Nimzo-Larsen

attack

by Byron Jacobs & Jonathan Tait

EVERYMAN CHESS
Published by Everyman Publishers pic, London
First published in 2001 by Everyman Publishers plc, Gloucester Mansions,
140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD

Copyright© 2001 Byron Jacobs and Jonathan Tait

The right of Byron Jacobs and Jonathan Tait to be identified as the authors of
this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue recordJor this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 85744 286 5

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

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester

Mansions, 14QA Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: dan@everyman. uk.com
website: www .everyman. uk.com

The Everyman Chess Opening Guides were designed and developed by First
Rank Publishing.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov
Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Production by Book Production Services.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge,
Wiltshire.
 CONTENTS I

1 b3 or 1 ltJf3, 2 b3

Bibliography 4
Introduction 7

Part One: 1 b3 e5
11 b3 eS 2 ~b2 l2Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 ~bS ~d6 9
2 1 b3 eS 2 ~b2 lbc6 3 e3 32
3 1 b3 eS 2 ~ b2 other lines 51

Part Two: 1 b3 d5 and 1 ctJf3 d5 2 b3

4 Reversed Nimzo-Indian: 1 l2Jf3 dS 2 b3 cS with ... l2Jc6 and ~bS 74
5 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 l2Jf3 dS 2 b3 cS 91
6 Black plays l. .. dS, 2... t2Jf6 but not ... c7-c5 109
7 Black plays l. .. dS, 2 ... ~g4 130

Part Three: Other lines

8 Black plays an early ... g7-g6 146
9 Black plays l. .. cS and other moves 171

Index of Complete Games 191

I BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books (openings)
Basman, M. The Killer Grob (Pergamon 1991)
Burgess, G. The CompleteAlekhine (Batsford 1992)
Burgess, G. 101 Chess Opening Surprises (Gambit 1998)
De Firmian, N. et al. Modern Chess Openings, 14th edition (Batsford 2000)
Dunnington, A. Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman 2000)
Gallagher, J. Beating the Anti-King's Indians (Batsford 1996)
Gallagher, J. Beating the A nti-Sicilians (Batsford 1994)
Hansen, C. The Gambit Guide to the English Opening 1... e5 (Gambit 1999)
Hansen, C. The Symmetrical English (Gambit 2000)
Harding, T.D. Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer Systems (Batsford 1979)
Kasparov, G. & Keene, R.D. Batsford Chess Openings (Batsford 1982)
Keene, R.D. Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack (Batsford 1977)
Krnic, Z. et al. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume E, 3rd edition (Sahovski Informa-
tor 1998)
Matanovic, A. et al. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume A, 2nd edition (Sahovski
Informator 1996)
Neishtadt, I. The Queen's Gambit Accepted (Cadogan 1997)
Nunn, J., Burgess, G., Emms, J. & Gallagher, J. Nunn's Chess Openings (Every-
man/Gambit 1999)
Pedersen, S. The Dutch for the Attacking Player (Batsford 1996)
Soltis, A. Bird-Larsen Attack (Chess Digest 1989)
Suba, M. The Hedgehog (Batsford 2000)
Watson, J.L. English 1... P-K4 (Batsford 1979)
Wells, P. The Complete Semi-Slav (Batsford 1994)

Books (reversed openings)

Basman, M. The New St. George (Cadogan 1993)
Bellin, R. The Classical Dutch (Batsford 1977)
Gallagher, J. The Trompowsky (Cadogan 1998)
Geller, E. The Complete Queen's Indian (Batsford 1992)
 Bibliography

Gerstner, W. Der Trompovsky-Angriffim Damenbauernspiel (Reinhold Dreier 1995)

Gligoric, S. Play the Nimzo-Indian Defence (Pergamon 1985)
Jensen, N.J. Fajarowicz-gambit (Eleprint 1995)
Keene, R.D., Plaskett, J & Tisdall,]. The English Defence (Batsford 1987)
King, D. English Defence (Everyman 1999)
Moles, J. & Wicker, K. French Winawer: Modern and Auxiliary Lines (Batsford 1979)
Tseitlin, M. & G laskov, I. The Budapest for the Tournament Player (Batsford 1992)
Watson, J.L Play the French (Cadogan 1996)

Books (general)
Bronstein, D.I. 200 Open Games (Batsford 1973)
Dvoretsky, M. Secrets of Chess Tactics (Batsford 1992)
Dvoretsky, M. & Yusupov, A. Attack and Defence (Batsford 1998)
Harding, T.D. The Games ofthe World Correspondence Chess Championships I-X (Batsford
1987)
Harding, T.D. Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures (Chess Mail2000)
Keene, R.D. A ron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal (Batsford 1991)
Keene, R.D. Grandmaster Strategy (Raymond Keene 1999)
Levy, D. & O'Connell, K. Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games, Volume 11485-1866
(Oxford University Press 1981)
Marovic, D. Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (Gambit 2000)
N unn, J. Secrets ofRook Endings (Batsford 1992, Gambit 1999)
Reinfeld, F. Hypermodern Chess: Games ofAron Nimzowitsch (Dover 1958)
Tartakower, S. My Best Games of Chess 1905-1954 (Dover 1985)
Wade, R.G. & O'Connell, K.J. The Games ofRobertJ Fischer (Batsford 1972)

Periodicals
British Chess Magazine
Check! (Canadian CCA)
Informator
Chess Mail (ed. Harding, T.D.)
Chess Monthly
The Chess Player
Correspondence Chess (BCCA)
Fernschach International
Kaissiber (ed. Bucker, S.)
The Myers Openings Bulletin (ed. Myers, H.E.)
New In Chess
Rand Springer (ed. Schlenker, R.)
Die Schachwoche

Databases
ChessBase Mega Database 2000
Informator
Chess Mail Mega Corr
http//www. bcmchess.co. uk/britbase
http//www.chesslab.com

5
 INTRODUCTION I

Why play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack? line' openings: that opponents are thrown
Many opening monographs have enthusiastic onto their own resources at an early stage.
titles of the form Wznning with the... , and invite Thus theoretical equality is turned into a
the reader to ingest some marvellous system practical advantage, whereas a theoretical
or other and rack up the points - either by plus against someone's pet defence (or coun-
encyclopaedic knowledge of main lines or the terattack) can easily be outweighed by their
methodical application of simple strategies. superior understanding of the types of posi-
So let us make it clear, first of all, that tion that arise in that opening.
White has no advantage in the Nimzo-Larsen. And in aesthetic terms there is an appeal-
The lines in £CO, for example, conclude ing leftfield quality about b2-b3. Kingside
mostly in'=' (equal) or 'ex:>' (unclear), with just fianchetti are so commonplace that some
a few ':t' (White stands slightly better) and players boast of fianchettoing their king's
even these ':t' seem optimistic. Nor is the bishop in every game, White or Black. The
Nimzo-Larsen a 'system' opening in which queenside fianchetto is more exotic, and the
the first moves are played parrot-fashion bishop looks quaint gazing down the long
regardless of the replies. There are system-like diagonal into the heart of Black's kingside.
elements in some variations- the plan ~bS, Subjective factors do count for something in
'LleS, f2-f4 in the reversed Nimzo-Indian chess, if only to induce a positive attitude at
(Chapter 4) for instance - but more often the board.
White (and Black) can do just about any-
thing. Anyone who likes to win their games Should I play 1 b3 or 1 tt:'lf3, 2 b3?
in the opening should therefore look else- The Nimzo-Larsen arises after either 1 b3 or
where. 1 'Llf3, 2 b3. Nimzowitsch almost always
That's not to say White can't win, of began 1'Llf3, Larsen usually with 1 b3. Of
course. In strategically rich positions, such as the modern practitioners, Minasian plays 1
arise in the Nimzo-Larsen, the player who b3, Blatny starts only with 1l2Jf3. There are
brings more to the game - in imagination, pros and cons to both move orders.
technique, spirit, or understanding - will With 1 b3 Black can reply l...eS! and does
generally have the better chances. 1 b3 also so in nearly 50% of games. This is sufficient
has the usual advantage associated with 'side- for a lot of players to be put off starting 1 b3.

7
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

On the plus side, White has more options in the Nimzo-Larsen can slide effortlessly into
all the other variations; e.g. against 1...g6 or and out of an English, Reti, Dutch, King's
1...d5 2 i.b2 ~g4. Also, the f-pawn remains Indian, Queen's Gambit, Bird, ... just as long
free to advance and take part in the fight for as White inserts b2-b3 early in the opening.
e5; with 1 lt.Jf3 this is only possible after a We have indicated numerous transpositional
later lt.Jf3-e5. possibilities in the text, often with an exam-
1ctJf3 prevents 1...e5. However, ifWhite ple or two (see the ubiquitous 'e.g.'); but each
is going to follow whatever with 2 b3, Black example may be only a taste of another
can cause a few problems: 1...g6, 2... i.g7 gets opening complex with its own accompanying
to the long diagonal first and disrupts White's body of theory.
development. 1...d6 and 1...ctJc6 plan 2 b3 e5! Some b2-b3 variations have not been in-
reaching 1.. .e5 variations after all - and with cluded, in particular those with e2-e4 arising
the knight prematurely at f3. Black can be from completely unrelated openings; e.g. 1 e4
even more tricky with 1...lt.Jf6 2 b3 d6!? in- c5 2 b3 or 1 e4 e6 2 b3. The only instances of
tending 3... e5 again, or 1...c5 2 b3 d6 and an early e2-e4 are specific Nimzo-Larsen
3... e5 when the knight on f3 might prefer to variations in which White attempts to exploit
be on e2. For maximum effectiveness 1ctJf3 a certain black formation; e.g. 1 b3 e5 2 i.b2
should perhaps only be used by those who f6 3 e4!? (Game 27) or 1 b3 g6 2 i.b2lt.Jf6 3
are comfortable with not playing 2 b3 in some e4!? (Game 58).
positions; e.g. 1ctJf3 d6 2 d4!. Nor have we attempted to present a reper-
toire for White or recommend defences for
What is included in this book? Black. There seems little point since every
Angus Dunnington has already provided an variation is theoretically equal, so that the
introduction to 1 b3 in chapter 2 of Winning struggle is mostly transferred to the middle-
Unorthodox Openings (Everyman 2000). So, game. However, if White wants to keep the
rather than aim at the same audience, we opening simples/he might stick to lines with
have produced a more complete reference e2-e3 and look first at Games 6, 7, 20, 28, 35
work on the Nimzo-Larsen. and 59 for a basic grounding. In turn, Black
Nevertheless, the amorphous nature of can defend in keeping with her or his usual
b2-b3 makes it impossible for a single book openings; e.g .... lt.Jf6, ... g7-g6 etc. for King's
to be fully comprehensive. Transpositions to Indian players, or 1 b3 e5 and 1...d5 respec-
and from other openings occur constantly as tively for 1 e4 and 1 d4 exponents.

Byron Jacobs and Jonathan T ait

April2001

8
 CHAPTER ONE I
1 b3 e5 2 jLb2 C2Jc6
3 e3 d5 4 jLbS jLd6

1 b3 e5 2 ~b2 '2:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 ~b5 ~d6 5 f4

This is the most straightforward and natu-
ral response to 1 b3 and the most critical.
Whereas in classical openings White has a
certain latitude to go wrong without risking
worse than equality, in hypermodern systems
where the opponent is allowed the centre,
the stakes are higher and inaccurate play of-
ten means a bad position. For that reason we
are covering this variation more thoroughly,
especially as it has been dealt with rather
scantily in openings literature hitherto.
As is usual in such positions, attacking the
pawn centre involves swiping at it from the
flank with one of the bishop's pawns. What Exploiting the pin on the long diagonal;
is not so usual is that here White can attack i.e. not 5... exf4?? 6 i.xg7 and wins. Black can
from both sides, the main continuations be- support the pawn by .. .f7-f6, .. .'ile7 or both.
ing 5 f4 (Games 1-5) and 5 c4 (Games 6-8). The most common response is 5.. .'iVh4+
Sometimes White postpones the attack and inducing a weakness on the kingside light
develops the king's knight: 5lLlf3 is the sub- squares before defending the e5-pawn. The
ject of Game 9, while 5lLle2 is Game 10- in alternatives 5.. .'ife7 and 5.. .f6 are seen in
which we also wrap up the odds and ends. Games 4 and 5.
5 .. JWh4+ 6 g3 'Vilie7 7 '2:Jf3
Gamel Increasing the pressure on e5. Black is
Pridorozhni-Gipslis perfectly OK after 7 fxe5 .i.xe5.
Decin 1997 7 ... f6
7... .i.g4 is Game 3.
1 b3 e5 2 ii.b2 ct:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 ii.b5 ii.d6 8 fxe5
For Black's main alternative, 4.. .f6, see the 8 'ile2 and 8 ctJc3 are seen in the next
notes to Game 10. game.

9
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

8 ... fxe5 9 ~xc6+ 16 ... Vi'g6

White has to insert this capture since if 9 Threatening ... .txg3.
tt::lxe5? i.xe5 10 'ii'h5 + ~d8! or 10 i.xc6 + 17 lt:Jf2 ~f5 18 ~g2 ~xc2 19 d3 !bf2+!
~d8! (Keene) and if 11 d4 i..xg3 + 12 ~d2 20 Vixf2 ~xd3 21 nd1 h5
i.f2 wins.
9 ... bxc6 10 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jf6!
Not now 10 ... i.xe5? 11 'ii'h5 +.

With two strong bishops and White's

weak light squares, Black has more than
enough compensation for the exchange.
11 ctJd3?! White's next does not achieve anything but it
It is probably better to take the second hardly matters as he has nothing to do ...
pawn as well, 11 tt::lxc6, although 11...'ii'e4! other than shuffle about and hope Black
gives Black very strong counterplay; e.g. 12 can't break in. If 22 'ii'd2 .tfS (or 22 ... .ta6!?
0-0 (12 ~g1? JiLg4 13 'ii'cl 0-0 14 tt::lc3 'ii'e8 23 e4 h4) 23 'ii'd4 'ii'e6 24 e4!? i..h3+ 25 ~g1
15 tt::ld4 'ii'h5 16 h4 .txg3+ 0-1 Cvetkovic- 'ii'f7! threatens ... 'ii'f3 and if 26 'ii'e3 d4! wins
Krnic, VrnjackaBanja 1974) 12 ...i..h3 13 ~f2 at once.
tt::lg4 and now: 22 lt:Je2 Vi'g4 23 lt:Jc3 ~g6 24 .l:!d4 ~e6
a) 14 ~f3? tt::lxh2! 15 ~xh2 i.g4 16 tt::ld4 25 b4?
(16 ~g2? ~f8 17 tt::ld4 i.xf3+ 18 tt::lxf3 ii'g4 This fails totally in its objective of pre-
wins, while if 16 d3 or 16 tt::lc3 'ii'g6) 16 ... c5 venting ... c6-c5; better to return with 25 ~dl.
17 tt::lf5!? (Wikman-Haufe, corr 1980) when 25 ... c5!
Black of course should have taken the knight: Since if 26 ~xd5 cxb4 wins or if 26 bxc5
17 ... i..xf5 with a clear advantage (if 18 tt::lc3 ~xeS 27 ~xd5 i..e4+ 28 tt::lxe4 'ii'xd5.
'ii'h4+, or 18 ii'e2/ii'fl 0-0 19 tt::lc3 'ii'xc2 or 26 bxc5 ~xc5 27 ~f4 c6 28 ~f2 ~xd4
19 d3 'ii'g4). 29 exd4 ~h 7 30 lt:Ja4 Vih3 31 ~g 1 ~e4
b) 14 tt::lc3 ifh1+ (or 14... tt::lxf2 15 tt::lxe4 32 'i'd2 h4 33 gxh4?
tt::lxd1 16 tt::lxd6+ cxd6 17 ~xd1 ~c8 18 tt::lb4 A final mistake. 33 'ii'f2 was necessary.
0-0 19 JiLc3 with an unclear situation) 15 33 ... 'iff3 34 lt:Jc5 'ifh1 + 35 ~f2 'ii'xh2+
~xh1 tt::lxf2+ 16 ~g1 tt::lxd1 17 tt::lxd1 with 36 ~e3 ~xh4 37 lt:Jxe4 'ii'xe4+ 38 ~f2
the unusual material balance of two knights ~g6 39 'ii'c3 ~h5 40 'ii'c5 a6 41 'ii'xc6
and two pawns vs. rook and bishop in Krnic- 'ii'xd4+ 42 ~g3 ~d3+ 43 ~h2 ~h4 44
Vuruna, Yugoslavia 1974. 'ii'c1 'ife2+ 45 ~h1 'ife4+ 46 ~h2 d4 47
11 ... 0-0 12 0-0 ~h3 13 ~xf6 .l:!xf6 14 'i'e1 +!?
.l:xf6 Vixf6 15 lt:Jc3 .l:!f8 16 ~e2 The blitz player's final throw.
If 16 tt::le2 g5! prevents tt::lf4. 47 ... Vixe1 0-1

10
 b3 e5 2 iL.b2 liJc6 3 e3 d5 4 iL.b5 iL.d6

There are also a couple of ideas borrowed

Game2 from the English Defence (1 c4 b6):
T .Wall-Crouch c) 9 fS!? ~xfS (or 9 ... ~f7 10 e4!?) 10
Sutton 1999 ctJxdS Vi'f7 11 ctJc3 ct:Jge7 12 0-0 (or 12 Vi'e2
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. 0-0-0 13 0-0-0) 12 ... 0-0-0 (but not 12 ... 0-0??
1 b3 e5 2 iL.b2 liJc6 3 e3 d5 4 iL.b5 iL.d6 13 ~c4 ~e6 14 ctJgS).
5 f4 ~h4+ 6 g3 V/Jle1 7 ttJf3 f6 8 ~e2 d) 9 fxeS fxeS 10 e4!? d4 (10 ... dxe4 11
Raymond Keene's move, which is usually ctJxe4 seems a bit better for White) 11 CiJdS
given as slightly better for White. Vi'd7 (not 11...Vi'd8? 12 ctJxeS) and now
8 ctJc3 i.e6 is the alternative and then: White must be careful not to get the ciS-
knight trapped; e.g. if 12 CLJgS ~g4 13 ~e2
i,xe2 14 Vi'xe2 ct:Jd8 planning ... c7-c6. 12 0-0
(threatening 13 ctJxeS) can be answered by
12 ... ~g4, so White should probably strike
with 12 c3 as Black's lack of ... c7-cS (com-
pared with 1 c4 b6) means that the centre is
more vulnerable.
Returning to 8 Vi'e2:

a) 9 0-0 4Jh6 10 fxeS fxeS 11 ctJh4?! (bet-

ter 11 e4 though Black is OK after 11...dxe4
12 ctJxe4 0-0 or 11...d4 12 ct:Jds Vi'd7)
11...0-0-0 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 Vi'e2 i,h3 14
Vi'a6+ ~d7 1S CLJg2 ~hf8 16 ctJa4 ~xfl+ 17
~xf1 ~f8 18 e4 ~xf1+ 19 Vi'xfl dxe4 20 Vi'c4
Vi gS 21 ct:Je3 Vi'h S 22 ctJc3 ct:Jfs 23 Vi xe4
ctJxe3 24 dxe3 Vi'f7 and White had to try to
defend for the entire game in McMichael- 8 ... 4Jh6
Chandler, London 1994, though he later a) 8... i,g4?! was played in the stem game
blundered and lost. Keene-Martin Gonzalez, Alicante 1977,
b) 9 Vi'e2 ctJh6 transposes below, but which continued 9 h3 ~hS 10 g4 i,f7 11
Black also has 9 ... a6! 10 i,xc6+ bxc611 0-0-0 ~xc6+ bxc6 12 Vi'a6 ~d7 13 ctJc3 d4 14 ctJe4
ctJh6 12 e4 d4 13 ctJa4 cS 14 fxeS fxeS 1S i,ds (if 14 ... dxe3 1S 0-0-0!) 1S ct:Jxd6 ~xf3
~hfl c4 16 ct:Jh4 g6 17 ~b1 ~d7 (better is 16 ~fl! .idS 17 ct:Jfs VieS 18 0-0-0 (or 18
17... d3! 18 cxd3 cxb3 19 ctJc3 bxa2+ 20 ~a1 fxeS fxeS 19 Vi'd3) 18 ... i,e4 19 d3 ~xfS 20
i.a3 and wins or 18 Vi'e3 ctJg4) 18 CiJf3 gxfS with a decisive advantage for White.
~hb8 (still18 ... d3) 19 d3 c3 20 i.xc3!? (if 20 b) 8... a6!? is interesting: after 9 i,xc6+
i.cl ct:Jf7 Black will open up the king with a bxc6 10 fxeS fxeS 11 ctJxeS ct:Jf6 White has
timely ... ~b4xa4) 20 ... dxc3 21 d4 exd4 22 an extra tempo (i¥e2) on 8 fxeS (see Game
~xd4 ~c8 23 Vi'e3 with a bit of counterplay 1) and can try 12 ctJxc6 (12 4Jd3!?) 12 ... 'iie4
in Chandler-Crouch, 4NCL 1998. Black later 13 0-0 ~h3 (13 ... ~g4 14 'iid3) 14 ~cl (to
blundered in time trouble and lost. defend c2) 14... 0-0 1S CLJc3 though the posi-

11
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

tion is still somewhat precarious. White could also consider 14 i.xc6+!?

c) In M.Williams-T.Thomas, corr NATT4 bxc6 15 'ifxe6+ 'ifxe6+ 16 ctJxe6 Mae8 17 0-0
1992, Black inserted 8... exf4 9 gxf4 before Mxe6 18 Mxf4 with a structural advantage.
9 ... a6 10 jLxc6+ bxc6 and this paid dividends 14 .. .'iUxe6+ 15 tt:Jxe6 ~xe6
after 11 Mg1?! (wasting time; better is 11 ctJc3 15 ... Mhe8 is worse after 16 0-0-0 Mxe6 17
4Jh6 12 0-0-0 or 11...jLg4 12 'iig2) 11...ctJh6 d4!.
12 ctJc3 jLg4 13 ctJa4 (now 13 0-0-0 d4 14 16 gxf4 Lt::lb4 17 0-0-0 c6 18 i..c4+ tt:Jd5
ctJa4 dxe3 15 dxe3 jLxf4 wins a pawn, or if 19 l:.hf1
13 4Jd1 o-o 14 4Jf2 jLh5) 13 ... o-o 14 f5? (14
'iff2 jLxf4 15 ctJd4 and 16 ctJxc6 is relatively
better) 14... 'ife4! 15 Mf1 ctJxf5 16 0-0-0? 4Jh4
17 d3 i.xf3 0-1.
9 Lt::lc3 i..e6 1 0 e4 dxe4
If 10 ... d4 11 4Jd5 then, apart from
11...'ifd7, 11...'iid8 (Keene) is also possible
since after 12 fxe5 fxe5 the knight on h6
prevents 4Jf3xe5 tricks; nor does White have
ctJg5, while if 13 0-0-0 a6 14 jLc4 (14 i.xc6?
bxc6 wins the d5-knight) 14 ... b5 15 ctJxc7+
'ifxc7 16 i.xe6 d3! is strong (17 'ifxd3?
4Jb4). Therefore White should strike with
c2-c3 again. With the two bishops White has the ad-
11 Lt::lxe4 exf4 12 Lt::lxd6+ '¥Vxd6 13 tt:Jd4 vantage, even though the bishop on b2 is
doing little at the moment.
19 .. J::[ae8 20 a3 ~f7 21 i..d3 g6
Otherwise developing the kin's rook
might cost the h7-pawn (i.e. i.xh7 g6, Mfg1
frees the bishop). White won't have been too
unhappy to see ... g7-g6, weakening Black's
fortification on the long diagonal, and now
tries to soften up the diagonals some more.
22 f5!? g5 23 h4 g4
Not 23 ... gxh4?! 24 c4! (intending 25 Mf4)
24 ... ctJe7 25 i.e2 (threatening i.h5+)
25 ... 4Jhxf5 26 i.d3! and the bishops are now
raking the kingside.
13 ... ~d7?! 24 c4 tt:Jb6 25 l:tf4 Lt::ld7 26 b4
13 ... 0-0-0! is more natural and if 14 ctJxe6 Preparing both c4-c5, i.c4+ and i.c2, d2-
Mde8 15 i.c4 ctJd8. Presumably Black was d4-d5. Black opts for an active defence, sacri-
worried about 14 i.xc6 bxc6 15 'iia6+ <it>d7 ficing a pawn to eliminate the light-squared
16 0-0-0, but the zwischenzug 14 ... i.g4! pre- bishop and gain activity for his rooks.
vents White from castling long, and if 15 26 ... tt:Je5!? 27 i..e2 Lt::ld7 28 i..xg4 Lt::lxg4
i.xb7+ <it>xb7 16 'ife4+ (16 'iib5+ <it>a8) 29 l:.xg4 l:.hg8 30 l:.f4?!
16 ... c6 17 'ifxf4 Mhe8+ 18 <it>f2 'ifxf4+ 19 30 Md4 was better, restricting Black's
gxf4 Me4 Black threatens d4 and f4. counterplay somewhat after 30 ... Me7 or
14 ifxe6+ 30 ... ctJe5 31 <it>c2 intendingMe1 andMde4, or

12
 1 b3 e5 2 !il.b2 tDc6 3 e3 d5 4 !il.b5 !il.d6

if 31...~g2 32 ~f1 ~e2 33 ~ff4 and 34 ~d6. .txdS ~e8 31 gS! ~f8 (not 31...fxgS? 32 e7+,
30 .. J:Ie2 31 l:rdf1 lt:Je5 32 ~c2 h5 33 c5 while if 31...fS 32 l:.a6) 32 gxf6 gxf6 33
l:rg3 l:.xf6+ ~e7 34 l:.h6 and White went on to
Now all Black's pieces are in the action. wm.
34 !il.c3 l:rh3 35 l:rd4 l:rhh2 36 l:rd8 lt:Jg4! 12 ... bxc6 13 0-0 0-0
Isolating the h-pawn, defending f6, threat-
ening ... CUd3+, and allowing the rook to re-
turn to defence.
37 l:.f3 l:.e8
Not yet 37 ... ~xh4? 38 ~fd3 ~e7 39 ~h8
'ittg7 40 ~dd8 and White gets in behind with
dangerous threats; e.g. 41 ~dg8+ 'ittf7 42
~g6, 43 ~hg8, 44 ~6g7 mate.
38 l:rd7+ l:re7 39 :d8 l:re8 40 l:rd7+
1!2-1!2

Game]
Ljubojevic-Portisch
Teesside 1972 This position is generally reckoned to be
equal: Black's pieces are sufficiently active to
1 b3 e5 2 iLb2 lt:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 !il.b5 ~d6 compensate for the worse pawn structure
5 f4 'iVh4+ 6 g3 'iVe7 7 lt:Jf3 ~g4 8 fxe5 and it is not so easy for White to get at the
8 h3 is the next game. weaknesses in any case. Nevertheless posi-
8 ... ~xe5 9 !il.xe5 tions in which the opponent can play for a
The English Defence queen sacrifice 9 win at no risk are not a lot of fun for the
lUxeS? .txd1 10 CUxc6 fails here because defender.
Black's c-pawn is on c7 rather than cS; i.e. 14 'iVf5
10 ... 'ifgS! (defending g7; not 10 ... bxc6? 11 With the option of'ifd3 while leaving the
.txc6+ 'ittf8 12 .ta3!). In the reversed posi- f4-square for the rook.
tion 11 CUeS+ and 12 'ittxd1 would give three 14 'iff4 is also played and then:
pieces for the queen, but here Black has a) 14 ...'ife7 1S l:.f2 ~ab8 16 l:.af1 l:.b4 17
11...c6! 12 CUxc6 a6 13 .ta4 bS. 'iffS CUe4 18 a3 CUd6 (if 18 ... CUxf2!? 19 axb4
9 ... !il.xf3 10 'ik'xf3 'ik'xe5 11 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 12 CUe4 20 CUxe4 dxe4 21 'ifcS!) 19 'ifd3 l:.b6
il.xc6+ 20 ~f4 CUbS 21 CUxbS l:.xbS 22 l:.a4 (the
White can also elect to keep the bishop, exchange of knights has lessened Black's
and it seems remarkable that only one player counterplay) 22 ... aS 23 l:.h4 g6 24 a4 l:.b4 2S
has ever done so. Nenashev-Glek, Tashkent ~ff4 l:.fb8 26 ~xb4 l:.xb4 27 ~xb4 'ifxb4 28
1987, saw 12 0-0 0-0 13 'iff4 'ifxf4 'ittg2 'iig4 29 c4 dxc4 30 'ifxc4 'ifxc4 31
(13 ... ~fe8) 14 ~xf4 CUe7 1S ~af1 and Nunn bxc4 with a clear advantage in the endgame
(in NCO) prefers White who has the bishop in McMichael-Lilley, British Championship
and the more active position. The game con- 2000.
tinued 1S ... ~ad8 16 .td3 c6 17 ~b4 ~d7 18 b) 14 ...'iid6 1S 'ifh4!? CUd7 16 l:.f2 ~ab8
g4 CUe8 19 e4 d4 20 CUe2 cS 21 ~a4 b6 22 17 l:.afl CUeS 18 l:.fs l:.b4 19 'ifh3 'ifd7 20
b4! ~c7 23 bxcS bxcS 24 c3 dxc3 2S CUxc3 a3 l:.bb8 21 'ifh4 f6 22 'ifd4 'ifd6 23 'ifxa7
CUd6 26 eS CUdc8 27 e6! f6 (not 27 .. .fxe6? 28 l:.a8 24 'ifd4 'ifxa3 2S CUa4 l:.fb8 26 'iff4
.txh7+) 28 .te4 CUd6 29 CUdS CUxdS 30 'i:Vd6 27 d4 CUd7 28 e4 g6 (28 ... 'i:Vxf4 29

13
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

~Sxe4 ~e8) 29 eS!? 'i¥e6?? (29 .. .fxeS 30 dxeS ~d2 (not 2S ... ~e7 26 ~c4! and 27 ~c8+ or 27
'ife6) 30 ~xf6! ctJxf6 31 exf6 ~f8 (if now 'iff3) 26 c3 'ifxb3 27 ~xa7 ~f8 and White
31...'iff7 the d4-pawn supports 32 ctJcS-d3- still has difficulties after 28 ~c7 'if a2 29 'ifh3
eS) 32 ctJcS 'ifd6 (McMichael-Tait, 4NCL ctJe4 or 28 'iff3 ~c2 29 ~c7 hS.
1999) when 33 f7+! intending 'ifxd6, ctJe6 24 ~d3 l:.fe8 25 l:.d4 h5 26 Wg1 a5 27
was the quickest win. l:.f2 ~2e7
c) 14 ... ~fe8 1S 'ifxeS ~xeS 16 ~f4 ct:Jd7 White hasn't achieved anything over the
transposes to the next note. past few moves, whereas Black has strength-
14 ... ~d6 ened his control over thee-file and threatens
14... ~fe8 is safer: 1S 'ifxeS ~xeS 16 ~f4 various infiltrations with his knight.
ctJd7! 17 ~afl f6 18 ~a4 a6 (if 18 ... aS 19 b4) 28 tt:Jg5 l:.e1+ 29 Wg2?!
19 lLld1 aS! 20 ctJf2 (if 20 b4 ~ee8 21 bxaS The beginning of an unwarranted winning
ctJb6!) 20 ... ctJb6 21 ~a3 ~ee8 22 ctJd3 a4 23 attempt. Better to accept a draw with 29 ~fl
ctJcS axb3 24 ~xa8 ~xa8 2S axb3 '\tf7 Y2- 1h ~1eS.
Tait-R.James, Birmingham 2000. 29 ... ~c6+ 30 Wh3
15 .l:U4 l:.ae8 If 30 ctJf3 ctJg4.
Or 1S ... ~fe8 16 ~af1 ~eS 17 'ifd3 ~gS!? 30 ... l:.1e5 31 l:.c4 ~b7 32 ~h4?
(17 ... cS) 18 ~fS (18 '\tg2) 18 ... ~xg3+ 19 hxg3 It was advisable to play 32 ~fS and if
'ifxg3+ with perpetual check in Prusikin- 32 ... ~e2 33 ctJf3 when it is not clear that
Bossert, Rieden 1996. Black has more than a draw: 33 ... ctJg4 34
16 ~a4 'ifdS 'ife7 3S ~xhS lLlf2+ 36 '\tg2 etc.
16 ~af1 cS 17 ~a4 would transpose (if 17
ctJbS 'ifb6); if instead 16 ... ~eS 17 'ifd3 ~gS
18 'i¥a6! pinpoints the queenside weaknesses;
e.g. 18 ... 'i¥cS (or 18 ... ctJhS 19 ~4f3) 19 'ifb7
'ifb6 20 ~b4.
16 ... c5 17 l:.f1
Black gets strong play if White takes the
pawn; e.g. 17 ~xa7!? 'ifb6 18 ~a4 d4 19 ctJd1
(if 19 exd4 exd4 20 lLlbS g6 21 'ifd3 ctJd7
intending ... ctJcS) 19 ... ctJe4 20 d3 (20 exd4
ctJxg3!? 21 hxg3 ~e1+ 22 '\tf2 ~fe8) 20 ... ctJd6
21 'iff2 ~e6 22 e4 fS or 21 'iff4 dxe3 22
ctJxe3 c4 23 ~e1 ~e6 and ... ~fe8. Portisch
suggested 17 'ifd3!? which does at least pre- 32 ... ~e7?
vent ... dS-d4. Portisch gives 32 ... ~xgS?! 33 '\txgS 'ife7
17 ... d4 18 exd4 cxd4 19 tt:Jb5 'i'b6 20 34 ~xf6! 'ifxf6+ 3S '\txhs 'unclear', but the
tt:Jxd4 c5 21 tt:Jf3 c4+ 22 Wh 1 cxb3 23 preparatory move 32 ... ~dS! (Fritz) is very
axb3 l:.e2 strong, then if 33 'iff3 ~eeS 34 ctJh3 'ife7
White has won a pawn and thus stands wins, or 33 'iff1 ~xgS! 34 '\txgS ctJe4+ 3S
better. Realising this advantage over the '\txhs (if 3S '\th4 'ifd7! 36 ~fs g6) 3S ... ~eS+
board is not so easy though, given the king- 36 '\th4 'i¥b6, while if 33 ~d4 'ifc8! (threat-
side light squares weaknesses and Black's ening 34 ... ~xd4+ 3S 'ifxd4 ~e4+!) 34 h3
active pieces. For instance, if 24 'ifaS 'ife6! ~xgS! 3S '\txgS ~eS+ wins after 36 ~f4 gS+
2S 'ifa6 ctJe4 26 'ifxe6 fxe6 27 '\tg1 ctJxd2 is or 36 ~fS ctJe4+.
equal (Portisch), or if 24 d4 ~fe8 2S ctJeS 33 !U5 ~e2 34 h3 g6

14
 1 b3 e5 2 ii.b2 fbc6 3 e3 d5 4 ii.b5 ii.d6

Preparing 35 ... l2Jh7 (not 34 ...l2Jh7?? 35 Another last throw: 58 ... ~xe4?? is stale-
~e5! 'ifxe5 36 'ifxh7+ ~f8 37 ~f4) and pan- mate.
icking White into giving up the exchange. 58 ....l:a5+ 59 ~g4 'it>h6 0-1
After 35 ~xaS! ctJh7 36 'ifd4! it is again not
clear that Black has more than a draw: Game4
36 ... ctJxg5 (if 36 .. .f5 37 'iff4! ctJxg5 38 'ifxg5 Munoz-R.Sanchez
~e4+ 39 g4) 37 ~xg5 ~h7 38 'ifc5 'ife6 39 Spanish Team Championship 1993
'ifd5 persisting to harass the black queen,
and now if Black tries 39 .. .f6 40 ~xh5+! gxh5 1 b3 e5 2 ii.b2 fbc6 3 e3 d5 4 ii.b5 ii.d6
41 'ifxh5+ ~g7 42 ~g4+ ~f8 43 'ifh7 nets a 5 f4 'iih4+
draw. The variation adopted in this game,
35 l:lxf6? 'ifxf6 36 l:lf4 'ifdS 37 'ifxd8 5... 'ifh4+ 6 g3 'ife7 7ctJf3 iLg4 8 h3, makes it
If 37 'ifc4 ~8e6! defends. appropriate to consider the immediate
37 ... l1xd8 38 lbxf7 .l:dxd2 5... 'ife7 at this point as 6ctJf3 iLg4 is roughly
equivalent: For 7 h3 iLxf3 8 'ifxf3 ctJf6 see
the notes to move 10 below, while 7 fxe5
iLxe5 8 iLxe5 i.xf3 can be compared with
the previous game.
There seem to be no cases where it bene-
fits White to have the pawn on g3 (rather
than g2) and none where it benefits Black to
have the pawn on g2 - which implies that
Black should always prefer 5...'ifh4+ to
5... 'ife7. Looking at the previous game, for
instance, Ljubojevic would certainly have
preferred the pawn to be on g2.
The only significant difference is in the
39 'it>g5? line 5...'ife7 6ctJf3 f6 when:
A final mistake. Better 39 ctJg5 ~xc2 40
~f6 or 39 ... ~f2 40 ~a4 (Portisch).
39 ... 'it>g7! 40 ~h4 .l:.d5 41 c4 l1c5
Threatening 42 ... ~e7 43 ctJd6 g5+ or 43
ctJg5 ~xg5! 44~xg5 ~e5+45 ~h4 g5+, while
if 42 ~f3 Portisch intended 42 ... ~e4+ 43 g4
hxg4 44 hxg4 ~f5! 45 ~xf5 gxf5 46 ctJd6
~xg4+ with an easy win.
42 l1f1 a4 43 bxa4 11xc4+ 44 g4 hxg4
45 fbd6 l1d4!
This way Black gets all the pawns. If
45 ... ~xa4 46 hxg4 ~g2 White can prolong
the game with 47 ctJe8+ and 48 ctJf6.
46 lbb5 .l:b4 4 7 hxg4 l1g2 48 'it>h3 7 fxe5 fxe5 8 iLxc6+ bxc6 9 ctJxe5 lt:Jf6?
l1gxg4 49 a5 .l:.h4+ 50 'it>g3 l1bg4+ 51 10 ctJxc6 'ife4 (as per the notes to Game 1) is
'it>f3 .l:.f4+ 52 'it>g3 l1xf1 53 'it>xh4 11f4+ obviously ineffective, but Black can be more
54 ~g3 l1a4 55 fbd6 l1xa5 56 lbe4 .l:.a3+ than satisfied with 9...'ifh4+ 10 g3 'ifh3 (for
57 'it>g4 l1a4 58 ~g5 which see the variation 5.. .f6 6 fxe5 fxe5 in

15
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

the notes to Game 5). 7 0-0!? is more attrac- White has several alternatives:
tive without g2-g3 having been inserted, but a) 10 c4 0-0 11 iLxc6 bxc6 12 fxe5 .i.xe5
7 etJc3! iLe6 8 0-0 looks best (c.f. 8 etJc3 in 13 d4 .i.d6 14 c5 'ii'e4! 15 0-0 (not 15 'iYxe4?
the notes to Game 2) 8... ltJh6 9 fxe5 fxe5 10 .i.xg3+) 15 ... .i.e7 16 \t>g2 l:.ae8 17etJc3 'ii'g6
e4! and then: 18 l:.ae 1 .i.d8 19 'iV f5 'iV xf5 20 l:.xf5 etJe4 21
a) 10 ... dxe4 11 iLxc6+ bxc6 12 etJxe4 0-0 etJxe4 l:.xe4 22 l:.f4 l:.fe8 lh-lh Van Wedel-
13 'ii'e2 is certainly worse for Black with the Kroncke, corr 1991. With the pawn on g2,
pawn on g2. After 13 ... iLg414 'ii'c4+\t>h8 15 Black cannot play this way: 9 c4 0-0 10 .i.xc6
ltJfg5 .i.d7 16 l:.ae1 ltJf5 17 ltJf3 l:.ae8 18 when 10 ... bxc6?? loses to 11 fxe5 iLxe5 12
lbf2 Black had no compensation in Arenci- d4 (Karasev-Kuzmin, St Petersburg 1999)
bia-Kaidanov, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. since after 12 ... .i.d6 13 c5 'ii'e4 White can
b) 10 ... d4 11etJd5 'iVd7 (not 11...'iYd8? 12 take the bishop. Black would be forced into
lbxe5 .i.xe5 13 'iYh5+ lbf7 14 l:.xf7 wins) 12 10 ... e4 weakening the long diagonal.
c3! dxc3 13 .i.xc3 lbf7 14 d4 a6? (better b) 10 0-0 is somewhat inconsistent since
14 ... exd4 15 lbxd4 0-0) 15 .i.xc6 'ii'xc6 White wants to attack on the kingside,
(15 ... bxc6 16etJe3 is also good for White) 16 though it does set a little trap as seen in Mi-
l:.c 1 .i.xd5 17 dxe5 0-0-0 18 exd6 .i.xe4 19 nasian-Kalantarian, Ubeda 2000 (without g2-
.i.xg7 1-0 Movre-Kuspiel, corr ICCF 1987. g3): 9 0-0 0-0-0? 10 .i.xc6 bxc6 11 fxe5 .i.xe5
6 g3 VJi!e7 7 t2Jf3 i..g4 8 h3 i..xf3 9 i¥xf3 12 'iYf5+ lbd7 13 .i.xe5 'ii'xe5 14 'ii'xe5etJxe5
t2Jf6 15 d4etJg6 16 l:.xf7 with an extra pawn. Also
9 ... e4?! is premature: 10 'iVg4 f6 11etJc3 if 9 ... exf4 White can try 10 ~xf6!? 'iYxf6 11
'ii'f7 12 d3! attacks the centre, while 12 .. .f5 etJc3 and etJxd5. So Black should play 9 ... 0-0
both opens the long diagonal and creates a and if 10 .i.xc6 (or 10 etJc3etJb4!?) 10 ... bxc6
target for g3-g4. With the pawn on g2 ... e5-e4 11 etJc3 exf4! 12 exf4 l:.fe8 as Rauzer gave
leads to disaster: 8... e4? 9 'ii'g3 f6 10 etJc3 (by transposition) in 1936.
'iVf7 11etJxd5! since if 11 ... 'iYxd5 12 .i.c4 and c) 10 f5!? is interesting. Dvoretsky-
Black can't defend g7. Dvoretsky-Makarov, Khramtsov, Moscow 1970 (without g2-g3)
Moscow 1971, concluded 11...0-0-0 12 .i.c4 saw 9 f5 e4 10 'iYf2 h5 11etJc3 (11 g3 h4! 12
'iYd7 13 0-0-0 a6 14 'ii'g4 etJa5? 15 lbb6+! gxh4 wrecks the kingside and Black will re-
1-0. Note that this doesn't work with the gain the pawn with ... 0-0-0, ... l:.h7, ... l:.dh8)
pawn on g3 since 9 ... e4 10 'iVg4 f6 11 ctJc3 11...h4 12 0-0-0 .i.g3 13 'iYf1 0-0 14 <it>b1
'iYf7 12 lbxd5? is refuted by 12 ... etJh6!. 'iYc5? (better was 14 ... a5 since, as Dvoretsky
explains, Black needs to be able to answer
etJe2 with ... .i.e5) 15 .i.xc6 'iYxc6 16 etJe2
ltJh5 17 f6! with a strong initiative. Dvoret-
sky also suggests 10...ltJh5!? forcing White to
castle short. The plan is no more effective
with the inclusion of g2-g3; i.e. 10 ... e4 11
'iYf2 h5! 12 etJc3 h4! 13 gxh4 0-0-0 planning
... l:.h7 etc.
d) 10 etJc3 (as in the game) is equivalent to
9 ctJc3 since White intends to attack with g3-
g4, reaching the same positions as after 9
etJc3 and g2 -g4.
10 ... 0-0!
10 t2Jc3 10 ... a6 11 .i.xc6+ bxc6 clarifies the posi-

16
 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 Cjjc6 3 e3 d5 4 i..b5 i..d6

tion and defends the d-pawn, then 12 0-0-0 ing knight's pawn. Hence 16 ... a5! with the
0-0 transposes to the game. 10... 0-0 is slightly idea 17... a4 18 ctJxa4? .l:xa4 19 bxa4 .l:b8,
more accurate since White can't take on dS while if the game proceeded in the same
anyway: 11 ctJxdS? ctJxdS 12 'ifxdS ctJb4 13 fashion 17 fS f6 (17 ... a4!?) 18 gxf6 .l:xf6 19
'ife4 (the only move) 13 ... exf4! 14 'ifxe7 .l:gS Black would have the option of playing
~xe7 1S 0-0-0 fxg3. If 11 0-0 Hardicsay rec- ... ctJeS.
ommended 11... ct:Jb4 12 .l:fcl a6 13 ~fl cS 17 ~xb2 aS 18 a4 Cjjb6 19 f5 f6 20 gxf6
with a good position for Black, while Lar- l:.xf6 21 .:gs litb8 22 ~a2
sen's suggestion 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 0-0-0 gives If 22 .l:hg1 ctJc4+! 23 \t>b1 'ifaJ forces a
Black a tempo on 10 ... a6. draw: 24 .l:xg7+ \t>f8 2S .l:g8+ (or 2S ctJd1
11 0-0-0 a6 .l:xb3+) 2S ... \t>e7 26 .l:8g7+ \t>f8 etc.
11...e4 12 'iff2 a6 (or 12 .. ~a3 immedi- 22 ... h6 23 .:!.g6 .:!.xg6 24 fxg6 ~e6 25
ately) 13 ~xc6 bxc614 g4 ~a3! was also OK 'ifg2 c5 26 .:!.f1 c4 27 ~g3 cxb3+ 28
in Hermann-Wilhelm, corr Germany 1991, cxb3 'ifc6
until 1S .l:hg1 ct:Jd7 16 gS ctJcS?? 17 ~xaJ
1-0. Perhaps Black intended to attack with
... ctJb6-c4 and wrote down ... ctJcS by acci-
dent. These things happen in postal chess.
12 i..xc6 bxc6 13 g4 e4
Dunnington suggests the line 13 ... exf414
gS ct:Jd7 1S exf4 .l:fe8 'with no worries for
Black'.
14 'ife2 i..a3!
By neutralising the enemy bishop Black
both impairs his opponent's attack and en-
hances his own.
15 g5 Cjjd7 16 .:!.dg1
Simpler to play 29 'ireS first, to avoid ...
29 ... {ijxa4! 30 'ife5
If 30 bxa4 'ifc4+ 31 \t>a1 'ifb4 the coun-
ter-sacrifice 32 .l:xg7+ is insufficient for per-
petual after 32 ... \t>xg7 33 'ireS+ ~xg6 34
ife6+ ~g7 and the king runs off to the
queenside.
30 ... Cjjxc3+ 31 dxc3 'ifxg6 32 .:!.xc7
.:!.f8?!
Black still has some chances after 32 ....l:d8
due to White's exposed king.
33 'ifxd5+ ~- ~

16 ... i..xb2+?! Game5

When attacking a fianchetto position the Narciso Dublan-Vivas
rook's pawn should, if possible, be advanced Catalan Championship 1991
before bishops are exchanged so that the
opposing pawn cannot blockade- especially 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 Cjjc6 3 e3 d5 4 i..b5 i..d6
so when there isn't an accompanying attack- 5 f4 f6

17
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

1974, or 11 'iVf3 4Jf6 12 4Jd3 0-0 13 Cbf2

'iVh6 14 jLxf6? :xf6 1S 'iVg2 ~eS 16 c3 'iVg6
17 e4 dxe4 18 Cbxe4 :f7 19 d4 ~h3 20 'iVc2
jLd6 0-1 Wikman-Watson, corr Finland-
Scotland 1981. Really White should bethink-
ing about a draw after 11...4Jf6, to which end
12 'iVfl! 'iVhS 13 'iVf3 or 12 ... 'iVh4 13 'iVf4
seems appropriate.
White has also tried 6 4Jf3 intending
6... 'iVe7 7 0-0 or 6... ~g4 7 h3, but this is an-
swered strongly by 6... exf4! with a clear ad-
vantage to Black after 7 ... 4Jge7 and 8... 0-0.
6 ... g6 7 ~h4
6~h5+
Black has scorned the check at h4 so
White puts it in himself (at hS) to force a
weakness on the long diagonal.
If 6 fxeS fxeS White has three ways to win
the pawn, none of which are any good:
a) 7 ~xeS 'iVh4+ 8 g3 'iVe4 with a clear
advantage to Black: 9 ~xg7 'iVxh110 'iVhS+
then 10 ... ~e7! 11 'iVgS+ ~f7 12 ~xh8
'iVxg1+ 13 ~f1li:Jce7 or 11 ~fl ~e6 12 ~e2
~eS! (not 12 ... li:JeS? 13 d4) 13 ~f3 ~xg7 14
~xh 1 :f8+ 1S 4Jf3 ~xa1 with two rooks
and a bishop against a queen.
b) 7 Cbf3 'iVe7 (or S... 'iVe7 6 Cbf3 f6 7 fxeS Theory has generally assessed this as in
fxeS) with a further split: White's favour. Practice has mostly favoured
b1) 8 ctJxeS? ~xeS 9 ~xc6+ ~d8! 10 d4 Black.
~xh2 11 'iVf3 4Jf6 12 :xh2 (not 12 ctJc3? 7 ... exf4!
'iVd6! intending ... ~g4) 12 ... ~g4! 13 ~a3? If 7... ~d7 8 jLxc6 i.xc6 9 fxeS i.xeS 10
(better 13 'iVf4 bxc6 14 i.a3 'iVe6 1S ~d2 jLxeS fxeS 11 'iVxd8+ (or 11 'iVg3 'iVe7 12
ctJe4+ 16 ~cl and White may survive) li:Jf3 e4 13 Cbd4 4Jf6) 11...:xd8 12 4Jf3 and
13 ... 'iVe6 14 jLxdS? (again 14 'iVf4 'iVxc6 1S now 12 ... d4! is equal. In Haessler-Barnes,
~d2 - Knaak) 14 ... 4JxdS 1S 'iVf2 ctJxe3 16 corr NATT3 1990-92, White tried 8 4Jf3!? e4
~d2 :e8 17 ctJc3 'iVg6! 18 :c1? (a final mis- 9 ~xc6 bxc6 10 Cbd4 cS 11 ctJe2 ~e7 12 g4
take; White had to play 18 ~cl) 18 ...'iVgS! 19 hS 13 :g1 :h6 14 gS fxgS 1S fxgS i.g4
'iVh 4 ctJc4+ and White resigned due to 20 when White gave up the exchange 16 :xg4?
~d3 jLe2+ 21 Cbxe2 :e3+ 22 ~xc4 bS+ 23 hxg4 17 'iVxg4 ~xgS and duly lost; instead 16
~b4 a5 mate (Piastowski-Herschel, corr East 'iVg3 i.xgS (or 16 ... i.d6 17 Cbf4) 17 'iVeS+
German Championship 198S). ~e7 would have been OK.
b2) 8 jLxc6+ bxc6 9 ctJxeS 'iVh4+ 10 g3 8 exf4
'iVh3! with a strong attack; e.g. 11 'iVe2 Cbf6 8 4Jf3!? used to be thought a good move,
12 4Ja3 CZJg4 13 d4 0-0 14 0-0-0 Cbf2 1S since after 8.. .fxe3 9 0-0 White has good
:hfl jLxeS 16 :xf2 ~g4 17 'iVe1 .l:xf2 18 compensation for the pawns; e.g. 9 ...'iVe710
dxeS? .l:af8 0-1 Szilagyi-Vaisman, Wroclaw li:Jc3 ~e6 11 4Jd4 'iVd7? (better 11...~d7) 12

18
 1 b3 e5 2 iL.b2 0.c6 3 e3 d5 4 iL.b5 iL.d6

:C.xf6! .tfs 13 lLlxdS 0-0-0 14 COxc6 bxc6 lS COgS+ ~g6 17 COe6 c;.tf7 are equal.
.ta6+ 1-0 Soszynski-Hansford, corr England 9 ... 0.ce7 10 0-0-0
1992-93. Also after 8... ~f7, instead of 9 exf4 In contrast to the previous lines where
transposing to the next note, White won with White mostly castled short, by going long
9 0-0 in Niemand-Mayr, corr 1990: 9 ...COce7 White is able to contemplate a future attack
10 g4 fxg3? 11 COgS+ ~g7 12 :C.xf6 1-0. Un- with h2-h3 and g2(g3)-g4.
fortunately lO ... hS! is a big improvement and 10 ... c6 11 iL.d3 h5
after 11 exf4 .txg4 12 CUeS+ ~g7 13 COxg4 In Rukavina-Viland, Pula 1999, Black tried
hxg4 14 'ifxg4 cofS Black had a clear advan- ll.. ..tfs 12 .txfS (12 .te2 intending 13 g4 is
tage in Haessler-Pineault, corr North Amer- reasonable) 12. .. COxfS 13 'i¥f2 hS 14 COge2
ica 1989. ltJgh6 lS g3 'i¥f8 16 ~b 1 .ta3 17 .tal aS
8 ... 'it>f7! and now rather than the time-wasting 18
'i¥b6? 'i¥e7 (threatening ... .tcS) White should
have worked on his own attack; e.g. 18 h3 a4
19 'if g2 axb3 20 axb3 'i¥b4 21 g4 COg7 22
CLJxdS!? cxdS 23 'ifxdS+ ~f8 24 .txf6 cof7
2S fS or 20 ... 'i¥d6 21 g4ctJg7 22 ndgl.
12 0.f3 0.f5
If 12 ... .tfS then 13 .te2! leaves the bishop
on fS as a target for either ltJd4 or h2-h3 and
g2- g4. Fritz suggests 13 ... 'i¥c7 (attacking f4)
14 g3 when 14 ... .tg4 (trying to trap the
queen) is answered by lS CUeS+ fxeS 16
.txg4. In general terms, though, White
shouldn't be unhappy to see the f4-pawn
9 0.c3!? disappear, opening lines against the black
If 9 cof3 (or 9 c4 cob4!) 9 ... li:Jce7! intend- king, as in the next note for example.
ing ... cofS. Gonsior-Novak, Czechoslovakia 13 ~f2!
1979, continued 10 CUeS+ ~g7 11 g4? when
Black could have safely taken the knight:
ll...fxeS 12 fxeS .tcS 13 eS+ d4. Instead
Larsen suggests llctJg4ctJfS 12 'iff2, though
Black is for preference after 12 ... c6 followed
by ... h7-hS, ... ltJgh6.
White can elect to take the knight before it
does anything nasty: 9 .txc6 bxc6 10 cof3
when lO ... hS 11 0-0 .ta6 12 :C.el coh6 13
cod4 is unclear, or if 10 ...'ife7+ 11 ~dl and
then: ll...'ife6! (ll.. ..tfs 12 :C.el 'ifd713 h3)
12 h3 lLle7 (12 ... hS!? 13 nel 'iffs is possible)
13 nel 'iffs and now 14 'ifh6!? (not 14
CUeS+? fxeS lS fxeS .tcS 16 d4 .tb6 and White is now ready to commence his
Black won in Lauren-Tikkanen, JSM 1994) kingside action with g2-g3, 'i¥g2, h2-h3, g3-
and Black can't take on f4 due to lS nxe7+, g4, while it is hard to find a plan for Black.
while 14... cS lS CUeS+ .txeS 16 fxeS d4 17 d3 Taking the f-pawn merely opens up the king-
fxeS 18ctJd2 or 14... 'ifhS!? lS 'ifxhS gxhS 16 side for White: 13 ... .txf4 14 .txfS .txfS lS

19
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

tt:.Jd4 ~e5 16 tLlxfS gxf5 17 ~xf5; similarly 5 c4

13 ... ~b6 14 ~fl! ~xf4 15 tLle2 ~d6 16 A different approach. 5 c4 initially pres-
tt:.Jg5+ or 15 ... ~h6 16 tLlg3. surises the d5-pawn but more often it is the
13 ... 'Llgh6 14 g3 iVa5 15 ~b1 e5-pawn that is affected as White advances
White doesn't want to lose his dark- c4-c5 to lure the bishop away from d6.
squared bishop and can now answer ... ~a3 5 ... dxc4
with ~al. Black's next is a wasted tempo Recommended by theory as a simple
since the queen was going to g2 anyway. equalising line. 5... tt:.Jf6 and 5... tt:.Je7 are in
15 ... .tc5?! 16 ~g2 b5 17 .l:!de1 .i.b7 Games 7 and 8 respectively.
Against 17 ... b4 White had prepared a
combination 18 tt:.Jxd5! cxd5 19 tt:.Jg5+ and
Black is helpless after 20 ~xd5, though even
without this 18 tLla4 (and h3, g4) is very good
for White.
18 h3

6 bxc4
White's alternatives are also interesting.
a) 6 ~xc4!? is proposed by Dunnington
who gives the game Karlsson-Schneider,
Hallsberg 1996, continuing 6... tt:.Jf6 7 tLle2
~fs 8 tt:.Jg3 ~g6 9 tt:.Jc3 a6 10 ~f3!? tt:.Jb4 11
And with 19 g4-g5 to follow Black seems 0-0 ~d3 when White consolidated his light-
to have no defence. In desperation he at- square control by sacrificing the exchange
tempts to exchange a few pieces. with 12 ~xb7!? ~xf1 13 ~xf1 ~b8 14 ~f3
18 ... 'Lld4 19 'Llxd4 .i.xd4 20 'Llxd5! and Black went wrong immediately: 14... c6?
Winning material. If 20 ... ~xb2 21 ~e7+ 15 tt:.Jce4! 0-0? 16 tt:.Jxd6 ~xd6 17 tt:.Jfs e4 18
<it>f8 22 ~xb7. ~h3! ~d8 19 ~g3 tt:.Jh5 20 ~g4 ~xd2 21
20 ... cxd5 21 .txd4 VJic7 22 'i¥f3 'Llf5 23 ~xg7 1-0.
.txf5 gxf5 24 :e3 b4 25 .l:!he1 a5 26 Black played rather better in the only two
ge6 .l:!h6 27 :xf6+! 1-0 other games we could find: 7 tLlc3 0-0 8
Black gets mated after 27 ... ~xf6 28 ~xh5+ tt:.Jge2 a6 (8 ... ~e8!? intending ... e5-e4) 9 tLlg3
~g6 29 ~xf5+ or 28 ... <it>g7 29 ~g5+ <it>h7 30 ~e7 10 a3 ~e6 11 ~c2 tLla5! 12 tLlce4 tLlxe4
~xf6. 13 tt:.Jxe4 fS 14 tt:.Jxd6 cxd6 15 ~c3 tt:.Jxc4 16
bxc4 ~ac8 17 d3 e4 18 ~d1 f4 19 ~d4 exd3
Game6 20 ~xd3 ~xc4 and Black won (Cafferty-
W .Powell-Gibbs Botterill, Birmingham 1975). Or 6...~g5!? 7
corr BCCC Candidates 1985-86 ~f3 tt:.Jf6 8 tt:.Jh3 'i¥g6 9 ~g3 ~g4 10 f4?
'ifc2! 11 ~xeS 'ifd1+ 12 <it>f2 tLle4 mate
1 b3 e5 2 .i.b2 'Llc6 3 e3 d5 4 .i.b5 .i.d6 (Hagenauer-Loidl, Werfen 1996).

20
 1 b3 e5 2 ii.b2 {jjc6 3 e3 d5 4 ii.b5 ii.d6

b) 6 .i.xc6+ bxc6 is premature as Black shows up c6) 9 .i.xc4 (or 9 bxc4 'ife7)
becomes very active: 7 bxc4 Mb8! 8 i!Lc3 (if 8 9... 'Llf6 10 'Llc3 a6 11 0-0 b5 12 ~d3 0-0 and
'ifc2 'ifgS! upsets White's plans) 8... 'Llf6 9 now White should have played 13 a3!? rather
'ifc2 (if 9 d4 lt:Je4 or 9 c5 .i.xc5 10 .i.xe5 0-0 than 13 Mel 'ife7 14 'Llg5 as Black could
with a big lead in development) 9 ... 'ife7 10 then have fought for the light squares with
'Llf3 c5 (preventing c4-c5, though 10 ... 0-0 11 14 ... 'Llb4! 15 ~b1 i.g4 (instead he gave a
c5 .i.xc5 12 'Llxe5 .i.b7 is more than OK for pawn away with 14 ... e4?).
Black) 11 0-0 e4 12 'Lle1 0-0 13 f4 .i.fS 14 6 ... ii.d7
'Lla3 h5 15 Mel h4 16 'Llf3 g6? 17 'Llxh4 with Almost always played in order to preserve
an undeserved pawn in Wiezer-Kunath, corr the black pawn structure. 6... 'Llf6 7 ~xc6+ (if
Germany 1985. 7 d3 i.d7!) 7... bxc6 is also OK, though Black
c) 6 'Llf3 offers a pawn. Black can decline must be careful: 8 c5 (if 8 d3 e4!? or 8 'ifc2
with 6... 'ife7 transposing to the game after 7 'ife7 9 d3 e4!?) 8... .i.xc5 9 i.xe5 0-0 10 'Lle2
bxc4 i.d7, but it is better to accept: 6...cxb3! 'Llg4?! (better 10 ... i.d6 at once, followed by
7 'ifxb3 (not 7 'Llxe5? ~xeS 8 .i.xe5 'ifgS! ... c7-c5) 11 .i.g3 .td6 12 'Llbc3 .txg3?!
wins) 7... 'ife7 and if 8 ~xc6+ bxc6 9 'ifc3 (12 ... c5) 13 hxg3 'iff6?! (13 ... c5) 14 f3 'Lle5 15
Mb8 10 'ifxc6+ ~d7 11 'ifc2 'Llf6 12 d3 e4! d4 'Lld7 16 'ifd3 16 ... h6 17 g4 Me8? (last
13 dxe4 'ifxe4 and Black is better; e.g. 14 chance for 17... c5) 18 'Lle4 'ife7 19 Mel 'Llf6
'ifxe4+ 'Llxe4 15 .i.d4 ~b4+ 16 \t>f1 ~b5+ 17 20 'Llxf6+ 'ifxf6 21 Mh5! g6 22 Mhc5 and
\t>g1 f6 (the bishop on d4 is starting to run White was in total control in Akishin-
out of squares) 18 .i.xa7 Mb7 19 .i.d4 ~d3 Rubcov, Roslavl1989.
20 'Llh4 c5! 0-1 Dorow-Aigmi.iller, corr 7 {jjf3 ~e7?!
Europe 1980-81 (if 21 f3 cxd4 22 fxe4 dxe3 The only move given in previous books
23 'Llf3 .i.xb1 24 Mxb1 i.c5 25 Mel Mb1!). but it may be a mistake- in which case this is
d) 6 f4!? combines both bishop's pawn the moment to look for improvements:
thrusts. After 6... cxb3 White has 7 fxe5! (not a) Black can reinforce e5 by 7.. .f6 (or
7 'ifxb3? exf4! 8 i.xg7 'ifg5) 7... 'ifh4+ 8 g3 7... it:Jge7) 8 0-0 (8 d4!? exd4 9 exd4 'ife7+ 10
'ife4 9 'iff3 'ifxf3 10 'Llxf3 il.b4 11 i.xc6+ \t>fl) 8... e4 9 'Lle1 'Lle5 10 d4 (10 f4!?)
bxc6 12 axb3 with the better structure, while 10 ... .txb5 11 cxb5 (if 11 dxe5 .txe5 12
if the d6-bishop moves then 8 'ifxb3 (8 'ifxd8 Mxd8 13 .txe5 ~xc4) 11...'Llf7 12
'Llf3!? bxa2looks a bit too much). In the two 'Lld2 'ife7 13 'ifa4 f5 14 b6+ 'ifd7 15 'ifxd7+
games with 6 f4 neither player took on b3. \t>xd7 16 bxc7 was roughly equal in Van
Jadoul-Krijgelmans, Antwerp 1999, saw Arkel-Goedkoop, corr Dutch Championship
6... 'ifh4+ 7 g3 'ife7 8 'Llf3 e4 (not 8... ~g4? 9 1989, but 0-1 next move as White withdrew
fxe5 ~xf3 10 'ifxf3 since c6 hangs, though from the tournament.
9.. .fxe5 10 ~xc6+ bxc6 11 'Llxe5 'Llf6 12 b) In Van Arkel-Posch, corr Netherlands
'Llxc4 0-0 is reasonable) 9 'Lld4 ~d7 10 1987, Black tried 7... 'Llb4 8 i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 9
'Llxc6 bxc6 11 .i.xc4 'Llf6 12 ~xf6!? 'ifxf6 13 0-0 'Lld3 10 'ifb3 c5 11 'ifc2 e4! 12 i.xg7?
'Llc3 'ifg6 14 'ifc2 f5 15 0-0-0 .te6?! (giving and now should have played 12 ... exf3! 13 h3
up the light squares) 16 'Lle2 .i.aJ+ 17 \t>b1 (if 13 gxf3? 'ifh3 14 f4 'Llf6) 13 h3 fxg2 14
c5 18 g4! 'iff6? 19 i.xe6 'ifxe6 20 gxf5 'ifc6? \t>xg2 'Llh6 15 .i.xh8 0-0-0 with a strong
21 tt:Jd4 'ifds 22 'Llbs 1-o. attack. Going back: 8 'ifb3! c6 (8 ... .txb5 9
In Choleva-Kopicka, Czech Bohemians cxb5 leaves the knight stranded) 9 c5! .txc5
1989, Black tried 6 .. .f6 7 fxe5 fxe5 8 'Llf3 10 i.c4 or 9... cxb5 10 cxd6 aS! 11 'Llxe5 .te6
~d7 (if 8...'ife7 9 ~xc6+ bxc6 10 'Llxe5 12 d7+! (12 'ifc3 f6 13 'Lld3loses to 13 ... Mc8)
'ifh4+ 11 g3 'ife4 12 'ifh5+! g6 13 'iff3 again 12 ... \t>f8 13 'ifc3 f6 14 'Lld3 and in this

21
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

strange position White is probably better. 10 ... i.b5?

c) A blitz game against Fritz threw up Preventing White from castling but the
7... ctJf6!? 8 i.xc6 i.xc6 9 ctJxe5 i.xe5 10 bishop is exposed on b5. Black has three
i.xe5 ltJd7 and the computer won after 11 other moves:
i.b2 'iYg5! 12 :g1 ctJe5! 13 'iYe2?? ltJf3+!. a) 10 ...'iYg5 11 'iYb3! when if 11...'iYxg2 12
White should play 11 i.f4! (preventing ifxf7+ ~d8 13 ctJxc6+ bxc6 14 :flttJe7 15
... 'iYg5!) when the only way to regain the ifxg7 or 11...0-0-0 12 ctJxc6 bxc6 13 0-0
pawn is 1l...g5 12 i.g3 i.xg2 and Black has White has a clear advantage; ditto after
essentially swapped two centre pawns for 11...ctJh6 12 ctJxc6 bxc6 13 0-0 0-0 14 'iYc3
two knight's pawns. f6 15 i.a3 i.xa3 16 ctJxa3 in Van Arkel-
8 c5! Leeners, corr Dutch Championship 1989
This standard idea for White, deflecting (0-1 again as White withdrew).
the d6-bishop, has been overlooked by the- b) 10 ... 'iYe6 11 'iYc2! when 1l...i.xg2? still
ory in this position. ECO, for instance, gives loses: 12 :g1 i.d6 (or 12 ...'ifh3 13 'iYxc5
8 0-0 ltJf6 9 c5? i.xc5 10 ..txc6 ..txc6 11 'ifxh2 14 ifb5+! c6 15 :xg2 'iYxg2 16 'iYxb7)
ctJxe5 i.b5! 12 :e1 0-0 and Black's bishops 13 ctJc4 'i¥g4 14 'ifa4+ and then if
are the important factor (Skipworth- 14 ... ~d8/~e7 15 h3! 'iYg6 16ctJxd6 cxd6 17
Rosenthal, Blisdale 1971). Larsen suggested 9 'i¥g4 or 14 ... ~f8 15 ctJb6! 'iYxa4 16 ctJxa4
d4!? as an improvement. i.c6 17 i.xg7+ wins. So Black has to play
8 ... i.xc5 9 i.xc6 i.xc6 10 t2Jxe5 1l...i.f8 (to defend g7) allowing 12 ctJxc6
'iYxc6 13 'iYxc6+ bxc6 with a good endgame
for White.
c) 10 ... i.d5! is best, and if 11 'iYa4+ c6 12
ctJd3 (Rakhorst-Schwertel, corr 1988) then
12 ... ctJf6! 13 ctJxc5 (or 13 ctJc3 i.d6)
13 ... ifxc5 14 0-0 (not 14 i.xf6?! i.xg2)
14 ... 'iYc4! with equality (if 15 'iYa3 i.xg2! 16
~xg2 ifg4+ forces a draw immediately).
White should prefer 11ctJd3! ltJf6 12ctJxc5
'iYxc5 13 0-0 when the central pawns give
him the better chances.
11 ~b3 c6
If 1l...i.a6 12 'ifa4+ ~d8 13 ctJc6+ bxc6
There are two major benefits to playing 8 14 'ifxa6 is clearly better for White.
c5 before castling: ... ..tb5 does not then hit a 12 t2Jc3 i.a6
rook on fl, and the absence of ... ctJf6 means If 12 .. .f6 13ctJxb5 fxe5 White intended 14
that g7 is still a tactical weakness. White now :c1 i.b6 15 i.a3 c5 16 'iYa4 ~f8 17 'iYc4 or
threatens 11 ctJxc6, wrecking Black's pawn 14 ... i.b4 15 :c4!, while if 14 ... 0-0-0 15 'ifc2!
structure, so the bishop must either be i.b4 (if 15 ... i.b6 16 'iYf5+ :d7 17 'ifxe5 or
moved or protected. White has calculated 15 ... :d5 16 'iYf5+ ~d8 17ltJc3 :d7 18ltJe4
that the bishop cannot capture on g2: i.a3 19 i.xa3 'iYxa3 20 0-0 with a clear ad-
10 ... i.xg2? 11 :g1 i.d5 12 ltJxf7! and 13 vantage) 16 'iYf5+ :d7 17 ctJxa7+ ~b8
i.xg7 wins, while if 1l...i.d6 12 ctJc4 'i¥g5 (17 ... ~d8 18 :xc6) 18 ctJxc6+ bxc6 19
13 ltJxd6+ cxd6 14 'ifa4+! ~f8 15 f3 and 16 i.xe5+ and 20 0-0 with three pawns and a
~f2 wins the bishop, or similarly 14... b5 15 strong attack for the piece.
'iYf4 'iYg6 16 f3. 13 t2Je4 t2Jh6

22
 1 b3 e5 2 iLb2 0,c6 3 e3 d5 4 iLb5 iLd6

Or 13 ... ~b6 14 tt:Jd6+ 'ifxd6 1S 'ifxf7+ by c4-cS. 6 'ifc2!? is also possible threatening
wms. c4xdS, ~xc6+, while 6 tt:Je2 is Kosten-
14 'ifc2 i.b6 15 0,xc6! Hebden (Game 10).
6 ... 'ife7
This position can also arise via SltJf3 'i'e7
6 c4 tt:Jf6.
a) 6... dxc4 7 bxc4 transposes back to
S... dxc4.
b) 6... ~g4?! 7 'ifc2! ~xf3 8 gxf3 is a posi-
tional mistake: Black has given up the impor-
tant bishop and in fact strengthened White's
centre. After 8... dxc4 9 'i'xc4 0-0? (9 ... 'i'd7)
10 ~xc6 bxc6 11 'ifxc6 tt:Jd7 12 tt:Jc3 fS (if
12 ... tt:Jcs 13 ~e2!) 13 0-0-0 %H6 14 d4 Black
had no compensation for the pawn in
Gretarsson-Vitor, Matinhos 1994.
15 ....:tc8 16 0,xe7 .:xc2 17 iLxg7 ~xe7 c) 6... e4!? is more challenging, gaining
18 iLxh8 light-square control at the cost of opening
With a decisive material advantage for the long dark diagonal and possibly a pawn.
White. The game concluded: This turned out well for Black in Chaves-
18 ... iLd3 19 f3 0,t5 20 g4 0,d6 21 0,xd6 H.Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1996, after 7
~xd6 22 iLc3 ..ic5 23 ~f2 b5 24 .:thc1 cxdS (7 tt:Jd4 ~d7 and 7 ctJeS ~xeS 8 ~xeS
1-0 0-0 don't offer White much) 7... a6 (if
7... ltJxdS 8 'i'c2!) 8 dxc6 axbS 9 ctJd4 bxc6
Gamel 10 'i'c2 ~b7 and after 11 'tJfS 0-0 12 g4?!
W. Wolf-Wrobel :e8 13 h4?! ~eS 14 hS? ctJxg4 White's posi-
Germany 1989 tion fell apart: 1S 'ifxe4? ctJxf2 16 ctJh6+ gxh6
17 :g1+ ~f8 18 'ifb4+ 'i'd6 19 'i'xd6+ cxd6
1 b3 e5 2 iLb2 0,c6 3 e3 d5 4 iLb5 iLd6 20 ~xeS ctJd3+ 0-1.
5 c4 0,t6 Instead White can win either the e4- or
c6-pawns, but then with an unopposed light-
squared bishop and White's central squares
(in particular d3) weakened by e2-e3 and c2-
c4, Black can count on good compensation;
e.g. 11 ctJxc6 'i'd7 12 ctJd4 cS 13 ctJe2 b4 and
White has trouble developing, or 11 ctJc3 0-0
12 ctJxe4 ctJxe4 13 'i'xe4 :e8 14 'ii'g4 ~eS
(threatening ... c7-cS) 1S b4 :a4! or 14 'iff3
~a3!? 1S ~xa3 'irxd4 16 0-0 'irxd2 (Fritz).
7 c5!
Again the thematic move to distract the
bishop.
7 ... iLxc5 8 tt'Jxe5 0-0
6 ttJf3 Black offers a pawn for active counterplay
White increases the pressure on eS again since if s/he defends c6 White gets a clear
and intends to deflect the defending bishop positional advantage:

23
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

a) 8... ~d7 9lbxd7 'ifxd7 (or 9 ...lbxd7 10 with ... lbxf2/e3 as appropriate.
'ifg4! - Dunnington) 10 ~xf6 gxf6 11 'ifc2 9 ... bxc6 10 it.xc6
~e7 12 ~xc6 'ifxc6 13 'ifxc6+ bxc6 14etJc3 Apart from accepting the pawn White can
with a wrecked black pawn structure in Tait- retreat the bishop and try to exploit Black's
C.Shephard, Sheffield League 2001. structural weaknesses; e.g. 10 ~e2 ~d6 11
b) 8... 'ifd6 9 0-0 lbd7 (9 ... 0-0 10 .i.xc6 0-0 lbe4!? 12etJc3 fS 13 f4etJxc3 14 ~xc3 a5
bxc6 11 d4 clamps down on cS, and after 1S :C.cl ~d7 16 :C.f3 :C.fb8 17 :C.g3 g6 18 'ifc2
1l...~b6 12 ~a3 cS 13 'ifc2etJe414etJd2) (Zwaig-Poulsson, Sandefjord 197S) when
10 ~xc6! bxc6 11 'ifc2! etJxeS 12 ~xeS 18 ... a4! 19 bxa4 ~xf4 20 exf4 'ifxe2 seems
'ifxeS 13 'ifxcS 'ifd6 14 :C.cl Black was weak OK for Black (if 21 :C.e3 'ifc4 22 :C.e7?
on the c-file (Gretarsson-Edvardsson, Ice- 'ifcS+). A more recent game saw 12 d3 'ifh4
landic Championship, Reykjavik 199S). 13 f4 lbf6 14 lbd2 lbg4?! (better was
14 ... :C.e8 1S lbf3 'ifh6 16 etJeS cS) 1S ~xg4
i.xg4 16 'ifc2 :C.ae8 17 lbf3 'ifhS 18 i.d4
:C.e6 19 h3 i.xf3 20 :C.xf3 :C.g6 21 :C.af1 a6 22
fS :C.h6 23 f6! gxf6 24 'ifxc6 and White won
(Arencibia-Watanabe, Merida 2000). Black
might prefer to get on with Poulsson's plan
immediately, i.e. 1l...aS!? 12etJc3 i.d713 d4
:C.fb8 (intending ... a5-a4) 14 'ifd2 .tb4 or 14
'ifc2 cS. Similarly 11 d3 aS 12etJd2 i.d7 13
0-0 :C.fb8, while if 11 d4 lbe4 12 etJc3 fS 13
0-0?! :C.f6 etc.
10 .. .l1b8 11 ~f3 ~d6

9 tt:Jxc6
9 ~xc6 bxc6 is less good:
a) 10 lbxc6 'ifd6 and Black has good
compensation for the pawn; e.g. 11 etJeS
~a6 12 d4 ~b6 13 ~a3 ~aS+ or 11 d4
'ifxc6 12 dxcS 'ifxcS 13 ~a3 'ifaS+ 14 'ifd2
'ifxd2+ 1S lbxd2 :C.e8.
b) 10 0-0 ~d6! 11etJxc6? ~xh2+ 12 <itxh2
(if 12 <ith 1 'ifd6! 13 i.aJ? 'ifxc6 14 i.xf8
etJg4 and ... 'ifh6 wins) 12 ...'ifd6+ 13 <itg1
lbg4 14 :C.e 1 Black can either take the knight
(14 ... 'ifxc6) or try 14 ... 'ifh2+!? 1S <itfl :C.e8
with a dangerous attack; e.g. 16 'ifc2 'ifh1+ 12 i.a4
17 <ite2 ~a6+ 18 d3 'ifxg2 19 <itd2lbxe3. Fritz suggests 12 i.xf6!? 'ifxc6 13 i.b2
c) 10 'ifc2 ~b7 11 0-0 :C.ae8 and then if and then if 13 ... .i.a6 14 etJc3 :C.fd8 1S :C.cl
12 d4?! ~d6 13 lbxc6 ~xc6 14 'ifxc6 lbg4! intending etJa4, but it's not easy to see how
(not 14 ... ~xh2+? 1S <itxh2 lbg4+ 16 <itg1 White is going to consolidate with the king
'ifh4 17 'ifxc7 :C.eS 18 'ifxeS!) 1S g3 (not 1S stuck in the middle.
h3? lbxe3! 16 :C.e1 'iff6) 1S ... 'ife6 (threat: 12 ... it.g4?
... ltxg3) while if the white queen retreats Better is 12 ... d4! (Nunn) with compensa-
then 16 ... 'ifh6 17 h4 and Black will break in tion; e.g. 13 'ifg3 dxe3 14 fxe3 (not 14 dxe3?

24
 1 b3 e5 2 ii.b2 tjjc6 3 e3 d5 4 il.b5 il.d6

~d3) 14 ... ~xg3 15 hxg3 ttJe4, or 13 0-0 If 5... a6?! 6 i..xc6+ bxc6 7 ~c2 (Larsen)
i..b7 (13 ... lt:Jg4!?) 14 ~g3 ~xg3 15 hxg3 can be answered by 7... ~g5!? (Dunnington)
:S.fd8. and if 8 cxd5 lt:Je7!. So White should play 7
13 'iVg3 'iVa6 14 f3 i.d6 15 Wif2 c5! i..xc5 8 i..xe5 with an extra tempo on
15 ~h4 is also good leaving f2 for the normal lines. 7 f4!? is also worth considering
king. The text enables White to answer (compare 6 f4!? in the notes to Game 6).
... ~d3 with ~e2. 6 ctJf3
15 ... i.f5 16 i.xf6 gxf6 Mainka was happy to try this line again,
If 16 ... i..xb1 17 ~xb1 ~xa4!? simply 18 albeit against an unrated opponent: 6 cxd5
~a1! with i..c3 and ~e2 or 0-0 to follow. lt:Jxd5 7 i..xc6+ bxc6 8 a3 0-0 9 ttJe2 ~h4 10
17 ltJc3 ~c2 ~b8 11 ttJbc3 f5. Black is already better
White is well on the way to consolidating and now White helped create a miniature: 12
his extra pawn. Black should probably now d4?? lt:Jxe3 0-1 Kurzawa-Mainka, Essen
try 17 ... c6 defending d5 and gaining access to 1997. If 7 ttJf3 ~ e7 shows another reason
e8, and if 18 ~h4 <it>g7 19 <it>f2 ~d3 with why 6 cxd5 is a mistake- this is the position
some compensation due to White's weak after 5 c4 ttJf6 6 ttJf3 ~e7 7 cxd5 ttJxd5 and
light squares and offside bishop. Instead he as seen above White should play 7 c5! not 7
gives up another to open some lines, but cxd5.
cedes control of e4. 6 ... 0-0!?
17 ... d4 18 exd4 i.c2
If 18 ... ~fe8+ 19 i..xe8 ~xe8+ 20 <it>d1 ~d3
21 ttJe4 stops everything, or if 18 ... c6 19 ttJe4
~fe8 20 ~e3 similarly to the game.
19 Wie3 c6 20 Cjje4 :ilfe8 21 ~f2
21 ttJxf6+? <it>f8 22 ttJe4 i..xe4 23 fxe4
~xe4 24 ~xe4 ~e8 gives Black more
chances.
21 ... ~g7 22 .S.ac1 il.xe4 23 fxe4 .S.bc8
24 .S.he1 .S.e6 25 ~g1
White has finally evacuated his king and is
now just two pawns up.
25 ... f5 26 e5 il.e7 27 'iVf3 .:g6 28 ~f1
l:1g8 29 Itxc6 nxc6 30 Wixc6 Wid3 31 As in the previous game Black gives up a
'ifc3 Wie4 32 i.c6 Wie2 33 i.f3 'ifb5 34 pawn for the initiative. Instead 6.. .f6 would
a4 Wib6 35 ~h 1 ~h8 36 d5 il.b4 37 Wid3 weaken the light squares, while 6... dxc4
il.c5 38 .S.c1 i..d4 1-0 transposes to Larsen-Cafferty, Teesside 1972,
and Black either lost on time or resigned after 7 i.xc4!? (7 bxc4) 7... lt:Jf5 8 ttJc3 lt:Jh4 9
in face of 39 :c6 ~b4 40 :c4 winning the g3 ttJxf3+ 10 ~xf3 0-0 11 h4 i..e6? 12 i..xe6
bishop. fxe6 13 ~e2 with an obvious advantage for
White.
Game8 7 i..xc6!
Bagirov-Mainka The correct move order. If 7 cxd5 ttJxdS 8
Gausdal 1991 i..xc6 bxc6 9 ttJxe5?! the light squares are
shown up as weak after 9... ~g5! 10 ttJf3 ~g6
1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 ltJc6 3 e3 d5 4 i..b5 i..d6 (not 10 ... ~xg2?? 11 ~g1) and if 11 0-0 i..a6
5 c4 Cjje7 12 :e 1 ttJb4 threatens forks at both c2 and

25
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

d3, while if 10 d3? tt:Jxe3! 11 fxe3 'ifxg2 since 'ifxd3+ 22 ~cl or 19 ... i.xd3 20 tt:Jc3 i.a6 21
now the i.b2 is unfortunately en prise along ~c 1 and the extra piece should win easily
the rank. enough.
7 ... tt:'lxc6 8 cxd5 tt:'lb4 9 d3 tt:'lxd5 10 17 ~d2 'ifxf2+ 18 'ife2 ~d4 19 tt:'lc3
tt:'lxe5 i..xe5 i..g4 20 'ift1! l:.ae8 21 i..g1
Now 10 ...'ifg5? 11 tt:Jf3! is just good for
White; or if 10 ...'iff6 11 d4.
11 i..xe5 'ifg5
If 11...tt:Jb4 12 0-0 tt:Jxd3 13 i.xc7! regains
the pawn. .
12 i..g3 h5
The sacrifice 12 ... tt:Jxe3 13 fxe3 'ifxe3+
doesn't achieve anything after 14 ~fl i.f5
15 i.f2! i.xd3+ 16 ~gl (Bagirov).
13 h4?
This gives Black a tempo to attack the
light squares. Bagirov rejected 13 tt:Jd2 be-
cause of 13 ... i.g4 14 'Qjf3 'iff6 15 h4 i.xf3
16 gxf3 tt:Jc3 17 'ifc2 'ifxf3 etc. But as ... h5- 21 ... 'irb4?
h4 is not an immediate threat (15 ... h4? 16 Another mistake; though if 21...Me3!? 22
i.xh4 i.xf3 17 'ifxf3!) White might try 15 Mh2! (not 22 ~c2? i.e2 23 'ifcl i.xd3+ 24
l:.cl!? intending 16 h3 or 16 d4; e.g. 15 ... c6 ~b2 b5) 22 ... b5 23 Mel b4 24 tt:Je4 'ifxd5 25
(defending the knight; not 15 ... l:.ad8? 16 Mc4 i.e2 26 'ifxe2 Mxe2+ 27l:.xe2 (Bagirov)
i.h4) 16 d4 (if 16 h3 i.xf3 18 'ifxf3 'ifb2!) when the rook, bishop and knight should
16 ... h4 17 i.e5. beat the queen (27 .. .f3 28 l:.f2 and 29 i.h2
13 .. .'ifg6 14 e4 f5? mobilises).
An unnecessary piece sacrifice. 14 ... tt:Je3? 22 ~c2 f3 23 'ift2!
is inadequate after 15 'iVd2! tt:Jxg2+ 16 ~fl Preparing to consolidate with the simple
'iff6 (or 16 .. .f5 17 exf5) 17 ~xg2 'ifxal? 18 'ifd4.
tt:Jc3. However, 14 ... tt:Jb4! (Dunnington) 23 ... l:.f7 24 'ifc5 'ift4 25 i..t2 ~fe7 26
seems to equalise: if 15 a3? i.g4! is good for l:.ae 1 l:.xe 1 27 l:.xe 1 1-0
Black since 16 'ifd2 tt:Jxd3+! 17 'ifxd3 l:.ad8 And with no attack left for the piece Black
pins the queen to mate, or 16 f3 i.xf3! 17 resigned.
'ifxf3 tt:Jc2 + 18 ~d 1 ctJxa 1 19 l2Jd2 'ifc6
frees the knight. White has to play 15 0-0 Game9
when 15 ... l:.d8 16 i.xc7 l:.xd3 17 'ife2 'iff6 Bricard-Anic
18 tt:Jd2 'ifxh4 regains the pawn or if 16 'ife2 Montpellier 1988
'iVg4.
15 exd5 f4 16 i..h2 'ifxg2 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 tt:'lc6 3 e3 d5 4 i..b5 i..d6
16 ... i.g4 17 f3 l:.ae8+ is tricky since 18 5 tt:'lt3
~fl? i.f5! threatens 19 ... i.xd3+ 20 ~gl Not as critical as either 5 f4 or 5 c4,
'iVb6 mate or else 20 ... l:.e2, or if 18 ~f2 'iff6! though Black needs to be careful not to
19 d4 (or 19 fxg4 hxg4!) 19 ...'ifxh4+ 20 ~fl transpose to an inferior 5 c4 variation.
i.xf3! 21 gxf3 l:.f5! and 22 ... 'ifh3+ draws. 5 ... f6
White has to run the other way: 18 ~d2! i.f5 Black has three other ways to defend the
19 Mel! 'ifxg2+ 20 Me2 'ifxf3 21 Mxe8 pawn:

26
 1 b3 e5 2 iLb2 [fjc6 3 e3 d5 4 iLb5 iLd6

a) 5 .. Y/ile7 6 c4! transposes to 5 c4lines af- 7 cxd5

ter 6... dxc4 7 bxc4 i.d7 or 6... lt:Jf6 (see 7 i.a4 dxc4 (7 ... b5 8 cxb5 lt:Jb4 might be
Games 6-8 above). The alternative 6 d4?! e4 worth a punt) 8 bxc4led to a quick draw in
7 ctJe5 is strongly answered by 7... 'i¥g5!. Kholmov-Gipslis, Bardejov 1991: 8... lt:Jh6 9
b) 5...'i¥f6!? is provocative, putting the d3 i.d7 10 0-0 0-0 11 lt:Jbd2 lt:Jb4 12 ~xd7
queen on the same diagonal as White's 'i¥xd7 13 'i¥b3 lt:Jf7 14 ctJe4 ~e7 lh-lh. 7
bishop. Then 6 c4 (not 6 d4 e4 7 ctJe5 'i¥g5! ~xc6+ bxc6 8 'ifc2 is equally ineffective:
again) 6... i.d7 (if 6... lt:Jge7 7 c5! or 6... dxc4 7 8... ~e6 9 0-0 lt:Jh6 10 d3 0-0 11 ctJc3 'i¥e8
bxc4 i.g4 8 ctJc3 lt:Jge7? 9 c5!) 7 cxd5 lt:Jb4 8 (Rakhorst-Boll, corr 1983) or 8... 'i¥d7!? 9
i.xd7+ ~xd7 9 d4 e4 10 lt:Je5+ ~e7 11 ctJc3 lt:Jc3? 'i¥g4 10 0-0 dxc4 11 bxc4 'i¥xc4 12 d3
i.xe5 12 dxe5 'i¥xe5 13 ctJa4 'i¥d6 14 0-0 (if 'iVf7 (Chaves-S.Lalic, Thessaloniki Olympiad
14 i.xg7 lt:Jd3+ 15 ~f1 lt:Jf6 16 i.xh8 :xh8 1988).
with reasonable play for the exchange) The text 'leads to a highly unusual posi-
14 ... lt:Jf6 15 i.xf6+ gxf6 16 ctJc3 'i¥e5 17 tion' (Keene).
'i¥d2 :hd8 18 :ad1 c6 19 lt:Jxe4 ctJxd5 20 7 ... axb5 8 dxc6 bxc6
'iVc2 b6?! (better 20 ... lt:Jb4) 21 ctJg3 with ad-
vantage to White (Minasian-Krnic, Lyon
1990).
c) 5... i.g4 6 h3 i.xf3 7 'i¥xf3 lt:Jge7 8 c4
0-0! is more acceptable for Black after 9 cxd5
lt:Jb4 or 9 i.xc6 ctJxc6 10 cxd5 lt:Jb4!, so
White might consider 9 a3!? to keep the
knight out. 7... lt:Jf6 8 c4 0-0 is also possible: 9
i.xc6 bxc6 10 c5 i.xc5 11 i.xe5 ctJe4 12 0-0
i.d6 13 i.xd6 (if 13 i.b2 f5 14 d3 lt:Jg5 15
'i¥e2 f4 16 lt:Jd2 f3! with the attack)
13 ... 'i¥xd6 14 :ct f5 15 d3 ctJc5 16 'i¥e2?!
(better was 16 d4 ctJe6 17 g3 c5) 16 .. .f4 17
lt:Jd2 fxe3 18 'i¥xe3? :ae8 19 'i¥xc5 :e1+! 20 9 {fjcJ
:xe 1 'i¥xc5 with a clear advantage to Black An improvement on Liljedahl-Cooper,
in R.Wolf-Namyslo, Germany 1991. Nice Olympiad 1974, in which White got
6 c4 crushed after 9 'i¥c2 ctJe7 10 d4?! (better was
6 d4 e4 7 lt:Jfd2 is a reversed French with 10 ctJc3 f5 11 ctJe2 -Keene) 10 ... e4 11 l2Jfd2
extra tempi but White's pieces are not opti- (if 11 'i¥xe4? ~f5 12 'ifh4 h5 13 d5 c5! in-
mally placed. After 7... a6 (7 ... ~d7 is also tending ... lt:Jg6 trapping the queen) 11...f5 12
logical) 8 i.e2 (or 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 c4 i.e6 10 lt:Jc3 0-0 13 a3 'i¥e8 14 b4 ~e6 15 lt:Jb3 'ifh5
'iVc2 f5 11 ctJc3 lt:Jf6 12 0-0? i.xh2+! etc.) 16 d5 ~xd5 17 ctJxd5 ctJxd5 18 'i¥xc6 f4 19
8... lt:Jce7! 9 c4 c6 10 i.a3 f5 (Spraggett-Petit, :d1 ctJxb4! 20 axb4 .i.xb4+ 21 ~c3 fxe3 22
Paris 1991) and it is hard for White to gener- :c1 exf2+ 23 \tfl ~xc3 24 'i¥xc3 :ad8 25
ate winning chances against this strong cen- ct.Jd4 c5 26 ctJe2 'i¥d5 27 ct.Jg3 \th8 28 \te2
tre. e3 29 'i¥c2 'i¥xg2 30 \txe3 'i¥f3 mate.
6 ... a6! 9 ... CZJe7 10 d4 exd4 11 CZJxd4 0-0 12
Having weakened the light squares by .. .f6 iVf3
Black wants the light-squared bishop to leave Threatening the b5-pawn as well as the c6-
the board. Moves such as 6... lt:Jge7 or pawn. Actually White could win a pawn
6... dxc4 would be inappropriate. straight away by 12 lt:Jxc6 ctJxc6 13 'i¥d5+

27
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

~h8 14 'ifxc6, but after 14 ... ~b8 but his Black should first take the queen
pieces are forced onto awkward squares if he (22 ...'ifxc4) when White seems to have noth-
tries to keep it; e.g. 15 'iff3 (not 15 ctJxbS? ing better than a draw: 23 ~xd7 'ifxb3 24
i.d7) 15 ... i.b7 16 'ifh3 (or 16 'ii'g4 fS) ~xg7+~f8 (not 24 ... ~h8?? 25 i.f6) 25 ctJd4!
16 ... i.e5 17 ~d1 (if 17 0-0 'ifd2!) 17 ... 'ife8 18 'ifxb2 26 Lt.Jfe6+ ~e8 27 ctJxc7+ ~d8 28
0-0 ~a8 19 ~d2 b4 20 ctJa4 i.xb2 21 ~xb2 ctJce6+ ~e8 (not 28 ... ~c8?? 29 ~c7+ ~b8 30
with an offside queen and knight and fi- ctJxc6+ ~a8 31 ~d1 and wins) 29 ctJc7+ etc.
anchettoed rook. Nevertheless a pawn is a 23 ~xb4 MC5
pawn if White can unravel. Otherwise 24 lt.JgS and 25 'ifc4+ is very
12 ... .1£.d7 13 0-0 strong; e.g. 23 ... ~a8 24 ctJgS 'ife8 25 'ifc4+
With a slight advantage according to dS (if 25 ... ~f8 26 Lt.Jfe6+ i.xe6 27 ctJxe6+
N unn in NCO (without crediting the source ~e7 28ctJc7) 26lt.Jxd5! cxdS 27 'ifxdS+ ~f8
game). 28 'ifd4! 'iVeS (the only way to defend g7,
13 ... f5?! since if 28 ... 'ife7 29 i.a3!) 29 'ifxd7 and if
Better 13 ... b4 fixing the a-pawn. Then if 29 ... 'ifxh2+ 30 ~fl ctJe7 31 i.xg7+! ~xg7 32
14 ctJe4 cS and the light-squared bishop can 'ifxe7+ ~g8 33 'iff7+ ~h8 34 'ifdS wins.
seize the long diagonal. 24 .i.d4 tt:Jxf4 25 .i.xc5 tt:Jh3+ 26 gxh3
14 a4! ~g6+
Turning the backward pawn into a passed If 26 ... dxcS 27 'ifb8+ and the passed a-
pawn. pawn wms.
14 ... b4 15 tt:Jce2 'iVe8 27 ~f1 'iVd5 28 'iVc4 'iVxc4+
Black might still prefer to bring the bishop If 28 ... dxc5 not 29 'ifxdS? cxdS opening
to the long diagonal with 15 ... c5 and the rank but 29 ~d1! forcing 29 ...'ifxc4 30
16 ... i.c6. As played White starts to consoli- bxc4 with an easy win.
date his central control. 29 bxc4 dxc5 30 a5 ~e6 31 a6 ~e8 32
16 tt:Jf4 ~f6 17 ~d1 llh6 18 tt:Jf3 ~a5 19 tt:Je5 .1L.c8 33 a7 .i.b7 34 ~b1 .i.a8 35
'iVd4 'iVf8 20 ~fd1 tt:Jg6 21 'iVc4+ 'iVf7 ~b8 ~f8 36 tt:Jd7+ ~e7 37 tt:Jb6 1-0

Game 10
Kosten-Hebden
British Championship 1982
1 b3 e5 2 .1£.b2 tt:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 .1£.b5
Apart from the normal bishop move, 4
ctJf3 has also been tried. Then 4 ... e4 5 ctJd4
leads to Games 21 and 22 in Chapter 3. Or if
4... .td6 5 d4 (5 i.bS is the previous game)
S... exd4 (5 ... e4 6 ctJeS!?) 6 ltJxd4 ltJf6 7 i.bS
i.d7 8 'iff3 ctJeS 9 i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 10 'iffS
'ife7!? 11 lt.JbS 0-0 12 ctJxd6 cxd6 13 ctJd2
22 ~xd6?! ~ac8 14 ~c1 ~cS 15 0-0 ~fc8 16 i.d4 ~Sc6
An odd choice since 22 'ifxf7 ~xf7 23 with equality (Gonzalez Rodriguez-Chandler,
ctJd3 maintains White's plus. Then if Dubai 1986). White is still playing the same
23 ... i.c8!? 24 ~acl cS (24 ... i.b7 25 i.d4) 25 line 14 years on: 7 ctJc3 0-0 8 ctJxc6 bxc6 9
h3 i.b7 26 ltJfeS+. .te2 'iVe7 10 'ifd2 aS 11 a3 ~e8 12 0-0 'iVeS
22 ... cxd6?? 13 g3 i.h3 14 ~fe1 'iVgS 15 ~ad1 was equal

28
 1 b3 e5 2 Si..b2 ltJc6 3 e3 d5 4 Si..b5 Si..d6

again (Gonzalez Rodriguez-Macieja, Dos bxc6 8 tt:Jf3 0-0 9 0-0 l:.e8 10 tt:Jbd2 cS 11
Hermanas 2000). White lost both games. 'i'd3 ctJe4 12 ctJxe4 l:.xe4 13 c4 .ib7!? 14
4 ... Si..d6 cxdS i.xdS 15 l:.ad1 c6 16 h3 l:.e6 17 tt:Jd2?
Black can also defend eS with the f-pawn, l:.g6 18 e4 and White was better, but only
4.. .f6. Then Keene suggested 5 c4!? with the because Black missed 17 ... i.xg2! 18 ~xg2
idea S... dxc4 6 tt:Jf3!? cxb3 7 'i'xb3 with 'i'gS+ and wins.
compensation on the light squares. But gen-
erally White has preferred 5 d4 and then
S... e4?! is too ambitious- White's pieces are
well set up for this reversed Winawer and
.. .f7-f6 does not fit in at all for Black. After 6
c4! a6 either 7 .ixc6+ bxc6 8 .ta3 or 7 cxdS
axbS 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 'i'c2 is good for White,
while 6... JTLd7? loses to 7 'i'hS+. Piasetski-
Markov, Canada 1972, saw 6... .ie6 7 ctJc3
iL b4 8 tt:Jge2 tt:Jge7 9 0-0 .ixc3 10 tt:Jxc3 fS
11 .ia3! a6 12 i.xe7 'i'xe7? (better
12 ... ~xe7) 13 cxdS axbS 14 dxe6 b4 15 tt:Jds
with a clear extra pawn.
Better was S... exd4, though it is hardly 5 ... ltJf6
consistent with .. .f7-f6. Finegold-Zso.Polgar, S... tt:Jge7 is also OK; e.g. 6 0-0 i.e6 7 f4 f6
Dortmund 1990, continued 6 'i'xd4 .id6 (if 8 fxeS .ixeS 9 .ixeS fxeS 10 d4 'i'd6 11
6... ctJe7 7 ctJc3 .ie6 8 'i'd2) 7 tt:Jf3 a6 8 dxeS 'i'xeS 12 'i'd4 0-0-0 13 'i'xeS ctJxeS 14
.ixc6+ bxc6 9 c4 tt:Jh6 10 ctJc3 tt:JfS 11 'i'd3 ctJd4 .tg4 with an equal position (Brass-
ctJe7 12 e4 dxc4 13 'i'xc4 aS 14 eS fxeS 15 Richter, Leipzig 1998), or 6 c4 a6 7 cxdS
tt:JgS l:.f8 16 0-0-0 with excellent compensa- axbS 8 dxc6 ctJxc6 9 ctJbc3 b4 10 ctJe4 0-0 11
tion. White won the pawn back plus another 0-0 .ie7 12 'i'c2 fS 13 ctJ4g3 .ie6 14 f4 e4
but unfortunately time trouble took every- 15 ctJcl l:.aS! 16 d3 exd3 17 tt:Jxd3 'i'a8 and
thing away. Black was better (Csom-Botterill, Hastings
5 ltJe2 1974/75).
This is merely a waiting move. White 6 c4
holds off any central strike (c2-c4, d2-d4 or 6 d4 e4 is again a reversed Winawer; the
f2-f4) for a move or two. Apart from this positioning of the black knight helps White a
inoffensive development White has three little as f6 is not the most effective square,
remaining moves: 5 ctJc3 is even more harm- blocking both the f-pawn and the queen
less after S... ctJf6 or S... tt:Jge7. Similarly 5 from gS. Josteinsson-Petursson, Reykjavik
.ixc6+ bxc6 6 ctJe2 tt:Jf6, while 6 f4!? just 1984, continued 7 c4 (7 'i'd2!?) 7... 0-0 8
leads to 5 f4 lines since Black seems to have .ixc6 bxc6 9 ii.a3 aS 10 'i'cl .ia6 11 .ixd6
no way to take advantage of the early .ixc6+. cxd6 12 cS ctJd7 13 cxd6 cS 14 'i'd2 'i'gS 15
5 d4 e4 is another reversed Winawer but tt:Jf4 l:.ac8 16 ctJc3 'i'f6 17 tt:JfxdS 'i'xd6 but
significantly better for Black than the one now White blundered: 18 tt:Jf4? (18 l:.d1)
after 4.. .f6 above. If 6 ctJe2 'i'gS! is the the- 18 ... cxd4 19 ctJxe4?? (19 l:.cl) 19 ... 'i'e5 20
matic reply, or if 6 .ia3!? 'i'gS 7 .ifl is a true l:.d1 'i'xe4 and Black won.
Winawer. In P.Clarke-P.Littlewood, British 6 ... 0-0
Championship, Portsmouth 1976, Black took 6... dxc4 is also possible as the white knight
the pawn: S... exd4 6 'i'xd4 tt:Jf6 7 .ixc6+ prefers f3 in 5 c4 variations.

29
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

7 cxd5 White defends the knight and prepares to

White might try 7 ~xc6 bxc6 8 cS!? ~xeS challenge the attacking forces by <itg1 and
9 ~xeS though again the knight would prefer CLJe2.
f3. 18 ... a4 19 b4 ~b6 20 h3
7 ... ct:Jb4 8 a3 ct:Jbxd5 9 ct:Jbc3 c6 1 0 ~d3 Not yet 20 CLJe2? ctJxh2+.
ctJg4! 20 ... ~c4+ 21 ct:Je2
Black is already building up a strong initia- If 21 <itg1 Black has a choice between
tive. If 11 h3 ~h4 12 0-0 CLJgf6 White is just passed pawns for the piece with 21... ctJxe3 22
set up for a ... JiLxh3 sacrifice. dxe3 ~xf4 or simply 21...ctJh6 22 CLJe2 ~hS.
11 ctJg3 f5 12 'iVe2 e4 13 ~c2 ~e6 14 21 ... 'iVh5 22 ~d1
f4? Necessary since 22 <itg1? is met by
Perhaps intending 1S h3 ~h4 16 hxg4! 22 ... ctJxe3.
~xg3+ 17 <itfl but failing that 14 f4 just cre- 22 ... ~ad8 23 ®g1
ates big dark-square weaknesses. Anything else and Black would increase
14 ... ct:Jxc3 the pressure with ... ~d3. Now 23 ... ~xd2 was
The immediate 14 .. .'iVh4 is not so good possible when 24 ~xd2? and 24 hxg4? both
after 1S 0-0-0 (if 1S ctJxdS cxdS intending lose to 24 ... ~xe3+, while 24 ~d4 ~xd1! 2S
... ~c8) 1S ... CLJxc3 16 dxc3 ~cS 17 tt:Jfl ~f2 ~xd1 ctJxe3 26 ~cl ~xe2 27 ~xb6 ctJdS is
18 ~e1 ~ad8 19 h3 ~xe2 20 ~xe2 CLJf6 with good for Black, hence 24 CLJd4! ~xb2 2S
less of an edge for Black than in the game. hxg4 ~f7 with an unclear position; e.g. 26
15 ~xc3 'iVh4 16 ~b2 a5 ~c3 ~a2 27 ~xa2 ~xa2 28 ctJxfS ~e6 29
16 ... gS!? was possible and if now 17 0-0-0 ~xa4 (not 29 CLJg3? ~xf4) 29 ... ~xfS 30 gxfS
gxf4 18 exf4 (or 18 h3 CLJf2 19 ~xf2 fxg3) ~xfS 31 <itfl.
18 ... ~e7 and both a3 and f4 are en prise. 23 ... ct:Jxe3 24 dxe3 ~xe3+?
17 ®t1 Losing. Black had to play 24 ... ~xd1! 2S
~xd1 and then either 2S ... ~xe2 (not
2S ... i.xe3+? 26 <itf1) 26 JiLcl ~xe1+27 ~xe1
~d8 with a bind for the exchange, or
2S ... i.xe2 26 ~g3! (if 26 ~c3 ~xe3+!)
26 ... ~g6 (not 26 ... ~xe3+ 27 ~h2! ~xf4 28
~xf4 siLxd1 29 ~c7) 27 ~xg6 hxg6 28 ~e1
~xe3+ 29 ~h2 ~xf4+ 30 g3 ~f3 31 gxf4 (if
the ~h 1 moves then 31...il.d2!) 31...~xh 1 32
~xh1 ~d8 and ... ~d3, ... ~f7 when it is diffi-
cult to see how White can make progress.
25 ~h2 ~xe2
Now if 2S ... ~xd 1 White has the zwischen·
zug 26 ~c3! hitting c4 and g7.
17 ... ~c5? 26 ~xe2 ~xf4+ 27 g3 ~xg3+ 28 ®xg3
It starts going wrong for Black around 'iVg5+ 29 ®h2 ~d2
here. 17 ... tt:Jxh2+ 18 <itg1 ~xg3 19 ~xh2 If 29 ... ~f4+ 30 ~g1 ~gS+ 31 ~fl.
~ g6 wins a pawn but at the cost of the initia- 30 ~c1! 'iVf4+ 31 ®g1 'iVg5+ 32 ®t1
tive. Fritz suggests 17 ... gS! 18 <itg1 gxf4 19 ~f4+ 33 ~f2
CLJf1 f3 or 18 h3 ctJh2+ 19 ~xh2 ~xg3 20 And Black's threats are over.
~h 1 gxf4 with a clear advantage to Black. 33 ... ~e5 34 ~c4+ ®h8 35 'iVxd2 f4 36
18'iVe1! ~b2 1-0

30
 1 b3 e5 2 .i.b2 ti:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 il.b5 il.d6

Summary
After 5 f4 'ifh4+ 6 g3 'ife7 7 ct.Jf3 iLg4 White should prefer 8 fxe5 (to 8 h3) when s/he has a
slight advantage in the endgame. In turn, while Black can draw these positions, for winning
chances s/he should choose either 7 .. .f6 or, earlier, 5 .. .f6. Black should avoid 5...'ife7 as there
are no circumstances in which it helps to have the pawn on g2 rather than g3.
Against 5 c4 dxc4 6 bxc4 iLd7 it seems that 7 ct.Jf3 'ife7 8 c5! gives White the better chances
- in which case Black should play something else either at move 7 or 5 and be prepared to
sacrifice a pawn if required. Nothing else by White at move five should cause Black problems
as long ass/he is careful.

1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 ti:Jc6 3 e3 d5 4 .JibS i.d6 (D)

5 f4
5 CLJe2 - Game 10
5 CLJf3 - Game 9
5 c4 (D)
5... dxc4- Game 6
5 ... CLJf6 - Game 7
5 ... CLJe7 - Game 8
5 ... ~h4+
5 .. .f6- Game 5
5 ... 'ife7 -see Game 4
6 g3 ~e7 7 ti:Jf3 (D) f6
7 ... iLg4
8 fxe5 - Game 3
8 h3- Game4
8 'iVe2 - Game 1
8 fxe5 - Game 2

4 ... Ji.d6 5 c4 7 ctJf3

31
 CHAPTER TWO I
1 b3 e5 2 ~b2 4Jc6 3 e3

1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 tt:Jc6 3 e3 immediate 3... g6.

While the positions after 2... ctJc6 3 e3 dS A few words about the advance d2-d4:
are acceptable for Black, not every player Black can react in three ways: to capture,
wants a big centre for their opponent to bop push past or ignore.
at. So this chapter shows Black supporting If ... e5xd4 White will want to recapture
the e-pawn with 2...ctJc6 but not following up with a piece so that the fianchettoed bishop's
with 3... d5. Instead Black is content with a diagonal is not obstructed, and this requires
single central pawn, eS, and to reinforce this that either ct:Jf3 or ctJe2 be played first;
further by ... d7-d6. Naturally this could be against e3xd4 Black can usually reply
done immediately with 2... d6 but delaying ... d7(d6)-d5 reaching a reversed Exchange
this move ensures that Black has more in- French position in which White has no ad-
formation about the opponent's plans before vantage since the queenside fianchetto is
deciding upon a specific formation. inappropriate here, even as extra moves.
White now has the option either of With the knight on f3 ... e5-e4 is often
switching to an English formation with c2-c4 played. The point is that after ct:Jf3-d2 and
(this is included in the next chapter) or of ... d7(d6)-d5 by Black the white pieces are not
nevertheless assaulting the single bulwark coordinated in the reversed French. ct:Jf3-d2
with combinations of ~f1-b5, ctJg1-f3/ e2, fits into a reversed Classical French, but the
d2-d4 and f2-f4. Which is best depends on b3-pawn blocks the white queen's required
Black's move order. 2 ... ctJc6 3 e3 d6 (Games route to the queenside; b2-b3 is fine in a
11-13) is specifically designed to combat reversed Winawer but then the king's knight
~bS so White may do better to switch plans should be on e2. White's chances after ... e5-
at this point. After 3... ct:Jf6, however, 4 ~bS e4 mostly depend on whether the pawn sacri-
is certainly correct: Black has not yet ruled fice d4-d5 ... e4xf3, d5xc6 .. .f3xg2, ~g1
out ... d7-d5 and would probably play this ... b7xc6 is any good or not.
against an indifferent white move. 4 ~bS With the knight on e2, ... e5-e4 is not so
puts pressure to eS-pawn so Black must an- clever as White is set up well for a reversed
swer this threat- usually with 4... d6 (Games Winawer. However, as the knight does not
14-16), although 4... i.d6!? (Game 17) is also itself apply pressure to eS Black can often
playable. Game 18 sees Black essaying the just ignore the central attack.

32
 1 b3 e5 2 iLb2 llJc6 3 e3

talis, Bundesliga 1998, saw 5... a6 6 iLxc6+

Game 11 ctJxc6 7 d4 exd4 8 ctJxd4 ctJe5 9 0-0 iLe7 10
Minasian-Adams f4!? (10 e4) 10 ... ctJg4 11 'iff3 d5 12 ctJc3 ctJf6
European Team Championship 1992 13 f5 0-0 14 l:tad1 l:te8 15 ~h1 .£Lf8
(15 ... .£Lc5) 16 ctJde2 'ife7 17 ctJxd5 ctJxd5 18
1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 l£Jc6 3 e3 d6 'ifxd5 'ifxe3 19 ctJg3 l:tb8 20 'ifc4 b5 21 'ifg4
This move sequence (also 2... d6 3 e3 ctJc6) 'ifh6 22 ctJh5 l:tb6 with a typically unusual
is surprisingly absent from both Keene and position from two imaginative players.
Dunnington's books which look only at 5l£Je2?!
3 ... ctJf6 4 .£Lb5 d6 5 ctJe2 (see Games 14-16 This is the thematic posting for the knight
below). It is important because if White plays in the 3 ... ctJf6 variation supporting- and not
the same way then the delayed development blocking- a subsequent f2-f4 or d2-d4 strike
of the king's knight allows Black an impor- at the centre. As Black's play in this game
tant extra option at move 7. counters these advances White should
4 i..b5 probably choose another variation either at
move 5 (Game 12) or at move 4 (see Games
13 and 20).
5 ... a6 6 i..xc6 i..xc6 7 0-0 'i¥g5!

Adams liked this game so much that he

gave 4 .£Lb5 a dubious mark.
4 ... i..d7
4 ... ctJf6 transposes to 3 ... ctJf6. Black's Here is the important option referred to
other option to maintain the pawn structure above. 7... ctJf6 would transpose back to
is 4 ... ctJge7. ECO gives 5 ctJf3 a6 6 .£Lxc6+ 3 ... ctJf6 (4 .£Lb5 d6 5 ctJe2 .£Ld7 6 0-0 a6 7
ctJxc6 7 d4 exd4 8 exd4 .£Le7 9 d5 .£Lf6 fO .£Lxc6 .£Lxc6)- for which see Game 14.
'ife2+ ~f8 11 c4 .£Lxb2 12 'ifxb2 'ife7+ as 8 f3
equal (Szilagyi-] .Szabo, Albena 1970). All that If 8 ctJg3 h5! gives Black a strong attack;
is rather irrelevant since, as explained above, e.g. 9 f4 'ifg6 10 l:tf2 h4 11 ctJfl ctJf6 12 d4?
8... d5 is already equal; so 8 ctJxd4 is prefer- (12 h3 is essential) 12 ... h3 13 f5 ifg5 0-1
able, while Black in turn can opt for 7... e4. Munoz Muriel-Mateu, Oropesa del Mar
Since there is no advantage is the endgame 1996.
following 5 d4 a6 6 iLxc6+ ctJxc6 7 dxe5 8 ... l£Jf6!
dxe5 8 'ifxd8+ ~xd8 either (Choleva- White's position after 8 f3 didn't used to
Zvolanek, Czech League 1997), White more be thought so bad. Matthew Sadler won a
usually plays 5 ctJe2 (avoiding any problems nice game after 8.. .f5 9 c4 ctJf6 10 ctJbc3 h5
with ... e5-e4). The game Hodgson-Rozen- 11 l:tf2!? (prophylaxis) 11...h4 12 d4 0-0-0 13

33
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

b4 h3 14 g3 lLJhS lS 'ii'd2 ~e7 16 bS axbS the structural weakness created by f2-f3 gives
17 cxbS ~d7 18lLldS with the decisive twin Black another threat - as will be seen.
threats of 19 'ifaS mating and 19 f4 winning 11 a4?
the bishop on e7 (Sadler-A.Rodriguez, World Perhaps intending 11...d4 12 exd4 exd4 13
Junior Championship, Puerto Rico 1989). lLlbS!? with small chances (13 ... axbS 14 axbS
Adams' straightforward play leaves White ~e8). Whatever, Black now has a forced win.
struggling to equalise. 11 ... dxc4! 12 bxc4 jLcS
9 c4
White hopes to consolidate his position
with e3-e4, curtailing the power of the black
bishop on c6. Adams prevents this by break-
ing in the centre immediately. Black would
play the same after 9 e4.
9 ... dS! 10 tbbc3?!
Adams suggested 10 f4 exf411lLlxf4 dxc4
12 bxc4 ~d6 13 ~xf6 'ifxf6 (or 13 ... gxf6 14
'ii'e2 0-0-0 lS d4) 14 lLlc3 as unclear. The
course of Galkin-Rasik, Pardubice 1997,
didn't clarify anything: 14 ...'iVgS lS 'ii'e2 0-0
16 d4 ~fe8 17 g3 bS 18 ~ael ~ad8 19 'ii'd3
b4 20 lLlcdS ~xdS 21lLlxdS c6 (if 21...~xg3 The threats of ... ~xe3 or ...~xd2 are deci-
22 ~e2! intending ~g2) 22lLlf4 cS 23 dS aS sive. White had to try 11 cxdS lLlxdS 12
24 'ifc2 ~a8 2S e4 a4 26 ~g2 hS 27lLld3 h4 lLlxdS ~xdS 13lLlc3 ~d7 (Adams) when the
(27 .. .f6 28 'iff2 b3) 28 'iff2 f6 29lLlxcS hxg3 immediate problems on the dark squares can
30 hxg3 ~xeS 31 'iVxcS 'ifd2+ 32 'iff2 'ifd3 be averted by following Sadler's example: 14
33 eS 'ifxc4 34 exf6 'ifxdS+ 35 ~gl ~f8 36 ~f2 and if 14 ... ~c5 15 'ifc2.
~e7 gxf6 (36 ... ~xf6? 37 ~xg7+) 37 'ii'c2 fS? 13 ~h1 i.xe3 14 jLc1 .i.xd2 15 tbbS!?
(37 ...'ifd4+ 38 ~f2 fs) 38 ~dl ~ac8 39 ~g7+! No more than a swindling attempt.
~xg7 40 'ii'b2+ 1-0. 15 ... ~b8!
In Choleva-Folk, Czech League 1997, The most accurate move. 15 ... .txc1?! 16
White tried the unlikely move 10 h4!? and lLla7+ ~b8 17lLlxc6+ bxc6 18 'ii'b3+ ~a8 19
after 10 ... 'ii'xh4 11 ~xeS 0-0-0 12lLld4 ~d6? ~axel would allow White more counterplay.
(12 ... ~d7) 13 ~xd6 cxd6 14 lLlc3 hS? lS 16 tbed4
lLlxc6 bxc6 16 cxdS cxdS then 17 'ife2 ~b7 If 16lLlbd4 exd4 17 .txd2 'iVcS with two
18 'ifd3 would have been virtually winning. extra pawns. Black could play similarly after
If instead lO ... 'iVhS Fritz suggests 11 'ii'el and the text 16lLled4 exd4 17 .txd2 'ifcS 18 .tf4
if 11...~d6 12 d4!? or 11...0-0-0 12 g4!? ~d7 (Adams).
though it's hard to believe this is really any 16 ... jLxc1 17 tbxc6+ bxc6
good. With an extra piece Black now only needs
10 cxdS lLlxdS 11lLlbc3 0-0-0 transposes exchanges to win; if 18 'ifxcl 'ifxcl 19
to the note given at move 12. ~axel cxbS.
10 ... 0-0-0 18 'ifb3 cxbS 19 axbS 11ie3 20 11ia4 jLb2
Black has a very active position and 21 ~xa6
threatens to push the white pieces back with If 21 ~a2 .td4 22 'ii'xa6 .ta7 23 ~fal
... d5-d4. Also, the juxtaposition of black rook ~d6 or 23 ~b 1 'ii'b6 defends .
and white queen on the d-file, coupled with 21 ... jLxa1 22 ~xa1 l:!d1+! 23 l:!xd1 ~a7

34
 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 li:Jc6 3 e3

24 'iVc6 'iVb6 25 c5 'iVxc6 26 bxc6 Me8

27 g4 h6 28 h4 g5 29 hxg5 hxg5 30
~g2 ~c8 0-1

Game 12
Dvoretsky-Timagin
Bad Wiessee 1997
1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 li:Jc6 3 e3 d6 4 .i.b5 i..d7
5 tLlf3
The position at move eight in this game
was reached via 3... ttJf6 4 ~b5 d6 5 ttJe2
~d7 6 0-0 i.e7 7 d4 exd4 8 ttJxd4. Probably
neither of the players would venture the 5 ... tLlf6
route adopted below which is based on a one By the game move order (i.e. with ... tLlf6
move suggestion by Larsen. Nevertheless it not having been played) Black also has:
seems more appropriate with 3... d6 since a) 5... g6 6 d4 ~g7 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 lt:Jbd2
after 3 ... ttJf6 (etc.) White often prefers 7 f4. tLlge7, when Minasian-Pein, Cannes 1992,
Apart from the development of the king's continued 9 tLlc4 f6 10 tLlcd2 tLlf5 11 tLle4
knight White has two noteworthy alterna- ~e7 12 0-0 0-0-0 (not 12 ... 0-0? 13 i.a3) 13
tives: a4 tLlb4 14 ~e2 ~c6 15 tt:Jfd2 tt:Jd6
a) 5 ttJc3 intends ~e2 and 0-0-0. Barczay- (15 ... tt:Jxc2?! 16 ~acl tLlb4 17 ~a3) 16 tLlc3
Matulovic, Bajmok 1978, continued 5... a6 6 ~b8 17 i,a3 ttJxc2 18 i.xc6 ctJxa3 (White
~xc6 ~xc6 7 tt:Jf3 ttJf6 8 d4!? e4 (or 8... exd4 also has a strong attack after 18 ... tLlxa1 19
9 ~xd4!) 9 d5 exf3 10 dxc6 fxg2 11 ~g1 tLld5 or if 18 ... bxc6? 19 ~c5 intending 20
bxc6 12 ~f3 with compensation; if, for ex- ~a6) 19 tLld5 'ife6 20 ~xa3 bxc6 21 tLlb4
ample, 12 ... d5 13 ~xg2 g6 White has 14 tLlb7 22 'ii'a6 ~xd2? (giving up the exchange
ttJxd5!. In Groszpeter-Portisch, Hungary by 22 ... ~d6 23 tLle4 ~hd8 was the only way
1985, Black defused this plan by 7... ttJe7! and to stay in the game) 23 ttJxc6+ ~c8 24
White lacked an effective pawn break since if ttJxa7+ ~d7 25 ~b5+ ~d8 26 'ifxb7 'ifb6 27
now 8 d4 e4 9 d5?! exf3 10 dxc6 fxg2 11 ~g1 'ifc8+ ~e7 28 'ii'xh8! 1-0.
tLlxc6, while the game saw 8 ~e2 tLlg6 9 h4 b) 5... a6 is consistent and then 6 i.xc6 (if
h5 10 0-0-0 ~e7 11 d4 e4. 6 i.e2 e4!? 7 ttJd4 'ifg5 interferes with
b) 5 d4 a6 6 ~xc6 ~xc6 7 tLlf3 (7 d5 White's plans) 6... ~xc6 7 0-0 (for 7 d4!? see
doesn't do much for the bishop on b2) 7... e4 5 d4 above) 7... tLlf6 8 d4 e4 9 tt:Jfd2 ~e7 10
8 d5!? intends 8... exf3 9 dxc6 fxg2 10 ~g1 c4 d5 11 tLlc3 0-0 12 f3 exf3 13 tLlxf3 dxc4
bxc6 11 ~f3 with compensation as per 14 bxc4 b5 15 lt:Je5 i.b7 16 a3 bxc4 17
Barczay-Matulovic, while if 8... ~d7 9 tt:Jfd2 tLlxc4 c5 and now, rather than 18 tLle2??
~g5!? 10 tLlxe4 ~xg2 11 tLlg3 the white 'ifd5 0-1 (Stocklin-S.Salov, Zurich 1992), 18
central pawn may prove to be more impor- dxc5 was perfectly OK; e.g. 18 ... ~xc5 (or
tant since there is no obvious way for Black 18 ... tLld7 19 tLld6) 19 tLla4! i.e7 20 tLlab6
to force anything (if 11...h5 12 h4 tLle7 13 ~b8?! (or 20 ... ~a7 21 'ife2) 21 ~e5 'ifxd122
ttJc3 tLlf5 14 tLlce2 defends). Instead Black ~axd1 ~bd8 23 i.xf6 ~xf6 24 tLld7 and
can be content with the reversed Exchange White stands better if anything.
French after 5... exd4 6 exd4 d5! despite the c) 5.. .f5! reinforces the e4-square in antici-
loss of tempi, while Fritz suggests 5... ~g5!?. pation of d2-d4 and White doesn't really

35
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

have another plan: 6 d4 e4 7 tLlfd2 tLlf6 8 0-0 18 'i¥xc7 dxc4 19 bxc4 i..d6 20 'i¥a5 'i¥xc4
~e7 (8 ... d5 9 c4? tLlb4 or 9 a3 tLlb8!?) 9 f3 and Black won in 127(!) moves.
0-0 10 ~e2 CDb4 11 c4 c6 12 a3 CDa6 13 fxe4 11 ... ~g4
fxe4 14 CDc3 d5 15 b4 CDc7 16 b5 ~e6 with a If now 11...d5 12 e5 CDe4?? 13 e6! wins,
solid position for Black (M.Nei-Kytoniemi, while after 12 ... CDe8 13 f4 (or 12 ... c5 13 'i¥d3
Helsinki 1996). CDe8 14 f4) with a kingside initiative for
6 0-0 White. Perhaps Black should have played
6 d4 e4 (6... exd4 7 CDxd4 CDxd4 8 ~xd7 + 10 ... d5.
'i¥xd7 9 'i¥xd4 i..e7 10 0-0 is another route 12 f3 ~g6 13 c4 cuhS 14 cuc3 jLgS 1S
to the game) 7 tLlfd2 d5 creates a reversed 5 cudS cuf4
.td2 Winawer with the CDf3 misplaced and Black would automatically reject ... c7-c6
equal chances; e.g. 8 .te2 (if 8 c4 tLlb4!) on positional grounds as it weakens the d6-
8 ... CDe7 9 .ta3 (if 9 c4 c6 10 CDc3 CDg6) pawn, but here 15 ... c6! is successful tactically
9 ... CDf5 10 .txf8 <it>xf8 11 c4 c6 12 CDc3 h5 as Fritz shows: 16 CDe3 tLlf4 17 ~ae1 (not 17
(Martinez Carlos-D. Van Riemsdijk, Paulisto ctJh1 CDe2 18 'ifd3 CDg3+ 19 hxg3 'i¥h6+ 20
1998). ctJg1 .txe3+) 17 ... .tf6 18 'i¥xd6 (again not 18
6 ... jLe7 'i¥d2 .txb2 19 'i¥xb2 CDd3 or 19 tLlf5 tLlh3+
6... g6 is too slow now: 7 d4 .tg7 (7 ... e4 8 20 ctJh1 'iff6 21 gxh3 i..c3) 18 ... CDxg2! 19
d5 exf3? 9 bxc6 bxc6 10 'i¥xf3) 8 .txc6 CDxg2 i..xb2 20 ~d1 with an equal endgame.
.txc6 9 dxe5 tLlg4? 10 tLld4! 'i¥h4 (or The irrelevant 16 CDc3 i..d8! 17 ctJh1 i..b6 18
10 ... CDxe5 11 f4) 11 h3 CDxe5 12 CDxc6 bxc6 'i¥d2 CDg3+ 19 hxg3 'i¥h5 mate is also quite
13 f4CDf3+ 14 'i¥xf3 .txb2 15 'ifxc6+<it>e716 mce.
CDc3 .txa1 17 CDd5+ <it>e6 18 CDxc7+ ctJe7 19 16 ~h1
CDxa8 and White won in K.Nielsen- Pre-empting any tricks with ...CDxg2 which
H.Nielsen, Vejle 1974. can now be answered by ~gl.
7 d4!? 16 .. .cues 17 ~f2 fS 18 exfS ~xfS 19
Larsen's alternative to the English-type nad1
continuation in his own game: 7 i..e2 0-0 8
c4 ~e8 9 CDc3 i..f8 10 d3 h6 11 a3 and Black
was cramped but solid (Larsen-U .Andersson,
T eesside 1972).
7 ... exd4
7... e4 8 tLlfd2 d5 is at last less effective
since the bishop on e7 blocks the knight's
retreat to the kingside; White can pressure
the centre with c2-c4 and f2-f3; e.g. 9 i..e2
tLlb8 (or 9 ... CDb4 10 a3) 10 c4 c6 11 CDc3 0-0
12 f3 exf3 13 i..xf3.
8 cuxd4 cuxd4 9 jLxd7+ ~xd7
If9 ... CDxd710 'i¥xd4! is still possible since
10 ... i..f6 can be answered by 11 'i¥e4+. Now White has a definite advantage as the
10 ~xd4 0-0 11 e4!? tLld5 assumes a dominating role. Removing it
Ljubojevic-U nzicker, Milan 1975, saw 11 by ... c7-c6 now would certainly create a
c4 d5! 12 ~d1 ~fd8 13 CDc3 c5 14 'i¥f4 'ife6 weakness.
15 CDb5 CDe8 16 'i¥g3 (better 16 cxd5 ~xd5 19 .. JH7 20 nte1 cueS?
17 'i¥f3) 16 ... g6 17 CDc7? (17 cxd5) 17 ... CDxc7 Remarkably this seems to lose by force.

36
 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 0,c6 3 e3

Fritz comes up with 21 h4! and then if with 3l...~f2 32 'ifg3 'iff3+ 33 'ifxf3 tt:Jxf3
2l...ctJd3 22 ~xd3 ~xh4 (else White simply and mate on h2.
has two pieces for the rook) 23 'ifxh4 'ifxd3 31 ....:f2 32 ~g3 .:tf1 + 33 'l.t>g2 'iYf2+ 34
24 ctJe7+wins after 24 ... ~h8 25 ~e4 (threat- ~xf2 l:t8xf2+ 35 'l.t>g3 l:tf3+ 36 'l.t>g2
ening 'ifxf7 and ~h4) 25 ... 'ifxb2? 26 'ifxh7+ .: 1f2+ 37 \t>g 1 l:tc2
mates or 24 ... ~f8 25 'ifg5 threatening 26 38 0,a4
~xg7+ ~xg7 27 'iff6+ ~f7 28 'ifh8 mate. If 38 ~d8+ ~f7 39 tt:Jb 1 (to enable .:g8d2)
Black has nowhere to put the bishop: 39 ... .:gff2 wins easily enough. Now Black
2l.. ..th6 and 2l.. ..tf4 allow 22 ctJe7+, wins a rook.
21.. .~f6 22 ~xf6 and 23 ctJe7+ or 21.. ..td8? 38 ... ctJh3+ 0-1
22 ~e8+. 2l...c6 22 hxg5 cxd5 23 ~xd5 is A rather loose game. Fair enough that the
clearly no good for Black. players missed the anti-positional bolts
21 ~f1 ? .S.af8 22 i..d4 i..h4 23 :e3 15 ... c6! and 21 h4! which are the computer's
0,e4? forte, but you'd have expected White, a very
strong IM, to have seen the two-mover 24
.:gxe4 'ifxe4 25 ~f6.

Game 13
Sadler-H .Prahl
Bundesliga 2000
1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 ct:Jc6 3 e3 d6 4 ct:Jf3

Threatening 24 ... ctJg3+ 25 hxg3 ~xg3 and

wins. Seemingly the pin prevents White from
taking the knight, but there is a trick: 24
.:gxe4! 'ifxe4 25 ~f6! blocking the pin and
putting Black's queen and bishop en prise.
Since the queen cannot defend the bishop
White will get two pieces for the rook and
should go on to win.
24 g4?? 'iVg6 25 l:ed3? White intends to follow up with d2-d4
It was still correct to take the knight: 25 and, in the event of ... e5xd4, wants to recap-
.:gxe4! 'ifxe4 26 ctJf6+! (not this time 26 ~f6? ture with a piece.
'ifc2! 27 ~xh4 ~xf3) 26 ... ~xf6 27 fxe4 If immediately 4 d4 exd4 5 exd4 d5! is
~xd4 when Black's f-file and dark-square very equal- the two extra tempi (b3, ~b2)
control should guarantee the draw. are not useful in this reversed Exchange
25 ... c6 26 'iYh3 French; e.g. 6 ctJf3 ~d6 7 ~e2 ctJf6 8 ctJe5
If 26 ctJc3 ctJxc3 and 27 ... 'ifxg4. 0-0 9 ctJxc6 bxc6 10 ctJd2 .:ge8 11 0-0 lh-lh
26 ... i..f2 27 0,c3 0,g5 28 ~g2 i..xd4 29 Blatny-Hracek, Budapest 2000.
l:txd4 l:txf3 30 .:xd6 ~f7! 31 1:!.6d3 The usual drawback to playing ctJf3 and
Forced. If the knight moves Black wins d2-d4 is that ...e5-e4 hits the knight; the extra

37
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

tempo involved in Black advancing in two Sydney 1991).

steps ... d7-d6 and then ... d6-d5 may be insuf- 5 d4
ficient to make the reversed French positions 5 .tb5 .td7 transposes back to 4 .tb5
advantageous for White. If instead 4 ctJe2 (Game 12), while for 5 c4 see the notes to
then 5 d4 by itself exerts little pressure on the Game 20 again.
centre; e.g. 4... g6 5 d4 .tg7 6 d5 ctJce7 7 'iid2
tt:Jf6 (7 .. .f5) 8 c4 0-0 9 tt:Jbc3 c6 10 g3 (10
dxc6 bxc6 and ... d6-d5 to follow) 10 ... cxd5
11 cxd5 .td7 12 .tg2 b5 13 a3 aS 14 0-0
'i¥b6 with mutual chances (Minasian-W olff,
Armenia 1994).
White can always change plans: 4 c4leads
to c2-c4 lines from the next chapter (see
Game 20) and perhaps advance d2-d4later. 4
g3 is also possible; e.g. 4... g6 5 .tg2 .tg7 6
ctJe2 f5 7 c4 tt:Jf6 8 d3 0-0 9 'iid2 .te6 10 d4
exd4 11 exd4 d5 12 0-0 .tf7 13 ~d 1 ~e8
with a good position for Black (S.J oseph-
Tait, Derby 1990). 5 ... exd4
4 ... ttJf6 Despite the wasted tempo it is still reason-
The standard move, since this position able to play 5... e4 6 tt:Jfd2 d5; e.g. 7 c4 ctJe7! 8
can arise by a variety of routes, not least cxd5 (8 ctJc3 c6) 8... tt:Jexd5 9 ctJc3 ~f5 10 a3
3... tt:Jf6 4 tt:Jf3 d6. The early ... d7-d6 gives c6 11 'i¥c2 ctJxc3 12 ~xc3 tt:Jd5 and Black
Black a few more options: successfully defended his centre with ... .tg6,
a) 4 .. .f5?! is bad this time: 5 d4 e4 6 d5! .. .f7-f5 in M.Schneider-Trisic, Bad Zwesten
tt:Jce7 7 tt:Jg5 tt:Jg6 (7 ... h6? 8 'iih5+ g6 9 'iid1 1997.
wins the exchange) 8 .tb5+ when 8... .td7? 9 6 t2Jxd4 ~d7
ctJe6 'iic8 10 ctJxg7+ .txg7 11 .txg7 .txb5 Forestalling the damage to Black's struc-
12 'iid4 wins so Black has to play the dismal ture. If 6... tt:Jxd4 7 'iixd4 intending 8 c4 and
8.. Sile7 (Van Geet-Soos, Amsterdam 1972). ctJc3, or 8 ctJc3 and 0-0-0, e3-e4 with the
Or if 7... tt:Jxd5 8 .tb5+ c6 9 'i¥xd5 'iid7 more active position. The immediate
(Ventura-Caruso, Verona 1997) White has 10 6... .te7?! is weak: ECO gives 7 .tb5! when
tt:Jxh7 cxd5 (not 10 ... ~xh7? 11 'iixg8) 11 7... ~d7 is the position after 3 ... tt:Jf6 4 .tb5
.txd7+ .txd7 12 tt:Jxf8 with a clear advan- d6 5 ctJe2 ~el 6 d4 exd4 7 ctJxd4 ~d7 (see
tage. the notes to Game 14).
b) 4... .tg4 5 h3 (5 ~e2 tt:Jf6 6 d3 .tel 7 7 c4
c4 is solid) 5... .th5 6 .tb5!? and if 6... e4 7 g4 7 .tb5 tt:Jxd4 8 i.xd7+ 'iixd7 9 'iixd4
.tg6 8 tt:Jd4 'i¥d7 (or 8... ctJe7) 9 f4 exf3 10 when 9... .te7 10 0-0 is Game 12 again; Black
'iixf3. also has the equalising 9.. .'ifg4! here (Blatny-
c) 4... g6 5 d4 (for 5 c4 see Game 20) A.Ivanov, Los Angeles 2000).
5... .tg7 6 dxe5 (if 6 .tb5 e4 7 tt:Jfd2 'iig5!) 7 ... d5!?
6... ctJxe5 7 ctJc3 ctJe7 8 ~e2 0-0 9 0-0 d5 10 Before White clamps down on d5 with
~b 1 tt:Jxf3+ 11 .txf3 ~e6 12 ctJa4 .txb2 13 ctJc3 and i.e2-f3. Instead 7....te7 8 ctJc3 0-0
~xb2 'iid6 14 c4 dxc4 15 bxc4 ~xc4 16 9 ~e2 ctJxd4 10 'i¥xd4 leaves Black in a pas-
'iixd6 cxd6 17 ~cl d5 18 ~xb7 tt:Jf5 and sive stance.
Black held the endgame (!.Rogers-Solomon, 8 t2Jc3 dxc4

38
 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 Cjjc6 3 e3

Since ... i.d7 has blocked the queen's de- no pawns.

fence of the d-pawn, Black cannot ignore the 18 ... i..xb4 19 Cjjxe4 i..g6 20 CjjeS 'ile7
attack. The other defence, 8... i.b4, would 21 f4 i..d6 22 Cjjxg6 hxg6 23 Wfc3 f6 24
cost the bishop pair after 9 a3 when White is 'ifc4+ 'VJ!if7 25 Cjjxd6 cxd6 26 Wixf7+
better. ~xf7
9 i..xc4 i..e7 Having managed to make the two pieces
9... i.d6 would be more active or first into bishops, White won the endgame easily.
9... a6 and 10 ... i.d6 (ifbotheredabout'Db5), 27 ~f2 d5 28 ~e2 .:.ac8 29 ~d2 .:.ed8
especially as the bishop soon goes to d6 30 h3 nc6 31 l:U3 nh8 32 .:.g3 nh6 33
anyway. b4 nc8 34 i..d4 nc7 35 a4 nc8 36 aS
10 Cfjf3 0-0 11 0-0 a6 12 llc1 i..d6 13 :c7 37 i..c5 f5 38 i..c2 ~h8 39 i..b3
Cjjd 5 Cjje4? nd7 40 .i.a4 nc7 41 ~d3 1-0
Better to take the knight.
14 i..d3 i..f5? Game 14
With the idea of 15 ... i.xh2+ which Sadler Myers-Denker
refutes. Better was 14... .:e8 and if 15 .:e4 Columbus 1977
'Dg5 or 15 Vllic2 i.f5 16 .:fd1 i.g6 intending
17... 'Dg5, but not 14...'Dg5? 15 'Df6+! gxf6 16 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 Cjjc6 3 e3 Cfjf6 4 i..b5
'Dxg5 fxg5 17 i.xh7+ and mates. Again 4 'Df3 is an alternative when 4... d6
15 ~c4! returns to Game 13, while for 4... e4 5 'Dd4
see 3 'Df3 (Game 21) in the next chapter.
4... i.d6!? intending ... 0-0, ... .:e8 is another
possibility (c.f. Game 17).
4 c4 is also in the next chapter. Slower
moves such as 4 'De2 make less sense against
3... 'Df6 as Black still has the option to ad-
vance 4... d5.
4 ... d6 5 Cjje2

Now if 15 ... i.xh2+ 16 'Dxh2 Vllixd5 17

Vllic2 .:fe8 18 f3 'Dg3 19 e4 Vllid6 20 exf5
'Dxfl 21 i.xfl White is clearly better with
two bishops for rook and pawn.
15 .. J~e8 16 iVc2
16 ... i.xh2+ 17 'Dxh2 Vllixd5 18 f3 is the
previous note. Despite the assessment Black
had to go for this now.
16 ... i..f8? 17 Cjjc3 Cjjb4 The usual move, preparing to castle and
If 17... 'Dxc3 18 i.xf5 'Dd5 19 i.xh7+ keeping open all options (c2-c4, d2-d4, e3-e4,
~h8 20 :h4 wins. f2-f4) with the central pawns. Instead 5 'Df3
18 ~xb4! i.d7 is Game 12 above. White can also play
Now White gains two pieces for rook and 5 d4!? immediately, when after 5... exd4 (5 ...e4

39
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

is not so sensible with ctJe2) rather than 6 'ii'xe2 ctJcS? (1S ... i.f6) 16 'ii'g4 g6 17 fS
exd4 dS! with another terrible reversed tt.Jd3? (17 ...:f8 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 tt.Jfs ~gS)
French, s/he should capture with the queen; 18 fxg6 hxg6 19 :xf7! ~xf7 20 :fl+ ~f6 21
e.g. 6 'ii'xd4 ~d7 7 'ii'f4 ~e7 8 ctJc3 0-0 9 ~xf6 1-0.
0-0-0 tt.Jes 10 ~xd7 'ii'xd7 11 h3 and White 7 ~xc6 ~xc6 8 f4
is more active (Piasetski-O'Donnell, Hamil-
ton 1994).
5 ... ~d7
S... a6 and S... g6 are Games 1S and 16 re-
spectively. S... ~e7 is inaccurate after 6 d4!
exd4 7 tt.Jxd4 ~d7 8 ~xc6 (8 ctJxc6 is also
good for White) 8... bxc6 9 'ii'f3 dS 10 tt.JfS
~xfS 11 'ii'xfS 0-0 12 tt.Jd2 'ii'd7 13 'ii'xd7
tt.Jxd7 14 tt.Jf3 with a difficult endgame for
Black (Hodgson-Parcerias, Breda 1998) or 12
ctJc3 ~b4 13 0-0 ~xc3 14 ~xc3 ctJe4 1S
~b2 :e8 16 :ad1 tt.Jd6? 17 'ii'g4 f6 18 'ii'a4
'ii'd7 19 :xdS and White won (Lovric-
Podobnik, Pula 199S). Adams assessed this position (by transpo-
6 0-0 sition) as slightly better for White, perhaps
No hurry to advance here, though 6 d4 incorrectly. Instead 8 d4 e4 9 c4 (intending
and 6 f4 are both possible. 6 d4 exd4 7 ctJxd4 10 dS) 9... dS 10 tt.Jbc3 ~e7 11 'ii'c2 is given
tt.Jxd4 8 ~xd7+ 'ii'xd7 9 'ii'xd4 is 7 ~bS in by Dunnington, along with 8... exd4 9 tt.Jxd4
Game 13, while 6 f4 a6 (6 ... exf4) 7 ~xc6 ~d7 10 c4 ~e7 11 ctJc3 0-0 12 :c1 (Sasiki-
~xc6 8 0-0 transposes below. ran-Dearing, Hampstead GM 1998), but he
6 ... a6 oddly neglects to mention his own game:
Black can again play 6... g6 but should ig- 8... 'ii'e7 9 c4 g6 10 tt.Jbc3 ~g7 11 'ii'c2 0-0 12
nore 7 d4 with 7... ~g7!, since if 7... e4?! 8 dS dxeS dxeS 13 e4 :ac8 14 tt.JdS ctJxdS 1S
ctJeS 9 ~xd7+ 'ii'xd7 10 tt.Jbc3 and the e4- exdS ~d7 16 :ad1 :fe8 17 :fe1 fS 18 'ii'dl
pawn will drop off (after ctJg3, 'ii'd4), while :cd8 19 ctJcl lh-lh Dunnington-A.Martin,
7... exd4 8 ~xc6leads to doubled pawns for Haringey 1989.
Black since 8... ~xc6 9 tt.Jxd4 ~d7? fails to 8 ... i..e7
10 'ii'f3! dS 11 ctJc6! bxc6 12 ~xf6 (Dun- If 8... 'ii'd7 (or 8... exf4 9 tt.Jxf4 ~e7 10 c4)
nington) or 10 ...:b8 11 ctJe6!. 9 tt.Jbc3 (9 c4 'ii'g4) 9... 0-0-0 10 a4 'ii'g4 11
6... ~e7 7 d4 exd4 8 ctJxd4 tt.Jxd4 9 ~xd7+ ctJg3 hS (11. ..'ii'xd1) 12 'ii'xg4+ ctJxg4 13 h3
'ii'xd7 10 'ii'xd4 is Game 12 again. If White h4 14 tLlge2 ctJf6 1S b4 ~e8 16 bS aS 17 e4
opts for 7 f4 then 7... a6 8 ~xc6 ~xc6 trans- dS and White was better (Schzwicker-
poses to the game (and was the actual move Polaczek, corr World semi-final 1989) but
order). Alternatively 7... 0-0 8 fxeS ctJxeS 9 0-1 as he withdrew at this point.
i.xd7 tt.Jfxd7 10 ctJg3 i.f6 and Black didn't 9 c4
stand too badly (S.Williams-Kelly, Hamp- Not 9 fxeS? dxeS 10 ~xeS 'ii'dS and wins.
stead 1999); similarly after 7... e4 8 ctJg3 0-0 9 ... e4
(Larsen-Eley, Hastings 1972/73) had Black 9... exf4 10 ctJxf4 dS 11 cxdS White has the
not been intent on creating a miniature: 9 advantage after 11.. .~xdS 12 ctJc3 ~c6 13
~xc6 bxc6 (9 ... ~xc6) 10 c4 dS 11 ctJc3 :e8 tt:Jce2 and 14 ctJd4 or 11... ctJxdS 12 ti:JhS ti:Jf6
12 :c1 ~g4 13 ctJce2 tt.Jd7 14 h3 ~xe2 1S 13 ctJxf6+ ~xf6 14 ~xf6 gxf6 1S 'ii'g4. If

40
 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 CiJc6 3 e3

10 ... 'ii'd7 (Sully-Botterill, England 1973) tt::JxdS 22 exdS i,e6 and then not 23 tt::Jc3
White should clamp down on dS by 11 tt::Jc3 i,cS+ 24 ~h 1 :hs 2S :ad1? :hxhS! and
and tt::JcdS. wins, or 23 b6 c6 24 i.eS+ ~c8 25 d6 f6, but
10 CiJg3 ~d7 23 a5 i,cS+ 24 i,d4 :xdS 2S 'ii'e3 :e8 26
Not 10 ... dS 11 tt::JfS 0-0? 12 tt::Jxe7+ 'ifxe7 ~xeS ~d7 27 'ii'b3 :xeS 28 tt::Jd4 intending
13 ~a3. Instead 10 ... 0-0 11 tt::Jbc3 :e8 12 aS-a6 and White seems better.
'ifc2 iJ8 or 12 d4 exd3 13 e4 and 14 'ii'xd3 21 ... dxe4 22 aS l:.hS! 23 CiJd4 i.cs 24
would create a safer position for both sides. fS?
11 '2Jc3 0-0-0 But if 24 a6 tiJdS! 2S tt::Jc6+ .i.xc6 26
Black could still go 11...0-0 since if 12 'ii'xcS tt::Jxc3 27 'ii'xc3 :xbS 28 'ii'xg7 'ife2
'ii'c2 'ii'g4! 13 tt::Jcxe4 tt::Jxe4 14 tt::Jxe4 fS 1S 29 :f2 'ii'd3 and 30 ... e3.
tt::Jg3 .ih4 or 12 fS!? :fe8 13 :f4 .if8. 24 ... l:.xfS 2S l:.ad1
12 d4!? If 2S :fd1 'iff3! 26 'ifxf3 exf3 and ...tt::Jg4,
Or 12 'ii'c2 (threatening tt::Jcxe4) and if ... f3-f2+ wins.
12 ... :he8 13 b4 dS 14 bS! axbS 1S cxbS 2S ... l:.f3
.ixbS 16 tt::JxbS 'ii'xbS 17 :fcl and 18 :ab1
with good compensation.
12 ... exd3
Opening the position. 12 ... dS!? was also
possible intending to attack with ... h7-hS and
... g7-gS.
13 e4 hS 14 ~xd3 ~b8 1S b4
Or 1S tiJdS to be able to answer ... hS-h4
with tt::Jfs.
1S ... h4
Not now 16 tiJfS? .ixe4!.
16 CiJge2 h3 17 bS axbS 18 cxbS ~g4
19 g3 i.d7 20 a4
If 26 :xf3 'ifxf3! 27 'ifxf3 exf3 with two
extra pawns and more to follow; e.g.... tt::Jg4,
... f3-f2+ again.
26 CiJc6+ bxc6 27 ~xeS l:.xg3+
And wins; if 28 ~h1 :xc3.
28 ~f2 1U3+ 29 ~e1 l:.xf1+ 30 ~xf1
~f3+
Or 30 ...'ii'g2+.
31 ~f2 ~h1+ 32 ~g1 ~xg1+ 33 ~xg1
l:.e8 0-1

Game 15
Stiemerling-I.Johannsen
Black's attack seems to have ground to a Germany 1992
halt while White's continues apace. Denker's
next creates confusion. 1 b3 eS 2 i.b2 CiJc6 3 e3 CiJf6 4 i.b5 d6
20 ... dS!? 21 ~e3? 5 CiJe2 a6
White should take the pawn 21 tt::JxdS Surprisingly this is £CO's main line after 5

41
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

lt:Je2. It seems strange investing a tempo to position. Dunnington's 14 ctJe4!? seems bet-
force the weakening of Black's own structure ter and if 14 ... c5 15 lt:Jc6! i.xc6 16 tDxf6+
- especially as after 5 lt:Je2 a6 6 ~xc6+ bxc6 gxf6 17 'i¥h5 regaining the piece with advan-
White has several schemes, whereas Black tage, or 16 ... \t>h8 17 'i¥h5 intending 18 'i¥g5,
will play ... i.e7, ... 0-0 against all of them. 19 tDxh7 winning a pawn. Possibly Black
Also, White is sometimes so keen to inflict should temporarily move the bishop,
damage that s/he captures on c6 without any 14 ... i.e7 (or 14 ... i.h4!?), and prepare ....i.f6
prompting at all; e.g. 5 i.xc6+!? bxc6 6 lt:Je2 again by .. .f7-f5.
i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3. b) 8 c4 0-0 9 d4 is another alternative:
6 i..xc6+ bxc6 7 0-0 9... exd4 (if 9... e4 10 'i¥c2 d5 11 i.a3! makes
7 d3 i.e7 8 0-0 and 7 c4 i.e7 8 0-0 are for an interesting reversed Winawer) 10
given in the next note. 7 f4 is a little prema- ctJxd4 'i¥d7 (Taimanov's idea, pre-empting
ture as it allows Black more options with the 'i¥f3, ctJd4-f5) 11 'i¥c2! (11 'i¥f3 would be
king's bishop. Bagirov-Tseshkovsky, Podolsk pointless now) 11. .. d5 12 tDd2 l:.e8 13 l:.fcl!?
1990, saw 7... exf4 8 lt:Jxf4 i.g4 9 'iVcl g5!? 10 i.d6 14 c5 i.f8 15 b4 l:.b8? (better 15 ... ctJe4
lt:Jd3 h5 11 ctJc3 l:.h6 12 h3 i.e6 13 'i¥d1 before White has time for ...) 16 'i¥a4! i.b7
'i¥d7 14 'i¥e2 h4 15 0-0-0 lt:Jh5 16 ctJe4 i.e7 17 ctJ2b3! ctJe4 18 a3 g6 19 lt:Ja5 i.a8 20
17 l:.hg1 f5 18 ctJc3 lt:Jg3 19 'i¥e1 c5 20 e4 'iV c2! (with the knights controlling the queen-
with an extremely unusual position (which side White brings the rest of his army to at-
Black won). tack the kingside) 20 ... i.h6 21 l:.e1 f5 22 l:.e2
7 ... i..e7 f4 23 exf4 i.xf4 24 g3 i.h6 25 'i¥d3 l:.f8 26
f3 lt:Jg5 27 h4 tDf7 28 ctJe6 .l:He8 29 l:.ae1
l:.e7 30 'i¥d4 l:.be8 31 'i¥f6 1-0 Piastowski-
Zehm, corr Germany 1981.
c) 8 d4 seems never to be played, though
it would likely transpose to 8 c4 after 8... exd4
9 ctJxd4 'i¥d7 10 c4 or 8... e4 9 c4.
8 ... e4
Black can also capture: 8... exf4 9 tDxf4
~g4 10 'i¥e1 0-0 11 'i¥g3 'i¥d7 12 d3 i.f5 13
tDd2 i.g6 14 h3 ctJe8 15 e4 i.f6 16 d4 was a
hypermodern triumph: now White had the
big centre and went on to win in Skrip-
chenko-Krivec, Croatian Team Champion-
8 f4 ship 1998.
a) 8 d3 0-0 9 4Jd2 is a flexible way to play: 9 c4
any of the four central white pawns might 9 ctJg3!? 0-0 10 lt:Jc3 d5 11 ctJce2 is an in-
advance at any moment. Minasian- teresting move order, planning 12 l:.cl, 13
Romanishin, Lvov 1990, continued 9...ctJg4!? c4, 14 lt:Jce2 with play similar to the game but
(ECO suggests 9... l:.e8!? followed by ... iH8, avoiding any ... d5xc4 difficulties. If
.. g7-g6, ... i.g7) 10 h3 lt:Jh6 11 d4 exd4 12 11...i.c5!? (with the idea 12 l:.cl lt:Jg4!) then
lt:Jxd4 ~d7 13 c4 (13 'i¥f3 doesn't achieve 12 c4! since 12 ... dxc4 is answered by 13 i.xf6
anything after 13 ... iH6 14 lt:Je4 i.e5) and 14 lt:Jxe4; or if 11. .. 4Jd7 12 lt:Jd4! lt:Jb8
13 ... i.f6 14 ifc2 c5 15 lt:Je2 i.xb2 16 'i¥xb2 (12 ... i.b7 13 'i¥g4) 13 f5 i.f6 14 lt:Jh5 i.e5
i.c6 17 lt:Jf4 'i¥g5 18 lDb1 tLJf5 19 lt:Jc3 lt:Jh4 15 i.a3 l:.e8 (15 ... i.d6 16 'i¥g4) 16 'i¥g4 with
20 lt:Jcd5 i.xd5 21 cxd5 a5 with an equal the initiative or 13 ... c5 14 lt:Jde2 i.f6 15

42
 1 b3 e5 2 ii..b2 11Jc6 3 e3

~xf6 'iVxf6 16 c4 c6 17 ctJf4 renewing the 18 11Jf4 ~b7?! 19 11Jgh5 ~c6 20 a4 iLd3
pressure to the centre.
9 ... 0-0
9 ... c5? 10 ct:Jbc3 ~b7? 11 ctJg3 and 12
'iVc2 wins a pawn (if necessary by 13 f5, 14
Mf4). Bagirov-Markovic, Novi Sad 1988,
continued 11...c6 12 ctJcxe4 and Black was
just a pawn down. Other moves such as
10 ... c6 11 d3! or 10 ... iLg4 11 h3 iLxe2 12
'iVxe2 also leave Black with a dismal position.
Dunnington writes that 9 ... d5 'makes more
sense, with an edge for White after 10 'iVc2'.
10 l2Jbc3 :e8 11 l2Jg3 d5 12 11c1

Now the bishop on b2 has its say.

21 l2Jxg7!
21 .itxf6 ~xf6 22 tt:Jxf6+ 'i'xf6 23 Mxc5
only wins a pawn.
21 ... ~xg7 22 ~h5
Threatening 23 'i'g5+ ~h8 24 Mxc5! and
wms.
22 ... .l:.g8 23 figS+?
Much simpler 23 'i'h4! and 24 tt:Jh5+ etc.
23 ... ~h8
If 23 ... ~f8 24 'i'h6+ ~e8 25 tt:Jh5 wins
the piece back with a big position.
With a structural advantage White has the 24 'ifh6
long-term prospects, so Black needs to find Intending tt:Jh5. Black now had to prepare
counterplay quickly. If 12 ... dxc4!? intending lateral defence of the knight, either by
13 ctJcxe4 ctJxe4 14 ctJxe4 cxb3 15 'iVxb3 24 ... Mab8 and ... Mb6 or 24 ... a5 and ... Ma6.
~f5 16 'iVc3 ~f8 17 ctJc5 'iVd5 with light- White could then apply further pressure with
square counterplay, then 13 bxc4leaves the g4-g5 which probably wins, but with White
e4-pawn weak; e.g. 13 ... ~f8 (13 ... ~d6 14 having already missed an easy win it seems a
'iVc2 'JJ!/e7 15 ctJce2 intending c5) 14 'JJ!/c2 bit irrelevant to examine these lines in depth.
'iVe7 (14 ... 'JJ!/d3?? 15 ctJcxe4) 15 f5 intending Especially as Black misses his chance as well.
Mf4. If 13 ...'JJ!/d3 14 ctJce2 and 15 Mc3 expels 24 ... .l:.ad8? 25 11xc5!
the queen. And wins easily again.
12 ... iJ..g4 1311Jce2! c5 14 h3 iJ..e6 25 ... fid6 26 11d5 1:1g7 27 11xd6 11xd6 28
If 14 ... ~xe2 15 'JJ!/xe2 d4 (or 15 ... c6 16 iJ..e5 :c6 29 l2Jd5 iLd6 30 fixf6 1-0
cxd5 cxd5 17 .itxf6) 16 d3! exd3 17 'i'xd3
dxe3 18 'i'xe3 and White is still better. Game 16
15 f5 iJ..d7 16 cxd5 ii..b5 17 11f2 ~xd5 Selleri-Schirmer
Black is strong on the light squares but the corr ICCF 1991
rest of his position is a shambles and White
isn't concerned about the light squares any- 1 b3 e5 2 ..ib2 11Jc6 3 e3 l2Jf6 4 ..ib5 d6
way. 5 l2Je2 g6?!

43
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

nez, Palma de Mallorca 1971) - the black

king even has his home on c7 ready made.
8 ... bxc6 9 GLJd4!
Stronger than 9 f4!? dxeS 10 0-0 0-0 11
ct:Jg3 fs 12 ct:Jd2 'iVe7 13 'iVe2 ct:Jb6 14 ct:Jf3
exf4 1S ~xg7 ~xg7 16 exf4 'iVxe2 17 ctJxe2
cS 18 c4 ~b7 19 ctJeS when White's superior
structure gave him a slight advantage in the
endgame. MegaBase has this as Hodgson-Van
der Sterren, while Infonnator 72 has it as Slo-
bodjan-Van der Sterren. Black lost whoever
he was playing.

A desirable development scheme for

Black, the only drawback being that it's a bit
slow. White should therefore strike at the
centre immediately before Black can com-
plete his formation. -
6 d4!
6 f4 has also been successful; e.g. 6... exf4 7
ct:Jxf4 (7 0-0!? Keene) 7 ... ~g7 8 0-0 0-0 9
ct:Jc3 ct:Je7 10 ct:Jce2 c6 11 ~d3 ~fS 12 ct:Jg3
~xd3 13 ct:Jxd3 ct:Jd7 14 ~xg7 ~xg71S 'iVg4
fS 16 'iVd4+ 4:Jf6 17 ct:Jf4 and White was bet-
ter (T.Wall-McCarthy, Bunratty 1999).
6 ... i.g7 9 ... 0-0?
Here 6 ... exd4? is a clear mistake due to 7 White is better after:
ct:Jxd4 ~d7 8 ctJxc6 bxc6 9 'iVf3! hitting c6 a) 9 ... dxeS 10 ctJxc6 'iVgS 11 0-0 ~b7 12
and f6. Minasian-Garcia Ilundain, Candas f4! exf4 (12 ... iVh6 13 ctJaS) 13 ~xg7 ~xc6
1992, continued 9 ... ~g7 10 ~xc6 ~xc6 11 14 ii'e2.
'i¥xc6+ ~f8 12 ctJc3 'iVe8? 13 'iVxc7 ~g8 14 b) 9 ... ctJxeS 10 ctJxc6 'iVgS 11 ~xeS! dxeS
'iVxd6 and White was three pawns up. 12 iVdS ~b7 (if 12 ... 0-0 13 ctJe7+ 'iVxe7 14
7 dxe5 'iVxa8 'iVcS 1S 'iVe4) 13 'iVcS and if 13 ... iVf6
7 dS is no good: 7 ... a6 8 ~a4 bS 9 ~xbS 14 ctJxa7!.
axbS 10 dxc6 and White has no chance of c) 9 ...'iVgS 10 0-0 ctJxeS!? 11 f4 iVh6 12
holding on to the c6-pawn; e.g. 10 ... ~e6 fxeS ~xeS 13 g3 'iVxe3+ 14 ~h1 cS lS ct:Jf3
intending ... ~dS. and 16 Mel with a clear advantage. Fritz
7 .. .tud7 comes up with 10 ...'iVxeS!? but then 11 ~c3!
7 ... ctJg4 8 ct:Jd4! dxeS 9 ctJxc6 'iVxd1+ 10 frees the knight and creates difficulties for
~xd1 ctJxf2+ 11 <lt>e2 ct:Jxh1 12 ctJxa7+ ~d7 Black along the diagonal; e.g. 11. .. 'iVcS 12
13 i.xd7+ ~xd7 14 ct:JbS with two knights ctJe6! fxe6 13 ~xg7 Mg8 14 ~d4 or ll...iVdS
for the rook after the knight on h 1 falls. 12 ctJxc6!.
8 i.xc6! By castling Black tries to make his own
If now 8 ctJd4 then 8... ct:Jxd4! 9 exd4 c6 10 position secure before attacking but in so
~e2 dxeS 11 dxeS ~xeS 12 iLxeS ctJxeS 13 doing reduces his initiative.
'iVxd8+ <it>xd8 is equal (Larsen-Garcia Marti- 1 0 exd6 'it'f6 11 GZ:lc3 cxd6 1 2 GZ:lxc6

44
 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 I:LJc6 3 e3

12 'i¥f3 also looks good. White has not been able to show anything
12 ... ~b7 13 ct:Ja4! with more forcing lines.
Now if 13 ... ii'gS!? 14 ii'xd6 ii'xg2 1S a) SctJf3 encourages the ... i.eS plan: S... e4
ctJe7+ ~h8 16 i.xg7+ ~xg7 17 0-0-0 (threat- (or S... ii'e7 6 d4 exd4 7ctJxd4lLlxd4 8 ii'xd4
ening 18ctJfS+!) 17 ... iixf2 18 ii'd4+ ii'f6 19 0-0 and .. J~e8, ... i.eS) 6ctJd4lLlxd4 7 i.xd4
~hf1 or 14 ... .1i.xb2 1S ltJxb2 ii'xg2 16ctJe7+ and Black equalised easily after 7... 0-0 (in-
<i.tg7 17 0-0-0 ~ad8 18 cud3 consolidates. tending ... ~e8, ... li.eS) 8 f4 c6 9 li.e2 i.e7 10
The game move poses no problems for 0-0 dS (Huss-Glauser, Switzerland 1977) or
White at all. 7... c6 8 i.e2 0-0 9 c4 ii'e7 10 ii'c2 i.eS 11
13 ... ct:Je5?! 14 ct:Jxe5 dxe5 15 0-0 "ifc6 iib2 d6 12 i.xeS dxeS 13 ltJc3 i.fS 14 0-0
16 f3 .l:fd8 17 "ife2 .l:ac8 18 c4 ~adS (McMichael-Parker, 4NCL 1996). 6
White is two pawns up for nothing. cuh4!? has only been tried once: 6... 0-0 7 0-0
18 .. Jid6 19 l:.ad 1 .l:cd8 20 ~a3 1-0 ~eS! 8 i.xeS lUxeS 9 f4 exf3 10 ctJxf3 ii'e7
11 ctJcJ dS (Mikhalevski-Avrukh, Ramat
Game 17 Aviv 1998) is again OK for Black, who can
Arencibia-Estremera Panos also consider 9... ltJeg4!? 10 h3 (not 10 ltJfS?
Malaga 2000 dS 11 lLlg3 lLlxh2! 12 <itxh2 lLlg4+ 13 <itg1
.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. iih4 wins) 10 ... ltJh6 11 ii'e1 (not 11 g4?
1 b3 e5 2 ~b2 ct:Jc6 3 e3 CLJf6 4 ~b5 lLlfxg4) 1l...dS 12 g4 with mutually bad
il.d6!? knights.
b) SctJa3!? (intending ctJc4) was suggested
by Keene. Black can play as intended S... a6 6
i.xc6 dxc6 7ctJc4 ii'e7 8 ctJe2 bS 9 ltJxd6+
cxd6 10 0-0 0-0 (Lovric-Kutuzovic, Belisce
1999) or negate White's idea by S...ctJaS!?; e.g.
6 ltJf3 a6 7 i.e2 ii'e7 8 ctJb1 0-0 9 c4 b6 10
ctJc3 i.b7 11 0-0 ~fe8 12 d3 i.a3 13 ii'cl
ii.xb2 1h-lh (Hodgson-Speelman, 4NCL
1998) or 6 ctJc4ctJxc4 7 i.xc4 0-0 8 ctJe2 c6
9 ltJg3 li.c7 10 0-0 dS 11 i.e2 ~e8 12 c4 aS
13 a3 i.e6 14 d3 with a level position (Ge-
lashvili-Hector, Istanbul Olympiad 2000). In
Sakaev-Sveshnikov, Gausdal1992, Black did
An unusual bishop development. Black in- even better after 6 i.e2 a6 7 ctJc4 ctJxc4 8
tends either to follow up with ... a7-a6, when bxc4 ii'e7 9 a4 0-0 10 ltJh3 i.cS 11 f4?
i.xc6 dxc6 frees the light-squared bishop, or li.xe3! 12 li.xeS (12 dxe3 ii'b4+) 12 ... i.a7 13
to reorganise with ... 0-0, ... ~e8 and ... iJ8 or cuf2 d6 14 i.b2 ~e8 1S d4ctJg4 (and ... ctJe3
... eS-e4 and ... i.eS challenging on the long wins) 0-1.
diagonal. Keene credits Hanston with the c) S a3!? plans to switch systems with 6
idea, though the move itself was first seen in li.e2 and 7 c4, reaching positions similar (or
Suhle-Anderssen, Breslau 18S9, which con- even identical) to those in Chapter 3; e.g.
tinued s d3 ctJe7 6 d4 exd4 7 i.xd4 cufs 8 S... 0-0 (S ... a6?! 6 i.e2 gives White a tempo) 6
i.b2 ltJh4 9 i.f1 b6 10 ltjf3 ctJg6 11 i.d3 i.e2 i.e7 (or 6... ~e8!? 7 c4 i.f8) 7 c4 was
i.b7 12 cubd2 0-0 and White proceeded to from I.Rogers-Sherbakov, Hastings 1993/94.
helpmate his own queen on hS. Then 7... dS 8 cxdS lLlxdS is standard except
5CLJe2 that Black would prefer the bishop to be

45
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

back on d6, which is perhaps why Sherbakov Even if White has no actual advantage, his
tried 7 ... e4!? 8 tt:Jc3 d5!? 9 cxd5 tt:Je5 10 tt:Jxe4 position is rather pleasurable: a slightly better
tt:Jxe4 11 j£,xe5 "ifxd5 with some compensa- pawn structure and a multitude of options
tion, though after 12 tt:Jf3 j£,g4 13 j£,xc7 for the central pawns and both knights. Per-
~ac8 14 j£,f4 j£,f6 15 ~a2 j£,e6? (better haps White will play e3-e4, 0-0, f2-f4 or
15 .. .1~Jc5) 16 ~c4 ~xc4 17 bxc4 "ifxc4 18 tt:Jg3/tt:Jc4-e3 probing the light squares, per-
~c2 "i:Vb5 19 "i:Vcl White slowly consolidated haps throw in a2-a3 to forestall ... ..ta3.
his material advantage. Whatever, Black doesn't want to sit and
5 ... a6 watch. His next move looks odd, moving the
If 5 ... 0-0 6 0-0 ~e8 then after 7 tt:Jg3 e4 8 knight over to the queenside where it is do-
j£,e2 j£,e5 9 i.xe5 tt:Jxe5 10 d4 exd3 11 cxd3 ing nothing, but it frees up the f-pawn and
d5 12 d4 White is better in this Exchange encourages White to declare himself.
QGD type position with a potential minority 9 ... 'Lld5!? 10 e4 'Llb6 11 0-0 f5 12 exf5
attack or central .advance. Morozevich- Otherwise Black will play 12 .. .f4.
Sveshnikov, Podolsk 1993, continued 12 .. .i..xf5 13 'Llg3 i..g6 14 l:e 1
12 ... tt:Jeg4 13 tt:Jc3 "ifd6 14 ~e1 h5 15 tt:Jfl With a standard isolated king's pawn posi-
g6 16 "i:Vcl c6 17 h3 tt:Jh6 18 e4 "iff8 19 e5 tion, if there is such a thing. Rather than de-
tt:Jh7 20 "ifd2, while Fritz suggests 19 exd5!? fend passively by 14 ... ~ae8 15 tt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 (a
exd5 20 if g5 winning a pawn albeit at the dubious policy against stronger opposition)
cost of the initiative. Black gives up the e5-pawn while he can
6 i..xc6 dxc6 7 d3 organise the maximum counterplay. So the
White plays to prevent ... e5-e4; if 7 0-0 knight, having encouraged e3-e4, returns to
~e8 8 d3 e4! (threatening ... i.xh2+ etc.) 9 eye the f4-outpost.
i.xf6 ifxf6 10 tt:Jd2 i.f5 11 tt:Jxe4 i.xe4 12 14 .. .'Lld5 15 'Llf3 ~f6 16 i..xe5 i..xe5 17
dxe4 ~xe4 was more than OK for Black in .l:txe5 'Llf4 18 ~h2 l:ae8 19 d4 l:xe5 20
Bursic-Ionescu, Pula 1997. 7 tt:Jg3 was an- dxe5 'ife6
other failure: 7 ... h5 8 tt:Jc3 h4 9 tt:Jge4 tt:Jxe4
10 tt:Jxe4 i.f5 11 tt:Jxd6+ ifxd6 12 d3 0-0-0
13 e4 i.xe4! 14 "i:Vg4+ (14 dxe4? "i:Vb4+)
14.. .f5 15 "i:Vg5 h3 16 ~g1 i.xg2 and Black
went on to win in Solbrand-Bator, Stock-
holm 1993.
7 ... 0-0 8 'Lld2 ~e7 9 h3

Black has good compensation since the

threat ... tt:Jxh3, gxh3 ~xf3 ties the white
queen to defending the tt:Jf3, which itself is
tied to the defence of e5.
21 l:c1!
A nice idea, planning a lateral defence of
the f3-knight.

46
 1 b3 e5 2 ii..b2 tlJc6 3 e3

21 ... c5 22 c4 4Jd3 23 ~c3 ct:Jxe5 24 Md5 'i¥c7 25 i,a3 is strong and 23 .. .f6 24
4Jg5 'fie7 25 ~d5+ ~h8 26 ~e3 ~xg5 i,d5+! ~h8 25 i,xd4 b6 26 LLlf7+ Mxf7 27
27 ~xe5 ~f4 28 ~xc5 i,xf7 'i¥xd4 28 Md5 wins the queen. The
White gets the pawn back again but Black game continued 23 ... i..g4 24 Mexe5! i..xe5 25
still has counterplay against the pinned Mxe5 Mc8 (or 25 ... LLlc6 26 :d5 'iie7 27 LLle4
knight. f6 28 'i¥f4 ~g7 29 :d6 i..e6 30 LLlxf6! :xf6
28 ... h5! 29 ~g1 31 i,d5 wins) 26 :d5 LLle2+ 27 ~h2 'i¥c7 28
Black remains active after 29 'iie3 'iixf2 Lt:Je4 f5 29 'i¥h6 1-0 (if 29 ... 'i¥h7 30 'i¥xh7+
(if 29 ... h4 30 'iixf4 Mxf4 31 Lt:Jh1!) 30 'iig5 ~xh7 31 Md7+ ~g8 32 :g7+ ~h8 33 Lt:Jg5
iVf4 31 'iixf4 Mxf4 32 LLlxh5 Mf2, or if 29 LLlc3 34 Mh7+ ~g8 35 i..d5+ mates). USA
Me6 ~h7 (not 29 ... i,e8?? 30 Mxe8 and wins). rested Seirawan and Gulko for this match,
29 ... ~c1 + 30 ~h2 still outrated the young Indian team (without
If 30 Lt:Jfl Md8 31 Md5 Mxd5 32 iixd5 Anand) by 326 FIDE points- and lost 3-1.
iib1 and White can't do anything.
30 .. .'~f4 31 ~g1 ~c1+ ~-~

Game 18
T.Waii-Ciegg
Sutton 1999
1 b3 e5 2 il..b2 4Jc6 3 e3 g6
Fianchettoing the king's bishop is logical
choice; see also 2 ... d6 3 e3 g6 in the notes to
Game 23.
3 ... a6!? is sometimes played when Black is
absolutely determined to prevent i,b5, even
at the cost of giving White an extra tempo in 4 f4
any other system. Then 4 d4 exd4 5 exd4 d5 Ubiquitously played from 1933-2000.
is equal - not surprisingly since 3 ... d6 4 d4 Nevertheless it seems Black can defend ade-
exd4 5 exd4 d5 was no use for White either. quately, so here are the alternatives:
4 Lt:Jf3 (and if 4 ... e4 5 LLld4 or 4 ... d6 5 d4) a) 4 c4 is again possible - for which see
should be compared with 3 Lt:Jf3 (Games 21 Game 20 (in particular the notes at move 3).
and 22 in the next chapter). b) 4 kb5 kg7 5 Lt:Jf3 (5 f4 d6 6 Lt:Jf3
4 c4 is natural and then if 4 ... LLlf6 5 a3! d5 transposes below) 5... LLle7 6 d4 e4 7 LLlfd2 is
6 cxd5 LLlxd5 7 'i¥c2 or 5... i,e7 6 'iic2 0-0 7 not impressive; e.g. 7.. .f5 8 g3 0-0 9 h4 d5 10
d3 creates positions similar to 3... Lt:Jf6 4 c4 in Lt:Jc3 'i¥d6 11 kxc6 LLlxc6 12 Lt:Jb5 'i¥d7 13
the next chapter, transposing directly to i..a3 :e8 14 c4 dxc4 15 bxc4 a6 16 ctJc3
those in which Black played ... a7-a6later on. ctJxd4!? 17 exd4 'i¥xd4 18 ct:Jdbl 'iixc4 and
In Sasikiran-Shabalov, Istanbul Olympiad Black was clearly better in McDonald-
2000, saw 3 ... a6 4 c4 g6 5 LLlc3 i,g7 6 g3 h5 Norwood, Zug 1987.
7 i,g2 d6 (7 ... h4!?) 8 h3 Lt:Jh6 9 d3 0-0 10 c) 4 lt:Jf3 kg7 5 c4 (or 5 d4 e4) 5.. .f5 6 d4
'i¥d2 i,d7 11 Lt:Jge2 Mb8 12 Mel Lt:Jf5 13 e4 7 lt:Jfd2 is also ineffective; e.g. 7...ctJce7 8
LLld5 LLlce7 14 0-0 c6 15 Lt:Jdc3 i,e6 16 LLle4 ctJc3 LLlf6 9 ke2 d5 10 ka3 c6 11 :c 1 0-0
d5 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 LLlg5 i,c8 19 h4 LLlc6 20 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 g3 :f7 14 Lt:Jb5 LLle8 and
Mc5 d4?! 21 exd4 LLlcxd4 22 LLlxd4 LLlxd4 23 White achieved nothing in Rotstein-Grigore,
Mel and Black was in trouble: if 23 ... b6 24 Cesenatico 1999.

47
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

If White is going to play d2-d4 it is better ~d7 14 e4 ~g4 15 iVe1 c6 16 iVh4 White
to play it straight away: had the initiative in Minasian-Belakovskaja,
d) 4 d4 and then if 4 ... exd4 5 ctJf3! (ex- World Open 1993, so Black should prefer
ploiting the pin) 5 ... ~g7 6 ctJxd4 ct:Jf6 (better 8... dxe5 9 ~c4 h6 or 9 CLJc3 a6 White has
was 6... ct:Jxd4 7 ~xd4 ctJf6) 7 ctJxc6 bxc6 8 nothing very much at all.
~e2 0-0 9 ct:Jd2 aS 10 a4 ~e8 11 0-0 ct:JdS 12 7 0-0 tt:'lge7 8 fxe5 dxe5
.ltxg7 ~xg7 13 .ltdJ with a slight advantage Black can delay by 8... 0-0 9 ~c4 .ltg4!?
to White (ECO). Bellon Lopez-Ljubojevic, (9 ... dxe5 transposes to the game) 10 CLJc3
Palma de Mallorca 1972, continued 13 ...ctJc3 ctJxeS (if 10 ... dxe5 11 h3) and then in Rausis-
14 ~f3 ~a6?? 15 ~xa6 :xa6 16 e4 (trapping Engelbert, Hamburg 2000 (via 6 .ltc4 ctJge7),
the knight) 16 ... ~f6 17 ~d3 ~aa8 18 f4 1-0. White surprisingly sacrificed with 11 CLJxeS!?
If Black tries 4... ~g7 then 5 dS ctJce7 6 d6!? ~xd1 12 CLJxf7 :xf7 (12 ..."iVb8!?) 13 .i.xf7+
is worth considering; e.g. 6 ... cxd6 (if 6...ctJc6 ~h8 14 :axd1 iVd7 15 .i.c4 dS 16 ~d3 with
7 ctJa3 intending ctJc4; 6 ... ct:Jf5 7 dxc7 ~xc7 enough (but no more) for the queen. Blatny-
8 ctJf3 ct:Jge7 9 c4) 7 ~xd6 ct:Jfs 8 ~d2 ct:Jge7 Konopka, Czech Championship 2000, was
(if 8... d5 9 .ltb5+ ~f8 10 ct:Jf3) 9 ct:Jf3 ctJc6 more sedate: 11 ~e2 CLJxf3+ 12 .i.xf3 .i.xf3
(9 ... d6 10 e4) 10 c4 0-0 11 ctJc3 with a grip 13 iVxf3 c6 14 CLJd1 f5 15 .ltxg7 ~xg7 and
ondS. the weakened dark squares later caused prob-
4 .. .i..g7 5 'L'lf3 d6 lems for Black after 16 ctJf2 "iVd7 17 ~ae1
~ae8 18 e4 fxe4 19 iVc3+ ~g8 20 ctJxe4 ctJdS
21 ~d4 :xfl+ 22 :xfl :es? 23 ~xd5+
:xdS 24 ctJf6+ ~g7 25 CLJxd7 and White
won.
9 i..c4
9 ctJgS 0-0 10 ~c4 transposes below;
Keene also notes 10 ~a3 as unclear (Forin-
tos-Hoen, Skopje Olympiad 1972).
9 ... 0-0 10 tt:'lg5 i..eS

6 i..b5
If 6 .ltc4 ctJge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 fxeS ~g4! (not
8... dxe5? 9 ctJgS) 9 ctJc3 ctJxeS transposes to
8... 0-0 below. Black also has 6... ctJh6! 7 0-0
0-0 8 fxeS ctJg4 9 ~e2 lL'lgxeS 10 ctJxeS dxeS
11 ~f3 ~e8 12 d3 fS with an equal position
in Rotstein-Hertneck, Austrian League 1999.
6 ... .i.d7
6... CLJe7 is perhaps more accurate since on
7 fxeS 0-0 the pin along the diagonal ensures The only move but good enough. White
that Black can recapture on e5 next move, has no way to force anything: if 11 ~f3 ct:Jfs
while maintaining options for the queen's 12 CLJe4 CLJb4 13 CLJa3 ~c6 or 11 "iVg4 h6 12
bishop. After 8 0-0 ctJxe5 9 ctJxeS dxeS 10 CLJe4?? bS! 13 .ixb5 fS and Black won
~c4 ct:Jfs 11 a4 lL'ld6 12 ~a3 .ifs 13 ctJc3 (Georgiev-Ermenkov, Sofia 1984).

48
 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 ti:Jc6 3 e3

11 0Jc3 0Ja5 12 il.e2! 1a ... ..txc6 19 iLc4 .:tea 20 'iVe2 'iVd7 21

12 .id3 keeps e2 for the queen and hin- il.b3
ders ... lt:Jf5, but on d3 the bishop is open to Again 21 g4 won the exchange. Now
... e5-e4 hits and, as the game shows, White Black decides to prevent it.
doesn't want to prevent ...lt:Jf5 anyway. After 21 ... h5 22 l:lt2 'iVb7 23 ti:Jd6 ctJxd6 24
12 .id3, Tait-Mutton, Notts League 2000, iLxd6 l:lcda 25 il.a3 iLd7? 26 l:lat1
continued 12 ... lt:Jc8! 13 lt:Jge4 f5 14 lt:Jc5 Overlooking that after 26 i.xe7! i.g4 27
'iVd6 (14 ....if7 15 b4lt:Jc4?! 16 .ixc4 .ixc4 Jl.xf8 .ixe2 28 i.xg7 ~xg7 29 ~xf7+ wins
17 d3) 15 b4 b6 (not 15 ... e4? 16 .ixe4!) 16 the queen back: 29 ...'i¥xf7 30 .ixf7 ~xf7 31
bxa5 'i¥xc5 17 axb6 axb6 18 a4 'iVc6 19 i.b5 lt:Jxe2 with an extra piece, or if 28 ... i.g4 29
'iVe6 20 'iVe2 lt:Jd6 21 i.aJ lt:Jxb5 22 axb5 ~xf7.
~f7 23 e4 f4 24 lt:Jd5 with an unclear posi- 26 ... iLe6 27 iLxe6 fxe6
tion; though a time scramble rendered the
rest of the game meaningless (later lh-lh).
12 ... 0Jt5?!
Better 12 ... lt:Jc8 (as in the previous note)
to keep the option of 13lt:Jge4 f5 hitting the
knight and consolidating the f-file.
13 0Jge4 il.d7 14 b4 0Jc6 1 5 b5 ti:Jce 7
16a4c6?! 17iLa3

White is still hugely better of course.

2a 'iVc4 'iVd7 29 ctJe4 l:lxf2 30 l:lxt2 ti:Jd5
31 ctJg5 iL f6
Else 32 ~f7.
32 ct:Jt3 <it'h7 33 'iVe4 'iVc7
If 33 ... ~c8 34 c4 'i¥xa4 35lt:Jxe5! i.xe5 36
'i¥xe5 'iVxaJ 37 .a:f7+ mates.
34 c4 ct:Je7 35 iLxe7
The quality of each side's last five moves 35lt:Jd4 was also strong.
has been telling: White has reorganised effec- 35 ... 'iVxe7 36 ct:Jxe5 'iVg7
tively while Black has jumbled and weakened Better to take the knight.
his dark squares. 37 ct:Jc6 .Sea 3a 0Jxa7 iLg5 39 ct:Jb5
17 ... b6 1a bxc6 'iVa1 + 40 l:lf1 'iVxa4
Here 18 g4!? was possible 18 ... lt:Jh6 19 g5 Black gets a pawn back but now loses by
(18 ... lt:Jh4? 19 'iVe 1) 19 ... lt:Jhf5 20 lt:Jf6 + force.
i.xf6 (if 20 ... ~h8 21 i.f3) 21 gxf6 lt:Jd5 22 41 .l:!f7+ Wh6 42 h4 iLda 43 'iVf4+ g5 44
i.xf8 winning the exchange. Rather than 'iVe4 'iVa1 + 45 Wh2 gxh4?! 46 l:lh7+ Wg5
cash in his positional advantage immediately 47 'iVf4+ <it'g6 48 'iVf7+ Wg5 49 l:lxh5+
White prefers to build up his position. 1-0

49
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Summary
3 ... ctJf6 4 ~b5 d6 5 ctJe2 is the standard formation for White, followed mostly by either d2-d4
or f2-f4 according to taste. Keene regarded the latter as 'more theoretically accurate'. It is also
possible to play in restrained fashion with d2-d3 (and later e2-e4 or c2-c4). One conclusion can
perhaps be drawn: that if Black plays ... g7-g6 then d2-d4 seems the most effective.
For Black: 4... i.d6!? is catching on as an offbeat reply to an occasional opening- the side-
line 5 ctJa3 ctJaS is wonderfully bizarre. 3 ... d6 is a tricky move order specifically designed to
combat the usual4 i..b5, 5 ctJe2 set-up. White does better eitherto assault the e5-pawn differ-
ently with ctJf3 and d2-d4, or switch to c2-c4 or g2-g3 systems in the next chapter. 3... g6 also
seems viable though it has not received much theoretical attention hitherto.

1 b3 e5 2 ..tb2 t2Jc6 3 e3 (D)

3 ... t2Jf6
3 ... g6- Game 18
3... d6
4 ct::Jf3 - Game 13
4 c4- Game 20 (Chapter 3)
4 .tb5 .td7 (D)
5 ctJe2 - Game 11
5 ctJf3 - Game 12
4 ~b5 d6
4... .td6- Game 17
5 t2Je2 (D) ..td7
5 ... a6- Game 15
5 ... g6- Game 16
6 0-0- Game 14

3 e3 4 ... i..d7 5 ctJe2

50
 CHAPTER THREE I
1 b3 e5 2 ~b2: Other Lines

1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 arises via 1 'Llf3!? 'Llc6 2 b3 e5 3 i.b2 and

In the same way that some players may aims to lure the black centre forwards in
not want to establish a big centre for their order to work round it on the then weakened
opponents to use as a target, equally others dark squares.
may not want their opponent to have a big In the remaining games Black withholds
centre whether they can bop at it or not. This 2... CLJc6 and defends the e5-pawn by 2... d6,
leads them to play c2-c4 before Black avoiding any difficulties with the pin (or half-
achieves the two pawn centre. pin) i.f1-b5. The consequence of limiting
3 c4 CLJf6 4 e3 (or 3 e3 ct:Jf6 4 c4) 4... d5 the centre so soon is that White has more
(Game 19) leads to a sort of reversed Sicilian choice of opening schemes: 3 e3 (Games 23
Hedgehog. Practice has shown it to be ex- and 24), 3 g3 (Game 25), 3 d4!? (Game 26),
tremely difficult to break down this forma- as well as the immediate English 3 c4 with
tion and many Whites attacking a black countless transpositions dependent on how
Hedgehog have overpressed and been left White and Black develop further. The final
with a shattered position after a timely game in this chapter features 2.. .f6!? (Game
counterthrust somewhere. The problem here 27) shutting down the ii.b2 bishop at the
is the same as with all reversed openings: cost of some light-square weaknesses.
Black is under no obligation to press and can
be satisfied with a solid position. Game 19
Therefore a lot of Nimzo-Larsen players B.Stein-Brinck Claussen
start with 3 e3, allowing 3... d5, and only ven- Copenhagen 1987
ture c2-c4 against certain set-ups, e.g. when
Black plays an early ... d7-d6. The sequence 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2 t2Jc6 3 c4 tiJf6 4 e3
2... CLJc6 3 e3 d6 (or 3... g6) 4 c4 is seen in Or 3 e3 'Llf6 4 c4. If White has not already
Game 20, while 2 ... d6 3 e3 'LJf6 4 c4 appears played e2-e3 s/he has a few lesser options:
in the notes to Game 23, with transposition a) 4 ct:Jf3 e4 5 'Lld4 can be seen in the
to Chapter 8 (Games 60 and 61) if ... g7-g6 notes to Game 21 below.
and d2-d4 are played. b) 4 g3 d5 5 cxd5 (5 i.g2 d4) 5.. .'~fxd5!
White can also try the provocative 3 ct:Jf3!? (Keene) 6 'Llf3 e4 7 'Llc3 'i'a5 8 'Llh4 i.e6
(Games 21 and 22), a system that sometimes (or 8... ii.a3) 9 i.g2 0-0-0 10 0-0 (if 10 'Llxe4?

51
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

ctJxe4 11 i..xe4 ~xd2!) 10 ... i..e7 11 f4 ~he8 with 4Jh4-fSxg7, gS and won in Fischer-
12 <it>h 1 <it>b8 13 a3 4Jg4 14 fS i..c8 1S b4 U.Andersson, Siegen 1970.
'ifeS 16 'ife1? i..xh4 17 ~f4 'ifxf4 0-1 Nes- Just like after 4 i..bS Black can also try
trovic-Kozul, Bled 199S. 4... i..d6!? intending ... 0-0, ... ~e8 and either
c) 4 ctJc3 dS S cxdS ltJxdS is ineffective ... eS-e4, ... i..eS or ... i..f8, ... d7-dS. The former
because after ... 4Jxc3 White is unable tore- plan was seen after S ctJc3 0-0 6 l2lge2 ~e8 7
capture in Sicilian fashion with the b-pawn; ctJg3 e4 8 'ifc2 i..eS 9 a3 d6 10 i..e2 'ife7 11
e.g. 6 g3 ctJxc3 7 dxc3 'ifxd1+ (7 ... 'iff6!?) 8 0-0-0 a6 12 f3 lh-lh Afifi-Rausis, Cairo 2000.
~xd1 ~d7 9 ~g2 0-0-0 10 4Jf3 f6 11 0-0 The latter may transpose directly back to
ii.e7lh-lh Rausis-Westerinen, Gausdal199S; 4... i..e7; e.g. S a3 0-0 6 'ifc2 ~e8 7 d3 ~f8 8
or 6 4Jf3 ctJxc3 7 i..xc3 ~d6 8 d3 0-0 9 e3 4Jf3. Developing the bishop to d6 rather
'ife7 10 i..e2 i..d7 11 0-0 ~ad8 12 4Jd2 fS 13 than e7 does have one small advantage for
ctJc4 f4 14 l2lxd6 'ifxd6 1S exf4 ~xf4 16 i..f3 Black, in that S 4Jf3 can be ignored.
:df8 Korchnoi-Gipslis, USSR Spartakiad 5 cxd5 tt:Jxd5
1976. S... 'ifxdS may also be OK, though it
4 ... d5 turned out badly in Smyslov-Grigorian,
For 4... d6 or 4... g6 see next game. USSR Championship 1971: 6 ctJc3 'ifd7?! 7
Sometimes Black plays 4 ... ~e7 intending a3 i..e7 8 'ifc2 0-0 9 4Jf3 a6 10 h3 ~d8 11 d3
to castle and perhaps reorganise by ... ~e8, b6 12 ~e2 i..b7 13 0-0 'iffS 14 ~acl ~ac8
... ii.f8 before advancing the d-pawn, thus 1S ~fd1 h6 16 4Jd2! 4Jb8 17 ctJce4 4Jbd7 18
avoiding any imagined difficulties with iLbS. ~f3 i..xe4 19 ctJxe4 cS 20 ctJg3 'ifg6 21 i..b7
This cautious approach, though perfectly and White won. Black's retreat ...'ifd7 was a
playable, gives Black fewer prospects since little odd; 6... 'ifd6looks better, planning to
with ... d7-dS the bishop is more active on d6, develop the queen's bishop more actively
while if ... d7-d6 the bishop is better on g7. (e6/fS/ g4) and perhaps castle long (if 7 ltJbS
After 4 ... ~e7 White can force Black's simply 7...'ifd8 and 8... a6).
hand by attacking eS again or continue with
development.
a) S ctJc3 0-0 6 4Jf3 ~e8 7 ltJdS (thwarting
... d7-dS) 7... iJ8 8 ~e2 d6 9 0-0 ctJxdS 10
cxdS l2le7 11 e4 4Jg6 12 ~bS ~d7 13 ~xd7
'ifxd7 14 ~cl c6 1S dxc6 bxc6 16 g3 dS 17
exdS cxdS and Black was better if anything
(Adams-Dvoirys, Biel1993; though 1-0, 101).
b) S 4Jf3 hits eS and Black must either ad-
vance S... e4 6 4Jd4 l2lxd4 7 ~xd4 (reaching
S... 4Jf6 in Game 22) or forego ... d7-dS by
S... d6 when White can choose between 6 d4
(c.f. Game 13) and development by 6 a3 0-0
7 'ifc2 etc. 6 a3
c) S a3 0-0 6 'ifc2 ~e8 (6 ... dS 7 cxdS Preventing ... 4Jb4 in readiness for 'ifc2
ltJxdS) 7 d3 ~f8 8 4Jf3 aS 9 ~e2 dS 10 cxdS and supporting a later advance b3-b4. White
ctJxdS 11 4Jbd2 f6?! (better is 11...g6 12 0-0 will usually develop by d2-d3, 4Jf3, i..e2,
~g7; see 6... ~e7 below) 12 0-0 ~e6 13 <it>h1! 'ifc2, 4Jbd2 in some order.
'ifd7 14 ~g1 ~ad8 1S ctJe4 'iff7 16 g4 g6 17 a) 6 ~bS is not frightening as 6... ~d7 de-
~g3 ~g7 18 ~ag1 and White followed up fends (7 ~xc6? ~xc6 8 ~xeS loses to

52
 1 b3 e5 2 .i.b2: Other Lines

8 ... tt:Jxe3!). 6 ... tt:Jb4!? (Keene) is also fine after 1S 'iYb1 ~ad8 16 'iYa1 lt:Jb6 17 ctJe4 i..c8 18
7 tt:Jf3 (not 7 iLxeS? 'iYdS) 7 ... tt:Jd3+ (or 7 ...e4 ~ed1 fS 19 lt:JcS l::tdS (I.Rogers-Mantovani,
8 tt:Jd4 'iYgS!? - Fritz; but not 7 ... ~fS 8 Lugano 1999), or 13 ~fe1 'iYe7 14 i..fl ~d7
lt:JxeS! ctJc2+ 9 ~f1 lt:Jxa1 10 'iYf3) 8 iLxd3 1S ~acl h6 16 h3 l::tad8 17 'ifb1 ~h7 18
'iYxd3 9 ~xeS (not 9 ctJxeS? ctJxeS 10 ~xeS 'ifa1 ~c8 19 ~xc6!? bxc6 20 lt:Jc4 f6 21
'iYe4) 9 ... tt:Jb4 10 tt:Ja3 'iYa6 11 tt:Jc4 ~fS 12 ctJxaS 'ii'e6 22 e4 ct:Jf4 23 d4 cS 24 dS (if 24
lt:Jd4 tt:Jd3+ 13 ~f1 ctJxeS 14 ctJxfS ctJxc4 1S dxeS fxeS 2S CLJc4 ct:Jd3) 24 ...'iYb6 2S CLJc6
bxc4 'iYxc4 and Black won the pawn back in ~d7 26 g3 ctJxdS 27 exdS l::txdS 28 ~g2
Gmuer-Henze, corr World Cup 1994. 'ifxc6 and Black won (Spraggett-Renet,
b) 6 tt:Jf3 gives a choice between 6 ... ~d6, Clermont-Ferrand 1989).
6 ... e4 (c.f. 3 tt:Jf3- White has captured on dS 7 ~c2
prematurely), or even 6 ... ~g4 7 ~bS lt:Jb4!? White can vary move order by playing, for
(not 7 ... e4? 8 ~xc6+ bxc6 9 'iYc2) 8 ~xeS example, 7 d3 0-0 8 ct.Jf3 and then 9 'iYc2. It
tt:Jd3+ 9 ~xd3 'iYxd3 10 ~c3 0-0-0 Black has doesn't seem to make much difference.
the light squares as compensation. 7 ... 0-0 8 4Jf3 Vilie7
c) 6 ctJc3 can be neutralised by 6 ... lt:Jxc3 Overprotecting eS in order to answer 9
since White does not have b2xc3, and 7 ~bS with 9 ... ~d7. Instead 8 ... ~h8!? sets a
..txc3 i.b4 8 ~cl a6 9 'iYc2 iLxc3 10 'iYxc3 little trap: 9 ~d3? ~xa3! 10 ~xa3 ct.Jdb4,
0-0 11 tt:Jf3 ~e8 was very equal in while if 9 ctJc3 CLJxc3 10 'iYxc3 f6 or 9 ~bS
McMichael-Sheehan, 4NCL 1996. Too equal ct:Jde7 intending ... a7-a6 or ... i.fS are OK.
perhaps for IM Wohl who tried 6 ... tt:Jb6!? 7 8 ... ~e6 was B.Stein-Chandler, London
lt:Jf3 ~d6 8 d4 0-0 9 ~e2 'iVe7 10 dS tt:Jd8 198S, continuing 9 b4 (if 9 i..bS ct:Jde7 or
11 e4 a6 12 tt:Jd2 c6 13 ctJc4 ctJxc4 14 bxc4 9 ... ~d7!? are OK; Larsen prefers 9 i..e2 for
bS 1S 0-0 ~b8 16 ~b 1 b4 17 ctJa4 cS 18 ~a1 White) 9 ... a6 10 i..c4? (better was 10 d3)
fS 19 exfS ~xfS 20 ~b3 tt:Jf7 21 ~e3 'iVc7 22 10 ... ~xb4! 11i..xdS 'iYxdS 12 axb4 CLJxb413
~d3 lt:Jh6 23 ~e4 ~d7 24 lt:Jb2 tt:Jfs 2S ~h3 'iVc3 ct:Jd3+ 14 ~e2 'ifbs 1S ct:Ja3 ct:Jf4+ 16
h6 26 lt:Jd3 a5 27 ~e 1 a4 28 ~f3 lt:Jd4 29 ~d1 ~b3+ 17 CLJc2 ct:Jd3 with a clear advan-
~xf8+ ~xf8 30 h3 'iYd8? 31 f4! exf4 32 ~xd4 tage.
cxd4 33 cS and the pawns won (McMichael-
Wohl, British Championship 2000).
6 ... .i.d6
The most active square, leaving e7 for the
queen. Black will continue with ... 0-0, ...'iVe7,
... ~h8, ... ~d7, ... ~ae8, .. .f7-fS (by some
move order) and attack on the kingside. If
White removes the bishop by ct.Jbd2-c4xd6
then ... c7xd6 reinforces the centre.
Black might like to develop the bishop on
g7, but after 6 ... g6 7 tt:Jf3 ~g7 8 ~bS Black
will have to make concessions in order to
defend eS. It is possible to fianchetto later;
i.e. by 6 ... ~e7 and later ... ~f6-g7 or ... ~f8- 9 d3
g7; e.g. 6 ... ~e7 7 'iVc2 0-0 8 tLlf3 .if6 9 d3 White has also tried:
aS! (to prevent White's queenside expansion) a) 9 CLJc3 ct.Jxc3 10 'ifxc3 fS 11 i..bS e4! 12
10 tt:Jbd2 g6 11 iLe2 ~g7 12 0-0 ~e8 and i..xc6 bxc6 13 ctJeS cS and nothing has hap-
Black is OK; e.g. 13 ~acl 'iYe7 14 ~fe1 ~d7 pened to change the assessment 'un-

53
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

clear/ equal' since the stem game Larsen- If 10 ... 4:Jf6 (intending ... e5-e4) White
Spassky, Leiden 1970, which continued 14 b4 should prefer 11 ctJc4 (and if 11...e4 12
cxb4 15 axb4 .i.b7 16 Ma4 a6 17 0-0 f4 18 ct:Jfd2) to 11 e4?! (weakening f4) 11...Wh8 12
exf4 Mxf4 19 bS axbS 20 Mxa8+ i.xa8 21 .ie2 fxe4 13 ctJxe4 ct:Jds 14 0-0 ct:Jf4 15 .id1
~b3+ Wh8 22 ~xbS Mf8 (later drawn). .i.g4 16 ct:JfgS i.fS 17 g3 ctJxd3! 18 ~xd3
b) 9 .i.d3!? Wh8 10 .i.e4 ct:Jb6 11 i.xc6 ~xgS 19 ~xd6 i.xe4 20 ~xc7 ~d2 21 Ma2
bxc6 12 d3 .i.d7 13 ct:Jbd2 fS 14 e4 fxe4 15 (Ibragimov-Rublevsky, Smolensk 1991)
dxe4 with the advantage (Petrosian-Balashov, when Fritz spots an easy win with 21...~d5!
USSR 1978); at move ten 10 ... .i.e6 (Larsen) is intending 22 ... Mf7 trapping the queen.
better and if 11 ~d3 (11 ctJc3!?) 11...ctJf6 12 11 .i.e2 .i.d7 12 tt:Jc4
.i.xc6 bxc6 13 ctJxeS i.dS! or 13 .i.xeS i.xeS Not 12 ~c4 a6! 13 ~xdS?? .i.e6 trapping
14 ctJxeS i.dS. But simpler still is 9.. .f5! 10 the queen.
i.c4 (if 10 i.bS i.d7 11 ~c4 i.e6! 12 The plan of advancing the h-pawn may be
i.xc6?! ctJb4) 10 ... i.e6 11 ctJc3 ctJxc3 12 more promlSlng; e.g.
~xc3 i.xc4 13 ~xc4+ Wh8 14 d3 e4 15 a) 12 h4 Mae8 13 h5 ct:Jf6 14 ct:Jh4 (threat-
dxe4 fxe4 16 ct:Jd2 Mae8 17 ~e2 (Bagirov- ening 15 ctJg6+ hxg6 16 hxg6+ Wg8 17 ~c4+
Hefti, Bern 1995) and now 17 ... i.e5 or i.e6 18 ~h4 and mates) 14... Wg8 (14 .. .f4!?
17 ... Md8!? intending ... ctJeS (or 18 0-0? blocks the fourth rank) 15 b4 bS? 16 ctJxfS
.ixh2+) and Black is no worse. ~f7 17 ctJxd6 cxd6 with an extra pawn for
9 ... f5 White (McMichael-Hebden, London 1992)
It is possible to develop the queen's though Black won.
bishop first: 9... .ig4 10 ct:Jbd2 Wh8 11 .ie2 b) 12 b4 Mae8 13 h4 aS 14 bS ctJa7 15 hS!?
fS and then 12 0-0 Mae8 13 ctJc4 e4 14 dxe4 i.xbS 16 h6 g6 17 ctJc4 i.xc4 (17 ... ctJc6) 18
fxe4 15 ctJd4 ctJxd4 16 .ixd4 .if3 17 Wh1? dxc4 ct:Jf6 19 cS i.xcS 20 ctJxeS bS?
(17 ctJxd6) 17... .ixh2! 18 .ixf3 ~h419 Mfd1 (20 ... i.d6 21 ctJc4 with compensation) 21
(if 19 .ig4 Mf3! 20 .ih3 Mxh3) 19 ... exf3 20 ct:Jd7! .id6 (if 21...~xd7 22 ~xeS ctJc8 23
gxf3 Mxf3 21 Wg2 ~h3+ 0-1 Szczepanek- i.xbS or 22 ... c6 23 Md1 ~e7 24 ~xe7 Mxe7
Grabarczyk, Swidnica 1997. Instead White 25 i.xf6+ etc.) 22 ctJxf8 Mxf8 23 0-0 and
might try 12 h3 i.hS 13 g4!? fxg4 14 hxg4 White won (Tibensky-Banas, Sala 1992).
i.xg4 15 ctJh4 ~f7 16 ctJe4 .i.xe2 17 ~xe2 The game move order was 11 ctJc4 .id7
.i.e7 18 0-0-0 with compensation (Grabu- 12 i.e2, ruling out the above alternatives .
zova-Shumiakina, Moscow 1999). 12 ... ~ae8
10 ttJbd2 \t>h8 Concentrating the forces on the kingside.
In Ibragimov-Iskusnyh, Ekaterinburg 1997,
Black unthematically played on the queen-
side: 12 ... b5 13 ct:Jxd6 cxd6 14 0-0 Mfc8 15
~d2 i.e6 16 Mfcl ct:Jb6 17 d4 and White
was better: if 17... i.xb3 18 dxeS ctJxeS (not
18 ... dxe5? 19 .ixbS) leaves Black with a lot
of weak pawns, while the game saw 17 ... e4?
18 i.xbS exf3? (if 18 ... 4:Jd8 19 d5) 19 .ixc6
and White won.
13 0-0 ~f6 14 d4?!
A logical thrust, opening lines for his
pieces, but it seems premature. It was better
to centralise the rooks first; e.g. 14 Macl (or

54
 1 b3 e5 2 i..b2: Other Lines

14 b4 a6) and if 14... ~h6 1S ~fd1 when or 23 ... ~c8 24 'ii'd6 ~c2 2S ~cl!? ~xb2?
1S ... e4? 16 dxe4 dxe4 drops the ct:JdS. (2S ...'ifxd6!) 26 'ifb8+ 'ii'g8 27 ~c8 ~xe2 28
14... e4 15 ctJfe5 i..xe5 16 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 ~xg8+ ~xg8 29 ~fl! (not 29 e6? e3 !) fol-
17 dxe5 .:g:h6 18 g3 lowed by 30 e6 and Black has to take the
White can also defend with kingside with draw with the rooks. But 23 ... e3! 24 fxe3
h2-h3. De Smet-Jaime Summers, corr Bel- ~xe3 2S ~e 1 ~f3 or 2S fS 'ii'h6 wins.
gian Championship 1994, saw 18 ~fd1 'ifh4 23 ... ~h6
19 h3 c6 20 i.fl ~e6 21 g3 'ii'e7 22 ~d4 Now the threat of ... ~xh2 etc., means that
4:Jb6 23 b4 4:Jd7 24 ~acl (if 24 ~xa7 CLJxeS White doesn't have time for anything.
2S ~g2 CLJf3+ wins; e.g. 26 ~xf3 exf3 27 h4 24 i..c1 e3! 25 i..xe3 .:g:xe3!?
~xh4!) 24 ... ~dS 2S ~g2 (if 2S ~xa7 CLJxeS Of course 2S ... ~xh2 mates.
26 ~g2 'iff7! and 27 ... 4:Jf3+) 2S ... a6 26 e6 26 fxe3 ~xe3+ 27 ~f1 ~xe5 0-1
'ifxe6 and Black won.
18 ... i..c6 19 l:.fd1 f4! Game20
Tibensky-Banas
Stary Smokovec 1986
1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 t2Jc6 3 e3 d6
The actual move order of Tibensky-Banas
was 3 c4 4:Jf6 4 e3 g6 S 4:Jf3 d6 6 d4 ~g7 7
4:Jc3 0-0 8 ~e2 ~fS. Note that here S... e4? is
bad as after 6 CLJgS! Black cannot defend the
pawn: 6 ... 'ife7? 7 CLJxe4 or 6... ~g8 7 CLJc3
'ii'e7 8 'ii'b1 ~g7 9 ct:Jgxe4! CLJxe4 10 ct:Jds.
Similarly not (S ... d6 6 d4) 6... e4?! 7 4:Jfd2
~g7 as 8 dS! makes it difficult again for
Black to defend e4 (if 8... CLJeS 9 ~xeS!).
Not now 20 gxf4? 'ifh4, while if 20 exf4 Alternatively 3 e3 g6 4 c4 ~g7 S 4:Jf3 and
CLJxf4! 21 gxf4? 'ifh4 22 <i.t>f1 e3! (covering d2 then s ... d6 6 ~e2 4:Jf6 7 CLJc3 transposes to
and opening the diagonal for the bishop) 23 the game at move seven. However, Black has
fxe3 ~g6 forces White to give up the queen a couple of extra options by this move order:
24 'ifxg6. Instead after 21 ~fl Black can a) S... CLJge7 intends 6... 0-0 and 7...d5; e.g. 6
choose between 21...CLJg6 to pick up thee- a3 0-0 7 ifc2 a6 8 ~e2 dS 9 cxdS CLJxdS
pawn, and 21...CLJh3+22 ~xh3 ~xh3, or per- (Bezold-Fusi, Berlin 1997) and Black had two
haps throw in 21...'ii'e6!? 22 ~cl e3! 23 fxe3 tempi on 6... ~e7 from the previous game.
4:Jh3+ 24 ~xh3 ~xh3. Perhaps, since the knight is missing from f6,
White's move is not a good solution: White should try 6 h4!? and h4-hS.
20 l:.xd5? i..xd5? b) S.. .fS 6 ~e2 (for 6 d4 e4 see the notes
20 ... fxg3 wins since 21...'ii'h4 follows if the to Game 18) 6 ... d6 (if 6... 4:Jge7 7 b4!?) 7 a3
~dS moves away. aS 8 'ifc2 gS!? prompted an immediate mis-
21 exf4 ~e6 22 g4? take: 9 d4? g4 10 ct:Jfd2 exd4 11 0-0 'ii'e7 and
White had to defend the light squares with Black won a pawn (D.Andersen-Stangl,
22 ~fl. Dortmund 1993). Better simply 9 d3, delay-
22 ... l:.h3 23 f5? ing action in the centre or against the pawn
23 'ifxc7 was worth a try; if then 23 ...'ifh6 phalanx until development is complete; e.g.
24 gS 'ii'h4 2S e6! counterattacks against g7, after CLJc3 and 0-0-0.

55
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

4 c4 ttJf6 5 ... g6
Against 4 .. .f5 5ctJf3ctJf6 (if 5... g6 6 d4 e4 The fianchetto is usual but not obligatory.
7 d5!) 6 d4 e4 White now has 7ctJg5!? and if Sometimes Black plays 5... .ltf5; e.g. T.Wall-
7... h6 8 lbh3 g5 (McMichael-Stephenson, Stille, 4NCL 1999: 6 .lte2 .lte7 (6 ... g6 7lLJf3
4NCL 1999) then 9ctJg1! intending 10 h4, an ~g7 returns to the game) 7ctJf3 0-0 (if 7 ... e4
idea from the English (1 c4 e5 2ctJc3ctJc6 3 8 ctJh4!? intending 9 g4) 8 d4 exd4 9 lbxd4
lbf3 f5 4 d4 e4 5ctJg5 h6 etc); e.g. 9... ctJe7 10 lbxd4 10 'ifxd4ctJd7 11ctJd5 .ltf6 12ctJxf6+
h4 g4 11ctJe2 lLJh5 12 lbbc3 c6 13 g3 trans- lbxf6 13 g4 .lte4 14 1:rg1 'ife7 15 g5 ctJe8 16
posing to S.Williams-Tait, British Champion- 0-0-0 f6 17 f3 ~g6 18 h4 1:rd8 19 1:rg3 and
ship 1996, in which White built up a power- now Black lost a pawn and the game by
ful position on the queenside with b2-b4, 19 ... 'i¥e5? 20 'ifxe5 fxe5 21 .ltxe5.
ctJcl, a2-a4, lbb3, b4-b5, .lta3, c4-c5 (while 6 ttJf3 ~g7 7 ~e2
Black played ... d6-d5 and shuffled about). The immediate 7 d4 doesn't force Black's
hand as capturing (7 ... exd4), pushing past
(7 ... e4), or ignoring the d-pawn are all viable
options. For instance 7... .ltf5 8 .lte2 e4 9
lbd2 h5 leads to an interesting position. With
the bishop on f5 White must be careful
about playing 'ifc2; e.g. 10 a3 'ife7 11 'ifc2
ctJxd4! 12 exd4 e3 13 'ifd1ctJg4 14 0-0? (bet-
ter 14 fxe3 ctJxe3 15 ctJd5) was B.Pedersen-
Sobjerg, Aarhus 1991, when 14... exf2+! 15
~h1 lbxh2! or 15 1:rxf2 lbxf2 16 ~xf2
.ltxd4+ would have been very strong. Instead
10 lbflled to a complicated game in S.Berry-
Botterill, corr BPCTC 1993: 10 ...'ife7 11 h3
5 ttJc3 h4 12 'ifd2 lbb4 13 0-0-0 c6 14 ~b1 d5 15
5 lbf3 gives Black extra possibilities; e.g. c5 ctJd3 16 .ltxd3 exd3 17 f3 0-0-0 18 ctJa4
5... .ltg4 or 5... e4 6 lbd4 ctJe5 7 .lte2 c5 8 .lth6 19 .ltcl 1:rhe8 20 ~a1 lLJh5 21 lbb2
lbb5 a6 9 ctJ5c3 .ltg4 10 0-0 .ltxe2 11 'ifxe2 'ifc7 22 f4 g5 23 fxg5 .ltxg5 24ctJxd3 f6 25
i..e7 12ctJa3 (12 f3!? would remove the an- 'iff2 .lte4 with a light-square bind for the
noying pawn) 12 ... 0-0 13 ctJc2 ctJd3 14 .lta3 pawn.
d5 15 cxd5 b5! 16 ctJxe4 'ifxd5 17 lbxf6+ With 7 .lte2 White waits for more infor-
.ltxf6 18 1:rab1 b4 19 .ltcl 1:rad8 20 1:rd1 mation before committing the d-pawn. If
'i¥e4! 21 f3ctJf4 22 'ifc4 'ifxc4 23 bxc4ctJe2+ 7... .ltf5 White might continue anyway with 8
24 ~f2 ctJc3 and Black went on to win in d4 or adopt a more restrained approach, e.g.
T.Wall-G.Lane, 4NCL 1999. 8 d3 0-0 9 ctJd2!?.
In Sadler-R.Tozer, Eastbourne 1990, 7 ... 0-0 8 d4 i.f5
White circumvented ... e5-e4 by playing 5 d3. Again Black can choose how to react to
The game continued 5... g6! 6 lbf3 .i.g7 7 the d4-pawn.
ctJc3 0-0 8 lbd2 d5! 9 cxd5 ctJxd5 when it a) 8... exd4 9 lbxd4 lbxd4 10 'ifxd4 is ac-
looks as if Black has lost a tempo with ... d7- ceptable, transposing to Bischoff-Espig,
d6-d5 but in fact he has gained a tempo on Bundesliga 2000, when Black equalised by
... .ltf8-e7-f8-g7 (c.f. 6... .i.e7 in the previous 10 ... c6! 11 'ifd2 d5 12 cxd5 lbxd5 13 lbxd5
game). Sadler won, but that was perhaps to .ixb2 14 'ifxb2 'ifxd5 15 0-0 .ie6.
be expected. b) 8... e4 9ctJd2 ~e8 prepares a trick: 10 g4

56
 1 b3 e5 2 iLb2: Other Lines

l2Jxd4! 11 exd4 e3 (Sibilio-Zorman, Caorle 11 a3 i..g4

1982) and if 12 fxe3 l2Jxg4 13 ~xg4 'iVh4+ Clearing the way for a later .. .f7-f5 but giv-
wins; e.g. 14 <it>fl ~xg4 15l2Jf3 'iVhS 16 <it>f2 ing White time to organise his pieces.
l:txe3! 17 <it>xe3 ltxf3. White should build up ll...l2Ja6 seems more natural and 12 tt:Jd2
more slowly by 10 a3! and 11 h3, etc. ltJcS 13 f3 lth6! 14 e4 ltd7 (threatening
9 d5 ... ~xd2) 15 lt:Jdbl a4 or if 12l2Jel (intending
12 ... lt:Jc5 13 b4) 12 ... c6! generates counter-
play.
12 h3 i..xf3 13 i..xf3 lt:Ja6 14 Wid2 lt:Jd7
If 14 ... l2Jc5 15 'iVc2 and 16 b4 drives the
knight back.
15 lt:Jb5
Getting out of the way of the ltb2, ena-
bling l2Jd4 should Black advance thee-pawn,
and also threatening the aS-pawn.
15 ... tt:Jac5 16 Wlc2 f5
Black could create an outpost by 16 ... a4 17
b4l2Jb3 18 l:tae 1 but the knight is doing little
on b3 and is vulnerable to ltdl etc.
9 ... tiJb8 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4 t2Ja6 19 'ii'b3 ~h8
9 ... l2Jb4! is slightly more accurate, forcing Not yet 19 ... e4? 20 .i.xg7 <it>xg7 21 lt:Jd4!
10 0-0, when Odessky-Shuklin, Moscow and 22 l2Je6.
Championship 1996, continued lO ... aS 11 h3 20 :ac 1 Wih4 21 i..a3
hS (OK when White has castled short) 12 a3 Supporting the advance c4-c5. If Black
l2Ja6 13 l:tel ltJcS 14 ltfl ~h6 15 b4 axb4 tries 21...e4 22 ~e2 f4 23 exf4 ifxf4 (hoping
16 axb4 l:txal 17 ltxal l2Jce4 18 'iVb3 'iVe7 for 24 cS dxcS 25 bxcS c6! 26 l2Jd6 ltJaxcS)
19 ltb2 l:ta8 with an acceptable position. the bishop will go back to b2 and the knight
What Black should not do is play ... 0-0 to d4 and e6.
and ... h7-h5 when White hasn't castled as this 21 ... b6 22 i..b2!
creates both a target and a lever for White's An excellent example of probing manoeu-
attack; e.g. Eliseev-Arbakov, St Petersburg vres. Having just played l:tacl and lta3 with
2000, saw 9 ... l2Je7 10 l2Jd2 hS?! 11 h3 'iVc8 12 one objective (c4-c5) White reverses his
l:tgl! ltd7 (if 12 ... h4 13 e4! ltd7 14 l2Jf3 moves to attack a new target: the knight on
picks up the h-pawn) 13 g4 hxg4 14 hxg4 c6 a6 which 21...b6 has undermined. The sub-
15 l2Jde4 l2Jxe4 16 l2Jxe4 cxdS 17 cxdS and sequent l:tal-a3, l:tfal is very hard for Black
Black now lost his marbles: 17 ... l2Jxd5?? 18 to meet so he continues with his kingside
'iVxdS ltc6 19 'iVd3 dS 20 l2Jd2 and White attack.
won. 22 ... g5 23 :a1 :ts
10 0-0 23 ... g4 24 hxg4 fxg4 25 g3 allows White to
White could play 10 h3 intending lO ... hS? safeguard his position with ltg2, so Black
11 l:tgl etc. or 10 l2Jd2 intending g4, h4-h5. tries to prepare the advance.
Instead he continues as if 9 ... l2Jb4 had been 24 :a3 :g6
played. Now 24 ... g4 25 hxg4? would lose to
10 ... a5 25 ... l:th6, but 25 g3 'iVhS 26 .i.hl ifxh3 27
Establishing the knight's future outpost ~g2 is solid when White can proceed with
on cS. l:tfal.

57
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Black's move prevents both defences: e.g. 44 ... ~g8 45 c5 ~f7 46 c6 tt:Jxc6 47
25 ~fa1 g4 26 g3? gxf3 or 26 hxg4 fxg4 27 ~xc6 ~e6 48 :C.c5 l!d2+ 49 ~g3 l!b2 50
i.e4 ~h6 28 ~fl ~f8! 29 'ifc2 tLlxb4 30 gh5 ~d7 51 ~xh7+ ~c6 52 l!c7+ ~b6
'ifd2 CLJc5 and wins. Unfortunately ... 53 ti:Jd4 :b4 54 tt:Je6 1-0

Game 21
Welling -Bronstein
Belgian Team Championship 1996

1 b3 e5 2 jLb2 tt:Jc6 3 ti:Jf3!?

25 e4!
Black has spent ages preparing his attack
and White negates it in a single move. If
25 .. .fxe4 26 .ig4.
25 ... g4 26 exf5 gxf3 27 fxg6 fxg2 28
<itxg2 ti:Jf6 29 f4 ti:Jh5 30 fxe5 :g8 31
exd6! A pet line of Dutch CCGM (and OTB
White already has enough material without IM) Dik van Geet who introduced the idea
by taking the knight (31 ~xa6) putting the to IM Well in g. White sacrifices a bit of time
rook out of the game. to open the long diagonal for the fianchet-
31 ...'ii'e4+ 32 <itg1 i.e5 33 i.xe5+ 'ii'xe5 toed bishop.
34 ~a2? 3 c4 tLlf6 4 tLlf3!? e4 5 tLld4 is a related
Understandable precautions over the line when 5 ... tt:Jxd4 6 .ixd4 d5 7 e3 trans-
board, but better 34 d7! ~xg6+ 35 ~h 1 and if poses to the next game. But Black can also
35 ...ife4+ 36 iff3 tLlg3+ 37 ~h2 tLlxfl+ 38 play 5... .ic5! and then 6 ctJxc6 (or if 6 e3
'ifxf1 'ife5+ 39 ~h1 'ife4+ 40 ~f3 with no .ixd4 7 exd4 d5) 6... dxc6! with two con-
more checks for Black. tinuations:
34 ... :xg6+ 35 :g2 ti:Jg3? a) 7 e3 .if5 8 'ifc2 'ife7 9 .ie2 0-0-0 10
Better was 35 ... ~xg2+ 36 ~xg2 'i¥g5+ 37 f4?! (utilising the pin to gain control of e5)
~h2 'i¥e5+ 38 ~h1 CLJg3+ 39 ~g1 tLlxf1 40 10 ... 4:Jg4! (White's dark squares are already
'iff3! 'i¥g7+ 41 ~xfl cxd6 42 CLJxd6 CLJxb4 looking weak: Black can look to demolish
and Black can put up more resistance; if 43 them with ... ct:J/.ixe3 or ... ~xd2; e.g. 11 0-0
'iff7 'ifxf7+ 44 tLlxf7+ ~g7 45 CLJd6 ~f6 46 ~xd2!, 11 .ixg7 ~hg8 12 .ib2 .ixe3!, 12
CLJc8 b5! 47 cxb5 CLJxd5 48 b6 tLlb4. 'ifc3 CLJxe3! or 12 'ifb2 .ixe3! 13 dxe3 CLJxe3)
36 'iff3 tt:Je2+ 37 <ith1 tt:Jg3+ 38 :xg3 11 g3 h5 (now if 12 .ixg7 ~h7! 13 'ifb2
:xg3 39 'i¥f6+ 'ii'xf6 40 ~xf6 cxd6 41 ~hg8 intending ... h5-h4; 14 .ixg4 .ixg4) 12
:xd6 ti:Jxb4 42 ~xb6 ~xh3+ 43 <itg2 :d3 h3 h4! 13 hxg4 (13 .ixg4 .ixg4 14 hxg4
44d6 hxg3 15 ~g1 ~h2 intending ...'ifh4) 13 ... hxg3
And White won. 14 ~g1 ~h1!! 15 ~xh1 g2 16 ~fl (16 ~g1

58
 1 b3 e5 2 Ji.b2: Other Lines

'il'h4+ 17 ~d1 'il'h1) 16 ...'il'h4+ 17 ~d1 ing-Van der Sterren, Dutch Championship
gxf1'i¥ + 0-1 Larsen-Spassky, Belgrade 1970 1985. There seems nothing wrong with 10
(after 18 ~xf1 ~xg4+ 19 ~cl 'il'e1+ mates). tt:Jxa8! though, and in Van Geet-Krabbe,
b) 7 d4 ~b4+ (7 ... exd3 8 'il'xd3 'il'xd3 9 Netherlands 1981, White won after 10... ti:Jf6?
exd3 is also OK for Black) 8 ti:Jc3 e3! 9 f3 11 a3 'iixd1+ 12 ~xd1 tt:Jc6 13 b4 ~d6 14
(not 9 fxe3? tt:Je4) 9 ... tt:Jh5 10 'il'd3 'iYgS (or bS tt:JeS 15 b6 axb6 16 tt:Jxb6. If instead
10 ... 'il'h4+ 11 ~d1 tt:Jg3) 11 g4 0-0 12 0-0-0 10 ... 'Jii/xd1+ 11 ~xd1 b6 12 a3 tt:Jc6 13 b4
tt:Jf4 13 'Jii/c2 fS 14 h4 'il'e7 15 gS aS 16 ~b1 ~d6 14 tt:Jxe4 ~b8 (or 14... ~e7 15 ~cl
bS 17 cxbS cxbS 18 tt:JxbS ti:JdS 19 'il'c6 ~e6 i.b7 16 tt:Jc7) 15 tt:Jgs tt:Jh6 16 ~e2 ~b7 17
20 ~c 1 ~fc8 21 hS ~ab8 22 tt:Ja7 ~e8 23 g6 ~f3 or 13 ... ~e7 14 tt:Jds ~d6 15 ~cl tt:Jf6
~b6 24 gxh7+ ~xh7 25 'il'c2 i.d2 26 i.h3 16 tt:Jac7 i.xc7 17 tt:Jxc7 ~xc7 18 bS keeps
'il'd7 27 ~cg1 ti:Jb4 28 'iYcS tt:Jxa2 29 dS White ahead on point count.
ti:Jc3+ 30 ~c2 ~xb3 31 dxe6 when Black had 5 e3
the forcing 31...~xb2+ 32 ~xb2 ~b8+ and
wins. Instead he played 31...'il'a4?? allowing
32 ~xg7+! ~xg7 33 'iYeS+ ~g8 34 ~g1+ and
White won in Saric-Barbaric Vuk, Split 1999.
3 ... e4
Black need not fall in with White's plan
and can instead reinforce the centre with
3... d6 when 4 e3 is Game 13 in Chapter 2.
Instead the Dutch masters have tried 4 d4!?
and then:
a) 4 .. .f6!? 5 e4 tt:Jh6 6 tt:Jc3 ~g4 7 tt:Jds
'il'd7 8 ~e2 i.hS?? 9 tt:JxeS! tt:JxeS (if
9 ... ~xe2 10 tt:Jxd7 ~xd1 11 tt:Jxf8 i.xc2 12
tt:Jxc7+ ~f7 13 tt:Jxa8 ~xf8 14 f3 ~xa8 15 This can also arise via 3 e3 tt:Jf6 4 tt:Jf3 e4
~d2 wins) 10 i.xhS+ tt:Jef7 11 0-0 with a 5 tt:Jd4.
clear extra pawn (Welling-Bucker, Den 5 ... d5
Bosch 1999, via 2 ... d6 3 d4). S... tt:Jxd4 6 ~xd4 is the next game again.
b) 4 ... e4 5 dS exf3 (for S... tt:Jce7?! 6 ti:JgS fS Black has also tried:
7 e3 see 4 .. .f5?! in Game 13, or if S... tt:Jb4 6 a) S... tt:JeS!? 6 tt:Jfs (6 f4!?) 6... d6 7 tt:Jg3
a3 exf3 7 axb4 fxg2 8 ~xg2) S... exf3 6 dxc6 'Jiile7 8 c4 b6 9 ti:Jc3 ~b7 10 'il'b1 (better 10
bxc6 (6 .. .fxe2 7 'il'xe2+ and 8 cxb7) 7 gxf3 'il'c2) 10 ... 0-0-0 11 ~e2 (if 11 tt:Jcxe4 tt:Jxe4
ti:Jf6 8 'il'd4 ~e7 9 ~g1 0-0 10 ti:Jc3 cS 11 12 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxc4) 11...h5 12 h4 ~b8 13 a3
'il'e3 g6 12 0-0-0 ~e8 13 f4 i.b7 14 i.g2 ~g8 14 'iia2 (what's this?!) 14 ... ti:Jd3+ 15
~f8 15 'il'd3 ~xg2 16 ~xg2 ~g7 and Black i.xd3 exd3 16 f3 dS 17 cxdS tt:JxdS 18 tt:JxdS
was solid (Welling-Karpatchev, Cappelle la i.xdS with advantage to Black (Baljon-Van
Grande 1998). der Sterren, Amsterdam 1980). The game
4 etJd4 tt:Jf6 ended quickly after 19 ti:JxhS? ~h8 20 tt:Jf4
4 ... tt:Jxd4 is the next game. ~xh4 21 ~f2 ~xf4! 22 exf4 'il'e2+ 23 ~g3
4 ... 'iff6!? leads to strange complications: 5 ~d6 24 fS ~g6+! 25 fxg6 i.d6+ 26 ~h4 'iff2+
e3 ~cS 6 tt:JbS! iixb2 7 ti:J1c3 tt:Jb4 8 ~b1 27 ~hs 'il'g3 28 ~xg7 ~f4 0-1.
'iY xc2 9 tt:Jxc7+ ~d8 and then 10 'iYhS!? b) S... ~cS 6 tt:Jxc6 dxc6 (6 ... bxc6!? -
tt:Jxa2 11 'iYxcS tt:Jxc3 12 'Jii/f8+ ~xc7 13 Keene) 7 ti:Jc3 (7 c4?! is Larsen-Spassky in
'iY cS+ ~d8 was drawn by repetition in Well- the 3 c4 note above) 7... 0-0 8 'il'e2!? 'il'e7 9

59
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

a3 ~g410 f3 ~f5 (better 10 ... ~h5!- Keene) square and pre-empts any counter-traps by
11 f4! (closing the centre) 11...Ct:Jd5 (if 1l...h5 0-0 ... 'ifxd2, ~fdl.
12 h3 intending 13 ~g1 i'ie6 14 0-0-0 or
13 ... h4 14 g4!? hxg3 15 ~xg3) 12 CtJd1 b5 13
Ct:Jf2 aS 14 g3 a4 15 b4 ~xb4!? (15 ... ~b6 16
c4) 16 axb4 CtJxb4 17 i'id1 and White even-
tually won (with the help of a blunder) in
Larsen-Ledic, Vinkovci 1970.
6 c4 t2Jb4
6... Ct:Jxd4 7 ~xd4 is the next game again.
7 cxd5
If 7 a3 CtJd3+ S ~xd3 exd3 and the d3-
pawn is virtually invulnerable.
7 ... t2Jbxd5 8 a3 i..d6
S... c5 9 CtJb5 ~e7 is more conservative.
White cannot exploit the forthcoming pin 18 i..d1
(i'ic2 vs. ~e4, ~f5): 10 i'ic2 0-0 11 CtJ5c3 If White could remove the e4-pawn he
~f5 12 f3 ~d6 13 fxe4 CtJxe4 14 CtJxe4 would stand well. Unfortunately 1S f3?! ~e5
i'ih4+ or 11 CtJ1c3 ~f5 12 f3 ~eS 13 fxe4? (1S ... exf3!? 19 gxf3 ~e5) 19 b5 (19 fxe4??
CtJxe4 14 CtJxe4 ~xe415 i'ixe4? ~h4+, while Ct:Jd7 traps the queen) 19 ... CtJd5 (threatening
if White exchanges on d5 the bishop can go ... b7-b6) 20 bxa6 'ifh4+ 21 ~fl exf3leads to
to f6. a precarious position for White. Perhaps
9 i..e2 c5 White could prepare 0-0 with 1S CtJb1!? also
9 ... ~e5 is reasonable; if 10 CtJc6? Black reclaiming e5, while if 1S ... Ct:Jd5 19 ~c4 (19
gets a lot for the queen: 10 ... ~xb2 11 CtJxdS 0-0?? ~a7 traps the queen again) 19 ... ~xc4
~xa1 with the trapped knight to follow. 20 'ifxc4 b5 21 i'ic6!?. Instead he elects to
10 t2Jb5 i..b8 11 'iY c2 0-0 12 ttJ 1 c3 remove the annoying bishop.
If 12 'ifxc5 a6 13 Ct:Jd4 ~a7 14 'ifc2 ~d7 18 ... i..xd1
intending ... ~cS and Black has more than Hitting the queen doesn't achieve any-
ample compensation for the pawn. thing: 1S ... ~d6 19 i'id4 or 1S ... ~a7 19 i'if5.
12 .. J1e8 19 t2Jxd1 t2Jd5 20 t2Jc3 t2Jb6 21 t2Je2 t2Ja4
Consistent. If Black changed his mind he 22 'iYc2 t2Jxb2 23 'iYxb2 i..e5 24 'iYb1 f5
could run into difficulties; e.g. 12 ... a6 13 If White tries to loosen the bind by 25 d4
CtJxd5 CtJxd5 14 CtJc3 CtJxc3 15 i'ixc3 'if g5 16 exd3 26 ~d 1 Black can regain the pawn by
h4!? i'ixg2 17 ~f1 i'ig4 (17 ... i'ig6 1S h5 26 ... i'ig5 27 i'ixd3 (not 27 CtJg3? f4)
i'ih6 19 ~g1 f6 20 'ifxc5) 1S ~h3 'iig6 19 27 ... i'ixg2 2S ~g1 'iff3 (not 2S ... 'ifxh2?? 29
h5 'if g5 20 ~xeS ~xeS 21 0-0-0 and 22 'ifd5+ and 30 ~h1).
~hgl. 25 t2Jg3 g6 26 ~a2+ ~g7 27 0-0 ~d3
13 t2Jxd5 t2Jxd5 14 'iYxc5 a6 15 t2Jc3 tiJf6 Keeping an iron grip on d3, the queen
16 Itc1 i..e6 17 b4 i..b3! stays on blockading duty for the remainder
Black has reasonable compensation for of the game.
the pawn based on White's uncoordinated 28 f4 exf3 29 ~xf3 .:adS 30 tiJf1 h5 31
pieces, exposed queen and inability to castle Itc5 ~d7 32 a4 Wh6 33 ~f2 i..g7 34
(without dropping the d-pawn), particularly 'iYc4?
as the extra pawn is itself backward on d2. This drops the pawn after Black's next,
Black's last move gives his pieces the e5- though he didn't take it (i.e. 35 ... ~xb4! with a

60
 1 b3 e5 2 .i.b2: Other Lines

good endgame). Presumably both players 7... c5 leaves Black's centre weak after 8
were short of time and happy to make a draw i.xf6! 'i¥xf6 9 ctJc3 dxc4 (if 9... d4 10 ctJxe4
by repetition. 'i¥e5 11 i.d3 i.f5 12 f4! 'i¥e6 13 ct:Jg5 or
34 ... .l:.e4 35 ~g8 .:i.d8 36 ~f7 .l:.d7 37 12 ... 'i¥e7 13 'i¥f3 keeps the pawn) 10 .txc4
~g8 l:!d8 38 ~f7 .l:.d7 %-% 'i¥g6 11 'i¥c2! 'i¥xg2 12 0-0-0 i.d7 13 ~hg1
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 'i¥f3 14 i.e2 iVf5? 15 .tg4 'i¥e5 16 i.xd7+
Game 22 ~xd7 17 d4 exd3 18 'i¥xd3+ 1-0 Basman-
Welling-Minasian Crouch, London 1975.
Cappelle La Grande 1996 Supporting the centre by 7... c6 (or
7... .te6) gives Black a prospectless position;
1 CL\f3 ttJc6!? 2 b3 e5 3 .i.b2 e4 4 tiJd4 e.g. 8 ctJc3 ~e7 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 i.e2 0-0 11
tt:Jxd4 5 itxd4 d5 'i¥c2 ~f5 12 0-0 'i¥a5 13 'i¥b2 ~fc8 14 a3 a6?
Black can also play without (or delay) 15 ctJa4 ~c6 16 ctJb6! ~xb6 17 b4 ~xb4 18
... d7-d5; e.g. 5... 4Jf6 6 e3 ite7 7 c4 0-0 8 'i¥c2 axb4 and White won in T abernero Palacios-
and then: Scantlebury, corr NA TT 4 1995-98.
a) 8... c6 9 ctJc3 d5 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 i.e2 It is simpler to scuttle the centre straight-
i.e6 12 0-0 ~c8 13 'i¥b2 a6 14 ~fcl 'i¥d6 15 away, enabling Black to develop smoothly:
ctJa4 and White's dark-square control gave 7... dxc4 8 .txc4 i.e7 (8 ... i.f5 9 ctJc3 is the
him the advantage in Larsen-Parma, Vink- game) 9 0-0 0-0 10 f3 c5 11 i.b2 i.f5 and
ovci 1970. now White had a pop with 12 g4!? i.d7 13
b) 8... d6 9 4Jc3 .tf5 10 f3!? (10 ~d1 ~e8 g5 b5 14 .te2 (Fritz suggests 14 fxe4!? ctJxe4
11 d3 i.f8 was equal in Ljubojevic- 15 itxf7+) 14 ... ctJe8 15 ctJc3 exf3 16 i.xb5
Gheorghiu, Poiana Brasov 1973) 10 ... .Me8 i.g4 17 'i¥c2 i.d6 18 ctJe4 i.xh2+ 19 ~xh2
(10 ... c5 11 i.xf6 .txf6 12 0-0-0 .txc3 13 'i¥b8+ and 20 ...'i¥xb5 with advantage to Black
dxc3 leaves Black with a backward d-pawn) in Basman-Nunn, London 1975.
11 0-0-0 d5!? (if 11...i.f8 12 g4 i.g6 13 i.xf6 8 ttJc3 dxc4 9 .i.xc4 .i.d6
'i¥xf6 14 f4) 12 i.xf6 i.aJ+ 13 ~b1 'i¥xf6 14 If 9... 4Jd7 (threatening ... c5) then White
ctJxd5 'i¥e5 15 f4 (or 15 g4 i.e6 16 d4 exd3 plays 10 ctJe2 and ctJg3.
17 i.xd3) 15 ... 'i¥d6 16 h3 h5 (Bernardt- 10 ~c2 0-0 11 f4 c6 12 0-0 lieS
Heinola, corr ICCF 1985) when White
should have played 17 d4 with the idea 18 g4
hxg4 19 hxg4 itxg4 20 'i¥h2, or if 17 ... h4 18
'i¥f2 'i¥d8 19 g4!.
6 e3 tiJf6
Black can also send the knight to f5:
6... 4Jh6 (or 6... ctJe7) 7 d3 ct:Jf5 8 i.b2 exd3 9
i.xd3 i..e7 10 c4 dxc4 11 bxc4 .tf6 12 ctJc3
c6 13 'i¥c2 'i¥a5 14 0-0 0-0 15 ~ab1 i.e6 16
ctJe2 i.xb2 17 ~xb2 b6 18 ltJf4 'i¥e5 19
ctJxe6 fxe6 20 g4 ctJh4 21 i.xh7+ ~h8 22
i.e4 ctJf3+ 23 i.xf3 ~xf3 24 ~e1 ~af8 25
~e2 and, unlikely as it seems given his struc-
tural defects, White slowly consolidated the This positiOn doesn't look much for
extra pawn in Van Geet-Franzen, corr Von White, but Welling has a long-term plan of
Massow memorial 1996-98. g2-g4-g5 to open the long diagonal and the
7 c4 .i.f5 g-file.

61
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

13 LZ:Jd1 'ftie7 14 LZ:Jf2 gadS 15 :tad1 LZ:Jg4 Threatening 31 :g8+ i.xg8 32 :xg8+
16 j_e2 LZ:Jxf2 17 l:Ixf2 a6 18 ~b2 .i.a3 ~xg8 33 'iig1+ and mates, or if 30 ... 'iixe3 31
19 'flia1 f6 fl.
Black doesn't suspect anything. With 30 ... gd7 31 i.xe8?
hindsight 19 .. .'iff8 might have been better, A definite mistake. White wins easily with
leaving the pawns alone. 31 'iie5! threatening 32 :g8+ again.
20 g4 i.c8 21 g5 f5? 31 ... ~xe8 32 ~e5 ~d5
If 21 ... fxg5 22 f5! and White's threatened Now 33 :g8+ can be answered by
f5-f6 is so strong that Fritz recommends 33 ... .tf8.
giving up the exchange with 22 ...:xd4. The 33 'i'b8+ gd8 34 'i'xb7 i.f7?
text seems to block everything off but White After 34... :d7! 35 'ifxa6 i.f8 the win
has prepared a devastating blow: would be very problematic.
22 i.f6!! gxf6 23 gxf6 ~d6 35 b4! ~d7?
If 23 .. .'iff7 24 :g2+ ~h8 (or 24 ... ~f8 25 If now 35 ...:d7 then 36 :xf7! 'ifxf7 37
:g7) 25 .th5! 'ifxh5 26 f7+ mates. 'iib8+ :d8 38 'ife5+ ~d7 39 :d1+ ~c8 40
24 llg2+ ~f7 :xd8+ ~xd8 41 'iib8+ ~d7 42 'ifb7+ or
If 24 ... ~f8 25 f7 ~xf7 26 'Yi'g7+ ~e6 27 36 ...:xb7 37 :xb7 and the f-pawn will cost
.tc4+. Black his queen.
25 I::tg7+ ~f8 26 l:Ixh7 36 gg8+ j_xg8 37 gxg8+ ~f7 38 I::tg7+
Threatening 27 :h8+ ~f7 28 .th5+ (or ~e6 39 l:Ixd7 I::txd7 40 ~xa6 i.b2 41
the other way round). ~xc6+ I::td6 42 'YWe8+ ~d5 43 f7 1-0
26 ... ~g8 Despite the slip, a splendid performance
by the Dutch IM.

Game23
Minasian-Van der Wert
Groningen 1991
1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 d6 3 e3 ctJf6
3... ctJc6 goes back to Chapter 2 (Games
11-13). 3.. .f5 and other moves are covered in
Game 24, apart from 3... g6 and 3... ct:Jd7
which it is appropriate to look at with
3... ct:Jf6.
a) 3... g6 4 d4 i.g7 5 dxe5 (if 5 tt:Jf3 e4 and
27 gg7+ 6.. .f5) 5... tt:Jd7 6 tDf3 dxe5 (if 6... CDxe5 Dun-
Computers are very good at winning these nington suggests 7 CDxe5 i.xe5 8 CDc3 in-
sorts of positions and here Fritz recommends tending 'ill d2, 0-0-0) and now 7 .tc4 sets a
27 :h6! threatening 28 f7+ and Black has no trap: 7... tt:Je7? 8 tt:Jg5 0-0 9 i.xf7+ :xf7 10
defence (if 27 ... ~f8 28 .th5). Over the board CDe6 wins, but 7... tt:Jh6 8 e4 0-0 and 9 ... CDb6
it is of course more difficult to be accurate. is OK. Instead 7 ctJa3 (or 7 tt:Jbd2) 7... tt:Jh6 8
27 ... ~f8 28 ~h1 j_e6 29 gdg1 ~xd2 CDc4 f6 9 'iid5 lt:Jb6 10 'iixd8+ ~xd8 11
If 29 ... :d7 White wins by swinging the 0-0-0+ ~d7 12 CDa5 'with the more comfort-
queen round: 30 'ife1! and 'ifh4 (if 30 ... :xg7 able game for White'- Dunnington. Never-
31 :xg7). theless Black defended solidly: 12 ... ~c8 13
30 j_h5 h3 4Jf7 14 g4 ~e6 15 tt:Jd2 .tf8 16 a3 .td5

62
 1 b3 e5 2 ii..b2: Other Lines

17 l:!g1 i..e7 18 c4 i..e6 19 i..g2 c6 20 f4 and 8... 't:Jc6 in T.Wall-Bates, Sutton 1999. In
r./t;;c7 and later won in Hodgson-Schmaltz, contrast, 4... i.e7 5 tt:Jf3 0-0 6 d4 exd4 7
Harplinge 1998. 't:Jxd4 (McMichael-White, 4NCL 1997) looks
White can also strike at the centre with 4 a bit clumsy for Black.
f4 i..g7 5 ct:Jf3 when S... ct:Jc6 is Game 18, c) 4 d4! is the most forcing move since
while S... ct:Jf6!? 6 fxeS ctJg4 is a Bird in which Black cannot ignore the attack oneS. After
both 7 ctJc3 dxeS (or 7 ... ctJxeS) and 7 i.c4 4... exd4 5 ~xd4 't:Jc6 6 .i.bS White is again
dS!? 8 i.e2 ctJd7 seem OK for Black. more active. Instead 4... e4?! is inappropriate
b) 3 ... ctJd7 4 d4 c6 commences an Old In- without a ct:Jf3 to hit, then 5 dS!? isolates the
dian formation (for 4 ... g6 5 dxeS i.g7 see e4-pawn and opens the diagonal for the
3 ... g6); for example 5 c4 ct:Jgf6 6 ct:Jf3 ~c7 7 bishop. Magomedov-Neverov, Minsk 1990,
i..e2 iie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ctJc3 l:e8 10 ~c2 has continued S... c6 6 c4 cxdS 7 cxdS i..e7 8 't:Jc3
been seen several times by various move 0-0 9 ct:Jge2 i.f5 10 't:Jg3 i.g6 11 'iVd4
orders. Barcza-Gipslis, Tallinn 1969, contin- (threatening tt:Jxe4) 11 ... ~a5 12 i..e2 Me8 13
ued 10 ... i..f8 (10 ... 't:Jf8 and ... 't:Jg6 is also 0-0 i..f8 14 i..d1 't:Jbd7 15 i..c2 'iVb6 16
played) 11 l:acl a6 12 Mfd1 b6 13 i..a3 i..b7 Mad1 't:Jc5 17 b4 .l:.ac8 18 't:Ja4 't:Jxa4 19
14 dxeS dxeS 15 i..xf8 Mxf8 16 't:JgS MadS .i.xa4 ~xd4 20 .i.xd4 and White was better.
17 ~fs tt:Jcs 18 b4 i..c8 19 ~b1 't:Je6 20 4... 't:Jbd7 5 't:Jf3! e4 6 't:Jfd2 dS 7 c4 c6
't:Jge4 't:Jxe4 21 't:Jxe4 with a balanced posi- creates a reversed Tarrasch French. Usually
tion. White always has more space but Black the reversed Frenchs are fine for Black, but
is very solid. If immediately 5 't:Jf3 Black can here the knights are misplaced - the f6-
also try S... e4!? leading to a reversed T arrasch knight occupies the traditional home of the
French after 6 tt:Jfd2 dS 7 c4 i.d6 with d7-knight (c.f. 3... 't:Jd7 above). White should
... 't:Je7 and ... 't:Jdf6 to follow. therefore attack the centre before Black has
4 Cbe2!? reorganised, to which end Dunnington's 8
Minasian has a liking for this move against 't:Jc3 i..d6 9 f3!? exf3 (or 9 ... 'iYe7 10 fxe4) 10
... d7-d6 systems. White can break with either ~xf3 looks effective .
d2-d4 or f2-f4 or develop quietly by 5 g3, 6 4 ... g6 5 f4!?
i..g2 leading to an English (after c2-c4) or
perhaps a Hippopotamus (after d2-d3 and
't:Jd2).
Instead:
a) 4 't:Jf3 transposes to the line 1 't:Jf3 't:Jf6
2 b3 d6!? 3 i.b2 eS 4 e3 in Chapter 9 (Game
6~. -
b) 4 c4 g6 5 't:Jf3 i..g7 6 d4 will transpose
elsewhere after 6 ... 't:Jc6 7 't:Jc3 (Game 20),
6... e4 7 tt:Jfd2 0-0 8 't:Jc3 or 6 ... 't:Jbd7 7 't:Jc3
0-0 (Game 59). In McMichael-Devereaux,
4NCL 1999, Black released the central ten-
sion by 6... exd4 7 't:Jxd4 0-0 8 i..e2 .l:Ie8 9
't:Jc3 't:Jc6 10 0-0 't:Jxd4 11 ~xd4 i..c6 12 Minasian's pet continuation; e.g. 4... .i.f5 5
't:JdS and neutralised White's pressure by f4!? 't:Jc6 6 't:Jg3 i..g4 7 i..e2 hS 8 0-0 ~d7 9
12 ... 't:Je8 13 ~d2 i.xb2 14 ~xb2 fS and h3 i.xe2 (if 9 ... .i.xh3 10 gxh3 ~xh3 11 Mf3
15 ... tt:Jf6. The immediate 5 d4 exd4 6 ~xd4 defends) 10 't:Jxe2 0-0-0 11 c4 i..e7 12 't:Jbc3
i..g7 offered White even less after 7 tt:Jc3 0-0 ~e6 13 e4 Mdg8 14 d4 exd4 15 tt:Jxd4 ~d7

63
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

16 tLlxc6 'ifxc6 17 tLld5 itd8 18 'iVd3 and Instead he tries a speculative exchange
White was better in Minasian-Piskov, Minsk sacrifice.
1990. 10 ct:Jbc3?! ..ih6!
5 ... ..ig7 Accepting the challenge. 10 ... ctJf2 11 ife1
A later game did not turn out so well: ctJe4+ 12 ctJxe4 ifxe4 13 ctJc3 (planning
5... tLlc6 6 fxe5 tLlxeS 7 ctJf4 ctJe4!? (threaten- 'iff2/'i¥g3, lie1, ~cl) or 10 ... ct:Jf6 11 ct:Jf4 are
ing ... 'ifh4+) 8 g3 i.g4 9 i.e2 h5 10 d3 ctJgS roughly equal.
(preventing the desired development 'ifd2, 11 hxg4
0-0-0) 11 ctJc3 (better 11 ct:Jd2 to cover f3, White has little choice now: if 11 ctJf4
and then 12 d4) 11...c6 12 h4 ct:Jh7 13 'ifd2 ctJxe3 or 11 ct:JdS ctJxe3 12 ctJxe3 ~f2 both
i.g7 14 i.xg4 (not 14 0-0-0? ct:Jf3) 14 ... ct:Jxg4 win a pawn for nothing.
and with the outpost secured at g4 Black was 11 ... ~xh1 12 lt:Jd5 Wd8
better. Minasian-Bagaturov, Protvino 1993, Not 12 ... ctJa6? 13 ctJg3 ~h4 14 'iff3
concluded 15 0-0-0 0-0 16 d4 :e8 17 e4 bS threatening 15 i..xa6, or if 14... c6 15 ctJf6+
18 l::the1 aS 19 ~e2 ~a7 20 'ife1 'ifb6 21 ~e7 16 .i.xa6 bxa6 17 dS intending 18 ~h1
~b1 ~ae7 22 ~dd2 'i¥b8! 23 'ifh1 ct:Jhf6 24 ~g5 19 ctJge4.
e5 dxe5 25 dxe5 ctJxeS 26 ~d 1 a4 27 ~de 1 13 ~e1
axb3 28 axb3 ct:Jfg4 29 ctJe4 'if a7 30 ctJc3
'JJif a5 31 ct:Jd3 ~a8 32 ctJxeS ctJxe5 (in tending
... ~h7, ... ctJc4 and wins) 0-1.
6 fxe5 lt:Jg4
The usual pin along the long diagonal en-
ables Black to recapture.
7 h3 lt:Jxe5
Threatening 8 ... CLJf3+ (or 8 ... ct:Jd3+) dis-
covering on the bishop, as well as 8...'ifh4+ 9
g3 'iVe4. Now if 8 ct:Jbc3 (blocking the long
diagonal and covering e4) Black can cause
some disruption by anyway playing 8...ctJf3+!?
9 gxf3 ~h4+ 10 ctJg3 'ifxg3+ or 9 ~f2 ctJgS.
So White makes room for his king to go Activating the white queen and preventing
leftwards. the black queen returning into play via h4.
8 d4!? ~h4+ 9 'it>d2 lt:Jg4! Black should seek to extricate her majesty as
Showing up the weaknesses at f2 and e3. soon as possible; e.g. 13 ... .i.g5 makes room
If now 10 ctJec3 ctJxe3! 11 ~xe3 ith6+ 12 at h6 and if 14 iff2 Mf8 15 tLlf6 tLld716 d5
~d3 itf5+ 13 ~c4 ctJc6 and Black has a (Riemersma) then 16 ...'ifh6 17 g3 tLle5 or 17
dangerous attack; e.g. 14 ctJe2 b5+! 15 ~c3 tLlg3 .i.h4 defends. Also, there seems to be
b4+ 16 ~c4 Mb8! intending ... ctJa5+ and nothing wrong with 13 ... .i.xg4 since if 14
mates, or 15 ~xbS ~b8+ 16 ~a4 ctJb4 'i¥g3 (or 14 Vi'f2 f5 15 tLlef4 .i.xf4 16 exf4
(threatening ... itd7+ and ... ctJxc2). ifh6) 14... .i.e6 15 tLlef4 (intending .i.e2)
The best defence is 10 ctJf4! (threatening 15 ... g5! gives the queen the h4-square, while
11 hxg4 'ifxh 1 12 i..b5+) 10 ... ctJf2 (or 10 ... 0-0 16 tLlh3 .i.xh3 17 gxh3? ifxdS wins. So it
11 g3 Vi'h6 12 'iff3) 11 'ife1 'i¥g3 (otherwise seems that the sacrifice was unsound.
12 ~e2) 12 ~g1 (intending 13 itd3 and 14 13 ... ~e8? 14 ~f2 f5
~fl) 12 ... tLle4+ 13 ~d1 and White has If 14 ... .i.e6 15 tLlf6 ~f8 16 tLlf4 (threaten-
avoided the worst. ing tLlxh7 or ita6) 16 ... .i.xf4 17 exf4 Vi'h6 18

64
 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2: Other Lines

d5 i.d7 19 l:.e 1 leaves White in control. and White will get the f5-pawn as well to
Now 14 ... i.xg4 is only good enough for a emerge two pawns up.
draw: 15 'iVf6+ ~c8 16 CLJe7+ ~d7 17 CLJd5! 22 ~g8+ tiJfS 23 ~xf8+ ~d7 24 'iVf7+
~c8 (not 17 ... i,e6? 18 tt::Jef4) 18 CLJe7+ etc. ~d8 25 ~f8+ ~d7 26 ii..xe4!
15 CL:Jef4 il..xf4 After an unnecessary repeat White plays
If 15 ... c6 16 tDh3! cxd5 17 'iVh4+ ~c7 18 the winning move.
'iVxh6 with counterplay, e.g. 18 .. .fxg4 19 26 ... cxd5 27 il..a3! 1-0
'iVg7+ i.d7 20 LtJf4 'iVh4 21 lt:Jxd5+ ~d8 22 Black cannot defend d6.
i,a3.
16 exf4 CLJd7?? Game 24
The losing move. Black covers f6 but ob- M inasian-Nevednichy
structs the bishop on c8 and leaves a weak- Azov 1991
ness at e7. Better to retreat the queen by
16 ... 'iVh6 and after 17 Lt:Jf6 (if 17 l:.e1 l:.xe1 1 b3 e5 2 ii..b2 d6 3 e3 f5
18 'iVxe1 lt:Jc6 defends e7) 17 ... l:.f8 18 g5 Black has a few more less usual possibili-
'iV g7 19 d5 lt:Jd7 20 l:.e 1 LDxf6! 21 .i.xf6+ (or ties:
21 gxf6 'iVf7 22 l:.e7 'iYxd5+) 21...l:.xf6 22 a) 3... i.e6 encourages d2-d4; e.g. 4 c4 (or
gxf6 'iYxf6 intending to unravel by ... i.d7, 4 d4) 4 .. .f5 5 d4 lt:Jd7 6 lt:Jf3 'iVf6 (if 6... e4 7
... c7-c6, ... ~c7. d5!) 7 ctJc3 c6 8 d5 i.f7 9 i.e2 c5!? 10 lt:Jd2
17 1le1! 'iVh6 (10 ... e4 11 g4) 11 lt:Jb5 ~e7 12 e4 f4 13
Now if 17... l:.xe1 18 'iYxe1 and Black can- i..g4 lt:Jgf6 14 .i.h3 g5 15 .i.f5 with advan-
not defend e7. tage to White in Tait-P.Anderson, Derbys
17 ... lle4 18 gxf5 gxf5 19 'irg3 'ifh6 20 League 1994.
ii..d3 c6 b) 3 ... lt:Je7!? and ... lt:Jg6 overprotects e5
If 20 ... l:.xe1 21 'iYxe1 'iVf8 22 'iVh4+ wins. and combats f2-f4 by White. Art.Minasian-
White could now take the exchange back Ara.Minasian, Armenian Championship
(21 i.xe4 cxd5 22 i.xf5) but he finds some- 1995, saw 4 lt:Je2 lt:Jg6 5 d4 (perhaps 5 g3)
thing even better: 5 ...i.e7 6 lt:Jbc3 c6 7 dxe5 lt:Jxe5?! (7 ...dxe5 8
21 .:th1! 'iVxd8+ ~xd8! and ... ~c7 looks better) 8
White sacrifices a second rook at h 1! 'iVd2 lt:Jbd7 9 f4 (after all!) 9 ... lt:Jg6 10 lt:Jd4?!
(better was 10 e4) 10 ... d5 11 lt:Jf5 lt:Jf6 12
lt:Jxe7 'iYxe7 13 0-0-0 i.g4 14 l:.e1 i.f5 15 h3
h5 with an unclear position.
c) 3 ... c5!? is similar to the ... c7-c5, ... e7-e5
lines in Game 64. Griffiths-Arkell, Great
Britain 1992, continued 4 g3 (4 d4) 4 ... ctJc6 5
i.g2 f5 (5 ... g6) 6 ctJe2 ct:Jf6 7 0-0 i.e7 8 d4
cxd4 9 exd4 e4! 10 d5 ctJe5 11 f3 exf3 12
i.xf3 LDxf3 + 13 l:.xf3 0-0 14 lt:Jf4 lt:Je4 15
lt:Jh5 l:.f7 16 ct:Jc3 ct:Jg5 17 l:.fl g6 18 ct:Jf4
i.f6 and Black was OK.
4d4
4 f4 e4 (Bouchaud-S.Williams, Hastings
21 ... 'iixh1 1995) is less good for White since f4 is un-
If Black declines by 21...'iVf8 22 'iVg5+l:.e7 available for a knight, while the d4-square
23 lt:Jxe7 'iYxe7 24 'iYxe7+ ~xe7 25 l:.xh7+ can be controlled by ... c7-c5. 4 lt:Jf3!? trans-

65
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

poses to 1 tLlf3 fS 2 b3 d6 3 ~b2 eS 4 e3 (see 6 .. tt:Jbd7 7 tLlf4 tt:Je5

Game 68).
4 ... e4
The only consistent continuation, other-
wise .. .f7-fS would simply have created holes
in Black's position.
5 d5
Rather than allow Black to build up a big
pawn fortress with ... c7-c6 and ... d(K!S White
occupies the dS-square; then a knight ma-
noeuvred to f4 will eye the weakness at e6.
The drawback to this plan is that Black
then has the eS square for a knight. If White
doesn't like this s/he can play S c4 tLlf6 6
ctJc3 c6 7 tLlh3 and then: The drawback of d4-dS. In Kurzawa-
a) 7... dS 8 tLlf4 .i.d6 9 g3 0-0 10 cxdS Galdunts, Recklinghausen 1998, White
.i.xf4 (removing the knight but at the cost of played to eliminate his weakness: 8 .i.e2 .i.e7
Black's good bishop) 11 gxf4 cxdS 12 'i¥d2 9 tLld2 0-0 10 tLlc4 'i¥e8 11 'i¥d2 tLlfg4 12 h3
ctJc6 13 0-0-0 .i.e6 14 Wb 1 .i.f7 1S .i.a3 ~e8 tLlxc4 13 .i.xc4 .i.f6 14 .i.xf6 tLlxf6 when
16 ~cl ~c8 17 ~g1 when White has the White should have played 1S a4 rather than
chances but Black is solid (I.Rogers-Dzevlan, give Black the initiative by 1S 'ifb4 aS 16
Biel1991). 'ifd2 bS 17 .i.fl gS 18 tLle2 'ifeS.
b) 7... .i.e7 8 tLlf4 ctJa6! is a better plan, Minasian prefers to play to White's
coming to challenge the f4-knight. Ashley- strengths:
Hoang Than Trang, Budapest 1997, contin- 8 h4! g6 9 'ifd2 i.g7 1 0 tLlc3
ued 9 h4 ctJc7 10 'i¥d2?! ctJe6 11 g3 tLlxf4 12 There is no need to support dS with c2-c4.
exf4 dS 13 tLld1 .i.e6 14 .i.e2 0-0 1S ctJe3 The pawn is better left on c2 to cover the d3-
'i¥d7 16 0-0 .i.f7 17 a4 ~fd8 18 l:.fd1 l:.ac8 square.
19 .i.c3 .i.hS 20 .i.xhS tLlxhS and Black was 10 ... tLlfg4 11 i.e2 i.f6
better. Or if 9 dS 0-0 10 .i.e2 tLlc7! 11 h4 cS Hoping to induce a weakness with 12 g3.
12 'i¥c2 l:.b8 13 hS a6 14 a4 'ife8 1S aS .i.d8 However:
16 CLla4 ctJa8! 17 .i.c3 bS 18 axb6 tLlxb6 19 12 h5! g5 13 tLle6 i.xe6 14 dxe6
tLlb2 l:.f7 20 tLld1 h6 21 .i.b2 tLlh7 22 tLlc3 White opens the d-file and gains dS for his
.i.f6 23 0-0 tLlf8 24 l:.a2 t2Jbd7 2S ~fa1 tLleS knight. Meanwhile it's not so easy to round
26 tLlb1 l:.fb7 112-lh Hodgson-Agrest, Har- up the e6-pawn. If 14... 'ifc8 (or 14 ... 'ife7 1S
plinge 1998. tLldS) 1S f3 tLlh6 16 0-0-0 exf3 17 gxf3 'ifxe6
5 ... tLlf6 6 tLlh3 18 ttJds .i.d8 19 f4 or 18 ... 0-0-0 19 'ifas.
Vokac-M.Marin, Krynica 1998, saw 6 h4 14 ... c6 15 f3! exf3 16 gxf3 tLlh6 17
.i.e7 7 tLlh3 0-0 8 .i.e2 tLlbd7 (if 8... tLlg4!? 9 0-0-0 d5 18 ~b1 'ife7
hS .i.f6 10 tLlc3) 9 ctJc3 a6 10 hS tLleS lh-lh. If 18 ... 'ifaS 19 CLle4! 'ifxd2 20 tLlxf6+ We7
The Rumanian GM (Black) disliked his posi- 21 l:.xd2 Wxf6 22 f4 and wins (Horn). Better
tion so much that he gave 3 .. .fS a dubious was 18 ... l:.g8 removing the rook from any
mark, also proposing 10 'i¥d2 intending tricks on the long diagonal, while if now 19
0-0-0, to move the rook to the kingside, drop tLlxdS cxdS 20 'ifxdS 'ifxdS 21 l:.xdS l:.d8 22
the bishop back to d1, and probe with ctJe2- l:.hd1 We7 23 .i.xeS .i.xeS 24 ~xeS ~xd1+
d4. 2S l:.xd1 g4! is strong.

66
 1 b3 e5 2 i.b2: Other Lines

e.g. 5 ... lt:Jc6 6 lt:Jc3 ~e6 7 d3 'i'd7 8 lt:Jf3

~h3 9 ~xh3 'i'xh3 10 lt:Jd5 'i'd7 11 h4 fs
12 e4 0-0-0 13 'i'e2 l:tf8 14 ttJd2 ttJh6 15
0-0-0 l:tf7 with equal chances (Bagirov-
Blatny, Brno 1991). 5 e4!? is also possible (c.f.
Game 58).
b) 3.. .f5 and either 4 ~g2ttJf6 5 c4 g6, or
4 d4 as per Game 24; e.g. 4 d4tLld7 (or 4... e4
5 d5) 5 ttJf3!? e4 6tLlh4ttJdf6 (6 ... g6) 7tLlg2
tZ'lh6 8 c4 c6 9 'i'd2 g6 10 ttJc3 ~g7 11 dS 0-
0 12 0-0-0 lt:Jhg4 13 e3 c5 14 tZ'lf4 l:te8 15 h3
lt:Je5 16 i.e2 a6 17 g4! fxg4 18ttJe6 ~xe6 19
dxe6 l:txe6 20 hxg4 lt:Jexg4 21 ~xg4 lt:Jxg4
19 t2Jxd5! cxd5 20 ~xd5 22 tZ'lxe4 ~xb2 + 23 ~xb2 'i'e7 24 'i'd5ttJf6
If 20 ... 'i'g7 or 20 ... l:td8 21 ~b5+ or 25 lt:Jxf6+ 'i'xf6+ 26 ~a3 l:tb8 (Welling-
20 ... CLJc6 21 .i.xf6 wins. Okhotnik, Lyngby 1990) when 27 l:th6 and
20 ... ~c7 28 l:tdh1 would have been OK for White.
Now if 21 .i.b5+ ~f8 22 f4 gxf4 23 exf4 c) 3... c5 4 ~g2 CLJc6 5 c4 g6 6 CLJc3 ~g7 is
lt:Jeg4 defends. a Symmetrical English considered briefly in
21 ~b5+! ~fS 22 f4 gxf4 23 exf4 t2Jeg4 the notes to Game 64 (Chapter 9) with either
24 i.a3+ 7 lt:Jf3 or 7 e3 lt:Jge7 8 lt:Jge2 0-0.
24 l:td7 and 25 e7 + also wins. 4 i.g2 i.e 7
24 ... ~g8 25 e 7 i.xe 7 4 ... g6 is covered via 1 b3 g6 in Chapter 8.
If 25 ... 'iV c6 26 e8'i' +! ~xe8 27 .i.c4+ wins; Specifically 5 e4 .i.g7 6 CLJe2 0-0 is Game 58,
e.g. 27 ... ~g7 28 l:td7+ or 27 ... lt:Jf7 28 'i'xf5 5 c4 .i.g7 6 ttJf3 0-0 is in Game 61 (with 5
(Dunnington). c4), and 5 d4 .i.g7 6 dxe5 lt:Jfd7 7 ttJf3 0-0
26 l:.d7 ~xd7 27 ~xd7 i.xa3 28 b4 transposes directly to Game 61, though Black
i.xb4 29 i.c4+ ~fS 30 ~xb7 .:tea 1-0 can avoid this by moving the e-pawn:
a) 5... exd4 6 'i'xd4 ~g7 7 'i'e3+ 'i'e7 8
Game 25 'i'xe7+ ~xe7 9 c4tLlc6 10 tLlc3 ~e6 (Noth-
Kramnik-Lerner nagel-Vidonyak, Oberliga 1999) when 11
Gausda/1992 lt:Jd5+ .i.xd5 12 cxd5 CLJe5 13 .:tel gives
White a slight pull.
1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 d6 3 g3 b) 5 ... e4!? 6 d5 (or 6 c4 .i.g7 7ttJc3 'i'e7 8
Since Black has limited the centre to ... d7- 'i'c2 .i.f5) 6...'i'e7 7 'i'd4 .i.g7 8 lt:Jc3 0-0 9
d6 it is quite acceptable for White to make 0-0-0 e3! 10 lt:Je4 lt:Jbd7 11 'ifxe3? lt:Jg4 12
this fianchetto. Then a subsequent c2-c4 will 'i'd2 f5 13 i.f3 lt:Jde5 14 i.xg4ttJxg4 15 h3
create English type positions. 'Yixe4 16 i.xg7 ~xg7 17 hxg4 'i'xh1 and
3 ... t2Jt6 Black won in Bazan-L.Bronstein, Argentine
Once again Black can do virtually any- Championship 1976.
thing. A few examples: 5 e3
a) 3 ... g6 4 d4 .i.g7 5 dxe5 lt:Jd7 6 lt:Jf3 is More usually White plays 5 c4 (as for ex-
not testing after 6 ...lt:Je7! 7 .i.g2 0-0 (Welling- ample in the next note). 5 e3 is a little waiting
Benjamin, Cardoza 1998) Black was playing move. White may yet play c2-c4 (and does)
Game 61 with the knight on b8 relocated at or switch to tLle2 and d2-d4 or even f2-f4.
e7. Instead 4 .i.g2 .i.g7 5 c4 is more usual; 5 ... t2Jc6

67
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Kramnik notes 5... c6 as equal. Black back. If 11.. .i.h3 12 d5 the knight has to go
adopted this 0 ld Indian formation in Larsen- back straight away, while against 11...d5
Medina Garcia, Palma de Mallorca 1968, Kramnik intended 12 ctJe5!. Nevertheless a2-
after 5 c4 0-0 6 CL\f3 c6 7 0-0 CL\bd7 8 CLlc3 a3 is useful as White will be able later to play
:e8 9 if c2 (if 9 e4 ctJc5! 10 if c2 ctJe6 b3-b4 and remove c5 as outpost for the
thwarts the desired d2-d4, or if 9 d4 e4 10 knight.
tt:Jfd2 d5) 9 ... i.f8 (9 ... tt:Jf8!?) 10 e3 a6 11 12 a3 ~ae8 13 d5 tt:Jb8 14 tt:Jc3 iLdS 15
:acl tt:Jb6 (11...ifc7) 12 tDe2 (preventing CLJd4 iLh3 16 'i'd3 ~e5!?
... d6-d5) 12 ... i.g4 13 h3 i.h5 14 d3 :c8 15 A nice idea - apart from doubling on the
a3 tt:Jbd7 16 tt:Jh4 d5 (at last, but it fails to e-file Black also contemplates attacking with
free Black's game) 17 g4 i.g6 18 tt:Jxg6 hxg6 ...:h5; e.g. 17 :ae1? :h5! 18 iff3 tt:Jg4!.
19 cxd5 tt:Jxd5 20 :fd1 and 21 d4 with good 17 tt:Jce2 iLxg2
prospects for White. Otherwise 18 i.xh3 ifxh3 19 tt:Jf4 gains a
6 d3 tempo for White.
Another small move, trying to tempt 18 ~xg2 ~feB 19 tt:Jf4 ~e4
Black into 6 ... d5?! when after 7 tt:Jf3 Jil.d6 8 Removing the rook from the bishop's di-
c4 White would essentially have made eight agonal. It does not help Black to exchange
moves to Black's five: knights by 19 ... tt:Jh5? 20 tt:Jde2 tt:Jxf4+ 21
6 ... 0-0 7 CLJf3 tt:Jxf4 since then if 21 ...:e4 22 CLle6! would
isolate the rook. This idea comes up again.
20 :S.ad1

7 ... h6
An unnecessary precaution. If 7 ... i.e6
White is hardly going to play 8 tt:Jg5 i.d7 and Anticipating the advance of Black's c-
on 8 0-0 ~c8 (still leaving d7 for the bishop) pawn when after d5xc6 the rook will aim at
Black is a tempo up on the game. the backward d6-pawn; e.g. if 20 ... g5 21
8 c4 iLe6 9 0-0 ~d7 10 d4 exd4 11 tt:Jfe2 c5 22 dxc6 tt:Jxc6 23 tt:Jg 1! (Kramnik)
exd4 threatening 24 CL\b5 or if 24 ... a6 25 tDc2
Preferable here to 11 tt:Jxd4 when Black :4e6 25 tDe3.
can relieve his cramp by 11...tt:Jxd4 and Black is now floundering for something to
12 ... d5. do. In particular, he can't bring out the
11 ... iLf5 bishop by 20 ... tt:Jh7 since 21 tt:Jfe6! (not 21
By threatening 12 d5 CL\b4 coming in at c2 CDde6 Jil.f6!) strands the rook again (21...ctJf6
and d3 Black gains time to develop the 22 CLlxd8! ~xd8 23 ctJe6!).
queen's rook before the knight has to drop 20 ... tt:Ja6 21 b4 CLJb8 22 tt:Jb3!

68
 1 b3 e5 2 il.b2: Other Lines

Threatening 23 lt:Jd2 when 23 ... ~4e7 24 .i:.e4 32 d6 lt:Jd7 33 'i¥d5 'i¥g6 34 ~xb7
~xf6 would be terrible for Black. ~xd6 35 ii..e5! 'iid3 36 ii..xf4
22 ... g5 With an extra pawn and Black's position a
The only move since giving up the ex- wreck White wins easily.
change is hopeless; e.g. 22 ... 'ib'f5 23 f3 ~xf4 36 ... ~f6 37 ~c6 ~e7 38 .t!.c1 ~e4 39
24 gxf4 'ib'xf4 25 ~h 1 or 22 ... c6 23 lt:Jd2 'iVd6 ~b7 40 ~d1! 1-0
~xf4 24 gxf4lZ'lh5 25 'ib'f3 iVfS 26 ~fel. 41 ~d5 is coming.
23 lt:Jd2 gxf4 24 ~xf6 ~e2 25 ~c3!
Beckoning the queen to the long diagonal. Game 26
25 .. .'iVg4 Krnic-Kristiansen
Kramnik notes 25 ... ~8e3!? 26 'iVd4 f6 Copenhagen 1979
when he intended 27 ~cl! with the idea
27 ... 'ib'f5 (or 27 ... 'ib'g4) 28 'ib'xf4! 'ib'xf4 29 1 b3 e5 2 ~b2 d6 3 d4!?
gxf4 ~xc3 30 ~xc3 ~xd2 31 ~e3 ~f7 32
~fe1 and 33 ~e8 wins a piece.
26 ~d4 wh7
If 26 .. .f6 27 'iVxf4 'iVxf4 28 gxf4 ~8e3
White can improve on the previous note by
29 ~g1! <iitf7 30 <iitf1 ~e8 31 ~d4. After
26 ... <iith7 27 'iVxf4 'iVxf4 28 gxf4 ~8e3 29
~cl fails since the black bishop can emerge
at f6. But White has:
27 l:Ide1!

Another idea of Van Geet's. As with

2... tLJc6 3 tLJf3 e4 4 tLJd4 White invests time
to open the long diagonal (3 ... exd4 4 'iVxd4
tLJc6 5 'ib'd2).
3 ... exd4
a) 3... tLJc6 4 tLJf3!? transposes to 2... tLJc6 3
tt:Jf3 (see Game 21 with 3... d6).
b) 3... g6?! 4 dxe5 ~g7 5 tLJc3 ~xeS 6 tz:Jf3
~g7 7 iVd2 and White had achieved his plan
on Black's time. Bellon Lopez-Logdahl,
If 27 ... ~xe1 28 ~xe1 ~xe1 29 'iVh8+ <iitg6 Stockholm 1999, continued 7... tLJf6 8 0-0-0
30 'iVg7+ <iiths 31 'iVxf7+ 'iVg6 32 g4+! <iitgs 33 0-0 9 g3 c6?! 10 'iVxd6 'iVaS 11 'iVd2?! (11 h3!
tLJf3+ wins the queen, or 27 ... ~xd2 28 'iVxd2 would have stopped any trouble) 11...tLJg4 12
f3+ 29 <iith 1 'ib'h3 30 'iV d3+ removes the f3- tLJe4 'iVxd2+? (better was 12 ...'iVxa2 13 .i.xg7
pawn. <iitxg7 14 'iVc3+ f6) 13 tLJfxd2 fS 14 h3 fxe4
27 ... c5 28 ~d3+ f5 15 hxg4 and White won.
If 28 ... 'iVg6 29 'iVxg6+ fxg6 30 ~xe2 ~xe2 c) 3... tLJd7 4 g3 (for 4 e3 see Game 23)
31 <iitf3 ~e8 32 <iitxf4 with a winning end- 4... lZ'lgf6 5 ~g2 c6 6 e4 ~e7 7 tLJe2 0-0 8 0-0
game. ~e8 9 tLJd2 forms a Hippopotamus with a
29 l:Ixe2 ltxe2 30 bxc5 dxc5 31 lt:Jf3 big snout. Van Geet-Kavalek, Beverwijk

69
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

1967, continued 9 ... i.f8 10 l:re1 b5 11 a4 12 ctJa4.

i.b7 12 c4 bxa4 13 bxa4 exd4 14 CLJxd4 c5?! 12 e3 ~b8 13 h5 h6 14 ~h4
15 ct:Jf5 ct:Je5 16 'ifc2 g6 17 f4 ct:Jc6 18 ifc3 The white queen lacks squares and Black
l:re6 19 e5 dxe5 20 fxe5 CLJe8? (better finds a clever way to exploit this.
20 ... CLJg4 21 CLJd6 l:rb8 and if 22 CLJxb7 l:rxb7 14 ... ct:Jxh5! 15 ~xh5 g5 16 'VJiif3 ct:Je5 17
23 i.d5 CLJgxe5 24 i.xe6 'ifxd2) 21 ct:Jd6 ~e2 i..xc3 18 i..xc3 i..g4 19 f3
CLJxd6 22 exd6 and Black had to give up a If 19 i.f3 CLJxf3 20 i.xh8 CLJe5! or 20 l:rh 1
piece to prevent mate. 'ife4.
4~xd4 19 ... i..xh5 20 g4 i..g6 21 f4 gxf4
4 i.xd4 CLJc6 5 i.b2 would be 4 'ifxd4 21...CLJxg4 22 'ifxg4 'ifxe3+ 23 ~b2 (23
CLJc6 with 5 'ifdl rather than 5 'ifd2. i.d2 'ifd4) 23 ... d4 24 i.d2 f5 and Black has
4 .. .lbf6 rook and three pawns for bishop and knight,
4 ... CLJc6 5 'ifd2 lLJf6 6 CLJc3 transposes. 6 though after 25 iff3 'ifxf3 26 CLJxf3 g4 27
c4 is no problem after 6 ... d5 (or 6 ... CLJe4 7 CLJe5 White can blockade the kingside pawns
'ifc2?! i.f5 Keene) 7 cxd5 ct:Jxd5 8 a3 i.e6 9 by i.e1-h4.
ct:Jf3 lLJf6 10 'ifc2 'ifd5 leading to a quick 22 exf4 d4 23 lbd4 ctJd3+ 24 ~xd3!
draw in Bromann-Rasmussen, Copenhagen Not 24 cxd3 'ifc5!.
2000.
5 ct:Jc3 ct:Jc6 6 ~d2 d5
6 ... i.e7 is unnecessarily passive; e.g. 7 e4
0-0 8 0-0-0 l:re8 9 ~b1 ct:Jd7 10 ct:Jd5 i.f8 11
f3 CLJb6 12 g4 CLJxd5 13 exd5 CLJe5 14 h3 and
Black had no play in Lovric-Laketic, Turin
2000.
7 0-0-0
Not 7 e3 ~b4 8 i.b5?! (better was 8 i.dJ)
8... 0-0 9 0-0-0? CLJe4! 10 'ife1 d4 and White is
already losing (Bellon Lopez-Benko, Palma
de Mallorca 1971).
7 ... i..e6
Not 7... i.b4?! when White can escape the 24 ... Wic5?
pin with 8 'iVg5! hitting d5 and g7. In Lopez- Perhaps Black only saw the rook leave the
Bescos, Saragossa 1992, Black tried 8... i.e6!? board and not what took it. Instead
(if 8... d4 9 ct:Jb5) 9 ct:Jxd5 CLJxd5 10 'ifxg7 24 ... 'ifa3+ 25 i.b2 i.xd3! is equal; if 26 'iff3
~f8!? 11 ifxh8 'ifg5+ 12 e3 0-0-0 13 CLJf3 (if ifb4 27 i.xh8 l:rxh8 28 cxd3 l:re8 and the
13 ifxh7 CLJcb4! with a surprising amount of mutual threats force the draw: 29 ~c2! 'iVc5+
counterplay) 13 ...'ifh6 14 l:rxd5 i.xd5 15 30 ~b2 'if d4+ etc.
i.d3 i.aJ 16 'ifxh7 and the queen escaped 25 ~e3 ~hg8 26 ~b2 f5 27 i..e5 fxg4?
with three extra pawns (though White later Or perhaps Black was just short of time
blundered and lost). since this is another mistake. 27 ... ifb6 was
8 g3 i..b4 9 i..g2 Wie7 10 ~f4 0-0-0 11 necessary.
h4 a6 28 l:!.c3 Wixg1 29 ~xc7 b5 30 ~b7+ ~c8
Preparing .. d5-d4 since the immediate 31 nc7+ ~b8 32 l:tb7+ ~c8 33 'VJiixg4+
11...d4 12 CLJb5 ct:Jd5 13 .txd5 is unclear. 1-0
Krnic later suggested 11...'iVc5 and in this Spotting the checkmate at the second at-
case White should drive the queen away with tempt.

70
 1 b3 e5 2 !ii..b2: Other Lines

Game27
Larsen-Martinez
Sanjuan 1969
1 b3 e5 2 ~b2
Although 1 b3 has obviously prepared the
fianchetto it is not essential to put the bishop
there straightaway. Occasionally White pre-
varicates with 2 e3!? and then:
a) 2 ... d5 (or else 1 b3 d5 2 e3!? e5) 3 d4 e4
4 .i.a3!? makes for an interesting reversed
Advance French, but 3... exd4! renders b2-b3
worthless again. Blunting the long dark diagonal but weak-
Instead, 3 .i.b2 and 3... ctJc6 4 .i.b5 trans- ening the light squares. White's next move
poses back to normal lines, though Black has aims to exploit this and has parallels with
other ways to defend the pawn: T artakower's Gambit 1 b4 e5 2 .i.b2 f6 3
a1) 3.. .f6!? is 2 .. .f6 3 e3 d5 below, e4!? .i.xb4 4 .i.c4, except that White doesn't
a2) 3 ... ctJd7 4 c4 dxc4 5 .i.xc4 ctJgf6 6 ct:Jf3 lose a pawn!
.i.d6 7 ctJc3 (with the idea of 'J/ic2, ctJg5 and While on the Sokolsky theme, Keene also
ctJge4) was seen in Bischoff-I.Sokolov, Hast- mentions 2 ... e4!? as seen after 1 b4 e5 2 .i.b2,
ings 2000, and Bischoff-L.Hansen, Bun- although there it has more point as the b4-
desliga 2000 (both drawn). pawn remains en prise. Here the pawn ad-
a3) 3 ... .i.d6 4 f4 (or 4 c4 c6 Bischoff- vance leaves dark-square weaknesses at f4
Wittmann, Austrian Team Championship and d4, and may itself prove weak after 3 c4
1995) 4 ... exf4!? (4 ...ifh4+ 5 g3 ii'e7) 5 .i.xg7 and 4 e3 (Keene), followed perhaps by ctJc3,
'ifh4 + 6 g3 fxg3 7 .i.g2 (the extra e2-e3 on 'ifc2, ctJe2-g3.
Owen's Defence prevents the winning 3 e4!?
... 'iff4) 5... gxh2 + 8 <it>f1 hxg1'if + 9 <it>xg1 3 e3 is less testing as Black can build the
'J/ig5 10 .i.xh8 .i.g4 with a big mess in Lov- big centre by 3... d5 (3 ... d6!? would be over-
ric-Drei, Kastav 1999. kill) 4 d4 e4 5 c4 c6 (or 4 c4 c6 5 d4 e4).
b) 2 ... ctJc6 (aiming for normal lines) 3 Then after .. .f6-f5 (and ... ctJf6) White will
.i.b5!? (3 .i.b2) 3... a6!? (from a huge array of have two tempi (b2-b3, .i.b2) on a reversed
possibilities) 4 .i.xc6 dxc6 5 .i.b2 'J/ig5 6 ct:Jf3 Advance French, one in which Black has
'ifxg2 7 ~g1 ifh3 8 .i.xe5 .i.g4 9 ~g3 'ifh5 played the 'inferior' .. .f7-f5. But as is often
10 .i.xc7 ctJe7 11 e4 ~c8 12 .i.b6 ctJg6 (in- the case the extra moves are less than useful,
tending ... ctJh4) 13 h3! .i.xh3 14~g5 'ifh615 blocking White's active play with 'ifb3. After
.i.e3 .i.e6 16 ~g4?? (anywhere but here; e.g. 6 ctJe2 .i.e6! 7 ct:Jbc3 f5 (or 6 ctJc3 f5 7 ct:Jh3
16 ~g1 with a draw by repetition on the .i.e6!) 8 ctJf4 .i.f7 9 h4 ct:Jf6 Black's centre
queen) 16 ... .i.xg4 17 .i.xh6 ctJe5 18 ctJxe5 (or was very solid (Souevamanien-Guigonis,
if 18 'ifcl ctJxf3 + 19 <it>d1 gxh6 20 'ifb2 ~g8 Paris Championship 2000). White would
with rook and two bishops for the queen) perhaps do better to preface e2-e3 by 3 c4, or
18 ... .i.xd1 19 <it>xd1 gxh6 and Black won in if 3... c6 4 d4.
Jaksa-Tait, corr European Team Champion- 3 ... c6
ship preliminaries 1999-2000. Preparing ... d7-d5 which Black can also do
2 ... f6!? by 3... ctJe7, or even play 3... d5 immediately.

71
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Black's fourth option, 3 ... ~c5, consolidates 16 :el+ i.e2 17 i.xf6 'iig4 18 'it?b2 and 19
the dark squares and was seen in the most h3 wins (Vollbrecht-Sicker, corr 1997).
famous 2.. .f6 game. 8 .. .'~xe4 9 iLxd4 .itd6 10 d3 'VJ/ie7 11
a) 3 ... CLJe7 4 d4 exd4 5 'iixd4CLJbc6 6 'iid2 'VJ!id2 l£Jh6 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 .t:!.e1
d5 7 CLJc3 dxe4 8 'i¥ xd8+ CLJxd8 9 CLJxe4 iJ5 ECO claims an advantage for White here,
10 i.d3 (if 10 CLJg3 ~xc2! 11 :c1 i.g6 12 though it's not so clear. White's pieces are
:xc7 a6 intending ... CLJd5) 10 ... CLJdc6 11 a3 uncoordinated and the natural attack with
0-0-0 12 CLJe2 i.g6 13 0-0-0 CLJe5 14 i.xe5 h2-h3, g2-g4-g5 is a while away, giving Black
fxe5 15 'it?b2 CLJc6 16 CLJ2g3 i.e7 and Black time to organise counterplay; for instance,
was OK in Dausch-Hector, Copenhagen here 13 ... a5 or 13 ... CLJa6!? (intending ... CLJc7-
1995. b5) come into consideration.
b) 3... d5!? 4 exd5 'iixd5 5 CLJc3 'iif7 13 ... l:.e8 14 g3 l£Ja6 1 5 j_g2 it.d7 16
(5 ...'iid8 6 ~c4 - Keene) 6 lLJf3 (if 6 i.c4 l£Jc3 j_a3+ 17 ~b1 'VJ!id6?
'ii'g6!?) 6 ... CLJc6 (not 6 ... i.g4? 7 CLJxe5) 7 d4 Better 17... 'iib4 pinning the knight and if
i.g4 8 i.b5 0-0-0 (8 ...'ii'h5!?) 9 i.xc6 bxc6?? 18 :xe8 (18 i.f2 CLJc7! threatening ... CLJb5)
10 CLJxe5! and White won (Haessler-Bauza, l8 ...:xe8! 19 i.xa7? g5 20 CLJh5 :e2! or 20
New York 1988). Black should have played ~h3 gxf4 21 ~xd7 :e2!.
9... exd4 and if 10 CLJe5 fxe5 11 'iixg4+ 'it?b8 18 l:.xe8+ it.xe8
12 i.d5 'iie8 13 i.xg8 dxc3 14 i.xc3 :xg8. If l8 ...:xe8 White can safely take on a7.
c) 3 ... ~c5 (or 3 ... CLJc6) 4 i.c4 CLJe7 5 19 j_f2 l£Jg4 20 l£Je4 'VJ!ie7 21 j_d4 l£Jc7
'iih5+ (if 5CLJf3CLJbc6 6CLJc3 a6) 5... g6 6 'iif3 22 .t:!.e1 l£Je5 23 'VJ/if2
lLJbc6 7CLJe2 (if 7 'i¥xf6 :f8 8 'i¥g7 i.xf2+ 9 Now White has reorganised he certainly
'it?d1 d5 10 exd5CLJxd5) 7... :f8 8 g4 f5 9 gxf5 stands better with g3-g4-g5 coming soon.
d5 10 exd5 :xf5 11 'iie4 CLJb4 with good 23 ... b6 24 iLa1 l:.d8 25 h3 ~d7 26 g4
play for Black who went on to win in l£Je6?
Nimzowitsch-Winter, London 1927. Black should have tried to hold up the at-
4 f4 tack by playing 26 ... h6. Now White breaks in.
Creating a strange sort of King's Gambit.
4 d4 (Keene) is also good since after 4 ... exd4
5 'iixd4 the c6- square is unavailable for the
knight; and 4 c4 is again a possibility.
4 ... exf4 5 l£Jh3
5 'iih5+ g6 6 'iif3 is another possibility,
softening up the long diagonal.
5 .. .'¥Ve7 6 l£Jc3 d5 7 l£Jxf4 d4
If 7... dxe4 8 'iih5+ 'iif7 (or 8... 'it?d8 9
0-0-0) 9 'iixf7+ 'it?xf7 10 i.c4+ and 11CLJxe4
with a clear advantage.
8 l£Jce2
8 'iih5+ lead to a rather fortunate win for
White after 8... g6 9 CLJxg6 hxg6 10 'iixh8 27 tt:Jxe6 V&'xe6 28 g5 j_b4 29 1:1f1 fxg5
dxc3 11 i.xc3 'iixe4+ 12 i.e2 i.g4 13 0-0-0 30 ltJxg5 ~d6?
(if 13 0-0 i.xe2 14 :ae1CLJd7! 15 :f2 0-0-0) A final mistake. With 30 ... 'iie7 at least f7
13 ... i.xe2 14 'iixg8 i.xd1 (14 ... CLJd715 :del is covered.
0-0-0 threatening ... i.a3+) 15 d3 (if 15 'it?xdl 31 Vi'f5 ltJg6 32 tt:Jf7 tt:Je7 33 ltJh6+ 1-0
'iig4+ 16 'it?cl CLJd7) 15 ... 'iixg2? (15 ...'iig4!) And Black gets mated with 'iif8+.

72
 1 b3 e5 2 ii..b2: Other Lines

Summary
The English systems with 3 c4 or 4 c4 should not trouble Black unduly, but that could be said
of any variation of this opening! For those who like more obscure positions 3 <8f3!? can be
recommended, though of course this does not offer White any advantage either. 2... d6 is a
diffident move, adopted by those keen to adopt a King's Indian formation while avoiding
some of the oddities in Chapter 8, or those who do not want to bother with 2... <8c6 3 e3 and 4
.tbS. For the troublemakers there is 2 .. .f6!?, perhaps only marginally sound but leading to
some beautifully ugly positions.

1 b3 e5 2 i..b2 lbc6
2 .. .f6- Game 27
2 ... d6 (D)
3 d4- Game 26
3 g3- Game 25
3 e3
3... <8f6 - Game 23
3.. .f5- Game 24
3 c4
3 <8f3 e4 4 <8d4 (D)
4... <8f6- Game 21
4... <8xd4 - Game 22
3 ...lbt6 4 e3 (D) d5
4 ... d6 - Game 20
5 cxd5- Game 19

2 ... d6 4 <8d4 4 e3

73
 CHAPTER FOUR I
Reversed Nimzo: 1 CLJf3 d5
2 b3 c5 with .. .tiJc6 & ~b5

1 ti:Jf3 dS 2 b3 cS his opponent suffer with little hope of more

The defining feature of this chapter is that than a draw.
White pins a Black ... CDc6 with .i.b5 thus Most Nimzo-Indian continuations are
creating a reversed Nimzo-Indian Defence. possible in this reversed version: 5... e6
All White's moves are directed towards con- (Game 32), 5... g6 (see Game 31), 5... .i.g4
trol of the key e5-square. The bishop on b5 (Game 33), 5...iVb6 (Game 34), and 5... .i.d7
will often capture on c6, even if this does not (Games 28-31). For fourth move alternatives
damage Black's pawn structure, as it removes see the notes to the equivalent fifth move
an opposing defender of e5. White can then game; or 4...iVc7 (Game 34), while 4 .. .f6!? is
come forward with CL\f3-e5 and f2-f4, rein- in the notes to Game 40 (see Chapter 5).
forcing control over e5 while allowing the
major pieces to move to the kingside. Some- Game 28
times White plays c2-c4 (as per the Queen's Nimzowitsch-Spielmann
Indian) to challenge the black centre. New York 1927
Nimzowitsch played these positions with
great virtuosity, and it is largely on account of 1 ti:Jf3 dS 2 b3 cS 3 ~b2
his games that the variation 1 CL\f3 d5 2 b3 c5 Although Nimzowitsch used this move
3 e3 4Jf6 4 .i.b2 CDc6 5 .i.b5 (or 3... 4Jc6 4 order several times, it is inaccurate as Black
.i.b5) is one of the very few in the Nimzo- can now play 3.. .f6! intending 4... e5 which
Larsen Attack that gets an assessment of the CL\f3 is not best placed to combat. It may
'slight advantage to White' in the theoretical not be as bad for White as its reputation (see
volumes. Game 40 in the next chapter) but by playing
Whether this assessment is justified or not 3 e3 before itb2 White can circumvent it
is less clear. It has not prevented people ven- should s/he wish to do so (3 e3 f6 is less
turing into this line as Black, when they could effective). Similarly if 1 b3, 2 ~b2 then 3 e3
easily play something else. However, having before 4Jf3; White can also consider throw-
adopted an ambitious formation, it is impor- ing in f2-f4 before CL\f3.
tant for Black to follow up accurately with a 3 ... lt:Jc6 4 e3
definite plan of action. Otherwise White can In an earlier game Nimwwitsch tried 4 d4
quickly obtain a strategic advantage and make CL\f6 5 4Jbd2 .i.f5! (5 ... e6 6 e3 would be a

74
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 Ci'Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with ... Ci'Jc 6 & iJ...b5

Colle) 6 dxcS!? (if 6 e3 e6 7 li:Jh4 JLg4) 6... e6 continuing the fight for eS, or remain at d2 to
7 e3 JLxcS 8 a3 0-0 9 b4 JLe7 with a reversed cover c4 (fighting ... c5-c4) and e4 (assisting
Queen's Gambit Accepted in which Black e3-e4). Meanwhile White hopes still for ... a7-
was certainly not worse. Nimzowitsch- a6. Instead 8 JLxc6 JLxc6 9 li:JeS transposes
Tartakower, Baden Baden 1925, continued below after 9... ~c8 10 li:Jd2 0-0 (or 10 f4 0-0
10 JLd3 (10 c4) 10 ... 4Je4 11 JLxe4 dxe4 12 11 li:Jd2), and 9... 0-0 10 li:Jd2 (or 10 f4) etc.
li:Jd4 4Jxd4 13 JLxd4 aS 14 0-0? axb4 15 8 ... 0-0 9 iJ...xc6 ..ltxc6 10 ltJe5
axb4 JLxb4 16 ~b 1 JLxd2 17 'ifxd2 eS 18
.tc3 'ifxd2 19 JLxd2 ~fc8 and Black went
on to win.
4 .. .CLJf6 5 iJ...b5 iJ...d7

Nimzowitsch adopted this formation five

times in major tournaments and scored
100%. His games are still critical for the un-
derstanding of the positions. White has two
This development is unusual in the Nimw plans: to conduct an immediate kingside at-
proper (i.e. Jl.c 1-d2) since it offers White few tack by f2-f4, ~f3-g3/h3 and 'ifg4/'ifh5 (if
chances for the advantage. Of course Black and when the f6-knight moves away), which
cannot expect an advantage from the open- we'll call Plan A; or to expand in the centre
ing, so ... Jl.c8-d7, preserving pawn structure, (after lt:Jxc6 or li:Jxd7) with e3-e4 and later
is perfectly acceptable and is considered to be f4-f5 (Plan B). The second of these plans is
the main line. more a fallback for when Black's play negates
6 0-0 e6 the former; obviously White would prefer the
As White is intending i..b5xc6 at a later direct attack if it can be made to work.
stage to give the knight access to eS, Black Of course Black has chances too, other-
should not play here 6... a6, nor later (nor wise no-one would ever play this way. Black
previously 5... a6), as White would then be a will exchange the knight oneS (by ...li:Jd7) or
tempo up on the usual lines. In turn White drive it away (by .. .f7-f6) and generate coun-
can hold off taking on c6 for as long as pos- terplay on the queenside with ... b7-b5 and
sible, hoping for ... a7-a6; quite often Black ... c5-c4; the bishop pair may come in useful
obliges if s/he is unfamiliar with the posi- later.
tions. (This also arises in the English De- 10 .. J1c8
fence, 1 c4 b6 etc., when a2-a3 essentially Again preserving structure while support-
gives Black the white pieces.) ing the later advance ... c5-c4. Black can also
7 d3 iJ...e7 8 ltJbd2 retreat the bishop from attack by 10 ... i.e8,
The correct post for the knight - it may planning .. .Ct:Jd7 and .. .f7-f6 to clear the eS-
later move on to f3 (after li:Jf3-e5 and f2-f4) square and open the e8-h5 diagonal for the

75
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

bishop; or challenge the eS-knight straight played 11 l2Jdf3 :cs (if 11...f6 12 ctJxc6 bxc6
away by 10 ... ctJd7: 13 e4 eS 14 ltJh 4, but 11.. ..tf6 may be better)
a) 10 ... j£,eS 11 f4 ~c7 transposes to 12 ~e2 ctJxeS (12 .. .f6 13 ctJxc6 :xc6 14 e4)
Nimwwitsch-Samisch, Carlsbad 1929, which 13 ctJxeS i.eS 14 ~g4 (threatening 1S ctJc6)
continued 12 :f3 l2Jd7 13 :g3 g6 (not 14.. .fS (if 14 ... i.f6 1S f4) 1S ~e2 .tf6 16 c4
13 .. .f6?? 14 ~g4! wins) 14 ~g4 j£,f6 1S C2Jdf3 ~e717 f4 when White consolidated his con-
i.g7 16 :h3 fS?? (fatally weakening e6; cor- trol of eS and built up a kingside attack with
rect was 16 ... h6 and if 17 ~h4 ~dS) 17 ~h4 h2-h3, ~h2, :f2, :g1, g2-g4, etc. (Nimzo-
ctJf6 (or 17... h6 1S ~e7) 1S ctJgS and White witsch-Wolf, Carlsbad 1923).
won. 11 f4
If 11...ctJd7 White can choose either plan This position also arises in Bird's Open-
A: 12 ~g4 (preventing .. .f7-f6) 12 ... ctJxeS 13 ing: 1 f4 dS 2 b3 ctJf6 3 ctJf3 cS 4 e3 ctJc6 S
fxeS (not 13 j£,xeS f6 14 ~xe6+?? j£,f7) and i.bS .td7 6 i.b2 e6 7 0-0 .te7 S i.xc6
if 13 ... .tgS 14 :f3 d4 1S ctJe4! i.xe3+ 16 i.xc6 9 ctJeS 0-0 10 d3 :cs 11 ctJd2.
~h1 (intending 17 ctJf6+ ~hS 1S :g3) 11 ... '2Jd7
16 ... WhS 17 :g3 (17 ~xe6?! i.d7) 17 ... g6 Instead:
(not 17... .th6 1S .tel or 17 ... :gs 1S C2Jf6 a) 11...i.eS 12 a4 ctJd7 13 ctJxd7 ~xd7 14
i.f2 19 ctJxh7! and wins) 1S ~h4 h6 19 .tel, e4 (plan B) is similar to 10 ... .teS above; e.g.
while Nimzowitsch gave 13 ... ~a5 14 :f2 14 .. .f6 1S ~f3 planning J:.ae1 and f4-fS.
~b4 1S e4 i.c6 16 a3 ~aS 17 exdS i.xdS 1S b) 11...bS (initiating queenside counterplay
ctJf1 ~c7 19 ctJe3 bS 20 ctJxdS exdS 21 e6 f6 immediately) 12 :f3! (plan A) 12 ...ctJd7 13
22 :afl ~hS 23 :f3 intending :h3 etc. :h3 ctJxeS 14 ~hS h6 1S i.xeS f6 16 .tb2
Or plan B: 12 ctJxd7 ~xd7 13 e4 f6 14 d4 17 :g3 dxe3 1S ~xh6 :f7 (Shashin-
~f3 .tf7 1S a4 b6 (preparing ... a7-a6 and S.Ivanov, Leningrad 19S1) and now White
... b6-bS; if 1S ... a6 16 aS!) 16 :ae1 a6 17 fS! might try 19 ctJf3 planning ~h4, :h3 or if
dxe4 (not 17 ... exfS? 1S exdS i.xdS 19 :xe7!) 19 ... i.xf3 20 gxf3 and ~h1, :agl.
1S ~xe4 eS 19 :e3 bS 20 :g3 ~hS 21 l2Jf3 c) 11...ctJeS prepares .. .f7-f6 while covering
bxa4?? (the losing move; Black had to defend g7, so Nimzowitsch again switched to plan B:
eS with 21...i.d6) 22 ctJxeS! and if 22 .. .fxeS 12 e4! dxe4 13 dxe4 ctJf6 14 ~e2 ~c7 1S
23 ~xeS .tf6 24 ~xf6! gxf6 2S i.xf6 mate, :ad1 :fdS 16 a4 b6 17 fS! exfS 1S exfS i.fS
so Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein, Semmering 19 ctJg4 ctJxg4 20 ~xg4 ~hS 21 f6 g6 22
1926, continued 22 ... ~eS 23 ~g4 :gs 24 ctJc4 :xd1 23 .l:xd1 :es 24 .teS! ~cS (if
ctJxf7+ ~xf7 2S ~xa4. Emmerich and Chris- 24 ...:xeS 2S ~g3 i.d6 26 :xd6 :e2 27
tensen later combined to show a brilliant win ~fl!- Dunnington) 2S ~xeS :xeS 26 h4 hS
in which White gives all his pieces away: 24 27 i.f4 ~h7 2S ctJeS i.eS 29 c4 i.h6 30
ctJg6+! i.xg6 2S fxg6 h6 26 :h3 followed by i.gS with complete control in Nimwwitsch-
27 ~gS! ~fS 2S j£,xf6! .ixf6 29 :xf6! ~xf6 Rosselli del Turco, Semmering 1926.
30 :xh6+! and mate. 12 ~g4
b) 10 ... ctJd7 and then 11 f4 is too slow af- White threatens 13 ctJxc6, prevents .. .f7-f6
ter 11...ctJxeS! 12 fxeS (12 .ixeS f6) 12 ... aS by hitting the e6-pawn, and also sets a little
(or 12 ... .igS 13 ~e2 d4) 13 a4 bS 14 axbS trap: 12 .. .fS? 13 ~xg7+! ~xg7 14 ctJxc6+
i.xbS 1S ~g4 ~d7 16 :f4 g6! 17 l2Jf3 a4! 1S i.f6 15 ctJxdS :fxdS (or 1S ... i.xb2 16
bxa4 hS 19 ~ g3 :xa4 with advantage to ctJxe6 + - Nimzowitsch) 16 .txf6 + ctJxf6 17
Black in Morozevich-Rashkovsky, Moscow h3 and White was a pawn up for nothing in
1992. 11 ctJxc6 bxc6 and 12 ... i.f6 doesn't Kislov-J uricek, Presov 1999.
offer White much either. So Nimzowitsch 12 ... '2Jxe5

76
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 C{jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with .. _C[jc6 & .i..b5

If 12 ... .tf6 13 l:.f3 g6 14 l:.h3 .tg7 15 dxe4 c4 32 b4 .tg4 33 ~e3 l:.d7 34 g6+ ~f8
ct:Jdf3 fS 16 'i¥g3 ctJxeS 17 .txeS .txeS (Ax- 35 gxh7 l:.xh7 36 ctJg6+ ~e8 37 ctJxeS .tc8
Muller, corr 1991) White has a clear advan- 38 ctJxc4 ~d8 39 t2Jd6 l:.g7 40 ~f2 ~c7 41
tage after 18 ctJxeS. One can only assume ctJxc8 ~xc8 42 l:.d6 1-0 Fischer-Mecking,
that the lemon 18 fxeS? (as played) was a Palma de Mallorca 1970.
clerical error (6455 in numerical correspon- 15 fxe5
dence notation instead of 6355). Black went
on to win.
13 .i..xe5
This time 13 fxeS is answered strongly by
13 ... .tgS! (Alekhine) and if 14 l:.ae1 d4 15
ctJc4 bS 16 ct:Jd6 .txe3+ 17 l:.xe3 dxe3 18
ctJxc8 'i¥xc8 19 l:.e 1 (Lovric-Chilingirova,
Turin 2000) then 19 ...'i¥c7! and ...'iYaS coun-
terattacks; e.g. 20 l:.xe3 'iYaS 21 a3 (not 21
l:.g3?? 'i¥e1 mate) 21...'i¥d2 22 'i¥e2 'i¥xe2 23
:xe2 with an equal endgame.
13 ... .i..f6 14 .:!.f3
14 ct:Jf3!? reinforcing eS is also worth con-
sidering. Szekely-Giaidzi, Athens 1992, con- A critical juncture. Black.needs to find a
tinued 14 ... d4 (14 ... b5) 15 e4 'i¥e7 16 l:.f2 bS defence against the coming attack.
17 l:.af1 .txeS? (17 ... .tb7) 18 fxeS! (if 18 Spielmann's choice (15 ... 'ifc7) prepares a
ctJxeS .tb7 intending .. .f7-f6, e.g. 19 fS exfS lateral defence by .. .f7-f5. ECO suggests the
20 'iYxfS f6 21 ctJg4 l:.ce8 and the endgame immediate 15 .. .f5!? but 16 exf6 l:.xf6 17 l:.af1
after 22 eS etc. is not good for White) 18 ... h6 seems good for White; e.g. 17 ... l:.xf3 18
19 h4 .td7? (but 19 .. .f6 20 exf6 l:.xf6 21 ctJeS ct:Jxf3 'ifd6 19 ttJgS! threatening to take on e6
sees the knight established on eS) 20 tLlh2! or h7 (20 ctJxh7 ~xh7 21 'ifhS+ ~g8 23
(Black seems to be lost now) 20 ... c4 21 'iYhS 'iff7+, 24 l:.f4 etc.) or if 17 ... l:.g6 18 'iff4 'ife7
(planning the standard attack) 21.. ..te8 22 19 'ifeS l:.gS 20 l:.fS maintains the grip oneS.
l:.f6! l:.cS (if 22 ... gxf6 23 exf6 is even more Against 15 ... 'ifa5 Nimzowitsch proposed
straightforward than usual) 23 ctJg4 gxf6 24 16 l:.g3 and 17 ct:Jf3 'with a clear advantage'.
ct:Jxf6+ ~g7 25 l:.f3 l:.h8 26 l:.g3+ 1-0 (mate It's not so easy though after 16 ... g6 17 'Llf3
follows with 26 ... ~f8 27 'i¥xh6+). 'i¥c3! 18 l:.fl and then 18 .. .f5! (if 18 ...'ifxc2
14... .i..xe5 19 CDgS! hS 20 'iff4 'ifxd3 21 'iff6 .te8 22
14 ... 'i¥e7?! wastes time. After 15 l:.afl aS l:.gf3) 19 'ifh4 l:.c7 20 'ifh6 (if 20 l:.h3 hS!)
16 l:.g3 (threatening 17 'i¥xg7+! i.xg7 18 20 ... l:.e7! 21 h4 (if 21 d4 l:.c8 22 'LlgS .te8 23
l:.xg7+ ~h8 19 l:.xf7+ and wins) 16 ... .txe5 l:.h3 l:.cc7) 21.. ..te8 22 hS l:.g7 23 d4
(but if 16 ... l:.fe8 17 'iYhS and 18 'i¥h6 .txeS (threatening 'LlgS) 23 .. .f4! 24 exf4 l:.fS seems
19 fxeS 'i¥f8 20 l:.f4 forces Black to weaken to hold.
the dark squares with 20 ... g6) 17 fxeS fS (not 15 .. .'it'c7 16 'iVh5
17.. .f6? 18 'i¥h4 or 17 ... g6 18 l:.f6) 18 exf6 With the idea 16 .. .f5? 17 exf6 l:.xf6 18
l:.xf6 19 'i¥xg7+! 'i¥xg7 20 l:.xf6 'i¥xg3 21 l:.xf6 gxf6 19 'ifg4+ (Nimzowitsch). His as-
hxg3 when the extra pawn comes in very sessment 'winning' again seems a bit strong,
handy: 21...l:.e8 22 g4! a4 23 t2Jf3 axb3 24 though White is better after 19 ... ~f7 20 'ifh3
axb3 ~g7 25 gS eS 26 ttJh 4 .td7 27 l:.d6 l:.h8 21 'ifhS+ and 22 l:.fl. If instead 16 d4!?
.te6 28 ~f2 ~f7 29 l:.b6 l:.e7 30 e4 dxe4 31 'ifaS 17 l:.g3 g6 18 'Llf3 'ifc3 is worse for

77
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

White than the 15 .. .'iVa5line since the desir- 23 ... .lieS 24 .l:hxf6 ~xf6 25 ~xf6 .l:e 7
able 19 l:.fl drops the e3-pawn. 26 ~f2 ~g7 27 .l:f4 i.d7 28 ~e2?!
16 ... h6?? Better was 28 ~e1! for the reason given in
A decisive loss of time. Nimwwitsch him- the next note.
self gave 16 ...i.e8! 17 l:.h3 h6 18 tt:Jf3 (not 18 28 ... e5 29 .l:f5 .l:e8 30 .l:f2
l:.g3? fS 19 'ifxh6? 'iVxeS forking the two With 28 ~e1 White could have taken the
rooks) 18 .. .f5 'with a slight advantage to hS-pawn as there is no check on g4.
White'. Again this assessment looks optimis- 30 ... e4 31 .l:f4 ~e5 32 ~d2 b5 33 g3
tic: after 19 'iVh4 it is hard to see White i.h3 34 d4 cxd4 35 exd4 ~g5 36 c3 a5
achieving anything on the kingside. 37 .:tf2
17 ~af1 Black is running out of moves: if he re-
Preventing .. .f7-f5 and threatening 18 l:.f6! treats the bishop White will reroute the
followed by l:.lf4-g4 or l:.lf3-g3, while if knight to f4 via g2; otherwise White contin-
18 ... gxf6 19 l:.xf6 then mate after 'iVxh6- ues to prepare the break c3-c4.
g5+/l:.xh6-h8+ or similarly 18 ... ~h7 19 37 ... a4 38 ~e3 a3 39 .l:c2 i.f1 40 .l:c1
l:.xh6+! gxh6 20 l:.f6 and mates. i.d3 41 t2Jg2 .i:rf5 42 etJf4 ~f7 43 .l:d1
17 ... g6 18 ~xh6 ~xe5 19 .l:f6! ~e7
Giving up another pawn for some slight
rook activity. If 43 ... i.c2 44 l:.g1 and h2-h3,
g3-g4 wins easily enough.
44 t2Jxd3 exd3 45 b4 ~d6 46 ~xd3 ~f2
47 .l:d2 .l:f3+ 48 ~c2 ~e6 49 ~e2+ ~d6
50 ~b3 ~d3 51 ~e5 h4 52 gxh4 ~h3 53
.l:rh5 ~c6 54 .l:h6+ ~b7 55 h5 1-0
When the pawn reaches h7 White will play
l:.d8 and all the black queenside pawns drop
off.

Game 29
Tomashevsky-Shalimov
19 ... ~h5 Kharkov 2000
The only defence against White's threat-
ened l:.lf3-h3. 19 ... d4 20 e4 does not help 1 tLlf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 tLlf6 4 i.b2 t2Jc6
Black. 5 ~b5 ~d7
20 ~xh5 gxh5 21 tLlf3! In this game we consider examples in
Keeping control over eS. 21 l:.h6 would which Black puts the king's bishop on d6.
win a pawn but Black could then defend his For no obvious reason this sensible devel-
position with 21... ~g7 22 l:.xhS f6 23 ctJf3 opment is neglected by theory which concen-
l:.h8. Now 21...~g7 22 ctJeS l:.c7 defends the trates overwhelmingly on ...i.e7. With ...i.d6
pawn (not 22 ... i.e8 23 ctJg6! l:.g8 24 ctJe7) Black fights directly for the eS-square and
but 23 l:.lf4leaves White in total control. can follow up with ...'ife7 or ...'iVc7 and (after
21 .. .'~c7 22 .l:h6 castling) ... tt:Jfd7.
22 ctJeS is also clearly better for White. 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 .lidS
22 ... f6 23 t2Jh4 'Interesting' according to ECO which rec-
Now if 23 ... ~g6 24 l:.g6+ and White gets ommends 8 i.xc6 and ctJeS when 'White
the more desirable f6-pawn. stands slightly better'.

78
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 ct:Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with .. _/:jjc6 & ii.b5

8 ii..xc6 side attack. It was safer to capture 1S fxeS

In Bagirov-Zso.Polgar, Brno 1991, White removing the support for d4; e.g. 15 ... 'ifxe5
tried to exploit the position of the bishop by 16 g3 bS 17 a4 a6 18 axbS axbS 19 :fs 'i¥e7
8 e4!? d4 9 t2Jbd2 eS 10 CLJc4 'ife7 11 c3 0-0 20 b4!? hitting the pawn base.
12 ~xc6 ~xc6 13 cxd4 cxd4 14 a4l:Hc8 1S With the kingside blocked and his centre
t2Jh4 ~d7 16 'iff3 g6 17 ~cl CLJe8 18 g3 reinforced Black is able to organise his (much
~c7 19 'ife2 t2Jg7 20 lt:Jg2 reaching an equal swifter) queenside breakthrough without
position with two fianchettoed knights. distraction.
8 ... .1L.xc6 9 /:jje5 .:i.c8 10 f4 0-0 11 /:jjd2
Incidentally, Tomashevsky-Shalimov
didn't take anything like the route given. The
actual move order was 4 ~b2 e6 S ~bS+
t2Jbd7 6 0-0 ~d6 7 ~xd7+ ~xd7 8 d3 0-0 9
lt:Jbd2 ~c6 10 lt:JeS :c8 11 f4. Searching in
ChessBase for the position at move 11 turned
up this game.
11 .. .'Wie7
An old game saw 1l...~e8 (if 1l...lt:Jd712
ifg4 lt:JxeS 13 fxe5) 12 ~f3 lt:Jd7 13 lt:Jxd7
'i¥xd714 e4 ~e7?! (better 14 .. .fS threatening
... ~hS as well as .. .fxe4, ~xf4) 1S ~xg7!
~xg7 16 :g3+ ~h8 17 'i¥g4 ~gS? (17 ... ~f6 15 ... b5 16 a4 a6 17 ~e2 ~b7 18 ii..c1
18 eS 'i¥e7 19 lt:Jf3 ~c6 20 exf6 'i¥xf6 21 l:tfc8 19 axb5 axb5 20 /:jjf1 c4 21 ii..g5
CLJeS) 18 'iYxgS f6 19 'i¥h6 and White had ii..e7 22 ~e1 cxd3 23 cxd3 l::ta8 24
won a pawn in Eliskases-Dyckmanns, Kre- :lxa8+ ~xa8
feld 1938. Black has taken control of the queenside
12.l:.f3 d4! files while White has as yet achieved little on
An improvement on 12 ... lt:Jd7 13 :h3 the kingside. If 2S 'i¥h4 'i¥a2 26 l:th3 Black
~xeS 14 fxeS (14 'iYhS!?) 14.. .fS 1S exf6 has a trick defence: 26 ... h6 27 .ixh6 gxh6 28
lt:Jxf6 16 lt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 17 'i¥e2 eS?! (better was 'i¥xh6 'iff2+! 29 ~xf2 CLJg4-t and wins.
17... ~f7 and ... ~cf8) 18 lt:JxeS! lt:JxeS 19 'ifhS 25 ~g3 /:jjh5
:ce8 20 'ifxh7+ ~f7 21 'ifhS+ (21 ~g3) Thwarting the threat to the eS-pawn by
21... ~g8 22 'i¥h7 + ~f7 23 :g3 ~e6 discovering on the bishop.
(U.Andersson-Pomar Salamanca, Gothen- 26 ~g4 ii..xg5 27 ~xg5 /:jjf6 28 h3 h6
burg 1971) when White should have played 29 ~g3 'Wib8 30 'Wif2 ~d6 31 ~a2 :la6
24 :xg7! 'i¥f6 (not 24 ...:f7? 2S ~xeS) 2S 32 'Wid2 'Wic5 33 g4 :la1 34 'Wih2 cud7?
'i¥h3 + ~d6 (if 2S ...'i¥fs 26 'i¥g3 and 27 :gs) Freeing the queen from the defence of eS
26 'i3g3 d4 27 exd4 cxd4 28 ~xd4 'i¥f4 29 but a mistake as it allows White to accelerate
~xa7 with five pawns for the piece. his attack. Better was 34 ...~b1 when 3S 'ti'g3
13 /:jjxc6 l:txc6 14 e4 (required to play h2-h4) 35 ... lt:Jh7 36 h4 f6,
If 14 exd4 cxd4 1S ~xd4 .~cS 16 ~xeS with two tempi on the game, thwarts the
'iYxcS+ regains the pawn (c2) or if 16 ~f2 kingside breakthrough; or if 35 'ifa2 'i¥c136
lt:Jg4! 17 lt:Je4 t2Jxf2 18 lt:Jxf2 ~d4 19 :c1 'ifa8 + ~h7 37 'i¥f8 'ifd1! gets in first.
'ifa3 and the a2-pawn drops. 35 h4 'Wic1 36 'Wig2
14 ... e5 15 f5?! White organises strong threats before
Counting somewhat hopefully on a king- Black wins with the b-pawn. If now 36 ...:b 1

79
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

37 g5 hxg5 38 hxg5 l:xb3 (or 38 ... tt:Jf8 39 ~g2 '¥Vg5 52 '¥Vxg5 t2Jxg5 53 t2Jd2 %-%
'i¥g3) 39 g6 is dangerous; e.g. 39 .. .f6 40 'ifh2
or 39 ... l:b2 (not 39 ... l:b1? 40 'i¥a2!) 40 gxf7+ CameJO
~xf7 41 'i¥g6+ ~e7 (41...~f8? 42 l:h3) 42 Miles-Krasenkov
'ifxg7+ ~d6 43 f6. So Black returns the Las Vegas 1999
knight to the defence.
From the FIDE Knockout World Cham-
pionship. Miles and Krasenkov had each
won a game at the proper time limit and this
was the first game of the rapidplay play-off.
1 t2Jf3 c5 2 b3 t2Jc6 3 .ltb2 d5 4 e3 t2Jf6
5 .ltb5 .ltd7
Another move order to the usual position.
Apart from the plan of d2-d3, .i.xc6, ctJeS,
4:Jd2 as seen in the previous two games,
White can also attack the centre with c2-c4.
6 0-0 e6 7 c4!?
7 d4 creates a reversed 4 e3 Nimzo-Indian
(with 4... 0-0 5 4:Jf3 d5 6 .1d3 b6!? 7 0-0
36 ... t2Jf6!? 37 g5 hxg5 38 hxg5 l2Jh7 .1b7). Feuerstein-Polugayevsky, Reykjavik
If 38 ... Ct:Jh5 39 g6 fxg6 40 fxg6 Ct:Jf4 (or 1957, continued 7... cxd4 8 exd4 .1d6 9 a3 (a
40 ... CLJf6 41 'irh3) 41 'irg4 'irc6 42 l:xf4! exf4 moderately useful extra move) 9... 0-0 10 .i.d3
43 'ifh5 is OK for White or 39 ... Ct:Jf4 40 'iig4 ctJe4! 11 c4 f5 12 b4 aS 13 b5 ctJe7 14 cS
(not 40 gxf7+ ~xf7 41 l:xf4 exf4 42 'iig6+ .i.c7 15 4:Jbd2 .1e8 16 ~cl .1h5 17 'ifel
~e7 and the black king can escape) 40 .. .f6 41 ctJg6 18 g3 i.g4 19 ~g2 and now Black
'iVh4 CLJe2+ 42 ~h2 'ifh6 43 'i¥xh6 gxh6 44 came crashing through: 19 ... 4:Jf4+! 20 gxf4
ctJg3 ctJxg3 45 l:xg3 l:b 1 46 l:g2 l:xb3 47 i.xf4 21 .1c3? (better 21 h3) 21...'iff6 22
l:a2 draws. l:hl 'i¥g6 23 ~fl 'i¥h6 24 .1xe4 'i¥h3+ 25
39 g6 l2Jg5 40 gxf7+ ~xf7 ~g1 fxe4 26 'i¥f1 exf3 27 'i¥xh3 .1xh3 28
40 ... 4:Jxf7 41 f6 'iigS 42 fxg7 'irxg2+ 43 l:dl i.xd2 0-1 since ... l:f6-g6 mates.
~xg2 ~xg7 44 ctJg3 is again OK for White.
41 l:!f2 ~f6 42 'ifg3 l1b1 43 ~g2 'ifd1
44 'iih4 'iixd3 45 'Yih5?!
It was better to play 45 Ct:Jd2! intending 46
'ifh8 .l:.xb2 47 'i¥d8+ ~f7 48 'i¥d7+ ~g8 49
'iV e8+ with perpetual check.
45 ... 'ifxe4+ 46 ~g1 ife3 47 'ifg6+ We7
48 '¥Vxg7+?
Presumably both players were now short
of time. The text loses to 48 ... ~d6 or
48 ... ~d8 when the king escapes the checks
via c6-d5-e4-d3. Instead 48 f6+! gxf6
(48 ... ~d8 49 fxg7 Ct:Jh3+ 50 ~h2 'i¥xf2+ 51
'i¥g2) 49 'i¥xf6+ ~d7 50 'i¥f5+ forces the 7 ... dxc4
draw. Given the fast time limit Black sensibly
48 ... t2Jf7? 49 f6+ we6 50 ~g4+ Wd6 51 keeps the defence as simple as possible,

80
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 {jjf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with .. _{jjc6 & ii..b5

avoiding any strategic difficulties that might able and White is still more active. The text
arise after, for example: 7... ~e7 8 cxdS exdS allows Black to cause some disruption by:
9 d4 0-0 10 dxcS ~xeS 11 ctJc3 ~g4 12 :c1 15 ... a5 16 b5 a4!
~d6 with a tricky isolated queen's pawn po-
sition (T aimanov-Thorhallsson, Gausdal
1992) or 7... ~d6 8 cxdS ctJxdS 9 d4 cxd4 10
~xc6 ~xc6 11 ct:Jxd4 'Jjjjc7 12 'Jjjjhs 0-0 13
ctJxc6 'Jjjjxc6 14 'Jjjjg4 g6 1S :c1 'Jjjjd7 16 :d1
'Jjjje7? (better was 16 ... 'Jjjjc7) 17 'Jjjjd4 f6 18
ctJc3 ctJxc3 19 'Jjjjxd6 'Jjjjxd6 20 :xd6 Ci:JdS 21
:xe6 and White won (Gulko-Vulfson, USSR
1981).
In Zita-Tal, Vienna-Baden 19S7, Black
solved his problems after 7... a6 8 ~xc6
~xc6 9 ctJeS :c8 10 cxdS ~xdS 11 ctJc3
~e7 12 d4 0-0 13 ctJxdS ctJxdS 14 dxcS
~xeS with an equal position. White might try 17 'iYa2 {jja5 18 l:tb1?
10 d3!? intending f2-f4, ctJd2 with an extra An oversubtle rook move. Better was 18
c2-c4 on the lines from the previous games, ~d4 iVd6 19 ~d3 and if 19 ... iVxa3 20 iVxa3
though it's not clear who this inclusion fa- ~xa3 21 :a1 or 19 ... Ci:Jb3 20 ctJxb3 axb3 21
vours. 'Jjjjxb3 :xa3 22 iVb 1.
8 ii..xc4 18 ... {jjxc4 19 {jjxc4
White could capture 8 bxc4 with an extra Perhaps White intended 19 'Jjjjxc4 and if
central pawn and possible play on the b-file. 19 ... ~xbS 20 ~xf6!, but 19 ...:dc8! negates
Miles plays the position as a Queen's Gambit this idea.
Accepted, trying to achieve something with 19 ...'iYc5 20 ii..d4 'iYd5 21 l:tfd1
his more active pieces. 21 ~xf6 ~xf6 22 .:Ifd1 iVcS 23 ctJd6 fails
8 ... ii..d6 9 d4 0-0 10 dxc5 ii..xc5 11 to defend the pawn due to the opposition of
{jjbd2 il...e7 the rooks on the d-file after 23 ... ~xbS!.
Pre-empting any tricks with ~xf6 and 21 ... ii..xb5 22 {jjfe5 ii..xc4
ctJe4. No need for 22 ...:ac8? 23 iVa1! ~xc4 24
12 l:c1 ~b6 with complications; e.g. 24 ... iVe4 2S
An equivalent position arose (with the ~xd8 :xd8? (2S ... ~dS) 26 :xd8+ ~xd8 27
black a-pawn on a6) in Chernin-Speelman, .:b4 bS 28 ctJxc4 when if 28 ... bxc4? 29 .:b8
Subotica 1987, continuing 12 ctJgS!? h6 f3 'Jjjjd3? 30 iVd4! wins.
ctJge4 bS 14 ~e2 ctJb4 1S a3 ctJbdS. In the 23 'iYxc4 ii..xa3 24 'fJ/c7 l:tf8 25 l:txb7?
current game, for what it's worth, Black does Better 2S ~al. Now White loses another
not have ... b7-bS since his a-pawn is still on pawn.
a7. White also has the standard 12 e4 and 13 25 ... il...d6 26 'fJ/c6 il...xe5 27 'fJ/xd5 il...xh2+
eS, or can try 12 'Jjjjb1!? intending 13 ctJgS 28 'it>xh2 {jjxd5 29 l:ta1 l:ta6 30 e4 {jjf4
(Speelman) to provoke the weakening ... g7- 31 l:ta3 l:tfa8 32 l:tf3
g6, or otherwise 13 :fd 1 and ctJe4 with the If the knight moves White can draw with
initiative. .:fxf7, but Black has a nice trick:
12 .. .'~Va5 13 a3 :td8 14 b4 'iYb6 15 32 ... e5! 33 ii..xe5 l:th6+ 34 'it>g1
'iYb3?! If 34 ~g3 ctJe2+ 3S ~g4 .:g6+ 36 ~h4 f6
1S 'Jjjjc2 intending 16 :fd1 looks prefer- blocks the f-file and Black gets the g2-pawn.

81
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

34 ... l:!.d8 35 l:!.b8 cxdS ti.Jb4 9 i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 10 e4 and the pin
If 35 :b1 ctJe2+ 36 ~f1 :h1+ picks up keeps Black from recapturing the pawn,
the exchange. while after 10 ... ti.Jd3 11 i.xf6 i.xf6 12 ti.Jc3
35 ... l:!.xb8 36 i..xb8 ctJe2+ 37 ~f1 ctJd4 and 13 ti.Je 1 removes the infiltrating knight.
38 l1h3 l1b6 0-1 If Black tries 7... ti.Jb4 8 i.xd7+ 'ifxd7 9
i.xf6! gxf6 10 d4 gives Black difficulties; e.g.
Game31 10 ... i.g7 11 a3 ctJa6 (else 12 dxcS) 12 dxcS
Bellon Lopez-Pomar Salamanca dxc4 13 'ifxd7+ ~xd7 14 b4.
Madrid 1973 Therefore Black decides to liquidate his
centre. No matter that d4xc5 by White in the
1 ctJf3 'iJf6 2 b3 d5 3 i..b2 c5 4 e3 ttJc6 equivalent Nimzo Indian would cede the
5 i..b5 i..d7 advantage, since in the reversed position
In this game Black is going to fianchetto Black doesn't have the advantage anyway.
his king's bishop. S... i.d7 is a necessary pre- 7 ... dxc4! 8 i..xc4 i..g7 9 d4 cxd4 1 0
liminary since after S... g6 White can come in exd4 ttJh5!?
strongly with 6 ti.JeS; e.g. Eyeing the f4-square and preventing 11 dS
a) 6... 'ifb6 7 ti.Jc3 (threatening 8 ctJxdS) -not that 11 dS is very terrifying: 10... 0-0 11
7... i.g7 8 ctJxdS!? (better 8 i.xc6+ bxc6 9 dS ti.JaS seems OK for Black, or if 11 ctJeS
ctJa4 with the advantage) 8... ti.Jxd5 9 i.xc6+ :c8 12 f4 i.fs.
bxc6 10 ctJc4 i.xb2 11 ctJxb6 axb6 12 :b 1 11 ttJe5 ttJxe5
:xa2?? (12 ... i.g7) 13 :xb2 :xb2 14 'ifa1 If now 11...0-0 12 f4 supports the ctJeS
skewering the rooks (K wilecki-Baumbach, and denies the takes f4 away from the knight
Poznan 1960). onhS.
b) 6... i.d7 7 i.xc6 i.xc6 8 ti.Jxc6 bxc6 9 12 dxe5 i..c6 13 'iic1!
i.xf6!? (again better 9 d3 ~g7 10 ctJc3 and Keeping the black knight out of f4 and
ctJa4) 9... exf6 10 0-0 i.g7 11 ctJc3 fS 12 d4 threatening to trap it with g2-g4.
'ifh4 13 ctJe2 cxd4 14 ctJxd4 0-0 15 :c1 cS 13 ... 'iic8!
16 ti.Jf3 'ife4 17 c4 :fd8 18 cxdS :xdS 19
'ife2 aS! 20 :c4 'ifd3 21 'ifxd3 .:xd3 22
:xeS a4 23 bxa4 :a3 and Black drew in
A.Andersson-Pomar Salamanca, Las Palmas
1972.
6 0-0 g6
If 7 i.xc6 i.xc6 8 ctJeS :c8! and White's
usual scheme of 9 f4 i..g7 10 d3 0-0 11 ti.Jd2
is ineffective against the fianchetto; e.g.
11...b5 12 ctJxc6 :xc6 13 'ife2 'ifb6 14 ~h1
c4 15 i.d4 cxd3 16 cxd3 'ifaS 17 a4 :c2 18
:fd1 :fc8 (Vaitainen-Molander, Tampere
1996) and if 19 axbS 'ifxbS 20 :xa7 ctJe4!.
7 c4 Preventing g2-g4 while threatening
When Black combines ... g7-g6 with ... d7- 14... i.xg2! 15 ~xg2 'i¥g4+ and wins.
d5 then c2-c4 is usually a good response, 14 i..e2?
since the desirable ... e7-e6 to support the If 14 h3? then 14 ...'iff5! as in the game (15
centre would create dark-square weaknesses. g4?? 'iff3 wins). White had to play 14 f3 0-0!
Here 7 c4 also prevents 7... i.g7 due to 8 (if 14... 'ifc7 15 'ife3) and then either 15 g4!?

82
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 0Jt3 d5 2 b3 c5 with ... 0Jc6 & i.b5

~xf3! 16 gxhS 'ifg4+ 17 ~f2 'i¥g2+ 18 ~el Nimzo is 4 e3 planning tt:Jf3, ~d3, 0-0, so
when it is unclear whether Black has enough here ... e7-e6 is thematic when White needs to
for the piece, or simply 15 ctJa3! with a slight prove something with the extra tempo.
advantage. Acs in fact played 4... tt:Jf6 5 ~bS and only
14 .. .'i¥f5! then S... e6.
Threatening the eS-pawn and to release 5 ..1b5 0Jf6
the knight; or if 15 g4?? 'ife4 wins. S... tt:Jge7 is seen occasionally. The book
15 f4 i.h6! 16 g3 refutation is 6 ctJeS with the idea 7 'ifhS g6??
Now if 16 g4? tt:Jxf4! 17 gxfS? tt:Jh3 mate, 8 'iff3 and wins, or if 6 ...'ifc7 7 'ifhS tt:Jfs 8
or 16 ~xhS gxhS! and 17 ... Mg8 joins the f4 with the advantage. So Black plays
attack. 16 g3 is obviously not a move White 6... ~d7! 7 ctJxd7 ifxd7 8 0-0 when White's
wants to make as Black's light-squared extra tempo on a 4 e3 b6 5 ctJe2 Nimzo-
bishop is now immensely powerful. Indian is insufficient for a significant advan-
16 ... 0-0 17 iVe3 'i¥h3 18 'iff2 tage; e.g. 8... a6 9 ~e2 d4! (if 9... tt:Jf5 10 ~g4!)
If 18 ~f3? ctJxg3! wins or 18 Mf2? ~xf4!. 10 a4 (or 10 e4 g6) lO ... tt:JdS 11 ctJa3 ~e7 12
18 ... 0Jxf4! ctJc4 ifc7 13 ~f3 Md8 14 aS ~f6 15 ifcl
0-0 16 Ma4 Mfe8 17 g3 g6 18 ~g2 dxe3 19
fxe3 ~xb2 20 'ifxb2 fS 21 Mf2 tt:Jdb4 22 Mal
'ifg7lh-lh Danailov-Eingorn, Alicante 1992.
6 0Je5
Or 6 ~xc6+ bxc6 7 ctJeS. If 6 0-0 Black
can return to 6... ~d7 or continue as in this
game with 6... ~d6.
6 ... 'i¥c7 7 0-0 ..1d6 8 f4 0-0 9 ..1xc6
bxc6

Threatening 19 ... ctJxe2+ 20 'ifxe2 jLe3+!

and mates. If 19 gxf4 ~xf4 (threatening
... ~e3) 20 ~d4 Mfd8 21 ~cS b6 etc. or
21...Md3! and 22 ... Mg3+! (as in the game).
19 i.c1 0Jxe2+ 20 'i¥xe2 i.xc1 21 .l:!xc1
f5! 22 .:tf1 f4 23 gxf4 .l:!ad8 24 .l:!f2 .l:!d3!
0-1
25 ... Mg3+ is decisive.

Game32 This is the reversed Nimzo with 4 e3 b6 5

Miles-Acs ~d3 ~b7 6 tt:Jf3 ctJe4 7 0-0 fS 8 'iYc2 ~xc3
Varadero 2000 9 bxc3 0-0 when if 10 ctJel Black replies
lO ... cS or 10 tt:Jd2 'ifh4. Here Black has not
1 0Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 0Jc6 4 i.b2 e6 yet committed the f6-knight so White must
Black would prefer to do without ... ~d7 find something to do.
since in the Nimzo-Indian ltc1-d2 is almost 10 'i¥f3!?
never played. The traditional main line of the If 10 d3 tt:Jd7 11 ctJxd7 jLxd7 12 tt:Jd2 f6

83
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

intending ... e6-e5. In Plachetka-Zinn, Decin attacking chances over the board. For in-
1974, White tried 10 ~f3!? which was enor- stance, if now 30 ... gxh4? 31 ~bg2 g6 32
mously successful following 10 ... 4Jd711 ~h3 ~xg6+! hxg6 33 ~xg6+ ~f8 34 ~h6+ or
g6?? 12 'iVh5! and Black resigned; if 12 ... gxh5 33 ... ~h8 34 'iVg4 wins, or 3l...~f8 32 f6
13 ~g3+ ~h8 14 tt:Jxf7 mates, or 12 ... 4Jf6 13 ~bb7 33 ~h6 g6 34 ~xg6+! hxg6 35 ~xg6+
ctJg4! gxh5 14 tt:Jxf6+ ~h8 (or 14 ... ~g7 15 ~g7 (35 ... ~h8 36 'iVg4 or 35 ... ~h7 36 'iVf5)
ctJe8+ mates) 15 ~xh5! h6 16 tt:Jxd5+ and 36 ~xg7+ ~xg7 38 fxg7 ~f7 39 tt:Jf6+ ~xf6
White emerges three pawns ahead. However, 40 'iVxf6 ~f7 41 'iVe7 wins. Furthermore
I.Rogers-Bacrot, Cap D'Agde rapidplay 1998, White no longer has to worry about the
improved with 1l...f6! and after the unsound queenside: if 30 ...'iVa6 31 hxg5 a4 32 'iVg3
sacrifice 12 'iVh5? fxe5 13 'iVxh7+ ~f7 14 axb3 33 g6 hxg6 34 fxg6 ~f8 35 'iVxe5 wins,
~g3 ~e8 15 ~xg7 ~a6 16 ctJa3 exf4 17 exf4 or 31...'iVd6 32 f6 ~f8 33 fxg7 ~xg7 34
~d8 18 ~c3 ~c8 Black went on to win. tt:Jf6+ ~h8 35 ctJ:xh7! etc.
Plachetka also suggested 10 ... ctJe8!?. The only drawback is that should Black
1 0 .. .tL\d7 11 t"L\xd7 j_xd7 12 e4! defend correctly he might very well win!
A characteristic move to restrain the black Black finds a good defence.
centre; for instance ... e6-e5 would drop the 30 ... g6! 31 .itxg5 .Sxf5
d5-pawn, ... d5xe4 leaves doubled isolated c- Since if 32 exf5? ~c6 wins the queen.
pawns, while ... d5-d4 creates a knight outpost 32 V&'h3 flxg5
at c4. 32 ... ~f7!? was possible and if 33 ~xe7
12 ... c4 13 t"L\c3 ~xe7 34 tt:Jf6+ ~h8 35 tt:Jd5 ~g7 defends or
Not 13 bxc4?? 'iVb6+ picking up the ~b2. 33 'iVe6!? ~b6 34 'iVxe5 c4!. Still, there's
13 .. J1ab8 14 t"L\e2 f6 15 j_c3 .itc5+ 16 nothing wrong with Black's move.
Wh1 V&'b6 17 d4 cxd3 18 cxd3 d4 19 33 hxg5 gxh5
j_d2 If now 34 'iVe6+ ~f7 35 'iVxe7 ~e8 fol-
Both sides will be content to see the cen- lowed by 36 ... 'iVxd3 and White runs into
tre closed. White can - and must - build up trouble on the light squares. So Miles plays to
on the kingside, while Black does so on the open the g-file again.
queenside. 34 g6
19 ... .ita3 20 t"L\g3 V&'a6 21 fiab1 j_e7 22
.Sb2 c5 23 j_c1 .itb5 24 fid1
White's rooks and bishop are nominally
on defensive duty on the queenside, but the
lines of communication are open for them to
switch over to attack at any moment. Clearly
Black was impressed as he now proceeds to
implement the same strategy.
24 ... .Sf7 25 f5 e5 26 t"L\h5 .ite8 27 h4
'ifb5 28 g4 a5
Black is almost ready to break into the
queenside by ...'iVa6 and ... a5-a4 so White has
no time left to prepare but must commence
immediately. 34 ... j_xg6?
29 g5 fxg5 30 .l:.g1 !? A mistake that everyone other than a
An fine speculative sacrifice: by opening computer would probably make. Black
lines to the enemy king White gets excellent should have reinforced his position along the

84
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 CiJf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with ... CiJc6 & .i.b5

rank by 34 ... :b6! (Fritz) 35 gxh7+<;t>xh7 and optimally placed he should pass with
if 36 'iffS+ il.g6 37 'if xeS 'ifd7 38 :h2 .tf8! 53 ... <;t>f7!; e.g. 54 'iffS+ (not 54 'ifb7?? :a2+
defends, or 36 :f2 il.g6 37 :xg6 (or 37 :fs 55 <;t>h3 :h2+ 56 <;t>g4 g2 wins) 53 ... <;t>e8 55
'ife8 38 :xeS 'iff7 39 :xg6 <;t>xg6!) 37 ...:xg6 'ife6 <;t>f8 56 'i¥d7 (threatening 57 a7)
38 :f7+ :g7 39 'ifxhS+ <;t>g8 and Black 56 ...:a2+! 57 <;t>h3 :h2+ 58 <;t>g4 :a2 and if
should win. 59 a7 g2 60 'iff5+ <;t>e8 61 'ifg6+ <;t>d7 62 <;t>fs
35 Wie6+ wf8 36 l!f2+ We8 37 lhg6! h3! with a draw.
hxg6 38 llf7 'iWd7 By putting his rook on a light square Black
Any other defence of the bishop and 39 limits his defensive king manoeuvres because
:g7 would win. of a trick.
39 Il.f8+! Wxf8 40 'iWxd7 54 wh3 wt7
Reaching an interesting endgame with Not 54 ... :h2+? 55 <;t>g4 g2 56 'i¥f5+ <;t>g7
queen vs. rook and bishop. Interesting for 57 'ifxe5+.
White, that is; for Black it will be hard work. . 55 'iff5+ j)_ f6
40 ...Il.b6 41 "VJ!ia7 l:if6 42 'ifxa5?! The trick follows if Black tries now to
42 <;t>g2looks better, keeping the rook out pass with ss ... <;t>e8?, then 56 b4! creates a
for a while. If 42 ... ~d8? 43 'ifxcS <;t>g7 44 companion for the a-pawn, e.g. 56 ... g2 57
'ifxeS gets a central passed pawn. 'i¥g6+ <;t>d7 58 bS, since if 56 ... cxb4 57 'i¥c8+
42 ...Il.f3 43 "VJiia8+ wt7 44 'ifd5+ wt6 45 <;t>f7 58 'i¥c4+ wins the rook.
'ifc4 56 'ifd7+?
If immediately 45 a4 :xd3 46 a5 :d 1+ 47 It is difficult for either player to be accu-
<;t>g2 :at 48 'ifc6+ <;t>g7 49 a6 d3! proves a rate at the end of an over-the-board game.
distraction: 50 'ifd7 d2! and if 51 'ifxd2 :xa6 White should have played 56 'i¥h7+! when
or 51 'ifxe7+ <;t>h6 52 'iff8+ <;t>h7 and White Black is forced to leave the h-pawn unde-
has to take the draw. fended by 56 ... ~g7 (otherwise 57 a7) and
45 ... g5 46 a4 g4 47 aS h4 48 'ifg8 g3 then 57 'ifhS+ <;t>g8 (or 57 ... <;t>f8; otherwise
49 a6 llf1 + 50 wg2 lla1 51 "VJiih7 we6 the h-pawn drops with check) 58 'i¥xh4 :xa6
52 "VJIJg8+ Wf6 53 "VJIJc8 (or 58 ... g2 59 <;t>h2) 59 'i¥d8+ <;t>h7 60 <;t>xg3
and White will get a new passed pawn after
the cS- or eS-pawn falls.
56 ... wg6 57 a7 g2??
The losing move. Black had just one neu-
tral move that maintained the status quo:
57 ... <;t>h6! when 58 'i¥b7?? <;t>gS! actually wins
for Black by ...:h2 mate, while if 58 'i¥f7 (or
58 'iffs <;t>g7) ss ... <;t>gs 59 'i¥g8+ <;t>f4 60
ifg4+ <;t>e3 and White can make no progress.
58 Wh2 i.g5 59 'ife8+ Wg7 60 'ifxe5+
i.f6 61 'ifc7+ Wg6 62 'ifxc5 i.g5 63
'ifxd4 .lif4+ 64 Wh3 1-0

53 ...Il.a2+? Game33
White needs his queen on both sides of Kaenel-Taleb
the board: to help the a-pawn through and to Bie/1999
halt the black g-pawn after ... :a2+, (<;t>h3)
...:h2+, (<;t>g4), ... g2. Since Black's pieces are 1 CiJf3 c5 2 b3 CiJc6

85
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Another move order to the usual position, sufficient counterplay for Black to gain a
though not the one in the game which saw: 2 draw.
e3 lt:Jf6 3 b3 d5 4 ~b2 jLg4 5 h3 Jih5 6 Sokolov also suggests 5.. .f6!? and if 6
jLb5+ ctJc6, transposing at move six. jLe2!? iflc7 (not 6... e5? 7ctJxe5!) 7 d4 cxd4 8
3 e3 d5 4 ~b2 liJf6 lt:Jxd4 ~xe2 9 iflxe2 e5 intending 10 ctJe6
The line with ... ~g4 is only nominally a jLb4+ 11 c3 ifld7 12 illg4 jLf8.
reversed Leningrad (4 jLg5) Nimzo-Indian, 5 ~b5 .ltg4 6 h3
since in that variation Black usually attacks In Nimzowitsch-H.Johner, Bern 1931,
the centre with ... c7-c5, either immediately or White played immediately 6 jLxc6+ bxc6 and
(more usually) after inserting 4... h6 5 jLh4. then 7 h3 jLxf3 (7 ... jLh5) 8 iflxf3 iflc7 9 d3
Generally it would be classified as a reversed e6 (if 9 ... e5 10 e4) 10 ctJc3 jLd6 11 ctJa4
Queen's Indian (c.f. 3 lt:Jf3 b6 4 ctJc3 jLb7 5 jLe5?! 12 jLxe5 iflxe5 13 0-0 lt:Jd7 14 ifle2
jLg5). 0-0 15 ifld2! f5?! (better was 15 ... a5) 16 ill aS
If Black plays 4... jLg4 immediately White Mfb8 17 ctJxc5! (White has seen further)
has a choice: 5 jLe2 leads to Queen's Indian 17 ... Mb5 18 ctJxd7 iflxa1 19 iflc7! iflc3 20 a4
positions (see Game 38); 5 h3 is similar to Mb4 21 lt:Je5 Mf8 22 lDxc6 ~h8 23 ifld6 1-0.
the game; or 5 ~b5 when, having already Black defended rather better in
vacated c8, Black can defend the knight by McMichael-Turner, 4NCL 1996: 8... e6 9 d3
5... Mc8. jLd6 10 ctJc3 0-0 11 0-0 lt:Jd7! (to answer
CDa4 with ... CDb6) 12 ifle2 iflh4 13 e4 Mae8
14 Mae1 f5 15 ctJa4ctJb6 16ctJxb6 axb6 and
Black drew (perhaps not such a great
achievement when rated 200+ higher).
6 ... .lth5!?
6 ... jLxf3 7 jLxc6+ bxc6 8 iflxf3 goes back
to the previous note. The best reply to 6 h3 is
perhaps 6... jLd7, returning to 5... jLd7 posi-
tions from Games 28-30. White has the extra
move h2-h3, but this is not necessarily help-
ful since the h3-square is often required for a
major piece (e.g. for Mfl-f3-h3).
7 g4 .ltg6 8 ltJe5
Timman-I.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1999,
continued 6 c4 (the Leningrad move!) 6... e6 7
cxd5 exd5 8 0-0 ctJf6 9 jLxf6! (White's only
target is the d5-pawn so he removes the de-
fender before Black can recapture with the
bishop) 9 ... iflxf6 10 ctJc3 ifld8 (if 10 ... Md8 11
h3 jLxf3 12 iflxf3 iflxf3 13 gxf3 jLe7 14
jLxc6+ bxc6 15 Macl intending ctJa4) 11 d4
cxd4 12 iflxd4 kxf3 13 gxf3 a6 14 kxc6+
bxc6 15 Macl kd6!? 16 iflxg7 iflh4 17 Mfd1
~e7 (not 17 ... iflxh2+? 18 ~e2 ~e5 19 illg4)
18 ~fl Mcg8! 19 ifld4 Mg1+! 20 ~e2 (if 20
~xg1 iflh3! 21 illg4 Mg8! forces White to
play 22 illg3) 20 ... iflxd4 21 exd4 Mg2! with 8 ... ik'b6?!

86
 Reversed Nimzo: 1 tDf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with ... tDc 6 & ii..b5

A poor choice of defence for the c6-pawn. exchange on dS so that if ... d5-d4 the white
Black should put the queen on the b8-h2 knight can come to c4, but repairs the black
diagonal to eye the g3- square and thus delay pawn structure somewhat.
f2-f3. 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 f4
a) 8 ... ~d6! is best since it also supports Preventing ... e7-eS (the queen is needed to
the d-pawn; e.g. 9 d3 tt:Jd7!, or 9 h4 i.e4! 10 defend g6).
f3? ctJxg4! or 10 Mg1 d4. White should play 9 16 ... l:c8 17 tDc3 c4 18 bxc4 dxc4
f4! e6 10 i.xc6+ bxc6 11 h4 and if 1l...i.e4 Or 18 ... Mxc4 when 19 ~d3 is answered
12 Mh2 h6 13 d3 or 11...ctJd7 12 tt:Jxd7 ~xd7 by 19 .. .'iVc6! 20 'ifxdS?? Mxc3 or 20ctJxd5 e6
13 hS (not 13 fS ~g3+ 14 ~f1 exfS 15 hS 21 ~xg6+ ~d8, while if 19 d3 !:k8 intending
fxg4 16 hxg6 fxg6) 13 ... JILe414 Mh2 h6 15 d3 ... e7-e6, ... JILe7 and ... 0-0. Now White gains
and White is better. the upper hand again.
b) 8 ... ~c7 9 f4 e6 10 d3 (better 10 h4!) 19 'Lle4 'iVd5 20 il..d4
10 ... i.e7 11 tt:Jd2 0-0 12 i.xc6 bxc6 trans- Or 20 tt:Jf2!? (discovering on g6 again)
poses to Tait-Miller, corrC&DCCC 1989-90, 20 ... Mc6 210-0 and if21...'iif3 22 ~h2 when
which continued 13 ~f3 tt:Jd714 0-0-0 ctJxeS all the kingside squares are covered and
15 i.xeS ~aS 16 ~b1 f6 17 i.b2 Mab8 18 fS White can initiate play on the queenside.
i.f7 19 c4 eS 20 h4 e4 21 ~g2 exd3 22 gS 20 ... e5 21 fxe5 'Llxe5 22 ii..xe5 'iixe5 23
~d8? (22 ... i.h5) 23 g6 i.e8 24 gxh7+ ~xh7 ~e2
25 hS Mb7 26 Mdg1 Mg8 27 t2Jf3 and Black Or 23 Mb1 i.e7 24 Mfl and if 24 ... Mf8 (as
resigned due to 28 ~g6+ ~h8 29 tt:JgS fxgS in the game) 25 'iia4+ ~d8 26 Mxf8+ i.xf8
30 ~h6 mate. 27 Mb7! or if 23 ... Mb8 24 Mxb8+ 'ifxb8 25
9 ii..xc6+ bxc6 1 0 h4! tt:Jf2! and Black cannot defend both c4 and
Now if the bishop comes to e4 White can g6.
play f2-f3 with impunity, so Black has to 23 ... ii..e7 24 l:hf1
make room for his bishop and allow ctJxg6.
1 0 ... h5 11 g5 tDd7
If 11...ctJe4 12 d3 tt:Jd6 13 ctJxg6 fxg6 14
tt:Jd2 Md8 temporarily prevents 15 c4 due to
15 ... dxc4 16 bxc4 ctJxc4. Not that Black's
position inspires much confidence after 15
~e2. White can also play c2-c4 as a sacrifice:
14 c4! dxc4 15 bxc4 ctJxc4 16 i.c3 ctJd6 17
~c2 and if 17 ... tt:Jf5 18 tt:Jd2 and 19 ctJc4
with a clear advantage.
12 tDxg6 fxg6 13 c4!?
White doesn't want to hang about prepar-
ing c2-c4, nor give Black the chance to play
... c5-c4. Now if 13 ... dxc4 14 ~c2 cxb3 15 Of course Black cannot be allowed to cas-
axb3! and if 15 ... Mb8 16 Ma3 or 15 ... ~f7 16 tle.
~c4+ e6 17 Mh3. 24 ... l:f8?
13 ... ~c7 14 ~c2 ~d6 If now 24 ... ~h2+ 25 Mf2 'ifxh4 26 ~a4+
Intending 15 ... e5 or if 15 f4 then perhaps ~d8 27 ~aS+ Mc7 28 ~dS+ ~e8 29 Mf4!
15 ... d4 16 ~e4 eS 17 fxeS ctJxeS and 'ifh2+ 30 CDf2 or 29 ... 'ifh3 30 Mb1 with a big
18 ... 0-0-0, though Black is still worse after 18 attack. Black had to try 24 ... ~b5 and if 25
ctJa3 0-0-0 19 0-0-0. Instead White decides to Mab1 'iic6 covering the queenside light

87
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

squares and defending for the time being. 11 'ii'xdS!, while if 9 ... ii.e6 10 0-0 g6 11 'ii'f3
25 V/Ha4+ ~d8 26 !;lxf8+ ~xf8 27 i:f1 f6 12 ttJd3 .tg7 13 e4 initiating play in the
~e7 28 l:f4 J:c7 29 l2Jc3 centre before Black can unravel.
And Black is lost. It is simpler to play first 4 .tb2 (since the
29 ...1:!.d7 30 ~xc4 ~d6 31 ctJb5 a6 32 bishop will go there anyway) to answer
ctJd4! 4... ttJf6 with S ii.bS as usual or, should Black
With decisive checks pending at c6 or e6. try to be sneaky, 4...'ii'c7 S c4!?.
32 .. .'i¥e8 33 l2Je6+ ~e7 34 l2Jxg7 'iWa8 4 ~b2 l2Jc6 5 ~b5 'iVb6
35 'iff7+ ~d8 36 'iVe8+ 1-0 S... 'ii'c7 allows White to adopt the usual
plan: 6 lUeS ii.d7 (or 6... lt.Jd7 7 .txc6 bxc6 8
Game34 f4) 7 ii.xc6 .txc6 8 0-0 intending f2-f4, d2-
Hodgson-Vander Sterren d3, lt.Jd2 etc. S...'ii'b6 of course prevents this
Tallinn 1987 by hitting the bishop.
6 c4!?
1 l2Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 ctJf6 This is thematic with 4 ... cS in the 4 'ii'b3
By playing ... lt.Jf6 before ... lt.Jc6 Black Nimzo-Indian and threatens 7 .txf6, 8 cxdS.
avoids the possibility of an early ii.bS; i.e. Instead 6 .txc6+?! loses a tempo so that after
3... lt.Jc6 4 ii.bS. However, it is not clear that 6... 'ii'xc6 Black is basically playing the white
White should play 4 ii.bS even if given the side of a Classical4 'ii'c2 Nimzo-Indian (mi-
chance. For then Black can adopt a reversed nus a2-a3); e.g. 7 ctJeS 'ii'c7 8 d3 e6 9 0-0
Classical Nimzo-Indian (.. .'ii'c7) which is ii.d6 10 f4 bS. Or if 6 'ii'e2 a6 7 .txc6+ 'ii'xc6
more apposite without ... lt.Jf6 included. 8 d3 g6 (8 ... e6 9lt.Jbd2 ii.d6 10 e4! makes use
In the 4 'iic2 Nimzo-Indian 4... b6 is an- of 'ii'e2) 9 lt:Jbd2 .tg7 10 0-0 0-0 11 ctJeS
swered by S e4! ii.b7 6 .i.d3 cS 7 dS! with 'iicl 12 f4 lt.Jg4! (Konstantinopolsky-
advantage, while if 4... 0-0 S a3 ii.xc3 + 6 Levenfish, Moscow 1948) and if 13 lt.Jdf3
'iixc3 b6 White plays 7 ii.gS!. In the reversed lt.Jh6! intending 14 .. .f6.
position, after 3... lt.Jc6 4 .ibS 'ii'c7 S .tb2 a6!
6 .txc6 + 'ii'xc6. White already has control
over eS and so can achieve a 4... 0-0 S a3
ii.xc3 + 6 bxc3 b6 position (without ... 0-0)
before .tc 1-gS has been played.
Nevertheless, if 7 0-0 Black will certainly
play 7... ii.g4 or similarly if 7 c4 dxc4 8 bxc4
ii.g4 9 ttJc3 (McKay-Bryson, St Andrews
1989) 9... ttJf6 and White's position is insuffi-
ciently active for the extra tempo to offer any
advantage.
If 7 ctJeS 'ii'c7 and the absence of ... lt.Jf6
means that Black can drive the knight away
again with .. .f7-f6; e.g. 8 0-0 ttJh6! 9 f4 f6 10 6 ... a6
lt:Jf3 e6 11 'ii'e2 ii.e7 12 d3 0-0 13 a4 b6 14 If 6... dxc4 7 bxc4 a6 White cannot play as
ttJbd2 ii.b7 with a fine position for Black in the game (ii.xf6) but must be satisfied
(Vassallo-Kharlov, Malaga 1999). White with 8 ii.xc6+ 'ii'xc6 9 d3 (not 9 lUeS? 'ii'xg2)
might perhaps try 8 f4 ttJh6 (8 ... ttJf6 allows andif9 ... ii.g410ttJbd2, 11 'ii'b3.After6 ... a6
the desired formation 9 0-0, d2-d3, lt.Jd2 etc.) White could play 7 ii.xc6+ 'ii'xc6 8ctJeS but
and then 9 'ii'hS!? intending 9... g6 10 'ib'f3 f6 has a different idea in mind.

88
 Reversed Nimzo: CiJf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with ... CiJc6 & i..b5

7 i..a4!? dxc4 8 i..xf6 gxf6 13 CiJb6 l:.tbS 14 CiJxcS .:!.xeS 1 5 l:.txb7

Intending to make use of the half-open g-
file but it turns out very badly. 8... exf6 9 bxc4
iLe6 was more solid. Not 8... cxb3? 9 iLc3 b2
10 iLxb2 'iYxb2 11l2Jc3 (threatening 12 :b 1
'iVa3 13 :b3) or if 11...'iVb6 12l2Je5 'iVc7 13
'iVf3.
9 bxc4 .l:.g8?!
If now 10 0-0?! Black can develop swiftly
by 10 ... iLh3 11l2Je1 0-0-0, but White does
not oblige and instead offers the pawn for a
dangerous initiative. Instead 9... .tg7?! 10
l2Jc3 0-0 is too slow after 11 :b 1; better
9... iLe6 (hitting the c4-pawn) and castle long.
10 CiJc3! l:.txg2 White has recovered his pawn with no
If Black declines the pawn then White lessening of his attack, and threatens vari-
nevertheless gets an initiative on the centre; ously d2-d4-d5, 'iVb1 and l2Jh4; e.g. if 15 ... e6
e.g. 10 ... e6 11 ~b1 'iVc7 12 0-0 iLd7 13 d4. 16 d4 ~d8 17 ~b6 or 15 ... e5 16l2Jh4 Mg5 17
11 l:tb1 'V//ic7? 'ii'f3 and 18 :b6 winning the knight.
This only accelerates White's attack. Black 15 ... i..h6
had to choose between: Preparing to answer 16 d4 by 16 ... ~f8!
a) 11...'iVd8 and if 12l2Jd5 e6 13l2Jb6 .Mb8 and if 17 .Mb6 cxd4 18 exd4 'ii'e6+ or 18
14 d4 cxd4 15 cxd4 :g4!? (Fritz) with the l2Jxd4 ~xe3! 19 fxe3 'ii'a3 with strong coun-
idea of 16 d5 .Me4+ 17 ~fl cxd5 threatening terplay .
... iLh3, or if 15 l2Jxd4 'iVc7 16 'iVf3 :g6 17 16 CiJh4!
l2Jxc6 bxc6 18 ~xc6+ ~e7. With the huge threat of 17 l2Jf5 'ii'e6 18
b) 11...'iVa5 (or 11...'ii'a7!?) 12 'iVc2 (if 12 :xe7+, while if 16 ...:g5 17 f4 drives the rook
l2Jd5 ~d8!) 12 ...:g6 13 l2Jh4 (13 'iVe4 f5!) away.
13 ...:g4 14 'iVxh7 (14 l2Jf5 :xc4) 14... e6 16 ... l:.txh2 17 l:.txh2 'V//ixh2 18 Vi'g4
(14 ....Mxc4 15 ~b3) 15l2Je4 ~e7. Threatening at c8 and g8.
It all looks terrible but there's no immedi- 18 .. .'Vih1+ 19 \t>e2 i:.tdS 20 'ik'g8+ i..fS
ate win for White. 21 CiJf3! 1-0
12 CiJd5 'VIIid6 Blocking the queen's protection at c6 and
If now 12 ... 'ii'd8 13 l2Jb6 .Mb8 14 l2Jxc8 if now 21.. ..Mc8 22 ~xc6+ :xc6 23 :b8+
:xc8 15 d4! is strong. wms.

89
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Summary
Despite the usual assessment 'good for White' for these reversed Nimzo-Indians, Black can
count on obtaining reasonable chances, as evidenced by the respectable score of 46% in the
database. The line with S... i.d7 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 i.e7 8 lt:Jbd2 0-0 9 i.xc6 i.xc6 10 ctJeS (Game
28) is the traditional battleground from Nimzowitsch's praxis; that he won every game as
White was perhaps due more to his greater understanding of the positions than any real advan-
tage. All reversed formations (with the exception of ... a7-a6) are OK for Black- if followed up
correctly. In these strategically rich positions neither side can afford to play aimlessly.

1 t2Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 t2Jc6 4 5Lb2 t2Jf6 5 5Lb5 (D)

5 ... 5Ld7
S... e6 - Game 32
S... i.g4 - Game 33
S... 'ii'b6- Game 34
6 0-0 e6 (D)
6... g6- Game31
7 d3
7 c4- CameJO
7 ... 5Le7
7... i.d6 - Game 29
8 t2Jbd2 0-0 9 5Lxc6 5Lxc6 10 l2Je5 (D)- Game 28

5 it..b5 6 ... e6 10 lt:Je5

90
 CHAPTER FIVE I

Reversed Queen's Indian:

1 tt:Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5

1 ct:Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5
In this chapter Black refrains from an
Game35
early ... CLJc6 and thus avoids the reversed Kramnik -Levin
Nimzo-Indian variations of Chapter 4. In- Dortmund 1992
stead, after 1 ct:Jf3 d5 2 b3 ct:Jf6 3 ~b2 c5 4
e3 (by whatever move order) the lines re- 1 ct:Jf3 d5 2 b3 ct:Jf6 3 il.b2 c5 4 e3 g6
semble a Queen's Indian Defence (QID). The equivalent of a main line Queen's In-
The QID main lines begin 4 g3, 4 e3, (4 CLJc3 dian. We've cheated with the move order
.i.b7) 5 .i.g5, and 4 a3. Here Black has the again, which was actually 1 b3 d5 2 ~b2 CL:Jf6
equivalent reversed moves: 4 ... g6 (Game 35), 3 e3 g6 4 c4 dxc4 5 ~xc4 ~g7 6 CL:Jf3 c5,
4 ... e6 (Games 36 and 37), 4 ... ~g4 (Game 38), only reaching the game at move six. For dis-
and 4 ... a6 (Game 39). cussion of ... g7-g6 and ... d7-d5 without ...c7-
White's opening moves are also Queen's c5 see Game 60.
Indian derived: c2-c4, ~f1-b5+ (Bogo- 5 c4
Indian), ct:Jf3-e5, and f2-f4. The d-pawn ad-
vance (... d7-d5 for Black) is another key fea-
ture of the QID and d2-d4 is played in the
reversed position, too. Usually, though, d2-
d4 involves transposition to a different open-
ing, e.g. Queen's Gambit T arrasch (c.f. Game
37) or Colle-Zukertort System (c.f. Game
39). Similarly, c2-c4 will probably be an Eng-
lish.
At the end of the chapter we examine two
less orthodox systems: in Game 40 Black
plays an early .. .f7-f6 trying for the big centre
with ... e7-e5; in Game 41 White reacts to 1
ct:Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 with the shocking continua- The equivalent move to ... c7-c5 which
tion 3 e4!? dxe4 4 CLJe5 (a reversed Fa- Black longs to play in the Queen's Indian.
jarowicz). The trouble there is that White answers d4-

91
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

dS! and if ... e6xd5, t2Jf3-h4 exploiting the pin 'iiV d7 17 .Mcd 1 'if e8 18 a4 ctJc3 19 ~xc3
on the long diagonal. In the reversed position ~xf3 20 'ilxf3 .Mxc3 21 'iiVb7 (U.Andersson-
Black never gets the chance to play ... d5-d4. Adorjan, Amsterdam 1978) and now 21...e5
Even so, an equalising break for Black does 22 ttJbS .Mxb3 23 'ilxa7 'ila8. Or 7 ...'ilf5 8
not necessarily promise advantage when d4 0-0 9 ~d3 'i/hs 10 0-0 tLlc6 11 ~e2 'iiVfs
played with an extra tempo. 12 ctJa4 cxd4 13 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 14 'ilxd4 b6 15
White's other option is to play a reversed ~f3 l:.b8 16 e4 'ile6 17 eS t2Jd7 18 l:.fe1
Bogo-Indian with 5 ~b5+, but having already ~b7 19 ~g4 'ilc6 20 ~h3 .:fd8 21 'iiVh4 e6
played ~b2 White can only use the thematic 22 .Macl ctJcS 23 ttJxcS bxcS 24 .Med1 (or 24
~a3 ideas at the cost of a tempo, and then b4 'i/a4) 24 ... .Md5 (Smyslov-Tukmakov, Lvov
would actually be playing with the black 1978).
pieces. Otherwise 5 ~bS+ doesn't accom- 6 i.xc4
plish much; e.g. S... ~d7 6 'iiVe2 6 'iiVe2 ~g7 7 6 bxc4 is not as good here since if d2-d4
~xd7+ t2Jbxd7 8 c4 0-0 9 0-0 l:.c8 10 l:.d1 and ... e5xd4 e3xd4 White's centre is more
l:.e8 11 d3 eS 12 cxdS ctJxdS 13 t2Jbd2 t2Jb8 hanging than strong. 6... ~g7 7 ~e2 0-0
14 a3 ctJc6 15 l:.ac1 b6 with an equal position reaches Barcza-Korchnoi, Havana 1963,
(Larsen-Donner, Palma de Mallorca 1971), when after 8 0-0 ctJc6 9 tLlc3 b6 10 d3 ~b7
similarly 7 ctJeS 0-0 8 t2Jxd7 t2Jbxd7 9 ~xd7 11 'ilc2 .Mc8 12 .:ad1 'iiVc7 13 'iiVb1 l:.fd8 14
'iiVxd7 10 0-0 l:.fe8 11 d3 eS (Gonzalez Rod- 'ila1 l:.d7 15 ttJdS 'iiVd8 16 t2Jxf6+ ~xf6 17
riguez-Shipov, Dos Hermanas 2000). The ~xf6 exf6 Black had no problems, while
latter was extremely entertaining if too long after 7 d3 0-0 8 'iiV d2 ctJc6 9 ttJc3 'iiVaS 10
(lh-lh, 114) to give here. l:.d1 l:.d8 11 'ilcl ~g4 12 l:.d2 ~xf3 13 gxf3
5 ... dxc4 l:.d7 14 ~e2 l:.ad8 Black was better m
Black does not have to capture but can Blatny-Buturin, Trimex Festival1995.
play S... ~g7 6 cxdS and then: 6 ... i.g7
a) 6... 0-0!? (intending ... t2Jxd5) allows 7
~xf6!? and 8 ctJc3 (Keene) to keep the pawn;
e.g. 7 ~xf6 ~xf6 8 ctJc3 'iiVaS 9 l:.cl ~fS 10
e4 ~xc3 11 exfS i.b2 12 l:.c4 i.g7 13 'iiVc2
t2Jd7 14 ~d3 l:.fc8 15 fxg6 hxg6 16 0-0 'ilc7
17 l:.e1 CLJb6 18 l:.g4! 'i!d7 19 .Mg3 ctJxdS 20
i.xg6 fxg6 21 'ilxg6 e6 22lt:Jg5 1-0 Montag-
Bensiek, corr Germany 1989.
b) 6... 'i/xd5 7 ~c4!? 'ild8 transposes to
the game (at move six). Black also has
7 ...'ilf5 when 8 0-0 0-0 reaches Chandler-
U.Andersson, Tilburg 1992, continuing 9
ctJeS!? t2Jfd7 10 f4 ctJxeS 11 fxeS 'ilgS 12
'iiVf3 t2Jc6 13 d4 cxd4 14 exd4 ~fS 15 ctJa3 7 a3!?
.MadS with an unclear position. Kramnik's novelty, intending b3-b4 to
7 ctJc3 is more common, though after clear the centre; e.g. if 7... ttJc6 8 b4 cxb4 9
7... 'ild8 or 7 ... 'iiVfS White's slight initiative axb4 0-0 (not 9 ... t2Jxb4? 10 'iiVb3) 10 'ilb3
should not trouble his opponent too much; 'ilb6 11 ~c3 intending b4-b5 (Kramnik) and
e.g. 7... 'ild8 8 ctJe4!? t2Jbd7 9 .Mel b6 10 White is slightly better.
t2Jxf6+ t2Jxf6 11 d4 cxd4 12 t2Jxd4 0-0 13 Remarkably no-one else seems to have
~e2 ~b7 14 ~f3 ctJe4 15 0-0 l:.c8 16 'ile2 tried 7 a3!?. The alternative 7 0-0 0-0 gives

92
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 CiJf3 d5 2 b3 c5

Black no difficulties; e.g. 8 d4 l2Jbd7 9 ctJc3 16 ... ~d7 17 V&'b5?!

cxd4 10 ctJxd4 ctJeS 11 ~e2 ~g4 12 ~xg4 Kramnik rejected 17 ctJc4 due to
ctJexg4 13 h3 ctJeS 14 ille2 iJ/aS 1S Mfcl 17 ... l2JfdS 'equal', though White looks better
Mfc8 (Setterqvist-Degerman, Swedish Team after 18 ~xg7 ~xg7 19 aS ctJxc4 20 illxc4
Championship 1999), or 8 ... cxd4 9 ctJxd4 a6 Mfc8 21 Mfb 1.
10 ctJc3 bS 11 ~e2 ~b7 12 ~f3 Ma7 13 17 ... tz:Jbd5?
i,xb7 Mxb7 14 iJ/f3 Md7 (Tartakower- Not 17 ... ctJxa4?? 18 ~xf6 winning a piece.
Kashdan, Folkestone 1933). Black should have played 17... iJ/xbS! 18 axbS
7 ... 0-0 8 b4 CiJbd7 9 0-0 b6 1 0 bxc5 l2Je4! 19 ~xg7 ~xg7 20 Mfcl Mfd8 when
bxc5!? Kramnik's assessment 'advantage to White'
Black keeps his influence in the centre at seems a little optimistic after 21 ctJc4 ctJxc4
the cost of an isolated c-pawn and white 22 Mxc4l2Jxd2 23 ctJxd2 Mxd2 24 MxcS aS!,
knight outpost at c4. If instead 10 ... tDxcS 11 21 Mc2 a6!, 21 d4 cxd4 22 ctJxd4 a6!, or 21
d4 ctJce4 12 l2Jbd2 ~b7 13 l2Jxe4 ctJxe4 14 ctJb 1 c4 and 22 ... MdS!.
'ife2 White has an extra central pawn and the 18 .Jle5! VieS 19 :.tc1 tz:Jd7 20 ~xg7
potential for a4-aS at some stage. Wxg7 21 V&'c4 ~fc8 22 .:.ab1
11 jL,e2 ~b6 12 ~c3 Jla6
Kramnik gives 12 ... l2JdS! 13 ~xg7 ~xg7
14 illc2 iJ/f6! as equal. If 1S l2Jc3 Black will
exchange off to force d2xc3 and it's hard to
arrange otherwise; e.g. if 1S Ma2 Mb8 16 Mel
then 17 ctJc3 ctJxc3 18 iJ/xc3 iJ/xc3 19 Mxc3
allows a rook to the back rank. Perhaps
White should try 14 illcl and if 14 ... iJ/f6 1S
Ma2 intending 16 Mc2, 17 ctJc3.
13 a4!

Reaching a similar position to that after 16

aS and the c-pawn is starting to look seri-
ously weak.
22 ... CiJ7b6?
Only a temporary inconvenience for
White since the queen will return after a4-a5.
It is better to prepare this with 22 ... a5, i.e. 23
MbS ctJ7b6 24 iJ/h4 h6!. Kramnik also notes
23 ... ctJSb6? 24 iJ/xe6 fxe6 2S ctJc4 but even
then, despite Black's wrecked structure, 'win-
Now White is able to develop without ning' seems a bit strong after 27 ... ctJxc4 28
trouble and bring the knight to c4. Mxc4 Mcb8 (or perhaps not for the World
13 ... ~xe2 14 Vi'xe2 ~e6 15 CiJa3 CiJb6 Champion).
16 ~a6 23 Viih4!
16 aS tDbdS 17 ~eS seems simpler, and if The threat of 24 tDgS means Black has no
17 ... ctJd7 18 ~xg7 ~xg7 19 iJ/c4 Mfc8 20 time for 23 ... a5. If 23 ... h6 24 aS! drives the
Mabl. knight away again since 24 ... gS? loses to 2S

93
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

ctJxg5!. d3 lLlf8 14 lLlbd2 ctJg6 15 ltJf1 lLld7 16 .:labl

23 ... f6 24 a5 tbd7 25 Vi'c4 ~ab8 26 h3! i..c6 17 i..xc6 'ifxc6 18 l2Jg3 i.f6 was equal
Creating usefulluft. in Speelman-Illescas Cordoba, Spanish
26 ... ct:Jc7 27 'i¥a4 tba6 28 tbb5 ifc6? League 1996.
Black should have defended the a-pawn b) 6 a4!? (Keene) has not received a seri-
agam. ous test.
29 'i¥c4! .l:i.a8 c) 6 'tie2 i..e7 (or 6 ... ~xb5 7 'ifxd5+
Too late. Equally if 29 ... 'tia8 30 'ife6! or 'tid7) 7 0-0 0-0 8 i..xd7 'ifxd7 9 l2Je5 'ifc7 10
29 ... 'tib7 30 ctJd6! 'ifxb131 'iff7+wins, or if c4 l2Jc6 11 f4 ctJxe5 12 fxe5 lLld7 13 cxd5
29 ... .:lb7 30 lLlfd4! as in the game. exd5 14 d4 f6 15 l2Jc3 'ifc6 16 e4 l2Jb6 17
30 t2Jfd4! tbe5 31 tbxc6 tbxc4 32 t2Jbxa7 .:lac1l:.ad8 18 exf6 iiLxf6 19 lLlxd5 ctJxd5 20
1-0 exd5 .:lxd5 21 .:lf4? (21 dxc5) 21...'ifd6 and
Black loses material after 32 ... ctJxd2 33 White dropped a pawn in T aimanov-
ctJxc8 ctJxb 1 34 ctJb6 or 32 ... ctJxa5 33 ctJxc8 S.Ivanov, St Petersburg Championship 1998.
ctJxc6 34 .:lb6. d) 6 JLe2 (having prevented the c8-bishop
from going to b7) 6... l2Jc6 7 0-0 i..d6 8 c4
Game36 0-0 9 l2Jc3 'ife7 10 l2Jb5 dxc4 (10 ... i..b8!?) 11
Cuartas-Wolff l2Jxd6 'ifxd6 12 bxc4 e5 13 l2Jh4 .:lad8 14 f4
New York Open 1997 e4 15 a3 a6 16 g4 iiLc8 17 i..c3 b5 18 g5 b4
19 axb4 cxb4 20 gxf6 bxc3 21 fxg7 ~xg7 22
1 tbf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 tbt6 4 .i.b2 e6 dxc3 with a strange position (Korchnoi-
This time we have a reversed 4 e3 Queen's Ligterink, Wijk aan Zee 1985).
Indian. Now 5 c4 is Game 37. White can also e) 6 i.xd7+ lLlbxd7 (6 ...'ifxd7 is also fine)
play: 7 0-0 i..d6 (or 7 ... i..e7) 8 d3 'tic7 9 ctJc3 a6
5 tbe5!? 10 e4 0-0 11 .:lel d4 12 ctJe2 .:lad8 13 i..cl
Intending 6 f4 or if 5 ... tLlbd7 6 ~b5. h6 14 g3 <ith7 15 i..f4 e5 16 i..d2 b5 with
If immediately 5 ~b5+ then 5... lLlbd7 6 endless shuffling (T artakower-Nimzowitsch,
ctJe5 transposes to the game (and was in fact Dresden 1926) or 8 c4 0-0 9 l2Jc3 .:lc8 10
the route taken). Or Black can block with 'ife2 iiLb8 11 .:lfdl .:le8 12 g3 l2Jb6 13 d3
5... ~d7 giving rise to Bogo-Indian-type pos- 'ifd7 14 .:lacl e5 (Begun-Smirin, Minsk
sibilities: 1985).
5 ... t2Jbd7
If 5... i..e7 then 6 iiLb5+ lLlbd7 reaches the
next note. Instead 6 f4 0-0 7 i..d3!? led to a
strong attack in Kaplan-Pritchett, Skopje
1972, after 7... b6?! 8 g4 iiLb7 9 g5 ctJe4 10
i..xe4 dxe4 11 'ifh5 threatening 12 l2Jg4,
.:lgl, l2Jf6+ (even 13 'ifh6!?), or if 11...ctJd7
12 l2Jg4 f5 13 g6! hxg6 14 'tixg6 (Keene); the
game saw 11...l2Jc6 12 'tig4 e5 13 fxe5 (or 13
ctJxe5 Keene) 13 ... i..xg5 14 h4 i..e7 15 l2Jc3
f5? (better 15 ... 'ife8) 16 exf6 ~xf6 17 l2Jxe4
and White won.
Black defended much better in Bonsch-
a) 6 c4!? dxc4 7 bxc4 i..e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 i..a4 Plachetka, Keszthely 1981: 7... lLlbd7 8 0-0
b6 10 'ife2 iiLb7 11 .:ldl 'ifc7 12 h3 .:lfd8 13 g6!? 9 .:lf3 l2Jxe5 10 fxe5 l2Jd7 11 .:lg3 (in-

94
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 l:fjf3 d5 2 b3 c5

tending 'iih5) 11.. ..i.g5! (coming round to 9 CLJxd7 CLJxd7 (not 9 ... .i.xd7?! 10 .i.xf6)
attack e5) 12 etJa3 .i.h6 13 'iig4 .i.g7 14 'iif4 10 'iih5 is similarly ineffective after 10 .. .f5
a6 15 h4 'iic7 16 h5 etJxe5 and Black won. (not 10 ... a6?? 11 .i.xd7 .i.xd7 12 .i.xg7! and
6 i..b5 wins) 11 l:tf3 (or 11 ~xd7 .i.xd7 12 l:tf3
.i.e8) 11...CLJf6 12 .i.xf6 l:txf6 13 l:th3 g6, or
if 10 'iig4 e5 11 'iig3 f6 12 CLJc3 CLJb6 13 a4
.i.e6 with the better prospects for Black.
9 .. .':ZJxd7 10 i¥h5
If 10 CLJxd7 i.xd7 11 CLJc3 f6 12 'ife2 a6
and Black built up with ... .i.c6, ...l:tae8, ... b7-
b5, ... e6-e5 in Vajda-Averbakh, Budapest
1949.
10 ... f5
Allowing lateral defence by the black
queen and cutting the white queen's support
from the CLJe5. Wolff also considered 10.. .f6!?
11 ctJg4 f5 12 'iig5 d4!? forcing the knight
6 ... i..d6 back to f2 with an unclear position. The text
a) 6 ... .i.e7 is also fine; e.g. 7 0-0 0-0 8 f4 is simpler.
etJxe5 9 fxe5 ti.Jd7 10 .i.d3 g6 11 'iig4 .i.g5 11 CL\xd7
12 c4 dxc4 13 .i.xc4 .i.h6 (that manoeuvre Possibly 11 CLJf3 is better; e.g. 11...CLJf6 (or
again) 14 ti.JaJ?! (blocking the a-pawn; better 11...e5 12 fxe5 CLJxe5 13 ctJc3) 12 'ifh4 .i.d7
was 14 ~f2) 14 ... .i.g7 15 'iVg3 a6 16 l:tacl b5 13 a4 l:tae8 14 CLJc3 a6 15 CLJe2 .i.c6 16 .i.e5
17 .i.e2 .i.b7 18 .i.f3 .i.xf3 19 gxf3? 'iVa5! 20 was roughly equal in Maksimovic-
f4 'i¥xd2 and White lost a pawn (Sibilio- Nestorovic, Kladovo 1992, until Black mis-
Passerotti, Rome 1982) takenly resigned a drawn position.
b) 6 ... a6 7 .i.xd7+ Ci.Jxd7 8 etJxd7 .i.xd7 9 11 ... i..xd7 12 c4
0-0 f6 and then 10 c4 dxc4 11 bxc4 .i.d6 12 If White could get his other knight to f3
'iihS+ g6 13 'iVh6 .i.f8 14 'iVh3 was he would be doing fine; e.g. 12 d3 l:tae8 13
Nimwwitsch-Michel, Semmering 1926, con- CLJd2 e5 14 C2Jf3 exf4?? 15 CLJg5 h6 16 'iVg6
tinuing 14... .i.e7 15 CLJc3 0-0 16 a4 .i.d6 17 f4 wins, or if 12 ... e5 13 CLJc3 hits d5 and White
'iV e7 18 e4 .i.c6 19 g4 f5? (it was better to let comes out OK after 13 ... .i.c6 14 fxe5 .i.xe5
White play f4-f5 if he wants to) 20 gxf5 exf5 15 ~xf5 or 13 ... d4 14 CLJd5 'ifc6 15 fxe5
21 e5 .i.c7 22 ct:Jd5 ~xd5 23 cxd5 'iVd7? 24 (15 ... .i.xe5?? 16 CLJe7+). Unfortunately Black
e6 1-0 (if 24 ... 'i¥e7 25 'i¥c3 or 24 ...'i¥xd5 25 can change his move order, playing first
'iVh6 wins). Euwe suggested 14 ... .i.g7! as 12 ... .i.c6! and then 13 ct:Jd2 e5 or 13 CLJc3
equal and this was tested in Llorente Ga- l:tae8! and 14 ... e5 with the advantage.
lardy-Koskivarti, corr Finjub30 1992: 15 CLJc3 The game move c2-c4 is thematic, pres-
0-0 16 a4 f5 17 'iff3 .i.c6 18 'ife2 e5 19 d3 f4 suring the d-pawn, so that if 12 ... e5 either 13
20 exf4 exf4 21 f3 .i.d4+ 22 ~h1 'ifd7 23 cxd5 or 13 fxe5 .i.xe5 14 d4!?. But Black
CLJe4 ~ae8 24 a5 ~e5 25 .i.xd4 'ifxd4 when finds a strong response:
Black really shouldn't have lost. 12 ... d4!
7 f4 Offering a pawn to open the diagonals
If 7 CLJxd7 ~xd7 8 .i.xd7+ ifxd7 9 .i.xf6 towards the white king. Probably White
gxf6 (Nimzowitsch) is fine for Black. should decline the pawn (e.g. 13 'ifh4 cover-
7 .. :fic7 8 0-0 0-0 9 i..xd7?! ing f4) though Black still has a nice position.

95
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

13 exd4? i.xf4! 14 dxc5 'ifh2+ 26 ~f1 f3 etc.

If White tries inserting 14 ifh4 (intending 18 g3 i.xg3! 19 ~xg3 f4 20 'i!Vc3
14 ... ~d6 1S dxcS ~xeS+ 16 d4) then 14 ... gS! Or 20 'ifd3 'ifg4+ 21 ~f2 'i¥g2+ 22 ~e1
1S 'ifh6 cxd4 16 g3 ~eS 17 'ifxgS+ ~h8 with 'ifxb2.
a big attack pending (18 ... ~g8, 18 .. .f4), or 16 20 ... exd4 0-1
~xd4 eS! (not 16 ... ~c6?? 17 ~xf4! gxf4 18 Black wins after 21 'iYxd4 'i¥g4+ 22 ~f2
'iVgS+) 17 ~b2 'ifcS+ 18 ~h1 (if 18 d4 exd4 'ifg2+ 23 ~e1 ~fe8+ etc.
19 ~a3 'ifeS 20 ~xf8 ~xf8 21 ttJa3 d3!
threatens ...ifcS+or ...'ifb2, ... ~c6) 18 ... 'iYc6 Game37
(18 ... ~c6 19 ~a3 is less good) 19 'if xc6 Taimanov-Kaidanov
~xc6 20 ~h 1 ~ad8 21 ~c3 e4 with a clear Belgrade 1988
advantage.
14 ... i.c6! 1 t2Jf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 'bf6 4 i.b2 e6
Touche. Black's queen's bishop now rakes When playing 4... e6 Black has to be pre-
the enemy kingside, which is a bit ironic pared for transpositions to other openings.
given White's opening. If 1S d4 ~f6 16 dS Here S d4 would be a Colle-Zukertort Sys-
~e3+ 17 ~h1 ~h6 and wins. tem, whileS g3 is a strange sort of Reti; e.g.
15 'i!Vh4 e5 16 'i!Vf2? s ... ~d6 6 ~g2 0-0 7 0-0 ttJc6 8 c4 'i¥e7 9
Wolff suggests 16 ~xf4!? exf4 17 d4 just ttJc3 a6 10 ~e1 ~d8 11 cxdS exdS 12 d4
to be able to block the bishop off with d4-dS. .tg4 13 h3 .ths 14 ttJe2! cxd4 (14 ... c4!?) 1S
16 ... 'i!Vf7! ttJexd4 ~g6 16 ttJh4 .teS 17 ~cl ~ac8 18
ttJxc6 bxc6 19 .txeS 'ifxeS 20 'ifd4 'ifxd4 21
exd4 with a clear advantage to White in
Blatny-Shaked, New York blitz 1998.
5 c4
This is now technically an English (A 13 in
ECO code) and may switch into aT arrasch
Queen's Gambit (D32) if White follows with
d2-d4. The game reached this position via
2 ... ttJf6 3 ~b2 e6 4 c4 cS S e3.
5 ... 'bc6
S... dxc4 is also possible. After 6 bxc4 ttJc6
7 ~e2 ~e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ifc2 b6 10 a3 .tb7
(standard development) White has an inter-
Rushing to take up the position just va- esting attacking scheme, first seen in Tal-
cated by White's queen- and seemingly win- Kapengut, Moscow 1972: 11 ttJc3 ~c8 12
ning by force; if 17 g3 'ifhS 18 gxf4 ~f6 and ~adl 'ifc7 (12 ... ~c7!?) 13 tUgS!? g6 14 f4
... ~g6+ wins, or 17 ~e1 'ifhS 18 h3 ~f6 19 ttJaS 1S tUbS 'ifb8 16 fS! exfS 17 ~xfS ~c6
it.xeS .txeS 20 ~xeS ~g6 21 ~dS!? (not 21 (not 17 ... gxfS? 18 ifxfS and 19 ~xf6) 18 ~f4
~xfS 'ifd1+) 21.. ..txdS 22 cxdS f4! threaten- with a clear advantage. Or even 11 tUgS!? h6
ing .. .f4-f3 and ...'ifxdS. 12 ttJh3 (not 12 ~xf6 hxgS) 12 ... ~c8 13 d3
17 d4 'i!Vh5 ~c7 14 f4 ttJe8 1S fS! ~gS 16 ttJxgS 'ifxgS
It is too late to block off the bishop now. 17 ~f3 ttJe7 (or 17... exfS 18 ttJc3 and 19
If 18 h3 'iWgS! 19 dS it.e3 or 19 h4!? ifg4 20 ~g3) 18 e4 exfS 19 ~g3 with good compen-
dS .tg3 and ... 'ifxh4 wins; e.g. 21 'iff3 ifxh4 sation in Korchnoi-Kramnik, Vienna 1996.
22 ~d1 e4 23 'ife3 f4 24 'ifd4 ~f7 2S ttJd2 6 cxd5

96
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 0:,t3 d5 2 b3 c5

If White does not exchange on dS Black A familiar manoeuvre from the previous
can push past ... dS-d4 with a good position; chapter, putting pressure on c6 and allowing
e.g. 6 g3 d4 7 exd4 cxd4 8 ii.g2 eS 9 0-0 ii.d6 the f-pawn to advance (c.f. Game 32). Then
10 d3 0-0 11 ctJa3 a6 12 ctJc2 .l:.e8 (Allahver- after ii.xc6 b7xc6 the inclusion of c2-c4xdS
diev-Al Tamimi, Elista Olympiad 1998), or 6 means that White can rapidly attack the front
ii.e2 d4 7 exd4 cxd4 8 d3 eS 9 a3 aS 10 0-0 c-pawn by 'irYc2, ctJc3-a4, etc.; e.g. 8 ... 'irYc7 9
.i.d6 11 ct:Jbd2 0-0 12 ctJe1 ii.fS 13 ii.f3 'irYd7 f4 0-0 10 ii.xc6 bxc6 11 0-0 ctJd7 12 ctJxd7
14 ctJe4 ctJxe4 1S dxe4 ii.e6 (Blatny-I.Rogers, .txd7 13 'irYc2 .Mfe8 14 ctJc3 f6 1S ctJa4
Lazne Bohdanec 1994). (Plaskett-H.Hunt, Hastings 1994/9S), though
6 ... exd5 Black generated counterplay after 1S ... d4! 16
If Black doesn't want an isolated queen's .Mfe1 dxe3 17 dxe3 .Me7 18 ctJxcS .Mae8 (if 19
pawn s/he should play 6 ... ctJxdS. Then .td4 il..xf4!) and in fact went on to win.
Keene-Milbers, Nice Olympiad 1974, con- 8 ... 'iVb6 is probably also OK; e.g. 9 ii.xc6+
tinued 7 ii.bS (if 7 a3 ct:Jf6 8 'irYc2 il..e7 or 7 bxc6 10 d3 (or 10 0-0 c4) 10 ... a5 11 0-0 a4 12
ctJc3 ctJc7! 8 .l:.cl b6) 7 ... ii.d7 8 0-0 CiJf6 (bet- d4 (Sokolik-Teixeira, Rio de Janeiro 1997)
ter was 8 ... a6) 9 ctJc3 ii.e7 10 'irYe2 a6 11 and now 12 ... c4! 13 ctJd2 .ta6 or 13 ii.a3
ii.d3! 0-0 12 .l:.acl .Mc8 13 .l:.fd1 'irYc7 14 ii.b1 axb3 14 axb3 'irYxb3 1S 'irYxb3 cxb3 16 ctJxc6
bS 1S d4 cxd4 16 exd4 'irYb7? (16 ... ct:Jds ii.fs.
Keene) 17 dS! exdS 18 ctJxdS ctJxdS 19 .MxdS Kaidanov prefers to attack and so offers
.i.e6 20 .l:.hS g6 21 ii.xg6! fxg6 22 'irYxe6+ up a pawn to rush his pieces into play.
1-0. 8 ... 0-0!? 9 0:,xc6
7 ~b5 Now if 9 .txc6 bxc6 Black has gained a
7 ii.e2 ii.d6 (or 7 ... a6 8 d4 cxd4 9 ctJxd4 tempo by not defending c6 and can leave it
ii.b4+!? 10 ii.c3 ii.d6, but not 7 ... d4?! 8 exd4 en prise; e.g. 10 0-0 (10 f4 aS!?) 10 ... ~e8 11 f4
cxd4 9 ii.bS) 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 cxd4 10 ctJxd4 d4!? intending 12 exd4 cxd4 13 ii.xd4 ii.xeS!
reaches a Tarrasch Queen's Gambit, when 14 ~xeS ii.a6 1S .l:.e1 (or 1S .l:.f2 ctJe4)
White at least has a strategic pull against the 1S ... .l:.xeS! 16 fxeS 'irYd4+ 17 \th1 ctJg4 or 17
IQP, if no actual advantage; ECO 'D' gives .l:.e3 ctJdS with a clear advantage. T olonen-
10 ... a6 11 ctJd2 'irYe7 12 ctJ2f3 ii.d7 13 .Mel Holmsten, Finnish Championship 1998, saw
.l:.fe8 14 ctJh4 ii.eS as equal (Christiansen- 12 ctJa3 (if 12 ctJxc6 'irYc7) 12 ... .i.xeS 13 fxeS
D.Gurevich, US Championship 1984). If 9 .l:.xeS 14 ctJc4 .l:.gS 1S 'irYf3 ii.g4 (1S ... i.e6!?)
d3 .l:.e8 10 ct:Jbd2 ~fS (Csom-Geller, New 16 'irYf4 'irYdS 17 exd4! .th3 18 ctJe3 .l:.xg2+
York 1987) White has nothing at all. 19 \th 1 'irYgS 20 'irYxgS .l:.xgS 21 .l:.f3 .te6 22
7 ... ~d6 dxcS ctJe4 23 d4 and White survived.
Larsen and Korchnoi have contested this 9 ... bxc6 10 ~e2?!
twice. Korchnoi-Larsen, Brussels 1987, saw 8 Retreating the bishop is a tad inconsistent.
0-0 0-0 (8 ... ii.g4 is also good) 8 ... 0-0 9 d4 White has managed to double Black's pawns
cxd4 10 ctJxd4 .td7 11 ct:Jf3 .l:.e8 12 C2Jbd2 a6 and keep the light-squared bishop, but this
13 .te2 'irYe7 14 a3 .l:.ad8 1S b4 ctJe4 with an small achievement hardly seems worth the
equal position. Larsen-Korchnoi, Hastings time invested.
1988/89, varied with 8 .txf6!? 'irYxf6 9 ctJc3 White should accept the pawn 10 .txc6
.te6 10 .l:.cl .l:.c8 11 e4 d4 12 eS .txeS 13 when after 10 ... .l:.b8 and 11 i.a4 'Black
ctJe4 'irYf4 14 ctJxcS .tds 1S ct:Jd3 'tWe4+ 16 would gain excellent compensation for the
'irYe2 .tf6 17 ctJb4 0-0 18 ctJxdS 'irYxdS, again pawn' according to GM Rogers who also
equal. Both games were drawn. notes 11 0-0?! .txh2 +.
8 0:,e5!? Instead Fritz comes up with 11 ~xf6!?

97
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

'ifxf6 12 l2Jc3 d4 13 l2Je4 following which- A nice try - if then 18 ... gxf6 19 ~xh2
ever queen move with 14l2Jxd6 'ifxd6. Then Mxg3 20 Mf5! (otherwise 20 .. .f5) and White at
White can evacuate the king by 15 iJ3 ~a6 least makes it into the endgame after
16 ~e2 and if 16 ... d3 17 ~f3 c4 18 0-0 cxb3 20 ... Mxd3+ 21 ~hl (if 21 ~gl 'ii'aS! 22 Mf2
19 axb3 Mfc8 20 Ma4 Mc2 21 'ifal Mb6 22 .te5 23 Mel .td4) 21... 'ife7 (intending
~dl (22 ... Mxd2? 23 'ifc3). Anyone fancy this ...'ife3) 22 'ifel (the only move) 22 ...'ifxel+
for White? (Or Black?) 23 Mxe 1 Mxd2. But Black has stronger:
10 ....l:.e8 11 0-0 .l:.b8 12 d3 :b4! 13 18 ....l:.h3!
ctJd2 After 19 i.xd8 there follows 19 ... Mexg3+
Since the black rook is heading for the 20 ~f2 l:!h2+ 21 ~el Me3+ 22 'ife2 Mexe2+
kingside Rogers suggests 13 d4 to block the 23 ~dl Mxd2+ 24 ~cl c4! threatening
fourth rank, then Black would reroute the ... i.a3+ and wins. Not that anything else is
rook by 13 ... cxd4 14 exd4 (not 14 .txd4 c5) any good for White.
14... Mb7 and ... Mbe7. This looks pretty good 19 .l:.f3 :xg3+ 20 ~h1 gxf6 21 .l:.xg3
for Black as well with lots of nice combina- i.xg3 22 ctJf3 ~d7 0-1
tions possible; e.g. 15 l2Jc3 Mbe7 16 .td3? And with severe infantry depletion White
l2Jg4 17 g3 'ifd7! intending ... l2Jxh2, or 16 decided to resign.
Mel? l2Jg4 17 g3 (or 17 h3 .th2+ 18 ~fl
l2Jxf2! 19 ~xf2 Me3) 17... l2Jxh2! 18 ~xh2 Game38
Me3! 19 ~g2 'i¥g5. Bronstein-COMP Mephisto
13 ...:h4 14 g3 AEGONtournament, The Hague 1990
If 14l2Jf3 Mh6 and with all Black's pieces
poised to attack White will soon have to play 1 ctJf3 ctJf6 2 b3 d5 3 i.b2 c5 4 e3 i.g4
either g2-g3 or h2-h3 anyway. Therefore
T aimanov moves the g-pawn at once intend-
ing, after the black rook moves away, to de-
fend the light squares by 15 .tf3 or 15 Mel
and 16 .tfl. Unfortunately the rook doesn't
have to move away.
14 ... ctJg4!
Since if 15 gxh4? 'ifxh4 16'2Jf3 'ifh3! and
the threat to h2 is decisive.
15 i..xg4 i.xg4 16 f3?
This loses by force. Similarly 16 'ifc2?
Mxh2! 17 ~xh2 'ifh4+ 18 ~gl .txg3 19 fxg3
'i¥xg3+ 20 ~hl Me6 (Rogers). White had to
play reinforce the dark squares by 16 'ii'el We have already seen one example of
and then if 16 ... i.h3? 17 gxh4 'ifxh4 (or ... i.g4 in Game 33 (Chapter4). Games 42-44
17 ... l::Ie6 18 ~hl) 18 f4! turns the tables; if (Chapter 6) feature 2...'2Jf6 3 i.b2 i.g4
16 ... .l:.e6 17 f4 or 16 ....l:.h6 17 f3 i.h3 18 Mf2 without ... c7-c5, while Chapter 7 sees Black
Mhe6 19 e4 'ii'g5 (or 19 ... 'ii'b6 20 'ii'e3) 20 playing 2... i.g4 without any preamble.
l:!e2 defends for the time being. Black can also develop 4... i.f5, but there-
16 ....l:.xh2! 17 fxg4 versed Miles (4 i.f4) variation lacks dyna-
17 ~xh2 allows mate in three by mism a move down and the bishop is often
17... 'ii'h 4+ etc. just a target on f5; e.g. 5 i.b5+ (5l2Je5 is also
17 .. Jbe3 18 i.f6!? good) and then:

98
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 CiJf3 d5 2 b3 c5

a) S...ct:Jfd7 (the thematic Miles move) can

be answered by 6 ctJh4!.
b) S... ctJc6 (... ~fS is wrong in the Nimzo
lines) 6 0-0 e6 7 ctJeS 'Ji/ic7 8 f4 ~d6 9 ~xc6+
bxc6 10 d3 (Kaenel-Fatzer, Martigny 1986)
and if ... 0-0 then g2-g4, h2-h4 comes quickly.
c) S... i.d7 loses a tempo on S i.bS+ in
Game 38.
d) S... ct:Jbd7 6 0-0 e6 and White might
again try 7 ctJh4!? (or 7 d4!?) and if 7 ... i.g4 8
~xf6!? 'Ji/ixf6 9 'Ji/ixg4 'Ji/ixal 10 ctJc3 'Jilib2 11
ctJf3 0-0-0 12 'Ji/ia4 or 12 ctJgS with complica-
tions. Or if 6 ... a6 7 ~xd7+ 'Ji/ixd7 8 ctJeS 'Ji/ic7
9 d3 ctJd7 (9 ... e6) 10 'Ji/if3 e6 11 ctJxf7 ~xf7 6 g4
12 e4 ctJeS? (12 ... i.d6) 13 'Ji/if4 i.d6 14 exfS Here 6 ~e2 e6 7 0-0 ctJc6 or 6 d3 e6 7
with a clear advantage to White in Karlsson- Ct:Jbd2 ctJc6 would reach positions given in
Lputian, Yerevan 1980. Chapter 6 (Game 42 with 4... e6). These are
5 h3 technically reversed Queen's Indians but they
S i.e2 is a bit tame; e.g. S... ctJc6 6 0-0 e6 usually arise with ... c7-cS held back until
and then: White has played either d2-d3 or i.e2.
a) 7 d4 cxd4 8 exd4 i.d6 9 h3 i.xf3 10 Because, in this precise position, White
i.xf3 0-0 11 c4 dxc4 12 bxc4 Wlc7 13 ctJc3 can play more strongly: 6 ~bS+! when
~fd8 14 CiJbS 'Jilie7 lS Wie2 i.b8 16 dS exdS 6... ctJc6 7 g4 ~g6 8 ctJeS goes back again to
17 'Ji/ixe7 ctJxe7 18 .i.xf6 gxf6 19 cxdS ~eS Game 33. It also sets the oldest trap in the
20 ~abl a6 21 ctJa3 ~ab8 22 ~fdl bS 23 Queen's Indian (from Tarrasch-Bogoljubow,
ctJc2 aS 24 a3 and Black was outplayed in Gothenburg 1920): 6...Ct:Jbd7? 7 g4~g6 8 gS!
Nimzowitsch-Tartakower, Copenhagen 1923. winning a pawn after 8... ctJe4 9 ctJeS i.fS (at
b) 7 ctJeS!? i.xe2 8 'Ji/ixe2 ctJxeS 9 ~xeS least Black hasn't played ... e7-e6 yet) 10 iff3
ct:Jd7 10 f4 ctJxeS 11 fxeS 'Ji/ic7 12 ctJc3 a6 13 ctJd6 11 i.xd7+ i.xd7 12 Ct:Jxd7 Wfxd7 13
'Ji/if3 ~d8 14 ~ael ~d7 lS 'Ji/if4 c4 16 ctJe2 WfxdS and White won (Angres-Bermeo,
i.b4 17 c3 i.cS 18 ctJd4 ~a7 19 'Ji/igS 0-0 20 Hughes 1991). Black might consider
~f4 i.b8 21 Ct:Jf3 cxb3 22 axb3 Wld8 23 Wlg4 6 ... ct:Jfd7!?; e.g. 7 g4 i.g6 8 ctJeS a6 (8 ... e6?! 9
fS 24 Wig3 and again White somehow man- h4 f6 10 ctJxg6 hxg6 11 c4) 9 ctJxg6 hxg6 10
aged to win in Napolitano-G.Wood, corr 1st .i.fl ctJc6 11 ~g2 e6 though White is still
World Championship 19SO-S3. slightly better.
5 .....ih5 6 ... ..ig6 7 tt:Je5!?
S... i.xf3 6 Wlxf3 ctJc6 (6 ... a6!?) 7 i.bS 7 i.bS +! again, but Bronstein's move
might reach the notes to Game 33 (e.g. 7... e6 leads to very interesting play.
8 ~xc6+ bxc6). The current move order 7 ... CiJbd7 8 I:£Jxg6
gives Black the chance to defend c6. Not that Now 8 i.bS would be answered simply by
it helped him in U.Andersson-Hort, Las 8... a6!.
Palmas 197S: 7 ... ~c8 8 c4 dxc4 9 bxc4 e6 10 8 ... hxg6 9 ..ig2 e6 10 g5!?
i.xf6 Wfxf6 11 'Ji/ixf6 gxf6 12 ctJc3 ~d8 13 White wants to open the position for his
i.xc6! ~xc6 14 ~bl ~c8 lS ~e2 fS 16 g4! bishops so 10 c4looks logical, threatening 11
~g7 17 ct:Jbs ~b8 18 gxfS exfS 19 ~hgl gS. Perhaps Bronstein thought the computer
with a difficult endgame for Black. might play lO ... gS!?.

99
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

10 ... Gt:'Jh5 11 c4 'i¥xg5 12 'i¥g4! 'i¥d8 21...'i¥xb3 22 Mb1 (not 22 ttJd5 'i¥b5+)
Or 12 ... 'i¥el 13 cxd5 ttJhf6 (13 ... exd5 14 22 ... 'i¥c4+ 23 d3 'i¥xc3 24 Mxb8+ .txb8 25
ctJc3 tt:Jhf6 15 ctJxd5) 14 .txf6 'i¥xf6 as in 'i¥c8+ ~el 26 'i¥xh8 'i¥b2+ 21 ~fl ~xdl 28
the game. Not 12 ... .te7?! 13 cxd5 exd5 14 'i¥f8 still with counterplay.
'i¥xg5 itxg5 15 itxd5 when the bishops give 21 .. .'~'xb3 22 Gt:'Jc3 'i¥c4+ 23 ~d1
White an advantage; and especially not If 23 ~e 1 then the knight is left pinned to
12 ... 'i¥xg4?? 13 hxg4 when the knight is the rook.
pinned to the rook. 23 ....:i.b6 24 'i¥a8+ .i.b8 25 Gt:'Jd5 ~a4+
13 cxd5 Gt:'Jhf6 26 ~e2 ~b2 27 .:!.xc5 ~xd7 28 f4 .:i.h5?!
Nor 13 ... exd5 14 .txd5 tt:Jhf6 15 ~xf6 Simpler 28 ...'i¥bl.
'i¥xf6 (or 15 ... tt:Jxf6 16 'i¥a4+) 16 'i¥e4+ .tel 29 l:c3!
11 ctJc3 and White gets the b-pawn.
14 .i.xf6
Better than 14 'i¥c4 exd5 15 .i.xd5 ctJxd5
16 'i¥xd5 as the light-squared bishop is more
useful.
14.. .'iYxf6

Threatening 30 ~d3 ~e8 (or 30 ... ~c8 31

ctJb6+) 31 ctJf6+ gxf6 32 .tc6; or if 29 ... 'i¥d6?
30 ~d3 ~e8 31 ctJb4! (preventing ...'i¥a6)
31...'i¥b6 32 'i¥e4+ ~f8 33 ctJc6 and wins,
while if now 29 ...'i¥bl? 30 'iYxbl ~xbl 31
ctJf6! regains the exchange. Unfortunately,
15 dxe6!? Black has ...
15 ctJc3 was fine but Bronstein likes to 29 ....:!.xh3!
give things away against computers as mate- ... when it seems all over for White; i.e. 30
rial imbalances mess up their algorithms. As ~d3 'i¥ g4+ mates.
long as there is nothing immediately devas- Ironically, another computer (Fritz) finds
tating (such as a nine-move mate!) computers an amazing resource: 30 .txh3 Mxh3 31
will favour material over the initiative. ~c2!! to defend d2, and if 31...Mxc2 32
15 ... 'iVxa 1 16 exd7 + ~d8 17 'i¥e4 .i.d6 'i¥xb8+ ~dl (or 32 ... 'i¥c8 33 'i¥d6+ 'iVdl 34
The only move, defending e8 and allowing 'i¥f8+ 'i¥e8 35 'i¥d6+ ~c8 36 ctJel+) 33
... Mb8. Now if 18 'iYxbl Mb8 19 'i¥a6 'i¥xb1+ 'iYxal+ ~d6 34 'i¥b8+ ~xd5 35 'i¥b3+ with a
20 ~e2 'i¥f5 21 'i¥xd6 Mb6 22 itc6 'i¥e4! and draw (35 ... ~c4?? 36 e4+ wins).
White's threats disappear. Black may be winning but there doesn't
18 ~e2 'i¥xa2 19 ~xb7 .:!.b8 20 ~c6 seem to be anything immediately decisive;
.i.c7 21 .:!.c1? e.g.
Better was 21 .i.d5 defending b3 and a) 31...~b1 32 ~d3 iVfl+ 33 ~d4.
threatening fl. Or else 21 ctJc3 and if b) 31...~b3 32 ctJc3.

100
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 t'jjf3 d5 2 b3 c5

c) 31...'i'Yg2+ 32 <it>d3 'iff1+ (32 ... .J:Ib3+ 33 11 a3 ii.b7 12 d3 .tlc8 13 tt:Jbd2 'ife7 14 .tlfe1
<it>c4 .J:Ib 1 34 <it>d4) 33 <it>d4 'i'VbS 34 .tlxb2 i.b8 15 iLfl .tlfe8 16 .tlad1 (Ljubojevic-
'ifxb2+ 35 <it>d3. Sadler, Monte Carlo blindfold 1998).
d) 31...'ifg4+ 32 <it>d3 'iffS+ 33 e4 'ifh3+ 34 4 ... 'Dc6 5 d4
<it>d4 .tlxc2 (34 ... .tlb1 35 .tlc3 'ifg2 36 .tld3) In the 4 a3 Queen's Indian 4 ... c5 is prema-
35 'ifxb8+ 'ifc8 36 'ifd6+ 'ifd7 37 'iff8+ 'ife8 ture due to 5 dS!. In the reversed position
38 'ifd6+ <it>c8 39 <it>d3! .tlc140 'ifa6+ <it>b8 41 Black can try the same; i.e. 5 c4 d4!? 6 exd4
'ifd6+ <it>b7 42 'ifb4+ <it>a8 43 ctJb6+! axb6 44 cxd4 and then 7 i.d3 g6 8 0-0 i,g7 9 l:Ie 1
'ifa3+ and 45 'ifxcl (hence 39 <it>d3). ctJh6 10 ~e4 0-0 11 d3 l:Ie8 12 ife2 aS 13
30 ~f2? V&'g4 0-1 i,xc6 bxc6 14 tt:Jbd2 ctJfS 15 ctJe4 hS created
a complicated position in Korchnoi-
Game39 Rabinovich, Israeli Team Championship
Blatny-Konig 2000. This is not obligatory - 5... e6 is of
Foxwoods Open 2000 course still OK; e.g. 6 d4 ctJc6 7 tt:Jbd2 i,e7
8 cxdS exdS 9 ii.e2 0-0 10 0-0 ii.fS 11 a3
1 t'jjf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e3 a6 l:Ic8 with a pleasant position for Black in
By ... a7-a6 Black rules out iLfl-bS com- Miles-Suba, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1984.
pletely. Black actually delayed this in the
game, playing 3 ... tt:Jf6 4 iLb2 a6 and then 5
d4 ctJc6. This is OK, though it rules out
S... d4 (as in the note to White's 5th) since
Black has not yet played ... ctJc6.
So if 5 c4, Black has to be content with
S... e6 (5 ... ctJc6 6 cxdS ctJxdS is less good)
when 6 ii.e2 ctJc6 7 cxdS exdS 8 d4 cxd4 9
li:Jxd4 reaches the QGD Tarrasch positions
in the notes to Game 37. Black is committed
to ... a7-a6 but this is OK.
Kozul-B.Lalic, Croatian Cup 1998, saw
something more original: 6 .tlg1!? ctJc6 7 g4
h6 8 h4 hS 9 gS ctJg4 10 cxdS exdS 11 d4 5 ... 'Df6
cxd4 12 li:Jxd4 'if aS+ 13 ctJd2 ctJgeS 14 ctJxc6 S... i.g4 is premature: 6 dxcS! 'iVaS+ (6 ... e6
tt:Jxc6 15 a3 ~fS 16 b4 'i'Vc7 17 .tiel ~g4 18 7 a3) 7 tt:Jbd2 e6 8 a3 ifxcS 9 b4 'ifd6 10 c4
tt:Jf3 d4! 19 .tlxg4!? hxg4 20 tt:Jxd4 'if d7 21 e6 (10 ... dxc4) 11 ifa4 iLe7 12 bS ctJb8 13
ctJxc6 bxc6 22 i.g2 'ifxd1+ 23 <iiixd1 .tld8+ ctJeS ~fS 14 bxa6+ tt:Jbd7 15 cS ifc7 16 g4!
24 <iiie2 .tlxh4 25 ii.xc6+ <it>e7 26 .tlc4 with a and wins (Hodgson-Atalik, San Francisco
level endgame. 1998), or 6... e5 7 i,e2 i,xf3 (7 .. .f6? 8 ctJxeS!)
4~b2 8 ii.xf3 e4?! (8 ... ctJf6 9 c4) 9 ~g4 ctJf6 10
By our move order White can also play in ii.xf6! gxf6 11 ctJc3 ifaS 12 ifd2 l:Id8 13
true QID fashion 4 ii.a3!?, seeking to disrupt ctJa4 and White kept the pawn (Korchnoi-
Black's development. If then 4 ... ifc7 5 c4! Timman, Til burg 1985) while if 12 ... iLxcS 13
and Black, a tempo down, cannot risk 5... d4? ctJxdS ifxd2+ 14 <iiixd2 l:Id8 15 c4 ctJb4 16
(5 ... dxc4) 6 exd4 cxd4 7 iLb2 eS 8 'ife2 iLd6 <iiie2 ctJxdS 17 cxdS l:IxdS 18 i,c8 gets it
9 ctJxd4. Not that White has any advantage back again.
otherwise: e.g. 4 ... tt:Jd7 5 iLb2 tt:Jgf6 6 c4 e6 7 If Black wants to play ... i.g4 s/he should
iLe2 ~d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 'if c2 b6 10 cxdS ctJxdS insert S... cxd4 6 exd4then 6... .tg4 (6 ... i,fS!?;

101
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

6... g6!?) 7 ~e2 e6 8 0-0 ~d6 9 c4 'Llge7 10 11 h4!? (since 11...hxg5? 12 hxg5 'Lle4? of
LtJbd2 0-0 (Smyslov-Gulko, Tilburg 1992) course loses to 13 'ifh5). But White isn't
when 11 'Lle5 (ECO) 11...~xe2 12 'ifxe2 threatening anything so 10 ... b5 again seems
gives White a space advantage (12 .. J~k8!? and preferable. 11 LtJdf3!? h6 12 ctJe5 doesn't
... ~b8-a7). work: 12 ... ctJxe5 13 dxe5 hxg5 14 exf6 .txf6
White can in turn prevent ... ~g4 by recap- 15 'ifh5 ~e8.
turing with the knight; e.g. 6 'Llxd4 e6 11 cugxe4 dxe4 1 2 ~xe4 CUxd4 13 CUc4
(6 ...'ifc7!?) 7 c4 'tJf6 8 'Lld2 ctJxd4 9 ~xd4 ~f6?!
Jl..e7 10 .te2 0-0 11 0-0 ~d7 12 cxd5 'Llxd5 Better was 13 .. .f5!? when at least Black
13 ~f3 with the initiative, though Black gets his pieces out.
played carefully to draw: 13 ... JI..b5 14 'Llc4 14 ~d3! cuts 1S 0-0-0 ~xb2+ 16 ~xb2
~c8 15 ~cl ~c6 16 e4 'Llf6 17 'Llb6 ~b8 18 ~f6+
.te3 Ji..a3 19 ~c2 'ifxd1 20 ~xd1 ~bd8 21 If 16 ... 'ifxd3 17 ~xd3 then 18 ctJb6 im-
~xd8 ~xd8 (Hodgson-I.Rogers, Dutch mobilises Black's queenside; e.g. 17...ctJh4 18
Team Championship 1999). ctJb6 ~b8 19 f4 f5 20 ~f3 ctJxf3 21 gxf3!?
6 cubd2 and after 22 ~hd1 the black pieces aren't
White holds back ~f1-e2 as the bishop ever coming out.
may prefer the d3-square. 6 a3!? is also possi- 17 iVc3 ~xc3+ 18 ~xc3 l:.b8 19 CUb6 eS
ble, to answer 6... ~g4 with 7 dxc5!. With 20 ~b4!
either move Black can again throw in
6... cxd4, intending 7 exd4 ~g4 or 7 'Llxd4
e6. Konig decides to defend a Colle.
6 ... e6 7 a3 ~e7?!
A bit routine. An early ... a7-a6 is unusual
in the Colle-Zukertort System (to which this
game has transposed), but it's not necessarily
bad. Black can make use of it by playing
7... b5!?, intending to answer ~d3 with ... c5-
c4!. S.Nikolic-Marjanovic, Korinthos 1999,
saw 8 'Lle5 'ii'c7 9 Jl..e2 (9 f4) 9... ~b8 10
ctJxc6 'ifxc6 11 dxc5 .txc5 12 0-0 ~d6 13
.td3 e5 14 ~e1 .tg4 15 f3 ~e6 16 e4 ~c5+
17 ~h 1 d4 and White's attack was nowhere White is enjoying himself. He threatens 20
to be seen. ctJxc8 by ensuring that the recapture is not
8 ~d3 0-0 9 lUgS!? check, while the king further controls the
Also unusual. In the Colle White normally queenside dark squares; e.g. if now 20 ... ctJd4
plays ctJf3-e5 planning f2-f4 and a crude (but 21 c3 'Llc6+ 22 .txc6 bxc6 23 ~c5.
often effective) attack with such moves as 20 ... ~e6 21 CUd7 ~xd7 22 l:.xd7 CUd4
~f3-h3 and 'ifh5. 23 c3?!
9 ... cxd4 A slip. 23 ~xb7 ctJxc2+ 24 ~a4 is simpler,
Forestalling any tricks with d4xc5, ~xf6 when if 24 ... ~fd8 25 ~xd8 ~xd8 26 Jl..xa6
etc. ctJxa3 27 ~cl corrals the knight.
10 exd4 CUe4?! 23 ....:Ifd8! 24 11xd8+ 11xd8 2S ~xb7
Black reacts poorly. He may not have Since if 25 cxd4? ~xd4 spoils everything.
wanted to play 10 ... h6, creating a target for Black should now play 25 ... ~b8 26 cxd4
attack after 'Llgf3 and ~g1, g2-g4-g5, or first ~xb7+but instead the game finished quickly:

102
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 {fJf3 d5 2 b3 c5

25 .. .{fJxb3? 26 .l1.xa6 lib8+ 27 .l1.b5 {fJd2 a) 4 e3 eS 5 h3 ~xf3 6 'ifxf3 e4 7 'ifd1 fS

28 :e1 f6 29 a4 1-0 8 c4 c6 9 cxdS cxdS 10 ~b5+ ctJc6 11 0-0
lt:Jf6 with a big solid centre (Robatsch-
Game40 Bisguier, Beverwijk 1962).
Czebe-Tukmakov b) 4 'ifd3 'ifd7 5 e4 e6 6 ~e2 ctJc6 7 c3
Lugano 1999 ~hS! 8 0-0 i.g6 9 lt:Jfd2 ctJge7 10 'ii'f3 eS! 11
exdS ctJxdS 12 dxeS ctJxeS 13 'ii'g3 hS 14
1 {fjfJ 'ii'h4 0-0-0 and Black had the initiative (Man
When White uses the 1 lt:Jf3 move order it Yee-Nogueira, Sao Paulo 1999).
is usually to avoid lines with ... e7-e5. Black c) 4 i.b2 e6 (4 ... ctJc6!?) 5 e3 i.d6 6 i.e2
can try to achieve this advance anyway, e.g. 'iVe7 7 c4 c6 8 0-0 lt:Jd7 9 lt:Jbd2 lt:Jh6 10 e4
by ... d7-d6 or ... ctJc6. Another way is to play 0-0 11 lt:Je 1 fS (if 11...i.xe2 12 'iVxe2 fS 13
.. .f7-f6 aiming either for a two-pawn centre cS! i.c7 14 exdS) 12 eS ~b4 13 f4 a5 14
(dS, eS) or even, as here, three pawns (cS, dS, ctJd3 ~xe2 15 'ii'xe2 ~xd2 16 'iVxd2 a4 17
eS). ~c3 ~fc8 18 ~b4 'ifd8 19 ~d6 lt:Jf7 20 cS
Black can also try 1 b3 dS 2 ~b2 f6!?. with a useful space advantage (Karlsson-
Hector, Skelleftea 1999).
3 .l1.b2
As explained in the previous chapter, 3
i.b2 is inaccurate as Black can now shut
down the long diagonal with 3 .. .f6!. Because
of this, 3 e3! is to be preferred, rendering
3 .. .f6 less effective after 4 d4! ctJc6 (or
4... i.g4 5 i.e2) 5 i.b2 and then:
a) 5... ~g4 6 ~e2 e6 7 0-0 ~d6 8 c4 ctJge7
9 ctJc3 a6 (if 9 ... cxd4 10 lt:Jxd4 ~xe2 11
ctJcxe2 'iVd7 12 cxdS or 9 ... ~xf3 10 ~xf3
dxc4 11 dxcS! ~eS 12 'iVe2, not 11. .. ~xc5?
12 i.xc6+ and 13 'iVhS+) 10 cxdS exdS 11
Then if 3 f4 ctJc6 (3 ... ~g4 and 3 ... lt:Jh6!? dxcS i.xcS 12 ~c 1 i.a7 13 lt:Jd4 i.xe2 14
are also possible) 4 e3 (or 4 lt:Jf3 ~g4) 4 ... e5 ctJcxe2 with a positional plus for White
5 ~bS ~d6 transposes to Game 5 in Chap- (Soppe-D. Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1992).
ter 1, while 3 e3 eS is in the notes to Game b) 5... cxd4 6 exd4 e6!? hopes for ... e6-e5
27 in Chapter 3. after suitable preparation; e.g.... i.d6, lt:Jge7-
White should prefer 3 d4! and if 3 ...ctJc6 4 g6, 0-0, ~e8. Sazonov-Meister, Karvina 1992,
e3 (or 4 lt:Jf3 ~g4 - Keene) 4 ... e5!? 5 dxeS continued 7 ~d3 i.b4+!? 8 lt:Jbd2 ctJge7 9 c3
fxeS 6 ~bS ~d6 7 ~xc6+ bxc6 8 ~xeS lt:Jf6 (more sensible was 9 a3 ~d6 10 c4) 9 ... ~d6
White's kingside is more secure than in the 5 10 c4 ctJg6 11 g3 0-0 12 'iVb 1?! (better was 12
f4 positions from Chapter 1. Instead 3 ... c5!? h4 intending 12 ... ~e8 13 ~xg6 hxg6 14 hS
4 e3 transposes to 2... cS 3 e3 f6, or if 3 ... ~fS with an attack) 12 ... ctJce7 13 h4 ~e8 14 0-0
4 lt:Jf3 White has two extra tempi (b2-b3, b6 15 ~e1 'ii'c7 16 ~e2 lt:Jf8 17 'iVe1 'iVd7
~b2) on the reversed Trompowsky (1 d4 with a clumsy but solid position for Black
lt:Jf6 2 ~gS lt:Je4 3 ~f4 dS 4 f3 lt:Jf6). (who later won when his lower-rated oppo-
1 ... d5 2 b3 c5 nent blundered).
Keene also draws attention to 2.. .f6!? 3 d4 Black can also try .. .f7-f6 in the reversed
~g4 and then: Nimzo-Indian: 3... ctJc6 4 ~bS f6!?; e.g. 5 c4

103
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

(not 5 d4? 'ifa5+) 5... d4 6 i.a3!? e5 7 0-0 11...etJc6? 12 tt:Jdxe4! and if 12 .. .fxe4 13
i.d6 8 t2Jh4 etJge7 9 exd4 cxd4 10 c5 i.c7 11 tt:Jxd5 i.xd5 14 'ifh5+ or 12 ... etJxc3 13 etJxc3
ifh5+ ~f8 12 d3 'ife8 13 'ifxe8+ ~xe8 14 i.xc4 14 bxc4 'ifxd4 15 'ifh5+ g6 16 'ife2+
tt:Jd2 a6 15 i.c4 etJa5 16 f4 exf4 17 ~ae1 'ife5 17 t2Jd5 White gets a rook (Pribyl-Trapl,
~d8 18 etJe4 with a strange position (Ko- Czechoslovakia 1980).
chiev-Malinin, St Petersburg 1999). White Instead 11...etJf4 12 d5 i.f7 13 g3 etJxd5
can avoid this by playing 4 i.b2 when 4.. .f6 5 14 t2Jdxe4! i.b4 15 0-0 etJxc3 is roughly
d4 is the same as 3.. .f6 4 d4 etJc6 5 i.b2 equal, while 11...i.b4 12 etJxd5 i.xd5 13
above. 'ifh5+ g6 14 'ifh6 i.f8 15 'iff4 i.d6
3 ... f6! (15 ... etJc6, ... ~g7, ... 0-0 is more solid) 16 'ife3
Taking the opportunity to query White's i.e7 17 f3 led to complications in Sadler-
move order. Anything else would lead to Tangborn, Hastings 1988/89, continuing
normal lines; apart from 3... d4?! which is 17... i.h4+ 18 g3 i.gS 19 'ife2 0-0 20 0-0
premature- as after 4 e3! the d4-pawn can- i.xd2 21 fxe4 i.xc4 22 'ifxc4+ ~g7 23 d5+
not be maintained; e.g. 4... dxe3 5 fxe3 i.g4 6 ~h6 24 ~g2 'ife7 25 'ifd3 i.b4? (25 ... i.g5)
i.c4 e6 7 etJc3 t2Jf6 8 'ife2 h6 9 h3 i.xf3 10 26 exf5 gxf5 27 a3 i.a5 28 b4 etJd7 29 ~ae 1
'ifxf3 etJc6 11 0-0-0 'ifc7 12 d4 0-0-0 13 etJe4 ifd8 30 ~e6+ t2Jf6 31 ~xf5 1-0.
etJxe4 14 'ifxe4 cxd4 15 exd4 tt:Jb4 16 ~hfl 4 ... dxe4 5 t'l:ih4 t'l:ih6
etJxa2+? 17 ~b1 etJb4 18 ~xf7! and White
won (Wager-Lewyk, Civil Service Champion-
ship 2000).
4 e4!?
An idea of Keene's which he noticed
while checking the proofs to his 1977 book.
Of the alternatives only 4 e3 is worth consid-
enng.
a) 4 c4 is met by 4 ... d4! and the i.b2 is
misplaced in the reversed Benoni; e.g. 5 d3
e5 6 e3 etJe7 7 i.e2 etJec6 8 t2Jbd2 i.e7 9 0-0
0-0 10 e4 a6 11 etJe1 b5 and White had no
play at all in Petrosian-Fischer, Buenos Aires
1971, or if 5 b4!? e5 6 bxc5 .txc5 7 d3 etJc6 8 6 t'l:ic3
g3 f5 9 tt:Jfd2 t2Jf6 10 i.g2 0-0 with a very If 6 'ifh5+ g6 7 'ifxc5 g5! traps the knight
satisfactory position for Black (Thoma- on h4, and after 8 i.c4 tt:Jd7 9 'ife3 t2Jb6 10
W esterinen, Liechtenstein 1998). i.e2 gxh4 11 i.h5+ t2Jf7 12 etJc3 i.g7 13
b) 4 d4 cxd4 5 ifxd4 e5 6 'ifd2 etJc6 7 e3 ifxe4 0-0 14 0-0-0 f5 15 'ifxh4 e5 White had
i.b4 8 c3 i.aS and White's position was silly insufficient compensation in Bagirov-Sakaev,
(Barcza-Benko, Hungary 1946) or 6 'ifh4 e5 Moscow 1992. 7 etJxg6 hxg6 8 'ifxg6+ ~d7 is
7 e3 tt:Jge7 8 i.e2 tt:Jf5 9 'ifa4 i.d7 10 i.b5 no good either.
a6 11 i.xc6 i.xc6 12 'ifg4 i.d7! 13 t2Jh4 The same should be true after 6 ..i.b5+
etJxe3 and Black went on to win in Naza- i.d7 7 'ifh5+ t2Jf7 8 etJc3 (8 'ifxc5 g5)
renus-Acs, Budapest 1995. 8... .txb5 9 t2Jxb5 g5 since if 10 t2Jf5 'ifd7
c) 4 e3 e5 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 e4 7 t2Jfd2 f5 forks the knights. In Kogan-Novikov, Ant-
8 c4 etJf6 9 etJc3 i.e6 10 cxd5 etJxd5 11 i.c4 werp 1996, White played as if he meant it
has been reached a few times. Black looks to and created a surprising amount of problems:
have gained control but there is a trick: e.g. 10 0-0-0 gxh4 11 ~he1 etJc6 12 ~xe4 i.g7

104
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 CDf3 d5 2 b3 c5

13 d4 0-0 14 l:.xh4 h6 15 l:.g4 a6 16 dxc5 18 ii.b2 CDb4 19 tDa3 axb3 20 axb3

'i¥c8 17 CLJd6! CLJxd6 18 cxd6 'i¥e6 19 'i¥g6 l!txa3 21 l!txa3?
l:.f7 20 l:.e4 'i¥c8, but now he went wrong White should at least have tried 21 iLxa3
with 21 l:.d3? (better 21 l:.h4 and 22 l:.xh6) CLJxc2+ 22 ~e2 ct:Jd4+ (if 22 ... CLJxa123 iLxc5+
21...exd6 22 l:.g3 CLJe7 23 l:.xe7 (if 23 'i¥xh6 ~e6 24 l:.xa1 keeps the pawn) 23 ~fl CLJxb3
ct:Jf5) 23 ... l:.xe7 24 'i¥xf6 'i¥f8 25 'i¥d4 l:.ae8 24 l:.a2 with some prospects of unravelling.
and Black won. 21 ... tDxc2+ 22 ~e2 tDxa3 23 i.xa3 ~d6
6 ... ~g4?! 24 .l:c1 ~c8 25 l!tc4 CDh6 26 b4 :as!
Black can try to defend the pawn in two Forcing White to capture on c5 with the
ways: 6 .. .f5 when White should play 7 f3! (if7 pawn after which Black can surround it and
'i¥h5+ ct:Jf7!) when 7 ... g5? 8 fxe4! gxh4 9 win it back.
'i¥h5+ <;£;d7 (not 9 ... ct:Jf7? 10 iLc4 e6 11 exf5) 27 bxc5+ rJi;d5 28 .l:.c3 CDf5 29 c6 CDd4+
10 ct:Jd5 l:.g8 11 exf5 looks good for White, 30~e3
while if 7 ... e5 8 g3 exf3 9 'i¥xf3 White has 30 ~d3 is no better since 30 ... l:.c8 (not
reasonable compensation for the pawn. 30 ... e4? 31 ~e3) 31 l:.c5+ ~e6 32 c7 ~d7 33
The other defence is 6 ...'i¥d4!? which also f4? is answered by 33 ... CLJe6.
threatens 7... e3. Then 7 l:.b1 iLg4 8 i.e2 30 ... rJi;e6
i.xe2 9 'i¥xe2 e3!? 10 'i¥h5+ g6 11 fxe3 Not 30 ... CLJxc6?? 31 l:.c5+ or 30 ... l:.xa3??
'i¥xd2+ 12 <;£;xd2 gxh5 is roughly equal. 31 l:.xa3 CLJc2+ 32 ~d3 CLJxa3 33 c7 and wins.
White can try 7 g3!? CLJc6 (if 7 ... e5 8 'i¥e2 f5 9 31 c7 l!tc8
0-0-0 and 10 f3) 8 'i¥e2 g5 9 0-0-0 i..g4 (not And Black regains the pawn.
9 ... gxh4? 10 CLJxe4 and ct:Jxf6+) 10 f3 exf3 11
CLJxf3 with strong play.
Instead Black tamely returns the pawn and
comes out worse.
7 ~e2 ~d7
Not now 7 ... iLxe2 8 'i¥xe2 g5? 9 CLJxe4
since 9 ... gxh4? loses to 10 CLJxf6+ ~f7 11
'i¥h5+.
8 tDxe4 e5 9 ~xg4 ~xg4
If 9 ... CLJxg4 10 f4! opens up the position
with advantage; e.g. 10 ..,.exf4 11 0-0 CLJc6
(11...g5? 12 'i¥xg4) 12 l:.xf4 CLJge5 13 l:.xf6!,
while 10 ... CLJc6 11 h3 CLJh6 12 fxe5 leaves
Black with a weak e-pawn after 12 ... CLJxe5 13 32 l!tc5
iLxe5 fxe5 14 'i¥h5+ ct:Jf7 15 0-0 or 12 .. .fxe5 Or if 32 iLb4 ct:Jb5! 33 l:.c6+ ~d7.
13 'i¥h5+ 'i¥f7 14 'i¥xf7+ and 15 0-0. 32 ... rJi;d7 33 f4 l!txc7 34 l!txc7+ ~xc7 35
1 o ~xg4 tDxg4 11 tDf5 tDd7 12 tDed6+?! ~e4 CDc6 36 f5 rJi;d7 37 g4 rJi;eS 38 rJi;d5
Thus White wins a pawn but the offside CDd8 39 ii.c5 CDf7 40 ii.e3 ~d7 41 d3 h5
knight gives Black time to organise serious 42 h3 ~-~
counterplay. Better was 12 f3 CLJh6 13 CLJxh6
gxh6 14 f4 when Black's poor structure guar- Game41
antees White a clear advantage. Bisguier-Krush
12 ... .i.xd6 13 CDxd6+ rJi;e7 14 tDxb7 a5! Second match game, Parsippany 1998
Fencing in the white knight.
15 ~c3 a4 16 CDa5 CDb6 17 CDc4 CDd5! 1 CDf3 d5 2 b3 c5 3 e4!?

105
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

preventing the intended ... .i.b4+. Here IM

Welling came up with a typically imaginative
response in 4... b6!? noticing that if 5 'i¥d5
ctJc5! 6 'i¥xa8 .i.b7 7 'i¥xa7 ctJc6 traps the
queen.
4 ctJe5 in the game is the position reversed
without ... a7-a6. The drawback is that White
is committed to the ... b7-b6 system and must
therefore forego thematic d2-d3(d4) sacri-
fices. No one seems to have tried 4 ctJg5!?-
perhaps because of 4...'i¥d4 5 ctJc3 e3!?
(Fritz).
4 ... t2Jd7
She probably wasn't expecting that! This White has several tries in the Fajarowicz.
reversed Budapest (1 d4 tt:Jf6 2 c4 e5) was W e'lllook briefly at the equivalent moves for
featured in Graham Burgess' 101 Chess Open- Black.
ing Surprises which appeared just before the a) 4...'i¥d4 5 ctJc4? 'iixal 6 .i.b2 'i¥xa2 7
start of this match. Burgess gives 3 e4 a ctJc3 fails because Black has a6 for the queen,
Soundness Rating of 3 ('fairly sound and so White plays 5 .i.b2! 'i¥xb2 6 ctJc3 (plan-
reliable') and a Surprise Rating of 5 ('bewil- ning to win the queen by either 7 ctJc4 or 7
dering for all but the best prepared oppo- a3 and Ma2) when the following appears to
nents'). Black could of course circumvent 3 be forced for both sides: 6 ... ctJc6! (not
e4 by playing 2 ... tt:Jf6. 6 ... 'i¥a3? 7 .i.b5+, 8 ctJc4) 7 .i.b5 (not 7 tt:Jc4?
3 ... dxe4 ..ig4!) 7 ... .i.e6 8 ctJxc6 (if 8 a3 0-0-0! 9 ~xc6
Not forced though obviously critical. In- bxc6 10 Ma2 'i¥xc3!) 8... a6 9 ~a4 b5 and
stead: then 9 ... 'i¥a3 10 tt:Jb 1 'i¥b2 11 ctJc3 is a draw,
a) 3 ... d4 is not as poor as in the reversed or if 9 ... b5!? 10 .i.xb5 axb5 11 Mbl 'i¥a3 12
position since b2-b3 is less than useful for ctJxb5 'i¥xa2 13 ctJc7+ \t>d7 14 ctJxa8 is un-
White. clear.
b) 3... e6 is a b2-b3 Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 tt:Jf3 b) 4... 'i¥c7 is less forcing in the reversed
e6 3 b3 d5) by a very strange route. One position since the knight on e5 can be sup-
brevity: 4 exd5 exd5 5 .i.b5+ (or 5 .i.b2) ported after 5 ..ib5+ l2Jd7 6 ~b2 or if
5... .i.d7 (5 ... ctJc6 6 .i.b2 ctJf6 7 0-0 iLe7 8 5... ..id7 6 ctJxd7 ctJxd7 7 ~b2 a6 8 ..ixd7+
ctJe5!?) 6 .i.xd7+ ctJxd7 (6 ... 'i¥xd7 7 0-0 ctJc6 .i.xd7 9 'iie2 and 9 .. .f5 (to keep the pawn) 10
8 Mel+ .i.e7 9 .i.b2 ctJf6 10 d4) 7 0-0 .i.e7 0-0 and 11 f3 gives White good play.
(7 ... .i.d6 8 .i.b2) 8 Mel \t>f8 (8 ... tt:Jgf6 9 'i¥e2) c) 4... a6 gives White a full tempo on the 4
9 d4 .i.f6 10 tt:Je5 g6? (10 ... tt:Je7) 11 'i¥g4 (or a3 b6!? variation. After 5 ..ib2 ctJf6 (or
11 ctJxd7+ 'i¥xd7 12 .i.a3) 11...ctJxe5 12 dxe5 5... ctJd7 6 'i¥h5!? g6 7 'iie2 - Fritz) 6 'i¥e2
'iie7 13 ctJc3 d4? (13 ...Md8 14 .i.f4) and tt:Jbd7 7 tt:Jxd7 and 8 .i.xf6 regains the pawn.
Black resigned before 14 tt:Jd5 was played in If 5... 'i¥c7 (preventing ctJc3) White can try 6
Oral-Koc, Koszalin 1999. a4!? tt:Jd7 (not 6 ... ctJc6 7 ctJxc6 'i¥xc6? 8
4 t2Je5 ..ib5!) 7 ctJc4 l2Jgf6 8 ctJc3 b6 9 g3! ..ib7 10
This is the idea: a reversed Fajarowicz .i.g2 when 'i¥e2, 0-0-0, Mhel regains the
with the extra move b2-b3. It stems from 1 pawn.
d4 ctJf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ctJe4!? in which the d) 4... tt:Jf6 5 .i.b5+ (if 5 ~c4!? e6!)
simple 4 a3 poses problems for Black by 5... tt:Jbd7 (or 5... .i.d7 6 ctJxd7 tt:Jbxd7 7 'i¥e2)

106
 Reversed Queen's Indian: 1 Ci:Jt3 d5 2 b3 c5

6 'ilfe2 (not 6 lZJc3? a6 7 lZJxd7 lZJxd7! 8 i.xg6) 22 'i!Vh3 followed by 23 g4; the
~xd7+ ~xd7 9 lZJxe4? ~c6 as .. .'i!Vd4! re- switchback defence 2l...i.g7 22 h5 lZJf6 23
futes the usual defences) 6... a6 7 ~xd7+ 'i!Vh3 lZJxh5? fails because of 24 i.xg6 dis-
lZJxd7 8 lZJxd7 'ilfxd7 9 lZJc3 'i\ff5 10 .tb2 covering on the queen.
and 0-0-0, ~e 1 regains the pawn.
5 il.b2
If 5 ~b5 a6! 6 ~xd7+ ~xd7 7 ~b2? ~f5
8 0-0 e6 9 f3 exf3 10 'ilfxf3 'ifc7 11 lZJaJ f6
12 g4 ~g6 13 ~fe 1 0-0-0 with a safe extra
pawn (Bloodgood-Barnsley, corr ICCF
1997). White should prefer 7lZJxd7 'ilfxd7 8
~b2 lZJf6 9 lZJc3 and 'ife2 etc. or if 8.. .f5 9
'ife2 intending lZJc3, 0-0-0, d3 with some
compensation.
5 .. .Cbgf6 6 lt:Jc4
Now if 6 i.b5?! a6 7 ~xd7+lZJxd7! White
will not get the pawn back.
6 ... b5 20 f5!
Perhaps too eager as Black cannot main- Time for action - before Black consoli-
tain the pawn on this square. West- dates her defences.
Leskiewicz, Melbourne 1998, saw instead 20 ... exf5
6... b6! 7 lZJc3 ~b7 8 'ife2 (intending 9 d3 If 20 .. .f6 White can try 21lZJg6!? hxg6 22
exd3?? 10 lZJd6 mate) 8... a6 (and if 9 d3? b5!) 'ifxe6+ ~h8 23 i.e4! (not 23 ~f3 lZJf4! or 23
9 ~g1?! (but if 9 a4 'ifc7! prevents ~g1) fxg6 f5 24 ~xf5 lZJf4!) 23 ... lZJf4! 24 l:xf4
9 ... 'i!Vc7 10 g3 bS 11lZJe3lZJe5! 12 0-0-0 lZJf3 'ifxf4 25 i.xb7 with an unclear position.
with an awful position for White. 21 i..xf5 g6?
7 lt:Je3 a6 8 a4 b4 9 d3! With the f-file now open this merely
With good diagonals for his bishops and weakens Black's position, the f6-square in
outposts for his knights White gets reason- particular. Perhaps she was short of time
able compensation for the pawn. since either 21.. ..tf6 22 lZJd7 .td4+! or
9 ... exd3 21 ... ~ad8 seems fine for Black.
Or if 9... i.b7 10 lZJd2 exd3 11 i.xd3. 22 i..e4 lt:Jf6?
1 0 il.xd3 e6 11 lt:Jd2 lt:Jb6 12 0-0 ..\:i.e 7 If 22 ... l:ad8 23 'iff3 f6 24 lZJxg6 hxg6 25
13 f4 0-0 14 'il'e2 lt:Jbd5 15 lt:Jec4 .txd5+ gets the pawn back with a clear ad-
White has two squares (c4 and e5) for his vantage as the c3-pawn will also drop in due
knights and so wants keep both. Black only course.
has one outpost (dS) so she decides swap one 23 i..xb7
off, if not for a knight then a bishop. 23 l:xf6 i.xf6 24 l:d7 also wins.
15 ... lt:Jc3 16 il.xc3 bxc3 17 lt:Jf3 i..b7 18 23 .. .'iVxb7 24 tt:Jd7 tt:Jxd7 25 'il/xe7 ~ad8
~ad1 lt:Jd5 26 .l:i.xf7!
Hitting the f-pawn and vacating f6 for the Or 26lZJd6 and 27 l:xf7.
bishop. 26 ... tt:Jf6
19 lt:Jfe5 W/ic7 Or 26 ... l:xf7 27 'ifxd8 lZJf8 28 tLid6.
A useful precaution. If 19 ... g6 20 'i!Vg4 27 lbf8+ 1-0
(planning a double sacrifice on g6) 20 ... i.f6 Krush recovered from this defeat to win
(20 ... Wg7!?) 21 h4! hS (2l...i.xh4 allows 22 the third game. The match was drawn 2-2.

107
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Summary
The reversed Queen's Indian positions are more solid for Black than the reversed Nimzo-
Indians; 'considerably less taxing' as Keene put it. Less taxing theoretically, that is. For Black,
adopting a defensive formation which can transpose to a new opening at White's every whim
is not necessarily easy to play - or to study.
The most solid, or least ambitious, system is 4 ... e6, but this doesn't mean that White can
play ass/he pleases. Black's pieces develop rapidly to sensible squares and can quickly punish
imprudent play, as shown by Games 36 and 37. Regarding4 ... ~g4 (Game 38): if Black wants
to develop the bishop to this square s/he would probably be better to adopt a different move
order- either 2 ... lt:Jf6 3 e3 ~g4 (as in the next chapter) or 2 ... ~g4 (see Chapter 7).
The reversed Fajarowicz (Game 41) is worth trying once at least. White shouldn't bank on
playing it regularly anyway since it is only possible when Black plays ... d7-d5 and ... c7-cS on the
first two moves, and s/he doesn't do that very often.

1 ~f3 d5 2 b3 c5 (D)

3 e3
3 ~b2 f6 - Game 40
3 e4- Game41
3 ... ~f6
3 ... a6- Game 39
4 ii..b2 (D)e6
4 ... g6- Game35
4 ... jl,g4 - Game 38
5 c4
5 ctJeS - Game 36
5 ... ~c6 (D)- Game 37

2 ... c5 4kb2 5 ... lt:Jc6

108
 CHAPTER SIX I
Black plays 1 ... d 5, 2 ... ctJf6
but not ... c7-c5

1 CLJf3 d5 2 b3 CLJf6 In turn White also has to bear in mind

One of the advantages of playing Black is that Black may play ... c7 -c5 after all, taking
that there is no theoretical obligation to ob- the game back into the reversed Queen's
tain an advantage out of the opening (or even Indian positions of Chapter 5.
to play for a win). Therefore there is no need First of all (Games 42 and 43) we look at
to build an imposing centre with ... d7-d5 and the ... ltg4 main lines with 3... i.g4 4 e3. In
... c7-c5 (as in the previous two chapters) - Game 44 White tries to change the course of
Black can be content with a solid position play by not playing e2-e3. Games 45 and 46
with just one central pawn and support this feature 3... i.f5, Games 47 and 48 the super
by ... e7-e6 and if necessary ... c7-c6. Psycho- solid 3... e6. Against ... i.f5 and ... e7-e6 we
logically this is quite a good ploy: hypermod- consider traditional responses for White and
ern chess is largely about counterattacking also f2-f4 (i.e. White has not played LDf3).
and it's hard to counterattack if your oppo- 3... ltf5 4 f4 has some extra relevance from
nent does not first of all attack. the variation 1 b3 d5 2 i.b2 i.g4 3 f3!?
The universal nature of l...d5, 2 ... lt:Jf6 (Game 49 in the next chapter) when if
means Black must again be prepared for 3... i.f5 White will follow with f3-f4 reaching
numerous transpositions depending on how the same positions.
White sets up: c2-c4 leads to the English Black's fourth major option, 3... g6, is not
Opening, d2-d4 creates Colle positions or, if considered in this chapter. When Black plays
both c2-c4 and d2-d4 are played, then a ... g7-g6 s/he usually also plays ... c7-c5 reach-
Queen's Gambit; g2-g3 is either a double ing Game 35 (Chapter 5); lines without ... c7-
fianchetti Reti (with e2-e4 in mind) or an- c5 are given in Game 60 (Chapter 8).
other English (if c2-c4 follows); if White has
not already played ttJf3 then s/he also has Game42
the option of f2-f4 taking the game into Miles-Godena
Bird's Opening. This mass of move order Havana 1999
subtleties can be a nightmare so it may be
sensible not to play this way unless you al- 1 CLJf3 d5 2 b3 CLJf6 3 i.b2 ..ig4
ready have knowledge of a particular forma- Black develops the bishop outside the
tion (e.g. English or Semi-Slav structures). pawn chain, where it contributes in the fight

109
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

for the key e5-square, and will usually follow 4 e3 t2Jbd7

with ...ct:Jbd7, ... e7-e6, ... .td6 (in some order). Supposing Black hasn't already placed the
Godena in fact played 3... c6, waiting for queen's knight on d7 (2 ... .tg4 3 .tb2 lt.Jd7)
e2-e3 before playing ... .tg4, while keeping or played ... c7-c6 (2 ... ctJf6 3 i.b2 c6) it is
options of ... e7-e5 in one go, or ... .tf5 (as in possible to put it on c6 (after ... c7-c5) achiev-
Game 45), or a Semi-Slav formation with ing a reversed Queen's Indian formation
... e7-e6 (as per Game 47). If desired, White while avoiding any i.b5+ ideas; e.g. 4 ... e6 5
can then avoid the 4 e3 .tg4 lines by 4 g3 h3 .i.h5 and then:
.tg4 5 .tg2 ct:Jbd7 6 d3 e6 7 ct:Jbd2leading to a) 6 .i.e2 c5 7 0-0 ctJc6 8 d4!? l:rc8 9 ct:Jbd2
a Reti; or else 4 d3!? .tg4 5 ct:Jbd2 ct:Jbd7 6 e4 cxd4 10 exd4 '.i.d6 11 c4 0-0 12 lt.Je5 .i.xe2
e5 7 .te2 .td6 8 h3 .te6 9 0-0 0-0 10 exd5 13 'i¥xe2 'i¥e7 14 ctJxc6 l:rxc6 15 c5 .i.b8 16
cxd5 11 c4 d4 12 l:re1 aS 13 .tfl 'i¥c7 14 a3 b4 (with a strong position) 16 ... ~cc8 17 l:rfe1
l:rfe8 15 l:rb1 b6 16 .tel ctJc5 17 'i¥c2 .td7 iV c7 18 g3 l:rce8 19 l:iacl lt.Jd7 20 b5 f5 21
18 lt.Jg5 .tc6 19 lt.Jde4 lt.Jfxe4 20 ctJxe4 c6 lt.Jf6 22 .ta3 l:rf7 23 lt.Jf3 ctJe4 24 ctJe5
ctJxe4 21 dxe4 'i¥e7 22 'i¥b2 h6 23 .td3 l:rf6 25 'i¥h5 g6 26 i¥h4 iVaS 27 l:rxe4 fxe4
l:reb8 24 l:ra1 b5 and Black went on to win in 28 'i¥xf6 .i.xe5 29 'i¥xe5 ~xa3 30 l:rc5 b6! 31
Norwood-Murshed, Dhaka 1993. l:rxd5? (31 c7 bxc5 32 c8'i¥ l:rxc8 33 'ifxe6+ is
Black can play similarly against 1 b3; i.e. a draw) 3l...e3! 32 l:rd7 exf2+ 33 ~h2 'iff8
l...d5 2 .tb2 lt.Jf6 3 e3 c6!? intending 4 lt.Jf3 0-1 Tartakower-Rethy, Ujpest 1934.
i.g4. Instead White has 4 f4 i.g4 5 lt.Jf3 (5 b) 6 d3 c5 7 lt.Jbd2 ctJc6 8 i.e2 h6 9 ctJe5!?
.te2) 5... e6 6 .te2 (6 h3) 6 ... ct:Jbd7 7 0-0 .tel .i.xe2 10 'ifxe2 ctJxe5 11 .i.xe5 .i.d6 12 .i.b2
8 ctJe5 (terribly dull) 8... .txe2 9 'i¥xe2 0-0 10 0-0 (White has nothing but wins anyway) 13
d3 ctJxe5 11 fxe5 lt.Jd7 12 'i¥g4 'i¥c7 13 i¥f4 c4 l:re8 14 0-0 e5 15 cxd5 ctJxd5 16 'iff3 .i.c7
f6 14 exf6 'i¥xf4 15 exf4 i.c5+ 16 d4 i.d6 17 17 l:rfd 1 b6 18 ctJe4 'ife7 19 l:iacl l:rad8 20
.ta3 i.xa3 18 ctJxa3 ctJxf6 19 l:rae 1 l:rfe8 a3 l:rd7 21 ctJg3 'if e6 22 .i.a 1 l:red8 23 d4
with an equal position (fait-F.Gobet, Notts exd4 24 exd4 .tf4 25 l:rb1 'ifg6?! (25 ... cxd4)
League 2000). Or 4 i.e2 when 4... .tf5 5 g4!? 26 dxc5 .i.xg3 27 fxg3 bxc5 28 ~h2 lt.Jb6 29
.te4 6 f3 i.g6 7 h4 h5 8 g5 lt.Jfd7 9 f4 e6 10 l:rxd7 l:rxd7 30 l:re1 l:rd3 31 'iff4 l:rxb3? 32
lt.Jf3 aS 11 a4 ctJa6 12 ~f2 ctJac5 13 d3 'i¥b6 'i¥b8+ ~h7 33 l:re8 'ifd3 34 l:rh8+ ~g6 35
14 lt.Jbd2 0-0-0 (Zurek-Polak, Czech League .txg7 lt.Jd7? 36 l:rxh6+! 1-0 Miles-Law, 4NCL
1998) was rather more fun. Of course other 2000.
moves are possible for Black; e.g. 4... g6, 4... e6 In both cases 6... lt.Jbd7 would transpose
or 4... h6!?. to the main line positions in Game 43 ..
5 .lie2
5 h3 is Game 43.
5 ... c6
Miles-Godena started 3 ... c6 4 e3 .i.g4 5
.te2 lt.Jbd7 and only transposes at this point.
By our move order Black more usually plays
5... e6 when 6 d3 .i.d6 7 ct:Jbd2 c6 is the next
note, or White can play 6 h3 and then:
a) 6 ... i.xf3 7 .i.xf3 .i.d6 8 c4 c6 9 0-0 0-0
10 d4 b5 11 ctJd2 .i.b4 12 'ifc2 bxc4 13 bxc4
.i.xd2!? 1'4 'ifxd2 lt.Jb6 15 .i.e2 ctJe4 16 'ifc2
f5 17 l:racl 'ifh4 18 .i.a3 l:rfe8 19 i.d3 l:rac8
20 f3 'ifg3 21 ~h1 lt.Jf6 22 .i.b4 dxc4 23

110
 Black Plays 1 ... 0·J6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

i..xc4 lt:Jbd5 24 i..d2 'iig6 25 l:.fe1 'iif7 26 'iia6 15 f3 i..f8 16 l:.ae1 g6 17 'iig2 i..g7 18
e4 and the bishops told in the end in T ai- g4 tt:Jf8 19 f4 exf4 20 l:.xf4 lt:Jxe4 21 i..xg7
manov-Garcia Palermo, Buenos Aires 1980. lt:Jxd2 22 l:.xe8 l:.xe8 23 'iixd2 and now if
b) 6... i..h5 and now 7 d3 is 6 i..e2 in 23 ... ~xg7 24 'iic3+ ~g8 25 'iif6 is very
Game 43. Otherwise 7 lt:Je5!? i..xe2 8 'iixe2 strong, so Black played 23 ... lt:Je6?! in Blatny-
i..d6 9 lt:Jxd7 ifxd7 10 c4 c6 11 0-0 0-0-0!? I.Sokolov, New York Open 1997, when 24
12 lt:Jc3 i..c7 13 d4 h5 14 c5 g5 15 b4 h4 16 l:.a4 and 25 i..f6 would have won.
b5 l:.dg8 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 f3 lt:Jh5 19 e4 f5 7 ... ~xf3
20 exd5 exd5 21 l:.ae 1 g4 22 hxg4 fxg4 23 If Black retreats 7... i..h5 8 lt:Jbd2 h6! is
fxg4 l:.xg4 24 lt:Jxd5 h3! and Black won in similar to the next game (with 8 ~e2); e.g. 9
Nimzowitsch-Vidmar, New York 1927. Or a3 i..d6 10 c4 i..g6 11 d4 lt:Je4 12 0-0 0-0 13
else 7 c4 c6 transposes to an English (A 12). lt:Jxe4 dxe4 14 tt:Jd2 c5 15 b4 cxd4 16 i..xd4
Ljubojevic-Kramnik, Linares 1993, continued b6 17 l:.cl 'ii'e7 18 'iic2 e5 19 ~c3 f5 20
8 0-0 i..d6 9 lt:Jc3 0-0 10 cxd5 exd5!? l:.fd1l:.ad8 with a complicated game in Tai-
(10 ... cxd5 was perhaps too equal for Kram- manov-Smyslov, Moscow 1979.
nik) 11 lt:Jd4 i..xe2 12 lt:Jcxe2l:.e8 13 d3 lt:Jf8 8 ~xf3 ~d6 9 ctJd2 'W/e7
14 'iid2 aS 15 a3 lt:Je6 16 lt:Jf5 (the drawback After Black has lined up the queen and
of ... e6xd5) 16 ... i..f8 17 b4 and White was bishop White usually advances the a-pawn to
more active (though Kramnik drew without prevent ... i..a3; e.g. 10 a4 (10 a3) 10 ... a5 11
much difficulty). 0-0 0-0 12 'iie2 e5 13 e4 d4 when White
6 d3 e6 switched to a King's Indian Attack: 14 g3!?
i..b4 15 i..g2 lt:Je8 16 h4 lt:Jc7 17 lt:Jf3 b5 18
h5 lt:Je6 19 i..h3 l:.fb8 20 lt:Jh4 i..c3?!
(20 ... bxa4) 21 ~xc3 dxc3 22 ~xe6 fxe6 23
'iig4 bxa4 24l:.xa4 lt:Jb6 25l:.aa1 a4 26 bxa4
l:.xa4 27 tt:Jf3 with a clear advantage in
U.Andersson-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1971.
Miles decides not to waste time on pro-
phylaxis.
10 0-0 ~a3 11 'W/c1 ~xb2 12 'Wixb2
A not uncommon manoeuvre in this
opening. The queen takes on the role of the
fianchettoed bishop while supporting a later
queenside pawn advance and clearing the
7 h3!? back rank for the rooks.
In this exact position 7 h3 seems to be 12 ... 0-0 13 c4
new. Previously White played 7 lt:Jbd2 i..d6 Black will continue ... e6-e5 and can be sat-
and then: isfied with his position, except that he lacks
a) 8 a3 'iie7 9 0-0 (9 c4 is another English) an active plan. It is difficult for him to ad-
9... 0-0 10 lt:Jd4 i..xe2 11 'iixe2 c5 12 ltJ4f3 e5 vance further in the centre without creating a
13 e4 b5 14 exd5 lt:Jxd5 15 g3 a6 16 l:.fe1 weakness; while if Black exchanges ... d5xc4
l:.fe8 17 lt:Jh4 'iie6 18 'iif3 g6 19 'iig2 i..e7 to open the d-file, then either b3xc4 gives
20 tt:Jhf3 i..f6 and White made no headway White a central majority and the b-file, or
in Nimzowitsch-Spielmann, San Remo 1930. lt:Jxc4 prepares a minority attack with b3-b4.
b) 8 lt:Jh4!? i..xe2 9 'iixe2 0-0 10 g3 l:.e8 White, on the other hand, can build up on
11 0-0 'iia5 12 a3 l:.ad8 13 e4 e5 14 ~h1 the c-file or advance on the queenside with

111
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

a2-a3 and b3-b4, while the bishop may come 'iixd7 29 g3 'iia4?!
in handy for the endgame. It looks as if Black is getting short of time.
13 ... .l::tfd8 14 .ie2 He should seize the c-file by 29 ... ~c8 and
In anticipation of d5xc4 or ... e5-e4. ... ~c3. Now White takes control.
14 ... h6 15 .l::tac1 .l::tac8 16 !!c2 e5 17 30 'iic1 !!e8?! 31 !!xe8+ 'iixe8 32 ..tg2
cxd5
Otherwise 17... d4 when White's pieces
would be misplaced.
17 ... cxd5
After 17.. /2Jxd5 White can build his initia-
tive by 18 a3 intending b3-b4, while if 18 ... c5
19 ~fc1 ~c6 (vs. 20 b4) White can probe by
ctJc4-a5 and .i.f3 or .i.g4.
18 .l::tfc1 !!xc2 19 nxc2
Not 19 "ifxc2 when Black can challenge
the c-file by 19 ... ctJb6 and 20 ... ~c8; e.g. 20
"iic7 ~xc7 21 ~xc7 ~c8! since 22 ~xb7
drops a piece after 22 ... ~c2.
19 ... t2Jb8 The exchange of rooks has helped White.
Now if 19 ... Ci:Jb6 20 ~cl ~d7 (intending Queen and knight often combine better than
21 ~c7 ~c8!) 21 Ci:Jf3! distracts Black from queen and bishop, but not here. The knight
his plan, so instead he reroutes his knight to has nowhere to go, while the bishop gazes at
close the c-file. the weak pawns on the queenside.
20 b4 a6 21 a3 t2Jc6 22 t2Jb3 32 .. J!Ve2!?
Intending ctJc5 with the threat of ctJxa6. A try for counterplay. Against 32 ... ~b5,
22 ... d4 23 exd4 exd4 intending 33 ~c8+? Wh7 34 ~xb7 "ifxd3 35
23 ... ct:Jxd4?! cedes the c-file after 24 Ci:Jxd4 'iVxf7 ~d1+ 36 Wh2 d3 when the d-pawn
~xd4 25 ~c8+ Wh7 26 ~c2. If Black tries draws the game, White plays 33 ~c4! with a
26 ... ct:Jd5, covering c7 and planning 27 ~b~ winning endgame if Black exchanges queens,
Ci:Jf4! 28 .i.f3 "iig5 29 "iic8 LLlxd3 or 28 ~f1 otherwise infiltrating on the queenside; e.g.
b5 29 "iic8 "iif6, then 27 ~f3! when 27 ... 4:Jf4 33 ... 'iVd7 34 "iic5 (intending 'iVb6) 34 ... b5 35
28 .i.e4+ g6 29 ~b8 "iig5? now loses to 30 'ifb6 'iVc8 36 Wh2 and a6 or d4 falls.
'iVc8, while the exchange sacrifice 28 ... ~xe4 33 ~c8+ ~h7 34 ~f5+ ~g8 35 ..txb7
29 dxe4 "iig5 is insufficient after 30 g3 h4! 36 g4 ~b2 37 g5?!
ctJxh3+ 31 Wfl 'iVg4 32 ~c3. Otherwise Possibly both players were in time trouble,
White infiltrates with 27 ... 'iVd7 28 'iVc5 in- because this move allows Black counterplay.
tending ~f8, or 27 .. .f5 28 ~b8 e4?! 29 dxe4 Instead not 37 .i.xa6?? 'iVcl+ 38 Wh2 ~c7+
fxe4 30 kg4. and draws, but first 37 'iVc8+! Wh7 38 .i.xa6
24 ..tf1 'ifxa3 39 kc4 'iVxb4 40 g5 and then if
Intending to bring the bishop to the long 40 ... 4:Jh5 41 'iVf5+ Wh8 42 ~xf7 wins.
diagonal by g2-g3 and ~g2. The immediate 37 ... t2Jh5 38 ~g2?!
24 .i.f3 would be answered by 25 ctJe5. Better 38 'ifc8 Wh7 39 ~e4 g6 40 'ifxa6
24 ... h5 25 t2Jc5 t2Je5 when after 40 ..."ifcl+ 41 Wg2 4:Jf4+ 42 Wf3
Answering the threat of 26 CLlxa6 and also 4:Jxh3 43 'iff6 'ifd1+ 44 Wg2 'i¥g4+ 45 Wh2
preventing 26 g3 (26 ... CLlf3+). CLlxg5 46 .i.g2 defends (46 ... h3 47 ~d5) and
26 .l:.e2 VJic7 27 VJid2 t2Jed7 28 t2Jxd7 White can advance the queenside pawns.

112
 Black Plays 1 .. .t'Df6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

38 ... g6 39 ~e5 1-0 aS (if 1l...f6 12 g6! hxg6 13 h6) 12 a3 a4 13

Presumably Black's flag fell as he is not
b4 etJa6 14 d4 c6 15 c4 eS? 16 cxdS exd4 17
clearly losing yet, due to the trick 39 ...'ili'xa3
jLxd4 cS 18 bxcS etJaxcS 19 etJc4 etJb3 20
40 ~xd4 'ili'xd3! 41 'ili'xd3 lt:Jf4+ 42 ~f3
jLd3 jLcS (if 20 ...lt:Jxa1 21 'ili'e4 g6 22 hS
etJcS 23 hxg6!) 21 jLcJ bS 22 jLxh7+! ~xh7
lt:Jxd3 and ... lt:Jxb4, or if 41 'ili'xh4 'ili'bS 42
i.f3 lt:Jg7. 23 'ili'h5+ ~g8 24 jLxg7! ~xg7 25 'ili'h6+~g8
-------------- 26 g6 tt.Jf6 27 .:g1 'ili'xdS 28 g7 1-0.
Game 43 c) 6... c6 is more flexible, keeping the op-
Conquest-Fiear tion of ... e7-e5; e.g. 7 d3 eS is in the previous
Hastings Premier 1996/97 note. Or if 7 g4!? eS (7 ... e6 8 h4 h6) 8 gS lt:Je4
. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. 9 h4 jLb4 (9 ... jLd6 10 d3 'ili'a5+) 10 jLh3
1 tt:Jt3 d5 2 b3 tt:Jt6 3 ii..b2 ii..g4 4 e3 'ili'e7 11 ~xd7+ 'ili'xd7 12 jLxeS 0-0 13 a3
tt:Jbd7 5 h3 jLaS 14 b4 jLcl 15 jLxc7 'ili'xc7 with coun-
terplay against the loose pawn structure (.. .f7-
f6, ... c6-c5, or ... a6-a5), and exchanging
queens made things worse for White: 16
'ili'f4? 'ili'xf4 17 exf4 .:ae8 18 ~fl f6 19 d3
tt.Jd6 20 lt:Jc3 fxgS 21 fxgS Lt:Jfs 22 ~g2 lt:Jd4
23 .:act .:f4 24 ~f1 .:ef8 25 lt:Jd1 Lt:Jfs 26
.:h3 tt.Jxh4 and Black went on to win in
Taimanov-Davies, Gausdal1992.
6 d3
If 6 jLe2 e6 7 d3 Black's safest is 7... h6! 8
tt.Jbd2 reaching the note to White's eighth
move. Black does have to take a little care
about g2-g4; e.g.
Asking the question of the bishop before a) 7 ... jLd6 8 lt:Jbd2 (or 8 g4 ~g6 9 gS!
committing to a particular plan. If the bishop lt:JhS 10 .:g1 - Yusupov) 8...'ili'e7 9 a3 0-0?!
drops back to hS White has the possibility of (9 ... h6) 10 g4 jLg6 11 h4! etJxg4 (or 11...h5 12
a later g2-g4. However, it does oblige White gxhS jLxhs 13 tt.JgS .txe2 14 'ili'xe2 - T ai-
to recapture with the queen in the event of manov) 12 hS .tfs 13 e4 dxe4?! (13 ... .tc5 14
... jLxf3, which is why some players prefer 5 d4 dxe4 15 dxcS e3! or 14 lt:Jd4 'ili'f6 15 exfS
~e2. The alternative 5 d3, planning tt.Jbd2 tt.Jxf2! obtaining three pawns for the piece)
before h2-h3, allows Black to play S... eS, e.g. 14 dxe4 .tcS 15 tt.Jd4 tt.JdeS?! (15 ...'ili'f6) 16
6 h3 .i.xf3 7 'ili'xf3 c6 8 tt.Jd2 ~d6 9 g3 'ili'e7 exfS exfS 17 ~fl .:ad8 18 c3 .:fe8 19 .:h3
10 .i.g2 jLaJ 11 jLxaJ 'ili'xaJ 12 0-0 0-0 13 c4 (19 etJ2f3) 19 ... g6 20 b4 .td6 21 f4? (21 ~c2)
.:fe8 and Black was OK in Helgason-Van 21...etJf3! 22 .:xf3? (22 etJc4 lt:Jgh2+ draws)
der Wiel, Dutch Championship 2000. 22 ...'ili'h 4! and White got mated in T aimanov-
5 ... ii..h5 Vorotnikov, USSR 1978.
Or 5... jLxf3 6 'ili'xf3 when Black has three b) 7 ... c6 8 tt.Jbd2 a5 9 a3 .td6 (9 ... h6) 10
possibilities: g4 .tg6 11 gS! tt.Jhs 12 .:g1 h6 13 lt:Jh4 hxgS
a) 6 ... e5!? transposes 2 ... ~g4 3 e3 eS in the 14 etJxg6 fxg6 15 tt.Jf3 .tel 16 c4 .tf6 17 d4
next chapter (Game 54). 'ili'e7 18 'ili'c2 .:h6 19 .td3 eS? (19 ... etJf8) 20
b) 6 ... e6 when White can try 7 g4!? ~d6 8 .txg6+ ~f8 21 cxdS cxdS 22 ~fS (22 dxeS
gS lt:Je4 9 h4, as in Taimanov-Shashin, USSR etJxeS 23 lt:JxeS .txeS 24 'ili'fS+ .tf6 25 .:xgS
1978, which saw 9 ... 0-0 10 d3 etJecS 11 tt.Jd2 wins) 22 ... exd4 23 .txd4? (23 .:xgS)

113
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

23 ... ttJf4! 24 ~xgS ~g8 25 ~g3? (25 ~g4) 'ifxdS cxdS 22 ~fcl Y2-Y2 Salov-Anand, Ma-
25 ... .i.xd4 26 ctJxd4 ~f8 27 'i¥c2 ctJxg6 28 drid 1993.
.:xg6 ~xh3 29 ~gl Y2-Y2 Miles-Webster, b) 8... .i.e7!? 9 c4 c6 10 0-0 0-0 11 e4 dxe4
4NCL 1999. 12 dxe4 .i.xf3 13 i.xf3 'ifc7 14 a3 ~fd8 15
6 ... h6 'ifc2 ctJeS 16 i.e2 i.cS 17 b4 .td4 18 ~adl
The most solid and flexible move, prepar- .i.xb2 19 'ifxb2 cS 20 f4 ttJd3 21 .i.xd3
ing a retreat for the bishop. Otherwise White ~xd3 22 eS ttJhS 23 ~cl ~d4 24 ctJb3 ~xf4
might hunt the bishop down with g2-g4 and 25 ctJxcS b6 26 ctJd3 ~xc4 and Black was
ctJh4; e.g. 6... e6 7 g4 .i.g6 8 ctJh4 .i.b4+ 9 c3 better in Miles-Volzhin, V aradero 2000.
(9 ctJd2 ctJe4!?) 9... .i.d6 10 ctJxg6 hxg6 11 8 ... ii.e7
.i.g2 (Chiburdanidze-Alexandria, match Nimzowitsch-Marshall, New York 1927,
1981) or 7 ttJbd2 .i.d6 (7 ... h6) 8 g4 .i.g6 9 saw instead 8... .tb4 9 g4 i.g6 10 ctJeS!? (bet-
ctJh4 'ife7 10 a3 0-0-0 11 .i.g2 c6 12 'ife2 ter 10 a3) lO ... ctJxeS 11 i.xeS i.d6 12 ttJf3
ctJe8 13 ctJxg6 hxg6 (Granda Zuniga-Magem 'ife7 13 i.g2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 .i.xeS 15 ctJxeS
Badals, Buenos Aires 1996), though Black is i.h7 16 c4!? ctJd7 (16 ... dxc4) 17 ctJxd7 ~xd7
OK even so. 18 cxdS exdS 19 'ifb2 fS with an open game
7t"bbd2 e6 (later drawn).
The move order of Conquest-Flear was Korchnoi-Novikov, Antwerp 1997, was
2... .i.g4!? 3 .i.b2 ctJd7 4 e3 e6 5 d3 ttJgf6 6 also interesting: 8... a5 9 a3 a4 10 b4 cS 11
ctJbd2 h6 7 h3 .i.hS and only now trans- bxcS i.xcS 12 g4 i.g6 13 .i.g2 'ifb6 14 1:ta2
poses. 0-0 15 0-0 1:tfc8 161:tb1 'ifa6 17 ttJfl i.e7 18
8 ife2!? ctJg3 ~c7 19 .tal ~ac8 20 ttJd4 eS 21 ttJgfS
i.xfS 22 ctJxfS i.f8 23 ctJg3 'ife6 24 d4
exd4?! (24 ... e4) 25 i.xd4 ctJe4 26 ctJhS ctJc3
27 i.xc3 1:txc3 28 ctJf4 'if a6 29 i.xdS ctJf6?
30 1:txb7 'ifxe2 31 i.xf7+ ~h8 32 ctJxe2 and
White won.
9 g4 ii.g6 10 ~g1 !?
Rather than develop routinely by 10 i.g2,
White starts an initiative on the kingside.
Now that g2-g4 has been played, e3-e4 is at
best premature: after 10 e4?! dxe4 11 dxe4 c6
White's position is specious: if 12 eS ctJdS
eyes f4, or 12 c4? ctJcS gets the e-pawn (not
13 eS? ctJd3 + ), or 12 0-0-0 'ifc7 13 i.g2 0-0-
As first essayed by Nimzowitsch. The .i.fl 0 and it is hard to see a plan for White.
can be developed on g2 after g2-g4 (or g3), 10 .. .c6 11 h4 ifc7 12 g5 hxg5 13 hxg5
while the queen supports an advance in the t"bh5 14 .il.g2?!
centre by e3-e4 and makes way for long cas- Better was 14 ctJh4 to exchange the ... i.g6
tling. (14 ... .th7? drops the ttJhS). Developing the
After 8 .i.e2 White has struggled to find bishop to g2 enables Black to answer ctJf3-h4
even the initiative; e.g. by ... ttJh5-f4. With 14 t2Jh4 t2Jf4? 15 'i¥g4
a) 8... .i.g6 9 ctJeS ctJxeS 10 .i.xeS .i.d6 11 forces the knight to go away again.
ctJf3 0-0 12 0-0 'ife7 13 c4 aS 14 'ifc2 ctJd7 14 ... 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 'itb8 16 llh 1
15 .i.xd6 'ifxd6 16 a3 ctJeS 17 ctJxeS 'ifxeS Not now 16 ctJh4? ctJf4! etc., while if 16
18 cxdS 'iYxdS 19 b4 c6 20 'ifcS ~fd8 21 ~h 1 eS 17 ctJh4 Black can take on gS.

114
 Black Plays 1 .. .ti:Jf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c 7-c5

16 ... e5 17 ~b1 ..51.f5 25 ... .ia3+ 26 ~b 1 .ie7 repeats again.

Planning to return the bishop to g4. 26 ..51.f3
16 ... .if5? was refuted by 17 ctJgl! ctJe5 (not 26 i.xd5?! i.xe3 27 fxe3 cxd5 leaves
17 ... g6? 18 .ixh8 or 17 ... .ig6? 18 .if3) 18 Black with the superior minor piece in the
Mxh5 .ig4 19 Mxh8 .ixe2 20 Mxd8+ and 21 endgame.
ctJxe2 with rook, bishop and knight for the 26 .. J1xf2 27 .ixe2 .ixe3 28 ~d1! ~xe2
queen. 29 ~xe2 .ixg1 30 ctJf3!
With ... e6-e5 inserted 18 ctJgl is met sim- Trapping the bishop, but Black gets a
ply by 18 ... g6 since the long diagonal is third pawn and the only winning chances
closed. Black has also calculated the follow- go mg.
ing trick correctly: 30 ... i.xd4 31 ct:Jxd4 c5!?
Hecht suggests 3l...~d6. The text leads to
an odd finish with the black king chasing the
knight around the board.
32 ct:Jb5+ ~c6 33 ct:Jxa7+ ~b6 34 ct:Jc8+
~c7 35 ct:Je7 ~d6 36 ct:Jc8+
The knight can't escape via the kingside
either; i.e. 36 ctJg8 ~e5 37 ctJh6 f5 38 ~f3
~f6 39 ~f4! (otherwise Black wins the
knight) 39 ... g5+and40 ... ~g6 41 ctJg8 ~f7 42
ctJh6+ ~g6 etc. Even an extra tempo doesn't
help White: 37 ~f3 f5 38 ~f4 ~f7 39 4Jh6+
~f6 and 40 ... g5+, 4l...~g6 etc.
36 ... ~c7 37 ct:Ja7 ~b6 38 ct:Jc8+ ~c7
18 ct:Jxe5 ct:Jxe5 19 ~xh5 Y2- Y2
Not 19 .ixe5?? 'ii'xe5 20 Mxh5 'ii'c3 and
2l...i.a3. Game44
19 ... ..51.g4! Blatny-Narciso Dublan
Forcing the sequence: Budapest 1999
20 ..51.xe5 ..51.xe2 21 .ltxc7+ ~xc7 22
~xh8 ~xh8 23 ~9 1 1 ctJf3 ctJf6 2 b3 d5 3 il.b2 .ltg4 4 ctJh4!?
On 23 Mel Black still plays 23 ... Mh2 and if An attempt to avoid normal lines. White
24 .ixd5 .ixd3. plans to harry the bishop on g4 with h2-h3
23 ... ~h2 24 d4 and g2-g4.
If White tries to defend the g5-pawn by 24 Hodgson-Speelman, British Champion-
f4? he loses more after 24 ... .ic5! 25 d4 i.b4 ship 2000, saw another try: 4 i.xf6!? (a
26 ct:Jfl (not 26 ~cl? i.xd2+ 27 ~xd2 i.f3) pseudo-Trompowsky) 4... gxf6 5 e3 i.g7 6 h3
26 ... Mxg2 27 Mxg2 i.xfl with two bishops i.xf3 7 ifxf3 f5 8 d4 c5!? 9 c3 (here 9 ifxf5
for the rook, and by forcing d3-d4 Black has cxd4 10 'ii'g4 0-0 11 exd4 ctJc6 12 c3 e5! 13
given the i.fl an escape route after 28 Mh2. dxe5 ctJxe5 is asking for trouble; e.g. 14 ifdl
24 ... g6 d4! or 14 'ii'g3 Me8) 9... ctJc6 10 i.b5 ifa5 11
Now if 24 ... i.b4 White is safe to play 25 .ixc6+ bxc6. Now Norwood analysed 12
~c 1 as the f-pawn is still on f2, and Black ifxf5 to an improbable forced draw:
has nothing better than a repetition by 12 ... cxd4 13 exd4 i.xd4! 14 b4 'ii'b6 15 cxd4
25 ... i.a3+ 26 ~b 1 .ib4 etc. ifxd4 16 ifc2 ifxal 17 ifxc6+ ~f8 18
25 ~c1 ..51.xg5!? ifxa8+ ~g7 19 ifxd5 ifxbl+ 20 ~e2 ifxhl

115
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

21 'ifg5+ ~f8 22 'ifh6+ ~e8 23 'ifc6+ etc. side dark squares look weak after 10 ... 'Llxd5
Instead White played 12 0-0 e6 13 a3? (better (intending ... 'Llf4 or ... 'ifh4); e.g. 11 ctJc3 (11
was 13 ~cl intending 'Lld2) 13 ... ~b8! 14 b4 e3 'Lldb4) 11...'ifh4 12 e3 'Llf4! 13 ~xc6
cxb4 15 cxb4 ~xb4 16 axb4 'ifxa1 17 'ifg3 bxc6 14 'ifc2 0-0-0 when White's light
0-0 18 'ifc7 'ifb2 19 'ifxa7 f4! 20 exf4 'if xb4 squares look weak as well.
21 ~d1 'ifb3 22 ~cl 'ifb2 23 'ifa3 ~b8 24 f5 10 'ik'c1!
'ifxa3 25 'Llxa3 ~b3 26 'Llb 1 ~xd4 27 fxe6 White intends to answer 10 ... 'Llxg4 with
fxe6 28 'Lld2 ~b2 29 'Llf3 ~xf2+ 0-1. 11 cxd5 when Black has three pieces en prise.
Hodgson recovered from this defeat to Amazingly the sacrifice may still be playable,
score 8'l-2/9 in the remaining rounds and win i.e. 10 ... 'Llxg4!? 11 cxd5 ~xf2+ and then:
the Championship. He didn't play any more a) 12 ~f1? 'Lld4! 13 hxg4 ~xh1+ 14 ~xh1
games with b2-b3 though. 'iff6 (intending 15 ... ~g3+ 16 i.f3 'Llxf3 and
wins) 15 ~g2 'iff4 16 'ifc3 0-0-0 17 'ifh3
'Llxe2! (intending ... ~g3) 18 'iff3 i.d4! 19
~c3 'ifh6 (intending ... ~h8) 20 ~fl 'ifh2
and ... 'Llg3+ wins.
b) 12 ~d1 'Lle3+! 13 dxe3 'ifg5 with a
dangerous initiative; e.g. 14 ~f3 i.xe3 15
'ifc4 ~h4 16 ~g4 ~d8 17 ~e1 'Lld4 18
'ifxc7 'Llc2+! 19 'ifxc2 'ifxg4 20 'ifd3 ~xh3
or 18 ~fl 'Llc2+! 19 'ifxc2 ~xg4 20 hxg4
~xd5 intending ... 'ifh4+ and wins.
Better 14 ~e4! ~xe3 15 'ifc4 0-0-0 16
h4!? (if 16 ~c2 'Lld4+ 17 ~xd4 ~xd4 18
ctJc3 f5 19 ~f3 ~xc3 20 'ifxc3 e4 21 ~ag1
4 ... tt:Jc6 'ife7 22 ~g2 ~xd5) 16 ...'iff4 (not
With the white knight having left f3, Black 16 ... ~xh4?? 17 ~xh4 'ifxh4 18 ~f5+) 17
takes control of e5. Instead 4... c5 5 h3 ~d7 6 ~g2 'ifg3 18 'ife4 f5 19 ~h3 'iff2 20 'ife3
e3 'Llc6 7 ~b5 is Game 28 with the strange 'ifg2 21 ctJc3 'Llb4 22 ~cl f4 23 'iff3 'ifg1
double move: 6 h3, 6 'Llh4 - neither of 24 ~d2 'ifd4 with a draw, or 17 'Llc3 'Lld4
which is useful; White should prefer 7 d4. Or 18 ~g2 ~b8 19 ~cl 'Llf5 20 'ifxf4 exf4 21
if 4... g5 5 h3 ~h5 (or 5... ~c8 6 ct:Jf3 g4) 6 ~c2 ~xcl 22 ~xcl 'Llxh4 23 ~e4 f5 24
g4!? gxh4 7 gxh5 with a silly position. ~d3 g5 with three pawns for the piece.
5 h3 ~h5 These extracts from a more detailed analy-
The bishop could retreat back to the sis (conducted with the aid of Fritz) show
queenside by 5 ... ~d7, intending ... e7-e5, and some of Black's possibilities after
if 6 f4 'Llh5! or 6 d4 'Lle4!? (threatening ... e7- 10... 'Llxg4!?. Not that there's anything wrong
e5). But Black is happy to allow g2-g4 as this with the game move:
will weaken White's dark squares. 10 ... d4 11 d3 e4?
6 g4 il.g6 7 il.g2 e5 8 tt:Jxg6 hxg6 9 c4 Black still wants to play his ... 'Llxg4 sacri-
~c5! fice and this preparatory move opens up the
Black has the very strong threat of centre. However, the sacrifice is now un-
10 ... 'Llxg4! 11 hxg4 ~xh1+ 12 i.xh 1 'ifh4 sound so Black should have been content
and wins. with his current position. 11...'Llh7!? intend-
10 cxd5 (or if 10 e3 d4) would prevent the ing .. .f7-f5 or ... 'Llg5-e6 comes into consid-
sacrifice (10 ... 'Llxg4? 11 e3) but White's king- eration. If a2-a3 then ... a7-a5.

116
 Black Plays 1 ... Cfjf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

12 dxe4 Cjjxg4!? 13 hxg4 llxh 1 + 14 fxe3 'i¥xe3+ with a draw. White should have
ii.xh 1 'ifh4 played 18 'i¥d1! (intending 19 e3) and if
18 ... 'i¥f4 19 'Llf3 defends.
18 ... llxd3 19 e5
Black threatened 19 ... 'i¥f4; e.g. 19 'i¥d1
'iff4 hitting f2 and d2, or 19 'i¥e1 'iff4 20
~d1? ~e3! wins, while 20 i.cl ~e3! 21 "i¥d1
~d3 draws. White's move allows him to an-
swer 19 ...'i¥f4 with 20 'Lle4, or if 19 ... i.d4 20
i.xd4 'Llxd4 21 'if a3! counterattacks
(21...'Llc2 22 'iVf8+ ~d8 23 i.xb7+).
19 ... Cjjd4! 20 'ife1 ?!
Another error. White should have taken
the knight: 20 i.xd4 'i¥xd4 (20 ... .txd4 21
~b1) 21 'Lle4 .ta3 22 'i¥b1 (threatening
The sacrifice may be incorrect, but it is ~e2) 22 ... 'i¥xe5 23 'i¥xd3! (23 ~g1 ~d8 in-
still not easy to defend as Black's attack de- tending ... ~h8) 23 ... 'i¥xa1+ 24 ~e2 'i¥xa2+ 25
velops naturally by ... 0-0-0 and ... d4-d3. ~f3 and the piece is better than the three
Now 15 ~f3 (not 15 ~d2? 'i¥h6 +) is the pawns.
obvious move, also defending g4, but then
15 ... d3! (not 15 ... 0-0-0 16 'i¥f4) 16 e3 0-0-0
creates serious difficulties; e.g. 17 'Lld2?
~xe3, or 17 'i¥d2? .tb4 18 'Llc3 'i¥h3 19
.txb4 'i¥xf3 20 'i¥d1 'i¥xe4 21 .tc3 ~h8, or
17 .tc3 d2 + 18 .txd2 'LleS 19 ~e2 'Llxf3 20
~xf3 'i¥f6 + all win for Black. And if 17 ~fl!
'Llb4! 18 'Llc3?! d2 19 'i¥d1 'Lld3 20 'i¥xd2
'Llf4! 21 'LldS 'i¥h3 + 22 ~e 1 'ifxf3 23 exf4
'ifh1 + 24 ~e2 'i¥xe4+ 25 ~d1 (not 25 ~fl?
~h8) 25 ... c6 regains material. White might do
better in this line to give up the exchange by
18 'i¥d2 (18 ... 'Llc2).
15 ii.g2 20 ... Cjje6?
Now if 15 ... d3 16 'i¥f4 defends f2. Unfortunately it is not easy to attack per-
15 ... 'it'xg4 16 ~f1 0-0-0 17 Cjjd2 fectly either and Black misses his chance:
To answer 17... ~h8 by 18 'Llf3 preventing 20 ... ~g3! when if 21 fxg3? 'iffS+ wins; e.g. 22
... ~h2. White also had 17 f3 and if 17 ..'i¥g3 'i¥f2 'i¥d3+ 23 ~g1 'Lle2+ or 23 ~e1 'Llc2+,
18 'i¥e1 'i¥h2 19 'i¥f2!?. There seems no way or 22 i.f3 'Llxf3 23 'i¥d1 'Llg1+ 24 'Llf3
to refute the queen's placement opposite the 'i¥h3+ 25 ~e1 'i¥g2!. White's best defence is
bishop on cS; e.g. 19 ... d3 20 'ifxcS dxe2+ 21 21 'i¥e4! (if 21 i.xb7+ ~b8!) 21...~xg2 22
~xe2 'i¥xg2+ 22 'i¥f2 and if 22 ...'i¥xf2+ 23 'i¥xg2 'i¥e2+ 23 ~g1 'i¥xd2 24 i.xd4 i.xd4
~xf2 'Llb4 24 .ixg7 leaves White with 25 ~fl ~xeS and with two pawns for the
bishop and knight for rook (after ... 'Llxa1). exchange Black should hold the endgame
17 ... d3 18 exd3?! after 26 'iVg4+ 'i¥d7 (26 ... ~b8? 27 ~d1) 27
Success for Black as his opponent goes 'iV xd7+ ~xd7.
wrong. Not 18 e3? 'i¥e2+ 19 ~g1 .txe3! 20 21 ~e4!

117
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

With a double attack against b7 and g4. In this game Black adopts a London for-
Black cannot allow the exchange of queens in mation with ... ttJf6, ....tfs, ... e7-e6, ... h7-h6
this position, so his only chance is: and the move order does not seem to matter.
21 ... tt:Jf4 22 ~xb7+ ~d8 23 ~b8+ ~e7 Formanek played 2... -tfs 3 .1ib2 e6 4 d3 h6 5
24 'iixc7+ ~f8 2S ~xeS+ ttJbd2 ttJf6 transposing at move five.
If 25 'ifb8+ ~e7 26 'ifb7+ ~d7 (not 3 .ib2 .ifS
26 ... ~f8 27 .td4!) 27 'iff3 'ifxg2+ (not
27 ... ~xd2 28 .1ia3!) 28 'ifxg2 ttJxg2 29 ttJe4
.td4! 30 .1ixd4 (or 30 i.a3+ ~d8 31 ~d1
ttJf4 32 ttJd6 ttJe6) 30 ... ~xd4 31 ttJd6 ttJf4
32 ttJc8+ ~d7 33 ttJxa7, then Black has
counterplay by 33 ... ~d2, 34... ttJd3, 35 ... ~xf2+
36 ~g1 ~d2 intending 37 ... ttJxe5, 38 ... ttJf3+
with perpetual.
2S ... ~g8 26 ~c6 ~xd2 27 ~f3 'iixf3 28
ii..xf3 ~xb2 29 .l:d 1 ~xa2 30 .l::i.d8+ ~h 7
31 ~e1 ~b2 32 .id1 aS 33 ~d7 ~g8?!
Possibly 33 ... g5 intending ... ~g6 was bet-
ter; then if 34 ~xf7 ttJd3+ and ... ttJxeS, or 34
cS ttJg2+ 35 ~fl ttJf4 36 ~xf7 (or 36 c6) 4 d3
36 ... ~b1 37 ~e1 ~cl and the rook gets be- Alternatively:
hind the passed pawn (if 38 ~c7 ttJe6). a) 4 g3 h6 5 .tg2 would be a Reti, when
34 cS ~b1? 5... e6 6 0-0 .1ie7 7 d3 0-0 8 lt:Jbd2 followed
Having started back with the king Black by c2-c4 or iVe1, e2-e4 is a typical scheme.
had to keep coming, when he has more b) 4 ttJh4!? hits the bishop before ... h7-h6
chances to hold the game; e.g. 36 ~a7 ttJd3+ prepares a home at h7; e.g. 4... .te6 (4 ... .td7)
37 ~fl ~b 1 38 ~e2 ttJf4+ 39 ~d2 ~b2+ 40 5 g3 g6 6 .1ig2 .tg7 7 c4 0-0 8 d3 c6 9 0-0
~e3 ttJdS+ 41 ~d3 ttJf4+ 42 ~c3 ~xf2 43 iVd7 10 ~e1 .1ih3 11 .th1 d4 12 lt:Jf3 ttJhS
~xaS ~d8 44 ~a7 ttJdS+ 45 ~c4 ttJc7, or 36 13 ttJbd2 h6 14 b4 with a good reversed Be-
~d6 ttJe6 37 .1ig4 ttJc7 38 ~d7 ttJe6 39 noni (Csom-Mnatsakanian, Yerevan 1976). If
.1ixe6 fxe6 40 ~xg7 ~d8 41 ~xg6 ~xb3 42 Black is bothered about this s/he can play
~xe6 a4 with a draw. first 3... h6 and only then 4 ... .tf5.
Now the win is fairly easy as Black is c) 4 e3 ttJbd7 5 c4 e6 (5 ... h6) 6 ttJc3 c6 7
forced into a passive stance. .1ie2 .td6 8 0-0 iVe7 9 cxdS exdS (not
3S ~d2 nb2+ 36 .ic2 a4 37 bxa4 tt:Je6 9 ... cxd5?! 10 ttJbS i.b8 11 .1ia3) 10 ~cl was
38 c6 nbs 39 c7 ~c8 40 .ib3 tt:Jxc7 41 effective in Nimzowitsch-Voellmy, Bern
.ixf7+ ~f8 42 e6 gS 43 ~e3 1-0 1931, continuing 10 ... ttJe5 (10 ... h6 11 ttJd4
Black has no moves: if 43 ... ttJe8 44 .1ig6 .th7) 11 lt:Jd4 Jid7 12 'ifc2 lt:Jg6 13 tt:Jfs
and e7+, ~d8 or 43 ... g6 44 ~d4 ~g7 45 ~eS .txfS 14 'ifxfS .ta3 15 'ifc2 .1ixb2 16 'ifxb2
and 46 ~d6 wins easily enough. 0-0 17 ttJa4 ~fe8 18 'ifd4 'ifeS 19 'ifxeS
~xeS 20 ttJcS ~e7 21 b4 and the minority
Game 45 attack won a pawn and the game for White.
Blatny-Formanek Instead of 8...iVe7, encouraging ttJd4-f5 and
New York Open 2000 ruling out ... c6xd5, Black should prefer 8... 0-0
(Keene), 8... h6 or even 8... a6.
1 tt:Jf3 dS 2 b3 tt:Jf6 4 ... h6

118
 Black Plays 1 ... 0:d6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

The standard London move, making cxdS cxdS 21 'Llc6 'iJib 7 22 il.d4 liz -liz
room for the bishop at h7. If 4... e6 White can (22 ...:xc6 23 :xc6 'iixc6 24 h3 'Llxf2 is
play 5 lt:Jh4!?, e.g. equal).
a) 5... il.g4 6 h3 il.hS 7 g4 lt:Jfd7 8 lt:Jg2!? 6 ... i..e7 7 'i¥e2!?
il.g6 9 e3 f6 10 il.e2 il.d6 11 f4 ctJc6 12 lt:Jd2
'iJle7 13 a3 a6 14 0-0 0-0 15 il.f3 :ae8 16
:e1 lt:Jb6 17 e4 ~c5+ (17 ... dxe4) 18 ~h1
lt:Jd4? (18 ...'iJfd7) 19 exdS lt:Jxf3 20 'iJlxf3
lt:JxdS 21 c4 lt:Jb6 22 d4 :d8 23 'iJff2 'iJid7 24
dxcS 'iJlxd2 25 :e2 and White won in
Blatny-Blank Goncalves, New York 2000.
b) 5... il.g6 6 g3 aS!? 7 il.g2 (7 a3) 7... a4 8
ctJa3 c6 9 0-0 il.e7 10 c4 0-0 11 'iJJd2 axb3 12
axb3 lt:Jbd7 13 ctJc2 'iJfb6 14 lt:Jxg6 hxg6 15
b4 :fd8 16 'iJJc3 lt:Je8 17 cS 'iJlc7 18 d4 b6 19
:fb 1 il.f6 20 e4 bxcS 21 bxcS :db8 and
White could not find a way through in
Blatny-Balogh, Budapest 2000. The same idea as 8 'iJle2 in Game 43.
5 ct:'lbd2 e6 White's king's bishop can be developed on
Another of Blatny's games saw 5... c6 6 e3 the flank, while the queen prepares the ad-
'iJlc7 7 lt:Jh4 il.g4 8 il.e2 il.xe2 9 'iJlxe2 e6 10 vance e3-e4 in pseudo-Reti style. Or perhaps
f4 ~d6 11 g3 0-0 12 e4 dxe4 13 dxe4 il.b4 not...
14 0-0-0 aS 15 ctJc4 a4 16 a3 il.e7 17 b4 bS 7 ... 0-0?!
18 lt:Je3 :fc8 and now, rather than wait for Rather obliging. White has not yet com-
Black's queenside breakthrough ... c6-c5, mitted himself in any sector of the board and
White tried a sacrifice: 19 lt:Jhf5!? exfS 20 now Black presents him with a target. Better
lt:JxfS ~e8 21 'iJff3 il.f8 22 :he1 :ac8 23 was 7... il.h7 and wait to see how White pro-
:e2 g6 24 g4!? gxfS 25 gxfS il.h6 26 :fl ceeds before Black takes any decisions him-
~f8 27 <it>b 1 il.xf4 28 eS il.xeS 29 'iJJh3 self.
il.xb2 30 'iJfh6+ ~g8 but now White muffed After 6... 'Llbd7 (instead of 6... ~e7) 7 'iie2
it playing 31 :g2+?? lt:Jg4 32 :xg4+ ~h8 33 ~h7, in Conquest-Luther, Hastings 1995,
f6 (33 <it>xb2 'iJleS+) 33 ... il.xf6 34 :xf6 :e1+ White had a go with 8 :g1!? a5 9 a4 ~b410
35 ~a2 :a1+0-1 Blatny-Rublevsky, Yerevan g4 'iJle7 11 h4 0-0-0! 12 'Lld4 'Lle8 13 h5
Olympiad 1996. He should have used the 'Lld6 14 ~g2 c6 15 c3 ~cS 16 e4 dxe4 17
other rook 31 :g1 +! ctJg4 32 :xg4+ ~h8 33 dxe4 eS 18 'Llfs il.xfS 19 gxfS 'iJJh 4 20 ~f3
~xb2 :g8 (33 ... 'iJle5+ is now not possible) when Black made a serious mistake in
34 :h4 and gets the piece back after 34... lt:Jf8 20 ... 'Llf6? (boxing in his queen) allowing 21
35 'iJff6+ :g7 36 :g2 ctJg6 or 34 ...:g7 35 :h 1 'iJf gS 22 il.cl! 'Lld7 23 'Llc4 'i' f6 24
:e7 'iJJd8 36 f6 lt:Jxf6. 'LlxaS 'LlxfS 25 'Llxc6 bxc6 26 exfS e4 27
6 e3 'iJla6+ ~b8 28 ~f4+ ~d6 29 ~xd6+ 'i'xd6
White could still switch to a Reti with 6 30 ~e2 'LlcS 31 'iJJb6+ ~c8 32 :d1 'Lld3+ 33
g3; e.g. Miles-Barua, Istanbul Olympiad2000: ~fl :d7 34 :h4! :e8 35 'iJla6+ ~b8 36
6... il.c5 7 il.g2 0-0 8 0-0 c6 9 c4 lt:Jbd7 10 a3 ~xd3 'i'f6 37 :f4 'i'gS 38 'iJfb6+ :b7 39
aS 11 :a2!? ~h7 12 'iJla1 bS 13 ctJeS 'LlxeS 'iJf xc6 1-0.
14 il.xeS :c8 15 :c2 bxc4 16 bxc4 'iJle7 17 8 h3 i..h 7 9 g4! ct:'lfd7
lt:Jb3 ~b6 18 'Lld4!? 'Llg4 19 ~xg7 :fe8 20 Otherwise 10 gS opens the g-file.

119
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

10 h4 c5 sacrifice on hS.
Serper suggests 10 ... .i.f6!? 11 c3 tt:'lcS 12 15 ... ~d6
e4 tt:'lc6 and if 13 gS hxgS 14 hxgS .i.xgS 15 If 15 ... tt:'lc6 16 tt:'lxhS gxhS 17 'iVxhs d4!
tt:'lxgS 'iYxgS 16 tt:'lf3 'iYe7 'White doesn't 18 ~g1 tt:'ldeS 19 g6 fxg6 20 ~xg6+ tt:'lxg6 21
have a follow up for the attack.' If White tries 'iYxg6+ ~h8 doesn't win. But of course
17 'iVe3 (intending tt:'lgS, 'iVh3) Black defends there's no need to hurry: 16 0-0-0, 17 ~dg1,
by 17.. .f5! and if 18 tt:'lgS? f419 'iYh3 'iYxgS 18 tt:'lxhS will do just fine.
20 'iVxh7+ ~f7 (threatening ... ~h8) is good 16 lt:Jxh5 gxh5 17 ~xh5 e5
for Black. Nor does 18 .i.a3 seem to work Or 17 ... CLJe5 18 f4 tt:'lg6 19 'iVh6 and 20
after 18 ... tt:'lxd3+! 19 .i.xd3 'iYxa3, e.g. 20 hS.
tt:'lgS 'iYb2 21 ~d1 fxe4 22 ~xh7 'iYxc3+ 23 18 ~g1 1-0
~f1 g6! (preventing ~h8+) 24 ~h6 tt:'le7 25 Black has no defence to 19 g6 etc.
'iVh3 'iVf6 seems to hold.
Castling long would be more obliging than Game46
7 ... 0-0: after 11 0-0-0 .i.xb2+ 12 ~xb2 aS 13 Vokac-Vepkhvishvili
gS hS Black's queenside attack is more dan- Munster 1991
gerous.
11 g5 h5 12 ~h3 ~f5? 1 b3 d5 2 ~b2 tt:Jt6 3 e3 ~f5 4 f4
Putting the bishop out before closing the
kingside with ... g7-g6. But the structure is not
secure as White can break in by sacrificing on
hS.
Better was 12 ... tt:'lc6 (Serper) and then ei-
ther 13 tt:'lfl or 13 tt:'lh2 looks thematic; e.g.
13 tt:'lh2 .i.g6 14 tt:'lhfl (intending tt:'lg3)
14 ... tt:'lb4 15 ~d1!? .i.d6 16 tt:'lg3 .i.eS (if
16 ... .i.xg3 17 fxg3 and 18 g4) 17 ~cl 'iYaS
18 a3 tt:'lc6 when 19 ~d1 or 19 tt:'lb1!? de-
fends and White is ready for tt:'lxhS.
13 lt:Jg1! ~xh3
If 13 ... .i.g6 then 14 tt:'lfl and 15 CLJg3 etc.
14 lt:Jxh3 g6 15 lt:Jf4! Transposing into a Bird Opening. Of
course this is only possible by the 1 b3 move
order. Instead 4 tt:'lf3 returns to Game 45.
4 ... e6 5 tt:Jt3 ~e7
The bishop can also go to d6, either im-
mediately (5 ... .i.d6) or after S... tt:'lbd7 and
then:
a) 6 tt:'lc3!? c6 7 tt:'le2 .i.d6 (7 ... .i.g4 8 tt:'lg3
tt:'le4!?) 8 tt:'lg3 .i.g6 9 .i.d3 (if 9 tt:'leS .i.c7 10
tt:'lxg6 hxg6 intending ... g6-g5, or 9 tt:'lh4
'iYb6) 9 ... i.xd3 10 cxd3 aS 11 0-0 'iVc7 12
'iYc2 0-0 13 .i.c3 bS 14 .i.xf6 tt:'lxf6 15 tt:'ld4
.Mfc8 16 a4 'iVb6 17 tt:'lge2 .Mc7 18 ~h1 tt:'ld7
19 e4 tt:'lcS 20 eS .i.f8 21 fS exfS 22 tt:'lxfS
White has a march on his plan and will bxa4 23 bxa4 'iVb3 24 'iYxb3 tt:'lxb3 25 .Ma2

120
 Black Plays 1 ... ti:Jf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5
--------------------------
.Sb8 and Black was better in Vokac-Pribyl, eS 14 CZJdfS, 15 'i:Vg4 and wins .
Czech League 1994. 12 ~xf6
b) 6 ~e2 ~d6 (6 ... ~g4!?) 7 0-0 h6 8 CLJeS Dunnington notes 12 CLJeS as consistent.
flie7 9 c4 0-0-0!? (9 ... c6) 10 d3?! (better 10 White opts to keep control of eS in a differ-
a3) 10 ... .Shg8 11 b4!? (now if 11 a3 gS!) ent way.
11...dxc4 12 CLJxc4 ~xb4 13 'iia4 <it>b8 14 12 ... ti:Jhxf6 13 d4 c5 14 tl:Je5 .l:.c8 15 c4
ct:Jba3 ~cS 15 d4 ~b6 16 .Sacl ct:Jds 17 cxd4 16 ifxd4 dxc4 17 0Jxc4 0Jc5?!
CZJbS a6 18 CLJc3 'ii'b4 19 'ifxb4 CLJxb4 and Better was 17... CLJb6 18 CLJxb6 'ifxb6 19
White had insufficient compensation for the 'ifxb6 axb6 and the endgame is OK for
pawn in Ibragimov-Faibisovich, Groningen Black, or if 18 CLJd6 .Sc6 19 .Sad1 com-
1991. mences an almighty battle for d6: 19 ...'i¥b8!
6 ti:Jc3!? 20 e4 .Sd8 21 eS CLJe8 21 CLJge4 CLJxd6 23
Planning CLJe2-g3 to hassle the bishop. If CLJxd6 CLJc8 24 CLJxc8! when 24 ... .Scxc8 25
Black spends time preserving it by ... h7-h6 'iie4 is equal; not 24 ... .Sxd4?! 25 CLJe7+ and
and ... ~h7, then White can challenge it again 26 CLJxc6 .Sxd1 27 CLJxb8 .Sd8 28 .Scl .Sxb8
with ~f1-d3!?. 29 .Sc7 and White has the active rook.
White's other method is to pl<1y 6 ~e2 18 ti:Jd6 .l:.c6 19 .l:.ad 1 ti:Jd5
and 7 0-0; e.g. 6 ~e2 h6 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 cS Now 19 ...'i¥b8 20 e4 .Sd8 21 eS CLJe8?
(8 ... ~h7) 9 h3 (not 9 CZJd2? CLJg4) 9 ... CLJc6 10 loses material to 22 b4!, or if 21...CLJd5 22 fS!
g4 ~h7 11 CZJbd2 'ii'c7 12 CLJeS .Sad8 13 'ii'e1 intending CZJhS, 'if g4 with a strong attack for
CZJd7 14 CLJxc6 flixc6 15 ct:Jf3 bS 16 'i:Vg3 White.
when Black wasted a precious tempo by
16 ... a6?! (better was 16 ... c4! - Dunnington)
allowing 17 gS hxgS 18 CLJxgS ~g6 19 CLJxe6!
'ii'xe6 20 fS 'ifd6 21 'ifxd6 ~xd6 22 fxg6
fxg6 23 ~f3 and White was clearly better in
K.Arkell-S.Arkell, London WFW 1988.
6 ... ti:Jbd7 7 ti:Je2 h6
Apart from this routine London move,
Black might consider the disruptive 7... ~g4 8
CLJg3 CLJe4!?, and if 9 ~e2 ~f6 or 9 ~xg7
.Sg8 10 ~b2 ~h4.
8 ti:Jg3 ~h 7 9 ~d3
White could still play 9 ~e2, 0-0, CLJeS
when the CLJg3 could probe the kingside after 20 tl:Jc4
... CLJxeS f4xe5, or otherwise support e3-e4 or 20 CZJdfS!? (threatening mate at g7) was
f4-f5. also possible, when after 20 ... exf5 (or 20 .. .f6
9 ... 0-0 21 e4) 21 CLJxfS 'iff6 22 'ifxdS CLJe6 (intend-
If9 ... ~xd3 10 cxd3 White has a half-open ing ... .Sd8) 23 flieS! 'iixeS 24 fxeS the extra
c-file and more influence in the centre; and eS-pawn is useful controlling d6.
compared with S...CZJbd7 6 CLJc3 above, Black 20 ... ifh4
has swapped ... c7-c6, ... i.d6 for the less ac- Answering the threat of 21 e4 and neutral-
tive ... h7-h6, ... ~e7. ising f4-f5 by an X-ray attack on the white
10 ~xh7+ ti:Jxh7 11 0-0 ~f6 queen.
Not 11...f6? 12 CZJd4 when the only way to 21 ti:Je5
cover e6 is by 12 ... CLJc5 when follows 13 b4 Back again.

121
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

21 ... ncc8 22 11c1 b6 23 b4 t2Ja4? to give up the knight as otherwise 36 ctJe4

A mistake. 23 ... ctJb7 was necessary to pre- mate.
vent the white queen coming to d6 (as in the 32 ... g6!
next note), though White still has the advan- If 32 ... g5 White can get the queen back
tage as the black queen is now out of play on immediately with 33 M.h8+ <it>g7 34 M.xh6.
h4. 33 :d7
24 t2Je4? 33 g5 was the best try, cutting the queen
After this the game now swings in Black's out completely, while threatening 34 gxh6
favour. White should have driven the central- and 35 M.h8 mate. If 33 ... hxg5 34 M.h8+ or
ised knight away by 24 M.xc8 M.xc8 25 e4 33 ... h5 34 ctJe5 and 35 M.d7+, 36 ctJxg6 traps
when 25 ... ctJxf4? loses to the fork 26 ifd7, the queen. Hence 33 ... <it>g7 is forced and then
while after 25 ... ctJdc3 26 ifd7 M.f8 27 f5 or 34 M.d7 threatens 35 gxh6+ <it>g8 36 ctJg5
25 ... ctJf6 26 ifd6! (threatening 27 ctJg6!) ifxh6 37 ct:Jg4 ifh4 38 C2Jf6+ <it>h8 39 C2Jf7+
26 ... M.f8 27 ife7, 28 f5 White has a strong <it>g7 40 ctJe5+ and mate next move. So Black
attack. has to capture 34 ... hxg5 35 ctJxg5+<it>g8 when
24 ... !1cd8 25 g3 ~h3 White can win the queen back with 36 M.h7.
Better was 25 ...ifh5 threatening ... C2Jxf4. Unfortunately, the ensuing endgame is not
26 t2Jt2 ~h5 27 .l:.td1 t2Jac3? won for White, and he doesn't seem to be
Black should have inserted 27 .. .f6! and af- able to improve it. If White plays an inter-
ter 28 ctJc6 ctJac3! 29 M.el ctJe2+ 30 M.xe2 mediary move to hide pawns from the black
ii'xe2 31 ctJxd8 M.xd8 with the advantage, knight, 36 ...ifh5! lets the queen escape to e2
since if 32 e4 ctJe3! 33 ifxd8+ <it>h7 and and White has to take a draw with 37 M.d8+,
White has to give up the queen to prevent 38 M.d7+ etc.
mate by ...iff3 etc. 33 ... ~g8 34 t2Je5 t2Jd5 35 g5 hxg5 36
On the plus side Black's error does create !1d8+ ~g7
a nice position for the spectators. White's last chance was 36 ... <it>h7?? 37
28 ~xc3! t2Jxc3 29 ~xd8 :xd8 30 ctJf3. Now he can only force a draw.
!1xd8+ ~h7 31 g4 ~h4 32 t2Jxt7 37 nd7+ ~g8 38 :d8+ ~g7 39 !1d7+
~g8 %-%

Game47
M .Gurevich-Savchenko
Vlissingen 1999
1 t2Jt3 d5 2 b3 t2Jt6 3 .i.b2 e6
Black's formation is so common that the
game will almost always transpose to another
opening no matter how White continues.
Black intends either ... ~d6, ...ctJbd7, ... c7-c6,
... 0-0 and then ... e6-e5 or ... c6-c5 after suit-
able preparation; or ... ~e7, ... 0-0, ... c7-c5,
Here we have it. Both Black's king and ... ctJc6 and/ or ... b7-b6 and ... ~b7.
queen are severely short of squares. First of Via the 1 b3 move order, l...d5 2 ~b2
all White threatens 33 M.h8+ <it>g6 34 ctJe5+ ctJf6 3 e3 e6 then 4 ctJf3 or 4 c4 (and 5 ctJf3)
<it>f6 35 M.f8+ <it>e7 36 ctJg6+, or if 32 .. .'ii'e7 33 will reach the positions in this game; White
M.h8+ ~g6 34 ctJe5+ <it>f6 35 M.c8 forces Black can also play 4 f4 (Game 48).

122
 Black Plays 1 .. .CiJf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c 7-c5

4 e3 9 f4 lbe4 10 i..xe4 dxe4 11 c4 f5 12 i..a3

4 g3 heads into English (after a later c2- 'Llxe5 13 fxe5 i..xa3 14 'Llxa3 g5 (Bellon
c4) or Reti territory and here Black usually Lopez-Perez, Santa Clara 2000), or 9 'Lld2
plays ... i..e7, ... 0-0 and ... c7-c5. This is an ctJe4 10 f3 'Llxd2 11 'iWxd2 c5 12 Madl f6 13
opening in its own right and far too large (28 'Llxd7 'iWxd7 (Rashkovsky-Aseev, Russian
pages in ECO) even to summarise. Championship 1994). Incidentally, 10 c4 in
One famous game that started 1 b3 con- the latter example would be a Queen's In-
tinued 4 ... i..e7 5 i..g2 0-0 6 0-0 c5 7 c4 (Eng- dian.
lish) 7 ... lt:Jc6 8 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 9 ctJc3 i..f6 10 b) 4 ... i..e7 intends the plan with ...0-0 and
'iWcl b6 11 'Llxd5 exd5 12 d4 i..a6 13 Mel ... c7-c5. As usual White has several options:
lL'lxd4 14 i..xd4 cxd4 15 'iWa3 i..b7? b 1) 5 c4 0-0 6 ctJc3 c5 7 cxd5 when
(15 ... 'iWc8) 16 Madl i..e7 17 'iWa4 'iWe8 18 7 ... cxd5 creates positions akin to those in the
'iWxd4 Mc8 19 'iWf4 i..f6 20 'Lld4 i..e5 21 notes to Taimanov-Kaidanov in Chapter 5.
'iWe3 g6 22 'Llb5 'iWxb5 23 'iWxe5 and White Or if 7... 'Llxd5 8 'Llxd5 exd5! (if 8... 'iWxd5 9
won in Fischer-Filip, Palma de Mallorca In- iLc4 White is more active) 9 i.,e2 (9 d4
terzonal 1970. lbc6!? -Keene) 9... d4!? 10 'iWbl iJ.,f6 11 0-0
l2Jc6 12 i.,b5 i..d7 13 Mel b6 14 i..d3 g6 15
exd4 cxd4 16 JJ.,e4 Mc8 17 d3 Me8 18 Mc4 b5
19 Mc2 'iWb6 20 'iWdl 'Llb4 21 Mxc8 Mxc8 22
a3 'Llc6 lh-lh Makarichev-Speelman, Hast-
ings 1979/80.
b2) Again White can play a Colle: 5 d4 0-0
6 i..d3 when Black's king's bishop is on the
wrong square for normal structures, so in
Ubilava-Antunes, Seville 1990 (which started
1 'Llf3 d5 2 b3), Black tried 6 ... a5!? 7 c4 a4 8
bxa4 i.,d7 9 ctJc3 'Llc6 10 a3 b6 11 0-0 'Lla5
12 'Lle5 c6 13 f4 c5 14 'Llb5 dxc4 15 'Llxc4
'Llxc4 16 JJ.,xc4 i.,c6 17 'iWb3 i..d5 18 Mac 1
4 ... il.d6 lbe4 19 Mfdl iJ.,f6 20 i..al 'iWd7 21 i.,xd5
Black has two other major possibilities: exd5 22 dxc5 'Llxc5 23 Mxc5 bxc5 24 i..xf6
a) 4 ...lt:Jbd7 5 c4 c6 White should continue c4 25 'iWc2 gxf6 26 e4 with compensation.
6 'iWc2 i..d6 7 'Llc3, rather than 6 'Llc3 as this b3) Or White can play 5 'Lle5!? 0-0 6 f4;
allows Black to play 6 ... e5! without any fur- e.g. 6 ... l2Je4 (6 ... c5 transposes to Game 36
ther preparation; e.g. 7 d4 e4 8 'Lld2 i..e7 9 with 5 ... iLe7) 7 .te2 f6 8 'Llf3 c5 9 0-0 ctJc6
a3 0-0 10 b4 Me8 11 c5 'Llf8 12 i..e2 'iWd7 13 10 d3 'Lld6 11 g4 ..td7 12 'iWel b5 13lDbd2
'iWc2 'iWf5 14 f4 g5 15 g3 gxf4 16 gxf4 'iWh3 'iWb6 14 c4 with an odd position m
17 Mgl+ ctJg6 and Black was better in K.Movsziszian-Maahs, Hamburg 1993.
Korchnoi-Petrosian, Velden 1980. After 6 5 c4
'iWc2 e5? just loses a pawn, while 6... i..e7 is This English (1 c4 c6) variation was
passive and inconsistent with the ... c7-c6 set Nimzowitsch's favourite continuation:
up. a) Instead 5 d4 is a Colle-Zukertort sys-
White can also consider 5 d4 reaching a tem; e.g. 5 ... 0-0 6 i.,d3 c5 7 0-0 ctJc6 8 a3
Colle system in which Black is committed to when 8... 'iWc7!? spoils White's intended plan
... 'Llbd7. Nevertheless Black still seems OK; of lbe5, f2-f4, 'Lld2. If 9 c4 cxd4 10 exd4 e5
e.g. 5 ... i..d6 6 i..d3 b6 7 'Lle5 i..b7 8 0-0 0-0 11 dxe5 'Llxe5 12 'Llxe5 JJ.,xe5 13 JJ.,xe5

123
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

'iYxeS is very equal (Zsu.Polgar-Yudasin, Nimzowitsch won a couple of famous

Munich 1991), or 9 dxcS iLxcS 10 ~xf6 gxf6 games against ...'i¥e7 by bamboozling his
11 lt.Jbd2 fS 12 b4 ~d6 13 c4 ctJeS 14 ctJxeS opponents with lt.Jf3-d4. Then ... e6-e5 could
iLxeS 1S l:cl d4 with counterplay (Kuijf- be met by lt.JfS or if the knight was driven
Borm, Amsterdam 1984). back by ... c6-cS the pressure on the now
b) Or 5 CUeS!? 0-0 6 f4 is a Bird with a under-protected ciS-pawn again hampered
rather premature cuf3-eS; e.g. 6 ... cue4!? ... e6-eS.
(6 ... cufd7 7 'i¥g4 fS and 8... CUxeS) 7 'i¥f3 f6 8 a) 7 ...'i¥e7 8 cud4!? a6 9 ~e2 0-0 10 0-0 cS
CUg4 eS (8 ... iLcS!?) 9 d3 iLxg4 10 'i¥xg4 CUeS 11 lt.Jf3 lt.Jb6 12 e4 CUxe4 13 CUxe4 dxe4 14
11 fS aS 12 a4 c6 13 .i.e2 'i¥c7 14 e4 lt.Jba6 \\Wxe4 eS 1S ctJxeS l:e8 16 f4 f6 17 ~hS l:f8
1S 0-0 cub4 16 lt.Ja3 \\Wb6 17 ~h 1 lt.Jxc2? (a 18 d3 fxeS 19 fxeS ~c7 20 l:xf8+ 'i¥xf8 21
losing combination) 18 CUxc2 'i¥xb3 19 iLa3 l:fl 'i¥d8 22 ~f7+ ~h8 23 e6 ~xe6 24 Jlxe6
\\Wxc2 20 l:fc1 'i¥d2 21 i.xcS ~xeS 22 l:xcS 'iYgS 25 l:f71-0 Nimzowitsch-Ahues, Frank-
and White went on to win in Condie-Muir, furt 1930.
Scotland 1994. b) 7... 0-0 8 l:cl!? 'i¥e7 (not 8... eS? 9 cxdS
5 ... c6 cxdS 10 lt.Jb5 again) 9 lt.Jd4!? ~a3 10 Jlxa3
Or S... 0-0 6 CUc3 lt.Jbd7 (or 6 ... c6) 7 \\Wc2 'i¥xa3 11 cxdS exdS 12 CUa4 CUe4 13 f3 CUef6
c6 transposing below. 14 iLd3 l:e8 15 0-0 h6 16 \\Wc3 aS? 17 iLfs
6 ct:Jc3 CLJbd7 \\Wb4 18 iLxd7 \\W xc3 19 l:xc3 iLxd7 20 l:fc 1
Black cannot yet play 6... eS?! because of 7 with massive dark-square control in
cxdS ctJxdS 8 ctJxdS cxdS 9 ctJxeS or 7... cxdS Nimzowitsch-Maroczy, Bled 1931.
8 lt.JbS netting the bishop on d6 with an ad- Nowadays Black is rather less obliging,
vantage. playing 7... 0-0, 8... l:e8 and 9 ... eS (or9 ... dxc4
7 'ifc2 10 bxc4 eS) 10 cxdS CUxdS 11 CUe4 ~c7.
This plan is an extremely effective equaliser,
so what can White do about it?
8 ..ie2
8 d4 transposes to the Semi-Slav (6 'iV c2
~d6 7 b3 0-0). Unfortunately, there is a
drawback to the current move order as
White is committed to the line with 8 iLb2
which theory regards as inflexible. In the
Semi-Slav b2-b3 is played more to support
the c4-pawn and often the bishop doesn't go
to b2 at all, instead leaving the b-file for the
rook in case of ... dSxc4. Furthermore, Black
can now play 8... eS! 9 cxdS cxdS 10 dxeS
This was Nimzowitsch's idea, subtly pre- ctJxeS and if 11 cubS?! Jlb4+ 12 Jlc3 iLxc3+
venting ... e6-eS, since if7 ... eS? 8 cxdS cxdS 9 13 'i¥xc3ctJe4 14 'i¥c7ctJxf3+ 1S gxf3 'i¥f6 16
lt.JbS i.b8 10 l:cl! 0-0 11 CUc7 i.xc7 12 lt.Jd4ctJgS 17 .i.e2ctJe6 and Black was better
\\Wxc7 White has a clear advantage. in Nei-Antoshin, Zinnowitz 1966, or 11.i.e2
The current game started 1 c4 c6 2 lt.Jf3 lt.Jxf3+! 12 .i.xf3 d4 13 exd4 l:e8+ 14 ~f1
dS 3 e3 cuf6 4 ctJc3 e6 S b3 lt.Jbd7 6 'i¥c2 \\WaS with good compensation; e.g. 15 'i¥d1
~d6 7 ~b2 and only transposes at this Jlb4 16 l:cl iLd7 17 a3 Jlxc3 18 l:xc3 cuds
move. 19 iLxdS 'iYxdS in Korchnoi-Beliavsky, Leon
7 ... 0-0 1994.

124
 Black Plays 1 .. Jijf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

8 ... ~e8 ~g4 18 ~df1 b5 19 ctJe4 ctJxe4 20 ~xf7+

9 0-0 is the normal line when the immedi- Ci.Jxf7 21 ~xg4 Ci.Jfg5 22 d3 ~f8 23 ~ff4 'iV a5
ate break is again effective: 9 ... e5 (or 9... dxc4 24 i.xg7 Wxg7 25 dxe4 'i¥e1+ 26 Wb2 h6 27
10 bxc4 e5) 10 cxd5 ctJxd5 11 ctJe4 i..c7 with h4 'i¥xe3 28 ~xf8 ~xf8 29 'i¥c3+ 'i¥xc3+ 30
a perfectly acceptable position for Black; e.g. Wxc3 ~g6 31 hxg5 hxg5 32 Wd4 ~f2 and
12 a3 aS 13 i..c4 Ci.Jf8 14 ctJg3 ~g4 15 ctJe1 Black won.
ctJg6 16 h3 ~e6 (Tal-Bagirov, Riga 1981), or In his notes to the current game M.G.
12 ~ad1 Ci.Jf8 13 d3 'VJ/ie7 14 a3 a5 15 ~fe1 gave 11 ctJgS as dubious and assessed the
~f5 16 Ci.Jg3 ~g6 17 'VJ/ic4 Ci.Jb6 18 VJ/ig4 'VJ!id7 position after 12 ... e5 as 'slightly better for
(Polugayevsky-Piket, Aruba 1994). Black', with no indication of an improve-
Therefore White has tried to disrupt ment. Perhaps 9 g4 was just a bluff, knowing
Black's plan by g2-g4-g5. that Savchenko did not accept the pawn in
9 g4!? Shabalov's 7 g4 Semi-Slav.
Furthermore 9... e5!? may still be possible:
10 g5 ctJe4! 11 ctJxe4 dxe4 12 'i¥xe4 ctJc5 13
'i¥c2 e4 14 'i¥c3 .tf8 (14 ... Ci.Je6!?) 15 Ci.Jd4
'i¥xg5 16 0-0-0 'i¥f6 or 13 'i¥h4 e4 14 Ci.Jd4
Ci.Jd3+ 15 .txd3 exd3 with compensation.
This looks even better against 8 h3; i.e.
8... ~e8 9 g4 e5!? 10 g5 ctJe4 (10 ... d4!?) 11
ctJxe4 dxe4 12 'i¥xe4 ctJcS 13 'i¥c2 e4 or 13
'i¥h4 .tf5! intending ... .te4 or ... Ci.Jd3+.
10 '2Jxe5 .i.xe5 11 g5 '2Jd7
11...ctJe4!? 12 ctJxe4 .txb2 13 'i¥xb2 dxe4
14 'iVeS attacks the e4-pawn: 14 .. .f5 15 ~g1!?
.td7 16 0-0-0 or 15 gxf6 'i¥xf6 16 'i¥xf6 gxf6
Preparing g2-g4 by 9 h3 is too slow since 17 ~g1+ ~h8 18 0-0-0 and White will break
Black plays 9 ... e5! again: 10 cxd5 ctJxdS 11 with d2-d3 with a slight advantage.
ctJe4 i..f8 12 a3 aS 13 0-0 'VJ/ie7 14 ~fe1 g6 15 12 f4 .i.d6 13 h4 ~e 7 14 0-0-0! .i.a3
i..fl i..g7 16 d3 h6 17 Ci.Jed2 ~h7 18 g3 ctJc7 On 14 ... dxc4 15 i.xc4 Gurevich gives
lf2- 1h Rastenis-Grabliauskas, Lithuanian 15 ... e5 (or 15 ... b5 16 ~d3 Ci.Jf8 17 ctJe4) 16
Championship 1999. g6! which looks very good for White; e.g.
For this reason White has tried the earlier 16 ... hxg6 17 'i¥xg6 threatening 18 ~dg1 'i¥f6
8 h3!? ~e8 9 g4; e.g. 9 ... Ci.Jf8 10 gS ctJ6d7 11 19 hS! or while after 17... Ci.Jf8 White has 18
h4 b5 12 cxd5 exd5 13 Ci.Jd4 Ci.Jb8 14 ctJce2 .txf7+ if there's nothing stronger.
cS!? 15 ctJxbS ctJc6 16 ctJxd6 VJ/ixd6 17 i.a3 15 d4
Ci.Je6 18 ~cl d4 19 i.xc5 VJ/id5 20 e4 'VJ/ie5 21 White's massive kingside gives him the
ctJg3 ~b7 with complications in Kozul- advantage.
Antunes, Yerevan 0 lympiad 1996. The idea 15 ... .i.xb2+
is 9 ... e5 10 gS, though it's not clear that this Possibly Black should delay this exchange;
does stop Black's plan (see next note). e.g. 15 ... b6 16 .td3 Ci.Jf8 17 e4 .tb7 18 ~he1
9 .. .1~:Je5? ~ac8 19 'VJ/if2 dxc4 20 i.xc4 b5 21 .td3 a6
In D.Gurevich-Pavasovic, Bern 1995, 22 f5 (as in the game) could now be an-
Black took the pawn: 9 ... Ci.Jxg4 10 ~g1 Ci.Jgf6 swered by 22 ...'i¥b4! (threatening ...'i¥xc3)
11 ctJg5 Ci.Jf8 12 f4 e5 13 fxe5 .ixe5 14 Ci.Jf3 and Black gets time for his counterplay with
ctJg6 15 ctJxe5 ctJxeS 16 0-0-0 dxc4 17 i.xc4 ... c6-c5.

125
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

16 ~xb2 b6 17 .id3 t2Jf8 18 e4!? vich) and the knight can head for the king-
The pawn armada gets even bigger. With side weaknesses; e.g. 27 ... c5 28 d5 c4 29 ctJg3
the knight on f8 White has no easy way into ~c8 30 ctJh5+ ~h8 31 'iff6+ 'ii'xf6 32 ctJxf6
the kingside; e.g. after 18 h5 ~b7 19 g6 fxg6 l:d8 33 l:cl, or 27 ... ~g8 28 ~c2 c5 29 d5 c4
20 hxg6 h6 only the rook is available to sacri- 30 ctJg3 when 30 ... c3+ 31 ~a1 'ii'a3 32 l:b1
fice on h6 and White would need a few free does not help Black.
tempi (l:h5, 'ifh2, l:g1) to make that work. 26 dxeS ~xeS 27 ~f6 t2Jxg7 28 .ic2!
So instead White prepares the advance of the Intending l:d7; e.g. 28 ...'ii'xf6 29 gxf6
f-pawn. Black meanwhile prepares his queen- ctJe6 30 l:g1+ ~h8 31l:d7 and if 31...l:c7 32
side counterplay. l:xc7 ctJxc7 33 l:g7 l:f8 34 e5 wins.
18 .. ...ib 7 19 l1he 1 l1ac8 20 'iYf2 dxc4 21 28 ... b4?!
.ixc4 bS 22 .id3 a6 This merely weakens more squares. Black
Previously White would have answered should have played 28 ... ~c7 when after 29
... c6-c5 by d4-d5, but Black is now ready with 'ii'xe5 l:xe5 30 l:d8+ and 31 l:ed1 White has
his counter-thrust 23 ... c5 24 d5 c4!, so White only a clear advantage according to Gure-
must strike first. vich.
23 fS! 29 ~xeS l1xeS 30 t2Ja4 l1ce8
30 ... l:c7 still looks better. Unfortunately
Black did not have time to put up the best
defence.
31 t2Jb6 tiJhS 32 t2Jd7 f:Se7 33 eS ..ic8
34 ctJf6+ t2Jxf6 3S gxf6 l1d7 36 l1g 1+
~h8 37 l1xd7 .ixd7 38 .l:g7 .ie6 1-0
And here Black lost on time.

Game48
I. Rogers-Zsu. Polgar
San Francisco 1991
1 b3 dS 2 .ib2 t2Jf6 3 e3 e6 4 f4
23 ... eS
This looks strange, allowing White to
open the kingside by f5-f6xg7. But if 23
... 'ifc7 24 f6 g6 25 h5 and Black is still in
difficulties; e.g. 25 ... gxh5? 26 'ifh4, or 25 ... c5
26 hxg6 ctJxg6 (not 26 ... hxg6? 27 'ifh4 or
26 .. .fxg6 27 dxc5) 27 e5 cxd4 28 ctJb 1 'ifc5
29 ~xg6 hxg6 30 l:d3! and wins on the h-
file, or 25 ... l:ed8 26 e5 (intending 27 hxg6
fxg6 28 ctJe4) 26 ... c5 27 hxg6 fxg6 28 dxc5
ctJd7 29 b4 ctJxe5 30 ~fl ctJf7 31 'ii'e3.
24 f6 ~d6
24 ... gxf6? loses to a piece after 25 gxf6 and
26 'ii'g3+ ctJg6 27 h5. The Bird is a reasonable choice against
2S fxg7 t2Je6 Black's restrained set-up. Of course it is only
If 25 ... ~xg7 26 l:f1 l:c7 27 ctJe2! (Gure- possible if White has not yet played ctJf3.

126
 Black Plays 1 .. Jfjf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c7-c5

4 ... i..d6 'ii'h4+ 16 'ii'g3 'ii'e4 17l::tg1l::tf3?! (17 ...'ii'xc2)

The consistent development with Black's 18 'ii'xg6 'i:Vh4+ 19 <it>d1 .tfs 20 'iVgS?? (20
formation, though obviously not compul- 'ii'g2) 20 ... l::tf1+ winning the queen.
sory; e.g. Polgar's knight has similar purposes: to
a) 4 ... b6 5 li:Jf3 i.b7 6 i.e2 c5 7 0-0 ctJc6 prepare ... e6-e5 or to pop out on the queen-
8 li:Je5 i.e7 9 d3 (9 ii.b5!?) 9 ... 0-0 10 li:Jd2 side (at cS) and harass the bishop on d3.
li:Jd7 11 li:Jdf3 li:Jdxe5 12 li:Jxe5? (12 fxe5) 7 0-0 'f!e7 8 l2Je5
12 ... li:Jxe5 13 fxe5 (if 13 i.xe5? d4! and A modern player isn't going to allow Black
14.. .f6) 13 ... i.g5 14l::tf3 d4 15 exd4 .i.xf3 16 to break so easily.
i.xf3 i.e3+ 17 <it>h1 i.xd4 18 i.xd4 'ii'xd4 8 ... l2Jc5
19 i.xa8 l::txa8 with a clear advantage to If 8... li:Je8!? 9 l::tf3! f6 10 l::th3 forces 10 .. .f5
Black in Larsen-Karpov, Roquebrune rapid- (since 10 ... fxe5?? 11 i.xh7 + mates), or White
play 1992. can try 10 i.xh7 + !? <it>xh711 l::th3 + <it>g8 12
b) 4 ... i.e7 5 li:Jf3 c5 (5 ... 0-0) 6 i.e2 (6 li:Jg6 'i:Vd8 13 'iVhS fS 14li:Jxf8.
li:Je5 0-0 7 i.d3!?) 6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 li:Jc6 8 li:Je5 9l:U3!?
li:Jxe5 9 fxe5 li:Jd7 10 c4 f6 11 exf6 i.xf6 12
ctJc3 dxc4 (12 ... d4 13 ctJe4) 13 bxc4 b6 14
i.f3 l::tb8 15 'ii'c2 i.eS 16 ctJe2 i.xb2 17
'ii'xb2 'i:VgS 18 li:Jf4 ctJeS 19 i.e4 li:Jg4 20
li:Jh3 l::txfl+ 21l::txf1 ~h4 (21...'ii'h5 22 'ii'a3
'ii'e5!) 22 ~a3 'ii'e7 23 li:Jf4 aS?? (23 ... li:Jf6)
24 i.xh7+! <it>xh7 25 'ii'd3+ ~g8 26 li:Jg6
'ii'd7 27 l::If8+ and mates in Ibragimov-
Neckar, Bern 1992.
5 ctJf3 0-0
White's possibilities in this line can be
seen in some amusing brevities:
a) 6 i.e2 li:Jbd7 7 0-0 cS 8 'iV e 1 b6 9 'iV g3
'ii'e7 10 d3 i.b7 11 li:Jbd2 ctJe8 12 e4 f6 13 White can't be bothered to retreat the
l::tae1 d4 14 li:Jh4 'ii'f7 15 i.g4 eS?? bishop, even though 9 i.e2 makes Black's
(1S ... li:Jc7) 16 'ii'h3 1-0 Reinderman-J.Petrov, set-up look a bit silly since the knight is not
Buenos Aires 1992. doing anything on cS. If Black tries 9 ...li:Je8
b) 6 i.e2 b6 7 0-0 i.b7 8 'ii'e1 li:Jbd7 9 (or 9 ... li:Jfd7) 10 d3 f6 after 11 li:Jg4 her
~g3 l::Ie8 10 d3 'ii'e7 11ctJe5 liad8 12 a4 a6 pieces are stepping on each other's toes.
13 li:Jd2li:Jf8 14li:Jdf3 .i.cS?? (14 ... li:J8d7) 15 9 ...C2Jxd3 10 cxd3 l2Jd7 11 l:!h3 i..xe5
li:Jg5 1-0 Bagirov-Wegelin, Weilburg 1995. 11...f6!? 12 'ifhS fxeS 13 'iYxh7+ ~f7 14
c) 6 i.d3 b6 7 'ii'e2 aS 8 0-0 i.a6 9 c4 fxe5 and then 14... i.c5? 15 l:lg3 ~e8
ctJc6 10 li:Jc3 'iVe7?? 11 c5 1-0 Bezold- (15 ...l::tg8 16 'iig6+) 1611xg7 l::tf7 17 'ifh5 is
P.Frohlich, Wiirzburg 1996. just asking for trouble, but 14... ctJxe5 15
6 i..d3 ctJbd7 ctJxeS i.xe5 16 'ii'h5+ ~g8 17 'ifxe5 (17
In Williams-Lowemhal, London 1851, 'ifh7+ draw) 17 ... l::tf5 isn't so bad; after
Black played 6...li:Jc6 with the ideas ... li:Jb4 or 18 ... i.d7 Black will triple on the f-file with
... 'ii'e7, ... e6-e5. The game continued 7 a3 (7 compensation.
0-0) 7 ...'iVe7 8 g4!? (8 li:JeS) 8... e5 9 gS ctJe8 12 fxe5 f6 13 'fih5 h6
10 fxeS ctJxeS 11 ctJxeS i.xeS 12 i.xh7+ Not 13 ... g6? 14 exf6! creating big dark-
~xh7 13 'i:VhS+ <it>g8 14 g6 fxg6 15 'ii'xe5 square weaknesses.

127
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

14 'ii'g6 18 :f3 is only a temporary inconvenience

Threatening :xh6. 14 exf6 ctJxf6 15 'i¥g6 for Black (the pin can be overcome simply by
Wh8 would transpose but Rogers' move ... Wg8) and would allow her to deploy the
order gives Black more to think about; e.g. queenside pieces actively starting with 18 ... b6;
(14 'i¥g6) 14 ... ctJxe5!? 15 .ixe5 dxe5 16 :xh6 e.g. 19 ctJa3 .ia6 20 d4 :c8 21 :c1 c5.
:f6 17 'i¥h7+ ~f8 when 18 :xf6+ gxf6 19 18 ... lt::lg4
'i¥h8+ ~f7 20 ctJc3 'i¥f8 is unclear, but 18 If now 18 ... b6!? 19 ctJb5 (or 19 :fl .ia6)
:h5 looks good for White. 19 ... ctJg4 20 ctJxc7 ctJxe5 21 ctJxa8 iL,b7 22
14 ... Wh8 15 exf6lt::lxf6 :c1 ctJc6 23 ctJxb6 axb6 24 d4! (and 25 :f3)
is good for White since the bishop and
knight are passive.
19 d4 lt::lxe5 20 dxe5 .lfi.d7 21 1lf3 Wg8
22 d4 l:.e7 23 l:.c1 aS 24lt::le2
If 24 a3 :a6! and ...:b6 would tie White
down on the queenside
24 ... ~e8 25lt::lf4 a4! 26 b4 a3!
Isolating targets at b4 and a2.
27 h4 l:.a4 28 l:.c3 ~b5
If 28 ... :xb4 29 :xa3 and the rook gets to
probe into the black heartland.
29 lt::lg6 l:.f7 30 .l:xc7
A little trick: if 30 ...:xc7?? 31 :f8+ Wh7
16 .lfi.e5 32 h5 and White mates on h8.
Anything else and Black would get to play 30 ... l:.xf3 31 gxf3 h5
.. e6-e5; e.g. 16 :f3 e5 17 ctJc3 c6 18 :afl The immediate 31...iL,c4?? would allow
.ie6 (not 18 ... 'i¥f7? 19 :xf6! gxf6 20 'i¥xh6+ White to mate by 32 :c8+, 33 h5 and :f8+
Wg8 21 :f3 wins) and the bishop pops out or :h8+ as appropriate. Black can also draw
with ... .if7-h5 or ... .ig8-h7, or if 19 ctJb 1!? after 31...:xb4 32 h5 .ie8 but she wants the
(threatening the e5-pawn and the skewer by rook behind the a-pawn.
iL,a3) 19 ... ctJd7 20 :xf8+ (20 iL,a3 c5) 32 l:.xb7 ~c4 33 f4?!
20 ...:xf8 21 :xf8+ ctJxf8 22 'i¥h5 iL,f7! 23 If 33 ctJf4 .ixa2 34 ctJxe6 .ic4 the passed
'i¥xe5 'i¥xe5 24 .ixe5 and Black gets the a-pawn forces White to take the draw: 35
skewer. :b8+ Wf7 36 ttJg5+ ~e7 37 :b7+ We8 38
16 ... 'ii'f7 :b8+ etc. Black cannot escape the checks
Black hurries to exchange queens before since if 36 ... Wg6 37 :b5+ ~f5 38 ctJe6 the
White can bring his queen's rook into the threat of 39 ctJxg7 mate forces 38 ... Wg6 again
attack. White has to acquiesce since if 17 (Dunnington).
'i¥g3?? ctJg4! wins (Dunnington) threatening White plays for a passed pawn of his own
18 ...'i¥f1 mate or 18 ... ctJxe5 19 'i¥xe5 'i¥f2+ but it's too slow and in the end he was rather
etc. (and as an added bonus the knight help- fortunate that Black didn't want to play on.
fully defends h6). 33 ... ~xa2 34 f5 exf5 35 e6 l:.a8 36 l:.d7
17 Vi'xf7 llxf7 ~b3 37 e7 Jle8 38 1la7 a2 39 b5 Wf7 40
Despite the queen exchange White still lt::le5+ We6 41 Wf2 f4 42 lt::lc6 112 -112
has the advantage with his dark square con- Just as 42 .. .fxe3+ 43 Wxe3 .ic4 (Dunning-
trol and lead in development. ton) was starting to look quite good for
18 lt::lc3! Black!

128
 Black Plays 1 .. .CiJf6, 2 ... d5 but not ... c 7-c5

Summary
The l...d5, 2 ... ctJf6 (or vice versa) variations without ... c7-c5 are less ambitious but are still per-
fectly satisfactory for Black. Of course, since they are essentially reversed 'versions of the
hugely solid 1 d4, 2 ct:'Jf3 openings: Torre (3 ~g5), London (3 ~f4), and Colle (3 e3).
3 ... ~g4 is particularly effective as it also confronts White's primary objective in the Nimzo-
Larsen: controlling the central dark squares. The main line is 4 e3 ct:Jbd7 (Games 42 and 43)
with a ponderous struggle in which only superior technique will triumph; Miles, for example, is
very good at winning these positions. Instead 4 ctJh4!? was Blatny's try for complications in
Game 44, and Black was happy to oblige.
The London 3 ... ~f5 presents more of a target and White can use any of ct:Jh4, e2(e3)-e4 or
g2-g4 to generate some initiative. Again, Blatny's attempts to stir up trouble (see Game 45) are
very interesting, though Black is not actually worse. 3 ... e6 plays simply for equality and White
can develop more-or-less as s/he chooses; e.g. c2-c4 (Game 47), f2-f4 (Game 48), d2-d4, or
g2 -g3 (Reri).

1 b3 d5 2 jLb2 tt:Jf6

3 ctJf3 (D)
3 e3 (D)
3 ... ~f5 4 f4- Game 46
3 ... e6 4 f4- Game 48
3 ... il.g4
3 ... ~f5- Game 45
3 ... e6- Game 47
4 e3
4 ct:Jh 4 - Game 44
4 ..tt:Jbd7 (D)
5 ~e2 - Game 42
5 h3- Game43

3 ctJf3 3 e3 4 .. .tiJbd7

129
 CHAPTER SEVEN I
Black plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... ~g4

The system with ... ~g4 is very logical. 42-44). These can go back further to Game
White's opening is directed towards control 33 or Game 38 should Black play ... c7-c5.
of the central dark squares and ... ~g4 ac-
tively combats this plan by challenging the Game49
position of the Cbf3. Furthermore, Black Lovric-Medancic
often adopts a ... c7-c6, ... d7-d5, ... e7-e6 for- Montecatini Terme 1999
mation, and in this case the bishop is not
stuck within the fortress. 1 b3 d5 2 j.b2 j.g4 3 f3!?
Black can develop the bishop on g4 with- In Wznning Unorthodox Openings Dunning-
out waiting for the knight to appear; i.e. 1 b3 ton recommends 3 f3 as most in keeping
dS 2 ~b2 .i..g4. This interferes with White's with the title.
plan of development (e2-e3) since the e- The other bishop hit, 3 h3, while often
pawn is pinned, while in the event of Cbg1-f3 played, does not have so much independent
Black can take the knight off giving White relevance. After 3... .th5 (3 ... .tf5?! is worse as
doubled f-pawns (Game 51), or play without h2-h3 is useful in the ... ~fS lines of Game
(or delay) ... Cbf6; e.g. by 3... lt:Jc6 (Game 52) 45) 4 Cbf3 .txf3, the addition ofh2-h3 makes
or 3... Cbd7 (Game 53) aiming for ... e7-e5. no real difference to the positions in Game
White can combat these ideas in several 51; e.g. 5 exf3 Cbf6 6 f4 e6 7 g3 g6 8 i¥e2
ways. With the 1 b3 move order White can Cbbd7 9 .tg2 c6 10 0-0 .tg7 11 d4 0-0 12
prevent the doubled pawns by playing 3 g3, 4 .S:d1 aS 13 a4 i¥b6 (Spraggett-Dorfman,
.i..g2 before Cbf3 (Game 50), drive the bishop France 1991). If Black foregoes the capture a
back with 3 h3 or 3 f3 (Game 49), or play 3 subsequent e2-e3 by White reaches standard
Cbf3 regardless. If the game starts 1 Cbf3 dS 2 positions in Chapter 6 (Games 42 and 43).
b3 ~g4 then apart from 3 ~b2, White also The only independent lines arise if White
has 3 CbeS!? (Game 55) which is a reversed further chases the bishop with g2-g4. Usually
Trompowskywith the extra move b2-b3, and White inserts 4 d3, with the option of 5 Cbd2
3 e3 although this allows 3... e5 (Game 54). and 6 Cbgf3 reaching normal lines should
The move sequence 1 Cbf3 dS 2 b3 Cbf6 3 s/he have second thoughts, and then:
.i.b2 .i.g4, and all transpositions thereto, is a) 4...Cbd7 5 g4 .i.g6 6 .i.g2 e6 7 h4 (7
considered in the previous chapter (Games Cbd2) 7... h6 8 Cbh3!? i¥xh4 9 e4 'i'ie710 Cbf4

130
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... it..g4

.th7 11 ct:Jd2 dxe4 12 dxe4 ct:Jgf6 13 eS CiJdS .td3 fS 9 CiJh3 'iVh4+ 10 ~f1 CiJh6 11 CiJf4
(13 ... ctJe4!) 14 .txdS exdS 15 ctJxdS 'iYcS 16 .tf7 12 cxdS exdS 13 g3 'iYf6 14 h4 .td6 15
c4 'iVc6 17 'iYf3 ctJb6 18 .td4 ctJxdS 19 cxdS ~f2 ctJg8 with a strange position (Bischoff-
'iVc2 20 d6 0-0-0 21 0-0! (not 21 'iYxf7 Hertneck, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1994).
.txd6!) 21...'iYxd2 22 .l:.acl .l:.d7 23 .l:.fd1 White might prefer 9 'iVc2 intending 0-0-0,
'iVgS 24 .l:.cS fS 25 .l:.dcl 'iYxg4+ 26 'iYxg4 .l:.e1 and e3-e4.
fxg4 27 .l:.xc7+ .l:.xc7 28 .l:.xc7+ ~b8 (Ubi- Possibly impressed, Hertneck later tried a
lava-Alvarez Ibarra, Elgoibar 1994) when similar line himself: 1 b3 dS 2 .tb2 ct:Jf6 3 e3
White should have taken the draw by 29 .l:.d7 .tg4 4 f3!? .ths 5 g4 .tg6 6ctJe2 ct:Jfd7 7 h4
~c8 30 .l:.c7+ etc. f6 8 c4 c6 9 cxdS cxdS 10 lt:Jbc3 e6 11 ctJd4
b) 4 .. .f6!? 5 c4 d4 6 g4 .tf7 7 .tg2 ctJc6 8 .tf7 12 .l:.c1ctJc6 13 ctJxc6 bxc6 14 ctJa4 .l:.c8
b4 'iV d7 9 a3 eS 10 ctJd2 ctJge7 11 ct:Jf 1 ctJg6 15 f4 .td6 16 .ta6 .l:.c7 17 .tc3 4:Jb6 18 .taS
12 ctJg3 ctJf4 13 .te4 g6 14 e3 ctJe6 15 ct:Jf3 'iVb8 19 ctJcS 0-0? 20 .i.d3 'iVd8 21 'iYc2 with
(15 bS ctJcd8 16 'iVf3 .tg7) 15 ... .tg7 16 exd4 a clear advantage in Hertneck-Tischbierek,
exd4 17 ctJe2 0-0 18 'iVa4 aS 19 'iVbS axb4 20 German Championship 1998.
axb4 .l:.xa1+ 21 .txa1 'iVe7 22 0-0 fS?
(22 ... ctJxb4) 23 gxfS gxfS 24 'iYxfS .tg6 25
'iVg4 .l:.xf3? 26 'iYxf3 ctJgS 27 .tdS+ ~h8 28
'iVg4 and White won in Murey-Gleizerov,
Koszalin 1999.
3 ... it..h5
After 3 ... .tf5 White can return to the
... .tfs lines of Game 46 by playing f3-f4. Or
else can try the very jolly idea 4 e3 ct:Jf6 5 g4!?
..tg6 6 h4 hS 7 gS ct:Jfd7 8 f4 with massive
control of the long diagonal. The stem game,
Welling-N.Davies, Copenhagen 1988, ended
unhappily for White, but GM Bischoff has
had more success; e.g. 8 ... e6 9 CiJf3 ctJc6 10 4 ... f6
.tbs a6 11 .txc6 bxc6 12 d3 cS 13 ct:Jbd2 f6 Touche. Black prepares both ... e7-e5 and a
14 'iYe2 .td6 15 0-0-0 'iVe7 (Bischoff-Pinter, home for the bishop at f7.
Dortmund 1998) and now Dunnington sug- a) 4 ... 'iYd6 also prepares ... e7-e5 and pre-
gests 16 gxf6 gxf6 17 .l:.hg1 with advantage. vents lt:Jf4. Teske-Ehlvest, Koszalin 1998,
Or 8 ... c5 9 ct:Jf3 ctJc6 10 .th3 e6 11 0-0 .l:.c8 continued 5 d4 ctJc6 6 c4 dxc4 7 bxc4 0-0-0
12 ctJc3 .te7 (12 ... d4!?) 13 fS ..txfS 14 .txfS (not 7... 'iYb4+? 8 .tc3 'iYxc4? 9 e4 'iYe6 10
exfS 15 ctJxdS 0-0 (15 .. .f6!?) 16 c4 ctJb6 17 d5) 8 e3 eS 9 dS 4:Jf6 10 lt:Jd2 lt:Jb4 11 e4
ctJf4 g6 18 ctJeS (preparing to sacrifice on h5) 'iYb6 12 'iYb3 4:Jd7 13 a3 ctJa6 14 .te2 ctJacS
18 ... 'iYd6 19 ctJxc6 bxc6 20 .l:.f2 ct:Jd7 21 15 'iYc2 when ~-~ was somewhat prema-
ctJxhS gxhS 22 'iVxhS ctJeS (Bischoff-Stangl, ture.
Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1994) when White b) 4 ... e6 5 4:Jf4 .tg6 6 g3lt:Jf6 is OK since
should have played 23 .l:.afl intending 7 h4 .td6 8 hS? fails to 8... lt:Jxh5! 9 ctJxhS
23 ... 'iVg6 24 'iYe2 and .l:.g2, h4-h5, etc. .txhS 10 .l:.xhS? .txg3 mate. Ibragimov-
4 lt:Jh3!? Novikov, Moscow 1991, saw 7ctJxg6 hxg6 8
Planning to harass the bishop some more. .i.g2 ~d6 9 0-0 lt:Jbd7 10 c4 'iYe7 11 d4 c6
Having blocked the pin White can now play 12 cxdS? (12 e4) 12 ... lt:Jxd5 13 'iYd2 .l:.xh2!
4 e3; e.g. 4 .. .f6 5 c4 c6 6 d4 ctJd7 7 ctJc3 e6 8 winning a pawn (14 ~xh2? 'iYh4+).

131
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

5 e4!? suggests 11...t2Jb4 with the idea 12 dxe5??

Lovric had previously lost to 4.. .f6 after 5 tt:Jxa2+, but then 12 a3 tt:Jbc6 13 tt:Jc5 '¥/Ids
d4 e6 6 e4 ~d6 7 ctJc3 c6 8 ~d3 CL:ld7 9 '¥II e2 (otherwise 14 '¥/lb5 wins) 14 c4! is good for
ctJe7 (Lovric-Cebalo, Croatian Cup 1998), White (rather than 14 '¥/lb5 CL:lxd4! 15 ~xd4
though only because of a time trouble blun- a6 16 '¥/lb4 '¥llc6 17 ~f2 l:.xd1+ 18 <;t>xd1
der. Nevertheless, in the interim he had ltxf3+! which is unclear).
found a new idea. 11 ... exd4?! 12 .:i.xd4 'ifc6 13 ~xd8+
5 ... e5 ~xd8 14 lt:Jf4 it..f7 15 'iff2!
If 5... dxe4 White would play 6 '¥lle2!? c6 Stronger than the immediate 15 '¥ild2+
(not 6... exf3?? 7 '¥/lb5+ picking up the bishop) <;t>c8 16 ~xa6 bxa6 17 l:.dl.
7 '¥llxe4 and if 7... ~g6 8 '¥/lc4 e5 9 f4!? with 15 ... 'ifb6
unusual play; or if 5... e6 6 '¥lle2! and if 6... c6? If 15 ... tt:Jb4? 16 '¥ild2+ tt:Jed5 17 ~c4 ~d6
7 exd5 and 8 CL:lf4 or 6... '¥/le7 7 ~a3. 18 CL:lxd5 ~xd5 19 CL:lxd6 '¥llxd6 20 ~xd5
6 exd5 'ifxd5 7 'ife2 ctJxdS 21 l:.d 1 wins.
Threatening CL:lf4 again. 16 it..xa6 'ifxf2
7 .. .tiJe 7 8 t2Jc3 ifd 7 9 t2Je4 Now if 16 ... bxa6 17 l:.d1+ <;t>c8 18 '¥/ld2
with the black queen on b6 White has extra
threats of'¥lld7+ and ltd4. Or if 16 ...'iixa6 17
l:.d1+ ~c8 18 '¥/ld4 b6 19 Cbxf6! wins.
17 .td1+

White already has a promising position

and intends 0-0-0, d2-d4 to open the centre.
Black needs to react quickly to negate this
plan.
9 ... lt:Ja6?! 17 ... ~c8
This doesn't work out too well. Instead, If 17 ... <;t>e8 apart from the simple 18 Cbxf2
not 9... CL:lbc6 10 ctJcS 'iic8 11 0-0-0 and 12 White can also try 18 ~b5+!? c6 19 ctJd6+
d4, but 9... tt:Jec6! looks a better try; e.g. 10 <;t>d7 20 CL:lxf7+ Wc7 (not 20 ... <;t>c8? 21 l:.d8+
0-0-0 (or 10 tt:Jf4 ~f7) 10 ... ~e7 11 d4 (if 11 Wc7 22 ctJe6+ ~b6 23 ~d4+) 21 ~d4! '¥/lh4
c3 0-0 or 11 '¥llf2 0-0) 11...tt:Jxd4 12 ~xd4 22 ctJe6+ <;t>bs 23 CL:lxh8 cxb5 24 ~c5 ctJc8
exd4 13 tt:Jc5 '¥/lc6 14 tt:Je6 ~a3+ 15 <;t>b1 25 ~xf8 with lots for the queen, or if
'¥llc3 16 tt:Jc5+ <;t>f8 17 tt:Ja4 '¥/laS and Black 20 ... CL\d5 21 CL:lxd5 <;t>c8 22 CL:lxh8 cxb5 23
seems OK. CL:lf7.
1 0 0-0-0 0-0-0 11 d4! 18 it..xb7+ ~xb7 19 lt:Jxf2
Black is already in some trouble. If now White has won a pawn while Black has yet
11...tt:Jc6 12 dxe5 '¥/lxd1+ 13 '¥llxd1l:.xd1+ 14 to get his pieces out. The rest of the game
<;t>xd1 and 15 ~xa6 is good for White. Fritz looks like a time scramble.

132
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... il.g4

19 ... ~c8 20 il.a3 CZ'lf5 21 il.xf8 .l:hf8 22 or 3 ... e6 will likely transpose below as White
CZ'le4 CZ'lh4 23 .l:id2 .l:i.d8 24 .l:ixd8+ ~xd8 continues 4 ~g2, S Ci:Jf3, 6 0-0 regardless.
25 CZ'ld2 g5 26 g3 CZ'lf5 27 CZ'lg2 il.d5 28 Black can also play ... c7-cS; e.g. 3 ... cS 4
CZ'le 1 CZ'ld4 29 c3 CZ'lf5 30 ~c2 CZ'le3+ 31 .tg2 CLJc6 S Ci:Jf3 e6 (S .. .f6 is too ambitious
~d3 CZ'lf5 32 c4 1-0 after 6 d4 cxd4 7 CLJxd4 eS 8 CLJxc6 bxc6 9
It is still a tad early to resign so presuma- c4) S... e6 6 lt:JeS!? CLJxeS 7 ~xeS Ci:Jf6 8 c4
bly Black lost on time. .te7 9 CLJc3 0-0 10 h3 ~hS 11 cxdS Ci:JxdS 12
0-0 f6! 13 lLlxdS exdS 14 ~b2 Mc8 lS Mel
Game 50 bS and Black seized the initiative in Tu Ho-
Minasian-Akopian ang Thong-Nogueiras, Yerevan Olympiad
USSR 1991 1996. Better was 11 ~xf6 ~xf6 12 cxdS
exdS 13 .txdS 'ifd7 with some compensa-
1 b3 d5 2 il.b2 il.g4 3 g3 tion (Nogueiras) though White may be able
to sort things out after 14 ~g2 Mad8 lS Mel
or 14 ... Mfe8 lS g4 ~g6 16 Mel (and if
16 ... ~d3 17 .tf3).
4 il.g2 CZ'ld7 5 CZ'lf3 CZ'lgf6
Minasian-Lobron, Cannes 1992, saw a dif-
ferent approach: S... e6 6 d4 (6 0-0) 6... ~xf3!?
7 ~xf3 fS building a Stonewall without the
bad light-squared bishop. White failed to
make any impression with 8 g4!? Ci:Jgf6 9 e3
CLJe4 10 gxfS exfS 11 ~xe4 fxe4 12 'ifhS+ g6
13 'ifh3 lt:Jf6 14 c4 'ii'd7 lS 'ifxd7+ 'it>xd7
when the backward f-pawn gave Black a
favourable ending.
Minasian's favourite response to 2 ... ~g4, 6 0-0 'iiic7
intending to cover f3 with the bishop before Intending ... e7 -eS. If Black tries to achieve
developing the knight. This can easily trans- this immediately by 6 ... ~xf3 White captures
pose to the Reti Opening (e.g. llt:Jf3 dS 2 g3 7 exf3! when 7 ... eS? runs into trouble after 8
lt:Jf6 3 ~g2 ~g4 4 0-0 c6 S b3 Ci:Jbd7 6 ~b2 Mel and f3-f4. Instead 6 ... g6 7 c4 ~g7 8 d3
e6 7 d3) should White follow with d2-d3 and 0-0 transposes to Game 62 (Chapter 8).
Ci:Jbd2. Black can also play 6 ... e6 when 7 d3 is a
He did once try 3 'iVel!? breaking the pin Reti, while 7 c4 ~d6 8 d4 is a sort of
on the e-pawn. Minasian-A.Alexandrov, Queen's Gambit Slav; Masic-Hort, Sombor
Kherson 1991, continued 3 ... Ci:Jd7 4 e3 eS S 1968, continued 8 ... 0-0 9lt:JeS ~fS 10 lt:Jbd2
Ci:Je2lt:Jgf6 6 h3 ~fs 7 d4 ~d6 8 Ci:Jd2 0-0 9 'ife7 11 'ifcl Mac8 12 Mel Mfd8 13 Ci:Jxd7
g4 ~g6 10 .tg2 Me8 11 dxeS CLJxeS!? 'if xd7 14 e4 dxe4 lS lLlxe4 lt:Jxe4 16 ~xe4
(ll. .. ~xeS) 12 f4 CLJexg4! 13 hxg4lt:Jxg4 14 ~xe4 17 Mxe4 .te7 18 'ii'c2 ~f6 and the
Ci:Jfl ~b4+ lS c3 ~cS? (better was 1S ... ~e7 moment White tried to do anything he lost
and ... ~h4, or if 16 Ci:Jfg3 ~cS!) 16 Mh3 ~fS his d-pawn. Minasian tried to improve with
17 b4 CLJxe3 18 Mxe3 'ifh 4+ 19 'it>d2 ~xe3+ 11 cS!? intending ll. .. ~xeS 12 dxeS lt:Jg4 13
20 CLJxe3 ~g4 21 CLJxg4 'ii'xg4 22 'ii'fl and e4 dxe4 14 lt:Jxe4 with the initiative, but after
White won. 11.. .~c7 12 b4 Mfd8 13 'ifb3 lt:JxeS 14 dxeS
3 ... c6 lt:Jd7 lS 'ife3 aS 16 a3 b6 17 ~d4 bxcS 18
Not the only move order. 3 ... Ci:Jd7, 3... Ci:Jf6 bxcS a4! 19 f4 MaS 20 Macl MbS 21 h3 ~aS

133
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

22 g4 iL.xd2 23 'iV xd2 iL.e4 24 iL.xe4 dxe4 25 ate capture 15 ... iL.f8 would be better from
'i¥c2 Mb3 he was left with a lot of weak- where the it keeps an eye on c5 and doesn't
nesses in Minasian-Hracek, Yerevan 1996. obstruct the queen's rook.
16 b4 Wia6 17 tiJb3!
With a blockade on d4 prepared White is
now threatening to take on e5; e.g. 17...'i¥e6
18 dxe5! iL.xe5 19 lt:Jfd4 or 17... exd4 18
ct:Jfxd4.
17 ... il.g6
Akopian re)ected 17 ... e4 18 ctJc5 'i¥b5 19
ctJe3 as good for White; e.g. 19 ... iL.d6 20
'i¥d2 prepares a3-a4 or 19 ... ctJxc5 20 dxc5
iL.eS 21 ~xeS MxeS 22 'i¥d4.
18 ltJe3 i.e4!?
18 ... e4 19 ctJcS is similar to the last note.
19 il.xe4 ltJxe4
7 d4 This is Black's idea - sacrificing a pawn
Both NCO (Emms) andECOpreferto al- for active counterplay. If instead 19 ... dxe4 20
low ... e7-e5 and reply with e2-e4; e.g. 7 d3 e5 ctJcS ctJxcS 21 dxcS White gets a powerful
8 ct:Jbd2 iL.e7 9 h3 iL.h5 10 e4 0-0 11 .:e 1 d4 pawn majority and Black no counterplay at
12 g4 iL.g6 13 lt:Jh4 with a slight advantage to all.
White in Espig-Knaak, Leipzig 1977, simi- 20 tiJxd5 Wih6 21 l!tf1!
larly after 8... iL.c5 9 e4 dxe4 10 dxe4 0-0 11 Careful defence against the threatened
h3 iL.h5 12 'i¥e1 iL.g6 13 lt:Jh4 (Bakhtadze- ... lt:Jxf2. If instead 21 f3? Akopian intended
H.Hunt, Tallinn 1997). White's initiative is 21... ctJxg3! 22 hxg3 'i¥h3 with at least a draw;
small but persistent and it's not much fun e.g. 23 ctJe3 e4! or 23 dxeS 'i¥xg3+ 24 <it>fl
defending for Black. 'i¥h3+ 2S <it>f2 ii'h2+ 26 <it>e3? iL.xeS. Now if
7 ... e6 8 tiJbd2 il.d6 9 c4 0-0 10 l!tc1 21...lt:Jdf6 22 lt:Jxf6+ ctJxf6 23 dxeS ctJg4 24
.l::i.fe8 11 ltJh4 il.h5 h4 defends .
Rather than think about potential hits on 21 ... exd4 22 ltJxd4 il.e5 23 ttJt5
the bishop every move Black shifts it in ad- Planning 23 ... ii'h3 24 lt:Jde7+ <it>h8 25
vance. After the game he changed his mind, ii'xd7 iL.xb2 26 lt:Jd6! and wins. 23 ctJc7 was
preferring 11. .. 'i¥a5 when the bishop might also possible since if 23 ... lt:Jdf6 24 ctJxe8 ctJg4
go to different squares, e.g. 12 a3 e5! 13 cxd5 (Akopian) 2S lt:Jf3 ctJexf2 26 'iV d7! (not 26
cxd5 14 h3 iL.e6 or 12 h3 iL.b4!? 13 Mc2 iL.f5. l:.xf2 iLxb2 and 27 ...ii'e3) 26 ... iLxb2 27 .l:c8
White could now pass the ball back with is strong, or if 23 ... ~xc7 24 .l:xc7 ctJeS 2S
12 h3 but instead chooses to exploit the ii'c1!.
tempo Black spent on prophylaxis by not 23 ... Wie6 24 i.xe5 ltJxe5 25 ttJte3 l:tad8
making the threat. 26 'i¥c2 l!txd5 27 ifxe4 l!td2 28 l:tfe1
12 l!te1 Wia5 13 a3 e5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 .l::i.a2 29 l!tc3 ltJc6 30 Wixe6 fxe6 31 ~f1
tiJf5 White has managed to keep his extra
Another drawback to ... iL.h5. In the pawn and swap down to an ending. Whether
11...'i¥a5line above lt:Jh4-f5 was not possible. or not Black can defend it is not very rele-
15 ... i.b8 vant. In the event he fails to do so.
Intending ... iL.xe5 in the event of d4xe5 31 ... lid8 32 .l::i.ec1 l!tad2 33 l!t3c2 l!t2d7
but as White doesn't oblige with an immedi- 34 ~c4 a6 35 l!te4 ~f7 36 ltJc4 ~e7 37

134
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... !1l.g4

~g2 ~d1 38 ~c3 l:r8d4 39 l:ree3 ~a1 40 .i.g2 (or .i.h3), but it is for White to difficult
tt:Je5 tt:Jxe5 41 ~xeS h6 42 h4 ~ad1 43 to improve it further so Black should have
f4 ~f6 44 l:rce3 l:rd6 45 g4 ~f7 46 h5 no problems; e.g. 4... e6 5 d4 g6 6 tt:Jd2 .i.g7 7
~c1 47 g5 hxg5 48 fxg5 llc8 49 .l:!.f3+ f4 c5 (7 ... ctJe7) 8 ~b5+ ctJc6 9 0-0 ctJge7 10
~g8 50 g6 ~c7 51 ~d3 ~xd3 52 exd3 tt:Jf3 0-0 11 l:.b1 cxd4 12 i..xc6 ctJxc6 13
~f8 53 ~c5 ~xeS 54 bxc5 ~e 7 55 ~f3 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 14 .i.xd4 .i.xd4 15 'i'xd4 'i'aS
e5 56 ~e4 ~e6 57 a4 a5 58 d4 exd4 59 16 l:.fcl l:.ac8 and Black took the initiative
~xd4 1-0 on the queenside in Taimanov-Volzhin, St
Petersburg 1998. Or 5 f4 ctJf6 (5 ... ctJe7) 6 g3
Game 51 ct:Jbd7 7 ~g2 (7 ~h3!? g6 8 'i'e2 'i'e7) 7... g6
D .Johansen-Brunner 8 d3 ~g7 9 ct:Jd2 c5 10 0-0 0-0 11 ct:Jf3 d4 12
Moscow Olympiad 1994 c3 dxc3 13 ~xc3 l:.c8 14 l:.cl b5 15 i¥e2
ctJb6 16 ctJe5 tt:Jfd5 17 ~a1 i¥e7 18 l:.fd1
1 tt:Jt3 d5 2 b3 !ll.g4 3 !ll.b2 l:.fd8 with equal chances in Espig-
The first instance of the standard position Tischbierek, Bundesliga 2000.
in this chapter. Now 3... ctJf6 goes back to Mistakes can of course be made however
Chapter 6 (Games 42-44); 3... ctJc6 and safe the opening; e.g. 4... tt:Jf6 5 g3 g6 6 i¥e2!?
3... ctJd7 are Games 52 and 53 respectively; .i.g7? (6 ... i¥d6) 7 i¥b5+ tt:Jbd7 8 i¥xb7 0-0 9
while 3.. .f6!? 4 d4 is in Game 40 (Chapter 5). .i.h3 e6 10 0-0 c5 11 'i'a6 i¥c7 12 i¥e2 and
But perhaps the most thematic move is ... White was a pawn up for nothing in Rogers-
3 ... !1J..xf3! Stripunsky, New York Open 1998.
4 ... tt:Jf6
4... e6 and 5...ctJf6 is slightly more accurate.
Having given up the bishop to double the f-
pawns there's no point in allowing White to
do the same.
5 e3 e6
5... c5 is also viable, creating a reversed
Queen's Indian in which White has the dam-
aged structure; e.g. 6 f4 ctJc6 7 .i.g2 e6 8 d3
g6 9 c4 ~g7 10 ctJc3 0-0 11 0-0 d4! with the
advantage (Korchnoi-Bacrot, Enghien 1997)
or 6 d4 (6 ~b5+!?) 6... cxd4 7 i¥xd4 ctJc6
(7 ... a6!?) 8 ~b5 'i'aS+ 9 ctJc3 e6 10 0-0-0
After this White has few winning chances. .i.e7 11 l:.hg1 tt:Jd7 12 i¥a4 i¥xa4 13 ctJxa4
If 4 exf3 it is hard for White to make any ~f6 14 il.xf6 gxf6 and soon drawn (Slipak-
impression on the centre (unless Black fool- Soppe, Sao Paulo 1997).
ishly allows f4-f5 at a good moment). 4 gxf3 6 f4 ctJbd7
provides an extra central pawn and a half- Despite 5... e6 the il.f8 is usually devel-
open g-file for the rook, while the king may oped at g7. Both ... e7-e6 and ... g7-g6 are use-
go long, but White lacks an effective kingside ful moves; the former supports the centre,
pawn break. the latter holds the g-file after White's inevi-
4 gxf3 table l:.g1, while together they combine to
4 exf3 can also arise via 3 ~b2 ctJd7 4 g3 prevent f4-f5.
il.xf3 when g2xf3 is not an option. White's In Alburt-Dlugy, New York 1992, Black
position looks quite nice after g2-g3, f2-f4, didn't wait for l:.g1, playing 6... g6 7 c4 .tg7 8

135
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

d3 0-0 9 lt:Jd2 lt:Jh5!? 10 i.xg7 lt:Jxg7 11 tt:Jf3 'Viid8! 22 'Viie4 :d1 mates) 19 ... b5 20 i.d5
lt:Jd7 12 'Viic2 c6!? (12 ... 'Viif6) 13 'Viic3 'Viie7 14 (not 20 i.xf7+ :xf7 21 :xf7 ~xf7 22 fxg6+
i.e2 f6 15 d4 :ad8 16 :c1 g5!? 17 fxg5 fxg5 ~g8 when the king hides in the corner)
18 :g1 :f5 19 h4 g4?! (19 ... gxh4) 20 lt:Jg5! 20 ... :ac8 21 :xf7 :xc2 22 :xa7+ ~h8 23
h6 21 i.xg4 hxg5 22 i.xf5 lt:Jxf5 23 :xg5+ :xa5 :fc8 24 i.c4 :ct+ 25 :xcl bxcl'iV +
~f7 24 cxd5! cxd5 25 ~e2 lt:Jxh4 26 :cg1 26 ~xc 1 bxc4 27 bxc4 gxf5 28 :xf5 :xc4+
lt:Jf5 27 'Viic7 :es 28 'Viixb7 li:Jf6 29 'Viixe7+ and Black has whatever winning chances
:xe7 with an interesting endgame. there are - not very many with the wrong
7 c4 c6 8 .:lg1 g6 9 tbc3 ~g7 10 ifc2 bishop for the h-pawn.
0-0 11 d4 19 ~xf7+ 'iitf8 20 ifd3
In his notes in Informator 62 Brunner criti- Brunner analyses several lines to a draw,
cised this move, preferring 11 0-0-0 and if the first of which is 20 'Viie4!? :ct+ 21 :xc1
11...a6 12 d4 b5 13 c5! closing the queenside. bxc 1'Vii+ 22 ~xc 1 'Vii e 1+ 23 ~c2 :c8+ 24
Black can play 11...'Viia5 in any case, follow- i.c4 'Viic3+ 25 ~d1 bxc4 26 'Viie7+ ~g8 27
ing with ...:fcs and ... b7-b5. If instead 11 'Viie6+ ~h8 28 :xg7! cxb3 29 :xh7+! ~xh7
i.e2 (intending h4-h5) 11...lt:Je4! 12 lt:Jxe4 30 'Viid7+ with perpetual check. 20 'Viid3 al-
i.xb2 13 'Viixb2 dxe4 14 0-0-0 'Viie7 15 d3 lows White later to block checks from the
exd3 16 i.xdJ :fd8 with a level position in black queen, though Brunner shows a forced
Soppe-M.Sorokin, San Martin 1994. draw against this too (see next note).
11 .. .'iVa5 12 0-0-0 .:lfc8 13 'iitb1 c5 20 ... .l:.c1 + 21 .:lxc1 bxc1if +
Showing the drawback of d2-d4 as Black 21...'Viixa2+!? leads to another draw: 22
opens files to the white king. ~xa2 bxclli:J+ 23 ~b1 lt:JxdJ 24 i.d5 :cs
14 cxd5 cxd4 15 dxe6 dxc3 16 exd7 25 :f7+ ~e8 26 :xg7 :c1+ 27 ~a2 lt:Jb4+
tbxd7 17 .:lxd7!? 28 ~b2 li:Jd3+ 29 ~a2 lt:Jb4+ etc.
17 i.cl would be more cautious. The text 22 'iitxc1 ~e1+ 23 'iitc2 .:lc8+ 24 ~c4
allows the pawn to reach b2 when Black has ifxf2+ 25 'iitd1 ifg1 + 26 'iitd2 ifxh2+ 27
various tricks with ...:cl+, ... 'Viixa2+. 'i¥e2 'iih3!
17 ... cxb2 18 ~c4 Brunner gives 27 ... i.c3+ 28 ~c2 'Viixe2+
29 i.xe2 as good for White. After 29 ... i.aS+
30 ~d1 :ds 31 :xd8 i.xd8 32 i.xb5, with
a passed e-pawn and another potential
passed pawn on the queenside White has
chances despite the opposite-coloured bish-
ops.
28 .:lf7+?!
Shooting his bolt, but now Black can hide
his king away in the corner. Better was 28
'ViidJ bxc4 29 ~d6+ ~g8 30 'Viid5+ ~h8 31
:d8+ i.f8 32 'iie5 with perpetual again.
28 ... 'iitg8 29 ~d5 'iith8 30 'ilff3 ifh2+ 31
'i!Vg2 ifh4 32 .l:.xa7 ~c3+?
18 ... b5!? Returning the favour. Black should have
In similar spirit Black ignores the attack- played 32 ...'iif6 coming round for another go
even forces it! Black could have defended on the queenside. If 33 :as 'iib2+ 34 ~d3
with 18 ... :f8 and then if 19 f5 (there is no ifb1+ 35 ~e2 :xa8 36 i.xa8 'ifxa2+ 37 ~fl
time for 19 :xb7 :ad8 20 f5 :d2 21 :xa7 ifxb3 wins a pawn so that this time Black

136
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... i..g4

would have the two passers in any bishop 50 ...:g3+? 51 ~f4 :g5?
endgame. Black had to take on fS since, as Brunner
33 ~d3 ifdS? shows, White could now play 52 f6 .tg3+ 53
It was better to go back with 33 ... 'ife1 \t>e4! ~xeS+ 54 <it>f3 .th4 55 f7 ~fS+ 56 \t>e4
when 34 ~a8 'ifb1+ 35 'ifc2 'iffl+ 36 'ife2 .tel 57 .te6! (blocking thee-file) 57... ~f158
'ifb1+ or 34 ~xh7+ \t>xh7 35 'ifh3+ \t>g7 36 ~e8 and wins since Black's bishop cannot be
'ifxc8 'ifd1+ 37 \t>e4 (not 37 'ifxc3?? 'tiel+) maintained on the diagonal (if 58 ... .td6 or
37 ... 'ifh1+ is again perpetual. 58 ... i.c5 59 <it>dS).
34 ife4 52 i..e6?? i..g3+ 53 ~e4 gxf5+ 54 i..xf5
:g7
Now Black can defend.
55 l:.c4 ~g5 56 :xb4 :t7 57 :bs i..xe5
58 :gS+ i..g7 59 i..xh7 ~h6 60 i..f5 :ts
1!2-1!2
This time the bishop endgame is a trivial
draw.

Game 52
Przepiorka-Tartakower
Liege 1930
1 t2Jf3 d5 2 b3 i..g4 3 i..b2 t2Jc6!?
Now White is in control. 2... ctJc6!? 3 .tb2 .tg4 is another move or-
i..g7 35 iVe6 b4 36 iff7 iVfS 37 iVxfS+ der.
i..xfS 38 e4 ~c3+ 39 ~e2 i..c5 40 :b7?! 4d4
Better was 40 ~c7 .td4 41 ~c4! ~xc4 42 This advance is particularly pertinent
bxc4 with another difficult bishop endgame when Black seeks to prepare ... e7-e5 by
for Black. It's an unusual circumstance actu- ... ctJc6. With thee-pawn advance thwarted
ally to want to swap down to this endgame Black's natural counterplay is with ... c7-c5,
which is notoriously drawn, but leaving the but for that the knight will have to moved
rooks on offers Black more counterplay. again and, generally, Black does not get the
40 ... ~c2+ 41 ~f3 ~xa2 42 e5 ~a7 43 active plays/he was looking for with ...ctJc6.
~b8+ ~g7 44 :gS+ ~h6 45 ~e4 .:t:!.a 1 ECO gives this variation under the
46 i..c4 :e 1 + 4 7 ~f3 l:1e3+ 48 ~g4 l:.c3 Nimzo-Larsen (A06) though it could equally
Preparing a dark-square counterattack be regarded as an anti-Colle (D02). The
with ... .tf2, ... ~g3+. games in the notes below reached this posi-
49 ~cS? tion by both routes. Przepiorka-T artakower
Better was 49 e6 (see next note). started 1 d4 dS 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 b3 .tg4 4 .tb2.
49 ... i.. f2 50 f5 Apart from 4 d4 White has also played 4
Forced, in order to negate SO ... ~g3+. But e3 when 4... e5 5 h3 .txf3 6 'ifxf3 ctJf6 7
now Black could play SO ... .tg3! hitting eS, .tbs .td6 transposes to S... .tg4 in Game 9
and if 51 e6 .teS 52 e7?? ~g3+ 53 \t>h4 gS (Chapter 1). If 4... e6 5 d4 is again possible, or
mates, while 51 fxg6 .txeS is just drawn. later. Piket-Sadler, Monte Carlo rapidplay
With 49 e6 .tf2 50 fS .tg3? would not be 1998, saw instead 5 .te2 ctJf6 6 0-0 .tel 7 c4
possible; i.e. 51 e7 i.eS 52 e8'if ~g3+ 53 0-0 8 ttJc3 ~e8 9 d3 .tfs 10 h3 .ths 11 a3
\t>h4 gS+ 54 ~xgS!. aS 12 ~cl ~c8 13 ctJbS 'ife7 14 ~c2 ttJd7 15

137
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

d4 ctJb6 16 cxdS exdS 17 ct:Jd2 J!Lxe2 18 thing. If 6 c4? dxc4 7 bxc4 il.b4+ wins the d-
~xe2 ct:Jd8 and Black had solved his prob- pawn, or 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 ~h4 intending
lems. ... 0-0-0; while on 6 e3 Black can choose be-
tween 6... g6 etc., or 6... ~h4!?, or even 6.. .fS!?
7 c4 ct:Jf6 8 ~d2 i.e7 9 il.h3 0-0 10 ctJc3 aS
11 0-0 ~e8 12 f4 ~hS 13 i.g2 ctJe4 14 ~e2
~xe2 1S ctJxe2 a4 with the initiative (Link-
Schmitt, Wurttemberg 1992).
5 ... e6 6 g3
If 6 il.bS then 6... ctJe7 and ... g7-g6, ... il.g7
sets up the formation as in the previous note.
Black could do the same against 6 g3, which
was perhaps to prevent ... ~h4, not with the
intention of f3-f4 (since 6 f4 was possible).
Tartakower decides to stop it anyway.
6 ... g5!? 7 h4 gxh4 8 ~xh4 ..tb4+!?
4 ... ..txf3!? A semi-useful check. 8... il.e7 9 ~h 1 i.f6
Having played 1 d4 dS 2 ct:Jf3 ctJc6!? and and ... ctJge7-fS would force White into c2-c3
... J!Lg4 in Chigorin fashion, this capture natu- anyway, or if 10 ~d3 ctJge7 11 ct:Jd2? (11
rally comes to mind (given the Russian mas- ~xh7 ~xh7 12 ~xh7 ctJxd4) 11...ctJb4! 12
ter's predilection for 2 ct:Jf3 J1lg4 3 c4 ~bS+ (or 12 ~c3 ctJec6! 13 i.bS i.xd4)
J!Lxf3!?). Black can also consider 4.. .f6!? as 12 ... ctJec6 13 0-0-0 a6 14 ~a4? bS 1S ~a3
per the notes to Game 40 (see ChapterS). il.e7 wins the queen.
4 ... e6 is more restrained, when the ECO 9 c3
line runs S ct:Jbd2 ct:Jf6 6 g3 il.e7 7 il.g2 0-0 8 Perhaps T artakower had ideas of 9 ct:Jd2
0-0 aS 9 c4 ctJb4 10 a3 ctJa6 11 ctJeS il.fS 12 ~f6!? 10 il.d3 il.xd2+!? 11 <it>xd2 (not 11
f3 h6 13 e4 il.h7 14 cS ct:Jd7 1S f4 ctJxeS 16 ~xd2? ~xf3) 1l. .. ctJge7 and then if 12 il.xh7
fxeS c6 (Csom-Tsouros, Vrnjacka Banja ctJfS! 13 il.xfS ~xh4 14 gxh4 ~xfS 1S ~g1
1972) given as equal. Gamble-T ait, Derbys ~xf3! when it is bad for White to take the
League 1993, saw instead 6 e3 ctJe4!? 7 ~cl?? rook: 16 ~g8+ ~d7 17 ~xa8? ~xf2+ 18
JiLa3! 8 ctJxe4 (8 il.xa3 ctJc3 or 8 ~b1 il.b4) ~d1 ctJxd4 19 il.xd4 (forced) 19 ... ~xd4+
8... il.xb2 9 ctJg3 i.xcl 10 ~xcl .i..xf3 11 and 20 ... ~xa1, or 18 <it>d3? ctJb4+ 19 <it>c3 aS
gxf3 ~e7 and Black won. 20 ~xa5 ctJc6! threatening the queen and
Probably S e3 is a little better; e.g. mate at e3 or d4.
S... il.b4+ 6 c3 J!Ld6 7 i.e2 ct:Jf6 8 0-0 il.xf3 9 9 ... .1i.e7 10 ~h1 h5 11 f4 h4 12 lbd2
il.xf3 eS 10 dxeS .i..xeS 11 ~e2 ~e7 12 ctJa3 ..td6?
0-0-0 13 c4 il.xb2 14 ~xb2 ctJeS 1S i.e2 hS A definite mistake, allowing White to win
16 ~acl with the advantage (Przepiorka- the pawn without damaging his pawn struc-
Colle, Budapest 1929). The eS-break frees ture. Black should have played 12 ... ~h6 and
Black's position but White's is easier to play then if 13 ct:Jf3? hxg3 or 13 gxh4 i.xh4.
with the bishop pair and c2-c4 pending. 13 lbf3 'iVt6 14 !1xh4 0-0-0 15 ~xh8
5 exf3 'iVxh8 16 lbe5 ..txe5 17 fxe5 f6
If White takes the other way: S gxf3 e6! White should really win this with the two
and Black can follow by ... ctJge7, ... g7-g6, bishops and an extra pawn. Here 18 exf6
... il.g7 when the pressure against the d4- intending~ e2, 0-0-0 seems the simplest way
pawn makes it difficult for White to do any- to consolidate.

138
 Black Pia ys 1 ... d5, 2 ... iL.g4

18 ~g4 ~e8 19 exf6 t2Jxf6 20 ~h3 ~g7 tactically very strong. Black threatens
Black is beginning to get some counter- 27 ... l:Ih2! 28 'i!Vxh2 ctJf3+.
play; if now 21 0-0-0 ctJe4 or 21 ~d3 <it>b8 27 cxd4
22 0-0-0 ctJg4. White decides to take e4 and If 27 <it>d1!? ctJcS 28 il.e3 tt:Jdxb3! 29 axb3
g4 away from the black knight, but in so 'i!Vxc3 completes the demolition.
doing weakens his dark squares. 27 ... 'ik'xd4 28 ~c2
21 f3 'ik'g5 22 iL.c1 'ik'g6 23 ~d2 If 28 l:Ib 1 ctJcS 29 'i!Ve2 tt:Jxd3 30 'i!Vxd3?
Removing the king from the e-file, pre- l:Ih2+ and mate in three (Tartakower),
venting ...'i!Vc2, and preparing il.d3, <it>c2 etc. though 29 ... ctJe4+! (Fritz) is even stronger.
23 ... t2ld7 28 ... t2lc5
Black breaks the pin on the e-pawn and 'Much more convincing than the immedi-
vacates the f6-square for his queen. ate capture' 28 ... iVxa129 ~b2 'iYxa2 30 <it>cl
24 iL.d3 Vi'f6 25 f4? ctJcS 31 il.c2 etc. (T artakower) ... except that
A big mistake. White should have played White might now move his rook. But let's
25 'ilV g4 defending the f-pawn and moving not quibble as Black is winning easily which-
the queen off the h-file; then if 25 ... e5 (or ever.
25 .. J~h8 26 <it>c2) 26 il.fS! l:Ie7 27 dxeS 29 iL.e2 ~xa 1 30 iL.b2 Vixa2 31 ii'f3 ~h2
'i!VxeS (not 27 ... tt:Jxe5? 28 'i!Vg8+) 28 il.xd7+ 32 g4 d4 0-1
l:Ixd7 29 iLb2 intending l:Ie1 (or 29 ... 'i!Vf6 30
f4) and White still has good prospects for a Game 53
wm. Yermolinsky-Shabalov
25 .. .llh8 26 'ik'g2? Kings Island 1993
A further mistake; clearly White hasn't
seen what's coming. 26 'i!Vg4 would at least 1 t2lf3 d5 2 b3 iL.g4 3 iL.b2 t2ld7
have allowed White to decline the sacrifice: Now 4 e3 tt:Jgf6 or 4... e6 again leads to
26 ... tt:Jxd4 27 'i!Vg6 with some chances for a normal positions from Chapter 6 (Games 42
defence. and 43); or Black can try 4 ... e5 5 h3 .txf3 6
Understandably, given his previous dubi- 'i!Vxf3 c6 7 c4 t2Jgf6 leading to Game 54.
ous play, T artakower only includes from here Similarly 4 c4 c6 5 e3 eS 6 cxdS cxdS 7 h3
on in his Best Games (Vol.J). .txf3 8 'i!Vxf3 tt:Jgf6, while if 4 ... e6 5 e3 t2Jgf6
6 i.e2 ~d6 7 h3 is back in Game 42 again
(with s... e6).
4 d4!? e6
4 ... il.xf3 is slightly less appropriate now as
the ... t2Jd7 is not optimally placed. After 5
exf3 e6 6 f4 Sturua-Novikov, Anzio 1994,
continued 6... c6 7 t2Jd2 il.d6 8 g3 t2Jgf6 9
il.d3 'i!Ve7 10 a3 0-0 11 0-0 cS 12 l:Ie1 cxd4
13 t2Jf3 CZJcS 14 il.fl t2Jce4 15 t2Jxd4 and
White is better as f2-f3 drives the t2Je4 away
and f4-f5 exposes a weakness at e6 after a
suitable build up (il.h3, l:Ie2, l:Iae1).
In Smyslov-Ehlvest, USSR Championship
26 ... t2Jxd4! 1988, White chose a different plan, putting
Tartakower praises this as 'a sacrifice on his bishop on g2 and storming the queenside:
positional grounds'. It helps that it's also 6 ... .td6 7 g3 'i!Ve7 8 il.g2 c6 9 c4 t2Jh6 10 0-0

139
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

0-0 11 l:.e1 ctJf6 12 cS! .ic7 13 tt:Jd2 tt:Jfs 14 Preparing ctJf3-eS. Black could take the
b4 hS 1S .ih3 g6 16 ctJf3 ~g7 17 ctJeS l:.h8 knight off 8... ~xf3 9 tt:lxf3 'ire7 with an
18 a4 tt:ld7 19 bS, and when Black attempted equal position but that would be boring. In-
kingside counterplay by 19 ... tt:lxeS 20 fxeS f6 stead Dubinin-Jovcic, corr Vidmar memorial
21 exf6+ 'irxf6 22 l:.a3 l:.ae8 23 l:.b3 l:.e7 24 1978, saw 8 ~e2 'irf6!? (8 ... tt:lgf6) 9 'ii'c2
'ii'd2 gS, Smyslov switched across with 2S ctJh6 10 h3 .ihS 11 a3 tt:lf7 12 ctJeS ~xe2 13
.ixfS! 'iVxfS (if 2S ... exfS 26 l:.xe7+ 'irxe7 27 tt:lxd7 ~xd7 14 ~xe2. The successive king
bxc6 bxc6 28 l:.b7) 26 ~cl ~g6 27 l:.be3 captures were unusual and the rest of the
and won after 27 ... l:.g8 28 l:.eS! ~xeS 29 game was also quite interesting: 14...l:.ad8 1S
l:.xeS 'ii'b 1 30 l:.xgS+ ~h7 31 l:.xhS+ ~g7 32 b4 a6 16 bS cxbS 17 cS ~e7 18 a4 b4 19 aS
~g2 ~f8 33 'ii'f4+ ~e8 34 l:.h4 eS 3S dxeS l:.c8 20 'ira4+ l:.c6 21 'ii'xb4 ctJd8 22 f4 gS 23
l:.f7 36 'ii'h6 l:.g6 37 'ii'e3 cxbS 38 axbS g3 l:.g8 24 l:.ag1 l:.c7 2S ctJf3 ctJc6 26 'ird2
'irxbS 39 e6! l:.f8 40 'ireS! 'irxcS 41 ~e3 1-0. l:.cc8 27 .ic3 'll-'ll.
5 ctJbd2 8 ... 'ii'e7 9 ct:le5 ct:lgf6 10 f3 ~h5 11 .td3
In his notes to the game in the previous 0-0 12 0-0 :tac8 13 c5!?
note Smyslov gave S g3 '!'still offering Black Yermolinsky later preferred 13 'ire1 cS 14
the possibility of ... ~xf3. In Smyslov- ~h 1 so perhaps he didn't mean to sacrifice.
Zsu.Polgar, Aruba 1992, he opted instead for Nevertheless White gets reasonable compen-
S e3 tt:Jgf6 6 tt:Jbd2 c6 7 ~e2 ~d6 8 ctJeS sation for the cS-pawn in the form of the cS-
~xe2 9 'iV xe2 0-0 10 0-0 cS 11 tt:lxd7 tt:lxd7 square.
12 dxcS ~xeS 13 c4 dxc4 14 ctJxc4 'ii'e7 1S 13 ... .i:.xe5 14 dxe5 'iYxc5 15 .td4!
l:.fd1 l:.ac8 16 'irf3 ctJb6 17 l:.acl tt:lxc4 18 Not 1S exf6? (nor 1S ~a3? 'irxe3+ 16 l:.f2
l:.xc4 and the game was later drawn. ctJxeS) 1S ... 'irxe3+ 16 l:.f2 'irxd3 17 fxg7
5 ... f5!? l:.fe8 intending ... e6-eS with a clear advan-
Black builds a Stonewall with the bishop tage. Yermo gives 17 ... l:.f7 but Fritz finds an
outside the pawn fortress. This is more en- unexpected trick: 18 'ii'e1! eS 19 ctJc4! dxc4
terprising than S... tt:lgf6; e.g. 6 e3 ~d6 7 ~e2 20 l:.d2 trapping the queen.
'ii'e7 8 0-0 c6 9 ctJeS ~xe2 10 'irxe2 ~a3 11 15 ... 'ifxc1 16 .l::ifxc1 ct:le8 17 f4!
~xa3 'irxa3 12 c4 0-0 13 ctJxd7 ctJxd7 with Not 17 b4? f4!. Fortunately there is no
another inevitable draw (Schmittdiel-Hort, need for b3-b4 as yet since 17 ... cS can be
Germany 1989). answered by 18 ~bS!, while if 17 ... b6 18 b4
6 e3 ~d6 7 c4 c6 tt:lb8 19 l:.c3 :f7 20 l:.acl (and even 21
ctJb3) keeps control of cS.
17 ... a5 18 a3 ct:lc7 19 b4 ct:la6!?
20 bxa5? relinquishes the bind (20 ... cS 21
~c3 c4) while 20 ~xa6 bxa6 gives up the
light squares: 21 ctJb3 axb4 22 axb4 ~e2.
20 ~f2
Preventing ... ~e2 and thus threatening 21
~xa6 bxa6 22 ctJb3 when White is clearly
better, or if 20 ... axb4? 21 .i.xa6 bxa6 22 axb4
ctJb8 23 ctJb3. So Black defends the knight
but this gives White time to take on aS.
20 .. J~~a8 21 bxa5 lUeS 22 l:i.ab1
22 ctJb3 would have re-established control
8 'ifc1 !? of cS, though with little chance of achieving

140
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... !ii..g4

anything else. In turn, rather than defend 3 ... e5! 4 h3 !ii..xf3 5 ~xf3 ctJf6
passively with 22 ... Mc7, Black takes the Usual, though not forced. The following
chance to make his break. were also all fine for Black: S~ .. e4 6 ifd1 iLe7
22 ... c5!? 23 .l:xb7 c4! 7 d4 exd3 8 .1xd3 iLf6 9 c3 ctJe7 10 .i.b2
Not 23 ... cxd4 24 Mxc8+ Mxc8 2S i.xa6 ct:Jd7 11 ctJd2 ctJcS 12 .i.c2 c6 (Raaste-Bellin,
and now if 2S ... ctJcS 26 Mxg7+ ~xg7 27 Lodz 1980); or S... CDc6 6 i.bS ct:Jge7 7 .i.a3!?
i.xc8 ct:Jxd3+ 28 ~f1 dxe3 29 ct:Jf3 halts the a6 8 .i.xc6+ CDxc6 9 .i.xf8 Mxf8 10 CDc3 d4
e-pawn and White's a-pawn goes through; (Taimanov-K.Rasmussen, Aarhus 1993); or
similarly if 2S ... Mc2 26 Mxd7 Mxd2+ 27 ~g3 S... g6 6 .i.b2 .1g7 7 ife2 CDc6 8 g3 CDge7 9
dxe3 28 i.bS e2 29 ~f2 Md1 30 il.xe2 Md2 il.g2 0-0 10 0-0 ifd7 (Mastrovasilis-
31 a6 Mxe2+ 32 ~f1 Ma2 33 a7 Mxa3 34 Miladinovic, Chania 1999).
Md8+ and 3S a8iV. 6 ~b2 4Jbd7
24 .l:xd7 cxd3 25 .l::l.xc8+
If 2S Mb 1 Mc2 26 ~e 1 Mac8 27 Mbb7
.i.g6! defends the kingside giving Black time
for ... Mel+ etc. as in the game. Similarly if 2S
Ma7!? Mxcl 26 Mxa8+ ~f7 27 Mxa6 Mc2.
White cannot run off with the king since the
d-pawn is faster than the a-pawn; e.g. 28
Mb6? Mxd2+ 29 ~g3 Mc2 30 a6 d2 31 a7
d1iV 32 a8iV ii'g4 mate. If White could
queen with check things might be different!
25 ... .l:.xc8 26 l:.b7 .l:.c2 27 ~e1
The last try was 27 Mb2 ctJcS! 28 Mb8+!
~f7 29 i.xcS when 29 ... Mxd2+ 30 ~g3 Mc2
31 .i.b4! (not 31 a6? MxcS 32 a7 MaS 33 a8iV This position also arises via2 ...CDf6 3 .i.b2
Mxa8 34 Mxa2 d2) 31...d2 32 .i.xd2 Mxd2 33 iLg4 4 e3 ct:Jbd7 (from Chapter 6) with S h3
a6 wins. Black would have had to take the 1Lxf3 6 ifxf3 eS. ECO gives these lines in
bishop, 29 ... MxcS, when after 30 a6 MaS 31 three different places (including A12).
Mb7+ ~g6 32 a7 Mxa3 White can make no By the current game move order 6... 1Ld6
progress. If 33 Me7 Ma2 34 ~g3 .1e2 3S is possible, when White can try 7 ii'g3 'iVe7!?
Mxe6+ ~f7 36 Md6 Mxa7 37 MxdS :a2 38 (7 ... ct:Jhs 8 ifg4 g6) 8 ifxg7 Mg8 9 ifh6
ct:Jf2 .i.f1 38 ct:Jh4 g6 defends, while other- ct:Jbd7 (better was 9 ... CDc6- Gulko) 10 ifh4
wise Black can 'knock' with ... h7-h6, ... ~h7- e4 11 CDc3 c6 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 f4 exf3 14
g6-h7 etc. gxf3 ~b8 1S iff2 and White escaped with
27 ... .l::l.c1+ 28 ~f2 .l:.c2 ~-~ his bounty in Gulko-Timoschenko, Frunze
1981.
Game 54 7 c4 c6
Schmittdiei-Kaeser Blocking the attack by 7... e4 opens the
Bundesliga 1989 long diagonal, though Black may still be OK;
e.g. 8 ii'g3 (if 8 ifd1 dxc4! 9 1Lxc4 iLd6 -
1 4Jf3 d5 2 b3 !ii..g4 3 e3 Taimanov) 8... 1Ld6!? (8 ... CDhS) 9 ifxg7 Mg8
Now 3 ... ct:Jf6, 3 ... ct:Jd7, 3 ... e6 and 3... c6 all 10 ifh6 dxc4 11 bxc4 Mg6 12 ifh4 .i.eS 13
lead once more to positions from the previ- CDc3 CDcS with compensation (P .Baier-
ous chapter (Games 42 and 43). But the criti- p .Buchnicek, Moravian T earn Championship
cal reply is: 1998).

141
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

8 cxd5 cxd5 i.xd7+ ~f8! 13 VJJ/g5 h6 14 VJJ/h4 g5 trapping

Or 8... lt:Jxd5 9 ~c4 ltJSf6 10 lt:Jc3 i.b4 11 the queen (as found by Yusupov).
a3 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 0-0 13 0-0 l:te8 14 l:tfd1 Judging from his subsequent play, Kaeser
lt:Jb6 15 i.fl lt:JbdS 16 ~b2 VJJ/e7 17 d3 h6 probably found 11...g6! at the board.
18 VJJ/e2 l:tad8 19 l:tacl lt:Jh7 V2-V2 Comas 1 2 CZJxe4 gxf5 13 CZJxf6+
Fabrego-Korneev, Catalan Team Champion- 13 i.xf6 VJJ/a5 and 13 lt:Jxf6+ ~e7 was also
ship 1999. With the two bishops White given by Dvoretsky. Unfortunately Black
should really have tried harder. spoilt his combination here by playing:
Kaeser did not have the chance for 13 ... wf8?
... tt:JxdS as his move order was 3 i.b2 tt:Jd7 4 After 13 ... ~e7 Black is better; e.g. 14
c4 c6 5 e3 e5 6 cxd5 cxd5 7 h3 i.xf3 8 VJJ/xf3 lt:Jxd5+ ~e6 15 i.c4 i.e5 or 14 i.xd7 VJJ/aS
tt:Jgf6. 15 i.xf5? d4.
9 ~b5 14 CZJxd7+ Wg8 15 g4
T aimanov gave this an exclamation mark 15 lt:Jf6+ is a draw. White scorns the op-
assessing 9 ... i.d6 10 lt:Jc3 e4 11 VJJ/f5 (see portunity so Black takes the chance to pre-
next diagram) as clearly better for White. vent it.
Yusupov later preferred 9 lt:Jc3 also claiming 15 ... ~e7 16 g5
some advantage for White. Probably Black is 16 gxf5? achieves nothing after 16 .. .f6!.
OK either way; e.g. 9 lt:Jc3 e4 10 VJJ/g3 VJJ/b8 Still, the best that 16 g5 threatens is to take a
11 lt:Jb5 VJJ/xg3 12 fxg3 ~d8 13 g4 h6 14 ~e2 draw by 17 lt:Jf6+ ~f8 (17 ... i.xf6?! 18 ~xf6
i.c5 15 l:tfl ~e7 16 lt:Jd4 g6 17 a3 a6 18 establishes a bind) 18 lt:Jd7+and White could
0-0-0 ~d6 19 ~b 1 lt:Je5 20 l:tc 1 lt:Jfd7 21 have had that last move. Unless of course
~a2 :hc8 22 b4 lt:Jb6 23 lt:Jb3 lt:Jbc4 24 Black plays:
i.xe5 V2-V2 Kovacevic-Cigan, Croatian Cup 16 ... ~xg5??
1990. An incredible blunder opening the g-file.
9 ... ~d6 10 CZJc3 e4 11 'ii'f5 If Black wanted to play for a win he should
have tried 16 ... VJJ/a5 17 i.d3 (if 17 a4 a6 18
i.c3 i.b4) 17... d4! when 18 i.xd4? loses to
18 ... VJJ/d5.
17 .l::lg1 h6 18 f4 a6 19 fxg5 axb5 20
gxh6+ wh 7 21 ctJf6+ ~xh6

11 ... g6!
Dvoretsky gives this two exclamation
marks in Secrets of Chess Tactics (Batsford
1992), which may be (to paraphrase Hubner)
more indicative of the annotator's excitement
than the move's actual worth, and here Presumably Black had missed when taking
Dvoretsky was excited by the lovely idea 12 on g5 that he was losing here - i.e. 22 i.e5

142
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... i..g4

and the threat of 23 iJ4 mate forces Black c4 or 6 e4 don't make much sense here) and
to give up his queen. then 6... ctJc6 (or 6... iVd6 7 Jl.h3 tt.Jf6 8 e3
Instead the database gives the concluding ct.Jbd7 9 d3 g61h-lh J.Nikolac-Spassky, Ger-
moves as: many 1987) 7 e3 ifd7 8 iff3 0-0-0 9 ctJc3 e4
22 We2? ~c8? 23 l!g3? 1-0 10 iVh3 e6 11 0-0-0 ctJh6 12 ~g1 with some
initiative (Tolonen-Keskisarja, Kankaanpaa
Game 55 1997), or if 7 ... ctJf6 8 Jl.h3 g6 9 hxg6 hxg6 10
Rossolimo-Tartakower iVf3 iVd6 11 ctJc3 e4 12 iVg2 ctJeS (Tolonen-
First match game, Paris 1948 Terasti, Finnish League 1997) when White
should have played 13 tt.JbS! tt.Jf3+ 14 ifxf3
1 lt:Jf3 d5 2 b3 i..g4 3 lt:Je5!? exf3 15 ctJxd6 and 16 ltg4.
For White 4 d4 is also possible, since if
4 .. .f6 5 tt.Jd3 ctJc6 (in Trompowsky style) 6
ltb2 thwarts 6... e5. Tempelhoff-Trautmann,
corr Germany 1990, continued 6... e6 7 g3
ltd6 8 c4 ltg6 9 a3 iVd7 10 lth3 with an
unusual position. 4 ... tt.Jd7 5 tt.Jd3 f6 6 ltb2 cS
7 tt.Jf4 ltf7 8 e3 iVc7 9 g3 (Habibi-
Stockmann, Hessenliga 1998) was equally
odd (if 9 ... e6 10 lth3!? iVd6 11 lta3!? makes
a nice picture).
No-one seems to have tried 3... h5!? as yet.
4d4
Otherwise Black plays .. .f7-f6 and ... e7-e5.
The Finnish FM Leo Tolonen has special- 4 f4 fails to prevent this: 4 .. .f6 5 ct.Jf3 eS!
ised in this reversed Trompowsky; White has when 6 fxeS fxeS 7 ctJxeS?? loses to 7...iVh4+
an extra move (b2-b3) on 1 d4 CLJf6 2 Jl.gS 8 g3 iVd4, while 6 e3 ltd6 7 g3 ctJc6 makes a
CLJe4. On the downside the dynamic ... c7-c5 very poor companson (for White) with
lines (i.e. c2-c4 here) are ruled out as the Chapter 1.
white queen is blocked from b3 and a4. 4 ... lt:Jd7
3 ... i..f5 The simplest defence; ctJb1-d2 gives
'After 3 ... Jl.h5 White gains the advantage White nothing in the Trompowsky proper,
by 4 g4 Jl.g6 5 h4,' wrote Tartakower. Let's but Black doesn't require an advantage from
see: if 5.. .f6 6 CLJxg6 hxg6 7 d4 iVd7 8 gS the opening. Now 5 ctJxd7 ifxd7 is com-
CLJc6 9 iVd3 0-0-0 10 c3 fS 11 f4 e6 12 tt.Jd2 pletely equal, while the T rompowsky moves
'T.t>b8 13 b4 Jl.d6 14 tt.Jb3 ctJce7 15 a4 CLJc8 16 (... ltfS and ... c6-c5) are inappropriate with
aS a6 17 e3 with a picturesque position (and b2-b3; the former (5 ltf4) because then what
the advantage) for White (Gauche- was b3 for, the latter 5 c4 because the b-
L.Delgado, Brazilian Championship 1995); or pawn stops the queen emerging.
5... Jl.e4!? 6 f3 iVd6 7 d4 f6 8 Jl.a3 'ife6 9 5 e3
CLJd3 Jl.xf3?! 10 CLJcS ifxg4 11 exf3 iVg3+ 12 In a current postal game (begun 2000)
'T.t>e2 eS 13 ~h3 iVg1 14 ctJe6 and Black's White has tried 5 tt.Jd3!?, presumably because
compensation was insufficient (Tolonen- nothing is any better. Labuz-J.Anderson, corr
A.Lehtinen, Tampere 1997). MN90, continued 5... tt.Jgf6 6 ~b2 e6 7 g3
Instead, Black can try 4 .. .f6 5 gxhS fxeS 6 ~d6 (7 ... c5) 8 ~g2 c6 9 0-0 0-0 10 ctJd2 ~e8
~b2 (the equivalent Trompowsky moves 6 11 CLJf3 with everything still to play for.

143
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

5 ... lLJxe5 6 dxe5 e6 7 J.d3?! At last. Now if 16 1:Ih4 g6! and the g5-
Because of Black's next T artakower rec- pawn drops, or if 16 g4 .txg5 since the rook
ommended 7 i.b2 as better. Or else 7 i.e2 is no longer protected.
when 7... 'i¥g5? loses to 8 e4 'i¥xg2 9 i.f3, 16 h4 h6 17 gxh6 g5!
though Black is obviously fine with any other
move.
7 ... ~g5! 8 g3
Not 8 .ltxf5? 'i¥xg2 9 1:If1 exf5. If instead
8 0-0 .lth3 9 'i¥f3 'i¥xe5 10 .ltd2 'i¥xa1 11
ctJc3 'i¥b2 12 gxh3 'i¥a3 13 e4 ('with equal
chances'- Tartakower) then 13 ... 0-0-0 and
White doesn't seem to have a deal of com-
pensation. White can trap the queen with 12
1:Ib1!? (not 12 ct:Jb5 'ii'f6!) 12 ...'i¥a3 13 b4 but
13 ... J!d5 14 1:Ib3 'i¥xb3 15 axb3 .ltxd3 16
cxd3 ctJf6 still looks good for Black. Other-
wise 8... .ltg4 9 f4 .ltxd1 10 fxg5 .lth5 is simi-
lar to the game (albeit with an extra tempo Destroying White's kingside. If now 18
for White). hxg5 .txgS 19 1:If1 .lte3+ 20 ~g2 .ltxd4 21
8 ... J.g4 c3 .ltxe5 22 h7 .ltg6 with a winning end-
If 8... .ltxd3 9 'ifxdJ 'i¥xe5 10 'i¥b5 + ~e7 game.
(10 ... ~d8!? 11 'i¥xb7 ~c8 12 c3 .ltc5 is un- 18 lif2 gxh4 19 g4!?
clear) 11 'ifxb7 'ifxa1 12 ~xc7 + ~f6 13 Otherwise simply 19 ...1:Ixh6, so White of-
'iff4 + with a draw by perpetual check. fers the g-pawn as an alternative. Black ac-
9 f4 J.xd1 cepts, though he could insist on the h-pawn
9... 'ifh5 10 .lte2 would be equal. by 19 ... .ltg6.
10 fxg5 J.h5 11 0-0 lLJe7 19 ... J.xg4 20 h7 J.g5! 21 l1g2
A bit slow. Simpler 11.. ..lte7 and if 12 h4 Offering the exchange as well, but there
h6 13 gxh6 ctJxh6 intending ... ctJg4; e.g. 14 was nothing better. If 21 ~f1 .lte3 221:Ih2
ctJd2 ctJg4 15 ctJf3 .ltc5 16 1:Ie 1 .lt b4 17 1:If1 .txd4 23 c3 .ltxeS 241:Ixh4 fS .
.ltc3 or 14 .ltb2 ctJg4 15 1:Ie1 0-0-0 followed 21 ... j_e3+ 22 ~f1 J.f5!
by 16 ... g5. Rejecting 22 ... .th3+ as then White keeps
12 J.b2 lLJc6 13 ~f4 his passed pawn.
Planning counterplay against the bishop 23 j_xf5 exf5 24 c3 h3 25 ~g8+
with g3-g4 and h2-h4, but it's not dangerous. If 25 1:Ig3 1:Ixh7!.
Black can continue 13 ... i.e7 and if 14 g4 25 ... We7 26 !haS .i:Ixa8 27 tt:Ja3 11h8 28
i.g6 15 h4 i.xd3 16 cxd3 ctJb4 winning a ~e2 j_gs 29 tZ'lbS ~d7 30 c4 dxc4 31
pawn, or 14 h4 h6 15 gxh6 g5 as in the game. bxc4 a6 32 tt:Jc3 .l:txh7
Instead T artakower makes a rather unneces- And that's it for White.
sary subtlety. 33 ~f3 h2 34 Wg2 j_e3 35 lLJe2 f4 36
13 ... J.c5?! 14 J.d4 gh1 We6 37 ~f1
14 ~f2 is no better as Black can go back If 37 1:Ixh2 1:Ixh2+ 38 ~xh2 f3 39 ctJg3
to 14 ... .lte7 15 g4 .ltg6 16 h4 i.xd3 17 cxd3 .txd4.
ct:Jb4. 37 ... wts 38 tZ'lg3+ Wg4 39 tt:Je4 h1~ +
14 ... lLJxd4 15 exd4 J.e7! 40 ~xh1 f3+ 0-1

144
 Black Plays 1 ... d5, 2 ... .ii.g4

Summary
1...d5, 2....i.g4 is theoretically quite important. It receives three lines in ECO (five with 2...lt:Jf6,
3 ... .i.g4 included) and is a regular choice in master praxis. For this reason, and because the
2 ... .i.g4 variations are unique in the Nimzo-Larsen, we have assigned to it an entire chapter.
Readers should note, however, that 2 ... .i.g4 is not seen very often lower down the chess
pyramid. At club levell ct:Jf3 is fairly unusual, never mind 1 b3. Opponents are therefore un-
likely to have such a weapon- or indeed any weapon- prepared for the Nimzo-Larsen; and
without preparation 2 ... .i.g4 is not a move that easily suggests itself (unless Black plays the
Trompowsky maybe).
If both players are willing, 2 ... .i.g4 can simply transpose to the 2...ctJf6 3 e3 .i.g4 main lines
in Chapter 6. If not, each has the opportunity to diverge. For White, depending on move or-
der, both 3 f3!? (Game 49) and 3 ctJe5!? (Game 55) lead to unusual positions; while for Black 3
.i.b2 .i.xf3! (Game 51) and 3 e3 e5! (Game 55) seek to make full use of the early bishop de-
ployment.

1 t2Jf3
1 b3 d5 2 .i.b2 .i.g4 (D)
3 f3- Game49
3 g3- Game 50
1 ... d5 2 b3 .ii.g4 (D) 3 .ii.b2
3 e3 e5 - Game 54
3 ctJe5 - Game 55
3 ... l2Jd7 (D)
3 ... .i.xf3 - Game 51
3 ... ctJc6- Game 52
4 d4- Game 53
4 e3 - Chapter 6

2 ... i..g4 2 ... i..g4 3 .. .ti:Jd7

145
I CHAPTER EIGHT I
Black plays an early .. .g7 -g6

1 b3 ctJf6 2 i..b2 g6 3 e3 (or 3 g3) 3... g6, though White then has
Just because White has not occupied the other options (see Chapter 3).
centre does not mean that Black is obliged to Games 59-62 incorporate lt:Jg1-f3, as per 1
do so. S/he, too, can develop on the flank it:Jf3 it:Jf6 2 b3 g6, and are distinguished by
and reserve central advances for later on. how White chooses to develop the king's
Accordingly l...g6 and l...i~Jf6, 2 ... g6 are bishop. Games 59 and 60 see White playing
frequently played. e2-e3 and i.e2; in Games 61 and 62 the
We have seen a few examples of ... g7-g6 bishop is fianchettoed at g2;. In each pair, the
already: with l...e5 in Chapters 2 and 3; or first game has Black playing ... d7-d6, to
with ... d7-d5 and ... c7-c5 in Chapters 4 and 5. which White responds d2-d4; the second
The variations in the current chapter may sees ... d7-d5 and White swiping with c2-c4.
transpose to and from the earlier ones at
numerous instances, as well as to l...c5 lines Game 56
in Chapter 9. Krnic-Karaklaic
White has a huge range of options against Wijk aan Zee 1972
the kingside fianchetto: c2-c4 is an English,
either Classical (with ... e7-e5) or Symmetrical 1 b3 ctJf6 2 i..b2 g6 3 g4!?
(with ... c7-c5); d2-d4 (played usually in re-
sponse to ... d7-d6) leads to an anti-King's
Indian or (with c2-c4) to a King's Indian
proper; while f2-f4 will create a Bird Open-
mg.
With 1 b3 g6 2 ~b2 it:Jf6 White also has
three pure Nimzo-Larsen systems: the bayo-
net attack 3 g4!? (Game 56), the Trom-
powsky-like 3 i.xf6!? (Game 57) and 3 e4
(Game 58). If desired, Black can avoid these
by delaying the fianchetto; e.g. 1 b3 it:Jf6 2
i.b2 d6 (and possibly 3... it:Jbd7) waiting to
see how White sets up; or 1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 d6

146
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

A disruptive move. Black can usually set and defend the g-pawn with h2-h3; e.g. 4
up ... Lt:Jf6, ... g7-g6, ... i.g7 in the opening ii.g2 d6 5 h3 e5 6 c4 or 4 ... d5 5 h3 c5 6 Lt:Jf3
without needing even to look up, but not (as in the note to move 1). ·
here. Exploiting the pin on the knight, White 4 ... tt:'lh5
gains space on the kingside and prepares to
dislodge the knight by g4-g5 and- maybe-
to exchange dark-squared bishops.
1 Lt:Jf3 Lt:Jf6 2 b3 g6 3 i.b2 i.g7 4 g4!? is
also possible, when 4... d6 5 h3! e5 6 c4 0-0 7
ctJc3 ctJc6 8 ii.g2 (a Grob?) 8... a5 9 4.Jh2
ct:Jd7 10 d3 ct:Jc5 11 ct:Jd5 ct:Jd4 12 e3 ct:Jde6
13 ~c2 c6 14 ctJc3 was roughly equal
(Meister-Beshukov, Russian Team Champi-
onship 1994); similarly 4 ... d5 5 h3 c5 6 d3
ctJc6 7 e3 b6 8 ctJe5!? i.b7 9 ctJxc6 i.xc6 10
i.g2 ~c7 11 ct:Jd2 e5 12 g5 ctJd7 13 ~e2 0-
0-0 14 0-0-0 (Rotta-Cukier, Guarapuava
1992). 5 d4!?
3 ... i..g7! In a similar position (after 1 f4) Soltis
There's no need to fear White's plan, but wrote: 'Only a caveman, or a great tactician,
if Black really wants s/he can prevent g4-g5 would answer ... g7-g6 with g2-g4, but the
by 3 ... h6 and preserve the fianchettoed position is actually playable if White occupies
bishop, after which White should set up a the long diagonal with his queen following
Grob by 4 i.g2 and then: 'iVcl! and 'i¥b2.' Here that means 5 i.xg7
a) 4 ... d6 5 h3 e5 6 e3 i.g7 7 d3 0-0 8 c4 ctJxg7 6 'iV c 1 and then:
(an extended English - possibly a Grob?!) a) 6... ct:Jc6 7 'i¥b2 e5 8 ct:Jf3 d6 9 ctJc3 i.f5
8... c5 9 Lt:Jc3 ctJc6 10 Lt:Jge2 h5 11 gxh5 ct:Jxh5 10 ct:Jd5 (better 10 0-0-0 - Dunnington)
12 ct:Jg3 ct:Jxg3 13 fxg3 ~g5 14 'i¥f3 i.f5 10 ... ct:Jh5 11 h4?! .te4 12 ctJe3 and now
(Lovric-Kosanski, Makarska 1994) 15 0-0-0 12 ... ctJd4 13 i.g2 Lt:Jf4 allowed White to
ctJb4 16 h4 ~h6 17 'i¥e2, or 16 ... ~g4 17 e4 equalise(!) by 14 ct:Jxd4 ctJxg2+ 15 ctJxg2
i.e6 18 'i¥f2 or 17 ... 'i¥xf3 18 i.xf3 .te6 19 i.xg2 16 ~g1 i.h3 17 lLlf3 'i¥e7 18 0-0-0
h5 with some advantage .. 0-0-0 (Hernandez Roldan-E.Lopez, Anda-
b) 4 ... d5 5 h3 i.g7 6 e3 0-0 7 ctJe2 c5 8 d4 lucian Championship 1991). Instead 12 ... h6
ctJc6 9 dxc5 ~aS+ 10 ~d2 'i¥xc5 11 ctJbc3 13 gxh6 i.xf3 or 13 i.g2 ct:Jf4 leaves White
~d8 12 0-0-0 e6 13 f4 b5 14 ctJd4 ctJxd4 15 m a mess.
exd4 ~b6 16 g5 hxg5 (not 16 ... ctJh5? 17 f5!) b) 6... e5 7 h4 f6!? (7 ... h6) 8 'i¥b2 d6 9 ctJf3
17 fxg5 ct:Jh5 18 ctJe2 'i¥c7 19 'i¥e3 i.b7 20 i.g4 10 i.g2 ctJc6 11 gxf6 'i¥xf6 12 ctJc3
i.f3 ~ac8 21 kld2 ctJg3 22 ctJxg3 'iV xg3 23 ctJe6 13 ctJd5 'i¥f7 (Tait-P.Anderson, Notts
~g2 'i¥c7 and now White blew up: 24 i.g4? League 2000) when 14 ctJg5 ctJxg5 15 hxg5
~d6 25 h4 ~c6 26 ~hh2?? (26 i.d1) 0-0-0 16 lLlf6 i.d7! (not 16 ... i.e6 17 .txc6
26 ... ~xc2+ (anyway!) 27 ~xc2 ~xh2 28 i.c3 bxc6 18 'i¥c3 ~b7 19 ~h4) 17 ctJxd7 (if 17
'i¥xh4 29 'iff4 f5! 0-1 Wedervang-K.Jensen, ~h6 ct:Jd4! 18 e4 ctJe6 or 17 0-0-0 h5)
corr 1991. Instead 24 h4 was good for White, 17 ... ~xd7 18 i.h3+ ~e8 is unclear.
and if 24 ... ~d6 25 h5 ~c6 26 i.dl. In these lines Black built a· strong centre
4 g5 based on ... e7-e5. Krnic's 5 d4 prevents that
White can still play the position as a Grob and leaves the knight on h5 where it might

147
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

later be attacked by e2-e3, ..te2 or ..tg2-f3. vant.

5 ... e5!?
Offering the eS-pawn for the gS-pawn. In-
stead S... cS! (Krnic) seems stronger, returning
the favour (i.e. the pin) on the diagonal. Then
6 e3 cxd4 7 exd4 (or 7 i.xd4 ~aS+ and
8... ~xgS) 7 ... ~aS+ 8 ~d2 ~dS 9 f3 h6! is
difficult for White, while after 6 h4 cxd4 7
..txd4 ~aS+ 8 c3 eS 9 ..te3 dS, or 6 ct:Jf3 h6
(6 ...dS) 7 gxh6 :xh6, White's kingside is ugly.
6 h4
Having spent two tempi on his 'Spike' (g2-
g4-gS) Krnic props it up. Also, after 6 dxeS
~xgS 7 CLJf3 Black cannot win the eS-pawn
immediately- if 7 ... ~fS 8 CLJc3! (Dunning- 1 0 ... ..txh3 11 .:!.xh3
ton) 8... ..txeS (if 8... CLJc6 9 e4 ~f4 10 .tel) 9 Inserting 11 gxf6 ~xf6 and 12 ... 0-0 is still
CLJxeS ~xeS 10 ~dS! d6 (10 ... ~g7 11 :g1!) good for Black with pressure on the f-file.
11 ~xeS+ dxeS 12 CLJbS - but White may 11 ... f5?
have trouble defending it in the long term; For some unknown reason Black declines
i.e. after 7 .. .'~d8 and ... CLJc6, ... 0-0 and ...:e8. the pawn. White has very little compensation
6 ... exd4 7 ..txd4 f6!? after 11.. .fxgS; e.g. 12 :e3+ ..teS or 12 hxgS
Black really wants shot of the gS-pawn. ~xgS 13 CLJe4 ~aS+ (Dunnington), or if 12
The other assault 7... h6 8 CLJc3 ctJc6 (not e3 gxh4 13 ..te2 4Jf6.
8... hxgS 9 hxgS ~xgS? 10 ..txg7) 9 ..txg7 Now White gets to carry out his plan.
ctJxg7 is answered by 10 ..th3! (planning 12 e3 '¥Yd7 13 ..te2 0-0-0!?
ctJdS-f6+) and if 10 ... hxgS 11 hxgS ~xgS!? 12 Rather than defend by 13 ...~f7 with a rea-
..txd7+ ct:le7 13 ~dS! (not 13 :xh8 ~xg1+). sonable position after 14 ... 0-0-0, Black offers
Instead 7 ... ..txd4 8 ~xd4 0-0 would en- a pawn for an initiative while the white king
courage White to attack by 9 ..tg2 and ..tf3; is still in the centre.
e.g. 9 ... ctJc6 10 ~d2 d6 (or 10 .. .f6) 11 ..tf3 14 ..txh5 gxh5 15 '¥Yxh5 f4 16 .:!.f3 h6!
ctJg7 12 hS. The most dynamic continuation, planning
8 tt:Jh3 17 exf4? CLJd4, 17 :xf4? hxgS, or 17 0-0-0
Keeping the hS-knight out of f4 as well as hxgS 18 ~xgS ctJeS 19 :xf4 ..th6.
defending gS. Capturing on e3 is OK after 16 .. .fxe3 17
8 ... tt:Jc6 9 ..tb2 d61 0 tt:Jc3? fxe3 (17 :xe3 ~fS) 17 ... h6!? 18 0-0-0 hxgS
A strange pawn sacrifice. Presumably 19 ~xgS ctJeS and 20 ... ..th6, or 18 g6 (as in
White wanted his queen on the d1-hS diago- the game) 18 ...:de8 (threatening to win the
nal to support the plan of e2-e3, i.e2 and queen by ...:es) 19 e4 l1eS 20 :fs l1he8 21
..txhS (as occurred in the game), and after 10 0-0-0 ct:Jd4 22 ct:Jds lLle2+ 23 ctib 1 ct:Jg3 24
e3 ..txh3 11 :xh3 fxgS the conflict on the ~ g4 lLlxfS 2S ..txeS l1xeS 26 exfS ctib8 is
long diagonal prevents 12 ..te2, hence the rather unclear. But 17 0-0-0! exf2 18 :xf2 is
preliminary knight move. Nevertheless White simpler for White with a kingside majority,
should have defended the pawn by 10 ~d2, intending l1f7 and/or .l:tdf1 with the better
to continue ctJc3, 0-0-0, while if Black tries chances.
10 ... h6!? 11 ctJc3 hxgS 12 hxgS ..txh3 13 17 g6! .:Ihf8 18 l:txf4 .:!.xf4 19 exf4 i¥h3!
..txh3 fxgS 14 0-0-0 the extra pawn is irrele- If 19 .. J~e8+ 20 ~d2 :f8 21 l1g1 l1xf4 22

148
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

'Ddl! ~xb2+ 23 'Dxb2 .:txf2+ 24 ~cl 'i'ig7 'i'ixf2 24 f7 CLJeS intending 2S 'i'ixh6? 'i'if6!,
2S 'i'ig4+ ~b8 26 'i'ie4 'Del 27 hS with a but White has 2S ~b 1 intending 26 g7 'Dxf7
protected passed pawn. 27 'i'ig4+ ~b8 28 g8+ or 26 ...'i'ixf7 27 'i'ixf7
'Dxf7 28 .:tfl etc., or if now 2S ...'i¥f6 (not
2S ... ~b8? 26 'i'ixeS) 26 .:tgl 'i'ig7 27 'i'ifS+
<it>b8 28 hS intending .:tfl, 'i'if6 breaking the
blockade and the pawns win.
22 f6 4:Jxa2+?
A mistake. Black had to come back to the
pawns: 22 ... 'i'ie6!, which is clearly a difficult
move to find at the board, leaving the bishop
on c3 en prise. Then 23 jLxc3 (not 23 f7?
'iV e4 and White cannot defend c2)
23 ... ctJxa2+ 24 <it>b2 ctJxc3 2S <it>xc3 'i'ixf6+
gets the pawns. If White tries 23 'i'if3!?
~xb2+ (not 23 ... ctJxa2+? 24 <it>bl ~xb2 2S
20 0-0-0!? ~xb2 'Db4 26 f7) 24 <it>xb2 ctJc6 followed by
An interesting winning attempt. White .. 'DeS and Black stops the pawns; e.g. 2S f7
sacrifices a piece hoping that his advanced 'DeS 28 f8'i'i 'Dxf3 29 'i'ixf3 'i'ixg6.
passed pawns will crash through. If he de- 23 wb1 .lixb2 24 wxb2 ~c3+ 25 wxa2
fends the piece by 20 ~d2 Black gets enough 'i¥xc2+
counterplay after 20 ...'i'ig2 (20 ... .:tf8 21 'Ddl!) If 2S ... 'i'ixf6 26 'i'ixh6 .:th8 (or 26 ... 'i'ixf2
21 .:tbl 'i'ixf2+ 22 ctJe2 ~xb2+ 23 .:txb2 CLJd4 27 ~bl 'i'if6 28 hS .:th8 29 'i'ie3 .:txhs? 30
or 22 ... ctJeS!? (Dunnington), or if 21 ~cl!? g7! wins) 27 'iVgS 'i'ixgS 28 hxgS .:tg8 29 f4
.:tg8 22 'De2 jLxb2+ 23 ~xb2 'i'ixg6 24 .:txg6 30 fS with connected passed pawns.
'i'ixg6 (or 24 'i'if3 'i'if6+) 24 ... .:txg6 is suffi- 26 wa3 b5 27 g7!
cient. Not 27 f7? cS 28 g7 (or 28 'i¥f3 <it>c7!)
20 ... .lixc3 21 f5 28 ... b4+ 29 <it>a4 a6! 30 'i¥g4+ <it>c7 31 .:tal
If 21 'i'ixh6 then 21...ctJb4! (as in the 'i'id3 32 'i'ic4 'i'if3 (Dunnington) draws; i.e.
game) when 22 a3 ctJa2+ 23 ~bl ~xb2 24 33 f8'i'i 'i'ic6+ 34 ~aS 'i'ib6+ etc.
<it>xb2 'i'i c3+ 2S <it>b 1 'i'i cS (threatening 27 ... c5
... ctJc3+) 26 <it>b2! 'i'ic3+ is a draw. White can-
not risk 22 'i'igS (22 .:tgl? 'i'ifS) 22 ... ctJxa2+
23 <it>bl ~xb2 24 <it>xb2 'i'ic3+ 2S ~bl 'Db4
26 'i'ifS+ <it>b8 as Black's attack by ... a5-a4 is
faster than White's passed pawns; e.g. 27 hS
aS 28 h6 a4 29 bxa4 'i'iaJ 30 'i'ie6 dS and
wins, or 27 Mgl a5 28 g7 .:tg8 29 'i'ih7 ~a7!
30 hS (not 30 'i'ixg8? 'i'ixc2+) 30 ... a4 31 bxa4
'i'ic4 32 h6 'i'ia2+ 33 ~cl 'i'ial+ 34 ~d2
'i'ixgl 3S 'i'ixg8 'i'ixf2+ 36 ~c3 'i'ixc2+! 37
~xb4 'i'ib2+ 38 'i'ib3 (or 38 <it>c4 'i'ia2+)
38 ... cS+ 39 <it>c4 'i'id4+ 40 <it>bS c4 wins the
queen.
21 ... 4:Jb4! 28 .l:xd6?
Not 21. .. ~xb2+? 22 <it>xb2 'i'ih2 23 f6 A shame. Instead Dunnington gives 28

149
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

iVdS! b4+ (or 28 ... ~c7 29 ii'd2!) 29 ~a4 ~c7 h6 9 i.g2 ~g7 10 Mel c6 11 ctJh3 0-0 12
(or 29 ...ii'a2+ 30 ~bS ii'e2+ 31 Md3) 30 ii'd2 ct:Jf4 ctJd7 13 d4 ctJf6 14 e3 i.e6 15 0-0 Mc8
ii'g6 (or ...ii'e4/ii'f5) 31 ii'd3 ii'xf6 (if 16 ctJa4 Mc7 (16 ... 'i¥e7) 17 ctJxe6 fxe6 18
31...ii'f7 32 ii'a6) 32 ii'h7 'favours White'. It ctJcS 'iY e7 19 b4 ctJd7 20 ctJd3 ctJf6 21 ct:Jf4
certainly does: 32 ... Mg8 (32 ...ii'f7 33 g8~ 33 ~h7 22 'i¥b3 ct:Jds? (22 ... Me8 23 bS) 23
ii'xg8 dS threatening ...ii'a6 mate, but White ctJxe6 'i¥xe6 24 .i.xdS and White went on to
can arrange the necessary ii'h7+ by 34 ii'c8+! win in Lovric-T urci, Montecatini T erme
~xc8 35 g8ii' + ~b7 36 ii'h7+ ~b8 37 ii'd3 1999.
and White keeps the rook to win. 4 ... ~g7 5 'LJc3 f5 6 l:tc1
28 ... ifc1+ 29 ~a2 1h-1h White removes the rook from the long di-
agonal and defends the knight against the
Game 57 possible counter-measure ... i.xc3!?; e.g. 6 g3
T. Waii-McNab d6 (6 ... ~xc3!?) 7 i.g2 0-0 8 e3 i.xc3!? 9
Hampstead 1998 dxc3 ctJd7 10 ctJe2 aS 11 0-0 Me8 12 'i¥c2 a4
13 Mfdl 'i¥e7 14 ctJf4 c6 (Al.Segal-
1 b3 g6 2 ~b2 CLJf6 3 ~xf6!? U .Andersson, Sao Caitano 1999).
Another way to interfere with Black's rou- 6 ... d6 7 g3 CLJd7
tine development. With the f8-bishop com- In Martinez-P erelshteyn, Catonsville 2000,
ing to contest the dark squares White after 7... 0-0 8 i.g2 c6 9 e3, Black pre-empted
switches focus onto the light squares, intend- White's queenside initiative by 9 ... a6!? 10
ing to follow with c2-c4, ctJc3 and ~g2 and a ctJge2 bS (via another move order), continu-
queenside pawn advance. The lines are simi- ing 11 0-0 i.e6 12 d3 gS 13 'i¥d2 Ma7 14 Mc2
lar to the Trompowsky 1 d4 ctJf6 2 ~gS with h6 15 cxbS axbS 16 d4 ~d7 17 b4 ctJa6 18
2... g6 3 .i.xf6 exf6, after which 4 c4 fS 5 ctJc3 Mb2 ctJc7 19 Mel dS 20 'ifc2 'ifa8 21 i.h3
..tg7 6 g3 d6 7 ..tg2 ctJd7 8 e3 0-0 9 ctJge2 ctJe8!? (21...'iic8) 22 i.xfS i.xfS 23 'iYxfS
and b2-b4-b5 is a typical sequence. The line ctJd6 24 'ifd3 ctJc4 25 Mb3 fS with a block-
with 1 b3 is inferior since the desired advance ade.
b2-b4 will now cost two tempi (b2-b3-b4) 8 ~g2 c6
and 1 b3 has weakened the long diagonal. On In a later game Tim Wall chose f3 for the
the plus side, White can use the d4-square for knight after 8... 0-0 9 ct:Jf3 ctJf6 10 d3, where-
a knight, while the pawn on d2 reinforces e3 upon Black took advantage of the blocked
or can advance to cover e4 and c4. bishop on g2 by playing 10 ... d5! 11 cxdS
The related idea 3 ctJc3!? .tg7 4 ctJe4 0-0 5 ctJxdS 12 ctJxdS 'ifxdS 13 0-0 (not 13 Mxc7??
ctJxf6+ exf6 (E.Kosic-Kranjcevic, Croatian 'ifaS+) 13 ... c6 14 'i¥c2 .te6 15 ctJgS 'ifeS 16
League 1999), doubling Black's pawns with- ctJxe6 'i¥xe6 and defended fairly easily against
out giving up the bishop, can be thwarted by the minority attack in T.Wall-Tucker, 4NCL
3 ... d5! and if 4 e4 d4 5 ctJce2 eS since ... g7-g6 1999.
is far more useful than b2-b3 in a Van Geet 9 e3 0-0 1 0 t"Llge2 l:!.e8 11 0-0
(1 ctJc3). Compared with the Trompowsky proper,
3 ... exf6 4 c4 White has swapped d2-d4 and b2-b4 for
Making ready to block the long diagonal Mael and b2-b3.
by 5 ctJc3 and to establish control over dS by 11 ... a5
ctJc3, g2-g3 and ~g2. Therefore if Black Establishing a breakwater, while on a2-a3,
wants to play ... d7-d5, now is the time to do b3-b4, with the Mal having gone to el, Black
so; e.g. 4... d5 5 cxdS (5 e3!?) S...ii'xdS 6 ctJc3 will get the a-file after ... a5xb4.
'i¥d8 (6 ...'i¥a5 7 a3 cS 8 'iVel!?) 7 g3 fS 8 h4 In Barkhagen-M.Holm, Stockholm 1994,

150
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

White was allowed a free rein on the queen- on with it on the queenside; i.e. 14 b4 axb4
side after 11...ttJf6 12 b4 ~e6 13 b5 'ifc7 14 15 axb4 and if 15 ... h4 16 'ifd2 (to cover e3)
d3 :tacS 15 'ifa4 ~d7 16 :tbl h5 17 :tb3 h4 16 ... hxg3 17 hxg3 ttJg4 1S :tal :txa1 (or
1S :tfbl hxg3 19 hxg3ttJg4 20 bxc6 bxc6 21 1S ... ~e6 19 :txaS 'iYxaS 20 :tbl) 19 :xa1
:tb7 'iVdS 22 'i¥xa7 ~e6 23 'i¥b6 'i¥g5 24 'ifg5 20 :as intending 21 b5. The i.g2 is a
~xc6 and White won. good defender and, if necessary, the ttJc3 can
Black did better in Bezold-Mortensen, drop back to dl to cover f2 and e3. If instead
Reykjavik 1997, with 11...h5 12 h4ttJf613 b4 16 'ifb3 the same line would be refuted by
~d7 14 a4 ttJe4! (prompting White to 20 ... lt:Jxf2! etc.
weaken e3) 15 d3ttJf6 16ttJf4ttJg4 17ttJce2 14... h4 15 '2\t3
g5! 1S hxg5 (1SttJxh5? gxh4 19ttJxg7 <it>xg7 If 15 gxh4 f4! 16 exf4lt:Jh5 or 16 e4lt:Jh7
is dangerous) 1S ...'i¥xg5 19 lt:Jh3 'i¥h6 20 17 lt:Jf3 ~g4 regains the pawn with advan-
~f3 h4 21 ~xg4 fxg4 22 lt:Jhf4 h3 23 <it>h2 tage.
when Black had no way into the kingside and 15 ... hxg3 16 hxg3 '2\g4 17 ~c2 g5 18
the game was drawn. b4 axb4 19 axb4 f4!
1 2 a3 tt:Jt6 13 d3 Not wasting any time Black offers a not
An unnecessary move. Black's ... lt:Je4 was very important pawn to open White's king-
hardly worth preventing and d2-d3 weakens side. If first 19 ... 'iff6 20 :tfe 1 f4 21ttJe4 'ifh6
the dark-square complex at e3. 13 'ifc2looks 22 exf4 gxf4 23 gxf4 gxf4 24 'ifd2 gives
better. White a tempo on the game
13 ... h5 20 exf4
Not 20 gxf4 gxf4 21 e4?! lt:Je5! removes
the defending knight and sets up the attack
with ... 'ifg5.
20 ... gxf4 21 gxf4 ~f6 22 '2\e4
White might have tried to defend the f4-
pawn because it's not totally useless (control-
ling g5 and e5); i.e. 22 'i¥d2 and if 22 ... i.h6
23 lt:Jg5. Otherwise White can follow with
:tfe1 or ttJe4 or d2-d4. Instead he plays for a
draw.
22 ... ~xf4 23 'iVd2 il..h6
23 ...'ifxd2 was possible, leaving the bishop
on g7 to prevent White from challenging on
The thematic advance when the knight is the a-file.
missing from f3. Black intends ... h4xg3 to 24 'iVxt4 .liL.xf4 25 .l:a1 .l1L.t5 26 .l1L.h3 .l:xa1
create g4 as an outpost for his knight. Block- 27 l:.xa 1 .l1L.xe4 28 dxe4 '2\t6 29 .l1Lf5
ing by 14 h4 would simply cede the g4- '2\xe4 30 ~a 7
square straightaway and Black can still attack White is now a pawn down but his activity
with ... g6-g5 (as in Bezold-Mortensen), or if should be sufficient to save the game. If
15 lt:Jd4? f4! breaks in as White cannot cap- 30 ... :e7 31 lt:Jd4! (threatening CLJxc6)
ture with either pawn. 31...lt:Jd2 (if 31...<it>fS still32ttJxc6 since the
14 ti:Jd4 ttJe4 hangs) 32 i.d3 f6?! (32 ...:tc7) then 33
Rerouting the knight to f3 doesn't seem i.g6! (not 33 lt:Jxc6?? :g7+) 33 ... ~h6! (not
right either and fails to prevents Black's king- 33 ... :g7?? 34 :as mate, or 33 ... lt:Jxc4? 34
side play in any case. White might as well get lt:Jf5 builds an unlikely mating net) 34 lt:Jf5

151
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

l:tc7 35 4:Jxh6+ <iiig7 36 4:Jf5+ <iiixg6 37 ctJxd6 ..txf2+ 44 <iiig2 :xc6 45 ~xdS :g6+ 46 <iiif3
with a draw in prospect. Quite amusing if when 46 ... 4:Jc3 47 ..txf7+ <iiixf7 48 l:.d7+ and
somewhat irrelevant. 49 Wxf2 with a draw, or 46 ... 4:Jd6 47 l:.b8+
Instead Black finds a trick to free his rook <iiig7 48 Wxf2 and 49 i.xf7 (or 48 .. .f6 49
and knight. l:.g8+ etc.).
30 ... tt:'lg3!? 43 l:ta5 ~g7 44 ~f1?
Not 31 fxg3?? ..te3+ winning the :a7. The final mistake. 44 f3 was necessary.
31 il.d3 l:tb8 32 :as! 44 ... tt:'le4
Cutting off the knight and hence threaten- Threatening 45 ... 4:Jc3 winning a piece.
ing <iiig2. Black's reply is forced. 45 ..ib5 l::i:c1 +
46 ~g2 :c2 0-1
32 ... b6
Fortunately Black controls all other Game 58
squares on the fifth rank. But now after 33 Blatny-Chandler
:a6! 4:Jh5 (again forced since ... ..te3+ is no Bundesliga 1995
longer on) 34 4:Jd4 cS 35 ctJc6 :b7 36 bS
creates a light-square blockade on the queen- 1 b3 g6 2 ..ib2 tt:'lf6 3 e4
side and White will draw easily, with the idea Utilising the pin again White to advance
of 37 4:Jd8, or if 36 ... ..tg5 37 ..te4 and 38 aggressively, avoiding King's Indian lines in
ctJaS. favour of a Pirc or Sicilian (if ... c7 -c5). How-
Presumably White was getting short of ever, e2-e4 doesn't fit too well with b2-b3,
time since his play now goes downhill. nor is it likely to frighten someone who starts
33 l:ta7 a game with 1...g6.
Slightly worse since the b6-pawn is not at- The current game actually started as a Si-
tacked. cilian (1 e4 cS 2 b3) and only transposes at
33 ... tt:'lh5 34 il.e4?! move eight.
Again 34 4:Jd4 cS 35 ctJc6 and 36 bS 3 ... d6
should draw. Now Black manages to mobi- 3 ... i.g7!? offers an offbeat Alekhine De-
lise. fence, 1 e4 4:Jf6 2 eS 4:Jd5 3 b3!? with 3 ... g6 4
34 ... d5! 35 cxd5 i.b2 i.g7. White can decline by 4 g3 0-0 5
If 35 ..td3 ..td6 36 bS 4:Jf4 37 ..tfl cxbS i.g2 transposing below after a later ... d7-d6
38 cxbS :e8 activates. from Black, or else take up the challenge by 4
35 ... tt:'lf6 36 il.c2 cxd5 37 tt:'ld4?! eS ct:Jds and then:
37 ..tfS would have prevented Black's
next, and if 37 ... b5 38 ..td3 ..td6 39 :as or
37 ...:e8 38 l:.b7, while if 37 ... ..td6 38 ctJgS!
..txb4 39 :xf7 ..tc3 40 l:.c7 with counterplay
against the king.
37 ... l:tc8 38 il.a4
If 38 bS l:.cS! intending ... ..teS, not
38 ... l:.c4? 39 l:.a8+ <iiig7 40 4:Jf5+ <iiig6 41
ctJe3+ picking up the exchange.
38 ... l:tc4 39 tt:'lc6 il.d6 40 l:tb7 il.xb4 41
l:txb6 il.c5 42 l:tb5 il.d6!
With so few pawns left Black must be
careful not to let White sacrifice a piece for
the last one. Therefore not 42 ... ctJe4? 43 i.b3 a) 5 d4 d6 6 4:Jf3 (or 5 4:Jf3 d6! 6 d4)

152
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

6 ... 0-0 7 c4lZJf4!? (trying to exploit White's ~d7 13 i.g2 ctJc6 14 0-0 ltJd4 1S ctJc3 c6
move order) 8 ~d2 (8 g3 lZJh3) 8... dxeS 9 with a balanced position in Zso.Polgar-
lZJxeS i.xeS 10 dxeS ~xd2+ 11 ~xd2! lZJc6 J.Polgar, Aruba 1992. ·
12 ~e3 lZJe6 13 lZJc3!? (if 13 lZJd2?! lZJb4 or 4 .. .il.g7 5 .ig2 0-0 6 ttJe2
13 lZJaJ f6) 13 ... lZJxeS 14 lZJdS lZJg4+!?
(14 ... lZJc6) 1S ~f3 fS with a very odd posi-
tion. Morozevich-Van der Wiel, Tilburg
1993, continued 16 cS!? (16lZJxe7+! ~f7 17
ctJxc8) 16 ... lZJgS+ 17 ~f4lZJe4 18lZJxe7+ (not
18 f3?? gS mate) 18 ... ~f7 19lZJxc8lZJgxf2 20
i.c4+ ~e8 21 ~he 1 ~xc8 22 c6?! (22 i.d4!)
22 ... bS! 23 i.xbS ~d8 24 i.aJ ~f6 2S ~f3
lZJd3 26 ~e3?! (26 ~ed1) 26 ... lZJeS+ 27 ~f4??
(27 ~e2) 27 ... ~dS! and the threat of 28 ... gS
mate won a piece. (Extracts from Van der
Wiel's notes in Informator 59.)
b) S c4lZJb6 (S ... lZJb4!?) 6 d4 d6 and fur-
ther: 6 ... e5
b 1) 7 f4!? is a Four Pawns Attack against Black has a choice between ... e7-eS, ... c7-
which ... g7-g6 is not the best system, but cS, or both (Chandler had in fact advanced
equally b2-b3 and i.b2 is not the best way to both by move five). If 6... cS 7 0-0 (if 7 d4
play against it. Essentially White has swapped cxd4 8 ctJxd4 dS! is equal) 7... ctJc6 (7 ... eS is
lZJc3, i.e3 for b2-b3, i.b2 which is certainly the game) 8 d4 cxd4 9 ctJxd4 and then:
in Black's favour, who will attack the centre a) 9 ... i.g4 10 ~d2 'iVd7 11 ~e1 (preserv-
with ... c7-cS. ing the g2-bishop) 11...lZJxd4 12 i.xd4 i.h3
b2) 7 exd6 is an Exchange Variation, in 13 i.h1 a6 14 a4 ~ad8 (14 ... bS!?) 1S aSltJg4
which ... g7-g6 is thematic for Black after 16 i.xg7 ~xg7 17 ctJc3 ctJeS 18 ltJdS f6 19
7 ... cxd6 8lZJf3 0-0, planning ... lZJc6, ... e7-eS, f4 ctJc6 20 ~e3 eS 21 c3 .te6 22 lZJb6 ~f7
or if 8 lZJf3 0-0 9 ~d2 (intending dS) then 23 b4 fS 24 exfS gxfS? (24 ... .txfS 2S ~fl) 2S
even 9 ... eS!? is possible. 7... exd6 is also OK. i.xc6 bxc6 26 ~e2 e4 27 ~xa6 and White
Instead of 6 d4 a more interesting try is went on to win in Minasian-Renet, Paris
the Hunt Variation: 6 cS!? lZJdS 7 i.c4when 1994.
S.D.Jovanovic-B.Jankovic, Zagreb 1998, saw b) 9 ... i.d7 10 c4ctJxd4 (10 ... ~b6 11ctJc2
7 ... e6 8 d4 0-0 (if 8... d6 9 cxd6 cxd6 10 lZJf3) .tg4 12 ~e1) 11 .txd4 bS! 12 cxbS (if 12
9lZJf3 b6 10 i.xdS exdS 11 0-0 lZJc6 12ctJc3 eS?! dxeS 13 .txa8 'iVxa8 14 .txeS .th3)
i.a6 13 ~e1ctJe7 14 ~d2 c6 1S i.aJ ~e8 16 12 ... .txbS 13 ~e1 ~d7 14 eS dxeS 1S .txeS
g4 h6 17 h4 ~c8 18 ~f4 .td3 19 cxb6 axb6 ~xd1 16 ~xd1 ~ac8 17ctJc3 'll-'ll Bagirov-
20 i.d6 with the advantage. Black should do Uhlmann, World Seniors Championship
better with 7 ... c6 and if 8 ~e2 ~aS or 8ctJc3 1998.
i.xeS! or 8 d4 b6 or 8 ~f3 ~aS (8 ... d6) 9 7 0-0
i.xdS cxdS 10 ~xdS d6. Not yet 7 d4? exd4 8ltJxd4 ~e8! (Keene)
4g3 and White is already in trouble.
If 4 f4 i.g7 S ltJf3 0-0 6 d3, the familiar 7 ... c5
trick 6 ... eS! 7 fxeSctJg4 avoids any problems Clamping down on White;s intended d2-
for Black; e.g. 8 ~d2 (8 ctJc3!?) 8... ltJxeS 9 d4. 7 ... ~e8 also deters d2-d4 and aims for
ctJxeS dxeS 10 i.e2 ~h4+ 11 g3 ~h3 12 .tfl ... d6-dS, which can be also played immedi-

153
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

ately; e.g. 7 ... d5!? 8 exd5 LLlxd5 9 d4 (9 f4!?) use of the g4-square to accomplish several
9 ... exd4 10 i.xd4 tLlf6 11 i.b2 c6 12 CLJa3 things: free the bishop on g7 and pin the
CLJa6 12-12 Rubinetti-Panno, Pinamar 1975. knight on c3, clear the path for the f7-pawn
Or Black can allow d2-d4; e.g. 7 ... CLJc6 8 to advance (though it never does), and re-
d4 (if 8 c4 tLlh5! 9 d4? exd4 10 CLJxd4 'Viif6) route the knight to the e5 outpost- all while
8... i.g4 9 f3 i.d7 10 c4 aS 11 CLJa3 h5 12 threatening 11.. .i.d4+ to win the exchange.
'Viid2 h4 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 g4? (14 ~ad1) 11 cufe2 cud4
14 ... 'Viie7 (14 ... i.xg4!) 15 CLJc2 ~fd8 16 i.a3 11. .. f5!? was another way to play. Black
i.e6 17 'Viie1 'Viid7 18 ~d1 'Viixd1 19 'Viixd1 prefers to keep his kingside defences intact
~xd1 20 ~xd1 a4 and Black's amusing wing and sticks to this policy throughout the
play had garnered the advantage in Bellon game.
Lopez-Ljubojevic, Palma de Mallorca 1971. 12 h3 cues
8 Lt:'lbc3 cuc6 9 f4 A double-edged idea: after 13 LLlxd4 cxd4
Previously White played h2-h3 to keep the Black maintains the e5-outpost by physically
c8-bishop or f6-knight out of g4; e.g. 9 h3 preventing d2(d3)-d4, at the cost of a poten-
~b8 10 f4 b5 11 d3 b4 12 tLla4 tt:Jh5 13 <ith2 tially weak d4-pawn. If instead 12 ... CLJxe2+ 13
tLld4 14 LLlxd4 cxd4 15 f5 i.h6 16 i.cl 'Viixe2 CLJe5 (avoiding the weak pawn) 14
i.xcl 17 'Viixcl 'Viif6 18 a3 aS 19 i.f3 tLlg7 20 LLld5 plans c2-c3, d2-d4, or 14 .. .'iig5
g4 'Viih4 and Black easily held the queenside (14 ... CLJf3+?! 15 ~xf3 i.xb2 16 ~af1) 15 'Viie3
as the f3-bishop was a mere bystander in (not 15 <ith2 CLJg4+) 15 ...'Viixe3 16 CLJxe3 and
Bagirov-Kapengut, USSR Championship White stands slightly better.
1972. 13 CUxd4 cxd4 14 CUdS i.e6 1S ti:Jf4
De Firmian-Ciocaltea, Smederevska The d4-pawn is not so weak that it can be
Palanka 1981, was more fun: 9 f4 tLld410 h3 taken easily: 15 .ixd4? gives White nothing
k:.b8 11 CLJxd4 exd4 12 CLJe2 h5 13 d3 b5 14 after 15 ... .ixd5 16 exd5 tLlf3+ and 17... .ixd4.
c3! (avoiding the stodge) 14 ... dxc3 15 .ixc3 1S ...'iVgS 16 Wh2 cuc6 17 c4
b4 16 i.b2 ~e8 17 'Viic2 i.b7 18 ~f2 ~c8 19 White clears his inner ranks and consoli-
f5! g5 20 'VJ/id2 tLlh7 21 f6 i.h6 22 ~f5 <ith8 dates control of d5, while if 17... dxc3? 18
23 ~af1 ~g8 24 i.f3 ~c7 25 i.xh5 i.c8 26 i.xc3 White either gets a mobile centre (d2-
~5f2 i.xh3 27 ~d1 d5? (but if 27 ... i.c8 28 d4) or a new target at d6 after 18 ... i.xc3 19
~h2!) 28 g4 'Viid7 29 ~f5 d4 30 <ith2 1-o. dxc3. Of course Black would just ignore 17
9 ... exf4 10 CUxf4 CUg4 c3.
17 ... hS
Making to undermine the kingside dark
squares by 18 ... h4 when 19 g4 i.e5 20 'Viif3
f5! would be strong, so White prepares the
defence i.cl which will also expel the black
queen after <ith 1.
18 d3 ~ae8 19 i.c1 'i¥d8 20 i.d2 cueS
21 'i¥e2 i.d7 22 .l:.ae1 i.c6
The opening phase is over and White now
plays against the weakness at d4. Black could
defend the pawn by ... CLJc6 and ...'Viib6, if and
when required, but that would be passive.
Instead Black makes ready for kingside coun-
As White has omitted h2-h3 Black makes terplay when White is fully committed on the

154
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

queenside. 36 ... Wih5 37 ~e3 ~d7 38 CLJg1 'i¥h4 39

23 ~c1 ~a5 .l:!f3 b5
23 .. .f5 was again possible, intending With his kingside play stymied for the
24 ... h4; e.g. 24 CZJdS h4 or 24 iVdl h4 25 exfS time being Black opens up another front. If
hxg3 + 26 ~xg3 'iigS + 27 ~h2 iVxfS with now 40 iVxa7 ~c7 41 iVb6 bxc4 (not
an unclear position, or if 24 exfS ct:Jf3 + or 41...CLJg5 42 iVxd6!) 42 dxc4 (if 42 iVxd6
... CLJg4+ discovers on the queen. cxd3 43 ~xd3? ct:Jf4!) 42 ... ~c6 (or 42 ... ~xc4
24 ~c2 .l:c8 25 ~b2 CLJd7 26 C2Je2 ~b6 43 'iYxd6 ~d8) 43 'iYb7 ~c7 and if 44 iVdS
27 'i¥b1 ~e5 28 ~a1 ctJgS 45 iVxd6 i.xh3 46 ct:Jxh3 ct:Jxf3 47 ~fl
~xc4 48 ~xf3 ~cl + 49 ~fl ~xfl + 50 i.xfl
'iYxe4+ with an unclear endgame.
40 .l:!.c1 bxc4 41 dxc4 a5 42 a3 axb4 43
axb4 :as
43 ... ~fe8! is also strong, intending
44 ... CLJg5 45 ~xg3? CLJxe4 or 44 ... i.c6, or if
44 CLJe2 CLJgS 45 ~f4 iVhS 46 CLJxg3 iVh6 47
h4 CLJe6. But not 43 ... CLJg5? 44 ~f4 and 45
iVxg3.
44 :d 1 i1L.c6 45 !1xg3 CLJf4 46 l::tg4 CLJxg2
47 'iit>xg2 :a2+ 48 CLJe2

Black can no longer defend the d4-pawn

so it is time to activate counterplay and send
the queen back to the kingside.
28 ... h4 29 ~xd4 hxg3+ 30 ~h1 ~d8 31
~c3
If 31 ~xeS dxeS 32 d4 exd4 33 'iixd4 ~e8
34 CLJxg3 'iVh4 35 iVe3 ctJeS the blockading
knight is very strong: defending f7, eyeing g4
and d3, and supporting a possible rook in-
cursion on the d-file.
31 ... ~h4 32 CLJg1 ~xc3 33 ~xc3 CLJc5
33 ... CLJe5 is OK after 34 d4 (or 34 ct:Jf3 White has at last managed to win the g3-
ct:Jxf3 35 ~xf3 fS and .. .f5-f4, ... ~d7) pawn, but Black has the safer king which
34 ... CLJg4 35 CLJe2 ct:Jf2+ 36 ~gl CLJxh3+ 37 turns out to be the decisive factor with the
~xh3 iVxh3 38 'iYxg3 'iYxg3+ 39 CLJxg3 f6, clock running down. The rest of the game
but less so after 34 CLJe2! (intending ~gl) was seemingly conducted in mutual time
34 ... CLJg4 35 ~f3 ct:Jf2+ 36 ~gl CLJxh3+ 37 trouble as the two players swap mistakes.
~xh3 iVxh3 3 8 ~xg3. Fritz finds corrections very easily so we'll not
So the knight heads instead for f4 where it dwell on them.
will combine with ... ~d7 against the h3- 48 ... ~e7 49 'iit>g1 .l:!e8?
pawn, as for example in the next note. Better was 49 ...iVe5! and if 50 CLJc3 (not
34 CLJf3 Wih6 35 b4 C2Je6 36 ~d2 50 ~gS? ~xe2) 50 ... 'iYh2+ 51 ~fl ~b2 or 50
Not 36 d4? ct:Jf4 37 iVd2 ~d7 38 ct:Jgl gS! ~d2 ~fa8.
and ... ct:Jxh3. 50 C2Jc3 l:la3 51 'i¥d4 l::tea8 52 .l:!g3 'i¥h4

155
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

53 'iVf2 'iVh5 54 .i:.xd6? ctJa3) 9 .i.f3 Mc8 10 CLJc3 e6 11 d4 iVaS 12

54 Mfl M8a7 55 bS .i.a8 56 b6 Mel 57 'ifd2 Mfd8 13 Madl cxd4 14 exd4 .i.e8 15 g4
'i¥f6! is good for White. with the initiative in Bueker-Feher, Eger
54 ... 'iVe5? 1989.
54 ... Mxc3! 55 Mxc3 Mal+ 56 ~h2 'i¥e5+ 57 b) 8...'ifd6 (or 8... 'ii'c7) 9 CLJxc6 (9 CLJc3
'ii'g3 'ifxe4 wins. ttJxeS 10 tiJbS 'i¥c6 11 .i.xeS t2Je8) 9 ...'ifxc6
55 .l:!dd3? 10 d3 b6 with an equal position; e.g. 11 CLJd2
55 Mdxg6+! wins. i.b7 (11...CLJg4!?) 12 .i.f3 'iiie6 13 'ife2 Mfd8
55 ... i.xe4 56 ct:Jxe4 J!la1 + 57 ~h2 'iVxe4 14 Mael ifd7 15 g4 CLJe8 16 ~xg7 CLJxg7 17
Black is clearly better again due to White's 'ii'g2 fS 18 h3 Mab8 19 'i¥g3 bS 20 i.g2 ~h8
endangered king. Now 58 Mge3 was forced Yl-Yl Tait-H.Hunt, British Championship
to give the king lufi. 1996.
58 'iVf3? .1:!8a2+ 59 .l:!g2 'iVe5+ 60 ifg3 c) 8 ... CLJxe5 9 fxeS (9 ~xeS .i.d7 10 .i.f3
.l:!xg2+ 61 ~xg2 l:.a2+ ~c6 or 9 ... d4!?) 9 ... CLJe4!? (9 ... CLJd710 d4 f6!?)
61...'ife2+! wins the rook. 10 d3 CLJd6 (Keene) 11 d4 'LJfS 12 'iiid3 .i.h6
62 ~f3 'iVf5+ 63 ~e3 'iVe6+? 13 ~cl b6 14 CLJc3 aS 15 a4 .i.a6 16 CLJbS e6
63 ... 'ifxd3+! 64 ~xd3 Ma3+wins the rook 17 c3 Mc8 18 dxcS MxcS 19 i.a3 i.xe3+ 20
agam. ~hl ifgS 21 g3 d4 22 'i¥e4 Mb8 23 i.xcS
64 ~d4 'iVb6+ 65 ~e4 'iVc6+ 66 ~d4 i.b7 24 'i¥xb7 Mxb7 25 .i.xd4 Md7 and
.l:!c2 67 'iib8+ ~h7 68 'iVb5 ~d6+ 69 Black went on to win in Wills-Moosa, corr
'iVd5 'iib6+ 70 'iVc5 'iif6+ 71 ~e4? 12th Olympiad 1992.
71 ~dS draws; if 71...Me2 72 'ifd6. 4 ... 0-0
71 ....l:!e2+ 72 I:.e3 l'ld2 73 .l:!f3 iVe6+? Instead 4 ... d5 5 c4 is Game 60, 4 ... c5 5 c4
73 ... 'ifh4+! 74 ~e3 'iYel+ 75 ~f4 Mc2! CLJc6 6 ii.e2 0-0 7 0-0 is seen via 5 ... c5 below,
threatens 76 ... Mxc4+ 77 'i¥xc4 'ifh4+. while 4 ... d6 5 d4 ct:Jbd7 (or 5 ... 0-0) 6 c4 eS 7
74 ~f4 .l:!c2 75 ~g3 'iVe1 + 76 ~g4? CLJc3 0-0 transposes to the game.
76 Mf2 was forced. 5 c4
76 .. J:tg2+ 77 ~f4 g5+ 78 ~f5 'iVe6
mate

Game 59
McMichaei-Knott
British Championship 2000
1 b3 CLJf6 2 i.b2 g6 3 e3 i.g7 4 ct:Jf3
Or first 4 c4 and 5 CLJf3.
White can switch to a Bird Opening with
4 f4!?, although ... g7-g6 is one of Black's best
defences. After 4 ... 0-0 5 'LJf3 Black can
choose between: 5 ... d6 6 .ie2 (or 6 'ifcl
.i.g4 7 .i.e2 CLJc6 8 0-0 e5) 6 ... eS 7 fxeS LDg4 Nominally this is another English (A15) or
8 0-0 CLJc6 9 CLJc3 dxeS (or 9 ... CLJgxe5) 10 h3 else a King's Indian (E60) if White follows
'LJh6 (intending ... 'LJfS); and S... dS 6 i.e2 cS with d2-d4. The position can also arise via 1
7 0-0 CLJc6 (or 7 ... d4!? 8 exd4 CLJdS) 8 CLJeS (if CLJf3 'LJf6 2 b3 d6!? 3 d4 g6 4 .i.b2 i.g7 5 e3
8 'ifel d4! 9 CLJa3 ttJdS) and then: 0-0 6 c4.
a) 8 ... .i.d7 (not 8 ... d4? 9 t2Jxc6 bxc6 10 For those who like 1 b3 eS 2 ~b2 CLJc6 3

156
 Black Pia ys an early ... g 7 -g6

e3 d6 4 c4 for White, this system with e2-e3 8... e4 is less good. Black should wait until
and c2-c4 is consistent against an early ... g7- White has castled short before playing ... e5-
g6, and may even transpose directly after e4. The drawback of combining this advance
... e7-e5. with ... 0-0 is that White's natural g2-g4-g5 to
5 ... d6 drive away the defenders also marches on the
If 5... c5 6 i..e2 ttJc6 7 0-0 d5 see the notes black king, and the rooks can line up behind
to Games 35 and 60; instead 7 ... d6 8 d4 cxd4 on the g- and h-files.
(8 ... i..g4) 9 lt:Jxd4 is Game 65; while 7 ... b6 is After 8... e4?! 9 lt:Jd2 ~e8 10 'VJ/ic2 'VJ/ie7 11
a Symmetrical English (A30); e.g. 8 d4 exd4 9 g4! h6 12 h4 and then:
exd4 (or 9 lt:Jxd4 i..b7) 9 ... d5 10 lt:Je5 jLb7
11 i..f3 ~c8 12 ttJd2 lt:Jxe5 (12 ... e6) 13 dxe5
lt:Jd7 14 'VJ/ie2 'VJ/ic7 15 i..g4 e6 16 ~fe1 'Jiiib8
17 ~acl i..h6 18 ~cd1 ~fd8 19 cxd5 i..xd5
20 lt:Je4 i..xe4 21 'VJ/ixe4 and the two bishops
gave Black long-term problems in Hebden-
Kinsman, 4NCL 1997.
6 d4
6 i..e2 e5 and 7 d4 lt:Jbd7 8 ttJc3 trans-
poses below. Instead 7 0-0 lt:Jbd7 8 d3 is a bit
lame; e.g. 8... ~e8 9 lt:Jbd2 lt:Jf8 (9 ... c6) 10 b4
i..f5 11 c5!? dxc5 12 e4 i..g4 13 bxc5 ttJe6 14
lt:Jxe5 i!.xe2 15 'VJ/ixe2 lt:Jd4 16 i..xd4 'VJ/ixd4
17 lt:Jdf3 'VJ/ixc5 18 d4 'VJ/ie7 19 ~ac1 ~ad8 20 a) 12 ... g5 13 hxg5 hxg5 14 0-0-0 ttJf8 15
~fe1 c6 21 ~b1 c5 22 d5? lt:Jh5 23 lt:Jc4 ~dg1 ttJg6 16 ~h5! lt:Jxh5 17 gxh5 i..f5?!
~xd5 24 exd5 'VJ/ixe2 25 ~xe2 ~xe2 26 d6 (but if 17... lt:Jxh4 18 lt:Jdxe4 i..f5 19 i..d3 or
~xa2 with a clear advantage to Black in Sei- 18 .. .f6 19 h6 i..h8 20 f4 with a strong initia-
rawan-R.Byrne, Baden 1980. Or if 8 ttJc3 tive) 18 hxg6 jLxg6 19 'Jiiid1 c6 20 i..h5 i..f5
~e8 9 ~cl e4 10 lt:Je1 lt:Je5 11 d3 i..f5 12 21 ttJf1 ~f8 22 d5 a6 23 ttJg3 i..h7 24
dxe4 lt:Jxe4 13 lt:Jxe4 i..xe4 with no problems lt:Jgxe4! i..xe4 25 lt:Jxe4 'VJ/ixe4 26 ~xg5 and
in D.Byrne-Fischer, US Open 1957. White went on to win in Lobron-W ahls,
6 ... 4Jbd7 Munich 1991.
6 ... lt:Jc6 7 ttJc3 e5 is Game 20 (Chapter 3). b) 12 ... c6 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 lt:Jh7 15
Black can play ... e7-e5 without any prepara- lt:Jdxe4 lt:Jxg5 16 lt:Jxg5 'VJ/ixg5 17 0-0-0 ttJf8
tion: i.e. 6... e5 and if 7 dxe5 (7 ttJc3 lt:Jbd7 is 18 ~dg1 'VJ/ie7 19 i..d3 a6 20 d5 i..d7 21 ~g3!
the game) 7 ... Lt:Jfd7 8 ttJc3 dxe5 9 'Jiiid2 ~e8 b5 22 f4 ~ec8 23 'VJ/ih2 f5 24 Wb1 ~ab8 25
10 h4 e4 11 lt:Jg5 ttJf6 12 0-0-0 'VJ/ixd2+ 13 ~hg1 (preparing a demolition sacrifice on g6)
~xd2 i!.f5 14 f3 exf3 15 e4 i..c8 16 gxf3 25 ... bxc4 26 i..xc4 cxd5 (if 26 ... c5 27 ~xg6!
lt:Ja6 17 lt:Jb5 h6 18 lt:Jh3 lt:Jh5 19 i..g2 lt:Jxg6 28 ~xg6 ~f8 29 lt:Ja4! ~f7 30 lt:Jxc5!
i.xb2+ 20 Wxb2 jLxh3 21 i..xh3 lt:Jf4 22 or29 ... 'VJ/ie4+30Wa1~f731 'VJ/ih6)27 i..xd5+
i..fl ~e7 and Black unravelled in Ljubojevic- i.e6 28 ~xg6! (winning by force) 28 ... lt:Jxg6
Tringov, Teesside 1972. 29 ~xg6 i..xd5 30 ~xg7+ 'VJ/ixg7 31 lt:Jxd5
7 4Jc3 'Jiiib7 32 'VJ/ih8+ <itf7 33 'VJ/if6+ We8 34 'ii'e6+
Move order doesn't seem to matter. 7 Wf8 35 'VJ/ixd6+ Wf7 36 'ii'f6+ We8 37 'ii'e6+
'VJii c2 ~e8 8 ttJc3 e5 9 i..e2 or 7 i..e2 e5 8 Wf8 38 i..a3+ <itg7 39 'ii'f6+ Wh7 40 'ii'xf5+
ttJc3 lead to the same positions. Wg7 41 i..b2+<itg8 42 'ii'g6+ 1-0 McMichael-
7 ... e5 8 i.e2 l:te8 L.Williams,4NCL 1997.

157
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

9 'VJ!ic2 t2Jf8 hindering his kingside initiative; Black can

An interesting idea, freeing the queen's also insert 14...exd41S exd4 i.c6 with play in
bishop, while if White castles short then ... eS- the centre, or even try 14... ttJhS 1S fxe4
e4 becomes viable. iixh4.
More often Black has played 9... c6 when 14 ... ~f5 15 g4
10 0-0 'JJ/ie7 is equal according to ECO. Now 1SttJh4offers 1S ... ~e4withadraw,
Rather than commit the king (especially to unless Black tries 1S ... ~d7.
the kingside) White can temporise with 10 15 ... t2Je4!
h3!?; e.g. 10 ... ttJf8 11 g4 hS 12 gxhS ttJxhS 13 Here 1S ... ~d7!? looks risky, allowing
0-0-0 ~fS 14 e4 exd4 1S lt:Jxd4 iigS+ 16 White to acc~lerate his attack, but there's
Wb1 il.xd4? (16 ... ~d7) 17 l:hd4 'i¥g2 18 nothing conclusive; e.g. 16 gS ttJhS 17 ttJdS
iid1? (18 ~hd1) 18 ... cS? (18 ... ~xe4!) 19 il.f3 'i¥d8 18 dxeS dxeS 19 ttJxeS ~xeS! (not
iigS 20 ~dS and White won ~elling-Gishi, 19 ... i.xeS? 20 i.xhS gxhS 21 i.xeS .:lxeS 22
Budapest 1996), or 10 ...'i¥e7 11 0-0-0 (11 ttJf6+ Wg7 23 'Jilib2 and wins) 20 ~xeS ~xeS
~a3!?) 11...a6 12 g4 exd4 (12 ... bS) 13 exd4 21 f4 il.g7 22 ~xhs gxhS 23 fS!? (23 'Jilie2?
bS 14 ~he1 b4 1S lt:Ja4 cS 16 gS ttJhS 17 c6) 23 ... i.xfS 24 iif2 (threatening the bishop
'Jiiid2 il.b7 18 ttJh4 iif8 19 il.xhS gxhS 20 and ttJf6+) 24 ... ~g6 2S ttJf6+ il.xf6 26 .:lxd8
ct:JfS with an overwhelming position for ~xd8 with three pieces for the queen.
White (Lobron-Van den Doel, Amsterdam
1996).
9... exd4 is safer; e.g. 10 ttJxd4 (10 exd4
ttJb6) 10 ... c6 11 0-0 ttJcS 12 ~ad1 aS 13 h3
'i¥b6 14 ~f3 (14 a3) 14 ... a4 1S ~d2 axb3 16
axb3 lt:Jfd7 17 ~d1 ttJf8 18 g4!? hS 19 Wg2
hxg4 20 hxg4 ttJh7 21 ~e 1 ct:JgS 22 f3 il.d7
23 ttJa4 ttJxa4 24 bxa4 ~e7 2S 'Jiib3 'JJ/ixb3 26
~xb3 ~ae8 with a good endgame for Black
in Tolonen-Sepp, Jyvaskala 199S.
10 0-0-0
White can try to exploit the omission of
... c7-c6 by 10 dxeS dxeS 11 ~d1 ttJ6d7 (if
11...'Jilie7 12 ttJdS ct:JxdS 13 cxdS with pres- 16 t2Jxe4?!
sure down the c-file) 12 0-0 e4 13 lt:Jd2 fS 14 After this Black's light-squared bishop be-
cS ttJe6 1S b4 iigS 16 ttJdS c6 17 il.xg7 comes a total pain. White should have played
cxdS? (17 ... Wxg7 18 iib2+ Wg8 19 ttJf4) 18 16 ttJdS! lt:Jxd2 17 CLJxe7+ .:lxe7 18 gxfS
i.a1 f4 19 Wh1 (19 'Jiib2) 19 ... ttJeS 20 'Jilib2 ttJxf3 19 i.xf3 e4 20 ~g4 with equality, or if
ttJc7 21 f3! fxe3 22 f4 'JJ/ih6 23 fxeS and 16 ... 'i¥d8 17 'JJ/ic2 c6 18 gxfS cxdS 19 ~d3.
White won in Vunder-Kulicov, St Petersburg 16 ... ~xe4 17 h4 b5 18 l:!h3
1999, since if 23 ... exd2 24 e6 and iih8 mates. 18 hS gS 19 h6 i.h8 20 dxeS (or 20 .:lhS
1 o... 'ife7 11 h3 ~f5 12 'iVd2 a6 13 t2Jh4 i..g6 21 ~xgS? e4) 20 ... dxeS 21 .:lgS bxc4 22
~e4 14 t2Jf3 ~xgS+ ttJg6 achieves less than nothing for
After 14 dS ttJ6d7 1S ttJxe4 iixh4 16 f3 White.
bS 17 g3 iie7 18 h4 bxc4 19 bxc4 ~eb8 18 ... bxc4 19 ~xc4 d5 20 ~e2 c5
Black's queenside attack is making more pro- Desiring to keep the dark-squared bishop.
gress. Or if 14 f3 il.c6 1S dS ~d7 (threaten- 20 ... cxd4 21 ~xd4 i.xd4 22 exd4 cS 23 Wb2
ing ... g6-gS) 16 g4 bS and White's knight is seems less promising for Black.

158
 Black Pia ys an early ... g 7-g6

21 dxe5 c4 22 bxc4 dxc4 23 'ifc3 rooks so that if the e5-knight moves away
If 23 hS :ec8 would force 24 'ifc3 any- then :h8+! wins. If instead 32 :xb 1 i.xb 1
way. White is stuck in the middle without coun-
23 .. Jiec8 24 h5 l:i.ab8 25 tt:Jd4 tt:Jd7! terplay and would certainly lose.
Heading either for a4 via cS, or else d3 via 32 ... g5?!
cS oreS. An inaccuracy. The strongest move was
26 hxg6 hxg6 27 e6! 32 ...'iff7! defusing the threat of :h8+ and
Not 27 f4? lt:Jc5 or 27 f3 i.d3 28 f4? thus freeing the knight to go to c6, when
i.xe2 29 lt:Jxe2 lt:Jc5 is very strong. White has no defence; e.g. 33 :h7CDc6 34
27 e6 is a good try, setting the trap :xg7+ 'ifxg7 35CDxc6 'ifxc3+ 36 <it>xc3 i.e2
27 ... lt:Jc5? 28 lt:Jf5!, or if 27 .. .fxe6 28 f3 i.d3 wins, or 33 M1h2 CDc6 34 i.c5 e5 35 CDxc6
29 :dhl! i.xe2 30 lt:Jf5! exf5? 31 :h8+! etc. :xc6 36 i.a3 'ifd5, or 33 i.c1CDc6 33 <it>el
So Black sends his knight via e5 to block the ctJxd4 34 exd4 'ifa7 and ...'ifxd4.
long diagonal. 33 f4?
21 .. .tt:Je5 28 .Jla3 White makes a more serious slip, weaken-
The only move, so that if 28 ... lt:Jd3+ 29 ing the support for the CZJd4. The best de-
\td2. fence was now 33 i.cl! taking over shielding
28 .. .'ife8 29 'it>d2! duties to allow i.c2; e.g. 33 ... <it>f7 (still not
Once again the best defence, pre-empting 33 ... CDc6?? 34 :g8+!) 34 i.c2! i.xc2 35 'ifxc2
both ... lt:Jd3+ and ...:bl+. Not 29 exf7+? :at (or 35 ... c3+ 36 <it>e2) 36 i.a3 seems to
'ifxf7 threatening 30 ... lt:Jd3+ 31 \td2 i.xd4! hold. Unfortunately 33 ...'ii'g6! prevents 34
32 exd4 'iff4+ and wins, or if 30 <it>d2 'ifxf2. i.c2 due to 34 ... i.xc2 35 'ifxc2 CLJd3! 36
Now 29 ...lt:Jd3 would merely take the d3- <it>c3 (not 36 ifxb 1? c3+ etc.) 36 ...:b3+! 37
square away from the bishop. <it>e2 c3+ breaks through. White cannot main-
29 ... fxe6 30 f3 .ltd3 31 l:i.dh1 tain the equilibrium: if 34 i.a3 'iff7! as be-
31 i.xd3? cxd3 would of course be disas- fore, or if 34 i.a4 (attempting to pass)
trous. 31 i.d6 (hoping for 32 i.xe5 i.xe5 33 34 ...:f8 35 .tdl (or 34 :1h2 :f8 35 :ht)
i.xd3) is also no good after 31. ..:b2+! 32 35 ... CLJxg4! 36 i.c2 (if 36 fxg4 :f2+ 37 <it>el
'ifxb2 c3+ 33 'ifxc3 :xc3 34 i.xe5 (not 34 :xa2 and ...:aal) 36 ... i.xc2 37 'ifxc2 c3+ 38
\txc3? i.xe2) 34 ... i.xe2! 35 i.xg7 <it>xg7 36 <it>e2 'ifxc2+ 39 CLJxc2 CLJe5 and Black should
CLJxe2 :a3 or 36 \txe2 eS. wm.
31 ... l:i.b1 32 .Jid1! 33 ... gxf4 34 exf4 tt:Jg6 35 ~h 7
With the threat of 38 :xg7+ <it>xg7 39
tt.Jf5+ and mates.
35 ... ~c7!
Defending g7 and threatening ... i.xd4 or
...:d7, whereas White has now run out of
threats.
36 f5 exf5 37 .1L.f3 'ife5
37 ... :xh1 38 :xhl Md7 39 i.c5 'ifeS is
also strong.
38 ~xg7+ l:i.xg7 39 ~xb1 .Jlxb1 40
'ifxc4+ 'lt>h7
The exchange down and with his king ex-
posed, White is losing.
Again the best try, shielding the doubled 41 .ltb2 'iff4+ 42 'it>d1 fxg4 43 .Jid5 tt:Je5

159
 Nimzo-Larsen Attack

44 ~e2 l:td7 45 ~g2 tLlf3 46 'i¥h1 + ~g6 (or 7 i.c4) 7... 'ii'd8 8 d4 cS 9 dxcS 'if aS 10 a3
4 7 .i.xf3 l:txd4+! l:.d8 11 b4!? l:.xdl+ 12 l:.xdl 'ii'c7 13 lLlbS
The simplest. 'ii'c6 14 l:.d8+ i.f8 15 lLlfd4 'ii'e4 16 lLlc3
48 .Ji.xd4 ~xd4+ 49 <J/c1 .id3 0-1 'ii'h4 (16 ...'ii'g4 17 h3) 17 g3 'ii'hS 18 l:.xc8 eS
Threatening ...'ii'c3+ mating as well as 19 lLldbS 'ii'f3 20 l:.gl 'ii'fS? (20 ... lLle4) 21
... 'ii'e3+, ... 'ii'xf3. After 50 'ii'el 'ii'cS+ 51 ~b2 lLld6 'ii'c2 22 lLldl and White won
gxf3 52 'ii'g3+ 'ii'gS White has no more (Gawehns-Seul, Germany 1986).
checks, or if 52 'if e8+ ~gS 53 'ifd8+ ~g4 54 Since the g7-bishop is defended here
'ii'xd3 'ii'bS+ wins. Black has 6... lLlxd5 7 i.xg7 ~xg7 8 i.e2 (8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -..... 'it'cl!?) 8... c5 9 0-0 b6 10 d4lLld7 11 i.bS
Game 60 'ii'c7 12 lLla3 lLlc3 13 'ii'd3 lLlxbS 14 lLlxbS
Conquest-Baburin 'ii'c6 15 ds 'ii'f6 16 e4 a6 17lLla3 bS 18 l:.fel
4NCL 2001 e5 19lLlc2 l:.b8 20 a4 'ii'b6 21 axbS axbS 22
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • h4 l:.e8 23 'ii'c3 l:.e7 24lLle3 and the passed
1 tLlf3 tLlf6 2 b3 g6 3 .Ji.b2 .ig7 4 e3 d5 pawn gave White the better chances in Tai-
5 c4 manov-Mishuchkov, St Petersburg Champi-
onship 1997.
6 .ie2 0-0 7 0-0 .ig4
The most common move, developing the
bishop in advance of ... lLlbd7 or .. e7-e6.
Black does have other moves; the immediate
7... lLlbd7 for instance, and then:
a) 8 'ii'c2 l:.e8 9 cxdS (9lLlc3 dxc4 10 bxc4
eS) 9... cxd5 10 l:.cl lLlb8 11 lLleS lLlfd7
(11.. .i.fS) 12lLlxd7 i.xd7 13 i.xg7 ~xg7 14
lLlc3 i.c6 15 b4 b6 16 'ii'b2 eS? (16 ... d4) 17
d4! exd4 18lLlb5 'ii'f6 19lLlxd4 l:.c8 20 i.g4
l:.d8 21 l:.c3 i.d7 22 i.xd7 l:.xd7 23 .Sac 1
aS? 24 l:.c6! ctJxc6 25 l:.xc6 1-0 Rukavina-
5 ... c6 Hug, Zurich 1990.
The game in fact began 1 lLlf3 dS 2 b3 b) 8 cxdS lLlxdS (8 ... cxd5) 9 i.xg7 ~xg7
lLlf6 3 ~b2 g6 4 c4 c6 5 e3 i.g7 reaching the 10 d4lLl7f6 11lLlbd2 i.fs 12 'it'cl aS 13 a3
diagram position. By our move order Black lLlb6 14 'ii'b2 ~g8 15 l:.acl lLlc8 16 lLleS
can also play: lLld7 17 f4lLld6 18 i.f3 f6 19lLlec4 i.e6 20
a) S... cS which is Game 35. e4lLlb6 21 ~hl fS 22 dS!? fxe4 23 dxe6 exf3
b) 5... dxc4 6 i.xc4 0-0 (6 ... c5 is Game 35 24 lLlxf3 l:.f6?! (24 ... l:.xf4) 25 lLlceS! with
again) and now Kramnik suggested 7 b4!?. advantage to White in Konstantinopolsky-
This position has been seen via 1 b4 dS 2 il.b2 Keres, Leningrad 1939, since if25 ...l:.xe6? 26
lLlf6 3 lLlf3 g6 4 e3 il.g7 5 c4 dxc4 6 il.xc4 lLlgS l:.f6 27 lLlg4 wins the exchange.
0-0. However, after 7 b4!? in our variation 8 d3
White is a tempo behind. Instead, Welling- White intends to develop lLlbd2 before
Rogers, Leiden 1989, saw 7 lLlc3 a6 8 b4 hitting the bishop. With the immediate 8 h3
lLlc6 9 a3 eS 10 'ii'b3 e4 11 lLlgS 'ii'e7 12 f3 i.xf3 9 i.xf3 White can play differently with
exf3 13 tt:Jxf3 i.e6!? 14 i.xe6 'ii'xe6 15 'ii'xe6 lLlc3 and d2-d4; e.g. 9... e6 10 lLlc3lLlbd7 11
fxe6 16lLla4 and White was slightly better. d4 l:.e8 12 l:.cl l:.c8 13 l:.c2 dxc4 (13 ... a6!?)
c) 5... 0-0 6 cxdS (6lLla3!?) 6...'ii'xd5 7lLlc3 14 bxc4 eS 15 l:.d2 exd4 16 exd4 when White

160
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

was better with the two bishops and a mobile Equivalent to having captured and re-
centre in Christiansen-P .Nikolic, Wijk aan treated with the bishop (~xf3-e2) after all.
Zee 1982. White's manoeuvres in this game (11 'Llxf3,
8 ... ctJbd7 1S 'Lld2, 16 ..tf3, 18 1Le2) do not do a deal,
Black can capture on f3 in advance of but neither do they harm his prospects as
lt:Jbd2, though it doesn't make a lot of differ- Black lacks a constructive plan. Baburin tries
ence. Whichever piece takes back on f3 usu- to do something active and merely creates
ally moves away again; e.g. 8... ~xf3 9 ~xf3 problems for himself.
lt:Jbd7 10 lt:Jd2 e6 11 ~c2 aS 12 :acl ~e7 15 ... f5 16 .lil.f3 ttJ5f6 17 ~fd1 h5?!
13 cxdS exdS 14 :fe1 :fe8 1S a3 ~d6 16 g3 The beginning of a bad plan.
hS 17 ~g2 and not a lot happened until 18.lil.e2g5?! 19e4!
Black lost on time in Conquest-Dorfman, The thematic counter to the pawn storm
Oviedo rapidplay 1992. (c.f. Game 20). If 19 .. .fxe4 20 dxe4 plans
9 ctJbd2 .i:i.e8 1 0 h3 .lil.xf3 11 ct:Jxf3 e5 either 'Llf3 to eye the weak points eS and gS,
or to probe with 'Llc4-d6.
19 ... f4 20 tt::lf3!
Back to probe the kingside. This has been
fine shuffling (Lavieren) by Conquest; White
has hardly done anything since move 11,
while Black's supposedly attacking moves
have weakened his position irreparably.
20 ... g4
If Black defends the g-pawn by 20 ... 'Llh7
then 21 d4! g4 22 hxg4 hxg4 23 ~c4+! ~h8
24 'LlxeS 'LlxeS 2S dxeS iLxeS 26 iLxeS
~xeS 27 i.xg4 1i'xe4 28 Md4 (the point of
23 ~c4+) 28 ...1i'eS 29 :ad1 with a big advan-
A standard formation for Black, as seen tage for White.
before in Miles-Godena (Game 42) and later 21 ttJh4 f3
in Glek-Van Mil (Game 62). Black is per- If Black tries to swap queens by 21. ..~cS,
fectly fine, but it is a rather static sort of fine. hoping for 22 :ac11i'xc2 23 Mxc2 cS! with a
After building the centre and putting the defensible position, Black prevents the ex-
pieces on sensible squares, it is difficult to change by 22 i.c3! when b3-b4 will drive the
improve Black's position. Advancing further black queen back; while 22 ... g3!? achieves
will weaken both the centre itself and the little after 23 Mf1 bS 24 b4 (or 24 1i'd2)
neighbouring squares, as for example in the 24 ... axb4 2S axb4 gxf2+ 26 ~hl.
next note. 22 gxf3 gxh3 23 'ifc4+ ~h7 24 tt::lf5 'iffS
12 cxd5 ct:Jxd5 Black's position is now too wrecked for a
Black recaptured with the pawn in queen exchange to help; e.g. 24 ...1i'cS 2S d4!
S.J ohannessen-P .Johansson, Gausdal 1986, 'ifxc4 26 bxc4.
continuing 12 ... cxdS 13 :c1 e4?! (13 ...1i'b6) 25 ~h1 .ih6 26 ~g1
14 dxe4 dxe4 1S lt:Jd4 lt:JeS?! (1S ... lt:JdS) 16 Ironic; after all Black's work, White gets
lt:JbS! lt:Jds 17 :cs lt:Jb4 18 lt:Jc7 1i'e7? first to the g-file and will follow with :g3
(18 ... 4:Jed3) 19 lt:Jxe8 ~xeS 20 lt:Jxg7 ~xg7 and Mxh3 or Mag1, or even i.flxh3.
211i'd7 ~g8 22 ~xb7 and White won. 26 ... tt::lb6 27 ~c2 .lil.f4
13 'ifc2 a5 14 a3 'ife7 15 ctJd2 Preventing Mg3. If Black plays another

161
 Nimzo-Larsen Attack

6 dxeS lt:Jfd7 7 lt:Jf3 dxeS (or 7... 0-0) 8 lt:Jc3

move, 27 ... .:tad8 say, and tries 28 .:tg3 h2!?
then 29 ~cl! brushes the slight annoyance 0-0; or if S... cS!? 6 lt:Jf3 cxd4 (or 6... 0-0) 7
aside. lt:Jxd4 dS 8 0-0 0-0 reaches the note to
28 .l:.g7+ 'iixg7 Black's 6th. Otherwise:
28 ... ~h8 29 .:ag1 and 30 .:g6, 31 ~cl is a) 6 dxcS 'ii'aS+ 7lt:Jcl2 'ii'xcS 8 a3 lt:Jc6 9
b4 'ii'b6 10 c4 aS 11 bS ctJeS 12 ct:Jgf3 lt:Jfg4!
equally hopeless, or if 29 ...ctJc8 30 .:txb7 ctJe7
31 ltJh4 threatening 32 .:txe7 is one way to(Shirov later preferred 12 ... lt:Jxf3+ 13 ctJxf3
wm. ctJe4 14 ~d4 ~xd4 15 ctJxd4 ct:Jf6 16 0-0 0-0
29 'Dxg7 Wxg7 30 d4 'Dbd7 31 .i.c1! intending ~d7, .:tac8, though 17 'ii'cl2 ~d7
18 .:tfcl.:tac8 19 ct:Jb3 a4 20 ifaS! seems OK
for White) 13 ~d4 CLJd3+ 14 exd3 ~xd4 15
ct:Jxd4 'ii'xd4 16 0-0 'iVxd3 17 .:te1lt:Je5 18 cS
~g4 19 'ii'cl .:tc8 20 ctJe4 fS 21 'ii'b2 0-0 (if
21.. .fxe4 22 ~xe4 ifc4 23 cxd6 cxd6 24
.:tact 'ii'e6 25 .:txc8+ 'ii'xc8 26 f4) 22 cxd6
lt:Jc4 23 'ii'a2 fxe4 24 dxe7 .:tfe8 25 .:txe4
(Psakhis-Shirov, Paris 1990) when Fritz trots
out 25 ... ~d1! intending ... ~b3, and if 26
.:txd1 (or 26 .:te3 'i'c2 or 26 .:txc4 .:txc4 27
~f1 ~b3) 27 ...'ii'xd1+ 28 ~f1 ~g7 29 .:txc4
.:txc4 30 'Yi'x~4 .:txe7 with advantage to
Black.
Removing the key defender, after which b) 6 dS 0-0 7 li:Jh3 ~g4 8 ltJf4 'Vi'd7 9
Black has no chance. 'Yi'cl eS 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 ctJc3 ctJc6 12 h3
31 ... .i.xc1 32 'ifxc1 exd4 33 'ii'g5+ ~h7 ~fS 13 e3 (if 13 g4 ~e4! 14 ct:Jxe4 ctJxe4 15
34 .ttg1 .l:.g8 35 'iff5+ ~h6 36 ~f4+ ~h7 ~xe4 ~xb2 16 'iVxb2 ~xf4 17 li:Jf6+ .:txf6
37 e5 ~xg1+ 38 ~xg1 .l:.g8+ 39 Wh2 18 'ii'xf6 ctJd4! with strong counterplay)
.ttg2+ 40 Wxh3 .l:.xf2 41 .i.d3+ Wg8 42 13 ... e5 14 ltJfdS ct:Jb4 15 ctJxf6+ :xf6 16 e4
exf6 1-0 ~e6 17 h4 ctJc6 18lt:Jd5 ~xdS 19 exdS ct:Jd4
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 20 ~xd4 cxd4 21 0-0 was equal in Adams-
Game 61 Shirov, Hastings 1991/92.
Radjabov-Zhao Zong Yuan
Oropesa del Mar 1998
1 b3
Played in the World U nder-12 Champion-
ship when White already had a rating of
2325. At the time of writing, Radjabov's
FIDE rating is up to 2483 (aged 13) with two
Grandmaster norms in the bank.
1 ... g6 2 .i.b2 t2Jf6 3 g3 .i.g7 4 .i.g2 0-0
The most flexible move. If immediately
4 ... d6 White has a choice: 5 e4 goes back to
Game 58; 5 c4 eS 6 lt:Jf3 0-0 is the note to
White's 6th below; 5 d4 will mostly transpose 5 t2Jf3
to the current game, after 5...0-0 6lt:Jf3, S... eS The most usual move, mainly because

162
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

l2Jf3 may have already been played. For ex- low, White should play 6 c4 dS 7 0-0 (see
ample, the move order of the current game Game 62) or 6 ... ctJc6 7 0-0 d6 8 d4 (King's
was 1ctJf3 l2Jf6 2 b3 g6 3 ~b2 ~g7 4 g3 0-0 Indian) or 8 ctJc3 (Symmetrical English)
s ~g2. when 8... eS! is in Game 64 (with 4 c4).
Instead S d4 is inaccurate; d2-d4 should 6 d4
only be played (if at all) in answer to ... d6,
otherwise Black will advance ... d7-dS in one
go and gain a tempo on the 6... cS line (note
to Black's sixth below).
White can opt for an English by S c4, and
may already have done so, transposing here
from elsewhere (three of the games below
started 1 b3 eS 2 ~b2 d6). Then S... d6 (S ... c6
6 l2Jf3 dS is Game 62) 6 l2Jf3 eS 7 0-0 with
just a few examples:
a) 7 ... cS 8ctJc3 ctJc6 is a Symmetrical Eng-
lish (A36); see Game 64 (with 3 ... l2Jf6).
b) 7 ... ctJc6 8ctJc3 and 8... ltJhS (8 ... h6) 9 e3
fS 10 d3 gS (10 .. .f4!?) 11ctJe1 g4 12 f3 CiJf6 Gallagher (discussing the move order 1 d4
13 f4 l2Je7 14 'ifd2 l2Jg6 1S ltJdS CiJe8 16 l2Jf6 2 Qjf3 g6 3 g3 ~g7 4 ~g2 0-0 s 0-0 d6)
~d1 c6 17 ctJc3 exf4 18 exf4 (Lombardy- writes: '6 b3 is certainly one of the most tedi-
Fischer, Monte Carlo 1967) and Black only ous variations against the KID but Black
won because he was Fischer. Or 8... ~e8 9 d3 should still take great care so as to avoid slip-
e4 (9 ... h6) 10 ctJxe4 ctJxe4 11 ~xg7 ctJxf2 ping into a prospectless position where
(11...~xg7 12 dxe4 ~xe4 is dreary for Black) White has a nagging edge ... but, it has to be
12 ~xf2 ~xg7 13 'ifd2 ctJeS 14 ctJxeS dxeS said, there are no miracle solutions for Black
1S .l:afl ~f8 16 ~f6 with a clear advantage to to liven the game up.'
White in Spraggett-Barlov, Paris 1991. It is often Black's own fault though. These
c) 7 ... c6 8 d3 l2Jbd7 (8 ... ltJhS!?) 9 'ifc2 aS lines commonly arise via an early b2-b3 (e.g.
10 a3 ltJhS llctJc3 ltJcS 12 b4ctJe6 13 e3 fS 1 b3, 1ctJf3 CiJf6 2 b3, or 1 CiJf3 CiJf6 2 g3 g6
14ctJa4! gS 1S cS g4 16ctJb6 ~b8 17ctJd2 dS 3 b3) with d2-d4 thrown in as a reaction to
(17 .. .f4!?) 18 f3 gxf3 19 tt:Jxf3 e4 20 ctJeS 'i¥c7 ... d7 -d6. If Black wants a more dynamic posi-
21 d4 ~xeS 22 dxeS ~d7 23 'i¥e2 (23 bxaS) tion perhaps s/he should play less routinely
23 ... l2Jhg7 24 g4? f4! 2S exf4ctJxf4 26 'i¥d2 at the beginning of the game.
ctJd3 and Black was better in Spraggett- White's main alternative 6 c4 was given via
Apicella, Paris 1991. Or 8ctJc3 ~e8 9 e3!? (9 S c4 d6 6 CiJf3 above.
e4ctJbd7 10 d4 exd4 11ctJxd4ctJcS 12 'ifc2 6 ... e5
aS is a King's Indian) 9 ... ~fS (9 ... l2Jbd7) 10 This is Black's most popular move, and
d3 'i¥d7 11 ltJgS h6 12 ctJge4 l2Jh7 13 ~a3 equal according to ECO (A49). The assess-
~f8 14 d4 ~xe4 1SctJxe4 fS 16ctJc3 e4 and ment may be theoretically correct but Black's
Black did not crack in Larsen-Benko, Monte practical record with 6 ... eS is dismal: the da-
Carlo 1968. tabase shows White scoring 62%, while in 8
5 ... d6 ctJc3 lines the percentage rises further to
S... dS and S... aS and S... b6 are considered 71%.
in Game 62. If S... cS, rather than 6 d4 cxd4 7 Black has also tried: 6... ~fS 7 c4 'ifc8 8 h3
ctJxd4 dS with an extra tempo on 6... cS be- 'ifd8 9 ctJc3 eS?! 10 dxeS dxeS 11 CiJd2 (11

163
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

tL'lxeS) 11...tL'lc6?! 12 jL,xc6 bxc6 13 g4 ~e6 (if 8 ... dxeS 9 h3 tL'lh6 10 'ifxd8 :xd8 11
14 'i¥c2 aS 1S tL'la4 tL'ld7 16 tL'le4 f6 17 f3 tL'lbS) 9 tL'lxeS dxeS (or 9 ... .txeS 10 'i¥d2 and
'i¥b8 18 h4 and White controlled the whole 0-0-0, h2-h4) 10 'ifxd8 :xd8 11 ttJds :d7
board in Larsen-W esterinen, Lone Pine 1978. (not 11...tL'la6 12 tL'le7+ and tL'lxc8, .txb7) 12
And 6 ... tL'lbd7 7 0-0 c6 (if 7... eS 8 dxeS tL'lg4 0-0-0 and now 12 ... tL'la6? 13 tL'lf6+! .txf6 14
9 'iVcl!) 8 tL'lbd2 'i¥c7 9 a4 aS 10 e4 eS 11 :xd7 ~xd7 1S .txb7 or 12 ... c6? 13 tL'le7+!
:e1 :e8 12 tL'lc4 .tf8 13 'i¥d2 b6 14 :ad1 :xe7 14 :d8+ encouraged Black to play
h6 1S h3 :b8 16 dxeS dxeS 17 tL'lfxeS! tL'lxeS 12 ... ~f8 (12 ... tL'lc6 looks better) 13 .th3 fS
18 tL'lxeS .tg7 19 tL'lxc6 'i¥xc6 20 eS tL'le4 21 14 e4 tL'lc6 1S exfS gxfS 16 f4 :f7 17 fxeS
jL,xe4 'i¥c7 (Dunnington-Gallagher, British .txeS 18 :he1' jL,xb2+?! (18 ... jL,d6) 19 ~xb2
Championship 1999), when Fritz shows 22 b6 20 .tg2 .tb7 21 tL'lf4 :e7?! 22 :xe7
jL,a}! as the simplest way to consolidate, in- ~xe7 23 tL'ldS+ ~f7 24 tL'lxc7 and White
tending .td6 orif 22 ... .txeS 23 'i¥xh6 .txg3 went on to win in Skembris-Cela, Greek
24 .tb2. Team Championship 1998.
Instead 6 ... cS! is safer and then: 8 CL'lc3
a) 7 0-0 cxd4 (if 7... tL'lc6 8 dS and 9 c4) 8 As in the previous note, 8 tL'lc3 is causing
tL'lxd4 dS 9 c4 (9 tL'la3?! :e8 10 c4 eS!) when Black the most problems. 8 0-0 is far less
Black can play either 9 ... eS 10 tL'lf3 e4 11 dynamic; e.g. 8... tL'lc6 9 c4 (9 e4 dxeS)
tL'ld4 tL'lc6 12 tL'la3 tL'lxd4 13 'ifxd4 jL,g4 14 9 ... dxeS 10 tL'le1 tL'ld4 11 tL'lc3 c6 12 tL'ld3 fS
cxdS ~xe2 1S :fe1 .td3 (Gallagher) or if 13 13 e3 tL'le6 14 tL'la4 'ife7 1S 'iVcl :e8 and
.txd4!? (Malaniuk-Rukavina, Pula 1999) then Black pushed hard for a win for 9S moves in
13 ... dxc4 14 tL'lxc4 bS 1S tL'le3 i.b7 is OK. Barcza-Fischer, Zurich 19S9. The game
Or 9 ... dxc4 10 bxc4 (if 10 tL'la3 cxb3 11 move order was 8 'ifd2 dxeS 9 tL'lc3, but here
'i¥xb3 tL'lc6! 12 tL'lxc6 bxc6 13 ~xc6 i.e6 Black's position seems defensible after
was equal in Damljanovic-Smirin, Moscow 8 ... tL'lxeS 9 tL'lxeS dxeS 10 'ifxd8 :xd8 11
Olympiad 1994) 10 ...'ifb6 (10 ... tL'lg4!?) 11 tL'ld2 c6 12 0-0-0 .te6 13 tL'lc4 :xd1+ 14
'i¥b3 (if 11 tL'lb3 :d8 12 'ifcl tL'lc6 13 tL'lc3 :xd1 tL'ld7 and 1S tL'laS (or 1S tL'ld6 :b8)
.te6 Kochiev, or 13 .tc3 .tg4) 11...tL'lfd7! 12 1s ...:b8 16 i.a3 .tf8.
e3 tL'lc6! and then if 13 tL'lxc6 .txb2! 14 8 ... dxe5
tL'lxe7+ ~h8 or 13 :d1 tL'laS 14 'iVc2? tL'lxc4, For 8 ... tL'lxeS see 7... tL'lg4 8 tL'lc3 tL'lxeS.
or if 13 'ifxb6 tL'lxb6 14 tL'ld2 tL'lxd4 1S jL,xd4 9 'iVd2
:d8 (Kosic-Mozetic, Yugoslav Team Cham-
pionship 1994) and Black is better if any-
thing.
b) 7 c4 is a King's Indian (£60); e.g.
7... dS!? (7 ... tL'le4 8 0-0 tL'lc6) 8 cxdS tL'lxdS 9
'ifd2 tL'lc7 10 0-0 tL'lc6 11 :d1 cxd4 12 tL'lxd4
tL'lxd4 13 .txd4 'i¥xd4 14 'ifxd4 .txd4 1S
:xd4 tL'lbS 16 :b4? (16 :d2) 16 ...:d8! 17
tL'ld2? (17 :xbS? :d1+ 18 .tfl.th3 wins; 17
.te4 was essential) 17... tL'ld4 0-1 Villamayor-
Gallagher, Calcutta 2001.
7 dxe5 CL'lfd7
As usual, the pin along the long diagonal
ensures that Black gets the pawn back. Planning to castle long and attack straight-
7... tL'lg4 seems less good after 8 tL'lc3 tL'lxeS forwardly with h4-hS; e.g. 9 ... tL'la6 10 0-0-0

164
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

Vliie7 11 h4 h6 12 h5 gS 13 ct:Jds Vlid6 14 8cxe4 M.al+! 24 .ixal Vlia3+ 0-1.

ctJxgS! (the standard sacrifice) 14 ... c6 15 Vlid3 13 .. .'~e7
(insisting) 15 ... hxg5 16 h6 iLf6 (16 ... ith8 17 13 ... b5 sets Black up for· tricks, e.g. 14
Mh5) 17 8xf6+ Vliixf6 18 h7+ ~h8 19 'i:Ve3 CLJc3 b4 (14 ... Ma6 15 ~bl) 15 ctJa4 Vliie7 16
Vlig7 20 f4 f6 21 fxgS fxgS 22 Mxd7 Jl.xd7 23 hS gS 17 ctJxgS! hxgS 18 Jl.xc6.
ifxeS! 1-0 Sulava-Mazi, V elden 1996. 14Wb1lld815'ifc1 b5
9 ... ~c6 15 ... Vlib4!? 16 hS Vlixg4 (not 16 ... g5 17
If9 ... Me8 10 0-0-0 e411 ctJel (or 11 ctJd4) ctJxgS! hxgS 18 i..xc6 bxc6 19 VlixgS f6 20
ll...Vlif6 12 Vlie3 ct:Jb6 13 ctJd3! (threatening Vlig6 wins) 17 i.,h3 Vlif4 is an interesting
ctJxe4) 13 ... 'i:Ve7 14 ctJf4 c6 (if 14 .. .f5 15 g4!) defence. Having lost the extra pawn, White
15 Vlixe4 Vlif8 16 Vlid3 ctJa6 17 Vlid6 Vlixd6 needs to turn the initiative into something
18 Mxd6 i..eS 19 Md2 i..fS 20 ct:Jdl and concrete before Black unravels: 18 Vlixf4 exf4
White went on to win in Sulava-Armanda, 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 i..e6 + ~f8 21 ct:Jh 4 appears
Croatian League 1999. to do the trick; e.g. 21...i..xb2 22 ctJxg6 +!
Black cannot lessen the pressure through ~g7 23 ctJxb2 ~xg6 24 Mdgl + ~f6 25
exchanges: 9 ... ct:Jb6 10 Vlixd8 Mxd8 11 ct:JbS! Mxh6+ ~eS 26 ctJc4+ ~e4 27 Mdl ctJdeS 28
e4 12 i..xg7 exf3 13 i..xf3 ~xg7 14 ctJxc7 f3 + ctJxf3 29 .idS+ MxdS 30 exf3 + ~xf3 31
ctJc6 15 ctJxa8 gives White a good endgame MxdS winning the exchange, or 21...ctJe7 22
after 15 ... ctJxa8 16 .ixc6 bxc6 17 Mdl or ctJcS i..xb2 23 ~xb2 ~e8 24 i..xd7 + i..xd7
15 ... ctJb4 16 ctJxb6 ctJxc2+ 17 ~fl i,h3+ 18 25 ctJxb7 Mdb8 26 ctJcS when White is once
i,g2 i,xg2+ 19 ~xg2 ctJxa120 Mxal axb6 21 again a pawn ahead.
~f3 G.Anderson) intending 21...~d2 22 ~e3 1 6 ltJc3 'ifb4?
Mb2 23 ~d3 ~f6 24 ~c4! etc.; or if The losing move. Black had to try 16... b4
ll...ctJc6!? 12 ctJxc7 ~b8 13 c3! Black has intending 17 ct:JdS VlicS or 17 ctJa4 i..a6 and
insufficient compensation - the knight can- ... i..bS. White would reply 17 ctJe4! and if
not be trapped: 13 ... a6 14 ctJd2 (threatening 17... i,a6 18 Vlie3 ct:Jb6 19 g5! ct:Jds (19 ... h5 20
ctJxa6) 14 ... ctJe7 15 c4 Md7 16 ctJe8! i..h8 17 ct:Jf6+ i..xf6 21 gxf6 Vlixf6 22 ctJxeS wins) 20
ctJe4 etc. MxdS! MxdS 21 gxh6 i,h8 22 h5 with a big
10 0-0-0 a5 11 h4 h6 attack, or 17 ... .tb7 (hoping for ... MaS,
Or ll...hS 12 ctJgS! (planning .ixc6 or g3- ... :da8) 18 hS g5 (18 ... Ma5? 19 g5) 19 ct:JfxgS!
g4) 12 ... Ma6 13 ~b 1 ct:Jd4 14 e3 ctJe6 15 hxgS 20 h6 i..f6 21 'ife3 intending 'iff3-f5
ctJxe6 Mxe6 16 ct:JbS a4 17 i..h3 fS 18 e4 with soon to be three pawns and a strong
axb3 19 axb3 Mb6 20 Vliie2 Vliie7 21 exfS gxfS initiative for the piece.
22 ct:Jxc7 VlicS 23 ct:Jds Mh6 24 Vliie3 Vliixe3 25
fxe3 Me6 26 e4 again (!) and White won in
Ionescu-Gallagher, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
12 g4 a4 13 ltJxa4!
An obvious improvement on Kolev-
J.Polgar, Budapest 1993, in which White
made the common mistake of declining a
sacrifice offered by a stronger player (and
one with a reputation for brutal attacks), only
to get hammered even more quickly: 13 g5?
hS 14 e3 axb3 15 cxb3 Vliie7 16 i..h3 ct:Jb4! 17
i..xd7 ~d8 18 a3 ~xd7 19 Vliie2 ctJc6 20
Mxd7 iLxd7 21 ctJd2 Mxa3! 22 Md 1 e4 23

165
 Nimzo-Larsen Attack

17 ct::Jxe5! chances in Ftacnik-Speelman, Thessaloniki

Again Black falls prey on the long light di- Olympiad 1984.
agonal; if 17 ... ltxeS 18 ~xc6 or 17 ... 4:JdxeS 6 c4 c6
18 .:xd8+ 4:Jxd8 19 ltxa8.
17 ... lt:'lcxe5 18 ..ixa8 c6 19 'i!¥e3 ct::Jxg4
20 'i!¥g3 lt:'lge5 21 f4 'i!¥a5 22 fxe5 W!¥xa8
Or 22 ... ltxeS 23 'ife3 'ifxa8 24 .:xd7.
23 e6 fxe6 24 'i!¥xg6 ~h8 25 l!hg1 l!g8
26 ct::Je4 e5 27 l!xd7
27 4:Jd6 and 4:Jf7 mate was slightly
quicker.
27 ... ..ixd7 28 ..ixe5! 1-0
White mates by ltxg7 or 'ifxh6.

Game 62
Glek-Van Mil
Wijk aan Zee 1995 Black cautiously defends the central pawn.
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. This is perfectly acceptable, though it seems
1 ctJf3 ctJf6 2 b3 g6 3 ..ib2 ..ig7 4 g3 0-0 somewhat altruistic: playing a line in which
5 ..ig2 d5 White has reasonable chances after s/he has
Along with the lines covered in the previ- already conceded equality.
ous game, Black has two other moves which The game reached this position via 1CLJf3
are seen quite regularly, if not necessarily by 4:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 b3 ltg7 4 ltb2 0-0 S g3 c6 6
this move order: ~g2 dS. By the current move order Black
a) S... aS 6 0-0 a4 7 b4 dS (7 ... CLJa6!?) 8 can also play:
CLJa3!? 4:Jbd7 9 c4 .:e8 10 d3 eS 11 'ifc2 c6 a) 6... dxc4 7 bxc4 cS 8 0-0 CLJc6 9 d3 with
12 e4 ~f8!? (12 ... d4) 13 exdS ~xb4 14 dxc6 potential queenside pressure; e.g. after
bxc6 1S cS! ~a6 (1S ... ~xcS 16 CLJc4 or 9... .:b8 10 CLJeS CLJxeS 11 ltxeS 4:Jd7 12
1S ... CLJxcS 16 CLJxeS) 16 CLJc4 a3 17 ~xeS ~xg7 ~xg7 13 CLJc3 4:Jf6 14 'ii'a4 a6 1S
~xeS 18 d4 CLJxeS 19 ct:JfxeS ~xd4 20 CLJxc6 .:ab1 (Taimanov-Zitin, Minsk 199S); or
'ifc7? (20 .. .'iVc8) 21 4:Jxd4 'ifxc4 22 ~xa8 9... ~d7 10 'ii'b3 'ifc8 11CLJbd2 CLJe8 12 .:ab1
'ifxc2 23 CLJxc2 ~xf1 24 ~c6 .:c8 2S CLJxa3 .:b8 13 .:fd1 ltxb2 14 'ifxb2 'ii'c7 1S CLJe4
.:xc6 26 ~xf1 with an extra pawn in the b6 16 4:Jc3 4:Jg7 17 ct:Jds 'ifd6 18 ct:Jgs .:be8?
endgame (Timman-Piket, Harlingen 1991). (18 ... ~fS) 19 CLJe4 1-0 Miles-Hermesmann,
b) S... b6 6 0-0 ltb7 creates a piquant Bundesliga 1989.
symmetry which 7 c4 cS continues into a b) 6... cS 7 0-0 CLJc6 (if 7 ... d4 8 b4! under-
Symmetrical English (A30). Carsten Hansen mines the centre) 8 cxdS CLJxdS 9 ~xg7
writes: White can't seriously expect to obtain ~xg7 10 'ifcl! 'ifd6 (10 ... b6 11 'ii'b2+ ~g8
an edge unless Black starts taking things a 12 d4) 11 CLJc3 CLJxc3 12 'ifxc3+ ~g8 13
little too light-heartedly' - and there does .:acl b6 14 d4 CLJxd4 1S CLJxd4 cxd4 16 'ifc7
seem to be a huge proportion of draws from .:b8 17 'ifxd6 exd6 18 .:fd1 .:e8 (18 ... ~e6!
this position. Hansen's main line is 8 CLJc3 (8 19 .:xd4 .:bc8) 19 ~f3 ~a6 20 .:c7 .i.xe2
d4 cxd4 9 'i¥xd4 ctJc6) 8... ctJa6 (8 ... d6) 9 d4 21 i.xe2 .:xe2 22 .:xa7 with a good end-
dS 10 CLJeS (10 cxdS CLJxdS 11 CLJxdS .i.xdS) game for White in Timman-Van Wely, Am-
10 ... e6 11 dxcS CLJxcS 12 cxdS exdS 13 4:Jf3 sterdam 199S.
'ifd7 14 .:c1 .:fe8 1S .:c2 .:ad8 with equal 7 0-0 itg4

166
 Black Plays an early ... g7-g6

The most frequent move, developing the 14 a3 ~h6 1S b4 'i¥b6 16 lt:Jb3 ~ac8 17 e3
bishop before ... lt:Jbd7 or ... e7-e6. As with 'i¥b5 1S ~b1 b6 19 lt:Ja1 ~f8 20 a4 'i¥c6 21
Game 60 Black has other options; e.g. bS 'i¥e6 22 ~cl 'iffS 23 ct:Jb3 ~xcl 24 ~xcl
a) 7... a5 8 d3 (8 lt:Ja3) 8... a4 9 b4 dxc4 10 ~c8 25 ~b2 'i¥e6 when Black was rewarded
dxc4 'ifxd1 11 ~xd1 lt:Jbd7 12 a3 lt:Jb6 13 with a won position as White overpressed,
lt:Jbd2 ~e6 14 ~del ~fd8 15 c5 ctJc8 16 though time trouble reduced it to a draw.
ctJc4 ~xc4 17 ~xc4 ctJa7 18 ~c2 lt:Jb5 and
Black wa.S OK in Speelman-I.Sokolov, Hast-
ings 1998/99.
b) 7 ... lt:Jbd7 8 'ifc2 ~e8 9 ctJc3 dxc4
(9 ... 4JfS) 10 bxc4 e5 11 d3 ctJc5 12 ~fd1
'ifa5 13 ct:Jd2 CLJe6 14 lt:Jde4 lt:Jd4 15 ctJxf6+
~xf6 16 'ifd2 ~g7 17 ctJe4 'itic7 1S e3 ctJe6
19 c5 ~dS 20 ~ac 1 f5 21 ctJd6 ctJxcS 22
CLJxcS lt:Jxd3 23 .i.xc6 bxc6 24 ~xc6 'ifb7 2S
~d6 ~xd6 26 ctJxd6 'ifxb2 27 'ifxd3 'ifxa2
and Black was better in Speelman-H.Prohl,
Bundesliga 1999.
8 d3 lbbd7
As in Game 60, Black can capture on f3 12 cxd5 cxd5
before the knight gets to d2, but it makes 12 ... ct:JxdS was Glek's own choice when
little difference as neither piece tends to stay he faced this as Black in an earlier game.
on f3 very long; e.g. S... ~xf3 9 ~xf3 ~eS Stohl-Glek, Bundesliga 1994, continued
(9 ... ct:Jbd7 10 lt:Jd2 e6 11 'ifc2) 10 lt:Jd2 e6 12 ... ct:JxdS 13 'i¥c2 (13 lt:Jd2) 13 ...'i¥e7 (13 ... e4
(10 ... eS) 11 b4 lt:Jbd7 12 'ifc2 hS 13 lt:Jb3 14 dxe4 ~xb2 1S 'ifxb2 ~xe4 16 CLJd4) 14
'ifbS 14 ~g2 h4 1S e4 dxe4 16 dxe4 eS 17 cS lt:Jd2 a5 1S a3 hS 16 e3 fS?! (if 16 ... h4 17 g4
'ifc7 1S ~ad1 ~f8 19 ~d3 aS!? 20 bxaS ~xaS fS 18 gxfS gxfS 19 Wh1) and now, as we
21 CLJxaS 'ifxaS with vague compensation have seen before: 17 e4! {jjc7 (if 17.. .fxe4 18
that grew as White was slow to readjust in ~xe4 lt:JfS 19 ct:Jf3 or 17...{jjSf6 1S exfS gxfS
Arencibia-Comas Fabrego, Havana 1999. 19 ~ae1) 1S exfS gxfS 19 ~ae1 CLJe6 (19 ... h4
9 lbbd2 !ie8 20 'i¥c4+ Wh8 21 {jjf3! hxg3 22 fxg3 intend-
The usual move, preparing ...e7-eS. White ing lt:Jh4 with attack) 20 {jjf3 'i¥f7 21 %:te2
achieves nothing by preventing this advance; CLJecS 22 d4! exd4 23 ~xe8+ ~xeS 24 {jjxd4
e.g. 10 CLJeS CLJxeS 11 ~xeS 'ifd7, or 10 d4 ~xd4 (if 24 ...{jje4 2S ~e 1 {jjd6 26 ~d 1!) 2S
'ifb6 11 CLJeS CLJxeS (or 11...~fS 12 lt:Jdf3 ~xd4 {jjxb3 26 ~b2 and the two bishops
~e4) 12 dxeS ct:Jd7 13 cxd5 cxdS 14 ~xdS gave White very good compensation for the
CLJxeS 1S ~xeS ~xeS 16 CLJc4 'ifc7! 17 ~c 1 pawn. (Extracts from Stohl's notes in Infomza-
~adS 1S CLJe3 ~d7 19 ~c2 ~e6 and Black tor 59.)
was OK in Hodgson-Gelfand, Biel 199S. 13 !ic1 e4 14 dxe4
10 h3 ~xf3 11 tbxf3 e5 White played 14 {jjd4 without the pre-
A similar position to that in Game 60 ex- liminary exchange in Polugayevsky-Taima-
cept that White's light squared bishop is at nov, USSR Championship 1974, continuing
g2. Once again Black lacks an effective plan 14... 'ifb6 1S {jjc2 'i¥a6 16 a3 ~ad8 17 {jjb4
and hence should probably do nothing. This 'ifbs 1S ~d4 {jjhS?! (1S .. J:k8) 19 ~xg7
strategy worked in Pfleger-Gutman, Bundes- lt:Jxg7? 20 dxe4 dxe4 21 {jjds 'ifas 22 b4
liga 198S: 12 cxdS cxdS 13 ct:Jd2 'ifaS 14 a3 'ifxa3 23 'i¥c2 {jjf5 24 ~a1 and White won.

167
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

14 ... dxe4 15 Ci:Jd4 ~b6 16 Ci:Jc2 .l:.ad8 17 White's next move g3-g4 coordinates with
Ci:Je3 'i'e6 l2Jh6: either the knight will support the pawn
If 17... l2Je5 18 'i¥c2 pinpoints the weak- for g4xf5, or the pawn will advance g4-g5 to
ness at e4 and seizes the c-file. Black cannot support the knight.
challenge with 18 ... Mc8? due to 19 'i¥xc8 24 g4 .:i.d5
Mxc8 20 Mxc8+ .tf8 21 Mfd1 threatening If 24 ... l2Jd5 (aiming for f4) 25 e3 (or 25
i.xeS and Mdd8 and wins. 'i:Vcl!?) 25 ... Med7 (not 25 ... l2Jb4? 26 gxfS gxfS
27 MxfS+!) 26 Mfcl 'i:Ve7 27 Mc8! so that after
27 ... 'i:Vh4 28 :xd8+ :xd8 29 Md1 'iixh6 30
'i:VeS regains the piece.
25 lHc1 'ife5 26 .:i.xd5 Ci:Jxd5 27 .:i.c8+
Ci:Je8 28 ~c1
With his knight out on a limb White will
elect to keep the queens on the board if pos-
sible.
28 ....:i.c7
Black is also OK with either 28 ... 'iff4 29
'ireS (or 29 'i¥xf4 l2Jxf4 30 gxfS ~g7)
29 ... l2Jdf6 30 Mxe8+ l2Jxe8 31l2Jg8 'i:Vd6; or
28 ... e3!? (Glek); or 28 ... l2Jf4 (Horn) 29 'ifc4
18 .:i.c2?! l2Je6 (29 ... Me6?! 30 Mxe8+!) 30 'ifb4 l2Jf4 31
Glek later preferred 18 Mc7!, without say- 'ifc4 l2Je6 repeating.
ing why he rejected it during the game. If 29 .:i.xc7 ~xc7 30 'i¥d2
18 ... l2Jb6 19 'i¥a1!? (19 'i¥a1 Mc8 20 Md1)
19 ... l2Jbd5 20 Mxb7 'i¥a6 21l2Jxd5 ltJxdS 22
Mxa7 'i¥xa7 23 i.xg7 is good for White with
two passed pawns and the two bishops for
the exchange; or 18 ... 'i:Vb6 19 'i¥c2 ltJeS 20
McS l2Jc6 21l:.c4l2Jd4 (or 21...l2Je5 22 .txeS
MxeS 23 Md1) 22 i.xd4 Mxd4 23 Md1 when
White is in control.
18 ... 4:Jb6 19 ~a1 .:i.e7
Intending ... l2Je8 to challenge on the long
diagonal. Not 19 ... l2Jh5?! 20 i.xg7l2Jxg7 21
l2Jg4! when White has the advantage after
21 ... ltJdS 22 :d 1 hS 23 MxdS hxg4 24 Mxd8
Mxd8 25 hxg4 and if 2S ...'i:Vxg4 26 'i:VeS or 30 ... 4:::lf4?!
25 ... e3 26 i.f3. Black's play begins to suffer from time
20 .:i.c5 Ci:Je8 21 il.xg7 4:::lxg7 22 4:::lg4!? trouble. Instead Glek gives 30 ...'i:Ve5! when
Following the scheme in the previous 31 gS! l2Jec7 32 e3 secures White's position
note, and threatening MeS or i.xe4 utilising with equality.
the fork at f6. 31 il.f1 <it'g7?
22 .. .f5 23 CLJh6+ <it>f8 The king was safer on f8. There's no need
This is why 22l2Jg4 only got the designa- to force g4-g5 as Black can always answer
tion 'interesting'. It is not clear whether the g4xf5 with ... ~g7. Better was 3l...'ifeS and if
knight is more useful at h6 or more offside. 32 gxfS (32 e3!?) 32 ... gxf5 33 'i:Vd7 l2Jd6!

168
 Black Plays an early ... g 7-g6

(threatening ... ~g7+) when 34 ~d8+ (34 e3 Black cannot 'pass' ('.t>f8-g7-f8) any longer
ctJe6) 34 ... li:Je8 35 ~g5 ~g7 36 ~xg7+ctJxg7 or White will win easily by ~c5 and b4-b5.
is equal. 42 \th2!
32 g5 The h6-knight comes in very useful after
Threatening ~d4+. Black should now ad- all, covering the g4-square; i.e. 42 ... li:Jg4? 43
mit the mistake and return the king to f8, li:Jxg4 ~xg4 44 ~xb7+ and wins.
then if 33 ~d4 li:Jxh3+! 34 i.xh3 ~cl+ 42 ... f3 43 e3 Wlic7 44 ~g1 'i'd7 45 Wia4!
draws, so White would play 33 e3ctJe6 34 h4.
32 ... tt:Jf6!?
A trick: if 33 ~d4? li:Jxe2+! (Glek) and 34
i.xe2 ~cl+ draws as in the previous note;
similarly 33 exf6+ '.t>xh6 34 ~b4 ~cl 35 e3
(not 35 f7?? li:Jxe2+! 36 '.t>h2 ~xfl 37 f8~ +
'.t>h5 and ... ~gl mate) 35 ...li:Jxh3+ 36 '.t>g2
~dl! 37 f7 ~g4+ 38 '.t>h2 ~gl+ 39 '.t>xh3
~xfl+ etc.
33 h4!
White prepares ~d4 by defending g5. In-
stead 33 e3 obstructs the cl-h6 diagonal so
Black can play 33 ...li:Je6 preventing ~d4. Or
if 33 ~b2 ~d6 34 e3li:Jd3 35 i.xd3 exd3 36 Threatening b4-b5 at last. Now if
'.t>fl! d2 37 li:Jxf5 + '.t>g8! (not 37 ... gxf5? 38 45 ... li:Jg4?? 46 i.h3! wins, or 45 ... ~d2 46
~xf6+ wins) 38li:Jxd6 dl~ + 39 '.t>g2 ~d5 + ~b3 coming in at g8 or e6. Black's best was
40 f3 ~xg5 + and the exposed white king 45 ... ~d5 46 b5li:Je7 when Glek intended 47
gives Black good chances for a draw. b6 and ~ e8 (via the back rank again if need
33 ... tt:Jd7 34 ~d4+ tt:Je5 35 ~xa7 tt:Je6 be). Instead Black finally folds:
36~a8 45 .. .tt:Jf7?! 46 b5 1-0
Aiming to infiltrate the black camp at e8. If 46 ... li:Jxh6 47 gxh6+ '.t>xh6 48 ~xe4!
36 .. .tt:Jd8 37 ~a4 'ii'd7 38 ~b4 tt:Jdc6 39 (not 48 bxc6?? ~g4+) and 49 ~xf3 with an
~b5 \tf8 40 \tg2 \tg7 41 b4 f4 easywm.

169
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Summary
The king's fianchetto defences have been proved effective against both 1 e4 and 1 d4; hence
they are clearly valid against b2-b3. Nevertheless, ... g7-g6 is primarily intended for counterat-
tacking, and White's restrained b2-b3 formations do not offer much of a target. So, rather than
the dynamic counterplay Black is looking for, s/he instead gets a slightly passive position in
which any winning chances- however few- belong to White. This can occur, too, in quiet
lines of the Pirc or King's Indian, but the early b2-b3 has at least given fair warning.
In the C2Jf3 main lines, how White develops the king's bishop (to e2 or g2) is largely a matter
of taste. However, White must bear in mind that s/he may not have the choice, i.e. should
Black delay the fianchetto until after White is committed to either e2-e3 or g2-g3.
After 1 b3 g6 2 i.b2 ctJf6 White can attempt disruption by 3 g4!? or 3 i.xf6!?, but must
again be prepared for a different variation should Black delay the fianchetto. If White wants to
keep things simples/he should play e2-e3 regardless.

1 b3 g6 2 .ltb2 ctJf6 (D) 3 e3

3 g4- Game 56
3 i.xf6 - Game 57
3 e4- Game 58
3 g3 i.g7 4 i.g2 0-0 5 ttJf3 (D)
S... d6 6 d4 - Game 61
5... d5 6 c4- Game 62
3 ... .ltg7 4 ctJf3 (D) 0-0
4... d5 5 c4
5... c5- Game 35 (Chapter 5)
5 ... c6 - Game 60
5 c4 d6 6 d4- Game 59

2 ... ctJf6 5 ctJf3 4 ctJf3

170
 CHAPTER NINE I
Black plays 1 .. .c5 and
Other Moves

1 b3 we consider variations in which Black holds

In this final chapter we examine Nimzo- back the d-pawn: 2... d6, 3... e5 is the subject
Larsen (and associated) lines without l...eS, of Game 64; 2... CDc6 3 i.b2 d6 4 d4 is Game
l...dS, 1...g6, or transpositions thereto. Both 65; 2 ... CDc6 with ... e7-e6, ...CDf6 is Game 66;
1 b3 or 1 'Df3 are sufficiently affable to allow while lines with ... b7-b6 appear in the notes
Black great latitude on the first move. Game to Game 67 (via l...b6). If White plays c2-c4
67 features 1...b6 (with l...bS in the notes); the game will generally enter quiet lines of
l...fS is Game 68; while even more unusual the Symmetrical English.
replies are to be found in Game 69, the game
itself begins 1 'Df3 h6!? 2 b3. Game63
The most common reply by far to 1 ct:Jf3 Blatny-Savon
is 1...CDf6, featuring in over 50% of 1 ct:Jf3 Trnava 1989
games in Infonnator. As 1 CDf3 prevents ... e7-
e5 without committing White to anything 1 cut3 cuts 2 b3 d6!?
(other than CDf3), so 1...CDf6 prevents e2-e4
and can be followed by anything. For the
2543 1 CDf3 'Df6 2 b3 games on MegaBase,
the order of frequency runs: 2... g6 (50%) as
in Chapter 8; 2... dS (21 %) returns to 1.. .dS
lines in Chapters 3-5, and then comes 2... d6
(12%) which is the subject of Game 63.
The majority of the chapter is concerned
with 1 CDf3 and l...cS. Roughly one in eight
players answers 1 CDf3 with l...cS, obviously
hoping for 2 e4 and a favourite Sicilian varia-
tion; it seems they get their wish at the same
percentage, while 70% of the time White
replies 2 c4. Instead, after 2 b3, a subsequent This move order is tricky for White. 2... d6
or immediate ... d7-dS by Black will transpose fits in with any King's Indian (... g7-g6), Sicil-
to Chapters 4 and 5. In the current chapter ian (... c7-c5) or Old Indian (... c7-c6) forma-

171
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

tion that Black might be planning, but also Apart from 4 e3 White can play solidly
threatens 3... e5! reaching 1...e5 positions that with 4 c4 and then: 4 ... tt:'lc6 5 e3 is Game 20
1 tt:'lf3 was intended to avoid. with 5 tt:'lf3; 4 ... g6 5 e3 i..g7 6 d4 is either
White can prevent the immediate ... e7-e5 Game 59 or 4 c4 in Game 23; 4 ... c5 is Game
with 3 d4 when the usual reply 3 ... g6 4 ii.b2 64 with 3 ...tt:'lf6; or Black can try 4 ...i..g4, e.g.
ii.g7 leads to King's Indian positions after 5 5 d4 (5 d3) 5... e4 6 tt:'lfd2 e3!? 7 fxe3 'ii'e7 8
e3 0-0 6 c4 (Game 59) or 5 g3 0-0 6 ii.g2 e4 ctJxe4 9 tt:'lxe4 'ifxe4 10 tt:'lc3 'if g6 11 'if d2
(Game 61). If Black doesn't want to do that i..e7 12 tt:'ldS i.gS 13 e3 tt:'la6 which was
s/he can consider: roughly equal in Augustin-Uhlmann, Brno
a) 3 ... ii.g4 4 e3 (if 4 tt:'lbd2 e5!? 5 dxeS 1975.
dxeS 6 tt:'lxe5? 'ii'd4) 4 ... tt:'lbd7 (4 ... e6) 5 h3 4 ... e4
ii.hS 6 ii.b2 eS 7 g4 (7 ii.e2 e4) 7 ... ii.g6 8 Surprisingly, Black has rarely chosen to
ii.g2 (8 dxeS dxeS 9 tt:'lxeS ii.b4+!) 8... exd4 9 make this critical advance. Instead: 4 ... tt:'lc6
tt:'lxd4 c6 10 tt:'ld2 tt:'lcS 11 gS tt:'lfe4 12 h4 h6 returns to Game 13; 4 ... g6 5 c4 .i.g7 6 tt:'lc3
13 tt:'lxe4 tt:'lxe4 14 'if g4 'if aS+ 15 ~fl hS 16 0-0 7 d4 tt:'lbd7 is Game 59; 4 ... c5 is Game 64
'iff4 'ii'eS with an equal position in below; 4 ... C2Jbd7 5 d4 c6 6 c4 is 3 ... tt:'ld7 in
Makarichev-Vaganian, Moscow Champion- Game 23; or Black can try 4....i.e7 (if 4 ... i.g4
ship 1981. 5 i..e2), e.g. 5 d4 e4 6 tt:'lfd2 0-0 7 c4 c6 8
b) 3 ... c5!? 4 ii.b2 (4 dxcS 'if aS+) 4 ... cxd4 5 ii.e2 dS 9 0-0 l:.e8 10 i.a3 c5!? 11 tt:'lc3 cxd4
tt:'lxd4 eS 6 tt:'lf3 tt:'lc6 7 c4 dS 8 cxdS tt:'lxdS 9 12 i.xe7 l:.xe7 13 exd4 i.e6 14 cxdS i.xdS
e3 ii.fS 10 a3 f6 11 ii.e2 tt:'lb6 12 tt:'lbd2 ii.e7 15 tt:'lc4 tt:'lbd7 16 tt:'le3 tt:'lb6 17 'ii'd2 a6 18
13 0-0 0-0 14 b4 i..e6 15 l:.el a6 16 'ii'c2 l:.c8 l:.ac 1 l:.d7 19 l:.fd 1 .i.e6 20 i.c4 i.xc4 21
17 'ii'b1 and White seems slightly better bxc4 and White had broken the blockade in
(G.Bakhtadze-A.Zubarev, Rotterdam 1998). Bondarevsky-Bronstein, Moscow Champion-
3 ~b2 ship 1946.
The famous game Nimwwitsch-Alekhine, 5 tt.Jg1
New York 1927, saw instead: 3 g3 eS 4 c4!?
e4 5 tt:'lh4 dS 6 cxdS 'ifxdS (6 ... tt:'lxd5) 7 tt:'lc3
'ifc6 8 e3 a6 9 i.b2 i.g4 10 ii.e2 i..xe2 11
tt:'lxe2 tt:'lbd7 12 l:.el 'ii'b6 (12 ... tt:'lc5) 13 0-0
i.d6 14 f3 i.eS 15 i.xeS tt:'lxeS 16 fxe4 tt:'ld3
17 l:.c3 0-0-0 18 'ifb 1 tt:'lxe4 19 l:.xd3 tt:'lxd2
20 l:.xd8+ l:.xd8 21 'ii'f5+~b8 22 l:.e1 'ifxe3+
23 'iff2 'ifd3 and Alekhine claimed compen-
sation for Black, though Nimzowitsch won.
No-one seems to have tried this again.
3 ... e5
The consistent reply. Otherwise 3 ... g6
goes back to Chapter 8, while 3 ... c5 is Game
64 with 3 ... tt:'lf6. Compared with the line 1 b3 eS 2 i.b2
4 e3!? tt:'lc6 3 tt:'lf3!? e4 4 tt:'ld4 (Games 21 and 22),
This position has been reached via nu- here 5 tt:'ld4 would be met simply by S... cS.
merous different routes; e.g. 1 b3 eS 2 i.b2 5 ... tt.Jc6
d6 3 e3 tt:'lf6 4 tt:'lf3!? (from Chapter 3) and Blatny-Lanc, Trnava 1989 (four rounds
even 1 tt:'lf3 tt:'lf6 2 b3 e5!? if the database is later), saw instead 5... d5 6 d3 .i.b4+ 7 tt:'ld2
to be believed. i..g4 8 i..e2 i.xe2 9 tt:'lxe2 tt:'lc6 10 0-0 0-0 11

172
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

dxe4 lt:Jxe4 12 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 13 lt:Jg3 f5 14 'JJie2 18 ... Wih5 19 ®g2

Jtd6 15 'JJib5 a6 16 'JJid5+ (not 16 'JJixb7? Again forced. If 19 lt:Jd4? ~xe2 20 ctJxe2
'JJid7 and .. JHb8) 16 ... <it>h8 17 l:rad1 'JJih4 18 (not 20 l:rxe2? lt:Jxd4) 20 ... ctJe5 21 lt:Jd4 ~c5
'JJic4 (intending f2-f4) 18 ...'JJih6 19 'JJie2 l:rad8 is strong.
20 'JJih5 'JJi g6 21 'JJixg6 hxg6 22 lt:Je2 and the 19 .. .'ifh3+
game was inevitably drawn. If 19 ... lt:Je5 20 lt:Jg 1 defends the light
6 d3 d5 7 dxe4 t2Jxe4 8 t2Jf3 iLb4+! 9 c3 squares.
iLd6 20 wg1 ~h5
By forcing White to close the diagonal Or 20 ... ctJe5 21 ctJxe5 Jtxe5 22 Jtxg4
Black gets to develop his bishop on its best 'JJixg4 23 l:rd2 intending 'JJid1, while
square. Perhaps White should have taken 21...~xe2 22 l:rxe2 .l:.xe5 23 c4 l:rh5 24 f4
time out for 8 a3. defends.
10 iLe2 0-0 11 0-0 21 wg2 'ifh3+ 22 ®h1 'ikh5 23 t2Jg1 !?
Not 11 'JJixd5? lt:Jxf2! 12 <it>xf2? .ig3+, or Rejecting the threefold repetition by 23
if 12 l:rg1!? lt:Jg4, but not 12 ... lt:Jh3? 13 gxh3 <it>g2.
Jtg3+ 14 l:rxg3 'JJJfxd5 15 c4 and wins. 23 ...11e6 24 iLxg4 'ikxg4 25 ~d2 iLe7
11 ... .:te8 12 t2Jbd2 ~f6 13 Wic1 'ifh6 26 ~e2 h5 27 ®g2 ~xe2 28 t2Jxe2
Black can be perfectly happy with his White has finally eliminated his kingside
openmg. weaknesses and prepares to take the initiative
14 l1e1 for the first time in the game.
Intending 15 ct:Jfl to consolidate the king- 28 ... g6?!
side defences. Not 14 l:rd1? lt:Jxf2! and wins Rather too casual, or perhaps Black was in
since the bishop on e2 is undefended. time trouble. Instead 28 ... l:red6 was more
14 ... t2Jxd2 accurate, overprotecting d5 and freeing the
Now if 14 ... lt:Jxf2?! 15 <it>xf2 'JJixe3+ 16 knight for 29 lt:Jf4 g6 30 ~a3 l:r6d7 31 Jtxe7
<it>fl Jtc5 17 lt:Jd4 defends, and the piece is ctJxe7! with ... c7-c6 to follow. 28 ... g5!? was
better than the three pawns after 17 ... lt:Jxd4 also possible, and if 29 h4 gxh4 30 lt:Jf4 .l:.e5
18 cxd4 Jtxd4 19 .ixd4 'JJixd4 20 lt:Jf3. 31 c4 d4!.
15 ifxd2 iLe6 16 l1ad1 l1ad8 17 'ifc1 29 11d2 11ed6 30 .:ted 1
iLg4

30 ... iLf6?
18 g3 If 30 ... ctJe5 (intending ... c7-c6) then 31
Forced. If 18 h3? Jtxh3 19 gxh3 'JJixh3 in- Jta3 .l:.6d7 32 Jtxe7 distracts one of the d5
tending ... l:re4 or ...l:re6 etc. and wins. defenders. 30 ... g5 was now essential, and if

173
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

31 i.a3 ~g6 32 i..xe7 li:Jxe7 33 c4 ~gd6 d) 3 c4 is a Symmetrical English, and if

defends. 3... eS (the theme for the current game) White
31 t2Jf4 t2Je7 32 i..a3 .i:.a6? can develop the knight to e2; e.g. 4 g3 d6 S
Better 32 ... ~6d7 33 i.xe7 i.xe7 when i.g2 li:Jge7 (S .. .fS) 6 e3 g6 7 li:Je2 i.g7 8
only the dS-pawn drops. Now Black loses li:Jbc3 0-0 9 d3 i.e6 10 li:Jds 'ii'd7 11 h4!? fs
two pawns. (11...hS) 12 'ii'd2 ~ae8 13 hS bS!? (13 ... gS) 14
33 i..xe7 i..xe7 34 t2Jxd5 ~f8 35 t2Jxc7 hxg6 hxg6 1S li:Jec3 bxc4 16 dxc4 e4 17
.i:.xd2 36 l:.xd2 1-0 0-0-0 li:JeS 18 li:Jf4 ~d8 19 \t>b1? (19 'ifc2)
and now Black had 19 ... i.xc4! 20 bxc4li:Jxc4
Game64 21 'ife2 li:Jxb2 22 \t>xb2 'ir'a4! (Keene), e.g.
Speelman-De Firmian 23 'ir'd2 dS! 24 ~cl 'ir'b4+ 2S \t>a1 d4 and
Brussels SWIFT blitz 1992 wins. Instead he played 19 ... i.f7? and
crushed after 20 g4li:Jxg4 21 f3 exf3 22 i.xf3
1 t2Jf3 c5 li:JeS 23 'ifh2 i.xc4 24 bxc4li:Jxf3 2S 'ii'h7+
This game in fact started 1 b3 cS 2 i.b2, \t>f7 26li:JcdS ~g8? (26 ... li:JeS) 27li:Jxe7 ~b8
but 1.. .cS is far more common against 1li:Jf3 28 \t>a1 'ifxe7 29 'ii'xg6+ \t>f8 30 li:Je6+ 'ir'xe6
so we have altered move order again. 31 i.xg7+\t>e7 32 i.f8+! ~bxf8 33 ~h7+ 1-0
With 1 b3 cS 2 i.b2, the line 2... d6 3 e3 Larsen-Kavalek, Lugano 1970.
eS!? appeared in Game 24 (via 1 b3 eS 2 i.b2 Rather than ... d7-d6 Black can eliminate
d6 3 e3 cS!?). Black mostly plays 2... li:Jc6 and the weakness by 4... dS!?; e.g. S cxdS 'ii'xdS 6
then: ct:Jf3 i.g4 7 i.g2 f6 8 h3 i..e6 9li:Jc3?! (9 0-0)
9 ... 'ii'd7 10 e3li:Jh6 11 ~cl i..e7 12li:Je4 c4?!
(12 ... li:Jb4 13 d4 i.dS! 14 li:JxcS i.xcS 1S
~xeS e4 and ... li:Jd3) 13 0-0 cxb3 14 axb3 0-0
1S \t>h2 'ifd3 16li:JcS i.xcS 17 ~xeS i.xb3
18 'ir'cl ~ad8 19 ~c3 'ii'bs 20 ~cS 'ii'd3 with
a draw by repetition in Conquest-M.Turner,
Hastings Premier 2000/01. Having done the
business in the earlier rounds, Black was
doubtless content to halve out to his second
GMnorm.
2 b3 d6
The best move order according to Keene,
intending ... e7-eS to block out the b2 bishop.
a) 3li:Jf3 returns to 1li:Jf3, and with 3 ... eS With the knight already committed to f3
prevented White has time for 4 d4 as in White is less able to exploit the soon to-be-
Game 64. Or if 3 ... dS 4 e3 li:Jf6 S i.bS is created hole on dS.
Chapter 4. 3 i..b2
b) 3 e3 d6 4li:Jf3 eS! was the game move 3 d4 cxd4 4li:Jxd4 is met by 4... eS or 4... dS
order. Instead, 4 d4 cxd4 S exd4 li:Jf6 6 li:Jf3 with ... e7-eS to follow. With 2... li:Jc6 3 i.b2
is Game 6S (with 4 e3); while 4 f4 is a Bird d6 4 d4 White could answer ... e7-eS with
and White will follow with li:Jf3 and i..e2 or li:Jxc6 and g2-g3, i.g2 with a reversed Griin-
i.d3, or maybe i.bS if Black has obliged feld (see Game 6S with 6 g3). Here the
with ... d7-dS. knight would have to return to f3.
c) 3 e4 eS 4 f4!? is a strange b2-b3 Sicilian If 3 e3 eS either 4 i.b2 or 4 d4 cxd4 S
King's Gambit hybrid. exd4 e4 6li:Jfd2 dS 7 c4li:Jf6 8 cxdS 'ir'xdS 9

174
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

.i.b2 would transpose below. Or White can ~xdl h6 17 ct:Jh3 gS 18 ct:Jd6 .ig4 19 ~d2
try 4 ..tbS+!? and then: CLJe8 20 .ixg7 ~xg7 21 ~fl CLJxd6 22 ~xd6
a) 4 ... ct:Jd7 5 0-0 fS 6 d4 cxd4 7 exd4 e4 8 ct:Jb4 23 a3 ct:Jd3 24 ctJgl CLJcl 25 h3 (25 b4
CZJgS when Black was already in difficulties: .i.e6) 25 ... .ic8 26 CLJe2 CLJxb3 and Black went
8 ... ct:Jgf6 9 CLJe6 'i¥b6 10 dS ~f7 11 a4 on to win in S.Webb-Kasparov, European
(threatening 12 .i.xd7 and 13 aS) ll...ctJeS? Team Championship 1980.
(11...a6 was essential) 12 .ie3 'iVaS 13 b4 4e3
'i¥xb4 14 .i.d2 'i¥b2 15 .i.c3 and White went 4 c4 is again a Symmetrical English and
on to win in Speelman-Ward, London MSO then:
Masters 1999. a) 4 ... CLJc6 5 CLJc3 g6 6 g3 .ig7 7 .ig2 may
b) 4 ... CLJc6 5 .i.xc6+ bxc6 6 d3 .i.e7 7 .i.b2 arise by a variety of move orders, such as via
and after 0-0, ct:Jbd2, 'i¥e2 White can break S... cS in Game 61. Then 7 ... ct:Jge7 (7 ... ct:Jf6 8
with c2-c4 and d2-d4; e.g. 7 .. .f5 8 ct:Jbd2 ct:Jf6 0-0 0-0 was 3 ... CLJf6 above) 8 0-0 0-0 is the
9 0-0 0-0 10 'i¥e2 .i.d7 11 c4 .ie8 12 d4 e4 usual development; e.g. 9 d3 ~b8 (9 ... h6!?) 10
13 ct:JgS ..ths 14 f3 'i¥d7 15 dxcS dxcS 16 e3 a6 11 ct:Je 1 bS 12 CLJc2 .ie6 13 ct:JdS fS 14
~adl .i.d6 17 'i¥f2 h6 18 ct:Jh3 'i¥c7 19 ct:Jf4 .ic3 'i¥d7 15 f4 ~be8 16 'i¥d2 b4 17 .ib2
exf3 20 ct:Jxf3 CLJe4 21 'i¥h4 .i.xf3 22 gxf3 exf4 18 .ixg7 ~xg7 19 CLJxf4 ..tf7 20 d4
ctJgS 23 ~h 1 ~ae8 with an unclear position 'iVc7 21 ~hl aS 22 ~adl ~d8 23 ct:Jds CZJxdS
in Gonzalez Rodriguez-Adla, Dos Hermanas 24 cxdS CLJa7 25 dxcS 'iVxcS 26 ~cl ctJbS 27
2000. e4!? fxe4 28 CLJe3 ctJc3?! (28 ...'i¥d4) 29 CLJg4
.i.xdS 30 'i¥h6+ ~g8 31 ct:Jf6+ ~xf6 32 ~xf6
e3? (32 ... 'i¥c7) 33 ~cfl ~xg2+ 34 ~xg2
'i¥c6+ 35 ~lf3 'i¥e8 36 ~f7 and White went
on to win in Korchnoi-De Firmian, New
York 1996.
b) 4 ... g5!? 5 e3 ~g7 6 .ie2 CLJc6 7 CLJc3 h6
8 0-0 CLJge7 9 d4! exd4 10 exd4 CLJxd4 11
CLJxd4 .i.xd4 12 'i¥d2 0-0 13 ~adl dS 14
cxdS CLJxdS 15 CLJxdS 'iYxdS 16 .i.c4 'i¥d6 17
.ixd4 'i¥xd4 18 'iYcl 'i¥f4 19 'i¥c3 .ie6 20
.i.xe6 fxe6 21 'iVxcS b6 22 ii'c6 'i'f7 23
~del lh-lh Norwood-Speelman, London
Lloyds 1993.
3 ... e5 4 ... Ct:Jc6
If 3 ... CLJc6 White can play 4 d4 (see Game This line is also seen via 1 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 2 b3
65). d6 3 .i.b2 eS 4 e3 cS; i.e. 4 ... CLJf6 here, trans-
3 ... ct:Jf6 is worth noting as it might arise posing to 8 c4 CLJf6 below after 5 d4 cxd4 6
via 1 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 2 b3 d6 3 .i.b2 cS, or else exd4 e4 7 ct:Jfd2 dS 8 c4 CLJc6. The game took
subsequent moves may reach coincident another route: 1 b3 cS 2 .i.b2 CLJc6 3 e3 d6 4
positions; e.g. 4 c4 CLJc6 (4 ... e5) 5 CLJc3 g6 6 CLJf3 eS.
g3 .i.g7 7 .i.g2 0-0 8 0-0 eS is another Sym- By our move order Black can hold back
metrical English (A38) arriving at the same ... CLJf6, maintaining options of .. .f7-f5 and
place as 5 c4 d6 6 ct:Jf3 eS 7 0-0 cS in Game ... CLJge7. Pushing 4 ... e4 would be inconsistent,
61. One example: 9 e3 ..tfs 10 d4 (10 d3 h6) opening the diagonal for the bishop and cre-
10 ... e4 11 ctJgS ~e8 12 dxcS dxcS 13 ct:Jbs ating a big target in the centre for White to
~e7 14 'i¥xd8+ ~xd8 15 ~adl ~xdl 16 attack.

175
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

5 d4 this particular game the database doesn't say,

giving simply: 1-0.
8 ... f5
If now 8... ctJf6 (8 ...ii'g5!?) White can con-
tinue to hold back c2-c4; e.g. 9 0-0 (9 ctJfl!?)
9... i.e7 10 :e1 (10 c4) 10 ... 0-0 11 ctJf1 J:.e8
12 a3 a6 13 c4 (at last) 13 ... i.d6 14 ctJc3 i.e6
15 ctJe3 i.f4 16 ctJcxd5 i.xd5 17 cxd5 ctJxd5
18 ctJxd5 ii'xd5 19 .i.c4 'i¥g5 with a roughly
equal position' in E.Laske-D.Fehr, Austrian
League 1994.
9 c4 t2Jt6 1 0 t2Jc3!?

The most direct way to attack Black's

formation. Instead 5 d3 g6 6 c4 i.g7 7 g3
creates similar positions to 4 c4 ctJc6 above.
5 ... cxd4 6 exd4 e4 7 t2Jtd2 d5 8 ~e2!?
Previously White had struck with 8 c4
straight away and then:
a) 8.. .f5 9 cxd5 (9 i.e2) 9 ... ctJb4 (9 ... ii'xd5
10 i.c4) 10 ctJc3 ctJf6 11 i.c4 a6 12 a3
ctJbxd5 when White used the trick of ifh5+
to win a pawn: 13 ctJxd5 (or 13 i.xd5 ctJxd5
14 ctJdxe4) 13 ... ctJxd5 14 ctJxe4 b5 15 i.xd5
ii'xd5 16 ifh5+ <it>d8 17 ctJg5 g6 18 iff3 A worthwhile pawn sacrifice for a blitz
i.b7 19 0-0 ii'xf3 20 ctJxf3 i.d.S with a game. Instead 10 cxd5 ctJxd5 would allow
blockade for the pawn in Vaganian- Black a good and (more importantly) an easy-
Velimirovic, Skopje 1976. to-play position.
b) 8... ctJf6 9 cxd5 ifxd5 (or 9... ctJxd5 10 10 ... ~e6?!
ctJxe4 i.b4+ 11 ctJbd2 ii'e7 - Soltis) 10 If 10 ... ctJxd4 11 ctJxd5 ctJxd5 12 cxd5
i.c4!? (10 ctJc3? ii'xd4 is no good: 11 ctJc4 'ifxd5 13 ctJxe4! ii'xe4 14 ii'xd4 regains the
i.c5 or 11 ctJa4 ii'd8! - Keene) 10 ...ii'd8 pawn (not 14 ...ii'xg2? 15 i.h5+) or if
(better was 10 ... ii'g5! 11 <it>fl b5!? 12 i.e2 12 ... ctJxe2 13 ii'xe2 ifxd5 14 0-0 intends 15
i.b7 or 12 d5 bxc4 13 dxc6 cxb3) 11 0-0 :fd1 as in the game.
i.e7 (if 11...ctJxd4 12 l:[e1) 12 d5 ctJb4 13 Better was 10 ... dxc4! but perhaps Black
ctJc3 ctJd3 14 i.b5+! i.d7? (but 14 ... <it>f8 15 didn't like the idea of his king flapping about
ctJxd3 exd3 16 ii'f3 i.g4 17 'ifxd3 i.e6 18 after 11 d5!? ctJxd5 12 .i.h5+ <it>e7. Objec-
l:[fe1 is still good for White) 15 i.xd3 exd3 tively, White may not have enough for the
16 ctJde4 and White won a pawn for nothing pawn, but in a blitz game the initiative counts
in A.Shaw-De Potter, corr 3rd European for a lot. 12 ctJxd5 ii'xd5 13 i.xc4 is also
Team Championship preliminaries 1983. possible.
According to MegaCorr (in a note to a game 11 0-0 t2Jxd4?!
in the same event) J.Delabie was substituted Black can't resist the pawn after all. Better
for De Potter in the Belgian team at around either 11.. .dxc4 again, though 12 i.xc4 LL'lxd4
this time. Whether or not Delabie took over 13 ctJcxe4! fxe4 14 i.xd4 ii'xd4 15 i.xe6 is

176
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

now fine for White, or else continue cau- 23 'ifxh7+ i..f7 24 l1d7+! <it>xd7 25
tiously with 11.. .i.e7. VWxf7+ ~c8 26 VWxg6 'i?id3 27 'ife8+ <it'c7
12 4Jxd5! 4Jxe2+ 28 'ifxa8 1-0 ·
12 .. .ti:Jxd5 13 i.h5+ g6 14 cxdS "ifxdS 15
l2Jxe4 is good for White. Game65
13 'ifxe2 4Jxd5 Vukic-Velimirovic
Not 13 ... i.xd5 14 cxdS ctJxdS? 15 ctJxe4! Yugoslavian Championship 1975
fxe4 16 'ifh5+ r:i;e7 17 ~ad1 or 14 ..."ifxd5?
15 i.xf6 gxf6 16 'ifh5+ r:i;e7 (16 ... "iff7 17 1 4Jf3 c5 2 b3 4Jc6 3 i..b2 d6 4 d4
"ifxf5) 17CUxe4! with a decisive advantage. Black's move order rules out an early ... e7-
14 cxd5 'ifxd5 e5 so White takes the chance for d2-d4. Not
14 ... i.xd5, blocking the d-file, may offer having played e2-e3 White must recapture
more chances; e.g. 15 ~fd1 (threatening 16 with the knight after 4... cxd4 leading to
l2Jxe4!) 15 ...'ifd7 16 cuf3 (or 16 ~act 'ife6) Symmetrical English positions after a later
16 ... 0-0~0 17 ~acl+ r:i;b8 18 i.e5+ r:i;a8 19 c2-c4.
l2Jd4 a6 or 15 "ifh5+ g6 16 "ifh3 ~g8 17 Instead 4 e3 transposes to Game 64 unless
'ifxh7 i.e7 is not lost yet. Black refrains from 4... e5; e.g. 4... ctJf6
15 lHd1 (4 ... i.g4) 5 d4 cxd4 6 exd4 (6 CUxd4 is the
game) 6... i.g4 7 cubd2 e6 8 i.d3 i.e7 9 0-0
0-0 10 c4 ~c8 11 a3 eS 12 dS with more
space for White (Fleish-Kataev, Rishon le
Zion 1997) or 6... e6 7 c4 i..e7 8 l2Jbd2 0-0 9
i.d3 eS 10 0-0 i.g4 11 'ifb 1 exd4 12 l2Jxd4
CUeS 13 h3 "ifaS 14 CUe4 CUxd3 15 "ifxd3
i..d7 16 ctJg3 with the initiative (Maksimovic-
Pandavos, Iraklion 1992).
4 ... cxd4 5 4Jxd4 4Jf6 6 e3
White can also fianchetto with 6 g3 and
then:
a) 6... e5 7 ·~xc6 bxc6 8 i.g2 intends c2-
c4, ctJc3; e.g. 8... 'ifc7 9 c4 i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 11
Black is now in serious difficulties with his ctJc3 ~b7 12 :ct :ad8 13 CUa4 :fe8 14
king stuck in the centre and White's bishop ifd2 ifb8 15 if aS :d7 (15 ... d5 16 cxd5 cxdS
and rooks seizing the open lines. 17 CDcS) 16 i..h3 i.d8 17 "ifd2 .l:de7 18
15 ... 'ifd3 16 'ifh5+ g6 17 'ifh4 il.e7 :fd1 i..c7 19 i..a3 cS and White was clearly
17... ~g8 18 ctJc4 "ife2 19 "ifxh7 is not better in Bricard-Emms, Paris 1994.
much better for Black. b) 6..."ifa5+ 7 "ifd2 "ifdS (7 .. .'iYxd2+) 8 f3
18 il.f6! g5 19 'ifxg5 ~g8 20 'iWh5+ ng6 g6? (8 ... tt:Jxd4) 9 c4 "ifhs 10 tt:Jbs i..h6 11
21 il.xe 7 <it>xe 7 22 CLJc4? 4Jxd6+! r:J';f8 (11...exd6? 12 "ifxd6) 12 f4 r:i;g7
A blemish on the game. The correct se- 13 CDe4 l:td8 14 CDxf6 exf6 15 "ifc3 4Jd4 16
quence was 22 "ifxh7+ i.f7 23 CUc4 "iff3 tt:Jd2 i.h3 17 4Jf3 CZJxf3+ 18 "ifxf3 i.g4 19
transposing, or if 23 ... ~xg2+!? 24 r:i;h1 "iff3 "i¥c3 :d6 20 :d1 :e6? 21 :ds .tfs 22 r:J';f2
25 ~d7+! wins. 22 CUc4? allows the black r:i;g8 23 e4 winning a piece ~n Taimanov-
queen to defend by 23 "ifxh7+ "i¥g7. Hracek, Prague 1993.
22 ... 'iff3? c) 6... 4Jxd4 (safest) 7 i.xd4 i.d7 8 i.g2
Missing his chance. Now it's all over. i.c6 9 0-0 i.xg2 10 ~xg2 e6 11 c4 dS 12

177
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

CLJd2 .iLe7 13 cxd5 'iVxd5+ 14 ct:Jf3 0-0 and Taking the long diagonal with ideas of
the game Ribli-Csom, Kecskemet 1972, was ... CLJe4, especially 14 e4? CLJxe4. Black seemed
soon drawn. to be preparing ... b7-b5 and then changed his
6 ... g6 mind, possibly because it doesn't achieve
The small centre is also viable: 6... e6 7 very much.
.iLe2 .iLe7 8 c4 0-0 9 0-0 .iLd7 10 ctJc3 a6 11 14 t2Ja2
'iVd2 .l:.b8 12 ctJc2 'iVc7 13 .l:.acl .l:.fd8 14 Preventing ...CLJe4 by pinning the knight to
.l:.fd1 .iLe8 15 lt:Jd4 lt:Jxd4 16 'iVxd4 .iLf8 17 the .iLg7. 14 ttJd5 is premature, relieving
lt:Je4 lt:Jxe4 18 'iV xe4 .iLc6 19 'iV g4 'iV a5 20 a3 Black's position after 14... .iLxd5 15 cxd5 CLJe8
b5 21 'iVh5 'iVb6 22 .iLd3 h6 23 b4 .l:.bc8 24 16 'iVd2 .iLxb2 17 'iVxb2 ttJf6 intending
'iVe2 bxc4 25 .l:.xc4 .iLb5 26 .l:.ccl .iLxd3 27 ... .l:.c8 and ...'iV d7.
'iVxd3 'iVb5 28 'iVxb5 axb5 and Black had 14 ... ~c7 15 l:iac1 l:ifd8 16 t2Jb4 t2Je8 17
freed his position in Dizdarevic-Slutsky, Eu- ~d2 j_xb2 18 ~xb2 t2Jf6 19 nfd1
pen 1997. White might as well play 15 e4 This time the exchange of pieces has not
with a Sicilian when the loss of tempo (e2-e3- lessened White's central control.
e4) hardly matters. White has a space advan- 19 ... Wib6 20 nd4 a5 21 t2Ja2
tage, though Black is extremely solid; c.f. 1 e4 Still not 21 CLJd5 .iLxd5 22 cxd5 .l:.dc8 etc.
c5 2 tt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:Jxd4 e6 5 c4 ctJc6 21 ... ~c5 22 h4
6 ctJc3 lt:Jf6 7 .iLe2 .iLe7 8 0-0 0-0. Preventing ...'iVg5.
7 j_e2 j_g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 c4 22 ... ~f5 23 t2Jc3 e5?
Black loses patience, sacrificing position
for nebulous kingside activity. Better just to
sit and wait, possibly by 23 ... b6 or 23 ... h5 (in
case White has any ideas of g2-g4).
24 nd2 CZJg4
Black cannot free his position with
24 ... d5? due to 25 cxd5 CLJxd5 26 e4 or
25 ... .iLxd5 26 .l:.cd1 winning material.
25 j_d1 ~h5 26 t2Jd5! j_xd5
Or 26 ...'iVxh4 27 .iLxg4 .iLxds transposing,
but not 27 ...'iVxg4?? 28 ttJf6+.
27 l:ixd5 ~xh4 28 .lixg4 ~xg4 29 nxa5
With the minor pieces gone Black has lost
Black has adopted his favourite Dragon most of his attacking chances, while White
formation regardless of his opponent's open- still has control of d5 and thus stands clearly
ing. White is playing a Maroczy Bind with the better.
pawn on e3, where it actually stands quite 29 ... h5 30 ~d2 h4 31 ~d1 ~f5 32 l:id5
well supporting the CLJd4, and leaving the Wg7
long diagonal open for the bishop should it Intending 33 .l:.xd6 .l:.xd6 34 'ifxd6 .l:.h8
come to f3. Black cannot now break with and ... h4-h3 with counterplay.
9... d5? due to 10 cxd5 CLJxd5 11 lt:Jxc6 bxc6 33 ~f3!
12 .iLxg7 ~xg7 13 'iVc2 or 10 ... 'iVxd5 11 .iLf3 33 .l:.xd6 is unnecessarily messy after
'iVd7 12 CLJxc6 bxc6 13 'iVc2 with a clear ad- 33 ... .l:.xd6 34 'iVxd6 .l:.h8 intending ... h4-h3,
vantage for White. or if 35 f4!? .l:.e8.
9 ... j_d7 10 t2Jc3 a6 11 ~d2 l:ib8 12 a3 33 ... ~xf3
t2Jxd4 13 ~xd4 j_c6 If 33 ... 'iVe6 34 .l:.cdl (intending c4-c5)

178
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

34 ... 'ife7 35 e4 and Black is very passive. i.xc3 10 dxc3 'ifxd6 11 0-0 ctJc6 12 i.e4
34 gxf3 :as 35 a4 :a6 36 :cd 1 'iff6 13 :el ctJd8 14 'ifd2 ctJe6 15 :ad1 aS
Not 36 cS? :cs. 16 i.dS a4 17 b4 :a6 18 'ife3 cxb4 19 cxb4
36 .. J~b6 37 l:.1d3 ~f8?! and White was better in Maksimovic-
But if 37... ~f6 38 cS :a6 (or 38 ...:c6 39 Velimirovic, Yugoslav Championship 1999,
b4 ~e6 40 aS) 39 ~g2 (not yet 39 cxd6? or S... tLlhS!? 6 d4 0-0 7 'ifd2 (7 'ifcl?! d6 8
:d7) 39 ... ~e6 40 ~h3 gS 41 f4 breaks open h3 'ifaS+) 7... d6 8 h3 dxeS 9 dxeS 'ifxd2+ 10
the position; e.g. 4l...e4 (41...f6 42 fxgS fxgS lt:Jbxd2 ctJc6 11 0-0-0 b6 12 i.d3 ~b7 13
43 e4) 42 fS+ ~f6 (42 ... ~e7 43 :3d4) 43 ~e4 :adS 14 g3 ctJaS and Black was OK in
:xd6+ :dxd6 44 :xd6+ ~xfS 45 :d7 (45 Ftacnik-L.Danek, Czech Championship
:xa6? bxa6 46 b4 ~e6) 45 .. .f6 46 :xb7 and 1982.
the queenside pawns will win (if 46 ... ~e5 47 4 e3 e6
:bs intending aS, b4). 4... d5 5 ~bS reaches the reversed Nimzo-
38 cS :b4 Indians of Chapter 4. Black is being more
Or 38 ...:c6 39 cxd6 f6 40 ~g2 ~f7 41 canny in his move order, holding back ...d7-
~h3 gS 42 f4 ~e6 43 fxgS fxgS 44 d7 :c7 d5 so that White cannot pin the ctJc6 with
45 :d6+ ~e7 46 :g6 wins. iLbS. Now 5 c4 dS 6 cxdS exdS is Game 37
39 cxd6 f6 40 l:!cS :d7 in Chapter 5; while 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 dS is a
Intending 41 :c7 ~e8. Colle after ~d3, ct:Jbd2 etc. Or if after all
41 l:.c4 l:.xc4 42 bxc4 ~f7 43 cS ~e6 6... d6 see Game 65 (with 4 e3 or 6... e6).
44 e4 l:.dS 45 :b3 .:tea 46 l:.bS Nimzowitsch tries anyway for his favour-
Not yet 46 :xb7 :xeS 47 d7 ~e7, but ite system.
once the pawn gets to aS then :xb7 wins by 5 i.bS!?
a6-a7, :bs, etc.
46 ... fS 4 7 aS fxe4 48 fxe4 ~d7 49
l:.xb7+ ~c6 50 a6 gS
Or SO ... ~xcS 51 :c7+.
51 f3 1-0
After Sl...h3 52 ~h2 (52 ... g4 53 fxg4)
Black will have to move the rook away when
:c7+, a7, d7, :cs wins.

Game66
Nimzowitsch-Yates
Bad Kissingen 1928
1 l2Jf3 cS 2 b3 l2Jf6 3 i.b2 l2Jc6 5 ... i.e7
3... g6 will mostly transpose to early ... g7- S... dS?! would be Game 32 and gets the
g6 lines in Chapter 8; e.g. for 4 g3 i.g7 5 dubious mark for being too obliging. Instead
i.g2 0-0 6 0-0 ctJc6 7 c4 see Game 62 (with Black can defend the knight with S...'ifb6 (or
6... cS), for 4 e3 i.g7 5 c4 0-0 6 i.e2 ctJc6 7 s ... 'ifc7); e.g. 6 'ife2 a6 7 i.xc6 'ifxc6 8 0-0
0-0 dS see Games 35 and 60, or if 7... d6 8 d4 b6 9 tt:Jes 'ifc7 10 f4 i.b7 11 d3 i.e7 12
cxd4 9 tLlxd4 is Game 65 above. ctJd2 0-0 13 e4 dS! (on Black's terms) 14 ctJg4
4 e4!? is independent after 4... i.g7 d4 15 c4 ctJxg4 16 'ifxg4 fS 17 'ifh3 :f6 18
(4 ... d6!?) 5 eS and either S... tLldS 6 ctJc3 ctJxc3 :ael :afs 19 i.cl :h6 20 'iff3 eS! 21 g3
(6 ... ctJf4!?) 7 i.xc3 0-0 8 i.d3 dS 9 exd6 :hf6 (21...exf4) 22 'ife2 i.d6 23 ct:Jf3 ~e8 24

179
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

exf5 l:1xf5 25 g4 l:1ff8 26 fxe5 (I.Horvath- .ta6 16 l:1f3 l:1fc8 17 l:1h3 lt:Jf8 18 ctJa3 cxd4
Sziraki, Hungarian Team Championship 19 cxd4 'iV a5 20 ctJc2 l:1c7 21 ctJe3 l:1ac8
1994) and now 26 ...'i¥c6! followed by ... l:1xe5 when White had nothing on the kingside
would have won for Black. while Black's queenside initiative was strong.
6 0-0 0-0 7 i.xc6 9 ~f3!?
White should probably abandon this plan Continuing to pressure c6 and thus thwart
and strike out in the centre; e.g. 7 Mel (7 d4) ... d7-d6. 9 d3 looks more sensible, though,
7 ... 'i¥c7 8 d4 b6 9 dxc5 bxc5 10 e4 i.b7 11 and if 9 ... d6 10 ctJc4 'i¥c7 11 f4 .1La6 12
lt:Jbd2 l:1ad8 12 e5 ctJe8 13 'i¥e2 f6 14 l:1ad1 lt:Jbd2 with a level position.
lt:Jb4 15 lt:Je4 lt:Jd5 16 'i¥d2 ~h8 17 .tfl 9 ... i.a6 10 d3 l1ad8 11 lt:Jd2 lt:Je8 12
(home again) 17 .. .fxe5 18 ctJxe5 d6 19 ctJg4 ~h3
(19 lt:Jd3) 19 ... e5 20 g3 tt:Jdf6 21 lt:Jgxf6 lt:Jxf6 Another preventative move; if 12 .. .f6? 13
22 .tg2 ctJxe4 lh-lh Dizdarevic-B.Ivanovic, lt:Jxd7! wins.
Bor 1986. 12 ... d5!
7 ... bxc6 8 lt:Je5 White finally has his Nimzo-Indian posi-
Hindering ... d7-d6 by hitting the c6-pawn. tion, but the tempi invested make it much
White can continue to wait for ... d7-d5 but less potent. And Black could still have
there's no way to force Black to oblige; e.g. 8 avoided it if he'd wished; e.g. 12 ... d6 13 ctJec4
d3 d6 9 lt:Jbd2 e5 10 ctJel .te6 11 g3 'i¥c7 12 'i¥c7 14 f4 .tf6 is fine for Black, when if 15
lt:Jg2 lt:Jd7 13 f4 f5 14 tt:Jf3 e4 15 lt:Jg5 .txg5 .txf6 lt:Jxf6 16 l:1f3 lt:Jd5 and .. .f7-f6 defends
16 fxg5 exd3 17 'i¥xd3 ctJe5 18 .txe5 dxe5 against any threats.
19 l:1ad1 l:1ae8 lh-lh Liljedahl-B.Jansson, 13 l:ad1
Swedish Championship 1972. White defends the lt:Jd2 against ... c5-c4 by
Black and prepares c2-c4 himself to fix the
doubled pawns; e.g. if 13 f4 c4!? 14 dxc4 d4
15 exd4 l:1xd4! 16 .txd4 'i¥xd4+ 17 ~h 1
'i¥xd2 18 l:1ad1 'i¥xc2 19 lt:Jxc6 .tc5 is good
for Black with the two bishops.
13 ... i.c8
Defending e6 to enable .. .f7-f6; and then
... e6-e5 will discover on the white queen.
14 f4 lt:Jd6 1 5 c4 f6 16 lt:Jg4
Not 16 lt:Jef3? because e3 is weak after
16 ... e5 17 'i¥g3 lt:Jf5 18 'i¥f2 d4 or 17 'i¥h5
lt:Jf5 18 fxe5 g6.
16 ... lt:Jf5 17 e4 lt:Jd4 18 i.xd4 cxd4 19
8 ... 'iVb6 exd5?!
After 8 ... 'i¥c7 9 d3 (better was 9 f4 d6 10 Better to try and keep the position closed
lt:Jf3) 9 ... d6 10 ctJc4 lt:Jd7 11 f4 d5 12 ctJe5 with 19 e5.
White is a tempo down on 5 ... e6 6 ctJe5 'i¥c7 19 ... cxd5 20 lt:Jf3
7 0-0 in Chapter 4, specifically the line White's opening has not been a success.
7 ... .te7 8 f4 0-0 9 .txc6 bxc6 10 d3 lt:Jd7. Black has eliminated his doubled pawns and
This gives Black time to increase the pressure collected the two bishops. Maybe
on e5 by 12 ... .tf6! when the pin on the Nimzowitsch was taking things a bit too
knight forces 13 d4. !.Horvath-Beeker, Halle casually, having scored + 5 = 2 -0 in his previ-
1987, continued 13 ... cxd4 14 exd4 c5 15 c3 ous encounters with Yates.

180
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

20 ... iLb4 21 CZJh4 dxc4 22 bxc4 ~a5 23 46 ... ®f8 47 'i'xf6+ Wg8 48 'i'g6+ ~h8
l:.b1 iLd2 24 f5 exf5! 49 'i'f6+ ®h 7 50 'iff7 + ®h8 ~- ~
24 ... eS would stop cold any vague kingside Yates got his revenge at Carlsbad 1929
threats. But Yates plays confidently and when he could have said: 'Finally, he has not
opens up the position for his bishops. No escaped me!'
comments are required awhile as he slowly
builds up a winning position. Game67
25 CZJxf5 ~c7 26 ~f3 .l:.fe8 27 !lb2 i.g5 Vokac-Dranov
28 ®h1 h5 29 CZJf2 .l:.e5 30 CZJg3 h4 31 Ceske Budejovice 1993
CZJge4 .lie3 32 CZJh3 ~e7 33 l:.b8 .l:.f5 34
~d1 llxf1+ 35 ~xf1 ii..xh3 36 llxd8+ 1 b3 b6
~xd8 37 gxh3 'ii'a5 38 c5!? Regarding the Petroff (1 e4 eS 2 ti:'Jf3
To prevent .. .f6-fS. If White defends the ti:'Jf6), Bronstein wrote: 'By choosing a sym-
a-pawn by 38 'Viie2 then 38 .. .fS 39 ti:'Jd6 'JileS metrical move, Black is as much as saying:
or 39 ti:'Jf2 'Viid2! 40 'Viixd2 iLxd2 41 ti:'Jd1 whatever you do, I'll follow you; I'm a meek
iLc3 gives Black an easily won endgame. and mild-tempered fellow.' The mimicry can
38 ... V&'xa2 39 'ii'f5 go on even longer with 1 b3; see for example
39 ti:'Jd6 'Vii dS+ 40 'Vii g2 'Vii xeS 41 'Vii a8+ 4 .. .fS and 4 ti:'Jf3 in the notes. Dranov,
<it>h7 42 'Viie4+ fS is no better. though, did not copy, playing instead 1.. .cS 2
39 ... V&'b1+ 40 ®g2 'ii'g1+ 41 wf3 iLb2 b6 3 e3 iLb7 4 f4 e6 S ti:'Jf3 ti:'Jf6.
If Black is feeling more energetic s/he can
extend the fianchetto by l...bS 2 iLb2 ~b7 3
e3 ti:'Jf6 (3 ... e6) 4 ti:'Jf3 a6 and then:

Black now has a simple win: 4l...'Viifl +! 42

<it>g4 'Viie2+ 43 <it>xh4 (or 43 'Viif3 fS+) 43 ... gS+
44 <it>g3 iLf4+ and White has to give up the
queen. a) S c4 bxc4 6 bxc4 e6 7 il.e2 cS 8 0-0
41 ... 'ifd1+ 42 Wg2 ~c2+ il.e7 9 ti:'Jc3 0-0 10 d3 dS 'l2-'l2 McDonald-
Black can try again: 42 ... 'Viig1+ 43 <it>f3 Gallagher, British Championship 198S, or
'Viifl+ etc. S... b4 6 d4 g6 (6 ... e6) 7 i.d3 i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9
43 wf3 ~d1+ 44 ®g2 a3 aS 10 axb4 axb4 11 :xa8 il.xa8 12 ti:'Jbd2
If atfirst ... then 44 ...'Viig1+ etc. Yates blows d6 13 'Viic2 ti:'Jbd7 14 :a1 l::[e8 1S ti:'Je4 eS 16
it: dxeS dxeS 17 ti:'Jxf6+ i.xf6 18 ti:'Jd2 e4 19
44 ... a5?? 45 CZJxf6+! gxf6 46 'ifg6+ il.e2 iLxb2 20 'Viixb2 ti:'JeS 21 'Viid4 when
And Nimzowitsch escapes with perpetual rather than the dull 21...cS, Black chose to
check. attack by 21...'Viie7!? 22 cS! ti:'Jd3 23 i.xd3

181
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

exd3 24 ifxb4 ifgS 2S e4 ifeS 26 :bl .ic6 ctJc3 dS 9 e3 dxc4 (9 ... tt:Jbd7) 10 bxc4 ctJc6
27 'i¥c4 :d8 28 b4 :d4? (better 28 ...iff4 29 11 'i¥e2 :c8 (11...'i¥c7) 12 ctJel 'iVd7 13 f4
:b2 ifeS or 29 :dl .ia4) 29 'i¥c3 :xe4 30 ctJaS 14 :dl a6 lS lt:Jf3 :fd8 16 ctJeS 'iVc7
ctJxe4 ifxe4 31 f3 'iVe3+ 32 ~h 1 .ixf3 33 17 d3 i.xg2 18 'iVxg2ctJc6 and Black contin-
:e 1 .ie2 34 :al and White went on to win ued to swap pieces in Gelfand-Khalifman,
in Hodgson-J.Horner, British Championship FIDE World Championship 1999, since a
1983. draw was sufficient to take Khalifman
b) S d4 e6 6ctJbd2 cS 7 a4 b4 8 .id3 cxd4 through into the next round.
9 exd4 .ie7 10 0-0 0-0 (10 ... ctJc6) 11 ctJeS 3 ... e6
ctJc6 12 f4 d6 13 lt:Jxc6 .ixc6 14 'i¥e2 'iVb6 Not the only move order; 3... lt:Jf6 4 f4 e6
lS fS .idS 16 aS 'iVa7 17 fxe6 i.xe6 18 ctJc4 S lt:Jf3 cS or 3... cS 4 f4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jf3 e6 also
:ae8 19 ~hli.dS (19 ... .ic8!?) 20 iVd2 'iVb7 leads to the game, while 3... lt:Jf6 4ctJf3 e6 S
21ctJe3 ctJe4 22 ifel! with a hidden fork of c4 cS or 3... cS 4ctJf3 e6 S c4ctJf6leads to the
the ctJe4 and b4-pawn; i.e. both are unde- next note.
fended after 23ctJxdS 'iVxdS while if 22 ...lt:Jf6 The double fianchetto 3... lt:Jf6 4 f4 g6!? S
23ctJxdSctJxdS 24 'iVe4 wins (24 .. .fS 2S iff3! lt:Jf3 i.g7 is reasonable; e.g. 6 i.e2 0-0 7 0-0
.ih4 26 i.c4 :e4 27 'iVxfS! :xfS 28 :xfS cS 8 a4 (8 c4!?) ctJc6 9 ctJa3 dS 10 'iVel (10
etc.). Black drummed up counterplay with lt:JeS) 10 ... e6 11 lt:JeS d4 12 i.f3 tt:Jds 13
22 ... .igS 23 ctJxdS ifxdS 24 'iVxb4 i.e3 exd4 lt:Jxd4 14 i.xd4 cxd4 lS 'iVe4 i.a6 16
(threat: 2S ... lt:Jg3+) 2S i.xe4 :xe4 26 c4 'iVe6 :fel 'iVc7 17 'iVxd4 :ad8 18 g3 :fe8 19
27 :ael :e8 28 'i¥b7 fS 29 h3 (29 'iVxa6) :adl? (19~h1) 19 ... i.f8!andBlackwenton
29 .. .f4 30 dS 'iVg6 31 :f3?? (31 i.c3) but to win in Ljubojevic-Smyslov, Skopje Olym-
now missed his chance: 31.. .i.d4?? piad 1972.
(31.. .:4e7! followed by 32 ... .tcS wins) 32 Surprisingly, 3.. .fS?! is a mistake: 4 i.e2!
:xe4 'iVxe4 33 i.xd4 ifxd4 34 'iVb6 and lt:Jf6 (not 4 ... i.xg2? S i.hS+ g6 6 i.f3 wins) S
White went on to win in Bagirov-Bosman, i.xf6! exf6 6 i.f3 ctJc6 7 ctJe2 g6 8 c4 i.d6 9
Dieren 1990. lt:Jbc3 0-0 10 a3 :e8 11 b4 'i¥c8 12 d4lt:Jd8
White can also switch to a Bird with 4 f4 13 cS i.f8 14ctJf4 ~g7 lS h4ctJe6 16ctJxe6+
e6 Slt:Jf3, e.g. S... b4!? (S ... a6) 6 i.e2 iLe7 7 0- :xe6 17ctJdS :e8 18 hS with a clear advan-
0 0-0 8 ctJeS aS 9 a4 ctJc6 10 .if3 :a6 11 tage to White in Larsen-Bellon Lopez, Palma
'iV e2 'iV a8 12 d3 lt:JxeS 13 fxeS lt:JdS 14 lt:Jd2 de Mallorca 1971.
'iVa7 lS ctJc4 fS 16 ~hl 'iVa8 17 :ael 'iVe8 4 f4
18 i.hS g6 19 .tf3 gS 20 g3 g4 21 i.g2 iVhS As in Game 48, the Bird is a pertinent re-
22 .tel :aa8 23 i.d2 i.gS was imaginative sponse to Black's restrained set-up, though it
play by Black (Pritchard-Basman, British is only possible if White has not already
Championship 1972). Unfortunately it went played lt:Jf3.
downhill after that. Otherwise 4 lt:Jf3 lt:Jf6 S c4 cS 6 i.e2 i.e7
2 ..tb2 ..tb7 3 e3 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 cxd4 and then:
3 lt:Jf3 lt:Jf6 4 g3 will either lead into a a) 9 ctJxd4 a6 is very prickly. Spraggett-
quiet Hedgehog (... d7-d6) or else an English Kudrin, Wijk aan Zee 198S, saw typical
(... d7-dS); e.g. 4... e6 (4 ... i.xf3!?) S i.g2 cS 6 Hedgehog shuffling: 10 ctJc3 ctJc6 11 lt:Jf3
0-0 i.e7 7 d3 dS 8ctJbd2 0-0 9 :elctJc6 10 :c8 12 :c1 d6 13 :c2 lt:Jb8 14 :d2 lt:Jbd7
e4 'iVc7 (10 ... d4) 11 exdS ctJxdS 12 ctJe4 lS 'iVal 'iVc7 16ctJgS :fd8 17 :fdl 'iVb8 18
:ad8 13 'iV d2 f6 14 'iV e2 eS and Black had 'iVb 1 'iV a8 19 i.f3 i.xf3 20 lt:Jxf3 'iVb8 21 a4
solidified his positiOn in Blatny- ctJcS 22 .tal 'iVb7 23 :d4 h6 24 h3 'iVc6 2S
M.Hoffmann, Munster 1992. Or 7 c4 0-0 8 e4ctJcd7 26 :4d2 'i¥b7 27ctJd4ctJcS 28 :e2

182
 Black Pia ys 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

li:Je8 29 ~e3 i.g5 and now White lost a i.c2 Ci:Jf5 20 'Viih3 i.b8 21 ~f2 g6 22 ~g2
pawn after 30 ~f3? li:Jf6 31 ~e1i.d2 32 ~e2 'i¥g7 23 \t>h1 \t>f7 24 ~cg1 \t>e8 25 CLJg5
.i.xc3 33 ~xc3 li:Jcxe4 34 ~ce3 li:Jg5 35 h4 'Viie7? (25 ... CLJe7) 26 i.xf6 ~xf6 27 CLJxh7 ~f7
li:Jgh7 36 ~g3 d5 37 cxd5 ~xd5 and Black 28 ~xg6! and White won.
won. Often White doesn't bother to try: e.g. 5 CiJf3 c5
10 i.f3 'Viic7 11 Ci:Jd2 ctJc6 12 ~cl ~fd8 Black can hold back ... c7-c5 and use the
lh-lh Gyimesi-Tolnai, Hungarian League square for a knight; e.g. 5... .i.e7 6 CLJc3 (6
1995. i.e2) 6... 0-0 7 i.d3 d6 8 0-0 tiJbd7 9 'iVe1
b) 9 exd4 d5 10 Ci:Jbd2 ctJc6 11 .i.d3!? ctJc5!? 10 i.e2 tiJd5 11 CLJxd5 i.xd5 12 d3 f5
reaches a standard Queen's Indian a tempo and Black was fine in Bagirov-Dizdar, Manila
down. Milov-Pelletier, Biel1997, continued 1992.
11 ... Ci:Jb4!? (11...~c812~c1) 12i.b1~c813
ctJe5 (better was 13 a3 ctJc6 14 'Vii e2 intend-
ing ~e1 and Ci:Jf1-e3, while if Black ex-
changes on c4 the bishop can reappear at a2
and support d4-d5) 13 ... dxc4 14 bxc4 ctJc6
15 li:Jef3 'Viic7 16 .i.d3 (still 16 a3 ~fd8 17
i.a2!?) 16 ...Ci:Jb4 17 .i.e2 ~fd8 18 'Viib3 ctJc6
19 ~acl 'Viif4 20 ~fd1 h6 21 h3 li:Je4 22
li:Jxe4 li:JaS 23 'V/ib5 'Viixe4 24 .i.fl .i.f6 25
.i.c3 'Viic6! 26 'Viixc6 .i.xc6 27 c5 i.xf3 28
gxf3 li:Jc6 29 cxb6 axb6 30 d5 .i.xc3 31 ~xc3
ctJe7 32 d6? (better 32 ~xc8 32 ~xc8 ctJxc8
33 .i.c4 li:Je7 34 d6 Ci:Jf5 35 d7 \t>f8 36 f4!
\t>e7 37 .i.b5) 32 ... ~xd6! 33 ~xd6 ~xc3 34 6 .td3
~xb6 g5! with a good endgame for Black As in Game 48 White lines up the bishops
whose knight came in on the dark squares. against the black kingside and prepares, in
Korchnoi-Karpov, Brussels 1986, saw in- the event of ... 0-0, to attack by CLJc3-e2-g3-h5
stead 6 ctJc3 ctJc6 7 d4 cxd4 8 li:Jxd4 (8 exd4 and ctJe5 or CLJg5.
d5) 8 ... 'Viib8!? (cute, setting the trap 9 i.e2?! 6 i.e2 i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 is more routine; e.g.
Ci:Jxd4) 9 Ci:Jf3 .i.e7 10 i.e2 0-0 11 0-0 ~d8 8 'Viie1 ctJc6 9 d3 CLJg4!? (9 ... d5 10 CLJe5) 10
12 'Viib1 (or 12 e4 d5) 12 ... d5 13 cxd5 li:Jxd5 i.d1 i.f6 11 c3 g6 12 h3 tiJh6 13 g4!? i.g7
14 li:Jxd5 ~xd5 15 'Viie4 li:Jb4 16 'Viig4 'Viif8 17 14 'iVf2 i.a6 15 c4 d5 16 i.xg7 \t>xg7 17
e4 ~dd8 18 ~fd1 (if 18 ~acl ctJc6 or 18 CLJe5 CLJxe5 18 fxe5 f5 (18 ...CLJg8!?) 19 exf6+
ctJe5!? .i.f6 19 Ci:Jd7 ~xd7 20 .i.xf6 h5! 21 'Viixf6 20 'ifxf6+ ~xf6 21 ~xf6 \t>xf6 22 CLJc3
'Viig3 i.xe4 is equal) 18 ...li:Jc6 19 h3 i.a3 20 \t>e5 23 cxd5 exd5 24 i.f3 ~d8 25 d4+ cxd4
.i.f6 .i.e7 21 .i.b2 lh-lh. 26 exd4+ \t>xd4 27 Ci:Jxd5 with a level end-
4 ... ctJf6 game in Tait-D.Adams, Sheffield League
Black carried on copying in Arencibia- 2000.
Ridameya Tatche, Malaga2000: 4 .. .f5 5 li:Jf3 6 ... d6
(5 'ii'h5+!? g6 6 'Viih3 Soltis) 5 ... li:Jf6 6 c4 c5 7 Black prepares to develop the queen's
ctJc3 ctJc6 8 ~c1 ~c8 9 .i.d3 .i.d6 (was Black knight on d7 so as not to obstruct his bishop.
having a laugh?) 10 h3 'iVe7 (if 10 ... h6 11 g4!? Otherwise the knight goes to .c6; e.g.
breaks the pattern) 11 .i.b1 Ci:Jd8 12 0-0 Ci:Jf7 a) 6... CLJc6 7 0-0 'Viic7 8 CLJc3 a6 9 a3 d5 10
13 'iVe1 0-0 14 g4!? fxg4 15 hxg4 li:Jxg4 16 CLJe2 b5!? (10 ... i.e7) 11 i.xf6!? gxf6 12 c4
'Viig3 li:Jf6 17 ctJe4 .i.xe4 18 .i.xe4 Ci:Jh6 19 dxc4 13 bxc4 b4 14 .i.c2 0-0-0 15 'iYb1 i.d6

183
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

16 axb4 tLlxb4 17 iLe4 iLxe4 18 ifxe4 fS 19 now 19 ... bS 20 axbS (not 20 ~xf6? bxc4)
'ii'b 1 and Black's king was less secure in Lar- 20 ... axbS 21 iLxbS wins the pawn after all
sen-Wade, Hastings 1972/73. since if 2l...iLxbS 22 ctJxbS i'ixbS? (or
b) 6 ...iLe7 7 0-0 ctJc6 8 ctJc3 a6 (if 8... 0-0 9 22 ... iLe7 23 tLla3) 23 ~xf6! gxf6? 24 i'ixf6+
a3 and 10 ctJe2) 9 a3 i'ic7 10 ctJe2 (10 i'ie2!?) ~g8 2S ~fS wins, or if 21 ... tt:Jg8 22 iLc4 and
10 ... h6 11 e4 gS! 12 eS (not 12 fxgS hxgS 13 White is a pawn up for nothing.
ctJxgS?? i'ixh2+) 12 ... tt:JdS 13 iLe4 (13 g3!? 19 ... 'ife7 20 g4 .Ua7?
threatening 14 c4) 13 ... tt:Jxf4 14 tt:Jxf4 gxf4 A poor defence since Black cannot defend
1S ~h1?! (1S ctJe1) 1S ... O-O-O 16 d4 cxd4 17 f7 anyway. More chances were offered by
'ifd2 ~hg8?! 18 ctJxd4 ctJxeS 19 iLxb7+ 20 ... i'id8, moving the queen in advance of
i'ixb7 20 tLlfS! d6 21 ctJxe7+ 'i'ixe7 22 ~xf4 lLldS and vacating e7 for the knight; e.g. 21
with compensation (McMichael-T.Wall, gS ctJg8! 22 iLxf7 (or 22 ~xf7 ~xf7 23 'ifxf7
4NCL 1999); but Fritz comes out with ifxgS) 22 ... ctJe7 23 i'ih3 (if 23 ~f6 ctJc8)
17 .. .fS! and Black is clearly better after 18 23 ... tt:JxfS 24 ~xfS and either 24 ... g6 2S
exf6 iLxf6 or 18 iLd3 ctJxeS. iLxg6 ~a7 or 24 ... ~xf7 2S ~xf7 'iYxgS.
7 0-0 l2Jbd7 8 l2Jc3 i.e 7 9 e4 21 g5 l2Jh5
Since Black has held back in the centre Hoping to close the f-file after 22 iLxf7
White belatedly advances there himself. Ma- tt:Jf4.
noeuvring the knight ctJe2-g3 makes less 22 'ifxh5! g6 23 'ii'h6 gxf5 24 .Uxf5
sense before Black has committed his king. Threatening 2S tt:Jds (and tt:Jf6) 2S ... .i.xd5
9 ... 0-0 10 'ife2 e5 26 ~xeS! iLxeS 27 iLxeS+ 'iYxeS 28 'i¥xf8
White is making ready to attack with e4-eS mate.
so Black prevents the advance while also 24 ... ~d8
relieving his cramp. On the downside ... e6-eS Now if 2S ctJdS iLxdS 26 ~xeS? iLxeS 27
creates weaknesses at dS and fS. iLxeS+ f6! 28 gxf6 iLxe4+! 29 dxe4 i'id1+
11 fxe5 l2Jxe5 12 l2Jxe5 dxe5 13 ~h1 defends. But White has no need to hurry.
Answering the threat of ... i'id4+. If now 25 .Uf6 .ttd7 26 i.d5 i.xd5 27 l2Jxd5 .Ue8
13 ... i'id4 14 tt:Jbs i'ixb2 1S ~fb1 traps the 28 .ttf5
queen. Black's position is already starting to
look dodgy on the f-file.
13 ... ~h8
With ideas perhaps of .. .f7-f6 to consoli-
date his kingside - which White makes sure
never happens. It is difficult to find a better
plan for Black, though; e.g. 13 ... ctJe8 (or
13 ... a614a4) 14iLc4ctJd61SiLdSiLxdS16
lLlxdS f6 17 i'ig4 with a ready-made kingside
attack.
14 i.c4 'ifd4 15 d3 'ifd7
Black plans ... a7-a6, ... iLc6, ... b6-bS and by
encouraging 1S d3 has ensured that the a6-
pawn will not be en prise after .. .iLc6. U nfor- Threatening ctJf6. against which there is
tunately the plan is too slow. no defence; if 28 ... ~e6 29 tLlf6 ~xf6 30 gxf6
16 ~f5 i.d6 17 .Uaf1 a6 18 a4 i.c6 19 iLf8 31 'i¥h4 and ~hS wins easily. Black's
'iff3 choice allows a nice finish.
With the immediate threat of 20 ~xf6!. If 28 ... i.f8 29 .ttxe5!

184
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

ing) 9 ... e5 10 dS ClJb8 11 'illc2 ct:Jf6 12 ClJc3

Since if 29 ... J.xh6 30 :xeS is mate, while
f4?! 13 ClJd3 ClJhS 14 cS jLfS 15 e4 ..td7 16
29 ... :xeS 30 .i.xeS+ f6 31 J.xf6+ nets a lot of
material. ~Je1 f3 17 .i.fl 'illc8 18 ct:Jd1 .i.h3 19 cxd6
29 ... f6 30 ~xeS ~xeS .i.xfl 20 d7! 'illxd7 21 :xfl 'illh3 22 ct:Je 1 gS
23 ClJe3 with a clear advantage in Akesson-
Hoping for 31 'illxf6+? i.g7.
31 tLlxf6! 1-0 Zeidler, European Team Championship
1997.
Since after 31. .. i.xh6 32 lLlxe8+ i.g7 33
.i.xg7+ :xg7 34 ClJxg7 ~xg7 White is three
Otherwise there is 3 .i.b2 eS 4 e3, e.g.
pawns up. 4... ClJf6 5 d4 e4 6 ClJgS dS 7 h4 .i.d6 8 c4 c6 9
g3 h6 10 ClJh3 .i.e6 11 ClJc3 ct:Jbd7 12 ClJf4
Game 68 iLxf4?! (12 ... .i.f7) 13 gxf4 dxc414 bxc4 ClJb6
McNab-Gual Pascual 15 'illb3 'illc7 16 ClJa4 ct:Jbd7 17 'illb4 ~f7 18
London Lloyds Bank 1993 :c1
'illb8 19 :g1 and White attacked across
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. the whole board in Frog-Dubinski, Moscow
1 etJf3 f5 1998.
A not uncommon reply as Black angles b) 2... b6 3 ~b2 .i.b7 4 e3 e6 5 c4 ClJf6 and
for a Dutch Defence. Speelman equalised easily in a couple of
1 b3 fS 2 ~b2 is not seen so often: games: 6 J.e2 J.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ClJc3 ClJe4 9
a) 2 ... d6 3 e3 eS is Game 24. d3 ct:Jxc3 10 J.xc3 .i.f6 (Lein-Speelman,
b) 2 ... e6 3 e4!? is worth a go, and if 3... fxe4 Hastings 1978/79) and 6 CDc3 g6 (6 ...ClJc6!?
4 'illhS+ or 3 ... d6 4 exfS exfS 5 'illhS+ forces Steinitz) 7 J.e2 ~g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 ClJe4 10
the awkward ... ~e7, or 3 ...ClJf6 4 exfS exfS 5 'ifc2 d6 11 :fd1 ClJd7 12 dS ClJxc3 13 ~xc3
'ille2+ 'ille7 (5 ... ~f7!?) 6 i.xf6 gxf6 7 'illxe7+ .i.xc3 14 'illxc3 eS (Fridman-Speelman, Yer-
i.xe7 with a permanent structural advantage evan Olympiad 1996).
for White in Jadoul-Froeyman, Belgian 3 ~b2 g6
League 2000. 3 ... d6 4 d4 g6 or 4 e3 eS goes back to
c) 2 ... ClJf6 3 i.xf6!? (3 e3) 3 ... exf6 (not 2 ... d6 in the previous note.
3 ... gxf6? 4 e4) 4 e3 dS 5 d4 is a 2 i.gS Dutch If 3 ... e6 4 e3 (4 g3) 4... .i.e7 (4 ... b6) 5 d4
with the useless b2-b3; e.g. S... i.d6 6 g3 (6 0-0 6 .i.e2 d6 7 c4 creates a Classical Dutch
.i.d3 ctJc6!?) 6 ... c5 7 ClJe2 ClJc6 8 c3 cxd4 9 (with .i.e2). King-Lane, British Champion-
cxd4 'ill aS+ 10 ctJd2 i.a3 11 .i.g2 ~e6 12 0-0 ship 1980, was quite enjoyable: 7... 'ille8 8
ctJb4 13 ctJf4 .i.f7 14 ClJf3 0-0 15 h4 g6 16 ClJc3 aS 9 0-0 ClJa6 10 a3 .i.d7 11 'ill c2 .i.d8
ctJe1 :ac8 17 ClJfd3 ctJxd3 18 ClJxd3 :c3 19 12 :ad1 c6 13 e4 eS 14 dxeS dxeS 15 exfS
ClJf4 :fc8 20 'illf3 :d8 21 hS gS 22 ClJe2 :c6 ClJg4 16 ClJe4 .txfS 17 .i.d3 .i.c7 18 :fe 1
23 'Yi'xfS .i.xhS with a clear advantage to :ds 19 h3 ClJh6 20 ClJh4 'ille7 21 ClJxfS ClJxfS
Black in Welling-Teichmann, Melbourne 22 cS ~h8 23 ClJd6 ClJxd6 24 :xeS 'illd7?
2000. (24 ...'illh4) 25 .i.xh7 ClJxcS 26 :hs 'ille7 27
2 b3 etJf6 'illxcS bS 28 .i.g6+ ~g8 29 :h8+ and mates.
Black has a couple of noteworthy alterna- 4 ~xf6!?
tives: Taking advantage of Black's move order
a) 2... d6 is usually answered by 3 d4 ClJf6 4 to reach a more favourable version of 1 b3
.i.b2 entering a Leningrad Dutch after 4... g6 g6 2 J.b2 ClJf6 3 .i.xf6!? exf6 (Game 57).
5 g3 ~g7 6 ~g2 0-0 7 0-0. This is a reason- Here Black's formation with pawns on f6
able system for White; e.g. 7...ctJe4 (7 ...'ille8 8 and fS is far more clumsy.
c4 CDa6 9 'illc2) 8 c4 ClJc6 9 ClJe1!? (9 ClJbd2 Instead 4 g3 heads for the Leningrad
lt.Jxd2 10 'ifxd2 eS 11 dxeS dxeS is very bor- again, while 4 e3 transposes to Hodgson-

185
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Lane, British Championship 1983, continu- 17 ... Ct:Je4 18 ctJxe4 fxe4 19 f3) 18 l':tad1 and
ing 4 ... i.g7 5 h3 d6 6 g4!? fxg4 7 hxg4 i.xg4 White either takes control of the d-file fol-
8 i.e2 'ifd7 9 tl:Jg5 i.xe2 10 'ifxe2 h6 11 lowing 18 ... cxd5 19 lt:Jxd5 i.xd5 20 l':txd5 or
tl:Je4 'ifc6 12 ~xf6 ~xf6 13 tl:Jxf6+ exf6 14 else leaves the i.b7 a spectator.
l':tg1 'ifxc2 15 'i¥g4 'iffS (15 .. tl:Jc6) 16 'ifxf5 17 ~h1
gxf5 17 l':tg7 etJa6 18 etJc3 <it>f8 19 l':td7 <it>e8 A cautious response, negating the sacri-
20 l':tg7 <it>f8 lh-lh. fice. So Black saves his piece.
4 ... exf6 5 c4 17 ... a5 18 tt:Ja4 h5
Planning ... h5-h4 and ... l':th8.
19 tt:Jxc5 bxc5 20 h4
Of course White must stop the h-pawn
advancing. If now 20 ... a4 21 b4 (not 21 bxa4
i.a6) 21...cxb4 (21...ctJf7 22 l:tab1) 22 axb4
and the black a-pawn is weak (22 ... a3 23
l':ta2).
20 ... tt:Jf7 21 tt:Jf4 tt:Je5 22 a4
Finally preventing ...a5-a4 which would be
a distraction as White attacks in the centre.
22 ... tt:Jg4 23 l1ae1 c6 24 e4! cxd5
If 24 .. .fxe4 25 ~xe4 cxd5 26 ~xd5 +
.i.xd5 27 cxd5 'iff7 28 'ifxc5 with an extra
White begins to take control over d5 and pawn. Black was perhaps relying on 25 cxd5
will follow with etJc3, g2-g3, i.g2 as per i.a6 26 l':tg1 c4! 27 bxc4 'ifc5 or 25 exd5??
Game 57 (in which McNab was Black!). If 'ifxe 1 + 26 l':txe 1 l':txe 1 + eliminating virtually
5... d5 both 6 cxd5 'ifxd5 7 etJc3 and 6 e3 the entire white army.
seem better for White. But White has seen something else:
5 ... tt:Jc6 6 g3 b6 7 ii.g2 ii.b7 8 0-0 ~f7!? 25 tt:Jxg6!
A nice idea. There's not much point de- Since 25 ... \t>xg6 drops the queen after 26
veloping the bishop to g7, so Black reasons exf5+.
that he wants his king on g7 and rook on e8. 25 .. .'iff7 26 exf5 .:tabS 27 l1xe8 'iVxe8
This can be achieved by ... <it>f7-g7 and ...l':th8 28 cxd5 .ta6 29 l1c1 'iVe2 30 'iVxe2
just as easily as ... 0-0, ... <it>g7 and ... l':te8. .txe2
Meanwhile he maintains flexibility with the d- White is two pawns up but they are scat-
pawn and dark squared bishop. tered about, so Black still has counterplay.
9 tt:Jc3 ~g7 10 d4 ii.b4 11 'iVc2 .l:e8 12 31 f3 tt:Je3 32 tt:Jf4 ii.d1 33 tt:Jxh5+ ~f7
e3 tt:Je7 13 d5 34 l1xc5 l1xb3 35 t2Jf4 tt:Jxf5 36 ~h2
Blocking off the b7 bishop and halting any ii.xf3 37 d6
thoughts of ... d7-d5. Possibly Black should If 37 .i.xf3 l':txf3 38 l':txa5 etJe3 threatens
assault the pawn frontage at once; i.e. 13 ... c6 39 ... l':tf2+ 40 <it>h3 l:tfl with a draw, so White
and if 14 dxc6 dxc6 15 tl:Jd4 'ifc8 or 14 l:tfd1 has to scurry back 39 l:tb5 l':tf2+ 40 <it>h3 l:tfl
cxd5 15 tl:Jd4 'i¥c8. 41l':tb2 and Black gets the a-pawn following
13 ... tt:Jc814tL:\d4tt:Jd615tL:\de2'iVe716 4l...l':th1+ 42l':th2 l':ta2.
a3 ii.c5!? 37 ... tt:Jxd6 38 .txf3 l1xf3 39 l1d5 tt:Je4
Offering a piece for three pawns by 17 b4 40 l1xd7+ ~g8 41 l1d3
~xe3 18 fxe3 'ifxe3+ followed by ... tl:Jxc4. Better 41 l':ta7 l:txg3 42 l:txa5 l:tg4 43 tl:Jg2
If instead 16 ... j£,xc3 17 etJxc3 c6 (or keeping the a-pawn.

186
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

41 ... nt2+ 42 ~h3 11a2 43 :dS+ ~h7 44 It is no use going back with 58 ... ~g8 now
~g4 f5+ - after 59 aS Black cannot play 59 ... l:.eS; if
Now 44 ... l:.xa4 draws easily since 45 li:Je6 59 ... l:.gS 60 l:.c7 and White has freed his
(threatening 46 l:.d7+ ~h6 47 li:Jf8 and 48 rook; while if 59 ... l:.a5 60 ~cS l:.a1 the white
l:.h7 mate) is safely answered by 4S ... ~g6. king can hide from vertical checks behind the
Probably time trouble was a factor once a-pawn and then build a bridge with l:.b7-b5
agam. etc.
45 ~xf5 'Llxg3+ 46 ~g4 'Lle2 4 7 'Llxe2 59 11a8+ ~f7 60 a5 l1d4+ 61 ~c5 nd1
nxe2 48 ~f5 gf2+ 49 ~g5 l1g2+ 50 62 l1b8 11a 1 63 l1b5 ~e 7 64 ~b6 ~d7
~h5 .:a2 51 :d7+ ~g8 52 ~g6 l1g2+ 65 a6 1-0
53 ~f5 nb2 54 l!a7 l1b4 55 11xa5lbh4
Game 69
Webster-Basman
London Lloyds Bank 1989
1 'Llf3
In this game we look at offbeat replies to
the Nimzo-Larsen.
1 b3 is such an inoffensive move that every
legal reply has been made- from l...aS to
l...h6, with the sole exception (for no obvi-
ous reason) of l...hS. Little moves such as
l...d6 or l...e6 will transpose elsewhere; e.g.
l...d6 2 ~b2 eS or 2... c5. Here are three of
Reaching a drawn endgame after all. the irregularities:
Black's king goes to h7 or h8 and his rook a) l...aS (quite common in blitz games!) 2
pressures the passed pawn from the side, ~b2 (2 a3) 2 ... a4 (2 ... e6!? intending ... a4) 3 b4
staying on the g-file to check laterally if need li:Jf6 4 a3 cS 5 bxcS e6 6 e3 ~xeS 7 li:Jf3 li:Jc6
be (since the white king has nowhere to hide 8 d4 (8 ~bS!?) 8... i.e7 9 c4 dS 10 li:Jc3 0-0
on the queenside). With the a-pawn en prise 11 i.d3 dxc4 12 ~xc4 li:JaS?! 13 \!Wxa4 lt:Jxc4
White's rook cannot move away (if his king 14 \!Wxc4 bS?! 15 li:JxbS \!WaS+ 16 ~c3 \!Wa4
comes to the f-file the black rook can main- 17 \!Wxa4 l:.xa4 18 ~b2 and two pawns up
tain the attack from the c-file), while if White White went on to ... lose(!?) in He.Franke-
advances the pawn to a7 the black rook will Hubert, Germany 1995.
go to a1 and then check vertically, and with b) l...li:Jh6!? (or l...f6) is not completely
the black king on h7 (or g7) there are no silly. Black plans to ~einforce eS by .. .f7-f6
tricks with l:.h8 etc. For example: 56 l:.a8+ and ... li:Jf7; e.g. 2 i.b2 dS 3 e3 f6 4 c4 (if 4 f4
~h7 57 aS l:.hS+ 58 ~f6 l:.cS 59 a6 l:.c6+ 60 li:Jf7 5 d4 eS! 6 fxeS fxeS 7 dxeS \!Wh4+ 8 g3
~e7 l:.g6, or 56 ~e6 (as in the game) \!We4) 4... c6 5 li:Jc3 eS 6 d4 ~e6 7 dxeS fxeS 8
56 ... l:.g4 57 l:.a8+ ~h7 58 aS l:.gS 59 a6 l:.g6+ li:Jf3 li:Jf7 9 ~e2 ~cS 10 0-0 0-0 11 cxdS
60 ~fS l:.c6 61 a7 l:.a6 62 ~eS l:.a1 with a cxdS 12 .:c1 ~e7 13 lt:Ja4 li:Jc6 14 li:JcS ~c8
draw. 15 a3 \!Wd6 16 b4 b6 17 lt:Ja4 ~b7 18 .:c2
56 ~e6 ne4+ 57 ~d6 ~f7?? l:.ad8 and Black was OK in Welling-Du
The black rook should go to the g-file, ei- Chattel, Utrecht 1988.
ther 57 ... l:.g4 or 57 ...l:.d4+ 58 ~c6 l:.g4. c) l...h6 2 ~b2 fS 3 e4 ~f7 4 exfS \!We8 5
58 na7+ ~e8 \!Wg4 gS 6 fxg6 mate, nominally McDowell-

187
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

NN, is more likely a helpmate puzzle: White 2 b3 is often played against l...h6 (not that
to mate by f5xg6 in the fewest number of 1.. .h6 is played very often).
moves. 2 ... b6
1 ... h6!? Bas man omits the current game from his
With 1 CZJf3 there are a few anti-b3 sys- book The Killer Grob and instead recommends
tems which White should realise: that Black return to 2 ... d5! 3 i.b2 CZJf6 with
a) l...d6 intends 2 b3 e5! when the CZJf3 is ... i.fS to follow, since ... h7-h6 is useful in
out too soon for Chapter 3 lines. It is proba- this line. Then 4 e3 i.f5 5 d3 e6 6 CZJbd2
bly best to switch openings, e.g. 2 d4, but if i.e7 transposes to Game 45 in Chapter 6; or
White insists on 2 b3 e5 then 3 d3!? aims for else 4 g3 c6 5 i.g2 i.f5 6 d3 e6 7 0-0 i.e7 8
an English; e.g. 3 ... g6 4 iLb2 i.g7 5 g3 fS 6 'ZJbd2 0-0 leads to a standard Reti position.
c4 'ZJf6 7 i.g2 0-0 8 0-0 lZJc6 9 lZJc3 h6 10 Instead 2... g5!? 3 i.b2 ~h7 4 c4 i.g7 5
'i¥d2 g5 11 h3 ~b8 12 <it>h2 Cbe7 13 e3 ti:Jg6 lZJc3 e6 6 'ii'c2 ~h8 (Sickenberger-W ege,
14 ti:Jg1 c6 15 f4 g4 16 Cbge2 with mutual Wiirzburg 1996) was seriously silly- espe-
chances in Blatny-Rasik, Czech Champion- cially as Black won.
ship 1994. 3 .ib2 .ib 7 4 c4 e6 5 e3 l2Jf6 6 .ie2
b) l...lZJc6!? 2 b3 e5 3 i.b2 transposes to Black has not as yet done anything too
Games 21 and 22 in Chapter 3; the latter did daft. Now 6... c5 7 d4 cxd4 8 exd4 d5 would
in fact take this route. Otherwise White be a quiet Queen's Indian in which l...h6 is
should play 2 d4! as 2 b3 eS 3 d3?! d5 is not neither here nor there. Basman decides to
at all impressive. play his Grob after all.
c) l...e6 2 b3 i.e7!? 3 itb2 i.f6 is an old 6 ... .l:tg8!? 7 l2Jc3 g5! 8 .:tg1 g4 9 l2Jd4 h5
idea of Blackburne's; e.g. 4 d4 c5 5 e3 Cbc6 6 10 f4
CZJbd2 cxd4 7 exd4 d5 8 i.d3 CZJge7 9 0-0 Gaining some space and closing the di-
'i¥b6 10 c3 0-0 11 ~e 1 lZJg6 12 CZJfl i.d7 13 agonals in advance of ... 'iic7 or ... i.h6. Ob-
CZJe3 ~adS 14 i.a3 ~fe8 15 CZJg4 i.e7 16 viously 10 ... gxf3? 11 i..xf3 would not be a
i.xe7 ~xe7 17 i.xg6 hxg6 18 CZJge5 i.e8 19 good idea for Black.
~e3 f6 20 lZJxc6 'ii'xc6 21 h4 'ii'd6 Y2-Y2 1O... c5 11 l2Jc2 l2Jc6 12 d3 a6 13 ~d2
Balashov-Romanishin, USSR Championship .ie7
1980. Black already stands slightly better and will
2 b3 break with ... d7-d5, e.g. 14 e4 d5!. White's
pieces are uncoordinated so opening the
centre cannot favour him, but he has to
make room before Black advances there
himself.
14 d4 cxd4 15 exd4 d5 16 0-0-0 l2Ja5!
Preparing an assault on the c-file against
which White should have defended by 17
cxdS exd5 18 <it>b 1 or 17... CZJxd5 18 lZJxd5
and 19 <it>b 1. Instead he plays a routine move
and gives Black an extra tempo.
17 l:!ge1?! "V/ilc7
If immediately 17 ... dxc4 18 bxc4 'i¥c7 19
d5! gives White counterplay; e.g. 19 ... CZJxc4
In the same way that l...g6 is suggested as 20 i..xc4 'i¥xc4 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 'i¥e3. With
an answer to 1 a3 (e.g. in BCO and NCO), so 17...1i'c7 Black now threatens 18 ...dxc4 and if

188
 Black Plays 1 ... c5 and Other Moves

19 b4 lt:Jb3+! 20 cxb3 axb3 21 ctJe3 i.xb4 24 ... i.e7 25 'ifxb5 'ifxb5 26 i.xb5 l:.xa2? 27
followed by ... lt:Je4 or ... l:.c8; or else 18 cxd5 i.a4, or 24 ... ctJb4 25ctJxb4 i.xb4 26 'ifxb5+
i.xd5 (threats: ... i.xb3 or ... i.xg2) 19ctJxd5 ~f8 27 'ifxaS l:.xaS 28 i.d3; or 24 ... b4!? 25
lt:Jxd5 (threat: ... i.b4) 20 ~b 1 'ifxf4 and f5 l:.h6 26 fxe6 fxe6 27 i.g7 i.f8!? 28 i.xf8
Black is a pawn for nothing. Therefore White ~xf8 29 'if d2 ~g7 30 i.d3 all seem fine for
opts to surrender the pawn while he can still White.
put up a fight. 25 Wixb5 "fia7?
18 c5! bxc5 19 dxc5 .i.xc5 20 g3 Black should now have been thinking
Not 20 b4? i.d6 21 bxa5 i.xf4 22 ctJe3 about how to draw. The exchange of queens
when 22 ... e5 or 22 ... ctJe4 are both strong. By does not ease the pressure completely as
defending f4 White makes b3-b4 a threat White still has his lever f4-f5 against the cen-
which Black must answer. tre, but this is better than the game.
20 .. .lbc6 26 ~d3!
If 20 ... d4 21 ctJa4 ctJe4 22 'ifd3 i.b4 23
l:.fl i.C3 24 ctJxc3 dxc3 25 i.a3 is a mess.
Or 20 ... i.e7 21 ~b1 and l:.cl, i.fl-g2 reor-
ganises for good counterplay. This still seems
reasonable against 20 ... ctJc6, but instead
White comes up with:
21 'Llb5!? axb5 22 .i.xf6
With his rooks on the central files and the
lever f4-f5 White has an annoying amount of
counterplay. Also, he has changed the nature
of the game so that rather than lying under
the cosh he begins to lay about himself.
22 ... 'i¥a5
Defending b5 and trying to trade queens. With the big threat of l:.c3. White may
22 ... l:.xa2!? was combative but risky after 23 well be winning now; e.g. 26 ... iJ2 27 l:.c3
i.xb5 (threat: 'ifxd5) and 23 ... i.e7 24 'ifc3 l:.d6 (or 27 ... e5 28 l:.d1 d4 29 l:.c4) 28 l:.fl
or 23 ... ~d7 24 f5. 'ifb6 29 a4 or 26 ... e5 27 b4 i.f2 28 l:.a3 'ifb8
23 'i¥d3 29 l:.fl is strong.
A voiding the exchange, attacking b5 again, 26 ... d4 27 b4 .i.b6?
and preparing perhaps to infiltrate at h7. But if 27 ... i.e7 or 27 ... i.f8 then 28 'ifc4
23 .. J!g6?! threatens 29 b5 and 29 CLJxd4.
Taking the a-pawn is definitely better this 28 .:a3
time: 23 ... 'ifxa2! 24 f5? ctJa5, or 24 'ifh7 l:.f8, Now Black is certainly lost as 28 ... 'ifb8
or 24 'ifxb5 i.a3 + (or 24 ... 'ifa7 25 f5 ~d7) drops the bishop on b6.
25 ctJxa3 'ifxa3 + 26 i.b2 'ife7 defends. 28 .. J::~d5 29 nxa7 ii..xa7
24 .i.b2 0-0-0? If 29 ... l:.xb5 30 l:.xb7 and White wins a
Black evacuates his king from the centre p1ece.
as quickly as possible, which unfortunately 30 Wic4 ~b8 31 .l:.d1 ng8 32 "Wid3 .:c8
surrenders the material advantage with no 33 ~b1 f5 34 a3 .:d6 35 ifb3 Ci:Je7 36
lessening of White's initiative. There is no .i.xd4 .i.xd4 37 l1xd4 ti:Jd5 38 ~b2 .:b6
easy way for Black to consolidate though; e.g. 39 Ci:Je3 ti:Jf6 40 b5 'Lle4 41 a4 t2Jc5 42
24 ... 'ifxa2 25 'ifxb5 'ifa7 26 i.d3 l:.g8 27 'ifb4 .i.e4 43 ti:Jc4 .:b 7 44 ti:Jd6 t2Ja6 45
.th7, or 24 ...'ifc7 25 f5 l:.h6 26 'ifd2, or bxa6 l:!c2+ 46 ~b3 1-0

189
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Summary
1 b3 is such a little move that all replies are playable for Black. Nevertheless, the vast majority
of games feature either l...eS or l...dS or the prevaricating 1...ctJf6. Exceptions are fairly rare,
accounting for only 1 game in 10 in MegaBase. Of these, l...b6 (Game 67) is important since the
counter queen's fianchetto can be played at any time.
With the non-committal1 ctJf3 the situation is different. Unless Black suspects, or knows,
that 2 b3 is to follow, the possibility is unlikely to influence the choice of reply; Black's first
concern is to avoid being move-ordered into an undesired variation by a subsequent d2-d4 or
other central advance. In particular, White should be ready for 1...ctJf6 2 b3 d6!? (Game 63)
and l...fS (Game 68).
Lines with ... c7-c5 (Games 64-66) may arise via various move orders, and a Symmetrical
English (after c2-c4) is a common consequence. The V-formation cS/ d6/ eS (Game 64) is the
most challenging as Black puts everything into the fight for the central dark squares.

1 ctJf3
1 b3 b6 - Game 67
1 ... c5
1...ctJf6 2 b3 d6 (D)- Game 63
1.. .fS 2 b3 - Game 68
1...h6 2 b3 - Game 69
2 b3 tt:Jc6
2 ... d6 3 ~b2 eS (D)- Game 64
3 i.b2 (D) ctJf6
3 ... d6 4 d4- Game 65
4 e3 e6 5 i.b5 - Game 66

2 ... d6 3 ... e5 3~b2

190
ItNDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I

Arencibia-Estremera Panos, Malaga 2000 ......................................................... 45

Bagirov-Mainka, Gausdal1991 ......................................................................... 25
Bellon Lopez-Pomar Salamanca, Madrid 1973 ................................................. 82
Bisguier-Krush, second match game, Parsippany 1998 ...................................... 105
Blatny-Chandler, Bundesliga 1995 ................................................................... 152
Blatny-Formanek, New York Open 2000 ........................................................ 118
Blatny-Konig, Foxwoods Open 2000 . .. .... .. .... .... .. .... .... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .... 101
Blatny-Narciso Dublan, Budapest 1999 .......................................................... 115
Blatny-Savon, Tmava 1989 .............................................................................. 171
Bricard-Anic, Montpellier 1988....................................................... ... ..... .. .... .... . 26
Bronstein-COMP Mephisto, AEGON Tournament 1990 .................................. 98
Conquest-Baburin, 4NCL 2001 ...................................................................... 160
Conquest-Flear, Hastings Premier 1996/97 ...................................................... 113
Cuartas-Wolff, New York Open 1997 ................................................................ 94
Czebe-Tukmakov, Lugano 1999 ..................................................................... 103
Dvoretsky-Timagin, Bad Wiessee 1997 ............................................................. 35
Glek-Van Mil, Wijk aan Zee 1995 .................................................................... 166
Gurevich.M-Savchenko, Vlissingen 1999 ................. ...... .... ...................... ........ 122
Hodgson-Vander Sterren, Tallinn 1987 ............................................................ 88
Johansen.D-Brunner, Moscow Olympiad 1994 ................................................ 135
Kaenel-Taleb, Biel1999 .................................................................................... 85
Kosten-Hebden, British Championship 1982 ..................................................... 28
Kramnik-Lemer, Gausdal1992 ......................................................................... 67
Kramnik-Levin, Dortmund 1992 ....................................................................... 91
Kmic-Karaklaic, Wijk aan Zee 1972 ................................................................. 146
Kmic-Kristiansen, Copenhagen 1979 ................................................................. 69
Larsen-Martinez, SanJuan 1969 ........................................................................ 71
Ljubojevic-Portisch, Teesside 1972 ................................................................... 13
Lovric-Medancic, Montecatini Terme 1999 ...................................................... 130
McMichael-Knott, British Championship 2000 ................................................ 156
McNab-Gual Pascual, London Lloyds Bank 1993 ............................................ 185
Miles-Acs, Varadero 2000 .................................................................................. 83

191
Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Miles-Godena, Havana 1999 .. ....... ...... .. .. .. ...... .... .... .... ........ .. ...... .. .. .... .... ... ... .. 109
Miles-Krasenkov, Las Vegas 1999 ..................................................................... 80
Minasian-Adams, European Team Championship 1992 ..................................... 33
Minasian -Akopian, USSR 1991 ....................................................................... 133
Minasian-Nevednichy, Azov 1991 .................................................................... 65
Minasian-Van derWerl, Groningen 1991 .......................................................... 62
Munoz-Sanchez.R, Spanish Team Championship 1993 ...................................... 15
Myers-Denker, Columbus 1977 ......................................................................... 39
Narciso Dublan-Vivas, Catalan Championship 1991 .......................................... 17
Nimzowitsch-Spielmann, New York 1927 ........................................................ 14
Nimzowitsch-Yates, Bad Kissingen 1928 ........................................................ 179
Powell.W-Gibbs, corr BCCC Candidates 1985-86 ............................................... 20
Pridorozhni-Gipslis, Decin 1997..... .. .... .. .... ...... .... .. .... .... .... .. .. .. .... .... ...... .... .. .... .. 9
Przepiorka-Tartakower, Liege 1930 ................................................................ 137
Radjabov-Zhao Zong Yuan, Oropesa del Mar 1998 ......................................... 162
Rogers.I-Polgar.Zsu, San Francisco 1991 ........................................................ 126
Rossolimo-Tartakower, first match game, Paris 1948 ....................................... 143
Sadler-Prohl.H, Bundesliga 2000 ....................................................................... 37
Schmittdiel-Kaeser, Bundesliga 1989 ....... .. .......... .... .... ...... ............................ .. 141
Sellen-Schirmer, corr ICCF 1991 ...................................................................... 43
Speelman-De Firmian, Brussels SWIFT blitz 1992 .......................................... 174
Stein.B-Brinck Claussen, Copenhagen 1987 ...................................................... 51
Stiemerling-Johannsen.I, Germany 1992 .......................................................... 41
Taimanov-Kaidanov, Belgrade 1988... .. .... .. .......... .... .... .... .. .... .... ...... .... .... .. .... .. . 96
Tibensky-Banas, Stary Smokovec 1986 .............................................................. 55
Tomashevsky-Shalimov, Kharkov 2000 ............................................................ 78
Vokac-Dranov, Ceske Budejovice 1993 ............................................................ 181
Vokac-Vepkhvishvili, Miinster 1991 ................................................................ 120
Vukic-Velimirovic, Yugoslavian Championship 1975 ........................................ 177
Wall.T-Clegg, Sutton 1999 ................................................................................ 47
Wall. T -Crouch, Sutton 1999.............................................................................. 11
Wall.T-McNab, Hampstead 1998 .................................................................... 150
Webster-Basman, London Lloyds Bank 1989 ................................................... 187
Welling-Bronstein, Belgian Team Championship 1996 ....................................... 58
Welling-Minasian, Cappelle la Grande 1996 ...................................................... 61
Wolf.W-Wrobel, Germany 1989 ......................................................................... 23
Yermolinsky-Shabalov, Kings Island 1993 ....................................................... 139

192