Qxb2 18. Bxd7+ Nxd7 19. Nxd5 $5 O-O $1 {and Black stays a pawn up.}) 16... Bxc6
17. O-O (17. Qd2 $5 Bb5 $5 (17... O-O 18. O-O Rfb8 {transposes to the main line
}) 18. Nxb5 Qxb5 19. Ra5 Qb6 20. O-O O-O 21. Rc1 Rab8 22. Rc2 {
, Nunn-Schmittdiel, Dortmund 1991; and} Rfc8 23. Rac5 Ne7 {is quite level.})
17... O-O ({Instead,} 17... Qxb2 {is safe but potentially drawish:} 18. -- (18.
Qd3 Qb7 19. Rfb1 Qd7 20. g4 Ne7 21. Nb5 $6 (21. Nd2 h5 $11) 21... Bxb5 22. Qxb5
Qxb5 23. Rxb5 h5 $1 24. h3 hxg4 25. hxg4 Nc6 {with the idea} 26. Ra6 Rh3 $1 $15
{.}) (18. Na4 $1 Qb4 19. Nc5 (19. Qc2 Qc4 $1) 19... O-O 20. Rb1 Qc4 21. Rc1 Qb4
22. Rb1 {with a repetition.})) 18. Qd2 Rfb8 19. Rab1 {The starting point of
many contests over the years. With the b- and d-pawns as targets, Black stands
at any rate not worse.} Qe7 ({Black has good alternatives here, such as} 19...
a5 {, intending ...a4}) ({and} 19... Rb6 {; e.g.} 20. Rfc1 Rab8 21. Rc2 h6 22.
g3 a5 {with slightly the better side of equality, Shirov-Ivanchuk, Monaco
(blindfold rapid) 2005.}) 20. g4 ({Against} 20. b4 {,} a6 {is Bardwick's
suggestion, intending simply ...Rb6 and ...Rab8. This is at least equal}) ({and
} 20. Rfc1 Rb3 21. Ne2 Bb5 22. Rc3 Bc4 {also gives nothing.}) 20... Nh4 {
. This is one point of ...Qe7, the other being to cover b4.} ({Now play can go
} 20... Nh4 21. Ne1 Bb5 (21... f5 $5 22. exf6 Qxf6) ({, and} 21... Rb3 {
are also good}) 22. Nxb5 Rxb5 23. f4 $6 (23. f3 Rb4 $15) 23... h5 24. h3 Rb3 {
with real pressure.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.4112 8 b3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nh6 8. b3 {
. White will defend the d-pawn from b2.} Nf5 9. Bb2 Bb4+ ({Or} 9... Be7 10. O-O
Bd7 11. g4 $2 Nh4 12. Nxh4 Bxh4 13. Na3 O-O 14. f4 f6 $15 {
Kupreichik-Hertneck, Debrecen 1992.}) 10. Kf1 O-O {The theory of this
variation doesn't seem to have changed since 'PTF3', so I'll take the
opportunity to repeat what I wrote last time, with a few tweaks here and there.
The position after 10 Kf1 has been extremely favourable to Black.} ({
For example, a typical line after} 10... Be7 {is} 11. Nc3 Qd8 12. g3 f6 13. Kg2
fxe5 14. dxe5 O-O 15. Rc1 Bd7 16. Bd3 {
, Sveshnikov-L.Portisch, Biel Interzonal 1993, and now Sveshnikov gives} Be8 $1
$15 {; e.g.} 17. Ne2 Bh5 18. Bxf5 Rxf5 19. Nf4 Bxf3+ 20. Qxf3 Qd7 {
with a distinctly better game.}) (10... Bd7 {
is also effective. An example with characteristic tactics is} 11. g3 (11. g4
Nh6 12. Rg1 O-O 13. a3 Be7 14. b4 f6 15. exf6 Rxf6 $15 {
Damljanovic-Velimirovic, Belgrade 1997}) 11... O-O 12. Kg2 f6 13. a3 Be7 {
and the white king still isn't safe:} 14. b4 fxe5 15. dxe5 Bc5 $1 16. g4 Nfe7
17. Nc3 Bxf2 $1 18. Na4 Qe3 19. Rf1 Ng6 20. Rxf2 Nf4+ 21. Kf1 Nh3 $1 22. Qe1
Nxe5 23. Bxe5 Bxa4 24. Bd4 Qe4 25. Qd2 Qg6 $2 (25... Nxf2 26. Kxf2 Rxf3+ 27.
Bxf3 Rf8 {with the idea} 28. Qe3 Rxf3+ 29. Qxf3 Qxd4+) 26. Qe3 $2 {
0 1 Sl.Martinovic-M.Pavlovic, Yugoslav Team Ch. 1994. White is lost after} Nxf2
{.}) 11. Nc3 {
This developing move avoids weaknesses while defending the d-pawn indirectly.}
({Alternatives: -- (a)} 11. Bd3 f6 $1 12. Bxf5 fxe5 $5 ({or} 12... exf5 $1 $17)
13. Bc2 $2 (13. Bh3 e4 14. Ng5 e3 $1) (13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. dxe5 Bd7 $15) 13...
e4 14. Ne1 e5 15. a3 Bd6 16. b4 exd4 17. Bb3 Be6 18. f3 exf3 19. Nxf3 Rxf3+ $1
$19 {Nikoleris-Tsouros, Athens 1973.}) ({(b)} 11. g4 {is a traditional line
which used to be critical, but Black's successes have caused it almost to
disappear. For that reason, I'm going to cut way down on my previous coverage,
though still hit a few critical lines. After} Nh6 {, White has:} 12. -- (12.
Rg1 f6 ({or} 12... Bd7 $5) 13. exf6 Rxf6 14. g5 (14. Nc3 Rf4 $1 15. h3 Bd7 $15)
14... Rxf3 {and:} 15. -- (15. gxh6 $6 Rf7 16. Bd3 (16. Qd3 e5 $1) 16... e5 17.
Qh5 e4 18. Be2 {, Botterill-Ligterink, London 1978, and here Botterill gives}
g6 $1 {, winning.}) (15. Bxf3 Nf5 16. Rg4 Bd7 17. Nc3 Rf8 18. Na4 Qc7 $5 19.
Kg1 Be8 20. Nc5 $1 Qe7 $1 21. Nd3 (21. Rc1 Bh5 $17) 21... Bd6 $1 $15 {
with ideas of ...Bh5 and/or ...Bg6. White's position is loose and a pawn will
fall to begin with.})) (12. h3 {(best)} f6 ({
a rare recent game with this line saw} 12... Bd7 13. Kg2 f6 14. a3 Be7 15. Nbd2
fxe5 16. dxe5 {, Lorenzo de la Riva-Moskalenko, Ampolla 2008; and here was a
good place for the wonderful manoeuvre} Nf7 17. Rf1 Nh8 $1 {
, intending ...Ng6-f4, and if} 18. Bd3 {,} Be8 $1 {with ...Ng6 next}) 13. exf6
Rxf6 14. a3 ({for} 14. g5 Rxf3 15. Bxf3 Nf5 {, compare 12 Rg1}) 14... Bd6 15.
g5 $2 Rxf3 $1 16. Bxf3 Nf5 $17 {
Gutierrez Castillo-Matamoros Franco, Malaga 2001.})) ({(c)} 11. a3 Be7 12. b4
f6 13. g3 fxe5 14. dxe5 a5 $1 15. b5 Bc5 16. g4 Nfd4 $19 {
Campora Perez-Matamoros Franco, Seville 2001.}) 11... f6 ({Not} 11... Ncxd4 $4
12. Na4 $18 {.}) 12. Na4 (12. g4 Nfe7 $1 $15 {intending ...Ng6-f4.}) 12... Qd8
13. h4 fxe5 14. dxe5 Be7 {
. White's king is still stuck and he has no attack, so Black stands better.} ({
A sample line is} 14... Be7 15. Bd3 Bd7 $1 {
intending ...Be8-h5. This is advantageous, since} 16. g4 $2 ({while if} 16. Rc1
{, then} Be8 17. h5 Bg5 {activates Black's pieces}) 16... Nxh4 {
only exposes White.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.412 6...f6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 f6 {. It's always fun
when a long-neglected move like this appears playable. US Master Dan Heisman
alerted me to 6...f6 based upon a game of his student and his own favourable
impressions. Certainly there's nothing unusual about attacking both d4 and e5.
As I analysed it, I kept reaching sound positions with plenty of content,
while even in fairly irrational lines Black's position seemed resilient enough.
} ({So, since the classical variation} 6... cxd4 7. cxd4 Nh6 {from section 1.411 is a conservative one, I thought I'd put 6...f6 out there as a dynamic
alternative to avoid established theory. Perhaps White can eke out a small
edge somewhere, but I haven't found it, and I doubt that he can achieve
anything out of the ordinary. In the meantime, you'll see that many lines with
obvious moves actually favour Black. Be aware, though, that there is always
more risk when Black is neglecting development in favour of pawn moves;
hopefully the fun of being the first in some new territory will compensate you
for that worry. Oh yes, I forgot to mention that the engines are happy with
Black's position and the succeeding play.}) 7. O-O {My databases have 131
games with this move, and 43 with assorted seventh moves. It's worth looking
at some ideas involving the latter.} ({(a)} 7. exf6 Nxf6 {is co-operative of
White, but has to be taken seriously. At least he doesn't have a knight on d2
clogging up the works, as he does when he makes this move in the Tarrasch
Variation. However, Black's knight has come to f6 directly, as opposed to the
three moves involved in the line 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7, in which Black later
plays ...f6 and, after exf6, ...Nxf6. Incidentally, the only game I have with
a 2600+ player on either side of 6...f6 (in this case 2668 at the time)
involves 7 exf6 - see Beliavsky's win below:} 8. -- (8. a3 $6 Bd6 ({or} 8...
cxd4 9. cxd4 Bd6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. O-O Bd7) 9. O-O ({or} 9. dxc5 $6 Bxc5 10. O-O
O-O) 9... O-O {
and White needs a plan because ...cxd4 and ...e5 is threatened, but} 10. dxc5
$6 Bxc5 {
is already promising for Black, who threatens 11...Ng4 or 11...Bf2+, and} 11.
Nbd2 (11. b4 $2 Bxf2+ 12. Rxf2 Ng4 13. Qf1 e5 {is horrible}) ({, while} 11. Qe1
Ng4 $1 12. c4 e5 $1 13. cxd5 Nxf2 14. Rxf2 Nd4 {will net material}) 11... Bxf2+
12. Rxf2 Ng4 13. Qf1 e5 $1 14. h3 Nxf2 15. Qxf2 Qxf2+ 16. Kxf2 e4 {
leaves Black the exchange ahead.}) (8. O-O cxd4 9. cxd4 Bd6 10. Nc3 O-O {
. Again, in the Tarrasch Variation with 3...Nf6, White's knights take four
moves instead of two to get to their posts, but so do Black's knights! The
bishop on e2 is presumably not as well placed as on d3, at least if White has
any hopes of a theoretical advantage. Here's some analysis and an actual
game(!):} 11. -- (11. h3 Bd7 12. a3 (12. Be3 Qxb2 $5 ({
if Black wants more, he should play} 12... Ne7 {intending ...Nf5}) 13. Nb5 Be7
14. Rb1 Qxa2 15. Ra1 Qb2 $11) 12... Rac8 13. Be3 Ne7 14. Rb1 Nf5 {
(this is standard ...Nf6 Tarrasch manoeuvring)} 15. Bd3 Nxe3 16. fxe3 g6 $5 {
(intending ...Nh5)} ({here} 16... h6 17. Nh4 $5 Be8 18. Ng6 Bxg6 19. Bxg6 Bb8)
({, and} 16... Bg3 $5 {are good alternatives}) 17. Qe1 $1 (17. Qc2 Kg7) 17...
Nh5 18. Qh4 Rf7 {with roughly equal chances. Now} 19. g4 $5 {might lead to} Bg3
$1 20. Qg5 Bf4 $1 21. exf4 Nxf4 22. Qh6 $1 Nxd3 23. Qe3 Nxb2 24. Ng5 Rff8 25.
Rf2 Nc4 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Rxb6 Nxe3 28. Rxb7 h6 $11 {.}) (11. b3 Bd7 12. Nb5
Be7 13. Bf4 $5 Rac8 14. Nd6 Rcd8 15. Nb5 Ne8 $1 16. Bg3 $2 Bf6 17. Be5 Nxe5 18.
dxe5 Bxb5 19. Bxb5 Qxb5 $17 20. Nd4 Qb6 21. exf6 Nxf6 22. f4 $2 Ne4 23. Kh1 e5
{0-1 T.Johansson-Beliavsky, Copenhagen 2003.}))) ({(b)} 7. Bd3 {
is a logical reaction to ...f6, even if it wastes a little time:} cxd4 ({or} 
7... fxe5 8. dxe5 {, when the standard} Nh6 9. O-O Nf7 {
should be fine for Black}) 8. cxd4 Bb4+ {with:} (8... Bb4+ 9. Kf1 fxe5 10. dxe5
Nge7 (10... Nh6 11. Bxh6 gxh6 12. Nc3 Bf8 $5 13. Na4 Qa5 14. Rc1 Bg7 15. a3 O-O
{is unclear}) 11. a3 Bc5 12. Nc3 Bd4 $1 {; for example,} 13. Na4 Qc7 14. Nxd4
$5 Nxd4 15. Bf4 O-O $15 16. Bxh7+ $6 Kxh7 17. Qxd4 Qc2 $1 {with the idea} 18.
Rc1 $4 Nc6 {.}) (8... Bb4+ 9. Nbd2 $5 Nxd4 10. O-O Nc6 $1 11. a3 Be7 12. Qe2 (
12. Re1 Bc5) 12... fxe5 ({or} 12... Nh6) 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Qxe5 Bf6 15. Qh5+ g6
16. Qe2 e5 $1 17. Bb5+ Kf7 $15 {.}) (8... Bb4+ 9. Nc3 fxe5 10. dxe5 $1 (10.
Nxe5 Qxd4 11. Nxc6 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Qxc3+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 bxc6 15. Bb2 Nf6
16. Rac1 Bd7 17. Be5 {
with real pressure, but two extra pawns are worth some suffering}) 10... d4 11.
a3 dxc3 12. axb4 cxb2 13. Bxb2 Qxb4+ 14. Qd2 Qxd2+ 15. Nxd2 Nge7 16. Ne4 O-O
17. O-O a5 18. Nd6 Bd7 {
with mutual chances; White has compensation, and it looks pretty balanced.}))
7... fxe5 $1 {. After 7...fxe5, White chooses between recaptures:} ({
For some reason} 7... cxd4 $2 {has been the usual response in the limited
practice of 6...f6, with very poor results (it unnecessarily presents White
with c3 for his knight). The text move, by contrast, achieves a standard
position in which there's no reason Black shouldn't stand perfectly well.}) ({
Finally,} 7... Bd7 {isn't as pointed a move as 7...fxe5, but it seems playable.
Movsesian-Socko, Warsaw 2004, continued} 8. Re1 (8. Bd3 $1 {may be best; e.g.}
fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 O-O-O (10... Ne7 {is probably better}) 11. Nd2 Ne7
12. Nf3 Nc6 13. b4 $1 Qc7 $5 14. bxc5 Bxc5 15. Qe2 $14 {
, but Black is in the game}) 8... fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 c4 11. Qc2 Bc5 12.
Bh5+ g6 13. Bg4 Ne7 14. Bh6 Nf5 15. Bxf5 gxf5) 8. -- ({1.4121} 8. Nxe5) ({
1.4122} 8. dxe5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.4121 8 Nxe5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 f6 7. O-O fxe5 8. Nxe5 (
{Now} 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Bd7 10. c4 d4 11. Nd2 $14 {is ancient analysis by
Zaitsev, and the only 6...f6 line cited by many sources. But Black has two
good alternatives:}) 8... Nf6 (8... cxd4 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. cxd4 {
also looks adequate after:} -- (10... Nf6 11. Nc3 Bd6 12. g3 (12. f4 $11) 12...
O-O 13. Na4 Qc7 14. f4 $1 a5 15. Be3 Ne4 16. Rc1 Ba6 {
and White's edge, if any, is tiny.}) ({. The surprising} 10... Bd6 $1 {
looks best, not yet committing the knight:} 11. -- (11. Nc3 Ne7 $1 12. Na4 $6
Qc7 13. h3 O-O 14. Bd2 e5 {and Black stands better}) (11. Nd2 Nf6 $1 12. Nf3
O-O 13. Qc2 Ba6 $5 $11 ({or} 13... c5)) (11. b3 Qc7 12. h3 (12. g3 e5) 12...
Ne7 $5 ({or} 12... e5 $11) 13. Bb2 Ng6 14. Nd2 O-O $11 {; e.g.} 15. Nf3 Nf4 16.
Rc1 a5 $5 17. Re1 a4 18. bxa4 Rf6 19. Bf1 Ba6 $11 {.}))) 9. dxc5 {
Surrendering the centre appears unlikely to bring an advantage.} ({
Two others: -- (a)} 9. Bh5+ g6 10. Bf3 {, and we get some typical structures:}
({or} 10. Be2 cxd4 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. cxd4 Bd6 13. Nc3 O-O $11 {
, a sample line being} 14. Bh6 $5 Rf7 15. Na4 Qc7 16. f4 Ne4 17. g3 Be7 $1 {
intending ...Bf6}) 10... Nxe5 ({Pizzuto-Handel, corr 1994, went} 10... cxd4 11.
Nxc6 bxc6 12. cxd4 Bd6 $11 {; e.g.} 13. Nc3 O-O 14. Bh6 Rf7 15. Qd2 {, and} Bd7
{was equal,} ({but} 15... e5 16. dxe5 Bxe5 {gets there more directly})) 11.
dxe5 Nd7 12. c4 (12. Na3 $6 Bg7) 12... d4 13. Qa4 Bg7 14. Bg4 Bxe5 ({or} 14...
O-O 15. f4 g5 $1 16. g3 gxf4 17. gxf4 Bh6 $15 {intending ...Kh8}) 15. f4 Bg7
16. Re1 Qb4 (16... e5 $5 17. fxe5 Qb4 18. Qxb4 cxb4 $11) 17. Qxb4 (17. Rxe6+ $2
Kf7 $17) 17... cxb4 18. Bxe6 Kd8 19. f5 Re8 20. Bg5+ (20. Nd2 Nc5) 20... Bf6
21. Bxf6+ Nxf6 {, followed by ...gxf5 with equality or just a tad more.}) ({(b)
} 9. Nf3 cxd4 ({or} 9... Bd6 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. b4 Bd6 {
with ample opportunities in a dynamically equal position}) 10. cxd4 Bd6 11. Nc3
O-O {. White has played good moves, but this is a safe version for Black of a
3 Nd2 Nf6 Tarrasch main line with 7...Qb6. He should have comfortable equality
following} 12. Be3 -- (12... Ng4 $5 13. Na4 Qc7 14. h3 Nxe3 15. fxe3 Qe7 $11) (
12... Qxb2 13. Na4 ({or here} 13. Nb5 Be7 14. Rb1 Qxa2 15. Ra1 Qb2 $11) 13...
Qa3 14. Bc1 $11) ({, while} 12... Bd7 13. Ne5 Bxe5 $5 14. dxe5 Qxb2 15. exf6 $1
Qxc3 16. fxg7 Qxg7 17. Qd2 Rf6 {, with the idea} 18. f4 Be8 {
, leaves White with about a pawn's worth of compensation.})) 9... Bxc5 10. Nd3
({Not} 10. b4 $2 Bxf2+ $1) ({or} 10. Nxc6 $6 bxc6 11. b4 Bd6 12. Be3 Qc7 13. h3
a5 $15 {.}) 10... Bd6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. f4 O-O 13. Nd2 e5 (13... Bd7 $1 {
is more ambitious.}) 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 16. Nf3 Bd6 17. Kh1 (17. Bd4
Bg4 $1 {with a compensating attack after} 18. Bxf6 $5 Rxf6 19. Qxd5+ Be6 20.
Qe4 Kh8 {.}) 17... Bg4 (17... Bd7 18. Bd4 Ne4 $1 $11 {.}) 18. Bg5 (18. Nd4 Rae8
19. Nb5 Bxe2 20. Qxe2 Qe7 21. Nxd6 Qxd6 22. Qd3 b6 $11 {.}) 18... Kh8 19. Bxf6
Rxf6 20. Nd4 Bxe2 (20... Rxf1+ 21. Qxf1 Rf8 22. Qd1 Bd7 {with some chances.})
21. Qxe2 Bxh2 22. Rxf6 gxf6 23. Qe6 $11 {, Wieweg-Dysing, Sweden 1993.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.4122 8 dxe5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Be2 f6 7. O-O fxe5 8. dxe5
Nh6 {. This is my favourite Advance Variation move.} ({Instead,} 8... Nge7 {
has been played several times with success, but I think that White should get
something from} 9. c4 $1 d4 10. Nbd2 Ng6 11. Ne4 $1 Ncxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Bg5
$1 {with the idea of Bh5+. Perhaps this isn't much, but at any rate Black is
on the defensive.}) 9. Re1 {
Probably the most important move, aiming to protect e5.} ({
Let's look at a few of the more obvious alternatives: -- (a)} 9. Bxh6 gxh6 (
9... Qxb2 $4 10. Qd2 Qxa1 11. Be3 d4 12. cxd4 cxd4 13. Bxd4 Bb4 14. Bc3 $18)
10. b3 (10. c4 $5 {allows} Qxb2 {, which is risky,} ({or} 10... d4 {intending}
11. Nbd2 Bd7 $5 {and ...0-0-0})) 10... Bg7 11. Bd3 O-O ({alternatively,} 11...
Bd7 {keeps open the choice of ...0-0-0 or ...0-0}) 12. Qe2 ({whereas here} 12.
Qc2 $6 Nxe5 13. Bxh7+ Kh8 {simply favours Black}) 12... Bd7 {
with the idea ...Be8 is level.}) ({(b)} 9. Qc2 Nf7 10. Re1 g6 ({or} 10... Bd7 {
, again considering ...0-0-0}) 11. Bd3 (11. Na3 Bd7 {
, to meet Nb5 with ...Ncxe5}) (11. Be3 $1 Be7 12. Nbd2 O-O 13. b4 Ncxe5 14.
Nxe5 Nxe5 15. Nb3 Qc7 16. Bxc5 Bxc5 17. Nxc5 a5 $1) 11... Bg7 12. Bf4 O-O 13.
Nbd2 (13. Na3 Qc7 14. Qe2 a6 ({or} 14... c4 15. Bc2 Bd7)) 13... c4 14. Bf1 Qc7
15. Bg3 Bd7 {and I like Black's game.}) ({(c)} 9. b3 Nf7 10. Bf4 {
and one of several possibilities is} Be7 {
with the idea of ...g5 and ...h5 if allowed, , so} ({or} 10... g6 $5 11. Bd3
Bg7 12. Qe2 O-O 13. Nbd2 Bd7 14. h3 Nd6 $5 15. Bh2 Nf5 $11) 11. Qd2 Bd7 12. Na3
a6 {is logical,} ({or here} 12... O-O 13. Nc2 Be8 $11 {.})) 9... Nf7 10. Na3 (
10. b3 g6 11. Bf4 Bg7 12. Bd3 O-O {
resembles 9 b3, and here it's not clear whether the rook should be on e1.})
10... Be7 ({Or} 10... Bd7 {.}) 11. Bf1 a6 (11... Qc7 {is also fine; e.g.} 12.
Nb5 (12. Bf4 a6) 12... Qb8 13. Bf4 (13. h3 a6 14. Na3 O-O 15. Bf4 Qc7 16. Qd2
Bd7 $11) 13... a6 14. Na3 b5 (14... g5 $5 15. Bg3 h5) (14... Qc7) 15. Nc2 O-O
16. Qd2 a5 {and Black can advance on the queenside: ...a4/...Na5-c4 could
follow, or simply ...Ba6.}) 12. Nc2 O-O 13. Rb1 Qc7 14. Qe2 (14. Bf4 g5 {.})
14... Bd7 $11 {. Black stands very flexibly here: he can play on the queenside
with ...b5 or reorganize the kingside by ...Be8 and either ...Nfd8/...Bg6 or ...Nh8/...Bg6.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1.42 6 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 {. This usually leads
into the Milner-Barry Gambit, in which White gives up a pawn for rapid
development. It has never gained respectability, but has some fascinating
ramifications.} cxd4 7. cxd4 (7. O-O {can answered by} Bd7 (7... dxc3 8. Nxc3
Nge7 {is also possible}) 8. cxd4 Nxd4 {, transposing to the main line.}) 7...
Bd7 ({Not} 7... Nxd4 $4 8. Nxd4 Qxd4 $4 9. Bb5+ {.}) 8. O-O {
The normal move, because the alternatives can be rather dispiriting.} ({(a)} 8.
Be2 $6 {is a full tempo down on older 6 Be2 lines after} Nh6 $1 9. b3 Nf5 10.
Bb2 Bb4+ $15 11. Kf1 O-O 12. Nc3 f6 {and Black will wreak havoc on the f-file.}
) ({(b)} 8. Bc2 $5 {is slow. After} Nb4 {
, White has lost any chance for advantage and done poorly:} 9. Nc3 ({not} 9.
Ba4 $2 Qa6 $1 10. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {and ...Nd3+ follows}) ({, or} 9. Bb3 $2 Qa6) ({
, while} 9. O-O Nxc2 10. Qxc2 Rc8 11. Nc3 {transposes to 9 Nc3}) 9... Nxc2+ 10.
Qxc2 Rc8 ({or} 10... Ne7 11. Be3 Nc6 12. O-O Be7 {intending ...0-0 and ...f6})
11. O-O Ne7 12. Be3 (12. Qd3 Nf5) 12... Nc6 (12... Nf5 $1) 13. Qd2 Bb4 $5 14.
a3 {, Stadler-Ilchmann, corr 1958;} Bxc3 $1 15. bxc3 Na5 $15 {(Heemsoth).}) ({
(c)} 8. Nc3 Nxd4 {and now:} 9. -- (9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. O-O {
is the main line gambit}) ({, while} 9. O-O {transposes to 9 Nc3 in the notes.}
) ({. Instead,} 9. Ng5 $5 {resembles the 8 0-0 Nxd4 9 Ng5 gambit line below.
But this move order is flawed due to} Nc6 $1 {
, since Re1 is not available; e.g.} 10. O-O (10. Qe2 $2 d4 $1 11. Nb5 Nb4 $1)
10... Nxe5 11. Re1 $6 (11. Nxd5 $1 Qd6 $1 $15) 11... Nxd3 12. Qxd3 Nf6 $17 {
with the idea} 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14. Qxd5 Be7 $17 {.})) ({(d)} 8. Nbd2 Nxd4 9. Nxd4
Qxd4 10. Nf3 {is arguably premature due to} Bb4+ 11. Kf1 (11. Ke2 Qb6 12. Be3
Bc5) 11... Qb6 12. Be3 Bc5 13. Bxc5 Qxc5 $15 {.}) 8... Nxd4 9. Nxd4 {
White has other moves to take seriously:} ({(a)} 9. Nbd2 {is Nun's move,
White's best way, in my opinion, to play for genuine chances in the
Milner-Barry. Now 9...Nxf3+ and 9...Ne7 have been tried, along with these
critical lines:} -- (9... Nc6 10. Nb3 $1 Nge7 11. Be3 (11. Bf4 Ng6 12. Bg3 a5
13. a4 Be7 $17 {intending ...0-0 and ...f5}) 11... Qc7 12. Rc1 Ng6 13. Nc5 $1 {
. White has definite compensation, it's just not clear how much; for example,}
(13. Re1 Ngxe5 $1) 13... Rc8 (13... Bxc5 $5 14. Bxc5 Ncxe5 {
can enter into a lengthy drawing line:} 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. Qb3 Bc6 17. Rfe1 Qg5
18. Bb5 $1 Rd8 19. Bxc6+ bxc6 20. Qb7 Nf4 21. Qxc6+ Rd7 22. Qc8+ $11) 14. Qd2
$1 (14. b4 $6 Bxc5 15. Bxc5 Ncxe5 {and} 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 {
gives Black a meaningful advantage,} ({as does} 16... Qxe5 {
of Polivanov-Ponkratov, Moscow 2011})) 14... Be7 $5 15. b4 a6 16. a4 Ncxe5 $5
17. Nxe5 Qxe5 18. Nxd7 Kxd7 19. f4 Qb8 {and everything is still up for grabs.
White's attack is real, yet all Black needs is some simplification for his two
extra pawns to come into play.}) (9... Bc5 $1 10. Nxd4 (10. Rb1 Bb5 $1 $15) (
10. b4 Qxb4 (10... Nxf3+ 11. Nxf3 Qxb4 {is also possible}) 11. Rb1 ({or here} 
11. Nxd4 Bxd4 12. Rb1 Qc3 13. Nf3 Bb6 $15) 11... Qa4 $1 $15 {
Pap-Gleizerov, Predeal 2006}) 10... Bxd4 11. Nf3 Ne7 12. Nxd4 (12. Rb1 Nc6 13.
Bf4 {, Soloviev-Zhukov, St Petersburg 2008; and} a5 $1 {looks good,} ({or} 
13... Rc8 14. b4 Bc3 $1)) ({, while} 12. Bxh7 $5 {can be met by} Nc6 $5 ({or} 
12... Bb5 $1 13. Bd3 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Nc6 {with easy play})) 12... Qxd4 13. Re1
Nc6 (13... Ng6) 14. Be3 Qxe5 15. Qd2 {
, Smerdon-V.Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010; here Moskalenko suggests} Qd6 $15 {.
})) ({(b)} 9. Nc3 $5 {might transpose after} a6 {,} ({but Black also has} 9...
Nxf3+ $1 10. Qxf3 Ne7 11. Qg3 Bc6 $5 (11... Rc8) 12. a3 ({or} 12. a4 {
, Sobolevsky-Enders, Mülhausen 2000; when} a6 $15 {
was again called for, stopping Nb5}) 12... a6 13. b4 Ng6 $15 {
Maderna-Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1942.})) ({(c)} 9. Ng5 {
is Sorensen's Gambit, tricky but perhaps too speculative.} Nc6 $1 {
is the simplest course, fighting for the initiative by attacking e5:} 10. -- (
10. Re1 Bc5 {(this is not the only solution, but it's relatively forcing)} 11.
Qf3 O-O-O (11... Nh6 12. Nc3 Nd4 {is also good}) 12. Nc3 (12. Nxf7 $4 Rf8 $19)
12... f6 $1 13. exf6 ({not} 13. Na4 $4 Qa5) ({, or} 13. Nf7 Nxe5 $1 14. Rxe5
fxe5 15. Nxh8 e4) 13... Nxf6 14. Nf7 Ng4 $1 (14... Rhf8) ({, and} 14... Nb4 {
are also good}) 15. Qxg4 Bxf2+ 16. Kf1 Bxe1 17. Kxe1 Nb4 $1 18. Ne5 Rhf8 (18...
Qg1+ 19. Ke2 Nxd3 20. Kxd3 d4) 19. Ne2 Nxd3+ 20. Nxd3 e5 {
with too strong an attack.}) (10. Bf4 $2 Qxb2 ({or} 10... Nge7) 11. Nd2 (11.
Qd2 Qxa1 12. Nc3 Qxf1+ 13. Kxf1 Bb4 $19) 11... Be7 $1 12. Ngf3 Nb4 $1 $17 {.})
(10. Qe2 Nb4 {wins the bishop pair and remains a pawn up, unless White tries}
11. Bxh7 {, when, among others,} Nh6 $1 {
is strong (threatening ...Bb5 and ...g6, trapping the bishop):} 12. Rd1 (12.
Na3 g6 13. Be3 Qd8 $17) 12... Be7 13. Be3 (13. Bd3 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rc8 15. Nc3
Ng4 $1 16. Qg3 Nxf2 $1) 13... Qa6 14. Qxa6 bxa6 15. a3 Nc6 $17 {.})) 9... Qxd4
{We have reached the traditional Milner-Barry main line.} 10. Nc3 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 10. Qe2 {is a little slow after} Ne7 {, and:} (10... f6 {
is also playable, but it's better to develop}) 11. -- (11. Nc3 Nc6 ({otherwise
} 11... a6 {is the main line}) 12. Bb5 a6 13. Rd1 Qh4 $5 ({or} 13... Qb6 $15
14. Ba4 $6 Bc5 $1 $17) 14. Bxc6 bxc6 {favours Black}) (11. Nd2 Nc6 12. Nf3 Qb6
13. Be3 Bc5 14. Bxc5 Qxc5 15. Rfc1 {with compensation, according to Moskalenko,
but White doesn't seem to have enough for a pawn after} Qe7 16. a3 O-O 17. Qe3
f6 {etc}) (11. Kh1 Nc6 (11... Qh4 {is also good}) 12. f4 Bc5 $5 ({or} 12... Nb4
13. Bb5 O-O-O $17) 13. a3 a6 14. Ra2 O-O 15. b4 Ba7 16. Nd2 Qe3 $17 {
J.Brown-Hummel, Las Vegas 1997.})) ({(b)} 10. Re1 {
removes protection of f2 and reduces support for the f4-f5 attack:} Ne7 11. Nc3
(11. Na3 $5 Qa4 $1 12. b3 Qa5 13. Qe2 ({or} 13. Nc2 Ng6) 13... a6 14. Nc2 Ng6)
11... a6 12. Be3 $1 {(the best try)} (12. Qf3 Ng6 13. Qg3 $6 Be7 $1) 12... Qxe5
13. Qf3 ({or} 13. Qg4 h5 $1 14. Qb4 Nc6 15. Qxb7 Rb8 16. Qxa6 Nb4 17. Qa7 Nxd3
18. Bd4 {, Vazquez Torres-Moreno Ruiz, Madrid 2010; and instead of} Qd6 {
, good but messy,} ({Moskalenko points out the simple} 18... Bc5 $1 19. Rxe5
Bxa7 20. Bxa7 Rb7 $17)) 13... Bc6 $1 {
. It's hard to believe that White has enough for two pawns;} ({and} 13... d4
14. Bf4 Bc6 $1 {is probably good as well.})) 10... a6 {This frequently-played
move rules out Nb5 and clears the a7-square for the dark-squared bishop.} (
10... Qxe5 {is perfectly good, but players have complained, probably correctly,
that certain lines don't yield enough winning chances.}) 11. Qe2 (11. Re1 Ne7 {
transposes to 10 Re1 above.}) ({Others: -- (a)} 11. Kh1 Qxe5 12. f4 (12. Re1
Qd6 13. Qf3 Bc6 $17 14. Bf4 Qd7 15. Qg3 Ne7) 12... Qd6 13. Be3 Be7 14. Qf3 Bc6
(14... d4 15. Ne4 Qb6 $17) 15. Bd4 {, Eley-Whiteley, British Ch., Ayr 1978; and
} Bf6 $1 {is a simple solution; e.g.} 16. Be5 Qe7 17. Qg3 Nh6 18. f5 Bxe5 19.
Qxe5 Qg5 $17 {.}) ({(b)} 11. Qf3 Ne7 (11... Qxe5 12. Bf4 Qf6 13. Qg3 Ne7 $15)
12. Rd1 Qxe5 13. Bf4 Qf6 14. Re1 (14. Qg3 Ng6 $17) 14... g5 $1 15. Be5 Qxf3 16.
gxf3 Rg8 17. Bxh7 Rg7 $1 18. Bd3 f5 19. Bxg7 Bxg7 $17 {; for the exchange,
Black has a pawn, the bishop pair, and ideal outposts for his knight on f4 and
h4.}) 11... Ne7 {This has been the overwhelming favourite for years;} ({though
} 11... Qh4 $5 {has also done well (...Nh6 is a theme)}) ({and Moskalenko likes
} 11... Rc8 {, preparing ...Bc5; he cites Startseva-Esebua, Mureck 1998:} 12.
Rd1 Qb6 13. Kh1 Bc5 14. Qg4 g6 {with a solid position.}) 12. Kh1 ({The older} 
12. Rd1 {doesn't equalize after} Nc6 (12... Qh4 {is also good}) 13. Bxa6 (13.
Bb5 {transposes to 10 Qe2 Ne7 11 Nc3 above}) 13... Qxe5 14. Qxe5 $6 (14. Bxb7
Qxe2 15. Nxe2 {and here} Ra7 ({
but his bishop pair and centre are better-suited to the position after} 15...
Rb8 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Nd4 Bd7 18. a4 f6 19. a5 e5 20. Nc2 d4 21. a6 Bc5 22. b4
Ba7 $15) 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 {is slightly better for Black}) 14... Nxe5 15. Bxb7 Ra7
16. Bxd5 exd5 17. Re1 f6 18. f4 Bc5+ 19. Kh1 d4 $17 {
Mnatsakanian-Monin, USSR 1979 (and several later games).}) 12... Nc6 13. f4 (
13. Be3 {looks unsound after} Qxe5 ({or} 13... Qh4 {, threatening ...d4; e.g.}
14. g3 Qd8 15. Bf4 Be7 $17) 14. f4 Qd6 15. f5 (15. Rad1 Be7 16. f5 Qe5) 15...
Qe5 $1 $17 {.}) 13... Nb4 {This is the introduction to an apparently effective
solution which has heretofore been rather neglected.} ({
In 'PTF3' I gave a lengthy exegesis on the virtues of} 13... Bc5 $5 {, which develops, prevents Be3, and allows for ...Qf2 after White's Rd1. That move is
still holding up very well, with the only serious threat provided by the line}
14. a3 Na5 (14... Ba7 $15) 15. Qf3 $5 (15. b4) ({, and} 15. Bd2 {
were examined there}) 15... Ba7 16. f5 Nc4 17. Ne2 Qb6 18. Qg3 {
of Rodriguez Vila-Ramirez Alvarez, Calvia Olympiad 2004; when instead of} exf5
$2 {,} (18... O-O-O $1 {looks sound and promising.})) 14. Rd1 ({Now} 14. Rd1
Nxd3 15. Rxd3 {has a long history and great body of theory behind it (verdict:
White has some compensation). Instead...}) 14... Bc5 $1 {may make this
unnecessary and even be a refutation of the Milner-Barry main line.} ({
The first point is that after} 14... Bc5 {, Black threatens} 15. -- Nxd3 16.
Qxd3 (16. Rxd3 $4 Qg1#) 16... Qxd3 {
with a clear pawn up. As far as I can tell, White can never equalize.}) 15.
Bxa6 {White regains his pawn; this is probably the move which comes closest to
levelling the chances.} ({Otherwise: -- (a)} 15. Bb5 Qf2 $1 16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17.
Qg4 $4 Nd3 {threatens smothered mate with ...Qg1+, and} 18. h4 Qg1+ 19. Rxg1
Nf2+ 20. Kh2 Nxg4+ 21. Kg3 Bxg1 {isn't comforting.}) ({(b)} 15. Bxh7 Qf2 16.
Qxf2 (16. Bb1 $4 Rxh2+) 16... Bxf2 {and now:} 17. -- (17. Bb1 O-O-O {
(with the idea ...Rxh2+!)} (17... Nc6 {intending ...Rc8 also favours Black})
18. h3 Kb8 {and Black stands better (Ziegler and Har Zvi, whose analysis
directed my attention to 14...Bc5). Black's initial advantage consists of his
active pieces and passed pawn; he also has the prospect of ...f6, giving him a
2:0 central majority if White has to play exf6. This applies to several of the
positions after both 15 Bxa6 and 16 Bxh7.}) (17. Rf1 Bg3 $5 (17... Rxh7 18.
Rxf2 d4 19. Ne4 Bc6 20. Nd6+ Ke7 $15) 18. Rf3 Bxh2 (18... Be1 $5 19. Bb1 Rc8
20. a3 Nc6 $15) 19. Rh3 Bg3 20. Kg1 Be1 {and Black emerges a pawn up.})) ({(c)
} 15. Bb1 {doesn't even win the pawn back, and if White answers} Qf2 {with} 16.
Qg4 {,} h5 $1 {keeps a very large advantage:} 17. -- (17. Qxg7 $2 O-O-O 18. Qg3
Qxg3 19. hxg3 Rdg8 {with the idea} 20. a3 (20. Kh2 Rg4 $1 21. Kh3 Rhg8 22. Ne2
Bb5) (20. Ne2 Rg4 21. Ng1 h4 22. gxh4 Bc6 $1 {
and large material gain will follow ...d4 and ...Rhxh4+}) 20... Rg4 $3 {
(threatening ...h4)} ({not that} 20... Nc6 {isn't good}) 21. axb4 Bf2 $1 22.
Rd3 h4 23. gxh4 Rhxh4+ 24. Rh3 Rxh3+ 25. gxh3 Rg1+ 26. Kh2 Rxc1 {
and ...d4-d3-d2 follows.}) (17. Qh3 Rc8 ({or} 17... O-O-O) ({, or} 17... Ba7
18. a3 Nc2 19. Bxc2 Qxc2) 18. Bd2 Ba7 19. a3 Nc6 $17 {.})) 15... Qf2 16. Qxf2 (
16. Bb5 Qxe2 17. Bxe2 Nc2 18. Rb1 O-O 19. Bd2 Ne3 20. Rdc1 Bb6 21. a3 f6 $1 $15
{.}) 16... Bxf2 17. Bb5 $1 (17. Be2 O-O ({or} 17... Bc6 18. a3 Nc2 19. Rb1 Nd4)
18. Bd2 (18. a3 Na6 $5 {intending ...Nc5}) 18... Nc2 19. Rab1 Ne3 20. Rdc1 Bc6
$14 21. Bf3 $2 Nc4 $19 {Milesi-Apicella, Cap d'Agde 2003; Black will be a pawn
ahead with much the better position.}) 17... Bxb5 (17... Bc6 {
keeps only a small edge after} 18. a3 {.}) 18. Nxb5 Rxa2 19. Rxa2 ({
An instructive example went} 19. Bd2 Rxa1 20. Rxa1 Na6 21. Nd6+ Kd7 (21... Ke7
$5) 22. Nxb7 $6 (22. Nxf7 Rc8) (22. g3) 22... Rb8 23. Rxa6 Rxb7 24. b4 {
(Black has the better bishop and king)} Bb6 ({or} 24... Ra7 $1 {with the idea}
25. Rxa7+ Bxa7 26. g3 Kc6 27. Kg2 Kb5 28. Kf3 Kc4) 25. g4 Kc6 26. Kg2 {
, Chua-Dokoutchaev, Dallas 2002; and here} Ra7 $1 {
would again be the clearest solution.}) 19... Nxa2 {
With an extra pawn, although it's not easy to convert.} 20. Bd2 {
Apparently trapping Black's knight.} Kd7 21. Ra1 Rc8 $1 {
This tactic is necessary.} 22. Na3 (22. Rxa2 Rc2 {.}) 22... Bc5 $1 23. Rxa2 Bb4
24. Be3 ({Or} 24. Bc3 d4 25. Nb5 dxc3 26. bxc3 {
, Toufighi-J.Gonzalez Garcia, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010; here} Bxc3 {
gives good winning chances, since} 27. Nd6 Rc7 28. Nxf7 $2 {will lose to} b5 {
and the pawn is too fast.}) ({After} 24. Be3 {
, Aryanejad-Potkin, Abu Dhabi 2005, continued} d4 $1 25. Bxd4 Rc1+ 26. Bg1 Bc5
27. h3 $6 (27. h4 Rxg1+ 28. Kh2 $15) 27... Rxg1+ 28. Kh2 Rf1 29. g3 Rf2+ 30.
Kh1 Rf1+ 31. Kh2 Rf2+ 32. Kh1 Kc6 $1 33. Nc4 Kd5 (33... b5 $1 34. Nd6 b4) 34.
Na5 b6 35. Nb7 Bd4 36. Ra8 Rxb2 37. Nd6 f6 $1 {and Black won shortly.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2. Advance: 6 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 {. This has become the
very main line of the Advance Variation. White prepares an expansion on the
queenside and counts upon his space advantage in that sector (and in the
centre) to keep Black's pieces cramped. Sometimes, later, he expands on the
kingside for good measure. The drawback to this strategy is that Black gains a
nice lead in development and therefore has quick pressure on the centre. I
recommend two variations:} -- ({2.1} 6... Bd7) ({2.2} 6... Nh6) ({
Black has a wide variety of alternatives.} 6... c4 {is the oldest move
(recommended in 'PTF1') and is apparently holding up well; players who enjoy
closed positions may want to investigate it.}) ({Let me add some superficial
comments on a couple of other moves that you may already be playing: -- (a)} 
6... f6 {. This has been a suggestion from the first edition onward, and still
strikes me as sound. Black can (like his opponent) play on both wings here: on
the queenside with ...Bd7, ...a5, and ...Rc8; and on the kingside with ideas
like ...fxe5, ...Nh6-f7, and ...Be7 or ...g6/...Bg7. Here's a very abbreviated
set of ideas to review:} 7. -- (7. b4 fxe5 $5 8. Nxe5 (8. dxe5 $5 Nh6 $1 9.
Bxh6 gxh6 10. Bd3 Bg7 11. O-O O-O $15 {Guigonis-Renaudin, Paris 2000}) ({
; Black also achieves good play after} 8. bxc5 Qa5) ({, and} 8. dxc5 Qc7) 8...
Nxe5 9. dxe5 Ne7 ({or} 9... Qc7 {, when} 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Bxd7+ Qxd7 12. O-O a5
{might follow}) 10. Bd3 Qc7 11. Qe2 {(Collins). Now} Ng6 $5 ({and} 11... c4 12.
Bc2 Ng6 {are equal}) ({, but easiest is} 11... a5 $1 12. b5 Nf5 {with the idea}
13. Bxf5 exf5 14. O-O Be6 $11 {.})) (7. Bd3 {is the most common reply:} fxe5 (
7... c4 8. Bc2 g6 $5 {is also playable}) 8. dxe5 (8. Nxe5 Nf6 9. O-O Bd6) 8...
c4 $1 9. Bc2 Nh6 ({or} 9... g6) 10. O-O Nf7 11. b3 (11. Qe2 g6 $5 12. Ra2 Bg7
13. Bf4 O-O 14. Nbd2 Qc7 15. Re1 b5 {with complications}) 11... cxb3 12. Bxb3
Be7 {, Dvoirys-Murey, Dieren 2000. Here Collins suggests} 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Bd4 {
, but Black has more than enough play following} O-O {; e.g.} 15. Re1 Nh6 16.
Nbd2 ({or} 16. Bc2 Nf5 17. Qd3 g6 18. Nbd2 Bd7 19. Nb3 Na5 20. Nxa5 Qxa5 {
with easy play}) 16... Nf5 17. Nf1 Bd7 18. Ne3 Nfxd4 ({or} 18... Ncxd4 19. cxd4
Nxe3 20. fxe3 Rac8) 19. cxd4 Be8 {intending ...Bh5.})) ({(b)} 6... Nge7 {
can be used to avoid Bxh6 ideas (e.g. 6...Nh6 7 b4 cxd4 8 Bxh6), although that
isn't necessary. Then 7 b4 cxd4 8 cxd4 Nf5 is our main line 2.21 below. White
has two ways to deviate:} 7. dxc5 (7. Bd3 $5 {can also be unique, since} cxd4
8. cxd4 Bd7 9. Nbd2 $5 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Qxd4 11. Nf3 Qb6 12. Be3 {can't be met by
...Bc5, as is the case with Black's knight on h6; nevertheless, White will
have to work hard if he is to prove full compensation for the pawn}) 7... Qc7
$1 (7... Qxc5 8. b4 Qb6 9. c4 $1 $14) 8. Bb5 {(Sveshnikov prefers this pin)} (
8. b4 {can be met by} a5 (8... b6 $5) ({, or} 8... Ng6 9. Be3 Be7)) ({
. Zlotnik's pre-computer solution was} 8. Nd4 Qxe5+ 9. Be2 {
'with initiative'; then one idea is} Ng6 10. b4 Nf4 ({or here} 10... a5 11. b5
Nb8)) ({; finally, the attempt to protect e5 by} 8. Bf4 $5 {is uninspiring:}
Ng6 9. Bg3 Bxc5 10. b4 Be7 11. Qe2 Qb6 ({or here} 11... h5 12. h4 Bd7) 12. Qc2
Qc7 13. Qe2 Qb6 14. Qc2 f6 $5 15. exf6 Bxf6 16. Bd3 Nce7 17. O-O O-O $15 {
with a central majority, Hertneck-Psakhis, Baden-Baden 1992}) 8... Ng6 ({or} 
8... Bd7 9. O-O Nxe5 10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 11. b4 b6 12. cxb6 axb6 $11) 9. Qd4 Be7 10.
O-O O-O 11. Bxc6 {, Enders-T.Meister, German League 1996;} -- ({, and although
} 11... bxc6 12. b4 a5 {should be alright}) (11... Qxc6 {
is more interesting; e.g.} 12. Be3 (12. b4 f6) 12... b6 $1 13. cxb6 axb6 {
with the idea} 14. Qxb6 Qxb6 15. Bxb6 Ba6 16. Re1 Rfb8 $11 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.1 6...Bd7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 {. In this system
Black brings a rook to c8 to attack the queenside. The main idea is to exploit
the light-square weaknesses caused by a3 (and b4).} 7. b4 (7. Be2 {develops soundly, yet the early commitment of the bishop allows for easy equality:} Nh6 $5
(7... Nge7 {is simpler, avoiding Bxh6 and intending} 8. dxc5 Qc7) 8. b4 cxd4 9.
Bxh6 (9. cxd4 Nf5) 9... gxh6 10. cxd4 Rg8 $1 {compares well with other ...Rg8
lines because Black gains a tempo and can get to g4 with attack on d4; for
example,} 11. O-O (11. g3 Rg4 12. h3 Rxd4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Nc3 a5 $15) 11...
Rg4 12. h3 Rf4 13. g3 Rxf3 14. Bxf3 Qxd4 15. Qxd4 Nxd4 16. Bh5 a5 (16... Bg7 $5
17. f4 Ke7 18. Nc3 f6 19. exf6+ Bxf6 $11) 17. Nc3 Rc8 $11 {.}) 7... cxd4 8.
cxd4 Rc8 {. This system for Black is arguably riskier for him than the one
with 6...Nh6, because in the latter case Black develops his kingside pieces
rapidly and easily get to safety by ...0-0 and ...f6. On the other hand, the
play after 8...Rc8 tends to be rather forcing, and full of ways for White to
go wrong. Assuming that you're prepared, you're unlikely to run into a
surprise. Here White has three logical moves:} 9. -- ({2.11} 9. Be2) ({2.12} 9.
Bb2) ({2.13} 9. Be3) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.11 9 Be2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Rc8 9. Be2 {. Safe, but a little committal, since White might prefer the
bishop on d3 in some lines.} Nge7 $1 (9... a5 $5 10. -- (10. b5 $2 {
runs into the standard idea} Nxd4 $1 11. Nxd4 Rxc1 12. Qxc1 Qxd4 {and} 13. Qc3
({or} 13. Nd2 Qxe5 14. Nf3 Qb8) 13... Bc5 14. O-O Ne7 15. Ra2 Qxc3 16. Nxc3 Bd4
17. Na4 Bxe5 {, Komliakov-Nevednichy, Kishinev 1993; when Black's two central
pawns and bishop pair for the exchange give him the advantage.}) ({
. However, I think that the gambit} 10. O-O $1 {offers White enough and
probably more than enough compensation for a pawn, as you can verify with
analysis. Amazingly, the move 10 0-0 hasn't been played in any master games
from this position. Because of this, I think that 9...Nge7 is best.})) 10. O-O
Nf5 11. Bb2 Be7 12. Qd2 ({Others: -- (a)} 12. Bd3 $5 Ncxd4 $5 (12... g6) 13.
Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Qg4 Nb3 15. Qxg7 Rf8 16. Ra2 h5 $5 ({or} 16... a5 $11 {.})) ({(b)
} 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc3 Na5 $1 14. Na4 Qc6 15. Rc1 Nc4 {
with good play; compare lines with 9 Bb2.}) ({(c)} 12. Qd3 Na5 13. Nbd2 Nc4 14.
Nxc4 dxc4 {prepares ...Bc6 or ...Qc6 with light-square control.}) 12... O-O {
A traditional approach.} ({The modern} 12... h5 {
is seen by transposition in 2.211, note 'd' to 10 g4.}) 13. Rd1 (13. Bd3 {
activates the bishop; there might follow} h6 $5 14. Bxf5 exf5 15. Nc3 Be6 $11 {
.}) 13... f6 14. Nc3 (14. g4 {can be answered by} Nh6 ({but} 14... Nh4 $5 15.
Nxh4 fxe5 16. Nf3 e4 {, with the idea} 17. Ne1 ({or} 17. Ng5 Ne5) 17... Bh4 {
, is more fun and dynamically balanced}) 15. exf6 Rxf6 16. g5 Rxf3 $1 17. Bxf3
Rf8 {with full counterplay.}) 14... fxe5 15. dxe5 Be8 $1 16. Rac1 Bh5 $11 {
, Sveshnikov-Lputian, USSR Team Ch. 1990.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.12 9 Bb2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Rc8 9. Bb2 {. This is the main line of our 6...Bd7 variation and has loads of
theory behind it. Here 9...Na5 is the most complex line. It's fully
satisfactory, but I'll give two simpler options so that you can pick something
with which you feel confident:} -- ({2.121} 9... Nge7) ({2.122} 9... Nh6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.121 9...Nge7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Rc8 9. Bb2 Nge7 10. Nc3 Na5 $1 11. Nd2 ({Obviously} 11. bxa5 $2 Qxb2 {is weak.}
) ({McDonald likes} 11. Na4 Qc6 12. Nc5 Nc4 13. Qb3 -- ({, and now} 13... b5 {
(?) allows} 14. a4 (14. --)) ({. But why not} 13... b6 $1 14. Nxd7 Qxd7) ({
, or even} 13... Ng6 {? I think Black has equal chances in those cases.})) ({
Another alternative is} 11. Rc1 Nc4 12. Bxc4 dxc4 13. O-O Nd5 $11 14. Nxd5 $6
exd5 15. Bc3 Be7 16. Ne1 {, Shirov-Socko, Ajaccio 2005; and} Bf5 {
is the simplest of several moves that give Black a nice advantage.}) 11... Nc4
12. Bxc4 dxc4 13. O-O Nd5 14. Nxd5 $6 (14. Nde4 Be7 15. Qg4 g6 16. Rae1 h5 17.
Qg3 O-O {intending ...Bc6.}) 14... exd5 $15 {
, Polovnikova-Radziewicz, Istanbul 2003.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.122 9...Nh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Rc8 9. Bb2 Nh6 {
. This is a sound developing move illustrating some characteristic themes:} 10.
Nc3 (10. Bd3 Na5 $1 11. O-O Nc4 12. Bxc4 Rxc4 13. Nc3 (13. Nbd2 Rc8 14. Rc1
Rxc1 15. Qxc1 Be7 $15 {with the bishop pair and a solid position}) 13... Qa6 (
13... Nf5 $1 $15) 14. Rc1 Be7 15. Nd2 $6 {, Korchnoi-Kotsur, Istanbul Olympiad
2000; and here Sveshnikov analyses the straightforward} Rxd4 16. Ne2 Rh4 17. g3
(17. Nd4 Ba4 18. Qf3 O-O) 17... Ba4 18. Qe1 Bb5 19. Rc8+ Bd8 20. gxh4 Bxe2 21.
Qc1 O-O {'and it is White who is struggling for equality'.}) 10... Na5 $1 {
This is a standard type of position in lines with Bb2, whether after 6...Bd7
or 6...Nh6. Black continues his light-square quest, eyeing c4 and a4. If,
after ...Nc4, White captures and Black recaptures with a pawn (often forced),
he will gain the d5-square and wonderful a8-h1 diagonal. From White's point of
view, that recapture grants access to e4 for his pieces (a knight can be
powerful there) and potentially allows the move d5, opening up the centre.} 11.
Na4 ({White achieves nothing after} 11. Bd3 Nc4 12. Qb3 Nf5 {.}) 11... Qc6 12.
Nc5 (12. Rc1 Nc4 13. Bxc4 dxc4 14. Nc3 Be7 $5 ({or} 14... Nf5 $1 15. O-O b5 $11
) 15. O-O O-O (15... Nf5 $5) 16. d5 $5 (16. b5 Qb6 17. a4 a6 18. d5 Bc5 $11)
16... exd5 17. Nd4 Qg6 18. Nxd5 {, Dur-Damjanovic, Graz 1979;} Bg5 $1 19. h4 (
19. f4 Bd8 $15) 19... Bd8 $11) 12... Nc4 13. Bxc4 dxc4 14. O-O Qd5 $1 (14... b6
15. d5 $5 Qxd5 16. Qxd5 exd5 17. Nxd7 Kxd7 {.}) 15. Qe2 $6 (15. Na4 Bxa4 $5 16.
Qxa4+ Qd7 {with the idea} 17. Qxa7 c3 18. Bc1 Nf5) 15... Bc6 16. Rfe1 Be7 17.
Rac1 {, Korchnoi-Iruzubieta, Oviedo 1992.} -- ({Here} 17... O-O {was good}) ({
but} 17... b6 $1 18. Ne4 O-O {was better still.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.13 9 Be3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Bd7 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Rc8 9. Be3 {. The bishop is more actively placed here than on b2, but it is
also subject to attack from a knight on f5 or g4.} Nh6 ({Alternatively,} 9...
a5 10. b5 Nce7 {clears the c-file and prepares to secure occupation of f5:} 11.
Bd3 (11. Qa4 Nf5 12. Bd2 f6 $1 {with the idea} 13. Qxa5 $4 ({or} 13. Bxa5 Qa7)
13... Rc1+ 14. Ke2 Bxb5+) 11... Nf5 12. O-O (12. Bxf5 exf5 13. a4 Bb4+ {
develops quickly and promises a long-term queenside attack}) 12... Ngh6 (12...
Nxe3 13. fxe3 Be7 14. Qd2 Nh6 $11) 13. Ra2 Be7 14. h3 $6 {
(versus ...Ng4, but it's unnecessary), Stevic-Korchnoi, Novi Sad 2009; and}
Nxe3 $1 15. fxe3 O-O {followed by ...f6 or ...f5 would be effective.}) 10. Bd3
Ng4 11. O-O Nxe3 (11... Be7 {
might gain a tempo if White plays h3, although he needn't do so:} 12. Ra2 (12.
Nbd2 Nxe3 13. fxe3 {transposes to the main line}) 12... Nxe3 13. fxe3 O-O 14.
h4 $6 f6 $1 $15 {Fedoseev-Goganov, St Petersburg 2011}) 12. fxe3 Be7 13. Nbd2 (
13. Qe2 O-O 14. Nbd2 f6 15. b5 Nd8 $5 ({but} 15... Na5 $1 {looks even better})
16. exf6 Bxf6 {leads to equality, according to Sveshnikov.}) 13... Nb8 $1 {
The idea is to play ...Bb5; also, White won't be able to answer ...a5 with b5
in some lines.} (13... Nd8 $5 {
, with the same idea, might be even more more precise.}) 14. Ne1 ({
Others: -- (a)} 14. Qb1 Bb5 $1 15. e4 Nc6 $1 16. Bxb5 Qxb5 17. Rd1 O-O 18. exd5
Qxd5 $11) ({(b)} 14. Nb3 Ba4 (14... Bb5 15. Nc5 O-O 16. Rc1 h6 {
with a minimal edge for White}) 15. Qb1 Bxb3 (15... Nd7 $1 16. Nc5 Nxc5 17.
bxc5 Qc6) 16. Qxb3 O-O) ({(c)} 14. Qe2 {and now:} -- (14... Ba4 15. e4 ({here} 
15. Rac1 {
was Areshchenko-Pähtz, Gibraltar 2008; Black might do well to continue} O-O 16.
Nb1 $1 Rc6 $5 17. Nc3 Qc7 18. Qd2 Rc8 {with dynamic equality}) 15... Nc6 $5 16.
Qe3 O-O 17. Rab1 {, Motylev-Rychagov, Kolontaevo 1999; and instead of} a5 {,} (
{Black should play directly: for example,} 17... g6 $11 {intending ...f6.})) (
14... Rc3 $5 {(with the idea ...Rxd3)} 15. Rfb1 (15. Rfc1 Rxc1+ 16. Rxc1 a5 $1)
15... a6 16. Nb3 Bb5 17. Nc5 (17. Bxb5+ Qxb5 18. Qd2 Rc7 19. Rc1 Nc6 20. Nc5
O-O $11) 17... Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Qb5 19. Rc1 Qxd3 20. Qxd3 Rxd3 21. Rc8+ Bd8 22.
Rxb8 b6 $11)) 14... O-O 15. Rf3 ({Or} 15. Qh5 g6 16. Qh6 f5 17. exf6 Bxf6 $11 {
.}) ({After} 15. Rf3 {, Arngrimsson-I.Johannesson, Reykjavik 2009, went} f5 $1
16. exf6 Rxf6 $5 {(good enough)} ({but} 16... Bxf6 $1 {
is safe and more thematic}) 17. Nb3 Ba4 18. Qb1 Bxb3 19. Qxb3 {, and here} Qc7
{is the easiest equalizer.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.2 6...Nh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nh6 {. There is an
undeniable logic to developing rapidly versus the slow 6 a3. Black threatens ...cxd4 and ...Nf5, winning a pawn. He also plans straightforward
development (...Bd7, ...Be7, ...Rc8), with ...f6 at some point to break up White's centre.} 7.
b4 ({Instead: -- (a)} 7. Bxh6 $2 Qxb2 8. Bc1 Qxa1 9. Qc2 {is unsound:} c4 $1 {
intending ...Na5, ...Bd7, and ...Nb3.}) ({(b)} 7. Bd3 {is a rare move which
loses time, but gives White the option of defending the d-pawn without needing
to play b4 and either Bb2 or Be3:} cxd4 8. cxd4 Bd7 ({
for those who aren't interested in learning the lines that follow,} 8... Nf5 9.
Bxf5 exf5 10. Nc3 Be6 {is a standard position which we will look at briefly
under the order 6 Be2 cxd4 7 cxd4 Nh6 8 Bd3 Nf5 9 Bxf5 etc; the difference
here is the move a3, which somewhat weakens the light squares and probably
hurts rather than helps White}) {
. Now Black threatens the d-pawn. White has two tries:} 9. -- (9. Bc2 {
(protecting d4)} g6 $5 {
(Black wants to recapture with his g-pawn after ...Nf5 and Bxf5)} ({instead,} 
9... Nf5 10. Bxf5 exf5 11. Nc3 Be6 $11 {is the position arrived at by 8...Nf5
in the previous note, with an extra move for each side}) 10. Nc3 Nf5 11. Ne2 (
11. Na4 Qc7 12. Bxf5 gxf5 13. Bf4 Rg8 14. g3 Rc8 15. Rc1 Qa5+ 16. b4 Qa6 $11)
11... Rc8 12. O-O (12. Bxf5 gxf5 13. Nf4 Qb5 {
with ideas of ...Rg8, ...Na5, and ...Be7}) 12... Be7 (12... Na5 $5) 13. Bxf5 $5
gxf5 14. Nf4 Rg8 {with double-edged play; e.g.} 15. Re1 (15. b4 a5) 15... Na5
16. Re3 Bb5 $5 17. Bd2 Nc4 18. Rc3 Kd7 $11 {
, a familiar spot for Black's king in the French Defence.}) (9. O-O $5 {
(a strange form of Milner-Barry Gambit, trading the only moderately useful a3
for the developing move ...Nh6; this should favour Black, although he needs to
be careful that the knight on h6 is not captured to White's advantage)} Nxd4
10. Nxd4 Qxd4 11. Nc3 a6 12. Qe2 $6 ({
White has some compensation, probably not enough, after} 12. Be3 $1 Qh4 13. f3
Rc8) 12... Qg4 $5 (12... Qh4 $1 $15) 13. f3 Bc5+ 14. Kh1 Qh4 $15 15. g3 Qh3 16.
Qe1 $6 Bc6 17. Bf4 O-O $17 {with an extra pawn, Dvoirys-Lputian, Istanbul 2003.
})) 7... cxd4 {. Now White chooses between two moves, both the subject of
considerable theoretical investigation:} 8. -- ({2.21} 8. cxd4) ({2.22} 8. Nxd4
) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.21 8 cxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nh6 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Nf5 {. And before we even get started, a final parting of the ways:} 9. -- ({
2.211} 9. Bb2) ({2.212} 9. Be3) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.211 9 Bb2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nh6 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Nf5 9. Bb2 Bd7 {. There are some move order issues here. The text prevents 10
Bd3 because Black would capture on d4.} ({Although} 9... Be7 {has been played
by strong GMs, it allows Bd3, and some players prefer to have the e7-square
for the knight to retreat to after White's g4. Still, 9...Be7 has its own
advantages and my choice here is to some extent a matter of taste.}) 10. g4 {
All the leading players and theoreticians treat this move as the most important 
one. Nevertheless, White's options have a lot of practical value, and from
them we can learn the typical themes associated with this variation.} ({(a)} 
10. b5 $6 Na5 {gives up the c4-square too easily:} 11. Nc3 (11. a4 a6 12. Nc3
Bb4 13. bxa6 bxa6 14. Be2 Rc8 $17 {Hitzker-Kaland, Pinneberg 1992}) 11... Rc8
12. Na4 Qd8 13. Rc1 Rxc1 14. Qxc1 a6 (14... Nc4 $1 15. Bxc4 Qa5+ $15) 15. Nc5
$2 (15. Nc3 $15) 15... Bxb5 16. Bxb5+ axb5 17. O-O Nc4 $17 {
Marszalek-Beyen, Leningrad 1960.}) ({(b)} 10. Qd3 Rc8 $1 {
threatens ...Bxb4. The tactics tend to favour Black; e.g.} 11. Bc3 a5 $5 ({
continuing to develop by} 11... Be7 {also secures the better game after} 12.
Be2 O-O 13. O-O a6 $15 {, when White should avoid the natural} 14. Nbd2 $2 Nxb4
$1 {intending ...Bb5}) (11... a6 {has similar ideas}) 12. b5 Ncxd4 $1 {
(Black's lead in development lets him get away with this)} 13. Bxd4 (13. Nxd4
Rxc3 14. Nxc3 Qxd4 15. Qxd4 Nxd4 $15 {; e.g.} 16. Bd3 Be7 17. O-O Nb3 18. Ra2
Nc5 19. Rd1 f6) 13... Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Bc5 15. Qb2 Bxf2+ 16. Kd1 {
, and a pretty line goes} f6 $1 17. exf6 O-O 18. fxg7 $2 Rxf3 19. gxf3 Qe3 20.
Be2 Bxb5 $1 {, winning.}) ({(c)} 10. h4 {is a modern treatment. The idea is to
play h5 and g4 to establish a large space advantage on the kingside. In the
meantime, Black knight's is denied access to g6 after a retreat to e7.
Nevertheless, Black has well-placed pieces and good options:} -- (10... h5 {
stops g4 and h5 while preparing queenside play; for example,} 11. g4 (11. Be2
Rc8 12. O-O Be7 13. g3 Na5) 11... Rc8 {(intending ...Na5)} (11... Be7 12. Bh3
g6 {is also fine}) 12. Qd2 (12. Bh3 a5 13. gxf5 exf5 14. Nc3 axb4 {
with the idea} 15. Nxd5 $4 Qb5 16. Nf4 bxa3 17. Bc1 Nb4) 12... Be7 (12... g6
13. Be2 Bh6 14. Qd3 Na5 $15) 13. Bh3 a5 14. gxf5 exf5 {
and the b-pawn will fall, in view of} 15. bxa5 $4 Nxa5 16. Bc3 Nb3 17. Qb2 Qb5
18. Ra2 Qd3 19. Qxb3 Qe4+ 20. Kf1 Qxf3 21. Kg1 f4 {
with an overwhelming position.}) (10... Rc8 {
(again, quick development is a reliable course)} 11. g4 Nh6 ({or} 11... Nfe7
12. Nc3 Na5 $1 13. Na4 Qc6 14. Nc5 Nc4 15. Bc1 {
, Movsesian-Haimovich, Panormo 2001, when} b6 $1 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 {
was a good way to establish an advantage}) 12. Rg1 Na5 $5 13. Nfd2 $6 (13. Nbd2
Nc4 14. Nxc4 dxc4 15. Rc1 a5 $11) 13... Be7 14. Bc3 Nc4 15. Nxc4 dxc4 16. Nd2
O-O $1 {, Kozak-Antonio, Las Vegas 1999, with advantage due to} 17. Nxc4 $2
Rxc4 $1 18. Bxc4 Qc7 $17 {.})) ({(d)} 10. Be2 {. White frequently plays this.
Now 10...h5 has been played, but we'll look at two equally good moves:} -- (
10... Be7 {is solid; e.g.} 11. O-O O-O {and:} 12. -- (12. Qd2 f6 13. g4 (13.
exf6 Bxf6 14. Ne5 Be8 $1 $17 {S.Lalic-N.Berry, British League 2001}) 13... Nh6
14. exf6 Rxf6 15. g5 Rxf3 16. Bxf3 Nf5 {
wins the d-pawn with a powerful attack against White's weakened kingside.}) (
12. Bd3 g6 $1 $11 {intending to recapture on f5 with the g-pawn; this is
particularly safe when White's bishop is offside on b2.})) (10... Rc8 11. O-O
Be7 {transposes into a position we looked at in Section 2.11. After} 12. Qd2 --
({, Black played the solid move} 12... O-O {.}) ({
. But it's also possible to play aggressively with} 12... h5 {
, intending to drive White back by ...g5-g4; e.g.} 13. Rd1 (13. Rc1 g5 $5 14.
Nxg5 Ncxd4 15. Rxc8+ Bxc8 $11) 13... g5 $1 14. Ne1 (14. Nxg5 $2 Ncxd4 15. Bxd4
Nxd4 16. Qxd4 Qxd4 17. Rxd4 Bxg5 $17 18. f4 Bd8 $1 {
, threatening ...Bb6, when Black has the two bishops and control of the c-file}
) (14. Nc3 $6 g4 15. Ne1 {, Grosar-Tukmakov, Bled 2001, and now simply} Ncxd4
16. Nxd5 Nxe2+ 17. Qxe2 exd5 {
was strong, since White nearly has to enter the variation} 18. e6 Qxe6 19. Qxe6
Bxe6 20. Bxh8 f6 21. Rac1 Rb8 $1 {followed by ...Kf7 trapping the bishop}) (14.
Bc3 a6 15. Ne1 f6 $1 16. Nc2 {, Sevillano-Clawitter, Los Angeles 2012,} fxe5
17. dxe5 g4 {with good prospects}) 14... g4 15. Nc2 (15. Bc3 a6 16. Nc2 Rg8 17.
a4 Bg5 $15 {Savic-Kosic, Vrsac 2000}) 15... Na5 $1 16. Ra2 Nc4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4
$15 {Gruzmann-Goczo, Budapest 1998.}))) ({(e)} 10. Nc3 $6 Nfxd4 11. Nxd4 Qxd4 (
11... Nxd4 12. Nxd5) 12. Qxd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd5 Nc2+ 14. Kd2 Rc8 15. Rc1 Nxa3 {
favours Black; e.g.} 16. Rxc8+ (16. Nc7+ Kd8 17. Nxe6+ Bxe6 18. Rxc8+ Kxc8 19.
Bxa3 Be7 $15 {with the idea ...a5/...Kb8 and ...Rc8 or ...Rd8 - Vitiugov})
16... Bxc8 17. Bxa3 exd5 18. Bd3 Be7 $15 {.}) 10... Nh6 {Here we arrive at a
key position for theory. Both retreats are considered good. --- With the text
move, Black not only targets g4 and wins time, but keeps a diagonal open for
his f8-bishop. A central counterattack with ...f6 can increase in force
because the h6-knight can come to f7, with pressure on e5, and gain access to
the influential square d6 should the e5-pawn be exchanged on f6. There are
other positive features, too. --- The two main disadvantages of 10...Nh6, as
opposed to 10...Nfe7, are that the knight doesn't control a central square (in
many variations the d5-pawn disappears and a knight would like to go there),
and White's weaknesses on f4 and h4 are not targeted (as they would be after ...Nfe7-g6). Fortunately, 10...Nh6 doesn't require a great deal of theory to
play well, although, as in all openings, knowing some theoretical positions is
useful.} ({If for some reason 10...Nh6 doesn't work out, you should know that} 
10... Nfe7 {is also fine. Black intends moves such as ...h5 (to regain the
f5-square) and ...Ng6 (probing the weakened f4 and preparing ...Be7/...0-0/...f6). Black has a number of other ideas in the air such as ...Na5-c4 (upon a
capture on c4, the e7-knight can go to d5), ...Nc8-b6, and ...a5. The main
problem is that 10...Nge7 has become theoretically dense and requires more
memorization.}) 11. h3 ({White loses a pawn after} 11. Bh3 $2 a5 $1 {.}) ({
Instead, 11 h3 has been the main move, although in the last couple of years,
several grandmasters have played} 11. Rg1 {. That includes Sveshnikov (the king
of 6 a3 theory and practice), who says: 'I do not think that 11 h3 is in any
way better than this move'. The logic is that White retains the move h4,
prepares g5 in case of an ...f6 break, and can swing the rook into action via
g3. The price for these opportunities is the loss of castling (a handy escape
measure) and the fact that h4 is less well defended. Black can simply develop
with 11...Be7 and ...Rc8, before deciding upon the best response to White's
set-up. But here are two more direct and interesting challenges:} -- (11... Rc8
{(Sveshnikov likes this and gives it an '!')} 12. Nc3 Na5 13. Na4 ({
Sveshnikov gives} 13. Nd2 Be7 14. Na4 Bxa4 15. Qxa4+ Nc6 {; this looks equal})
13... Qc6 $1 14. Nc5 (14. Rc1 Nc4 15. Bxc4 dxc4 16. Nc5 b6 17. Nxd7 Qxd7 {
and ...b5 with good prospects, Sigfusson-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 2004}) 14...
Nc4 15. Bc1 (15. Bc3 b6 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Bd3 {is unclear, according to
Sveshnikov; Black has time for ...Ng8-e7, ...g6/ ...Bg7 and ...0-0}) 15... Ng8
16. Bd3 (16. Rg3 {- Sveshnikov; then} Bxc5 $1 17. bxc5 b6 $15 {
retains Black's structural advantage}) 16... Bxc5 17. dxc5 (17. bxc5 b6 18.
cxb6 axb6 $15) 17... b6 ({or} 17... Ne7 $1 18. Kf1 b6) 18. Bxc4 {½-½ Sveshnikov-G.Dizdar, Slovenian Team Ch. 2005; Black has a comfortable advantage
following} dxc4 19. Be3 Qb7 $1 20. Kf1 Ne7 {, when White is suffering on the
light squares; ...h5, ...Bc6, and ...Nd5 are among the ways Black can make
progress.}) (11... f6 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Nc3 Nf7 {. This popular position is
unbalanced and unclear. Black has a central majority and apparently easy
development, but White has more territory and queenside pressure beginning
with Na4-c5. A couple of snippets from this much-discussed position:} 14. -- (
14. Rc1 Bh6 15. Na4 (15. Rc2 Ne7 16. h4 Bf4 $5 17. Bd3 h6 18. Re2 {, Lautier-C.Bauer, French Ch. 2002, shortly drawn; Black could have spiced thing up with}
O-O-O $1) 15... Qd8 16. Rc3 (16. g5 {
- Sveshnikov; but he doesn't look at the simple} fxg5 $1) 16... b6 17. h4 Ne7
$1 18. g5 (18. b5 O-O 19. g5 fxg5 20. hxg5 Bg7) 18... fxg5 19. Nxg5 Nf5 $1 {.})
(14. Na4 {has been tested a lot:} Qc7 15. Rc1 Qf4 $1 16. Nc5 ({
Li Shilong-Goh Wei Ming, Singapore 2006, went} 16. Rc3 {
, when Black speculated by} Nxb4 $5 (16... b6 $1 {was equal}) 17. axb4 Bxb4 18.
Nc5 $5 (18. Be2 $14) 18... Rc8 19. Be2 {, and now Li Shilong suggested} b6 $1
20. Nd3 Bxc3+ 21. Bxc3 Qc7 $1 $11) 16... Bxc5 {
. Both of White's recaptures have merit:} 17. -- (17. Rxc5 Ng5 18. Nxg5 (18.
Be2 $11) 18... fxg5 19. Bc1 $6 (19. Qd3 O-O 20. Qe3 $11 {Wei Ming}) 19... Qxd4
20. Qxd4 Nxd4 21. Rg3 {, Sveshnikov-Malakhatko, Moscow 2007; and} Rf8 22. Bg2
b6 $1 23. Rc7 Nb5 24. Rc2 a5 $15 {was one way to secure a limited advantage.})
(17. dxc5 Nfe5 $5 (17... Nce5 $1 {is somewhat more accurate, when} 18. Rg3 ({
as opposed to} 18. Nxe5 {
of Short-Lputian, Batumi 1999, when McDonald notes that} fxe5 $1 {is good})
18... Nxg4 {is equal}) (17... Rf8 $5 {should also be considered}) 18. Nxe5 $6 (
18. Rg3 $1 Nxg4 $5 19. h3 Nge5 20. b5 $1 $14) 18... fxe5 19. Qd2 (19. Rg3 $2
O-O 20. Rc2 Nd4 $1 21. Bxd4 exd4 {, Haznedaroglu-Malakhatko, Panevezys 2008})
19... Qxd2+ 20. Kxd2 O-O 21. Ke1 {, Sveshnikov-Berend, Turin Olympiad 2006, and
} Nd4 $1 22. Bxd4 exd4 {
followed shortly by ...e5 affords Black the better prospects.})))) 11... f6 ({
Black can also use piece play to make progress:} 11... Rc8 12. Nc3 Na5 13. Na4
Qc6 14. Rc1 (14. Nc5 Nc4 15. Bc1 Ng8 16. Bd3 Bxc5 17. dxc5 b6 $15 {
Haba-G.Dizdar, German League 1991}) 14... Nc4 15. Bxc4 (15. Rxc4 $6 dxc4 16.
Nc3 Qb6 17. Bg2 a5 $17 {Shirov-Sadvakasov, Astana 2001}) 15... dxc4 16. Nc5 Ng8
$5 (16... b6 17. Nxd7 Qxd7 $11) 17. Nxd7 Qxd7 18. Nd2 Qd5 19. O-O h5 20. gxh5
g6 $1 {with excellent squares for Black's pieces.}) 12. Nc3 ({Others: -- (a)} 
12. Bd3 fxe5 (12... Nf7 13. Nbd2 a5 $1 14. b5 Ne7 15. a4 Ng6 16. Bxg6 hxg6 {
was unclear in Wiersma-Malakhatko, Belgian Team Ch. 2005, but I think at least
equal for Black}) 13. Nxe5 $6 (13. dxe5 Nf7 14. O-O Be7 15. Nbd2 Rc8 16. Nb3
O-O 17. Rc1 a5 18. Nxa5 ({or here} 18. b5 a4 $1 19. bxc6 bxc6) 18... Nxa5 19.
Rxc8 Rxc8 $11) 13... Nxe5 14. dxe5 Nf7 15. O-O {, Hollrigl-Van der Weide,
Lichtenstein 1999; and Black should get some advantage from} Bc5 $5 {
(with the ideas ...Bd4 or ...Ng5)} 16. Be2 Ng5 17. Kg2 O-O 18. h4 Ne4 $15 {.})
({(b)} 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Bd3 (13. Nc3 Nf7 {transposes to the next note}) 13...
Nf7 14. Nc3 $1 (14. Nbd2 $6 a5 15. b5 Ne7 16. a4 Ng6 $15) 14... Nxd4 ({or} 
14... h5 15. gxh5 Rxh5 16. Na4 Qd8 $11) 15. Nxd5 $1 Nxf3+ 16. Qxf3 exd5 17.
Bxf6 Be7 18. Bxh8 Qe6+ $1 19. Qe2 Qxe2+ 20. Kxe2 Nxh8 21. Bxh7 Kf7 {is unclear,
with Black's strong bishops balancing out White's rook and passed pawns; e.g.}
22. f4 Ng6 23. Bxg6+ Kxg6 24. Kf3 d4 $5 25. Kg3 Ba4 26. h4 Rc8 27. h5+ Kh7 28.
g5 Rc3+ 29. Kg4 d3 {.}) 12... fxe5 (12... Nf7 13. exf6 (13. Na4 Qd8 14. Bd3
fxe5 15. dxe5 Ng5 $1 $11) 13... gxf6 14. Na4 Qc7 {
(to control the weak square f4 in conjunction with ...Bd6)} 15. Nc5 Bxc5 16.
dxc5 (16. bxc5 O-O-O {intending ...e5}) 16... Qf4 17. Be2 Nfe5 {(with mutual
chances: White's bishop pair is offset by Black's 2:0 central majority)} 18.
Nxe5 (18. Rg1 a5 $1 19. b5 Nxf3+ 20. Bxf3 Ne5 $11) 18... fxe5 19. Bc1 $1 Qf6 (
19... Qd4 20. Bh6 $1 Qc3+ 21. Kf1 {
is absolutely unclear; the bishops-versus-centre battle continues}) 20. O-O $5
{(risky-looking, but Black has no immediate way to open lines)} Nd4 21. f4 O-O
$5 {with complications.}) 13. dxe5 (13. Na4 Qd8 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Be7 {
gives Black good dark-square control.}) 13... Be7 ({Or} 13... Nf7 14. Na4 Qd8 {
.}) 14. Na4 Qd8 15. Rc1 O-O 16. Nc5 Bxc5 ({Or} 16... Nf7 17. Bg2 Bxc5 18. Rxc5
{, transposing.}) 17. Rxc5 Nf7 (17... Qe7 {
intends ...a5 or ...Nf7-g5. Then, for example,} 18. Rc1 Rf4 $11 {,} ({or} 18...
Nxb4 $5 19. g5 $1 Nf5 20. axb4 Nh4 $1 {is unclear.})) 18. Bg2 b6 ({Or} 18...
Qe7 19. Rc1 Nh8 $1 {with the idea ...Ng6-f4.}) (18... Qb6 $5 {.}) 19. Rc1 ({
Likewise} 19. Rc2 Ne7 20. Qd2 Nh8 {intending ...Neg6-f4/...Nhg6.}) 19... Ne7
20. Qd2 Ng6 21. h4 $6 {. Rather slow;} ({although} 21. O-O Nfh8 $1 {
followed by ...Nf4 and ...Nhg6 is hardly desirable for White.}) (21. h4 {
is Sveshnikov-Lputian, Sochi 1993, which continued} Nh6 $1 22. g5 Ng4 23. Bh3
Rxf3 $5 ({after} 23... Rf4 $1 {Black has the advantage because of his outposts}
) 24. Bxg4 Rf4 25. f3 {, and Black would still have the better of it after} Rf8
{.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.212 9 Be3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nh6 7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4
Nf5 9. Be3 {. White tries to shore up his centre at the cost of the bishop
pair. This is less important than 9 Bb2, but is popular enough to warrant
close attention.} f6 {The most irritating move for White, because he has to
choose between a line in which Black has a drawing option, which is not an
inspiring result, or try to get more, although that can easily lead to a
disadvantage. Black has legitimate alternatives at this point.} ({(a)} 9...
Nxe3 10. fxe3 g6 {is a natural approach, still thinking about ...f6 but with
an eye on the queenside as well; for example,} 11. Bd3 Bh6 $5 ({
I actually prefer} 11... Bd7 {first, waiting until White castles so that h4-h5
has less effect - this will usually transpose, but} 12. Qe2 Rc8 13. O-O Bh6 $11
{, say, is a good move order}) 12. Qe2 O-O 13. g4 $5 {
(a critical attempt to cramp Black on the kingside)} (13. O-O {is easily met by
} Ne7 ({whereas in Berg Jensen-V.Potkin, Chalkidiki 2000, Black went for the
more ambitious} 13... f6 $5 14. exf6 Rxf6 15. Kh1 Bd7 16. Nc3 {
, when the simple reorganization} Qc7 17. Rac1 Qd6 {keeps the position level})
14. Nc3 Bd7 $11) (13. h4 $1 {
is dangerous and best - it's easiest to avoid this with the 11...Bd7 order})
13... f6 $5 14. exf6 e5 $1 15. g5 (15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Bxe3 $17) 15... e4
16. gxh6 exd3 17. Qxd3 (17. Qg2 $1 Rxf6 18. Nc3 Qd8 $11) 17... Rxf6 18. O-O Bh3
19. Rf2 Raf8 20. Nbd2 Nd8 $1 $15 {intending ...Nf7.}) ({(b) To create a more
positional contest, Black may want to try to block the kingside by ...f5, or
at least tailor the ...f6/...f5 decision to White's set-up:} 9... Be7 {
, for example, and in White's array of replies we see many of the characteristic
ideas of this line.} 10. -- (10. b5 $6 Na5 {
intends a quick ...Bd7, ...Nc4, and ...Rc8.}) (10. g4 $6 {allows} Nxe3 11. fxe3
f6 $1 $15 {.}) (10. Nc3 f6 $5 11. Na4 Qc7 12. exf6 Bxf6 13. Rc1 Qd6 14. Bd3
Nxe3 15. fxe3 O-O 16. b5 Ne7 $11 {.}) (10. Nbd2 Nxe3 11. fxe3 f5 {and now:} 12.
-- (12. exf6 Bxf6 13. Bd3 (13. Ng5 $2 Nxd4 $1 14. exd4 Qxd4 {, winning}) 13...
e5 $1 14. b5 $1 (14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Qxe3+ 16. Qe2 Qxe5 $17) 14... Nd8 15.
dxe5 Qxe3+ 16. Qe2 Qxe2+ 17. Bxe2 Be7 18. O-O Ne6 {
with the bishop pair and good play.}) (12. Bd3 O-O 13. Nb3 (13. O-O a5 14. b5
Nd8 15. a4 Bd7 16. Nb3 Nf7 17. Qe2 Rac8 18. Rfc1 Bb4) 13... a5 14. b5 a4 $1 15.
Nbd2 Nd8 16. O-O Bd7 17. Qb1 Nf7 18. Rc1 g5 $1 {
, intending ...g4 and ...Ng5 or ...h5-h4.})) (10. Bd3 Nxe3 11. fxe3 f5 $5 ({or
} 11... Bd7 12. Nc3 Rc8 13. Na4 Qd8) 12. exf6 (12. O-O a5 13. b5 Nd8 14. Nc3
Nf7 $11) 12... Bxf6 13. Nc3 (13. Ng5 Bxd4 $1 14. exd4 Qxd4 15. Qh5+ Ke7 $1 16.
Qf7+ Kd6 $19) (13. O-O a5 $1 {with the idea} 14. b5 $2 Nxd4 $1) 13... O-O 14.
O-O g6 15. Qc2 {, M.Carlsen-Lahlum, Gausdal 2001; and} Ne7 $1 {
followed by ...Bd7 and ...Rac8 is equal.})) 10. Bd3 {A direct move which
virtually forces Black into sharp lines, though it turns out that the
alternatives are also extremely complex.} ({(a)} 10. b5 Nxe5 $1 11. dxe5 Nxe3
12. fxe3 Qxe3+ (12... fxe5 $5 {can be used to avoid the draw - this is
obviously risky and objectively ought to be a bit better for White, although
Black can use his bishops and centre to generate play; e.g.} 13. e4 $1 ({
the idea was} 13. Nxe5 $4 Qxe3+ 14. Qe2 Qc1+ 15. Qd1 Qb2) 13... Bc5 ({here} 
13... dxe4 14. Nfd2 Bc5 15. Nxe4 Bd4 {is another way to speculate}) 14. Qd3 $1
Bf2+ 15. Kd1 O-O 16. Nbd2 Rd8 {intending ...Bd7-e8-g6}) 13. Qe2 (13. Be2 $2
fxe5 {is bad, leaving Black with two bishops and the centre}) {
. Now Black can either accede to a draw or take chances:} 13... -- (13... Qc1+
14. Qd1 {, when Cumbers has suggested} Qb2 (14... Qe3+ 15. Qe2 Qc1+ {
etc is a draw}) 15. Nbd2 fxe5 ({the quick-developing} 15... Be7 $5 {
may be better}) 16. Rb1 Qxa3 17. Nxe5 {, when to avoid a draw Black might play}
Qc3 18. Nd3 $1 (18. Nef3 Bd6 19. Be2 Qc5 $1) 18... Bd6 $5 ({or} 18... g6) 19.
Qh5+ (19. Qf3 Rf8 20. Qh5+ g6 21. Qxh7 Qf6 22. Qh6 e5 $11) 19... g6 20. Qh6 Qf6
{about equal.}) (13... Qxe2+ $5 14. Bxe2 fxe5 15. Nxe5 Bd6 {gets two pawns for
the piece and prepares an ...e5 advance. Again, this would probably be played
only if Black wants to avoid a draw. There might follow} 16. Nf3 O-O 17. O-O
Bd7 18. Nbd2 Rac8 {, intending ...e5. Black only has two pawns for the piece
but they are mobile passed central pawns and his bishop pair can be effective.}
)) ({(b)} 10. exf6 gxf6 {
gives up White's central advantage in return for quick development.} 11. -- ({
. Now not} 11. Qd2 $2 Nxb4 $1 {.}) (11. Bd3 Nxe3 12. fxe3 Bh6 (12... e5 13. Nc3
Be6 {is playable}) ({, as is} 12... Bd7 {, transposing to 11...Bd7 below}) 13.
Qe2 a5 (13... O-O 14. Nc3 Ne7 $1) 14. b5 Ne7 15. Nc3 O-O 16. O-O e5 $11 {
Maximov-Sengupta, Pardubice 2011.}) (11. Nc3 Nxe3 12. fxe3 Bh6 {
has been seen a fair amount; for example,} 13. Qd3 (13. Qd2 O-O 14. Bd3 Ne7 15.
Na4 $5 ({to avoid} 15. O-O e5 $1) 15... Qc6 $11) (13. Kf2 O-O 14. Bd3 $6 Ne5 $1
$15 {Nilsson-Fernandez Romero, Dos Hermanas 2002}) 13... O-O ({or} 13... a5 14.
Na4 Qd8 15. b5 Ne7 16. Kf2 O-O 17. g3 {
, Velitshko-Vyoshin, Zaporozhie 2010; and now} e5 $1) 14. Be2 Bd7 15. Na4 (15.
O-O Ne7 $1) 15... Ne5 $1 16. Nxb6 Nxd3+ 17. Bxd3 axb6 18. Ke2 {
, Gruic-Arkhipov, Belgrade 1990, and} e5 $15 {is simplest.})) 10... Nxe3 11.
fxe3 fxe5 (11... Bd7 $5 {is a sound option:} 12. exf6 gxf6 13. Nc3 Bh6 14. Qe2
Ne7 (14... O-O {is simpler}) 15. O-O (15. Ne5 fxe5 16. Qh5+ Kd8 17. Qxh6 Rc8 {
was fine for Black in Jonkman-San Segundo Carrillo, Mondariz 2000}) 15... O-O
16. Kh1 Rac8 17. Nd1 $6 Bg7 18. Nf2 e5 ({or} 18... Rc3 $1) 19. dxe5 fxe5 20. e4
d4 $15 {Morozevich-Bareev, Monaco (blindfold rapid) 2002.}) 12. b5 Nxd4 $5 ({
Oddly,} 12... e4 {is generally queried, but it looks satisfactory after} 13.
bxc6 exf3 $1 14. Qxf3 $1 bxc6 15. Nd2 Qa5 16. Ra2 Ba6 {
, which is unclear but balanced.}) 13. exd4 e4 14. Bxe4 $1 ({Rather than} 14.
Ne5 $2 Qxd4) ({or} 14. O-O $2 exf3 15. Rf2 ({or} 15. Qxf3 Qxd4+) 15... Bd6 {
with a winning position.}) 14... dxe4 15. Ne5 Bd7 {
Again Black has alternatives that equalize.} ({(a)} 15... g6 16. O-O (16. Nc3
Bg7 17. Nxe4 O-O {and White can't castle, while} 18. Nf3 Qxb5 {means trouble})
16... Bg7 17. Kh1 Bxe5 18. dxe5 Qxb5 19. Nc3 Qxe5 20. Qb3 (20. Qc2 Rf8 21. Nxe4
Bd7 22. Rfe1 Bc6 {is dynamically equal}) 20... b6 21. Rad1 {
, Hurley-T.Clarke, Irish Ch. 1996; and now Cumbers and McDonald analyse} Bb7 {
, when I think White should bail out with} 22. Qa4+ $1 b5 23. Nxb5 Bc6 $11 {
; e.g.} 24. Nc7+ $1 Qxc7 25. Qc4 Qc8 26. Qd4 Rf8 27. Rxf8+ Kxf8 28. Qh8+ Kf7
29. Qxh7+ Ke8 {, which leads to a perpetual.}) ({(b)} 15... e3 16. Nc3 e2 $1 {
is less tested, when White went wrong by} 17. Qd3 $6 ({better was} 17. Nxe2 $1
Qa5+ 18. Qd2 Qxd2+ 19. Kxd2 Bd7 $11 {with ...Bd6 next}) 17... Bd6 18. Kxe2 Bxe5
19. dxe5 Bd7 $15 {in Filimonov-Eraschenkov, Sukhumi 2007.}) 16. O-O $6 ({Not} 
16. Qh5+ $2 g6 17. Nxg6 O-O-O $1 18. Nxh8 Qxd4 19. Ra2 Bxb5 $1 {and wins.}) ({
But} 16. Nc3 $1 Rc8 17. Qh5+ g6 18. Nxg6 hxg6 19. Qxg6+ {draws after} Ke7 20.
Qg5+ Ke8 21. Qg6+ Ke7 22. Qg5+ {.}) 16... O-O-O 17. Nc3 {
. This is Potkin-Filippov, Togliatti 2003.} -- ({The game continued} 17... Bc5
$6 18. Na4 Bxd4+ 19. Kh1 {, leading to equality.}) ({Instead,} 17... Be8 $1 {
secures Black's advantage; e.g.} 18. Ne2 Kb8 19. Kh1 Bd6 20. Nf7 Bxf7 21. Rxf7
e5 $1 ({or} 21... Rhf8 22. Rxg7 e5 $1 $17) 22. d5 (22. Rxg7 $2 exd4 {is killing
}) 22... Rhf8 $1 ({or} 22... e3 23. Rxg7 Rhf8 {followed by ...Rf2}) 23. Rxg7
Rf2 {and White has insufficient resources; for example,} 24. a4 e3 25. Rxh7 $6
(25. a5 Qxb5 26. a6 $1 Ka8 $1 27. Rxb7 Qc4 28. Ng3 Rdf8 {
with ...e2 and/or ...Qxd5}) 25... e4 (25... Bc5 {
, threatening ...Qg6, also wins}) 26. Rc1 Be5 27. d6 Qxd6 28. Qxd6+ Bxd6 29.
Nc3 e2 30. Rg1 Bb4 {, winning.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2.22 8 Bxh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 Nh6 7. b4 cxd4 8. Bxh6
gxh6 9. cxd4 {. This is a fascinating line in which White fractures the black
kingside, and does so by exchanging his bad dark-squared bishop, which can be
a problem piece. On the other hand, that piece can be an important defender of
d4 and e5, exemplifying the maxim that 'bad bishops protect good pawns'.
Black's position has its own trade-offs: he has to deal with weaknesses on f6,
h6, and h5, but he gets the bishop pair and is able to develop actively. His
initial plan is to play ...Bg7, ...0-0, and ...f6, contesting those dark
squares which can no longer count upon the support of a white bishop.
Moskalenko calls 8 Bxh6 'weak', but Sveshnikov likes it. In the end, I suspect
that this capture and 8 cxd4 are worth about the same.} Bd7 {I like the fact
that this move prevents 10 Bd3 (due to 10...Nxd4) and it probably needs to be
played anyway. 9...Bd7 also clears the c-file, so that 10 Nc3 can be met by 10.
..Nxb4! (see below, and note that the bishop hasn't gone to g7 in this case).}
10. Be2 ({Instead: -- (a) The natural move} 10. Nc3 $2 {allows} Nxb4 $1 11.
axb4 Bxb4 {, when Black's attack on c3 has no adequate answer, even against a
heroic defence, showing the value of delaying the f8-bishop's development. One
line goes} 12. Qb3 Rc8 13. Rc1 Qa5 14. Kd2 O-O {
(threatening ...Rc7 and ...Rfc8, as well as ...f6 and ...fxe5 if needed)} 15.
Bd3 Ba4 16. Qb2 Rc7 17. Ng1 f6 $1 18. exf6 (18. f4 fxe5 19. fxe5 Qb6 $1) 18...
Rxf6 19. Nge2 (19. Nf3 e5 $1 20. dxe5 Rb6) 19... e5 $1 20. f3 exd4 21. Nxd4 Qc5
{, winning; e.g.} 22. Nde2 Re6 {.}) ({(b) Sveshnikov is enthusiastic about} 10.
Ra2 {, with the idea of playing Rc2 and Nc3 (partly to defang ...Nxb4), as
well as defending f2 versus Black's idea of ...a5/...Nxd4/...Bc5 (see below).
White's development is retarded, however, and several reactions look promising,
including:} -- (10... Rg8 {is the somewhat offbeat approach, but it looks fine:
} 11. h3 {(versus ...Rg4)} h5 $1 {
. Black holds down White's kingside pawns and frees h6 for his bishop:} 12. g3
(12. Rc2 Nxb4 $1) 12... h4 $5 (12... a6 13. Be2 h4 14. g4 h5 15. g5 Qd8 $1 16.
Nc3 Be7 17. Rg1 Bxg5 18. Qb1 Rg7 {with unclear complications}) 13. g4 ({or} 13.
gxh4 h5 14. Be2 Ne7 {; e.g.} 15. Nc3 ({or} 15. Bd3 a5 16. b5 a4 $1 17. Nc3 Ng6)
15... Nf5 16. Na4 Bxa4 $1 17. Qxa4+ Kd8) 13... h5 14. gxh5 Bh6 $5 (14... Ne7)
15. Qd3 $1 Ne7 16. Qh7 Bf8 17. Nc3 a5 $11 {.}) (10... a6 11. Rc2 Na7 {
isn't ambitious, but simplification gets rid of Black's bad bishop; for example,
} 12. Nc3 a5 13. Be2 Nb5 $5 14. Nxb5 Bxb5 15. Bxb5+ Qxb5 16. Qe2 Qxe2+ 17. Kxe2
axb4 18. axb4 Be7 $5 19. Rc7 Ra7 20. b5 Bd8 21. Rc2 Kd7 $11 {.}) (10... Rc8 11.
Rc2 {is complex:} a5 12. b5 Na7 13. Rxc8+ Nxc8 14. Qc1 (14. Qb3 Qc7 15. Bd3
Qc1+ 16. Qd1 Qxd1+ 17. Kxd1 Nb6 18. Ke2 {
½-½ Sveshnikov-Malakhatko, Warsaw 2010}) 14... Rg8 $5 15. h3 {(versus ...Rg4). Sveshnikov calls this '+/='; but Black has nothing to fear and obtains
good chances by getting his queen to the c-file (and perhaps a knight to c4)
with} Kd8 $1 16. Nc3 (16. Qb2 Qc7 17. g3 Nb6 18. Be2 Nc4 $15) 16... Qc7 17. g3
Nb6 {(intending ...Na4)} 18. Qb2 h5 19. Nd2 f6 $1 20. exf6 h4 $1 21. g4 Rg6 $15
{with the idea ...Rxf6 and ...Qf4.})) 10... Rc8 {
Black again retains the ...Nxb4 idea while making a useful move.} ({Instead,} 
10... Rg8 {hasn't been played much, but whenever Black can attack the g-pawn
with tempo and thus get to g4, it should definitely be considered. Here Black
comes out with full-fledged play following} 11. O-O Rg4 $1 {(threatening d4)}
12. h3 (12. Nbd2 Nxd4 13. Bd3 Rc8 $1 14. h3 Rf4 {- Sveshnikov}) 12... Rf4 13.
g3 Rxf3 14. Bxf3 Qxd4 15. Qxd4 Nxd4 16. Bh5 (16. Bd1 a5 $1 17. bxa5 Rxa5) 16...
a5 {'with compensation' - Sveshnikov. The game is balanced after} 17. Nc3 Rc8
18. Ne2 $1 Nc6 $1 19. Rfc1 axb4 20. axb4 Rb8 21. Nf4 $1 Nxe5 22. Nxd5 exd5 23.
Re1 Bd6 24. f4 Be6 25. fxe5 Bxb4 $11 {. If Black is worried, he always has ...
d4 and ...Bc3. Thus 10...Rg8 might prove to be a relatively easy solution to
this line.}) 11. O-O Bg7 12. Qd2 $5 {Keeping an eye on the dark squares.} ({
Since moves by the b1-knight lose the d-pawn, here are the alternatives: -- (a)
} 12. Qd3 {isn't quite what White wants after} f6 $1 13. exf6 (13. b5 Nxe5 $1
14. dxe5 fxe5 $15 {and ...e4 follows, R.Diaz-Orsini, Buenos Aires 2006}) 13...
Bxf6 14. Rd1 Nxd4 $1 ({or} 14... O-O 15. b5 Ne7 16. Nc3 Nf5 17. Rac1 Qd6 {
with easy play}) 15. Nxd4 Ba4 16. Nc3 (16. Rd2 $2 Rc4) 16... Bxd1 17. Nxd5 $1
exd5 18. Qe3+ Kd8 $5 (18... Kf7 19. Rxd1 Rhd8 {may give Black a small edge})
19. Ne6+ Kd7 20. Nc5+ Qxc5 21. bxc5 Bxe2 22. Qh3+ Kd8 23. Qg3 $1 Bxa1 24. Qd6+
$11 {(Sveshnikov).}) ({(b)} 12. b5 {is White's safest move. Then} Ne7 {
is playable,} ({but seizing c4 by} 12... Na5 {is more aggressive; e.g.} 13. a4
O-O 14. Nbd2 f6 15. Bd3 (15. Rc1 fxe5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. dxe5 Qd4 18. Nf3 Qxd1
19. Rfxd1 Nb3 $1 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Kf1 Be8 $11 {intending ...Bg6}) 15... Rc3
16. Qb1 {
is assessed as better for White by Sveshnikov, but Black holds his own after}
f5 17. Rc1 Rxc1+ ({or} 17... Rfc8) 18. Qxc1 Rc8 19. Qd1 Qc7 $11 {.})) 12... O-O
{This plans ...f6 and reserves tactics such as ...Nxd4 for later.} ({
The immediate} 12... Nxd4 $5 {is also interesting:} 13. Nxd4 $1 (13. Qxd4 Qxd4
14. Nxd4 Bxe5 15. Nb3 Bxa1 16. Nxa1 Ba4 17. Nd2 Ke7 $17) 13... Bxe5 14. Rd1 Ba4
15. Qe3 $1 Bg7 16. Nc3 Bxd1 17. Rxd1 O-O {. The material isn't bad, but
White's minor pieces give him a small edge in a wide open game.}) 13. Ra2 ({
This time} 13. Nc3 Nxd4 $1 {works:} 14. Nxd4 Bxe5 15. Rad1 Qxd4 $1 (15... Bxd4
16. Nxd5 Bxf2+ 17. Rxf2 exd5 18. Qxd5 Ba4 {
was roughly equal in Fressinet-Korchnoi, Cannes 1996}) 16. Nxd5 Qxd5 17. Qxd5
exd5 18. Rxd5 Bxh2+ 19. Kxh2 Rc7 20. Rfd1 Be6 21. R5d3 $11 {.}) 13... f6 14. b5
Ne7 {Planning ...Ng6 with an eye on both e5 and f4.} 15. exf6 (15. Bd3 {
is well met by} Ng6 {,} ({or} 15... fxe5 16. Nxe5 Be8 $1 {
, transposing to 17 Ne5?! Be8 below.})) 15... Bxf6 ({Or} 15... Rxf6 16. Nc3 Be8
(16... Rxf3 $5 17. Bxf3 Qxd4) 17. Rc1 Rf8 $1 {with chances for both sides.})
16. Bd3 Bg7 17. Nc3 $1 (17. Ne5 $6 Be8 $1 18. a4 Ng6 ({or} 18... Nf5 19. Bxf5
Rxf5 20. Re1 Bxe5 21. dxe5 Bg6 $15) {
, Bonay Toscas-Rodriguez Amezqueta, ICCF server 2005; and here} 19. Bxg6 hxg6
20. Qe3 Rf5 $15 {was best.}) 17... Rxf3 $5 18. gxf3 Qxd4 19. Ne2 Qh4 {
. This is objectively equal;} ({for example,} 19... Qh4 20. Rc1 (20. Qb4 Ng6)
20... Rxc1+ 21. Qxc1 Ng6 22. Qc7 (22. Bxg6 hxg6 23. a4 Be5 24. f4 Qg4+ $11)
22... Ne5 23. Qb8+ Kf7 24. Bxh7 Nxf3+ 25. Kg2 Qg4+ 26. Qg3 Nh4+ 27. Kf1 Nf3 $1
28. Kg2 Nh4+ $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3. Advance: 5...Nh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 {. A major point of 3 e5 is
that Black's king's knight is prevented from going to its optimal square f6,
and if it goes to e7, the knight obstructs Black's king's bishop. With 5...Nh6,
Black keeps a path for that bishop open and plays flexibly, not wishing to
commit his queen to b6 or his bishop to d7 before it's clear where those
pieces are best placed. --- Right away the question arises: what about 6 Bxh6
(or Bxh6 on one of the next few moves)? After all, this leaves Black with weak
doubled h-pawns as well as specific weaknesses on h5 and f6. It must have been
this possibility that for decades prevented 5...Nh6 from being played at
master level, or only very rarely. Today, however, allowing doubled rook pawns
has become much more common. Without minimizing the problems they entail, we
find that in many variations of the French they are compensated by other
advantages, namely: 1. Black gets the two bishops, a long-term advantage; 2.
Without his dark-squared bishop, White will find it difficult to attack
Black's king, and he will have one less defender of the key squares d4 and e5;
3. The move ...f6 gains in value, especially because Black can play ...Bg7
without loss of tempo and put more pressure on e5; 4. The open g-file can be
useful for one of Black's rooks and, since ...f6 will generally open the
f-file, Black can get a nice set of rooks staring down at White's kingside.
--- Assuming that White refrains from capturing the knight on h6, the main
advantage that ...Nh6 has over ...Nge7 is that Black now has the idea of ...Nf7. Specifically, the sequence ...f6, ...fxe5, ...Nf7, attacking e5, is a
concern for White. Furthermore, there will be lines in which White plays Qh5+
and Black renders it harmless by responding with ...Nf7. Finally, the knight
will sometimes go to g4; for example, to attack a pawn on e5 or bishop on e3.
--- White's logical replies are:} 6. -- ({3.1} 6. Be2) ({3.2} 6. Bd3) ({3.3} 6.
a3) ({3.4} 6. Bxh6) ({3.5} 6. Na3) ({3.6} 6. dxc5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.1 6 Be2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Be2 {. This isn't very
challenging, but it serves as an introduction to a few of Black's ideas.} Nf5 {
This is safe, effective, and arguably best.} ({Other moves: -- (a)} 6... cxd4
7. Bxh6 (7. cxd4 Qb6 ({or} 7... Nf5 8. Nc3 Qb6 {
transposes to 5...Qb6 6 Be2 in Chapter 1, section 1.411}) (7... f6 $5 {
would be a venturesome alternative})) 7... gxh6 8. cxd4 f6 $5 (8... Bg7 9. Nbd2
O-O 10. Nb3 f6 11. exf6 Qxf6 12. O-O) 9. O-O (9. exf6 Qxf6 10. O-O Bg7 {
transposes;} ({here} 10... Bd6 {is an alternative})) 9... Bg7 10. exf6 Qxf6 11.
Bb5 O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Nc3 c5 $1 14. dxc5 Rb8 15. Rb1 Rb4 $11 {; e.g.} 16.
Re1 Qg6 $1 17. Kh1 Bb7 {intending ...d4 and ...e5.}) ({(b)} 6... f6 {is a forth
right attempt to smash up White's centre. The first point is that Black aims
to play ...fxe5 and ...Nf7 in conjunction with ...Qc7. White should react
quickly; for example,} 7. O-O (7. exf6 Qxf6 8. Bg5 Qg6 9. O-O cxd4 10. cxd4 Bd6
11. Nc3 O-O $11) (7. Bxh6 gxh6 8. O-O cxd4 9. cxd4 {
transposes to 6...cxd4 above}) 7... Nf7 8. exf6 Qxf6 9. Re1 cxd4 10. cxd4 Bd6
11. Nc3 O-O {with double-edged play.}) 7. g4 $5 ({Not} 7. O-O $2 cxd4 8. cxd4
Qb6 {.}) ({Otherwise: -- (a)} 7. b3 $5 cxd4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Kf1 {
is not attractive; e.g.} O-O (9... Be7 10. Bb2 O-O 11. Na3 f6 $15 {
Aliabiev-Mesropov, Moscow 2001}) 10. g4 Nh4 11. Bg5 Be7 12. Bxh4 Bxh4 13. Kg2
f6 $1 14. Nxh4 fxe5 15. Nf3 exd4 {and ...e5 with advantage.}) ({(b)} 7. Bd3 $5
cxd4 8. Bxf5 exf5 9. cxd4 Be7 10. Nc3 Be6 {is a basic Advance Variation
position discussed in the previous chapter; here White has burned up a tempo
with Be2-d3 and Black should be happy with his position.}) ({(c)} 7. Na3 cxd4
8. cxd4 Bb4+ $1 9. Kf1 (9. Bd2 $6 Bxa3 10. bxa3 Nfxd4) 9... Be7 10. Nc2 O-O 11.
Ne3 Nh4 12. Nxh4 Bxh4 13. g3 Be7 14. Kg2 f6 15. f4 Bd7 $15 {.}) 7... Nh4 8.
Nxh4 Qxh4 9. Be3 Bd7 10. O-O ({Or} 10. Nd2 cxd4 11. Nf3 Qd8 (11... Qxg4 12. Rg1
Qxg1+ $1 13. Nxg1 dxe3 $15 {
- Moskalenko; this would be a serious practical advantage at any rate}) 12.
cxd4 h5 (12... Qb6 $5) 13. gxh5 Rxh5 14. h4 Ne7 15. Ng5 {
, Kupreichik-Moskalenko, Lvov 1988; and} Rh6 16. Bd3 Nf5 17. Bxf5 exf5 {
should favour Black.}) 10... Qd8 ({Here} 10... h5 $5 11. g5 f6 $5) ({and} 10...
f6 11. f4 cxd4 12. cxd4 Be7 13. Nc3 O-O {are sound alternatives.}) ({After} 
10... Qd8 {, Sax-Glek, German League 1994, continued} 11. Nd2 Qb6 12. Rb1 (12.
Qb3 $11) 12... cxd4 13. cxd4 a5 14. Kh1 a4 $5 15. f4 h5 $5 (15... Bb4 16. Nf3
h5 $1 {- Glek}) 16. gxh5 Ne7 17. Bf2 Bb5 (17... Nf5 18. b3 a3 19. Bg4 Nh6 20.
Be2 Bb5 $11) 18. b3 Bxe2 19. Qxe2 a3 20. b4 Nf5 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.2 6 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Bd3 {. This is a move
you'll see a lot and it deserves serious study. 6 Bd3 targets the kingside,
makes ...f6 look riskier, and allows e5 to be defended directly by Re1 or Qe2.
White is also ready to capture a knight on f5 in one move (as opposed to
Be2-d3xf5). On the negative side, the bishop on d3 interferes with White's
defence of d4. In addition, it may be forced to lose a tempo in positions
where Black plays ...Nb4 or ...Nxe5. Most of what follows is my own analysis.
I'll look at two approaches:} -- ({3.21} 6... cxd4) ({3.22} 6... f6) ({
These are the two moves which lead to unique types of positions. --- But Black
can also consider} 6... Nf5 {, trying to transpose to the 6...cxd4/7...Nf5
lines without allowing Bxh6, and also not ceding White the c3-square until he
has committed to 0-0. The key line is} 7. O-O (7. Bxf5 exf5 8. O-O h6 $5 {
has the idea that} 9. dxc5 $6 Bxc5 10. Nd4 O-O {helps Black more than White}) (
7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Bb6 9. b5 Nce7 10. O-O Ng6 11. a4 O-O {also seems balanced})
7... cxd4 8. Bxf5 ({the gambit} 8. a3 $6 {can be met by simply} Nh4 $1 9. Nxh4
Qxh4 10. g3 Qd8) 8... exf5 9. Nxd4 (9. cxd4 Be6 10. Nc3 {is the main line,
where Black might like the fact that White has committed to 0-0}) {. Pedersen claims an advantage for White after 9 Nxd4, but that's not apparent after} 9...
Be7 10. f4 Nxd4 11. cxd4 O-O 12. Nc3 Be6 {
, when Black has as many prospects on the queenside as White.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.21 6...cxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 (7. Bxh6 $5
gxh6 8. cxd4 {has won some games, but Black should be fine and has one
particularly inspiring solution:} -- (8... Qb6 9. Qd2 Bd7 {
(threatening ...Nxd4)} 10. Be2 Nxd4 $5 {. This comes out of nowhere! Black's
sacrifice seems to be sound, and whoever is more familiar with the analysis is
likely to do well:} 11. Nxd4 (11. Qxd4 Bc5 12. Qd2 Bxf2+ 13. Kf1 Be3 14. Qd1
O-O {intending ...f6, even in the case of} 15. Qb3 f6 $1 16. Qxb6 axb6 $1 {
, threatening both ...fxe5 and ...Bc1}) 11... Bc5 12. Nc2 (12. Nb3 Bxf2+ 13.
Kf1 Be3 14. Qd3 O-O 15. Nc3 f6 16. exf6 Rxf6+ 17. Ke1 Raf8 18. Nd1 Bg5 {
with an ongoing attack; e.g. ...Be8-g6 or ...a6 and ...Bb5 could follow}) 12...
Bxf2+ 13. Kf1 {. Here I like} Rc8 (13... Rf8 14. Qb4 {is an issue}) 14. Nba3
Bc5 15. b4 Be7 16. g3 (16. Qxh6 a5 $1 $15 {with the idea} 17. b5 Rc3) 16... Qc7
17. Qe3 Bg5 18. Qd4 f6 $1 $11 {; e.g.} 19. exf6 (19. Bh5+ Ke7) (19. Kg2 $1 fxe5
20. Qxa7 O-O 21. Rhf1 d4 22. b5 Be7 23. Rxf8+ Rxf8 24. Rf1 Be8 $1 25. Rxf8+
Bxf8 {unclear, with the ideas ...Bg6 and ...Qd7-d5}) 19... O-O 20. Kg2 Bxf6 21.
Qg4+ Kh8 22. Rac1 e5 23. Qh5 Qd6 24. Rhf1 d4 25. Qxh6 Bc6+ $1 (25... Qd5+ 26.
Bf3 e4 27. Bg4 Bxg4 28. Rxf6 e3+ 29. Kg1 $11) 26. Bf3 e4 27. Bg4 e3+ 28. Kg1 (
28. Bf3 $4 e2) 28... e2 $1 29. Bxe2 d3 $17 {.}) ({. Calmer is} 8... Bg7 9. Nc3
f6 {and now:} 10. -- (10. Bb5 O-O 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. O-O Rb8 14.
Qe2 ({or} 14. Na4 e5 $5 {, when} 15. Nxe5 $1 (15. dxe5 $2 Qg6 $1 {
is already better for Black}) 15... Ba6 16. Nd7 Qf5 17. Nxb8 Bxf1 18. Qxf1 Rxb8
{is unbalanced but equal}) 14... Qg6 (14... c5 $5 15. dxc5 Qe7 16. Nxd5 Qxc5
17. Nc3 Qb6 $11 {, planning ...Ba6 or ...Bb7 with hyperactive bishops}) 15.
Rac1 Rb6 16. Rfe1 Ba6 $1 17. Qxe6+ Qxe6 18. Rxe6 Bc8 19. Re7 Rxb2 20. Rxa7 Bg4
{with sufficient counterplay.}) (10. O-O O-O (10... fxe5 11. Nxe5 O-O) 11. Re1
(11. Qc2 $6 fxe5 12. Bxh7+ $2 Kh8 13. dxe5 Rxf3 $1 14. gxf3 Qh4 15. Kg2 Bd7 $1
$17 {and White will have to give a lot back}) 11... fxe5 12. dxe5 Bd7 13. Bc2 (
13. Nb5 Qb6 14. Nbd4 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Rf4 $1 16. Nf3 Raf8 $11) 13... Be8 14. Nd4
Qe7 15. Qg4 Nxd4 16. Qxd4 Bg6 $11 {.}))) 7... f6 $5 {This is an enterprising
way to go, opening lines, although Black risks a minor positional disadvantage.
} ({As in similar positions, Black can play} 7... Nf5 {
, which is a safe route to equality:} 8. Bxf5 ({
if White actually prefers the black queen on b6 rather than d8, he can play} 8.
Bc2 $5 Qb6 9. Bxf5 exf5 10. Nc3 Be6 {, and then can castle or play} 11. Ne2 h6
12. h4 {; an instructive example, Benjamin-Shaked, Kona 1998, went} O-O-O $5
13. Kf1 Kb8 14. Kg1 Be7 15. Rb1 {
, and Black found the dynamic and sound sacrifice} f4 $1 16. Nxf4 Bf5 17. Ra1 {
, when his most accurate path to advantage was} Bg4 $1 18. b3 Bxf3 19. gxf3
Qxd4) 8... exf5 {. In this important position, White has two fundamentally
different ways to set up, with and without castling:} 9. -- (9. Nc3 Be6 {
. Moskalenko rates this '=/+', based upon his lengthy experience, and says: 'A
well-known type of position, White has nothing in this structure.' I think
this set-up is objectively equal, but White will have more difficulty than
Black digging up positive chances. You will be well served to study what
follows, since the basic position often arises:} 10. -- (10. Ne2 Be7 11. h4 h6
$5 {(this standard move prevents White from exchanging a knight or bishop on
g5; Black also plans to play ...g5 if allowed)} 12. Nf4 Qb6 13. Rh3 (13. h5 {
transposes to 'a2' and is generally answered by} O-O {, since it's no longer
easy to play ...g5 after ...0-0-0 - then, since Black's kingside is easy to
defend, the action takes place on the queenside}) 13... g6 $1 ({
the idea is that after} 13... O-O-O 14. h5 {, ...g5 would be hard to organize})
14. Kf1 O-O-O 15. Kg1 g5 $5 (15... Rdg8 $1) ({, and} 15... Kb8 {are also good
preparatory moves for ...g5; here it's playable right away, albeit perhaps
without achieving a meaningful advantage}) 16. Nxe6 fxe6 17. hxg5 hxg5 18. Nxg5
$6 (18. Rxh8 $1 Rxh8 19. Bxg5 Bxg5 20. Nxg5 Qxd4 ({
instead, Black's structure is slightly superior after} 20... Nxd4 21. Qd2 Rh5
22. Rd1 Ne2+ 23. Qxe2 Rxg5 {, though it's not much either}) 21. Qxd4 Nxd4 22.
g3 $1 Kd7 23. Rd1 Nc6 24. f4 {equalizes}) 18... Qxd4 19. Qxd4 Nxd4 20. Rd3 Ne2+
21. Kf1 Nxc1 22. Rxc1+ Kd7 23. Nh3 Rc8 24. Rdc3 Rc6 $1 25. Ke2 Rh4 $15 {
Nun-Moskalenko, Pardubice 1994. Black has the superior minor piece and a
potentially important passed central pawn.}) (10. h4 {
is the other order by which to set up a blockade, when a sample of the play is}
h6 11. h5 Be7 12. Ne2 (12. Bf4 Qb6 13. Qd2 Rc8 {
intending ...Na5 is easy for Black to play}) 12... Qb6 (12... Qa5+ 13. Kf1 O-O)
13. Nf4 (13. Rh3 f4 $1 14. Rh1 Bg4 15. Kf1 O-O 16. Nxf4 Rfd8 {
and Black's activity gives him the edge}) 13... O-O 14. Rh3 Rfc8 15. Nxe6 (15.
Rg3 Nb4 16. Kf1 Rc4) 15... fxe6 16. Rg3 Kf7 17. Kf1 Nb4 18. Bd2 Rc4 $1 19. b3
Rc6 $15 {.})) (9. O-O Be6 10. Nc3 Be7 {. The lines in which White plays 0-0
have grown in popularity by comparison with those involving h4. Naturally, he
wants to develop quickly and connect rooks, but it's also the case that Black
can now throw his kingside pawns forward in an assault that can be hard to
counter. Here are some examples:} 11. -- (11. Ne1 {is frequently played; as
with 11 Ne2, White wants to strengthen his centre with f4 and help restrain ...g5:} Qb6 12. Nc2 Rc8 13. f4 g6 14. Kh1 h5 {
(Black prevents g4; now he can play on the queenside)} 15. Qd3 a5 16. Na4 $5
Qa6 $1 17. Qxa6 bxa6 18. Nc3 O-O 19. a3 Rb8 20. Rd1 Rfd8 21. Ne3 {
, Kabanov-Poghosyan, Moscow 2011; and Black might well open a new front with}
f6 $1 22. exf6 (22. g3 $2 fxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. dxe5 d4) (22. Ne2 a4 $1 {
intending ...Na5, when} 23. Nc3 $2 fxe5 24. fxe5 f4 25. Nf1 Bg4 {is strong})
22... Bxf6 23. Nc2 Re8 {with a nice plus.}) (11. Qb3 Qd7 12. Ne2 h6 {is fine:}
13. Nf4 (13. h4 a5 $5 14. Nf4 a4 15. Qd3 O-O {has the idea of ...Nb4 and ...a3}
) 13... g5 14. Nxe6 fxe6 {with kingside chances and the better bishop.}) (11.
a3 {can be met by} g5 $1 ({or} 11... Rc8 12. Na4 b6 13. b4 g5 $1 14. Qd3 f4 15.
Bb2 Qd7 $15 {Hartikainen-Soffer, Cracow 2011}) 12. Ne1 Qb6 13. Nc2 f4 $1 14. b4
{, Kalashnikov-Manukyan, St Petersburg 2009; and here} Rc8 15. Qd3 Qc7 $1 16.
Bb2 Qd7 $1 {prepares ...0-0 and ...Bf5.}) (11. Ne2 {
can be answered slowly, or again by} g5 $5 12. Ne1 (12. Qb3 Rb8 13. Rd1 f4 14.
Ne1 Qb6 $5 15. Qxb6 axb6 16. Bd2 f6 $15 {
intending ...Kf7 and ...Bf5, Degraeve-Ulibin, Mamaia 1991}) 12... f4 13. f3 $2
Qb6 14. Kh1 Bf5 15. b3 Qa6 16. Rf2 O-O-O 17. Bb2 f6 18. exf6 Bxf6 $17 {
Teschner-L.Portisch, Monte Carlo 1969.}))) 8. Bxh6 gxh6 9. exf6 ({
White's centre is broken up anyway after} 9. O-O Bg7 10. exf6 (10. Re1 O-O 11.
Nbd2 fxe5 12. dxe5 Bd7 13. Nf1 Be8 $1 14. Ng3 Bg6 $11 {
Finegold-Bercys, ICC 2010}) 10... Qxf6 {. Then} 11. Nc3 $1 O-O 12. Ne2 {
shores up d4. After} Bd7 {
, Black has ideas of ...Be8-h5/g6, so White does well to control e5 by} 13. Bb5
$1 (13. Qb1 $2 Be8 14. Bxh7+ Kh8 {and ...Bh5}) {
, when a sample line pitting bishop versus knight is} 13... Qg6 14. Bxc6 bxc6
15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 c5 {with mutual chances; e.g.} 17. f4 h5 $5 18. Rc1 Rac8
19. Rc3 h4 $1 (19... Kh8 20. Rg3 Qe4) 20. Rh3 Qg4 21. Qe1 Bb5 $1 22. Rff3 Bxe2
23. Rxh4 Bxf3 24. Rxg4+ Bxg4 25. Qg3 Kh8 26. Qxg4 c4 27. Qxe6 d4 28. Qd5 c3 29.
e6 c2 30. Qe5+ Kg8 31. Qg5+ $11 {.}) 9... Qxf6 10. Bb5 $1 {
White increases his grip on d4 and e5.} (10. O-O Bd6 11. Nc3 O-O {
transposes after} 12. Bb5 {; otherwise Black combines pressure on d4 and e5
with rook play on his open kingside files.}) 10... Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Nc3 {
Now 12...Kh8 is plausible, but more interesting is:} Qg7 $5 {This intends 13...
Rf4!, attacking the d-pawn and strengthening Black's position on the f-file.
The play is roughly balanced. I'm going to give a lengthy analysis in order to
demonstrate the typical ideas and tactics. First, White tries to take over e5:}
13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Re1 ({Or} 14. Qe2 a5 {, intending ...Ba6, ...Raf8.}) 14...
Rf6 {Covering e6 and preparing to double rooks in some lines.} ({
The alternatives} 14... Rf4) (14... Rf5) ({and} 14... Rb8 {are all noteworthy.
It's useful to hold out the possibility of ...Ba6 for a while, rather than
commit to ...Bd7.}) 15. Na4 ({Others: -- (a)} 15. Rc1 Bd7 (15... Ba6 16. Na4
Raf8 {transposes to the main line}) 16. Rc2 Raf8 17. Ne5 Bxe5 18. Rxe5 c5 $1
19. dxc5 Rg6) ({(b) Upon} 15. Ne5 {, Black can counterattack by} Ba6 16. Qa4
Raf8 $1 {; e.g.} 17. Qxa6 Rxf2 18. g3 Bxe5 19. Rxe5 Qg4 20. Qxc6 $1 Qf3 (20...
R8f6 $5 21. Nxd5 $1 Qxd4 22. Nxf6+ Rxf6+ 23. Kh1 Qxe5 $11) 21. Qxe6+ Kh8 22.
Qh3 Rxb2 23. Rf1 Rf2 24. Rxf2 Qxf2+ 25. Kh1 Qf3+ 26. Qg2 Qxc3 $11 {.}) 15...
Ba6 $1 (15... Bd7 16. Nc5 Bxc5 17. dxc5 Raf8 18. Qd4 $1 {keeps Black tied down.
}) 16. Rc1 {This leads to dramatic play.} ({Tactics also arise from} 16. Nc5
Bxc5 17. dxc5 Raf8 18. Re3 Rg6 19. Nh4 (19. g3 Rgf6) 19... Rg5 20. Rxe6 Bc8 $5
21. Rxc6 Bh3 22. Kh1 $1 (22. g3 $2 Qxb2) 22... Rxf2 23. gxh3 {, which draws:}
Qe5 (23... Qxb2 24. Ng2 Rfxg2 25. Rc8+ Kg7 26. Rc7+ $11) 24. Rc8+ (24. Nf3 Rgg2
$11) 24... Kf7 25. Nf3 Qe4 26. Rc7+ Kf8 27. Rc8+ $11 {.}) 16... Raf8 17. Kh1 ({
There's a nice symmetry in} 17. Re3 Bf4) ({and} 17. Rc3 Bb4 $1 {.}) 17... Rxf3
$1 (17... Kh8 $5 18. Rxc6 $2 {(this loses beautifully)} ({instead,} 18. Rg1 $1
{yields a small advantage}) 18... Rxf3 $1 19. gxf3 (19. Rxd6 {loses to} Rxf2
20. Rg1 Bf1 $1) ({, as does} 19. Rxa6 Rxf2 20. Rg1 Rg8 21. g3 Rxh2+ $1 22. Kxh2
Bxg3+ {and ...Qg5}) 19... Bxh2 $1 {
. Now ...Rg8 is threatened and there is no good defence:} 20. Rexe6 (20. f4 Rg8
21. Qf3 Be2 $3 22. Qh3 Bxf4) 20... Bd3 $1 (20... Rg8 21. Rg6 $1) 21. Kxh2 (21.
Rg6 Bxg6 22. Kxh2 Be8 23. Rc3 Rf4) 21... Rg8 22. Qh1 Qg5 23. Rg6 Bxg6 24. Qg2
Qh4+ 25. Qh3 Qxf2+ 26. Qg2 Qxd4 {and wins.}) 18. gxf3 Bxh2 $1 {
The idea of ...Rf4-h4 produces a level game.} 19. f4 ({Not} 19. Kxh2 $2 Bf1 $1
20. Rxf1 Rf4 {and mate.}) (19. Rxc6 $2 Kh8 {
would also be mistaken (see 17...Kh8!? above).}) ({But} 19. Nc5 {
keeps the balance after} Kh8 20. f4 {, transposing to 19 f4;} ({though not here
} 20. Nxe6 $6 Qe7 21. Nxf8 Qh4 22. Kg2 Bf4 23. Ng6+ hxg6 24. Re8+ Kg7 25. Qg1
Qg5+ 26. Kh1 Bxc1 27. Qe1 Qh4+ 28. Kg2 Bf4 $1 {with excellent winning chances.}
)) ({After} 19. f4 {, best play is} Kh8 $1 20. Nc5 Rg8 21. Qf3 Qf6 22. Kxh2 ({
or} 22. Qh5 Bxf4 23. Nxa6 Bxc1 24. Rxc1 Qxf2 25. Qe5+ Rg7 26. Qb8+ Rg8 27. Qe5+
$11) 22... Qh4+ 23. Qh3 Qxf2+ 24. Kh1 Rg3 $1 25. Qxg3 Qxg3 26. Nxa6 Qh3+ $11 {.
}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.22 6...f6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Bd3 f6 {. Black attacks the
centre directly, intending ...fxe5 and ...Nf7. The retreat to f7 can also come
in handy if White plays Qh5+.} 7. O-O {
Maintaining the tension poses the most problems.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 7. Bxh6
gxh6 8. -- (8. Bb5 {strengthens the e5 point, albeit with loss of tempo:} Bg7
9. exf6 (9. Nbd2 cxd4 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. cxd4 c5 $5 12. dxc5 O-O $11 13. Qe2 $6
Rb8 14. Nb3 fxe5 15. Nxe5 Qg5 16. Nd3 e5 $1 $15) 9... Qxf6 10. O-O (10. dxc5 {
wins time but cedes the centre:} Qe7 11. b4 $6 ({after} 11. O-O Qxc5 {
instead, Black has no worries}) 11... O-O {- threatening ...Nxb4 -} 12. Bxc6
bxc6 13. O-O a5 {etc}) 10... O-O {(threatening the d-pawn)} 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12.
Nbd2 (12. dxc5 $6 e5 $15 {Eklund-M.Johansson, corr 1989}) 12... cxd4 13. cxd4
c5 14. dxc5 Qxb2 15. Qa4 Qb7 16. Rab1 Qc7 {with ...e5 to come.}) (8. O-O cxd4
9. Nxd4 (9. cxd4 {transposes to 9 0-0 in section 3.21}) 9... Nxe5 (9... fxe5 $5
{is more forcing; e.g.} 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Qh5+ Kd7 12. Qxe5 Rg8 13. Re1 Qg5 $1
14. Qxe6+ Kc7 15. Qe5+ Qxe5 16. Rxe5 Rb8 17. b3 Bh3 18. g3 Bg7 19. Re7+ Kb6 $11
) 10. Qh5+ Kd7 11. Bb5+ $5 (11. Bc2 Kc7 12. Nd2 Nc6 {
and ...e5 gives just enough play; e.g.} 13. N2f3 e5 14. Nf5 Be6 15. Rfd1 Qe8)
11... Kc7 12. f4 Ng6 13. f5 a6 14. Be2 exf5 15. Nxf5 Qe8 $1 {.})) ({(b)} 7.
exf6 {gives up the centre for development:} Qxf6 8. Bg5 (8. O-O cxd4 9. Bg5 Qf7
{transposes}) 8... Qf7 9. O-O cxd4 (9... c4 $5 10. Bc2 Bd6 11. Nbd2 O-O 12.
Bxh6 gxh6 13. Qe2 $14) 10. cxd4 Nf5 $5 ({or} 10... Bd6 11. Nc3 O-O) 11. Ne5 (
11. Bxf5 Qxf5 12. Nc3 Bd6 13. Bh4 O-O 14. Bg3 Bf4 15. Re1 Bd7 16. Bxf4 Qxf4 {
, roughly equal; e.g.} 17. Rc1 Be8 $1 18. Rxe6 Bh5 19. Re3 Qh6 $1 {
with persistent pressure}) 11... Nxe5 12. dxe5 Bc5 {with equality; for example,
} 13. Qc2 (13. Nc3 O-O 14. Rc1 b6) 13... Bb6 14. Bxf5 exf5 15. Nc3 O-O 16. Bf4
Bd7 $11 {.}) 7... cxd4 (7... Nf7 8. Re1 (8. exf6 Qxf6 9. Re1 Bd6 10. Be3 $1 c4
11. Bc2 O-O 12. Nbd2 b5 13. Nf1 Rb8 14. Ng3 g6 $11 {; e.g.} 15. h4 b4 16. h5 g5
17. Nh2 h6 18. Ng4 Qg7 {with mutual prospects}) 8... fxe5 9. Nxe5 {
, and here Wei Ming analyses} Nfxe5 $1 10. dxe5 g6 11. Nd2 Bg7 12. Nf3 O-O $11
{.}) 8. cxd4 Nf7 9. Re1 (9. Nc3 $5 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Nfxe5 11. dxe5 g6 $1 (11...
Nxe5 {leads to the pretty idea} 12. Qh5+ Nf7 13. Bb5+ Bd7 14. Re1 $1 {
and after the e-pawn falls Black's king remains in the centre}) 12. Bf4 Bg7 13.
Re1 O-O 14. Bg3 Bd7 $11 {.}) 9... fxe5 10. dxe5 g5 $1 11. h3 Bg7 12. Bc2 (12.
Bd2 Qe7 13. a3 Bd7 {with the idea} 14. Bc3 h5 $1 {.}) 12... Qe7 {
. Black stands well.} ({Play might go} 12... Qe7 13. Nc3 h6 {(threatening e5)}
14. Bg6 $5 O-O 15. Bxf7+ Rxf7 {with the bishop pair and active play. --- The 6.
..f6 variations are undoubtedly looser than those with 6...cxd4 (or 6...Nf5),
and you should probably have exact lines memorized. Notice, too, the
opportunity to enter into different versions of the positions with ...Nf5;
that's a safe option which may appeal to someone nervous about piece
sacrifices and kings in the centre.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.3 6 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. a3 {. You will probably
encounter this move sometimes, if only because so many players use 6 a3 versus
5...Qb6. There are significant differences, however, in that Black can make
moves that are more dynamic than 6...Qb6.} f6 {
Once again, this thematic break creates original play.} ({Instead,} 6... Qb6 {
is a direct transposition to the main line of Chapter 2.}) (6... Nf5 {
is a sound alternative. A recent game Zelcic-Kovacevic, Oberwart 2011, went} 7.
dxc5 $6 (7. b4 cxd4 8. cxd4 Qb6 {again transposes to Chapter 2,} ({though} 8...
Bd7 {is a good alternative, planning ...Rc8 and, depending upon the reply, ...
Qb6, ...Be7, ...0-0, and/or ...f6})) (7. Bd3 cxd4 8. Bxf5 exf5 9. cxd4 Be6 $11
{is the standard position from the last two sections; then the move a3 proves
to be double-edged, since it creates potential weaknesses on the vulnerable
light squares}) 7... Bxc5 8. Bd3 Nh4 $1 {(removing the central defender)} 9.
Nxh4 Qxh4 10. Qe2 O-O ({or} 10... f6 11. exf6 O-O $1 12. O-O (12. Nd2 {
can now be met by} e5 $1) 12... Rxf6 13. Be3 Bxe3 14. Qxe3 e5) 11. Nd2 f6 12.
Nf3 Qh5 (12... Qxf2+ $5 13. Qxf2 Bxf2+ 14. Kxf2 fxe5 15. Re1 e4 16. Bxe4 dxe4
17. Rxe4 e5 18. Kg1 Bf5 19. Re1 Bd3 $15) 13. exf6 Rxf6 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. fxe3 e5
16. e4 Bg4 {with a limited advantage.}) 7. b4 $5 {
This is the natural follow-up move, but others deserve respect.} ({(a)} 7. exf6
Qxf6 8. Bg5 Qf7 (8... Qg6 {may be more accurate, intending} 9. Bb5 ({or} 9. Bd3
Qh5) 9... Bd6) 9. Bb5 $1 Bd6 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. O-O O-O 12. Qe2 $6 (12. Bxh6 $1
gxh6 13. Nbd2 Ne7 $5 14. Ne5 Qg7 15. Ndf3 Ng6 $11 {; e.g.} 16. Nxg6 hxg6 17.
Qe2 Bd6 18. Rae1 g5) 12... Qh5 13. Nbd2 Bd6 $1 14. Bh4 Nf5 15. Bg3 Nxg3 16.
fxg3 e5 17. Nb3 {, Samuelsen-Jepson, Torshavn 2003, and here simply} a6 18.
Bxc6 bxc6 {leaves Black with a big centre and two active bishops.}) ({(b)} 7.
Bb5 Nf7 8. Bf4 (8. exf6 Qxf6 9. O-O cxd4 10. cxd4 Bd6 {and ...g5 is a theme})
8... g5 $1 (8... Bd7) 9. Be3 g4 10. Ng1 cxd4 11. cxd4 fxe5 12. Qxg4 exd4 13.
Bxd4 e5 14. Qe2 Bd6 $17 {; Black's centre dominates.}) ({(c)} 7. Bd3 Nf7 8. Qe2
(8. exf6 Qxf6 9. Be3 c4 10. Bc2 Bd6 {at the least equalizes}) 8... cxd4 9. cxd4
fxe5 ({or} 9... Qc7 $15 {threatening ...Nxd4}) 10. dxe5 g6 11. O-O Bg7 12. Bf4
{, Ho-Ding, Nashville 2009;} g5 $1 13. Bg3 h5 14. h3 g4 {, winning the e-pawn.}
) ({(d)} 7. Bxh6 gxh6 8. Bb5 Bg7 9. exf6 Qxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. dxc5 Qe7 $11 {
, in view of} 12. b4 $2 a5 {.}) 7... cxd4 $5 ({
Two worthwhile alternatives: -- (a)} 7... fxe5 {looks fine, intending} 8. b5 (
8. Bxh6 gxh6 9. dxe5 c4) 8... Nxd4 $1 9. cxd4 exd4 {
with three pawns and a huge centre for the piece; '=' seems fair.}) ({(b)} 7...
Nf7 $5 {
, as I gave in 'DWF', isn't necessary, but I should mention the remarkable idea
} 8. exf6 cxd4 $5 (8... Qxf6 {was my recommendation and a little safer}) 9. b5
Nce5 $1 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. fxg7 Bxg7 12. cxd4 Ng6 {with ideas of ...e5, ...Qf6
or ...Qh4, ...Nh4 and ...0-0, giving considerable and entertaining
compensation.}) 8. cxd4 fxe5 9. Bxh6 $1 ({Others: -- (a)} 9. dxe5 Nf7 10. Bb2
a6 {intends either ...g6 or ...g5.}) ({(b)} 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Nf7 11. Bb2
a5 $1 12. Qd4 $1 (12. b5 {allows} Bc5 {, with smooth development by ...0-0 and
perhaps ...Qg5 or ...Qh4, which is hardly fun for White}) 12... Qe7 $5 {
(ambitious)} ({whereas} 12... axb4 13. axb4 Rxa1 14. Bxa1 Qc7 15. Bc3 Be7 {
is equal}) 13. Bd3 axb4 14. O-O Nd8 {and ...Nc6.}) 9... gxh6 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11.
dxe5 Qc7 (11... Qg5 $5 12. Bb5+ Kf7 ({or} 12... Kd8 13. O-O Qxe5 14. Nd2 Bd6
$15) 13. O-O Qxe5 14. Nd2 Bd6 15. g3 Rf8 {
gives White unclear compensation for the pawn.}) 12. Qh5+ Kd8 13. Nd2 Qc3 14.
Rd1 Qxa3 {. White's compensation looks real and not easily assessed;
nevertheless, given the choice, I'd take Black. On the positive side, he may
end up having two extra passed pawns with which to keep his opponent busy.} ({
Here} 14... Bd7 {is also possible.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.4 6 Bxh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Bxh6 gxh6 {. White's immediate capture has become rare, and Moskalenko even calls it a 'mistake'. That's
going a bit far, as some lines are merely equal, but there's enough imbalance
to keep things interesting.} 7. Be2 {The solid move.} ({Others: -- (a)} 7. Bd3
Qb6 (7... Bd7 $1 {
might be still more accurate, threatening to win a pawn by ...Qb6, when} 8. Qd2
{now gives Black the option of} f6 $1) 8. Qd2 Bd7 (8... cxd4 9. cxd4 Bd7 10.
Be2 Bg7 11. Nc3 O-O 12. O-O f6 13. exf6 Rxf6 {is a fairly standard and equal
position, in which Black has ideas of ...Raf8 and ...Be8-h5, but also simply ...Rxf3 and ...Nxd4 at the right moment}) 9. dxc5 Qc7 10. Qf4 Bg7 11. Qg3 (11.
Bb5) 11... O-O $1 {
'and Black's pieces are excellently positioned' (Moskalenko).}) ({(b)} 7. dxc5
$6 Bxc5 (7... Qc7 $1 {- Moskalenko}) 8. Bd3 (8. b4 Bf8 $1 {followed by ...Bg7
is ideal for Black, both attacking e5 and defending the king; compare this
with 6 dxc5 Bxc5 7 b4}) 8... f6 9. exf6 Qxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bc2 Rf7 $1 12.
Nbd2 Bd7 13. Nb3 Bb6 14. Qe2 e5 {
and Black already had a clear plus in Short-Glek, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 1996.}) ({
(c)} 7. Bb5 {is normally a harmless move in the absence of ...f6, because
White can't put a piece on e5. This position is nevertheless important and
interesting, because there will arise two-bishop-versus-two-knight positions
in which both sides' minor pieces have sufficient activity and yet neither's
are ideally placed. Here are a few sample lines out of many more possibilities:
} -- (7... Qb6 8. Qe2 a6 ({or} 8... Bg7 9. O-O O-O 10. Rd1 Bd7 {; e.g.} 11.
dxc5 Qxc5 12. a4 f6 13. exf6 Rxf6 14. Nbd2 Raf8 15. Nb3 Qd6 16. a5 {, and} a6 (
{although} 16... Rxf3 $5 17. gxf3 Ne5 {is more fun}) 17. Bxc6 Bxc6 {equalizes})
9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. O-O a5 11. Qc2 Ba6 (11... Rb8 12. b3 Ba6) 12. Rc1 (12. Rd1
Be7 13. Nbd2 cxd4 14. cxd4 O-O $11 {with ideas of ...c5, ...Rab8, and/or ...Be2
}) 12... Be7 13. Nbd2 O-O 14. Nb3 (14. Nf1 Rfb8 15. Rab1 Qb5 $1 16. Ne3 Qd3 $11
) 14... cxd4 15. cxd4 Rfb8 16. Rab1 Bc4 (16... Qb5 17. Qc3 Bb4 18. Qe3 Qe2 19.
Qxh6 Bd3 $1 $11) 17. Nc5 Bxa2 18. Ra1 Bc4 $1 19. Nd7 Qxb2 20. Nxb8 Qxb8 21. Qd2
a4 $1 22. Qxh6 Bd3 {with a complex and equal game.}) (7... Qa5 {
is interesting because the move ...cxd4 will keep the position unbalanced; e.g.
} 8. Qe2 (8. a4 cxd4 9. Nxd4 a6 $1) 8... cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. O-O Bg7 11. f4
O-O {and, for example,} 12. Na3 f6 13. exf6 Rxf6 14. Nac2 Qb6 15. Kh1 Raf8 $11
{.}) (7... Bd7 {
threatens ...Nxe5. It is slower than the options but quite playable; e.g.} 8.
Qe2 a6 (8... Qb6 {is normal}) 9. Bxc6 Bxc6 $5 {(an unusual recapture, but the
possibility of ...Bb5 creates unique possibilities)} 10. a4 b5 (10... Qd7 11.
b3 b5 $5) 11. axb5 Bxb5 12. Qd1 $1 (12. Qc2 $6 Rg8 13. g3 Rg4 $1) 12... Rg8 13.
g3 Qb8 $1 {(intending ...cxd4)} 14. Na3 Bd7 15. Rb1 cxd4 16. cxd4 Bb5 $5 (16...
Ra7 17. O-O Rb7 18. Qc2 Rg6) 17. Nxb5 Qxb5 18. Qe2 Bb4+ 19. Kf1 Kd7 {
with equal chances.})) 7... cxd4 {What we see now is Black opening the
position to activate his bishop pair, and White trying to exploit holes and
weaknesses in his opponent's camp. Other moves employ the same ideas, and are
equally significant.} ({(a)} 7... f6 8. O-O cxd4 9. cxd4 Bg7 {is normal; e.g.}
10. exf6 Qxf6 11. Bb5 O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Nc3 Rb8 14. Qe2 Qg6 ({or} 14... Rb6
) 15. Kh1 (15. Rfe1 Rb4 16. Rad1 e5 $1) 15... c5 16. dxc5 Bb7 {
intending d4; for example,} 17. Rae1 d4 18. Ne4 Qxe4 19. Qxe4 Bxe4 20. Rxe4
Rxb2 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 7... Qb6 8. Qd2 Bg7 9. O-O O-O 10. Na3 Bd7 11. Nc2 cxd4
12. cxd4 {is one of the old main lines from 'PTF3'. This is extremely complex,
as described there, but in order to be brief let me mention two continuations
that don't need a great deal of study to implement:} -- (12... a5 {
is a solid, conservative move:} 13. Ne3 {(this is played most often)} (13. Rab1
f6 14. exf6 Rxf6 15. b4 axb4 16. Nxb4 Qa5 {is satisfactory for Black; e.g.} 17.
Ne5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Rff8 {- planning ...Be8-g6 -} 19. f4 Be8 20. Bg4 Bf7 21. Kh1
Rae8 22. Rbc1 h5 23. Bh3 Bg6 $11) 13... h5 $1 {(preventing Ng4)} 14. Rad1 (14.
a4 f6 15. Bb5 ({or} 15. exf6 Rxf6 {, intending ...Bh6 or the usual ...Be8})
15... fxe5 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Nxe5 Be8 $1 18. f4 Rb8 19. Rf2 c5 $15 {
D.Fernando-Brynell, Bled Olympiad 2002}) 14... f6 (14... Kh8 15. b3 Rac8 16. g3
f6 {½-½ Thipsay-Ganguly, Atul 2006}) 15. exf6 Bxf6 $5 (15... Rxf6 $1 $11)
16. Nc2 Rae8 17. b3 Re7 18. Qh6 Be8 19. Bd3 Rg7 20. Rfe1 Nd8 {, reaching an
obscure position with chances for both sides, Savic-Miljanic, Neum 2002.}) (
12... f6 {is more ambitious:} 13. exf6 Rxf6 14. b4 Be8 {
(I like Moskalenko's treatment of the position)} (14... Raf8 15. b5 Ne7 16. Ne5
Be8 {is the traditional line}) 15. b5 Ne7 16. Ne5 Ng6 17. Ng4 $5 Rf8 18. Nxh6+
Kh8 19. Ng4 Nf4 20. a4 (20. Rfe1 Bg6 $11) 20... Bg6 {
(with excess compensation for the pawn)} 21. Nge3 $6 {
, Roy Chowdhury-Moskalenko, Montcada 2008; after} Rac8 {
Black had only a moderate advantage,} ({but there was also} 21... e5 $1 {
with a clearly superior game, in view of} 22. dxe5 $2 d4 23. Nc4 Qc5 {
and ...d3.}))) 8. cxd4 Bg7 9. O-O O-O (9... f6 {is note 'a' to 7...cxd4.}) 10.
Nc3 $2 (10. Na3 $1 f6 11. exf6 Qxf6 12. Nc2 Bd7 13. b4 Be8 $1 14. b5 Ne7 15.
Ne3 $5 Ng6 {intending ...Nf4 is probably equal, but it's easier for Black to
play, Nakamura-Antal, Budapest 2002.}) 10... f6 11. exf6 (11. Re1 {
is better but still not equal following} fxe5 12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14.
Bf3 $1 Bd6 {.}) 11... Qxf6 {Winning the crucial d-pawn; White's subsequent
recovery on h7 is hardly equivalent.} 12. Qc2 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Qxd4 14. Bd3 Bd7
15. Bxh7+ Kh8 16. Bd3 Rac8 17. Qe2 {, Djuric-Larino Nieto, Herceg Novi 2005;} (
{Here} 17. Qe2 Qe5 $1 {, with a clear advantage,} ({was even better than} 17...
e5 {intending ...Bg4. To be clear, I don't believe that Black gets the
superior game in this line by force, and it's even easy to fall into a limited
positional disadvantage with a careless move or two. But that needn't happen,
and in fact White himself has a tendency to fall victim to tactics or powerful
central advances.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.5 6 Na3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. Na3 {
. Another knight goes to a rook's file! White plans Nc2 to secure d4.} cxd4 {
A general consideration in the French pawn-chain structure: when White's
knight can no longer go to c3, the main drawback to ...cxd4 has disappeared.}
7. cxd4 Bxa3 $5 ({A safe choice is} 7... Nf5 8. Nc2 {, which is a traditional
main line, since it also arises from 5...Nge7 6 Na3 Nf5 7 Nc2 cxd4 8 cxd4.
This has been heavily analysed, but to get you started, here are some
suggestions:} -- (8... Qb6 9. Bd3 Bb4+ $5 (9... Bd7 {is 'b2'}) 10. Kf1 (10. Bd2
Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 Bd7 12. Bxf5 exf5 13. O-O O-O 14. Ne3 Be6 $11 15. g3 f4 $1 16.
gxf4 f6 $1 {with the idea} 17. f5 fxe5 18. fxe6 Rxf3 19. dxe5 d4 20. Qe2 Rff8
21. Nd5 Qc5 22. e7 Nxe7 23. Nxe7+ Qxe7 24. f4 Rad8 $11) 10... Be7 11. g3 (11.
h4 h5 12. g3 Bd7 13. Kg2 Rc8 14. Bxf5 exf5 15. Ne3 Be6 16. Qd3 Nb4 17. Qb3 Bd7
$1 $11 {intending} 18. a3 Qa6) 11... Bd7 12. Kg2 Rc8 ({not} 12... Nfxd4 $4 13.
Ncxd4 Nxd4 14. Be3 Bc5 15. Rc1 $18) 13. Bxf5 (13. Rb1 a5) ({, or} 13. g4 Nh4+
14. Nxh4 Bxh4 15. g5 h6 16. gxh6 Nxe5 $1 {, with the idea} 17. dxe5 ({or} 17.
hxg7 Rg8 18. Bh6 Nxd3 19. Qxd3 f5 $1) 17... Qxf2+ 18. Kh3 Bf6 $1 19. Qe2 Qxe2
20. Bxe2 Bxe5 {with full compensation for the piece}) 13... exf5 14. b3 O-O 15.
Bg5 $2 (15. h4 h6 16. Qd3 Be6 $15) 15... Bxg5 16. Nxg5 f4 $1 17. gxf4 $2 (17.
Qd3 g6 {and ...Bf5}) 17... Ne7 $1 {
(intending ...h6 and ...Qg6; White's light squares are fatally weak)} 18. Ne3 {
, Short-Vaganian, Montpellier Candidates 1985; and} h6 $1 19. Nf3 Qg6+ 20. Kf1
Bb5+ 21. Ke1 Qe4 22. Rg1 Rc3 {is resignable.}) (8... Bd7 {
is a flexible and popular move:} 9. -- (9. Be2 Qb6 ({, or} 9... Nb4 {; e.g.}
10. Nxb4 ({or} 10. Ne3 Nxe3 11. fxe3 Be7 12. O-O O-O) 10... Bxb4+ 11. Bd2 Qb6
12. a3 Bxd2+ 13. Qxd2 O-O 14. O-O Bb5 $11) (9... Be7 10. O-O Qb6 11. Bd3 a5 $11
) ({, while} 9... Rc8 {is a useful move in any line}) 10. O-O (10. g4 $5 Nfe7
11. O-O h5 $1 12. h3 hxg4 13. hxg4 {
, Shirov-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2001; and McDonald suggests} Ng6 {, when} 14.
Bd3 Be7 $1 15. Bxg6 fxg6 16. Qd3 O-O $1 {threatens ...Nb4 and ...Bb5, meeting}
17. a4 {with} Qa6 $1 18. Qxa6 bxa6 19. Kg2 Rab8) 10... Rc8 11. g4 Nfe7 12. Nh4
(12. Rb1 h5 13. h3 hxg4 14. hxg4 Ng6 $15) 12... Nb4 13. Nxb4 Qxb4 14. f4 Nc6
15. Be3 Be7 16. Ng2 {, Sveshnikov-Gleizerov, 1992; now Black could play} h6 $5
({or} 16... Qxb2) 17. f5 Bg5 $1 18. Nf4 $1 exf5 19. gxf5 Bxf5 20. Nxd5 Bxe3+
21. Nxe3 Bg6 22. Bc4 O-O 23. Qg4 Kh7 {
and White's position is a bit looser than Black's, but it's about equal.}) (9.
Bd3 Qb6 ({or} 9... Be7 10. h4 Qb6 11. Kf1 $5 {, and Black stands better after}
f6 $1 ({the d-pawn is immune due to} 11... Ncxd4 $4 12. Nfxd4 Nxd4 13. Be3 Bc5
14. b4) 12. g4 $5 fxe5 $1 13. gxf5 e4 14. fxe6 Bxe6 15. Ng5 Bxg5 16. hxg5 exd3
17. Qxd3 O-O-O {intending to play a rook to f8 and then ...Bf5}) 10. Bxf5 (10.
O-O a5 11. Bxf5 exf5 12. Be3 Nd8 $1 13. Rb1 h6 14. h4 Be7 15. h5 Ne6 16. g3 g5
{, Jonkman-M.Gurevich, Vlissingen 1997, and now} 17. hxg6 fxg6 {
threatens ...f4! with decisive activity}) 10... exf5 11. O-O h6 (11... Be7 12.
Bg5) 12. a3 a5 13. Re1 $5 (13. Nfe1 Rc8 14. Nd3 g5 $1 15. b4 f4 $11) 13... Be6
14. h4 $6 Be7 15. g3 Qd8 $1 {(to support ...g5)} 16. h5 g5 17. hxg6 fxg6 18.
Kg2 g5 19. Rh1 Kd7 $1 20. Qd3 Qb6 $1 {(the a8-rook joins the attack)} 21. Bd2
f4 $1 22. gxf4 Raf8 $5 {(intending ...Bf5-e4)} ({but} 22... gxf4 {
was more direct}) {, Blees-M.Gurevich, Gent 1997. Here} 23. a4 $1 Na7 $1 (23...
Bf5 $2 24. Qb5) 24. Qe2 {would have defended, although} Bf5 $1 25. e6+ Kc8 26.
Rhc1 Be4 27. Kh2 Kb8 {still looks nice for Black.}))) 8. bxa3 {Black's capture
on a3 has several positive points, but also involves some risk. White gains
the bishop pair, and his 'bad' dark-squared bishop has no counterpart, opening
the possibility of its causing damage. These are meaningful advantages.
Nevertheless, Black is slightly ahead in development (and on the move), with
chances of simplifying. Because of White's weak a-pawns, Black's knights have
great potential on the queenside; for instance, there are outposts on c4 and
a4, squares which are also accessible by his light-squared bishop. Finally,
Black has no meaningful weaknesses, since d6 won't be accessible to anything
but a bishop, which can be driven away.} Nf5 {The most direct attempt.} ({
The alternative} 8... Qa5+ {is also satisfactory:} 9. Qd2 (9. Bd2 Qxa3 10. Bxh6
$5 gxh6 11. Be2 Qa5+ 12. Kf1 b6 {intending ...Ba6; e.g.} 13. Qc1 Ne7 {, and now
} 14. g3 ({better than} 14. Qxh6 Ba6 15. Bxa6 Nf5 16. Qd2 Qxa6+ 17. Qe2 Qa4 $1
$15) 14... Ba6 15. Bxa6 Qxa6+ 16. Kg2 Nf5 17. Qf4 $1 Rc8 18. Rhc1 $11) {
, when Black has a wealth of options to consider:} 9... -- (9... Nf5 $1 {
(now a knight gets to a5 and c4, ensuring at least equality)} 10. Bb2 Qxd2+ 11.
Kxd2 Na5 $1 (11... O-O {is also possible}) 12. Rc1 Bd7 {(after ...Bc6 and ...Nc4, White's capture on c4 would give Black's bishop a terrific diagonal in
contrast to his opponent's dark-squared counterpart)} 13. Bd3 (13. Rc7 Kd8 14.
Rc3 h6 15. Bd3 b5 $5 16. Rb1 Nc4+ 17. Ke2 a5) 13... Ne7 14. h4 Bc6 (14... b5)
15. h5 h6 16. Rh4 Nc4+ $1 17. Bxc4 dxc4 18. Rxc4 O-O 19. Bc3 a5 20. Rh1 Nd5 ({
or} 20... Bd5 21. Rc5 Bxf3 22. gxf3 b6 23. Rc4 Nd5 {
- the only question is if Black can win}) 21. Rb1 f6 $1 22. a4 fxe5 23. dxe5
Nf4 $15 {.}) (9... Qa4 $5 10. Rb1 a6 11. Bd3 Nf5 12. Bc2 Qa5 13. Bxf5 $5 exf5
14. O-O O-O {, Vasicek-Gdovin, Czech League 1995, is equal.}) (9... Qxd2+ 10.
Bxd2 Nf5 11. Bc3 O-O 12. Bd3 {was Mora Manez-Gomez Gomez, Spanish Team Ch.
1994. Generally, when you have two knights versus two bishops but lack
outposts, you will need to open lines in order to create them; so Black does
well to play} f6 $1 ({instead of the game's} 12... Bd7) {; for example,} 13.
exf6 gxf6 14. Bxf5 (14. O-O Nd6 $1) 14... exf5 15. Kd2 Re8 16. Nh4 $1 f4 17.
Rhe1 Rxe1 18. Rxe1 Kf7 $11 {.})) 9. Bb2 ({
Black can be happy with positions like} 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Be2 Na5 11. O-O Nc4) ({
as well as} 9. Be3 Qa5+ 10. Qd2 Qxa3 {.}) ({
Instead, I.Zaitsev-Mesropov, Moscow 1996, continued} 9. Bd3 Qa5+ ({not} 9...
Nfxd4 $2 10. Nxd4 Nxd4 11. Qg4) ({, but} 9... O-O {is safe and equal}) 10. Bd2
(10. Qd2 Qxd2+ 11. Bxd2 Nfxd4) 10... Qxa3 11. Qb1 {. Here Mesropov's} a6 {
was fine,} ({but Black can also prevent Bb4 and threaten to capture on d4 by} 
11... a5 {; e.g.} 12. Bxf5 exf5 13. O-O O-O 14. Qb5 h6 $1 {with the idea} 15.
Qxd5 $6 Be6 16. Qb5 Rfd8 {and ...Bd5}) (11... Nfxd4 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Bb4 Qa4
14. O-O b6 {is risky.})) 9... Bd7 ({With the bishop on b2,} 9... Qa5+ 10. Qd2
Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 {is possible, transposing to 8...Qa5+ 9 Qd2 Nf5 above. Black
has the c4 outpost to play with, supported by an open file. Only the potential
strength of the bishop pair makes this an unclear situation.}) 10. Bd3 (10. h4
O-O 11. g4 $6 Nh6 12. Rg1 f6 $1 {exploits White's f-file issues; for example,}
13. exf6 Qxf6 14. g5 Qxf3 15. Qxf3 Rxf3 16. gxh6 Rf7 {
, when after an exchange on g7 White has five isolated pawns remaining!}) 10...
Nh4 $5 {Black wants to eliminate a potential attacking piece, but this is
probably not the best move.} ({Two good alternatives are} 10... O-O {
, intending} 11. h4 Na5) ({and} 10... Qa5+ {.}) 11. Nxh4 ({Or} 11. O-O O-O 12.
Rb1 f5 $5 $14 {.}) 11... Qxh4 12. O-O Rc8 13. Rc1 O-O 14. Qd2 f5 15. exf6 $5 (
15. f4 $1 {keeps Black's bishop under restraint with a slight edge.}) 15...
Rxf6 16. g3 {, Mossakowski-Blees, Wichern 1995.} ({Although} 16. g3 Qh5 $5 {
worked out well in the game,} (16... Qh3 {
would be a more pointed move, with a possible continuation} 17. f4 $5 ({or} 17.
f3 Be8 18. Rfe1 $5 Rxf3 19. Bf1 Qh5 {with the idea} 20. Be2 Rf2 $1) 17... Be8
$1 18. Qg2 Qxg2+ 19. Kxg2 Bg6 20. Bxg6 Rxg6 21. Bc3 $1 {
(preventing ...Na5 and intending Bb4-d6)} (21. f5 {is answered by} Rf6) 21...
Kf7 22. Bb4 Rd8 {with equal chances.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.6 6 dxc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. dxc5 {. Sveshnikov, the
French Advance Variation expert, considers this the critical line.} Bxc5 (6...
Ng4 $2 7. Qa4 $1 {protects e5 and hits g4.}) 7. b4 (7. Bxh6 gxh6 8. b4 $6 {
is an inferior move order because of} Bf8 $1 {, transferring the bishop to an
ideal post on g7 (this can be avoided by playing 7 b4 first, as in the main
line):} 9. b5 (9. Bd3 f6 10. b5 Nxe5 11. Nxe5 fxe5 12. Qh5+ Kd7 13. Qxe5 Rg8
14. g3 Bd6 15. Qe2 Qf6 $15 {
with the bishop pair and centre, Khalifman-Kaidanov, Moscow 1987}) 9... Ne7 10.
Bd3 Bg7 11. O-O Ng6 {(not only attacking e5 but eyeing f4)} 12. Bxg6 $5 (12.
Re1 O-O 13. Nbd2 f6 14. exf6 Qxf6 15. Rc1 Nf4) 12... hxg6 13. c4 O-O 14. cxd5
exd5 15. Nc3 d4 $1 16. Qxd4 Qxd4 17. Nxd4 Bxe5 {
with two bishops on an open board, Sveshnikov-Glek, Moscow 1991.}) 7... Bb6 ({
While not as logical, the extraordinary} 7... Bf8 $5 {
still leaves Black with more pieces out and planning to play ...f6:} 8. -- ({
. Sveshnikov gives} 8. Bd3 {'!+/-', but} Ng4 $1 {
initiates strong counterplay against e5; for example,} 9. Bf4 (9. Bb5 f6 $1 10.
h3 Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 fxe5 12. Qh5+ Kd7 $1 13. Qxe5 Qf6 $15) ({, or} 9. Qe2 Qc7 10.
Bf4 f6 11. Bb5 a5 $5 $15) 9... f6 10. exf6 Qxf6 11. Bg5 Qf7 12. O-O Bd6 {
with nice central control and a modest edge.}) ({. Presumably} 8. b5 {
is better, although Black has satisfactory play after} Ne7 9. Bd3 (9. Ba3 Bd7
10. Bd3 Qb6 11. Qb3 Ng6 12. Bxf8 Nf4 $1 13. Bf1 Rxf8 $15 {with the idea} 14. g3
Ng4 15. Nd4 Ng6 16. f4 f6 $1) 9... Qc7 10. O-O Ng6 11. Re1 Bd7 {
(threatening ...Ng4)} 12. h3 Bc5 13. Bxh6 gxh6 14. Qd2 O-O-O $1 15. Qxh6 Qb6 {
with counterplay.})) 8. b5 {This takes the pressure off of e5, but it also
drives Black's knight to the kingside where it will play a role in both
defence and attack.} ({After} 8. Bxh6 gxh6 9. Qd2 {
, attacking h6, Black counterattacks e5 with} Qc7 {:} 10. -- (10. Bb5 Bd7 11.
Bxc6 Bxc6 12. O-O (12. Qxh6 $2 {is met by} d4 $1) 12... Rg8 13. g3 O-O-O 14.
Re1 d4 $5 15. Nxd4 Rg4 $1 {brings every black piece into play.}) ({. After} 10.
Qf4 {,} f5 $1 {sets up a later attack on the kingside. Then} 11. Qxh6 $6 Rg8 $1
{puts White too far behind in development; e.g.} 12. Qh5+ (12. a4 a5 $1 13.
bxa5 Rxa5) 12... Kf8 $1 13. Qh6+ Rg7 14. Qf4 Rg4 15. Qh6+ Kg8 $17 {.})) 8...
Ne7 ({Moskalenko, always on the alert for creative ideas, notes} 8... Ng4 $5 9.
bxc6 Nxf2 10. cxb7 Bxb7 11. Qa4+ Kf8 {'with an extremely complicated position'.
Remarkable. I don't see anything better for White than} 12. Qf4 Rc8 $5 ({
; the utterly crazy} 12... Nxh1 13. Ng5 Qd7 14. Bb5 $1 Nf2 $1 15. Kd2 $1 Bd8 $1
16. Bxd7 Bxg5 17. Qxg5 Ne4+ 18. Kc2 Nxg5 19. Bxg5 {
favours White with his powerful bishops}) ({, but} 12... h6 {
is only mildly better for White following} 13. Rg1 g5 14. Qb4+ $1 Kg7 15. Nd4
Ng4 ({or} 15... Ne4)) 13. Ng5 Qd7 14. Rg1 $1 (14. Bb5 Bc6 15. Ba6 Bb7 16. Bb5
Bc6 $11) 14... Rc4 $1 15. Bxc4 dxc4 16. Ba3+ Ke8 17. Qxf7+ Qxf7 18. Nxf7 Nd3+
19. Kd2 $1 Kxf7 20. Rf1+ Kg6 21. Rf8 $1 Rxf8 22. Bxf8 Bxg2 23. Na3 Bd5 24. Bd6
{with a slight edge.}) {After 8...Ne7, White chooses between:} 9. -- ({3.61} 9.
Bxh6) ({3.62} 9. Bd3) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.61 9 Bxh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. b4 Bb6 8. b5
Ne7 9. Bxh6 gxh6 {. This is the main continuation but, again, White pays a
price for the weaknesses created in terms of Black's open lines and his active
pieces.} 10. Bd3 ({White's pawn grab by} 10. Qd2 Ng6 $1 11. Qxh6 Qc7 12. Qg5 {
is too slow. Among others, Black has} Qc5 13. Qd2 Bd7 14. a4 Qc7 15. Qg5 h6 16.
Qg3 O-O-O 17. Bd3 Rdg8 18. O-O f5 $1 19. Ra2 f4 {and ...Nxe5.}) 10... Ng6 11.
O-O Qc7 $1 12. Re1 ({
It's not smart to surrender the e-pawn when ...0-0-0 is still an option:} 12.
Qd2 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Qxh6 Bd7 15. a4 O-O-O {
favours Black's bishops and centre.}) 12... O-O ({As far as I know,} 12... f6 {
hasn't been suggested or tested, but it looks promising. Briefly, play might go
} 13. exf6 (13. Bxg6+ hxg6 14. Qd3 f5) 13... O-O 14. c4 ({or} 14. Qb3 Nf4 15.
Bf1 Nh5 $1 {and 16...Nxf6=} ({which is simpler than} 15... Rxf6)) 14... Rxf6 ({
or} 14... Nf4 15. Bf1 Rxf6 16. Nbd2 {, transposing}) 15. Nbd2 Nf4 16. Bf1 Qc5
17. g3 $1 e5 $1 {(beginning a lengthy, semi-forced continuation)} 18. Kh1 $1 (
18. cxd5 Nh3+) 18... Nh3 19. Bxh3 Bxh3 20. Ng1 Be6 21. Rxe5 Qc7 22. f4 (22. Re2
dxc4 23. Ne4 Rf7 24. f3 Rd8) 22... Bd4 23. Rxe6 Rxe6 24. Rc1 Qd7 (24... Qf7 $5
25. Ndf3 Be3) 25. Ndf3 Bg7 26. Qxd5 Qxd5 27. cxd5 Rd6 $15 {.}) 13. a4 {
. A 'theoretical' position, to the extent that we get such a thing after 5...Nh6. Now Black has a pleasant choice.} -- ({(a)} 13... f5 $5 14. Ra2 $5 (14.
Qc1) 14... Qg7 15. Qc1 Bd7 $11 16. c4 $6 Ba5 $1 17. Ree2 dxc4 18. Bxc4 Kh8 19.
Rac2 Rac8 20. Na3 Bc7 21. Qe3 Bb6 22. Qc1 Rg8 $1 {(threatening ...Nf4)} 23. g3
f4 $1 24. Kh1 fxg3 25. fxg3 Rgf8 26. Rc3 Rf5 {
, winning the e-pawn with an ongoing attack, Morosi-Luppi, corr 2002.}) ({(b)} 
13... Bd7 14. Ra2 f6 15. Bxg6 $6 hxg6 16. Qd3 f5 {
(somewhat in Black's favour, I think)} 17. Nbd2 $6 Rfc8 18. Rc2 a6 19. Rec1
axb5 20. axb5 Ra3 $15 {Sveshnikov-Nikolaev, Moscow 1992.}) ({(c)} 13... f6 {
is simple and thematic. Play might go} 14. Bxg6 hxg6 15. Qd3 g5 ({or} 15... Kg7
) 16. Ra2 $1 (16. Qg6+ Qg7 17. Qxg7+ Kxg7 18. exf6+ Rxf6 $15 {
with multiple ideas including ...Bd7, ...Raf8 and ...g4}) 16... a6 $1 17. a5
Bc5 18. b6 Qg7 19. exf6 Qxf6 20. h3 Bd7 21. Nbd2 Rac8 {with superior activity.}
) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3.62 9 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. b4 Bb6 8. b5
Ne7 9. Bd3 Ng4 (9... Ng6 10. O-O Ng4 {transposes.} ({Here} 10... O-O {
is more common and theoretically equal, but requires more preparation.})) 10.
O-O Ng6 ({If Black prefers,} 10... Qc7 11. Qe2 Ng6 12. Bxg6 hxg6 {
transposes to the following note.}) 11. Bxg6 (11. Qe2 Qc7 12. Bxg6 hxg6 13. Ba3
Bd7 14. Bd6 Qc8 {, intending ...a6, is complex and dynamically balanced; e.g.}
15. a4 a6 16. Qb2 $1 (16. bxa6 Rxa6 17. Qb2 Bc7) 16... Qc4 $5 (16... axb5 {
can become wild after} 17. h3 Nh6 18. Na3 $1 Rxa4 19. Nxb5 Ra6 20. Ba3 Nf5 21.
Nfd4 Bxb5 22. Nxb5 Rh4 $1 23. g4 $2 Qc4 24. gxf5 $4 Qf4 $19 {intending ...Qg3+}
) 17. h3 (17. Nbd2 $2 Qe2 $1) 17... Qf4 $1 18. Qd2 (18. Nbd2 $2 Rxh3 $1) 18...
Qxd2 19. Nbxd2 Nh6 $11 {.}) 11... hxg6 $1 (11... fxg6 $6 {is the normal
recapture in the French Defence, but here White is in a good position to
exploit it. The following high-level game is quite instructive anyway:} 12. h3
({Collins suggests} 12. Ba3 $1 {, which should favour White; e.g.} a6 13. bxa6
Rxa6 14. Qe2 Nh6 15. c4 $1 $14) 12... Nh6 13. Bxh6 $5 ({now} 13. Ba3 a6 14.
bxa6 Rxa6 {and ...Nf5 is not convincing}) 13... gxh6 14. Nbd2 O-O 15. c4 a6 $1
16. Qe2 axb5 17. cxd5 exd5 $5 (17... Qxd5 {is also unclear after} 18. Ne4 Qc4
19. Nf6+ Kg7 20. Qb2) 18. Qxb5 Ra5 19. Qb4 Bc5 20. Qc3 Ba7 {, Grischuk-Bareev,
Cannes 2001. Black's rooks are better than White's and his bishops are
becoming active. Nevertheless, White can maintain equality by bringing a
knight to the d4 outpost; e.g.} 21. Nd4 Ra4 22. N2f3 Qe7 23. Rfd1 Rc4 24. Qe1
$11 {.}) 12. h3 (12. Qa4 Nh6 13. Bf4 Bd7 14. Qb3 a6 $15 {.}) 12... Nh6 13. Bxh6
(13. g4 $6 f5 $1 14. exf6 gxf6 15. Qd3 Kf7 {.}) 13... gxh6 14. c4 $1 (14. Nbd2
a6 15. bxa6 Rxa6 16. Nb3 O-O 17. Qd2 Kg7 $15 {.}) 14... dxc4 15. Na3 ({Or} 15.
Nbd2 c3 16. Nc4 Qxd1 17. Rfxd1 Ke7 {.}) 15... Qxd1 16. Rfxd1 c3 17. Rac1 Ke7
18. Rxc3 Rd8 19. Rxd8 Bxd8 {. This is probably equal, though the
bishop-versus-knight imbalance keeps it interesting;} ({for instance,} 19...
Bxd8 20. Nc4 Bd7 21. Nd6 Bb6 $1 22. a4 a6 23. Rc2 (23. bxa6 Rxa6 24. Nxb7 Rxa4
{intending ...Ra2 or ...Ra1+; the bishops ensure a small edge}) 23... axb5 24.
axb5 {(the play is still balanced, though White has to play carefully)} f5 $5
25. Rb2 $5 (25. Nxb7 $1 Ra1+ 26. Kh2 Rf1 27. Nd6 Rxf2 28. Rc8 $5 {
seems to hold for White after the forcing sequence} Rxf3 $1 29. gxf3 Bd4 30. f4
Bxc8 31. Nxc8+ Kd7 32. Nd6 Bc5 33. Nc4 g5 34. Kg3) 25... g5 26. g3 (26. Nxb7 $2
g4) 26... Ra5 27. Nxb7 Rxb5 28. Rxb5 Bxb5 29. Nd6 Ba6 {. Here the bishops are
strong and, even with pawns only one side of the board, Black has some
definite winning chances.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4. Tarrasch: Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C03"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 {. This constitutes the Tarrasch Variation, which has
the reputation of being a safe line for White that still provides an imbalance.
It is the second most popular third move, ahead of 3 e5, but has been dwarfed
by 3 Nc3, the most ambitious and thematic move. The advantages of 3 Nd2 are
clear: it develops a piece and protects e4, maintaining an ideal centre.
Unlike 3 Nc3, it does so without being subject to a pin on b4 and leaves the
move c3 open. On the other hand, the knight blocks the c1-bishop and
interferes with the protection of White's d-pawn by his queen. Those are
temporary problems and not structural ones, both resolvable by moving the
knight again. But apart from the loss of time that implies, the knight needs
somewhere to go to. After White protects or advances his e-pawn, it can
logically go to b3, a notoriously poor place for a knight (and indeed, it
seldom goes there in the major lines), or to f3. On f3, however, it interferes
with the natural development of White's king's knight, which might itself need
two moves to get to a good square like c3 or f4 via e2. --- Because of these
reorganizational difficulties, Black has great leeway in choosing his own pawn
structure and piece placement. Thus even literally eccentric moves such as 3...a6 and 3...h6 are playable, as well as the mainstream 3...Be7, 3...Nc6
(hitting the d-pawn), and the most popular choice 3...Nf6. We'll be examining
the latter move in this and the next chapter. The theory of 3...c5, given in
all earlier 'PTF' editions, hasn't changed much and I've chosen to economize
by omitting it in this one.} Nf6 {The idea behind this move is to provoke e5,
with themes similar to those of the Advance Variation. The subsequent loss of
time by ...Nf6-d7 is balanced by a loss of tempo inherent in White's Nd2.
Black then lays siege to the pawn chain by ...c5 and ...f6. In response, White
can either shore up the e5-pawn by f4 (see Chapter 6) or he can exchange on f6,
after which the game revolves around his attempts to control e5. The key ideas
are best explained by example.} 4. e5 ({Note that} 4. exd5 exd5 {is already
al for Black, because White's knight on d2 is poorly placed for an Exchange
Variation and will lose time moving again.}) ({The main alternative is} 4. Bd3
c5 {.} 5. -- ({. Now play can transpose to the main line after} 5. e5 Nfd7 6.
c3 {. Others:}) (5. dxc5 {gives up the centre too quickly:} dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nxe4
7. Bxe4 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 Bxc5 {with active play and at least equality. The natural
} 9. Ke2 {, preparing Be3, can be met by} f5 10. Bf3 (10. Bd3 e5 11. Be3 Bxe3
12. Kxe3 Nc6) 10... Nd7 ({or} 10... Nc6) 11. Be3 Bxe3 12. Kxe3 Nf6 {
and ...e5 with an edge.}) (5. exd5 Qxd5 {(attacking g2 and d4)} (5... exd5 {
is also fine, since White's bishop stands better on e2 or b5 if an isolated
queen's pawn position arises}) 6. Ngf3 cxd4 7. O-O Nc6 {is a better version for
Black of the variation 3...c5 4 exd5 Qxd5 5 Ngf3 cxd4 6 Bc4 Qd6 7 0-0 Nf6 from
'PTF3'.}) ({. By far the most important alternative to 5 e5 is} 5. c3 {
, which introduces a plan where White aims to play with an isolated pawn and
launch an attack. An effective way to interfere with White's standard set-up is}
cxd4 (5... Nc6 6. Ngf3 cxd4 7. cxd4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Nc3 b6 {
is what White is after: a standard isolated queen's pawn position, with a
full-bodied game and equal chances, not that Black need avoid that}) 6. cxd4
dxe4 7. Nxe4 {. From this position, Black can either simplify or head into a
more complex struggle:} -- (7... Nxe4 {
is a relatively unambitious equalizer. After the capture} 8. Bxe4 {, Black has:
} -- (8... Bb4+ {is the simplest solution, frustrating White's attacking
ambitions. Contrary to what you may have read, exchanging two sets of minor
pieces does not necessarily put the possessor of an isolated queen's pawn at a
disadvantage, but it's usually enough to eliminate any attacking chances and
secure an equal game:} 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ {(the surest way to play against the IQP)}
(9... Qa5 {also suffices; e.g.} 10. Ne2 $1 O-O 11. Bxb4 ({or} 11. Nc3 Qb6)
11... Qxb4+ 12. Qd2 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Nd7 14. Rhc1 Nf6 15. Bf3 Rb8 16. Rc7 Rd8 17.
Ke3 Ne8 18. Rc3 b6 19. Rac1 g5 20. h3 Kg7 $11) 10. Qxd2 Nd7 11. Ne2 {(best)} ({
White risks coming out slightly worse after} 11. Nf3 $6 Nf6 12. Bc2 O-O 13. O-O
b6 $1 14. Rfe1 Bb7 15. Ne5 Qd5 $5 16. f3 Rfd8 17. Red1 Rac8 $15) 11... Nf6 ({or
} 11... O-O 12. O-O Qb6 13. Bf3 Rd8 14. Rac1 Nf6 {, transposing}) 12. Bf3 O-O
13. O-O Qb6 14. Rac1 (14. Rfc1 Rd8 {intending ...e5; e.g.} 15. Rc3 e5 16. Rb3
Qd6 17. Bxb7 Bxb7 18. Rxb7 exd4 $11) {
, S.Pavlov-Fingerov, Kiev 2002; and now the easiest course is} 14... Rd8 {
(threatening ...e5)} 15. Rfd1 Bd7 {; for example,} 16. Rc5 $5 Rac8 17. Rdc1 Bc6
18. b4 $5 (18. Bxc6 Rxc6 19. Rxc6 bxc6 $11 {is a well-known type of position})
18... Nd7 19. R5c2 Ne5 20. Bh5 Ra8 $1 $11 {, intending ...Ng6 and/or ...a5.}) (
8... Nd7 {(intending ...Nf6 and ...Bb4+ or ...Bd6)} 9. Ne2 (9. Nf3 Nf6 10. Bc2
Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Qa5 12. O-O Bxd2 13. Nxd2 O-O $11) 9... Nf6 10. Bf3 Bd6 11. O-O
O-O 12. Nc3 (12. Bg5 h6 13. Bh4 $4 g5 14. Bg3 g4) 12... Bd7 13. Bg5 (13. Re1 h6
14. d5 ({here} 14. Bxb7 {is met by} Bxh2+) 14... e5 $5 $11) 13... h6 14. Bh4 (
14. Bxf6 Qxf6 15. Ne4 Qe7 16. Nxd6 Qxd6 $11) 14... Rc8 $11 {.})) (7... Bd7 {
is a good unbalancing option. The safest move is} 8. Nc3 ({
White should probably avoid} 8. Nf3 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Bb4+ 10. Bd2 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2
Bc6 {; e.g.} 12. Bxc6+ Nxc6 13. O-O O-O {
intending ...Qd5 or ...Qd6, when Black has a slight edge}) ({; if White tries} 
8. Nxf6+ Qxf6 9. Nf3 {, then} Bb4+ 10. Bd2 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 Bc6 {is strong}) {
, when Black has a choice of the following:} 8... -- (8... Bc6 9. Nf3 Nbd7 {
gives a complex position with equal chances; for example,} 10. O-O Be7 11. Qe2
$1 (11. Re1 O-O 12. Bc2 Qb6 13. Qd3 Rfd8 {
and White is rather at a loss for good moves}) 11... O-O 12. Bd2 Qb6 {
, and if White plays Be3, both ...Nd5 and ...Qa5, intending ...Nd5, are fine,
whereas} 13. Rfd1 Rac8 14. a3 Rfd8 {gives Black a comfortable position.}) (8...
Nc6 9. Nf3 Qb6 {threatens ...Nxd4. Then White might sacrifice the d-pawn by}
10. O-O ({or} 10. Bc2 Nb4 ({note, too, that in this line,} 10... Qa6 $5 11. Bd3
({while} 11. Bg5 Nb4 {has the idea} 12. Bb1 Bc6) 11... Qb6 {offers a repetition
}) 11. Bb1 Bc6 12. O-O Rd8 13. Be3 Nbd5) 10... Nxd4 11. Nxd4 Qxd4 12. Nb5 (12.
Be3 Qe5) 12... Qb6 13. Be3 Qd8 $5 ({safer is} 13... Qa5 14. Bd2 Qb6 ({
or if Black has to win, then} 14... Qd8 15. Rc1 Bc6 16. Bf4 Nd5 17. Be5 Qg5 18.
Bg3 Be7 $11) 15. Be3 $11) 14. Rc1 Nd5 15. Bd4 a6 16. Nc3 Bc6 17. Re1 Nxc3 18.
Bxc3 Be7 $1 {, which is at least equal.})))) 4... Nfd7 5. Bd3 ({
White has several options: -- (a)} 5. c3 c5 {
will very likely transpose to main lines after} 6. f4 (6. Bd3) ({, or} 6. Ngf3
{.})) ({(b)} 5. Ngf3 {has independent significance if White answers} c5 {by} 6.
c4 $5 {.} (6. Bb5 Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 ({or} 7... Qb6)) (6. c3 Nc6 7. Be2 $5 (7. Bd3
{transposes to 4.2}) 7... Qb6 {with the idea} 8. Qb3 ({or} 8. Nb3 cxd4 9. cxd4
a5 $1 10. a4 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 O-O 12. g3 f6 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Kg2 {
, Chiburdanidze-E.Vladimirov, Baku 1979, and here} Bd6 $1 {is best}) 8... cxd4
9. Qxb6 axb6 10. cxd4 Nb4) {
After 6 c4, White has more space but his centre is vulnerable:} 6... -- (6...
cxd4 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bd3 (8. Nb3 Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Nc6) 8... Nc6 9.
O-O Be7 (9... Nc5 10. Nb3 Bg4 11. Be2 ({here} 11. Re1 Ne6 12. h3 Bh5 {
was equal in Kotronias-M.Gurevich, Manila Olympiad 1992}) 11... Bxf3 12. Bxf3
Ne6 13. Bg4 Qb6 14. f4 O-O-O {is unclear, Winsnes-Arnason, Reykjavik 1990}) 10.
Re1 Nc5 11. Bb1 Qb6 $15 {Smagin-Knaak, Yerevan 1988.}) (6... Nc6 7. cxd5 exd5
8. Bd3 (8. Bb5 Qb6 ({also possible are} 8... Be7) ({, and} 8... g6 $5) 9. Ba4 (
{or} 9. Qe2 Be7) 9... Qa6) 8... g6 $1 ({more enterprising than} 8... Be7) 9.
O-O Bg7 10. Re1 (10. Qe2 cxd4 11. e6 Nc5 12. exf7+ Kxf7 $15 {
Khalifman-Bareev, USSR Ch., Kiev 1986}) 10... O-O 11. dxc5 Ndxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5
13. Bf1 Be6 14. Nb3 Nc6 15. Bb5 Qf6 $15 {with control over d4, which makes the
d-pawn a force to be reckoned with, Sasu Ducsoara-Radu, Rumania 1992.})) ({(c)
} 5. Ndf3 {is an unusual move order:} c5 6. c3 ({for} 6. Ne2 {, see the Classical Variation of Chapter 13, via 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nf3 c5 6 Ne2, or 5 Nce2
c5 6 Nf3}) 6... Nc6 7. Nh3 $6 (7. Bd3 {transposes to 7 Ndf3 of 4.1 below}) ({
, while} 7. Ne2 {again transposes to Chapter 13; i.e. 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5
Nf3 c5 6 Ne2 Nc6 7 c3}) 7... cxd4 (7... h6) ({, or} 7... Qa5 $5 8. Bd2 Qb6 $15)
8. cxd4 h6 $1 {(intending ...g5)} 9. Nf4 g5 10. Ne2 g4 11. Nd2 f6 $1 {
with the idea} 12. Qc2 fxe5 $1 13. Qg6+ Ke7 $15 {; for example,} 14. Qxg4 Nf6
15. Qh4 Rg8 16. dxe5 Nxe5 17. Qd4 $5 Nc6 18. Qc3 Kf7 {and ...e5.}) ({(d)} 5. c4
dxc4 (5... c5 {is normal, when} 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Ngf3 Nc6 {is note 'b' above})
6. Nxc4 (6. Bxc4 c5 7. Ngf3 Nc6 $11) 6... b5 $5 7. Ne3 a6 8. Nf3 Bb7 $11 {
intending ...c5 next, Wallwork-Lumley, corr 1990.}) 5... c5 6. c3 ({
White should not give up the centre by} 6. Ngf3 cxd4 (6... Nc6 7. c3 {
transposes to 4.2 again}) 7. O-O (7. Nb3 Nc6 8. Qe2 Bb4+) 7... Nc6 8. Re1 Bb4
$1 {. This favours Black after} 9. a3 Ba5 10. Re2 (10. b4 Bc7 11. Bb5 O-O 12.
Bxc6 bxc6 13. Nb3 {, J.Stevenson-Orr, Edinburgh 1999;} f6 $1 14. exf6 Qxf6)
10... Bc7 11. Qe1 Bb8 ({or} 11... O-O 12. b4 f6 13. exf6 gxf6 $1) 12. Nb3 O-O
13. c3 $6 (13. Bf4 f6) (13. Bb5 Qc7) 13... dxc3 14. Qxc3 f6 15. exf6 Qxf6 16.
Qc2 h6 17. Bd2 e5 $17 {Rybak-Thielen, ICCF email 2001.}) 6... Nc6 {
. Here White makes a fundamental choice. In this chapter, we look at:} 7. -- ({
4.1} 7. Ndf3) ({4.2} 7. Ngf3) ({4.3} 7. Ne2 {(Introduction)}) ({
In Chapter 5, we'll examine the main lines following} 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9.
exf6 {;} (9. Nf4 {is included in this chapter.})) ({
A little strangely, French Defence books neglect the move} 7. Qg4 {.} -- ({
. 'ECO' does offer} 7... f5 {('!')} 8. Qf4 Be7 {
from Zvarik-Jurcik, Bratislava 2002, but it's not obvious why} 9. Ne2 $1 {
shouldn't afford White good prospects.}) ({. The best sequence seems to be} 
7... h5 $1 8. Qf4 cxd4 (8... Be7 9. Ne2 $1) 9. cxd4 {, and now} g6 $5 {
intending ...Bh6 looks very strong} (9... Nb4 10. Bb1 Qc7 11. Ndf3 $1 Nc2+ 12.
Bxc2 Qxc2 13. Nh3 {is unclear}) {; for example,} 10. Ngf3 Bh6 11. Qg3 -- ({
, but even in the seemingly advantageous line} 11... h4 $5 {, with the idea}
12. Qg4 Nf6 $1 13. Qh3 (13. exf6 e5 {traps the queen!}) 13... Nh5 $1 {, here}
14. g3 $1 {is miraculously okay for White after} hxg3 15. hxg3 Nb4 16. Bb1 Nxg3
$5 17. Qxh6 $1 Rxh6 18. Rxh6 Qc7 19. Nb3 Ne4 20. Bg5 $1 {
with adequate counterplay.}) ({. Ultimately, in this line,} 11... Qb6 12. Qh4
Nb4 13. Bb1 Qb5 {might be the best try for advantage, but obviously there is
much to look at for both sides.}))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.1 7 Ndf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 $5 {
. This is a tricky sequence which I suggested for White as a 'dangerous
weapon' in my French book with that title ('DWF'). Against it, I'm hesitant to
recommend a messy line which, whatever the objective assessment, gives White
most of the attacking chances. Fortunately, there seems to be a fairly clear
way for Black either to neutralize White's play or bring him back to the main
lines:} cxd4 ({Some readers may find one or two of the positions resulting
from this exchange too simplified for their tastes. For such players, there
are all sorts of fascinating lines beginning with} 7... Qa5 8. -- ({
, after which White will either move his king by} 8. Kf1 $5 {
(a concession which is not entirely one-sided)}) ({, or gambit a pawn by} 8.
Bd2 Qb6 9. Ne2 $5 {,} ({; after} 9. Qc2 {, John Emms suggests} Be7 $1 {
, having the insight to understand that White can't find very useful moves,
since} 10. Nh3 $2 {lets Black capture his pawn on d4 without allowing White
the usual compensation that follows from Nf3;} ({whereas} 10. Ne2 $4 {
loses a piece after} c4 11. Bxh7 Nf8)) ({; lastly,} 9. Qb3 cxd4 10. Qxb6 Nxb6
11. cxd4 Nc4 12. Bc3 b5 {is promising}) {
when Black can capture on b2 directly by} 9... Qxb2 ({or by} 9... c4 10. Bc2
Qxb2 {. In both cases, White castles with hard-to-assess attacking chances for
a pawn. This may be the way to go if you want something more exciting than
what follows.}))) 8. cxd4 f6 9. exf6 (9. a3 $5 {gambits a pawn for activity:}
-- ({. The modest} 9... Be7 {seems to equalize following} 10. exf6 Bxf6 11. Ne2
e5 12. dxe5 Ndxe5 13. Nxe5 {and} Bxe5 ({or} 13... Nxe5 {.})) ({. Alternatively,
} 9... Qb6 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. Ne2 Bd6 12. O-O O-O {transposes to the old main
line 7 Ne2 Qb6 (see the note to 7...cxd4 in 4.3) with White committed to the
move a3 - this is considered equal.}) ({
. Black can also take up the challenge by} 9... fxe5 10. Nxe5 Ndxe5 11. dxe5
Nxe5 (11... g6 $5) 12. Qh5+ Nf7 13. Bxh7 Bd7 {
, which is dynamically equal; for example,} 14. Nf3 Bb5 15. Be3 (15. Ng5 Qf6 $1
) 15... Qf6 (15... Bd3 $5 {leads to a messy draw after} 16. Ne5 $1 g6 17. Bxg6
Qa5+ 18. Bd2 Rxh5 19. Bxf7+ Ke7 20. Bxh5 Qb5 21. Rc1 $1 {, and} Bc4 ({or} 21...
Kf6 22. Ng4+ Ke7 23. Ne5 $11) 22. Bg5+ Kd6 23. Bf4 Ke7 24. Bg5+) 16. Bd4 Qf4 (
16... Qe7 $5 17. Ne5 Rxh7 18. Qxh7 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Qg5 {is unclear}) 17. -- ({
, and White should repeat with} 17. Be3 Qf6 18. Bd4 {etc}) ({, because} 17. Rd1
Rc8 18. Qg6 Rc7 19. Ne5 $2 (19. Be5 Qc4) 19... Rxh7 $1 20. Nxf7 Rxf7 21. Qxh7
e5 22. Be3 Qc4 23. Rd2 Qc1+ 24. Rd1 Qxb2 {wins for Black.}))) 9... Nxf6 10. Nh3
$5 {This is the move I suggested in 'DWF' to stir things up (thanks to John
Emms and Jonathan Rowson).} (10. Ne2 {is the main line of 7 Ne2 (in Chapter 5).
}) 10... Qa5+ ({In the book I concentrated upon the similar but less effective
} 10... Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Qb6 {.} ({However,} 11... Bxd2+ $1 12. Qxd2 Ne4 {
also equalizes; for example:} 13. Qe3 $6 (13. Bxe4 {is better:} dxe4 14. Ne5
O-O $1 15. Rd1 Qd5 $11) 13... Qa5+ 14. Kf1 O-O 15. Bxe4 $6 (15. Nf4 {
, but still,} Qc7 16. Ne2 e5 {is rather depressing}) 15... dxe4 16. Qxe4 e5 $1
17. dxe5 Qb5+ 18. Qe2 (18. Kg1 $2 Bf5 19. Qe3 Bxh3 20. gxh3 Rf5 $19) 18...
Qxe2+ 19. Kxe2 Bxh3 20. gxh3 Rf5 {
(intending ...Raf8) and Black has the better of it, since} 21. Rhg1 $6 Raf8 22.
Rg3 $4 {loses to} Rxf3 $1 23. Rxf3 Nd4+ {.})) 11. Bd2 $1 ({After} 11. Kf1 Bd6 {
, the exchange} 12. Bf4 Bxf4 13. Nxf4 O-O {leaves White's king vis-à-vis
Black's rook on f8, and his own rook undeveloped on h1.}) 11... Bb4 $1 12. Bxb4
(12. a3 {has been seen several times over the past few years:} Bxd2+ 13. Qxd2
Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 O-O {and the play is instructive in that it illustrates Black's
resources. Remarkably, White has great difficulties equalizing, if that is
indeed possible:} 15. -- (15. Rhg1 h6 $5 ({both} 15... e5 $1) ({, and} 15...
Ng4 {seem to yield slight advantages after all is said and done}) 16. Nf4 Ne4+
17. Ke3 Nxf2 18. Kxf2 Rxf4 19. Ke3 Rf8 20. Bb5 Ne7 21. Rac1 Nf5+ 22. Ke2 Nd6
$15 {Djuraev-N.Nguyen, Al Ain 2008.}) (15. Bb5 e5 $1 {
is the real point behind the ...Qa5+/...Bb4 sequence:} 16. Bxc6 Ne4+ 17. Ke3
exd4+ 18. Nxd4 bxc6 $15 19. f3 Bxh3 20. gxh3 Ng5 {.}) (15. b4 e5 $1 16. dxe5
Bxh3 17. gxh3 {, Soors-Gleizerov, Biel 2009; and} Nd7 $5 {was effective,} ({but
} 17... Nh5) ({, and} 17... Ne4+ {were stronger still.})) ({. After} 15. Rae1 {
,} e5 {still works:} 16. Nxe5 (16. dxe5 Ne4+ 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Nfg5 Bf5 $1)
16... Bxh3 17. Nxc6 Bxg2 18. Ne7+ Kh8 19. Rhg1 Be4 {
with a small but definite advantage.}) (15. Rhe1 {
is the most interesting try, but still falls a tad short following} e5 $1 16.
dxe5 (16. Nxe5 Nxd4 {has the double idea ...Nb3+ and ...Bxh3}) 16... Bxh3 17.
gxh3 (17. exf6 Rxf6 18. Ng5 Bxg2 19. Bxh7+ Kh8 20. Bd3 Raf8 $15) 17... Nd7 (
17... Nh5 18. Be2 $5 Nf4 19. Rad1 Rae8 $15 {
Le Diouron-C.Andersson, Guingamp 2006}) 18. Be2 (18. Ng5 $2 h6 19. Ne6 Rxf2+
20. Re2 Rxe2+ 21. Kxe2 Re8 $17) 18... Ncxe5 19. Nxe5 Nxe5 20. Rf1 Rf4 21. Rac1
Nc4+ $1 (21... Rd4+ 22. Ke3 Nc6 23. Bg4 Re8+ 24. Kf3 Ne5+ 25. Kg3 Rd3+ 26. f3
Kf7 $15) 22. Bxc4 dxc4 23. Kc3 a6 $15 {.})) 12... Qxb4+ 13. Qd2 O-O (13...
Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 O-O 15. Rhe1 {
is like the previous note, except that White hasn't played a3.} -- (15... e5
16. Nxe5 {, and now Black can play} Bxh3 ({the 'lost move' helps White after} 
16... Nxd4 $2 {, because ...Nb3+ isn't threatened and} 17. Nf4 {retains an edge
}) 17. Nxc6 bxc6 (17... Bxg2 18. Ne5 Nh5 $5) 18. gxh3 Nh5 19. Re5 Rxf2+ (19...
g6 $11) 20. Ke3 (20. Ke1 Rxh2 21. Rxh5 Rh1+ 22. Bf1 Rf8 23. Ke2 Rh2+ 24. Ke3
Rh1 $11) 20... Raf8 21. Be2 g6 22. Bxh5 gxh5 23. Rg1+ Kh8 $11 {.}) ({. Alternatively, Black doesn't need to play 15...e5; he can also continue with the calm} 
15... h6) ({, or the dramatic} 15... Ne4+ 16. Bxe4 dxe4 {, and} 17. Ne5 ({or} 
17. Rxe4 $6 e5 $1) 17... Nxe5 18. dxe5 Bd7 19. Rac1 Bc6 $11 {.})) 14. Qxb4 Nxb4
15. Ne5 $1 (15. Bb1 e5 $1 16. Nxe5 Bxh3 17. gxh3 Rae8 18. O-O Nh5 $15 {
intending ...Nf4.}) 15... Nd7 (15... Ng4 $5 16. Ng5 g6 {is unclear.}) ({After} 
15... Nd7 16. -- ({, play could go} 16. Ng5 $6 g6 17. Rd1 (17. Bb1 Nxe5 18.
dxe5 Bd7 19. a3 Nc6 20. Nf3 Rxf3 21. gxf3 Nxe5 $15) 17... Nxe5 18. dxe5 Bd7 19.
Bb1 (19. O-O $2 Nxd3 20. Rxd3 h6 21. Nf3 Bb5) 19... Rac8 $15 {
and Black's pieces are more active.}) ({. But} 16. Ke2 $1 {improves; e.g.} Nxe5
17. dxe5 h6 $5 (17... Bd7 18. Rhc1 Nc6 19. f4 h6 $15) 18. f4 Bd7 19. Rhc1 Rac8
20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Nf2 Kf7 22. g3 Nxd3 23. Kxd3 g5 {
and Black has only a slight edge.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.2 7 Ngf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 {. The 'Universal System', whose widespread use is one of the most important developments
in the Tarrasch Variation over the last decade. This is an aggressive and
appealing system for those who are tired of slow development and the tiresome
task of defending the centre without corresponding activity. White's idea is
to develop rapidly in classical style, leaving open several options to play
with, say, 0-0/Re1/Nf1-g3; or to expand on the queenside by a3 and b4; or,
finally, to play in Nimzowitsch overprotection style with dxc5 and subsequent
control of e5 and d4. The main drawbacks to this system in general are that
the knight on d2 lacks a definite future and White's pawn on d4 can be hard to
defend. The following moves look unassuming, but they each initiate
surprisingly active counterplay:} -- ({4.21} 7... g6) ({4.22} 7... f6) ({4.23} 
7... h6 {. --- The first solution is highly theoretical. The others are rather
unusual and may not appeal to everyone (or even stand the test of time), but
they allow for more original play.}) ({What about other moves? -- (a)} 7... Be7
{transposes to a solution from 'PTF3' (via 3...Be7), which is also in good
shape theoretically, but whose theory has vastly expanded and the space
required by its analysis would preclude other options.}) ({(b)} 7... Rb8 {
, with the idea ...b5-b4, is reasonable and almost unexplored. A queenside
attack has a better chance of success with fewer of White's pieces able to
swing quickly to the kingside (as opposed to the variation with knights on e2
and f3).}) ({(c) Finally, the most radical solution is} 7... g5 $5 {, which has
only recently been taken seriously. The key idea is that, although White
hasn't castled and can play 8 h3, Black can still aim for ...g4, supported by ...h5 and ...Rg8 if necessary. I'll leave that for enterprising players to
investigate on their own.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.21 7...g6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 g6 {
. This is a 'mainstream' solution, to which I will devote the most space and
time. Black's desired set-up is ...Bg7/...0-0/...cxd4/...f6, dissolving
White's centre. White has two logical continuations:} 8. -- ({4.211} 8. O-O) ({
4.212} 8. h4) ({There aren't many useful waiting moves.} 8. Bc2 Bg7 {
usually transposes following an early 0-0} (8... b6 $5) {
. White can also play uniquely; e.g.} 9. a3 (9. Nb3 b6 10. Bg5 Qc7 11. O-O a5 {
and ...Ba6}) (9. h4 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 $1) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 $1 11. exf6 Qxf6
12. Nb3 e5 $1 {
gives Black the initiative, and White can hardly afford to lose more time by}
13. dxe5 Ndxe5 14. Qxd5 Be6 15. Qe4 {. If nothing else,} Nxf3+ 16. Qxf3 Qxf3
17. gxf3 Bc4 $1 {establishes an easy advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.211 8 0-0"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 g6 8. O-O
Bg7 9. Re1 {Otherwise Black can pursue the above-mentioned plan.} ({
For example: -- (a)} 9. b3 O-O 10. Bb2 (10. Ba3 f6 11. exf6 Qxf6 $11) 10... f6
11. exf6 Qxf6 12. c4 $6 cxd4 13. cxd5 exd5 14. Bb5 Qd6 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Bxd4
Bxd4 17. Nxd4 Ne5 $1 {and it's already hard for White to bring his pieces into
play, Vogt-Bareev, Budapest 1988.}) ({(b)} 9. Bb5 {isn't normally a worrisome
move in these structures and this is no exception. One solution is} O-O 10. Re1
Qb6 11. Qa4 (11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Nb3 cxd4 13. cxd4 a5) 11... Qc7 {
(to bring the knight to b6 with tempo)} 12. Nf1 a6 13. Bxc6 (13. Bd3 cxd4 14.
cxd4 f6) 13... bxc6 14. Bf4 a5 {
, planning moves such as ...Rb8 and ...cxd4 followed by ...c5.}) 9... O-O (9...
Qb6 {shows Black's cards, but the point is to commit White to a strategy. The
most independent line is} 10. dxc5 Qc7 11. Nb3 Ndxe5 12. Bf4 (12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13.
Bh6 $5 Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 Bf4 15. Bg7 Rg8 16. Bf6 {, Forster-Hertneck, Biel 1997;
in this obscure position, Black can play for simplification by} Be5 {and upon}
17. Bg5 {, repeat with} Bf4 ({or try for more by} 17... f6 {and ...Kf7}) 18.
Bf6 Be5) 12... O-O 13. Nbd4 Nxf3+ 14. Qxf3 e5 (14... Nxd4 15. cxd4 Qa5) 15. Bg3
Rd8 16. Qe2 {, Anagnostopoulos-Harley, London 1994; and} a6 {is safe and equal.
}) 10. Nf1 ({Instead: -- (a)} 10. h4 {is a bit strange after White has castled.
Although the h-pawn clamps down on ...g5, it weakens the kingside and Black
can get active play by} cxd4 11. cxd4 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6 (12... Qxf6 {
is also good; e.g.} 13. Nb3 e5 $1 14. dxe5 Ndxe5 15. Be2 d4 $5 $15 {
Roiz-Psakhis, Ramat Aviv 2000}) 13. Nb3 Ng4 $1 {and White has to deal with
both ...Qb6 (when f2 is vulnerable) and ...Qd6, aiming at h2 and preparing ...e5.}) ({(b)} 10. Bc2 {is a popular semi-waiting move which performs some
useful functions. It gives the d-pawn protection by the queen on d1 (when
White moves his knight), and it permits Nb3 because ...c4 won't be a fork.
Black's easiest course is to stick to his plan:} cxd4 ({although} 10... a5 {
is useful and discourages Nb3}) 11. cxd4 f6 12. exf6 Qxf6 {
(attacking the d-pawn and using the open f-file)} (12... Nxf6 {is also playable
}) 13. Nb3 e5 $1 14. dxe5 (14. Bg5 Qd6 15. dxe5 Ndxe5 16. Be4 Be6) 14... Ndxe5
15. Qxd5+ Be6 {and Black has a strong initiative; e.g.} 16. Qd1 (16. Qe4 Bg4 $1
) 16... Rad8 $1 17. Nbd2 Nd4 $17 {.}) ({(c)} 10. Qe2 Qb6 ({or} 10... cxd4 11.
cxd4 f6 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. Bb5 Re8 $1 14. Nb3 e5 15. Bg5 Qf5 $11) 11. Qe3 $2 {
(innocent-looking)} ({but} 11. dxc5 Qd8 $1 12. Nb3 Ndxe5 $11 {was necessary})
11... cxd4 12. cxd4 f6 {(suddenly things are collapsing)} 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Nb3
Ng4 $17 {, when Eschmann-Plesec, Swiss Team Ch. 2004, continued} 15. Qe2 e5 16.
dxe5 Ncxe5 17. Nxe5 Rxf2 18. Qxg4 Re2+ 19. Qd4 Rxe1+ 20. Kf2 Qxd4+ 21. Nxd4
Rxe5 $19 {.}) 10... cxd4 11. cxd4 Qb6 ({The other move, about equally good, is
} 11... f6 {. Then after} 12. exf6 {,} Nxf6 $1 {is best:} 13. -- (13. Be3 Ng4
14. h3 $6 ({but} 14. Qb3 Qb6 $1 15. Qxb6 axb6 {
will leave Black with the bishop pair under favourable circumstances}) 14...
Nxe3 15. fxe3 e5 {
with a significant advantage, Coote-Dhar Barua, British Ch., Torquay 2002.}) (
13. Bb5 Qb6 ({or} 13... Ne4 $11) 14. Bxc6 bxc6 15. Qc2 Ne4 16. Be3 c5 17. dxc5
Qxb2 18. Qxb2 Bxb2 19. Rab1 Bg7 $11 {.}) (13. b3 Nh5 14. Bb2 Qb6 {. This is the
sort of piece co-ordination that Black is looking for in the ...g6/...Bg7
system. White has done nothing obviously wrong but he has to take care about
his d-pawn and kingside. After} 15. Bc2 Bd7 16. Ne3 {
, Milosevic-Züger, Swiss Team Ch. 1991, the thematic} Rxf3 $1 17. Qxf3 (17.
gxf3 $2 Nf4 $17) 17... Rf8 18. Qd1 Nxd4 19. Rb1 Nf4 {puts considerable
pressure upon White's position, and Black's centre gives him something a bit
better than equality.})) 12. Bc2 ({Others: -- (a) The pawn sacrifice} 12. Be3
Qxb2 13. h4 {has some sting} (13. Rb1 Qxa2 14. Rb3 f6 15. Bc1 Qa5 $17 {
Balinas-J.Watson, San Francisco 1995}) {. Black must play resolutely:} 13... f6
$1 14. exf6 $5 (14. h5 fxe5 15. hxg6 hxg6 16. Bxg6 e4 17. Ng5 Nf6 18. Ng3 Ne7
19. Bh5 Nf5 $11) 14... Nxf6 15. Ng3 {
, A.Olsson-Brynell, Gothenburg 2005, and now} Ng4 $1 {; e.g.} 16. Rb1 Qxa2 $5
17. h5 Nxe3 18. fxe3 Ne7 {and Black seems to be defending.}) ({(b)} 12. Bb1 $6
f6 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. b3 $6 Ng4 15. Bb2 e5 $1 ({or} 15... Nxf2 16. Kxf2 Nxd4)
16. Ne3 Nxe3 17. fxe3 e4 18. Nd2 Be6 {with an obvious advantage.}) 12... f6 13.
exf6 Nxf6 {
This position has done very poorly for White, since Black is so active.} 14.
Ba4 {Trying to eliminate the pressure on d4. --- It is particularly worthwhile
to play through the notes to this move, as they illustrate a substantial
number of the ideas in the entire Bd3 Tarrasch.} ({(a)} 14. Ng3 Ng4 ({or} 14...
Ne8 {, attacking d4, when} 15. Be3 Qxb2 16. h4 $2 {
, Eslon-Czerniak, Biel 1976, ran into} Rxf3 $1 {; e.g.} 17. Rb1 Qc3 18. Ne2
Rxe3 $1 19. Nxc3 Rxc3 {with the better prospects}) 15. h3 $4 (15. Ne2 Nce5 $1
16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. f4 Bf6 $15) 15... Bxd4 16. Nxd4 Nxf2 {
winning, Krayz-Shaked, Berlin 1997.}) ({(b)} 14. Rb1 Bd7 (14... Ng4 15. Ne3 Nh6
16. Rf1 $2 ({better} 16. Nf1 Nf7 $15) 16... Nf7 {
won the d-pawn in Zimina-Socko, Istanbul 2003}) 15. h3 ({
Black is for choice after} 15. Ng3 $6 Ng4 $1 $15) ({, or} 15. Be3 $5 Ng4 16.
Ba4 Nxe3 17. Nxe3 Rf4) 15... Nb4 16. Bb3 Bb5 17. Ne5 $2 (17. Be3 Nd3 18. Re2
Ne4 $15) 17... Ne4 18. Be3 Nxf2 $1 19. Bxf2 Rxf2 20. Kxf2 Bxe5 21. Kg1 Bxd4+
22. Kh2 Nd3 23. Re2 Bg1+ $19 {Benjamin-M.Gurevich, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 2000.}) (
{(c)} 14. Bb3 Bd7 (14... Ng4 15. h3 Nh6 $11) (14... a5 $1 $15) 15. h3 $5 Ne4
16. Be3 a5 $1 17. Rb1 Nb4 (17... Rxf3 $5 18. Qxf3 Rf8 19. Qd1 Bxd4 {
- M.Gurevich;} 20. f3 $1 $11) 18. Ne5 Be8 19. a4 Nc6 20. f3 Nd6 21. g4 Nf7 22.
Nxc6 Bxc6 23. Bc2 Qc7 24. Kg2 e5 $15 {
Babaev-Gharamian, Cappelle la Grande 2008.}) 14... Ne4 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Ng3 (
16. Qc2 c5 $1 17. Ng3 cxd4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Qxe4 Bb7 20. Qxe6+ Qxe6 21. Rxe6
Bxf3 22. gxf3 Rac8 $15 {Benjamin-Shaked, US Ch., Parsippany 1996.}) 16... Nxf2
$5 ({Alternatively, there is} 16... e5 $5 17. Nxe4 dxe4 18. Nxe5 $1 {
, Mahjoob-Soln, Bled Olympiad 2002; then Black should play} Bxe5 $1 19. dxe5
Qxf2+ 20. Kh1 Be6 21. Bh6 Rf5 22. Qc1 $1 Bd5 $11 {.}) ({Moskalenko mentions} 
16... Nd6 17. b3 Nb5 {with pressure; there might follow} 18. Be3 Rxf3 $1 19.
Qxf3 Nxd4 20. Qf4 c5 {with dynamic equality.}) ({After} 16... Nxf2 {
, Smirin-J.Watson, San Francisco 1999, went} 17. Kxf2 Bxd4+ 18. Be3 Bxe3+ ({
avoiding} 18... Qxb2+ $2 19. Kg1 Qxa1 20. Qxd4 Qxd4 21. Bxd4 {
, when White dominates the dark squares}) 19. Rxe3 e5 20. Qb3 e4 21. Nxe4 Qxb3
22. axb3 dxe4 23. Rxe4 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.212 8 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 g6 8. h4 {
. White goes for the unsubtle attack by h5 and hxg6. If nothing else, this
discourages Black from playing ...f6 in many lines.} h6 $5 {Black will meet h5
with ...g5, and will also respond to 0-0 with ...g5. There are many
alternatives here. I'll mention a couple, along with some original ideas.} ({
(a)} 8... Qb6 9. h5 (9. dxc5 Qc7 10. h5 $6 Nxc5 11. Bc2 Bg7 {
and Black stands well}) 9... -- ({, and now} 9... g5 10. Nxg5 cxd4 11. cxd4 {
is a well-known position in which, after many tests,} Nxd4 ({but} 11... Qxd4
12. Ndf3 Qb4+ {is still viable at the time of this writing}) 12. Ndf3 {
keeps an edge for White.}) ({
. Instead, Romero Holmes once suggested the astonishing move} 9... Rg8 {
(!), which he calls an interesting alternative.} 10. -- ({
. 'White should do something quickly,' he says, and gives the moves} 10. hxg6
hxg6 11. Qa4 {. I don't think this should bother Black after} g5 12. g4 cxd4
13. cxd4 f6 $1 {(the rook does something on g8 after all, preventing Bg6+).}) (
{. Probably White should consider} 10. Kf1 -- ({, having in mind} 10... cxd4
11. cxd4 Nxd4 $6 12. hxg6 hxg6 13. Nxd4 Qxd4 14. Nf3 {
with wonderful compensation.}) ({. Black should try something slower; e.g.} 
10... a5 11. hxg6 ({or} 11. dxc5 Nxc5 12. Bc2 Bg7) 11... hxg6 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13.
Nb3 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Bg7 {, which is very close to equal.})))) ({(b)} 8... Be7 {
is one of Black's most respectable options. I'm not going to go into the
details, but did want to point out something in the widely recommended line
for White:} 9. Kf1 (9. h5 g5 {is the idea}) 9... O-O 10. Kg1 -- ({
, and here Sebag-V.Popov, Cappelle la Grande 2006, went} 10... f6 11. exf6 Bxf6
12. Ng5 $5 {, when} Qe7 13. Ndf3 cxd4 14. h5 $1 {is hard to assess.}) ({
. Instead, Black should opt for} 10... cxd4 $1 11. cxd4 f6 12. exf6 Bxf6 {
, and if White plays as in the Sebag game with} 13. Ng5 {, then} Qe7 $1 14.
Ndf3 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Bxd4 16. Nf3 {
is virtually forced, and White barely escapes after} Bc5 17. h5 (17. Bh6 Rf7
18. h5 Ne5 $1) 17... Ne5 $1 18. hxg6 Ng4 $1 19. Rxh7 $1 Nxf2 20. Qe2 $1 Nxd3+
21. Kf1 Qd6 22. Bh6 $1 Qg3 23. Rg7+ Kh8 24. Rh7+ Kg8 25. Rg7+ $11 {.})) 9. O-O
{In some sense this is unnatural, since h4 doesn't seem to go with castling,
yet it works to discourage ...g5. At this key juncture, White has many other
reasonable ways to try to use his space advantage.} ({(a)} 9. a3 {
, intending b4, is an important alternative, although it's a tad slow:} Qb6 ({
or} 9... a5 10. O-O g5 $1 11. hxg5 hxg5 12. g4 Qb6 {
and White's king is a little loose; e.g.} 13. Qa4 Be7 14. Re1 Kf8 $1 15. Kg2 f6
$1 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Ne5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 c4 $1 {with the idea} 19. exf6 $4 ({
instead,} 19. Bg6 $1 Rh2+ 20. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 21. Kh3 Qh4+ {draws}) 19... Rh2+) 10.
O-O (10. b4 $5 cxd4 11. cxd4 Nxd4 12. Bb2 Nxf3+ 13. Nxf3 {
, Solovjov-Se.Ivanov, St Petersburg 2009, and a direct solution is} Nc5 {
intending 14...a5, even after} 14. Bxg6 $5) 10... g5 11. hxg5 (11. b4 cxd4 12.
cxd4 g4 13. Nh2 Qxd4 14. Nb3 Qxe5 15. Nxg4 {- Postny; then} Qg7 16. Qe2 Rg8 17.
f3 Qc3 $5 18. Rb1 Nce5 {is at least satisfactory for Black}) 11... hxg5 12.
Nxg5 cxd4 13. cxd4 Qxd4 $1 14. Ndf3 Qg4 15. Nxf7 $1 Rg8 $1 16. N7g5 Ndxe5 17.
Be2 Nxf3+ 18. Bxf3 Qh4 19. g3 $2 (19. Bh5+ Kd7 20. Qg4 $11) 19... Rxg5 20. Bxg5
Qxg5 {with a winning game, Perunovic-E.Berg, Gothenburg 2005.}) ({(b)} 9. Bc2 {
is consistent with a strategy of waiting for Black to commit and has the
benefit of allowing direct defence of the d-pawn after a move by the knight
from d2. The drawback is that White uses a tempo and also yields the f1-a6
diagonal:} b6 $5 {(intending ...Ba6 directly)} ({
Black can also play conventionally with} 9... Bg7 {
, which is probably best met by} 10. Nf1 ({or} 10. a3 {, inviting} a5 $5 11.
Nf1 b5) {, when} 10... Qa5 11. Bd2 Qb6 {might follow}) 10. O-O (10. c4 Ba6 $1 {
has the tactical point} 11. cxd5 exd5 12. h5 $4 cxd4 $1 13. hxg6 Qe7 14. gxf7+
Kxf7 $19) 10... g5 $1 (10... Ba6 11. Re1 cxd4 12. cxd4 Nb4 {
is complex and playable}) 11. hxg5 (11. Ba4 Bb7 12. h5 Rg8 $5 13. g4 a6 $5 {
, planning queenside expansion}) 11... hxg5 12. g4 a5 13. Re1 Be7 14. Nf1 Ba6
15. Ng3 b5 {with dynamic prospects for both sides.}) ({(c)} 9. Nf1 {
is another standard idea:} Qa5 ({Black could try to call White's bluff with} 
9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Qb6 11. Bc2 Bb4+ 12. Ke2 Qb5+ $5 {, and} 13. Bd3 ({or} 13.
Qd3 Qa5 {, thinking about ...b6 and ...Ba6}) 13... Qb6 14. Bc2 Qb5+) 10. Ke2 $5
(10. Bd2 Qb6 11. Qb3 Qxb3 12. axb3 cxd4 13. cxd4 $11) 10... b5 $1 11. a3 b4 12.
cxb4 cxb4 13. Be3 Ba6 14. Bxa6 Qxa6+ 15. Qd3 Qxd3+ 16. Kxd3 bxa3 17. bxa3 Nb6
18. N1d2 {½-½ Smirin-Gleizerov, Biel 2008.}) ({(d)} 9. Bb1 {
resembles 9 Bc2, so just a peek:} b5 (9... b6) (9... Rg8 $5 {intending ...g5})
10. a3 a5 11. Nf1 {, Smirin-Abbasov, Baku 2011, when} Ba6 $1 12. h5 g5 13. Ne3
b4 {looks fine; e.g.} 14. Ng4 bxa3 15. bxa3 cxd4 16. cxd4 Qc7 $11 {.}) ({(e)} 
9. Nb1 {stops ...g5, although it allows} Qb6 {, when White really can't gambit
the pawn and must lose a little time. How that works out isn't obvious,} ({
but in Monroy-Moskalenko, Illes Medes 2006/07, Black chose} 9... Bg7 10. Be3 a6
({'!?' - Moskalenko; if Black wants to expand,} 10... Rb8 $1 {
looks appropriate; e.g.} 11. Nbd2 b5 12. h5 g5 13. Nh2 $2 cxd4 14. cxd4 Ndxe5
$1 15. dxe5 d4) 11. Nbd2 b5 12. h5 (12. O-O b4 $5) 12... g5 13. Nh2 $5 O-O 14.
Ng4 (14. O-O f6 15. exf6 Nxf6 $11 {with the idea} 16. dxc5 e5 17. Nb3 b4) {
, and now Moskalenko suggests} 14... cxd4 15. cxd4 f5 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Nxf6+
Qxf6 18. Nf3 e5 $1 {.})) 9... g5 {Here the anti-...g5 recipe 10 dxc5 fails
because Black's queen hasn't developed to b6.} (9... Qb6 {
is playable anyway, if not inspiring; e.g.} 10. c4 {has a certain logic, now
that Black has loosened his kingside and especially g6, but it also allows
White's centre to be destroyed by} cxd4 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nb3 Bg7 {
, Rendle-E.Berg, Liverpool 2007; and here} 13. e6 $1 ({instead of} 13. Bf4 O-O
14. Re1 Re8 $17) 13... fxe6 14. Bxg6+ Kd8 {should have been tried, although
Black's impressive central mass and extra pawn should at the least make up for
his king position.}) 10. hxg5 ({Others: -- (a)} 10. h5 Qb6 11. c4 cxd4 12. cxd5
exd5 13. Nb3 Bg7 14. Nfxd4 $1 {(a pseudo-sacrifice; White has to move quickly
or his centre will falls as the king scurries to safety; now Nf5 is threatened)
} Nxd4 15. Be3 Bxe5 16. Re1 {and White recovers the piece (by, say, Bf1) with
apparent equality, Zhang Pengxiang-M.Gurevich, Hoogeveen 2004.}) ({(b)} 10. c4
g4 $5 ({safer moves are} 10... Be7 $5) ({, and} 10... Nb4 11. Bb1 g4 12. Nh2 h5
{- Moskalenko}) 11. cxd5 {, Gopal-Ganguly, Dhaka 2007; and the conservative}
exd5 12. e6 $1 fxe6 13. Bg6+ Ke7 14. Nh2 h5 {
with balanced chances is probably best.}) 10... hxg5 11. g4 Qb6 12. Re1 $5 {
White uses the familiar gambit idea.} cxd4 (12... Be7 $11 {is the safe move.})
13. cxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Qxd4 15. Nb3 Qa4 $5 {. Black is a pawn to the good,} ({
and has prepared a convincing answer to} 15... Qa4 16. Bxg5 Rg8 17. f4 {:} Rxg5
$1 18. fxg5 Qf4 {
with a strong attack on both the king and White's weak pawns; for example,} 19.
g6 (19. Kg2 Nxe5 20. g6 f6 $1 21. Rf1 Qg5 22. Bb5+ Bd7 23. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {
and White's king is so exposed that Black will probably end up with three
passed pawns!}) 19... Qg3+ 20. Kf1 Bg7 $1 21. gxf7+ Kxf7 22. Qd2 Qh3+ 23. Kf2
Qh4+ 24. Kf1 Kg8 $15 {and ...Nxe5 follows.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.22 7...f6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 f6 {
. There are several valid but obscure ideas versus the Universal System (e.g.
7...g5!?), and this is one of the strangest, in the sense that French books
either don't mention it or don't take it seriously. Moskalenko is as always an
exception: he even plays it! I don't think any abstract explanation of 7...f6
is necessary: Black simply wants to rid himself of White's pawn chain in the
time-tested ...c5/...f6 fashion. The resulting positions are not simple, but
they are well defined and very little memorization of variations is required.}
({Before continuing, note that} 7... cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 {is similar} 9. -- ({
, when} 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O {transposes.}) (9. Ng5 $2 {is flawed due to} fxg5
10. Qh5+ g6 $1 11. Bxg6+ hxg6 12. Qxg6+ Ke7 {with a winning advantage; e.g.}
13. Ne4 ({or} 13. Nf3 Ndxe5 $1 14. Bxg5+ Kd7) 13... Ndxe5 14. Bxg5+ Kd7 15.
Nf6+ Kc7 16. dxe5 Nxe5 {.}) ({. The most important deviation is} 9. O-O $5 fxe5
10. Nxe5 Ndxe5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Qh5+ Nf7 13. Re1 {, when} Bc5 {is perhaps
; this is a move that isn't available in the 7...f6 8 0-0 fxe5 order.} ({
The problem with} 13... Bd6 {is that} 14. Nf3 $1 g6 15. Qg4 $1 {makes it hard
for Black to develop, and the idea of Qd4 is annoying. This could provide some
incentive for delaying 7...cxd4 in favour of 7...f6, depending on whether you
like 13...Bc5.}))) 8. exf6 ({Instead: -- (a) As above,} 8. Ng5 $2 {loses to}
fxg5 ({various books and annotated games give} 8... Ndxe5 {
'!', but it is itself a mistake}) 9. Qh5+ g6 10. Bxg6+ hxg6 11. Qxg6+ Ke7 12.
Ne4 (12. Nf3 Ndxe5 $1 {, and} 13. Nxe5 ({or} 13. dxe5 Kd7) 13... Nxe5 14. Bxg5+
Kd7 15. dxe5 Qe8 $19) 12... Ndxe5 $1 13. Bxg5+ Kd7 14. Nf6+ Kc7 15. Ne8+ Qxe8
$1 16. Qxe8 Bg7 {and the queen is trapped, so} 17. Bd8+ Kb8 18. Be7 b6 19. Qxh8
Nd3+ 20. Kd2 Bxh8 21. Bd6+ Kb7 22. Kxd3 cxd4 {might follow.}) ({
(b) This time the gambit} 8. O-O fxe5 9. Nxe5 Ndxe5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Qh5+ Nf7
{has a different character after} 12. Re1 ({not} 12. Bxh7 $4 g6 $1 13. Qxg6 Qh4
) 12... Bd6 $1 (12... g6 13. Bb5+ Bd7 14. Rxe6+ Be7 15. Qe2 {
, Pitra-Marret, Kuala Lumpur 2011; and now} Bxb5 $1 16. Qxb5+ Qd7 17. Qe2 Nd8 {
would have been about equal}) {. Now we get some fascinating lines:} 13. -- (
13. Nf3 g6 14. Qg4 e5 $1 {. Compare 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 above: at this point,
Qd4! was strong, since the c-pawns were gone; as it is, White has precious
little compensation.}) (13. Bb5+ Kf8 $1 14. Qe2 g6 15. Nf3 e5 {.}) (13. g3 $5 {
threatens Qxd5:} Kf8 (13... Qe7 {is safer}) 14. c4 g6 15. Qe2 Kg7 16. b4 $1 Be5
$5 17. Rb1 b5 $5 {is unclear.}) (13. f4 c4 (13... Qe7 14. Bb5+ Kf8 $15) 14. Bc2
Bxf4 {and now:} 15. -- (15. Ba4+ Kf8 16. Rf1 e5 17. g3 b5 18. Bd1 (18. gxf4 g6
19. Qe2 bxa4 20. fxe5 Kg7 $15) 18... Qg5 $15 {.}) (15. Rf1 g6 16. Qf3 e5 17.
Nxc4 (17. g3 Ng5 18. Qe2 O-O 19. gxf4 exf4 {
with three pawns and big attack for the piece}) 17... O-O 18. Bxf4 exf4 19.
Rad1 Qc7 20. Qxd5 Bg4 $15 {.})) (13. c4 d4 14. Bxh7 (14. Ne4 Be7) (14. Nf3 g6
15. Qg4 Qf6) 14... g6 15. Qxg6 Qh4 {
, Chouraqui-B.Nilson, ICCF server 2009; and White had} 16. Bg8 $1 ({instead of
} 16. Ne4 Qxh2+ 17. Kf1 Be7 $15) 16... Qxh2+ 17. Kf1 Qh1+ 18. Ke2 Qh5+ 19. Qxh5
Rxh5 20. Ne4 Be7 $11 {.})) 8... Nxf6 9. O-O cxd4 ({Black avoids} 9... Bd6 10.
dxc5 Bxc5 {, when both} 11. b4 ({and} 11. c4 {
seem to offer White a small advantage.})) 10. cxd4 (10. Nxd4 {
requires some care:} Bd6 11. Re1 (11. N2f3 e5 $1 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Nxe5 $1 Bxe5
14. Re1 Ng4 $1 15. Bf4 O-O 16. Bxe5 Nxf2 17. Qc2 Nxd3 18. Qxd3 Bf5 19. Qg3 Qd7
$11) 11... e5 12. Nf5 O-O (12... e4 $5) 13. Nxd6 Qxd6 14. Ne4 $1 {
(upon slower moves, Black consolidates his centre)} Nxe4 15. Bxe4 Be6 {
and Black's centre matches the bishop pair in worth. A radical continuation
would be} 16. c4 $5 Nd4 $5 17. cxd5 Bxd5 18. Qg4 Bxe4 19. Qxe4 Rac8 20. Be3 Nc2
21. Rad1 Qc6 22. Qxc6 Rxc6 23. Re2 Nxe3 24. fxe3 Kf7 $11 {.}) 10... Bd6 {
Moskalenko feels that this position is equal due to the passivity of White's
knight on d2, and the limited practice so far has been fairly promising. Even
if White has a technical advantage (which is not at all clear), the variation
is at any rate unbalanced. Someone who understands how to handle his pieces in
this pawn structure should be able to retain a good deal of play on the board
without ceding ground.} 11. Re1 {Easily the most popular move. Its only
drawback is that White takes a defender away from f2.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 11.
b3 O-O 12. Bb2 {is solid but the bishop has no mobility. Two good examples:} --
(12... Bd7 13. Rc1 ({after} 13. Ne5 {, Black should consider} Be8 {
, with ideas of ...Bxe5, ...Qb6, and/or ...Bh5}) 13... Nb4 14. Bb1 Bb5 15. Re1
Nd3 16. Bxd3 Bxd3 17. Ne5 Ba6 18. a3 Qe7 19. b4 {
, S.B.Hansen-M.Richter, Gothenburg 2011;} Nd7 $1 20. Ndf3 (20. Nxd7 Qxd7 21.
Nf3 Rf5 $1 22. Ne5 Qe7) 20... Rf5 {intending ...Raf8 with an edge.}) (12... Qb6
13. Rc1 (13. Ne5 a5 $5 14. Ndf3 a4) 13... Bd7 14. Ne5 Be8 15. Bb1 $2 ({after} 
15. Ndf3 {Moskalenko suggests} Nb4 {, probably intending} 16. Bb1 Bh5) 15...
Bh5 16. Qe1 (16. Ndf3 $2 {fails to} Bxe5 17. dxe5 Ne4) 16... Nxd4 17. Bxd4 Qxd4
18. Nef3 Qb6 {
½-½ Lastin-Kosyrev, Moscow 2006. Moskalenko likes Black, giving} 19. Qxe6+
Kh8 20. Qh3 Rae8 $17 {
. Black's pieces are very active and he isn't even down any material.})) ({
(b) The territorial grab} 11. a3 O-O 12. b4 {can be met by the central counter}
e5 $1 {. Then White should play} 13. Qb3 $1 (13. dxe5 $6 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 $2 Bxe5
15. Ra2 Bxh2+ $1) 13... Kh8 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 (15. Bb2 Nxd3 16. Qxd3 a5
17. b5 Ng4 $5 18. h3 Bf5 19. Qd4 Nf6 $11) 15... Bxe5 16. Bb2 {
, and Black has the traditional Greek sacrifice} Bxh2+ $5 ({for the record,} 
16... Ng4 17. Bxe5 Nxe5 {should equalize}) 17. Kxh2 Ng4+ {
leading to a series of mostly forced moves:} 18. Kg3 Qd6+ 19. f4 Qh6 20. Rae1
Bd7 $1 21. f5 $1 (21. Re7 d4) 21... Ne3 22. Nf3 Bxf5 23. Rxe3 $1 Qxe3 24. Bc4
Qh6 25. Bxd5 Rae8 26. Kf2 $1 Bg4 27. Kg1 Bxf3 28. Bxf3 Qb6+ 29. Kh2 Qh6+ $11 {.
}) ({(c)} 11. Nb3 O-O {and:} 12. -- ({. After} 12. Qe2 {, I like} a5 $1 13. a4
$5 Qb6 14. Bc2 Qc7 $11 {with ideas of ...Nb4/...b6/...Ba6, and a well-timed ...Ng4 or ...Ne4 is still in the air.}) (12. Bg5 {brings up the most common
position besides 11 Re1. Apart from the obvious 12...Bd7 and 12...Qc7, Black
can take more active approaches, including:} -- (12... a5 13. Rc1 h6 ({or} 
13... Qb6 14. a4 Bd7) 14. Bh4 (14. Bd2 {is well met by} Ne4 $1) 14... a4 15.
Nc5 a3 16. b3 Bf4 17. Rc3 e5 18. dxe5 Nxe5 19. Be2 $1 Nc6 20. Re1 Ra5 {
is equal;} 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Qxd5+ Kh8 {
threatens ...b6 as well as other irritants.}) (12... Qe8 {is a manoeuvre worth
noting: Black might play ...Qh5, or else ...Nh5, when the knight is protected
against discovered attacks.}))) 11... O-O 12. Nb3 {The most logical move.} ({
Some characteristic and instructive themes arise after the alternatives: -- (a)
} 12. a3 Qb6 13. Nf1 $6 ({not} 13. Nb3 $6 Ng4 $1) (13. h3 {
is perhaps best, since} Nxd4 $6 14. Nxd4 Qxd4 15. Nc4 $1 {
gives White excellent compensation}) 13... Kh8 (13... Bd7 14. Bc2 Rac8) 14. Bc2
Bd7 15. Bg5 {, Garcia Luque-De la Riva Aguado, Spanish Ch. 1993; and now} Rac8
{, intending to meet} 16. Qd3 {with} Rf7 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 12. Nf1 Qc7 (12... Qb6
$1) 13. Bg5 Bd7 14. Rc1 Rae8 ({or} 14... h6 15. Bh4 Qb6 16. Ne5 Rad8 $11) 15.
Bb1 (15. Ne5 $1 $14) 15... Qb6 16. Re2 {, Vorobiov-Rychagov, Moscow 1997; and}
h6 17. Bh4 Nh5 $1 {is equal, intending ...Nf4.}) 12... Qc7 ({Or} 12... a5 $1 {
, limiting White's options.}) 13. Qe2 a5 $1 14. a4 $1 {The most obvious move.}
({Instead: -- (a) Findlay-Carton, British Ch., Blackpool 1988, went} 14. Bd2 a4
15. Nc1 Bd7 $11 (15... a3 $1 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 14. Bg5 $6 {
can likewise be answered by} a4 {, because} 15. Nc5 (15. Nbd2 Ng4 16. h3 $2
Nxd4 $1) 15... Bxc5 $1 {gives Black a powerful centre following} 16. Bxf6 (16.
dxc5 $2 Ng4 17. g3 e5 18. h3 e4) 16... gxf6 17. dxc5 e5 $15 {.}) 14... Nb4 (
14... Qb6 {is a candidate here.}) 15. Bb1 b6 {. The sequence of ...a5/...Nb4/...b6/...Ba6/ ...Rac8, or some part of it, arises frequently in this structure
when there's a knight on b3.} ({Play might continue} 15... b6 16. Bd2 Qc4 17.
Bxb4 Qxe2 18. Rxe2 axb4 19. a5 bxa5 20. Rxa5 Bd7 {. White has a very slight
advantage in theory because of his minor pieces, but Black can use his bishops
and open files to minimize any problems. In general, this variation can be
used in order to avoid the memorization that is necessary to play variations
based upon ...g5.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.23 7...h6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ngf3 h6 {
. This position can arise via 3 Nd2 h6, a specialty of the creative Viacheslav
Eingorn, who has contributed some brilliant ideas to its theory. I analyse 3...h6 in 'DWF', when the follow-up 4 Ngf3 Nf6 5 e5 Nfd7 6 Bd3 c5 7 c3 Nc6
transposes to the line before us. Why would Black waste a move on this
seemingly inessential advance? Basically, this is an exotic way to play a
safer ...g5 (the pawn is defended) without having immediately to deal with the
weaknesses that a more committal move creates. White has to declare himself -
by contrast, for example, 7...g6 can be answered by 8 h4, whereas after 7...h6,
8 h4 makes less sense. Also, once Black plays ...g5, he has more options than
he does after a line with ...Be7 and ...g5, because his bishop can go to g7
(hitting e5 and supporting ...f6), or in response to dxc5, Black might play ...Bxc5 and save a tempo over lines with 7...Be7 and a later ...Bxc5. --- On the
downside, 7...h6 is a slow move and makes ...f6 less likely to work because of
Bg6+ (or Nh4). Additionally, White can sometimes consider the move c4, because
a central breakdown can favour his more quickly developed pieces. Let's see
how this plays out:} 8. O-O {One of the problems for White in the Ngf3
Universal System is that he can get stuck without a clear way of proceeding.
Usually he finds himself reacting to a committal move by Black (...g5 with
dxc5 or ...g6 with h4, for example), and this explains why Black can get away
with slower moves such as 7...a5, 7...Be7, and the move in front of you, 7...h6. White is in some sense co-operating by playing 8 0-0 and inviting 8...g5,
so other moves invite consideration.} ({(a)} 8. Nf1 $6 {prepares to meet ...g5
with Ng3-h5, but the d-pawn is too vulnerable to support this:} cxd4 (8... Qb6
{is at least as good, but it's more complicated}) 9. cxd4 Qb6 10. Qa4 (10. Bc2
Bb4+ {+, forcing} 11. Ke2 {, when} Be7 {
will favour Black, who has ...f6 or ...Nb4 at his disposal}) 10... Bb4+ $5 (
10... Be7 11. a3 O-O 12. Ng3 f6 13. exf6 Nxf6 $15) 11. Bd2 Bxd2+ 12. N1xd2 Qxb2
13. Rb1 Qc3 14. Ke2 Qa5 {and White has insufficient compensation for the pawn.}
) ({(b)} 8. a3 {is a clever approach. It prevents ...Bb4+ and ...Nb4, and
tries to cut down on Black's options. When White doesn't castle, it's often
good to delay ...g5, so here are two other strategies:} -- (8... Qb6 9. O-O a5
{brings us to a standard position, but with a3 and ...h6 thrown in. I feel
that this is about even. White has to find moves that leave him with
compensation if the d-pawn falls. Here are some sample continuations:} 10. -- (
10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Nb3 Ncxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxc5 Qxc5 14. Be3 (14. Bc2 O-O)
14... Qc6 15. Bc2 O-O 16. f4 (16. Qh5 f5) 16... Nc4 17. Bd4 f6 18. Qd3 f5 $11 {
with the idea ...Nd6-e4. The bishop pair more or less makes up for the extra
pawn.}) (10. Qa4 cxd4 11. cxd4 Be7 12. Re1 O-O $11 {
, intending ...f6; for example,} 13. h3 f6 14. exf6 Bxf6 15. Rxe6 (15. Nb3 Qc7
$15) 15... Bxd4 16. Nxd4 Qxd4 17. Qxd4 Nxd4 18. Rd6 Nc5 19. Rxd5 Nxd3 20. Rxd4
Bf5 {with an initiative for a pawn; e.g.} 21. Rc4 (21. Nf3 $6 Nc5 $1) ({, or} 
21. Nc4 $6 Nc5) 21... Rad8 22. Nf1 Ne5 23. Rc5 Rd1 24. Rxe5 Bd3 {.}) (10. Nb1
g5 $5 11. h3 cxd4 (11... Bg7) 12. cxd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Qxd4 14. Nc3 {
(this is a standard gambit set-up for White)} Bc5 15. Nb5 Qxe5 16. Re1 Qf6 $5
17. Nc7+ (17. Qc2 O-O) 17... Kd8 18. Nxa8 Qxf2+ 19. Kh1 Qg3 {intending ...Bd6.
In combination with two pawns and the knight trapped on a8, Black has
satisfactory play for the rook and probably somewhat better chances.})) (8...
a5 $5 {is another good choice; Black waits for White to commit, while planning
...a4 and preparing for Nb3:} 9. O-O ({or} 9. Nb1 Be7 ({here} 9... Qb6 10. O-O
{transposes to 8...Qb6}) 10. Bc2 b5 $5 11. O-O Ba6 12. Re1 b4 $1 {
, when White's attack is not yet visible}) 9... g5 $1 10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. Bc2 Bg7
12. Re1 Nd7 $5 (12... g4 13. Nd4 Nxe5 {is unclear}) 13. Nb3 Ndxe5 14. Nxe5 Nxe5
{is balanced; e.g.} 15. f4 $5 ({or} 15. Qh5 a4 16. Nd4 Qf6) 15... Nc4 16. Nd4
Qc7 17. Qf3 Bd7 $1 18. Qxd5 O-O-O 19. Qf3 Kb8 {.})) 8... g5 {This position can
be compared to the popular one after 7...Be7 8 0-0 g5. By comparison, Black
has one fewer piece out, but his pawn on g5 is well defended and his bishop
can still go to g7 or e7 or c5, depending upon events.} 9. dxc5 $1 {A good move
which clears d4 for a knight in the event of ...g4. On the other hand, it
weakens the centre and helps Black to develop.} ({Alternatives: -- (a)} 9. h3 {
is perhaps the most natural move:} h5 (9... Qb6 $5 10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. Bc2 Nd7
12. Re1 Bg7 $11 {has been played a couple of times}) {, and:} 10. -- (10. dxc5
$2 g4 11. Nd4 Ncxe5 {attacks the bishop on d3 and threatens ...gxh3 as well as
moves such as ...Bxc5, and ...Qg5 or ...Qh4.}) (10. Nb1 $6 g4 11. hxg4 (11. Ng5
Qb6 12. hxg4 cxd4 13. gxh5 Ndxe5 $15) 11... hxg4 12. Ng5 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nxd4 14.
Qxg4 Nc6 $1 {wins the e-pawn, and} 15. Nxf7 Ndxe5 $1 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Bb5+ Kf7
18. Qf4+ Qf6 {will leave Black with the better queenless middlegame.}) ({
. The natural} 10. g4 hxg4 11. hxg4 {runs into} Qb6 $1 {
, when d4 is hard to defend; for example,} 12. Re1 cxd4 (12... Be7 {
is also fine}) 13. cxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Qxd4 15. Nb3 Qa4 $15 {
. If White tries to recover his pawn by} 16. Bxg5 {, Black has the counterblow}
Rg8 17. f4 Rxg5 $1 18. fxg5 Qf4 {with an attack, which after} 19. g6 $1 Qg3+
20. Kf1 Bg7 $5 21. gxf7+ Kxf7 {
ultimately gives him a powerful centre and small advantage.}) (10. Nb3 $5 {
is wild. Play might continue} g4 $5 (10... c4 11. Bxg5 Be7 12. Bxe7 Nxe7 {
looks safer, and roughly equal after} 13. Bxc4 dxc4 14. Nbd2 b5 ({or here} 
14... Nb6 15. Ne4 Kf8 $1) 15. a4 b4) 11. Ng5 Be7 12. Nxe6 fxe6 13. Bg6+ Kf8 14.
hxg4 hxg4 15. Qxg4 Rh4 16. Qf3+ Kg7 $1 17. g3 $1 Qf8 $1 18. Bf4 Bg5 19. gxh4
Qxf4 {and the chances are balanced (entirely computer analysis).})) ({(b)} 9.
c4 $5 {is a thematic move when Black has played the weakening ...g5, and has
the idea of exchanging on d5, followed by e6. Still, White's central support
disappears:} Bg7 $1 {(giving the king some room)} 10. cxd5 exd5 11. e6 (11. Re1
O-O 12. Bb1 Re8 $1 13. Qc2 Nf8 $17 {
; both ...cxd4 and trapping the knight with ...g4 are threatened}) 11... fxe6
12. Bg6+ Kf8 {and White hasn't sufficient compensation.}) 9... Bxc5 {Thus Black
has saved a move on the conventional lines in which he plays ...Be7 first and
then ...Bxc5, even if the extra tempo is the modest ...h6.} ({
He has other reasonable continuations: -- (a)} 9... Ndxe5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Nb3
$1 {(with the idea f4)} Nxd3 12. Qxd3 Bg7 13. f4 O-O {
(Black's bishop pair compensates for his weaknesses)} 14. fxg5 hxg5 15. Qg3 f6
16. Nd4 (16. h4 e5 $1 17. hxg5 f5 $1 {intending ...f4, even following} 18. g6
f4 19. Qh2 Rf6 $1 20. Qh7+ Kf8 {and ...Qe8}) 16... b6 $5 17. cxb6 Qxb6 {
with a hard-to-assess position.}) ({(b)} 9... Nxc5 10. Bc2 Bg7 11. Nb3 (11. Re1
Nd7 12. Nb3) 11... Nd7 $1 12. Nfd4 (12. Re1 {
transposes to the next note; i.e. 10...Bf8 11 Re1 etc}) 12... Ndxe5 13. f4 Nxd4
14. Nxd4 Nc6 {
is safe enough; White probably has enough pressure for a pawn, but no more.})
10. Nb3 Bb6 {A natural move.} ({Strange to say, having left his knights
attacking the e-pawn, Black can also re-route to g7 (with the same tempi as
after 9...Nxc5) by} 10... Bf8 {with his share of the play; e.g.} 11. Bb5 (11.
c4 $6 Ndxe5 12. cxd5 Qxd5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Be2 Bg7 $15) (11. Re1 Bg7 12. Bc2
Ndxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 {and White has barely sufficient compensation}) (11. Nbd4
Ndxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Bc2 Bg7 14. f4 {
returns to 9...Nxc5, with dynamic equality after} Nc6 $1) 11... Bg7 12. Re1 Qc7
13. Qe2 $6 (13. Be3 $5 O-O 14. Bxc6 bxc6 $11) 13... a6 14. Bxc6 bxc6 $15 {.})
11. Re1 g4 12. Nfd4 $1 (12. Nfd2 $2 Qh4 $1 13. g3 Bxf2+ $1 14. Kxf2 Qxh2+ 15.
Kf1 Qxg3 {gives Black three pawns for the pawn, not to mention the direct
attack which follows} 16. Bb5 Rg8 $1 17. Re2 Rg5 $17 {.}) 12... Ncxe5 13. Bf4 (
{White's best chance is} 13. Bb5 $1 Qf6 14. Qe2 Bc7 $5 (14... Kf8 {
would aim for more}) 15. Nc5 O-O 16. Bxd7 Bxd7 17. Nxd7 Nxd7 18. Qxg4+ Kh7 {
, recovering the pawn. Black is still more active and will use the g-file, but
his king is more exposed and the game is equal.}) 13... Qf6 14. Bg3 h5 15. Bb5
(15. Qe2 Nxd3 16. Qxd3 h4 17. Bd6 e5 18. Ba3 Rh5 19. Re3 Kd8 {.}) 15... Ng6 {
, and White has to prove that he has enough for his pawn.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.3 7 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 {. White guards his d-pawn and leaves room on f3 for his other knight. This is the
classical and still most popular way of playing. I'll introduce it here and
then examine the most frequently-played variation in the next chapter.} cxd4 ({
In the first two editions, I recommended} 7... Qb6 {, with the main line going}
8. Nf3 cxd4 9. cxd4 f6 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. O-O Bd6 {- which, incidentally, can
be arrived at via 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 Nxf6 10 0-0 Bd6 11 Nf3 Qb6. That
was back in 1996, and with time master players largely abandoned the old ...Qb6 system in favour of 7...cxd4 and 8...f6 without an early ...Qb6. I've
always kept an eye upon the older move, however, and it bears commenting upon.
There have been various challenges to this system (including recent ones), but
Black seems to be able to cope with most of them fairly easily. The most
often-cited disincentive to ...Qb6 (and the one about which I am most asked)
is the move} 12. b3 {with the idea Bf4. --- Let me take some time to show how
Black might meet this in new ways:} -- (12... O-O 13. Bf4 {, when the question
is whether Black can take advantage of the move b3, or at least render it
meaningless. This is tested in both the following lines:} -- ({. After} 13...
Bxf4 14. Nxf4 {, White has generally preserved a modest but one-sided
positional advantage based upon control of the dark squares. The trade-off of
weaknesses on d4 and e6 is a standard and often balanced one, as is shown in
various modern main lines, but chess is a specific game and in general White
has been for preference. I should say, however, that the move} g6 $1 {
promises more for Black than conventional responses. This threatens ...Nxd4
and opens up ideas such as ...Nh5 and ...Ng4 (otherwise those moves fail to
Bxh7+). For example:} 15. -- (15. Bxg6 $6 hxg6 16. Nxg6 Rf7 17. Qd2 Bd7 18. Qh6
Rh7 {.}) (15. Re1 Nxd4 (15... Ng4 $5) 16. Nxd4 Qxd4 17. Nxe6 Bxe6 18. Bf5 $1
Qb4 $1 19. Bxe6+ Kg7 $11 {.}) (15. Bc2 $1 Bd7 16. g3 (16. Qd2 Qc7 $11 17. g3 $6
Nh5 $1) ({or} 16. Re1 Rac8 $5 {with the idea} 17. Nxe6 $6 ({here} 17. g3 {
is better, but not particularly frightening after, say,} Rf7) 17... Rfe8 18.
Nc5 Bg4 $1) 16... Nxd4 $5 ({or} 16... Rf7 $1 17. Ne5 Re7 {intending ...Rf8})
17. Qxd4 Qxd4 18. Nxd4 e5 19. Nfe6 Rfc8 20. Rfe1 $1 exd4 21. Nxd4 Kf7 {
and White has only a nominal advantage.})) ({. At some point it occurred to me
that, come what may, Black might try to avoid the exchange of bishops and
exploit the minor weaknesses created by b3. 13...Be7 proved insufficient for
this task, but I think the strange-looking move} 13... Ba3 $5 {is worthy of
closer examination. --- Black simply wants to develop normally (...Bd7 and
pressure down the e-file), and in the meantime has the new idea of ...Bb2,
pressuring the d-pawn, and even ...Nb4 at the right moment. These are
important benefits, but the cost is also significant: loss of control over the
critical square e5. Needless to say, 'my' idea 13...Ba3 had been tried, most
notably by the FIDE Master Heiko Kummerow, who has considerable experience
with it. --- An overview:} 14. -- (14. Qb1 Bd7 15. Be5 h6 $5 (15... Kh8 $1 {
with the idea} 16. Bxf6 {and} gxf6 ({or} 16... Rxf6 $1 {, when} 17. Bxh7 $2 {
runs into} Rxf3 $1 18. gxf3 Nxd4 19. Nxd4 Qxd4 {with too strong an attack}))
16. Nf4 Be8 17. Re1 Nxe5 ({or} 17... Nd7 $1) 18. Rxe5 Bd7 19. Ng6 {, Mietzner-Kummerow, Bad Wiessee 2001; and the best way to play for a small advantage
would be to take over the c-file by} Rfc8 20. Qd1 Rc7 {and ...Rac8.}) (14. Nc3
Ne4 $1 15. Na4 Qd8 ({or} 15... Qa5 $11) 16. Be3 b6 $1 {
(this keeps White's knight out of c5)} ({also possible is} 16... Bd6 17. Bxe4
dxe4 18. Ng5 Bf4 {with the idea} 19. Nxe4 Bxh2+) 17. Qb1 (17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Ng5
h6 19. Nxe4 Ba6 20. Re1 Qh4 21. Nac3 Nb4 $1) 17... Rxf3 $1 18. gxf3 (18. Bxe4
dxe4 19. gxf3 exf3 20. Qe4 Qd5 21. Qxd5 exd5) 18... Ng5 19. f4 $2 Nf3+ 20. Kg2
Qh4 $1 21. Kxf3 e5 $1 $17 {.}) (14. Ne5 Bd7 (14... Nxe5 {is a solid move; e.g.}
15. dxe5 ({or} 15. Bxe5 Rf7 16. Qd2 Ng4 17. Bg3 Bd7) 15... Ne4 16. Qc2 Bd7 $1
17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Qxe4 $2 Bc6 19. Qe3 Bb5) 15. Rb1 (15. Qd2 Nb4 16. Bb1 Bb5 17.
Re1 Nc6 $15 {Litwak-Kummerow, Senden 2005}) (15. Bc1 Bd6 16. Nxc6 Bxc6 ({
or here} 16... bxc6 {intending ...c5}) 17. Bf4 Ba3 18. Bc1 $11 {
Ringoir-Kummerow, Bad Zwesten 2006}) 15... Nb4 (15... a5 16. b4 $1 axb4 17. Qd2
Na5 $5 {intending ...Bb5 is unclear, probably level}) 16. Bc1 $1 Bxc1 17. Rxc1
g6 {(threatening ...Nxa2)} 18. Qd2 Nxd3 19. Nxd7 Nxd7 20. Qxd3 Rae8 {
, planning ...Nb8-c6.}) (14. Rb1 {has the idea 15 b4, trapping the bishop:} Nb4
15. Ne5 a5 $5 ({or} 15... a6 16. Nc3 Nd7 $1) 16. Re1 Nxd3 17. Qxd3 Bd7 (17...
Qa6 $5) 18. Nxd7 Nxd7 19. Bd2 e5 20. dxe5 Qxf2+ 21. Kh1 Nxe5 22. Qxd5+ Nf7 23.
Qxb7 Rae8 24. Qf3 Ne5 25. Qd5+ {½-½ P.Lund-Nilson, ICCF server 2009.}))) (
12... Qc7 {seems a little strange but is equivalent to the main line of the
next chapter (7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 Nxf6 10 Nf3 Bd6 11 0-0 Qc7), except
that Black has lost a tempo (...Qb6-c7). Specifically, White's extra tempo is
b3. Is that a useful, productive move, a meaningless one, or even one that can
have disadvantages? My feeling is that b3 doesn't do much good in the 'normal'
...Qc7 lines where White plays some combination of Bg5/Be3, Nc3, and Rc1. So
an important question is whether b3 and Bb2 is a set-up that Black should be
worried about. And while putting the bishop on b2 instead does assist White's
fight for e5, it has drawbacks in terms of activity and kingside defence. ---
Whether Black, a tempo down, can secure the full equality he normally gets
isn't clear but, even if not, the resulting positions are nevertheless
playable. In general, White's inability to bring his queen to b3 or a4 is a
drawback to the inclusion of b3; however, that same move saves White a tempo
in lines where Black returns a queen to b6 and finds the b-pawn protected (i.e.
rather than hanging on b2). I'll throw around a few ideas and quote a game or
two, but you need to investigate this to see if it's to your taste:} 13. -- ({
. White can follow the main line with} 13. Bg5 O-O 14. Bh4 Nh5 $5 15. Qc2 h6
16. Bh7+ Kh8 17. Bg6 Rxf3 18. gxf3 (18. Bxh5 Rf8 {doesn't seem very different;}
({nor does} 18... Bxh2+ 19. Kh1 Rf5 20. Bg4 Bd6 21. Bxf5 exf5)) 18... Bxh2+ {
, whose assessment doesn't seem to change with the inclusion of b3.}) (13. h3
O-O 14. Be3 Bd7 15. Nc3 a6 16. Rc1 Be8 $11 17. Ng5 $6 (17. Na4) 17... Qe7 {
and Black stands slightly better; e.g.} 18. f4 $6 Ba3 19. Rc2 $2 Nb4 20. Re2 {
, Miroslaw-Kumor, Krakow 2008; and now} Rc8 {was good,} ({but} 20... h6 $1 {
is better still:} 21. Nf3 Rc8 {and the c3-knight will soon have to retreat or
be exchanged, allowing ...Nxd3 and ...Bb5.})) (13. g3 O-O 14. Bf4 Ng4 15. Bxd6
(15. Rc1 Bxf4 16. Nxf4 Rxf4 $1 17. gxf4 Qxf4 {
is a known type of position with equal chances}) 15... Qxd6 16. Nf4 (16. Nc3
Qe7 17. Nh4 Nh6 18. f4 Qb4 $11) 16... Rxf4 $1 17. gxf4 Qxf4 18. Be2 $1 e5 $1
19. dxe5 Ncxe5 20. Qxd5+ Be6 $1 21. Qxe6+ Kh8 22. Rfc1 Nxf3+ 23. Kf1 Rd8 $5 24.
Rc8 Nd2+ 25. Ke1 Nf3+ 26. Kf1 Nd2+ {
with perpetual check. The moves after 16...Rxf4! look forced.}) ({
. I suspect that} 13. Bb2 {yields a small edge somewhere, but Black gets
plenty of play. Although he is essentially a tempo down on a normal line,
sometimes a tempo less can have its benefits. One that might help Black here
is that, without a bishop on d7, there are some lines in which his queen can
more easily slip away from c-file pressure to transfer to useful squares e7 or
f7. Then} O-O {might lead to:} 14. -- (14. Rc1 Ng4 15. Ng3 (15. h3 Rxf3 $1 16.
hxg4 Rf8 {is fine for Black}) {, and an interesting line is} 15... g6 $5 (15...
Bf4 {is the usual move}) 16. Ng5 $5 Qe7 $1 17. Qxg4 Rf4 18. Qd1 Qxg5 $11 {.}) (
14. Nc3 {is perhaps best. Then} Qd8 {asks White what he's doing, and
contemplates ...Qe8-h5; this should be somewhat in White's favour, but fully
playable.} ({Similarly,} 14... Qe7 {is reasonable.}))))) 8. cxd4 f6 {Black strikes back in the centre. Now, due to the attack on e5, White has only two
satisfactory moves. I'll deal with 9 Nf4 here, and 9 exf6 in the next chapter.}
9. Nf4 {White threatens Qh5+. For some time this appeared to be harmless, but
today the resulting positions tend to be unclear.} ({A third try,} 9. f4 $6 {
, is too loosening:} fxe5 10. dxe5 (10. fxe5 $2 Nxd4 $1 {with the idea} 11. O-O
({or} 11. Nxd4 Qh4+) 11... Qb6 12. Kh1 Nxe5 13. Nf4 g6 14. Nb3 Nxb3 15. axb3
Bd6 16. Nh5 gxh5 17. Qxh5+ Kd7 18. Bxh7 {- 'ECO', intending Bg5/Rf7 -} Qd4 $1
19. Bg5 Qe4 $1 20. Rf7+ Kc6 21. Rc1+ Kb5 {and wins}) 10... Nc5 (10... Qb6 11.
Nf3 Nc5 12. Bc2 Be7) 11. Bb1 Qb6 12. a3 (12. Nf3 Bd7 13. Ned4 Ne4) 12... a5 $15
{; White is tied up.}) 9... Nxd4 {
Destroying White's centre at the cost of the exchange.} 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+
$1 (11. Ng6+ hxg6 12. exf6+ {lets Black transpose by} Nxf6 {,} ({
but gives him two further options, namely} 12... Kxf6 $5) ({, and} 12... gxf6
13. Qxh8 Ne5 {, which is messy.})) 11... Nxf6 ({Now} 11... Kxf6 $4 12. Qh4+ g5
13. Nh5+ Kf7 14. Qxd4 {is killing}) ({and I don't like} 11... gxf6 $5 {due to}
12. Nb3 (12. Ng6+ hxg6 {returns to 11 Ng6+ etc}) 12... Nxb3 13. axb3 Qe8 {
; e.g.} 14. Bg6 $5 hxg6 15. Qxh8 Qf7 16. Bd2 e5 17. Bb4+ {.}) 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13.
Qxh8 Kf7 {. This is the critical position for 9 Nf4. White has an extra
exchange for a pawn. Black doesn't have many pieces developed, but his knight
on d4 is strong and he is ready for ...e5, which not only opens a line for his
bishop out but establishes a mobile centre. Now White has an important choice:}
14. -- ({4.31} 14. Qh4) ({4.32} 14. O-O) ({Others: -- (a)} 14. f4 $2 Nc6 $1 (
14... Nh5 {is also good, with the trap} 15. O-O $4 ({
Barbitskij-L.Smirnov, St Petersburg 2000, went} 15. Qh7 $2 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qg4 17.
O-O Bd7 $1 $19 {threatening ...Nxg3}) 15... Ne2+ 16. Kh1 Qh4 {, winning}) 15.
Qh4 e5 $1 16. fxe5 Nxe5 17. Be2 Qb6 18. Qg3 (18. Nf3 Nxf3+ 19. Bxf3 Bf5 $19)
18... Bg4 $1 $17 {De la Paz-Matamoros, Santa Clara 1996.}) ({(b) Be aware of} 
14. Nf3 $4 Bb4+ {, winning the queen. You might get lucky!}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.31 14 Qh4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+ Nxf6 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13. Qxh8 Kf7 14. Qh4
e5 15. Nf3 {. This has been played hundreds of times over the years.} ({
Note that} 15. Nb3 Bb4+ 16. Kf1 Nxb3 17. axb3 e4 {
gets Black's pawns moving quickly and must be promising for him.}) (15. O-O $2
Be7 $1 {leaves White's queen exposed with few retreats; then} 16. Qg3 e4 {
wins a piece.}) {After 15 Nf3, I've chosen to find paths of least resistance
rather than enter mainline theory which sometimes goes to move 30:} 15... -- ({
4.311} 15... Nxf3+) ({4.312} 15... e4) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.311 15...Nxf3+"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+ Nxf6 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13. Qxh8 Kf7 14. Qh4
e5 15. Nf3 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Bf5 (16... Qb6 {
isn't common but has the idea ...Bb4+ and looks reasonable; e.g.} 17. O-O $5
Bf5 18. Bxf5 gxf5 19. Bg5 d4 $1 {.}) 17. Bxf5 gxf5 18. Bg5 {Otherwise comes ...f4. At this point, 18...Qa5+ is the move which has received the lion's share
of attention. Although the current evidence indicates that Black can hold his
own in that case, let me point to two fresher moves requiring less
memorization:} Bc5 (18... d4 {is relatively new and hasn't drawn much
attention. It does away with the usual preliminaries and mobilizes the centre.
Play can go in many original ways. The key game so far is Rasulov-Volkov,
Nakhchivan 2011:} 19. O-O (19. O-O-O $5 Qd5 ({here} 19... Be7 {was possible})
20. Kb1 Qxf3 $5 ({or} 20... Rd8 {intending ...Rd6}) 21. Bxf6 gxf6 22. Qh7+ Ke6
23. Qg8+ Kd6) 19... Qd5 20. Qh3 (20. Bxf6 gxf6 21. Qh7+ Ke6 {
is a typical position for this line, generally good enough for Black; e.g.} 22.
Qg8+ Kd6 23. Qg6 Bh6 $1 24. Qxf6+ Qe6 25. Qxe6+ Kxe6 {and the bishop on h6
both watches over c1 and can go to f4 with attack - this should be equal})
20... Qe6 21. Kh1 (21. Rfd1 Bd6 22. Rac1 Kg8 $11) 21... Rd8 (21... Nd7 $5) 22.
Rad1 Bc5 (22... f4 $1 23. Qxe6+ Kxe6 24. Rc1 Rd7) 23. Rg1 d3 24. Be3 Bxe3 25.
fxe3 e4 26. Qg3 Ne8 $1 27. Qf4 exf3 $5 (27... g6 28. fxe4 Qxe4+ 29. Qxe4 fxe4 {
and Black has all the chances}) 28. Rg3 $6 Nf6 29. Rxf3 g6 30. Kg1 Qxa2 $6 (
30... Qc6 $1) 31. e4 Qb3 $15 32. Rd2 Qb6+ 33. Kh1 Rd4 34. Rfxd3 Rxe4 {
with a strong initiative.}) 19. O-O-O {
This is considered the most challenging move.} ({Others: -- (a)} 19. Rc1 Bb6 (
19... Qa5+ $5 20. Kf1 Bd6 $11) 20. O-O (20. Rg1 Qh8 21. Bxf6 gxf6 22. Qa4 Ke6
23. Ke2 {, De Gleria-Hintze, German League 2009; and Black could secure a nice
advantage with} e4 $1 {,} ({instead of} 23... Qxh2 $4 24. Rc6+ $1 {
, leading to mate})) 20... d4 21. Qh3 Qd7 22. Rfd1 Rd8 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 19. Bxf6
Qa5+ $5 (19... Qxf6) 20. Kf1 Qb5+ 21. Kg2 gxf6 $11 {.}) 19... d4 $5 (19... Qb6
{is more direct, when Moskalenko gives} 20. Bxf6 Bxf2 21. Qa4 gxf6 ({
but here either} 21... Kxf6) ({, or} 21... Qc5+ {
is better, the latter continuing} 22. Kb1 Kxf6 23. Qd7 Bd4 $1 24. Qxb7 Qb6 $1
25. Qxb6+ axb6 {with full equality}) 22. Kb1 Bd4 {as unclear.}) ({After} 19...
d4 {, Yandemirov-Moskalenko, Kemerovo 1985, went} 20. Qh3 (20. Kb1 Qb6 ({or} 
20... Qh8) 21. Rd3 Qe6 22. Re1 Re8 23. Rb3 b6 $11 {
M.Schneider-Bigg, Swiss Ch. 2009}) 20... Qd7 21. Bxf6 {
. At this point, Moskalenko suggests} gxf6 $1 22. f4 $6 e4 23. Qb3+ Ke7 24.
Rhg1 Kd6 $1 {. Black's centre protects him; e.g.} 25. f3 (25. Rg6 Rf8 26. Kb1)
25... a5 $1 26. Rge1 Re8 27. Kb1 Kc6 $5 (27... Kc7 28. Qc4 b6) 28. Qa4+ b5 29.
Qxa5 Kb7 {
, and Black's threat to advance his centre pawns secures an even game.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.312 15...e4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+ Nxf6 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13. Qxh8 Kf7 14. Qh4
e5 15. Nf3 e4 {. This has been the usual move order for the idea which follows;
} ({but I should mention that} 15... Bb4+ $1 {is more accurate, since you can
get to the same position without worrying about 17 Bd2 below. That is,} 16. Kf1
({and here} 16. Bd2 $4 {fails to} Nxf3+ 17. gxf3 Bxd2+ {with the idea} 18. Kxd2
Ne4+ $1) 16... e4 17. Nxd4 {transposes.}) 16. Nxd4 Bb4+ 17. Kf1 (17. Bd2 {
has been tried, but it's not relevant because Black should use the 15...Bb4+!
transposition.}) 17... exd3 18. Bg5 ({Instead: -- (a) After} 18. Be3 {
, Oreopoulos on ChessPublishing analyses} Bc5 ({or} 18... Be7) 19. Re1 Qb6 $1
20. Nf3 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Kg8 22. Qd4 Bf5 {
and again, Black has good compensation after} 23. h3 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 Rc8 $1 {.})
({(b)} 18. Nf3 Qe7 19. Bg5 (19. Be3 Bf5 20. Rc1 Re8 21. Kg1 {
, And.Horvath-Dobcsanyi, Budapest 1977; when Moskalenko suggests} Kg8 ({
while the immediate} 21... b6 $1 {may be better still}) 22. h3 b6) 19... Qe2+
20. Kg1 Ne4 21. h3 Bf5 22. Kh2 Bd6+ 23. Bf4 Rh8 24. Ng5+ Nxg5 25. Qxg5 Qxf2 {
0 1 Sadykov-Polivanov, Samara 2011.}) ({(c)} 18. Qf4 $6 Qa5 $5 (18... Qb6 $5 {
is also playable:} 19. Nb3 Bd7 20. Be3 {was a draw in Arzumanian-Cech, Brno
2004; but Moskalenko correctly pointed out that Black can continue playing for
the win after} Qb5) 19. Be3 Bd7 20. Kg1 Kg8 {(now Black is ready for ...Ne4)}
21. Nb3 Qb5 22. Rd1 b6 23. Qg5 Bf5 {
and White is struggling to find a constructive plan.}) 18... Qb6 ({
Alternatively, Black has} 18... Bd7 19. Rd1 Qb6 $1 {with the idea} 20. Bxf6 Re8
$1 {.}) 19. Bxf6 (19. f3 Kg8 $1 20. Bxf6 gxf6 $17 {.}) 19... Qxf6 20. Qxf6+
gxf6 21. Rd1 b6 22. a3 Bc5 {. This position stems from a game by Kosten and
original analysis by Moskalenko.} 23. -- ({
Vysochin-Shchukin, St Petersburg 2011, continued} 23. Nb5 $6 Bd7 24. Nc3 d4 25.
Ne4 Ba4 $1 26. Rd2 Rc8 27. g3 Be7 28. f3 f5 29. Nf2 Bg5 $1 30. Rxd3 Be3 {
with advantage.}) ({White can improve somewhat with} 23. Nf3 {
, which is double-edged; e.g.} Ba6 24. g3 Re8 25. Kg2 Re2 26. Rd2 Bc4 {
is unclear.}) (23. Nb3 Ba6 $5 {is given a lengthy analysis by Oreopoulos on
the ChessPublishing forum, suggesting that the play is equal. A cute line
after} 24. h4 {is} Re8 25. Rd2 f5 $1 26. Nc1 (26. g3 {is hindered due to} f4 $1
) 26... Rc8 27. Nxd3 Bb4 $3 28. Ke1 Re8+ 29. Kd1 Bxd2 30. Kxd2 Re4 {'and Black'
s active pieces more than compensate for his slightly inferior pawn structure.
'}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4.32 14 0-0"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+ Nxf6 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13. Qxh8 Kf7 14. O-O {
. This isn't objectively better than 14 Qh4, but is arguably harder for both
sides to play.} e5 15. Nb3 ({Others: -- (a)} 15. Qh4 $2 {
transposes to 14 Qh4 e5 15 0-0? (where} Be7 $1 {is strong).}) ({(b)} 15. Nf3
Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 {is a major line,} -- ({, when} 16... Bf5 17. Bxf5 gxf5 18. Bg5
{ultimately leads to a complex equality (e.g. after} Bc5 ({or} 18... d4 {
). If you absolutely have to win, you may want to put some time into these
fascinating lines.})) ({. But I think the more direct} 16... e4 $1 {
is both practical and good:} 17. -- (17. fxe4 Nh5 $1 18. exd5 $1 ({
other moves are weaker; e.g.} 18. e5 Qh4 19. Bxg6+ Kxg6 20. Qxf8 Bh3 $15) ({
, or} 18. Be3 $2 Qh4 $17 19. f3 Bh3 20. Qh7 Bc5 21. Bxc5 Qg5+ {
, as in Darnstädt-Schäfer, Berlin 1993}) 18... Qh4 19. Bxg6+ Kxg6 20. Qxf8 Bh3
({or} 20... Bf5 21. Qa3 $1 Qg4+ 22. Kh1 Re8 $1 23. Rg1 Re1 $1 24. Rxe1 Be4+ 25.
Rxe4 Qxe4+ $11) 21. Qf3 Rf8 $1 22. Qd3+ Rf5 23. f3 Bxf1 24. Qxf1 $1 (24. Kxf1
Qxh2 {is more difficult for White}) {, and there is nothing better than} 24...
Qd4+ 25. Qf2 Qd1+ 26. Qf1 Qd4+ $11 {.}) (17. Be2 $5 Nh5 {is risky;} 18. -- ({
; e.g.} 18. Be3 Qh4 19. Rfc1 $1 Bd7 $1 (19... Bd6 20. f4 Bh3 $1 21. Qxa8 Nxf4
22. Qxb7+ {is ultimately drawn}) 20. Rc7 Rd8 {with Black advantage.}) ({
. Instead,} 18. Rd1 Be6 19. f4 {leads to the forcing line} Qh4 20. f5 $1 Bd6
21. fxg6+ Kxg6 22. Qxh5+ Qxh5 23. Bxh5+ Kxh5 {
. It's close, but I'd rather be Black.})))) 15... Nxb3 (15... Ne6 {is also possible, counting on the powerful pawn centre even after the exchange of queens;
for example:} 16. -- ({. Williams gives} 16. Bd2 Bd7 17. Rfe1 e4 $5 (17... Bd6
18. Qxd8 Rxd8 {looks satisfactory}) 18. Be2 Qb8 $5 {
'when Black is planning to play ...Qe5 and ...Bd6.'}) (16. Be3 b6 $5 (16... d4
17. Rfd1 a5 {is complex and dynamically balanced}) 17. Rad1 (17. Rac1) 17...
Bb7 18. Qh4 Bd6 19. f3 (19. Rfe1 Qh8 $1 20. Qg3 Qh5) {
, Vallejo Pons-Larino Nieto, El Sauzal 2010; and here} 19... Qh8 $1 20. Qg3 Qh5
$11 {was correct.})) 16. axb3 Be6 $5 {like this move, which simplifies things.}
({Moskalenko's} 16... e4 $5 17. Be2 Qc7 {
is interesting, and probably slightly better for the first player after} 18.
Qh4 {.}) ({The traditional variation is terribly complex:} 16... Bf5 17. Bxf5
gxf5 18. Bg5 (18. Qh3 g6 19. Bg5 Bc5 {transposes}) 18... Bc5 19. Qh3 {
(the current main line). Then} Kg6 $5 (19... Ke6) ({, and} 19... g6 {
have all been played, an example of the latter going} 20. b4 $5 Bb6 21. Qb3 Qd6
22. Be3 Rd8 23. Bc5 Qe6 24. Bxb6 Qxb6 $11 {M.Richter-E.Berg, Gothenburg 2011.})
(19... Qd7 {
is the most popular and ultimately equal, but the analysis goes on and on.}))
17. Bg5 (17. Qh4 {isn't frightening; e.g.} Qb6 (17... e4 $5) 18. Bg5 e4 19. Bc2
(19. Be2 Qxb3 {is unclear}) 19... Rc8 20. Rac1 Rc6 $1 {
, intending ...Bd6 in several lines.}) ({After} 17. Bg5 {
, Pähtz-Kipper, German League 2010, continued} e4 18. Be2 Qb6 19. Rfc1 {, when}
Qxb3 {wins a pawn and intends ...Qxb2} ({instead of} 19... Rd8 $6) {
. Williams gives} 20. Rc7+ Nd7 21. Rac1 Qxb2 22. Rxd7+ $5 Bxd7 23. Rc7 Ke8 {
'with an unclear game'. Then} 24. Qh7 $1 {
avoids what would otherwise be a disadvantage, leading to the nice line} Qb1+
25. Bf1 e3 $1 (25... Qb6 26. Rxb7 $1 Qd6 27. h4 $1) 26. Bxe3 Rc8 27. Rxb7 $1
Qxb7 28. Qxg6+ Kd8 29. Bg5+ Be7 30. Bxe7+ Kxe7 31. Qxg7+ {
with a geometrically pleasing perpetual check.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5. Tarrasch: 5 Bd3 Main Lines"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 ({In Chapter 4 we saw} 9. Nf4 {here.}) 9... Nxf6 10. Nf3 {. This position has been played regularly and argued over by masters for at least 55
years with thousands and thousands of games. Forming a respectable repertoire
from this mass of experience is possible, however, because so much is
understood about which variations are worth contesting from both players'
points of view.} ({Here} 10. O-O Bd6 11. Nf3 {transposes.} ({A rare option is} 
11. f4 O-O 12. Nf3 {; e.g.} Qb6 13. Kh1 Bd7 14. a3 Rac8 (14... Na5 {looks like
an interesting try, with ideas of ...Bb5, ...Nb3/c4, and ...Rac8; e.g.} 15. Ne5
$1 Rac8 16. Nc3 Be8 {with the idea ...Bh5}) 15. Rb1 (15. Ne5 Be8 $15) {
, Ljubojevic-Timman, Tilburg 1986;} 15... a6 ({or} 15... Ne7 {
with the ideas ...Bb5 and ...Nf5}) 16. Nc3 Qc7 17. Qe2 Kh8 $11 {.})) 10... Bd6
({Sometimes Black plays} 10... Qc7 {first} 11. -- ({
, which usually transposes to the main line after} 11. O-O Bd6 {. But this
t a sure way to avoid White's Bf4 ideas, because White can deviate:}) (11. Bf4
Bb4+ 12. Kf1 $1 Qb6 (12... Bd6 13. g3 e5 14. dxe5 Bh3+ 15. Kg1 Nxe5 16. Bxe5
Bxe5 17. Bb5+ $14) 13. g3 O-O 14. Kg2 {
and Black can potentially become a bit cramped.}) (11. Nc3 $5 a6 {
will transpose in most cases, but} 12. Bg5 {is of interest: after} Bd6 {,} 13.
Bxf6 (13. Bh4 O-O 14. Bg3) 13... gxf6 14. O-O {can be tried. Even though Black
has equal chances, he may not want to play this kind of position.})) 11. O-O ({
White can still try to frustrate Black with the important move} 11. Bf4 {
, before Black can prevent this by ...Qc7. In response,} Qa5+ $1 {
interferes with the co-ordination of White's pieces.} ({
. Actually, the more accurate move, strictly speaking, is} 11... Bxf4 $1 12.
Nxf4 Qa5+ $1 {, when} 13. Qd2 {transposes to 11...Qa5+ 12 Qd2;} ({and here} 13.
Kf1 O-O {is 11...Qa5+ 12 Kf1 Bxf4 etc. This bypasses any recapture on d2 with
the bishop on f4 - see below})) ({; but note that Black shouldn't play} 11...
Bb4+ $6 {on account of} 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. O-O {.})) ({After} 11. Bf4 Qa5+ {:} (
11... Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qc7 {is the main position of the 11...Qc7 variation except
that White's Bd2 has been substituted for 0-0, hardly an improvement.} ({Here} 
12... Qb6 13. O-O O-O 14. Bc3 Bd7 $11 {
is also fine - the bishop isn't well placed on c3.})) (11... Qa5+ 12. Kf1 Bxf4
$1 (12... Qc7 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. g3 O-O {is unclear}) 13. Nxf4 O-O {. Black stands better, based upon White's king position on the open f-file; but it's
instructive to see how this can play out:} 14. g3 $6 (14. h4 {
prevents ...g5 and keeps Black's advantage small after} Bd7 15. h5 $5 Qb6 16.
Qb3) 14... Qb6 15. Bc2 (15. Qd2 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 e5 $17) 15... g5 $1 16. Nxg5 Nxd4
{(intending ...e5)} 17. Bxh7+ (17. Nxh7 e5 $1) 17... Nxh7 18. Nxh7 e5 $1 19.
Nxf8 (19. Nxd5 $4 Bh3+ 20. Kg1 Qxb2) 19... exf4 20. Qh5 Bf5 21. Nd7 Qb5+ 22.
Kg1 Ne2+ 23. Kg2 Qxd7 {, with the idea} 24. Qg5+ (24. Qxe2 $4 f3+ $1 {
wins the queen}) 24... Kh8 25. Qf6+ (25. Rhe1 Re8 26. f3 d4) 25... Kh7 26. Qh4+
Kg6 27. f3 Bc2 $1 28. g4 Re8 29. Qh5+ Kg7 30. Qg5+ Bg6 $17 {.}) ({
. The best White can do is} 11... Qa5+ 12. Qd2 Qxd2+ (12... Bb4 13. Nc3 O-O 14.
O-O Ne4 15. Qe3 $1 $14) 13. Kxd2 (13. Bxd2 {
could have been bypassed by playing 11...Bb4+ first, although} O-O {
is equal anyway after} 14. Rc1 Bd7) 13... Bxf4+ 14. Nxf4 O-O {. This queenless
middlegame is of some significance if Black aims for a ...Bd6/...Qc7 set-up.
Each White attempt raises issues:} 15. -- (15. g3 Ne4+ 16. Ke3 g5 $1 17. Ne2
Nxf2 $1 18. Kxf2 g4 19. Nf4 gxf3 20. Ke3 e5 $1 $15 {.}) (15. Ne2 Bd7 ({or} 
15... Ne4+ 16. Ke3 Nb4 $5) ({, while} 15... Ng4 16. Rhf1 {transposes to 15 Rhf1
}) 16. Nc3 Nh5 $5 ({or} 16... a6) ({, or} 16... Rac8) 17. Ne2 (17. Rac1 Nf4 $15
) 17... Nf4 18. Nxf4 Rxf4 19. Ke3 Raf8 $15 {
with the ideas ...h6 and ...g5, and in some cases ...Be8.}) (15. Rhf1 Ng4 $5 ({
or} 15... Bd7 $11) 16. g3 (16. Ne2 e5 17. dxe5 Ngxe5 18. Nxe5 Nxe5 {
is also equal, because the natural} 19. Nd4 $5 {runs into} b6 $1 {
, intending ...Nxd3, and White is forced to move the bishop, when} 20. Be2 Rf4
$1 {follows}) 16... e5 17. dxe5 Ngxe5 18. Nxe5 (18. Be2 Nc4+) 18... Nxe5 19. f3
(19. Nxd5 $4 Rd8) (19. b3 $2 g5 $1 20. Ne2 Rf3 $1 21. Bc2 Bh3) 19... Bd7 ({or} 
19... Bf5 20. Bxf5 Rxf5 {, intending ...g5, or} 21. h4 h6 $1 22. h5 Nc4+ $11)
20. Rae1 Rae8 21. h4 Bc6 22. Be2 d4 $11 {.}) (15. Rhe1 {
is arguably the most important:} Ne4+ 16. Bxe4 Rxf4 17. Bd3 Bd7 $5 {
(this is the solution which leaves the most play on the board).} ({instead,} 
17... Nxd4 18. Ke3 $1 Nxf3 19. Kxf4 Nxe1 20. Rxe1 Bd7 21. Ke5 $1 {is an ending
from the famous game Tal-Timman, Montpellier Candidates 1985, won by White;
then} Bc6 ({and} 21... Kf7 {are both equal})) {Between Black's f-file and
White's weak d-pawn, the first player is under pressure:} 18. -- (18. Ke3 Raf8
19. Re2 $6 Be8 $5 ({a strong alternative was} 19... h6 $1 {
, which intends ...Be8, but without allowing Ng5, and also prepares ...g5}) 20.
Rd2 (20. Ng5 $1 Nxd4 21. Nxh7 $1 Nxe2 22. Nxf8 Kxf8 23. Kxe2 $11) {
, Sorokin-Dreev, Borzhomi 1988, and here Black had} 20... e5 $1 21. Nxe5 (21.
dxe5 Bh5 22. Be2 Nb4 $1 {threatens mate with 23...Re4}) 21... Nxe5 22. dxe5 d4+
23. Ke2 Rxf2+ 24. Ke1 Rxd2 25. Bc4+ Bf7 26. Bxf7+ Kxf7 27. Kxd2 Ke6 $15 {.}) ({
. Tal suggested that} 18. Bb5 Raf8 19. Bxc6 Bxc6 20. h3 {favours White} ({
and not} 20. Rxe6 Rg4 $1 $15) {, but} 20... Be8 21. Rxe6 (21. Re5 Bg6 22. Rc1
Be4 $15) 21... Bh5 22. Re7 Bxf3 23. gxf3 Rxf3 24. Rf1 R3f7 25. Rxf7 Rxf7 {
gives Black a tiny edge.})))) {With the move 11 0-0 we have reached a
fundamental position. Since the same structure arises in so many French
Defence variations, I should say a few words about it. To start with, the play
is remarkably flexible: both sides can play in all three sectors of the board,
although Black is more likely to concentrate upon the centre and kingside.
Structurally, the layout is fairly simple: Black has a backward e-pawn, a hole
on e5, and bad bishop on c8. White has an isolated pawn on d4. This sounds
like a pretty good trade-off for the first player, but there are some
compensating considerations. First, a pawn on one's third rank is easier to
defend than one on the fourth rank, and it turns out that Black's e-pawn is
seldom seriously threatened, especially in comparison to Black's threats
against White's d-pawn. Secondly, Black has a central pawn majority which
covers more central squares, and the potential freeing move ...e5 requires
White's constant supervision. Notice that in an Open Sicilian in which Black
has played ...e5 (such as the Najdorf), White has a similar outpost on d5, and
Black's bad bishop on e7 plays the same role as the one on c8 in the French:
protecting the backward pawn (initially, at any rate). In the Sicilian, the
freeing move ...d5, supported by a knight on f6 and bishop on e6, corresponds
to ...e5 as supported by Black's knight on c6 and bishop on d6. In both cases,
an intruder on the outpost will often be captured immediately so as to close
off the open file. --- On a less abstract level, White has many possible
set-ups and all his pieces can go to various spots, but a few key ideas are:
trading off Black's dark-squared bishop by Bf4 or Bg5-h4-g3 (thus weakening
his hold on e5); playing on the queenside with Nc3, Rc1, and Na4; and, when
given the opportunity, aiming his pieces kingside with moves like Ng3 or Nf4,
Qc2, and perhaps even Re1-e3. For his part, Black will often try to pressure
the d-pawn with a queen on b6, knights on c6 and f5, and/or a bishop on g7 or
f6. He uses the f-file to assist in a kingside attack, doubling on it or,
surprisingly often, sacrificing a rook on f3. His f6-knight may also
participate from e4 or g4. Another manoeuvre that we see in just about every
variation is ...Bd7-e8-g6/h5. It goes without saying that the fight for e5 is
always in the background. --- After 11 0-0, Black has two main moves:} 11... --
({5.1} 11... Qc7) ({5.2} 11... O-O {--- As in many openings, the main lines
are the ones with the most interesting and challenging content, arguably
giving you the best chance to defeat a strong opponent. Their study will
certainly increase your chess understanding the most. These are represented by
11...Qc7, which, as you will see, is associated with some complex material
including some unavoidable tactical mêlées. If you simply don't want to put
time into this much material, however fascinating, I've offered a much simpler
option stemming from 11...0-0. That inevitably lacks the heft that the main
lines carry, but it might be exactly what you need to get out of the opening
in reasonable shape. I should say that all of the themes which are expressed
in the 11...0-0 option are represented in the 11...Qc7 repertoire as well, so
the study of either variation will inform your study of the other.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.1 11...Qc7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 {. Black prevents Bf4. This is one of
the most important lines in the Tarrasch Variation. I like it because both
sides enjoy flexible positions in which they can choose from diverse
strategies. The other main lines with 11...0-0 12 Bf4 Bxf4 13 Nxf4 Ne4, while
playable, tend to be forcing and theoretically heavy in the extreme; they also
contain some hard-to-avoid draws. In fact, I've chosen to deviate at an early
stage with my recommendation for Black in the 11...0-0 variation to avoid
those problems (see 5.2). With 11...Qc7, Black's play will come from his
active development, open f-file, and the threat of playing ...e5 at the right
moment, a freeing move whose prevention requires White to tie up resources.
The usual trade-off exists between Black's weak pawn on e6 and White's on d4.
Now the play splits into four main moves:} 12. -- ({5.11} 12. Bg5) ({5.12} 12.
Nc3) ({5.13} 12. g3) ({5.14} 12. Bd2) ({Naturally there are other legitimate
moves, but they aren't used much by stronger players, except in the context of
transpositions to main lines. The main thing is to understand Black's strategy
from other variations and apply it here: -- (a)} 12. h3 {, to play Be3 without
being harassed by ...Ng4, is sound but allows Black freedom to develop:} O-O
13. Be3 Bd7 {(with White's pieces passively placed to prevent ...e5, the
manoeuvre ...Be8-h5/g6 is logical)} ({another example is} 13... a6 14. Rc1 Bd7
15. a3 Kh8 16. Nc3 Be8 17. Ng5 Qe7 18. f4 h6 19. Nf3 Nh5 20. Ne5 Ng3 21. Re1
Bxe5 22. fxe5 Nf5 23. Bxf5 Rxf5 $11 {Daniliuk-Chuprikov, Voronezh 1991}) 14.
Rc1 Be8 15. Ng5 (15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Qxe5 17. Bc5 ({or here} 17. Re1 Bh5 $11)
17... Rf7 18. Re1 Nd7 $1) 15... Qd7 $5 (15... Qe7 $1) 16. f4 (16. Nf4 $5 Bxf4
17. Bxf4 h6 18. Nf3 Bh5) 16... Ne7 17. Qc2 Bg6 18. Bxg6 Nxg6 $11 {Daniliuk-Mesropov, Voronezh 1991; with the light-squared bishops off, Black has no problems.
}) ({(b)} 12. Re1 {will usually transpose to another line, but generally White
doesn't want to commit to this move too early since it can be dangerous to
leave f2 unprotected. After} O-O {, the rook move is sometimes combined with}
13. Ng3 {, either by this order or 12 Ng3 0-0 13 Re1. Then} Qb6 {
puts a little pressure on the centre} (13... Bd7 {is naturally playable too}) (
{, and even} 13... e5 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Bxe5 {
is fully equal, as several games have shown}) {; for example,} 14. b3 {
(to develop the c1-bishop)} Ng4 $1 15. Re2 (15. h3 $2 Nxf2 $1 16. Kxf2 Nxd4 $17
) (15. Bxh7+ $6 Kxh7 16. Ng5+ Kg8 17. Qxg4 Qxd4 $15) 15... Bd7 16. Bb2 g6 17.
Bc2 Rf6 {and ...Raf8 with active play.}) ({(c) The immediate} 12. Ng3 O-O 13.
Bd2 {is an ultra-conservative development which is sound but easy to meet; e.g.
} Bd7 14. Rc1 Qb6 15. Bc3 a5 $5 (15... Bf4 16. Rc2 Rac8 $11) (15... Rac8) 16.
Re1 Bf4 $11 {Guseinov-Zarubin, Kherson 1990, with the idea} 17. Rc2 Nb4 18.
Bxb4 axb4 $15 {.}) ({(d)} 12. b3 {
is slow, and I doubt that the bishop belongs on b2 anyway:} O-O (12... e5 $5)
13. Bb2 Ng4 $5 (13... Bd7 14. h3 Nh5 15. Nc3 a6 16. Ng5 $1 Nf6 17. Re1 Rae8 {
and moves like ...Bf4 followed by ...e5, or ...Qb6 in conjunction with ...e5,
make Black's game easier to play}) 14. h3 Rxf3 15. hxg4 Rf7 $1 16. Rc1 Bd7 17.
Qc2 g6 18. Qd2 Raf8 {; if anyone stands better here, it's Black.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.11 12 Bg5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 {. This is easily the most
popular move and the main line of the Bd3 Tarrasch with ...Qc7. 12 Bg5 has the
logical idea of Bh4-g3 to exchange off Black's good bishop. Having achieved
that, White can start thinking about working on the queenside with Rc1, or
occupying the outpost on e5 by means of Re1. If Black plays ...e5 first, he
gets saddled with an isolated queen's pawn; remember that isolated pawns tend
to be somewhat weaker after simplification. That's the general strategy, but
of course it takes time. Black tends to rely on piece play in these lines, so
he'll usually aim his forces towards White's king to provoke weaknesses, and
then strongly consider ...e5 in order to bring his other pieces into the
attack. If need be, he can also develop slowly by ...Bd7 before undertaking
further action.} O-O {
. Now we get a split into the two main and extremely popular moves:} 13. -- ({
5.111} 13. Bh4) ({5.112} 13. Rc1) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.111 13 Bh4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Bh4 (13. Qc2 h6 ({
but allows} 13... Nb4) 14. Bh4 Nh5 {transposes.}) ({This normal order with} 13.
Bh4 {does let Black play} e5 {
, but extensive theory shows that it comes up short for the second player.})
13... Nh5 14. Qc2 {The only really pointed move.} (14. Nc3 a6 {
would transpose to 5.12}) ({while after} 14. Bg3 Nxg3 15. hxg3 {
, Black has equalized with} Qb6 (15... Bd7) ({, and} 15... a6 {
followed by ...g6 and ...Qg7.})) 14... h6 {
. Now comes the last important division:} 15. -- ({5.1111} 15. Bg6) ({5.1112} 
15. Bh7+ {--- Alas, I will use up a lot of paper on these two moves, which
have been the centre of theory and practice for years, and are properly
considered the current main line of the 11...Qc7 Tarrasch. 'Current' is the
operative word, however. I believe that both variations work out to Black's
satisfaction, and that eventually they won't attract White enough to justify
their frequent employment. Unfortunately, just as is the case with mainline
Sicilians, King's Indians and other complex tactical openings, you need to
know how to meet the most critical moves (or at least have a good reference
for them), so what follows is unavoidable.}) ({
Before getting to those, here are two interesting options: -- (a) The logical} 
15. Rac1 {can arise from the order 13 Rac1 h6 14 Bh4 Nh5 15 Qc2.} -- ({
. Black can reply by} 15... Bd7 {with a satisfactory game}) ({; but in general
White tends to avoid this line because of a move/strategy that you'll get used
to:} 15... g5 $1 {. In modern practice we see the advance ...g5 in French
Defence variations of all types, from irregular to main lines. Black grabs
space and threatens ...g4 in many positions, weakening White's defence of the
d4-pawn. In the ...Qc7 Tarrasch, a major idea is ...Qg7, targeting that same
d4-pawn and defending Black's king, whose defences have been weakened.
Sometimes it's easier to play ...Nh5-f4 or ...Be8-g6. This particular version
of ...g5 also allows Black to exchange White's influential bishop for his
knight and establish equality:} 16. Bg3 (16. Bg6 $6 Nf4 17. Nxf4 Bxf4 18. Bg3
Qg7 {and ...d4 is vulnerable}) 16... Nxg3 17. Nxg3 $1 (17. hxg3 Qg7 18. Qc3 a6
{stops Bb5 and intends simply ...Bd7 and ...Rac8}) 17... Qg7 (17... a6 {
, versus Bb5, helps secure e5 and is a good move; e.g.} 18. Rfe1 Rxf3 $5 19.
gxf3 Bf4 20. Rcd1 Nxd4 $1) 18. Nh5 $1 Qe7 19. Rfe1 Bd7 20. Bb5 $1 Be8 $5 (20...
Qf7 21. Bxc6 Bxc6 22. Ng3 Bb5 $1 {gives balanced play}) 21. Bxc6 Rc8 22. Ng3
Rxc6 $11 {.})) ({(b)} 15. Bg3 {simply cuts down on White's options after} Nxg3
16. -- ({. The recapture} 16. Nxg3 $2 {leaves d4 unprotected and makes} Rxf3 {
effective:} 17. gxf3 Nxd4 ({or} 17... Qb6 {
if you want to leave the queens on; White can discourage that by} 18. Qa4 {
, but Black will still gain excess compensation with} Bd7 19. Bb5 $1 Rf8 20.
Bxc6 Bxc6 21. Qd1 Rf4 22. Qe2 Bd7 $1 23. Rad1 Rxd4 24. Rxd4 Qxd4 $15) 18. Qxc7
Bxc7 19. Kg2 (19. Rac1 Bf4) 19... Bd7 20. Rad1 Rf8 $1 21. Bh7+ Kxh7 22. Rxd4
Bc6 {and ...e5 will soon follow.}) ({. Alternatively,} 16. hxg3 g5 {
sets up Black's standard idea of ...Qg7} ({Williams notes that} 16... a6 $5 {
stops White from playing Bb5 and prepares ...g5 anyway}) {. Then} 17. Bb5 {
could be answered by} Ne5 $5 18. Qxc7 Nxf3+ 19. gxf3 Bxc7 {
and the bishops will serve Black well.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.1111 15 Bg6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Bh4 Nh5 14. Qc2 h6 15.
Bg6 Rxf3 $1 {. Unfortunately, we are now forced to enter into high theory full
of critical lines.} 16. gxf3 ({White can play more calmly with} 16. Bxh5 {
, when the main line is} Bxh2+ 17. Kh1 Rf8 $5 ({for} 17... Rf5 $5 18. Bg6 ({
here} 18. g4 $5 Rxh5 19. gxh5 Qf7 {is fine for Black - Williams}) 18... Bd6 19.
Bxf5 exf5 {, as in Andreikin-Kosyrev, Moscow 2005, compare the next section
with 15 Bh7+ instead of 15 Bg6 - with the bishop pair and an extra pawn, Black
has enough for the exchange, particularly because his king is better placed on
g8 than h8 in some lines}) 18. g3 g5 19. Bxg5 ({
Kotronias-S.Williams, Cork 2005, saw} 19. Qg6+ Qg7 20. Kxh2 $5 Qxg6 21. Bxg6 e5
$1 22. f4 $6 Bg4 23. Nc3 Nxd4 24. fxg5 hxg5 25. Bxg5 Kg7 $15) 19... hxg5 20.
Kxh2 Qg7 {with equality; e.g.} 21. Kg2 e5 $1 22. dxe5 Bf5 23. Qb3 Rad8 $11 {
. Again, compare the next section with 15 Bh7+ Kh8 16 Bg6.}) 16... Bxh2+ 17.
Kh1 Nf4 $1 18. Ng3 {One of the most-analysed positions in the ...Qc7 Tarrasch.
It's pretty much worked out by now, with equality as the verdict, though as
Williams points out, it's White who is usually under pressure. Alas, you
absolutely can't get away from memorizing here, but try to pick out a single
path rather than absorb everything. White has numerous other moves, all except
one advantageous for Black.} ({(a)} 18. Kxh2 Nxg6+ 19. Bg3 Qf7 {
gives Black excellent chances; e.g.} 20. f4 $6 (20. Kg2 Bd7 $15) (20. Rh1 e5
21. dxe5 Ngxe5) 20... Nge7 21. Rh1 Nf5 $15 22. Rad1 $6 {
, Jankovskis-Szczepanski, Porz 1993; and now} h5 $1 $17 {was very strong.}) ({
(b)} 18. Bg3 Bxg3 19. fxg3 Nxe2 20. Qxe2 Qxg3 $15 {.}) ({(c)} 18. Nxf4 Qxf4 19.
Bg3 Bxg3 20. fxg3 Qxg3 $15 {is pretty much the same story.}) ({(d)} 18. Rad1 $1
Nxe2 19. Qxe2 Qf4 20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. fxg3 Qxg3 {
results in equality with chances for both sides.}) 18... e5 {Black has a
choice here. The text is the most straightforward move, threatening the bishop
on g6.} ({It should be said that} 18... Qb6 {
, formerly an important move, is inferior.}) ({But} 18... Qd6 19. Rad1 e5 {
transposes to the main line.}) ({The alternative} 18... Bxg3 {should equalize
if you ever need a back-up. I'll give some brief but essential details:} 19.
Bxg3 (19. fxg3 Nxg6 20. Qxg6 Nxd4 21. Rac1 Nc6 22. f4 Qf7 $11) (19. Bh7+ Kh8
20. fxg3 Qf7 $1 21. gxf4 Qh5 $11) 19... Bd7 20. Qd2 Rf8 21. Rg1 (21. Rac1 $6
Qd6 $1 22. Bc2 e5 23. dxe5 Qxe5 $17) ({, while on} 21. Rad1 {, Black has} Qd6 {
with ...Be8,} ({or} 21... Qd8 22. Bxf4 Qf6 23. Bc2 Qxf4 24. Qxf4 Rxf4 25. Ba4
g5 26. Rfe1 Kf7 $11)) 21... Qd6 22. Rg2 $1 Rf6 23. Rh2 $1 Rxg6 24. Bxf4 Qe7 {
; White has at best a tiny edge.}) 19. Rad1 ({Others: -- (a) After} 19. Kxh2
Qd6 20. Bh7+ Kh8 {, White should transpose by} 21. Rad1 {
to 21 Kxh2 in the main line;} ({because after, for example,} 21. dxe5 $6 Nxe5
22. Bf5 Bxf5 23. Nxf5 Qe6 $1 {Black, a rook down, is winning! In Ulibin-E.Berg,
Bajada de la Virgen 2005, play continued} 24. Bg3 Rc8 25. Qxc8+ (25. Qb1 $2
Nxf3+ 26. Kh1 Nd2) 25... Qxc8 26. Bxf4 {, and} Nxf3+ $1 27. Kg3 Qxf5 28. Kxf3
g5 {was easiest.})) ({(b)} 19. Rfe1 Bh3 $1 20. Rad1 ({a nice mate follows} 20.
Kxh2 $2 Nxd4 $1 21. Qxc7 Nxf3+ 22. Kh1 Bg2#) (20. Ne2 $1 {
is best, and equal, after} Nxe2 21. Rxe2 e4 22. Re3 Qf4 23. Qb3 Be6 24. Rxe4
Nxd4 25. Rxf4 Nxb3) 20... Nxd4 $1 21. Rxd4 Qxc2 22. Bxc2 exd4 23. Kxh2 d3 24.
Bb1 g5 $15 {Biti-Gleizerov, Zadar 2005.}) 19... Qd6 ({Apparently} 19... e4 $1 {
is even better:} 20. Bxe4 $6 {(but White stands worse anyway)} dxe4 21. fxe4
Bh3 22. Qb3+ Kh8 23. Kxh2 g5 $17 {Groetz-E.Berg, Tromsø 2009. Very convincing!
However, since White had an opportunity to transpose to a 19...Qd6 line (see
the note to 18...e5 above), we'll continue on.}) 20. Bh7+ $1 Kh8 21. Kxh2 {
The most relevant move, given the previous note.} ({
Others are instructive: -- (a)} 21. Nf5 $6 Qe6 $1 {
gains a large advantage after} 22. dxe5 Qf7 $1 23. Bg3 Bxg3 24. fxg3 Kxh7 25.
Nd6+ (25. Ne7+ Ng6) 25... Qg6 {.}) ({(b)} 21. dxe5 Nxe5 22. Be4 $1 (22. Rfe1
Bh3) 22... Bh3 $5 23. Kxh2 ({a cute mate follows} 23. Bxd5 Qxd5 24. Rxd5 Bg2+
25. Kxh2 Nxf3#) 23... Qe6 24. Nh5 $1 dxe4 25. Nxf4 Nxf3+ 26. Kh1 Qf5 {
led to a forced draw in Kotronias-M.Gurevich, Kusadasi 2006.}) ({(c)} 21. Rfe1
{has a ton of theory associated with it. In brief, White's has to work for the
equality which results from both} g6 ({and} 21... g5 $5 {
. An example of the latter move is} 22. dxe5 Qe7 23. Kxh2 $1 Qxh7 24. Qxh7+
Kxh7 25. Ne2 Nxe2 26. Rxe2 gxh4 27. e6 Ne7 28. Rd4 $1 {(Williams); and} b6 29.
Rf4 Ng6 30. Rf7+ Kg8 31. Rf6 Kg7 $11 {.})) ({(d)} 21. Bf5 $6 Bxf5 22. Qxf5 ({
Black wins following} 22. Nxf5 $4 Qg6 23. Ne3 Qh5) 22... Nxd4 $1 ({or} 22...
Rf8 23. Qg4 Nxd4 {, transposing}) 23. Rxd4 (23. Qg4 Rf8 24. Kxh2 Ng6 $17) 23...
exd4 24. Kxh2 Rf8 25. Qg4 {(Williams)} (25. Qb1 $4 Qe6) {, and here} 25... Ng6
26. Qh5 (26. Qxd4 Rf4 27. Be7 Qe6) 26... Ne5 {wins.}) 21... g6 $1 (21... g5 {
is ultimately balanced following} 22. dxe5 $1 Nxe5 23. Bf5 $1 Bxf5 24. Nxf5 Qg6
25. Rde1 $1 gxh4 26. Rg1 Qc6 27. Qb3 Re8 28. Qe3 $1 Ng4+ 29. Rxg4 Rxe3 30. Rxe3
Ng6 31. Rc3 Qe6 32. Rxg6 $1 Qxg6 33. Rc8+ $11 {.}) ({After} 21... g6 {,} 22.
Ne2 $1 {is apparently the only equalizer, and barely so; for example,} Kxh7 23.
dxe5 Qxe5 24. Nxf4 Qxf4+ 25. Bg3 Qxf3 26. Qd3 Qh5+ (26... Qxd3 27. Rxd3 d4 {
is also equal, but it's a winning try}) 27. Kg1 Bh3 28. Qxd5 Qxd5 29. Rxd5 Bxf1
30. Rd7+ Kg8 31. Kxf1 {and the ending will be drawn.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.1112 15 Bh7+"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Bh4 Nh5 14. Qc2 h6 15.
Bh7+ {. White's current favourite.} Kh8 16. Bg6 {The interpolation of Bh7+
before playing Bg6 leads to critical new problems, as is typical of the
tactically deep theoretical lines of major openings.} Rxf3 $1 {
Still an effective sacrifice, and characteristic of the French as a whole.} 17.
Bxh5 $1 {This has become the main line of this variation and, for now, the
most important one following 11...Qc7. In contrast to the previous section,
Black's king is one square further from the centre (h8 as opposed f8), which
makes it harder to fend off rook incursions. But it's not so simple, because
in some lines, the king is better placed defensively, for example against
captures on d5 (which are no longer with check) and the rare attack along the
g-file.} ({As in the section with 15 Bg6, here} 17. gxf3 Bxh2+ 18. Kh1 Nf4 {
is equal, but trickier for White to handle:} 19. -- (19. Kxh2 Nxg6+ 20. Bg3 Qf7
{with good chances, much like the last section; ...Nge7-f5 was played there,
and ...Bd7 and ...Rf8 is a normal plan.}) (19. Nxf4 $6 {is worse because of}
Qxf4 $1 20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. fxg3 Qxg3 {.}) (19. Ng3 $2 {(frequently played)} Qd6
$1 {threatens ...e5 and ...Nxd4. White is virtually lost because, unlike after
15 Bg6, he lacks the resource Bh7 (which was check in that case):} 20. Bh7 (20.
Rad1 e5 $1 21. Bf5 {transposes into the previous section, where Bg6/Bh7+/Bf5
occurred instead of Bh7+/Bg6/Bf5; suffice it to say that Black gets a very big
advantage}) 20... Nxd4 21. Qd1 Ng6 ({or} 21... e5 $1) 22. Qxd4 e5 $1 {
(Williams)} 23. Nf5 Bxf5 24. Bg3 Qe6 {
with two pawns for the exchange and a winning position.}) ({
. The best move is apparently} 19. Rad1 {
, when Black gets only an equal game by either} Bd7 ({or the simpler} 19...
Nxe2 20. Qxe2 Qf4 21. Bg3 Bxg3 22. fxg3 Qxg3 $11) 20. Kxh2 Nxe2+ 21. Bg3 Nf4
22. Rfe1 $1 Qd8 $1 23. Bxf4 Qh4+ 24. Kg2 Qxf4 25. Qd2 Qf6 $11 {
; then Black's passed pawns are compensated for by White's active major pieces.
})) 17... Bxh2+ ({
Instead: -- (a) Most players who don't sacrifice the exchange play} 17... Rf8 {
as the solid approach (although 17...Rf5, with the idea 18 Bg6 Rf8!, may be
even better - see 'b'). At first it seems as though White, with control of e5,
will have an easy time establishing an edge; it turns out, however, that Black
can stay reasonably active with familiar ideas: pressure on the d-pawn, a
potential ...e5, and exchange or activation of his bad bishop via ...Be8.
There follows} 18. Bg3 Bd7 {. Now I'll concentrate upon the best moves, and in
a few lines the position can admittedly become dull. But they're instructive,
and it's worth remembering things will likely become more double-edged in an
over-the-board game:} 19. -- (19. Rad1 {
is common, covering the d-pawn. Here the thematic} Rf6 {
is fine, with ideas of ...Be8 and/or ...Raf8. But these are more instructive:}
({. Swapping light-squared bishops by} 19... Be8 {is logical:} 20. Bg4 (20.
Bxe8 Raxe8 21. Rfe1 e5 $5 {isn't necessary, but results in pieces active
enough to work with the isolated pawn after} 22. dxe5 Bxe5 23. Qd2 Qb6 24. Nf4
Bxf4 25. Bxf4 Qc5) 20... Rf6 21. b4 a6 (21... Bg6 22. Qd2 a6) 22. a3 Bg6 23.
Qc3 {, Kotronias-Ulibin, Stockholm 2006; and} Bf5 $5 {was approximately equal,}
({while} 23... Re8 {is the patient option, with few if any problems.})) (19...
Rac8 {is a useful move. White will have difficulties generating pressure; e.g.}
20. Qd2 Bxg3 $5 {(this gives White's knight f4)} ({we've seen the safer} 20...
Be8 $1) ({, and} 20... Rf6) 21. hxg3 Rf6 22. Nf4 g5 $1 {
, Burlacu-Berescu, Rumanian Team Ch. 2007; and Stoica gives} 23. Ne2 (23. Ng6+
{isn't effective because of} Kg7) 23... Be8 24. Bxe8 Rxe8 25. f4 Qg7 26. Rf3
Ne7 {, intending ...Nf5. A potential advantage to having Black's queen on g7
is that ...g4, in combination with ...Nf5 and ...h5-h4, becomes possible.})) (
19. Rac1 {is more active, although leaving d4 less protected:} -- (19... Rf6 {
is instructive, in part because of its use in other lines:} 20. Bxd6 (20. Bg6
$2 {was played in a high-level game but it is the wrong square for the bishop:}
Bxg3 21. hxg3 {, and now} Qb6 $1 {has multiple attacks:} 22. Rfd1 Raf8 23. f4
e5 $1) ({, while Black might meet} 20. b4 {with} Bxg3 21. hxg3 Qb6 22. Qc5 g6
23. Bg4 h5 24. Bf3 Qxb4 25. Qxb4 Nxb4 26. Rb1 a5 27. a3 Nc2 28. Rxb7 Rd8 $11)
20... Qxd6 21. f4 {, and} Be8 ({or} 21... Rc8 {is slightly more accurate}) ({
, than} 21... Raf8 {as in J.Mohammad-Satyapragyan, Bhubaneswar 2011.})) (19...
Be8 {frees Black's game more quickly:} 20. Bxe8 (20. Bg4 Rf6 21. a3 Bg6 22. Qb3
Raf8 {with the idea} 23. Bxd6 Qxd6 24. Qxb7 e5 $1) 20... Raxe8 21. Qb3 Bxg3 22.
hxg3 Qf7 $11 {Fargere-Gleizerov, Marrakesh 2010.}))) ({(b)} 17... Rf5 $1 {
has been wrongly neglected and may be the best way to generate positive
prospects. It can transpose to our main line, but Black has an good opportunity
to deviate:} 18. -- ({. The conventional} 18. Bg6 Rf8 (18... Bxh2+ 19. Kh1 Bd6
{transposes to our main line}) 19. Bg3 {
also differs from 17...Rf8 in that White's bishop on g6 can be a target:} -- (
19... Bd7 20. Rac1 Rf6 $1 21. Bh5 {(making Black's point)} (21. Bd3 $5) 21...
Be8 $1 22. Bf3 (22. Bxe8 Rxe8 {is easy for Black}) 22... Bg6 23. Qb3 Bxg3 24.
hxg3 {
, Egin-Barsov, Tashkent 2011; and this was a good time to consolidate with} Qb6
$1 {.}) (19... Rf6 {is also sound. Then} 20. Rad1 (20. Bxd6 Qxd6 21. Bh5 e5) (
20. Bh4 Rf8 {leaves White nothing better than} 21. Bg3) 20... Bd7 21. Rfe1 Rc8
{is equal.})) ({. From White's point of view,} 18. Bg4 {
is more likely to create chances. Black plays} Rf8 19. Bg3 {
and an interesting try is} e5 $5 (19... Qe7 20. Rae1 Bd7 {is solid}) 20. dxe5
Bxe5 21. Bf3 {and now} Be6 ({or even} 21... Rxf3 $5 22. gxf3 Qf7 $1 {; e.g.}
23. Rfe1 {(otherwise White might stand worse)} Bh3 24. Qb3 Na5 25. Qd3 Bf5 26.
Qb5 Nc6 27. Rad1 Rd8 {with an obscure position in which, between the d-pawn
and White's kingside structure, Black has more compensation than might be
immediately obvious.}))) 18. Kh1 Rf5 $1 ({This time} 18... Rf8 $2 {
loses material to} 19. f4 Bxf4 20. Nxf4 Rxf4 21. Bg3 $16 {, because} Rxf1+ $2 (
21... e5 22. Bxf4 exf4 23. Rae1 Bd7 24. Qc5 $1) 22. Rxf1 Qd8 23. Rf7 {
is killing.}) 19. Bg6 Bd6 20. Bxf5 exf5 {Here's another theoretically hot
position of the 11...Qc7 variation (although 17...Rf8 or 17...Rf5 are simpler
solutions). Black is down an exchange for a pawn but has the bishop pair;
other factors being equal, that is materially more-or-less even. He also
threatens ...g5 and ...f4, burying White's bishop, while ...Qf7-h5 can launch
a very serious attack. On the other hand, White goes into this position
willingly because of several factors. He is ahead in development, and has a
good chance to develop his rooks actively and quickly along the e- and/or
c-files. Additionally, Black's pawn on f5 blocks in the bishop on c8.} 21. Rae1
{This move, whose worth is enhanced by prospects of entry to the 7th or 8th
ranks, is considered best at the moment (along with 21 f4).} ({Moves like} 21.
f3 $2) ({and} 21. Nc3 $6 {are met by} Qf7 {
and ...Qh5, but several alternatives are instructive or even playable.}) ({(a)
} 21. Qd3 $6 {is not very inspiring. Black can play the obvious} Qf7 22. Bg3 f4
23. Bh2 (23. Qf3 g5) 23... Bf5 24. Qd2 {
, Ismagambetov-Kosyrev, St Petersburg 2006; and instead of} f3 $2 {,} ({here} 
24... g5 $1 {puts White in a bind; e.g.} 25. f3 Nb4 $1 26. Nc3 Nc2 27. Rac1 Ne3
28. Rfe1 Qh5 {with an attack.})) ({(b)} 21. Bg3 $6 f4 22. Bh2 f3 $1 23. Bxd6
fxg2+ 24. Kxg2 Qxd6 {with a pawn and an attack against White's exposed king.})
({(c)} 21. f4 {has been played many times, mutually imprisoning Black's
light-squared bishop and White's dark-squared bishop, with the benefit of
preventing Black's kingside pawn storm. But exposing White's king and ceding
e4 has its drawbacks:} Qf7 $1 22. Rf3 ({or} 22. Kg1 Bd7 23. Qd2 Re8 24. Nc3 Qh5
25. Bg3 Ne7 $5 26. Rae1 Rc8 27. Re3 Qf7 {
, Rasulov-Timman, Baku 2008; as Williams points out, White has no entry squares
}) 22... Bd7 23. Bf2 (23. Rd1 $6 {is well met by} Nb4 {, since} 24. Qd2 ({and} 
24. Qb3 $4 {loses to} Qh5) 24... Nxa2 {favours Black}) 23... Re8 ({
after something like} 23... Na5 24. b3 Nc6 {, it's difficult for either side
to come up with a productive plan; but there are more entertaining ideas}) 24.
Nc3 {. This position has occurred in at least three games; for example,} Ne7 {
(an interesting if optional reorganization)} ({; instead,} 24... Re4 $5 {
was tried in two games}) ({, but it seems to me that} 24... g5 $1 {
establishes equality right away; e.g.} 25. Ne2 $1 Nb4 26. Qd2 Bb5 27. Re1 ({
in this line} 27. Nc3 $5 Bxf4 $1 28. Rxf4 gxf4 29. Nxb5 Qh5+ 30. Kg1 f3 {
intending ...Rg8 achieves at least a draw}) {, and} 27... g4 ({or simply} 27...
Bxe2 28. Rxe2 Rxe2 29. Qxe2 Bxf4 {with equal chances})) 25. Qb3 Bc6 26. Re1 Ng8
{(the point)} 27. Rxe8 Qxe8 28. Qc2 (28. Nxd5 b6 $5 $11 {
intending ...Qa8 or ...Qh5+}) 28... Qh5+ 29. Kg1 Nf6 30. Nd1 Ne4 $11 {
Levushkina-A.Heinz, German League 2007.}) ({(d) Most of these positions, while
theoretically equal, tend to be harder for White to play than Black; for
example,} 21. Qd2 f4 (21... g5 22. Bg3 f4 23. Bh2 Bf5 $11) 22. f3 Be6 23. Nc3
Qf7 24. Rfe1 Re8 25. Bf2 Ne7 26. Kg1 Nf5 27. Ne2 g5 28. Rac1 Qh5 {
(suddenly Black has a clear advantage)} 29. Qd3 $4 Ng3 {
is simply winning, Medina-Nodirjanova, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.}) 21... Qf7 $1 {
The main reason to give this an '!' is that it took Black a while to realize
that other moves were worse.} 22. Bg3 Bb4 $1 {Although this temporarily cedes
central control, it gains a tempo, retains the idea of ...f4, and has in mind
attacking White's only pawn weakness on d4.} (22... f4 $2 {fails to} 23. Nxf4
Bxf4 24. Bxf4 Nxd4 25. Qc7 {.}) 23. Rc1 (23. Rd1 {
emphasizes safe protection of the d4-pawn. Most of the ideas are similar:} Bd7
24. a3 $1 (24. Rd3 $6 f4 $1 25. Nxf4 Bf5 {regains the exchange}) 24... Ba5 ({
this improves upon} 24... Be7 $6 25. Rfe1 Bf6 26. Qb3 $1 {
, Antal-Michielsen, Pardubice 2007, when} b6 $2 (26... Re8 {is better, but even
} 27. Kg1 {shows how thankless Black's task is}) 27. Nf4 Bxd4 28. Qxd5 {
was winning}) 25. b4 Bb6 26. Rfe1 ({Williams thinks} 26. Qa2 {
is White's best, and calls} Re8 (26... g5 {can also be considered}) 27. Nf4 Ne7
{, intending ...g5 and then ...f4, 'dynamically equal'}) 26... Re8 27. Kg1 {
, and here simply} Kg8 $1 {preserves the ideas of ...Re4, ...g5, and ...f4; a
verdict of dynamic equality seems fair here as well.}) 23... Bd7 24. a3 Ba5 {
According to plan.} (24... Bf8 {
of Giri-Brandenburg, Leeuwarden 2009, is passive.}) 25. b4 Bb6 26. Qd2 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 26. b5 $6 Nxd4 27. Nxd4 f4 $1 28. Bh2 Bxd4 29. Qd2 Bb6 30.
Qxf4 Qxf4 31. Bxf4 Bxb5 32. Rfd1 Bc4 $15 {
Parligras-Michiels, German League 2009.}) ({(b)} 26. Rfe1 Re8 {is extremely
similar to the position that we saw in the note about 23 Rd1, except that
White has a rook on c1} (26... Nxd4 $5) {. Play might go} 27. Qa2 (27. b5 $5
Na5 $5 28. a4 Kg8 {intending ...Nc4}) 27... g5 $5 (27... Nxd4 28. Nxd4 Rxe1+
29. Rxe1 Bxd4 {is slightly worse but Black should hold}) 28. Bd6 $1 (28. b5 Nd8
$1 29. Nc3 Rxe1+ 30. Rxe1 f4 31. Bh2 Ba5 32. Qb3 Ne6 33. Rd1 g4 $1 {
with counterplay}) 28... Re4 29. Kg1 Qe6 30. Bc5 Bc7 31. f3 Re3 32. Kf2 f4 33.
Nc3 g4 $1 {, again counterattacking.}) 26... Re8 {
This isn't much different from lines above.} (26... g5 27. b5 (27. f4 $5) 27...
Na5 28. Be5+ Kg8 29. Qd3 Nc4 {is unclear.}) 27. f3 ({Here} 27. Rfe1 Re4 $1 {
wins the d-pawn} ({amazingly, in Xiong-Mabe, USCL 2011, the opponents, with an
average rating of 2104, got all the way to the position after 27 Rfe1; the
game continued} 27... a6 $2 28. a4 $2 Bd8 $2 {and ended in a draw}) {
, in view of} 28. f3 $4 Qh5+ {.}) ({After} 27. f3 {, a slow move such as} a6 {
is possible;} ({but I like the aggressive} 27... g5 $1 {; for example,} 28. Kg1
f4 29. Bf2 Rg8 30. Rfe1 Ne7 {
and Black can attack via ...g4 or play for the outpost by ...Nf5-d6-c4.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.112 13 Rc1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Rc1 {. This is the
most important strategic set-up today, trying to speed up White's development
and develop queenside play at the same time. If my analysis is correct, then
the variations above in 5.111 ultimately work out well for Black; which
suggests that 13 Rc1 and other options may be what you'll be seeing
over-the-board in a couple of years, if not before. --- These 13 Rc1 lines
wonderfully illustrate the positional underpinnings of Black's play in this
variation, justifying a final split (with apologies):} -- ({5.1121} 13... Bd7)
({5.1122} 13... h6) (13... Ng4 {is a valid option, albeit double-edged:} 14.
Ng3 (14. h3 Rxf3 $1 15. hxg4 Rf8 $11) 14... Qb6 $5 {attacks b2 and keeps an
eye on d4, yet somewhat weakens Black's kingside. Now Tzermiadanos'
recommendation is} 15. Nh4 {(adorned with '!')} ({otherwise there can follow} 
15. Qc2 h6 16. Be3 e5 $1 17. dxe5 Nxe3 18. fxe3 Nxe5 {with at least equality})
15... Nf6 16. Nh5 Ne4 $1 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Bh6 $5 (18. Qg4 e5 19. Qg3 Nxd4 {
apparently favours Black}) {, and here Tzermiadanos gives} 18... Rf7 (18...
gxh6 $5 19. Qg4+ Kf7 20. Qxe4 $1 {
; I think Black is okay, but it's probably not worth more than a draw}) 19.
Bxg7 Rxg7 20. Nxg7 Kxg7 21. Qg4+ Kh8 22. Qh5 {
and calls it 'unclear'. Black stands at least equal following} Bd7 {; e.g.} 23.
Ng6+ Kg8 24. Nf4 ({or} 24. Rfd1 Be8) 24... Qd8 $1 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.1121 13...Bd7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Rc1 Bd7 {. Black develops before undertaking action. This is his most solid continuation, completely
equal in my opinion. While apparently peaceful, the position contains a latent
dynamism which expresses itself in several lines.} 14. Re1 {
Tzermiadanos' recommendation. Others are also complicated.} ({(a)} 14. Bh4 Nh5
({or simply} 14... Qb6 15. Qd2 Rae8 {with ideas of ...e5 or ...Nh5}) 15. Nc3 (
15. Bb1 {can be met by} g6 ({or the fancier} 15... Rxf3 $5 16. gxf3 Bxh2+ 17.
Kg2 Bf4 $1 18. Rc3 $1 g6 19. Ng3 Ng7 {, which is unclear})) ({
; Tzermiadanos gives} 15. Qc2 h6 16. Bh7+ Kh8 17. Bg6 Be8 $1 $11) 15... a6 16.
Ne5 $5 (16. Qc2 $2 Rxf3 $1) 16... Nf4 17. Nxc6 (17. Nxd7 Qxd7 18. Bb1 g5 $1 19.
Bxg5 Qg7 20. Bxf4 Bxf4 {with the idea} 21. Rc2 Nxd4) 17... Bxc6 {
with a comfortable position; e.g.} 18. Bb1 Rae8 $1 19. Qc2 g6 $15 {.}) ({(b)} 
14. Ng3 {has attacking ideas, although it takes away control of d4 and f4,
which shows up in lines such as} Qb6 $5 (14... h6 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. Bc3 Bf4 17.
Rc2 Rac8 $11) 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 (15... gxf6 $5 16. Qd2 Rf7) 16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Ng5+
Kh8 $1 18. Qh5+ Rh6 19. Nf7+ Kh7 20. Nxh6 Be8 21. Nf7+ Kg8 22. Nh6+ Kh7 $11 {.}
) ({(c)} 14. Qc2 Be8 $1 15. Be3 (15. Bh4 Qb6 16. Bg3 Bxg3 17. hxg3 Nb4) (15.
Rfe1 h6 16. Bh4 Bh5) (15. Nc3 Bh5 16. Nb5 Qb8 17. Nxd6 Qxd6) 15... h6 16. Ng3
Rc8 $11 {.}) ({(d)} 14. a3 Be8 15. Ng3 {(versus ...Bh5)} h6 16. Bd2 Qb6 17. Bc3
Nh5 $11 {Oleksienko-Karthikeyan, Chennai 2012.}) 14... Rac8 {
This move isn't mentioned by Tzermiadanos, but it almost always comes in handy.
} 15. Bb1 (15. Qb3 {hinders ...Qb6. Black might reorganize by} Qb8 16. Ng3 Ng4
{, ready to answer h3 with ...Nxf2;} ({here} 16... a6 {
is another option, considering ...Qa7 or ...b5}) {; then} 17. Bb1 Bc7 $5 18.
Qd3 g6 {intends ...Bb6, hitting d4.}) 15... Qb6 16. Bf4 $1 (16. b3 $6 Ba3 {
forces White's pieces to poor squares, unless he chooses to cede the bishop
pair by} 17. Bxf6 Rxf6 18. Qd3 g6 19. Rcd1 Rcf8 $15 {.}) 16... Be7 {
Black intends to play ...Ne4.} 17. Qd2 $1 Ne4 $1 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Ng5 ({Or} 
19. Ne5 Be8 20. Be3 Rd8 21. Qc2 Nxe5 22. dxe5 Qa5 23. Qc7 Bb4 $1 24. Qxa5 Bxa5
$11 {, an entertaining line going} 25. Nc3 Bc6 $5 26. Bxa7 Rd2 27. Bc5 Rf5 28.
b4 $6 Bxb4 $1 29. Bxb4 Rfxf2 $15 {.}) 19... Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Nb4 $1 21. Be7 $1 Nd3
22. Bxf8 Rxf8 23. Rb1 -- ({Here Black could play} 23... Nxe1 24. Rxe1 Bc6 $11 {
, but this leaves him few positive chances.}) ({The more enterprising} 23... e5
$5 24. Rf1 exd4 {produces a dynamic balance. Black's advanced central pawns
and 6th-rank knight give him compensation; e.g.} 25. Ng3 Qg6 26. Qc2 Be6 27.
Qa4 Nf4 28. Rbe1 Bd5 $1 29. Qxd4 h5 $1 30. Rxe4 (30. h4 e3 $1 $15) 30... Bxe4
31. Qxe4 Qg5 32. Re1 h4 33. Nh1 Rf6 $1 {(threatening ...Re6)} 34. Qxb7 Re6 35.
Rxe6 Nh3+ 36. Kf1 Qc1+ 37. Ke2 Nf4+ 38. Kf3 Nxe6 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.1122 13...h6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Rc1 h6 $5 {. This popular move resolves the position of White's bishop at the cost of a slight
weakening of the kingside. Unlike other lines following 13 Rc1, Black retains
the familiar possibility of throwing his kingside pawns forward, putting a
queen on g7, and/or sacrificing a rook on f3. There are many games here, so
I'll abbreviate dramatically:} 14. Bh4 ({
This is supposed to be a particularly appropriate moment for} 14. Bd2 {
, preserving the bishop and preparing b4. Black can still try to attack, but
it's more likely that he will play for sound development:} Bd7 15. b4 a6 16. a4
$5 {(consistent)} (16. Re1 b5 $5 {is ambitious} ({or here} 16... Rac8 17. Qb3
Be8 18. Ng3 Bf7 19. Ne5 Qb6 $1 {with counterplay against d4})) 16... Qb6 $1 17.
b5 axb5 18. axb5 {. Now} Ne7 {looks best} ({although} 18... Nb4 19. Bxb4 Bxb4
20. Ne5 Ba3 21. Rb1 Be8 22. Nf4 Nd7 $1 {come very close to equality}) {; e.g.}
19. Ne5 Be8 $1 20. Nf4 (20. Qc2 Nd7 $1 {keeps White out of the e5 outpost:} 21.
Nxd7 ({except in the case of} 21. Be3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 Rxf5 $11) 21... Bxd7) 20...
Ne4 21. Bxe4 (21. Be3 Nxf2 $1 22. Nxe6 Bxe5 23. Bxf2 Qxe6 24. dxe5 Bg6 $1 $11)
(21. Nxe6 $6 Bxe5 22. Nxf8 Bf6 {and the knight is trapped}) 21... Qxd4 $1 {
with complications and equal chances.}) 14... Nh5 {The standard move;} ({
though I'm not sure that} 14... Qb6 {isn't satisfactory, especially with the
bishop away from the queenside on h4. Tzermiadanos gives} 15. b3 Bd7 16. Bg3 {
, but then} Ba3 $1 {is satisfactory for Black:} 17. Rc2 (17. Rb1 Nb4 18. Ne5
Rac8) 17... Rad8 (17... Nb4 $4 18. Bc7) {, with the idea} 18. Ne5 $6 Nb4 $1 {.}
) 15. Bg3 ({Instead: -- (a)} 15. Qc2 {simply encourages Black to play} g5 $1
16. Bg3 Nxg3 {and} 17. Nxg3 ({or} 17. hxg3 Qg7) 17... Rxf3 $1 18. gxf3 Qf7 {
with ample compensation. (Compare the order 13 Bh4 Nh5 14 Qc2 h6 15 Rac1.)}) ({
(b)} 15. Bg6 Rxf3 $1 16. gxf3 Bxh2+ {is a sound exchange sacrifice:} 17. Kg2 (
17. Kh1 Nf4 18. Be8 $5 Nxe2 19. Qxe2 Qf4 (19... Bf4 20. Bg3 Qe7 21. Bxf4 Qxe8 {
tries for more, with some risk}) 20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. fxg3 Nxd4 $1 22. Qf2 Qf5 $1
$11) 17... Nf4+ 18. Nxf4 Bxf4 19. Bg3 (19. Rh1 Qd6 $5 $11 {
with ideas of ...e5, ...Rf8 and ...Qb4}) 19... Bd7 20. Rh1 $1 {
, as recommended by Tzermiadanos. But} Qd6 $1 {gives sufficient play; e.g.} 21.
Bh5 $1 (21. Bb1 Qf8 $1 {intends ...Qf6:} 22. Rc3 Qf6 23. Qd3 Nxd4 24. Rd1 Nf5
25. Bxf4 Nh4+ {½-½ Slinger-Rodriguez Amezqueta, ICCF server 2008}) (21. Qd3
Bxg3 $1 22. fxg3 e5 $11) 21... Qf8 {, and as an illustration only:} 22. Rc3 Rd8
$5 23. Rh4 Bg5 24. Rg4 Be8 25. Bxe8 Rxe8 26. Be5 Qf5 27. f4 Nxe5 28. fxe5 Rf8
29. Qe2 h5 30. Rgg3 Bf4 {with equalizing counterplay in view of} 31. Rh3 Qg6+
32. Kf1 Qb1+ 33. Qe1 Qxb2 $11 {.}) ({(c)} 15. Bb1 g5 16. Bg3 Nxg3 {has been see
n in many games. Play can go in almost any direction, but in general Black's
attack is sufficient to make up for his weaknesses. For example:} 17. -- (17.
fxg3 Qg7 18. g4 Bd7 19. Qd3 Rac8 20. Ng3 Be8 $11 {.}) (17. hxg3 Qg7 ({or} 17...
Qf7) 18. g4 (18. Qd3 Bd7 19. a3 Na5 $5 20. b3 a6 {is a unique approach}) 18...
Bd7 19. Ng3 $5 Rxf3 $5 (19... Be8) 20. Qxf3 (20. gxf3 Nxd4 {followed by ...Rf8}
) 20... Nxd4 21. Qd1 Rf8 {. Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange,
although probably no more.}) (17. Nxg3 Qf7 18. Qd3 Bd7 19. a3 {
(preventing ...Nb4)} ({a unique Black attacking scheme came about in
Bruned-Bhat, Andorra la Vella 2006:} 19. Rce1 a6 20. a3 Kh8 21. Re2 Rg8 $5 22.
Rfe1 Rg7 23. b4 Rf8 {with excellent attacking prospects}) 19... Rae8 {and now:}
20. -- (20. Rfe1 Re7 21. Kh1 Be8 22. Re2 {
, C.Balogh-Moor, Zürich 2005, and here Black could have played} g4 $1 23. Ne5
Qf4 24. Rce1 Nxe5 25. dxe5 Bc5 $17 {.}) (20. Rcd1 Re7 21. Rd2 Be8 22. Re1 Qg7
23. Rde2 $6 (23. h3 h5) 23... g4 24. Ne5 Nxe5 25. dxe5 Bc5 26. Rc1 Bb6 27. Rc8
{, S.Brady-Ulibin, Isle of Man 2002; and now the easiest course was} Ref7 {
, winning material.}))) 15... Nxg3 16. hxg3 (16. fxg3 Qb6 {.}) (16. Nxg3 Qf7 $5
(16... a6 $5 {puts a stop to Bb5}) 17. Qe2 (17. Bb5 Bd7 18. Re1 {wins e5, but}
a6 19. Bxc6 Bxc6 {is fine; e.g.} 20. Rc2 Rac8 21. Ne5 $2 Bxe5 22. Rxe5 Bd7)
17... Bd7 18. Bb1 g5 19. Rcd1 Bf4 20. Ne5 Nxe5 21. dxe5 Be8 $1 {
prevents Nh5 and prepares ...h5-h4, Kotronias-E.Berg, Heraklio 2007.}) 16... a6
(16... Qf7 $1 {is flexible, making room for ...Bd7 and preparing to go to h5
or f6 as appropriate. If White isn't careful, ...e5 can be played because of
the extra support given to d5.}) 17. Bb1 g5 18. Re1 $5 (18. g4 {, with the
of holding up Black's kingside and at some point playing Ng3, is a good
alternative, when} Qg7 {keeps an eye on d4 and prepares ...Bd7.}) ({After} 18.
Re1 {, Schönberger-Pirrot, Bad Wiessee 2010, continued} Qg7 ({here} 18... Qf7
$1 {indirectly hits f2; then} {here} 19. g4 {can be answered by} h5 $1) 19. Nc3
Bd7 20. Na4 $1 g4 21. Nh2 Qxd4 22. Qxg4+ Qxg4 23. Nxg4 Bb4 24. Nb6 $5 (24. Red1
Kg7) 24... Bxe1 25. Rxe1 Rad8 26. Nxd7 Rxd7 27. Rxe6 Re7 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.12 12 Nc3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Nc3 {
. White shifts to the queenside and threatens Nb5.} ({
The main line can arise via} 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Nc3 a6 {as well.}) 12... a6 13.
Bg5 ({Instead: -- (a)} 13. h3 {is sometimes played, to prevent ...Ng4, and
this resembles 12 h3 (note 'a' at the beginning of 5.1); e.g.} O-O 14. Be3 Bd7
15. Rc1 {, and here a thematic solution is} Be8 $1 (15... Rae8) ({, and} 15...
Rac8 {are perfectly playable}) 16. Ng5 ({after} 16. Re1 {
, Black might activate his bishop by} Bh5 {, when} 17. g4 Nxg4 $1 18. hxg4 Bxg4
19. Be2 Qe7 {begins a dangerous attack}) 16... Qe7 17. f4 h6 18. Nf3 Nh5 19.
Ne5 Ng3 20. Rf2 Nf5 21. Bxf5 Rxf5 22. Ne2 Rf8 23. Rf1 Rd8 $1 24. Qb3 Bxe5 25.
fxe5 Bg6 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 13. Be3 {(rarely seen)} O-O ({or} 13... Bd7 {
, intending} 14. Rc1 Ng4) 14. Rc1 Bd7 15. Na4 {
, Dvoirys-Levin, St Petersburg 2011; and here} Be8 {
could be played, anticipating} 16. Ne5 (16. Nc5 $6 Bxc5 17. Rxc5 Bh5) 16... Qe7
{with a solid position.}) 13... O-O 14. Bh4 (14. Re1 $2 Ng4 15. g3 Qf7 16. Be2
Qh5 {with an attack.}) (14. Rc1 Ng4 $5 (14... Bd7) 15. h3 Nh2 16. Nxh2 Bxh2+
17. Kh1 Bf4 18. Bxf4 Qxf4 19. Ne2 Qh4 20. f4 Bd7 $11 {
Kubsch-G.Gutierrez, corr 1987.}) 14... Nh5 {. This position closely resembles
the main line with 12 Bg5 0-0 13 Bh4 Nh5 (5.111), with the moves Nc3 and ...a6
thrown in, and in fact 14 Nc3 a6 would transpose exactly. But it's good to
think of these positions with Nc3 separately in strategic terms because,
instead of focusing on the centre and kingside (with 14 Qc2 or 14 Bg3, for
example), the Nc3 lines tend to be based upon Rc1/Na4 with queenside pressure.
Black, for his part, has the idea of playing ...g6 and ...Qg7, drifting
towards the kingside and putting pressure on d4.} 15. Re1 {A traditional move,
simply contesting e5 and aiming at the backwards pawn on e6. This can hardly
be bad, but does allow Black an optimal reorganization of his pieces. The
alternatives are equally important.} ({(a)} 15. Bg3 Nxg3 16. hxg3 g6 17. Rc1
Qg7 18. Bb1 g5 $1 {has the idea ...g4 and ...Nxd4, which is another benefit of
...Qg7. This position has arisen repeatedly over the years with positive
results for Black; for example,} 19. Ne2 (19. Re1 {
transposes into a 15 Re1 line}) 19... g4 (19... Bd7 {is often played}) 20. Ne1
Bd7 21. Nc2 Rf7 22. Qd2 Raf8 23. Ne3 Kh8 24. Rcd1 Bb8 25. Nc1 Ba7 26. Nb3 {
, Buervenich-Hedman, Stockholm 2001, when it was simplest to open lines with}
e5 $1 27. dxe5 Qxe5 {; e.g.} 28. Qxd5 Rxf2 $1 29. Qxe5+ Nxe5 30. Rxf2 Bxe3 31.
Rdd2 Nc4 32. Rde2 Rxf2 33. Rxf2 Nxb2 {with an extra pawn.}) ({(b) After} 15.
Qc2 {, Black doesn't even have to defend his kingside and can play} Rxf3 $1 16.
Bxh7+ Kh8 17. gxf3 Nxd4 {with a strong attack and advantage.}) ({(c) White's} 
15. Rc1 g6 16. Na4 {is supposed to discourage Black's ...g6/...Qg7 plan;} ({
rather than} 16. Bb1 Qg7 17. Na4 Rxf3 $1 18. gxf3 {
, Guseinov-Se.Ivanov, USSR 1985, when Black should play} Nf4 $1 19. Bg3 Bd7 20.
Nb6 Rd8 21. Nxd7 Rxd7 $15 {intending ...Rf7 and ...Nxd4}) ({, or} 16. Be2 Bf4
$1 17. Rb1 h6 18. Na4 g5 19. Bg3 Qg7) ({; instead,} 16. Bg5 $5 {
is more interesting:} Qg7 17. Be3 Nf4 18. Bb1 Bd7 19. Na4 g5 20. Nb6 Rad8 $11 {
intending ...Be8}) 16... b5 $1 {(the most adventurous move)} ({
and better than the often-played} 16... Qg7 $6 17. Nb6 Rb8 18. Bxa6 $1 $14) 17.
Nc5 (17. Nc3 Bb7 $5 {
renews ideas of ...Qg7 and ...e5; White can reroute to protect his centre by}
18. Bg5 Qg7 19. Be3 {, but} Nf4 {leaves Black's pieces better placed}) 17...
Rxf3 $1 {(the standard exchange sacrifice)} 18. Qxf3 (18. gxf3 $2 Bxh2+ 19. Kg2
Bf4) 18... Bxh2+ 19. Kh1 Bf4 {
with plenty of compensation, Mamedov-Ulibin, Moscow 2004. There might follow}
20. Nb3 Nxd4 ({or the unclear} 20... Bxc1 21. Rxc1 Bd7 22. Bg5) 21. Rxc7 Nxf3
22. Rxc8+ Rxc8 23. gxf3 Kf7 {, intending ...g5 or ...Be5.}) 15... g6 {
Protecting the king and intending ...Qg7, Black's standard resource.} 16. Rc1 (
{Not} 16. Bc2 $2 Rxf3 $1 {.}) 16... Qg7 {Attacking d4.} ({The options are} 
16... Bf4 {first}) ({or simply} 16... Bd7 {.}) 17. Bb1 (17. Bf1 {
doesn't contribute much:} Bf4 (17... h6 $5) 18. Rc2 (18. Rb1 Bd7 $15) 18... g5
19. Bg3 Nxg3 20. hxg3 Bc7 $15 {with the ideas ...Bb6 and ...g4.}) (17. Bb1 {
is Kudrin-Korchnoi, Beersheba 1984 (and several later games) when,} -- ({
, instead of the normal} 17... Bd7 {(} 18. Bg5 $5 {)}) (17... Bf4 $1 {
is a simpler solution:} 18. Rc2 (18. Bg5 $6 Nxd4 $1) 18... g5 19. Bg3 Nxg3 20.
hxg3 Bb8 $1 {intending ...g4 and ...Ba7. Then best is} 21. Na4 g4 22. Ne5 $1
Nxe5 23. dxe5 Ba7 24. Nc5 Rf7 $11 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.13 12 g3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. g3 {. White sets up to exchange
bishops on f4. In return, he weakens his kingside light squares.} O-O 13. Bf4
Ng4 {This active and ambitious move covers e5.} (13... Bd7 {
is a common alternative, solid but not much fun.}) 14. Bxd6 {Probably best;} ({
though these are logical as well: -- (a)} 14. Qd2 e5 $1 15. dxe5 Ngxe5 16. Nxe5
Nxe5 17. Bxe5 Bxe5 18. Rac1 Qb6 19. Nc3 Be6 20. Qe2 (20. Bc2 Rad8 21. Bb3 d4 $1
) 20... Bxc3 (20... Bf6 21. Na4 Qd6 22. Nc5 Rae8 $11) 21. bxc3 (21. Rxc3 d4 $11
) 21... Rae8 $11) ({(b) A typical exchange sacrifice follows} 14. Rc1 Bxf4 15.
Nxf4 Rxf4 $1 16. gxf4 Qxf4 {and:} 17. -- (17. Be2 Nf6 $1 18. Kh1 Ne4 $1 $15 {
Azarov-Berescu, Djakovo 2005; Black prepares ...Bd7 and ...Rf8 with an attack,
and sometimes the immediate ...e5 will work.}) (17. Bb5 Bd7 18. Bxc6 Bxc6 19.
Rc3 Rf8 20. Qc1 Qd6 $1 21. Qg5 Rxf3 22. Qxg4 Rf4 23. Qg3 h5 $1 24. f3 {
(Williams)} h4 $1 25. Qf2 e5 26. dxe5 Qxe5 $15 {intending ...d4.} (26... --)) (
17. h3 e5 $1 18. hxg4 Bxg4 19. Be2 Bh3 20. Nxe5 {(Williams)} Nxd4 $1 21. Re1
Re8 22. Bg4 Rxe5 23. Rc8+ Kf7 24. Bh5+ g6 25. Rxe5 Qxe5 26. Bg4 Bxg4 27. Qxg4
Ne6 28. Qf3+ Kg7 $11 {.})) 14... Qxd6 15. Nc3 $1 {This threatens Bxh7+.} (15.
Nf4 $6 {allows the standard sacrifice} Rxf4 $1 16. gxf4 Qxf4 $15 {.}) 15... e5
$5 {It's hard to resist this active solution, which gives excellent tactical
chances and only a small disadvantage versus accurate defence.} ({
Nevertheless, a solid alternative like} 15... Nh6 {may be objectively better})
({and I like} 15... Qe7 $1 {, intending ...Qf6, when the queen will be well
placed attacking d4, f3 and, indirectly, f2. For example,} 16. Rc1 (16. h3 Nh6
17. Kg2 Bd7 18. Re1 Qf6 19. Bb5 {, Wharrier-Corfield, ICCF email 2009; and here
} Rae8 {is a straightforward move; e.g.} 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Qe2 Nf7 22. Rad1 e5
23. dxe5 Nxe5 24. Nxe5 Rxe5 25. Qxe5 Qxf2+ 26. Kh1 Qf3+ {with a perpetual})
16... Qf6 17. Ne1 Nh6 18. Ne2 a6 ({or} 18... Bd7 19. Bb5 Rad8) 19. f4 Ng4 20.
Nc2 (20. Qd2 Nxd4 21. Bxh7+ Kxh7 22. Nxd4 e5 $11) 20... Qh6 21. h4 Qf6 22. a3
Bd7 23. Nc3 Nh6 $11 {.}) 16. dxe5 Qh6 $5 ({The alternative is} 16... Ncxe5 {
; e.g.} 17. Be4 $5 ({but} 17. Nxe5 Qxe5 18. Be2 {gives White an edge}) 17... d4
$1 18. Nxd4 Nxh2 $1 19. Kxh2 Qh6+ 20. Kg1 Ng4 21. Nf3 Rxf3 22. Qd8+ Rf8 23.
Bd5+ Be6 24. Qh4 $11 {.}) 17. h4 Ngxe5 (17... Ncxe5 18. Be2 Be6 19. Ng5 Rad8 {
, Idani-D.Petrosian, Yerevan 2012; and} 20. Qb3 $1 Kh8 21. Rad1 Bg8 {
offers White some advantage, although this is playable (Black later won).}) 18.
Ng5 $1 {The only try for advantage, attacking both h7 and d5;} ({whereas} 18.
Nxe5 Nxe5 {cedes plenty of play against White's weakened kingside squares:} 19.
Be2 Be6 20. Nb5 Rad8 21. Nd4 Bh3 22. Re1 {
, Meier-Navara, Mainz (rapid) 2009; and} Qb6 23. Qd2 Bf5 $1 $15 {was best.})
18... d4 $1 {. This is Vachier Lagrave-E.Berg, Liverpool 2008;} ({
and here the greedy} 18... d4 19. Bxh7+ $1 {apparently favours White:} Kh8 20.
f4 $1 (20. Nce4 Bg4 21. Qa4 Be2 22. Rfe1 Qh5 $1 {with sufficient counterplay})
20... Bg4 21. Qc2 $1 {with the idea} dxc3 22. fxe5 Nd4 23. Qe4 cxb2 24. Rab1
Nf3+ 25. Nxf3 Bxf3 26. Rxf3 Rxf3 27. Qxf3 Kxh7 {, although White's advantage
is limited by his weak pawns. Still, Black's 15th move alternatives look
theoretically preferable.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.14 12 Bd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bd2 {. A calm move, meant to bring
a rook to c1 quickly and support a queenside advance with b4. This is also a
reaction to the troubles this bishop often runs into after 12 Bg5.} O-O 13. Rc1
Bd7 {Against slow moves such as 12 Bd2, I counsel patience.} ({
Another set-up is} 13... a6 14. Ng3 (14. Bc3 Bd7 15. h3 Nh5 $5 {with the idea}
16. Qc2 $2 Rxf3 $1 17. gxf3 Qd8 $1) 14... Bd7 15. Re1 Qb6 16. Bg5 $6 (16. Bc3
Bf4 17. Rb1 Rac8 $11) 16... Ng4 $5 (16... h6 {is fine}) 17. Bb1 g6 (17... Qxb2
$1) 18. Rc2 Rf7 19. Nf1 Raf8 20. h3 $2 Rxf3 $1 21. hxg4 (21. gxf3 Nxd4 $19) {
, Castaneda-Bhat, Budapest 2001; and the simplest move was} 21... Nxd4 $1 $17 {
.}) 14. Ng3 (14. h3 {is also logical; e.g.} Qb6 (14... Rac8) (14... Be8) 15.
Bc3 Rac8 {and now:} 16. -- (16. Qd2 Nb4 17. Bb1 Bb5 18. Ng5 $1 h6 19. Nxe6 Rce8
$1 20. a4 $1 Ba6 21. a5 $1 Qxa5 22. N2f4 Bxf1 23. Nxf8 Bxg2 24. Kxg2 Rxf8 {
with sufficient counterplay.}) (16. Ne5 Nxe5 $1 17. dxe5 Rxc3 {
is an interesting exchange sacrifice:} 18. bxc3 (18. Rxc3 Bxe5 19. Rb3 Qc7 20.
Qd2 Bh2+ 21. Kh1 Bd6 {with compensation based on the bishop pair and centre})
18... Bxe5 19. c4 Bc7 $5 (19... Bb8 20. cxd5 exd5 21. Rb1 Qc7) 20. cxd5 Qd6 21.
Ng3 exd5 {.})) 14... Qb6 {Black has good alternatives;} ({for example,} 14...
a6 {transposes to the note on 13...a6 above}) ({and} 14... Rae8 {
prepares ...e5, which can't be stopped without other concessions; e.g.} 15. Re1
Qb6 16. Bc3 {and:} -- (16... e5 $5 17. dxe5 Ng4 18. Bxh7+ (18. exd6 $5 Nxf2 19.
Bxh7+ Kh8 $11 20. Bd4 $6 Rxe1+ 21. Qxe1 Nh3+ 22. gxh3 Nxd4 23. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 24.
Kg2 Kxh7 $15 {Almasi-E.Berg, Mülheim 2011}) 18... Kh8 19. Rf1 Bc5 20. Kh1 (20.
Rc2 Bxf2+ 21. Rcxf2 Nxf2 22. Rxf2 Kxh7 23. Qxd5 Be6 $11) 20... Nxf2+ 21. Rxf2
Bxf2 22. e6 Rxe6 23. Qxd5 Rxf3 24. gxf3 Qe3 25. Bd2 Qd4 26. Qxd4 Nxd4 {
and equality becomes evident in a few more moves.}) (16... Bf4 {is solid:} 17.
Rc2 g6 18. Rce2 (18. Ne5 Nb4 $1) (18. a3 Ng4 $1 {
intending ...e5, and using the standard trick} 19. h3 $2 ({better} 19. Rce2 {
, arguably with an edge, but it's hard to find a plan}) 19... Nxf2 20. Kxf2 e5)
18... Rc8 19. a3 {, and one legitimate idea is the strange-looking manoeuvre}
Ne8 20. Qc2 Rf7 21. Nf1 Nd6 22. Ne3 Nb5 {.})) 15. Bc3 Bf4 {This is standard
when White's bishop is on c3; for one thing, Ne5 can often be answered by ...
Nxe5 and no fork results.} 16. Ra1 ({Avoiding} 16. Rc2 Nb4 $11) ({or} 16. Rb1
Nb4 $11 {.}) 16... g6 ({After} 16... Rac8 {
, it would be interesting to see what either side's plan is.}) 17. a3 Rae8 18.
Ne5 {To prevent ...e5.} (18. Re1 e5 19. dxe5 Ng4 $1 $15 {hits f2 and e5.})
18... Nxd4 $1 ({Or Black can wait with} 18... Rd8 {.}) ({After} 18... Nxd4 {
, Hou Yifan-Muminova, Guangzhou 2010, went} 19. Nxd7 Nxd7 20. Bxg6 $1 hxg6 21.
Bxd4 Qd6 {(Black has a mobile centre with active pieces and a passed d-pawn)}
22. Bc3 b6 $6 (22... Rf7 23. Qd3 e5 $1 24. Rad1 Nb6) 23. Qd3 {. Now} Kh7 {
is satisfactory,} ({whereas the game's} 23... e5 $2 24. Rad1 {
was good for White.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.2 11...0-0"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O O-O {. Our second solution is a relatively
rare line which is characterized by safety and a somewhat slower game. It
involves fewer tactics and tests the positional skills of both players.} 12.
Bf4 {This is played the vast majority of the time and is really the point of
the Ne2 system. Otherwise Black can develop freely with ...Qb6 or ...Qc7 and
moves like ...Ng4 and ...Nh5 take on more strength. Finally, the simple ...e5
will tend to equalize.} ({These two moves merit a brief look: (a)} 12. Nc3 Bd7
{(this is safe and sound, contemplating ...Be8-h5 or simply ...Qb6)} ({
another option is the direct} 12... e5 $5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5) {
. Now the innocent-looking} 13. Re1 $6 {allows} Ng4 $1 {
, when the bothersome knight is awkward to dislodge. For example,} 14. Nb5 (14.
h3 $2 Nxf2 $1 15. Kxf2 Qh4+ 16. Kf1 Rxf3+ $19) (14. Be2 Qc7 15. g3 a6 $15)
14... Nxf2 $1 15. Bxh7+ $1 (15. Kxf2 Qh4+ 16. Kg1 Rxf3 17. Bxh7+ $1 Qxh7 18.
Nxd6 Rd3 19. Qg4 Rxd4 $17) 15... Kxh7 16. Qc2+ Kg8 17. Qxf2 (17. Nxd6 Nh3+ 18.
Kh1 Qb8 19. Nb5 Nb4 20. Qe2 Nd3 $1) 17... Bb8 18. Be3 a6 19. Nc3 e5 $15 ({or} 
19... Be8 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 12. Bg5 Bd7 (12... Qb6 $11 {
is a well-established line from the old 7...Qb6 variation}) 13. Re1 (13. Nc3 $6
h6 14. Bh4 Qb6 $1) (13. a3 Be8 14. Ng3 h6 15. Be3 Nh5 $5 16. Re1 Nxg3 17. hxg3
Bh5 18. Rc1 Qf6 $11 {Hracek-Kindermann, Nussloch 1996}) (13. Rc1 Qb6 14. Qd2
Ne4 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Ne5 Bb4 $1 17. Nc3 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Bc6 $11) 13... Qb6 ({or
} 13... Rc8 $11) ({, or} 13... h6 14. Bh4 Qb6 $11) 14. Nc3 Rae8 $5 15. a3 a6
16. Bh4 Kh8 17. Na4 $5 Qa7 18. Bc2 $2 {, Rogic-Volkov, ICC 2002; and} e5 $1 $15
{would be awkward for White to meet: Black's bishop pair offers some chances
after} 19. Bxf6 Rxf6 20. Nc3 $1 Nxd4 21. Nxd4 Qxd4 22. Qxd4 exd4 23. Nxd5 Rff8
{.}) 12... Nh5 {I became interested in this move while reading Moskalenko's
book 'The Flexible French'; he has been a long-term practitioner of the move,
and has played it off-and-on with success for about 20 years, including a game
played within weeks of this writing. Nor is he alone among his grandmaster
colleagues. The idea of 12...Nh5 is obvious: Black forces the exchange on d6,
thus increasing control over e5 and focusing three pieces on the f4-square,
which tends to be an important one in this structure. In addition, the move ...Rxf3 becomes a motif, one that White has to monitor at the potential cost of
committing his pieces to defence. Naturally 12...Nh5 has drawbacks. For one
thing, Black can often play an effective ...Ne4 or ...Ng4 in this structure,
which moves are no longer possible, and his h7 and d7 are left undefended.
Temporarily, Black's freeing move ...e5 can become less effective (or
impossible) because his pawn on d5 will be attacked and captured; obviously a
knight on f6 helps in that respect. This means that White can play for some
dull positions in which Black's light-squared bishop remains defensive. The
good news for Black is that, even when White does get an edge, it's usually of
minor proportions and quite defensible.} ({The main line is} 12... Bxf4 13.
Nxf4 Ne4 {, which has been tested in hundreds of grandmaster games. As of this
writing, that sequence appears perfectly good for Black, with a verdict of
equality; objectively it may even be the 'correct' move. But not only does 12..
.Bxf4 require mastery of a huge body of theory, it also includes several lines
that are well and truly drawn, which may not be to your taste.}) 13. Bxd6 Qxd6
{. Here the most frequently-played moves are:} 14. -- ({5.21} 14. Qd2) ({5.22} 
14. Ng3) ({Others: -- (a)} 14. Re1 Bd7 15. Rc1 a6 $5 (15... Rf6 16. Ng5 $5 h6
17. Nh7 Rf7 18. Bg6 Re7 19. Bxh5 Kxh7 20. f4 Be8 $11) ({
; it's remarkable that so many players go in for the type of position after} 
15... Rxf3 $5 16. gxf3 Rf8 {
, as in Savchenko-Ponomariov, Moscow 2010, and I think that White should try}
17. Bb5 $1 Nf4 18. Bxc6 bxc6 19. Nxf4 Qxf4 20. Kh1 $1 Rf5 21. Rg1 $14 {
; even if this isn't clear, it's interesting that a super-GM would play the
exchange sacrifice in this form - you can see why Moskalenko prefaces ...Rxf3
with ...a6}) 16. Bb1 (16. Ng3 Nf4 17. Bb1 Be8 {
, intending ...Bg6 in the near future}) 16... Rxf3 $1 17. gxf3 Nf4 18. Qd2 (18.
Nxf4 Qxf4 19. Qd3 g6 20. Rcd1 Rf8) 18... Rf8 19. Qe3 Nxe2+ (19... Nh3+ 20. Kh1
e5) 20. Rxe2 Rf4 $11 {, threatening both the d-pawn and ...Rh4.}) ({(b)} 14.
Rc1 a6 (14... Bd7) 15. Re1 Rxf3 $5 16. gxf3 Bd7 17. Ng3 Nf4 {
gave strong compensation in Maratonac-CapNemo, playchess.com 2007.}) ({(c)} 14.
Bb5 Bd7 {(threatening ...Rxf3 in some lines)} (14... Nf6 $5 15. Ng3 Bd7 {
is roughly equal; perhaps White should bring his bishop back to d3 at some point
}) 15. Rc1 (15. Ne5 Nf6 $1 16. f4 Nxe5 $1 17. fxe5 Qb6 $11) 15... Rxf3 $5 {
(an enterprising move, albeit a speculative one)} ({the calm} 15... Rac8) ({
, and} 15... Nf6 {are sounder}) 16. gxf3 Rf8 17. Bxc6 Bxc6 $14 {with practical
compensation. If White's knight moves, ...Nf4 tends to be extremely strong,
while ...Bb5 and ...e5 are moves to watch for.}) ({(d)} 14. Qc2 {
is one of the better replies:} -- (14... h6 15. Bh7+ (15. Ng3 Nf4 $15 16. a3 $2
Nxg2 $1 17. Kxg2 Rxf3 $1 {, Milos-CapNemo, playchess.com 2008}) (15. Bb5 $5 {
with the idea} Bd7 16. Bxc6 {is the kind of position in which White has an
abstract edge but Black stands solidly}) 15... Kh8 16. Nh4 Ne7 17. Rac1 Nf4 18.
Bd3 (18. Nxf4 Qxf4 19. Nf3 Nc6 $11) (18. Ng6+ Nexg6 19. Bxg6 Nxe2+ 20. Qxe2 e5
$11) 18... Nxd3 19. Qxd3 Bd7 ({or} 19... Kg8 {verges on equality.})) (14... Nf6
{looks best; for example,} 15. a3 (15. Qd2 Bd7 16. h3 Rac8 ({or} 16... Rae8 {
intending ...e5})) (15. Bb5 Bd7 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Ne5 Nd7 $11) 15... Bd7 16. b4
(16. Rfe1 Rac8 17. Qd1 Rce8 18. h3 e5 19. dxe5 Nxe5 20. Nxe5 Rxe5 21. Nd4 Rxe1+
22. Qxe1 Nh5 $1 $11) 16... Rac8 (16... e5 17. dxe5 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 Qxe5 $11) 17.
Qb2 $6 Ng4 18. Ng3 e5 19. b5 $2 Nxd4 20. Nxd4 exd4 21. Qxd4 Rf4 22. Qxa7 b6 23.
Be2 Nxf2 $1 24. Bf3 Nd3 $17 {Ponizil-De la Villa Garcia, Pardubice 2011.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.21 14 Qd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Bf4 Nh5 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Qd2 {
. This logical move covers f4 and connects rooks.} Bd7 ({
Instead: -- (a) Moskalenko has played} 14... a6 {
three times, preferring to stop Bb5:} 15. -- (15. Rac1 {can be met by} Bd7 ({or
} 15... Nf4) ({; Garrido Dominguez-Moskalenko, Roquetas Mar 2006, went} 15...
Rxf3 $5 16. gxf3 Bd7 17. Qg5 g6 18. Kh1 Rf8 19. Rg1 Nf4 {with complications.}))
(15. Qg5 Nf4 16. Nxf4 Qxf4 {was Perez Mitjans-Moskalenko, San Marti 2010, when}
17. Qxf4 Rxf4 {would have been equal.}) (15. Qe3 Nf4 16. Nxf4 Qxf4 17. Rac1 Bd7
$11 {Perez Mitjans-Moskalenko, Barcelona 2011.})) ({(b)} 14... Rxf3 {
'is extremely interesting' - Moskalenko:} 15. gxf3 Bd7 (15... e5 $5) 16. Qg5 (
16. Kh1 Rf8 17. Qe3 e5 $5) 16... g6 17. Rad1 Rf8 18. f4 $2 (18. Qe3) 18... Nxf4
19. Nxf4 Nxd4 $1 $17 {Basas Gamazo-Moskalenko, Catalonia 2006.}) 15. Qe3 (15.
Rad1 Rxf3 $5 (15... a6 16. Rfe1 Rxf3 17. gxf3 Rf8 18. Qg5 g6 $1 {
with unclear complications, Dzhakaev-Visser, Hoogeveen 2000}) 16. gxf3 Rf8 17.
Qe3 e5 $1 18. dxe5 (18. Bc2 $5 exd4 19. Nxd4 Nf4) 18... Nxe5 19. f4 Nxd3 20.
Qxd3 Nxf4 21. Nxf4 Rxf4 {with compensation, Wolff-Moskalenko, Wijk aan Zee
1992 (...d4 and ...Bc6 are ideas).}) 15... a6 $5 (15... Nf4 $1 {
is a little dull, but exchanging knights can ease Black's defence; e.g.} 16.
Nxf4 (16. Bb5 Nxe2+ 17. Qxe2 Rxf3 18. Bxc6 Rf4 19. Bxd7 Qxd7 20. Qd2 Raf8 21.
f3 Qd6 $11) 16... Qxf4 ({or} 16... Rxf4) 17. Rac1 (17. Bb5 Qxe3 18. fxe3 Nb8
19. Bd3 Nc6 20. a3 a6 {
; basically all these lines are equal or extremely close to it}) 17... Rac8 ({
or} 17... a6 {, transposing to 14...a6}) 18. Bb5 Qxe3 19. fxe3 Ne5 $1 20. Nxe5
(20. Bxd7 Nxd7 $11) 20... Rxf1+ 21. Bxf1 $5 Rxc1 22. Nxd7 Rc2 23. b4 $1 Rxa2
24. Nc5 b6 25. Nxe6 a5 26. bxa5 bxa5 {and the game will likely end in a draw.})
16. Ne5 {. White has a little pull here.} ({
Cruz Ravina-Brynell, Barbera del Valles 2011, continued} 16. Ne5 Nb4 17. g3 (
17. Bb1 Rac8 18. a4 {- versus ...Bb5 -} Nc6 19. f4 Nf6 $14) 17... Nxd3 18. Qxd3
Bb5 19. Qd2 (19. Qe3 $1 $14 {, but it's nothing serious}) 19... Nf6 20. f3 Nd7
21. Nxd7 Qxd7 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5.22 14 Ng3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Bf4 Nh5 13. Bxd6 Qxd6 14. Ng3 {
. This is recommended by Tarrasch expert Tzermiadanos and has been played
quite often:} Nf4 15. Bb5 {
This is given '!' by Tzermiadanos, but Black should be happy enough.} ({
The alternative is} 15. Re1 a6 (15... Bd7 16. a3 a6 17. Rc1 Rae8 18. Bf1 e5 $11
{Lyrberg-Moskalenko, Helsinki 1992}) 16. Rc1 Bd7 17. Ne5 $6 (17. Bb1 Rae8 18.
Re3 e5 $11) 17... Nxe5 18. Rxe5 {, Azarov-Moskalenko, playchess.com 2006;} Qb4
$1 19. Rc7 Rad8 20. b3 Nxd3 21. Qxd3 Rf4 $1 $15 {.}) 15... Bd7 $5 ({The safe} 
15... Ne7 {, intending ...a6, has also been played.}) ({But} 15... Qb4 $1 {
is more ambitious; for example,} 16. Qb3 (16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Qc2 Ba6 18. Rfe1
Bd3) 16... Nh3+ 17. gxh3 Qxb3 18. axb3 Rxf3 19. Bxc6 bxc6 20. Rfc1 Rxb3 21.
Rxc6 Rxb2 {with a significant advantage.}) 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Qb3 a5 18. Ne5 {
, Nisipeanu-Visser, Groningen 1997;} ({
Tzermiadanos likes this for White, but Black can play} 18. Ne5 a4 $1 ({
the game's} 18... Qb4 19. Qe3 Qxb2 20. Rfb1 Qc2 {wasn't bad either}) 19. Qe3 (
19. Qc2 a3 20. b3 Bb5 21. Rfe1 Qb4 {
favours Black slightly, since the d-pawn is awkward to defend}) 19... Bb5 20.
Rfc1 b6 $1 {(versus Rc5)} (20... Ba6 {is also playable}) 21. Rc3 (21. Qc3 $2 h5
$1 {with the idea} 22. h4 g5 $1) 21... Qe7 22. Rac1 h5 $1 23. Rc7 Qf6 24. Rb7
Rab8 25. Rxb8 Rxb8 26. Rc7 Rf8 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6. Tarrasch with 5 f4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 {. White establishes his space
advantage on the kingside and bolsters e5. Ideally, White would like to
develop a bishop on d3, a knight on e2 and the other on f3, and eventually
engineer a pawn break with f5. 5 f4 has two problems: it exposes the white
king and central underbelly should d4 fall, and the c1-bishop is blocked from
play. In terms of immediate issues, White takes another move without
developing a piece and he will have to use more time to get the knight on d2
to a useful spot.} c5 {As usual, Black attacks the pawn chain.} 6. c3 ({
Rather than expend more energy defending the pawn chain, White might want to
develop and try to control d4 with pieces. There are two ways to pursue this:
-- (a)} 6. Ndf3 {normally transposes with an early c3. Black usually plays} Nc6
{, and the most independent line is} 7. Be3 (7. Bd3 $6 Qb6 $1 {forces} 8. dxc5
({since} 8. Ne2 $4 c4) ({, and} 8. c3 cxd4 9. cxd4 Nxd4 {are weak}) 8... Bxc5
$15) (7. Ne2 {transposes to a sideline of the Classical System in Chapter 13,
via the order 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Ne2 or, equivalently, 5
Nce2 c5 6 f4 Nc6 7 Ndf3; I will discuss that position there - see the
introductory notes to 13.2}) 7... Qb6 8. Rb1 f6 $1 {. Play might go} 9. c3 (9.
Ne2 cxd4 10. Nexd4 fxe5 11. fxe5 Bc5 12. c3 O-O 13. b4 Bxd4 14. Bxd4 Qc7 15.
Bd3 Ndxe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Qxe5 Qxe5+ 20. Bxe5 Rf5
{with an edge, although it's unlikely Black can make anything of it}) 9... cxd4
10. Bxd4 (10. cxd4 fxe5 11. fxe5 Ndxe5) (10. Nxd4 fxe5 11. fxe5 Ndxe5) 10...
Nxd4 {and now:} 11. -- (11. cxd4 Bb4+ 12. Kf2 g5 $1 {gives a large advantage,
threatening ...g4 and, after the knight moves, ...fxe5; this is difficult to
do anything about:} 13. h3 (13. exf6 Nxf6 {is obviously bad}) ({, as is} 13. a3
Be7 14. g3 g4 15. exf6 Bxf6) 13... gxf4 (13... O-O {is also strong}) 14. exf6
Nxf6 15. Ne2 (15. Bd3 e5) 15... Bd6 16. Nc3 Bd7 {
with an extra pawn and a great game.}) (11. Nxd4 fxe5 12. fxe5 g6 $1 13. Ngf3
Bg7 14. Bb5 O-O 15. Qe2 (15. Bxd7 Bxd7 16. O-O Rf4 $1 17. Qd2 Raf8 $15) 15...
Bh6 {(versus Qe3)} 16. O-O Nc5 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 6. Ngf3 {
is more challenging. After} Nc6 {, White has three logical moves:} 7. -- (7. c3
{transposes to 7 Ngf3 in the main line.}) (7. Bd3 $5 {is very ambitious, but
it doesn't help White's centre. Black has several respectable replies, among
them:} -- (7... Be7 {is conservative and sound:} 8. O-O ({for} 8. c3 {
see 7 Ngf3 Be7 etc}) 8... Qb6 9. c4 O-O 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Kh1 Nxd4 (11... a5 $5
{is more interesting}) 12. Nxd4 cxd4 13. Nb3 g6 14. Be2 Nc5 15. Nxd4 Ne4 $11 {.
}) (7... cxd4 8. Nb3 Be7 ({or} 8... Bc5 $1 9. O-O Bb6 10. Ng5 g6 $15) ({, or} 
8... Qb6 9. O-O a5 10. a4 Nc5) 9. O-O O-O 10. Kh1 f6 11. Nfxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4
Nc5 13. Be3 fxe5 14. fxe5 Rxf1+ 15. Qxf1 {
, Donev-Remensberger, Bad Ragaz 1993; and here} Bd7 {
intending ...Qc7 is slightly better for Black.}) (7... Qb6 $1 {
tries for an immediate initiative. Briefly, play might go} 8. dxc5 (8. O-O $2
c4 $1 {wins material}) (8. c4 {
is the reason that 7 Bd3 was temporarily revived a few years back, but} cxd4 $1
9. cxd5 Nc5 $1 10. Bb1 exd5 11. O-O d3 12. Kh1 Bf5 13. Nb3 Nxb3 14. axb3 Nb4
15. Ne1 Qd4 ({or} 15... Qg6 {gives Black a comfortable advantage})) 8... Bxc5 (
{or} 8... Nxc5) 9. Nb3 Bf2+ (9... Nb4 {has the idea} 10. Nxc5 $6 Nxc5 11. Qe2
Bd7 $1 {intending} 12. Be3 Nbxd3+ 13. cxd3 Qxb2 $1) 10. Ke2 $5 ({
Moskalenko thinks} 10. Kf1 {is better; then one simple course is} Nc5 $1 11.
Qe2 Nxd3 12. cxd3 Bd4 13. Nbxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Qxd4 15. Be3 Qb4 $11 {
intending ...b6}) 10... f6 $5 (10... O-O 11. Rf1 Bc5 $11 {is simpler}) 11. Rf1
Bc5 12. Nxc5 Qxc5 13. Be3 Qe7 14. exf6 Nxf6 $11 {
Cabrera-Moskalenko, Tenerife (rapid) 2006.})) (7. Nb3 {is the most important
of White's deviations. Then White has a fairly safe game, but he isn't able to
generate much positive action, which probably accounts for the line's lack of
overall popularity. Black has a number of satisfactory replies, including} Qb6
{and these three:} (7... cxd4 8. Nbxd4 {is safe, although it lacks ambition.
This position might interest players who use other French Defence move orders;
for example (among others), 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nce2 (or 6 Nf3 cxd4
7 Nb5 Nc6 8 Nbxd4) 6...Nc6 7 Nf3 cxd4 8 Nexd4. Or, if you're into the Alekhine
Defence, try 1 e4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 e5 Nfd7 4 d4 e6 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Ne2 cxd4
8 Nexd4. One solution goes} Nxd4 ({or} 8... Qb6 9. c3 Nc5) ({, or} 8... Be7 9.
c3 Nc5 10. Be3 Nxd4 11. Nxd4 O-O 12. Be2 f6 13. exf6 Bxf6 14. O-O Qd6 $11) 9.
Nxd4 Bc5 (9... Nc5 10. Be3 Bd7) 10. c3 Qb6 11. a4 $1 a5 12. Bb5 O-O 13. Be3 f6
$1 {
. An interesting and complex position from Smagin-Moskalenko, Moscow 1995, when
} 14. Qg4 ({instead, the game continued} 14. Qh5 $5 {
, and White would have had no advantage after} g6 $1 15. Qe2 fxe5 16. fxe5 Rf7
$1 $11 {with full counterplay}) 14... fxe5 $1 15. Nxe6 Rf7 16. Nxc5 Nxc5 17.
Qf3 exf4 18. O-O Be6 19. Bd4 Qd6 $1 {actually favours Black slightly.}) (7...
f6 {is the move Black plays in so many of these pawn structures. A quick
overview indicates that the position is equal:} 8. exf6 (8. c3 $5 {
is very solid; maybe this is one of those moments at which} c4 9. Nbd2 b5 {
should be tried, intending to castle and then play ...Rb8 and ...b4, because
White will be so slow in getting any kingside advance co-ordinated}) ({
; the alternative} 8. c4 $5 {could become wide open with} fxe5 9. dxe5 Nb6 10.
cxd5 exd5 11. Bb5 Bf5 $5 12. O-O Be7 13. Be3 d4 14. Bf2 O-O 15. Rc1 Nd7 16.
Bxc6 bxc6 17. Qe2 Be6 18. Nbxd4 $1 cxd4 19. Nxd4 Bd5 20. Nxc6 Qe8 $5 {
, when White has enough for the piece but no more}) 8... Qxf6 9. Be3 Bd6 10. g3
cxd4 11. Nbxd4 e5 $1 12. fxe5 Ndxe5 {(Williams); then play might go} 13. Bg2
O-O 14. O-O Ng4 $1 15. Ng5 $1 Qe5 16. Rxf8+ Bxf8 17. Bf4 Qxd4+ 18. Qxd4 Nxd4
19. Bxd5+ Kh8 20. Nf7+ Kg8 21. Nh6+ Kh8 22. Nf7+ $11 {.}) ({. With} 7... c4 8.
Nbd2 b5 {, Black looks as though he's asking to be attacked on the kingside.} (
{But Sigma on the ChessPublishing forum points to Cabrera Trujillo-Garza Marco,
El Sauzal 2010, which took a different tack with} 8... h6 $5 9. Be2 (9. b3 b5 {
doesn't seem to be a problem}) ({, and} 9. c3 g5 {is similar}) 9... g5 $5 {
, proving that this advance, so ubiquitous in the French, can be played
anywhere! The game went} 10. Nf1 (10. c3 g4 11. Ng1 Rg8 $5) 10... g4 11. Ng1 Rg8
12. Ne3 f5 $1 13. g3 b5 14. h3 h5 15. c3 b4 {, and White was cramped on both
sides of the board. You should take a look at some early alternatives on moves
9 and 10 before jumping into this, but it looks quite reasonable to me, and
perhaps more fun than some of the others!})))) 6... Nc6 (6... cxd4 7. cxd4 Nc6
{is a purely transpositional attempt to avoid potentially dull lines where
White tries to recapture with a knight on d4. At first sight, this seems to
cede the promising c3-square for White's g1-knight, or the b3-square to his
d2-knight; but it turns out that neither means much. The player wishing to use
this order should do some research, but here's a few notes to guide you:} 8.
Ndf3 (8. Ngf3 f6 $1 {
is similar to 7 Ngf3 f6 below, without some of the complications; e.g.} 9. Bd3
fxe5 10. fxe5 Nxd4 $1) {, and now:} 8... -- (8... Be7 9. Ne2 O-O 10. Nc3 ({
while} 10. g3 {leads to main lines}) 10... f6 11. Bd3 Qb6 {
is the note on 8...Qb6 9 Ne2 below.}) (8... Qb6 9. h4 (9. g3 Be7 {
transposes directly to the main line}) (9. Ne2 f6 10. Nc3 $5 {
is the obvious way to avoid main lines, but then} Be7 11. Bd3 O-O 12. Bb1 $5 {
- to cover d4 and prepare Qd3 -} fxe5 13. fxe5 Rxf3 $1 {
throws a wrench in the works:} 14. gxf3 Bh4+ 15. Kf1 Ndxe5 16. Qc2 Ng6 $17)
9... Be7 ({or} 9... Bb4+ {, and we are back to the main 8 h4 lines below.
Every one of these transpositions leads to lively and double-edged play.})) (
8... f5 {
is one of the more popular secondary set-ups, the point of which is shown by}
9. Bd3 Be7 10. Ne2 O-O 11. O-O a5 {(or ...Nb6 first), with the typical
follow-up ...a4, ...Nb6, ...Bd7 and a queenside attack, counting upon the move
...f5 and the presence of White's king on the kingside to neutralize an attack
by White in that sector.})) 7. Ndf3 {
This natural move introduces the main line of the f4 Tarrasch system.} (7. Ngf3
$5 {has never caught on among masters. Black can play any number of moves,
such as 7...Qb6, and of course 7...cxd4,} -- ({, or} 7... Be7 {
, when an independent line is} 8. Bd3 O-O (8... Qb6) 9. Qe2 cxd4 (9... Qb6 10.
Qe3 $5) 10. cxd4 Nb4 11. Bb1 b6 {, with the idea} 12. a3 Ba6 13. Qe3 Rc8 $1 14.
Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 15. axb4 Bb5 $11 {
. Here are two other moves which keep things complicated:}) (7... a5 {
discourages Nb3 and grabs territory on the queenside:} 8. Bb5 (8. Be2 Qb6 9.
dxc5 Bxc5 10. Nb3 Bf2+ 11. Kf1 Nc5 $1 {, Serper-Glek, Frunze 1988}) (8. a4 cxd4
9. cxd4 Bb4 $5) 8... Qb6 9. Qa4 cxd4 10. cxd4 Ndb8 $1 11. Qb3 Bd7 12. Bxc6 Qxc6
{with the bishop pair and a comfortable game, Smagin-Kindermann, German League
1997.}) (7... f6 $5 {can be a bit wild. Then the critical move is} 8. Bd3 ({
after} 8. g3 Qb6 9. Nb3 cxd4 10. Nbxd4 {, the most exciting line is} fxe5 11.
Nxe6 $1 Nc5 $1 12. Nxf8 Bg4 13. h3 Ne4 14. Rh2 Bxf3 15. Qxf3 Rxf8 {
with dynamic equality}) ({, while} 8. Nb3 {
transposes to 6 Ngf3 Nc6 7 Nb3 f6 8 c3!? above}) 8... Qb6 {(threatening d4)} 9.
a4 $1 (9. Qa4 $6 cxd4 10. cxd4 g5 $1 {
destroys White's centre and gives Black the advantage}) (9. Qb3 Qxb3 10. axb3
cxd4 11. cxd4 g5 $1 {and Black wins the centre or material}) (9. Nh4 cxd4 10.
Qh5+ Kd8 {with the idea} 11. Ng6 hxg6 12. Qxh8 dxc3 $17) 9... fxe5 ({or} 9...
Be7) 10. Nxe5 (10. fxe5 Be7 11. O-O O-O) 10... Ndxe5 11. fxe5 $5 cxd4 12. Qh5+
Kd8 {and Black, a pawn up, is relatively safe; e.g.} 13. Nf3 Kc7 14. Rb1 $5
dxc3 15. bxc3 Qc5 {and White has limited compensation.})) 7... Qb6 {. Our repertoire move, which has always been the main line. Black pressures d4, ties the
c1-bishop to defence of b2, and indirectly discourages White from castling due
to potential captures on d4 and e5. His main asset is a lead in development,
which can give him time for the breaks ...f6 and ...g5; expansion by ...a5-a4
is also common. Finally, White often isn't able to castle and has to settle
for Kf1 or Kf2. --- For his part, White has the massive, advanced centre,
which confines Black's pieces. In particular, Black's knight on d7 has little
future without a sacrifice on e5 or another violent breakthrough; barring that,
the knight has to take precious time to redeploy (to b6, for example) while
White catches up in development. In addition, White has the flank advances h4
and a3/b4 to cramp Black's position further, and potential kingside attacking
prospects based upon f5. Ultimately, it proves almost impossible to achieve
this kind of advance without permitting Black successful central counterplay.
---} ({A couple of respectable alternatives to 7...Qb6 bear mention: -- (a)} 
7... cxd4 8. cxd4 {
is the more common route to 6...cxd4 7 cxd4 Nc6 8 Ndf3 above,} ({
though White can also consider} 8. Nxd4 $5 {here.})) ({(b)} 7... Be7 {
is flexible, but allows} 8. Bd3 {
, since White's d-pawn doesn't fall as it does after 7...Qb6} ({
otherwise it may transpose after} 8. g3) ({, or} 8. Ne2) {. Then} 8... Qa5 {
is an independent idea, pinning the c-pawn and thinking about ...b5-b4. White
has several responses, one simply to develop:} 9. Ne2 ({
; if White wants to recapture with a pawn on d4, he should move his king:} 9.
Kf1 b5 $1 10. dxc5 b4 {with good counterplay, Ripper-Manigk, corr 1989}) (9.
Kf2 $6 {isn't very attractive in the face of} b5 ({or} 9... Qb6 10. Ne2 f6 11.
Kg3 g5 $1 {, Adorjan-Vaganian, Teesside 1974, with the idea} 12. exf6 $6 gxf4+
13. Bxf4 Nxf6 $15)) 9... b5 10. O-O (10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. Bc2 b4 $11) 10... g6 11.
g4 $5 (11. Bd2 Qb6 12. a3 a5 {is complex}) {
, Ermenkov-Ravikumar, Copenhagen 1982; and here} 11... h5 $1 (11... b4 12. f5
$1) 12. h3 b4 {looks satisfactory, since} 13. f5 hxg4 14. hxg4 gxf5 15. gxf5
exf5 16. Bxf5 Nf8 $1 {heads for the blockade square e6 while preparing to
bring the queen rook to the kingside.}) {
After 7...Qb6, White has four main moves:} 8. -- ({6.1} 8. Ne2) ({6.2} 8. g3) (
{6.3} 8. h4) ({6.4} 8. a3) (8. Nh3 {neglects the centre; e.g.} f6 9. exf6 Nxf6
10. Bd3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Bb4+ 12. Ke2 O-O 13. a3 Bd6 14. Re1 {
, Shirazi-J.Watson, Los Angeles 1981; and} Ne4 {was good,} ({but} 14... Nh5 $1
15. g3 e5 $1 {is virtually winning.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.1 8 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. Ne2 {
. This was out of fashion for a while but has seen a revival. In part, that's
because, in the Classical Variation, there are two ways to reach this position:
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nce2 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Ngf3, or here 5 f4 c5 6 Ngf3
Nc6 7 Ne2 Qb6 8 c3, both re-investigated in face of the difficulty of winning
against other lines in the Classical. The background to those two move orders
is explained in Chapter 13, but I've shifted the main lines here so that
everything stemming from 7...Qb6 is in one place.---} f6 ({
If you'd like to keep things under control a bit longer, the popular} 8... Be7
{is a good alternative, often transposing but bypassing some wild lines. For
example,} 9. a3 ({and} 9. g3 {will transpose to 8 g3 lines; e.g.} cxd4 10. cxd4
f6 11. Bh3 {is 6.21}) 9... O-O {tends to transpose} (9... c4 $5 {is interesting
}) {, if White plays g3 or h4. Otherwise:} 10. -- (10. b4 cxd4 11. cxd4 a5 $5 (
{here} 11... a6 $1 {is a good alternative}) 12. b5 Qxb5 13. Nc3 Qb6 14. Rb1 Qd8
15. Bd3 {gives White compensation for the pawn.}) (10. Ng3 $6 {(this is seldom
good when Black is so far ahead in development, because it takes a tempo and
abandons control of d4)} cxd4 11. cxd4 f6 12. Bd3 fxe5 13. fxe5 {and} Rxf3 $1 (
{while a safer version of this is} 13... g6 $1 $15 {
intending 14...Nxd4 or 14...Rxf3! next, since Bxh7+/Qh5 ideas are eliminated})
14. gxf3 Nxd4 {gives Black more than enough for the exchange.})) {
After 8...f6, White has two major traditional options and a host of minor ones:
} 9. -- ({6.11} 9. g3) ({6.12} 9. a3) ({Others: -- (a)} 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. g3 {
is solid-looking but passive:} Bd6 11. Bg2 O-O 12. O-O Bd7 (12... Ne7 $5 13.
Ne5 Nf5 {is also good}) 13. Ne5 $5 Be8 {with a little edge, intending ...Bh5.})
({(b)} 9. Qb3 Qc7 $5 {(arguing that the queen isn't effective on b3)} (9... Be7
$11 {is the sound move, because White has to show that he has a plan and} 10.
Qxb6 axb6 {doesn't impress}) 10. g3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Bb4+ 12. Kf2 O-O 13. Kg2 Ba5
$5 (13... Be7 $1 $11) 14. Be3 Bb6 15. Rc1 {
, B.Lalic-G.Dizdar, Croatian Team Ch. 1998; and} Qd8 {is a logical idea: Black
can undertake ...a6/...Ba7/...Nb6/...Bd7. White may stand slightly better, but
he doesn't have an obvious plan.}) ({(c)} 9. Ng3 $2 {is poorly timed:} cxd4 10.
cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Ke2 g5 $1 12. exf6 (12. a3 g4 $1) 12... g4 13. f7+ Ke7 14. Nd2
Nxd4+ 15. Ke1 Qc7 {and wins.}) ({(d)} 9. h4 {is a thematic move for the f4
lines, often transposing to 6.3 (8 h4). With this timing Black does have an
extra option:} cxd4 ({for} 9... Be7 10. a3 {, see 6.12;} ({here} 10. h5 O-O {
makes it difficult for White to develop})) 10. cxd4 fxe5 (10... Be7) 11. fxe5
Bb4+ 12. Nc3 O-O 13. a3 Be7 14. Na4 Qd8 $11 {, intending} 15. Bd3 Nxd4 $1 16.
Nxd4 Bxh4+ 17. Kd2 Rf2+ 18. Be2 Nxe5 {with good chances.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.11 9 g3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. Ne2
f6 9. g3 cxd4 10. cxd4 (10. Nexd4 {is well answered by} fxe5 ({or} 10... Nxd4
11. cxd4 Bb4+ 12. Bd2 fxe5 13. fxe5 O-O 14. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 15. Qd2 Qxd2+ 16. Nxd2
Nb8 $1 $11) {, and now:} 11. -- (11. Nxe6 {is normally queried, although none
of the given solutions are definitive. Play might go} Nf6 ({or} 11... e4 12.
Nfd4 $1 Nf6 13. a4 $1 {, and now} Bd7 {will lead to equality,} ({but} 13...
Nxd4 14. Nxd4 a6 15. a5 Qc7 16. Be3 Bc5 {is more interesting})) 12. fxe5 (12.
Nxf8 Bg4 13. Be2 Bxf3 ({or here} 13... exf4 $5 14. Bxf4 Ne4) 14. Bxf3 Rxf8 $11)
12... Bxe6 $1 13. exf6 O-O-O {
with adequate compensation, Strobel-Piasecki, German League 1993.}) (11. fxe5
Nc5 12. Bh3 (12. Nxc6 $6 bxc6 13. Nd4 g6 14. Qc2 Bg7 15. Bf4 O-O 16. Bh3 Ne4 $1
) 12... Be7 13. O-O O-O 14. Qe2 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Rxf1+ 16. Kxf1 Bd7 $11 {
Atlas-Schenk, Austrian Team Ch. 2003.})) 10... Bb4+ {This is the older
approach, which still works well. The other main set-up is to place the bishop
on e7 without checking, which can occur before or after ...cxd4 or ...f6.} ({
At this point,} 10... Be7 11. Bh3 {
transposes to 6.21 (8 g3 Be7 9 Bh3 cxd4 10 cxd4 f6 11 Ne2).}) 11. Nc3 $1 ({Not
} 11. Bd2 $2 fxe5 12. fxe5 (12. dxe5 Nc5 13. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 14. Kf2 Qxb2 $15) 12...
O-O 13. Bg2 Ndxe5 $1 14. dxe5 Nxe5 {, when} 15. Bxb4 ({White should avoid} 15.
Nf4 $2 Qe3+ 16. Kf1 Bxd2 17. Qxd2 Qxd2 18. Nxd2 g5) ({, as well as} 15. Ned4 $2
Nd3+ 16. Ke2 e5 17. Bxb4 Nxb4 18. a3 Qa6+ $19) 15... Qxb4+ 16. Kf2 Qe4 17. Nc3
Nd3+ 18. Kf1 Qc4 {is pretty miserable; Black's centre is about to roll forward
and White is likely to lose material one way or another.}) 11... O-O $5 (11...
fxe5 12. fxe5 O-O {is well tested. It prevents exf6, but has the disadvantage
of clearing the f4-square for White's bishop. The play is dynamically balanced:
} 13. Bf4 (13. a3 $2 Rxf3 $1 14. Qxf3 Nxd4 15. Qd1 Nxe5 $17) (13. Bg2 $6 Rxf3
14. Bxf3 Nxd4 ({or} 14... Qxd4)) {, and now:} 13... -- (13... Be7 $5 {
(attacking b2 and thinking about ...g5)} 14. a3 $1 (14. Qd2 $2 g5 $1 15. Nxg5
Bxg5 16. Bxg5 Nxd4 17. Bg2 Nxe5 $19 {Dolmatov-Bareev, Elista 1997}) (14. Na4
Qa5+ ({much more fun is} 14... Qb4+ 15. Bd2 Ndxe5 $1 16. Bxb4 Nxf3+ 17. Kf2
Bxb4 {with full compensation}) 15. Nc3 Qb6 $11) (14. Bh3 $2 Qxb2 15. Bxe6+ $2
Kh8 16. Rc1 {fails to} Rxf4 $1 17. gxf4 Nxd4 $1 $17 {intending} 18. Nxd4 Bh4+)
14... Na5 (14... a6 $14) 15. Bh3 (15. b4 Qc6 16. Qc2 Nc4 17. Bd3 h6) 15... Re8
(15... Nb8 16. O-O Nbc6 $14) 16. O-O Nf8 17. Qd3 Bd7 18. Rf2 Nc4 ({or} 18...
Rac8 {; White has a limited edge in these lines, but they are double-edged and
available if one needs to avoid the possibility of a draw in line 'b' below.}))
(13... Ndxe5 $1 {is objectively best:} 14. -- (14. Nxe5 $6 Nxe5 15. Bxe5 Bxc3+
16. bxc3 Qb2 17. Bf4 Qxc3+ 18. Kf2 e5 19. dxe5 g5 $17 {.}) (14. dxe5 {
appears risky for White, but the play is balanced:} Ba5 (14... d4 {
introduces a forcing sequence leading to equality:} 15. a3 dxc3 16. axb4 cxb2
17. Rb1 Qxb4+ 18. Kf2 a5 19. Qe1 Qc5+ 20. Qe3 Qxe3+ 21. Kxe3 a4 22. Rxb2 a3 23.
Ra2 Nb4 24. Bc4 b5 $1 {with equal chances}) 15. Qd2 $1 (15. Bd2 $2 Nxe5 16. Be2
Bd7) 15... d4 16. Nxd4 Nxd4 17. O-O-O Rd8 $5 (17... Nc6 $11 {
is safer, with the idea} 18. Qe1 $1 Ne7 $1) 18. Bd3 $1 (18. Kb1 Bd7 $1 19. Qxd4
Bc6 $1) 18... Qc7 19. Be3 g6 20. Rhf1 Qxe5 21. h4 $1 Bd7 {
, when White gets a clear draw from} 22. Bxg6 (22. Bc4 Nf3 $1) 22... Bxc3 23.
bxc3 Ne2+ 24. Qxe2 Qxc3+ {, but no more.}) (14. Bxe5 {is the 'main line':} Nxe5
15. Nxe5 Bxc3+ 16. bxc3 Qb2 17. Qc1 (17. Nf3 $2 Qxc3+ 18. Kf2 Rxf3+ 19. Qxf3
Qxa1) 17... Qf2+ 18. Kd1 Qxf1+ 19. Rxf1 Rxf1+ 20. Kd2 Rxc1 21. Rxc1 (21. Kxc1
Rb8 22. a4 Kf8 23. Kc2 b6 24. a5 bxa5 25. Rxa5 Rb7 26. Nc6 Bd7 27. Nxa7 Rb6 $15
) 21... b6 22. Rf1 Rb8 {. This position has arisen in two games and is drawn,
since Black can't put his extra pawn to use in the face of White's bind:} 23.
Rf7 (23. Ke3 Rb7 24. Kf4 Rc7 25. Rf3 Ba6 26. g4 Rc8 27. g5 $1 {
, Kuular-Fadeev, Kyzyl 2007; White allows the rook exchange because after} Rf8+
28. Ke3 Rxf3+ 29. Kxf3 Bc4 30. Nc6 a5 31. a3 Kf7 {
, neither side can make progress}) 23... Rb7 24. Rxb7 $1 {
(½-½ Bok-Grover, Groningen 2010)} Bxb7 25. h4 Kf8 26. g4 Ke7 {
, drawn shortly in R.Robson-G.Meier, Lubbock 2010.}))) 12. a3 $1 (12. exf6 $6
Nxf6 {
frees Black's pieces, when White's bad bishop on c1 balances Black's on c8.})
12... Be7 13. Bh3 ({Others: -- (a)} 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Bd3 a6 15. Bc2 Bd7 16.
O-O Be8 $1 $15 {intending ...Bh5.}) ({(b)} 13. Bd3 a6 $5 14. b4 (14. Na4 Qa7
15. b4 fxe5 16. fxe5 g6 $1 17. Be2 Rxf3 18. Bxf3 Nxd4 $15 {with the idea} 19.
Bb2 Nxe5 $1 $17) 14... fxe5 15. dxe5 Ndxe5 16. fxe5 Nxe5 17. Rf1 ({or} 17. Be2
Nxf3+ 18. Bxf3 Bd7 $1) 17... Nxf3+ 18. Rxf3 Bf6 19. Bb2 Qg1+ 20. Bf1 Qxh2 21.
Qe2 Qh6 {with unclear prospects.}) ({(c)} 13. Na4 Qc7 {and:} 14. -- (14. Bh3 $6
fxe5 15. Bxe6+ Kh8 16. dxe5 Ndxe5 $1 {.}) (14. Bd3 fxe5 (14... a6 $5 {
is a good option; in some cases ...b5 will follow}) 15. dxe5 (15. fxe5 $2 Rxf3
$1 16. Qxf3 Nxd4) 15... Nb6 16. Nc3 $1 (16. Nxb6 Qxb6 17. Qc2 h6) 16... Nc4 17.
Qc2 h6 18. b3 N4xe5 $1 19. Nxe5 Nxe5 20. fxe5 Qxe5+ {with full compensation.})
(14. Be3 Nb6 ({or} 14... a6 15. Rc1 b5 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Ne5 Bb7 18. Nc3 Nxe5
$1 19. fxe5 Nd7 {intending} 20. Nxd5 Qd8) 15. Rc1 Nxa4 16. Qxa4 Bd7 17. exf6
Bxf6 18. Ne5 Be8 19. Bh3 Qb6 $1 {with the idea} 20. Bxe6+ Kh8 21. Nd7 $5 Bxd7
22. Bxd7 Nxd4 23. O-O Qxb2 $15 {.})) 13... fxe5 $5 (13... Kh8 {
is playable; e.g.} 14. Na4 Qa6 $1 15. Bf1 b5 16. Nc3 fxe5 {followed by ...Qb6
regardless of which recapture, Sznapik-Knaak, Bratislava 1983.}) 14. Bxe6+ (14.
fxe5 $2 {fails as usual to} Rxf3 15. Qxf3 Nxd4 $17 {and ...Nxe5.}) 14... Kh8
15. Nxd5 Qd8 {This position has arisen in many games. Black is a pawn down but
will exploit the shaky white centre with the help of tactics.} 16. Bxd7 {
The best move, according to theory.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 16. fxe5 $2 Ndxe5 $1
17. Nxe5 Bxe6 18. Nxe7 Qxe7 {is actually winning, because White's king is
caught in the centre and light squares have fallen.}) ({(b)} 16. dxe5 Ndxe5 $1
{is more complicated:} 17. Nxe5 $1 (17. Bxc8 $2 Nxf3+ 18. Qxf3 Nd4 $1 19. Qe4
Bc5 $1 {threatens White's bishop and ...Re8}) 17... Bxe6 18. Nxe7 $1 Qxe7 19.
Nxc6 bxc6 20. O-O {and the opposite-coloured bishops in conjunction with
White's exposed king balances the extra pawn; for example,} Bd5 21. Re1 Qf6 22.
Qc2 Rab8 $11 {.}) ({(c)} 16. Nxe7 Qxe7 17. d5 e4 $1 (17... exf4 18. Bxf4 Nf6
$11) 18. Ng5 Nc5 $1 19. Bxc8 (19. O-O {can be met by} Bxe6 ({or just} 19...
Nxe6 $11) 20. dxe6 Nxe6 21. Nxe4 Nxf4 $11 {- Se.Ivanov}) 19... Nd3+ 20. Kf1
Raxc8 21. dxc6 Qxg5 22. cxb7 Rb8 23. Kg2 Qf6 24. Qe2 Rxb7 $15 {
Lukin-Se Ivanov, USSR 1984.}) 16... Bxd7 17. dxe5 $1 (17. Nxe7 {
has a better reputation, but in spite of his two extra pawns, after} Qxe7 18.
Nxe5 Nxe5 19. dxe5 {, White is under pressure and stands slightly worse:} -- (
19... Bc6 $5 20. Rf1 (20. O-O $4 Qc5+ 21. Rf2 Rad8 {and ...Qd5 wins}) 20...
Rad8 21. Qe2 (21. Qc2 Bb5) 21... Rd5 {
and ...Bb5 is threatened along with moves such as ...Qe6 or ...Qc5.}) (19...
Rfd8 $1 {confers a surer advantage due to} 20. Rf1 ({or} 20. Qe2 Qe8 $1) 20...
Bh3 21. Qf3 Rac8 $1 22. Rf2 Qe6 $1 {.})) 17... Bg4 $1 {
Black threatens ...Nxe5 and attacks White's light-square weaknesses.} 18. O-O
$5 ({White should return a pawn by} 18. h3 $1 Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Nxe5 20. Qe4 $1 {
, when} Nd7 $1 {
has the simple idea of ...Re8 and the clever one of ...Nf6; e.g.} 21. O-O (21.
Nxe7 Nf6 22. Qxb7 Qd3 $1) 21... Re8 ({or} 21... Nf6 22. Nxf6 Bxf6 23. Re1 $1
Qb6+ 24. Kg2 h6 $11 {intending ...Rfe8}) 22. Nxe7 Nf6 $1 23. Qxb7 (23. Qf3 Qxe7
24. Bd2 Qd7 25. Bc3 Qxh3) 23... Rxe7 24. Qf3 Qd4+ 25. Qf2 Qd7 {
threatens ...Qxh3 and ...Rae8; hence} 26. Be3 $1 Qxh3 27. Bd4 $1 {, when} Rd8 {
is equal,} ({though} 27... Ne4 28. Qg2 Qxg3 $11 {is a simpler solution.}))
18... Bc5+ 19. Be3 (19. Kg2 Nd4 $15 {.}) 19... Bxe3+ 20. Nxe3 Qb6 21. Qd2 Bxf3
22. Rxf3 Nd4 {
, Lupulescu-Smerdon, Calvia Olympiad 2004. Black has threats on f3 and b3;} ({
Smagin suggests} 22... Nd4 23. Raf1 {, but then} Rad8 24. Qb4 Nxf3+ 25. Rxf3
Qxb4 26. axb4 g5 $1 $15 {, with the idea} 27. f5 $2 Rde8 28. e6 Rxe6 29. fxe6
Rxf3 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.12 9 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. Ne2
f6 9. a3 Be7 (9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Be7 {
is also playable, despite conceding c3 to a knight; for example,} 11. Nc3 O-O (
{or} 11... a6 {, to preserve a7 for the queen}) 12. Na4 Qd8 13. Bd3 fxe5 14.
fxe5 Rxf3 15. Qxf3 Nxd4 16. Qh5 Nf5 {.}) 10. h4 {A classic wing expansion
which both prevents the move ...g5 and prepares to swing the rook to h3 for
defence and attack.} ({Instead,} 10. b4 cxd4 {
gives White a choice of recaptures:} 11. -- (11. Nexd4 fxe5 $1 (11... Nxd4 12.
cxd4 O-O {is a playable alternative here}) 12. Nxe6 (12. fxe5 $6 Ndxe5 13. Nxe5
Nxe5 14. Qh5+ Ng6 $1 15. Bd3 O-O 16. Bxg6 $2 hxg6 17. Qxg6 Bf6 18. Be3 e5 19.
Nc2 Bh4+ {0-1 F.Meyer-S.Pedersen, German League 1999}) 12... Nf6 13. Nfg5 $1 (
13. Nxg7+ $2 Kf8 14. b5 e4) 13... g6 $1 14. Qe2 $1 h6 15. Ng7+ (15. fxe5 {
is met by} Nh5 16. Be3 d4) 15... Kf8 16. N5e6+ Bxe6 17. Nxe6+ Kf7 18. fxe5 Nxe5
$1 19. Qxe5 Bd6 20. Qe3 Rae8 $15 {.}) (11. cxd4 O-O 12. Rb1 fxe5 (12... a5 13.
b5 a4 $1 {was Shirov-M.Gurevich, Munich 1993}) 13. fxe5 (13. dxe5 a5 14. b5 a4
$1 15. Nc3 Ncxe5 $1 16. fxe5 Nxe5 {
with two centre pawns and an attack against White's underdeveloped position})
13... Rxf3 $1 14. gxf3 Bh4+ 15. Ng3 Nxd4 {. A position like this illustrates
how Black's compensation for the exchange is to a large extent structural,
since he has no particular attack:} 16. f4 Nf8 17. Bd3 Bd7 18. Bb2 Nf5 19. Bxf5
exf5 20. Bd4 Qb5 {
intending ...Ne6, and if anything it's Black who stands better.})) 10... O-O
11. Rh3 a5 ({Shipov suggests} 11... cxd4 12. cxd4 Na5 $1 {
, and we'll see this idea in section 6.4 (8 a3).}) 12. b3 {Another standard
idea. It stops Black from holding down White's queenside by ...a4 due to b4.}
Qc7 13. Neg1 $5 {Widely praised: White undevelops his pieces to hold the
centre prophylactically and free his f1-bishop. On the other hand, his
development is miserable.} (13. Qc2 b6 $1 14. Bd2 Ba6 {
made for easy equality in Jamrich-Schneider Zinner, Budapest 2001.}) 13... a4
$1 ({Anand recommended} 13... b6 {
intending ...Ba6, which was played later with satisfactory results.}) ({
ElCreyente-MusiqueWand, ICC 2011, saw the immediate sacrifice} 13... fxe5 14.
fxe5 Ndxe5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nxe5 $5 Qxe5+ 17. Qe2 Qc7 $1 {
with plenty of compensation:} 18. Bg5 Bd6 19. Rf3 Bd7 20. a4 Bg3+ $5 21. Kd1 h6
22. Bd2 Bxh4 $15 {.}) 14. b4 fxe5 {Black ignores positional continuations and
initiates the standard central demolition sacrifice.} 15. fxe5 Ndxe5 $5 16.
dxe5 Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Qxe5+ 18. Qe2 {Notice the defensive role of the rook on h3.
What does Black have for his piece? Two extra, unopposed central pawns, a
loose white structure to play against, and some active pieces (in contrast
with White's array on the first rank and vulnerable rook).} Bxh4+ $6 {
. Black grabs a third pawn but in return has to accede to a queen exchange.} ({
Instead, in accordance with the advantages just outlined, he can profitably
play for an attack by} 18... Qc7 $1 {followed by ...e5 and/or ...Bf6. Black has
the centre and White's king is exposed. Of course, if White can develop he'll
have the upper hand, but on balance it will be extremely hard to defend and in
fact the computer engines prefer Black. An immediate idea is ...cxb4 in
combination with ...Bf6 (as well as ...e5 in due course), so play might go} 19.
Bg5 $1 {(almost certainly best)} (19. Nf3 $2 e5) (19. Qh5 cxb4 20. axb4 e5 21.
Rg3 Bf5 22. Ne2 d4 23. Bd2 d3) (19. bxc5 e5 20. Rf3 Bf5) 19... Bd6 $1 (19...
Bxg5 $5 20. hxg5 e5 21. Rf3 $1 Bf5 {is dynamically balanced}) 20. Rf3 Rxf3 (
20... Bd7 {also looks slightly advantageous, as in the game
ElCreyente-MusiqueWand, ICC 2001}) 21. Qxf3 (21. Nxf3 cxb4 22. c4 b3 $1) 21...
cxb4 22. axb4 (22. cxb4 $2 Bxb4+ {intending} 23. axb4 $4 Qe5+) 22... Bxb4 23.
Ne2 Bd6 {and with a third pawn (including the dangerous passed a-pawn), Black
is for choice, although White is certainly right in the game.}) (18... Bxh4+ $6
{is Anand-Shirov, FIDE World Ch., Tehran 2000, which continued} 19. Kd1 (19.
Rxh4 $2 Qg3+) 19... Qf6 $2 ({
Black stood worse but still could have put his centre to use by} 19... Qxe2+ $1
20. Bxe2 Bf6 (20... Be7 $5) 21. bxc5 $1 Ra5 22. Be3 Bxc3 23. Rb1 Bf6 24. Nf3 e5
25. Rh1 Rf7 $14 {with defensive prospects}) 20. Nf3 $1 Qxc3 $5 21. Bb2 Qb3+ 22.
Kc1 {and White was winning.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.2 8 g3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3 {
. With this move, White wants to develop, often by Bh3, and he creates a
square for his king on g2 (we've seen the trouble it can get into on f2). He
also shores up f4, in some cases lending support to a piece there.} Be7 {
This has become a standard modern approach in the 5 f4 systems. 8...Be7 is
based upon the idea that ...Bb4+ tends to help the white king head towards
sanctuary on the kingside, while wasting a tempo (the bishop almost always
returns to e7 after ...Bb4+). As usual, the moves ...cxd4/cxd4 may have
already taken place before ...Be7, but until dxc5 becomes a threat, it makes
sense to keep the position flexible.} 9. Bh3 {The first thing to note about 8..
.Be7 (as opposed to 8...f6) is that 9 Bd3? simply loses the d-pawn. In fact,
White's need to commit to a plan is one of the advantages of the flexible 8...
Be7.} ({(a)} 9. Ne2 {(often coming from the important order 8 Ne2 Be7 9 g3)}
cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. Bh3 {is the main line with 11 Ne2 below (6.21).}) ({(b)} 
9. h4 $5 {should be compared to 6.3 (8 h4); White's g3 doesn't fit in very
well here, and one plan is} cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. Bd3 (11. a3 O-O (11... Na5)
12. b4 fxe5 13. dxe5 $5 a5 $1 14. b5 Ncxe5 $1 ({here} 14... Bc5 $1 {
is also good; e.g.} 15. Ra2 ({or} 15. bxc6 Bf2+) 15... Nd4 {
and White is already in some trouble}) 15. fxe5 Nxe5 {
with a huge attack, Sulskis-Saiboulativ, Cappelle la Grande 2005}) 11... O-O $1
(11... fxe5 12. fxe5 O-O 13. Bf4 $1 Qxb2 {may be good but is less convincing})
12. Qc2 (12. Bxh7+ $2 Kxh7 13. Ng5+ fxg5 14. hxg5+ Kg8 15. Qh5 Ndxe5 $1 16.
dxe5 Qb4+ 17. Bd2 Qe4+ 18. Ne2 Nd4 {, winning}) 12... h6 ({or} 12... f5 {
and White has ...Nb4 and ...Nxd4 to deal with}) 13. Ne2 fxe5 14. dxe5 Nc5 15.
Bh7+ Kh8 16. Qb1 d4 {with a strong initiative.}) ({(c)} 9. Kf2 cxd4 ({or} 9...
f6) 10. cxd4 g5 $5 ({there are many options; e.g.} 10... O-O 11. Kg2 f5 {
is a good version of an ...f5 plan, because White's king gets in the way of a
kingside attack; the follow-up would be ...a5-a4, ...Qd8, ...Nb6etc}) 11. h3 (
11. fxg5 Ndxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Kg2 Nc6 {
with central pressure, Blumenfeld-Newman, corr 1987;} (13... Nc4 14. b3 Nd6 {
is also possible})) 11... gxf4 (11... f6 $5) 12. gxf4 {
, Beliavsky-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1985; here both} f6 ({and} 12... Rg8 $1 {
are good moves.})) ({(d)} 9. a3 a5 {
transposes to 8 a3 a5 9 g3 Be7 in the notes to 6.42;} ({
alternatively, Black has} 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Na5 $5 (10... f6 11. Bh3 O-O {
is similar to the main lines, unless White plays} 12. b3 $5 {
, which has various answers, a simple one being} Na5 13. Rb1 Nc4 $5 {
with the idea} 14. Ra1 Nxa3 $1) (10... O-O 11. Bd3 f6 {is another course}) 11.
Bd3 $6 (11. Rb1 Bxa3) (11. b4 Nc4 12. Qb3 Qc7 {intending ...a5}) 11... Nb3 12.
Rb1 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Qxd4 14. Nf3 Qb6 15. Kf1 Nc5 16. Bc2 Ne4 $1 17. Ba4+ Bd7 $17
{Glicksman-J.Watson, Buena Vista 1994.})) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 $5 (10... O-O {
is an obvious option. It transposes to 6.22 after} 11. Kf1 ({or to 6.211 after
} 11. Ne2 f6) 11... -- (11... f6 12. Kg2 {(or 11 Kf2 f6 12 Kg2).}) ({
. Here Black can also play} 11... f5) ({, or expand on the queenside by} 11...
a5 12. Kg2 a4 13. Ne2 (13. a3 Qa6 $15 {- Gleizerov}) 13... a3 (13... Qa6 {
and ...Nb6}) 14. b3 Nb4 $1 15. g4 f6 $1 {, L.M.Perez-Gleizerov, Mondariz
Balneario 2000. This is worth noting if you prefer a strategic struggle to the
violent lines below.})) {After 10...f6, White has a major crossroads:} 11. -- (
{6.21} 11. Ne2) ({6.22} 11. Kf1) (11. Bxe6 $6 {has the usual problem:} Ndxe5 $1
12. Bxc8 Nxf3+ 13. Nxf3 Rxc8 14. O-O O-O $15 {
; White's bad bishop and poor development count against him.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.21 11 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3 ({
Or} 8. Ne2 f6 ({or} 8... Be7 9. g3 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6) 9. g3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Be7
11. Bh3 {.}) 8... Be7 9. Bh3 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. Ne2 {. This is a traditional
main line, often beginning with 8 Ne2 (see above). The position is still
debated, and calls for another split:} -- ({6.211} 11... O-O) ({6.212} 11...
fxe5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.211 11...0-0"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3
Be7 9. Bh3 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 ({This is equivalent to} 10... O-O 11. Ne2 f6 {.})
11. Ne2 O-O 12. Bxe6+ ({White gets less than nothing from} 12. O-O $6 fxe5 13.
Bxe6+ ({or} 13. fxe5 $2 Ndxe5) 13... Kh8 14. Bxd7 ({or here} 14. Bxd5 exd4 15.
Bxc6 d3+ 16. Kg2 bxc6 $1) 14... Bxd7 15. fxe5 Bg4 {.}) ({So} 12. Rf1 $1 {
is the main option:} -- (12... Nb4 {is Williams' original suggestion. He gives}
13. Nc3 Qa6 14. Kf2 -- ({, and} 14... Nd3+ 15. Kg1 f5 {
intending ...Nb6 and ...Bd7. This is a good idea, although after} 16. Qb3 {
the knight might want to be back on b4}) ({, so I'd suggest} 14... f5 {
with approximate equality; e.g.} 15. a3 (15. Kg1 Nb6 16. Rf2 Nd3 $1 17. Rc2
Nxc1) 15... Nd3+ 16. Kg1 Nxc1 17. Rxc1 (17. Qxc1 Qa5) 17... Nb6 18. Rf2 Bd7 19.
Bf1 Qa5 $11 {.})) ({. I like the deceptively modest} 12... Kh8 $1 {
. Now Black is ready to blast open the centre:} 13. -- (13. Bxe6 $2 Ndxe5 14.
Bxd5 Nxf3+ 15. Bxf3 (15. Rxf3 $2 Qa5+ 16. Nc3 Bg4) 15... Bh3 $17 {.}) (13. Rf2
g6 $1 (13... Qa6 14. Kf1 Nb4 {is interesting}) 14. b3 $5 fxe5 15. fxe5 Ndxe5
16. Nxe5 (16. dxe5 Bb4+ 17. Kf1 Bc5 $1 18. Qe1 Bxf2 19. Qxf2 Qxf2+ 20. Kxf2
Nxe5 21. Bb2 Rxf3+ 22. Ke1 Re3 $11) 16... Rxf2 17. Nxc6 $1 Rxh2 18. Nxe7 Rxh3
19. Kf2 e5 20. Nxc8 Qe6 $1 21. dxe5 Qf5+ 22. Kg2 Qh5 $1 23. Qg1 Rh2+ 24. Qxh2
Qxe2+ {with perpetual.}) (13. Nc3 fxe5 (13... Qa6 $5) 14. fxe5 Rxf3 $1 15. Qxf3
Nxd4 16. Qf2 $1 ({theory gives only} 16. Qh5 Qd8 $1 {
followed by ...Nc6 with a good game}) 16... Nc6 (16... g5 $5 17. Kd1 $1 Qb4 18.
Be3 Nc6 19. Bxe6 Ndxe5 20. Bxd5 Bh3 21. Kc2 Qd6 {
is probably a little better for White but conveniently messy}) 17. Qxb6 Nxb6
18. Nb5 $1 Bd7 19. Kd1 (19. Nc7 Rc8 20. Nxe6 Nxe5 21. Nf4 Bxh3 22. Nxh3 Ng4 $11
) (19. Bf4 g5 20. Bd2 h5 $5 {, e.g.} 21. b3 g4 22. Bg2 Nxe5 23. Nd4 Rc8 $11)
19... Nxe5 (19... Nc4 20. Nc7 Rc8 21. Nxd5 Bc5 $1) 20. Nd4 Bf6 21. Bxe6 Be8 $1
{
with a pawn for the exchange and pressure on White's exposed king; for example,
} 22. g4 Ned7 $1 23. Ne2 Nc5 24. Bf5 Ba4+ 25. Bc2 Bb5 {
might follow, with a slight edge.}) (13. Qb3 Qa6 $1 14. Bd2 (14. Bxe6 Na5 $1
15. Qc3 Nxe5 $17) (14. Be3 Nb6 $15) 14... Nb6 15. Rf2 Nc4 $15 {
Malakhov-Ulibin, Russian Ch. 1995.}))) 12... Kh8 13. Bxd5 $6 {
This is played most often.} (13. exf6 {is objectively correct and about equal.
Black gets compensation for the pawn after} Bb4+ ({or} 13... Nxf6 14. Bxc8 Bb4+
) {, and:} 14. Bd2 (14. Nc3 Nxf6 15. Bxc8 Re8+ $1 16. Kf2 Raxc8 $11) (14. Kf1
Nxf6 15. Bxc8 Raxc8 16. Kg2 {, Hübner-Mohr, German League 1988,} Qa6 (16... Ne4
$5) {; e.g.} 17. Ne5 Ne4 18. Qd3 Nxe5 19. Qxa6 bxa6 20. dxe5 Rc2 21. Kf3 Bc5
22. Rd1 Ng5+ 23. Kg4 Ne4 24. Kf3 $11) 14... Nxf6 15. Bxc8 Raxc8 $1 (15... Bxd2+
16. Qxd2 Ne4 17. Qd3 Raxc8 {
was slightly less active in Malakhov-Galinsky, Minsk 1997}) 16. O-O Rfe8 17.
Bxb4 Qxb4 18. Rb1 Ng4 19. Qd3 $1 Re3 $1 20. Qf5 Rf8 21. Qxg4 Rxe2 22. Rfd1 Qc4
$1 {with sufficient counterplay.}) 13... fxe5 14. fxe5 $2 {The alternatives do
not impress, but keep White's disadvantage to manageable proportions.} (14.
Bxc6 Qxc6 15. O-O e4 $1 16. Ng5 (16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. fxe5 Bg4 $15) 16... h6 17.
Nh3 Nf6 18. Nf2 b5 $1 19. Be3 Nd5 20. Qc1 Qxc1 21. Bxc1 Nb4 {
intending ...Nc2 and ...e3.}) (14. dxe5 Ndxe5 $5 ({or} 14... Rd8 $1 {
intending ...Nc5}) 15. fxe5 Nxe5 (15... Bg4) 16. Nc3 $2 (16. Nxe5 $2 Bb4+) (16.
Bf4 $2 Nxf3+ $1 17. Bxf3 Bb4+ 18. Kf1 Bh3+ 19. Bg2 Qc6 $1 $19 {
Lukianov-Gleizerov, USSR 1986}) (16. Nf4 Bg4 $1 17. h3 Bxf3 18. Bxf3 g5 $17)
16... Bg4 17. Rf1 Bxf3 18. Qc2 (18. Bxf3 Nxf3+ 19. Rxf3 Qg1+) 18... Bxd5 19.
Nxd5 Rxf1+ 20. Kxf1 Qb5+ $19 {Grill-Ihlenfeld, corr 1988.}) 14... Ndxe5 $1 15.
Nxe5 $2 {Losing;} ({but so does} 15. dxe5 Nxe5 {
, just a little more slowly (see the previous note).}) 15... Nxe5 16. Bf4 Bg4
$1 17. Bg2 Bb4+ 18. Kf1 Nc4 19. Qd3 Rae8 {and wins.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.212 11...fxe5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3
Be7 9. Bh3 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. Ne2 fxe5 12. fxe5 O-O 13. Rf1 $1 {
The most challenging.} (13. Bxe6+ $6 Kh8 {
will either transpose to 11...0-0 or produce something like} 14. Nf4 Ndxe5 15.
dxe5 Rxf4 $1 16. Bxf4 Bxe6 {and White stands poorly}) ({or if} 13. Nf4 Kh8 14.
a3 {then} g5 $1 15. Nxe6 Ndxe5 $1 16. dxe5 Bxe6 17. Bxe6 Rae8 (17... Nxe5 $1)
18. Qe2 Nxe5 $1 19. Nxe5 Qxe6 20. Rf1 Bf6 $15 {E.Rosen-Zierk, St Louis 2010.})
13... Kh8 14. Rf2 (14. Nf4 Bb4+ 15. Bd2 {, W.Watson-Apicella, Ostend 1987;}
Nxd4 $1 16. Nxd4 Qxd4 17. Bxb4 Qxb4+ 18. Qd2 Qe4+ 19. Qe2 Nxe5 $17 {.}) 14...
Ncxe5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 {This is Black's standard attack.} 16. Nfd4 $1 (16. Ned4 $2
Nxf3+ 17. Nxf3 e5 18. Bxc8 Bc5 $1 19. Rf1 Raxc8 $19 {.}) 16... Bd7 $1 17. Bf4 (
17. Rxf8+ Rxf8 18. Qb3 Qa6 19. Nf4 g5 $17 {.}) 17... Nc4 18. Rf3 $1 {
. These moves seems relatively forced.} (18. a3 e5 19. Bxd7 exf4 {.}) ({After} 
18. Rf3 {play might continue} g5 (18... e5 $5 19. Bxd7 exf4 20. gxf4 Rad8 {
gives Black a sufficient attack for the piece}) 19. Bc1 Bc5 {
with more than enough compensation.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.22 11 Kf1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3
Be7 9. Bh3 cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. Kf1 $5 {. White rushes his king to g2.} O-O 12.
Kg2 (12. Bxe6+ Kh8 {threatens 13...Ndxe5; hence} 13. exf6 $1 (13. Bxd5 $4 Qb5+)
(13. Bh3 fxe5 14. dxe5 Ndxe5 $1 15. Bxc8 Nxf3 16. Bxb7 Qb5+ 17. Qe2 Qxb7 18.
Nxf3 Rae8 {with ideas of ...d4 and even ...g5 and a strong attack}) 13... Nxf6
14. Bxc8 Raxc8 {(now White has an extra pawn, but problems with delayed
development, king position, and the e4 outpost)} 15. Ne2 Ne4 (15... Nb4 16. Nc3
$1 Ne4 $1 17. Kg2 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Rxc3) 16. Kg2 Bf6 17. Re1 Rfe8 {
with plenty of play; among other ideas are ...Nb4 and ...Nd6-f5.}) 12... Kh8 (
12... f5 {is a less forcing move; e.g.} 13. g4 $5 fxg4 14. Bxg4 Ndb8 15. Ne2
Na6 16. Ng5 Bxg5 17. fxg5 Bd7 {; this is hard to assess.}) 13. Ne2 (13. b3 $5
f5 (13... a5 14. a4 Ndb8 $5 15. Ne2 Na6 {
, L.A.Schneider-M.Lindgren, Gausdal 1990;} 16. exf6 Bxf6 17. Be3 Bd7 $11) 14.
Be3 Ndb8 $1 15. Ne2 Bd7 16. g4 fxg4 17. Bxg4 Ba3 18. Rg1 Ne7 $11 {.}) 13...
fxe5 14. fxe5 (14. dxe5 Nc5 $1 {.}) 14... Ndxe5 $1 {
Black is committed to this now.} 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Ned4 ({
The attack is dangerous and unclear after} 16. Nfd4 g5 $5 ({or} 16... Nc4 17.
b3 e5 18. Bxc8 Raxc8 19. bxc4 dxc4 $11) 17. g4 h5 18. Rg1 $1 Nxg4 (18... hxg4
$6 19. Kh1) (18... Bd7 $5 19. gxh5 g4) 19. Bxg4 hxg4 20. Nc3 e5 21. Nxd5 Qh6 ({
or} 21... Qc5 22. Nxe7 Qxe7 23. Re1 Qh7 $11) 22. h4 $1 Bc5 $1 23. Bxg5 Qg6 {
. This looks dynamically balanced; of course, there are many options.}) 16...
Nxf3 17. Nxf3 e5 18. Qxd5 Bxh3+ 19. Kxh3 Qf2 20. Nxe5 {
. Settling for equality because there is nothing better:} (20. Qxb7 Rab8 21.
Qxe7 Qxf3 22. Re1 Rf5 23. Bg5 h5 24. Rad1 Qg4+ 25. Kg2 Qf3+ 26. Kg1 Qf2+ $11) (
{or} 20. Bg5 Bxg5 21. Rhf1 Qe2 22. Qxe5 Qxe5 23. Nxe5 Bf6 $11 {.}) (20. Nxe5 {
is Shirov-Vallejo Pons, Spanish Team Ch. 2008, which concluded} Qf5+ 21. Kg2 (
21. g4 $2 {runs into} Qf2 22. Qd3 $2 ({here} 22. g5 Rae8 {is still no fun})
22... Qh4+ 23. Kg2 Rf2+ 24. Kg1 Raf8 25. Be3 R2f3 $1 26. Qe2 Rg3+ 27. hxg3
Qxg3+ 28. Qg2 Qxe3+ 29. Kh2 Bd6 {- Vallejo Pons}) 21... Qf2+ 22. Kh3 Qf5+ 23.
Kg2 Qf2+ {½-½.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.3 8 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. h4 {
. A very popular idea. White plays to prevents ...g5 and prepares the rook
lift Rh3 while supporting a kingside attack in some lines. Black has several
effective plans, of which I'll present two active solutions:} -- ({6.31} 8...
Be7) ({6.32} 8... cxd4) ({Other moves are} 8... a5 $5 {
, to gain space on the queenside by ...a4 (...f5 will often follow)}) ({and} 
8... h5 $5 {when, depending upon White's reply, Black has ...Ne7-f5 or ...cxd4
and ...g6 with Leningrad System themes.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.31 8...Be7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. h4
Be7 {. This can also be played after ...cxd4/cxd4; it is a flexible move which
prevents the desirable 9 Bd3 because the d-pawn can be captured.} 9. Rh3 $5 {
The alternatives are both important and very instructive.} ({(a)} 9. a3 {
is similar to 8 a3 after} cxd4 10. cxd4 Na5 {(see 6.41), but the inclusion of
h4 and ...Be7 seems a at least a fair trade-off for Black.} ({Alternatively,} 
10... f6 {puts Black one kingside attacking move ahead of the normal h4 lines,
because ...Be7 has been traded for a3. I suspect that this makes kingside
development by Ne2 or Bd3 riskier for White, whereas b4 can be met by ...a6,
as in the 8 a3 lines, and with ...f5 if it becomes necessary.}) {
. At any rate, 9 a3 cxd4 10 cxd4 Na5 can lead to:} 11. -- (11. Rb1 $2 Bxa3 $1 {
.}) (11. b4 $6 Nc4 12. Bxc4 dxc4 13. d5 $2 {
(but otherwise there comes ...Qc6 and ...Nb6)} exd5 14. Qxd5 a5 $1 $17 {
with the idea} 15. b5 Nc5 $1 16. Qxc4 Qg6 {.}) (11. Ne2 Nb3 12. Rb1 Nb8 $5 (
12... O-O {leads to typically complex play following} 13. Be3 f6) (12... Nxc1
13. Qxc1 O-O 14. Nc3 f6 {is also unclear}) 13. Be3 Nc6 14. Nc3 Bd7 15. Na4 Qa5+
16. Nc3 Qb6 17. Be2 $6 Nca5 18. O-O g6 19. h5 O-O-O 20. Bf2 Kb8 21. Bd3 {
and Black's reorganization had succeeded in McShane-S.Williams, Reykjavik 2011;
but he might have done well to open a line on the kingside with} gxh5 {here.}) (
11. Rh3 Nb3 12. Rb1 {, Yudasin-Gleizerov, USSR 1989. Now Black can play} a5 ({
or} 12... Nxc1 {with confidence}) ({, but also} 12... Nb8 {
, to develop by ...Nc6 and ...Bd7 with a good game.}))) ({(b)} 9. Kf2 cxd4 10.
cxd4 f6 11. Kg3 O-O 12. Ne2 fxe5 13. fxe5 Ndxe5 $1 14. dxe5 Nxe5 $15 15. Qb3 $1
(15. Qd4 Bc5 $1) (15. Ned4 $2 Bd6) (15. Bf4 $4 Ng6 $1) 15... Qxb3 16. axb3 Nd3
$1 17. Kh2 Bd6+ 18. Kg1 Bc5+ 19. Kh2 Nf2 $17 {.}) ({(c)} 9. h5 $5 {
is a bit slow:} cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 {(ambitious)} (10... h6 {is a good alternative
}) 11. Bd3 (11. h6 {could provoke} g5 $1 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Nxg5 Bb4+ 14. Bd2
Qxd4 15. Bxb4 Qxf4 $1) 11... O-O 12. a3 $1 (12. h6 g6 $1 {
attacks d4 and threatens the usual sacrifices on e5}) 12... fxe5 13. fxe5 Nxd4
$1 14. Nxd4 Nxe5 {with the usual ideas. Play might go} 15. Bb1 $1 Bd7 {
(to get to the c-file)} 16. Nge2 Rac8 17. Be3 (17. b4 Bb5 $1) (17. Bf4 Ng4 18.
Qd3 Rxf4 $1 19. Nxf4 Rc1+ 20. Kd2 {, Lane-Meesen, Leuven 1988;} Qxb2+ $1 21.
Bc2 Rxc2+ $1 22. Nxc2 Nf2 23. Qf3 Ne4+ 24. Kd1 Ba4 $17) 17... Nc4 18. Qd3 $1
Nxe3 {and White should take a draw with} 19. Qxh7+ Kf7 20. Qg6+ Kg8 21. Qh7+ ({
not} 21. h6 $2 Bh4+ $1 22. g3 Ng2+ {.})) ({(d)} 9. Nh3 $6 {decentralizes:} cxd4
10. cxd4 f6 11. Bd3 fxe5 12. fxe5 O-O 13. Nhg5 h6 14. Nxe6 Rxf3 $1 15. gxf3
Ndxe5 16. dxe5 Bxe6 $17 {
; White has ...Bb4+, ...Nxe5, ...Nd4, ...Rf8, and even ...Bxh4+ to deal with.})
9... cxd4 10. cxd4 f6 11. a3 $6 (11. Bd3 O-O 12. Ne2 fxe5 13. fxe5 Ndxe5 $1 14.
dxe5 Nxe5 {is familiar. After} 15. Bc2 $1 Bc5 {is possible with good chances,}
({or Black can bail out by} 15... Bb4+ 16. Bd2 Ng4 17. Bxb4 Qf2+ 18. Kd2 Qe3+ {
with perpetual check.})) 11... O-O (11... Na5 {is also promising.}) 12. b4 fxe5
13. fxe5 {, Wollski-Eade, San Mateo 1995;} ({and here} 13. fxe5 a5 $1 (13...
Ndxe5 $5 14. dxe5 Nxe5 {was played and should be slightly advantageous}) 14. b5
Nxd4 $1 15. Nxd4 Nxe5 {gives Black superb compensation.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.32 8...cxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. h4
cxd4 9. cxd4 Bb4+ 10. Kf2 f6 {
. Here Black directly undermines the white centre.} 11. Be3 {
The most common move, although not necessarily best.} ({True,} 11. Bd3 $4 {
loses to} fxe5 12. fxe5 Ndxe5 {.}) ({Yet} 11. Kg3 {can allow Black his usual
sacrificial motives and still achieve a passable position. Black plays} O-O {
and:} 12. -- (12. Bd3 $2 Nxd4 $1 13. Nxd4 (13. exf6 g6 $1 {- Gurevich}) 13...
fxe5 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Bc2 Ng6 $1 16. Bxg6 hxg6 {is killing, intending moves
such as ...Bd6, ...e5, and ...Qf2, Ljubojevic-M.Gurevich, Linares 1991.}) (12.
Nh3 $1 fxe5 13. dxe5 (13. fxe5 Nxd4 $1 14. Nxd4 Nxe5 {with a winning attack})
13... Be7 (13... Nc5 $5 14. Kh2 Ne4 15. Bd3 {
, Kharitonov-Berkes, Oropesa del Mar 1999;} h6 16. a3 Bc5 17. Qe2 Bd7 18. Bxe4
dxe4 19. Qxe4 Qb3 $1 20. Nd2 Qd5 21. Qxd5 exd5 {
with two active bishops and adequate compensation}) 14. Kh2 Nc5 $1 15. Rb1 $5
Bd7 16. Be3 Qb4 $1 {with mutual chances.}) (12. Kh3 $5 h6 (12... fxe5 13. fxe5
Nf6 $1 14. exf6 e5+ {- Knaak; and now} 15. g4 $1 {is simply chaotic}) 13. Bd3
$5 fxe5 14. fxe5 Nxd4 $1 15. Nxd4 Nxe5 {with an attack.})) 11... O-O $1 {
As opposed to 11...fxe5, this doesn't give White the f4-square to put a piece
on and block the attack.} ({
Yudasin-De la Villa Garcia, Leon 1992, saw the alternative} 11... Be7 12. Qd2
O-O 13. Rd1 a5 14. Ne2 a4 $5 15. a3 Na5 16. Nc3 {, when} Nb3 $1 {was best:} 17.
Qc2 $6 fxe5 18. fxe5 Nxe5 $1 19. dxe5 d4 20. Kg3 $5 dxe3 21. Bd3 h6 22. Bc4 {
(Yudasin), but now} Nd2 $1 $17 {.}) ({Finally,} 11... fxe5 12. fxe5 O-O {
will transpose to 11...0-0, except in the case of} 13. a3 Be7 14. b4 Qd8 $5 15.
Bd3 Ndxe5 $1 16. dxe5 Nxe5 {, Estrada-Watanabe, Bariloche 1991.}) 12. Bd3 (12.
Ne2 h6 $5 13. a3 Be7 14. b4 Qd8 15. Kg1 Nb6 $11 {.}) 12... fxe5 13. fxe5 Nxd4
$1 14. Ne2 {This is instructive;} ({although I think that} 14. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7
15. Bxd4 Bc5 16. Kg3 $1 {is objectively best. After} Bxd4 {
of S.Salov-Stijzhkin, USSR 1991, White should play} 17. Qxd4 $1 Qxd4 18. Nxd4
Nxe5 19. Ngf3 Nd3 20. Ng5+ Kg6 21. Rad1 $1 Nxb2 22. Rb1 Nc4 23. Ngxe6 Bxe6 24.
Nxe6 Rf7 25. Nf4+ {and Black's advantage is quite modest.}) 14... Bc5 ({
Instead: -- (a) I like} 14... Nxf3 $1 15. Bxb6 Nfxe5+ 16. Kg3 Nxb6 $15 {
(Kalinichenko), to be followed by ...Bd6. This is promising, to say the least:
Black already has two pieces and two pawns for the queen, with the bishop pair,
two passed central pawns, and a promising attack.}) ({(b)} 14... Nxe5 {
is usually cited, but is slightly less convincing:} 15. Bxd4 Ng4+ 16. Kg1 $1 (
16. Kg3 Qd6+ 17. Kxg4 e5+ 18. Kg3 exd4+ 19. Kf2 Bg4 {
, Saltaev-M.Gurevich, Cappelle la Grande 2001; and perhaps here} 20. a3 $1 {
is the best move:} Ba5 21. b4 Bb6 22. Neg1 {
, although Black still stands better}) 16... Bc5 17. Qb3 $1 Qxb3 (17... Qd6 $5)
18. axb3 Bxd4+ 19. Nexd4 e5 20. Nb5 e4 21. Be2 exf3 22. Bxf3 d4 23. Nxd4 Rd8 {
, about equal.}) 15. Nexd4 Nxe5 16. Ke2 {, Zinchenko-Gavrjushin, Perm 2007.} ({
After} 16. Ke2 -- ({, although} 16... Nxf3 17. gxf3 e5 {
was good for the advantage}) (16... Ng4 $1 17. b4 $1 (17. Qg1 $2 e5) (17. Qb3
Qxb3 18. axb3 Nxe3 19. Kxe3 e5 $1 20. Nxe5 Re8) 17... Bxb4 18. Nc2 Bc5 19. Rb1
Qd6 $17 {is simpler.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.4 8 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. a3 {
. Finally, we get to the currently most popular move at the top levels. White
will very often play a3 anyway, and doesn't want to commit his pieces until
Black reveals what he's doing. The immediate idea is b4, which will severely
cut into the queenside play that we've seen Black achieve. We'll look at three
replies, all with different piece set-ups and different philosophies:} -- ({
6.41} 8... cxd4) ({6.42} 8... a5) ({6.43} 8... Be7) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.41 8...cxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. a3
cxd4 9. cxd4 Na5 {. Aiming for b3 and c4. This only works because Black is
ahead in development and can take a little time to reorganize his queen and
knights to implement a light-square strategy.} 10. Ne2 ({Obviously} 10. b4 $5
Nc4 11. Bxc4 ({but not} 11. Bd3 $6 a5 $1 {
and Black already stands better, since White's structure fall apart, even after
} 12. Qa4 Qc7 $1 {, with the idea} 13. b5 $2 Ncxe5 $1) 11... dxc4 {
is important. Play can go} 12. Ne2 a5 $1 (12... Qc6 $5 13. d5 $1 {
- otherwise Black takes over the light squares -} Qxd5 14. Qxd5 exd5 15. Nc3 {
, Delchev-Kunosic, Bihac 1999; and Wells suggests} Nb6 16. Nb5 Kd7 $5 {, when}
17. Be3 Na4 18. Nxa7 Nb2 $1 {and ...Nd3 favours White very slightly}) 13. Bd2
$1 (13. b5 Qc7 $5 ({here} 13... Qxb5 14. Nc3 Qc6 {
loses a little time but looks good for Black}) 14. Nc3 Nb6 15. Be3 Nd5 16. Nxd5
exd5 17. Qc2 g6 $1 18. O-O Bf5 $15 {D.Howell-CapNemo, playchess.com 2009})
13... axb4 14. Bxb4 {and Black has} Qc6 {with ...Nb6 to follow, which is equal,
} ({or} 14... Bxb4+ 15. axb4 Rxa1 16. Qxa1 O-O $5 17. Qa5 Qc6 18. Nc3 Nb6 {
, also equal after} 19. Qc5 $1 Nd5 $1 20. Qxc6 bxc6 21. Nxd5 exd5 {.})) 10...
Nb3 {This is given '!' by Moskalenko. It isn't played much, but perhaps it
should be.} ({I don't think it serves Black well to let White avoid the
exchange of queens or pieces by} 10... Be7 $6 11. Nc3 Qb3 12. Qd3 {.}) ({
Instead,} 10... Qb3 $5 {is the favourite move here, but} 11. Qd2 $1 {(hitting a
5) creates the most problems, because Black has to justify his piece placement}
(11. Nd2 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Nb6 {is double-edged}) ({, and} 11. Nc3 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1
Nb3 13. Rb1 a6 {intending ...Nb6 looks balanced}) {. Then} 11... Nc4 $1 12. Qc3
Qxc3+ 13. Nxc3 {gives White the easier game, but this is playable and probably
the best way to go.}) 11. Rb1 Nxc1 12. Qxc1 Be7 13. Nc3 Qd8 ({
Here Moskalenko suggests simply} 13... O-O 14. Bd3 Nb8 {intending ...Nc6.}) 14.
Bd3 Nb6 15. b3 O-O 16. O-O Bd7 {, intending ...Rc8. One's first instinct might
be that White stands better with an undisturbed centre and space advantage;
but I don't think he can create any immediate threats or establish an outpost.
Generally, the bishop pair becomes more effective in the long term, and Black
has a good share of the queenside action, so I suspect that this is equal or
very close to it.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.42 8...a5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. a3 a5
{. Black both prevents b4 and at least hints at fixing a weakness on White's
queenside by ...a4. This comes at cost of a tempo, and since ...Bb4+ will no
longer gain time, it's natural to assume that White will stay close in terms
of development.} 9. b3 {The leading move these days, designed to meet ...a4
with b4 as well as prepare Bb2 or even Ra2-f2. However, others may be just as
good.} ({(a)} 9. g3 Be7 (9... f5 {is a solid move; e.g.} 10. Ne2 Be7 11. h3 {
, Kindermann-Zsu.Polgar, Baden-Baden 1985, and} O-O 12. g4 a4 13. Rg1 Kh8 14.
gxf5 Rxf5 {produces obscure play}) 10. Bh3 cxd4 (10... a4 11. Ne2 Qa6 12. O-O
Nb6 {appears sound enough; Black may even play ...g6, to meet g4 with ...h5})
11. cxd4 {and now:} -- (11... O-O 12. Ne2 f6 $5 13. Bxe6+ Kh8 14. Bxd5 (14.
exf6 Nxf6 15. Bxc8 Raxc8 16. O-O $14 {
; compare 8 g3: 13 exf6 in the notes to 6.211}) 14... fxe5 15. fxe5 Ndxe5 $1
16. dxe5 Bg4 $1 {. This is Williams' analysis; he points out that} 17. Bxc6 $1
({and gives a sample line} 17. Rf1 $2 Rad8 18. Nf4 $2 Nxe5 $1 19. Qe2 Rde8 {
, winning}) 17... Qxc6 18. Ned4 Qe4+ 19. Qe2 Qd5 20. O-O Bc5 21. Be3 Bxd4 22.
Bxd4 Bxf3 23. Qf2 {may slightly favour White. Nevertheless, the
opposite-coloured bishops make it double-edged.}) ({
. Again, Black might prefer not to 'castle into it', and so play} 11... a4 12.
Ne2 Qa6 13. O-O Nb6 14. Nc3 g6 $5 {intending ...Nc4/...b5-b4. Some f5
sacrifice by White may be necessary, but it also might not work.})) ({(b)} 9.
Ne2 a4 $5 (9... g6 {is a good prophylactic move}) {, and:} 10. -- (10. g4 h5 $5
(10... Be7) (10... Qa5 11. Be3 Be7 12. Qc2 b6 13. h4 Ba6 $11) 11. gxh5 Rxh5 12.
Ng3 Rh8 13. h4 Ndb8 14. Bd3 cxd4 15. cxd4 Na5 $1 {is unclear.}) (10. f5 $5 exf5
11. Nf4 cxd4 ({or} 11... Qa5 12. Bd2 c4 $5 {
, but then there's no central pressure}) 12. cxd4 Ra5 13. Bd2 Nxd4 $1 14. Nxd4
Qxd4 15. Bxa5 Qxf4 16. Qxd5 Bc5 17. Bd2 Qh4+ $1 18. g3 Qe7 {
with mutual chances.})) 9... cxd4 {I prefer to wait with this, because it
isn't quite as flexible for Black; though for the popular h4 variation in this
note, it doesn't matter.} ({The alternative is} 9... Be7 {, when} 10. Ra2 $1 {
is non-committal, and defends f2 against all those ...Nxe5 sacrifices (10 h4
cxd4 11 cxd4 transposes to the main line). Then I like} g6 $5 {,} ({
rather than the risky} 10... O-O 11. Bd3 f6 12. Bb1 $1 (12. Ne2 $6 {
allows the familiar} cxd4 13. cxd4 fxe5 14. fxe5 Rxf3 $1 15. gxf3 Bh4+ 16. Kf1
Ndxe5 $15) 12... Qc7 (12... g6 13. h4 c4 14. Bc2) 13. Ne2 b6 14. Qc2 f5 15. g4
$1 Ba6 16. gxf5 exf5 17. Ng3 g6 18. h4 $1 {with a very strong attack.})) 10.
cxd4 Be7 11. h4 h5 {I find this surprisingly effective, indefinitely delaying
White's attack. Its use by strong players is encouraging too, although there
have only been a few games.} ({An entirely different approach is} 11... O-O 12.
Bd3 f5 (12... f6 {may be playable, but is extremely risky}) {, when Black
challenges White to make progress and in the meantime plans to reorganize by ...Qd8/...Nb6/...Bd7/...a4!. White might defend his d-pawn by} 13. Ne2 ({to avoid
} 13. Bb2 a4 14. b4 Na5 $1 15. Qxa4 $5 Nc4 $1 16. Qxa8 ({here} 16. Qb3 $2 Nxb2
17. Qxb2 Rxa3 $1 {is a very pretty shot}) 16... Nxb2 17. Be2 Qc7 {
, which is very risky for White}) 13... Qd8 14. h5 Nb6 15. Rg1 $5 (15. h6 g6
16. O-O) 15... a4 16. b4 Qe8 17. g4 fxg4 18. h6 $1 g6 19. Rxg4 Bd8 $5 (19...
Bd7) 20. Ng3 Ne7 {. White's attacking chances are real in this line, but Black
has his own resources.}) 12. Nh3 {
. This is the preference of masters at this time.} ({
In Saravana-Gleizerov, Gurgon 2009, White played} 12. Ne2 Qd8 13. Nc3 Nb6 14.
Bd3 g6 $5 {(maybe Black should wait until f5 is a threat)} 15. g3 $5 Bd7 16.
Ra2 a4 17. b4 Na7 {, and here} 18. Rc2 {
was a natural move to maintain the balance.}) (12. Nh3 {
is Sethuraman-Ulibin, New Delhi 2009 (and other games)} -- ({, where} 12... f5
$5 {was played; then} 13. Be2 $1 {with the idea} Nf8 14. O-O $1 {
looks good for White.}) ({. Instead, I like} 12... Nf8 $1 {, and after} 13.
Nhg5 (13. Bd3 {can be calmly met} Bd7 14. Bc2 Rc8) 13... Bd7 14. Be2 Ng6 15.
Ra2 {, Black can safely castle kingside! Then he has the dual aim of arranging
...Bb5 and, when appropriate, bringing a knight to f5.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "6.43 8...Be7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C05"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. a3
Be7 {. We're used to this move, though at first it seems less effective
because it doesn't respond very quickly to b4. The main idea, however, is
unique and apparently effective:} 9. b4 (9. g3 {transposes to 8 g3 Be7 9 a3 in
the notes to 6.2, or to those in 6.42 if Black plays} a5 {.}) 9... cxd4 10.
cxd4 a6 {Black prevents b5 and prepares his own queenside strategy, consisting
of ...Qc7/d8, ...b5, ...Nb6, and at some point ...Nc4, often in conjunction
with the break ...a5. This is an old plan whose merits have only been widely
recognized in the past few years. Of course, all those ...0-0 and ...f6
set-ups are still possible, but after 9 b4 White can play Bd3 and, before any
sacrifices can disturb his centre, he can resort to b5 if necessary.} 11. h4 {
For some reason more popular than most other moves, although they all tend to
get roughly the same, almost robotic (and strong!) treatment.} ({(a)} 11. Bb2
Qc7 $1 ({after} 11... Qd8 {, I don't like the fact that} 12. Rc1 {stops ...b5})
{. Here, surprisingly, White has serious trouble countering the primitive idea
of ...b5 and ...Nb6:} 12. -- (12. Bd3 b5 13. Nd2 {
tries to match Black by playing Nb3-c5, but} Nb6 14. Nb3 Nc4 15. Bc3 a5 $1 {
favours Black; e.g.} 16. Nc5 axb4 17. axb4 Ne3 $1 18. Qe2 Rxa1+ 19. Bxa1 Qa7
20. Bc3 Nc4 $15 {.}) (12. Rc1 b5 13. Qc2 Bb7 {neutralizes the c-file and ...Nb6-c4 follows. White might want to disturb the balance with} 14. f5 $5 exf5
15. Qxf5 {, but} Nb6 {
proceeds with the plan, and White has no serious kingside attack; e.g.} 16. Nh3
(16. Bd3 Bc8 $1 17. Qf4 Nc4) 16... Qc8 17. Qh5 h6 {intending ...g6 or ...Nc4.})
(12. Ne2 b5 13. Nc3 Nb6 14. Qc2 Bd7 15. Rc1 Qb7 $5 16. Bd3 Nc4 17. f5 $6 (17.
Bxc4 dxc4 $1 18. Ne4 a5) 17... Bxb4 $1 18. fxe6 Bxe6 19. Bxc4 Bxc3+ 20. Bxc3
bxc4 $17 {Rudd-Dgebuadze, Liverpool 2006.})) ({(b)} 11. Ne2 Qc7 12. Bd2 (12.
Nc3 Nxb4 $1) 12... b5 13. Nc1 Nb6 14. Nb3 Nc4 {
leaves Black solidly placed, and ...a5 will soon follow.}) ({(c)} 11. Be3 Qc7
12. Bd3 b5 13. Ne2 Nb6 14. O-O Bd7 15. Bf2 Nc4 16. Bxc4 bxc4 17. Nc3 Na7 (17...
O-O $1) 18. Bh4 $1 Bxh4 19. Nxh4 g6 $2 (19... Nb5 20. Nxb5 axb5 21. f5 exf5 22.
Nxf5 Bxf5 23. Rxf5 O-O $15) 20. f5 $1 {
with a strong attack, Van der Wiel-Wilschut, Leiden 2010.}) ({(d)} 11. Ra2 Qc7
12. Bd3 b5 13. Ne2 Nb6 14. O-O Nc4 15. g4 $6 a5 $1 16. bxa5 Rxa5 17. Ng3 Qa7
$17 {Rudd-Sengupta, Hastings Masters 2010/11.}) 11... Qc7 (11... Qd8 {
hits h4 and has some point here, with a stereotyped example going} 12. Bd3 b5
13. Bb2 Nb6 14. Rc1 Nc4 15. Qb3 a5 16. Bc3 axb4 17. Bxb4 Nxb4 18. axb4 Ra3 $1
19. Qb1 {and Black won quickly in Kuran-Gruber, Gmunden 2005; at this point}
Ra4 $1 {would have been especially convincing.}) 12. Bd2 {This may be getting
dull, but the recapture on c4 with the d-pawn (normally not realistic) is
noteworthy, because the long diagonal is unopposed:} (12. Kf2 b5 13. Bd3 Nb6
14. Ne2 Nc4 15. Bxc4 dxc4 16. Nc3 Bb7 (16... Qb7 $1 {with the idea} 17. d5 exd5
18. Nxd5 $6 Be6 $1 19. Nxe7 Nxe7) 17. d5 exd5 18. Nxd5 Qd8 $15 {
Papp-Dvirnyy, Forni di Sopra 2011.}) ({Or} 12. Be3 b5 13. Bd3 Nb6 14. Ne2 Nc4
15. Bxc4 bxc4 ({or again,} 15... dxc4 $5 $15) 16. Nc3 O-O 17. Qc2 f6 18. exf6
gxf6 $5 19. f5 $5 Bd6 20. O-O Ne7 $1 21. Bh6 $2 {, Rudd-V.Jones, Coulsdon 2011;
} Nxf5 $1 22. Bxf8 Bxf8 $17 {with ...Bh6 to come.}) 12... b5 13. Bd3 (13. Ne2
Nb6 14. Nc1 Nc4 15. Nd3 a5 16. Nc5 O-O 17. Bd3 h6 18. Bc3 f6 $1 {illustrates
that Black has play on the kingside as well once White is tied down on the
queenside, D.Howell-R.Robson, Puerto Madryn 2009.}) 13... Nb6 14. Ne2 Nc4 15.
Qc2 h6 16. O-O O-O 17. h5 a5 18. Bxc4 $2 dxc4 $1 19. bxa5 Nxa5 20. Rfb1 {
, Nithander-M.Richter, Gothenburg 2011.} ({Black went on to win after} 20. Rfb1
Bd7 {,} ({but an ideal reorganization would be} 20... Qd7 $1 {
and ...Bb7, with a nearly decisive position.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7. Winawer: Various 4th Moves"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 {. This is the Winawer Variation, one of the most
fruitful and exciting openings in chess. Black puts pressure on e4 and
prepares to double White's c-pawns with consequent positional pressure. It is
one of the premier chess variations because it embraces so many types of
closed manoeuvring positions and wide-open tactical ones, often both within
the same game. In general, 3...Nf6, discussed in Chapters 13-15, leads to more
controlled positions, although the McCutcheon Variation (Chapters 14-15) is
more dynamic than the previous edition's ...dxe4 system. --- After 3...Bb4,
White's main move is 4 e5. Then he has to suffer through a mighty
counterattack on his centre and, in most cases, doubled pawns on c2 and c3.
His rewards for this sacrifice are great in terms of both attacking chances
and opportunities to dominate his opponent with his bishops, so 4 e5 continues
to be easily the most popular choice. Nevertheless, some players prefer to
avoid this kind of commitment and choose one of the alternatives in this
chapter. None of them threatens the soundness of the Winawer, but each enjoys
periodic popularity and the well-prepared French player must know something
about them:} 4. -- ({7.1} 4. a3) ({7.2} 4. Qg4) ({7.3} 4. Bd2) ({7.4} 4. Nge2)
({7.5} 4. Bd3) ({7.6} 4. exd5) ({7.7} 4. Qd3) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.1 4 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 {. In spite of the great popularity of 4
Ne2 and even 4 exd5, I feel that this is the most important of White's fourth
move deviations, at least in terms of creating the most difficulties for Black.
In view of this, I want to offer a variety of solutions, the choice of which
will like depend upon one's taste for the resulting positions.} Bxc3+ (4... Ba5
$5 {probably isn't completely equal, but might appeal to those who want
original play and/or don't like 5...Ne7 in the next note. Here's just a sample
of what might happen:} 5. b4 Bb6 6. e5 Ne7 7. Na4 Nf5 (7... O-O {
is more flexible; e.g. ...Nd7 and ...f6 or ...f5 might follow}) 8. Nf3 O-O 9.
Bg5 f6 10. exf6 gxf6 11. Nxb6 axb6 12. Bf4 Nc6 13. b5 (13. Bd3 e5 $1 14. dxe5
fxe5 15. Nxe5 Re8) 13... Nce7 {intending ...Ng6 and perhaps ...e5. Probably
White gets an edge somewhere with perfect play (the two bishops must be worth
something), but that advantage should be very small and doesn't negate the
value of this idea for achieving a playable imbalance.}) 5. bxc3 {In playing 4
a3, White hopes that his doubled c-pawns are compensated for by the bishop
pair and Black's dark-square vulnerability on the kingside. On the other hand,
White loses a tempo and in the main line concedes Black a substantial lead in
development.} dxe4 ({
If one wants to avoid the preparation of a specialist in 4 a3,} 5... Ne7 {
is a respectable option:} 6. -- ({. Then} 6. e5 c5 {
is the main line of the Winawer.}) (6. Qg4 O-O {(intending ...e5)} 7. e5 {
can be answered by} c5 {, which is another main line (6...Ne7 7 Qg4 0-0, as in
'PTF3'); but here Black has some promising alternatives;} ({e.g.} 7... Nd7 {
intending ...f5, which secures the kingside before attacking via ...c5.})) ({
. Other tries for White are less tested:} 6. Nf3 dxe4 7. Ng5 c5 $5 (7... O-O 8.
Nxe4 e5 $1 9. Bg5 $6 exd4 10. cxd4 Qd5 $1) 8. Nxe4 cxd4 9. cxd4 Nbc6 10. c3 e5
11. Bc4 Bf5 $5 12. Ng3 (12. Ng5 $2 O-O $15) 12... exd4 13. O-O O-O 14. Bg5 $6 {
, Banas-Herzog, Keszthely 1981; when the light squares would again give Black
an edge after} Be6 $1 15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. cxd4 Qd5 {.}) (6. exd5 exd5 7. Nf3 (7.
Bd3 O-O 8. Ne2 Bf5 $11) 7... Bg4 $5 (7... O-O 8. Bd3 Bf5 $11) (7... Nbc6 $1 8.
Be2 O-O 9. O-O Bg4 10. h3 ({or here} 10. Rb1 b6 $11) 10... Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Na5
12. a4 Re8 {and Black's knights at least as good as White's bishops,
Kazantsev-Shchukin, St Petersburg 2000}) 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O Ng6 $5 (9... Nbc6 {
returns to 7...Nbc6!}) 10. a4 (10. Rb1 $1 b6 11. h3 $14) 10... Nc6 11. h3 Bf5
12. Ba3 $6 Re8 13. Qd2 Na5 14. Rfe1 f6 {and White had some problems with his
light-square weaknesses, O.Pedersen-Tonning, Gausdal 1997.}) (6. Bd3 {
(probably White's best non-transpositional move)} c5 7. exd5 (7. dxc5 {
has several adequate replies; e.g.} Nd7 ({or} 7... dxe4 {and ...Qxd1+}) ({
, or even} 7... Qa5 8. exd5 Nxd5)) ({; the direct} 7. Qg4 O-O ({instead,} 7...
c4 8. Be2 Qa5 9. Bd2 O-O {is equal}) 8. e5 {is a main line}) ({; finally,} 7.
Nf3 {is well met by} c4 8. Be2 {, when the straightforward} dxe4 $1 ({
alternatively,} 8... Qa5 $5 9. O-O Nbc6 10. Bd2 f6 {
was Toshkov-Chernin, St John 1988}) 9. Ng5 Nd5 {plans to meet} 10. Bxc4 ({
here Wintzer analyses} 10. Nxe4 f5 11. Bg5 Qc7 12. Bh5+ g6 13. Nf6+ Nxf6 14.
Bxf6 O-O 15. Be5 Qa5 {with good play}) {, with} 10... Qc7 ({or} 10... e3)) 7...
exd5 8. dxc5 Nd7 (8... Qa5 9. Ne2 Nd7 10. Rb1 Nxc5 $5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. Bxd7+
Nxd7 13. Rxb7 Nc5 14. Rb4 O-O {yields a position similar to some 7 Nf3
Positional Winawer lines; White may stand slightly better, but his extra pawn
is largely balanced by his static weaknesses}) 9. Be3 Qc7 {intending} 10. Qg4 (
10. Ne2 O-O 11. O-O Nxc5 12. Re1 Nxd3 13. cxd3 Re8) 10... Nxc5 {, when} 11.
Qxg7 Nxd3+ 12. cxd3 Rg8 {equalizes; e.g.} 13. Qf6 Rg6 14. Qh8+ Rg8 15. Qd4 Nf5
$5 (15... Rg4 16. Qf6 Rg6 17. Qh8+ Rg8 $11) 16. Qf6 Rxg2 17. Ne2 Qe7 18. Qxe7+
Kxe7 $11 {, in view of} 19. Nf4 Nxe3 20. fxe3 Rc2 21. Nxd5+ Kd6 22. c4 Bg4 $11
{.})) {After 5...dxe4, we will look at the main traditional move (6 Qg4) and a
popular alternative:} 6. -- ({7.11} 6. f3) ({7.12} 6. Qg4) ({
The only other move to trouble Black would be} 6. a4 {
, but he has several good courses; e.g.} Nf6 (6... e5 $5) (6... c5 7. Ba3 Qa5)
7. Ba3 Nbd7 $1 8. Nh3 b6 {intending ...c5.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.11 6 f3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. f3 {. This is the
Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit. The idea is to get something resembling the
Blackmar-Diemer (1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3) with Black's dark-squared
bishop no longer available for defence. Here are two updated solutions to the
previous edition:} -- ({7.111} 6... Nd7) ({7.112} 6... e5) (6... c5 {is generally thought to favour Black and I agree, but it gives White too many options
and isn't necessary.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.111 6...Nd7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. f3 Nd7 {. This is a
very logical move because it gets a piece out, prepares central breaks (...c5
and ...e5), and also doesn't commit to a fixed scheme of development.} 7. Nh3 {
I think this is best because White has few other choices that get a piece out
effectively. Nevertheless, a knight on h3 is not ideally placed for a Blackmar-Diemer sort of position (it belongs on f3 watching over e5), so many
alternatives have been tried.} ({(a)} 7. fxe4 $2 Qh4+ {
wins a pawn and forces White's king to move.}) ({(b)} 7. Be3 Ngf6 8. fxe4 (8.
Bc4 Nb6 9. Bb3 Nbd5) 8... Nxe4 9. Qg4 (9. Nf3 {
has several answers; the easiest is} Ndf6 10. Qd3 c5 11. dxc5 O-O $15) 9...
Ndf6 10. Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qh6 Rg6 12. Qf4 Nxc3 $17 {.}) ({(c)} 7. a4 Ngf6 8. Ba3 (
8. Qe2 exf3 ({or} 8... O-O 9. fxe4 e5 $1) 9. Nxf3 O-O) 8... Nd5 $1 (8... b6 $15
) 9. Qd2 (9. Ne2 exf3 10. gxf3 Qh4+ 11. Ng3 f5 $17) 9... e3 10. Qd3 c5 $1 11.
Ne2 (11. dxc5 O-O $1 12. c6 bxc6 13. Bxf8 Qxf8 $17) (11. c4 $2 Qa5+) 11... Qa5
(11... b6 12. c4 Ba6 13. Qb3 Ne7 14. Qxe3 Nf5) 12. Qb5 Qc7 13. dxc5 O-O 14. c4
Ne7 $15 {.}) ({(d)} 7. g3 Ngf6 ({or} 7... exf3 $5 8. Nxf3 b6) 8. Bg2 O-O $1 9.
fxe4 e5 $1 $15 {.}) ({(e)} 7. Bf4 Ngf6 8. fxe4 (8. Qe2 Nd5 $1) 8... Nxe4 9. Qf3
f5 $5 (9... Ndf6 10. Be5 Qd5 $15) 10. Qh5+ (10. Bd3 Ndf6) 10... g6 11. Qh6 e5
$5 (11... Ndf6) 12. Qg7 (12. dxe5 Qe7 13. Nf3 Qc5) 12... Qf6 13. Qxf6 Nexf6 14.
dxe5 Ne4 ({or} 14... Nd5 {, both with a small but definite advantage for Black.
})) ({(f)} 7. Qe2 exf3 8. Nxf3 c5 9. Qd2 Ngf6 10. Bd3 b6 11. O-O Bb7 $15 {.})
7... Ngf6 8. fxe4 {Almost always played.} (8. Nf2 {
is definitely the sanest move, even if} exf3 9. Qxf3 {
doesn't quite offer full compensation after} c5 10. Bd3 Qa5 (10... Qb6) 11. Bd2
O-O 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Nf6 14. Qh4 cxd4 15. cxd4 Qh5 $15 {.}) 8... Nxe4 9.
Qg4 (9. Qf3 Ndf6 (9... f5 $5) 10. Bb2 (10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Bc6) 10... e5 $5 (
10... Bd7 $1 11. Bd3 Bc6 $15) 11. Nf2 (11. O-O-O exd4 12. Rxd4 Qe7 13. Bd3 Nc5
$15) 11... Nxf2 12. Qxf2 O-O 13. O-O-O Ng4 $1 14. Qd2 e4 15. Re1 e3 16. Qe2 Re8
{(Black is winning)} 17. h3 Nf2 18. Rh2 Qd6 ({or} 18... Qg5 $1 {
, Genis-Penzel, Frankfurt 2007.})) 9... Ndf6 10. Qh4 ({
Black's developmental advantage grows after} 10. Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qh6 Nxc3 $1 {
, hitting d4 as well as winning a pawn;} ({this is even more convincing than} 
11... c5 {with the idea ...Qa5, when Black retains a nice advantage.})) ({After
} 10. Qh4 {, Tahiri-J.Watson, Berlin 1997, went} Nxc3 11. Bd3 Nfe4 12. Qf4 f5 (
{or} 12... Qxd4 $19) 13. Be3 O-O 14. O-O Qd6 15. Qh4 Bd7 {
, with two extra pawns.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.112 6...e5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. f3 e5 {. This is in
many ways the ideal move. It frees the c8-bishop and therefore compels White
to try to gain compensation quickly before Black develops.} 7. Be3 ({Obviously
} 7. fxe4 $2 Qh4+ {is undesirable.}) ({
Here are the logical alternatives: -- (a)} 7. Bb5+ Nd7 (7... c6 8. Bc4 Qa5 $15)
(7... Nc6) 8. Qe2 a6 9. Bc4 (9. Bxd7+ Bxd7 10. Qxe4 Ne7 11. dxe5 O-O 12. Ne2
Bc6 $15) 9... Ngf6 $1 10. fxe4 b5 11. Ba2 Bb7 $15 {.}) ({(b)} 7. a4 exd4 (7...
Be6 {is a good option}) 8. cxd4 Nf6 (8... c5 $5 9. fxe4 $1 Qh4+ 10. g3 Qxe4+
11. Qe2 Qxe2+ 12. Nxe2 $11) (8... Nc6 $1 9. Bb5 Bd7 $15) 9. fxe4 Nxe4 10. Nf3
O-O $15 {.}) ({(c)} 7. dxe5 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 Bf5 ({or} 8... exf3 9. Nxf3 Nc6 10.
Bd3 Nge7 $15) 9. Ne2 (9. g4 Be6) (9. Bc4 Nc6 10. f4 f6 $1) 9... Nc6 (9... exf3
10. Nd4 Ne7) 10. Ng3 Bg6 11. f4 (11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. fxe4 O-O-O+ 13. Bd3 Nxe5 $15
) 11... h5 12. h4 O-O-O+ 13. Ke1 Nh6 14. Be2 Ne7 $1 15. Nxh5 Nhf5 $15 {.}) ({
(d)} 7. Bc4 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Ba2 Nf6 $15 {.}) ({(e)} 7. Qe2 exd4 (7... Nc6 8.
dxe5 Nge7 $15 9. Qxe4 $5 Bf5 10. Qe2 Qd5 11. f4 O-O-O) 8. Qxe4+ Ne7 9. Qxd4 O-O
10. Bf4 {, Grott-Van de Wynkele, desc-online.de 2004; and two good moves out
of several are} Bf5 ({and} 10... Qe8 {.})) 7... Nc6 {Arguably the best move.} (
{Instead: -- (a)} 7... Qe7 {
is almost unknown, but is also somewhat advantageous; e.g.} 8. dxe5 (8. fxe4 $6
Qh4+ ({or even} 8... Nf6)) 8... Nc6 9. Qd5 (9. Bb5 Bd7) (9. f4 Nh6 $1 10. Qd5
Be6 11. Qxe4 O-O-O $15 {with ideas of ...Bd5, ...Ng4, ...f6 etc}) 9... exf3 (
9... Nxe5 10. Bd4 Nd7 $15) 10. Nxf3 Nf6 11. Qc5 Qxc5 12. Bxc5 Nd5 13. Bd4 Bf5
14. O-O-O O-O $15 {.}) ({(b)} 7... exd4 {
has been played a lot, but doesn't give Black much if anything; e.g.} 8. Qxd4
$1 (8. cxd4 Qh4+ 9. Bf2 Qe7) 8... Qxd4 9. Bxd4 Nf6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. fxe4 Be6
12. Ne2 Nd7 13. Nf4 O-O-O {with a tiny edge.}) 8. Bb5 ({Others: -- (a)} 8. d5
Nb8 (8... Na5 $1) 9. Bc4 Nf6 $15 {.}) ({(b)} 8. dxe5 Qh4+ ({or} 8... Bf5 $15)
9. g3 (9. Bf2 Qg5 10. Qe2 Qxe5 11. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 12. fxe4 Nf6 13. Bd3 O-O 14. Ne2
Re8 15. Ng3 Ng4 $15 {Hanison-Killer, Kangasniemi 2001}) {
, Tinture-Jonckheere, ICCF email 2004; and} 9... Qe7 $1 10. f4 f6 {
leaves Black with the upper hand.}) 8... Bd7 9. d5 (9. dxe5 Qh4+ 10. Bf2 Qg5
11. Bg3 O-O-O $15 {.}) (9. Qe2 Nf6 10. Bg5 exd4 11. Rd1 O-O 12. fxe4 h6 13.
Bxf6 Qxf6 $17 {Titze-Killer, DESC email 2002.}) 9... Nce7 10. Bxd7+ Qxd7 $17 {
. White hasn't developed and his pawn structure is damaged.} ({
Oparaugo-Cech, Passau 1997, continued} 10... Qxd7 11. fxe4 Nf6 12. Qd3 Qg4 $1
13. Qb5+ Nd7 14. Kf2 Qxe4 15. c4 Qf5+ 16. Kg3 Qxc2 {and Black won shortly.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.12 6 Qg4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8.
Qh6 {. This rich and complex position features White's bishops and dark-square
play pitted against Black's development, light-square play, and easier access
to White's weakness. There is a subtle interplay of strategies here, such that
both sides can try a wide variety of set-ups which can be tailored to each
other's ideas. Properly played, these combine to produce a balanced struggle.
Black has a few acceptable solutions, of which I'll pick two that are both
good and relatively safe, with a less-established one in the following note
'b':} -- ({7.121} 8... c5) ({7.122} 8... Rg6) ({
Instead: -- (a) I have recommended} 8... Nbd7 {for several editions, but not
only has a large mass of theory accumulated about it, I am also uncomfortable
with a couple of lines involving a4 plans by White; they are about equal, but
only with extremely accurate play by Black and putting no pressure on White.
However, a little trick that Black can employ is} 9. Ne2 {(the problem move,
with the idea Ng3 and a4; everything else has held up well for Black), and
here instead of the normal} b6 {, which is marginal,} ({play} 9... c5 {
, transposing to the line 8...c5 9 Ne2 Nbd7 in the notes to 7.121 below.})) ({
(b) Another noteworthy move is} 8... b6 {. This doesn't have a strong
following, but theory doesn't indicate any particularly effective way to
attack it:} 9. -- (9. a4 Rg6 10. Qe3 Nc6 $11 {stops a5 and intends ...e5.} ({
Ostojic recommends} 10... Ba6 {, which also looks satisfactory.})) (9. g3 Bb7
10. Bg2 Rg6 11. Qd2 Qd5 $1 {
(Moskalenko); not only is Black better developed, 12...e3! is threatened.}) (9.
Nh3 Bb7 10. Bb5+ (10. Bg5 Rg6 11. Qh4 h6 $1 {with the idea} 12. Bxh6 $4 Rg4)
10... c6 (10... Nbd7 $1 {looks better, since} 11. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {
only assists Black's light-square control}) 11. Be2 Nbd7 12. Bg5 Qe7 13. O-O
O-O-O 14. f3 $6 {(weakening)} Rg6 15. Qh4 Rdg8 16. Kh1 (16. fxe4 h6 17. Bxf6
Rxg2+ 18. Kh1 Nxf6) 16... h6 $5 (16... exf3 $1 $15) (16... c5 17. fxe4 Rxg5 18.
Nxg5 Nxe4 19. Nf3 Qxh4 20. Nxh4 Nxc3 {is complex - Moskalenko}) 17. Bxf6 Qxf6
18. Qxf6 Nxf6 {, Hector-Brynell, Tastrup 1990, with a limited edge based upon}
19. fxe4 Nxe4 20. Bd3 c5 $1 {.}) (9. Ne2 Ba6 (9... Rg6 10. Qd2 Bb7 11. c4 c5
12. Bb2 Nc6 13. O-O-O cxd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Qe7 $11 {
Ziatadinov-Rychagov, Vladimir 2004}) 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. Ng3 Bxf1 {(when the light-squared bishops go off and White can't castle, Black is almost always in the
game)} 12. Rxf1 Rg6 13. Qh4 h6 14. Bxf6 Nxf6 15. Nxe4 {
, Bondarev-Yakimenko, St Petersburg 2011; and easiest was} Nd5 $1 16. Qxd8+
Rxd8 {with the ideas ...f5 and ...Rxg2.}) (9. Bg5 Rg6 ({Moskalenko points out} 
9... Nbd7 $1 {, which is more flexible; then} 10. Ne2 {can be met by} Ba6 {
- see 9 Ne2}) 10. Qh4 Bb7 (10... Nbd7 11. Ne2 h6 $5 (11... Ba6 $2 {
loses material to} 12. Nf4) 12. Bxh6 Rg4 13. Qh3 Ba6 {is interesting}) 11. f3 (
11. Ne2 h6 12. Bxh6 Rg4 13. Qh3 Nc6 $5 {- Moskalenko; I suspect that this is
slightly better for White, but within bounds and the reward is a complex and
wide-open position}) (11. Bb5+ Nbd7 12. Ne2 $11 {Knaak; then} h6 $1 13. Bxh6 e3
$5 14. Bxe3 Rg4 ({or perhaps} 14... Bxg2 {is preferable}) 15. Qh8+ Rg8 16. Qh4
Rg4 $11 {is a repetition}) 11... Nbd7 12. fxe4 h6 $1 13. Bxf6 (13. Bxh6 Rg4 14.
Qh3 Rxe4+) 13... Qxf6 (13... Nxf6 $1 14. e5 Nd5 $15) 14. Qxf6 Nxf6 15. e5 {
, Bronstein-Hort, Moscow 1971. The game was agreed drawn after} Nd5 ({but} 
15... Rxg2 $1 16. Bxg2 Bxg2 17. exf6 Bxh1 {would be worth pursuing.}))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.121 8...c5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8.
Qh6 c5 {. A logical and consistent move. Along with the threat to White's
d-pawn and normal development, Black has in mind ...Qa5, or else ...Qc7 with
pressure down the c-file. By delaying ...Nbd7 (still a common idea), he keeps ...Nc6 as an option, and leaves open the manoeuvre ...Bd7-c6 (or ...Bd7-a4).
Other features will be seen in the analysis.} 9. Ne2 {
Easily the main line after 8...c5. ---} ({Instead: -- (a)} 9. Bb2 {
only works if White can successfully play c4:} Nbd7 (9... Bd7 $1 {
intends ...Ba4, and if} 10. a4 {, then} Bc6 11. Ne2 Nbd7 {develops harmoniously
}) 10. Ne2 Nb6 11. Ng3 (11. dxc5 Nc4 12. Rd1 Qe7 13. Bc1 Rg6 $11) 11... cxd4
12. cxd4 Na4 13. Bb5+ (13. O-O-O Bd7 $15) 13... Bd7 14. Bxd7+ Kxd7 $15 {.}) ({
(b) After} 9. Bg5 {, Black has several reasonable courses, including} Nbd7 {
. Two other instructive fights between bishops and weaknesses:} ({
. Moles calls} 9... Ng4 $5 10. Bxd8 Nxh6 {'=/+'. Probably not, but the play is
balanced (compare 9 Ne2 Bd7 10 Bg5 Ng4 below); for example,} 11. Bc7 (11. Bh4
$6 Nf5 12. Bg3 cxd4 13. cxd4 Nd7 $5 14. c3 b6 $15 15. Bb5 Bb7 16. Ne2 Ke7)
11... b6 $5 12. Ne2 (12. dxc5 Ba6 $1 13. cxb6 axb6 14. Bxb6 Bxf1 15. Kxf1 Nd7 {
and the knights and rooks co-ordinate nicely against Black's weaknesses; e.g.}
16. Bc7 Ke7 17. Bf4 Nf5 18. Ne2 e5 19. Bc1 Nb6 20. Rb1 Nc4 21. Rb4 Nfd6 22. a4
f5 23. f3 f4 $1 24. fxe4 Rac8 {and ...Nxe4}) 12... Ba6 13. Ng3 Bxf1 14. Rxf1
cxd4 15. cxd4 Nf5 ({or} 15... Nc6 16. O-O-O Rc8 17. Bf4 Nf5 18. d5 Ncd4 $11)
16. Nxf5 exf5 17. g3 Nc6 18. O-O-O Rc8 $11 {.}) (9... Rg6 10. Bxf6 (10. Qh4
cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd4 12. Rd1 Qc3+ 13. Bd2 Qxa3 $15) 10... Qa5 $5 (10... Qxf6 11.
Qe3 Bd7 12. Ne2 Bc6 13. Nf4 Rg8) 11. Qe3 Rxf6 12. Ne2 cxd4 13. Nxd4 e5 14. Nb3
Qb6 15. Nd2 Qxe3+ 16. fxe3 Bf5 17. Rb1 Nd7 $1 18. Rxb7 Rb6 19. Rxb6 axb6 $11 {.
})) ({(c)} 9. dxc5 Nbd7 10. Ne2 (10. Bg5 $5 Ng4 $1 11. Bxd8 Nxh6 12. Bc7 Nxc5
$15) 10... Qc7 ({or} 10... Nxc5 $11) 11. Nd4 Qxc5 $11 {.}) {After 9 Ne2, Black
has a variety of satisfactory set-ups, arguably of roughly equal worth.} 9...
Bd7 $5 {I like this move. It was played quite a bit in the 1950s and 1960s,
then largely abandoned in favour of other approaches. Black has the ideas of ...Ba4, ...Bc6, or even ...Bb5 under the right circumstances. With respect to
the last move, I should note that the exchange of light-squared bishops is
often worth roughly a pawn to Black's benefit. At any rate, the most common
reorganization will be ...Bc6 and ...Nbd7.} ({
There are several valid alternatives: -- (a)} 9... Rg6 10. Qe3 {
transposes to 8...Rg6 9 Qe3 c5 10 Ne2,} ({while} 10. Qd2 Nbd7 {
is a well-known and double-edged line.})) ({(b)} 9... cxd4 {
is rare but playable:} 10. cxd4 (10. Nxd4 e5 $5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. Bxd7+ Nbxd7
13. Nf5 Rg6 (13... Rxg2 14. Nd6+ {doesn't change anything}) 14. Nd6+ Ke7 15.
Nf5+ Ke8 $11) 10... Nc6 11. Bb2 Bd7 12. Ng3 (12. d5 Nxd5 13. O-O-O Qg5+ $1 14.
Qxg5 Rxg5 15. c4 Nc7 16. Bf6 Rg6 17. Bh4 Na5 18. Nc3 Bc6 19. Bg3 Na6 {
and Black's two effective knights on the edge of the board ensure him some
advantage}) 12... Qa5+ 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 O-O-O $5 (14... Na5 15. Re1 Bc6
16. d5 Nxd5 17. Rxe4 b5) 15. Re1 Ne7 16. Nxe4 (16. c4 $1 Bc6 17. d5 Ne8 $5 18.
Rxe4 Ng6 $14) 16... Nxe4+ 17. Rxe4 Bc6 18. Rh4 Bxg2 19. Bxg2 Rxg2 20. Ke2 Rd5
21. Rxh7 Rf5 22. Rf1 Nd5 23. Bc1 b5 24. Bd2 Kd7 $11 {
(light-square domination in return for a pawn)} 25. Rh8 Kc6 26. Rc8+ Kb7 27.
Rh8 Kc6 28. Be1 Nf6 29. Rh1 {½-½ Lu Shanglei-Cao, Kuala Lumpur 2011.}) ({
(c)} 9... Nbd7 {is an interesting transpositional device. Often this position
arises via 8...Nbd7 9 Ne2 c5, but in that case 9 Ne2 is only one of several
moves that Black needs to master. This may not be objectively the ideal 4 a3
move order for Black (in terms of theory, that is), but its good practical
results and instructive qualities make it worth a look.} 10. -- (10. g3 b6 11.
Bg2 {, Kir.Georgiev-Psakhis, Sarajevo 1986; and I like} Ba6 $1 (11... Bb7 12.
O-O Rc8 $1 {is also equal}) 12. Qd2 Qc7 13. O-O Rc8 $11 {.}) (10. a4 b6 (10...
Qc7 {may not be best, but comes with the trick} 11. dxc5 Qxc5 12. Ba3 $2 Qxf2+
$1) 11. Ng3 $1 (11. a5 Ba6 $1) (11. Ba3 Ba6 $1 $15) 11... Bb7 12. a5 (12. Bb5
Rg6 13. Qe3 a6 14. Bxd7+ Qxd7 $11) 12... Rc8 13. d5 $5 Rg6 14. Qh4 Bxd5 15. Ba6
Rb8 16. c4 Bc6 $11 {.}) (10. Ng3 Qc7 11. Bb5 (11. Qe3 b6 $5 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13.
Qxe4 Bb7 {looks a tad better for White with his bishop pair, although his
pawns will be weak after ...Bxg2}) (11. Bd2 Rg6 12. Qf4 Qxf4 13. Bxf4 Ke7 {
has the idea of ...Nd5 and ...f5, as well as simply ...b6, and} 14. Rd1 Rg4 15.
Be3 b6 16. Be2 Rg8 {gives equal chances}) 11... Rg6 12. Qd2 (12. Qf4 Qa5 $1) {
, Bloch-Huss, Siegen Olympiad 1970; and Black can equalize with the tricky
sequence} 12... cxd4 $1 13. cxd4 (13. Qxd4 $1 e5 $11 ({or} 13... a6 14. Bf1 e5
$11)) 13... e3 $3 14. Bxd7+ (14. Qb4 exf2+ 15. Kxf2 Qxc2+ $15) (14. fxe3 $2
Rxg3 $1 15. hxg3 Ne4 $19) (14. Qxe3 $4 Qa5+) 14... Bxd7 15. Qxe3 Bb5 $1 $15 ({
or} 15... Qxc2 16. O-O Ng4 $15 {.}))) 10. Bg5 {
The approved continuation/solution.} ({Others: -- (a)} 10. dxc5 {
is widely recommended:} -- ({. Psakhis gives} 10... Bc6 11. Rb1 {('!')} Nbd7
12. Nd4 Qa5 13. Nb5 $1 {'with an extremely menacing initiative'; but} Bxb5 14.
Bxb5 (14. Rxb5 Qxc3+ 15. Qd2 Qxd2+ 16. Bxd2 O-O-O) 14... Qxc3+ $1 15. Bd2 Qxc5
16. Qxf6 Qxb5 $1 17. Qxe6+ fxe6 18. Rxb5 b6 19. O-O Rc8 {
poses Black no problems at all; e.g.} 20. Rc1 Kf7 21. Rb4 Ne5 $1 22. Bf4 Nc4
23. Re1 Rgd8 24. g3 Rd4 $11 {.}) (10... Ba4 {is forcing and looks reliable:}
11. Nd4 (11. Bg5 Rg6 12. Bxf6 Rxh6 13. Bxd8 Kxd8 $11) 11... Nbd7 $1 (11... Qa5
{is playable}) 12. Bb5 (12. Nb5 Nxc5 13. Be3 Nd3+ $1) 12... Bxb5 $1 13. Nxb5
Rxg2 14. Bg5 $1 (14. Nd6+ $6 Ke7 {with a significant advantage}) 14... Qa5 15.
Rb1 Ke7 16. Bf4 Rc8 (16... e5 17. Bg3 a6 $11) 17. Bd6+ Ke8 18. Qe3 Rg6 $15 {
intending ...a6.})) ({(b)} 10. Ng3 Ba4 {(hitting d4 and c2)} (10... Bc6 {
is also satisfactory}) 11. dxc5 Nbd7 (11... Rg6 12. Qe3 Bxc2 13. Bb5+ Nc6 $11)
12. Ra2 $6 (12. Be3 $6 Qa5) (12. Qe3 Qa5 13. Qd4 Bxc2) 12... Bc6 13. Be2 Rg6
14. Qe3 h5 $1 15. h4 Nd5 $1 16. Qd4 e5 17. Qc4 e3 $1 $17 {.}) 10... Rg6 (10...
Ng4 {is more stable and yields equality, but offers fewer positive prospects:}
11. Bxd8 Nxh6 12. Bc7 (12. Bh4 Nf5 13. Bg3 Ba4 $1) 12... cxd4 13. cxd4 ({here} 
13. Nxd4 Nc6 14. Nb5 (14. O-O-O $6 Nxd4 15. cxd4 Rc8 16. Bf4 Nf5 $15) 14... Nf5
15. O-O-O a6 16. Nd6+ Nxd6 17. Bxd6 Ne7 {is equal}) 13... Nc6 14. Rb1 b6 15.
Ng3 (15. c3 $5 Ne7 $1 16. c4 Rc8 17. Bf4 Nhf5 18. Ng3 f6 19. Nxe4 Kf7 {
and Black threatens ...Bc6; he has plenty for a pawn}) 15... Nxd4 16. Nxe4 Ng4
17. Bd3 Bc6 ({or} 17... f5 18. Nd6+ Ke7 19. c3 Ne5 20. Nxf5+ Nxf5 21. Bxe5 Bc6
$11) 18. Rb4 Bxe4 19. Bxe4 Rc8 20. Bxb6 Nxc2+ 21. Bxc2 axb6 22. Ba4+ Ke7 $11 {.
}) 11. Qh4 (11. Bxf6 Rxh6 $1 ({giving more winning chances than} 11... Qxf6 12.
Qe3 Bc6 {- see 9 Bg5 Rg6 above}) 12. Bxd8 Kxd8 13. g4 (13. dxc5 $6 Na6) 13...
cxd4 ({or} 13... Rg6 {intending ...Bc6}) 14. cxd4 Nc6 15. h4 (15. Bg2 f5 $15)
15... e5 $1 16. g5 Rd6 $15 {.}) 11... Bc6 12. d5 $1 {
This line has been given as the reason to reject 9...Bd7.} ({Otherwise,} 12.
Rd1 Nbd7 13. Nf4 Rxg5 $1 14. Qxg5 Qa5 15. Ne2 Qxa3 16. dxc5 a5 17. Qd2 a4 18.
Nd4 Qxc5 19. Nxc6 bxc6 {is at least equal; e.g.} 20. Be2 a3 21. O-O a2 22. Ra1
Nd5 23. c4 e3 $15 {.}) (12. Nf4 $2 Qa5 $1 {.}) 12... exd5 13. Nf4 Rxg5 $1 ({
White's point is that} 13... Qa5 $2 14. Bxf6 {covers c3.}) 14. Qxg5 Nbd7 15.
Be2 Qa5 {Black has a piece and a pawn for the exchange, with a powerful centre
and chances to exploit White's weak pawns. This is enough to claim equality,
but no more, since White's potentially active piece placement keeps it even.}
16. Qg3 ({The alternative} 16. O-O Qxc3 {already favours Black.}) 16... O-O-O
17. O-O Rg8 18. Qh3 Kb8 ({Or} 18... Qc7 19. Nh5 {and now} Kb8 {is equal.}) 19.
Nh5 Nxh5 20. Qxh5 (20. Bxh5 Ne5 21. Rab1 (21. Qf5 Qxc3 22. Qxh7 Rg7 23. Qh8+
Kc7 $11 {with the bizarre threat of} 24. -- Nf3+ 25. Kh1 Rxg2 $1) 21... Qd8 22.
Qf5 f6 $11 {.}) 20... Qxc3 (20... Rg7 {is safer.}) ({After} 20... Qxc3 {
, a sample line would be} 21. Qxf7 $6 (21. Qxh7 Qg7 22. Qxg7 Rxg7 23. f3 e3 24.
g4 Nf8 $1 {intending ...Ne6 and/or ...f5}) 21... Qg7 $1 ({even} 21... Rg7 22.
Qf4+ Qe5 23. Qxe5+ Nxe5 24. f4 Nd7 $1 25. g4 d4 {
is fully equal in spite of White's dangerous pawns}) 22. Qxg7 Rxg7 23. a4 (23.
Rab1 d4 24. Bb5 Bd5 $1) 23... Kc7 24. Bb5 Ne5 25. Rfd1 d4 {
and Black has the upper hand.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.122 8...Rg6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8.
Qh6 Rg6 9. Qd2 ({Instead: -- (a)} 9. Qh4 {
isn't mentioned in most sources, perhaps because} Rg4 ({Black has also played} 
9... c5) (9... Nbd7) ({, and} 9... b6) 10. Qh6 {repeats,} ({and} 10. Qh3 c5 {
looks fine, intending ...Nc6 and ...e5.})) ({(b)} 9. Qe3 {
is the main alternative:} -- (9... c5 10. Ne2 {
(this could also arise via 8...c5 9 Ne2 Rg6 10 Qe3)} Nc6 11. dxc5 (11. Bb2 Qa5
12. O-O-O cxd4 13. cxd4 Ne7 14. Ng3 Bd7 15. Nxe4 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 Bc6 $11) 11...
e5 (11... Qa5 12. Bd2 $5 e5 $11 {Moskalenko; there might follow} 13. Ng3 Be6
14. a4 O-O-O 15. Bb5 Ne7 16. c4 Qc7 $11) 12. Ng3 (12. Bb2 Ng4 $5 13. Qxe4 Qf6
14. Qf3 Qe7 15. Qg3 Rf6 16. f3 Ne3) 12... Be6 13. Bb5 Qa5 14. Bxc6+ bxc6 15.
O-O O-O-O 16. Bb2 Qb5 17. Rab1 Qc4 {with a balanced game.}) (9... Nc6 10. Bb2 (
10. Ne2 Ne7 11. Ng3 Bd7 12. c4 Ba4 $5 13. Bb2 Nf5 14. Nxf5 exf5 15. d5 Qd6 16.
O-O-O b6 {is unclear}) 10... Ne7 (10... b6 11. O-O-O Bb7 $11) 11. O-O-O b5 $5
12. Qe1 (12. Bxb5+ c6 13. Bf1 Ned5 $17) {, Hector-L.Hansen, Graested 1990; and}
12... Rb8 {is the easiest way to obtain a favourable position.})) 9... b6 ({
An interesting option is} 9... Nc6 {, contemplating ...e5:} 10. Ne2 (10. Bb2 e5
({or here} 10... Qd6) 11. O-O-O Be6 12. f3 exd4 13. cxd4 Qd6 $11) 10... b6 11.
Nf4 Rg8 12. Bb5 Bb7 13. c4 a6 14. Ba4 {
, Chiburdanidze-Levitina, Volgograd (m/2) 1984;} Qe7 $11 {.}) 10. Bb2 (10. c4
Nc6 11. Bb2 Bb7 12. Ne2 Qd6 $11 {.}) 10... Bb7 (10... Ba6 {is a good solution:}
11. Ne2 (11. c4 $6 c5) 11... Nd5 12. Nf4 (12. g3 Qd6) 12... Nxf4 13. Qxf4 Bxf1
14. Rxf1 {, Eslon-G.Garcia, Biel 1984; and simplest is} Rxg2 15. Qxe4 Qd5 16.
Qxh7 Nd7 $1 {.}) 11. O-O-O Qe7 ({Or} 11... Nbd7 12. Ne2 Qe7 13. h3 O-O-O 14. c4
Ne8 15. Nf4 Rg8 16. Qe3 Nd6 $11 {Autran-Agdestein, Calvi 2005.}) 12. c4 Nbd7
13. Ne2 O-O-O {. White is underdeveloped and Black's activity guarantees at
least an even game.} ({Dukhin-M.Ustinov, Rybinsk 2001, continued} 13... O-O-O
14. Nc3 (14. Qe1 Ng4 $1 15. h3 Qh4 16. g3 Qg5+ {and ...e3}) 14... Ng4 $1 15.
Re1 {, and here} f5 16. h3 Ngf6 {was the clearest way to a small advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.2 4 Qg4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qg4 {. The "Blitz Variation". White tries to
save a tempo on 4 a3 by bringing his queen out immediately. A drawback to this
strategy is that he hasn't bolstered his centre (in the Winawer, that often
occurs by means of bxc3 in response to ...Bxc3), and Black can therefore
counterattack more quickly in that sector. In fact, accurate play by Black
makes it difficult for White even to equalize.} Nf6 5. Qxg7 Rg8 6. Qh6 c5 $1 ({
This move is better than the immediate} 6... Rg6 7. Qe3 c5 {
, when White can try} 8. Bd2 {;} ({otherwise, the forcing} 8. a3 {
transposes to 7 a3 in the main line.})) 7. Nge2 {Supporting c3 and d4.} ({
This is supposed to be the most accurate move, because after} 7. Nge2 Rg6 8.
Qe3 {, it transposes to a position that is also reached via 6...Rg6 7 Qe3 c5 8
Ne2, when} Nc6 9. Bd2 {is the traditional main line of 4 Qg4. But 7...cxd4
disrupts this plan - see below.}) ({Here are White's alternatives: -- (a)} 7.
Bg5 $2 Rg6 8. Qh4 cxd4 9. e5 Rxg5 $1 10. exf6 Qxf6 11. Nge2 Nc6 12. a3 Ba5 13.
b4 Nxb4 $1 14. O-O-O Nxc2 $1 15. Nb1 Bd7 $1 16. Rd3 Ne1 {
0-1 Crowl-Harris, corr 1938.}) ({(b)} 7. e5 $5 {is critical:} cxd4 8. a3 (8.
exf6 dxc3 9. b3 Nd7 10. Qxh7 $6 ({but it would be interesting to see} 10. Nf3 {
, which seems to be about equal after} Qxf6 ({or} 10... Bf8 11. Qxh7 Nxf6 12.
Qh4) 11. Qxh7 Qh8 12. Qxh8 Rxh8 {- probably this ultimately favours Black's
central pawn mass over White's passed h-pawn, but this untested idea may be
the only hope for White to salvage equality}) 10... Nxf6 11. Qd3 Bd7 {
with a powerful centre and lead in development, Lanin-Sukhov, Eclipse email 2000
}) 8... Bf8 (8... Qa5 $5) 9. Qxf6 (9. Qh4 dxc3 10. exf6 cxb2 11. Bxb2 Qa5+ 12.
c3 Nd7 $17) 9... Qxf6 10. exf6 dxc3 $15 11. Ne2 (11. bxc3 Nd7 12. Bb2 Nxf6 13.
c4 Bg7 $15 {Y.Hernandez-S.Bjerke, Oropesa del Mar 1999}) 11... Nd7 $5 (11...
cxb2 12. Bxb2 b6 $15) 12. Nxc3 Bd6 13. g3 Nxf6 14. Bg2 Bd7 15. O-O O-O-O 16.
Be3 Kb8 17. h3 Bc6 18. Rad1 {
, Antoniewski-Shaked, Zagan 1997; and Black can keep the better chances by} Be5
19. Bc5 Nd7 20. Bd4 Bc7 $15 {.}) ({(c)} 7. a3 Rg6 8. Qe3 (8. Qh4 $6 Qa5 9. Bd2
cxd4 10. Nb1 Bxd2+ 11. Nxd2 dxe4 12. O-O-O Qg5 $17 {Walters-Sample, corr 1966})
8... Ba5 $1 (8... cxd4 9. Qxd4 Nc6 10. Qd3 Bxc3+ 11. Qxc3 Nxe4 12. Qh8+ Ke7 13.
Qxd8+ Kxd8 {is unclear}) {
. At this point, three bad mistakes that have happened over the board are:} 9.
exd5 $2 (9. e5 $2 Ng4 10. Qd3 cxd4) ({, and} 9. Nf3 $2 dxe4 10. Ne5 cxd4 11.
Bb5+ Ke7 $1) 9... Nxd5 10. Qd3 cxd4 11. Qxd4 e5 $1 12. Qd3 Rd6 $1 {.}) ({So:} 
7. a3 Rg6 8. Qe3 Ba5 $1 9. -- (9. Nh3 Nxe4 (9... e5 $5) (9... Nc6 10. Bb5 dxe4
$17) 10. b4 Nxc3 11. Qxc3 cxd4 12. Qxd4 e5 $1 $17 {
Plasman-Steenbekkers, Dieren 1998.}) (9. Nge2 Nc6 ({or} 9... cxd4 10. Nxd4 Nxe4
) 10. Bd2 {transposes to note 'd1'.}) (9. b4 $5 cxb4 (9... cxd4 10. Qxd4 Bb6
11. Qd2 $11) 10. axb4 Bxb4 11. e5 Ne4 12. Nge2 {with approximate equality.}) (
9. Bd2 Nc6 {puts great pressure on White's centre:} 10. -- (10. Nge2 Ng4 $1 ({
or} 10... e5 $5 11. Nxd5 Bxd2+ 12. Kxd2 cxd4) ({, or} 10... Bb6 $5 11. Nxd5 $5
Ng4 $15) 11. Qf4 $2 (11. Qd3 cxd4 12. Nxd4 {transposes to 10 Nf3}) 11... cxd4
12. Nb5 e5 $19 {Kolacz-Massarani, IECC 2000.}) (10. Bb5 $5 cxd4 11. Qxd4 Bd7 $1
{('Black dominates the game from a dynamic point of view' - Moskalenko)} 12.
Bxc6 Bxc6 13. O-O-O (13. exd5 Bb6 14. Qd3 Nxd5 15. Nxd5 Bxd5 $17) 13... Bb6 14.
Qb4 d4 15. Be3 e5 16. Nf3 Nd7 $17 {FoppeHG-ETC_Chess, playchess.com 2004.}) (
10. Nf3 Ng4 (10... cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ng4 12. Qd3 {transposes}) 11. Qd3 cxd4 12.
Nxd4 (12. Nb1 dxe4 13. Qxe4 f5 $1 14. Qe2 Bb6 $15) (12. Ne2 dxe4 13. Qxe4 f5
14. Qd3 e5 $17 {Malm-Romano, IECC email 1999}) 12... Nxf2 (12... Bb6 $1 13.
Nxc6 Bxf2+ 14. Kd1 bxc6 {is also good}) 13. Kxf2 Nxd4 $1 14. Ke1 Bb6 15. Ne2
Qh4+ 16. g3 Qxe4 17. Qxe4 dxe4 18. Nxd4 Bxd4 19. Bb5+ Kf8 20. Bb4+ Kg7 {
with a meaningful advantage.}))) ({(d)} 7. Bd2 $5 {
cedes Black the advantage following} cxd4 $1 8. e5 (8. Nb5 Ng4 $1 9. Qxh7 Bxd2+
10. Kxd2 Nf6 $1) 8... dxc3 9. bxc3 Qc7 $1 $15 {.}) 7... cxd4 $1 {Here's another
benefit of the early ...c5. Pedersen says that 'it is obviously not favourable
for [Black] to exchange so early on d4'. It's true that 7...cxd4 frees White's
pieces, but it happens that there are concrete tactical reasons to favour the
move.} ({Instead,} 7... Rg6 8. Qh4 ({as noted above,} 8. Qe3 {
would be the traditional main line}) 8... Rg4 9. Qh3 cxd4 10. e5 dxc3 11. bxc3
{with mutual chances.}) 8. Nxd4 e5 {This looks very promising.} 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10.
Bxd7+ Nbxd7 11. Nf5 d4 12. Ng7+ (12. O-O Bf8 $19 {.}) 12... Rxg7 13. Qxg7 dxc3
14. O-O cxb2 15. Bxb2 Qe7 (15... Qb6 $1 {
also prepares ...0-0-0, and targets f2; e.g.} 16. Rab1 (16. Qh8+ Bf8 17. Ba3
O-O-O) 16... Bf8 17. Qg3 Nxe4 $1 18. Qd3 Nxf2 19. Rxf2 Bc5 20. Qg3 Bxf2+ 21.
Qxf2 Qxf2+ 22. Kxf2 Rc8 $17 {.}) 16. f4 $2 (16. f3 O-O-O 17. Rab1 $1 $15 {
gives White some counterplay.}) 16... Nxe4 (16... Bc5+ $1 17. Kh1 Nxe4 {.}) 17.
Kh1 O-O-O $2 (17... Bc5 $1 {is pretty much winning.}) (17... O-O-O {is Bartel-Szelag, Brzeg Dolny 2001; when White could have kept his disadvantage down with}
18. Qxh7 ({instead of} 18. fxe5 $2 {, allowing} Qh4) 18... Nd2 $1 19. Rfd1 Qe6
$17 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.3 4 Bd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Bd2 {. Here again White's idea is Qg4, and
play will resemble the main lines of 4 a3 and 4 Qg4. White develops rapidly
and prepares 0-0-0, but he forfeits any pretensions to holding his centre and
in fact loses the critical d-pawn.} dxe4 {
I won't analyse alternative solutions, but they are worth mentioning.} ({
(a) In 'PTF3' I analysed} 4... Nc6 $5 {, which can generate original play.}) ({
(b)} 4... Nf6 5. e5 Bxc3 6. bxc3 Ne4 7. Qg4 {
is a McCutcheon Variation without ...h6 inserted! Now} Kf8 $1 {is the logical
move, but unfortunately, I haven't covered the ...Kf8 McCutcheon systems in
Chapter 15, which would be the appropriate comparison.} ({Instead,} 7... g6 {
weakens Black's dark squares (more so than if ...h6 were in, as in the
McCutcheon).Then} 8. Bh6 c5 $14 {might follow.})) ({
(c) Finally, Williams recommends} 4... Ne7 {
, which can hardly be too bad, although} 5. Bd3 {
may lead to a minimal White advantage.}) 5. Qg4 (5. Nxe4 $2 {
fails to give White enough compensation following} Qxd4 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nf3 Qb6 {
.}) 5... Nf6 6. Qxg7 Rg8 7. Qh6 Qxd4 ({I analysed} 7... Rg6 {at some length in
previous editions. It offers prospects of equality or something very close,
but has the disadvantage that Black's positive chances aren't evident if White
knows a little theory, and there are a fair number of early draws. This might
be acceptable, but 7...Qxd4 wins material, and if White doesn't react quickly,
he himself won't equalize.}) 8. O-O-O {
This traditional move is aggressive but currently looking shaky.} ({
White might want to choose} 8. Nge2 $5 {
instead. Black has no particular problems after} Qe5 {, but the play is
balanced. In practical terms, White has to take a bit more care than his
opponent:} 9. O-O-O (9. Bf4 Qf5 $15 {
; then Halldorsson-M.Schmitz, Reykjavik 2000, went} 10. Bxc7 (10. Ng3 Qg6 11.
Qxg6 Bxc3+ $1 12. bxc3 Rxg6 13. Bxc7 Nc6 {offers Black some advantage}) 10...
Qxf2+ $1 11. Kxf2 Ng4+ 12. Ke1 Nxh6 13. a3 Bxc3+ 14. Nxc3 f5 15. Nb5 {, when}
a6 $1 {would have resulted in advantage}) {and:} 9... -- (9... Nbd7 10. Ng3 $2
(10. Bf4 $1 Qa5 $11 ({or} 10... Qf5 11. h3 Rg6 12. Qh4 Be7 $11)) 10... Ng4 $1
11. Qxh7 Ndf6 12. Qh4 Be7 13. Re1 $2 (13. f4 Qd4 $15) 13... Nxf2 14. Bf4 Qa5 (
14... Nd7 $1) 15. Rg1 Bd7 16. Be2 O-O-O $19 {
Kasten-Kirwald, corr 1986; White's queen is in danger.}) (9... Rg6 10. Qh4 (10.
Qf4 Qxf4 11. Bxf4 Ba5 12. h3 Bd7 13. g4 $1 Bc6 14. g5 Nh5 15. Be3 f5 $5 16.
gxf6 e5 {with equal chances}) 10... Rg4 $5 ({or} 10... Be7 11. Bf4 Qa5 12. Kb1
Nc6 $11) 11. Qh3 Nc6 $5 (11... Bd7 12. f3 exf3 13. gxf3 Rg8 $11) 12. f3 $1 exf3
13. Qxf3 {, Mineur-Abenius, corr 1988, and the natural} Bd7 {equalizes.})) 8...
Bf8 ({Already Black can force matters with} 8... Rg6 9. Qf4 (9. Qh4 Rg4 10. Qh6
Rg6 {repeats}) 9... Bd6 10. Nge2 $6 (10. Qh4 Rg4 $11 {
; can either side avoid this draw?}) 10... Bxf4 11. Nxd4 Be5 $1 {
and Black has somewhat the better of things.}) ({Alternatively,} 8... Ng4 $5 {
is an idea of mine that I analysed at length 'PTF3'. I believe that it is
completely equal, but since what follows is so agreeable for the second player
there's no need to reprise that.}) 9. Qh4 ({Others: -- (a)} 9. Qf4 Bd6 10. Nge2
Bxf4 11. Nxd4 Be5 $15 {is similar to 8...Rg6 in the previous note.}) ({(b)} 9.
Qh3 Qxf2 {wins a second pawn, and White has insufficient counterplay:} 10. Nge2
Bd7 $1 11. Be3 (11. Ng3 $2 e3 12. Be1 Qf4 13. Bd3 Qh6 $19) (11. g4 $2 Rxg4 12.
Ng3 e3 13. Be1 Qf4 $17 {Bezgodov-Kornev, Krasnoyarsk 2003}) 11... Qf5 12. Qh4
Be7 13. Nd4 Qg6 $17 {.}) 9... Rg4 10. Qh3 Qxf2 11. Be2 {
The only way to try to justify White's play to this point.} ({Otherwise: -- (a)
} 11. Nb5 $2 Na6 {actually helps Black; e.g.} 12. Qb3 $6 (12. Kb1 Bd7 13. Be3
Qf5 14. Nd4 Qg6 15. Nb3 Nb4 $17 {Boleslavsky-Bronstein, Moscow 1950}) (12. Be3
Qf5 {clearly favours Black,} ({as does} 12... Qh4 {with the idea} 13. Qxh4 Rxh4
14. Bg5 Bh6)) 12... Nd5 $1 13. Be2 $6 (13. c4 e3 14. Ba5 Nc5 15. Qa3 a6 $1) (
13. Kb1 Bd7 {is also hopeless}) 13... Rxg2 14. Rf1 Rxg1 15. Rhxg1 Qxe2 {
0-1 Rajna-Vasiljevic, Pancevo 1987.}) ({(b)} 11. Bb5+ $2 c6 12. Rf1 Qxg2 13.
Rxf6 cxb5 $17 {Mossung-Vrbata, Prague 1989, in view of} 14. Qxh7 Rg7 15. Qxe4
Bd7 $1 {.}) ({(c)} 11. Be3 {
isn't so bad, but Black still comes out on top following} Qh4 $1 12. Qxh4 $2 (
12. g3 Qxh3 13. Nxh3 Rg6 14. Nf2 Bd7 15. Bg2 Bc6 $15 {Jansen-Alger, email 1997}
) 12... Rxh4 13. g3 (13. Bg5 $2 Bh6) 13... Rh5 $1 14. Be2 Bh6 $1 $19 {
Cabanas Jiminez-Moreno Ruiz, Mostoles 2008.}) 11... Rh4 ({
As I showed in 'PTF3',} 11... Qxg2 $5 12. Bxg4 Qxg4 13. Qxg4 Nxg4 14. Nxe4 Bd7
({or} 14... Nd7 $5 {is equal. Black has two bishops, material equality and the
two unopposed central pawns that he gets in the main line, although his pieces
aren't quite as well placed as in that case.})) 12. Qxh4 $1 Qxh4 13. g3 {
Black's queen is trapped but, as compensation for losing the exchange, he will
have the bishop pair and strong central pawns.} Qh6 $1 {After this Black has
no problems and should probably be able to find some advantage.} ({
In 'PTF3' I looked (at some length) at the alternative} 13... e3 $5 {(threatening ...Qb4). This doesn't give as many winning chances, but is good enough to
equalize after} 14. gxh4 exd2+ 15. Kxd2 ({or} 15. Kb1 Bb4) 15... Bh6+ {.}) 14.
Bxh6 Bxh6+ 15. Kb1 {Black has two pawns for the exchange (passed central pawns)
as well as the bishop pair. On the negative side, his advanced e-pawn is
vulnerable. Remarkably, no less than four moves are satisfactory here.} Nc6 $1
{The '!' is for originality. With this almost unknown move, Black mobilizes as
quickly as possible; in doing so, he offers his c-pawn (to a knight raid via
b5, something prevented by 15...Bd7 and 15...a6); in return, he mobilizes his
centre.} ({According to theory,} 15... e5 {achieves equality, and there are
two other ways to demonstrate the bishops' effectiveness:}) ({
(a) In 'PTF3' I recommended the little-known} 15... a6 {, which might already
favour Black, who plans to develop quickly by ...b5 and ...Bb7, with ...b4 and
...Nbd7-e5 as supplementary ideas:} 16. -- (16. Nh3 b5 17. Rhf1 Nbd7 18. g4 b4
19. g5 (19. Na4 Be3 20. g5 Nd5) 19... Bxg5 20. Nxg5 bxc3 21. Rf4 {
and Wei Ming suggests} Bb7 $1 22. Nxf7 $1 Nd5 23. Rf2 cxb2 24. Kxb2 e3 25. Rff1
Rb8 $1 {'with a strong initiative for Black'.}) (16. h4 b5 17. Nh3 (17. g4 b4
18. Na4 Be3 19. g5 Bd7 20. gxf6 Bxa4 21. Nh3 Nd7 $15) 17... b4 18. Rdf1 (18.
Na4 Be3 $1 19. Rhf1 Ke7 $17) (18. Rhf1 Nbd7 19. Na4 Bf8 20. Nf4 Bb7 $15) 18...
bxc3 19. Rxf6 Bg7 20. Rff1 f5 21. Bh5+ Ke7 22. g4 (22. b3 Nd7 $17) 22... cxb2
23. gxf5 exf5 $17 {Korepanov-Skomorokhin, Podolsk 1993.})) ({(b)} 15... Bd7 {
is at least equal after} 16. Nh3 $1 Be3 $1 17. Rhf1 Ke7 18. Nf4 (18. Nf2 Bc6
19. Bb5 Bd5 $1 20. Be2 Nbd7 21. Nb5 c6 22. Na3 b5 23. c4 bxc4 24. Nxc4 Bh6 $17
{Lindquist-J.Watson, Long Beach 1996}) 18... Be8 $5 (18... Bc6 $1 $15) 19. g4
h6 20. h4 Bc6 21. g5 hxg5 22. hxg5 Ne8 23. Bh5 $6 Nd6 $15 {
Rasmussen-Czibulka, corr 1990.}) 16. Nh3 {
Trying to attack with Nf2 or block with Nf4.} ({Others are worse: -- (a)} 16.
Nb5 Ke7 17. Nxc7 Rb8 {leaves White trying to get his pieces developed, while ...a6 trapping the knight on c7 is also a concern; e.g.} 18. Nb5 ({instead,} 18.
Nh3 {is met by} e5 19. Ng1 Nd4 20. Nb5 Nxb5 21. Bxb5 Ng4 $1 $17) 18... Nd5 $17
19. c3 f5 20. Na3 Ne3 21. Re1 e5 22. Nc2 Nxc2 23. Kxc2 Be6 24. b3 b5 {.}) ({(b)
} 16. Bb5 Ke7 17. Bxc6 bxc6 18. Nge2 e5 19. h3 {(versus ...Bg4 or ...Bh3)} Be3
20. g4 h5 $1 21. gxh5 Bf2 $1 $17 {
with moves like ...Ba6, ...e3, ...Nxh5 and/or ...Rh8 to follow.}) 16... e5 17.
Nf2 Nd4 $1 18. Nfxe4 $1 {Destroying Black's centre.} ({
Otherwise the pressure mounts; e.g.} 18. Rhe1 e3 19. Nd3 Bf5) ({or} 18. Rhf1
Nxe2 19. Nxe2 e3 20. Nd3 Ne4 {.}) 18... Nxe4 19. Nxe4 Nxe2 20. Rhe1 Nd4 (20...
Kf8 {was also possible:} 21. Rxe2 Bg4 22. Ree1 Bxd1 23. Rxd1 Ke7 {.}) ({After} 
20... Nd4 {, Z.Ivekovic-Sa.Martinovic, Zagreb 2011, continued} 21. Nf6+ Kf8 22.
Rxe5 Ne6 23. Rf1 Bg7 24. Nxh7+ Kg8 25. Nf6+ Bxf6 26. Rxf6 Bd7 27. h4 Bc6 28. b3
Rd8 29. Ref5 Be8 30. Kc1 Rd4 31. Rf3 Rg4 {and eventually Black prevailed. 15...Nc6 might be the final blow to White in the main line. Apparently 8 Nge2 is
the best chance.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.4 4 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "8"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 {. This is still a popular alternative to
4 e5, mainly because White feels that it's a safe move. The avoidance of
doubled c-pawns has its price, however, in that White confines his own
development and allows his centre to be challenged quickly.} -- ({7.41} 4...
dxe4) ({7.42} 4... Nf6) ({There's not enough room to cover three separate
systems versus 4 Ne2, especially because Black seems to be doing well with
most of what he plays. I think it's fair to say that 'Play the French' has had
quite a bit to do with popularizing} 4... Nc6 {, which was quite obscure when
I first started analysing it in depth. Now it's a thoroughly mainstream system
with top players using it and theoreticians recommending it. Furthermore, none
of the important subvariations seem to be threatened with refutation; so if
you've already got 4...Nc6 as a weapon I'd recommend that you keep it. Not
surprisingly, however, the move is being analysed in extraordinary detail, and
quite a few variations hang upon tactical points, which means that it takes
quite a bit of study to keep up. --- I'm presenting two other systems, the old
and established 4...dxe4 5 a3 Bxc3+ lines, and the fresh 4...Nf6, which has
remarkably little theory attached to it and yet has already established itself
as a sound system at every level of play. It's an ideal line in the sense of
being relatively easy to learn and replete with characteristic French themes.})
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.41 4...dxe4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Nxc3 Nc6 7. Bb5 ({
7 d5 is the main alternative here, but a couple of interesting older moves
have their virtues and also deserve to be mentioned: -- (a)} 7. d5 exd5 8. Qxd5
{seems to appeal to White on the grounds that he has little risk of losing. 
On the other hand, the chances of a draw rise, which may not be a desirable
situation for White, and in the main line he pays for his bishop pair by
falling behind in development. With plenty of pieces left on the board, there
are enough imbalances to keep the play interesting:} Be6 (8... Nge7 {
also equalizes}) 9. Qxe4 (9. Qxd8+ Rxd8 10. Nxe4 ({
in this line, Bronstein once played} 10. Bf4 {, but I think that} f5 {
favours Black; e.g.} 11. Nb5 Nge7 12. Nxc7+ Kf7 13. Nxe6 Kxe6 14. Bc4+ Kf6)
10... Nd4 11. Bd3 Bc4 $1 {is strong: I haven't seen} 12. Bxc4 $5 Nxc2+ 13. Ke2
Nxa1 {analysed before, but it looks like Black gets out after the tricky} 14.
Bf4 Nc2 15. Bxc7 Nd4+ 16. Ke3 Rd7 17. Be5 Nh6 $1 $17) 9... Nf6 10. Qh4 (10. Qf4
Nd5 $5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 {
could favour Black's development, so White might want to bail out by} 12. Bd3
Qxg2 13. Be4 Qh3 ({while after} 13... Qg4 14. Qxg4 Bxg4 15. Bxc6+ {
the extra pawn won't mean anything}) 14. Qxc7 O-O 15. Be3 Rad8 16. Qg3 Qh5 17.
Qg5) (10. Qa4 O-O 11. Bd3 Ne5 12. Be2 Qe8 $1 ({or here} 12... Re8 13. O-O Nd5
$11)) 10... Qe7 ({or} 10... Bf5) 11. Be2 (11. Be3 O-O-O) 11... O-O-O 12. Be3
Nd5 13. Qxe7 Ndxe7 $11 {intending ...Nf5, Gaponenko-Kononenko, Antalya 2002.
These positions, by the way, lead to decisive results more often than you
might imagine, in large part due to the minor piece imbalance.}) ({(b)} 7. Bf4
$5 {is an old gambit try which has fallen off the radar. Now Black's most
ambitious move is} Nf6 ({in 'PTF2' I analysed} 7... Nge7 {
, which leads to equality with best play}) (7... Qxd4 $2 8. Nb5) ({, and} 7...
Nxd4 $2 8. Be5 {are bad}) 8. Bb5 Nd5 (8... Bd7 9. d5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 exd5 11.
Qxd5 O-O 12. O-O-O Qf6 $1 $11) (8... O-O 9. Bxc6 bxc6 {is also unclear}) 9. Bd2
(9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. Qd2 $5 O-O 11. O-O-O Nxf4 12. Qxf4 f5 {with complex play})
9... Nxc3 10. Bxc3 O-O 11. O-O (11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. O-O f5 13. Qd2 Rf6) 11... Qd5
12. Ba4 (12. a4 Rd8) 12... Rd8 13. Bxc6 Qxc6 14. Qe2 b6 15. Rad1 $6 (15. Rfe1
Bb7 16. Qg4 Qd5 17. Re3 f5 $15) 15... Bb7 16. Qe3 Rd7 17. Qg3 f5 18. Rfe1 Rf8
$17 19. Rd2 f4 20. Qh3 Ba6 21. Qg4 Qd5 (21... e3 $1) 22. b3 Rf5 23. h4 h5 24.
Qd1 e3 {0-1 Lenksas-Romsdal, ICCF 1990;} 25. fxe3 fxe3 26. Rxe3 Rdf7 {
can follow.}) ({(c)} 7. Be3 {
isn't a bad gambit; White counts upon his two bishops to give him chances:} Nf6
8. Qd2 (8. Bb5 $6 Bd7 9. Qd2 h6 10. O-O-O Ne7 $1 11. Bc4 Bc6 $15 {
Westerinen-Agdestein, Gjovik 1985}) {, and a simple solution is} 8... Ne7 ({
several moves are playable, including} 8... b6) ({, and} 8... O-O) 9. Bg5 Ned5
10. O-O-O O-O (10... Bd7 11. f3 Nxc3 12. Qxc3 Nd5 13. Qd2 e3 $11 {
Kotronias-Foisor, Moscow 1987}) 11. Bc4 Nxc3 12. Qxc3 Nd5 $5 13. Qg3 Qd6 14.
Qh4 Rb8 $6 (14... b5 $1 15. Bxd5 Qxd5 $15) 15. Qxe4 b5 16. Bd3 f5 17. Qe5 Qxe5
$11 {Van Mil-Jolles, Dieren 1990.}) 7... Nge7 8. Bg5 {
White wants to provoke a weakness.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 8. O-O $6 {
is too slow; e.g.} O-O 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. d5 exd5 11. Qxd5 Nd4 $1 12. Bg5 Qxd5
13. Nxd5 Ne6 $15 {Em.Lasker-Kan, Moscow 1936.}) ({(b)} 8. Nxe4 O-O (8... Qd5 9.
Qd3 $5 {results in unclear complications following} f5 10. Ng3 Qxg2 11. Bg5) 9.
c3 (9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. c3 e5 {transposes}) (9. Be3 $6 f5 10. Ng5 f4 11. Bd2 Qd5
12. Bxc6 Nxc6 $17 {Thorhallsen-Moskalenko, Copenhagen 1995}) 9... e5 (9... Qd5
$5 10. Bd3 e5 11. Qh5 $1 Bf5 12. Nf6+ gxf6 13. Bxf5 Nxf5 14. Qg4+ $1 Kh8 15.
Qxf5 Qe6 $11) 10. Bxc6 (10. dxe5 Qxd1+ 11. Kxd1 Nxe5 $11 {
Bronstein-Bondarevsky, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1977}) 10... Nxc6 11. d5 Ne7 12. c4
(12. d6 Nf5 13. dxc7 Qxc7 $15) 12... f5 (12... b5 $5 13. b3 bxc4 14. bxc4 Nf5
$11) (12... Bf5 13. Ng3 Qd6) 13. Nc3 f4 14. f3 Nf5 {
with a dynamically balanced position, Horvath-Knaak, Trnava 1981.}) ({(c)} 8.
Be3 {is similar to the main line:} O-O 9. Qd2 e5 (9... f5 {
is equivalent to 8 Bg5 f6 9 Be3 0-0 10 Qd2 f5}) 10. d5 (10. dxe5 Qxd2+ 11. Bxd2
Nxe5 12. Nxe4 Bf5 13. f3 Bxe4 14. fxe4 a6 15. Be2 N7c6 16. O-O-O Nd4 $11 {
Mokry-Knaak, Bratislava 1983}) 10... Nd4 $1 11. Bc4 (11. Bxd4 exd4 12. Qxd4 c6
$1 13. Bc4 Nf5 $1 14. Qc5 b6 $1 15. Qxc6 Bd7 16. Qb7 Nd6 $17 {- Uhlmann}) 11...
Nef5 12. O-O-O (12. Nxe4 $2 Nxe3 13. fxe3 Qh4+ 14. Nf2 Nf5 $15 {- Psakhis})
12... Nd6 13. Ba2 N4f5 14. h3 Nxe3 15. Qxe3 f5 16. f4 {
, Garcia Martinez-Uhlmann, Leipzig 1983; and either} Qf6 ({or} 16... exf4 17.
Qxf4 Qf6 {favours Black's superior minor pieces.})) 8... f6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2
e5 {This move has the advantage of clarifying the central situation and
maintaining a definite imbalance. On the other hand it is rather complex;} ({
so if you simply want an unambitious equality one of these might suffice: (a)
} 10... a6 {forces a satisfactory simplification:} 11. Bxc6 Nxc6 12. O-O-O b6 (
12... b5 $5 13. Nxe4 {aims at the newly-weakened c5-square; then} Qd5 14. Nc3
$5 Qxg2 15. Rhg1 {is interesting and dynamically equal}) 13. Nxe4 Bb7 14. f3
Qd7 15. Rhe1 Rad8 $11 {Hector-Casper, German League 2002. Several later games
followed this course and confirmed the assessment.}) ({(b) I gave} 10... f5 {
in earlier editions. It is quite as good and worth playing, but gives White
some attack if Black isn't careful. For reasons of space, I'll merely give an
analytical update which should cover the essentials:} 11. -- (11. f3 exf3 (
11... Nd5 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. fxe4 fxe4 14. O-O-O Nxc3 15. Qxc3 Qd5 $11) 12. gxf3
(12. O-O-O fxg2 13. Qxg2 ({or} 13. Rhg1 Nd5 14. Qxg2 g6 15. Bg5 Qd6) 13... f4
14. Bf2 f3) 12... e5 13. d5 $6 (13. Bc4+ Kh8 14. d5 f4 15. Bc5 b6 $5 16. O-O-O
Na5 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. Bd3 Bf5 19. Rhe1 Nb7) 13... f4 $1 14. Bc5 Nd4 $1 15.
O-O-O (15. Bxd4 exd4 16. Qxd4 Nf5 {and White won't get castled}) 15... Nef5 16.
Qf2 (16. Bxf8 Qxf8 17. Qf2 Ne3 $15) {
, Rogulj-Lindgren, Pula 2011, and the strongest course was} 16... Rf7 $1 17.
Bc4 Ne3 $17 {.}) (11. O-O-O a6 12. Bxc6 Nxc6 13. Bg5 Qd7 14. d5 (14. Bf4 Ne7
15. f3 exf3 16. gxf3 b5 17. Rhg1 Bb7 18. Rg3 Ng6 19. Rdg1 Rf7 $15 {
V.Gurevich-Dimitrov, Werfen 1990}) (14. f3 exf3 15. gxf3 e5 16. dxe5 $1 Qxd2+
17. Bxd2 Be6 $11) 14... Ne5 (14... Ne7 15. dxe6 Qxe6 16. f3 h6 17. Bxe7 $5 Qxe7
18. fxe4 fxe4 19. Rhe1 Be6 $11 {Westerinen-I.Thompson, Gausdal 2006}) 15. f3
Nc4 16. Qe2 b5 17. fxe4 Bb7 18. exf5 exd5 {
'with double-edged play' (Vitiugov); Black has somewhat the better of it.}))
11. d5 ({Others: -- (a)} 11. Bc4+ Kh8 12. d5 Nd4 {
transposes to 11 d5 Nd4 12 Bc4 Kh8 without allowing Black's option 12...Nef5.}
({Instead,} 12... Na5 13. Ba2 b6 {is possible, with the idea ...Nb7-d6.})) ({
(b)} 11. dxe5 {is consistent, but harmless at best:} Qxd2+ 12. Bxd2 Nxe5 13.
O-O-O (13. Nxe4 Bf5 14. f3 Bxe4 15. fxe4 Nc8 $1 16. O-O-O Nd6 17. Bd3 Rfe8 $15
{Gipslis-Knaak, Berlin 1988}) 13... f5 $1 (13... Bf5) 14. Bg5 N7g6 15. Nd5 $6 (
15. h4 $1 c6 16. Be2 Nf7 17. Be3 Be6 $15) 15... c6 16. Nc7 Rb8 17. Ba4 {
, Kovalev-Ulibin, Simferopol 1988; and Black can best secure his advantage by}
h6 (17... Ng4 18. Bb3+ Kh8 19. Rd2 f4 20. h4) 18. Be3 (18. Bd2 b6 19. Bb4 c5
20. Bc3 Rb7 21. Nb5 Be6 22. Nd6 Re7 $15) 18... b6 19. Rd6 (19. g3 Rb7 20. Bb3+
Kh7 21. Ne6 Bxe6 22. Bxe6 f4 23. gxf4 Nxf4 $17) 19... f4 20. Bd4 c5 21. Bb3+
Kh7 22. Bxe5 Nxe5 23. Bd5 Bf5 $15 {with ideas of ...f3 and/or ...Nf7.}) 11...
Nd4 {. A crucial juncture. White has two main moves:} 12. -- ({7.411} 12. Bc4)
({7.412} 12. Bxd4) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.411 12 Bc4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Nxc3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Nge7
8. Bg5 f6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2 e5 11. d5 Nd4 12. Bc4 Kh8 ({Alternatively,} 12...
Nef5 {leads to equality after} 13. Nxe4 (13. O-O-O Nd6 $15) 13... Nxe3 14. fxe3
Nf5 15. d6+ Kh8 16. O-O-O Nxd6 17. Nxd6 cxd6 18. Qxd6 Bg4 19. Rd2 Qxd6 20. Rxd6
Rfd8 {.}) 13. O-O-O $5 (13. O-O {is probably a safer choice, after which} c5 $5
{reinforces Black's central control; e.g.} 14. dxc6 (14. Nxe4 Nxd5 15. c3 Nxe3
16. fxe3 Be6 $1) 14... Nexc6 15. Nxe4 f5 $5 16. Ng5 f4 17. Bxd4 Qxg5 (17...
Nxd4 18. Qb4 $1 Bf5 $1 $11) 18. Bc3 Bf5 19. f3 Rad8 $11 {.}) 13... Bg4 $1 14.
Rde1 c5 15. dxc6 Nexc6 16. Nxe4 {
White regains his material but is exposed to a queenside attack.} Rc8 ({
Alternatively: -- (a)} 16... Bf5 17. f3 b5 $1 18. Ba2 (18. Bd3 a5 {and ...b4})
18... Qc7 (18... a5 $2 19. c3) 19. c3 b4 $1 20. cxd4 Nxd4+ 21. Kb1 Bxe4+ 22.
fxe4 b3 23. Bxd4 bxa2+ 24. Ka1 (24. Kxa2 $6 Rad8 {with the idea} 25. Qc3 Qf7+)
24... exd4 (24... Rad8 $4 25. Qc3) 25. Qxd4 Rad8 26. Qe3 Rfe8 27. Rc1 Qe5 28.
Kxa2 Rd4 29. Rhe1 a5 $5 {; this should be drawn fairly easily.}) ({(b)} 16...
Qc7 17. Bd3 f5 (17... Rad8 18. f3 Be6) 18. Nc3 f4 19. Bxd4 Nxd4 $15 {.}) 17.
Kb1 Nxc2 $5 (17... Na5 {was better; e.g.} 18. Bd3 Nc4 19. Bxc4 Rxc4 20. f3 Bf5
21. Rc1 Qd5 $1 22. Nc3 Qc6 {
with the ideas of ...Nb3 and ...Rc8, so play might go} 23. Bxd4 exd4 24. Ne2
Rd8 25. Nf4 Rc8 26. Nd3 a5 {with ongoing pressure.}) 18. Kxc2 Na5 19. Qxd8 $2 (
{It was easy to miss} 19. b3 $3 Nxc4 20. bxc4 Rxc4+ 21. Kb2 Rxe4 22. Qxd8 Rxd8
23. f3 {and Black has a nice structure following} Rxe3 24. Rxe3 Bf5 {, with two
pawns for the exchange, but White's rook will be active and this should be
drawn.}) 19... Rxc4+ 20. Kb1 Rxd8 21. Bxa7 {, Wallner-Weinzettl, Vienna 2011;}
({and here Black should play} 21. Bxa7 Bf5 $1 22. f3 Nc6 23. Rd1 (23. Bb6 Rd2)
23... Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1 Kg8 25. Bb6 Bxe4+ 26. fxe4 Rxe4 27. Rd7 Re1+ 28. Ka2 e4 $1
{with good winning chances.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.412 12 Bxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Nxc3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Nge7
8. Bg5 f6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Qd2 e5 11. d5 Nd4 12. Bxd4 exd4 13. Qxd4 Nf5 {
. Black settles in on the d6 blockade square. If White grabs a pawn he will
have to dance around with his king.} 14. Qxe4 ({Others: -- (a)} 14. Qb4 Nd6 15.
O-O-O Bf5 $5 ({Finkel suggests} 15... f5 {, which secures the centre in
preparation for a queenside attack, when Black has equal prospects}) (15... a6
16. Be2 Qe7 {is also sound}) 16. h4 a6 17. Be2 Qd7 $5 18. h5 (18. Rhg1 $5 Qe8
19. g4 Bd7 20. Kb1) 18... h6 19. Rd2 Rfe8 20. Nd1 Bg4 21. Bxg4 Qxg4 22. Ne3 Qg5
{with an equal game, Hertneck-Uhlmann, Austrian Team Ch. 2000.}) ({(b)} 14. Qd2
Nd6 15. O-O-O Bd7 (15... f5 16. Rhe1 a6 17. Bf1 Qh4 18. h3 Bd7 19. g3 Qf6 $11 {
Lebredo Zarragoi-Vilela de Acuna, Bayamo 1984}) 16. Bxd7 Qxd7 17. Qf4 f5 18. h4
b5 $1 19. h5 a5 20. h6 g6 21. Rh3 b4 22. Nb1 Rab8 {
with good attacking chances, Nordsieck-B.Schmidt, German League 2007.}) 14...
Nd6 15. Qb4 (15. Qa4 Nxb5 16. Qxb5 {transposes.}) ({Not} 15. Qf3 $6 Nxb5 16.
Nxb5 Re8+ 17. Kf1 Bd7 $1 18. Nd4 Qe7 $15 {intending ...Qc5/...Re5.}) 15... Nxb5
16. Qxb5 Re8+ (16... c6 $1 {may be more accurate,} 17. -- ({, when} 17. Qc5
Re8+ 18. Kd2 {transposes to 18 Qc5 in the main line}) ({, and} 17. Qb3 Qe7+ 18.
Kd2 Qe5 $1 {gives compensation after} 19. g3 ({or} 19. Rae1 Qf4+ 20. Kd1 Rd8)
19... Qd4+ 20. Kc1 Re8 {.})) 17. Kd2 (17. Kf1 {
has been played from time to time, but it should be met by} c6 $1 {
with the idea} 18. dxc6 bxc6 19. Qxc6 Rb8 $17 {.}) 17... c6 18. Qb3 (18. Qc5 {
has also been played:} Be6 ({after} 18... cxd5 19. Rad1 Be6 20. Kc1 Qd7 {,} 21.
Rd2 {has been given '!', but perhaps simply} Qc6 $1 {is okay; e.g.} 22. Qd4
Rad8 23. Rhd1 ({or} 23. Qxa7 d4) 23... b5 24. Kb1 a5 $11 {with complex play})
19. d6 b6 20. Qd4 c5 21. Qf4 Rb8 $5 {. This was used twice by Naumkin,
planning a direct assault by ...b5-b4. Zlochevskij-Naumkin, Moscow 2002,
continued} 22. Rad1 b5 23. b4 {, and here I think} cxb4 24. axb4 Rc8 $1 {
was the most accurate sequence, because then} 25. Nxb5 $6 Rc4 $1 26. Nd4 Qb6
27. c3 Rxb4 $1 {breaks through, in view of} 28. cxb4 Qxb4+ 29. Ke2 $1 Bc8+ 30.
Kf3 Qa3+ 31. Qe3 Bb7+ 32. Kg3 Rxe3+ 33. fxe3 Qxd6+ {.}) 18... Qd6 {
This is untried; to begin with, it threatens ...Qf4+.} ({Instead,} 18... Be6 {
is unambitious but adequate.} 19. -- ({
. Sarhisov-Tscharotschkin, Neuhausen 2007, continued} 19. Rae1 $5 {, when} Qd7
({and Finkel gives the simpler} 19... cxd5 20. Kc1 Qd6 $1) 20. Kc1 cxd5 {
is equal}) ({. White should prefer} 19. Rad1 {; nevertheless,} Bxd5 20. Nxd5
Qxd5+ 21. Qxd5+ cxd5 22. Rhe1 Kf7 {will draw without much effort.})) 19. Qb4 $1
c5 {. A promising pawn sacrifice;} ({for example,} 19... c5 20. Qh4 (20. Qc4
Bd7 $5 {intending ...b5; e.g.} 21. Rae1 b5 22. Rxe8+ Rxe8 23. Nxb5 Bxb5 24.
Qxb5 Qf4+ 25. Kd1 Re5 $1 26. Qxc5 $1 Qg5 27. Qc4 Rxd5+ 28. Ke2 Qe5+ 29. Kf1 Qe6
30. Qe2 Qd7 {with an unclear attack}) 20... b5 $1 21. Rae1 $1 Bb7 $1 {
and either the pawn falls with complete equality, or something like} 22. Nxb5
Qxd5+ 23. Kc1 Qa2 24. Nd6 $1 Red8 25. Qc4+ Qxc4 26. Nxc4 Bxg2 27. Rhg1 Bd5 {
levels things.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.42 4...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 Nf6 {. Black simply attacks the centre
and renews his threat on e4. This solution has only recently gotten much
attention but is holding its own and is a little more flexible than 4...dxe4
or 4...Nc6. I'll just give an overview with some exemplary variations.} 5. e5 {
The critical move.} ({Alternatively,} 5. Bg5 {is a transposition to the
McCutcheon variation 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4 5 Ne2 in Chapter 14 (14.2), which is
perfectly satisfactory for Black.}) ({
White doesn't obtain much for a pawn after} 5. a3 $6 Bxc3+ 6. Nxc3 Nxe4 7. Nxe4
dxe4 8. Qg4 {(trying to achieve activity)} ({otherwise} 8. Be3 O-O $15 {
- Moskalenko}) ({, or} 8. Bc4 Nc6 9. c3 e5 10. d5 Ne7 11. O-O O-O 12. Qe2 Bf5
$15) 8... Qxd4 9. c3 Qf6 10. Qxe4 Nc6 11. Be3 e5 12. Bd3 Be6 $15 {
Holzhaeuer-Renner, German League 2001.}) 5... Nfd7 ({The McCutcheon-like} 5...
Ne4 {is also played, but the text is more consistent with our normal ...Nfd7/...c5 set-up in the Tarrasch.}) 6. Qd3 ({Others: -- (a)} 6. a3 Be7 {
prepares the standard counterattack with ...c5:} 7. -- (7. f4 O-O 8. Be3 (8. b4
a5 9. b5 c5 10. Be3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nc5 $11) (8. g3 c5 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Bg2 b6 11.
O-O Ba6 {with central pressure, Asis-Moskalenko, Montcada 2006}) 8... c5 (8...
a6 $5 9. g3 c5 10. Bg2 Nc6 11. O-O Qc7 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. Bxc5 Nxc5 14. Nd4 Bd7
$11) 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Qd2 Nc6 11. O-O-O a6 $11 {.}) (7. Nf4 c5 8. Nh5 g6 ({
an alternative is to allow} 8... O-O 9. Bh6 $1 {
, when one safe solution is the standard exchange sacrifice} g6 $5 {; e.g.} 10.
Bxf8 ({or} 10. dxc5 Nxe5 11. Bxf8 Bxf8 12. f4 Ned7 13. Ng3 {
with the same verdict} Nxc5) 10... Bxf8 11. Nf4 cxd4 12. Qxd4 Nc6 13. Qd2 Ndxe5
{with more than enough for the exchange}) 9. Ng7+ $2 Kf8 10. Bh6 Kg8 11. h4 {
, Fontaine-Lputian, playchess.com 2004; and the simplest solution is} cxd4 $1 {
.})) ({(b)} 6. f4 O-O 7. g3 (7. a3 Be7 {transposes to note 'a'}) 7... c5 8. a3
Bxc3+ 9. Nxc3 cxd4 10. Qxd4 Nc6 11. Qf2 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Bg2 d4 14. Ne4
Nxe4 15. Bxe4 e5 16. Qg2 Bf5 $11 {.}) 6... O-O 7. a3 (7. Qg3 Kh8 8. Nf4 Nc6 $5
(8... c5 9. a3 Ba5 $1 10. dxc5 Nc6 $15) 9. a3 $2 (9. Qd3) 9... Nxd4 10. axb4
Nxc2+ 11. Kd1 Nxa1 12. Nh5 Rg8 {
and White's attack was insufficient in Volokitin-Gasanov, Kharkov 2001.}) 7...
Be7 8. Qg3 Kh8 ({Moskalenko gives the crazy line} 8... Bh4 9. Qg4 f5 10. Qh5 c5
11. Nf4 cxd4 12. Nxe6 g6 {'with an extremely unbalanced position'. I guess} 13.
Qd1 Qe7 14. Nxf8 Nxe5 15. Ne2 Nbc6 {would follow, when} 16. Bf4 {
likely favours White, but there are many possibilities.}) 9. Be3 c5 10. O-O-O
Nc6 11. f4 b5 $1 12. Nxb5 (12. dxc5 b4 13. axb4 Nxb4 {
(intending ...Qa5, ...Rb8)} 14. f5 $1 Bxc5 (14... Qa5 $1 15. Kb1 exf5 16. c6
Nc5 $1 {- Moskalenko}) 15. fxe6 fxe6 16. Nd4 Bxd4 17. Bxd4 $6 (17. Rxd4 Qa5 18.
Kb1 Rb8 19. Rh4 $5) 17... Qa5 18. Be2 $2 (18. Bb5 $1 Rb8 19. Rhf1) 18... Ba6 (
18... Qa1+ 19. Kd2 Qxb2 $15) 19. Bg4 $4 (19. Bxa6 Qxa6 20. Kb1 Rac8) 19... Qa1+
20. Nb1 Rac8 21. c3 Na2+ 22. Kc2 Rb8 23. b4 Nxb4+ 24. cxb4 Rfc8+ 25. Bc5 Qa2+ {
0 1 De la Riva Aguado-Moskalenko, Sitges 2006.}) 12... Rb8 13. Nec3 (13. Nbc3
c4 $1 {.}) 13... c4 $1 {, R.Perez-Rustemov, Villa de Albox 2002.} ({After} 
13... c4 14. -- ({, the game continued} 14. Be2 $6 {, when} Qb6 $1 $17 {
followed by ...a6 is easy enough.}) ({. Rustemov analyses the better} 14. f5
Ba6 $1 15. Nd6 Bxd6 16. exd6 Qb6 17. Na4 Qa5 18. Nc5 (18. Nc3 Rxb2 $1 19. Kxb2
Rb8+) 18... c3 {. This should favour Black too; e.g.} 19. bxc3 Qxc3 20. Nxa6
Rb2 21. Rd2 Qxa3 22. Rd3 (22. Rf2 Ra2+ 23. Kd2 Ra1 $19) 22... Qa1+ 23. Kd2 Qxa6
$17 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.5 4 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Bd3 {. This lacks punch and is seldom seen at
the top levels any more; nevertheless, strong grandmasters have used it and
the move has generated various theoretical articles. I haven't revised much
here, but you still need to know some lines.} dxe4 (4... c5 {
also gives Black equality:} 5. -- (5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c4 $5 ({or} 6... Qa5 {
with the idea} 7. exd5 c4 $1 8. Be4 exd5 9. Bf3 Nf6) 7. Be2 Nf6 8. e5 Ne4 9.
Bb2 {, Akhmedov-Fatullaev, Baku 2000;} f6 (9... O-O 10. Nh3 f6 $5 {
with the idea} 11. f3 fxe5 12. fxe4 Qh4+ 13. Kd2 Qh6+ $11) 10. f3 Ng5 11. f4
Ne4 12. Nf3 O-O {with a dynamically balanced game.}) (5. dxc5 dxe4 6. Bxe4
Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1 Nf6 8. Bf3 Bxc5 {
looks harmless, but it's not so easy for White to equalize completely; e.g.} 9.
Be3 {(this seems best)} (9. Ke2 Nc6 10. Be3 Nd4+ 11. Kd2 O-O 12. Rd1 Nxf3+ 13.
Nxf3 Bb4 $15) 9... Nbd7 10. Bxc5 Nxc5 11. Nge2 Bd7 12. Kc1 O-O-O {
and the position is equal but a tad easier for Black to play.}) (5. exd5 exd5 (
{Simon Williams recommends} 5... Qxd5 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 cxd4 8. Bxd4 e5 $11)
6. dxc5 (6. Nf3 c4 $1 7. Be2 Ne7 $15) (6. Bb5+ Nc6 7. Nge2 {can be answered by}
c4 (7... Nf6) ({, or} 7... Nge7 {with the idea} 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. Nxc3 O-O 10.
dxc5 d4 {and, if the knight moves, 11...Qa5+})) 6... Nc6 (6... Nf6 7. Nf3 O-O
8. O-O Bxc5 {is approximately equal}) 7. Nf3 (7. Bd2 Bxc5 8. Nf3 Nge7 9. O-O
O-O $11 {Bilek-Osvath, Budapest 1954}) 7... Bxc5 8. O-O Nge7 (8... Nf6 9. Re1+
Be6 10. Ng5 $6 O-O $1) 9. h3 O-O 10. a3 {, Sariego-Paneque, Pinar del Rio 1990.
Formally, White has a slight theoretical edge in this IQP position, but Black
has an active game and good practical prospects after, say,} a6 {.})) 5. Bxe4
Nf6 ({The immediate} 5... c5 {
is a good alternative (compare the main game); e.g.} 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Nf6 8.
Bf3 (8. Bd3 Qc7 $1 ({or here} 8... Nbd7 9. Nf3 Qc7 $1 10. O-O c4 11. Be2 Nd5
$15 {Barlov-Sahovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1984}) 9. dxc5 Nbd7 10. Ne2 Nxc5 11. f4 Bd7
12. O-O Na4 $1 $15 {intending ...Qc5+, ...0-0, Bungo-Pederson, corr 1986}) 8...
Nc6 (8... Qc7 {is a useful way to avoid simplification; e.g.} 9. dxc5 $6 Qxc5
10. Qd4 {, Petkovic-Gavric, Yugoslavia 1991, and} Qa5 {
is the best way to play for dynamic prospects}) 9. Ne2 e5 10. Bg5 (10. Qd3 cxd4
11. cxd4 exd4 12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. Nxd4 O-O 14. O-O c5 15. Nb3 Qb6 $11) 10...
exd4 11. cxd4 (11. Bxc6+ bxc6 12. cxd4 Ba6 13. O-O O-O $15) 11... h6 12. Bxf6
Qxf6 13. c3 O-O 14. O-O Rd8 15. Qa4 Bd7 $5 $15 {
Ortega-Uhlmann, Polanica Zdroj 1967;} ({or} 15... cxd4 {intending} 16. Bxc6
bxc6 17. cxd4 c5 $1 18. dxc5 Ba6 {.})) 6. Bf3 ({Instead: -- (a)} 6. Bd3 c5 7.
Nf3 {is safe but harmless:} (7. dxc5 Nbd7 8. Bd2 Nxc5 9. Bb5+ {
, Averbakh-Botvinnik, USSR Ch., Moscow 1955;} Bd7 $1 {
and Black even has a small lead in development}) (7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 {
transposes to 8 Bd3 in the previous note}) 7... cxd4 $1 8. Nxd4 e5 9. Nde2 O-O
10. O-O Bg4 11. f3 {, Djuric-Drasko, Niksic 1996;} Be6 12. a3 Be7 {'looks very
solid for Black' (Pedersen); I agree, and the kingside 4-3 majority may come
in handy later.}) ({(b)} 6. Bg5 {
is an innocuous line from the McCutcheon. Black can play, for example,} c5 $1 (
6... Nbd7 {is also equal}) 7. Nf3 (7. dxc5 Qxd1+ 8. Rxd1 Nbd7 9. Bf3 Bxc3+ 10.
bxc3 Nxc5 $11 {intending} 11. Be3 Nfd7) ({; here} 7. a3 $2 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Qa5
$17 {was Tal-Karner, Parnu 1971}) 7... cxd4 8. Nxd4 (8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. Qxd4 Qxd4
10. Nxd4 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Nd7 $15) 8... Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qa5 10. Bxf6 Qxc3+ 11. Qd2
Qxd2+ $1 12. Kxd2 gxf6 $15 {Honfi-Lengyel, Budapest 1957.}) 6... c5 (6... O-O
7. Nge2 e5 $5 {also equalizes:} 8. O-O (8. dxe5 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Ng4 10. Bxg4 Bxg4
11. f3 Bf5 {with at least equality - Moskalenko}) 8... Bxc3 9. Nxc3 (9. bxc3 $4
e4) 9... exd4 10. Nb5 c5 11. Bf4 Ne8 (11... a6 12. Nd6 Nc6) 12. c3 a6 13. Na3
Nc6 $11 {.}) 7. Nge2 (7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 {is 5...c5 above}) ({and} 7. Be3 {
is easily met by} cxd4 ({or} 7... Nd5 8. Bd2 Bxc3 9. bxc3 Nc6) 8. Qxd4 Qxd4 9.
Bxd4 Nc6 $11 {.}) 7... Nc6 ({Liquidating the centre immediately by} 7... cxd4 {
should also be satisfactory; e.g.} 8. Qxd4 (8. Nxd4 $6 e5 9. Ndb5 a6 10. Qxd8+
Kxd8) 8... Qxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. O-O Nbd7 $11 {.}) 8. Be3 (8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3
e5 $11 {; see 5...c5 again.}) 8... cxd4 9. Nxd4 (9. Bxc6+ $5 bxc6 10. Qxd4 {
may be best,} -- ({, when Black should probably opt for} 10... Qxd4 11. Bxd4
Ba6 $11 {.}) ({
. Instead, there's a much-cited game Urban-Uhlmann, Würzburg 1993:} 10... Qe7
11. -- (11. O-O Ba6 {with dynamic play}) ({; unfortunately, this allows} 11. a3
$1 {, when White takes control:} Ba5 (11... Bxc3+ 12. Qxc3 $1 $16) 12. Qa4 Qc7
13. O-O-O {, which is awkward for Black.}))) 9... Ne5 ({Or} 9... Bxc3+ 10. bxc3
Ne5 $11 {.}) 10. Be2 (10. O-O Nxf3+ 11. Qxf3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 O-O 13. c4 Qc7 14.
Bg5 Nd7 15. Qe2 a6 16. Rad1 {, Kallio-Kristjansson, Gausdal 2003; here} Nc5 {
was fine,} ({but} 16... Nb6 $15 {is even stronger.})) 10... Nd5 11. Bd2 Nxc3
12. bxc3 Be7 $1 13. O-O O-O 14. f4 (14. Re1 Qd5 $5 $15) (14. Rb1 Bf6 {.}) 14...
Nd7 15. Bd3 Nc5 16. Qf3 Bd7 17. Rae1 Nxd3 (17... Qc7 $1 {
is a good alternative, with a comfortable advantage.}) 18. cxd3 Qc7 $15 {
Fichtl-Uhlmann, Zinnowitz 1966.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.6 4 exd5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 {. This is another version of the
Exchange Variation. White frees Black's bishop on c8 and can't expect much as
a result, but wants to use the advantage of the first move. Most of what we
say about the Exchange in Chapter 12 applies here as well. White can't play an
early c4, of course, but he can try to take advantage of Black's bishop on b4
by playing a3, and if ...Bxc3 follows then Black's dark squares may become
vulnerable. In return, Black gains c4 and quick development. Alternately,
Black can play solidly and retreat his bishop. In general the 4 exd5 lines are
considered safe but not pointed enough to cause Black many worries.} exd5 {
. Now White has two main moves:} 5. -- ({7.61} 5. Bd3) ({7.62} 5. Qf3) ({
Instead: -- (a)} 5. a3 {tries to commit Black to ...Bxc3+ before he can
arrange a retreat to d6 (that being the best square in many Exchange lines).
Then Black can play simply} Be7 {, which is solid, or with more ambition:} ({
. Simon Williams suggests} 5... Qe7+ $5 {, 'since White does not have his
bishop on d3 and so 6 Ne2 is not a very effective way of blocking the check'.
This is sensible; e.g.} 6. Qe2 (6. Nge2 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Nf6) (6. Be2 Bxc3+ 7.
bxc3 Nf6 8. Nf3 Ne4 $5 {and Black is at least equal - Williams}) 6... Bxc3+ 7.
bxc3 Nc6 8. Bg5 $5 Qxe2+ 9. Bxe2 Bf5 10. O-O-O h6 11. Bh4 Nge7 $11 {.}) (5...
Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 (6... Nf6 7. Bd3 {transposes to 6 a3 in the notes to 7.611})
7. Nf3 (7. Bd3 Bf5 $11) 7... O-O ({or} 7... Nbc6 8. Bd3 Bg4 $1) 8. Bd3 Bf5 9.
O-O Nbc6 10. Bf4 {, Treybal-Nimzowitsch, Carlsbad 1923; and} Na5 $15 {
was suggested by Nimzowitsch,} ({while} 10... Qd7 {is also good.}))) ({(b)} 5.
Nf3 Ne7 ({a snippet from history is} 5... Nc6 6. Bd3 $6 Bg4 $15 {
Em.Lasker-Botvinnik, Moscow 1936}) (5... Bg4 6. h3 Bh5 {is also good}) ({, and
} 5... Nf6 {is examined by transposition in 17.21}) 6. Bd3 (6. Bg5 Bf5 7. Be2
f6 8. Be3 Nbc6 9. Qd2 Qd7 10. a3 Ba5 $1 11. b4 Bb6 $11 {
P.Chandler-Brecht, German League 2000}) 6... Nbc6 (6... Bg4 7. h3 Bh5) 7. h3
Bf5 8. Bxf5 Nxf5 9. O-O Bxc3 10. bxc3 O-O 11. Qd3 Nd6 $15 {
Mannheimer-Nimzowitsch, Frankfurt 1930.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.61 5 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 {. The main move; White
develops logically. Now, as is typical with slow variations, Black has a
selection of at least five valid continuations. I'll concentrate upon a
selection of subvariations which don't require extraordinary precision in
their handling. The analysis of last two is abbreviated, but should contain
enough information to work with.} -- ({7.611} 5... Nf6) ({7.612} 5... c6) ({
7.613} 5... Nc6) ({Others: -- (a)} 5... c5 6. dxc5 (6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 c4)
6... Nc6 7. Nf3 (7. a3 Bxc5 {with active piece play}) 7... Nge7 8. O-O Bxc5 {
may favour White slightly because of Black's isolated d-pawn, but that's not
clear, and in case it wouldn't be much to brag about. Black has the standard
IQP deployments such as ...Bg4, ...Re8, ...a6, ...Qd6, etc. Psakhis assigns
'?!' to 5...c5 and cites Lutikov-Nogueiras Santiago, Jurmala 1978:} 9. a3 O-O
10. b4 Bd6 11. Nb5 Bb8 12. Re1 f6 13. Bb2 {, which is logical to this point.
Psakhis calls this '+/=', but the game continued rather normally by} a6 14.
Nbd4 Ne5 15. h3 N7g6 $6 (15... Qc7 $11 {is more precise}) 16. Bf5 $6 (16. Nxe5
$1 Nxe5 17. Nf3 $14) 16... Qd6 17. Bxc8 Rxc8 {
and with the outpost on c4 and active pieces, Black stood better.}) ({(b)} 5...
Ne7 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Nbc6 {
transposes to 5...Nbc6 6 a3 Bxc3 7 bxc3 Nge7 in the notes to 7.613;} ({
but Black can opt for the modest} 7... Bf5 {
with full equality. Here's an example of the play with some typical themes:} 8.
Qf3 Qd7 9. Ne2 O-O 10. O-O Nbc6 11. Bxf5 $6 Nxf5 ({or} 11... Qxf5 $1 {
; White's weaknesses don't go away in the endgame}) 12. Ng3 Nxg3 13. Qxg3 Ne7
$5 (13... Na5 {
is natural and also good; White's bishop is the inferior minor piece}) 14. Bf4
c6 15. Rfe1 Rfe8 16. Re3 $2 Nf5 17. Qg4 Rxe3 $1 18. fxe3 Re8 $17 {
Moshina-Maksimovic, Ikaros 2002.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.611 5...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 Nf6 {
. This simple developing move is reliable and well regarded.} 6. Bg5 {
A pointed continuation.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 6. Nf3 O-O (6... Qe7+ 7. Be3 Ne4 8.
O-O $1 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Rb1 {with good attacking chances}) 7. O-O Bg4 {
('the simplest solution' - Psakhis)} 8. Bg5 (8. h3 Bh5 9. Re1 Nc6 10. g4 Bg6
$11) 8... c6 9. h3 Bh5 10. Bf5 $5 (10. Re1 Nbd7) 10... Qd6 ({
White's last didn't really prevent} 10... Nbd7 $1 {:} 11. Bxd7 Qxd7 12. Bxf6
gxf6 {with bishops and kingside prospects; upon} 13. Ne5 {,} Qf5 14. Ng4 Kh8 $1
{is strong}) 11. Qd3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Nbd7 13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. Ne5 Bg6 $11 {
Van der Doel-Vaganian, Groningen 1999.}) ({(b)} 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 O-O 8. Ne2
{and:} -- (8... c5 $5 9. dxc5 Nbd7 10. Be3 (10. O-O {
is 10 dxc5 after 8...Nbd7 below}) 10... Qc7 {is double-edged; e.g.} 11. Bd4 Ne4
12. O-O Ndxc5 13. f3 Ng5 14. Re1 Nge6 $11 {.}) (8... Bg4 9. f3 Bh5 10. O-O Bg6
{is a standard manoeuvre; e.g.} 11. c4 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 dxc4 13. Qxc4 Re8 14. Bg5
$6 Qd5 15. Qxd5 Nxd5 16. Kf2 b5 $1 17. Rfb1 Nc6 18. Bd2 a6 $15 {
Preissmann-Hug, Swiss Team Ch. 2010;} ({or} 18... Nb6 {.})) (8... Nbd7 9. O-O
c5 10. Ng3 (10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bh4 Re8 $11 {
was the actual route of Dvoirys-Eingorn in the note to 6 Bg5 h6 below}) 10...
c4 $5 11. Be2 Re8 12. Bf3 Nb6 $5 (12... h6 13. Bf4 Nf8) 13. a4 Bd7 14. a5 Na4
15. Bg5 h6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Qd2 Bc6 18. Rfb1 Qd8 $5 ({or here the simpler} 
18... b6) 19. Rb4 Qxa5 20. Qf4 {with mutual and unclear chances.})) ({(c)} 6.
Nge2 O-O 7. Bg5 {transposes to the main line.} ({Here} 7. O-O {
has several valid answers:} Re8 (7... c6 8. a3 Bd6 $11) (7... Bg4 8. f3 Bh5 9.
Nf4 Bg6 10. Nxg6 hxg6 11. Bg5 {
, Ivanchuk-W.So, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009; and So recommends} c5 $1 12. dxc5 Bxc3 (
12... Qa5 $1 {also levels the game}) 13. bxc3 Nbd7 {
'when Black has good counterplay'}) 8. Bg5 c6 9. Qc1 $5 (9. Qd2 h6 10. Bxf6
Qxf6 11. Rae1 Nd7 12. Ng3 Rxe1 13. Rxe1 Qd8 $5 14. Nf5 Nf6 $11 {
Fluvia Poyatos-Moskalenko, Illes Medes 2006/07}) 9... Nbd7 10. Ng3 Nf8 $1 11.
Nce2 h6 12. Bf4 Ng6 (12... Ne6 {was also good}) 13. Bd2 {
, Annaberdiev-Al Modiahki, Doha 2006; and now} Bd6 $1 {is at least equal.}))
6... O-O ({The immediate} 6... h6 {is also effective (often transposing):} 7.
Bh4 (7. Qe2+ Be6 8. Bh4 g5 $1 9. Bg3 c5 $1) 7... O-O 8. a3 ({not} 8. Qf3 $4 g5
9. Bg3 Bg4 10. Qe3 c5 $19) (8. Nge2 {transposes to 6...0-0}) 8... Re8+ 9. Nge2
Bxc3+ ({or} 9... Be7) 10. bxc3 c5 $1 11. dxc5 Nbd7 12. O-O Nxc5 $11 {
Dvoirys-Eingorn, Lvov 1990.}) 7. Nge2 {Consistent with White's set-up.} ({
Others: -- (a)} 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 {
(this sometimes arises from an earlier a3 by White)} Qe8+ $5 {(clever)} ({
although} 8... c5 9. dxc5 Nbd7 10. Ne2 Nxc5 $11 {is simpler and quite as good})
9. Ne2 (9. Qe2 Qc6 $1 10. Qd2 Re8+ 11. Ne2 Ne4 12. Bxe4 Rxe4 13. O-O f6 $15)
9... Ne4 10. Bf4 $6 (10. Bd2 Nd7 11. O-O Nb6 12. Ng3 Qc6 13. Qh5 $6 f5 14. Bxe4
dxe4 15. f3 $2 e3 $1 $19 {Druckenthaner-Kindermann, Austrian Team Ch. 2002})
10... Nxc3 11. Qd2 Nxe2 12. Bxe2 Nc6 $17 {
Stromer-Degraeve, Cappelle la Grande 1995.}) ({(b)} 7. Qd2 $2 c5 $1 {
is already better for Black:} 8. a3 (8. dxc5 d4 9. O-O-O dxc3 10. Bxh7+ Kxh7
11. Qxd8 Rxd8 12. Rxd8 cxb2+ 13. Kxb2 Nbd7 $17) (8. Nf3 Qe8+ $1 9. Qe2 c4 $17)
8... Ba5 9. Nf3 Qe8+ 10. Be3 c4 11. b4 cxd3 12. bxa5 dxc2 13. Qxc2 Nc6 14. O-O
Bg4 $1 15. Nd2 Nxa5 $17 {.}) 7... h6 8. Bh4 (8. Bf4 c5 9. dxc5 Nc6 10. O-O Bxc5
11. Na4 Bd6 12. Qd2 Be6 $11 {.}) 8... c6 (8... c5 $5 9. dxc5 Nc6 10. O-O Bxc5
11. Nxd5 $5 g5 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Bg3 Qxb2 14. Rb1 Qf6 $11 {
½-½ Skripchenko-Barua, Groningen 1997.}) 9. O-O Re8 {Moskalenko comments:
'Zugzwang!', the point being that most natural moves will only help Black.} ({
Alternatively,} 9... Nbd7 10. a3 Bd6 11. Bg3 Nb6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 $11 {
Rechel-Eingorn, Metz 1998.}) 10. f4 $6 (10. h3 Nbd7 11. a3 Bd6 12. Qd2 Nf8 13.
Rae1 Ne6 {is comfortable for Black, who can meet} 14. f4 {by} Bd7 15. f5 Ng5 $1
16. Bxg5 hxg5 17. Qxg5 c5 $1 18. dxc5 Bxc5+ 19. Kh1 Be3 20. Qg3 d4 21. Nb5 Bxb5
22. Bxb5 Ne4 {with more than enough for a pawn.}) 10... Bg4 ({Or} 10... Nbd7
$15 {.}) 11. h3 Bxe2 12. Nxe2 Nbd7 {, Perpinya Rofes-Moskalenko, Catalonia
2002. 'Black has at least an equal game' (Moskalenko).} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.612 5...c6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 c6 {. This is recommended in
the recent books by both Williams and Vitiugov. What's more, Uhlmann employed
5...c6, and theoreticians generally approve of the move, so it's probably
worth a quick look!} 6. Qf3 {Oddly enough, this is the main reply. White has
several ideas in mind, including pinning a knight on f6 by Bg5, exchanging a
bishop on d6 with Bf4, and discouraging Black's normal simplification via ...Bf5.} ({Alternatively: -- (a)} 6. Nge2 Ne7 {
and ...Bf5 should equalize without serious problems; e.g.} 7. O-O Bf5 8. Ng3
Bxd3 9. Qxd3 O-O 10. Nce2 Na6 11. c3 Bd6 12. Bf4 Nc7 13. Rae1 Ne6 {
½-½ Oll-Short, Parnu 1996.}) ({(b)} 6. Nf3 Qe7+ 7. Be3 Nf6 8. O-O O-O 9.
Re1 Qc7 10. h3 Bd6 11. Bg5 Nbd7 12. Qd2 b5 $5 13. a3 a5 {
with double-edged play.}) 6... Nf6 (6... Qf6 {has been used twice by Ivanchuk
and is recommended by Williams and Vitiugov. It is adequate, although what
chances there are seem to be on White's side; e.g.} 7. Bf4 Ne7 8. Nge2 Ng6 9.
Qe3+ Qe6 10. Bg3 $14 {.}) 7. Bg5 Nbd7 8. Nge2 O-O 9. O-O ({
Williams cites Fressinet-Pelletier, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, with} 9. O-O-O {
, which looks risky to me. A simple response is} Re8 10. Rhe1 h6 {; e.g.} 11.
Bf4 Nf8 12. h3 Ne6 13. Be5 Nd7 14. Bg3 Bxc3 15. bxc3 Qa5 {.}) 9... h6 $1 10.
Bh4 Re8 11. h3 Be7 12. Rfe1 Nf8 13. Bg3 Ne6 {
, and ...Bd6 follows with equality.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.613 5...Nc6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 Nc6 {. In recent years Black
has experienced some new challenges here, but they seem to be manageable if
you know some theory. I've recommended this in previous editions and it has
become Black's most popular solution to 4 exd5, although recently there has
also been a turn towards 5...Nf6 and assorted solid lines. Here's the main
line, which you can supplement with research:} 6. a3 ({
A single recent example with} 6. Nge2 Bg4 (6... Nge7 7. O-O Bf5 $11) 7. a3 Ba5
8. h3 Bh5 9. Be3 Nge7 10. Qd2 Bg6 11. Ng3 Qd7 12. O-O-O O-O-O 13. Bxg6 $6 hxg6
14. Qd3 Bxc3 $1 15. Qxc3 Rde8 {, Doluhanova-Pähtz, Dresden 2011. Suddenly
Black's game looks good. White has a bad bishop and his knight has no forward
squares.}) 6... Bxc3+ (6... Ba5 {has been used by Apicella and Uhlmann and is
undoubtedly playable. The capture is thematic.}) 7. bxc3 Be6 $5 {This is my previously recommended move, which maintains flexibility and allows Qh5 to be met
by ...Nf6, while Black can also play a quicker ...0-0-0 in several lines.} ({
After} 7... Nge7 {, Black needs to play a bit more carefully than with his
alternatives because of} 8. Qh5 {, preventing ...Bf5, and causing a little
awkwardness in Black's camp. With caution, however, Black can take his share
of the board after} Be6 {. Here's a brief look at White two main choices:} 9.
-- (9. Nf3 Qd7 10. Ng5 O-O-O {
has been tested many times. A frequently-played line is} 11. Nxe6 ({
Black's idea is} 11. Nxf7 $2 Qe8) 11... Qxe6+ 12. Be3 g6 13. Qf3 Nf5 14. O-O
Nxe3 15. Rfe1 Ne5 $1 16. dxe5 (16. Qxe3 Nxd3 17. Qxe6+ fxe6 18. cxd3 Rd6 $11 {
, with even a touch of queenside pressure}) 16... Nc4 17. Bxc4 dxc4 18. Qe3 b6
19. a4 a5 {and Black stands better if anybody.}) (9. Rb1 Qc8 $5 ({
an alternative to the well-investigated} 9... b6) 10. h3 Bf5 {
(getting the key move in)} 11. Ne2 O-O 12. O-O {, Berset-Huss, Lenk 2011; and}
b6 {looks most logical, with good chances to equalize.})) 8. Rb1 {
This is the most common move by quite a margin.} ({
The other important choice is} 8. Qf3 Nge7 (8... Qd7 {is also played}) 9. Ne2 (
9. Nh3 Qd7 10. Ng5 {, Kramnik-Carriere, Bonn 2004;} Bf5 $1 $11 {with the idea}
11. g4 $6 Bg6) 9... Qd7 10. Ng3 $5 (10. h3 {is less ambitious and allows} Bf5
$5 {; e.g.} 11. O-O O-O 12. Ng3 Bxd3 13. cxd3 Ng6 14. Bg5 Rae8 $11 {
Vishnu-Adrian, Figueres 2011}) (10. Nf4 Bf5 11. O-O {can be met by} O-O-O $5 ({
or the safer} 11... O-O)) 10... Bg4 $5 (10... O-O 11. h3 Na5 12. O-O Ng6 13.
Nf5 Bxf5 14. Bxf5 Qc6 $11) 11. Qe3 O-O 12. O-O Rfe8 $11 {.}) 8... b6 9. Ne2 ({
Or} 9. Qf3 Nge7 10. Ne2 Qd7 11. Ng3 O-O 12. h3 Na5 13. O-O Rae8 14. Nh5 {
, Malloni-H.Andersen, Kaunas 2011, and now} f6 $11 {; e.g.} 15. Qg3 g6 16. Nf4
Nf5 {.}) ({After} 9. Ne2 {, Nataf-Rustemov, Stockholm 2002, went} Qd7 10. O-O
Nge7 11. Nf4 Bf5 12. Nh5 O-O 13. h3 (13. Bh6 $2 Bg4 $1 $17) {
, when the most interesting move is} 13... Bg6 $5 {; e.g.} 14. Qf3 Na5 $1 15.
Re1 Rae8 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.62 5 Qf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Qf3 {. Larsen's old weapon, with
which he won some nice games, but it fell into relative disuse because of
Black's reply.} Qe7+ {This has been the key move for decades.} ({
A good solid alternative is} 5... Nc6 {, which leads to interesting play after}
6. Bb5 Nge7 {:} 7. -- (7. Bf4 O-O (7... a6 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Nge2 O-O 10. O-O
Rb8) 8. O-O-O (8. Nge2 Ng6 $1 9. O-O-O a6 10. Ba4 Be6 {
and I prefer Black's attacking chances}) {
, B.Larsen-L.Portisch, Amsterdam Interzonal 1964; and here} 8... a6 $1 {
favours Black after either} 9. Ba4 ({or} 9. Bxc6 bxc6) 9... Na5 $1 {
intending ...b5.}) (7. Bg5 $5 f6 8. Bf4 O-O 9. O-O-O a6 (9... Be6 {
may be more accurate}) 10. Bd3 $6 (10. Bf1 Be6 $15) (10. Ba4 b5 11. Bb3 Be6 $15
) (10. Bxc6 $1 bxc6 11. Nge2 {looks best, with equal and mutual chances}) 10...
Nxd4 11. Bxh7+ Kxh7 12. Rxd4 c5 13. Rd1 Bxc3 14. Qxc3 Bf5 15. Ne2 d4 $15 {
Sukhanov-Krasnov, Moscow 1971.}) (7. a3 Bd6 $5 (7... Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 a6 9. Be2
O-O 10. Nf3 Bg4 $11) 8. Be3 (8. Nge2 O-O 9. Bd3) 8... a6 (8... Be6 9. O-O-O a6
10. Bd3 b5 {with mutual chances}) 9. Bd3 Be6 $11 {
intending ...Qd7, Karttunen-N.Pert, Porto Carras 2011; e.g.} 10. Nge2 Qd7 11.
h3 O-O 12. O-O Ng6 {.}) (7. Nge2 Bf5 8. Bd3 Qd7 $11 9. a3 (9. O-O Bxd3 10. Qxd3
$11) 9... Bxd3 10. Qxd3 (10. cxd3 Bd6 $15) 10... Bxc3+ 11. Nxc3 Qf5 $1 12. Qxf5
Nxf5 13. Be3 O-O-O 14. O-O-O Rhe8 {
with a slight edge for Black, due to White's bad bishop.})) 6. Nge2 {
The best move.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 6. Be3 $6 {runs into trouble after} Nf6 ({or
} 6... Nc6 $1 {, when} 7. Nge2 {transposes to 6 Ne2 Nc6 7 Be3 below}) 7. Bd3 (
7. a3 Bg4 8. Qg3 Bd6 9. Qh4 Bf4 10. Nxd5 Nxd5 11. Qxg4 O-O $17) (7. Nge2 Nc6 {
is the same transposition as after 6...Nc6}) 7... c5 $1 8. Kf1 (8. a3 Ba5) 8...
Bxc3 9. bxc3 c4 10. Bf5 Bxf5 11. Qxf5 O-O $17 {Mestrovic-Maric, Kraljevo 1967.}
) ({(b) White may not even quite equalize after the passive} 6. Qe3 {; e.g.}
Nc6 7. Nf3 (7. Bb5 Bf5 8. Qxe7+ Ngxe7 9. Bf4 Bxc2 10. Bxc7 Rc8 11. Bf4 a6 $15 {
Saharov-Antoshin, Sochi 1966}) 7... Bg4 (7... Bf5 8. Bd3 Bxd3 9. cxd3 O-O-O 10.
O-O {, Ajala-I.Farago, Harrachov 1967, and} Qxe3 11. fxe3 $1 Nf6 12. Bd2 {
is about equal}) 8. a3 (8. Ne5 Nxe5 9. dxe5 Rd8 $1 $15) (8. Be2 $2 Bxf3 9. gxf3
O-O-O $15) 8... Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 O-O-O {. This is a hard-to-assess
position, but I think one of the rare times that the knight pair is worth a
bit more than the bishops, only because White has two sets of doubled pawns
and four isolated pawns.}) 6... Nc6 7. Qd3 {I recommended this move as an
experimental try in 'DWF'. Given the alternatives, it is doubtless the best
try.} ({(a)} 7. Be3 $6 Nf6 {is already difficult for White, who has to deal
with the moves ...Ne4, ...Bg4, and ...Bxc3+ (with ...Qa3 in response to bxc3);
for example,} 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Ne4 ({or} 9... Bg4 $15) 10. Qh5 Be6 11. f3 {
, Biyiasis-J.Watson, Vancouver 1977; and among other good moves,} Nf6 $1 {
stands out:} 12. Qh4 Bf5 13. Bg5 O-O-O 14. Bxf6 gxf6 {
and White has an unsafe king with too many weaknesses.}) ({(b)} 7. Qxd5 {
is obviously risky after} Nf6 {, when Black has a huge lead in development.
White is forced along a narrow path:} 8. Qb5 $1 (8. Qc4 Be6 9. Qd3 O-O-O 10.
Be3 Rhe8 {will end in a Black advantage}) 8... Bd7 $5 (8... O-O $1 {
is more flexible; Black needn't be in a hurry}) 9. Qd3 $1 O-O-O 10. Be3 Bxc3+
$5 (10... Rhe8 11. a3 ({better than} 11. O-O-O {, when} Ng4 {
offers more than enough compensation}) 11... Ba5 {is possible,} ({or} 11...
Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3 Bg4 $1)) 11. Nxc3 (11. Qxc3 Nd5) (11. bxc3 Rhe8 ({or} 11... Nd5
{with good prospects})) 11... Bg4 (11... Nb4 12. Qd2 Bf5 13. Rc1 Ne4 14. Nxe4
Bxe4 {is unclear}) 12. Be2 Bxe2 13. Qxe2 Qb4 14. O-O-O Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Rxd4 16.
Qe5 Rhd8 $11 {.}) 7... Nf6 $1 {Williams recommends this good natural move,
which I neglected in my book (thinking that Black shouldn't allow Bg5). It
equalizes.} 8. f3 {This keeps Black's knight out of e4. ---} ({
Otherwise: -- (a) Williams analyses} 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. Qxc3 Ne4 10. Qe3 Bf5 11. f3
Nd6 12. Qxe7+ {, when I think} Kxe7 $1 {is best and moderately advantageous,} (
{his} 12... Nxe7 13. Bf4 O-O-O 14. O-O-O Ng6 15. Bg3 h5 {
is less convincing after} 16. h4 {with the idea} Nc4 17. Bf2 {
, but in general Black is doing well after 8 a3}) {, because} 13. c3 Na5 {
targets White's queenside light squares}) ({(b)} 8. Bg5 h6 $1 9. Bh4 (9. Bxf6
Qxf6 10. O-O-O Be6 {accomplishes little}) (9. Be3 O-O 10. O-O-O Na5 $1 11. a3
Bd6 {and Black's development is freer than White's}) 9... g5 10. Bg3 Bxc3+ {
gives Black the better game after either} 11. Qxc3 ({or} 11. bxc3 Ne4) 11...
Ne4 $15 {.}) {
After 8 f3, Black can equalize and retain an unbalanced contest with two moves:
} 8... -- ({(a)} 8... O-O 9. a3 (9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4 Na5 $1 $15) 9... Bd6 (9...
Bxc3+ 10. Qxc3 Ne8) 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Nb5 Na5 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 8... Ba5 {
(with the idea of ...Nb4 and ...Bf5)} 9. a3 Be6 10. Bd2 (10. Bg5 O-O-O 11.
O-O-O h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. Bf2 Ne8 $5 {intending ...Nd6}) 10... O-O-O 11. O-O-O
Kb8 12. Kb1 a6 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "7.7 4 Qd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C15"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qd3 {. White defends e4. He would like to
transfer the queen to pressure the kingside. In addition, he can prepare 0-0-0
by, say, Bd2.} Ne7 ({White's main idea is} 4... dxe4 5. Qxe4 Nf6 6. Qh4 {
, which may be fine for Black but isn't worth contesting. The text recognizes
that the queen is not well placed on d3, and thus doesn't need to be forced to
a better spot.}) ({Another solution is} 4... Nc6 {and then:} 5. -- (5. Nf3 dxe4
$5 (5... Nf6 6. e5 Ne4 7. a3 $6 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 f6 $1 9. exf6 {
, Jerez Perez-Romero Holmes, Cala Galdana 2001; and now} Qxf6 10. Be2 O-O {
gives Black good development and a variety of plans such as ...b6, ...Bb7 and ...e5, or ...a5/...Ba6, or ...Bd7-e8-g6/h5}) 6. Qxe4 Nf6 7. Qh4 Ne7 $1 8. Bd3
Nf5 9. Bxf5 exf5 10. Bg5 Qe7+ 11. Ne5 Qe6 12. O-O Bxc3 13. bxc3 Ne4 $11 {.}) (
5. e5 f6 6. a3 Ba5 7. b4 Bb6 8. Nf3 fxe5 9. dxe5 Nge7 10. Bb2 {
, Münch-Reimer, corr 1998; and simplest was} a6 $1 11. Na4 Ba7 $15 {.})) 5. Bd2
{Probably best, thematically preparing 0-0-0.} ({Others: -- (a)} 5. Nge2 {
, and now Black can play a variety of moves, including} c5 {
. These two are more subtle:} (5... Nd7 6. a3 Ba5 ({or} 6... dxe4 7. Qxe4 Bd6)
7. b4 Bb6 {(White has stopped ...c5, but now has to face ...e5)} 8. Ng3 a5 9.
Rb1 axb4 10. axb4 O-O 11. Be2 (11. e5 f6 12. f4 fxe5 13. fxe5 Nc6 14. Nce2 Qh4
{intending ...Ndxe5}) 11... e5 $1 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. exd5 exd4 14. O-O Ne5 $17 {
Chevallier-Luce, Torcy 1991.}) (5... O-O 6. a3 Ba5 (6... dxe4 7. Qxe4 Bd6 $11)
7. Bd2 Nbc6 8. O-O-O a6 $5 9. h4 b5 $11 {
Kir.Georgiev-M.Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1984.})) ({(b)} 5. Bg5 O-O (5... f6 {
is also fine}) 6. Nf3 Bxc3+ (6... f6 7. Bd2 c5 $1) ({, or} 6... b6 {
intending ...Ba6}) 7. bxc3 f6 8. Bd2 b6 (8... c5 $1) 9. Qe3 Bb7 10. Bd3 (10. e5
$5 Nf5 11. Qf4 Nc6 $15 {- Vaganian}) 10... dxe4 11. Bxe4 Nf5 $1 12. Qe2 Bxe4
13. Qxe4 Qd5 $15 {Smirin-Vaganian, Naberezhnye Chelny 1988.}) 5... c5 (5... b6
{has been played in several games}) ({but a more common order for this idea is
} 5... O-O 6. a3 (6. O-O-O c5 ({here} 6... b6 {is a sound alternative; e.g.} 7.
Nh3 Ba6 {½-½ Meszaros-Lahlum, Kecskemet 2003, having in mind} 8. Qf3 Bxf1
9. Rhxf1 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 dxe4 11. Qxe4 Qd5 $11) 7. dxc5 Nbc6 {
transposes to the main line}) 6... Bxc3 7. Bxc3 b6 $1 8. O-O-O (8. Nf3 Ba6 9.
Qe3 Bxf1 10. Rxf1 Nd7 $15) 8... Ba6 9. Qf3 (9. Qe3 Bxf1 10. Rxf1 a5 $1 11. Nf3
Nbc6 12. Bd2 b5 $1 $15 {Jerez Perez-Moskalenko, Barbera 1999}) 9... Bxf1 10.
Rxf1 Nbc6 11. Ne2 a5 12. a4 $6 {(but ...b5-b4 is a problem anyway)} Qd7 $1 13.
Nf4 dxe4 14. Qxe4 Nb4 $1 $17 {
0 1 M.Levitt-Nogueiras Santiago, Bled Olympiad 2002.}) 6. dxc5 Nbc6 7. O-O-O
O-O (7... Bxc5 {
is probably more accurate, just to avoid the possibilities in the next note.})
8. Nf3 ({Others: -- (a)} 8. exd5 exd5 9. Na4 Bf5 10. Qb3 {, when} Qa5 $1 11.
Bxb4 Nxb4 12. c3 Nbc6 {offers good queenside attacking chances.}) ({(b)} 8. Qg3
d4 9. Nb5 Bxc5 10. h4 $6 {(slow)} a6 11. Na3 f5 $1 12. exf5 Nxf5 13. Qb3 b5 14.
Nf3 Qd6 15. Bd3 Bb7 $15 {Suer-Kanko, Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964.}) 8... Bxc5 9. Be3
Qb6 (9... Bxe3+ 10. Qxe3 Qc7 {is a calm approach.}) 10. Bxc5 Qxc5 11. exd5 exd5
12. Nd4 ({After} 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. Qxd5 Qxf2 {, Black intends ...Be6 or ...Bg4.
}) (12. Nd4 {is Ribeiro-Russek Libni, Maringa 1991, when a simple solution is}
Be6 $1 {with the idea} 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. f3 Nf5 {and a nice advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8. Winawer: Various 5th Moves"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 {. The thrust 4...c5 attacks the centre
in traditional French Defence style. The natural response is 5 a3, so that
after 5...Bxc3+ 6 bxc3, White's threatened d4 point is fortified and he has
the two bishops. Nevertheless, White has several other fifth moves and it's
essential to know how to answer them. The solutions presented here are not
radically different from those in previous editions.} 5. -- ({8.1} 5. Nf3) ({
8.2} 5. Bd2) ({8.3} 5. dxc5) ({8.4} 5. Qg4) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.1 5 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Nf3 {. This simple development isn't
used much, mainly because White's centre isn't well supported. It is
nevertheless perfectly sound.} cxd4 {
This is more complicated than I realized at the time of the previous edition;}
({and I'd also recommend the following two options which might make life
easier: -- (a) After} 5... Ne7 6. a3 ({and} 6. dxc5 {
will transpose to 5 dxc5 below}) 6... Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 {transposes to the
Positional Winawer (Chapter 10). I personally like this choice.}) ({(b)} 5...
Nc6 {is a natural move, open to transposition.} 6. -- (6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Nge7
({and} 7... Qa5 {are Positional Winawers})) (6. dxc5 {
is a direct transposition to 5 dxc5}) ({; and} 6. Bd2 {
could transpose to something related to} Nge7 ({or} 6... Nh6) ({
, though White also has to deal with} 6... cxd4 7. Nb5 Bc5) 7. Nb5 O-O {.}) ({
. An independent line is} 6. Bb5 Nge7 (6... Qb6) (6... Bd7) 7. O-O O-O 8. dxc5
Bxc5 $11 {; e.g.} 9. Na4 $5 Bb4 10. a3 Ba5 11. b4 Bc7 12. Qe2 a6 13. Bd3 Ng6
$11 {.})) 6. Qxd4 (6. Bb5+ Bd7 {is unimpressive}) ({while} 6. Nxd4 {
has several answers, the most popular being the double attack on c3 and e5 by}
Qc7 {:} 7. Bb5+ Nc6 ({or} 7... Nd7) ({, or} 7... Bd7 8. O-O Ne7 $11) 8. O-O
Nge7 9. Qg4 O-O 10. Bxc6 Bxc3 11. bxc3 Nxc6 {; e.g.} 12. Ba3 (12. Nxc6 bxc6 13.
Re1 f5 14. exf6 Rxf6 $11) 12... Nxe5 13. Qg3 Re8 14. Nb5 Qd7 15. Nd6 Nc4 16.
Nxe8 Qxe8 17. Bc1 f6 $15 {
; Black has a powerful centre and his knight is a monster.}) 6... Nc6 7. Bb5 (
7. Qg4 $5 {isn't bad:} Nge7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qh6 (9. Qxh7 d4 10. a3 Qa5 11. Rb1
dxc3 12. Be3 $1 Bd7 $1 13. axb4 Qa2 14. Rd1 cxb2 15. c3 Qb3 $1 {
is about equal; compare 5 Qg4 Ne7 6 dxc5 Nbc6 7 Qxg7 etc in the notes to 8.41})
9... d4 (9... Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Qc7 11. Bb5 $5 Rxg2 12. Kf1 Rg8 {
, and both sides have dynamic chances}) ({; simply} 9... Qc7 {
is also playable and equal after} 10. Bd2 Nxe5 11. O-O-O $1 Nxf3 12. gxf3 Bd7
13. Kb1 O-O-O {; e.g.} 14. Qxh7 d4 15. Ne4 Bxd2 16. Rxd2 Nf5 $1 $15) 10. a3
dxc3 (10... Rg6 11. Qxh7 dxc3 12. axb4 Nxb4 {transposes}) 11. axb4 Nxb4 12.
Qxh7 Rg6 13. Bb5+ ({or} 13. Qh8+ Rg8 14. Qh7 $11) 13... Bd7 14. Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.
O-O Nxc2 16. Rb1 Nd4 17. Nxd4 Qxd4 18. bxc3 {
, and if nothing else Black can bail out by} Rxg2+ 19. Kxg2 Qg4+ $11 {.}) 7...
Qa5 8. Bd2 (8. O-O Nge7 9. Qg4 Bxc3 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. bxc3 Ba6 12. Re1 Qxc3
$11 {Arpi-Harikrishna, Bikaner 1999, with the idea} 13. Qxg7 $2 Rg8 14. Qf6 Nf5
$17 {.}) 8... Nge7 9. Qg4 {
There are several alternatives, none of them dangerous.} ({(a)} 9. a3 O-O (9...
Bxc3 $11) 10. Bxc6 Nxc6 11. Qg4 Kh8 $5 12. O-O Be7 $1 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 9. Bxc6+
bxc6 10. O-O (10. Ne4 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12. Nexd2 a5 13. O-O Ba6 14. Rfe1
O-O $15) 10... c5 $1 (10... Nf5 11. Qf4 Ba6 12. Rfd1 O-O 13. a3 Bxc3 14. Bxc3
Qc7 $11) 11. Qg4 Ng6 12. a3 Bxc3 13. Bxc3 Qb5 {intending ...d4 and ...Bb7.}) ({
(c)} 9. O-O Bxc3 $5 10. Bxc6+ Nxc6 11. Qxc3 Qxc3 12. Bxc3 O-O $11 {.}) 9... O-O
10. Bd3 $5 ({After} 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. a3 c5 $1 12. O-O Bxc3 13. Bxc3 Qc7 {
Black has a comfortable position with a modest central advantage.}) (10. Bd3 {
is Hodgson-Ravi, London 1987. Here I'd recommend simply} Ng6 11. a3 (11. Bxg6
fxg6 $1 $15 12. a3 Be7) (11. O-O Ncxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qh5+
Kg8 15. Qxe5 f6 $15 {with two bishops and a mobile centre}) 11... d4 $5 12.
Bxg6 (12. Nxd4 Ncxe5 13. Qe4 Nxd3+ 14. cxd3 Be7 $15) 12... hxg6 13. Nxd4 Qxe5+
14. Nde2 Be7 15. O-O b6 $15 {
. The bishop pair suffices for a limited advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.2 5 Bd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 {. Credited to Bogoljubow, this
developing move prevents the doubling of White's c-pawns and prepares Nb5,
from where the knight can infiltrate to d6 or simply cover d4. Of the fifth
move alternatives, this has been the most popular, although it hasn't caught
on among the leading players. I'll show two main replies:} -- ({8.21} 5... Ne7)
({8.22} 5... Nh6 {--- The difference between this and the last edition is that,
since there's really not enough room to cover these systems in full detail,
I'm picking 5...Ne7 to be the main line. That's because its theory has
stabilized and is unlikely to change fundamentally. Unfortunately, the theory
of 5...Nh6 (which was a very minor, almost unknown, move when I first
recommended it) has simply exploded, and it would take considerable commitment
of space to fill in all the details. So I'll undertake a less expansive
investigation, one which will especially concentrate upon lines which have
become critical since the previous edition.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.21 5...Ne7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 {
. This is the traditional line. In response, White plays:} 6. -- ({8.211} 6.
Nb5) ({8.212} 6. a3) ({8.213} 6. f4) ({
There are two other logical moves: -- (a)} 6. dxc5 Nbc6 ({Black can also play} 
6... O-O) 7. f4 (7. Qg4 {transposes to 5 Qg4 - see 8.41}) (7. Nf3 {is note 'b'}
) 7... O-O 8. Nf3 f6 (8... Nf5 $1) 9. Bd3 {
, Santo Roman-Kindermann, Uzes 1990, when} fxe5 10. fxe5 Nf5 $15 {
is not what White wants.}) ({(b)} 6. Nf3 {is highly transpositional;} -- ({
; for example,} 6... cxd4 7. Nb5 Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 O-O {
transposes to 6 Nb5 Bxd2+ 7 Qxd2 0-0 8 Nf3 cxd4.}) ({
. Black also has the generally more complex} 6... Nbc6 {
, which contains some instructive themes:} 7. -- (7. dxc5 Ng6 $5 ({or} 7... O-O
8. a3 ({or} 8. Bd3 Ng6) 8... Bxc5 9. Na4 Bd4 $5 10. Nxd4 Nxd4 11. Bd3 Qc7 $1)
8. Bb5 (8. Nb5 Bxc5 9. Bc3 O-O $15 10. h4 a6 11. Nbd4 Qb6 12. Qd2 Nxd4 13. Nxd4
Nxe5 $17 {Macia-Ludevid, email 1993}) 8... Bxc5 9. O-O (9. h4 $6 Bd7 10. Bxc6
Bxc6 11. h5 Ne7 12. h6 gxh6 {with the idea} 13. Bxh6 $2 ({or} 13. Qe2 Rg8 14.
g3 Qb6) 13... Qb6 $1) 9... Bd7 10. Re1 a6 (10... O-O $1) 11. Bd3 $6 Qb6 $1 12.
Qe2 Nd4 $1 13. Nxd4 Bxd4 $15 14. Be3 $2 Bxe3 15. Bxg6 {
, Holms-Tosti, corr 1994; when} hxg6 16. fxe3 Qxb2 17. Qd3 Rc8 {
is one of several winning lines.}) (7. Nb5 Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 O-O 9. dxc5 (9. c3 a6
$1 {transposes to 9 Nf3 a6 in section 8.2111}) 9... b6 $1 10. cxb6 Qxb6 11.
O-O-O Rb8 12. b3 {
, An.Martin Gonzalez-Sanchez Jimenez, Spanish Ch. 1993. Black's} Qc5 {
was at least equal,} ({while} 12... Bd7 $1 13. Nbd4 a5 {is better still.})))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.211 6 Nb5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O {
. The main line. White's immediate concern is to resolve the central situation,
and there is a wide choice of means:} 8. -- ({8.2111} 8. c3) ({8.2112} 8. f4) (
{8.2113} 8. dxc5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.2111 8 c3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O 8. c3
Nbc6 $5 {. This is a good move but not the only one.} ({Here are some other
thematic lines; note especially the efficient and effective development in 'c':
-- (a)} 8... f6 9. exf6 Rxf6 10. dxc5 Nd7 11. b4 a5 12. f4 $5 (12. Nf3 b6 13.
cxb6 Qxb6 14. Be2 axb4 15. cxb4 Ba6 $11) 12... b6 $1 13. cxb6 Qxb6 {
with dynamic play, Martinez-Arencibia, Cuba 1988.}) ({(b)} 8... a6 9. Na3 (9.
Nd6 cxd4 10. cxd4 Nbc6 11. O-O-O f6 12. f4 Qb6 13. Nf3 Bd7 {intending ...Nc8})
9... Nbc6 10. f4 (10. Nf3 {transposes to 9 Nf3 in the main line}) 10... cxd4
11. cxd4 Nf5 12. Nf3 f6 {is complex and equal.}) ({(c)} 8... Bd7 $1 9. Nd6 (9.
dxc5 Bxb5 10. Bxb5 Nd7) 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Qb6 $15 11. f4 $6 Nbc6 (11... Nc8
12. Nxc8 Rxc8 13. Nf3 Bb5 $5 14. Qb4 $6 Bxf1 15. Qxb6 axb6 16. Rxf1 Nc6 17. Kd2
Ra4 $1 $15 {Kristjansson-B.Sorensen, Reykjavik 2011}) 12. Nf3 Nc8 $1 13. Nxc8
Raxc8 {with a healthy advantage, Yildiz-Zhukova, Tbilisi 2011.}) 9. f4 ({Or} 9.
Nf3 a6 {and then:} 10. -- (10. Nd6 $5 cxd4 11. cxd4 f6 12. Nxc8 Rxc8 13. exf6
Rxf6 14. Bd3 g6 $5 {(eliminating Bxh7+ and thus preparing ...Qb6)} ({or} 14...
Ng6 15. Bxg6 Rxg6 16. O-O Qf6 17. Kh1 Rg4 18. Rad1 Rf4 19. Qe3 Re4 {
with a little pressure}) 15. Be2 (15. O-O $2 Rxf3 $1 16. gxf3 Nxd4 17. Qe3 Nec6
18. Rad1 Qf6 19. f4 Rf8 $15) 15... Qb6 16. O-O Nf5 17. Rfd1 Rff8 18. b3 Qb4 $1
{with the idea} 19. Qxb4 Nxb4 20. a3 Rc2 $15 {.}) (10. Na3 cxd4 ({or} 10... f6
$11) 11. cxd4 f6 (11... Nf5 12. Nc2 f6 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. Bd3 e5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 {
with an edge, Turzo-MusiqueWand, ICC 2010}) 12. exf6 Rxf6 13. Nc2 Qd6 14. O-O-O
(14. Be2 Bd7 $1 15. O-O Be8 16. Rac1 Bg6 $15) 14... Bd7 15. Bd3 Raf8 (15... Be8
$1) 16. Rde1 $6 (16. Kb1) 16... Be8 17. Rhf1 Ng6 $1 $17 {
Strikovic-Ivkov, Cetinje 1991.})) 9... cxd4 ({Or} 9... a6 $5 10. Nd6 cxd4 11.
cxd4 f6 {intending ...Qb6, applying irritating pressure on White's position.})
10. cxd4 (10. Nxd4 f6 11. exf6 Rxf6 12. Nxc6 Nxc6 13. O-O-O Bd7 14. Nf3 Be8 $11
{intending ...Bg6, Manolov-Spasov, Elenite 1992.}) 10... Nf5 11. Nf3 f6 $5 (
11... a6 12. Nc3 Bd7 13. Be2 Rc8 14. O-O Qb6 $15 {.}) 12. Bd3 (12. Be2 a6 13.
Nc3 fxe5 14. dxe5 (14. fxe5 $2 Nfxd4 $1 15. Nxd4 Qh4+) 14... d4 15. Nd1 Qb6 $15
{.}) 12... a6 $5 13. Bxf5 axb5 14. Bd3 Qa5 $1 {, Lilienthal-Mikenas, USSR Ch.,
Moscow 1940. This is usually assessed as favourable for Black, but it's
probably just equal. On the other hand, Black had nice improvements earlier.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.2112 8 f4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O 8. f4
{. As usual, f4 is rather loosening, but this seems the best moment for it.
Quite a lot of theory has accumulated on this rather innocuous variation, so
I'll try to focus on the most principled solutions.} a6 {This has been played
the most and has a lot of developed theory. On the other hand, Black has easy
equality and good chances of an advantage with other moves; for example, you
can take your pick of the following three options. The first one is an
eye-opener for those who think 8 f4 has any chance of producing an advantage
for White.} ({(a) The little-known} 8... Bd7 {
(!) seems to solve Black's problems immediately, and hopes for more:} 9. Nd6 (
9. dxc5 Bxb5 10. Bxb5 Qc7 ({or here} 10... b6 {, since} 11. cxb6 $2 Qxb6 {
favours Black}) {, with the idea} 11. b4 a5 12. c3 b6 $1 $15 {; such variations
are good as winning tries because they are thoroughly unbalanced}) 9... Qb6 ({
or} 9... cxd4 10. Nf3 f6) 10. O-O-O Nbc6 11. Nf3 f6 $2 {(a mistake)} (11...
cxd4 $1 12. Bd3 f6 ({or perhaps} 12... h6 {puts the burden of proof on White;
I'd be surprised if this didn't give Black the advantage already})) 12. exf6 $1
Rxf6 (12... gxf6 {is more dynamic}) 13. Ne5 $1 {
, Tregubov-Vysochin, Lvov 2011; and instead of the risky} Nb8 $2 ({
Black should play} 13... Nxe5 14. fxe5 Rff8 $14 {.})) ({
(b) There's nothing wrong with} 8... Nbc6 9. Nf3 (9. dxc5 {
transposes to 8 dxc5 Nbc6 9 f4 in the notes to 8.2113, a nice line for Black})
9... a6 (9... Qb6 10. dxc5 Qxc5 {transposes to 'c'}) 10. Nd6 Nxd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4
12. Bd3 (12. Qxd4 {is a decent alternative, with about the same assessment;}
Nc6 13. Qe3 Qa5+ 14. Qd2 Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 f6 16. exf6 Rxf6 $11 {
is just one of many lines}) 12... f6 $5 13. O-O Bd7 14. Nxb7 Qb6 15. Na5 fxe5
16. fxe5 Ng6 $5 ({or} 16... Qxb2 {with equal chances.})) ({(c) Finally,} 8...
Qb6 9. dxc5 Qxc5 10. Nf3 Nbc6 {(this can also arise from 8...Nbc6)} 11. O-O-O
Bd7 {is logical play from both sides. Then we have:} 12. -- (12. Nfd4 a6 13.
Nb3 Qb6 14. Nc3 a5 $15 {.}) (12. Nd6 {and:} -- (12... Nc8 $5 13. Nxc8 (13. Nc4
$2 dxc4 14. Qxd7 c3 $17 {Comp Deep Thought-McCambridge, Pittsburgh 1988}) 13...
Raxc8 14. Kb1 a5 15. h4 b5 16. h5 a4 17. h6 (17. a3 $2 b4) 17... g6 18. g4 $5
a3 19. b3 b4 {and Black stands no worse at any rate.}) (12... f6 $1 {
is perhaps even better; e.g.} 13. Nxb7 (13. Qe1 $6 Ng6 $17 14. Bd3 $6 Nxf4 15.
Bxh7+ $2 Kxh7 16. Qh4+ Kg8 17. Qxf4 fxe5 18. Qh4 Rxf3 19. gxf3 Qxd6 $19 {
Gooris-Garret, Hammelburg 2009}) 13... Qb6 14. Nd6 Rab8 15. b3 fxe5 16. fxe5
Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Qxd6 $15 {.})) (12. Nbd4 {(best)} Rfc8 (12... Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Rac8
14. Kb1 Ba4 $5 {intending ...Nc6 and ...Bb5}) 13. Kb1 a5 14. h4 b5 $1 15. h5 a4
16. Bd3 a3 17. b3 Nxd4 18. Nxd4 b4 $11 {.})) 9. Nd6 cxd4 10. Nf3 (10. Nxc8 Qxc8
11. Nf3 Nbc6 12. O-O-O Nf5 $15 {.}) 10... f6 11. Bd3 (11. exf6 Rxf6 12. Nxc8
Nxc8 $5 ({or} 12... Qxc8 13. O-O-O Nbc6 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Nf5 16. Qe5 Qc5
{with perhaps a slight edge}) 13. O-O-O Nc6 (13... Nd6 14. Bd3 Nc6 15. Rhe1 Qb6
16. a3 Re8) 14. Bd3 $5 (14. g3 Nd6 15. Nxd4 Qb6 $15) 14... Nb6 $1 15. Kb1 Na4
$1 {.}) 11... Nbc6 12. O-O Bd7 13. Qe1 {This is the move advocated by
Dzindzihashvili and Perelshteyn; otherwise White's central position is falling
apart.} Nc8 (13... Qb6 14. Qh4 (14. a3 h6 {
intending ...Nc8 is similar, leaving open the option of ...f5}) 14... h6 $1 15.
g4 fxe5 (15... Nb4) 16. Nxe5 $2 (16. fxe5 Rf4 $5 {and ...Raf8}) 16... Qc7 17.
g5 Qxd6 18. gxh6 g6 19. Qg5 Be8 20. Bxg6 Nxg6 21. Nxg6 Kh7 22. Nxf8+ Qxf8 {
, Ryan-Fluvia Poyatos, Barcelona 2011, and the attack has fallen short.}) 14.
Nxc8 Rxc8 15. a3 {This is played in order to prevent the awkward ...Nb4.} h6 $1
{This looks like the most straightforward solution; Black remains a pawn ahead,
neutralizes White's kingside attack and challenges him to show compensation.} (
{Alternatively: -- (a)} 15... fxe5 16. fxe5 {seems risky at first,} -- ({
, in view of} 16... Rxf3 $2 17. Rxf3 Qg5 18. Rg3 $1 {with an attack}) ({
; however, Black can still play} 16... h6 17. Qg3 Ne7 $1 {(intending ...Bb5)}
18. Nh4 $1 (18. a4 Nf5 19. Qg6 Rc6) 18... Qc7 $5 19. Ng6 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Bb5 21.
Qg4 Nf5 {, and White can get within a fraction of equality by} 22. Bxf5 exf5
23. Qxf5 $1 Bxf1 24. Qxc8+ Qxc8 25. Ne7+ Kf7 26. Nxc8 d3 27. cxd3 Bxd3 28. Kf2
{.})) ({(b)} 15... Qb6 16. Qh4 h6 17. Rab1 $6 (17. exf6 $1 Rxf6 18. Ne5 Nxe5
19. fxe5 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Rf8 $11) 17... Ne7 18. g4 Bb5 19. exf6 Rxf6 20. Ne5 {
, Pedram-Crouse, corr 2004; and} Qc7 {produces a comfortable advantage.}) 16.
Qg3 ({Now the try} 16. Nh4 $6 {isn't effective after the reply} fxe5 17. fxe5
Rxf1+ 18. Bxf1 Be8 $1 $17 {.}) 16... Qb6 17. exf6 (17. Qg6 f5 18. b4 Ne7 19.
Qg3 Bb5 {.}) 17... Rxf6 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. fxe5 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Bb5 21. h3 ({
This is all analysis that I did several years ago. Andersson's move 21 h3 is
better than my line} 21. Qg6 Bxd3 22. cxd3 Qc6 23. h3 Qe8 $15 {.}) 21... Bxd3
22. cxd3 Qxb2 {Taking chances.} (22... Rf8 {is safe and at least equal.}) 23.
Qg6 Rc1 24. Qxe6+ Kh8 25. Qe8+ Kh7 26. Qf7 Qxa3 27. e6 Rxf1+ 28. Qxf1 b5 29.
Qf5+ Kh8 30. Qf7 Qxd3 31. e7 Qe3+ 32. Kh1 Qe1+ {½-½ M.Andersson-H.Graf,
ICCF server 2008. --- This whole line is fairly easy for Black; apart from the
established variations, I would have you mark the new move 8...Bd7 which, if
it works, might be an easy way to limit your study.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.2113 8 dxc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. Nb5 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O 8.
dxc5 {. White's idea is to overprotect e5 and clear d4 for a knight. This is
the probably White's soundest line; it doesn't promise a great deal but
minimizes his chances for serious disadvantage.} Nd7 ({A good alternative is} 
8... Nbc6 9. f4 (9. Nf3 b6 $1 {
transposes to 6 Nf3 Nbc6 7 Nb5 Bxd2+ 8 Qxd2 0-0 9 dxc5 b6 - see 8.21}) 9... f6
({although I like} 9... b6 $1 {here too}) {, when Otten analyses} 10. exf6 Rxf6
11. Nf3 b6 $1 12. cxb6 Qxb6 13. c3 (13. O-O-O $1 Rb8 14. b3 {
is better, though Black has attacking chances}) 13... Rb8 14. b3 Ng6 15. g3 e5
$1 16. Nxe5 $2 {(but Black stands better anyway)} Ngxe5 17. fxe5 Bg4 {
. He says this is winning for Black, and it looks strong after the forced line}
18. Nd4 Re8 19. Nxc6 Qxc6 20. Qd4 Rxe5+ 21. Qxe5 Re6 22. Qxe6+ Qxe6+ 23. Kd2
Bf3 24. Bd3 Bxh1 25. Rxh1 Qh3 {.}) 9. f4 $6 {Too loosening.} ({Instead: -- (a)
} 9. Nf3 $6 Nxc5 10. Bd3 (10. O-O-O Ne4 11. Qe1 Bd7 12. Nbd4 Nc6 13. h4 f5 14.
g3 Qc7 $15 {Ciolac-Zysk, Vienna 1990}) 10... Nc6 (10... Qb6 $1 $15) 11. O-O {
, V.Knox-J.Levitt, British Ch., Dundee 1993; and here} Bd7 12. Nbd4 Rc8 {
is level.}) ({(b)} 9. Qc3 {
is generally considered best, although Black has a number of good replies:} --
(9... Nc6 10. Nf3 (10. f4 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 12. Nd6 d4 13. Qa3 ({or} 13. Qd2 b6
$1) 13... Ng4 $11) 10... b6 $5 {
(this is a standard sacrificial motif going back to Bronstein)} ({
objectively, however,} 10... a6 11. Nd6 f6 12. exf6 Qxf6 $1 {
is better and at least equalizes}) 11. cxb6 Qxb6 12. a4 a5 {
with just about enough counterplay; e.g.} 13. Be2 (13. Bd3 Ba6 14. O-O Rfc8)
13... Ba6 14. O-O (14. b3 Rac8 15. Qb2 Qb8 $11) 14... Rac8 {
and Black has more chance of getting somewhere than White.}) (9... f6 {
looks like a good solution:} 10. exf6 (10. Nf3 fxe5 11. Nxe5 b6 $1 12. Nxd7
Bxd7 13. cxb6 Qxb6 14. Qd4 Qb8 $15) 10... Nxf6 11. Bd3 Bd7 12. Nd6 $2 (12. a4
e5 $1) 12... Qc7 $15 {with the idea} 13. b4 b6 14. Rb1 a5 15. a3 axb4 16. axb4
Rfb8 $15 {.}) (9... a6 {is dull, but equalizes easily:} 10. Nd6 Qc7 (10... b6
11. c6 d4 $1) 11. Nf3 (11. b4 $2 a5) (11. f4 Qxc5 12. Qxc5 Nxc5 $11) 11... Qxc5
12. Qxc5 Nxc5 13. c4 $5 Rd8 ({or} 13... Nc6 14. Rc1 $11 ({rather than} 14. cxd5
$6 exd5 15. Rd1 Ne4 $1 16. Rxd5 Be6 17. Rd1 Nxd6 $15)) 14. Rc1 (14. Ng5 f6 $1)
14... Nd7 $1 15. c5 Nc6 $15 {.})) 9... Nxc5 10. Nd4 Qb6 ({Also good are} 10...
Bd7) ({and} 10... Nc6 11. Ngf3 Ne4 12. Qe3 Qb6 13. O-O-O Bd7 {.}) 11. O-O-O {
, Sanz Alonzo-Sion Castro, Salamanca 1990;} ({and apart from} 11. O-O-O Bd7 {,}
({Black had} 11... Ne4 12. Qe3 Nf5 $1 13. Nxf5 exf5 {
with a small advantage and plenty of play.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.212 6 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. a3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 {. This variation is equal, but more promising for White than the alternatives. Black can
choose between a somewhat drawish line (this might discourage players of White)
or one with mutual chances:} b6 {This is often essayed by stronger players and
yields a deep strategic game with chances for both sides.} ({Instead,} 7...
Nbc6 8. Nf3 cxd4 {can lead to quick liquidation, though there are still ways
to keep things alive:} 9. -- (9. Bxd4 Nf5 (9... Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Nc6 11. Qg4 O-O
12. Bd3 f5 {was approximately equal in Balashov-Svistunov, Pinsk 1993}) 10. c3
(10. Bc3 d4 11. Bd2 {is double-edged, and more fun}) 10... Bd7 11. Be2 Rc8 $5
12. O-O O-O 13. Qd2 $5 Nfxd4 14. cxd4 Na5 $1 $11 {Savon-Hort, Skopje 1968.}) (
9. Nxd4 Nxe5 $1 {(otherwise Black is slightly worse)} 10. Nxe6 Bxe6 11. Bxe5
O-O 12. Bd3 (12. Be2 Nc6 13. Bg3 Qf6 14. c3 $6 ({but} 14. O-O {
is better, and equal}) 14... d4 $1 $15) 12... Nc6 13. Bg3 (13. Bc3 d4 14. Bd2
Ne5 $1 15. Bxh7+ $2 Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg8 17. Qxe5 Re8 18. Qg3 Bc4+ 19. Kd1 Rc8 {
with a huge attack, Ljubojevic-Nogueiras Santiago, Wijk aan Zee 1987}) 13...
Qf6 14. -- (14. Rb1 Bf5 {offers little for either player:} ({also possible is} 
14... g6 $5 {, e.g.} 15. O-O d4 16. Be4 Rac8 {and ...Rfd8}) ({
; whereas Spassky-E.Vladimirov, Solingen 1991, went} 14... Rac8 15. O-O Ne5 $6
16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Bxe5 Qf5 19. Qxf5 Bxf5 20. Rbd1 {
with a few minor chances for White}) 15. O-O Rfe8 (15... Bxd3 16. Qxd3 Rad8 $11
{Guedon-Naumkin, Cappelle la Grande 1993}) 16. Bxf5 Qxf5 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rfe1 d4
{½-½ Roese-H.Franke, German League 1991.}) (14. O-O $1 Qxb2 $5 (14... Rfe8
{is boringly safe, and likely superior}) 15. Rb1 Qxa3 16. Rxb7 {
offers reasonable and potentially exciting play for the pawn:} Rfe8 $5 (16...
Qc5 17. Qh5 h6 $5 {
, Hector-Sorensen, Berlin 1993; and White should stay aggressive with} 18. Bf4
{, hoping for} Nb4 19. Bg6 $1) 17. Qh5 (17. Re1 Re7 $1 {
, Tringov-Uhlmann, Skopje Olympiad 1972}) 17... h6 $6 (17... g6 18. Qg5 Qc3)
18. f4 $1 Re7 {, Obukhovski-Khasin, USSR 1973; and White could demonstrate how
this variation has some punch by} 19. f5 $1 Bc8 (19... Rxb7 20. fxe6 $18) 20.
Rxe7 Qxe7 21. Re1 Qd8 22. f6 $1 {.}))) 8. Bb5+ {The most ambitious move.} ({
Instead: -- (a)} 8. b4 Qc7 9. Nf3 {isn't timed as well:} cxb4 10. Bxb4 a5 11.
Bd2 O-O 12. Bd3 Ba6 {
and Black is a little more comfortable, J.Friedman-Gulko, Philadelphia 1993.})
({(b)} 8. Nf3 {is solid; e.g.} Ba6 (8... O-O 9. Bd3 Ng6 $5 {
has ideas of both ...Nf4 and ...Ba6, so White should play} 10. b4) 9. Bxa6 Nxa6
10. O-O O-O 11. b4 Nb8 $5 (11... cxb4 $1 12. axb4 Nc7 $15 {intending ...Qd7;
the queenside light squares, especially c4, are effective as outposts}) 12. Qd3
cxd4 (12... Nd7 $11) 13. Nxd4 Nbc6 14. Ne2 $5 (14. Nxc6 Nxc6 {
is not so easy because Black has the c-file}) 14... Rc8 15. f4 h5 $5 (15... Qc7
$1 {, with the idea} 16. b5 Nd8 17. Bb4 Nb7 {and ...Nc5}) 16. Be1 Nf5 17. Bf2
Nce7 18. c3 Rc4 {with active pieces, Cabrilo-Lputian, Cetinje 1991.}) ({(c)} 8.
Qg4 O-O 9. Nf3 Ba6 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Bd2 cxd4 (11... Qc7 $5) 12. Bg5 $5 Qc7 13.
Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nxd4 Rac8 $11 {De la Villa Garcia-Bareev, Leon 1995.}) 8... Bd7
9. Bd3 {Now at least he doesn't have to deal with ...Ba6.} Nbc6 10. Nf3 (10. f4
cxd4 (10... c4 11. Be2 Nf5 12. g3 b5 {intending ...a5 is unclear}) 11. Bd2 Ng6
(11... O-O 12. Nf3 f6 {, Spassky-Mohr, German League 1988;} 13. exf6 $1 Rxf6
14. O-O Qc7 15. Re1 {and Black is fine, but he's defending}) 12. Nf3 O-O (12...
f6 $5) 13. Ng5 $6 (13. O-O $11) 13... h6 14. Nf3 Nh4 $5 15. O-O Nxf3+ 16. Qxf3
a5 $11 {Makka-Ikonomopoulou, Athens 2011.}) 10... Ng6 $1 ({I called} 10... cxd4
11. Bxd4 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 Ng6 {equal in 'PTF3', but} 13. Qg4 {
keeps a little plus, even after} Qh4 $1 14. Qxh4 Nxh4 15. O-O Ng6 16. f4 {
, albeit nothing special.}) 11. O-O (11. Bxg6 fxg6 12. O-O O-O 13. dxc5 bxc5
14. b4 Qb6 $1 $11 {Leko-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 1995.}) 11... O-O 12. Re1 (12.
dxc5 bxc5 13. b4 $1 {is possible, with a dynamic balance after, for example,}
d4 14. Bb2 Ncxe5 15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Qxe5 Qb6 19. c3
$5 {.}) 12... Qc7 $6 ({Black should play} 12... a5 $1 $11 {.}) 13. Qd2 ({Better
} 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. b4 $1 {, with the idea} d4 15. Bd2 Ncxe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17.
Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Rxe5 $14 {intending} g6 $6 20. Rxc5 {.}) 13... a5
$1 14. Qe3 Nce7 $11 {Mastrovasilis-Shirov, Porto Carras 2011.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.213 6 f4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Ne7 6. f4 {
. This doesn't seem to be any kind of threat to Black; in fact, it's risky.}
Nf5 $5 {Somewhat ambitious.} ({Others are easier to play: -- (a)} 6... O-O 7.
Nf3 ({or} 7. dxc5 f6 $1 8. Nf3 Nbc6) 7... Nbc6 ({it can also be answered by} 
7... cxd4 8. Nb5 Bc5 9. b4 Bb6) ({, or} 7... c4 $5 8. Ne2 Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 Nbc6
10. Ng3 b5 {with a pawn storm, probably about equal}) 8. dxc5 f6 {
transposes to 6 dxc5 Nbc6 7 f4 (see note 'a' at the start of 8.21).}) ({(b)} 
6... cxd4 7. Nb5 Bxd2+ ({or} 7... Bc5 $1 8. b4 a6 9. bxc5 axb5) 8. Qxd2 O-O {
has been played in a number of contests and White has gotten nowhere; e.g.} 9.
Nxd4 Nbc6 10. Ngf3 Nxd4 ({or} 10... f6 11. exf6 Rxf6 12. Bd3 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Qb6
14. c3 Bd7 15. O-O Nc6 $11) 11. Nxd4 Bd7 12. Bd3 Qb6 13. Nf3 $6 (13. c3 Nc6 $11
) 13... Bb5 (13... Qxb2 $5 14. O-O Qb6+ 15. Kh1 Qc5 $15) 14. Bxb5 Qxb5 15. Kf2
$5 Rac8 16. Rhc1 h6 $5 {½-½ Gullaksen-Ogaard, Oslo 1998. Black has most of
the potential improvements here.}) 7. Nf3 (7. Nb5 $2 a6 $1 8. Bxb4 cxb4 9. Nd6+
Nxd6 10. exd6 Qxd6 $17 {Santo Roman-Raicevic, Athens 1992.}) 7... cxd4 $1 (7...
Nc6 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Bd3 {
, Hebden-N.McDonald, British Ch., Plymouth 1989; and here simply} O-O {
is slightly better for Black, since White can't castle and ...f6 will open new
lines.}) 8. Nb5 Ne3 $1 9. Qc1 Bc5 10. b4 Be7 $15 {.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.22 5...Nh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Nh6 {. As explained above, I'm
going to give this a limited look, with the emphasis on updating critical
lines. If you have my previous edition ('PTF3'), that gives more detail; and
fortunately, Simon Williams' book, 'Attacking Chess: The French', has an
excellent overview with original thoughts (Williams has played 5...Nh6 for a
decade). --- What's the point of the move? At the potential cost of allowing
White to weaken his pawn structure, Black brings flexibility into his range of
strategies; for instance, if White plays Nb5-d6, Black can challenge that
piece via ...f6 and ...Nf7. By not playing ...Ne7, Black's queen is free to
move to the kingside, and can recapture on ...f6 in any line where White plays
exf6. Even the move ...Ng4 sometimes enter the picture (e.g. after dxc5), and
one should note that White's standard sacrifice Bxh7+ with Ng5+ and Qh5 is
blocked by the knight. --- The most obvious negative is that White can at some
point play Bxh6, shattering Black's kingside pawns. As in other French
variations with ...Nh6, the disadvantage to so doing is that White forfeits
his dark-squared bishop and can easily become weak on the dark squares as a
result (White's centre is constructed on dark squares for example). This
normally wouldn't quite balance out Black's structural loss, except that here
it will have cost White two moves to make this capture: Bd2 and then Bxh6. ---
We'll look at:} 6. -- ({8.221} 6. Nb5) ({8.222} 6. Bxh6) ({8.223} 6. a3) ({
Other moves, rather briefly: -- (a)} 6. f4 {
is even less effective than after 5...Ne7; e.g.} cxd4 ({or} 6... O-O 7. Nf3
cxd4 8. Nb5 Bc5 9. b4 Bb6) (6... Nf5 $5 {transposes to 8.213 above}) 7. Nb5 Bc5
8. b4 Be7 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. Rb1 Nf5 11. Bd3 a6 $1 12. Bxf5 axb5 13. Bd3 Rxa2 {.})
({(b)} 6. Nf3 {and then:} -- (6... cxd4 7. Nxd4 (7. Nb5 Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 O-O $11 {
; e.g.} 9. Nbxd4 f6 $5 10. exf6 Qxf6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. O-O e5 $11) 7... O-O 8.
Bxh6 gxh6 9. Bd3 (9. Qd2 Qc7 10. Qe3 f6 11. exf6 Rxf6 $11) 9... f6 10. Qg4+ Kh8
11. Qh5 fxe5 12. Qxe5+ Qf6 13. Qxf6+ Rxf6 14. O-O Nc6 $11 {.}) (6... Nc6 7.
Bxh6 (7. Bd3 {is note 'd'}) ({, while} 7. a3 Bxc3 $5 8. Bxc3 {
is seen via 6 a3 Bxc3 7 Bxc3 Nc6 8 Nf3 in the notes to 8.223}) 7... gxh6 {
transposes to 6 Bxh6 gxh6 7 Nf3 Nc6 (see 8.222);} ({but} 7... cxd4 {
deserves a look, one fun line being} 8. Bg5 (8. Nxd4 gxh6 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Bxc6
bxc6 11. O-O Rb8 $5) 8... dxc3 $5 9. Bxd8 cxb2+ 10. Nd2 bxa1=Q 11. Qxa1 Nxd8
12. Bb5+ Nc6 13. Qd4 Be7 {with mutual chances.}))) ({(c)} 6. dxc5 {
can also transpose into other lines, but there are several unique moves:} Nc6 (
{; a modest solution is} 6... Nd7 7. Bb5 a6 8. Bxd7+ Bxd7 9. Bxh6 gxh6 10. Nf3
Qc7 {and ...0-0-0}) ({, or} 6... Bxc5 $5 7. Bxh6 ({or} 7. Bd3 Nc6 8. Qh5 Nf5)
7... gxh6 8. Qd2 Nc6 {with the idea} 9. Qxh6 Bxf2+ $1 10. Kxf2 Qb6+) 7. Bb5 (7.
Nf3 Ng4 $5) 7... Nf5 8. Nf3 Bxc5 $11 {.}) ({(d)} 6. Bd3 Nc6 (6... cxd4 7. Nb5
Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 O-O 9. Nxd4 f6 10. Ngf3 {, and here} Ng4 {
is recommended by Williams;} ({while} 10... Nf7 $11 {intends} 11. exf6 $6 Qxf6
{and ...e5})) 7. Nf3 Nxd4 ({or} 7... cxd4 8. Nb5 Bxd2+ 9. Qxd2 O-O 10. O-O f6
11. exf6 Rxf6 $15) 8. Nxd4 cxd4 9. Nb5 (9. Ne2 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 O-O 11. f4 f6 $11
) 9... Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 O-O $11 {intending ...f6.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.221 6 Nb5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Nh6 6. Nb5 Bxd2+ 7. Qxd2 O-O {
. This is similar to 5...Ne7 6 Nb5, but the knight on h6 has its advantages.}
8. dxc5 ({Alternatively: -- (a)} 8. f4 {has several answers; for example,} Nc6
(8... a6 9. Nd6 cxd4 10. Nf3 f6 $1 $15 {is also good}) 9. Nf3 a6 10. Nd6 cxd4
11. Bd3 $5 f6 12. O-O Ng4 $1 $17 {.}) ({(b)} 8. Nf3 a6 9. Nd6 cxd4 10. Bd3 $2 (
10. Nxd4 f6 $15) 10... Nc6 11. Nxc8 Rxc8 12. O-O f6 13. Rae1 Nf7 14. exf6 Qxf6
$17 {Leiber-Shaked, Berlin 1997.}) 8... Nc6 9. Nf3 b6 $5 {
A very common theme, sacrificing a pawn for activity.} 10. Qc3 ({Others: -- (a)
} 10. cxb6 Qxb6 11. O-O-O $6 Ng4 12. Nbd4 Ngxe5 13. Nxc6 Nxc6 $15 {
A.Hunt-S.Williams, Witley 1999.}) ({(b)} 10. Nbd4 Nxd4 $1 11. Qxd4 Nf5 12. Qb4
({or} 12. Qc3 d4) 12... Qe7 13. Qg4 bxc5 14. Bd3 c4 15. Bxf5 Qb4+ 16. c3 Qxb2
17. O-O exf5 18. Qd4 Be6 19. Rfb1 Qc2 $15 {.}) 10... Bd7 11. Bd3 (11. Nd6 $5
bxc5 12. Nb7 $1 Qb6 13. Nxc5 Ng4 $1 14. Nxd7 Qxf2+ 15. Kd1 Rfc8 $1 {(Kholmov).}
) 11... bxc5 12. Qxc5 Ng4 $1 $15 {Kholmov-Nikitin, Moscow 1995.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.222 6 Bxh6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Nh6 6. Bxh6 {
. An obvious and important move.} gxh6 7. Nf3 ({On} 7. a3 {, Black has:} -- (
7... Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nc6 10. Nf3 (10. Ne2 $5 {
, Frittchle-J.Watson, Los Angeles 1999, and most pointed was} b6 $5 {; e.g.}
11. f4 Ba6 12. Nc1 cxd4 13. Bxa6 Qxa6 14. cxd4 Rg8 15. Kf2 O-O-O $11) 10... Bd7
$5 (10... cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 {looks adequate; e.g.} Bd7 13. Rb1 Na5
14. Bd3 Rc8 $11) 11. dxc5 $1 Rg8 12. g3 Qxc5 13. Bd3 f6 $1 14. exf6 (14. Bxh7
Rg7 15. Bd3 fxe5) 14... Rf8 15. O-O Rxf6 {, and a sample line is} 16. Nd4 e5
17. Qe3 Kf7 18. Nb5 d4 19. Qe2 dxc3 20. Rab1 Rd8 {
, which is messy but balanced.}) (7... Ba5 8. Nf3 (8. dxc5 Bxc3+ ({
here Williams likes} 8... d4 9. b4 dxc3 10. bxa5 Qxa5 {
, which is complex but looks a good option}) 9. bxc3 Qa5 10. Qd2 Nd7 11. Nf3
Nxc5 12. c4 Qxd2+ 13. Nxd2 dxc4 14. Nxc4 Bd7 $11 {with weaknesses on both sides
}) 8... Qb6 9. Rb1 Nc6 10. dxc5 (10. b4 cxb4 11. Nb5 bxa3+ 12. c3 a2 $1) 10...
Qxc5 11. Qd2 d4 12. b4 Qxc3 13. bxa5 Rg8 14. Qxc3 dxc3 15. a6 bxa6 16. Rb3 Rg4
17. Rxc3 Bb7 $1 $11 {.})) 7... Nc6 {This isn't forced - which is important in
move order terms, because after 6 Nf3, Black could transpose to 6...Nc6 7 Bxh6
gxh6 here, but doesn't have to because of the options of 6...cxd4 or 7...cxd4
(see that note above). Therefore, if Black doesn't need to play 7...Nc6 here,
he isn't forced to go into the critical line that follows at all.} ({
Instead, he can try} 7... Qa5 {, leading to} 8. Qd2 Rg8 9. a3 ({or} 9. g3 Rg4
$5 {, and a likely continuation is} 10. a3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Rxd4 $5 12. Qxd4 Nc6
13. Qd2 $1 d4 14. axb4 Qxa1+ 15. Nd1 Qa4 $1 16. Bg2 {, and either} Qb5 {
for complications,} ({or} 16... Bd7 17. O-O O-O-O 18. c3 Be8 $1 19. Qxh6 dxc3
20. Nxc3 Qxb4 $11)) 9... cxd4 (9... Nd7 $5) 10. Nxd4 Nc6 11. Bb5 Bxc3 12. Qxc3
Qxc3+ 13. bxc3 Bd7 14. Bxc6 (14. Nxc6 $5 bxc6 15. Bf1 Rb8 16. g3 Ke7) 14...
bxc6 15. g3 c5 16. Nb3 Rc8 $11 {.}) 8. Bb5 {Even if, as indicated above, you
needn't enter this line as Black, I think the play is fascinating and
satisfactory.} Qa5 {This is logical.} ({Black could also try: -- (a)} 8... cxd4
9. Qxd4 Qa5 10. O-O Qxb5 11. Nxb5 Nxd4 12. Nfxd4 Kd8 ({or} 12... Kd7 {
is plausible, although Black would only be going for a draw.})) ({(b)} 8... O-O
9. O-O cxd4 10. Ne2 Qb6 11. a4 $1 f6 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Nexd4 Be7 {
is playable, but should favour White.}) ({(c)} 8... Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qa5 {
is the best alternative to 8...Qa5, one line going} 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. O-O $1 (
{or} 11. Qd2 Ba6 {with plenty of play}) 11... Qxc3 12. Rb1 Ba6 13. Re1 cxd4 14.
Nxd4 Rg8 15. Re3 Qc4 {intending ...c5.}) 9. Qd2 cxd4 ({Better than} 9... Rg8
10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. O-O cxd4 12. Nxd4 c5 13. Nb3 Qc7 $14 {.}) ({After} 9... cxd4
{play can continue} 10. Nxd4 (10. Qxd4 $4 Qxb5) 10... Bd7 11. Bxc6 (11. Nxc6
bxc6 12. Be2 Qc7 $11 ({or} 12... Rb8 13. a3 Be7)) 11... bxc6 12. O-O Bf8 $5 {
(Black's idea is to play ...c5 and ...Bc6, probably with ...Rg8 and ...0-0-0)}
13. f4 c5 14. Nf3 (14. Nb3 Qb6 15. Kh1 O-O-O $11 {
intending ...Rg8 and/or ...Bc6}) 14... O-O-O 15. f5 Rg8 16. a3 Bc6 17. Qf4 Qc7
18. Ne2 (18. Kh1 h5) 18... d4 19. Ng3 Kb8 20. Kh1 exf5 {(intending ...f6)} 21.
Qxf5 Qd7 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.223 6 a3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Bd2 Nh6 6. a3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 ({Or} 7.
bxc3 Nc6 (7... Nf5 8. Bd3 c4 $5 {- Williams}) 8. Nf3 Nf5 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. O-O c4
11. Be2 (11. Bxf5 exf5 12. Qe2 Be6 $11) 11... Bd7 12. Ne1 $5 (12. a4 Qa5 13.
Qe1 O-O 14. Bc1 f6 15. Ba3 Rf7) 12... O-O-O (12... O-O) 13. g3 f6 14. f4 Rdf8
15. Ng2 h6 $11 {Lobron-Hug, Beersheba 1985.}) 7... b6 (7... Nc6 {
might lead to the oddball line} 8. dxc5 (8. Nf3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O) 8... b6 $5 9.
cxb6 d4 $1 10. Bd2 Qxb6 11. Nf3 Ng4 12. Qe2 Qxb2 13. Rc1 Bb7 14. h3 d3 $1 15.
cxd3 Ngxe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Qe3 Ng6 {with a double-edged game.}) 8. b4 {
This is similar to the 5...Ne7 6 a3 lines.} ({The alternative} 8. Bb5+ {
results in equality after} Bd7 9. Bd3 cxd4 (9... Nc6 10. Nf3 Qc7 $5) 10. Bxd4
Nc6 11. Nf3 Nxd4 12. Nxd4 O-O 13. O-O f6 $11 {.}) 8... Qc7 9. dxc5 (9. Nf3 cxb4
10. Bxb4 Ba6 {.}) 9... bxc5 10. Nf3 cxb4 11. Bxb4 a5 $1 12. Bd2 Ng4 $1 13. Bb5+
Bd7 14. Qe2 $6 (14. a4 Nxe5 (14... O-O) 15. O-O Nc4 16. Bxc4 Qxc4 17. Ne5 Qd4
18. Re1 O-O {and White has compensation, but he's not better.}) 14... Bxb5 15.
Qxb5+ Nd7 16. O-O O-O {. Attacking the e-pawn and using the open files, A.Martin-Shaked, Schwarzach 1997.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.3 5 dxc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 {. With this move, White
emphasizes piece play, planning to develop quickly as compensation for losing
his foothold in the centre. I will follow a main, main line (with options on
moves 7 and 8), because Black can get the positions almost by force and I
think that they are at least okay for him.} Nc6 {This is the most aggressive
continuation, introducing the threat of ...d4 at the earliest moment.} ({
According to theory,} 5... Ne7) ({and} 5... Nd7 {are fine}) ({while} 5... Qc7
6. Nf3 Nc6 {transposes to 6...Qc7 below.}) 6. Nf3 (6. Qg4 Nge7 {
transposes to 5 Qg4 (see 8.41)}) ({and} 6. Bf4 $2 d4 7. a3 Ba5 8. b4 Nxb4 $1 9.
axb4 Bxb4 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Qxd4 Bxc3+ 12. Qxc3 Bxb5 {is good for Black.}) 6...
Nge7 ({There are two alternatives of interest, both requiring less study: (a)
} 6... Qc7 {is complex and apparently a sound choice. In fact, considering the
body of theory on 6...Nge7, this might be a good way for practical players to
go.} 7. -- (7. Bd2 Bxc5 8. Bd3 (8. Nb5 $6 Qb6) (8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Qe2 Nge7 {and}
10. Na4 ({or} 10. O-O a6) 10... Bd4 $15) 8... a6 (8... Nxe5 $5 9. O-O Nxd3 10.
cxd3 Nf6 11. Rc1 Qe7 12. d4 Bb6 13. Na4 Ne4 $11) 9. Qe2 Nge7 10. O-O Nd4 11.
Nxd4 Bxd4 12. Rae1 O-O $15 {.}) (7. Bb5 Nge7 (7... Bxc5 8. O-O Bd7 9. Bf4 a6
10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. Qd3 Ne7 $11) 8. O-O O-O 9. Na4 $5 (9. Re1 Bd7 $11) 9... Nxe5
10. Nxe5 Qxe5 11. c3 Ba5 12. f4 Qf6 13. Be3 Nf5 14. Bd4 {
, Gallagher-Carton, London 1986; and} Nxd4 {, as played,} ({or} 14... Qe7 $1
$15 {.})) (7. Bf4 {(the overwhelming choice of tournament players)} Nge7 {
and then:} 8. -- (8. a3 $5 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Ng6 (9... Qa5 10. Qd2 Ng6 $11) 10. Bg3
Qa5 11. Qd2 Qxc5 $11 {.}) (8. Qd3 Ng6 $5 9. Bg3 a6 $15 {.}) (8. Be2 f6 $1 (8...
a6 $15) 9. exf6 Qxf4 10. fxe7 Bxc5 {and Black's centre and two bishops more
than compensate for the time it takes to recapture on e7.}) (8. Bd3 {
is the only ambitious try:} d4 9. a3 dxc3 (9... Ba5 10. b4 Nxb4 11. axb4 $6 {
has been played a lot,} ({but in fact} 11. O-O $1 {is a better move -
discovered by the engine, of course - when Black in turn might play the
dramatic} Nxd3 $5 12. Nb5 Nxf4 13. Nxc7+ Bxc7 {
with three pieces for the queen and a dynamically balanced game})) 10. axb4
cxb2 11. Rb1 Nd5 12. Bd2 Ndxb4 13. Bxb4 (13. Rxb2 Nxd3+ 14. cxd3 Nxe5 $15)
13... Nxb4 14. Bb5+ Nc6 (14... Bd7 15. Bxd7+ Qxd7 16. Qxd7+ Kxd7 17. Rxb2 a5
18. Ke2 Rhd8 19. c3 Nd5 20. Rxb7+ Kc6 21. Rxf7 Nxc3+ 22. Ke3 Nd1+ $11) 15. O-O
O-O 16. Qd6 Qa5 17. Bxc6 bxc6 18. Rxb2 Ba6 19. Rfb1 Rad8 20. Qxc6 h6 {
and perhaps Black is slightly for preference; to begin with, ...Bc4-d5 in
combination with ...Rc8 is in the works.}))) ({(b)} 6... d4 {
simplifies a bit much for my taste, but seems just adequate to equalize:} 7. a3
Ba5 8. b4 dxc3 9. bxa5 Qxd1+ 10. Kxd1 Nge7 11. Bb5 (11. Bd3 Nxa5 12. Ng5 Nd5
13. Rb1 Bd7 $1 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Nd6 b6 16. cxb6 axb6 $11) (11. a6 bxa6 {and} 12.
Bd3 ({or} 12. Rb1 Bb7) 12... Bb7 13. Rb1 O-O-O $11) 11... O-O 12. a6 (12. Bg5
Nd5 13. Bxc6 bxc6) (12. Ke2 Nxa5 13. Rd1 Nd5 $11) 12... bxa6 13. Bd3 Rb8 $11 {.
}) 7. Bd3 ({Others: -- (a)} 7. Bd2 {transposes to the irregular line 5 Bd2 Ne7
6 Nf3 Nbc6 7 dxc5, which gives Black no trouble whatsoever (see note 'b' at
the start of 8.21).}) ({(b)} 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 {
and Black has various equalizers:} -- (8... Qa5 9. Qd2 O-O $11 {.}) (8... Qc7
9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Qe2 O-O 11. a4 (11. O-O $6 Nxe5 $1) 11... Ng6 12. Bxc6 Qxc6 13.
O-O Rfc8 14. Be3 b6 $1 15. cxb6 axb6 {
, at least equal, although the winning chances are small.}) (8... Ng6 9. Bb5 (
9. Be3 O-O 10. Bd4 Qa5 11. Qd2 b6 $1 12. cxb6 axb6 13. Be2 Ba6 $1 $15) 9... Qa5
10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. O-O (11. Qd4 Ba6 $15) 11... Qxc3 (11... Ba6 12. Re1 O-O $11)
12. Bd2 Qc4 $11 {.})) 7... d4 {
This begins a long forced sequence which ends with mutual chances.} ({
The main alternatives are} 7... Qc7 {
, which involves accepting a rather dangerous pawn sacrifice after} 8. O-O) ({
and} 7... Bxc5 {, which has been played by some strong grandmasters and has
done well in practice. Black usually plays a combination of ...a6, ...Ng6, and
at some point ...Qc7; e.g.} 8. O-O (8. Na4 Bb4+ $5 9. c3 Ba5 10. Qe2 Bc7 11.
O-O O-O 12. b3 Ng6 13. Bxg6 fxg6 {with dynamic equality}) (8. Bf4 a6 9. a3 Ng6
10. Bg3 Qc7 11. O-O {
, Fiore-Rausis, Castellaneta 1998; and the most straightforward approach is}
O-O 12. Re1 Ba7 13. Qd2 h6 $11) 8... Ng6 9. Re1 a6 10. a3 O-O 11. b4 $5 Ba7 ({
or} 11... Be7) 12. b5 Na5 {, Lagumina-Naumkin, Porto San Giorgio 1995; and here
} 13. Bd2 ({instead of} 13. Ng5 $2 Qc7) 13... Bd7 14. Rb1 Qc7 {
would have been equal or better for Black.}) 8. a3 Ba5 9. b4 Nxb4 10. axb4 Bxb4
{A well-known position to which considerable analysis has been devoted. I'll
just put what seems to me best play so as to streamline things, although a few
variations are necessarily deep.} 11. O-O {
Almost automatic, but occasionally other moves are tried.} ({(a)} 11. Bb5+ Bd7
12. Qxd4 Bxc3+ 13. Qxc3 Bxb5 $15 14. Nd4 (14. Bg5 Qd5 $15) 14... Ba6 15. Bg5 $1
(15. c6 $6 Qd5 $1 16. cxb7 Bxb7 $1 17. f3 Qxe5+ 18. Qe3 Qxe3+ 19. Bxe3 O-O $15)
15... Rc8 $5 (15... Qc7) 16. f3 (16. Bxe7 $5 Qxe7 17. c6 O-O 18. f4 f6 $1 $15)
16... Nd5 17. Qd2 Qc7 18. c6 $1 Qxe5+ 19. Kf2 O-O 20. Rhb1 h6 21. Bh4 Qh5 22.
Bg3 e5 $15 {Vadljan-Venus, bdf-fernschachbund.de 2009.}) ({(b)} 11. Nd2 $5 Bxc3
12. Rb1 Qd5 13. O-O Bxd2 14. Bxd2 {
resembles the main line, but Black hasn't had to spend a tempo on ...h6: after}
Bd7 15. Re1 Bc6 16. Be4 Qd7 17. Rb3 {
, I.Upton-Harley, British League 1996, simply} Bxe4 18. Rxe4 Qd5 {
and ...0-0 leaves White with awful pawns.}) 11... Bxc3 12. Rb1 h6 {
The point of this move is to stop Ng5-e4.} ({
For reasons of space, I won't go into the alternatives, except to say that} 
12... Bd7 {is playable}) ({but I no longer trust} 12... Qc7 {due to} 13. Ng5
Qxe5 14. Qf3 $1 ({rather than theory's} 14. Qh5 {.})) 13. Nd2 ({Others: -- (a)
} 13. Nh4 Qd5 $1 14. Qg4 $1 (14. f4 $6 Bd7 15. f5 exf5 16. Bxf5 {
, Zinser-Ackerman, corr 1964;} Bxf5 17. Nxf5 Nxf5 18. Rxf5 O-O $15) 14... Bd7 {
is equal,} ({and clearer than} 14... Qxe5 {.})) ({(b)} 13. Bb2 Bxb2 14. Rxb2
O-O 15. Be4 Qc7 16. Qxd4 Rd8 $11 {Zelcic-Sa.Martinovic, Zadar 2007.}) 13...
Bxd2 {Black prevents Ne4-d6.} 14. Bxd2 Bd7 15. Rxb7 (15. Qg4 Bc6 16. Rb4 h5 $1
(16... Qa5 $5 17. Qxd4 Rd8 18. Qg4 $6 Qxc5 $15 {
D.Lima-N.McDonald, Hastings 1988/89}) 17. Qxd4 a5 $15 {.}) 15... Bc6 16. Rb4 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 16. Bb5 $6 O-O $15 ({or} 16... Bxb5 17. Rxb5 Qd5 {.})) ({(b)} 
16. Rb3 Qd5 17. Qg4 a5 $5 18. Rfb1 (18. Bxa5 $1 h5 19. Qg5 f6 20. Qg3 h4 21.
Qh3 f5 $11 ({or here} 21... g5 $5)) 18... h5 19. Qg3 (19. Qg5 a4 20. Rb8+ Kd7
$11) 19... h4 20. Qg4 h3 $11 {.}) 16... a5 (16... Qd5 {is also sufficient:} 17.
Qg4 h5 $1 18. Qg3 (18. Qg5 O-O 19. Rfb1 a5 20. Rb6 Nf5) 18... a5 ({or} 18... h4
19. Qg4 h3 $11) 19. Rb6 h4 $11 {.}) 17. Rb6 Qd5 18. Qg4 Qxe5 ({Again,} 18... h5
19. Qg3 (19. Qg5 O-O) 19... h4 {and ...h3 is fine.}) 19. Re1 (19. Rfb1 $5 {
is a sound move, leading to equality after:} -- (19... Rc8 20. Bxa5 h5) ({, or
} 19... O-O 20. Bf4 Qd5 $1 {with the idea} 21. Bxh6 Qxg2+ 22. Qxg2 Bxg2 23. Bg5
f6) ({; or, finally,} 19... g5 $5 20. f4 $1 Qxc5 21. fxg5 hxg5 22. Bxg5 Rc8 23.
Qf4 f5 24. R1b5 Bxb5 25. Rxe6 Bxd3 26. Bxe7 Qxe7 27. Rxe7+ Kxe7 28. Qe5+ Kf7
29. cxd3 Kg6 {, which should be drawn.} (29... --))) 19... h5 $1 (19... Qxc5
20. Rxc6 $1 Nxc6 21. Qxg7 Ke7 ({or} 21... Rf8 22. Bxh6 Ke7) 22. Bg6 Rhf8 23.
Bxh6 {, Gallagher-Steenbekkers, Cappelle la Grande 2002; and Steenbekkers analysed}
a4 24. h4 a3 25. Bxf7 Rxf7 26. Bg5+ Ke8 27. Rxe6+ Ne7 28. Qg8+ Rf8 29. Qg6+ Kd7
30. Rxe7+ Qxe7 31. Bxe7 Kxe7 {to a draw.}) 20. Qh3 (20. Rxe5 hxg4 21. Rg5 $5 a4
22. Rxg4 a3 23. Rb1 e5 $1 $17 {.}) 20... Qxc5 21. Reb1 f5 {. Black apparently
has a significant advantage. --- The whole line with 5...Nc6 should serve
Black well and there are reasonable options throughout; for example, as early
as Black's 6th and 7th moves.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.4 5 Qg4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Qg4 {. This aggressive queen sortie
mobilizes White's forces quickly at the inevitable cost of letting his central
structure be compromised.} Ne7 {. Now White has two sound moves:} 6. -- ({8.41
} 6. dxc5) ({8.42} 6. Nf3) ({
And two moves that can get him into trouble: -- (a)} 6. a3 $6 Qa5 $5 7. Bd2 $5
(7. axb4 Qxa1 8. Kd1 cxd4 9. Nb5 O-O $1 $17 {Jansa-Korchnoi, Luhacovice 1969,}
10. Nc7 Na6 $1 11. Nxa8 Bd7) ({; or} 7. Nge2 cxd4 8. axb4 Qxa1 9. Nb5 O-O $1
10. Nc7 Na6 11. Nxa8 Bd7 12. Kd1 d3 $1 13. cxd3 Qa4+ 14. Kd2 Nxb4 {
0-1 Engholm-Freyer, corr 1968}) 7... cxd4 8. axb4 Qxa1+ 9. Nd1 Nbc6 (9... Nf5
$1 {- Moles}) 10. Nf3 Bd7 11. Qxg7 Rg8 12. Qxh7 a6 $15 {(Uhlmann).}) ({(b)} 6.
Qxg7 Rg8 7. Qh6 (7. Qxh7 $2 cxd4 8. a3 {; e.g.} Qa5 $19 9. Rb1 dxc3 10. axb4
Qa2) 7... cxd4 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qc7 {(this can be compared to the main line
Winawer with 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 Qxg7 Rg8 9 Qxh7 cxd4 in the next chapter; except that
in the position before us White, crucially, hasn't picked up the pawn on h7)}
10. Ne2 ({after} 10. Kd1 {, Tisdall suggests} Nd7 $1 {
and I think that's the way to go}) 10... dxc3 11. f4 Bd7 12. Rb1 Nbc6 13. Ng3 (
13. Qxh7 d4 14. g3 O-O-O 15. Qd3 {, J.Edwards-Mayo, corr 1986; and} Na5 {
'preserves all the chances' - Edwards}) 13... O-O-O 14. Bd3 Nd4 15. Qh5 (15.
Be3 $2 Rxg3 $1 16. hxg3 Ndf5 $17) (15. O-O Ndf5 $1 16. Nxf5 Nxf5 17. Bxf5 Qc5+
$1 18. Kh1 exf5 $17 {- Uhlmann}) 15... Qc5 $1 $17 {
Sigurjonsson-Uhlmann, Hastings 1975/76.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.41 6 dxc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Qg4 Ne7 6. dxc5 {. This can transpose
from and is related to 5 dxc5. White attacks the bishop on b4.} Nbc6 ({
Williams suggests} 6... Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Qa5 8. Bd2 Ng6 9. Nf3 Nd7 {
, which is a less ambitious but quite reasonable solution.}) 7. Bd2 ({
Others: -- (a) In 'DWF', I recommended} 7. Qxg7 {, with the forced sequence}
Rg8 8. Qxh7 (8. Qh6 Rg6) 8... d4 9. a3 Qa5 10. Rb1 (10. axb4 Qxa1 11. Nce2 {
is weak due to} Nxb4 12. Nf3 d3 $1 13. cxd3 Qb1 {; e.g.} 14. Qe4 Ned5 15. Nfd4
f5 $1 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Qf3 Nxd3+ 18. Kd2 Nxc1 ({or even} 18... Nxf2 $5) 19.
Nxc1 Qxb2+ 20. Nc2 Nd5 $17) 10... dxc3 {, and the rather amazing} 11. Be3 $5 {
(the best try, at any rate). Now it seems as though everyone in the world
found what they thought was a refutation to this line involving 11...cxb2+, 11.
..Bxc5, or 11...Nxe5, but none of them have been convincing to me (or to my
computer). Nevertheless, it now looks to me as though Black can gain the
advantage by using this sequence:} Bd7 $1 ({in addition,} 11... Nxe5 {
equalizes; e.g.} 12. Ne2 cxb2+ 13. axb4 Qxb4+ 14. c3 Qb3 15. Ng3 Ng4) ({; while
} 11... cxb2+ 12. axb4 Nxb4 13. c3 Rg6 $1 14. Qh8+ Rg8 15. Qh7 Rg6 {
is a perpetual}) 12. Nf3 (12. Ne2 Bxc5 13. b4 Bxb4 14. axb4 Nxb4 $15) (12. Qe4
Nd5 13. Ne2 O-O-O {is winning; e.g.} 14. axb4 Qa2 15. Rd1 Ncxb4 16. Nc1 Qxb2
17. Bd3 Bc6 18. Bd4 Nxc2+ {0-1 Z.Ivekovic-Pourramezanali, Vung Tau 2008}) 12...
O-O-O 13. Bd3 Bxc5 $1 (13... Rxg2) 14. b4 Bxb4 15. axb4 Nxb4 16. O-O $6 (16.
Nd4 Nxd3+ 17. Qxd3 Rxg2 18. Qe4 Qd5 19. Qxd5 Nxd5 20. h4 {
is a better try, although still not equalizing after} Nxe3 21. fxe3 Ba4 22. h5
Rh8) 16... Nxd3 17. Qxd3 (17. cxd3 Bc6 18. Qh3 Qd5 $19 {
; there's nothing to be done about ...Qxf3, because} 19. Ne1 ({and} 19. Kh1
Rxg2 {wins}) 19... Nf5 $1 {intending ...Rh8 is killing}) 17... Bc6 18. Qc4 Qc7
$1 (18... Qd5 $17) 19. Ne1 Qxe5 {with a near-decisive advantage. I don't have
much excuse here, perhaps only that the lines in the 'Dangerous Weapons' books
are supposed to include the speculative variety, and White has won a clear
majority of master games in this line since my book appeared!}) ({(b)} 7. Nf3 {
isn't as disadvantageous as theory has generally held:} d4 8. Bb5 Qa5 9. Bxc6+
bxc6 10. Qxd4 (10. Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qxh7 Bxc3+ 12. Kd1 Rb8 13. Ng5 Bxb2 $19) 10...
Nf5 11. Qc4 (11. Qe4 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Qxc3+ 13. Nd2 Rb8 $1 $19) 11... Ba6 12. Qb3
Qb5 13. Kd1 Qxc5 14. Bd2 {, Banas-Prandstetter, Marianske Lazne 1978;} Nd4 15.
Nxd4 Qxd4 {with perhaps a very slight edge.}) ({(c)} 7. Bb5 Qa5 ({or} 7... O-O
8. Bxc6 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 bxc6 {intending ...Ba6}) 8. Bd2 (8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Bd2 Nf5
10. Nge2 h5 11. Qf4 Qxc5 12. O-O Ba6 $15 {Yudasin-Lputian, Simferopol 1988})
8... O-O 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Nf3 {, Hebden-Raicevic, Vrnjacka Banja 1989;} f5 (
10... Bxc3 11. Bxc3 Qxc5 $11) 11. exf6 Rxf6 12. O-O Qxc5 13. a3 Bxc3 14. Bxc3
e5 15. Qh5 g6 16. Qh6 (16. Qh4 Rf4) 16... Rxf3 $1 17. gxf3 Bf5 {
intending ...d4/...Qd5; Black has excellent compensation for the exchange.})
7... O-O (7... Ng6 {is also played; it scores well and should be looked into
if Black desires an alternative.}) {After 7...0-0, there are two main moves:}
8. -- ({8.411} 8. Nf3) ({8.412} 8. Bd3) (8. O-O-O {is ineffective due to} f5 $1
({or} 8... b6 $5 {and} 9. Nf3 ({or} 9. cxb6 Qxb6) 9... bxc5 10. Bd3 Ng6 11. Qh5
{, when Pedersen suggests} Qe8 $1 {, one idea being} 12. Nb5 c4 $1 13. Nc7
Bxd2+ 14. Rxd2 Qe7 15. Nxa8 cxd3 $17) 9. exf6 Rxf6 10. Bd3 Bxc5 11. Nf3 h6 $15
{and Black's 2:0 central majority ensures an advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.411 8 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Qg4 Ne7 6. dxc5 Nbc6 7. Bd2 O-O 8. Nf3
f5 9. Qh4 ({Others: -- (a)} 9. Qh5 Bd7 (9... d4) 10. a3 Bxc5 11. Bd3 Nd4 $1 $15
{.}) ({(b)} 9. exf6 Rxf6 10. O-O-O (10. Qh5 e5) 10... e5 11. Qh5 Rf5 $1 12. Qh4
Bxc3 $1 13. bxc3 (13. Bxc3 Rf4) 13... Qa5 $17 {
Pietzsch-Uhlmann, Aschersleben 1963.}) ({(c)} 9. Qg3 Ng6 10. Bd3 d4 11. Ne2
Bxd2+ 12. Nxd2 Ngxe5 $15 {.}) 9... d4 ({Or} 9... Ng6 $1 10. Qxd8 (10. Qh3 $2
Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Qe3 Nc6 $17 {Popovych-Mednis, US Ch., New York 1972})
10... Rxd8 11. Na4 Bd7 $15 {.}) 10. Ne2 (10. Nb5 {improves, but} Bxd2+ ({
or the safe} 10... Bxc5) 11. Nxd2 a6 $1 12. Nd6 Qa5 {with the idea} 13. f4 Nd5
{seems fine.}) 10... Bxd2+ 11. Nxd2 Qd5 $1 $15 {Estrin-Rittner, corr 1966.} ({
There might follow} 11... Qd5 12. Nb3 Ng6 13. Qg3 $6 (13. Qh3 Qxe5) 13... f4
14. Qf3 Qxe5 15. O-O-O Qg5 $1 $17 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.412 8 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Qg4 Ne7 6. dxc5 Nbc6 7. Bd2 O-O 8. Bd3
Bxc3 $5 ({A good option is} 8... Bxc5 9. Nf3 Ng6 10. Qh5 Nb4 $15 {, Van Perlo-Stigar, corr 1993, getting rid of the bishop pair. This has been confirmed by
games played since the previous edition.}) 9. Bxc3 (9. bxc3 Nxe5 10. Bxh7+ Kxh7
11. Qh5+ Kg8 12. Qxe5 f6 $15 {with a clear central superiority.}) 9... d4 10.
O-O-O {White's most obvious attempt to keep the initiative.} ({Others: -- (a)} 
10. Bd2 Nxe5 11. Bxh7+ Kxh7 12. Qh5+ Kg8 13. Qxe5 f6 {(a common theme)} 14. Qd6
$1 e5 15. c3 Qe8 $1 $15 {.}) ({(b)} 10. Rd1 dxc3 11. Bxh7+ Kxh7 12. Rxd8 Rxd8
13. Qh3+ ({if} 13. bxc3 {then} Rd5 14. Nf3 Kg8 {favours Black}) 13... Kg8 14.
Qxc3 Nd5 $15 {.}) 10... dxc3 $1 11. Bxh7+ Kxh7 12. Rxd8 cxb2+ 13. Kxb2 Rxd8 {
. Black has the ideas of ...Nf5-h6 ...Ng6, and/or ...Bd7-e8 for defence, if
necessary. He will also attack via ...Rd5.} ({Here are some possible lines:} 
13... Rxd8 14. Nf3 Kg8 15. Qh5 Ng6 16. Ng5 $1 (16. Re1 Rd5 $15 {; e.g.} 17. Ng5
Ncxe5 18. Qh7+ Kf8 19. h4 b5 $5) 16... Ncxe5 (16... Kf8) 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. h4
Ng4 $1 19. h5 (19. Qh5 Rd4 $1 20. f3 Nf2 21. Rh2 Nd1+ 22. Kc1 Nc3 $17) 19...
Nf6 20. hxg6 Nxh7 21. gxh7 Ke7 22. h8=Q Rxh8 23. Rxh8 b6 $1 $11 {. --- The 5
Qg4 Ne7 6 dxc5 line is clearly a serious try, but in the end White has to be
as careful as Black.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "8.42 6 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C17"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. Qg4 Ne7 6. Nf3 {. Here White tries to
hold the d4-square and develop quickly, but Black no longer has to worry about
blitzkrieg attacks.} cxd4 {This is the simplest path;} ({although} 6... Nbc6 {
has been equally successful.} 7. -- ({. Then} 7. dxc5 {
transposes to the previous section (note 'b' to White's 7th move)}) ({, and} 7.
a3 Bxc3+ (7... Nxd4 $5 {is a little crazy but apparently adequate}) (7... Ba5 {
is also playable}) 8. bxc3 O-O 9. Bd3 {(what else?) transposes into the 7 Qg4
0-0 8 Bd3 Nbc6 Winawer, but with White playing the inferior move 9 Nf3 (see
'PTF3') So at a first glance, 6...Nbc6 is a promising option, though it would
take some work to prove that.})) 7. Nxd4 Ng6 (7... Qc7 {is also adequate, with
a double threat to e5 and c3. White gets approximate equality from} 8. Bb5+ (8.
Ndb5 {may be objectively best:} Qxe5+ 9. Be2 $1 Nbc6 10. Bf4 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qf6
12. Bg5 $1 ({and not} 12. Nc7+ $6 Kd8 13. Qf3 Ng6 $15) 12... Qe5 13. Bf4 $11)
8... Nd7 $1 (8... Nbc6 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. O-O O-O 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Qxb4 c5 13.
Qa3 Nf5 14. Bd2 Bb7 $11) 9. O-O Bxc3 (9... O-O 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Qxb4 Nxe5 $11
{Minev}) 10. bxc3 O-O {
and Black has a minimal edge due to the pawn structure; e.g.} 11. f4 (11. Ba3
Nxe5 12. Qg3 f6 $15) 11... Qxc3 $5 12. Nb3 Qc7 {.}) 8. Bd3 $5 {
This is the main move.} ({Others don't seem to equalize: -- (a)} 8. Nf3 $6 Nc6
({or} 8... Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qc7 $15) 9. Bd2 d4 10. Ne4 Bxd2+ 11. Nexd2 Qa5 $15 {
Kuzmin-Dolmatov, Minsk 1982.}) ({(b)} 8. Bb5+ $6 Bd7 9. O-O O-O 10. Bxd7 (10.
Nxe6 $4 Bxc3 $1 $19) (10. Bd3 Nxe5 11. Bxh7+ Kxh7 12. Qh5+ Kg8 13. Qxe5 Nc6 $15
{Murey-Sigurjonsson, Brighton 1983}) 10... Qxd7 11. Nf3 {
, Fernando Garcia-Matamoros, Seville 1992; and} Nc6 {was advantageous,} ({but} 
11... Bxc3 12. bxc3 Rc8 {still more so.})) ({(c)} 8. Bd2 O-O 9. Nf3 Nc6 10.
O-O-O f5 $5 (10... Qc7 $15) (10... Bc5 $15) 11. exf6 Qxf6 12. Kb1 e5 13. Qg3
Nf4 $15 {Movsesian-Shaked, Zagan 1997.}) 8... O-O 9. Bxg6 ({
If White tries to maintain e5 by} 9. Nf3 {, Black has} Nc6 {, when} 10. Bd2 Qc7
{forces} 11. Bxg6 fxg6 {anyway.}) 9... fxg6 $1 {By this recapture, Black
activates his rook, while also preventing problems based upon Nf3-g5.} 10. O-O
(10. Bd2 Be7 (10... Bc5 $5) 11. O-O Nc6 12. Nf3 Qb6 (12... Rf5 $5 $15 {
- Kinsman}) 13. Nd1 Bd7 14. Ne3 Rad8 15. b3 Bc8 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Qg3 b5 $1 18.
Bc1 $2 d4 $1 19. Ng4 h5 $17 {Murey-Kinsman, Paris 1996.}) 10... Be7 11. Be3 $1
(11. Nf3 $6 Nc6 12. Re1 Bd7 (12... Qb6 $1) ({, and} 12... Rf5 {
both favour Black}) 13. Ne2 Qb6 {(threatening ...Nxe5)} (13... Bc5 $1 {
is also good}) 14. Be3 (14. Nf4 Bc5) 14... Qxb2 15. Rab1 {
, Hebden-Matamoros, London 1987; when} Qxa2 $1 16. Rxb7 Bc8 {was easiest.})
11... Nc6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Na4 (13. b4 $6 {
of Murey-Marciniak, Condom 2004, could be answered by} Rf5 $1 ({or} 13... a5 $1
) 14. Qd4 a5 15. a3 (15. g4 Rf3 16. Kg2 axb4 17. Kxf3 c5 $17) 15... axb4 16.
axb4 Rb8 17. Rfb1 Rxb4 $1 18. Rxb4 c5 $15 {.}) 13... Qc7 $5 (13... Rb8 $1 14.
a3 Qa5 15. b3 {, Murey-I.Farago, Seefeld 2002; now} Rb5 {
intending ...c5 secures a slight plus.}) 14. Qd4 Rf5 $5 (14... Rb8 15. b3 (15.
a3 Rb5 $5 16. b4 a5 $11) 15... a5 $11 {.}) 15. f4 {
, Friedel-Bhat, Lindsborg 2004;} ({
and Black should still be able to maintain the balance with} 15. f4 Rb8 ({
instead of} 15... g5) 16. a3 (16. b3 a5 $11) 16... c5 $5 17. Nxc5 Bxc5 18. Qxc5
Qxc5 19. Bxc5 Rxb2 20. Bxa7 Rf7 21. Be3 Rxc2 22. Rfc1 Rfc7 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9. Winawer: Poisoned Pawn"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 {
. Finally, we reach the main line of the Winawer.} Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 {
This move is the traditional one and still clear favourite among players on
all levels.} ({Nevertheless, Black has options; e.g.} 6... Qc7 {
(examined in 'PTF3')}) (6... Nc6) ({and} 6... Qa5 {
, which we look at in Chapter 11 (the Portisch-Hook Variation).}) 7. Qg4 {
This is the quintessential Winawer variation, the subject of ceaseless testing
since Alexander's win over Botvinnik in 1946. With 7 Qg4, White is trying to
exploit Black's lack of a dark-square defender and provoke weaknesses on the
kingside. Given his long-term structural disadvantage (the doubled c-pawns),
the first player needs to utilize his bishop pair, and his cramping e5-pawn
makes the kingside a natural area in which to proceed. Black will often have a
lead in development (particularly when White takes time for Qxg7) and will
succeed in eliminating at least part of White's centre by ...cxd4, with a
subsequent attack on e5. As in many modern openings, however, both sides (and
especially Black) will frequently play on both sides of the board. What's more,
whether and how White or Black should open the game varies from case to case.}
Qc7 {. In this edition I'm returning to the old Poisoned Pawn Variation which
was featured in the first two volumes.} ({In 'PTF3' I recommended} 7... O-O {
. After countless books, articles, arguments, and correspondences, I still
think that's a valid move. It has become top-heavy with theory, however, and
demands extremely accurate play, so it will be refreshing to look into some of
the relatively newer lines below.}) ({Now I'm going to do an odd thing for the
beginning of a chapter, which is to present material at great length which may
be entirely irrelevant to you! Specifically, I want to introduce you to some
critical variations you should know if you choose} 7... cxd4 $5 {(see the following section 9.0). This capture has become a popular choice of contemporary
grandmasters.}) ({
With both 7th moves Black heads for the main line, which can arise by} 7... Qc7
8. Qxg7 (8. Bd3 cxd4) 8... Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4) ({or} 7... cxd4 8. Qxg7 (8. Bd3
Qa5) 8... Rg8 9. Qxh7 Qc7 {. Essentially Black is choosing between allowing 8
Bd3 after 7...Qc7, or avoiding that line by playing 7...cxd4, when 8 Bd3 can
be answered by 8...Qa5 rather than 8...Qc7. Although I had originally chosen
7...cxd4 as my main line, I finally decided to let the reader choose between
it and 7...Qc7, even though they both seem to be satisfactory with correct
play. For one thing, there are a few lines after 7...cxd4 in which both sides
may have to accept a perpetual check; those lines are difficult (but not
impossible) to avoid. On the other hand, a lot of players trying to get the
Poisoned Pawn Variation want to avoid 7...Qc7 8 Bd3 (apparently including some
top players, considering their preference for 7...cxd4).}) {
When we finally return to 7...Qc7, we'll be examining these lines:} 8. -- ({9.1
} 8. Qxg7) ({9.2} 8. Bd3) ({There are a couple of minor options: -- (a)} 8. Kd1
$5 O-O 9. Nf3 f5 $5 10. exf6 Rxf6 11. Bd3 (11. Bg5 Rf8 12. Bd3 Nbc6 $15 {
intending ...c4 and ...e5 - Uhlmann}) 11... e5 $1 12. Qg3 c4 13. Be2 (13. dxe5
$6 Rxf3 14. Bxh7+ Kxh7 15. Qxf3 Kg8 16. Qh5 g6 17. Qg5 Bf5 $15) 13... Nbc6 14.
h4 (14. Nxe5 $2 Nf5 15. Qf4 Nfxd4) (14. dxe5 Rg6 $17 {- Uhlmann}) 14... Rg6 15.
Qh2 Qa5 $1 16. h5 Rg4 $17 {Enders-Uhlmann, Erfurt 1985.}) ({(b)} 8. Ra2 Nbc6 (
8... cxd4 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Nf3 Bd7 $11) 9. Ne2 (9. Nf3
cxd4 10. cxd4 Nf5 11. Bd3 h5 12. Qg5) 9... O-O $1 $15 {intending ...f6 ('ECO').
}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.0 7...cxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 {
. Here's a repertoire you should be able to use after} cxd4 {
, and which I leave to you expand upon:} 8. -- ({(a)} 8. cxd4 {
has been played a great deal but doesn't give Black too much trouble after} Qc7
{:} 9. -- (9. Bd2 Qxc2 10. Qxg7 (10. Ne2 Qg6 11. Qf3 Nbc6 12. Qc3 f6 $15) (10.
Nf3 O-O 11. Be2 Nbc6 {gives White almost no compensation}) (10. Bb5+ Bd7 11.
Bxd7+ Nxd7 12. Nf3 Qg6 13. Qf4 Qd3 $1 $17 {Kresoja-Milijanovic, Belgrade 1993})
10... Rg8 11. Qh6 Nbc6 $1 12. Ne2 Nxd4 $1 13. Nxd4 Qb2 14. Bb5+ Bd7 15. Bxd7+
Kxd7 $15 {Zufic-Grigoryan, Rijeka 2010.}) (9. Ra2 Nf5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Bd3 $1 (
11. Bd2 $2 Qb6 $1) (11. Bb2 Qa5+ 12. c3 b6 13. Bd3 O-O 14. O-O Ba6 $15) 11...
h5 12. Qg5 ({or} 12. Qf4 Ncxd4) 12... Ncxd4 13. Nxd4 Qc3+ 14. Bd2 Qxd4 15. O-O
Qg4 16. Qxg4 hxg4 {, and White may have barely enough compensation,
Vogt-Kosten, Austrian Team Ch. 2004}) (9. Ne2 O-O 10. c3 b6 $15) (9. Kd1 h5 {
(this seems pretty easy)} (9... O-O 10. Nf3 f6 {
from Spassky-Korchnoi, Belgrade 1978 - if 9...h5 falls short, check that out;}
({or here} 10... b6 {with the idea} 11. Bg5 $6 Ba6 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. h4 Nf5 $17
)) 10. Qf4 (10. Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qh6 Qc3 $15) 10... b6 11. Bb5+ Bd7 ({or} 11...
Nbc6 12. Nf3 a5 13. Rb1 Ba6 14. Bxa6 Rxa6 15. Re1 a4 16. h3 Ra8 {, Savchenko-Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009; Black stands somewhat better in this position,
but at some point he probably needed to play ...0-0 to make progress; as it
was, White equalized}) 12. Bd3 Ng6 $1 13. Qe3 $1 Nc6 14. Nh3 Nce7 15. Ng5 Nh4 (
15... Rc8 $15) 16. Qh3 Nhf5 17. Bb2 f6 18. Nf3 (18. g4 fxg5 19. gxf5 g4 $15)
18... O-O-O 19. Re1 $2 g5 $1 20. g4 $6 hxg4 21. Qxg4 Be8 $1 {
and ...Bh5 with a virtually winning position, Savchenko-Kamsky, Baku 2009.})) (
{(b) I can find only one game with} 8. Nf3 {in my database and no mention of
it elsewhere, but as I see it, Black has no obvious way to advantage, and
double-edged play results. Here are a few ideas:} -- (8... Qc7 9. Kd1 (9. Ra2
O-O 10. cxd4 b6 11. Bd3 Nf5 12. Bd2 Ba6) 9... O-O ({or} 9... Qxc3 10. Rb1 {
, transposing to 8...Qa5}) 10. Bd3 (10. cxd4 {
returns to 8 cxd4 Qc7 9 Kd1 0-0 10 Nf3 above}) 10... f5 (10... Nf5 11. Qh3 f6
12. g4 fxe5 13. gxf5 e4 14. Rg1 e5 15. Bh6 Rf7 {is unclear}) 11. exf6 Rxf6 12.
Qh5 h6 13. Bg5 hxg5 14. Qe8+ Rf8 15. Bh7+ Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg8 17. Nxg5 Rf5 18.
Qe8+ $11 {.}) (8... Qa5 9. Rb1 Qxc3+ 10. Kd1 Ng6 (10... O-O 11. Bd3 Ng6 12. h4
$5 Nc6 ({in this line} 12... Qc7 {may be better}) 13. Qg3 f5 14. exf6 Rxf6 15.
h5 Nge7 16. Bd2 Qc5 17. Bb4 Nxb4 18. axb4 {with attacking chances}) 11. h4 h5
12. Qg5 Qc7 13. Bd3 Nc6 14. Bxg6 fxg6 15. Qxg6+ Qf7 16. Qxf7+ Kxf7 17. Bb2 Rf8
18. Bxd4 Kg8 19. Bc5 Rf4 20. Bd6 b6 $15 {
. I can recommend 8...Qa5, but this line is hardly forced.})) ({(c)} 8. Bd3 {
is the real challenge. Then} Qa5 {
is the key move, and the key juncture for the 7...cxd4 plan.} (8... Qc7 {
transposes into 7...Qc7 8 Bd3 cxd4, something Black is trying to avoid by
playing 7...cxd4.}) {. Now:} 9. -- (9. Rb1 Qxc3+ $5 (9... Ng6 10. Nf3 Qxc3+ 11.
Bd2 Qc7 {with the idea} 12. Bb4 $6 ({or} 12. O-O Nc6 13. Rfe1 O-O) 12... Nc6
13. Bd6 Ncxe5 $1 14. Bxe5 Nxe5 15. Qxg7 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Rf8 $15) 10. Kd1 (10.
Bd2 Qc7 11. Nf3 Ng6 {transposes to 9...Ng6}) 10... Kf8 $5 11. Nf3 b6 $5 12. Qh5
h6 13. Ng5 g6 14. Qh4 {, Vuckovic-Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2010; and}
Nd7 $1 {seems to neutralize the attack.}) ({. White has almost always played} 
9. Ne2 {, and Black in response} O-O ({
in general, Black should stay away from positions like} 9... Nbc6 10. Qxg7 Rg8
11. Qf6 $1) {. This is actually a line of the Rustemov Variation which goes 7..
.0-0 8 Bd3 Qa5 9 Ne2 cxd4. Fortunately, this is not the most critical position
in that variation, and Black can hold his own versus a wide variety of
possibilities:} 10. -- (10. Bxh7+ $6 Kxh7 11. Qh4+ Kg8 12. Qxe7 Nc6 13. Qg5
dxc3 $15 {Rocha-De la Villa Garcia Linares 2002.}) (10. Bd2 {is logical:} dxc3
11. Bxc3 {, and now Macieja-Vysochin, Warsaw 2010, went} Qc7 12. O-O (12. h4
Nd7 13. Qg3 Nc5 14. h5 h6 15. Rh4 Nxd3+ 16. Qxd3 b6 $15) (12. f4 Nd7 13. O-O
Nc5) {, and here I like} 12... Nd7 $1 13. Qh5 ({as usual, the mini-combination
} 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qh4+ Kg8 15. Qxe7 {recovers the pawn only at the cost of
White's best piece and attacking chances; a good solution is} b6 16. Bb4 Ba6
17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. Qd6 Qxd6 19. Bxd6 Bxe2 20. Rxe2 Rac8 21. g3 Rc4 {
with pressure on White's weak pawns}) 13... Ng6 14. f4 Nc5 15. Rf3 Nxd3 16.
cxd3 Bd7 17. Rh3 h6 18. Rf1 (18. f5 Nf4 $1 19. Nxf4 Qxc3 20. Rf1 exf5 $19)
18... Qc5+ ({or} 18... d4 $5 19. Bxd4 Rfd8) 19. Bd4 (19. Kh1 Qxa3 20. f5 exf5
21. e6 d4 22. Bxd4 Bxe6 23. Bxg7 Kxg7 24. Nf4 Kf6 {and the attack falls short})
19... Qc2 20. f5 exf5 21. e6 Bxe6 22. Rg3 (22. Bxg7 Kxg7) 22... Qa4 $1 {
, with the idea} 23. Rxg6 fxg6 24. Qxg6 Rf7 25. Bxg7 Qg4 26. Qxh6 Qxg7 27. Qxe6
Qf6 28. Qxd5 Re8 $15 {.}) (10. O-O dxc3 11. Ng3 Nbc6 ({or} 11... Nd7) 12. Nh5 (
12. Bh6 $2 Ng6) 12... Ng6 13. Re1 d4 $17 {.}) (10. Bg5 {
is the move most top players have tried. This leads to a final split:} -- ({
. After} 10... Nbc6 11. f4 {, 'Black has really disastrous results in
practice', according to Golubev. But he could try} Ng6 (11... dxc3 12. O-O Ng6
13. Qh5 {intending Rf3-h3 may be simply winning!}) 12. h4 f5 {with the idea}
13. exf6 $1 e5 14. Qg3 exf4 15. Bxf4 Rxf6 {.}) (10... Ng6 11. f4 (11. Qh5 Nd7
12. f4 {, and Black should play} f5 $1 (12... Nc5 13. O-O $1 Nxd3 14. cxd3 dxc3
15. Rf3 $1 {is deceptively powerful}) {; e.g.} 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Bxf6 Rxf6 15.
O-O dxc3 16. Rf3 Nf8 17. Nxc3 Bd7 $15) 11... Nd7 $1 12. Bxg6 (12. h4 f5 $1 13.
Qg3 Rf7 $1 14. h5 Ngf8 $15 {Short-Shulman, Ohrid 2001; Black's advantage was
confirmed by later games and analysis}) 12... fxg6 $1 13. Qxe6+ Rf7 14. O-O ({
here} 14. Qe8+ {may lead to a repetition after} Rf8 15. Qe6+ Rf7 $11) 14...
dxc3 (14... Nb6 $6 15. Qe8+ Rf8 16. Qe7 dxc3 {, Svidler-Grischuk, Nalchik 2009;
} 17. e6 $1 Qa4 $5 18. f5 Qe8 19. g4 $14) 15. Qd6 ({or again} 15. Qe8+ Rf8 16.
Qe6+) (15. Nd4 $6 Nf6 16. Qd6 Ne4) 15... Nf8 (15... Nc5 $5 16. Qxd5 Be6 $1 17.
Qd4 $1 {, Friedel-Shulman, US Ch., St Louis 2009;} Bf5 $1 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19.
Nxc3 Ne6 $11) 16. Nd4 (16. Be7 Bg4 17. Nd4 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Bd6 Ra4 $1 $11
) 16... Qb6 17. Rad1 Bg4 18. Rd3 Ne6 19. Qxb6 axb6 20. Nxe6 Bxe6 21. Rxc3 d4 {
and Black stands slightly better, although this will be tough to convert. Just
be aware that you are allowing perpetual checks in this line.})) (10. Bh6 Ng6
11. h4 {is quite dangerous if you play too slowly. I don't think there's any
straightforward way to advantage, but there are a couple of equal lines:} Nc6 (
11... gxh6 $5 12. h5 Nc6 13. f4 $1 $14) 12. Bxg7 (12. f4 f5 $1 13. exf6 Rxf6
14. h5 e5 $15) 12... Kxg7 13. h5 Ncxe5 14. Qxd4 Kg8 ({for the very bold:} 14...
f6 15. hxg6 hxg6 16. Qh4 Rg8 17. Qh7+ Kf8 {is apparently about equal!}) ({; or
} 14... Qb6 15. hxg6 Qxd4 16. Rxh7+ Kf6 {
, Cabrera-E.Berg, Petra 2007, and White should probably continue} 17. Nxd4
Nxd3+ 18. cxd3 Kxg6 19. Rh4 {with balanced play}) 15. hxg6 Nxd3+ 16. Kd2 $1
fxg6 17. Rxh7 Kxh7 18. Rh1+ Kg8 19. Qh8+ Kf7 20. Rh7+ Ke8 21. Qg7 Qc5 22. Qxg6+
Kd8 23. Qg5+ $11 {.}) (10. Rb1 $5 dxc3 (10... Nbc6 {
is probably playable, but I find} 11. Rb5 $1 {particularly irritating, with}
Qa4 12. Qh5 {hard to assess after any of} Nf5 (12... h6) ({, or} 12... Ng6))
11. Qh5 (11. Rb5 Qc7) (11. h4 Nd7 12. f4 Nc5 $1 {with two clean extra pawns}) (
11. Qb4 Nbc6 12. Qxa5 Nxa5 13. Nxc3 b6 $15) 11... Ng6 12. Rb4 Nc6 13. Rh4 h6
14. Bxh6 (14. Bxg6 fxg6 15. Qxg6 Ne7 16. Qg4 Nf5 17. Bxh6 Qc7 $15) 14... Ncxe5
15. Bxg6 Nxg6 16. Rh3 (16. Nf4 Qb5 $1) 16... e5 17. g4 gxh6 18. Qxh6 Re8 19.
Qh7+ Kf8 20. Rf3 Re7 21. Qxg6 Qb6 {and Black is more than holding.}))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.1 8 Qxg7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 {
. Black threatens ...Qxc3+ and has an eye on e5. In response, White has:} 10.
-- ({9.11} 10. Ne2) ({9.12} 10. Kd1) ({Instead: -- (a)} 10. Qd3 dxc3 {
tends to transpose,} ({but} 10... Qxe5+ {is independent:} 11. Ne2 dxc3 12. Bf4
Qf6 13. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 14. Nxc3 Nbc6 {with the idea} 15. Nb5 e5 $1 {.})) ({(b)} 10.
Rb1 $5 {is extremely rare, but looks like a legitimate option; for example,}
Qxe5+ (10... Nbc6 11. Bf4 Bd7) 11. Ne2 dxc3 12. Bf4 (12. h4 $5 d4 13. Bf4 Qf5
$11) (12. Qd3 Nbc6 13. Qxc3 Qe4 $5) 12... Qf6 13. h4 Nd7 $5 14. Bg5 Qe5 {
with the idea} 15. Bxe7 Rh8 16. Bd6 Rxh7 17. Bxe5 Nxe5 18. Nxc3 Ke7 $11 ({or} 
18... f5 $11 {. It's surprising that we have almost no tests of this idea.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.11 10 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 {. This introduces one of the most exciting and
controversial of Winawer lines. White has two bishops, a passed h-pawn and,
often, an extra pawn. In return, Black gets superior development and activity,
play along the g-, h-, and c-files, and ongoing play against White's weak
pawns and king.} Nbc6 (10... Qxe5 $2 11. cxd4 {
leaves White a pawn up with a healthy centre.}) 11. f4 (11. cxd4 $2 Nxd4 $1 {
is weak}) ({and} 11. h4 dxc3 12. f4 {transposes to 11 f4 dxc3 12 h4.}) ({
Others: -- (a)} 11. Bd2 dxc3 12. Bxc3 Nxe5 {
wins a centre pawn while tying White's knight down to defence of c3.}) ({(b)} 
11. Bf4 {and:} -- (11... dxc3 $5 12. Qd3 Ng6 (12... Nxe5 13. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 14.
Nxc3 f6 $1 $11) 13. Bg3 Ngxe5 14. Qxc3 f6 $11 {.}) (11... Bd7 {is more complex:
} 12. Qd3 (12. Rb1 dxc3 13. h4 O-O-O 14. Qd3 Ng6 15. Bg5 Ngxe5 $1 $15 {
Bakali-Uhlmann, Lugano Olympiad 1968}) 12... dxc3 13. Qxc3 Rc8 $5 (13... O-O-O
{, perhaps objectively best, is equal, with ideas of ...d4 and ...Nf5 or ...Nd5 or ...Ng6; then} 14. Nd4 Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Nf5 {
'with counterplay' is given by Psakhis}) 14. h4 d4 15. Qd2 Nd5 ({or} 15... Ng6
{; e.g.} 16. Bg3 Ngxe5 {with the idea} 17. Nxd4 Rxg3 $1 18. fxg3 Nxd4 19. Qxd4
Ng4 $1 {, threatening ...Qxg3+ or ...Qa5+; White is really forced into} 20.
Qxg4 Qc3+ 21. Kf2 Qxa1 22. Qg8+ Ke7 23. Qg5+ {and} Ke8 $11 ({or} 23... Kf8 {
with a complicated game in store})) 16. Bg3 (16. Bh2 Rg4 $1) 16... Rxg3 $1 17.
fxg3 (17. Nxg3 Qxe5+ 18. Qe2 Ne3 $1) 17... Ne3 $15 {.})) 11... dxc3 {Over the past few years this has become a true competitor with the traditional 11...Bd7
(which was featured in 'PTF1' and 'PTF2'). I should say that the system
introduced by the latter move, which has also undergone a revival over the
last decade, strikes me as still playable, and fully satisfactory or better in
many of the lines which have been proposed to obtain the advantage against it.
This is after 50 years of heavy use at the top levels of the game.
Nevertheless, there are always a few lines (out of dozens) in which White is
claiming an edge, usually strictly limited; and a group of lines (including
those) which continue to be debated at ridiculous depth. So, in my decision to
use 11...dxc3, I am not only going by the fact that it seems to hold its own
very well against all of White's efforts, but also that such an enormous
investment of time is required to learn the 11...Bd7 lines. It wouldn't take
too thorough a research project to write a full-length book on this
traditional variation, and hence it would be irresponsible, given the level of
detail in this book, to use it as part of our repertoire. I have to say that
this is sad, considering my lifetime attachment to the traditional Poisoned
Pawn; and this in no way means that you can't still find secrets and wonderful
new moves within its complexities. --- Having said that, you will notice that
the theory I present on 11...dxc3 is also detailed. The difference is that, in
the old Poisoned Pawn variation, White can play perhaps 8-10 fundamentally
different set-ups, and several of them are ultra-critical, requiring ingenious
tactics for Black to stay in the game. With 11...dxc3, Black's ideas are
repeated over and again; for all but a few lines, you really can rely on
'ideas' to carry you through new positions. Black has his normal lead in
development and activity, but his kingside is shattered, while White has the
bishop pair and will pick up either the c- or d-pawn. White tends to work on
the dark squares and Black on the light ones; however, that description
applies to static lines and frequently breaks down when the action gets going.
--- One thing that I should mention is that, with 11...dxc3, Black preserves
the option of putting his bishop on b7 in many lines, from where it exerts
more influence than on d7, especially after ...d4 is played. On the flipside,
11...Bd7 takes only one move to develop instead of two, and in the ...dxc3
lines you will see that Black takes yet another tempo to play ...d4, something
he often delays or foregoes completely in the traditional variations. So in
our lines, Black's development isn't quite as speedy, and he depends more upon
positional factors.} 12. Qd3 {The overwhelming choice, both bringing the queen
back for defence and to win the c-pawn before Black is able to defend it.
Still, there are a few alternatives of note.} ({(a)} 12. h4 {
is seldom seen without a quick transposition, but it deserves notice:} -- (
12... Bd7 $5 13. h5 O-O-O 14. Qd3 (14. h6 $6 Nf5 {
gives White difficulties in extracting his queen}) 14... Nf5 {transposes into
a traditional Poisoned Pawn position, usually considered equal, but risky:} 15.
Rb1 $1 ({a classic example went} 15. h6 Rg6 16. h7 Rh8 17. Rh3 d4 $1 18. Rb1
Be8 $1 19. Qf3 Qd8 $1 {
and Black was definitely better in Bronstein-Uhlmann, Tallinn 1977}) 15... Kb8
$5 (15... d4 16. Rg1 $1 {, intending g2-g4, is an extremely dangerous line
called the Tait Variation; it may be playable for Black, but if you want to
enter this line you'll have to do some serious independent study and research})
16. Qxc3 Rg4 $5 (16... Rg7) ({, and} 16... Rc8 {are options}) {, hoping for}
17. Qf3 $2 ({but} 17. Bd2 $1 {favours White; e.g.} Rh8 18. Qf3 Rgg8 19. Rh3 $14
) 17... Ncd4 $1 18. Qxg4 (18. Nxd4 Nxd4 19. Qxg4 Qxc2 $11) 18... Nxc2+ 19. Kd2
Rc8 $1 {with a very strong attack. Still, Black could use an improvement here,
perhaps one of the alternatives on move 15 or 16. --- The whole line is
obscure, but it's characteristic of some major Poisoned Pawn themes that I
haven't mentioned elsewhere. Rather than abandon it entirely, the above gives
the reader some incentive to investigate the Tait Variation, and to look
around elsewhere. In general, I don't mind giving a second option in which
Black's chances look inferior, as long as it's still unclear and the reader is
forewarned. Funny that 12 h4 is played so seldom - I count 9
non-transpositional games out of 4300 or so PPs in Megabase (1600 games after
move 11); and as far as I can see at a quick glance none going into the Tait
(that seems wrong, but I'll bet the number is tiny).}) (12... b6 {
is an easier way to establish dynamic chances:} 13. Nxc3 $1 (13. Qd3 d4 {
transposes to 9.112 below}) (13. Rh3 Ba6 ({or} 13... d4) 14. Rxc3 Rc8 $5 ({here
} 14... Bc4 {is also interesting}) {; e.g.} 15. Nd4 Bxf1 16. Kxf1 Nxd4 17. Rxc7
Rxc7) 13... Nd4 14. Rh3 $1 Bb7 (14... Qc5 $5) 15. Nb5 Qxc2 $1 {; for example,}
16. Qd3 Qxd3 17. Nd6+ Kd7 (17... Kf8 $5) 18. Bxd3 Bc6 19. Be3 Nef5 20. Nxf5
Nxf5 21. Bxf5 exf5 {with a drawn position.})) ({(b)} 12. Rb1 {encourages} b6 {
, blocking off the b-file; e.g.} 13. Qd3 d4 14. h4 Bb7 15. h5 O-O-O 16. h6 Rg6
{(remember this standard rook shift versus an onrushing h-pawn)} 17. h7 Rh8 18.
Rh5 Rg7 $15 {planning ...Ng6 and ...Rgxh7, Hindicky-Mego, CCA-SR email 2005.})
({(c)} 12. Nxc3 {has only recently been taken seriously, and by some of the
strongest players in the game!} -- ({. Since} 12... Nxe5 $6 13. Nb5 {
hasn't worked out well for Black, he has two important moves:}) (12... Nd4 {
is the aggressive way to hit c3 and attack along the c-file:} 13. -- (13. Nb5
$6 Qxc2 (13... Nxb5 14. Bxb5+ Bd7 15. Bxd7+ Kxd7 $15 {is also good}) 14. Nd6+
Kd7 15. Qd3 Qxd3 16. Bxd3 Rxg2 17. Nxf7 Nef5 {
and Black's control of the light squares gives him some advantage.}) (13. Qd3
Nef5 14. Kd1 $6 (14. Bd2 Bd7 $1 15. O-O-O Qb6 $15) (14. Bb2 {is best, when} Ne3
$1 15. Nb5 $1 Nexc2+ 16. Kd1 Nxb5 17. Qxc2 Qb6 {is equal and double-edged}) (
14. Rg1 {has also been played, but should be met by} Qc5 $1 {
, when White has to either retreat the rook to h1 or try} 15. g4 b6 $1 16. Rg2
Ba6 $1 17. Qh3 Rxg4 $3 18. Rxg4 Nxc2+ 19. Kd2 Qf2+ 20. Be2 Nxa1 $17 {
with the idea} 21. Rg8+ Kd7 22. Rxa8 Bc4 $1 {, aiming for moves such as d4 or ...Nd4 and Nab3+; Black's attack is way too strong}) 14... Bd7 15. a4 Rc8 16.
Nb5 $2 (16. Bd2 Nxc2 $1 17. Kxc2 d4 $15) 16... Bxb5 17. axb5 Nxc2 18. Rxa7 Qb6
19. Ra4 Qf2 20. Be2 Rxg2 21. Qf3 Nfe3+ {0 1 Khedkar-Shome, Winnipeg 2003.}) (
13. Bd2 Bd7 14. O-O-O O-O-O {
with great pressure and more than enough for a pawn; e.g.} 15. Qd3 Nef5 16. g3
Kb8 17. Bh3 Rc8 $15 {.}) (13. Bb2 {
has been the most popular move and may well be best:} -- (13... Qb6 $5 14.
O-O-O Bd7 15. Qd3 Ndf5 16. Nb5 (16. Ne4 $5 dxe4 17. Qxd7+ Kf8 {
and Black owns key files and central squares}) {
, Nijboer-Wirschell, Antwerp 1996; and here either} 16... Rc8 {
with compensation,} ({or} 16... a6 {is equal, an example of the latter being}
17. Nd4 Rc8 18. Kb1 Ba4 19. Rd2 Rc4 20. Nxf5 Nxf5 {.})) (13... Bd7 $1 {
(developing a new piece)} 14. O-O-O (14. Nxd5 Nxc2+ 15. Kd1 exd5 16. Qxc2 Bg4+
17. Kc1 Qb6 18. Qa4+ Bd7 $15 {; White's king position is airy}) 14... Ndf5 $1 (
14... Qb6 $5 15. Qd3 {transposes to}) 15. Nb5 (15. Qh3 {
can be met by the immediate} O-O-O {with at least equality,} ({or by} 15... Qb6
16. Rd2 O-O-O 17. Nd1 Bc6 18. Qb3 Qxb3 19. cxb3 d4 $11 {
T.Luther-Ruppert, Wiesbaden 2011})) 15... Bxb5 $1 (15... Qb6 $5 16. Nd4 ({
but here} 16. Nd6+ $1 Nxd6 17. exd6 Qxd6 18. g3 {gives the bishops some real
scope in a position where White will soon catch up in development}) 16... O-O-O
$11) 16. Bxb5+ Kf8 17. Bd3 (17. Rhg1 Rc8 18. Bd3 Ne3 19. g3 Qc5 $15) 17... Ne3
18. Rdg1 $1 Nc4 $5 $11 {Bartsch-Hirr, corr BdF 2006;} ({or of course} 18... Rc8
$11 {.})))) (12... a6 {is completely sound. It can transpose into the old
Poisoned Pawn lines which aren't bad (see the explanation after 13 Qd3):} 13.
-- (13. Qd3 Bd7 (13... Na5 $5 {is interesting, in view} 14. h4 Nf5 15. Rh3 Bd7
16. h5 O-O-O) 14. Bd2 ({here both} 14. Rb1) ({, and} 14. Ne2 {transpose to
traditional main lines; however, Black can then claim that he's bypassed
everything that doesn't involve Nxc3, a category that includes difficult
variations with Qxc3, h4-h5, and h3; so anyone who has studied or wants to
study the old 11...Bd7 12 Qd3 dxc3 13 Nxc3 a6 might be happy to play 12...a6})
14... O-O-O (14... Na5 $11) 15. g3 Nf5 16. Bg2 Na5 ({or} 16... Ncd4 $1 {
, with the idea of ...Nxc2 and ...d4 in some lines}) 17. Bh3 Bc6 18. Bxf5 exf5
19. Qxf5+ $6 (19. Qd4 $1 Nc4 20. Bc1) 19... Kb8 20. Qd3 $2 (20. Ne2 d4 21. O-O
Nc4 $15) 20... d4 21. Ne4 f5 $1 22. Nf2 Bxh1 23. Nxh1 Rh8 24. h4 Nc4 25. Kf1
Qc6 {and Black was winning in Kosintseva-Hou Yifan, Hangzhou 2011.}) (13. Bd2
Bd7 14. h4 $5 O-O-O 15. Qxf7 $2 (15. Rh3 $1 {with the idea} Nf5 16. Qxf5 $1
exf5 17. Nxd5 Qb8 18. Nb6+ Kc7 19. Nd5+ {, drawing}) {, Battesti-Pieri,
Porticcio 2008; and here Black can gain a clear advantage with} 15... Rdf8 $1
16. Qh7 Nf5 {.}) (13. Bb2 $5 Bd7 14. O-O-O O-O-O 15. Qd3 {
(this gets in the way of White's control of c4)} (15. Qh4 Kb8 16. Kb1 {
, Thavandiran-Dvirnyy, Chotowa 2010, is an option, although} Nf5 17. Qf2 Na5 $1
{gives more than enough play for a pawn}) 15... Na5 $1 16. g3 $6 ({better} 16.
Qd4 $5 Nf5 17. Qa7 Bc6 18. Bd3) ({, or} 16. Qf3 Bc6 17. Qf2 {
, although Black has a small edge in both cases}) 16... Kb8 (16... Bc6 17. Rg1
Nf5 $15 {is difficult for White}) 17. Ne2 {(to blockade d4)} Bb5 $6 (17... Rc8
$1) 18. Qc3 Qb6 19. Qd4 Qc7 20. Qc3 Qb6 21. Nd4 $6 Rc8 22. Qb4 Nec6 23. Nxc6+ (
23. Qd6+ $2 Ka8 {
threatens ...Rgd8, trapping the queen, as well as ...Bxf1 followed by ...Nc4})
23... Nxc6 24. Qd2 {, Shirov-Dvirny, Arvier 2010; and} Na5 {
retained an advantage,} ({but} 24... Bxf1 $1 25. Rhxf1 Na5 {intending ...Nc4
would have very strong. Black's powerful knight contrasts with White's very
bad bishop; for example,} 26. Qb4 (26. Qd3 Rc4 $1 27. Rf3 Rgc8) 26... Qe3+ 27.
Kb1 (27. Qd2 $4 Nb3+) 27... Nc4 {(with the idea ...Rc6-b6, among others)} 28.
Rd3 $1 Qe2 29. Qe1 Qxh2 {and Black has a clear advantage.})))) 12... d4 {
. Here the capture 13 Nxd4 is the 'main' move; but the others are important
and deep enough to deserve their own sections. Thus:} 13. -- ({9.111} 13. Rb1)
({9.112} 13. h4) ({9.113} 13. Ng3) ({9.114} 13. Nxd4) ({Instead,} 13. Rg1 $6
Qb6 $1 {(both guarding d4 and preventing Rb1)} 14. Ng3 Bd7 15. Ne4 O-O-O 16.
Nd6+ Kb8 {is a good version for Black of 9.113 (13 Ng3), with which it should
be compared. D.Ledger-E.Berg, London 2011, continued} 17. Nc4 Qc5 ({or} 17...
Qc7 $15) 18. Rb1 {, and here} Nc8 $1 ({much better than} 18... Na5 19. Nd6 {
, which was only slightly in Black's favour}) 19. Be2 a6 20. Kf2 N6e7 $1 $17 {
with the idea ...Ba4 and ...Bxc2, among several others.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.111 13 Rb1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Rb1 {. This is arguably the best move in the traditional Poisoned Pawn variation, but here it
allows a couple of interesting answers not available there:} b6 {This is my preference, exploiting the fact that the bishop hasn't committed to d7. Others
are legitimate, if less clear} ({(a)} 13... Nf5 {
defends the d-pawn and eyes White's weakness at e3. White can try:} 14. -- (14.
Ng3 Bd7 $5 15. Nxf5 (15. Ne4 O-O-O 16. Nf6 Rg7 $11) 15... exf5 16. g3 O-O-O 17.
Bg2 Be6 18. O-O Ba2 19. Ra1 (19. Qxf5+ Kb8 20. Ra1 Bc4 $1) 19... Be6 $11 {.}) (
14. Rg1 {prepares g4:} Qd8 $1 (14... Qe7 $5 {
is objectively fine, but can be drawish:} 15. g3 b6 16. Bg2 Bb7 17. Bxc6+ Bxc6
18. Nxd4 O-O-O {, and} 19. Nxc6 ({or} 19. Nxf5 exf5 20. Qxc3 Kb7 $11) 19... Qc5
20. Qa6+ $1 Kc7 21. Rf1 $1 Kxc6 $11) 15. g3 b6 16. Bg2 Bb7 {
with balanced play; e.g.} 17. Kf2 (17. Bxc6+ Bxc6 18. Rb4 a5 $1 19. Rxd4 Nxd4
20. Nxd4 Qd5 21. Qxc3 Rc8 $15) 17... Rh8 18. h4 (18. h3 Na5) 18... Na5 (18...
Qd7 $1 $11) 19. Qb5+ Kf8 20. Bh3 Rxh4 $1 (20... Kg7 $5) 21. gxh4 Qxh4+ 22. Ng3
Qxh3 23. Nxf5 Qh2+ $1 $11 24. Kf1 Rc8 25. Nxd4 Qh3+ 26. Kf2 Qh2+ $11 {.}) (14.
h4 b6 $5 (14... Bd7 15. h5 O-O-O 16. Rg1 {
is the Tait Variation mentioned in the note with 12 h4 above}) (14... Qa5 $1 {
is an original approach, with the idea} 15. Qc4 ({or} 15. h5 $6 b6 $1 {
and ...Ba6}) 15... Qd5 $5 16. Qxd5 exd5 17. h5 Nh6 {intending ...Bf5}) 15. h5
a5 $5 {(intending ...Ba6 and ...d3)} (15... Bb7 16. h6 O-O-O 17. h7 Rh8 {
is unclear}) 16. Qb5 $1 Qd7 $1 17. h6 Ba6 18. Qxb6 Qd5 {
is a dreadfully complicated and apparently equal position.})) ({(b)} 13... Bd7
14. g3 (14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Nf5 {transposes to 9.1142}) (14. Rg1 O-O-O 15.
g4 Kb8 ({here} 15... Be8 16. Rg3 Na5 $5 {would also be entertaining}) 16. h4
Bc8 17. h5 b6 {intending ...Bb7 gives Black decent chances, which says
something about the value of playing ...b6 and ...Bb7 straight away}) ({; after
} 14. h4 O-O-O 15. h5 {, Tait suggests} Kb8 $5 16. h6 Rg6 17. h7 Rh8 {intending
} 18. Nxd4 Nxd4 19. Qxd4 Nf5 {, as in the main lines with 13 Nxd4}) 14... O-O-O
15. Bg2 Nf5 (15... Na5 $5 16. Qxd4 Bc6 17. Qf2 Bxg2 18. Qxg2 Nf5 {
gives Black plenty of play; then} 19. Qf3 Qc5 $1 20. Qxc3 Nc4 21. Rb4 b5 22.
Qf3 Nce3 {is good enough to level the game}) 16. O-O Kb8 17. Be4 ({
White lacks an obvious plan; on} 17. a4 {,} Na5 18. Ba3 Bxa4 $5 19. Be4 $5 Ne3
$1 {initiates the lengthy forcing line} 20. Bd6 Rxd6 21. exd6 Qxd6 22. Nxd4
Nxf1 23. Nc6+ Kc7 24. Nxa5 Qxd3 25. Bxd3 Ne3 26. Rxb7+ Kd6 $11) 17... b6 $5 18.
a4 Bc8 (18... Na5 $5) 19. Ba3 Bb7 {, Smirnov-D.Petrosian, Moscow 2011; and here
} 20. Bxf5 ({instead of} 20. Rfd1 Na5 $1) 20... exf5 {
holds the balance; for example,} 21. Bd6 $5 (21. Qxf5 $2 Na5 $17) 21... Rxd6
22. exd6 Qxd6 {, which is hard to assess due to White's exposed king; e.g.} 23.
Rbd1 Re8 $1 24. Nxd4 Nxd4 25. Qxd4 Qc6 26. Qd6+ Qxd6 27. Rxd6 Re2 $11 {.}) 14.
Nxd4 (14. Rg1 Bb7 15. g4 $6 O-O-O 16. Qc4 {, Barbosa-Grover, Chennai 2011;} Na5
$1 17. Qxc7+ Kxc7 $17 {with all the normal advantages plus domination of the
long diagonal and the threat of ...Be4.}) 14... Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Bb7 16. Rb3 ({
Black has classic Poisoned Pawn activity to compensate for the pawn after} 16.
Bb5+ Kf8 $15) ({and} 16. Rg1 Nf5 17. Bb5+ Kf8 18. Qf2 Rd8 19. Rb4 Qc5 $11 {.})
16... Bxg2 $5 {Slightly speculative.} ({Simply} 16... Rc8 $1 {
keeps the cramping pawn alive; if anyone has the advantage, it's Black.}) 17.
Rxc3 Qxc3+ $1 18. Qxc3 Bxh1 {. This strikes me as totally unclear;} ({e.g.} 
18... Bxh1 19. Qc7 Nf5 20. Bd2 Kf8 {with a dynamic balance.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.112 13 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. h4 {. Another nice thing about 11...dxc3 is that White's plans involving pushing his passed
h-pawn tend to be less immediately critical, although Black naturally has to
keep an eye on its potential to reach the last rank.} b6 $1 {Once again this
move. Essentially, Black will profit from putting the bishop on this active
square when White doesn't do something specific to stop it (see 13 Ng3 and 13
Nxd4, for example, where Black lacks the time).} 14. Nxd4 ({Others: -- (a)} 14.
Ng3 Bb7 (14... Ba6 $1 15. Qxa6 Rxg3 $15) 15. Ne4 O-O-O 16. Nd6+ Kb8 17. Nxf7
Rd5 $1 {with counterplay (Moskalenko).}) ({(b)} 14. Rg1 Bb7 15. g4 $6 {
is loosening:} O-O-O 16. h5 Kb8 17. Rg3 Qc8 $5 $15 {intending ...Ba6.}) ({(c)} 
14. h5 Bb7 15. h6 O-O-O 16. h7 Rh8 {is dynamically equal, I think, but also
very critical and subject to reassessment, so let's look in depth:} 17. Rh3 (
17. Rb1 Nd5 18. Rh6 Qe7 $1 19. g4 f6 20. exf6 Nxf6 21. g5 Nd7 $15 22. Qh3 $6
Nc5 23. Ng1 Kb8 24. g6 Qg7 25. Qg3 Ka8 26. Rh5 Ne7 $1 {
, Pallett-Bell, ICCF email 2009; White is fatally underdeveloped}) 17... Ng6 $5
{(the only move I've seen)} ({perhaps this is the time to clarify matters with
} 17... Nd5 $1 {, threatening ...f5 - then, fortunately for White,} 18. Qc4 $1
(18. Nxd4 Nde7 $1 19. Nb5 Rxd3 20. Rxd3 Qb8 21. Nd6+ Kd7 $1 {isn't attractive})
({, nor is} 18. g4 $6 Ndb4 $1) 18... f6 19. exf6 Rxh7 20. Nxd4 Nxd4 21. Qxd4
Rxh3 22. gxh3 Rf8 23. Bc4 $1 Qc6 24. Bxd5 exd5 25. Be3 Qxf6 $11 {
saves his bacon}) 18. Kf2 {
, and from a mass of interesting analyses, I'll pick these:} -- (18... Nf8 19.
Ng3 Kb8 20. Rb1 f6 {(this simplifies)} ({
there are some double-edged alternatives such as} 20... Nd7 21. Ne4 Ne7 {
intending ...Bxe4 and ...Nc5}) 21. exf6 Rxh7 (21... e5 $5) 22. Rxh7 Nxh7 23.
Qg6 $1 (23. Ne4 $2 e5 $1 24. g3 Rf8 {has the idea} 25. Ng5 Nxf6 $1 26. Ne6 e4
27. Qc4 Qh7 $1 {, winning}) 23... Rf8 24. Nh5 Qf7 25. Qxf7 Rxf7 26. f5 $1 Nxf6
27. fxe6 ({White's other try is to get a passed pawn by} 27. Nxf6 Rxf6 28. g4
$1 exf5 29. g5 {; Black has no winning chances, but his extra pawns help him
keep the draw in hand; e.g.} Re6 30. Bd3 Ne7 31. Rb4 Be4 32. Rxd4 Bxd3 33. Rxd3
Kb7 34. Rxc3 Rc6 $11) 27... Rf8 28. Bf4+ Ka8 29. Nxf6 Rxf6 30. g3 Rxe6 31. Re1
$1 {, Bernadskij-Vysochin, Lvov 2010; and} Bc8 {was sufficient for a draw,} ({
but} 31... Rxe1 32. Kxe1 Bc8 33. Bg2 Bb7 $11 {
intending ...Nd8 is more straightforward.})) (18... Nb8 19. a4 (19. Kg1 Na6 20.
Rb1 Nc5) 19... Na6 ({or} 19... Ba6 20. Qe4 Bb7 21. Qd3 Ba6 22. Qe4 {etc;} ({
rather than} 22. Qd1 Nc6 {, which looks easier for Black to play than White}))
20. a5 Nb4 $5 21. Qb5 (21. Qd1 $2 d3 22. cxd3 Rxh7 $1) 21... Qc5 (21... Nxc2
22. Ra2 Be4 23. axb6 axb6 $11) 22. Qxc5+ bxc5 23. a6 Be4 24. Ra5 Rd5 $11 {.}))
14... Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Nf5 (15... Bb7 {
is a good and possibly even better alternative:} 16. Rh3 $1 (16. Bb5+ Kf8 $15 {
, because White has to waste a precious tempo defending his g-pawn}) 16... Bxg2
$5 (16... Rc8 17. Qf2 $14) 17. Rxc3 Qd7 18. Qxd7+ Kxd7 19. Be2 Nd5 20. Bb5+ Ke7
{with equal chances due to Black's superior structure.}) 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Qxd7+
Qxd7 18. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {'with a strategically better ending for Black'
(Moskalenko), although a pawn is a pawn and White has as many chances as Black:
} 19. Rh2 (19. Kf2 Rg4 20. Be3 Rag8 $5 (20... Nxe3 21. Kxe3 Rxg2 22. Rac1 Rh8
23. h5 $11) 21. Rag1 Nxh4 22. g3 Nf5 23. Rh3 Ke7 24. Kf3 Nxe3 25. Kxe3 Rd8 26.
Rh2 $11 {Bologan-Kamsky, Reggio Emilia 2009/10.}) 19... Rg4 20. h5 Rag8 21. h6
Rh8 {This is sufficient;} ({but} 21... Rh4 $1 22. h7 Rh8 23. Rxh4 Nxh4 24. Kf2
Rxh7 {intending ...Rg7 appears to get to a drawn position more easily.}) 22.
Kf2 Rxh6 ({
Black drew in Svetushkin-Giri, Spanish Team Ch. 2011, after the similar} 22...
Rg6 23. h7 Rg7 24. Be3 Rgxh7 25. Rd1+ Kc6 26. Rxh7 Rxh7 27. Rd3 Rg7 28. Rxc3+
Kd5 {intending ...Ke4, which only slightly favours White with his extra pawn.})
({After} 22... Rxh6 {, Borosova-E.Berg, Gibraltar 2012, continued} 23. Rxh6
Nxh6 24. Kf3 Rg8 25. Be3 Kc6 {, and Black even went on to win following} 26. a4
$6 {.} ({Instead,} 26. Rd1 Nf5 27. Bf2 Ne7 28. Rd6+ Kc7 29. Be1 {at first appears to give White a few chances, but Black's strong knight outpost and superior
pawn structure will hold the draw after} Rh8 30. Rd3 (30. Bxc3 Rh1) 30... Nd5
31. Bxc3 Kc6 32. Bd2 b5 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.113 13 Ng3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Ng3 Bd7 ({
Because White's knight is coming so quickly to e4 and d6 or f6, it seems as
though Black has no time for the desirable} 13... b6 {. Actually, it's a
tribute to the essential soundness of Black's position that even after} 14. Ne4
Rh8 15. Nd6+ Kf8 {, with the idea of ...Bb7, or ...Nf5, or ...a5 and ...Ba6,
Black's disadvantage is limited.}) 14. Ne4 ({
Many strong players have waited to develop before rushing the knight forward:} 
14. Be2 {(with the knight on g3, the g-pawn is protected)} O-O-O (14... Qb6 $1
{is a move-order option, preventing Rb1; then} 15. O-O O-O-O {
transposes to 14...0-0-0}) (14... Nf5 {is also playable, especially in view of}
15. Ne4 $6 Rxg2 16. Nf6+ Ke7 17. Bf3 Rg6 $15) 15. O-O (15. Rb1 Na5 ({here} 
15... Nf5 {keeps the game level}) 16. Qxd4 Bb5 17. Qf2 Bxe2 18. Qxe2 Nc4 19.
Ne4 Nf5 20. O-O Qc6 {is unclear}) 15... Qb6 16. Ne4 Nd5 (16... Kb8 $1 17. Nd6
Be8 $11 {, since White never won his pawn and Black's centre cramps him}) ({
; even} 16... Nf5 {is alright, e.g.} 17. Nf6 Rg6 18. g4 Nh4 19. Qh3 Rh8 $11)
17. Nd6+ (17. Qb5 Qxb5 18. Bxb5 Kc7 19. Rb1 a6 $11 {
Khachiyan-Shulman, US Ch., St Louis 2009}) 17... Kb8 18. Nxf7 Rdf8 19. Nd6 Nce7
20. Bf3 Bc6 21. g3 (21. a4 $2 Nb4 22. a5 Qc5 23. Qh7 {
, Karjakin-Kamsky, Nalchik 2009; and} Nf5 24. Nxf5 exf5 25. Ba3 d3+ 26. Kh1
Bxf3 27. Rxf3 dxc2 {ends in Black's favour}) 21... Nf5 $1 (21... Nxf4 $5 22.
Bxf4 Rxf4 23. Bxc6 Rxf1+ 24. Rxf1 Nxc6 {eventually comes out equal}) 22. Nxf5
Rxf5 $15 {intending ...Bb5.}) 14... O-O-O 15. Nd6+ ({Or} 15. Rb1 Nxe5 (15... b6
$5) 16. fxe5 Qxe5 17. Qe2 Bc6 {and now:} 18. -- (18. Ng3 Qxe2+ {
, which is recommended as best by Moskalenko, looks equal.} ({Here} 18... Qd5 {
is more exciting; e.g.} 19. Qf2 (19. Rb5 $5 {
of Oll-Eingorn, Odessa 1989, was answered by} Qa2 {, which was fine,} ({
but it's hard not to like Black after} 19... Bxb5 20. Qxb5 f5 $1)) 19... f5 20.
Rb4 $6 (20. Bd3 Qxg2 $5 21. Qxg2 Bxg2 22. Rg1 Be4 $11) 20... a5 $1 21. Rc4 e5
$1 22. Be2 (22. Nxf5 Qe4+) 22... f4 23. Bxf4 (23. Nf1 Rxg2 24. Qh4 Rxe2+ 25.
Kxe2 Qxc4+) 23... Rdf8 24. Rxc6+ Qxc6 25. Bf3 Rxf4 26. Bxc6 Rxf2 27. Bxb7+ Kxb7
28. Kxf2 {
, Calistri-Bunzmann, French Team Ch. 2007; and most moves are good, but} Kc6 $1
29. Re1 Rf8+ 30. Kg1 Nd5 $1 {with the idea} 31. Rxe5 Ne3 {
is virtually decisive.})) (18. Nf2 $5 {hasn't been used, as far as I know:} Qd5
({, or} 18... Qxe2+ 19. Kxe2 {, when Black can play} Bxg2 {,} ({
or the more aggressive} 19... e5 20. Rg1 f5 21. Kd1 f4 22. g3 Nd5 $1 {
with lots of play})) ({; finally,} 18... Qf5 19. g4 $5 Qd5 20. Rb4 Qa2 21. Rg1
e5 {is simply hard to assess}) 19. Nd3 Qa2 $1 20. Rb3 e5 $1 {
with dynamic equality.})) 15... Kb8 16. Rb1 (16. Nxf7 Rdf8 17. Nd6 Nf5 18. Nxf5
Rxf5 $15 {is very similar to the main line, and once again there are
sacrificial themes such as} 19. g3 $2 Nxe5 $1 20. fxe5 Rxe5+ 21. Kd1 (21. Kf2
Rf8+ 22. Bf4 Rg5 $1 $19) 21... Bc6 22. Bf4 (22. Rg1 Be4 $19) 22... Bxh1 23. Qe2
Rgg5 $1 24. Rb1 Rgf5 25. Qg4 Rxf4 26. Qxf4 Re3 27. Be2 Qxf4 28. gxf4 d3 $1 {
, winning a piece.}) 16... b6 (16... Bc8 {has been played in many games, with
mixed results; the text is simpler. But if it's essential to win, 16...Bc8
avoids the possible draw by repetition in the following note.}) 17. Nxf7 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 17. Nb5 Qb7 ({unless Black wants to try} 17... Nxe5 $5) 18.
Nd6 {repeats moves}) ({(b)} 17. g3 Nf5 18. Nxf5 exf5 19. Bg2 Be6 $15 {
with light-square control, Reinhart-Carpentier, Le Port Marly 2009;} 20. O-O
Na5 21. a4 Qc4 $1 {might follow.}) 17... Rdf8 18. Nd6 (18. Ng5 Rxg5 $5 (18...
Nxe5 19. fxe5 Qxe5+ 20. Be2 Rxg5 21. Bxg5 Qxg5 22. Qxd4 Qxg2 23. Rf1 Rxf1+ 24.
Bxf1 Qxh2 $1 25. Qxd7 Qh4+ {with perpetual check}) 19. fxg5 Be8 $1 {, threatening ...Bg6 and the e-pawn; White has to neutralize the attack immediately with}
20. Qg3 $1 Bg6 21. Bd3 Nxe5 22. Bxg6 N7xg6 {, but Black is developed and
controls a lot of squares (as well as threatening ...Qc4), so I'd say that
it's equal in theory and difficult for White in practice.}) 18... Nf5 19. Nxf5
Rxf5 $11 20. g3 (20. Qc4 {prevents a sacrifice on e5, at least temporarily:}
Qb7 $1 {
(this stops g3, so White still can't develop his f1-bishop), and a fun line is}
21. h3 $5 Nxe5 $1 22. Qxd4 $1 Rxg2 $1 23. fxe5 Re2+ 24. Kxe2 Qf3+ 25. Ke1 Qg3+
26. Kd1 Qf3+ $11 {.}) 20... Nxe5 $1 21. fxe5 Bc6 {A standard Winawer
sacrificial sequence; sometimes White has g4 in instead of g3, but the
principle is the same.} 22. Rg1 Be4 $1 23. Qxe4 $1 ({
Black stands better after either} 23. Qc4 Qxc4 24. Bxc4 Bxc2) ({or} 23. Qe2 $2
d3 $1 24. Qxe4 d2+ 25. Bxd2 Rxe5 $1 $19 {.}) 23... Rxe5 24. Qe2 (24. Qxe5 $6
Qxe5+ 25. Be2 Qe4 26. Kd1 Rf8 {with pressure.}) 24... Rxe2+ ({Better} 24... Rf8
$1 $15 {.}) 25. Bxe2 e5 $11 {
, with chances for both sides, Kovacevic-Bukal, Zadar 2010.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.114 13 Nxd4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14.
Qxd4 Bd7 {. This is the all-important variation. I'll split the material once
more, for clarity's sake:} 15. -- ({9.1141} 15. Rg1) ({9.1142} 15. Rb1) ({
Only two other moves have much value: -- (a)} 15. Qf2 Qc6 $5 (15... Bc6) 16.
Qf3 (16. Rg1 Qe4+ 17. Qe2 Qh7 $5 18. g3 Bc6 19. Bg2 O-O-O 20. Bxc6 Nxc6 21. Be3
Nd4 $1 $15 {Milliet-Wirig, Nancy 2010, intending} 22. Qc4+ Kb8 23. Bxd4 Qe4+)
16... Qa4 $5 (16... O-O-O) 17. Qxc3 Rc8 18. Qd3 Rxc2 19. Bd2 a6 20. Rc1 {
½-½ Velimirovic-B.Lalic, Yugoslav Ch. 1988; but} Rxc1+ 21. Bxc1 Bb5 $1 22.
Qf3 $1 Bc6 $1 {
definitely favours Black, who will recover his pawn with the better game.}) ({
(b)} 15. Be3 {has grown some in popularity:} -- (15... Nf5 16. Qc5 Qc6 $1 (
16... O-O-O) 17. O-O-O (17. Qxc6 Bxc6 18. Kf2 Nxe3 19. Kxe3 Rd8 20. Rg1 Rd2 21.
Rc1 Kf8 $11 {, according to Lukacs & Hazai; I still prefer Black slightly}) {
, Moreno Carnero-Matamoros Franco, Suances 1997; and here} 17... Qb6 $1 18.
Qxb6 axb6 19. Bxb6 Rxa3 20. Kb1 Ra4 21. Bc5 Bc6 {
gives Black the initiative (Lukacs & Hazai); then} 22. Rd3 b6 (22... Rc4 $5)
23. Bf2 $1 (23. Be3 $4 Nxe3 24. Rxe3 Ra3 $19) 23... Rxf4 24. Rxc3 Bxg2 25. Bxg2
Rxg2 26. Bxb6 {will be drawn.}) (15... b6 {
has a whole range of answers, none particularly threatening. Just a few lines:}
16. g3 (16. Rd1 O-O-O 17. Qd6 Nd5 $1 18. Qxc7+ Kxc7 19. Bc1 Ba4 $15 {
Fier-Jatoba de Oliveira Reis, Americana 2010}) (16. Rg1 Nf5 17. Qe4 {
, Lopez Gomez-Rangel Garcia, corr Cuba 1998; and here} Bc6 $1 {
was interesting, with the idea} 18. Bb5 O-O-O $1 19. Bxc6 Nxe3 $11) 16... Nf5
17. Qe4 $5 Bc6 18. Bb5 Bxb5 $1 19. Qxa8+ Ke7 20. Qxg8 Nxe3 21. Qg5+ $1 Ke8 22.
Qg8+ Ke7 23. Qg5+ $11 {.})) ({(c)} 15. a4 $6 Nf5 16. Qf2 Qc6 $1 {
and ...Qe4+ is awkward to meet.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.1141 15 Rg1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14.
Qxd4 Bd7 15. Rg1 Nf5 16. Qf2 Qc6 ({
There have been many games and loads of analysis about} 16... Bc6 {
, but the queen move gives Black more control over the direction of the play.})
17. Bd3 {Direct and solid.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 17. Rb1 Qd5 18. Rb4 {
transposes to the main line of 9.1142 (15 Rb1).}) ({(b)} 17. g4 {has turned
to be one of the few realistic tries to muddy the waters. White tries to drive
Black back and consolidate:} Qe4+ 18. Qe2 {
is crucial, when Black has at least two good replies:} -- (18... Qd4 19. Rg2
Bc6 $5 20. gxf5 $1 (20. Rf2 $5 {is too passive to play for the advantage after}
Nh4) 20... Bxg2 21. Bxg2 {(at first sight this looks practically decisive,
since Be3 is threatened; but...)} Rxg2 $1 22. Qxg2 O-O-O 23. Qg4 $1 {
(the only try for advantage)} exf5 $1 24. Qxf5+ Kb8 {and although it's not
self-evident, thorough analysis shows that this is dead drawn.}) ({
. Black can avoid that and stay more on the offensive with} 18... Qd5 $1 {
and then:} 19. -- (19. Qf2 Qe4+ {repeats,} ({while} 19... Nd4 20. Bg2 Qc5 {
transposes to 19 Bg2 below.})) (19. Be3 $6 Nd4 20. Bxd4 Qxd4 21. Rg3 (21. Qf2
Qe4+ 22. Be2 Qxc2 $15) 21... Qxf4 $15 {.}) (19. Qc4 Nd4 20. Qxd5 exd5 21. Kf2
Rxg4 $5 (21... Nxc2 $5) 22. Rxg4 Bxg4 23. Bd3 Bf5 24. Be3 Nxc2 25. Bxc2 Bxc2
26. Rc1 Be4 27. Rxc3 $11 {.}) (19. Bg2 $1 Qc5 20. Qf2 Nd4 $1 21. Be4 {
(forced) is complicated. One final split, but I'll keep the analysis brief:} --
(21... O-O-O 22. Be3 (22. Rg3 $2 Bc6) 22... Bc6 $1 23. Rd1 $1 Bxe4 24. Bxd4
Qxa3 25. Rg3 Kb8 26. Rxc3 Qa5 {and in this fairly standard type of position
the chances are equal because Black's pieces can generate more threats. A
strange, not-at-all-forced draw results from} 27. Qe3 Bc6 28. Kf2 $1 Rxg4 29.
Bxa7+ Kc8 30. Rxc6+ $1 bxc6 31. Bb6 Qxb6 $1 32. Qxb6 Rxd1 33. Qxc6+ Kd8 34. Kf3
Rgg1 {and it turns out to be impossible for White to avoid perpetual or loss
of another pawn.}) (21... Bc6 22. Bxc6+ (22. Be3 Bxe4 23. Bxd4 Qc4 24. Rd1 Rd8
25. h3 Bxc2 26. Qxc2 Rxd4 27. Rxd4 Qxd4 28. Rg3 Qxf4 29. Qxc3 Kf8 {
results in a balanced game}) 22... bxc6 {(threatening ...Nf3+)} 23. Rg3 Qc4 24.
Be3 O-O-O 25. h4 Qa4 26. Rc1 Qxa3 27. h5 Qb2 $11 {.}))) (18... Qa4 {tries to create more winning chances but is riskier. Alekseev-Gupta, Moscow 2012, saw} 19.
Rb1 Nd4 20. Qd3 Bc6 21. Kf2 Nf3 22. Rg3 Rd8 23. Qxc3 Nxh2 24. Rb4 Nxf1 $1 25.
Rxa4 Nxg3 26. Kxg3 Bxa4 27. Qc7 Bc6 28. Be3 Rd7 {
and Black had sufficient counterplay to draw.})) 17... Qd5 {This has become a
standard way to reorganize; after the coming ...Bc6, Black will have an
effective battery on the long diagonal.} 18. Rb1 ({Others: -- (a)} 18. a4 {
is similar to the main lines if White plays Ra3/Rxb3, but the bishop can also
go to a3 at some point:} -- (18... Bc6 19. Ra3 {
can legitimately be answered by...} (19. Kf1 O-O-O $15 20. g4 Nd4 {
, Talla-Cech, Pardubice 1991}) 19... O-O-O (19... Rh8) ({, and} 19... Qa5 {
are playable but seem to leave White ahead by just a shade}) 20. Rxc3 Kb8 21.
Ba3 {, Milman-Tuhrim, Philadelphia 2011, when} b6 {
is best, and White can't seem to establish himself; e.g.} 22. g4 Qa5 23. Kd2
Nd4 24. Rg3 Rd5 $1 25. Bb2 Rgd8 26. Kc1 Bxa4 27. Kb1 ({or} 27. Rc4 Nxc2 28. Bc3
Qb5 {, when} 29. Rxa4 Qxa4 30. Qxc2 Qxf4+ 31. Kb2 b5 {is equal}) 27... Nc6 $1
28. Ra3 Nb4 $11 {.}) ({. I think} 18... O-O-O $1 {is a more efficient solution:
} 19. -- (19. Ra3 Kb8 20. Rxc3 Bxa4 {is comfortable for Black; e.g.} 21. Ra3 (
21. Qc5 $5 Qd7 $1) 21... Qc6 22. Bb2 Ne7 $1 ({or} 22... Rh8 23. g4 Nh4 24. Rg3
b6 {, having ...Bb5 in mind}) 23. h4 Nd5 24. h5 b6 25. h6 Nb4 26. Rc3 Qd5 $15 {
threatening ...Qa2 and intending ...Na2 in several lines.}) (19. Ba3 Bxa4 (
19... Bc6 $5 20. Bb4 Nd4 $1 21. Bxc3 Qc5 $1 {threatens ...Nf3+, and then} 22.
Bxd4 Rxd4 {
intends ...Qc3+; Black seems to have just enough play for the two pawns}) 20.
Qc5+ Bc6 21. Qxd5 Rxd5 22. Kf2 Rh8 23. h3 b5 {
. The idea of ...a5 and advancing Black's queenside pawns holds the balance.}))
) ({(b) A simplifying line is} 18. Be3 Nxe3 19. Qxe3 Rxg2 20. Rxg2 Qxg2 {
. Then R.Robson-Shankland, Milwaukee 2009, went} 21. Be4 (21. O-O-O Qd5 22. Rg1
O-O-O 23. Qxa7 Bc6 24. Rd1 Rd7 $1 $11 {
intending ...Kc7 and in some cases ...Qa2}) 21... Qxh2 22. O-O-O (22. Bxb7 Rb8
23. Be4 Qh4+ 24. Qf2 Qxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Rb5 {intending ...Ra5; e.g.} 26. Ke3 Ra5
27. Kd3 Ra4 28. Rb1 Rxa3 29. Rb8+ Ke7 30. Rb3 Ra4 31. Rxc3 f5 $1 32. exf6+ Kxf6
) {, and now} 22... Bc6 $1 {was suggested immediately by commentators all over
the world, most of whom found} 23. Kb1 ({or} 23. Bxc6+ bxc6 24. Qd4 ({here} 24.
Qc5 $2 Qxf4+ 25. Kb1 Qa4 {
favoured Black in Barrientos-Pozo Vera, Panama City 2011}) {
, and now the computer move} 24... a5 $1 {, preventing Qb4 in many lines and
thus helping when Black's queen checks on the b-file; e.g.} 25. Kb1 Qe2 $1 26.
Qd7+ Kf8 27. Qd6+ Kg7 28. Rg1+ Kh8 $11) 23... Bxe4 24. Qxe4 Qf2 25. Qxb7 Qb6+
26. Qxb6 axb6 27. Ka2 Ra4 {with a drawn ending. It takes some analysis to show
how easy this is, but Black has few problems.}) ({(c)} 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. Be3
O-O-O 20. Rd1 (20. Bxa7 $6 Bc6 21. Be3 Qb5 $5 {
and ...Qb2 gives Black the advantage}) {, Spitz-Debray, Evry 2005; and} 20...
Qa2 $1 {, e.g.} 21. Bc5 Bc6 22. Bd6 Rg6 23. Qxa7 Rgxd6 24. Rxd6 Qb1+ 25. Kf2
Qxc2+ 26. Kg3 $11 {.}) ({(d)} 18. g3 Nd4 (18... Bb5 $1 19. Bxf5 exf5 20. Qe3
O-O-O 21. Kf2 f6 22. Qxc3+ Bc6 $11) 19. Rf1 Bc6 20. Be3 Nf3+ 21. Ke2 Qa5 {
with compensation, Semina-Ludwig, German League 2000.}) ({(e)} 18. g4 $6 Nd4
19. Rg3 Qh1+ 20. Qf1 Qxh2 21. Rh3 Nxc2+ 22. Kd1 Qxh3 23. Qxh3 Nxa1 24. Qh4 Rc8
25. a4 c2+ 26. Ke2 {, R.Jones-D.Mason, High Wycombe 2012; and here} Rc5 $1 {
threatening ...Nb3 is extremely strong.}) 18... Bc6 19. Rb3 (19. Rb4 {
, remarkably, would transpose into the main line of 9.1142 (15 Rb1) again.})
19... O-O-O 20. Rxc3 Kb8 {This position has been tested and analysed a lot,
and it seems that Black's activity and light-square control is enough for two
pawns, especially since White's king is exposed.} 21. Rc5 {There are many
complex alternatives here, and this one is probably no better nor worse than
the others. Although correspondence games in this variation almost inevitably
turn into draws, the complications illustrate that both sides will have
winning chances over-the-board.} ({(a)} 21. Qc5 Rxg2 22. Qxd5 Rxg1+ 23. Kf2
Rdg8 $5 {(brilliant)} ({but perhaps not as precise as} 23... Bxd5 24. Kxg1 Rg8+
25. Kf1 {, when} Rh8 ({while} 25... Ne7 {intending ...Rg2 should work as well})
26. Bxf5 exf5 {will undoubtedly be drawn}) 24. Qd8+ Rxd8 25. Kxg1 Rg8+ 26. Kf1
{(almost the same position, but the bishop was better on d5)} Nh4 $5 ({or} 
26... Rh8 27. Bxf5 exf5 28. h3 Kc8 29. Bd2 Kd7 30. Be1 Ke6 {
with practical equality}) 27. Be2 {, Muzychuk-Lahno, Moscow 2010; and} Nf5 28.
Bd2 Bg2+ 29. Ke1 Bd5 {makes it hard for White even to mount a winning attempt.}
) ({(b)} 21. Rc4 b6 22. g4 $5 Bb5 23. Rc3 Nd4 24. Bxb5 $6 (24. Rg3 $1 Qh1+ 25.
Qf1 Qxh2 26. Rh3 Bxd3 27. Rxh2 Bxf1 28. Kxf1 Rxg4 29. Rd3 $1 {
and White manages to equalize}) 24... Qxb5 25. Qf1 Qa5 26. Bd2 {
, S.Kuipers-Stellwagen, Dutch Team Ch. 2011; and now} Qd5 27. Qg2 Qa2 28. Qe4
Rd5 $1 {gives Black excellent chances.}) ({(c)} 21. g4 Nd4 22. Rg3 Qh1+ (22...
Qa5 $5) 23. Bf1 b6 (23... Ka8 24. Bb2 Be4 $5) 24. a4 Qe4+ 25. Rge3 Qd5 26. Red3
Qa5 27. Ba3 Nb5 $1 28. Qd2 Rxd3 29. Rxd3 Nxa3 30. Rxa3 Qxd2+ 31. Kxd2 Rxg4 32.
Ke3 Rh4 33. h3 a5 34. Ra1 {½-½ Soldano-Girard, ICCF 2010; according to the
computer, this was a perfectly played game!}) ({(d)} 21. Bd2 Qa2 22. Qc5 (22.
Rxc6 Nd4 $3 23. Ba5 $1 Qxa3 24. Bc7+ Ka8 25. Kd1 Nxc6 26. Bxd8 Rxd8 $15) 22...
Qa1+ 23. Kf2 (23. Ke2 Nd4+ 24. Kf2 Rxg2+ $1 25. Rxg2 Qd1 $1 26. Bf1 $1 Qxd2+
27. Kg1 Qxf4 {and Black stands better}) 23... Rxg2+ $1 24. Rxg2 Qd1 $1 25. Be2
Qxd2 26. Rd3 $6 (26. Rg4 $1 {may still equalize}) 26... Rxd3 27. cxd3 Qxf4+ 28.
Kg1 Bxg2 29. Qf8+ Kc7 {, Gallagher-Nemet, Swiss Team Ch. 1995; and now} 30.
Kxg2 $1 $11 {was correct.}) ({(e)} 21. g3 Nd4 22. Be3 Nf3+ 23. Kd1 Nxg1 $5 (
23... Rh8 $1 {equalizes; e.g.} 24. Bxa7+ Ka8 25. Rg2 Qb5 $1 26. Kc1 Qa5 27.
Rxc6 Qxa3+ 28. Kd1 Rxd3+ 29. cxd3 Qxd3+ 30. Kc1 bxc6 31. Bc5 Qc3+ 32. Qc2 Qa1+
$11) 24. Bxa7+ Ka8 25. Qxg1 Bb5 26. Bb6 Bxd3 $1 27. cxd3 (27. Rxd3 Qb5 $11 {
Pacher-Petrik, Stiavnica 2011}) 27... Qb5 28. Kc2 Rc8 29. Bc7 Qa4+ 30. Kb2 Qxf4
31. Rc4 Qd2+ 32. Ka1 Rxc7 33. Rxc7 Qxd3 {; this should be drawn.}) 21... Qa2
22. Rxc6 $5 {. A safe decision; with the bishop pair, White can make enough
threats on the queenside to draw.} ({
There wasn't much else to do in terms of winning attempts; e.g.} 22. Qd2 Nh4
23. Rxc6 Nf3+ 24. gxf3 Rxg1+ 25. Kf2 Rxc1 26. Qa5 Rd7 27. Rc8+ $1 Kxc8 28. Qc5+
{with perpetual check!}) ({After} 22. Rxc6 $5 {
, Ganguly-Shulman, Ningbo 2011, continued} bxc6 23. Qc5 (23. Qd2 Rd4 24. g4 Qb1
25. Kf2 Ne7 $11) 23... Rxd3 {(heading for the draw)} (23... Rd5 {
might do the same}) 24. cxd3 Rxg2 25. Rxg2 (25. Qf8+ Kc7 26. Qxf7+ Kb6 27. Rxg2
Qxg2 {transposes}) 25... Qxg2 26. Be3 (26. Qf8+ Kb7 27. Qxf7+ Kb6 {, and} 28.
Qf8 ({but not} 28. Qxe6 $4 Nd4) 28... Qg1+ 29. Kd2 Qe3+ 30. Kd1 Qxd3+) 26...
Nxe3 27. Qxe3 Qh1+ 28. Ke2 Qxh2+ {
, and the game was drawn shortly through perpetual check.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.1142 15 Rb1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 ({
The following is a transposition from the traditional line} 11... Bd7 12. Qd3
dxc3 13. Rb1 d4 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Qxd4 {. These days we get the position more
often by our 11...dxc3 move order, but in any case a good deal of theory has
built up on it.}) 12. Qd3 d4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Bd7 15. Rb1 Nf5 16. Qf2 Qc6
({I'm not generally recommending ...Bc6 systems, which is another wide and
unresolved subject, but I find this particular one promising:} 16... Bc6 17.
Rg1 Rd8 $1 (17... O-O-O) ({, and} 17... Qd7 {
are the more normal moves, currently looking a tad better for White}) {
, and now:} 18. -- (18. Bd3 $2 {(natural, but...)} Rxd3 $1 19. cxd3 Qd8 $1 {
and:} 20. -- (20. Qxa7 Qxd3 21. Qb8+ (21. Rb4 Qc2 $15 22. Be3 $4 Kf8 {
was simply winning in Palkovi-F.Portisch, Eger 1987}) 21... Ke7 22. Rxb7+ Bxb7
23. Qxb7+ Kf8 $15 {.}) (20. g4 Qxd3 (20... Nd4 $5 21. Rg3 Qd5 {
seems to yield a small advantage}) 21. gxf5 Qe4+ 22. Kf1 Qd3+ 23. Ke1 Qe4+ 24.
Kf1 {½-½ Dolzhikova-Sedina, St Petersburg 2009.})) (18. Qxa7 Nd4 19. Bd3
Qe7 $1 20. g3 Rh8 21. h4 Rxh4 $1 22. gxh4 Qxh4+ {
leads to at least a perpetual check.}) (18. Rb4 {has several answers:} Qa5 ({
; or} 18... Rd5 $5 19. Be2 $5 Qd8 $1 20. Rc4 Nd4 21. Rxc3 {
, Rytshagov-Guanciale, Saint Vincent 2001; and} Nxe2 22. Qxe2 Bb5 {
is equal after} 23. Qh5 ({or} 23. Qf3 Bc6 24. Qe2 Bb5) 23... Qb6 24. Be3 Qa5
25. Bd2 Qb6 26. Be3 $11 {.}) (18... Rh8 {has} 19. Bd3 ({whereas} 19. h3 Rg8 $1
20. g4 Qd7 21. Be2 Nd4 {is complex}) 19... Rxd3 $1 {in mind}) 19. Bd3 Rh8 (
19... Qd5 {would transpose to 19...Rd8 in the main line}) (19... Rxd3 $5 20.
cxd3 Qd5 {is also interesting}) 20. h3 Rxd3 $5 21. cxd3 Qd5 $11 22. g4 Nh4 23.
Ke2 Ng2 (23... b5 $5) 24. Rxg2 {
, Adelseck-Vicoli, corr 2000; and Black didn't go in for the wild} Rxh3 $5 25.
Rg3 Rh2 $3 26. Qxh2 Qa2+ 27. Bb2 cxb2 28. Ke3 b1=Q 29. Qh8+ Kd7 30. Rxb1 Qxb1 {
, when White cannot escape a perpetual check.})) 17. Rb4 $5 {This dynamic move
stops ...Qe4+ and covers key squares along the fourth rank; ironically,
however, it can sometimes be a waste of time.} ({The immediate} 17. Rg1 {
allows a draw:} Qe4+ (17... Qd5 $5 18. Bd3 {
returns to the main line of 9.1141 above}) 18. Qe2 Qd4 $11 {. After} 19. Rh1 $6
Bc6 20. Rb4 {, as in Zunker-Müller Ludwig, German League 2009,} Qd7 $1 {
is particularly strong, because ...0-0-0 is prepared, and} 21. Qd3 {
can be answered by} Qe7 $1 {, when ...Qh4+ and ...Rd8 are problems for White.})
17... Qd5 18. Rg1 ({Or} 18. Qf3 Qxf3 19. gxf3 Bc6 {, Singer-Liepold,
Kaufbeuren 1998, with obvious compensation in view of White's pawn structure.
Then} 20. Kf2 Nh4 21. Rc4 Bb5 $1 22. Rxc3 Bxf1 23. Kxf1 Rd8 24. Be3 Rg2 {
gives Black enough for the two pawns, shattered as they are:} 25. Bf2 Rd1+ 26.
Be1 Ke7 27. f5 $1 (27. Rc7+ Kd8 28. Rxf7 Rgd2 29. Rg1 Rxe1+ 30. Kxe1 Nxf3+ 31.
Kf1 Nxh2+ $11) 27... Rgd2 $11 {.}) 18... Bc6 19. Bd3 ({Instead: -- (a)} 19. Rc4
O-O-O 20. Bd3 Kb8 {transposes.}) ({(b) White loses time with} 19. Be2 $6 Qa2 $1
(19... O-O-O 20. Bf3 Qd7 21. Qc5 Nh4 ({or} 21... a5)) 20. Bd3 O-O-O $15 {.}) ({
(c)} 19. g4 Rd8 $5 (19... O-O-O) 20. Bd3 Nd4 21. Rxd4 Qxd4 22. Qxd4 Rxd4 23. h4
Kf8 $1 24. Kf2 Kg7 {
justifies playing ...Rd8, although this is still very complex.}) 19... O-O-O $1
{Incidentally, this position can arise from the strange order 16...Bc6 17 Rg1
0-0-0 18 Bd3 Qa5 19 Rb4 Qd5.} ({Remarkably, few players have chosen this move
over the years, the great majority preferring} 19... Rd8 {, which leaves White
with much the better game and has scored very poorly. Presumably they were
afraid of 20 Qxa7, which is basically a blunder.}) 20. Rc4 ({After} 20. Qxa7 $2
Rxg2 21. Rxg2 Qxg2 $17 {, the white king is very hard to defend; Black's rook
can come into play via h8.}) 20... Kb8 21. Rxc3 {A position that occurred way
back in V.Liberzon-Pietzsch, Leipzig 1965! I keep coming across old references
to the 11...dxc3 lines, which has shattered my illusion that the ideas were
recently conceived. More importantly, White is now a tempo behind on the same
lines in which he plays Rb1-b3 and Rxc3 (as in 9.1141), rather than Rb1-b4-c4
and Rxc3.} Qa2 $5 {The same move Black uses with a tempo less.} ({I'm not sure
that anything is good enough to force an advantage, but a cute line is} 21...
b6 22. Rb3 Rh8 23. h3 Rhg8 24. Bd2 Qxb3 $1 25. cxb3 Rxd3 {
and Black stands better in spite of his material disadvantage.}) 22. Be3 ({
Others: -- (a)} 22. Bxf5 exf5 23. Qc5 Qb1 24. Ke2 Rxg2+ 25. Rxg2 Qxc1 26. Rd3
Rc8 27. Rg1 Qxf4 28. Qd4 Be4 $11 {Hyldkrog-Pasko, ICCF 1999.}) ({(b)} 22. Qc5
$2 Qa1 23. Kd2 Nd4 24. a4 {
, Strobel-Cech, German League 1997; and among other moves,} Qb1 ({and} 24...
Bxg2 {are advantageous.})) ({(c) Curiously,} 22. Rxc6 $5 bxc6 {
transposes to the main line of 9.1141.}) 22... Nxe3 23. Qxe3 Rxg2 24. Rxg2 Bxg2
{, Mamedyarov-Alekseev, Ohrid 2009. White's weaknesses cancel out his extra
pawn;} ({the game continued} 24... Bxg2 25. Kf2 Bc6 26. Be4 {
(White's king is a little exposed, so he chooses the safest defence)} Bxe4 27.
Qxe4 Qb1 28. Re3 $6 (28. Qe1 Qb6+ 29. Kf3 $11) {, and here} 28... Qd1 $1 {
has the twin ideas of ...Rc8 and ...Rh8, when} 29. Re1 Qh5 30. Rh1 Qh3 {
keeps the pressure on.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.12 10 Kd1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Kd1 $5 {. Euwe's move, both avoiding the piece
congestion that 10 Ne2 brings and planning Nf3-g5. White's king is stuck in
the centre, of course, but it often stays there in the 10 Ne2 lines anyway.
This is a complicated, underestimated line, since several of the solutions
which have been recommended for Black in dozens of books aren't very good at
all. It turns out that Black can't avoid entering into some very dense theory.}
Nbc6 ({A famous old line goes} 10... Nd7 11. Nf3 Nxe5 12. Bf4 Qxc3 13. Nxe5
Qxa1+ 14. Bc1 {, and the analysis of both} Rf8 ({and} 14... d3 {goes on in depressing length; I believe there are draws there for Black if you desperately
need one.})) 11. Nf3 (11. f4 {shores up the centre but is slow:} Bd7 12. Nf3 ({
Williams suggests} 12. Qd3 {'!', but Black has an excellent game following}
dxc3 13. Qxc3 d4 {followed by ...Nf5 and ...0-0-0}) 12... O-O-O $1 13. Qd3 (13.
cxd4 $2 Nf5 {; e.g.} 14. c3 Rh8 15. Qxf7 Ncxd4 $19 {intending ...Ba4+}) 13...
dxc3 14. Qxc3 d4 15. Qc5 (15. Qc4 Nd5 16. Bd2 {
, Vasiukov-Krasnov, Cheboksary 1960; and among other things,} Nb6 17. Qd3 Ne7
$1 {is strong, with the idea} 18. Nxd4 Ba4 $15) 15... Nd5 16. Bd2 {
, Kosenkov-Novotelnov, USSR 1961; and the break} f6 $1 17. exf6 Nxf6 {
, intending ...Ne4 or ...e5, gives Black a distinct advantage.}) 11... dxc3 {
A position with remarkably many tactical possibilities. A couple of the
alternatives are important:} 12. Ng5 {The most forcing line.} ({(a)} 12. Bh6 $2
Bd7 ({or} 12... Qb6) 13. Ng5 Nxe5 14. f4 f6 15. fxe5 fxg5 {
with an extra pawn and far superior position.}) ({(b)} 12. Bg5 Bd7 (12... Qb6
13. Ke1 Bd7) 13. Bf6 O-O-O (13... Qb6 $1 {, hoping for} 14. Ng5 $2 Rxg5 15.
Bxg5 Qd4+ 16. Kc1 Qxe5 $19) 14. h4 (14. Rb1 $11) {
, Lukin-Cherepkov, Leningrad 1983; and} 14... Nf5 $1 (14... Qb6 $15) 15. Bxd8
Rxd8 {, with the ideas ...Nxe5 and ...Qb6, gives Black a substantial advantage.
}) ({(c)} 12. h4 Bd7 13. Ng5 (13. Bf4 Qb6 $1 $15) 13... Rf8 (13... Nxe5 $5 14.
Bf4 ({or} 14. f4 $2 Ng4 $1 15. Qxf7+ Kd8 {intending ...Qc5 and ...Nf5}) 14...
f6 15. Qh5+ N7g6 16. Bd3 O-O-O) 14. f4 Nf5 $1 15. g4 (15. Bd3 Qb6 $15) 15...
Ng3 16. Rg1 Nxf1 17. Rxf1 Nd4 $15 {Davies-J.Watson, Manchester 1978;} ({or here
} 17... O-O-O $5 18. Nxf7 $2 Rxf7 $1 19. Qxf7 Nd4 {with a decisive advantage.})
) ({(d)} 12. Rb1 Bd7 13. Bg5 O-O-O 14. Qd3 Rxg5 $5 (14... d4 $11) 15. Nxg5 Nxe5
16. Qd4 Kb8 (16... Rg8 17. f4 Ng4) 17. Ba6 {
, Minic-Ivkov, Yugoslav Ch. 1965; and} Bc8 {is equal.}) ({(e)} 12. Bf4 Qb6 $1
13. Be3 (13. Ke1 Bd7 14. Ng5 Nxe5 $1 15. Bxe5 Rxg5 16. Bf6 Rg6 17. Bxc3 Rc8 18.
h4 {, Wiedenkeller-J.Watson, Oslo 1980; and} Rg8 19. Qd3 Qc7 20. Bb2 Rg4 {
was the easiest way to a large advantage}) (13. Bg3 Qb2 14. Rc1 Qxa3 15. Bd3
Nb4 $17) 13... Qb2 14. Rc1 {, B.Stein-I.Farago, Budapest 1986;} Qxa3 $1 15. Rb1
b6 16. Bb5 Bb7 $15 {.}) 12... Nxe5 ({After the frequently-recommended} 12...
Qxe5 $6 {, I think that} 13. Qxf7+ Kd7 14. h4 {favours White; e.g.} Qd4+ 15.
Bd3 e5 16. Be3 Qg4+ 17. Kc1 {.}) 13. f4 (13. Bf4 Qb6 $1 {
is fascinating material:} 14. Bxe5 {(...Qxf2 and ...Qd4+ were threatened)} Rxg5
15. Qh4 {(best; there's are scads of choices, none convincing)} (15. f4 Qe3 16.
Qd3 Rxe5 $1 17. fxe5 Qxe5 $15) (15. h4 Qxf2 ({or} 15... Rg8) 16. Bxc3 Rg4 {
is good}) (15. Bxc3 Bd7 $1 16. h4 Rg8 $15) (15. Be2 Rxg2 $1 16. Bg3 Nf5 17. Bh5
Qd4+ 18. Ke1 Qe4+ 19. Be2 Bd7 $1 $17 {Schutt-Balogh, corr 1971}) 15... Rg8 16.
Qd4 Qxd4+ (16... Qd8 $5) 17. Bxd4 Nf5 18. Bxc3 d4 19. Bd2 e5 20. g3 Nd6 {
with a better central position and perhaps a very slight advantage.}) 13... f6
$1 {Originally Uhlmann's suggestion and probably the only acceptable move.} ({
The old sacrifice} 13... Rxg5 $6 {seems to give White too many pluses after}
14. fxg5 N5g6 (14... N7g6 15. Qg8+ Ke7 ({or} 15... Kd7 16. Be3) 16. a4 {
is unpleasant}) 15. h4 $5 ({in fact,} 15. Rb1 {with the idea} e5 16. Bb5+) ({
, and Williams' suggestion of} 15. Be2 e5 16. h4 {
are both a little better for White}) {, and for the record:} 15... -- (15...
Qg3 {(15 Be2 would not have allowed this, as Williams points out)} 16. Rh3 Qg4+
17. Ke1 Nf5 18. h5 Nf8 19. Qh8 $1 {is apparently winning for White} ({
Williams gives} 19. Bb5+ Bd7 {with good counterplay}) {; e.g.} 19... Bd7 20. h6
d4 21. h7 O-O-O 22. Qe5 {.}) (15... e5 16. h5 Nf8 17. Qg7 ({or} 17. Bb5+ {
, which Williams likes for White after} Nc6 18. Qd3) 17... Bg4+ 18. Ke1 O-O-O
19. Qxf7 Bf5 {, B.Stein-I.Farago, Lugano 1985; and Williams gives} 20. g4 $1 (
20. Be2 Ne6 21. Rf1 Rf8 22. Qxe6+ Bxe6 23. Rxf8+ Kd7 24. Bb5+ Nc6 25. h6 {
also looks good}) 20... Bxc2 21. g6 {
with a substantial advantage. Then Black can hope for the best with} Bxg6 22.
hxg6 Nfxg6 {, but this is unlikely to play out well after} 23. Rh3 {. In any case, 13...Rxg5, which is still widely recommended, looks extremely shaky.})) 14.
fxe5 ({The alternatives are complex: (a)} 14. Bb5+ Bd7 (14... Kd8 $5 {
achieves only a small plus}) 15. Nxe6 Qb6 {with these continuations:} 16. -- (
16. Ng7+ $2 Rxg7 $1 17. Qxg7 Bxb5 18. Qh8+ Kf7 $1 19. Qh5+ (19. Qh7+ Ke6 20.
Qh3+ Nf5 $1 21. Qxc3 Ng4 22. Re1+ Kd7 $17) 19... N5g6 20. Qh7+ Kf8 21. Qh6+ Kg8
$19 {Greene-Vaughan, corr 1991.}) (16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17. fxe5 Kxe6 $1 18. Qh3+ (
18. exf6 Nf5 19. Rf1 $2 Qd4+ 20. Ke1 Qe4+ 21. Kd1 Ne3+ $19) 18... Nf5 19. Rf1
Qd4+ 20. Ke1 {, Garmendez-Moran, Havana 1993; and} Rg4 $1 {wins.}) (16. Qh5+ {
can be met by several moves; e.g.} Rg6 $1 ({or} 16... N5g6 17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18.
Re1 $1 Nf8 $15) ({; or} 16... Nf7 17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. Qxf7 Qxe6 $15) 17. fxe5 (
17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. fxe5 Kxe6 $17) 17... Qxe6 18. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {
with a significant advantage.})) ({(b)} 14. Qh5+ $1 {
improves the order; there might follow} N5g6 15. Nh7 $6 (15. Bb5+ $1 Bd7 16.
Nxe6 Qb6 $15 {transposes to 16 Qh5+ N5g6 in line 'a'}) 15... Kf7 16. g4 $5 (16.
Bd3 Rh8 $17) 16... Rh8 (16... Kg7) ({; or} 16... Qc5 {with the idea} 17. g5
Qd4+ 18. Bd3 e5 19. gxf6 e4 20. fxe7 exd3 $17) 17. Bd3 (17. f5 exf5 18. Bd3
fxg4) 17... Qb6 18. f5 exf5 19. Re1 fxg4 $17 {.}) 14... fxg5 15. Qh5+ ({After} 
15. h4 gxh4 16. Qh5+ Kd8 17. Bg5 Qc5 18. Rh3 Bd7 19. Qxh4 {, Busquets-Remlinger
, Los Angeles 1993, it wasn't too early for the standard exchange sacrifice}
Rxg5 $1 20. Qxg5 Kc7 {
with multiple threats; this is actually better for Black than the main line.})
15... Kd8 16. Bxg5 Qc5 $1 {Black intends ...Bd7 and ...Kc7 to untangle, after
which White's dark squares and king are vulnerable. White's two bishops and
passed h-pawn do not really compensate him enough, although by accurate play
and simplification he can hold.} 17. h4 ({Others: -- (a)} 17. Qh4 Rxg5 $5 (
17... Bd7 18. Bd3 Bc6 19. Rf1 Kd7 $15 {and} 20. g4 ({or} 20. Rf7 Qg1+ {
intending} 21. Bf1 Raf8 $1 $17) 20... Raf8 {
of B.Stein-Bukal, Balatonbereny 1985, when best was} 21. Rxf8 $1 Rxf8 22. Ke2
Rg8 $5 ({or} 22... Qd4 {, in both cases with equality})) 18. Qxg5 Bd7 19. Bd3
Kc7 20. Qh4 $1 (20. g4 Rf8 21. Re1 Rf3 $1 {, winning; for example,} 22. Kc1 ({
or} 22. a4 Qd4 $1 23. Qxe7 Rxd3+ 24. Kc1 Rd1+ 25. Rxd1 Qe3+ {, mating}) 22...
Rxd3 $1 23. cxd3 Qf2 $19 {Popovych-J.Watson, New York 1980}) 20... Nc6 (20...
a5 {prevents Qb4; e.g.} 21. Rf1 Rg8 22. Rf2 $5 Rh8 $1 23. Qf4 Rxh2 $1 24. Ke2 {
with unclear prospects}) 21. Rf1 Rg8 22. Qf2 d4 23. Re1 {, and Black has at
least three moves that yield an equal game, but none a forced advantage; e.g.}
Kc8 (23... Ne7 $5 24. Rb1 $1 Nd5 25. Qf7 Rxg2 26. Rxb7+ $1 Kxb7 27. Qxd7+ {etc}
) (23... Rf8 24. Qg3 Ne7 25. Rb1 Kb8 26. Be4 b6 $11) 24. Re4 $1 $11 (24. Bh7
Rf8 25. Qg3 Na5 $15) (24. Qe2 Ne7 $1 25. Be4 Bc6 26. Bxc6 Nxc6 $15) 24... Nxe5
25. Rxd4 (25. Qxd4 Qxd4 26. Rxd4 Rxg2 27. Bf1 Rf2 $15) 25... Ng4 26. Qf4 Ne5
27. Qf2 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 17. Bd3 Kc7 18. Qh4 (18. h4 Bd7 {
is line 'b' in the next note}) 18... Nc6 $1 19. Re1 Bd7 20. g4 {
(to free the g5-bishop)} Raf8 21. Bf6 Qd4 (21... Qb6 $15 {
intending ...Nd4, ...Qb2 is also promising}) 22. h3 Qf4 {, Sisniega-Agdestein,
Taxco 1985; Black won by bringing his queen to f3 with check and then
sacrificing the exchange on f6.}) 17... Bd7 18. Rh3 $6 ({Instead: -- (a)} 18.
Qf7 $4 Rxg5 19. hxg5 Qe3 $19 {.}) ({(b)} 18. Bd3 $5 {
occurred in Schvartsman-J.Watson, Midway City 1993:} Kc7 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Qe2
Qc5 (20... Qg7 $5 21. h5 Qh6 $1) 21. Rf1 (21. h5 Raf8 $1 22. h6 Rf2 23. h7 Rxe2
$19) 21... Raf8 22. Rf6 Be8 $1 23. Ke1 ({a cute line is} 23. g4 Rxf6 $1 24.
exf6 Rxg4 $1 25. Qxg4 Qe3 26. Qe2 Bh5 $19) 23... Qd4 24. Rb1 Rxg2 $1 25. Qxg2
Qxe5+ $19 {.}) ({(c)} 18. Qg4 a5 (18... d4 19. Bd3 Kc7 20. Bxe7 Qxe7 21. Qxd4
Rad8 22. Qxc3+ Kb8 $11) 19. Rb1 Rxg5 20. hxg5 Nf5 $11 {; e.g.} 21. Qf4 Kc7 22.
Rh3 Rf8 23. Rf3 Ne3+ 24. Qxe3 Qxe3 25. Rxe3 Rxf1+ 26. Re1 Rf2 27. Re2 Rf1+ 28.
Re1 $11 {.}) 18... Kc7 $1 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Rxc3+ Bc6 {For his pawn, Black has
secured his king and threatens ...Rh8, ...Raf8, and ...d4.} 21. Rf3 Raf8 22.
Rb1 (22. Kc1 Rxf3 $1 ({or} 22... d4 23. Rxf8 Qxf8) 23. gxf3 Rg1 24. Kb2 Qc5 25.
Qh7+ Bd7 26. Qd3 Rh1 27. Be2 Rxh4 $15 ({or} 27... Qb6+ {.})) 22... d4 23. Rxf8
{, Popovych-J.Watson, New York 1981;} ({and now} 23. Rxf8 Rxf8 {led to a win,}
({but} 23... Qxf8 $1 {with the idea} 24. Ke1 ({or} 24. Qe2 $2 Qf4 $1) 24...
Bxg2 {was stronger still. White can probably draw with very accurate play
against 13...f6, so it doesn't refute 10 Kd1; but you probably wouldn't want
to be White in a real game.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "9.2 8 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8. Bd3
{. As explained in the very first part of this chapter, quite a few players
are trying to avoid this rather dangerous move. They prefer to play 7...cxd4,
which I analysed in a lengthy note to 7...Qc7, and transpose to the Poisoned
Pawn in the case of 8 Qxg7 Rg8 9 Qxh7 Qc7. I can sympathize with this point of
view but, as you can see from that analysis there, 7...cxd4 takes a lot of
preparation and involves some very tactical lines as well. I wouldn't
discourage you from playing either or both ways. --- The point of 8 Bd3 is to
develop quickly and get castled, both rare occurrences in the Qxg7 lines. It
also makes room for the development of White's knight to e2 in many variations,
whereas in the main lines that move blocks off the bishop on f1. While Black
has plenty of resources, he should have a very specific line worked out here;
otherwise it's easy to suffer a quick defeat.} cxd4 {
It's time to break up the centre.} (8... Nbc6 {is a more solid alternative,
but I think it leaves White with a meaningful advantage after} 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10.
Qf6 $1 cxd4 11. Nf3 Ng6 {(Moskalenko)} 12. Bxg6 $1 fxg6 (12... hxg6 13. O-O
dxc3 14. Bg5 b6 15. Rfd1 Bb7 16. Rd3 Qe7 17. Qf4 Qc5 18. Nd4 $14) 13. O-O dxc3
14. Bh6 Qe7 15. Qf4 $14 {. Maybe Black can improve upon this.}) 9. Ne2 dxc3 10.
Qxg7 (10. f4 $6 O-O 11. O-O Nd7 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Qh4+ Kg8 14. Qxe7 Qc5+ $5 (
14... b6) (14... Qc4) 15. Qxc5 Nxc5 {, Los-Blees, Dutch Team Ch. 1994. In
spite of the opposite-coloured bishops, endings such as this are torture for
White due to Black's c-file pressure (following Nxc3) and superior outposts
(e4, a4, e4).}) 10... Rg8 11. Qxh7 (11. Qh6 $5 {is important. It was given '!'
by French Poisoned Pawn legend Uhlmann; White threatens Bxh7 with tempo.} -- ({
. It would be interesting to try} 11... b6 {
here, intending ...Ba6; but I'll stick to more conventional moves:}) (11...
Nbc6 {and:} 12. -- (12. Bf4 Bd7 $5 13. Bxh7 (13. Bg3 Ng6 14. O-O O-O-O 15. f4
Kb8 {should give reasonable play; e.g.} 16. Qxh7 Bc8 17. Rab1 d4 18. Qh5 b6 19.
Qf3 Bb7 20. Qf2 Nge7 $11) 13... Rxg2 $1 14. Bg3 (14. Ng3 Qb6) 14... O-O-O {
with good counterplay. The exchange sacrifice} 15. Kf1 (15. Qf6 Be8) 15... Rxg3
16. hxg3 Nxe5 {
is clearly satisfactory, with two pawns and an exposed white king.}) (12. Bg5
Qxe5 13. Bf6 Qd6 14. Nxc3 Ne5 (14... Rxg2) 15. O-O Nxd3 16. cxd3 Rg6 (16... e5
$1) 17. Qxh7 Qf4 18. Qh8+ $6 (18. Bxe7 Kxe7 19. Rae1 Rxg2+ $11) 18... Rg8 {
½-½ Pedzich-W.Schmidt, Czestochowa 1992.}) (12. Bxh7 Rxg2 (12... Rh8 13.
Bf4 Nf5 14. Qg5 $1 Nce7 15. Bxf5 {, Gazik-Uhlmann, Budapest 1987;} Rg8 $1 16.
Qf6 Nxf5 17. Bg5 b6 18. h4 Ba6 19. Ng3 Qc4 {with dynamic equality}) ({; Moles'
} 12... Rf8 $5 {also deserves consideration}) 13. Ng3 $1 (13. Qh3 Rg7 14. Qh6
Rg4 15. f4 Qb6 $15) 13... Nxe5 14. Qh3 (14. Kf1 $4 Rxf2+) 14... Nf3+ 15. Kf1 {
and the most forcing sequence is} e5 $1 16. Qh6 $1 (16. Qxg2 $2 Nh4 17. Qg1
Bh3+ 18. Ke2 Qc4+ $1 $19) (16. Qh5 Bg4 $1 17. Qh6 Rxg3 18. hxg3 O-O-O) 16...
Ng8 (16... Qc4+ 17. Bd3 Qg4 18. Kxg2 Nh4+ $11) 17. Bxg8 Qc4+ 18. Kxg2 Nh4+ 19.
Kg1 Nf3+ $11 {.})) (11... Qxe5 {and:} 12. -- (12. Bf4 Qh8 13. Bxh7 {and now:}
-- (13... Rg4 $5 14. h3 Rxf4 (14... Rxg2 $5) 15. Nxf4 Ng8 16. Qh4 Nf6 17. O-O
$1 {, Sevillano-J.Watson, San Francisco 1995; and easiest was} Nc6 $1 18. Rfe1
(18. g3 $2 Nd4 19. Kg2 Nxh7) 18... Bd7 19. g3 O-O-O ({or} 19... Nxh7 $5 20.
Nxd5 Kf8 $15) 20. Bd3 Qxh4 21. gxh4 Rh8 22. Ng2 e5 $15 {.}) (13... Rg7 14. Bd3
Qxh6 15. Bxh6 Rxg2 $1 (15... Rg8 {is simply unclear; Black has the powerful
mobile centre but White has the bishop pair and potentially strong h-pawn}) 16.
Ng3 (16. h4 Nd7 17. h5 Ne5 $15) 16... e5 17. Bf1 (17. h4 f6 18. Kf1 Rxg3 19.
fxg3 Nf5 $17) 17... Bh3 18. Bxg2 Bxg2 19. Rg1 Bf3 $15 {.})) (12. Bxh7 Rxg2 13.
Bf4 Qh8 (13... Qg7 $1 14. Ng3 Qxh6 15. Bxh6 e5 $15) 14. Bg3 (14. Ng3 Nd7 15.
Kf1 Rxf2+ $1 16. Kxf2 Nf6 17. h3 Nxh7) 14... e5 15. Kf1 Bf5 $5 16. Kxg2 Bxh7
$15 {(hoping for 17...Be4+); e.g.} 17. f3 Nbc6 18. Nxc3 O-O-O 19. Rhe1 Nf5 {
with a comfortable advantage.}))) 11... Qxe5 {This is the most forcing move,
clearing out White's centre and threatening ...Rh8. The cost is in development.
} 12. Bf4 ({Instead: -- (a)} 12. f4 Qf6 {renews the threat of ...Rh8.}) ({(b)} 
12. O-O Nd7 ({rejecting the draw by} 12... Rh8 13. Bf4 Qf6 14. Bg5 Qe5 $11) 13.
Qh6 Nf5 (13... Rh8 14. f4 Rxh6 15. fxe5 Rh5 $11 {;} ({or} 15... Rh8 16. Nxc3 a6
{, when Black has a positional advantage but White is better developed; about
equal})) 14. Qf4 b6 (14... Nd6 15. Re1) ({, while} 14... Ne7 15. Qh6 Rh8 {
returns to 13...Rh8}) 15. Re1 Ne7 16. Qa4 Bb7 17. Bf4 Qg7 18. Bg3 a6 $5 {
(versus Bb5) is equal.}) 12... Qf6 13. h4 ({Not} 13. Bxb8 $2 Rxb8 14. Bb5+ Bd7
15. Bxd7+ Kxd7 $17 {Ashley-Morris, New York 1981}) ({or} 13. Qh5 $6 Nbc6 14. h4
Bd7 (14... Rxg2 $1) 15. Rb1 O-O-O 16. Rb3 $2 (16. Bg5 $11) 16... e5 $17 {
Madl-N.McDonald, Oakham 1988.}) 13... Nd7 {This all-purpose move covers e5 and
f6, while keeping open the possibility of ...Nc5 or ...Nf8.} (13... Rxg2 {
is also good:} 14. -- (14. Bg3 $6 e5 (14... Nbc6 {with the idea} 15. Kf1 Qf3)
15. Kf1 Rxg3 16. Nxg3 Nbc6 $15 {
with more than enough compensation, and intending} 17. Nh5 Qf3 {.}) (14. Kf1
Rg8 $1 (14... e5 15. Kxg2 exf4 {
has been analysed to death; White has the tiniest of advantages}) 15. Bg5 Qh8
$1 16. Qxh8 Rxh8 17. Bf6 Rg8 {is a curious version of the trade-off in the
main line, discussed below. The difference is that Black has an extra pawn,
but is a couple of tempi behind. This makes the h-pawn more dangerous; still,
Black has time to use his centre:} 18. Bxc3 (18. h5 Nd7 19. Bb5 Nc6 20. Bxc3 e5
$1 21. f4 a6 $1 {with the idea} 22. Bxc6 bxc6 23. fxe5 c5) 18... Nd7 19. Re1 $5
b6 (19... e5 20. h5 f6 21. h6 Kf7) 20. h5 f6 21. h6 e5 22. f4 $1 e4 23. Nd4 Kf7
24. Be2 Nc5 25. h7 Rh8 $11 {Wurschner-Strnad, ICCF server 2007. Black might
get more winning chances from 19...e5 etc.})) 14. Bg5 Qh8 $1 (14... Qg7 {
is playable, but somewhat more difficult because the rook is relatively
misplaced on g7after} 15. Qxg7 Rxg7 {.}) 15. Qxh8 Rxh8 16. Nxc3 {Here's a position illustrating the basic issues. White has a passed pawn supported by a rook
from behind, as well as two bishops in the vicinity. Black's pieces are
cramped and his queenside undeveloped. But in the French, we often see how a
strong central majority (2:0 in this case) can outweigh a passed h-pawn
(sometimes even with a passed g-pawn thrown in!). A central advance not only
facilitates the quick transfer of pieces to the defence, it also cuts off the
bishops from supporting the passed pawns. This situation with rook pawns
versus centre pawns can also arise in the Grünfeld Defence and Noteboom
Variation, for example. In the case before us the strengths of the centre
almost precisely balance Black's several disadvantages.} a6 {
Stopping Nb5 and preparing to expand in the centre.} (16... f6 {
has also been played in several games:} 17. Bd2 ({nobody plays} 17. Nb5 {
, but that should be checked carefully; there might follow something like} fxg5
18. Nc7+ Kf7 19. Nxa8 Nc5 20. Nc7 Bd7 21. Kd2 gxh4 22. Nb5 e5 23. Rab1 Bxb5 24.
Bxb5 Nf5 {, which may favour White's slight material lead - or not - but
Black's position is harmonious and poised for conflict}) 17... Nc5 18. Be2 Bd7
19. Rb1 (19. Nb5 $6 Bxb5 20. Bxb5+ Kf7 $15 {
Pulkkinen-Kokkila, Finnish Team Ch. 2005}) 19... Bc6 (19... Rc8) ({, or} 19...
Kf7 {leaves Black in good shape}) 20. Nb5 {
, Van den Doel-Hellenberg, Leiden 2008; and} Bxb5 $1 21. Rxb5 (21. Bxb5+ Kf7
$15) 21... b6 22. h5 Kf7 {is at least equal.}) 17. O-O-O ({Here} 17. h5 f6 18.
Bd2 Nc5 19. f3 Kf7 20. Kf2 e5 {gives equal chances.}) ({
Szarvas-Molnar, Pecs 1996, went} 17. Bxe7 Kxe7 18. f4 b5 19. Rb1 Nb6 (19... Nf6
$1) 20. Kf2 Bd7 21. Ne2 $6 f6 22. Bg6 e5 $15 {.}) 17... f6 (17... b5 18. Rde1
Bb7 19. Bf4 Rc8 20. Kb2 Nc5 $11 {Jakovenko-Voekler, Pardubice 2001;} ({here} 
20... d4 $5 {was also interesting.})) 18. Be3 (18. Bd2 Nc5 {
wasn't an improvement in Kadziolka-Toth, Heraklio 2004, which continued} 19. h5
Nxd3+ 20. cxd3 Bd7 $11 {.}) 18... Ne5 $1 {Recommended by A.Rodriguez;} ({
after his blunder} 18... e5 $2 19. Nxd5 $1 {
in Rodriguez Cespedes-Matamoros Franco, Bayamo 1989.}) (18... b5 19. f4 Bb7 $11
{with ...Kf7 next has also been played.}) 19. Bb6 $6 ({
The following variation illustrates the balance-of-forces in detail:} 19. h5
Nxd3+ (19... Bd7 20. f4 Nxd3+ 21. Rxd3 Bc6 22. Bd4 Kf7 $11) 20. Rxd3 (20. cxd3
Bd7 21. Kb2 Rc8 22. f3 Kf7 $11) 20... Kf7 21. f4 Bd7 22. g4 Bc6 23. Bd4 Rag8
24. Rh4 (24. g5 e5 $1 25. fxe5 Rxg5 26. exf6 Nf5 $15) 24... Rh7 25. Bc5 Rhg7
26. Bxe7 Kxe7 27. Rg3 Kf7 $1 28. h6 Rh7 $11 {with the idea} 29. g5 $2 e5 $1 {.}
) 19... Bd7 {. Black can claim the better position now that his forces are out.
} ({Lechowicz-Grzesiewicz, corr 1992, continued} 19... Bd7 20. f4 Nxd3+ 21.
Rxd3 (21. cxd3 Kf7 22. Bf2 Rag8 23. g3 Nf5 24. Ne2 Ba4 25. Rd2 {
, Bildat-Negele, corr 1998; and at this point} d4 $1 $15 {was good}) 21... Rc8
({or} 21... Kf7 $1) 22. Kb2 Rc4 23. g3 {, and the game's} Kf7 {is fine,} ({
while} 23... Bc6 $1 {intending ...e5 and ...Nf5 was also recommended.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10. Winawer: Positional Lines"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 {. This chapter
deals with 'positional' approaches to the Winawer. In contrast to our
experience last chapter with 7 Qg4, White tends to keeps his queen close to
the centre and doesn't immediately try to get at Black's king (even the
apparently attacking 7 h4 introduces what is essentially a positional attack
via h5-h6, with Black's king often going queenside). White then has numerous
ways to attack on both wings; e.g. a4 with Ba3 and a5, h4-h5-h6, or even dxc5
with Nd4, hitting both sides of the board. For his part, Black can apply
pressure down the c-file, attack d4, blockade the queenside (often by ...Qa5-a4, with or without ...c4), castle on either wing, and will very often
attack White's centre by ...f6 at some point. The extreme flexibility of both
sides' strategies has produced fascinating strategic battles over many years.
Arguably, the Positional Winawer has been one of the most intellectually
fruitful openings not just of the French Defence but of modern chess. To begin
with, White chooses one of several continuations:} 7. -- ({10.1} 7. Nf3) ({10.2
} 7. a4) ({10.3} 7. h4) ({White has a few other rare tries: -- (a)} 7. f4 {
cuts off the bishop on c1, but is playable. One answer is} Qa5 ({or} 7... Nbc6
8. Nf3 Nf5) 8. Bd2 (8. Qd2 {can be met by} b6 {intending ...Ba6,} ({or by} 8...
Bd7 9. a4 Nbc6)) 8... Nbc6 (8... Qa4 {is another normal move}) 9. Nf3 cxd4 10.
cxd4 Qa4 11. Bc3 b6 {(at least equal), intending ...Ba6 (Korchnoi).}) ({(b)} 7.
Bd3 $5 {commits the bishop rather early, but deserves some attention:} -- (7...
Nbc6 8. Qg4 (8. Nf3 {transposes to 10.11}) 8... Qa5 (8... c4 9. Be2 O-O 10. h4
({'ECO' gives} 10. Nf3 f5 $5 11. Qg3 $11) 10... f6 $1 {
- Dvoretsky; Black stands well}) 9. Bd2 c4 10. Be2 O-O (10... Nf5 11. Nf3 Bd7
12. Ng5 h6 13. Qh5 Rf8 14. Nh7 {and} Rh8 $11 ({or} 14... Rg8 15. g4 Nfe7 {
unclear, Velimirovic-Timman, Sarajevo 1984})) 11. h4 (11. Nf3 Qa4 12. Ra2 f6
13. exf6 Rxf6 $11) 11... f6 12. f4 {(otherwise Black breaks down the centre)}
Qa4 13. Bd1 Qb5 {(threatening ...Qb2)} 14. Bc1 Qa5 15. Bd2 {
and in Short-Shulman, Dhaka 1999, Black repeated by} Qb5 ({but} 15... Qb6 {
would have been very interesting, since ...Qb2 is still a threat, and now} 16.
Bc1 $2 {fails to} fxe5 17. fxe5 Nxe5 $1) 16. Bc1 Qa5 {etc.}) (7... Qa5 8. Bd2
Nbc6 (8... c4 9. Bf1 Qa4) {, and} 9. Qg4 $5 {transposes to 7...Nbc6,} ({while} 
9. Nf3 {is 9 Bd2 in line 10.11.})) (7... Qc7 8. Rb1 Nbc6 9. Qg4 {, Short-Poulton, British League 2002; and as pointed out in 'ChessBase Magazine', Black
should play simply} O-O $1 10. Qh5 (10. Nf3 f5 11. exf6 Rxf6 12. Bg5 e5 $1 $15)
10... Ng6 11. Nf3 c4 12. Bxg6 fxg6 {which is practically a tempo up on the
main line of 7 Qg4 0-0 (featured in 'PTF3'), since Rb1 looks largely wasted.}))
({(c)} 7. Ne2 $5 Qc7 $1 {(stopping Nf4)} (7... Nbc6 {is also natural}) 8. Rb1 (
8. g3 b6 $1 9. Bg2 Ba6 10. O-O Nbc6 $15) 8... b6 (8... Nd7 {
and ...Nb6 is promising}) ({, or simply} 8... O-O) 9. Ng3 $6 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qc3+
11. Bd2 $6 {(a strange pawn sacrifice)} Qxd4 12. f4 {
, Spassky-Bruch, French Team Ch. 1994; and} O-O {
is natural and strong, intending ...Ba6.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.1 7 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Nf3 {
. The older move, still the most popular at most levels.} Nbc6 {I use this
for convenience and consistency with the rest of the repertoire and with
previous editions. You may want to file away the idea that 7...Qa5, frequently
transposing to our main line after 8 Bd2 Nbc6, avoids some minor issues below.
Otherwise, there's a maze of transpositions and move order ideas here, and all
sorts of moves have proven legitimate; for example, 7...Bd7, 7...Qc7, 7...b6,
and even 7...h6 have all been played in top-level chess. ---} ({
Over the last decade or more,} 7... b6 {has become popular, I think with good
reason. The immediate exchange of light-squared bishops cuts down on White's
attacking possibilities, and ...Ba6 tends to be better-motivated after White
plays Nf3, a generalization which holds in both the Positional Winawer of this
chapter and the Portisch-Hook Variation of the next. In large part that's
because the knight on f3 blocks the white queen's path to the kingside, so
Black has the luxury of being able to take an extra two moves; also, the
bishop isn't needed as much to protect e6 when White is slow getting to the
kingside. To the extent that you don't feel comfortable with 7...Nbc6 (or
related 7...Qa5 systems), 7...b6 is a way to go.}) {After 7...Nbc6, we look at:
} 8. -- ({10.11} 8. Bd3) ({10.12} 8. Be2) ({What are arguably the two most
important moves, 8 a4 and 8 h4 are dealt with in the next two sections by
transposition, but there are odds and ends. Specifically: -- (a)} 8. a4 Qa5 {
transposes to 7 a4 lines, after} 9. Qd2 {(10.21)} ({or} 9. Bd2 {(10.22).})) ({
(b) One of the very most important moves is} 8. h4 {, which I will discuss at
the beginning of section 10.3 on 7 h4. I should say that h4 ideas pop up in
almost every basic move order, so you need to get used to when they are
dangerous and when not.}) ({(c)} 8. g3 {
is rather slow and has several answers. One is the manoeuvre} Qa5 (8... O-O 9.
Bg2 f6 $11) 9. Bd2 Qa4 ({or} 9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa4) {; e.g.} 10. Qb1 (10. dxc5
$5 Ng6 {wins the e-pawn safely,} ({whereas} 10... Nxe5 $6 {
, which I have given previously, isn't satisfactory because of} 11. Nxe5 Qe4+
12. Qe2 Qxh1 13. O-O-O $1 Qe4 14. Qb5+ Kf8 15. Re1 Qf5 16. Qa5 $1)) 10... c4 $5
(10... O-O $11) 11. Bg2 Bd7 12. O-O (12. Qxb7 $4 Rb8 13. Qc7 Qa6 $1 $19) 12...
O-O-O 13. Ng5 Rdf8 14. f4 f6 15. Nf3 fxe5 16. fxe5 h6 {with chances of a
kingside initiative. Black's king is secure. Compare the next chapter, which
features this ...Qa5-a4 manoeuvre.}) ({(d)} 8. Rb1 Qa5 (8... Qc7 {
is also natural}) 9. -- (9. Rb5 {has had a good reputation, but after} Qc7 $1 {
(the right square for the queen anyway)} 10. Rxc5 $2 (10. Bd3 c4 11. Be2 f6) {
, then} 10... a6 {and ...b6 follows.}) ({. Socko-Bartel, Warsaw 2001, went} 9.
Qd2 c4 (9... O-O {would keep more options open}) (9... b6) 10. h4 {
, and Black should just play the natural} O-O 11. h5 h6 12. Be2 f6 13. exf6
Rxf6 $11 {.})) ({(e)} 8. dxc5 {leaves the valuable e-pawn up for grabs:} Qa5 (
8... Ng6 $5 {has the idea} 9. Bb5 ({while} 9. Be3 O-O 10. Bd4 Qa5 $1 11. Qd2 b6
$1 12. cxb6 axb6 {opens lines and prepares to take over the light squares;
this is a standard pawn sacrifice and effective here}) 9... Qa5 $1) 9. Bd2 (9.
Qd2 Ng6) 9... Ng6 10. c4 Qxc5 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Be3 Qa5+ 13. Bd2 Qc7 {
and the e-pawn will soon fall.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.11 8 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Nf3 Nbc6 8.
Bd3 {. This is relatively uncommon these days, but perfectly playable. Compare
7 Bd3 above.} Qa5 ({Or} 8... c4 9. Bf1 {(sometimes White reroutes the bishop
in this way rather than play Be2/0-0/Re1/Bf1 and now g3)} O-O (9... Qa5 10. Qd2
Qa4 $5) 10. g3 f6 (10... h6 11. a4 Qa5 12. Bd2 Bd7 13. Bg2 f6 $11) 11. exf6
Rxf6 12. Bg2 Qa5 13. Qd2 Bd7 14. O-O Be8 15. Ne5 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Rf7 $11 {.}) 9.
Qd2 ({Instead: -- (a)} 9. O-O {
is generally not played because it allows the draw after} c4 10. Be2 -- ({, and
} 10... Qxc3 11. Bd2 Qb2 12. Rb1 Qxa3 13. Ra1 Qb2 {
etc. Apart from that, Black can also play for the win:}) (10... Qa4 $5 11. Ng5
h6 12. Nh3 Bd7 13. f4 $5 O-O-O $5 (13... Nf5 $1) 14. Bf3 f6 15. Qe2 {
, N.Rogers-Edelman, USA 1987; and now} Nf5 16. Nf2 fxe5 17. fxe5 Rhf8 $11 {.})
(10... Bd7 11. a4 Nc8 12. Qd2 Nb6 13. Qg5 Rg8 $5 14. Ra3 h6 15. Qh5 Nxa4 16. g3
b5 17. Bd2 Qd8 18. Rb1 Qe7 19. Raa1 a6 20. Nh4 $11 {
Van der Sterren-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1978, assessed as equal by Short.})) ({
(b)} 9. Bd2 c4 {and:} 10. -- (10. Be2 Bd7 (10... O-O {
intending ...f6 is also played}) 11. O-O (11. Ng5 {is a little slow:} h6 12.
Nh3 O-O 13. Nf4 f6 14. exf6 Rxf6) 11... f6 (11... O-O-O 12. Ng5 Rdf8 {
is complex but also satisfactory; e.g.} 13. f4 f5 (13... f6 $1) 14. exf6 $6
gxf6 15. Nh3 Nf5 16. Bg4 Nce7 {
, followed by taking over the g-file, Ljubisavljevic-Ugrinovic, Italy 1970;} ({
and here} 16... Nd6 17. Nf2 f5 $1 {intending ...Ne4 was also good})) 12. Re1 (
12. exf6 gxf6 13. Nh4 O-O-O $11) 12... fxe5 13. dxe5 (13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. dxe5
O-O $11) 13... O-O 14. Bf1 Rf5 $1 15. g3 Raf8 16. Re3 R5f7 17. Bg2 Qc7 $15 {
De Firmian-Gulko, Malmö 2001.}) (10. Bf1 {and then:} -- (10... Bd7 11. g3 f6
12. Bh3 O-O-O ({the conventional} 12... fxe5 13. dxe5 O-O {
was also fully playable}) 13. O-O Ng6 14. exf6 (14. Re1 Rde8 $5) 14... gxf6 15.
Qe2 {, G.Garcia-J.Watson, Philadelphia 1998;} e5 $11 {.}) (10... O-O 11. g3 f6
12. Bh3 (12. exf6 Rxf6 13. Bg2 Bd7 14. O-O Raf8 $11) 12... fxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5
14. dxe5 {, Ricardi-J.Watson, Ubeda 1999; and now} Nf5 $5 (14... Qc7 15. Qe2
Nf5 16. O-O Bd7 $11) 15. O-O Qc5 (15... Bd7) 16. Bxf5 Rxf5 17. Be3 Qa5 18. Bd4
Bd7 {is somewhat better for Black.}))) 9... c4 (9... b6 $1 {is a very good
solution, as is often the case after White answers ...Qa5 with Qd2. But what
follows is extremely instructive:}) 10. Be2 Qa4 11. h4 ({Posohov-Kurochkin,
Kharkov 2002, saw a manoeuvre that is occasionally available to Black:} 11. O-O
Bd7 12. Ne1 O-O-O 13. f4 f6 14. Bg4 $5 f5 15. Bd1 Rdg8 16. Kh1 h6 17. Nf3 Nd8
$1 18. Rb1 Nf7 19. Ng1 g6 20. Be2 Rg7 {
, followed by ...Rhg8 and ...g5 with strong pressure.}) 11... Bd7 12. h5 h6 13.
Nh4 Nf5 $5 14. Nxf5 exf5 15. Rg1 $6 ({Better} 15. O-O {, when} Be6 {is equal.})
15... Ne7 16. g4 fxg4 17. Bxg4 Bxg4 $5 {Botvinnik called this a mistake;} ({
he suggests} 17... Bf5 18. Bxf5 Nxf5 19. Rg4 Qa6 {intending ...Qe6/...g5,
achieving 'a won position'. Needless to say, White has options, but Black
should obtain some advantage.}) 18. Rxg4 Nf5 19. Qe2 Qd7 ({
Here it might be better to play} 19... O-O-O $1 20. Rf4 g6 21. Kd1 Rhe8 22. Qf3
Re6 $15 {. On the other hand, I'm not sure what Black's plan is; perhaps ...
Kb8-a8/a7 and then opening a kingside file?}) 20. Rf4 Qe6 21. Qf3 g6 22. a4
O-O-O 23. Ba3 {, Smyslov-Botvinnik, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1941. Here Botvinnik
says, "Black cannot begin anything active since after Kd2 and Rg2 he is
constantly forced to reckon with the threat (of an exchange sac on g6)."} ({
Indeed,} 23. Ba3 Kb8 (23... b6 24. Kd2 Rhg8 25. Rb1 Kb7 26. a5 $14 {
was the game}) 24. Kd2 Ka8 25. Rg1 Rhg8 26. hxg6 fxg6 27. Rxg6 Qxg6 28. Rxf5 {
is probably drawn but can only favour White (thanks to John Tomas for his help
here).}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.12 8 Be2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Nf3 Nbc6 8.
Be2 {. This modest move, less dynamic and threatening than, for example,
systems with h4, is still an important one that reflects the desire to prop up
the centre quickly via 0-0 and moves like Re1.} Qa5 {Black attempts to tie
White to defence of c3, and prepares the blockading move ...Qa4 in some
situations. This move order might seem a little odd because White doesn't have
to defend the pawn on c3 immediately and thus Black apparently gives White
more leeway to develop. One can also argue that Black's deployment is less
effective when White hasn't yet committed to a4. But Black gains new
possibilities, and in some cases White forfeits his idea of Ba3, so White
often plays a4 at some point anyway.} ({It's a little surprising that so few
players have made the simple developing move} 8... O-O {; after all, White has
played the relatively passive Be2 and not the attacking Bd3.} 9. -- ({
. White may be able transpose to the text with} 9. O-O $1 {
, assuming that Black doesn't have much better than} Qa5) ({; but the option of
} 9. Bd3 {threatening Bxh7+ is instructive and relevant to the next note.
Black should be fine due to White's waste of a move; e.g.} f6 10. exf6 (10. Bf4
$2 fxe5 11. Bxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 $2 Qa5 $17 {with the idea} 13. Qd2 cxd4 14. cxd4
Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Rxf2+) 10... Rxf6 11. Bg5 Rf7 12. O-O (12. dxc5 e5) 12... c4 13.
Be2 h6 $1 (13... Qd6 $5) 14. Bh4 (14. Be3 Qc7 15. Qd2 Bd7) 14... Qa5 15. Qd2
Bd7 16. Rfe1 Nf5 17. Bg3 Nxg3 18. hxg3 Raf8 19. Nh4 $1 Rf6 $1 20. f4 Be8 $11 {.
})) 9. O-O $1 {This to some extent argues for 7...Qa5 and 8...Nbc6 rather than
7...Nbc6 and 8...Qa5.} ({Otherwise, White has two important options: -- (a)} 9.
Qd2 {is usually played to prepare a4 and Ba3, but here Black hasn't committed
to ...Bd7 (compare 10.21), so a good answer is} b6 $1 {intending ...Ba6; e.g.}
10. dxc5 (10. a4 Ba6 11. Bxa6 Qxa6 12. dxc5 Ng6 $5 13. cxb6 axb6 14. Qe3 O-O {
with great pressure}) 10... bxc5 11. c4 (11. O-O Ba6 12. c4 O-O) 11... Qxd2+
12. Bxd2 d4 (12... Rb8 $1 $15) 13. c3 Ng6 14. cxd4 cxd4 15. Bb4 $1 Ngxe5 16.
Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Rd1 d3 18. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 19. Rxd3 Ba6 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 9. Bd2 O-O ({
a straightforward solution to this position is} 9... Qa4 {
; Moskalenko gives the line} 10. dxc5 ({Black meets} 10. Rb1 {and 10 Qb1 with}
c4) ({, while contesting the light squares after} 10. O-O b6 {
- see 10 Bd2 in the main line}) 10... Ng6 11. Be3 O-O $1 12. Bd4 b6 $1 13. cxb6
axb6 14. O-O ({here} 14. Bxb6 Nf4 $1 {is already worse for White}) 14... Ba6 {
and calls it 'good for Black' - this deserves a look!}) 10. Bd3 {
(this tends to be one of the problems with an early ...0-0)} ({instead,} 10.
O-O c4 $5 11. Ng5 Qa4 12. Nh3 Ng6 {is fine}) ({; while} 10. c4 Qc7 {
weakens White's centre, e.g.} 11. cxd5 exd5 12. c3 $6 Bg4 13. Be3 Qa5 14. Qd2
Nf5 $15) 10... Ng6 {(White threatened Bxh7)} ({but} 10... h6 {intending} 11.
O-O c4 12. Be2 f6 {is also satisfactory}) 11. Ng5 (11. c4 $2 Qc7 {
and White's centre collapses}) (11. O-O {can be met by} Qa4 ({or} 11... c4 12.
Be2 Qa4)) 11... h6 12. Nh3 Qa4 $1 13. dxc5 Ncxe5 $15 {.}) 9... b6 {A rather obscure move that I've previously recommended, intending ...Ba6, which tries to
exploit the fact that White has inserted neither Bd2 nor a4.} ({Normally} 9...
Bd7) ({or} 9... c4 {are played.}) ({
Of course, Black cannot grab the pawn in view of} 9... Qxc3 $4 10. Bd2 Qb2 11.
Rb1 Qxa3 12. Rb3 Qa2 13. Qc1 {and Ra3.}) 10. a4 {
White tries to deny the black queen access to a4 and thus give c4 added effect;
} ({in contrast to: -- (a)} 10. Bd2 Qa4 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. c4 O-O 13. cxd5 exd5
$11 {.}) ({(b)} 10. c4 $6 dxc4 $1 (10... cxd4 11. Bd2 Qa4 12. cxd5 Nxd5 $11)
11. dxc5 Ba6 $1 12. cxb6 axb6 $15 {.}) 10... Ba6 11. Bxa6 (11. Bd2 Bxe2 (11...
Bc4 $5 {, Van der Weide-Wemmers, Triesen 2006;} 12. Bxc4 $1 dxc4 13. dxc5 Qxc5
14. Qe2 O-O $11) 12. Qxe2 O-O 13. c4 $6 Qa6 $15 {.}) 11... Qxa6 12. dxc5 bxc5
13. Ba3 {, Babula-Trichkov, Czech League 1992.} ({
Black keeps the advantage after} 13. Ba3 Qa5 14. c4 O-O 15. cxd5 Nxd5 $15 {
; e.g.} 16. Qd3 h6 17. Qb5 Rfc8 18. Bxc5 a6 $1 19. Qxa5 Nxa5 20. Bd6 Rxc2 {
with a superior position.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.2 7 a4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. a4 {. White not only prepares Ba3 (exploiting the absence of Black's dark-squared bishop),
but also prevents ...Qa5-a4.} Qa5 {
. Black attacks c3, which can be logically defended in two ways:} 8. -- ({10.21
} 8. Qd2) ({10.22} 8. Bd2) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.21 8 Qd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. a4 Qa5 8. Qd2
Nbc6 9. Nf3 Bd7 {. The 8 Qd2 variation isn't seen that much in modern play,
but it may be due a revival. White allows an endgame after ...cxd4/cxd4 and
hopes that possession of the two bishops will secure him an advantage,
although practice to date has not confirmed this. What's more, in many of the
most important lines, Black can bypass the ending and achieve dynamic play. It
should be said, however, that when Black does so, White can open lines for his
bishop pair and fight on an equal basis with Black's superior development. In
general, there's no variation that stands out against 8 Qd2 and you can expect
a double-edged game.} ({I should mention that} 9... b6 {, intending ...Ba6,
has scored rather well and would serve as an acceptable alternative.}) 10. Be2
{The most important move, but there are many other legitimate choices.} ({(a)} 
10. Bb5 Nxe5 $1 11. Nxe5 Bxb5 12. Ba3 $1 Ba6 13. Bxc5 f6 14. Nd3 Nc6 15. O-O
Kf7 $11 {Mnatskanian-Korchnoi, Yerevan 1965.}) ({(b)} 10. dxc5 Ng6 11. Qe3 Qc7
12. c4 $6 dxc4 13. Bb2 Nb4 {'-/+' (Kmoch);} 14. Qd2 a5 15. Bxc4 Bc6 $1 {
might follow.}) ({(c)} 10. g3 Rc8 ({or} 10... f6 11. Bg2 $6 fxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5
13. dxe5 O-O 14. O-O Rad8 $11 {intending ...Bc6}) 11. Bg2 cxd4 12. cxd4 Qxd2+
13. Bxd2 Nf5 $11 {.}) ({(d)} 10. Ba3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 {is a well-analysed ending. Black has excellent practical results and no theoretical
problems; e.g.} Nf5 13. c3 (13. Bb2 Na5 14. Bc3 Nc4+ 15. Bxc4 dxc4 $11) (13.
Rb1 b6 14. c3 Na5 15. Bb4 Nc4+ 16. Bxc4 dxc4 17. a5 Bc6 $15 {
Kan-Botvinnik, Sverdlovsk 1943}) 13... Na5 14. Ra2 Rc8 (14... f6 15. Bb5 Bxb5
16. axb5 Nc4+ 17. Kd3 $11 {Brunner-Kindermann, Bern 1990}) 15. Bb4 $6 (15. Bb5
a6 16. Bxd7+ Kxd7 17. Rb1 b6 $1 $15) (15. Bb2 f6 16. Bd3 Nc4+ 17. Bxc4 dxc4 18.
Ba3 Bc6 $15) 15... Nb3+ 16. Kd1 a5 17. Ba3 Bxa4 ({or} 17... Rxc3) 18. Bb2 Bd7
19. Bd3 a4 $17 {Curi-Filguth, San Jose 1989.}) ({(e)} 10. Bd3 {
offers Black several good choices. The most interesting move is} f6 ({
others include} 10... c4) ({, or even} 10... cxd4) {, and then:} 11. -- (11.
exf6 gxf6 12. dxc5 e5 13. Be2 (13. c4 dxc4 14. Bxc4 Qxc5 15. Bb3 Na5 $1 16. Ba2
O-O-O $11) 13... O-O-O 14. O-O Rhg8 15. Kh1 Ng6 $1 16. c4 (16. Qxd5 $2 Nf4 $1
17. Bxf4 Bh3 $17) 16... Qxd2 17. Bxd2 e4 $1 18. Ng1 d4 {
, Tringov-Vaganian, Vrnjacka Banja 1971.}) (11. O-O fxe5 12. dxe5 (12. Nxe5
Nxe5 13. dxe5 O-O 14. c4 Qxd2 ({or here} 14... Qc7 $5 {to leave more play on})
15. Bxd2 d4 $11) 12... O-O 13. Re1 ({if} 13. Ba3 {- Korchnoi; then} Rxf3 $1 14.
gxf3 Nxe5 15. Qe3 Nxd3 16. cxd3 d4 $1) 13... h6 14. Nh4 (14. Ba3 {
, Smyslov-Uhlmann, Havana 1964;} b6 $11) 14... Be8 $5 15. c4 $6 (15. Qe3 c4 16.
Be2 d4 17. Qh3 Qxc3 18. Qxc3 dxc3 19. Bxc4 Nd5 $11 {intending ...g5 and ...Bg6}
) 15... Qxd2 16. Bxd2 Rd8 17. cxd5 Nxd5 $17 {
Mariano-Wang Hao, Kuala Lumpur 2005.})) 10... Rc8 {Uhlmann's idea, to improve
Black's ending by waiting a move before ...cxd4 and putting a piece on the
potentially open file.} (10... f6 {
is also fine, since the bishop on e2 tends to be passive.}) 11. dxc5 $1 {
Before Black can play ...cxd4, White creates tripled pawns! The first point is
to obtain d4 for a knight.} ({Here} 11. Bd3 $6 cxd4 {loses a tempo}) ({and} 11.
Ba3 cxd4 12. cxd4 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 {is again harmless:} Na5 $1 14. Rhb1 b6 ({or} 
14... f6 {and ...Kf7}) 15. Bb4 (15. Ba6 Nc4+ 16. Kd1 Rd8 $11) 15... Nc4+ 16.
Kd1 Nc6 17. Be1 N6a5 18. Nd2 {, D.Myers-Van der Kleij, corr 1990; and} f6 {
gives Black comfortable equality.}) 11... Ng6 12. O-O (12. Qe3 {
has assorted answers, such as} a6 ({and the simplest move} 12... O-O) ({
. Note also that in response to} 12... Nf4 {, White has nothing better than}
13. Bf1 {, and after} Ng6 {, it's hard to find a better move than} 14. Be2 {!})
) 12... Ncxe5 $5 13. Nd4 ({Or} 13. Nxe5 $5 Nxe5 14. Qg5 $1 (14. Qe3 $6 Ng6 15.
Rb1 $11) (14. Qd4 f6 15. Rb1 $11 ({or} 15. Be3 $11)) 14... Ng6 15. c4 O-O (
15... dxc4 $4 16. c6 $18) (15... h6 16. Qg3 dxc4 $11) 16. cxd5 exd5 $5 ({or} 
16... h6 17. Qg4 Rfd8 $11) 17. Qxd5 Bc6 18. Qd2 ({; not} 18. Qf5 $2 Bxg2 $1) ({
, or} 18. Bd2 $2 {, D.Myers-West, corr 1981, as} Nf4 $1 {favours Black,} ({
while} 18... Bxd5 {gives a smaller edge})) 18... Qxc5 $1 19. Ba3 Qf5 20. Bxf8
Nf4 {with threats of both ...Qg5 and ...Qh3!; hence} 21. Rfd1 $1 Rxf8 22. Ra3
$1 Bxg2 23. Rg3 Nxe2+ 24. Qxe2 Bc6 $11 {with a pawn for the exchange and a
sound pawn structure, in contrast to White's four isolated pawns.}) 13... O-O {
I criticized this in previous editions but, given White's pawn structure,
Black has some leeway in developing.} ({Instead,} 13... a6 {
is sound but unnecessary}) ({whereas} 13... Qxc5 {
is surprisingly playable, perhaps even best; e.g.} 14. Nb5 ({or} 14. Ba3 Qxc3
15. Qxc3 Rxc3 16. f4 Nc6 17. Nb5 Rxa3 $1 18. Rxa3 Ke7 {
and Black has even material with clearly more promising piece play}) 14... Bxb5
15. Bxb5+ Kd8 $1 16. Ra3 $6 (16. Re1 $1 a6 17. Bf1 Nc4 18. Qg5+ $1 Kc7 $1 19.
Qg3+ Qd6 $11) 16... Nc4 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 $15 {.}) 14. Ba3 Bc6 $1 (14... Rfd8 $6
15. Bb4 Qc7 16. Nb5 $14 {Kaplan-Tukmakov, Puerto Rico 1971.}) 15. f4 (15. Nb5
Nc4 16. Bxc4 dxc4 17. Bb4 Qa6 $1 18. Nd6 Rcd8 19. f3 Bd5 $11 {.}) 15... Nc4 16.
Bxc4 dxc4 17. f5 exf5 18. Nxf5 Rcd8 19. Nd6 f6 20. Qe3 Ne5 $11 {.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.22 8 Bd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. a4 Qa5 8. Bd2
{. The main move. White abandons the idea of Ba3 (although Bc1-a3 can occur
later), but keeps the kingside dark squares covered and gives solid support to
the weak c3-square.} Nbc6 9. Nf3 ({Instead: -- (a)} 9. Qg4 {compares poorly
with the main 7 Qg4 lines because a4 is then practically wasted; play might go}
O-O ({a cute game went} 9... Bd7 10. Qxg7 O-O-O 11. Qxf7 $2 Qb6 $1 12. Bd3 Rdf8
13. Qh5 c4 14. Bf1 Nxd4 $1 15. O-O-O Nxc2 $1 {
0-1 Rebej-Spitzenberger, corr 1965, due to} 16. Kxc2 Qb3+ 17. Kc1 Bxa4) 10. Nf3
f6 (10... f5 11. Qh5 Qb6 $5 12. dxc5 Qc7 $15) 11. exf6 Rxf6 12. Qh5 (12. Be2 $2
e5) 12... Bd7 13. Bd3 h6 14. O-O c4 15. Be2 Be8 16. Qh4 Bg6 $15 {.}) ({(b)} 9.
Ne2 Qc7 {. Now that the bishop can't come to a3, this is an ideal spot for the
queen. It also ties White to defence of d4. Myreng-Glück, St Paul 1982,
continued} 10. Bf4 Ng6 11. Bg3 Qa5 12. Qd2 f6 $11 ({or} 12... O-O $1 {.})) 9...
Bd7 {. Now White normally plays:} 10. -- ({10.221} 10. Be2) ({10.222} 10. Bb5)
({Of the many other 10th moves, some are instructive, but none are terribly
critical: -- (a)} 10. Ng5 $6 {intends Qh5, but abandons the centre:} h6 11. Qh5
(11. Nh3 $2 Qc7 $1 {hits d4:} 12. Bc1 $5 ({or here} 12. Qg4 Nf5 13. Bd3 cxd4
14. cxd4 Nxe5 $1 $17 {- Suetin}) 12... cxd4 13. cxd4 Nb4 $1 14. c4 dxc4 15. Be2
Nd3+ $1 16. Bxd3 cxd3 17. Qxd3 Bc6 $17 {Milton-J.Watson, San Diego 1986}) 11...
g6 12. Qh3 cxd4 13. cxd4 Qb6 $1 14. c3 Qb2 15. Rd1 Na5 $15) ({(b)} 10. Qb1 Qc7
11. Bd3 c4 ({or} 11... O-O 12. O-O h6 $11) 12. Be2 f6 13. Bf4 $6 (13. exf6 gxf6
14. O-O O-O-O {is double-edged}) 13... Ng6 14. Bg3 fxe5 (14... f5 {- Korchnoi})
15. dxe5 Qa5 16. O-O $5 Qxc3 17. Qxb7 Rb8 18. Qc7 {
, Schoneberg-Tischbierek, Leipzig 1986;} Rc8 (18... Qxc2 $1) 19. Qd6 Qxc2 20.
Rfe1 Nge7 $15 {(Tischbierek).}) ({(c)} 10. c4 Qc7 11. cxd5 exd5 ({or} 11...
Nxd5 $11) 12. dxc5 $6 (12. c3 O-O {, planning ...cxd4 and ...Bg4}) 12... O-O
13. Be2 Nxe5 14. O-O Nxf3+ 15. Bxf3 Qxc5 $15 {
Dubinin-Boleslavsky, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1947.}) ({(d)} 10. h4 {is a little
slow after a4, although it means White no longer has to worry about ...Qa4:} f6
$5 ({or} 10... O-O-O $5 11. h5 h6) (10... O-O $1 11. h5 h6 $11 {
is the safest, intending ...f6}) 11. h5 (11. exf6 gxf6 12. c4 Qc7 13. cxd5 Nxd5
{; compare 10 Be2}) 11... fxe5 12. Nxe5 (12. h6 gxh6 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. dxe5
O-O-O 15. Rxh6 Qc7 {and ...Nf5}) 12... Nxe5 13. dxe5 Qc7 (13... h6 $11) 14. f4
O-O-O 15. Qg4 h6 $11 {Pirttimaki-Farago, Helsinki 1983.}) ({(e)} 10. Rb1 Qc7
11. Be2 (11. Bb5 {is well met by} a6 ({or} 11... Na5) ({; and} 11... c4 {
is also good; compare 10 Bb5}) {, with the idea} 12. Be2 ({or} 12. Bxc6 Nxc6)
12... f6) 11... f6 $5 (11... Na5 {
is appropriate, since it hits a4 as well as planning to occupy c4}) ({
; and of course} 11... O-O {can't be bad}) 12. Bf4 $5 (12. exf6 gxf6 13. dxc5
e5 {produces the normal trade-offs that you'll see after 10 Be2}) 12... Ng6 13.
Bg3 fxe5 14. Bb5 $6 cxd4 15. cxd4 Qa5+ 16. Nd2 exd4 17. Bd6 Qd8 18. h4 $2 Qf6
$17 {intending ...e5, Hirsig-Jurek, Bad Ragaz 1993.}) ({(f)} 10. g3 {
is interesting:} O-O-O (10... O-O {looks safest, intending} 11. Bh3 ({or} 11.
Bg2 f6 $11) 11... f6 12. exf6 Rxf6 $11) 11. Bh3 (11. Bg2 f6 12. c4 Qa6 $5 13.
cxd5 Nxd5 $11 {with many options for both sides}) 11... f5 $1 12. Bg2 (12. exf6
gxf6 13. O-O e5 14. Bxd7+ Rxd7 15. c4 $5 {, Doda-Raicevic, Banovici 1979; and}
Qa6 $1 $11 {controls the key c4-square}) 12... h6 13. h4 Qc7 14. Bc1 (14. O-O
Na5 15. dxc5 Nc4 16. Re1 $15) 14... cxd4 15. cxd4 Nb4 16. Kd2 Be8 $5 17. Ba3
Nbc6 18. Bd6 Rxd6 $1 19. exd6 Qxd6 20. Kc1 (20. c3 f4 21. g4 h5 22. g5 Bg6)
20... f4 $1 {with a strong attack, Kavalek-Hort, Montreal 1979.}) ({(g)} 10.
Bd3 c4 (10... f6 11. O-O c4) 11. Be2 f6 12. O-O fxe5 13. Nxe5 (13. dxe5 O-O $1
14. Re1 Ng6 15. Bf1 Rf5) 13... Nxe5 14. dxe5 O-O 15. f4 Be8 16. Bg4 Qb6+ (16...
Nf5) 17. Kh1 Bg6 18. Qb1 Qc6 $1 19. Qb5 Qc8 $1 20. Ra2 Be4 $15 {
S.Nikolic-Ivkov, Sarajevo 1967.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.221 10 Be2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. a4 Qa5 8. Bd2
Nbc6 9. Nf3 Bd7 10. Be2 {. The old main line, and in a sense the main reason
to play 7 a4, which stops variations with ...Qa4 and discourages those with ...b6.} f6 {This is the most dynamic move. It is well established after many
years, although the computer seems consistently to underestimate Black's
central and kingside play.} ({In the previous edition I recommended} 10...
O-O-O {in order to avoid certain move orders by White, but now I don't think
that's an issue.}) ({Nevertheless, I have been investigating a way for Black
to play more safely and solidly in these lines; to that end, I'm going to give
the rudiments of a set-up which goes back to some old moves: -- (a)} 10... c4
11. Ng5 $1 {(this has long been the theoretical drawback to 10...c4; previous
games and theory have shown that otherwise Black can play on the kingside with
...f6, regardless of which way he castles, with no problems; sometimes ...0-0-0 can even go with ...f5/...h6 and playing for ...g5)} h6 12. Nh3 {
('threatening' Nf4-h5)} Ng6 {(here's the move that I think deserves a closer
look; the first idea is to neutralize Nf4)} ({however,} 12... O-O {
is also reasonable, when the game is level following} 13. Nf4 ({while} 13. O-O
Ng6 {transposes}) 13... f6 $5 14. exf6 Rxf6 15. O-O Raf8) 13. O-O (13. Bh5 Nce7
14. Qg4 O-O) 13... O-O {. --- This is the point! 10...c4 has mostly been
associated with ...0-0-0, especially in the very few old games with 12...Ng6.
But I think that the king is happy enough on the kingside and this opens up
possibilities on the other side of the board. For example (out of numerous
possibilities),} 14. Qc1 {(contemplating both Qa3 and sacrifices on h6; I
should note that Black doesn't usually need to defend against the latter, but
if needed, ...Kh7 is available)} Rfb8 $5 {(this is only one of a number of
moves, but I like the idea of blasting away on the queenside right away):} 15.
-- (15. Bh5 Nce7 16. Qa3 b5 $5 17. Qd6 (17. axb5 Qxa3 18. Rxa3 Rxb5 19. Rfa1 a5
$11 {, a basic position in which Black gets his pawn to a4 and then has
liberty to manoeuvre}) 17... Qd8 18. axb5 Rb6 19. Qa3 Rxb5 $11 {.}) (15. Ra3 {
(this protects c3 so that the d2-bishop can move, and makes ...Bxa4 somewhat
less attractive because then Qa1 forces ...b5, though even that sort of
position is notoriously drawish)} Nce7 16. Bh5 Kh7 (16... b5 $5) 17. Nf4 Nxf4 (
17... Bxa4 18. Qa1 b5 {can't be too bad either}) 18. Bxf4 Kg8 $5 {with the idea
} 19. Bxh6 $6 gxh6 20. Qxh6 Nf5 21. Qg5+ Ng7 22. f4 Qd8 23. Qg4 f5 $1 $17) (15.
g3 Nce7 ({or} 15... b5 16. axb5 Qxb5 $11) 16. Qa3 b5 17. axb5 Qxb5 (17... Qxa3
18. Rxa3 Rxb5 19. Rfa1 Nc6 $11) 18. Qa2 Qb2 $11 {.})) ({(b) I'm not sure if} 
10... O-O {, intending ...c4, is a better or worse order:} 11. O-O (11. Ng5 {
is just asking for Black to keep the pressure on d4 by, for example,} Qc7 {
- the only possible justification is} 12. Bd3 {, but then follows} Nf5 $1 {
with the idea} 13. g4 Nh4 $1 14. Nxh7 ({or} 14. Bxh7+ Kh8 {
, when the threat of ...f6 means that White's d-pawn falls}) 14... cxd4 $1 15.
Nxf8 Rxf8 {
and White has to work a bit to stay out of real trouble: his best defence is}
16. O-O Nxe5 17. Be2 $1 dxc3 {, and} 18. Bg5 $1 ({but not} 18. Be3 f5 $1) 18...
Nhg6 19. Qd4 {, though Black still has an edge after} Qa5 {
, intending ...Nc6 at some point}) 11... c4 ({
Moskalenko analyses the old variation} 11... Qc7 12. Re1 h6 13. Bc1 b6 {
, very heavily tested and written about in the 1970s and 1980s; this may turn
out to be a decent line for Black}) {, when} 12. Ng5 h6 ({and even} 12... f6 $5
13. exf6 gxf6 14. Nf3 Nf5 {is quite interesting.}) 13. Nh3 Ng6 {
transposes to 10...c4 above.}) 11. c4 {Aggressive but loosening.} ({
Here are typical examples of other moves: -- (a)} 11. O-O c4 {illustrates what
I mean above about ...c4 usually working out in the absence of Ng5} (11... fxe5
{is also equal here; e.g.} 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. dxe5 O-O 14. c4 Qc7 15. f4 Bc6 $11
) {; e.g.} 12. Re1 fxe5 13. dxe5 $5 (13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. dxe5 O-O $11) 13... O-O
14. Bf1 $6 Rf5 $1 15. g3 Raf8 $17 {Pein-Plaskett, British Ch., Swansea 1987.})
({(b)} 11. exf6 gxf6 12. O-O (12. c4 Qc7 {transposes to our main line}) (12.
Nh4 $5 O-O-O 13. Bh5 Qc7 $1 14. Be3 $6 Ng6 $1 15. Bxg6 hxg6 16. Nxg6 Rxh2 17.
Rg1 Rh7 $17 {Gold-J.Watson, New York 1978}) {, and:} 12... -- (12... c4 13. Nh4
O-O-O ({a typical pawn sacrifice is} 13... Ng6 14. Bh5 O-O-O 15. Bxg6 hxg6 16.
Nxg6 Rhg8 17. Nf4 e5 18. Ne2 Rg7 19. Ng3 Rh8 {with an attack}) 14. g3 ({or} 14.
Bh5 Ng6 $1 {- see 13...Ng6}) 14... e5 (14... Ng6 $1 $15) 15. f4 exd4 ({or} 
15... Rhg8 $15) 16. cxd4 Qc7 17. c3 Nf5 18. Ng2 Na5 19. Bf3 Nb3 20. Ra2 Qa5 $11
{Spassky-Shaked, Hoogeveen 1998.}) (12... O-O-O 13. c4 Qc7 14. cxd5 Nxd5 15. c4
Nde7 (15... Nf4) 16. a5 (16. dxc5 e5 17. Qc2 Rhg8 18. Rfe1 Bf5 19. Qb2 Be4 20.
g3 Nf5 21. Bc3 Ncd4 22. Bxd4 exd4 $11 23. Nd2 $4 {
0-1 Deiko-Belozerov, Minsk 1996;} Nxg3 {follows}) 16... Nxd4 $1 (16... cxd4 $5
17. a6 e5 $2 (17... b6 {was necessary}) 18. axb7+ Kb8 19. Qa4 {
Kleijn-Janse, Fermo 2009}) 17. Nxd4 cxd4 18. a6 b6 $1 19. c5 bxc5 20. Ba5 Qd6
21. Bxd8 Kxd8 {with a double-edged and balanced game in which Black's two
pawns and central mass compensate for the exchange and a somewhat exposed king.
})) ({(c)} 11. Rb1 $5 {
is Wedberg's active move, important to know but no longer feared:} Qc7 $1 12.
Bf4 (12. exf6 gxf6 13. dxc5 e5 14. c4 Be6 15. cxd5 Bxd5 16. O-O O-O-O 17. Qc1
Rhg8 18. g3 Nf5 19. c3 {, Poretti-Weber, email 2000; and after} Be4 $5 20. Rb5
Bd3 $1 21. Bxd3 Rxd3 {, the light squares and White's shattered pawns give
Black at least a satisfactory game}) 12... Ng6 13. Bg3 fxe5 {and:} 14. -- (14.
Bb5 cxd4 15. cxd4 Qa5+ 16. Kf1 O-O ({or} 16... e4) 17. Bxc6 Bxc6 18. Ng5 $2 (
18. Nxe5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Bxa4 $1 20. Kg1 Rf7 $17) 18... h6 19. Nxe6 Rf6 20. Nc5
exd4 21. Qxd4 b6 $19 {and ...Qxa4, Weinzettl-Dückstein, Nendeln 1986.}) (14.
O-O cxd4 ({or} 14... Qc8 $5 15. dxe5 O-O 16. c4 Nce7 $1 17. Qd2 Bc6 $11 {
Maki-Ogaard, Oslo 1983}) 15. cxd4 O-O 16. Bb5 Nf4 ({or} 16... Qc8 17. dxe5 Nce7
) 17. Bxc6 (17. Nxe5 $6 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Bxb5 19. Rxb5 {
, Karell-D.Myers, corr 1990;} Rf7 $1 $15 {- Myers}) 17... Bxc6 18. Nxe5 Bxa4 {
(a much-tested position)} 19. Rb4 (19. Qg4 h5 $1 {wins material}) (19. Qd2 Nh5
{is good}) ({, and} 19. Rb2 b6 {is equal,} ({with a messier line being} 19...
Rac8 $5 20. Nd3 $1 Bxc2 21. Bxf4 $1 Qc3 22. Rxc2 Qxc2 $11)) 19... Qxc2 $1 (
19... b5 20. Qd2 Nh5 $15) 20. Rxa4 (20. Qg4 h5) (20. Qxc2 Bxc2 21. Bxf4 Rxf4
22. g3 Rff8 23. Rxb7 a5 $15) 20... Ne2+ 21. Kh1 Qxd1 22. Rxd1 Nc3 $17 23. Rda1
Nxa4 24. Rxa4 Rfc8 25. h3 a5 26. Nd7 b5 27. Ra1 Rc2 28. Nc5 a4 $19 {
Bickel-Hund, corr 1983.})) 11... Qc7 12. exf6 (12. cxd5 Nxd5 13. c4 {
is more accurate, preventing ...Nf4,} ({here} 13. c3 cxd4 14. cxd4 fxe5 15.
dxe5 (15. Nxe5 Nxd4) 15... Nxe5 16. O-O O-O $1 17. Re1 Rad8 {
gives equal chances}) {when} 13... Nde7 14. exf6 gxf6 {transposes below.})
12... gxf6 13. cxd5 (13. Bc3 O-O-O $1 14. dxc5 d4 $1 {and} 15. Nxd4 ({or} 15.
Bxd4 Be8) 15... Be8 $17 {.}) 13... Nxd5 14. c4 ({Instead: -- (a)} 14. dxc5 {
is tricky:} O-O-O (14... e5 $5 15. a5 a6 16. c4 Nde7 17. Qb1 $5 O-O-O 18. O-O {
transposes to 17 0-0 etc below}) 15. a5 $1 (15. O-O e5 16. c4 Ndb4 17. Bxb4
Nxb4 18. Qd6 Rhf8 19. Qxc7+ Kxc7 20. Rfd1 Na6 $17 {
McCrory-J.Watson, Denver 1976; this shows why White should play c4 early on})
15... a6 $1 16. c4 Nde7 {and now:} 17. -- (17. Bc3 e5 18. O-O (18. Qb3 Rhg8 19.
g3 Bg4 20. Qb2 Nf5 $5 {with good play and the idea} 21. h3 $2 Nxg3 $3 {
0-1 Mauro-Pieretti, corr 1999;} 22. fxg3 e4 $1 $19) {
, and at this point Black should target the king with} 18... Rhg8 $1 {
; for example,} 19. Qc2 Bh3 20. Ne1 Bf5 21. Qb2 Nd4 22. Bxd4 Rxd4 23. Nf3 Rd7
24. Rfd1 Rxd1+ 25. Rxd1 Ng6 $11 {
, and White has to be a little careful of ...Nf4; e.g.} 26. g3 (26. Kf1 Nf4 27.
Nh4 Be6 $11) 26... Nf4 $1 27. Nh4 Nxe2+ 28. Qxe2 Bg4 29. f3 Be6 $15 {.}) (17.
O-O $1 e5 18. Qb1 $1 Rhg8 ({or} 18... Bg4 19. Rd1 Bxf3 $5 (19... Rhg8 {
gives more positive chances}) 20. Bxf3 Nd4 {and ...Qxc5 is about equal}) 19. g3
(19. Qxh7 $2 Rh8 20. Qb1 Bg4 $15) 19... Bg4 20. Rd1 Ng6 $5 21. Be3 f5 ({or} 
21... Rxd1+ 22. Bxd1 Kb8) 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Bg5 (23. h3 Bxh3 24. Ng5 f4 $11)
23... Rd7 24. Kg2 Nxa5 $11 {.})) ({(b)} 14. c3 O-O-O 15. O-O Rhg8 16. Re1 e5 $5
17. c4 (17. dxe5 Bh3 $15) 17... Bh3 $1 18. Bf1 Nb6 (18... Nf4 $5 19. Bxf4 exf4
20. d5 Bg4 $1 {has been tested in practice and equalizes}) 19. d5 Nxc4 $1 20.
dxc6 Qxc6 21. g3 Bxf1 22. Rxf1 e4 $11 23. Qc2 (23. Qb3 $6 Qd5 24. Rac1 {
, Spassky-Korchnoi, Belgrade 1977;} Ne5 $1 25. Rxc5+ Qxc5 26. Rc1 Qxc1+ 27.
Bxc1 Nxf3+ {should favour Black}) 23... Qd5 24. Bf4 exf3 25. Rfc1 (25. Rac1 Ne5
$11) 25... Ne5 $6 (25... Rge8 $1 26. Qxh7 Ne5 $11) 26. Qf5+ $5 (26. Qxc5+ $11)
26... Rd7 27. Qxf6 $2 Nd3 $17 {Mazi-Farago, Bled 1992.}) 14... Nde7 ({
Here Black can opt for} 14... Nf4 $1 {
with excellent play, but that would have been avoided by 12 cxd5 etc.}) 15. Bc3
({Others: -- (a)} 15. d5 $5 exd5 16. cxd5 Nxd5 17. Qc2 $6 {
, Ratsch-Raderer, corr 1982;} Ncb4 $1 18. Qe4+ Kd8 $1 19. Rd1 Re8 20. Qc4 Kc8 {
and White is a pawn down and tied up (} 21. O-O $4 Nb6 {).}) ({(b)} 15. dxc5
O-O-O 16. a5 {, and here} a6 {transposes to 14 dxc5 above,} ({or} 16... Rhg8 $5
{with the idea} 17. O-O Ne5 18. a6 Bc6 {.})) 15... O-O-O 16. d5 (16. O-O Be8 $1
17. d5 Rf8 18. Qc2 exd5 19. Qxh7 Bg6 $17 {- Korchnoi.}) 16... exd5 17. Bxf6 (
17. cxd5 Be6 18. dxe6 $6 (18. Bxf6 Bxd5 19. Qc1 Rhf8 $15) 18... Rxd1+ 19. Rxd1
Qf4 $5 (19... Rd8 $17) 20. O-O Rg8 $17 {Ekstrom-Beliavsky, Stockholm 1986.})
17... Rhg8 $5 (17... Rhf8 $1 $15 {improves; one idea is} 18. Bh4 Qa5+ $1 {.})
18. cxd5 Be6 19. O-O (19. Qc2 $1 Rxd5 $11 {.}) 19... Bxd5 $1 20. Qc1 $2 ({Not} 
20. Qc2 $4 Qf4 $1) (20. Qd3 Rd6 21. Bxe7 Qxe7 22. Rfe1 Qf7 $17 {
with ...Rf6 and in some cases ...Nd4 are in the air.}) 20... Rdf8 $1 21. Qc3 ({
There's no defence; e.g.} 21. Bxe7 Nd4 $1 {.}) 21... Qf4 $17 {
A.Rodriguez-Roselli Mailhe, Uruguayan Ch. 1989;} ({intending} 21... Qf4 22.
Bxe7 Rxg2+ $1 23. Kxg2 Qg4+ 24. Kh1 Rxf3 25. Qxc5 Be4 $19 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.222 10 Bb5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C19"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. a4 Qa5 8. Bd2
Nbc6 9. Nf3 Bd7 10. Bb5 {
. White tries to provoke ...a6, hoping that it will be a weakness.} a6 {Anyway!
} ({I'm not really sure that any logical move isn't good here, but a
particularly sound alternative is} 10... Qc7 11. O-O O-O {
, which I analysed in 'PTF3'}) ({or else the somewhat dull} 10... c4 11. O-O f6
{, when one main line goes} 12. Re1 O-O-O 13. Bc1 fxe5 14. dxe5 Nf5 15. Bg5
Rdf8 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Nd4 h6 18. Be3 Nxd4 19. Bxd4 g5 $11 {
Djurhuus-Ulibin, Tunja 1989.}) 11. Bxc6 ({Others are no better: -- (a)} 11. c4
$5 Qc7 12. cxd5 Nxd5 (12... axb5 $5 13. d6 $1) 13. Bxc6 {
, Casella-Shulman, Connecticut 2002; and} Qxc6 {is unclear,} ({but} 13... Bxc6
$1 {gives a healthy advantage due to the long diagonal;} 14. O-O O-O 15. dxc5
Ne7 16. Qe2 Ng6 17. Rfd1 Rad8 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 11. Bd3 c4 12. Be2 (12. Bf1 O-O
13. g3 f6 $1 {; e.g.} 14. exf6 Rxf6 15. Bg2 Raf8 16. O-O h6 17. Re1 Be8 $1)
12... f6 13. O-O $6 (13. exf6 gxf6 14. O-O e5 $11) {
, Dineley-J.Levitt, British Ch., Swansea 1995; and instead of} 13... Qc7 $5 {,}
(13... fxe5 $1 {would have the standard effect:} 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. dxe5 O-O 16.
Qb1 $1 Qc7 17. f4 Nf5 $15 {.})) ({(c)} 11. Be2 {is the most popular move (on
the theory that ...a6 would be a weakness by comparison with 10 Be2, but it
hasn't proven to be the case)} f6 12. c4 Qc7 13. cxd5 (13. exf6 gxf6 14. c3 {
, Morris-Klein, New York 1991;} dxc4 15. Bxc4 cxd4 16. cxd4 Nxd4 $5) 13... Nxd5
14. c4 Nde7 (14... Ndb4 $5) 15. exf6 gxf6 16. dxc5 (16. d5 $5 exd5 17. cxd5
Nxd5 18. Qb3 Be6 $15 19. O-O Qg7 $6 20. Bc4 O-O-O 21. Rfe1 Rhg8 22. g3 Qf7 {
unclear, M.Chandler-Kummerow, German League 2000; Black might have played
better earlier}) 16... O-O-O 17. Bc3 e5 18. Qd6 Bf5 $5 (18... Nf5 {
looks more accurate:} 19. Qxc7+ Kxc7 {with full compensation,
Tischbierek-Poldauf, German Cup 1991 - compare 10 Be2; then} 20. O-O-O {
, as in Zhang Zhong-Berkes, Calvia Olympiad 2004, could be met by} Ng7 $1 {
; e.g.} 21. Rd5 Ne6 22. g3 Kc8 23. Rhd1 Ne7 24. Rd6 Nf5 25. Rb6 Bc6 26. Bb4
Nfd4 $11) 19. Qxc7+ (19. Qxf6 $5 Rhf8 20. Qh6 Ng6 {- Pelletier}) 19... Kxc7 20.
Rc1 (20. O-O Ng6 21. g3 Rhg8 {intending ...Nf4 is at least equal}) 20... Ng6 $5
21. g3 Nf8 $11 {intending ...Ne6xc5, Short-Pelletier, Leon 2001.}) 11... Nxc6 (
11... Bxc6 {keeps the e7-knight defending the kingside. Briefly:} 12. -- (12.
Ng5 h6 (12... O-O 13. Qh5 h6) 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qh3 Qc7 15. O-O $2 cxd4 16. cxd4
Bxa4 $17 {Berzinsh-Kahn, Berlin 1994.}) (12. c4 $6 Qc7 13. cxd5 Bxd5 14. O-O
Rd8 $15 {C.Lopez-Celis, Buenos Aires 1996.}) (12. O-O h6 (12... Qc7 $5 13. dxc5
Qa5 $1 {is a cute idea that seems to equalize at once, especially with
opposite-coloured bishops}) 13. dxc5 (13. Qc1 c4 14. Qa3 Qc7 15. Rfe1 {
, Suetin-Misiano, Biel 1997, and} O-O {was equal}) (13. Qe1 Qc7 14. dxc5 Qd7 $1
15. Nd4 Bxa4 16. f4 Bc6 $5 17. Qg3 Nf5 $1 18. Qh3 g6 19. g4 {
½-½ Gashimov-Guseinov, Baku 2000}) 13... Qxc5 14. Nd4 O-O (14... Nf5 15.
Nxf5 exf5 16. Qh5 d4 17. Qxf5 dxc3 18. Be3 Qc4 {
½-½ Velicka-Jurek, Lazne Bohdanec 1999}) 15. Qg4 Kh7 16. Rfe1 Bd7 17. Rab1
Qc7 18. Re3 {, Kovalov-Tischbierek, German League 1991; and Black had} Ng6 ({
apart from} 18... Nf5 19. Nxf5 exf5 $11) 19. Nf3 f6 20. exf6 Rxf6 $15 {.})) 12.
O-O (12. Ng5 $5 h6 13. Qh5 O-O $5 (13... Rf8 14. Nf3 O-O-O) 14. Nf3 $1 (14. Nh3
Be8 ({or} 14... cxd4 15. cxd4 Qb6 $15)) 14... Be8 15. Qg4 f5 16. exf6 Rxf6 17.
c4 Qb6 18. cxd5 exd5 19. dxc5 Qxc5 $15 {.}) 12... O-O (12... Qc7 13. Re1 Na5
14. dxc5 Nc4 {equalized in El Taher-Shulman, Pardubice 1999;} (14... Qxc5 $1 {.
})) 13. Re1 Qc7 14. dxc5 {Black answers just about any move with ...Na5.} Na5
15. Be3 (15. Nd4 Nc4 16. Bg5 $5 {
, Wedberg-Spielmann, Stockholm 2002; and easiest is} Qxc5 17. Qg4 Kh8 $5 $11 {.
}) ({After} 15. Be3 {, Cabrilo-Shulman, Belgrade 1998, continued} Nc4 16. Qb1
$5 Rab8 $5 (16... Nxe3 $1 17. Rxe3 Rab8 {would have won back the c5-pawn and
exposed White's queenside, without dark-square worries on the the other side
of the board}) 17. Bd4 b6 $1 18. cxb6 Nxb6 19. Qd1 $6 (19. Qc1 Nxa4 20. Re3 $11
) 19... Nxa4 20. Re3 Qb7 $2 (20... Nb2 $1 $15 {with ...Nc4 next}) 21. Nd2 h6 {
½-½. Here with} 22. Rg3 {, White would have had a very real attack to more
than compensate for his weaknesses. Nevertheless, Black stood well coming out
of the opening.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.3 7 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. h4 {. An ultra-modern way of playing it: White will grab space on the kingside and worry
about his development later. He also preserves some leeway as to where to put
his pieces, depending upon how Black replies.} ({
Before turning to 7 h4 proper, I want to address the similar idea} 7. Nf3 Nbc6
8. h4 {(equivalent to the less common 7 h4 Nbc6 8 Nf3). In both move orders,
White waits to see how Black responds; for example, after 7 Nf3, White may
plan to answer 7...Bd7 or 7...Qc7 with 8 a4, but prefer to answer 7...Nbc6
with 8 h4, which is the current position.} -- ({. Then after} 8... Qa5 9. Bd2
Qa4 10. -- ({, White usually answers} 10. h5 {, when} cxd4 11. cxd4 {
transposes to our main line below.}) ({
. Relatively strong players have also used} 10. Qb1 c4 11. h5 h6 {to transpose
to Chapter 11: specifically, the Portisch-Hook Variation with 7...Qa4 8 Qb1 c4
9 h4 Nc6 10 h5 h6 11 Nf3 Ne7 (see 11.111). That line is full of complexities
and ultimately balanced.} (11... --))) ({. In the past I've presented two
unusual alternatives to 8...Qa5, but let me just stick with one,} 8... f6 $5 {
, which as far as I know is not suggested in the major sources and is almost
untested, yet it appears to be quite good:} 9. h5 (9. exf6 gxf6 {
cedes the centre and ought to be fine for Black, e.g.} 10. Be2 Qc7 11. O-O Bd7
12. Rb1 O-O-O 13. dxc5 e5 {with a more-or-less standard and balanced position})
(9. Bb5 fxe5 10. Nxe5 O-O $15) ({, and} 9. Be2 fxe5 10. dxe5 Qc7 {
are unattractive}) ({; or} 9. Bd3 fxe5 10. dxe5 c4 11. Be2 O-O $15) 9... fxe5 {
. Now play might go:} 10. -- (10. h6 {, when} g6 {
is a much simpler solution and equal} ({I analysed} 10... exd4 {in 'PTF3'}) {
; e.g.} 11. Nxe5 $6 (11. dxe5 Qa5 12. Bd2 O-O $11) 11... Nxe5 12. dxe5 Qc7 $1
$15 13. Bb5+ Bd7 $5 (13... Nc6 $15) 14. Bxd7+ Qxd7 (14... Kxd7 $5 15. Qe2 Nc6
16. Bg5 Qxe5 17. Qxe5 Nxe5 18. Bf6 Nc4 19. Bxh8 Rxh8 {and only Black can win})
15. Bg5 $1 O-O 16. O-O Nc6 17. Bf6 Na5 {
and I prefer Black's chances, though it's an open contest.}) (10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11.
dxe5 Qc7 12. f4 Bd7 (12... Nf5 13. Rh3 $5) 13. Be2 O-O-O 14. O-O g6 $1 15. Be3
(15. h6 $2 Nf5) {, Fontaine-Bergez, Clichy 1998;} 15... gxh5 $1 16. Bxh5 Nf5
17. Bf2 Bb5 18. Re1 Rhg8 19. Qf3 Rdf8 {.}) (10. dxe5 h6 11. Bf4 O-O 12. Qd2 Qa5
13. g3 Bd7 14. Nh4 Be8 15. Be2 Nf5 $1 16. Kf1 (16. Nxf5 Rxf5) 16... Nxh4 17.
Rxh4 Ne7 18. Bd3 c4 19. Be2 Kh7 $15 {.}))) 7... Nbc6 {Considering how delicate
the balance becomes in our main line, this is a good moment to see that
back-ups are available.} ({(a)} 7... Qc7 {
is a relatively solid choice. Briefly:} 8. -- ({. After} 8. Nf3 {
, Black can play} b6 {and switch into a good version of the ...b6 plan (Nf3 in
this or the Portisch-Hook Variation is often well met by ...b6). I'm not going
to analyse it in depth, but} 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Bd3 ({here} 10. a4 {
can be answered by} Bxb5 11. axb5 a5 {, among others}) 10... h6 11. h5 Nbc6 (
11... c4) 12. O-O O-O {is a traditional Black set-up; e.g.} 13. Bf4 f5 14. Be2
$1 cxd4 15. cxd4 Na5 (15... Be8 $11) 16. a4 $6 Be8 17. Nh4 Qc3 $15 {
Mainka-Kindermann, Lippstadt 1993.}) (8. h5 cxd4 9. cxd4 Qc3+ 10. Bd2 Qxd4 11.
Nf3 Qe4+ 12. Be2 {is a position with which we will become familiar with
Black's queen's knight on c6 and White's pawn on h6 (see 11 h6 Qxd4 etc in the
main line below). The difference here is that Black can play} Nf5 13. Kf1 $5 (
13. O-O Nc6 14. Re1 O-O 15. h6 Nxh6 16. Bxh6 gxh6 17. Rb1 Kh8 $15 {
Almasi-Vallejo Pons, Beijing 2011}) (13. h6 gxh6 14. Kf1 {, and I like} b6 $1 {
in these positions,} ({though} 14... Rg8 15. Bd3 Qg4 {
was equal in Kuczynski-W.Schmidt, Slupsk 1988})) 13... b6 14. Bb5+ Bd7 $5 (
14... Nd7 $1 $15) 15. Bd3 Qg4 16. h6 $1 gxh6 17. Bxh6 $6 (17. Bxf5 $2 Qxf5 18.
Rxh6 Rg8 19. Bb4 Bb5+ 20. Kg1 Qe4 $1 $17 {Najer-Rustemov, Moscow 1995}) (17.
Ne1 $1 Rg8 18. Qxg4 Rxg4 19. Bxf5 exf5 20. Rxh6 Bb5+ 21. Nd3 Kf8 $11) 17... Nc6
18. Bg5 Rc8 (18... Rg8 $1) 19. Bf6 Rg8 $11 {Aseev-Rustemov, St Petersburg 1994.
})) ({(b)} 7... Qa5 8. Bd2 Qa4 {is complex. Lines which include ...Ne7 tend to
come via this move order, while other variations with ...Nbc6 are mostly in
Chapter 11:} 9. -- (9. Qb1 Nbc6 10. Bb5 (10. Nf3 c4 ({
if Black wants something unique he can try} 10... O-O 11. Bb5 Qa5) 11. h5 h6 {
is a Portisch-Hook variation - see 11.111}) 10... Qa5 {, and on} 11. Be2 (11.
c4 $6 Qc7) 11... O-O 12. Nf3 {, then} c4 {intending ...f6 yields good play;} ({
or} 12... Qc7 {, planning either an early ...f6 or perhaps the old-fashioned ...b6. The reason this seems to work out is that White's queen on b1 is
misplaced and will have to spend time becoming useful, since none of the
queenside squares are particularly impressive in that respect.})) (9. Qg4 O-O
10. Nf3 Qxc2 11. Rc1 Qg6 12. Ng5 $6 f6 13. h5 Qf5 $15 {.}) (9. h5 h6 10. Nf3
Nbc6 ({or} 10... cxd4 11. Rh4 Nbc6) 11. Rh4 cxd4 {
transposes into the main line of section 11.3 in the next chapter.})) 8. h5 (8.
Nf3 {is analysed at the beginning of this section, in the note about 7 Nf3
Nbc6 8 h4.}) 8... Qa5 9. Bd2 (9. h6 $2 Qxc3+ 10. Bd2 Qxd4 11. Nf3 Qe4+ 12. Be2
{reaches the complex position arising from 11 h6 below, except that Black has
captured an extra pawn on c3 and retained his very important one on c5.}) 9...
cxd4 ({This move order sidesteps} 9... h6 10. Qg4 {
, which in my opinion favours White.}) ({
In the previous edition I talked extensively about} 9... Bd7 {, which has
undergone much further and deeper analysis. New discoveries for White have, at
the very least, compelled Black to walk a tightrope to stay competitive after
9...Bd7, so I'm going to forego it here in favour of the text.}) 10. cxd4 Qa4 {
With the explosion of popularity of h4 on moves 7 or 8, this position has
become of the main lines of Winawer, all the more so because it can arise from
either the Positional Winawer of this chapter (6...Ne7) or the Portisch/Hook
of the next (6...Qa5 7 Bd2 Qa4). The good thing is that it is straightforward
and clear in comparison to the ultra-flexible ones in which Black has pawns on
c5 and f6, where you never know whether Black will advance them, exchange them,
or keep the tension. The bad news is that it's difficult (for me, anyway) to
keep track of the move orders by which you can reach one or another of the
resulting positions, especially if you play both systems. I've tried to
indicate transpositions, but the reality is that you should try to pick a
particular set of move orders and master those before you try to absorb the
whole complex. At the risk of being repetitive, let me urge you to study the
h4-h5 lines in Chapter 11 simultaneously with these.} 11. Nf3 {A pawn sacrifice
designed to bring White's pieces out as quickly as possible and open lines for
the bishop pair.} ({
It's important to understand the alternative ideas: -- (a) Upon} 11. c3 {
Black activates quickly on the queenside and has no real trouble after} Qxd1+
12. Rxd1 h6 13. g4 $5 ({or} 13. Bd3 Bd7 14. Rb1 b6 15. Ne2 Na5 16. g4 Nc4 $11 {
Dowden-Wang, Wanganui 2003}) 13... Bd7 14. f4 Rc8 15. Bd3 Na5 16. Rb1 b6 $11 {
Shaked-Remlinger, Los Angeles 1993. If White tries to enforce f5 by} 17. Ne2
Nc4 18. Bc1 {and Rf1 or Ng3, Black beats him to the punch with} f5 $1 {, when}
19. g5 {(to deny Black an outpost on f5) results in a position where White
can't make progress on the kingside.}) ({(b)} 11. Bc3 b6 {
is easy for Black; e.g.} 12. h6 gxh6 13. Qd3 ({or} 13. Nf3 Ba6 14. Bxa6 Qxa6
15. Qe2 Qxe2+ 16. Kxe2 Rc8 17. Kd3 Rg8 18. Rag1 Rg6 $11 {
Pritchett-I.Rogers, British Ch., Blackpool 1988}) 13... a5 14. Qd2 Nf5 15. Rb1
$5 Ncxd4 16. Kd1 {, Short-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1987; and now} Ba6 $1 $15 {
was best.}) ({(c)} 11. h6 {is rarely played with this move order, but leads to
forcing and very unclear play, so it's important. --- Some possible solutions:}
-- (11... gxh6 12. c3 $1 Qxd1+ 13. Rxd1 {
looks awkward for Black. One interesting plan would be to play} Ng8 {, discouraging capture on h6, then make the normal ...Na5/...Bd7/...Rc8 moves on the
queenside, and finally, when the time is right, break with ...f6. If White
allows his bishop to be traded off after Bxh6, Black should be able to defend
the kingside and continue with his queenside plans. Having said that, I don't
quite trust 13...Ng8 to solve all of Black's problems.}) (11... Nxd4 {
is complex and I think best:} 12. hxg7 Rg8 13. Bc3 (13. Bd3 Rxg7 14. Kf1 b6 15.
Bh6 {, and} Rg6 $1 (15... Rg8 $2 16. Rh4 $1 {is strong}) 16. Rh4 $1 Ba6 17. Be3
Nef5 18. Rxd4 Nxd4 19. Bxd4 Qxd4 20. Bxa6 Qxe5 21. Nf3 Qf6 {is up for grabs})
13... Ndc6 (13... Ndf5) 14. Qd3 (14. Rxh7 $4 Qe4+) 14... Rxg7 15. Rxh7 Rxh7 (
15... Rg4 16. Ne2 Rh4 {is only marginally in White's favour, if that}) 16. Qxh7
b6 17. Nf3 Kd7 $1 18. Qxf7 Qxc2 19. Bd2 Qb2 $1 $11 20. Rc1 Bb7 21. Bg5 $1 {
(intending 22 Rxc6)} Qxa3 $11 ({or} 21... Rc8 22. Rxc6 Qa1+ $11 {.})) (11...
Qxd4 12. Nf3 Qe4+ 13. Be2 {is another option. Remarkably, this same position
could arise via 7...Qc7 8 h5 cxd4 9 cxd4 Qc3+ 10 Bd2 Qxd4 11 Nf3 Qe4+ 12 Be2,
except that White's pawn would be on h5, and Black's c6-knight back home on b8.
That move order allows Rustemov's 12...Nf5!, which from the evidence seems
quite decent for him. But Black has resources in the current position too:}
Nxe5 14. Bc3 (14. O-O Nxf3+ 15. Bxf3 Qd4 16. c3 Qc4 $5 17. hxg7 Rg8 18. Re1
Rxg7 19. Rb1 a5 $1 {gives White a lot of play, but Black has two pawns}) (14.
hxg7 Rg8 15. Bc3 ({and here} 15. Kf1 Nxf3 16. Bxf3 Qd4 {
doesn't establish any advantage for White either}) 15... f6 {transposes}) 14...
f6 15. hxg7 (15. Nxe5 fxe5 16. O-O O-O 17. hxg7 Rf6 $11) 15... Rg8 16. Nxe5
fxe5 17. Qd3 Qxd3 18. Bxd3 d4 19. Bb4 Rxg7 20. Rxh7 Rxh7 21. Bxh7 Nc6 {
, Miton-Shabalov, Stratton Mountain 1999. I'd assess this as 'unbalanced but
equal'. White has the bishop pair, Black's extra pawn is doubled but potentially
useful, and White's a- and c-pawns are isolated. Black should try to exchange
light-squared bishops, probably on the long diagonal.})) 11... Nxd4 12. Bd3 {
. This is the 'Kasparov Gambit' I refer to elsewhere, which can also arise
from various lines of Chapter 11 via 6...Qa5 7 Bd2 Qa4. It tends to provide
both sides with dynamic chances. Now the variation splits into two main lines:}
-- ({10.31} 12... Nec6) ({10.32} 12... h6) ({
After first suggesting it 27 years ago, let me just briefly point out that} 
12... Ndf5 {is similar to 12...Nec6, and makes} 13. h6 {
relatively harmless after} Nxh6 14. Bxh6 gxh6 15. Kf1 Bd7 {. If you compare
some of the lines below, you can see that this move has pluses and minuses,
though the overall assessment is about the same.}) ({
It's also interesting that the simple} 12... O-O {, intending} 13. h6 g6 {
followed ...f6 or ...f5, has no apparent drawbacks that are more serious than
those faced by 12...Nec6. But of course the latter move is battle-tested.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.31 12...Nec6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. h4 Nbc6 8. h5
Qa5 9. Bd2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa4 11. Nf3 Nxd4 12. Bd3 Nec6 {. This threatens the
e5-pawn in some cases, and also keeps an eye on b4, which can be used by
either a white bishop or rook to cause Black problems. I'm currently leaning
in favour of 12...h6 (10.32), so out of a large mass of material about 12...
Nec6, I'll select some major and critical points in the interests of (relative)
brevity.} 13. Kf1 {This is the original idea, to threaten Rh4 because ...Nxf3
won't come with check.} ({Here's a survey of other possibilities: -- (a)} 13.
Rh4 $4 Nxf3+ {.}) ({(b)} 13. O-O Nxf3+ 14. Qxf3 Qh4 $1 {(Kasparov); although
I'm not sure that this is so much better than other typical positions after}
15. h6 g6 16. Rfe1 {with unclear compensation.}) ({(c)} 13. h6 {is the major
and, I think, underrated alternative, putting into question whether Black can
completely equalize:} Nxf3+ ({here} 13... g6 $5 {should be taken seriously})
14. Qxf3 Qd4 15. O-O gxh6 (15... Nxe5 $5 16. Qg3 Nxd3 17. cxd3 O-O {
with two pawns but serious weaknesses}) 16. Rfe1 Rg8 17. Qf6 (17. Bf4 $1 $14)
17... Qg4 18. g3 Nd4 19. Kg2 Rg6 $5 20. Bxg6 Qxg6 {
, Fedorowicz-Yermolinsky, US Ch., Durango 1992; and White can keep an edge with
} 21. Rh1 ({or} 21. Rac1 {.})) 13... Nf5 (13... Nxf3 14. Qxf3 {has been under
a cloud ever since the original game Kasparov-Anand, Linares 1992, where} b6 $2
15. h6 $1 $16 {was played.}) 14. h6 ({The most important alternative is} 14.
Bxf5 exf5 15. h6 $1 {. This isn't held in particularly high regard, but it
gives White a good chance for a modest advantage:} -- (15... gxh6 $5 16. Rxh6
$5 (16. Bxh6 Be6 $2 ({Black needed to play} 16... Rg8) ({, or even} 16... f4 $5
{and ...Bf5, but may not feel satisfied anyway}) 17. Bg5 h6 18. Kg1 d4 $6 19.
Bf6 Rg8 20. Rxh6 $16 {Vocaturo-Caruana, Cremona 2006}) 16... Be6 (16... Nd4 17.
Ng5 $1 Be6 18. Bb4 Qa6+ {, Hossain-Natarajan, Mumbai 2003; and White had} 19.
Kg1 $1 Ne2+ 20. Kh1 Qc4 21. Qd2 $16) 17. Bg5 {
and Black stands worse, albeit in a defensible position:} Rc8 $1 18. Rh4 Qa6+
19. Kg1 Rg8 20. Rxh7 Kd7 $1 {½-½ was Fedorowicz-Yermolinsky, St Martin
1993. Here a c4 sacrifice from White would be critical and force Black to
defend, but his position is deceptively solid after, for example,} 21. Rb1 b6
22. c4 $5 Qxc4 23. Rc1 Qa6 24. Bf6 Nd8 {.}) (15... Rg8 16. Bg5 $1 (16. Ng5 Be6
$1 17. Nxh7 O-O-O {gives Black enough play}) (16. hxg7 Rxg7 17. Bg5 $1 Be6 18.
Bf6 Rg4 $1 {intending ...Kd7, ...Rag8 is roughly equal}) 16... Be6 17. Rh4 Qa6+
18. Kg1 gxh6 {, Hellers-Gulko, Biel 1993; and here White should play} 19. Rxh6
$1 {with the idea} Nxe5 $6 ({instead,} 19... Rc8 20. Rxh7 {and} Kd7 $1 {
is Fedorowicz-Yermolinsky in note 'a'}) 20. Nxe5 Rxg5 21. Qd4 $14 {
with command of the dark squares and pressure on Black's vulnerable king.}))
14... Rg8 (14... gxh6 15. Bxf5 exf5 {
transposes to 14 Bxf5 exf5 15 h6 gxh6 above.}) ({Here} 14... g6 {
is worth considering}) ({whereas} 14... Nxh6 15. Rh4 $1 Ng4 16. Rb1 h5 17. Qc1
$1 {very difficult for Black.}) 15. hxg7 ({Again} 15. Bxf5 $1 exf5 {
is best - see 14 Bxf5 above (with 15...Rg8).}) 15... Rxg7 16. Ng5 $6 Bd7 17.
Qh5 $6 ({Or} 17. g4 Nfe7 18. Nxh7 O-O-O 19. Bg5 Rxg5 $1 20. Nxg5 Nxe5 {
with full compensation.}) 17... O-O-O 18. g4 {
, Pfreundtner-Rosenberger, Wiesbaden 1994;} ({and here} 18. g4 Nfd4 $1 {
gives Black a clear advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "10.32 12...h6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. h4 Nbc6 8. h5
Qa5 9. Bd2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa4 11. Nf3 Nxd4 12. Bd3 h6 {. Stopping h6 once and
for all. The main game I'll follow is Nakamura-Shulman, US Ch., St Louis 2010,
which typically arose from the entirely different move order 6...Qa5 7 Bd2 Qa4
8 Nf3 Nc6 9 h4 cxd4 10 cxd4 Nge7 11 h5 Nxd4 12 Bd3 h6. If you're aiming to
play ...h6, be careful to choose your move order carefully or you may not get
time to play it.} 13. Kf1 {As we've already seen in 10.31, this odd-looking
move is actually routine; it prevents ...Nxf3 with check (as in 13 Rh4?? Nxf3+)
.} ({Alternatives: -- (a)} 13. Bb4 Ndc6 $1 ({I think this improves upon} 13...
Nxf3+ $6 14. Qxf3 Nc6 {
of Berzinsh-Ptrik, Slovenian Ch. 1998, which tempts White into} 15. Bd6 ({or} 
15. Rb1 $1 Nxe5 16. Qg3 Nxd3+ 17. cxd3 Rg8 18. O-O {
planning Rfc1-c7, which is at any rate difficult to defend})) 14. Bd6 O-O {
. This appears to be evenly balanced; e.g.} 15. Rh4 Qa5+ 16. Kf1 f6 17. Rg4 Rf7
({or here} 17... fxe5 18. Nxe5 Rf6 $1 $11 {.})) ({(b)} 13. Rb1 {
threatens 14 Rb4. Thus} Nec6 14. Bb4 $5 Nf5 {
with a very complicated trade-off of forces; for example,} 15. O-O (15. Bxf5
Nxb4 $1 16. axb4 exf5 17. Nd4 O-O 18. O-O Be6 $15) 15... Nxb4 16. axb4 (16.
Rxb4 Qxa3 17. Bb5+ Kf8 {with balanced chances}) 16... O-O 17. Qd2 ({or} 17. g4
Ne7 18. Qd2 f5 $1 ({or here} 18... Qe8 $5 {intending ...Bd7; e.g.} 19. g5 $6 f6
{, hitting h5})) 17... Ne7 18. Nd4 Qe8 $5 {intending ...f6, exemplified by} 19.
Nb5 Qc6 20. Rb3 ({or} 20. Nd6 f6) 20... Bd7 21. Nd6 f6 {.}) 13... Nxf3 ({
An interesting and possibly very useful option is} 13... Nef5 {
, when Black has won several games after} 14. Rb1 Nc6 15. Bb5 {; e.g.} Qg4 (
15... Qe4 16. Rb4 d4 $15 {Hnydiuk-Zschaebitz, Police 2011}) 16. Rb4 d4 17. Rxd4
$6 Nfxd4 18. Rh4 Qxf3 $1 19. gxf3 Nxb5 $17 {
Semenova-Mkrtchian, Rijeka 2010. Of course it's not that easy.}) (13... Nec6 $4
14. Rh4 $1 {will win a piece shortly.}) 14. Qxf3 b6 {The point. Black gets rid
of White's good bishop and gains access to the light squares. He is willing to
give back his pawn to do so.} ({Watch out for} 14... O-O $4 15. Bxh6 $3 gxh6
16. Qf6 {and White wins.}) 15. Qg3 Ba6 $1 {Sacrificing pawns in order to seize
the initiative, in particular via the light squares.} (15... Rg8 16. Rh4 {
is no fun, to say the least.}) 16. Qxg7 Bxd3+ 17. cxd3 Rg8 18. Qxh6 (18. Qh7
Qg4 19. Rh2 ({or} 19. g3 Rc8 $15) 19... Rc8 $15 {.}) 18... Qd4 {
Winning back the pawn and heading towards White's king.} 19. Re1 $5 {
White protects his e-pawn.} ({Instead,} 19. Rc1 Qxd3+ 20. Kg1 {is more active:}
-- (20... Nf5 21. Qf4 b5 22. Rc3 (22. Rc7 $5 Kd8 23. Rc5 Kd7 24. h6 Qe2 $1 25.
Rh3 $1 Rg4 26. Qf3 Qxf3 27. Rxf3 Rb8 $14) 22... Qe2 23. Rhh3 $5 (23. h6 Rg4 24.
Qf3 {and a draw results from} Qxd2 ({while} 24... Nd4 25. Qf6 Qe4 26. f3 Ne2+ {
is unclear}) 25. Qxg4 Qxc3 26. Qg8+ Ke7 27. Qxa8 Qc1+ 28. Kh2 Qxh6+ 29. Kg1
Qc1+ $11) 23... Rg4 24. Qf3 Nd4 $1 25. Qf6 Qd1+ 26. Kh2 Ne2 27. Rhg3 Rxg3 28.
fxg3 Nxc3 {, Manhardt-Petrik, Guarapuava 1995; and here} 29. Bg5 $1 {
would have led to perpetual check;} ({instead of} 29. Qh8+ $4 {.})) ({
. The ambitious move} 20... d4 $5 {has the idea of} 21. Bg5 Nd5 {
. I suspect that Black is doing well enough but has no advantage; e.g.} 22. Rh4
$1 Kd7 23. Bf6 Rac8 24. Rxc8 Kxc8 25. Qc1+ $1 Kb7 26. h6 Nxf6 27. exf6 Qf3 28.
Qf1 Qxf6 29. g3 d3 30. Qxd3 Qxh4 31. h7 $1 Qd8 32. hxg8=Q Qxg8 33. Qd7+ $11 {.}
) (20... Qe4 21. g3 Qxe5 22. Qf4 Qxf4 23. Bxf4 Rc8 ({or} 23... f6 24. Rc7 e5
25. Bd2 Kf7) {, Vlcek-Petrik, Slovakian Team Ch. 1998; and White should play}
24. Rxc8+ Nxc8 25. Kg2 {.})) 19... Qxd3+ 20. Kg1 Rc8 $5 {
This has gone unquestioned in the notes that I've seen;} ({but} 20... d4 {
appears to be a legitimate option, preventing Qe3.}) ({And the obvious} 20...
Nf5 {doesn't seem clear either; e.g.} 21. Qf4 (21. Qh7 $4 Rxg2+ 22. Kxg2 Ne3+)
21... Nd4 ({or} 21... O-O-O) 22. Kh2 Rc8 23. Rc1 Rc4 $1 {
is double-edged, though I prefer Black.}) 21. Bg5 $5 ({White should try} 21.
Qe3 $1 {; e.g.} Qh7 22. Rh3 Rc4 23. h6 Nf5 24. Qe2 Qg6 25. Qf1 Rh4 {
with equal chances.}) 21... Qf5 22. f4 (22. Bxe7 Kxe7 {leaves Black with an
obvious advantage, since his rooks are on open files and White's are tied to
defence, while the white king is subject to attack. Then} 23. Qe3 {
is almost forced, when} Qg5 24. Qxg5+ Rxg5 25. h6 Kf8 $1 {favours Black.})
22... Rc2 23. Rh2 $4 {. Losing.} ({He had to try} 23. Qf6 $1 Qxf6 24. exf6 Nf5
25. Rh3 (25. g4 Nd6) 25... Nd6 $1 (25... d4 26. Rd3 Rh8 27. h6 Rc4 $5 28. g4
Ne3 29. f5 {is a dynamically balanced mess}) (25... Kd7 26. h6 {
also looks pretty complicated}) 26. h6 Kd7 {, when Black's superior knight
offsets the fact that the h-pawn ties him down; probably he stands a bit
better.}) ({After} 23. Rh2 {
, Nakamura-Shulman, US Ch., St Louis 2010, continued} Qd3 {
(threatening ...Nf5 and ...Qd4+, with the mating idea ...Ng3)} 24. Qf6 Rxg5 $1
{(pretty)} ({although} 24... Nc6 $1 {
, threatening ...Qd2, will win just as easily}) 25. Qxg5 ({or} 25. fxg5 Nf5 26.
Qh8+ Kd7 27. Rh3 Qd2) 25... Qd4+ 26. Kh1 Qe3 $1 {0-1. There could follow} 27.
Rh3 (27. Rg1 Rc1) (27. Qh4 Rc1) 27... Qxe1+ 28. Kh2 Rc1 {
and White will be mated.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11. Winawer: Portisch-Hook"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 {. I'll call
this the 'Portisch-Hook Variation', since, at least in conjunction with the
next move ...Qa4, Lajos Portisch was the strongest advocate of 6...Qa5 in its
early days, and William Hook was its dedicated practitioner from about the
same time on. Today, as you will see, Viktor Moskalenko is its foremost
advocate and theoretical backer. --- This variation complements the Winawer
Poisoned Pawn solution of Chapter 9 extremely well. As we will see, the
Portisch-Hook involves strategies in non-tactical settings, often closed, and
the first direct contact between forces sometimes doesn't take place until
past the 20th move. The tactically sensitive Poisoned Pawn lines, by contrast,
require specific and accurate play. While they offer a greater degree of
control over the direction of such play, they have the drawback that very
concrete continuations are predictable and easily prepared for. Double-edged
theoretical variations being what they are, there is also the possibility that
some part of the Poisoned Pawn repertoire will fall into disrepute. By
contrast, the Portisch-Hook is so positionally-oriented and flexible that it
will always be playable whether or not a particular branch is thrown into
question. --- The first thing we notice about 6...Qa5 is that Black attacks c3,
limiting his opponent's response. Importantly, this means that he can play
this way without letting White have the choice of complicated alternatives he
gets after, for example, 6...Ne7 or 6...Qc7. In fact, White's next move is
chosen almost exclusively in practice:} 7. Bd2 {Black probably can't force an
advantage versus the other logical moves, but they give White no prospects for
advantage other than by transposition.} ({(a)} 7. Nf3 -- (7... Qxc3+ $4 {
loses the queen after} 8. Bd2 Qb2 9. Rb1 Qxa3 ({or} 9... Qa2 10. Qc1) 10. Rb3
Qa2 11. Qc1 {and Ra3, but Black has more effective answers of course:}) (7...
Ne7 8. Bd2 Nbc6 {transposes into a Positional Winawer,} ({or here} 8... Qa4 {
to 7 Bd2 Qa4 8 Nf3 Ne7 - see note 'd' after 7...Qa4 below.})) ({. Notice that} 
7... Nc6 $5 8. Bd2 Qa4 $11 {also transposes, this time to 7 Bd2 Qa4 8 Nf3 Nc6
- which is the second variation of note 'd'.}) (7... cxd4 {
is considered the real drawback to 7 Nf3:} 8. -- (8. Bd3 {
gives up another pawn for development, but Black stands solidly; e.g.} dxc3 9.
O-O Nc6 ({or} 9... Ne7 10. a4 h6 11. Ba3 Nbc6) 10. a4 (10. Rb1 Nge7 {
'with two extra pawns' - Moskalenko}) 10... h6 {(versus Ng5, or a later Bxh7+)}
11. Ba3 Nge7 12. Bd6 O-O 13. Nd4 Re8 14. Nb5 Bd7 15. Nc7 Nc8 $1 16. Nxa8 Nxd6
17. exd6 Rxa8 $15 {intending ...Qc5/...Qxd6.}) (8. Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qe3 Nge7 {
gains a lot of time for development; notice that ...d4 followed by capture on
e5 is becoming an idea, so play can go} 10. Bd2 Qa4 ({or} 10... Qc7) ({; or} 
10... b6 $1 {with the idea} 11. c4 Qa4 12. cxd5 Nxd5 13. Qd3 Bb7 $15 {
and Black has an open long diagonal and superior pawn structure in return for
the bishops}) 11. Bd3 b6 (11... Nf5 12. Qf4 Qxf4 13. Bxf4 Na5 14. Nd4 {
is unclear}) 12. Qg5 $1 (12. O-O Ba6) (12. Qf4 $6 Qxf4 13. Bxf4 Na5 14. Nd4 Bd7
) 12... Kf8 13. O-O h6 14. Qh5 Ba6 {, and a sample line is} 15. c4 Bxc4 16. Ng5
Nd8 17. Bb4 Bxd3 18. cxd3 Qd7 19. Rfc1 Kg8 20. Nf3 Ndc6 $15 {.}))) ({(b)} 7.
Qd2 {diverts the queen from its potentially damaging presence on g4, while
forcing White always to be ready for an exchange of queens. After} Nc6 8. Nf3 {
, we have:} -- (8... Nge7 $5 9. a4 Bd7 10. Ba3 (10. dxc5 Qc7 11. Qg5 Ng6 12.
Rb1 O-O $15 {Massoni-Moskalenko, Barbera del Valles 2009}) 10... cxd4 11. cxd4
Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Nf5 13. Bb2 Na5 14. Bd3 Nc4+ 15. Kc1 (15. Bxc4 dxc4 16. Kc3 Rc8
$1 {, and} 17. Ba3 b6 ({or} 17... Bc6 18. a5 Ne7 19. Bxe7 Kxe7 20. Nd2 f6) 18.
g4 Ne7 19. Bxe7 Kxe7 20. Nd2 Bc6 21. f3 Rhf8 {intending ...f6}) 15... Rc8 16.
Re1 Ne7 17. Nd2 Nxb2 18. Kxb2 Nc6 19. Nb3 Nb4 20. a5 Ke7 21. Nc5 Rc7 $11 {
Westerinen-Farago, Balaguer 2005.}) (8... b6 $5 {
intending ...Ba6 is a little more ambitious:} 9. dxc5 bxc5 10. a4 Ba6 ({
Moskalenko mentions} 10... Nge7 $5 {
, which I think is equal after, for example,} 11. Ba3 O-O 12. Bb5 a6 13. Be2
Rd8 $11) 11. Bxa6 Qxa6 12. Ba3 Rc8 (12... Qxa4 $5 13. O-O Qc4 {
- Moskalenko; but this isn't as easy}) 13. Qd3 {
, Poulton-N.Pert, British League 2002; and} Qa5 {yields a good solid game with
a pawn structure familiar from several Winawer variations.})) 7... Qa4 {
. This is what really distinguishes the Portisch-Hook. The queen move comes at
the cost of development but has several advantages: 1) it attacks d4; 2) it
aims at c2, discouraging White's queen from wandering off to the kingside for
fear of ...Qxc2, which in addition to winning a pawn provides a nice defensive/offensive function on the b1-h7 diagonal; 3) it blockades the pawn on a3. This
last may seem odd (isn't the queen a poor blockader?) but it prevents White's
valuable move a4, and thus a transfer of White's queen or queen's bishop to
the a3-f8 diagonal with attack on Black's abandoned dark squares. --- The
fascinating thing about this variation is the remarkable variety of plans and
set-ups both sides have. Let's consider Black first. He can: 1) play for a
direct attack on the d-pawn with ...Nc6 and perhaps ...Ne7-f5; 2) exchange
light-squared bishops by ...b6 and ...Ba6; getting rid of his 'bad' bishop is
not that important for Black, since it otherwise serves a valuable role; but
eliminating White's light-squared bishop is a major achievement, since it is
often essential for his long-term attack on the kingside; 3) play to break up
the centre with ...f6, or opt for ...f5 with a mind towards queenside play or
even a later ...g5; 4) play ...c4, preventing White's central/queenside action
stemming from c4 or dxc5, while stabilizing the queenside situation so as to
turn his attention elsewhere; 5) attack with the pawn storm ...b5/...a5/...b4,
usually in conjunction with ...c4. --- White for his part can: 1) bring his
queen to b1, which forces ...c4, then concentrate upon a kingside attack; 2)
develop his queen to g4 with the traditional Winawer attack on the g-pawn; 3)
bring his knight to e2, foreshadowing Nf4 or the advance f4; 4) bring his
knight to f3, supporting the centre and perhaps heading to h4 or g5 later; 5)
bring his knight to h3 with an eye on f4 and g5; 6) play in the centre with c4
or dxc5; 7) play on the flank with h4-h5. Because of this multitude of set-ups
(and others), it's impossible to map out a repertoire versus every combination
of White's moves. So, while attempting to be as systematic as is practical,
this chapter illustrates ideas and leaves it to you to fill in the continuations
when White's moves haven't been specified in a precise move order. --- All
that said, let's divide up the material:} 8. -- ({11.1} 8. Qb1) ({11.2} 8. Qg4)
({11.3} 8. h4) ({There are other ways to react to the pressure on d4: -- (a)} 
8. dxc5 {shows White's cards too early. A simple solution is} Ne7 9. c4 (9. Bd3
Nd7 $1) 9... dxc4 10. Qg4 Qxc2 11. Bxc4 (11. Qxg7 Qe4+ 12. Ne2 Rg8 13. Qh6 Nd7
$15) 11... Qg6 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 8. c4 {
resembles other c4 lines below; for example,} Ne7 (8... dxc4 $5 9. Qg4 Ne7 10.
Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qxh7 Nbc6 {with counterplay}) 9. c3 Qxd1+ 10. Rxd1 dxc4 11. Bxc4
cxd4 12. cxd4 b6 $11 {.}) ({(c)} 8. Rb1 {is rare; it threatens Bb5+. Unlike
the 8 Qb1 lines, however, it has the drawback that the a3-pawn hangs, so White
may have to waste resources looking after it:} -- (8... a6 {is better than
against 8 Qb1, since in that case 9 Qb3 is a problem. Here White's best move
is probably} 9. dxc5 {, when a sample line would be} Ne7 (9... Nd7) 10. Nf3
Qxa3 11. Bd3 Qxc5 12. O-O Nd7 13. Re1 b5 $5 {(versus c4)} 14. Ng5 $5 h6 15. Qh5
g6 16. Qh4 Qc7 {, and} 17. Nf3 ({or} 17. f4 $6 Nc5) 17... Nc5 18. Nd4 Nf5 19.
Bxf5 gxf5 20. Qf6 Rg8 21. Qxh6 Bb7 22. f3 O-O-O $11 {
intending ...Rg6 and ...Rdg8.}) (8... c4 {is normally played:} 9. Qc1 {
(to protect a3)} (9. f4 $5 Nh6 $1) 9... Nc6 10. Be2 {was Ivanchuk-Socko,
Heraklio 2007; here one idea is to get castled quickly while leaving a knight
flexibly placed on g8; e.g.} b6 11. h4 (11. Nf3 Bd7 12. O-O h6 13. Nh4 Nge7 14.
f4 O-O-O $11) 11... Bd7 12. h5 h6 13. Rh4 O-O-O 14. Rf4 f6 {
with mutual chances.})) ({(d)} 8. Nf3 {looks natural and is an important move.
But it's also a bit inflexible because the knight gets in the way of the path
of White's queen to the kingside, while the options of Nh3-f4 or Ne2-f4 are
eliminated. White will frequently play h4 next, which, as explained in the
following notes, transposes to either 8 h4 in this chapter, or 7 h4 or 8 h4 in
the previous one (see section 10.3). But Black also has some independent
replies:} -- (8... Ne7 {is committal, because Black doesn't wait to see if ...f6 might be a good move. Nevertheless,} 9. h4 {transposes to 8 h4 in most cases
} ({and} 9. Be2 {will lose time after} b6 {and ...Ba6}) {; e.g.} 9... Nbc6 10.
h5 {is line 'b2' below, which is also transpositional.}) (8... Nc6 {
hits d4 again, when White more frequently plays} 9. h4 (9. dxc5 {
wins a pawn for White, but after} f6 $5 10. exf6 Nxf6 {
, Black gains a 2:0 central majority, opens lines, and develops quickly}) {
, and then:} 9... -- (9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Nge7 11. h5 Nxd4 (11... h6 {
will come to the same thing after} 12. Bd3 ({whereas if White plays} 12. Rh4 {
, we transpose into the notes to section 11.3 which uses the order 8 h4 Nc6 9
h5 h6 10 Nf3 Nge7 11 Rh4 cxd4 and now 12 cxd4}) ({
; playing 11...h6 also allows options like} 12. c3) ({, and} 12. c4 {
, neither considered serious problems because} Qxd1+ {
equalizes; nevertheless, 11...Nxd4 bypasses these possibilities}) 12... Nxd4)
12. Bd3 {. Now we've transposes into the Kasparov Gambit of the previous
chapter (see section 10.3), where it arises via 6...Ne7 7 h4 Nbc6 8 h5 Qa5 9
Bd2 cxd4 10 cxd4 Qa4 11 Nf3 Nxd4 12 Bd3. In fact, there are several alternate
orders after both 6...Ne7 and 6...Qa5 which arrive at this position, and I'll
be pointing them out at various junctures. Since its theoretical status is
fine for Black, I'll be using it as part of a repertoire choice when it fits.})
(9... Nge7 10. h5 {is purely transpositional, that is,} cxd4 ({or similarly} 
10... h6 11. Rh4 ({and} 11. Bd3 $5 cxd4 12. cxd4 Nxd4)) 11. cxd4 ({while} 11.
Rh4 h6 {transposes to the main line of section 11.3}) 11... Nxd4 12. Bd3 {
is again the Kasparov pawn sacrifice we will refer to often in this chapter
(see 'b1' above).})) (8... b6 {is a good reaction to the move Nf3 in many
different lines of the Winawer, and it is considered a bit of a disincentive
to 8 Nf3. Please pay attention to the following ideas, which recur throughout
Winawer practice:} 9. -- (9. Qb1 Ba6 10. Bxa6 Qxa6 ({or} 10... Nxa6 11. Qb3 Qd7
$5 12. c4 Ne7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. c3 O-O {with a comfortable game}) 11. a4 Qc8
12. Qb5+ Nd7 13. O-O Ne7 14. Qd3 h6 $1 15. Nh4 cxd4 16. cxd4 Qc4 $11 {
Macieja-Jacimovic, Kallithea 2002.}) (9. h4 {is better suited to lines in
which Black has played ...Nge7 or at least ...Nc6. The light-squared bishops
come off quickly here:} Ba6 10. h5 (10. Bxa6 Qxa6 ({or} 10... Nxa6 {
; we'll discuss this common exchange elsewhere in this chapter})) 10... Bxf1
11. Kxf1 cxd4 (11... Nc6 12. h6 g6 $5) 12. cxd4 h6 13. Bb4 $5 Nc6 14. c3 Qxd1+
15. Rxd1 Nge7 $15 {.}) (9. Bd3 Ba6 (9... c4 {leads to what several strong
players have as a favourite position, with the idea ...Nc6/...Bd7/...0-0-0 and
ideally ...f6, or ...Nge7 if appropriate; the extra ...b6 is useful because
Black's king goes to b7 in this line}) 10. O-O {. Here Moskalenko thinks that}
Nd7 {may be the most accurate move, because it prepares to answer dxc5 with ...Nxc5, and fits with ...Ne7-c6, attacking d4 and in some cases e5 (after either
the dissolution of the d4-pawn or after ...f6). At any rate, White gets no
attack with his queen cut off from the kingside and his light-squared bishop
being traded off.}) (9. c4 $5 dxc4 $1 {(this tries to win the light squares; e.g. the long diagonal for ...Bb7 and d5 for a knight)} (9... Ba6 $5 10. cxd5
Bxf1 11. Kxf1 exd5 {is also satisfactory}) 10. Ng5 $5 (10. dxc5 Ne7 $1 {
, ready to occupy d5}) 10... Nc6 11. Qf3 $5 ({here} 11. Ne4 Nxd4 12. Nd6+ Ke7 {
is also good}) ({, and} 11. dxc5 {should be answered with} Nge7 $1 {intending}
12. Qf3 Nf5 {, transposing}) 11... Nh6 12. dxc5 Nf5 13. Bxc4 Ncd4 $5 14. Qxa8
Nxc2+ 15. Kf1 Qxc4+ 16. Kg1 O-O $17 {with a terrific game for a mere exchange.}
))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.1 8 Qb1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1
{. White takes the time to threaten Bb5+ and forces Black to close the
queenside, thus releasing pressure on d4. On the other hand, this costs a
tempo and moves the queen to a square from where it can't join in the kingside
fray.} c4 (8... a6 9. Qb3 $1 {offers an ending in which White's pawns will be
straightened out and the bishop pair will become strong. In response,} Qc6 10.
a4 Ne7 11. Nf3 ({or} 11. a5 {
, intending h4-h5, is not particularly attractive either.})) {
After 8...c4, White has:} 9. -- ({11.11} 9. h4) ({11.12} 9. Nh3) ({
Alternatives: -- (a)} 9. Nf3 {obviously isn't bad but, as explained in note
about 8 Nf3 above, it does block White's queen off from returning to g4 or h5,
and you can argue that a knight can do more from f4 (after Ne2-f4 or Nh3-f4)
than from h4 or g5. Black plays} Nc6 {and:} 10. -- (10. Be2 Nge7 ({or} 10...
Bd7 {intending ...0-0-0 and ...f6}) 11. O-O Bd7 12. Re1 h6 13. Bf1 O-O-O 14. g3
Rdf8 $5 15. Bh3 g5 {with counterplay, Byrne-Jamieson, Haifa Olympiad 1976.}) (
10. g3 Bd7 11. Bg2 Nge7 (11... O-O-O $5) 12. O-O b6 13. Nh4 O-O $11 {.})) ({(b)
} 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. g3 f6 $5 {is a direct attempt to get some space} (10... Bd7
11. Bg2 O-O-O 12. O-O Nge7) {; e.g.} 11. exf6 (11. f4 Nge7) 11... Nxf6 12. Bg2
(12. Bf4 O-O 13. Qb2 Bd7 14. Bg2 Be8 $5 15. Bd6 Rf7 16. Nf4 Rd7 17. Be5 Ne4 18.
f3 Ng5 $11) 12... O-O 13. O-O Bd7 14. Qb2 b6 15. Nf4 Qa5 16. Rad1 Ne4 $11 {.})
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.11 9 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1
c4 9. h4 {. This has become the main line by quite a margin. White wants to
advance h5-h6, while in the typical case where Black plays ...0-0-0, the pawn
on h4 or h5 can also clamp down on counterplay by ...g5. That is true in
general, and particularly so in the popular position where White has developed
by g3 and Bh3. The h-pawn advance to h5 also frees White's rook to come to h4
and then to f4 or g4. Of course, such a set-up is time-consuming, and Black
has his choice of trying to fight back in the centre right away, or develop
first and then try to exploit the presence of White's advanced pawn to open
lines. His king will be ultra-safe on the queenside. If the position
stabilizes (an important 'if'), then typically neither side can break through
without elaborate preparation.} Nc6 10. h5 h6 (10... Bd7 $5 {is sometimes
played, and could actually be an easier move order if you aren't scared of h6:}
11. -- (11. h6 Nxh6 12. Bxh6 gxh6 {(Black has a lead in development and the
open g-file to compensate for his kingside weaknesses)} 13. Nf3 (13. Rxh6 $2
Qa5 14. Qb2 Nxd4) 13... O-O-O 14. Be2 (14. Rxh6 Rdg8 15. g3 Rg6 16. Rxg6 hxg6
17. Bg2 Qa5 18. Qb2 Qd8 $11 {intending ...f5}) 14... Rdg8 15. Kf1 Rg6 16. Qc1
f6 $1 17. Nh4 Rg7 18. Qxh6 (18. exf6 Rf7 $15 {in view of} 19. Qxh6 Qxc2) ({; or
} 18. f4 $2 fxe5 19. fxe5 Rhg8 20. Rb1 Nd8 {and White can't do anything useful,
whereas Black can shift his pieces to the kingside; e.g. ...Nf7-g5-e4,
sometimes with ...Rg3, and consolidating with ...b6/...Kb7 if needed}) 18...
Rf7 19. Bh5 Rff8 $15 {.}) (11. Ne2 f6 $5 12. h6 g6 13. exf6 $5 (13. f4 O-O-O
14. Ng3 Rf8) 13... Nxf6 {and ...0-0.}) (11. Nf3 O-O-O $5 (11... h6 $1 {
is equivalent to having gone into the 10...h6 line, but in this case having
only to deal with 11 Nf3 instead of the array of other options}) 12. Be2 Rf8 13.
Bf4 f6 14. Qb2 Nge7 15. Rb1 b6 {, Flyingfatman-Rajlich, playchess.com 2007.
'=' (Moskalenko). That might be so. Black can play ...Rhg8 and ...Be8 among
other useful moves, so perhaps} 16. h6 {is a decent try:} g5 17. Bh2 (17. Bg3
Nf5) 17... Rhg8 18. exf6 Rxf6 19. Ne5 $1 Rxh6 (19... Nf5 $11) 20. Nf7 Rf6 21.
Nd6+ Kd8 {with an unclear situation.})) {
After 10...h6, White has two main tries:} 11. -- ({11.111} 11. Nf3) ({11.112} 
11. Ne2) ({Alternatives: -- (a)} 11. Rh4 {is a standard manoeuvre, with ideas
of going to f4 and/or g4 to attack Black's kingside pawns; for example,} Nge7
$1 12. Rg4 {and then:} -- (12... Rg8 13. Rf4 Bd7 14. Nf3 Rf8 (14... O-O-O $1 {
, and} 15. Rxf7 $6 ({so} 15. g3 Rdf8 16. Bh3 Kb8 17. Qd1 Bc8 {
, Modiakhi-Toufighi, Subic Bay 2009, might be preferred}) 15... Be8 {
wins the h-pawn while activating the bishop}) 15. g3 O-O-O 16. Bh3 Kb8 17. Kf1
{, Hamdouchi-Sethuraman, Guingamp 2010; and} Bc8 {
introduced a protracted manoeuvring game with approximate equality.} ({
A more active sequence would have been} 17... Ka8 18. Kg2 f5 $1 {
threatening 19...g5. There might follow} 19. exf6 (19. Rh4 $5 Nc8 20. Qb2 Nb6 {
intending ...Qa5 and ...Na4 is unclear}) 19... gxf6 {with an eventual ...e5 in
store. At any rate, Black's main plan in these positions is to open a few
lines on the kingside.})) (12... Nf5 {is natural; there might follow} 13. Nf3
Bd7 (13... O-O $5) 14. Rf4 g5 $1 15. hxg6 (15. Rg4 $2 O-O-O 16. Qb2 Be8 $17)
15... fxg6 16. g4 (16. Nh4 g5 17. Nxf5 exf5 18. Rf3 O-O-O $15) (16. Nh2 g5 17.
Rf3 O-O-O 18. Ng4 Be8 $11) 16... g5 17. gxf5 $1 exf5 $1 18. Nh4 gxf4 19. Ng6
Rg8 20. Nxf4 O-O-O 21. Nxd5 (21. Bg2 Ne7 22. Kf1 Bc6 $15) 21... Qa5 22. Nf4
Nxe5 $1 23. dxe5 Qxe5+ 24. Ne2 Rde8 25. Be3 f4 26. Bd4 Qd5 {
and Black has an effective attack with good winning chances.})) ({(b)} 11. g3
Bd7 12. Bh3 Nge7 {and:} 13. -- (13. Ne2 {
will usually transpose to 11 Ne2 Nge7 12 g3 Bd7 13 Bh3 below.}) (13. Nf3 {
is the 11 Nf3 Nge7 12 g3 Bd7 13 Bh3 main line.}) (13. Qb2 O-O $5 ({or} 13...
O-O-O 14. f4 f6 {.})) ({. A rare option for White is} 13. f4 O-O-O 14. Nf3 Rdf8
15. O-O g6 $5 ({or} 15... b6 {with the idea} 16. Nh4 g6 $1) 16. Kh2 $6 (16.
hxg6 Nxg6 $11) {, Becerra-Xzibit, ICC 2010;} 16... gxh5 $1 17. Nh4 Ng6 18. Ng2
f5 $1 $15 {.})) ({(c)} 11. Be2 {
has been played a few times, keeping options open:} -- (11... Nge7 12. Nf3 {
(the equivalent of 11 Nf3 Nge7 12 Be2)} Bd7 {and:} 13. -- (13. g3 O-O-O (13...
b6 14. O-O O-O) 14. Kf1 Kb8 15. Kg2 Ka8 16. Qb2 Rb8 {
with complications; Black might play ...Nc8-b6 next.}) (13. Bf4 O-O-O ({
when White commits to Bf4, perhaps it's time for} 13... Qa5 {; e.g.} 14. Qb2
Nc8 15. O-O Nb6 16. a4 Nd8 17. Qc1 Nxa4 18. Ra3 b5) 14. Qc1 Kb8 15. O-O Ka8 16.
Nh2 {, Jakubowski-Sieciechowicz, Ostroda 2011; and one idea was} Nc8 17. Ng4
Nb6 18. Qd2 Qa5 19. a4 Nxa4 20. Ra3 Ne7 21. Ne3 Qc7 22. Rfa1 b5 {with an odd
position in which both sides may have trouble making progress; eventually I
suppose Black might organize to advance on the queenside, and White on the
kingside (where their respective kings are!).}) (13. O-O O-O-O (13... b5 {
has the idea ...0-0 and ...Kh7, perhaps followed by a combination of ...Qa5-c7
and ...Nc8-b6-a4}) 14. Nh4 g5 15. Nf3 Ng8 $1 {
(this wouldn't work if White could play f4)} 16. Nh2 $6 (16. Be3 f5 17. exf6
Nxf6 18. Ne5 Be8 $11) 16... f5 17. exf6 Nxf6 $15 {
(Black has ideas of ...Ne4 along with ...e5), Shashikant-T.Luther, Mumbai 2010.
})) ({. Moskalenko says that he might prefer} 11... Bd7 {, keeping open the
possibility of ...f6, and after exf6, ...Nxf6. Here's some random analysis
with that idea:} 12. Nf3 O-O-O 13. O-O f6 (13... Be8 {
could prepare this by covering g6 and h5}) 14. Nh4 $5 fxe5 15. Ng6 Rh7 16. dxe5
Nge7 17. Nxe7+ Nxe7 18. Qb4 (18. Bg4 g5 19. hxg6 Nxg6 20. Qb4 Qc6 {
is dynamically balanced}) 18... g5 19. hxg6 Nxg6 20. Qc5+ (20. Qxa4 $6 Bxa4 {
and Black stands well}) 20... Kb8 21. Rfb1 Qc6 22. Qd4 Ne7 23. Be3 Qa6 24. Qf4
Rg8 25. Bc5 h5 26. a4 Nf5 27. a5 Ka8 {
with mutual chances, although I prefer Black's.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.111 11 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1
c4 9. h4 Nc6 10. h5 h6 11. Nf3 Nge7 (11... Bd7 {again keeps open the
possibility of omitting ...Nge7 and playing for ...f6 or ...f5 (see the note
on 11 Be2 Bd7 in 11.11). This would also apply to g3 systems; e.g.} 12. g3
O-O-O ({or} 12... Nge7 13. Bh3 {, transposing to the main line}) 13. Bh3 b6 14.
O-O f5 $5 15. Nh4 Nge7 {, and both sides will be stuck for a while; as always,
there are options along the way.}) 12. g3 (12. Be2 {
returns to 11 Be2 above (see 11.11).}) 12... Bd7 13. Bh3 O-O-O 14. O-O {
. This position has arisen quite a few times. A couple of examples:} Rdf8 15.
Nh4 (15. Re1 {
is important, discouraging an f-pawn move by indirectly hitting e6:} -- (15...
g5 $5 16. Nh2 $1 f5 $5 {(Black doesn't want to be squeezed to death after Ng4)}
({but} 16... Ng8 {is quite reasonable, when} 17. Ng4 ({here} 17. f4 {meets with
} f5 $1) 17... f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 19. Nxf6 Rxf6 {
transposes to 21...Rxf6 in the main line}) 17. exf6 Ng8 $5 (17... Rxf6 18. f4 (
{and here} 18. Ng4 Rf7 {intending ...Nf5 looks playable}) 18... gxf4 19. Bxf4
Rg8 {
affords counterplay; still, Black's 16th-move option is more straightforward})
18. Bxe6 Bxe6 19. Rxe6 Nxf6 20. Qd1 Kb8 21. g4 Ne8 22. Nf1 Nc7 23. Re1 Rh7 24.
Ng3 Ne7 25. Re3 Rhf7 26. f3 {and Black lacked sufficient compensation in
Svidler-D.Lima, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.}) (15... b6 16. Nh2 Kb7 17. Ng4 Nf5 {
is one of those positions where both sides will be searching for a plan that
doesn't boomerang; this may only be equal.}) (15... g6 {is more active; then}
16. Qc1 Ng8 $5 {might be alright, because} 17. hxg6 fxg6 18. Nh4 Nce7 {
prepares ...g5 followed by ...Ng6 or ...Nc6, when the other knight slides into
e7.})) 15... g5 $1 16. Ng2 f5 17. exf6 Rxf6 18. Ne3 Rf7 19. Re1 Ng8 $1 20. Ng4
Nf6 21. Nxf6 Rxf6 22. Re2 Rhf8 23. Bg4 Nd8 $11 {
Sadvakasov-Pogorelov, Moscow 2002.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.112 11 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1
c4 9. h4 Nc6 10. h5 h6 11. Ne2 Bd7 ({
Without a knight on f3, this could be a time to venture} 11... f6 {
, assuming that} 12. Nf4 fxe5 13. Ng6 Rh7 {isn't a problem. With White's
bishops unable to get active, I think Black should be fine; e.g.} 14. dxe5 (14.
Nxe5 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Ne7 16. Be2 Nc6 ({or} 16... b6 {intending ...Bd7, ...0-0-0,
and perhaps ...Rf8 with ...Be8; it's not clear what White can do to hurt Black}
)) 14... Nge7 15. Nxe7 Kxe7 16. f4 Rh8 $11 {.}) 12. Nf4 O-O-O 13. g3 Nge7 (
13... f6 $5 14. Bh3 Re8 {, Willemze-Heemskerk, Groningen 2010; and White's
best bet was to try for a bind with} 15. Ng6 Rh7 {; e.g.} 16. exf6 (16. Qb2
fxe5 17. Rb1 b6 18. Nxe5 Nxe5 19. dxe5 Ne7 {
is satisfactory for Black at any rate}) 16... Nxf6 {(hitting h5)} 17. Qd1 e5 $5
18. Bxd7+ Nxd7 19. dxe5 Ncxe5 20. O-O Nxg6 21. hxg6 Rhh8 22. Bf4 Nf6 {
with chances for both sides.}) 14. Bh3 Kb8 15. O-O {This is a basic position
which has arisen many times and gone in many different directions. I like the
following plan:} Nc8 {This is Black's alternative to challenging the e5-pawn
or attacking on the kingside. The strategy of ...Nb6 and ...Na4 depends upon
the idea that White will have difficulty making progress on the kingside.} 16.
Ra2 {After this, White can still play Qd1-g4.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 16. Kh2 Qa5
17. Qd1 Nb6 18. Ng2 Rdg8 19. f4 g6 {(a standard idea)} 20. Rf2 Ne7 21. Rf3 Bc8
(21... Nf5 22. g4 Ne7) 22. Ne3 Nf5 23. g4 (23. Ng4 $1 Nd7 $15) 23... Nxe3 24.
Rxe3 gxh5 25. gxh5 Nd7 26. Qe1 Qa4 {and again Black stood better in
Najer-Zhang Pengxiang, Ergun 2006. My impression is that these positions are
generally equal, but perhaps White has a slightly harder position to play. On
the other hand, he didn't have to commit to positive action.}) (16. Qb2 Nb6 17.
Rfb1 Bc8 18. Ra2 Rde8 19. Kg2 Rhg8 20. Ne2 Re7 21. Raa1 {
(I'm not sure what White's plan is)} f6 $5 22. Re1 Nd7 23. Nf4 $5 (23. exf6
Nxf6 24. Nf4 Ne4 $14) 23... fxe5 24. Ng6 Ree8 25. dxe5 Nf8 26. Nxf8 Rexf8 $11 {
Ohtake-Soza de la Carrera, ICCF server 2006.}) 16... Nb6 17. Qd1 Qa5 18. Qg4
Rhg8 (18... Nxd4 19. cxd4 Qxd2 20. Rd1 {isn't worth it.}) 19. Ne2 {Stopping ...Nxd4 and preparing f4-f5. It's not a good sign that White might need such a
slow plan, which seems unlikely to succeed, but it's hard to see what he can
do. Of course, Black also has a difficult time finding an effective plan.} Na4
20. f4 $6 {This backfires positionally.} f5 $1 21. exf6 (21. Qf3 Be8 {
followed by ...Qc7 and ...g6 gives Black a kingside initiative.}) 21... gxf6
22. Qh4 f5 $1 {. Securing e4; Black is definitely better now.} (22... e5 23.
Bxd7 Rxd7 {is also possible.}) ({After} 22... f5 {
, Kosteniuk-Hoang Thanh Trang, Tbilisi 2011, continued} 23. Kh1 Rdf8 24. g4 {
(White doesn't want to wait for Black to bring a knight to d6 via c8 and
double on the g-file)} fxg4 25. Bxg4 {, and here} Rf7 $1 {with the idea of ...Ne7-f5 achieves a nice edge for Black. White's rook on a2 and bishop on d2
aren't doing enough.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.12 9 Nh3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qb1
c4 9. Nh3 {. In this manner White retains the option of f4 and leaves open a
path for his queen on the kingside.} Nc6 (9... f6 $5 10. f4 {led to an interesting struggle in Konguvel-Moskalenko, Andorra 2006, where Black, when he
couldn't make any progress on the kingside, turned to a characteristic if
somewhat rare plan which is worth mentioning:} Nc6 11. Nf2 Nge7 12. g3 O-O 13.
Bh3 Rb8 (13... fxe5 14. fxe5 Rb8) 14. O-O Bd7 15. Qd1 f5 16. Bg2 b5 17. h3 Qa5
18. Qe2 Qc7 19. Nd1 a5 {. Here it is: the attack by ...b5/...a5/...b4. Often
this is used as a last resort, but several strong players have employed it,
and in this position it's perfectly good:} 20. Ne3 b4 21. axb4 axb4 22. g4 Kh8
23. Be1 Be8 $1 {(this enables ...Bg6 if desired, and is a well-known idea in
this race between pawn attacks)} 24. Qd1 $6 (24. cxb4 Nxb4 25. Bc3 $11) 24...
b3 25. cxb3 {and here} cxb3 {would have kept the advantage.}) 10. Nf4 (10. Be2
Bd7 11. O-O O-O-O 12. Nf4 {
is an alternate way to reach 10 Nf4 Bd7 etc in the following note.}) 10... Nge7
({Or} 10... Bd7 11. Be2 (11. Nh5 g6 12. Nf4 Nge7 13. h4 h6) 11... O-O-O (11...
Nge7 12. O-O O-O $5 13. Nh5 Ng6 {with the idea} 14. Qxb7 $6 Qxc2) 12. O-O f6
13. exf6 (13. Nh5 $5 fxe5 14. Nxg7 exd4 15. Bg5 $1 {
, Fedorov-Rustemov, Russia 2002;} dxc3 $5 16. Bxd8 Nxd8 {
with compensation - Fedorov}) 13... Nxf6 14. Qb2 Ne4 15. Rab1 b6 16. Be1 (16.
Be3 Qa5) 16... Rhf8 17. Nh5 g6 18. f3 $1 {unclear (Rustemov).}) 11. g3 b6 12.
Bg2 Bd7 13. O-O O-O-O (13... g6 {
is better, according to Fedorov; then ...h6 and possibly ...g5 could follow.})
14. Nh5 {This move can sometimes be embarrassing, because Black usually can't
play ...g6 without a serious amount of preparation. But there are ways of
dealing with the problem.} Rhg8 15. Qb2 Kb7 16. Rae1 Rdf8 17. f4 {
, Fedorov-Asrian, Bled Olympiad 2002;} ({and here simply} 17. f4 Nf5 {
looks fine, with various ideas; one is ...f6, either next or after preparatory
moves such as ...Be8 and ...Nd8.} ({In the game,} 17... Ka6 18. g4 h6 19. Re2 {
might have been met by} f5 $5 20. exf6 gxf6 21. h3 f5 $5 22. g5 Rh8 {
with complications.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.2 8 Qg4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qg4
{. White's most aggressive move, forcing Black to attend to g7. We'll look at
two ways of doing this:} -- ({11.21} 8... Kf8) ({11.22} 8... g6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.21 8...Kf8"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qg4
Kf8 {. This is an old move but with a modern flavour, refusing to create
weaknesses at the cost of losing the castling privilege. Black also threatens
9...Qxc2. I'm going to recommend 8...Kf8 as my first choice, with a
less-detailed examination of the ambitious 8...g6 as well, if only to present
the rudiments of an alternative should 8...Kf8 fall into disrepute.} 9. Qd1 {
This normal move protects c2; White is happy to have the king looking forlorn
on f8. This is easily the main continuation, but by no means the only one.} ({
(a)} 9. Nf3 {hasn't been played here as much as 8...g6 9 Nf3, but is beginning
to appear more often. White has the same ideas (Qf4, for example), and can get
either an attack or favourable ending if Black lets him. One thing to be aware
of is that if Black plays ...Qxc2, g6 is available as a retreat square for
Black's queen, so White will not have the Qg3 strategy that he uses after 8...
g6 9 Nf3 or 9 Qf4. --- The play is complex:} -- (9... Qxc2 {
can be answered in two main ways:} 10. -- (10. Be2 b6 $5 (10... Ne7) 11. dxc5
$5 bxc5 12. Rc1 Qe4 13. Qxe4 dxe4 14. Be3 $1 Nd7 15. Ng5 Bb7 16. Rd1 Nxe5 17.
Bxc5+ Ne7 18. Rd4 f6 19. Nxe4 $1 (19. Nxe6+ Kf7 20. Nxg7 N7c6 21. Nf5 Nxd4 22.
cxd4 Nd3+ 23. Bxd3 exd3 24. Kd2 Bxg2 25. Rg1 Ke6 26. Ng7+ Kf7 27. Nf5 $11)
19... Bxe4 $5 20. Rxe4 Rc8 21. Bxa7 Rxc3 22. a4 Rc1+ 23. Bd1 Kf7 24. O-O Rc7
25. Bb6 Rc6 26. Bd4 Nc4 {. Two knights versus two bishops is generally pretty
bad in chess, but Black is well within bounds here, and you'll see several
similar situations in this variation with the knights at least holding their
own, usually due to a relatively better pawn structure and active pieces.}) (
10. Rc1 Qg6 11. Qxg6 hxg6 12. c4 Ne7 13. dxc5 (13. cxd5 Nxd5 $1 14. Rxc5 Ke7
15. Bd3 b6 16. Rc2 Bb7 17. Be4 Nd7 18. O-O Rhc8 $11) 13... Nbc6 $5 (13... Bd7
$1 {brings the bishop to an active long diagonal; play might go} 14. cxd5 Nxd5
15. Be2 Bc6 16. Nd4 Nd7 17. f4 g5 $1 18. fxg5 Rh4 19. Nxc6 bxc6 20. O-O Nxe5
21. Rb1 Ra4 22. Rb3 Rd8 $11 {, when Black's active knights and White's
inferior pawn structure compensate for the bishop pair}) 14. Bd3 Rh5 15. Bf4 $6
(15. O-O $1 dxc4 16. Rxc4 Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Rxe5 18. Bf4 {
with compensation and probably a bit more}) 15... Na5 16. cxd5 Nxd5 $15 17. Bg3
Bd7 (17... Nb3 18. Rc2 Bd7 19. O-O Rc8 $15) 18. Nd2 Ba4 $6 (18... Bc6 $11) 19.
O-O Rd8 20. Be2 $1 Rh8 21. Ne4 $14 {Cabrera-Scavo, Burguillos 2009. A very
instructive example showing both sides' ideas.})) (9... Nc6 {
(it's often useful to delay a capture on c2 until White protects his queen)}
10. Qf4 {(now dxc5 is a kind of positional threat)} (10. Ra2 {
can be answered with} Nge7 ({but this is also a point where} 10... b6 {
makes sense:} 11. Qf4 Ba6 12. Bd3 Bxd3 13. cxd3 c4 14. Ng5 Nd8 $11 {
; this defensive retreat is an advantage of playing ...Nc6 early on})) 10...
Qxc2 11. dxc5 (11. Be2 Nge7 12. dxc5 h6 {transposes}) 11... Nge7 12. Be2 h6 {
keeps a knight out of g5 and takes advantage of the fact that White's queen is
somewhat restricted in its movements; e.g.} 13. O-O (13. Nd4 Qe4 $11) 13... Qe4
(13... g5 {is odd but fully playable:} 14. Qe3 (14. Qf6 $2 Rh7) 14... Nf5 ({or
} 14... Qe4 15. Nd4 Qxe3 16. Bxe3 Nxe5 17. f4 gxf4 18. Bxf4 N7g6 $11) 15. Qd3
Qxd3 16. Bxd3 Nh4 $1 17. Nxh4 Nxe5 18. Bb5 $1 gxh4 19. Bf4 f6 20. Bxe5 fxe5 21.
Rae1 Rh7 22. Rxe5 Rc7 $11) 14. Rfe1 Qxf4 15. Bxf4 {
, Khachiyan-Shulman, ICC 2011; and several moves suffice, but} g5 {is direct:}
16. Bd2 (16. Be3 $6 Nf5 17. Bc1 g4) 16... Ng6 17. Rab1 $5 Kg7 18. Bd3 Rd8 19.
h3 Rb8 {and ...Bd7=.})) ({(b)} 9. c4 {is rare but interesting:} Nc6 $5 10. dxc5
Qxc2 ({or} 10... Nxe5 11. Qf4 Nxc4 {with mutual chances following} 12. Nf3 $1
f6 $5 13. Bxc4 Qxc4 14. Qc7 a5 $1 15. Rb1 Qa4 $11) 11. Nf3 h6 12. Qf4 Qe4+ 13.
Qe3 Nge7 14. cxd5 exd5 15. Bd3 Qxe3+ 16. Bxe3 Bg4 $11 {.}) 9... b6 (9... Nc6 {
is not my first recommendation, but is also used a lot and deserves a brief
look. After} 10. Nf3 {, here are a few samples of play from the two main
responses (excluding ...b6 systems):} -- (10... Nge7 {
can lead in many directions, including these two:} 11. -- (11. Qb1 c4 12. h4
Ke8 13. h5 h6 14. g4 Kd8 $5 15. g5 {(active, but creating structural problems)}
(15. Bg2 Kc7 16. Nh4 Bd7 17. f4 Raf8 ({or} 17... f6 {'and I prefer Black in
the long run - at least his king is more safe' - Moskalenko})) 15... hxg5 16.
Nxg5 Ke8 {(typically running back-and-forth; Moskalenko has pointed out this
strange tendency in the ...Kf8 lines)} 17. Be2 b6 18. Bg4 Bd7 19. Qd1 Ng8 $1
20. Be3 Nh6 21. Kd2 {, Karjakin-P.Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2005; Black kept a
small edge after the amusing reversal} Kd8 ({but} 21... Ne7 {is more appealing
in the sense that it completely stops any play on the kingside and takes
control of the outpost on f5.})) (11. dxc5 Qe4+ ({Moskalenko mentions} 11...
Ng6 $5 {, when} 12. Be3 $1 {and Bd4 is somewhat advantageous for White, because
} Ngxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Qd4 $1 {can go into an ending in which the bishop
pair is the main factor; then instead of} Qxd4 ({Black should play} 14... Nc4 {
, but it's likely that White retains an edge}) 15. cxd4 Nc4 16. Bf4) 12. Be2
Nxe5 13. Nxe5 (13. O-O Nxf3+ 14. Bxf3 Qc4 15. Be3 Qxc3 16. Bd4 Qc4 17. c3 {
intending Be2 is dangerous for Black}) 13... Qxe5 14. O-O Bd7 {and ...Bc6,
which may still be better for White because of Black's king position, but
Black has a superior pawn structure that keeps prospects fairly balanced.})) (
10... c4 11. h4 Bd7 12. h5 h6 13. Rh4 (13. g4 Re8 $1 {
intends ...Ke7-d8, according to Moskalenko; then play might go} 14. Nh4 Ke7 15.
Qb1 b6 16. Rh3 Rf8 17. Rf3 Ke8 18. Be2 Nge7 19. Kf1 Kd8 20. Kg1 Kc7 $11) 13...
Nge7 14. Rf4 Kg8 $1 {'and then ...Rf8 is more than sufficient' - Moskalenko.
I'd be more cautious and assess this as equal.})) 10. h4 ({Instead: -- (a)} 10.
c4 {used to be considered critical, but a few simple solutions have been found:
} -- (10... Ba6 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. c3 $5 Qxd1+ 13. Rxd1 Ne7 14. cxd5 ({or} 14.
Bg5 {, Marques-Pereira, Brazil 2011; and here simply} Nbc6 {looks satisfactory}
) 14... Bxf1 15. Kxf1 Nxd5 {and the knights are a match for White's mediocre
bishop, especially as Black will get his pieces out to better positions.}) (
10... Ne7 11. cxd5 (11. dxc5 dxc4 $5 12. Ne2 Bb7 13. Nc3 Qc6 14. cxb6 axb6 $11
15. Bf4 Nd7 16. Qd6 Qxd6 17. exd6 Nf5 $1 {- Wei Ming}) 11... Qxd4 12. dxe6
Qxe5+ 13. Be2 {and in this position, Black has two recaptures of interest and
a developing move:} -- (13... Qxe6 $5 14. Nf3 Ba6 (14... Nbc6 15. O-O Bb7 16.
Re1 Qd5 17. c4 Qf5 18. Bc3 Rd8 19. Qb3 f6 20. a4 Ng6 $1 $11 {intending ...Nf4})
15. Be3 Nd5 16. Ng5 Qd7 17. Bxa6 Nxa6 18. c4 Nf6 19. Qc2 h6 20. Nf3 Ng4 $11 {.}
) (13... Bxe6 14. Nf3 Qd5 {is double-edged; Black has better central control,
but needs to get his king tucked away.}) (13... Bb7 14. Bf4 (14. Be3 Nbc6 15.
Nf3 Qxe6 $15) 14... Qc3+ 15. Bd2 Qe5 16. Bf4 Qc3+ 17. Bd2 {
½-½ Grischuk-Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.}))) ({(b)} 10. Nh3 {isn't as good as in positions where ...c4 has been played. Here Black can counterattack
on d4; for example,} Nc6 ({or} 10... Ne7 {; e.g.} 11. dxc5 bxc5 12. Bd3 Nd7 $1
13. f4 Rb8 14. O-O Ba6 $15 {, planning to answer} 15. Ng5 {with} h6 16. Nf3 g6
{and ...Kg7}) 11. dxc5 (11. Rb1 Ba6) (11. Bd3 cxd4 12. Qe2 Nge7 13. O-O dxc3
14. Bxc3 Bd7 15. Ng5 h6 16. Nf3 Kg8 {
and White has some compensation but no way to get to the king}) 11... bxc5 (
11... Ba6 $5) 12. f4 Nge7 13. Bd3 Rb8 14. O-O Kg8 15. Be3 c4 16. Be2 {
, and Black stands better after either} h6 {
, securing the usual safe square for his king on h7,} ({or} 16... Nf5 17. Bc1 {
(versus ...Rb2)} h6 18. Bg4 Nce7 $15 {.})) ({(c)} 10. Nf3 {
has several answers. I'll recommend} Ba6 {with these ideas:} 11. -- (11. Bxa6 {
gives Black a choice of recaptures:} -- (11... Qxa6 12. dxc5 $1 (12. a4 Ne7 13.
Qe2 cxd4 14. Qxa6 Nxa6 15. cxd4 Rc8 $11) 12... Nd7 $5 13. cxb6 axb6 14. Qb1 $1
$14 {intending Qb4, though this is quite playable for Black.}) (11... Nxa6 $1
12. Qb1 (12. O-O Ne7 $15) 12... Ne7 (12... c4 $5) 13. Qb3 Qc4 14. Qxc4 dxc4 15.
O-O h6 $11 {with ...Nd5 next.})) (11. dxc5 Bxf1 12. Kxf1 bxc5 ({or} 12... Nd7
$1 13. cxb6 axb6 {
with excellent play, an idea which pops up in a lot of variations}) 13. g3 Nd7
14. Kg2 Ne7 15. Rb1 h6 16. h4 (16. Qe2 g5 $1 17. Rhe1 Nb6) 16... Nc6 17. Qe2
Qe4 ({or} 17... Ke7 {.})) (11. Bd3 {leads to a typical ending following} Bxd3
12. cxd3 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 cxd4 14. cxd4 (14. Nxd4 Ne7 15. Ke2 Nbc6 16. Nxc6 Nxc6
17. f4 h5 $11 {intending ...Rc8, ...f6}) 14... Nc6 15. Ke2 Nge7 16. Rhc1 (16.
Rac1 Ke8 17. Bb4 Kd7 $15) 16... Ke8 17. Bb4 Kd7 {, at least equal, planning to
expand on the kingside by ...g5 and, if g4, ...Ng6-f4.})) 10... Ba6 {
Not the only move;} ({in fact, both of the following look good: -- (a)} 10...
Ne7 11. h5 h6 12. Rh4 Ba6 13. Bxa6 Nxa6 {(not bad)} ({but} 13... Qxa6 $1 {
, transposing to the main line, should give Black excellent play}) 14. Rf4 Qd7
$5 (14... Kg8) (14... Qc4) 15. Qf3 $1 Nc6 16. Nh3 {
with mutual chances, R.J.Fischer-Hook, Siegen Olympiad 1970.}) ({(b)} 10... Nc6
{forces White to defend d4 and thus interferes with him bringing his queen to
the kingside. Then the exchange of bishops should lead to equality; e.g.} 11.
Nf3 Ba6 12. h5 h6 13. Rh4 Bxf1 14. Kxf1 Nge7 $6 (14... c4 $1 {with an easy game
}) 15. dxc5 $1 (15. Rf4 $5 {transposes to 11 h5 in the main line}) 15... Qa6+
16. Qe2 Qxe2+ 17. Kxe2 bxc5 18. Be3 $1 c4 19. Rb1 Nd8 20. Bc5 Ke8 21. Rhh1 Kd7
22. Rb2 $14 {, although this is playable for Black}) 11. Bxa6 ({Others: -- (a)
} 11. Nf3 Bxf1 12. Kxf1 h6 {and ...Ne7/...Kg8-h7 is normal,} ({but in this case
} 12... h5 {should be considered, since it both limits White's expansion and
secures f5 for a knight.})) ({(b)} 11. h5 Bxf1 12. Kxf1 h6 13. Rh4 Ne7 (13...
Qa6+ 14. Ne2 Nc6 15. Kg1 Nge7 16. Rf4 Kg8 17. Ng3 {
, Ethan Hunt-Captain Nemo, playchess.com 2007; then} Rh7 $5 {
- versus any Rg4-Rxg7+ ideas -} 18. Qf3 Rf8 19. Rg4 $1 Kh8 20. Rf4 Kg8 21. Rg4
{repeats}) 14. Rf4 Nbc6 15. Nf3 (15. Qf3 $6 Qxc2 16. Rxf7+ Ke8) 15... Rc8 ({or
} 15... Na5 16. dxc5 Qb5+ 17. Kg1 bxc5 18. Rb1 Qc6 $11) 16. Kg1 (16. dxc5 Qa6+
17. Kg1 bxc5 $11 {; then} 18. c4 d4 {is a normal position,} ({
or you can mix it up a little with} 18... g5 $5 19. hxg6 Nxg6)) 16... cxd4 17.
cxd4 Ke8 {(a typical swing to the queenside)} 18. g4 $4 (18. Rg4 $1 g5 $1 19.
hxg6 Nxg6 $11 {, threatening ...Ncxe5}) 18... g5 $1 19. hxg6 (19. Rf6 Ng8)
19... Nxg6 20. Kg2 Nxf4+ 21. Bxf4 Ne7 {
winning, Renteria-Ruiz Sanchez, Totana 2011.}) 11... Qxa6 (11... Nxa6 {
is also fine; e.g.} 12. h5 h6 13. Rh4 Rc8 14. Rf4 cxd4 15. cxd4 Ne7 $1 16. Qf3
Ke8 17. c3 Rf8 18. Nh3 Nb8 (18... Nc7 $1) 19. Qg4 Rg8 20. Qf3 Rf8 21. Qg3 Rg8
22. Qf3 {½-½ Cheparinov-P.Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2005.}) 12. h5 (12. Nf3 {
can be met variously; for example, by} cxd4 13. cxd4 Ne7 14. h5 h6 15. g4 $5 (
15. Qe2 Qxe2+ 16. Kxe2 Nbc6 17. Kd3 Ke8 18. a4 Kd7 19. a5 b5 $1 20. a6 Rab8 21.
Rhb1 Rb6 $11) 15... Nbc6 16. Bb4 $5 (16. Qe2 Qxe2+ 17. Kxe2 Ke8 18. Kd3 $11)
16... Rc8 17. Bd6 Na5 $15 {.}) 12... h6 13. Rh4 Ne7 14. Rf4 (14. Nf3 Nd7 {
prepares ...Nbc6 and may well favour Black slightly;} ({
instead, S.M.Larsen-Slawinski, ICCF 2010, continued} 14... Nbc6 15. Qe2 Qxe2+
16. Kxe2 c4 $5 (16... Na5) 17. a4 Ke8 18. Rf4 Rf8 19. Bc1 f6 20. exf6 gxf6 $11
{.})) 14... Nbc6 15. a4 Rc8 16. a5 cxd4 ({Or} 16... b5 $5 17. Qf3 Nf5 18. Ne2
b4 {, which is complex and dynamically equal.}) 17. cxd4 {
, Castellanos-Vilela de Acuna, Balaguer 2006.} ({
Here Moskalenko suggests that after} 17. cxd4 bxa5 $1 {
, at least 'Black cannot lose!'.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.22 8...g6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. Qg4
g6 {. A lot of theory has accumulated on this move which, by contrast with 8...
Kf8, keeps open the possibility of castling (probably queenside). It comes at
the cost of weakening the kingside dark squares when there is no dark-squared
bishop left and, because of that, the defence can be difficult, especially in
practical terms. Still, 8...g6 is extremely instructive and, if you know the
concrete lines well, you might find that it is sufficiently safe and offers
more dynamic counterattacking chances than 8...Kf8.} 9. Nf3 {I consider this
quite dangerous, but White has several other challenging continuations.} ({(a)
} 9. Rc1 Nc6 10. Nf3 h6 $5 (10... b6 11. Qf4 h6) 11. Bd3 c4 12. Be2 Bd7 13. Qf4
Rh7 14. h4 O-O-O {, Parma-L.Portisch, Bled 1961.}) ({(b)} 9. Qd1 {is the traditional move, returning to protect the c2-pawn. In general, I don't think Black
has many problems here, so I'll limit myself to one reply and not give many
details:} b6 10. h4 Ba6 (10... h5 {is a little strange, but stops h5; as long
as a knight is covering f6 Black seems alright; e.g.} 11. Nf3 Ba6 12. Bd3 Nd7
$1 13. O-O Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qxd1 15. Rfxd1 Ne7 16. Bg5 Nc6 $11 {
Skorchenko-Lysyj, Vladimir 2002}) 11. Bxa6 Nxa6 (11... Qxa6 12. h5 Nc6 $1 13.
hxg6 fxg6 14. Qg4 Kd7 $1 15. Nf3 h5 $1 16. Qxg6 Nge7 17. Qd3 Qxd3 18. cxd3 cxd4
19. cxd4 Nf5 {with compensation, Apicella-Jacimovic, Fügen 2006}) 12. h5 (12.
Ne2 h5 13. Bg5 Rc8 14. O-O Ne7 15. Bf6 Rf8 $11 {
M.Chandler-N.Pert, London (m/6) 2000}) 12... cxd4 13. hxg6 fxg6 14. Qg4 (14.
Rh4 Ne7 15. Nf3 {, and Wei Ming suggests} Nc5 $1 {intending ...Ne4, or} 16.
Rxd4 Qd7 $1 17. c4 Nc6 18. Rh4 O-O $15) 14... Ne7 $1 15. cxd4 (15. Qxe6 $2 Nc5
$1 16. Qg4 Qxc2 17. Qxd4 O-O $19) ({; after} 15. Nf3 {, Black can insist by} h5
$1 16. Qxe6 {and play a series of forcing moves to advantage:} Nc5 17. Qf6 Rf8
18. Qg7 Ne6 $1 19. Qh7 dxc3 20. Bh6 Rxf3 $1 21. gxf3 Rc8 $1 $17 {
intending ...Nd4}) 15... h5 $1 16. Qh4 (16. Qxe6 $2 Qxd4 17. Rd1 Qe4+ $1 18.
Ne2 Nc5 19. Qh3 O-O) 16... Qxc2 17. Nf3 Rf8 18. Rc1 Qd3 19. Rc3 Qb1+ 20. Rc1
Qd3 $11 {(Wei Ming).}) ({(c)} 9. Ra2 b6 {
(Black's main strategy against slower moves)} 10. Nf3 Ba6 11. Bd3 $1 {
(probably the best way to get developed)} (11. Bxa6 Qxa6 12. Ng5 $5 Nc6 $1 13.
Qf4 Nd8 14. h4 cxd4 15. cxd4 h6 16. Nf3 Rc8 $15) 11... Bxd3 (11... Nd7) 12.
cxd3 c4 $5 {(thematic, going for the light squares, although it does take time
from development)} (12... Nd7 13. O-O Ne7 {is double-edged, e.g.} 14. Bg5 Nf5
15. Qf4 h6 16. Bf6 g5 17. Qg4 Rg8 $11) 13. O-O cxd3 14. Ng5 Qd7 15. a4 Nc6 16.
Bc1 Na5 17. Rd1 h6 18. Qh3 Kf8 19. Rxd3 Kg7 20. Nf3 Ne7 {with balanced play.})
({(d)} 9. Qf4 {resembles 9 Nf3 and is very important. White has the idea of
dxc5, opening the position, after which the extra tempi spent on ...Qa5-a4 and
...g6 can look suspicious. Play can go:} -- (9... Qxc2 $5 {
is playable, although dangerous after} 10. Nf3 $1 {and then:} -- (10... c4 $5
11. Rc1 Qf5 12. Qg3 $1 {. These lines look quite scary. White can play Be2 and
either make threats on the kingside or play the surprisingly strong Bd1-c2.} (
12. --)) (10... Qe4+ {isn't attractive after} 11. Qxe4 dxe4 12. Bb5+ Nc6 13.
Ng5 $14 {.}) (10... h6 $1 11. dxc5 {threatens 12 Nd4, so Black probably plays}
Qe4+ 12. Qe3 $5 Ne7 13. Bd3 Qxe3+ 14. Bxe3 Nf5 15. Bd4 Bd7 {, when} 16. g4 Nxd4
17. cxd4 Nc6 {seems adequate, with the ideas of ...b6 and/or ...Na5 in mind.}))
(9... c4 $5 10. Nf3 {
(if White plays too slowly, ...Qxc2 will start to make sense)} h6 $5 (10... Nc6
{transposes to the main line}) 11. Be2 Qxc2 {. Moskalenko gives this an '!',
but maybe he's a little optimistic; for example, I like} 12. Rc1 $1 {and:} -- (
12... Qa4 13. h4 Nc6 14. O-O {
and most of Black's pieces are a little stuck, so he might try a raid with} Na5
(14... Qxa3 15. Ra1 Qf8 16. Bc1 Qg7 17. Ba3) 15. Rb1 Nb3 16. Be3 Qxa3 17. Nd2
Nxd2 18. Bxd2 Qf8 19. Bc1 Qg7 20. Ba3 g5 21. Qf3 {and I still think White is
doing pretty well; watch out for Bxc4 and Rxb7 sacrifices.}) (12... Qe4 13. Qg3
g5 14. h4 g4 15. Ng1 h5 16. f3 gxf3 17. Qxf3 $1 Qxf3 18. Bxf3 {with more than
enough for the pawn in terms of development, Black's weak squares, and the
potential to win the h-pawn. This is the sort of variation that makes me think
that 8...Kf8 is more practical than 8...g6.})) (9... Nd7 {
is a careful way to play it:} 10. Nf3 (10. h4 h6 11. Nf3 b6 $1 $11) 10... h6
11. dxc5 Qxf4 12. Bxf4 Nxc5 {gives White's bishops scope, but because of the
pawn structure Black may stand acceptably; e.g.} 13. Be3 (13. c4 Ne7 14. Nd2
Bd7 {, about equal}) 13... b6 14. a4 (14. c4 Ne7) 14... Ne7 15. a5 Bb7 16. Nd4
Kf8 17. axb6 axb6 18. Rxa8+ Bxa8 19. Bd3 {with a modest advantage for White.}))
9... Nc6 {One of the ideas behind this move is that Ng5 can be met by ...Nd8
in some lines, followed by driving the knight back.} 10. Qf4 {
White intends dxc5.} c4 $5 ({Black should probably play} 10... Qxc2 {at this point if he wishes to show that monitoring the c-pawn is a benefit of ...Qa4.
Then play can continue} 11. dxc5 $1 Qe4+ 12. Qxe4 ({or} 12. Be3 $5 Qxf4 13.
Bxf4 h6 {, when} 14. Nd4 Nge7 15. Nb5 Kf8 16. Nd6 g5 17. Bg3 Ng6 {
is about equal}) 12... dxe4 13. Ng5 (13. Nd4 Nxe5 14. Nb5 Ke7 15. Bf4 f6 {
and White has only a slight edge at best}) 13... f5 14. exf6 Nxf6 15. Bc4 Ne5
$1 (15... Ke7 16. f3 Ne5 17. Be2 exf3 18. Nxf3 $14) 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Bf4 Nd3+
18. Bxd3 exd3 19. Rd1 h6 20. Nf3 Ne4 $11 {.}) 11. Be2 ({Instead,} 11. Ra2 {
seems to misplace the rook, but squelches all ideas of ...Qxc2. Then Moskalenko's plan is} h6 (11... Qb5 12. Bc1 h6 $5 13. Be2 {simply asks for a4 later on})
12. Be2 Bd7 13. O-O Rh7 14. Rb1 O-O-O {. Black, by contrast with White, has no
serious pawn weaknesses, but has to live with the general situation of his own
dark-square weaknesses and bad bishop on d7. Following} 15. Qh4 (15. h4 $5 {
, intending Nh2-g4, is the idea played in the main game}) 15... -- ({, and} 
15... Kb8 16. Bg5 Re8 {, White has no obvious way to make progress.}) ({
. Black has the same problem; a move such as} 15... Nge7 $2 {is punished by}
16. Ng5 ({or} 16. Bg5) 16... Nf5 17. Qh3 Rg7 18. Nf3 Rh8 19. Bg5 {and Bf6.}) ({
. But} 15... Rf8 {is possible, looking to advance the f-pawn, perhaps in
conjunction with ...Rff7 and ...g5. This all deserves investigation.})) 11...
h6 12. h4 ({Here} 12. Ra2 {transposes to the previous note}) ({and} 12. O-O {
can be safely played because} Qxc2 $6 (12... g5 13. Qg3 Qxc2 14. Bd1 Qg6 15. h4
Nge7 16. hxg5 hxg5 17. Nxg5 Na5 18. Ra2 Nb3 19. Bf4 $14) (12... Bd7 13. Ra2 {
is the previous note again}) 13. Bd1 {
gives White good attacking chances regardless of what Black does; e.g.} Qb2 (
13... Qf5 14. Qg3 g5 15. Rc1 Qg6 16. Bc2 Qg7 17. h4 $14) 14. Ba4 Qb6 15. h4 $14
{Cabrera-Pomes Marcet, La Roda 2009.}) 12... Bd7 {Not bad;} ({although} 12...
Qxc2 {is still consistent; e.g.} 13. O-O (13. Rc1 Qb3) 13... Qe4 (13... Nge7 $6
14. Bd1 {with the idea} Qf5 $2 ({or} 14... Qe4 15. Qg3 $14) 15. Qh2) 14. Qxe4
dxe4 15. Nh2 Na5 {intending ...b6 and ...Bb7.}) 13. O-O Rh7 14. Nh2 O-O-O 15.
Ra2 Rf8 ({Or} 15... g5 $5 16. Qg3 f6 {.}) 16. Ng4 Qa5 $5 {Relieving the
blockade is a double-edged decision; Black wants to cover the dark squares on
the h4-d8 diagonal.} 17. Re1 ({
The same position arose in Lacasa Diaz-Moskalenko, Sitges 2011:} 17. a4 $1 {
(making way for Bc1-a3)} Qd8 18. Qg3 Nce7 (18... f5 19. exf6 Nxf6 $14) 19. Ne3
{and here} f5 {was best, but Black has few positive prospects.}) 17... Qd8 18.
Nf6 (18. Qg3 g5 19. Qh3 gxh4 {.}) 18... g5 19. hxg5 hxg5 20. Qxg5 Nxf6 21. Qxf6
{, Muzychuk-I.Rajlich, Ohrid 2009;} ({and here I think} 21. Qxf6 Qa5 {
is best (threatening ...Nxd4), when White has to be careful:} 22. Rd1 $1 Rfh8
23. f3 Rh5 $1 24. Qf4 $6 ({keeping an eye on d4 for the following reason:} 24.
Qxf7 Rh1+ 25. Kf2 Rxd1 26. Bxd1 Qb6 {intending ...Qb2; or if} 27. Ra1 {, then}
Nxd4 $1 28. Be3 Qb2 {is strong}) ({; but} 24. Kf2 $1 $11 {is better}) 24... Qb6
$5 ({or} 24... Be8 25. Raa1 Ne7 $15) 25. Kf2 Nxe5 26. a4 Nc6 {with the idea}
27. Qd6 e5 $1 28. f4 $2 Qd8 $1 29. Bxh5 Qh4+ {and Black has too many threats.})
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "11.3 8 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C18"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qa5 ({After} 6... Ne7
7. h4 Nbc6 8. h5 Qa5 9. Bd2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa4 11. h6 gxh6 12. c3 $1 ({
instead of} 12. Nf3 Nxd4 13. Bd3 {, transposing below}) 12... Qxd1+ 13. Rxd1 {
causes positional damage to Black - perhaps reparable (as explained in 10.3,
note 'c' to White's 11th move), but it's a chore.}) 7. Bd2 Qa4 8. h4 {
. This has become a popular idea in the 6...Qa5 systems (for example, 9 h4 is
a main line after 8 Qb1 c4). There are numerous transpositions here, including
to the Positional Winawer systems in Chapter 10. To make it a little easier to
navigate this mess, the general rule is that if White plays h4-h5 and secures
a pawn on d4 by means of the move Rh4 (which means that Black is usually
playing the move ...h6), it will be treated in this chapter. Instead White can
sacrifice the d-pawn, and this very often means using the Kasparov Gambit from
Chapter 10 (section 10.3), which I'll be referring to below. To help you
recognize that transposition without having to flip back-and-forth between
chapters, here's a diagram of the initial position of the Kasparov Gambit:} Nc6
(8... Ne7 {will often transpose; e.g.} 9. h5 h6 10. Rh4 cxd4 11. Nf3 Nbc6 {
is the main line below. A few variations which involve ...Ne7 without an early
...Nbc6 are considered in Chapter 10, section 10.3, in the note on 7...Qa5.}) (
8... b6 {is also playable:} 9. -- (9. h5 Ba6 10. Qg4 Kf8 11. Bxa6 Nxa6 12. Rc1
$5 h6 13. Ne2 Ne7 14. Rh3 Nc7 (14... Kg8 $1 15. Rf3 Rf8) 15. Rf3 Kg8 16. Qh4 (
16. Qf4 Rf8 17. dxc5 Qxf4 18. Rxf4) 16... Qd7 17. g4 {
, Iordachescu-Agdestein, Isle of Man 2003;} Rc8 $1 $15 {, with the idea} 18. g5
$6 hxg5 19. Bxg5 Nf5 20. Qg4 Nb5 21. Ng3 Nh6 {.}) (9. Qg4 Kf8 10. Rh3 h5 $5 11.
Qf4 Ba6 12. Nf3 (12. Rf3 Nh6) 12... Bxf1 13. Ng5 Nh6 14. Kxf1 (14. Nxe6+ Kg8
15. Nxg7 Qc4 16. Qf3 Kxg7 17. Qf6+ Kg8 18. Qg5+ Kf8 19. Qd8+ $11) 14... Ke7 $1
15. Rf3 Nf5 16. Kg1 g6 $15 {.})) 9. h5 (9. Qg4 Kf8 $1 {is a position from 7
Qg4 Kf8 theory where h4 doesn't fit in very well; Black should have easy
equality.}) 9... h6 ({Black can also ignore h6 to develop quickly; e.g.} 9...
Nge7 {and then:} 10. -- (10. Nf3 cxd4 (10... h6 {is the main line}) 11. Rh4 ({
and} 11. cxd4 Nxd4 12. Bd3 {
would be - surprise - the Kasparov Gambit in section 10.3}) 11... b6 12. cxd4 (
{but here White has the option of} 12. h6 gxh6 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Rxd4 $5 {
intending Qh5, which is yet another can of worms I'd simply stay away from as
Black}) 12... h6 {would be the note on 12 cxd4 below.}) (10. h6 gxh6 $5 11. Nf3
cxd4 12. cxd4 Nxd4 13. Bd3 {is very similar to the Kasparov pawn sacrifice,
but with the moves h6 and ...gxh6 in, which matters a lot and may even help
Black. This exact position won't arise naturally from normal orders in Chapter
10, however, without allowing other problems (see the note with 6...Ne7 above).
Therefore, since this Portisch/Hook sequence is the 'correct' one, I'm going
to examine it here:} Bd7 $5 (13... b6 14. Bxh6 Ndf5) 14. Bb4 (14. Kf1 $6 Bb5 $1
$15) 14... Ndc6 15. Rh4 $6 (15. Rb1 Nxb4 16. axb4 Bb5 $11) (15. Bd6 $5 Qg4 16.
g3 Nf5 17. Bxf5 Qxf5 18. Rxh6 {- McDonald; and here} Rc8 19. Kf1 Na5 20. Nd4
Qg5 21. Rh4 Nc4 {yields mutual chances}) 15... Ng6 $1 16. Bxg6 hxg6 {(with two 
extra pawns in return for some worry on the dark squares; Moskalenko thinks
that Black is better and I agree)} 17. Bd2 $1 Qa6 (17... d4 {
isn't bad, with the idea} 18. Bg5 Nxe5 $1 19. Nxe5 $4 Qa5+) 18. Bg5 Rc8 19. Bf6
{, Volokitin-Zhang Pengxiang, Fügen 2006; and Moskalenko's} Rf8 20. Rxh6 Ne7 {
with ideas of ...Ba4 and ...Rc4 would preserve the advantage.})) 10. Nf3 (10.
Qg4 Kf8 (10... Rh7 $5 {
, with ideas of ...Nxe5, ...cxd4, and ...Qc2, might run into} 11. Qg3 $5 ({
or simply} 11. Nf3 Qxc2 12. dxc5 $14)) 11. Nf3 (11. Rc1 $2 Nxe5) 11... Nge7 (
11... f5 12. Qg3 b6 $5) 12. Qf4 Qxc2 ({Moskalenko prefers} 12... c4 {
in such positions, but sometimes greed is justifiable}) 13. dxc5 Qe4+ 14. Qxe4
(14. Be3 Nf5) 14... dxe4 15. Nd4 Nxe5 {, and the strange position after} 16.
Bf4 f6 17. Bxe5 fxe5 18. Nb5 Nd5 {is level.}) 10... Nge7 (10... cxd4 11. Rh4 ({
while} 11. cxd4 Nxd4 12. Bd3 Ne7 {is the Kasparov Gambit from Chapter 10 again}
) 11... Nge7 {transposes below.}) 11. Rh4 cxd4 {
The most ambitious move, but not the only one.} ({(a) With this move order,} 
11... Nf5 12. Rf4 ({or} 12. Rg4 b6 $1 13. Rf4 $1 c4) 12... c4 {is equal, but
note that sometimes Black is already committed to ...cxd4 by the time he
reaches this point.}) ({(b)} 11... c4 $5 12. Rg4 Nf5 13. Qc1 Bd7 14. Be2 O-O-O
15. Nh4 Nce7 16. Nxf5 Nxf5 {is roughly equal; e.g.} 17. Kf1 Rhg8 18. Rf4 g5 19.
hxg6 fxg6 20. Bg4 h5 $1 21. Bxf5 $5 gxf5 22. Rh4 Be8 $11 {
Schüppen-Valli, ICCF Champions League 2010.}) 12. Bd3 $5 (12. cxd4 b6 {
prepares to trade off the light-squared bishops. Since White has no meaningful
attack on the kingside, this usually leads to an ending; e.g.} 13. Rg4 Nf5 (
13... Kf8 $5 {keeps the knight on e7, so} 14. c4 Qxd1+ 15. Rxd1 dxc4 16. Bxc4
Bb7 {is typical: Black's pawn structure, long diagonal, and d5 outpost
compensate for White's space and the bishop pair}) 14. c4 (14. c3 Qxd1+ 15.
Rxd1 Na5 $1 $11) 14... Qxd1+ 15. Rxd1 dxc4 16. Bxc4 Nce7 17. Bb4 Nd5 18. Bxd5
$5 exd5 19. Rf4 Be6 20. g4 Ne7 21. Rc1 Rc8 {with equality.}) 12... Bd7 13. Kf1
O-O-O 14. Rf4 g5 $1 {Black has saved a tempo over the lines in which the
f-pawn has to be protected before castling queenside is possible.} 15. Rxf7 $5
{White invests an exchange.} ({Following} 15. Rg4 {,} Ng8 $1 {
intends ...f5 (or ...f6); e.g.} 16. cxd4 $2 (16. Rb1 f5 $5 17. Bb5 $1 Qxa3 18.
Bxc6 Bxc6 19. Rxd4 {is difficult to assess}) 16... f5 17. Rg3 f4 18. Rg4 Be8 {.
}) 15... Be8 16. Rxe7 Nxe7 17. Nxd4 {White controls the key squares g6, f5 and
b5 and attacks e6. But Black is safe on the queenside and has his usual
compact pawn structure.} Bd7 18. Rb1 Kb8 19. Nb3 $6 (19. Qc1 {
intending Qb2-b4 is more accurate, although Black has a good position.}) 19...
Bb5 (19... b6 $1 {is strong, since} 20. Nc5 Qc6 21. Na6+ Ka8 {achieves little.}
) 20. Nc5 Bxd3+ 21. cxd3 Qxd1+ 22. Rxd1 Nc6 $15 {
R.Robson-Shulman, Lubbock 2011.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12. Exchange Variation"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 {. This is the Exchange Variation, which tends
to produce a simpler game, or at least a less tactical one, than most other
variations in the French Defence. Some players dismiss it as 'drawish'; with
only one open file, they reason, both sides will mindlessly exchange their
heavy pieces and a sterile position will ensue. But there is a hole in this
reasoning: in most cases where one side is fighting for a win, at least one
rook doesn't belong on the e-file; and in numerous lines, neither side's rooks
should be there. Why? Because there will be no points of penetration along the
file; for example, squares like e2, e3 and e4 for White and e7, e6, and e5 for
Black will customarily be covered two or three times by that side's pawns,
knights, and bishops. Moreover, only one such defender is really necessary. So
if, for example, White doubles or triples along the e-file while Black is
blithely mounting a kingside pawn storm (backed by his rooks and queen), the
second player has every chance of winning. Furthermore, Black can always make
the struggle unbalanced should he so choose. This has been pointed out and
demonstrated by great players for at least 70 years. I might add that it's
rather silly to call any position in which every piece and all but two pawns
remain on the board 'drawish'. In fact, even very strong players hoping for a
draw with White have had little success in trying to force one. --- At any
rate, White's main moves are:} 4. -- ({12.1} 4. Nf3) ({12.2} 4. Bd3) ({12.3} 4.
c4) ({12.4} 4. Bf4) ({White has other choices, but Black can always achieve an
imbalance if he wants: -- (a)} 4. Nc3 Bb4 {is dealt with in Chapter 7, under
the order 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 exd5 exd5 (see section 7.6).} ({Here} 4... Nf6 {
is also equal; e.g.} 5. Bg5 Be7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Nge2 h6 8. Bh4 Nc6 {
intending ...Nb4.})) ({(b)} 4. c3 {is slow:} Bd6 ({or} 4... Nc6 {; then} 5. Bb5
{might look appealing, but c3 doesn't go well with this move - compare the
reversed positions in Chapter 7}) {, and} 5. Bd3 (5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bd3 ({and here
} 6. Be2 {is slow}) 6... Qe7+ {transposes}) 5... Nf6 (5... Nc6 {
transposes to 4 Bd3 Nc6 5 c3 Bd6 in section 12.2}) 6. Nf3 (6. Ne2 O-O 7. O-O
Re8) 6... Qe7+ $1 7. Be3 (7. Qe2 Qxe2+ $15) 7... Ng4 {wins the bishop pair.}) (
{(c)} 4. Be3 {is passive. Then} Nf6 {is normal,} ({and} 4... Bd6 {
intending ...Ne7 and perhaps later ...Nf5 is also fine.})) ({(d)} 4. Qf3 {
is rather eccentric, yet keeps an eye on d5 and has in mind castling queenside.
Black seems to get equality with almost any natural move, including 4...c6 and
4...Bd6. Alternatively:} -- ({. A nice example was} 4... Nc6 5. Bb5 Nf6 6. Ne2
Bg4 7. Qc3 Bd6 $1 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Qxc6+ Bd7 {
with more than enough compensation:} 10. Qa6 Ng4 $5 (10... O-O $1 $15) 11. h3
$2 Qf6 $1 12. Nbc3 $2 {(to stop ...Bb4+)} ({White should try} 12. Qd3 Qxf2+ 13.
Kd2 $1 Kf8 $1 14. hxg4 Bxg4 $17) 12... Qxf2+ 13. Kd1 Qxg2 $19 {
Bykhovsky-Ulibin, Stockholm 1997.}) (4... Nf6 5. h3 {
(versus ...Bg4, which is often followed by ...Bh5-g6)} c5 6. Bb5+ $5 Nc6 7. Ne2
Qb6 $1 8. Qd3 $5 c4 9. Qe3+ Be6 10. Ba4 Bd6 $15 {
with a nice lead in development, M.Hermann-Vaganian, German League 1992.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.1 4 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "8"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 {. White develops normally and is
thinking about 5 c4. Kasparov played this move and it is now more popular than
any other. I'll recommended one of two moves, both breaking the symmetry:} -- (
{12.11} 4... Nc6) ({12.12} 4... Bd6) ({
Instead: -- (a) In previous editions I have recommended} 4... Bg4 {, but I confess to changing my mind about its practical value. In the line made famous by
Kasparov,} 5. h3 Bh5 6. Qe2+ Qe7 {(lest 7 Qb5+)} 7. Be3 {
, Black can reach effective equality in the main line} Nc6 8. Nc3 O-O-O 9.
O-O-O {, but only with very accurate play, and he still may be faced with the
more difficult over-the-board decisions thereafter. So I'm using two lines
with excellent reputations, the first a fashionable unbalancing variation, and
the second an older solution with a few optional twists that have been
discovered in the past several years.}) ({(b) Of course,} 4... Nf6 {
is fully playable, and I should point out that} 5. c4 {
(a key White plan) allows} Bb4+ ({or here} 5... Be7 6. Nc3) 6. Nc3 {
, both transposing to 4 c4 lines (see 12.312 and 12.32 respectively).}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.11 4...Nc6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Nc6 {. I didn't use this move in
previous editions, both because there are good alternatives and because White
seems to have an ideal response. Nevertheless, this has become a favourite of
grandmasters who are seeking to retain an imbalance and thus greater winning
chances. Over the last decade, it's become clear that Black's chances are
every bit as good as White's, so I'm going to give it the most thorough
analysis in this chapter.} 5. Bb5 {The most important move. Interestingly, we
have now reached a Winawer Exchange Variation 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bd3 Nf6
(see 7.611; note that Black has other options here), except that in our line,
White is a tempo ahead! However, it turns out that this variation (like so
many symmetrical ones) has the paradoxical property that, because White has
had to commit his pieces first (Nf3, in this case), Black can adjust his play
accordingly. In other words, his extra information about what White has done
is enough compensation for the tempo that he is able to maintain equality.
Clearly, it doesn't hurt that the variation under consideration is generally
slow and non-tactical (except for our main line, as you'll see).} ({
Less aggressive moves than 5 Bb5 don't achieve much; for instance,} 5. c3 Bd6
6. Bd3) ({and} 5. Bd3 Bg4 6. c3 Bd6 {both transpose to 4 Bd3 lines (see 12.2).}
) ({But} 5. c4 {can be independent following} Bg4 (5... Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Bg4 {
transposes;} ({and of course} 6... Nge7) ({, and} 6... Nf6 {
are also playable and will probably transpose to 4 c4 Bb4+ lines in 12.31})) 6.
Nc3 Bb4 $5 ({or} 6... Nf6 7. Be2 dxc4 8. O-O {and} Be7 ({or} 8... Bd6 $5 9.
Bxc4 O-O)) 7. a3 $5 (7. cxd5 Qxd5 8. Be2 {transposes to the Danish/Göring
Gambit! - that is, 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 Qxd5 5 cxd4 Nc6 6 Nf3 Bg4
7 Be2 Bb4+ 8 Nc3; then a standard recipe is Capablanca's} Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Qc4 {
, considered equal}) 7... Bxf3 8. gxf3 (8. Qxf3 Nxd4 9. Qe3+ Qe7) 8... Bxc3+ 9.
bxc3 Nge7 10. Qc2 $5 (10. Bd3 O-O 11. O-O dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd5 13. Qc2 Qd6 $11)
10... O-O 11. Bd3 dxc4 12. Bxh7+ $2 Kh8 13. Be4 f5 $1 14. Bxc6 Nxc6 15. Bf4 $2
(15. O-O Qh4 {with a nice advantage}) 15... Nxd4 $5 {(strong)} ({but} 15... Qh4
$1 {leaves no viable defence; e.g.} 16. Be5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Rae8 18. O-O-O Rxe5 {
and White has a pawn less, with five isolated ones remaining}) 16. cxd4 Qxd4
17. Qc1 Qd3 18. Be5 f4 $1 19. Ra2 $2 {, Hayrapetian-D.Petrosian, Kajaran 2011;
and Black should have put the game to rest by} Rfe8 20. Re2 Rad8 21. Rg1 Re7 {
threatening ...Red7, ...c3-c2 and other winning moves.}) 5... Bd6 6. c4 {
This is the most forcing and tactical move; notice that Black lacks time for
it in the reversed, Winawer position. White attacks d5, and also has c5 in
mind. From the time 4...Nc6 5 Bb5 Bd6 became popular, 6 c4 has been considered
the only way to cast the viability of Black's position into doubt.} ({
Nevertheless, White can try slower moves and hope for an edge. Thus far they
haven't had much luck: (a)} 6. O-O Nge7 {and:} 7. -- ({
. There's still time for} 7. c4 {, but} dxc4 {should not be answered by} 8. d5
$6 (8. Bxc4) 8... Nxd5 $1 {having in mind} 9. Qxd5 $4 Bxh2+ {.}) (7. Bg5 f6 {
is typical:} 8. -- (8. Bh4 {isn't as bad as it might seem, even though it
tempts Black's pawns forward; for example,} O-O ({
of course, Black can also reserve the idea of ...0-0-0; e.g.} 8... Bg4 9. Bg3
Bxg3 10. hxg3 Qd6) ({; or} 8... Bf5 $5) 9. c4 dxc4 10. Bxc4+ Kh8 11. Nc3 Nf5 {
creates threats on d4 which are hard to meet, and} 12. d5 (12. Bd3 $1 {
is a better try, when Black can improve his position with} Re8) 12... Ne5 13.
Nxe5 Bxe5 14. Bg3 Nxg3 15. hxg3 Qd6 ({or} 15... a6 {
leaves White nothing that matches Black's bishop pair.})) (8. Be3 Bg4 (8... a6
9. Bd3 Bf5 {is an option, probably equal}) 9. c3 Qd7 10. Nbd2 (10. c4 dxc4 11.
d5 $2 Nxd5) 10... O-O-O $5 11. a4 $5 Nf5 {(going after the bishop)} ({
other normal moves are} 11... Rde8 {
, freeing d8 in some lines for a knight retreat}) ({, and} 11... g5 {
, initiating a pawn storm}) 12. Bd3 (12. h3 Bh5 $1) 12... Rde8 (12... Nxe3 13.
fxe3 Rhe8 14. Re1 Re7 {
will result in an edge even after White plays e4, but it's not much}) 13. Re1
g5 $1 {
(enterprising; of course capturing on e3 and doubling rooks isn't bad either)}
14. Qc2 Nce7 15. b4 h5 $6 (15... Bh5 $1 {threatens ...g4, winning a piece, when
} 16. h3 {exposes the kingside to direct attack by} Bxf3 $1 17. Nxf3 h5 $1) 16.
Bb5 $5 {(setting up a target, but it's slow)} (16. b5 {looks better}) 16... c6
17. Bd3 Kb8 18. b5 {
, Fataliyeva-Sengupta, Mumbai 2011; and a good way to increase the pressure is}
Qc7 (18... Rc8 $15 {was played}) 19. bxc6 Nxe3 $1 20. Rxe3 Nxc6 21. Rxe8+ Rxe8
{.})) (7. Re1 O-O 8. h3 {(versus ...Bg4)} Bf5 9. c3 {
(solid, but in conjunction with 8 h3, this is rather slow)} Qd7 (9... a6 10.
Ba4 Qd7) 10. Ne5 $6 (10. Nbd2 a6 11. Ba4 h6 12. Bc2 {, about equal}) 10... Bxe5
$1 11. Rxe5 a6 12. Bxc6 Nxc6 13. Re1 Rae8 14. Rxe8 Rxe8 {
(White's pieces are on their initial squares)} 15. Bf4 {
, Safarli-Mamedyarov, Baku 2011; and here I like} Nd8 $1 {followed by ...Ne6 (.
..Qb5 becomes an idea as well). Black would have a small but irritating pull.})
) ({(b)} 6. h3 {stops ...Bg4, but is again slow; for example,} Nge7 7. O-O O-O
8. c3 a6 $6 {(driving the bishop where it wants to go)} (8... Re8 {
would secure a slight advantage}) 9. Bd3 Bf5 10. Re1 Qd7 11. Qc2 Rae8 12. Nbd2
Bxd3 13. Qxd3 {, Wang Chen-Ganguly, Qinhuangdao 2011; and instead of} Qf5 {
with a miniscule advantage,} (13... Ng6 $1 {keeps a little more play on.})) ({
(c)} 6. c3 Nge7 7. O-O O-O 8. Bg5 $5 f6 {(as so often, playing this move with
gain of tempo makes up for the generally inaccessible weakness on e6)} ({but} 
8... h6 {is also fine, since} 9. Bxc6 $2 hxg5 10. Ba4 Ng6 {
takes the initiative on the kingside}) 9. Bh4 Nf5 10. Bg3 Nxg3 11. hxg3 Ne7 $5
(11... Re8 {is also logical; White doesn't want to exchange on c6 and lose all
the light squares}) 12. Nbd2 (12. Bd3 $1 Bg4 $11) 12... Be6 (12... Bf5 $1) 13.
Bd3 c6 14. Re1 Qd7 15. a4 {(neither side has a dramatic plan)} a5 16. Qc2 g6
17. Re2 Bf7 18. Rae1 Rae8 $11 {Dzhakaev-Psakhis, St Petersburg 2002.}) 6...
dxc4 ({Not} 6... Nge7 $4 7. c5 $1 {.}) 7. d5 a6 8. Ba4 {The best move.} ({
Otherwise: -- (a)} 8. Bxc4 Qe7+ $1 9. Be3 Ne5 {gives Black superior activity.})
({(b)} 8. Qa4 $2 {fails to} axb5 $1 9. Qxa8 Nb4 {
, with both 10...Nc2+ and 10...Nd3+ threatened. White's best is} 10. O-O $1 Nc2
({even} 10... Ne7 11. Nc3 O-O $1 12. Nxb5 Nexd5 {
gives more than enough compensation}) 11. Nc3 Nxa1 12. Nxb5 Ne7 $1 13. Qa4 O-O
14. Qxc4 Nxd5 $1 15. Bg5 $1 Qd7 16. Rxa1 Re8 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 {
and although it isn't much, Black's pieces are better placed.}) ({(c)} 8. Bxc6+
bxc6 9. dxc6 Ne7 10. Nbd2 Be6 (10... c3 11. bxc3 O-O 12. O-O Nxc6 13. Ne4 $11)
11. O-O O-O 12. Ng5 (12. Qc2 Bf5 $1 {intending} 13. Qxc4 $2 Bd3 $1) 12... Bd5
13. Qc2 Ng6 14. Nxc4 h6 15. Nxd6 Qxd6 16. Ne4 Qxc6 17. Qxc6 Bxc6 18. Nc5 Rfe8
$15 {with the idea} 19. Be3 $2 Nh4 $17 {.}) 8... b5 9. dxc6 bxa4 10. O-O (10.
Qxa4 {allows} Bg4 11. Nbd2 Qe7+ {and the king has to move; for instance,} 12.
Kf1 Nf6 13. Nxc4 O-O 14. Bg5 Qe4 $1 15. Bxf6 Bxf3 16. gxf3 Qxf3 17. Rg1 Qxf6 {
, Ozgibcev-Volkov, Sochi 2004; Black has recovered the pawn and can target
White's weaknesses.}) 10... Ne7 11. Qxa4 (11. Nbd2 O-O (11... Be6 $1 {
is more accurate, I think, and forces White to move his queen if he is to
recover the pawn; e.g.} 12. Ng5 (12. Qxa4 {
transposes to 11...Be6 in the next note}) 12... Bd5 $1 13. Qxa4 c3 14. bxc3 O-O
$15) 12. Nxc4 Nxc6 13. Qxa4 Bb7 14. Bg5 (14. Nxd6 cxd6 $5 15. Bg5 $5 Qe8 $11 {
L.Webb-N.Pert, British League 2011}) 14... Qb8 $6 (14... Qe8 $5) (14... Ne7 {
targets f3 and equalizes}) 15. Rac1 Rc8 $6 16. Nxd6 cxd6 17. Qg4 $14 {
A.Gonzalez Perez-Moskalenko, Sitges 2010.}) 11... Rb8 {
With a dynamic counterattack; though it's not the only reasonable move.} ({(a)
} 11... Be6 12. Nbd2 Bd5 (12... c3 $5 13. bxc3 O-O $11 {is note 'b'}) 13. Nxc4
Bxc6 14. Qd1 O-O 15. Nxd6 cxd6 16. Nd4 Qd7 (16... Bb7) 17. b3 Bb7 18. Bb2 Ng6 {
½-½ J.Iglesias-Moskalenko, Spain 1999.}) ({(b)} 11... O-O {is similar:} 12.
Nbd2 c3 $5 ({here} 12... Rb8 $1 {is clearest, with the idea} 13. Nxc4 ({while} 
13. a3 {transposes to the main line}) 13... Rb4 14. Qc2 Bf5) 13. bxc3 Be6 14.
Nd4 Bd5 15. Nc4 Nxc6 16. Nxc6 (16. Nf5 $5) 16... Bxh2+ 17. Kxh2 Qh4+ 18. Kg1
Bxg2 $1 {(the old Lasker-Bauer sacrifice! - but only to draw)} 19. Kxg2 Qg4+
20. Kh2 Qh4+ 21. Kg2 Qg4+ {½-½ Hayrapetian-Ara.Minasian, Kajaran 2011.})
12. a3 {Preventing ...Rb4 at the cost of time. White hasn't found a way to
advantage here and, while the game is equal, he has to watch out for direct
attack on Black's part.} ({(a)} 12. Nbd2 {
gets the pawn back with more activity, but loses a number of tempi:} Rb4 (12...
O-O 13. Nxc4 Rb4 14. Qc2 Bf5 $1 15. Qc3 Nd5 16. Qd4 {transposes}) 13. Qc2 Bf5
$1 14. Qc3 O-O 15. Nxc4 Nd5 16. Qd4 Nb6 17. b3 Nxc4 18. bxc4 Be6 19. Bb2 f6 {
. After all that, Black has definite compensation for the pawn. Vajda-Glud,
Obro 2006,} 20. Rfc1 Ra4 21. a3 (21. Qd1 $1 Rxc4 22. Rxc4 Bxc4 23. Qa4 Bf7 $1
24. Qxa6 Qa8 $11) 21... Qe8 (21... Qe7) 22. Qe4 $2 Bxc4 {
with material equality and two strong bishops.}) ({(b)} 12. Qxc4 {
is less purposeful than Nbd2/Nxc4:} O-O 13. Nc3 Rb4 14. Qe2 Nxc6 15. Bg5 $2 (
15. Be3 Qf6 {is mildly better for Black}) 15... f6 (15... Nd4 $1 {
produces a meaningful advantage following} 16. Bxd8 $1 ({here} 16. Nxd4 Qxg5 {
makes White's defence difficult}) 16... Nxe2+ 17. Nxe2 Rxb2 $5 18. Bxc7 Bxc7 {
with two powerful bishops}) 16. a3 Nd4 (16... Rg4 $5 17. Be3 Qd7 $1 18. g3 Bb7
$15) 17. Nxd4 Rxd4 18. Be3 {, Djingarova-Bhat, Andorra 2006;} Re8 19. Rad1 Rxd1
20. Rxd1 {is about equal.}) 12... O-O 13. Nbd2 Rb5 $5 {
An interesting rook lift with tactics in mind;} ({
although the positionally-based} 13... c3 14. bxc3 Be6 {was perfectly fine}) ({
and here} 13... Be6 14. Nxc4 Bd5 $1 {also yields active play.}) 14. Nxc4 Nxc6
15. Bg5 Qd7 $1 16. Rad1 Qg4 $5 {Preparing a trick.} (16... Bb7 {
is the next best alternative, when things could peter out in a line such as}
17. Nxd6 cxd6 18. Bf4 d5 19. Rd2 d4 $1 20. Nxd4 Nxd4 21. Rxd4 Qc6 22. f3 Rxb2
23. Qxc6 Bxc6 $11 {.}) 17. h3 {'Falling for it', but this is probably best.}
Qxf3 $1 18. gxf3 Rxg5+ 19. Kh1 Bxh3 20. Nxd6 $2 {A blunder under pressure.} ({
White could simplify and keep things level by} 20. Rxd6 cxd6 21. Rd1 Bg2+ 22.
Kh2 Bxf3 23. Rxd6 Ne7 $1 24. Ne3 Ng6 $11 {; McDonald gives} 25. Rxa6 Bb7 26.
Ra7 Ne5 (26... Rh5+ 27. Kg3 Rg5+ $11) 27. Rxb7 Nf3+ 28. Kh3 Ng1+ 29. Kh2 $11 {.
}) 20... Bg2+ 21. Kg1 ({
It seems that brutal materialism is going to triumph after} 21. Kg1 cxd6 22.
Qf4 f6 ({or} 22... Rg6 23. Rxd6) 23. Qxg5 $1 fxg5 24. Kxg2 {and that all
Black's ingenuity has only led to a lost endgame. But instead comes a shocker:}
) 21... Ne5 $3 {The point; f3 is indefensible by normal means.} 22. Rd3 Bh3+
23. Kh1 Bxf1 24. f4 $2 ({But White will end up far behind in material after} 
24. Rc3 cxd6 {.}) 24... Rh5+ 25. Kg1 Bxd3 26. Qd1 Bg6 {It's all over now.
Black will end up with a decisive material advantage and an ongoing attack.}
27. fxe5 cxd6 {, and Black went on to win, Slavina-I.Rajlich, Budapest 2005.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.12 4...Bd6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. c4 ({Instead: -- (a)} 5. Nc3 {
is rare, because} c6 {restricts White's knight (probably he would prefer to
set up with Bd3 and Nge2 in this case),} ({and} 5... Ne7 {is also fine, because
} 6. Nb5 {and capturing on d6 gives Black a nice lead in development in a
position where knights are about as good as bishops.})) ({(b)} 5. Bd3 Ne7 (5...
Nc6 {might transpose to 4 Bd3 lines; i.e. if White plays c3}) 6. O-O Bg4 ({
or again} 6... Nbc6) 7. Bg5 (7. h3 Bh5 8. c4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. g4 Bg6 11.
Ne5 c5 $5 ({here} 11... Nbc6 {would have been more confrontational}) 12. Nxg6
Nxg6 13. dxc5 Bxc5 14. Qxd8 Rxd8 15. Bg5 Rd7 $11 {
Thesing-Knaak, German League 1992}) ({; instead,} 7. Re1 Nbc6 8. c3 {
transposes to the main line of 4 Bd3 in 12.2}) 7... Nbc6 8. c3 Qd7 9. Nbd2 f6
10. Bh4 h5 11. b4 Nd8 {, Mokcsay-L.Portisch, Zalakaros 1991; Black's coming
kingside pawn storm in this type of position will be seen again under 4 Bd3;} (
{or} 11... O-O-O {.})) {After 5 c4, we look at two moves:} 5... -- ({12.121} 
5... c6) ({12.122} 5... Nf6) ({But not} 5... Ne7 $4 6. c5 $1 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.121 5...c6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. c4 c6 {. This is a solid if
relatively dull line. 5...c6 has the advantage of reserving a later ...Ne7,
when in the event of cxd5, Black's knight on e7 will arguably be better placed
than White's on f3.} 6. Nc3 (6. cxd5 cxd5 7. Nc3 (7. Bd3 Ne7 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4
Qb6 $1 $11 {Holubcik-Vavrak, Tatranske Zruby 2000}) ({, and here} 7. Bg5 f6 $1
{only helps Black}) 7... Ne7 {
transposes below (see 7 cxd5 cxd5 in the main line).}) 6... Ne7 (6... Nf6 {
isn't bad, and often arises from 5...Nf6 6 Nc3 c6. In Kramnik-J.Polgar,
Novgorod 1996, Black played a fascinating gambit:} 7. Bg5 {
(trying to get Black to play ...dxc4 without losing a tempo by Bd3 or Be2)} (7.
c5 {can be answered by the aggressive} Bc7 {
, maintaining an eye on the kingside, which is probably best;} ({
or by the patient} 7... Be7 {
, after which Black will almost always play 8...b6; e.g.} 8. Bd3 b6 9. cxb6
axb6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bf4 Ba6 12. Ne5 Qc8 13. Re1 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Re8 15. Rac1
Nbd7 $11)) 7... O-O $1 8. cxd5 h6 $1 {. Now White faces a choice:} 9. -- ({
. Kramnik suggests} 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Be2 Rd8 11. dxc6 (11. O-O cxd5 $11 12.
Nxd5 $6 Bxh2+ 13. Kxh2 Rxd5 14. Rc1 Nc6 $15 {with the ideas ...Bg4 and ...Qd6+}
) 11... Nxc6 12. O-O {. But then Black has} Nxd4 $1 13. Nxd4 (13. Qxd4 Bxh2+)
13... Be5 {with an edge; e.g.} 14. Qb3 Rxd4 ({or} 14... Bxd4 15. Bc4 Be6 16.
Bxe6 Qxe6 17. Qxe6 fxe6 18. Rfe1 Bxc3 19. bxc3 Kf7) 15. Bc4 Bd7 16. Rad1 Bc6
17. Nd5 Qd6 18. Rxd4 $1 Bxd4 19. Nb4 Qf6 20. Nxc6 bxc6 $15 {, which will
undoubtedly be drawn with good play, but Black has what chances there are.}) ({
. The game went} 9. Bh4 Qb6 $5 (9... Re8+ 10. Be2 g5 11. Bg3 cxd5 12. O-O Nc6)
10. Qd2 $6 (10. Bxf6 Qxb2 11. Rc1 Bb4 12. Qd2 Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 gxf6 14. Bc4 Rd8 {
is still in Black's favour}) 10... Nxd5 (10... Re8+ $5 11. Be2 Ne4 $1 12. Nxe4
Rxe4 13. O-O Bg4 {threatens the bishop on h4, and} 14. Bg3 Bxg3 15. hxg3 cxd5 {
is somewhat to Black's advantage as well}) 11. Bg3 Bxg3 12. hxg3 Bg4 13. Bd3
Re8+ 14. Kf1 Nd7 15. Nxd5 cxd5 16. Rh4 {, and here} h5 $1 {
maintains some pressure} (16... Be6 {'!'} 17. Re1 Nf8 {with equality - Kramnik}
) {; e.g.} 17. Nh2 (17. a4 g6) 17... Nf6 18. Nxg4 Nxg4 19. Rxh5 g6 20. Rh4 Qxd4
$15 {.})) 7. Bd3 ({Others: -- (a)} 7. Be2 {might transpose after} dxc4 ({
though Black might also simply develop by} 7... O-O {
and ...Bf5, in view of the passivity of White's bishop}) 8. Bxc4 {.}) ({(b)} 7.
cxd5 cxd5 {yields a static central pawn structure where knights are at least
the equal of bishops. Thus White is ill-motivated to waste two tempi to win
the d6-bishop by} 8. Nb5 $6 O-O (8... Nbc6) 9. Nxd6 Qxd6 10. Be2 Bg4 ({or} 
10... Nbc6 11. O-O Re8 $11) 11. O-O Nbc6 {(aiming for ...Nf5)} 12. h3 Bh5 13.
b3 $5 (13. Be3 Nf5 14. Qd2 Rae8 $15) (13. g4 Bg6 14. Nh4 Rae8 $15 {
intending ...f5}) 13... Rfe8 14. Bb2 $2 (14. Re1) 14... Ng6 $1 {(a knight on
f4 spells trouble, and ...Rxe2 and/or ...Nh4 are potential threats)} 15. g4 (
15. g3 Qe6 $1) (15. Bc1 Rxe2 $1) 15... Nf4 16. Ne5 Bg6 17. Bf3 Nxh3+ 18. Kh1
Be4 $19 {M.Johansson-Renman, Swedish Ch. 1980.}) ({(c)} 7. c5 {isn't bad, but
lacks impact because it releases the pressure on the centre; e.g.} Bc7 8. Bd3 (
8. Bg5 f6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Bd3 Bf5 $11) 8... O-O (8... Bf5 {
is the more common move order, to force the kind of position that arises next})
9. O-O h6 ({again} 9... Bf5 {is normal, but this isn't bad}) 10. h3 (10. Qc2
Ng6 $1 $11 11. Bxg6 fxg6 12. Qxg6 Bf5 13. Qh5 Nd7 {with obvious compensation})
10... Bf5 11. Re1 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 Nd7 13. Nh4 $5 {(versus ...Ng6)} Re8 14. Bd2
Nf8 $1 15. b4 Qd7 16. a4 Nfg6 (16... Ne6) 17. Nxg6 Nxg6 $11 {
George-Hutchings, England 1986.}) 7... dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O 9. O-O Nd7 {
After Black gets ...Nb6 in, the game can fairly be assessed as equal.} 10. Re1
{Naturally there are alternatives to this routine move.} ({(a)} 10. Bg5 Nb6 11.
Bb3 Kh8 (11... Bg4 $5 {has a similar idea; e.g.} 12. h3 Bh5 13. g4 Bg6 14. Ne5
Kh8 $1 {intending ...f6}) 12. Bxe7 (12. Qd2 f6 13. Bf4 Bxf4 14. Qxf4 Nbd5 $11)
12... Qxe7 13. Re1 Qc7 14. Qd3 f6 15. d5 (15. Bc2 g6) (15. Ne4 Bf5 16. Qc3 Rad8
) 15... Bg4 16. h3 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 cxd5 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bxd5 Rae8 $11 {.}) ({
(b)} 10. Ne4 $5 Nb6 11. Bb3 Bf5 (11... Bg4 12. h3 Bh5) 12. Ng3 ({
White gets nothing out of} 12. Nxd6 Qxd6 13. Re1 Rae8 $5 14. Bg5 Ned5) 12...
Bg6 13. Bg5 Qc7 $11 {Roitzsch-A.Graf, Dresden (rapid) 2010.}) ({(c)} 10. h3 {
(to prevent ...Bg4 after ...Nb6)} Nb6 11. Bb3 Ned5 12. Re1 Re8 13. Bg5 Rxe1+
14. Qxe1 Qf8 $11 {, aiming for ...Be6 or ...Bf5 and ...Re8.}) 10... Nb6 11. Bb3
Nbd5 (11... Ned5 12. Bg5 f6 13. Bh4 Re8 14. Bg3 Bxg3 15. hxg3 Be6 16. Qd2 {
½-½ Neubauer-Borges Mateos, Santa Clara 2002.}) 12. h3 Bf5 (12... Qb6 $5
13. Bc2 f6 {keeps things complicated.}) 13. Ne4 Bxe4 14. Rxe4 {
½-½ Leko-Varga, Budapest 1993.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.122 5...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. c4 Nf6 {
. A currently popular approach.} 6. Nc3 ({Others: -- (a)} 6. c5 Be7 7. Bd3 b6
$1 8. cxb6 (8. b4 $2 a5 9. cxb6 axb4 10. bxc7 Qxc7 $15) 8... axb6 9. O-O O-O
10. Bg5 (10. Nc3 c5 $11) 10... c5 $5 {
, Zatonskih-Savchenko, Helsingor 2011; and White should play} 11. Nc3 ({
instead of} 11. b3 $2 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. Bg3 Ne4 $1 $15) 11... Nc6 $5 (11... Bb7
$11) 12. dxc5 (12. Bb5 Bb7 13. dxc5 $6 bxc5 {, having in mind} 14. Bxf6 Bxf6
15. Qxd5 Qb6 $1) 12... bxc5 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Nxd5 Bxb2 15. Rb1 Bd4 {
, when Black stands better due to the d4 outpost.}) ({(b)} 6. Bg5 O-O $1 7.
cxd5 (7. c5 $6 Be7 {followed by ...b6 already favours Black}) 7... h6 8. Bxf6
Qxf6 {is at least equal; compare what follows, as well as the Kramnik-Polgar
game in the previous section (with 5...c6 6 Nc3 Nf6 7 Bg5 0-0!).}) 6... O-O $1
(6... c6 {transposes to 5...c6 6 Nc3 Nf6 (in the notes to 12.121)}) ({and} 6...
dxc4 7. Bxc4 O-O 8. O-O {, while not conventional (White's bishop came out in
one jump), is still perfectly playable because of the aggressive bishop on d6
(compare 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 Bxc4 Bd6, a fairly common line among strong players); e.g.} Nc6 {(planning ...Bg4)} 9. h3 h6 $5 (9... Bf5) 10. a3 (10. Qc2 $5 Nb4 $5 ({
several grandmasters have employed the move} 10... Na5 {as well}) 11. Qb1 c6
12. a3 Nbd5 {intending ...Be6}) ({; or} 10. Re1 Re8 11. Rxe8+ Qxe8 12. Nb5 Qe4
$5 13. Qb3 Na5 14. Bxf7+ Kf8 15. Qc3 Kxf7 16. Nxd6+ $6 cxd6 17. Qxa5 Bxh3 $1
18. Qc7+ Kg8 19. Qxd6 Bg4 $15 {Moskalenko-Navara, Catalonian Team Ch. 2011})
10... Bf5 $11 11. b4 a6 12. Bb2 Re8 13. Ne2 $6 Be4 $5 (13... Qd7) 14. Ng3 (14.
Nc3 $1 Bf5 {repeats}) 14... Bd5 15. Bxd5 Nxd5 16. Nf5 {, Andrijevic-Ulibin,
Paracin 2011; and Black stands better in any case due to his powerful outpost
and White's horrendous bishop, but} Qd7 $1 17. Nxd6 cxd6 $1 {
would keep White's knight out of e5.}) 7. cxd5 ({Not} 7. Nxd5 Nxd5 8. cxd5 Bb4+
9. Bd2 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 Qxd5 {; in general, White doesn't want to exchange
pieces, especially his c1-bishop, in an isolated pawn position.}) ({As usual,} 
7. c5 Be7 {releases the pressure on d5, and White still doesn't have a
convenient way of preparing an answer to ...b6 that doesn't compel the reply
cxb6 and thus allow easy equality; e.g.} 8. Be2 b6 9. cxb6 axb6 10. O-O c5 {.})
7... Nbd7 (7... Re8+ {is not unplayable, but it's nice to get moves like ...Nbd7-b6 and/or ...h6 in quickly so as to recover the pawn.}) 8. Be2 ({
Alternatively: -- (a)} 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 Nb6 ({or} 9... Re8+) 10. Be2 Be7 ({
or Black can try} 10... g5 11. Bg3 Nbxd5 12. O-O Be6 $11) 11. O-O Nfxd5 $11 {.}
) ({(b)} 8. Bc4 Re8+ 9. Be3 Ng4 $5 (9... Nb6 10. Bb3 Ng4) 10. O-O Nxe3 (10...
Rxe3 $5) 11. fxe3 Rxe3 12. Qd2 Re8 {
is unclear; naturally, both sides have options.}) 8... h6 {Having omitted ...Re8, Black gets to the d-pawn in time and can afford this tempo to prevent Bg5.
} ({Nevertheless, allowing Bg5 works, too:} 8... Nb6 9. Bg5 (9. Qb3 $6 Nbxd5
10. Nxd5 Nxd5) 9... h6 10. Bxf6 (10. Bh4 {transposes to the previous note})
10... Qxf6 11. O-O {. White stays a pawn ahead, but it's an isolated doubled
d-pawn and Black has the bishops, so probably this is about equal. There might
follow} Bf5 12. Re1 Rae8 13. Qd2 Bg6 $5 (13... Bg4) 14. Bd3 Bf4 ({or} 14... Bh5
{with the idea} 15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Rxe5 17. Rxe5 Qxe5 18. Re1 Qd6) 15. Qc2
Bh5 16. Be4 (16. Ne5 Bxe5 17. dxe5 Rxe5 $11) 16... Bxf3 17. Bxf3 Qxd4 {
with no serious problems.}) 9. O-O Nb6 10. Ne5 Nfxd5 11. Nxd5 (11. Bd3 {
has ideas of Bb1 and Qd3. Then} c5 $1 {counters in the centre; e.g.} 12. Bc2
cxd4 13. Qd3 Nf6 14. Qxd4 Bc7 $11 {.}) 11... Nxd5 12. Bc4 Nb6 $5 {
This can't be too bad, but it does decentralize;} ({so I prefer} 12... c6 $1 {
with complete equality. After ...Be6, White will be hard-pressed to create any
pressure.}) 13. Bb3 Qf6 14. Re1 Be6 $5 (14... a5 {, with the idea} 15. a4 Be6 {
, probably helps Black in what follows:}) 15. Bc2 Bf5 16. Ng4 $1 Bxg4 $5 {
White gets a little something after this.} ({Instead,} 16... Qg6 $1 17. Bxf5
Qxf5 18. Bxh6 $1 Rae8 {gives sufficient compensation for the pawn; e.g.} 19. h3
Rxe1+ 20. Qxe1 Qd5 21. Qe3 $1 Nc4 22. Qc3 f5 23. Ne3 Nxe3 24. Bxe3 f4 25. Bd2
f3 26. Qb3 $1 Qxb3 27. axb3 a6 28. g3 Rf5 $1 {
intending ...Rb5 and/or bringing to king into the centre.}) 17. Qxg4 Rfe8 18.
Bd2 {, Bologan-Socko, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.} ({Here Black could play with only
a minimal disadvantage by taking the outpost with} 18. Bd2 Nd5 {; e.g.} 19. Re4
Bb4 20. Rae1 Rf8 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.2 4 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bd3 {. Through most of the last century,
this was the main move in the Exchange Variation, in some periods played more
than seven times as much as 4 Nf3; but today the latter move is somewhat more
common.} ({An old semi-arranged draw used to continue} 4. Bd3 Bd6 {or something
similar, with the handshake in a few moves. As explained in previous editions,
it's easy to break the symmetry at an early stage, and grandmasters use a
variety of ideas to do so. My selection of lines in this 4 Bd3 section is
mostly unchanged from earlier editions, and their theory has changed around
the edges rather than in a substantial way. Still, I have revised my view of
one of my favourite subvariations; sometimes the computers give you no leeway!}
) 4... Nc6 ({As far as I can tell, the dynamic move} 4... c5 {
is still holding its own}) ({and of course} 4... Nf6) ({and} 4... Bd6 {
can't be bad; but for reasons of space I'll limit myself to one system.}) 5. c3
({Others: -- (a)} 5. Ne2 {
is natural and can't be bad, but Black can play aggressively by} Bg4 ({or} 5...
Bd6 {, of course}) {, when White's two most common moves are:} 6. -- (6. c3 Bd6
$5 7. Qb3 (7. f3 Bh5 {transposes to 6 f3}) 7... Nge7 {and:} 8. -- (8. Qxb7 Rb8
9. Qa6 O-O 10. O-O Rb6 {with a kingside attack is fine;} ({
or Black can play the clever} 10... Bd7 $1 {, threatening 11...Rb6 12 Qa4 Ne5,
which White has serious trouble meeting. Then} 11. Bc2 {may be best, but} Nb4
$1 12. cxb4 Bb5 13. Qa3 Bxe2 14. Qh3 $1 h5 $1 15. Re1 Bg4 {
still leaves Black with more active pieces.})) ({. If White plays} 8. O-O {
, then} O-O {is simplest;} ({but a more aggressive approach was} 8... Qd7 $5 9.
Re1 $5 O-O-O 10. Nd2 h5 11. Nf1 h4 12. Qc2 h3 13. g3 {
, J.Eriksson-B.Lindberg, Stockholm 2008; here} Rde8 14. b4 Bf5 {
is the easiest way to equality and perhaps a bit more.})) (8. Na3 $5 a6 9. f3
Bf5 10. Bxf5 Nxf5 11. O-O O-O 12. Nf4 (12. Qc2 Qf6 $17 {
Lau-Watson, Philadelphia 1978}) 12... Re8 $5 13. Qxb7 Ncxd4 $1 14. cxd4 Nxd4 {
, when ...c6 as well as ...Bxf4 is threatened, while} 15. Qxd5 $1 Bxf4 16. Qxd8
Ne2+ 17. Kh1 Raxd8 18. Bxf4 Nxf4 {still leaves White with the tougher task.}))
(6. f3 Bh5 7. c3 (7. Nf4 Bg6) (7. Ng3 Qh4 8. Qe2+ Nge7 9. c3 Bg6 $11) 7... Bd6
8. Bf4 (8. O-O Qf6 $5 ({or} 8... Bg6 9. f4 $5 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Qd7 11. Qb5 Nf6 12.
Qxb7 Rb8 13. Qa6 O-O 14. Nd2 Ne7 $1 {with compensation})) 8... Nge7 (8... Bg6)
9. O-O (9. Qc2 Bg6 10. O-O Qd7 11. Nd2 O-O-O $5 {with dynamic equality}) 9...
Bg6 10. Bxd6 Qxd6 11. f4 $5 (11. Ng3 h5 $1 12. Bxg6 Qxg6 $15) 11... Qe6 $1 (
11... Bxd3 12. Qxd3 O-O-O 13. Nd2 g6 14. b4 Rde8 {
, Ljubisavljevic-Lenz, Celle Ligure 1997; and} 15. Rae1 ({instead of} 15. a4 $2
Nf5) 15... Nf5 16. Ng3 Nce7 17. Nb3 {would be about equal}) 12. Rf3 Nf5 (12...
Be4 $1 $15) 13. Kf2 $6 (13. Ng3 O-O-O) 13... Nd6 14. Re3 Be4 15. Ng3 f5 $15 {
Sollid-J.Watson, Gausdal 1981.})) ({(b) A particularly mischievous move is} 5.
Bb5 $5 {, which transposes into a Winawer with colours reversed (White has
wasted a tempo on the intermediate Bd3)! I don't know how many players this
has occurred to, but my entire database has only one actual example. As we
show in the section on 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 exd5 exd5, the resulting position is
objectively equal, with chances for both sides (see 7.6).}) ({(c)} 5. Nf3 Bd6 (
5... Bg4 {tries to force things more: then} 6. c3 Bd6 {
transposes to the main line,} ({and here} 6... Qf6 {has been played}) ({
; finally, an accelerated queenside castling plan is} 6... Qd7 7. O-O O-O-O {
, when White knows where his target is sooner, but Black has leeway where to
put his pieces})) 6. O-O Nge7 ({here} 6... Bg4 {and} 7. c3 ({or} 7. Re1+ Nge7
8. c3 {transposes to the main line})) 7. c4 ({otherwise} 7. Re1 Bg4 8. c3 {
is the main line again}) 7... dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O 9. h3 {
, J.Polgar-V.Kramnik, Dos Hermanas 1997; and an active alternative is} Nf5 $1 (
{threatening captures on d4 and ...Bh2+; while Kramnik's} 9... Be6 $5 10. Bxe6
fxe6 {was roughly equal}) 10. d5 (10. Be3 Qf6 11. Nc3 Bd7 $11 {
intending ...Rae8}) 10... Ne5 11. Nxe5 Bxe5 12. Nd2 Re8 13. Re1 (13. Nf3 Bf6)
13... h6 14. Nf3 Bf6 15. Rxe8+ Qxe8 {with the ideas ...Qe4 and ...b6 (or ...b5)
and ...Bb7 and pressure on the weak d5-pawn.}) 5... Bd6 6. Nf3 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 6. Ne2 {- the slightly asymmetric placement of pieces here
creates all sorts of interesting play. Then} Bg4 {
transposes to 5 Ne2 Bg4 6 c3 Bd6!? above. --- Others:} (6... Qh4 $5 {is an ingenious move played by Alekhine and repeated in several hundred games since with
a small performance rating edge for Black. I strongly recommended it in
previous editions. Predictably, the computers are good at finding ways to
neutralize the more dynamic variations, but the play is still complex and this
is a good practical line:} 7. -- (7. g3 Qh5 8. Bf4 (8. Nf4 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Nf6
10. Re1+ Ne7 $11 {Apsenieks-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1939}) (8. O-O Bg4
9. Qb3 O-O-O 10. Nf4 Bxf4 11. Bxf4 g5 12. Be3 f5 $1 {having in mind 13...f4!,
or otherwise some combination of ...Bh3/...Qmoves/...h5-h4}) 8... Bg4 (8...
Bxf4 9. Nxf4 Qxd1+ 10. Kxd1 Bg4+ $11 {McDonald}) 9. Bxd6 cxd6 10. Qb3 $5 (10.
Nd2 {intending 0-0 and f3 equalizes}) 10... O-O-O 11. Nf4 Re8+ 12. Kd2 Qh6 $1 {
(intending ...Nf6-h5)} 13. Kc2 $1 (13. Qxd5 Nf6 14. Qb5 a6 15. Qc4 Bf3 $17) (
13. Na3 Nf6 $1 {and} 14. Kc2 ({or} 14. h4 $2 Nh5) 14... g5 15. Ng2 Be2 $1)
13... Kb8 14. Nd2 Rc8 15. Qa4 $1 Nf6 16. Rae1 g5 17. Ng2 Bd7 {
, with slightly the better of it in an interesting position.}) (7. Ng3 Nge7 (
7... Nf6) ({; or} 7... Nh6 $5 8. Bxh6 $6 Qxh6 9. O-O Ne7 $15 {
Westerinen-Kavalek, Solingen 1986}) 8. Nd2 Bg4 $5 (8... Qf6 9. O-O h5) 9. Nf3
Qf6 10. Be2 Qg6 11. O-O h5 12. h3 Bxh3 13. gxh3 h4 14. Nxh4 Rxh4 15. Bg4 Rh8
$11 {.}) (7. Nd2 Bg4 8. Qb3 (8. Qc2 {is well answered by} O-O-O) 8... O-O-O $6
({in Rathnakaran-Ganguly, Chennai 2008, Black chose the more promising} 8...
Nge7 $1 9. Nf1 O-O-O 10. Ne3 Be6 11. Bd2 Rhe8 12. O-O-O Kb8 $15) 9. Qxd5 Nf6 {
(Alekhine). He calls this clearly better for Black, but again, the computer
spoils things by} 10. Nf3 $1 Qxf2+ 11. Kxf2 Nxd5 12. Ng3 {
with an unclear position.})) ({. Alekhine also suggested} 6... Qf6 {, when} 7.
O-O {is most easily met by} Bf5 $11 ({and more ambitiously by} 7... Nge7 $5 8.
Ng3 $5 {(versus ...Bf5)} h5 9. h3 $1 g6 10. Re1 Bd7 $11 {and ...0-0-0.})) (6...
Nf6 {is simplest and retains plenty of positive chances; for instance,} 7. Bf4
(7. O-O O-O 8. Nd2 Ne7 $5 9. Qc2 Re8 10. Nf3 Bf5 $1 $11) (7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 O-O
9. Nd2 Re8 10. Qc2 {, Kirnos-Savchenko, Alushta 1998; and} Qe7 $1 {
wins the bishop pair if White plays} 11. Bxf6 ({avoiding the risky} 11. O-O-O
Rb8 $1 {and ...b5}) ({, or} 11. O-O $2 Bxh2+ $1 12. Kxh2 Ng4+) 11... Qxf6) 7...
O-O 8. Bxd6 (8. O-O Re8 9. Bg3 Bg4 $1) 8... Qxd6 9. O-O Ng4 $5 10. Ng3 f5 11.
h3 f4 $1 12. Nf5 (12. Ne2 $1 f3 13. hxg4 Bxg4 $1 14. Ng3 fxg2 15. Qxg4 gxf1=Q+
16. Nxf1 Rf4 $1) {, Mann-Arkhipov, Kecskemet 1990;} 12... Nxf2 $1 13. Nxd6 Nxd1
14. Rxd1 cxd6 $15 {.})) ({(b)} 6. Qf3 {has been used quite a bit. It attacks
d5 and covers f5, creating a further imbalance without risking much. Black has
several reasonable replies:} -- (6... Nce7 {
, as played by a number of grandmasters, is a subtle move, when} 7. Bf4 (7. Ne2
{is normally met by} c6 ({but} 7... h6 {, intending ...Nf6}) ({, and even} 7...
Nf6 $5 {with the idea} 8. Bg5 Bg4 {are fine})) 7... Nf6 8. Ne2 $6 Bg4 9. Qg3
Bxe2 $1 10. Bxe2 Bxf4 11. Qxf4 O-O {leaves White's development lagging:} 12.
Bd3 $6 (12. O-O Ng6 13. Qf5 Re8) 12... Ng6 13. Bxg6 Re8+ 14. Kd1 hxg6 $15 {
Lazic-Kosten, Varallo 1991.}) (6... Be6 7. Ne2 Qd7 (7... Qf6 $11) 8. Bf4 O-O-O
9. Bxd6 Qxd6 10. Qg3 Nge7 11. Qxd6 Rxd6 12. Nd2 Bf5 13. Bxf5+ Nxf5 14. Nf3 Re8
15. Kd2 $11 {Saidov-Volkov, Tashkent 2009.}) (6... Nf6 $5 7. Bg5 (7. h3 Ne4 $1
8. Ne2 O-O $1 9. O-O ({here} 9. Bxe4 $6 dxe4 10. Qxe4 Re8 11. Qf3 Be6 $1 {
gives Black too much play}) 9... f5 $11) 7... Bg4 8. Qxg4 $1 (8. Qe3+ Kd7 $1 9.
Ne2 h6 10. Bh4 Re8 11. Qd2 Ne4 $1) 8... Nxg4 9. Bxd8 Nxd8 ({or} 9... Rxd8 10.
Nf3 O-O $11) 10. Nf3 (10. h3 Nf6 11. Nd2 Ne6 12. Ne2 O-O 13. O-O Rfe8 14. Rfe1
Re7 15. g3 Rae8 {is obviously playable for White but not terribly attractive,
Bukavshin-Meier, Neustadt 2008}) 10... g6 11. O-O Ne6 12. h3 Nf6 13. Re1 O-O
14. Nbd2 Rfe8 $11 {A.Larsson-Hillarp Persson, Swedish Team Ch. 2001.})) 6...
Bg4 (6... Nge7 {tends to transpose: after} 7. O-O {,} Bg4 {
followed in 27 of 30 top-rated games.}) 7. O-O (7. h3 $6 Bh5 {has scored miserably for White; all he's done is weaken his kingside and bring Black one move
closer to the desirable move ...Bg6.}) 7... Nge7 {One of the positions most
frequently reached in the Exchange French. White can develop smoothly by Re1
and perhaps Bg5 with Nbd2, whereas if Black brings his king to the queenside,
he has the ready-made attack b4-b5 and/or Nb3-c5. For his part, Black has an
easy and safe equality by continuing ...0-0 and arranging an exchange of
White's good light-squared bishop. Alternatively, he can play ...0-0-0 and
hurl his kingside pawns at White's king, although that naturally involves some
risk.} (7... Qd7 {is also popular, and again may well transpose after ...Nge7.
One point of the move is that Black prepares the option of ...0-0-0, but he
also needs to protect the bishop on g4 if he is to play ...Nge7 and ...0-0,
for fear of White's Bxh7+. Finally, the queen supports the move ...Bf5 if it
proves desirable later.}) 8. Re1 {I think that this is best.} ({Instead: -- (a)
} 8. Bg5 {is extremely common in practice but arguably inferior because ...f6
helps Black's kingside attack:} Qd7 ({or} 8... f6 {
, almost invariably transposing}) 9. Nbd2 f6 ({or} 9... O-O-O {
with ...f6 next; or} 10. Bh4 Rde8 11. Bg3 Ng6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 {
, as in Zozulia-Antic, Corinth 2002}) {, and now:} 10. -- ({. White plays} 10.
Bh4 $6 {most often (by a wide margin), but after} O-O-O {
, the idea ...Nf5 and ...g5, ...h5-h4 is very dangerous; for example,} 11. b4
Nf5 12. Bg3 Nxg3 {
(Black has scored overwhelmingly after 10...0-0-0, and 90%+ from this position)
} 13. hxg3 (13. fxg3 Rde8) 13... Ne7 14. Re1 h5 15. Qb3 h4 16. gxh4 Nf5 17. g3
Nxg3 $1 18. fxg3 Bxg3 19. Re2 Bxh4 20. Rg2 Qe7 21. Rxg4 Qe3+ 22. Kg2 Qf2+ {
0-1 Sotnikov-Stepanov, Tula 2010.}) (10. Be3 O-O-O $5 (10... Bf5) ({, and} 
10... O-O 11. Qc2 Bf5 {are equal}) 11. b4 (11. Qa4 Kb8 12. b4 $2 Bxf3 13. Nxf3
Nxd4 $17 {Trzaska-Köpf, German League 1988}) (11. c4 dxc4 $1 12. Nxc4 Kb8 13.
Nxd6 Qxd6 $15) {, and Black can develop smoothly by} 11... Rde8 ({or by} 11...
Nf5) 12. b5 Nd8 (12... Na5 $1 {
makes it difficult for White to attack on the queenside}) 13. c4 $5 dxc4 14.
Nxc4 Nd5 15. Rc1 Kb8 16. Be2 h5 17. Kh1 g5 $1 {
(Black has achieved his ideal position)} 18. a4 Bf4 19. Qd2 Re7 $5 20. Bxf4
Nxf4 21. Bd1 $2 {, E.Shein-Haimovich, Israeli Team Ch. 2000; and here} Nxg2 $1
{was easiest, intending} 22. Kxg2 Bh3+ {.})) ({(b)} 8. h3 $5 {
("inaccurate" - Psakhis)} Bh5 9. Re1 Qd7 10. Nbd2 O-O-O 11. Nf1 (11. Qc2 $5
Rde8 12. b4 Bg6 13. Nb3 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Qf5 $11) (11. b4 Rde8) 11... f6 12. Ng3
Bg6 13. Qc2 (13. Bf1 Rhe8 14. b4 Bxg3 15. fxg3 Nf5 16. Bf4 Nd6) 13... Bxd3 14.
Qxd3 h5 $1 15. Nh4 g5 $1 (15... Bxg3 16. fxg3 Rhe8 $11) 16. Nhf5 (16. Ng6 Rh6
17. Nxe7+ Nxe7 18. h4 Rg8 {with a promising attack}) 16... Bxg3 17. Nxe7+ Nxe7
18. fxg3 Nf5 19. Rf1 Nd6 20. Rxf6 Ne4 $15 {.}) 8... Qd7 9. Nbd2 O-O-O {
An all-out move, speculative but fun for the attacker. When 8 Bg5 f6 is
interpolated, Black's attack is very fast, but after 8 Re1 it's not as clear.}
({Objectively, then,} 9... O-O {
is the safer and surer solution, used by many strong players. For example:} 10.
-- (10. Nf1 Bf5 (10... h6 11. Ng3 f5 $1 12. h3 f4 13. Nf1 Bf5 $11 {
Thesing-D.King, German League 1998}) 11. Ng3 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 Bxg3 $5 (12... Rae8
$11) 13. hxg3 Rae8 14. b3 Nc8 15. Bf4 f6 16. c4 N6e7 (16... g5 17. Bd2 dxc4 18.
Qxc4+ Qf7) 17. Nd2 c6 18. Nf1 Ng6 19. Bd2 Rxe1 20. Rxe1 Rd8 21. c5 {
½-½ Slobodjan-T.Luther, Schoeneck 1996.}) (10. Qc2 Ng6 (10... Bf5 11. Nf1
Bxd3 12. Qxd3 Nf5 13. Bg5 f6 14. Bh4 Nce7 15. Bg3 Rae8 $11) 11. h3 $6 Bxh3 $1
12. gxh3 Qxh3 13. Bf5 (13. Bf1 Qg4+ 14. Kh1 Rae8 $17) 13... Qh5 14. Re3 {
, Stoma-Bugajski, Warsaw 2005; and} Nce7 ({or} 14... Bf4) 15. Bd3 Bf4 {
will win the exchange.}) (10. b4 Ng6 (10... f6 11. Qc2 Bf5 12. Nb3 Rae8 $11)
11. Nb3 b6 12. Be2 Rfe8 13. b5 Nd8 14. a4 Ne6 $15 15. Ne5 $2 Bxe2 16. Qxe2 Nxe5
17. dxe5 Bxe5 $17 {K.Lee-Murshed, Guangzhou 2010.})) 10. b4 ({The logical} 10.
Nf1 {
frees the bishop on c1, protects White's kingside, and prepares Ne3 or Ng3:} f6
11. h3 Bf5 ({or} 11... Bh5 {, transposing to 8 h3 above}) 12. Ne3 Bxd3 13. Qxd3
g5 $5 (13... Kb8 14. b4 Rde8 {is level, with the idea} 15. b5 Na5 $1) 14. Ng4 (
{perhaps a pawn race with} 14. b4 $5 {
will serve White better; a sample line would be} Kb8 ({
or Black could venture upon} 14... h5 {right away}) 15. a4 h5 16. a5 Rdg8 17.
b5 Nd8 {with complications}) 14... Ng8 15. Ne3 Nge7 16. Ng4 Ng8 17. Ne3 Nce7 $1
{(avoiding the draw)} 18. c4 dxc4 19. Qxc4 {
. Now in M.R.Savic-Ulibin, Paracin 2011, Black played} Nh6 {,} ({but} 19... h5
{was a bit more direct; e.g.} 20. d5 $1 (20. b4 $6 g4 21. Nh4 gxh3) (20. h4
gxh4 $5 21. Nxh4 Nh6 {and Black's attack is further along}) 20... g4 21. hxg4
hxg4 22. Qxg4 Qxg4 23. Nxg4 Nxd5 $11 {, with chances to play for a win.}))
10... Rde8 {This is less to win the e-file than to free d8 for a knight
retreat; from that square, the centralizing move ...Ne6 is possible.} ({
I previously recommended} 10... Ng6 {, which has been much more common and
extremely successful, but I find White establishing a small advantage after
the simple but hardly ever played} 11. h3 $1 {with the idea} Bh5 $6 (11... Bf5
12. Nb3) (11... Nf4 12. Bf1) 12. b5 Nce7 13. Qa4 Kb8 14. Ne5 $1 {.}) 11. b5 (
11. Nb3 {is the main alternative:} Ng6 ({or} 11... Nf5 {; e.g.} 12. Be2 Qe7 $5
13. Bd2 Nh4 14. h3 Nxg2 $5 15. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 16. Kxh3 $4 Qe6+ 17. Kg2 Qg4+ 18. Kh1
Qh3+ 19. Kg1 Re6 {0-1 H.Hoffmann-Hofstetter, corr 1998}) 12. Be3 (12. Rxe8+
Rxe8 13. Nc5 $4 Bxc5 14. bxc5 Nh4 {
and Black was winning in Tipu-Psakhis, Toronto 1997}) 12... Nh4 13. Be2 Nf5 14.
Bd2 Rxe2 $1 15. Qxe2 Nh4 16. b5 Nd8 17. Ne5 Bxe2 18. Nxd7 Bxb5 19. Ne5 f6 20.
Ng4 Nf5 21. Ne3 {½-½ Carrabeo Garcia-Matamoros Franco, Coria del Rio 2005.}
) 11... Nd8 12. Qa4 (12. c4 dxc4 13. Nxc4 Nd5 14. Bd2 Rxe1+ 15. Bxe1 f6 {
is equal; e.g.} 16. a4 Nf4 17. a5 Kb8 18. b6 (18. Bf1 Nde6 19. a6 Ng5 $1) 18...
cxb6 19. axb6 a6 20. Bf1 (20. h3 Bh5 21. Bf1 Nde6) 20... Nc6 21. Bc3 Rd8 {.})
12... Kb8 13. Ba3 (13. c4 dxc4 14. Bxc4 Ng6 15. Ba3 Bxa3 16. Qxa3 {
, Asztalos-Peredy, Budapest 1996; and} Nf4 {was good enough,} ({but I think} 
16... f6 $11 {is best, protecting e5 and preparing ...Nf7-d6 in some lines.}))
13... f6 (13... Bxa3 14. Qxa3 f6 {is fully equal; e.g.} 15. Qb3 Ng6 16. a4 Nf4
17. Bf1 h5 {, Melnikova-Praveen Kumar, Kuala Lumpur 2010.}) ({After} 13... f6 {
, Kholmov-Psakhis, USSR 1984, continued} 14. Bxd6 Qxd6 15. Re3 Nc8 16. Rae1
Rxe3 17. Rxe3 Qd7 18. Qd1 g6 19. a4 Nf7 20. Nb3 b6 21. h3 Bxf3 22. Rxf3 f5 23.
c4 dxc4 24. Bxc4 Re8 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.3 4 c4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "8"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 {. This move has become one of White's
main options. It can transpose to 4 Nf3 and 5 c4, but also has independent
significance. I'll concentrate upon two solutions:} -- ({12.31} 4... Bb4+) ({
12.32} 4... Nf6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.31 4...Bb4+"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+ {
. This is a very sound move which at the same time limits White's options.} 5.
Nc3 (5. Bd2 {tends to be weak (or at best harmless) in such positions because,
in an isolated pawn position following ...Bxd2 and ...dxc4, the exchange of
bishops favours Black; e.g.} Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. cxd5 (8. Bd3 Re8+
9. Nge2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nc6) 8... Re8+ 9. Be2 Bg4 $1 {.}) {
After 5 Nc3 there is another fork in the road:} 5... -- ({12.311} 5... Ne7) ({
12.312} 5... Nf6) ({I'm not thrilled with} 5... Qe7+ $5 6. Be2 Bg4 {
, as in Okhotnik-Caruana, Arvier 2007, because the surprising} 7. Kf1 $1 Bxe2+
8. Ngxe2 dxc4 (8... Nf6 9. Bg5 $1) 9. Qa4+ c6 10. Nd5 $1 b5 11. Nxe7 bxa4 12.
Nf5 {, while playable for Black, is more comfortable for the first player.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.311 5...Ne7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Ne7 {
. Black avoids getting pinned by Bg5 and maintains great flexibility.} 6. Nf3 (
{Others: -- (a)} 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 O-O 8. Nf3 Nbc6 {
transposes to the main line.}) ({(b)} 6. Bd3 {prepares Nge2 (to avoid an
awkward pin by ...Bg4), but a knight is passively placed on e2 and Black may
even get slightly the better of it by} Nbc6 7. cxd5 (7. Nge2 dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O)
7... Nxd5 8. Nge2 Bg4 9. f3 Be6 {.}) 6... O-O (6... Bg4 $1 {will usually
transpose and pretty much amounts to the same thing. I actually prefer this
less commonly chosen order because it puts immediate pressure on the centre.
These useful early pins are characteristic of the Exchange French.} 7. -- (7.
Be2 {, when} Nbc6 ({otherwise} 7... dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O {
transposes to 7 Be2 etc in the main line}) 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4
Qd7 $5 (10... O-O 11. O-O Nd5 12. Bd2 Nb6 13. Be2 Na5 14. Re1 Nac4 15. Bf4 Re8)
11. O-O O-O-O {is an interesting alternative.}) (7. Qa4+ Nbc6 8. Ne5 Be6 $11 {.
}) (7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Nbc6 9. Bg5 (9. a4 Na5 10. cxd5 $1 O-O $1 $11 {
with the idea} 11. c4 $2 Re8) (9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bd2 Qe7+ 11. Qe2 Bxf3 12. Qxe7+
Ncxe7 13. gxf3 Ng6 $15) ({; while} 9. Bd3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 {
transposes to the previous note}) 9... O-O $1 10. Be2 (10. cxd5 Qxd5 {
threatens capture on f3, hitting the g5-bishop}) 10... f6 (10... Qd7 {
may be more accurate:} 11. O-O dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd5 {intending ...Na5, ...b5 etc})
11. Bd2 Na5 $11 {
. Black's control of the light squares compensates for the bishop pair:} 12.
cxd5 ({if} 12. c5 {, then} b6 $1) 12... Qxd5 13. Rb1 (13. O-O Nc4 14. Re1 Rfe8
15. Rb1 b5 16. a4 a6) 13... Nc4 $1 {plans ...b5.})) 7. a3 $5 (7. Be2 dxc4 8.
Bxc4 Bg4 9. O-O Nbc6 {is a typical position in which Black has pressure on the
d-pawn and light squares. Several games have gone} 10. Be3 (10. a3 Ba5 11. Be3
Nf5 12. Re1 Qd6 $11) 10... Nf5 $5 (10... Rb8 $5 11. a3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Nd5 13.
Bd2 Na5 14. Ba2 b5 {and the light squares compensate for White's bishops}) 11.
Qd3 Nd6 12. Bd5 (12. Bg5 $5 Qc8 13. Bd5 Bf5 $5 14. Qd1 Re8 $11) 12... Bf5 13.
Qd1 (13. Qe2 Na5 14. Bg5 Qc8 15. Rfc1 Re8 16. Qf1 c6 17. a3 Bxc3 18. Rxc3 Be6
19. Bxe6 Qxe6 20. b4 Nac4 $15 {Ashley-Remlinger, New York 1994}) 13... Ne7 14.
Bb3 c6 15. Ne5 Kh8 16. Rc1 f6 17. Nd3 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Nd5 19. Nf4 Nxe3 20. fxe3
Qe8 $15 {Waitzkin-Shaked, Bermuda 1997.}) 7... Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Nbc6 9. Be2 (9.
Bd3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 {transposes.}) (9. c5 b6 $1 $15 {, since} 10. cxb6 axb6 {
gives Black the a-file and all the light squares, perhaps even with ...Ba6 next.
}) 9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 11. Bd2 $6 ({Not} 11. Bxd5 $6 Re8+ 12. Be3 Qxd5 13.
h3 $2 (13. O-O Bg4) 13... Qc4 $1 14. Qc2 b6 $17 {
H.Speck-T.Luther, Liechtenstein 1993.}) ({A better course is} 11. O-O $1 Nxc3
12. Qd3 Nd5 13. Re1 Qd6 14. Rb1 a6 {(versus Rb5)} 15. Ba2 Nce7 $11 {.}) ({After
} 11. Bd2 $6 {, Santo Roman-Shaked, Cannes 1997, continued} Re8+ 12. Be2 Qe7
$17 13. c4 Nb6 ({or} 13... Bf5 $1 {with the idea} 14. cxd5 $2 Bc2) 14. Be3 Bg4
15. O-O Rad8 16. d5 Bxf3 17. gxf3 Ne5 18. Qb3 Nbxc4 $1 19. Bxc4 Nxf3+ 20. Kg2
Qe4 $1 {with an overwhelming attack.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.312 5...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 ({Others: -- (a)} 
6. Bd3 {followed by Ne2 is no better than in the previous section; e.g.} Nc6 7.
Nge2 ({or} 7. cxd5 Nxd5 {- see 12.311}) 7... dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O $15 {.}) ({(b)} 
6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 O-O {
disturbs White's development because of checks on the e-file; e.g.} 8. Bd3 (8.
Nf3 Re8+ 9. Be2 Ne4 $1) 8... dxc4 9. Bxc4 Qe8+ $1 {
and White has difficulties in view of} 10. Ne2 (10. Be2 Qc6 11. Nf3 Ne4 $1) (
10. Qe2 $2 Qc6 11. Nf3 b5) (10. Kf1 Be6 $1) 10... Qc6 $1 {, hitting c4 and g2.}
) ({(c)} 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Bd2 O-O 8. Bd3 c5 $1 9. dxc5 Nxc3 10. Bxc3 Bxc3+ 11.
bxc3 Nd7 12. c6 Nc5 $1 13. Bc2 Re8+ 14. Ne2 Qe7 $17 {
M.Kuijf-Korchnoi, Tilburg 1992.}) 6... O-O (6... Nc6 {
is another move that may transpose;} 7. -- ({; e.g.} 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 {
etc}) ({, or} 7. Be2 dxc4 ({while} 7... O-O {is the note with 7...Nc6}) 8. Bxc4
O-O {is our main line.}) ({. Instead,} 7. Bg5 Bg4 {is natural,} ({
but also interesting is} 7... O-O 8. cxd5 Qe8+ $5 9. Be2 Nxd5 10. Rc1 Be6 {
with a pleasant game.}))) 7. Be2 (7. Bd3 {
is frequently played, although it gives Black the option of} Re8+ ({; otherwise
} 7... Nc6 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4) ({, and} 7... Bg4 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nc6 {
transpose to our main line again;} ({while} 9... Bxf3 {
is seen in the note with 8...Bg4 9 0-0})) 8. Be3 Bg4 (8... Ng4 $6 9. O-O $1) 9.
O-O Nc6 10. h3 Bh5 (10... dxc4) 11. Rc1 (11. c5 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Ne4 {
, Gaponenko-Moskalenko, Tenerife rapid 2004; and White should play} 13. Rc1 Qf6
14. Re1 {, when} Rad8 $11 {might follow}) 11... dxc4 12. Bxc4 Qd7 13. a3 {
, T.Taylor-Stopa, Los Angeles 2011; and here I like} Bxc3 $5 ({instead of} 
13... Ba5 14. Na4) 14. bxc3 Na5 $1 15. Ba2 b5 16. Bg5 Nd5 (16... Ne4 17. Be3
Nc4 $11) {, with light-square control. White will get the worst of it after}
17. g4 $2 (17. Ne5 Rxe5 18. Qxh5 g6) {, due to} 17... Bxg4 18. hxg4 Qxg4+ 19.
Kh2 ({not} 19. Kh1 $2 Qh5+ 20. Kg1 Re4) 19... Qh5+ 20. Bh4 ({or} 20. Kg1 $2 Re4
) 20... Nf4 $1 (20... Re4 21. Bxd5) 21. Rg1 Re2 {(hitting f2)} 22. Kg3 Re4 $1 {
intending ...Ne2+.}) 7... dxc4 (7... Nc6 8. O-O dxc4 ({
or play can develop uniquely by} 8... h6 9. a3 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Re8) 9. Bxc4 Bg4 {
again transposes.}) 8. Bxc4 (8. O-O {might get messy after} Be6 $5 9. Ng5 Qd7
$5 ({or} 9... Bf5 10. Bxc4 Nc6 11. Be3 Qd6 $1) 10. Nxe6 Qxe6 11. Bf3 Qa6 $1 {.}
) 8... Nc6 ({Instead: -- (a)} 8... Re8+ 9. Be3 Be6 10. Bxe6 Rxe6 11. O-O {
of Spassky-Korchnoi, Zürich 2001, is slightly better for White.}) ({(b)} 8...
Bg4 {should equalize in view of some tactical ideas:} 9. Be3 (9. O-O Nc6 {
transposes to the main line,} ({but gives Black the option of} 9... Bxf3 10.
Qxf3 Qxd4 11. Qxb7 Qxc4 12. Qxa8 Bd6 $1 {
, threatening 13...Nc6 and 13...Bxh2+, and} 13. Qxa7 Bxh2+ 14. Kxh2 Qxf1 15. f3
Qe1 {will likely end in perpetual})) 9... Nd5 10. O-O $5 Bxc3 $1 11. bxc3 Nxc3
12. Qb3 Bxf3 13. gxf3 b5 14. Bd3 (14. Qxc3 bxc4 15. Qxc4 Nd7 $17) 14... Nd5 15.
Qxb5 Nxe3 $1 16. fxe3 Nd7 17. Rac1 c5 $1 $11 {
Gulko-Psakhis, USSR Ch., Riga 1985.}) 9. O-O Bg4 10. Be3 {A key position that
has been reached repeatedly over the years. The play is intricate and, in my
opinion, perfectly satisfactory for Black.} Rb8 {There have actually been nine
moves here(!). I like two of them in particular. 10...Rb8 has the virtue of
simplicity: it defends the b-pawn and thus threatens ...Bxf3. The rook move
also prepares ...b5, contesting the light squares, which tend to be Black's
strength in these positions.} ({The immediate} 10... Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Nxd4 12.
Qxb7 {favours White.}) ({The other effective move which produces equality is} 
10... Qd7 {, connecting rooks and again focusing on the light squares. Without
going into too much detail, here are some excerpts:} 11. -- (11. a3 Ba5 (11...
Bxc3 12. bxc3 Rfe8 {has the idea of ...Nd5}) 12. Rc1 Rad8 13. Na4 Bb6 14. Nxb6
axb6 15. b4 (15. h3 Bh5) {, Comp Deep Fritz-Hübner, Dortmund 2001; and simply}
15... Rfe8 16. h3 Bh5 {
leaves White under some pressure and wondering what to do.}) (11. h3 Bh5 12.
Be2 Rfe8 {transposes to 11 Be2 Rfe8 12 h3 Bh5.}) (11. Be2 {and now:} -- (11...
Rfe8 {has scored well for Black. White may have nothing better than} 12. h3 $5
(12. Qb3 Rad8 13. Rad1 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nd5 15. c4 Nf4 16. Bxf4 Rxe2 {
is at least equal}) 12... Bxh3 $5 (12... Bh5 13. a3 Bxc3 $5 14. bxc3 Nd5 15.
Bd2 Qd6 $5 $11) 13. gxh3 (13. d5 $2 Bxg2 14. Kxg2 Qg4+ 15. Kh1 Qh3+ 16. Kg1
Rxe3 $1 17. fxe3 Qg3+ 18. Kh1 Ng4) 13... Qxh3 14. Bd3 Qg4+ 15. Kh1 Qh3+ 16. Kg1
{, repeating.}) (11... Rad8 {is quite as good; for example,} 12. a3 Ba5 13. Na4
(13. h3 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 {and} Nxd4 ({or} 14... Bb6 {with the idea} 15. d5 Ne5))
13... Bb6 14. Nxb6 {, Miezis-Masserey, Geneva 1999, when Black got creative by}
cxb6 $5 {;} ({but simply} 14... axb6 15. Rc1 (15. h3 Bh5) 15... Rfe8 $15 {
is a bit awkward for White.})))) 11. Be2 (11. a3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Nd5 13. Bd2 b5
$1 {fixes the light squares, which should guarantee equality; ...Na5-c4 is one
idea, as well as ...Re8 and ...Be6 in some lines.}) 11... Nd5 (11... Re8 {
seems more accurate, since ...Nd5 can wait.}) 12. Qc2 (12. Nxd5 Qxd5 13. Rc1 {
has been played twice; if nothing else,} Qxa2 {will draw after} 14. Bc4 $1 (14.
h3 Bf5 $1 $15) 14... Qxb2 15. Rc2 Bxf3 16. gxf3 Qa3 17. Ra2 Qc3 18. Rc2 $11 {.}
) 12... Be7 $5 (12... Bxc3 13. bxc3 Qe7 {is a decent option, since} 14. Ng5 (
14. Rae1 Nxe3 15. fxe3 Qxe3+ 16. Kh1 Qh6 17. Bc4 {
is more enterprising, and unclear}) 14... g6 15. Bxg4 Nxe3 16. fxe3 Qxe3+ 17.
Qf2 Qxg5 18. Bf3 Ne7 {gives White dubious compensation for the pawn.}) ({After
} 12... Be7 $5 {, Wehmeier-Claesen, Lippstadt 1998, continued} 13. Rad1 Ncb4
14. Qb1 Bh5 $5 (14... Re8 15. a3 Nxc3 16. bxc3 Nd5 {
with ideas of ...Bd6 and ...b5}) 15. Rd2 $6 (15. a3 Nxc3 16. bxc3 Nd5 17. Bd2
b5 $11) 15... Bf6 16. a3 (16. Nxd5 Nxd5 {and ...Re8}) 16... Nxc3 17. bxc3 Nd5 {
with excellent play for Black.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.32 4...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 {. A traditional placement
and the starting point of a host of games through the years.} (5... Bb4 {
is examined by transposition in 12.312.}) ({I should mention that} 5... Nc6 {
is also playable and will generally transpose, but there are unique lines that
look satisfactory including} 6. Nf3 Bg4 (6... Bb4 {
is also covered in 12.312; see the note there with 6...Nc6}) 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8.
Be2 (8. Bc4 Qe7+ $1 9. Kf1 Nb6) 8... Bb4 9. Qb3 $5 O-O 10. O-O Be6 $11 {.}) 6.
Nf3 ({Sometimes White plays} 6. Bd3 {
first, either to avoid the ...Bg4 pin or to play Nge2. An independent line is}
Nc6 (6... Be6 $5 7. cxd5 Nxd5) 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nge2 Be6 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 g6 (
10... Ncb4 11. Bb1 g6 12. a3 Nxe3 13. fxe3 Nd5 $11) 11. Qd2 Re8 12. Rac1 Qd7
13. Rfd1 Rad8 $11 {Ashley-Granda Zuniga, New York 1997.}) 6... O-O 7. Bd3 (7.
Be2 {sidesteps some lines with ...Nb4 and is placed to meet ...Bg4; but this
also means that after cxd5 and ...Nxd5, his bishop won't be on its 'proper'
d3-square aimed at the kingside. A few ideas:} -- (7... Be6 {
has become a popular move in this and related positions:} 8. O-O $5 (8. Ng5 $6
Bf5) (8. c5 b6 9. cxb6 axb6 10. O-O c5 11. Ne5 Ne4 $1 $11) (8. Qb3 Nc6 $1 9.
Qxb7 Nb4 10. O-O dxc4 {is unclear;} ({or} 10... Rb8 11. Qxa7 Ra8 $11)) 8...
dxc4 9. Ng5 Bd5 {(an extra pawn is as important as the bishop pair)} 10. Nxd5 (
10. Qc2 c6 {retains the pawn}) 10... Qxd5 (10... Nxd5 11. Nf3 Nb6 $5) 11. Bf3
Qb5 12. Qe2 Re8 13. b3 Nc6 14. bxc4 Qa4 {with no problems.}) (7... dxc4 8. Bxc4
Bg4 ({Black can always head for a standard isolated queen's position; e.g.} 
8... Nbd7 9. O-O Nb6 10. Bb3 Nbd5 11. Ne5 Be6 12. Qf3 c6 13. Re1 Nc7 14. Be3
Bxb3 15. axb3 Ne6 $11 {Kharlov-Maslak, chessassistantclub.com 2004; these
choices are a matter of taste}) 9. O-O Nc6 {
(an absolutely typical position which can arise from several 4 c4 move orders)}
10. Be3 Qd6 $5 (10... Rb8 {
has the idea ...Bxf3 and if Qxf3, ...Nxd4, since b7 is protected; then} 11. Be2
Be6 {is solid}) 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nxd4 13. Qxb7 {
½-½ Vlassov-Nikolenko, Moscow 2002; there might follow} Nf5 14. Rad1 Qe5
15. Rfe1 Bd6 16. g3 Nxe3 17. Rxe3 Qh5 {and White has at most a nominal edge.})
(7... Nc6 8. O-O Be6 $5 9. cxd5 (9. c5 $5 Ne4) 9... Nxd5 10. Bb5 (10. Re1 a6
11. Bd3 Qd7) 10... Ncb4 11. Re1 (11. a3 a6 12. Ba4 b5 $11) 11... a6 12. Bf1 (
12. Ba4 c5 $5) 12... Re8 $11 {Miezis-Short, Leon 2001.})) 7... Nc6 (7... dxc4
8. Bxc4 {is 'b' in the previous note.}) 8. cxd5 {
Trying to make use of the bishop on d3.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 8. O-O Bg4 9. Be3
Nb4 $5 (9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 {is 7 Be2, note 'b' again}) 10. Be2 dxc4 11. Bxc4 c6
12. h3 Bh5 $5 (12... Bf5) 13. Re1 $2 (13. g4 Bg6 14. Ne5 Nbd5 15. Bg5) 13...
Bxf3 14. gxf3 (14. Qxf3 Nc2) 14... Nbd5 $15 {
Voitsekhovsky-Zolnierowicz, Ceske Budejovice 1995.}) ({(b)} 8. h3 $6 {
gives Black an extra tempo for} Nb4 $1 {, aiming for} 9. Be2 Bf5 10. O-O {
, and here} Bc2 $1 {is good:} 11. Qd2 Ne4 $1 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. a3 Nc2 14. Ra2
dxc4 15. Bxc4 Qd6 $15 {.}) 8... Nxd5 ({Or} 8... Nb4 9. Bb1 Nbxd5 10. O-O Re8
11. Re1 Be6 {with the idea} 12. Ng5 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bd5 $11 {.}) 9. O-O Be6 10.
a3 ({Another typical set-up is} 10. Re1 Re8 11. Qc2 h6 12. a3 Qd7 13. Be3 Rad8
$11 {Afromeev-Yagupov, Tula 2006.}) 10... Bf6 {
. Perhaps not best. Two others equalize.} ({(a)} 10... Re8 11. Re1 (11. Bc2 Qd7
12. Qd3 {achieves little after} g6 {intending ...Bf5, ...Rad8, and/or ...Bf6})
11... Qd7 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 10... Qd7 $1 {is a little more complicated:} 11. Bb5
(11. Qc2 g6) 11... Bd6 $1 12. Ng5 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bf5 14. d5 Qe7 $1 15. Re1 (15.
dxc6 Qe5 16. Nf3 Qxb5) 15... Ne5 16. f4 a6 $1 17. Bc4 b5 18. fxe5 Bc5+ 19. Kh1
bxc4 $11 {.}) ({After} 10... Bf6 {
, Gjuran-Korchnoi, Rogaska Slatina 2011, continued} 11. Be4 g6 $5 (11... Qd7 $1
) 12. Bh6 Re8 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qd2 Bh8 $5 15. Rad1 Rad8 16. h3 Nce7 17. Qc2 c6 {
with approximate equality.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "12.4 4 Bf4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bf4 {. This has been touted as the best way
for White to play for a draw, but as mentioned above, it's childish to talk
about a draw with so many pieces on. In fact, White may not only be trying to
neutralize ...Bd6, but also intending to play ambitiously, for example, by
castling queenside. This strategy has received attention of late, so I'll
devote some space to it. For his part, Black isn't too worried: in the final
analysis, every logical move should equalize. For the sake of an active
repertoire, I'll present a few of ways to play for an imbalance; naturally,
there are others:} Bd6 (4... Nf6 {is obviously playable}) ({whereas} 4... Nc6 {
creates a desirable tension (assuming you are playing for a win). The first
idea of 4...Nc6 is to prevent 5 Bd3 by attacking d4. Play might go} 5. Nc3 {
(pursuing his queenside strategy)} (5. Nf3 Bd6) 5... Nf6 ({or} 5... Bb4 $5 {
intending} 6. a3 Qe7+ $1) 6. Nf3 (6. Qd2 Bd6 7. O-O-O O-O $15) 6... Bd6 7. Qd2
O-O 8. O-O-O Re8 9. Bd3 (9. Bg5 Bb4) 9... Bxf4 10. Qxf4 Bg4 {
with the idea ...Bxf3. None of this says much for 4 Bf4.}) 5. Bxd6 (5. Qd2 {
plans Nc3 and 0-0-0. Then:} -- (5... Nc6 6. Nc3 Nf6 {
transposes to note 'c' below.}) (5... Qe7+ 6. Be2 Nf6 {
(the sane move, and already at least equal)} ({the exciting alternative is} 
6... Bxf4 7. Qxf4 Qb4+ 8. Nd2 ({but} 8. Nc3 Qxb2 9. Qe3+ Ne7 {
needs to be analysed too}) 8... Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qxc2 10. Ngf3 Ne7 11. O-O {
- A.Marshall; an adventurous sort might dig in with} Nbc6 12. Rfc1 Qg6 {here})
7. Nc3 O-O (7... Bb4 {is another problem, after which} 8. Qe3 ({and} 8. f3 O-O
{isn't comfortable}) 8... Ne4 $5 9. a3 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 g5 $1 11. Bg3 Nc6 {
intends} 12. Nf3 f5 $1 13. Be5 O-O {and ...f4}) 8. Nf3 (8. O-O-O Nc6 ({or here
} 8... Bf5) 9. Nf3 Ne4 $1 $15) 8... Nc6 9. O-O (9. Bxd6 Qxd6) 9... Ne4 10. Bxd6
$1 Qxd6 11. Qe3 Nxc3 $5 12. Qxc3 Bg4 13. Rae1 $1 Rae8 $11 {
, but still with ideas for both sides.}) (5... Nf6 6. Nc3 (6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Ne2
Nb4) 6... Nc6 (6... O-O {allows} 7. Bd3 {, although} Nc6 8. Nge2 Nb4 {
gets rid of the bishop, which guarantees at least equality}) 7. Bb5 O-O 8. Nge2
$5 (8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. Nge2 {is slightly passive; e.g.} Rb8 10. b3 Re8 11. O-O Bf5
) 8... Bxf4 9. Nxf4 (9. Qxf4 Nb4 10. Qd2 c6 11. Ba4 Na6 12. O-O Nc7 {
and White's bishop is out of play}) 9... Re8+ 10. Nfe2 Qd6 11. O-O Bd7 12. h3
Re7 13. Rae1 Rae8 14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. Ng3 Bd7 {
with an insignificant advantage but considerable play left.})) 5... Qxd6 6. Nc3
({Instead: -- (a)} 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. c3 O-O 8. Ne2 b6 $5 (8... Bg4) 9. O-O c5 $1
10. Nd2 Bg4 11. f3 Bd7 12. Qe1 Re8 13. Qf2 Nc6 {
gave Black the initiative and better game in Stefanova-Kindermann, Vienna 1996.
}) ({(b)} 6. c3 {is safe and prevents ...Qb4+, but} Nf6 (6... Bf5 7. Bd3 Ne7)
7. Nf3 (7. Bd3 {transposes to 'a'}) 7... O-O {maintains a lead in development:}
8. Be2 Qb6 ({or} 8... b6 9. O-O c5) 9. b3 (9. Qb3 Qe6) 9... Re8 10. O-O c5 $1
11. dxc5 Qxc5 $15 {and it's not so easy for White to develop; for example,} 12.
Nd4 ({or} 12. Qd4 Qc7) 12... Nc6 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Bd3 Bg4 {.}) 6... Nc6 {
Played at once in order to prevent Bd3.} 7. Nf3 (7. Bb5 Nf6 8. Nge2 O-O 9. O-O
Ne7 $1 {and it's nothing much, but I'd prefer to be Black.}) 7... Nf6 ({Or} 
7... Bg4 8. Be2 Nf6 {.}) 8. Be2 (8. Qd2 O-O 9. O-O-O Re8 10. h3 (10. Bd3 Bg4)
10... Ne4 $15 {.}) 8... O-O 9. O-O Re8 {
. Black's position is without problems and, in my opinion, easier to play.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13. Classical with 4 e5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 {. The Classical Variation of the French Defence.}
4. e5 {Now the pawn structure becomes similar to the Advance Variation and to
those variations of the Tarrasch that include ...Nf6 and e5.} ({
In the next two chapters we consider} 4. Bg5 {.}) ({Instead: -- (a)} 4. Bd3 {
is seldom played due to} c5 {and then:} 5. -- (5. exd5 cxd4 ({or} 5... exd5 $11
{; the bishop isn't optimally placed on d3 if this turns into an isolated
queen's pawn position}) 6. Bb5+ (6. Nb5 $6 Bc5 $1 ({
I think this line improves upon the traditional} 6... Nxd5 {, which is equal})
7. Nf3 e5 $1 8. Nxe5 a6 9. Na3 O-O 10. O-O Qxd5 11. Re1 b5 12. Bg5 Bb7 13. f3
Qd6 $15) 6... Bd7 7. Bxd7+ (7. Qxd4 $6 Bxb5 8. Nxb5 Nxd5 9. Ne2 Nc6 $15) 7...
Qxd7 (7... Nbxd7 $5 {with the idea} 8. dxe6 dxc3 9. exd7+ Qxd7 $15) 8. dxe6
Qxe6+ (8... fxe6 $1 9. Nce2 Nc6 10. Nf3 Bc5 $15) 9. Nce2 Nc6 10. Nf3 Bb4+ 11.
Bd2 {, Em.Lasker-Marshall, New York (m/2) 1907; and} Bc5 ({sounder than} 11...
O-O-O $6) 12. O-O O-O 13. Re1 Qc4 $11 {.}) (5. Nf3 cxd4 ({or} 5... Nc6 $11) 6.
Nxd4 e5 (6... Nc6 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. exd5 exd5 9. O-O Be7 10. Be3 O-O $11 {
Em.Lasker-Bogoljubow, Zürich 1934}) 7. Nf3 d4 8. Ne2 Bg4 9. O-O (9. Nxe5 $4
Qa5+) 9... Nc6 $11 {.})) ({(b)} 4. exd5 {is harmless after} exd5 {
, a version of the Exchange Variation with no bite (see Chapter 12),} ({or} 
4... Nxd5 $11 {.})) 4... Nfd7 {. Now White has:} 5. -- ({13.1} 5. Nf3) ({13.2} 
5. Nce2) ({13.3} 5. f4) ({There are two other interesting moves: -- (a)} 5. Qg4
$5 c5 {and the centre is breaking up so White must try to get Nb5-d6 in, or
perhaps dxc5 at the right moment:} 6. Nf3 (6. Nb5 cxd4 7. Bf4 Qa5+ 8. Bd2 Qb6
$15) 6... cxd4 7. Nb5 (7. Qxd4 Nc6 8. Qf4 a6 $1 {intending ...Qc7}) 7... Nc6 8.
Nd6+ $6 Bxd6 9. Qxg7 $2 (9. exd6 O-O 10. Nxd4 Nde5 $15) 9... Bb4+ $1 (9... Bxe5
10. Nxe5 Qf6 11. Qxf6 Nxf6 $11) 10. c3 dxc3 11. Qxh8+ Nf8 12. Kd1 cxb2 13. Bxb2
Qb6 $17 {.}) ({(b)} 5. Qh5 $5 {is Haldane's move:} c5 ({the naive} 5... g6 {
also looks fine; e.g.} 6. Qg5 Qxg5 7. Bxg5 a6 {, intending ...c5}) 6. Nf3 (6.
dxc5 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bxc5) 6... cxd4 ({or} 6... g6) 7. Nxd4 g6 $1 ({or} 7... Qb6 $15
{with the idea} 8. Ndb5 Nc6) 8. Qg4 $6 (8. Qg5 Qxg5 9. Bxg5 a6 $15 {
with ideas of both ...h6 and ...Nc6, but this isn't as bad}) 8... Nxe5 9. Qg3
Nbc6 (9... Bg7 10. Bf4 Nbc6 11. Nxc6 Nxc6 {transposes}) 10. Nxc6 Nxc6 11. Bf4
Bg7 12. Bc7 ({McDonald notes that} 12. Bd6 {is inaccurate due to} Qa5 $1) 12...
Qf6 13. Bd6 {. White is a pawn down versus Black's unopposed centre with no
lead in development. I think there are a few good answers, including Neil
McDonald's suggestion} Ne7 ({or} 13... a6 14. O-O-O Bd7) 14. Bd3 ({or} 14. Bb5+
Bd7 15. Bxd7+ Kxd7 {and 'Black king's is safe behind his pawns and the threat
is 16...Nf5, winning the white bishop' - McDonald}) 14... O-O 15. f4 Nf5 16.
Bxf5 Rd8 $1 17. Bc7 Rd7 $15 {, at least.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.1 5 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nf3 {. Aiming for piece play
instead of pawn expansion; this is considered fairly harmless, but there are
some challenging lines.} c5 6. Ne2 {
Now we have reached a position which could come from 5 Nce2 c5 6 Nf3.} ({
Others: -- (a) I could place} 6. dxc5 {here, but since it famously arises via
1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 d4 c5 6 dxc5, I've put it with the
second moves of the 'Uncommon Early Moves' chapter, section 17.21, under that
order.}) ({(b)} 6. Bb5 {has more than one answer, but the most ambitious is}
Nc6 $1 {; e.g.} 7. O-O cxd4 8. Nxd4 Ndxe5 $1 (8... Qc7 9. Bf4 $1) 9. f4 (9. Bf4
a6 10. Bxe5 axb5 11. Bg3 Bc5 $1 12. Ndxb5 O-O {with the centre and bishop pair}
) (9. Re1 Bd6 $1 10. f4 $1 Nd7 11. Nxd5 Nxd4 12. Qxd4 O-O 13. Ne3 Qc7 $15) (9.
Qh5 Bd6 10. Bg5 Qd7 $15) 9... a6 $1 10. Ba4 Nd7 $1 11. f5 (11. Nxd5 $4 Nxd4 12.
Qxd4 b5 $19) 11... Nxd4 12. Bxd7+ Bxd7 13. Qxd4 Rc8 $17 {
D.Schneider-J.Watson, Chicago 1992.}) ({(c)} 6. Bg5 $5 {is a quick-developing
and fascinating move called 'The Jackal'. It has a mediocre reputation, but
theoreticians haven't looked at it carefully and I see no refutation for Black.
Both sides can keep things interesting with all kinds of exciting action.
Here's an overview:} Qb6 7. dxc5 $1 (7. Bb5 {is unproductive due to} a6 8.
Bxd7+ Bxd7 {, preventing Na4}) {, and now:} 7... -- (7... Qxb2 $5 8. Nb5 Nxe5 {
(the only move)} (8... Na6 $2 9. Rb1 Qxa2 10. Ra1 Qb2 11. Rxa6) (8... Qb4+ $2
9. c3 Qa5 $4 ({while} 9... Qxc5 10. Be3 {is awful}) 10. Qa4 $1 {wins due to}
Qxa4 11. Nc7#) 9. Nd2 $5 (9. Nc7+ Kd7 10. Nxa8 Nxf3+ 11. gxf3 Qe5+ 12. Be3 Bxc5
{is unclear}) 9... Na6 10. Rb1 Qxa2 11. Ne4 $1 h6 12. Ra1 (12. Ned6+ Bxd6 13.
Nxd6+ Kf8) 12... Qb2 13. Bd2 Nc4 14. Nbd6+ Nxd6 15. Bc3 Qxa1 16. Nxd6+ Bxd6 17.
Qxa1 Nxc5 18. Bxg7 Rg8 19. Bxh6 Bd7 {and the position is unresolved.}) (7...
Nxc5 8. Rb1 (8. Be3 a6 $1) (8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O a6 10. Rb1 {transposes to 8 Rb1})
8... a6 9. Be2 Nc6 10. O-O Qc7 11. Bf4 b5 12. b4 Nd7 13. a4 $11 {.}) (7... Bxc5
{is utterly chaotic:} 8. -- (8. Na4 {(a touch speculative)} Bxf2+ (8... Qa5+ $5
9. c3 Bf8 10. b4 Qc7 11. Bf4 Nc6 12. Bd3 Ncxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Bb5+ Bd7 15.
Bxd7+ Kxd7 16. O-O {with some attack}) 9. Ke2 Qa6+ (9... Qb5+ $2 10. c4 $1) 10.
Kxf2 Qxa4 11. b3 (11. Bd3 Nxe5 $1) (11. c4 $5 Qa5 12. cxd5 exd5 13. Bd3 Nc6 14.
Re1 $15 {, though this is still complex}) 11... Qa5 12. Bd3 Nc6 13. Re1 {
, probably favouring Black but full of life.}) (8. Qd2 $1 {
, with one more division:} -- (8... Qxb2 $2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. Nb5 $16 {.}) (8...
Bxf2+ {initiates a lengthy and romantic-style forcing sequence:} 9. Qxf2 Qxb2
10. Kd2 $1 Qxa1 11. Bb5 $1 (11. Nb5 $2 O-O 12. Nc7 Na6 $1 13. Nxa8 Nac5 $19)
11... Qxh1 12. Qc5 Qxg2+ 13. Kc1 (13. Ne2 Nc6 14. Bxc6 Qxg5+ 15. Nxg5 bxc6 16.
Qxc6 Rb8 17. Nxe6 $1 $11) 13... Nc6 (13... Qh1+ $4 14. Kb2) (13... f6 $4 14.
exf6) 14. Bxc6 Qxg5+ 15. Nxg5 bxc6 16. Qxc6 Rb8 17. Nxd5 $1 {
is a variant on this theme:} exd5 18. e6 f6 19. Qd6 Rb6 20. exd7+ Bxd7 21. Qxd5
$1 Rf8 22. Ne4 {and White has all the winning chances. Amazing!}) (8... h6 9.
Bh4 (9. Be3 $5) 9... g5 10. Bg3 Qxb2 11. Rb1 Qa3 12. Nb5 $5 (12. Rb3 Qa5 13.
Nb5 Qxd2+ 14. Nxd2 Bb6 $1 $15) 12... Qxa2 13. Rc1 {is unclear.}) (8... Nc6 9.
O-O-O (9. Na4 Bxf2+ 10. Qxf2 Qb4+ 11. c3 Qxa4 12. Be2 Qc2 $15) 9... Bxf2 10.
Na4 Qb4 11. Qxf2 Qxa4 12. a3 (12. Kb1 O-O 13. b3 $5) 12... O-O 13. Qg3 f6 $1 (
13... Kh8 14. Bd3 {with a serious attack}) 14. exf6 (14. Bh6 Rf7) 14... Nxf6
15. Bd3 {(a position played several times!)} Bd7 (15... Ne4 $5 16. Bxe4 Qxe4)
16. Kb1 ({or} 16. Rhe1 $11) {, Roy Chowdhury-Illingworth, Sydney 2009; and}
16... Ne4 {was best and about equal.})))) 6... Nc6 (6... cxd4 7. Nexd4 Nc6 {
is also reasonable; e.g.} 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. Bd3 Nc5 (9... Qc7 10. Qe2 Be7 $11)
10. Be2 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Be3 Rb8 $11 {
Jimenez Chacon-Hamdouchi, Dos Hermanas 1998.}) 7. c3 {
This position also arises from 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Ndf3 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 Ne2.}
cxd4 (7... Qb6) ({and} 7... b5 {have also been played successfully.}) ({
The simplest alternative is} 7... Be7 {and:} 8. -- (8. Ng3 $6 Qb6 9. Be2 cxd4
10. cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 f6 $15 {.}) (8. Nf4 cxd4 9. cxd4 Qb6 10. Be2 $6 (10. a3
g5 $1 11. Ne2 g4 12. Nfg1 f6 $1) {, Yudkovsky-Coello, Cannes 1997;} 10... g5 $1
11. Nh5 g4 12. Ng5 Bb4+ 13. Kf1 Qxd4 $17 {.}) (8. g3 O-O 9. Bh3 b5 $1 (9... b6
{intending ...Ba6 is also logical, when} 10. Qa4 Qc7 11. O-O a5 $15 {
doesn't prevent Black's plan}) 10. O-O b4 11. Nf4 {
, Ponomariov-Ni Hua, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011; and} bxc3 $1 12. bxc3 Ba6 13. Re1
cxd4 14. cxd4 Nb6 {
begins an effective queenside attack while White struggles to find play.}) (8.
a3 a5 ({or} 8... O-O {with the idea} 9. b4 cxd4 10. cxd4 b5 $1) 9. Nf4 Qb6 {
(preventing Bd3)} 10. h4 a4 $11 {.})) 8. cxd4 f6 9. Nf4 (9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nc3
Bd6 {is balanced and comfortable for Black (compare the 3 Nd2 Nf6 Tarrasch;
here White is committed to an early Nc3, which precludes Bf4 and Nf4 plans):}
11. -- (11. Bb5 {(to control e5)} O-O 12. O-O Qc7 (12... Qb6 $11) 13. h3 Bd7
14. Be3 a6 15. Bxc6 (15. Bd3 Be8 $5 16. Rc1 Bh5 {with the idea} 17. g4 Nxg4 18.
hxg4 Bxg4 19. Be2 Qe7 20. Kg2 $1 Rf6 $1 {with an attack sufficient to draw})
15... bxc6 (15... Bxc6 $11 {Kuzmin-Lempert, Alushta 1994}) 16. Rc1 Be8 17. Ng5
Qe7 $15 {.}) ({. Typical tactical themes arise after} 11. Bd3 O-O 12. Bg5 Qe8
$5 (12... Qb6 13. O-O {, and now} Bd7 $11 ({or, if desired,} 13... Qxb2 14. Na4
Qa3 15. Bc1 Qb4 16. Bd2 Qa3 17. Bc1 {draws})) 13. Qd2 $2 Nh5 $5 (13... e5 $1
$15) 14. Ne2 $6 (14. Qc2 $1 Nf6 $11) (14. O-O Nf4) 14... e5 15. Nxe5 (15. dxe5
$2 Bb4 16. Nc3 Bg4) 15... Nxd4 (15... Bb4 $1) 16. Nxd4 Qxe5+ 17. Be3 Nf4 {
with a pleasant edge, Nijboer-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.})) 9... Bb4+ ({
For some reason, no one seems to have taken} 9... fxe5 {
, a thematic central break-up, very seriously:} 10. Nxe6 (10. dxe5 Ndxe5 11.
Nxe5 Bb4+ 12. Bd2 Bxd2+ 13. Qxd2 Nxe5) 10... Qb6 {and now:} 11. -- (11. Qb3 $5
Bb4+ 12. Kd1 $2 (12. Bd2 $1 Ke7 13. Bxb4+ Qxb4+ 14. Qxb4+ Nxb4 15. Nc7 Nc2+ 16.
Kd2 Nxa1 17. dxe5 Rb8 18. Nxd5+ Ke6 19. Nc7+ Ke7 $11) 12... Nf6 $17 13. Nxg7+
$2 Kf7 14. dxe5 Ng4 $19 15. Nh5 Nd4 16. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 17. Bd3 Nxf2+ 18. Kc2 {
, Motwani-Rrhioua, Gibraltar 2004; and here} Bd7 {would win immediately.}) (11.
Be2 {was suggested as an improvement, when after} e4 $1 12. Nfg5 Nf6 13. O-O (
13. Bf4 Bxe6 14. Nxe6 Kf7 {isn't clear}) {
, Black might try the extremely messy line} 13... h6 $5 (13... Bd6 14. Nxg7+
Ke7) 14. Bh5+ g6 $1 15. Bxg6+ Ke7 {, which can go in several directions; e.g.}
16. Nxf8 (16. Nxe4 dxe4 17. Nf4 Bg4) 16... hxg5 17. Bxg5 Rxf8 18. Qh5 Be6 19.
Qh7+ Bf7 $11 {.})) 10. Bd2 Qe7 (10... Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 Qe7 {transposes.}) 11.
Bxb4 (11. exf6 Nxf6 12. Bd3 Ne4 $1 13. Bxe4 dxe4 14. Ne5 O-O 15. O-O Bxd2 16.
Qxd2 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Qg5 18. g3 Qxe5 {and ...b6 with a very slight advantage.})
11... Qxb4+ 12. Qd2 Qe7 {The most reliable solution.} (12... Ke7 13. exf6+ gxf6
{is playable as well; e.g.} 14. Qxb4+ Nxb4 15. Kd2 {
, Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993; and} Kd6 $1 {
, intending an early ...e5, establishes equality.}) 13. exf6 (13. Bb5 $6 fxe5
14. dxe5 O-O 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. O-O Rb8 17. b3 c5 $15 {.}) 13... Nxf6 14. Bd3
Ne4 $1 15. Qe3 $1 Qb4+ 16. Kf1 O-O {, Velimirovic-Moskalenko, Belgrade 1988.} (
{There followed} 16... O-O 17. Re1 (17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Qxe4 Qxb2 $11) {
, and Moskalenko suggested} 17... Qd6 18. Ne2 e5 {as advantageous, although}
19. Bxe4 dxe4 20. Qxe4 exd4 (20... Bf5 21. dxe5 Qc5 22. Qe3 $1 Qxe3 23. fxe3
Rae8 24. Ned4 Nxe5 25. Nxe5 Rxe5 26. Kg1 {
and Black has compensation but White should be fine}) 21. Nexd4 Nxd4 22. Qxd4
Qa6+ 23. Kg1 Qxa2 24. h4 {with the idea h5-h6 looks about equal.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.2 5 Nce2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Nce2 {. This section is largely
concerned with move orders, transpositions and, most importantly, ways in
which Black can bypass the main lines entirely should he so choose. --- When
White plays 5 Nce2, he is usually trying to get to the formation with Ne2/f4/Nf3/c3. This is examined in Chapter 6 in the line 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5
6 c3 Nc6 7 Nf3. But there's a serious question whether White can get to that
main line without running into attractive options for Black, regardless of
whether he plays 5 Nce2 or 5 f4. So, although 5 f4 is the order used in the
next section (13.3), I'm going to look at that move right now, but in the
context of trying to achieve that Nce2 reorganization. The move order issues
discussed here and in the next few notes are potentially of great importance
for both players and repay study. Black can bypass all of the Classical
Variation lines with the structure e5/f4/c3 by denying White the chance to get
that far.} ({Thus:} 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 (6. dxc5 {
and other alternate moves not leading to Nce2 systems are given in 13.3}) 6...
Nc6 7. Ne2 {. This is a very important line that can also come from 5 Nce2 c5
6 f4 Nc6 7 Nf3, as well as from 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Ndf3 Nc6 7 Ne2.
As I pointed out in the last edition, books tend to skimp on this position or
even ignore it. Black has several ways to respond:} -- ({. After} 7... Qb6 {
, White's most important alternative is} 8. g3 ({
otherwise he can return the game to normal channels with} 8. c3 {
, transposing to section 6.1}) {, after which Black has two good lines:} 8...
-- (8... cxd4 9. Nexd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Bc5 (10... Nb8 $5 11. c3 Bc5) 11. c3 O-O (
11... a5 $5 12. Rb1 $5 O-O 13. Bh3 Kh8 14. Kf1 $2 f6 $1 15. Kg2 Nxe5 $1 16.
fxe5 fxe5 {led to a Black win in Ruhrig-Reefschläger, German League 1986; as a
whole, 11...a5 seems equal}) 12. Bh3 Nb8 13. Nb3 Nc6 (13... Na6 $1) 14. Nxc5
Qxc5 15. Qd3 d4 $5 (15... b6 $1 16. Bg2 Rd8 17. Be3 Ba6 $1 18. Bxc5 Bxd3 19.
Bd6 Na5 20. O-O-O Bf5 $11 {with a double-edged game}) 16. O-O dxc3+ 17. Be3 Qa5
18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3 b6 20. Bg2 Bb7 {, Zysk-H.Franke, German League 1988;
White may have a little something, but his space advantage is at least
partially cancelled by the weak c-pawn on an open file.}) (8... f6 9. Bh3 ({
again} 9. c3 {transposes to a main line - see 6.11}) ({; after} 9. exf6 $6 Nxf6
10. Bg2 {,} Bd6 11. c3 O-O 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. Ned4 Ne4 14. O-O e5 $1 15. fxe5
Bg4 {could follow}) 9... Nxd4 10. Nexd4 cxd4 11. exf6 (11. Nxd4 fxe5 $15 {
intending} 12. Nxe6 $2 Nf6 $1) 11... Bb4+ ({or} 11... Nxf6 {with the idea} 12.
O-O d3+ 13. Kg2 dxc2 14. Qxc2 Bc5) 12. Kf1 Nxf6 {with equality or better.})) (
7... b5 {
looks sound (even if it seems even more logical once White has played g3):} 8.
a3 $5 (8. g3 b4 {and perhaps ...Ba6 next}) ({, or} 8. c3 b4 {
with ...Qa5 and ...Ba6 as typical follow-up moves}) ({
; White needs to watch out for something like} 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Ned4 $2 Nxd4 10.
Nxd4 Nxe5 $1 11. Bxb5+ ({or} 11. fxe5 Qh4+) 11... Bd7 12. Bxd7+ Nxd7) 8... Rb8
{and Black achieves productive queenside play in all cases:} 9. -- (9. dxc5
Nxc5 10. Ned4 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 Ne4 $1 12. Qxa7 $6 (12. b4 $5 a5 13. Bd3 Be7 $11)
12... Rb7 13. Qe3 Bc5 14. Nd4 f6 {.}) (9. Be3 b4 (9... Qc7 10. c3 Na5) 10. axb4
Rxb4 11. b3 a5 12. c3 Rb8 13. dxc5 {
was Yudasin-Glek, Tilburg 1994; and Glek suggests} Nxc5 14. Ned4 Nxd4 15. Nxd4
Bd7 16. Bd3 Nxd3+ (16... a4 $1 17. bxa4 Qa5) 17. Qxd3 Be7 $11 {.}) (9. c3 Be7
10. b4 (10. g3 O-O 11. Bg2 a5 12. O-O a4 {
with ideas of ...Nb6-c4 and ...Na5-b3, advancing by ...b4 at some point}) (10.
dxc5 Nxc5 11. Be3 Bd7) 10... cxb4 11. axb4 g6 (11... Nb6 $5) 12. Ng3 (12. g3 $6
a5 13. bxa5 Nxa5) 12... a5 13. bxa5 Nxa5 14. Bd3 Qc7 {with unclear prospects.})
) (7... Be7 {is a productive waiting move, not committing to ...Qb6, ...cxd4,
or ...b5. The first thing I should say is that playing ...Be7 before ...Qb6 is
not necessarily a universal solution to all f4 lines. For example, in our
Tarrasch Defence order 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 Ndf3, 7...Be7 is
sometimes played, but it does allow 8 Bd3 under rather favourable
circumstances, since the d4-pawn doesn't hang as it would after 7...Qb6. Be
that as it may, in our position with Nce2 already played, ...Be7 is more
appropriate and White has to show his cards:} 8. -- (8. c3 {
allows Black either to go his own way by} O-O ({
or transpose into a main line of the Tarrasch French by} 8... Qb6 {
- see 8...Be7 in the notes to 6.1}) {; e.g.} 9. a3 (9. g3 {
allows another known position after} Qb6 ({
or Black can expand on the queenside by} 9... a5 $5 10. Bg2 b5 $5 {
with ideas of ...Ba6 and ...b4}) 10. Bh3 cxd4 11. cxd4 f6 $5 {- see 6.211}) ({
; or here} 9. Be3 b6 {with mixed prospects}) 9... a5 (9... a6 10. b4 cxd4 11.
cxd4 $6 b5 $1 {and ...Nb6}) 10. g3 cxd4 (10... b6 $5) (10... a4 $5 11. Bh3 b5)
11. cxd4 (11. Nexd4 Nc5 $11 {intends moves like ...Bd7 and ...a4}) 11... f6 $5
(11... f5 12. Bg2 $6 a4 13. O-O Nb6 {wins key queenside squares}) 12. Bh3 fxe5
13. dxe5 (13. Bxe6+ Kh8 {is messy, but the first point is} 14. dxe5 $6 Ndxe5 $1
) 13... Qb6 ({or} 13... Nc5 {intending ...a4}) 14. Nc3 $2 ({
for better or worse,} 14. Bxe6+ Kh8 15. Bxd5 {was correct, when} Ndxe5 ({
but here Black has the option of} 15... Nc5 $1 {
, which gives him more than enough play for the two pawns}) 16. fxe5 Bg4 $1 {
transposes to Chapter 6, specifically note 'a' (and 11...0-0 etc) in section 6.42; that is unclear}) 14... Ndxe5 $5 (14... Nc5 $1 {
ties White down completely, since} 15. Nd4 Nxd4 16. Qxd4 Qa6 {
threatens ...Nb3 and ...Nd3+}) 15. fxe5 Nxe5 16. Bg2 Bd7 17. Rf1 Nc4 {
with a strong attack for the piece; Bologan-M.Gurevich, Cap d'Agde (rapid)
2002, went} 18. Rb1 Bf6 19. Qd3 Rac8 20. Ng5 Bxg5 21. Bxg5 Rxf1+ 22. Bxf1 Rf8
23. Qe2 Rf5 $1 24. Bf4 g5 25. Nxd5 exd5 26. Bb8 Rf8 {0-1.}) (8. Be3 Qb6 {
forces White to lose a valuable tempo defending his b-pawn.}) (8. g3 {
and another possible plan for Black might be} O-O ({in fact, even the immediate
} 8... b6 {is worth thinking about}) ({; while} 8... Qb6 {
gives White a similar option of a Tarrasch Variation after} 9. c3 {(see 8...Be7
9 g3 in the notes to 6.1), but with g3 already in, which isn't his plan in
most of these 5 Nce2 lines}) 9. Bg2 b6 $5 {intending} 10. O-O Ba6 {.})) (7...
cxd4 8. Nexd4 {transposes to the Tarrasch variation 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4
c5 6 Ngf3 Nc6 7 Nb3 cxd4 8 Nbxd4, which is dealt with in Chapter 6 in note 'b'
to 6 c3.}) (7... Qa5+ $5 8. Bd2 Qb6 9. Bc3 {
transposes to 6 f4 Qa5+ 7 Bd2 in the next note.})) 5... c5 6. c3 {
The most obvious move.} ({Instead,} 6. Nf3 {
transposes to 5 Nf3 c5 6 Ne2 in section 13.1 above.}) ({But} 6. f4 {
is an important option because of the issues raised in the next note.} -- ({
. Then} 6... Nc6 7. Nf3 {returns to the previous note (on 5 f4),} ({but} 7. c3
$1 {will transpose to our main line without having to deal with the 7...f6
variation of the next note. However, Black has the opportunity to deviate
from the main lines here as well. For example, these experimental ideas are
sound enough:})) (6... Qb6 7. Nf3 (7. c3 Be7 8. Nf3 O-O {transposes}) 7... Be7
{is a sort of waiting game; e.g.} 8. c3 O-O 9. dxc5 (9. Qb3 Qxb3 10. axb3 Nc6)
9... Nxc5 10. Ned4 Nc6 11. Be2 Bd7 {intending ...Rac8 and/or ...Ne4.}) (6...
Be7 {is a similar idea, when White might try} 7. Nf3 O-O 8. c3 (8. Be3 Qb6) {
; e.g.} 8... f6 $5 (8... Qb6 {is note 'a'}) ({; while} 8... Nc6 {
transposes to 5 f4, note 'c1'}) 9. Be3 fxe5 10. fxe5 Qb6 11. Qd2 Nc6 12. O-O-O
$1 Qa5 $11 {.}) (6... Qa5+ $5 {tries to take advantage of White's slow
development and contemplates a queenside advance:} 7. c3 $1 (7. Bd2 Qb6 8. Bc3
Nc6 9. Nf3 f6 $5 ({or} 9... cxd4 $5 10. Nexd4 Nc5 $15) 10. exf6 (10. f5 fxe5 $1
11. fxe6 cxd4 12. exd7+ Bxd7 13. Nexd4 ({or} 13. Bd2 e4) 13... exd4 14. Nxd4
O-O-O {intending ...Bc5}) 10... Nxf6 11. g3 Ne4 {with pressure.}) 7... b5 $5 {
(double-edged)} (7... Nc6 {is normal}) 8. Nf3 (8. dxc5 b4 9. a3 Bxc5 {
with the idea} 10. cxb4 ({or} 10. Bd2 Qb6) 10... Bxb4+ 11. Bd2 Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2
Qb6 {, about equal}) 8... b4 9. Bd2 Nc6 10. cxb4 Nxb4 11. Nc3 cxd4 12. Nxd4 Ba6
$11 {.})) 6... Nc6 ({Assuming that Black has achieved this exact position
after all the move order jockeying implicit in the last two notes, yet another
deviation} 6... cxd4 7. cxd4 f6 $1 {
creates new problems for White and seems adequate to maintain a balance:} 8. --
({. Black's development is fast after} 8. exf6 Nxf6 9. Nf3 Bd6 (9... Nc6 10.
Nc3 {transposes to 9 exf6 Nxf6 10 Nc3 in the notes to 13.1}) 10. g3 Nc6 11. Bg2
O-O 12. O-O Qb6 13. Rb1 Bd7 14. Bf4 Ne4 {
gave Black plenty of activity in Bologan-Glek, German League 1992.}) (8. f4
fxe5 9. dxe5 (9. fxe5 $2 Bb4+ 10. Kf2 O-O+ 11. Nf3 Nc6 {
with the initiative and ideas of sacrificing on e5}) 9... Nc6 10. Nf3 Bb4+ 11.
Nc3 (11. Bd2 Nc5) 11... Nc5 12. Be3 {
, Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993; and a straightforward path was} Ne4 13. Qc2 (
13. Rc1 Qa5 14. Bd2 O-O) 13... Qa5 14. Rc1 Qxa2 15. Bd3 $1 Nxc3 16. O-O Qa4 $1
$15 {.}) ({. The main line is} 8. Nf4 Bb4+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Bxb4 (10. Rc1 O-O 11.
Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12. Qd2 Qe7 $11 {Atalik}) (10. Qh5+ g6 11. Nxg6 Bxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Qxb2+
13. Ke3 Qc3+ 14. Bd3 Qxa1 15. Nxh8+ Kd8 $17) 10... Qxb4+ 11. Qd2 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2
Ke7 {. In this well-known theoretical position Black has equal chances:} 13. --
(13. exf6+ {(the most commonly played)} gxf6 14. Re1 (14. Nf3 $6 Kd6) (14. Nge2
Nc6 15. Nd3 e5) 14... Nb6 {and now two important moves:} 15. -- (15. Bd3 {
allows Black to force things in the centre; e.g.} Nc6 16. Nf3 Kd6 $1 17. Nh5
Rf8 $1 (17... e5 18. Nxf6 e4 19. Ng5 Kc7 {is unclear}) 18. Bxh7 (18. Re2 e5)
18... e5 19. dxe5+ (19. Ng3 e4 20. Nh4 Nxd4 21. f3 Rh8 $1 22. Nhf5+ Bxf5 23.
Nxf5+ Ke5 {and Black's king was a monster in Bezgodov-Sakaev, Russian Ch. 1999}
) 19... fxe5 20. Kc1 (20. Rhf1 Bg4 $17) 20... Bg4 21. Ng3 Bxf3 22. gxf3 Nd4 $17
{Arakhamia Grant-Gleizerov, Isle of Man 2001.}) (15. Nf3 Kd6 $1 {
, when White must find something better than transposing into 'c11' by} 16. Nh5
({and} 16. Bb5 a6 17. Bd3 Nc6 {is no improvement}) 16... Rf8 17. Bd3 Nc6 {.}))
(13. Nf3 fxe5 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Nc6 16. Nd3 Bd7 17. f4 Be8 18. Rc1 Rf8 19.
g3 {('+/=' according to theory)} Bg6 $1 20. Nc5 Rfc8 $5 ({or} 20... Rab8) 21.
Nxb7 (21. Bb5 Nb4 $1) 21... Nb4 $1 $11 {; White loses the c-file.}))) 7. f4 ({
At this point} 7. f4 Qb6 8. Nf3 {transposes into the main lines of Chapter 6.
But the most important revelation of this section is that Black needn't enter
the main lines of the 4 e5 Classical lines if he doesn't want to, assuming
that some of the deviations above are sufficiently interesting to him.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.3 5 f4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 ({Here, too,} 6. Nce2 {
can be played (see 6 f4 in 13.2)}) ({whereas} 6. dxc5 {
surrenders the centre prematurely:} Bxc5 (6... Nc6 7. a3 Bxc5 8. Qg4 O-O 9. Nf3
Nd4 $5 (9... Qb6 {is also effective}) 10. Bd3 f5 11. Qh3 Nxf3+ 12. Qxf3 Bb6 13.
Ne2 Nc5 $15 {Tarrasch-Spielmann, Nuremberg 1906}) 7. Qg4 O-O 8. Bd3 f5 9. Qh3
Bxg1 $5 {(an original idea, playable but not inspiring; nevertheless, it was
enough to confuse Fischer himself)} ({the alternative} 9... Nc6 {is fine}) ({
, and better still is} 9... Bb6 10. Nf3 Nc5 $1 11. Bd2 Ne4 $15) ({, or} 9...
Qb6 $15) 10. Rxg1 Nc5 11. Bd2 Nc6 $5 12. Nb5 $6 (12. O-O-O) 12... Qb6 13. O-O-O
Bd7 14. Nd6 Na4 $1 15. Bb5 Nd4 16. Be3 Ne2+ $1 17. Bxe2 Qxb2+ 18. Kd2 Qb4+ 19.
Kc1 Nc3 $17 {R.J.Fischer-Benko, Curacao 1962.}) 6... Nc6 7. Be3 {This is arguably the main line of the entire Classical Variation. White decides to hold the
centre with pieces rather than pawns.} ({Instead,} 7. Ne2 {
is covered in the note to 5 Nce2 in 13.2 above.}) ({
Other moves are interesting but less effective: -- (a)} 7. Bd3 $6 cxd4 8. Ne2
Qb6 9. O-O f6 $1 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. Kh1 Bc5 12. a3 a5 13. b3 O-O 14. Bb2 g6 $2 (
14... Ng4 $1 15. Qe1 e5 $1 16. Nxe5 Ncxe5 17. fxe5 Rxf1+ 18. Qxf1 Nxe5 {
and Black has the better of it}) 15. Qe1 Bd7 $5 16. Qh4 {
is unclear, Abdel Aziem-Peng Zhaoqin, Cairo 2002.}) ({(b)} 7. a3 $2 {
meets the fate of most slow moves:} cxd4 8. Nxd4 Ndxe5 $1 {with the idea} 9.
fxe5 Qh4+ {.}) ({(c)} 7. Bb5 $6 {can be answered by various moves, among them:}
cxd4 (7... a6 8. Bxc6 bxc6 9. O-O cxd4 10. Nxd4 c5 11. Nf3 Be7 $15 {
with the bishop pair and mobile centre, Megibow-Cotton, Concord 1995}) 8. Nxd4
Nxd4 (8... Qb6 9. Be3 a6 10. Bxc6 bxc6 $15) 9. Qxd4 a6 10. Bxd7+ Bxd7 11. O-O
Rc8 12. Be3 Bc5 $11 13. Qd2 Qb6 14. Bxc5 Rxc5 15. Qd4 Rc6 16. Qxb6 (16. Ne2 Qb5
$15) 16... Rxb6 17. Rab1 Ke7 $15 {.}) ({(d)} 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Bd3 f6 ({or} 8...
a6 9. Qe2 Qc7 10. Bd2 b5 11. a3 Rb8 $11 {
Boleslavsky-Pachman, Saltsjöbaden Interzonal 1948}) 9. exf6 (9. Na4 $11) 9...
Nxf6 10. Qe2 O-O 11. Ne5 $6 (11. Bd2 Bd7 12. O-O-O Nd4 $11) 11... Qc7 $15 {
, with the idea ...Nd4 or ...Nxe5, as well as ...Bd4 or ...Nd7;} (11... Nd4 12.
Qd1 Bd7 {is also attractive.})) 7... Be7 {Something new for this edition. In
'PTF3', we examined 7...cxd4, which is still going strong. The modest move 7...Be7 has become popular only in the past few years, and is now established as
one of the main lines. Unlike 7...cxd4, it leaves the pawn structure as is,
waiting for White to commit, and has a rather subtle point described in the
next note. Since the purpose of 7...Be7 is clear - that is, development and
preparation for castling - I won't outline Black's strategy in depth.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that he often keeps the centre unresolved and
plays with ...a6/...b5 or ...b6 on the queenside, and/or ...f6 on the kingside,
without exchanging any pawns. White tries to develop harmoniously, and is left
with the question of how to make progress against Black's solid structure. ---
One really attractive feature of 7...Be7 followed by ...0-0 is that Black has
a much easier time playing ...f6, a move which not only pressures White's
centre but discourages the advance f5, since White's pawn on e5 will hang. As
it happens, the move exf6 isn't an effective solution in most cases because it
tends to free Black's game and expose weak squares in White's camp.} 8. Qd2 {
The most popular reply. White keeps his position flexible, and if Black plays ...Qb6, or ...cxd4 and ...Bc5, White's bishop on e3 is protected. In the
meantime, the knight on c3 has a useful retreat square on d1 should Black
manage to get ...b5-b4 in. Finally, f2 is sometimes a powerful square for the
queen.} ({The alternatives are also critical: -- (a)} 8. dxc5 {is a frequently-played and extremely significant option, often connected with castling
queenside. It's particularly important to see that, with the main line move
order 8 Qd2 0-0, 9 dxc5 will transpose to lines analysed within this note.} --
(8... Nxc5 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O {has been considered better for White, although}
b6 11. Qe1 (11. a3 Bb7 12. Qe1 Ne4) 11... f5 {looks quite reasonable.}) (8...
O-O {might be valuable as a transpositional finesse:} 9. -- ({. Notice that} 9.
Qd2 {is the same as the common move order 8 Qd2 0-0 9 dxc5. But with White
making the queen move now, Black has the alternative} Nxc5 $5 {
, when 10...b6 can follow, or in some cases ...a6 and ...b5.} ({Instead,} 9...
Bxc5 10. Be2 {transposes to 9 Be2 etc} ({or} 10. Bxc5 Nxc5 11. O-O-O {
to 8...Bxc5 9 Bxc5 Nxc5 10 Qd2 etc.})) {For example,} 10. O-O-O Qc7 $5 (10...
Qa5 $6 11. Kb1 Bd7 $2 {falls into} 12. Nxd5 $1 {
of Zhigalko-Li Shilong, Cappelle la Grande 2006}) (10... b6 11. Kb1 Bb7 {
can go in various directions, with Black shifting between using the c-file,
advancing with ...f6 or ...f5, or playing ...Ne4; e.g.} 12. h4 Ne4 13. Qe1 Bb4
$5 14. Bd2 Nxd2+ 15. Qxd2 d4 $5 16. Nxd4 Nxd4 17. Qxd4 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qc7 {
, when} 19. Qd7 Qxc3 20. Qxb7 Qb4+ {draws}) 11. Kb1 b6 12. Bb5 Bb7 13. h4 Na5
$5 {(risky)} ({Black seems to stand quite well in this type of position; e.g.} 
13... Ne4 $1 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15. Ng5 Rfd8 16. Qe2 h6 17. Nxe4 Nxe5 $15) 14. Bd4 (
14. Bxc5 $5 bxc5 15. f5 f6 $1 16. exf6 Rxf6 {
is hardly clear, but Black seems to be holding his own}) 14... Rac8 $5 15. Ng5
Nc4 (15... h6 $2 16. Bxc5 bxc5 17. Qd3 $16) 16. Qe2 $1 h6 17. Bxc4 dxc4 18.
Bxc5 {, Nakamura-Vitiugov, Reggio Emilia 2011/12; and for the last time Black
can still keep a balance by} bxc5 19. Nge4 Rb8 {, aiming for} 20. Qxc4 Bxe4 $1
21. Qxe4 Rb4 22. Qf3 Rfb8 23. b3 c4 {with more than enough compensation.}) ({
. The other unique line is} 9. Be2 Bxc5 10. Qd2 Bxe3 11. Qxe3 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6
{(White's queen position allows Black a key gain of tempo because it's
vulnerable to both ...d4 and ...Ng4)} 13. Nd4 $1 (13. O-O-O Ng4 {and ...Rxf4})
13... e5 $1 14. fxe5 Ng4 15. Qd2 $1 (15. Bxg4 $2 Bxg4 16. Nxc6 bxc6 17. Nd1 d4
18. Qg3 Qa5+ 19. c3 Rae8 $19 {Shomoev-Riazantsev, Moscow 2007}) 15... Ncxe5 (
15... Qe7 $5) 16. Rf1 $1 Rxf1+ 17. Bxf1 Nxh2 18. O-O-O Nxf1 19. Rxf1 Ng4 20.
Nf5 Bxf5 ({or} 20... Be6 21. Nxd5 $1 Kh8 $1 $11) 21. Rxf5 Nf6 22. Nxd5 Nxd5 23.
Rxd5 Qf6 $11 {.})) (8... Bxc5 {is the most common and produces complex,
interesting positions. Now we see White answer with} 9. Bxc5 ({. If White plays
} 9. Nd4 $6 {, we have precisely the same position as last edition's 7...cxd4
8 Nxd4 Bc5, except that it's Black's turn! That's because White played extra
move dxc5, and while Black had to move his bishop twice (to e7 and c5), he
saved a tempo by not playing ...cxd4. Since 7...cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bc5 is still such
a popular variation for Black, it shouldn't be surprising that White doesn't
often play 9 Nd4 with a tempo less.}) (9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Qa5 11. Bxc5 ({or} 
11. Nd4 Bxd4 12. Bxd4 Rb8 $1 13. Kb1 b5 14. Ne2 b4 15. Be3 Ba6 16. Nd4 Rfc8 $11
{with a slight initiative, Shomoev-Potkin, Dresden 2007}) 11... Nxc5 {
transposes to 9 Bxc5 etc}) 9... Nxc5 10. Qd2 O-O 11. O-O-O {(notice that 8...
0-0 9 Qd2 Nxc5 sidesteps this position if you're so inclined - see note 'a'
above)} Qa5 $5 {(the attacking move)} (11... Qb6 {intending ...Ne4 is also fine
}) ({; but since White now launches a kingside attack, you could also choose
to keep the queen closer to that flank: some possibilities include} 11... Qe7)
(11... Bd7 12. h4 Rc8) ({, and} 11... b6) {
. Nevertheless, 11...Qa5 seems satisfactory, as shown by:} 12. -- (12. Kb1 Bd7
13. Bd3 $6 (13. Be2 $11) 13... Nb4 14. a3 (14. Nd4 Rfc8 15. g4 $2 Ba4 $1 $17 {
Saric-M.Gurevich, Cannes 2007}) 14... Nbxd3 15. cxd3 Nb3 16. Qc2 Qb6 17. Ka2
Na5 $1 {
intending ...Rfc8 and ...d4, Vila Gazquez-Berczes, Szeged 2008, which continued
} 18. Na4 (18. d4 Rac8 19. g4 Bb5 $1) 18... Qe3 $1 $15 {.}) (12. h4 {
(the most dangerous move)} Bd7 (12... Rb8 $5 13. Qe3 Bd7 14. h5 Rfc8 {
is unclear, Kurnosov-Kotsur, Moscow 2011}) {, when play diverges:} 13. -- (13.
Kb1 {could be met conservatively by a combination of ...Rfd8 and ...Rac8; but
the continuation of Shadrina-Grabuzova, Sochi 2007, was sharper and probably
better:} Rfc8 14. Rh3 Rab8 15. Rg3 {, and the attack by} Nb4 $1 16. a3 Nxc2 $1
17. Qxc2 Ne4 {would have been dynamically equal after} 18. Ng5 $1 Ba4 19. Qd3
$1 Rxc3 $1 20. bxc3 Nxg3 ({or} 20... Rc8 {
, ultimately winning a bunch of pawns for a piece}) 21. Qxh7+ Kf8 22. Qh8+ Ke7
{, and whether White takes the rook or g-pawn, a drawn position will result.})
(13. h5 b5 $5 (13... h6 {is safe}) 14. h6 (14. Bxb5 Nb4 15. Bxd7 Nxa2+ $15) {
, and now McDonald suggests that Black might get more with} 14... b4 $5 ({
instead,} 14... g6 {of Li Chao-Ni Hua, Chinese Team Ch. 2008, would have been
equal had White played} 15. Kb1) 15. hxg7 bxc3 16. gxf8=Q+ (16. Qxc3 Rfb8 $1)
16... Kxf8 $1 17. Qxc3 Nb4 18. Qe1 Nxa2+ 19. Kb1 Nb4 {
with attack. Probably White holds after} 20. Nd4 Qa2+ (20... Rc8) 21. Kc1 Qa1+
22. Kd2 Qxb2 23. Ke3 Nxc2+ 24. Nxc2 Qxc2 25. Rc1 $1 Qe4+ 26. Kf2 Qxf4+ 27. Kg1
Ne4 {with equal chances; but none of this really justifies 13 h5.}) (13. a3
Rfd8 14. Rh3 Rac8 15. Rg3 Kh8 16. Ng5 $6 (16. Be2 h6) 16... Be8 $1 17. f5 exf5
18. Nxh7 $2 Ne4 $1 19. Nxe4 dxe4 20. Qxa5 Nxa5 $15 {.}) (13. Rh3 Rac8 (13...
Rab8 $5 14. h5 {, Naer-Riazantsev, Sochi 2007; and} h6 {is unclear,} ({
instead of} 14... b5 $6 15. f5 $1 exf5 16. Rg3 $1 {with an attack})) ({
Moskalenko also analyses the pawn sacrifice} 13... b5 14. Bxb5 Nb4 15. Bxd7
Nxa2+ $1 16. Nxa2 Qxa2 17. Qb4 Nxd7 18. Nd4 a5 $11) 14. Kb1 Rfd8 $1 15. h5 h6
16. g4 Be8 $1 17. Nd4 Nxd4 18. Qxd4 Ne4 19. Be2 Nxc3+ 20. Rxc3 Rxc3 21. Qxc3
Qxc3 22. bxc3 Rc8 {and after a fairly forced set of moves, Black stood better
in Kurnosov-Vitiugov, Taganrog 2011.})))) ({(b)} 8. Be2 O-O ({or the immediate
} 8... a6 9. O-O b5 {, intending ...b4, when} 10. a3 O-O 11. Qd2 {
transposes into the main line 13.31 below;} ({while} 11. dxc5 $5 {
is 8...0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 a3 etc})) 9. O-O {will very often transpose to the main
line 13.31 after 9...a6 10 Qd2; but Black has some other options:} -- (9... b6
{is solid, and should be compared with 8 Qd2 0-0 9 Be2 b6 of 13.32 below;
indeed,} 10. Qd2 {transposes to that line.} ({Instead,} 10. Qe1 $5 f6 $5 (10...
cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Bc5 13. Rd1 a6 14. Qf2 $1 Qc7 {with equal play}) ({
; here} 10... f5 $5 {plans queenside action}) 11. Qg3 cxd4 ({or again} 11... f5
$5 {; White's queen is not ideally placed}) 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Bxd4 Bc5 14. Bxc5
(14. Nb5 Ba6 $1 15. c3 Qe7 {is comfortable}) 14... bxc5 15. Nb5 Ba6 $11 {
Tomczak-Piorun, Wroclaw 2009.})) (9... a6 {and now:} 10. -- ({. As mentioned,} 
10. Qd2 {is the main line 13.31.}) (10. a3 b5 11. dxc5 Bxc5 ({
or Black can try to keep more action with} 11... Nxc5 12. Qe1 Bb7 13. Rd1 Qc7
14. Qg3 Ne4 $5 {, as in Kogan-Bruno, Sort 2008}) 12. Bxc5 Nxc5 {
(with the idea ...d4)} 13. Bd3 (13. Nd4 Bb7 {poses Black no problems; e.g.} 14.
Nxc6 Bxc6 15. Qd4 Qe7 $11 {Wei Ming}) 13... f5 ({or} 13... Qb6 $5 14. Kh1 h6)
14. exf6 Qxf6 15. Ne5 Bd7 (15... Bb7 $1) 16. Qe2 Nxe5 17. Qxe5 {
, Bologan-Yemelin, Budva 2009;} Qxe5 18. fxe5 Rxf1+ 19. Rxf1 Rc8 $11 {.}) (10.
Qe1 $5 f6 $1 11. exf6 {
(without the queen on d2, ...fxe5 is an especially strong threat)} Nxf6 12. h3
$5 {(...Ng4 was threatened)} cxd4 (12... Nh5 13. g3 cxd4 14. Nxd4 Bc5 $11) 13.
Nxd4 Bd6 14. Rd1 Qc7 15. Qh4 Bd7 {
with at least equality; ...Ne7 and ...Rae8 can follow, contemplating ...e5.}))
(9... f6 $5 {threatens ...fxe5:} 10. exf6 (10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Bxc5 Nxc5 $11) (
10. Qd2 $2 fxe5 {with the idea} 11. fxe5 $2 ({or} 11. Nxe5 Nxd4 $1) 11... Rxf3
$1 12. Bxf3 cxd4 {, winning a second piece for the rook}) 10... Nxf6 11. Kh1 $1
{(versus ...Ng4)} Bd6 $1 12. dxc5 Ng4 13. Ng5 $1 Nxe3 14. Qd3 Rf5 15. Qxe3 Bxf4
16. Rxf4 Qxg5 17. Raf1 Bd7 $11 {.})) ({(c)} 8. a3 {is a clever order, recently
used by elite players and suddenly accumulating a mass of theory and practice.}
-- ({. One point is to reply to} 8... Qb6 {with} 9. Na4 Qa5+ 10. Bd2 $1 {
, when the correct} Qc7 ({White is hoping for} 10... Qxa4 $4 11. b3) 11. dxc5
Nxc5 {has equalized in two high-level encounters, but I'd like to look in
another direction:}) (8... b6 {
with play resembling 13.32 (8 Qd2 0-0 9 Be2 b6) below; e.g.} 9. Bd3 $5 O-O 10.
O-O (10. Qd2 {transposes to 8...0-0}) 10... a6 $5 (10... f5 11. exf6 Nxf6 $5 ({
here} 11... Bxf6 {is worth a try}) 12. Ne5 Bb7 $5 13. Qf3 $1 $14 {
Morozevich-Vitiugov, Saratov 2011}) 11. Ne2 $6 {
(a crazy move, or perhaps an oversight)} ({
White actually gets something for his piece, but really} 11. Qe1 {was a safe way to threaten a kingside attack or prepare the handy move Qf2, with a
double-edged game ahead}) 11... c4 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ {with a lunatic's
attack that is harder to defend against than it looks, Shirov-Morozevich,
Saratov 2011; still} Bxg5 14. fxg5 Ne7 {should defend.}) (8... O-O 9. Qd2 b6 {
is another version of this idea:} 10. g3 (10. Bd3 Bb7 11. O-O Rc8 12. Kh1 f6 $5
{,} ({or here} 12... cxd4 13. Nxd4 Nc5 {, should give enough counterplay}))
10... Kh8 $6 (10... a6 11. h4 b5 {
is double-edged, losing a tempo on the grounds that g3 isn't useful}) (10...
Bb7 {may be best; e.g.} 11. h4 Rc8 12. O-O-O a6 13. Bd3 cxd4 14. Nxd4 b5 {
with a complex battle ahead}) 11. h4 $1 f6 12. exf6 Nxf6 13. Bh3 $5 (13. O-O-O
$1 {is better, and perhaps a reason for Black to try an earlier improvement})
13... Bd7 (13... Nh5 $5 {has the idea} 14. Ne2 Nf6 {, proposing repetition by}
15. Nc3 ({the option is} 15. O-O-O Ne4 16. Qe1 {, about equal}) 15... Nh5) 14.
Rd1 $2 ({better} 14. O-O-O $1 $14) 14... cxd4 ({or} 14... Qe8 $1 {
, intending either ...Qh5 or ...Qg6}) 15. Nxd4 e5 $5 16. Nxc6 Bxc6 17. fxe5 d4
$5 (17... Nh5 $1) 18. exf6 Bxf6 19. O-O dxc3 20. Qxd8 Raxd8 21. Rxd8 Rxd8 {
, Ivanchuk-M.Carlsen, Sao Paulo/Bilbao 2011; and here} 22. bxc3 $1 $11 ({
better than} 22. b3 Re8 {with an edge for Black}) {, with the idea} 22... Bxc3
$6 23. Rf7 {.})) 8... O-O (8... b6 {can be played in almost any order, it
seems (section 13.32 is devoted to 8...0-0 9 Be2 b6); here} 9. Bb5 Ndb8 {
, Benderac-Vojinovic, Pancevo 2011, intends to exchange pieces on d4 followed
soon by ...Nc6.}) 9. Be2 ({Note that} 9. dxc5 {
transposes to 8 dxc5 0-0 9 Qd2 (in the notes to 8 Qd2)}) ({while} 9. a3 b6 {
is 8 a3 0-0 9 Qd2 b6 just above.}) ({
However, other moves have independent significance: -- (a)} 9. O-O-O $2 {
is an error that has occurred many times at the master and grandmaster level.
Black answers} c4 $1 {and nothing can be done about his furious queenside
attack, so White is reduced to flailing away on the other wing. Probably the
position isn't lost, as some commentators have suggested, but Black will very
likely come out better. For example,} 10. f5 {(almost always played - White
suddenly realizes that he'd better throw everything into the mix before he is
overrun)} (10. g4 $2 {is too slow after} b5 $1 11. f5 b4 12. Ne2 c3 13. Qe1 ({
and} 13. bxc3 Qa5 $1 {is no improvement}) 13... cxb2+ 14. Kxb2 Nb6 15. Ka1 exf5
{, winning}) 10... b5 $1 {and now:} 11. -- (11. Nxb5 Rb8 12. Nd6 Bxd6 13. exd6
Nf6 14. c3 Ne4 15. Qc2 exf5 $17 {E.Pinter-Lipka, Slovakian Team Ch. 2007.}) (
11. fxe6 fxe6 12. Nxb5 (12. h4 $2 {is too slow after} Qa5) 12... Rb8 13. Nd6
Bxd6 14. exd6 Nb4 ({or} 14... Nf6) 15. Kb1 Nf6 16. a3 Ne4 17. Qe1 c3 $1 18. b3
(18. axb4 $2 Rxb4 19. b3 Qb6 {intending ...Rxb3+}) 18... Qa5 (18... Nxc2 $1 19.
Kxc2 Rxb3 $1 {is even more decisive}) 19. Bc1 Nxc2 $1 20. Kxc2 Bd7 $1 {
and wins, Pruijssers-Li Shilong, Dieren 2006.}) (11. f6 $1 gxf6 {is critical:}
12. -- (12. exf6 Bxf6 13. Bh6 b4 14. Ne2 {, and Black could play} Bg7 {;} ({
but can also try} 14... c3 15. bxc3 Qa5 $1 {, when} 16. Bxf8 {
wins the exchange, but subjects White to attack (minus the bishop pair):} Kxf8
17. Qe3 (17. Kb1 $4 {loses to} Nc5 $1) 17... Qxa2 18. cxb4 Nxb4 19. Qc3 Be7 $1
$17 {prepares ...Nf6 as well as the obvious queenside attack.})) (12. Bh6 fxe5
$1 (12... b4 13. Ne2 $2 ({but} 13. Qf4 $1 Kh8 14. exf6 {keeps White in the game
}) 13... fxe5 14. dxe5 {, Cabrera-P.Carlsson, Petra 2007;} Ncxe5 $1 15. Bxf8
Bxf8 16. Ned4 c3 $1 17. Qe1 Bg7 {with too much pressure}) 13. dxe5 Ndxe5 14.
Bxf8 Qxf8 $5 (14... Bxf8 $1 $17 {
; Black's bishops and centre are extremely strong}) 15. Nxb5 (15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16.
Nxb5 Bd7 17. Nd4 Qg7 $15) 15... Qg7 ({or} 15... Rb8 {- McDonald}) 16. c3 Rb8
17. Nbd4 Bd7 {
with more than enough for the exchange; but at least White is still playing.}))
) ({(b)} 9. g3 {is seen less often these days, but still appears. It can be
met by various moves; for example,} Rb8 (9... b6 $5 {
is a clear solution, preparing the ideal ...bxc5 if White tries dxc5; then} 10.
Be2 (10. Bg2 $6 Ba6 {is the obvious idea}) 10... Bb7 11. O-O Rc8 {is solid}) ({
; other moves are} 9... Qa5) ({, and} 9... a6 10. Bg2 b5 11. O-O Qc7) 10. a3 b6
11. Be2 f6 $5 12. exf6 Nxf6 {, and White tried} 13. Rd1 ({in view of} 13. O-O-O
c4) ({, or} 13. O-O Ng4) 13... Ng4 14. Bg1 Nh6 $5 15. Bd3 Bd7 $15 {
Bologan-T.Luther, Moscow 2007.}) ({(c)} 9. Bd3 {
was played in the early days of 7...Be7, but Black has found good answers:} --
(9... c4 $5 {
initiates queenside play at the risk of allowing White the f5 advance:} 10. Be2
Rb8 (10... b5 $1 11. a3 $1 Re8 $5 {with the idea} 12. f5 Nf8 $1) 11. f5 $5 b5
12. a3 Nb6 $1 13. fxe6 (13. f6 $5) 13... Bxe6 $11 {
Van Delft-M.Gurevich, Hoogeveen 2006.}) (9... f6 $1 10. exf6 Bxf6 11. Be2 (11.
Bb5 {
contests the dark squares, but White may not want to exchange this bishop; e.g.
} cxd4 $1 12. Nxd4 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 a6 14. Bxc6 bxc6 $15 {
intending ...c5 or in some cases ...e5}) 11... cxd4 12. Nxd4 Bxd4 13. Bxd4 e5
$1 14. Bxe5 (14. fxe5 $4 Qh4+) 14... Ndxe5 15. fxe5 Be6 (15... d4 $1 16. Nb5 ({
because} 16. Ne4 $6 Qh4+ {favours Black}) 16... Be6 {cuts down White's options}
) 16. O-O-O d4 17. Nb5 (17. Ne4 Qd5 18. Ng5 Qxa2 {leads to a draw:} 19. Qd3
Qa1+ 20. Kd2 Qa5+ 21. Kc1 Bf5 22. Qb3+ Kh8 23. Nf7+ Rxf7 24. Qxf7 Qa1+ 25. Kd2
Qa5+ 26. Kc1 Qa1+ 27. Kd2 Qa5+ {
½-½ Eliseev-Vysochin, Peterhof 2007; but 15...d4! avoids this}) 17... Qd5
18. b3 (18. c4 $1 Qxe5 19. Rhe1 Qc5 20. Nxd4 {
½-½ Efimenko-Goloshchapov, German League 2007; there might follow} Bxc4 21.
Qc3 Qg5+ 22. Qd2 Qxd2+ 23. Rxd2 Bxa2 24. b3 Nxd4 25. Bc4+ Kh8 26. Rxd4 b5 {
with unclear complications}) 18... Qxe5 19. Bd3 Qc5 (19... a6 $1 {and} 20. Na3
({or} 20. Rde1 $6 Qc5) 20... b5 {
looks good, though it hasn't been played for some reason}) 20. Kb1 $1 (20. Kb2
Rac8 21. Rhe1 Bg4 22. Rc1 a6 23. Na3 b5 $15 {
Shaposhnikov-Kirusha, St Petersburg 2008}) 20... Rad8 {
, Shyam-Sethuraman, New Delhi 2010; and here} 21. Rhf1 $1 $11 {was best.})) {
After 9 Be2, we arrive at the main lines of this Classical Steinitz variation:}
9... -- ({13.31} 9... a6) ({13.32} 9... b6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.31 9...a6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. Be2 a6 10. O-O (10. a3 b5 11. Nd1 $6 {
doesn't gain a tempo for reorganization because of} f6 $1 {; e.g.} 12. c3 fxe5
13. dxe5 (13. fxe5 Nb6 $1 {with the idea} 14. dxc5 Nc4 15. Bxc4 bxc4 $15) 13...
Na5 14. Qc2 c4 $15 {.}) 10... b5 {. Readers may recognize this as similar to 7.
..a6 and other early ...a6 lines. The difference is that Black has gotten
castled and not committed his other pieces. This gives him a lot of
flexibility with the placement of his queen and queen's bishop. This variation
is very largely a matter of positional decisions, and there are a huge number
of possible lines based upon the choices and timing of these moves among
others: (a) ...Qc7 or ...Qb6; (b) ...f6, or ...f5; (c) ...Bb7, ...Bd7, or ...a5 with ...Ba6; (d) ...cxd4 or ...c4; and (e) every conceivable combination of
rook placements along the bank rank. To make matters much worse, White is
playing his own unique set-ups; I have paid the most attention to lines with
a3 and/or Nd1, Kh1, f5, and dxc5, but obviously I can only give a small
selection of reasonable possibilities. --- Therefore, in this section of the
book more than any other, I want to emphasize that, if doubt is cast upon one
or another line I mention, you can adjust your repertoire without much effort
and be confident in the basic ideas. To find out which lines are best and/or
most convenient, examining recent games of the leading players will be
extremely useful. There is no shortage of such games in current practice and,
if dissatisfied, I suspect that the respectable variations with an early ...a6
(for example), will always be a decent alternative and involve similar ideas.}
11. a3 {This is currently considered White's best approach from this position,
and it has been played more than any other move by leading grandmasters. The
main idea is to hold up ...b4; then White would like either to capture on c5
to occupy d4, or attack on the kingside, usually by the move f5. --- Black has
various options, sometimes in combination: (a) develop his queenside with ...Qb6/...Qc7 and ...Bb7,
connecting rooks; (b) expand on the queenside with ...b4, ...a5-a4 and ...Ba6; (c) play ...f6 and a timely ...fxe5, or play ...f5
(which seems to me an underrated strategy); (d) liquidate with ...cxd4 and, if
White recaptures with a piece, follow with moves such as ...Bc5 and/or ...Nc5-e4. ---} ({Not surprisingly, White has several logical alternatives to 11
a3. One drawback is that they tend to allow ...b4: -- (a)} 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12.
Bxc5 Nxc5 13. Kh1 ({for} 13. a3 Qb6 ({or} 13... Bb7 {, compare 11 a3})) 13...
b4 14. Nd1 a5 15. Nf2 Qb6 {
and ...Ba6, with more space on the queenside and good prospects for Black.}) ({
(b)} 11. Rad1 b4 12. Na4 cxd4 13. Nxd4 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 Qa5 15. b3 Nc5 16. Nxc5
Bxc5 17. a4 Qb6 (17... Bd7 $11) 18. Qe3 Bxd4 19. Qxd4 Qxd4+ 20. Rxd4 a5 21. Rf3
Ba6 22. Bd1 Rac8 23. Kf2 Rc5 24. Ke3 f6 25. Rd2 {
, Miladinovic-Sedak, Mataruska Banja 2007; and here Anka suggests} d4+ (25...
f5 $5) 26. Kxd4 Rfc8 27. Ke3 Bb7 28. Rff2 fxe5 $15 {.}) ({(c)} 11. Kh1 {
is a waiting move designed to make Black commit his queen or bishop:} -- (11...
Qb6 {gives a good impression:} 12. f5 ({for} 12. a3 {
, see 11 a3 Qb6 12 Kh1 in 13.312}) 12... cxd4 13. Nxd4 Bg5 $1 {
(Anka), intending} 14. f6 (14. Rad1 Bxe3 15. Qxe3 Bb7 $1 {with the idea} 16. f6
Ncxe5 17. Qg5 Ng6 18. fxg7 Kxg7 $15) 14... Qxd4 $1 {
and, if anything, Black stands better.}) (11... Qc7 {introduced a famous game:}
12. a3 Bb7 13. Rad1 Rac8 14. Qe1 (14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. Nd4 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Bxd4 17.
Qxd4 Qc5 $11) 14... cxd4 15. Nxd4 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Bc5 17. Qh4 Bxd4 18. Rxd4 f6 $1
19. Bd3 $6 ({but} 19. exf6 Rxf6 {is fine for Black}) 19... h6 $1 20. exf6 Rxf6
21. f5 (21. Qg4 Rcf8 22. Rf3 Nb8 $1) ({, and} 21. Qg3 Rcf8 22. Rf3 Nb8 $1 {
both have the idea ...Nc6 and clearly favour Black}) 21... Rcf8 22. Rg1 Nc5 $1
23. fxe6 Nxe6 24. Rg4 (24. Nxd5 Bxd5 25. Rxd5 Nf4 26. Rd4 Qc5 {
, and a cute line is} 27. c3 $4 Nxd3 28. Rxd3 Qxg1+ 29. Kxg1 Rf1#) 24... Nf4
25. Qg3 Qe7 26. Rxf4 {(...d4 was threatened)} Rxf4 {
with a winning game, Karjakin-M.Carlsen, Wijk aan Zee 2010.})) ({(d)} 11. Nd1 {
used to be very popular, but it makes it easier for Black to progress on the
queenside:} b4 (11... cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Bxd4 Nc5 {
is another respectable line}) 12. Nf2 (12. c3 a5 13. dxc5 {
, Zelcic-Riazantsev, Dresden 2007; and here} Bxc5 $1 {equalizes easily after}
14. Bxc5 Nxc5 15. Qe3 Qb6) 12... Qb6 (12... a5 $5 13. dxc5 Bxc5 14. Bxc5 ({here
} 14. c4 {might be worth a try}) 14... Nxc5 15. Bd3 Ba6 16. Qe3 Bxd3 17. cxd3
Na4 18. Rab1 Ne7 19. Rfc1 Qd7 $11 {Kamsky-Morozevich, Amsterdam 1996}) ({
; I like} 12... c4 {best, intending ...a5-a4}) 13. c3 a5 14. g4 $6 ({
less ambitious but safer for White was} 14. Rad1 Ba6 15. f5 exf5 16. Bxa6 Qxa6
{½-½ Hermansson-P.Carlsson, Malmö 2007}) 14... Ba6 15. Nd3 (15. Bxa6 Qxa6
16. f5 bxc3 17. bxc3 Nb6 {and ...Nc4}) 15... bxc3 16. bxc3 cxd4 17. cxd4 Nb4 $5
(17... Rab8 $15) (17... Bb4) 18. f5 Rac8 19. Nfe1 Bg5 $1 20. Nxb4 Bxe3+ 21.
Qxe3 Bxe2 22. Rf4 (22. Qxe2 Qxd4+ 23. Kh1 Qxa1) 22... Qxb4 23. Qxe2 g5 $1 24.
fxg6 fxg6 25. Rxf8+ Rxf8 26. Qe3 Nb6 $17 {Timofeev-Wang Hao, Taiyuan 2006.}) {
After 11 a3, Black has a varied choice of set-ups. I'll concentrate upon:}
11... -- ({13.311} 11... Bb7) ({13.312} 11... Qb6) ({Naturally,} 11... Qc7 {
is also fully playable, with the idea} 12. Nd1 f6 $1 {; in this variation move
orders are important, as always, but less so than strategic ideas.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.311 11...Bb7"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. Be2 a6 10. O-O b5 11. a3 Bb7 {. Black foregoes the more aggressive
placement resulting from ...b4/...a5/...Ba6. On the other hand, the latter is
time-consuming, and with 11...Bb7 Black can develop quickly and connect rooks,
while preserving the choice between ...Qb6 and ...Qc7.} 12. Nd1 {
The standard move.} ({Nevertheless, others deserve consideration: -- (a)} 12.
dxc5 Nxc5 (12... Bxc5) 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. Qe1 $5 {(heading for the kingside)}
Rac8 15. Qg3 Rfd8 (15... b4 16. axb4 Ne4 $1 {is also satisfactory}) 16. f5 $1
exf5 (16... Ne4 17. Nxe4 dxe4 {is also equal}) 17. Nxd5 Rxd5 $1 18. Rxd5 Ne4
19. Qf4 Nb4 $1 20. axb4 Bxd5 21. Qxf5 {
, Corrales Jimenez-Granda Zuniga, Sao Paulo 2009; and here} Bxb4 $1 {
would have ensured equal chances.}) ({(b)} 12. Rad1 Rc8 ({or} 12... Qb6) 13.
Kh1 cxd4 (13... Qb6 14. f5 $5 cxd4 15. Nxd4 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Bc5 {is roughly equal
}) 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Bc5 16. Qe3 {
, Vitiugov-Maslak, Novokuznetsk 2008; and Vitiugov suggests} Bxd4 17. Rxd4 Qb6
18. Bd3 f6 $1 {.}) ({(c)} 12. f5 Qb6 13. f6 gxf6 14. exf6 Nxf6 15. Bh6 {
(Browne)} Kh8 $1 16. Bxf8 Rxf8 17. dxc5 Qxc5+ 18. Kh1 d4 19. Nd1 Ne4 20. Qd3 f5
({or} 20... Qd5 21. Nf2 f5) 21. Nf2 e5 $1 22. Nxe4 fxe4 23. Qxe4 Rf4 24. Qd3 e4
25. Qd2 Bd6 {and if the knight moves, 26...Rh4.}) ({(d)} 12. Bd3 Rc8 ({or} 
12... f6 $11) 13. Qf2 cxd4 $5 (13... b4 14. axb4 Nxb4) 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 (14... Na5
$5) 15. Bxd4 Nc5 16. f5 exf5 17. Bxf5 Ne6 18. Bb6 Qxb6 19. Qxb6 Bc5+ 20. Qxc5
Rxc5 {is level; e.g.} 21. Ne2 d4 $5 22. Bxe6 fxe6 23. Nxd4 Rxe5 24. Rfe1 Rxe1+
25. Rxe1 Bd5 {.}) 12... cxd4 ({Alternatively: -- (a)} 12... Rc8 {
is also good for equality:} 13. c3 Na5 14. Qe1 Nc4 15. Bd3 (15. Bf2 cxd4 16.
cxd4 Qb6 17. Bd3 f5 $1 {slows any potential kingside attack by White, and} 18.
exf6 Nxf6 19. Bh4 Rc7 {prepares ...Ne4}) 15... f5 (15... cxd4 16. cxd4 f5 {
is more accurate, with the idea} 17. exf6 Nxf6 18. Ng5 Qd6 19. f5 Ng4 20. Bf4
e5 21. Qg3 $1 exf4 22. Qxg4 Qf6 23. Ne6 Bd6 $1 $11) 16. Bf2 (16. exf6 Nxf6 17.
a4 $1 {initiates some queenside play}) 16... cxd4 17. cxd4 {
, Zherebukh-Bajarani, Kirishi 2010; and} Nb8 $1 18. a4 Nc6 {
would establish at least equality due to Black's queenside pressure.}) ({(b)} 
12... Qb6 {resembles 11...Qb6 of the following section (13.312). Then one
interesting example went} 13. Kh1 a5 14. c3 b4 15. a4 (15. Nf2 Ba6 16. Nd3 $5
bxc3 17. bxc3 cxd4 18. Nxd4 Nxd4 19. cxd4 Rab8 20. f5 exf5 21. Rxf5 Bc4 22. a4
Qa6 $11 {intending ...Rb3}) 15... Ba6 16. Bg1 $6 (16. Nf2 Bxe2 17. Qxe2 Rab8
18. Rfc1 Rfc8 19. Nd3 Qa6 $15) 16... bxc3 17. bxc3 cxd4 18. cxd4 Nb4 ({or} 
18... Bb4 19. Qa2 Bxe2 20. Qxe2 Ne7 $1 {, versus f5}) 19. Ne3 f5 $1 $15 {
Kurnosov-Swiercz, Lublin 2010.}) 13. Nxd4 Qc7 14. Nf2 (14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Bd4
Rac8 {is dynamically balanced; e.g.} 16. Rc1 (16. Ne3 Nc5) 16... Nb6 17. f5 $6
(17. Ne3 Bc5 $11) 17... Nc4 18. Bxc4 dxc4 19. f6 Bc5 $1 20. c3 Qe4 $1 21. Re1
Qg6 22. Re3 Qg5 $15 {.}) 14... Rac8 15. c3 Nc5 ({Or} 15... Na5 $11 {.}) 16. Qc2
(16. Qe1 {was played in Hou Yifan-Ding Liren, Chinese Ch. 2009. After} Nxd4 17.
cxd4 {,} Nb3 {is perhaps more interesting} ({than} 17... Ne4) {; e.g.} 18. Rb1
Qb6 19. Qd1 Na5 20. Nd3 Nc4 21. Bf2 Rc7 22. Bg4 a5 23. f5 Bc8 $1 24. fxe6 Bxe6
$15 {.}) 16... Nb8 $5 ({After} 16... h6 {, neither side has a compelling
threat. Black can try ...Na4 and/or ...Nd7-b6, but may end up settling for
simply ...Nxd4.}) 17. Rac1 Nbd7 $11 {
. Aiming for ...Nb6 and either ...Ne4 or ...Na4.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.312 11...Qb6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. Be2 a6 10. O-O b5 11. a3 Qb6 12. Nd1 {. White makes this temporary
retreat, also the most popular move, with two principle ideas: to reroute the
knight to f2 or e3 in support of a kingside attack, and to shore up the centre
if needed by c3. Naturally any backwards move opens up possibilities for the
opponent, and Black will try to implement his ideas forthwith.} ({
There are a few other important set-ups: -- (a)} 12. Kh1 Bb7 ({or} 12... cxd4
13. Nxd4 Bc5 14. Rad1 Bb7 15. Bf3 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Rac8 {and if White
retreats the queen, Black can play ...Qc5 and ...Nb6; if not, ...Rc7 and ...Rfc8 is a good plan}) 13. Rad1 (13. Bg1 cxd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Bc5 16.
Bxc5 Nxc5 $11 17. Rad1 Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Qd4 Qc7 $1 20. c3 Rfd8 $11 {
Sadvakasov-Ni Hua, Moscow 2007}) 13... cxd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Bc5 16. Qe3
Bxd4 17. Qxd4 Qxd4 18. Rxd4 f6 $5 (18... Rfc8 $11) 19. exf6 gxf6 20. Bg4 f5 21.
Bf3 Rac8 22. Rc1 Nc5 $11 {Fedorov-Kayumov, Tashkent 2008.}) ({(b)} 12. Rad1 $5
{lends support to d4, although the rook doesn't have much effect on the
central and queenside struggle after} Bb7 13. -- (13. dxc5 Bxc5 14. Bxc5 Nxc5 (
{or} 14... Qxc5+ $11) 15. Qe3 Rac8 16. Bd3 (16. f5 $5 Na4 17. Qxb6 Nxb6 18. Bd3
Nd7 19. fxe6 fxe6 20. Ng5 Rxf1+ 21. Rxf1 Nf8 $11) 16... Na4 (16... b4 $11) 17.
Qxb6 Nxb6 18. Ne2 {, Mekhitarian-Rodriguez Vila, Campinas 2010; and here} Na4
$1 19. b3 Nc5 20. Nfd4 g6 {equalizes.}) (13. Rfe1 cxd4 14. Nxd4 Bc5 15. Bg4 $5
Bxd4 16. Bxd4 Nxd4 17. Qxd4 g6 $5 18. Ne2 a5 {
(expanding and threatening to free his bishop after ...b4 and ...Ba6)} 19. c3
Rfc8 20. Qxb6 Nxb6 21. Nd4 Bc6 22. Ra1 Bd7 23. Kf2 Na4 24. Ra2 Rab8 25. Bd1 Nc5
$11 {K.Szabo-Manca, Budapest 2009.})) ({(c)} 12. dxc5 Bxc5 13. Bxc5 Nxc5 {
gives Black easy equality; e.g.} 14. Kh1 (14. Qe3 Bb7 15. b4 Na4 $11) 14... d4
$1 15. Nd1 (15. Nxd4 $2 Rd8 16. b4 Nb7 $17) 15... Rd8 16. Nf2 Ne7 $1 17. b4 Na4
18. Bd3 Nf5 $1 $15 {Wang Li-Gleizerov, Dubai 2008.}) 12... a5 ({
It's important to note that} 12... Bb7 {transposes to 11...Bb7 12 Nd1 Qb6,
which comes out satisfactorily for Black (see 13.311).}) 13. c3 {
White prepares Bd3 at the cost of weakening b3.} a4 $1 {This sets up ...Na5-c4
and preserves the possibility of ...b4. When Black plays ...Ba6 without
inserting this move, it can often happen that White will play b4 and stifle
the bishop.} ({Svidler-Hou Yifan, Amsterdam 2009, continued cautiously with} 
13... Bb7 14. Bf2 $5 (14. Bd3 {is more promising, intending f5}) {
, and Black can hold his own with} 14... b4 ({or} 14... a4 15. Ne3 Na5 16. Rad1
Nc4) ({, instead of} 14... f6 $6 15. exf6 $1 Nxf6 16. dxc5 Bxc5 17. Bxc5 Qxc5+
18. Qe3 $1 {with an edge.})) 14. Bd3 {Natural, finally aiming for the attack
with f5; this is White's best plan in general, although the timing is critical.
} ({The alternative} 14. Nf2 {can be met by} Na5 {; e.g.} 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16.
Bxc5 Nxc5 17. Qe3 Nc4 18. Bxc4 bxc4 19. Rae1 Rb8 $11 {
Kosintseva-Xu Yuhua, Ningpo 2008.}) 14... Na5 (14... cxd4 15. Nxd4 $5 ({
White should play} 15. cxd4 {, when} Na5 $5 {
creates an equal, tension-filled position}) 15... Nc5 16. Nf2 Na5 $1 {
was at least equal in Motylev-Yemelin, Ulan Ude 2009; with the idea} 17. Bxb5
$6 Ba6 $1 18. Bxa6 Qxa6 {, winning all the light squares.}) 15. Qe2 (15. Qf2 f5
$5 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. dxc5 Qc7 {
was unclear in Xu Yuhua-Xiao Zhang, Jiangsu Wuxi 2008.}) 15... Nc4 {
A natural move;} ({although} 15... Nb3 $1 16. Rb1 Ba6 {
intending ...b4 is a smoother solution; e.g.} 17. dxc5 $1 Ndxc5 18. Nf2 Qc6 $11
{.}) 16. Bf2 $1 f6 {
This holds up White's intended f5 and creates kingside counterplay.} 17. exf6
Nxf6 18. dxc5 Bxc5 19. Bxc5 (19. Bd4 {is more testing, after which} Bd7 20. Nf2
Bxd4 21. Nxd4 Rae8 {can follow.}) 19... Qxc5+ {, Djukic-Kosic, Cetinje 2009;} (
{here Wei Ming suggests} 19... Qxc5+ 20. Nf2 $1 ({instead of} 20. Nd4 $2) 20...
Bd7 $11 {followed by ...Rae8.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "13.32 9...b6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qd2
O-O 9. Be2 b6 {. This is a logical and recently popular way of treating the
position; Moskalenko, as so often, is a chief agitator for it. The most basic
ideas behind the move are these: (a) if, as in previous lines, White plays
dxc5(?), then ...bxc5 takes over the centre and even threatens ...d4; (b) when
Black plays ...f6, he threatens ...fxe5 followed by ...cxd4, winning a pawn.
In earlier lines, we saw White respond to ...f6 with exf6 and dxc5, which
isn't normally effective here since Black replies ...bxc5. It turns out that
Black has other ideas as well, such as playing ...f5, ...cxd4, and ...Nc5-e4;
or even ...a5 and ...Ba6. This flexibility serves him well. For the same idea
in less-tested contexts, see the notes on 8 a3 b6 and 8...0-0 9 a3 b6 above.}
10. O-O ({Instead: -- (a) As was the case after 9 0-0-0, here} 10. O-O-O {
might again be met by} c4 ({or the calmer} 10... Bb7 $11 {intending ...Rc8})
11. f5 b5 $1 12. Nxb5 (12. f6 gxf6 13. Bh6 fxe5) 12... Rb8 {
with a powerful attack.}) ({(b)} 10. Nd1 {prepares c3 or c4. Then} a5 {
and ...Ba6 is one approach, in addition to:} (10... cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 $5 (
11... Bb7 12. O-O {
transposes to 10...Bb7 in note 'b' to the main line with 10...f6!? below}) 12.
Bxd4 Nb8 $5 (12... Nc5) (12... Bb7 13. O-O Rc8 $11) 13. O-O Nc6 14. c3 Bb7 {
and White has a small positional edge following} 15. Ne3 (15. Bf2 f6 $11 {
Nijboer-Narciso Dublan, Barcelona 2007}) 15... Nxd4 16. cxd4 Rc8 {
, although it's hard to do anything with it.}) (10... f5 {is an important
interpretation of the ...b6 lines; one point is that after ...cxd4 and a white
piece recapture, Black can play ...Nc5-e4; e.g.} 11. c4 $5 ({after} 11. c3 {
, Black occupies the c-file anticipating queenside play:} Bb7 12. O-O Rc8 13.
Ng5 Bxg5 14. fxg5 Qe7 $11) (11. O-O {transposes to 10 0-0 f5 11 Nd1 below})
11... cxd4 $1 (11... dxc4 $2 12. d5) 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Bxd4 dxc4 $1 14. Bxc4
Nc5 15. Nc3 (15. b4 $2 Ne4 16. Qb2 a5 $1 $17 {- Kritz}) 15... Qc7 {
, Motylev-Vitiugov, Poikovsky 2010; and White should play} 16. O-O ({instead of
} 16. O-O-O $6) {; e.g.} 16... Rd8 (16... Ba6) 17. Rac1 Ba6 $1 18. Bxa6 Nxa6
19. Nd5 Qd7 20. Nxe7+ Qxe7 21. Rfd1 {(Kritz)} Nc7 $1 {
and Black transfers to the excellent outpost on d5.})) 10... f6 $5 {
Thematic and most often played, though Black has other good ideas here.} ({(a)
} 10... f5 {is a solid move, discouraging White's kingside aspirations:} 11.
Nd1 (11. dxc5 Nxc5 12. Nb5 Ne4 13. Qd1 Bc5 $11 {
Paikidze-Vorobiov, St Petersburg 2010}) (11. exf6 {
transposes into the main line}) 11... cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Bxd4 Nc5 14. Ne3 (
14. Nf2 Qd7 15. Kh1 Bb7 $11) 14... Ne4 15. Qe1 Bd7 (15... Bb7 $1) 16. c4 dxc4
17. Bxc4 Kh8 18. Rd1 Qe8 19. Qe2 Rd8 20. a3 Qg6 21. Rd3 Bc6 $11 {
Bobras-Naer, German League 2010.}) ({(b)} 10... Bb7 {('also playable and
attractive' - Moskalenko) develops and awaits White's reply; by protecting c6,
Black makes ...f6 sounder (that is, White's Nxd5 won't work; see the next note
on 11 dxc5); e.g.} 11. Nd1 (11. Kh1 f6) 11... cxd4 12. Nxd4 Nc5 (12... Nxd4 13.
Bxd4 Nb8 14. c3 Nc6 {transposes to 10 Nd1 cxd4 etc above}) 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14.
Bd4 Ne4 15. Qe3 Bc5 (15... f5 $5 {is more dynamic - McDonald}) 16. Nf2 f5 (
16... Bxd4 $1 17. Qxd4 Qe7 $11) 17. Nxe4 Bxd4 18. Nf6+ $1 (18. Qxd4 fxe4) 18...
Qxf6 19. Qxd4 Qe7 20. Rad1 Rac8 {
, Kokarev-Volkov, Plovdiv 2008. This appears roughly equal.}) 11. exf6 (11.
dxc5 Nxc5 (11... bxc5 $2 12. Nxd5 $1) 12. Bb5 Bb7 13. exf6 Bxf6 14. Bxc6 Bxc6
15. Bd4 Rc8 16. Rad1 Be8 $5 17. Bxf6 Rxf6 18. Ne5 b5 19. a3 Qb6 $11 {.}) 11...
Nxf6 12. Bb5 {Trying to strengthen his hold over the e5-square.} ({
Alternatively,} 12. Kh1 Bb7 (12... Qc7 13. Ne5 a6 $1 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Qe1 Bb7
16. Bf3 Rae8 17. Rd1 Bd6 18. Qh4 Qc7 19. Ne2 {
, Bazeev-Iskusnyh, St Petersburg 2010; and} Ne4 {was fully equal}) {, and now:}
13. -- (13. Rad1 Ne4 (13... Qc7 $11) 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15. Ne5 Nxd4 16. Bxd4 cxd4
17. Bc4 Bf6 $1 18. Bxe6+ Kh8 19. Nf7+ Rxf7 20. Bxf7 Qc7 {with obvious
compensation in the form of the bishops and centre pawns, especially since} 21.
Bb3 $6 (21. Bh5 Rc8 22. Rc1 Qc4) 21... Ba6 {will win the exchange back.}) (13.
Bd3 {is more aggressive:} a6 {('Black intends the central set-up ...Qc7/...Qd6,
...Rae8, followed by ...Ng4, so White cannot afford to play casually' -
Kosintseva)} 14. a3 $6 (14. Rae1 c4 $5 15. Be2 Bb4) (14. Bg1 Qd6 $11) 14... Qc7
15. Qe1 (15. Rae1 Bd6 16. g3 Rae8 $15) {
, Kosintseva-I.Rajlich, Novi Sad 2009; and Kosintseva suggests} 15... Rae8 ({
instead of releasing the central tension by} 15... c4) {
, when there might follow} 16. Qh4 cxd4 (16... Bd6) (16... g6 $5) 17. Nxd4 Ne4
18. Qh3 Nxd4 19. Bxd4 Bf6 $15 {.})) 12... Qc7 ({White can take over e5 after} 
12... Bb7 13. Bxc6 Bxc6 14. Ne5 {, but it can be challenged; e.g.} Be8 ({or} 
14... Qc7 15. Rad1 Nd7 16. Nxc6 Qxc6 $11 {with ...Nf6 to come}) 15. Rae1 Rc8
16. a3 (16. Qe2 b5 $1) 16... Bd6 17. Bf2 Bb8 18. Bh4 Qd6 $11 {.}) 13. Kh1 Bd7
$5 (13... a6 14. Bxc6 Qxc6 {is straightforward.}) 14. Rad1 a6 15. Bxc6 Bxc6 16.
Qe2 b5 ({Or} 16... Bd6 17. Bg1 Rae8 {with the idea} 18. Qxa6 $2 c4 $1 {.}) 17.
Bg1 Qc8 $6 ({Here} 17... Bd7 {is fine, since} 18. Ng5 Qc6 19. Rde1 Rae8 {
secures the centre and can be followed by a queenside advance.}) ({After} 17...
Qc8 $6 {, White could get a limited edge with} 18. Rfe1 {.} ({
Instead, in Baramidze-Berczes, Biel 2008, he blundered by} 18. dxc5 $2 b4 19.
Rfe1 ({in view of} 19. Nb1 Bb5 $17) 19... bxc3 20. Qxe6+ Rf7 21. Ng5 Qxe6 22.
Rxe6 Bd7 {and Black went on to win.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14. MacCutcheon: Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 {. This is the McCutcheon Variation.
In the last edition, the solution I gave to 4 Bg5 was based upon ...dxe4 (i.e.
4...dxe4 5 Nxe4 Be7), which is fine but not in the style of the other systems
I have recommended. That is, in the main lines of the main systems of this
book, Black has always held the d5 strongpoint until White decided upon e5,
setting up a traditional pawn chain. That is also the case with the McCutcheon.
It is considered quite dynamic, and resembles the Winawer Variation in several
respects, not the least of which are the doubled pawns White usually incurs
when Black captures on c3 and surrenders his bishop pair. Moreover, in White's
main line with Qg4, Black has to defend g7 and choose between active and
passive play in so doing. The resulting positions are rich and varied, with
the bonus that Black can choose between wide-open play (e.g. lines based upon ...cxd4) and a complex positional struggle (lines with ...c4). Sometimes White
can make this decision for him by opening the position with dxc5, a move used
much more often here than in the Winawer. In the main line, there are early
piece exchanges, but the imbalance of forces and structure keeps the positions
extremely complex in spite of such formal simplification. As usual, all this
is best shown by examining the variations themselves:} 5. -- ({14.1} 5. exd5) (
{14.2} 5. Nge2) ({14.3} 5. e5) ({
Others: -- (a) Black has the bishop pair and no problems after} 5. Bxf6 Qxf6 6.
e5 Qd8 {intending ...c5;} ({or here} 6... Qe7 {.})) ({(b)} 5. Bd3 {
is well answered by} dxe4 ({or} 5... c5) 6. Bxe4 Nbd7 ({or} 6... h6 7. Bxf6
Qxf6 8. Nf3 O-O 9. O-O Nd7 $11) 7. Nge2 h6 8. Bxf6 Nxf6 9. Bf3 c5 $11 {
Gipslis-Bronstein, USSR Ch., Baku 1961.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.1 5 exd5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Bxf6 {
. Here Black has two satisfactory moves:} -- ({14.11} 6... gxf6) ({14.12} 6...
Bxc3+) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.11 6...gxf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Bxf6 gxf6 {. This goes
with moves like ...Rg8, ...e5, and/or ...b6 to achieve rapid development.} 7.
Nge2 (7. Qd2 Qa5 (7... Bxc3 8. Qxc3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Rg8 {is also satisfactory}) 8.
Nge2 Nd7 9. a3 Nb6 {has been played often;} 10. Rd1 Be7 11. b4 $5 (11. Nf4 Bd7
12. Be2 O-O-O) 11... Qg5 12. f4 Qh6 ({or} 12... Qh4+ 13. g3 Qh5 $11) 13. Nc1 (
13. Nb5 Kd8 $1 {intending ...c6/...Kc7}) 13... Bd7 14. Nb3 Rg8 {
and Black had an edge in Ramsauer-Behrends, corr Germany 1994.}) 7... Nc6 8. a3
(8. Qd2 Bxc3 9. Nxc3 (9. Qxc3 Bd7 10. Qb3 Qa5+ 11. c3 O-O-O {
is more than adequate for Black}) 9... Qxd4 10. Qxd4 Nxd4 11. O-O-O c5 12. Ne4
b6 13. c3 Nf5 14. g4 Nh4 15. Nxf6+ Ke7 16. g5 h6 17. f4 Rb8 $11 {
; compare the main line.}) {After 8 a3, we enter a lengthy forcing sequence:}
8... Bxc3+ 9. Nxc3 Qxd4 10. Qxd4 Nxd4 11. O-O-O c5 $1 (11... Nc6 12. Nb5 Ke7
13. Nxc7 Rb8 14. Bb5 $1 $14 {with the idea} a6 $2 15. Nxa6 {.}) 12. Ne4 b6 13.
c3 (13. Nxf6+ Ke7 {and ...Bb7 can only favour Black.}) 13... Nf5 ({
Black can also play} 13... Nb3+ {
(note that this isn't available after 8 Qd2 Bxc3 9 Nxc3 Qxd4 etc)} 14. Kc2 Na5
15. b4 Nb7 $1 16. Nxf6+ (16. g4 Ke7) 16... Ke7 17. Ng4 ({or} 17. Ne4 Bd7) 17...
Bd7 {, which has equalized in several games.}) 14. g4 Nh4 15. Nxf6+ Ke7 16. g5
h6 17. f4 Rb8 $1 {With the idea ...Ng6 and in some cases ...hxg5.} 18. Bb5 a6
$1 19. Bc6 Ng6 {This position is balanced and offers equal chances.} 20. f5 $5
(20. Rhf1 {is objectively better:} hxg5 21. fxg5 Ne5 22. Bh1 (22. Be4 Rxh2 23.
Ng8+ Ke8 $11) 22... c4 (22... Rxh2 23. Ng8+ Ke8 24. Rfe1) 23. Rd2 Bb7 24. Bxb7
Rxb7 $11 {.}) 20... exf5 21. Rhe1+ Be6 22. Rd7+ Kf8 {. Black has a slight edge;
} ({with a more serious advantage if White tries} 22... Kf8 23. Ra7 $2 (23.
gxh6 $6 Ne7) (23. Bd5 $1 Bxd7 24. Nxd7+ Kg7 25. gxh6+ Kxh6 26. Nxb8 Rxb8 27.
Bxf7 Nf4 $15) 23... hxg5 $1 24. Rxe6 fxe6 25. Nd7+ Kf7 26. Nxb8+ Ne7 27. Nxa6
g4 $1 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.12 6...Bxc3+"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Bxf6 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 gxf6
{. In this line the opponents have weaknesses and open files of about equal
worth.} 8. Qd2 ({Instead: -- (a) After} 8. Nf3 {
, Black has some leeway, but he usually fianchettoes; e.g.} b6 ({alternatively,
} 8... Bd7 {is interesting, with the idea} 9. Be2 Bb5) 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Rg8 {
has worked out well in numerous games.}) ({(b)} 8. Qg4 Qa5 9. Ne2 Ke7 $5 (9...
Bd7 $1 {is preferable, with the idea} 10. Qg7 Rf8 11. Qxf6 Bc6 {followed by ...Nd7, after which White will be well behind in development and has difficulties
getting his pieces untangled}) 10. Qe4 ({or} 10. g3) 10... Bd7 11. Qxb7 (11.
Qe3 $1 Bc6 12. Nf4 {intending Bc4 is better}) 11... Nc6 12. Qb3 Rab8 13. Qc4
Rb2 {with a nice initiative, Brendel-Glek, Swiss Team Ch. 2004.}) 8... Nc6 {
Again Black has ideas of ...Rg8, ...e5, and/or ...b6 with rapid development.} (
{Alternatively, the natural} 8... c5 {is often played here}) ({as is} 8... Nd7
{(} 9. c4 Qc6 $1 10. Nf3 Rg8 {).}) ({Finally,} 8... Qa5 {is a safe choice; e.g.
} 9. Bd3 (9. g3 Qd5 $5 10. f3 Nc6) (9. Ne2 b6 10. Qf4 $6 Nd7 $1 {
, Kovalevskaya-Volkov, Togliatti 2003, with the idea} 11. Qxc7 Ba6) 9... Bd7
10. Ne2 Bc6 11. Nf4 (11. f3 Nd7 12. O-O O-O-O 13. Be4 {
, D.King-N.McDonald, British League 2009; and here Wei Ming suggests} Bxe4 14.
fxe4 Rdg8 {intending to double rooks and attack}) 11... e5 12. Nh5 (12. dxe5
fxe5 13. Nh5 Nd7 14. Bf5 O-O-O 15. Nf6 Qc5 16. O-O Qe7 17. Nd5 Bxd5 18. Qxd5
Kb8 19. Rfe1 f6 {intending for the knight to take up permanent residence on c5}
) 12... Nd7 13. Bf5 O-O-O 14. c4 (14. Nxf6 $2 exd4 {, hitting f5}) 14... Qxd2+
15. Kxd2 exd4 16. Nxf6 h5 $11 {intending ...Rh6.}) 9. Qf4 ({After} 9. Ne2 e5 $5
10. Qh6 Ke7 11. dxe5 Qxe5 $11 {
, Black's free development compensates for his structure.}) (9. Nf3 Rg8 10. Qd3
Bd7 11. Rb1 O-O-O 12. Qa6 $5 Na5 $5 13. Qxa7 Bc6 $15 {
intending ...Qxa2 or ...b6.}) 9... Qa5 10. Ne2 (10. Kd2 f5 11. Nf3 Bd7 $15 {
and ...0-0-0.}) 10... Ke7 $5 ({Or} 10... f5 $11 {intending ...b6.}) 11. Qd2 (
11. Rd1 Rd8 12. Qe4 Qxa2 13. Qxh7 e5 $15 {
Feldmann-Canovas Pordomingo, IECG 2003.}) ({Here} 11. Qd2 b6 $1 12. Ng3 Bb7 {
is equal, since White will have to go through contortions to get castled after
...Rad8.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.2 5 Ne2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Nge2 {. This position, which can
also arise from the Winawer line 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Ne2 Nf6 (see 7.42) 5 Bg5, tries
for a small positional edge. Black has two good ways to tackle it:} -- ({14.21
} 5... dxe4) ({14.22} 5... h6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.21 5...dxe4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Nge2 dxe4 6. a3 Be7 7. Bxf6 Bxf6 ({
Black can also play} 7... gxf6 8. Nxe4 f5 (8... b6 {
is possible and theoretically okay, but somewhat passive after} 9. g3 Bb7 10.
Bg2 c6) 9. N4c3 Nd7 10. Qd2 Nf6 11. O-O-O Qd6 $11 {.}) 8. Nxe4 O-O ({
Here Black can play solidly with} 8... b6 {, when} 9. g3 Bb7 10. Bg2 Nc6 ({or} 
10... c6 {is playable})) ({or else} 8... Nd7 {; e.g.} 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O $6
Be7 {, transposing to the main line.}) ({But} 8... Nc6 {
is a more active and direct solution:} 9. c3 (9. Nxf6+ Qxf6 10. Qd3 Bd7 11. g3
e5) 9... O-O 10. N2g3 (10. g3 e5 11. d5 Na5 {with balanced prospects; e.g.} 12.
Bg2 Nc4 13. b3 Nd6 14. Nxf6+ Qxf6 $11) 10... Be7 11. Bc4 Kh8 12. O-O f5 $5 ({or
} 12... e5 13. d5 Na5 14. Ba2 b5 $5 {with the idea} 15. d6 cxd6 16. Bxf7 Nc4)
13. Nc5 (13. Nd2 e5) 13... e5 14. Ne6 Bxe6 15. Bxe6 exd4 16. Bxf5 dxc3 $1 17.
Qh5 Rxf5 18. Qxf5 cxb2 19. Rad1 Qg8 {and the b-pawn is a real threat.}) 9. Qd2
(9. Nxf6+ $6 {is well met by} Qxf6 10. Qd2 c5 $15 {.}) 9... Be7 (9... Bd7 10.
O-O-O Bc6 {is a reasonable alternate set-up.}) 10. O-O-O $6 {This is rather
risky because, in spite of his unimpressive development, Black can target
White's king.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 10. N2c3 $6 Nc6 ({or} 10... b6 11. Be2 Bb7 {
; e.g.} 12. Bf3 $2 Nc6 13. Rd1 e5 $1 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nf6+ Bxf6 16. Bxb7 Qxd2+
17. Rxd2 Rfe8 $1) 11. O-O-O f5 $1 12. Ng3 e5 $1 13. Bc4+ Kh8 $15 {has the idea}
14. dxe5 $2 Bg5 {.}) ({(b)} 10. Qc3 Nc6 11. O-O-O f5 $1 12. Nd2 (12. Nc5 Qd5)
12... Bf6 {and it's nearly equal, but Black is for choice.}) ({
(c) Probably White should prefer the simple} 10. g3 $1 {; e.g.} Nd7 11. Bg2 c5
$11 ({or} 11... c6 $11 {.})) 10... Nd7 11. g3 ({Or} 11. Qc3 b5 $1 {
and an attack:} 12. Nf4 Bb7 13. Nc5 Bxc5 14. dxc5 Bc6 {
with ideas of ...Qg5 or ...Qe7 and ...a5.}) 11... b5 $1 12. Bg2 Rb8 (12... Bb7
$1 {intending ...a5 is also strong here; e.g.} 13. Nf6+ Nxf6 14. Bxb7 Rb8 15.
Bg2 b4 {.}) 13. d5 ({Black also stands better after} 13. Nf4 b4 14. axb4 Bxb4
15. c3 Be7 {.}) 13... e5 14. d6 cxd6 15. Nxd6 Nc5 16. Qd5 Rb6 $15 {
N.Friedrich-Lputian, Berlin 1989.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.22 5...h6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Nge2 h6 {
. Black trades space for the bishop pair.} 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. a3 Ba5 $5 {
This makes it a gambit, but one for which Black gets very obvious compensation.
} 8. exd5 ({If White decides not to get greedy,} 8. b4 Bb6 9. e5 {
is probably the most interesting way to proceed:} Qe7 (9... Qf5 $5 10. Ng3 Qf4)
({, and} 9... Qg5 $5 {are good options}) 10. Na4 Bd7 11. c3 O-O 12. Nf4 Bxa4 (
12... Be8 13. g3 f6 14. exf6 $5 ({here} 14. Bh3 $1 fxe5 15. dxe5 Bf7 16. O-O
Nd7 {is highly unbalanced and hard to assess}) 14... Qxf6 15. Ra2 $6 {
, Hector-Glek, Copenhagen 1995; and} Bxa4 16. Qxa4 g5 17. Nd3 Qf3 18. Rg1 e5 $1
{gives Black the advantage}) 13. Qxa4 Nd7 14. Bd3 {
, R.Jacobs-C.Jones, corr 2000; and the most dynamic course would be} a5 $5 15.
b5 g5 16. Nh5 f6 17. Nxf6+ Nxf6 18. exf6 Qxf6 19. O-O e5 {
with complex equality.}) 8... O-O $1 {This is the gambit. Whether or not White
accepts, Black scores well from this position.} 9. Qd3 (9. Qd2 Rd8 10. dxe6 $5
(10. Qf4 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qe7 $1 {, and White still does well to avoid} 12. dxe6
({by playing, say,} 12. Qe3 Rxd5 13. Nf4 {, when} Ra5 $5 14. Bd3 Nd7 15. O-O
Nf6 {could follow}) 12... Qxe6 $1) 10... Bxe6 11. Qe3 $6 (11. O-O-O $1 Nc6 12.
Qf4 Qxf4+ 13. Nxf4 Nxd4 {is only modestly in Black's favour}) 11... Nc6 (11...
c5 $1 12. dxc5 Nc6 {lets Black take a strong initiative, with the idea} 13. b4
Nxb4 $1 14. axb4 Bxb4) 12. O-O-O Bxc3 13. Nxc3 Nxd4 14. Bd3 c5 15. Rd2 $6 (15.
Rhe1 $11) 15... b6 $5 $15 {½-½ Mamedov-Antic, Kavala 2010.}) 9... Rd8 10.
dxe6 Bxe6 {Black has obvious compensation.} 11. O-O-O $5 Qxf2 12. Ne4 Qf5 ({Or
} 12... Qh4 {with a minor edge.}) 13. Nc5 Qxd3 14. Rxd3 Bc8 {
. This is called '=' in 'ECO'.} ({
Unzicker-Piskov, German League 1991, continued} 14... Bc8 15. g3 Nd7 16. b4 Bb6
17. Bg2 c6 18. Nf4 {, when an ambitious continuation is} g5 $5 (18... Nxc5 19.
bxc5 $5 Ba5 20. d5 Bf5 21. Rb3 g5 22. Ne2 cxd5 23. Rxb7 {
is dynamically balanced}) 19. Nh5 a5 20. Nxd7 $1 {
(otherwise ...Nxc5 is coming and Black retains the bishop pair)} Bxd7 21. Nf6+
Kg7 22. Nxd7 Rxd7 23. c3 axb4 24. axb4 Re7 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.3 5 e5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 {
. White has three main moves here, two covered in this chapter:} 6. -- ({14.31
} 6. Bc1) ({14.32} 6. Be3) ({The traditional main line} 6. Bd2 {
is investigated in Chapter 15.}) ({One of the things that I noticed in
researching the McCutcheon is that, at several junctures, White's 'irregular'
moves were not only satisfactory for him, but sometimes difficult to counter.
The following alternatives are better than their reputation (one author for
example, gives both 6 Bxf6 and 6 Bh4 '?'s, which are total misassessments): --
(a)} 6. exf6 hxg5 7. fxg7 Rg8 {isn't dangerous if Black takes a bit of care,
and his bishop pair and central majority are potential advantages:} 8. -- (8.
Qh5 Qf6 9. O-O-O (9. Nge2 Qxg7 10. O-O-O Nc6 11. h4 Rh8 12. Qg4 f5 $15) 9...
Qxg7 10. Qf3 a6 (10... Nc6 11. Qe3 Ne7 $1 $11) 11. Qe3 Be7 $1 12. Kb1 Nc6 $15 {
. Black has the bishop pair and queenside prospects.}) (8. h4 $1 {
is the most promising move:} gxh4 (8... Nc6 9. h5 ({but I like} 9. Qd3 $1 {
for White}) 9... Rxg7 {has been played}) {and:} 9. -- (9. Qg4 Qf6 (9... Nc6 10.
O-O-O Qf6 {is also equal}) 10. Nf3 (10. Rxh4 Rxg7 11. Rh8+ Kd7 {and ...Qxd4,
when White has compensation but also the burden of proof, since Black stands
solidly}) 10... Rxg7 11. Qxh4 Qxh4 12. Rxh4 Nd7 13. g3 Ke7 14. Bg2 c5 $11 {.})
(9. Nf3 Qf6 10. Rxh4 Nc6 11. a3 $5 (11. Qd3 Bd7 $11) {
, Stambulian-Skorchenko, Krasnodar 2002; and} 11... Bxc3+ $1 12. bxc3 Bd7 {
, e.g.} 13. Qd2 Qxg7 14. O-O-O f6 15. Qh6 Qxh6+ 16. Rxh6 Kf7 $11 {.}) (9. Qh5
Qf6 10. Qxh4 (10. Nf3 Qxg7 11. Qxh4 Nc6 12. O-O-O Bd7 {transposes}) (10. Rxh4
Nc6 11. Bb5 Bd7 12. Nf3 O-O-O 13. O-O-O Rxg7 $11 {Timman-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1983
}) 10... Qxg7 11. O-O-O ({or} 11. Nf3 Nc6 12. O-O-O Bd7) 11... Bd7 (11... Be7
$5 {- Moskalenko - might lead to} 12. Qh2 Bd6 13. Qh3 Bd7 14. Qe3 Be7 $1) 12.
Nf3 Nc6 13. a3 (13. Nb5 Ba5 14. Bd3 f6 $1 $15) 13... Bxc3 14. bxc3 f6 $11 {.}))
) ({(b)} 6. Bxf6 {is fully playable but harmless because White's centre can
come under immediate pressure:} gxf6 7. a3 (7. Nf3 Nd7 8. Be2 c5 9. exf6 Qxf6
10. O-O cxd4 11. Nxd4 O-O $11) 7... Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 fxe5 9. dxe5 c5 (9... Qg5 $5
10. Nf3 Qg7 $11) 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Qd2 Qc7 12. Qf4 (12. Qe3 Qa5 {intending ...d4}
) 12... Qa5 $1 13. Qd2 Qa4 (13... Qc7 {repeats}) (13... b6 {, intending ...Ba6}
) ({, and} 13... Bd7 {are alternatives}) 14. Be2 Rg8 15. O-O $1 (15. g3 b6 16.
O-O Bb7) 15... Qe4 $5 (15... b6 {is safe and sound}) 16. g3 Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Qxe5
18. Rfe1 Bd7 19. Rab1 b6 20. a4 $1 Qf6 21. a5 Rb8 22. axb6 axb6 {
with compensation but no more than that for White.}) ({(c)} 6. Bh4 {
is considerably better than the books generally indicate:} g5 7. Bg3 ({here} 7.
exf6 gxh4 8. Qf3 Nd7 {
will give Black an extra pawn, albeit a weak one, and the bishop pair}) 7...
Ne4 8. Nge2 {and now Black has nothing that gains an advantage, but a raft of
reasonable moves:} -- (8... h5 9. h4 (9. f3 Nxg3 10. hxg3 Bd7 {
with the idea ...Nc6/...Qe7/...0-0-0, or if} 11. Qd3 {, then} Be7 {
and ...c5 is double-edged}) 9... c5 $1 10. a3 Nxg3 11. Nxg3 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Qa5
13. Qd2 g4 {with sufficient play; e.g.} 14. Bd3 Bd7 15. Rb1 Bc6 {, to meet} 16.
Qg5 {with} Qxc3+ 17. Kf1 Nd7 18. Nxh5 Qxd4 19. Nf6+ Ke7 20. Nxd5+ Kf8 21. Qe7+
$11 {.}) (8... c5 {
has been the most common move, with a double-edged game after} 9. a3 Nxc3 ({or
} 9... Bxc3+ 10. Nxc3 Qa5 {, when} 11. Qd3 ({but} 11. dxc5 {with the idea} Nxc3
12. Qd2 Qxc5 13. bxc3 {might give White a little something}) 11... Bd7 {
looks alright}) 10. Nxc3 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qa5 12. Qd2 Nc6 13. dxc5 Bd7 14. Be2
Qxc5 15. f4 $5 gxf4 16. Bxf4 O-O-O 17. Be3 Qa5 18. Bd4 Rhg8 $11 {.}) (8... Nd7
9. a3 (9. Qd3 $1 c5 10. O-O-O $14) 9... Nxg3 10. hxg3 Be7 11. b4 $2 (11. f4 $14
) 11... a5 12. b5 c5 {with good play, Karjakin-Volkov, Panormo 2002.}) (8... f5
{has been a popular line at the top levels:} 9. f3 $1 {
(to me, this casts a few doubts upon 8...f5)} ({; alternatively:} 9. h4 f4 10.
Bh2 c5 11. a3 Nxc3 12. Nxc3 Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 Qa5 {, with the idea} 14. Qh5+ Kd8
$1 $11) (9. f4 $6 h5 $1 10. fxg5 Qxg5 11. Bf4 Bxc3+ 12. bxc3 Qg4 13. h3 Qg7 {
, when White is tied up and faces problems on his queenside light squares}) (9.
exf6 Qxf6 10. a3 {, when} Bxc3+ (10... Ba5 {is fine}) 11. Nxc3 Nxg3 12. hxg3
Nc6 13. Bb5 $6 {appeared in two blitz games by Volkov, in which Black rejected
the double attack} O-O $1 ({and played} 13... Bd7) 14. Qd2 Qxd4 ({or} 14...
Nxd4 {.})) 9... Nxg3 (9... Nxc3 10. Nxc3 c5 11. a3 cxd4 $5 12. axb4 dxc3 13.
bxc3 $14) 10. hxg3 Nc6 11. a3 Bf8 12. f4 Bd7 13. Qd2 $14 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.31 6 Bc1"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bc1 {. This has been
played by many strong grandmasters over the years and deserves more respect
than it generally receives. Not only won't White's dark-squared bishop be
traded off, it may head for a3 at the right moment, and a queen or rook on the
third rank will have a clear view of the queenside (as opposed to after 6 Be3).
White's main problem is that c3 and d4 are left undefended.} Ne4 7. Qg4 (7.
Nge2 c5 8. a3 {is well met by} Ba5 {
(a typical retreat: Black will often go to c7 or b6 with central pressure)} ({
the alternative} 8... Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Nc6 10. f3 Ng5 {intending ...Qa5 is also
playable, only because White is undeveloped and almost as disorganized as
Black!}) 9. dxc5 (9. b4 Nxc3 10. Nxc3 cxd4 11. Nb5 Bc7 12. f4 O-O 13. Bd3 Nc6
14. Nxc7 Qxc7 15. O-O f5 16. Bd2 a6 {
proved more than adequate for Black in Heidl-B.Lalic, Biel 1989}) 9... O-O 10.
b4 Nxc3 11. Nxc3 Bc7 12. Bf4 (12. f4 f6 $1 $15) 12... Nc6 13. Qh5 f5 $5 {
(hitting e5)} (13... b6 {is an interesting alternative}) 14. Be2 (14. Bxh6 $2
Bxe5 15. Bd2 b6 $1 $15) (14. Qe2 g5 $1 15. Qh5 Qe7) 14... Bxe5 15. Bxe5 Nxe5
16. O-O b6 $1 17. cxb6 axb6 18. f4 Nd7 {
and ...Nf6, when White's queenside pawns are vulnerable.}) {This is a serious
try for advantage; Black can equalize but has no easy solution or escape from
complications. White's chances are apparently as good as they are in the main
6 Bd2 lines, which have undergone perhaps fifty times as much analysis. To
begin with, Black is faced with the same crucial choice about defence of his
g-pawn that arises in many McCutcheon and Winawer variations:} 7... -- ({14.311
} 7... Kf8) ({14.312} 7... g6) (7... g5 $5 {is rather weakening, but adds
dynamism to the position, beginning with the idea of ...h5 and ...g4. Given
that Black has to tolerate some rather dull positions after 7...Kf8 and 7...g6,
I think this deserves a look:} 8. -- (8. Nge2 c5 (8... h5 9. Qf3 {
is ineffective; e.g.} c5 10. a3 Ba5 11. b4 $1 cxb4 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Qxe4 b3+
14. c3 $16) 9. a3 Ba5 {and White has two ambitious courses:} 10. -- (10. b4 $5
{is a typical attempt to gain the dark squares:} Nxc3 11. Nxc3 cxb4 (11... cxd4
12. Nb5 ({or} 12. bxa5 dxc3 13. h4 Rg8) 12... Bc7 {resembles a 4 e5 c5 5 a3
Ba5 Winawer; I suspect that White stands slightly better}) 12. Nb5 b3+ {
is rather chaotic; e.g.} 13. Bd2 (13. c3 Nc6 14. h4 Kd7 $5 {
with the ideas ...a6 and ...f6, and answering} 15. hxg5 $6 {by} a6) 13... bxc2
$1 14. h4 $1 (14. Nd6+ Ke7 15. Qf3 Bxd2+ 16. Kxd2 f5 17. Qh5 Qg8 {
with chances for both sides}) 14... Qb6 $5 (14... a6 $5 15. Nd6+ Kd7 16. hxg5
Qb6 17. Rc1 Qb2 18. Rxc2 Qxc2 19. Bxa5 Nc6 {
is also wild and apparently balanced}) 15. hxg5 Bd7 16. Nd6+ Kf8 17. Rc1 Qb1
18. Ke2 Bb5+ 19. Nxb5 Qxb5+ 20. Ke3 Bxd2+ 21. Kxd2 Qa5+ 22. Kxc2 Rg8 {
with even chances.}) (10. dxc5 Qc7 11. Qf3 (11. b4 {can be met by} Nxc3 12.
Nxc3 Qxe5+ 13. Kd2 Bc7 {; e.g.} 14. Nb5 Qf4+ 15. Qxf4 Bxf4+ 16. Kd3 Bd7 17. c4
Be5 18. Rb1 a6 19. Nc3 Nc6) 11... Nxc3 (11... Nc6 $5 12. b4 Nxb4 13. axb4 Bxb4
{is perhaps too speculative}) 12. Nxc3 Qxe5+ 13. Be2 Nc6 14. O-O O-O {
. This looks quite playable because of Black's good centre and potential pawn
expansion, although naturally White has prospects of his own on the kingside.})
) (8. a3 {, when an independent line is} h5 ({otherwise} 8... Ba5 9. Nge2 c5 {
transposes to 8 Nge2}) 9. Qf3 (9. Qh3 $5 g4 10. Qe3 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 c5) 9...
Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 c5 {, and:} 11. -- (11. Qe3 Qa5 12. Ne2 Nc6 13. Bb2 Nxd4 14.
Nxd4 cxd4 15. Qxd4 b6 16. f3 Nc5 17. h4 Na4 (17... Ba6) 18. O-O-O (18. Bc1 Ba6
$1) 18... Ba6 $1 19. Bxa6 Qxa6 20. hxg5 Rc8 $11 {.}) (11. Bd3 Nxc3 12. dxc5 Nc6
13. Qe3 (13. Qf6 Qxf6 14. exf6 Na4 15. Bxg5 Nxc5 $11) 13... Rg8 14. Ne2 d4 15.
Qd2 Qd5 {and the dissolution of White's centre establishes equality.}))) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.311 7...Kf8"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bc1 Ne4 7. Qg4 Kf8 8. a3 (
8. Nge2 {is the other natural way to develop:} c5 9. a3 (9. f3 cxd4 10. fxe4
dxc3 11. exd5 Ba5 $1) 9... Bxc3+ {(the solid option)} (9... Ba5 {
transposes to the main line}) 10. bxc3 (10. Nxc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qa4
{is unclear but I think quite playable for Black; compare the Portisch-Hook
Variation of Chapter 11}) 10... cxd4 11. cxd4 Nc6 {intending ...Qa5 and ...Ne7.
}) 8... Ba5 9. Nge2 {This the thematic reply.} (9. Bd3 {is easy to handle:} c5
(9... Nxc3 {equalizes:} 10. Bd2 Na4 $5 11. Bxa5 Nxb2 {, when} 12. Be2 b6 13.
Bc3 Na4 14. Bd2 c5 $15 {might follow}) 10. Bxe4 cxd4 11. b4 dxc3 12. bxa5 (12.
Bd3 Bc7 13. f4 a5 $1 $15) 12... dxe4 13. Qxe4 (13. a4 Qd5 $1) 13... Nc6 $11 {.}
) 9... c5 (9... f5 {is the main recommendation, although I think White retains
a limited advantage following} 10. Qh3 $1 Nxc3 11. Nxc3 c5 12. dxc5 d4 13. b4
dxc3 14. bxa5 Qxa5 15. Be3 {.}) 10. dxc5 $1 (10. b4 $6 Nxc3 11. Nxc3 (11. bxa5
Nxe2 12. Bxe2 Nc6 13. c3 Qxa5 14. Bd2 h5 15. Qf4 b6 $11) 11... cxb4 12. axb4 (
12. Nb5 $6 b3+ 13. c3 $4 a6) 12... Bxb4 $15 {.}) 10... Qc7 (10... h5 11. Qh3 d4
12. b4 dxc3 13. Qe3 (13. bxa5 $6 Qd2+ $1 14. Bxd2 cxd2+ 15. Kd1 Nxf2+ $15)
13... Nd2 $5 14. Qxc3 Nxf1 15. bxa5 Bd7 16. Rxf1 Bb5 {
with compensation based upon light-square pressure.}) 11. Qf4 $1 ({
The only other way to shore up the centre is} 11. f4 {
, when Black targets the weak queenside pawns by} Nxc3 $1 12. Nxc3 Bxc3+ 13.
bxc3 Nd7 $11 {.}) 11... Nxc3 12. Nxc3 Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 b6 $1 {A standard theme,
not only giving the option of ...bxc5, but preparing ...Ba6 before White's
bishops become a force.} 14. c4 ({On} 14. Rb1 {,} Qxc5 $1 15. c4 Bb7 {
is probably best, intending ...dxc4 or ...Nc6,} ({but even} 15... Nc6 16. Rb5
Qd4 17. cxd5 Qxf4 18. Bxf4 Nd4 19. Rb2 exd5 {is balanced.})) ({After} 14. c4 {
, a sample line would be} bxc5 15. cxd5 exd5 16. e6 $5 (16. Rb1 Nc6) 16... Qxf4
17. Bxf4 fxe6 18. Bd6+ Kf7 19. Rb1 (19. Bxc5 Ba6 {
gives Black the better pawn structure}) 19... Nd7 20. Bb5 a6 21. Bxd7 Bxd7 22.
Rb7 Rhd8 {and the opposite-coloured bishops ensure equality; e.g.} 23. Kd2 Kg6
24. Bxc5 Rab8 25. Rhb1 Rxb7 26. Rxb7 Bb5 {. --- Thus 7...Kf8 is a completely
sound move, whose only drawback involves a lack of winning prospects.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.312 7...g6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bc1 Ne4 7. Qg4 g6 8. Nge2
c5 9. a3 Ba5 {. A flexible move which keeps many options open.} ({
On the other hand,} 9... Bxc3+ {
might be the objectively correct move in this case:} 10. bxc3 (10. Nxc3 Nxc3
11. bxc3 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qa4 {is unbalanced and roughly equal; again, compare the
Portisch-Hook Variation of Chapter 11}) 10... cxd4 11. cxd4 Qa5+ 12. c3 Bd7 13.
f3 Bb5 $1 14. fxe4 Bxe2 15. Qh3 (15. Qg3 Bxf1 16. Rxf1 dxe4) ({; whereas} 15.
Kxe2 $2 Qxc3 {wins the rook!}) 15... Bxf1 16. Rxf1 dxe4 17. Kf2 Nd7 18. Kg1 {
, Rytshagov-D.Anderton, Gausdal 2000. Now} Rh7 $5 {wasn't bad;} ({
but Black can get right to work on the light squares with} 18... Rc8 $1 19. Bd2
Rc7 (19... Qd5 $11) 20. Rae1 Nb6 21. Rxe4 (21. Qh4 Nc4 22. Qf6 Rh7 23. Bxh6
Qxc3) 21... Qxa3 22. Ref4 Qa2 23. Qd3 a6 $11 {intending ...Nd5.})) 10. b4 $5 (
10. dxc5 {appears to be White's best try:} Nc6 ({perhaps} 10... Qc7 11. Qf4
Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nd7 14. Be3 Nxc5 {is better, but in that case
Black's dark-square weaknesses seem more important than White's on the
queenside}) 11. b4 Nxe5 12. Qh3 $1 Bc7 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. Nc3 a5 15. Rb1 axb4
16. axb4 Bd7 {, Negi-Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2007; and here} 17. Nxe4 $1
Bc6 18. Nc3 {should result in some advantage for White.}) 10... Nxc3 11. Nxc3
cxb4 $5 (11... cxd4 12. Nb5 Bc7 {is also equal:} 13. Qxd4 (13. f4 Bd7 {
- an idea from the 5 a3 Ba5 Winawer -} 14. Bb2 Bxb5 15. Bxb5+ Nc6 $11) 13...
Nc6 14. Nxc7+ Qxc7 15. Bb5 Bd7 16. Bxc6 Qxc6 $11 {.}) 12. Nb5 b3+ 13. c3 ({Or} 
13. Bd2 Bxd2+ 14. Kxd2 bxc2 15. Nd6+ Kf8 16. Qf4 f5 $1 {.}) 13... a6 $5 {
A touch speculative.} (13... O-O {is sound enough.}) 14. Nd6+ Qxd6 $1 15. exd6
Bxc3+ 16. Bd2 Bxa1 {. Black has active play in a double-edged position.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.32 6 Be3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Be3 {. A simple move that
can lead to extraordinarily complex and rich play. While not as popular as 6
Bd2, theory on this move has recently expanded dramatically.} Ne4 7. Qg4 g6 {
This and 7...Kf8 are considered about equally good. I've chosen 7...g6 mainly
because of the main line which forces the play somewhat and therefore simplifies
matters.} (7... Nxc3 $2 {is inferior due to} 8. Qxg7 Rf8 9. Bd2 (9. a3 Ba5 10.
Bd2 {is also advantageous, although} c5 11. bxc3 Qb6 {gives Black some play})
9... Nxa2 10. c3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Be7 12. Bxh6 $16 {.}) 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 c5 (
9... Nxc3 10. Bd3 c5 11. dxc5 $1 Nc6 {is seen as well. Attacking the pawn
chain by 9...c5 is not necessarily better, but it's thematic and relatively
easy to play.}) 10. Bd3 {Nothing else makes sense; White must move quickly in
the face of ...Qa5 and ...Nc6.} h5 {. Moskalenko's favourite move, which
forces White's queen to commit. We examine:} 11. -- ({14.321} 11. Qf3) ({14.322
} 11. Qf4) ({The other two queen moves are a bit easier to handle: -- (a)} 11.
Qd1 Nxc3 12. Qd2 {and now:} -- ({. Moskalenko analyses} 12... cxd4 13. Bxd4 Ne4
14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. Ne2 ({or} 15. Qe3 Nc6 16. Bc3 b6 17. Qxe4 Bb7 {
and the opposite-coloured bishops give Black the advantage}) 15... Nc6 16. O-O
b6 17. Rfd1 Bb7 {and White's pawns are vulnerable to ...Qc7, for example;} ({
here} 17... Ba6 $1 {looks better still.})) (12... Ne4 13. Bxe4 dxe4 14. Ne2 (
14. dxc5 Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Bd7 16. Ne2 h4 $5 17. Rab1 Bc6 18. Nd4 Rh5 {is unclear}
) 14... Nc6 15. Rd1 cxd4 16. Nxd4 Nxd4 17. Bxd4 {
, Kanarek-Lortkipanidze, Fermo 2009; and Moskalenko suggests the simple} b6 {
with equality or better.})) ({(b)} 11. Qh3 Nxc3 12. dxc5 d4 $1 13. Bf4 ({after
} 13. Bd2 Nd7 {, Black will win the e- or c-pawn with an easy game}) 13... Nd7
(13... g5 $5 14. Bd2 Qd5 $5) 14. Ne2 $1 Nxe2 15. Bxe2 Qa5+ $5 16. c3 $1 Qxc5
17. Rc1 d3 $1 18. Bxd3 Nxe5 {with unclear prospects.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.321 11 Qf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Be3 Ne4 7. Qg4 g6 8. a3
Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 c5 10. Bd3 h5 11. Qf3 Nxc3 12. dxc5 {
. A typical structure from this line. Black goes after White's centre as usual:
} Nc6 13. Qf4 d4 14. Bd2 g5 15. Qxg5 (15. Qg3 {can be met by} h4 $5 ({or} 15...
g4) 16. Qxg5 Qxg5 17. Bxg5 Nxe5 18. Nf3 Nxf3+ (18... Rh5 $5) 19. gxf3 Nd5 $1
20. Be4 f6 $1 {with counterplay (McDonald).}) 15... Qxg5 16. Bxg5 Nxe5 17. Nf3
(17. Bf6 Nxd3+ 18. cxd3 Rg8 19. Bxd4 Nd5 {
(Black's unopposed bishop and open lines for his rooks give him fair chances)}
(19... Na4 {is another option}) 20. g3 Bd7 21. Nf3 Bc6 (21... f6 $5) 22. Ne5
Nb4 23. Nxc6 Nc2+ 24. Kd2 Nxa1 25. Na5 b6 26. Rxa1 bxa5 27. Rb1 Rg5 {
with balanced chances, Kosteniuk-Zhukova, Gibraltar 2010.}) 17... Rg8 18. Bf6
Nxd3+ 19. cxd3 Nd5 20. Bxd4 Rxg2 $15 {Sutovsky-Wang Hao, Poikovsky 2008. With
the disappearance of the g2-pawn, White's light squares become more vulnerable.
} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "14.322 11 Qf4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Be3 Ne4 7. Qg4 g6 8. a3
Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 c5 10. Bd3 h5 11. Qf4 g5 12. Qf3 Nxc3 13. dxc5 (13. Ne2 {
clarifies the centre at the cost of time; for example,} Nxe2 (13... Nc6 14.
Nxc3 cxd4 15. Bxd4 Nxd4 16. Qe3 {is unclear}) 14. Bxe2 cxd4 15. Bxd4 ({
Moskalenko cites} 15. Bd2 $6 Nc6 $15 {of Larrat-Delabaca, French Team Ch. 2009}
) 15... Nc6 16. c3 Nxd4 $5 (16... b6) (16... Bd7 17. O-O Rc8) 17. cxd4 Qa5+ 18.
Kf1 h4 $5 19. Qf6 Rg8 {and Black has his share of the play.}) 13... d4 (13...
Nc6 {is a good alternative:} 14. -- (14. Qf6 Qxf6 15. exf6 e5 $1 16. Bxg5 (16.
Ne2 Nxe2 17. Kxe2 Bd7 18. Rhd1 O-O-O $11) (16. Bd2 e4 17. Bxc3 exd3 18. cxd3 d4
19. Bb2 Bf5 20. Nf3 g4 21. Nxd4 Nxd4 22. Bxd4 O-O-O $11) 16... Bd7 ({or} 16...
Be6 $11) ({, or} 16... h4 $11) 17. f4 e4 18. Ne2 Nxe2 19. Bxe2 Nd4 $11) (14.
Bd2 $5 Nxe5 15. Qg3 Nxd3+ 16. cxd3 d4 $1 17. Bxg5 f6 18. Bd2 Kf7 $11 {.}) (14.
Qg3 $5 Qa5 $1 15. Bd2 Qxc5 16. Nf3 $1 (16. Qxg5 $2 Ne4 17. Bxe4 Qd4 $1 $17 {
- Moskalenko}) 16... g4 17. Ng5 Qd4 $5 (17... d4 $6 18. O-O Qxe5 19. Rae1 $1 {
, Hamdouchi-Rivas Pastor, Salou 2011}) 18. Qf4 $1 (18. O-O $2 Ne2+ $1 19. Bxe2
Qxd2) (18. Be3 Qxe5 19. Qxe5 Nxe5 20. Bd4 f6 $1 21. Bxc3 Nxd3+ 22. cxd3 e5 $15)
(18. Qe3 Na4 $1 19. Qxd4 Nxd4 20. h3 Nc5 21. Rc1 Nc6 22. Bf4 gxh3 23. Rxh3 Bd7
{with good play}) 18... Qxf4 19. Bxf4 d4 20. h3 Rg8 21. Nh7 Nd5 22. Bg3 Bd7 23.
hxg4 hxg4 24. Be4 O-O-O 25. Bh4 Nc3 26. Bxc6 Bxc6 27. Bxd8 Kxd8 28. Nf6 Rg5 29.
Rh5 {, E.Berg-Tikkanen, Halmstad 2012; and now} Rf5 $1 {, e.g.} 30. Rxf5 exf5
31. Kd2 $1 Bxg2 32. Kd3 Bf3 33. Re1 $1 (33. Kxd4 Nd1 $1) 33... Ke7 34. Kxd4
Ne2+ 35. Ke3 f4+ 36. Kd3 g3 37. fxg3 Nxg3 {
, and I think that Black can draw this rather easily after ...Ke6.})) 14. Bd2
Bd7 {Keeping some play on the board.} ({Here} 14... Nc6 {
has been the main line, and is also satisfactory. Then after} 15. Bxc3 $1 (15.
Qg3 Qd5 16. Qxg5 Qxe5+ $11 {Nemcova-Guo Qi, Gaziantep 2008}) (15. Qf6 Qxf6 16.
exf6 Na4 $11) 15... dxc3 {
, Black has full equality but few positive prospects; e.g.} 16. Qe3 (16. Qf6 $5
Qxf6 17. exf6 Ne5 $1 $11) 16... Qd4 17. Qxd4 Nxd4 18. Ne2 (18. Rb1 Bd7) 18...
Nc6 $1 19. Nxc3 Nxe5 20. h4 g4 21. O-O Ke7 $11 {.}) 15. Bxc3 ({Moskalenko calls
} 15. Qg3 Bc6 {unclear; a sample line would be} 16. Nf3 (16. Ne2 Nxe2 17. Bxe2
Nd7 $11) 16... h4 17. Qg4 h3 18. Nxd4 $5 (18. Nxg5 hxg2 19. Rg1 Rg8 $11) 18...
Rh4 19. Nxe6 Rxg4 20. Nxd8 Kxd8 21. Bxc3 hxg2 22. Rg1 Nd7 $15 {.}) 15... Bc6
16. Be4 dxc3 17. Rd1 Qc7 {. This is also assessed as unclear by Moskalenko.} ({
An interesting way for White to proceed is} 17... Qc7 18. Bxc6+ (18. Qf6 Rg8 $1
$15) 18... Nxc6 19. Rd6 $1 {, although} Nxe5 20. Qf6 Ng6 21. Qxg5 Rd8 {
is fully equal.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15. MacCutcheon: 6 Bd2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 {
. This is the main line of the McCutcheon Variation.} Bxc3 ({Since} 6... Ne4 $4
{would lose a piece to} 7. Nxe4 {
, Black needs to eliminate the knight on c3 first.}) 7. bxc3 ({
The pawn recapture occurs in the vast majority of games, but} 7. Bxc3 {
is playable and should be taken seriously. White has many legitimate tries
after Black's response} Ne4 {:} 8. -- (8. Bd3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 c5 10. Nf3 Qa5 $1 11.
Qd2 Nc6 {
prevents White from castling and therefore at least equalizes. Probably} 12.
dxc5 Qxc5 13. O-O O-O 14. Rfe1 Bd7 {represents best play.}) (8. Qg4 O-O $1 $15
{takes advantage of the fact that White has no kingside attack.}) (8. Ba5 O-O
$1 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. Bc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 f6 {is already better for Black; e.g.} 12.
f4 fxe5 13. fxe5 Ne7 $1 14. Nf3 c5 15. O-O Qa5 (15... c4 16. Be2 Bd7 17. Qd2
Be8 $15) 16. Qe1 Bd7 (16... c4 $1 17. Be2 Bd7) 17. c4 Qxe1 18. Rfxe1 dxc4 19.
Be4 (19. Bxc4 b5 20. Bf1 Rac8) 19... cxd4 20. Bxb7 Rab8 21. Ba6 Rb4 22. Rad1 d3
$1 23. cxd3 cxd3 24. Rxd3 Bc6 {, R.J.Fischer-T.Petrosian, Curacao 1962; with
control of d5 and the long diagonal, Black has a limited advantage.}) (8. Bd2
Nxd2 (8... c5 {is more ambitious; e.g.} 9. Be3 cxd4 10. Bxd4 b6 11. f3 Nc5) 9.
Qxd2 c5 10. dxc5 Nd7 11. Bb5 O-O 12. Bxd7 Bxd7 $11 {.}) (8. Bb4 {
isn't as bad as it's made out to be, but Black can equalize:} -- (8... Qh4 $2 {
has done well, but in fact White has} 9. g3 $1 Qg5 ({the obvious} 9... Nxg3 {
loses to} 10. fxg3 Qe4+ 11. Kf2 Qxh1 12. Nf3 {intending Be1 and then Bg2}) (
9... Qd8 10. f3 Ng5 11. h4 Nh7 12. Qd2) 10. Ba3 {
intending Be2 followed by f3 as well as the ideas of Nh3-f4 or simply Nf3.}) (
8... c5 $1 9. Bxc5 (9. dxc5 $2 Nxf2 10. Kxf2 Qh4+ 11. g3 Qxb4) 9... Nxc5 10.
dxc5 Nd7 11. Qd4 Qc7 12. f4 $6 (12. Nf3 $1 Nxc5 $11 {
Spielmann-Nimzowitsch, Gothenburg 1920, is a typical French position}) 12...
Nxc5 13. O-O-O Bd7 14. Nf3 Rc8 15. Kb1 O-O 16. Bd3 {
, Kovchan-Vysochin, Swidnica 1999; and} Qb6 $1 {should be considered. Then
Black has ...Bb5 and/or doubling on the c-file in mind, with potentially
exciting play in store.})) (8. Ne2 {is arguably the most logical move, followed
} c5 9. dxc5 {and then:} -- (9... Nc6 10. Bd4 Qe7 11. Nc3 Nxc5 12. f4 (12. Be2
O-O 13. O-O Rd8 $11 {intending} 14. f4 $6 Ne4) 12... O-O 13. Qd2 {, Sutovsky-Comas, Pamplona 1998; and Black has several good moves; a straightforward plan
is to prepare ...Ne4 by} Rd8 ({or similarly,} 13... b6 14. Bb5 Nxd4 15. Qxd4
Bb7) 14. O-O-O Nxd4 15. Qxd4 b6 {and ...Bb7.}) (9... Nxc3 10. Nxc3 O-O 11. Qd2
{, and here relatively simple moves will do; e.g.} Qe7 ({or} 11... Nd7 12. Qd4
f6 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. Qxf6 Rxf6 15. Na4 $5 Ne5 16. f3 Bd7 17. Nc3 Rc8 18. b4 b6
$15) 12. Qe3 (12. f4 Nd7) 12... f6 13. exf6 Qxf6 14. O-O-O Qxf2 $11 {.}))) 7...
Ne4 8. Qg4 {This is the main line of the McCutcheon. There are a couple of
important alternatives, however, which Black should take note of.} ({(a)} 8.
Bd3 Nxd2 9. Qxd2 c5 {is unsurprisingly equal; e.g.} 10. dxc5 $1 (10. Nf3 {
can be answered by} c4 $11 ({or} 10... Nc6 11. O-O Qa5 {, at least equal}) ({
; or} 10... Qa5 11. dxc5 Nd7 12. O-O Nxc5 13. c4 Qxd2 14. Nxd2 Ke7 $11)) 10...
Qc7 (10... Nd7 11. Nf3 Nxc5 12. O-O O-O {is comfortable for Black}) 11. Qe3 O-O
12. Nf3 Nd7 13. O-O Nxc5 14. Nd4 Bd7 15. f4 Rac8 16. g4 {, Fink-Stoppel,
Austria 1966. This has been thought to favour White, but in fact Black stands
better after} Nxd3 (16... f6 $6 {was played in the game}) 17. cxd3 Qxc3 18.
Rac1 Qa3 19. Rxc8 Rxc8 20. f5 {(one annotator assessed this as winning for
White! - but he is practically lost...)} Rc4 $1 ({or} 20... Rc3 {with the idea}
21. Qf4 Qc5 22. Kh1 Qb6 $17) 21. fxe6 (21. f6 Qc3 22. Ne2 Rxg4+) 21... Bxe6 22.
g5 hxg5 23. Nxe6 fxe6 24. Qh3 Qc5+ 25. Kh1 {, and now the nice} g4 $1 26. Qh5
Rf4 $1 27. Qe8+ Qf8 28. Qxe6+ Kh7 $19 {.}) ({(b)} 8. Nf3 {allows Black's
knight to maintain its post on e4 and cuts the queen off from the dangerous
squares g4 and h5. The sequence} c5 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. O-O Qa5 {
, threatening ...Nxd2, has served Black well.}) ({(c)} 8. Bc1 $5 {looks stupid,
as in some lines White is a full tempo behind 6 Bc1. That's not the whole
story, however, because White has ideas of Ne2 and won't commit to Qg4 until
Black grabs the c3-pawn. In some cases, White bishop can still go to a3.
Finally, if White plays dxc5, Black's move ...d4 doesn't come with tempo. The
game is fairly balanced, since Black will be a pawn up for a while following}
Nxc3 ({after} 8... c5 {,} 9. Ne2 $1 {is hardly ever seen, but I think that the
idea of f3 gives White reasonable play, especially since} Qa5 $6 ({so} 9... O-O
10. f3 Ng5 11. h4 Nh7 {might follow, with unclear consequences}) 10. f3 $1 Nxc3
11. Qd2 {ends well for White}) 9. Qg4 g6 (9... Kf8 {is also played}) 10. Bd3 (
10. Qh3 $5 {is another rare move which might be best answered by the odd} Ne4
11. f3 Nc3 $1) 10... c5 (10... Nc6 $6 11. a4 $1 {with the idea} Nb4 $2 12. Bd2)
{, and now:} 11. -- (11. Bd2 Ne4 $1 12. Bxe4 dxe4 13. dxc5 $1 Qd4 $5 (13... Bd7
14. Ne2 Bc6 15. Rd1 Nd7 {is also complicated}) 14. Rd1 Qc4 (14... Qxe5 15. Ne2
$1 Qxc5 {puts Black terribly behind in development for his two pawns, although
that's not easy to exploit}) 15. Ne2 Bd7 16. O-O $1 Bc6 (16... h5 $2 17. Qh4
Qxe2 18. Qf6 Rh7 19. Bg5 Nc6 20. Rd6) 17. Rfe1 Nd7 18. Ng3 Nxc5 19. Be3 Bd5 20.
Bxc5 Qxc5 21. Nxe4 Bxe4 22. Qxe4 O-O $11 {.}) (11. dxc5 {
has been played in 90% of the games in this line. Then a reliable answer is}
Qc7 (11... Qa5 {is a bit crazier after} 12. Bd2 Qa4 $1 13. Qf3 $1 Ne4 14. Bxe4
$1 dxe4 $1 {, and} 15. Qb3 ({or} 15. Qf6 Rh7 $1 {
intending ...Nd7 and/or ...Qxc2}) 15... Qa6 ({or} 15... Qc6)) 12. Qd4 Ne4 13.
Bxe4 Nc6 14. Qc3 dxe4 15. Ne2 Qxe5 $1 16. Qxe5 Nxe5 17. Bb2 f6 18. Bxe5 fxe5
19. Ng3 b6 20. Nxe4 Ke7 {
. This is unbalanced, but Black is in no danger of standing worse.})) 8... g6 {
. Black is faced with the most fundamental choice in this entire variation,
whether to play a position with ...g6 or ...Kf8. The former weakens Black's
kingside (notably the f6-square), but retains the possibility of castling on
either side of the board or, importantly, of moving the king to d7, a familiar
spot for it in the French. This is by contrast with 8...Kf8, which avoids
kingside weaknesses and has proven fully satisfactory in practice. The main
drawback is that Black's rook on h8 is difficult to activate (and indeed,
sometimes Black plays ...Ke8-d7 later in the game!). Given that there is far
too much theory to examine both, I felt that 8...g6 was a dynamic option most
in tune with this book. According to contemporary theory, the choice is more a
matter of taste than objective superiority. --- After 8...g6, White has an
array of moves, with these three arguably the most challenging:} 9. -- ({15.1} 
9. Qf4) ({15.2} 9. Be3) ({15.3} 9. Bd3) ({Others: -- (a)} 9. h4 {
usually transposes after} c5 10. Bd3 (10. h5 $6 g5 11. Bd3 Nxd2 12. Kxd2 Qa5
13. Nf3 Nc6 {- contrast the main line, in which White's queen gets to f6 or at
least the break f4 is achieved}) 10... Nxd2 11. Kxd2 {(see 15.31 below).}) ({
(b)} 9. Nf3 c5 {also transposes after} 10. Bd3 ({a unique line is} 10. dxc5 $6
Qa5 ({or} 10... Nd7 11. Bd3 Ndxc5) 11. Bd3 Nxd2 12. Kxd2 Nc6 13. Qh4 Qxc5 14.
Qf6 Qxf2+ 15. Kc1 Qe3+ 16. Kb2 Qb6+ 17. Kc1 O-O $1) 10... Nxd2 11. Kxd2 {
(see 15.32).}) ({(c) Saving the bishop pair with} 9. Bc1 {
is slow but not bad for White. Then a reasonable line is} c5 10. Bd3 Nxc3 {
, which transposes to 8 Bc1!? Nxc3 9 Qg4 g6 10 Bd3 c5 above.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.1 9 Qf4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Qf4 c5 {. This is almost always played.} (9... g5 {aims to misplace the
queen and seems an acceptable alternative. Of the many possibilities, a
typical line is} 10. Qe3 c5 (10... f5 11. exf6 Qxf6 12. Bd3 Nxd2 {
, Hungaski-Cubas, Sao Paulo 2005;} 13. Kxd2 $1 Nc6 14. h4 g4 15. Qg3 {
is perhaps slightly in White's favour due to Black's weakened kingside}) 11.
Bd3 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Nc6 13. Bb5 Qa5 14. Bxc6+ bxc6 15. h4 g4 16. Ne2 Ba6 {
with a dynamic equality, Amonatov-Skorchenko, Voronezh 2005.}) 10. Bd3 Nxd2 ({
Or} 10... Bd7 11. Nf3 ({as opposed to} 11. Bxe4 dxe4 12. Ne2 Bc6 13. O-O g5 $5
({here} 13... Qd5 {is also possible}) {, when I think that} 14. Qg4 $1 {
is the best move and not so clear, in spite of Black's light-square superiority;
perhaps +/= is a fair verdict}) 11... Bc6 12. h4 Nd7 13. dxc5 $5 (13. O-O $5)
13... Qc7 (13... Nxd2 14. Qxd2 Qc7) 14. Be3 Nxc3 15. a4 Ne4 16. O-O {
, Kobalia-Zhukova, playchess.com 2004; and now} Ndxc5 {
is at any rate satisfactory for Black.}) (10... g5 11. Qe3 {
transposes to 9...g5 above.}) 11. Qxd2 {
This is the point of 9 Qf4: White's king isn't exposed.} Nc6 ({
Alternatively: -- (a)} 11... Qa5 12. Nf3 b6 13. h4 Ba6 ({or} 13... Nc6 14. dxc5
Qxc5 15. O-O Bd7 {, contemplating ...Na5}) 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. O-O Nd7 $11 {.}) (
{(b)} 11... Bd7 {preparing ...Bc6 and ...Nd7 is a common idea, especially when
there are no Bxg6 sacrifices in the position; e.g.} 12. Nf3 Bc6 (12... c4 {
also looks adequate for equality:} 13. Be2 Bc6 14. h4 $1 Nd7 15. h5 g5 16. Nh2
$1 {, Kobalia-Glek, Ajaccio rapid 2004; and here I think Black should react to
the Ng4-f6 idea with} f5 $1 17. exf6 Qxf6 18. Ng4 Qf4 $11 ({or} 18... Qf5 {
and ...0-0-0})) 13. h4 ({after} 13. dxc5 Nd7 14. O-O {
, Black has the rare opportunity to stash his king away by} Kf8 15. Rfe1 Kg7
16. Nd4 Nxc5 $11) 13... Nd7 14. a4 $5 (14. h5 g5 15. Nh2 {
, Kayumov-Porat, Budapest 2003; and the most direct course was} Qa5 $1 16. Ng4
O-O-O {, e.g.} 17. a4 Rdf8 18. Be2 $6 f6 19. exf6 Nxf6 20. Nxf6 Rxf6 $15) 14...
Qa5 15. O-O (15. dxc5 Nxc5 16. O-O {
, Grigoriants-Glek, Hoogeveen 2003; and Glek likes} Ne4 $1 $15) 15... c4 $5 ({
or} 15... Rc8 {intending ...cxd4}) 16. Be2 Nb6 17. h5 Nxa4 $5 (17... gxh5) 18.
hxg6 fxg6 19. Nh4 g5 20. Bh5+ Kd7 21. Ng6 Qxc3 $1 22. Qxc3 Nxc3 23. Nxh8 Rxh8
$11 {.}) 12. Nf3 c4 13. Be2 Bd7 ({Here} 13... Qe7) ({and} 13... f5 {
are legitimate options.}) 14. h4 ({White does no better with} 14. Rb1 b6 15. h4
f5 16. exf6 $2 Qxf6 17. Qe3 O-O-O 18. Kd2 Rdf8 $15 {
M.Hoffmann-Istratescu, Gibraltar 2010.}) 14... f5 $1 {Wintzer's novelty,
protecting against Qf4-f6 or Nh2-g4. Black now has long-term prospects of ...g5, and thus White captures, giving up the cramping influence of the pawn on
e5.} ({Previously,} 14... Qe7 {had been played.}) 15. exf6 Qxf6 {
Now the move h4 actually proves a drawback by weakening White's kingside.} 16.
h5 g5 17. Nh2 O-O-O $5 (17... e5 $1 {
(Wintzer) would have brought Black at least equality.}) 18. O-O ({
And here, again,} 18. O-O e5 {
looks to be the clearest solution to the position, since} 19. dxe5 Nxe5 (19...
Qxe5 $5) 20. Qxd5 Kb8 {and ...Bf5 should be equal.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.2 9 Be3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Be3 $5 {. This resembles 6 Be3 from the previous chapter (section 14.32).
Although White has made an extra bishop move, Bd2-e3, he has gained a tempo by
not playing a3.} c5 10. Bd3 h5 ({Or} 10... Nxc3 11. dxc5 Qa5 12. Bd2 Qa4 $1 {
- Moskalenko, who points out that the lack of a3 means that Qb4 isn't available 
for White. This looks about equal.}) 11. Qf4 (11. Qf3 Nxc3 $1 12. dxc5 Nc6) ({
or} 11. Qd1 Nxc3 12. Qd2 cxd4 13. Bxd4 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 {
'with equal chances' (Moskalenko).}) 11... g5 $1 12. Qf3 Nxc3 13. dxc5 ({
White's alternatives don't impress: -- (a)} 13. Ne2 Nxe2 (13... Nc6 $5 14. Nxc3
cxd4 {is unclear}) 14. Bxe2 cxd4 15. Bxd4 Nc6 {is at least equal.}) ({(b)} 13.
Qg3 $2 c4 14. Ne2 ({Moskalenko gives} 14. Bxg5 Qb6 15. Be2 Qb2) (14. Bf1 Ne4
15. Qf3 Qa5+ 16. Kd1 Nc3+ $19) ({, and} 14. Bd2 Nb5 15. Bxg5 Qb6 16. Be2 Nxd4)
14... h4 15. Qg4 ({White can bail out with} 15. Qxg5 Qxg5 16. Bxg5 Nb5 17. Bf6
{; e.g.} Rh6 18. Bg7 Rh5 19. g4 hxg3 20. Nxg3 Rh3 {
, but Black will still emerge with an extra pawn}) 15... Na4 16. O-O (16. Bxg5
Rg8 17. f4 cxd3) 16... cxd3 {
with a nearly winning game, Felgaer-Moskalenko, Barcelona 2005.}) 13... Nd7 ({
Two alternatives are} 13... Nc6 14. Qf6 Qxf6 15. exf6 e5 $11) ({and} 13... d4 {
, when} 14. Bd2 Bd7 15. Qg3 Bc6 $1 {gives satisfactory play (compare 14.322).})
14. Bd4 Qa5 {. Moskalenko stops here.} ({There might follow} 14... Qa5 15. Kf1
Na4 16. Qe3 Naxc5 $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.3 9 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 {. This is the traditional and most popular move.} Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 {
. Now we come to a critical choice for White:} 11. -- ({15.31} 11. h4) ({15.32
} 11. Nf3) (11. Qf4 {gives Black a choice of transpositional responses;} -- ({
; for example,} 11... Bd7 12. Nf3 {
can be found under the order 11 Nf3 Bd7 12 Qf4}) ({, and} 11... Nc6 12. Nf3 {
transposes to 11 Nf3 Nc6 12 Qf4.} (12. --)) ({. The immediate} 11... Qa5) ({
, and} 11... cxd4 12. cxd4 Qa5+ {intending ...b6 are also fine})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.31 11 h4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. h4 {. This position is the current main line of
the 8...g6 McCutcheon; it can also arise from 9 h4 c5 10 Bd3 Nxd2 11 Kxd2. Now
I apologize for one more split. Unfortunately, this is the sort of line that
will change rapidly with theory, and it's important for Black to have
alternatives; furthermore, the following are stylistically very different:} --
({15.311} 11... Nc6) ({15.312} 11... c4) ({15.313} 11... Qa5) ({Instead,} 11...
Bd7 {, with the idea of ...Bc6 and ...Nd7, can lead to surprising action:} 12.
Rb1 (12. h5 g5 13. f4 $1 Qa5 $1 14. dxc5 d4 15. Ne2 Nc6 16. fxg5 dxc3+ 17. Nxc3
Qxc5 {is hard to assess}) (12. Nf3 {
transposes to 11 Nf3 Bd7 12 h4 - see the main line 15.32 below}) 12... Nc6 $5
13. Rxb7 cxd4 14. cxd4 Qa5+ 15. Ke3 Nb4 (15... Qe1+ 16. Qe2 Qa1 {is unclear})
16. Ne2 O-O-O 17. Rxb4 Qxb4 {with double-edged play, Blomqvist-Skoldebrand,
Täby 2007; White has some attack for the exchange.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.311 11...Nc6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. h4 Nc6 12. Nf3 ({Others: -- (a)} 12. Rh3 $6 cxd4
({or} 12... Bd7 13. Qf4 Qc7 $5 14. Nf3 cxd4 15. cxd4 f5 $5) 13. cxd4 Qb6 {
with the idea} 14. Ne2 $2 (14. Nf3 Bd7 $15) 14... Qb4+ 15. Kd1 Nxe5 $1 {.}) ({
(b) This is not the most compelling time for} 12. dxc5 {, due to} Qa5 {, when}
13. Qf4 (13. h5 g5 14. f4 $1 Qxc5 15. fxg5 Qf2+ 16. Qe2 Qf4+ 17. Qe3 Qxe3+ 18.
Kxe3 Nxe5 19. gxh6 Ng4+ 20. Kd2 Rxh6 {intending ...e5}) 13... Qxc5 (13... Bd7
14. Qf6 Rg8 $5) 14. h5 g5 15. Qf6 Rg8 16. Ne2 (16. Rb1 b6 17. Ne2 Bd7 $11)
16... Qe7 {is at least equal.}) ({(c)} 12. Qf4 {is most easily met by} Qa5 {
(when 13 Nf3 bring us back to the main line of 15.313 below)} ({, or by} 12...
c4 {.}) ({. Instead,} 12... cxd4 $5 13. cxd4 Qa5+ {can lead to} 14. c3 (14. Ke2
b6 15. Nf3 Ba6 {- see 12 Nf3 cxd4 below}) (14. Ke3 $5 b6 15. h5 gxh5 16. Ne2
Ba6 17. Bxa6 Qxa6 18. c3 Rc8 $15 {Van den Doel-Glek, Zwolle 2002}) 14... b5 15.
Qf6 Rf8 16. Ne2 b4 17. Rhc1 Rb8 18. Ke1 bxc3 19. Kf1 Ba6 $11 {.})) ({(d)} 12.
h5 $5 g5 13. f4 $5 {doesn't seem to gain any advantage; e.g.} -- (13... c4 {
is safe, when} 14. Bf1 ({and the speculative} 14. fxg5 $5 cxd3 15. gxh6 {
probably falls a tad short to} Ne7 ({or} 15... Qe7)) 14... f5 $1 15. exf6 e5
16. Qe2 Qxf6 ({or} 16... e4 $5 {is comfortably equal})) (13... cxd4 $5 14. cxd4
Qa5+ 15. c3 $1 (15. Ke3 f5 $1 16. Qf3 Bd7 17. Ne2 O-O-O $15 (17... g4 $5) 18.
g3 Rhg8 19. Rhb1 $6 gxf4+ 20. gxf4 Rg4 {
and Black stands distinctly better, Skorchenko-Kobylkin, Krasnodar 2002}) 15...
f5 $1 (15... Nxd4 $2 16. fxg5 $1 Nb3+ $5 17. axb3 Qxa1 18. g6 $1) 16. exf6 e5
17. Bg6+ Kd8 {with great complications.})) 12... c4 {This is playable, simply
closing the position in preparation for ...0-0-0 and a later ...f5. But it's
not the only move.} ({(a)} 12... Qa5 {
transposes to 11...Qa5 12 Nf3 Nc6 (see 15.313).}) ({(b)} 12... cxd4 13. cxd4
Qa5+ {has a good reputation. For example,} 14. c3 (14. Ke2 b6 15. Qf4 Ba6 16.
Rhc1 Qa3 17. Qe3 Rc8 {
puts pressure on White, Moskalenko-Gharamian, Belgian Team Ch. 2007/08}) 14...
b6 15. Qf4 (15. h5 g5 16. Nh2 Bd7 $1 17. Rhc1 Rc8 18. a4 Rf8 $15 {
intending ...f5}) 15... Ba6 16. Qf6 (16. Bxa6 Qxa6 17. Nh2 h5 18. Nf3 {
, Naiditsch-L'Ami, Wijk aan Zee 2010;} Qa3 $1 19. Rhc1 Rc8 20. Ng5 Rc7 $15)
16... Rg8 17. Bxa6 (17. Bxg6 $4 Rxg6 18. Qh8+ Kd7 19. Qxa8 Qb5) (17. h5 $2 Bxd3
18. Kxd3 Qb5+ 19. Ke3 Rc8 $19) (17. Bc2 Rc8 18. Rh3 Nb4 $1 {- Ganeson}) 17...
Qxa6 18. h5 Rc8 19. Nh4 $2 Nxd4 ({or} 19... g5 {- Ganeson}) 20. cxd4 {
, Homer-Ganeson, English League 2010; and} Qa5+ {is winning.}) 13. Be2 Bd7 ({
Black has no real problems in these positions; e.g.} 13... Qe7 14. Rhb1 b6 15.
a4 Bd7 16. Qf4 O-O-O {
of Castella-Moskalenko, Ampolla (rapid) 2006, looks perfectly good}) ({and} 
13... Qa5 14. a4 Ne7 15. Qf4 Bd7 16. Qf6 Rh7 17. Rhb1 b6 {is equal.}) 14. Qf4 (
14. Rab1 b6 $5 ({Black had a good option in} 14... b5) 15. Qf4 Qe7 16. h5 g5
17. Qe3 $6 ({here} 17. Qf6 {was probably equal}) 17... O-O-O $15 {
Nakamura-Laznicka, Oropesa del Mar 1999.}) 14... Qe7 {. "We have reached the
critical position of this line" - Moskalenko. But since 12...cxd4 and others
are good options, I'm going to limit my coverage to a few lines here:} 15. -- (
{(a)} 15. Nh2 h5 {(versus Ng4)} ({the alternative is} 15... O-O-O 16. Ng4 Rdf8
17. Nf6 Nb8 $5 ({or} 17... Qa3) 18. a4 Bc6 19. a5 Nd7 $11) 16. Nf3 O-O-O $11 {
. This position is so closed that it's unlikely either side will be able to
achieve a successful break.}) ({(b)} 15. g4 b5 $5 ({or} 15... O-O-O) 16. Rhb1
Rb8 17. Qf6 Rh7 $15 {.}) ({(c)} 15. a3 O-O-O 16. Nh2 {
, Golubev-Moskalenko, Alushta 1994; and best is} Rdf8 $1 17. Ng4 f5 18. exf6 h5
$1 19. fxe7 Rxf4 20. Ne5 Nxe5 21. dxe5 Re8 {, at least equal.}) ({(d) After} 
15. Qf6 {
, of V.Panov-Korchnoi. USSR Team Ch. 1953, the easiest course is Moskalenko's}
Qxf6 16. exf6 O-O-O $11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.312 11...c4"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. h4 c4 {
. This is appropriate for those who like closed positions.} 12. Be2 Nd7 $1 {
Black has a number of moves, of course; the text is unique in that it prepares
...f5 in several lines.} 13. Rh3 ({Another interesting sequence is} 13. h5 g5
14. Qg3 $1 (14. f4 f5 $1 15. Qg3 g4) (14. Nh3 f5 15. Qg3 Nb8 16. f4 g4 17. Nf2
Nc6 $15) 14... f5 15. exf6 Nxf6 16. f3 Bd7 17. Nh3 {
, Bergez-Libiszewski, Montpellier 2003; and the game's} Qe7 {was okay,} ({
but Hungaski's suggestion} 17... Qb8 $1 18. Qxb8+ Rxb8 19. Nf2 Ke7 $15 {
has the idea of ...Kd6 and ...e5, and White has nothing particularly effective
against this.})) 13... Qe7 14. f4 ({Hungaski and De Dovitiis analyse} 14. a3 {
(preventing ...Qa3)} Rg8 15. Qf4 g5 16. hxg5 hxg5 17. Qe3 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 19.
f3 {. Now} Bd7 $1 20. Qe5 O-O-O {
is effective; White's pieces aren't co-ordinating.}) 14... Rg8 $1 15. Rg3 (15.
Bf3 f5 16. exf6 Nxf6 17. Qg3 Bd7 18. Qe1 O-O-O $15 {
Sedlak-Delchev, Subotica 2003.}) 15... f5 16. Qh3 Nf8 {
I think this is the safest, preparing to castle queenside.} ({
Alternatively: -- (a)} 16... Nb6 17. h5 g5 18. fxg5 hxg5 19. h6 Bd7 20. Qh5+
Kd8 21. h7 Rh8 22. Qxg5 $14 Rxh7 23. Nh3 Kc7 {is very close to equality.}) ({
(b)} 16... b5 17. h5 (17. Nf3 Nf8 18. Rb1 Bd7 $11) 17... g5 18. fxg5 hxg5 19.
h6 {, Van der Weide-Tereick, Senden 2006; and here Black should play} Nf8 $1
20. Qh5+ Kd8 21. Nh3 Nh7 $11 {.}) 17. h5 $6 (17. Rb1 b6 18. Nf3 Bd7 {
is fairly level; White lacks a plan, and Black only has hopes for ...g5.})
17... g5 18. fxg5 hxg5 19. h6 g4 20. Qh5+ ({Here} 20. Qh5+ Kd8 $1 {
holds out chances for Black to gain a modest edge.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.313 11...Qa5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. h4 Qa5 12. Nf3 {. This variation is a sort of
main line in the McCutcheon, although if Black's play is as good as it seems,
we'll probably see White players looking in a different direction.} ({
Others are harmless: -- (a)} 12. Ne2 Nc6 ({not} 12... c4 $2 {, when} 13. Bxg6
Rg8 14. Bxf7+ Kxf7 15. Qh5+ {
is killing - White gets too many pawns and the attack}) 13. dxc5 Qxc5 14. Qf4
Bd7 15. Qf6 Rg8 16. h5 g5 {
yields a complex position in which Black seems to be holding his own; e.g.} 17.
Rab1 b6 18. Rh3 Qe7 $1 {.}) ({(b)} 12. h5 g5 13. f4 cxd4 14. Ke2 $1 (14. Nf3 $4
dxc3+ 15. Ke2 Qa4 $17 {Seirawan-Makarichev, Reykjavik 1990}) 14... Qxc3 15. Nf3
f5 $1 16. exf6 e5 17. Bf5 Qxc2+ 18. Bxc2 Bxg4 19. fxe5 Nc6 20. Kf2 Kf7 {
with perhaps a minor edge for Black, but it's complicated.}) 12... Nc6 13. Qf4
{White should hurry to occupy f6 and thus prevent Black from castling.} (13.
dxc5 {is slow after} Qxc5 14. Rhf1 Bd7 15. Qf4 O-O-O $5 ({or} 15... Rc8) 16.
Qxf7 g5 $1 (16... d4 $5) 17. hxg5 hxg5 18. Rab1 g4 {followed by ...Nxe5.})
13... cxd4 (13... b6 {
is a reasonable option, but has favoured White in practice.}) 14. h5 $1 ({
Instead: -- (a)} 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Qxd4 Bd7 {is calmer. Then} 16. Rhb1 {
has been called '+/='} (16. h5 g5 17. Rhb1 Bc6) {
, although Black has equal chances following} 16... Qc7 ({or} 16... Rb8 17. Ke2
h5) 17. a4 (17. Ke2 b6 18. Kf1 Rc8 19. Rb3 O-O $5 20. h5 Kg7 21. Qf4 Qd8 $11)
17... Bc6 (17... b6 18. Ke2 O-O 19. Qf4 Qxc3 20. h5 f6 $1) 18. Rb4 {
, Nyysti-I.Glek, Helsinki 2002; and instead of} Qe7 {,} (18... a5 $1 19. Rb3
Qe7 {may have been slightly more accurate, although they're both equal.})) ({
(b)} 14. Qf6 {gives Black more options than the text; e.g.} dxc3+ ({or} 14...
Qxc3+ 15. Ke2 Rf8) 15. Ke2 Rf8 ({instead,} 15... Rg8 16. h5 g5 17. Qxh6 {
transposes to 16...dxc3+ in the main line}) 16. h5 gxh5 $1 17. Rxh5 b6 $1 18.
Rxh6 Ba6 19. Rh8 Bxd3+ 20. cxd3 Kd7 21. Rh7 Qb4 $1 {
, threatening ...Qb2+, while} 22. Rxf7+ Rxf7 23. Qxf7+ Ne7 {
is very depressing for White.}) 14... g5 $5 ({Black delays} 14... dxc3+ 15. Ke2
) ({or} 14... Qxc3+ 15. Ke2 {until he sees in what direction the play is
heading. On the other hand, if ...dxc3+ is played later, White may gain
options other than Ke2, so it might be more accurate to play it now; compare
lines below, and especially the note to White's 16th move.}) 15. Qf6 (15. Nxg5
$5 {is tricky, but ultimately unsatisfactory:} hxg5 16. Qf6 dxc3+ 17. Ke2 Rf8
18. h6 Qd8 19. Qg7 {, J.Hitselberger-M.Koch, ICCF email 1998; and best is} Nd4+
$1 20. Kf1 $1 Kd7 21. h7 Rh8 22. Qxf7+ Kc6 {
, when Black should be able to consolidate; e.g.} 23. Rh6 Bd7 24. Rf6 Qf8 25.
Qg6 Qa3 26. Qg7 Raf8 27. Re1 Kc7 {with the idea} 28. Rf7 $2 (28. Qxg5 Qe7)
28... Rxf7 29. Qxh8 $2 Nxc2 $1 30. Bxc2 Qc5 {.}) 15... Rg8 $1 (15... Rf8 $6 16.
Qxh6 g4 $5 17. Ng5 Nxe5 18. Nh7 {, and here} Qxc3+ $1 (18... Rh8 $2 19. Ke2 $1
{led to a big White advantage in Anand-Shirov, Bilbao 2010}) 19. Ke2 Nxd3 $1
20. Qxf8+ Kd7 21. Qxf7+ Kd6 $1 {
improves, but White still has the better of things.}) 16. Qxh6 (16. g4 $6 {
stops ...g4 and prepares Qxh6, but} dxc3+ ({or} 16... b6) 17. Ke1 (17. Ke2 Qa4
18. Rhg1 b6 $1 19. Qxh6 Ba6 20. Bxa6 Qxa6+ 21. Kd1 Qc4 {
and Black is penetrating too quickly for White to progress on the kingside})
17... Qa4 $1 (17... b6 18. Qxh6 Ba6 19. Qf6 Bxd3 20. cxd3 Qb5 21. h6 Rf8 22. h7
Kd7 {is also good, though it takes a lot more analysis to prove that}) 18. Qxh6
Qf4 19. Qf6 Nxe5 $1 {reaps a clear advantage.}) 16... g4 $2 {The wrong order.}
(16... dxc3+ $1 17. Ke2 g4 18. Ng5 {
transposes below, without allowing the move 17 Nxd4! in the next note.} ({Here
} 18. Ne1 $2 d4 {hits the e5-pawn.})) 17. Ng5 (17. Nxd4 $1 {
exploits Black's inaccurate 16th move:} Nxd4 (17... Nxe5 18. Qf4) 18. Qf6 Nf5
19. Bxf5 exf5 20. h6 Be6 21. h7 Kd7 22. hxg8=Q Rxg8 23. Rh7 Rf8 {
is strong for White after} 24. Rb1 $1 b6 25. Rb4 Qxa2 26. Rh8 Rxh8 27. Qxh8 {.}
) 17... dxc3+ 18. Ke2 Nxe5 19. Qf6 (19. Nh7 $5 {
is messy and balanced. Here's a very abbreviated analysis, mainly of 19...Bd7:}
-- (19... Nd7 20. Nf6+ Nxf6 21. Qxf6 Qd8 {is equal; e.g.} 22. Qxc3 ({or} 22.
Bb5+ Bd7 23. Bxd7+ Kxd7 24. Qxf7+ Qe7 $11) 22... d4 $1 23. Qc5 b6 24. Qc6+ Bd7
25. Qe4 f5 26. Qe5 $1 Kf7 $1 27. h6 Qf6 28. Qc7 Qd8 29. Qe5 Qf6 $11 {.}) (19...
Bd7 {is also equal:} 20. Nf6+ Ke7 21. Nxg8+ (21. Qf4 Nxd3 22. cxd3 {
doesn't improve, e.g.} d4 $5 23. Nxg8+ Rxg8 {just transposes}) 21... Rxg8 22.
Qf4 Nxd3 (22... f6 23. h6 Rh8 24. h7 Nxd3 25. cxd3 e5 {
transposes into the repetition in the next bracket}) 23. cxd3 d4 ({or} 23... f6
24. h6 e5 25. h7 Rh8 {, which is drawn after} 26. Qh6 Kf7 27. Qh5+ Kg7 28. Qh6+
{, and otherwise Black probably stands better}) 24. Qxd4 (24. h6 Bb5 $1 25. h7
Bxd3+ $1 26. Kxd3 Qb5+ 27. Kc2 Qb2+ 28. Kd3 Qb5+ $11) 24... Bb5 25. Qc5+ Kf6 {
and White has no better than} 26. Qd4+ Ke7 27. Qc5+ {repeating;} ({since after
} 27. a3 $5 Rd8 28. Qb4+ Qxb4 29. axb4 Rxd3 30. Ke1 Bc6 $5 (30... Rd2 {
is also drawn}) 31. Rh2 (31. Ke2 Bb5 {repeats}) ({; while} 31. h6 {
allows the beautiful} Bxg2 $3 32. h7 Bf3 33. h8=Q c2 $19 {and ...Rd1+}) 31...
Be4 $1 32. h6 Bh7 {Black will at least hold the balance.}))) 19... Qd8 20. Qxe5
({This time} 20. Nh7 {can be met by} Nd7 21. Qxc3 (21. Bb5 a6 $11) 21... e5 (
21... f5 $5) 22. Kf1 Qe7 23. Re1 Rh8 24. h6 f6 25. Bg6+ Kd8 26. Qa5+ Nb6 27.
Rd1 Kc7 $1 28. Rxd5 Bd7 $15 {.}) 20... Qxg5 {
Rather sadly, we are still following a couple of correspondence games.} (20...
Rxg5 {is also equal:} 21. Qxc3 d4 22. Qb4 (22. Qb2 Kf8 23. h6 Kg8) 22... a5 23.
Qb2 Kf8 24. h6 Kg8 $11 {Kharlamov-Turkov, ICCF server 2007.}) 21. Qxc3 Bd7 $5 (
21... Qh6 22. Rab1 f5 $5 23. Qe5 Qg7 24. Qd6 Qe7 25. Qe5 {
½-½ Garscha-Schubert, remoteschach.de 2008.}) 22. h6 e5 23. Rae1 ({
White's other tries also end in equality; e.g.} 23. Qc5 a6 $1 $11 {(versus Bb5)
} 24. Kf1 (24. Qxd5 $2 Bc6) 24... Rc8 (24... g3 $5 25. h7 Rh8) 25. Qxd5 Bc6 26.
Qa5 $1 (26. Qb3 $4 g3) 26... g3 27. f3 Bxf3 28. Re1 f6 29. h7 Rh8 30. gxf3 g2+
31. Kf2 gxh1=Q 32. Rxh1 {, and either} Rd8 ({or} 32... Qf4 {
will draw, but Black can't seem to get more.})) 23... Bc6 ({Or} 23... Qe7 24.
Kf1 f6 {.}) 24. Kd1 $6 ({Better} 24. Kf1 f6 $11 {.}) 24... f6 $1 {
, with a solid game and slight advantage, Frangi-Turkov, ICCF email 2002.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "15.32 11 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. Nf3 Bd7 {. Glek's move, with the idea ...Bc6
and ...Nd7 (made safer by ...Qe7). This spurred renewed interest in the
McCutcheon in the mid-1990s. It is still being debated.} (11... Qe7 12. h4 Bd7
{transposes below - see note 'b' to Black's 12th move.}) ({
Black can choose other instructive set-ups; for example,} 11... Nc6 {and then:}
12. -- (12. h4 {returns to the main line 15.311 above.}) (12. Qf4 Qc7 ({or} 
12... Qa5 13. Rab1 $5 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 cxd4 15. Qxd4 Qc7 $11) 13. h4 (13. Qf6 Rg8
14. h4 Qa5 15. h5 gxh5 16. Rxh5 cxd4 17. Rah1 dxc3+ 18. Ke2 Qd8 $1 $11) 13...
f5 $5 {(an idea worth remembering; now if Black can castle queenside, he can
prepare ...g5)} ({but to avoid dxc5,} 13... c4 $1 14. Be2 f5 $1 {was better})
14. g4 (14. dxc5 $1 Na5 15. Nd4 Bd7 16. Nb3 $14) 14... cxd4 15. cxd4 {
, R.J.Fischer-Rossolimo, US Ch., New York 1965; and here Rossolimo's suggestion
} Bd7 {was perhaps the most direct solution:} 16. gxf5 gxf5 17. Rhg1 O-O-O 18.
Rg6 {is assessed in various sources as clearly better for White, but Black
stands well enough after a number of moves; e.g.} Nb4 ({or} 18... Qa5+ 19. Ke2
Qb4 $11) 19. Rxh6 (19. a3 Nxd3 20. cxd3 Qb6 $1 21. Rc1+ Kb8 22. Rxh6 Qb2+ 23.
Rc2 Qb1 $11 {intending ...Ba4}) (19. Ke2 Qc3 $15) 19... Kb8 20. Rxh8 Rxh8 21.
a3 $2 (21. Ke2 Qc3 22. Rb1 Nxa2 $15) 21... Rc8 $1 {with a clear advantage.}) (
12. dxc5 $5 Qe7 13. Qf4 Qxc5 14. Nd4 (14. Qf6 Qxf2+ 15. Kc1 Qe3+ 16. Kb2 Qb6+
17. Kc1 Rg8 {looks safe enough}) 14... Nxd4 $5 (14... a6 15. Rab1 Na5 $5 {
has also been tried}) ({; or} 14... Bd7 15. Nb5 O-O 16. Nd6 Rab8 {with complications - allowing a knight into d6 is often acceptable in the French Defence})
15. cxd4 Qa5+ 16. Ke2 $1 b6 17. Qf6 Rg8 18. Rhc1 Ba6 19. Kf1 Rc8 {should be satisfactory for both sides. As we've seen, the set-up with White's queen on f6
versus Black's rook on g8, while optically nice for White, is not necessarily
favourable for him, because the queen is as out of touch with the centre and
queenside as Black's rook is. You will see this in several of the McCutcheon
variations with ...g6.})) 12. h4 ({Others: -- (a) An interesting order is} 12.
Qf4 {(also reached via 11 Qf4 Bd7 12 Nf3)} Bc6 13. h4 (13. Rhb1 {
can be answered by} c4 $5 {, trying to block the position,} ({or} 13... Nd7 {
, keeping things flexible; I prefer the latter})) 13... Nd7 ({or} 13... Qe7 14.
Nh2 Nd7) 14. Nh2 $6 {
(probably not best, but Black plans 14...0-0-0 and ...f6 with good play)} ({
instead, after} 14. Rh3 Qe7 15. dxc5 {
of Spraggett-Glek, Cappelle le Grande 1998,} Nxc5 {
was the simplest course, considering ...Ne4+}) ({; and} 14. dxc5 Nxc5 15. Nd4
Ne4+ 16. Bxe4 dxe4 {shows one good point behind having the knight on d7}) 14...
Qe7 ({or} 14... g5 15. hxg5 hxg5 16. Qe3 Qe7 17. Nf3 Rg8 $11) (14... Qa5 15.
Ng4 O-O-O $1 16. Nxh6 Rxh6 $1 17. Qxh6 cxd4 {
was also promising for Black in Bruzon-Glek, Esbjerg 2002}) 15. Ng4 O-O-O 16.
Nxh6 (16. Nf6 $5 {can be answered by} Nb6 ({or} 16... c4 17. Be2 Qa3 {
, among others})) 16... f5 ({or} 16... Rdf8 {and ...f5 or ...f6 with attack})
17. exf6 Nxf6 18. f3 cxd4 $1 19. cxd4 Ne4+ $1 20. Ke2 (20. fxe4 dxe4 21. Be2
Rxd4+ 22. Ke1 Qb4+ 23. Kf1 Rf8 24. Nf7 Rd7 $19) {
, Tseshkovsky-Skorchenko, Krasnodar 2002; and here} 20... Rdf8 $1 {
is strong, e.g.} 21. Qe5 Rxh6 22. fxe4 Rh5 23. Qg3 dxe4 24. Bc4 Rhf5 25. Raf1
Qd7 26. c3 $4 Bb5 {.}) ({(b)} 12. Rab1 c4 $1 (12... b6 $5 13. dxc5 $1 bxc5 14.
c4 Nc6 {is unclear}) ({; and} 12... Bc6 $6 13. Bxg6 $1 {is supposed to be a
draw, but I think White does better than that, which you can confirm with
analysis}) {, and:} 13. -- ({
, Black gets to the standard set-up following after} 13. Be2 Bc6) ({
, and allows White no more than a draw if he sacrifices:} 13. Bxg6 Rg8 14.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 15. Qh5+ Kg7 16. Rxb7 Nc6 17. Qg4+ Kh8 18. Qh5 {
, and Black can risk playing on with} Rg7 ({but it's probably best to accede to
} 18... Kg7 19. Qg4+ Kh8 20. Qh5 Kg7 $11) 19. Qxh6+ Kg8 {.})) ({(c)} 12. dxc5
Qe7 $1 13. Rab1 (13. Rhb1 Bc6 14. Nd4 Nd7 15. Nb5 $5 O-O $1 16. f4 Nxc5 $17 {
Hnydiuk-W.Schmidt, Police 2011}) 13... Bc6 14. Nd4 (14. h4 Nd7 15. Rhe1 Nxc5
16. Nd4 Rc8 $11 {Spassky-Relange, French Team Ch. 1991}) 14... Nd7 15. Nxc6
bxc6 16. Rb7 Qxc5 $11 {.}) 12... Bc6 ({Here Black has some nice options: -- (a)
} 12... c4 $1 13. Be2 (13. Bxg6 Rg8 14. h5 $5 Qe7 $17) 13... Bc6 14. a4 {
transposes to the main line without allowing White's possibility of 13 Bxg6 in
the next note.}) ({(b)} 12... Qe7 {has been played occasionally. It squelches
any idea of Bxg6 while keeping the option of ...Nc6 alive (and thinking about ...cxd4 and ...Qb4+ or ...Qa3). There can follow} 13. Qf4 Bc6 14. Nh2 Nd7 {
, which transposes to the note with 12 Qf4 above.}) 13. a4 ({Here} 13. Qf4 {
again transposes to 12 Qf4 above}) ({but} 13. Bxg6 fxg6 (13... Rg8 $4 14. Qxe6+
) 14. Qxe6+ {is promising; e.g.} Qe7 15. Qxg6+ (15. Qc8+ Qd8 16. Qg4 $5) 15...
Qf7 (15... Kd8 $5 16. e6 {is unclear}) 16. h5 Rg8 17. Qxh6 {
, Rozkov-Belenov, Nizhnij Novgorod 2007. This is worth avoiding by 12...c4.})
13... c4 14. Be2 ({Once again, the sequence} 14. Bxg6 fxg6 15. Qxe6+ Qe7 16.
Qxg6+ {is possible, but now a4 is a lost tempo, so Black should be at least
equal after} Kd8 17. e6 Na6 18. Ne5 Be8 {.}) 14... a5 $5 {To prevent a5;} ({
although I think Black should ignore this and develop quickly by} 14... Nd7 15.
a5 O-O $5) ({or} 14... Qa5 {
, intending ...Nd7 and perhaps ...Kf8-g7 or ...0-0-0.}) 15. Qf4 (15. h5 g5 16.
Nh2 {has the idea of breaking with f4 and/or placing a knight on g4. This
leads to unclear play.}) 15... Nd7 {Black has equality.} 16. Ra2 {
. Apparently afraid of the fall of the a-pawn.} ({After} 16. Ra2 {
, Wang Zili-Glek, Hefei 2010, continued} Qe7 17. Nh2 g5 $1 18. Qe3 O-O-O 19. h5
f5 20. exf6 Qxf6 ({or} 20... Nxf6) 21. Ng4 Qf5 22. Bf3 Rde8 23. Re1 Kc7 24. Re2
Kd6 $1 {, and ...e5 followed with some advantage.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16. King's Indian Attack"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 {. The King's Indian Attack in the French Defence begins with two
different moves:} 2. -- ({16.1} 2. d3) ({16.2} 2. Qe2) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.1 2 d3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "8"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 {. This introduces the King's Indian Attack proper, so called
because White sets up the same basic position as Black often does in the
King's Indian Defence to 1 d4. The sequence of White moves tends to be e4/d3/
Nd2/Ngf3/g3/Bg2/0-0, with Re1 and/or c3 to follow. Over the years, this 2 d3
system has been used by some of the elite, notably Fischer (although he didn't
stick with it long, preferring the more dynamic 2 d4 and 3 Nc3). Today,
however, few leading players employ the King's Indian Attack ('KIA')
consistently, or even much at all. Nevertheless, it is still played by some
grandmasters, and is very popular at lower levels in spite of its passive
reputation. Essentially that's because the opening is easy to play, and most
of the time you can make your first 7 or 8 moves without thought. --- There
are perhaps six or seven fully established sound systems against the King's
Indian Attack, and I've proposed a number of them in the previous editions.
Because theory never seems to change much except around the edges, and for
reasons of overall space in this book, I've eliminated a system that I used
over the first three editions (with ...d5/...c5/...Nc6/...Bd6/...Nge7), which
is still completely valid, as is the Closed Sicilian-related variation from
'PTF1' and 'PTF2'. I've kept the other three solutions from 'PTF3', which
require the KIA player to respond in unstereotyped fashion. Old readers will
mark that I've also taken the liberty of repeating much of the analysis and
much of the prose from the last edition. I suppose that's what a 'revised
edition' does once in a while.} d5 3. Nd2 ({Move order issues are important in
the first few moves of the King's Indian Attack. Here} 3. Qe2 {
is discussed in 16.2 (about 2 Qe2).}) ({The move} 3. g3 $6 {, trying to save
the move Nd2 and keep open Qg4, has a few potential drawbacks, but the main
one is} dxe4 ({or} 3... Bd6 $5 4. Qg4 g6 5. Qe2 Nc6 {; e.g.} 6. Nf3 dxe4 7.
dxe4 e5 8. Bg2 Nf6 9. O-O Bg4 10. c3 h6 11. h3 Be6 {and Black is at least equal
}) 4. dxe4 Qxd1+ 5. Kxd1 Nf6 $1 (5... Bc5 {
also leaves White short of equality; e.g.} 6. f3 Nc6 7. Nd2 e5 $15) 6. f3 (6.
Nc3 Bb4 $5 7. Nb5 Ba5 8. Bd2 Bb6 9. f3 O-O $17) 6... Nc6 (6... Bc5 $15) 7. Be3
(7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Be3 O-O-O 9. Nd2 a6 10. Be2 Be7 11. c3 e5 12. Kc2 Be6 $15) 7...
b6 $5 8. Nd2 Bb7 9. Bb5 O-O-O $15 {.}) 3... Nf6 4. Ngf3 (4. g3 {
intends to leave White's options open;} -- ({; for example,} 4... c5 5. Ngf3 ({
or} 5. Bg2 {and 6 f4) takes out certain systems Black might want to play.})) ({
. He could try} 4... dxe4 5. dxe4 e5 {; then the f1-bishop can still develop
along the f1-a6 diagonal in conjunction with attacks on the e5-pawn, but at
the cost of a tempo, g3 being a largely wasted move. That's a good sequence
for Black, though he has two other interesting ideas:}) (4... Nc6 5. Bg2 (5. f4
$6 dxe4 6. dxe4 e5 {and White has major weaknesses}) (5. Ngf3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Bc5
$1) (5. c3 {and Black has} e5 ({or} 5... a5)) 5... dxe4 6. dxe4 e5 {, and now:}
7. -- (7. Ne2 $6 {is rather passive because it takes the pressure off e5.
Black can try to force weaknesses by} Bg4 ({or play simply} 7... Bc5) 8. O-O (
8. f3 Be6 9. O-O Bc5+ 10. Kh1 Qe7 11. Nb3 Rd8 $15) 8... Nd4 9. f3 Bc5 10. Kh1
Be6 11. c3 Nc6 12. Nb3 Bb6 $15 {.}) (7. Ngf3 {is the position that Black has
been looking for: White's bishop is passive on g2 while both of Black's
bishops develop freely and, in the absence of Bb5, his e-pawn is simple to
defend. See the instructive example of this position below via the order 4
Ngf3 Nc6 5 g3 dxe4 6 dxe4 e5 7 Bg2 (note 'b' to White's 5th move in section 16.
13).})) (4... b6 {intends to occupy the a6-f1 diagonal once White plays Bg2,
and just ...Bb7 if White decides to play passively and waste the g3 move:} 5.
Bg2 (5. Ngf3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Bc5) 5... Nc6 6. Ngf3 dxe4 7. dxe4 Ba6 $1 8. c3 (8.
e5 Nd7) (8. c4 Bc5) 8... Qd7 9. Qa4 Bd3 $1 $15 {.})) {
After 4 Ngf3, I will investigate three set-ups introduced by these moves:} 4...
-- ({16.11} 4... Bc5) ({16.12} 4... b6) ({16.13} 4... Nc6) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.11 4...Bc5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. Ngf3 Bc5 {. I have to admit that, many years
ago, when I noticed a game with this move I thought it a very strange one one.
But now with so many games and extensive experience with 4...Bc5, there still
doesn't seem any convincing reason to be wary about it. Black's idea is a
provocative one: the bishop stands extremely well on the a7-g1 diagonal, so
White will either have to suffer its presence or advance his central pawns to
e5 and d4, allowing Black to undermine them in traditional French Defence
fashion. That is precisely what most King's Indian Attack players are trying
to avoid.} 5. e5 {The most important move.} ({Others: -- (a)} 5. g3 $2 dxe4 6.
dxe4 (6. Nxe4 Nxe4 7. dxe4 Bxf2+ 8. Kxf2 Qxd1 9. Bb5+ Qd7 $17) 6... Ng4 {
, and White (who has fallen for this more times than one would possibly think)
is objectively lost.}) ({(b)} 5. Be2 dxe4 (5... Nc6 $5 6. O-O e5) 6. Nxe4 (6.
dxe4 $5 e5 ({or Black can try the funny Philidor-like} 6... Ng4 7. O-O Bxf2+ 8.
Rxf2 Ne3 9. Qe1 Nxc2 10. Qd1 Nxa1 11. b4 $1 {with unclear play})) 6... Nxe4 7.
dxe4 Qxd1+ 8. Bxd1 Nc6 9. Bf4 Bb6 (9... f6 $5 10. Bxc7 $6 e5) 10. O-O f6 11.
Re1 $6 (11. e5 $11) 11... e5 12. Be3 Be6 $15 {Gushpit-A.Ivanov, Barlinek 2002.}
) ({(c)} 5. d4 {is almost never played,} -- ({
, and may very well transpose to lines below after} 5... Bb6 6. e5 Nfd7) ({
, while} 5... Be7 6. e5 Nfd7 {is a direct transposition to the main line of
the 3...Be7 Tarrasch Universal System (3 Nd2 Be7 4 Ngf3 Nf6 5 e5 Nfd7) covered
in 'PTF3', both sides having played an extra move.}) ({. Apart from whether
White thinks that desirable, the other problem is the independent line} 5...
dxe4 $5 6. dxc5 exf3 7. Qxf3 Nc6 {
, when Black's free play makes for a level game, e.g. after} 8. Ne4 $5 (8. Bd3
Ne5) (8. c3 O-O 9. Be2 e5) 8... Nxe4 9. Qxe4 O-O 10. Be2 (10. Bf4 $6 e5 11. Bd3
f5 12. Qc4+ Kh8 $15) (10. Bd3 f5 11. Qe3 e5 $11) 10... e5 11. O-O Be6 $11 {.}))
(5. c3 {and:} -- (5... Bb6 $5 6. e5 Nfd7 7. d4 c5 {
also transposes to variations considered below:} 8. Bd3 {
is note 'c' to White's 7th move,} ({while} 8. Nb3 {
is the note (with 8 c3) to White's 8th in the main line.})) ({. Alternatively,
} 5... a5 $5 {may well lead to} 6. e5 ({otherwise} 6. Be2 O-O 7. O-O {
is passive enough that even} Be7 {is satisfactory}) 6... Nfd7 7. d4 Be7 8. Bd3
c5 9. O-O Nc6 {, an exact transposition to one of the main lines of the 3 Nd2
Be7 Tarrasch. Obviously that might not be to your taste, but it's even less
likely to appeal to your opponent, who not only needs to know the line, but
feel comfortable with its highly tactical nature, including all the ...g5
ideas which appear in extremely similar form in Chapter 4.}) ({. Finally,} 5...
O-O 6. e5 Nfd7 {transposes to 6 c3 0-0 in the next note.})) 5... Nfd7 6. d4 {
Here White's options are more serious.} ({(a)} 6. g3 $5 Nc6 (6... Bb6 7. Bg2 c5
{is a sound sequence; e.g.} 8. O-O Nc6 9. Re1 Bc7 10. Nb3 Ncxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5
12. Nxc5 O-O $11) 7. Nb3 Be7 ({a fascinating line is} 7... Bb6 $5 8. d4 f6 $5
9. c4 $1 dxc4 10. Bxc4 fxe5 $1 11. Bg5 Nf6 12. Nxe5 Nxd4 {, unclear}) 8. d4 f6
$5 (8... O-O) 9. exf6 (9. Bh3 fxe5 $1 10. Bxe6 e4 $15) 9... Nxf6 10. Bb5 Bd7
11. Qe2 (11. O-O O-O 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Ne5 Qe8 14. Bf4 Bb5 15. Re1 Bd6 $11)
11... O-O $1 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Qxe6+ Kh8 {with sufficient compensation.}) ({(b)
} 6. c3 {is subtle: where does Black wish to put his pieces?} -- (6... Bb6 7.
g3 $6 (7. b4 $5 f6 8. d4 fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 Qh4 $5 11. g3 Qe7 12. Bd3
O-O $11 {Bruno-Playa, Buenos Aires 1994}) (7. d4 c5 {
transposes to the main line after} 8. Bd3 ({or} 8. Nb3)) 7... f6 8. Bh3 $6 (8.
exf6 Qxf6) 8... fxe5 9. Bxe6 Nc5 $1 10. Bxc8 Nxd3+ 11. Ke2 Nxc1+ 12. Rxc1 Qxc8
$17 {.}) (6... O-O $5 7. d4 -- (7... Be7 8. Bd3 c5 {
(you could argue that this can wait until later)} ({and that} 8... b6 9. O-O
Ba6 {is a higher priority: the sooner Black can get ...Ba6 in, the better}) 9.
O-O {. Black has castled early in this 3...Be7 Tarrasch Variation, but that
may be alright because, for one thing, he has reserved the possibility of ...b6 and ...Ba6, whereas he would usually have ...Nc6 already in.}) ({
. Alternatively,} 7... Bb6 {is definitely still worth considering; e.g.} 8. Bd3
c5 9. Nf1 $5 {, when Black could gain valuable time by} f6 $1 (9... f5 $6 10.
Ng3 Nc6 11. Ne2 cxd4 12. cxd4 $14 {
with a comfortable edge, Kasparov-Rendle, London simul 1998}) 10. Qc2 f5 $5 {
, luring White's queen onto a bad square, which looks satisfactory for Black
(equal);} ({or in this line} 10... h6 $1 {, which seems to force} 11. exf6 {
and therefore might be even better!})))) 6... Bb6 ({
That Black's system is fundamentally sound is shown by the fact that} 6... Be7
7. Bd3 ({or} 7. c3 c5) 7... c5 8. c3 {transposes to a complicated main line of
the 3...Be7 Tarrasch (covered in 'PTF3') in which Black has equal chances; for
example, after} Nc6 (8... b6 $5 9. Nf1 Ba6) 9. O-O {, and now} a5 ({and} 9...
g5 {are two popular moves. Probably 6...Be7 is the ideal way to go against the
average KIA player.})) 7. Nb3 {A logical move to neutralize ...c5 and get the
knight out of the way of its own pieces.} ({Instead,} 7. c4 c5 {
equalizes immediately}) ({while the most popular move} 7. Bd3 {
gives Black sufficient counterplay after} c5 {:} 8. -- (8. c4 Nc6 9. O-O cxd4
10. cxd5 exd5 11. Nb3 Nf8 $6 (11... O-O 12. Re1 Re8 13. Bf4 Nf8 $1 $15) 12. Bg5
Qc7 13. a4 $5 Ne6 14. Re1 Bd7 $5 $11 {Ree-U.Geller, Netanya 1968.}) (8. dxc5 {
and:} -- (8... Nxc5 9. Nb3 Nxd3+ 10. Qxd3 Nc6 11. O-O f6 (11... O-O 12. Be3 f6
13. Bxb6 axb6 {keeps White out of c5 and equalizes}) (11... h6 12. Re1 O-O $11)
12. exf6 Qxf6 13. c3 O-O 14. Be3 (14. Bg5 Qf7 15. Rae1 Qh5 $1) 14... Bc7 $11
15. Rad1 h6 16. Nbd4 Rd8 {, planning ...e5.}) (8... Bc7 $5 9. Nb3 Nxe5 ({not} 
9... Nc6 $2 10. Bg5) 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. O-O Nc6 12. c3 O-O 13. Be3 (13. Qe2 Bf6
14. f4 Re8 $11) (13. Bc2 g6 14. Be3 Bg7 15. f4 e5 $5 16. fxe5 Nxe5 17. Bd4 Re8
$11) 13... Bc7 ({or} 13... Bf6 14. Qc2 g6 15. Rad1 Bd7 $11) 14. Qh5 g6 15. Qh6
Be5 16. Bg5 Qc7 17. Qh4 b6 18. Rad1 Bg7 $11 {.})) (8. c3 Nc6 {
puts pressure on White's centre and even favours Black. Here} 9. dxc5 {
is a traditional White strategy, but overprotection of e5 is too difficult:} --
(9... Nxc5 {has the idea} 10. Bc2 $6 {
(but nothing else preserves White's bishop very long)} Nd7 11. O-O (11. Qe2 Qc7
12. Ba4 O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 $15) 11... Ndxe5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. Re1 Qf6 (13... Bc7
$15) 14. Qe2 {
, Andriasian-Goh Wei Ming, playchess.com 2005; and now Black had the natural}
Bc7 {and White is a little short of compensation} ({instead of} 14... O-O $2
15. Qxe5 Bxf2+ 16. Kh1 Bxe1 17. Qxe1) {, even after the best} 15. Ba4+ Bd7 16.
Bxd7+ Nxd7 17. Qb5 O-O-O {.}) (9... Bxc5 10. Nb3 Bb6 11. Qe2 $6 (11. Bf4) 11...
Qc7 12. Bf4 (12. Bb5 O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. O-O a5 $1 15. Re1 Ba6 $15 {
Orsagova-Kiss, Rimavska Sobota 1996}) 12... f6 $1 13. O-O $5 (13. exf6 $6 Qxf4
14. fxg7 Rg8 15. Qxe6+ Ne7) (13. Nbd4 Ndxe5 14. Nxe5 fxe5 15. Nxc6 exf4 $15)
13... Ndxe5 $15 {Dulik-Wrba, email 1997.}))) 7... c5 8. dxc5 (8. c3 Nc6 ({
alternatively,} 8... cxd4 9. cxd4 Nc6 10. Bd3 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 12. O-O O-O {
is a fairly standard Tarrasch position; e.g.} 13. Be3 Bd7 $5 ({here} 13... Qd6
{intending ...a5-a4 is also interesting; and finally, the move ...Bc7 can be
useful in any of these positions}) 14. Rc1 Be8 15. Nc5 Bxc5 $1 16. Rxc5 Bh5 $11
) 9. Be3 cxd4 (9... c4 $5 10. Nbd2 f6 11. exf6 Nxf6 12. Be2 O-O $11) 10. cxd4 {
, Khalifeh-Kristinsdottir, Istanbul Olympiad 2000; and Black had} O-O ({
instead of} 10... Ba5+ $2 11. Nxa5 Qxa5+ 12. Bd2 Qb6 13. Bc3 O-O 14. Bd3) 11.
Bd3 f6 12. exf6 Qxf6 $11 {.}) 8... Nxc5 9. Be3 ({Others: -- (a)} 9. Bg5 Qc7 $1
$15 {(Kindermann).}) ({(b)} 9. Nxc5 {
isn't played much but seems to be the most challenging move:} Bxc5 10. c3 $5 (
10. Bd3 Nc6 11. O-O {with the idea} Qc7 $5 ({Black can try} 11... f6 12. exf6
Qxf6 {, e.g.} 13. c3 O-O 14. Bg5 Qf7 15. Bh4 Qh5 16. Bg3 Bd7 {
, which is solid although still giving White a limited positional plus}) 12.
Re1 {would favour White mildly}) 10... Nc6 11. Bd3 Qc7 12. Qe2 (12. O-O $5)
12... O-O 13. O-O (13. Bxh7+ $2 Kxh7 14. Ng5+ Kg8 15. Qh5 Re8) 13... a5 14. Bf4
(14. Be3 b6) 14... f6 15. Rae1 (15. Bg3 f5 16. Bf4 Bd7 $11) 15... f5 $5 {
intending ...h6;} ({or here} 15... Bd7 {.})) 9... Qc7 $5 (9... Ncd7 $1 {
improves. Again, White will struggle to defend e5 against a direct attack by ...Nc6 and ...Qc7; e.g.} 10. Bd4 $1 a5 11. a4 Bxd4 12. Nbxd4 Nc6 13. Nb5 O-O $15
{. Thus 9 Nxc5 Bxc5 10 Bd3 is White's best chance to retain an edge in this
line.}) 10. Nxc5 Bxc5 11. Bxc5 Qxc5 12. c3 Bd7 13. Qb3 {To prevent ...Bb5.} ({
Instead: -- (a) Kindermann analyses} 13. Bd3 Bb5 14. O-O Bxd3 15. Qxd3 Nc6 $11
{.}) ({(b)} 13. a4 $1 Nc6 14. Bd3 d4 $5 15. O-O $1 dxc3 16. Rc1 {
and I'd rather be White here, although it's not clear.}) 13... Nc6 14. Bd3 f6
$5 ({After} 14... d4 {a critical sequence is} 15. Be4 (15. O-O dxc3 16. bxc3
$11) 15... dxc3 16. Qxc3 $6 (16. Rc1 $1 Qb4 17. Qxb4 Nxb4 18. Rxc3 Bc6 $11)
16... Qxc3+ 17. bxc3 Na5 (17... Rc8 {may be better still}) 18. Rb1 Rb8 19. Nd4
b6 {, and Black has at least levelled the play.}) 15. exf6 gxf6 16. Qxb7 (16.
Qc2 O-O-O 17. O-O-O e5 18. Bf5 Ne7 {with the advantage (Kindermann).}) 16...
Rb8 17. Qc7 Rxb2 ({Black could apparently have at least drawn following} 17...
e5 $5 {, which cuts the queen off from the kingside after} 18. O-O (18. O-O-O
Rc8 19. Qb7 Rb8 20. Qa6 $2 e4 21. Rhe1 Bc8 22. Qa4 O-O) 18... Rc8 (18... e4 19.
Rae1) 19. Qb7 Rb8 (19... e4 {is a winning try}) 20. Qa6 $2 (20. Qc7 Rc8 {
repeats}) 20... e4 $17 {.}) 18. O-O Qxc3 19. Rad1 {. White had significant but
unclear compensation in Kindermann-Sarana Hungeling, Bad Wiessee 2002.} ({
Here a possible continuation would be} 19. Rad1 Rg8 ({instead of} 19... Qa5)
20. Bxh7 Rg7 21. Bd3 Qb4 22. Rb1 Qg4 23. Ne1 Rxb1 24. Bxb1 e5 25. Qd6 Qe6 26.
Qc5 e4 ({or} 26... d4 {. White has his pawn back, but Black's centre is a plus.
})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.12 4...b6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. Ngf3 b6 {. This is now a well-established
solution to the KIA. Black's c8-bishop can go to b7 or a6 depending upon what
White does; in particular, the desired g3/Bg2 set-up will encourage an early ...Ba6.} 5. c3 {This is probably the move that most irritates players of 4...b6.
Others are hugely instructive.} ({(a)} 5. g3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Bc5 $5 ({note that} 
6... Nc6 {is more accurate in one important line:} 7. Bg2 Ba6 $1 8. c4 Qd3 $15
9. Qb3 $2 Nb4 $1 $17) {, and:} 7. -- (7. Bd3 e5 8. O-O $2 Bh3 9. Re1 Ng4 10.
Re2 Qf6 11. c3 g5 $1 12. Qe1 a5 13. b3 h5 14. a4 h4 $17 {
Rolletschek-Kindermann, Graz 2001.}) (7. Bg2 {can be answered by} e5 ({or} 7...
Nc6 {, both equal}) ({. You should be aware that the attractive move} 7... Ba6
{(good after 6...Nc6 7 Bg2) isn't appropriate here due to} 8. c4 Qd3 9. b4 $1 {
, when} Bxf2+ 10. Kxf2 Ng4+ {falls a little short after} 11. Ke1 Ne3 12. Qe2
Nc2+ 13. Kf2 Qxe2+ 14. Kxe2 Nxa1 15. Bb2 Nc2 16. b5 Bb7 17. Rc1 {.})) (7. Bb5+
Bd7 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. c3 (9. Nb3 Bd6 10. c3 O-O 11. h3 e5 $15 {
Bhat-G.Rey, San Francisco 2000}) 9... e5 10. b4 Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Qc2 Bg4 13.
Be2 a5 14. b5 Nb8 15. Nc4 Nbd7 16. Rd1 Qe7 17. Nh4 Be6 (17... Bc5 18. Nf5 Qe6
$11) 18. Nf5 Bxf5 19. exf5 h6 20. Nxd6 cxd6 21. c4 Nc5 {, Morozevich-Dreev,
Yalta (rapid) 1995. Black has achieved a powerful knight outpost on the open
c-file. He went on to win, though in this position the bishops are an
equalizing factor.})) ({(b)} 5. e5 Nfd7 6. g3 (6. d4 c5 7. c3 {
transposes to the main line}) 6... c5 {is a standard ...b6 position that
features both the attack on e5 and trade of light-squared bishops by ...Ba6.
Black has done well here, mainly because the d2-knight has no good squares to
go to and, in the meantime, it gets in the way of Bf4. For example:} 7. Qe2 Qc7
(7... Nc6 8. Nb3 Qc7 9. Bf4 c4 $5 (9... a5 $1 {is better}) 10. dxc4 Ba6 11.
Nbd4 $6 Bxc4 12. Qe3 Bxf1 13. Kxf1 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Bc5 15. c3 O-O $15 {
R.Montgomery-A.Shaw, corr 1983}) 8. c4 Bb7 9. Bg2 dxc4 $5 10. Nxc4 b5 11. Na3
a6 12. O-O Nc6 13. Re1 Be7 14. Nc2 O-O 15. b3 Nb6 $15 {
Lushnikov-Grishanovich, St Petersburg 1999.}) 5... c5 ({Or} 5... Be7 6. Qa4+ $5
Bd7 7. Qc2 c5 8. Ne5 Nc6 9. Nxd7 Qxd7 $11 {; White's acquisition of the bishop
pair comes at the cost of space and development.}) 6. e5 ({Others: -- (a)} 6.
Qa4+ Bd7 (6... Qd7 7. Qc2 Qc7 $1 8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Bd6 10. Re1 O-O $15 {
C.Bauer-Bareev, Cannes rapid 2001}) 7. Qc2 Qc7 8. Be2 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1
Nc6 11. Bf1 Rac8 $15 {Van Delft-Hertneck, Tegernsee 2003.}) ({(b)} 6. g3 Be7 $1
(6... Ba6 $6 7. exd5 $14 {Short-Bareev, Sarajevo 1999}) 7. Bg2 Ba6 ({or} 7...
O-O 8. O-O Nc6 9. Re1 Qc7) 8. exd5 exd5 $11 {.}) ({(c)} 6. Be2 Be7 (6... Qc7 7.
O-O Nc6 8. Re1 Bd6 {is another valid set-up for Black}) 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Nc6
9. Qc2 Qc7 10. Bf1 Bb7 11. a3 a5 $11 {Kindermann-Klinger, Munich 1987.}) 6...
Nfd7 7. d4 Be7 ({Alternatively: -- (a)} 7... Ba6 {poses different problems,
since this comes before White can play Bb5 and a4 (as in our main line). For
example:} 8. Bxa6 Nxa6 9. O-O Be7 10. Ne1 b5 {
(a battle between wing attacks begins)} ({but} 10... O-O 11. Qg4 f5 {
is also reasonable}) 11. Qg4 g6 (11... O-O 12. Ndf3 Kh8 $11) 12. Ndf3 h6 13. h4
$5 Qb6 14. Be3 c4 $11 {Van Weersel-De Jong, Wijk aan Zee 2002.}) ({
(b) I like the course of Chudnovsky-Bhat, Catonsville 2000:} 7... Nc6 8. Bb5 (
8. Bd3 Be7) 8... Bb7 9. O-O a6 10. Ba4 g5 $5 {
, when White is hard-pressed to defend his centre; there should follow} 11. Nb1
g4 $1 (11... Be7 12. Be3 $14) 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Ne1 Qh4 $5 $11 {.}) 8. Bb5 (8.
Bd3 {is a more obvious development, but Black can get counterplay by
exploiting the queenside light squares; for example:} -- (8... O-O 9. Ne4 $5 (
9. Nf1 Ba6 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Ng3 {transposes}) (9. O-O Ba6 10. Ne1 Bxd3 11.
Nxd3 Nc6 12. Nf3 c4 $5 ({or here} 12... Qc7) 13. Nf4 b5 14. a3 Qc7) 9... Ba6
10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Ng3 cxd4 $5 {(this should equalize)} (11... Nab8 12. O-O Nc6
{is a surer way to initiate a queenside attack, e.g.} 13. Qe2 a6 14. Bd2 b5 15.
a3 Na5 $15) 12. cxd4 Qc7 13. O-O Rac8 14. Bd2 Qc4 15. a3 Nab8 16. Rc1 (16. Re1
h6 17. Nh5 Qb5 18. b4 Qd3) 16... Qb5 17. b4 Qd3 18. Qe2 Qxe2 19. Nxe2 b5 20.
Nc3 a6 21. a4 Nb6 $1 22. axb5 Bxb4 23. bxa6 Nxa6 24. Nb5 Nc4 $15 {.}) (8... Nc6
9. O-O g5 $5 {would be the speculative way to go about things.}) (8... Ba6 9.
Bxa6 Nxa6 10. Qe2 ({after} 10. O-O O-O {Black equalizes without problems; e.g.}
11. Qe2 Nc7 12. Re1 Qc8 13. Nf1 Qa6 14. Bg5 Bxg5 15. Nxg5 Qxe2 16. Rxe2 Rfc8 {
½-½ Smyslov-Hug, Zürich 1998}) 10... Qc8 11. O-O O-O 12. a3 Qb7 $11 {.}))
8... Ba6 ({Instead: -- (a)} 8... O-O 9. O-O Bb7 10. Re1 Nc6 {takes advantage
of the fact that White's bishop will have to waste time to get back of the
b1-h7 diagonal. This looks playable if Black can get something going quickly
on the queenside.}) ({(b)} 8... a6 {is particularly interesting:} 9. Bd3 (9.
Ba4 b5 10. Bc2 Nc6 11. Nf1 b4 12. Ng3 bxc3 13. bxc3 {, Orsag-Jurek, Czech
League 1998; and Black can work on the weakened light squares by} cxd4 14. cxd4
a5 15. O-O Ba6 16. Re1 O-O {followed by ...Rc8, ...Nb6 etc}) 9... Nc6 10. O-O
g5 $5 (10... O-O) ({; or} 10... Bb7 {, hoping for} 11. Re1 $6 g5 $1 $15) 11. h3
$6 h5 12. g4 hxg4 13. hxg4 b5 ({Black should connect rooks quickly:} 13... Qc7
$1 14. Kg2 Bb7 15. Rh1 O-O-O $15) 14. a4 (14. Kg2) 14... b4 15. Re1 a5 $2 (
15... Qb6 $1) 16. Bb5 Na7 17. Be2 Nc6 18. Bb5 Na7 19. Be2 {½-½ S.Berry-N.Pert, British Ch., Liverpool 2008. A lot to think about in that short game!})
9. a4 {This move has taken over practice. Trading his good bishop on a6 gets
White nowhere when it has taken two moves to do so.} cxd4 {By no means forced.}
({An important alternative is} 9... Bb7 $5 10. O-O (10. Nf1 Nc6 11. Ng3 O-O 12.
O-O Rc8 $11) 10... Nc6 11. Re1 a6 $1 {(the best reply)} (11... Rc8 {
with the idea} 12. Nf1 c4 13. Ng3 Na5 $5 {is an option}) 12. Bd3 (12. Bxc6 Bxc6
13. a5 $5 O-O 14. axb6 Qxb6 15. Nb3 a5) (12. Be2 Rc8 $11 {
intending ...cxd4 and if cxd4, then ...Nb4}) 12... g5 $1 {
(the possibility of this move makes a case for delaying castling)} 13. h4 $1 (
13. h3 h5 14. Nf1 $6 g4 15. hxg4 hxg4 16. N3h2 cxd4 17. cxd4 Nxd4 18. Nxg4 Bb4
$1 {, intending ...Qh4, forces} 19. Re3 Nc6 $15) 13... gxh4 14. Nf1 Rg8 15. Kh1
h5 16. Bf4 Nf8 {and Black has at least equal prospects in this messy position.
In these last two notes, the move ...g5 has played a major role.}) 10. cxd4 O-O
$5 {This is alright, but again, delaying castling has advantages;} ({
for example,} 10... Qc8 11. Qe2 (11. Nf1 $5) 11... Qb7 12. O-O Bxb5 13. axb5 a6
14. Ne1 $6 (14. Nb1 $1 axb5 15. Rxa8 Qxa8 16. Qxb5 O-O 17. Nc3 Rc8 18. Be3 Rc4
$11) 14... axb5 15. Rxa8 Qxa8 16. Qg4 (16. Qxb5 Qc6 $1 17. Qxc6 Nxc6 18. Nb3 f6
19. f4 Kf7 $15) 16... O-O 17. Ndf3 Kh8 (17... Rc8 $1 18. Bh6 Bf8) 18. Nd3 Nc6
19. Nf4 {, Andriasian-Hou, Moscow 2010; and Black could keep a plus with} Rc8
20. Nh5 g6 $15 {.}) 11. O-O Qc8 12. Re1 Nc6 13. Re3 Qb7 ({
An example of what not to do:} 13... Bxb5 14. axb5 Nb4 15. Rc3 Qb7 16. Nf1 a6
17. bxa6 Rxa6 18. Rxa6 Nxa6 19. Ng5 $1 {(Black has neglected the kingside)}
Bxg5 20. Bxg5 $14 f6 $2 21. exf6 Nxf6 22. Bxf6 $1 Rxf6 23. Ne3 {
with a comfortable edge, M.Adams-Bareev, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000.}) 14. Nf1 (14.
Qe2 Nb4 $11 {(Psakhis).}) 14... Rfc8 (14... Na5 $5 {
gives Black some counterplay; compare the main line.}) 15. Bd2 Bxb5 16. axb5
Na5 $1 17. b3 (17. Bxa5 bxa5 18. Rxa5 Bd8 $11 {.}) 17... a6 18. bxa6 Rxa6 19.
h4 $5 Nc6 20. Rc1 Raa8 21. Rec3 {, M.Adams-Bareev, Sarajevo 1999;} ({
and it's a good time to simplify by} 21. Rec3 Na7 $11 ({or} 21... Ba3 22. R1c2
Nb4 $11 {Psakhis).})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.13 4...Nc6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. Ngf3 Nc6 {. Here Black simply develops and
fights for control of e5. If he were given a free move, 5...e5 would be a
Philidor Defence with colours reversed, while 5...Bc5 would also be strong.} 5.
c3 {This move (common in the Philidor) flexibly supports d4, prepares b4, and
gives his queen a path to the queenside.} ({Against moves other than 5 c3,
Black will usually play for ...e5, with or without ...dxe5: -- (a)} 5. Be2 Bd6
$1 {(a rare move which, however, has scored extremely well, with a 200 point
performance rating lead for Black over White; the first idea is to cover e5,
which means that the move ...e5 itself will be well supported)} 6. O-O (6. c3
O-O 7. O-O {transposes}) 6... O-O 7. c3 a5 (7... Re8 8. Qc2 e5 9. b4 {
, K.Berg-Repkova, Aarhus 2009; and} a6 {is equal,} ({while} 9... b6 $5 10. Bb2
Bb7 {is more dynamic, e.g. ...Ne7-g6 might follow})) 8. -- (8. a4 b6 9. Qc2 Ba6
10. Re1 Re8 11. Bf1 dxe4 12. dxe4 Bxf1 13. Rxf1 Ng4 14. Nc4 Nge5 $11 {
A.Lein-L.Portisch, Lone Pine 1978.}) (8. Qc2 e5 9. Re1 (9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nc4 a4
$5) 9... Re8 10. b3 Bg4 11. Nf1 d4 $1 12. c4 Bb4 $15 {
I.Ivanov-Castaneda, Tula 2006.}) (8. Re1 Re8 (8... h6 9. h3 a4 $5) 9. h3 h6 (
9... a4 $1) 10. b3 {
(a basic Philidor set-up, but it's really designed for defensive purposes)} b6
11. Bf1 e5 12. a3 {, Baklan-Gdanski, Magdeburg 2000; and as an alternative to}
d4 $11 {,} ({Black could keep the tension by} 12... Be6 13. Bb2 Qd7 {
, also about equal.}))) ({(b)} 5. g3 $6 dxe4 6. dxe4 {has two good replies:} --
(6... Bc5 {(threatening ...Ng4)} 7. Bb5 (7. Bg2 e5 {transposes to 6...e5}) 7...
Bd7 8. O-O Qe7 9. Qe2 e5 10. Nc4 h6 11. c3 a6 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Nfxe5 Bxe4 $15
{.}) (6... e5 {, and here g3 weakens the light squares if White plays 7 Bc4 or
7 Bb5, but 7 Bg2 has drawbacks too, as we'll see. This is an example of how
having a tempo less can mean getting more information about what the opponent
is doing. In this case, Black gets to see the move 5 g3 and react accordingly:}
7. Bg2 {
(this invites Black to try to occupy the a6-f1 diagonal by ...b6 and ...Ba6)} (
{but putting the bishop elsewhere would leave his weakened kingside light
squares undefended; e.g.} 7. Bb5 Bc5 {and if White plays} 8. O-O ({whereas} 8.
Bxc6+ bxc6 9. Qe2 Qe7 10. Nc4 Ba6 11. Nfxe5 O-O {intends ...Bd4, but} 12. c3
Rfe8 13. Qf3 Nxe4 $17 {is just as bad}) {, then} 8... Bh3 ({or} 8... Bg4 {
is good})) 7... Bc5 8. O-O O-O {and now:} 9. -- (9. c3 a5 10. Qc2 b6 ({or} 
10... Be6 11. Ng5 Bd7 $15) 11. Nc4 Ba6 12. Rd1 Qe7 13. Ne3 Rad8 $1 14. Nd5 Nxd5
15. exd5 e4 $1 16. Re1 (16. Ne1 Ne5 $1 17. Bxe4 Ng4 $1 {- Fappas}) (16. dxc6 $2
exf3 17. Bxf3 Rxd1+ 18. Qxd1 Rd8 19. Bd2 Qf6 $17) 16... Bd3 17. Qb3 Qf6 18.
dxc6 exf3 19. Bh1 Be2 $19 {Fargags-Fappas, Germany 1979.}) (9. Qe2 a5 10. Nc4
Qe7 11. Ne3 (11. c3 b6 {and ...Ba6, when the queen is not happy on e2}) 11...
Nd4 $5 (11... Rd8 $15) 12. Nxd4 exd4 13. Nc4 Bg4 14. Qd3 Nd7 (14... Rfe8 {
is mentioned by Wintzer; then} 15. e5 Nd7 16. Bxb7 Rab8 17. Bc6 Qe6 18. Bxd7
Qxd7 {gives Black more than enough for a pawn}) 15. a4 f6 $1 16. Bd2 b6 17. Kh1
(17. Rae1 Ne5 $15) 17... Rad8 18. Bf4 $2 (18. f4 Rfe8 $15) 18... Bb4 $1 19. f3
(19. Qxd4 $4 Ne5) 19... Nc5 20. Qe2 Be6 21. Bc1 (21. Rfd1 d3 22. cxd3 Nxd3 $1
$17) 21... d3 22. cxd3 Rxd3 $19 {Matthaei-Wintzer, German League 1997.}))) ({
(c) After} 5. e5 Nd7 6. d4 {, Black is a tempo up on the Guimard Variation (i.e. 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nc6 4 Ngf3 Nf6 5 e5 Nd7), due to the loss of a time involved
with d3-d4. Now Black can directly assault the centre with} f6 ({
or else play slowly with} 6... Be7) {. Then the play is balanced:} 7. -- (7.
Bd3 $2 fxe5 8. dxe5 Ndxe5 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. Qh5+ Nf7 11. Bxh7 Qf6 12. Nf3 Bb4+
13. Kd1 Bd7 $17 {J.Rigo-F.Portisch, Kecskemet 1979.}) (7. Bb5 fxe5 $5 (7... Be7
8. O-O fxe5 9. dxe5 O-O 10. Re1 Nc5 11. Nf1 {, Tomba-Sumets, Milan 2009; and}
Bd7 {gives Black more than enough play}) 8. dxe5 Be7 9. Bxc6 $6 (9. O-O $11 {
; see 7...Be7}) 9... bxc6 10. Nd4 (10. O-O O-O $15 {
with the bishop pair and ...c5 to come}) 10... Nxe5 11. Qh5+ Nf7 12. Nxc6 Qd6
13. Nxe7 Qxe7 14. O-O O-O 15. Nb3 e5 $1 $15 {.}) (7. exf6 Qxf6 $1 8. Nb3 Bd6 ({
or} 8... e5 9. dxe5 Ndxe5 10. Nxe5 Qxe5+ 11. Be2 Bf5 $15 {and ...0-0-0}) 9. Bb5
$6 (9. Be2 $1 O-O 10. O-O b6 $1 11. c4 Bb7 $11) 9... e5 $1 10. dxe5 Ndxe5 11.
Qxd5 $6 Be6 12. Qe4 O-O $17 {.})) 5... Bd6 $5 {This flexible move addresses
the dual issues of e5 and b4 while getting developed.} ({Normally Black plays} 
5... a5 {to stop b4, which is supposed to favour White, but that's not clear
either and deserves a close look:} 6. e5 (6. Qa4 Be7 $5 7. e5 Nd7 8. d4 O-O 9.
Bb5 $5 Na7 10. Bd3 c5 $11 {Friedman-Shulman, Connecticut 2003}) (6. Be2 Be7 7.
O-O O-O 8. Re1 e5 $11) 6... Nd7 7. d4 {. Again, Black is a full tempo up on
the Guimard Variation that goes 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nc6 4 Ngf3 Nf6 5 e5 Nd7 6 c3 a5,
when it's White's move. Here it's Black's, and he seems to have time for the
desirable} f6 {and then:} 8. -- (8. Bb5 fxe5 9. dxe5 (9. Nxe5 $6 Ncxe5 10. dxe5
c6 11. Bd3 Nxe5 $15) 9... Be7 10. O-O O-O 11. Qe2 (11. Re1 Qe8 12. Nf1 Nc5 13.
Be3 Bd7 $11) {, Kindermann-Farago, Budapest 1988; and Kindermann suggests}
11... Qe8 $5 {intending ...Qh5, which is equal,} ({while} 11... a4 {
intending ...Nc5 also looks fine.})) (8. Nh4 $5 Qe7 (8... g6 $5 9. exf6 Qxf6
10. g3 e5 11. Bg2 Nb6 $11) 9. Bd3 $2 (9. Qh5+ Qf7 10. Qxf7+ Kxf7 11. f4 g5 $1)
(9. exf6 Qxf6 $11) 9... fxe5 $1 10. Qh5+ Qf7 11. Bg6 hxg6 12. Qxh8 e4 $1 13.
Nb1 (13. Nb3 $6 a4 $17) (13. Qh7 Ne7 $1) 13... Nf6 14. f3 Bd7 15. fxe4 dxe4 16.
O-O O-O-O 17. g3 e5 18. Be3 g5 $1 $19 {Ljubojevic-Vaganian, Belgrade 1974.}) (
8. exf6 Qxf6 9. Bb5 Bd6 10. Nf1 (10. O-O O-O {intending ...Kh8 and ...e5})
10... O-O (10... e5 11. Ne3 e4 12. Nxd5 Qf5 $5 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Ne3 Qf4 15.
Nc4 Qf5 16. Ne3 Qf4 $11) 11. Ne3 Nb6 $5 {(to guard d5 and prepare ...e5)} 12.
O-O (12. Bd3 $2 e5) 12... Bd7 (12... e5 $5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14. Bc4 exd4 15. Bxd5+
Kh8 16. Bxc6 dxc3 {is unclear}) 13. Bd3 e5 14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15. Bc4 exd4 16. Bxd5+
Kh8 17. cxd4 Bg4 $11 {.})) 6. Qe2 {Threatening e5. Black seems to consolidate
his position in every case, usually with commonsense moves.} ({(a)} 6. Be2 O-O
7. O-O {transposes to 5 Be2 Bd6! 6 0-0 0-0 7 c3 above.}) ({(b)} 6. g3 O-O 7.
Bg2 {and:} -- (7... dxe4 8. dxe4 e5 (8... a5 9. O-O e5 10. Qc2 {
, Bologan-O.Danielian, Moscow 1995;} Bc5 $11) 9. Qe2 Bg4 (9... Be6 $11) 10. Nc4
h6 11. h3 Be6 12. O-O Qd7 13. Kh2 Rad8 14. Rd1 Qc8 $11 {.}) (7... e5 8. exd5 (
8. O-O Be6 $11 {with the idea} 9. Ng5 Bg4 10. Qb3 h6 11. exd5 Na5 12. Qc2 hxg5
13. b4 c6 14. bxa5 cxd5) 8... Nxd5 9. O-O {
, Mazi-Caruana, Trieste 2007; and here} Bg4 ({or} 9... Bf5 10. Nc4 Nb6 $11) 10.
Re1 Re8 $11 {.})) ({(c)} 6. b4 {
has been used more often than anything else versus the rare 5...Bd6:} -- (6...
a6 7. Be2 (7. Bb2 e5) 7... O-O 8. O-O e5 (8... Re8) 9. Qb3 Ne7 $5 (9... Be7 $1
$11) 10. d4 (10. c4 $1 $14) 10... dxe4 11. Nxe5 Be6 12. Bc4 Ned5 $15 {
Ansell-Kosten, British League 2005.}) (6... e5 7. exd5 (7. b5 Ne7 8. Bb2 O-O
$15) (7. a3 O-O 8. Be2 Ne7 9. O-O Ng6 {, Sadvakasov-Abdennabi, Dubai 1999})
7... Nxd5 8. b5 (8. Bb2 O-O 9. Nc4 Bg4 $11) 8... Nce7 {
and Black has no problems.})) 6... e5 7. exd5 $5 {Surrendering the centre.} ({
Since} 7. b4 O-O 8. b5 Ne7 {achieves less than nothing}) ({White should prefer
} 7. g3 O-O 8. Bg2 Be6 $11 {.}) 7... Nxd5 8. Nc4 O-O 9. Nxd6 $5 {
It's hard to know what to do, since it's likely that Black already has an edge;
} ({e.g.} 9. g3 Bf5 $1 10. Nh4 Be6 11. Bg2 Nf4 $1 $15 {.}) 9... Qxd6 10. Bd2
Bf5 11. O-O-O Rad8 $17 {, with excellent play against the backward d-pawn. It
seems to me that Black has sufficient play after 4...Nc6, and in particular
both 5...a5 and 5...Bd6 should hold their own with correct play.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.2 2 Qe2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "4"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 {. An old move used by Chigorin back in the 19th century; 2
Qe2 was revived by Morozevich and others, and today it is as popular among
strong players as 2 d3 itself. I don't think that 2 Qe2 poses many problems
for Black, but you'll undoubtedly run into it, perhaps from the same players
who used to play 2 d3 ! ---} ({The first point of} 2. Qe2 {is to meet} d5 {with
} 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 {. Otherwise White tends to enter a King's Indian Attack
set-up where the queen is oddly placed except for lines with fairly early e5
thrusts. One problem for White is that Black can choose systems in which e5 is
ineffective. I'll examine two of these.}) ({
Before moving on to those, let me discuss the related order} 2. d3 d5 3. Qe2 {
. In a sense, this 'spoils' the obvious idea behind 2 Qe2, which as explained
above is to answer 2...d5 with 3 exd5 and force Black's queen to recapture on
d5. Presumably White's idea is to wait for ...d5 before playing Qe2, because
otherwise he's worried about 2...c5 without ...d5 (Sicilian-style). After 3Qe2:
} -- ({
. I mentioned in 'PTF3' that Black might be able to upset the apple cart by} 
3... Bc5 $5 {, the idea being that White will have to waste another move with
the d-pawn to kick the bishop off its excellent diagonal; for example,} 4. Nf3
(4. exd5 Nf6 $1 {is more fun} ({than} 4... Qxd5 $11)) 4... Ne7 $5 {
(my further suggestion, now used by all of two players in my database!)} ({
obviously} 4... Nf6 {is perfectly playable, and has been used at least eight
times - compare 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 Ngf3 Bc5 in 16.11 above}) 5. d4 (5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2
Nbc6 $5 7. O-O Bb6 {has the idea ...f6 and/or ...e5, as appropriate}) (5. e5
O-O 6. g3 {is well met by} Bb6 7. Bg2 c5) 5... Bb6 $1 6. e5 $6 (6. c3 c5 7.
dxc5 Bxc5 $11) 6... O-O 7. g3 c5 $1 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Bg2 b6 $1 {
intending ...Ba6 and Black has a significant advantage.}) ({
. A saner solution is} 3... Nf6 {(why not?)} 4. Nf3 Be7 5. g3 {
, and McDonald recommends the clever move order} b5 $1 6. e5 (6. Bg2 dxe4 7.
dxe4 b4 $1 8. c4 bxc3 9. bxc3 Ba6 10. c4 Nc6 11. O-O Nd4 $1 12. Nxd4 Qxd4 $15 {
Illner-Kosic, Budapest 2007}) 6... Nfd7 {(as McDonald points out, 2 Qe2 Nf6 3
Nf3 d5 4 e5 Nfd7 5 d3 Be7 6 g3 b5 is a useful transposition)} 7. Bg2 c5 8. h4
Nc6 9. O-O a5 10. Bf4 b4 11. Nbd2 Ba6 {(McDonald: 'A typical scenario: White
is all dressed up for a kingside attack but his opponent is refusing to play
ball by putting his king on g8')} 12. c4 bxc3 13. bxc3 {
(Black already stands better)} c4 $5 ({I'm not thrilled with this;} 13... O-O)
({, and} 13... Nb6 {are sound and good}) 14. d4 a4 $1 15. Rac1 $2 (15. Ng5 $1 {
is very complicated - McDonald}) 15... h6 $1 16. Qe3 Rb8 17. Rb1 Bb5 18. Bh3 a3
19. h5 Ba4 $1 20. Rxb8 Ncxb8 21. Rb1 Bc2 {and with the 'bad' bishop now very
good indeed, Black had a substantial advantage in Schunk-Meier, Altenkirchen
2005.})) {And now:} 2... -- ({16.21} 2... Nf6) ({16.22} 2... c5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.21 2...Nf6"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 Nf6 {. I think that this has been underestimated: Black
prepares ...d5 and develops. To make sense of 2 Qe2 White has to commit his
centre, arguably too early.} 3. e5 {White has numerous logical options.} ({
(a) After} 3. d4 {, I like} c5 $1 ({Black can of course play} 3... d5 {
- and even the gambit} 4. exd5 Be7 $1) {, with:} 4. -- (4. d5 d6 5. c4 exd5 6.
cxd5 Be7 (6... g6 {aims for a Benoni with the queen misplaced on e2; then} 7.
Nc3 Qe7 8. Nf3 Bg7 9. Qc2 O-O 10. Bd3 a6 11. a4 Nbd7 $11 {is normal}) 7. Nc3
O-O 8. Nf3 Nbd7 $5 (8... Re8) (8... Bg4) 9. a4 Re8 $11 {.}) (4. e5 Nd5 5. c4 (
5. Nf3 cxd4 6. Nxd4 d6 7. Nf3 Nc6 $15) 5... Nb4 $5 6. dxc5 (6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4
N8c6 $15) (6. d5 $5 exd5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qe4 Nb6 9. Nf3 Be7 10. Nc3 Nc6 11. Be3
$1 O-O 12. O-O-O d5 13. exd6 Bf6 14. Bxc5 Re8 15. Qc2 Be6 {and now Black is
the one a pawn down, but has ...Rc8 coming with clear compensation}) 6... Bxc5
7. Nf3 N8c6 8. Nc3 (8. a3 $6 Qa5 9. Bd2 $4 Nc2+ 10. Kd1 Qa4 11. Nc3 Qb3 $19)
8... Qa5 $1 9. a3 Nd4 10. Nxd4 Bxd4 11. Bf4 Nc6 {
and e5 is under attack three times, although} 12. Qd2 $1 Bxe5 ({or} 12... Bxc3
13. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 14. bxc3 b6 $1 $11) 13. Bxe5 Qxe5+ 14. Be2 O-O 15. Rd1 {
gives just about a pawn's worth of compensation.})) ({(b)} 3. Nf3 {
is the main line, and the following play is instructive:} d5 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d3 (
5. d4 $6 c5 6. c3 b6 {- Rustemov}) ({, or} 5. g3 b6 ({actually, I think} 5...
c5 {is easier and probably better than 5...b6, but at any rate the latter is a
nice idea}) 6. Bg2 Bc5 $5 7. d3 Nc6 8. c3 a5 9. O-O Ba6 10. Re1 Be7 11. Qd1 Nc5
12. Bf1 d4 $1 13. c4 Bb7 $15 {Troianescu-Cappello, Bari 1971}) 5... c5 ({or} 
5... Be7 6. g3 b5 {; see 2 d3 d5 3 Qe2 Nf6 above}) 6. g3 Nc6 7. Bg2 Be7 (7...
b5 {is a good option}) 8. -- (8. O-O g5 $1 {has been used repeatedly with
success; then ...g4 is threatened, to win the e-pawn, and Bf4 is prevented.
Consequently:} 9. h3 h5 10. g4 hxg4 11. hxg4 f6 $1 $17 (11... Qc7 12. Re1 f6 $1
13. exf6 Nxf6 $15) {; e.g.} 12. exf6 Nxf6 {
and it's suicidal to grab the g-pawn because of Black's attack down the h-file.
}) (8. h4 $1 {(preventing ...g5)} h6 (8... f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Bf4 Bd6 11. Bxd6
Qxd6 12. O-O O-O 13. Re1 {, Lin-Ding, Los Angeles 2008; and} Bd7 $1 $15 {
was best}) ({; here} 8... b5 {transposes to 2 d3 d5 3 Qe2 Nf6 again}) 9. c4 ({
Rustemov assesses} 9. Bf4 $5 b5 10. c4 ({here} 10. h5 Ba6 11. Nbd2 Qb6 {
is already better for Black, Kernazhitsky-Jasny, Tatranske Zruby 2011}) 10...
bxc4 11. dxc4 Ba6 12. Nbd2 {as unclear, although the aggressive} Nb4 $1 {
looks strong, with the idea} 13. O-O g5 $1 14. Be3 d4) 9... dxc4 (9... O-O {
is less committal and at least equal}) 10. dxc4 Nd4 11. Nxd4 ({
Rustemov mentions} 11. Qe4 {
with a slight advantage, but Black stands well after} O-O $1 {, since} 12. Nxd4
({and} 12. O-O $6 f5 $1 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Qd3 e5 {
opens lines for a powerful attack}) 12... cxd4 13. Qxd4 {is met by} Qa5+ $1)
11... cxd4 12. Bf4 (12. O-O Qc7 13. Re1 O-O 14. Nd2 Rd8 15. Nb3 d3 $1 16. Qxd3
Nxe5 17. Qe4 Nd3 18. Rd1 Nxc1 19. Raxc1 Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1 a5 $11) 12... Qb6 $1 13.
Nd2 (13. O-O g5 14. hxg5 hxg5 15. Bc1 Nc5) (13. b3 Qa5+ $5 14. Nd2 Nc5 $15)
13... Nc5 ({or} 13... Qxb2 14. Rb1 Qc2) 14. Rb1 a5 15. h5 (15. O-O $2 g5 $19)
15... Bd7 16. O-O O-O 17. b3 ({Rustemov offers} 17. a3 $6 a4 $17) (17. Rfd1
Rfd8 $15) (17. Ne4 Bc6 18. Nxc5 Bxc5 19. Be4 Bxe4 20. Qxe4 a4 $15) 17... Rfd8
18. a3 Bc6 $15 {Fedorov-Rustemov, Vilnius 1997.})) ({(c)} 3. f4 {
doesn't co-ordinate well with the queen on e2; for example,} d5 4. e5 (4. d3 {
can be met by} dxe4 ({or by} 4... b6 {, when the idea of ...dxe4 and ...Ba6
forces White to do something about his centre}) 5. dxe4 Nc6 {
having ...Bc5 in mind}) 4... Ng8 $5 (4... Nfd7 5. Nf3 c5) 5. Nf3 Nh6 $5 ({or} 
5... c5) 6. Nc3 c5 $11 7. Nd1 $6 Nc6 8. g3 Nf5 9. c3 Be7 10. Bh3 Rb8 11. d3 b5
{with a queenside attack underway, Khouseinov-Villamayor, Bled Olympiad 2002.})
({(d)} 3. g3 d5 4. d3 -- ({, has the drawback of allowing} 4... dxe4 5. dxe4 e5
$1 {.}) ({. A more conventional position can arise from} 4... Be7 5. f4 c5 6.
Bg2 Nc6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O {; for example,} b5 $5 9. e5 (9. Nc3 b4 10. Nd1 dxe4
11. dxe4 a5 {, planning ...Ba6}) 9... Nd7 10. c3 (10. c4 bxc4 11. dxc4 Rb8 $15)
10... Nb6 11. d4 b4 $15 {
with a rapidly-developing queenside attack, L.Kovacs-Uhlmann, Sarajevo 1969.}))
3... Nd5 4. Nf3 ({Instead: -- (a)} 4. d4 c5 {transposes to 3 d4 c5 4 e5 Nd5;} (
4... d6 $11 {.})) ({(b)} 4. c4 Nf4 $5 (4... Nb4 5. d4 c5 {
transposes 3 d4 c5! 4 e5 Nd5 5 c4 Nb4!? above}) 5. Qe4 Ng6 6. Nf3 (6. h4 Nc6 7.
d4 d5 8. exd6 f5 9. Qd3 Qxd6 10. Nf3 e5 $11) 6... d5 ({or} 6... c5 7. Nc3 Nc6
8. Be2 b6 $11) 7. exd6 Bxd6 8. d4 {
, Motwani-Nogueiras Santiago, Istanbul Olympiad 2000;} O-O 9. Nc3 e5 $1 10. Bg5
$1 Qe8 11. O-O-O exd4 12. Nxd4 Na6 $11 {.}) ({(c)} 4. g3 d6 5. d4 c5 6. c3 $6
cxd4 7. cxd4 b6 $1 (7... Nc6 8. Nf3 dxe5 9. dxe5 Bc5 $15) 8. Bg2 Ba6 $17 {
Arques Lopez-Barria, Alicante 2000.}) 4... c5 $1 5. c4 (5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 d6 $11
) ({while} 5. Nc3 Nc6 $1 6. Nxd5 exd5 {
is a very nice version of a Nimzowitsch Sicilian (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6).}) 5...
Nb4 $1 6. d3 d5 7. Qd1 $1 (7. a3 $2 Qa5 $1 8. Nc3 d4 9. Rb1 dxc3 10. axb4 Qa2 {
.}) 7... dxc4 (7... Be7 $15 {.}) 8. dxc4 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Nd7 10. Nc3 Be7 11. a3
Nc6 12. Bf4 O-O $11 {.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "16.22 2...c5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 c5 {. A good reply: Who wants the queen on e2 in a Sicilian?
The position can go in many directions and I will look at some of the most
common ideas.} 3. Nf3 ({Or} 3. f4 Nc6 4. Nf3 {when two good solutions are:} --
(4... Be7 5. Nc3 (5. g3 d5 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg2 {
was looked at briefly in note 'd' on 3 g3 in 16.21 above}) 5... d5 6. d3 (6. e5
Nh6 {intending ...Nf5}) 6... Nf6 7. e5 Nd7 8. g3 b5 $1 9. Bg2 Qb6 10. O-O b4
11. Nd1 {, Lendwai-Uhlmann, Graz 1991; and the straightforward} O-O $15 {
with the idea ...Ba6/...Nd4 is a good course.}) (4... g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 Nge7
7. c3 (7. d3 O-O 8. O-O d6 9. Nc3 {is a Closed Sicilian in which Qe2 isn't
usually in at this point; if nothing else, that means that a plan with Be3 and
after ...Nd4, Bf2 followed by Nxd4 is not possible, because the queen on e2
will be en prise}) 7... O-O 8. O-O d6 ({or} 8... d5 {intending ...b6}) 9. Na3
Rb8 10. Kh1 a6 (10... Qd7 11. Nc2 b6 12. d4 Bb7 $11) 11. Nc2 b5 12. d4 cxd4 13.
cxd4 b4 $1 14. b3 a5 15. Bb2 Qb6 16. Rfc1 Ba6 17. Qd1 d5 $1 18. e5 Rfc8 $15 {
Onischuk-Shaked, Tilburg 1997.})) 3... Nc6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O Nge7 7.
d3 e5 (7... O-O {is another common continuation, with either ...d5 or ...e5 to
follow. If White plays} 8. Nc3 ({while} 8. c3 {can also be met by} d6 {, e.g.}
9. Nbd2 h6 10. a4 e5 $1 11. Nc4 {, transposing to the main line}) {, Black has}
8... d6 {, with a standard position except for the strange and committal Qe2.})
8. Nbd2 O-O 9. Nc4 d6 10. a4 h6 11. c3 Be6 {Black is well centralized and
White has no breaks, whereas the prospects for ...d5 and/or a kingside attack
are good.} 12. Re1 (12. Rd1 f5 $1 {
threatens ...f4 and 13 exf5 Nxf5 clamps down on d4 while preparing the attack.}
) 12... Qd7 13. Nfd2 Rae8 14. Nf1 f5 15. f4 $6 exf4 16. Bxf4 {
, Van der Weide-J.Watson, London 1979;} ({and here the easiest course is} 16.
Bxf4 Bxc4 $1 17. dxc4 g5 18. Bc1 f4 {
, obtaining e5 as an outpost; Black can follow with ...Ng6.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17. Uncommon Early Moves"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 {. In this chapter I'll examine White's irregular second and third
moves. One advantage of the French Defence is that most of White's moves other
than 2 d4 are harmless. The following four options are all fully playable, but
only 2 Nf3 d5 3 Nc3 and 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 present a serious challenge to Black:} 2.
-- ({17.1} 2. b3) ({17.2} 2. Nf3) ({17.3} 2. d4 d5 3. Be3) ({17.4} 2. d4 d5 3.
Bd3) ({The remainder of the second moves are given here, and third move
alternatives in the first note to 17.3. It's worth mentioning that Black
generally has two or more good solutions in addition to the one I've presented:
-- (a)} 2. e5 c5 (2... d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 ({and here} 3... cxd6 {
is also played, giving Black a central majority}) 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O $11) (
2... d5 3. Nf3 {is given under the order 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 in 17.22}) 3. f4 Nc6 4.
Nf3 Nh6 (4... d6 $11) 5. g3 {, Steinitz-J.Mason, Vienna 1892; and here} Nf5 6.
Bg2 d6 $15 {is simple enough.}) ({(b)} 2. Bb5 c6 3. Ba4 d5 4. Qe2 Qa5 $5 5. Bb3
Nf6 6. e5 Nfd7 7. c3 c5 8. d3 Nc6 9. f4 Nd4 $1 10. Qd1 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 c4 $1 12.
dxc4 Nc5 $15 {Wahls-Vaisser, Berlin 1988.}) ({(c)} 2. f4 d5 ({naturally,} 2...
c5 {is also fine}) 3. e5 (3. Nc3 {, and} d4 ({or} 3... dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 $11) 4.
Nce2 c5 $11) 3... c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 (5. c4 d4 6. d3 Nh6 $15) 5... d4 ({or} 
5... Nh6 {intending} 6. d4 Qb6) 6. d3 Nh6 $11 {M.Weiss-Maróczy, Budapest 1895.
I think that Black's position is easier to play, and White doesn't seem to
have a good way of making 2 f4 interesting.}) ({(d)} 2. c4 d5 (2... c5 {
is a tame variation of the Sicilian Defence, and one reason not to play 2 c4})
3. exd5 (3. cxd5 exd5 4. Qa4+ Bd7 5. Qb3 Nc6 $1 $15 6. Qxd5 $6 Nf6 7. Qc4 Be6
8. Qa4 Bc5 $17 {- 'ECO'}) 3... exd5 4. cxd5 (4. d4 {
is an Exchange Variation, section 12.3}) 4... Nf6 5. Nc3 (5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Nc3
Bd6 $1 7. Bc4 O-O 8. d3 a6 9. Qd1 b5 10. Bb3 Nc5 $15) (5. Bb5+ Nbd7 6. Nc3 Be7
(6... a6 7. Ba4 b5 8. Bb3 Bb7 {is a good alternative}) 7. Nge2 $5 ({here} 7. d4
{and 8 Nf3 is better and equal}) 7... O-O 8. O-O a6 9. Bxd7 Qxd7 10. Nf4 b5 11.
Qf3 Bb7 12. a3 a5 $17 {Grob-H.Johner, Zürich 1941}) 5... Nxd5 6. Bc4 Nb6 7. Bb3
Nc6 8. Nge2 (8. Nf3 Qe7+ 9. Qe2 Bg4 $1 $15) 8... Bd6 (8... Be6 $1) 9. d4 O-O
10. O-O Qh4 $1 11. g3 Qh5 {
with a double-edged game, Masserey-Kindermann, Horgen 1995.}) ({(e)} 2. g3 d5
3. Nc3 (3. Bg2 c5 $11 ({or} 3... dxe4 4. Nc3 Bd7 $1 $11 {and ...Bc6}) ({, or} 
3... Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d4 c5 6. c3 Qb6 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. O-O Be7 $11 {
intending ...0-0, ...f6 - 'ECO'})) 3... dxe4 ({or} 3... Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5
6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bg2 {, and} Be7 ({or} 7... a6 8. a4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. d3 Nd4 11.
Ne2 Nxf3+ 12. Bxf3 f6 $11 {Vavra-Totsky, Pardubice 1995})) 4. Nxe4 Nf6 (4...
Bd7 5. Nf3 Bc6 6. Qe2 Nf6 $11 {Bartsch-Reefschläger, German League 1981}) 5.
Nxf6+ Qxf6 6. Bg2 Bc5 7. Qf3 Qe7 $1 8. Ne2 e5 $11 {
Suttles-Uhlmann, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970.}) ({(f)} 2. Ne2 d5 3. exd5
exd5 4. Ng3 Nf6 (4... Qh4 $5 {- 'ECO'}) 5. d4 Bd6 6. Bd3 O-O 7. O-O Re8 $11 {
Tartakower-Fine, Kemeri 1937.}) ({(g)} 2. Nc3 d5 {
either transposes to main lines after} 3. d4 {,} ({or to} 3. Nf3 {
below after 3 Nf3 - see 17.21}) ({, or to note 'e' above after} 3. g3 {.})) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.1 2 b3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. b3 {. A safe move, but b3 and e4 do not mix very well.} d5 {
This meets the challenge head on.} ({I've promoted and analysed} 2... b6 {
in all previous editions, and it's a good solution; for example,} 3. Bb2 Bb7 4.
Nc3 ({the e-pawn is awkward to defend:} 4. d3 d5) ({, or} 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Nc3 c5
{and ...Nc6}) 4... c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d4 {
(the most serious attempt, since otherwise Bb2, Nc3 and e4 don't go together)}
cxd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Nf6 9. f3 (9. Be2 Bc5 10. Qd3 O-O) 9... Bc5 10. Qd2
O-O 11. Na4 Be7 {, Bury-J.Watson, Leominster 1977. Black has the idea} 12.
O-O-O Nxe4 $1 {and is better developed.}) 3. Bb2 (3. exd5 exd5 {
simply frees Black's pieces.}) 3... dxe4 {Biting the bullet;} ({
in a previous edition I chickened out with} 3... Nf6 {.}) 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2 (5.
g4 $6 {is weak after} Nc6 $1 6. g5 (6. Bg2 Be7 {with an edge,} ({or} 6... e5 $1
7. g5 Bg4 $1)) 6... Nd5 7. Nxe4 {and:} -- (7... h6 $1 8. g6 (8. gxh6 Rxh6 $15)
8... f5 $1 9. Nc3 (9. Ng3 Qd6 10. Nf3 Bd7 11. d4 O-O-O $17 {
Chichirivichi-Pawntobewild, playchess.com 2007}) 9... e5 $1 10. Bb5 Nxc3 11.
Bxc6+ (11. Bxc3 Qd5) 11... bxc6 12. dxc3 Bb7 $1 {and ...c5 - Moskalenko.}) (
7... e5 8. Nf3 (8. Ne2 $2 Bg4 $17 {Arvola-Westerinen, Tromsø 2008}) 8... Bd6 9.
Qe2 O-O $15 {.})) 5... Be7 (5... Nc6 $5 {is a perfectly good option:} 6. Nxe4 (
6. g4 $2 Nd4 7. Qd1 e5 $17) (6. O-O-O a5 $5 {, and} 7. Nxe4 ({or} 7. a4 Be7)
7... a4 8. Nxf6+ gxf6 9. Qf3 axb3 10. axb3 Ba3 $1) 6... Be7 (6... Nxe4 7. Qxe4
Qd5 $5) 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O-O a5 $5 9. d4 (9. a4 Nd5 $1) 9... a4 {
with a queenside attack, Karasev-Farago, Polanica Zdroj 1974.}) 6. O-O-O (6. g4
Nc6 7. Nxe4 {runs into} Nb4 $1 $15 {.}) 6... O-O 7. g4 ({
White should settle for} 7. Nxe4 {
, but Black has easy equality (at least) after} a5 ({or} 7... Nc6 8. Nf3 a5 $5
{transposing to 5...Nc6 above}) 8. a4 Nbd7 (8... Nd5 9. Nf3 b6 $5) 9. Nf3 b6 $1
10. Nxf6+ Bxf6 11. d4 Bb7 {with equal prospects.}) 7... a5 $5 {Not bad;} ({
but I really like exploiting the weakness of the g4 plan by} 7... Nc6 $1 8.
Nxe4 (8. g5 Nd5 9. Nxe4 Bxg5) 8... Nd4 9. Qd3 e5 10. h3 Nd5 $1 {.}) 8. a4 b6 ({
Black should play} 8... Nc6 $1 {and keep his advantage; e.g.} 9. g5 Nd5 10.
Qxe4 Bxg5 11. Nf3 f5 $1 12. Qe2 Bf6 $15 {. I'll show a few more moves because
they're fun, but you can see that Black has won the opening stage:}) 9. g5 Ba6
$5 (9... Nd5 {is safer, with the idea} 10. h4 $5 Nc6 {and} 11. Nxe4 e5 $11 {.})
10. gxf6 $1 {I don't know if this works, but it deserves an '!'.} Bxe2 11. fxe7
Qxe7 12. Ngxe2 {, Rzayev-Tran Tuan Minh, Budapest 2011.} ({
Now Black should play} 12. Ngxe2 e5 $1 ({instead, the game continued} 12... f5
$6 13. Rg1 (13. Nf4 $1 e5 14. Bc4+ Kh8 15. Rhg1 $1 {keeps the attack going,
and for the first time White might even have an advantage!}) 13... Nd7 $2 (
13... Rf7 14. Nf4 Qd6 $11) 14. Nf4 $1 {
and White has a nice attack, although the game ended in a draw}) 13. Rg1 Nc6
14. Nxe4 f6 15. f4 Kh8 {, which is unclear and about balanced.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.2 2 Nf3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. -- ({Now of course White can play} 3. exd5 exd5 4. d4 {
with an Exchange Variation (see 12.1), but there are two other important lines
which are used by loyal adherents:}) ({17.21} 3. Nc3) ({17.22} 3. e5) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.21 3 Nc3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 ({Obviously} 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 {transposes here.}) 2... d5 3.
Nc3 Nf6 (3... d4 {will also equalize, according to theory; that may be, but in
any case I find it less interesting.}) 4. e5 (4. Qe2 {achieves nothing after}
Be7) ({and} 4. exd5 exd5 5. d4 {
is a slightly harmless type of Exchange Variation, when I'd recommend} Bb4 {
with an Exchange Winawer in which Nf3 is not a terribly attractive move} ({
Black has various answers such as} 5... c6) ({, and} 5... Be7 {that are equal})
{; e.g.} 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 O-O 8. Be2 (8. Bd3 c5 $1 9. dxc5 Qe7+ {and} 10.
Be3 ({or} 10. Qe2 Qxc5) 10... Ng4 $15) 8... Re8 ({or} 8... Ne4 9. Bb2 Nd7 10.
a4 Nb6 11. a5 Nc4 12. Bxc4 dxc4 $15) 9. O-O Ne4 10. Bb2 Nd6 $1 $15 {.}) 4...
Nfd7 5. d4 c5 {This position is partly analysed in Chapter 13 via the
Classical move order 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nf3 c5, but I've chosen to
analyse 6 dxc5 in this chapter, since it famously arises by this 2 Nf3 d5 3
Nc3 move order and because 'PTF' veterans will expect to see it here.} ({
Black can also wait for White to commit by} 5... Be7 {; for example,} 6. Bd3 ({
Minev suggests} 6. Ne2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8. Nf4 {, but} cxd4 9. cxd4 Qb6 $15 {
threatens ...g5 and ...Bb4+}) 6... c5 7. O-O (7. dxc5 Nxc5 $11) 7... Nc6 8. Be3
$2 (8. dxc5 Nxc5 $11) 8... cxd4 9. Bxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Nxe5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. Re1
Nc6 $17 {Fleger-Sermier, Biel 1993.}) 6. dxc5 {
The other major moves transpose to section 13.1.} ({
Those include the main Classical move} 6. Ne2) ({as well as} 6. Bb5) ({
and the exciting 'Jackal' Attack,} 6. Bg5 $5 {.}) 6... Nc6 {
Attacking e5, which is a key central pawn that must be defended.} 7. Bf4 (7.
Bg5 Be7 8. Bxe7 Qxe7 {helps Black develop rapidly:} 9. Bb5 $1 {(to protect e5)}
Nxc5 (9... O-O $1 {threatens e5, and} 10. Qe2 a6 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. O-O Qxc5 {
is not what White wants}) 10. O-O O-O 11. Re1 Bd7 $11 {
Gelashvili-Radjabov, Greek Team Ch. 2002.}) 7... Bxc5 (7... Nxc5 {is frequently
played, with fair success (it can be characterized as 'equal but dull')}) ({and
} 7... Be7 $5 {with the idea ...g5/...h5 is unusual but probably underrated.})
8. Bd3 f6 9. exf6 ({White cannot maintain e5: -- (a)} 9. Bb5 $2 fxe5 10. Nxe5
$6 (10. Bxe5 O-O $1 11. Bg3 d4 $1 12. Bxc6 dxc3 13. Bxd7 cxb2 14. Rb1 Bb4+ 15.
Ke2 Bxd7 $19) 10... Ndxe5 11. Bxe5 Bxf2+ $1 12. Kxf2 O-O+ {and ...Nxe5.}) ({(b)
} 9. Qe2 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Ndxe5 11. Bxe5 Nxe5 12. Qxe5 O-O 13. O-O Qf6 (13... Qh4
$5 14. g3 Qd4 15. Qf6 Rxf6 $17) 14. Qxf6 Rxf6 $17 {
with two bishops and the mobile centre; e.g.} 15. g3 Bd7 16. Kg2 g5 $1 17. Rae1
Raf8 18. f3 Bc6 $17 {.}) 9... Nxf6 (9... Qxf6 {is fairly popular and
recommended in various books and articles; but capture with the knight
guarantees dynamic play and is also consistent with other lines in this book
such as the Tarrasch with 3...Nf6.}) 10. O-O (10. Qe2 O-O 11. O-O-O {is a major
alternative, heavily analysed in the past few years. I'm going to limit myself
to what I think is the best solution for Black; i.e.} a6 {and:} 12. -- (12. Kb1
{is unambitious. Black does well with} b5 {,} ({and safe development by} 12...
Bd7 13. Ne5 Rc8 {is also promising. It's not much, but I'd rather be Black.}))
(12. Rhe1 Qa5 $5 (12... b5 $1 $15) ({, and} 12... Bd7 {
are natural and somewhat better alternatives}) 13. Kb1 b5 14. Ne5 {
, Aabling Thomsen-Gershenov, Helsingor 2011; and} Qb6 $1 (14... Nxe5 15. Bxe5
Ra7 $5 {is double-edged}) 15. Nxc6 Qxc6 16. Be5 Ra7 $1 {produces equal chances.
}) (12. Ne5 {is the original idea, but Black has} Bd6 $1 {
, pinning the knight and loosening White's control over e5; e.g.} 13. Bg3 (13.
Kb1 $2 Qc7 $1 14. Nxc6 Bxf4 15. Nd4 $6 e5 {is miserable for White}) 13... Qc7
14. Ng4 $1 {(simplifying)} (14. Nf3 Bd7 $1 15. Rhe1 b5 $15) {, and then:} 14...
-- (14... Bd7 15. Nxf6+ Rxf6 16. Kb1 Raf8 (16... b5 17. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 18. Ne4
dxe4 19. Rxd6 {with an unclear attack}) (16... Rc8 17. Bxd6 Qxd6 18. g3 $1 $11)
17. f3 Ne5 $5 18. Rhe1 Nxd3 19. Bxd6 Qxd6 20. Qxd3 Qf4 $11 {.}) (14... Bf4+ $5
15. Kb1 Bd7 16. Bxf4 Qxf4 17. h3 $11 {.}) (14... Nxg4 15. Qxg4 Ne5 $5 16. Qd4
Bd7 17. Rhe1 Nxd3+ 18. Rxd3 Rac8 19. a3 b5 20. Kb1 Rf7 {
, Alvarez Pedraza-Moskalenko, Barcelona 2011; and here} 21. Bxd6 $1 Qxd6 22. g3
$1 {intends f4. Then} Rc4 $1 23. Qe3 b4 $5 24. Ne4 $1 Qf8 25. Nd2 Rc7 26. Nf3
$1 {, and} Bb5 ({or} 26... Rc4 27. Nd2 {repeats}) 27. Ng5 Rxf2 $5 28. Nxe6
Rcxc2 29. Nxf8 Rxb2+ 30. Kc1 Rfc2+ 31. Kd1 Ba4 32. Qe6+ Kh8 33. Ng6+ hxg6 34.
Qh3+ Kg8 35. Qe6+ $11 {.}))) 10... O-O {. The key position for this variation.
White's control of e5 and the e-file are at least compensated for by Black's
central majority and f-file pressure. Objectively, the position is equal; but
in practice White has more ways of going wrong and has done rather poorly. We
have:} 11. -- ({17.211} 11. Bg3) ({17.212} 11. Ne5) ({Others: -- (a)} 11. Qe2
Nh5 $1 ({or} 11... Bd7 12. Rad1 a6 13. Na4 $6 Ba7 14. c4 $4 e5 $1 $17 15. cxd5
Nd4 $1 16. Nxd4 Bxd4 $19 {J.Rigo-Gulko, Rome 1988}) 12. Bg5 (12. Bg3 {
is 11 Bg3 Nh5!? 12 Qe2?! in 17.211}) 12... Nf4 $1 (12... Be7 $11) 13. Qd2 Qc7
14. Nb5 Qb8 15. c4 $2 (15. Bxf4 Rxf4 16. Rae1 Bd7 $15) 15... Nxd3 16. Qxd3 Ne5
17. Nxe5 Qxe5 18. Bh4 a6 $1 19. Nc3 Qf4 $17 {Larsen-Spassky, Stockholm 1969.})
({(b)} 11. Ne2 Qe7 ({or} 11... Nh5 $11 12. Bg5 Qd6) 12. Ne5 Nxe5 13. Bxe5 Ng4
14. Bg3 Qf6 $1 {, hitting b2 and f2.}) ({(c)} 11. Qd2 a6 (11... Qe8 $5 {
is an interesting option}) 12. Na4 $6 (12. Rae1 Nh5 13. Bg5 Qc7 14. Bh4 Nf4 15.
Bg3 Bd6 16. Bxf4 Bxf4 17. Qd1 Bd7 $15 {J.Rigo-H.Meyer, Delmenhorst 1986}) 12...
Ba7 13. Rae1 b5 $1 (13... Nh5 14. Be3 $1 Rxf3 $5 15. gxf3 {, and} Bb8 ({or} 
15... d4 16. Bg5 Qc7) 16. Nb6 Qh4 17. f4 Qg4+ 18. Kh1 Qf3+ $11) 14. Nc3 Nh5 15.
Bg5 Qd6 16. Be4 Kh8 $1 $17 {with the ideas ...Nf4 and ...Bb8.}) ({(d)} 11. Na4
Bd6 (11... Be7 12. c4 Nh5 $5 13. Be3 Nf4 14. Bxf4 Rxf4 15. cxd5 exd5 16. Nc3
Bg4 17. Nxd5 Bxf3 18. gxf3 Rh4 $1 {is double-edged}) 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. c4 Bd7
14. Nc3 (14. cxd5 exd5 15. Rc1 $5 Ng4 16. h3 Rxf3 17. hxg4 Rf4 $15) 14... Rad8
$11 {.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.211 11 Bg3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d4 c5 6. dxc5 Nc6 7. Bf4 Bxc5 8.
Bd3 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bg3 {. This is the natural move and
probably White's safest option. But it can get tricky:} a6 ({
Previously I assessed} 11... Nh5 $5 {as favourable, but it is only equal:} 12.
-- (12. Qe2 $6 Nxg3 13. hxg3 Bd7 (13... Qf6 $5 $15) 14. Na4 Bd6 15. c4 Nb4 $1
16. Nc3 Rc8 $15 {.}) (12. Be5 $2 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Nf4 14. Ne2 Qg5 15. Nxf4 Qxe5
16. g3 Qg5 17. Qc1 e5 $1 $15 {intending} 18. Nxd5 Qxc1 19. Raxc1 Bh3 {.}) (12.
Bh4 Qc7 (12... Qd7 $1 {
looks artificial, but probably gives the most positive chances}) 13. Nb5 (13.
Re1 h6 14. Na4 Bd6) (13. Bxh7+ $2 Kxh7 14. Ng5+ Kh6 $19) 13... Qb6 $1 {
(intending ...Nf4)} ({now} 13... Qd7 $5 {is less appropriate due to} 14. Re1 $1
g6 $5 15. c3 $1 Qg7 16. Bc2 $1 Nf4 17. Bg3 {with an edge}) 14. Ng5 $1 Nf6 15.
c4 Ne5 16. cxd5 exd5 17. Nc3 h6 18. Nf3 Bg4 19. Be2 {, and here} Bxf3 {
leads to equality after} 20. Bxf3 Nxf3+ 21. Qxf3 Ne4 22. Nxd5 $1 Rxf3 23. Nxb6
axb6 24. gxf3 Nd2 25. Bg3 Nxf1 26. Kxf1 Bd4 {.})) 12. Qd2 {
This has been the preferred response;} ({although White has also tried: -- (a)
} 12. a3 Nh5 13. Bh4 Qe8 ({or} 13... Qc7 $15) 14. b4 (14. Ng5 h6 15. Nh3 Qf7 $5
16. Be2 Nf6 $15 {with the idea} 17. Nf4 g5 18. Nd3 Bd4 {
, F.Mayer-Suetin, Bad Wildbad 1997}) 14... Ba7 15. Re1 Nf4 16. Bg3 Qh5 17. b5
axb5 18. Nxb5 Bc5 19. a4 $6 e5 $5 (19... Bd7 $15) 20. Nc7 Bg4 $5 (20... e4 21.
Bxe4 dxe4 22. Rxe4 {is unclear}) 21. Bxf4 $2 (21. Nxa8 $1 Nxg2 $5 22. Be2 Nxe1
23. Qxd5+ Kh8 24. Rxe1 Bxf3 25. Bxf3 Qxf3 26. Qxc5 Rxa8 $11) 21... Rxf4 22. Be2
Rd8 23. h3 Bxh3 {0-1 E.Janev-V.Dimitrov, Bulgarian Ch. 1989.}) ({(b)} 12. Re1
b5 13. Ne5 $6 (13. a3 $11) 13... Nxe5 14. Rxe5 b4 15. Na4 Ba7 $5 (15... Bd6 $15
) 16. c3 bxc3 17. Nxc3 Bb8 18. Re2 Bxg3 19. hxg3 Ng4 (19... Qd6 $15) 20. Qc2 h6
21. Qa4 $6 Qg5 $1 {(threatening ...Qh5)} 22. f3 Ne5 23. f4 $6 (23. Qd4) 23...
Qxg3 24. Rxe5 $2 {, Piccoli-Naumkin, Bagnara Calabra 2009; and} {but} Rxf4 $1 (
{instead of} 24... Qxd3 $15) 25. Qc2 Rh4 {is just about winning.}) 12... b5 {
Black's central majority has become the most important feature of the position;
} ({and he can also achieve some advantage from} 12... Nh5 13. Rae1 Nxg3 14.
hxg3 Qd6 15. Qg5 Rf6 16. Qh5 h6 $15 {
, threatening ...Qxg3 and ...e5, Pogosian-Nikolenko, Podolsk 1992.}) 13. Rae1 (
13. a3 Nh5 14. Rae1 Nxg3 15. hxg3 Qf6 $15 {
Matychenkov-Moskalenko, Podolsk 1990.}) 13... Ra7 $5 14. Kh1 Re7 15. Qg5 (15.
Ne5 Nxe5 16. Bxe5 Ref7 $5 17. Qg5 Be7 (17... Nd7 $1) 18. Qg3 Nh5 {
, Sazonova-Nikolenko, Pardubice 1995; and here} 19. Qe3 {was about equal;} ({
instead of} 19. Qh3 $6 g6 20. Qe3 Bf6 $15 {.})) 15... Bb7 16. Qh4 h6 17. Re2
Qe8 $1 18. Rfe1 Nh5 19. Qg4 Nxg3+ 20. hxg3 Rf6 $15 {
V.Onoprienko-Moskalenko, Noyabrsk 1995.} *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.212 11 Ne5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. d4 c5 6. dxc5 Nc6 7. Bf4 Bxc5 8.
Bd3 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O O-O 11. Ne5 Bd7 {. The traditional move.} ({
I analysed} 11... Qe8 $5 {in 'PTF2'.}) ({Another option is} 11... a6 $5 {
, in some cases with the aesthetic idea of ...b5 and ...Ra7; e.g.} 12. Qe2 (12.
Nxc6 bxc6 13. Be5 Qe7 14. Kh1 Nd7 $1 15. f4 $6 Nxe5 16. fxe5 {
, Ungure-Gazis, Aghios Kirykos 2011; and} Rxf1+ 17. Qxf1 Bd7 {
obviously favours Black}) 12... Qe8 (12... Nxe5 13. Bxe5 b5 $5 14. Rae1 Ra7 $5
15. Kh1 Raf7 $1 16. f4 Nd7 $1 $15) 13. Nxc6 (13. Na4 $4 Nd4 $19) 13... bxc6 14.
Na4 Ba7 15. Bd6 Rf7 16. b3 Qd8 ({or} 16... Nd7 $11) 17. Bg3 Re7 18. Be5 Nd7 19.
Bd6 Re8 20. Rae1 e5 $15 21. Bf5 Nf6 22. Bxc8 Rxc8 23. Bxe5 $2 Nd7 24. Qxa6 Ra8
25. Qxc6 Nxe5 $17 {A.Bennett-J.Watson, Seattle 2003.}) 12. Nxc6 {
There are several options, none impressive.} ({(a)} 12. a3 a6 (12... Nxe5 13.
Bxe5 Qb6 14. Qe2 Bd6 $15) 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qe2 Qe7 $1 15. Rae1 Rae8 16. Be5
Nd7 $1 17. Qh5 Rf5 $3 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. Kh1 (19. Bg3 Qxe1) 19... Nxe5 20. f4
Qf7 $17 {.}) ({(b)} 12. Qf3 $5 {can be answered by} Bd4 $1 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14.
Rae1 $2 e5 $1 15. Bxe5 Bxe5 16. Rxe5 d4 17. Bc4+ Kh8 18. Nd5 Rc8 $1 19. Qb3 b5
$19 {.}) ({(c)} 12. Qe2 Qe7 13. Rae1 Rae8 14. a3 (14. Bg3 {
is recommended by Baker; then some interesting play can follow} a6 $5 15. a3 b5
$1 ({or here} 15... Nxe5 16. Qxe5 $5 Bc6 17. b4 Ba7 {intending ...Bb8 with a
small advantage, Drozdov-Hoang Than Trang, Budapest 1994}) {, e.g.} 16. Nd1
Nxe5 17. Bxe5 Bc6 18. c3 Ne4 $5 19. Ne3 Qg5 $5 20. f4 Qg6) 14... a6 15. Kh1 (
15. Bg3 {transposes to 14 Bg3}) 15... Bd4 $1 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Bd2 e5 $15 {
Ljubojevic-T.Petrosian, Las Palmas 1973.}) 12... Bxc6 13. Qe2 Qe7 (13... Ne4 {
, which I mentioned in early editions, now strikes me as a potentially
complete solution, and a forced one at that:} 14. -- (14. Bg3 Nxg3 15. Qxe6+
Kh8 16. hxg3 Rf6 17. Qg4 ({or} 17. Qh3 Rh6 18. Qg4 Qe7 $1) 17... Qb6 18. Nd1
Raf8 $15 {.}) (14. Be3 Bxe3 15. Qxe3 d4 16. Qe2 dxc3 17. Bxe4 cxb2 18. Rab1 Qf6
$5 (18... Bxe4 19. Qxe4 Qb6 {keeps a small advantage}) 19. c4 $2 (19. Bxc6 bxc6
20. c3 {is better}) 19... Rab8 $1 $17 {Bellon-Speelman, Amsterdam 1978.}) (14.
g3 Nxf2 15. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 16. Kxf2 {, Vogt-Farago, Kecskemet 1979; and now} g5 $1
17. Qxe6+ Kg7 {
is unclear according to Vogt, but this seems to favour Black; e.g.} 18. Ne2 (
18. Qg4 Kh8 $5 19. Qh5 Qe7 20. Re1 Qg7 {with advantage}) 18... gxf4 19. Qg4+
Kh8 20. Nxf4 Qf6 21. Qh5 Qg7 $15 {. Can White equalize after 13...Ne4 even?
I'm very impressed with this line, which for some reason is hardly ever played.
})) 14. Rae1 Rae8 15. Be5 $6 (15. Bg3 a6 16. a3 Qf7 17. b4 Bd4 18. Be5 Bxe5 19.
Qxe5 Nd7 20. Qg3 e5 $15 {Spassky-T.Petrosian, Moscow (m/19) 1966.}) 15... Nd7
16. Nb5 ({Not} 16. Qh5 $2 g6 $1 17. Bxg6 Nxe5 18. Bxe8 Rf5 $1 19. Rxe5 $2 Rxh5
20. Bxh5 Bd6 21. Re2 Qh4 22. h3 Qxh5 23. Rxe6 Bb4 $19 {.}) 16... a6 $5 ({Or} 
16... Nxe5 $1 17. Qxe5 Rxf2 $5 ({or} 17... Qf6 $1) 18. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 19. Kxf2 Bxb5
20. Bxb5 Qc5+ 21. Re3 Qxb5 $15 {, but Black probably can't win.}) ({After} 
16... a6 {, Shilov-Ulibin, Barlinek 2001, went} 17. Nd4 Nxe5 18. Qxe5 Bd7 19.
f4 Bd6 20. Qh5 $2 (20. Qe3 e5 21. fxe5 Bxe5 22. Kh1 $15) 20... g6 21. Qg4 e5 $1
22. Qg3 {and perhaps the simplest course was Bangiev's} e4 23. Be2 Qf6 {
with a winning game. This whole line is a tribute to the power of the central
majority.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.22 3 e5"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e5 c5 4. b4 $5 {. This is the French Wing Gambit, trying
to win the centre by diverting Black's c-pawn. It has been written about in
numerous articles and has a following, but hasn't yet been taken up by a
leading player.} ({White also has some passive alternatives: -- (a)} 4. d3 Nc6
5. c3 (5. Be2 Qc7 6. Bf4 f6) 5... f6 6. d4 {
and Black is a tempo ahead of the Advance Variation. A simple continuation is}
cxd4 (6... fxe5) ({, and} 6... Qc7 {are also good}) 7. cxd4 Bb4+ 8. Bd2 (8.
Nbd2 fxe5 9. Nxe5 Nge7 10. Bd3 O-O) 8... Qb6 9. a3 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 fxe5 11. dxe5
Nh6 $1 {intending ...0-0 and ...Nf7 or ...Ng4.}) ({(b)} 4. g3 Nc6 5. Bg2 g5 $5
6. h3 Bg7 7. Qe2 {
, J.Gatica-J.Levitt, New York 1994; and among other continuations,} Nge7 8.
Nxg5 Nxe5 {secures the advantage.}) 4... cxb4 ({
Of the many other choices, I like} 4... c4 $1 {(recommended by Simon Williams
and given some encouraging analysis by others). One key line is} 5. c3 a5 6. b5
Nd7 7. d3 cxd3 8. Bxd3 f6 9. Qc2 $5 {
(thought to be the best move for many years)} (9. Qe2 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11.
Qxe5 Nf6 12. Bf4 Bc5 13. O-O O-O $15) (9. Bf4 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Qf6 $15) 9... Nxe5
10. Nxe5 fxe5 11. Bxh7 {, Najer-Moskalenko, Moscow 1995; and instead of} Bd6 {
, which has been claimed to favour White (although I doubt it),} ({
Black gets a clearly better game from either} 11... e4 $1 12. Bg6+ Kd7) ({
, or Williams' suggestion} 11... Qf6 12. Bg6+ Kd8 13. Bd3 e4 14. Be2 Bc5 $17 {
. If I felt that the Wing Gambit justified two solutions, I would add more
details to this one; but I'll leave that to you instead.})) 5. a3 (5. d4 {
has been considered inferior by Wing Gambit advocates as well as theoreticians.
Black has several good continuations, among them:} -- (5... Bd7 {
(Harding gives this '!', as does Bosch)} 6. a3 (6. Bd3 {
has several answers; e.g.} Qb6 {intending ...Bb5,} ({or} 6... Ne7 7. a3 Nbc6 8.
axb4 Nxb4 $15 {Barendregt-Bronstein, Hamburg 1965})) 6... Qa5 ({or simply} 6...
Nc6 {with the idea} 7. Bd3 Qb6) 7. Bd3 Bb5 8. O-O (8. axb4 $2 Qxa1 9. Bxb5+ Nc6
10. Bd2 Qb2 11. c3 a5 $17 {L.Day-Hübner, Jerusalem 1967}) 8... Bxd3 9. Qxd3 Qa6
(9... Nc6) 10. Qb3 Nc6 11. Qb2 Qb6 $15 {Vedder-Poulton, Gausdal 1990.}) (5...
Nc6 6. a3 f6 7. axb4 {, and} fxe5 ({or} 7... Bxb4+ 8. c3 Ba5 {intending ...Bc7}
) 8. Nxe5 (8. b5 Nxd4 9. Nxe5 Qh4) 8... Nxe5 (8... Bxb4+ 9. c3 Bd6 $15 {
with the idea} 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Nxg6 Nf6 12. Qh6 Rg8 13. Nf4 Qe7) 9. dxe5 Bxb4+
10. c3 Bc5 11. Qg4 Qe7 $15 {.})) 5... Nc6 ({Here} 5... d4 $5 {has probably
been given more attention and been recommended more than other moves. It's
certainly good, but it gives White a great number of options, so I'm going
with something which is still complex, but more focused.}) ({
A solid alternative, which has been pretty popular over the years, is} 5... Nh6
6. axb4 Bxb4 7. c3 Be7 8. d4 Nf5 9. g4 (9. Bd3 Nc6 10. g4 Nh4 {transposes -
this is probably White's best line, although I don't think he gets adequate
compensation against careful play}) ({; instead,} 9. g3 Nc6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. h4
{prepares g4, but there might follow} f6 12. g4 $6 fxe5 13. gxf5 e4 14. Ng5
exd3 15. Qh5 h6 16. Qg6 {, M.Helin-T.Karlsson, Sweden 1992; and} Bxg5 17. hxg5
Qe8 $5 ({or here even} 17... exf5 18. gxh6 Qe7+ 19. Kf1 Qe2+ 20. Kg2 Qg4+) 18.
gxh6 exf5+ {breaks the attack}) 9... Nh4 10. Nxh4 Bxh4 11. Bd3 Nc6 12. O-O Be7
13. f4 Bd7 ({a known position;} 13... O-O 14. g5 $1 {
gives White a surprisingly dangerous attack}) 14. Nd2 (14. Ba3 b5 $1) 14... a5
$5 (14... Qc7 15. Ba3 {, Mortensen-Farago, Esbjerg 1985; and now} g6 {
, intending ...h5,} ({or} 15... a5 {should keep some advantage})) 15. f5 a4 16.
Qf3 Qa5 {and White's attack doesn't look like it's worth a pawn. Still, that's
not written in stone and both sides can have fun here.}) 6. axb4 Bxb4 7. c3 Be7
{This is one of the easier systems to play. Black keeps his bishop near the
kingside.} 8. d4 f6 {
Black is consistent with our usual philosophy of attacking the centre.} ({
I should mention} 8... Nh6 {, when the idea is to play ...Nf5 of course, and
notice that a quick ...Nf5 will usually transpose to 5...Nh6 above. If White
plays} 9. Bxh6 (9. Bd3 Nf5 {is 5...Nh6 etc}) 9... gxh6 10. Qc1 $1 {, then} Rg8
$5 11. Qxh6 Qb6 {aims for ...Qb2, and with the idea} 12. Qxh7 $6 (12. Qd2 a5 {
with chances for both sides}) 12... Rg6 $15 {.}) 9. Bd3 (9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Bd3
O-O 11. Na3 Bd7 $15 12. Ne5 $2 Nxe5 13. dxe5 Ne4 14. Be3 Qc7 15. Bd4 Nxf2 {
winning, H.Schulz-Kindermann, Hamburg 1995}) ({while} 9. Bf4 Nh6 $1 10. Bxh6 {
(else ...Nf7)} gxh6 {is essentially a tempo up on the main idea.}) 9... fxe5
10. dxe5 ({After} 10. Nxe5 $6 {, Reindermann-Glek, Groningen 1992, continued}
Nf6 11. Bg5 Nxe5 $5 (11... O-O $15) 12. dxe5 Ne4 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Bxe4 dxe4
15. Qd4 O-O 16. Qxe4 (16. Rxa7 Rxa7 17. Qxa7 Qg5 $17 {
Buturin-Glek, Belgorod 1989}) 16... Bd7 $1 17. Qe3 (17. Qxb7 Qc5 $1) 17... Bb5
18. Nd2 Qc7 19. f4 Rad8 $17 {. I'm not so sure that Black should get an
advantage after 11...Nxe5, but Black's development is freer than it is after
10 dxe5.}) 10... Nh6 (10... Qc7 {
is an interesting alternative. Some sample lines:} 11. -- (11. Qe2 Nh6 12. Bxh6
gxh6 13. O-O O-O 14. Na3 $5 Bc5 15. Nb5 Qg7 16. Kh1 Bd7 17. Nbd4 Bxd4 18. cxd4
Be8 {and ...Bh5 or ...Bg6 as appropriate.}) (11. O-O $5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13.
Re1 $1 Qc7 14. Qh5+ (14. Bb5+ Kf7 15. Nd2 Nf6 16. Nf3 Rf8 17. Ng5+ Kg8 18. Nxe6
Bxe6 19. Rxe6 Bc5 $17 {Hamed-Garma, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990}) 14... Kf8 15. Ba3
Nf6 16. Qe2 {, and} Bxa3 ({whereas after} 16... Kf7 $1 {
, White has some compensation but Black does have two extra pawns}) 17. Nxa3
Bd7 {is at any rate level. All these positions are hard to assess.})) 11. Bxh6
gxh6 12. Qd2 {The 'book' move, but I think White has to improve somewhere;} ({
so I'll assume that} 12. O-O {is better, offering some truly arbitrary
analysis that can't be complete or probably even accurate but will hopefully
illustrate some key ideas:} O-O 13. Re1 (13. Qd2 $6 Rxf3 $1 14. gxf3 Nxe5) ({
; an instructive and relatively high-level game went} 13. Ra4 Rf7 14. Re1 Bd7
15. Nbd2 Kh8 16. Nf1 Qg8 17. Ng3 Raf8 $15 18. c4 $2 Rxf3 $1 19. gxf3 Nd4 20.
Rxa7 Nxf3+ 21. Kg2 Nxe1+ 22. Qxe1 Bc6 23. Qe3 d4+ {
0-1 K.Schmidt-Vaisser, Paris 1990}) 13... Bd7 (13... Rf7 $5) 14. Nbd2 {
(intending Qb1)} (14. c4 $6 Bb4 15. Nbd2 Qe7 16. cxd5 exd5 17. Qb3 Be6) 14...
a5 $5 (14... Rf7 15. Qe2 Rg7 16. g3 a5 {; these lines can fairly be described
as double-edged, but I lean towards Black in most of them}) 15. Qb1 (15. Nd4
Nxd4 16. cxd4 Rf4 $1 17. Nf3 Bb4 18. Re3 Qf8) 15... Rf7 $15 {
(intending ...a4 and ...a3 or sometimes ...Na5), and Black hopes for} 16. Qxb7
$4 (16. h3 a4 17. Kh1 Na5) 16... Rb8 17. Qa6 Rb6 {.}) 12... Qc7 $1 13. Qxh6 ({
Others: -- (a)} 13. Qe2 O-O 14. O-O Rxf3 $5 (14... Bd7) 15. Qxf3 Nxe5 16. Qg3+
Kh8 {intending ...Bd6 is unclear, but Black's bishops and centre have good
potential; e.g.} 17. Be2 (17. Na3 Bd7 18. Rfe1 Bd6) (17. Bc2 Bd6 $15) 17... Bd7
18. Nd2 Rg8 19. Qe3 Ng6 $1 {.}) ({(b)} 13. Qe3 Bg5 $5 (13... Bd8 14. Na3 Qg7
15. O-O Bb6 16. Qe2 Rg8 17. g3 Rf8 {, planning ...Qg4}) 14. Nxg5 hxg5 15. Bb5
O-O $1 16. Bxc6 (16. Qxg5+ Kh8 {with the idea} 17. Bxc6 Rf5 $15) 16... bxc6 (
16... Rf5 $5) 17. Qxg5+ Qg7 18. Qxg7+ Kxg7 $11 {; Black has the practical
chances in these lines, but I can't fairly claim a true advantage.}) 13... Nxe5
14. Qh5+ Nf7 15. Bb5+ Kf8 16. O-O {
. Pedersen says that White has some compensation;} ({
but I definitely prefer Black following} 16. O-O Rg8 ({or} 16... Qf4 17. Ra4
Qf5 $15) 17. Re1 (17. Qxh7 e5 18. Qc2 Bh3 19. Ne1 e4 20. Kh1 Be6 $17) 17... Rg7
({or} 17... Qf4 18. Ra4 Qf6) 18. Ra4 Bf6 19. h4 a6 20. Nd4 Rb8 21. Bd3 e5 22.
Nf5 Bxf5 23. Bxf5 e4 $17 {with ideas of ...Ne5-d3 or ...Qe5.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.3 2 d4 d5 3 Be3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Be3 {. This is called the 'Alapin-Diemer Gambit' by
Harding. The idea after 3...dxe4 is to get into a sort of Blackmar-Diemer
Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 f3, or 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 dxe4 4 f3), normally playing
f3 early on. The drawback to this strategy is that the bishop on e3 would be
poorly placed in a Blackmar-Diemer (an opening of marginal soundness anyway).
Nevertheless, the line has its defenders and White, with the advantage of the
first move, can get away with more in the opening than Black.} ({
A couple of other options are: -- (a)} 3. c4 $6 dxe4 {is a dubious adventure
called the 'Diemer-Duhm Gambit', although it is not outright awful and has a
few happy followers:} 4. Nc3 Nf6 ({even the superficially weakening} 4... f5 {
seems fine; e.g.} 5. f3 Nf6 6. fxe4 fxe4 $15) {, and now White has two tries:}
5. -- (5. f3 c5 6. d5 Bd6 (6... exd5 $1 7. cxd5 {
, Heikinnen-Buongiovanni, corr 1999; and 'ECO' gives} exf3 ({but} 7... Bd6 $1
8. fxe4 O-O 9. Nf3 {
is worse still for White, transposing into the disastrous part of this note})
8. Nxf3 Bd6 {with a clear advantage}) 7. fxe4 O-O 8. Nf3 exd5 {
, which develops and breaks open lines quickly:} 9. exd5 (9. cxd5 $6 Re8 10.
Bd3 c4 $1 11. Bc2 b5 $1 12. Nxb5 Bb4+ $17 {
; unfortunately for White, this line is one that 6...exd5 7 cxd5 leads into}) {
, and now, among other methods, there's} 9... Bg4 10. Be2 Bxf3 $1 11. Bxf3 Re8+
12. Kf2 Nbd7 13. Rb1 Be5 14. g3 Qa5 15. Qb3 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Ne5 17. Rf1 b5 $1 18.
cxb5 c4 19. Qc2 Nxf3 20. Kxf3 Nxd5 $17 {.}) (5. Bg5 Be7 ({or} 5... h6 6. Bxf6
Qxf6 {with the idea} 7. Nxe4 $6 Bb4+ 8. Nc3 c5 $1) 6. f3 (6. Nge2 Nc6 {
and White is stuck for a good move; e.g.} 7. Qd2 Nb4 $1 8. Ng3 Qxd4 $1) 6...
Nc6 $1 7. d5 (7. Nge2 exf3 $17) 7... exd5 8. Bxf6 (8. cxd5 Nxd5 $17) 8... Bxf6
9. cxd5 Ne5 10. fxe4 O-O 11. Nf3 c6 12. Be2 cxd5 13. Qxd5 Qb6 $1 $17 {.})) ({
(b)} 3. f3 c5 ({or} 3... Nf6 4. e5 $5 ({or} 4. Nc3 c5 $1) 4... Nfd7 5. f4 c5 {
and the tempo loss by f3-f4 doesn't inspire}) 4. Be3 Nc6 5. c3 $2 (5. dxc5 Nf6
6. Nd2 d4 7. Bf2 e5 $15) 5... dxe4 6. fxe4 Nf6 (6... cxd4 $1 7. Bxd4 Qh4+ $17)
7. e5 Nd5 8. Bf2 cxd4 9. cxd4 {, Stanka-B.Lalic, Oberwart 2001;} g6 $5 10. Nf3
Bh6 11. Nc3 O-O 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. Be2 Qa5+ $17 {.}) 3... dxe4 4. Nd2 (4. f3 Nh6
$5 {(threatening ...Nf5)} ({or} 4... Nf6 5. Nc3 Nd5 ({and} 5... Bb4 6. a3 Nd5
$1) 6. Nxd5 exd5 7. Qd2 Bd6 $17 {- both lines by Minev}) 5. Qd2 (5. Bxh6 Qh4+ {
and ...Qxh6 is good for Black}) (5. fxe4 $2 Qh4+ 6. Bf2 Qxe4+ $17) 5... Nf5 6.
Bf2 c5 $1 $15 {with the idea} 7. dxc5 $2 Qxd2+ 8. Kxd2 e3+ $1 9. Bxe3 Nxe3 10.
Kxe3 Bxc5+ $17 {.}) 4... Nf6 5. c3 $1 ({Others: -- (a)} 5. f3 $6 Nd5 $1 6. Qe2
Nc6 $1 (6... Nxe3 7. Qxe3 exf3 8. Ngxf3 Be7 $15) 7. c3 exf3 8. Ngxf3 Bd6 {and:}
9. -- (9. Ne4 O-O 10. O-O-O (10. Bg5 f6 11. Bd2 e5 12. dxe5 Bxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5
14. h3 Re8 15. O-O-O Bf5 $17) 10... Rb8 $1 {(planning ...b5)} 11. c4 Nxe3 12.
Qxe3 b5 13. cxb5 Nb4 $15 {.}) (9. Bf2 O-O 10. O-O-O a6 11. c4 (11. g3 b5 12.
Bg2 Qe7 13. Rde1 Bb7 14. Rhf1 Na5 $15 {T.Bullockus-U.Drössler, corr 2000})
11... Nf4 12. Qe3 Ng6 13. Kb1 b5 $1 ({or} 13... e5 14. d5 Nb4 15. a3 Bf5+ 16.
Ne4 Bc5 $1 17. Qxc5 Bxe4+ 18. Ka1 Nc2+ 19. Ka2 Qd7) 14. cxb5 axb5 15. Bxb5 Nb4
16. Bc4 Nd5 $17 ({or} 16... Bb7 {.}))) ({(b)} 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Ne2 e5 7. c3 exd4
8. Nxd4 Ne5 9. Qb3 Bd6 $15 {Edvardson-J.Watson, Gausdal 1980;} ({or} 9... a6 $1
10. a4 Bd6 {.})) 5... b6 $5 {This has been the most frequent move.} (5... Be7 {
is of course a sound alternative.}) 6. g3 ({
White doesn't get his pawn back after} 6. Qc2 Bb7 7. Ne2 Qd5 8. Ng3 (8. g3 Bd6
9. Bg2 Qf5 $15) 8... Nbd7 9. Bc4 Qc6 10. a4 a6 11. O-O Bd6 12. Be2 {
, L.Szabo-Sinkovics, Frankfurt 1988; and here} O-O $15 {is easiest.}) 6... Bb7
7. Bg2 c5 $5 (7... Be7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Ne2 (9. Nxe4 Nd5) 9... Nbd7 (9... Qd5 $1)
10. O-O-O {, C.Ohst-C.Lutz, German League 1987;} Nd5 $1 11. Nf4 Nxf4 12. Bxf4
f5 $15 {.}) 8. dxc5 $1 Bxc5 9. Bxc5 bxc5 10. Qc2 Qd5 (10... Qc7 $1 11. O-O-O (
11. Nxe4 $4 Nxe4 12. Bxe4 Qe5) 11... O-O 12. Nxe4 Nbd7 13. Nxf6+ Nxf6 14. Bxb7
Qxb7 15. Ne2 c4 $15 {.}) 11. Ne2 Nbd7 {. Black still has some advantage;} ({
for example,} 11... Nbd7 12. c4 $5 Qf5 $1 13. O-O (13. O-O-O $2 Ne5) 13... Ne5
14. Nc3 O-O 15. Ndxe4 Nf3+ 16. Bxf3 Qxf3 17. Rfe1 Nxe4 18. Re3 Qh5 19. Nxe4 f5
20. Nd6 f4 $1 {and Black's attack continues.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "17.4 2 d4 d5 3 Bd3"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C01"]
[Annotator "John Watson"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2012.06.01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 {. A safe move, but it generates an enthusiasm that I
find mystifying. Apparently the French Defence is so powerful that White is
happy to allow early equality.} dxe4 (3... c5 {
will often lead back into a line of the Exchange after} 4. exd5 (4. c3 Nc6 5.
Ne2 cxd4 6. cxd4 Nb4 $1 {is at least equal for Black}) 4... exd5 {. This can
quite a lively variation for Black, often leading to an IQP situation. I can
recommend it as an alternative, although it does take play outside of our
repertoire (which in section 12.2 is 4...Nc6, rather than 4...c5).}) 4. Bxe4
Nf6 5. Bf3 $1 {The only active move.} ({Instead: -- (a)} 5. Bg5 $6 c5 $1 ({or} 
5... Be7 $11) 6. Bxf6 (6. c3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Qa5+ 8. Bd2 Qb6 9. Bf3 Nc6 10. Bc3
Be7 $15 {; White's bishop on c3 is passive and gets in the way}) 6... Qxf6 ({
here} 6... gxf6 $1 {is good; e.g.} 7. Nf3 f5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Nc3
Nc6 $15) 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. c3 cxd4 9. cxd4 (9. Bxc6+ $2 bxc6 10. cxd4 Rb8 11. Qd2
c5 $15) 9... Bd6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. O-O Bd7 $11 {.}) ({(b)} 5. Bd3 c5 $1 6. dxc5 (
6. Nf3 cxd4 $1 7. Nxd4 e5 $1 $15) 6... Bxc5 ({or} 6... Nbd7 $1) 7. Nf3 Nc6 8.
O-O O-O 9. Nc3 Nb4 $11 {Franceschi Rivera-P.Hummel, Oropesa del Mar 1998.})
5... c5 (5... Nbd7 6. Ne2 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Nbc3 e5 $1 $11 {is a perfectly
sound way of developing if you want to try something different. Several games
have supported that view.}) 6. Ne2 ({Or} 6. c3 Nc6 $1 7. Ne2 {
, and now Black takes his pick:} -- (7... cxd4 8. cxd4 Be7 (8... Bd6 9. O-O O-O
10. Nbc3 h6 11. Be3 Bd7 12. Rc1 Ne7 13. Nf4 Qa5 14. Qd2 Bc6 $11) 9. Nbc3 O-O
10. O-O {, Mamedov-Sa.Martinovic, Aix-les-Bains 2011; and either} Qb6 ({or} 
10... Qa5 11. Bd2 Qa6 {is equal.})) (7... Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bf4 cxd4 10. cxd4
Qb6 11. Nbc3 Rd8 12. Na4 Qa5 13. Rc1 Qf5 $11 {.}) (7... e5 {
is the most forcing:} 8. O-O $6 (8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. O-O Bd6 $5 10. dxe5 Bxe5 11.
Qxd8+ Kxd8 12. Bf4 Bxf4 13. Nxf4 Kc7 $11) 8... e4 9. Bxe4 Nxe4 10. d5 Bd7 (
10... Ne7 $2 11. Qa4+) 11. dxc6 Bxc6 $15 {.})) 6... Nc6 ({
The easiest, if unambitious, solution is} 6... cxd4 7. Nxd4 (7. Qxd4 {
is a problem if Black is intent on winning: McDonald likes} Nbd7 ({here} 7...
Bd6) ({, or even} 7... Bd7 $5 {appears to be a better try}) 8. O-O Bc5 {
, but then White has a minor advantage after} 9. Qf4 O-O 10. Nbc3) 7... Bc5 8.
Nb3 Qxd1+ 9. Bxd1 Be7 10. Bf3 Nc6 11. O-O (11. g3 Bd7 12. O-O Nb4 13. Na3 Bc6 {
is at least equal}) 11... Ne5 12. Be2 b6 13. Bf4 (13. f4 Ng6 14. Bf3 Rb8 $11)
13... Ng6 14. Bg3 Bb7 $11 {.}) 7. Be3 cxd4 ({Or} 7... e5 $5 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9.
dxe5 Qxd1+ 10. Kxd1 Ng4 $11 {H.Süchting-Alapin, Barmen 1905. The bishop pair
makes up for the material and the c-pawn weaknesses. Play might continue} 11.
Nd2 Be7 12. Kc1 (12. Ne4 Bf5 13. N2g3 Nxe3+ 14. fxe3 O-O-O+ 15. Ke2 Bg4+ 16.
Ke1 Rd5 $11) 12... O-O 13. Bf4 f6 $1 (13... Ba6 $5) 14. exf6 Nxf6 15. Bg5 (15.
Bg3 Nd5 $11) 15... h6 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Ne4 Be5 18. f3 Bf5 19. N2c3 c4 $1 20.
a4 Rab8 {and the bishops exert enough pressure to establish full equality.}) 8.
Bxc6+ $6 (8. Nxd4 Ne5 $11 {(Uhlmann); e.g.} 9. O-O Be7 ({or} 9... a6 10. Nc3
Bd6) 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Qe2 (11. Re1 Nc4 12. Bc1 e5) 11... a6 12. Rad1 Qc7 $11 {.}
) 8... bxc6 9. Qxd4 Qxd4 10. Bxd4 c5 $1 11. Bxf6 gxf6 {. Black has the bishop
pair and open lines, which more than make up for his weaknesses;} ({e.g.} 11...
gxf6 12. Nbc3 Rg8 13. Ne4 Be7 14. O-O Bb7 15. f3 O-O-O 16. Rad1 f5 $1 17. N4g3
c4 $15 {Bezgodov-C.Hanley, Hoogeveen 2002.}) *

