else?) 23 ... Qh5 24 Qe8+ Rd8 25 Rxe6 (25 Qe7? Qf3+ 26 Rg2 Nxd4) 25 ...

Qf3+ 26
Rg2 Rxe8 27 Rxe8+ Kd7 28 Ree2 Qxf4 with fair winning chances.
20 Qe7 Rd7 21 Qe8+ Rd8 22 Qa4
White bravely plays for the win.
22 Qe7 Rd7 repeats.
22 ... d5 23 Ne2 d4 24 Bg1 g5! 25 Qb3 d3 26 cxd3 gxf4 (Diagram 7)

Diagram 7 (W)

27 Qc2?!
After excellent defence White finally cracks – even strong grandmasters have
problems when under so much pressure for so long.
27 d4! f3 28 Ng3 Rh8! 29 Rxe6 Qh3 30 Rf2 Rb5 31 Qxf3 fxe6 fights off the attack,
with some advantage for White.
27 ... Rg8 28 Rf2
28 Nd4! f3 29 Nxf3 Rxf3 30 Qe2 might hold.
28 ... Rfg5?!
28 ... Qh3! and the threat of ... f3 is decisive.
29 Qd2 f3 30 Ng3
Forced. 30 Nc3?? Qxg1+ 31 Rxg1 Rxg1 mate.
30 ... Qh3 31 Rxf3
31 Rxf3 Rxg3 32 Rxg3 Rxg3 regains the piece with a slight advantage.
½-½

Looking a Little Deeper 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6

3 ... Bc5 4 0-0 Nf6 would transpose, but doesn’t threaten to play the ‘Berlin Wall’,
and also the immediate 4 c3 is annoying.
4 0-0
The best move, objectively, and by far the most popular.
4 ... Bc5 (Diagram 8)

Diagram 8 (W)

Now White’s main move is 5 c3, intending 6 d4, and this is the subject of Chapter
3. Here we will consider his important 5th move alternatives:

A: 5 Bxc6
B: 5 Nc3
C: 5 d3
D: 5 Nxe5

Alternatively:
5 Re1
With 5 Qe2 White plays a Worrall Attack. 5 ... 0-0 (5 ... Nd4 would be less good
here, as White hasn’t played d3, so 6 Nxd4 Bxd4 7 c3 Bb6 8 d4 doesn’t waste a
tempo) and now: a) 6 d3 Nd4! is a different story, of course: 7 Nxd4 Bxd4 8 c3 (8
Bg5?? Bxb2 was a horrible blunder by the future GM, A.Cherniaev-A.Mukhaev,
Moscow 1996) 8 ... Bb6 9 Bg5 (9 Nd2 c6 10 Ba4 d5) 9 ... h6 10 Bh4 c6 11 Ba4 d6 12
Kh1 (12 Bxf6?! Qxf6 13 Nd2 d5 14 Rae1 Bc7 15 f4?!, V.Serebriakov-N.Kabanov,
Ekaterinburg 2008, 15 ... exf4 16 e5 Qg6 17 Rxf4 Bf5 18 Bc2 f6 winning material) 12
... g5 13 Bg3 Bg4 14 f3 Be6 15 Rd1 Nh5 16 Bf2 Nf4 17 Qe1 Qf6 18 d4?, O.Sarana
Hungeling-P.Lebed, Kiev 1999, when Black missed a chance to win the game
immediately by 18 ... Nxg2! 19 Kxg2 Bh3+ 20 Kg1 Qxf3.
b) 6 c3 Re8 (Diagram 9)

Diagram 9 (W)

Black might as well keep the option of playing ... d5 in one go, and the rook is
always going to be well placed opposite the white queen. Now: b1) 7 Rd1 doesn’t
make much sense as White is not going to be able to play d4 for a long time: 7 ... d5!?
(7 ... d6 8 d3 a6 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 Nbd2 a5 11 Nc4 h6 12 Nxa5!? Rxa5 13 b4 Bxb4 14
cxb4 Ra4 15 a3 Bd7 16 Nd2 Qa8 17 Bb2 looked about level here in G.Milos-
G.Kasparov, Prague 2002, although the World Champion went on to win, naturally) 8
exd5? (8 d3 of course) 8 ... e4! 9 dxc6 exf3 10 Qf1 (10 Qxf3?? Bg4) 10 ... Ng4 (10 ...
bxc6! 11 Bxc6 Ng4 12 d4 Ba6! 13 dxc5 Qh4 and wins) 11 d4 Bd6? 12 g3 b6?! 13 h3?,
S.Sahl-V.Sipila, Reykjavik 2011, 13 ... Bxg3!! 14 fxg3 f2+ 15 Kh1 Qd5+.
b2) 7 d3 h6 (to stop the Bg5 pin) 8 Nbd2 a6 9 Ba4 b5 10 Bb3 (10 Bc2 d6 11 a4
A.Vouldis-Z.Gyimesi, Szeged 1994, and now 11 ... Be6) 10 ... d6 11 Rd1 (11 h3 Nh5!
and ... Nf4) 11 ... Ng4 (11 ... Ne7 12 Nf1 Ng6 is a good alternative) 12 Rf1 (it doesn’t
say a lot for White’s opening play if he is reduced to this!) 12 ... Bb6 (12 ... Nf6 with a
draw offer?) 13 h3 Nf6 14 Rd1 Ne7 (14 ... Nh5! 15 Nf1 Qf6 and ... Nf4) 15 Nh4 g5!?
16 Qf3 Kg7 17 Nf5+ Nxf5 18 exf5 d5 19 Nf1 Bb7 20 h4 g4 21 Qg3 Qd7 22 Ne3 h5 23
d4 Ne4 24 Qh2 exd4 25 cxd4, I.Robertson-J.Parker, Scotland 1994, 25 ... g3! 26 fxg3
Qd6 27 Qh3 Nxg3 and the immediate threat is ... Bxd4.
5 ... Ng4!? (Diagram 10)

Diagram 10 (W)

DANGEROUS WEAPON! This already gives White headaches!

5 ... 0-0 6 c3 d6 7 d4 Bb6 transposes to the next chapter, and is a good choice as the
Re1 lines are not particularly critical for Black.
6 Re2
6 Rf1 might be better, but it is obviously a bit embarrassing for White. 6 ... 0-0 7
h3 Nf6 8 Re1 Nd4!? (8 ... d6 9 c3 Ne7! 10 d4 Bb6 would transpose to the next
chapter) 9 Nxd4 (9 Bc4 can be met by 9 ... c6!?, e.g. 10 Nxe5 d5 11 exd5 cxd5 12 Bf1
Ne4) 9 ... Bxd4 10 c3 Bb6 11 d4 d5! 12 exd5 (12 dxe5 Nxe4 13 Be3 c6 14 Bd3 Bf5
with a nice position for Black) 12 ... exd4 13 c4 Qd6 14 b3, B.Bruned-J.Vion, Sautron
2002, 14 ... c5 threatening ... Bc7 and leaving the b5-bishop stuck out on a limb.
6 ... Nd4 7 Nxd4 Bxd4 8 h3 (Diagram 11)

Diagram 11 (B)

White must take care: 8 c3?? Qh4 is winning.

8 ... Nxf2!?
8 ... c6 is worth a try, as 9 Ba4 Nxf2 10 Rxf2 Bxf2+ 11 Kxf2 Qh4+ (11 ... d5!?) 12
Kg1 Qxe4 is also fun (12 ... d5 13 d3 Bxh3 14 gxh3 Qg3+ forces a perpetual.) 13 Nc3
Qd4+ 14 Kh2 d5 15 d3 0-0 and I prefer Black.
9 Rxf2 Bxf2+ 10 Kxf2 Qf6+
Black gets two pawns and rook for the two minor pieces.
11 Ke1
11 Ke2 Qg6 12 Kf1 Qxe4 transposes. Or 11 Kg1?! Qb6+.
11 ... Qh4+ 12 Kf1 Qxe4 13 Nc3 Qf4+ 14 Kg1 c6 15 Bf1 d5
15 ... Qd4+ 16 Kh2 0-0 followed by ... d5 might be slightly more accurate.
16 Qe1
A.Groszpeter-W.Tonoli, Groningen 1977, and now:
16 ... Qd4+ 17 Kh1 0-0 18 d3 Re8
Black’s rook and two pawns should be the match of White’s minor pieces,
especially when considering his strong centre.

A) 5 Bxc6 dxc6 (Diagram 12)

Diagram 12 (W)
6 Nxe5
Playing for tactics along the e-file.
6 d3 (Diagram 13)

Diagram 13 (B)

This is solid but uninspiring, and is similar to some slower lines in the Exchange
Spanish, except that Black hasn’t wasted a move on ... a6. An important point to note is
that White’s basic ‘winning plan’ in the Exchange is to play d4, exchange the white d-
pawn for the black e-pawn and create a mobile 4 to 3 pawn majority on the kingside –
Black’s doubled c-pawn greatly hampers his possibility to create a passed pawn on the
queenside, of course. Here this is obviously not possible, so we can say that Black is
already comfortably equal.
6 ... Qe7
Black will generally try to implement his standard plan here: play ... c5 and then
manoeuvre the knight to d4 via d7 and f8 (or c5) and e6. He will play ... f6 to defend
the e-pawn, and should White play c3 to control d4 he weakens his d3-pawn on the
open d-file.
White has a choice:
a) 7 Be3 Bg4 8 Nbd2 Nd7 9 Qe2 (9 Qe1 0-0-0 10 Bxc5 Qxc5 11 Rc1 f6 12 Qe3
Kb8 13 Nc4 Qxe3 14 fxe3 Be6 15 Ncd2 c5 16 b3 Nb6, planning ... Nc8-d6 and a
queenside pawn advance, R.Weill-A.Kosten, Clermont-Ferrand 2012; 9 Nc4
transposes to 9 Be3, below) 9 ... 0-0-0 10 Bxc5 Nxc5 11 Qe3 Bxf3 12 Nxf3 Kb8 13
Rad1 f6 14 Rfe1 Ne6 15 g3 c5, Sanchez J.Almeyra-G.Mahia, Buenos Aires 2000. In
order to stop ... Nd4, White played 16 c3 but now d3 is weak: 16 ... Rd7 17 Rd2 Rhd8.
b) 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bh4 Bg4 9 h3 Bh5 10 Nbd2 was met by the aggressive 10 ... 0-0-0
11 Qe2 g5 12 Bg3 g4 13 hxg4 Bxg4 14 Rfe1 Rhg8 in D.Solak-M.Bartel, Plovdiv 2012.
c) 7 Nbd2 (the most common) 7 ... Bg4 8 Nc4 (8 h3 Bh5 9 Nc4 is similar – 9 ...
Nd7 10 a3 f6 11 b4 Bd4 12 Rb1 Nb6 13 Ne3 Na4 14 Nf5, J.Roebers-H.Jonkman,
Amsterdam 2000, 14 ... Qd7 15 N5xd4 exd4) 8 ... Nd7 and now: c1) 9 Be3 Bd6!? (I
would prefer 9 ... f6 10 h3 Bh5 transposing to 9 h3) 10 h3 Bh5 11 Re1 (11 a4 f6 12 c3
b6 13 Re1 0-0 14 Bc1 Rfd8 15 Ne3 Qf7 16 Nf5 Bf8 17 Be3 Nc5 18 Bxc5 Bxc5 19 a5
b5; the knights are probably the match of the bishops here, J.Van der Wiel-V.Salov,
Rotterdam 1989) 11 ... 0-0 12 g4!? Bg6 13 Nh2 f6 14 Nf1 (coming to f5) 14 ... Bf7 15
Ncd2 c5 16 Ng3 g6 17 Qf3 Rfe8 18 Bh6 Qd8 19 Kh2 Bf8 20 Be3 Nb8! (a different
route to d4!) 21 Rh1 Nc6 22 Rag1 Nd4 and Black’s positional play triumphed over
White’s crude attempts at starting a kingside attack in M.Dzhumaev-A.Utegaliev,
Tashkent 2009.
c2) 9 h3 Bh5 10 Be3 f6 (Diagram 14)

Diagram 14 (W)

11 Qe2 (11 Rb1 0-0 12 g4!? Bf7 13 b3, F.Bellini-M.Malloni, Spoleto 2011, when
Black can still play ‘the plan’ by 13 ... Rfd8 14 Qe2 Nf8 but 13 ... a5! is good,
planning ... a4, and if 14 a4 then 14 ... Bb4 15 Bd2 Bxc4! 16 dxc4 Bxd2 17 Qxd2 Rfd8
and ... Nc5-e6) 11 ... Nf8 (always the same plan!) 12 c3 (12 Bxc5 Qxc5 13 b4 Qe7 14
Qe3 Ne6 15 Rab1 0-0 16 Kh2 b5 17 Na5 Bxf3 18 Qxf3 c5 19 a3 cxb4 20 axb4 c5 21
bxc5 Qxc5 with an edge, M.Ghinda-K.Ninov, Stara Zagora 1990) 12 ... Ne6 13 b4
Bxe3 14 Qxe3 c5 15 b5 0-0-0!? (15 ... 0-0 is safer) 16 a4 Nf4 17 Rfd1 Qf7 (17 ...
Qe6) 18 Kh2 Nxd3 winning material in P.Martynov-E.Ovod, St Petersburg 2011.
6 ... Nxe4 (Diagram 15)
Diagram 15 (W)
7 Qe2
The only dangerous move, otherwise Black would enjoy good development and
the bishop pair at no cost: 7 Qf3 Ng5 8 Qg3 0-0 9 d3 Ne6, for instance. Other moves
are even worse: 7 Re1?? loses to 7 ... Bxf2+ of course.
7 d3? Nxf2 8 Rxf2 (or 8 Qe2 Ng4+ 9 Kh1 Qe7 winning a piece) 8 ... Bxf2+ 9
Kxf2, S.Hingst-M.Baessler, German League 2004, 9 ... Qd4+ 10 Be3 Qxe5.

DANGEROUS WEAPON! 7 Nc3? Nxf2 8 Rxf2 (8 Qe2 0-0 9 Rxf2 Re8) 8 ...
Bxf2+ 9 Kxf2 Qd4+ picks up the e5-knight, Y.Ivanov-A.Samoilov, Kolomna 2010.

7 ... Qd5
Forced.
8 Nd3
Alternatively:
a) 8 d4 Bxd4 9 Nf3 Be6! with:
a1) 10 c4 is tricky, but ultimately unsuccessful: 10 ... Qxc4 11 Qxc4 (11 Qxe4??
Bxf2+) 11 ... Bxf2+! 12 Rxf2 Bxc4 (winning an exchange back) 13 Nc3 (13 Rc2 0-0-0
14 Nc3 Bd3, or 13 Nbd2 Nxf2 14 Nxc4 Nd3 N.Povah-D.Rumens, Portsmouth 1976)
13 ... Nxf2 14 Kxf2 0-0-0 when rook and three pawns outguns the two white pieces in
the endgame, A.Zapata-M.Rohde, New York 1988.
a2) 10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Rd1 can be met by 11 ... Qc4 12 Qxc4 Bxc4 13 Bf4 (or 13
Re1 0-0-0 and the knight is safe because of White’s weak back rank) 13 ... Nd6. Black
has an extra pawn, and regaining it by 14 Bxd6 (14 Nd2, A.Naiditsch-T.Karolyi, Paks
1998, 14 ... Be6 15 Bxd6 cxd6 16 Ne4 d5 17 Nd6+ Ke7 18 Nxb7 Rab8 19 Na5 Rhc8)
14 ... cxd6 15 Na3 (15 Rxd6? Bd5 traps the rook) 15 ... Be6 16 Rxd6 leaves Black on
top after 16 ... Ke7 17 Rd2 Rhd8, V.Hresc-Z.Basagic, Pula 1984.
b) 8 d3?! is met by 8 ... Qxe5 9 Qxe4 (9 Nc3 f5) 9 ... Qxe4 10 dxe4 Be6 (10 ... 0-0
11 Bf4 f5 is also strong: 12 e5 Be6 13 Nd2 h6 14 Rfe1 Rad8 with a nice edge for
Black in T.Heinz-D.Anic, Port Barcares 2005) 11 Nc3 0-0-0 12 Bf4 (or 12 Na4 Bd4
13 c3 Bf6 14 Nc5 Bc4 15 Re1 Rhe8, M.Meszaros-M.Podoba, Slovakian League 2001)
12 ... Bd4 13 a3 Rhe8 with advantage to Black because of his bishops, development
advantage and pressure on e4 in J.Lappage-J.Rudd, Frome 2001.
c) 8 Nxc6!? Be6 9 d4 Bb6 10 Nb4 Qxd4 11 Nd3 0-0 12 Be3 Qd5.
8 ... 0-0 (Diagram 16)

Diagram 16 (W)

8 ... Be6!? is more combative: 9 Nxc5 Nxc5 10 Nc3 Qf5 11 d3 0-0-0 12 Be3 h5!?
planning ... h4-h3 to weaken the kingside light squares in I.Valencia-R.Kleinschroth,
Giessen 1991.
9 Nxc5
If 9 Re1 Bf5.
9 ... Nxc5 10 Nc3 Qf5
10 ... Qd6 11 d3 f5!?, threatening ... f4, is worth trying.
11 d3
11 d4 Ne6 12 Be3 b6 13 f3 Qa5 14 Rfd1 Ba6 15 Qf2 Rad8 16 a3, J.Gomez
Baillo-J.De Paz San Martin, Benidorm 1992. Now Black should give his queen some
room by 16 ... Bb7 say, instead of 16 ... Rd7?? 17 d5! Rxd5 18 Rxd5! 1-0, since 18 ...
cxd5 is met by 19 b4.
11 ... Ne6
11 ... Bd7 12 Be3 (this is not very exciting, with opposite-coloured bishops on the
board, but Black has no problems whatsoever) 12 ... Rae8, S.Dvoirys-I.Efimov,
Gausdal 1991.
12 Be3 c5 13 Rfe1 b6 14 Ne4 Bb7 (Diagram 17)

Diagram 17 (W)

With harmonious development in J.Sosovicka-M.Hruby, Piestany 2007. Black can

consider continuing with ... Qg6, ... Rae8 and maybe ... f5-f4.

B) 5 Nc3
4 Nc3 Bc5 5 0-0 0-0 also leads to our main line.
4 ... Bc5 5 Nc3 0-0
Black simply continues his development.

TRICKY TRANSPOSITION: “This position often arises from 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5
Bc5 5 0-0 0-0. Indeed, if Black plays the Classical Defense to the Spanish, he may
as well play 4 ... Bc5 against the Four Knights, and save himself some memory
work.” (Mark Morss) BEWARE! After 5 ... d6 White will continue 6 d4 exd4 7
Nxd4 with a typical ‘small centre’ plus.

6 Nxe5
6 d3 is a bit limp, and now there is a choice: a) 6 ... Nd4!? is the fun line:
a1) 7 Nxe5!? (Diagram 18)
 Diagram 18 (B)

This is critical, but it transposes to something resembling Rubinstein’s line against

the Four Knights, and is not a very practical choice for White: he gets a lot of
headaches in return for the hot pawn!
7 ... d6 8 Nf3 (obviously forced) 8 ... Bg4 (Diagram 19)

Diagram 19 (W)

The main point. White’s kingside will be devastated – his first step is to parry
Black’s menace of ... c6 followed by ... Nd7-e5.
9 Be3
To capture on d4. Alternatively, 9 Bg5 c6 10 Bc4 Qc8!? (I can’t think of any
reason Black would prefer this to 10 ... Qd7! 11 Bxf6 gxf6 with the same unpleasant
threats) 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Na4?? Bxf3 13 gxf3 Qh3 14 Kh1 Nxf3 15 Rg1+ Kh8 16 Rg2,
B.Oliveira-J.Ramos, Vitoria 1999, when Black has various ways to finish the game, 16
... Rg8 17 Qf1 Rg4 being the most obvious.
9 ... Bxf3 10 gxf3 c6 11 Ba4 b5 12 Bb3 Nh5 13 Kh1
Or 13 Bxd4 Bxd4 14 f4 Qh4 15 Ne2 (S.Tarrasch-J.Perlis, San Sebastian 1912) 15
... Bxb2 16 Rb1 Bf6 regaining the pawn with a strong attack.
13 ... Qh4 14 Rg1
You don’t get to 2700 without being able to defend!
14 ... Qh3 (14 ... a5 15 a4 b4 16 Nb1 d5 is another try, threatening ... Bd6 and ...
f5) 15 Qf1 Qxf3+ 16 Qg2 a5 17 a4 b4 18 Nb1 Qxg2+ 19 Rxg2 Nxb3 20 cxb3 f5! 21
Nd2 Bxe3 22 fxe3 fxe4 23 Nxe4 d5 24 Nc5 Rae8 25 Re1 Rf3 26 Rge2 d4 27 Kg2 Rf5
28 Ne4 dxe3 29 Rxe3 Rd8 (29 ... Nf4+) 30 Rc1 Nf4+ 31 Kg3?! Nxd3?! (31 ... Rdf8!
threatening ... Nd5 followed by ... Rf3+ should win) 32 Rxc6 and somehow White
managed to draw this, P.Svidler-P.Nielsen, Copenhagen 2010.
a2) As in previous similar lines, 7 Nxd4 Bxd4 is very simple for Black: 8 Bg5 (8
Ne2 Bb6 9 Ng3 c6 10 Ba4 d5 11 h3 dxe4 12 dxe4 is equal, G.Milos-I.Morovic
Fernandez, Santiago de Chile 1989) 8 ... c6 9 Bc4 (or 9 Ba4 h6 10 Bh4 d6 11 Kh1,
Y.Solodovnichenko-K.Chojnacki, Poznan 2003, when 11 ... a5 is often a good move in
such positions – Black threatens to trap the bishop with ... b5!; 12 a3 Be6 with a plus)
9 ... h6 10 Bh4 b5 11 Bb3, A.Petrisor-P.Nielsen, Aix-les-Bains 2011, and now 11 ...
d6.
a3) 7 Ba4 d6 8 h3 c6 9 Nxd4 Bxd4 10 Ne2 Bb6 with very easy equality for Black,
A.Heimann-O.Korneev, Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2012.
b) Of course, 6 ... d6 (Diagram 20) is a perfectly solid alternative:

Diagram 20 (W)

7 Na4 (White grabs the pair of bishops; other moves are nothing at all, for instance
7 h3 Nd4 8 Nxd4 Bxd4 9 Ne2 Bb6 10 Ng3 c6, J.Polgar-A.Grischuk, Moscow 2002, or
7 Bg5 h6 8 Bh4 Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Nd4 11 Qd1 c6 12 Bc4 b5 13 Bb3 a5,
M.Grill-C.Marcelin, Montlucon 1997, and here 8 ... Nd4 is also good) 7 ... Bb6 8
Nxb6 axb6 9 c3 Ne7 (9 ... h6 10 h3 Bd7 11 Ba4 Re8 12 Bb3 Be6 13 Bc2 d5 and Black
has equalized, P.Svidler-V.Kramnik, Dortmund 2004) 10 Re1 Bd7 (to get rid of
White’s bishop pair; 10 ... Ng6 11 d4 Qe7 12 Bd3 h6 13 h3 Nh7 14 Nh2 Qh4 with near
equality in M.Cornette-A.Kosten, Montpellier 2006) 11 Bxd7 (11 Bc4 Ba4 12 Bb3
Bxb3 13 Qxb3 Ng6 is equal, S.Maze-K.Georgiev, French League 2007) 11 ... Nxd7 12
d4 Ng6 and again Black is perfectly okay, C.Balogh-F.Vallejo Pons, Heviz 2008.
Meanwhile, capturing the pawn by 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 Nxe5?! is quite weak (7 d3 Qe7
is similar to Variation A, 5 Bxc6, but the knight is misplaced on c3) 7 ... Re8 8 Nf3 (or
8 Nd3 Bg4 9 Qe1 Bd4 with advantage, K.Gawehns-O.Korneev, Wiesbaden 2012) 8 ...
Nxe4 9 Nxe4 Rxe4 and Black has the bishop pair, K.Huchwajda-M.Zajecki, Poznan
1997.
6 ... Nxe5 7 d4 Bd6 (Diagram 21)

Diagram 21 (W)
8 f4
This has long been known to be the critical move.
8 dxe5 Bxe5 is too easy for Black. White can’t envisage f4 just yet as Black will
simply capture on c3 then on e4.
a) 9 Re1 Re8 10 Bg5 (10 Bd3 transposes to 9 Bd3) 10 ... h6 11 Bh4 and now,
rather than go pawn-grabbing by 11 ... g5 12 Bg3 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Nxe4, as in
E.Dashibalov-D.Frolov, Tomsk 2003, which was a bit dicey after 14 Qh5, I would
prefer to complete my development by 11 ... c6 12 Bd3 d6 , ... Be6, ... Qb6, etc.
b) 9 Bg5 h6 10 Bh4 c6 11 Bd3 Qb6 (to hinder f4 and unpin the f6-knight; the
natural 11 ... d6!? is possible, as 12 f4 Bg4 13 Qd2 can be answered by the trick 13 ...
Bd4+ 14 Kh1 Nxe4!) 12 Rb1 (12 Na4 Qa5 13 c3 d5 14 f4 Bg4 15 Qe1 Qxa4 16 fxe5
Nxe4 17 Be7 Rfe8 18 Qh4 Be6 19 Bf6 Qa5 was a bit wild, E.Matseyko-A.Burtasova,
Kharkov 2006) 12 ... Re8 13 Ne2?! d5 freeing Black’s game, A.Van de
Oudeweetering-L.Winants, Netherlands 1987.
c) 9 Bd3 Re8 (renewing the threats to e4) 10 Bg5 (10 Re1 d6 11 h3 c6 12 Bd2 b5
13 a3 a6 14 Qf3 c5! 15 Rab1 c4 16 Bf1 Bb7 – a nice plan from Black, targeting the e4-
pawn – 17 Nd5? Nxe4! winning, B.Lengyel-S.Husari, Budapest 2002) 10 ... h6 11 Bh4
when rather than 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 g5 13 Bg3 Nxe4 14 Qh5, S.Nitin-S.Shyam,
Chennai 2011, 11 ... d6 looks simplest, just intending to complete development, e.g. 12
f4 Bg4 13 Bxf6 Qd7! 14 Qd2 Bxf6 15 h3 (if 15 f5 to trap the bishop, 15 ... Bh5 16 h3
Bd4+ 17 Kh1 Bxc3 18 Qxc3 f6) 15 ... Bd4+ 16 Kh2 Qd8!? as the bishop is immune
from capture.
8 ... Nc6 (Diagram 22)

Diagram 22 (W)

8 ... Neg4 is a reasonable alternative, and scores well in practice, e.g. 9 e5 Bb4
10 exf6 (or 10 f5!? d5 11 Be2, P.Acs-L.Winants, Rethymnon 2003, 11 ... Nxe5 12 dxe5
Bc5+ 13 Kh1 Ne4) 10 ... Nxf6 11 f5 d5 12 Bg5 c6 13 Bd3 Re8 14 Qf3 h6 15 Bh4 Be7
16 Rae1 Bd7 and Black was fine in V.Vehi Bach-O.Korneev, Navalmoral 2000.
9 e5 Bb4!? (Diagram 23)
 Diagram 23 (W)

I always thought that this move looked like the logical choice here, although most
players prefer to retreat to e7. Anyway, it might take a Four Knights player away from
his theory.
For what it’s worth, the main line goes 9 ... Be7 10 d5 Nb4 11 exf6 Bxf6 12 a3
(but White has other, better, tries, such as 12 Bc4 d6 13 Ne4, J.Gallagher-M.Sbarra,
Geneva 2005, when White has more space and the b4-knight is misplaced) 12 ... Bxc3
13 bxc3 Nxd5 14 Qxd5 c6.
10 d5
The main line.
10 exf6 Qxf6 11 Nd5 (11 Be3 was nothing in C.Goering-S.Mieses, Leipzig 1871,
after 11 ... Bxc3 12 bxc3 d5 intending ... Bf5) and now there is a choice: a) 11 ...
Qxd4+ is possible: 12 Be3 (I’m not very keen on lines such as 12 Qxd4!? Nxd4 13
Nxc7 Nxc2 for Black myself, though: 14 Nxa8 Bc5+ 15 Kh1 Nxa1 16 Bd3 and the
black knight is trapped, although the position remains unclear) 12 ... Qxd1 13 Raxd1
Bd6 14 f5 f6 15 Bf4 Ne5 16 Bxe5 fxe5! (16 ... Bxe5 17 Ne7+ Kh8 18 Nxc8 Raxc8 19
Bxd7 is about level) 17 f6, K.Kulaots-M.Roiz, Plovdiv 2012, when 17 ... Bc5+ 18
Kh1 c6 19 Ne7+ Kh8 looks a bit better for Black.
b) 11 ... Qd6!? with the possibilities:
b1) 12 Bc4 Na5 13 b3 b5 14 Be2 Qxd5 15 Bf3 Qd6 16 Bxa8 Bc3 17 Rb1 b4
(planning ... Ba6; 17 ... c6 is maybe a bit too greedy: 18 Rf3 b4 19 Qd3 Bxd4+ 20 Be3
Bxe3+ 21 Qxe3 Qc7 22 f5 Ba6 23 Re1 h6 24 f6) 18 Be4! Ba6 19 Bd3 Qxd4+ 20 Kh1
Bxd3 21 Qxd3 Qxd3 22 cxd3 Nc6 with fair compensation for the exchange, as e1 is
covered.
b2) 12 Nxb4 Qxb4 13 Bxc6 (13 c4 d5) 13 ... dxc6 14 f5 f6 15 Qd3 c5 16 dxc5
Qxc5+ 17 Be3 Qc6 18 Rad1 b6 19 Rd2 Bb7 and it seems to me that White’s light
squares are weaker than Black’s dark squares, although a draw is likely, of course.
10 ... a6! (Diagram 24)

Diagram 24 (W)

Tricky, but rare, I have played 10 ... Bxc3 myself: 11 bxc3 Ne4 (11 ... Nxe5!? 12
fxe5 Nxd5 13 Qxd5 c6 14 Qf3 Qb6+, D.Krajina-R.Stern, German League 2006, 15
Be3 Qxb5 16 Qg3) 12 Qf3 f5 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 Bd3 d5 15 exd6 cxd6 16 Bxe4 fxe4 17
Qxe4, D.Marciano-A.Kosten, Belfort 1997, when 17 ... d5 18 Qd4 Bf5 is almost
equal.
11 Be2
Or:
a) 11 dxc6 axb5 12 exf6 dxc6 13 fxg7 Re8. Black will recapture the g-pawn after
exchanging queens, when his bishops and open a-file promise him excellent play.
b) 11 Ba4 Na5 12 exf6 Bxc3 13 bxc3 Qxf6 14 Qf3 b5 15 Bb3 Re8 16 Bd2 Bb7
and White has problems with his d-pawn.
11 ... Bc5+ 12 Kh1 (Diagram 25)

Diagram 25 (B)

12 ... Nxd5 13 Nxd5

My (old!) copy of ECO C prefers 13 Qxd5 but after 13 ... d6 Black threatens ...
Be6 and should be fine. 14 Ne4 Nd4!? is the point, with a nasty threat to trap the queen
by ... Be6! (14 ... Ba7 15 exd6 cxd6 is also fine, as the d-pawn is a bit poisonous: 16
Qxd6 Bf5 17 Qxd8 Raxd8 18 Bd3 Rd5 – intending ... Nb4 – 19 Nf2 Rfd8 20 Bxf5
Rxf5 when White has development and weak back-rank problems, or 16 Nxd6 Nb4 17
Qd1 Qc7 18 Nxc8 Raxc8 19 c3 Rcd8 20 Qb3 Rfe8) 15 exd6 (15 Nxc5 dxc5 16 Qxd8
Rxd8 17 Bd3 c4 18 Be4 Bf5) 15 ... cxd6 16 Bd3 Be6 17 Qh5 g6 18 Qd1 Nf5 19 Re1
Rc8 with active play for the IQP.
13 ... d6 14 Bd3
If 14 exd6 Bxd6. Or 14 f5 dxe5 15 f6 Be6 16 fxg7 Kxg7 17 c4 f5 with an extra
pawn.
14 ... dxe5
14 ... Be6 15 c4 (15 Nc3 dxe5 16 Ne4) 15 ... dxe5 16 fxe5 Nxe5 17 Bxh7+ Kxh7
18 Qh5+ Kg8 19 Qxe5 Bxd5 20 cxd5 Re8 is also pleasant for Black.
15 fxe5 Nxe5! 16 Bxh7+ Kxh7 17 Qh5+ Kg8 18 Qxe5 (Diagram 26)
Diagram 26 (B)

So far this is N.Short-M.Adams, England 1991.

18 ... f6
Instead of Adams’ 18 ... Bd6.
19 Qh5
19 Nxf6+ Rxf6 20 Bg5 Rxf1+ 21 Rxf1 Bd4! 22 Qe2 Qxg5 23 Qe8+ (23 Qc4+
Be6) 23 ... Kh7 24 Qe4+ Bf5 (no draw!) 25 Rxf5 Qe3 wins.
19 ... Be6!?
This should be at least equal for Black: he has the bishop pair and slightly better
development.
19 ... Bg4 20 Qxg4 Qxd5 is level.
20 Rd1 (Diagram 27)

Diagram 27 (W)

20 Nxf6+ Rxf6 21 Rxf6 Qxf6 22 Qxc5 wins a pawn, but 22 ... b6 23 Qg1 Rf8
gives Black more than sufficient compensation, for example 24 c3 Qf1 25 Bg5 Qb5
attacking g5, b2 and also a2.
20 Nf4 Bc4 21 Re1 Bf2 22 Rd1 Qe8 23 Qf3 Rd8 not giving the white pieces a
moment’s respite.
20 ... Bxd5! 21 Rxd5
21 Qxd5+ Qxd5 22 Rxd5 Rad8 23 Rxd8 Rxd8 24 Bf4 Re8 to come to e2, with an
edge.
21 ... Qe8 22 Qh4 Qe2 23 Bd2 Bf2 24 Qh3 Rad8
Black’s pieces are active, and White’s back rank a bit weak.

C) 5 d3
This quiet move is actually the most popular of all the alternatives to 5 c3, but allows
Black an easy game.

TRICKY TRANSPOSITION: 4 d3 Bc5 5 0-0 Nd4! will transpose, but 5 c3 is

almost as popular and leads to Bishop’s Opening style play.

5 ... Nd4! (Diagram 28)

 Diagram 28 (W)

‘Forking’ White’s two developed minor pieces. It seems odd to move Black’s
developed pieces twice (and in the case of the dark-squared bishop maybe three times)
before castling, but Black will regain these tempi on the b5-bishop, which has been left
‘hanging’.
Black actually has a positive score with this move, and my own experience has
been very pleasant indeed.
6 Nxd4
Standard, but there are alternatives:
a) 6 Ba4 is sometimes played by strong players, and is almost certainly White’s
best try, although it is somewhat rare. By keeping the pin on the d-pawn and the attack
on e5 White forces Black to make a decision about his e5-pawn. 6 ... Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 0-
0 (7 ... c6!? is also possible, as 8 Qg3 d6 9 Qxg7 Rg8 10 Qh6 Rg6 11 Qh4 Rg4 12 Qh6
Rg6 forces a draw, and 8 Nc3 0-0 transposes to 7 ... 0-0) and now: a1) 8 Qg3 d6 9
Bg5 c6 10 Bb3 Nh5 11 Qh4 Nf6 12 Nc3 h6 13 Bd2 a5 gave Black no problems in
M.Carlsen-V.Anand, Moscow 2011, and he went on to win.
a2) 8 Bg5 can be met by 8 ... h6 as 9 Bxf6 Qxf6 10 Qxf6 gxf6 favours Black with
his bishop pair, e.g. 11 Nc3 c6 12 Ne2 (else Black will move his d-pawn and then
liquidate the doubled f-pawn by ... f5) 12 ... Rd8 13 Ng3 a5 (threatening ... b5 to trap
the bishop) 14 c3 d5.
a3) 8 Nc3 c6 9 Bb3 a5 10 a4 d6 11 Kh1 Be6 12 Bxe6 fxe6 is fairly level, although
Black has some pressure on the f-file, N.Firman-C.Balogh, German League 2009.
b) 6 Bc4 d6 7 Nxd4 (7 Ng5? Bg4! 8 Qd2 h6! 9 Nxf7 Qd7 should have led to a
swift debacle in V.Kupreichik-Y.Malinin, St Petersburg 1998: 10 Kh1 Bf3! 11 Qe3
Ng4 and White had lost his queen) 7 ... Bxd4 8 c3 Bb6 9 Bg5 h6 10 Be3, J.Soalleiro-
E.Gaudineau, French League 1999, 10 ... 0-0 11 Nd2 c6 and ... d5.
6 ... Bxd4 (Diagram 29)

Diagram 29 (W)
7 c3
7 Nd2 has become quite popular with strong players recently. The idea is to defer
c3, and now: a) 7 ... c6 8 Ba4 Bb6!? (rare; 8 ... d6 9 c3 Bb6 is much more common,
and also fine, but this would deprive Black of the ... d5 possibility) 9 Nc4 Bc7 10 Bb3
0-0 (10 ... a5!?, 10 ... d6) 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 d6 13 Ne3 g5 14 Bg3 h5!? 15 h3 (or 15
h4 Ng4 16 hxg5 Qxg5, A.Kovacevic-M.Neubauer, Rijeka 2010) 15 ... Be6 was messy
in J.Radulski-J.Hammer, Tromsø 2009.
b) 7 ... 0-0!? If this is playable, then it should be played: b1) 8 c3 Bb6 9 Nc4 (9
Nf3 transposes to 7 c3 after 9 ... c6 10 Ba4) 9 ... d5 (or 9 ... c6 10 Nxb6 axb6 11 Ba4
d5) 10 Nxb6 axb6 is okay for Black, even though he has conceded the bishop pair, e.g.
11 exd5 (11 f4!? c6 12 fxe5 Bg4 13 Qc2 Nd7 14 Ba4 Nc5) 11 ... Bg4 12 f3 Qxd5 13
Bc4 Qc5+.
b2) 8 Nf3 Bb6 9 Nxe5 d5 and Black regains his pawn with at least equality: 10
Bf4 (10 Bg5 c6 11 Ba4 dxe4 12 dxe4 Qxd1 13 Raxd1 Nxe4, 10 exd5?? Qxd5 loses a
piece) 10 ... c6 11 Ba4 dxe4 12 dxe4 Qxd1 13 Raxd1 Nxe4 14 Bb3 Nc5 with equality
in M.Kobalija-R.Hovhannisyan, Plovdiv 2012.
7 Qf3 c6 8 Bc4 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Bxd7+ Qxd7 12 c3 Bb6 led to a
nice tactical win for Black in S.Collins-A.Kosten, British League 2007.
7 ... Bb6 (Diagram 30)

Diagram 30 (W)

This position is very comfortable for Black. He will play ... c6 (gaining a tempo
on the b5-bishop), then ... d5 or ... d6 as appropriate, and ... 0-0 when it suits him.
8 Nd2
This is the most logical – the knight heads for a good square. Note that Black’s
lone knight is already well placed!
Alternatively:
a) 8 Bg5?! is the most popular and looks aggressive, but as Black hasn’t castled
yet the bishop can become a target. 8 ... h6 9 Bh4 c6 (Diagram 31) and now:

Diagram 31 (W)

a1) 10 Bc4 d6 11 Nd2 Qe7 (or 11 ... g5 12 Bg3 h5 13 h4 Bg4 14 Qb3 Qd7 15
hxg5? h4 16 Bh2 Nh7 and White was in trouble in D.Howell-D.McMahon, Bunratty
Open 2000) 12 Bb3 g5! 13 Bg3, O.Mihok-M.Rachela, Szombathely 2008, 13 ... h5 14
h4 Bg4 15 Qc2 Nd7 with a powerful kingside attack.
a2) 10 Ba4 d6 11 Nd2 (or 11 d4? g5 12 Bg3 Nxe4 13 Nd2 Nxg3 14 fxg3 Be6 15
Bb3 d5 White is a pawn down for nothing, G.Guseinov-L.Aronian, Tripoli 2004) 11 ...
g5! 12 Bg3 h5 13 h4 (after 13 h3? h4 14 Bh2 g4 15 hxg4 Bxg4 White didn’t survive
very long in L.Torres-N.Rua, Bucaramanga 2008) 13 ... Bg4 14 Qe1 (or 14 Qc1 Nh7
15 hxg5 Nxg5 16 Nc4 h4 17 Nxd6+? – but White is already lost – 17 ... Qxd6 18 Qxg5
hxg3 19 Qxg4 Qh6 20 Qh3 gxf2+ 21 Kh1 0-1, A.Collins-D.McMahon, London 2012)
14 ... Nd7 (14 ... Nh7) 15 Nc4 gxh4 16 Nxd6+ Kf8 17 Bh2, J.Betancort Curbelo-
D.Lima, Las Palmas 1989, 17 ... Rg8 and ... Bf3 will be decisive.
b) 8 d4 0-0 9 Bg5 (after 9 dxe5 Nxe4 10 Bd3 d5 11 exd6 Nxd6 12 Qc2 Qh4 Black
has no problems, M.Palac-C.Marcelin, Lausanne 2003, but there is also 11 ... Re8!? as
12 dxc7?! Qh4 13 Bxe4 Bxc7 14 g3 Qxe4 is very dangerous for White) 9 ... h6 10 dxe5
(10 Bxf6?! Qxf6 11 dxe5 Qxe5 12 Bd3 Rd8 13 Kh1 Qf4 14 Qd2 Qxd2 15 Nxd2 d5 and
Black has a plus, J.Polgar-V.Anand, Kristiansand 2010) 10 ... hxg5 11 exf6 Qxf6 12
Nd2 a6 13 Bd3 d6 14 Nc4 Ba7 15 Ne3 Bxe3 16 fxe3 Qe5 17 Qh5 Be6. Black is again
favourite with his superior structure, Z.Sturua-G.Sargissian, Dubai 2005.
c) 8 Kh1?! aims for f4: 8 ... c6 9 Ba4 d5! (Diagram 32)
 Diagram 32 (W)

10 Qe2 (10 exd5?!, J.Smeets-M.Bosman, Netherlands League 2008, 10 ... Ng4! 11

dxc6 0-0 12 cxb7? Qh4 and wins, as 13 h3 Nxf2+ 14 Rxf2 Bxb7 threatens ... Qxh3+
and then ... Qxg2 mate) 10 ... dxe4 (10 ... 0-0 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 dxe4 13 dxe4 Qe7 is
level, B.Grimberg-V.Erdos, Deizisau 2010) 11 dxe4, S.Movsesian-Z.Hracek, Sibenik
2009, 11 ... Ng4!? 12 h3 Qh4 13 Kg1 Nf6 with some nasty threats, i.e. 14 Nd2 Bxh3!
15 gxh3 Qg3+ winning, or 14 Be3 Bg4! 15 f3 Bxh3!.
8 ... c6
If Black can successfully play ... d5 he will be at least equal.
9 Ba4 0-0 (Diagram 33)

Diagram 33 (W)
10 Nf3
10 Nc4 Bc7 11 Ne3 d5 12 Qf3 d4 13 cxd4 (13 Nf5 Bxf5 14 exf5 ½-½, T.Luther-
K.Volke, Austrian League 2006, but Black can play 14 ... Qd6 with threats of ... e4,
and bringing the rooks to the centre) 13 ... Qxd4 14 Bc2 Be6 and Black is at least
equal, V.Anand-V.Kramnik, Moscow 2011.
10 ... d5!?
10 ... d6 11 Bb3 is a symmetrical position where Black is to move!
11 exd5
11 Qe2 dxe4 12 dxe4 Bg4 13 h3 Bh5 14 Bg5 h6 15 Rad1 Qe7 is symmetric and
equal, L.Kotan-V.Kalisky, Slovakian League 2003.

ROLL THE DICE! If Black feels a bit more ambitious against 11 Qe2 then 11 ...
h6!? is possible: 12 exd5 Nxd5 13 Qxe5 (13 Nxe5 Re8) 13 ... Re8 14 Qg3 Bc7 15
Qh4 Qd6 16 d4 Qg6 with a strong initiative.

11 ... Qxd5 12 Bb3 Qd6 13 h3 Bf5 14 d4

Or 14 Re1 Rfe8 15 Ng5 Re7.
14 ... exd4 15 Nxd4
K.Visweswaran-S.Ovsejevitsch, Kolkata 2002. Now Black can play 15 ... Be4 16
Re1 Rad8 with more space.

D) 5 Nxe5 (Diagram 34)

Diagram 34 (B)

This is the most important alternative to 5 c3, and the only one which gives Black
any theoretical problems.
5 ... Nxe5!?
Objectively this is probably not the best move ... but it is the most fun!
5 ... Nxe4!? is the alternative, and is played by all the super-GMs when they play
the Classical Berlin. The problem is that after 6 Qe2 Nxe5 7 Qxe4 Qe7 8 d4 (or 8 Nc3
Ng6 9 Qxe7+) 8 ... Nc6 9 Qxe7+ Bxe7 10 c3 we reach a dull symmetric endgame
where White has a space advantage. I have played this as Black, and managed to win
(against a much weaker player), but it was hard work and I can’t really recommend
such a position in a Dangerous Weapons book!
6 d4 a6
A clever intermezzo, driving the bishop back and breaking the pin on the d7-pawn.