French Defence
Steinitz, Classical and Other Systems
ev Psakhis
4

French Defence: Steinitz,
Classical and Other Systems
Lev Psakhis
Translated by John Sugden

First published 2004
Copyright © Lev Psakhis 2004
The right of Lev Psakhis to be identified as Author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
ISBN 07134 8941 3
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any
form or by any means without permission from the publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by
Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
The Chrysalis Building
Bramley Road,
London, WI0 6SP
www.chrysalisbooks.co.uk
An imprint of Chrysalis Books Group pic
Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,
387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, USA
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Contents
Symbols and Abbreviations 4
Preface 5
1 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 7
2 Rubinstein Variation 3 £>c3 dxe4 4 £ixe4 £id7 25
3 Steinitz Variation 3 £sc3 £>f6 4 e5 43
4 Steinitz Variation 3 £k3 £)f6 4 e5 ^fd7 5 f4 c5 6 £rf3 57
5 Steinitz Variation 3 £)c3 £if6 4 e5 £rfd7 5 /f4 c5 6 £)f3 &c6
7 i.e3 cxd4!? 78
6 Burn Variation 3 £sc3 £>f6 4 &g5 dxe4 97
7 Burn Variation 3 £)c3 £>f6 4 JLg5 dxe4 5 £>xe4 &e7
6i.xf6&xf6 112
8 Burn Variation 3 £ic3 £>f6 4 i.g5 dxe4 5 £ixe4 ^bd7 126
9 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £>c3 £>f6 4 i.g5 i.b4 143
10 Classical System 3 £)c3 £>f6 4 i.g5 ,&e7 179
11 Classical System 3 £k3 £>f6 4 i.g5 i.e7 5 e5 £>fd7 6 &xe7 195
Index of Variations 219
Index of Games 223

Symbols and Abbreviations
+
11+
+11
±
+
+-
-+
=
!
n
!?
?!
?
??
811
?*
D
T
OO
Ch
corr
zt
izt
ol
check
slight advantage for White
slight advantage for Black
clear advantage for White
clear advantage for Black
decisive advantage for White
decisive advantage for Black
equal game
good move
excellent move
move deserving attention
dubious move
weak move
blunder
with compensation
with counterplay
only move
with initiative
unclear
Championship
correspondence game
Zonal Tournament
Interzonal Tournament
Olympiad

Preface
Everything in this world comes to
an end in due course, and the time
has now arrived for writing the
fourth and final volume in this
series on such an interesting
opening as the French Defence. The
main theme will be a close analysis
of the variations 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3
£te3 dxe4 and 3 £>c3 £lf6.
The Rubinstein Variation with
3...dxe4 is fittingly linked to the
name of the great Polish player who
scored a number of notable victories
with it as long ago as the beginning
of the twentieth century. Let us take
a look at the position after the reply
4 £sxe4.
By exchanging on e4, Black has
eliminated once and for all any
possibility of e4-e5 and fixed the
pawn structure in the centre of the
board. He will usually be fairly
quick to drive the white knight away
from its dominating post on e4 and
will prepare the freeing advance
c7-c5. His light-squared bishop will
be excellently placed on the a8-hl
diagonal, and he has every reason to
count on gradually neutralizing his
opponent's slight initiative. White
for his part sets his hopes on active
play on the kingside. Incidentally,
the ideas of the Rubinstein Variation
are not all that different from those
of the Burn Variation in which the
exchange on e4 takes place just one
move later, after the insertion of
3...£tf6 4£g5.
If you intend to incorporate such
lines into your opening repertoire,
you should give some careful
attention to the games of Anand,
Shirov, Bareev, Mikhail Gurevich
and Korchnoi. As to how dangerous

6 Preface
White's initiative can be, this has
been repeatedly and strikingly
demonstrated by Anand, Shirov and
Judit Polgar.
The course of events following 3
£)c3 £>f6 is no less interesting:
W$ + Wi '« + « +
r mm*?* -i
« |z_l « Im
ilUB Hill
gT if#f!Mfg
In the last few years, the Steinitz
Variation with 4 e5 £)fd7 5 f4 c5 6
4bf3 £k6 7 JLe3 has attained
amazing popularity.
**Mi"'""
8 1
» ffiiH i
Vladimir Kramnik is numbered
among its adherents. White solidly
defends his extremely important
pawn on d4 - what is actually at
stake is not so much the pawn itself
as control of this square - and aims
to develop his kingside initiative in
his own good time. But then there
are cogent arguments on Black's
side too; thus he will frequently
utilize the c-file to create fully
viable counterplay.
Against the other popular move 4
itg5, Black has more than one
option.
Hill" Billi
ill
ism
lli'F
wmww
iBiBisiHI
Apart from the exchange on e4,
he can head for a more closed type
of game by playing 4...ii.b4 - the
MacCutcheon Variation - or
4... JLe7, which leads to the so-called
Classical System; and as you will
appreciate, a bad variation would
never have been given the name of
Classical!
In conclusion I wish to express
the hope that my book will prove a
dependable guide through the forest
of these highly complex opening
lines!
Lev Psakhis
Rishon le Zion, Israel
11 August 2004

1: Rubinstein Variation
and Rare Continuations
Game 1
Timman - Thesing
Holland 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £k3
Black's main continuations here
are 3..JLb4 and 3...£tf6. The latter
will be thoroughly examined in
subsequent chapters of this book.
For the former, see French Defence
3 £hc3 $Lb4 (the previous volume in
this series). In the present chapter,
we analyse a number of rare
variations as well as Rubinstein's
3...dxe4.
3...£)c6
Without any doubt the most
popular of the "marginal"
continuations. Black doesn't aim to
attack the white e4-pawn
immediately, but tries to keep the
game closed for a long period. The
Lithuanian grandmaster Eduard
Rozentalis plays this line quite
frequently, with varying success.
Let's look at how the struggle
dvelops when other rare
continuations are chosen: -
(A) 3...a6
This waiting move is played fairly
often, and not unsuccessfully, by the
Ukrainian grandmaster Legky. Its
chief aim, of course, is to deflect
opponents from the familiar
theoretical paths. 4 JLd3 Black has
quite a good game after 4 exd5 exd5
5 Af4 £)f6 6 #d2 Sl\A 7 0 0-0 8
0-0-0 £ibd7 9 h4 b5 10 h5 £ib6?*
Landa-Legky, French Team Ch
2002. 4...£ic6 White's chances are
superior in the event of 4...c5 5

8 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
dxc5 i.xc5 6 exd5 exd5 7 £lxd5!
Axf2+ 8 &xf2 #xd5 9 *G±, or
4...£tf6 5 £>f3 (5 e5!? £tfd7 6 £ice2
c5 7 c3 £)c6 8 f4± also deserves
attention) 5...£>c6 (5...c5?! is
weaker: 6 exd5 exd5 7 .&g5! c4 8
£.xf6 gxf6 9 &e2f) 6 0-0 £rt>4 7 e5
^d7 8 £>g5! £>xd3 9 cxd3 &e7 10
#h5 g6 11 #h6, with the initiative;
Glek-Legky, Douai 1993. 5 £>f3
£tt)4 6 JLe2 Considering his lead in
development, White could also
continue 6 0-0! dxe4 7 £lxe4 with
chances of a small plus. 6...£)f6 7
e5 £te4 8 0-0 £k6 After the over-
energetic 8...c5 9 dxc5 Jbcc5 10
&xe4 dxe4 11 Wxd8+ <4>xd8 12
£>g5! &xc2 13 £kf7+ <&>e8 14
£ixh8 £)xal 15 &e3! Black
encountered difficulties in Lutz-
Legky, French Team Ch 2002. 9
&e3 £)xc3 10 bxc3 £sa5 11 &d2±
Zufic-Legky, Cappelle la Grande
open 2003.
(B) 3...h6
4 i.d3 Or 4 £>f3 which is not bad
either. There are obscure
consequences after 4 JLe3 Ab4 5 e5 c5 6
dxc5 £)e7 7 £lf3 £>f5 8 &d2 &xc5
9 JLd3 £>c6£ Letreguilly-Bricard,
Saint-Affrique open 2002. 4...&b4
By analogy with variation A, Black
may also continue 4...£k;6 5 £M3
£fo4«. 5 exd5 The chances are
equal after 5 Wg4 dxe4 6 #xg7 Wf6
7 Wxf6 £>xf6 8 &c4 £>c6. 5...exd5
6 a3 J.e7 7 #0 £>f6 8 h3 c5 9
dxc5 £k6 10 £>ge2 It would also
be worth considering 10 b4!?.
10...£xc5 11 Af4 £e6 12 0-0-0±
Fressinet-Bricard, French Ch, Val
d'Isere 2002
(C) 3...c5 This move looks
nowhere near as convincing at this
point as when White's knight is
developed on d2!. 4 exd5 After 4
£>f3 £)c6 (4...dxe4 5 £ixe4 cxd4 6
#xd4 #xd4 7 £lxd4± is weaker for
Black, but a line more worthy of
attention is 4...cxd4 5 #xd4 £)c6,
for instance: 6 i.b5 Ml 1 #d2!?
dxe4 8 £\xe4 £tf6 9 £lxf6+ #xf6
10 0-0 a6 11 &a4 Sd8 12 We2
<£ki4!?, and Black was very close to
attaining full equality in Hector-
Uhlmann, Valby 1991) 5 exd5 exd5,
we transpose back to the main line.
4...exd5
5 <£)f3 Another quite good choice
is 5 dxc5 d4 (or 5...£>f6 6 &b5+
£>c6 7 J&e3, and it isn't at all simple
for Black to regain the pawn) 6

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 9
±b5+ £>c6 7 Axc6+ bxc6 8 £)ce2
£xc5 9 £>OT. 5...£if6 White's
advantage is obvious in the case of
5...cxd4 6 i.b5+! &d7 7 We2+, or
5...£>c6 6 dxc5! £>f6 7 £.e3 &e7 8
Ae2 0-0 9 0-0±. 6 &b5+ i.d7 7 0-0
&e7 8 dxc5 £xb5 9 &xb5, with a
small but lasting plus for White;
Socko - Radjabov, Saint Vincent
open 2001.
(D) 3...&e7
4 £if3 White also fairly often
plays 4 JLd3, which Black usually
answers with 4...£}c6 (the restrained
4...b6 also merits attention; there
can follow 5 exd5 exd5 6 WB £>f6
7 &g5 c6 8 £>ge2 0-0 9 h3 ±a6 10
g4 Se8 11 0-0-0 with a slight edge,
Jakovenko - Riazantsev, Moscow
2000. The alternative 4...c5
generally transposes to the main
line, but a variation with
independent significance is 5 exd5
exd5 6 dxc5 £>f6 7 £lge2! &xc5 8
0-0 £e6 9 &g5! 0-0 10 £tf4±
Galkin - Nikolenko, Moscow open
1998) 5 £>f3 £ib4 6 &b5+ c6 7 £e2
dxe4 8 £)xe4 £sf6 9 £lxf6+ &xf6
10 0-0 0-0 11 c3 £>d5 12 1U3 b6 13
#e4± Kulaots-Minasian, Istanbul ol
2000. Black's position remains
fairly robust and secure in the event
of 4 e5 b6 5 Wg4 g6 6 h4 h5 7 Wg3
£a6°°. 4...£if6 5 i.d3 c5 6 exd5
£\xd5 White has a pleasant game
after 6...cxd4 7 i.b5+ £d7 8
&xd7+ £lbxd7 (on 8...#xd7 9 dxe6
Wxe6+ 10 £te2 £b4+ 11 &d2,
Black will have problems with the
defence of his weak d4-pawn) 9
£>xd4 £ixd5 10 £)xd5 exd5 11 0-0
0-0 12 £tf5, with a small but stable
plus in Christiansen-Seirawan, USA
Ch, Chandler 1997. Nor does Black
attain equality with 6...exd5 7 dxc5
£ibd7 8 0-0 0-0 9 £g5 £ixc5 10
Sel±. 7 &xd5 i»xd5 8 c4 #h5 9
0-0 £k6 10 £e3 i.f6 11 &e2±
4£sf3
White also has a slight edge after
4 £e3 &b4 5 e5 £)ge7 6 &d3!? It's
also worth thinking about 6 a3
Axc3+ 7 bxc3. 6...£if5 7 &xf5 exf5
8 Wd3 &e6 9 ^if3 h6 10 h4 #d7
11 h5± De Vreugt - Rustemov,
Bundesliga2001.
A move played quite often is 4
e5!?.
The resulting positions are highly
reminiscent of the variation 3 £>c3
i.b4 4 e5 b6 5 a3 £f8, but the

10 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
differences should be noted. In the
present case Black hasn't lost any
time moving his bishop; but then in
the other variation he doesn't by
any means always have his knight
on c6. There can follow: 4...£>ge7
The play rums out quite well for
White after 4...b6 5 £)f3 Ab7 6
£b5 a6 7 £a4 £lge7 8 £>e2 £lg6 9
h4 h5 10 c3 #d7 11 ±g5T Suetin-
Gulko, Sochi 1970. Another line
that occcurs quite frequently is 4...f6
5 Ab5 &d7 (5...fxe5 6 *h5+ g6 7
#xe5 £>f6 8 &g5 &g7 9 £>f3 0-0
10 #e2 is not unfavourable to
White; Dashko-Firman, St
Petersburg 2002) 6 £)f3 We7 7 0-0 0-0-0
8 Sel Wf7 9 #e2 &ge7 10 a4f.
w% » '^b w,
m m m m
2 » S 111 & 2 &,
5 £>f3 White also has the
pleasanter position after 5 f4 £lf5 6
£tf3 h5 7 £)e2!? Ae7 8 £>g3T
Savchenko-Riazantsev, Russian Ch,
Krasnodar 2002; but I'm not
convinced that White ought to
restrict the activity of his dark-
squared bishop like this. 5...b6
White's chances are preferable in
the event of 5...£tf5 6 h4 h5 7 &g5
&e7 8 #d2±. 6 a3!? Not a bad
prophylactic move, which in
addition prepares active operations
on the queenside. It's also worth
considering the conventional 6 h4
&b7 7 h5 h6 8 £te2 #d7 9 £>f4
0-0-0 10 c3 £>a5 11 Ad3T as in the
game Fedorowicz - Fries-Nielsen,
Bundesliga 1988. On the other hand
6 £k2?! .&a6 allows Black to count
on equalizing without much effort.
6...&b7 7 &d3 #d7 8 0-0 h6 9 b4
0-0-0 10 ^e2 f6 11 iLb2! f5 12
£>d2 g5 13 &b3, and White's
threats are clearly more dangerous;
Dolmatov-Riazantsev, St Petersburg
2000.
4...£)f6
The play is little investigated after
4...£b4 5 e5 f6 6 a3 White could
consider 6 JLb5 £d7 7 Jbcc6 Axc6
8 0-0, when at the cost of
exchanging his bishop he has
fortified his pawn centre. 6...JLxc3+
7 bxc3 fxe5 8 dxe5 &ge7 9 i.d3 h6
10 0-0 0-0 11 #e2± Karjakin-
Chepukaitis, FIDE GP, Dubai 2002.
RMMjmm m
m±m m±m±
%'mXw, w,%w.
5e5
Together with the text move, there
are three others that White quite
often employs:-

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 11
(A) 5 &d3 £ib4 Or 5...i.b4 6
£g5!? dxe4 7 &xe4 h6 8 JLxf6
#xf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 Wd3>? &d7 11
Sadl Sad8 12 5fel± Wedberg-
Kengis, Haninge 1992. 6 Ag5 &e7
Or 6...dxe4 7 £>xe4 ±e7 8 &xf6
£xf6 9 £>xf6+! Wxf6 10 Sell 7 e5
£id7 On 7...£>xd3+ it would be
worth thinking about 8 cxd3!? £>d7
9 £.xe7 Wxel 10 0-0 0-0 11 Scl
with a small but stable plus, mainly
due to the passivity of Black's
bishop. 8 £.xe7 #xe7 9 0-0 0-0 10
Sel c5 11 dxc5 £>xc5 12 a3!±
Karpov-Agdestein, Gjovik 1991.
(B) 5 Ag5
5...ite7 White's chances are
superior after 5...JLb4?! 6 e5 h6 7
i.h4!? g5 8 &xg5 £le4 9 &gxe4
#xh4 10 £tf6+ &d8 11 g4!t. 6
JLxf6 White also has a pleasant
game in the event of 6 JLd3!? dxe4
7 £>xe4 £lxe4 8 i.xe7 1^7 (or
8...£>xf2 9 &xd8 &xdl 10 &xc7
£lxb2 11 ±e2! £)a4 12 4>d2, with
splendid compensation for the
pawn; Nataf-Short, World Ch, New
Delhi 2000) 9 &xe4 Ad7 (on
9...1fb4+ 10 c3 #xb2 11 0-0 *b5
12 Sbl, White's threats are highly
unpleasant) 10 0-0, with a small
plus. The most popular move is 6
e5, although in my view it allows
Black quite good play, for instance:
6...£>e4 7 £xe7 Wxe7 8 &d3 (I
don't think Black should be afraid
of 8 a3 &xc3 9 bxc3 £)a5 10 £d3
c5 11 0-0 i.d7«. Incidentally,
Morozevich's favourite continuation
also deserves attention: 8...iLd7 9
i.d3 &g5 10 £e2 £>xf3+ 11 i.xf3
f6?i Leko-Morozevich, Frankfurt
2000) 8...Wb4 (it's also hard to find
anything convincing against
8...4bxc3 9 bxc3 £)a5 10 0-0 c5 11
Sel JLd7, and Black is close to
equalizing) 9 JLxe4 (Black has a
solid position after 9 0-0 £>xc3 10
bxc3 #xc3 11 Ebl #a3 12 £g5 g6
13 h4 We7, and it isn't simple for
White to demonstrate that he has
enough for the pawn; Kovchan-
Firman, Ukrainian Junior Ch,
Dnepropetrovsk 2000) 9...dxe4 10
a3 #xb2 11 £lxe4 «b5 12 £>ed2
£)a5 13 c4 #d7 14 0-0 b6 15 Bel
£.b7= Keres-Lein, USSR Ch, Baku
1961. 6....&xf6 7 &b5 0-0 8 #d2
White unmistakably hints at the
possibility of castling long. Black
has better equalizing chances in the
case of 8 0-0 £>b8!? 9 e5 Ae7 10
£te2 c5 11 dxc5 £xc5 12 £ted4
£d7 13 &d3 <£c6 14 c3 f6!«
Saric-Kovacevic, Yugoslav Cup,
Kastela 2002. 8...£>a5 It would be
worth considering 8...dxe4!? 9
£ixe4 id7±. 9 0-0 a6 10 £.d3 b6
11 Sfel &b7 12 e5 i.e7 13 £)e2!T
Sutovsky-Jacimovic, Dresden zt
1998.
(C) 5 exd5 With this move White
isn't laying claim to a large plus, but

12 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
he is still setting his opponent some
problems. 5...exd5 6 Jk.b5
6..Jtg4 White retains a minimal
plus in the event of 6...iLe7 7 £te5
±d7 8 0-0 0-0 9 2el± Quite often
Black plays 6,..JLb4, when there can
follow: 7 0-0 0-0 8 £xc6 (Black has
an easy game after 8 .&g5 ixc3 9
bxc3 #d6 10 Wcl £>h5! 11 Sel f6
Short-Hertneck, Dortmund 1986)
8...bxc6 9 £>e5 i.xc3 10 bxc3 £te4
(another possibility is 10...1ird6 11
a4 Se8 12 &a3 #e6 13 Sel Aa6,
and it's hard for White to justify his
claims to an advantage) 11 f3 £*xc3
12 #d3! (after 12 #d2 &b5 13 a4
£>d6 14 £ixc6 Wf6 the chances are
equal) 12...£)a4 13 #a3 £>b6 14
£lxc6 Wd6! 15 #xd6 cxd6 16 &f4
£k4 17 £>e7+ &h8 18 &xd5 h6
Marjanovic-Z.Nikolic, Yugoslav
Ch, Tivat 1994; White has even
managed to win a pawn, but he has
no realistic winning chances, thanks
largely to the opposite bishops. 7 h3
i.xf3 8 #xf3 Ael 9 ±g5 0-0!?
Better than 9...a6? 10 .&xc6+ bxc6
11 0-0 0-0 12 Sfel h6 13 &h4 Wd7
14 Se2! and White exerted
unpleasant pressure in the famous
9th match game Fischer-Petrosian,
Buenos Aires 1971. 10 0-0-0 £>d7
11 £f4 £ib6 12 Shel a6, and
White can hardly claim more than a
nominal plus; De Firmian-
Rozentalis, Philadelphia 1994.
5...£te4 6 £se2!?
White transfers his knight to the
kingside, and if an opportunity
arises he hopes to deal firmly with
the black knight that has
overreached itself.
As an alternative to the text move
he has the conventional 6 itd3, with
the possible continuation: 6....&b4 7
.&d2 Black has no reason to be
worried by the pawn sacrifice 7
0-0?! £>xc3 8 bxc3 £.xc3 9 Sbl h6!
10 JLa3 a5!?, with a good game.
7...£)xd2 White has good prospects
after 7...£)xc3 8 bxc3 £e7 9 h4 h6
10 Sh3 £)a5 11 h5± Vukovic-
Z.Nikolic, Kladovo 1990. 8 #xd2
f6 The waiting move 9.. JLd7, which
does less to fix the shape of the
position, is also seen quite
frequently. White usually replies 9
a3, when play may proceed: 9....&e7
10 h4!? (White forestalls g7-g5,
though it seems to me that he has
the better chances even after 10 0-0

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 13
g5 11 #e3! h5 12 £)e2 g4 13 £>el
i.f8 14 f4! Dolmatov-Firman, St
Petersburg 2000) 10...f6 11 #e2 0-0
12 0-0-0 £la5!? 13 exf6!?T. 9 a3 A
roughly equal game results from 9
exf6 Wxf6 10 i.b5 £d7 11 &xc6
£xc6 12 0-0 0-0=.
9....&xc3 Black also quite often
retreats with 9....&e7, when there
can follow: 10 exf6 (great
complications arise from 10 £te2
fxe5 11 dxe5 0-0 12 h4 Sxf3! 13
gxG £lxe5 14 0-0-0!? #f8 15 f4
£hg4$ Kuzmin-Rozentalis,
Leningrad 1990) 10...^.xf6 11 £b5 (11
0-0-0 0-0 12 Shel is also worth
thinking about; then if 12...<£>xd4?
13 £>xd4 &xd4 14 £.xh7+ <&>xh7 15
#xd4, White undoubtedly holds the
initiative) 11...0-0 12 £xc6 bxc6 13
£>a4 (on 13 0-0, Black does best to
transpose into the main line with
13...Wd6 14 &a4; whereas 13...c5?!
14 dxc5 c6 15 Sfel Se8 16 £>e5 d4
17 £la2! led to a big advantage for
White in Shirov-Rozentalis, Tilburg
1993) 13...#d6 14 0-0 e5 15 dxe5
±xe5 16 £>xe5 #xe5, Stefansson-
Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1992. At this
point 17 Sfel #d6 18 b4 would
have given White a small but stable
plus. 10 1^3 fxe5 11 dxe5 &d7
12 «U2 We7 13 We3 0-0 14 h4
h6!? 15 h5 #f7 16 Sh4 &e7 17
0-0-0, with a minimal edge for
White; Macieja-Michalski, Poland
1999.
6...f6
White has the better chances in
the event of 6..~&d7 7 c3 Or 7 £)g3
f5!?. 7...f6 8 £ig3!? White hasn't a
scrap of advantage after 8 exf6
£>xf6 9 i.f4 &d6 10 g3 0-0 11 £.g2
&e8=. 8...fxe5 9 £\xe4! dxe4 10
£>xe5 £)xe5 11 dxe5 &c6 Or
ll...ix5!? 12 #h5+!? g6 13 Wh3
0-0 14 £e3, with a plus. The text
move occurred in Zelcic-Kovacevic,
Salona 2000; White could now
consider 12 ile3 Wd5 13 #d4±.
7£sg3
More convincing than 7 exf6
Wxf6 8 £ig3 e5!? 9 i.b5 exd4 10
Wxd4 Or 10 £ixe4 dxe4 11 £\xd4
Ml=. 10...1rxd4 11 £>xd4 &c5!=
Tseshkovsky - T.Pahtz, Rostock
1984.
7...fxe5
Black's game is not easy after
7...f5 8 c3 £e7 9 h4! b6 10 £lh5

14 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
0-0 11 £)f4, when White holds the
initiative.
Black also sometimes continues
with 7...JLe7, when there can
follow: 8 exf6 JLxf6 The verdict on
the position is not altered by
8...£>xf6 9 &b5!? 0-0 10 0-0 &d6
11 Sel± Rowson-Ellers, Bundesliga
2002. 9 &d3 0-0 Of course Black
cannot be happy with 9...£>xd4? 10
£)xd4 £.xd4 11 Ab5+ c6 12 #xd4
cxb5 13 £>xe4 dxe4 14 #xg7 +-. 10
£ixe4 dxe4 11 &xe4 £>xd4 12 0-0
c6 13 c3 SkO+ 14 IfxO e5 15
&e3± Mokry-Reefschlager, Malmo
1986.
8 &b5!? exd4 9 &xe4 dxe4 10
&xd4 Wd5
?£| I Hi §§ Hi X
,iifiB Hill
11 &xc6
In Hector-Rozentalis, Malmo
1997, Black obtained a wholly
satisfactory game after 11 c4 JLb4+
12 *fl #d6 13 &e3 Ad7 14 Wa4
e5.
ll...#xdl+?
A serious mistake. Black should
have played ll...a6D 12 La4 &d7
13 c4 #xdl+ 14 &xdl Axc6 15
Axc6+ bxc6 16 Sel 0-0-0+ 17 4>c2
Sd4 18 b3, although even then he
would merely have been faced with
a dreary struggle for the draw.
12 <A>xdl a6 13 i.a4 k&l 14
Sel! £xc6 15 £xc6+ bxc6 16
Sxe4±
White has a large endgame
advantage, and the game is literally
over in a few moves.
16...&d7 17 £e3 Sb8 18 b3 Sb4
19 c4
Of course, a rook exchange does
not figure in White's plans.
19...£d6 20 &c2 Se8 21 Sdl
<&c8 22 Sh4 1-0
Game 2
Inarkiev - Rustemov
Russian Ch, Krasnodar 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 <Sk3 dxe4
: 2
iHi'B Hill
The exchange on e4 was
employed repeatedly and
successfully by the great Akiba
Rubinstein, and it is no wonder that
the variation bears his name.
Strategically, the Rubinstein
Variation isn't all that complex:

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 15
Black more or less acknowledges
his opponent's right to a spatial
advantage, but in return obtains
rapid development of his pieces and
pressure against White's pawn
centre. His light-squared bishop
plays an active role here; it is
usually developed fairly quickly to
b7 or c6. White pins his hopes on
kingside play, and it is extremely
important for him to decide on the
correct place for his own monarch.
The ideas of the Rubinstein are
very similar to those of the Burn
Variation - 3 &c3 £if6 4 &g5 dxe4
- and in my earlier book The
Complete French I fitted them into a
single chapter. In the intervening
years, however, both these
variations have become so popular -
in top-level contests and elsewhere
- that this time I decided to devote
more than one chapter to each of
them.
4&xe4
4...£d7
Without consenting to weaken his
queenside by b7-b6, Black employs
the simplest means to solve the
problem of developing his
light-squared bishop. Of course, on
c6 the bishop is less securely placed
than on b7, but it does at least
always have the possibility of being
exchanged off. This, incidentally, is
one of the chief advantages of the
French Defence in comparison with
the Caro-Kann, although devotees
of the latter may well have their
own views on this score! The most
popular move, 4...£kl7, will be
analysed in Chapter 2. I shall now
say literally a few words about some
less common continuations:
(A) 4...b6?! has gone completely
out of use. Indeed, after 5 WO! c6 6
.&f4!? £b7 7 0-0-0 &f6 8 £)xf6+
Wxf6 9 #g3, White's advantage is
obvious; Tal-Kholmov, Moscow
1975.
(B) Another line enjoying little
popularity is 4...£)f6 5 £)xf6+ #xf6
The game takes on a somewhat
different character after 5...gxf6 6
£iO (sometimes 6 Jte3 is played;
then if 6...b6, quite a good reply
seems to be 7 fff3!? c6 8 0-0-0 &b7
9 £>h3 £>d7 10 £rf4 with the
initiative, Timoshchenko-Lukov,
Paris Ch 2000) 6...b6 (or 6...£k6 7
&b5!?) 7 i.b5+ c6 8 i.d3 &b7 9
We2 £)d7 10 &f4± 6 £lf3 h6 Black
has to keep an eye on the g5-square!
7 ±d3 &d6 8 0-0 £k6 9 c3 i.d7
On 9...0-0, White continues 10
£>d2!?. Then after e.g. 10...e5 11
£>e4 #d8 12 Wh5\, his chances are
superior. 10 Sel 0-0-0 The black
king would have no peace on the
kingside either: 10...0-0 11 ix2
&e7 12 &e5 Sfd8 13 &g4 lfh4 14
Se4, with a powerful initiative for

16 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
White in Unzicker-Durao, Nice ol
1974. 11 b4 g5 12 b5 £k7 13 Ab5,
with the better game.
(C) 4...i.e7 5 <£f3 <&f6 6 £>xf6+
j£.xf6 7 c3 b6 A worse choice is
7...0-0 8 ±d3 c5 9 dxc5 Wc7 10
Wc2! h6 (if 10...g6, then 11 £h6!)
11 Ae3 £)d7 12 c6!? bxc6 13 g4!T
Ghinda-Ree, Thessaloniki ol 1984.
8 &d3 On 8 J.b5+ c6 9 &d3 &a6
10 0-0 £.xd3 11 Wxd3 0-0 12 &f4
£)d7 13 Sad 1 #e7, Black equalizes;
Adorjan - Romanishin, Hastings
1976. 8...i.b7 9 #e2 £>d7 10 &f4
0-0 11 0-0-0 Se8 12 h4 £tf8!? 13
&bl Wei 14 g4, with the initiative;
Kreiman - Blatny, New York open
1998.
(D) 4...#d5
5 £k3 White also does quite well
out of 5 &d3 £>f6 6 £>xf6+ gxf6 7
£>f3 Sg8 8 &f4! id6 9 c4 Wh5 10
£xd6 cxd6 11 0-0 £)c6 12 d5! with
the initiative; I.Gurevich-Lee, Las
Vegas open 1992. 5...Ab4 The
same position, incidentally, can
arise from a different move-order: 3
£>c3 £.M 4 exd5 #xd5. 6 £>f3 &f6
Black can't entirely solve his
opening problems with 6...iLd7 7
Ad3 &b5 8 0-0 £.xc3 9 bxc3 £>d7
10 Sbl!± Razuvaev-Kuzmin, USSR
Ch 1972. 7 £.d3 Playing the Black
side is simpler after 7 itd2!? Jtxc3
8 bxc3 b6!. 7...£te4 Or 7...b6 8 0-0
Axc3 9 bxc3 £b7 10 a4 £>bd7 11
a5± Andreev-Herraiz, Students'
World Ch, Leon 1998. 8 0-0!?
Black has more chance of
equalizing in the event of 8 iLd2
Axc3 9 bxc3 £)xd2 10 #xd2 c5«.
8...&xc3 9 bxc3 &xc3 10 Sbl ^c6
11 Ae3 id7 12 fib5 #d6 13 2xb7
£ixd4 14 £\xd4 &xd4 15 &xd4
#xd4 16 Sxc7, with initiative for
White in Romanishin-Dvoretsky,
Odessa 1972.
5<£sf3
White gains little from 5 c4 jLc6
It would also be worth considering
5...£>f6 6 £lc3 c5!?. 6 £sc3 £>f6 7
&f3 &xf3 8 *xf3 ^c6 After 8...c6
9 ±e3 bd7 10 £e2 i.d6 11 0-0 0-0
12 c5!? £x7 13 M, Black has a
very solid but passive position;
Nunn-Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 1993.
9 d5 Or 9 £e3 £sxd4!? 10 £xd4
Wxd4 11 #xb7 2d8 12 Wb5+ fid7
13 Sdl 11)6= 9...exd5! 10 cxd5
We7+! 11 £e3 £)d4 Mortensen-
Sher, Denmark 1994; and now even

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 17
the best continuation, 12 #dl £if5
13 i.b5+ &d8!, gives Black no
reason for worry.
5...£c6
6i.d3
After 6 £ted2!? the play almost
always transposes into the variation
6 £d3 £>bd7 7 0-0 fcffi 8 £>ed2;
while after 6 #e2 £)d7 7 &d2 £igf6
8 £sg3 a6! 9 £>e5 £>xe5 10 dxe5
£sd7 11 0-0-0 #h4! the chances are
about even; Gavrikov-Chernin,
Tilburg 1992.
The sharp 6 £leg5 leads to
complications. Black replies:
6...£d6 Better than 6...£e7 7 &d3
£>f6 (of course not 7...h6? 8 £>xf7
*xf7 9 £>e5+ +-) 8 £te5 0-0 9 c3 h6
10 h4!t Hector-Comas Fabrego,
San Sebastian open 1991. A line
that is hard to evaluate precisely is
6...£>d7 7 £ixf7!? &xf7 8 &g5+
&e8 9 £c4 £xg2 10 Sgl Ad5 11
£«e6 &xe6 12 Axe6 »h4 13 #f3
£}gf6?* Sorensen-Hillarp Persson,
Danish Team Ch 2000. 7 £d3 After
7 Ac4 h6 8 £>xe6 fxe6 9 £xe6 #ffi
White hasn't enough compensation
for the piece. 7...h6 8 £)e4 j§.xe4 9
ixc4 c6 10 #e2 <&f6 11 £d3
<£ibd7 Anand-Karpov, Linares
1993; and now in Anand's opinion,
12 0-0 0-0 13 Sel 2e8 14 £te5
would have promised White a
minimal edge.
6...&d7
White preserves a small plus
after 6...&xe4 7 &xe4 c6 8 0-0 £tf6
9 £d3 £)bd7 10 c4 J.d6 11 b3 0-0
12 i.b2 Wcl 13 Wc2± Spassky-
O'Kelly, San Juan 1969.
Black can scarcely be advised to
play 6...£lf6 7 £>xf6+ gxf6 On
7...#xf6?! 8 Ag5! Axf3 9 #d2!
J.xg2 10 J.xf6 &xhl 11 i.e5±
Black is left without enough
compensation for his queen. 8 0-0
JLxf3 In Akopian-Karatorossian,
Linares open 2001, Black
encounterd severe difficulties after
8...#d5? 9 c4! fh5 10 d5! exdS 11
Sel+ <&>d8 12 £>g5! +-. 9 WxO c6
10 i.d2 Ae7 11 Sadl &d7 12 Sfel
#c7 13 fh5T Nisipeanu-Torres,
Naujac sur Mer open 2000.
7 0-0
Another possibility is 7 c4 £sgf6 8
8....&xf3.'? After 8...&e7 9 0-0
i.xf3 (or 9...0-0 10 d5! exd5 11

18 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
cxd5 £>xd5 12 £>xd5 Axd5 13
&xh7+ <&>xh7 14 #xd5T) 10 #xf3
c6 11 Sel 0-0 12 c5!? Se8 13 £f4
g6 14 Se2 Af8 15 &g5 ±gl 16
Sdl, White's chances are
preferable; Psakhis-Chernin, Baku
1978. 9 #xf3 c5 10 d5 £le5 11 #e2
£)xd3+ 12 Wxd3 exd5 13 cxd5 Or
13 ±g5 dxc4 14 We2+ #e7, and
Black has everything in order.
13...±d6 14 0-0 0-0 15 Wf3 &e5=
Balashov - Lyrberg, Rilton Cup
1993.
Sometimes White doesn't hurry to
castle: 7 #e2
7...£>gf6 After 7...i.e7 the play
often transposes, but some
variations do have independent
significance, for instance: 8 JLf4 (8
Ad2 £}gf6 9 £>g3 is worth
considering too, e.g. 9..JLxf3 10
#xf3 c6 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 She 1 Se8
13 c4 Wcl 14 &bl £jf8 15 h4±
Baramidze - Dottling, Dortmund
open 2000; on the other hand after 8
£>eg5, to all appearances, Black can
play 8...h6, because 9 £)xe6 fxe6 10
Ag6+ *f8 11 #xe6 fails to
11...AM+! 12 c3 We7 -+) 8...£)gf6
9 £>xf6+ ±xf6 10 0-0-0 0-0 (or
10...Axf3 11 #xf3 ±g5!? 12
i.e3±) 11 £le5 £xe5 12 dxe5 Wh4
13 We3t Kalinichev-Miles, Miinster
1993. 8 &eg5!? On 8 £>xf6+ <&xf6
9 0-0 i.xO! 10 #xB #d5, Black
equalizes without trouble. 8...JLxf3
Not 8...Ae7, which comes up
against 9 £>xf7! i>xf7 10 £)g5+
&e8 11 £ke6 #c8 12 £)xg7+ <4>f8
13 £>e6+ ±. Alternatives more
worthy of attention are 8...JLd6,
with the possible continuation 9
£>e5 J£.xe5 10 dxe5 £)d5 11 c3 h6
12 £rf3 £>5b6 13 &f4 g5«, and
8...#e7!? 9 0-0 h6 10 £te4 (unclear
play results from 10 £>h3 g5!? 11
£te5 &xe5 12 dxe5 £>d7£)
10...£>xe4 11 &xe4 £xe4 12 Wxe4,
Sutovsky-Rustemov, Esbjerg 2001;
at this point is was worth
considering 12...0-0-0 13 c4 g5!? 14
Sel Ag7 15 Ad2 £>f6«. 9 #xf3
More convincing than 9 £ixf3 JLe7
10 &d2 c5<*. 9...C6 10 0-0 J.d6 11
Sel Wei 12 &d2 h6 13 £>e4±
Oral-Foisor, Cappelle la Grande
open 2000.
7...&gf6
Not infrequently Black continues
7...JLxe4 8 £xe4 c6 9 c4 There is
also some complex play following 9
c3 ftgflS 10 Ac2 Ad6 11 Sel Wcl

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 19
12 We2 (White is intent on posting
his knight on e5. Another plan
worth considering is 12 .&g5 0-0 13
#d3 Sad8 14 Sad 1 Sfe8 15 a3!?±
when it's extremely hard for Black
to create any real counterplay;
Ponomariov - Rozentalis, Belfort
1998) 12...0-0 13 £te5!? c5 (similar
positions arise from 13...Bfe8 14
£g5 c5 15 Sadl!? cxd4 16 cxd4±)
14 &f4!? cxd4 15 cxd4, with a
pleasant game for White. 9...5^gf6
10 &c2 JLd6 White has an excellent
game in the event of 10...&.e7 11
Af4! 0-0 12 #d3 Se8 13 Sadl £sf8
14 a3 £)g6 15 Ag3 i.d6 16 £)e5!T
Gipslis-Djuric, Tallinn 1981. 11 b3
A good, logical plan; by
fianchettoing his dark-squared
bishop, White increases his kingside
attacking chances. He also has the
better prospects after 11 Bel 0-0 12
#d3 Wc7 13 &g5 Af4 14 ±h4!
Sfe8 15 Sadl flac8 16 lfc3±
Psakhis-Skembris, Belgrade GMA
1988. Il...#c7 12 &b2 0-0 13 #e2
Sfe8 14 £te5 £)f8, Charbonneau-
Rozentalis, Montreal 2001; and now
15 f4!? c5 16 dxc5 £xc5+ 17
&hl± was worth thinking about.
8 £ted2!?
A relatively fresh idea which
White has recently been employing
with success. He transfers this
knight to c4, from where it will be
ready to jump to e5 at any moment.
The following continuations are also
seen: -
(A) 8 #e2 permits Black to
exchange off too many minor
pieces: 8...£\xe4 The most thematic
continuation, but the waiting move
8...Jte7 also occurs; play may
continue 9 c3 JLxe4 10 JLxe4 £ixe4
11 Wxe4 c6 12 Af4 £>f6 13 We2
0-0 14 Sfel Wd5= Morgado-Dotti,
Intercooperativo 2000. 9 .&xe4
&xe4 10 #xe4 c6 11 c4 £sf6 12
#e2 &e7 13 b3 0-0 14 &b2 #a5=
Fercec-Chernyshov, Cappelle la
Grande open 2003.
(B) 8 £>xf6+ #xf6!? More
effective than 8...£>xf6 9 c3 Axfi
10 Wxf3 fU5 11 We2 Ae7 12 Sel
0-0 13 £f4 c6 14 a4, with a small
but stable plus for White; Adams-
Rozentalis, EU-Cup, Belgrade 1999.
9&e2
9...JLd6 The game Macieja-
Anastasian, European Ch, Ohrid
2001, took an interesting course:

20 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
9...h6 10 c4 b6!? 11 d5!? &b7! 12
£}d4 (there is no particular promise
for White in 12 dxe6 Wxe6 13 &d4
%6 14 J.O 0-0-0 15 £.xb7+ <4>xb7
16 #fi+ c6=) 12...&c5! 13 £ib5
0-0 14 £>xc7 2ad8?*. 10 c4 &e4!?
Stronger than 10...!^ 11 Sel 0-0
12 £)g5! i.f4 13 ±xf4 #xf4 14
d5T Timman-Bukic, Bugojno 1978;
or 10...&xf3 11 ±xf3 c6 12 &e3
0-0 13 Wd2 h6 14 b4±. 11 &g5 In
Sax-Epishin, Wijk aan Zee 1992,
White's attempts to gain an
advantage were not crowned with
success: 11 &e3 0-0 12 £>g5 £.g6
13 c5?! &f4 14 £lh3 &xe3 15 fxe3
We7 16 Af3 e5!?. Il...#f5 12 #d2
h6 13 Ae3 0-0-0!??*.
(C) The aggressive 8 £>eg5!?
merits attention.
m±WMM±M±
It compels Black to play with
extreme precision: 8...J&d6 Instead,
8...£e7 9 £)xf7!? <£>xf7 10 £>g5+
<&>g8 11 £>xe6 leads to positions in
which White's initiative fully
compensates for the material loss.
The same is true of 8...h6 9 £)xe6!?
fxe6 10 Ag6+ <&e7 11 c4!? (it's
also worth considering 11 b3!? or
11 SelS) ll...Axf3 (it's very
dangerous for Black to play
ll...#c8 12 d5 exd5 13 Sel+
14 cxd5 &xd5 15 Wxd5! &b4 16
A.g5!! with an extremely strong
attack) 12 Wxf3 £>b6!? 13 Sel!
Golubev-Sher, Geneva 1993. 9 Sel
h6! 10 &h3 &xf3 Or 10...b6 11
£>e5 Ab7 12 &b5± 11 #xO c6 12
<£)f4 The game is equal after 12 c4
c5 13 d5 £>e5=. 12...#a5!? Or
12...0-0 13 £>h5 Se8 14 <&xf6+
£)xf6 15 £d2± Bologan-Bauer,
Bundesliga 1998. 13 c3 0-0-0 14
JLfl White could also play 14 b4,
but after 14...^c7 it isn't clear how
substantial his queenside chances
are. 14...e5=.
(D) 8 <5}g3 is perhaps the most
thematic continuation. The white
knight heads for the enticing square
h5 in the vicinity of the black
monarch. 8...Jte7 White's position
is clearly preferable in the event of
8...g6 9 Sel &g7 10 JLf4 0-0 11 c3
&xf3 12 Wxf3± Brynell-Hillarp
Persson, Swedish Ch, Skara 2002.
After the text move, White has the
following choices:
1
(Dl) 9 #e2 0-0 The immediate
9...i.xf3 10 #xf3 c6 also occurs
fairly often. Then a possible, though
by no means forced, continuation of

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 21
the struggle is: 11 b3 0-0 12 &b2 a5
13 a3 Se8 14 Sfel #c7 15 c4 Sad8
16 2e2 £)f8 17 2ael± and Black
didn't succeed in obtaining real
counterplay in Bologan-Rustemov,
Spanish Team Ch 2003. 10 £ie5!? I
feel that the White side is also
pleasanter to play in the case of 10
Sdl i.xf3 11 #xB c6 12 c3!? #c7
13 a4 Sfe8 14 &c2 &d6 15 &e3,
with a small but stable advantage;
Tiviakov-Rustemov, Russian Ch, St
Peterburg 1998. On the other hand
if 10 Sel, a reply that can be
recommended is 10...iLxfi!? 11
#xB c5!°o. 10...£sxe5 11 dxe5
#d5!? Or ll...£>d7 12 Sdl #c8 13
c4±. 12 f4 £id7 Nor does Black
equalize from 12...£>g4 13 4>hl!
£>h6 14 c4 Wdl 15 Sdlt. 13 c3!
£sc5 14 £c4! #d7 15 f5, and White
had the initiative in Kobalia-
Rustemov, Russia 2002.
(D2) 9 c4 0-0 Another line seen in
practice is 9...i.xB 10 Wxfi c6 - a
stock device in this variation. 10 b3
Black equalizes after 10 £te5 <£)xe5
11 dxe5 Zhdl 12 #h5 g6 13 #e2
£ixe5!? 14 #xe5 #xd3 15 Ah6 f6
16 #xe6+ Sf7 17 Sfdl #c2=
Kovalev-Chernin, European Team
Ch, Debrecen 1992. He has more
problems if White simply continues
developing his pieces by 10 JLf4!?
£xB 11 #xB c6 12 Sadl Se8 13
h4!, with unpleasant pressure on the
kingside. 10...&xB 11 #xB c5!?
The game Berelovich-McDonald,
Yelets 1996, went 11...c6 12 &b2
#a5 (or 12...Se8 13 h4!? g6 14 h5
#a5 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 a3 #g5 17
Sfel Sad8 18 Sadl, with a small
but steady advantage for White in
Ivanchuk-Epishin, Tilburg 1992;
similar positions, incidentally, will
be examined in variation D4) 13 a3
b5!? 14 d5!? cxd5 15 b4 Wb6 16
cxb5±. 12 J.b2!? There is unclear
play following 12 #xb7 cxd4 13
&b2 <£c5 14 #fl e5£. 12...cxd4 13
Axd4 #c7 14 Sadl Sad8 15 &e4
b6, with if anything a nominal
advantage to White; Maiorov-
Rustemov, Krasnodar open 1998.
(D3) 9 b3 0-0 10 i.b2 b6 At the
cost of a little time, Black brings his
bishop to a more secure post. White
retains a slight edge after 10...a5 11
c4 a4 12 £se5 axb3 13 £)xc6 bxc6
14 #xb3 c5 15 d5!± Bologan-
Kramnik, Halkidiki 1992. Black
could consider 10...b5!?, with the
possible continuation 11 c4 bxc4 12
bxc4 Sb8 13 Sbl Se8°o. 11 c4 i.b7
12 #e2 c5 13 Sadl Se8 14 dxc5
bxc5 15 <£le5 g6, with chances for
both sides; Xie Jun-Seirawan, Jinan
2002.
(D4)9Sel!?
9...0-0 At practically any moment
Black may go over to the plan of
exchanging on fi. Thus, 9...iLxB
10 #xB c6 11 c4 0-0 12 b3 Se8 13

22 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
khl Affi 14 Sadl #a5 15 £bl g6
16 h4!, with some initiative for
White in Shirov-Cherain, Groning-
en 1993. 10 c3 We have often seen
how White tends to place his pawn
on this square rather than c4 - even
though he would retain a slight
advantage by playing, for example,
10 c4 b6 11 #e2 Se8 12 £g5 ±b7
13 Sadl. 10...i.xf3 11 Wxf3 c6 12
JLf4 In deciding where to develop
his bishop, White was faced with no
easy choice. He could also consider
12 Ad2, or 12 Ag5!? with the
possible continuation 12...#a5 13
h4!? Sfe8 14 a4 Sad8 15 Af4 Wd5
(avoiding the uncomplicated trap
15...&d5? 16 b4! +-) 16 We2\ £rf8
17 i.c4 Wd7 18 h5!, and the white
pieces are considerably more active;
Zontakh-Abatino, Leonardo 1999.
12...Se8 13 Sadl £tf8 14 a3!?
Black was threatening 14...1U5!,
forcing a queen exchange. 14...£sd5
Or 14...£>g6 15 Acl Vc7 16 £ie4
£>xe4 17 £Lxe4 Sad8 18 g3 Sd7 19
h4± Leko-Seirawan, Istanbul ol
2000; White's initiative here is
obvious. 15 £cl &g5 16 £e3!
&xe3 17 fxe3 £g6 18 &c4 #c7 19
£\e4 iLe7 20 SflT Kasimdzhanov-
Arkell, Vlissingen open 2003; it
isn't at all simple for Black to
neutralize his opponent's pressure.
8....&e7
It's hard to recommend 8...g6? in
view of 9 <2k4! &b5 10 Sel £g7
11 £ia5!f.
A line played more frequently is
8...i.xf3 9 £ixf3 It would be worth
considering 9 #xD c6 10 Sel £e7
11 c3 0-0 12 a4! a5 13 £)c4±
9...&e7 10 We2 0-0 11 c4 c5 12
dxc5!? £)xc5 13 iLc2 #c7 14 b3
Sac8 15 i.b2 Sfd8 16 Sadl, with a
slight edge for White; Burnett-
McDonald, London 1998.
9 Sel
White takes control of the
important square e4. Of course he
could also have played an
immediate 9 <Sc4 without being too
afraid of 9...$le4, since after 10
£xe4 &xe4 11 We2 £ief6 12 Sdl
0-0 13 &f4 a5 14 a4 £ld5 15 &g3
he retains a small plus; Vallejo
Pons-Suba, Dos Hermanas open
2002.
Another possibility is 9 b3 0-0 10
Ab2 b6 On 10...£xf3, White has
quite a good choice between 11
&xf3 c6 12 #e2 #c7 13 g3 Sfe8
14 a3 Sad8 15 Sfel Af8 16 £ie5±
Svidler-Rustemov, Tallinn rapid
2001, and 11 #xf3 c6 12 £)c4 #c7
13 £>e5 Sfd8 14 #h3 with
unpleasant pressure on the kingside.
11 c4 Ab7 12 We2 c5 13 Sadl Se8
14 ±bl Wc7, with a very solid
position for Black; De Firmian-
Couso, Stockholm 2002.
9...0-0

Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations 23
10 £>c4!?
White consistently implements his
plan. The play, incidentally, is
similar in character in the event of
10 c3!? b6!? 11 £k4 Not a bad
alternative is 11 #e2 Se8 12 £k5
£)xe5 13 dxe5 £sd7 14 £tf3±.
Il...i.b7 Or 1 l...£d5!? 12 £ice5 c5
13 c4 i.b7 14 &f4 cxd4 15 £lxd4
£)xe5 16 JLxe5 with a minimal plus
for White, Navara - Rustemov,
Morso 2002. 12 We2 cS 13 ±f4
cxd4 14 £)xd4 £)c5 15 ±c2±.
10...i.d5!?
Black prepares the freeing
advance c7-c5 without wasting
precious time. With the same end in
view, he sometimes plays 10..JLb5
11 c3 c5, when there can follow: 12
JLf4 Se8!? More convincing than
12...cxd4 13 £lxd4 i.xc4 14 &xc4
e5 15 £sf5!T. 13 #e2 £ib6 14 dxc5
&xc5 15 £ke5 &xd3 16 £>xd3
iLd6= Foisor-Motylev, Romanian
Team Ch 2001.
White's game is simpler to play in
the case of 10...&XB 11 WxO c6 12
c3 Se8 13 a4 a5 14 &f4 &f8 15
£g3 £ld5 16 £)e5T Kudrin-
Shapiro, Philadelphia 1998. The
same is true of 10...b6 11 £}ce5
iLb7 Black has a difficult defence
ahead of him after ll...£lxe5 12
dxe5! £>d7 13 &d4 Ab7 14 Wg4
Se8 15 iLh6 Smirin - Chernin,
Moscow 1994. 12 Ve2 The chances
level out after 12 &b5 £lxe5 13
dxe5 #xdl 14 Sxdl £)g4! 15 Sd7
&c5 16 h3 £xf3 17 hxg4 £xg4=.
12...£ixe5 It would be risky to play
12...c5 in view of 13 £>g5! #c7 (or
13...cxd4? 14 £>exf7! Sxf7 15
#xe6! with a decisive plus for
White) 14 £>gxf7 Sxf7 15 &xf7
Wc6! 16 £sh6+! gxh6 17 #xe6+
Wxe6 18 Sxe6 *f7 19 Sel with the
better ending. 13 dxe5 £)d7 14 c3
c5 15 £c2 #c7, Kruppa-Rustemov,
Minsk 1996; and now 16 i.g5!?±.
11 Ske5 c5 12 c4 i.xO 13 £ixf3
cxd4 14 £)xd4
14...iLc5
Another plan to be taken seriously
is 14...&C5 15 Ac2 Wb6 16 We2
Sfd8 17 i.e3 Sd7 18 Sad 1 Sad8 19
a3 a5, and Black has more chance of
equalizing than White has of
acquiring a plus; Ernst - Hillarp
Persson, Skelleftea open 2001.
15 £tf3 WMMWd?!

24 Rubinstein Variation and Rare Continuations
Perhaps 16 We2!? deserved more
consideration. There could follow
16...h6 17 Sbl a5 18 b3 Sfd8 19
Ab2, with chances of a minimal
plus. As you will easily have
noticed, the verdict on positions
arising from 4...JLd7 is nearly
always somewhere in the middle
between ± and =.
16...h6 17 Sbl a5 18 b3 Sfd8 19
J.b2 #d6 20 Sbdl #f8 21 We2
White should probably continue
21 i.e4!? &b4 22 Se2. Then at
least cfuv ?.2...£)xe4? 23 Sxe4 £)c5
24 Sg4!, Black will have major
problems with the defence of his
king.
21...£.a3 22 &al £b4 23 Sfl
£\c5 24 i.c2 Sxdl 25 Sxdl Sd8
26 &d4 &a6!?
Black aims to place his bishop on
c5, then transfer his knight to c6 and
completely neutralize White's
initiative.
27 h3 -kc5 28 £)b5 Sxdl+ 29
#xdl We7 30 <&fl <£b4 31 J.M
£k6= 32 i.c3 e5 33 #f3 Ab6 34
#d3 &c5! 35 #f5 Wd8 36 Wd3
#e7 37 #f5 Wd8 38 #d3 Vi-Vi

2: Rubinstein Variation
3 ^c3 dxe4 4 ^xe4 ^d7
Game 3
Timman - Granda Zuniga
Amsterdam 1995
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 <2k3 dxe4 4
<£xe4 &d7
Perhaps the most logical move.
Black prefers to exchange White's
active knight in the most natural
manner, while following Lasker's
well-known rule that knights should
be developed before bishops.
5&f3
lilflflf
Undoubtedly the most popular
reply. In Shirazi-Legky, Paris 1998,
White played the rare variation 5 c4
&gf6 6 £sc3 c5 Or 6...&b4!?. 7 d5
exd5 8 cxd5 £d6 9 £sge2 0-0=.
Apart from that, two other moves
are seen quite frequently:
(A) The cunning 5 g3 has attained
fair popularity of late; White is
hoping to exploit the strength of his
light-squared bishop, not for
attacking the king but for
pressurizing the queenside. Black
generally replies with one of the
following: -
M + m'jkM*'"
m±m*m±m±
i±l
w stfJp in
■ H ■ my/..A
mm m u\
(Al) 5...b6!? A rare but
interesting line. 6 JLg2 Sb8 7 £\e2
It's worth considering 7 £sf3!? JLb7
8 We2, for example: 8...£>gf6 9
<&xf6+ £>xf6 10 0-0 Ae7 11 Sdl
0-0 12 c4 £>d7 13 i-f4± with a
pleasant position for White in
Dominguez - Dreev, World Ch,
Tripoli 2004. 7...&b7 8 £tf4 Or 8
0-0 £)gf6 9 £)2c3 i.M!?«. 8...£igf6
9 £ixf6+ £\xf6 10 &xb7 Sxb7 11
Wf3 Sb8 12 Ae3 &d6 13 0-0-0
0-0= Sulskis-Rahman, Bled ol 2002.

26 Rubinstein Variation 3 Q\c3 dxe4 4 Qvce4 ^hd7
(A2) 5...£>gf6 6 £)xf6+
6...£ixf6 White has no great
problems in seizing the initiative
after 6...WxflS 7 &g2 e5 8 #e2!? (8
£te2 looks an interesting alternative
to the text move; Beliavsky-
Vaganian, Tilburg 1993, continued
8...i.d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 £sc3 exd4 11
£ie4 *g6 12 #xd4 £e5 13 #e3!?,
with chances of a minimal edge)
8...We7 (or 8...£e7 9 £)G exd4 10
Ag5 We6 11 Wxe6 fxe6 12 i.xe7
<&>xe7 13 £lxd4± with the better
ending) 9 dxe5 #xe5 10 £f4!
#xe2+ 11 £)xe2 c6D 12 0-0-0±
Ki.Georgiev - Kurajica, Sarajevo
1998. 7 i.g2 c5 Or 7...e5!? 8 £tf3!?
exd4 9 #xd4 &e7 10 #xd8+ &xd8
11 0-0 0-0 12 &e3± Van den
Doel-Van Wely, Leeuwarden 2001.
8 &f3 *Tb6 It isn't simple for White
to obtain a plus against 8...cxd4 9
Wxd4 #xd4 10 £)xd4 &c5 11 &b3
£b6!? (stronger than ll...Ad6 12
£e3! £>d5 13 i.d4 f6 14 0-0-0 Ad7
15 Shel *f7 16 £c5!, with a clear
plus for White in Gofshtein-Finkel,
Israeli Ch, Ramat-Aviv 2002) 12 a4
a5!a>. A line that looks less
convincing for Black is 8...Ae7 9
0-0 0-0 10 c4 cxd4 11 #xd4 £)d7
12 £e3 &f6 13 #d2 £>e5 14 Wxd8
Sxd8 15 £)xe5 £.xe5 16 Sadl±
Velicka-Corriguelas Armillas, Sants
2000. 9 0-0 £d7!? Black's wish to
oppose something against White's
powerful bishop is natural enough.
White has the better chances in the
event of 9...&e7 10 dxc5! Axc5 11
£)e5 0-0 12 #e2 Sd8 13 c3±
Ivanchuk-Ljubojevic, Amber 2000.
10 c4 cxd4 11 &xd4 Hd8 12 i.e3
jLc5 If Black accepts the pawn
sacrifice with 12...1'xb2, White has
an obvious advantage after 13 #b3!
Ifxb3 14 axb3 £ig4 (14...&c5
allows the tactical stroke 15
£>xe6!±) 15 Sxa7 £>xe3 16 fxe3 e5
17 £>c2, Voitsekhovsky-Yagupov,
Russia Cup, Tula 1999. 13 b4!
#xb4 14 Sbl #c3 Black will have
to struggle to draw after
14...Wxc4!? 15 Scl #b4 16 Sxc5!
#xc5 17 £)xe6 &xe6 18 £xc5
Hxdl 19 Sxdl, when White has
excellent compensation for the
pawn. 15 Sxb7 0-0 16 #e2T, and
White won; Botvinnik-Guimard,
Groningen 1946.
(A3) 5...±e7!? 6 Ag2 £lgf6 7
£sxf6+ &xf6 8 £>f3 Or 8 £>e2 0-0 9
0-0 e5 10 d5 JLe7, leading to
equality. 8...0-0 9 0-0 c5 The game takes
on rather a different character after
9...e5 10 &e3 c6 11 Sel exd4 12
&xd4 £xd4 13 #xd4 £>b6!?, as in
Volokitin-Tratar, Ljubljana 2002; at
this point 14 #f4!? &d5 15 Wd2
would have promised White a
minimal plus. 10 c3 cxd4 11 £lxd4
a6!? 12 £e3 #c7 13 We2 &b6 14
£lf3, Fressinet-Morozevich, Cannes
2002; now Black could have

Rubinstein Variation 3 Qic3 dxe4 4 Qsxe4 <£W7 27
equalized with 14...£id5 15 JLd4
±d7=.
(B) Some interesting
complications arise from 5 .&d3 <£}gf6 6
#e2!?
Black usually answers with 6...c5
On 6...JLe7 7 £>B, the game can
transpose into the variation 5 £lf3
£)gf6 6 Ad3 £e7; while 6...£lxe4 7
.&xe4 £rf6? simply loses a pawn to
8 &xb7!. 7 £)xf6+ &xf6 8 dxc5 It's
likewise no simple matter to assess
the chances correctly after 8 JLg5
#35+!? 9 &d2 1^6 10 0-0-0 cxd4
11 £sf3 i.e7 12 £)e5 0-0 13 Ag5
#c5 14 h4 Sd8 15 Sh3 Ad7 16
Sg3 j&.e6?* Fedorov - Anastasian,
FIDE World Ch, Moscow 2001.
8...&xc5 9 £d2!? After 9 i.g5
#a5+ (on 9...h6, it probably pays
White to retreat with the simple 10
.&d2, contenting himself with the
slight weakening of the Black
kingside; on the other hand 10
&b5+ ±d7 11 £xd7+ #xd7 12
£.xf6 gxf6 13 Sdl #c6 gives
approximate equality) 10 .&d2 1^6,
we may reach positions that can
come about via 5 £}f3 £}gf6 6
£)xf6+ £>xf6 7 Ad3 c5.
9...H)6!? A line seen more
frequently, perhaps, is 9...0-0 10
0-0-0 1U5 (a very risky move;
Black could perfectly well revert to
the plan of 10... 1^6!?, while
10...e5!? 11 #xe5 i.d4?i is also
worth considering) 11 <&bl (11 ^.c3
is less convincing; Black has quite a
good choice between ll...1Brxg2!?
12 Axf6 gxfo and ll...tfg5+!? 12
*bl &d5 13 &e5 #xg2 14 »h5
g6!£) ll...lrxg2?! (it still wasn't
too late to back off and play
ll...e5!, when the continuation
could be e.g. 12 &c3 e4 13 &c4
#c6?4) 12 &f3 #xf2 13 #e5! Ae7
(quite honestly I wouldn't be keen
to play this position for Black!
White has a strong initiative after
either 13...#xf3 14 #xc5 b6 15
#g5 h6 16 Hi4 #h5 17 #g3 4»h8
18 Shglas Ivanisevic-Supatashvili,
Panormo 1998; or 13...£)d7 14
&xh7+! <&xh7 15 #h5+ <&>g8 16
Shgl, when all the white pieces are
ready to throw themselves on the
black king. Defending the Black
side might be possible in home
analysis, but hardly over the board)
14 Sdn #c5 15 #g3 £>h5 (or
15...e5!? 16 £>xe5 &h5 17 tfel!
with excellent compensation for the
pawn) 16 #h3 g6 17 Shgls. This

28 Rubinstein Variation 3 Qic3 dxe4 4 Chxe4 Zhd7
position has occurred in several
games, the earliest of which was
probably Khalifman-Bareev, Wijk
aan Zee 2002. They continued in
various ways, but the common
result of 1-0 unequivocally shows
how strong White's attack is! 10
0-0-0 &d7 In Todorovic-Kosic,
Serbian Team Ch 2004, Black
employed an interesting idea:
10...±d4!? 11 c3 £x5 12 £rf3 &d7
13 £>e5 Aa4! 14 b3 &c6 15 £ixc6
(15 b4 ±e7 16 Ae3 Wc7 17 £>xc6
bxc6 also leads to unclear play)
15...bxc6 16 g4 £>d5°°. 11 <S}h3
White doesn't succeed in acquiring
a plus with 11 f4 0-0-0 12 £lf3
£)g4! 13 £)g5 f5 14 £>f7 £>f2 15
£}xh8 Sxh8?£ Lastin-Feoktistov,
Voronezh open 1998. Il...h6! with
approximate equality.
5...&gf6 6 &d3
The extremely popular 6 ^xf6+
will be examined in the notes to the
next game; while 6 JLg5 leads to the
Bum Variation.
(A) 6...c5 7 0-0 £sxe4 Practice has
also seen 7...cxd4!? 8 4<}xd4 £>xe4 9
&xe4 £if6 10 &B k.el (Black is
similarly close to equalizing after
10...&C5 11 i.e3 Ab6 12 c4 e5 13
£ib5 Axe3 14 fxe3 Wxdl 15 Sfxdl
&e7 16 £>d6 2b8°° Shirov-Bareev,
Monaco Amber rapid 2002) 11 £rt>5
0-0 12 &f4 Ml 13 c4 &c6 14 #e2
Axfi 15 WxB #b6, and White can
hardly lay claim to anything
substsantial; Shirov-Anand, World
Ch, Moscow 2001. 8 £xe4, and
now Black has:
(Al)8...^f6 9±g5!?
m±m ■tni
■ m±m m
m.M
m
lnl mmnm
num m
\M
mm m"*.'^ p
illi'B 11 ill
6...jLe7
Apart from this waiting move,
there are two others that are quite
often met with:
9...cxd4 White has a very good
game in the event of 9...h6 10 JLxf6
#xf6 11 #d3!?±. 10 #e2!? More
convincing than 10 £bcd4 .&e7
(another quite good line is
10...Ac5!? 11 c3 h6 12 £.xf6 #xf6
13 #a4+ &d7 with unclear play,
Svidler-Izoria, Bled ol 2002; on the
other hand in Svidler-Bareev, Wijk
aan Zee 2004, the careless 10...h.6?
led to outright disaster in the
opening: 11 &xf6lfxf6 12lTd3! a6
13 Sadl i.e7 14 £)c6! e5 15 £>xe7
#xe7 16 f4!, with a huge plus for
White) 11 AG!? (the white bishop
is excellently placed on the hl-a8

Rubinstein Variation 3 ^hc3 dxe4 4 ££±xe4 Zhd7 29
diagonal) 11...0-0 12 Sel lb6!
(clearly stronger than 12...1c7 13
c3 a6 14 &h4 &d6 15 &xf6 gxf6
16 g3± Shirov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee
2001) 13 &b3 (13 £tf5 exf5 14
Sxe7 £se4 15 Jtxe4 fxe4= doesn't
promise White a scrap of
advantage) 13...Sd8 14 We2 &d7
15 JLd2 i.b4, and Black is close to
achieving equality; J.Polgar - Van
Wely, Hoogeveen 2001. 10...i.e7
White's kingside initiative gives
Black major problems in the event
of 10...11)6 11 Sfdl Ac5 (it is
worth considering ll...£lxe4!? 12
lxe4 f6 13 &h4 Ae7 14 £)xd4
0-0«) 12 Axf6 gxf6 13 b4!?t
(White is naturally banking on his
lead in development) 13...1xb4 (or
13...£xb4 14 Sabl la5 15 £>xd4T)
14 Sabl la4 15 ld2 #d7 16 c3!S
Rublevsky-Kacheishvili, European
Ch, Ohrid 2001. 11 Sadl £ixe4 On
ll...n)6, White is guaranteed a
comfortable game by either 12
&xd4 &d7 13 £xf6 gxf6 14 Sfel
or 12 Sxd4 lxb2 13 Sfdl 0-0 14
£te5».
12 Sxd4! Ixd4 Black hasn't
much choice; either 12..JLd7 13
lxe4! or 12...£)d6 13 ±xe7 lxe7
14 Sfdl would be distinctly
favourable to White. 13 £)xd4
£>xg5 14 h4!? I don't think Black is
all that badly off after 14 f4 £lh3+
(it is also worth considering
14...0-0!? 15 fxg5 £xg5 16 &D
Af6 !?•*>) 15 gxh3 0-0 16 le4 &f6
17 Sdl, Morozevich-Zakharevich,
Russia Cup 1997; now 17...Sb8!?,
followed by developing his bishop
to b7, would leave Black with quite
reasonable compensation for the
queen. 14...0-0 Wild complications
arise from 14...e5!? 15 lxe5 £)e6
16 £>f5 f6 17 lb5+ *f7 18 £)xe7
*xe7 19 f4£ Shirov-Van Wely,
Monaco Amber rapid 2001. 15
hxg5 &xg5 16 Sdl i.f6 17 &b5
a6, with chances for both sides;
Zontakh-Romanchuk, Ukrainian
Team Ch, Alushta 2002.
(A2) 8...£e7!?
9 c3 Another move to be played is
9 le2, with the possible
continuation 9...cxd4?! (White's
advantage is obvious in the case of
9...£>f6 10 dxc5! £>xe4 11 lxe4
jLxc5 12 le5!, with a gigantic lead
in development) 10 Sdl £)c5 (the
verdict on the position is not altered
by 10...e5 11 c3 0-0 12 cxd4 exd4

30 Rubinstein Variation 3 Q±c3 dxe4 4 Qbce4 £&d7
13 £sxd4T) 11 Sxd4 Wb6 12 £e3
Wxb2 13 Sadl Af6 (on 13...0-0,
Black has to reckon with 14
Axh7+!? <4>xh7 15 £>e5) 14 Sd8+!
i.xd8 15 Axc5 Ml 16 Wd3, with a
very strong attack for White;
Anand-Robatsch, Manila ol 1992.
9...0-0 10 We2 Similar positions
also result from 10 &c2!? £>f6 11
Wd3 b6 12 &g5± 10...Wc7 11 Sdl
£if6 On 1 l...cxd4, White has quite a
good choice between 12 £>xd4 £sf6
13 ic2 Bd8 14 £g5± and the less
conventional 12 cxd4!? £>f6 13
&g5 Ad7 14 Eacl±. 12 Ag5!
£sxe4! More convincing than
12...h6?!, as White then has 13
&xf6 Axf6 14 Wc4! Ae7 15 b4
f5D 16 &d3± Yermolinsky-
Seirawan, Merrillville 1997. 13
Wxe4 i.d6 14 Sadl with a small
but clear plus for White.
(B) 6...£sxe4!? A move that has
attained a fair amount of popularity
in recent years.
7 &xe4 £if6 8 &g5!? With 8
JLd3!? the play transposes into 6
£>xf6+ £>xf6 7 i.d3, which we will
examine in the context of the next
game. 8...Wd6!? White's game is
very simple to play in the event of
8...h6 9 &xf6 Wxf6 10 We2 c6 11
<£te5 Sb8 12 f4 with a large spatial
plus, Sutovsky-Shachar, Israeli Ch,
Ramat-Aviv 2002; or 8...JLe7 9
&xf6! £xf6 10 Wd3 h6 11 0-0-0
Wd6 12 We3 &d7 13 £)e5 Wb6 14
f4t Kindermann-Duer, Austrian
Team Ch 1998. 9 &xf6 gxf6 10 0-0
Or 10 c3!? f5 11 &c2 Ad7 12 £se5
&g7 13 f4 &xe5!? 14 fxe5 Wd5 15
WO Ac6 16 Wxd5 i.xd5, with a
roughly equal ending; Macieja-
Anastasian, Stepanakert 2004.
10...f5!? A line that looks quite
risky is 10...Ad7 11 c4 0-0-0 12
Wb3 Wb4 13 Wc2± but 10...Ag7 is
not at all bad for Black after 11 c3
0-0 12 We2 f5 13 £c2 b6 14 £ie5
c5 15 f4 &b7 16 Sadl cxd4 17
Sxd4 Wc5?* Macieja-Spasov, Greek
Team Ch, Kallithea 2003. 11 ±d3
£g7 12 We2 0-0 13 Sadl c5 14 c3
b6 15 dxc5 Wxc5 16 &a6 Wa5, and
White hardly has more than a
nominal plus; Macieja-Managadze,
Greek Team Ch, Kallithea 2003.
7 £lxf6+
Black is in good shape on 7 c3 c5
8 &xc5 &xc5! 9 dxc5 £)xc5 10
&e2 Wxdl+ 11 <&xdl b6=
Short-Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

Rubinstein Variation 3 *hc3 dxe4 4 ^hxe4 Chd7 31
After 7 0-0, Black too can castle:
7...0-0 In Korchnoi-Gurevich, Berne
1996, Black played the less
convincing 7...c5 8 £>xc5! <£}xc5 9
dxc5 #a5 10 c6!? bxc6 11 Sel±;
while after 7...b6 he has to reckon
with 8 #e2 i.b7 9 &eg5T. 8 c3 b6
9 #e2 &b7 10 £)g3 c5 11 Sdl
Wcl, with unclear play.
The most serious alternative to the
text move is undoubtedly 7 We2, to
which Black's most usual answer is
7...0-0 The initiative is with White
in the event of 7...c5 8 £ixc5! Jbcc5
9 dxc5 £sxc5 10 Ab5+!? i.d7 11
0-0± Matulovic-Marjanovic,
Yugoslavia 1998. Black also needs to
exercise a great deal of caution after
7...£ixe4 8 &xe4 (8 #xe4 isn't bad
either: 8...c5 9 Wg4 i.f6 10 £e3
cxd4 11 JLxd4, with interesting
play), for instance: 8...0-0 (8...£>f6
simply loses a pawn to 9 ixb7!) 9
h4!? c5 10 i.g5 cxd4 11 0-0-0, with
a strong attacking position for
White. 8 0-0 b6 9 &f4 i.b7 10
Sadl #c8 11 c4 &xe4 12 £.xe4
£d6 13 Ae5!± Kveinys-Luther,
Ostrava 1992.
7...&xf6 8 #e2
White prepares to castle long; the
text move is clearly more aggressive
than 8 0-0 c5 9 c3 cxd4 10 cxd4
£tt>6! Better than 10...0-0 11 #c2!
g6 12 Sel &b6 13 Ae4 £)d5 14
&h6 &g7 15 £.xg7 *xg7 16 Sac 1
£sf6 17 #c7 with an endgame
initiative in Short - Harikrishna,
Commonwealth Ch, Mumbai 2004.
11 &f4 &d5 12 i.g3 0-0 13 Bel
b6= Cruz Lima-Camacho Martinez,
Cuba 1997.
8...c5
It's too dangerous to play
8...0-0?! in view of 9 h4 2e8 10
We4 tom 11 Ag5 Ad7 12 £se5t.
However, 8...#e7!? deserves close
attention, for example: 9 0-0 Two
alternatives are interesting and
sharp: 9 Af4 c5 10 0-0-0 cxd4 11
Shel #c5 12 g4 with good
compensation for the pawn, or 9 g4
h6 10 i.d2 c5 11 0-0-0 cxd4 12 h.45
as in Adams-Hodgson, London
1990. 9...c5 10 c3 cxd4 11 cxd4 0-0
12 ±f4 &b6 13 ±e5 &d5 14 i.e4
Hd8 15 Sacl and White has some
initiative, but Black's defensive
possibilities shouldn't be underrated
either; Dominguez - Perez, Villa
Clara 2000.
9 d5!? &b6
White has an easy game after
9...e5?! 10 h4 h6 11 &d2 We7 12
0-0-0 £ib6 13 £>xe5! £.xe5 14
Shel Axb2+ 15 &xb2 #xe2 16
Sxe2+ <£d8 17 c4, with a clear plus
in Kundin-Deutsch, Tel-Aviv 2002;
or 9...0-0?! 10 dxe6 Se8 11 exf7+
s£?xf7 12 Ae4!? #e7 13 £id2+.
10 i.b5+ 4>f8 11 dxe6 £.xe6

32 Rubinstein Variation 3 Qic3 dxe4 4 *hxe4 ^hd7
w ;» W> m
%S%% £wi s^sy, Cam
9 l&i! ■
mxmmmxm
\m & m mn
12 a4
The alternative 12 0-0!? is no less
popular, and I consider it stronger
than the move played. There can
follow: 12...h6!? Black is in for a
hard time after 12...c4 13 i.e3! Wc7
14 Sadl £>d5 15 £kl4±. 13 c3!?
With this move White restricts the
activity of his opponent's dark-
squared bishop. Black obtains equal
chances after 13 Jk.d3 c4 14 Ae4
#c7! 15 c3 Se8 16 #c2 g6 17 Ae3
<S'g7= Becerra Rivero - Perez, Villa
Clara 1998. Defending against 13
£te5!? is more difficult, for instance
13...a6 14 Ad3 Wd6 15 Af4t.
O.-.^c? Again 13...c4?! merely
helps White to carry out his plans:
14 Sdl Wc7 15 i.e3 Sc8 16 &xb6
axb6 17 £>d4±. Nor does Black
equalize with 13...g6 14 JLf4 <&>g7
15 Sadl± 14 a4 a6 15 a5 &d5 16
JLc4± Kolev - Tejero Royo,
Barcelona 2000.
12...a6 13 i.d3 *c7
An inaccuracy! After 13...c4 14
JLe4 JLd5!, Black would have no
problems.
14 0-0 Se8 15 a5 £id7
Or 15...£ld5 16 Sel Ad7 17 Wdl
with a slight edge.
16 Sel Se7 17 #e4 c4 18 Ail
£k5 19 #f4 #xf4 20 Axf4
Despite the queen exchange Black
is faced with some difficulties, due
first and foremost to the position of
his king.
20...Sd7
Not 20...Axb2 21 Sabl Ac3,
which loses to 22 iLd6! Axel 23
Axc5 +-.
21 Ae3
It was worth considering 21 £>e5!
Sd4 22 Ag3±.
21...Sc7 22 Af4 Sc8 23 Ad6+
4»g8 24 £)e5
m m $j H
mim m s
™ m M m
■ mSm
24...h5
On 24...£ld7? White wins a pawn
with 25 £>xc4!. The most tenacious
move was probably 24...JLxe5, but
of course exchanging such a
valuable piece would be anything
but an easy decision.
25 £sxc4 Axc4 26 Axc4 Axb2
27 Sadl
The numerous exchanges haven't
improved Black's position in the
least.
27...Sh6

Rubinstein Variation 3 ^hc3 dxe4 4 £ke4 ^d7 33
At last Black's rook has managed
to join in the game properly.
28 Axc5
The exchange of this bishop gives
Black some saving chances; White's
advantage would have been even
more obvious after 28 Se7!?.
28...Sxc5 29 Se8+ 4>h7 30 &xf7
2f6
It was worth considering
30...2xc2 31 &d5 Sc7 32 &e4+ g6
33 2b8&c3!.
31 ±d5 SxaS 32 &e4+ g6 33
2d7+ &h6 34 h4
The hounding of the black king
continues! It would also be hard for
Black to defend against 34 g3! Sb6
35 h4 M6 36 Sf8.
34...Sal+ 35 <&h2 2f4 36 f3
There was an immediate win with
36g3!2xf2+37&h3+-.
36...2xh4+ 37 <&g3 2ahl 38 2e6
2xe4
A forced sacrifice.
39 2xe4 £c3 40 2xb7 &el+ 41
&f4 &d2+ 42 &e5 +-
Now the result of the game is not
in any doubt.
42...a5 43 <&f6 2h2 44 2e2 &c3+
45 *f7 2h4 46 2e4 2xe4 47 fxe4
<&>g5 48 2c7 1-0
Game 4
Grischuk - V.Gaprindashvili
Ubedaopen 1995
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)c3 dxe4 4
&xe4 £sd7 5 £lgf3 £if6 6 £lxf6+
£>xf6 7 i.d3
For a long period of years this
move was considered to be virtually
the only serious continuation, but in
our own day it is genuinely rivalled
in popularity by 7 c3!? and 7 JLg5,
the latter transposing once again
into the Burn Variation. First, let's
look at the consequences of some
other alternatives: -
(A) 7 g3 b6 For variations arising
from 7...c5 8 JiLg2, see the notes to
the previous game. 8 JLg2 Or 8
£>e5!? &b7!? (in Bezgodov-
Polovodin, St Petersburg 2000,
some interesting complications
resulted from 8...#d5 9 2gl £b7
10 &g2 £le4!? 11 c4 *a5+ 12 <4>fl
2d8 13 Ag5!? f5?4) 9 i.b5+ c6 10
Wf3 2c8, and after 11 &xc6+ &xc6
12 £kc6 #c7 13 £>e5 #xc2 Black
is slightly better. 8....&b7 9 0-0 &e7
10 We2 0-0 11 2dl 2e8 12 c4 Wc8
13 Ah3 Or 13 b3 c5 14 £b2 cxd4
15 2xd4 #c7 16 We5 2ac8! 17
2adl Ac6= Svidler-Gelfand, World
Ch, Moscow 2001. 13...i.e4 14
&g5 &f5=.
(B) 7 £\e5 £id7 8 £f4 <£xe5 If
8...c5!? then 9 #h5!? g6 10 Wf3
looks interesting. 9 ji.xe5 .&d7 10
#h5 i.c6 11 0-0-0 #d7 12 ±e2

34 Rubinstein Variation 3 ^hc3 dxe4 4 thxe4 Qidl
occurred in Balashov-Zakharevich,
Moscow 2000. Now 12...0-0-0!?
would have equalized; Black
doesn't need to worry about 13 d5
£.xd5 14 c4 #c6 15 Wxf7 £d6!=.
(C) Though rarely seen, 7 itc4 is
not at all bad either. There can
follow: 7...C5 8 Ae3 #c7 White
benefits from 8...£)d5?! 9 &xd5
exd5 10 dxc5 Ag4 11 #d4 Axfi 12
gxf3± Firman-Alexandrova, Alushta
2002. 9 We2 &e7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11
dxc5!? &xc5 12 &xc5 #xc5 13
<£>e5± as in Magomedov-Sosnicki,
Cappelle la Grande 1998.
(D) 7 &e3 &d5 Black can also
consider 7...JLd6!?, for instance 8
i.d3 Ad7 9 #e2 #e7 10 0-0-0
0-0-0°°.
8 JLd2!? At the last moment
White decides to preserve his bishop
from exchange. There is also some
interesting play following 8 ^2
&xe3 9 Wxe3 &d6 10 0-0-0 #e7
11 JLd3 0-0, Lalic-Rowson, London
1997; at this point it would be worth
considering 12 h4 £d7 13 h5!?,
with chances of a small plus. 8...c5
9 i.b5+ &d7 10 #e2 Or 10 Axd7+
Wxd7 11 £>e5 Wc7 12 #e2 Ad6 13
Wb5+ <&e7°°. 10...a6 Perhaps Black
ought to play 10...cxd4!? 11 iLxd7+
(or 11 £te5 £sf6 12 0-0-0 a6»)
ll...*xd7 12 £ie5 #c7 13 1Td5+
4>d8°°. On the other hand after
10...Axb5 11 #xb5+ #d7 12
#xd7+ <&xd7 13 c4 £)b6
(13...£tf6!?) 14 0-0-0! cxd4 15 ±c3
£.66 16 Hxd4, White has the better
chances; Yagupov - Benkovic,
Bucharest 2000. 11 &xd7+ #xd7
12 c4 &f6 13 d5, with a slight edge
for White thanks to his superior
pawn structure; Sakaev - Itkis,
Kishinev 1998.
(E) Recently 7 c3!?, a move
containing some poison, has
become highly popular.
White prepares to bring his queen
out on the queenside if appropriate.
7...c5 White has a pleasant game in
the case of 7...h6 8 i.d3 ^.d6 9
&e3!? #e7 10 £>e5!? 0-0 11 #f3
2d8 12 0-0-0 £>d5 13 h4!?T
Baklan-Rasic, European Club Cup,
Halkidiki 2002. More often Black
chooses the modest 7....&e7, when
play may continue: 8 .&d3 0-0
9 &g5 h6 10 &xf6 (or 10 h4!?
#d5! 11 Wd2 b5 12 0-0-0 £b7
with wholly unclear consequences)

Rubinstein Variation 3 &tc3 dxe4 4 thxe4 Zhd7 35
10...±xf6 11 #e2 Wd5 12 h4 Ml
13 Ae4 #h5 14 0-0-0 (the activity
of Black's pieces is not to be
underestimated after 14 JLxb7 Sab8
15 &e4 c5!S) 14...£c6!? 15 <4>bl
&xe4+ 16 #xe4 #d5= Kramnik-
Bareev, Cap D'Agde 2003. After
the text move, White's usual choice
is between two continuations:
(El) 8 £te5!? a6 In the famous
game Kasparov - Ponomariov,
Linares 2002, White achieved an
obvious plus after 8...£kl7?! 9 &b5!
-&d6n (Black hadn't much choice,
as either 9...cxd4 10 #f3 Wf6 11
i.f4!± or 9...^.e7 10 dxc5 Axc5 11
#h5 g6 12 Wfi would benefit his
opponent) 10 #g4! (if White had
wanted a quiet game, he could have
chosen 10 £)c4 *c7 11 £lxd6+
#xd6 12 dxc5 #xc5±) 10...*f8
(Black would lose material with
10...0-0 11 &xd7! £xe5 12 Axc8
+-) 11 0-0!? (11 &xd7 Axd7 12
&g5 f6 13 £)xd7+ #xd7 14 0-0-0!t
wouldn't be at all bad for White
either) ll...£>xe5 12 dxe5 &xe5 13
&g5 i.f6 14 Sadl with splendid
compensation for the pawn. White
also has the initiative after 8...#c7 9
&b5+ £d7 10 £>xd7 <&xd7 11 i.e3
0-0-0 12 0-0 £lf6 13 #B Ad6 14
g3± Topalov-Milov, Prague 2002. 9
Wa4+ It's worth thinking about 9
£.e3 cxd4 (9...£>d5? is not good, as
after 10 dxc5 #c7 11 #a4+ White
has a clear initiative; a better move
is the cool 9...#c7!?, transposing to
variation E2) 10 Axd4 &d6 11
.&d3, with a minimal edge. In
Adams-Akopian, Armenia v. Rest
of World, Moscow 2004, White
played 9 &g5!? &e7?! (I don't like
this move; Black could play 9...^7
10 #a4+ £>d7, with chances of
equalizing) 10 dxc5! #xdl+ 11
Sxdl &xc5 12 ±e2 h6 13 £h4 g5
14 i.g3 &e4 15 &f3 £ixg3 16
hxg3± with a clear advantage in the
ending. 9...i.d7 After 9...£ki7 10
JLe3!? #c7, variation E2 is reached
once again. 10 £ixd7 #xd7 11
#xd7+ <4>xd7 12 dxc5 &xc5 13
&e2 Shd8, and Black has fairly
good chances of equalizing;
Kasimdzhanov-Dorfman, Bundes-
liga 2002.
(E2) 8 &e3 #c7 A line deserving
attention is 8...tfb6!? 9 #c2 &e7
10 i.d3 i.d7!«. Black also quite
often plays 8...cxd4 9 jLxd4 (or 9
#xd4!?) 9...i.e7 10 &d3 0-0 11
WC2!? (Black has quite a good
game in the event of 11 #d2 #d5!
12 0-0-0!? #xa2 13 Shel Sd8
14 £bl #al! 15 £ie5 a5!?*
Mainka-Luther, Recklinghausen
1998; complicated positions,
probably not unfavourable to White,
arise from 11 £)e5 #c7 12 0-0 &c5
13 i.xc5 Wxc5 14 Bel b6 15 Wf3!
Sb8 16 #h3 g6 17 Wh4, Delgado-
Wohl, Santa Clara 2001) ll...g6 12

36 Rubinstein Variation 3 £hc3 dxe4 4 &vce4 Qtd7
h4 £Mi5 13 0-0-0 Wa5 14 *bl Ad7
15 £>e5T Timoshchenko-D.Kosic,
Lvovl994. 9£>e5!?
The game is equal after 9 JLb5+
£d7 10 &xd7+ &xd7 11 0-0
JLd6=. 9...a6 Black has a thankless
defensive task ahead of him after
9...&d6 10 Ab5+ *e7 11 £>c4!. 10
#a4+ £ld7 Or 10...£d7 11 £>xd7
Wxd7 12 #xd7+ &xd7 13 0-0-0
cxd4 14 &xd4 0-0-0 15 f4 £)b8 16
.&e2, with an enduring endgame
advantage; Koraeev-Slobodjan,
Arco open 2003. 11 0-0-0 Better
than 11 £b5 cxd4! 12 &xd7+
&xd7 13 £>xd7 #xd7 14 #xd4
#xd4 15 &xd4 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 f6=
Herrera - Perez, Villa Clara 1998.
Il...cxd4 On H...Ad6, White has
two continuations that look strong.
One is 12 .&b5!?, practically forcing
Black to sacrifice the exchange for
less than full compensation by
12...axb5 13 #xa8. The other is 12
£ic4 £f4 13 g3 ±xe3+ 14 £>xe3
0-0 15 d5±. Black's game is also
difficult in the case of 1 l...Sb8?! 12
dxc5! #xe5D 13 £f4 #xc5 14
Axb8 b5 15 Wf4!± Kaiumov-
Khudiakov, Alushta 2002. 12
£>xd7!? The game levels out after
12 &xd4 i.d6 13 &xd7 £xd7 14
1T)3 0-0 15 £b6 #c6= Dvoirys-
Zakharevich, St Petersburg 1998.
12...^.xd7!? There have also been
plenty of games with 12...1Hrxd7. In
reply, 13 Wa5!? deserves attention;
White's game is then pleasanter
even to the eye. In Adams-Anand,
Linares 2002, White played instead
13 #c2 and obtained a minimal plus
after 13..JLc5 14 £.xd4 &xd4 15
Sxd4±, but it was worth considering
13...1U5!? with the possible
continuation 14 Sxd4 Wxa2 15 £.c4
#al+ 16 *d2 #a5«. 13 #xd4
±c6! 14 &c4 Sd8 15 Wg4 hS 16
Sxd8+ #xd8 17 #g3 #d6, with
very good chances of equalizing;
Anand-Bareev, Monte Carlo 2004.
7...C5
This is how Black usually plays.
Other continuations are chosen
much more rarely, for example:
7...b6
8 Ag5 White is the one who
begins to have problems after 8 £te5
i.b7 9 jfc.b5+ c6! 10 &xc6+ &xc6
11 £>xc6 #d5. Black is also all right
in the event of 8 0-0 JLb7 9 We2
Ae7 10 &g5 0-0 11 Sadl h6 12

Rubinstein Variation 3 &>c3 dxe4 4 Zhxe4 £W7 3 7
Acl Wd5 13 c4 Wh5 14 £te5 #xe2
15 JLxe2 JLd6= Unzicker-Hausner,
Bundesliga 1991. 8...^.b7 9 #e2 h6
10 i.xf6 gxf6 11 0-0-0 Wd6 12
JLa6± Short - Korchnoi, Tilburg
1991.
The waiting move 7...^.e7 is also
seen, but one fact that may be
counted among its defects is that if
Black makes the freeing advance
c7-c5 he often has to lose a precious
tempo recapturing the pawn.
8 #e2 Preparing to castle long.
Black also has some opening
problems to solve in the event of 8
0-0 0-0 9 #e2 b6 10 c3 &b7 11
Jtf4 (the game is level after 11 Ag5
h6 12 Ah4 £>h5! 13 &xe7 #xe7 14
&e4 &xe4 15 #xe4 £>f6= Asrian-
Minasian, European Ch, Batumi
2002) ll...c5 12 dxc5 bxc5 13 Sfdl
«b6 14 £)e5 Sad8 15 &g3 &a8 16
£)g4 #c6= A.Sokolov-Dorfman,
French Team Ch 2002. 8...0-0 9
JLd2 Another move that can be
recommended is 9 JLg5, for instance
9...c5 10 dxc5 #a5+ 11 c3 #xc5 12
0-0-0 a5 13 h4 a4 14 a3 Sa5 15
Shelt Sermek-Slekys, EU-Cup
Olomouc 1996. 9...b6 10 0-0-0 Or
10 0-0 &b7 11 c3 c5 12 dxc5 &xc5
13 Sadl±, which isn't bad either.
10...i.b7 11 c3 c5 12 dxc5 bxc5 13
c4!? #d6 14 £\e5 Wa6 15 a3±
Belikov-Khudyakov, Alushta 2001.
8dxc5!?
The Black side is simpler to play
in the case of 8 0-0 cxd4 9 £)xd4
iLc5!? A similar idea is often
employed in the Sicilian - Black
tries to force the white knight to
leave the centre. White's chances
are to be preferred after 9...JLe7 10
Sel 0-0 11 c3 #c7 12 WO Ad7 13
Af4 1T>6 14 Se2±. 10 £>b3 In
Arencibia-Nogueiras, Havana 1997,
White failed to obtain any clear
advantage with 10 c3 0-0 (10...
Ad7!? is also interesting: 12 JLe3
#c7 13 Sel 0-0-0°°) 11 Ag5 h6 12
&h4 &xd4!? 13 cxd4 £d7 14 Sel
Ac6 15 Se5 We7 16 ±c2 Sfd8,
when White's attacking chances are
roughly balanced by Black's play
against the weak pawn on d4.
Another line to be seen is 10 iLe3
&b6 (on 10...#e7!? 11 c3 0-0,
White continues 12 Sell? £>d5 13
#h5±) 11 c3 e5!? (more effective
than 11...0-0 12 Sel Se8 13 &b5!?
&xe3 14 Sxe3 We7 15 #f3±
Beliavsky-Ehlvest, Yerevan ol

38 Rubinstein Variation 3 £lc5 dxe4 4 *hxe4 £W7
1996) 12 £>c2 (Black is also in good
shape after 12 £>f5 0-0 13 Wc2
&xf5 14 &xf5 i.xe3 15 fxe3
Wb6=) 12...0-0 13 Ag5 h6 14 Ah4
&g4! 15 i.xf6 £xdl 16 £xd8
JLxc2 17 Axc2 Saxd8, with a level
ending; Korneev-Morozevich, Elista
1997. 10...i.d6 Nor has Black any
particular cause for worry after
10...&e7 11 c3 i.d7 12 #c2 0-0°°.
11 &g5 h6 12 i.h4 Wc7 13 £.g3
Black can also be perfectly happy
with 13 Axf6 gxf6 14 #h5 £d7 15
£>d2 f5, when there are interesting
possibilities for both sides. 13...
±xg3 14 hxg3 0-0 15 #e2 e5=
Suetin-Speelman, Lloyds Bank
1991.
8...&xc5 9 We2
White reckons he may have more
chance of an advantage if the
players castle on opposite wings.
Still, 9 0-0 is a frequently played
alternative, and not a bad one either.
There can follow: 9...0-0 10 #e2
It's extremely rare for White to
dispense with this move; however, a
variation that looks interesting is 10
a3!? a5 11 £ie5 b6 12 WG #c7 13
&f4 &b7 14 Wh3, and Black has to
play with extreme caution to
neutralize his opponent's threats;
Ady-Kacheishvili, New York 1999.
The alternative 10 i.g5 b6 11 We2
JLb7 merely transposes to the main
line. 10...b6 The prophylactic
10...h6!? also deserves attention,
preventing any bishop sortie to g5.
Play may continue: 11 b3 (11 JLf4
Ad6 12 £)e5 Wc7 13 Sadl b6 14
£g3 Sd8 15 c3 £b7 allowed Black
full equality in Tiviakov-Hodgson,
Istanbul ol 2000) 11...b6 12 Ab2
Ab7 13 Sadl #e7 14 £te5 Sad8 15
Sfel 2d5 16 c4!? (on 16 &c4
£)e4!? 17 £ig4 Sg5!?, Black's
chances are not at all worse)
16...Sd6, with a roughly equal
game. 11 Jtg5 It's also worth
thinking about 11 £f4 &b7 12
Sadl #e7 13 £)e5 Sfd8 14 c3 h6
15 Sd2 ^d5 16 JLg3, with chances
of a small plus; Korneev-Hoffman,
Elgoibar 1996. ll...Ab7 12 Sadl
Wc7 13 &xf6 Black has fairly good
play after 13 £)e5 Sfd8 14 Sfel (or
14 &xf6 gxf6 15 tfg4+ *f8 16 &f3
<£>e7=) 14...h6 15 Axf6 gxf6 16
£)g4 Wf4= Van der Wiel-Cifuentes,
Dutch Ch 1997. 13...gxf6 14 i.e4
White naturally wants to deprive his
opponent of the bishop pair.
14...Sfd8 Another quite good
choice is 14...i.xe4 15 #xe4 Sfd8
16 c3 b5!? 17 g3 a5°° Bauer-
Speelman, Escaldes zt 1998. 15
JiLxb7 In principle, individual
moves alter neither the character of
the position nor the evaluation of it.
I would mention two other lines that
White has tried in his struggle for
the initiative. Acs-Khalifman, Dubai
2002, went 15 c3 Sac8 16 a3 a6!?

Rubinstein Variation 3 the3 dxe4 4 Zfcxe4 *hd7 39
17 &xb7 #xb7 18 Sd3 Sxd3 19
#xd3 &e7 20 Sdl Sd8=. Emms-
Speelman, Bundesliga 2003, saw 15
g3 i.xe4 16 #xe4 f5 (or
16...Sac8!?, with a view to Sd8-d7
and Sc8-d8) 17 We2 &e7! 18 c3
Af6 19 Sxd8+ Sxd8 20 Sdl
Sxdl+ 21 Wxdl #c4 22 a3 h5!,
and by ridding himself of his weak
pawn, Black achieves an equal
game. 15...#xb7 16 a3 Sac8 17 c3
#c7, with good chances of
equalizing - though perhaps White
does preserve a minimal, more or
less symbolic, plus; Spraggett-
Nogueiras, Winnipeg 1997.
9...0-0
With 9...#b6 Black prevents
White from castling queenside but
allows him a small plus after 10 0-0
0-0 11c3h6 12£ie5±
Apart from that, there can be only
one realistic alternative to the text
move, namely the interesting
9...Wc7!?.
m, I let Wk I Pf I
m. m m t
White has three replies to choose
from: -
(A) 10 0-0 0-0 Or 10...i.d6!? 11
Sel .&d7. 11 JLg5 A rare variation
that deserves attention is 11 £)e5 b6
12 ±f4!? &b7 13 ±g3 ±d6 14
Sadl Sfd8 15 Hfel Sac8 16 c3, as
in Becerra Rivero-Alvarez, Santa
Clara 1997; White successfully
contends for the e5-square and can
very well lay claim to a slight
advantage. Il...b6 12 Sadl!? Two
alternatives lead only to a draw: 12
£te5 ±b7 13 £.xf6 gxf6 14 £xh7+
=, and 12 &xf6 gxf6 13 &xh7+ (13
We4 f5 14 #xa8 &b7 15 #xf8+
&xfS hands over the initiative to
Black) 13...*xh7 14 We4+ f5 15
Wh4+ &g7 16 1^5+ &h7 17 #h5+
= De la Riva Aguado - Pogorelov,
Andorra open 2001. 12...±b7,
transposing into the note to White's
9th move.
(B) 10 £g5 .&b4+!? White has a
stable advantage after 10...JLd7 11
0-0-0 &d6 12 She 1 0-0-0 13 £te5
£.xe5 14 Wxe5 #xe5 15 Sxe5±. 11
£)d2 If White wants to get the game
over quickly, he can play 11 c3
&xc3+ 12 bxc3 #xc3+ 13 #d2!
WxaR 14 <£>e2 Wxhl 15 i.xf6
gxf6! 16 &b5+ <&f8 17 Wb4+ <£>g7
18 #g4+ <&>f8 19 #b4+ with
perpetual check. Il...h6 Black is in
severe difficulties after ll...£sd5?!
12 0-0-0 h6 13 &h4 ^f4 14 &b5+
Ml 15 ±xd7+ #xd7 16 #e5!±
Fedorov-Yandemirov, Sochi 1997.
12 &h4 f f4 13 £.g3 #xd2+ 14
Wxd2 £.xd2+ 15 &xd2 ±d7 16
Sadl 0-0-0 17 £>cl £c6 18 O
occurred in Nijboer - Cifuentes
Parada, Dutch Ch 1997; at this point
Black could have obtained a
roughly equal game by 18...£id5!
19 Shel £lb4 20 &c4 b5 21 ±b3

40 Rubinstein Variation 3 ?hc3 dxe4 4 £hxe4 %d7
Hxdl+ 22 Hxdl &d5 23 £xd5
£>xd5=.
(C) 10 i.d2
SAig iff + r+i +
*Xf I |$| m 2 pf I
10...0-0 Or 10...i.d7 11 0-0 (11
0-0-0!? deserves attention) ll...^.d6
12 Sfel Jtc6 (in Nunn-Korchnoi,
Amsterdam 1990, White succeeded
in mounting a strong attack after
12...0-0-0?! 13 Sadl Ac6 14 h3 h6
15 b4!±) 13 £>e5 ±xe5 14 #xe5
Wxe5 15 2xe5±. 11 0-0-0 Avoiding
a simple little trap: 11 £>e5? JLxf2+!
12 *xf2 Wxe5T. Il...b6 12 £>e5
JLb7 13 f4 Complex and unclear
play also results from 13 ^bl Sfd8
14 f4 Sd4 15 c3 Sd6!? 16 Shel
(Black has good compensation for
the exchange after 16 b4 Sxd3! 17
£ixd3 &d6) 16...Sad8oo Nedev-
Supatashvili, European Team Ch,
Leon 2001. 13...&d5!? 14 Ehfl!
Stronger than 14 *bl f6! 15 £)f3
£>xf4 16 Axf4 Wxf4 17 #xe6+
"i'h8= Topalov-Nogueiras, Yerevan
ol 1996. 14...Sac8!?, and by
working up play on the c-file Black
obtains sufficient counter-chances.
Incidentally 14...£to4?! would be
weaker, as after 15 jbd>4!? JLxb4
16 g4 Sad8 17 g5f White creates
powerful threats on the kingside
while his own king is securely
defended; Fedorov - Daschian,
Moscow open 1998.
10£g5
MUUfe,
The chances level out after 10
.&d2 e5! 11 0-0-0 e4 An interesting
pawn sacrifice, but then the simple
ll...Se8!? also deserves attention.
12 £xe4 #e7 13 Shel #e6 14 a3
£)xe4 15 #xe4 &xf2= Ivanchuk-
Anand, FIDE World Ch, Moscow
2001.
10...h6
It would be worth considering
10../fc7!?. On the other hand
10.. Ma5+ leads to a passive
position after 11 c3 JLe7 12 <£>e5!?
h6 In Tal-Rogers, San Francisco
1991, Black played 12...b6?! and
landed in serious difficulties: 13
Ab5! a6D 14 Ac6 Sa7 15 b4 #a3
16 #c2, and the black queen is in
danger. The character of the
position isn't altered by 12...Wc7 13
0-0 (White can also count on
gaining a minimal plus with 13
0-0-0, when there can follow:
13...b6 14 *bl!? Sd8! 15 £.xf6
&xf6 16 #e4 g6 17 &g4 &g5! 18

Rubinstein Variation 3 ^hc3 dxe4 4 Qvce4 ^hd7 41
fxa8 ±b7 19 #xa7 Sa8 20 #xa8+
&xa8 21 0±) 13...Sd8 14 Sadl h6
15 ±h4± 13 i.h4 Sd8 14 0-0 i.d7
Or 14...1fc7 15 Sadl b6 16 Sfel!
and it's hard for Black to finish his
development, as 16....&b7?! is very
strongly answered by 17 £)xf7!+
Karpov-Speelman, Reykjavik 1991.
15 f4! and Black will have no easy
time defending, since all White's
pieces are excellently mobilized and
ready for active operations.
Ili.h4
Black easily copes with his
opening problems after 11 JLd2 e5!
We have come across this device
before. 12 0-0-0 Not 12 £ke5,
which fails to 12...Se8 13 &c4?
i.xf2+! 14 -ixO Sxe5!. 12...Se8
13 iLc3 In the game Haznedaroglu-
V.Gaprindashvili, Ankara 2002,
Black quickly seized the initiative
after 13 &b5 &d7 14 £c3 £xb5 15
#xb5 11)6! 16 #xb6 axb6?.
13...Wb6 14 £sxe5 Ae6, with at
least enough compensation for the
sacrificed pawn, as in Fedorov-
Supatashvili, Yekaterinburg 1997.
A similar case is 11 Axf6 Wxf6
12 0-0-0 Sd8! 13 <£>bl Or 13 #e4
i.d7! 14 £ie5 &c6, with equal
chances. 13...i.d7 14 £te5 £c6 15
f4 Sd4! and already it's White who
has to think about maintaining the
balance; Zelcic-Speelman,
European Team Ch, Leon 2001.
Nor has Black any particular
cause for worry after 11 h4 #a5+ It
would also be interesting to try
ll...hxg5 12 hxg5 g6, although of
course playing this way is rather
frightening for Black! 12 .&d2
1Tj6!? Another possibility is
12...i.b4 13 &xb4 #xb4+ 14 c3
lfa5!? 15 #e5±. 13 0-0 Against 13
0-0-0 Black can play 13...e5!
(13...£>g4 14 Sdfl i.d7 doesn't
look bad either), for example: 14
£ke5?! (risky, but White can't
expect any advantage from 14
#xe5?! Se8 15 #f4 £.e65 or 14
&c3=) 14...Se8 15 £lc4?! (Black
also has the initiative after 15 .&f4!?
£e6!?t) 15...#a6+ regaining the
pawn with a clear plus; Pelletier-
Morozevich, Biel 2004. 13...e5!?
Another move deserving attention
is 13...#xb2!? (bold or greedy,
depending on how you look at it!).
14 £ixe5 Or 14 b4 £d6! 15 c4 e4!
16 J.xe4 Se8 17 c5 Axc5 18 bxc5
#xc5 with an excellent game.
14...Se8 15 £sc4!? Black would
benefit from 15 &c4!? &e6 16 ix3
i.xc4! 17 #xc4 #c7. The position
after the text move arose in
Ponomariov-Speelman, Pamplona
1997, and now it seems to me that
15...Wc6 16 Wdl i.e6 17 £ie3
Sad8 would have given Black
excellent compensation for the
pawn.

42 Rubinstein Variation 3 ^hc3 dxe4 4 Qvce4 Zhd7
ll...#a5+
12 st?fl!?
A risky but interesting move.
Black equalizes after 12 c3 £sd5! 13
0-0 £tf4=.
12...i.e7
On 12...£id5 13 £te5!, Black
can't play 13...£tf4 14 #g4 £ixd3?
in view of 15 Jlf6!.
13 g4!
White's king feels quite
comfortable in the centre, and he
begins active operations against its
black counterpart.
13...Sd8
Against 13...1^4?!, White is
quite happy to sacrifice a pawn with
14Sgl!*xb2 15SelS.
14 g5 hxg5 15 &xg5 e5
The standard reaction - Black
responds to the kingside attack with
a counter-stroke in the centre of the
board. He has no easy time
defending after 15...b6 16 Hgl kbl
17 £>e5 Sd5 18 Sel, with the threat
of 19 £>xf7.
16 h4 e4 17 i.xf6
On 17 i.xe4 Se8!?, White will be
faced with an extremely unpleasant
pin.
17...£xf6 181^4
18...&e6?!
The more accurate 18...1fh5 19
£>g5 &xg5 20 &e2 #h6 21 hxg5
^.h3+ would have given Black an
excellent game.
19 <£g5 Wd5 20 lfh7+ <£>f8 21
£>xe6+ fxe6 22 Sh3!?
It was worth considering 22
#e4!?±.
22...<&e7
Going after material gains would
be too risky: 22...&xb2? 23 Sbl
1Bxa2 24 c3! with a strong attack.
23 Sel *d6
This time, 23...JLxb2!? has every
right to be taken seriously.
24 b3
Grischuk has even succeeded in
winning a pawn, but the opposite
bishops greatly increase Black's
drawing potential and it all soon
ends with a peace agreement.
24...<&c7 25 Se4 Sac8 26 h5 <&b8
27Sf3Sh8 28Wg61/J-'/J

3: Steinitz Variation
3 <£>c3 £tf6 4 e5
Game 5
Anand - Shirov
1 st match game, Leon 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 <5k3 £)f6
This move has always had a
whole army of supporters, and
seriously competes in popularity
with the Winawer variation 3...JLb4.
White usually replies 4 e5!? or 4
JLg5. The latter leads to a multitude
of diverse variations which will be
examined in the later chapters of
this book.
4e5!?
This move was constantly
employed by the first World
Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz. Since
those far-off days, Black has had
varying success in dealing with the
problems of this line. White seizes
some space and secures freedom of
manoeuvre on the kingside, which
indeed is where he basically intends
to operate. Black's tasks are by no
means simple. In his search for
counterplay he usually strikes at the
white pawn centre with c7-c5 or
f7-f6 - or quite often with both. At
the same time he needs to remember
that f7-f6 creates kingside
weaknesses in his own camp, and
that after c7-c5 a white knight will
often be glad to occupy the outpost
that has been freed for it on d4.
White, for his part, ought not to
make a fetish of his pawn centre -
although it is certainly something to
be proud of! It often pays to play
d4xc5 or e5xf6 at an opportune
moment, rather than allow Black to
obtain powerful play on an open
c-file or f-file. The practical
examples we are going to examine
will illustrate these points.
Black has a perfectly easy game
in the event of 4 Ad3 c5 5 exd5
£lxd5 He also obtains quite good
play with 5...exd5 6 dxc5 JLxc5 7
£>D 0-0 8 0-0 h6 9 h3 £k6 10 £f4
£e6 11 a3 £>h5= Sayber-
Kacheishvili, Istanbul ol 2000. 6
£sD cxd4 7 £}b5 The position is

44 Steinitz Variation 3 £hc3 G)f6 4 e5
equal after 7 £.b5+ £.d7 8 ±xd7+
£ixd7 9 £sxd5 #a5+ 10 c3 *xd5
11 lfxd4 lfxd4 12 &xd4 £x5=
Miiller-Luther, German Ch, Bremen
1998. 7...£k6 8 &bxd4 &xd4 9
£>xd4 £)b4 Or 9...&b4+!? 10 <£>fl
0-0=°. 10 0-0 £»xd3 11 #xd3 Ae7
12 i.f4 0-0 13 Sadl #b6=
Ljubojevic - Bednarski, European
Team Ch 1973.
In my view, the spineless 4 exd5
exd5 doesn't set Black any
problems either, for instance:
5 i.g5 Or 5 &d3 £\c6!? 6 &ge2
&e7 7 &f4 0-0 8 Wd2 £>b4 9 0-0-0
£)e8 10 £)g3 &xd3+ 11 #xd3 c6=
Yukhtman-Korchnoi, Sverdlovsk
1957. Black meets 5 &f4 in roughly
the same way: 5.. JLe7 (5..JLd6!? is
worth considering too) 6 JLd3 0-0 7
#0 £>c6! (this is the best place for
the knight in practically all
variations after 4 exd5 exd5) 8
£>ge2 £*4 9 h3 £>xd3+ 10 #xd3
£>h5 11 &e5 g6 12 0-0-0 c6=
Landa-Morozevich, Tomsk open
1998. 5...£e7 6 &d3 In Karklins-
Kaidanov, Pinfork open 1996, there
was sharp play following 6 #d2 0-0
7 0-0-0 c6 8 <&>bl b5 9 £)ge2 &bd7
10 £sg3 £sb6 11 Sel Ae6 12 £.d3
b4?2. 6...£ic6!? Another possibility,
of course, is 5...c6 6 JLd3 JLe7 7
lS^ge2 0-0, but I have already stated
my attitude to the text move. 7
£}ge2 £>b4 Sticking firmly to his
plan. In Winants-Gurevich, French
Team Ch 2001, Black played
somewhat differently with 7...iLe6 8
#d2 h6 9 i.f4 #d7 10 O £>b4 11
.&b5 c6, but still obtained a
thoroughly satisfactory game. 8
£sg3 0-0 Another interesting move
is 8...£te4!?, for example 9 Axel
£)xc3 10 &xd8 £ixdl 11 Sxdl
<&xd8 12 c3 £sxd3+ 13 Hxd3 a5=
Short-Morozevich, Sarajevo 2000. 9
0-0 £ixd3 10 Wxd3 h6 Black can
also play 10...c6 11 Sael He8 12
Se2 i.g4 13 D £d7 14 Sfel h6 15
±(4 ^>h7! 16 £tf5 Axf5 17 *xf5
£}f8, with very good chances of
equalizing; Malishauskas-Yudasin,
Lvov 1987. 11 i.f4 c6 12 Sael Se8
13 Se2 i.e6 14 Sfel Af8 15 h3
Wdl= Barczay-Dobosz, Czech Ch,
Trencianske Teplice 1979. It seems
to me that Black's chief problem in
this variation is not how to achieve
equality but how to evade the
drawish tendency of the position.
4...£sfd7
Against the "postmodernist"
4...'£>g8, White usually continues
with 5 £)f3 In Arnason-Petrosian,
Tallinn 1983, Black achieved a
satisfactory game after 5 f4 b6 6
Ae3 £>h6 7 £>f3 Wdl 8 #d2 £.a6 9
&xa6 £)xa6 10 &f2!? c5 «. In
answer to 5 jLe3, he carries out a
similar plan: 5...£>e7 6 f4 £)f5 7
&f2 h5 8 £>D b6 9 g3 &a6 10
&xa6 £>xa6 11 £te2 Wd7 12 0-0
c55 Berg-Bronstein, Gausdal 1990.
5...b6 6 Ad3 &a6 7 £.xa6 £)xa6 8

Steinitz Variation 3 £)ci Chf6 4 e5 45
£ie2 #d7 9 0-0 c5 10 c3 £ie7 11
ZhgS £k6 12 dxc5 bxc5 13 #e2
£)c7 14 Sdlt Gulko-Bronstein,
Kiev 1969.
On 4...£)e4, White can choose
between 5 £)xe4 dxe4, transposing
into the variation 3 Zh&2 £}f6 4 e5
£te4, and the sharp continuation 5
£lce2 f6 6 &f4 Or 6 f3!? £sg5 7 h4
£>f7 8 f4t. 6...fxe5 7 #h5+ <£>d7 8
£lO exf4 9 &e5+ <£>e7 10 Wf7+
<&d6 11 Of*.
5 £>ce2!?
The idea of this interesting and
sharp move is perfectly
comprehensible. White grounds his strategy on
the preservation of his powerful
pawn centre.
Steinitz's continuation 5 f4 c5 6
£lO £)c6 is also dangerous for
Black, and is extremely popular. It
will be analysed in detail in
Chapters 4 and 5.
In recent years, 5 £iO has come
to be seen much more rarely. In this
line, White isn't particularly
concerned about maintaining his
pawn centre; he is more intent on
open play with his pieces. There can
follow: 5...c5
And now White's choices are:
(A) 6 JLb5 A move employed
repeatedly and with success by the
Georgian grandmaster Gurgenidze.
6...%he6 Another quite good line for
Black is 6...a6!? 7 &xd7+ &xd7 8
JLe3 cxd4 (White retains a plus after
8...*b6 9 #d2 £k6 10 dxc5 &xc5
11 £>a4 &xe3 12 £«b6 £xd2+ 13
<^>xd2± Gurgenidze-Kupreichik,
Sverdlovsk 1984, or 8...£k6?! 9
dxc5! #c7 10 0-0 £>xe5 11 Sel f6
12 b4! a5 13 i-f4 axb4 14 £>xe5
fxe5 15 £ixd5!± Gurgenidze-
Grigorian, USSR 1968) 9 #xd4
£lc6 10 #f4 f6! 11 0-0 £b4! as in
Oudeweetering-Glek, Dutch Team
Ch 2001; and now in Glek's
opinion, 12 Wg3 0-0 13 a3 £xc3 14
bxc3 fxe5 15 &xe5 £)xe5 16 #xe5
would have given approximate
equality. 7 0-0 a6 It's also hard to
find a response to 7...JLe7 8 Sell?
0-0 9 £>e2 a6 10 &xc6 bxc6 11 £if4
JLb7°° Martorelli-Naumkin, Italian
Team Ch 2000. Obscure
complications result from 7...cxd4 8 £}xd4
£>dxe5!? 9 f4 (or 9 Sel a6!)
9...£>d7 10 f5 (obviously, in the
event of 10 JLxc6?! bxc6 11 £)xc6
Wb6+ 12 £ld4 i.c5 13 &ce2 i.a6
the initiative passes to Black)
10...£x5 11 i.xc6 bxc6 12 fxe6
fxe6 13 £>a4 £xd4+ 14 #xd4 #e7
15 Wcl c5, and White's attack was
successfully repelled in Arencibia-
Dreev, World Team Ch, Lucerne
1993. However, I won't be too
surprised if White manages to find
an improvement in these sharp
variations. 8 JLxc6 A line hardly to
be recommended to White is 8 Ag5
#c7 9 i.xc6 bxc6 10 £le2 cxd4 11
#xd4 c5? Hector-Hillarp Persson,

46 Steinitz Variation 3 ^hc3 *hf6 4 e5
Goteborg 1999. 8...bxc6 9 Sel Or 9
£)a4!? cxd4 10 #xd4 c5 11 #g4
#c7 12 Sel h6°° with chances for
both sides in Lehmann-Tatai,
Malaga 1970. 9...iLb7!? Black
prepares to set his centre pawns in
motion; 9...JLe7 is less convincing
in view of 10 dxc5!? &xc5 11 £>a4
&e7 12 c4!T. 10 £>a4 cxd4 11
#xd4 c5 12 #g4 h5!? 13 Wg3 h4
14 lfg4 h3! with initiative for Black
in Martorelli-Komarov, Gallipoli
1999.
(B) 6 dxc5 £k6 7 &f4 The rare
move 7 iLb5!? is worth considering,
for instance: 7..JLxc5 8 0-0 a6 9
&xc6 bxc6 10 £)a4 &e7 11 c4±. If
Black wants to avoid such
variations, he can play 6...JLxc5
first, continuing only after 7 Jtd3
with 7...£>c6. 7...i.xc5 This is the
way Black usually plays, keeping
his knight on d7 to exert pressure on
the key white pawn on e5. However,
7...£>xc5 does also occur; there can
follow 8 JLd3 (Black has no worries
after 8 a3 &e7 9 b4 £ld7 10 £*5
0-0 11 c4 a5! 12 bxa5 #xa5+ 13
JLd2 #a4, with a comfortable game
in Aronian-Lputian, Armenian Ch,
Yerevan 2001) 8...&e7 9 h4!? (on 9
0-0, the sharp 9...g5!? 10 ±g3 h5 is
worth thinking about) 9...1^6
(quite likely Black's simplest way to
solve his opening problems is to
play 9...f6 and answer 10 exf6 with
10...gxf6?*) 10 Sbl Ml 11 h5 #b4
12 #d2 d4 13 ^e4 #xd2+ 14
(i>xd2 h6 15 a3, with chances of a
minimal plus; Chekhov-Dreev,
Russia 1992. 8 Ad3 f6!? The most
natural move, and in my view the
strongest. Of course Black couldn't
play 8...0-0? on account of 9
JLxh7+L On the other hand the
waiting move 8...h6 enjoys a certain
popularity, even though it has the
serious defect of making f7-f6 a
good deal more difficult; Black will
be giving himself just too many
weaknesses on the kingside. Play
may continue: 9 JLg3 (the stock
move 9 h4!? also deserves attention)
9...a6 10 0-0 b5 (I suspect that a
stronger line is 10...g5!? 11 h3 h5,
with interesting possibilities) 11
Sel 0-0 12 £le2 b4 (White's
chances are to be preferred after
12...£>b4 13 a3 £ixd3 14 cxd3!±) 13
c3 bxc3 14 bxc3 a5 15 £>f4 £a6 16
JLc2!, and White's threats are more
substantial; Gufeld-Spassky, USSR
Ch, Leningrad 1960. 9 exf6
m mn
- and now Black has no easy
question to answer: which piece
should he recapture with? Let me
state at once that both possibilities
are worth considering:
(Bl) 9...1rxf6 10 £g3 White
doesn't want to remove his bishop
too far from the centre. Black's
game is easier to play in the event of

Steinitz Variation 3 £>ci Qsf6 4 e5 47
10 Ag5?! Wfl 11 ±h4 (similarly
Black's chances are by no means
worse after 11 We2 0-0 12 0-0-0
M>4\) ll...£)de5 12 £>xe5 £)xe5 13
Ab5+ Ad7 14 We2 £>g6 15 &g3
0-0 16 0-0, as in Rogers-Gurevich,
Batumi rapid 2001; at this point
16...&xb5 17 #xb5 Sac8 would
have given him a slight edge.
10...0-0 11 0-0
ll...£>d4!? Better than ll...h6 12
#e2 &b6 (or 12...£>d4 13 £>xd4
±xd4 14 £ib5! i.xb2 15 Hael! a6
16 £>c7 Sa7 17 #xe6+ #xe6 18
£)xe6±) 13 Sadl £k5 14 *hl Ad7
15 &b5! i.e8 16 i.xc6 bxc6 17
.&e5, with a small but clear
advantage; Chandler - G.Singh,
British Ch, Scarborough 2001.
White also preserves a slight
advantage in the case of 11...a6 12
We2 £k!4 13 £lxd4 &xd4 14 Sael
£ic5 15 Ad6!? £>xd3 16 cxd3! Sf7
17 £e5 &xe5 18 #xe5 #xe5 19
Sxe5 Cherniaev-Masserey, Geneva
open 2002; it is obvious that in this
ending, only White can play for a
win. 12 £)xd4 &xd4 13 #h5!?
White hasn't a shred of advantage
after 13 #d2 £ic5 14 Sael i.d7 15
£>e2 £ixd3 16 cxd3 &b6!? 17 £sc3
JLd4= Bielczyk-Makarichev, Lublin
1976. 13...g6 14 #e2 £)c5 White
acquires an important extra tempo
after 14...a6 15 Sael £)c5 16 &e5!
&xe5 17 #xe5 #xe5 18 Sxe5
£>xd3 19 cxd3 ±d7 20 f4 Sac8 21
g3± Pitkanen-Kokkila, Vantaa 1999.
15 Sael Ad7 16 &e5 JLxe5 17
#xe5 #xe5 18 Sxe5 Sac8, with
quite good chances of equalizing.
(B2) 9...£ixf6
10 0-0 Recently the sharp
continuation 10 #e2 0-0 11 0-0-0
has attained relative popularity, but
it seems to me that Black can handle
the defence without undue
difficulty, for instance: ll...^.d7 (a
less convincing line is ll...Wa5 12
&bl £sb4 13 i.e5!? £d7 14 £)d4
£.xd4!? 15 &xd4 £k;6 16 i.e5±
Kosteniuk-Giddins, Isle of Man
open 1999) 12 £le5 #e7!? 13 Shel
Sae8 14 g4 JLb4! (an important
improvement on Guseinov-
Farakhov, St Petersburg 2000,
which went 14...i.d6 15 h3 £>e4 16
Axe4 Sxf4 17 &xd7 dxe4 18 #d2
Wxd7 19 #xd6 #xd6 20 Sxd6
Sxf2 21 £>xe4±) 15 £>xc6
(probably the least of the evils was
15 £)xd7 £lxd7 16 i.d2<*>, whereas

48 Steinitz Variation 3 Zhc3 *hf6 4 e5
15 g5?! virtually loses to 15...Jbcc3
16 gxf6 lfxf6 -+) 15...i.xc6 16 ±e5
£kl7! and the initiative is
undoubtedly with Black; Guseinov-
Psakhis, Internet WCN 2003.
10...0-0
nuii ami
H±B ■ ill
Mia a.iu
11 £te5 The entire struggle in this
variation revolves round the
e5-point. If White manages to
conquer it, he acquires a plus; if not,
it means that Black has coped with
his opening problems. A move seen
much more rarely is 11 #d2, with
the possible continuation 11...a6 12
Ag3 £ih5 13 Sael <£ixg3 14 hxg3
Wf6 15 a3 h6 16 *hl &d7»
Conquest-Kindermann, Bundesliga
1998. Nor should Black be afraid of
11 We2 £>h5 (the game Rigo-
Gulko, Rome 1988, continued
interestingly with ll...i.d7 12 fiadl
a6, and now the incautious 13 £la4
JLa7 14 c4? unexpectedly lost
material to 14...e5! 15 cxd5 &d4 16
£sxd4 &xd4 17 &c2 &b5+) 12
±g5 &f4!? 13 WdZ Wc7 14 £sb5
(or 14 Sael £)h3+! 15 *hl &b4t)
14...Wb8 15 Axf4 Sxf4 16 Sael a6
17 £>c3 #d6, with a comfortable
game.
ll..JLd7 It is also hard to assess
the consequences of ll...£)e4!? 12
&xe4 Sxf4 13 £>d3 Sxe4 14 &xe4
J&.b6, with definite compensation for
the exchange. Another move that
doesn't look bad is 11...1^8; then
on 12 £>b5, Black rids himself of all
problems by 12...#67!?, for
example 13 £g3 a6 14 £ic3 &d7 15
*hl i.e8 16 Sel £ixe5 17 Sxe5
JLf7= Onoprienko - Dimitrov,
Pardubice open 1999. 12 We2 On 12
&xc6 &xc6 13 We2, Black can play
13...1^7 which will lead to the
main line by transposition, but he
has an additional option in
13...£te4!, giving rise to unclear
complications. l2...Wel It's also
difficult for White to count on an
advantage against \2..,Qm.<z5 13
&xe5 Wb6 14 *hl £d6 15 f4 g6
16 Sael i.xe5 17 fxe5 £)h5 18
Wg4 Sxfl+ 19 Sxfl Sf8=
Chandler-Knaak, Bundesliga 2002.
13 Sael Sae8 14 £\xc6 Nor has
Black any problems if White defers
this exchange: 14 a3 a6 15 .&g3
<&xe5 (15...g6 16 Wd2 £>xe5 17
i.xe5 £>g4 18 i.g3 £x6= is not bad
either) 16 #xe5 i.c6 17 b4 £ld7 18
«fh5 £tf6 19 #e5 &d7= Drozdov-

Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 ?bf6 4 e5 49
Kiriakov, Moscow 1996. 14...^.xc6
15 &g3 Or 15 £e5 £)d7! 16 £>b5
(16 #h5 is very strongly met by
16...Sf5!? 17 &xf5 exf5T) 16...a6!
17 £)d4 £)xe5 18 #xe5 &d7 19 f4
£d6 20 #h5, with an excellent
game for Black; Shilov-Ulibin,
Barlinek open 2001. 15...a6 16 a3
#f7 17 b4 &d4 18 Ae5! &xe5 19
#xe5 £>d7 20 1^3 e5!= Spassky-
Petrosian, 19th match game,
Moscow 1966.
5...c5 6 c3
W; Wi 'Wfc I
m, m m mm
W, Wi <sm Wfr
m m m m A
m mm±wt
6...£lc6
The continuation 6...#b6 was
introduced into practice by Sergei
Dolmatov. There can follow: 7 f4
Black has a simpler task in the event
of 7 fott AS 8 exf6 <£xf6 9 g3 £d6
(9...cxd4!? 10 cxd4 £te4°o deserves
attention too) 10 i.g2 0-0 11 0-0
£>c6 12 b3 (White obviously has no
trace of an advantage after 12 Wb3
#xb3 13 axb3 cxd4 14 cxd4 £>h5=)
12...cxd4 13 cxd4 i.d7 14 JLf4 ±a3
15 £>c3 £te7, with approximate
equality; Yudasin-Dolmatov, Seville
open 1993. 7...£e7 8 £lf3 f6 9 f5!?
Or 9 a3!?. 9...cxd4 Stronger than
9...exf5 10 &f4!T. 10 &exd4 £\xe5
11 £lxe5 fxe5 12 #h5+ <*d8 13
£)xe6+ £.xe6 14 fxe6 W\e6$
Morozevich-Bareev, Monte Carlo
rapid 2003.
Some utterly obscure
complications arise from 6...cxd4 7
cxd4 f6
m' MWm^n
And now the options are as
follows:
(A) 8 £tf4 i.b4+ 9 i.d2 #b6
White's task is simpler in the event
0f9...£xd2+ 10fxd2lfe7 11 exf6
£\xf6 12 i.d3 £)c6 (after 12...e5 13
dxe5 Wxe5+ 14 1^2, White retains
a small but clear plus) 13 £lge2 0-0
14 0-0 &d7 15 Sadl #d6 16 Abl
2ae8 17 £)d3 e5 18 dxe5 £>xe5 19
£>xe5 Sxe5 20 £>c3, with a slight
advantage in the game Morozevich-
Moskalenko, Moscow 1994. 10
&xb4 An alternative is 10 exf6
£lxf6 11 #a4+ £sc6 12 &xb4
Wxb4+ 13 Wxb4 £)xb4 14 i.d3 0-0,
with quite good counterplay;
Vukovic-Piskov, Yugoslav Team
Ch 1994. 10...1fxb4+ 11 #d2
Wxd2+ 12 &xd2 &e7 Similar play
arises from 12...<&f7!? 13 exf6 gxf6
14 £>f3 £lc6 (or 14...£>b6!? 15 Scl
£)c6) 15 ±b5! &b6 16 &xc6!?

50 Steinitz Variation 3 Zhc3 ?hf6 4 e5
£>c4+ 17 &c3 bxc6, Sax-Atalik,
Slovene Team Ch, Bled 2001; this
position is not at all simple to
evaluate, but I feel I would prefer to
play the White side. 13 exf6+ It is
also worth considering 13 £lf3.
13...gxf6 14 Sel!? On 14 £>f3 *d6,
Black's chances are by no means
worse. 14...£ib6 15 <&f3
%.. „«L
iBF1
H
UXM M 111
mmmmmmmm
TWWvW
imJ"mAmim
Black has managed to improve his
position in the centre, and the
verdict depends on whether White
will succeed in preventing the
advance e6-e5. X^.^AfnX Black
doesn't hurry to develop his queen's
knight. However, 15...£k6 has also
been seen in practice; play may
continue 16 £b5!? &d7 (or
16...£>d8!?, intending a7-a6) 17
Jbcc6 bxc6 18 Se2! Sae8
(Korchnoi recommends 18...She8,
with a7-a5-a4 to follow) 19 Shel
sS'd6! (it pays to keep the king in the
centre of the board; in Anand-
Bareev, Shenyang 2000, Black
played the less precise 19...^H, and
ran into difficulties after 20 i'cl
£>c4 21 £id2! £ixd2 22 4>xd2) 20
£>h5 (on 20 <&cl!, it is worth
considering 20...h5!?) 20...Sef8! 21
£>g7 £>c4+ 22 &c3 e5 23 b3 Shg8!
24 bxc4 Sxg7= and according to
Anand's analysis Black copes with
his opning problems, albeit not
without effort. 16 &d3 £k6 17
^h5 Sf8!? An interesting pawn
sacrifice. There are also unclear
consequences following 17...e5 18
<5}xf6 e4 19 £)g5 <£>c7 20 &xe4!?
dxe4 21 Sxe4 h6!?». 18 &xh7 e5!
19 £sg3 Black has a perfectly easy
game after 19 dxe5+ fxe5 20 &cl
&g4T. 19...e4 20 &h4 Perhaps
White should have sacrificed one of
his pieces on e4. 20...£}xd4, with
excellent play for Black in
Bezgodov-Sakaev, Russia 1999. In
this variation the ball is definitely in
White's court.
(B) 8 f4!? fxe5
nt ma ma 'M
ill Wkimm.
mM3n
9 fxe5 Some sharp, unclear
complications result from the rather
less orthodox 9 dxe5, for example:
9...£ic6 (or 9...Wb6 10 £>c3 &c6 11
£)f3 Ab4 12 a3!? &xc3+ 13 bxc3
£)c5 14 #c2 0-0 15 £>g5 Sf5 16
Sbl #c7, Djurhuus-Jepson,
Swedish Team Ch 2002; now 17 h4!
would promise White good
attacking chances) 10 £>f3 JLb4+ 11
£>c3 (it is worth thinking about 11
&d2 £>c5 12 i.xb4 £ixb4 13

Steinitz Variation 3 £>ci £hf6 4 e5 51
£ied4=°) ll...£ic5 12 &e3 #35 13
Wc2 0-0, Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg
1993; at this point Knaak
recommends 14 a3 £te4 15 Scl
i.xc3+ 16 bxc3=°. 9...#h4+?!
Similar positions arise after
9...£.b4+ 10 *f2 0-0+ 11 £tf3 £te6,
for instance: 12 a3 (on 12 JLe3,
Black carries out the same standard
sacrifice: 12...£>dxe5 13 dxe5 £>xe5
14 #b3 b6 15 Sdl #e7?i
Skripchenko - Marie, Women's
World Ch, New Delhi 2000)
12...£sdxe5!? (an interesting idea,
but Black could also consider
12...JLa5, with the idea of bringing
the bishop to b6 to increase the
pressure on White's pawn centre)
13 axb4 (or 13 dxe5 JLc5+ 14 <&>el
£>xe5§) 13...#h4+ 14 *gl (it
seems to me that Black is also OK
after 14 £}g3 £>xd4 15 &e2 £>xe2
16 #xe2 #d4+!t). This occurred in
J.Polgar-Hernandez, Merida 2000;
and now it was worth considering
14...Bxf3!?, with the possible
continuation 15 gxf3 (or 15 g3 #e4
16 dxe5 Sd3 17 Wa4 Sf3=)
15...£>xf3+ 16 *g2 £>el+, drawing
by perpetual check. 10 £ig3 JLb4+
11 <4>f2 0-0+ 12 £)f3 £ic6 13 Ae3
Another variation of some interest is
13 *gl Sxf3!? 14 gxf3 &xd4 15 f4
g5!?i. 13...£idxe5!? Again and
again Black employs this device! 14
dxe5 &xe5 15 <4>gl #f6 16 #d4!?
A line that might be suggested as an
alternative is 16 £>xe5 Wxe5 17
#d4 (or 17 &d4 Sf4!? 18 £xe5
&c5+ 19 Ad4 Sxd4 20 Wc2 &b6
21 #f2 Sd2 22 Wxb6 axb6, with
quite good compensation for the
piece) 17...1fxd4 18 i.xd4 e5 19
&f2 &e6; White still has to
demonstrate that Black's two pawns
and active pieces are insufficient
compensation for the sacrificed
piece. 16...&d6! 17 i.e2 £.d7£
Morozevich-Gurevich, FIDE World
Ch, Moscow 2001.
7f4
A move seen a good deal more
rarely is 7 £tf3, to which Black
usually replies: 7...cxd4 It is worth
considering 7...a5!?, a rare move,
but one that is typical of such
positions; there can follow 8 £}f4 a4
9 h4 #a5! 10 Ad2 Wb6, with a
good game for Black in
Philipowski-Schlosser, Bundesliga
2003. A line that has occurred quite
often is 7...b5!? 8 £>f4 (the

52 Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 thf6 4 e5
character of the game is much the
same in the event of 8 a3 Wb6 9
Ae3 a5 10 £>f4 i.a6! 11 &e2 cxd4
12 cxd4 b4=o Lau-Reefschlager,
Bundesliga 1996) 8...*b6 9 &e3!?
(White cannot be happy with either
9 i.e2? cxd4 10 cxd4 g5!+ or 9
&d3 cxd4 10 cxd4 £)xd4 11 £)xd4
&b4+! 12 *fl #xd4 13 £)xe6!
^xeST Tate-Vaganian, New York
open 1997) 9...a5!?, with interesting
play. 8 cxd4 f6 Or 8...Wb6!? 9 g3 f6
10 exf6 £>xf6 11 i.g2 Ab4+ 12
k&2 (12 <£>fl!? 0-0 13 £f4 is
unclear) 12...±xd2+!? 13 Wxd2
£te4 14 WC2 #35+ 15 £>c3 0-0 16
Sdl e5!«> Lukin-Kruppa, St
Petersburg 1999. 9 £if4!?
Rli'HB Mi,
mmmm
a m wm %m S m,
White can't claim any real
advantage after 9 exf6 £)xf6, for
instance: 10 ^c3 (Black is all right
after 10 g3 £b4+!? 11 &d2 &xd2+
12 #xd2 £>e4 13 #e3 0-0 14 £ta3
Wb6«> Bologan-Nikolenko, Berlin
1995) 10...±d6 11 i.d3 (Black has
no cause for worry in the case of 11
i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 h6!? 13 h3 Ad7 14
&e3 We7 15 Sel g5£ Hort-Knaak,
Bundesliga 1996) 11...0-0 12 &g5
(12 0-0!? is worth considering)
12...We8! 13 #d2 £)h5, and Black
has his full share of the play;
Nijboer-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.
9....&b4+ Possibly 9...1re7!? is just
as strong as the text move, e.g. 10
exf6 #xf6 11 a3 &d6 12 £>h5 #e7
13 &g3 0-0 14 i.g5 £>f6!= Hort-
Knaak, Dresden 1995. 10 &d2 We7
11 JLxb4 Black's task is simpler in
the case of 11 exf6 £)xf6 12 &b5
£)e4!? 13 £xc6+ bxc6 14 &d3
<£xd2 15 £>xd2 0-0°°. Il...#xb4+
12 #d2 <£e7!? Unclear play results
from 12...#e7!?, whereas after
12...Wxd2+ 13 &xd2 &e7 14 exf6+
<£)xf6 (14...gxf6!? deserves
attention) 15 .S.b5 £le4+ 16 <&e3,
White's chances are preferable;
Bologan-Gurevich, France 1994. 13
exf6+ gxf6 14 #xb4+ <&xb4 15
<&>d2 &b6 16 a3 4^c6 17 £b5,
Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993.
Now after 17...£>a5! 18 <£>c3 a6 19
£d3 JLd7, Black could have looked
to the future with optimism.
^as^-p
WW
Bl±W4'il±«±
m . r-
mm.
■ » » ■
H m m II
wSWi
m mmM3n
7...b5!?
A natural reply; Black
immediately starts seeking
counterplay on the queenside. Of
the large selection of alternatives
(some of which may be just as

Steinitz Variation 3 £hc3 £hf6 4 e5 53
strong as the text move), I would
mention the following:
(A) 7...b6!? 8 £lG ±a6 9 a3
There is sharp play following 9 g4!?
h5!? 10 gxh5 Sxh5 11 £)g3 i.xfl
12 *xfl (after 12 £>xh5? £g2 13
Sgl ±xG 14 #xG g6 15 £ig3
cxd4? Black has excellent
compensation for the exchange) 12...Sh8 13
f5 £e7 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 #d3 &f8
16 i.d2 Wc7^ Bologan-Lputian,
Philadelphia 1994. 9...£e7! 10 g3
g6!? 11 &g2 Wc7 12 0-0 cxd4 13
cxd4 £la5!?, with chances for both
sides; Yudasin-S.Arkell, Seville
1993.
(B) 7...cxd4 8 cxd4
8...f6 Or 8...AM+ 9 &d2 &xd2+
(White preserves a small but
enduring advantage in the case of
9...#b6 10 £>G 0-0 11 £.xb4
#xb4+ 12 #d2 £>b6 13 £lc3±) 10
#xd2 0-0 11 £>G f6 12 h4!?, Kalod
- Nalivajko, Prerov 2001. White
takes control of the h4- square,
eliminating Black's Wd8-h4+ which
in many variations is a possibility.
However, I don't think Black would
have had any problems after
12...b5! 13 Scl Wb6«. 9 £>G &b4+
10 &c3 fxe5 11 fxe5 0-0 12 i.d3
fixG! 13 #xG #h4+ with quite
good chances for Black; Minasian-
Lputian, Armenian Ch, Yerevan
1996.
(C)7....&e7 8£iG0-0 9a3!?
A move that occurs frequently in
such positions, controlling the
important b4-square. Black copes
with his opening problems in the
event of 9 g3 f6 10 £h3 cxd4 11
£>exd4 £)xd4 12 cxd4 #a5+! 13
&d2 #b6= Palliser-Speelman,
British Team Ch 2003. It's too risky
for White to play 9 £sg3 f6! 10 i.d3
cxd4 11 cxd4 «Td6 12 a3 fxe5 13
fxe5, when Black can choose
between two good continuations:
13...£ixd4!? 14 £>xd4 £ixe5«> and
13...SxG!? 14 gxG £lxd4S. 9...a5
10 h4 In answer to 10 £}g3, Black
can consider 10...f5!? 11 JLd3 cxd4
12 cxd4 £\b6 13 £)e2 a4 14 0-0
£}a5«> Lanka-Lupu, Calimanesti
1992. 10...f6 11 &egl!? Or 11
£>g3!?. Il...cxd4 12 cxd4 #b6 13
JLd3 It was worth considering 13
<£ih3!?, forestalling the sacrifice on
e5. 13...fxe5 14 fxe5 £>dxe5!? 15
dxe5 £sxe5 16 JLc2 A pretty draw
would result from 16 jbch7+ <&>xh7
17 Wc2+ &g8 18 &xe5 &xh4+! 19

54 Steinitz Variation 3 £hc3 fof6 4 e5
&d2 #d4+ 20 £>d3 Ag5+ 21 *el
JLh4+, with perpetual check.
16...£d7 17 We2 Sac8 18 &xh7+
It is hard to recommend 18 ^xe5
&xh4+ 19 Sxh4 Sxc2!+. 18...s£>xh7
19 Wxe5 jLd6^ Macieja-Ivanchuk,
FIDE World Ch, Moscow 2001.
(D) 7...1fb6 8 £sf3 transposes into
the variation 3 £ld2 £tf6 4 e5 £tfd7
5 f4 c5 6 c3 £>c6 7 £)df3 Wb6 8
<£\e2, which is examined in Volume
1 of this series.
8a3!?
With this move White prevents or
at least delays the further
development of Black's queenside
activity. Black has no problems in
the event of 8 £if3 b4 9 f5!? bxc3!?
It is also worth considering 9...exf5
10 £>f4 bxc3 11 bxc3 cxd4 12 cxd4
(better than 12 Ab5 #a5! 13 Axc6
#xc3+ 14 Ad2 *xc6 15 Scl &c5
16 e6 fxe6 17 £)xd4 #b6+
Dimitrijevic-Stojanovic, Serbian
Ch, Leskovac 2002) 12...i.b4+ 13
Ad2 #a5». 10 fxe6 fxe6 11 bxc3
cxd4 12 cxd4 &b4+ 13 &d2 0-0 14
i.xb4 &xb4 15 #d2 *a5=
Sax-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1991.
8...cxd4
A different, more closed type of
position results from 8...c4 9 £)f3
£ib6 10 g4 f5!? Or 10...h5!?. 11
gxf5 exf5, Anand-Morozevich,
Frankfurt 2000; and now 12 h4 i.e7
13 h5 JLe6 14 £sg5 would promise
White a minimal edge.
A variation that can hardly be
recommended to Black is 8...a5 9
tfofi ^.a6 It looks too dangerous to
play 9...M 10 axb4 cxb4 11 f5! exf5
12 £>f4 &b6 13 &b5 Ab7!? (or
13...£d7 14 e6! fxe6 15 £lxe6 #c8
16 £>xf8 Hxf8 17 <&g5!±) 14 e6!
with a powerful initiative for White
in Shirov-Nikolenko, USSR Ch
1991. 10 dxc5 A device we already
know about is also worth
considering here: 10 f5!? exf5 11
£tf4 £\b6 12 i.d3t Delchev-Kelly,
Bled ol 2002. 10...£\xc5 White's
chances are preferable after
10...&xc5 11 b4! i.a7 12 £>ed4f.
11 £sed4 !Tb6 12 &e3 £sxd4 13
iLxd4± Bauer - Kelly, Wroxham
Masters 2002.
9 &xd4!? <£xd4 10 cxd4
Better than 10 #xd4 £x5 11 Wd3
0-0! 12 £sf3 f6!, with complications

Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 Zhf6 4 e5 55
not unfavourable to Black;
Shirov-Bareev, Hastings 1991.
10...b4 11 a4
m IS^i§.Ii*l*
1 Ml
11 m m
£=. fj&l Wt f<$&
% ymr @i w-i
'%*& 'flffifr '■%%%£
y m m m . .
Black undoubtedly benefits from
the opening up of the queenside
after 11 axb4 i.xb4+ 12 &d2 «b6
13 £>G a5 14 £d3 £a6 15 £xa6
Sxa6= Oll-Andersson, Ter Apel
1996.
However, it is worth considering
11 #a4!? Wb6 12 £if3, for instance:
12...bxa3 (or 12...a5 13 &b5! Sb8
14 i.c6 &e7 15 &d2t) 13 bxa3
Hb8 14 &d3 Wb3 15 Wxb3 Sxb3
16 <S?e2, with a slight advantage to
White; A.Sokolov-Glek, Moscow
1992.
ll...Wa5
Black doesn't succeed in
equalizing with ll...<£ib6 12 £\D
±e7 13 b3 a5 14 &b5+ £)d7 15 0-0
&a6 16 £.xa6 2xa6 17 #d3±
Shirov-Korchnoi, Lucerne 1993.
A line deserving more attention is
ll...a5 12 &D £e7 13 Ad3 Wb6
14 ik.e3 .&a6, with quite good
chances of equality; Markovic-
Drasko, Cetinje 1992.
12i.d2
White can't evade the exchange
of light-squared bishops by 12 #d3,
in view of 12...Sb8! 13 £>f3 2b6°°.
12...Ae7?!
After 12...&a6!? 13 £sf3 Axfl 14
Sxfl JLe7, I think Black would
have good chances of attaining the
equality he longs for.
13 &f3 0-0 14 i.t>5! &b6
Orl4...a6?! 15&d3!±.
15b3±a6 16i.xa6#xa6
111 im*
11 ■ H±B±
"««- mt'STw^
H mtm
_ __ „ A % M
17 a5!
An important move. After 17 We2
Wxe2+ 18 <&xe2 a5! it would be
difficult for White to set his
opponent any real problems.
17...£)d7 18 #e2 £ib8!?
This may well be the best
defence. It isn't easy for Black to
hold the position after 18...1rxe2+
19 &xe2 2ac8 20 Shcl &b8 (on
20.. .f5, White carries out an
important regrouping with 21 £kl!
&b8 22 £kl3 £lc6 23 <&e3±,
confronting Black with formidable
problems) 21 g4 Sc6 22 f5 Sfc8 23
Sxc6 £lxc6 24 <&>d3±, with the
initiative on all parts of the board.

56 Steinitz Variation 3 £)a? *hf6 4 e5
19 <4>f2 Wxe2+ 20 <±>xe2 £sc6 21
Shcl Hfc8 22 Sa2 Sc7 23 Sac2
Hac8 24 a6!±
The initiative of course is with
White, but will this be sufficient for
victory?
24...<£>f8?!
Shirov brings his king across to
assist his other pieces, but he might
have had better chances of a
successful defence with 24....&d8!
25 f5 fobs 26 Sxc7 Sxc7 27 Sxc7
&xc7 ,.,»J:A thxa6±.
25 g4 <&e8?!
The least of the evils would be
25...f5!? 26 exf6 gxf6 27 f5 &d6!.
26 f5 <*d7 27 Af4l
Now the threat of f5-f6 hangs
over Black's head like the sword of
Damocles.
27...g5?!
Black creates a new weakness of
his own accord. He would be
virtually lost after 27...£la5 28
Sxc7+ Sxc7 29 Sxc7+ <&xc7 30 f6
£.f8 31 <£)g5±, yet the cautious
27...g6!? deserved more
consideration.
28 i.e3 b.6
Black is forced to defend
passively; he would lose with
28...exf5 29 gxf5 g4, on account of
30 e6+! fxe6 31 £se5+! &xe5 32
Sxc7+ Sxc7 33 fxe6+ *d8 34
Sxc7 &xc7 35 dxe5 +-.
29 f6 &f8 30 <4>d3
%m
Hm m
'tjjf//, '/\M*''. -Fl- '//////A A '■
'm, im wk £ r
30...&a5?
The final mistake, permitting
Anand to end the game in style.
Black should consider 30...Sb8!?,
when at least White can't play 31
£>xg5? hxg5 32 £xg5 Sb6 33 h4
Sxa6 34 h5 Sa3 35 Sb2 £sa5 36
Sxc7+ <&>xc7 37 &c2 Sal 38 i.cl
£lc6 -+.
31 Sxc7+ Sxc7 32 Sxc7+ <&>xc7
33 £sxg5!
A forced sacrifice, but
nonetheless pretty.
33...hxg5 34 i.xg5 £ixb3 35 h4
£ial
An equally hopeless prospect is
35...£)a5 36 &cl b3 37 g5 £>c4 38
h5! £a3 39 Axa3 £)xa3 40 &c3 +-.
36 &cl!
A final accurate move. After 36
h5?? b3 37 £cl Ah6!, it is Black
who wins.
36...<&b3 37 Ae3 £sa5 38 g5 £>c4
39 &cl 1-0
An imposing win by Vishy
Anand.

4: Steinitz Variation 3 £>c3 £>f6
4 e5 ^fd7 5 f4 c5 6 ^O
Game 6
Herrera - Nogueiras
Cuban Ch, Villa Clara 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>c3 "^f6 4 e5
£tfd7 5 f4 c5
6£lf3
A variation possessing historical
interest rather than anything else is
6 dxc5 £k6!? The play develops
quite favourably for White after
6...Axc5 7 Wg4 0-0 8 £>f3 &c6 9
Ad3 f5 10 Wh3±. 7 £}f3 i.xc5 8
±d3 f6!? Probably the simplest
solution; not 8...0-0? 9 itxh7+!?
*xh7 10 &g5+ <&>g6 11 Wd3+ with
an irresistible attack. However,
Black may have a reasonable
alternative to the text move in 8...a6,
for instance: 9 #e2 b5 10 Ad2 £)b6
11 £>dl £>c4 12 &c\ f5»
Safianovskij-Vaisser, Cappelle la
Grande 1993. 9 exf6 ^xf6 10 We2
0-0 11 &d2 e5!? Keres
recommends ll...£ki4 12 <£)xd4
i.xd4=. 12 fxe5 Se8 13 0-0-0 i.g4,
with a good game; Liublinsky-
Aronin, USSR Ch 1949.
6...£>c6
Aside from this move which
10-15 years ago was still being
played almost automatically, there
are two others that have become
highly popular, in top-level chess at
that: 6...Wb6 and, especially,
6...a6!?.
(A) 6...H>6
7 £la4 White gains little from 7
£e3 cxd4 (7...Wxb2?! 8 £fo5!t is
bad for Black) 8 ±xd4 (on 8 £ixd4,

58 Steinitz Variation 3 thc3 GafS 4 e5 fofdl 5f4 c5 6 thft
Black does well to play 8...£}c6,
transposing into the variation
6...£>c6 7 Ae3 cxd4 8 £ixd4 «b6;
whereas 8...1Brxb2? brings him close
to defeat after 9 &db5 Wb4 10
£>c7+ *d8 11 £d2!+) 8...£c5 9
£>a4 Wa5+ 10 c3 Axd4 11 £>xd4
£>c6 12 b4 #d8 13 Ad3 <£ib6=
Apicella-Dolmatov, Cannes open
1994. Instead, 7 a3 a6!? 8 ±e3
transposes into the line 6...a6 7 JLe3
«b6 8 a3. 7...Wc6 Or 7...#a5+ 8 c3
cxd4 9 b4 #c7 10 £>xd4±. 8 &xc5
On 8 c3?! b6!?, problems can arise
only for White. 8...£ixc5 9 dxc5
£xc5 10 &d3 H)6 11 c3 a5 12
#t>3 £k6 White's chances are
preferable after 12...#37?! 13 #c2!
h6 14 £>d4 £>c6 15 Ae3 £xd4 (not
15...£)xd4 16 cxd4 &xd4? 17 #a4+
+-) 16 cxd4 £ft4 17 Ab5+ Ad7 18
Axd7+ <&>xd7 19 #a4+T Beliavsky-
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1993. 13 #xb6
&xb6 14 <&>e2 &c5 15 i.d2!?
Black's game is simpler to play
after 15 Ae3 b6 16 £>d4 &d7=.
15...b6 16 Shbl &a6 17 £xa6
Hxa6 18 a4, with chances of a
minimal plus; Zelcic-Gleizerov,
Montecatini Terme open 1997.
(B) 6...a6!?
7 JLe3 It is White who has to
think about equalizing after 7 JLd3
£)c6 8 0-0 &xd4 9 £kd4 cxd4 10
£te2 £x5 11 a3 f6! 12 £>g3 0-0 13
#h5 f5? Jurkovic-Gleizerov, Turin
2000. He likewise gains no
particular dividends from 7 £te2
£lc6 (White's game is easy to play
in the event of 7...cxd4 8 £lexd4
£ic6 9 c3±) 8 c3 (8 g3!? cxd4 9
£tfxd4!?<*> deserves attention) 8...b5
9 a3 £)b6 10 £sg3, Dolmatov-
Dokutchaev, Novgorod 1999; and
now after 10...c4!?, Black would
have a sound position on the
kingside and quite good prospects
on the other wing. 7...1rb6 Black
has a harder time fighting for
equality with 7...b5 8 Wd2 (in
Kuijf-Gurevich, Bundesliga 1996,
White failed to gain an advantage
from 8 g3!? £e7 9 £te2 £sc6 10 c3
0-0 11 h4 b4 12 cxb4 £>xb4=)
8...J.b7!? (similar positions can also
arise from 8...£e7 9 &d3 g6 10 0-0
&b7 11 £>dl cxd4 12 &xd4 £>c5 13
b4!± Anand-Bareev, Linares 1993)
9 iLd3 b4 10 £>dl £>c6 (or 10...c4!?
11 i.e2 £sb6=c) 11 0-0 cxd4 12
£>xd4 JLe7 13 Sf3!, with some
initiative for White in Kamsky-
Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1992.
II §3 B£fl „
Of 4mWm.J&wmtL
VMk'%
ZxiZ
y zm.
m
WE.
m
ti i

Steinitz Variation 3 £>c3 *hf6 4 e5 Q\fd7 5 f4 c5 6 G)f3 59
At this point White has the
following options: -
(Bl) I'm not sure it's possible to
recommend 8 #d2?! #xb2 9 Sbl
Wa3 10 &e2 £sc6 11 0-0 The
pseudo-aggressive 11 f5?! merely
creates extra weaknesses in White's
own camp after ll...cxd4 12 &xd4
£>xd4 13 Axd4 Ac5 14 Sb3 #a5
15 fxe6 fxe6 16 i.h5+ g6 17 &g4
&xd4 18 ffxd4 &c5+ Voigt-
Gleizerov, Hamburg open 1995.
Il...cxd4 12 £ixd4 £sxd4 13 &xd4
&c5 14 <£>hl &xd4 15 #xd4 #c5
16 #d3 0-0? Barkhagen-Ulibin,
Goteborg 1999.
(B2) 8 Sbl!? Funnily enough, it
isn't at all simple for Black to obtain
satisfactory play against such an
unattractive-looking move. The
game Reefat bin Satter-Shulman,
Dhaka 1999, continued 8...£k6 9
lfd2 «fa7!? 10 &dl cxd4 11 &xd4
£>xd4 12 J.xd4 Ac5 13 c3±.
(B3) 8 a3!? £lc6
9 JLe2 Black has no problems in
the event of 9 £>a4 #a5+ 10 c3 c4
11 &e2 #c7 12 b4 cxb3 13 #xb3
&a5 14 #c2 ^c4oo Al Sayed-
Barua, Asian Ch, Doha 2003. Some
interesting complications result
from 9 dxc5!? £.xc5 10 £>a4 Wa5+
11 b4 #xa4 12 bxc5 0-0 (Black is
faced with no easy defensive task
after 12...d4?! 13 £ixd4 £>xc5 14
&e2 0-0 15 0-0; in this open
position it's hard for him to oppose
anything against the powerful
enemy bishop pair. The sharp
12...f6 is much more worthy of
attention, for instance 13 exf6 £ixf6
14 &d3 £)g4 15 £d2 e5 16 fxe5
0-0 17 0-0 ±f5! with interesting
prospects; Grischuk - Volkov,
Russian rapid Team Ch, Dagamys
2004) 13 c4 ^a5+ 14 Wd2 Sd8
(better than 14...1rxd2+ 15 *xd2 d4
16 £)xd4 £ia5 17 &c2! £lxc5 18
£ic6! £)xc6 19 &xc5 Sd8 20 £b6,
with an obvious endgame
advantage; Klimov-Kruppa, St
Petersburg 2000) 15 cxd5 (perhaps
it was worth trying 15 #xa5 5^xa5
16 cxd5 exd5 17 Sdl £rt>8!?,
although in that case Black would
have quite good play on the light
squares) 15...Wxd2+ 16 &xd2 exd5
17 Scl Se8!, with not bad counter-
chances; Kasparov - Radjabov,
Russia v. Rest of World, Moscow
2002. 9...Wa7!? Black prepares
b7-b5 while maintaining the
pressure against the key d4-pawn.
He can scarcely bid for complete
equality with 9...i.e7 10 JLf2!?
cxd4 11 £ixd4 £x5 12 £>a4 Wa5+
13 c3 &xd4 14 &xd4 £)xd4 15
Hrxd4± Nunn-Pedersen, Oxford
1998, or 9..T6?! 10 exf6! £>xf6 11
£ia4 #a5+ 12 Ad2 Wc7 13 dxc5
£te4 14 Jk.e3+. Another move quite
often seen is 9...cxd4 10 £>xd4 JLc5
11 £ia4 #a5+ 12 c3 £.xd4 13 &xd4

60 Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 fo/6 4 e5 fofd7 5/4 c5 6 fof3
£lxd4 14 #xd4 #c7!? (more
precise than 14...b6 15 Adl Hj5 16
b4 a5 17 £>b2t, when it will still
take Black a fair amount of time to
evacuate his queen from the danger
zone; Topalov - Korchnoi, Dos
Hermanas 1999) 15 b4 b6 16 0-0
0-0 17 <£ib2 £b7 18 c4!? Sfc8 19
Sacl a5!?, with fairly good
prospects of counterplay in
Miladinovic - Kacheishvili, Leon
2001.
±.HM|±K.
10 Wd2 In Timman - Radjabov,
Malmo 2001, Black easily
surmounted his opening difficulties
after 10 £la2 cxd4 11 £)xd4 Ac5 12
c3 0-0 13 b4 &b6 14 Ag4 £ixd4 15
cxd4 £>b8! 16 Wd2 £>c6 17 Sdl
jLdl 18 £>c3 foe7°°. Instead, the
cunning 10 JLf2!? deserves more
attention; then after e.g. 10...cxd4
11 0-0 b5 12 b4!, White's chances
are to be preferred. 10...cxd4 11
<£ixd4 JLc5 12 Sdl It is also worth
considering 12 0-0-0, for instance:
12...0-0 13 foaA &xd4 14 ±xd4
£ixd4 15 #xd4 b5 16 £)c3 #xd4
17 Hxd4 ±b7 18 Sel with a
minimal edge, Marjanovic-
Radjabov, Greek Team Ch,
Halkidiki 2002. 12...0-0 White
scarcely makes any genuine gains
with 13 b4 &xd4 14 £xd4 £>xd4 15
*xd4 !Fxd4 16 Sxd4 ^b6 17 a4,
Dobrowolski-Gleizerov, Barlinek
open 2001; and now 17...a5!?». 13
0-0 b5 14 JLf3 An interesting
alternative is 14 Sf3!? followed by
15 Sh3. 14...&b7 15 Wf2 £ixd4 16
&xd4 &xd4 17 Sxd4, Mitkov-
Bagirov, European Team Ch 1999;
at this point it was worth
considering 17...f6!?, when the
outlook is none too clear.
(B4)8£\a4!?
H4JL we i
± ^ ± ± i
+m it! «
8...1fa5+ The most popular
continuation, but other queen moves
also occur in practice, e.g. %..Mzl 9
dxc5 £)xc5 10 £>xc5 i.xc5 11 Wd2
fodl 12 &d3 m>6 13 &xc5 £)xc5,
Luther-Volkov, FIDE World Ch,
Moscow 2001; and now even after
White's best choice, 14 0-0-0 JLd7
15 £>d4 0-0 16 g4 £b5!? 17 Wb4
f6, the position isn't that simple to
evaluate. Alternatively, 8...Wc6 9
£ixc5 £)xc5 10 dxc5 i.xc5 11
Wd2!? (Yagupov-Ulibin, Russian
Ch, St Petersburg 1998, went 11
&xc5 Wxc5 12 #d2 £)c6 13 0-0-0
±dl 14 <4>bl 0-0-0!? 15 h4!? h5!?,
and White's advantage is little more

Steinitz Variation 3 Z&c3 ^hf6 4 e5 thfd7 5/4 c5 6 £&f3 61
than symbolic) ll...JLd7 12 0-0-0
(or 12 Ad3!?) 12...Axe3 13 #xe3
#a4 14 <&>bl £>c6 15 £d3 0-0-0! 16
c3 d4! 17 #e4 (or 17 £>xd4 £)xd4
18 cxd4 Ac6?*) 17...#a5! 18 £>xd4
£>xd4 19 #xd4 £.c6 20 #c4 <£>b8,
and Black has quite good
compensation for the pawn; Luther-
Piskov, Erfurt 1993. Personally,
though, I won't be surprised if
White's play is improved in the very
near future. 9 c3 cxd4 10 b4 Wc7
m* mUm*m*
1 ili I
/-\^j.f fjpi tzm vm.
fyjmm, %m &< H
H PI £3£4jM j
11 #xd4 More rarely White
chooses 11 Axd4, whereupon there
can follow: ll...£>c6 12 #d2 (in
Sedlak-Radjabov, European Under-
20 Ch, Aviles 2000, White's 12
&e3 was refuted by 12...b5 13 £ib2
£kxe5! 14 fxe5 *xc3+ 15 #d2
±xb4 16 <&>f2 Wxd2+ 17 £)xd2
£sxe5+) 12...b5 (or 12...a5!?) 13
£>b2 £sxd4 14 £>xd4 &b7 15 &d3
Sc8 16 £kil g5!, with play which
appears strange to my conservative
eye but is typical of this variation;
Berg - Kiriakov, Skelleftea open
2001. Il...£ic6 Two other lines that
deserve further tests are 11...b5
12 £lb2 f6 13 exf6 &xf6 14 a4 £ic6
15 1Td6 #xb6 16 &xb6 Sb8»
Ernst-Ulibin, Stockholm 2002, and
ll...a5!? 12 b5 b6 13 Jie2 £>c5 14
Scl £)bd7 15 0-0 £b7 16 #dl
&e7 17 £>d4 Miiller - Gurevich,
Bundesliga 2002; at this point
17...£>xa4 18 #xa4 £>c5 would
have given Black fair chances of
equalizing. 12 #d2 b5 Or
12...i.e7!?. 13<£ib2f6
HW & whSsm Mi
V Im'Btm m I
mtm
14 a4!? This is the very move on
which White pins his hopes. There
is unclear play after either 14 £sd4
£\xd4 15 cxd4 £sb6°° or 14 exf6
&xf6 15 Ad3 i.d6 16 0-0 0-0 17 a4
2b8£ Tirard-Kosten, Cap d'Agde
open 2003. 14...bxa4 White's
chances deserve preference in the
event of 14...2b8 15 axb5 axb5 16
£sd4!±. 15 exf6 Or 15 Sxa4 fxe5 16
b5 £kb8!°°. 15...£sxf6 16 £.d3 a5
17 Sxa4 It is worth considering 17
b5!?; then on 17...£fo4 White can
play 18 b6! with chances of
initiative. 17...£te4 18 JLxe4 dxe4
19 £>g5 Wb7 Or 19...£>xb4 20 cxb4
&xb4 21 Sxb4 axb4 22 0-0 IW 23
WD.1. We have been following the
game Wiersma-Barsov, Dieren open
1999; at this point, in my view, the
simple 20 bxa5! Sxa5 21 0-0 would
have secured White the better

62 Steinitz Variation 3 Z&c3 Z&f6 4 e5 t&fd7 5f4 c5 6 Zhf3
chances. Of course, long variations
like this should never be completely
trusted, but it would seem that
Black's prospects in this line are
none too appealing.
7±e3!?
A move introduced into practice
by Isaac Boleslavsky. White
bolsters the d4-point and prepares to
castle queenside, although in some
variations his king won't be at all
uncomfortably placed on the
kingside either. Black now has an
extremely wide choice of
continuations, one of which,
7...cxd4, will be analysed in the next
chapter.
Sometimes White plays 7 £)e2,
with the basic aim of avoiding long
theoretical variations. In reply,
Black can consider 7...b5!? White's
chances are slightly superior after
7...cxd4 8 £>exd4 £>c5 9 i.e3 9
±e7 10 c3 0-0 11 -&e2 £\xd4 12
&xd4 £ie4 13 0-0 £d7 14 &d3±
Ponomariov-Akopian, FIDE GP,
Moscow 2002. Theorists are more
inclined to favour 7...^6!?, which
White can answer with 8 c3; Black
can then choose between 8...f6!?
(transposing into C05 - see French
Defence 3 $Sd2) and 8...cxd4 9
&exd4 a5 10 Sbl £x5 11 £e3 f6
12 exf6 £>xf6 13 £d3 i.d7=
Hernandez-Rodriguez, Cali zt 2001.
8 a3 Or 8 &e3!?. 8..,Sb8 I don't
think Black should have anything to
worry about after 8...H>6 9 &e3
a5°° either. 9 &e3 With 9 c3, White
is merely helping his opponent to
create counterplay: 9.,.a5 10 dxc5
&xc5 11 £ted4 £>xd4 12 £>xd4
Ad7 13 Ad3 #h4+ 14 g3 &xd3+
15 #xd3 «Th3 16 b4 £e7=
Bologan-Glek, Mainz open 2002.
9...b4 10 axb4 Sxb4!? 11 b3 a5 It
is also worth considering
ll-Uri!?. 12 c3 Sb8 13 dxc5,
Yudasin-Glek, Tilburg 1994. Now
Black could have equalized with
13...£)xc5!? 14 £>ed4 £>xd4 15
£ixd4 &d7=.
7...a6!?
Black loses no time in preparing
queenside counterplay. Together
with 7...Wb6 (examined in the
context of the next game) and
7...cxd4 (see Chapter 5), the text
move is an object of intense
theoretical dispute. However, let's
see how play develops from the

Steinitz Variation 3 thc3 th/6 4 e5 $Sfd7 5/4 c5 6 fy3 63
alternative moves, some of which
have their own numerous
supporters:-
(A) 7...b6 8 i.b5!? The modest 8
JLe2!? is also worth recommending,
e.g. 8...i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 #d2
£klb8 (the play isn't so clear after
10...f6!? 11 exf6 £sxf6) 11 Hadl
4»h8 12 <&>hl Aa6 13 f5!? &xe2 14
^xe2± R.Ovetchkin-Morozevich,
Moscow open 1998. 8...£.b7 9 0-0
Ae7 Or 9...g6!?. 10 f5! 0-0 11
f6! gxf6 12 i.h6!t Gipslis-
Shereshevsky, USSR 1981.
(B) The fairly rare 7...Hb8 is of
interest; there can follow:
in iti + i&i t
mxm
I w, im
Wi W.
8 #d2 Wa5 9 dxc5 Black is all
right after 9 &e2 b5 10 0-0 b4 11
£kil cxd4 12 £>xd4 £>xd4 13 Axd4
Ac5 14 £>f2 &xd4 15 #xd4 *b6=.
9...i.xc5 10 £xc5 £ixc5 11 &b5
Black is the only one who can lay
claim to an initiative after 11 0-0-0
b5 12 <£d4 &xd4 13 #xd4 b4 14
£te2 Aa6! 15 sfebl %xA\.
ll..Jfxd2+ 12 &xd2 f6! 13 Sel
On 13 £)d6+ &e7 14 Sel £d7 15
.&d3 g5!?, it is already White who
needs to think about defence.
13...fxe5 14 fxe5 i.d7 15 i.d3
<4>e7, with
equalizing.
(C) 7...&e7
good chances of
wl -.
Sm&m MX m
This move has been incorporated
into Morozevich's repertoire for
Black. 8 dxc5!? White rarely does
without this move, although 8 JLe2
is also sometimes seen, eloquently
revealing White's wish to station his
king on the kingside; play may then
continue: 8...0-0 9 0-0 f6!? 10 exf6
£sxf6 11 £>e5 £>xd4 12 i.xd4 cxd4
13 #xd4 &d7= Urquhart-
Nogueiras, Montreal open 2002.
Nor does White gain much from 8
#d2 0-0 9 a3 b6!? 10 i.d3 f6 11
exf6 £«f6 12 Ab5 #c7 13 &xc6
#xc6 14 £te5 #e8= Macieja-
Morozevich, St Petersburg 1997.
8...£sxc5 Perhaps 8..JLxc5 isn't all
that bad, but at any rate it does
involve a loss of tempo. 9 Wd2
The game Ivanchuk-Morozevich,
Amsterdam 1996, continued
interestingly with 9 &e2 0-0 10 0-0 i.d7
(10...b6, aiming to exchange off the
light-squared bishops, deserves
attention) 11 a3 £e8!? 12 #el, and
now Black should have settled for
12...A5!? 13 b4 (or 13 exf6!? Sxf6,
intending &e8-g6±) 13...£)d7 14

64 Steinitz Variation 3 £}c3 *hf6 4 e5 Glfd7 5f4c5 6 Z&J3
&d4 <&xd4 15 &xd4 a5!?°°. 9...0-0
10 a3!? An interesting waiting
move. Alternatives that merit
attention are 10 0-0-0!? and 10
JLe2; in the latter case, there can
follow e.g. 10...b6!? 11 0-0 i.a6 12
JLxa6! £lxa6 13 f5!? with chances
of initiative. 10...b6 11 Ab5 &b7
12 0-0 Sc8 13 Sadl #c7 14 Wei
Sfd8 15 £.xc6 &xc6 16 &d4±
Kramnik-Morozevich, Monte Carlo
blind 2003.
i±H%H±R±
m.
?4& 4. ?M M
m m wa
m m m;
W; ?ZJ Zs£
H ifilla
8Wd2
White prepares to castle long. A
less convincing option is 8 dxc5
&xc5! Better than 8...£>xc5 9 &d3
&e7 10 £>d4± 9 AxcS £)xc5 10
Wd2, when Black has quite a good
choice between 10...b5 (transposing
to the main line) and the interesting
10...d4'.?.
Nor should Black be afraid of 8
a3 cxd4 Some unclear play also
arises from 8...b5 9 g3 &b7 10 &g2
£\b6 11 b3 c4 12 0-0 £e7» Murey-
Zifroni, Israeli Team Ch 1997. 9
&xd4 &c5 10 Wd2 On 10 g3,
Black can force a draw if he wants
one, by 10...Wb6 11 £la4 Wa5+ 12
£>c3 Wb6. 10...£ixd4 11 &xd4
Axd4 12 #xd4 10)6 13 0-0-0 Or
13 #xb6 £)xb6 14 &d3 &d7 15
£>e2 f6!=. 13...#xd4 14 Hxd4 b6
15 g3 £b7 16 Ag2 Sc8 17 Shdl
Sc7 18 £>e2 h5= Murey-Komarov,
Montauban 2000.
8...b5
'%
iBAjmi m
mrmm±m±
ytMdidfl
i±tt±i! ■
—" ii' m ■
H m MiUIl
The cunning 8...b6!? is also
occasionally played. It seems to me
that White should reply with the
modest 9 Ae2!? In Saulin-
Sumaneev, Russian Ch, Elista 1995,
obscure complications were
unleashed by 9 0-0-0 &e7 10 h4
c4!? 11 f5!? b5 12 fxe6 fxe6 13
&g5!? £>f8 14 Wf2 J.xg5 15 ±xg5
#a5?*. 9...Wc7 10 0-0 Ae7 11 sfchl
0-0, Zelcic-Kovacevic, Salona 2002.
At this point it was worth
considering 12 £}dl!? followed by
c2-c3, with a small but stable
advantage.
9dxc5
White finally decides to relieve
the tension in the centre. The
following variations are also
employed (with varying degrees of
success!) in his bid for the initiative:
(A) 9 £se2 £b7 White has the
more substantial threats after 9...c4

Steinitz Variation 3 £>a? Zhf6 4 e5 %Sfd7 5/4 c5 6 Q\f3 65
10 g3 £)b6 11 Ag2 b4 12 b3 £>a7
13 0-0 £A5 14 g4 &e7 15 £>g3T
Baches Garcia - Moskalenko,
Badalona 2003. 10 g3 cxd4 11
£sexd4 £ic5 12 £ixc6 Axc6 13
&d4 £ie4 14 #d3 &b7=
Vokler-Vaganian, Bundesiiga 1997.
(B) 9 h4
9...b4!? I don't think Black
should be in a hurry to exchange on
d4, but a move deserving more
attention is 9...j&.b7!?, when play
may continue: 10 h5 (or 10 dxc5
£>xc5! 11 WE2 £)e4 12 £>xe4 dxe4
13 £>g5 £>b4T) 10...£e7!? 11 dxc5
<&xc5 12 £d3 fic8 13 &xc5 £xc5
14 f5 £tt>4!, with an excellent game;
Kasparov-Bareev, Dortmund 1992.
10 Qx2 The alternative knight move
10 £>a4 is met by 10...cxd4 11
&xd4 £b7 12 b3 #a5, and White
can't even dream about an
advantage. 10..JLe7!? Black
already has a good choice of moves;
he may also consider 10...a5!? 11 g4
Wb6 12 f5 cxd4 13 £xd4 &c5 14
0-0-0 a4£ Neelotpal-Reefat, Dhaka
2003. 11 dxc5!? More convincing
than 11 g3 0-0 12 Ah3 a5 13 dxc5
£}xc5 14 <£ted4 £>e4!, when Black
had his full share of the play in
Fedorov - Volkov, Russia 1998.
Il...£ixc5 12 £\g3 h5 A
prophylactic move; Black doesn't
want an enemy knight on h5. 13
Ae2 g6 14 0-0 £>a4 15 c3 bxc3 16
bxc3 #a5 with unclear play, though
Black mustn't on any account
underestimate his opponent's
possibilities on the kingside;
Anand-Morozevich, Monte Carlo
2004.
(C)9a3!?
iff £ •&&> (B ~ii
9....&b7 The famous game
Kasparov-Radjabov, Linares 2003,
saw the interesting 9...Wb6 10
£te2!? (10 g3 doesn't look too
convinicing: 10...cxd4 11 £}xd4
£c5 12 £)ce2 a5! 13 &g2 &a6,
with excellent counterplay) 10...c4
(10...^.b7!?«>, on the analogy of the
main line, was worth considering;
all the same, I would prefer to play
the white pieces after e.g. 11 dxc5
£.xc5 12 £)ed4 &xd4 13 &xd4
#c7 14 b4! Voitsekhovsky-
Eraschenkov, Voronezh open 2003)
11 g4 (or 11 g3!?) Il...h5 12 gxh5
2xh5 13 <&g3 2h8 14 f5!? (or 14
h.4!?) 14...exf5 15 £>xf5 £>f6!, with
unclear complications. White
preserves a small but stable plus

66 Steinitz Variation 3 Zhc3 Z&f6 4 e5 £&fd7 5 f4 c5 6 G)fi
after 9...cxd4 10 £*xd4 £>xd4 11
&xd4 £>b8 12 &d3 £>c6 13 £.f2
&d7 14 0-0 &e7 15 £te2±
Kramnik-Bischoff, Germany v.
Kramnik, Brissago 2004. 10 Ad3
With 10 Wf2?!, White allows the
highly unpleasant 10...#a5! 11 Sa2
Wb6 12 £)e2 b4?. Black also has a
satisfactory game after 10 ^.e2
Sc8!? 11 £>dl (or 11 0-0 *b6=)
ll...cxd4 12 £lxd4 i.c5 13 c3 £)a5!
14 *c2 £)c6!? 15 Wd3 g5!?*
Topalov - Shirov, Wijk aan Zee
1999. 10...«b6 11 Wf2
ll...c4!? This leads to a more
complex game than ll...Sc8 12 0-0
cxd4 (similar positions arise from
12...g6 13 dxc5 &xc5 14 &xc5
Wxc5 15 £te2 #xf2+ 16 <&xf2 £>c5
17 £ted4 <&e7 18 <&e3, with the
better endgame prospects; Potkin-
Volkov, European Ch, Istanbul
2003) 13 £sxd4 £ixd4 14 Axd4
#xd4!? 15 Wxd4 £x5 16 £)e2 <4>e7
17 c3 £>b6 18 b3± Van den Doel-
Glek, Sonnevanck 1995. Nor,
incidentally, is Black relieved of his
problems by ll...cxd4 12 £>xd4
£>xd4 13 £.xd4 Ac5 14 £>e2!± 12
&e2 &e7 13 0-0 h5 14 Wei £>f5 15
JLf2 JLe7, with a difficult position
to assess; Luther - Volkov, World
Ch, Moscow 2001.
(D) 9 Jtd3 b4 The interesting
9...Wb6!?10 Wf2 will be examined
under a different move-order: 9 Wf2
Wb6 10 &d3. 10 £idl c4!? 11 &e2
&b6 Or ll...h5 12 0-0 i.e7 13 a3!?
Hb8 14 axb4 &xb4 15 c3 &e7 16
£}g5± Shirov-Glek, Bundesliga
1995. 12 0-0 &e7 13 &f2 g6 14
£)e3 a5°o Stripunsky-Dreev, Rostov
open 1993.
(E) 9 &e2
9...JLe7 There is tense, unclear
play following 9...&b7 10 0-0 b4 11
4&dl Sc8 12 &V. 11360C
Yagupov-Volkov, St Petersburg
1998. Another line that occurs quite
often is 9...b4 10 £>dl (10 £ia4!?
deserves attention) 10...Wb6 11 0-0
a5 (Black faces no easy struggle for
the draw after ll...cxd4 12 £>xd4
&xd4 13 JLxd4 Wxd4+ 14 Wxd4
ix5 15 c3 bxc3 16 bxc3 *e7!? 17
Sbl a5 18 £>f2 &xd4 19 cxd4 &a6
20 &xa6 Sxa6 21 Sfcl±
Paschall-Kiriakov, Isle of Man open
1999) 12 c4 £)xd4 13 £lxd4 cxd4
14 i.xd4 &c5 15 &xc5 Wxc5+,
with about equal chances; Docx-

Steinitz Variation 3 foe 3 fof6 4 e5 fofdl 5f4 c5 6 foJ3 67
Gurevich, Belgian Team Ch 1996.
10 0-0 0-0 11 £idl A standard
manoeuvre; White aims to bolster
his centre with c2-c3. Black has
nothing to worry about in the event
of 11 <4>hl b4!? 12 £ia4!? cxd4 13
£>xd4 £>xd4 14 Axd4 £b7 15 f5!?
exf5 16 Sxf5 &c6= Nijboer-
Gurevich, Amsterdam open 2000.
11 ...cxd4 On 11.. .b4 12 £rf2 a5, it is
worth considering 13 c4!?. 12 fox&A
fox&4 13 £xd4 b4!? 14 <&>hl Or 14
f5!? f6!? 15 exf6 £>xf6 16 fxe6
&xe6=. 14...a5 15 #e3 &a6, with
good chances of equality; David-
Zifroni, Tel-Aviv 1997.
(F)9#f2!?
mXmXm mm
l§ m m m
£0±M " Hill
iPi iif >w Q HI n
9...#b6 Black also has a number
of interesting possibilities after
9...b4!? 10 £>dl Wb6 11 &d3 cxd4
(it is also worth considering
ll...a5!? 12 0-0 i.a6 13 &xa6
Sxa6oo) 12 £ixd4 £sxd4!? (on
12....&c5, Black has to reckon with
13 £lO!?°°) 13 £xd4 &c5 14 ±xc5
£)xc5!? 15 0-0 2b8 16 £>e3 0-0,
with unclear play in Fedorov-
Volkov, Krasnodar open 1998. 10
JLd3 cxd4 White has the initiative
in the event of 10...±b7 11 0-0 c4
12 i.e2 f5 13 exf6 £)xf6 14 £ig5!
£le7 15 a4T Sharapov-Vysochin,
Polanica Zdroj 2000. 11 £)xd4 &c5
Or ll...£ixd4 12 &xd4 &c5 13
fodl i.xd4 14 £>xd4 £)c5 15 0-0
0-0, Kruppa-Savchenko, Minsk
1996; and now 16 &b3!? &a4 17
#xb6 £)xb6 18 £>d4! would have
guaranteed White a small but stable
plus. 12 <Ske2 f6!? If Black wants,
he can give the game a different
character with 12...b4 13 0-0 a5 14
c3 JLa6 15 JLxa6 2xa6<*> Mitkov-
Kastanieda, Istanbul ol 2000. 13
exf6 Here 13 £lxc6!? £xe3 14 Wg3
looks tempting, but then 14...jk.c5!?
15 #xg7 2f8 leads to unclear play.
13...SM6 14 c3 Or 14 h3 0-0 15
0-0-0 e5!. 14...e5 15 fxe5 £\xe5*>
and Black's chances are not at all
worse; M.Rytschagov - Barsov,
Dieren open 1997.
1 ■*■!»!
± ■*■!»» *
9...&xc5!?
In this kind of position an
exchange of dark-squared bishops is
usually quite welcome to White, but
here we are dealing with a special
case. The white bishop is potentially
more active than its black
counterpart; in addition it acts as the
chief defender of the d4-square, the

68 Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 £hf6 4 e5 *hfd7 5/4 c5 6 Zh/3
importance of which has been
revealed time and again.
Now and then Black chooses the
interesting alternative 9...b4!?,
when play may continue: 10 £)a4
Black is close to equality in the
event of 10 £le2 £xc5 11 &xc5
£ixc5 12 £ted4 <&xd4 13 #xd4
Wb6 14 &d3 Sb8 15 0-0 a5=
Palkovi-Vaisser, Hilversum 1993.
10...#a5 11 £sb6
ll...£)xb6 Unclear play results
from ll...Sb8 12 £>xd7 &xd7 13
Ad3 (or 13 a4!?) 13..-&xc5! 14
Axc5 #xc5 15 &xa6 0-0 16 #f2
#xf2+ 17 &xf2 f6 18 Shel g5!,
with compensation for the pawn;
Ziatdinov-Miljanic, Niksic 1991. 12
cxb6 &c5 13 &xc5 #xc5 14 #f2
Or 14 0-0-0 #xb6 15 h4 h5 (Black
can consider 15...a5!?, intending
&c8-a6) 16 Sh3!? a5 17 *bl,
Magem Badals-Vaisser, Escaldes zt
1998; now after 17...g6!?, Black's
position would be very difficult to
breach. 14...1fxf2+ 15 &xf2 Sb8 16
lA,e3 The game is level after 16 a3
3xb6 17 axb4 Sxb4. 16...2xb6 17
£>d4 &d7 18 .&d3 4>e7 19 Shfl
&xd4 20 "4>xd4 Sc8= and it isn't
clear how White can improve his
position; Fedorowicz-Vaisser, New
York open 1998.
10 £xc5 £sxc5
n#f2!?
In our day it is only on this move
that White pins his hopes of an
advantage. Black has an easy game
in the event of 11 £.d3 b4 12 &e2
«Tb6 13 £ied4 Or 13 0-0-0 a5 14
£)ed4 £>xd4 15 £)xd4 0-0 16 *bl
a4 17 We3 Aa6 18 &xa6 2xa6,
with initiative for Black; Chandler-
Andersson, Haninge 1988.
I3...£ixd4 14 <&xd4 a5 15 Wte3 The
verdict on the position is the same
after 15 &b5+ &d7 16 Axd7+
£lxd7 17 0-0 0-0=. 15...0-0 16 0-0
&a6 17 g4 £te4 18 Sael f6!=
Nunn-Korchnoi, Amsterdam 1988.
Il...tfb6!?
Black fails to equalize with the
alternative queen development
ll...lre7, for instance: 12 &d3 b4
Or 12...£)b4 13 Sdl £>bxd3+ 14
cxd3 b4 15 £>e2 a5 16 £)ed4 &a6
17 #e3± Danin-Chebotarev,
Russian Under-20 Ch, Vladimir
2002. 13 £ie2 a5 14 0-0 &a6 15
#e3±. At this point the careless
15...0-0? led to disaster for Black in

Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 Zhf6 4 e5 Zhfd7 5f4 c5 6 Q)f3 69
Svidler-Renner, Bundesliga 2001:
16 &xh7+! &xh7 17 <£ig5+ <£>g6 18
f5+ +-.
«JEL
murs^m
H
±m*m±m '*
t 1 i I i
12&d3
Black gradually discovered how
to deal with the amusing 12 b4!?.
He continues with 12...£kl7!? It is
also worth considering 12...^xb4!?
13 Sbl d4!? (in Feletar-Kovacevic,
Croatian Ch 2000, Black played the
weaker 13...£>c6 14 .&xb5 £d7 15
0-0 #a7 16 i.xc6 &xc6 17 £id4!±)
14 <£xb5 (or 14 £)xd4?! #a5!)
14...axb5 15 2xb4 £d7 16 £lxd4
Sxa2 17 &b3! £ia4 18 #xb6 £)xb6
19 &xb5 Sxc2=. 13 Sbl I don't
think Black has any difficulties in
the event of 13 a4 <£>xb4 14 axb5
#c7 15 #d2 #c5!, or 13 Wxb6
<£ixb6 14 a4 £)xb4 15 £>d4! &d7!
16 axb5 axb5 17 Sxa8+ £ixa8 18
^.xb5 <2k7 with very good
equalizing chances; Luther-Baklan,
Boblingen open 2003. 13...WC7
Similarly after 13...!fxf2+ 14 £>xf2
4^b6 15 Ad3 Ad7, White merely
has a nominal plus. 14 £te2,
Vazquez-Foisor, Pobla de Lillet
2002; and now 14...f6! 15 <£ed4
£kd4 16 £>xd4 fxe6 17 £ixe6
#c3+ «.
12...b4
Black has a robust but passive
position after 12...Sb8 13 0-0
^\«Mm
■±n±
mm
M, »
13...^b4 Another move seen in
practice is 13...£ia4, with the
possible continuation 14 £*xa4 bxa4
15 b3! 0-0 (or 15...*e7 16 Sfbl! a3
17 c3 Wxf2+ 18 *xf2 a5 19 <&>e3±
Videki-Moskalenko, Balatonbereny
open 1994) 16Sfdl (here again, 16
Sfbl!? was worth considering)
16...h6 17 #xb6 5xb6 18 *f2 &d7
19 &e3 Sc8 Lutz-Eingorn,
Bundesliga 1998; and now 20
bxa4!? would have promised White
a small endgame advantage. 14
Sfdl It's desirable for White to
keep his queen's rook on the a-file.
After 14 Sadl £>a4 15 £ka4 bxa4
16 *xb6 Sxb6 17 Sf2 *e7 18 £id4
JLd7, the game levels out;
Sznapik-Korchnoi, European Team
Ch, Haifa 1989. 14...£)a4!? Black
has passive defence ahead of him in
the case of 14...0-0?! 15 £)e2! kdTI
16 &ed4f. 15 £\xa4 bxa4 16 b3!?
White also preserves a minimal
edge after 16 &fl #xf2+ 17 *xf2,
when 17...<&xc2? fails to 18 Sacl
£)b4 19 a3 £)a2 20 Sc2! +-.
16...axb3 17 axb3 &d7 18 #xb6

70 Steinitz Variation 3 Ghc3 Zhf6 4 e5 Q)fd7 5f4 c5 6 Chf3
2xb6 19 £>d4± Bareev-King,
Hastings 1990; with accurate play
Black may perhaps succeed in
drawing, but that result is of course
the most he can dream of.
13 £ie2 a5 14 0-0 &a6
iff + ':+f *
lei' n Mb®
15<&>hl
A good prophylactic move; White
is preparing to use his queen for
active operations on the kingside.
He achieves little with 15 Sadl
£>a4! 16 #xb6 £)xb6 17 b3 &e7°°,
or with 15 Sfdl &a4 16 b3 (16
#xb6>? £\xb6 17 b3, intending 18
a3, is worth thinking about)
16...1rxf2+ 17 *xf2 £k5 18 £)ed4
£sxd4 19 £>xd4 <&>d7= Bocharov-
Gleizerov, Tomsk open 1998. And
finally, unclear play results from 15
b3 0-0 16 *hl Eft>8! 17 Sadl
(Black defends successfully after 17
&xh7+?! *>xh7 18 #h4+ <£>g8 19
£)g5 £>e4!) 17...£te4 18 #h4 h6!?»
Lautier-Glek, Biel 1996.
15...£se7!?
An excellent idea; the knight
intends to shield the monarch!
Black has less success with 15...Sb8
16 &xa6 £)xa6 17 iTg3 g6 18 #h4±
or 15...h6 16 f5!? exf5 17 £if4 £te7
18 Sael #c7 19 e6t Arakhamia-
Voiska, Azov 1990. A line
deserving more attention is
15...JLxd3 16 cxd3 Sb8, when there
can follow: 17 Sadl!? (Black has
everything in order after 17 f5?
exf5! 18 £)f4 £te6!) 17...0-0 18
#h4 f6!? 19 £>g3± Mokry-Bruk,
Haifa 1989.
E
M ^ ?5mP
y 3, MNi &
m ■ mm
mm X mm mm\
m mm
?M mW f& W
m H m m
%
• "■"A'PAi
rvi? mm mm~ ?2? M^, -
'D? ?mm mm D mm
i=^i mW, W2>, t±. mM,
16 Sfdl
Herrera defends his bishop
without abandoning the idea of
using his other rook on the a-file for
counterplay on the queenside.
The following also occur:
(A) 16 b3 h6 17 Sadl Black has
pleasant prospects in the event of 17
£lg3 g6 18 #d2 £if5! 19 &xf5
gxf5°°. 17...Sc8!? 18 £lg3!? g6 19
^e2!? Wb7 20 £tfd4 Or 20 Wh.4
£)xd3 21 cxd3 Sc2 22 £>ed4 Sxa2
23 Wf6 0-0 24 Wh4 *g7=.
20...£te4, and Black has nothing to
worry about; Lutz-Zifroni, Tel-Aviv
1999.
(B) 16 £)g3 &a4!? Practice has
also seen 16...g6 17 £>e2 Sb8 (or
17...&a4 18 #xb6 £>xb6 19 £led4
0-0 20 i.xa6! Sxa6 21 a3±) 18
Axa6 £)xa6 19 £ied4 £>c6 20 £)xc6

Steinitz Variation 3 £lcJ Zhf6 4 e5 <hfd7 5/4 c5 6 ty3 71
#xc6 21 £)d4 Wb6 22 g4 £>c5?*
Cladouras - Naiditsch, Budapest
1998. 17 #xb6 It's too risky to play
17 £>d4?! £)xb2!. 17...£ixb6 18
£sd4 g6 19 £xa6 2xa6 20 a3
bxa3!? 21 Sxa3 &dl$ Votava-
Glek,Bundesligal997
(C) There are obscure
complications following 16 Bad!?
Sc8 17 f5I? exf5 18 £)h4 g6 19 g4
d4! 20 £.xa6 Wxa6 21 gxf5 &e4 22
Wg2 ^d2« Elburg-Rydholm, corr
1994.
(D) 16 Sadl £\a4 17 Wxb6
£ixb6 18 b3!? White takes control
of the important a4-square. Black's
chances are not at all inferior after
18 £ted4 £>a4! 19 Sbl £>c5! 20
Sfdl 0-0 21 <&>gl a4 22 *f2 2fb8<*>
Vehi Bach-Glek, Biel open 1997.
18...a4! It is also worth considering
18...£)d7!? 19 *gl £sc5=. On the
other hand after 18...0-0 19 &xa6!
Sxa6 20 a3!, White can lay claim to
a small plus. 19 £sfd4 0-0=.
16...h6!?
At this moment Black should not
hasten to exchange queens:
16...£la4?! 17 Wxb6 &xb6 18 b3,
aiming fora2-a3!±.
17 £>ed4
Or 17 £lg3 £)a4!? (it's never easy
to tell when this move is good, and
when it leads to an endgame
advantage for White. Black may
have quite a good alternative in
17...g6!? 18 £>e2 h5, for example:
19 £>ed4 £>a4 20 Sabl &xd3 21
cxd3 Sc8 22 Sd2 Sc7 23 Sel
■4>d7!= Rowson-Barsov, York 1999)
18 #xb6 &xb6 19 &xa6 2xa6 20
a3 bxa3 21 Sxa3 (the verdict on the
position is the same after 21 b3 <&>d7
22 Sxa3 Sc8) 21...£>c4?* Solleveld-
Glek, Bundesliga 2003.
17...0-0 18 #e3
In the event of 18 #h4 2a7 19 g4
£ig6 20 Axg6 fxg6, Black's
position already deserves
preference; Mainka-Glek,
Recklinghausen 1995.
18...£>e4!?
It seems to me that Black has
coped successfully with his opening
problems.
19 g4
Instead 19 ^.xe4 dxe4 20 #xe4
&b7 21 Wei Sac8 promises Black
good compensation for the pawn.
19...£k6 20 Sgl f6 21 exf6 Sxf6
The play has become extremely
sharp. Both kings are feeling the
acute and not exactly friendly
attention of the enemy pieces.
22 Sael
The aggressive try 22 g5!? hxg5
23 Sxg5 is fittingly repulsed by
23...£>xg5! 24fxg5&xd3!
25 cxd3 (or 25 gxf6 £.e4+)
25...Hg6 26 £>h4 Wxd4 27 #xd4
£>xd4 28 £sxg6 &h7?.

72 Steinitz Variation 3 £lc5 Z&f6 4 e5 (hfd7 5f4 c5 6 faf3
22...£ixd4 23 &xd4 2af8 24
£xe4
Similarly, 24 f5 exf5 25 gxf5
JLc8! is not unfavourable to Black.
24...dxe4 25 g5 hxg5 26 Sxg5
28f7 27 Segl
It was worth considering 27
Se5!?.
27...Ab7 28 Slg4 Sd7
It has gradually become obvious
that the initiative is in Black's
hands. He keeps it until the end of
the game.
29 c3
White has a hard time defending
an inferior endgame after 29 Sb5
Wxd4 30 #xd4 Sxd4 31 Sxb7
2f7+.
29...bxc3 30 bxc3 Wbl+ 31 2gl
#d3 32 Sel &d5 33 #xd3?!
White's nerves have simply not
held out. The cool 33 a4+ would
have left him with more in the way
of saving chances.
33...exd3+ -+ 34 <&gl Sxf4 35
Sdl Sdf7 36 h3 &c4 37 2xa5
sn+ o-i
The impression is that in the
popular variation with 9 dxc5 the
dangers awaiting Black are not all
that great, and that White would do
well to look more closely at the
alternatives.
Game 7
Yudasin - Palatnik
Kiev 1987
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)c3 £tf6 4 e5
£ifd7 5 f4 c5 6 £>f3 £>c6 7 &e3
#b6!?
Over a long stretch of time this
was considered the main line, but in
the last few years the move has lost
some of its popularity.
8£ia4
Black's simplest answer to 8 a3 is
8...cxd4 9 £\xd4, transposing into
the variation 7...cxd4 8 £lxd4 1^6
9 a3 which isn't too dangerous for
him. On the other hand after 8 l'd2
#xb2 9 Sbl #a3 10 Ab5 a6 11
Aa4 c4, I'm not at all convinced
that White has enough
compensation for the pawn; Burovic-

Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 thf6 4 e5 Zhfd7 5f4 c5 6 Z&J3 73
Danielian, Yugoslavia -
Leningrad 1991.
8...#a5+ 9 c3
USSR,
M±BftH*H±
m inn ■
i s p&f »
I @f iii H
9...cxd4
Black played this way for
decades, but it seems to me that he
does better with the alternatives.
The rare but quite interesting
9...b6 has begun to enjoy a certain
popularity. There can follow: 10
&d2 c4 11 b4 £ixb4!? The quiet
ll...Wa6 is also worth considering,
e.g. 12 Ae2 Ae7 13 0-0 fS 14 g4
fxg4 15 £>g5 £lf8» L.Gofstein-
Zifroni, Tel-Aviv 1995. 12 cxb4
jfc.xb4 13 #c2 Similar positions
arise from 13 Scl Axd2+ 14 £>xd2
b5 15 £sc3 b4 16 £>xd5!? (or 16
#a4 #xa4 17 £>xa4 ±b75)
16...1^5 (if 16...exd5, then 17
£xc4 dxc4 18 £>xc4T) 17 £kc4
0-0 18 £.e2 #xg2!! 19 &f3 Wh3 20
&xa8 #h4+ 21 *d2 Wxf4+, with
unclear complications; Nijboer-
Visser, Hoogeveen open 2002.
13...&xd2+ 14 £ixd2 b5 15 £k3 In
the event of 15 £k5 £>xc5 16 dxc5
jfc.d7!, Black can look to the future
with optimism. 15...b4 16 £ice4!
More convincing than 16 #a4 Wb6,
with some compensation for the
sacrificed piece. However, the
simple 16 £)dl may serve as an
excellent alternative to the text
move; Luther - Cremers, Bad
Zwesten open 2004, continued
16...«b6 17 £>fi 0-0 18 &e2 f6 19
exf6 Hxf6 20 g3 £>b8 21 £)f2±
16...0-0 17 &g5 g6 18 Sbl f6,
Shtyrenkov - Dyachkov, Alushta
2003; and now in my view, 19 exf6
fixf6 20 g3 would have led to the
better game for White.
A completely different, closed
type of game results from 9...c4!?
10 b4
m ■in.,■
mm, m.
lQ...Wcl Not 10...cxb3 11 axb3
b5 12 £ic5 #xc3+?, which loses to
13 &d2 Wb2 14 £>d3 +-. A line
more worthy of attention is
10...£>xb4 11 cxb4 &xb4+ 12 *f2
b5 13 £lb2 £c3 14 #c2 b4 15 £e2
£}b6=° Wittmann-Roth, Austrian
Team Ch 1988. 11 i.e2 There is
hardly any danger to Black in 11
£ib2 b5 (stronger than ll..J&.e7 12
a4!? 0-0 13 k.e.2 Sb8 14 0-0 f5!? 15
Wei a6 16 *hl b5 17 a5, and
having completely closed the
queenside, White is ready for active
operations on the other wing;

74 Steinitz Variation 3 Z&c3 tyti 4 e5 fofd7 5f4 c5 6 &/3
Ivanchuk-Bareev, Dubai 2002) 12
a4 Sb8 13 axb5 Sxb5 14 #a4 a6!?,
with unclear play. In answer to 11
£k5, Black can choose between
ll...£)xc5!? 12 dxc5 b6!°o and
ll...i.e7 12 £ixd7 &xd7 13 a4
0-0-0 14 g3 f5!= Khalifman-
Vaganian, Moscow 1990. Finally,
Black has more difficulty in the case
of 11 g3 M-tl (the play is similar
after ll...b5 12 £ic5 a5 13 a3 axb4
14 axb4 Sxal 15 fxal, with
chances of a minimal edge) 12 Ah3
b5 13 £>c5 a5 14 a3 £>xc5 15 dxc5
0-0 16 &d4 Wbl 17 0-0 &d7,
Luther-Atalik, Budapest 1991; the
right evaluation of this position is
somewhere between ± and =.
Il...^.e7
12 0-0 The chances are about
even after 12 g4 b5 13 £lc5 a5 14
a3 0-0 15 0-0 axb4 16 axb4 Sxal
17 #xal £kc5 18 dxc5 f6!=
Kamsky-Bareev, Madrid 1994.
There is unclear play following 12
a3 f5 13 Sgl!? (this very possibility
constitutes White's idea) 13...£\d8
14 g4 fxg4 15 Sxg4 g6 16 Af2 £lf7
17 M4 £lf8 18 i.xe7 #xe7, with
chances for both sides; Lutz -
Vallejo Pons, Pamplona open 1996.
12...f5!? Black starts constructing
fortifications for the defence of his
kingside. He has a passive but
sturdy position after 12...b5 13 £sc5
(or 13 £>b2 a5 14 a3 axb4 15 axb4
Sxal 16 Wxal £>b6«> Blatny-
Vaganian, Haifa 1989) 13...a5 14 a3
£ixc5 15 dxc5 0-0 16 £>d4 £ixd4 17
^.xd4 .&d7, when White has great
difficulty in obtaining any real
advantage; Anand-Dreev, Biel izt
1993. The move 12...0-0 has
virtually no independent
significance, since afterwards Black will
still have to choose between plans
based on f7-f5 or b7-b5. 13 &f2!?
Black's chances are no worse in the
event of 13 £)c5 £tf8! 14 #a4 b6
15 £ia6 #d7 16 Adl &g6= Short-
Bareev, Novgorod 1994. Another
line that suits him is 13 g4 fxg4 (or
13...0-0!? 14 gxf5 Sxf5) 14 £>g5
£>f8 15 £xg4 h6 16 £)h3 b6!?, with
a difficult position to assess;
Jonsson-Savchenko, Lloyds Bank
1994. 13...b6!? 14 £)b2 £>ffi,
Anand-Bareev, Linares 1994. At
this point it was worth considering
15 a4!?, with chances of a small
plus.
10 b4!

Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 Zh/6 4 e5 Chfd7 5/4 c5 6 £>/? 75
10...&xb4!?
This bold sacrifice is practically
forced, since Black can't be happy
with 10...#c7 11 £>xd4 a6 12 #d2
b5 13 £ib2 £lb6 14 a4 £)c4 15
£>xc4 bxc4 16 £)xc6 #xc6 17 id4,
leaving him in an extremely passive
position; Malisauskas-Sarakauskas,
Lithuanian Ch, Vilnius 2004.
11 cxb4 &xb4+ 12 &d2 Axd2+
13 &xd2
B m&Wmm m
■11
\m m m m
13...b6>?
Black intends to offer a knight
exchange on c5. The sharp 13...g5
began by spreading confusion
among supporters of the White side
of this line, but afterwards they
managed to find a strong
continuation: 14 Sbl! More
convincing than 14 £rt>2 gxf4 15
£kl3 b6 16 *f2 Aa6 17 £>f3 Sc8!
18 £)xf4 £k5?* Anand-Dreev,
Madras 1991. 14...gxf4 15 ±b5!
Sb8 16 £ic5 Wc3 17 <&d3 a6 18
Scl #a3 19 *b3!, with a large plus
for White in Short-Timman,
Amsterdam 1994.
14 Hj3!?
With the rather transparent
intention of 15 #b5!. White also
employs the following continuations
in his struggle for an advantage:
zM&J^Z
H
m
\±hm
mm m
« W* ft&i W.
^ 'm W, #
* 'WZb W% IP * Wb
(A) 14 Sbl £a6 15 &xa6 Or 15
Wb3 Sc8 16 a3 Axfl 17 Sxfl Sc4,
with mutual chances in Bronstein-
Portisch, Amsterdam izt 1964.
lS...!^ 16 Scl 0-0 17 Sc7 Sfc8!
18 Sxd7 #d3?* Felsberger-Lalic,
Oberwart 1986.
(B) 14 Wc2 i.b7 An immediate
14...ia6!? is also possible. 15 #c7
Aa6 An interesting alternative is
15...1rxa4 16 #xb7 0-0, for
instance 17 #36 10)4 18 Sbl #c3
19 #d3 £ic5°°. 16 £xa6 #xa6 17
#c6 Sc8 18 £k5! Sxc6 19 &xa6
g5!?4 Timman-Yusupov, Tilburg
1986.
(C) 14 <&f2 &a6 It is also worth
considering 14...0-0!? 15 £>f3 £lc5
16 £>b2 (16 £)xc5!?) 16...£te4+ 17
<£>gl &a6 18 Axa6 #xa6?>
Tseshkovsky-Dolmatov, USSR Ch
1986. 15 ^D Wild complications
result from 15 i.xa6 Wxa6 16 Scl
0-0 17 Sc7 Sfc8!? 18 Sxd7 Wd3 19
#e2 W*3$. 15..&c5!? Or 15...d3
16 £\b2 £>c5 17 &xd3 &xd3 18
£ixd3 £ie4+ 19 <&>e3! with the better
chances for White, although the

76 Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 fof6 4 e5 Z&fd7 5f4 c5 6 fy3
position of his king does give him
some anxiety; Van der Wiel-Ree,
Wijk aan Zee 1984. 16 £lxc5 bxc5,
and the play isn't all that clear.
(D) 14 i.d3!? One of the most
popular continuations, and one of
the most dangerous for Black to
face.
wot m 2HP©?9^i ZmZ
m wMm, I m X
W Hi * » W
5»i Wlfa . ,
t±i ma b jqk wot
14....fi.a6 It's hard to recommend
14...£>c5 15 £sxc5 bxc5 16 0-0 £d7
(on 16...0-0? 17 Axh7+! <&xh7 18
fh5+ *g8 19 £>f3, a satisfactory
defence is not to be seen) 17 Hf2
Sc8 18 Hcl g6 (or 18...c4 19 Axc4!
#c7 20 Sc2 dxc4 21 £ixc4±) 19
.fi.fl 0-0 20 £tf3f Wang Zili-Borges
Mateos, Thessaloniki ol 1988. 15
£ib2 £lc5!? In Timman-Korchnoi,
Brussels 1987, Black played the
weaker 15....fi.xd3?! 16 £>xd3 £>c5
17 £>f2! £)a4 18 0-0 £sc3 19 Wg4
0-0 20 £>f3±. 16 i>xa6 #xa6 17
We2 Offering a queen exchange
that would benefit White. It is also
worth thinking about confining the
black queen with 17 a4!?.
17...1ra3!? White has an obvious
advantage after 17...d3?! 18 #e3
#a3 19 #d4±. 18 1Tj5+ 4>e7 19
0-0 #e3+ 20 Sf2 Shc8 2l£lfl!?
An improvement on Chandler-
Gurevich, Leningrad 1987, which
went 21 Sdl g6! 22 £sfl Wa3 23
Sxd4 *xa2=o. 21...«c3 22 SO d3
23 Sdl± Nunn-Zysk, Bundesliga
1987.
14...g5!?
W6
m §mt>m mi
m m wm
m
m *zj„ ..will
An attempt to solve the problems
of the opening by tactical means.
White's chances are preferable after
14...i.a6 15 i.xa6 #xa6 16 £\b2
£lc5 (Black could consider
16...Wa5!?S) 17 Wb4 #d3! 18
Wa4+! Timman-Yusupov, Bugojno
1986; and now even after the best
reply, 18...b5 19 £kd3!? £)xd3+ 20
&e2 £>xf4+ 21 <4>f3±, Black would
be facing a hard defensive task in
spite of his material advantage.
15 #b5! gxf4 16 #xa5 bxa5 17
£)f3 2b8 18Hcl!
The position still demands
accurate play from White. In
Ehlvest-Ivanchuk, Tallinn 1986,
Black wrested the initiative from
him after 18 &d3?! 0-0 19 Scl f6
20 <£xd4 £ixe5 21 Ac2 Sb4?.
18...0-0 19 £k5 £sxc5
The verdict on the position is not
altered by 19...Sb2?! 20 £k!3! Sxa2

Steinitz Variation 3 (hc3 ^h/6 4 e5 Eb/dl 5/4 c5 6 &/3 77
21 £lxf4 £)b6 22 i.d3!± Ghinda-
Dizdar, Politehnica-Bosna 1987.
20 Sxc5 Sbl+ 21 *d2 i.a6 22
Scl Sb2+ 23 Sc2 Sbl 24 £el!
White's extra piece is clearly
superior to his opponent's weak and
disunited pawns. Black is forced to
conduct a hard struggle for the
draw.
24...d3
It would be worth considering
24...&xfl 25 Bxfl f6!?.
25 &xd3 i.xd3 26 <£>xd3 f6 27
exf6Sxf6 28Sgl!?
After some delay, Leonid Yudasin
completes the development of his
pieces.
28...e5 29 £)f3 Sxgl 30 £xgl
Sb6?!
With 30...Sg6!? Black could
preserve fairly good saving chances.
3l2e2!±2e6?!
Probably 31...Sbl was stronger.
32 &h3 Sg6 33 Sxe5 f3 34 gxD
Sh6 35 Sg5+ *f7 36 2g3+- Sh4
37 f4 h6 38 *e3 4>e6 39 *f2 d4 40
Sa3 Hh5 41 &g3 Sc5 42 <&>f3 <&d5
43 &f2 1-0
I suspect that the discouraging
results suffered by Black after either
14 Wb3 or 14 £d3 are the reason
why the whole variation with the
piece sacrifice has disappeared
completely from contemporary
practice. In the period since
publication of The Complete French
more than 10 years ago, I haven't
discovered a single game in which
this variation occurred at
grandmaster level.

5: Steinitz Variation 3 £k3 £>f6
4 e5 ^fd7 5 f4 c5 6 £>f3 5k6 7 Ae3
cxd4!?
Game 8
Rechlis - Ziiger
European Ch, Ohrid 2001
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £k3 £tf6 4 e5
£)fd7 5 f4 c5 6 £>f3 £k6 7 &e3
cxd4 8£sxd4lTb6!?
Wfc W% W$ W>,
„ il £j: il H
Hi n W 1"'
A sharp, interesting and very risky
continuation, for which Black needs
not only an excellent memory but
also an iron nervous system! The
alternative 8...JLc5 is no less
popular (to be precise, it is more
so!). It will be examined in the notes
to the next game.
It scarcely pays Black to resolve
the tension in the centre with
8...£ixd4 9 &xd4 £sb8, for
instance: 10 Ji.d3 More convincing
than 10 Wd2 £lc6 11 0-0-0 (or 11
Ab5 #a5! 12 0-0 a6 13 &xc6+
bxc6=) ll...a6!?«. 10...£k6 11 kXl
ie7 The assessment of the position
is not altered by ll...g6 12 a3 Ad7
13 0-0 h5 14 £>b5 a6 15 £ki6+!
.&xd6 16 exd6, with a strong
initiative; Nunn-Schulz, Bundesliga
1985. 12 Wh5 #a5 13 0-0 g6 14
fh6 Af8 15 #h3, Nunn-Sutton,
Peterborough 1984. The defensive
task facing Black is difficult and,
worse, devoid of prospects.
9#d2!?
White is practically compelled to
play in gambit style. The chances
are equal after 9 i.e2 JLc5 10 £sa4
#a5+ 11 c3 &xd4 More precise
than ll...£xd4 12 &xd4 £)xd4 13
b4! £tf3+ 14 Axf3±. 12 £.xd4
£xd4 13 Wxd4 b6! 14 &dl! On 14
0-0 Aa6 15 i.xa6 #xa6 16 b3 Sc8,
it is Black rather than White who
can claim the initiative. 14...Wb5
Removing the queen from the
danger zone, but then Black is also
quite all right after 14...0-0 15 0-0
k.zh 16 SO f6! 17 exf6 Sxf6 18 b4
#b5 19 £>b2 Wc6= Polasek-Ziiger,
Bohemians 1989. 15 b4 &a6 16

Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 e5 Qifd7 5f4 c5 6 Zhf3 *hc6 7 &e3 cxd4!? 79
&b2 #c6 17 4>f2 Sc8 18 Scl 0-0
19 Sel f6 20 <4>gl fxe5 21 fxe5
Sf7, and Black has his full share of
the play; Aseev-Dreev, Frunze
1988.
The game is similar in character
after 9 a3 Ac5 10 £ia4 White
should possibly give more attention
to 10 £>cb5!?. 10...#a5+ 11 c3
i.xd4 12 &xd4 £)xd4 13 #xd4
Black has reason to be optimistic in
the event of 13 b4 £tf3+ 14 *f2
Wc7 15 #xB 0-0 16 &d3 b6 17
Shel Jtb7= Moor-Zifroni, Hania
1994. 13...b6! 14 #b4 Wxb4 Or
14...Ab7 15 Ab5 fic8, which is not
bad either; Black intends iLb7-c6.
15 axb4 <4?e7 16 £b5 £b7 17 0-0
Shd8 18 *f2 f6!, and Black is in
perfectly good shape, chiefly thanks
to the passive position of the white
knight; Nunn-Ehlvest, Reykjavik
1988.
And finally, the sharp 9 £*cb5!?
has practically disappeared from
contemporary tournament practice.
Nor is this surprising, since Black
easily obtains an equal game with
9...a6 Better than 9...±c5 10 c3 a6
11 b4! axb5!? 12 bxc5 #xc5 13
£tf5! (or 13 #d2!?±) 13...#xc3+ 14
Ad2 #b2 15 Sbl! #xa2 16 £id6+
tf?f8 17 JLxb5± with a strong attack,
Tseshkovsky-Dreev, St Petersburg
1993. 10 £sf5 £.c5 11 £ibd6+ *f8
12 #h5 £id8 13 £)xg7 &xe3! 14
#h6 In answer to 14 <&xe6+!?,
White has to reckon with
14...*e7!?. 14...*e7 15 &gf5+
exf5 16 £sxf5+ <&e8 17 £sd6+
<&e7= Paramos Dominguez-Vallejo
Pons, Spanish Ch, Palencia 1999.
9...#xb2 10 Sbl #a3
This rather reminds you of the
Najdorf Sicilian, doesn't it?
iMn
y ,,j ■£>. m H
H H H t. ,
mpm - —
Hi -TO Q iH H
11 &b5!
Practically the only move.
White's attack founders after either
11 £d3 #a5!? 12 £>cb5!? Wxd2+!
13 £>xd2!? &d8 14 &xc6+ bxc6 15
£ka7 c5 16 &xc8 *xc8f or 11
£>cb5 #xa2 12 Sdl Sb8! 13 £ic7+
4^8? Doghri-Nikolenko, Moscow
1991.
However, an idea employed by
Bologan deserves further practical
tests: 11 Sb3 #a5 12 &b5 £ldb8
(Black could try 12...£>xd4!? or
12...#c7!?) 13 0-0 Ab4 14 a3! £x5
(or 14...£xc3 15 Sxc3 0-0 16 &d3
&xd4 17 £.xd4 £>c6 18 ix5 with a
strong initiative for the pawn) 15
Wf2 £b6 16 f5! and White's attack
is very powerful; Bologan-Volkov,
EU-Cup, Rethymnon 2003.
Il...£ixd4
After ll...<£db8 Black's
backwardness in development has the
signs of a chronic ailment, yet it
isn't at all simple for White to
achieve anything concrete, for

80 Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 Qf6 4 e5 %Sfd7 5/4 c5 6 G)ft £\c6 7 &e3 cxd4!?
example: 12 0-0 There is unclear
play after either 12 JLxc6+ bxc6 13
0-0 &c5 14 2b3 Wa5, or 12 f5!?
Ab4 13 Sb3 Wa5 14 0-0 exf5 15 a3
(if 15 Sfbl, then 15...f4!??*)
15...&xc3 16 Sxc3 0-0 17 &xc6
£\xc6 Dreev-Vallejo Pons, Dos
Hermanos 2003; at this point White
should probably continue 18 J&h6
Wb6 19 Sxc6! bxc6 20 Axg7,
forcing perpetual check. 12...a6 It
would be worth considering
12...#a5!?. On the other hand,
Black can hardly count on a
satisfactory game after 12...JLb4 13
Sb3 #a5 - see Bologan-Volkov in
the previous note. 13 j£.xc6+!? bxc6
14 Sb3 #a5 Instead 14...#67? 15
£*a4 promises Black nothing good.
15 Sxb8! Sxb8 16 £ixc6 #c7 17
£sxb8 Wxb8 18 f5!? The quiet 18
ttbl!? is also of interest: 18...#c7
19 Wd4 &e7 20 fit. 18...#xe5 19
&d4 #c7 20 We3, with good
attacking possibilities; Fedorov-
Volkov, St Petersburg 1997.
12 kx&A Ab4 13 0-0
Black's game is easier to play in
the case of 13 f5 exf5 14 0-0 0-0 15
SB jS.cS 16 £)xd5 Jixd4+ 17
«rxd4 #c5 18 c3 &h8= Golod-
Nikolenko, Smolensk 1991.
Another interesting line is 13 Sb3
Wa5 14 a3 &e7!? 15 f5 It may well
be that the more solid 15 #e3 0-0
16 0-0 gives Black real problems,
for example 16...Wc7 17 f5! ix5 18
£xd7 £xd4 19 Wxd4 &xd7 20 f6
De Firmian-Kaidanov, Lexington
1995.15...exf5
16 £ixd5 In Lopez-Sieiro
Gonzalez, Santa Clara 1997,
White's outwardly aggressive play
was none too convincing: 16 e6
fxe6 17 &xg7 Sg8 18 Wh6 *f7! 19
iLxd7 J&xd7, with a good game for
Black. 16...£h4+!? 17 &dl Or 17
g3 #xd2+ 18 <4>xd2 &d8<*>.
17...#xd2+! The incautious
\l...Wd&l is met by 18 £lf6+!! and
White's attack is irresistible. 18
4>xd2 &d8! 19 Sg3 a6 20 £xd7+
k.\Al 21 Sxg7 Ae6°° and Black
was close to equality in Nijboer-
Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1996.
13...0-0
Another move seen quite often is
13...a6!?, after which the struggle
may continue as follows: 14 Sb3

Steinitz Variation 3 £ic3 *hf6 4 e5 $Sfd7 5f4 c5 6 £i/3 Z&c6 7 ke3 cxd4!? 81
Wa5 15 Sfbl! It's obvious that 15
£.xd7+ &xd7 16 Sfbl i.c5 17
Sxb7 Sc8 gives White no chance of
an advantage. 15..JLe7!? It would
be hard to recommend 15...Wxb5 16
Sxb4! Wc6 17 f5! h6D 18 f6 gxf6
19 exf6 Wd6! 20 a4!, when Black is
in great danger; Ki.Georgiev-
Dolmatov, Moscow GMA 1990.
There is also a great deal of trouble
in store for him after 15...JLa3 16
f5!! (White has the pleasanter
position in the event of 16 iLxd7+
&xd7 17 &e4! Wxd2 18 £)xd2 £e7
19 2xb7± Enders-Ziiger, Ptuj zt
1995, but the text move is stronger)
16...axb5 (or 16...exf5 17 Wg5 with
an attack) 17 Sxa3! Wxa3 18 £lxb5
Wxa2 19 £>d6+ *f8 (or 19...*d8
20 Wdl!± with numerous threats)
20 Sal Wxal+ 21 &xal Sxal+ 22
&f2 Q\xe5 (in Timoshchenko-Itkis,
Baiie Herculane 1996, Black lost
quickly after 22...Sa8 23 Wg5! +-)
23 Wc3 2a8 24 Wxe5 f6 25 Wc3
Ad7 26 Wc7 &e7 27 fxe6 <&xe6 28
£\xb7, and according to
Timoshchenko's analysis Black is
hard pressed to find an adequate
defence. 16 £xd7+ &xd7 17 2xb7
2c8 Or 17...£c5!?. 18 We3!?
Black's defence is made easier by
18 <&>hl Ac5 19 Axc5 Sxc5«.
18...Sc4!? The natural 18...£c5
lands Black in trouble: 19 £>e2!
i.xd4 20 £ixd4 Wc5 21 f5!, with an
attack. 19 f5!? More convincing
than 19 &hl &d8°°. However, the
prophylactic 19 Slb3!? deserves
more consideration; if for instance
Black replies 19...&d8, then 20 f5!
only gains in strength. 19...exf5 20
Sxd7! &xd7 21 2b7+ sfeeS Not
21...'4,e6? which loses to 22 2b6+
+-. 22 e6, Soffer-Blauert, Budapest
1998. Now 22...Wd8!^ 23 exf7+
i>xf7 24 £>xd5 2e8 25 We5 2xd4C
26 Wxd4± leaves White with a
slight advantage, though to be
honest it will not be at all easy to
exploit.
14 2b3Wa5 15We3!?
■BjJMfltBi
w
"p «+«=
km- rt IP * Wi W.
sal §a| & w
^Mt%i w ?}?*& ''ixtfi '■%%%
9^ * ^
W, .
- w&
On 15 f5, Black usually continues
15...exf5! The natural 15...Wxb5?!
is weaker in view of 16 f6! h6 17
fxg7 4>xg7 18 Wf4 Wc4 19 &b5! +-
with an irresistible attack in
Solodovnichenko - I.Timoshenko,
Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 1999.
16 e6 fxe6, with advantage.
The game takes an interesting
course after 15 Wf2!? f5! The only
move; 15...£lb6 is too dangerous in
view of 16 a3 &e7 17 £se4! £)c4 18
£>f6+!. 16 2fbl i.e7 Black has
little chance of defending
successfully with 16...Jtxc3 17
&xc3 Wc7 18 i.b4±. 17 ±xd7
£.xd7 18 2xb7 Sfd8 Black is in a
bad way after 18...Wd8 19 &c5±.
19 2lb3!? Or 19 £>b5 2ab8 20
£>d6 2xb7 21 2xb7 Wxa2= and
Black secures equal chances, albeit

82 Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 fof6 4 e5 fofdl 5f4 c5 6 *&f3 &c6 7 &e3 cxd4!?
not without effort. 19...^.f8 20
JLxa7, Bangiev-Buchenau, Emden
1995; and now 20...J.c6!? 21 Ab6
Wa6 22 .&xd8 would have given
White no more than a small plus.
15...£ib6
After 15...f5 16 Sfbl &xc3 17
£xc3 Wd8 18 Ab4!?, White has
plenty of initiative.
16 Vg3
The chances are not simple to
evaluate in the event of 16 &hl Sd8
17 f5!? exf5 18 e6 Axe6 19 &xg7D
&xg7 20 Wg5+ *f8 21 Wh6+ *e7
(21...*g8 leads to a draw after 22
#g5+) 22 «h4+ f6 23 Sxb45
Safin-Barsov, Abu Dhabi 2001.
In Polzin-Marjanovic, Greek
Team Ch, Kallithea 2003, White
employed an interesting idea: 16
f5!? exf5 17 SO! JLe6 18 Sg3 g6
19 Wh6 Bfc8 (or 19...f4 20 Sg5!?,
aiming to bring the rook to h5 in the
near future) 20 Sh3, with an attack.
16...£sc4 17 f5 Hd8!
In Pavasovic-Ziiger, Portoroz
1998, Black failed to withstand the
onslaught after 17...exf5?! 18 e6! f6
19 Sxb4! #xb4 20 e7 #xe7 21
£>xd5 We2 22 Axf6 +-.
18 Sf4!?
Another interesting move is 18
#h4!?t.
18...^.f8
Not 18...exf5? 19 e6 g6 20 exf7+
<±'xf7 21#h4+-.
19 f6 g6 20 Sh4!?
The start of an interesting attack,
the consequences of which are far
from easy to assess correctly - even
after post-mortem analysis!
20...a6
With 20...£)d2, Black loses
quickly: 21 #h3 h5D 22 Sxh5!
gxh5 23 #xh5, with irresistible
threats.
21 Wh3 h5 22 Sxh5 gxh5 23
#xh5 axb5
24<£>f2!!
A splendid idea! Rechlis takes the
el-square under control and
prepares for his remaining rook to
join in against the black monarch.
24...#a3
Sheer necessity!

Steinitz Variation 3 &c3 fof6 4 e5 ibfd7 5/4 c5 6 *hf3 foc6 7 $Le3 cxd4!? 83
25 £sxb5 #xb3 26 axb3 &a3
27 5^d6?
But at this point "Homer nods!"
After the simple 27 &e3! £lxb5 28
JLh6, there could scarcely be any
question of the game lasting another
35 moves! The rest has nothing to
do with the opening, and I give it
with minimal comments.
27...Sxd6D 28 &c5 £ib5 29 exd6
£d7 30 £e3 £lxd6 31 £h6 Axh6
32 *xh6 £)e8= 33 &e3 Sa6 34
%5+ *h7 35 Wh5+ <&g8 36 #e5
Bd6 37 <&d4 Sc6 38 <&d3 d4! 39 h4
Sd6 40 #g5+ <£>h7 41 #h5+ &g8
42 Wc5?!
He should take the draw with 42
*g5+.
42...Sd5 43 #e7 i.b5+ 44 <&d2
Sf5+ 45 g4 Sf2+ 46 *cl £)xf6 47
#xb7!? Sfl+ 48 &b2 &d5 49
#a7?Sdl?!
The right way is 49...d3!+.
50 g5 &e2 51 Wb8+ &h7?
After 51...*g7!?, things are
unclear.
52 Wf8! Sn 53 h5! Sf5 54 h6! +-
Sxg5 55 Wxf7+ &h8 56 #e8+ &h7
57 #d7+ £>h8 58 Wxe6 d3 59 c4
2g2 60 #e8+ &h7 61 #e4+ <&>xh6
62 #xg2 £>f4 63 #g3 1-0
A dramatic game!
Game 9
Fedorov - Akopian
Moscow Aeroflot open, 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>c3 &f6 4 e5
£lfd7 5 f4 c5 6 £lf3 &c6 7 £e3
cxd4 8 £lxd4 Ac5
MMMrnvm m
It %3±i±
— %*& ^ ^
izj, m
<Wfr, gZ_l, ■%&!& r V/////A
m m m 9
■ & i» ■
* Wt * WB WB * Wi
The most popular move,
especially in high-level games.
9 #d2 0-0
Similar positions also arise from
9...a6 10 0-0-0!? £sxd4 11 £xd4
0-0 The incautious 11...b5 allows
the unpleasant retort 12 £te4!T. 12
i.xc5 £ixc5 13 Wd4 b6 Black could
consider 13...#c7!?. 14 &bl &b7
15 £d3 fic8 16 Shel!? #c7 17 g4
f6!°° Nijboer-Gurevich, Amsterdam
2002.
A considerably more popular line
is 9...±xd4 10 Axd4 £)xd4 11
lfxd4 «b6. Black hopes to hold on
in an ending where he is slightly
worse; this variation can therefore

84 Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 £}/6 4 e5 *hfd7 5/4 c5 6 fofi foc6 7 Ae3 cxd4!?
only be recommended to those who
aren't afraid of prolonged, tedious
defence. White's usual choice is
between four continuations: -
" ''Mr ■ * IP' Wk
§&§
I mtm ^
» W Wi W
AW
« |zj w%>, w
El H 1MI
(A) 12 #d2!? An idea of Garry
Kasparov's - an excellent
recommendation for it! 12...,B,xb2!?
A bold decision, and to all
appearances a correct one. The
alternative is 12...£>c5 13 0-0-0
Ad7 14 #d4!? a6 (Black has a
passive game in the event of
14...£c6 15 h4! £ld7 16 #xb6
£lxb6 17 Sh3 h5 18 Sg3 g6 19 b3±
Vallejo Pons - Knaak, EU-Cup,
Rethymnon 2003; there is a hard
and thankless defensive task ahead)
15 h4 0-0-0 16 h5!? (the pawn is
very well placed on h5; the text
move is more exact than 16 Sh3
Ac6 17 £)e2 &b8 18 Sc3 £ia4 19
#xb6 £ixb6 20 Qd4, Kasparov-
Timman, Horgen 1995 - though
White still had a minimal edge)
16...±c6 17 Sh3 <&>c7 18 £te2 £le4
19 #xb6+ &xb6 20 £)d4± Vallejo
Pons-Savchenko, FIDE World Ch,
Moscow 2001. 13 Sbl #a3 14
&b5 #xa2!? Stocking up with
extra material in anticipation of
difficult times. On 14...#c5 15
£ki6+ <£>e7 16 Sb5 Wa3 17 c4T
White has a strong initiative at
minimum cost. 15 £sd6+ ^ell? In
Shirov-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2003,
Black suffered a severe defeat with
15...*f8 16 Hdl #b2 (he could
improve with 16...b6!?°° or
16...£lc5) 17 i.e2 H>6 (Black's
defence is likewise not simple after
17..."4>e7 18 0-0 Wb6+ 19 <&>hl £>c5
20 f5!T) 18 c4! with a powerful
initiative. 16 Wb4l In Almasi-
Bareev, Monte Carlo rapid 2003,
the phlegmatic 16 Sdl?! b6 17 i.d3
#a5 18 c3 Wc5t permitted a major
improvement in the placing of
Black's pieces. 16...a5! Black isn't
scared of any phantoms! 17 £ixc8+
<&d8 18 #e7+ <£>xc8 19 Sxb7 This
leads to a draw, but it's hardly
possible to suggest anything else.
19...*xb7 20 #xd7+ 4>b8= Shirov-
Bareev, Monte Carlo rapid 2003.
(B) 12 0-0-0 Wxd4 13 Sxd4 4>e7
H
i a §§
« w.
■ IzJ wk mm ,.
™W? ''faR Wffr A W(fr W
14 h4 In this rather boring
variation the players don't enjoy a
great variety of acceptable methods.
The nature of the struggle is not all
that different in the case of 14 g3
£>b8!? 15 &g2 £>c6 16 Sd2 Sd8 17

Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 e5 Z&fd7 5f4 c5 6 G)f3 *hc6 7 M.e3 cxd4!? 85
h4 (or 17 g4!?) 17...h5 18 Shdl
&d7 19 £)e2 Sac8 20 <4>bl g6,
Socko-Dolmatov, EU-Cup, Kazan
1997; Black is close to equalizing,
but his opponent nonetheless holds
the initiative. 14...h5!? The standard
reaction; Black tries to keep the
game closed on all parts of the
board. 15 Ae2 £\b8 16 Sd2 &d7
17 Hhdl g6 18 b3! intending
<i'cl-b2 and a2-a4, with chances of
a minimal advantage; Dreev-
Bareev, USSR 1986.
(C) The position is much the same
in character after 12 £\b5 #xd4 13
^xd4 sbel White similarly keeps a
small plus after 13...£rt>6 14 &d3
&d7 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 Shfl g6 17
£e2 *b8 18 Sd3 h5 19 Sh3±
Tal-Stahlberg, Stockholm 1961. 14
h4 h5 15 Sh3 a6 16 Sc3!, again
with a minimal edge - which of
course will not be easy to convert
into something concrete; Gofstein-
Chernin, Brno 1993.
(D) 12 #xb6 &xb6
13 £sb5!? The d4-square attracts
the white knight like a magnet!
Practice has also seen 13 JLd3 <&e7
14 0-0-0 &d7 15 Shfl a6 16 Sf3 g6
17 Sh3 h5!? 18 b3 Sag8,
Sherzer-Gurevich, Clichy 1993;
breaking into Black's defensive
fortifications is practically
impossible here. White would do
well to consider the sly 13 a4!?, for
instance: 13...a5 14 ^b5!? (on 14
4>d2 &d7 15 b3 &e7 16 Sel Sag8
17 h4 h6! intending g7-g5!?, Black
has no problems; Short-Korchnoi,
World Ch, Groningen 1997)
14...4-67 15 b3 f6!? 16 exf6+ gxf6
17 <4>d2 £d7 18 Sel, with some
pressure for White in Ki.Georgiev-
Gurevich, Manila izt 1990. 13...<&>e7
14 £d3 Or 14 b3!? Ad7 15 £sd4
a6!? (aiming for £)b6-c8-a7-c6) 16
£d3 £k8 17 <4>d2 £la7 18 c3 £sc6
19 Sacl h6, with approximate
equality; Iordachescu-Gurevich,
Saint Vincent open 2004. The
nature of the position is not altered
by 14 0-0-0 either, but perhaps
White doesn't need this move in all
variations. Thus in Bologan-Bareev,
Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2004,
Black had no problem in
constructing a position that was
solid and hard to breach, by a
method already familiar to us:
14...£d7 15 £id4 h5 16 &d3 g6 17
g3 a6 18 b3 £lc8 19 <£>b2 £W7 20
Shel Sac8 21 2e3 Sc7. 14...Ad7
15 £>d4 <&a4!? One of the black
knight's favourite routes. On
15...g6, White continues 16 b3!?
with a view to a2-a4-a5±. 16 0-0-0
£}c5 White retains a minimal plus
even in such a closed position as
arose in Fontaine-Gurevich, French
Team Ch 1999: 16...h5 17 h4 g6 18
c3 Sac8 19 £x2 £)b6 20 Sh3 £>c4
21 b3 £>a5 22 <£>b2± 17 Shfl!?

86 Steinitz Variation 3 thc3 *hf6 4 e5 *hfd7 5f4 c5 6 £>/3 &c6 7 Le3 cxd41?
Black has some interesting
possibilities in the event of 17 $(12
g5!? (better than the solid but
passive 17...h5) 18 fxg5 Sag8 19 h4
h6 20 £>f3 (20 g4!? hxg5 21 h5°°
merits attention) 20...hxg5 21 thxgS
(or 21 hxg5 Sxhl 22 Sxhl £>e4+!
23 <&e3 £>xg5=) 21...Sxh4!? 22
Sxh4 Sxg5, with not bad
compensation for the exchange;
Christiansen-Gurevich, Reykjavik
1990. 17...Sac8 Black will have no
simple defensive task in the case of
17...g5?! 18 €5 £>xd3+ 19 cxd3 exf5
20 &xf5+ &xf5 21 Sxf5± Lutz -
Luther, German Ch 1998. 18 *d2
a6 19 Sf3 h5 20 Sdfl g6
Zelcic-Dreev, FIDE World Ch
1999. As usual in this variation, a
just evaluation of the position is
somewhere between = and ±. All the
same, it is rather closer to =.
10 0-0-0
Recently the solid 10 g3 has
attained fair popularity. In playing
this move, White is quite often
aiming to place his king on the more
secure flank - the kingside. There
can follow: 10...a6 It's worth
considering 10...JLxd4 11 JLxd4
•£xd4 12 #xd4 £lb8!? 13 0-0-0
£)c6 14 WQ ±dl 15 *bl Va5,
with quite good play for Black in
Anand-Shirov, Leon 2001. The
game Kasparov-Shirov, Astana
2001, also continued interestingly
with 10...1'e7 11 0-0-0 £ib6 12
&b3 &xe3 13 Wxe3 Ad7 14 *bl
Sfc8 (or 14...f6 15 exf6 #xf6 16
i.b5! Sac8 17 Shel±) 15 g4!? (15
£\b5!? doesn't look bad either; the
aim is to meet 15...£&4 with 16
£)d6!? 2xc2 17 a3!) 15...QM!? 16
£sd4 Sc5 17 a3, and White's
chances would appear preferable,
though his opponent's possibilities
on the queenside should not be
underrated. 11 .&g2 Other moves of
interest are 11 £sce2!? and also 11
JLh3, when play may continue:
ll...£)xd4 12 ±xd4 b5 13 0-0 Wb6
14 £te2 b4!? 15 a3! Sb8 16 axb4
lrxb4«= Milos-Leitao, Sao Paulo
2002. Il...£ixd4 In Nunn-Lobron,
Bundesliga 2002, Black failed to
attain full equality with ll..Jbcd4
12 £.xd4 b5 13 &f2!? Ab7 14 0-0
#e7 15 Sad 1 Bfd8 16 £>e2 £)c5 17
£id4± 12 ±xd4 b5 13 £te2 a5 14
a3! fTb6 Black can't be pleased
with the way the struggle develops
after 14...Axd4 15 £ixd4 Wb6 16
0-0 £k5 17 g4! i.b7 18 Hadl b4 19
f5t L.Gofstein-Gurevich, Noyon
2001; or after 14...Ab7?! 15 0-0

Steinitz Variation 3 $Sc3 ?hf6 4 e5 Z&fd7 5f4 c5 6 fof3 t&c6 7 $Le3 cxd4!? 87
Wb6 16 b4! £.xd4+ 17 &xd4 axb4
18 axb4 Sa4 19 sfchl, when a
thankless defence lies ahead of him,
Dominguez-Glek, Esbjerg 2002. 15
0-0 b4 16 axb4 1^4 17 c3±.
There's no doubt that 10 g3 sets
Black some awkward problms.
lUiiih
JL ± £
v %J & mm
vm 'tf% m m;
10...a6
Similar positions can arise from
10...&xd4 11 &xd4 a6, but White
does have an additional possibility:
12 iLe3!?, retaining the dark-
squared bishop. 12...b5 13 £se2!?
b4 14 £id4 £kd4 15 £xd4 a5 16
g4!? White rightly intends to
concentrate on playing in the centre.
A less convincing line is 16 h4 JLa6,
and Black's chances were no worse
in Frolyanov-Iljushin, Tula 2002.
16...±a6 Or 16...#c7 17 Ab5!?
&a6 18 £xd7! #xd7 19 Shgl Sfc8
20 f5 #b5!? 21 Sg2!, and at the end
of the day White's threats are more
dangerous; Svidler-Iljushin, Russian
Team Ch, Yekaterinburg 2002. 17
JLg2! Of course White declines the
bishop exchange. 17...#c7 18 *bl
Sfc8 19 Scl! 2ab8 20 f5T
Anand-Gurevich, Corsica 2002.
After the text move the spheres of
influence are precisely mapped out:
White will of course attack on the
kingside, Black will harass him on
the opposite wing.
lllil^illpfl
Jrmnr
mvJ£„ymtmm
■■ m. Mi «
mm^mmsmffwm
i
11 h4
The most popular move,
preparing to bring the rook out to
h3; a further advance of this pawn is
something that Black shouldn't
underestimate either. However,
White has quite a wide choice, and I
think that some of the alternatives
are at least no weaker. The
following are seen in practice:
(A) 11 g4 has become a rarity in
modern tournaments - and no
wonder, since it gives Black no
trouble. For instance, H...JLxd4 12
i.xd4 b5 13 g5 b4 14 &a4 Or 14
£)e2 a5 15 £>g3 £a6 16 £)h5 #c7
17 iLxa6 Hxa6? Blatny-Luther,
Altensteig 1991. 14...a5 15 £.e3
#c7 16 Sgl £ie7=c Hodgson-
Bareev, Sochi 1987.
(B) There are likewise no
problems for Black in the case of 11
JLe2 JLxd4 Black always faces the
question of which piece to exchange
for the white knight; ll...£ixd4 is
not bad either. The game
Glek-Korzubov, Vilnius 1984, then

88 Steinitz Variation 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 e5 Zhfd7 5f4 c5 6 £}/3 Qte6 7 ke3 cxd4!?
continued 12 &xd4 b5 13 Mi Ml
14 &xc5 £ixc5 15 £)e2 Wc7 16
&d4 £>e4 17 We3 b4, with unclear
play. 12 &xd4 b5 13 h4 b4 14 £ia4
a5!? 15 h5 #c7 16 Ml &a6, with
equal chances; Cabrilo-Popovic,
Stara Pazova 1988.
(C) 11 £>ce2
Not a bad all-purpose
consolidating move, introduced into
practice by Nunn. The importance
of the d4-square has been
demonstrated repeatedly, and there
is of course nothing wrong with
over-protecting it. Il...£}a5!?
White's task is simpler in the event
of ll...#c7 12 h4 b5 13 £kc6
#xc6 14 Sh3 Ml 15 £)d4±
Nunn-Dokhoian, Wijk aan Zee
1990. The alternatives ll...We7!?
and, especially, ll...tfb6 deserve
practical tests. 12 £ig3 b5 13 b3 Or
13 Wei £>c4 14 AC #c7 15 £)b3
Ml 16 MA a5 17 £fo5 &a6?* Van
de Oudeweetering-Luther, Groning-
en 1990. 13...&b7 14 *bl Sc8 15
h4 <2k6 16 £ge2 #e7 17 £>xc6
Sxc6 18 &d4 Sc7 19 £d3 &b4,
with chances for both sides;
Anand-Shirov, Amber rapid 2000.
(D) The Dutch master Nijboer
constantly and successfully plays 11
£*3!?.
A possible continuation: H...JLb4
Black hopes to provoke his
opponent into a2-a3, weakening the
white king's position. Instead,
Nijboer - Stellwagen, Groningen
2002, went ll...i.e7 12 Mi b5 13
#e2 £)b4 14 M4 &xd3+ 15 Sxd3
a5 16 Sg3?*. Another move worth
considering is ll...b6!?, for
instance: 12 £te2!? a5 (or
12...#67!? 13 £>ed4 £)xd4 14
£)xd4 f6!°°) 13 £ted4 &xd4 14
£lxd4 &a6 15 <&>bl Wc7 16 Mi a4,
with mutual chances; Nijboer-
Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2003.
And finally, ll...£.xe3?! 12 #xe3
b5 13 Mi Wb6 14 Wh3 guarantees
White an easy, pleasant game. 12
Mi b5 13 g4 &b6<? Black sets
about activating his knight before
anything else. After 13...JLb7 14
Shgl Sc8 15 2g3 Se8 16 Sh3 g6
17 WfZ Mi 18 g5T White's threats
must on no account be underrrated;
Nijboer-Glek, French Team Ch
2003. 14 #f2 £\c4 15 &e4 Ml 16
g5 dxe4 17 &xc4 #c7^ Nijboer-
Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2002.

Steinitz Variation 3 &c3 *hf6 4 eS Z&fd7 5/4 c5 6 G)f3 £sc6 7 &e3 cxd4!? 89
(E)llWf2!?
A very good move; before starting
active operations, White wants to
compel his opponent to resolve the
tension in the centre. 11...4bxd4
Practice has also seen ll...JLxd4 12
&xd4 b5 13 £e3>? (Black has a
simpler task in the event of 13 Ad3
b4 14 £)e2 a5 15 &bl ±a6 16 h4
Wcl 17 h5 Sfc8, when the initiative
is already in his hands;
Kharitonov-Iljushin, Russian Ch,
Krasnoyarsk 2003) 13...M (or
13...Ab7 14 <£.d3 Qb4 15 &d4 Sc8
16 &b\± Kramnik-Shirov, Monte
Carlo blind 2003) 14 £la4 (Black
has nothing to worry about after 14
£te2 a5 15 &d4 £ixd4 16 £xd4
&a6 17 *bl WC7 18 h4 2fc8 19 h5
£>c5= Shirov-Radjabov, Leon rapid
2004) 14...f6 15 £fo6! with a slight
advantage to White. 12 &xd4 #c7
13 JLd3 £.xd4 Black probably does
well to take the opportunity to offer
a queen exchange, even though his
prospects in the ensuing ending are
not brilliant. His game isn't easy
after 13...b5 either: 14 #h4!
(compelling Black to weaken his
pawn structure) 14...h6 (White's
attack is practically irresistible after
14...g6 15 £)e2 b4 16 #h6 £.xd4 17
£>xd4 £ic5 18 h4± Miljanic-
Kalezic, Serbia & Montenegro
Team Ch, Budva 2003) 15 &e2 f6!?
16 Wg4! £.xd4 17 &xd4 £ic5 18
#g6! with a powerful initiative for
White; Kramnik-Radjabov, Linares
2003. 14 #xd4 Wc5 The game
Aagaard-Brynell, Stockholm 2003,
proceeded interestingly with 14...b5
15 Shel £)c5 16 f5! exf5 17 £kd5
&xd3+ 18 Sxd3 #a5 19 b4 #xa2
20 £>f6+! gxf6 21 Sg3+ *h8 22
Wh4 #al+ 23 *d2 Sd8+ 24 &e2
Wxe5+ 25 4>fl +-. The white king
has evaded all hazards, completing a
rapid forced march from the
queeside to the kingside; and now
there is trouble ahead for its black
counterpart! 15 &e2 b5 Black will
have a difficult time defending after
15...b6 16 *bl &b7 17 c3T or
15...#xd4 16 £>xd4 £ib8 (if
16...£)c5 then 17 Shel±) 17 h4
£d7 18 h5 £)c6 19 £>f3 h6 20 c3,
with an excellent ending;
Grischuk-Iljushin, Russian Ch,
Krasnoyarsk 2003. 16 &bl b4 17
Scl! a5!? The forlorn 17...1rxd4 18
&xd4 £ic5 19 Shdl! f6 20 c3
landed Black in considerable
difficulties in Grischuk-Iljushin,
European Ch, Istanbul 2003. 18 c3
Or 18 c4!?. 18...#e7, and it still
remains for White to demonstrate
that he has some advantage.
(F) 11 <4>bl White is quite
justified in being concerned about
the safety of his king. Il...£)xd4
The game Chandler-Psakhis,
Hastings 1987, went ll...£.xd4 12
i.xd4 b5 13 Af2!? #e7 (or
13...#a5 14 JLd3 &b7 15 h4±) 14

90 Steinitz Variation 3 &c3 <hf6 4 e5 Z&fd7 5/4 c5 6 (hfl <hc6 7 ±e3 cxd4l?
g4 Ab7 15 £g2 Sac8 16 Shel
Sfd8 17 £le2! with the initiative.
The rare move \\..Mcl deserves
attention; a possible continuation is
12 h4 (Black has cause for optimism
after 12 g3 &xd4 13 &xd4 b5 14
Ag2 &b7 15 Shel &xd4 16 Wxd4
Sfc8 17 Scl Wa5^ Enders-Knaak,
Bundesliga 2000; White could try
12 £>f3!?) 12...b5 13 £)xc6 #xc6
14 Axc5 £)xc5 15 #d4 Sb8 16
&d3 b4 17 &e2 a5«= Psakhis-
Bareev, Tallinn rapid 1988. 12
Axd4 b5
■ ■%«±§t±
kbmnr
I go §§, w® ,
\tmtm mtwi
TWflffiil
13 #e3!? It's worth thinking
about 13 £te2!?. On the other hand
after 13 £xc5 £>xc5 14 Wt2 #c7
15 &d3 &b7!? 16 Wh4 £>e4, Black
secures equal chances; Nunn-
Timman, Rotterdam 1989.
13..:ic7!? In Timoshchenko-
Korchnoi, EU-Cup, Panormo 2001,
White effectively regrouped his
pieces after 13...Wb6 14 &xc5
£lxc5 15 ±d3 b4 16 £)e2 a5 17
£>d4 Aa6 18 f5!T. He likewise has
the better chances in the event of
13...&xd4 14 *xd4 &b7 15 Ad3
#e7 16 Shel b4 17 £>e2 a5 18
#e3! £sc5 19 £sd4± Dolmatov-
Korchnoi, FIDE World Ch, Las
Vegas 1999. And finally, on
13...#e7 14 Ad3 &xd4 15 #xd4
b4, White has at his disposal the
excellent move 16 £ie4! with a
powerful initiative. 14 Ad3 .&xd4
Or 14...b4 15 Kh3! g6 16 £ie2
£.xd4 17 £>xd4 £ic5 18 #e3 a5 19
h4! and White obtains an attack for
nothing; Timoshchenko - Jakab,
Budapest 2003. 15 #xd4 &b7 At
least this leads to more complex
play than 15...*fc5 16 &e2 b4 17
Scl #xd4 18 £>xd4 £sc5 19 Shdl
£ia4 20 Sel Ml 21 Se3 Sfc8 22
f5! with a small but stable endgame
advantage; Khalifman - Gurevich,
Bundesliga 2002. 16 Shel &c5 17
£te2 It would be worth considering
17 h4!? with chances of an
initiative. 17...Sac8 18 #e3 £>e4 19
£ld4± J.Polgar-Luther, European
Ch, Ohrid2001.
rat -M.m.
±■£■1
w/i' •
% mm
milvm i
p '%*& '#m Wi
I |zj wA '%m
ll...£)xd4
Here ll...Wc7 is not very popular,
though it isn't at all bad. There can
follow: 12 Sh3 It would also be
interesting to try 12 h5 b5 13 ^xc6
#xc6 14 £)e2!?. 12...£ixd4 13
&xd4 b5 14 <&>bl b4 15 &a4 Axd4
16 #xd4 Sb8 17 Se3 Black has no
cause for worry in the event of 17

Steinitz Variation 3 fac3 ?hf6 4 e5 *hfd7 5f4 c5 6 thft &c6 7 k.e3 cxd4!? 91
b3 a5 18 c3 f6 19 exf6 £)xf6 20 c4
iLd7?*. The text move occurred in
Anand-Buhmann, Bundesliga 2002;
at this point it was worth
considering 17...£ib6!? 18 £>xb6 Wxb6,
with a minimal edge for White.
After ll...&xd4 12 £.xd4 b5, the
main line is very often reached by
transposition. However, let's
examine some variations that have
independent significance.
twfcMtmjk
m±m±m ■
W% <$tm <fm ?&&
|§ & M &.
13 h5 Nor does White achieve a
great deal with 13 &M b4 14 £)a4
£>xd4!? 15 #xd4, which will
transpose into the line with
ll...£>xd4. Sometimes White plays
13 Sh3 Wa5 (13...b4!?) 14 *bl b4
15 £)e2 £>c5 16 &gl! (stronger
than 16 i.xc5 #xc5 17 £sd4 a5=)
16...&e4 17 Wei Sb8 18 £lcl Wc7
19 h5± Nunn-S.Lalic, Hastings
1994. A move deserving the closest
of attention is 13 ^.gl!?, for
instance: 13...Wa5 (or 13...b4 14
£la4 Wc7 15 *bl a5 16 h5 £>a7 17
h6 g6 18 Scl!± with c2-c3 to
follow; Vasiukov-Dizdar, Voskres-
ensk 1990) 14 <&bl b4 15 £>e2 £>c5
16 £ld4!? &e4 17 Welt 13...b4 14
£le2 Black successfully copes with
his opening difficulties after 14 £te4
Wa5!? (more convincing than
14...Wc7 15 <&bl a5, when White
has pleasure in removing his bishop
from exchange with 16 Af2!±) 15
b3 Ab7 16 h6 g6 17 <&>bl £>xd4 18
Wxd4 i.c6 19 £ib2 Wc5= Szieberth
- Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest
2001. 14...a5 15 <&>bl Black has
plenty of play in the event of 15
i.e3 a4 16 £>d4 £)xd4 17 Axd4
b3?*. 15...a4 16 £>cl £a6 17 g4
Wc7 18 Sh2 Sfc8« Apicella-
Bricard, French Ch, Besan9on 1999.
12 ±xd4 b5
RQ&m *•
<w'Wil
» 'tm « «
wk a» im m
fwJgw*mmfw
13Hh3
Not without reason, Fedorov
reckons that it would be simpler for
Black to defend successfully
without the white rook taking part in
the attack.
A line bringing White no
dividends is 13 £xc5 &xc5 14 Wd4
Wc7, for example: 15 a3 The game
A.Ivanov-Glek, Frunze 1987, saw
premature activity with 15 f5 itb7
16 f6 gxf6 17 exf6 <&>h8!? 18 Sel
Sg8 19 Se5 b4, and White was
already the one to be facing
difficulties. 15...&d7!? A definite
improvement on 15....&b7 16 J.d3

92 Steinitz Variation 3 £\c3 Z&f6 4 e5 *hfd7 5f4 c5 6 thfi *hc6 7 &e3 cxd4!?
Sac8 17 *bl Sfd8 18 h5± 16 f5
Sfc8! 17 f6 Or 17 h5 a5! 18 h6 g6+.
17...gxf6! 18 exf6 *h8, and already
Black's chances are preferable;
Apicella-Gurevich, Clichy 2001.
Black can also feel confident in
the event of 13 h5
IHJUK «W
mm
• WMmXmX
i±i!±|f ■ &
Wb VK4 '%!!& HI
m m m w
13...b4 Or 13...Wb6 14 g4 &xd4
15 #xd4 #xd4 16 Sxd4 h6 17
a4!?± Sutovsky-Dizdar, Pula 1997.
14 £sa4 There is no promose for
White in 14 £>e2 a5 15 #e3 (similar
positions also result from 15 JLxc5
£>xc5 16 We3 #c7!=c) 15...#c7!
(Black aims to use his queen on the
c-file) 16 <&bl ±a6 17 £xc5 (or 17
h6!?) 17...£)xc5 18 £}g3 Sfc8 19
Scl a4, and Black's chances are not
at all worse; Topalov-Morozevich,
Sarajevo 1999. 14...£.xd4 15 #xd4
#85 A different plan, based on
15...a5, deserves attention too, for
example: 16 "ibl (Black has
everything in order in the case of 16
&b5 Sb8 17 ±d3 &b7 18 f5 Wg5+
19 *bl Sfc8 20 Sdfl Ac6t
Z.Gofshtein-Gtek, Baden-Baden
2001; to be fair, though, I should
add that in this line White may
consider the stock idea of 17 c4!?
bxc3 18 £)xc3, with chances of an
advantage) 16...WC7 (or 16...ia6!?
17 Ad3 #c7 18 Bel 2fc8~) 17 h6
g6 18 Sh3!? (Black has adequate
counterplay in the event of 18
Ab5!? Sb8 19 c4 bxc3 20 £)xc3
<£\b6 21 2c 1 #e7, with approximate
equality; A.Ivanov - Akobian,
Philadelphia 2002) 18...J.a6 19
&xa6 2xa6 20 c4!D 2c8 21 b3
2c6! 22 2hhl £ic5! 23 cxd5 exd5=
Kosanovic-Hrzic, Yugoslavia 2002.
16 b3 ±b7 17 <&bl The most
reliable move. After 17 f5?! ±c6 18
f6 gxf6! 19 exf6 &h8+ the initiative
passes to Black, who also feels
comfortable enough in the event of
17 2h3 Ac6 18 £sb2 Bfc8!? 19
<£d3 ±b5 20 *bl #c7 21 Bel a5?i
Zelcic-Dizdar, Pula open 1999.
17...ix6 18 &b2 #c5 Another
quite good choice is 18...JLb5 19
Ad3 2ac8°°. 19 #d2 a5 20 2h3 f6
21 Bg3 #e7, with a roughly equal
game; Belotti-Luther, Saint Vincent
open 1998.
13...b4
mmmmt
*-m% lillill HI
m m * m
\tm
Wi 'W® Wl Wi
W& isM faSf fM
Another move worth attention is
13...JLb7. The idea is that after the
virtually inevitable b5-b4, the white
knight won't be able to go to a4
without being immediately attacked.

Steinitz Variation 3 £)ci £>/6 4 e5 Zhfd7 5f4 c5 6 £)/3 *hc6 7 ke3 cxd4!? 93
Play may continue: 14 g4 Or 14 h5
b4 15 £)a4 #a5 16 b3 &c6 17 £>b2
2fc8?*. On 14 <4>bl, Black has quite
a good choice - he can play sharply
with 14...b4 15 £>e2!? a5 16 g4
JLa6?i, or concentrate on equalizing
as in David-Gurevich, Vlissingen
open 1999: 14...£xd4 15 Wxd4 f6!?
16 exf6!? #xf6 17 Wxf6 Sxf6 18
£>e2 Se8, intending 19...e5=.
14...b4 15 £se2 Of course not 15
£sa4?! #a5 16 b3 i.c6t. 15...a5 16
g5 £a6 Or 16...n>6!? which isn't
bad either. 17 h5 Sc8 Unruly
complications result from
17...1^6!? 18 g6 h6 19 f5 a4?i. 18
&bl H>6 19 g6!? h6 In Mikhail
Gurevich's view, 19...fxg6 20 hxg6
hxg6 also leads to unclear play. 20
Se3!? £.xe2 21 Sxe2 a4#
Gruenfeld-Gurevich, Haifa 1995.
14 £>a4!
mmmmiL
2\m m2m,M,
H tm2m wk ,
fi\W$ VF& W? W>
fzJf£<f m£r W'<, &.
White hasn't much choice. The
game J.Polgar-Shirov, EuroTel
Trophy 1999, saw instead 14 4be2?!
a5 15 #e3 Or 15 £xc5 £ixc5 16
£k!4 £a6 17 £.xa6 Sxa6 18 #e3
a4t. 15...WC7 16 i.xc5 £ixc5 17
£ld4 a4, and if anything the
initiative was already in Black's
hands.
14...i.xd4 15l'xd4a5!?
Another line occurring fairly
often is 15...#a5 16 b3 &b7 17 c3!
More convincing than 17 Sg3 iLc6
18 £sb2 (after 18 f5?! #c7! Black's
chances are preferable) 18...4bc5!
19 &d3 Sfd8 20 fS exf5 21 Axf5
£te4? Dutreeuw-Gurevich, Brussels
open 1995.17...2fc8 18 4>b2 bxc3+
19 Sxc3 Sxc3 20 #xc3 #d8 Or
20...#xc3+ 21 £ixc3 *f8 22 a4
<4>e7 23 a5 h6 24 Scl f6 25 &a4,
with an obvious plus for White;
Nijboer-Luther, Leeuwarden 1992.
21 g3 Sc8 22 Wb4 Wc7 23 &d3±
Socko - Kaminski, Polish Ch,
Warsaw 1995.
Short's move 15...f6!? leads to
wholly obscure play. There can
follow: 16 #xb4 fxe5 17 #d6 Wf6
18 f5! The only move; 18 fxe5?
loses to 18...1ff4+ 19 *bl Wxfl!
-+. 18...1rh6+! 19 &bl
± ■ mwt k
JlffllM
JgttflU"
19...£lf6! The well-known game
Kasparov-Short, Amsterdam 1994,
went 19...Sxf5 20 Sf3! Sxfi (or
20...tff6 21 Sxf5 #xf5 22 Ae2

94 Steinitz Variation 3 thc3 Z&f6 4 e5 (&fd7 5f4 c5 6 Chf3 £lcd 7 Le3 cxd4!?
#f7 23 Ag4! £tf6 24 £>b6 &xg4 25
&xa8±) 21 gxB Wf6 22 £h3 &f7,
and now Kasparov recommends 23
f4!? We7! (not 23...exf4 24 Sel
£)f8 25 ^b6 +-) 24 fxe5 Wxd6 25
exd6 £tf6 26 £>c5±. 20 &b6 Black
has a good game in the event of 20
#xe5 £le4! or 20 #c7 exf5 21 £lb6
f4!, while 20 fxe6? loses outright to
20...£te4 21 #xd5 £>d2+ 22 2xd2
&xe6! -+. 20...£)e4 21 #c7 2f7 22
#xe5 Perhaps White should be
content to repeat moves with 22
«d8+ Sf8 23 #c7 2f7=. 22...Sxf5
23 #d4 Or 23 #c7!?. 23...Sxfl
White's chances are somewhat
superior after 23...£>d2+ 24 Sxd2
#xd2 25 #xd2 2xfl+ 26 Wcl
Sxcl+ 27 &xcl 2b8 28 Sb3± Van
der Weide - Stellwagen, Wijk aan
Zee open 2000. However,
23...2b8!? deserves close attention,
for instance: 24 2f3! 2xb6 25
Wxb6 £\d2+ 26 2xd2 #xd2 27
#d8+ £>f7 28 2xf5+ exf5 with
approximate equality. 24 2xfl
£)d2+ 25 Wxd2 #xd2, and Black's
chances are at least no worse. White
urgently needs to look for an
improvement in this variation.
16 &b5!?
A typical manoeuvre to hinder
Black's plan of exchanging bishops.
It would be risky to continue 16 c4
bxc3 17 2xc3 Or 17 £ixc3?! Aa6
18 h5 £xfl 19 2xfl 2c8T.
17...#xh4 18 g3 #d8 19 &bl Aa6
20 iLxa6 2xa6, leaving White with
insufficient compensation for the
pawn; Nijboer-Korchnoi, Arnhem
1999.
Black is all right after 16 <4>bl
JLa6 It's also worth considering
16...#c7!?, for example: 17 c3
&a6! 18 ±xa6 2xa6 19 cxb4 axb4
20 2c 1 (Black's attack would be
difficult to repel after 20 #xb4?!
2b8 21 #d4 #a5 22 £)c3 2b4)
20...1rb8 21 b3 f6= Zelcic-Dreev,
Las Vegas 1999. 17 Axa6 2xa6 18
c4 bxc3 19 #xc3 #e8!?, with
approximate equality; David-Reefat,
Istanbul ol 2000.
16...2b8 17 i.d3!?
"The Moor has done his work"
(depriving Black of the chance to
play JLc8-a6), "the Moor can go!"
Black (unlike his opponent!) has no
problems to worry him in the event
of 17 &xd7 £xd7 18 £lc5 &b51\
or 17 c4 bxc3! 18 &xc3 #b6 19
#xb6 2xb6 20 b3 f6= Yurtaev-
Goloshchapov, Calcutta open 2000.
Practice has also seen 17 Ae2
Ab7 18 &bl Or 18 2g3 &c6 19
£k5 £>xc5 20 Wxc5 2c8 21 Wd4
Wcl'o when Black has strong play
on the c-file. 18...&C6 19 £lc5 ±b5
20 &d3 £\xc5 21 #xc5 #d7= De la
Riva Aguado-Glek, Saint Vincent
1999.
17...1rc7

Steinitz Variation 3 Z&c3 *hf6 4 e5 &fd7 5f4 c5 6 ty3 Zhc6 7 Jie3 cxd4!? 95
Black fixes his sights on the
e5-square and prepares counterplay
in the c-file. Another move
deserving close attention is
17..JLb7, for instance: 18 f5 &c6!?
In Fedorov-Korchnoi, Batumi 1999,
White seized the initiative after
18.. Mel 19 Sel exf5 (on
19...*c6?! 20 Sg3 #xa4?! 21
Wg4!, White's attack is irresistible;
however, 19...JLc6!? is worth
thinking about) 20 £.xf5 3x6 21
£>c5 £>xc5 22 lxc5 Sfe8 23
She3± 19 £sc5 White could
consider 19 f6; in reply, Black
would choose between 19...gxf6°°
and \9...Wcl, whereupon 20 fxg7
^xg7 21 Wh4+ sfeh8 22 #g5 fails
against 22...f5! with advantage. On
19 Sg3!?, Black has 19...#07!? 20
h6 g6!, when his prospects don't
look at all bad. 19...£>xc5!? Or
19...11)6 20 f6!, with a very strong
attack for White. 20 *xc5 Wb6 21
#xb6 Or 21 #e7 Wd8!?.
21...Sxb6, with a complex ending;
Marjanovic-Antic, Yugoslav Ch
2000.
Similarly White can hardly lay
claim to anything concrete after
17...£lb6!? 18 *hc5 The verdict
isn't altered by 18 £kb6 Sxb6 19
h5 Aa6=. 18...£sd7 19 £\xd7 Or 19
b.5!?. 19...i.xd7 20 f5 exf5 21 Sg3
#b6 22 #f4 Sfe8 23 h5 h6?i Van
der Weide-Schenk, Augsburg 2002.
And finally, Black also has fair
chances of equalizing with 17...f6!?
18 exf6 #xf6 19 #xf6 Sxf6°o.
18 h5
White is unsuccessful with 18
fig3 A.b7 Black is on the verge of
defeat after 18...W c6 19 f5 Wc7 20
f6 g6 21 Se3, with a powerful
initiative. 19 Sel The chances are
equal after 19 h5 £x6 20 h6 g6 21
£ic5 £ixc5 22 #xc5 Sfc8. 19...£.c6
20 £lc5 foxcS 21 WxcS Sfc8 22 f5
&b5=.
The outcome is similar after 18
Sel £)b6!? Nor does White achieve
much against 18.-1^6 19 b3 Jla6
20 &xa6 #xa6 21 Sg3 Sbc8 22 f5
#c6?* Arakhamia - Matveeva,
Kishinev 1995. 19 Wc5 Wxc5 Of
course not 19...#b7? 20 £xh7+! +-.
20 £)xc5 £ld7, and the chances can
be assessed as about equal.
And finally, 18 Sf3?! Sa8! 19
&bl i.a6 20 £xa6 3xa6 21 c4
Sc8 22 b3 Sc6 23 Sf2 4Dc5

96 Steinitz Variation 3 foc3 fof6 4 e5 Zhfdl 5/4 c5 6 £>/3 £>c<5 7 &e3 cxd4!?
promises Black excellent attacking
chances; Izoria - Kacheishvili,
Georgian Ch, Tbilisi 2000.
18...&b7
I don't think Black can have any
problems after 18...1^6 19 b3
JLa6=° either.
m flip fll
ti.il
£l|£PH ■
19Se3
White could consider 19 g4 Sfc8
20 Sh2! Wc6 21 b3 ±a6 22 £.xa6
#xa6 23 f5, with chances of a
minimal plus; Fogarasi-Luther,
Kecskemet 1993.
19...&C6 20 £>c5 <&xc5 21 Wxc5
2fc8 22 f5
After 22 h6 g6 23 g4 &b5 24
Wxc7 Sxc7 25 g5 £.xd3 26 Hexd3
&f%= the closed nature of the
position prevents White from
counting on any real gains.
22...£b5!
§ ^u? up * ^p +
Vladimir Akopian consistently
pursues the policy of eliminating his
opponent's active pieces, and
confidently levels the chances.
23 fxc7
On 23 #d4?! &xd3 24 #xd3 a4,
it is Black's threats that are more
substantial.
23...Sxc7 24 f6!? £.xd3 25
Sdxd3 Sbc8 26 Se2 gxf6!
The simplest path to the draw, but
another possibility is 26...Sc4!? 27
Sg3 g6 28 hxg6 fxg6 29 Sf3 *f7«>.
27 exf6 Sc4 28 Sg3+ &f8 29
Sg7 Sf4! 30 2xh7 *g8 31 2g7
<£?f8= V2-V2
It would most probably pay White
to give more attention to the
eleventh-move alternatives: 11
£ft>3!?, 11 &bl and especially 11
Wf2!?.

6: Burn Variation
3 4k3 £>f6 4 Ag5 dxe4
Game 10
Christiansen - Andersson
World Ch, Groningen 1997
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £lc3 £tf6 4
&g5 dxe4
The Burn Variation has become
extremely popular in the last few
years, even at the very highest level
- players such as Anand, Shirov,
Morozevich and Bareev have
incorporated it into their opening
repertoire for Black.
5&xe4
After 5 &xf6 #xf6 (5...gxf6!? 6
£ixe4 f5°° also deserves attention) 6
&xe4 #d8 7 £)f3 &d7 8 £d3
ie7=o, the play transposes
amusingly into the variation 5 £}xe4
&e7 6 &xf6 £.xf6 7 &f3 £>d7 8
&d3 ±e7.
5...i.e7 6 &xf6
Black can be perfectly happy with
6 &g3 0-0 7 &d3 c5 8 dxc5
£)bd7=, and even happier with 6
&d3?! £lxe4 7 £.xe7 #xe7 8 &xe4
tTj4+ 9 c3 #xb2 Callet-Barsov,
Massy open 1995; you would have
a job to persuade me that White can
obtain enough for his pawn here.
6...gxf6!?
A sharp move, leading to wholly
unclear positions which offer plenty
of scope for imaginative play. Black
weakens his kingside pawn
structure, but on the other hand
opens up the g-file to create
counterplay and takes some
important central squares under

98 Burn Variation 3 £lc3 &f6 4 kg5 dxe4
control. For a long period Ulf
Andersson was practically alone in
continuing to demonstrate the
legitimacy of this move, but in
recent years it has received the
strong support of Kiriakov, Volkov
and Luther.
The alternative 6....&xf6!? is no
less popular, and will be analysed in
Chapter 7. It's hard to say whether
6...Axf6 or 6...gxf6 is stronger, but
what I can say is that if you play the
latter you need to have excellent
theoretical knowledge, especially
when trying it for the first time.
Otherwise there is a fair chance that
you won't survive to move twenty!
7£>f3
This is what White usually plays.
Of the interesting alternatives, I
would mention the following:
(A) 7 JLc4 a6!? In Minasian-
Savchenko, Belgorod 1989, White
seized the initiative after 7...f5?! 8
£sg3!? Sg8 9 £tf3 &d7 10 #e2
£)b6 11 &b3 £ld5 12 0-0-0t. 8 a4
£id7 A more standard type of
position arises from 8...b6 9 4}f3
&b7 10 We2. 9 £sD c5 10 0-0
Leko-Bunzmann, Hamburg 1999;
now the simple 10...cxd4!? would
have led to unclear play.
(B) The rare move 7 <Sk3!?
deserves attention, for instance:
7...c6 8 g3 &d7 9 ±g2 Wc7 10
#h5 f5 11 £>f3 h6 12 &d2 &f6 13
Hfe2 ±d7 14 £ic4± De Vreugt-
Sturua, European Ch, Ohrid 2001.
(C) 7 #d2 b6 8 g3 f5 In
Topalov-Morozevich, Sarajevo
2000, some interesting play resulted
from 8...£b7 9 Ag2 #c8 10 f4 0-0
11 £.f3 £>c6 12 0-0-0 Sd8 13 %2
£kd4! 14 £sxf6+ £xf6 15 Axb7
Vitd7=. 9 £\c3 &b7 10 d5 c6 11
dxe6 #xd2+ 12 4>xd2 fxe6 13 £g2
£la6! 14 Sel £ic7= Istratescu-
Volkov, Romanian Team Ch 2001.
(D) 7 #d3!? is of interest.
For example: 7...b6 I feel White's
chances should be preferred in the
event of 7...1fd5!? 8 £>c3 Wa5 9
0-0-0 c6 10 g3 £>a6 11 a3 £d7 12
£rf3 b5 13 £>d2!± Dominguez-
Yeuillaz, Saint Vincent 2002. Quite
often Black plays 7...f5!? 8 £>c3 c6,
when there can follow 9 0-0-0 £>d7
10 £M3!? (Velimirovic's sharp
continuation is worth thinking
about: 10 g4!? fxg4 11 h3 gxh3 12
J.xh3 #c7 13 £>f3 b6 14 *bl &b7
15 £te5!« Velimirovic-Andersson,
Bar 1997) 10...#c7 11 We3 2g8 12
*bl £)f6 13 h.3!? b5 14 £>e5 b4 15
£>a4 £k!5?* Sherbakov-Kiriakov,
Yekaterinburg 1999. 8 0-0-0 ib7 9
£>c3 Or 9 #f3!?. 9...c6 After 9...a6?
Black comes close to outright
defeat: 10 d5! exd5 11 £)xd5 &xd5
12 #xd5 #xd5 13 Sxd5±. 10 f4!?

Burn Variation 3 £>ci *hf6 4 kg5 dxe4 99
Or 10 Wgi f5 11 £tf3 £)d7 12 &c4
<4>f8!?, with an unconventional and
interesting position. 10...f5!? 11
g4!? fxg4 12 f5 «U6!? 13 fxe6 fxe6
Better than \3..Mlxe6 14 d5!? cxd5
15 £g2T. 14 h3!? Black's game is
simpler to play in the event of 14
We4 &d7 15 #xg4 £tf6 16 #h3
0-0-0=. 14...£id7!? 15 hxg4 0-0-0!?
16 Sxh7 Sxh7 17 lrxh7 £if6, with
approximate equality; Magem
Badals-Gurevich, French Team Ch
1999.
(E) 7 c4!? f5 8 £»c3 &f6 9 &ge2
More accurate than 9 £sf3 £>c6!? 10
d5 £>e7 11 Wb3 c6! 12 0-0-0 cxd5
13 cxd5 exd5 14 £b5+ *f8 and
Black has reason to be optimistic,
chiefly thanks to his powerful
dark-squared bishop; Tischbierek-
Luther, East German Ch, Zittau
1989. 9...£sc6 10 d5 £te5 11 f4!?
&g6 12 g3 0-0, De Vreugt-
Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2001; now
after the simple 13 jk.g2, White
could very well count on a small
plus.
(F) Black achieves a good game
with no particular trouble in the case
of7g3
* fm <& HP vm ?m
7...f5 There may be another
interesting option in 7...£k6!? 8
£>e2 b6 9 &g2 &b7 10 0-0 #d7«>. I
don't so much like the variation
7...i.d7 8 £sf3!? &c6 9 We2 f5 (or
9...1rd5?! 10 £)ed2 &a6 11 a3
0-0-0 12 &g2T) 10 £\ed2 Af6 11
c3 lfe7 12 Ag2 £)d7 13 0-0 0-0 14
Sfel± with an unpleasant position
for Black; Fischer-Minev, Havana
ol 1966. 8 £>c3 &f6 9 £sge2 More
convincing than 9 £tf3 c5 10 dxc5
#a5°°. 9...£)c6 10 d5
m
HDLMtf
A
HKri
! m%mxw///'
in
HP HP HP HP
'im HPi «
§ ifs* HP »
I gj- il il
2P2 Bm>® Q HP n
10...£)b4!? Perhaps not a bad
alternative is 10...exd5, with the
possible continuation 11 £}xd5
&xb2 12 £g2! 0-0 (not 12...£xal?
13 #xal±) 13 0-0 (White clearly
has no objection at all to sacrificing
the exchange) 13...£h8 14 £tef4
£se5 15 #h5 £)g6 16 £lh3!? (an
attempt to improve on the famous
3rd match game Fischer-Petrosian,
Buenos Aires 1971, which went 16
Sadl c6 17 £se3 #f6 18 *hl Ag7
19 &h3 £ie7 20 Sd3 £e6 with a
comfortable game for Black)
16...£g7 17 £sg5 h6 18 £>xf7!
Sxf7! 19 #xg6 %5! 20 #xg5
hxg5 21 Sael <4>f8 22 Se2 c6 23
Sfel itd7= Nadanian-Altounian,

100 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 JLg5 dxe4
Armenia 1994. 11 £g2 On 11
dxe6?! Wxdl+ 12 Sxdl &xe6T the
initiative passes to Black. Il...£ixd5
I don't think Black can have any
problems after ll...c6!? either. 12
JLxd5!? Black has an easy game in
the event of 12 £)xd5?! exd5 13 0-0
0-0 14 c3 c6. 12...exd5 13 #xd5 Or
13 £>xd5 £xb2 14 £>ef4 0-01.
tt.-.l'xdS 14 &xd5 &xb2! 15
&xc7+ <4>d8 16 Sbl &xc7 17 Sxb2
Lopez Martinez - Ivanisevic, Elgo-
ibar 2000; now after 17...Sd8!? 18
c3 Sd3! Black would be the only
one who could lay claim to an
advantage.
7...b6
The classic reply. Some other
continuations lead to sharper play:
(A) 7...&d7 8 #d2 The game
Sutovsky-Short, EU-Cup final,
Bugojno 1999, took an interesting
course: 8 g3!? c5 9 JLg2 (or 9 d5!?
f5 10 £ic3 &f6 11 Wd2 0-0 12
0-0-0 #a5?*) 9...irb6 10 0-0 cxd4
11 £>xd4 (or 11 #xd4!? Wxd4 12
£ixd4 a6 13 Sadl with chances of a
small plus) 11...0-0 12 £)c3 £>e5 13
&b3 Ad7 14 #h5 f5?». There is
also some sharp play following 8
Ac4 c5 9 d5 (Shirov-Short, 1st
match game, Las Vegas 1999, went
9 0-0 0-0 10 Sell £)b6 11 iLfl
cxd4 12 £>xd4 <4>h8 13 c3 e5!? 14
#h5 £>d5; and now with 15 £>e2!
#c7 16 Sadl ±e6 17 c4! White
can bid for a slight advantage)
9...£fo6 10 &b5+ Ml 11 We2
Axb5 12 #xb5+ Wd7 13 #xd7+
&xdl 14 dxe6+ fxe6= Tseshkovsky
- Bronstein, Moscow 1981. 8...c5 9
d5 White can count on no more than
a nominal plus with 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10
#xd4 Wb6 11 #a4!? a6 12 &e2
#c7 13 #d4 (or 13 g3!?) 13...b5 14
£)d6+ £xd6 15 #xd6 #xd6 16
Sxd6 JLb7, with good chances of
equality in J.Polgar - Short,
Pamplona 1999. 9...f5 10 £)c3!?
Stronger than 10 dxe6 fxe4 11
exd7+ #xd7=. 10...&f6 11 0-0-0
0-0 12 g4! £se5 Or 12...fxg4 13 Sgl
&h8 14 Sxg4 £>e5 15 £>xe5 £.xe5
16 d6t. 13 £\xe5 JLxe5, Ivanovic-
Zviagintsev, Yugoslavia 2000; at
this point 14 gxf5 Wh4 15 &bl
would have given White a small but
distinct plus.
(B) 7...a6!?
The last word in fashion! Black
prepares to fianchetto with some

Burn Variation 3 &c3 fofS 4 ±g5 dxe4 101
extra space, and more or less
provokes White into active
operations. The line acquired its
credentials thanks to some
improvements by Alexander
Morozevich, who has played quite a
few interesting games with it.
White's usual choice is between the
following continuations :-
(Bl) 8 ±d3 f5 9 £ig3 Black can
hardly be afraid of the consequences
of either 9 £)ed2 c5! or 9 £lc5 b6 10
£sb3 Ab7 11 #e2 #d6 12 0-0-0
£kl7°° Hracek-Morozevich, Bundes-
liga 1999. 9...c5 10 0-0 Or 10 dxc5
#a5+ 11 c3 *xc5 12 Wd2 £ic6 13
0-0-0 h5 14 h4 b5°° Stefansson-
Morozevich, Reykjavik 1999.
10...h5!? The position of the knight
on g3 positively provokes Black
into action! 11 c3 h4 12 £>e2 b6 13
£tf4 £b7?* Wohl-Barua, British
Ch, Torquay 2002.
(B2) 8 #d2
8...b5 In Perunovic-Antic,
Yugoslav Ch, Subotica 2000, Black
continued riskily (but then the
whole 7...a6 variation is fairly risky)
with 8..T5 9 £>g3 £)d7 10 £>h5 h6!?
11 0-0-0 £)f6; and now 12 £>f4 £>e4
13 #e3± gives White a promising
position. 9 tfh.6 Similar variations
result from 9 0-0-0 i.b7 10 &d3
£)d7 11 *bl -&d5 12 Wh6! c6 13
#g7 Sf8 14 Wxh7 f5 15 £ic3!
£if6?2 Klovans-Nielsen, Istanbul ol
2000. 9...&b7 10 £d3 Or 10 #g7
Sf8 11 #xh7 f5! 12 £>ed2 &f6 13
#h6 c5S Pilgaard-Heim, Gausdal
2003. 10...£sd7 11 <&g3 Black has
sufficient compensation for his
pawn after 11 #g7 2f8 12 #xh7 f5
13 £)ed2 £tf6 14 #h3 ±e4!. Nor
has he any difficulties in the case of
11 0-0-0 f5 12 &eg5 £.xg5+ 13
£)xg5 #f6 14 #h5 %6 15 Wh4
0-0-0f when it is already White
who has to think about how to
maintain the balance; Wedberg-
Nielsen, New York open 2000.
Il...f5 12 £)h5 The aggressive 12
JLxf5? meets with an uncomplicated
refutation in the shape of 12...ixf3
13 gxD &g5 14 #h5 exf5 -+.
12...ik.f8! Black's backwardness in
development looks nothing short of
catastrophic, and yet his position is
by no means bad! 13 #e3 The
modest 13 £)g7+ Axg7 14 #xg7
#f6 15 #xf6 £)xf6 16 &e2 Sg8 17
g3= might be the best solution.
13...£)f6 14 £>xf6+ In the game
Sutovsky-Morozevich, Pamplona
1998, White chose the most
aggressive move 14 #e5??, and
after the unexpected 14...£teh5! 15
Wxh8 £.xf3 16 gxD £\f6! -+ he
ended up in a hopeless position!
14...«xf6 15 &e2 c5T.
(B3) 8 g3!? b5 The most popular
move, but by no means the only
one. An interesting alternative is
8...£lc6!?, for example 9 &g2 e5 10

102 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 £\f6 4 ±g5 dxe4
d5 £ib4 11 £k3 (Black has an
easier time after 11 c4 f5 12 £>c3 e4
13 £>e5 a5 14 a3 £la6, with not bad
prospects) ll...c6 12 dxc6 #xdl+
13 Sxdl bxc6 14 a3 £sd5! 15 <&xd5
cxd5 16 Sxd5 Sb8 17 b4 £.e6, and
Black succeeded in obtaining
adequate compensation for the pawn
in Milos-Morozevich, Istanbul ol
2000. Another line that occurs is
8...f5 9 £>c3 (the game is level after
9 £led2 c5 10 dxc5 i.xc5 11 £>b3
#xdl+ 12 Sxdl &e7 Nevednichy-
Sakaev, Yugoslav Team Ch, Novi
Sad 2000) 9...£f6 10 JLg2 (the
chances are likewise not simple to
assess after 10 #d2 c5 11 d5 0-0 12
O-0'O b5«) 10...c5 11 d5 #b6 (it
would also be worth considering
ll...±xc3+ 12 bxc3 exd5 13 0-0
£e6°°) 12 HMO 0-0 13 0-0 Sd8 14
£)d2! (stronger than 14 Wd2 <&g7
15 Sfdl £lc6! Vasiesiu-Volkov,
Romania 2000) 14...1^7 15 £lc4
with initiative for White. 9 &-gl
Rm&m m£Um
£1 wmm mm
10 We2 £id7 The alternative
10....&d5 is scarcely on a par with
the text move; White obtains a small
plus with no particular trouble, for
example: 11 c3!? (similar positions
arise from 11 £ted2 £id7 12 0-0 0-0
13 Sfdl £>b6 14 c3 £)a4 15 £>fl c6
16 £>e3± Glek-Volkov, Corinth
open 2000; White's chances are also
superior after 11 <2}c3 c6 12 £>xd5!?
cxd5 13 c3 £ic6 14 a4 0-0 15 0-0±
Lutz-Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999)
ll...£id7 12 b3!? 0-0 13 0-0 f5 14
£>ed2 c5 15 c4 ±c6 16 Sadlt
Ponomariov-Morozevich, 1st match
game, Moscow 2001. 11 0-0!? This
quiet move seems to me to be the
most logical, but castling long is not
at all bad either: 11 0-0-0 &d5 12
*bl c6 13 £>c3 £ib6 14 Shel Wcl
15 £>h4 h5!? 16 f4± Leko-
Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999.
11...0-0 12 2fdl!? A different
arrangement of the rooks is also
seen: 12 Sadl &d5 13 Sfel <&h8 14
£>fd2 (or 14 <&c3 c6 15 £kd5
cxd5=) 14...C6 15 c4 bxc4 16 £)xc4
a5!?2 J.Polgar-Morozevich, Wijk
aan Zee 2000. Black similarly
obtained equal chances in Almasi-
Morozevich, Monte Carlo rapid
2003, after 12 a4 &d5 13 £>ed2
Sb8 14 axb5 axb5 15 c3 c5 16 Sfdl
#c7 17 £>fl cxd4 18 Sxd4 M.xG 19
#xG £te5». 12...i.d5 13 c3 f5 14
£led2 c5 Or 14...£>f6 15 b3 c5 16
c4 bxc4 17 bxc4 &b7 18 £>b3±. 15
dxc5 £>xc5 16 £lfl! with a slight
edge for White in Kasparov-
Gurevich, Sarajevo 2000.
(B4) 8 c4!? f5 9 £sc3 £f6 The
variation 9...c5 10 d5 .&f6 gives
White the additional interesting
option of 11 Wc2!?, for instance
ll...e5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 £>d2! Ag7
14 O WflS 15 Ad3 b5! 16 Sdfl! (a
superb move, preparing g2-g4)
16...h6 17 *bl b4 18 £>a4 a5 19

Burn Variation 3 £>ci *hf6 4 ±g5 dxe4 103
g4!± Anand-Short, Dubai 2002. 10
#d2 Or 10 #c2 iLxd4! 11 0-0-0
c5co. 10...C5 11 d5 0-0 12 0-0-0 e5
The play is no less interesting after
12...A.g7!?, for example 13 h4! (or
13 *bl exd5! 14 £>xd5 £k6 15 h4
b5 16 h5 h6 Lutz-Morozevich, Biel
2003; thanks to his strong
dark-squared bishop, Black can face
the future with optimism) 13...exd5
(or 13...#f6!?) 14 £>xd5 £>c6 15 h5
h6D 16 Sh3, Shirov-Morozevich,
Astana 2001; and now it was worth
considering 16...Se8 17 Sg3 &h8°o.
13 h4!?
White goes into action on the
kingside without delay. 13...b5 14
d6! £)c6 White has a dangerous
attack in the event of 14...jLe6 15
g4! fxg4 16 &d3 &g7 17 £>g5
Felgaer-N.Pert, Copenhagen 2002.
Black could consider 14..JLb7!?,
for instance 15 Wh6 £g7 16 #h5
e4?l 15 d7! Ab7 16 #d6! e4 There
is nothing at all attractive for Black
in 16...*e7 17 Wc7! Sab8 18 £k!5.
17 £ld5! and White's advantage is
only too evident; Shirov-Topalov,
Sarajevo 2000. Black's play can
doubtless be improved, but the
impression is that the initiative is
firmly in White's hands.
(C) 7...f5
The big "hit" of the 1980s, but it
is out of favour with today's elite
players. 8 £k3 A less convincing
option is 8 &g3 c5 9 &b5+ (9 dxc5
is completely harmless: 9...1irxdl+
10 Sxdl &xc5 11 £le5 &e7=. Nor
has Black any problems after 9 Wd2
£ic6 10 £b5!? #b6 11 i.xc6+
bxc6! 12 0-0-0 2b8£ Kazhgaleyev-
Garma, Asian Ch, Calcutta 2001)
9...i.d7 10 £.xd7+ #xd7 11 d5!?
(the game is equal after 11 dxc5
#xdl+ 12 Sxdl £>c6 13 0-0
&xc5=) ll...exd5 12 Wd3 £>c6
(12...#e6+?! 13 &dl! brings Black
no dividends) 13 0-0-0 f4 (Black
can also consider 13...0-0-0 14
*xf5 #xf5 15 £sxf5 &f6°°) 14 ^h5
0-0-0! (better than 14...Wg4 15
Wxd5 Ed8 16 #f5!±) 15 £sxf4 £ib4
16 Wa3 c4! 17 £)e5 #c7 18 #h3+
4^8, with a good game for Black;
V.Ivanov-Danielian, USSR 1991.
8...£f6 The old, passive 8...c6?!
enjoys no popularity today. A move
deserving more attention is 8...a6,

104 Burn Variation 3 £&c3 Zhf6 4 ±g5 dxe4
with the possible continuation 9
Wcl (9 g3!?) 9...b5 (or 9...c5 10 d5!
exd5 11 #e5°°) 10 0-0-0 b4 11 £sa4
#d5! 12 c4 #a5 13 b3 Ml?
Grischuk-Sakaev, Moscow - St
Petersburg 2002. 9 «Cd2 Black's
game is simple to play after 9 JLd3
0-0 10 £>e2 c5!°o or 9 Ac4 £>c6 10
Ab5 (10 £>e2!?) 10...#d6 11 #d2
Ad7 12 *h6!? We7 13 0-0-0
0-0-0£ Rohde-Speelman, London
1984. 9...c5 On 9...0-0!? 10 0-0-0
(10 g4 fxg4D 11 Hgl?* is worth
thinking about) 10...c5 11 d5, the
play transposes into variation C3
below. After the text move, White's
usual choice is between three
continuations:
(CI) 10 &b5+ Ad7 11 dxc5 Of
the other possible lines, it's worth
mentioning 11 JLxd7+ £)xd7 12
0-0-0 #a5=, as well as 11 0-0-0
£xb5 12 £\xb5 *T>6 13 c4 (13
#e2!? cxd4! 14 £)e5! 0-0 15 f4
2d8°° deserves attention) 13...cxd4
14 Wf4 £>a6! 15 £)fxd4,
Khamatgaleev - Kiriakov, Perm
1997; now Black should have
chosen between 15...fid8!? and
15...Sg8!?, with a fully satisfactory
game in either case. Il...a6 12
i.xd7+ £ixd7 13 £ia4 Or 13 0-0-0
Wc7 14 #d6 Hc8 15 &d5 #xc5
16 £)xf6+ £>xf6 17 Wxc5 Sxc5=
A.Sokolov - Andersson, Brussels
1988. 13...#c7 14 0-0-0 £)xc5!
Black isn't scared of phantoms. 15
£sxc5 #xc5 16 #d7+ &f8 17
«(!(.+ Wxd6 18 2xd6 Sg8 19 g3
&e7= Wedberg - Andersson,
Haninge 1988.
(C2) 10 0-0-0 cxd4 11 &b5+ Or
11 £kd4 £>c6 12 £ixc6 #xd2+ 13
2xd2 bxc6=. Il...*e7!? A bold and
interesting move! Less convincing
options are ll...£>c6 12 £>xd4 iLd7
(or 12...i.xd4 13 i.xc6+ bxc6 14
#xd4 #xd4 15 Sxd4 c5 16 Bd2
with a clear endgame advantage) 13
£>xf5! exf5 14 #d6 £e5! 15 Shel
#g5+ 16 *bl 0-0-0 17 Sxe5 &e6
18 #c5± Liberzon-Botvinnik,
Moscow 1966; and ll...Ad7?! 12
&xd7+ #xd7 13 Wh6 #d8 14
Shel with a strong initiative for
White. 12 £)xd4 White is left with
little hope of an advantage after 12
Wf4 Wd6! 13 #xd6+ <£>xd6 14
£lxd4 <£>c7 15 i.e2 a6=. 12...#xd4
13 #xd4 i.xd4 14 Sxd4 a6 15
£e2 £sc6 16 Sh4 £)e5, with
approximate equality; Tseshkovsky-
Volkov, Novgorod open 1995.
(C3) 10 d5!? The most popular
continuation. 10...0-0 On 10...e5,
White plays 11 h4!? £>d7 12 0-0-0
e4 13 £)g5 h6 14 £\h3 i.d4 15 £)b5
£e5 16 d6± Brodsky-Kiriakov,
Nizhny Novgorod 1998. White's
position is likewise preferable after
10...exd5 11 &xd5 (11 We3+ &e6
12 *xc5 £)d7 13 &b5 Sc8 14
1^34 is interesting too) ll...JLxb2

Bum Variation 3 foc3 Qf6 4 ±g5 dxe4 105
12 Sdl £.e6 13 iLc4 (13 £b5+ isn't
as convincing: 13...£lc6 14 0-0 a6
15 c4!? Ag7 16 #f4 Sc8 17 &xc6+
bxc6 18 #g3 0-0= Zhang Zhong-
Kiriakov, Hastings 2001) 13...JLg7
14 0-0 0-0 15 #f4 £>d7 16 Sfel
Sc8 17 £>g5T Degraeve-Bauer,
French Ch, Val d'Isere 2002. 11
0-0-0
ll...e5 It's extremely risky for
Black to play 1 l...Ag7 12 #e3 Wb6
13 £le5 exd5 14 £>xd5 #e6 15 f4
(it's hard to recommend 15 £ic7
#xe5 16 #xe5 £xe5 17 £)xa8
£}c6!?, when the white knight has
little chance of getting out alive;
however, 15 £)c4!?f deserves close
attention) 15...£ld7 (or 15...£lc6 16
£>xc6 bxc6 17 £te7+ <4>h8 18 *xe6
.&xe6, when White can choose
between 19 b3 c4!? 20 bxc4 £xc4
21 bxc4± and 19 £)xc6 £xa2 20 b3
a5D 21 ±c4 a4 22 Ehel, again with
a clear plus; Galkin-Holzke, Biel
open 2000) 16 £k:4 (16 £>xd7!?
&xd7 17 WxcST is worth thinking
about) 16...£>f6 17 £)c7 #xe3+ 18
£ke3 Sb8 19 JLd3, with advantage
to White; Landenbergue-Luther,
Ptuj zt 1995. 12 h4 White secures
the g5-square for his knight and
prepares for active operations on the
kingside. There is similarly sharp
play after 12 <A>bl!? £)d7 13 g4!?.
12...£)d7 Or 12...i.g7 13 d6!?
(the initiative is also in White's
hands after 13 *bl £k!7 14 d6 &b6
15 #e3 Ad7 16 #xc5 Wf6 17 #a5!
e4 18 £>d4 #xd6 19 £b5!±
Fressinet-Moor, Zug 2001; but I feel
that the text move is more
convincing) 13...e4!? 14 £)g5 £sd7
15 £3! h6 16 £id5!? Se8 (on
16...£tf6? 17 £le7+ *h8 18 Ac4!
White's threats are irresistible) 17
£le7+!? (in Vokarev-Kiriakov,
Moscow 1999, a virtually forced
and very pretty draw resulted from
17 £)xf7!? &xf7 18 £>c7 £sb6!Q 19
£)xa8 e3! 20 Wd3 c4! 21 #a3 e2 22
i.xe2 Sxe2 23 £)xb6 axb6 24 d7
£.xd7 25 Wd6 Aa4!! 26 #xd8
Sxc2+ =) 17...Exe7 18 dxe7 Wxe7
19 £sh3 e3 20 #d6!?T. 13 d6!? In
very many variations White hopes
to exploit the strength of his passed
pawn. The game took on a different
character in Pavlovic-Sakaev,
Yugoslavia 1998: 13 Sgl!? e4 14
&g5 &e5 15 i.e2 h6 16 &h3 &g7
17 £sf4 b5!??*. 13...£\b6! 14 We3
After 14 £ig5 h6 15 &h3 £g7 16

106 Burn Variation 3 foc3 %\f6 4 Ag5 dxe4
#e3 Wxh4, Black has a good game.
The position is difficult to evaluate
in the event of 14 £>b5 &d7 15 £lc7
Hc8!? 16 We3 Sxc7! 17 dxc7 Wxc7
18 #d2 e4 19 £>g5 i.e5 20 <&>bl
&c6S. 14...e4 15 £>g5 ±d7 16 g4
JLd4 17 Sxd4!? It's hard to resist
making this kind of exchange
sacrifice! 17...cxd4 18 #xd4 f6!
Stronger than 18...fxg4 19 £texe4 f6
20 £x4+ £>xc4 21 Wxc4+ <£>g7 22
£>e6+ Axe6 23 #xe6±. 19 &c4+
£sxc4 20 #xc4+ &g7 21 &e6+
i.xe6 22 Wxe6 SeS 23 #xf5 2e5,
with mutual chances; Lau-Sakaev,
Dortmund 1991.
8&c4
A comparatively rare variation is
8 c4 JLb7 Stronger than 8...Ab4+ 9
£>c3 c5 10 &d3! £b7 11 0-0 cxd4
12 JLe4! .&xe4 13 £>xe4± Minasian-
Dreev, USSR Ch, Moscow 1991. 9
£k3 f5! 10 d5 &f6 11 #d2 c6! 12
0-0-0 0-0 13 g4! cxd5 14 gxf5
^hSso Kindermann-Knaak, Baden-
Baden 1992. Apart from that,
White's alternatives to the text
move are as follows:
(A) 8 JLb5+ Not, I think, the most
effective decision, for sooner or
later Black has to play c7-c6 in an>
case. 8...c6 9 ^.d3 More often than
not, 9 Ac4 leads to a transposition,
for instance: 9...^.b7 10 #e2 #c7
11 0-0-0 (the plan of kingside
castling deserves attention too: 11
0-0!? <5M7 12 a4!? &f8 13 a5±]
ll...£)d7 12 <&bl 0-0-0 13 &a6.
giving a position that could arise
from 9 &d3. 9...£b7 10 #e2 #c7
11 0-0!? I feel that castling shorl
gives White more chance to fighl
for an advantage than 11 0-0-0.
when there can follow: ll...£\bd7
12 <&>bl 0-0-0 13 i.a6 &xa6!? 14
Wxa6+ <&b8 15 She 1 Shg8 16 g3
f5 17 £)ed2 &f6 18 £>c4 h5, and
getting rid of his only pawn
weakness, Black easily equalizes:
Jenni-Buhmann, European Team
Ch, Leon 2001. 11... £)d7 12 c4 Oi
12 Hfel 0-0-0 13 a4!?, which isn'l
bad either. 12...0-0-0 13 a3 c5!? 14
dxc5 bxc5 After 14...£>xc5?!.
events unfold in White's favour: 15
£bcc5 £xc5 16 b4 £d6 17 Ae4
&xe4 18 #xe4 f5 19 #e2±. 15
Sadl fS 16 £>g3 i.f6, with uncleai
play and chances for both sides:
A.Horvath-Schenk, Budapest 2001.
(B) 8 &d3!?

Burn Variation 3 *hc3 Q\f6 4 &g5 dxe4 107
In my view, this is the way for
White to confront his opponent with
the most difficult problems. 8....&b7
9 #e2 Black should hardly be afraid
of 9 Wd2!? £)d7 (9...f5!? 10 £>g3
&xf3 11 gxfi *d5!?°° deserves
attention too) 10 0-0-0 c6 11 #h6
#c7!? 12 #g7 Sf8 13 Wxh7 0-0-0
14 £*g3 f5, with excellent
compensation for the pawn. 9...c6
Instead, it's hard to recommend
9...f5 10 £k:3! c6 11 0-0-0 lfc7 12
Hhel £ki7 13 *bl, and White is
already threatening 14 .&xf5. In
J.Polgar-Volkov, Batumi 1999,
White scored a quick victory after
9...Wd5 10 0-0 (if 10 c4, then
10...#a5+ 11 £sc3 Ab4«») 10...SM7
11 Sfel 0-0-0 12 a4! (starting an
attack against the king; a weaker
option would be 12 c4 Wh5 13 £ig3
#g4°o) 12...f5?! (to all appearances
this is not the best decision, but then
after 12...1fh5 13 i.a6 f5 14 £ig3
#g4 15 a5 £sb8 16 i.xb7+ <&>xb7
17 axb6 cxb6 18 #c4± the outlook
is again not rosy for Black) 13 £k3
#35 14 £sb5! Shg8 15 c3 c5 16 g3
a6 17 £>d2! +- and the black queen
was easy prey for the white pieces.
Finally, Vogt-Zuger, Swiss Team
Ch 2003, went 9...£>d7 10 0-0
Sg8!? (Black is in a dangerous
position following 10...0-0?! 11 c4
£ibd7 12 Sad 1 »c7 13 Ac2 <&h8
14 £>g3±) 11 c4 f5 12 £>c3 ±d6 13
d5 #f6 14 £ib5 *f8?*. 10 0-0!?
Practice has also seen 10 0-0-0 #c7
11 *bl £)d7 12 c4 0-0-0 13 d5
(most probably White should have
settled for the modest 13 a3)
13...cxd5!! (a brilliant and wholly
unexpected idea! With 13...£)e5,
incidentally, Black gets quite a good
game too) 14 cxd5 JLxd5! ("Theirs
but to do and die"...!) 15 Scl £>c5
16 b4 (possibly 16 5^xc5 bxc5? was
the least of the evils) 16...^xd3! 17
Sxc7+ 4>xc7 18 £ki4 (White is in a
bad way after 18 £)c3 £.xb4 19
£)xd5+ Sxd5 20 Sdl Shd8+
Golubev-Itkis, Romania 2000)
18...£)xb4 19 £sc3; and now
19...JLxg2!? promises Black the
better chances, as does 19...Jtxa2+
20 £)xa2 Sxd4 21 Sdl Sxdl+ 22
#xdl £)xa2 23 <&>xa2 h5 Socko-
Ziiger, European Ch, Ohrid 2001.
10...Wc7
11 c4 &d7 12 £k3!? White
calmly improves the placing of his
pieces. Other moves deserving
attention are 12 a4!? and 12 Sacl!?,
for example 12...0-0-0 (or
12...Wf4!? 13 c5 0-0±) 13 c5! bxc5
14 £lxc5 Axc5 15 dxc5 £le5 16
Sfdl with excellent prospects for
White; J.Polgar-Andersson, Malmo
2000. 12...0-0-0 13 Sfdl! &b8 Or
13...c5 14 d5 £te5 15 &xe5 Wxe5
16 Wxe5 fxe5 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
£e4±. 14 a3 £sf8 15 b4 £ig6 16
#e3± Leko-Bunzmann, Hamburg
1999.

108 Burn Variation 3 £ki *hf6 4 £.g5 dxe4
8...±b7 9 #e2 c6
10 0-0-0
As we have seen more than once
already, there is no less danger for
Black if White adopts the plan of
castling short. Here too it was worth
considering 10 0-0!? with the
possible continuation: 10...£id7 On
lO...!^ the play usually
transposes, but there are also some
independent possibilities, for
instance: 11 &g3!? £>d7 (ll...h5!?)
12 £)f5! (a brilliant idea!) 12...exf5
13 Sfel £>f8 14 £>h4 &g6 (or
14...&c8 15 #h5 £ig6 16 &xf7+!
^xH 17 £>xg6 hxg6 18 #xh8 &f8
19 h4!t) 15 £lxf5 h5 (if Black
wants, he can try to find a way to
defend with 15...Ac8 16 £>xe7
£)xe7 17 Sadl!? #d6!?) 16 #B
<i»f8 17 £>xe7 £>xe7 18 Wxf6, and
White's attack more than
compensates for the material lost;
Sutovsky-Volkov, Isle of Man
2000. 11 £a6!? Probably the
simplest way to gain an advantage,
but the sharp 11 £>h4!? is also of
interest. Black then has to play with
extreme care, for instance: 11...0-0
(ll...f5? loses to 12 £>xf5 exf5 13
£kl6+ +-. White's chances also
deserve preference in the case of
ll...#c7 12 #h5! 0-0 13 f4! f5 14
£Sg5± or ll...<£f8 12 £)f5! £)g6 13
We3 0-0 14 £sxe7+ Wxe7 15 £)g3±
S.Williams-Kiriakov, Port Erin open
2001) 12 £lg3 *h8!? (on 12...f5 13
£)hxf5! exf5 14 &xf5 i.f6 15 Wh5!
Ag7 16 #g4 Wf6 17 £>xg7 Wxg7
18 l&xdl, Black succumbs without
much resistance; Sutovsky-
Hoffman, Villa Martelli 1997) 13
Sadl Sg8 with sharp play, although
White's position does seem to me to
be preferable. Il...i.xa6 12 #xa6
#c7 13 c4 0-0 14 #a4 Sfd8 15
Sadl £if8 16 *fb3, with the
initiative; Shirov-Timman, Wijk aan
Zee 2004.
10...#c7
Black can also play 10...£ld7; he
needn't be too afraid of 11 Aa6
i.xa6 12 #xa6 #c7 13 We2 0-0-0
14 Sd3 <±>b8 15 Shdl Shg8 16 g3
Sge8 with approximate equality,
Balashov - Gurevich, Bundesliga
1995.
ll&bl
White rarely dispenses with this
prophylactic move, but of course
there are some exceptions. Thus for

Burn Variation 3 *hc3 £}/<5 4 &g5 dxe4 109
example 11 £lfd2, clearing the
queen's path to the kingside, has
become fairly popular of late. Play
may continue: ll...£sd7 0r ll...f5!?
12 £>g3 £id7«>. 12 Wh5 £>f8 13
Shel Another interesting line is 13
f4!? f5 14 £>g5 <£g6!? 15 g3±.
13...£)g6 14 g3 0-0-0 15 £ib3 In
Chandler-Kosten, Hastings 1990,
White chose a different plan but
achieved no great success: 15 c3!?
*b8 16 f4!? f5 17 £ig5 &xg5 18
Wxg5 c5=. 15...*b8 16 &bl!? f5
17 £lg5, with unpleasant pressure;
Lanka-Marzano, Cannes 1993.
The following plan also deserves
to be examined: 11 Shel §\&1 12
g3!? Or 12 £)c3!?, when Black's
game isn't that easy either:
12...0-0!? (12...b5?! is too
dangerous for Black: 13 JLxe6! fxe6
14 1Brxe6, with an attack; White also
has good play in the event of
12...£if8 13 g3 £>g6 14 h4t) 13
<&bl S^>h8 14 £)h4 Sg8 15 Wh5T
Zelcic-Ziiger, Mitropa Cup, Pula
2003. 12...0-0-0 13 c3 Black's game
is not bad after 13 iLa6 .&xa6 14
Wxa6+ <£>b8 15 We2 h5 16 <&bl h4
17 c4 hxg3 18 hxg3 2he8°° Jenni-
Zuger, Swiss Ch, Leukerbad 2002.
13...&b8 14 i.b3 She8 15 &bl
&f8 16 £)h4 h6 17 f4 f5 18 &f2±
De Firmian - Knaak, Bundesliga
2001.
Il...£)d7 12 2hel
Of course not 12 &a6? i.xa6 13
#xa6 b5! 14 £k5D £lxc5 15 dxc5
JLxc5, with a clear plus for Black;
Balashov-Volkov, Samara 1998.
12...0-0-0 13 i.a6
13...i.xa6
Instead, 13...f5?! is weak in view
of 14 Axb7+ <&>xb7 15 £leg5T.
White also keeps a slight
advantage in the case of 13...5he8
14 &xb7+ &xb7 15 c3!? &f8 16
#c2 &h6 17 &ed2 f5 18 £ic4 &f6
19 £}fe5± Groszpeter-Gurevich,
EU-Cup, Budapest 1996, or
13...£lf8 14 i.xb7+ <&>xb7 15 Sd3
£)g6 16 g3 f5 17 £ted2 h5 18 £k4±
Gallagher-Kelecevic, Swiss Team
Ch 2003.
The most popular alternative to
the text move is 13...Shg8, when
there can follow: 14 i.xb7+ (14
<2ig3!? is worth considering)
14...&xb7 15 g3 f5 16 &ed2 h5!?
17 £k4 (Black maintains the
balance, though not without some
difficulty, after 17 c4 h4 18 d5 cxd5
19 cxd5 £k5 20 £lc4 hxg3 21 fxg3
Sg4!» Tischbierek-Luther, East
German Ch, Bad Blankenburg
1990) 17...h4 18 Sd3!? (or 18 £>ce5
£)xe5 19 £ke5 &d6=) 18...hxg3 19
hxg3 b5!? 20 £>e3 &f6 21 c4! £)b6!
with approximate equality in a
position that is still extremely fluid;

110 Burn Variation 3 thc3 Zhf6 4 £.g5 dxe4
Landa-Budnikov, St Petersburg zt
1993.
14 Wxa6+ <4>b8 15 #e2
In Schiller's words, "The Moor
has done his work, the Moor can
go." White no longer needs his
queen on the queenside.
Black has everything in order
after 15 c4 f5! 16 £>eg5 &xg5 17
£>xg5 £>f6 18 g3 £)g4= Lutz-Zuger,
Biel 1996.
On 15 g3, Black can choose
between 15...Shg8 16 We2 which
transposes to the main line, and
15...f5 16 £>ed2 £f6 (Almasi-
Andersson, Ubeda 1997, went
16...h5!? 17 #e2 h4 18 £>c4!? hxg3
19 hxg3 Affi 20 Sd3±) 17 #e2 (17
£k>4!? is interesting too) 17...c5 18
c3!? cxd4 19 cxd4! with initiative
for White in A.Sokolov-Andersson,
Bar 1997.
15...Shg8!?
Black provokes g2-g3, hoping
that it will afterwards be easier for
him to exchange off his h-pawn. A
move played more rarely is
15...She8, with the possible
continuation: 16 c3 (on 16 c4, it's
worth considering 16...JLb4!? 17
Shi £f8») 16...i.f8 17 g3 h6!?
(taking control of g5 and thereby
preparing the advance f6-f5) 18
£ted2 &g7 19 £)c4 f5 20 a4!? £lf6
21 £lfe5± as in another game
Christiansen-Andersson, World Ch,
Groningen 1997.
16 g3 f5 17 £ted2 &f6
Perhaps Black ought to set about
implementing his original plan:
17...h5!? 18 £)c4 h4 19 Sd3 (better
than 19 £tfe5?! £)xe5 20 £>xe5
hxg3 21 hxg3 M6=) 19...hxg3 20
hxg3 Sh8 21 a3 £f6 22 Sedl,
Klovans-Chistiakov, USSR Ch
1967; the verdict on this position is
somewhere between = and ±.
18 £ic4 b5!?
If Black adopts waiting tactics,
White keeps the initiative: 18...JLh8
19 £tfe5 £lf6 20 Sd3!? &a8 21
Sedl Sc8 22 Sa3! Ovechkin-
Volkov, Moscow open 1998.
19 £kd2!?
Maintaining the tension on the
board. Black would have quite good
chances of equalizing in the event of
19 £sce5 £xe5 20 £ixe5 £>xe5 21

Bum Variation 3 *hc3 t&f6 4 &g5 dxe4 111
dxe5 Sxdl+ 22 Sxdl 2d8. The
position in the game isn't so easy to
evaluate fairly, but in my view
White's chances are rather superior.
19...a6 20 £lb3 c5 21 c4!
The start of some interesting
complications.
21...cxd4 22 cxb5 e5 23 bxa6
The position has drastically
changed in the course of the last few
moves. Black has managed to set up
a strong pawn centre, but has paid a
high price for it - his king is
destined to be without a safe refuge
for the rest of the game.
23...#b6 24 #c2 d3
25 Sxd3?
A much stronger line was 25
#xd3! e4 26 a7+! (I suspect Larry
left this move out of account)
26...<&>xa7 27 #c4 exfi 28 Sxd7+!
Sxd7 29 #a4+ +-.
25...e4 26 2d5 exf3 27 Sedl
Or27a7+!?.
27...&e5 28 #xf5 Sxd5
It would be worth considering
28...*a7!?.
29 Sxd5 Hd8 30 Sxe5 i.xe5 31
Wxe5+ #c7?
White also has the better chances
after 31...*a7 32 ife7+ &xa6 33
WxF7±, but that was still the least of
the evils.
32 a7+ *b7 33 £sc5+?
This part of the game must surely
have been played in acute time
trouble. White could have won at
once with 33 £)a5+! *b6 34 #e3+
<&>b5 35 *b3+ &xa5 36 38=*+
Sxa8 37 #33+.
33...*b6 34 £ia4+ *b7 35 £k5+
<&>b6 36 &a4+ 4>b7 37 £)c5+ <£>b6
'/2-1/2

7: Burn Variation 3 <£>c3 £\f6 4 ±g5
dxe4 5 £>xe4 ±e7 6 Axf6 ±xf6
Game 11
Sakaev - Kacheishvili
Ubeda2001
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)c3 £tf6 4
£g5 dxe4 5 &xe4 &e7 6 i.xf6
&xf6
7&f3
The modest 7 £>xf6+ Wxf6 brings
White few gains, for example: 8
£}f3 0-0 9 c3 The chances are about
equal after 9 Wd2 Sd8 10 0-0-0 c5
11 #c3 b6 12 Ab5 &a6 13 Wc4
&xb5 14 Wxb5 £)d7= Anand-
Bareev, Immopar active 1992.
White also achieves little with 9
£d3 c5 10 0-0 cxd4 11 £ixd4 Sd8
12 £>D (Ml 13 b4 a5= Markovic-
Sakaev, Yugoslav Cup, Herceg
Novi 2000. 9...&d7 10 ±d3 Or 10
Ae2 e5 11 dxe5 £)xe5 12 £>xe5
#xe5 13 0-0 £e6 14 Af3 #b5=
Frolov-Volkov, Russian Team Ch,
Smolensk 2000. 10...e5 11 0-0 In
Jenni-Kramnik, Zurich simul 1999,
the game levelled out after 11 dxe5
£lxe5 12 £>xe5 Wxe5+ 13 #e2 £e8
14 0-0-0 #g5+ 15 #d2 #a5=.
Il...exd4 12 &xd4 &e5 13 £e4 c6
14 Sel g6 15 Hj3 £id7 16 #a3
Sd8, with full equality; Groszpeter-
Chernin, Hungarian Team Ch 1996.
7...0-0
A line that can hardly be
recommended to Black is 7...?k6 8
&b5!? Ad7 Or 8...0-0 9 #d2 Ad7
10 0-0-0 £)b8 11 &d3 &c6 12
£>xf6+ #xf6 13 £)g5f Lutz-
Botvinnik, Tel-Aviv 1999. 9 0-0 0-0
10 c3±
The same goes for 7...&d7 8 #d2
&c6 9 £)xf6+ #xf6 White also
keeps the initiative after 9...gxf6 10
£e2 Wd6 11 0-0 £>d7 12 c4 0-0-0
13 Sfdl± Dolmatov-Lein, Moscow
1989. 10 &e5 0-0 11 0-0-0 Sd8
Black has a hard defensive task
following ll...£kl7?! 12 £>xc6 bxc6
13 h4! Sab8 14 2h3±. 12 #c3 £e8
13 g3 £sd7 14 &g2 c6 15 f4 #e7 16
h4! with an obvious plus for White
in Spassky-Donner, Leiden 1970.

Burn Variation 3 Qc3 &f6 4 &g5 dxe4 5 ^xe4 Jie7 6 &xf6 ±xf6 113
However, Black may have a more
serious alternative to the text move
in 7...£)d7!?
- to which White has the
following choice of replies:
(A) 8 #d3!? demands further
tests. Play may continue: 8...b6 9
0-0-0 &b7 10 h4 Or 10 g4!? i.e7
11 ig2«. 10...^.e7 11 &bl £)f6
12 #b5+!? c6 13 £sxf6+ £xf6 14
Wh5 We7= Morozevich-Gurevich,
Cannes Cup 2001.
(B) 8 #e2 0-0 It's worth
considering 8...b6!? 9 0-0-0 #e7!?
(9...&b7?! is weaker: 10 d5! e5 11
d6! ±xe4 12 #xe4±) 10 £te5!
£.xe5 11 dxe5 ±b7 12 f4 #b4!? 13
#b5 #xb5 14 £xb5 &xe4 15
&xd7+ &e7=. 9 0-0-0 b6 10 £ie5!?
In J.Polgar-Bareev, Cannes rapid
2001, White quickly came up
against difficulties after 10 h4 JLb7
11 h5?! (11 &e5!?) Il...c5! 12 h6
g6 13 dxc5 &xe4! 14 #xe4 £>xc5+.
10...£.xe5 Better than 10...£>xe5?
11 dxe5 Ag5+ 12 <&bl #e7 13
Wg4!±. 11 dxe5 #e7 12 f4 £b7 13
We3 Sad8 Likewise after 13..JLxe4
14 Wxe4 ^c5 15 Wc6 Sad8 16
i.b5 a6 17 &e2 a5 18 a3 a4 19 g3,
White's chances are somewhat
better; Goloshchapov-Barua, Dhaka
2002. 14 &d3 &xe4 15 &xe4 £)c5
16 JLc6! with a small but stable
endgame advantage for White;
Bologan-Bareev, Enghien les Bains
2001.
(C) 8 #d2 b6
9 0-0-0 Some interesting play also
arises from 9 £b5!? £b7 (in
Balcerak-Atalik, Cappelle la Grande
open 2003, Black gradually levelled
the game out after 9...0-0 10 JLc6
Sb8 11 0-0-0 i.b7 12 £.xb7 Sxb7
13 d5 £k5 14 £M6+ #xf6 15
Shel Sd8 16 #e3 Sbb8 17 dxe6
£}xe6=, but I won't be surprised if
somewhere along the line White
could have obtained a small plus) 10
£>xf6+ gxf6 11 Wc3!? (more
convincing than 11 0-0-0 lfe7 12
d5 0-0-0 13 #e2 £>e5!=) ll...We7
12 #xc7 Wb4+ 13 c3 #xb5 14
#xb7 #xb2 15 0-0 Sd8 16 c4 #a3
17 Sfel± Steiner-Stahlberg,
Saltsjobaden izt 1948. 9...i.b7 10
Wf4!? Or 10 £d3 #e7 11 Shel
0-0-0 12 *bl *b8 13 We2 g6 14
&a6 i.a8 15 c4 ±g7= Fressinet-
Gurevich, Cap d'Agde 2002.
10...1fe7 11 &c4 0-0-0 12 Shel

114 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 fyti 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 Zhxe4 Le7 6 &xf6 $Lxf6
&m 13 g3 &g6 14 #e3± Vallejo
Pons-Korchnoi, Biel 2002.
(D) 8 £d3 c5 9 dxc5 Or 9 c3
cxd4 10 £)xf6+ £>xf6 11 £>xd4 0-0
12 0-0 e5=. 9...&xc5! An excellent
move, virtually leading to a forced
draw. 10 JLb5+ The verdict on the
position is the same after 10 <£}xc5
#a5+ 11 £>d2 Wxc5=. 10...&e7 11
#xd8+ Sxd8 12 &xc5 Ed5! 13
&a6 &xb2! 14 Sbl Sxb5 15 £ic7
&c3+ 16 <4»e2 Sxbl 17 Sxbl Hb8
18 th&6 Sa8= Dolmatov-Lerner,
Frunze 1979.
(E)8£c4!?
m" m + 'm 'tm
)fw^m
vm, m& »/s.p
ABA*
White's most popular attempt at
fighting for an advantage. 8...a6!?
Active queenside operations are
Black's only realistic hope of
counterplay, but he can perfectly
well afford a tempo for castling, for
example: 8...0-0 9 lre2 (more
aggressive than 9 0-0 Ae7 10 1^2
c5, which leads to equality after
either 11 Sfdl cxd4 12 Sxd4 Wc7
13 Sadl &b6= or 11 d5 exd5 12
&xd5 £ib6 13 £b3 Wc7 14 c3 &g4
Smirin-Lputian, Wijk aan Zee open
1993) 9...Ae7!? (9...a6 leads by
transposition to the main line; after
9...£*6 10 ±b3 Ad7 11 0-0 #e7
12 Sfel Sad8 13 Sadl £a4 14
&xa4 <&xa4 15 #b5 ^ib6 16 c4T
Black's position offers few
prospects; Smyslov - Stahlberg,
Zurich 1953) 10 0-0-0 c5 11 *bl,
De la Riva Aguado-Radjabov,
Pamplona 2002; in my view, Black
should now continue ll...cxd4!? 12
£>xd4 Wb6?». 9 #e2!? 0-0 The
immediate 9...b5 also occurs, with
the possible continuation 10 Ad5!?
(stronger than 10 £b3 0-0 11 Sdl
^.b7 12 0-0 c5=, or 10 &d3 &b7 11
£)xf6+ #xf6 12 Ae4 Axe4 13
#xe4 0-0 14 0-0 #e7= Timman-
Gurevich, Wijk aan Zee 2002)
10...Sb8 11 £sxf6+!? (it seems to
me that Black's task is simpler in
the case of 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 Ac6
Sb6! 13 d5 exd5 14 ±xd5 c6 15
£b3 c5! 16 £d5 [if 16 £)xc5?! then
16...Axb2+!] 16...Wc7 17 Shel
Ad8!? 18 We3 c4 19 £>fg5 &xg5
20 Wxg5 £)f6= Shirov-Gurevich,
World Ch, New Delhi 2000)
11...1^6 12 0-0 0-0 13 &c6! Sb6
14 &xd7 &xd7 15 £>e5 Sd8 16 b4,
with chances of a minimal edge in
Milos-Bareev, Shenyang World Cup
2000. 10 0-0-0 White has no chance
of advantage from 10 0-0 b5 11
&d3 Ab7 12 c3 Ae7. 10...b5 11
JLb3 It's worth considering 11
&d3!? &b7 12 h4 &e7 13 <&>bl £>f6
14 £ixf6+ &xf6 15 £lg5 g6 16 &e4
£d5 17 f4± Sutovsky-Navara,
Greek Team Ch, Agia Pelagia 2004.
Il...i.b7 12 d5 Or 12 £le5?! £xe5
13 dxe5 We7 14 f4 &xe4! 15 Wxe4
£\c5 16 #e3 a5, and by now it was
White who had defensive problems
to solve in Tischbierek-Sadler,

Bum Variation 3 Z&c3 &/6 4 &.g5 dxe4 5 Zhxe4 &.e7 6 ±xf6 Jb/6 /15
Bundesliga 2004. 12...exd5 13
£xd5 c6 14 &b3 #c7 15 £ld6 The
verdict is not altered by 15 Shel c5!
16 &d5 £.xd5 17 Sxd5 £e7= Van
den Doel-Mullon, French Team Ch
2003. 15...£)c5 16 Sd2 a5!=
Anand-Radjabov, Dubai 2002.
8#d2
The most popular move; White
prepares queenside castling with no
loss of time, and afterwards intends
to go into action on the kingside. Of
the alternatives, I should mention
the following:
(A) A line deserving attention is 8
c3 £>d7 Similarly it isn't that simple
for White to gain an advantage
against 8...b6 9 Ad3 £>d7 10 #c2
i.b7 11 0-0-0 #e7 12 h4 2fd8 13
£>fg5 h6 14 f4 c5?* Art.Minasian-
Dizdar, Moscow ol 1994. 9 #c2
Black can be perfectly happy with
either 9 &c4 e5 10 0-0 exd4 11
£>xf6+ #xf6 12 #xd4 #xd4 13
£lxd4 <&b6 or 9 i.d3 e5! 10 #c2
exd4 11 cxd4 g6 12 h4! ±g7! 13 h5
^f6 14 hxg6 hxg6«> Spassky-
Petrosian, 21st match game,
Moscow 1966. 9...e5 10 d5!?
Black's game is simpler to play
after 10 0-0-0 exd4 11 £>xd4 (11
£)xf6+ #xf6 12 Sxd4 ^c5 leads to
equality) ll...#e7 (Glek-Lputian,
Dortmund open 1992, saw
ll...£xd4 12 Sxd4 #e7 13 h4!
£)e5 14 £ig5 g6 15 #e2! f6 16 £sf3
JLf5 17 £lxe5 fxe5, and now after
18 #e3!?± White retains a slight
initiative) 12 h4!? (White could also
consider 12 Jtd3!?. On the other
hand 12 £lf5?! comes up against the
unpleasant retort 12...#e6!T)
12...£>c5! 13 £)xc5 Wxc5 14 Ad3
h6 15 £h7+ <£>h8 16 £e4 a5!=
Glek-Lputian, Antwerp open 1993.
10...^.e7 Or 10...g6!?. 11 0-0-0
JLd6 The game Kuzmin-Barsov,
Berne open 1995, went ll...f5!? 12
d6! cxd6 13 £lxd6 £xd6 14 Hxd6
e4 15 £)d4 #e7, and now after 16
Wb3+! &h8 17 VHe6, White's
chances are somewhat preferable.
12 h4 &f6 13 &fg5 g6 It would be
worth considering 13...£lxe4!? 14
#xe4 f5 15 #c2 We8oo. 14 f3 &h5
15 g4 £>f4 16 h5 f5 17 hxg6 fxe4
18 £)xh7! Sf6! 19 &g5! £ixg6,
with wild and obscure
complications in Hector-Gurevich, Antwerp
1994.
(B) 8 #d3!?

116 Burn Variation 3 Zhc3 Zhf6 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 k.e7 6 JLc/6 kxf6
An interesting continuation, but
Black would seem to have
discovered how to deal with it.
8...£id7 9 0-0-0 b6 In Milos-Shirov,
Las Vegas 1999, Black ran into
difficulties after 9...£e7 10 h4! £>f6
11 £rfg5 £)xe4 (ll...g6?! 12 h5!
puts Black in an extremely
dangerous position) 12 Wxe4 g6 (on
12...£xg5+ 13 hxg5 #xg5+, White
continues the attack with 14 f4 #g6
15 #G) 13 Ac4 Sb8 14 We3 Af6!?
15 f4 b5 16 &b3 a5 17 b.5, with an
attack. 10 h4 i.b7 11 £ieg5 Black
easily copes with his opening
problems in the event of 11 £)fg5
&xg5+! 12 £ixg5 (or 12 hxg5?!
&xe4 13 #xe4 #xg5+ 14 *bl £)f6
15 #c6 #f4 16 Ad3 Sad8 17 c3
2d5? Milos-Shirov, FIDE World
Ch, Las Vegas 1999) 12...£)f6 13
Ae2 #d6 14 Af3 £d5! 15 Sd2
Sad8, with at least equal play;
Reefat-Goloshchapov, Sangli 2000.
Il...g6 12 We3 h6 Two alternatives
deserving attention are the gambit
line 12...C5!? 13 dxc5 #e7!?* and
also 12...We7!? 13 h5 £xf3! 14
£ixf3 Sfd8 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 Ac4
c5= Vratonjic-Raicevic, Yugoslav
Team Ch, Novi Sad 2000. 13 £le4
JLg7 14 Jtd3 c5! with sharp play, in
which Black's chances are no
worse; J.Polgar-Bareev, Madrid
1994.
(C) 8 i.d3!? &d7 Black may be
able to play 8...Axd4 9 £>eg5 f5! 10
£ixh7 £.xf2+! 11 <&xf2 <&xh7?*. 9
#e2 c5 10 0-0-0 Black has no trace
of any problems after 10 £lxf6+
£>xf6 11 dxc5 #a5+ 12 c3 #xc5 13
0-0 b6=. 10...cxd4 11 b.4 &e7 12
g4!? A possible improvement on
Sutovsky-Ivanchuk, Moscow 2002,
which went 12 £)eg5 £lf6 13 £ie5
#c7 14 g4 i.d6 15 f4 b6 16 Shfl
&b7 17 &c4 &d5!=. 12...#c7 13
*bl b6 14 £tfg5 JLb7 15 £ixh7!?
A risky but very interesting
sacrifice. 15...<4>xh7 16 £tf6+ *h8
17 g5 occurred in Sutovsky-
Kovacevic, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Team Ch, Neum 2004; now perhaps
Black should try 17...g6!? 18 h5
Axhl 19 hxg6 <ig7, but White's
attack is dangerous in any case.
(D) 8 JLc4!? This move enjoys
constant and fairly wide popularity.
8...£k6 Or 8...£>d7!?, leading to the
variation 7...£>d7 8 ix4 0-0 which
we have looked at already. 9 c3 Of
course not 9 £)xf6+ Wxfc 10 0-0 e5
11 <£xe5 £>xe5 12 dxe5 Wxe5=.
9...e5
10 d5 On 10 dxe5?! £>xe5 11
£)xf6+ #xf6 12 £>xe5 #xe5+ 13
1^2 Se8!? it is White who is faced
with the none-too-easy task of
maintaining the balance; Spassky-
Shirov, Paris 2000. From the
diagram, Black has three
continuations to choose from:

Bum Variation 3 *hc3 £hf6 4 &g5 dxe4 5 Q\xe4 JLe7 6 &xf6 $Lxf6 117
(Dl) 10...£sb8 11 #e2 The game
is level in the event of 11 0-0 JLg4
12 h3 Axfi 13 WxO Ae7=. Nor
does White gain much from 11 d6!?
AfS 12 #d5 (or 12 £>xf6+ #xf6 13
dxc7 £lc6!? 14 Wb3!? e4!? 15 &d2
£te5 16 0-0 Wd6= Groszpeter-
Almasi, Budapest 1999) 12...£kl7!?
13 #xb7 &xe4 14 Wxe4 £)c5 15
#d5 Groszpeter-Dizdar, Austrian
Team Ch 1997; after the correct
15...e4! 16 #xc5 exf3, Black's
chances would not be any worse.
11...JLK 12 &d3!? Perhaps the
most accurate move. Black easily
secures equal chances after 12 £)g3
Ag4!? 13 h3 &xf3 14 #xf3 £ki7=,
or 12 0-0 £xe4! 13 Wxe4 #d6 14
Sadl <&d7 15 &b5 £rt>6!?=
Sutovsky-Psakhis, Pula zt 2000. A
move deserving more attention is 12
0-0-0!?, when there can follow:
12...£)d7 13 £>g3! £g6 14 i.d3!
(more convincing than 14 h4 e4! 15
£)xe4 Se8s) 14...&xd3 15 #xd3
£sc5 16 We3 b6 17 h4!? Se8 18
£>e4! with a small plus for White in
Leko-Khalifman, Budapest 2000.
12..JLe7 The game Short-Gurevich,
Shenyang 2000, went 12...JLxe4 13
i.xe4 £>d7 14 0-0-0 &e7, and now
15 h4! gives White an easy, pleasant
game. 13 £>f6+ The sharper 13
0-0-0!? #xd5 14 g4 Ag6 15 h4S is
also worth considering. 13...iLxf6
14 &xf5 c6 15 0-0-0 cxd5 16 Ae4!
with a slight edge for White.
(D2) 10...£ia5 11 &d3 b6 12
h4!? The game is equal after 12
tfc2 g6 13 £lxf6+ #xf6 14 0-0
i.g4=. 12...g6 13 h5 i.g4 14 #a4
.&g7 was Baklan-Goloshchapov,
Ordzhonikidze zt 2000; and now 15
&f6+ Wxf6 16 #xg4± is worth
thinking about.
(D3) 10...£>e7!? A bold but very
risky line. 11 £)xf6+ gxf6 12 £sh4!?
Better than 12 #d2 <4>h8 13 0-0-0
Ag4 14 #e3 #d6 15 h3 Axf3 16
#xf3 Sg8, with a fully satisfactory
game for Black in Volokitin-
Akopian, Bad Wiessee open 2001.
12...£\g6 13 #h5 The game
Bezgodov-Akopian, European Ch,
Ohrid 2001, went 13 g3!? b5 14
&b3 a5 15 #d2 f5 16 0-0-0 Sa6!?,
and you cannot speak of an
unqualified advantage for White.
13...<4>h8!? Or 13..Mdl 14 h3!
£)xh4 (it's hard to recommend
14...#a4 15 b3 #a5 16 0-0! #xc3?!
17 d6! <&>g7 [nor is Black to be
envied after 17...£rf4!? 18 #h6
#d2 19 &h2! Wxd6 20 Sadl We7
21 g3 £lxh3 22 f4!±] 18 dxc7± with
virtually a won position for White in
Shirov-Akopian, EU-Cup, Halkidiki
2002) 15 #xh4 #f5 16 0-0-0!?
&d7 17 f4!? #xf4+ 18 #xf4 exf4
19 Shfl, and the ending won't be
easy for Black to defend; Short-
Gurevich, British Team Ch 2000. 14
0-0-0 f5 15 &f3 Black is all right
after 15 £>xf5?! £>f4 16 Wa Axf5

118 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 Ihf6 4 &.g5 dxe4 5 Zhxe4 k.el 6 Jixf6 &xf6
17 g3 #d7 18 gxf4 &g4 19 #e4
ixdl 20 Sxdl exf4«. White should
rather give attention to the
interesting 15 g3, with the possible
continuation 15...£}xh4 16 gxh4
*f6 17 Wg5!±. 15...£sf4 16 «h6
Wd6 17 Wxd6 cxd6 18 g3, and
White can only lay claim to a
minimal edge; Bologan-
Kacheishvili, European Ch, Ohrid
8...£>d7
Black quite often playe 8...ie7!?.
This frequently transposes into the
main line, but we will look at some
other possibilities. 9 0-0-0 In
Gelfand-Bareev, Linares 1992,
White failed to obtain an advantage
with 9 £d3 b6 10 £teg5!? h6 11
J&.h7+ &h8 12 &e4 Axg5! 13
£sxg5 c6 14 £rf3 Ab7 15 £>e5 #c7
16 #f4 *g8=. 9...#d5!? After
9...b6 10 Ac4 ±b7 11 Shel Ad5!?
12 ±xd5 exd5 13 £>g3T White's
chances are preferable. 10 £)c3 WaS
11 a3!? White is eyeing the position
of the black queen. He has no
chance of gaining an advantage
from 11 Ac4 £b4 12 d5 b5! 13
&b3 c5=o, or from 11 £>e5 Ab4 12
£lc4 £xc3 13 £)xa5 &xd2+ 14
Sxd2 b6 15 £ic4 £b7= Ehlvest-
Khalifman, Bali 2000. Il...£id7 12
ibl The game Landa-Baklan,
EU-Cup, Halkidiki 2002, saw
another interesting continuation: 12
i.c4!? c6 13 Shel b5 14 &b3, and
now 14...b4!? 15 £)a2 Sb8 16 <&>bl
Sd8?* would offer Black quite good
prospects of queenside counterplay.
12...c6!?» and Black's possibilities
should not be underrated. In
Ponomariov - Ivanchuk, Moscow
2002, Black played instead
12...Wb6, and quickly landed in
difficulties after 13 We3! £>f6 14
£ie5T.
It is scarcely advisable to play
8...b6?! in view of 9 £sxf6+! #xf6
10 Ad3 i.b7 On 10...h6, White has
the unpleasant 11 JLe4T. 11 £)g5! It
is on this powerful move that White
pins his hopes - and not without
justification, either! Il...g6 Black
similarly has little joy with ll...h6
12 £)h7 Wxd4 13 £lxf8 *xf8
(Black can't be happy with either
13...&xg2?? 14 i.h7+ +- or
13...1rxb2!? 14 &h7+! <&h8 15 0-0
£te6! 16 £>xe6 <4>xh7 17 £>d8!±) 14
c3 #h4!? (or 14...*e5+ 15 Ae2
&c6 16 0-0 Sd8 17 #el #g5 18 f4
Wc5+ 19 «£2 Sd2 20 Wxc5+ bxc5
21 Mi Sxb2 22 Sabl± Almasi-
Dreev, Tilburg 1994) 15 g3! (15
0-0-0 isn't so clear after 15....&xg2
16 Hhgl Af3!») 15...WflS 16 Sfl
£kl7 17 f4!± Kindermann-Bareev,
Pardubice 1994. 12 0-0-0 An
alternative sufficient for a small plus
is 12 MA &xe4 13 £)xe4 #h4 14
#e3 £>d7 15 g3 We7 16 0-0-0 <&f6
17 Wg5 £ld5 18 h4± Hubner-
Arnold, Bundesliga 2002. 12...£sd7

Burn Variation 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 Ag5 dxe4 5 ^ixe4 &e7 6 kxf6 &xf6 119
On 12...Sd8!? White can choose
between the simple 13 JLe4!? £k:6!
14 #e3± and 13 h4 Sxd4 14 h5
#f4D 15 #xf4 Sxf4 16 hxg6 hxg6
17 JLxg6!T Macieja-Berlinsky,
Elista ol 1998. Likewise 12...£)c6 is
hardly worth recommending in view
of 13 h4! (White's play isn't
remarkable for any great variety!)
13...£>xd4 14 h5 Axg2 15 £)xh7!
&xh7n 16 hxg6+ <&g8 17 Sh6!
Sax-Gurevich, Manila izt 1990. 13
h4 h6 After 13...i.xg2 14 Sh2 £d5
15 h5 #xd4 16 £ixh7! White's
attack is already irresistible. 14 £le4
#xd4 Or 14...Wg7 15 *f4±. 15
#xh6 #g7 16 #e3 Axe4 17 £xe4
5ad8 18 h5! with a strong attack for
White in Yudasin-Dreev, EU-Cup
1994.
9 0-0-0
9...b6
A possible alternative to the text
move is 9..JLe7!?. White then has
the following options:
(A) 10 h4!? £sf6 On 10...b6!?,
White can choose between 11 Ad3
JLb7, transposing into the variation
9 0-0-0 b6, and 11 &c4 &b7 12
Shel (or 12 d5 b5! 13 i.xb5
exd5°°) I2...£rf6 13 £>xf6+ Axf6 14
#f4 Ad5 15 &d3 #d6 16 £>e5
Sfd8= Hracek-Sakalauskas, Istanbul
ol 2000. 11 £ixf6+ £.xf6 12 i.d3 c5
13 dxc5 #c7 14 £ig5 h6 15 £se4,
with a slight advantage to White;
Anand-Radjabov, Dubai 2002.
(B) 10 #e3 c5! 11 dxc5 #c7! 12
i.d3 &xc5! 13 &xc5 Or 13 Wg5 h6
14 Wh5 b6°°. 13...£sxc5 14 <&>bl
£)xd3 15 #xd3 f6= Bezgodov-
Sakaev, Russian Ch, Moscow 1999.
(C) 10 #c3!? White tries to
prevent c7-c5. 10...£sf6 Black could
consider 10...b6!?. 11 £lxf6+ ^.xf6
12 &d3 #d6, Kasparov-Bareev,
Sarajevo 2000; and now in
Kasparov's opinion, 13 &.e4 1irf4+
14 #e3 Wxe3+ 15 fxe3 would have
led to a small plus for White.
(D) 10 £c4
10...c5!? White retains some
advantage after 10...£>f6 11 £>xf6+
&xf6 12 Shel Sb8 (or 12...Wd6 13
#e3 b6 14 d5! #b4 15 *b3±) 13
£>e5 b5 14 Ad3! (better than 14
£>c6 #d6! 15 £sxb8 bxc4S)
14...Sb6!? 15 #e3± Yermolinsky-
Bareev, World Team Ch, Lucerne

120 Burn Variation 3 &c3 fof6 4 &g5 dxe4 5 *hxe4 $Le7 6 kxf6 $Lxf6
1997. Black should give more
attention to a standard move in such
positions, 10...a6!?, when there can
follow: 11 £b3 a5!? (Il...c6 is
interesting too, for instance: 12 Wf4
b5 13 h4 Sa7 14 £>eg5 £#6 15 c3
#c7?* Khalifman-Bareev, Belgrade
1993) 12 £c4 (Black hardly needs
to be afraid of 12 a4 b5! 13 d5 bxa4
14 &xa4 £lc5=, or of 12 a3 c6 with
quite good prospects of counter-
play) 12...c6 13 *bl Wc7=c Anand-
Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2003. 11
Shel i >n S1 d5, Black continues
with ii...exd5! 12 #xd5 £)b6! 13
#h5 #e8! 14 £d3 f5=. The
chances are also equal after 11 dxc5
#c7 12 Shel £ixc5 13 £kc5
#xc5=. Il...cxd4 12 &xd4 The
alternative 12 !fxd4 &b6 13 Ab3
#xd4 14 £>xd4 £d7 doesn't
promise White a scrap of advantage.
12...£ib6 13 &b3 &d7 14 #f4
Fressinet - Radjabov, Pamplona
2001. At this point it was worth
considering 14...tfb8!? 15 #13 a5
16 a3 #07, with a comfortable
game for Black.
(E) 10 i.d3!?
Perhaps the most thematic and
interesting continuation. 10...c5 The
game J.Polgar-Berkes, Budapest
2003, ended in a brilliant win for
White after 10...b6 11 £teg5! h6
(with prior knowledge of what
happened in this game, we can have
no hesitation in recommending
ll...^.xg5!? 12 £sxg5 £)f6 13 h4 c5
14 dxc5 #d5 with fairly good
chances of equalizing) 12 JLh7+
(White also holds the initiative in
the event of 12 h4 £b7 13 £h7+
<&h8 14 Ae4 ^.xe4 15 £>xe4 £lf6
16 *hxf6 &xf6 17 g4t Kostenko-
Abdul, Bled ol 2002) 12../£>h8 13
.&e4! hxg5?! (Black has no simple
defensive task after 13...Sb8 14
h4!T either; his best chance of
successful resistance probably lies
in 13...&xg5!? 14 £)xg5 Sb8±) 14
g4! (an excellent decision!)
14...Sb8 15 h4 g6 16 hxg5+ &g7 17
#f4 JLbl 18 Sh7+ &xh7 19 #h2+
&g8 20 Shi! with a decisive attack.
11 £>xc5!? Black has an easy game
in the case of 11 dxc5 Wc7 12 #e2
b6! 13 c6 #xc6 14 £teg5 &xg5+ 15
4&xg5 <£sf6= Fressinet-Radjabov,
EU-Cup, Halkidiki 2002. Il...£)xc5
12 dxc5 #d5 Of course not
12...&xc5? 13 &xh7+ +-, but
12...#c7!? is worth thinking about.
13 <£>bl WXC5 14 h4! An excellent
move, securing g5 for the knight.
14...1rb6 Black would lose with
14...Sd8 15 &xh7+! &xh7 16
£>g5+ &g8 17 Wxd8+ &xd8 18
Sxd8+ Wf8 19 Sxf8+ 4»xf8 20
Sdl+-. White also has a strong
attack after 14...b6?! 15 £)g5! h6 16
Ah7+! *h8 17 &e4 Sb8 18 lff4!±
Topalov-Bareev, Monte Carlo blind
2003. 15 c3 a5 16 #c2! f5 17
.&c4f Kovacevic-Sakaev, EU-Cup,
Halkidiki 2002.

Burn Variation 3 foc3 £)f6 4 &gS dxe4 5 *hxe4 k.el 6 ±xf6 $Lxf6 121
10i.d3
The rare move 10 d5!? is worth
considering, for instance 10...£k5
11 £ixc5 bxc5 12 £c4 e5 13 #e3
We7 14 Sdel Se8 15 We4±
Felgaer-Radjabov, Buenos Aires
2001.
Another move to set Black quite a
few problems is 10 JLc4, which he
has to meet with extremely precise
There can follow: 10...i.b7
Instead, 10...c6 is too passive in
view of 11 #e3!? Wc7 12 £>xf6+
£)xf6 13 £>e5 a5 14 c3 a4 15 a3
with a small but stable plus;
Kindermann-Dreev, Nussloch 1996.
11 Wf4 The play also takes an
interesting course following 11
d5!?, for example: ll...b5!? 12 &b3
£ft>6!? (to all appearances, White's
chances are superior after the sharp
12...c5!? 13 &d6 i.xd5 14 &xd5
exd5 15 Wxd5 £)b6 16 Wfi!? g6!
17 #f4 Ag7 18 2hel± when his
pieces are dominating the centre -
although of course Black's
queenside chances shouldn't be
underestimated either; Almasi-
Tukmakov, Croatia 2001) 13 £kf6+
Wxf6 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 Shel £>c4
16 .&xc4 bxc4, with approximate
equality; Xu Yuhua-Zhukova,
Women's World Ch, New Delhi
2000. Another move enjoying
constant popularity is 11 Hhel, with
the possible continuation 11...^.d5
12 &d3 (on 12 £xd5 exd5 13
£}xf6+ £}xf6, Black achieves
equality with accurate play, for
example 14 #f4 £ie4 15 £se5 f6 16
^d3 #d7= Finkel-Gurevich,
EU-Cup, Belgrade 1999) 12...c5 13
c4 Jk.b7 14 d5 (14 dxc5 deserves
consideration; Black should then
choose between 14...bxc5 15 £\xf6+
fxf6 16 &e4!? &xe4 17 Sxe4
Sfd8 with fair chances of
equalizing, and the sharp \4..Mel\l
15 £)xf6+ £>xf6 16 cxb6 axb6°°
David-Gurevich, Amsterdam open
2000) 14...exd5 15 cxd5 c4!? (the
variation 15...JLxd5!? isn't easy to
assess either, e.g. 16 .&b5 JLd4 17
£lxd4 cxd4 18 #xd4 &xe4 19
Sxe4 #g5+ with equality, De
Firmian-Akesson, Lisbon open
2000) 16 &c2 b5 17 *bl #b6 18
Wf4 Sad8^ Reinderman-Gurevich,
Escaldes 1998. ll..JLd5!?
Preventing the d4-d5 breakthrough.
Less convincing lines are ll..JLxe4
12 Wxe4 i.e7 13 £te5 £\f6 14
#f3!± and ll...i.e7 12 d5! exd5 13
±xd5 £.xd5 14 Sxd5 Wc8 15 £kl4
^f6 16 Se5 with a strong initiative,
Shirov-Gurevich, New Delhi 2000.
12 JLd3 Black equalizes after 12
£.xd5 exd5 13 £sg3!? (or 13 &xf6+
&xf6 14 &e5 c5=) 13...Se8 14
2hel Sxel 15 Sxel g6 16 h4!? c5
17 #d6 £sf8 18 #xd8 Sxd8=
Arizmendi Martinez - Baklan,

122 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 $Sf6 4 $Lg5 dxe4 5 *hxe4 k.e7 6 $Lxf6 &xf6
European Team Ch, Leon 2001.
12...ik.e7 It would also be worth
trying out 12...c5 13 c4 &b7!?ao. 13
c4 jLb7 14 g4 In Hubner-Gurevich,
Bundesliga 1992, the game levelled
out after 14 h4 £lf6 15 £>e5 a6!? 16
£>xf6+ &xf6 17 &e4!? &xe4 18
#xe4 &xe5 19 dxe5 #e7=.
14...&f6 15 £)xf6+ Or 15 h4 b5! 16
£\xf6+ Axf6 17 g5 &e7 18 Shel
bxc4 19 Axc4 Sb8f. 15...±xf6 16
&e4 &xe4 17 Wxe4 #e7 18 h4
ift)4°° with fully adequate
counterplay for Black; Bologan-
Gurevich, Belfort 1998.
10...Ab7 11 h4!?
White very rarely omits this move
- and why should he? When he
does, he generally achieves little,
for instance 11 WeZ &e7 12 £>e5
f5! 13 £>c3 £>xe5 14 #xe5 &d6°°
Leko-Akopian, Dortmund 2000.
Another possibility is 11 #e2 We7
(or ll...£e7!?) 12 h4 c5 13 £teg5
g6 14 ke4 £xe4 15 &xe4 &g7 16
h5 cxd4 17 hxg6 hxg6 with unclear
complications, Fressinet-Gurevich,
Belfort 2003.
Il...£e7
Most likely, Black doesn't need to
lose time with this bishop retreat but
can play an immediate ll...c5!?, for
example: 12 £>eg5 h6 13 &h7+
<&h8 14 JLe4 ^.xg5!, and now
White ought to settle for the modest
15 £ixg51ifc7=, seeing that after the
reckless 15 hxg5? jLxe4 16 gxh6
Wf6 17 £)e5 Sad8 Black was
gradually able to fend off the
pressure and realize his material
advantage in Tomescu-Komarov,
Reggio Emilia 2003.
12#e2!?
A relatively new and quite
interesting try, but of course it isn't
the only one. The following are also
seen: -
(A) 12 c3 c5! White has the better
chances after 12...£tf6 13 £teg5
&xf3 14 gxf3! <4>h8 15 *bl #d6
16 Sdgl, with strong play on the
g-file; Topalov-Dreev, Linares
1995. 13 £seg5 Or 13 dxc5!? #c7!
14 £leg5 £)f6 15 #e2 #f4+! 16
"ibl Axc5, with an excellent game;
Al Modiahki-Arizmendi Martinez,
Biel open 2002. 13...h6 Better than
13...SM6 14 #c2 g6 15 h5 £>xh5!?
(15...&XD!? 16 £>xf3 £>xh5 is
unclear) 16 £ke6! fxe6 17 JLxg6
£)f4D 18 £.xh7+ &g7 19 £e4!
£xe4 20 Wxe4 £>g6 21 Hh5!f
Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Moscow 2002.
14 Ah7+ &h8 15 Ac2 #c7!? Black
starts to fight for the initiative.
Incidentally, 15...JLxf3 is not bad
either: 16 £>xf3 £tf6 17 <£>bl #c7
18 #e2 cxd4 19 £>xd4 h5!=
Anand-Bareev, Monte Carlo rapid
2003. 16 Wd3 £sf6 17 £)e5 &d6
The white pieces have taken up

Burn Variation 3 thc3 thf6 4 kg5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 ±e7 6 kxf6 kxf6 123
menacing positions on the kingside,
but Black's counterplay should on
no account be underrated either! 18
Sdel cxd4 19 &g4 &a6!, and
thanks chiefly to this tactical
chance, White's attack is repulsed;
Topalov-Bareev, Monte Carlo 2004.
(B) 12 £>fg5 h6 13 f4 Or 13 *bl
c5!? 14 dxc5 £)xc5 15 £>xc5 bxc5°°.
13...C5!? 14 dxc5 bxc5, with good
play for Black. At this point the
incautious 15 ?}d6?! landed White
in trouble after 15....&xd6 16 .&h7+
<&h8 17 #xd6 £.xg2! 18 Sh2 &d5
19 c4 Sc8!+ Al Modiahki-Nielsen,
Cappelle la Grande 1998.
(C) 12 &eg5!?
The start of an interesting piece of
play which is quite dangerous for
Black. 12...£tf6 13 c3 &xf3 14
gxf3!? More aggressive than 14
&xf3 c5=. 14...C5 IS dxc5 Wc7!
Black is prepared to sacrifice a
pawn to open lines against the white
king. 16 &bl bxc5 17 Sdgl!? c4!?
In Anand-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee
2004, some wild and wholly
obscure complications arose from
17...Sfd8 18 #c2 h6 19 &h7+ *f8
20 &xf7! <£>xf7 21 #g6+ *f8 22
fxg7+ <4>e8£. 18 Axh7+ Not 18
£>xh7? which is immediately
refuted by 18...Wd8! 19 £)xf8
JLxf8, obtaining two pieces for the
rook. 18...£sxh7 19 #c2 &xg5 20
hxg5, and now Black has the choice
between 20...g6 21 #e4 Sfd8 22
Wh4 #e5?* and 20...f5! 21 g6
Hab8! 22 #e2! Hf6!, with excellent
chances of a successful defence.
(D) 12 2h3!? &f6 A line
deserving no less attention is
12...C5!? 13 Sg3 #c7!, taking
control of the f4-square, for
example 14 dxc5 Sfd8 15 £>fg5!
Gashimov-Dizdar, Dubai 2003; and
now I don't see any major
difficulties for Black after the bold
15...£>xc5!? 16 £\xc5 bxc5 17
iLxh7+ *f8£. 13 £ixf6+ &xf6 14
&g5 h6 15 £>h7 He8 16 £ixf6+
Wxf6 17 g4! e5 18 dxe5 Sxe5 Up to
here the play has been more or less
forced, but at this point Black had
some choice; he could have played
18...Wxe5, when the game might
continue 19 g5!? #e6 20 #c3t. 19
f4 2ee8 20 g5 #e6 21 Sg3, with
initiative for White in Kharlov-
Sakalauskas, Skelleftea open 1999.
(E) 12 #f4!? Probably the most
popular move. It should be borne in
mind that this position can arise
from various move-orders - quite
often White plays Wd2-f4 either one
or two moves earlier. 12...£lf6 The
sly \2...WbS\? deserves close
attention, for instance: 13 £te5
(perhaps White can play more
strongly with 13 £>eg5 £tf6 14 £le5
c5 15 Sheloo or 13 h5!? c5 14
We3«) I3...c5 14 g3 £)xe5 15 dxe5

124 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 fof6 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 *hxe4 JLe7 6 &xf6 &xf6
f5!+ Kharlov-Dreev, St Petersburg
zt 1993. 13 £>xf6+ Black has no
problems in the event of 13 c4 c5!?
(or 13...b5!?«) 14 dxc5 Wb8! 15
&xf6+ &xf6 16 #xb8 2fxb8 17
cxb6 axb6 18 *bl i.xfi! 19 gxD
h5! with excellent compensation for
the pawn, Fressinet-Tukmakov,
Split 2000; or 13 £>eg5 &xf3!? (it
would be dangerous for Black to
play 13...Wd6 14 £>e5 Sad8, in
view of 15 2h3!? c5 16 dxc5! Wxc5
17 £>exf7!±) 14 £)xf3 *d6 15 £)e5
c5 16 dxc5 #xc5 17 She 1 2ac8=
Nunn-Gurevich, Belgrade 1991.
13...&xf6
14 JLe4 The game is level after 14
<4>bl #d6 15 #g4 iLxf3! 16 #xO
c5=. Nor has Black any great
problems in the case of 14 £)g5 h6
15 £>h7 (or 15 &h7+ *h8 16 &e4
±xe4 17 £ixe4 i.e7 18 c4 Wd7=
Tebb-Gurevich, British Team Ch
1998) 15...Se8 16 £ixf6+ #xf6 17
#xf6 gxf6 18 Shel f5=. 14...ixe4
15 #xe4 #d6 Black can't complain
about the results of the opening after
15...#d5 16 #xd5 exd5= either. 16
&bl Sad8 17 g4 g6, and Black has
a fully viable game; Prasad-
Goloshchapov, Calcutta 2000.
H' ZZZZ y'\lf- '/»mm'. - n. '//////A
Z%%% f?SIJ '"^; 'SI Ww,
' '//.X'/S. '//////A 'm. '//////A '//////,
12...£\f6
It isn't simple to assess the
consequences of 12...c5!? 13 dxc5
#c7 14 £>eg5 h6 15 £>xe6! (after
the timid 15 &h7+ <£>h8 16 &e4
&xe4 17 Wxe4 £)f6 18 #e2 #f4+
19 &M ^.xc5, the initiative was left
in Black's hands in Ganguly-
Dizdar, Dubai open 2004) 15...fxe6
16 #xe6+ 2f7 17 Ah7+ s£>xh7 18
Wxf7 £kc5 19 Shel Ad6, when
Black isn't too badly off.
13 &eg5 &xB
An interesting try is 13...c5; Black
answers 14 dxc5 (he can probably
defend successfully after 14 £*xh7
<&xh7 15 &xh7+ <4>xh7 16 &g5+
*h6!«) with 14...Wc7«.
14 £sxf3 #d6 15 £se5 c5 16 dxc5
Wxc5 17<&>bl2ad8
White retains some initiative after
17...i.d6 18 £>c4 5fd8 19 g4±.
18 £c4!±
White has evidently managed to
seize the initiative, although I think
that with precise play Black is quite
able to neutralize it successfully.
18...£>d5
Or 18...Sxdl+ 19 Sxdl Sc8
(19...Sd8? loses to 20 Sxd8+ &xd8

Burn Variation 3 £>c3 Zhf6 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 Zhxe4 kel 6 &xf6 ±xf6 125
21 £)xf7! 4>xf7 22 «fxe6+ <&>g6 23
g4 +-) 20 h5f.
19 &xd5 exd5 20 &d3 Wc7 21
g3 i.f6 22 Shel #c4 23 a3 g6
A better move was 23...Sd6!?±.
24 £if4 b5 25 *f3
Possibly 25 Sxd5!? was stronger:
25...Sde8 26 #xe8 Sxe8 27 Sxe8+
&g7 28 2d3!±.
25...d4 26 £>d3 &g7 27 Se7 Sc8
28 Sd2 Sc7 29 Sde2 a6 30 Sxc7
#xc7 31 #d5
m m® W% vagi
, ...J m m m
m mr&W>, 1m
w, mm.
35...a5 36 g5 b4 37 axb4 axb4 38
f4
It would be interesting to know
how Black would have reacted to 38
£ixb4!?.
38...#a4?
A serious error. Instead
38...«b5!? would have led to
wholly unclear play.
39 #d5 &f8 40 £se5 #a7 41
&d7!
Sakaev has gradually brought
about a major improvement in his
position. In particular he has made
his opponent play d5-d4, restricting
the scope of the dark-squared
bishop.
31...Sd8 32 #e4 Sc8 33 h.5 #d7
34 hxg6 hxg6 35 g4
It was worth considering 35
£fo4!?±.
41...b3
The pretty refutation of 41...Sa8
is 42 £tf6+ *g7 43 #xa8! #xa8 44
Sh2 &c5 45 Sh7+ <4>f8 46 Sh8+ +-.
42 cxb3 Wa6
Or 42...d3 43 £>f6+ *g7 44 fill
Scl+ 45 f xcl dxe2 46 #hl +-.
43 £le5 Sc7 44 &c4 Sa7 45 Se8
#al+ 46 &c2 tfgl 47 f d6 Wf2+
48 &d2 d3+ 49 <S?c3 1-0

8: Burn Variation 3 &c3 &f6
4 Ag5 dxe4 5 ^xe4 £>bd7
Game 12
Bruzon - Nogueiras
Havana 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)c3 £lf6 4
£g5 dxe4 5 £)xe4 £ibd7
6£sf3
Black equalizes in the event of 6
Wf3 h6 7 &h4 Ae7 8 0-0-0 £sxe4 9
&xe7 #xe7 10 *xe4 &f6 11 #e5
0-0= Sax-Bareev, Hastings 1990.
After 6 £lxf6+ the main line is
often reached by transposition, but
deviations are also possible, for
example: 6...£lxf6 7 £>B Or 7 JLd3
h6 (7...c5 is not bad either;
Almasi-Hubner, Istanbul ol 2000,
continued 8 dxc5 &xc5 9 SUe2
#a5+!? 10 Ad2 Ab4!? 11 c3 &d6
12 £)f3 £d7 13 0-0 #h5 14 h3 0-0
15 Sad 1 Sfd8=) 8 £h4 c5 9 dxc5
^Lxc5 10 #e2 (an unclear pawn
sacrifice; 10 c3 would be a safer
alternative) 10...#d4 11 <£f3 #xb2
12 0-0 Wb6 13 Sabl #c7 14 £)e5
a6«> and the onus is on White to
prove that he has enough
compensation for the pawn; Lastin-
Yagupov, Kstovo 1997. 7...c5!?
For 7...h6!?, see the variation 6
£tf3 h6!? 7 £>xf6 £)xf6. From the
diagram, White's usual choices are
as follows: -
(A) 8 dxc5 #a5+ It pays Black to
keep the queens on; a less
convincing line is 8...1Brxdl+ 9
Sxdl £xc5 10 i.b5+ &e7 11 0-0
h6 12 i.f4 £d7 13 £xd7 £lxd7 14
a3± Jakovenko-Dolmatov, Russian
Ch, Samara 2000. 9 c3 ^lxc5 10
&d3 Adl 11 0-0 £d6 12 »e2 £c6

Burn Variation 3 £k3 ?hf6 4 £.g5 dxe4 5 £hxe4 5 faxe4 QSbdl 127
13 £xf6 gxf6 14 £)d4 0-0-0?* Van
der Wiel-Korchnoi, Amsterdam
1990.
(B) 8 c3 cxd4 9 Wxd4!? Or 9
&xd4 &e7 10 Ad3 #d5! 11 £>f3
h6 12 &h4 0-0 13 #e2 Sd8 14 £c4
1ifh5= Spangenberg-Luther, Elista
ol 1998. 9...1fxd4 10 £>xd4 £e7 11
Sdl a6 It's worth considering
ll...i.d7!?. 12 i.e2 h6 13 Af4 Ad7
14 &f3 0-0-0 15 0-0 g5 16 &e5
Shg8, and White's advantage (if
any!) is of a more or less symbolic
nature; Van der Wiel-Kacheishvili,
Pula 1997.
(C) 8 &xf6!? gxf6 9 i.c4 cxd4
10 0-0 £g7 11 #e2 0-0 12 Sadl
e5!= Vuckovic-Kosic, Yugoslavia
1999.
(D) 8 i.c4
S.-WaS+l? The less popular
8...cxd4 also merits attention, for
instance: 9 0-0 Ac5 10 We2 0-0!?
11 Sadl a6 12 £ie5 b5 13 £d3
±b7 14 Axf6 #xf6 15 £>d7 #g5s
Klovans - Kishnev, Norwegian
League 1997. On the other hand, 9
We2! Ae7 10 0-0 h6 11 Af4 0-0 12
Sadl Wb6 13 £)xd4 Sd8 14 £if5T
is favourable to White; Zezulkin -
Gretarsson, Czech Extra League
1999. 9 c3 &e7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Sel
cxd4!? Probably the best move.
White has the initiative after ll...h6
12 ±h4 Sd8 13 #e2 cxd4 14 &xd4
&d7 15 Sadl &h8 (15...Sac8!?) 16
Sd3± Kasimdzhanov - Korchnoi,
Essen 2002, or 11...5d8?! 12 Se5
Wb6 13 We2 cxd4 14 £ixd4 h6 15
i.e3 #c7 16 M4 &f8 17 Ag3 with
the initiative in Kasimdzhanov-
Slobodjan, Bundesliga 2002. 12
#xd4 h6 13 £xf6!? The chances
are equal after 13 Af4 Sd8 14 We5
WxeS 15 foxeS g5!? 16 &e3 £k!7!
17 £>f3 b6= Van den Doel-Luther,
Venlo 2000. 13...i.xf6 14 #e4 Sd8
15 Ad3 WtS 16 #xf5 exf5 17 £c4
b5!= Kogan-Kruppa, Koszalin
1999.
(E) 8 &b5+!? Without any doubt
the most popular continuation.
8...±d7 9 £xd7+ Wxd7 10 #e2
White hasn't a scrap of advantage
after 10 &xf6 gxf6 11 c3 0-0-0!? 12
#e2 cxd4 13 &xd4 i.c5 14 £>b3
£b6= Reeh-Atalik, Budapest 1991.
In the diagram position, Black has
two moves at his disposal which are
not at all bad:

128 Burn Variation 3 £>c5 *hf6 4 £.g5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 *hbd7
(El) 10...cxd4 11 0-0-0 Complete
equality results from 11 ^.xf6 gxf6
12 #e2 £x5 13 £lxd4 0-0-0 14
£>b3 Wc6 15 f4!? &b6 16 g3
Sxdl+ 17 Sxdl 2d8= Short-
Korchnoi, Rotterdam 1990.
H...JLc5 More convincing than
ll...Ae7 12 Sxd4 #c7 13 #b5+
#c6 14 #xc6+ bxc6 15 Sc4±
Mikhalchishin-Chernin, Cienfuegos
1981. 12 WeS For a long stretch of
time this move was considered to be
the refutation of the whole variation.
Another move seen in practice is 12
£lxd4, when there can follow:
12...0-0-0 13 &b3 (Black isn't
afraid of 13 £>f5? #a4! 14 £>xg7
Wxa2 either) 13...£d6 14 #e3
Wa4!? 15 *bl &c7 16 £xf6 gxf6
17 g3 f5= Kotronias-Godena,
European Team Ch, Leon 2001.
12...ite7 Another interesting move
is 12...Sc8!?. 13 £ixd4 #34! 14
■ibl The verdict isn't altered by 14
Wb5+ Wxb5 15 £)xb5 0-0 16 f3
Sfc8!=. 14...0-0 15 #b5 Black also
has adequate play following 15 £}f5
exf5 16 Wxel £>e4oo. I5...#xb5 16
£>xb5 a6 17 £k3 b5= Vujacic-
Kosic, Vrsac 2000.
(E2) 10...i.e7
11 0-0-0 Or 11 dxc5 0-0! 12 £le5
Wd5 13 0-0 &xc5 14 Sfel (if 14
Sadl, then 14...We4=) 14...£id7 15
£)G! #c6! (after the incautious
15...f6? 16 Sadl Wc6 17 #xe6+!
#xe6 18 Sxe6 fxg5 19 Sxd7 g4 20
Se5!± Black lost material for
insufficient compensation in
Leko-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 2000)
16 Sadl flac8 17 Wd3 #b6 18 £)d2
£)f6= Svidler-Bareev, Russian
Team Ch, Tomsk 2001. 11...0-0 12
dxc5 Black is all right after 12 &bl
#c7! 13 d5!? exd5! 14 Shel £.d8
15 £.xf6 £.xf6 16 Sxd5 c4!?=
Nisipeanu-Rogozenko, Bucharest
1998, or 12 Shel Wa4!? 13 *bl
Sfd8 14 dxc5 Axc5 15 Sxd8+
Sxd8 16 £)e5 Ae7 17 G (17
£>xf7?! <&>xf7 18 Wxe6+ &g6 19
#xe7 fails against 19...Se8 20
Axf6 Sxe7 21 £.xe7 #d4!¥ when
the initiative passes to Black)
17...h6 18 &cl &d5= Van der
Wiel-Van der Sterren, Dutch Ch,
Rotterdam 2000. 12...WC7 In the
case of 12...#a4!? 13 &bl &xc5 14
&xf6 gxf6 15 £lel!? Sfd8 16 £)d3
JLf8 17 f4, White preserves chances
of a minimal plus; Leko-Korchnoi,
Vienna 1996. 13 £te5 #xc5 14
&xf6! Axf6 15 &d7 %5+ 16
&M, Fercec-Tukmakov, Zadar
open 1997; and now 16...Sfd8! 17
h4 Wf5 18 g4 #f4 would have led
to equality.
6...h6!?
At this juncture Black had an
important choice to make. Another
move with a good many supporters
is 6...ie7, after which the game
takes on rather a different character.

Burn Variation 3 *hc3 fof6 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 thxe4 Zhbd7 129
There can follow: 7 £sxf6+ Black
comfortably solves his opening
problems in the event of 7 JLxf6
&xf6 8 £>xf6+ &xf6 9 c3 0-0 10
i.d3 c5 11 dxc5 Wc7 12 #e2!
#xc5 13 Sdl, Bartel-Juroszek,
Swidnica open 2000; at this point he
could easily have equalized by
13...#c7 14 0-0 Sd8. 7...£xf6
<II>X*Iu -XXX
« !§*« «
The solid but passive 7...£>xf6
occurs more rarely. Play may
continue: 8 £d3 c5 (8...h6!?
deserves attention, for example 9
Ad2 c5 10 dxc5 ixc5 11 #e2 W>6
12 0-0 Ae7 13 a4 0-0 14 a5 #c7=o
Nunn-Dolmatov, Bundesliga 1992.
In recent tournaments 8...b6 has
been played quite regularly, with the
possible continuation 9 #e2 JLb7
10 0-0-0 £id7 11 h4!? [11 £xe7
tfxe7 12 Shel 0-0 13 d5 £>c5 14
JLc4± is not bad either] 11...^.xD
12 Wxfi £xg5+ 13 hxg5 #xg5+ 14
<&>bl Sd8! Sutovsky-Akopian,
Moscow 2002; and now 15 Sh5!?
#f6 16 #e3S is interesting - White
has a strong initiative for the pawn.
Finally, Black can try playing
8...0-0, and only after 9 lfe2
following with 9...c5, for example:
10 0-0-0 cxd4 11 h4 f(a5 12 <4>bl
Sd8 [12..JLd7!? is also worth
considering; Nunn-Skembris, Paris
1983, continued 13 £tocd4 &c6 14
£ixc6 bxc6 15 i.d2 Wb6 16 c4!
Hfb8oo] 13 £te5 #c7 14 f4 a5 15
Sh3 a4?* Timofeev-Yandemirov, St
Petersburg 2002) 9 dxc5 #a5+ 10
c3 #xc5 11 #e2 Ad7!? (Black fails
to achieve full equality with 11...a6
12 0-0 b6 13 £se5 Abl 14 Sfel
#d5 15 Wfl! £d6 16 Af4 #c5 17
Sad It when White has unpleasant
pressure; Graf-Slobodjan, German
Ch, Heringsdorf 2000) 12 £)e5!?
(on 12 0-0, Black should think
about 12...h6!? or 12...JLc6, seeing
that 12...0-0? simply loses a pawn to
13 Axf6 &xf6 14 £xh7+ &xh7 15
#d3+ *g8 16 #xd7±) 12...Ac6 13
0-0 (White also retains a small plus
after either 13 h4!? Sd8 14 0-0-0
£>d7 15 £xe7! #xe7 16 £>xc6 bxc6
17 Ae4± or 13 0-0-0!? 0-0 14 Shel
Sad8 15 f4 <&d5 16 £xe7 #xe7 17
g3± Mamedyarov-Makharadze,
European Ch, Batumi 2002)
13...£>d7 14 &xe7 #xe7 (the
verdict on the position is not altered
by 14...*xe7 15 £>xc6+ bxc6 16
&e4 Sad8 17 Wf3±) 15 £lxc6 bxc6
16 £e4 Sc8 17 Sfdl £>f6 18 Wa6
#c7 19 AG 0-0 20 Sd4± Varga-
Borocz, Hungary 1998.
From the diagram, the
possibilities are as follows: -
(A) White is not showing much
ambition with 8 Axf6 £lxf6 Or
S.-.l'xfe, which is not bad either: 9
1^2 (9 JLc4!? is worth considering;
I find it hard to believe that White
can achieve anything concrete with
9 ±d3 0-0 10 0-0 e5 11 Sel exd4

130 Burn Variation 3 foc3 Qtf6 4 $Lg5 dxe4 5 thxe4 QSbd.7
12 £>xd4 g6°°) 9...0-0 10 #e3 (or 10
0-0-0 e5=) 10...2d8 11 &d3 c5 12
dxc5 #xb2 13 0-0 #f6= Anand-
Shirov, Monaco Amber rapid 2001.
9 tfd2 White doesn't set his
opponent any problems with 9 JLc4
0-0 10 #e2 a6! 11 0-0-0 b5!«>, let
alone with the spineless 9 JLb5+
Ad7 10 Axd7+ Wxd7 11 We2 0-0
12 0-0 Sfd8 13 Sadl *a4!?=
Efimov-Gurevich, Saint Vincent
open 2003. 9...0-0 10 0-0-0 b6 11
£se5 &b7 12 Ad3 #d5! 13 c4 #d6
14 Wf4 c5= Gelfand-Gurevich,
Reggio Emilia 1991.
(B) 8 Wd2 i.xg5 After 8...c5!?
too, Black will hardly face any
difficulties. 9 &xg5 £sf6 White has
the initiative in the event of 9...0-0
10 0-0-0 b6 11 d5!, when ll...exd5
12 #xd5 Ab7? fails to 13 Wf5! g6
14 Wf4 #f8 15 #h4 +-. 10 0-0-0
0-0 Black will have no easy time
defending after 10...Ad7 11 £>G!
«Te7 12 £>e5 0-0 13 Ad3 Sfd8 14
g4t Inkiov-Lobron, Novi Sad ol
1990. 11 i.e2!? White attempts to
hinder his opponent's development.
The game is level in the case of 11
&d3 b6 12 h4 Ab7 13 *bl #d6=.
ll...Vd6 12 &G 2b8 The pawn
sacrifice 12...JLd7!? is also
interesting: after 13 JLxb7 Sab8 14
Af3 .&c6, Black has some
compensation. 13 £)e4 There is no
reason to assess the position
differently after 13 h4 &d7 14 h5
h6 15 £le4 £>xe4 16 &xe4 £c6
17 G &xe4 18 fxe4 c5=
Kovalevskaya - Chiburdanidze,
European Women's Ch, Batumi
2000. 13...£ixe4 14 &xe4 &d7 15
*e3 £c6 16 G Sfd8= Karpov-
Bareev, Tilburg 1991.
(C) 8 b.4!
Without any doubt at all, this is
the only way White can expect the
better chances. Given that a bishop
exchange on g5 would definitely be
in his favour, he tries to provoke a
weakening of his opponent's
kingside. Black now has the
following options: -
(CI) The rare move 8...a6!?
deserves attention, for example 9
#d2 b5 10 0-0-0 £b7 11 Sh3, De
Firmian-Seirawan, USA Ch, Salt
Lake City 1999; and now after
11...C5 12 Axf6 tfxf6 13 dxc5
£ixc5 14 Wd6 #e7, I don't think
Black could have had any real
problems.
(C2) 8...h6 9 &xf6 Wxf6 The
alternative 9...£lxf6 is of interest;
the game may continue 10 #d2
(White has the initiative after 10
£x4 We7 11 #e2 &d7 12 0-0-0
0-0-0 13 £>e5±) 10...b6 11 0-0-0
(it's also worth considering 11
±b5+!? &d7 12 Ac4±) ll...Ab7 12
&e5 0-0 13 jS.d3 c5!? 14 dxc5 #c7
15 Shel, Anand-Korchnoi, Wijk

Burn Variation 3 &Sc3 fyti 4 ±g5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 Z&bd7 131
aan Zee 2000; and now with
15...bxc5! 16 g4 c4! 17 £xc4
£>xg4! 18 #d7 Sac8! Black could
have reckoned on equalizing. 10
#d2 Or 10 #e2!± intending 0-0-0
and g2-g4. 10...0-0 Or 10...c5 11
0-0-0 0-0 12 Ae2 e5!? 13 dxe5
&xe5 14 &xe5 fxe5 15 f4 We7 16
AO± Gligoric-Balashov, Skopje
1970. 11 0-0-0 e5 12 Sel Nor is it
simple to play the Black side after
12 We3 exd4 13 Sxd4 £ib6 14
Ad3!? c5 (14...#e6!?±) 15 Se4
i.e6 16 2f4! #e7 17 £>g5!T
Voitsekhovsky-Schmidt, Barlinek
open 2001. 12...exd4 13 Wxd4
#xd4 14 &xd4 £sb6! Quite rightly,
Black has no wish to see his
opponent's bishop on c4. 15 £\b5!?
c6 16 £ld6 Sd8 17 &d3 <&>f8 18
£sxc8 Saxc8 Leko-Korchnoi,
Tilburg 1998; and now after the
correct 19 Se4!? Se8 20 Shel
Sxe4 21 Sxe4± Black would still
need to defend very carefully.
(C3) 8...C5!? 9 #d2 The game
levels out after 9 dxc5 #a5+ 10 c3
#xc5 11 Ae3 #c7 12 £>g5 b6 13
3.b5 a6 14 &e2 i.b7= Sax-
Korchnoi, World Team Ch, Lucerne
1989. 9...cxd4
10 0-0-0 After the interesting 10
£>xd4!?, there can follow: 10...h6
11 ±xf6 £)xf6 12 n>4! <&d5
(\2...We7 13 ±b5+ <&>f8!°° deserves
attention) 13 #a3 #e7 14 &b5+
Ml (possibly 14...<&f8± would be
the least of the evils) 15 JLxd7+
&xd7 16 #a4+ *c7 17 2h3!T
Topalov-Bareev, Dortmund rapid
2002. 10...0-0 In Timman-
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1991, Black
came up against intractable
problems after 10...e5 11 Sel 0-0
12 £bce5! Se8? (a better chance was
12...£lxe5 13 Sxe5 Ae6 14 &xf6
#xf6 15 #xd4 Sad8 16 #e3,
though White's advantage is
obvious even so) 13 £>xf7! Bxel+
14 Wxel <&>xf7 15 ix4+ &f8 16
#e6 i.xg5+ 17 hxg5 1^5+ 18
4^1+-. Practice has also seen
10...h6 11 £xf6 £\xf6 12 Wb4!?
#e7 (or 12...1fb6 13 #xb6 axb6 14
&c4 Ad7 15 Sxd4 Ac6±) 13 &b5+
± Shirov-Sadvaksov, Liepaja rapid
2001. 11 £ixd4 #b6!? Probably the
most exact solution. White holds the
initiative after ll...£>b6 12 £tf3!
Wxd2+ 13 2xd2 &d7 14 &xf6 gxf6
15 &e2 Sfc8 16 2hdl± Cabrilo-
Drasko, Yugoslavia 1992; or ll...h6
12 £)f3! (more convincing than 12
&e3 £)b6!=) 12...!rb6 (White's
attack is irresistible in the case of
12...hxg5? 13 hxg5 &e7 14 lff4 f5
15 &c4!) 13 c3! e5 14 Ae3 Wa5 15
g4! e4 16 g5!, Topalov-Shirov,
Leon 2001. 12 g4 Or 12 £x4 h6 13
i.e3 £k5! 14 £e2 2d8«. Black
also has quite a good game after 12
Sh3 e5! 13 £lb3 £>c5=. 12...e5! 13
£)f5 £}c5?* with unclear play.

132 Burn Variation 3 £>ci Chf6 4 &.g5 dxe4 5 thxe4 *hbd7
(C4) 8...0-0
9 .&d3!? An equal game results
from 9 #d2 e5! 10 j£.xf6 (or 10
0-0-0 e4!? 11 Axf6 £>xf6 12 £>e5
Ae6 13 ^bl c5!= Anand-Korchnoi,
Tilburg 1991) 10...#xf6 11 0-0-0
exd4 12 Wxd4 #xd4 13 Sxd4 (on
13 £)xd4 £>f6 14 £>b5, the simplest
course is 14...£>e4!? 15 £>xa8 &xf2
16 £ixa8 £>xdl! 17 &xdl &g4+ 18
*d2 Sxa8=) 13...£*6!7 14 Ad3 h6
15 Sdl i.e6 16 Ae4 2ab8 17 £>d2
Sfe8, and Black gradually
succeeded in neutralizing his
opponent's initiative; J.Polgar-
Korchnoi, Hoogeveen 2001. Nor
does Black have much in the way of
difficulties after 9 i.xf6 #xf6 10
We2<? b6 11 #e4 2b8 12 ±d3 g6
13 £se5 c5 14 £b5 £)xe5 15 #xe5
Wxe5+ 16 dxe5 £.b7= Topalov-
Anand, Amber rapid 2000. Finally,
9 We2 is worth thinking about, for
instance 9...c5!? 10 #e3 #a5+ 11
c3 cxd4 12 £)xd4 #e5 13 0-0-0
Wxe3+ 14 &xe3 a6!? 15 g4!? (or 15
g3!?) 15...&d8 16 g5 &c7 17 ±e2±
Hernandez-Korchnoi, World Ch,
Groningen 1997. 9...c5 10 We2 In
J.Polgar-Korchnoi, Buenos Aires
2001, Black obtained an excellent
game after 10 c3 cxd4 11 cxd4 e5!
12 #c2 h6 13 &h7+ *h8 14 0-0-0
#a5! 15 <£>bl exd4, and already it
was White who faced the problem
of maintaining the balance.
10...cxd4 Or 10...iT>6 11 #e4 g6
12 0-0-0 cxd4 13 £.xf6 £>xf6 14
fT4! *g7 15 #e5! with a powerful
initiative. 11 #e4
White also occasionally plays 11
0-0-0!?, which tends to transpose
into the main variation. On the other
hand the game may feature
something relatively fresh, for
instance: ll...e5 (White has the
initiative in the event of 1 l...£k5 12
&c4 e5 13 £ixe5!? £xg5+ 14 hxg5
#xg5+ 15 <£>bl JLe6 16 Sxd4 Sad8
17 f4± Gallagher-Schenk, Bundes-
liga 2002) 12 *bl Se8 13 Shel
£>c5!? (better than 13...g6?! 14
&c4! #e7 15 Axf6 WxflS 16
Hxd4T Shirov - Herraiz Hidalgo,
Spanish Ch, Ayamonte 2002) 14
£lxe5 JLe6?£ with obscure
complications. Il...g6 Or ll...#a5+ 12 b4!
Wf5D 13 Wxf5 exf5 14 0-0-0 with a
slight edge. 12 0-0-0 e5 White's
chances are clearly preferable after
12...Wa5!7 13 Axffi £>xf6 14 #xd4
£>h5!? 15 a3! Sd8 16 tfe3T

Bum Variation 3 t&c3 £>/<5 4 <kg5 dxe4 5 *hxe4 thbd7 133
Kasparov-Shirov, Frankfurt 2000.
13 Axf6! More convincing than the
superficially tempting 13 #d5 Se8
14 Shel e6! 15 &b5 #a5 16 &c4
#c7! 17 Ab3 £ic5 18 Axf6 £kb3+
19 axb3 Sxf6, and Black is close to
equality; Glek-Gurevich, Zwolle
2002. ^...Wxfe 14 £b5 Sd8 Some
interesting complications arise from
14...Se8!? 15 Sxd4 £>c5 16 #e3
£h3! 17 Sc4!? £xg2 18 ±xe8
&xhl 19 ixf7+! #xf7 20 &xe5±
15 Shel!
White completes his development
and assumes, not without reason,
that Black won't be able to hold on
to his material advantage.
l5...Wb6l? Black cannot be happy
with either 15...a6 16 JLxd7 JLxd7
17 Wxe5 Wxe5 18 £lxe5± or
15...*g7 16 h5 Se8 17 Sxd4! Se7
18 #e3± Leko-Shirov, Monte Carlo
rapid 2003. 16 &xd7!? In
Kasparov-Anand, Kopavogur 2000,
Black succeeded in equalizing after
16 £c4 £>c5 17 #xe5 i.e6 18
&xe6 £>xe6 19 h5 d3!=. 16...i.xd7
17 Wxe5 £g4 The verdict is not
altered by 17..JLc6 18 £\xd4 £.xg2
19 c3±. 18 1T4 &xf3 19 #xf3
Sac8 20 *bl, with a small plus for
White.
The impression is that White
possesses the initiative and that
Black needs quite a few
improvements in order to neutralize it.
7 &xf6+
Black's game is simpler to play in
the event of 7 ±h4 &e7 8 £)xf6+
Axf6 9 &xf6 #xf6 Nor has he any
particular problems after 9...£*xf6
10 c3 0-0 11 i.d3 b6 12 #e2 kbl
13 0-0-0 #d5 14 *bl c5= Bellon
Lopez-Luther, Gibraltar 2003. 10
#d2!? c5 After 10...0-0 11 #e3
b6!? Black's equalizing prospects
are not bad either: 12 We4 Sb8 13
£d3 g6 14 £>e5 c5». 11 0-0-0 cxd4
12 £ixd4 0-0 13 f4 e5 14 fxe5 #xe5
15 &b5 £sf6= Hector-Agdestein,
Reykjavik open 1998.
The game J.Polgar-Bareev,
Enghien les Bains 2003, proceeded
quite interestingly with 7 Axf6
&xf6 8 i.d3 £sxe4 9 £xe4 c5 10
c3!? Or 10 0-0 cxd4 11 £\xd4
i.c5=. 10...cxd4 11 «ra4+ #d7!?
Black also has fairly good chances
of equalizing with ll...JLd7 12
#xd4 &c6 13 £.xc6+ bxc6 14 #a4

134 Burn Variation 3 Z&c3 &f6 4 k.g5 dxe4 5 *hxe4 <hbd7
Wcl^. 12 #c4, and now it was
worth considering 12...dxc3!? 13
Sdl ±66 14 #d4 Af8 15 #xc3
Wb5 with obscure complications.
7...£sxf6
8&h4
At this point there are various
moves at White's disposal which
call for attention. The text move is
undoubtedly the most popular, but
I'm not convinced it is the most
unpleasant for Black to meet. The
following are also seen: -
(A) 8 JLxf6 This continuation has
become astonishingly popular in the
last few years. 8...#xf6 9 &b5+!?
c6 10 £d3
10..JLd7 White's chances are
somewhat preferable after 10...a6 11
c3 c5 12 £te5 Ad6 13 We2!? cxd4
14 cxd4 J£.d7 (Black gains nothing
from 14...i.b4+ 15 <4>fl 0-0 16 #e4
Sd8 17 h4t) 15 0-0 #f4 16 g3!
#xd4 17 £>xd7 &xd7 18 #f3t
with powerful play for the pawn;
Topalov-Anand, Dortmund 2001.
Another variation seen quite often is
10...£d6 11 #e2 Adl (Black can
consider 11...0-0!? 12 0-0-0 c5°°) 12
0-0 (or 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 <S?bl *b8
14 £e4 g5! 15 £>d2 #e7 16 £>c4 f5
17 &d3 c5« Svidler-Korchnoi, Biel
2001) 12...0-0 13 £>e5 Sad8 (or
13...Sfd8!? 14 We4 g6) 14 f4!? g6,
Sutovsky-Akopian, FIDE GP,
Moscow 2002; and now after 15
tfe3!? b6 16 #h3 %7 17 c3 White
could very well have counted on a
small plus. Finally, Black has good
chances of equalizing with 10...g6!?
11 0-0 (if White wants, he can try a
different plan based on castling
queenside, e.g. 11 We2 &g7 12
0-0-0 Ad7 13 c3 0-0-0 14 h4 &b8
15 i'bl JLc8, with a somewhat
passive but solid position for Black;
Suetin-Speelman, Hastings 1991)
ll...£g7 12 c3 0-0 13 #b3 (it
would be worth considering 13
#e2!? Sd8 14 Sadl &d7 15 £>e5,
with chances of a slight edge)
13...#d8 14 £e4 #c7 15 Sadl Sd8
16 Sfel Ad7 17 £>e5 ±e8 18 f4
Sd6, and I find it hard to imagine
how Black's position can be
breached; Sutovsky-Sakaev, EU-
Cup, Halkidiki 2002. 11 #e2
Unclear complications result from
11 0-0!? £d6 (11...C5 may be the
easiest way to equalize, for example

Burn Variation 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 Jig5 dxe4 5 Zhxe4 Z&bd7 135
12 c3 cxd4 13 *b3 &d6 14 £>xd4
#e5 15 g3 0-0-0= Kasimdzhanov-
Ivanchuk, World Ch, Tripoli 2004)
12 We2 c5!? (12...0-0-0?! is less
precise in view of 13 b4! She8 14
Sfel g5 15 Sabl, when there are
some anxious moments in store for
the black king!) 13 Sadl 0-0-0 14
dxc5 &xc5 15 Ae4 <£>b8!? 16
Jbcb7!? (White goes into action
before Black can play JLd7-c8)
16...*xb7 17 2xd7+ Sxd7 18
#b5+ <&c7 19 #xc5+ <&>b8 20
£)e55E Vallejo Pons - Gurevich,
Spanish Team Ch, Lanzarote 2003.
11...C5!? 12 0-0-0 Or 12 #e4 2b8
13 £>e5 &d6 14 f4 cxd4 15 0-0
£xe5 16 fxe5 #g5 17 #xd4 &c6=
Topalov-Bareev, Cannes 2002. Nor
has Black any great problems in the
event of 12 £>e5 0-0-0 13 c3!? cxd4
14 cxd4 £b4+ 15 *fl <4>b8 16 h4
Ac8 17 We4 2d6?* Topalov-
Gurevich, Bastia 2003.12...0-0-0 13
i.e4 <&>b8
14 £ie5 i.d6! In Topalov-Bareev,
Monaco rapid 2002, Black played
14...cxd4?, whereupon White
brought off the atractive stroke 15
&xb7! Wf4+ 16 *bl &xb7 17 g3
WfS (nor is Black relieved of his
problems by 17...WAS 18 #e4+!
*b8 19 #xd4 +-) 18 Sxd4 &c5 19
Sf4 +-. 15 £ixd7+ Sxd7 16 dxc5
Or 16 d5 Shd8 17 <&bl £e5?*.
16...«fg5+ 17 &bl »xc5 18 2d3
Shd8= Magem Badals-Gurevich,
2002. So far Black has been
managing to hold the balance, albeit
not without an effort, in these
complex and obscure variations.
(B) 8 &d2 c5
9 i.d3!? Black obviously has
everything in order after 9 dxc5
&xc5 10 ±d3 !T>6!?, or 9 &b5+
&d7 10 #e2 Axb5 11 #xb5+ #d7
12 #xd7+ £sxd7 13 dxc5 &xc5 14
£x3 f6 15 h4 h5= J.Polgar-
Akopian, Merida 2000. Nor has he
any real problems in the case of 9 c3
cxd4 10 cxd4 (or 10 £>xd4 &c5=)
10...i.e7 11 &d3 &d7 12 £)e5
&c6!? 13 £>xc6 bxc6 14 Ac3 &d5
15 #a4 0-0 16 0-0 c5!?= J.Polgar-
Anand, Leon 2000. 9...cxd4 White's
chances are slightly superior in the
event of 9...a6 10 We2 b5 11 dxc5
&xc5 12 0-0-0 Wc7 13 &c3! &b7
14 £e5! Wb6 15 JLxfS gxf6 16 £e4
Bologan-Komarov, Reggio Emilia
1996. It would be too risky for
Black to play 9...Wb6 10 #e2

136 Burn Variation 3 *hc3 Zhf6 4 Ag5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 Q±bd7
Wxb2?! 11 0-0 Wb6 12 Sab 1 #c7
13 &b5+!s. 10 #e2 #b6 11 0-0-0
Ad6 12 £)e5 0-0 13 g4 £>d5£
Dworakowska - Peng Zhaoqin,
European Women's Team Ch, Leon
2001.
(C) 8 &e3!?
8...5M5 I don't so much like
8..JLe7, for example: 9 i.d3 0-0
(9...b6!? 10 *e2 Ab7) 10 #e2 b6
(or 10...#d5!? 11 &c4! Wd6 12
0-0-0±) 11 0-0-0!? ±b7 12 £>e5
Wc8 (12...#d5!? might have been
the best course) 13 Shgl! c5 14 g4
cxd4 15 .&d2!, Iordachescu-Van
Wely, Romania 2000. White has
succeeded in building up an active,
aggressive position; the position of
the black pawn on h6 is merely
helping him to develop his
initiative. A move that deserves
more attention is a typical one for
this whole variation, namely
8...a6!?, when the game may
continue: 9 JLd3!? b6 (more precise
than 9...b5 10 We2 Ad6 11 a4 b4 12
£>e5 kbl 13 £.b5+!T Shirov-
Anand, Monaco Amber 2001) 10
We2 Ab7 11 0-0-0 #d5>? 12 *bl
b5 13 £le5 JLd6 with unclear play,
Shirov-Gurevich, Reykjavik rapid
2003. There are also quite a few
supporters of 8...iLd6, which White
usually answers with 9 iLd3 JLd7
(the game J.Polgar-Van Wely,
European Ch, Ohrid 2000, went
9...a6 10 #e2 b6 11 £>e5 i.b7 12
0-0-0 £kl5, and now White could
only have counted on an initiative
by playing 13 Jtd2!? to preserve the
bishop) 10 #e2 #e7 11 0-0 0-0 12
c4 (or 12 £te5 Sfd8 13 #f3 &d5 14
Ad2 c5 15 c4 £tf6= Stefansson-
Nogueiras, Havana 2002) 12...c5 13
Sadl Sfd8 14 &bl Aa4!? 15 b3
JLc6 16 4te5, as in Hiibner-
Nogueiras, Elista ol 1998. White has
a minimal edge here, though with
accurate play Black is perfectly
capable of neutralizing it. 9 Jtd3!?
Black equalizes (though it does
take some effort) in the event of 9
Ad2 c5 (or 9...±d6!?) 10 &b5+
(after 10 £)e5 a6!? 11 c4 £rf6 12
&c3 cxd4 13 Wxd4 #xd4 14 i.xd4
£>d7 15 £d3 £lxe5 16 £.xe5 &d7,
Black is close to attaining equality;
J.Polgar-Korchnoi, Enghien les
Bains 2003) 10...£d7 11 We2 (or
11 £xd7+ #xd7 12 c4 £)b6! 13
Scl Sc8, with about an equal game)

Burn Variation 3 £±c3 *hf6 4 &g5 dxe4 5 <hxe4 fobd7 137
ll...£.xb5 12 #xb5+ #d7 13
*xd7+ 4>xd7 14 c4 £)f6 15 £>e5+
&e8 16 £e3 2c8 17 &e2 cxd4 18
£.xd4 JLc5= Vallejo Pons-
Radjabov, Dos Hermanas 2001. It
would be worth considering 9 #d2
&d6 (9...£bce3 10 fxe3 c5« is
interesting) 10 0-0-0 &d7 11 c4!?
&xe3 12 fxe3, with some initiative
for White. 9...£)xe3 10 fxe3 &d6 11
0-0 Black easily obtained equal
chances in Nakamura-Akobian, San
Francisco 2002, which went 11 e4
e5! 12 dxe5 (or 12 £lxe5 £xe5 13
dxe5 %5t) 12...Ac5 13 £c4 #e7
14 Wd2 0-0 15 0-0-0 c6, with a
comfortable game. Il...1i,e7 12 c3
i.d7 13 Wb3 0-0-0 14 Sael!? c6
15 e4, and White undoubtedly holds
the initiative, although it's very hard
to break into the Black position;
Acs-Gurevich, Saint Vincent 2002.
Generally speaking, my impression
is that with 8 Ae3!? White sets his
opponent distinct problems.
8...C5
The initiative is in White's hands
after 8...g6 9 Ac4 £g7 10 We2 0-0
11 0-0-0 c6 12 £>e5 a5 13 #f3±
Plaskett-Speelman, England 1997.
The calm 8....&e7!? deserves
attention. It is then not simple for
White to acquire any real dividends,
for example: 9 JLd3 Black is all
right after 9 Ac4 a6 10 0-0 0-0 11
#e2 b5 12 &b3 i.b7=. 9...c5 10
dxc5 More convincing than 10 We2
#a5+!? 11 c3 cxd4!? 12 £ixd4 i.d7
13 0-0 #h5!? 14 #xh5 £)xh5 15
JLxe7 &xe7= Short-Korchnoi,
Manila izt 1990. 10...#a5+ 11 c3
The game is level after 11 £>d2
#xc5 12 0-0 &d7 13 £)e4 £>xe4 14
i.xe7 <&xel 15 Lxe4 Sad8, when
the black king feels quite
comfortable in the centre. Il...#xc5
12 #e2 0-0 13 £te5 Or 13 0-0 Sd8
14 Sfel b6 15 Aa6 £>d5 16 &xe7
£sxe7 17 Sadl i.xa6 18 #xa6
£lc6= Leko-Bareev, Monaco Amber
2002. 13...b6 14 0-0-0 i.b7 15
&xf6 &xf6 16 ^d7 #g5+ 17 <4>c2
Sfd8 18 Ae4 i.d5! and Black
gradually succeeded in attaining
equality in Sutovsky-Dolmatov,
Aeroflot open, Moscow 2003.
9 £.c4<?
This is the move on which White
has recently been setting his hopes.
Of other continuations, the
following are worth mentioning: -

138 Bum Variation 3 &c3 Qfe 4 &g5 dxe4 5 t&xe4 C&bd7
(A) 9 c3 a6 Black can scarcely
encounter any serious trouble after
9...cxd4 10 £)xd4 jte7°° either. 10
£se5 cxd4 11 Wa4+ £d7 12 #xd4
&b5! 13 £xb5+ axb5 14 #e3
1^5! and Black is close to
achieving full equality; Short-
Korchnoi, Reykjavik open 2000.
(B) There is hardly any danger to
Black in 9 dxc5 Wa5+ On
9...#xdl+ 10 Sxdl i.xc5 11 &e2
<4>e7 12 £>e5 g5 13 &g3 £>e4 14
&h5 Sf8 15 itf3± White can expect
a minimal edge; Vallejo Pons-
Kaminski, World Under-18 Ch
1995. 10 c3 WxcS 11 Ad3 &d6 12
We2 &d7!? 13 &d2 lThS!=.
(C) The aggressive 9 £W5!?
deserves attention.
Black generally replies with the
prophylactic 9...a6!? It would be
dangerous to play 9...Wxd4?! 10
&b5+! £d7D 11 #xd4! cxd4 12
£ixd7 £ixd7 13 0-0-0±, or 9...cxd4?
10 &b5+! <&e7 11 Wh5!±. In
Volokitin-Baklan, Lvov Cup 2003,
Black continued with 9...Wa5+!? 10
c3 cxd4 11 #xd4 £x5 12 #f4 Ad6
13 &g3 0-0 14 &e2 &b8, but then
after, for instance, 15 &f3 £>d7 16
£lc4, White could have retained
chances of a minimal plus. 10
dxc5!? For 10 c3, see variation A (9
c3). 10...1fa5+ 11 c3 Wxc5 12
£g3!? If 12 #e2, then 12...Ae7 13
0-0-0 0-0 14 f4 b5?* doesn't look
bad for Black. 12...i.d6 13 &g4
Ponomariov-Bareev, Cap D'Agde
2003; now with 13...^.e7!? Black
could have retained good equalizing
chances.
(D) 9 i.e2 &e7 Not 9...&d7 10
0-0 #b6? on account of 11 £)e5!
cxd4 12 &h5! &xh5 13 #xh5 g6
14 £kg6 +-. It's hard for White to
gain any advantage against 9...cxd4
10 Wxd4 #xd4 11 &xd4 £d7! 12
£lb5 Sc8 13 0-0-0 a6 14 £ld6+ (or
14 £xf6 gxf6 15 £>d6+ £xd6 16
Sxd6 Ac6=) 14...Axd6 15 Sxd6
g5! 16 bg3 £>e4= Galkin-Bareev,
Russia 2001. 10 c3 Or 10 0-0 0-0 11
c3 b6 12 £>e5 Ab7=. 10...0-0 11
dxc5 J&.xc5 12 £e5 #c7! 13 £)d3
&d6 14 i.D Hd8= as in Ye
Jiangchuan - Van Wely, Batumi
rapid 2001.
(E) 9 £d3!? cxd4 10 £lxd4 £e7
Black was faced with his
perennial problem - whether to

Bum Variation 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 kg5 dxe4 5 ihxe4 fobd? 139
develop his bishop on e7 or to play
10...JLc5 in an attempt to drive the
knight away from the centre. In the
latter case, there can follow: 11
£)b3!? (or 11 &fl Ad7 12 0-0 #c7
13 #e2 Ad6») ll...Ae7 12 #e2
Ad7 13 0-0-0 #b6 14 £>d2!? 0-0
15 £>c4 #c5 16 £>e5 i.c6 17 £*xc6
bxc6!?, with quite good counter-
play; Jakovenko-Gurevich, Batumi
2002. 11 0-0 0-0 12 c3 In
Ponomariov - Psakhis, European
Ch, Ohrid 2001, White continued 12
Ag3 £d7 13 c3 Wb6 14 We2 &d6
15 f4!? Wc5 16 Sael, with
interesting play. 12...£id5 Or 12...e5!? 13
£>f5 3.xf5 14 &xf5 g6«. 13 £xe7
#xe7 14 Bel #c7!? Or 14...b6 15
&e4 &b7 16 WO #c7 17 b3!, and
by carrying out c3-c4 White can
expect to have a minimal plus in the
ending. 15 a4!? &d7 16 a5 Sad8
17 1^3 Kovacevic-Antic, Yugoslav
Ch, Banja Koviljaca 2002; Black
will need to play quite accurately
here, to prevent White's minimal
edge from being converted into
something substantial.
(F) 9 &b5+ Ml 10 &xd7+
Wxd7
11 #e2 White has no other way
to fight for an advantage. Black is
quite all right after 11 i.xf6 gxf6 12
We2 cxd4 13 0-0-0 &c5!°° or 11 0-0
cxd4 12 £.xf6 gxf6 13 lrxd4 Wxd4
14 £)xd4 0-0-0 15 Sfdl &c5= Leko
- Shirov, Linares 2001. Il...i.e7
Another line seen in practice is
ll...cxd4 12 0-0-0 £c5 (12...Ae7!?
13 Bxd4 #c6!«> is interesting) 13
£}xd4!? £xd4 14 ±xf6 gxf6 15 c3
Sc8 16 *bl #c6 17 Sxd4±
Tkachiev-Milov, Cap d'Agde 2002.
12 0-0-0 The chances are equal after
12 0-0 cxd4 13 Sfdl 0-0 14 Bxd4
*c7 15 Sadl Bfd8= Smirin-
Bareev, European Team Ch,
Debrecen 1992. 12...0-0 13 dxc5
#c6 Or 13...#a4 which isn't so bad
either, for instance: 14 &M Sfd8 15
a3 &xc5 16 Axf6 gxf6 17 £)d2
Ae7, and White's advantage is of a
more or less symbolic type;
Benjamin-Psakhis, New York 1992.
14 £ie5 Or 14 *bl Bfd8 15 £te5
#xc5 16 Axffi Axf6 17 &d7 #e7
18 1T)5 a6= Anand-Ivanchuk,
Linares 1992. 14...Wxc5! 15 &xf6
&xf6 16 &d7 £.xb2+! 17 &xb2
Wb4+ 18 &cl #a3+ and White
can't evade repetition of moves;
Kindermann-Psakhis, Baden-Baden
1992.
9...cxd4
A good deal more rarely, Black
plays 9...1ra5+!? with the possible
continuation: 10 c3 i.e7 11 #e2
cxd4 12 &xd4 £d7 13 0-0 #h5!
14 #xh5 £sxh5 15 Axe7 *xe7=
Sax-Psakhis, Aruba 1992.
Another move deserving attention
is 9...a6!?, with ideas that are

140 Burn Variation 3 Zhc3 fof6 4 kg5 dxe4 5 ihxe4 ^bdl
entirely familiar to us by now.
There can follow: 10 0-0 Black has
everything in order following 10
#e2 b5 11 &d3 g5! 12 &g3 c4 13
Ae4 £ixe4 14 Wxe4 Wd5 15 #xd5
exd5= Svidler-Bareev, Haifa rapid
2000; or 10 i.b3 b5 11 c3 ±b7 12
0-0 &e7 13 dxc5 Wxdl 14 Sfxdl
&xf3 15 gxO Axc5=.
10...cxd4 In Luther-Gurevich,
European Ch, Ohrid 2001, 10...Ae7
was met by some inventive play by
White: 11 i.b3!? (on 11 dxc5,
Black gradually attains equality by
H.-.^xdl 12 Saxdl &xc5 13 a4
&e7 14 Hfel £.d7 15 £b3 Shd8=
Svidler-Gurevich, Frankfurt rapid
2000) ll...cxd4 12 &xd4 0-0 13
Sel! £c5<? 14 c3 ±d7 15 Sell?
2e8 16 Sc2 £xd4 17 #xd4, with a
small but stable plus. Practice has
also seen 10...b5 11 i.e2 i.b7 12
c4! 1^6 13 Wb3 cxd4 14 cxb5,
with initiative for White; Leko-
Vallejo Pons, Monte Carlo 2004. 11
lfe2!? I doubt if there can be any
difficulties for Black after 11 £>xd4
£c5!? 12 £>f3!? b5 13 £b3 #xdl
14 Saxdl &b7=. Il...#b6 12 £b3
I don't think Black should be afraid
of the pawn sacrifice 12 Sadl l?xb2
13 £sxd4 i.e7 14 &g3 0-0 15 £b3
Wa3 16 Sd3 Wc5, giving a position
where his chances are at least no
worse; Brenjo-Kosic, Budva 2003.
12...&C5 13 Sadl i.d7 14 a4 Sd8
15 £le5 iLe7, with chances for both
sides; Nataf-Gurevich, Clichy 2001.
10 0-0
10....&e7!?
White's chances are somewhat
preferable in the event of 10...JLd7
11 We2 Ad6 12 Sadl Wc7 13 Sxd4
&c6 14 &b5!± Lutz-Korchnoi,
Mitropa Cup, Leipzig 2002; or
10...&d6 11 #xd4 g5!? 12 &g3
&xg3 13 #xd8+ &xd8 14 fxg3!±
(an excellent idea; in all likelihood
Black was reckoning on 14 hxg3
<*e7 15 Sadl £.d7 16 £)e5 Shd8=)
14...<&>e7 15 £ie5 Sh7! 16 Sael
£)e8 17 Ad3 Sg7 18 c4±
Morozevich-Zakharevich, Russian
Team Ch 1998. White also has quite
good prospects after 10...JLc5 11
We2 0-0 12 Sad 15.
U«e2
In Ponomariov-Bareev, World
Ch, Moscow 2001, 11 £)xd4 was
met by some accurate play by
Black: 11...0-0 12 Sel #b6 13 &b3

Burn Variation 3 Zhc3 th/6 4 &.g5 dxe4 5 ihxe4 Zhbd7 141
a5! 14 a4 Sd8 15 c3 £ld5! 16 &g3
(or 16 Axe7 £>xe7 17 *f3 Ad7=)
16...Af6 17 2e2 £te7=.
11...0-0
It isn't simple to play the Black
side after ll...a6 12 Sadl b5 13
Ab3! (stronger than 13 Sxd4 #b6
14 ib3 £b7=) 13...0-0 (or
13...Qd7?! 14 #e4!± Sb8 15 &g3
Sb6 16 #xd4 £f6 17 #e3T
Morozevich-Ulibin, Russian Cup
1998) 14 £ixd4 Wc7 15 Sfel Sd8
16 c3 &d7 17 £>f5!± Morozevich-
Anastasian, Aeroflot open, Moscow
2003.
12 Sadl #b6
13 £>xd4
White gains no advantage by
capturing the other way: 13 Sxd4
#xb2 14 Sfdl b5 15 Ab3 Ab7 16
#xb5, Al Modiahki-Radjabov,
Groningen 1999; and now it was
worth considering 16...JLxf3!? 17
gxfi £>d5!, with at least an equal
game.
White also achieves little with 13
b3 Sd8 14 #e5 (a variation
indicated by King is of interest: 14
Ag3 £>d5! 15 Hxd4 £ic3! 16
Sxd8+ #xd8 17 We3 £>xa2 18 c3
b5! 19 &xb5 10)6, with
approximate equality) 14...JLd6 (or 14...
£ig4!? 15 #g3 £.xh4 16 #xh4
£>f6=) 15 We2 ie7 16 #e5 &d6=
King-Hubner, Switzerland 2001.
13...#xb2!?
Another line that can be
recommended to Black is 13...£)d5
14 jLg3 JLf6 with good chences of
equalizing, for instance: 15 c3 .&d7
16 Sfel i.a4 17 £ib3 Sad8 18 #e4
ix6 19 i.d3 g6 20 #e2 e5=
Fontaine-Malakhatko, Cap d'Agde
2002.
14 £sf5! exf5!
Black can hardly expect to defend
satisfactorily after 14...&d8?! 15
Sbl #a3 16 £>xg7! <&xg7 17 #e5!.
15 Wxe7 i.e6
The reckless 15...g5 loses to 16
Sd8 Sxd8 17 Axf7+ *h8 18
#xd8+ *g7 19 #e7 gxh4 20 £b3+
+-.
16 Sbl
Black also defends successfully in
the case of 16 ^.xe6 fxe6 17 1Brxe6+
(or 17 Sbl #xa2 18 Sxb7 £lh5)

142 Burn Variation 3 foc3 G)f6 4 &g5 dxe4 5 Z&xe4 t&bd7
17...*h8 18 #xf5 (18 Sbl #d4!=
doesn't alter the assessment of the
position) 18...#xa2 19 Sd6 £>g8 20
We4 #17, when he is close to
attaining equality.
16...We5
Perhaps an even simpler path to
the draw was 16...#xc2!? 17 i.xe6
2ae8 18 £xf5 #xf5 19 Wxb7=.
17 &xe6
White's last chance was 17
Sfel!? with the possible
continuation 17...£te4 18 jLxe6
#xe6 19 fi #xe7 20 Axe7 Sfe8 21
Sxb7 5k5±.
17...Wxe6 18 &xf6 Wxffi 19
#xf6 gxf6 20 Bxb7 Sfc8
Of course Black's pawn structure
is seriously compromised, but it's
well known that at the end of the
day all rook endgames result in a
draw.
2lHb2
Or 21 Scl Sab8 22 2xa7 Sxc2
23 SO Sbb2=.
21...Hc7 22 Sdl Se8 23 <A>fl
<£>g7 24 g3 &g6 25 Sd2 2e4 26
Hb3 Sec4 27 Sa3 f4 28 <&>g2 Sxc2
29 Sxc2 Sxc2 30 Hxa7 fxg3 31
hxg3 f5 32 Sa4 h5 Vi-Vi

9: MacCutcheon Variation
3 <£>c3 £tf6 4 ±g5 Ab4
Game 13
Fressinet - Vallejo Pons
Mondariz zt 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 &c3 £)f6 4
i.g5 i.b4
The player who gave his name to
this variation, one of the most
interesting and popular in the whole
of the French Defence, began using
it at the end of the nineteenth
century, yet to this day it remains
impossible to say for sure whether
White can obtain an advantage
against it - so sharp and complex
are the resulting positions. Doubled
pawns on the c-file are something
White rarely succeeds in avoiding
on favourable terms, but Black has
to pay quite a high price for this
achievement: his dark-squared
bishop, such a key piece whether for
passive defence or for aggressive
action, disappears from the board.
In the last few years, the variation
has experienced a veritable rebirth -
so frequent are its appearances in
contemporary practice, at the
highest level too. Perhaps the
greatest contribution to its evolution
has been made by Grandmasters
Glek, Korchnoi and Morozevich, as
well as International Master
Shereshevsky.
In the last two chapters of this
book we shall examine 4...JLe7,
which I dare say has undergone
much deeper investigation.
5e5
The most natural and strongest
move. White seizes space on the
kingside, which is going to be the
scene of a keen struggle. The
following continuations are also
seen:
(A) 5 &d3 c5 Or 5...h6 6 ±xf6
Axc3+ 7 bxc3 Wxf6°°. 6 e5 cxd4! A
less convincing choice is 6...h6 7
Ml cxd4 8 £)b5 Axd2+ 9 #xd2
£tfd7 10 £>d6+ Marshall-Alekhine,
St Petersburg 1914. 7 ±b5+ After 7
exf6 dxc3 8 fxg7 cxb2+ 9 &>fl

144 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Qsf6 4 $Lg5 k.b4
Ac3!! 10 gxh8=#+ &xh8 11 Sbl
Wtxg5, as in Nicevski-Fuchs, Berlin
1961, Black's chances are to be
preferred. 7...i.d7 8 fxd4 &xc3+ 9
#xc3 £)e4! 10 Axd8 £>xc3 11
&xd7+ £)xd7 12 i.a5 £ia4=
(B) 5 £)ge2 dxe4 It's worth
considering the gambit line 5...h6!?
6 &xf6 #xf6 7 a3 i.a5!? (after
7...£xc3+ 8 £>xc3 c6 9 Wd2,
White's position is pleasanter even
to the eye) 8 Wd3 (if White accepts
the pawn sacrifice with 8 exd5, then
after 8...0-0 9 #d3 Sd8 10 dxe6
&xe6 11 0-0-0 WxG 12 £>e4 Wf5
there is no trace of any problems for
Black; Unzicker-Piskov, Bundesliga
1992) 8...0-0!? (the chances are also
equal after 8...dxe4 9 #xe4 0-0 10
#e3 b5!?, but the text move is more
interesting) 9 0-0-0 #xf2 10 exd5
exd5 11 £lxd5 Se8= Karlovich-
Vysochin, Polanica Zdroj open
2001. 6 a3 JLe7 Better than
6...i.xc3+ 7 £)xc3 h6!? 8 Axf6
#xf6 9 £ixe4 #e7 10 Wd2±. 7
£.xf6 gxf6
This move unmistakably shows
that Black wants to fight for the
initiative. The play is less colourful
in the case of 7...ixf6 8 £>xe4
£lc6!? (8...e5!? is also of interest,
and so is 8...0-0 with the possible
continuation 9 Wd3 e5 10 #f3!?
£sd7, S.Polgar-Gurevich, Dutch
Team Ch 2000; now in Mikhail
Gurevich's opinion, after 11 £tocf6+
£lxf6!? 12 dxe5 £)g4 13 Wc3 f6
Black has quite good compensation
for the pawn) 9 c3 0-0 10 £>2g3 e5
11 d5 &b8 12 £>xf6+ Wxf6 13 &d3
c6 14 dxc6 £sxc6 15 *c2 g6 16 0-0
i.e6= S.Polgar-Dolmatov, Rome
open 1989. 8 £lxe4 b6 The
continuation 8..T5 9 £>4c3 c6 10 g3
b6 11 JLg2 Jtb7°° has stood up quite
well too. 9 £i2c3 On 9 g3!? &b7 10
Ag2, Black continues with the
rather surprising 10...c6! 11 #d2 f5
12 <SMc3 £>d7 13 0-0 #c7=
obtaining fully satisfactory play.
The game Glek-Volkov, Santo
Domingo open 2002, proceeded
interestingly with 9 £>f4 JLb7 10
&b5+ *f8!? (a noteworthy move!
Black reckons that after the
exchange of the enemy dark-
squared bishop, his king will feel
very happy on f8) 11 £>g3 h5!? 12
h4 (it would be worth considering
12 £tfxh5!?, whereupon Black has
the choice between 12...JLxg2 13
Sgl Ab7 14 #g4 Sg8 15 #f4 Sg5
and the more placid 12...#d5 13
&fl c5S) 12...e5! 13 £)fxh5 *xd4
14 Wxd4 exd4, and Black's
powerful bishop pair fully
compensates for the defects of his
pawn structure. 9...&b7 10 WB Or
10 Ab5+ c6 11 &c4 f5 12 £)g3
#d6 13 ftf2 £sd7 14 0-0-0 0-0-0*.
10...C6 11 0-0-0 f5 12 &g3 fodl 13
i.d3 On 13 £c4 #c7 14 She 1 Qf6,
with 0-0-0 to follow, Black has a

MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 tyti 4 £.g5 §Lb4 145
perfectly satisfactory game.
13...Wc7 14 Shel £sf8!? 15 We2
£>g6, with chances for both sides.
(C) 5 exd5 Perhaps the most
popular alternative to 5 e5.
S.-.itxdS!?
I11I1 Bill!
Mi W$ Wk I
m m m im
W i?% 'Wfr WB
w, %j fH wk t
8 ffl^WMblk
White has a pleasant game in the
case of 5...exd5 6 Wf3 £lbd7
(6...i.e7 loses to 7 £.xf6 £.xf6 8
£lxd5 £xd4 9 #e4+ +-) 7 0-0-0!?
Ae7 (or 7...Axc3 8 #e3+! #e7 9
»xc3t) 8 £>ge2 c6 9 £ig3 h6 10
&e3 £tb6 11 h3±. 6 &xf6 Black
easily equalizes after 6 £lf3 £te4!
(6...£fod7 7 JLd3 c5 is quite good
too; on the other hand after 6...c5 7
i.d2 &xc3 8 Axc3 &e4 9 #d3
£sd7 10 i.e2 £>xc3 11 #xc3 cxd4
12 #xd4± White's position does
after all deserve preference;
Malaniuk-Gurevich, USSR Ch
1987) 7 Ad2 i.xc3 8 bxc3 £>xd2
(8...b6 9 c4 #d6 10 Ae2 c5
similarly gives Black cause for
optimism) 9 #xd2 b6 10 £d3 Ab7
11 Wf4 Wd6 12 Wg4 £)d7 13 0-0
0-0= Savon-Glek, USSR 1989.
6...JLxc3+ Black quite often chooses
6...gxf6, preserving his dark-
squared bishop at least temporarily.
Then there can follow: 7 £)ge2!?
(Black scarcely has anything to
worry about after 7 £>f3 b6!? 8 #d2
&b7 9 £)xd5 &xd2+ 10 *xd2
£.xd5) 7...£>c6 (Black faces a
thankless defensive task in the event
of 7...c5 8 a3! i.xc3+ 9 £ixc3 #xd4
10 #xd4 cxd4 11 £ft>5±) 8 #d2!?
(probably more accurate than 8 a3,
allowing the b3-square to be
weakened. At the moment the
weakness is invisible to the naked
eye, but Black made use of it in
Sieiro Gonzalez - Vallejo Pons,
Capablanca Memorial 1997:
8...&xc3+ 9 £ixc3!? Wxd4 10
Wxd4 £>xd4 11 0-0-0 c5 12 £>e4 b6
13 c3 £>b3+! 14 <&c2 £la5 15 b4
©b7 16 £lxf6+ &e7 17 £lg4 £d7=)
8...&xc3 (8...#g5!? merits
attention) 9 £>xc3!? (more convincing
than 9 #xc3 Ad7 10 H>3 #xb3 11
axb3 £>b4=) 9...fxd4 10 #xd4
<2kd4 11 0-0-0 £)c6 (or 11...c5 12
£te4 <&e7 13 £>xc5 e5 14 c3±) 12
£>b5! &e7 13 &xc7 Sb8 14 g3 &d7
15 JLg2, with a small but stable
endgame advantage for White;
David-Kalinichenko, corr 1998. 7
bxc3 gxf6 8 Wd2 Black defends
(and counter-attacks!) successfully
in the event of 8 %4 i.d7!? (in
Turov-Glek, Corinth 2000, Black
came to grief with 8...£)d7 9 JLd3
<&f8 10 Wf4! h5?! [if 10...C5, then
11 £tf3±] 11 Wxc7! #xg2 12 0-0-0
tfxhl? 13 £>e2 #c6?? 14 #d8+
1-0. Of course his play can be
improved all along the line, but
when a leading MacCutcheon
specialist is so resoundingly
crushed, it does indicate that
something was wrong with Black's
set-up!) 9 #g7 Sf8 10 #xf6 Aa4!

146 MacCutcheon Variation 3 $Sc3 *hf6 4 &g5 $Lb4
11 #f4 Wa5 12 #d2 £>c6 13 £d3
0-0-0 14 £>f3!? (a further opening
of the centre is of benefit only to
Black: 14 f4?! f6 15 £)f3 e5! 16
fxe5 fxe5 17 0-0 exd4T) 14...e5 15
0-0-0 £b5 16 *b2 Axd3 17 #xd3
Hd6, with fully adequate
compensation for the pawn; Van der Wiel -
Glek, Germany 2002. Black also
has quite good play in the case of 8
£>f3 b6!? (an excellent move, but to
be fair Black is also perfectly well
off after 8...£>d7 9 Ad3 b6 10
0-0 Ab7 11 Eel 0-0-0 12 Ae4
#c4 13 &xb7+ *xb7 14 Se3
Bhg8= Baklan - Radjabov, EU-Cup,
Halkidiki 2002) 9 i.e2 (this at any
rate is the safest move; White was
already up against difficulties after
the careless 9 g3 £id7! 10 Ag2
Aa6! 11 *d2 0-0-0 12 Sel #a5 13
Se3 £>e5!, with a powerful
initiative for Black in Hoi-Murrey,
Copenhagen 1986) 9...£b7 10 0-0
Hg8!? 11 c4 #e4 12 d5 £>d7! 13 g3
0-0-0 14 £id2 #g6, with
approximate equality in a sharp and
interesting position; Degraeve-
Vaisser, French Ch, Besancon 1999.
8...#a5!?
mjulvmi m
mm m±m±
„ mJm%M.Jm
!«!,
MVtJm m \
At this point Black has quite a few
interesting continuations at his
disposal, some of which require
further practical tests - such as
8...e5!?, when there can follow: 9
*h6 #e4+ 10 &d2 #g6 11 Wxg6
hxg6 12 Sel, A.Sokolov-Korchnoi,
Swiss Team Ch 2002; and now
12. ...&e6!? would have led to
equality. The barely investigated
8...c5!? is also of interest. On the
other hand, after 8...b6 9 i.e2! £>c6
10 AS #d6 11 #h6 &e7 12 £>e2
Aa6 13 0-0 Axe2 14 Axe2 Sag8
15 f4! White's chances are
preferable; Galkin-Brynell,
Stockholm 2000. More or less the same
can be said of the position arising
from 8...£)d7 9 c4!? #e4+ 10 £te2
£lb6 11 fi #c6 12 c5 £\d5 13 c4
£>e7 14 £k3 f5 15 ±e2± as in
Capablanca-Alekhine, New York
1924. 9 £)e2 In Van der Wiel-Glek,
Bundesliga 2000, White failed to
acquire an advantage with 9 g3 JLd7
10 Ag2 &c6 11 £)B &d7 12 0-0
0-0-0 13 Sfdl £>b6 (it would be
worth thinking about 13...h5!?, with
the possible continuation 14 c4
#xd2 15 Sxd2 £lb6 16 c5 fto4?)
14 #h6 #xc3 15 #xf6 HhfiB?*.
Black can also feel confident
enough in the case of 9 Ad3 JLd7
10 £>e2 ±c6 11 £)f4, A.Sokolov-
Atalik, Bundesliga 2003; at this
point it was worth considering
ll...e5!? 12 &h5 £id7 13 i.f5 (or
13 £sg7+ *f8¥) 13...0-0-0 14 £ixf6
exd4°°. 9...Ad7 Similar positions
result from 9...b6 10 £>cl JLb7
11 £)b3 #d5, but Black doesn't
want to weaken his queenside
unnecessarily. 10 £)cl!? White

MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Qf6 4 Ag5 £.b4 147
hopes to drive the black queen off
its comfortable post. After e.g. 10
&g3 i.c6 11 f3 &d7 12 £.c4 0-0-0
13 0-0 Shg8, it is already White
who has to go over to defence.
10...^.b7 11 £ib3 Wa3 12 ib5+!
c6 13 &d3 th&l 14 0-0 0-0-0 15
We2 f5, with sharp and unclear
play; Petrukhin-Popov, Novosibirsk
Ch2001.
5...H6
6&e3
The most popular move, 6 JLd2!?,
will be examined in the the later
games of this chapter. The
following continuations are also
encountered in practice:
(A) 6 &h4!? A rare move, but by
no means a bad one; I feel it is
greatly underestimated. 6...g5 7
&g3 £)e4 8 £)ge2 c5 Most probably
Black ought to choose 8...f5, which
is little played but leads to a position
with mutual chances after 9 exf6 (9
D!?) 9...1rxf6 10 a3 £)xg3 11 hxg3
Ad6 12 &b5 £>c6. 9 a3 &xc3+ On
9...£a5 10 b4!? £lxc3 11 £>xc3
cxb4 12 £lb5, White has splendid
compensation for his pawn. 10
&xc3 Or 10 bxc3 #35!. 10..:*a5
With 10...£lxc3 11 bxc3 Black is
merely strengthening the white
pawn centre. Then after e.g.
Il...#a5 12 #d2 £ic6 13 dxc5 Ad7
14 £d3 #xc5 15 0-0, Black's
kingside pawn weaknesses seem to
me more significant than the defects
of White's pawn structure on the
opposite wing; G.Kuzmin-Maiorov,
Kramatorsk 2003. Incidentally
White would also be perfectly
happy with 10...cxd4?! 11 #xd4
£)c6 12 &b5!t. 11 #d3! £lc6 12
dxc5 &d7 13 0-0-0 £)xc3 Another
line difficult to recommend is
13...£>xc5 14 #b5 #xb5 15 £>xb5
<4>e7 16 £>d6± Jackova - Peng
Zhaoqin, European Women's Ch,
Varna 2002. 14 #xc3 #xc3 15
bxc3 Sc8 16 h4! Sg8 17 hxg5 hxg5
18 f3, and it's obvious by now that
White is the only one who can play
for a win; Landa-Minasian, Linares
open 1999.
(B)6£cl!?
Another move that is none too
popular but still sets Black some
serious problems. 6...£te4 7 Wg4 g6
Much more rarely Black plays
7...£>xc3? 8 #xg7 Sf8 9 £d2±, or
a line that deserves more attention:

148 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £)c? &f6 4 £.g5 $Lb4
7...<&>f8 8 £ige2 c5 9 a3 Aa5°°. 8
£\ge2 c5 On 8...<&xc3, White has
quite a good choice between 9
£>xc3!? c5 10 a3, and 9 bxc3 &e7
10 £>f4 c5 11 &b5+ £)c6 (not
ll...id7? 12 £ixe6 fxe6 13 #xg6+
*ffi 14 Axh6+ 2xh6 15 #xh6+ +-)
12 a4± Najer-Glek, European Ch,
Istanbul 2003. 9 a3 Aa5 White has
an excellent game in the event of
9...cxd4 10 axb4 dxc3 11 D!? £sd2!
(it's too dangerous for Black to play
ll...cxb2 12 &xb2 #g5 13 #xg5
£sxg5 14 h4 £)h7 15 £>d4 0-0 16
&d3T Klavins-Shagalovich, USSR
Team Ch 1962) 12 £kc3 £)xfl 13
£)b5!T. A line occurring more often
is 9...£xc3+ 10 bxc3!? (White gains
nothing much from 10 <£ixc3 £*xc3
11 bxc3 #a5 12 ±d2 #a4=)
10...cxd4 (Black can hardly defend
successfully after lO...!^?! 11 f3!
£>xc3 12 Ml cxd4 13 &xd4! #c7
14 Wf4f) 11 cxd4 #c7 (White's
advantage is obvious in the case of
ll...lfa5+ 12 c3 i.d7 13 O &b5 14
fxe4 iLxe2, M.Rytschagov-
Anderton, Gausdal 2000; and now
15 #g3!t) 12 f3 £k3 13 £d2
^xe2 (the verdict on the position is
not altered by 13...£)a4 14 £)f4 a6
15 c4 dxc4 16 £xc4 £)c6 17 Self
Vallejo Pons-Radjabov, Linares GM
2003) 14 Axe2 Ad7 15 i.d3 £k6
16 Sbl 0-0-0 17 *T4, and Black
has no easy defence ahead of him;
Hector-Pedersen, Oxford 1998. 10
b4!? £ixc3 11 &xc3 cxd4 Or
ll...cxb4 12 £lb5 b3+ 13 &d2
J.xd2+ 14 <&>xd2 #a5+ 15 c3s. 12
£sb5 &c7 13 f4 £k6 14 &d3 a6 15
£ixc7+ *xc7 16 0-0 £d7 17 #h4!
Of course not 17 &xg6? Sg8! -+.
17...Wd8 18 #f2! Wb6 Or 18...0-0
19 &d2 <&h7 20 a4 ±. We have been
following the game Borriss-Hubner,
Bundesliga 2001; at this point it was
worth considering 19 JLd2 followed
by a3-a4, with tremendous
compensation for the pawn.
(C) 6 exf6 hxg5 7 fxg7 Sg8 8 h4
Black would have a superb game
after 8 Hi5 Wf6 9 £)f3 lrxg7 10
0-0-0 &xc3 11 bxc3 £kl7. 8...gxh4
Black may have an interesting
alternative to the text move in
8...£\c6!?, for example: 9 h5 Sxg7
10 h6 (10 i.b5 is also played; then
after 10...1% 11 £if3 £.d7, White
can choose between 12 ^.xc6 JLxc6
13 £)e5 J.b5!oc and 12 #d3 &d6 13
h6 Sg6 14 h7 0-0-0 15 i.xc6
&xc6?i Finegold-Kraai, USA Ch,
Seattle 2003) 10...2h7 11 Ad3 (on
11 a3 i.f8!+ White will be left a
pawn down without compensation)
ll...Sh8 12 #h5 #f6 (12...£)xd4!?
13 0-0-0 #f6 is not at all bad either)
13 £)f3 £>xd4 (as an alternative,
Morozevich recommends 13...JLd7!
14 £>xg5 0-0-0 with interesting
complications) 14 £kg5 £tf5, with
a promising game for Black;
Landa-Morozevich, Samara 1998. I

MacCutcheon Variation 3 Qsc3 £>/(5 4 JLg5 §L.b4 149
think that quite a few interesting
games will be played with this
variation in future. 9 #115 Black
secures equality after 9 £)f3 #f6 10
tfd2 £)c6 11 a3 &xc3 (the play is
less clear in the case of ll...JLe7!?
12 £)b5 &d8 13 Sxh4 a6») 12
*xc3 Ad7 13 Sxh4 #xg7 14 g3
0-0-0= Kholmov - Nikolenko,
Moscow open 1999. Another line
that occurs quite often is 9 Wg4 Wf6
10 Sxh4 #xg7 (the bold
10...Sxg7?! deserves attention; the
game Barczay-Hoang Thanh Trang,
Budapest 2001, continued 11 Sh8+
*e7 12 «h3 *hc6 13 0-0-0 £xc3!
14 #xc3 Sxg2, and no direct
refutation of Black's idea is to be
seen - although of course such
variations are for people with strong
nerves!) 11 #xg7 Sxg7 12 Sh8+
JLf8 (Black may also play
differently with 12...*d7 13 £rf3
£)c6 14 0-0-0 &xc3!? 15 bxc3 b6,
with not a bad chance of equalizing)
13 0-0-0 (on 13 £tf3, Black should
probably continue 13...JLd7 14 £te5
f6 15 £)xd7 £>xd7=) 13...c6!?
(simplest; after 13..JLd7 14 Sel
ix6!? 15 f4! <£d7 16 f5 0-0-0 17
fxe6 fxe6 18 Sxe6 Sg4 19 £tf3,
Black will still have to do a fair
amount of work to attain full
equality; Heuer-Dvoretsky, Tallinn
1976) 14 f4 £>d7 15 £>f3 £tf6, and
thanks to the closed nature of the
position, Black can hope to
complete his development
successfully and obtain quite good chances.
9...«rf6 10 £tf3 Wxgl 11 2xh4 The
chances are equal after 11 #xh4
Ad7 12 0-0-0 £sc6 13 g3 Ae7 14
#f4 JLd6= Ruchieva-Zaitseva,
Yugoslav Women's Team Ch, Tivat
1995. Il...£k6 12 0-0-0 Or 12 &b5
£d7 13 ±xc6 &xc6 14 £te5
0-0-0=. 12...J.d7, and Black's
chances are at least no worse.
6...£)e4
7%4
The comparatively rare move 7
£lge2 is also of interest, for
instance: 7...c5 8 a3 Things are also
less than wholly clear in the case of
8 dxc5!? £>c6 9 a3 £xc3+ 10 £lxc3
£>xc3 11 bxc3 £ixe5 12 id4 #g5
13 h4 #f5 14 £.e2± Glek-Hoang
Thanh Trang, Budapest 1998.
8...£sxc3 Or 8...cxd4 9 &xd4 £ixc3
10 £>xc3 i.e7 11 #g4 0-0 12 &e3
f5 13 %6 #c7! 14 f4 Ac5 15
£xc5 #xc5 16 i.d3 #e3+ 17 £te2
£lc6 18 #g3! with a small but
secure advantage to White;
Nunn-Beaton, Walsall 1992. 9
£)xc3 &xc3+ 10 bxc3 £k6 After
10...#a5 11 #d2 £)c6 12 ±e2 cxd4
13 cxd4 #xd2+ 14 £>xd2, White
holds the initiative in the ending. 11
%4 &f8!? 12 lff4 #a5 13 &d2
#a4 14 Ad3 <£>g8 15 dxc5! #xf4
16 £xf4±.
7...<±>f8

150 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £hc3 *hf6 4 &gS &b4
W1"2"»
m mXm
i m m *~
m ■ mooa
Black is faced with a dilemma
which is usual in this variation but
nonetheless awkward to resolve:
should he weaken his kingside pawn
structure with 7...g6!? or even
7...g5, or should he deprive his own
monarch of the right to castle? Let's
see how events unfold when he
takes the former option.
It's hard to recommend 7...g5,
which creates just too many holes in
the Black position. White obtains an
advantage by simple means, for
example: 8 a3 The showy 8 h4 h5!?
9 hxg5! hxg4 10 Sxh8+ &f8 11
£>xe4 dxe4 12 £ie2 c5 13 0-0-0 led
to wild and wholly obscure
complications in Shirov-Volkov,
Rethymnon 2003. 8...JLxc3+ 9 bxc3
c5 10 &d3 #a5 Black is very badly
off after 10...£k6 11 &xe4 dxe4 12
£>e2 £d7 13 £>g3, Lanka-Bauer,
Selestat 1994, or 10...£>xc3 11 dxc5
#35 12 £d2 #a4 13 *b4!±. 11
£se2 cxd4 12 &xd4 £>c6 13 0-0
Ml 14 Me4 dxe4 15 £ig3,
with a clear advantage; Bezemer-
Stellwagen, Amsterdam open 2002.
The play takes a more interesting
course (especially for Black!) after
the less extravagant 7...g6!?. There
can follow: 8 a3 &xc3+ Or 8...&a5
9 £)ge2 c5 10 dxc5!? £ic6 11 b4
<&xe5 12 *h3t. 9 bxc3 &xc3!? At
least this move shows conviction.
Black also quite often plays 9...c5;
then after 10 iLd3, the continuation
can be 10...£>xc3 11 dxc5! #a5 (or
ll...£)c6 12 £>f3 #a5 13 0-0 #a4,
Hracek-Vaisser, European Team
Ch, Pula 1997; and now by keeping
the queens on, say by 14 Wi3!?t,
White could have secured an
excellent game) 12 I'M #xb4 13
axM £)c6 14 Sa3! d4 15 i.xd4
£kl5 16 c3 £>xd4 17 cxd4 £>xb4 18
JLe4 with an obvious plus for
White, Iordachescu-Foisor, Vins du
Medoc open 2002. 10 Mi <2k6 11
h4 A natural move; White brings
more force to bear on the kingside.
The game Svidler-Vysochin,
Brussels open 2000, continued
instead with 11 &f3 Ml 12 h4
We7 13 h5 g5 14 £>h2 0-0-0
(14...f5!? 15 exf6 #xf6 is not bad
either) 15 *fj f5!? 16 exf6 Wd6 17
£>g4 e5 18 £\xe5 £lxe5 19 dxe5
Wxe5, and already Black was close
to seizing the initiative. Il...£je7!?
Hill' 111
ww ww a wm *. yxa
fH mXmXm
m mm mn
White's pressure is highly
unpleasant in the case of 11...Wei
12 &h3!? (12 h5 g5 13 f4T also
deserves attention) 12...JLd7 13 h5

MacCutcheon Variation 3 £ic3 £>/6 4 A.g5 k.b4 151
g5 (or 13...gxh5 14 #D! #h4 15
Wf4!? Wxf4 16 £lxf4 0-0-0 17
Sxh5, and White quickly restored
material parity while keeping his
undoubted positional assets in
Shirov-Brynell, Rethymnon 2003)
14 f4 gxf4 15 &f2! (an important
resource, deterring Black
temporarily from queenside castling)
15...Wffi 16 Wxf4 0-0-0 17 Ah4
Se8 (the character of the position is
not altered by 17...£)e7 18 0-0 &e8
19 £sf2 Sd7 20 £)g4 £>f5 21 £)f6
Hd8, Ernst-Brynell, Swedish Team
Ch 2003; now 22 #d2! £>e4 23
£xe4 £ixh4 24 Ad3 #g7 25 2f2
would have given White the better
prospects in spite of the pawn
minus) 18 0-0 (18 £rf2 gives Black
time for 18...f5! 19 exf6 e5!?*,
while 18 M6 Sg8 19 g4 £>e4! 20
JLxe4 dxe4 21 lrxe4 £>e7 is also
wholly unclear) 18...Sg8! (18...£)e4
is strongly answered by 19 £}f2!?
£lxd4 20 £ke4 dxe4 21 #xe4 £>f5
22 Habl! Wc5+! 23 &f2 Wd5 24
#e2f Iordachescu- Vysochin, Kiev
2000) 19 ±f6! (if White plays the
natural 19 £tf2, Black has the
excellent retort 19...f5! 20 exf6 e5!
21 dxe5 £lxe5 with powerful play
against the white king) 19...£te7 20
£sf2!? with a slight advantage to
White. 12 h5 Or 12 f3 c5!?
(12...i.d7 13 Wf4 £>f5 14 £f2 c5!?
15 dxc5 d4£ is perfectly playable
too) 13 dxc5 £>c6 14 i.d2 d4 15
i.xc3 dxc3 16 Wc4 £ixe5 17 #xc3
#f6= Hernandez - Glek, Linares
open 1996. 12...g5 13 f3!? An
interesting move, with which White
takes control of the important
square e4. Practice has also seen 13
Ad2 £>e4 14 £.xe4 dxe4 15 #xe4
c5, with interesting possibilities for
both sides; Timoshchenko-
Vysochin, Kiev 2001. 13...c5 Or
13...£d7 14 £d2 £>a4 15 f4 c5 16
fxg5 c4 17 ±e2 Wb6 18 £sf3 0-0-0
19 0-0, and White's chances appear
to me to be preferable, though the
position does remain sharp;
Smirnov-Alavkin, Russian Team
Ch, Dagomys 2004. 14 dxc5 £lc6
15 &d2 d4 16 f4 # d5 17 £)f3 Ad7,
with wholly unclear play;
Zawadzki-Lipka, Czech Extra
League 2003.
8a3
White hasn't much in the way of
choice; either 8 £>ge2 c5 9 0-0-0
£)xc3 10 £ixc3 i.xc3 11 bxc3 #a5
or 8 &d3 £lxc3 9 a3 £.a5! 10 £d2
c5 11 bxc3 b6!? 12 £tf3 £a6 would
suit Black perfectly well.
8...£xc3+
White has an easy game following
8...&a5 9 £lge2 c5 10 dxc5! £ic6
(or 10...£>xc3 11 £>xc3 £xc3+ 12
bxc3 ^c6 13 i.d4 #a5 14 &d3 h5
15 Wf4 £>xd4 16 #xd4 g6 17 0-0±
and Black is already hard pressed;
Lanc-Vavrak, Austrian Team Ch

152 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 £hf6 4 ±g5 k.b4
2002) 11 b4 £ixc3 (Black is not to
be envied after ll...&xe5 12 Wh5
£bcc3 13 #xe5 £>xe2 14 bxa5±) 12
&xc3 £)xe5 13 I'd 1 £x7 14 £>b5
&b8 (on 14...&d7 15 £>xc7 #xc7
16 JLe2, White's advantage is
visible to the naked eye) 15 c4 a6
16 £k:3, with an indubitable plus;
Mohrlok-Kilgour, corr 1992.
9 bxc3 c5
A different strategy was adopted
by the great MacCutcheon expert
Sergei Vo'.kov: 9...£)xc3 10 &d3
&d7 !! toM £>c6 12 £>f4 £te7 13
£\h5 g6 14 £)f6 i.b5, Zontakh-
Volkov, Russian Team Ch,
Dagomys 2004. White's initiative is
dangerous, but for the moment
Black has kept his extra pawn. Of
course, White could now go in for
15 &xb5 £)xb5 16 a4 £k3 17 Sa3
£ie4 18 £xe4 dxe4 19 #xe4 #d5,
but the consequences of this line are
not all that clear.
10 &d3
10...£ixc3
The move in the game leads to
extremely interesting complications
with obscure consequences.
Black would be in for a great deal
of trouble after 10...Wa5 11 £se2
cxd4 Two lines that can hardly be
viewed as an improvement are
ll...£>c6 12 &xe4 cxd4 13 &d2
dxe4 14 cxd4 #d5 15 0-0 ^xd4?!
16 £lxd4 #xd4 17 Sad 1 Wxe5 18
Ac3± Kurajica-Bednarski, Wijk aan
Zee 1973; and ll...£«c3 12 £d2
cxd4 13 £>xd4! #c7 14 0-0t. 12
£xd4 £lc6 13 0-0 b6 Or 13...£te5
14 £>f4 £>xd3 15 cxd3 £bcd4 16
cxd4 £d7 17 fifeli Ernst-
Reefschlager, Bad Wildbad open
2002. 14 c4! £sxd4 15 £>xd4 #c5
16 £}b3, and there are hard times
ahead for Black; Varavin-Fingerov,
Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2002.
In the last few years, the
interesting 10...h5!? has become
fashionable. There can follow: 11
Wf4 Black has no cause for worry in
the event of 11 #h3 £)xc3 12 dxc5
d4 13 Ad2 #d5 14 f4 £lc6 15
&xc3 dxc3 16 £>e2 #xc5=
Fressinet-Vaisser, French Team Ch
2001. From White's point of view,
11 tff3!? £sxc3 12 dxc5! looks
more interesting, for instance:
12...£)c6 13 1T4 d4 14 &d2 &a4?!
(14...£)d5 is better) 15 &b5 £lxc5
16 &xc6 bxc6 17 &b4 #d5 18
0-0-0T Goloshchapov - Reefat,
Dhaka 2003. H..Jra5 12 £e2
&xc3 13 0-0 £)xe2+ 14 £.xe2 £)c6
15 c4! cxd4 16 &xd4 £)xd4 17
#xd4, with more than enough
compensation for the pawn;
Kasparov-Korchnoi, Kopavogur
2000.
11 dxc5

MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 $Lg5 kb4 153
ll...<Sk6
The old move 1 l...#a5!? is not so
bad either, for instance: 12 Ad2
(Black has good defensive chances
after 12 Wb4 #xb4 13 axb4 £te6 14
fia3!? d4 15 JLxd4, M.Rytschagov-
Brynell, Goteborg 2002; and now
15...&xd4! 16 Sxc3 &c6 17 b5
£>xe5) 12...£to6! (not 12...#a4? 13
Hj4!±. The incautious 12...#xc5?!
also gives Black a thoroughly bad
game after 13 £>e2 d4D 14 Wxd4
*rxd4 15 £>xd4 £>d5 16 c4 £>e7
17 JLe4± Jakubowski-Moriuchi,
Cappelle la Grande open 2003) 13
£>e2 #a4 14 #xa4 £>xa4 15 i.b5
&b2 16 Ac3 £>c4 17 &xc4 dxc4 18
0-0-0 &g8 19 £)g3 b5, and White
can only claim a slight edge;
Kavalek - Barczay, Viseli nad
Moravou 1967.
12 tea fSl? 13 exf6
It's also worth looking at 13
fh3!?, for instance: 13...d4 (or
13...£>e4!? 14 ±xe4 fxe4») 14 £.d2
Wd5 15 0-0 £\xe5 (15...#xc5!7 16
Sfel b6 is of interest too) 16 ^xe5
Wxe5 17 Sfel #xc5 18 Af4 *f70
Mulyar-Glek, Chicago 2002.
White employed an interesting
idea in Goloshchapov - Volkov,
European Ch, Istanbul 2003: 13
#h5!? d4 14 £d2 #d5 15 ±xc3
dxc3 16 Sdl! Wxc5 17 0-0, and at
the very least, White's initiative
compensates for the minimal loss of
material.
13...Wxf6
'//"///■ ** '//////A '/Lrfl' /Ui:
mm ■ m ,
-in ii
m mm
14tih5
The inept 14 0-0?! would already
condemn White to a defensive role
after 14...e5 15 #g6 (or 15 #h5? e4
16 £)h4 £)e7! -+) 15...#xg6>? 16
i.xg6*e7 17 Sfel 4>f6f.
14...e5! 15 &g6
The initiative belongs to Black in
the event of 15 £g5 #f7 16 &g6
i.g4! 17 £xf7 &xh5 18 &xh5
hxg5. Moreover there can be trouble
only for White after 15 &h4 e4! 16
£sg6+&g8 17£lxh8exd3.
15...<&g8
Black is hoping to find a safe
place for his king, but he also has
some other continuations at his
disposal. For example: -
(A) Black has a difficult game
after 15...e4?! 16 &h4 d4 17 &d2
&e5 18 h3±.

154 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Zhf6 4 $Lg5 &b4
(B) Unruly complications arise
from 15...iLe6
16 0-0 Also, incidentally, after 16
Ag5!? &g4! 17 £xf6 &xh5 18
£xe5 ±xg6 19 £xc3 £xc2 20 <&>d2
it won't at all be a simple matter for
Black to achieve a draw. 16...Af7 In
the game Magem Badals-Glek,
French Team Ch 2002, Black
endeavoured to shelter his king on
the queenside by playing 16..&e7
17 fiael *d7. However, after 18
&d2 e4 19 £lh4 Shf8 20 He3 £ta4
21 c4! £)e5 22 Ifdl!, it turned out
that in that place the king was in just
as much danger. 17 £ih4 Se8 18
f4!? In Lanka - Morozevich,
Chebanenco Memorial 1998, Black
seized the initiative after 18 Sael
<£>g8 19 f3 2e6 20 Axf7+ #xf7 21
#g4 Sf6!?T. 18...e4 Or 18...exf4 19
Sxf4! £te2+ 20 #xe2 #xf4 21 Sfl,
and White's attack is irresistible. 19
f5!? It's also worth considering 19
Ad2t. 19...d4 20 &d2, with sharp
play, which, however, is not
unfavourable to White; Degraeve-
Vallejo Pons, Istanbul ol 2000.
(C) 15...£d7 16 0-0 <&>g8 17
&d2!? White has difficulty
obtaining the better game with 17
Sfel flffi 18 &d2 £)e4 19 Sadl
Af5 20 Axf5 »xf5 21 #xf5 Sxf5=
Klovans-Shereshevsky, Moscow
1977. 17...£)e4 18 c4 &xd2 19
£)xd2 d4 20 £te4±.
16 0-0 ke6
I don't think it pays Black to play
16...C4 17 £ih4 JLe6 18 f3t, or
16...£k2+?! 17 *hl ^f4 18 £xf4
lrxf4 19 h3t when the predicament
of his king is rather sad;
Filipenko-Volkov, Russian Cup
1999.
17 Sael
Instead 17 Sfel?! allows the
unpleasant 17...5f8! with powerful
play on the f-file. Black can also be
perfectly happy with 17 Jfc.d2 £>e4!?
18 &xe4 dxe4 19 £)h4 <&h7!,
creating the awkward threat of
g7"g5.
17...Sd8 18 JLd2 £ie4! 19 c4
£)xd2 20 &xd2 #g5 VS-VS
Evidently deciding that the
resources for carrying on the fight
were exhausted, the opponents
agreed a draw. Indeed, after (e.g.)
21 #xg5 hxg5 22 cxd5 Sxd5 23
£\e4 Sh6, a nominal plus is the
most that White can claim.

MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 fof6 4 &g5 kb4 155
Game 14
Lutz - Korchnoi
Essen 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £ic3 &f6 4
i.g5 iLb4 5 e5 h6 6 &d2
6...±xc3
Black has a difficult defence
ahead of him after 6...£sfd7 7 #g4
£.f8 In the event of 7...<£>f8 8 h4!?
c5 9 a3 &xc3 10 bxc3 £>c6 11 £)e2
^b6 12 Hh3 White obtains a
strong attack, for which Black
has no compensation whatever;
Hamdouchi-Dominguez Matito,
Dos Hermanas open 1998. 8 &D
More convincing than 8 f4 c5 9 £}f3
£k6 10 ie3, as in Petrushin-
Baranov, Krasnodar 1999;
whereupon Black ought to give
some thought to 10...c4!?,
restricting his opponent's light-
squared bishop and preparing
queenside counterplay. 8...c5 9 £\b5
A game Machulsky-Gurevich,
USSR 1977, ended surprisingly
quickly with 9 dxc5!? £>xc5 10 b4
&cd7 11 £>b5! g6 12 Ad3 h5? 13
frxe6+ fxe6 14 &xg6+ 4>e7 15
i.g5+ £>f6 16 exf6+ &d7 17 £le5
mate! White's play was interesting
and powerful, but then Black's was
certainly a long way off perfection.
9...cxd4 In the well-known game
Nezhmetdinov-Chistiakov, USSR
1956, Black soon came under a
deadly attack after 9...g6? 10 &d3
Sg8 11 c4! cxd4 12 cxd5 £>c5 13
#xd4±. 10 c3!? dxc3 11 £xc3,
with a strong initiative for the pawn.
7bxc3
The once popular 7 ixc3 has
become a rarity in modern
tournament practice. Nor is this
surprising, since Black encounters
no great complexities on his route to
equality. In reply to the natural
7...£se4, White usually selects one
of these continuations :—
(A) 8 %4 0-0 Undoubtedly
simplest, but Black can also count
on a fully viable game with 8...g6 9
&d3 £)xc3 10 bxc3 c5 11 dxc5 #c7
12 £tf3 #xc5= Firman-Kobylkin,
Alushta 2001. 9 ±b4 c5 10 ±xc5
£sxc5 11 dxc5 #c7 12 f4 #xc5
13 c3 f6= Hoppe-Luther, East
Germany 1984.
(B) 8 i.d3?! &xc3 9 bxc3 c5 10
Wg4 0-0 11 dxc5 Wc7 12 f4 #xc5

156 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Zhf6 4 £.g5 §Lb4
13 £se2 £>c6 14 Sfl f5f
Mukhin-Makarichev, USSR 1975.
This is a fiasco for White - he has a
hideous pawn structure and no
attacking chances to show for it.
(C) 8 &a5?! 0-0! Better than
8...b6? 9 &b4 c5 10 £a3±. 9 &d3
£k6 10 k.c7> At this stage perhaps
the modest 10 JLxe4!? dxe4 11 JLc3
Wg5 12 g3 Sd8 13 f4 Wg6? was the
least of the evils. 10...£sxc3 11 bxc3
f6+ 12 f4 fxe5 13 fxe5 £\e7 14 £sf3
c5? Fischer-Petrosian, Curacao
1962.
(D) 8 £b4?! c5
i mm „
'Mm, .a. W<rZA
9 JLxc5 White can't be happy
with 9 ±a3 £>c6 10 dxc5 #a5+, let
alone with 9 dxc5 £bcf2 10 *xf2
Wh4+ +. 9...&xc5 10 dxc5 £>d7
White has a simpler task in the case
of 10...#a5+ 11 c3 Wxc5 12 Wd4
#c7 13 £rf3 £k6 14 &b5, with
chances of a minimal plus;
Bogoljubow-Reti, Kiel 1921. 11
#d4 Wc7 12 ZhB The assessment
of the position is not altered by 12
f4 £>xc5 13 0-0-0 ±dl 14 £sf3 Sc8
15 •A'bl 0-0= Kovchan-Vysochin,
Swidnica open 1999. 12...#xc5 13
0-0-0 #xd4 14 5xd4 <£el 15 Hg4
Sg8= Gashimov-Baklan, European
Team Ch, Leon 2001.
(E) 8 £>e2
m*m MXm
I mXWim.
Jm pkwmr I
£ |£1 £ Wpum £ |£f
Probably the only move to be
taken seriously; at least it requires
some precise play on Black's part.
8...0-0 I don't so much like 8...c5,
though I should add at once that it
isn't at all a bad move! There can
follow: 9 dxc5! £)xc3 (or 9...£>c6
10 £d4! #e7 11 £ic3 £)xc5 12 f4
0-0 13 Wd2 &d7 14 0-0-0 £ixd4 15
#xd4 Sac8 16 g3 with a minimal
edge for White; Sutovsky-Comas
Fabrego, Pamplona 1998) 10 £\xc3
0-0 11 #d2 #c7 (it's also worth
considering 11..T6 12 exf6 #xf6,
for example: 13 &b5!? a6!? 14 J.a4
£>d7 15 £xd7 £xd7 16 0-0 2ac8°°
Lanka-Gurevich, Cappelle la
Grande open 1999) 12 f4 #xc5 13
0-0-0 £>c6 14 <£>bl, with the
standard minimal plus for White.
Another move that calls for
attention is 8...£)c6!?, with the
possible continuation 9 £}g3 (or 9
£sf4 #e7 10 Ad3 &xc3 11 bxc3
Ml 12 £>h5 Sg8! 13 £.h7 Sh8 14
JLd3 Sg8, and at this point
repeating moves may be White's
most satisfactory option; instead, the

MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 &.g5 &.b4 157
game Sutovsky-Psakhis, Israeli Ch,
Tel-Aviv 1999, continued 15 0-0
0-0-0 16 a4 £te5 17 f4 c5, with
excellent play for Black) 9...lS^xc3
10 bxc3 g6 11 h4 £>e7 12 £e2 (or
12 h5 g5 13 #f3 0-0 14 #f6 £tf5
15 IbxfS #xf6 16 exf6 exf5 17 Ad3
Se8+ 18 *d2 Se6=) 12...c5 13 0-0
c4 14 h5 £>f5 15 &g4 #g5, with
complex and unclear play;
Krakops-Glek, European Team Ch,
Pula 1997. 9 i.b4!? A line that
looks none too convincing is 9 f3?!
£kc3 10 £sxc3 c5 11 dxc5 Wh4+!?
12 g3 1T)4T. 9...C5 10 i.a3 £k6!?
A superb idea! After 10...cxd4?! 11
Axf8 *xf8 12 fi d3 13 fxe4! dxe2
14 #xe2! £k6 15 exd5 exd5 16
0-0-0± Black would be faced with a
tough struggle for the draw;
Galkin-Morozevich, Novgorod open
1997. 11 13 Or 11 c3 b5 12 £xc5
£)xc5 13 dxc5 £)xe5 14 f4 &c4T.
Il...b5! 12 fxe4 Black is likewise
OK after 12 c3 b4 13 &xb4 cxb4 14
fxe4 bxc3 15 bxc3 dxe4 16 £)g3
#a5 17 £>xe4 2d8!= Vehi Bach-
Comas Fabrego, Barcelona 2000.
12...b4 13 JLxb4 It's obvious that
Black's advantage in development
fully compensates for the pawn in
the event of 13 exd5 *xd5 14
£.xb4 cxb4 15 c3 f6 16 exf6 Sxf6
17 #b3 Wg5f. 13...£>xb4 14 c3
£lc6 15 Wa4!? In Svidler-
Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999, Black
took the initiative into his own
hands after 15 exd5 #xd5 16 dxc5
#xc5 17 £kl #xe5+ 18 #e2
*c7t. 15...#b6 16 Sdl cxd4 17
exd5 exd5 18 cxd4 f6 19 *b3
1^3 20 axb3 £f55.
7...£te4 8 #g4
A critical position for the fate of
the whole variation. Black's
kingside is in danger. To defend g7,
he must either weaken his dark
squares with 8...g6, or else play
8...'4>f8 which deprives his king of
its constitutional right to castle. On
the other hand he has already
achieved a fair amount on the
queenside, and this is what
positively compels White to play
energetically.
White has had no success by
continuing quietly (too quietly!)
with 8 £d3 <Sxd2 9 #xd2 c5.
There can follow: 10 ^O Or 10 f4
Wa5 11 £tf3 £ic6 12 c4 dxc4 13
&xc4 #xd2+ 14 <&xd2 £)xd4 15
£lxd4 cxd4 16 £>d3 Ad7 17 &xd4
JLc6= Pancevski-Zhukova, Skopje
open 2002. 10...£)c6 Black also
obtains quite a good game with
10...C4 11 i.e2 £>c6 12 h4 i.d7 13
h5 f6°° Moor-Hiibner, Swiss Team
Ch 2001, or 10...#a5 11 dxc5 (there
is obviously no trace of any
problems for Black after 11 c4
#xd2+ 12 <&>xd2 dxc4 13 i.xc4
cxd4 14 £>xd4 &d7=) ll...£ld7 12
0-0 £)xc5 with mutual chances. 11
0-0 Black's chances are not at all

158 MacCutcheon Variation 3 the 3 G±f6 4 £.g5 Lb4
worse in the event of 11 dxc5 Wa5
12 h4!? Wxc5 13 h5 &d7 14 Sh4
0-0-0!? 15 <&>fl f5, when White's
pawn structure is seriously
compromised; De Gleria - Glek,
Bundesliga 2001. ll„.Wa5 12 Sfdl
cxd4 13 cxd4 #xd2 14 Sxd2 &d7
15 Sbl £la5= Sebastianelli-Glek,
San Giorgio open 1998.
8...<±>f8
The most popular move, 8...g6,
will be examined in the notes to the
next game.
9h4!?
Of White's other continuations,
the following are worth noting:
(A) 9 #f4 White wants to
preserve the right to castle, bus loses
too much time to gain this end.
9...C5 Better than 9...1rg5?! 10
#xe4 dxe4 11 £xg5 hxg5 12 f3
exfi 13 £)xf3±. 10 Ad3 £sxd2 11
Wxd2 £k6 12 £)f3 c4 13 &e2 #e7
Black similarly has everything in
order after 13...b5 14 h4 a5 15 *fl
#e7 16 *gl #a3 17 g4 b4t
Dashko-Maiorov, Krasnodar 2001.
14 a4 b6 15 g3 <&>e8 16 £lh4 <&d8
17 f4 g6 18 £)g2 h.5, with a roughly
equal game; Ricardi-Korchnoi,
Buenos Aires 2001.
(B) 9 &e3 £>xc3 10 Ad3 £ic6 11
£)f3 £ib4!? 12 &d2 £)xd3+ 13
cxd3 £la4°° Svidler-Short,
KasparovChess GP 2000.
(C) 9 ^.cl Quite a cunning move,
preserving the important bishop.
9...C5 10 JLd3 £lxc3 Better than
10...#a5 11 £>e2 cxd4 12 0-0 dxc3
13 Axe4 dxe4 14 #xe4 £k6 15
Sdl g6 (taking the pawn is
extremely dangerous: 15...£lxe5'
&a3+ &g8 17 £b4 +-) 16 £
with a powerful initiative for Wl
Klovans-Grigorian, USSR 1972
dxc5 #a5 12 &d2
12...#a4! A most impor
defensive move; Black frees him
from the pin and drives the w
queen away from its aggres
post. 13 h3 Black can be perfe
pleased with the course of ev<
after either 13 #h3?! £>e4 14 <
£)xd2 15 £lxd2 Wf4!? or 13 f4 *,
14 £lf3 fodl 15 0-0 £)xd2 16 £>
£lxe5!? Ozsvath-Barczay, Buda
Ch 1964. 13...£ie4 14 £se2 £)ci
15 i.xe4 #xe4 16 #xe4 dx
Klovans-Dvoretsky, USSR 1974
(D) 9 &d3 £ixd2 10 &xd2

MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 *hf6 4 &g5 &.b4 159
10...c5 Another move played
fairly often is 10...#g5+. After 11
Vi[xg5 hxg5, there can follow: 12
g4!? (White's chances are also
somewhat superior after 12 f4 gxf4
13 Sfl c5 14 Sxf4 Ad7 15 £)h3
&e7 16 Shfl i.e8 17 £)g5±
Bogatyrchuk-Zubarev, Moscow
1925) 12...f6 (or 12...c5 13 &f3 c4
14 Ae2 f6 15 h4 gxh4 16 £>xh4f
Gdanski-Czernicki, Krakow 1993)
13 h4! fxe5 (the verdict is no
different after 13...Sxh4 14 Sxh4
gxh4 15 f4!? £>d7 16 £>f3 b6 17
2hl±) 14 dxe5 £>c6 15 &f3 gxh4
16 Hael! with initiative for White,
Gdanski-Dittmar, European Ch,
Saint Vincent 2000. 11 £lf3 c4!? A
comparatively new conception.
Black closes the centre and transfers
his activities to the queen's wing.
The game takes on a different
character in the event of ll...£>c6
12 dxc5!? (the passive 13 a3?!
hands over the initiative to Black
after 13...&d7 14 Shbl b6 15 #e3
£>a5! 16 &el Sc8? Anand-
Ivanchuk, Linares 1992) 12...#a5
13 #f4 Wxc5 14 £>d4 £d7 (Black
may well be able to hold on in the
inferior ending that results from
14...^xd4 15 Wxd4 Wxd4 16 cxd4
i.d7 17 Shbl±, but what is certain
is that it won't be much fun!) 15
Shbl £>d8 (it's worth considering
15...&a5, when 16 Sb5!? is not
dangerous in view of the cool
16...#c7!. In Leko-Hubner,
Dortmund 2000, White seized the
initiative after 15...b6 16 a4! £>a5
17 £a6! £x8 18 &b5! #e7 19
£>c6!T) 16 a4 Sc8 17 Sb3 a6!? 18
h4 Sc7 19 g4± Morozevich-Vallejo
Pons, Pamplona 1998. 12 ±e2 £k6
Some interesting play results from
12...b5 13 Shbl!? (a typical idea;
White stops any rapid development
of his opponent's queenside
initiative) 13...Ad7 14 #f4 We7 15
a3 a5 16 h4 &e8 17 g4 Sa7£
Jakovenko-Maiorov, Russian Ch,
Krasnodar 2002. 13 a4!? &d7 The
immediate 13...a6 deserves
attention, for instance: 14 Shbl Sb8
15 h4 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 Wf4 #e7
18 We3 &e8!? 19 h5 <&d8=
Khalifman-Short, Merida 2001; on
completing its rapid march, the
black king has reached a
comfortable haven. 14 h4 Sb8 The
position is likewise not simple to
evaluate after 14...a6 15 #f4 b5 16
g4 b4 17 cxb4 £>xb4 18 c3 £>c6 19
Shbl Sb8°° Short-Morozevich,
Germany 1998. 15 h5 a6 16 #f4 b5
17 axb5 axbS 18 Shbl #e7 19
#e3 &g8 20 g4 b4!? The
phlegmatic 20...^h7 lands Black in
trouble after 21 g5 Shc8 22 gxh6
gxh6 23 £*2!±. 21 cxb4 Sxb4?»
A.Horvath-Czebe, Budapest 2001.
9...C5
iHfn
mXM, !§2flf
\m mwJm.
r ■
m
SLflgm
White's chances should be
preferred after 9...f5 10 exf6 #xf6

160 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £lc5 &Sf6 4 ±g5 §L.b4
11 £>f3 £ic6 12 #f4!? <£xd2 13
#xd2 e5 14 0-0-0!? Another fairly
good choice is 14 jLb5 exd4 (or
14...±g4 15 Axc6 £xf3 16 £xb7
&xg2 17 &xa8 &xhl 18 0-0-0 Afi
19 dxe5 *xe5 20 SelT Seidel-
S.Meyer, Hofheim 1995) 15 cxd4±.
14...exd4 Black could consider
14...e4!?. 15 cxd4 #d6 16 #c3
itg4 17 Sel± Igriashvili-Kostenko,
Moscow open 1999.
The rare move 9...b6!? deserves
further practical testing. A possible
continuation is 10 JLd3 £lxd2 11
<&xd2 Aa6 12 Sh3 i.xd3 13 Sxd3
£)c6 14 Hf3 1U7?* Sariego -
Borges Mateos, Capablanca
Memorial 1989.
10i.d3
White rarely plays 10 Sh3; in
reply, it's worth considering
10...#a5 In the event of 10...cxd4
11 cxd4 Wb6 12 £>f3 £)c6 13 &d3
£)xe5 14 £>xe5! #xd4 15 #f4
#xal+ 16 4>e2, White's attack is
very strong. 11 JLd3 £)xd2 12 Sg3
g6 13 *xd2 cxd4 14 #xd4 &c6 15
#f4 d4!?, with chances for both
sides; Shkurovich Khasin-Siochru,
corr 1996.
10...£ixd2 11 *xd2
ll...£k6
After ll...c4, the play nearly
always transposes. As in the main
line, White can choose between 12
&fl!?andl2.&e2.
Black doesn't succeed in
equalizing completely with
ll...#a5 12 Sh3 It would also be
worth considering 12 £>f3 £>c6 13
1T4 cxd4 (the slow 13...b6? is
prettily refuted by 14 £lg5!± hxg5
15 hxg5 Sxhl 16 g6! <4?e7 17 Sxhl
£)d8 18 Sh7 with a winning attack;
Shabanov-Mnatsakanian, USSR
1971) 14 &xd4 £kd4 15 #xd4
kAl 16 Sh3±. 12...cxd4 13 Sg3 Or
13 £>e2!?. 13...1rxc3+ White's
advantage is obvious in the case of
13...g5 14 hxg5 dxc3+ 15 sfedl hxg5
16 #xg5 &e8 17 Wg7 Hf8 18 &h3
Minasian-Volkov, Yurmala 1992.
14 <&>e2 Sg8 15 Sel! White fortifies
the crucial e5-pawn. Clearly weaker
choices are 15 &h7? d3+!+ and 15
Sbl b6! 16 *dl! £>d7 17 f4 (or 17
£h7 d3 18 Sxd3 £>xe5+) 17...£)c5!
18 &e2 (or 18 Ahl d3 19 cxd3
£d7! 20 &xg8 g6! 21 Axf7 &xd3
-+) 18...Qxd3! 19 Sxd3 #c7?.
15...b6 16 <&fl Wc7 17 £tf3 £a6 18
£>xd4, and if lS...!^ then 19
c4!T.
12Sh3!?
The most dangerous continuation;
White brings up his rook to strike a
direct blow at the black monarch.
The game Gdanski-Talla, Ostrava
1998, also took an interesting
course: 12 Wf4!? c4 13 £.g6! Wei
14 *he2 &d7 15 i.h5, and now,
according to Gdanski's analysis,
Black should have played 15..JLe8!

MacCutcheon Variation 3 £hc3 Z&f6 4 Ag5 ±b4 161
16 g4 f6! 17 exf6 #xf6 18 #xf6+
gxf6 19 £)f4 &xh5 20 £ixh5 *f7=.
Great complications result from
12 £\f3 c4 The preparatory move
12...Wei is worth considering; if 13
fih3, Black then closes the centre
with 13...c4 14 JLe2, and continues
R.Jfori! 15 h5 b5 16 £sh4 Sg8 17
SO a5?* Pupo - Vallejo Pons,
Capablanca Memorial 1997. 13 JLe2
b5
ibjln m m
w$ wm wo* +.VM
"■1H1B ffl
il I ii wM w m
m mftim t
mmxmwk
m m m mn
14 a3 a5 In J.Polgar-Korchnoi,
Wijk aan Zee 2000, Black
somewhat modified the standard
plan by playing 14...&d7 15 #f4
&e7!? 16 h5 (it was worth
considering 16 #g3 Sg8 17 h5 Ae8
18 Sh4 a5 19 Sg4, when the black
king doesn't succeed in escaping to
the queenside) 16...jte8 17 £)h4 a5
18 #g3 Sg8 19 #e3 &d7 20 f4 b4.
Then with 21 axb4 axb4 22 cxb4
£>xb4 23 Wc3 £ic6 24 Sxa8 *xa8
25 Sal *b7 26 #a3+ W>4+ 27
#xb4+ £ixb4 28 c3± White would
have preserved a small endgame
advantage. 15 Wf4 £.d7 After
15...Sb8 16 h5!? b4?! (it's better to
carry out this important pawn
advance after first placing the queen
on e7) 17 axb4 axb4 18 cxb4 Sxb4
19 We3 Wb6 20 Sa8 Wb7 21 Shal,
Black ran into difficulties in De
Firmian - Kaidanov, USA Ch, Salt
Lake City 1999. 16 Shbl Or 16 g4
b4 17 h5 bxc3+ 18 "£>e3 £le7! 19
£sh4 &a4 (I9...*e8!? deserves
attention too) 20 £>g6+ £lxg6 21
hxg6 We7? Radovanovic-Volkov,
Corinth open 2002. 16...Sb8 17 h5
#e7 Similar positions arise from
17...*e7!? 18 g4 #f8 19 #e3
<&>d8°o. 18 g4 <4>e8 19 #e3 <&>d8 20
Sgl b4= and bringing his king
across to a safe place, Black can
face the future with optimism;
Madl-Hiibner, Loberitz 2001.
12...C4!?
mXm Jmlm
m
mm'mir\ wm wm \
Closing the centre, Black transfers
his pressure from the pawn on d4 to
the one on c3 (after carrying out
b7-b5-b4). On the kingside he will
go over to passive defence and keep
a low profile.
13i.fl!?
An interesting idea. White leaves
the e2-square free for the knight
which he subsequently aims to bring
via f4 to h5.
The alternative 13 JLe2 occurs a
good deal more often. There can

162 MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 ?hf6 4 Ag5 k.b4
follow: 13...b5 Viktor Korchnoi has
repeatedly adopted a different plan
starting with 13...fig8, whereupon
play may continue: 14 SO (or 14
Wf4 Ad7 15 Ah5 Ae8 16 £>e2 [16
Sf3!? f5!? 17 Axe8 g5! gives Black
no cause for worry] 16...f5 17
Axe8! <&xe8 18 g4 £>e7 19 Sgl!
*f7 20 g5t) 14...*e7 (14...£te7!?
deserves attention, the idea being 15
WlA £if5 16 g4 g5! 17 hxg5 hxg5°°)
15 £lh3 Tta5 16 #f4 SfB 17 Sg3
Sg8 18 &h5 £)d8 19 Sell? b5 (on
19...JLd7, Black would have to
reckon with the none-too-obvious
sacrifice 20 Sxg7! Sxg7 21 W%+
4>f8 22 #xh6 &g8 23 Se3, with a
strong attack). This occurred in
Jenni-Korchnoi, Zurich 2001; and
now by continuing correctly with 20
See3! g6 (unfortunately for Black,
20...£d7? fails to 21 2xg7!! 2xg7
22 Wf8+ *ffi 23 Wxh6 &g8 24
£>g5 #xa2 25 £>h7! +-) 21 *xh6
#xa2 22 fh7+ White could have
secured an obvious plus. He also
has the better chances after 13...£>e7
14 h5 £>f5 15 £)f3 ±d7 16 Wf4! b5
17 g4 £ie7 18 £>h4, with the
initiative; Vysochin-Moskalenko,
Yalta open 1996. 14#f4
'Wi W.
~%bz~
R+±*
E
Wk l m m m
m m Wk I
-,/////A - *-*" m
White hopes to bring his bishop
into the attack. After 14 a3 iLd7 15
Sf3 a5 16 £ih3 £)e7 17 Wf4 £.e8
18 h5 b4 19 axb4 (it is Black who
can have hopes of seizing the
initiative in the event of 19 g4
£>c6!? 20 axb4 axb4 21 Sxa8
bxc3+ 22 Hxc3 #xa8) 19...axb4 20
Sxa8 bxc3+ ? he needs to think
more about defence than about
active operations; Arnold-Almasi,
Budapest 1997. Another line seen
fairly often is 14 Sg3 Sg8 (or
14...2h7!?), and only now 15 #f4
(White gains few dividends from 15
a3 a5 16 £lh3 &d7 17 £)f4 £>e7 18
Qh5 £sf5 19 Sh3 Mt when Black's
operations are clearly quicker)
15..A67 16 a3 a5 17 £h5 &e8!?
(17...Wei is also of interest; after 18
£>e2 £)d8 19 Sf3 *e8, it isn't at all
simple to get at the black king) 18
2f3 f5!?=° with interesting
possibilities for both sides. 14..JLd7 Not
everything is clear after 14...a5 15
.&h5 «fe7 16 2f3 4)d8« either. 15
JLh5 White hardly needs to insert 15
a3 a5, for instance: 16 Jk.h5 .&e8 17
£)e2 b4 18 axb4 axb4?>. 15...£e8
16 £ie2 Or 16 g4 b4 (16...a5!?) 17
cxb4 £ixb4 18 £te2 (on 18 a3? #a5
19 <4>dl 2b8, Black's threats are
very strong) 18...Wa5 19 &c3 Sb8,
and Black's chances are by no
means worse; Zontakh - Czebe,
Bosna-Herzegovina 2001. 16...a5 I
don't think that 16...f5 17 i.f3, with
g2-g4 to follow, is a worthwhile
alternative for Black. 17 g4 It's hard
for White to create any real threats
without the aid of his pawns. For
example after 17 2D We7 18 Shi
b4 19 2hh3 <&g8\ there doesn't

MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 Zhf6 4 £.g5 £.b4 163
seem to be a way for him to
continue the attack; Golovliov-
Ermolaev, Lvov open 2002.17...b4
Id WSM m
4fSkm.%M. m
l±B
tl
m bib ■
'm X *m m) £ m
mtmm i
18 g5!? In the game Molnar-
Vigh, Budapest 2002, White played
18 Sbl?! and quickly landed in a
difficult position after 18...2b8 19
&e3 bxc3 20 Sxb8 #xb8 21 SB
$e7. The play is more interesting in
the case of 18 Sahl Sa7 (18...*b6
19 g5 bxc3+ 20 Sxc3 &g8?* merits
atttention) 19 g5 £>e7 20 g6!? (on
20 JLg4, Black has the excellent
resource 20...h5! 21 Mb [21 &xe6
loses material to 21...Sa6! 22 j&.xf7
Axf7 23 SB #e8 -+] 21...£lf5, and
after completely closing the
kingside he can look forward to
transferring the play to the opposite
wing) 20...£rf5 21 gxf7 £xf7 22
JLg4, and now Black should choose
between 22...&xh4!? and 22...jfc.g6,
with interesting play in either case.
18...hxg5 Similarly, it isn't clear
what White can expect after
18...Wb6!? 19 g6 Sa7 20 *g4?», or
even 18...g6 19 gxh6!? (Black is all
right in the case of 19 JLg4 h5! 20
£.xe6 &g7! 21 #f6+ *h7 22 Axf7
#xf6 23 gxf6 Axf7 24 £>f4 £sd8)
19...gxh5 20 Sgl f5 21 exf6 Sa7 22
Shg3 Sah7! 23 Sg7 Af7, and at the
end of the day Black does have an
extra piece! 19 hxg5 "&C7 The
dimensions of this book don't
permit a lengthy analysis of the
fascinating variations such as
19...g6!? 20 Sahl (or 20 &g4 Sxh3
21 &xh3 ^e7f) 20...bxc3+! 21
£kc3 #b6!^. 20 Sahl, Acs-
Almasi, Ohrid 2001. At this point it
was worth considering 20...#b6 21
Sh4 Sb8, with unclear play. I
expect that plenty of new ideas will
be discovered in these variations in
the very near future.
13...b5 14 £te2 a5 15 a3 £d7 16
£>f4
nrii m
m bjlb±b A
Wi + WB + W$ Wfr
Wi ?& '' Wi>,' W.
m m m ®®i
"mm bib
16...b4
Black was faced with a difficult
choice, and I don't think his
opening problems are solved by the
move he plays here. The game
Leko-Korchnoi, Essen 2002,
proceeded interestingly with 16...Sg8
17 SB!? *e7D (of course not
17...We8?? 18 &g6#!) 18 £)h5 b4
(nor is everything simple in the
variation 18...Wf8 19 Wf4 £e8 20
g4 <£>d8 21 i.h3 #e7 22 g5 hxg5?*
Ganguly-Sadvakasov, Asian Ch,

164 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £ki Q\f6 4 &.g5 <k.b4
Doha 2003) 19 Wf4!? bxc3+ 20
&el &e8 21 Sxc3 (a line that calls
for close attention is 21 Hg3!? Wb6
22 Sdl #b2 23 £ixg7, with a
dangerous initiative), and now the
simple 21...'&>f8!? would have
promised Black a fairly good game.
It seems to me that Black's best
move in the diagram position is the
prophylactic 16...<S^e7f?. Then after
17 £lh5 £)f5 18 #f4 b4!, it's hard
to say who is doing the attacking!
17 2f3bxc3+18&dl!
Or 18 &XC3 a4! 19 £ke6+! &xe6
20 #xe6 #35+ 21 *b2 Sb8+ 22
4>a2 1^7! with chances for both
sides.
Hm w w m
|jftlli« III
HI X pf gzl Wpll
18...h5?!
Black would lose at once with
18...£>xd4? on account of 19 £>h5!
£>f5 20 2xf5 exf5 21 Wxg7+ &e7
22 #f6+ +-. However, as Lutz
points out, lS.-.n^!? would have
enabled Black to fight on, for
instance: 19 £>g6+ <&g8 20 £>xh8
h5! 21 #f4 (White achieves nothing
more than a draw with 21 #xh5
#xd4+ 22 Ad3! cxd3 23 #xf7+
*xh8 24 Hi5+ =) 21...*xh8».
19&xh5Sg8 20'±>el!
An excellent idea! Now the
crucial d4-pawn will be securely
defended from dl by the rook.
20../tb6 21 Sdl &e7?
The decisive mistake. After the
cool-headed 21...Wb2! the position
would be far from clear, for
example: 22 £>f4 4>e8 23 ^5
£>e7!? 24 £te2 &a4! 25 #xf7+
&d7£.
22 #f4!
m
lAMtm
m hi
(IB'
W, I m m m
w,
mm am
Black is now defenceless against
the many threats.
22...£\f5
Or 22...&e8 23 £>f6! £tf5
(23...£lg6 is refuted at once by 24
£id7+!) 24 £)xg8 &xg8 25 Sxc3 +-.
23 g4 £ih6 24 £tf6! +-
An attractive tactical stroke which
at once settles the outcome in
White's favour.
24...£a4
Similarly 24...gxf6 25 Wxh6+
&e8 26 #xf6 Sf8 27 g5 +- leaves
no room for any illusions.
25 &xg8 <*xg8 26 Sxc3 «b2 27
<£>d2 Hb8 28 O!

MacCutcheon Variation 3 Zhc3 Zhf6 4 $Lg5 k.b4 165
A final delicate point; White
prepares a safe place for his
commander.
28...Sb3! 29 #e3! Sxa3 30 Sxa3
fxc2+ 31 &el #xdl+ 32 <&fl i.c2
33 Sxa5 &d3 34 Axd3 cxd3 35
Ha8+ <£>h7 36 Sa2 1-0
Game 15
Bruzon-Glek
Esbjerg 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £ic3 £tf6 4
£.g5 &b4 5 e5 h6 6 i.d2 &xc3 7
bxc3 £>e4 8 #g4 g6 9 £d3
m±m m±m
l H mXMXm,
m mtm m
m m&m m A
a g @ i^i
White often just plays this move
automatically, and yet he does have
several alternatives at his disposal.
For example: -
(A) Black has an easy, pleasant
game after 9 £tf3? c5 10 &d3
&xd2 11 &xd2 Wa5 12 0-0 WXC3
13 £lf3 c4t, when 14 JLxg6 fails to
14...Sg8! -+ Krush-Aravena, New
York 2002.
(B) An interesting continuation
that is gradually coming into
fashion is 9 Wf4 c5 10 Ad3 £>xd2
The immediate 10...iLd7!? is also
worth considering. 11 #xd2 &d7!?
White has an excellent game after
ll...£>c6 12 £if3 #a5 (12...cxd4 13
cxd4 i.d7 14 0-0 <4>f8 15 Sabl b6
16 c3t can scarcely be an
improvement for Black; Inarkiev-
Glek, Hoogeveen open 2003) 13
dxc5!? Wxc5 14 0-0 i.d7 15 Sabl
b6 16 ia6 Sd8 17 Sfel± Odeev-
Glek, Dubai open 2001. 12 £sf3
£c6 13 h4 &d7 14 a4 Or 14 h5 g5
15 £)h2 Wb6 16 Ae2 f6 17 exf6
£kf6, with a splendid game for
Black. 14...#a5 15 dxc5 £ixc5 16
0-0 Wd8 17 #f4 We7, and the
chances are not simple to assess;
Grigoriants-Glek, Hoogeveen open
2003.
(C) 9 i.e3!? is not often played
but deserves close attention, for
instance: 9...#e7!? Or 9...£)xc3 10
id3 c5 11 dxc5 Wa5 12 £)f3 £)e4+
13 £sd2 &xc5 14 0-05. 10 £d3
£>xc3 11 h4 In Romanishin-
Bronstein, Ordzhonikidze 1978,
White seized the initiative after 11
£>f3 £d7 12 0-0 Ac6 13 £d2 £)e4
14 £cl £)d7 15 a4! 0-0-0 16 &a3
We8 17 #f4T. Il...b6 12 h5, with
sharp play.
(D) 9 Acl c5 Black also
sometimes plays 9...£}xc3 10 JLd3
(the rare 10 Wh3 likewise leads to
complex play, for instance 10...£ia4
11 Wb3 £>b6 12 «K3 £)c6 13 h4
Ml 14 *c3 fS!?«o Chandler-Glek,
Bundesliga 1995) 10...1fe7 (on
10...£>c6 11 £sf3 &b4 12 &d2
&xd3+ 13 cxd3 £te4 14 0-0, White
has very good compensation for the
pawn) 11 h4 £>c6 12 £d2 £ie4!? 13

166 MacCutcheon Variation 3 Qc3 Z&f6 4 &.g5 kb4
Axe4 dxe4 14 Wxe4 Wd7!? 15 £le2
b6 16 0-0 JLb7, with a sound
position; Balcerak-Richter, Bundes-
iga 2003. 10 &d3 An interesting
idea was employed in Kuzmin-
Firman, Sudak 2002: 10 O!? Ifa5
11 £)e2 &xc3 12 &d2 cxd4 13
£)xd4 i.d7 14 Wf4 (14 £>e2 d4! 15
#xd4 £lxe2 is also interesting)
14..McS, and now it seems to me
that after 15 £&3 White's chances
would be preferable. Incidentally 10
£te2!? is worth considering too, e.g.
10...cxd4 11 cxd4 #c7 12 O £k3
13 id2 <£ixe2 14 £xe2± Van den
Doel-Stellwagen, Bundesliga 2003.
10...£}xc3 A less convincing line is
10...cxd4 11 £)e2 dxc3 (Black fails
to solve his problems with ll...£>c6
12 JLxe4 dxe4 13 cxd4 £)xd4 14
#xe4 £)xe2 15 Wxe2, when the
difference in strength between the
bishops is plain to see; Liberzon-
Faibisovich, USSR 1967) 12 &xe4
dxe4 13 &xc3 #d4?! (13...£)c6!?±
would be more cautious) 14 JLb2
kil 15 Sbl £c6 16 0-0 Wc4 17
#g3! £kl7 18 &a3, and again
White holds the initiative; De
Vreugt-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.
11 dxc5
ll.-.WaS Black hardly equalizes
with ll...#c7 12 £>f3 £>d7 13 0-0
£lxc5 14 Sel±, but a more
interesting try is ll...£te4!? 12
±xe4 dxe4 13 Wxe4 Ad7! 14 £>fi
&c6 15 lfe3 £id7 16 0-0 Kc7»
Kostenko-Kadhi, Asian Ch, Doha
2003. 12 i.d2 #a4! 13 h3!? On 13
#f3 £ie4 14 &xe4, I feel that the
rare move 14...dxe4!? deserves
attention (if instead 14...Wxe4+,
then the practically forced variation
15 Wxe4 dxe4 16 £>e2 Ad7 17 Sbl
1x6 18 £)d4 &d7 19 0-0 £)a6 20
5fdl leaves White with the
initiative; Vitolins-Shereshevsky,
Minsk 1988), e.g. 15 #c3 &d7 16
&e2 &b5 17 <£g3 &c6, with
roughly equal chances; Rusakov-
Gusev, Novosibirsk 1976.
mXW,. WX
W/, -■» '///////, .
i <m, * %m mm
■-'"■ • ----- %fz&(
i m mn
H$*A*«r.*i H
m%mt "m+"w£
<m * Wz iff *
mXm, 9X-mt. x
'//?,, . >W///,
± ill
w, 'm Xmi.
\m m m mn
13...£te4!? The ending is
favourable to White after
13...#xg4?! 14 hxg4 £>e4 15 &xe4
dxe4 16 £te2 £>d7 17 &g3 £>xc5 18
g5± Gligoric-Pachman, Amsterdam
izt 1964. If Black plays 13...h5 14
#0 £>e4 15 i.xe4 Wxe4+ 16 Wxe4
dxe4, then the difference between
this and the 13 #G variation (which
we have just examined) is that he
has merely weakened his dark

MacCutcheon Variation 3 $Sc3 *hf6 4 £.g5 $Lb4 167
squares on the kingside. 14 £\e2
There are complications arising
from 14 i.xe4 »d4!? 15 Sbl #xe5
16 2b4 dxe4 17 £se2 £>c6 18 Sxe4
#xc5 19 Wf4 e5, with mutual
chances. 14...£ixc5 15 Wf3 Wh4!?
A game Arbakov-Gurevich, USSR
1978, proceeded interestingly with
15...*d7 16 0-0 b6 17 a4!? Aa6 18
a5 £xd3 19 cxd3 £lb3 20 HffiS!?
Hg8?*. 16 0-0 &c6 17 g3 #e7 Not
17...£>xe5? which loses to 18 #e3
Wf6 19 kcV. £)f3+ 20 <S?g2 d4 21
&xd4 +-. 18 We3 Jfcd7 19 Sabl
Sc8, Tal-Vooremaa, Tallinn 1981.
Of course the activity of White's
pieces fully compensates for the
sacrificed pawn, but can he claim
anything more than that?
(E) 9 h4 c5 10 h5?! A better
option is 10 Ad3 £kd2 11 &xd2,
transposing to the main line. 10...g5
11 f4 f5! 12 exf6 e5 13 WO exf4
Not at all a bad alternative is 13...g4
14 #e3 exd4 15 cxd4 #xf6T. 14
JLd3 JLf5, with a big advantage to
Black in Weber-Vysochin, Norder-
stedt open 2000.
9...£ixd2
On 9..JLd7, White has quite a few
promising lines at his disposal, such
as 10 Acl!? c5 11 £>e2 *a5 (of
course, ll...cxd4 12 cxd4 #a5+ 13
c3 Ab5 is weak: 14 £xb5+ 1^5
15 fi £ig5 16 h4 £tfi7 17 &xh6±
Velimirovic-Moutousis, Panormo zt
1998) 12 O £)xc3 13 Ad2 cxd4 14
£>xd4 #c5 15 £>b3 #c7 16 «T4
with more than enough for the
pawn.
10 &xd2
10...C5
Black scarcely has any
worthwhile alternative. Thus in
Milos-Vescovi, Sao Paolo 1999,
White easily gained the advantage
after 10...#e7 11 ©G b6 12 h4
jta6 13 £xa6 -£1x36 14 h5 g5 15
£)h2 c5 16 We2 £ib8 17 £>g4t.
Black's situation is just as
unenviable in the case of 10...b6?!
11 b.4 &a6 12 h5! i.xd3 13 cxd3
Sg8 14 hxg6 Sxg6 15 «f4 Sxg2 16
Sxh6 £>d7 17 £>e2, with an
excellent game for White; Fercec-
Zelcic, Croatian Ch, Pula 2000.
Il£sf3
Again White faces a problem of
choice; the following continuations
are also seen:
(A) There is no danger to Black in
11 dxc5 #c7 Or 11...Wei 12 &e2
JLd7, which is not bad either; Black
will play Ad7-c6 and £>b8-d7. 12
#d4 Ad7 13 &!3 &c6 14 We3 Sc8
15 h4 £)a5, and the c5-pawn is
already indefensible; Hebden-
Vaisser, Cappelle open 1991.
(B) 11 #f4 cxd4 Continuations
such as ll...£>c6 12 £rf3 or ll...c4
12 Ae2 £ic6 13 £sf3 lead by

168 MacCutcheon Variation 3 Z&c3 £)f6 4 &.g5 £.b4
transposition to the variation 11
QS £>c6 12 #f4. 12 cxd4 Whl5+
13 &e3W Black has a good game in
the event of 13 4-62 £>d7 14 £lf3
b6! 15 Shcl &a6 16 h4 Sc8,
Areshchenko-Golovliov, Lvov open
2000; or 13 c3 b6!? (alternatively
13...£id7 14 £se2 b6 15 £tal i.a6
16 £>b3 #a3 17 &xa6 #xa6 18 a4
Sc8) 14 h4 &a6 15 £xa6 #xa6 16
£>e2 £>d7 17 Shbl Sc8 18 Sb4
2c4= JCindermann-Piskov, Bundes-
liga 1996. 13...b6 14 &e2 <&d7 Not
14..JLa6?! on account of 15 jLxg6!
fxg6 16 #f6±. 15 Shcl It would be
worth considering 15 a4!?. On the
other hand after 15 h4 &a6 16
£xa6 #xa6 17 £>d2 2c8 Black
easily obtains his full share of the
play. 15...&a6 16 &xa6 Or 16 c4
£xc4 17 £xc4 dxc4 18 2xc4 b5!
19 1^4 0-0, with an interesting
game. 16...#xa6 17 c4 dxc4 18
<5k3 #a3! 19 <£>e2 b5?* Petrushin-
Piskov, Russia 1992.
(C) 11 h4!?
An extremely interesting move,
and the most aggressive one. In
some variations White intends to
advance his f-pawn, for example to
defend the important pawn on e5.
For the continuation 11...4k6 12
£lf3, see the analysis of the main
line with 11 £tf3. Black's other
options from the diagram position
are as follows:
(CI) ll...Wa5!? 12 2h3 In
Seirawan-Makarychev, Reykjavik
open 1990, White's attack was not
crowned with success after 12 h5 g5
13 f4 (or 13 £tf3 £lc6) 13...cxd4 14
£)f3? (14 &e2?) 14 ...dxc3+ 15
*e2 #a4+. 12...£)c6! Clearly
stronger than 12...cxd4 13 iLxg6
1@rc7 (White's chances also deserve
preference after 13...2f8 14 SB
dxc3+ 15 *dl #c5 16 JLh5 £>c6 17
2xf7 2xf7 18 #g8+ Ifffi 19 Axf7+
<£>e7 20 #xf8+ <£>xf8 21 j£.h5,
Zontakh - Hoang Thanh Trang,
Budapest 1999) 14 2D 2g8 15
2xf7 #xc3+ 16 <&e2!, with a good
game for White; Euwe-Maroczy,
Aussee 1921. 13 &xg6 &xd4! 14
<&dl 2g8 15 &xf7+ &xf7 16 Wh5+
•Sel 17 cxd4 2xg2, with an
excellent game.
(C2) ll...£d7
A fashionable and interesting
idea. Instead of the standard set-up
- knight on c6, bishop on d7 -

MacCutcheon Variation 3 thc3 £>/6 4 &.g5 &.b4 169
Black aims in some circumstances
to arrange these pieces the other
way round, thus fortifying his
queenside and not needing to be too
afraid of d4xc5, a usual capture in
this type of position. 12 h.5!? The
game Velicka-Mirumian, Czech
Extra League 2000, ended quickly
with 12 Sbl i.c6 13 £xg6!? fxg6
14 #xe6+ We7 15 #c8+ #d8 16
#66+, drawing by perpetual check.
12...g5 13 f4 £k6 Or 13...c4 14
i.e2 f5!? (14...&C6? is weaker in
view of 15 fxg5 #xg5+ 16 #xg5
hxg5 17 £tfi3 &d7 18 £sxg5±
Volokitin-D.Jacimovic, European
Team Ch, Leon 2001) 15 exf6 e5 16
*f3 e4 17 #e3 #xf6 18 fxg5 #xg5
19 «fxg5 hxg5 20 &h3 Sg8 21 h6±
Pasman-Murey, Beersheva 1978. 14
fxgS Wxg5+!? It seems to me that
Black is taking a greater risk in
sharp variations such as 14...#a5 15
dxc5!? d4 16 £)f3 0-0-0 17 Sabl!
dxc3+ 18 *e2 Hhg8 (18...hxg5!?)
19 #e4!T Leko-Radjabov, Linares
2003. 15 #xg5 hxg5
WMmXm, m
m m±m mt
T\% %%%2 %%4% vL\ 1
CX>. M», VW/. %Z-1 i
16 <4>e3 Black defends easily in
the event of 16 £tf3 g4 17 £>g5
cxd4 18 cxd4 &xd4 19 ttafl £rf5!
20 Sf4 *e7». 16...&e7!? Another
interesting move is 16...g4!?, which
was played for the first time in
Leko-Short, Batumi 1999. Black
deprives the white knight of f3, the
square that is so natural for it, but
on the other hand the pawn may
easily become a weakness. Play
may proceed: 17 Sfl (there may
well be more danger to Black in 17
Sbl b6 18 h6!? or the immediate 17
Ae2!?, attacking the weak pawn
without delay) 17...'i,e7 (stronger
than 17...Sc8 18 Sf4 cxd4+ 19 cxd4
£>b4 20 £ie2 £>xd3 21 cxd3 Sc2 22
Sxg4 Sxa2 23 h6, with advantage
to White; Sutovsky-Stellwagen,
Amsterdam open 2001) 18 Sh4 (18
h6!? Sag8 19 Sf6 deserves
attention) 18...Sag8, and now
instead of 19 Sbl?! b6 20 i.e2
cxd4+ 21 cxd4 f5!= as in the
Leko-Short game just mentioned,
White has the stronger 19 £.e2!?
with chances of a plus. 17 Sfl fih.6
18 g4 c4 19 &e2 Sg8, Bruson-
Gunnarsson, European Team Ch,
Leon 2001. Black's position is rock
solid!
(C3) ll...£>c6 12 #f4!? A line
hardly to be recommended is 12
h5!? g5 13 f4 cxd4 (Black already
had quite a good choice of moves; it
was also worth considering 13...c4
14 Ae2 f5!?=) 14 cxd4 #a5+ 15
<&e3 f5! 16 #g3 g4 17 £)e2 b6 18
#el Wxel 19 Shxel &a5=
Dworakowska - Zhukova, European
Women's Ch, Warsaw 2001. After
12 dxc5?! £>xe5 13 #d4 £>c4+! 14
iLxc4 dxc4 15 ao 0-0 16 Bhel b6,
it is White who has to start thinking
about how to maintain the balance;
Brodsky-Vysochin, Polanica Zdroj

170 MacCutcheon Variation 3 thc3 *hf6 4 kg5 k.b4
open 2000. The play develops more
interestingly after 12 Sh3, for
instance: 12...cxd4 (or 12...#35!?
13 Axg6!? £«d4! 14 £>e2 Sg8!
with a good game for Black) 13
cxd4 #b6 (again Black has more
than one good option; in my view
13...&d7 14 c3 #e7» is not at all
bad) 14 £>f3 (of course not 14
£te2?! on account of 14...#b4+ 15
*dl £>xe5) 14...£d7 15 Shhl (the
rook has no more work to do on h3;
Black would come off well from
either 15 Wf4 0-0-0 16 g4 g5!? or
15 a3 0-0-0 16 #f4 g5!? 17 hxg5
hxg5 18 £lxg5 Sxh3 19 gxh3
<£kd4, Lau-Glek, Gelsenkirchen
open 1991) 15... #c7! 16 *e3 £>a5,
and by now it is White who has to
go over to defence. 12...cxd4 The
surprising 12...c4 13 £fl f5!? 14
exf6 <4,f7» would also be interesting
to try out. 13 cxd4
^ 11 pal m
mi.
H \m
i m%
13...#a5+ More convincing than
13...Ad7 14 c3!? #e7 15 Wf6!
0-0-0 16 #xe7 £sxe7 17 h5±
S.Polgar-Dreev, New York open
1989. 14 c3 It isn't all that simple
for White to choose between this
move and 14 &e3, when there can
follow: 14...b6 15 h5 (Black is quite
happy with the way the struggle
develops after 15 #f6 Sg8 16 £>e2
Aa6 17 h5 gxh5 18 Sxh5 £>b4?*)
15...gxh5 16 £ie2 i.a6 17 &xa6 (or
17 g3 Sc8 18 B £>e7 19 *£2 Sg8
20 Sxh5 £.xd3 21 cxd3 Sc2! and
Black already holds the initiative;
Karjakin-Firman, Alushta 2002)
17...ffxa6 18 c3 Sc8 19 O 2g8,
and if anything Black's king can
feel safer than White's; Van den
Doel - Glek, Zwolle 2002. 14...b5!?
15 #f6 Hf8 16 £ie2 b4 17 Ehcl
ia6 18 cxb4 The position is
similarly hard to evaluate after 18
&xa6 #xa6 19 h5!? gxh50.
18...£ixb4 In the event of
18...Wxb4+ 19 *e3 &xd3 White
has an astounding way to win - I
quote the main line of Sutovsky's
excellent analysis: 20 Hxc6! iLxe2
21 Sc7! £x4! 22 *f4!! g5+ 23 <£>g3
Wa3+ 24 4>h2 Sb8 25 Scl! Sb2 26
Sc3 10)4 27 S3xc4! dxc4 28 #f3,
and in spite of his huge material
plus, Black is defenceless. 19 £.xa6
If White wants, he can force a draw
with 19 Hc5!? #a3 20 &xg6! fxg6!
21 #xe6+ *d8 22 #d6+ <4>e8 23
#xg6+ *d8 24 m6+ <£?e8 25
#e6+ &d8=. 19../»xa6 20 #f3
Black defends successfully in the
event of 20 Sc3 Sc8 21 Sxc8+
#xc8 22 Scl Wa6«>. 20...£ic6
Glek's recommendation of 20...
<&>d7!? merits attention. 21 Sc5
£>a5, with unruly complications;
Sutovsky-Glek, Essen 2000.
Il...i.d7!?
The height of fashion just
recently. Black is aiming for the

MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Qf6 4 ±g5 &b4 171
set-up we mentioned before: bishop
on c6, knight on d7. Of the
interesting alternatives, it is worth
noting lU.Wtl 12 h4 If 12 dxc5,
then 12...£d7 13 Shbl ix6,
followed by £\b8-d7, is fairly
adequate for Black. 12...c4 It was
worth considering 12...JLd7!?. 13
jLe2 £)c6 The complications arising
in Tseshkovsky-Gukasian,
Krasnodar 2002, proved not unfavourable
to White: 13...£id7 14 a4 a5 15 #f4
Sa6 16 &h2 £lb6 17 £sg4 &d7 18
£>xh6 £)xa4 19 Shbl &c6 20 g4
Sa8 21 g5!, with h4-h5 to follow.
14 h5 g5 15 £lh2 f5 16 exf6 Wxf6«>
Hatanbaatar-Wong Meng Kong,
Bled ol 2002.
The good old ll...£lc6 has never
gone out of fashion either.
White's most popular replies are
as follows:
(A) 12 dxc5 #a5 13 Wf4 Wxc5
14 £)d4 £lxd4 Not a bad alternative
is 14...&d7 15 Wf6 0-0 16 £)xc6
i.xc6 17 h4 Sac8 18 i.xg6!, when
Black can choose between taking
the bishop with an immediate draw,
and going in for double-edged play
with 18...£.e8! 19 &d3 #xc3+ 20
4'e2 ^.b5!« Minasian-Lputian,
Armenian Ch, Yerevan 1996. 15
cxd4 #a5+ 16 *e3 The character
of the position isn't altered by 16
&e2 b6 either. 16...b6 17 <&>f3!?
After 17 h4 £a6 18 a4 Sc8 19 Sa3
«M 20 Shal £xd3 21 cxd3 Sc2T
the initiative is entirely in Black's
hands; Lanc-Glek, Stare Mesto
1992. 17...£.a6 18 g3 Sc8 19 <4>g2
#a3?i.
(B) Black easily obtains a good
game in the event of 12 JLb5?!
cxd4 13 £)xd4 0-0! Black
experiences no problems even with
the less accurate 13...Ad7 14 Axc6
£xc6 15 h4 #c7 16 *f4 0-0-0 17
Sh3 h5 18 Sfi Sd7 19 *el 4>b8 20
<&>fl Sc8, Stefansson-Savchenko,
EU-Cup 1994. 14 £xc6 It would be
dangerous to play 14 £)xc6?! bxc6
15 £xc6 Sb8 16 i.a4 d4!t, when
the incautious 17 #xd4? loses
prettily to 17...Sb4!! -+. 14...bxc6
15 £)b3 i.a6 16 h4 £c4 17 h5 g5?
and White already has to think
seriously about defence; S.Polgar-
Zifroni, Tel-Aviv 1998.
(C) 12 Sabl
12...cxd4 Another quite good line
is 12...c4 13 k&2 b6 14 h4 i.d7 15

172 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 C&f6 4 Ag5 Ab4
#f4 We7 16h5g5 17 #f6 0-0-0 (or
17...Wxf6 18 exf6 0-0-0 19 <&e3
&c7 20 &e5 &e8°°) 18 #xe7 £>xe7
19 £>h2 &g8! 20 f4 f5£ Spraggett-
Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1985. 13 cxd4
#a5+ 14 <&e3 Nor has Black any
problems after 14 c3 b6!? 15 Wf4
i.a6 16 £c2 Sc8, or 14 <&>e2 b6 15
#f4 (Kayumov-Glek, Dubai open
2001, went 15 Shcl jLa6 16 a3
#xa3! 17 Sal £xd3+ 18 cxd3
#b2+ 19 <&>e3 £ie7! 20 Scbl *c2,
with an obvious plus for Black)
15...Aa6 16 Sb2!? £ft>4 17 #d2,
with approximate equality. 14...b6
15 Wf4 &a6 16 Shcl Wa3!? 17
Wf6 0-0! with excellent prospects
for Black; Peschardt-Koch, corr
1998.
(D) 12 Shbl
12...c4 Black could consider
12...*c7!?. 13 &e2 Sb8 The
modest 13...b6 also occurs. Play
may continue: 14 h4 &d7 15 <S^h2
(we have come across this
manoeuvre several times already)
15...We7, and now White ought to
pursue his plan consistently with 16
1^3!? followed by &h2-g4, giving
him chances of a small plus; instead,
the game Sutovsky-Daly, Isle of
Man open 1999, went 16 h5?! 0-0-0
17 hxg6 f6! with wholly unclear
play. 14 a4 If 14 h4, then 14...b5 15
a3 a5 16 h5 g5 17 #g3 f5 looks
entirely satisfactory for Black.
14...a6 15 Wf4 b5 16 axb5 axb5 17
h4 #e7 18 h5 g5 19 Wf6 Wxf6 20
exf6 <4>d7 21 £se5+ &xe5 22 dxe5
^c6, and White just has a more or
less symbolic plus. In Hector-Glek,
Geneva 1994, a draw was agreed
after literally a few more moves.
(E) 12 Wf4 With this move White
forestalls a possible #d8-c7, as his
own queen would then penetrate
immediately to f6. 12...cxd4
Practice has also seen n.-.H'aS,
when there can follow: 13 Sabl!?
cxd4 (13...b6!? is interesting) 14
£>xd4 £ixd4 15 #xd4 #c7 16 h4
JLd7«= Bruggemann-Glek, Erfurt
1989. A less convincing option is
12...C4 13 Ae2 We7 14 Wf6! #xf6
15 exf6 Ad7 16 h4 Sd8 17 g4t
Voloshin-Kyeck, Kiel open 2001.
13 cxd4 #a5+ 14 c3 Safest; Black
has an easy game in the event of 14
<&e2 b6! 15 h4 i.a6 16 1T6 Sg8 17
h5 Sc8!f or 14 <4>e3 b6 15 h4 &a6
16 h5 £xd3 17 cxd3 g5 18 Wffi
Sh7 19 Shcl £te7!T with numerous
threats. 14...b6 15 a4 In De
Firmian-Brynell, Copenhagen 2001,
White played 15 Wf6!? Sg8 16 Wh4
Sh8 17 £)g5, and now after
17...£>d8!, with &c8-a6 to follow, I
don't see that Black has any
particular problems. 15...JLa6 16
£b5! &xb5!? 17 axb5 #xb5 18
Shbl #c4 19 Sxb6, Koltsov-
Harding, corr 1991. At this point it
was worth considering 19...0-0!?.
White then gains no more than a

MacCutcheon Variation 3 Ghc3 C&f6 4 $Lg5 &b4 173
draw from 20 #xh6 £ixd4! 21
£sxd4! axb6 22 £)xe6!=, when
Black decides which of the players
will give perpetual check!
(F) 12 h4
The most popular and natural
move, but again Black has several
fairly good replies, for example: -
(Fl) 12...cxd4!? 13 cxd4 Ad7
Another interesting plan involves
13...#35+; then after 14 c3 b6! 15
Hh3 JLa6, Black's prospects are not
bad. 14 #f4 Sc8 More convincing
than 14...#e7 15 Wf6!? 0-0-0 16
#xe7 £>xe7 17 h5 g5 18 £>h2!T. 15
#f6 Or 15 h5 gxh5, and Black will
try to utilize the opening of the
g-file for his own benefit.
15...#a5+ 16 c3 Sg8 17 Shcl A
game Kornilov-Erashchenkov,
Russian Under-20 Ch, Essentuki
2003, lasted only one more move:
17 Wg7? £)xd4! -+. 17...#a3?i
Shomoev-Skorchenko, Russian
Under-20 Ch, Kazan 2001.
(F2) 12...Wc7 13 «ff4 An
interesting move is 13 dxc5!?. Then
after e.g. 13...£lxe5 14 £)xe5 Wxe5
15 41^4, White can expect a small
plus. The variation 13 Shbl id7 14
#f4 cxd4 15 cxd4 f5! 16 a4 0-0-0*
doesn't promise White any great
dividends; J.Polgar-Knaak,
Dortmund 1990. 13...cxd4!? 14 cxd4 f5
15 g4!? Naturally White tries to
strike a blow against his opponent's
strong central pawn position. After
the less eneregetic 15 #g3 £>e7 16
Shcl i.d7 17 <4>e2!? Ac6 18 £sgl
0-0-0, Black has quite a good game;
Aseev-Dolmatov, USSR Ch 1989.
15...J.d7!? In the classic game
Fischer-Rossolimo, USA Ch 1965,
Black played the ineffective
15...£te7?! and came up against
major problems: 16 gxf5 exf5 17
JLb5+ <&f8?! (it would be better to
place the king on the queenside with
17...*d8! 18 £d3 £e6«) 18 ±d3
±e6 19 &gl! *f7 20 £>h3 Sac8 21
Shgl, with an obvious plus for
White. 16 Shgl 0-0-0 17 gxf5 gxf5
18 &e2 Or 18 Sg6 Wa5+ 19 <*e2
<4>b8!? 20 #d2 #a4°c. 18...ie8 19
Sg3 iLh5?* Firman-Pliasunov,
Chigorin Memorial, St Petersburg
2002.
(F3) 12...i.d7 13 #f4 We7 14 h5
Black is all right after 14 Sabl
0-0-0 15 dxc5 *xc5 16 £)d4 f5!.
14...g5 15 #f6!? Wxf6 Better than
15...0-0-0 16 #xe7 &xe7 17 £>h2±.
16 exf6 c4 It would be worth
considering 16...cxd4 17 cxd4 g4 18
£\e5 £)xd4 19 Sabl £)c6!. Then,
for example, 20 £)xd7 &X&7 21
Sxb7+ 4>d6 is not dangerous for
Black. 17 &fl &d8 18 Sel <&>c7 19
&e5 &xe5 20 SxeS &d6 21 &e2
b5 22 g4 Hab8 23 a3 Sb6! In
Kovalev-Vaisser, Paris 1991, Black
played the weaker 23...a5 24 Sbl
&c6 25 *e3 &d7 26 f4 gxf4+ 27

174 MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 JLg5 k.b4
*xf4±. 24 &e3 Sa6 25 Sal Sa4 26
f4 gxf4+ 27 &xf4 a5, with a sharp
and unclear ending; Volokitin-
Kobylkin, Alushta open 2001.
(F4) 12...«a5 13 Wf4
IPJ^ilPwIll vm
Wtfa.JBmyfflfi', es way, <&*■,
v m*m±mtm
h n±n ■
H $m %m 1m
ttt W%Z wm> warn *r
13...cxd4 Black could also
consider 13...£>xd4!? 14 £bcd4
cxd4. I don't so much like 13...b6
14 Shbl (turbulent complications
set in after 14 h5 gxh5! 15 3xh5
i.a6 16 #f6 Ef8 17 &xa6 #xa6 18
Sxh6 cxd4 [if Black wants to play
for a win, he can go for 18...£te5!?
19 Sh8 *d7 20 Sh7 *c6! 21 Hxf7
£)c4+ 22 *el Sxf7 23 #xe6+ <&>b5
24 #xf7 Zh8$ Fercec-Glek, San
Giorgio open 1998] 19 cxd4! #a5+!
20 c3 #a3 21 Scl #xa2+ 22 Sc2
Wbl 23 Sh8 &a5= and perpetual
check is inevitable) 14...JLa6 15 a4
£xd3 16 cxd3 a6 17 dxc5 #xc5 18
d4! #a5 (stronger than 18...Wc4?
19 #f6! Sh7 [or 19...Sf8 20 Sxb6
Sc8 21 Sb7±] 20 Sxb6 *£g 21
Sabl± Chandler-Fernandes, Santo
Antonio 2001) 19 &d3! Sc8D 20
Wcl g5! 21 #b2! gxh4 22 Wxb6,
with advantage to White in
Aseev-Piskov, Berlin 1991. 14
£ixd4 The sharp 14 h5!? deserves
attention: 14...dxc3+ (or 14...1rxc3+
15 *e2 gxh5 16 Sabl!?, and after
16...#33 17 Sxh5 b6 18 Sxh6
Sxh6 19 #xh6 Ad7 20 £)g5 White
obtained an advantage in A.Horvath
- Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest
2002) 15 <4>e2 gxh5!? 16 Sxh5 i.d7
17 «T6 Sg8 18 Sxh6 #c5, with
interesting play. 14...&xd4 15
Wxd4 Ad7 In the event of 15...b6
16 1^4!?, White's chances are
preferable. 16 Shbl Or 16 Sabl b6
17 #b4 #xb4 18 cxb4 a6! 19 She 1
&b5 20 c4 dxc4 21 &xc4 0-0=
Brunner-Glek, Bundesliga 1991.
16...Wc7!? White retains a small
plus after 16...b6? 17 «b4 Wxb4 18
cxb4±. A more interesting move is
16..JLc6!?, for instance 17 a4 h5 18
Bb4 Sc8 19 Sabl b6 20 g3 #c5,
and Black is close to equalizing;
Kovalev-Laznicka, Chech Republic
2002. 17 a4 Ac6 18 Sb4 #e7 19
Sabl a5 20 Sb6 Sc8, with chances
for both sides; Nyysti-Glek, Heart
of Finland open 2002.
(F5) 12...C4 13 i.e2 £d7 14 #f4
We7 15 £lh2 After 15 h5 g5 16 1*f6
0-0-0 17 Wxe7 £>xe7 18 £\h2 £}g8!
19 £>g4 Sf8 20 f4 gxf4 21 Safl f5,
Black gradually achieves equality;
Zurakhov-Korchnoi, Tbilisi 1956.
15...0-0-0 More convincing than
15...h5 16 £)f3, with a small but
secure plus. 16 £lg4 h5 17 £}f6
Wa3! With this move Black
prepares counterplay on the
queenside. 18 Shbl b6 19 #h2
<&>b7 20 D a6 21 Wgl <*a7= and it
isn't clear how either player can
improve his position; Volokitin-
Vysochin, Alushta 2001.

MacCutcheon Variation 3 £)ci Zhf6 4 Ag5 &b4 175
12#f4
There is scarcely any danger to
Black in 12 Hhbl, to which his
simplest response is 12...c4
However, it's also perfectly possible
to delay this and play 12...JLc6,
continuing (e.g.) only after 13 a4
with 13...c4!?. Then the sacrifice 14
i.xg6 fxg6 15 *rxe6+ tfe7 16
#c8+ Wd8 leads only to a draw;
Kolev-Comas Fabrego, Catalan
Team Ch 1999. 13 £e2 Ac6 14 h4
£)d7 15 £ih2!? The knight heads
for g4. Black has an easy game in
the event of 15 h5 g5 16 £>h2 f5!?
17exf6«xf6=.15...#e7
Black's position is very solid. His
knight is covering the important
square f6, and there are no problems
- for him, anyway - on the
queenside which is almost entirely
closed. 16 #ftt? Or 16 #g3 0-0-0
17 &g4 Sdg8!? 18 «ff3 h5 19 £>f6
(it's obvious that after 19 £te3
£)xe5!? 20 dxe5 d4 21 #f4 dxe3+
22 &xe3 g5 the initiative is with
Black) 19...£kf6 20 exf6 #a3,
with excellent play for Black;
Tseshkovsky-Kobylkin, Krasnodar
1999.16...0-0-0 Another fairly good
line is 16...g5!? 17 hxg5 hxg5 18
#g3 AS 19 exf6 £>xf6 20 Af3 Sh4=
Bakre-Naiditsch, Atom Cup GM
1998. 17 £)g4 Sdf8! 18 £tf6 How
else is White to stop f7-f6, which
would be extremely awkward for
him? On 18 £>xh6? f6 19 exf6 £«f6
20 #e3 £)e4+ 21 *el Sxf2+ Black
has a clear plus. 18...£}xf6 19 exf6
1&a3<x> and Black has no reason to be
worried; Medvegy-Moor, Zug 2001.
White fairly often plays an
immediate 12 h4, when play may
proceed: 12...1fe7 In the event of
12...C4 13 Ae2 We7 14 tff4 Ac6 15
£)h2 £>d7 16 £>g4 h5 (it would be
worth considering 16...0-0-0!? 17
£>xh6 Sdf8 18 #g5 f6») 17 £)f6+
QxflS 18 exf6 #a3 19 #c7!? Sd8
20 Sabl, White's chances are
somewhat preferable; Karjakin-
Kobylkin, Ukrainian Team Ch,
Alushta 2001. In Acs-Stellwagen,
Wijk aan Zee 2003, Black chose the
provocative 12...JLc6!?, and there
followed: 13 £.xg6 fxg6 14 #xe6+
*e7 15 #xg6+ #f7 16 h5 Sg8 17
#xf7+ &xf7<» with unconventional
play. 13 Sabl Or 13 h5 g5 14 dxc5
£x6 15 #d4 £ld7 16 £>h2 £>xc5=.
13...&c6 14 Wf4 The immediate 14
h5 g5 suits Black perfectly well, for

776 MacCutcheon Variation 3 foc3 *hf6 4 $Lg5 k.b4
instance: 15 £>h2 c4 16 JLe2 £>d7
17 #g3 f5 18 exf6 £>xf6=. 14...c4
Or 14...£>d7 15 £lh2 g5oo which is
not bad either. 15 &e2 &d7 16 £ih2
f5 17 exf6 £lxf6?* Arapovic-
Savchenko, Biel open 1996.
The play takes on a different
character after 12 dxc5 1^7!?
Another fairly good line is 12.. JLc6
13 Sabl £>d7 14 Sb4 We7 15 Wf4
£>xc5 16 £id4 #g5= De Firmian-
Sarkar, USA Ch, Seattle 2003. 13
Sabl ±c6 14 h4 Black defends
successfully in the event of 14 £)d4
£id7 15 £)xc6 (or 15 She 1 £>xc5 16
Se3 h5 17 Wg3 0-0-0 18 *el *c7
19 h4 #a5 20 *fl Sd7, and Black
is very firmly entrenched; Anand-
Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2003)
15...bxc6 16 5b7 tfg5+ 17 Wxg5
hxg5 18 h3, and now he can choose
between 18...g4!?and 18...£>xe5 19
Shbl 0-0, Savchenko-Skorchenko,
Krasnodar 2002 - with approximate
equality in either case. 14...£}d7 15
Shel Or 15 Vf4!? &xc5 16 £>d4.
15...£)xc5 16 £>d4 0-0-0! Played
without superstitious fears!
Surprisingly enough, the king will
be relatively safe on the queenside,
thanks mainly to the strong position
of the knight on c5. However, Black
would also be perfectly well off
after 16...Sc8 17 £>xc6!? bxc6 18
Sb4 (18 Se3!?) 18...a5 19 Sbbl
0-0!= Spassky-Relange, France
1991. 17 Sb4 Or 17 £>xc6 bxc6 18
Wb4 ^?d7!?. 17...*c7 18 Wf4 f5!?
with an excellent game for Black;
Klovans-Glek, Bundesliga 1998.
12...i.c6 13 h4
White would only be wasting time
with 13 Shbl c4!? 14 £e2 £kl7 15
h4 We7 16 g4 0-0-0 17 g5, when
Black has quite a good choice
between 17...h5 18 a4 a5 19 <&>el
<£>c7 20 Wcl Sa8 with comfortable
equality, as in A.Hunt-Lalic, Isle of
Man open 1999; and the more
combative 17...hxg5 18 £>xg5 f6 19
exf6 &xf6 20 kft Sdf8°°.
13...£)d7
14&h2!?
The game Zakharchenko-Koutsin,
Kiev open 1999, proceeded
amusingly with 14 Shbl We7 15
dxc5 £bcc5 (an alternative is
15...0-0-0!? 16 £)d4 #xc5«>) 16
^id4 0-0-0 17 &xc6 bxc6 18 *b4
<&>d7! 19 #a5 <&>e8 20 Sb4 *ffi 21
Sabl l4'g7. The black king has
crossed over to the kingside with
astonishing zest, evading all
dangers.
Black also has an easy game in
the case of 14 Shel?! #e7! 15 a4?!
(continuations such as 15 h5!? or 15
Sabl!? would not give White any
advantage, but would still be
preferable to the text move which
merely creates an extra weakness)

MacCutcheon Variation 3 *hc3 Zhf6 4 &g5 kb4 177
15...C4 16 i.e2 a5! 17 Sa2 £lb6 18
<2jh2 g5 19 hxg5 #xg5 20 Wxg5
hxg5, with the initiative on all parts
of the board; Degraeve-Gurevich,
Belfort 1998.
And finally, White occasionally
plays 14 Sh3 with the possible
continuation: 14. .Mel (or 14...
Wa5!? 15 dxc5 0-0-0 16 *b4 Wc7
17 Sel 2df8 18 2g3 2hg8°o
Acs-Delemarre, Bundesliga 2001)
15 dxc5 £)xc5 16 £)d4 0-0-0!? 17
SO (in Spraggett-Glek, Cappelle la
Grande 1998, White ended up in a
difficult position after 17 2b 1 #c7
18 #f6 Shf8 19 f4 £)e4+! 20 &xe4
dxe4f) 17...2d7 18 #f6 *xf6 19
2xf6 h5=.
W& \m/-<*5>^1? ami
mmmm
H m±m m
W>/ Wi W W$
H UfAB B ,
14...#a5!?
Good, but not the only
continuation. It's also worth looking
at 14...#e7!?, when there can
follow: 15 &g4 0-0-0! 16 &xh6 A
roughly equal game results from 16
£>f6!? cxd4 17 cxd4 Wb4+ 18 <&e3
£)b6<=°. 16...f5! 17 exf6 Or 17 g4!?
cxd4 18 cxd4 fxg4 19 £>xg4
(Black's attack is probably
irresistible after 19 Wg5 1^4+ 20
c3 Wb2+ 21 <&e3 Sdf8!, for
instance: 22 £)xg4 Sh5! 23 Wxg6
Sxe5+!! 24 dxe5 d4+! with mate in
a few moves) 19...Sxh4=. 17...£sxf6
18 <5}g4 White needs to be extra
careful. The game Tseshkovsky-
Skorchenko, Krasnodar 2002, went
18 G cxd4! 19 cxd4 £se4+! 20 <4>e2
(it isn't much good recommending
20 fxe4 dxe4 21 £>f7 Shf8 22 #e3
Sxf7 23 £.xe4 &xe4 24 #xe4
11)4+ 25 *cl Wxd4 26 Wxd4
2xd4+), and now 20...Sdf8! 21
#e5 2xh6 22 fxe4 Sh5 23 #g3
dxe4 24 ,&c4 Shf5 would have
emphasized Black's advantage.
18...£>e4+ 19 &xe4 dxe4 20 foe5Z
cxd4 21 £sxc6 Not 21 £ixg6? #c5!
22 £sxh8? Wxc3+ 23 <&e2 i.b5+ -+.
21...bxc6, with approximate
equality in Sutovsky - Zifroni, Israeli
Team Ch 2000.
15 £ig4 0-0-0!
Or 15...cxd4 16 #xd4 h5 17
£)f6+ £)xf6 18 exf6 2c8, and again
the position isn't simple to evaluate.
16 £ixh6
#£
m
" ■ m m n
H wk
^ m m m,
White hasn't much choice, as
either 16 dxc5?! d4! 17 #xd4
£.xg2? or 16 h5 g5 17 #xf7 cxd4

178 MacCutcheon Variation 3 £>cJ t&f6 4 Ag5 kb4
18 1irxe6 dxc3+ would be quite
favourable to Black.
16...Sxh6!
An excellent decision, but then
Black would also have a fine game
after the less committal 16...cxd4!?
17 £>xf7 dxc3+ 18 *e2 2hf8.
17 #xh6 cxd4T
18 h5!?
It's hard to recommend anything
better. After 18 «T4 dxc3+ 19 <£>e2
d4! Black's advantage is plain to
see.
18...dxc3+ 19 &e2 &xe5
Perhaps 19...d4!? would have set
White some even more awkward
problems.
20 hxg6 fxg6 21 #g7 d4
It was worth considering
21...£>xd3! 22 cxd3 #b4! with a
clear plus for Black.
22 Sh8 i.xg2 23 Sxd8+ <&>xd8
24 f4 £f3+ 25 *f2! &xd3+ 26
cxd3 £d5
According to Glek's analysis,
Black would be close to victory
after 26...#d5! 27 #f8+ <&d7 28
#f7+ <&c6 29 #e8+ <&b6 30 Sbl+
&2L5, with a big advantage.
27 #xd4 #a3 28 Sel #xa2+ 29
Se2 c2 30 WhS+ <&d7 31 Wg7+
<&d8 32 #f8+ *d7 33 #g7+
Now the poor black king can't
escape perpetual check. So: Vi-Vi

10: Classical System
3 £k3 £if6 4 ±g5 Ae7
Game 16
Kos - Ziiger
Mitropa Cup, Charleville 2000
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £)c3 £sf6 4
£g5 £e7!?
We are now into the third century
in which this move has had its
supporters! Without taking such a
great strategic risk as in the
MacCutcheon Variation, Black
compels his opponent to resolve the
tension in the centre. Several
possible ways of developing an
initiative are now at White's
disposal. He can exchange on d5 or
on f6 (the so-called Andersson
Attack); the latter does give him
some attacking chances, yet the
absence of his dark-squared bishop
is acutely felt. Finally, the one truly
dangerous move is:
5e5
Black should hardly be afraid of 5
exd5, as he then has various ways of
attaining equality, for instance:
5...^xd5 Or 5...exd5, transposing
into the Exchange Variation; this is
not bad either. 6 &xe7 #xe7 7 #d2
1(1)4!? Of course, it's also hard for
White to find anything against
7...£)d7 8 $B 0-0. 8 £sxd5 #xd2+
9 <4>xd2 exd5 10 Sel+ <&>«! In the
famous game Alekhine-Spielmann,
New York 1927, Black made
several mistakes in a row:
10...Ae6?! 11 £>h3! £>c6?! 12 Ab5
<&>d7 13 £lf4 Sae8 14 c4! *d6 15
c5+ &d7 16 Se5, after which he
had to defend a difficult ending for
70 moves - in vain! 11 JLd3 £)c6
12 c3 Ad7 13 £)f3 f6= Schlechter-
Spielmann, San Sebastian 1911.
In the good old Romantic era, 5
JLxf6 enjoyed a good deal of
popularity, but in our own day it has
become a rarity in tournament
practice. There is nothing surprising
in that, since the art of defence has
made dramatic strides, and without
his dark-squared bishop White is in
no position to create substantial
threats. For example: 5..JLxf6 6 e5
White can't do without this move
anyway. After 6 £rf3 c5!? (Black
shouldn't be in a hurry to castle;
6...0-0 7 e5 Ae7 8 Ad3 c5 9 h4!
would allow White to create

180 Classical System 3 *dc3 £>/<J 4 £.g5 k.el
unpleasant threats on the kingside) 7
exd5 (or 7 e5 £e7=) 7...exd5 8
&b5+ £lc6 9 0-0 0-0, the game is
level. 6...&e7 7 #g4 After 7 f4 c5 8
<&f3 £>c6 9 Wd2 a6!? 10 dxc5 £xc5
11 0-0-0 b5 12 h4 Wb6, the
initiative is with Black; Podkriznik-
Soln, Slovene Ch, Skofja Loka
2000. 7...0-0 8 £d3 After 8 0-0-0 f5
(or 8...c5!?) 9 #h3 c5 10 dxc5 £)c6
11 f4 ^.xc5, Black's attacking
chances are no less real than those
of his opponent; Richter-Stahlberg,
Podebrad 1936. 8...f5!? 9 #h3 c5
10 dxc5 £>c6 11 f4 #a5! with an
excellent game for Black.
5...£>fd7
The "avant-garde" move 5...£ig8
can hardly be a serious alternative.
Utilizing his big advantage in space
and development, White easily
seizes the initiative, for example: 6
jLe3 Another line that isn't at all
bad for White is 6 ±f4!? c5 7 dxc5
&xc5 8 Wg4 *f8 9 0-0-Of
Ivanovic-Bednarski, Balasiha 1977.
6...b6 Opening up the centre does
Black no good: 6...c5 7 dxc5 £ki7 8
Ab5 #c7 9 #d4! £)h6 10 £xh6
±xc5 11 IT4 gxh6 12 £>f3± 011-
Borges, Tallinn 1989. 7 h4! There's
no hurry for White to play 7 #g4 -
after 7...g6 8 h4 h5! 9 ffg3 &a6 10
£>f3 Axfl 11 *xfl Wd7, the most
he can claim is a minimal edge;
Samisch-Nimzowitsch, Berlin 1928.
7...h5!? Or 7...£a6?! 8 &xa6 £sxa6
9 Wg4 g6 10 h5±. 8 k.tl g6 9 £>13
£a6 10 #d2 &xe2 Perhaps
10...#d7!? is more exact. 11 ^xe2
£lc6!? It would be too dangerous to
play 11...C5 12 c4! cxd4 13 £lfxd4
dxc4 14 #c2 #d5 15 £>f4! Wxe5
16 0-0-0, with an attack. 12 £\f4
#d7 13 0-0 <A>f8 14 Saclt
followed by c2-c4, with an excellent
game for White.
A move more worthy of attention
is 5...£te4.
In reply, White usually continues
6 $Lxe7 It isn't that simple to play
the Black side after 6 <£>xe4 Axg5 7
£kg5 Wxg5 8 £)G We7 9 £>f3 We7
10 dxc5! Wxc5 11 &d3 £d7 12
#e2! (White naturally prevents a
bishop exchange) 12...ftc6 13 0-0,
with a clear plus for White;
Aronian-Glek, European Ch,
Istanbul 2003. 6...#xe7 Black can
hardly continue with 6...£)xc3 7
#g4! (the quiet 7 i.xd8 £>xdl 8
i.xc7 £)xb2 9 Sbl £)c4 10 i.xc4

Classical System 3 ^sc3 fof6 4 &g5 !Le7 181
dxc4 11 £)fi £)c6 12 £d6 b6 13
*d2 Ab7 14 <&c3 Sc8 15 £>d2
promises White no more than a
slight endgame advantage; Spassky-
R.Byrne, Moscow 1975) 7...#xe7
(or 7...*xe7!? 8 bxc3 *f8±) 8
#xg7 Wb4 9 #xh8+ <A>d7 10 &f3!
(10 bxc3 #xc3+ 11 *e2 *xc2+ 12
4>f3 #e4+ leads to a draw, while
after 10 &d3 #xb2 11 Sdl £bcdl
12 <*xdl £)c6! 13 #xh7 £)xd4 14
#xf7+ <£>c6 15 #f4 *bl+ 16 Wcl
#xa2 17 h4 b6! it's already Black
who is close to seizing the initiative;
Rantanen-Lputian, Palma open
1989) I0...*rxb2 (variations such as
10...£le4+ 11 &e2 Wxb2 12 &e3±,
or 10...&M+ 11 *e2 #xb2 12
Sxbl #xbl 13 »xh7±, do nothing
to alter the assessment of the
position) 11 <&d2! £fol+ (or
ll...£)e4+ 12 *e3 #xc2 13 Ab5+
c6 14 Ae2 +-) 12 Sxbl Wxbl 13
lrxh7 +- Dominguez-Heidenfeld,
Istanbul ol 2000. 7 £)xe4 Black's
task is simpler in the case of 7 .&d3
£)xc3 8 bxc3 c5 9 £>f3 £k6 10
dxc5 #xc5 11 #d2 Ad7 12 0-0 h6=
Efimenko-Fish, Biel open 2001.
7...dxe4 8 We2 Some interesting
play also results from 8 c3 0-0 9
Wc2 (9 Wg4 f5 10 exf6 Wxf6=
would suit Black very well) 9...f5
10 exf6 (not 10 0-0-0?! c5 11 fi
cxd4 12 cxd4 Ad7!¥) 10...#xf6 11
D £ic6 12 Wxe4 e5 13 d5 Af5 14
We3 £le7 15 0-0-0± Lanc-Glek,
Prague open 1985. 8...b6 9 0-0-0
iLb7 10 g3! White shows a wholly
understandable wish to win the
advanced black pawn. 10...c5 11
jLg2 £>c6 Relatively better than
ll...cxd4 12 &xe4 £>c6 13 f4 0-0
14 £>f3±. 12 dxc5 0-0 Or
12...#g5+!? 13 *bl #xe5 14
&xe4 lfxc5 15 £tf3± 13 £.xe4
&xe5 14 f4 i.xe4 15 #xe4 £sg4 16
WO £sf6 17 c6! Sac8 18 £>e2, and
White's chances are clearly
preferable; Tseshkovsky-Lputian,
Kropotkin 1995.
6h4!?
This move, a dangerous one to
have to face, was employed from
time to time by the little-kown
French player Chatard at the
beginning of the last century, but it
only became known to the chess
world after the famous game
Alekhine-Fahrni, Mannheim 1914.
Thus, the names of a modest
amateur and an illustrious World
Champion became linked together
in the title of this popular variation,
which has been frightening players
of the Black side for nearly a
hundred years now.
By way of compensation for his
sacrificed pawn, White opens the
h-file and acquires the possibility of
massive kingside pressure with his
heavy pieces. He forces Black, at
least temporarily, onto the
defensive.

182 Classical System 3 &c3 Z&f6 4 $Lg5 $Le7
To this day there is no firm
consensus as to which side comes
off better from this variation -
perhaps in the next 100 years
someone will succeed in clarifying
the matter!
The less committal move 6 JLxe7
will be examined in the next
chapter.
6...±xg5
The main question for Black is
whether to accept the pawn
sacrifice, and it seems to me that the
answer depends on your personal
taste. If you like defending while
possessing a material advantage,
then boldly take the pawn. If it goes
against the grain to play any games
without lively complications and a
contest for the initiative, you should
prefer one of the alternative
continuations. For example: -
(A) 6...£)c6 Quite a rare move. 7
,&xe7 It's also worth considering 7
Wil % 8 exf6 £>xf6 9 <&f3 0-0 10
iLd3 with interesting possibilities,
or 7 £)B &b6 8 a3!? f6 9 exf6 gxf6
10 Ah6 &d6 11 £>b5 #e7 12 a4±
Hector-Carlsson, Swedish Ch,
Linkoping 2001. 7...1rxe7 8 a3 To
all appearances this move merely
wastes time. White could continue 8
Wd2 £tt>6 9 0-0-0 &d7 10 h5!?±.
8...£ib6 9 f4 Ad7 10 #d2 0-0-0 11
£sf3 <&>b8 12 h.5, with a minimal
plus for White; Nataf-Morozevich,
Istanbul ol 2000.
(B) 6...h6?! Don't concede
weaknesses in an area where you're
weak already - this general rule is
100% applicable to the present
position! 7 Jk.xe7 White also has
some good possibilities with 7 JLe3
c5 8 Wg4 g6 (8...*f8!?) 9 £rf3 £>c6
10 dxc5 &xc5 (or 10...£>dxe5 11
£lxe5 £>xe5 12 #g3 £te6 13
0-0-0T) 11 0-0-0 a6 12 &xc5!?
Axc5 13 £le4 Ae7 14 #f4, with a
fairly dangerous initiative; Hellers-
Bareev, Gausdal 1986. 7...#xe7 8
f4 a6 9 #g4 f5 10 exf6 £sxf6 11
^g6-t- Wf7 12 £d3± Velimirovic-
Lontoc, Nice ol 1974.
(C) 6...0-0
Over a long stretch of time, this
natural move had a very poor
reputation - which has gradually
started changing for the better,
thanks first and foremost to some
improvements by Mikhail Gurevich.
7 Jk.d3 Interesting complications
also arise from 7 #g4!? f5!? 8
ilxe7 (the alternatives look
welcome to Black: 8 #g3 c5 9 J.h6
SO 10 £sxd5 cxd4, or 8 exf6 &xf6
9 #g3 c5 10 dxc5 £ibd7 11 0-0-0
£)xc5, Kupreichik-Moskalenko,
Pinsk 1986) 8...1fxe7 (better than
8...fxg4 9 £.xd8 Sxd8 10 ±e2 h5
11 £sb5!? &a6 12 c3±) 9 Wg5!

Classical System 3 &c3 *hf6 4 &.g5 $Le7 183
Wb4 (of course Black doesn't intend
to exchange queens, especially on
g5 - after 9...Wxg5 10 hxg5 c5 11
£ib5, White would have the
initiative) 10 0-0-0 c5 11 We7 (it
would also be intersting to try 11
£>b5!?) ll...Wb6 12 £>a4 Wc6 13
£>xc5 £lxc5 14 Wxc5 Wxc5 15
dxc5 &d7 16 £>f3 £>xc5 17 *d2!
JLd7 18 £\d4, with a minimal plus
for White in Arizmendi Martinez-
Gleizerov, Linares 2003. 7...c5!
Black will have a hard time
defending after 7...f5?! 8 £>h3! (it's
also worth considering the sharp 8
g4!, the idea being 8...c5 9 gxf5
cxd4 10 f6! with an attack)
8...£k6!? (in the event of 8...£>a6?!
9 Axa6 bxa6 10 £>a4 We8 11 0-0
c5 12 £>f4 Wf7 13 c4!, White's
advantage is only too obvious;
Khalifman-Ulibin, Sochi 1989) 9
£>e2 £)b4 10 £>ef4 £)xd3+ 11
Wxd3 £)b6 12 0-0-0T Zezulkin-
Lempert, Czestochowa 1991. 8
£>h3!? White would definitely seem
to achieve no more than a draw with
8 Wh5!? g6 9 Wh6 cxd4! 10 &D
£>xe5!? (on 10...dxc3? 11 h5! cxb2
12 Sbl &b4+ 13 <£>dl f6 14 hxg6
+- White's attack is irresistible) 11
£>xe5 dxc3 12 £\xg6!? (it's hard to
find anything better) 12...fxg6 13
&xg6 hxg6 14 Wxg6+ <&h8=.
8...g6! Black would lose at once
with 8...cxd4? 9 £xe7 Wxe7 10
Axh7+! &xh7 11 Wh5+ *g8 12
£\g5 +-. 9 f4 cxd4 10 £se2 Not 10
&ol, which is too slow; after e.g.
10...£ic6 11 £id2 £ic5 12 £rf2 f6!
Black already has the initiative.
10...1ra5+ 11 Wd2 White can
scarcely be happy with 11 &f2 f6!.
ll...Wxd2+ 12 <&xd2 &b4+ 13
*dl f6 14 i.h6 fxe5!? 15 i.xf8
JLxf8, with sufficient compensation
for the exchange sacrifice; Relange-
Gurevich, Belfort 1997.
(D) 6...f6
7 Wh5+ The game Panov-
Yudovich, Tbilisi Ch 1937, ended
surprisingly quickly: 7 jLd3?! c5!
(or 7...fxg5!?, as there is no mate in
sight after 8 Wh5+ *f8 9 Sh3 g6!
10 i.xg6 *g7«) 8 Wh5+ *f8 9
£>xd5?! (a better choice is 9 exf6
£sxf6 10 &xf6 &xf6 11 dxc5 Wa5
12 £ige2!, so that if 12...d4 then 13
b4! Wxb4 14 Sbl Wa5 15 Hb5T)
9...fxg5 10 2h3 g4! 11 £tf4 £>xe5!
12 dxe5 gxh3 13 £xh7 2xh7! 14
Wxh7 h2 -+ and the sprightly black
pawn decided the fate of the duel!
7...'&>f8 Black has a difficult game
after 7...g6?! 8 exf6! £>xf6 9 We2
c5 10 dxc5 £ia6 11 0-0-0 0-0 12
£h6 Se8 13 h5!, with an attack;
Van Riemsdijk-Mastroianni, Saenz
Pena 1997. 8 exf6 £ixf6 9 We2!?
This is probably stronger than 9
WD c5 10 dxc5 b6!? 11 h5! h6 12
£xf6 (or 12 £h4 £k6 13 £)h3 bxc5
14 £>f4 £se5£) 12...±xf6 13 £>h3

J 84 Classical System 3 *hc3 tyti 4 &g5 &e7
£ic6 14 £)f4 bxc5 15 &d3! (or 15
£>g6+ <&g8 16 £kh8 &xh8s)
15...£)e5 16 £>g6+ £)xg6 17 &xg6
#d6, with highly complex play that
is hard to assess correctly; Keres-
Stahlberg, Stockholm 1959. 9...c5
10 dxc5 £)a6 In Stefansson-Bricard,
Reykjavik 1993, White retained the
initiative after 10...b6!? 11 c6!?
£lxc6 12 &f3 <&f7 13 £f4 &d6 14
&xd6 #xd6 15 0-0-0 Se8 16
£\b5± 11 £>f3 £)xc5 12 0-0-0 b5
13 #e3! More convincing than 13
£>xb5°' Sb8 14 &bd4 #a5!S.
13...b4 14 £>b5! £d7 15 £)e5, with
a promising game for White;
Vitomskis-Carleton, corr 1996.
(E) 6...a6 For many years this
move was virtually considered the
main line, but recently Black hasn't
been having much success with it. 7
#g4 White has to play aggressively.
After 7 £if3 c5 8 dxc5 £>xc5 9 Wd2
<£c6 10 &d3 b5 11 0-0-0 &b7,
Black obtains equal chances;
E.Pahtz-Macek, European Team Ch,
Leon 2001.
From the diagram, the
possibilities are as follows.
(El) Black is not to be envied
after 7...f6 8 Wh5+ g6 9 exf6! gxh5
Or 9...£lxf6 10 #e2 c5 11 £rf3T. 10
fxe7 #xe7 11 £xe7 &xe7 12 Ae2
£tf6 13 £>h3± Gershkowich-
Bykhovsky, Tel-Aviv 2002.
(E2) 7...h5 8 #g3 £.xg5 9 hxg5
g6 10 0-0-0 b5 11 We3 Sg8 12 f4
similarly leads to a clear plus for
White; M.Rytschagov-Bykhovsky,
Cappelle la Grande 1993. The next
two variations are more popular
alternatives to 7...Axg5.
(E3) 7...&f8 8 £lf3!? Some tense
play results from 8 Wf4 c5 9 dxc5
<&c6 10 £sf3 #c7!? 11 Axe7+
<4>xe7 12 0-0-0 £scxe5 13 Wg3 *f8
14 Sel f6 15 &xe5 £\xe5 16 h5,
with some initiative for White;
Volokitin - Harikrishna, World
Under-12 Ch, Cannes 1997. 8...h6
White's pressure is highly
unpleasant in the event of 8...c5 9
dxc5 £>c6 10 0-0-0 £)cxe5 11 £lxe5
&xe5 12 &xe7+ *xe7 13 Wg3,
Vrenegoor-Kuijf, Amsterdam open
1996; at this point, not even
13...£)d7 14 £)a4! would have
relieved Black of his problems. 9
&xe7+ Wxe7 10 b.5 c5 11 dxc5
£k6 12 Wf4 #xc5 13 0-0-0 b5 14
Ad3±
(E4) 7...f5 8 Wh5+! It's also
worth considering the less popular
continuations 8 exf6!? £>xf6 9 We2
and 8 #g3 c5 9 £>f3 foc6 10 0-0-0.
8...g6 9 #h6 &xg5 Not 9...*f7,
which loses to 10 h5! itxg5 11
hxg6+ 4>g8 12 gxh7+ *f7 13 #h5+
<£>g7 14 £tf3 £e7 15 Sh3 +-. 10
hxg5 lfe7 Relatively better than
10...*f7 11 g4!±. H&ge2&f8Not

Classical System 3 *hc3 <hf6 4 &g5 $Le7 185
11...C5? 12 £>f4 Qffi 13 £)cxd5!
exd5 14 £>xd5 Wd8 15 £sf6+ <4>f7
16 £c4+ +-. 12 £>f4, and White has
an impressive advantage while
Black can't even dream about
creating counterplay.
(E5) 7...&xg5 8 hxg5 c5
9 g6!? Perhaps the most
promising continuation. However, 9
dxc5!? has also been tested plenty
of times in practice. There can
follow: 9...£>xe5 (or 9...£k6 10
&fi £)dxe5 11 £ixe5 £ke5 12 #g3
£kT7!? [in the well-known game
Degraeve-Gurevich, Belfort 1997,
Black encountered severe
difficulties after 12...£sg6 13 0-0-0 ^.d7 14
Ad3 Wb8 15 #e3 £>e7 16 £xh7 g6
17 &xg6!±] 13 0-0-0 £ixc5 14 g6!?
fxg6 15 Sxh7 Sxh7 16 #xg6+ *ffi
17 #xh7 #g5+ 18 Sd2 #h6 19
tfxh.61 Ivanovic-Shaboian, Pula
open 1990) 10 «g3 &bc6 11
0-0-0±. 9...f5! If 9...fxg6, then 10
2xh7! Sxh7 11 #xg6+. 10 Wf4 It's
easier for Black to defend in the
case of 10 #g3 h6 11 £>f3 0-0! 12
0-0-0 £ic6 13 £le2 cxd4 14 £lexd4
f4!°o Khalifman-Gurevich, Moscow
TV. 10...h6
11 £sf3 It isn't clear how real
White's advantage is after 11 dxc5
0-0 12 0-0-0! £>xc5 13 i.c4!?
#e8!D 14 Hxd5! £ie4! 15 £>xe4
fxe4 16 #g4! £>c6! 17 Sd2 e3! 18
fxe3 £)xe5 19 Wxe4 £ixc4 20 #xc4
b5°°. 11...0-0 Black's position is too
passive after ll...cxd4 12 <£)xd4
£>f8 13 ktl £>c6 14 0-0-0 £>xd4 15
Sxd4 i.d7 16 Ah5t Karklins-
Krupenski, Riga 2002. 12 0-0-0
£ic6 13 dxc5! £>xc5 On 13...We8?!
it would be worth considering 14
£)xd5!? exd5 15 Sxd5 with
numerous threats, even though
Black's defensive capacity is not
exhausted; in particular, he could
continue 15...b5!?. 14 &c4! We8u
15 Sxd5! £)e4! Typical play in this
variation, with blows and
counterblows in succession. Of course the
rook couldn't be taken - 15...exd5?
16 Sxh6!! gxh6 17 #xh6, and mate
is not far off. 16 £id4! This time,
after 16 Sxh6 gxh6 17 #xh6 #e7
18 £ixe4 fxe4 19 £>g5 %7, Black
defends successfully. 16...£lxd4
There is hardly any improvement
for Black in 16...£lxc3 17 bxc3
#xg6 18 £ixc6 bxc6 19 Sd3!. 17
Sxd4 £ixc3 18 bxc3 #xg6 19 Sd3

186 Classical System 3 foc3 £>/<5 4 $Lg5 k.el
#xg2 20 5xh6! We4 21 Wg5, and
White's attack is practically
irresistible; Pavlovic-Stamenkovic,
Yugoslav Team Ch, Niksic. Of
course not all the moves were
forced, but in any event it's
extremely hard for Black to defend
against his opponent's splendidly
co-ordinated actions.
(F) 6...C5!? 7 Jfi.xe7 Black can be
perfectly happy with the course of
the play after either 7 #g4 &xg5!?
8 hxg5 cxd4! 9 £>b5 &xe5 10 Wg3
£>bc6, or 7 &b5 f6! (White has the
better chances following 7...cxd4? 8
£>d6+ *f8 9 tflrf £>xe5 10 ±xe7+
#xe7 11 #xe5 £>c6 12 #g3 e5 13
Wa3+ Kuzmin-Khuzman, USSR Ch
semi-final 1989) 8 &d3 a6 9 fTi5+
*f8 10 Bh3 axb5 (the game
continuation quickly leads to peace
being concluded; on the other hand,
Black might very well be able to
play for a win with 10...cxd4!?) 11
Ah6 #a5+ (if Black plays 1 l...gxh6
12 *xh6+ *f7 13 Wh5+ *ffi, then
White, according to his mood, can
either end the game by perpetual
check or else fish in troubled waters
with 14 Axh7!?) 12 Ad2 Wc7 13
Sg3 cxd4 14 £>f3 £>xe5 15 Bxg7!
h6! (not 15...<&>xg7? which loses to
16 £h6+ *g8 17 #e8+) 16 £h7!
(16 JLxh6? is easily refuted by
16...Sxh6! 17 #xh6 £b4+ -+. Nor
can White be happy with 16 Sg3
£rf7! 17 Wgfi &d6 18 #g7+ *e8!
19 Ag6 Hf8 20 &xh6 <&d7 -+)
16...<4>xg7 17 #xh6+ *f7 18 #h5+
lA-lA Sorokin-Ulibin, Cheliabinsk
1991.
7...i>xe7 Black much more rarely
plays the interesting 7...1irxe7, a
move that shows he is ready to
make major sacrifices in the fight
for the initiative. There can follow:
8 £>b5 0-0 9 £>c7 cxd4 (it isn't clear
how substantial Black's
compensation for the exchange is after
9...£>xe5!? 10 £>xa8 cxd4 11 #xd4
£>bc6 12 Wd2 b6 13 £e2 Ab7 14
£>f3 Sxa8 15 £>xe5 £)xe5 16 0-0-0
Sc8 17 Sh3± Riumin-Lilienthal,
Moscow 1935) 10 £ka8 £>c6 (it
hardly pays Black to go in for
10...1134+, with the practically
forced continuation 11 #d2 Wxb2
12 Sdl £>c6 13 £)f3 £>c5 14 Ad3
Ad7 15 £k7 Sc8, Christoffel-
Guimard, Groningen 1946; at this
point the simple 16 ^xd5! exd5 17
0-0 would have guaranteed White a
clear plus. A more intense struggle
develops from 10...f6 11 #xd4!
£>c6 12 Wd2 fxe5 13 0-0-0 £>f6 14
O «U6 15 £fo3! &d7 16 &b5 Sxa8
17 Shel, with a minimal edge for
White; Vitolins-Kopmann, Cologne
1992) 11 £>f3 (11 &c7 f6!? 12 #d2
fxe5 13 £>b5 a6 14 ^a3 £>f6 leads
to obscure complications) ll...f6 12
£>xd4 £)dxe5 13 &e2 £)xd4 14

Classical System 3 £>ci £>/6 4 $Lg5 $Le7 187
#xd4 &c6 15 Wd2 Wd6 16 0-04
Zezulkin-Maiorov, Krasnodar 1998.
At the present time, players with
White have been neutralizing their
opponents' initiative effectively
enough, but it won't surprise me if
some interesting new possibilities
are discovered for Black. After
7...'&xe7, White's usual choice is
between the following:
(Fl) 8 Wh5 £k6 9 dxc5 £idxe5
10 0-0-0 occurred in Frolov-
Gleizerov, St Petersburg open 1995.
At this point Black should have
opted for lO-WaS!? 11 f4 Unclear
play results from 11 #g5+ <£>f8 12
£>B!? £>xfi 13 gxG #xc5 14 Hgl
Sg8 15 ±d3 h6 16 #g3 f5.
Il...&d7 12 f5 £)f6 13 fgS #xc5,
with fairly good prospects.
(F2) 8 %4 £ic6 Black also quite
often plays 8...'^>f8, when there can
follow: 9 £>f3 (9 dxc5!? £lxe5 10
#g3 deserves attention) 9...£k6 (if
9...cxd4 10 Wxd4 Wb6 11 Wf4!?,
then ll...Wxb2 12 <&d2 £ic6!ao
leads to interesting play) 10 dxc5
£klxe5 (this is the more important
pawn to take; a game Bogoljubow-
Alekhine, Poland 1942, went
10...£>xc5 11 0-0-0 a6 12 Sh3 h6
13 Hg3 Sg8 14 &d3, and Black was
left in a difficult position without
any counterplay) 11 £}xe5 <£}xe5 12
#g3 f6 13 h5 £>f7 14 0-0-0 £ld7 15
iLb5! with initiative for White;
Bellon Lopez - Gleizerov, Rilton
Cup, Stockholm 2002. 9 Wg5+ Or 9
dxc5 £>dxe5 10 Wxg7 &d7 11
0-0-0 #a5 12 f4 2ag8«. 9...&f8 10
#xd8+ £lxd8 11 f4 b6!? In
Varavin-Chuprikov, Alushta 2002,
Black played the less convincing
ll...cxd4 12 £>b5 £k6 13 £>f3 <&c5
14 <&bxd4 £d7 15 h5 h6 16 Ad3±.
12 &D £)c6 13 0-0-0 *e7=.
(F3) Kovalev-Dreev, Simferopol
1988, went 8 £)f3 cxd4 9 #xd4
£k6 10 #f4 #c7 11 0-0-0 £>dxe5
12 <&>bl *b8», which can hardly
suit White. In the game, he didn't
manage to demonstrate adequate
compensation for the pawn.
(F4) 8 dxc5!? A comparatively
new and interesting move.
8...£>xe5 In Morozevich-
Korchnoi, Biel 2003, the mistaken
8...«\:7?! landed Black in
considerable trouble after 9 f4!
#xc5 10 #d2 &c6 11 £>D £>b6 12
a3 a5 13 h5t. 9 We2! An important
refinement in comparison with
Hector-Gleizerov, Viking open
1997, in which Black achieved quite
a good game after 9 #d2 £lbc6 10
0-0-0 Se8 11 h5!? (on 11 £>b5 4>f8
12 £>d6 Se7, Black hopes in due
course to drive away the enemy
knight by b7-b6) ll...h6! 12 f4
£\d7?2. 9...&bc6 Instead 9...f6 10 f4
£lec6 looks too hazardous for

188 Classical System 3 &c3 $)f6 4 ±g5 &e7
Black, e.g. 11 0-0-0 *f7 12 &b5
(similarly after 12 f5!? 2e8 13
Wh5+ *>g8 14 £>f3! Black has no
cause whatever for optimism)
12...Sf8 13 £)d6+ <£>g8 14 f5! with
a dangerous attack. 10 0-0-0
White's position also strikes me as
highly attractive in the case of 10 f4
£>g6 (or 10...£kl7 11 £>xd5+ *f8
12 £>c3 £>xc5 13 £lf3 b6 14 We3t)
11 f5 £>d4 12 Wf2 £>xf5 13 g4 £>h6
14 JLh3, with a powerful initiative.
10...#a5!? An attempt to improve
on 10...&f8 11 f4 £>d7 12 £tf3 (12
f5 £sxc5 13 £)f3 h5!? 14 £ig5 d4!
led to obscure complications in
Golubev-Volkov, Romanian Team
Ch, Sovata 2001) 12...£)xc5 13 <&>bl
b6!? (the unfortunate 13...b5?!
brought Black to the verge of defeat
after 14 #e3! 1Td6 15 Hxd5! exd5
16 £>xd5 Wd8 17 Wxc5+ £)e7 18
£>c3, Sakaev-Ulibin, Dubai 2000; a
line more worthy of attention is
13...Wa5!? 14 #e3 £)a4 15 £lxa4
#xa4 16 &d3 b6°o) 14 f5!? (14 We3
&a6 15 ±xa6 £ixa6 16 f5T is
interesting too) 14...exf5 15 Sxd5
Wf6 16 #d2 &e6 17 Sd6 Sd8 18
JLc4, with chances for both sides;
Minasian-Bagirov, European Ch,
Batumi 2002. 11 41)1!? Of course
you don't like spending precious
time on a move like this, but after
11 f4?! d4! 12 fxe5 (or 12 £)e4 £kl7
13 #c4 f5 14 £>g5 £lxc5+)
12...dxc3 13 We3 #xa2 Black's
chances are not at all worse; Hector-
Gleizerov, Stockholm 2001. It
would be worth considering 11 Sh3,
which Black should probably
answer with lL.^fB, seeing that
after ll...d4?! 12 Sxd4! £ixd4 13
#xe5 Sd8 14 Wxg7 Wxc5 15 Ad3
White's initiative is very dangerous
- for instance 15...£tf5 16 Wg5+ f6
17 #h5 #xf2 18 #xh7+ <£>f8 19
Wh8+ &e7 20 #xf6+! <£>xf6 21
£se4+ <4>e7 22 £lxf2, with a clear
endgame advantage. Il...^f8 12 f4
£k4 13 #0 #xc5 14 £.xc4 WXC4
15 £}ge2, with some compensation
for the pawn.
(F5)8f4!?
8...#b6 On 8...cxd4 9 Wxd4
1^6!, White can choose either 10
#xb6 <£xb6 11 h5 h6 12 £lf3 £d7
13 £fo5 £>c6 with a more or less
nominal advantage, or else a pawn
sacrifice with unclear consequences:
10#d2#xb2 llSbl Wa3 12Sb3
Wa5 13 Sb5 Wd8 14 f5!? £ic6?i
Frolov-Volkov, Perm open 1997. A
move that deserves further practical
testing is 8...£k6, for instance: 9
dxc5 (I find it hard to believe that
White can expect anything much
from 9 £lf3 cxd4 10 £)xd4 *b6!?)
9...£>xc5 (or 9...Wa5 10 £>f3 Wxc5
11 #d2 h6 12 0-0-0 Sb8 13 £>b5!±)
10 Wg4!? <4>f8 11 0-0-0 a6!? (in
Riumin-Stahlberg, Moscow 1935,
Black ran into dificulties after

Classical System 3 £)c3 &/6 4 $.g5 &e7 189
ll...£.d7 12£>OSc8 13 Sh3 h5 14
#g3 g6 15 #f2! Vitb6 16 £id4
£ixd4 17 #xd4 a6 18 &e2T) 12
£if3 (or 12 h5!?) 12...b5 13 £d3 b4
14 £le2 #a5, with obscure
complications; Cippoli-Terrer, corr
2000. 9 £>a4 On 9 £>f3 #xb2! 10
£}b5, it is Black who has a choice;
he can settle for 10...a6 11 Sbl (not
11 £)c7? #c3+! 12 4?f2 Sa7 -+)
ll...#xa2 12 Sal 1^2= as in
B.Maksimovic-Ulibin, Cheliabinsk
1990, or he can play for a win with
10...1rb4+ 11 <£>f2 a6! 12 £id6!?
£>c6?i. 9...Wa5+ 10 c3 b6 Of
course, neither 10...cxd4 11 b4± nor
10...C4 11 b4! #c7 12 £>f3± can be
to Black's liking; however, after
10...£>c6 11 £>xc5 £ixc5 12 dxc5
#xc5 he is close to attaining
equality. 11 Sbl!? Similar positions
result from 11 a3 c4 12 b4 cxb3 13
#xb3 £a6 14 &xa6 &xa6°°. White
can hardly claim any real advantage
in the event of 11 £lf3 &c6 12 *f2
i.a6 13 &xa6 #xa6 14 b3 Sac8 15
Wd2 cxd4 16 cxd4 #a5oo
Kovalev-Chuprikov, Alushta 2003.
11...C4!? 12 b4 cxb3 13 Wxb3!? Or
13 axb3 b5 14 £fo2 *xc3+ 15 <4>f2
£a6 16 £ie2 #a5, and White still
has to demonstrate how far the
activity of his pieces compensates
for the sacrificed (or lost!) pawn;
Hector-Gretarsson, Gentofte 1999.
13...&a6 14 £.xa6 £>xa6 15 £ie2
f5!?, with good chances of
equalizing.
7 hxg5 Wxg5 8 &h3
There was a long period when
White played this natural move
without much thought, almost
automatically. In recent times,
however, probably dissatisfied with
the results of the theoretical dispute,
he has started looking for alternative
continuations. Thus in some games
8 £ib5 has been played, when there
can follow: 8...Wd8 In Vouldis-
Luther, Fiirth 2002, Black played
the less convincing 8...£>a6 9 £lh3
Wei 10 #g4 f5 11 #g3 £rf8 12
0-0-0 &d7 13 £tf4 &xb5 14 &xb5+
c6 15 JLxa6 bxa6 16 Sd3, with
advantage to White. 9 Wg4 g6 10
0-0-0 It would be worth thinking
about 10 c4!?. 10...a6 11 £ic3 c5 12
f4 £k6 13 dxc5 &xc5 14 £if3
Ad7» Velimirovic-Antic,
Yugoslavia 1999.
Of late, 8 #d3!? has become
highly popular.
Black usually replies with 8...g6 It
would be hard to recommend
8...£)c6?! 9 £)f3 #g6 10 #xg6 fxg6
11 £>b5 &e7 (unfortunately Black
can't play 11...4^8 on account of
12 £)g5±) 12 £>xc7 Sb8 13 £>b5
with a small but stable plus for
White, Kasparov-Korchnoi, Zurich
2001; or 8...h5 9 £)f3 #e7 10 g4!
g6 (the verdict is not altered by
10...h4 11 0-0-0 £ib6 12 #e3 ^c6
13 g5 £d7 14 £kh4 0-0-0 15 f4±)

190 Classical System 3 Z&c3 *hf6 4 k.g5 ±e7
11 gxh5 gxh5 12 lfe3 £)b6 13 0-0-0
£d7 14 Ae2 £)c6 15 Wf4! and
White undoubtedly has the
initiative, Hector-Brynell, Goteborg
1999. Finally, the passive 8...£>f8
fails to rid Black of his problems: 9
£)f3 We7 10 0-0-0 b6 11 &h4 &b7
12 f4 £>c6 13 #g3! f5? (it would
also be sheer pleasure to play the
White side in the event of 13...g6 14
f5! 0-0-0 15 f6T) 14 £>xd5! exd5 15
£>xf5 Wf7 16 £)xg7+ *d8 17 f5,
and White's attack is already
difficult to withstand; Nataf-Graf,
Bundesliga 2002. 9 £lf3 #e7 10
#e3 £te6!? It seems to me to be in
Black's interest to keep the game as
closed as possible. In Grischuk-
Brynell, Bundesliga 2002, he
continued riskily with 10...a6 11
0-0-0 c5 12 dxc5 Wxc5 13 #f4 £>c6
14 &d3 Wb4 (I hope you wouldn't
seriously consider capturing on
f2...!?) 15 ±e4!! (a brilliant
solution; a queen exchange doesn't
for one moment figure in White's
plans!) 15...dxe4 16 £>xe4 Sf8 (I
don't think many players would
wish to test the strength of the
White attack after 16...!^ either:
17 £sd6+ *e7 18 #g5+ f6 19 exf6+
£>xf6 20 #c5, etc.) 17 a3 #e7 18
#63!?, and after a few moves the
black king met a hero's death. 11
0-0-0 £>b6 12 2h6!? Some
interesting variations also arise from
12 £>g5 h5 (12...h6!? merits
attention) 13 Sh3 £\a5 14 b3 J.d7
15 Hf3 fif8 16 £sh7 Sh8 17 £if6+
<&>d8 18 Wf4 JieSoo Velimirovic-
Jeremic, Yugoslav Ch, Budva 2002.
12...±d7 13 #g5 a6!? Or
13...1rxg5+ 14 £lxg5 &e7 15 £kh7
Sac8 16 f4± Hector-Brynell, Malmo
1993. 14 &e2 It isn't clear how
White can improve his position after
141T6 0-0-0 15 £)g5 *xf6 16 exf6
&e8 17 Sxh7 Sxh7 18 £ixh7 Ad7,
when Black aims to take control of
the h-file. 14...#xg5 15 £>xg5 &e7
16 £)xh7 Sag8 17 Sh3 £e8!?, and
to all appearances Black can count
on a successsful defence.
8...#e7
White has an easy game in the
event of 8..;»h6 9 g3 It's also
worth considering the sharp 9 $L<33
a6 10 Wg4 c5 11 f4!? cxd4 12
£>f2?* Yurtaev-Levin, Riga 1988.
9...a6 Black is hard pressed after
9...f6 10 £sb5!? <£>d8 11 #g4! fxe5
12 £>g5. 10 f4 c5 11 i.d3 g6 12
#f3, with excellent compensation
for the pawn; Tartakower-Lasker,
1924.
9£)f4
m±mm±m±
\ mtm m
WB, f*%b W% Wh
H m fu.
*m m m &
Similar positions result from 9
#g4 g6 The game A.Ivanov-
Crouch, Dutch open Ch 1992, saw
the less convincing 9...f5 10 Wg3
£>c6 11 0-0-0 £\f8 12 £tf4 »f7 13
A.e2, with numerous threats. 10
£sf4oo.

Classical System 3 the 3 fofS 4 &.g5 JLe7 191
9...£ic6
In the original game Alekhine-
Fahrni, Mannheim 1914, Black was
soon crushed after 9...£lf8? 10 #g4
f5 11 exf6 gxf6 12 0-0-0 c6 13 Sel
&d8 14 Hh6±. In our own day,
unfortunately, we can't rely on such
a poor standard of defence from our
opponents!
Black can also scarcely hope to
defend successfully with 9...a6 10
#g4 g6 In the classic game
Keres-Wade, USSR v. England
1954, Black suffered disaster in the
opening with 10...*f8 11 Wf3 &g8
12 &d3 c5 13 &xh7+! Sxh7 14
Sxh7 <&xh7 15 0-0-0 f5 16 2hl+
*g8 17 Sh8+ +-. 11 #g3!? Or 11
0-0-0!?, which isn't bad either; then
11...c5 is strongly met by 12 #g3!,
with various threats against d5 and
g6. Il„.£to6 On 11...C5? 12 £>fxd5!
exd5 13 £>xd5 Wd8 14 e6! +- Black
is put out of his misery at once. 12
JLd3, and already White is seriously
threatening JLd3xg6!.
A good deal more often Black
plays 9...g6. In reply White can
choose between 10 Wg4, which
transposes into the main line after
10...£)c6, and 10 £d3! which may
well be stronger. Then there can
follow: lO^^gS Against moves
such as 10...C6, 10.. .£k6 or
10...£lb6 White proceeds at once to
sacrifices. Let's look at some
illustrative variations: 10...£fo6 11
£.xg6! £te6 (it would be hard to
recommend either ll...fxg6 12
£>xg6 #g7 13 £>xh8 #xh8 14
#h5+ ±, or 1 l...»g5 12 Sh5! #xf4
13 g3 fxg6 14 gxf4 gxh5 15
#xh5+) 12 £xh7 #g5
(unfortunately for Black, 12..JLd7 loses to 13
&g6!) 13 g3 i.d7 14 #d3±. There
is likewise little joy for Black in
10...£sf8 11 &fxd5! exd5 12 £«d5
#d8 13 £>f6+ &e7 14 Wf3 c6 (or
14...Wxd4 15 0-0-0) 15 0-0-0 £e6
16 d5! cxd5 17 £e4!? #c7 18
£>xd5+ ±xd5 19 Wf6+ *e8 20
.&xd5 +- as in a game Ageichenko-
Estrin. 11 #d2 a6 12 &xg6!
Despite his efforts, Black hasn't
managed to prevent this standard
blow. 12...£\xe5 The game
Fressinet-Vallin, French Ch 2000,
went 12...fxg6 13 £ixe6 #xd2+ 14
&xd2, and now even against the
best defence, 14...Sa7, White gains
an obvious plus with 15 £)xc7+
&d8 16 £)7xd5. 13 Hh5! £>c4 In
the event of 13...£>f3+ 14 gxf3
#gl+ 15 &e2 Wxal 16 &xf7+!
&xf7 17 £tfxd5!, the poor black
king is compelled to fight alone
against the whole of the white army.
14 Sxg5 &xd2 15 &d3 £sc4 16
£>cxd5! exd5 17 &xd5 £ib6 18
£lxc7+ *f8 19 £ixa8 £sxa8 20
&d2± and the ensuing ending
promises nothing good for Black;
Velimirovic-Stojanovic, Yugoslav
Ch, Podgorica 1996.

192 Classical System 3 *hc3 £hf6 4 $Lg5 ke7
10'#'-4
Against 10 #d2, Black has so far
managed to defend himself with
10...g6On 10...b6 11 £ib5!?£>f8 12
c4! dxc4 13 d5! exd5 14 0-0-0!
White's attack is hard to withstand.
11 £lfxd5!? In Pavlovic-Kosic,
Yugoslav Team Ch, Herceg Novi
2001, the game levelled out after 11
&b5 a6 12 &xc6 bxc6 13 0-0-0
Ab7 14 £id3 c5=. Il...exd5 12
&xd5 #d8 13 #f4 Or 13 Ab5?*.
13...g5!? 14 #e4 £\e7 15 &f6+
£sxf6 16 exf6 &f5!= Sax-
Kovacevic, Croatian Team Ch 1996.
A good deal remains unclear in
the variation 10 £b5!? H)4!? 11
JLxc6 If White wants, he can go in
for a line such as 11 £>fe2!? #xb2
12 a3 £)xd4 13 Sa2G £>xc2+ 14
&fl 11)3 15 2xc2 a6, with an
unusual material balance and
strange play. Il...bxc6 12 Sh3
Sometime it will also be interesting
to try out 12 a3!? Wc4!? 13 Sh3
c5!°°. 12...Sb8! with mutual
chances.
10...g6
Interesting complications result
from 10...£>xd4 11 0-0-0 After the
mistaken 11 #xg7?, White is forced
onto the defensive by ll...!rf8 12
Wxf8+ <4>xf8 13 0-0-0 c5 14 Sh5 b6
15 £>b5 £)c6! Sion Castro-Mellado,
Leon 1997. Il...£)f5 It's worth
considering ll...c5!? 12 Wxg7
#f8». 12 £ifxd5! exd5 Not
12...£>xe5? which loses to 13 Wa4+
Ml 14 £>xc7+ *f8 15 #e4 +-. 13
£ixd5 WxeS!? White's advantage is
obvious in the case of 13...£bce5?!
14 #a4+ (14 We2 #d6 15 f4T
deserves attention too) 14...JLd7 15
JLb5!?, with a powerful initiative.
14 Ab5!? 0-0 15 &xd7 &xd7!?
Instead, 15...£>h6 seems to be very
well answered by 16 #h4!? or 16
#h5!?, with the better game in
either case. 16 Wh5 f6!? I don't
think Black can have genuine
problems after 16...h6!? either; the
game Aronian-Luther, Bundesliga
2001, continued 17 She 1 Wd6 18
£>e7+ £>xe7 19 Sxd6 cxd6 20 Sxe7
.&c6, with roughly equal chances.
17 #xh7+ The advantage would
already pass to Black after 17 fihel
£)g3! 18 #xe5 fxe5 19 fxg3 £g4+.
17...*f7 18 #h5+, and now Black
can choose between 18...'ifeg8= and
the sharp 18...g6!?.
11 0-0-0

Classical System 3 &c3 Zhf6 4 Ag5 &e7 193
ll...h5!
To me this seems more promising
than ll...£lb6 12 Sh6!? An
excellent move, blockading Black's
kingside. On 12 £.b5!?, Black could
switch plans and play 12...h5!? after
all. 12...M1 13 £.b5 White also
keeps a small plus after 13 Wh3
0-0-0 14 2xh7 Hxh7 15 Vitxhl £e8
Polivanov-Shemeakin, Ukrainian
Ch, Sevastopol 2000. 13...0-0-0
Sometimes Black plays 13...£la5, in
the hope of exchanging bishops. In
reply, 14 Sdhl! is worth
considering, e.g. 14....&xb5 15
Sxh7 Sxh7 16 Sxh7 0-0-0 (on
16...&c6 17 £)xg6! #M 18 a3 #c4
19 Wh4, Black is defenceless) 17
£sxb5T. Perhaps a better try is
13...£)b4!?, for instance: 14 £xd7+
(now 14 Sdhl Axb5 15 Sxh7 Sxh7
16 Sxh7 0-0-0 17 £)xb5 £lxa2+ 18
&bl 1T34! leads to a draw)
14...£ixd7 15 Sdhl £>f8 16 a3 &a6
17 £>b5!? Loskutov-Iljushin, St
Petersburg 2000; White has enough
compensation for the pawn, but it's
unclear whether he can expect
anything more. 14 .&xc6! i«Lxc6 15
Sdhl £k4 After 15...1rb4 16 &d3
#c4 17 Sxh7 Sxh7 18 Sxh7 ±e8
19 #h4, White's advantage is
obvious; Thorhallsson-Gdanski,
European Junior Ch, Groningen
1986. 16 Sxh7 Simplest, although
two other lines also promise White
the better chances: either 16 £kl3 f6
17 exf6 lfxf6 18 Sxh7 Sxh7 19
Sxh7 Ml 20 b3 &d6 21 £)e5, or
16 a3 b6 17 Sxh7 Sxh7 18 Hxh7
&b7 19 £>xg6 Sg8 20 £>xe7 Sxg4
21 &xc6 <&xc6 22 g3 Sxd4,
Sax-Kovacevic, Vinkovci 1993; and
now 23 f4!. 16...Sxh7 17 Sxh7
£sxb2 Or 17...Wb4 18 £>d3. 18
Wxe6+! #xe6 19 &xe6 fxe6 20
<&xb2 Sf8 21 f3± and Black's
chances of salvation are minimal.
W%? ft Wb»\WWWs fit''
*m X W£wm I HI
'■wfo^WM, a waft, <4> '■%%%
m m±jmr m±
12*13
White hopes to break up his
opponent's kingside pawn chain by
playing g2-g4 in the near future.
The hyper-active 12 £kxd5? is
refuted at once by 12...exd5 13
&xd5 £)b6! 14 #fi £)xd5 15 Wxd5
&e6 -+.
Another active try similarly fails:
12 Wg3 £>b6 13 Ad3 (or 13 £>h3
Ml 14 &g5 0-0-0 15 f4 4>b8¥
Mirumian-Stojanovic, European
Under-18 Ch 1995) 13...Ad7 14
Axg6? Hg8! 15 Sxh5 fxg6 16 Sg5
0-0-0+ and White is left with
nothing; Kronberg-Van der Kleij,
corr 1991.
12...£>b6 13 g4 h4 14 We3
After 14 &b5 Ml 15 &xc6
&xc6 16 &h3 g5 17 Sdfl Sg8 18
Wdl £sc4, White is faced with a
hard struggle for the draw; Ljubicic-
Kovacevic, Solin 1994.
A line that deserves attention is 14
£ih3!? Ml 15 g5 0-0-0 16 #f4

194 Classical System 3 thc3 Z&f6 4 &g5 $Lel
Sh7 17 £>gl Hdh8, with
approximate equality.
14...i.d7 15 Sh3 0-0-0 16 &e2
&b8 17 <£>bl Sc8 18 £sg2 &a5
It's obvious by now that the
opening has turned out in Black's
favour. He has not only kept his
extra pawn but is ready to
commence active play on the
queenside.
19 b3 c5 20 dxc5 Sxc5 21 b4!?
White quite rightly seeks his
chances in complications. On 21
Sxh4 Shc8, he would already be in
dire straits.
21...Sxc3 22 Wxc3 Sc8 23 #el
£ic6
It was also worth considering
23...£iac4!?
24 a3?
This definitely looks like the
decisive error. After the
cool-headed 24 f4! £ixb4 25 c3
£>c6 26 #xh4, White wouldn't be
in too bad a shape.
24...&xe5 25 f4 £tec4 26 #xh4
£>xa3+!!
The refutation of White's entire
strategy.
27 Sxa3 #xb4+ 28 Sb3 We4
Black has created too many
dangerous threats.
29 £>e3 Aa4!?
Or 29...d4, which would also
guarantee Black a plus; but Zuger
prefers an attack to material gains!
IBs *s» WW/ '%!■
t j^. 112 ii 2 m
I m±m. m
i Wk
V.QWM. £ZJ
■§»sh «
30#hl!lrxf4 3llrf3?
This facilitates Black's task, but
even after the correct 31 Sfl We5
32 Sa3, nothing short of a miracle
can save White after either 32...f5!?
or, especially, 32....&xc2+!? 33
&xc2 *xe2 34 &d4 #xg4.
31...tfxO 32 £xf3 i.xb3 33
cxb3 Sc3 34 Eel d4 0-1

11: Classical System 3 &c3 £>f6
4 Ag5 ±e7 5 e5 £>fd7 6 ±xe7
Game 17
Kovacevic - Tukmakov
Basel 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £sc3 £>f6 4
i.gS Ae7 5 e5 £>fd7 6 &xe7 Wxe7
An important position for the
fortunes of the whole variation with
3...£tf6. White has acquired an
undisputed spatial advantage and a
sturdy pawn centre, which may also
receive further support from the c-
and f-pawns if the need arises. He
has no problem in developing all his
pieces on excellent squares. All
these factors would seem to weigh
in White's favour; you would think
the initiative must be in his hands.
And yet Black too is quite well
prepared for the coming battle. The
main thing is that he is ready to
strike at his opponent's pawn centre
- from two sides, in fact (c7-c5 and
f7-f6). He hopes to organize
counterplay using the lines which
will then be opened.
7f4
This natural move, which fits in
perfectly with all White's
reasonable plans, has practically
ousted all its rivals from
contemporary practice. Some other
continuations are also worth
examining, however. For example:-
(A) 7 £)f3 a6
Black doesn't want to waste time
castling but prepares the freeing
advance c7-c5 which is essential for
his survival. But then, he is also
close to equality after 7...0-0 8 JLd3
c5 9 dxc5!? £>c6 10 We2 f6 11 exf6
#xf6 12 0-0 &xc5 13 Sael Ad7oo

196 Classical System 3 £ki £hf6 4 ±g5 ±e7 5 e5 E&fd7 6 kxe7
Savon-Rozentalis, Odessa 1989. 8
JLd3 Black's task is simpler in the
case of 8 £te2 c5 9 c3 £\c6 10 £\f4
f6!, or 8 #d2 c5 9 dxc5 <&c6 10
Wf4 #xc5 11 Ad3 f6! 12 exf6
&xf6 13 0-0 0-0= Teschke-Schilow,
Bundesliga 2001. 8...c5 9 dxc5 £>c6
10 0-0 £)xc5 Taking the other pawn
is risky: 10...£sdxe5 11 £sxe5 £>xe5
12 Sel! <£xd3 13 Wxd31\ 11 Sel
0-0, and after carrying out f7-f6
Black can count on gradually
equalizing, although he will still
have to put a little effort into
attaining that worthy goal.
(B) 7 <£b5
HMJyp#li m
amJLmmtim <m
1X mMm X11
4m *m'""'m"%'%
rmtm mm\
An old move of Alapin's which
has the aim of carefully fortifying
White's pawn centre - the pride of
his position. To pay for this
undoubted achievement, White is
prepared to lose time and fall behind
in development. The move was a
big hit around the middle of the
1930s. 7...£ib6 Black also quite
often chooses the less effective
7...Wd8 8 c3 a6 9 £>a3, when there
can follow: 9...c5 10 f4 £sc6 11
£te2 c4 (the verdict on the position
is the same after 11...0-0 12 £sf3 f6
13 Wd2 b5 14 &d3 c4 15 Ae2±) 12
£>f3 £>b6 13 &e2 ±d7 14 0-0, with
a small but stable plus for White
in Omelyansky-Alekhine, Russia
1902. 8 c3
i(M$I $M
w, X 'm m X m X
Wt Iff W
w m m m x
White's attempts to gain
advantage with 8 a4 a6 9 a5 have
not been crowned with success:
9...axb5! 10 axb6 Sxal 11 Wxal
c6!? (the most uncompromising
continuation, but White's gains are
not great after 11...0-0!? either, for
instance: 12 bxc7 #xc7 13 ±d3
&c6 14 c3 b4 15 £)f3 bxc3 16 bxc3
f6!= Borgo-Gleizerov, Bolzano
open 1999) 12 Ka8 (otherwise
White simply risks losing his
far-advanced pawn on b6)
12...Wb4+ 13 c3 (13 4>e2 can
hardly serve as an improvement)
13...#xb2 14 £ie2 (on 14 &d3
#xc3+ 15 &e2, Black can either
take perpetual check with
15...Wb2+ or fish in troubled waters
with 15...#xd4 16 Wxb8 Wb2+)
14...0-0 15 Wxb8 b4! 16 cxb4 (not
16 Wd6? b3 -+) 16...Wxb4+ 17 *dl
c5 (not a bad alternative is
17...H)3+ 18 <£>d2 #b4+ 19 <i>d3
c5 20 #c7 c4+ 21 <£>e3 «b3+ with
a strong attack, Browne-Taha,
Skopje ol 1972) 18 #c7 (White
loses quickly with 18 dxc5? i.d7 19

Classical System 3 Qc3 fo/6 4 £g5 £.e7 5 e5 *hfd7 6 &xe7 197
Wxb7 &a4+ 20 4>cl #xc5+)
18...1ra4+ 19 <&>d2 £d7! 20 <&e3
Sc8, and Black's attack fully
compensates for his material loss;
Ljubojevic - Korchnoi, Belgrade
1987. 8...a6 9 &a3 c5 Or 9...&.&1
10 f4 £ic6 11 ^f3 f5 12 Ad3 0-0
13 0-0 &e8 14 £ic2± Geller-
Iljushin, Russian Ch, Krasnodar
2002. 10 f4 The chances are about
equal after 10 &f3 &c6 11 £ic2
cxd4 12 cxd4 Ml 13 Wd2 Sc8=.
10...£)c6 11 <£\f3 More convincing
than 11 £)c2 £ia4 12 Sbl b5 13
£tf3 Ml 14 #d2 Sc8 15 £d3 £>b6
16 0-0 £te4?* Lasker-Lilienthal,
Moscow 1936. 11... cxd4 12 cxd4
Wb4+ Or 12...Ad7 13 Wd2 Sc8 14
£>c2 0-0 15 £d3 £>a7 16 0-0±. 13
lfd2 Kxd2+ The assessment of the
position is not altered by 13...£te4
14 #xb4 £kb4 15 &d2 Ad7 16
b3± Marco - Von Bardeleben,
Munich 1900. 14 <£>xd2 <£>e7 15
&c2 a5 16 a4 Ad7 17 b3! and
White's chances in the ending are
somewhat superior, thanks to his
spatial advantage and better bishop;
Heberla-Nalivajko, Prerov 2001.
(C) 7 &d3 a6 On 7...0-0, White
has the additional possibility of 8
lTi5!? f5 9 exf6 £>xf6 10 Wh4 £)c6
11 £tf3 #f7 12 £>e5 with a slight
initiative; De Vreugt-Meester,
Haarlem open 1999. 8 #g4 It's
worth considering 8 £)ce2, for
instance: 8...c5 (or 8...#b4+ 9 c3
#xb2 10 f4S) 9 c3 £>c6 10 #d2 0-0
11 f4 f5 12 £tf3± W.Adams-
Kashdan, USA Ch, New York 1940.
8...f5 9 exf6 £ixf6 10 #114 c5 11
dxc5 #xc5 12 £g6+ <&e7 13 0-0-0
£ic6, with unclear play.
(D)7#g4
7...0-0 On 7...f5, it would be
worth thinking about 8 #h5+ (more
convincing than 8 exf6 £)xf6 9 #h4
c5 10 dxc5 #xc5 10 £>f3 £lc6=)
8...1T7 9 #xf7+ 4>xf7 10 £)b5 £)a6
11 &f3±. 8 £tf3 c5 9 ±d3 cxd4!
Paying no heed to phantoms!
Instead, 9...f5 would be weaker in
view of 10 %5! £)c6 11 £>b5!± 10
JLxh7+ Black answers 10 h4 with
10..T6!. Perhaps White should
prefer the modest 10 #xd4 £>c6 11
Wf4 f6=. 10...<&xh7 11 Wh5+ <£>g8
12 £ig5 WxgSQ 13 Wxg5 dxc3 14
0-0-0 cxb2+ 15 4>bl f6! with
advantage to Black.
(E) 7 #d2

198 Classical System 3 *hc3 £\/<5 4 k.g5 §Le7 5 eS Zhfdl 6 kxe7
By no means a bad move;
generally transposing into the
channels of the 7 f4 variation, it has
very little independent significance.
7...0-0 Of course not 7...c5? which
allows 8 £*b5!. Quite often Black
plays 7...a6, but I'm not convinced
that this move is absolutely
necessary. There can follow: 8 £kll
c5 9 c3 £k6 10 f4 cxd4 11 cxd4 g5
(after the quiet ll...£lb6 12 £)e3
&d7 13 £>f3 Wb4 14 Scl Wxd2+
15 i'xd2, Black will have to defend
an inferior ending) 12 fxg5 h6!? 13
£>f3! hxg5 14 £>f2 Sg8 15 h3±
Sakaev-Volkov, World Ch, New
Delhi 2000. Finally, in Cheparinov-
Graf, European Ch, Batumi 2002,
Black adopted a relatively new and
interesting plan: 7...£>b6!? 8 f4 &d7
9 £>B c5 10 0-0-0 c4! 11 g4 £la6?l
8 £)dl Another plan which we
already know about is also worth
considering: 8 £fo5 £fo6 9 c3 a6 10
£ia3 c5 11 f4°°. In the event of 8 f4
c5 9 £>b5 a6!? 10 £>d6 cxd4! 11
£if3 £>c6 12 &d3 f6!, it is only
White who can face difficulties.
8...C5 9 c3 £)c6 10 f4 f6!? After
10...f5, White calmly prepares
g2-g4 which will be unpleasant for
Black to meet. 11 £)f3 cxd4 12
cxd4 fxe5 13 dxe5 The incautious
13 fxe5 allows the standard
exchange sacrifice 13...SxO! 14
gxD #h4+ 15 £lf2 (or 15 Wf2
£>xd4!+) 15...^xd4 16 0-0-0 £kf3
17 #e3 £>dxe5 -+ Charousek-
Niedermann, corr 1893. 13...1rb4!?
14 g3 £k5 15 #xb4 £ixb4=
Thomas-Lilienthal, Ujpest 1934.
7...a6
Black prepares active operations
on the queenside. He is in no hurry
to castle, and I can very well
understand his anxiety - White
would be able to create powerful
threats against the black king!
Variations with 7...0-0 will be
examined in the notes to the next
game. The ill-considered 7...c5?, by
the way, lands Black in a very
difficult position after 8 £>b5!.
8£>f3
White can hardly expect to
achieve much with 8 #g4 f5 9 exf6
£)xf6 10 #h4 c5 11 £>f3 £>c6 12
dxc5 Wxc5«> Motylev-Miljanic,
Niksic 2000.
A more interesting move is 8
Wh5!?, for instance: 8...c5 9 £rf3
£k6 10 0-0-0 cxd4 (it's worth
thinking about 10...0-0, with the
possible continuation 11 dxc5 f6 12
&d3 g6 13 «fh4 fxe5 14 *xe7
£ke7 15 fxe5 £>xc5°° Gligoric-
Antic, Yugoslav Ch, Herceg Novi
2001) 11 £lxd4 £lb6 (in the case of
ll...£>xd4 12 Sxd4 £ib6 13 £d3
#c5 14 £)e2 Ad7 15 #g5 g6 16
Wf6, White's chances are
preferable; Van der Wiel-

Classical System 3 *hc3 Z&f6 4 k.g5 ke7 5 e5 Zhfd7 6 kxe7 199
Moskalenko, Belgrade 1988) 12
£>f3 £d7 13 #g4 0-0 14 £d3 f5«
Mateo-Korchnoi, Thessaloniki ol
1988.
8...C5
Sometimes Black postpones this
natural move and tries to start his
queenside action with 8...b5!?,
whereupon there can follow: 9
#d2 The game Wach-Weinzettl,
Austrian Team Ch 2002, went 9 g3
c5 10 Ag2 £>c6 11 0-0 £)b6 12 b3
b4 13 £)e2 a5 14 #d2 &a6 15 Sael
g6, and Black succeeded in solving
his opening problems. The
prophylactic move 9 a3!? is worth
considering. 9...b4 10 £le2 a5 11 a3
&b6 12 &g3 &a6?* Tischbierek-
Schmittdiel, Bundesliga 1991.
There is no doubt that 8...b5
deserves further practical testing.
The restrained 8...b6 is also
played now and again, preparing
c7-c5 and revealing Black's
intention to fight for the key square
9 Wd2 Complex play results from
9 &d3 c5 10 0-0 £>c6 11 Wei ±b7
12 a3 0-0-0 13 dxc5 (to be honest, I
don't like this move; White should
think about giving up a pawn with
13 b4!?, although it isn't simple to
demonstrate the soundness of the
sacrifice with concrete variations)
13...bxc5 14 2f2!? h6 15 b4 c4?i
Tseshkovsky-Maiorov, Krasnodar
1999. Nor has Black any cause for
worry in the event of 9 g3 c5 10
&g2 £k6 11 0-0 0-0 12 #d2 a5 13
Sf2 i.a6 14 Sel cxd4 15 £lxd4
<&xd4 16 Wxd4 #b4= Fercec-
Ulibin, Porto San Giorgio open
1998. 9...c5 10 £\dl A charge with
the h-pawn is worth considering: 10
h4!? £te6 11 h5 £b7 12 h6 g6 13
0-0-0±. In the event of 10 g3 <Sic6
11 ±g2 &b7 12 £>e2 f5!? 13 exf6
£kf6 14 0-0 0-0 15 c3 a5, Black
has excellent chances of equalizing;
Almasi-Glek, Linz 1997. 10...&c6
White preserves a small plus after
10...cxd4 11 £)xd4 0-0 12 £>e3 f6
13 exf6 <&xf6 14 £d3 £ibd7 15
0-0-0! (if 15 0-0?!, then 15...£)c5
equalizes) 15....£)c5 16 Shfl±
Dolmatov-Ulibin, Russia 1992. 11
c3 f5 White's chances are superior
in the case of ll...b5 12 i.d3 £)b6
13 0-0 &d7 14 Wf2 c4 15 1x2
0-0-0 16 £)e3± Areshchenko-
Maiorov, Kramatorsk 2003. 12 £)e3
In Magem Badals-Ulibin, Mesa
1993, the game levelled out after 12
c4!? cxd4 13 cxd5 exd5 14 £>xd4
£>dxe5! 15 ke2 &d7 16 £>xc6
£ixc6 17 Wxd5 Wb4+, but I'm not
convinced that White will fail to
improve; in particular, 14 JLe2!?
would be interesting to try out.
12...£b7 13 £ie3 g6 14 h3 Or 14 g4
cxd4 15 cxd4 fxg4 16 £>xg4 Wb4
17 £te3 0-0= Goloshchapov-
Gleizerov, Calcutta open 2002.

200 Classical System 3 £>c3 fofS 4 $Lg5 ±e7 5 e5 *hfd7 6 $Lxe7
14...h5!? 15 0-0 Perhaps at some
point White should have thought
about the prophylactic a2-a3,
preventing a queen exchange.
15...cxd4 16 cxd4 Hj4 17 Hadl
Wxd2 18 Sxd2 4>e7, and at best we
can only speak of a nominal
advantage for White; Khalifman-
Ulibin, Russian Ch, Elista 1995.
Recently the strange move
8...£sb6 has attained some
popularity.
Black prepares to develop his
bishop on d7, and wishes to
postpone c7-c5 until a more
favourable moment. There can
follow: 9 1^2 Or 9 &d3 &d7 10
0-0, which doesn't look bad either;
White keeps his king safe on the
kingside. 9...JLd7 10 a4!? In
Inarkiev-Morozevich, Russian Ch,
Krasnoiarsk 2003, White played the
ineffective 10 0-0-0?! 3.b5! 11
£kb5 axb5 12 £xb5+ c6 13 &d3
Sxa2 14 *bl Sa4 15 g4? £>c4, and
the initiative passed to Black.
10...H>4 11 b3 £)c6 12 £sdl
lrxd2+ 13 &xd2 f6 14 £ie3 0-0 15
c3, with a small but steady plus for
White; Naiditsch-Sakaev, Rethy-
mnon 2003.
9dxc5
At this point White has to decide
whether to alter the pawn structure
by capturing on c5 or maintain the
tension in the centre with 9 1Brd2. In
the latter case, there can follow:
9...£)c6 10 0-0-0 c4!? Without any
doubt, the most thematic
continuation. Now that the white
king has castled, Black is "morally
entitled" to close the centre and
transfer his activities to the
queenside. On 10.. .b5, White
generally continues with 11 dxc5,
heading in the direction of the main
line; while after 10...cxd4 11 £lxd4
<&xd4 12 Wxd4 «c5 13 h4 #xd4
14 Sxd4 h5 15 Sh3 he retains a
small plus in a quiet position with
no danger at all to himself;
Middelburg-Kuijf, Dutch Team Ch
play-off 2002. 11 f5 £ib6 Quieter
than ll...b5 12 Wf4 (12 fxe6 fxe6
13 £te2 deserves attention too)
12...Ab7 13 g3 £\b6 14 f6 #ffi?i.
12 fxe6 ^.xe6!? The well-known
game Shirov-Morozevich, Frankfurt
2000, went 12...fxe6 13 h4 ^.d7 14
h5 0-0-0 15 h6!? gxh6 16 Sxh6
Sdg8 17 #f4 Ae8?Si, but White's
play can probably be improved; thus
it would be worth considering 14 g3

Classical System 3 £lc3 Z&f6 4 &.g5 ±e7 5 e5 fofd7 6 &xe7 201
0-0-0 15 &h3 Sdf8 16 Sdfl £ia8
17 Sf2 £ic7 18 Shfl b5 19 £k2±
with unpleasant pressure on the
f-file. 13 &e2 h6 14 Sdfl,
Pelletier-Ziiger, Swiss Ch 2000; and
now 14...^d7!? is of interest. Black
shouldn't be afraid of 15 £.xc4?!
dxc4 16 d5, on account of
16...£>dxe5 17 £>xe5 &xe5 18 dxe6
#xe6?.
9...£k6
Of course Black may also simply
play 9...1Brxc5, as he scarcely has
any reason to fear 10 *d4 Wxd4!?
(in Moldovan-Lucaci, Bucharest
open 2001, Black played the less
effective 10...£lc6, and after 11
#xc5 £>xc5 12 £.d3 0-0 13 <&d2 b5
14 She 1 Sd8 15 £k2! White had a
solid positional plus) 11 &xd4 g5!
12 g3 £lc6 13 £)ce2 Sg8! (Black
prevents the natural bishop
development to g2) 14 <&f2!? £)c5
15 &e3 Ad7 16 £>B h6, with
approximate equality in Kriventsov-
Atalik, USA open, Boston 2001.
10 #d2 WXC5
HIi 6 W&W 'ffl
,, «rH.«W» im.
wm?m*Mi
The game takes on rather a
different character in the case of
10...£ixc5 11 0-0-0 The plan with
queenside castling is by no means
obligatory for White. Quite often he
successfully plays 11 JLd3!?. There
can follow: ll...b5 (White has an
easy game in the case of
ll...£>xd3+ 12 cxd3 f6 13 exf6
Wxf6 14 0-0 0-0 15 g3±. Another
possibility is ll...JLd7 12 0-0!? [or
12 £)e2!?] 12...0-0 13 Sael f5 14
exf6 #xf6 15 £)e5 £.e8 16 #C±
Gdanski-Miljanic, European Ch,
Saint Vincent 2000) 12 0-0 £b7 13
We3!? £>xd3 14 cxd3 0-0 15 &e2,
with advantage; Al Modiahki-
Siprashvili, Yerevan open 1996.
Il...b5 12 £.d3 Black has no
worries after 12 "i-bl b4 13 £)e2 a5
14 £ted4 £>xd4 15 £sxd4 0-0=.
White could consider 12 £)e2!?
£>e4 13 #e3, hoping subsequently
to establish himself on d4. 12...b4
The most energetic move, but Black
is also entitled to play the useful
12..JLd7, for instance: 13 'ibl (or
13 #e3 b4 14 £te2 a5 15 <£>bl a4 16
£)ed4 £)xd4 17 £>xd4 0-0?*
Vujosevic-Miljanic, Tivat 1997)
13...b4 (a less convincing line is
13...f5 14 exf6 #xf6 15 Shel 0-0
16 g3 b4 17 £te2±) 14 £>e2 a5 15
£)ed4 £)xd4 16 £sxd4 0-0 17 Shel
Sfb8, with mutual chances;
Arapovic-Miljanic, Neum 2002. 13
£se2 a5 The sharp 13...b3!? is also
of interest. So is the sly 13...1fc7!?,
bringing the queen a little closer to
the queen's wing; there can follow
14 *bl a5 15 #e3 #b6 16 g4
JLa6?* Lastin-Nureev, Moscow
open 1999. 14 £)ed4 Black has an
excellent game after 14 f5 £ixd3+
15 Wxd3 &a6 16 We3 &xe2 17
lfxe2 0-0? Chandler-Seirawan,

202 Classical System 3 foc3 Z&f6 4 $Lg5 k.e7 5 e5 Zhfd7 6 &xe7
Reykjavik World Cup 1991.
14...£)xd4 15 &xd4 0-0 16 <4>bl
.&b7 followed by £>c5-e4, giving
sharp play with interesting
possibilities for both sides;
Brajovic-Miljanic, Cetinje 1996.
ItMiKt
;l""t3 W0% ''r&Z /Yv %%%% &
11 0-0-0
Castling is undoubtedly the most
popular continuation, but it seems to
me that White can fight for the
advantage more easily with less
committal moves - after all, to place
the white king on the queenside is to
stimulate Black's activity on that
part of the board. Thus for example
it is worth considering 11 .£.d3 b5
12 a3 A good prophylactic move.
On 12 #f2, Black can very well go
in for 12...IW (12...b4 13 £)e2
Wxf2+ 14 *xf2 £>c5 doesn't look
bad either) 13 0-0 #xb2 14 £le2
#a3 15 #g3 g6 16 &g5 We7«*
Esplana-Thorhallsson, Bled ol 2002.
Some interesting play also results
from 12 h4!?, for instance: 12...b4
(or 12...i.b7!? 13 h5 h6«) 13 £>a4!
#a5 14 b3 £>c5 15 £>xc5 *xc5 16
Scl! &d7 17 c4 bxc3 18 Sxc3,
with a slight edge; Sutovsky-
Hansen, Malmo 2003. And finally,
another line to have been seen is 12
£>e2 b4 13 h4 a5 14 h5 h6!? 15 Sh3
0-0! 16 £ted4 £>xd4 17 £>xd4
■ihS!?, with unclear consequences
in Sutovsky- Gurevich, Reykjavik
rapid 2003. 12....&b7 The game
Pikuia-Antic, Yugoslav Ch, Banja
Koviljaca 2002, went 12...Sb8 13
b4 Wb6 14 WE!? f6 (on 14...0-0,
White can switch plans and start an
attack on the king with 15 Wb.4!? h6
16 £ie2 £b7 17 g4T) 15 exf6
l'xf2+ 16 *xf2, and now even if
Black makes the best choice,
16...£>xf6 17 Shel 0-0 18 g3, White
retains a small plus. 13 b4!?
HI IPwlll ?m
■±n±§§ ■
WXm, m&m
ft '■MM'/ 'r&Z. WW/ CJ
\ m W, IB
White adopts a plan that we have
seen before. However, 13 #f2 also
deserves a good share of the
attention, e.g. 13...#xf2+ 14 &xf2
0-0 15 Shel Sac8 16 £>e2 with
chances of a minimal edge, Rogers-
Thorhallsson, Reykjavik open 2004.
Alternatively 13 £k2 £)b6 14 b4
We7 15 0-0, and again the initiative
is with White, n...!^ 14 Wf2 Sc8
15 ^e2 #xf2+ 16 4>xf2 <&e7 17
£>ed4± King - Landenbergue,
Lucerne 1989.
It isn't simple for Black to obtain
counterplay against 11 £se2, which
takes control of the extremely

Classical System 3 £>ci Z&f6 4 &g5 $Le7 5 eS fofd7 6 &xe7 203
important square d4. Play may
continue: ll...f6 Or ll...b5 12
£sed4 £)xd4 13 £sxd4 £)b6 14
0-0-0±. 12 &ed4 £lxd4 13 £ixd4
H)6 14 0-0-0 fxe5 15 fxe5 0-0
White does quite well out of
15...£>xe5 16 #g5 &f7 17 #xg7 e5
18 Ad3 #h6+ 19 #xh6 £«h6 20
Sdel±. 16 We3 £>c5 17 £.e2 &d7
18 2hfl± Glek-Haub, Boblingen
2000.
Il...b5
In recent years Black has quite
often been choosing the modest
ll...£lb6, with the aim of slowly
completing his development and
hiding his king on the queenside.
There can follow: 12 &d3 The
stock move 12 h4 can be
recommended, for example 12...
Ad7 13 Sh3 h6!? 14 Sg3 Sg8,
Hernandez-Short, Merida 2001; and
now 15 £>d4 £ixd4 16 *xd4 #xd4
17 Sxd4 &c6 18 i.d3 would have
secured White a small but enduring
plus. The consequences are roughly
the same after 12 £id4 £lxd4 13
#xd4 Wlxd4 14 Sxd4 h5 15 h4 £>d7
16 Sh3, when although White's
advantage is very slight, Black is
still the one who has to defend.
12...i.d7 13 a3 Or 13 <&>bl h6!?
(13...£>c4?! 14 i.xc4 Wxc4 15 f5!)
14 £te2 0-0-0 15 c3 <4>b8 16 &ed4
Sc8, as in Anagnostopoulos-Atalik,
Greek Team Ch 2001; and now I
feel that 17 &b3 #e7 18 #e3 £>a4!
19 h4!? would have given White a
promising game. 13...h6 14 <&>bl
0-0-0 15 Shel 4>b8 16 <Se2!? A
typical manoeuvre - the knight
heads for d4. 16...Sc8 It would be
worth considering 16...£)c4!?,
although White's chances are still
preferable after 17 JLxc4 dxc4 (or
17...*xc4?! 18 £led4±) 18 #d6+
#xd6 19 exd6 f6 20 £>c3. 17 £icl!
#e7 18 £\b3 &a4 19 #e3!± De
Firmian-Knaak, Bundesliga 2001.
12£se2
Some complex and unclear play
results from 12 JLd3 b4 (or
12...£)b6 13 &e2 £)c4 14 &xc4
bxc4 15 f5 2b8!?°°) 13 £)e2 a5 14
*bl 1T)6!? 15 £>g3 g6 16 h4 h5 17
5}g5 £k5f* Kreiman-Kaidanov,
Foxwoods open 1999.
Black has good chances of
equalizing after 12 £>d4 £lxd4 13
#xd4 #xd4 (playable alternatives
are 13...Sb8!? 14 #xc5 £kc5 15
&d3 b4 16 £se2 ±d7°° Fercec-
Kovacevic, Croatian Ch, Pula 1998;
and 13...M!? 14 &a4 Wa5 15 b3
Ab7?») 14 Sxd4 £)b8! 15 Sd2 £>c6
16 h4 h5! 17 Sh3 g6 18 £te2 &d7
19 &d4 <&e7= Schmittdiel-
Kelecevic, Austrian Team Ch 2002.
In Kovalev-Kochetkov, Belarus
Ch, Minsk 2003, Black fell into a
standard trap: 12 sfebl £>b6 13 JLd3

204 Classical System 3 Ski ?hf6 4 ±g5 ±e7 5 e5 ^fdl 6 kxel
&d7 14 Hhel 0-0? 15 &xh7+ &xh7
16 £sg5+ &g6 17 Wd3+ f5 18 exf6+
■£>xf6 19£)ce4+!+-.
12...b4 13 &ed4 &xd4 14 £sxd4
Black has an easy enough game in
the case of 14 Wxd4 a5 15 f5 0-0 16
g4 &a6 17 Wf4 a4, G.Szabo-
Miljanic, Bucharest 2001.
14...0-0 15 &d3
It isn't simple to assess the
consequences of 15 h4 a5 16 h5 a4
17 *bl 1T>6 18 g4 £sc5 19 &g2
&a6 20 Sh3 Sad8!? (the hasty
20...b3 21 cxb3 axb3 22 a3± eases
White's task) 21 f5 (or 21 h6 g6 22
f5 £te4! 23 &xe4 dxe4£) 21...£>e4
22 .&xe4 dxe4, as in a game
Perunovic-Kalezic; at this point
Black has no need to fear 23 f6 gxf6
24exf6&h8!.
15...a5
No one can categorically assert
that White has obtained an opening
advantage here. Black has strong
enough counterplay on the
queenside and can look to the future
with optimism.
16£sO
White could consider 16 <&bl!? or
16Shel!?.
16...i.a6 17 f5
Instead 17 £}g5 would be a futile
try, as after 17...h6 18 &xa6 Black
has two favourable lines: 18...Sxa6
19 #d3 Sc8 20 #h7+ &fg 21 £sf3
a4, or 18...hxg5 19i.d3a4.
17...&xd3 18 #xd3 Well
Tukmakov decides to station his
queen a little closer to his king, and
prepares to bring his knight to e4.
The chances would be about equal
after 18...2fc8 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 <£ig5
4tf8 21 Shfl #c4!=.
19 Shfl Sac8!?
Or 19...a4!? which isn't bad
either.
20 #e3 exf5!
The character of the game now
changes dramatically, as White
forfeits all his attacking chances.
21 2xd5 #e6 22 #d4
Black would also have the better
chances after 22 Sxa5 #c4 23 2f2
£>c5 24 Sd2 £te4 25 Se2 Sa8s.
22...£ib6!
Black's threats are mounting.

Classical System 3 £ki fof6 4 &g5 ke7 5 e5 ^fdl 6 kxel 205
23 2xa5 2fd8
A slight inaccuracy; after
23...£ic4! 24 Ha7 (or 24 Sc5 Sxc5
25 #xc5 Wa6!T) 24...Sfd8 25 Wf2
#c6+ White would already be hard
pressed.
24#f2
In the event of 24 #xb4 £)c4 25
Sc5 &e3 26 Bel *xa2 27 Wa3
Sxc5! 28 fxa2 £)xc2, Black's
threats are already irresistible.
24...£k4
Black may also have quite a good
alternative in 24...b3!? 25 axb3
#xb3, with an attack.
25Sc5
With 25 Sa7 #c6! 26 Sel £)d2!,
White would lose in literally a few
moves.
25...Sa8! 26 b3 #a6!
&■*"■
"n &, m I H
I gBK HI Hill
The beginning of the end!
27a4D
If27£sd4,then27...£je3!-+.
27...bxa3 28 <4>bl a2+ 29 &al
£)e3 30 Scl f4
There was a quick win with
30...£idl!3lfrgl#a3!-+.
31 Wei #a3 32 g3??
This merely hastens the
inevitable, seeing that after 32 Sc6
£>xg2 33 #gl £>e3 -+ Black would
calmly double on the d-file and
conduct the game to a well-deserved
victory.
32...«rxc5 0-1
Analysing this game has merely
strengthened my conviction that the
right place for the white king in this
variation is on the kingside!
Game 18
Naiditsch - Blauert
Budapest 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £sc3 &f6 4
±g5 Ae7 5 e5 <&fd7 6 iLxe7 #xe7
7 f4 0-0 8 &B c5
i mtm
'm< II 1!
9dxc5
This is how White usually plays,
either at once or after a preliminary
9 #d2 £)c6. He begins a struggle
for the key squares in the centre
(above all d4). Incidentally, he is by
no means obliged to castle long.

206 Classical System 3 foc3 fofS 4 £.g5 &e7 5 e5 *hfd7 6 &xe7
Of the other continuations that
White employs, the following
deserve the most attention:
(A) Black needs to play carefully
against 9 Jtd3.
The most popular reply is: 9...f6!?
The following long and virtually
forced variation is hardly to be
recommended to Black: 9...cxd4?
10 &xh7+! <4>xh7 11 &g5+ #xg5
12 fxg5 dxc3 (materially Black has
quite enough for the queen, but his
opponent's attack is only just
beginning!) 13 #h5+! (a much
weaker line is 13 Wd3+ 4>g8 14
#xc3 £>c6 15 0-0-0 £>dxe5 16 h4
^g4^) 13...*g8 14 0-0 &xe5
(White wins easily after 14...g6 15
Wh4 f5 16 exf6 Sf7 17 Sf3 £>f8 18
2h3 Sh7 19 f7+! +-) 15 Sael £>g6
16 Se3 e5 17 g4! Se8 (Black can't
prolong his resistance with either
17...Sd8 18 Sh3 fid6 19 Wh7+ <&f8
20 Hhf3 +-, or 17...£>f4 18 Hxf4!
exf4 19 Sh3 f6 20 g6 +-) 18 Sh3
Se6 19 Hi7+ *f8 20 Sh6!, and
White's attack is irresistible;
Hergert-Zech, corr 1992. A move
deserving more attention is 9...f5,
for instance: 10 0-0 (10 exfS leads
to the main line) 10...£>c6 11 <&>hl
a6 12 #d2 b5 13 a3 2b8 14 dxc5
£>xc5 15 £>e2 &d7 16 <&ed4 £te4°°
Aseev-Psakhis, Klaipeda 1988. 10
exf6 The complications are rather in
Black's favour after 10 0-0 £>c6 11
Wei (or 11 £sb5 a6 12 £>d6 cxd4 13
We2 fxe5 14 fxe5 SxO! 15 Hxf3
£ldxe5! and White suffers material
losses) ll...fxe5 12 fxe5 cxd4 13
£>b5 SxD! (a standard but powerful
exchange sacrifice) 14 gxO £)dxe5,
Mestrovic-Soln, Slovene Team Ch,
Bled 2000. lO...!^ 11 £\g5
Wxf4!? 12 £xh7+ £>h8 13 #h5!?
After a queen exchange White's
attack would easily be repulsed: 13
Wd2 Wxd2+ 14 <&>xd2 Sf2+ 15 £>e2
£tf8+. 13...£>f6!? More convincing
than 13...WG+?! 14 *dl &f6 15
#h3 £>c6 16 &d3+ <4>g8 17 SflT.
14 lhn+ 2xf7 15 # xf7 &xh7 16
Sfl #xd4, and perpetual check is
the most that White can dream of.
(B) 9 £>b5 a6!? Black mustn't
allow his opponent to fortify his
pawn centre; for example 9...'£)c6
would be met by 10 c3 f6 11 Ad3
fxe5 12 fxe5 cxd4 13 cxd4 #b4+
(White has the better chances in the
event of 13...2xf3 14 WxB Wb4+
15 *dl!) 14 Wd2 <&b6 15 Wxb4!
&xb4 16 *d2±. 10 &d6 Clearly
after 10 £>c7?? Sa7 -+ the knight is
not destined to escape from the
enemy camp. 10...cxd4! 11 5}xd4
In Olivier-Gleizerov, Metz 1999,
Black quickly gained the advantage
after 11 &d3 f6 12 £\xc8! Sxc8 13
exf6 Wxffi?. 11...&C6 12 £lxc6
bxc6 13 i.d3 f6 14 #h5 g6 15 Wh4
%7!=.

Classical System 3 ihc3 £>/6 4 &g5 ke7 5 e5 ihfd7 6 kxel 207
(C) 9 #d2 &c6
10 0-0-0 Sometimes White
employs a solid, reliable, but none
too aggressive system based on 10
g3. There can follow: 10...a6 (Black
can hardly achieve equality with
10...f6 11 exf6 £>xf6 12 0-0-0!?
&d7 13 Sell? cxd4 14 £>xd4±) 11
JLg2 b5 (White retains the initiative
after ll...£>b6 12 b3 cxd4 13 £>e2!
JLd7 14 £texd4 2ac8 15 c3!? £)xd4
16 £>xd4± E.Steiner-Lilienthal,
Ujpest 1934) 12 £>e2!? a5 13 0-0
£>b6 14 b3 b4 15 dxc5 #xc5+ 16
£ied4 JLd7!? (in Dolmatov-Bagirov,
Moscow Aeroflot open 2002, Black
played the weaker 16...JLa6?! 17
Sf2 £>xd4 18 £>xd4 <&>h8 19 Sel
Sfe8 20 f5!t and the bishop on a6
was clearly out of it) 17 Sf2 £>xd4
18 £>xd4 £>c8 19 Scl £>e7, and
Black is close to equalizing.
10...c4!? An interesting idea which
completely alters the character of
the game; the main struggle now
shifts from the centre to the flanks. I
don't so much like the idea of
10...f6 11 exf6 #xf6 12 g3 cxd4 (in
the classic game Rubinstein-
Levenfish, Karslbad 1911, Black
was crushed after 12...a6 13 JLg2
£>b6 14 Shel £k4 15 Wf2 b5 16
dxc5!? <Skb2 17 *xb2 b4 18 <&d4!
bxc3+ 19 *al £>xd4 20 «xd4±) 13
£ixd4 £)xd4 14 #xd4 #xd4 15
Sxd4 £tf6, Bologan-Volkov,
Krasnodar 1997; at this point 16
Ag2 Ad7 17 Sel Sae8 18 £fol!,
followed by bringing the knight to
f3, would have given White a clear
plus. White also has a pleasant game
after 10...£>b6 11 h4 &d7 12 h5
cxd4 13 &xd4 &xd4 14 lfxd4
Sac8 15 &d3± Gallagher-Zuger,
Berne 1991. And finally, in the case
of 10...cxd4 11 £>xd4 &b6 12 We3
£\xd4 (the game Short-Gulko,
Hastings 1988, saw the less
convincing 12...#c5?! 13 h4 id7
14 Sh3 Sac8 15 Sg3! £>xd4 16
Sxd4 We7 17 h5, and Black had
merely wasted a fair amount of
precious time) 13 #xd4 £d7 14
<&bl Sfc8 15 h4, White can very
well expect a minimal plus. 11
£ib5!? Black's chances are not at all
worse in the event of 11 g4 Sb8! 12
f5 b5 13 *bl b4 14 £ie2 c3T. On
11 f5, he has quite a good choice
between 11...4bb6!? and ll...f6 12
fxe6 £>b6 13 g3 £.xe6 14 i.g2, as
in Acs-Brynell, Pardubice 2002; at
this point 14...Bf7!? gives quite
good equalizing chances. ll...Sb8
Similar variations arise from
1 l...£)b6 - Black aims to answer 12
£)d6 with 12...Sb8 and £c8-d7,
followed by bringing his knight to
c8. 12 g4 £sb6 13 £ld6 Ad7 14 h4
Black has little cause for worry
following 14 fS f6! 15 Wf4 £>c8, or
14 c3?! £>c8 15 £>xc8 Sfxc8 16
#c2 f6 17 h4 b5t Gallagher-
Crouch, Krumbach open 1991.

208 Classical System 3 ?hc3 fof6 4 ±g5 ±e7 5 e5 t£fd7 6 kxel
14...£sc8 15 f5, and now 15...f6!?
would have led to unclear play.
9...£)c6
Undoubtedly the most popular
reply. The game V.Bagirov-Knaak,
Berlin 1989, saw instead 9...£bcc5
10 £d3 £kd3+ 11 cxd3 (it's also
worth considering 11 #xd3!?)
Il...d4 12 £le4 £>c6 13 a3 f6 14
exf6 gxf6 15 0-0 e5; and now 16
Wei! f5 17 £>g3 exf4 18 #xe7
£)xe7 19 &h5 £>d5 20 £)xd4±
would have promised White the
better chances.
On 9...Urxc5, White may choose
the boring 10 ^4, which leads to a
roughly equal ending after 10...£k6
(10...b6 11 &d3 &a6 12 b4!? gives
White somewhat the better
prospects) 11 lfxc5 £>xc5 12 0-0-0
a6 13 a3 h6.
10W.12
While analysing the previous
game, I tried to draw your attention
to plans for White involving
castling short. Here too, White can
very well continue with 10 JLd3,
when play may proceed: 10...f6 Or
10...f5 11 0-0!? £>xc5 12 £se2 Ad7
13 £sed4 Sac8 14 c3 i.e8 15 Scl
.&h5 16 ±e2± Ziatdinov-Leverett,
Pittsburg open 1997. Black cannot
of course play 10...#xc5? in view
of 11 &xh7+!. 11 exf6 Black's
game is simpler to play in the case
of 11 #e2 fxe5 12 fxe5 £sxc5 13
0-0-0 i.d7 14 h4 £sxd3+ 15 cxd3
Sf5 16 *bl Saf8= Savchenko-
Vunder, St Petersburg 2002.
Il...1i'xf6 More convincing than
ll...Sxf6?! 12 Wd2! £lxc5 13 0-0
£ixd3 14 cxd3 Ad7 15 Sael±
Gligoric-Yanofsky, Dallas 1957, or
ll...£)xf6 12 0-0 #xc5+ 13 *hl
Wd6 14 Wd2 Ad7 15 Sael±. 12 g3
£ixc5 13 0-0 Or 13 «d2 &xd3+ 14
#xd3 (if 14 cxd3, then 14...e5! 15
0-0 M3 16 Sfel Sae8?) 14...£d7
15 0-0-0 &e8 16 Shel &h5 17
Sd2, Gufeld-Stetsko, Moscow
1975; and now with 17...Axf3!
Black could have secured equal
chances. Nor has White any
advantage in the event of 13 £}g5
£>xd3+ 14 #xd3 #f5 15 #xf5
Sxf5 16 £tf3 e5! 17 £ke5 &xe5 18
fxe5 Sxe5+ 19 *d2 d4= Vovsha-
Bagirov, Biel open 2000. 13...i.d7
Or 13...b6 14 Ab5! Ab7 15 Sel
with unpleasant pressure. 14 %dl
Black is quite all right after 14 JLb5
d4! 15 £xc6 dxc3! 16 &xd7 cxb2
17 Sbl Sad8 18 *d6 £)xd7?
Jenni-Bagirov, Biel open 2000. He
gradually equalizes in the event of
14 We2 £>d4 (or 14...Ae8 15 £se5
&xe5 16 fxe5 lTe7«) 15 £>xd4
#xd4+ 16 Wt2 Wb4 17 a3 #b6 18
#d4 Sac8 19 Sab 1 &e8!= Lanc-
Ziiger, Bohemians A 1989. A line
more worthy of attention is 14 iLb5
d4!? 15 £)a4! (not 15 £.xc6 dxc3!
16 £xd7 cxb2 17 Sbl Sad8 18

Classical System 3 £)ci *hf6 4 &g5 $Le7 5 e5 Z&fd7 6 kxel 209
#d6 £sxd7f) 15...b6 16 £>xc5 bxc5
17 #e2 Sad8, AI Sayed-Ulibin,
Biel 2003; and now 18 #e4!
would have emphasized White's
advantage. With the text move, we
reach one of the key positions for
variations where Black has a knight
on c5 and White has castled
kingside.
?¥l * IP A lit Mi *
Hi. &MM. H
This position has been fought
over for more than 75 years now!
Black has a crucial choice to make.
14...£>xd3 Quite often Black
popstpones exchanging this bishop,
waiting for a more suitable moment,
and continues instead with 14.. JLe8
15 Sael Sd8, when there can
follow: 16 a3 (it would be worth
considering 16 £te5 £>xe5 17 Sxe5
£x6 18 Sfel Sfe8 19 #e2 a5 20
a3, with a very small plus for White;
Colovic-Gleizerov, Padova open
1999) 16...£h5! 17 £te5 &xe5 18
Sxe5 JLg4! (Black quite rightly has
no wish to exchange his bishop
which plays an extremely important
role defending his weak pawns;
after 18...£g6 19 Axg6 #xg6 20
Sfel, White's chances would be
preferable) 19 #g2!?, with a
difficult position to assess; Leko-
Volkov, 2nd match game, New
Delhi 2000. A waiting policy with
14...a6 also deserves attention, for
instance: 15 Sael h6 (the game
Almazi-Ulibin, Geneva open 2004,
continued interestingly with
15...Sae8 16 a3 £x8 17 b4 £ld7 18
b5! axb5 19 £ixb5 £)c5 20 #e3
£>xd3 21 #xd3, and White had the
initiative) 16 £>e5 (16 #f2 £>xd3!?
17 cxd3 JLe8 doesn't guarantee
White any advantage) 16...JLe8 17
Sf2!? (the game immediately levels
out after 17 #f2 £ixe5 18 #xc5!?
£ixd3 19 cxd3 £g6 20 Se5 £xd3
21 £lxd5 exd5 22 #xd5+ #f7=
Abreu-Luther, World Team Ch,
Yerevan 2001) 17...£)xd3!? (a more
or less forced decision; after
17...Sc8?! 18 i.fl! Black is in for a
great deal of trouble) 18 Wxd3 (or
18 cxd3 Sc8 19 Sfe2 Ah5 20 Sf2
Sc7=) 18...Sc8, with a roughly
equal game. 15 cxd3 Black has a
simpler task in the event of 15
#xd3 Ae8 16 Sael Ag6=.
£
HPW
™....... vw. »tw. «t
m, I IH.fi.II 1m X
mMmfwm m
"VSJI'S, '/M£ W/M VS.
K234. 920%. $%%. ^3 ■?-&-(
15...e5!? The correct decision!
Playing the White side is sheer
delight after 15...&e8?! 16 Sael
i.g6 17 £>e5 &xe5 18 Sxe5 &f5 19
Sfel #g6 20 &b5!T Balabaev-

210 Classical System 3 &c3 fcf6 4 $Lg5 k.el 5 e5 Qsfd.7 6 &xe7
Suchomel, Olomouc open 2002. 16
ffael!? This sets Black more
problems than 16 £ixe5 £ixe5 17
fxe5 Wxe5 18 d4 #h5=. 16...exf4!?
This is probably stronger than
16...iLh3 17 ff£2 d4 18 £te4 #f5 19
£>h4!? (after 19 £>xe5 £lxe5 20
fxe5 #xe5 21 Hxf8+ Sxf8 22 Q£2
Wh5! the chances are equal, De
Firmian-Chernin, New York open
1988; however, 19 £>fg5!? deserves
attention, for instance 19..JLg4 20
h3! ±xh3 21 2h2T) 19...#d7 20 f5!
£xf5 21 £>c5 »d5 22 £>xf5 #xc5
23 Wg5, with an attack; Sax-
Jurkovic, Croatian Team Ch 1996.
17 &xd5 #d6 After 17...#f7 18
£>xf4 #xa2 19 d4! #a5D 20 #xa5
£lxa5 21 He7, Black has a difficult
struggle for the draw ahead of him;
Rodriguez-Chernin, Subotica izt
1987. 18 &xf4 &g4 19 #e3
Sad8!? Black maintains the
tension; after 19...&X0 20 #xB!?
#d4+ 21 Sf2 Had8 22 Se4 White's
chances would be preferable. 20
£>g5 Or 20 fif2 h6! 21 h4 11)4,
with quite good compensation for
the pawn. 20...h6 21 £)e4 *b4 22
h3 i.f5 23 2f2 £ie5S Ulibin-
Bagirov, Dubai open 2000.
w iH A ill
SH I mflmm X #Xf X
Hi
in
m.
wz; wk 'W* 'W>
& m mAMR
10...#xc5
The game takes on a different
character with 10...£lxc5 11 0-0-0
Once again 11 JLd3 is not bad, for
example ll...a6 (perhaps ll...f6!?
deserves some thought) 12 We3 f5
(or 12...h6!?) 13 exf6 £sxd3+ 14
#xd3 Wxf6 15 g3 Ad7 16 £)g5!
Wf5 17 #xf5 2xf5 18 0-0-0±
Ljubojevic-Seirawan, Reykjavik
1991. After the text move, Black
usually chooses between 1 l...a6 (A)
and ll...f6 (B). We should briefly
note that the slow ll..J&.d7 12 We3
Hac8 13 *bl a6 allows the
dangerous 14 f5!T.
IKMZJHp.
■IIS1?
(A) ll...a6 12 ±d3 After 12
#63!? the play often simply
transposes, but of course some
independent variations are also
posible. For example: 12...b5
(12...f5? loses to 13 Sxd5!, but
12...Sd8!? 13 £>e2 &d7 14 £>ed4
Bac8°° deserves attention; Aseev-
Bareev, Lvov zt 1990) 13 4b 1 (in
Labutin-Ulibin, Kstovo 1997, the
premature 13 f5?! allowed Black to
seize the initiative quickly with
13...Wa7! 14 £>d4 &xd4 15 #xd4

Classical System 3 *hc3 £>/6 4 &g5 Ae7 5 e5 fofd7 6 kxel 211
exf5 16 £)xd5 £e6?) 13...b4 14
£>e2 £ie4 15 £>ed4 £ixd4 16 Sxd4
&b7 17 £d3 fifd8 18 £>g5!t
Gdanski-Brynell, Bundesliga 2002.
12...b5 White's chances deserve
preference in the event of 12...f5 13
exf6 *xf6 14 g3 £.d7 15 £>g5
£>xd3+ 16 #xd3 #f5 17 #xf5
Sxf5 18 Shel± S.Polgar-Gulko,
Aruba 1992. 13 #63!? With this
move White takes control of some
squares on the queenside and
prepares to occupy the extremely
important point d4. It would also be
worth considering 13 £te2!?.
Instead, the game Alekseev-
Gleizerov, Geneva open 2004,
proceeded interestingly with 13 Wf2
f5!? 14 exf6 Sxf6 15 #e3 b4 16
£>e2 a5 17 &b5 A.b7 18 £xc6
&xc6 19 She 1 a4 20 £sed4 &d7 21
f5 a3, and Black succeeded in
obtaining adequate counterplay on
the queenside. 13...£>xd3+!? 14
cxd3 ±b7 15 £)e2 d4! 16 £sexd4
£sb4, and Black's prospects are not
at all bad; Almazi - Gleizerov,
Geneva open 2004.
(B) ll...f6 12 exf6 #xf6 13 g3
mmjsm
m I mm mm mX
jmjLmm mm % . >
M£m2M#1
i$kXw m
Wfc Wk Wt 1
k Wk mm m I
mm ■ ""H
** mnmMMB
13...Sd8 White was intending
18^2-63 which would be quite
unpleasant for Black; the text
move forestalls this threat. In
Wedberg-Olsson, Swedish Ch,
Linkoping 2001, White seized the
initiative after 13...Bb8?! 14 #e3!
b6 15 Ab5 Ab7 16 Shel £»e7 17
£k!4 &e4 18 &d7!T. The careless
13...±d7? allows the small
combination 14 £bcd5! exd5 15
#xd5+ £te6 16 &g5!? *h8 17
#xd7 £lxg5 18 fxg5 #xg5+ 19
Wd2±. 14 #el!? Quite honestly
White may be bewildered by the
number of promising lines here!
Thus 14 ±b5!? is worth
considering, and so is 14 Ag2 with
the possible continuation: 14...Ad7
(after 14...£>e4 15 #e3 £)xc3 16
#xc3 #xc3 17 bxc3 h6 18 She 1
Ad7 19 £te5 £bce5 20 Sxe5± the
initiative is with White,
notwithstanding the defects of his pawn
structure; Ovechkin - Chuprikov,
Voronezh open 2003) 15 Shel Ae8
16 #12 b6 17 &g5! Sac8 18 #e2T
Efimenko - Volkov, EU-Cup,
Halkidiki 2002. On the other hand
it's likely that Black can gradually
equalize after 14 JLd3 JLd7 15 Shel
Sac8 16 *bl i.e8 17 £>e5 £>xe5 18
Sxe5 £>d7 19 Seel Ah5!? 20 Ae2
iLg6= Fercec - Ulibin, Croatian
Team Ch, Pula 2000; or 14 Wf2 d4!
15 £ft>5 e5 16 ^g5 (at least this is
more interesting than 16 Ac4+ Ae6
17 #e2 d3! 18 cxd3 £xc4 19 dxc4
£*b4T Safin-Bagirov, Abu Dhabi
2001) 16...Sf8! 17 &c4+ *h8?*.
14...1.d7

212 Classical System 3 *hc3 *&f6 4 ±g5 $Le7 5 e5 Z&fd7 6 &xe7
y H ^H mm
itili mX
///m'%mlm jm
15 #e3! Black manages to
maintain approximate equality after
15 Ab5 Sac8 16 &xc6 &xc6 17
£)d4 .&e8 18 #e5 #xe5! 19 fxe5
<&>f7!= Socko-Gleizerov, Rilton Cup
2000. 15...b6 16 3.b5 Or 16 &g2!?,
which may serve as quite a good
alternative to the text move; there
can follow 16...Ae8 17 £id4 £)xd4
18 2xd4 2ac8 19 Sel b5 (White's
chances are also preferable after
19...£g6 20 g4!) 20 S.h.3!, with
unpleasant pressure and the constant
threat of a knight sacrifice on d5;
Inarkiev-Riazantsev, Russian Ch,
Krasnoiarsk 2003. 16...Sac8 17
Shel £)e7 The game Wedberg-
Gleizerov, Stockholm 2002, went
17...±e8 18 &xc6 Sxc6 19 &d4
Scd6 20 g4!t which doesn't hold
out rosy prospects for Black. 18
i.xd7 Sxd7 19 ^d4 £if5 20 f e5
£}xd4 21 Hxd4, with a small but
secure advantage to White; Prasad-
Bagirov, Abu Dhabi 2002.
11 0-0-0
At this stage White can scarcely
count on gaining the initiative by
any other means. Thus, on 11 JLd3
£>b6 12 b3 Ad7 13 £ie2 f6!? Black
has nothing to worry about
(13...£)b4?! is less convincing in
view of 14 £ted4 f6 15 a3! £>c6 16
c3 Sac8 17 <4>e2!? a5 18 a4, with a
small plus for White; Spassky-
Lautier, Cannes 1989).
Black can also be quite happy
with 11 a3 a6!? (the aim is to
maintain the queen on the gl-a7
diagonal; after ll...£)b6 12 b4! We7
13 &d3 &d7 14 0-0 a5 15 b5 Wc5+
16 <&>hl £>e7 17 a4, Black is simply
suffocating for lack of space;
Kovacevic-Jeremic, Yugoslav Cup,
Kotor 2002) 12 b4 #b6 13 £d3 f6
14 exf6 £sxf6, which gives him his
full share of the play.
Il...£ib6!?
Black quite clearly demonstrates
his unwillingness to defend
passively; he is preparing active
counterplay with his pieces on the
queenside.
Instead ll...a6 is rather slow.
There can follow: 12 £)e2!? White
also quite often plays 12 JLd3, with
the possible continuation 12...f6!?
(of course not 12...b5?, which runs
into the immediate refutation 13
&xh7+! <&xh7 14 &g5+ *g8 15
#d3 Se8 16 *h7+ *f8 17 #h5!
£\d8 18 £lh7+ &g8 19 Sd3! We7
20 Sh3 with a tremendous attack;
Chandler-Agnos, London 1989) 13
exf6 £>xf6 14 Shel ±d7 15 *bl
b5?i. I2...b5 13 £)ed4 £sxd4 The
waiting move 13...JLb7 occurred in
King-Short, British Team Ch 2001;
there followed 14 h4 &xd4 15
£>xd4 b4 16 Sh3 Sae8, and now 17
Sb3! a5 18 jk.b5 would have given

Classical System 3 &c3 Q\f6 4 &g5 ±e7 5 eS *&fd7 6 ±xe7 213
White the better game. 14 £>xd4
&b6 15 Ad3!? £)c4 16 Wf2, and
White has the superior chances.
A line that deserves more
attention is ll...f6 12 exf6 £)xf6,
for instance: 13 &d3 Sb8!? The
advance of the b-pawn is an
important part of Black's strategy.
After the passive 13...i.d7 14 &bl
a6 15 Shel Sae8 16 g3!? <&h8
17 £>e5, White undoubtedly holds
the initiative; Tischbierek-Braun,
Deizisau 2000. 14 <4>bl In the
well-known game Kupreichik-
Bareev, USSR Ch 1987, White
played the ineffective 14 Ethel b5
15 £>e5?! (15 £)e2!?) 15...£>xe5 16
2xe5 b4 17 £)e2 £lg4! 18 Sg5
£)f2T. 14...b5 15 £te2! &h8 16
Wei!? The game is level after 16
Wc3 Wxc3 17 £>xc3 b4 18 £>e2
£>g4=. 16...b4 17 Wh4 &g8 18
Shel± Klovans-Nikolenko,
Pardubice open 1995.
r£f 11§ HI £ Wi •
i W2 X. Vagi
m I m
<««% #%%> v<^9 Oy
mrJm m §m
12i.d3
The most natural move. However,
the following continuations are also
seen in practice:
(A) 12 £)d4 An active move, but
not a very dangerous one for Black
to meet. 12...&d7 13 *bl &xd4!?
14 Wxd4 #xd4 15 2xd4 f6! 16
exf6 gxf6= Sariego-Ulibin, Bayamo
1991.
(B) Not infrequently White's
plans incorporate a thrust with the
h-pawn, for example 12 h4!? Ad7
The White side is simpler to play
after 12...f6 13 exf6 Sxf6 14 Ad3
Ad7 15 Shel £>c4 16 Axc4 Wxc4
17 g3, with a solid advantage;
Kruppa-Ulibin, Minsk 1997. 13 b.5
Or 13 Sh3!?.
twm—w,
TBS?.
V'.&vl^'mmJ^''///////"'-/////,.
13...fiac8!? In Solozhenkin-
Ulibin, Montecatini 1997, Black
played the less effective 13...a5 14
h6 g6 15 £*2! f5 (or 15...a4 16 a3)
16 exf6 d4; at this point 17 Wf2! e5
18 £>f3! £g4 19 fxe5 i.xf3 20 gxfi
#xe5 21 £ie4 would have
guaranteed White a clear plus. Quite
often it is the other rook that is
posted to the c-file; on 13...Sfc8!?,
there can follow 14 h6 g6 15 *bl!?
£>a5 16 #d4 We7! 17 Sh3!? £sbc4
18 £>d2 b5!<* Rausis-Ziiger, Catania
open 1994. 14 h6 g6 15 a3 Black
can answer 15 £)h2 with the
interesting 15...f5!? 16 exf6 d4«>. He
also has an excellent game in the

214 Classical System 3 *hc3 *hf6 4 &g5 &e7 5 e5 thfd7 6 kxel
event of 15 *bl?! £)a5 16 Wd4!?
#e7!?i (Black of course avoids the
queen exchange) 17 £sd2 £>c6! 18
Wf2 f6? Mukhaev-Matveeva,
Tomsk open 1998. 15...£)a5!? In
these positions Black's play is not
remarkable for any great variety,
but it is effective enough. 16 Wld4
The White position would already
be indefensible after 16 b4? #e7 17
bxa5 #xa3+ 18 *bl Sxc3+.
16...£}a4! In this case the stock
move 16...1fe7 allows 17 HfM±.
Nor is 16...^ac4 so convincing; the
game Solozhenkin-Morozevich,
Russian Cup 1997, continued 17
£xc4 £>xc4 18 #xc5 Sxc5 19
Sd3± 17 #xc5 Sxc5 18 £ixa4
£xa4 19 ±d3 Sfc8! 20 &d4 On 20
b4? 2xc2+! 21 &xc2 Sxc2+ 22
&bl £>c4, White would be hard
pressed. 20...£ib3+! 21 &xb3 Axb3
22 Sd2 Ac4=
(C) 12 &bl &d7
13 h4 Black succeeds in
neutralizing his opponent's
initiative after 13 £ft5 £>a4!?
(Black can hardly be pleased with
the way the fight develops after
13...Sac8 14 &d6 2c7 15 &b5 f6
16 £xc6 #xc6 17 £>d4 #a4 18
Shel± Groszpeter-Almasi,
Hungarian Team Ch 1994) 14 £)bd4
(Hjartarson-Brynell, Stockholm
1996, went 14 &d6 f6! 15 Ae2D
fxe5 16 fxe5 &xe5 17 £)xe5 Wxd6
18 &xd7 #xd7, and already White
had to struggle for equality)
M.-.tTtf 15 c3 (in Lindberg-Ulibin,
Stockholm 1996, the incautious 15
£>b3? landed White in serious
trouble after 15...a5! 16 &d3 £)xb2!
17 *>xb2 a4) 15...£>c5 16 &d3 f6,
with chances for both sides.
13...Sfc8!? Here 13...£>c4?! is
weaker, as after 14 JLxc4 WXC4 15
h5 b5 16 h6 g6 17 We3! White's
advantage is obvious; Kritz-Mahesh
Chandran, Nahichecan 2003. 14
Sh3 &a5 15 lfd4 &ac4 16 ifxc5
Sxc5 17 ^d4 2ac8= Kovacevic-
Jeremic, Yugoslav Ch, Banja
Koviljaca 2002.
12...£d7
Black can also play 12...£\c4, but
after e.g. 13 £lxc4 #xc4 14 &>bl f6
15 exf6 fixf6 16 g3 Ad7 17 Ethel
&e8 18 €te5 &xe5 19 Sxe5 &g6
20 £k2! White's chances are to be
preferred; Gdanski - Hoang Thanh
Trang, Budapest 1996.

216 Classical System 3 fcc3 Zhf6 4 &g5 Ae7 5 e5 C&fdl 6 ±xe7
White pins his hopes on the
playability of this sacrifice.
14...&xh7 15 &g5+ ^8 16 #d3
Sfe8 Or 16...H&8 17 ffh7+ &fS 18
f5! (more convincing than 18 #118+
<&>e7 19 #xg7 <&>d8 20 £ixf7+ *c7
21 £>d6 £tec4£ Tong Yuanming-
Ulibin, Beijing Lee Cup 1996)
18...exf5 19 #h8+ &e7 20 #xg7
&e6 21 £ixe6 <4>xe6 22 «T6+ <*d7
23 lrxf7+ <&c6 24 £lxd5±. 17
#h7+ *f8
m m + m w
W Mm B
22^ 222222? 'tiny' 22222225
I II I 1
2222222= c=> 2222222 SSC— "
18 fhS+I The game Glek-
Morozevich, Russian Ch, St
Petersburg 1998, quickly ended in a
draw after 18 £>ce4?! dxe4 19 £>xe4
#c6! 20 Sd6 Wb5 21 #h8+ <&>e7
22 Wh4+ =. 18...&e7 19 #xg7!
White also has the better chances
after 19 «h4!? Sh8! 20 £>h7+ 4>e8
(similar positions arise from 20...g5
21 #xg5+ <&e8 22 #g7 Sxh7 23
#xh7 £>ac4 24 #g8+ Wffi) 21
£>f6+ gxf6 22 Wxh8+ VfS 23 #xf6
&ac4 24 Sd3 11)4 25 b3±
Grabics-Matveeva, Istanbul ol 2000.
19...&d8 Not 19...Sf8? which loses
at once to 20 £ke4! dxe4 21 £*xe4
#b4 22 Wf6+ <&e8 23 £)d6+ #xd6
24 exd6 +-. 20 &xf7+ &c7 21 £id6
&ac4 Or 21...Sed8 22 #e7! *c6
23 £fo5! with numerous threats. 22
£>cb5+! &b8 23 &xc4 +- Resika-
Hanley, Budapest 2002.
14£)b5
m
mmmmt
Wfc WH f^i WM
S 222222; vmy//. W
White can hardly expect any
advantage from 14 £.xh7+ *xh7 15
£sg5+ &g8 16 #d3 Sfe8D 17
#h7+ <&f8 18 Wh8+ (or 18 &ge4
dxe4 19 £ixe4, followed by giving
perpetual check on h8 and h4; in
Sax-Timman, Roterdam 1989,
White played instead 18 #h5 &e7
19 £>xf7, and now after 19...£>c4! it
would already be Black who could
bid for the advantage) 18...<£>e7 19
#xg7 <4>d8! 20 #xf7 2e7«>.
14...f6!
On 14...a6?! 15 £sd6 Sc7 16 c3!,
the Black queen starts to feel rather
uncomfortable.
15 exf6 Sxf6 16 £ibd4!?
The play also takes an interesting
course after 16 Shel ^a4! 17 c3 (or
17 b3 a6! 18 bxa4 axb5 19 iLxb5
ie8!, and the time has come for
White to think how to maintain the
balance; Rodriguez-Zuger, Aosta
open 1990) H...!^!? 18 #c2!?
Sxf4 19 £%5 h6 20 £)xe6 Axe6 21

Classical System 3 foc3 *bf6 4 k.g5 ±e7 5 e5 Zhfd7 6 &xe7 217
Bxe6 £k5, and Black is not far off
equalizing.
16...&xd4 17 £)xd4 £sa4 18 £ib3
#c7!?
In Almasi-Sermek, Bukfurdo
1995, Black played the weaker
18...*b6 19 Shel £b5 20 £xb5
#xb5 21 Se5 ^c5 22 <&xc5 #xc5
23 2del2c6 24g4!T.
19 g3 e5 20 fxe5 #xe5
By now the results of the opening
can perhaps be stated. In my view
Black is close to attaining equality;
a nominal plus is the most that
White can claim.
21 Wcl!?
Or 21 c3£g4=o.
21...Sf2
In my view 21...£\b6 would have
been simpler.
22 Sdel #f6
Or 22.. .#d6!?.
23 Shfl £h3?!
After 23...2xfl!? 24 Sxfl #e5,
there could hardly be any serious
problems for Black.
24 Sxf2 #xf2 25 We3! #xe3
The refutation of 25...#xh2? is
not very complicated: 26 g4! .&xg4
27 «d4 +-.
26 Sxe3 Sf8 27 a3?!
A wholly unjustified loss of time.
The simple 27 Se7 would have
guaranteed White a solid plus.
27..JLfl!± 28 h4! i.xd3 29 Sxd3
SH+ 30 <&a2 Sf2 31 £)d4 Sg2?!
Black has simply forgotten about
his knight, which for a long time has
been suffering from inactivity on
the queenside. With 31...£ic5 32
Sc3 £le4 he could have maintained
the balance.
32 b4!
From now on, Black's position
continually deteriorates.
32...£)b6 33 *b3 £k4 34 £)f5!
£>d2+ 35 <*c3 <£e4+ 36 <4>d4!t
Sxc2?!
Despite the enormous contrast in
the position of the kings, Black
would still have had saving chances
after 36...g6!? 37 £)e7+ *f7 38
£)xd5 £sxg3.
37 £>xd5!± £lf6+ 38 £>e5! Se2+
39 <&>d6! Sc2 40 *e7! He2+ 41
&d8!
The white king feels quite at
home in the enemy camp!
41...Se5 42 &d6 b6 43 <&c7 g5
44 £>b8 gxh4 45 gxh4 a5 46 b5! +-
The game nears its end; Black
incurs severe material losses on the
queenside.
46...Sc5 47 &b7 £)d5 48 £ie4!
Sc7+ 49 <4>b8 Sc4 50 Sxd5 Hxe4
51 &c7 a4 52 <£>xb6 Se3 53 <&a7
Sxa3 54 b6 1-0

Index of Variations
Page numbers are italicized.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £k3
Chapter 1
3...£>c6 7
3...a6 7
3...h6 8
3...c5 5
3...i.e7 9
3...dxe4 4£>xe4.&d7 75
4...b6 15
4...£>f6 75
4...&e7 76
4...#d5 76
Chapter 2
3...dxe4 4 £>xe4 &d7 5 g3 25
5£d3 27
5 £sfi &gf6 6 Ad3 25
6i.g5-.seeC/!. 8:
(3...*hf6 4 A.g5 dxe4 5 £ke4 *hbd7 6 &J3)
6 £>xf6+ £lxf6 7 &d3 55
7g3 55
7 &e5 53
7&c4 34
7£e3 54
7c3 34
7 &g5-see Ch. 8:
(3...Zhf6 4 $Lg5 dxe4 5 ^xe4 *hbd7 6 ^xf6+ £xf6 7 fy3)

220 Index of Variations
Chapter 3
3...£>f6 4i.d3 43
4 exd5 44
4e5£ig8 44
4...£te4 45
4...SW7 5<£ke2 45
5<&B 45
Chapter 4
3...£>f6 4e5£)fd7 5 f4 c5 6 dxc5 58
6 £)f3 Wb6 57
6...a6 58
6...&c6 7£>e2 62
7i.e3a6 62
7...b6 63
7...Sb8 65
7...ie7 63
7...*b6 72
Chapter 5
3...£tf6 4e5£rfd7 5 f4 c5 6 £>B £>c6 7 &e3 cxd4 78
8<2ixd4lfb6 78
8...£)xd4 78
8..J.C5 83
Chapter 6
3...£lf6 4i.g5dxe4 5 £ixe4 &e7 6 &g3 97
6&d3 97
6&xf6gxf6 97

Index of Variations 221
Chapter 7
3...£if6 4 i.g5 dxe4 5 £)xe4 Ae7 6 i.xf6 i.xf6 7 £>xf6+ 772
7&f3£k6 772
7...£>d7 775
7...0-0 772
8*d2 775
8c3 775
8*d3 775
8i.d3 776
8ix4 776
Chapter 8
3...£)f6 4i.g5dxe4 5 &xe4 £ibd7 6 I'D 726
6£>xf6+ 726
6<£tf3i.e7 72<?
6...h6 725 7&xf6+ 733
7i.h4 733
7i.xf6 733
Chapter 9
3...£)f6 4i.g5i.b4 5i.d3 743
5£>ge2 144
5exd5 745
5e5h6 6i.e3 747
6i.h4 747
6i.cl 747
6exf6 745
6i.d2£tfd7 755
6...i.xc3 7i.xc3 755
7bxc3£te4 8 i.d3 757
8#g4*>f8 158
8 ... g6 765

222 Index of Variations
Chapter 10
3...£tf6 4 Ag5 Ael 5 exd5 179
5&xf6 779
5e5£>g8 180
5...£)e4 750
5...£>fd7 6 h.4 &xg5 82
6...£>c6 752
6...h6 752
6...0-0 752
6...f6 75J
6...a6 184
6...C5 756
Chapter 11
3...£lf6 4±g5i.e75e5^fd7 6ixe7lrxe7 7^f3 795
7&b5 796
7&d3 797
7Wg4 797
7#d2 797
7f4a6 795
7...0-0 8 <&G c5 205
9dxc5 205
9i.d3 206
9£)b5 206
9Wd2 207

Index of Games
Page
Anand-Shirov, 1st Match Game, Leon 2000 43
Brazon-Glek, Esbjerg 2002 165
Bruzon-Nogueiras, Havana 2002 126
Christiansen-Andersson, World Championship, Groningen 1997 97
Fedorov-Akopian, Moscow Aeroflot open, 2002 83
Fressinet-Vallejo Pons, Mondariz Zonal 2000 143
Grischuk-V.Gaprindashvili, Ubeda open 1995 33
Herrera-Nogueiras, Cuban Championship, Villa Clara 2000 57
Inarkiev-Rustemov, Russian Championship, Krasnodar 2002 14
Kos-Zuger, Mitropa Cup, Charleville 2000 179
Kovacevic-Tukmakov, Basel 2002 195
Lutz-Korchnoi, Essen 2002 155
Naiditsch-Blauert, Budapest 1998 205
Rechlis-Zuger, European Championship, Ohrid 2001 78
Sakaev-Kacheishvili, Ubeda 2001 112
Timman-Granda Zuniga, Amsterdam 1995 25
Timman-Thesing, Holland 2000 7
Yudasin-Palatnik, Kiev 1987 72

This is f ho fourth and final volume of Lev
PsctWusii mor mental work on the
Fi hB F nfjon from his
survey of the Winawer Variation In
Fi hDt 3h J0b4 tf author
iipre analyses Blackfe alternativo
re ions o 3 Nt" In ad n to the
S! tz ion l .. Nf6 4 e5) and the
C.c™,^l System (3 Nf6 4Bg5Be7)
tn eim rpor the
Rub,nsteir Burn and MacCutcheon
5'. Ti; of v it een an
■ if jrge of mtert-f in ""ecent years.
The booh presents a wealth of
iin Tative games by \flswan- nan
Ai I All /. Alt ar Br
G' chufc Jan Tlm'^an Viktor Korchno)
ni other leadln /
annotated with the mc~ up-to-date
the al reflr . An e hL _
devoten of the crench Defence for
c sr21 si iw. Ps brem:
s Jy ol .Jivp m his judgments
su whether you pay the French for
WT 3 or i Is the most
auf^ontative and comprehbii /e Guide
av( ible today.
Grandmaster Lev Psakhis is a former
E )t CI mpion. row living m Israel
His previuus books for Batsfi i [ncluae
The Compl e Frer l and The
Complete Bsnoni, as well as the three
former >]um ; in the pr( it serie
French Defence 3 Nd?, Advance and
Other Antl-Fren 1 Variations, and
Fra, -hDefen Bb4
oi
>lum ; in t
French Defence 3 Nd2
Lev Psahius
t ^4 8825 5
Advance and Other Anti-French
Variations
[ * ^ co'i-. I
French Defence 3 Nc3 Bb4
Lev Psakhis
C ^1^4 8841 7
FalesanrlMariML.,,
s Building
moon vi '
UK £15 99
UBS2295
Can$3Z95
I^BM
"54688 18941 e' 9
780713"489415