A^ B T
The French: Tarrasch
Variation
omprehensive coverag* o anim*» an mod* n chess opening
Ste fen 'eder en

The French:
Tarrasch Variation
Steffen Pedersen
AI^BUT

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2005
Copyright © Gambit Publications 2005
The right of Steffen Pedersen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or
otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other
than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being
imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from the British Library.
ISBN 1 901983 49 8
Distribution:
Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN.
Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com
USA: Continental Enterprises Group, Inc., 302 West North 2nd Street, Seneca, SC 29678, USA.
For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit chess titles) please contact the publishers,
Gambit Publications Ltd, 6 Bradmore Park Rd, Hammersmith, London W6 ODS, England.
E-mail: info@gambitbooks.com
Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com
Edited by Graham Burgess
Typeset by John Nunn
Cover image by Wolff Morrow
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wilts.
10 987654321
Gambit Publications Ltd
Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler
Chess Director: GM John Nunn
Editorial Director: FM Graham Burgess
German Editor: WFM Petra Nunn

Contents
Symbols 4
Bibliography 5
Introduction 6
1 3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 Main Line: 10 £>xd4 14
2 4...1ifxd5: Deviations from the Main Line 30
3 4...exd5: The Old Main Line, 5...£>c6 6 i.b5 41
4 4...exd5: Systems with ..Adl 58
5 4...exd5: Deviations from the Main Lines 68
6 4 £\gf3 and Other 4th Move Alternatives 75
3...£if6
7 3...£rf6 Main Line: 11 0-0 84
8 7&gf3 112
9 Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4 120
10 Deviations from the Main Lines 134
Other 3rd Moves
11 3...i.e7 145
12 3...a6 163
13 3.. .£\c6 and Minor 3rd Moves 177
Index of Variations
189

Symbols
+
++
#
If
1
!?
?!
?
??
+-
+
11+
=
00
T
+
-+
Ch
Cht
Wch
Wcht
Ech
Echt
ECC
Ct
IZ
Z
OL
jr
worn
rpd
tt
sim
corr.
qual
1-0
V2-V2
0-1
(n)
(D)
check
double check
checkmate
brilliant move
good move
interesting move
dubious move
bad move
blunder
White is winning
White is much better
White is slightly better
equal position
unclear position
Black is slightly better
Black is much better
Black is winning
championship
team championship
world championship
world team championship
European championship
European team championship
European Clubs Cup
candidates event
interzonal event
zonal event
olympiad
junior event
women's event
rapidplay game
team tournament
game from simultaneous display
correspondence game
qualifying event
the game ends in a win for White
the game ends in a draw
the game ends in a win for Black
nth match game
see next diagram

Bibliography
Books
ECO, volume C (2nd, 3rd and 4th editions), Sahovski Informator, 1981/1997/2000
Uhlmann: Winning With the French, Batsford, 1995
Watson: Play the French (new edition), Cadogan, 1996
McDonald and Harley: Mastering the French, Batsford, 1997
Harding: Four Gambits to Beat the French, Chess Digest, 1998
Tiemann: Die Franzbsisch Verteidigung (band 2), Reinhold Dreier, 1992
Emms: The French Tarrasch, Batsford, 1998
Minev: French Defense 2, Thinkers' Press, 1998
Nunn, Burgess, Emms and Gallagher: Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO), Gambit/Everyman, 1999
Pedersen: The Main Line French: 3 fac3, Gambit, 2001
Watson: Play the French (3rd edition), Everyman, 2003
Psakhis: French Defence 3 *hd2, Batsford, 2003
Periodicals
Various, including Informator, New In Chess Yearbook and ChessBase Magazine.

Introduction
The French is so rich on strategy that it makes
sense to go over some of the most important
tactical themes and typical plans before
delving into the more compact theoretical
coverage.
Knowledge of common manoeuvres,
tactical motifs, weak squares, advantageous piece
formations, etc., is helpful in all openings, not
least in the French Tarrasch.
I have divided this introduction into sections
similarly to the way the book is structured, with
the exception that the general themes relevant
to 3...a6, which often results in isolated queen's
pawn positions, are given in that section under
3...c5.
Although the 3...c5 lines may result in several
types of positions, I have chosen only to go
briefly through two of them.
The 4...1xd5 Structure
This is a typical pawn-structure from the
4...0xd5 lines with a few pieces added. Often
White places his pawn on c3 to strengthen his
control of the centre (and frequently protect a
knight on d4). The structure in itself doesn't
define a positional advantage for either side as
much depends on the piece configuration. With
White castling kingside and Black queenside, a
tense struggle often arises. A black set-up with
...Wc7 and .. JLd6 could appear menacing,
particularly if Black also manages to put his light-
squared bishop on the a8-hl diagonal. The type
of position with opposite-side castling often
leads to dynamic play with chances for both
sides. Here is an instructive example where
Black comes first:
Borge - Cu. Hansen
Danish Ch (Tdstrup) 1998
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 &d2 c5 4 exd5 *xd5 5 &gf3
cxd4 6 i.c4 *d6 7 0-0 £if6 8 £ib3 &c6 9
£ibxd4 £ixd4 10 £>xd4 a6 11 Sel tfc7 12
i.b3 i.d7 (D)
w
A JH JH
AttA All
HP
aba
AH
13 c3
This is slightly passive, and in fact there is no
need for this extra protection of the knight on
d4. A more common continuation is 13 WO
i.d6 14h3 0-0-015±g5.
13...i.d6 14 h3 0-0-0 15 0e2 S b8 16 a4

Introduction
7
Quite naturally White begins expanding on
the queenside. However, this type of position
is often more dangerous for Black if White's
bishop is still on c4.
16...Shg8! (D)
A significant improvement on the previous
16...i.c8 17 a5 Shg8 18 £if3 h6 19 Ae3 £>d7
20 Aa4 Ac5 21 b4 i.xe3 22 Wxe3 g5 23 b5,
when White had the stronger attack in Adams-
Akopian, Khalkidhiki 1992.
17i.e3
Adams's treatment from above with 17 £>f3
is now well met by 17..JLc6, and if 18 £te5,
then 18...i.e4!.
17...g5
Black is already better. White's next move is
a creative attempt to make a £>b5 sacrifice
work, but he is not allowed any time to put this
plan into action.
18 Sa2? g4 19 h4 g3 20 f3 e5! (D)
White is being pushed further and further
back.
21 £ic2 i.e6!? 22 i.xe6 fxe6 23 c4 £ih5 24
b4We7 25c5i.c7
Safety first, but the more direct 25...£tf4 26
Axf4 exf4 27 Wxe6 Wxh4 28 Wh3 Wxh3 29
gxh3 JLf8 is also very good.
26 i.g5 2xg5! 27 hxg5 £if4 28 We4 Hd2
0-1
Of course all, Black's lot in the 4...Wxd5
lines is not always so glamorous. He must be
especially careful not to run into trouble due to
falling behind in development. Even if Black
manages to catch up with White in
development, some dangers are still lurking:
Adams - Bareev
Wijk aan Zee 2004
13...i.d7
13...Ae5 is more precise.
14 i.g5 Ae5 15 Sadl h6 16 £.h4 0-0 17
Hfel Hfd8 18 c3 Sac8 19 h3 (D)
Black seems to have come through the
opening phase quite nicely but this may only be a
superficial impression. It is not that easy to find a
decent plan. Black could try 19...Wb8 to await
events but White will play 20 We2, when Black
cannot keep his bishop on e5 anyway. 20...2c5
will be met by 21 &f3 Af4 22 Axf6 gxf6 23
We4 ±. Bareev admits the difficulties and gives
up the bishop-pair at once.
19...i.xd4 20 2xd4 £.c6 21 We3 2xd4 22
Wxd4 Wd8 23 i.xf6 Wxf6??

8
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
23...gxf6 keeps White's advantage to a
minimum. The text-move is a major blunder.
24Wxf6gxf6 25 2xe61-0
The Isolated Queen's Pawn
Positions with an isolated d-pawn arise after
3...c5 4 exd5 exd5, and then after a further
exchange of Black's c-pawn for White's d-pawn,
or after 3...a6 or 3...Ae7 followed by ...c5 with
a similar set of exchanges. Much has been
written on this subject, not least because the type of
position arises frequently from a large number
of different openings, and with both White and
Black ending up with an isolated d-pawn. Here,
of course, it is Black who plays with the
isolated queen's pawn, and we shall speak of the
concrete issue in the French.
In general, it can often be said that White's
prospects increase with every exchange of
pieces. But this is also far from clear-cut, since
it also depends on which pieces remain on the
board, and this topic is too subtle to be fully
explained in just a few lines of text. Throughout
the coverage of these lines we shall see many
specific instances, and a study of these should
lead to a finer understanding of these issues.
However, here I shall provide a few pointers
that I hope prove useful.
Taking endgames in general, White should
have more chances in a light-squared bishop
ending than in an endgame with only a knight
each. On the other hand, he probably has no
winning chances in a dark-squared bishop
endgame, while the dream situation is often to have
a knight against a light-squared bishop. With a
dark-squared bishop, Black can almost always
hold. With major pieces also on the board, it is
difficult even to make generalizations, as so
much depends on the pawn-formation.
The following example appears to be a very
favourable endgame for White, but is far from
easy to win:
Matanovic- Uhlmann
Skopje 1976
29 4>e2 4>f8 30 4>e3 4>e7 31 Sb4 4>d6 32
4>d4 b5?!
This appears to be a serious commitment.
Even if White can force this by moving his
bishop around to f3 (threatening c4), Black
shouldn't play it voluntarily at such an early
stage.
33 a4 Sb7 34 Adl Ad7 35 axb5
Matanovic criticizes this and thinks White
should continue 35 Af3 Ac6 36 axb5, and if
36...Sxb5, then 37 Sxb5 axb5 38 b3, intending
to meet 38...£b7 with 39 c4. In this line Black
would probably have to keep the rooks on with
36...axb5.
35...Hxb5
Now if 35...axb5 36 &e2 £c6 37 Sb3, White
may try to use the open a-file.
36 Sxb5 axb5 37 £h5 g6 38 Af3 Ae6 (D)
With Black's bishop on c6, this would be
winning for White, as he will prepare to play c4
at a moment when Black will have to play
...Ab7/a8. Then in comparison with the game

Introduction
9
continuation the extra pawn on the kingside
would make the difference.
39 h4 f6 40 g3 g5 41 £e2 £d7 42 £h5 £h3
43 b3 £d7 44 Af 7 £c6 45 f4 gxh4 46 gxh4
Ab7 47 Ah5 Ac6 48 Af3 £.a8 49 c4 dxc4?
49...bxc4 50 bxc4 Ac6 51 Axd5 Ae8 52 c5+
ic7 is defensible for Black. Against accurate
play White will be unable to penetrate with his
king.
50 Axa8 cxb3 51 Ae4 b2 52 h5 b4 53 <&c4
1-0
Of course, before the endgame comes the
middlegame, and there the IQP can often grant
Black active play. The Armenian GM Lputian
is an expert in handling these positions, and the
following is a nice example of dynamic piece-
Adams - Lputian
Ljubljana 1995
VLJtiB 13 Ad2?!
The main line, and the only move I give in
the theory section, is 13 c3, planning Ac2 and
Wd3. Adams's move is a rather slow attempt at
getting better control of the dark squares.
13...£c7 14 Ac3 Wd6 15 £b5 £b6!
A strong change of diagonal. Black takes
aim against f2 and increases his control of the
important d4-square.
16 a4
Lputian questions this but his improvement
with 16 £>bd4 is not much stronger. Black plays
16...£>cxd4! (Lputian only gives 16...£>fxd4):
17 £ixd4 £xd4 18 £xd4 Wb4 19 c4 dxc4 + or
17 Axd4 £ixd4 18 £ixd4 Wb4 19 c3 Wxb2 +.
16...d417£d2 2d8(D)
18 £icl?
Too slow. White's best might be 18 We2,
although Black is doing well after 18...^.d7.
Instead, 18 Ad3 Ac7 19 &cl £ih4 20 £ixh4
Wh2+ 21 *fl Whl+ 22 <&e2 2e8+ 23 *f3
£>e5+ 24 ie4 leads to fascinating
complications. Black has at least a draw with 24...£>c6+
but of course we want to look for more. Lputian
gives 24...£ig6+ 25 <&xd4 Sxel 26 Wxel Wxel
27 Axel £ixh4 28 Ae4 Af5 as better for Black.
I would rather deliver mate with Black but this
is in fact a more difficult task than I first thought.
Of many tempting options, the quiet 24...Wh2,
threatening all sorts of things, is good. Then a
possible line is 25 <&xd4 £e6 26 c4 2ed8+ 27
<&c3 £ixd3 28 £ixd3 «?d6 29 Wf3 Wd4+ 30
ic2 Jk.xc4, when Black should win.
18...£ie3!

10
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Very strong. Now 19 i.xe3 dxe3 20 Wxd6
exf2+ 21 <±)h2 fixd6 is not very tempting but
the game continuation isn't better.
19 We2 £>xc2 20 Af4 Wxf4 21 Wxc2
Now 21..JLxh3! is a straightforward win.
3...£if6
Knight vs Bad Bishop
A classic scenario in the main line of the 3...£rf6
Tarrasch is a number of minor-piece exchanges,
resulting in Black ending up with a bad light-
squared bishop against a knight. The following
is such a situation:
S.B. Hansen - Gausel
Gentofte (VISA Nordic GP) 1999
Although Black's bishop stands outside the
pawn-chain and White would rather have his
knight closer to the e5-square, there can be no
doubt about White's advantage in this position.
The simple control of e5 and the pressure against
the backward e6-pawn makes this kind of
position very unpleasant for Black. The way Sune
Berg Hansen makes progress is instructive.
26Saeli.f7
This is slightly passive, but Black has to keep
e6 defended and somehow hope for counter-
play on the queenside, while White prepares an
attack on the kingside.
27 Hle3 Wf4 28 g3 Wf6 29 &g2 b5 30 Hf3
Wd8 31 h4 Wb6 32 Wf4 S8c7 33 h5! (D)
The bishop gets no chance to escape from
passivity.
33...Sc4
33...b4 34 £>a4 is awful for Black.
34 £>e2 b4 35 b3 Hc2 36 a4 a5
36...±xh5 37 2xh5 Sxe2 38 Wf8+ *h7 39
2f6+-.
37 g4! Wa6 38 £>g3 22c3 39 g5 Sxf3 40
Vxf3 hxg5 41 2xg5 *h7 42 Wf4 Wc6 43 Hg4
43 £te4! is even stronger since Black cannot
take the knight due to 44 Sc5.
43...i.e8 (D)
44 h6!
With a winning attack. All that is left is to
enjoy the conclusion...
44...gxh6 45 Wf8 i.g6 46 £>h5 fif 7 47 £if6+
Sxf6 48 Wxf6 We8 49 Sg3 h5 50 &h3 Wg8 51
*h4 ms 52 <&g5 e5 53 Wxe5 Wd7 54 Wf6
We8 55 Se3 Ae4 56 Wh6+ *g8 57 Sg3 *f 7
58«ff6+l-0

Introduction
11
The trouble Black ran into here was largely
due to an exchange of the dark-squared
bishops. This is such a strong positional threat that
Black should often look for a way to avoid this,
or at the least attempt to secure some sort of
dynamic counterplay. If White can implement the
exchange and furthermore control the e5-square,
it is often a very bad sign for Black. White can
play for this exchange both by Af4 or a
manoeuvre like Ag5-h4-g3, and in a quiet position
White will very often have the advantage, so
Black should be constantly on the lookout for
dynamic options.
The ...Sxf3 Sacrifice
A standard idea for Black is play on the semi-
open f-file, often leading to an exchange
sacrifice with ...Sxf3, aiming to disrupt the pawn-
shield in front of White's king and undermine
the defence of the d4-pawn. This is often
associated with long-term positional advantages
rather than a direct winning combination, and
several lines involving a ...Sxf3 sacrifice have
been analysed in depth and have become
accepted theoretical continuations.
The next example shows some typical play
Black could hope for after a ...fixf3 sacrifice:
Hakki - Knaak
Novi Sad OL 1990
Black already has a good position, as he is
ready for the liberating ...e5 (another standard
idea for Black) and White is not optimally
placed to meet this. His next move invites the
...Sxf3 sacrifice.
17 Wd2 Sxf3! 18 gxf3 &xd4 19 Ae2
19 *g2 £>e5 20 Ae2 £ixe2 (or simply
20...£ib3) 21 Wxe2 Sf8 + is no improvement
for White.
Black has more than adequate
compensation. He can step up pressure on the f-file, and
has good control of the central squares, while
White's knight is poorly placed on g3.
22 Hadl Hf8 23 - e4
An attempt to bring the knight into play, but
it only forces Black's queen to a strong
attacking position. 23 We3 is better, even if Black can
still consider playing ...We7-h4.
23.Jte7 24«te3lfli4
The knight might have been badly placed on
g3, but now Black's attack is only much
stronger.
25 Wd2 Sf5 26 Se3 Sh5 27 &e4 &e5 0-1
The f4 Central Clamp
A good understanding of standard ideas is
required when White sets up a broad pawn-
centre with f4. An inexperienced player might
get an unpleasant surprise if he doesn't know
what to do, since White not only attempts to
maintain his space advantage by overprotect-
ing the pawn on e5 but he is also very well
placed for an attack on the kingside. This is
because the f-pawn can be used as a
battering-ram to open lines.

12
The French: tarrasch Variation
In this standard position (with White to move)
Black often seeks to undermine White's centre
with ...f6 and often ...g5, and depending on
circumstances Black may even make sacrifices in
the centre. White must be especially wary of
these ideas since he has spent time on many
pawn moves, and these moves have also
exposed his king.
White, on the other hand, would ideally want
his bishop on d3 and knight on e2 but this is
more or less impossible to achieve due to the
attack against d4. Therefore, one of White's
options is a development scheme like g3, Ah3,
£>e2 and *fl-g2.
Another idea for Black against the f4 central
clamp is to aim for the following position.
He can do little here to prevent White's ideal
set-up of Ad3, £\e2, etc., but Black will instead
grab space on the queenside with ...a5-a4(-a3)
and at the same time try to blockade on the
kingside with ...h5 and ...g6. White will have to
take risks if he is to open such a position.
3...i.e7
This line has become a major alternative to
3...c5 and 3...£rf6 and strategically it is a mix
between the two, or even something entirely
independent depending on White's reaction.
Playing for the Bishop-Pair
Some of the main lines often see Black going
for a long-term advantage in the bishop-pair at
the cost of neglecting development somewhat
and even sometimes sacrificing a pawn. Here is
an example:
Godena - Morozevich
Istanbul OL 2000
7...£>b4!?
One of three main lines, the others being
7...jbcc5 and7...a5.
8 £ib3 £>xd3+ 9 cxd3 a5 10 Ag5 a4 11
£>bd2 h6 12 i.xf6 £.xf6 13 e5 £.e7 14 ®e3
«a5 15 Scl
White hangs on to his pawn but Black will
now open the position for his bishops.
15...b6!16cxb6£.d8
Black wins the b-pawn and has excellent
compensation with the two bishops on good
diagonals.

Introduction
13
Black Plays ...a5
In a number of positions Black plays the
seemingly mysterious ...a5. An example in one of the
main lines is 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 Ae7 4 £>gf 3
£>f6 5 e5 £>fd7 6 Ad3 c5 7 c3 £>c6 8 0-0 a5 (D).
W
Black's last move is more than a random
attempt at gaining space on the queenside, even if
that is often enough reason for Black to play
...a5. Here it has the concrete idea of
exchanging on d4 followed by ...1Brb6, because £>b3 can
then be met by ...a4.
3...£>c6
This still has the reputation of being slightly
unusual, although it is not that simple for White
to prove an advantage, and its occasional
adherents include Vaganian.
W
mXMm
Wfci^M
ill
«yMgflA^ H
i
This position occurs after the first five moves
of the main line.
A key idea for Black in this position, which
is of course also common for the French in
general, is the ...f6 break. The attack on White's
centre is not assisted by ...c5 now but on the
other hand Black already has his knight out on
c6 and he might hope that after a exf6 Wxf6
sequence, he would get a chance to carry out ...e5.
White can play simply to develop naturally but
often he can also consider playing Ab5 with the
idea of taking on c6 and playing £>b3 to
damage Black's pawn-formation and obtain
positional advantages, or simply indirectly gaining
control of e5. The bishop is a nuisance for
Black and a frequent way of removing it (if
White has not voluntarily exchanged on c6) is
to play ...a5 and ...£>a7 followed by ...c5 and
...£>c6, again thereby obtaining a fairly normal
position akin to the more popular ...£rf6
variations.

1 3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 Main Line:
10 £\xd4
In this chapter we head directly for the main
line of the most topical way for Black to meet
the Tarrasch. Deviations for both sides after
4...)Brxd5 will be considered in the next chapter.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 ©xd5 5
£>gf3 cxd4 6 ix4 «U6 7 0-0 £>f6 8 £>b3 £>c6
9 £>bxd4 £>xd4 10 £>xd4 (D)
"lAl ■ABA
ill A III •
it ii
/ #e?x i x
1 II 11 ■
t J§i£§o wm wm
ABAB BAH
g~if111'
This position constitutes the main line of the
4...)Brxd5 complex. It is rich in strategic and
tactical possibilities for both sides. White begins
with the freer piece-play and an advantage in
development but Black's pieces will soon take
up promising posts, and Black can look forward
to a dangerous counterattack if he achieves a
set-up with bishops on d6 and c6/b7.
Obviously, he must first take very good care not to
be run over immediately, since White has a lead
in development. The first major decision is a
choice between:
A: 10...i.d7 14
B: 10...a6 17
The latter has become the more popular,
despite it further neglecting development, but it
serves the very useful purpose of ruling out £>b5
ideas from White. The next important decision
is going to be whether to strive for kingside
castling or queenside castling. This is mainly
decided upon when seeing White's set-up.
A slightly unusual move-order is 10...WC7!?,
which may catch many unaware. This fits in
with every black system and it is quite useful to
have the option of deciding only later whether
to play ...a6 or ...Ad7. Then:
a) Ilb3a6-7a..a6 77 M»c7.
b) 11 Ab3 Ad7. This is one point where this
move-order is especially useful. Against
systems where Black castles queenside, White's
bishop would have been much better placed on
c4. Now:
bl) 12 c3 i.d6 13 h3 0-0 is similar to 10...a6
11 c3 ^c712 &b3 Ld613 H3 0-0 but... Ad7 is
more of a useful move than ...a6. Now Ermen-
kov-L.B.Hansen, Groningen 1988 went 14Sel
*h8 15 Ac2 ±h2+ 16 <±>hl Af4 17 Wf3 Axel
18 Saxcl Sfd8 19 Scdl h6 with an equal
position.
b2) 12 Wf3 0-0-0 13 Ag5,
W.Watson-I.Rogers, Wijk aan Zee 1987, and now 13...^5! is
equal.
c) 11 lfe2 is probably best. Then after 11 ...a6
the position is similar to the line 10...a6 11 c3
^c712 %e2 but White doesn't have to play c3.
This tempo can be used more effectively and
thus White has time for 12 Ag5 with slightly
the better chances after 12...i.e7 13 Sfel 0-0
14 JLd3, Nuevo Perez-Ocana Navarro, Seville
2001.
A)
10...i.d7 (D)
11 c3

3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 *hxd4
15
w
¥/, • w^Awa * Jig *
^||§ cS* |&Jfc WM W%2\
|mg ^p mp p
AHA:
lit®
w iif Ail
I ipiiuapf^
WSli'L'M
if JH iH
m
Wa mm
M^M M Ma
A • A Hi ilAil
ft
This is the most common. White reinforces
the d4-knight and thus prepares to develop his
queen. Note that in these lines White usually
delays the development of his dark-squared
bishop for some moves since it is not yet clear
where it should be placed. We should briefly
run through a number of alternatives:
a) 11 Ab3 is seen occasionally but then £fo5
ideas are out of the question. With 11 ..Mel, for
example, we have a position which has already
been discussed via 10..Mc7 11 <Lb3 <Ld7.
b) On the immediate 11 £fo5, Black can play
1 l...lfc5, but the best is probably 1 l...#xdl 12
Sxdl 2c8 13 b3 a6 14 £>d6+ Axd6 15 2xd6
Ab5! 16 Axb5+axb5 17 Aa3 0-0 182b62fd8
19 2xb7 2xc2, when White blundered with 20
Sxb5?? 2xa2! 0-1 in Wo.Muller-Kummerow,
Germany tt 1988. Black also has enough coun-
terplay after 20 h3 h6!?, with the idea of
...2dd2 and/or ...£>e4.
c) 11 Sel «c7 12 «e2 Ac5 13 c3 (13 £>b5
«b6 is fine for Black) 13...Axd4 14 cxd4 2c8
15 b3 0-0 with equality, A.Sokolov-Andersson,
Tilburg 1987.
d) llb3!?(Djandnow:
dl) ll...h5?! 12 £>b5!lfe5 13 Ifel! (a
remarkable move; Black cannot endure an
exchange of queens and 13...^8 is met by 14
g3!, intending Af4, so Black's next is forced)
13...«xal 14 £>c7+ <±>d8 15 £>xa8 Ad6 16
«a5+<±>e7 17c3!b6(17...2xa8 18 Aa3+-) 18
Wxa7 b5 19 Aa3 *xc3, Miles-Nenashev, Agios
Nikolaos 1995, and now 20 Axd6+ <±>xd6 21
2dl+ ^d5 22 Axd5 exd5 23 £>c7 is winning
for White.
62) H...Ae7 12a4!a6 13nel«fc7 14»f3
(14 Ab2!? is perhaps even better; on both
14...0-0-0 and 14...0-0 White has 15 £tf5; the
latter is a better version of Tiviakov's idea)
14...0-0 15 £>f5! Ad8 (15...Ab4 16£>h6+! *h8
17 Ab2 ±) 16 £>xg7!? (16 Af4 «c6 17 «xc6
Axc6 18 £M4 leads to a safe edge for White but
looks a bit wimpy considering White's
aggressive line-up; nevertheless this is maybe
objectively White's best) 16...<±>xg7 17 i.b2 Hg8,
Tiviakov-Andersson, Haninge 1992, and now
18 2e4 Ac6 19 &xf6+ <±>f8 20 Sael 2g6 21
Axd8 2xd8 22 g3 Axe4 23 2xe4 was given as
better for White in Informator but I tend not to
agree with this.
d3) 11...0-0-0 (D) usually leads to major
complications.
W
■ NAB I
ABAB BAB
White has a choice between:
d31) 12 JLb2 lfc7 (in Timofeev-Rustemov,
Russian Cht (Togliatti) 2003 Black opted for

16
The French: Tarrasch Variation
12...Wf4!?; the game was drawn after 13 g3
«g4 14 Ae2 Wh3 15 Sel Ac5 16 Af 1 «g4 17
2e5 Ab6 18 Ae2 Wh3 19 Afl «g4 20 Ae2
Wh3 21 Afl «g4 22 Ae2) 13 «e2 h5! 14 £>f3
(after 14 h3 £>g4! White should play 15 £>f3 -
74 G%3 *hg4 15 h3, since 15 hxg4? hxg4 16 g3
Ac5 17 «xg4 Axd4 18 Axd4 Ac6 19 f3 2xd4
loses for White) 14...£>g4 and then:
d311) 15 Sadl Ad6! 16 h3 Ac6 17 Sfel
(two almost identical games - they differ only
in length - have continued 17 2xd6? Wxd6 18
hxg4 hxg4 19 £>e5 but White is lost on the h-
file: 19...2h4 20 £>xg4 2dh8 21 f3 Wg3,
winning for Black in Tseshkovsky-Glek,
Philadelphia World Open 1990 and Plachetka-Balogh,
Nove Zamky 1999) 17...Ac5 18 2xd8+ *xd8
19 Axe6+ fxe6 20 «xe6+ <±>b8 (20...Ad7 21
«c4 +-) 21 hxg4 hxg4 22 Ae5+ <±>a8 23 «xg4
Axf3, and now Emms gives 24 gxf3 #d2 25
Bfl Axf2+ 26 2xf2 «fel+ 27 <±>g2 «fhl+ 28
<±>g3 Wgl+ 29 2g2 #el+, with perpetual check,
as essential for White since 24 Wxf3? loses to
24...2f8! 25 Af4 g5 26 Axg5 2xf3 27 Axd8
Axf2+ 28 *f 1 Bf8 29 Ae7 2f7. In this final
position it is amusing that White cannot rescue
his bishop or exploit the fact that Black has a
weak back rank since on a discovered check he
must step in front of his own rook.
d312) 15 h3 Ac6 16 Hfdl Ac5 17 hxg4
hxg4 18 Ae5! 2xdl+ 19 Wxdl «e7! 20 £>h2
«g5! 21 Ag3 2xh2! 22 Axh2 (forced since
White is lost after 22 <±>xh2 «h6+ 23 *gl
Axg2; e.g., 24 Ah2 g3 25 <±>xg2 «xh2+ 26 *f3
«xf2+ 27 <±>g4 g2, or 24 <±>xg2 «h3+ 25 *gl
«xg3+ 26 *hl *h3+ 27 *gl g3) 22...g3 23
Axg3 «xg3 24 Iff 1 Wf4 25 Bdl Ad6 26 2xd6
V2-V21.Kopylov-Kahn, corr. Echt 1983-92.
d32) 12 Ae3!? (it doesn't look very logical
to play this when White has just played b3, but
White argues that because Black has castled
queenside it might be worth changing plans and
b3 still serves the useful purpose of defending
the bishop) 12...«fc7 13 Wf3 Ad6 14 h3 Ah2+
15 <±>hl Ae5 16 Sadl h5!? 17 Ab5 (17 £>b5
Axb5 18 Axb5 a6 19 Ac4 looks more critical)
17...a6 18 Axd7+ 2xd7 = Nedev-Hug, Pula
Echt 1997.
d33) 12 a4 #c7 13 #e2 a6 14 Ab2 h5 15
£>b5! axb5 16 axb5 <±>b8? (16...#b8 is perhaps
too 'inhuman' to play but looks necessary) 17
b6 «xb6 18 Ae5+ Ad6 19 «e3 «c6 20 fifdl!
£>d5 (20...£>e8 21 i.b5! +-), Tiviakov-Naum-
kin, Ischia 1998, and now 21 Axd5 exd5 22
Axd6+ «xd6 23 2xd5 «c7 24 «a7+ <±>c8 25
«a8+ Wb8 26 2c5+ Ac6 27 2xc6+ *d7 28
Wxb8 Sxb8 29 Sc4 leaves White a pawn up in
the endgame.
We now return to 11 c3 (D):
ll...«c7
This prepares a very aggressive plan. Instead,
11 ...Ae7 is more solid; for example, 12 Sel 0-0
13 #f3 *c7 14 Ad3 (14 Ab3 Ad6 15 h3 e5 is
pleasant for Black) 14...Sfe8!, when 15 Ag5
^d5 16 Axe7 2xe7 17 Sadl Aa4! gave
equality in A.Sokolov-Nogueiras, Brussels 1988. 15
Af4 Wb6 16 Se2 has been proposed as a better
chance of an advantage.
12«e2±d6
12...0-0-0 used to be a favourite of Djurhuus
but 13 a4! (D) sent it into a crisis:
a) 13...Ad614g3h5 15&b5±xb5 16axb5
b6 17 Sa4! (a very useful move in itself but also
threatening 18 Axe6+ fxe6 19 2c4 Ac5 20 b4)
17...*b8? (Black must try 17...h4 when White's
best is 18 #f3 ±, since 18 Axe6+ fxe6 19 2c4
Ac5 20 b4 hxg3 21 bxc5 gxh2+ 22 <±>g2 bxc5
23 «xe6+ <±>b7 doesn't look clear) 18 Ag5 ±
Adams-Djurhuus, Oakham jr 1992.
b) 13...h5 14 £>b5 Axb5 15 axb5 Ac5
(15...^g4 16 g3 Ac5 17 *g2!? <±>b8 18 Sa4
was Adams-Lautier, Biel 1991, and now
Adams gives 18...e5 19 Ae3! as clearly better for
White) 16 Sa4! (you have probably noticed

3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 ^xd4
17
that this is a key move in this line!) 16...4^8
(16...£>g4 17 g3 ±) 17 g3 e5 18 Ae3 ± S.Peder-
sen-Djurhuus, Oslo 1992.
13 £>b5
The alternative is 13 h3 but 'winning' the
bishop-pair like this must be good.
13...Axb5
13...Axh2+? 14 *hl «b8 15 f4 traps the
bishop.
14 Axb5+ <±>e7 15 g3
15 h3 offers White no advantage in view of
15...&h2+16*hl Af4.
15...Hhd8
15...h5 is tempting but only gives White a
good square on g5: 16 h4! £>g4 17 <&g2 a6 18
Aa4 2hc8 19 Ag5+ <±>f8 20 Sadl b5 21 Ac2 ±
Psakhis-Herzog, Vienna 1991.
16 2el<£f817Wf3
White is slightly better, Adams-Seirawan,
Hamilton (3) 2000.
B)
10...a6 (D)
This is the main continuation. Black
prevents £fo5 ideas but development is also
delayed a move further. Now:
Bl: 11 c3 17
B2: 11 b3 19
B3: llAh3 21
B4: USel 23
An interesting but less explored idea is 11
a4!?, after which Black must reckon with a
white rook suddenly being lifted up to the 3rd
rank, so the most solid is probably ll...Wc7.
Then:
a) 12b3-llb3Wc712a4.
b) 12i.d3!?Ac5 13c3i.d7 14i.g5i.xd4
15 cxd4 £>d5 = Sulskis-Atalik, New York 1998.
c) A possibly better idea for White is 12
We2 Ad6 13 h3 0-0 14 Bdl b6 15 Ag5 Ah2+
16 *hl Ae5 17 2a3 Ab7 but again Black
should be fine, Ljubojevic-Hubner, Wijk aan
Zee 1988.
Bl)
11 c3
White defends the knight and thus prepares to
develop his queen. However, Black can now
develop with tempo and quickly neutralize White's
initiative.
Il...tfc7 (D)
12#e2

18
The French: Tarrasch Variation
12 Ab3 Ad6 has been seen in a few top-level
games but hasn't impressed (from White's
viewpoint):
a) 13 <±>hl 0-0 14 Ag5 &e4 15 Ah4 (the
main idea of White's experiment: the bishop
can now relocate to g3, which looks less
possible after the more common 13 h3) 15...e5 16
£ic2 £ic5 17 Ad5 Af5 18 £ie3 Ag6 = Rublev-
sky-Khalifman, Neum ECC 2000.
b) 13 h3 and now:
bl) 13...0-0 14 Ag5 &e4 15 Ae3 Ah2+ 16
<±>hl Af4 17 »f3 Axe3 18 «xe3 £if6 = Tivi-
akov-Hubner, Venlo 2000.
b2) 13...Ah2+ 14 *hl Af4 15 Aa4+ b5!?
(venturing into great complications; 15...<±>e7
is feasible, intending later to castle 'by hand'
with ...2d8 followed by ...*f8) 16 »f3 Axel
17 #xa8 0-0 18 #c6 #xc6 19 £lxc6 Axb2 20
Sabl Axc3 and, in a still complicated position,
Black isn't worse, Tiviakov-Glek, Esbjerg 2002.
b3) 13..JLf4 was Glek's choice in a later
game between the same two players as in the
last note and here the game was quickly drawn
after 14 »f3 Axel 15 Saxcl 0-0 16 Sfel,
Tiviakov-Glek, Vlissingen 2002. Tournament
considerations may be taken into account here
but it is noteworthy that Tiviakov wasn't
prepared to repeat his sharper approach from above.
12...£d6 (D)
w
A« WA
ASA
mm
#*
di £3,
H JH
% Mg.......
f^^« mm
an
13 h3
This is the most common move, but it also
leaves Black with few problems. 13 £tf5!? is
more dangerous and has caught a few strong
players unaware. We should compare this with
the better-known line llRel #c712 &b3 Ld6
13 G)f5. But in that line White has more
possibilities with the queen on dl. Thus the critical
line goes 13.. JLxh2+ 14 <±>hl, and now:
a) 14...0-0 15 £ixg7 <±>xg7 16 g3 b5 (not
16..JLxg3? 17 fxg3 ± Blazkova-Peptan, Cala
Galdana girls U-18 Wch 1996) 17 Ah6+ (17
Ad3? Axg3 18 fxg3 #xg3 +) 17...<±>xh6 18
#e3+ <±>h5 19 Ae2+ and now 19...<±>g6 20
Ad3+ &115 is surprisingly not more than a
perpetual check, I think, and in M.Poulsen-Her-
mansson, Klaksvik 2004 White also went for a
perpetual after 19...£ig4 20 Axg4+ <±>xg4 21
#e4+ <±>g5 22 «h4+ <±>g6 23 #g4+ <±>h6 24
#h4+, etc.
b) 14...<±>f8!? 15 g3 exf5 16 <±>xh2 b5 17
Ad3 Ae6 18 Af4 #c6 19 f3 h5 gave Black very
strong counterplay in Da.Cooper-S.Lalic, Kuala
Lumpur open 1992.
Another dangerous attacking concept is 13
Ag5 Axh2+ 14 <±>hl Af4 15 Axe6! fxe6 16
&xe6 Axe6 17 #xe6+ *f8 18 Axf6 gxf6 19
#xf6+ <±>g8 20 Sael 2f8 21 #d4, which was
seen in Sanz Alonso-Rojo Gomez, Spanish Ch
(Canete) 1994, but now Black should be able to
defend with 21...2d8 22 #e4 »f7.
13...0-0 (D)
W
^ JL JHI mar, s w////a
i
m ~ mm
SI
J*ii, i /y y
11 EI 11 HA
14 fid 1
Or 14 &g5 £le4! 15 &e3 b6 16 Ad3 Ab7 17
Hadl (17 #c2 <bf6 18 Ag5 *h8 19 Axf6 gxf6
20 ^.e4 is an idea but White can count on no
significant advantage) 17...JUi2+ 18 *hl MA
19 Hfel £rf6 = Liss-Zifroni, Israeli Cht 1999.
14...h6 15 MX&

3...c5 4 exd5 Mxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 ?hxd4
19
Xie Jun varies on an earlier game with Spas-
sky which had gone 15 Ad3 2e8! 16 i.d2 b6 17
£\c2 Ab7 18 £\e3 lfc6 19 c4 a5 20 i.c3 Ac5!
and Black was doing well in Xie Jun-Spassky,
Roquebrune (Ladies vs Veterans) 1998.
15...b6 16 Ae3 e5
Note that Black should usually only advance
with this when White's bishop is on the a2-g8
diagonal.
17 5k2 Ab718 £\b4 Ac5 19 £\d5 Axd5 20
£xd5 Had8 21 Axc5 «xc5 22 Ab3 a5
The position is equal, Xie Jun-Spassky,
Marbella (Ladies vs Veterans) 1999.
B2)
llb3(D)
This is a speciality of Tiviakov's. White
wants to control the centre and exert pressure
on the kingside by putting his bishop on b2. A
further point is that White's increased control
over e5 often allows him to improve the
position of his knight with £if3-e5, and that the c4-
bishop is now defended.
Il...«c7
Two Tiviakov games have demonstrated that
11 ...i.d7?! 12 Ab2 !fc7 might be an inaccurate
move-order, because against ...Ad6 set-ups
White's Ab2 is now clearly more useful than
...i.d7, compared with ll..Mc7 12 ^/e2 &d6.
Now after 13 !fe2 Black has:
a) 13...Ad6? 14 £\f5! 0-0-0?! 15 £ixg7 £\d5
16 i.xd5 exd5 17 «h5 2hg8 18 Hadl +-
Tiviakov-Smyslov, Rostov 1993.
b) 13...0-0-0 14 £rf3! Ac6? (Tiviakov
believes this is already wrong; Black should play
14...Ad6) 15 £\e5 <±>b8 16 !fe3!, with the idea
of Ad4 ±, Tiviakov-Degerman, Gausdal 1993.
12i.b2
Other moves:
a) 12 a4 Ad6 13 h3 0-0 14 Ab2 and now:
al) 14...b6 15 !fe2 Ab7 16 Sadl and then:
all) 16...2fe8 17 £\f3 5Mi5 18 2d4!? Ac5
(18...£rf4 19 «d2 2ad8 20 2xd6 «xd6 21
«xd6 2xd6 22 Ae5 Axf3 23 gxf3 &xh3+ 24
<±>g2 2d5 25 Axd5 exd5 26 Ag3 &g5 27 Sdl
gives White an edge according to Nisipeanu)
19 2g4 g6 20 &e5 2ad8 21 2g5 f6 22 «xh5
fxg5 23 «xg5 Ad4 24 £.xd4 2xd4 25 Sel ±
Nisipeanu-Thesing, Bundesliga 1999/00.
al2) 16...Sfd8 (the idea of putting the rook
on d8 instead of on e8 is that now White doesn't
have 17 £rf3 !fc6 18 Axf6 gxf6 19 2d4(??), due
to 19...Ah2+ 20 <±>xh2 2xd4 -+) 17 £rf3 (Black
need not fear 17 £ixe6? in view of 17...fxe6 18
«xe6+ <±>h8 19 Axf6 gxf6 20 «xf6+ «g7 +, or
perhaps even 17...«c6!?) 17...«c6!? 18 2d4is
unclear according to Van der Wiel.
a2) 14...e5! (the simplest solution) 15 £>f3
e4 16 Axf6 exf3 17 Ab2 fxg2 18 <±>xg2 Ae5
(18...2e8!?) 19 Axe5 «xe5 20 «f3 = Anto-
nio-Gulko, Istanbul OL 2000.
b) 12lfe2(D)andnow:
bl) 12.. JLe7 is playable but a sort of a moral
victory for White since Black does nothing to
challenge White in the centre.
b2) 12...Ac5 13&f5?!(13±b2 0-014£\f3
b5 15 Ad3 Ab7 16 a4 b4 17 £\e5 is more

20
The French: Tarrasch Variation
sensible) 13...0-0 14 £>xg7 <±>xg7 15 ±h6+ (15
&b2 Sg8 -+ Ftacmk) 15...<±>xh6 16 *d2+ <±>h5
17 £e2+ £ig4 18 &xg4+ <±>xg4 19 Wh6 Hg8
looks like something Black indeed survives -
and wins!
b3) 12...&d613&f5!?(13h3isverytame)
13...&xh2+ 14 <&hl 0-0 15 £>xg7!? and now
Black must be careful:
b31) 15...*xg7?! 16 &b2 wins for White
according to Glek, the idea being 16...^4 17
«h5.
b32) 15...»e5 16 &h6 *xe2 17 &xe2 Ae5
is given as equal by Glek but I think White
maintains some pressure after 18 Sadl.
b33) 15...Ae5!?16Ah6Axal 17fixal«fc5
(17...Sd8 18£>h5£>xh5 19*xh5f6oo) 18 Sdl
b5 19 Ae3 We5 (19...We7! looks good, with the
idea 20 &d4?! e5! 21 &xe5 bxc4 and now g4 is
covered so 22 £>h5 isn't dangerous) 20 f4 £>e4!?
with a complicated position, Tseshkovsky-Shty-
renkov, Belorechensk 1989.
c) 12 »f3 &d6 13 Sell? (more dangerous
than 13 h3 0-0 14 Ab2 b5, when 15 &xb5 axb5
16 £ixb5 i.h2+ 17 *hl Wb8 ? was L.Vajda-
Galyas, Budapest 1995; Vajda repeated this in a
later game but continued more cautiously with
15 &d3 Ab7 16 We2 but Black has no reason to
be dissatisfied with the opening after, for
example, 16...fifd8) 13...0-0 14&b2b5(14...&xh2+
15 ^hl ,&f4 also appeared safe enough for
Black in Chernyshov-Zatonskikh, Balatonber-
eny 1994) 15 Ad3 (15 Wxa8 Ab7 16 *xf8+
Axf8 *) 15...Ab7 (15...Ad7!?) 16 Wh3 Sfe8
12...£d6 (D)
13£if3
This frees the sight of the b2-bishop, defends
h2 and prepares Eel and £>e5.
13...b5
Black achieves more or less his ideal
attacking set-up after this, with bishops on b7 and d6,
but it is at the cost of weakening the queenside.
Alternatives:
a) 13...0-014&xf6gxf615*d4f5 16*h4
gave White a promising attack in Kotsur-Golo-
shchapov, Ekaterinburg 1999.
b) 13...b6 is worth considering. It doesn't
force White to retreat his bishop but Black
avoids giving White a target on the queenside.
In Odeev-Danielian, Moscow 1998, Black was
even slightly better after 14 We2 Ab7 15 Sadl
0-0 16 Axf6 gxf6 17 Ad3 f5.
15 a4
15 fie 1 0-0 16 £>e5 Sad8 was roughly equal
in Tiviakov-Psakhis, Rostov 1993. With the
text-move White first wants to weaken Black's
queenside before proceeding with his own
attacking scheme.
15...b4
15...0-0 is worth considering: 16 axb5 axb5
17 fixa8 &xa8 18 Axf6 gxf6 19 &xb5 is
probably slightly in White's favour, but Black has
very good counterplay.
16 Sel 0-0 17 £>e5 Sfd8 18 We2 a5
18...£ki5!? is also worth investigating; e.g.,
19 «fe4 g6 20 «?h4 Ae7 21 «?g3 Affi 22 Ac4
Ag7 and Black is fine, or 19 Wg4 f5!? 20 Wh4
£ic3=.

3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 foxd4
21
19 £>g4 £ixg4 20 #xg4 f5 21 *h3 ild5 22
g4 Sf8 23 gxf5 exf5 24 Sadl ®f7
with a complicated game, Tiviakov-Peng
Zhaoqin, Hoogeveen 2000.
B3)
U&b3(D)
A prophylactic retreat. Since Black is going
to play ...18^7 anyway at some point, which
would force a reaction to the attack against his
bishop, White moves it in advance. In some
lines, this gives White the option of placing his
queen more actively on f3, while if Black
doesn't play ..Mel at once, White might then
play c3 to prepare ^3 or &g5.
ll...Wc7
The other major line is 11 ..Adl 12 c3 lBfc7,
and then:
a) 13Sel-11 Rel^c712 $Lb3 ±d713 c3.
b) 13 «?f3 &d6 14 h3 0-0-0 15 Ag5 &h2+
16 <±>hl Ae5 17 Sfel h6 18 &h4 Af4! =
Agnos-Akopian, Ubeda 1996.
c) 13i.g5(Z))andnow:
cl) 13...£le4 14 Ah4 &d6 (14...g5 15 *g4
±) 15 «?e2 (15 «?g4!? &xh2+ 16 <±>hl g5 17
#xe4 gxh4 18 &xe6 fxe6 19 £ixe6 with a
strong attack for White) 15...£>c5 16 £>f5!
&xh2+ 17 <±>hl 0-0 18 £ixg7! ± Wahls-Lau-
tier, Biel 1990.
c2) 13...Ad6!? 14 Axf6 gxf6 15 «?h5 «?c5
16 Wf3 «?e5 17 g3 0-0-0 18 Sfel Wg5 19 Ac4
#c5 20 if 1 f5 21 b4 *c7 22 a4 <±>b8 <*> Kudrin-
Menvielle, Las Palmas 1997.
c3) 13...0-0-0 14 Axf6 gxf6 15 «?h5 Ae8
16 Sadl Ae7 17 Sfel «?c5 18 Wtl ±/= Tzer-
miadianos-Kotronias, Ankara Z 1995.
12«?f3
12Sel-77Se7«?c7 72&fc3.
12...&d613£>hl!?
An interesting idea compared to the more
natural 13 h3. Now a black ...±h2 will not
come with check and White reserves the h3-
square for his queen in some lines. However, it
is clear that White must be alert to the
possibility of Black suddenly capturing on h2, and
sometimes White will have to move his h-pawn
anyway to improve his position. The verdict of
which of the two is better, is not clear.
Thus, after 13 h3 (D) we shall look at:
a) 13...Ae5 14 c3 Ad7 15 Ag5 and now
15...Axd4 16 cxd4 Ac6 17 lBfe3 £id5 18 &xd5
&xd5 19 Sacl *d6 20 Af4 *d8 21 Wa3 JLc6
was Ernst-Ornstein, Swedish Ch (Lulea) 1980,

22
The French: Tarrasch Variation
and might be defensible for Black despite the
annoyance of not being able to castle. Still, I
prefer 15...h6 with the idea 16 J.h4 0-0-0. This
shows one weakness with 13 h3 as not only is
White's bishop less secure when it goes to g3
but Black's attack is also more promising with
the pawn-thrust ...g5-g4.
b) 13...0-0 14 Ag5 £>d7! 15 c3 (D) and
bl) 15...£>e5!? (the knight manoeuvre is a
good idea to fortify the kingside and control
important central squares) 16 Wh5 £>g6 17
^.c2 b6 (a typical move that is also known from
the Sicilian Najdorf: Black wants to fianchetto
his bishop but does not give White a target on
the queenside, which ...b5 would do) 18 ^.e3
Ab7 19 £tf3 h6!? 20 Sfdl (20 &xg6?! fxg6 21
Wxg6 Sf6 followed by ...^.xf3 is good for
Black) 20...£tf4 21 Axf4 Axf4 =/? Tiviakov-
Ionov, Ohrid Ech 2001.
b2) 15...b5 also seems to equalize; e.g.:
b21) 16 Ac2 Ab7 17 Wh5 g6 18 Wh4 Sfe8
19 Sadl £>b6 = Tiviakov-Djurhuus, Bergen
2000.
b22) 16 Sfel Ab7 17 Wh5 £>c5 18 Ac2 g6
19 »h4 Sfe8 20 Se3 Ad5 21 Sael Wd7 22 b4
£ia4 23 £>f3 £>b6 = Asrian-Savchenko, Ohrid
Ech 2001.
b23) 16 Sadl Ab7 17 Wg4 £>c5 18 &f6 g6
19 Sfel £>xb3 20 axb3 Bfe8 21 Sd3 &h2+ 22
*f 1 Wf4! = Adams-Levitt, London 1989.
13...&e5!
I think this is a more accurate move-order
than 13..JLd7 14 Ag5 Ae5, as played in the
game Adams-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2004. Not
that Black was much worse in that game, but it
gives White the additional option of solving the
defence of the d4-knight with a natural rook
move: 15Sadl h6 16&h40-0 17Sfel Sfd8 18
c3 Sac8 19 h3 &xd4 20 Sxd4 Ac6 21 We3
Bxd4 22 Wxd4 WdS 23 Axf6 Wxf6?? 24 Wxf6
gxf6 25Sxe6! 1-0.
A popular alternative has been 13...0-0 14
Ag5 £>d7 15 c3 (D), and now:
a) A major point of White's 13th move is
that 15...b5?! 16 Sadl! £>c5 17 Ac2 Ab7 is
now very good for White after 18 Wh3, after
which various sacrificial possibilities on e6
arise.
b) 15...&e516Wh5^g617&c2andthen:
bl) 17...Af4 18 Axf4 Wxf4, Potkin-Kris-
tjansson, Athens jr Wch 2001, and now 19
£>f3! is good for White. He is threatening 20
£>g5h6 2l£>xf7!.
b2) 17...Wc5 18 Wg4 Ad7 19 Sadl Wc7 20
Sfel Sae8 21 Wh5 ± Svidler-Ionov, St
Petersburg 1996.
b3) 17...b618Sael!?&b7 19Se3!«rc5 20
Wg4 ^.e7? (maybe Black is already in some
difficulties, but this isn't good, even if he did
well to avoid the trap 20...h5? 21 Wxh5 &xg2+
22 <±>gl &xfl 23 *xfl, when Black can do
little about Sh3) 21 £>xe6! fxe6 22 Wxe6+ Bf7
(22...*h8 23 &xe7 &xg2+ 24 <±>xg2 £>f4+ 25
*gl £>xe6 26 &xc5 £>xc5 27 Sfel ±) 23 &xg6
hxg6 24 ^.xe7 +- Rublevsky-Morovic, Poi-
kovsky2001.
b4) 17...h6 and here:

3...c5 4 exd5 VKxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 *hxd4
23
b41) 18 £>f3 b5 19 Sadl &f4! 20 &xf4
£>xf4 solved Black's problems in Ivanchuk-
Anand, Reggio Emilia 1991/2.
b42) 18 Ae3 £>f4 19 Wf3 Ad7 (19...£>d5
20 JLd2 JLf4 also looks approximately equal)
20 Sadl Sad8 21 We4 £>g6 = Vokarev-Biriu-
kov, St Petersburg 2003.
b43) 18£.d2!£.f4 19Sadl£.xd2 20Sxd2
£>f4 21 Wh4 Ad7 22 Sfdl Sad8 23 £>f3 £>d5
24 Wg3 Wxg3 25 hxg3 ± Rublevsky-Guliev,
Evry 2004.
We now return to 13...i.e5! (D):
14 i.e3
The bishop is slightly passive here but White
must react to the attack on the knight. Other
moves promise White nothing either:
a) 14 Sdl Ad7 15 Ag5 h5!? 16 We2 0-0-0
17 h3 Af4 18 Axf4 Wxf4 19 Wc4+ Wc7 20
2el Wxc4 21 i.xc4 <±>c7 = Timofeev-Ionov,
Sochi 2004.
b) 14 c3 Ad7 15 Ag5 h6 16 Ah4 £.xd4 17
cxd4 JLc6 18 Sacl Wd6 also leads to an equal
position.
14...i.d7 15 Sadl h5
Ambitious but certainly also dangerous for
White. Castling in either direction comes into
consideration as well.
16«e2
Bareev suggests 16 Wh3!? £>g4 17 f4 Af6
18 i.gl 0-0-0 19 Wf3 as an interesting
alternative, although I would prefer Black here.
16...&xh2
This is critical of course. Not as forcing is
16...0-0-0 17 f4 4.d6 18 Sd3 <±>b8 19 Sc3 Wa5
with a roughly equal position, Stojanovic-Peru-
novic, Obrenovac 2004.
17 g3 e5 18 £>xh2 h4 19 £>gl
The game Lastin-Bareev, Russian Cht (Sochi)
2004 now went 19...0-0-0 20 £tf3 hxg3, after
which Bareev gives 21 Wc4! as winning for
White, but 19...&f8! is much better. Then
Bareev thinks 20 £tf3 i.g4 21 Ag5 e4 22 Af4
exf3 23 Wxa6 bxa6 24 &xc7 h3 25 <±>h2 Af5 26
JLb6 isn't clear. I would add that 24...hxg3 isn't
bad - 25 &xg3 Ah3 26 Bfel Ag2 27 Ah2 g5!
is trouble for White.
B4)
11 Sel (D)
This is White's most common choice. The
rook is well placed on the semi-open e-file, and
in many lines Black must now watch out for
£>f5.
11...VC7
I l...JLe7 is feasible but this type of set-up is
in this position and in many similar lines
regarded as somewhat passive. Here White is
better after 12 c3 0-0 13 Wf3.
II ...JLd7 is on the other hand a natural
alternative. By keeping the queen on d6 Black ties
White's queen to the defence of the knight for
one more move. After 12 c3 Black has two
options:
a) 12...0-0-0?! (this is often dangerous if
White hasn't moved his bishop from c4) 13
We2! Wc7 14 h3 (14 a4 e5! with the idea of 15
£>f3 Ag4) 14...Ad6 15 a4 e5 16 £>c2 Af5 17

24
The French: Tarrasch Variation
£>e3 i.g6 18 b4 e4. Now rather than 19 i.a3?
&h2+! 20<±>hl &f4 21 b5 &xe3! 22 fxe3 Sd3!
with a strong attack for Black, as in Xie Jun-
Smyslov, Vienna (Ladies vs Veterans) 1993,
Xie Jun gives 19 b5! a5 20 b6! «?xb6 21 &a3
&xa3 22 Sxa3 «?c5 23 Sb3 Sd7 24 Sebl ±.
b) 12...»c7 13 Wtl &d6 and now:
bl) 14 Ag5 and here:
bll) 14...&xh2+?! 15 <±>hl Af4 16 &xf6
gxf6 17 JLxe6! is much better for White, Nog-
ueiras and Sieiro-Gonzalez.
bl2) 14...0-0 15 g3 (15 &xf6 gxf6 16 «?g4+
<±>h8 17 «?h4 Sg8 18 «?xf6+ Sg7 19 Se4!,
Canda-Vilela, Sagua la Grande, and now Vilela
gives 19...<±>g8! « with the idea 20 £>f3? i.c6!
+; 15 h3 -14 h3 0-015 &g5) 15...2ae8 16 Ad3
£>d5 17 Sadl Ae7 18 Acl Ac5!? 19 £>b3 &d6
20 c4 £>f6 21 Ag5 Ae7 22 Af4 «?c8 23 Ae5
JLa4 with approximately equal play, Franzen-
Rittner, corr. 1991.
bl3) 14...0-0-0!? (bearing in mind my note
to 12...0-0-0?! above, I feel this needs a
comment: even though White has now kept his
bishop on c4, from where it participates well
in an attack against Black's king, queenside
castling is now interesting because White has
moved his dark-squared bishop to g5, which
isn't the most useful) 15 h3 h6 16 i.e3 <±>b8 17
a4 Af4 18 £.xf4 *xf4 = Fossan-Remlinger,
Stavanger 1991.
b2) 14 h3 0-0 (14...0-0-0?! -12...0-0-0?! 13
We2 Wc714 h3 &d6) 15 Ag5 (D) and then:
la m m
mm Aim ▲ s§ Aip a
I m mk
LX/ mm, mm
m o H USA
*—* 4777?/, WM » WtTTtV, L-1 WW\
Wfc W%b W& WZ%,
***/<
&b5 22 «?e5 «?xe5 23 £>xe5 Sfd8 = Emms-
Glek, Copenhagen 1995.
b22) 15...Af4 16 Axf6 gxf6 17 Ad3 f5 18
«?h5 <±>h8 19 £>xf5 exf5 20 Se7 «?c6 21 Sxd7
Sg8 22 g4 (22 f3? *b6+ -+) 22...*xd7 23
Axf5 £h2+ 24 <±>xh2 «?d6+ 25 <±>gl Sg7 *
HUnerkopf-Luther, Munich 1992.
b23) 15...Ah2+ 16 <±>hl Af4 17 Axf6 gxf6
18£.d3!f5 19«?h5andhere:
b231) 19...i>h8 20^xf5exf5 2lSe7*c6
22 Sxd7 Sg8 23 f3 (compared to line 'b22'
above, this is now feasible, and gives White an
advantage) 23...2xg2 24 <±>xg2 «?xd7 25 Axf5
*d2+ 26 *f 1 ± Emelin-Filippov, Panormo
ECC2001.
b232) 19.Jfc.c620i.xf5!exf5 21<&xf5*h8
22 «?h4 Ae5 23 f4 «?d7 24 Sxe5? (24 Sadl
»xf5 25 Sxe5 £xg2+ 26 <±>h2 «?xh3+ 27 «?xh3
&xh3 28 <±>xh3 ±) 24...f6 25 Sc5 &xg2+! 26
<±>xg2 b6 27 £>e7 «?xe7 28 Sh5 2g8+ 29 *f 1
Wgl 0-1 Vorobiov-Danielian, Moscow 1998.
b233) 19...Sad8 20 «?h4 Ad2 21 Se2 Wf4
22 *xf4 Axf4 23 Ac2 V2-V2 Vriendt-Morrell,
corr. 1997.
We now return to 1 l...#c7 (D):
W
EWtfZ A WW, -A-
/smfr/Jmmm<m%',^&
HP ^^
ill Ail
^^ Wfr
$ mm mm
,,....r/,^'WM
b21) 15...^e8!?16Sadlh617i.cl^f618
Ab3 i.h2+ 19 *hl Af4 20 Axf4*xf4 214&f3
12i.b3
This is White's most flexible. He keeps the
option of where to place the queen, and the
bishop is safe on b3. Other moves:
a) 12 «?e2 Ac5!? (12...Ad6 is also good,
with the idea 13 Ag5 0-0 14 h3 *he4\ =) 13 c3
and then:
al) 13...0-0 14 Ag5 i.xd4 15 cxd4 ^d5 16
Sacl, Speelman-Nogueiras, Barcelona 1989,

3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 $Sxd4
25
and now 16...Wd6! is equal according to Speel-
man.
a2) 13...h6!? deprives White of the most
natural square for his bishop. Kotronias-Glek,
Istanbul Ech 2003 reached a normal type of
position after 14 &b3 Ad7 15 Ae3 &d6 16 h3
&h2+ 17 <&hl Af4 18 Axf4 Wxf4 but then
came 19 ^.xe6! (else Black is just doing well)
19...fxe6 20 £>xe6 &xe6 21 Wxe6+ <&f8 22
Se5! with excellent compensation. The .. JLh2+
followed by .. JLf4 idea is a well-known
defensive stratagem but it is probably safer to play
16...0-0 first.
b) 12 ^.d3 ,&d6, and now if we compare with
Line B42 (12 Ab3 i.d6), 13 £>f5 is nothing in
view of 13...Axh2+ 14 <&hl *f8 15 g3 exf5 16
<±>xh2 h5 17 Af4 Wb6 18 <&g2 Ae6 + Smagin-
Akopian, Erevan 1988. White's bishop is much
worse on d3, where it obstructs White's queen.
We return to \2±b3(D):
Now we look at:
B41: 12...±d7 25
B42: 12...±d6 26
B41)
12...&d7
With this Black keeps the position flexible,
and Black will only decide in which direction
he plans to castle when seeing White's set-up.
13Wf3
This is White's most logical and common
choice. The queen is well placed on f3, and
White now prepares ^.g5. Other moves:
a) 13 ^.g5 is also feasible but will most
likely transpose to our main line after 13...0-0-0
14 WO Ad6 15 h3 - 13 W/? JLd6 14 h3 0-0-0
15±g5.
b) 13We2&d614h3 0-0!?15c3e5 16£rf3
e4 17£>d4Wa5! 18f4Wc7 19Sfl Sad820&e3
Ac5 21 Sadl Sfe8 ¥ S.B.Hansen-Cu.Hansen,
Danish Ch (Tastrup) 1998.
c) 13c3£.d614h3 0-0-015We2<£b816a4
Shg8! (a clear improvement on the more passive
16...Ac8 17 a5 Shg8 18 £>f3 h6 19 Ae3 £>d7 20
Aa4 Ac5 21 b4 &xe3 22 Wxe3 g5 23 b5, when
White's attack is the more dangerous, Adams-
Akopian, Khalkidhiki 1992) 17 Ae3 (now 17
£>f3 is well met by 17..JLc6) 17...g5, and Black
was already better in Borge-Cu.Hansen, Danish
Ch (T&strup) 1998.
13...&d6 14 h3
Instead, 14 £>f5?! looks good for Black after
14...Axh2+ 15*hl 0-0-0 (15...*f8!?) 16^xg7
Ae5. The critical line is now 17 &g5 JLc6 18
£>xe6, with two options for Black:
a) 18...&xO?!19^xc7i.xb220gxf3<£xc7
2lSabl&c3 22Se7+±.
b) 18...fxe6 19 Axf6 AxG (19...&xb2!?)
20 &xe6+ <&b8 21 &xe5 Sd6 22 gxf3 Se8 ?.
14...0-0-0 (D)
15±g5
The most common but not necessarily best:
a) 15 c4?! e5! 16 £>c2 e4 17 We2 Wc5 18
£>e3 Ac7 19 £>fl Wf5 20 Ac2 She8 ? Ven-
drova-Stavnichuk, corr. 1994.
b) 15&e3!?<&b8 16c4e5 17c5!i.xc5 18
Seel! (a clever improvement on 18 Sac 1 Wb6

26
The French: tarrasch Variation
19 £tf5 Axe3 20 Sxe3 Axf5 21 Wxf5 e4 22
*e5+ *d6 23 *xd6+ Sxd6 24 Axf 7 Sd2 with
counterplay, Hennigan-Budnikov, London 1993)
18...#b6 19 Bxc5! #xc5 20 £>e6 (the point of
White's 18th move, as now there is no rook to
attack on el) 20..Mtll (an unfortunate
blunder; 20...*c6 21 *xc6 Axc6 22 £ixd8 Hxd8
23 Axf7 is only slightly better for White) 21
Ac5! ©xe6 (trying to rescue the queen would
be even worse) 22 Axe6 Axe6 23 Ae7 Sd2 24
Axf6 gxf6 25 Wxf6 +- Sermek-Solak, Bled
open 2002.
15...*c5!? (D)
This invites White to capture on f6, but the
general assessment is that Black then obtains
good compensation. 15...Ah2+ 16 ^hl Ae5 is
a reasonable alternative, with approximately
equal chances.
16Ae3
Accepting the pawn with 16 Axf6 gxf6 17
Wxf6 is dangerous for White, but not that clear:
17...Shg8 18 Badl Sg6 19 *xf7 (19 *f3 Sdg8
with a promising attack) 19...Sf8, and now:
a) 20 £>xe6 Axe6! (20...Sxe6 21 Axe6 Sxf7
22 Axf7 Ac6 co) 21 Axe6+ <±>b8 22 b4 *c3 -+
Froberg-Hedlund, corr. 1997.
b) 20 *xh7 *g5 21 g3 ttf6 (21...Axg3 22
*xd7+ <±>xd7 23 £>xe6+ <±>c8 24 £>xg5 Axf 2+
25 <±>h2 Axel 26 Sxel Sxg5 27 Be2 =) 22 Se2
Ac5 23 *xd7+!? <±>xd7 24 £>xe6+ <*>.
16...*e517g3*e4
This more or less forces an exchange of
queens, which will reduce the pressure on
Black's position. White can hardly avoid the
exchange since retreating the queen allows
Black to advance his e-pawn, and when the
knight moves Black has c6 for his bishop.
18SadlAc6
18...A.C7!? 19 c3 *xf3 20 £>xf3 Ac6 21
£}g5 Sxdl 22 Sxdl Ae8 gives Black good
prospects of an equal endgame.
19*xe4Axe4 20f3(D)
20 Ag5 Ag6 21 c3 Ac5 = Tiviakov-Kram-
nik, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991.
■£■ SABA]
20...Ag6
20...Axg3 21 fxe4 Axel 22 Sxel £>xe4 23
c3 h6 could also be considered. White's
bishops may be strong but Black still has rook and
two pawns against them, and if he succeeds in
setting his kingside pawns in motion he will be
assured excellent counterplay.
21 £>e2 h6
21...Ae5!?.
22 <£>g2 Ac7 23 c4 Sxdl 24 Sxdl Bd8 25
Sxd8+ <±>xd8
The endgame is approximately equal but
Black has to be a little careful due to White's 3
vs 2 majority on the queenside, Z.Almasi-Kin-
dermann, Bundesliga 1999/00.
B42)
12... Ad6 (D)
13 «M5!?
This has been extensively analysed. After
several crises, Black now looks to be in great
shape. If White doesn't want to embark on this
sharp line he can try 13 h3 but this type of

3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 C&xd4
27
position occurs more frequently when Black
has played an early ...JLd7, and shouldn't give
Black any cause for concern. Often Black plays
13...0-0 14 Ag5 i.f4, which might be OK
even though his kingside pawn-structure is
compromised after 15 JLxf6 gxf6. Lately the
more direct 14...b5!? has scored well for Black.
However, the simplest equalizer might
actually be the immediate 13...JLf4!?. White
cannot really exploit the fact that Black hasn't
castled, and Black achieves the desirable
exchange of dark-squared bishops. The price is a
slight lack in development but this isn't
serious: 14*f3i.xcl 15Saxcl 0-0 16Scdl Ad7
17 *e2 Sad8 18 c3 h6 19 We5 Wxe5 20 Sxe5
JLc8 with a slightly passive but very solid
position, Brodsky-Glek, Tomsk 2001.
13...&xh2+ 14 £>hl 0-0
14...If 8 is now rejected, probably for
several reasons. However, 15 £>xg7?! is not one of
them, as this is now less impressive. Black plays
15...Sg8! 16i.h6Sxg7 17i.xg7+<±>xg7 18 g3
i.xg3 19 fxg3 b5 20 <±>h2 Ab7 with excellent
compensation. The main reason that 14...If 8
has now disappeared from tournament practice
is probably Beliavsky-Hertneck, Munich 1991,
which went 15 *d4! h6 (15...exf5 16 *xf6! h6
17 *d4 i.d6 18 Ad2 «c5 19 *h4 Ad7 20
*h5 ± Beliavsky) 16 g3 exf5 17 Af4 *c6+ 18
4>xh2 <±>g8 19 Se7 Ae6 20 £.xe6 fxe6 21 Ae5
2h7 22 Sdl ±.
15 £>xg7 (D)
The point of White's play, which is indeed
very dangerous. On the other hand, there is no
way back for White.
15...2d8
This is now played automatically but perhaps
it is still worth looking into 15...<±>xg7 16 ^d4!
(16 *d2 £>g8! oo). Now 16...Ad6! (16...e5? is
rightly considered very good for White after 17
*h4 £>g4 18 f3; e.g., 18...Wd8 19 Ag5 f6 20
i.cl Af4 21 Axf4 *d4 22 Ag3 +- Geenen-
Van Geldorp, Belgium 1990) was initially
dismissed due to 17 JLh6+, but 17...<±>g6 18 c3 is
maybe not that clear; e.g.:
a) 18...£>h5!? 19 Axf8 Axf8 20 Se5 (20
*g4+ <±>h6 21 *h3 <±>g6 22 £c2+ f5 23 g4 *)
20...f5 21 g4 *c6+ 22 <±>h2 £rf6 23 gxf5+ exf5
24 2gl+ £>g4+ 25 2xg4+ fxg4 and White has
found nothing better than a perpetual check
after 26 &c2+ (26 «ff4 Wf6 27 &c2+ <±f 7 28
£.b3+ <±>g6 =) 26...<±f 7 27 £.b3+ <±>g6 28 £.c2+
*f7 29 *f4+ Vf6 30 &b3+ <±>g6 31 &c2+
*f7 32 £.b3+ <±>g6 V2-V2 Brynell-Wieden-
keller, Stockholm 1990.
b) 18...Ae7!? 19 Axf8 Axf8 20 Se5 h6!
(20...i.h6 21 g4! b5 22 &c2+ <±>g7 23 g5 £.b7+
24 <±>gl Sg8 25 <±f 1 ±) with an unclear
position.
16*f3
16 £>h5?! Sxdl 17 £>xf6+ <±>h8 18 Sxdl
JLe5 19 JLg5 doesn't look very convincing.
16...£>xg7 17 &h6+
17 g3 b5 18 <±>xh2 Ab7 is good for Black.
17...<±>g6 18 c3 (D)
18 Sadl? was briefly considered very sneaky
but then swiftly dealt with in Zaw Win Lay-
Khalifman, Bali 2000: 18...Sxdl 19 Sxdl e5!
(the novelty that took White aback) 20 <±>xh2
£>g4+21*gl*xh6 0-l.

28
The French: Tarrasch Variation
IHJL
iii w
A«A
!ahi
nA
1 ' *■ ' V7777T//
W/',
''mm. '''mi. ' ''m
m
w
ilX
//f%i". ///
•ABA
^^ ww,^ wm,j** \
, ....1 H II 1
V//////A a ////K/Z/s '//////A a«o V/////A
18...£>h5!
This strong defence now seems to give Black
at least a drawn endgame. Other moves:
a) 18...£>d5?! 19 Sadl! (Speelman's
impressively calm suggestion) 19...f5 20 JLcl and now:
al) 20...£.d6?!2l£.xd5exd5 222xd51ooks
like a decisive attack for White:
al 1) 22...Ad7 23 Wh3 &f8 24 2e3 <±>g7 25
2g3+ <±>h8 26 Wh4 &e6 27 &f4 Ae7(?) 28
i.xc7 1-0 Adams-Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1996.
al2) 22...2g8 23 Wh3 &f8 (23...Af4 24
Wh4 Axe 1 25 2e7 Wxe7 26 Wxe7 +-) 24 Wh4
(24 2e8 Wc4 25 Wd3 Wxd3 26 2xd3 *f7 27
2dd8 Ad7 28 2xf8+ 2xf8 29 2xd7+ <±>g8 30
2xb7 =) 24...&d7 25 2e7 (25 Wg5+ <±>f7 26
2xf5+ Axf5 27 Wxf5+ <±>g7 28 Af4 4.d6 29
Wg5+ <±>h8 30 Wf6+ Wg7 31 Wxg7+ 2xg7 32
&xd6 ±) 25...Axe7 26 Wxe7 2ae8 27 2d6+
Wxd6 28 Wxd6+ ±.
a2) 20...£.e5!?2l£.xd52xd5 222xd5exd5
23 We3 <±>f7! 24 «?xe5 Wxe5 25 2xe5 £e6 26
JLe3 with some advantage for White in the
endgame (Fta£nik) is probably Black's best
defence.
b) 18...e5!?19£.c2+e4202xe4(20&xe4+
£>xe4 21 2xe4 <*>) 20...£>xe4 21 Wxe4+ <±>xh6
(21...f5 22 We3 Ae5 23 Wg5+ <±>f7 24 £b3+
<±>e8 25 Wg8+ <±>e7 26 Ag5+) 22 Wxh7+ <±>g5
23 Wg7+ &115 is maybe not more than a draw
for White, as in Salai-Revutsky, Hlohovec 1997.
We now return to 18...£>h5! (D):
19&cl
This is White's latest try. It has become clear
that the bishop must be moved. The text-move
keeps the e-file open for the rook and thus
prevents a defence based on the move ...f5.
Alternatives:
a) 19 2e4?<±>xh6 20 2h4«e5 2l2xh2(21
g4 Ad7 +; 21 Ac2 Af4 22 g4 <±>g7 23 2xh5
Wc7 +) 21...Ad7 22 Wxf7 Ac6 23 f4 Wf5 24
Wxf5 exf5 25 Af7 2d2 26 &xh5 2xg2! is
slightly better for Black.
b) 19 i.e3 f5! (19.. JLf4 is not satisfactory
here, because of 20 g4 £>g3+ 21 fxg3 £.xe3 22
Wxe3!) 20 g4 £>f6 and now:
bl) 21 Ac2 h5 (21...*f7 is also feasible) 22
gxf5+ exf5 23 Wg2+ £>g4 24 f3 Ag3 25 fxg4
hxg4 26 Ad4 2xd4 27 cxd4 Ad7 28 *gl 2h8
29 2e3 2h3 + Sax-Tukmakov, Pula 2001.
b2) 21 gxf5+ exf5 22 Wg2+ ^g4 23 f3 b5
24 ^.c2 d?f6 = Korneev-Matamoros, Seville
2003.
19...i.f4
19...f5 is the 'older' try, leading to sharp play
after 20 g4!? (D) (20 £.xe6 £>g7 21 i.xc8 2axc8
22 g3 i.xg3 23 fxg3 Wc6 is fine for Black):
B

3...c5 4 exd5 VKxd5 MAIN LINE: 10 ^xd4
29
a) 20...<&g7 21gxf5!±.
b) 20...£\f6 21 &xe6 (21 gxf5+ exf5 22
Wg2+ £\g4 23 f3 Wg3 24 Se2 <*>) and now:
bl) 21...Axe6? 22 Sxe6 *f7 (22...*g7 23
£g5! Sf8 24 gxf5! +-) 23 Ag5! <&xe6 24
Wxf5+ <&d6 25 Wxf6+ +-.
b2) 21...*g7!? 22 £.h6+! <&h8 (22...<&xh6?!
23 g5+ <&g7 24 gxf6+ <&h8 25 &xc8 Saxc8 26
Se7 ±) 23 Wxf5 £\g8 *.
c) 20...b5 21 gxh5+ <&g7 (21...*f6 22 We3!
wins for White) 22 Wg2+ *f7 23 *h3! ±
Adams-McDonald, British League (4NCL) 1996/7.
d) 20...Ad7! 21 gxh5+ <&g7 (21...*f6? 22
We3 +-) 22 «g2+ <&h8! (22...*f7 23 Wh3! ±)
23 Ag5 Ae5 24 &xd8 Wxd8!? 25 Sxe5 Ac6
26 Ad5 (26 f3? Wh4+ 27 <&gl Sg8 28 Wxg8+
&xg8 +) 26...Wh4+ 27 Wh2 &xd5+ 28 Sxd5
«e4+ 29 Wg2 Wh4+ 30 Wh2 We4+ 31 Wg2
#114+ V2-V2 Blehm-S.Ivanov, Polish Cht (Kry-
nica) 1997.
20 g4 £\g3+ 21 fxg3 ±xcl 22 Saxcl (D)
22...b6!
An important point of this is that Black now
controls the c5-square. If 22...JLd7, Black ends
up in some difficulties after 23 We3 JLc6+ 24
ih2 We7 25 Sf 1, Supper- Wolna, corr. 1996-7.
23 £c2+
23 We3 ±b7+ 24 <&h2 Wc5! 25 Wf4 Wg5
26 JLc2+ &h6 was roughly level in Soloviov-
S.Ivanov, St Petersburg 2005.
23...<&g7 24 &e4 Sa7
24...Sb8 is also playable, and might even
transpose to our main line, but in general the
rook is probably better placed on a7, where it
covers the kingside well from the 7th rank, and
sometimes has the possibility of doubling on
the d-file.
25 Sc2 &b7
25...We5 26 Sh2 h6 27 Sh5 f5 28 Wf2 Sf7
29 JLg2 was drawn in Hermansson-Barsov,
Oxford 1998 but White might still be very slightly
better in the final position.
26Sh2
26 Sf 2 £.xe4 27 Sxe4 We7 gives White even
less.
26...&xe4 27 Wxe4 Wb7! (D)
The key defensive move. Black will be a
pawn down but he is active on the d-file and
White's extra pawn is doubled on the g-file.
What is most important, though, is that White's
attack is abruptly ended by the queen exchange.
28 Sxh7+ &g8 29 Wxb7 Sxb7 30 Hh2 Sd3
31 &g2 Sd2+
31...&bd7 also held for Black in McShane-
Levitt, British League (4NCL) 1997/8. White
should then probably try to march his king up
the h-file.
32 &h3 Sxh2+ 33 &xh2 Sd7 34 Se2 <&g7
35 &h3 b5 36 b3
36 Se4 Sd2 37 Sb4 *f6 38 a4 bxa4 39 Sxa4
Sxb2 40 Sxa6 Sc2 also holds fairly easily; e.g.,
41 Sc6 <&e5 42 Sc5+ <&d6 43 Sc4 e5 44 g5 Sd2
45 &g4 Sd3 and White does not make progress.
36...Sc7 37 Se3
Or 37 Sc2 <&g6 38 <&h4 Sc5 39 c4 e5 =
Psakhis.
37...&f6 38 Sf3+ <&g5
V2-V2 Brodsky-Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.

2 4...#xd5: Deviations from the
Main Line
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £id2 c5 4 exd5 #xd5 (/»
The queen capture has been Black's most
common way of playing the 3...c5 Tarrasch in
recent years. It leads to more dynamic positions
than 4...exd5 and Black avoids ending up with
an isolated d-pawn.
In this chapter we examine deviations for
both sides along the way to the main-line
position after 10 £\xd4 that we considered in the
previous chapter.
Given the density of the entire 4...HSxd5
complex, there is a common tendency for players to
look for a useful sideline with White that
requires less study than the Main Line, but at the
same time is no less ambitious. In this respect,
Black should be especially aware of 7 H3fe2
(Line B21) and 9 We2 (Line B222). The
difference between the two is the intended direction
of White's king: in the latter White is
committed to kingside castling, whereas with 7 We2
White hopes that queenside castling is going to
exert further pressure on Black's position.
First, we split the main lines into two
continuations:
A: 5dxc5 30
B: 5&gf3 32
Other moves have never been taken very
seriously:
a) 5 c4? Wxd4 6 E>gf3 Wd6 7 Wc2 Ctf6 8
£\e4 &xe4 9 *xe4 £e7 10 Ae2, Martiakinen-
Kataja, Finnish Cht 1986, and now 10...f5!,
intending ...e5-e4, leaves White with something
to prove for his missing pawn.
b) 5 &b3 cxd4 6 Wxd4 £>f6 7 £>f 3 Wxd4 8
£>bxd4 a6 9 g3 b6 10 Ag2 Ab7 11 0-0 &bd7
12 c4 Ac5 13 £>b3 Ae7 14 Af4 0-0 15 Sfdl
Sa7!? with equality, Gavric-Kosic, Novi Becej
1998.
c) 5 ±b5+ ±d7 6 ±xd7+ £>xd7 7 £>df3
cxd4 8 Wxd4 &gf6 9 &e2 Ac5 10 Wxd5 £>xd5
11 0-0 0-0 = Bakhrakh-Khmelnitsky, St
Petersburg 1994.
A)
5dxc5
This move received something of a setback
in 1991 when Kasparov lost with it against
Anand. However, several strong players have
since then repeated the line and shown a more
accurate way for White. Still, I doubt that this
should represent an especially dangerous
system.
5..JLxc5 6 £>gf3 £>f6 (D)
7£d3
The move Kasparov introduced, but lately
Adams and other strong players have again
taken up the older 7 JLc4:
a) 7...«h5 and now:
al) 8 «fe2 0-0 9 h3 ±d6!? 10£te4 &xe4 11
Wxe4 &d7 12 Ag57! £>e5! 13 &xe5 Wxg5 14
&f3 Wf4 ? Beider-Psakhis, Israeli Cht 2000.

4..Mxd5:
Obviously White's 12th move was not good
but he can count on no advantage at that point
anyway.
a2) Perhaps 8 £ib3 JLb6 (8...JLe7 is also
feasible) 9 «fe2 &c6 10 ±e3 ±xe3 11 Wxe3
0-0 12 0-0, as in Rubinchik-Glek, com 1988, is
a better way for White to play it, but 12...b6, for
example, looks OK for Black.
b) 7...«d8 8 We2 0-0 9 £>b3 ±b4+ 10 c3
i.d6 11 ±g5 Wc7 12 &fd4 a6 13 ±xf6 gxf6
14 0-0-0 <&h8 15 ±d3 flg8 16 g4 £>d7 17 h3
Sb8 18 <&bl £if8 oo Palac-D.Johansen,
Gibraltar 2003.
c) 7...Wc6!? 8 «fe2 &bd7 9 £>b3 a6 10 a4
i.d6 11 0-0 Wc7 and now 12 a5 0-0 13 Sel?!
e5! left Black better in Adams-Bareev, Kalli-
thea ECC 2002. Adams suggests 12 £ibd4 as an
improvement but I find it hard to believe that
White has any significant advantage.
7...0-0
Speelman has played 7...£ibd7, but I don't
know whether Black gains anything special by
delaying ...0-0. Black has also tried 7...£ic6,
when 8 «fe2 &b4 9 ±b5+ ±d7 10 ±xd7+
«xd7 11 £>b3 Ae7 12 0-0 0-0 13 MA gave
White a very slight edge in Rublevsky-Kalich-
kin, Krasnodar 1997.
8 We2 (D)
8...&bd7!
The right place for the knight. It is clearly
more useful on d7, where it supports f6 and c5,
than it would be on c6. Moreover, it will not get
in the way of a queenside fianchetto. 8...£ic6 9
Se4 JLe7 10 0-0 is slightly in White's favour
according to Anand.
from the Main Line 31
9b3
Svidler's improvement on the more forcing 9
£ie4, which Kasparov played. After 9...b6! 10
£>xc5 Wxc5 11 ±e3 Wc7 12 ±d4 ±b7 Black
was fine in Kasparov-Anand, Reggio Emilia
1991/2.
Also 9 £>b3 Wh5!? 10 0-0 b6 11 Af4 Wg4!?
12 ±g3 ±b7 13 £>e5 &xe5 14 Wxe5 flac8 was
fine for Black in Mainka-Glek, Bad Zwesten
1995.
9...£>g4!?
This ambitious move exerts pressure on the
kingside, so White isn't allowed time for his
planned queenside fianchetto. 9...b6 10 JLb2
JLb7 is solid and sensible, and given as equal by
Beliavsky. A slightly more aggressive approach
is 9...a5 10 JLb2 b6, but in Rublevsky-Beliav-
sky, Novosibirsk 1995, White simply ignored
Black's a-pawn and continued 11 0-0-0! JLb7,
and here Beliavsky gave 12 g4T, intending
12...Wd6 13 g5 £>d5 14 «fe4 with an attack.
However, I am not sure what he has in mind
after 14...f5!. Black seems to get very active play,
and I would prefer 12 flhel a4, which was
played in the game, and now Beliavsky's second
suggestion: 13 ±e4!? £ixe4 14 £ixe4 Wxe4 15
Wxe4 ±xe4 16 flxe4 flfd8 17 b4! ±e7 18 fled4
&f6 19 flxd8+ flxd8 20 flxd8+ ±xd8 21 £>e5
±#
10 0-0 £>de5 11 ±e4 &xf3+ 12 £>xf3 Wh5
13 ±f4 &f6
13...e5? doesn't work: 14 £ixe5 JLd4 15 h3
and now:
a) 15...±xe5 16 ±xe5 (16 hxg4 ±xg4 17
±xh7+ ±) 16...Wxe5 17 hxg4 ±.

32
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
b) 15...£>f6 16 Sael £c3 17 ±f3 »f5 18
±d2 Wxc2 19 ±xc3 Wxc3 20 ^c4 ±.
14 Sadl! Wg415 Wc4 £>xe416 #xe4 f6 17
h3Wg618#c4i.b6
Black is very close to equality, Rublevsky-
S.Ivanov, Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998.
B)
5 £>gf3 cxd4
Or:
a) 5...£>f6 6 Ac4 Wc6 7 0-0 £>bd7 (7...b5!?)
8 #e2 a6 9 £\e5 £>xe5 10 dxe5 £>d5 11 £>e4 ±
Geller-Chistiakov, USSR 1951.
b) 5...^c6?!6±c4(6c4!?#h5 7d5exd5 8
cxd5 #xd5 9 JLc4 with compensation is given
by Suetin) 6...Wd8 7 dxc5 ±xc5 8 0-0 £>f6 9
We2 (Black's problem is that White will be able
to exchange off his f6-knight) 9...Wc7 10 £\e4
JLe7 11 Sel JLd7 12 b3! with a solid advantage
to White, Nunn-Levitt, London 1983.
6 ±c4 (A)
Now:
Bl: 6...Wd8 32
B2: 6...Wd6 33
The two easily transpose, but the latter is
the most common move-order, as it keeps an
eye on the e5-square. Line Bl is most
frequently seen with a subsequent quick ...a6 and
...»c7.
An almost ignored possibility is 6...#c5
despite its reasonable practical results. Due to the
attack on the c4-bishop, White isn't going to
regain his pawn as easily as in the main lines.
What seems to be a critical line is 7 #e2 £>c6 8
£\b3 (8 £\e4!? H>6 is similar to 6..Md6 7"&e2
*hc6 8 *he4 V8fc7 but Black's queen has ended
up on b6 instead of c7; it is unclear for whom
this is an advantage) 8...tfb6 9 0-0 £\ge7 10
Sdl (10 a4!?) 10...£\f5 11 Ad3 5id6 12a4and
now:
a) 12...a613a5#a7 14 2a4!^b5 15&xb5
axb5 16 2axd4!? (16 Sal ±d7 17 Af4 also
looks good) 16...^xd4 17 £>fxd4 with good
compensation for White, Beliavsky-P.Nikolic,
Wijkaan Zee 1984.
b) 12...£fo4!? 13 a5 Wc7 14 Af4 &xd3 15
Wxd3 Wc4 16 Wxc4 £>xc4 17 Sxd4 b5 18 axb6
£\xb6 is unclear, Kotronias-Popovic, Moscow
1989.
Bl)
6...#d8
This can easily transpose to various lines of
Line B2 but here we shall mainly examine ideas
where Black develops his king's knight on e7.
With the queen on d8 Black won't lose a tempo
to £te4 at some point, which could be the case if
it were on d6.
7 0-0 (D)
&m&m ha
7...a6
Black wants his queen on c7 without having
to bother about £>b5 or Jk.b5(+). Other moves:
a) 7...£>c6 8 £>b3 &f6 and now 9 £>bxd4
£ixd4 10 £lxd4 is likely to transpose to Chapter
1 after 10...a6 (maybe also after 10..Jk.d7).

4..Mxd5: Deviations from the Main Line
33
Black has then avoided some of White's
alternatives along the road to the Main Line. White
can also try 9 We2!?, which is similar to Line
B222 but here Black is the one who has lost
some options; e.g., 9...a6 10 fldl b5 (in
comparison with Line B222, Black cannot now play
10...e5) 11 £\bxd4!? £\xd4 12 flxd4 1^6 13
Ad3±b7 14 a4! ±c5 15flh4b4 16 a5! Wc7 17
Ad2 £id5 18 *he5 with a substantial advantage
to White, Sax-Andersson, Hilversum 1973.
b) 7...&e7 8 &b3 Wc7 9 We2 (while Wxd4
is a serious test of Black's similar set-up in the
Main Line, Black can now play 9...£\f5 in reply
to 9 Wxd4) 9...£\g6 and now White has two
ways of capturing on d4:
bl) 10 £>fxd4 a6 11 f4 ±e7 12 f5 exf5 13
£>xf5 JLxf5 14 flxf5 0-0, Adams-Dreev,
Dortmund 1994, and now 15 JLd2 is roughly equal.
b2) 10 £ibxd4 looks more testing. Then:
b21) 10...a6 11 ±xe6!?±xe6 12^xe6fxe6
13 Wxe6+ We7? (13...Ae7 14 £>g5 Wc6 15
Wf7+ <&d8 16 Wxg7 <&c8 oo) 14 Wc8+ Wd8 15
Wxb7 *hdl 16 ±g5 flb8 17 We4+ ±e7 18
Sadl ± Forster-Vaganian, Biel 1994.
b22) 10...±e7 11 &b5 1^6 12 a4 ± Isupov-
Vitinik, Vladivostok 1995.
8&b3
Emms suggests 8 £\e4, giving 8...Wc7 9 JLb3
Ae7 10 £\xd4 £tf6 11 flel with an edge for
White. I agree with the evaluation but I don't see
why Black should voluntarily give up on his d-
pawn. 8...£\c6 is clearly the strongest move.
8...WC7 (D)
H 6 ^ a^s;
9Wxd4
The main alternative is 9 We2 JLd6 10 £\bxd4
£ie7 11 Hdl (! - Dreev; the other option is to
put the rook on el) ll...£\bc6 12 £\xc6 (12
±g5?! £\xd4 13 £\xd4 0-0 = Zapata-Dreev,
Wijk aan Zee 1995) 12...£>xc6 13 Wd3!? ±e7
14 We4 ± Solak-O.Moor, Biel 1997.
9...£k6 10 Wh4 ±d6 11 ±d2 £>ge7
Il...£rf6?12±h6!±.
12 ±d3 £\e5
Instead, 12...Ad7 13 ±c3! f6 14 Wh5+ was
good for White in Nisipeanu-Priehoda,
Budapest 1996.
13 &xe5 ±xe5
The game is approximately equal, Bojkovic-
Kiseleva, Yugoslav worn Cht 2000.
B2)
6...Wd6 (D)
^L¥ AwEx/ A y/yyyy^' <s$st "Zd// ^flfiv yfimWx\
Now:
B21: 7«e2 33
B22: 7 0-0 36
The latter is clearly the more common, but
accurate play by Black is also required after 7
We2.
B21)
7We2
This aggressive continuation has recently
become a popular alternative to the better-trodden
main lines. White defends the c4-bishop and
thus prepares to improve the position of the
d2-knight, which may in some lines be more

34
The French: Tarrasch Variation
actively posted on e4. White then intends to
castle queenside, which will increase the
pressure against d4, and (hopefully) ultimately lead
to the regaining of the pawn.
7...£tf6
A more ambitious option is 7...£\c6 since
Black can then contemplate the possibility of
hanging on to his extra pawn with ...e5 in some
lines. White should reply 8 £\e4 (8 £lb3 JLe7
puts a stop to White's intended JLg5 and 0-0-0
set-up) 8...»c7 (8...«b4+ 9 Ad2 ®b6 is
another attempt but castling in either direction
gives White promising play for the pawn) 9 0-0
and now:
a) 9...&f610£.g5!?&xe411»xe4i.d612
flfel 0-0 was fine for Black in S.Pedersen-
0stenstad, Ars 1999.
b) 9...a6 lOfldl &f6 11 £>xd4(ll Ag5!?)
11 ...Ad7 12 &xf6+ gxf6 13 Ae3 &e5 14 Ab3
h5!? 15 h3 Ac5 * Potkin-Rustemov, Elista
2001.
Sthb3thc6 9&g5(D)
9...a6
This is ambitiously planning ...b5, after
which White's forced reply, JLd3, is going to
obstruct the rook's attack against d4. Of the
alternatives, line 'c' has experienced an upsurge
in interest:
a) 9..,±d7 10 0-0-0 0-0-0 11 &bxd4 &xd4
12 flxd4 »b6 13 »e5! ± Palac-Touzane, Nice
1994.
b) 9...i.e7 10 0-0-0 and now:
bl) 10...e5?! 11 &b5! &d7 (ll...Ag4 12
Wxe5! *xe5 13 £>xe5 Axdl 14 &xc6 Ae2 15
JLxe2 bxc6 16 £ixd4 gave White excellent
compensation in Nevostruev-T.Ivanov, Novosibirsk
1995) 12 &xe7 *xe7, Nadyrkhanov-Kobylkin,
Krasnodar 1999, and now Psakhis suggests 13
flhel! 0-0 14 Axc6 bxc6 15 &bxd4 »f6 16
&xe5 &xe5 17 »xe5 Wxf2 18 Hd2 Wh4 19
£\xc6 ±.
b2) 10...0-0 11 &bxd4 Wc5 12 h4!? Sd8 13
£\xc6 flxdl+ 14 Hxdl bxc6 15 £\e5 Sb8 16
Af4 2b7 17 »f3 ± Sermek-Skok, Ljubljana
1999.
b3) 10...h6!? and then:
b31) 11 &bxd4!? hxg5 12 &xe6 Wb8 13
£>exg5! Wf4+ 14 *bl 0-0 * Tischbierek-Luther,
German Ch (Bremen) 1998.
b32) 11 Ah4 »f4+!? 12 <£>bl »e4 13 £>bxd4
»xe2 14 £xe2 &xd4 15 flxd4 ±.
c) 9...Wb4+!? 10 Ad2 ®b6 11 0-0-0 Adl
12 i.g5 (12 j£.f4!? - Adams) 12..JLc5!? (D)
(12...0-0-0 13 £rfxd4 ± Glek-Rozentalis,
Antwerp 1993).
Now:
cl) 13 *bl 0-0-0 14 £\e5 £\xe5 15 ®xe5
Jft.d6 16 We2 (White has nothing after 16 Wxd4
*xd4 17 £>xd4 h6) 16...h6 17 Ad2 jfcM 18
i.xb4 Wxb4 19 £ixd4 £>b8 (Adams gives the
alternative 19...#05! 20 f4 J.c6 as stronger; a
similar idea was played in Wang Yu-Huang
Qian, Yongchuan 2003: 19...Wb6 20 f4 Ac6 21
&xc6 #xc6 22 f5 exf5 23 Axf7 &e4 24 flhf 1
g6 25 c4 ±) 20 f4 Wc5 21 £\f3 &g4 22 fld4 ±
Adams-Akopian, Enghien-les-Bains 2003.
c2) 13 £le5 (trying to improve on the above)
13...£>xe5 14 #xe5 ±d6 15 «xd4 »xd4 16

4..Mxd5: Deviations from the Main Line
35
£>xd4 Jtc5 (I see nothing wrong with 16...0-0-0
or 16...h6 either) 17 Hhel 0-0-0 18 f3 Hhe8
V2-V2 Satyapragyan-Lahno, Dubai 2005.
10 0-0-0 b5
Black has to play aggressively as 10.. Jte7
11 £>bxd4 £>xd4 12 Hxd4 #c7 13 Hhdl is very
good for White.
11 ±d3 (D)
ll...±b7!?
This engages in some interesting tactics
where it seems like Black just holds. The other
line is 1 l...Jte7, dividing into:
a) 12 £>bxd4 £>xd4 13 £>xd4 ftt5! ? is
similar to the main line but here Black has some
slight problems on the a8-hl diagonal.
Nevertheless, he doesn't seem worse; e.g., 14 Jtxf6
±xf6 15 <4>bl #c5 16 ±e4 Hb8 (in Solak-
Wang Hao, Dubai 2005 Black went 16...fia7!?
17 ±c6+ <4>f8 18 ffe3 <4>g8 19 Hd2 Hc7
followed by ...h5 and ...g6 with good play) 17
±c6+ <4>f8 18 *e3 <4>g8!?, preparing ...h5, ...g6
and ...<A>g7, gave Black good chances of
equalizing in Oral-Zifroni, Panormo ECC 2001.
b) 12<A>bl and now:
bl) 12..AV7 - ll..±b712 <^bl k,e7. This
may be Black's safest option.
b2) 12..Jtd7!? defends the d-pawn but the
bishop is slightly unnaturally placed. 13 Hhel
Id8 14 ±h4 ±c8 15 g4!? e5 16 h3 ±e6 17
£>xe5 £>xe5 18 #xe5 #xe5 19 Hxe5 0-0 (not
19...£>xg4? 20 Hxe6 fxe6 21 ±xe7 <4>xe7 22
hxg4 ±) 20 f4 and White was better in Gan-
guly-Prasad, Indian Ch (Nagpur) 2002.
b3) 12...e5(T>) and here:
b31) Tooslowisl3h3±e614HhelHc8 15
±h4 (15 £>xe5? #xe5 16 *xe5 £>xe5 17 Hxe5
£M7 winning for Black is a common tactic for
this line) 15...£>d7 16±g3±f6 17±e4±c4 18
#d2 0-0 and White has nothing for the pawn,
Roiz-Holzke, Biel 2000.
b32) 13 Hhel ±g4 14 ±xf6 ±xf6 15 ffe4
Jtxf3 16 gxf3 ^8! (preparing to move the king
into safety with ...g6 and ...*g7) 17 c3? (17 f4
exf4 18 £>a5 Hc8 19 £>xc6 #xc6 20 #xf4
yields some compensation since Black is still
playing without the h8-rook) 17...g6 18 cxd4
<ig7? (now, however, there is no reason to
reject 18...exd4 19 Hcl Hc8 20 £>a5 £>e7, when
Black has excellent play) 19 dxe5 #xe5 20
#xe5 £>xe5 21 ±e4 Ha7 22 £>a5 and White has
roughly levelled out the position, Rozentalis-
Khalifman, Bundesliga 2000/1.
b33) 13 Jtxf6! gxf6 (other captures are
worse: 13...#xf6 14 Jte4! and White wins the
e5-pawn and probably also d4, or 13...Jtxf6 14
£>bxd4 £>xd4 15 £>xd4 and Black can't castle
in view of #e4) 14 &h4. White has play on the
light squares and Black's king remains unsafe:
b331) 14...±f8 15 ±e4 Ha7 16 Hhel ±e6
17 ftf3 is much better for White, K.Rasmus-
sen-Bromann, Arhus 2002.
b332) 14...h5?! 15£>f5#c7 16±e4Ha7 17
f4! ±xf5 18 ±xf5 *f8 19 Hhf 1 Hh6 20 ±e4 ±
Rozentalis-Rustemov, Esbjerg 2001.
12*bl
The main alternative is 12 £}bxd4 £}xd4 13
£>xd4 ftt5! (13...0-0-0? 14 ±xb5! axb5 15
£}xb5 gave White a crushing attack in Smagin-
Levitt, Amantea 1993) 14 Jtxf6 gxf6, and now:

36
The French: Tarrasch Variation
a) 15 £\xb5 is tempting but after 15...Wxa2
16 &c7+ <£>e7 17 Wh5 ±h6+ 18 Wxh6 Wal+
19 <£>d2 Wa5+, Oral-Khuzman, Batumi Echt
1999, White has nothing better than repeating
the position with 20 icl.
b) 15 f3 We5 16 Wfl!? 0-0-0 17 £rt>3, and
White was slightly better in Peng Xiaomin-
Rahman, Calcutta 2001. Black has the two
bishops but he has trouble finding active places for
them, and it counts for more that White has the
better pawn-structure and safer king position.
12...ie7 13 £foxd4 &xd4 14 &xd4 (D)
14...id5
This has now become the main line, even if
14...£\d5!? was approximately equal in Skytte-
Voloshin, Olomouc 2000.
15&f3
The pawn sacrifice 15 Uriel!? ±xa2+ 16
<£>xa2 Wxd4 of S.B.Hansen-Glek, Esbjerg 2002
is maybe not entirely correct but dangerous in
practice. White keeps an initiative going,
starting with 17<£>bl.
15...0-0
Now White should play in the centre with 16
£\e5. After 16 h4?!, Black's attack appears to
be the faster: 16...b4 17 £\e5 a5 18 flh3 flfd8 19
Hg3 (Illescas-Rustemov, Spanish Cht (Mon-
dariz) 2002) and now 19...a4! 20 ±h6 g6 21 h5
(Illescas) 21...a3! is strong: 22 b3? £\e4!; 22
hxg6ixa2+!.
B22)
7 0-0 (D)
7...^f6
This avoids White playing £\e4. Instead,
7...£\c6 may be thought of as just an irrelevant
alternative move-order if Black meets 8 £\b3
with 8...£\f6 (transposing to 7...G$6 8 *hb3
£hc6). However, Black might have another idea
(which isn't very good) in mind. After 7...£\c6
8 £\b3 (8 £\e4!? is an extra option for White to
be borne in mind too) Black might try 8...e5?!
although this looks too risky: 9 £\g5! ie6
(9...£\h6 10 f4! ±) 10 i.xe6 fxe6 11 f4! ±
Hora-Neustupa, Prague 1964.
8&b3
This is usually played automatically but since
Kasparov tried 8 flel in one game, that has
undergone further investigation:
a) 8...ie7 and now:
al) 9 £rt>3!? 0-0 10 &bxd4 &c6 11 £>xc6
Wxc6 12 We2 with an edge for White, Mainka-
Fernandes, Barreiro 2001. Compared with the
main lines, Black has played an early ..JLe7,
which may not be in his interests.
a2) 9 £\e4 £\xe4 (in Emms-Speelman,
London 2003 Black equalized easily with 9...Wc7!?
10 Wxd4 &c6 11 &xf6+ ±xf6 12 We4 &d4!
13i.d3&xf3+ 14Wxf3id7) 10flxe4&c6 11
£\xd4 (Hracek-Kelly, Rethymnon ECC 2003
saw the interesting 11 ±f4!? Wc5 12 ±d3 ±f6
13 a3 0-0 14 b4 Wh5 15 b5 £\e7 16 ±e5, when
White was better) 11...0-0 (1 l...e5 was initially
suggested by Gelfand; then 12 if4! exf4 13
&xc6 Wxdl+ 14 flxdl bxc6 15 fldel <£>f8 16
flxe7 i.e6 17 fllxe6 fxe6 18 flc7! leads to a
tricky endgame, Hracek-Borovikov, Pardubice
2002) 12 ±f4 Wc5, Kasparov-Gelfand, Astana

4..Mxd5: Deviations from the Main Line
37
2001, and now Kasparov thinks 13 Jtd3! prom-
ises White some advantage.
b) 8...£>c6 9 £>e4 #d8 10 ±b5 and now:
bl) 10...Ad7 11 ±g5 (11 £>xf6+ #xf6 12
c3!? dxc3 13 ±g5 #g6 14 bxc3 with
compensation - Nevednichy) 11.. Jte7 12 Jtxf6 Jtxf6
13 £>d6+ <4>e7 14 £>e4 (14 ±xc6 ±xc6 15
£>xd4 #b6 co) l4...Wb6 15 £>xf6 gxf6 16 ±xc6
±xc6 17 £>xd4 Had8 18 £>xc6+ #xc6 19 We2
V2-V2 Kharlov-Rustemov, Russian Ch
(Krasnodar) 2002.
b2) 10...±e7!? 11 £>xd4 ±d7 12 £rf3!?
(maybe White ought to be less ambitious;
Nevednichy gives 12 Jtxc6 Jtxc6 13 ^xc6 bxc6 14
£.f4 £>xe4 15 Hxe4 ±f6 =) 12...0-0 13 c3 (if 13
±d3,13...£>b4=) 13...Wc7 14#e2£>d5! 15g3
Ife8 16 ±d3 f5! 17 £>eg5 ±f6 with a slight
advantage for Black, Nevednichy-Hug, Istanbul
Ech 2003.
8...£>c6 (D)
We shall now examine three options for
White:
B221: 9Hel 37
B222: 9#e2 37
B223: 9£>bxd4 39
B221)
9Hel
A fairly rare move. Ljubojevic played this on
several occasions in the late 1980s but the idea
has never caught on. White wants to increase
his central control before regaining the pawn
but this is time-consuming and if Black knows
what to do it seems that White ends up with his
pieces in worse positions compared with the
main lines.
9...a6
Always a useful move for Black, and it also
avoids being move-order tricked after, for
example, 9...±e7 10 £>bxd4 £>xd4 11 £>xd4,
when Black has played an early ...Jte7 which
he might not have wanted.
9...±d7 is a third option: 10 g3!? (10 £>bxd4
£>xd4 11 £>xd4 - 9 £hbxd4 ^xd410 ^xd4 kdl
11 Uel) 10...±e7 11 ±f4 #b4 12 #d3 (12
±fl!? - Ljubojevic) 12...Hc8 (12...0-0 13 a3
#b6 14 £>fxd4 £>xd4 15 #xd4 = Emms) 13 a4
0-0 14 a5! ±d8, when after 15 ±d2 #d6 16
£>bxd4 £>xd4 17 £>xd4 (Ljubojevic-P.Nikolic,
Tilburg 1987), 17...Wc5! followed by ...e5 looks
very pleasant for Black, but instead White can
obtain a good position with 15 c3! Wei 16
£>fxd4.
10±g5
10 a4 is naturally also playable but in many
lines a set-up with a4 isn't very dangerous for
Black unless he has castled queenside.
10...b5 11 ±fl ±b7 12 a4 b4 13 £>fxd4
£>xd4 14 #xd4 #xd4 15 £>xd4
Mainka-Zviagintsev, Mainz rpd 2001. Now
15..Jte7 looks equal.
B222)
9 We2!? (D)
This is a more dangerous set-up than that of
the previous main line. Again White aims for

38
The French: Tarrasch Variation
maximum central control and rapid
development before setting his mind towards the d-
pawn.
9...a6 (D)
Again this is useful: Black is planning ...b5,
and after the bishop is forced back to d3, it will
not be so simple for White to regain the d-
pawn. Black shouldn't consider castling queen-
side though. This had very fatal consequences
in Rozentalis-Shulman, Riga 1986: 9..JLd7?!
10 fldl 0-0-0?! 11 &bxd4 &xd4 12 flxd4 Wc7?
13 Af4 Wb6 14 We5 1-0. Obviously Black
didn't play well here, but it serves as a warning!
10£g5
In Zapata-Nogueiras, Havana 2003 White
held this back for a while and instead played 10
fldl!?. The game continued 10...b5 (10...Wc7
11 £\bxd4 £\xd4 12 flxd4 with an advantage
for White is the sort of thing White hopes for)
11 ±d3 ±b7 12 c3!? ±e7 13 a4 b4 14 cxd4 0-0
15i.g5Wd5 16Wc2±
10...±e7
10...Wc7 11 fladl b5 12 ±d3 ±d6 13 ±xf6
gxf6 14 ±e4 ±b7 15 £\bxd4 £\xd4 16 flxd4
gives White a slight advantage:
a) 16...±xe4 17 Wxe4 fld8 18 flfdl <£>e7
19 g3 JLc5 20 fl4d3 ± S.B.Hansen-Djurhuus,
MunkeboZ 1998.
b) 16...fld8 17 flfdl <£>e7 18 ±xb7 Wxb7
19 Wd2 Wc7 20 fld3 ±c5 21 flxd8 flxd8 22
Wxd8+ Wxd8 23 flxd8 <£>xd8 24 g4 and White
is better in the endgame but it may prove
difficult to convert, Kr.Georgiev-Dochev, Pampor-
ovo2001.
11 flfel b5 12 £d3 ±b7 13 fladl 0-0 14 c3
(D)
The critical position arises logically: Black
develops and White centralizes. Now White is
about to regain his sacrificed pawn, and by
playing c3 he now introduces the possibility of
transforming the type of position into one with
an isolated d-pawn, which sharpens the play
further. White also prepares to line up his queen
and bishop against Black's kingside by JLbl
andWc2/d3.
14...flfe8!?
Black looked OK in A.Ivanov-Gulko, USA
1994 after 14...flac8 15 ±bl flfd8 16 &bxd4
(16 cxd4!?) 16...&xd4 17 £>xd4 Wc5 18 ±e3
Wc7 19 a3 £\d5 20 ±cl ±c5 V2-V2.
15±bl
Instead, 15 cxd4 £\b4 16 ±bl ±d5 17 £\e5
±xb3 18 axb3 g6 19 Wf3 £\bd5 was fine for
Black in Skytte-J.Gunnarsson, Olomouc 2001,
and shows that White should be careful how or
if he transforms to an isolated d-pawn position.
15...Wc7
Gulko's idea from above again seems worth
repeating; e.g., 15...flad8!? 16 £\bxd4 £\xd4
17 £\xd4 Wc5 and only if White plays 18 ±e3
will Black's queen go to c7. This seems to avoid
the weakening of Black's kingside, and if 18
&xe6? fxe6 19 Wxe6+ *f8 20 ±xf6 ±xf6 21
flxd8 flxd8 22 ±xh7, Black has 22...Wd5!.
16 £tbxd4 &xd417 &xd4 Aad818 Wd3 g6
19 Wh3 (D)
Now:
a) 19...£\h5?! and then:

4..Mxd5: Deviations from the Main Line
39
mw&.
III
— up
« « fM
m m
ism m o & £g
* m
al) 20 ±h6?! ±f6 21 #g4 e5 22 £>f5 Hxdl
23 Hxdl Hd8 and White has run into a dead end
on the kingside, while Black is about to take
over the central control, Zapata-Dolmatov, Til-
burg 1993.
a2) White has a relatively straightforward
piece of tactics: 20 £>xe6! fxe6 21 #xe6+ <4>g7
(21...*f8? 22 Hxd8 #xd8 23 ±h6+ £>g7 24
±xg6! hxg6 25 #xg6 +-) 22 Hxd8 ±xd8 23
#xe8 (23 ±h6+!?) 23...±xg5 24 a4 bxa4 25
#xa4 and White is better since the strong
bishop on b7 is easily neutralized by Jte4.
b) 19...±d5 looks safer; e.g., 20 #h4 £>h5
21 ±xe7 Hxe7 22 £>f5 Hed7 23 ^e3 should be
roughly equal.
B223)
9 £>bxd4 £>xd4
This exchange isn't necessarily obligatory
but other moves are rarely seen. Andersson
played 9...Ad7 once (against Ye Jiangchuan,
Erevan OL 1996) but White showed no
intentions of trying to punish Black for his move-
order change. White might try 10 £>b5 #b8 11
Jtg5 (11 g3 Jte7 gets White nowhere) ll...a6
12 £>c3 ±e7 13 Wc2 0-0 14 Hadl with small
pressure.
10 #xd4 (D)
The queenless middlegame promises White
very little but may be chosen if White wants to
play very safe or if he considers his opponent
technically inferior. 10 ^xd4 was covered in
Chapter 1.
10...±d7!?
This definitely has its points. If Black
exchanges queens, White's knight is immediately
centralized. The text-move has become the most
popular, mainly because White in fact has some
chances of showing a slight advantage after
10...#xd4 1l£>xd4(T>):
■a
» H
w^ni
k
ill
w, mm
HP '■■
'fW Wa
ABA
9 W///
w s A
W% ft ill
»m m m
a) ll...a6 and now:
al) 12 ±e2!? ±d6 (12...e5 13 £>b3 ±f5 14
c3 0-0-0 15 ±g5 ±e7 16 Hfel ± Chernin) 13
Hdl ±c7! 14 b3 0-0 15 ±a3 He8 16 £>f3 ±d7
17 c4 e5 = Masternak-Braslavsky, Zlin 1996.
a2) 12 ±f4b5 13 ±e2 ±b7 14 £>b3!? ±e7
15 c4 bxc4 16 £>a5 ±d5 17 £>xc4 ± Hubner-
Klinger, Biel 1986.
b) ll...Jtd7 and now:
bl) 12 ±f4 Hc8 13 ±e2 ±c5 14 £ib3 ±b6
15 c3 <4>e7 16 a4 £>d5! 17 ±g3 a5 18 Hfdl g5!
with counterplay, Istratescu-Atalik, Bucharest
1996.
b2) 12 ±e2!? and here:

40
The French: Tarrasch Variation
b21) 12...0-0-0 13 &f4 £>d5 14 Ag3 f6 15
£>b5 &xb5 16 &xb5 &d6 17 Sfdl &xg3 18
hxg3 £>c7 19 Ae2 t Petrik-Koutsin, Prievidza
1998.
b22) 12...Ac5 13«ib3 Ab6(13...Ad6!?) 14
a4 a6 15 Af3 0-0-0 16 Ad2 Ac6 17 &xc6 bxc6
18 Ac3 ± Tiviakov-Chernin, Podolsk 1993.
We now return to 10.. JLd7!? (D):
ll&e3
In the above lines, Black's main worry is the
^.e2-f3 manoeuvre after the queens have been
exchanged. Here, the bishop move has less point
because the f3-square has not been vacated yet;
e.g., 11 ±q2 «c7 (ll...Ae7!?) 12 c4 ±c5 13
«h4 h6 14 Af4 Jk.d6 15 i.xd6 «xd6 16 Bfdl
«c7 17 «g3 «xg3 18 hxg3 <£>e7 19 £>e5 Sac8
20 Sd4 Sc7 21 Sadl Shc8 22 f4 a5 23 Ai3
£e8 = Van der Wiel-Glek, Tilburg rpd 1994.
11 Af4 Wxd4 12£>xd4- W..Mxd4 II *hxd4
±d712 ±f4.
U.JVxd4
Or ll...Sc8 12 «h4!? Ae7, when after 13
£b3 (Mikhalchishin-Repkova, Dortmund 1995),
Mikhalchishin gives 13...£>d5 14 Ag5 f6 15
£d2 0-0 as unclear. He suggests 13 £d3!? for
White; e.g., 13...h6 14&xa7! b6 15«d4«xd4
16 £>xd4 Ac5 17 £>b3 £>d5 18 a4 ±.
12 &xd4 (D)
This is of course the problem when Black
waits with the exchange. White's bishop is
ideally placed in the centre of the board, attacking
Black's kingside as well as the queenside. 12
£>xd4 is a much slower version of the note to
Black's 10th move and does not now present
Black with any difficulties.
12...Sc813£>e5
13 i.b3 ix5 14 Sadl <£>e7 15 Hfel Shd8 16
c3 h6 looked approximately equal in Acs-Glek.
Budapest 1996.
13...Ac5
This neutralizes the power of White's d4-
bishop and is a key defensive move for Black.
However, a little-investigated alternative is
13...£>g4!? with the tactical point that White's
c4-bishop is somewhat loose. After 14 £>xd7
Sxc4 15 Sfdl (Li Wenjun-Yu Shaoteng,
Shenyang 1999), 15..JLd6 with the idea 16 &xg7
&xh2+ 17 *fl Sg8 18 £>f6+ £>xf6 19 Axf6
Ac7 20 2d4 Sxd4 21 &xd4 a6 leads to an
equal endgame.
14 Sadl £xd4 15 Hxd4 <£>e7 16 Sfdl
Shd8 17 13 i.e8 18 Hxd8 Hxd8 19 Hxd8
<£>xd8
= Slobodjan-Luther, Lippstadt 1997.

3 4...exd5: The Old Main Line,
5...^c6 6 Ab5
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 £«f3
£>c6 6 &b5 (D)
This line was very popular in the 1970s and
1980s but nowadays Black is looking for more
dynamic lines against the Tarrasch. Although
theoretically Black seems to be doing fine,
most players find it slightly uncomfortable to
have an isolated d-pawn while White can
concentrate his efforts on keeping control of the
d4-square. Most lines actually look OK for
Black but in practice it is often more pleasant to
play against the isolated d-pawn and White can
usually play with little risk.
The main line goes:
6...£d6
Other moves favour White:
a) 6...#e7+ 7 Ae2 cxd4 8 0-0 and now
8...Wd8 9 £>b3 &d6 10 £>bxd4 £>ge7 leaves
White two tempi up on Line B4. Although time
isn't necessarily very important in this line, it
should count for something. In Geller-Spassky,
Sukhumi Ct (7) 1968 White was better after 11
c3 Ag4 12 Ag5 0-0 13 Bel «d7 14 h3 Ah5 15
«d2 Bfe8 16 Badl. Possibly stronger is 8...#c7
9 £lb3 £>f6, although in Rublevsky-Korchnoi,
St Petersburg rpd 2001, White was better after
10£>bxd4a6 11c4!.
b) 6...cxd4 7 «e2+!? (7 £>xd4 Ad7 8 £>2f3
£>f6 9 0-0 Ae7 10 c3 0-0 11 Ad3 Be8 12 Af4 ±
Nunn-Turunen, Helsinki 1981) 7...We7 8 £>xd4
Wxe2+ 9 <£>xe2 Ad7 10 £>2f3 (D) and then:
bl) 10...£tf6 11 Bel £>xd4+ 12 £>xd4 0-0-0
13 Ad3 Ac5 14 c3 Bde8+ 15 *fl Bxel+ 16
^xel £>g4 17 ^.f4± Hubner-Korchnoi, Merano
Ct (7) 1980/1.
bl) 10...Ad6 11 Bel £>ge7 12 *fl a6 13
Ad3 0-0 14 c3 Bfe8 15 h3 ± Akopian-Lputian,
Armenian Ch 1997.
b3) 10...£>xd4+ 11 £>xd4 Ac5 12 Bdl £>e7
13 Ae3 &xd4 (13...Axb5+ 14 £>xb5 &xe3 15
<£>xe3 0-0 16 c3 ±) 14 &xd7+ <£>xd7 15 Bxd4
Bhc8 16 c3 ± Hubner-Korchnoi, Merano Ct (9)
1980/1.
b4) 10...Ac5!? 11 Ae3 (11 Bdl) 1 l...£>xd4+
12 £>xd4 &xd4 13 &xd7+ <£>xd7 14 &xd4 f6
15 Bhdl £te7 is similar to Hiibner-Korchnoi in
'b3' above. White should be slightly better if he
plays quietly but after 16 c4?! <£>e6 17 cxd5+

42
The French: Tarrasch Variation
£>xd5 18 Sd2 Shd8 Black equalized in Ravi-
Dolmatov, Calcutta 1996.
We now return to the position after 6...JLd6
7dxc5
This is considered the most precise move-
order. 7 0-0 is logical but after 7...cxd4 White
can hope for little more than a transposition to a
line he might not want to play at all:
a) 8 £>xd4 &xh2+ 9 &xh2 «h4+ 10 <&>gl
*xd4 11 2el+ £>e7 is fine for Black, Geller-
Ivkov, Skopje 1969. It is possible that White
can show compensation for his missing pawn
but no more than that; Black has at least
equalized.
b) 8 2el+ £te7 9 £>xd4 is a more precise
move-order than 'a' above but again not one
that causes Black much concern; e.g., 9...0-0 10
£>2b3 (10 £>2f3 - 7 dxc5 &xc5 8 0-0 *he7 9
fob3 k.d6 10 Z&bd4) 10...®c7 (D) and now:
bl) Hg3!?£te5 12i.fla613£.g2£.g4 14
f3 A.d7 15 c3 Sfe8 16 «c2 £>c4 17 Ag5 h6
(17...f6 18 Ae3 «tf5 19 £M5 Axf5 20 Wxf5
£>xe3 21 «d3 • Zapata) 18 £xe7 i.xe7 19 f4
Af6 20 Wf2 «d6 21 Sadl 2xel+ 22 Sxel a5!
23 £>cl b5 with counterplay, Zapata-Agdestein,
Thessaloniki OL 1984.
b2) 11 h3 £>e5 12 Ad3 Ad7 13 Af4 ^7g6
14 i.xg6!? hxg6 15 &xe5 &xe5 16 »f3 ®d6
17 Sadl Sfe8 18 c3 Ac6 19 Wd3 Af6 = Sutov-
sky-Psakhis, Israeli Ch (Ramat-Aviv) 2000.
c) 8 £ft>3 £}ge7 9 lfxd4 (other moves
transpose: 9 £>bxd4 - 7 dxc5 kxc5 8 0-0 *&e79 *hb3
k.d6 10 *hbd4; 9 £>fxd4 - 7 dxc5 &xc5 8 0-0
*hel 9 Zhb3 k.d6 10 Qfdt) 9...0-0 10 «h4 (10
&xc6 bxc6 - 7 dxc5 kxc5 8 0-0 foe7 9 *hb3
kd6 10 £jcc6+ bxc6 11 ^d4 0-0) 10...Af5 11
£>bd4 Ae4 12 Ae3 ®a5 = Akopian-Psakhis,
Erevan 1988.
7...Axc5 (D)
The only potential argument against 7 dxc5 is
7...We7+, but the endgame after 8 «e2 «xe2+
(8... Axc5? 9 £>e5 Ad7 10 £>xd7 <£>xd7 11 £>b3
®xe2+ 12 <£>xe2 2e8+ 13 *f3 ±06 14 Ae3 a6
15 ^.xc6+ bxc6, Portisch-Farago, Budapest
1971, and now 16 c4! ± Portisch) 9 <&xe2 i.xc5
10 £>b3 is uninspiring for Black and generally
considered slightly better for White.
8 0-0
White achieves little with 8 £>b3 £d6 (the
line 8...®e7+ 9 «e2 ®xe2+ 10 <£>xe2 ± leads to
the same endgame as mentioned in the previous
note) 9 ^d4, as Black now has a chance to place
his knight more actively. Beliavsky-Vaganian,

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...Zhc6 6 ±b5
43
USSR Ch (Frunze) 1979 went 9...£rf6 10 0-0
0-0 11 &xc6 bxc6 12 Af4 Axf4 13 «xf4 «b6
8...£>e7
Latvian GM Normunds Miezis sometimes
experiments with 8...£rf6.1 doubt it to be very
good but it shouldn't be underestimated; for
example, 9 Bel+ &e6 10 £>b3 &b6 11 £>bd4 0-0
(Black is virtually forced to sacrifice a pawn)
12 &xc6 bxc6 13 £>xc6 «d6 14 £>ce5 £>g4 15
£>xg4 &xg4 16 «d3 (16 Ae3? Ac7) 16...2ae8
17 Ad2 Ah5, Prusikhin-Miezis, Morso 2002.
Black has some compensation in the form of
the two bishops and an active position but I
don't quite trust it to be adequate. Psakhis's
suggestion, 18 ^.c3!?, for example, looks good
for White.
9£>b3
This is clearly the most common. White plays
safely for a small plus by controlling the d4-
square and hopes to implement exchanges that
will later weaken the isolated d-pawn. A more
aggressive continuation is 9 c4!? (D), a
favourite of Dvoirys, which has attracted some
attention lately and should be dealt with carefully, as
White is trying to exploit a small lead in
development by opening up the position:
a) 9...dxc4 10 £>e4 «b6 11 &xc4 0-0 12
£>xc5«xc5 13«c2±
b) 9...a6 10 &xc6+ bxc6 (10...^xc6 11 £>b3
ie7 12 cxd5 £>b4 13 Sel £>xd5 14 Ag5 f6 15
*d4! £>c7 16 «xd8+ <£>xd8 17 Ae3 ±) 11 £>b3
£a7 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 Sel 0-0 14 Ae3 ±
Dvoirys.
c) 9...0-0 10 £>b3 £b6 with two options for
White:
cl) 11 &xc6 bxc6 (ll...dxc4!? 12 «xd8
Bxd8 13 Aa4 cxb3 14 Ag5 f6 15 &xb3+ £>d5
16 Sfel *f7 17 £>e5+ *f8 18 Sadl JLe6 19
£>c4 Af7 20 £>xb6 £>xb6 21 Axf7 <£>xf7 =) 12
c5 Ac7 13 £>bd4 Ag4 14 Ag5 f6 15 Ah4 Ae5!
16 «d2 Axf3 17 £>xf3 «d7 = Rublevsky-
Vaganian, Elista OL 1998.
c2) 11 c5 Ac7 and now:
c21) 12 Ag5 f6 13 Ah4 Ag4 14 Ag3 Ae5
15SM a5 16 Ae2 Af5 17 Ad3a4 18£fcl Ag4
19 Ae2 Se8 = Kobaliya-Lputian, Elista OL
1998.
c22) 12 £>bd4 Ag4 13 Ae2 «d7 14 Ae3
Sad8 15 Sel Bfe8 16 «b3 £>g6 = Dvoirys-
Yandemirov, St Petersburg 1999.
We return to 9 £>b3 (D):
There are now two bishop retreats:
A: 9...&b6 43
B: 9...&d6 46
A)
9...&b6
This move isn't played nearly as often as
9...&d6.
10 Sel
White's best plan is to try to exchange the
dark-squared bishops, since otherwise Black's
bishop would be better placed on b6 than it is
on d6. This exchange, prepared by Bel and
Ae3, should promise White some advantage.
Alternatives:

44
The French: Tarrasch Variation
a) 10 c4 dxc4 11 ®xd8+ i.xd8 12 i.xc4 0-0
13 ^.e3 JLg4 = Mamedov-Brynell, Istanbul Ech
2003.
b) 10 Ae3!? i.xe3 11 i.xc6+ bxc6 12 fxe3
is interesting. Against the 'normal' 12...0-0
White has achieved good results with 13 ®d4!
exercising a bind on the dark squares. Black's
best line of play is probably 12...iLg4 13 Wd4
i.xf3 14 Bxf3 0-0 15 Bafl £>g6, intending
...We7 and ...£te5 with counterplay. For
example, 16 £>c5 ®e7 17 a4 Bae8 18 b3 £>e5 with
equality, Geller-Ivkov, Sousse IZ 1967.
c) 10 c3 0-0 (D) occurs frequently, but not
often from the regular French, rather from a
Sicilian move-order; e.g., I e4 c5 2 £hf3 e6 3 c3
d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 d4 foc6 6 &b5 k.d6 7 dxc5
&xc5 8 0-0 *he7 9 *hbd2 0-0 10 *hb3 ±b6.
Indeed from the Sicilian move-order, the retreat
10...3Lb6 is probably preferable to W...3id6.
White has a large choice of options but none
seems to promise anything special:
cl) 11 h3 ®d6 12 £>bd4 a6 13 i.d3 £>xd4
14 £>xd4 &xd4 15 cxd4 Af5 was already
slightly pleasant for Black in Ekstrom-R.Moor,
Swiss Cht 2001.
c2) 11 £>bd4 Ag4 12 ®a4 A.d7 13 Ae3 a6
14 i.xc6 &xc6 (14...bxc6 with the idea 15 £>e5
JLe8 followed by ...c5 is maybe better) 15 £>xc6
£>xc6 16 Bfel Be8 17 Sadl &xe3 18 fxe3 Wb6
19 ®b3 ®xb3 20 axb3 Bad8 21 Bd3 f6 22
Bedl *f7 23 *f2 <£>e6 = Rausis-Salmensuu,
Tanta 2000.
c3) 11 £>fd4 ®d6 12 Bel ±d7!7 (12...£tf5
13 £>xf5 Axf5 14 »f3 i.e4 15 ±f4 ®g6 16
Wg3 Bad8 17 Wxg6 i.xg6 18 i.xc6 bxc6 19
^.e3 Bd7 20 JLd4 gave White perhaps a tiny
edge in Schmittdiel-Stangl, Austrian Cht 2001)
13 a4 a6 14 i.f 1 £>e5 15 a5 Aa7 16 Af4 £>7g6
17 i.g3 ®f6 and Black is very active, Hoff-
man-Cifuentes, Matanzas 1995.
c4) 11 Ag5 h6 (ll...f6!? 12 A.f4 £>g6 was
seen in Rykalin-Kupreichik, St Petersburg 2001
and is also not a bad line for Black) 12 JLxe7
£>xe7 13 £>bd4 GX5 14 ®d3 #f6 with equality,
Schmittdiel-Eingorn, Austrian Cht 2000.
c5) 11 Ad3 £>g6 12 Bel A.g4 13 Ae3 £>ge5
(13...Axe3 14 Bxe3 £>ge5 15 kel £>c4 16
&xc4 dxc4 17 ®xd8 Bfxd8 18 £>bd4 A.xf3 19
£>xf3 Bd5 was also good enough for equality in
Tiviakov-Iskusnykh, Russian Ch (Elista) 1995)
14 i.xb6 ®xb6 15 Ae2 A.xf3 16 AxG Bad8
17 g3 a5 18 Bbl £>xf3+ 19 Wxf3 a4 20 £>d4
£>xd4 21 ®e3 g6 22 Bedl £>e2+ 23 ®xe2 d4 =
Shovunov-Tregubov, Russian Clubs Cup
(Maikop) 1998.
c6) 11 Bel (D) and then:
c61) ll...Ag4 12 Ae3 Be8 (12...Axe3 13
Bxe3 ®d6 14 h3 A.h5 15 Ae2 Bad8 16 £>fd4
^.g6 17 JLf3 £te5 = Macieja-Movsesian, Czech
Cht 2001 might be Black's strongest) 13 h3 i.h5
14 a4 a6 (14...±c7 15 Ac5! a6 16 i.xc6! £>xc6
17 Bxe8+ ®xe8 18 ®xd5 won a pawn for
White in Smagin-Cvitan, Biel 1995) 15 i.xb6
®xb6 16 ±e2 followed by a5 with slightly
better chances for White according to Smagin.
c62) ll...£tf5 (threatening ...i.xf2+
followed by ...Wb6+) 12 Ad3 ±c7 (12...h6 13
±c2 Ae6 14 ®d3 »f6 15 A.e3! i.xe3 16 fxe3

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...£hc6 6 &b5
45
g6 17 £\c5 was better for White in Godena-
Salmensuu, Batumi Edit 1999) 13 Ac2 (13 *c2
Sh4 14 £>bd4 h6 15 Ae3 «d6 16 g3 £>xf3+ 17
£>xf3«f6 18i.e2i.g4 19£>d4 Axe2 20Sxe2
jLb6 with equal chances, Ghaem Maghami-
Fominykh, Kelamabakkam 2000) 13...g6 (this
loses a pawn by force, although Black gets
some compensation, but it looks slightly
committal as Black always has this response in
reply to *d3; 13...a5 14 £>bd4 £>fxd4 15 £>xd4
8114 16 £>f3 Wrrf 17 h3 also looked slightly
better for White in Kharlov-Fominykh,
Ekaterinburg 1997) 14 Axf5 Axf5 15 Ah6 Se8 16
2xe8+ «xe8 17 «xd5 (17 £>fd4 #e5 18 g3
jLb6 certainly gave Black no trouble in Khar-
lov-Rublevsky, Novosibirsk 1995) 17...Ae4 18
#dl £>e5 19 £>fd4 «e7 20 «e2 f5?! (V.Ivanov
suggests 20...Ad5 as stronger, when 21 f4 Wh4!
22 Ag5 ©g4 yields some compensation) 21 f3
Ad3 22 ©e3 and Black's compensation for the
pawn is inadequate, V.Ivanov-Balashov,
Moscow 1999.
10...0-0 (D)
11 Ae3 Ag4
By pinning the knight Black is indirectly
fighting against White's control of d4, as he
will have the option of exchanging the knight.
Other moves:
a) ll...Af5 12 c3 Ae4 13 £>fd2 (13 £>bd4
±) 13...Ag6 14 fcf 1 Se8 15 «d2 «c7 16 £>g3
Sad8 17 Sadl ± Wahls-Casper, Bundesliga
1993/4.
b) 1 l...Axe3 12 2xe3 Ag4 is similar to the
main line but here Black keeps his queenside
structure intact without having to sacrifice a
pawn, though White has a fairly simple plus
after this: 13 h3 Ah5 14 «d2 (14 c3 ±/=)
14...Axf3 15 Sxf3 Wb6 16 a4 £>e5 (16...2ad8
17 Sel a6 18 Ad3 £>g6 19 Sfe3 ± McShane-
Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2003) 17 Se3 f6 (17...^c4
18 Axc4 dxc4 19 Sxe7 cxb3 20 cxb3 *xb3 21
Sa3 ±) 18 Sael Sfd8 19 £>d4 a6 20 Af 1 £>7c6
21 £lxc6 ©xc6 22 a5 ± Emms-Casper,
Bundesliga 2001/2.
12Axb6«xb6(DJ
This involves a sacrifice of the d-pawn but as
compensation White's kingside will be
weakened. On the other hand, 12...axb6 13 c3 Stt6 14
Ae2 £>g6 15 h3 Ae6 16 Af 1 £>f4 17 Wd2, as in
Beliavsky-Vaganian, USSR 1974, is pleasant for
White.
13 Axc6
Black has few worries if White doesn't go
for the pawn. In Brodsky-Lputian, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 1991, for example, White was not
able to gain any advantage after 13 Ae2 Ah5
14 a4 a6 15 £>fd4 Ag6 16 £>xc6 £>xc6 17 Ad3
Sfd8 18 a5 «c7 19 Axg6 hxg6 20 «d2 Sac8.
13...£>xc6 14 «xd5
In an attempt to gain any advantage White
must go for the pawn.
14...&M 15 «e4 Axf3 16 gxf3 (D)
16...fiad8
White keeps his extra pawn with some
advantage after 16...Wg6+ 17 *xg6 hxg6 18 £>d4
Sfd8 19 c3 £>d3 20 Se2, and 16...a5 17 a3 £>c6
18 Sfe3 also gave White clearly the better of it
in Karpov-Krogius, Kuibyshev 1970.

46
The French: Tarrasch Variation
17 Hadl
Or 17 Se2 Sd6 18 c3 Se6 19 ®c4 Sg6+
(19...Sxe2 20 ®xe2 ®g6+ 21 <£>hl £>c6 22 Sdl
±) 20 <£>hl ®f6 21 f4 ®h4 22 £>d2, Ivanchuk-
Dokhoian, Erevan 1989, and now 22...®h3! 23
f3 £>c6 isn't clear.
17...h6
17...2xdl 18 Sxdl £>xa2 regains the pawn
but is risky: 19 Sd7 ®f6 (19...Sb8 20 £>d4! is
also better for White) 20 £>d4!? ®g5+ 21 *f 1
®cl+ 22 <£>g2 ®xb2 23 Sxb7 ®c3 24 Sxa7,
Dvoirys-Tondivar, Leeuwarden 1994.
18 a3 £>c6
Wahls-Casper, Bundesliga 1998/9. White
keeps his extra pawn but Black has some
compensation in view of White's weakened king-
side.
B)
9...£d6 (D)
There is now a large choice. Transpositions
between the lines (especially Lines B2-B5) are
common and I have endeavoured to point these
out in the notes where appropriate.
Bl:
B2:
B3:
B4:
B5:
10 £xc6+!?
10 c3
lOigS
10 £*d4
lOSel
46
48
49
51
52
10 £>fd4 0-0 11 Sel - 7 0-0 cxd4 8 Rel+
Zhe7 9thxd4 0-0I0Zh2b3.
Bl)
10 &xc6+!?
A fairly rare idea, but nonetheless very
interesting. With the coming sequence ®d4 and
^.f4 White exchanges the dark-squared
bishops, thus limiting Black's activity and playing
for dark-square control - specifically c5 is the
vital point.
11...0-0
11 ..Mel worked very well for Black in San-
dal-Mork, Norwegian Cht 1993, but only
because White didn't venture to take on g7. Black
has some play but not at all enough after 12
Wxg7Sg8 13Wh6!.
12 MA £tf5 (D)
This is regarded as Black's best. White's
queen is forced to move away from the control
of c5, and sometimes Black's knight will now
come favourably to d6.12...&f5 13 i.xd6 ®xd6

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...Zhc6 6 <k.b5
47
14 ®c3 should be slightly in White's favour,
since he establishes a knight on c5. This is
generally what Black should try to avoid.
13Wa4
Black equalizes more easily after 13 ®d2
"fiTtf (after 13..JLe6, Kr.Georgiev-Gulko, St
John 1988,14 ^.xd6 is good for White, because
of 14...£>xd6 15 £>c5, or 14...®xd6 15 ®c3,
aiming for c5) and then:
a) 14 Sfel &e6 15 £>fd4 Axf4 16 ®xf4
£>xd4 17 ®xd4 Sfb8 V2-V2 Schinzel-Adamski,
Rimavska Sobota 1975.
b) 14 Sadl!? Sd8 (or 14...&e6) 15 Sfel
i.b4!? 16 c3 Af8 17 Ae5 V2-V2 Sznapik-
W.Schmidt, Polish Ch 1987.
c) 14 £>fd4 Axf4 15 ®xf4 £>xd4 16 ®xd4
Wxd4 17 £>xd4 c5 18 £>c6 Se8 19 Hfel *f8 20
2xe8+ <&xe8 21 Sel+ &e6 22 f4 g6 V2-V2
R0dgaard-Santa, Moscow OL 1994.
This is Yusupov's preference. There are a
few reasons why this move is useful, but first of
all White's queenside play is confined.
Secondly, White may feel obliged to try to keep his
queen on a4 for a while, because if it moves,
Black's a-pawn could advance further. The most
important alternatives are:
a) 13...c5 (this is what Black should in
general strive for, but the immediate
implementation might be dubious) 14&xd6®xd6 15®a3!
(the main point of moving the queen to a4 is
the possibility of this manoeuvre) 15...^.a6
(15...C4 16 ®xd6 £>xd6 17 £>bd4 with an edge
for White) 16Sfel Sac8 17Sadl Sfd8 (17...f6
might be better) 18Se5! g6(18...£>h4 19^xh4
®xe5 20 ®xa6 ®xb2 21 &f5 ±) 19 h3 Ac4
20 £lbd2 and White was better in Istratescu-
Magai, Moscow OL 1994.
b) 13...»b6 14 &xd6 £>xd6 15 £>e5! and
now:
bl) 15...C5?! 16 ®c6 ®xc6 17 £>xc6 c4 18
£>c5 2e8 19 2adl £e6, Zakharstov-Berelo-
vich, Azov 1995, and now 20 £la6 2ac8 21
£lab4 is good for White.
b2) 15...£>c4!? 16 £>xc6 (16 ®xc6?? £>xe5
17 ®xa8 Ab7 wins for Black; 16 £>xc4 dxc4 17
£>d2 Jk.a6 =) 16...Ab7 (16...£>xb2 17 £>e7+
<&h8 18 ®a3 &e6 19 ®xb2 Sfe8 20 £>xd5
&xd5 21 ®d4 ± Qin Kanying-Peng Zhaoqin,
SuboticawomlZ 1991) 17^ca5^xb2 18®d4
®xd4 19 £>xd4 Jk.a6 20 Bfel Sfe8 21 Sxe8+!
Sxe8 22 £>ac6 Ac4 23 £>xa7 &xa2 24 £>ab5
is much better for White, Arnason-Vaganian,
Reykjavik open 1990.
c) 13...Ae6 14 Axd6 ®xd6 (D) and now:
cl) 15 ®a5 Sfb8 16 ®c3 a5 17 Hfdl c5
with counterplay, Godena-Vaganian, Reggio
Emilia 1995/6.
c2) 15Sadlc5 16^g5!?c417^d2^d4!?
(17...%b6 might be better, with unclear play,
but the following complications are also
exciting) 18 c3 £>e2+ 19 *hl Af5 20 £>xc4 ®g6 21
£>e3 ®xg5 22 Sxd5 g6 23 g4 ®h4? (only this
is wrong; Black had to try 23...»f4!? 24 ®xf4
£ixf4 with an unclear position) 24 ®c4! Sae8?
(another mistake but White could also claim a
slight advantage after 24...£e6 25 ®xe2 £xd5+
26 £>xd5) 25 gxf5 £>f4 26 fxg6 hxg6 27 Sd4 g5

48
The French: Tarrasch Variation
28 £lg2 +- Nisipeanu-Vaganian, Bundesliga
1998/9.
14 Hfel ke(y 15 Hadl c5 16 i.xd6 Wxd6
(D)
17 c4
17 £>e5!? Bfb8 18 c4 Bb4 and now 19 ®c6?
Wxc6 20 £>xc6 Bxc4 21 £>bxa5 Bc2 22 b4
Bxa2 favoured Black in Nedev-Yusupov,
Dresden Z 1998. Yusupov suggests that things need
not be so bad for White and suggests 19 ®a3
£fo4! 20 £k!2!, with an unclear position.
17...d4
Now:
a) 18 ®a3 Bfc8 19 Be5!? a4!? 20 £>xc5 £>h4
21 Bdel £>xf3+ 22 Wxf3 i.xc4 favoured Black
in Pirrot-Yusupov, German Team Cup 1992.
b) After 18 £>e5, Holzke-Herr, corr. 1991
went 18...1Brb6 19 £>d3 Bfc8 20Be5! and White
was better. Instead, 18...Bfc8 looks more
accurate, with the idea 19 £id3 £tii4! and now one
point is 20 Be4 A.d7 21 ®a3 £>xg2! with
massive complications that seem to favour Black.
B2)
10 c3 (D)
10...0-0
White's 10th move is not the most energetic
option but it is solid and can hardly be much
worse than any of White's other moves. It is
interesting to note that a fairly high percentage of
the games arriving at this position come from
White avoiding a main-line Sicilian with 1 e4
c5 2*hf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 d4 foc6 6
&b5 &d6 7 dxc5 &xc5 8 0-0 £te7 9 fcM2 0-0
10thb3±d6.
Instead, after 10...&g4, 11 £fod4 0-0 leads
to 10 fobd4 0-0 II c3 JLg4, and 11 Sel 0-0 to
I0Rel0-01Ic3&g4.
Ili.d3
This is very similar to 10 Rel 0-0 11 <Ld3
and indeed White often plays Sel later just as
White plays c3 later in the 10 Sel line; thus
transpositions are very likely.
U kg5-10±g5 0-0 11 c3.
Il...h6
Planning ....&g4 and avoiding a white set-up
with Ag5. A few others:
a) Il...±g4?12±xh7+<4>xh713^g5++-.
b) 1 l...£>g6 12 i.g5 £>ce7 13 h3 h6?! (Dol-
matov gives 13...f6!? 14 Ae3 £e6 15 £lc5 as
slightly better for White but nonetheless
superior to the text) 14 i.e3 £>f4 15 i.xf4 i.xf4 16
£fod4 Wb6?! (Dolmatov also queries this move
and suggests 16...a6 instead) 17 Sel ®f6 18
®b3 ± Dolmatov-Skomorokhin, Novgorod
1995.
c) ll...i.f5 12i.g5®d7 13i.xe7!?(thisis
a slightly surprising voluntary exchange but in
accordance with the concept that exchanges
generally favour White) 13..JLxe7 14 i.xf5
Wxf5 15 £>bd4 mi 16 Wd3 Af6 17 £>c2! (but
not all exchanges; White rightly avoids giving
Black the option of exchanging his bishop for a
knight) 17...Bfd8 18 Badl Sac8 19 Bd2 b5 20
Bfdl with a substantial advantage for White,
Ravi-Gokhale, Calcutta 2000.
d) ll...®c7 12 h3 £>e5 13 £>xe5 &xe5 14
Bel £>c6 15 Wh5 g6 16 Wh4 i.e6 17 £.h6 Bfe8

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...foc6 6 ±b5
49
18 Ag5 Ag7 19 Af6 Axf6 20 Wxf6 «e7 21
Wf4 with a slight advantage for White, Baklan-
Nunn, Bundesliga 1999/00.
12 h3 (D)
12.Jk.t7
Or:
a) 12...£}f5 has been Black's choice in a few
high-level games lately: 13 Ac2 (13 Sel - 70
2e7 0-0 77 kd3 h6 12 h3 £>/5 13 c3) 13...Se8
14 ^d3!? (14 Sel is a simple approach chosen
by White in Tiviakov-Berkes, Plovdiv Echt
2003, leading to an edge in a simplified
position after 14...Sxel+ 15 Wxel Ae6 16 Ae3
#f6 17 Ac5 £>e5 18 £>xe5 £.xe5 19 Axf5
i.xf5 20Ad4)14...g6(14...Ae615Ae3!?Wf6
16 Ac5 Sad8 17 Bfel g6 18 *d2 £>h4 19 £>xh4
*xh4 20 &xd6 Sxd6 21 £>c5 favoured White
in Cu.Hansen-Schaller, Bundesliga 1999/00) 15
#dl!7 (15 g4 £>h4 16 &xh6 £>xf3+ 17 *xf3
Srti4 and now, for example, 18 &d2 £>e5 19
Sg3 #xg3+ 20 fxg3 £lc4 gives Black counter-
play) 15...*h7 16^bd4«f6 17£>xf5&xf5 18
jLxf5 ^xf5 19 ^.e3 Sad8 was only marginally
better for White in Illescas-Smirin, Elista OL
1998.
b) 12...Af5 13 £>bd4 (13 Ae3 with the idea
of j&.c5 is suggested as White's best plan in
similar situations) 13...Axd3 14*xd3«d7 15
i.e3 (15 Sel Sad8 16 Ad2 £>g6 17 Wf5 Ac5
18 *xd7 Sxd7 19 £>b3 Jk.d6 20 Sadl £>ce5 21
£>xe5 £>xe5 22 Acl £>c4 23 *f 1 Ae7 24 Se2 ±
Becerra Rivero-Yermolinsky, New York 2000)
15...Bad8 16 Sadl Efe8 17 Bfel Ab8 18 Se2
^\g6 19 »f5 £>xd4 20 £>xd4 Wc7 21 g3 a6 22
a3 and White may still claim a small plus,
Rublevsky-Rotsagov, Moscow 2002.
13 Sel (D)
13...*d6
13...£>f5 - 70 Rel 0-011 &d3 h612 h3 £\/5
13 c3 $Lc7 (note to Black's 13th move in Line
B52).
14 £e3 b6
14...Wf6 15 Ac5 Sd8 16 £>bd4 £>g6 17
£>xc6 bxc6 18 Ad4 «d6 19 b4 favoured White
in Emms-Bologan, Bundesliga 1995/6.
15 £>bd4
15 ^c2 is another way to maintain pressure,
preventing anything from coming to f5.
15...ftxd4 16 &xd4 £>c6 17 JLe3 £b7 18
g3!? Sfe8 19 £>d4
White kept a small but significant advantage
in Sermek-Susnik, Ljubljana 2000.
B3)
10 Ag5 (D)
Another standard move in this line, which is
likely to transpose elsewhere.
10...0-0
10...f6 has been played occasionally but
unnecessarily weakens Black's position. White
retains an edge after, for example, 11 JLh4 0-0
12 Ag3 £te5 13 Bel «c7 14 c3 a6 15 £.e2 £d7
16£tfd4, Dobrovolsky-Kubala, Karvina 1992.
Ili.h4
Or:
a) 11 Bel - 10 Be7 0-0 11 ±g5.
b) 11 c3 and then:

50
The French: Tarrasch Variation
w
bl) ll...£g4 12 &e2 h6 13 &xe7!? *xe7
14 Bel Bfd8 15 £>fd4 i.xe2 16 Wxe2 Wc7 17
g3 ± Van der Wiel-Wegener, Austrian Cht 2001.
b2) ll...Wb6 12 Ae2 Be8 13 Bel ±f5 14
&d3 &g6 15 &xg6 hxg6 16 Ac3 Wc7 is equal,
Relange-Emms, Paris 1994.
ll..Ag4(D)
Given the chance Black would often like to
play this. ll...Wb6!? takes advantage of the
fact that White's bishop has left the cl-h6
diagonal, and is an acceptable alternative: 12
±d3 a5 13 c3!? (13 c4 a4 14 cxd5 £\b4 15
&bd2 £\exd5 16 &c4 Va6 17 &e2 £rf4 t; 13
a4 £\f5 14 ±g5 h6 15 ±d2 ±e6 = Rozentalis-
Psakhis, Sevastopol 1986) 13...a4 14&bd4h6
(14...»xb2? 15 £\b5! followed by Bcl-c2 or
Bel-e2 embarrasses Black's queen) 15 Bel
&g4 16*d2Bfe8 17 Ac2(17 £>b5!?&b8 18
JUe7 £\xe7 19 £tfd4, intending to double
rooks on the e-file, looks better for White)
17...Ah5 18 &xc6?! bxc6 19 &e5 Wc7 20
&g3 a3 21 b3 £\g6 22 £\xg6 &xg6 23 ±xg6
fxg6 = Blehm-Akobian, Erevan jr Wch 1999.
12 &g3
12 JLe2 is a common reaction, neutralizing
the pin immediately, but Black has no
problems after 12...Be8! 13 Bel Wb6 14 £\fd4, and
then:
a) 14...Axc2 15 Bxe2 £\xd4 16 «fxd4 «fxd4
17 £>xd4 £\c6 18 Bael Bxe2 19 £\xe2 Be8 20
*f 1 f6 21 Bdl &xh2 22 Bxd5 &c7 V2-V2 Ser-
mek-Farago, Zillertal 1997.
b) 14...£\g6! 15 £\xc6 (the only move
because 15 &xg4 Bxel+ 16 Wxel £\xd4 and 15
&g3 &xg3 16 hxg3 £>xd4 17 £\xd4 &xe2 18
Bxe2 Bxe2 19 &xe2 Wxb2 are very good for
Black) 15...Bxe2!? (there is also nothing wrong
with 15...Axc2 16 Bxe2 bxc6 17 Ag3 £rf4) 16
Bxe2 bxc6 17 Ag3 Ae7!? 18 h3 ±xe2 19
Wxe2 a5 20 c3 h5 21 &d4 h4 22 Ah2 Af6 23
Bdl a4 = Vogt-Uhlmann, Potsdam 1974.
12...&xg3
12...Be8 13 Bel is occasionally seen as a
transposition to the line 10 Be 7 0-0 11 &g5
&g4 12 $lM Ze8 13 &g3.
13hxg3«fb6(D)
W
m&m bm.
14&d3
The most active place for the bishop, and
already threatening JLxh7+. Other moves are also
available:
a) 14 a4 &f5?! (14...Bad8 is more sensible,
as the following forced line favours White) 15
Wxd5 &xg3 16 Bfel £\h5 17 a5 Wc7 18 £xc6
bxc6 19 We5 ± Mukhin-Slutsky, USSR Cht
(Riga) 1975.

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...Zhc6 6 A.b5
51
b) 14 ±e2?! £\f5! (now there is a big
difference) 15 £rfd4 (15 <£>h2 fife8 ?) 15...£\cxd4 16
i.xg4 £\xb3 17 axb3 £\xg3 18 fiel £>e4 19 2e2
2ad8 and Black was a pawn up in Huberty-
Maiwald, Duisburg U-18 Wch 1992.
14...£\e5
Nor is 14...f5!? bad; e.g., 15 Wd2 ±xf3 16
gxf3 £\e5 17 *g2 f4 18 fiael Wf6 19 £\d4
£>7c6 20 £\xc6 bxc6 21 fihl g6 with roughly
equal chances, Donev-Maier, Swiss Cht 2001.
15 Sel £Y7c6 16 ±e2 £\xf 3+ 17 gxf3 ±e6
= Panchenko-Eingorn, Daugavpils 1978.
B4)
10 £>bd4 0-0 (D)
m±
vMV,
iHX
"ik'm''' <fa
mn*w&,
ABA
m&mk wk mm
*> Hi A HP HI
^n% lip 'wtfrP\W"
A « A S Iff A ^
11 c3
This is White's most common move by far,
although there are several alternatives:
a) 11 ±e3 ±g4 12 h3 ±h5 13 Wd2 Wc7 14
i.d3 a6 15 £\h4 ±e5!? 16 £>xc6 £\xc6 17 c3
2Lad8 = Marjanovic-Rotsagov, Kallithea ECC
2002.
b) 11 h3 £\xd4 12 *xd4 (12 £\xd4 can be
met by 12...±c7 followed by ...Wd6) 12...±f5
13 c3 &e4 14 £\g5 £\f5 15 Wdl Wf6 = Tuk-
makov-Uhlmann, Hastings 1972/3.
c) Hb3i.g412i.b2Wb613i.e2Sad814
h3 &h5 15 Wd2 2fe8 16 fiadl ±g6 17 fifel
i.c5 18 M\ ±e4 = Gipslis-Korchnoi, USSR
Ch (Riga) 1970.
d) 11 ±g5 Wb6 (ll...Wc7 12 Sel ±g4 13
-ljxc6 £>xc6 = Unzicker-Uhlmann, Bundesliga
1997/8) 12c3a6 (noris 12...±g4bad) 13±xc6
bxc6 14 fiel £\g6 15 Wc2 ±d7 and Black was
doing well in Xie Jun-Short, Jinan 2002.
n...i.g4 (D)
w
w, '<m.^wm
■ AM liii
i±>ah ■
HP !S*f IP 6 P
This position occurred no fewer than six
times (some of them from a slightly different
move-order) in the 1974 Candidates final match
between Karpov and Korchnoi. All the games
were drawn, and the general verdict established
was that White has only minimal chances of an
advantage.
12Wa4
12 J.e2 fie8 13 fiel is similar to many lines
with an earlier fiel. Generally, though, White
would prefer to have his knight on b3 instead of
d4, thus being able to play £tfd4. 13...a6 14
±g5 h6 15 ±h4 Wb6!, and Black had equalized
in Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct (4) 1974.
12...Wd7
In annotating the Karpov-Korchnoi games,
Botvinnik concluded that the position is equal
after this move. Nothing new has been found to
oppose this statement. Most of the games
centred around 12.. JLh5 (D), which has also been
more popular, and gives Black the option of
placing his queen on c7, for example.
Then:
a) 13 ±e3 Wc7 14 h3 £\a5! and now 15
±d3 £\c4 16 £>b5 Wd7 17 ±xc4 dxc4 18 fifdl
£\f5 19 Wxc4 ±xf3 20 gxf3 £\xe3 21 fxe3
Wxh3 22 £\xd6 Wg3+ 23 *f 1 Wxf3+ 24 *el
Wg3+ V2-V2 was Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct
(12) 1974. Black holds a perpetual after, for
example, 25 *e2 Wg2+ 26 *d3 (26 *el Wg3+)
26...Wg6+ 27 <£>e2 (27 £\e4? fife8) 27...Wg2+,

52
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
etc. Botvinnik's suggestion 15 Sadl, with the
idea 15...a6 16 Jtd3 <£>c4 17 JLcl, seems
stronger.
b) 13 ±d3 ±c5!? (deviating from 13...h6 14
±e3 a6 15 Sfel #c7 16 h3 £>a5 17 £>h4 £>c4
18 #c2 £>xe3 19 Sxe3 ±h2+ 20 *hl Af4 21
Seel JLg5 = Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct
(10) 1974) 14 Sel h6 15 l,e3 ±b6 (in some
way this manoeuvre seems a little peculiar
bearing in mind that on move 9 Black retreated
the bishop to d6 rather than b6, and now only
5-6 moves later repositions it to b6) 16 h3 #d6
17 ±e2 Sfe8 18 Sadl #f6 and the position is
approximately equal, Karpov-Korchnoi,
Moscow Ct (14) 1974.
c) 13 ±e2 a6 14 ±e3 #c7 15 h3 £>a5! (we
meet this idea again and again) 16 Sadl Sad8
17 Sfel h6 18 £>h4 ±xe2 19 Sxe2 £ic4 20
£>df5 (20 Acl b5 21 «c2 Sfe8 22 Sdel Wdl
also equalizes for Black) 20...b5 21 #c2 (21
Wxa6? Sa8 22 «fxb5 Sfb8 traps the queen)
21...£>xf5 22 *hxf5 Sfe8 23 Ad4 Af8 24 Sdel
«fd7 = Howell-Psakhis, Bled 1995.
d) 13 Sel Wc7 14 h3 ±g6 (in this way
White doesn't immediately get the opportunity
to put his bishop on d3) 15 jtg5 a6 16 jtfl h6
17 ±xe7 £>xe7 18 Sadl £>c6 19 Ad3 ±h5!?20
g4 ±g6 21 #c2 (21 ±xg6 fxg6 22 £>e6
backfires after 22...1T7, with the idea 23 £>xf8?
Wxf3 24 £>xg6 #xh3 -+) 2L..Axd3 22 #xd3
Sad8 23 Se2, Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow Ct
(8) 1974, and now according to Botvinnik Black
should play 23...JLc5! with the idea 24 £rf5 g6
25 £ixh6+? <i>g7.
We now return to 12...Wd7 (D):
13Ae3
13 Sel a6 14 ±e2 £ixd4! 15 #xd4 £>c6 16
Ifdl Sfe8 17 ie3 Sad8 = Emms-Prandstetter,
Barcelona 1993. Black is very active and White
will find it hard to exert real pressure against
the isolated d-pawn.
13...a614 Ae2 £ixd415 #xd4 £>c616 «d2
Sfe8 17 Sadl Sad8
White is slightly better positioned than in the
last note but not really enough to change the
assessment that the position is equal, Karpov-
Korchnoi, Moscow Ct (16) 1974.
B5)
10 Sel 0-0 (D)
There are two main lines for White in this
position:
B51: UAg5 53
B52: U&d3!? 55

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...^hc6 6 ±b5
53
A few minor possibilities:
a) 11 c3 ±g4 12 ±q2 le8 13 £rfd4 ±xe2
14 lxe2 «d7 15 £>b5 ±q5 16 £>c5 «f5 17
2xe5 Wxe5 18 £>d3 Wf6 19 £ic7 d4 = Ljubo-
jevic-Short, Linares 1990.
b) 11 h3 h6 12 c3 £>f5 13 ±fl ±e6 14
£>bd4 £>fxd4 15 £>xd4 Wb6 = Popovic-Lpu-
tian, Moscow OL 1994.
B51)
U±g5(D)
This move is often associated with Karpov,
despite the fact that he didn't use it very often.
The move received stronger recognition after
Karpov, having failed to get anything special
from a number of French encounters, played it
in the 18th game of his 1974 match against
Korchnoi (though the exact move-order was 10
Ag5 0-0 11 Sel). White immediately activates
his bishop before Black might restrict its
movement with ...h6, and intends to exchange it off
with the manoeuvre Jk,h4-g3. In some lines it
might also be favourably exchanged on e7.
Il...&g4
Black reacts in the same way by taking his
bishop out, but there are also other options:
a) H...f612Ah4»b613Ae2Ae614Ag3
<£>e5 15 £tfd4 ±dl 16 a4 a6 17 a5 Wc7 18 c3 ±
Gipslis-Korchnoi, Amsterdam 1976.
b) ll...a6 12 ±e2 (12 ±d3 «c7 13 c3 -
1 L.Mc712 c3 a613 ±d3) 12...±f5 (12...±g4
- Il..±g4 12 ±e2 a6) 13 £rfd4 ±g6 14 ±d3
Sc7 15 h3 £>xd4 16 £ixd4 £>c6 17 ±xg6 hxg6
18 c3 lfe8 19 &f3 (19 lxe8+ lxe8 20 &f3
Wb6 21 Wd2 £>e5 = Anand-Yusupov, Riga
1995) 19...1xel+ 20 #xel ±/= S.B.Hansen-
Stojanovic, Ubeda 1997.
c) ll...#c7 (D) was Korchnoi's choice in
the aforementioned game. Then:
cl) 12 c3 and here:
ell) 12...a6andnow:
clll) 13 ±e2 ±d7!? 14 Ae3 (intending
±c5; 14 Ah4 £>f5 =) 14...£>d8!? 15 «d4!?
£>f5 16 Wxd5 £ixe3 17 fxe3 ±c6 with
compensation, Ivanchuk-Yusupov, Brussels Ct (7)
1991.
cll2) 13Ad3Ag4 14h3Ah5 15Ae2Ag6
16 £ifd4 lfe8 17 ±d3 £ie5 18 ±xg6 hxg6 19
Se2 ^c4 = Svidler-Andersson, Ter Apel 1996.
cl2) 12...±g4 13 h3 ±h5 14 ±e2 h6 (or
14...a6 15&h4 Axe2 16lxe2lad8 17«c2h6
18 ±xe7 ±xe7 19 &f3 Sd7 20 Idl lfd8 21
ld3 Af8 22 Wdl ± Cu.Hansen-Andersson,
Skelleftea (3) 2001) 15 ±xe7 £ixe7 16 ^fd4
Axe2 17 «xe2 a6 18 Wf3 Sad8 19 ladl ld7
20 £rf5 £ixf5 21 Wxf5 ± Karpov-Korchnoi,
Moscow Ct (18) 1974.
cl3) 12...h6 13 ±xe7 (13 Ae3!?) 13...£>xe7
14 £>bd4 a6 15 ±d3 ±dl 16 h3 Bfe8 17 «b3 ±
HUbner-Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1981.
c2) 12 h3 Af5 (12...H6 13 ±xe7 £>xe7 14
Ad3 a6 15 c3 ±d7 16 £ibd4 g6 17 Wc2 lae8
18 Se3 *g7 19 Sael is slightly better for
White, Cu.Hansen-Andersson, Skelleftea (5)
2001) 13 £>bd4 ±g6 14 ±d3 (14 ±xc6 £ixc6
15 £>b5 «d7 16 £ixd6 «xd6 =) 14...a6 15
itxg6 hxg6 16 c3 with only a microscopic

54
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
advantage for White, Tischbierek-Yusupov,
German Ch (Bremen) 1998.
We now return to 1 l...itg4 (D):
12±h4
White plans Jtg3 with a favourable exchange
of the dark-squared bishops. Otherwise:
a) 12c3h6 13Ah4He8 14Ag3(14Ae2-
12 ±e2 S.e8 13 c3 h6 14 ±h4) 14...±xg3 15
hxg3 Wb6 16 ±e2 £>f5 17 Wxd5 £>xg3 18 ±c4
Jte6 19 Sxe6, Geller-Vaganian, Reykjavik
1990, and now Vaganian suggests 19...Sxe6 20
Wc5 £>e2+ 21 <i>fl £>f4 22 Wxb6 axb6 = as
Black's best.
b) 12 h3 ±h5 13 ±xc6 bxc6 14 £>bd4 lc8
(14...±xf3 15«xf3«b6!?) 15c4le8 16cxd5
cxd5 17 Wd2 Wd7 with roughly equal play,
Ornstein-Unzicker, Buenos Aires OL 1978.
c) 12 Jte2 and now:
cl) 12...h6 13 ±xe7 (13 ±h4 Ie8 14 c3 -
12...3.e8 13 c3 h614 ±h4) 13...±xe7 14 £>fd4
±xe2 15 lxe2 ±f6 16 c3 ± Dorfman-Gulko,
USSR Ch playoff, Moscow (4) 1978.
c2) 12...a6 13 c3 Wc7 14 h3 ±h5 15 ±xe7
£>xe7 16 £>fd4 ±xe2 17 Wxe2 V2-V2 Dolma-
tov-Karpov, Amsterdam 1980, although White
might be a tiny bit better in this type of position.
c3) 12...Se8 (now in many lines Black can
favourably recapture with the rook on e7 if
White decides to exchange his bishop there)
13 c3 h6 (13...a6 is mentioned in passing in
line 'c33' below) 14 ±h4 (14 ±xe7 lxe7 =)
14...«b6 (D) and then:
c31) 15 ±g3 ±xg3 16 hxg3 - 12 c3 h6 13
±h4 Ze814 ±g3 ±xg315 hxg3 Wb616 $Le2.
c32) 15 ±xe7 lxe7! 16 «xd5?! (16 h3 is
better but unambitious; Black has no problems
after 16...±e6) 16...1d8! 17 «b5 (17 #c-
Hde8!¥) 17...Axf3 18«xb6±xe2! 19«xd8-
£ixd8 20 £id4 ±c4 21 £tf5 2xel+ 22 Ixei
.i,f8 and Black is slightly better in the endgame.
Butron-Roche, corr. 1993.
c33) 15 £>fd4 ±xe2 16 Ixe2 £>xd4 r
£}xd4 ^c6 18 £tf5 Jtf8 (there are games where
Black has played 13...a6 instead of 13...h6, and
it is interesting to note that the games have
taken the same path as here, though in that case
White can then win with 19 £\h6+!; instead
18...ite5 is playable, but in any case Black
would prefer to have his bishop on f8) 19 Sd2
(19 £>xh6+ gxh6 20 lxe8 lxe8 21 Wg4+ =
Am.Rodriguez-Psakhis, Cuba 1983) 19...1e4!
(this idea wasn't available with the bishop on
e5) 20 ±g3 Iae8!? 21 h3 d4! and Black seized
the initiative in Suetin-Uhlmann, Debrecen
1987.
12...«c7
12...1e8 13 ±g3 Axg3 14 hxg3 «b6 15 a4
h5!? (15...h6 16 «d2 Axf3 17 gxf3 was better
for White in Ivanchuk-Yusupov, Brussels Ct (1)
1991) 16 «d3 (16 «d2 ±xf3 17 gxf3 h4!? * is
Black's point, messing up White's kingside)
16....if5 (16...a6 17 ±xc6 bxc6 18 a5 ±) 17
Wd2 a6 18 Ml lac8 19 £>bd4 (19 £>fd4!?)
19... Jte4 20 c3 ± Agnos-Lputian, Linares 1996.
13 ±g3 lad8 14 c3 (D)
14...£ig6
Or 14... Jtxg3 15 hxg3 and then:
a) 15...£tf5 is given as equal by Voina but I
think 16 Jtd3 is better for White.

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...^hc6 6 k,b5
55
b) 15...#b6!? 16 ±d3 £ig6 17 #c2 Axf3
18 gxf3, Karpov-Kuzmin, Leningrad IZ 1973,
is given as ± by Kotov in Informator but Black
doesn't look far from equality after 18...d4!.
c) 15...£>g6 16 Ae2 (16 £>bd4!? looks a
little better for White) 16...±xf3 17 Axf3 £>ge5
18 Jte2 #b6! = Ristoja-Seppanen, Finland
1990.
15 ±xd6 lxd6 16 h3 ±c8
16...±xf3 17 fM3 #b6 should be
considered.
17 Wd2 lf6 18 £ibd4 £tf4 19 ±fl a6 20
Ie3 £ie6 21 lael £ic5?!
21...Wb6!?±Voina.
22 ±d3! Vf4 23 ±c2 #h6 24 h4 (T>)
Threatening £}g5; 24 b4!? also looks good.
24...If4 25 £ib3!
A strong improvement over 25 Se8 Sxh4 26
#'xh6 Sxh6 27 £}g5 £te4! = Rechlis-Korchnoi,
Beersheba 1987.
25...#d6 26 £ixc5 #xc5 27 le8
± Voina-Cranbourne, corr. 1996-8.
B52)
11 ±d3!? (D)
This has become a popular alternative to
Karpov's plan 11 JLg5, possibly because it is
slightly more aggressive. White rules out an
immediate ll...Jtg4 due to 12 Jtxh7+ <2?xh7
13 £}g5+, and thus provokes a weakening of
Black's kingside.
Il...h6
This prepares to develop the bishop to g4 and
restricts White's dark-squared bishop
somewhat, but it also invites White to set up a
dangerous-looking attacking formation with c3,
±c2 and #d3.
12 h3 £if5
12....i,f5 leads to a slightly inferior position;
e.g., 13±e3le8 14c3±xd3 15 Wxd3 Wd7 16
Jtc5, and White forces some favourable
exchanges, Cu.Hansen-Andersson, Elsinore 1999.
The text-move prevents White's plan of
exchanging dark-squared bishops with Jk,e3-c5.
12...£>b4 13 £>bd4! £>xd3 14 #xd3 £>g6 15
£ib5 Af4 16 Wd4 ±b8 17 b3 gave White an
advantage in Gashimov-Lputian, Athens 2005.
13 c3 (D)
13...1T6
This vacates d8 for a rook, and places the
queen actively, controlling d4 and looking
towards White's kingside. Another idea is to play
in the same 'primitive' fashion as White by

56
The French: tarrasch Variation
lining up his bishop and queen against White's
kingside: 13...±c7 14 Ac2 Wd6 15 Wd3 g6 and
now White has tried:
a) 16 £>bd2?! Sd8! 17 a3?! (17 £tfl d4! ¥)
17...£fo4 18 £>xh4 #h2+ 19 *fl Whl+ 20
i>e2 le8+ 21 £>e4 dxe4 22 We3 ®h2 23 #xh6
e3! -+ Lucke-Kindermann, Biel 1991.
b) 16 g4? (several strong players have opted
for this sharp move but I cannot bring myself
to believe in it, due to Black's strong reply)
16...±b6! (threatening ...Wg3+) 17 <4>g2 Axf2!
18 i>xf2 Wg3+ 19 <4>e2 (D) and then:
bl) 19...d4? 20 Sgl! Ie8+ 21 4>dl Wf2 22
Wfl! +- Yudasin-Moskalenko, Norilsk 1987.
b2) 19...Wxh3 20 gxf5!? Axf5 21 #xf5!
gxf5 22 if2 is given by Yusupov. White has
created a strong counterattack from his
apparently shaky position.
b3) 19...£>h4!? 20 £>xh4 (20 We3? ±xg4
21 hxg4 Sae8 22 £>xh4 #xh4 23 <4>d2 Sxe3 24
Hxe3, Akopian-Yusupov, Baden-Baden tt 1996,
and now Akopian gives 24...ffxg4 25 ±d3 h5
26 *c2 Sc8! 27 a3 Wa4 -+) 20...2e8+ 21 Ae3
*xh4! (21...&e5 22 #xd5 #xh3 23 Shi Wg3
24 Sagl Axg4+ 25 <A>d2 £>c4+ 26 *cl Wxe3+
27 *bl +-) 22 i>d2 £ie5! 23 ±d4 %5+ 24
*dl (24 ±e3 £>xd3 25 ±xg5 Sxel 26 Ixel
£>xel -+) 24...±xg4+ 25 hxg4 £>xd3 26 Sxe8+
Sxe8 27 Axd3 °° Yusupov.
b4) 19...£>d6!? and now 20 Axh6 Se8+ 21
idl Wxh3 leads to "extreme complications"
according to Emms but I believe it is definitely
better for Black. Also after 20 *dl £>e4 21
Ifl *xh3 22 Af4 ±xg4 23 *cl g5 24 ±d6
Bfe8 White is struggling to neutralize Black's
attack.
c) 16 Wdl h5 (16...*g7!? 17 Wd2 Sh8 is
another idea; Black's rook is obviously not well
placed but nor is White's queen, and 16...^h4!?
could also be investigated) 17 itg5 Jtd7 18
Wd2 was better for White in Motylev-Roghani,
Erevan Wcht 2001.
d) 16 Wd2 h5 17 Axf5!? Axf5 18 Wh6
Sfe8 19 Ae3 Ae4 20 £>bd2 »f8 21 #xf8+
i>xf8 22 £>d4 ± Sermek-Lputian, Montecatini
Terme 1999.
14 ±c2 (D)
14...Sd8
14...Jte6 is a solid alternative but not very
flexible, and Black's bishop is in general not
well placed here. White should be able to get an
advantage with 15 Wd3 Sfe8 16 ±d2!? g6 17
Se2 (the doubling of rooks on the e-file is
annoying for Black, who must then watch out for

4...exd5: THE OLD MAIN LINE, 5...^hc6 6 M,b5
57
White suddenly going g4, because ...^ih4 is
then met by an exchange, a sacrifice on e6, and
g6 falls) 17...£f8 18 lael £>d6 (18...Iad8,
Schlosser-Fish, Bremen 2004, and now 19 g4!?
is interesting but maybe Black survives by
19...&fe7 20 g5 Wh8 21 £>fd4 Ad7 22 «f3
£>xd4 23 £>xd4 £>c6) 19 £>bd4 £>xd4 20 £ixd4
±dl 21 Ab3 ± Holzke-Uhlmann, Dresden
1997.
15«d3g6(Dj
16&d2
Orl6«d2l,f8andnow:
a) 17 £>h2 Wg7! (17...h5 18 £rf3! ±) 18
£}g4 h5 equalized for Black in V.L.Ivanov-
Lastin, Moscow Ch 1994.
b) 17 We2 ±gl 18 Axf5 Axf5 19 Ae3 Ae4
= Vokarev-Vaganian, Russian Cht (Togliatti)
2003.
c) 17 »f4!7 Ag7 (17...Ad6 18 «a4 ±) 18
Ad2 (18 h4 «d6 19 Ad2 Ae6 20 ladl #xf4
21 Axf4 d4! 22 Axf5 ±xb3 23 axb3 gxf5 24
£>xd4 £>xd4 25 cxd4 Axd4 26 Axh6 Axb2
was just equal in Adams-Lputian, Moscow
2004) 18...g5 19 Wh2 b6 (maybe 19...SM6!? 20
ladl £>c4 21 Acl Af8 22 £>bd4 Ad6 23 Whl
Ad7) 20 ladl &a6 21 Axf5! «xf5 22 Ae3 ±
Adams-Yusupov, Port Barcares 2005.
16...a5!?
With this, Black is planning ...b6 and ... JLa6,
apart fromjust intending to advance the a-pawn
further if allowed.
16...£>h4 17 £>bd4 £>f5 18 Ae3!? £>xe3 19
Ixe3 JLc7 20 Idl ± Zapata-Sega, Santos 2001.
17 a4
17 Wb5 a4 18 Axf5 Wxf5 19 £ibd4 Wh5 is
equal.
17...b6 18 Ae3!? (D)
18 We2 Aa6 19 Ad3 Axd3 20 Wxd3 ^e5 21
£}xe5 JLxe5 = Psakhis-Lputian, Rostov 1993.
18...&a6 19 Wd2 <£>xe3 20 «xe3 <4>g7!?
20...Af4 21 «xb6 Idb8 22 «c5 Ac4 23
£>fd2 is tempting but on 23...itd6?, White has
the trick 24 £>e4! ±, and 23...Axd2 24 £>xd2
Sxb2 25 Sacl is slightly better for White.
2lAd3
If White plays the natural 21 ladl, Black
can reply 21...£f4 22 Wxb6 Idb8 23 Wc5 ±c4
24 £>fd2 JLd6 with a repetition after 25 #e3
Af4 26 «c5 (not 26 «f3? &e5) 26...Ad6,
since 25 <£>e4 isn't available any more.
21...1e8 22 «d2 Ac4 23 £ibd4 £ixd4 24
£ixd4 Ac5
= Rublevsky-Dolmatov, Russian Ch (St
Petersburg) 1998.

4 4...exd5: Systems with ...±67
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5
The idea of Black delaying the development
of his queen's knight is becoming more
popular. The point is to meet a white Jtb5+ with
....i,d7. Especially Grandmasters Bareev, Vag-
anian, M.Gurevich and Psakhis, amongst
others, are specialists in this line. Strategically
these lines have their pros and cons. While
most of us understand that the side without the
isolated queen's pawn often aims for exchanges,
it is also worth paying attention to the
stratagem that the side with the IQP often benefits
from exchanging the same-coloured bishop as
the pawn stands on. In other words, in this line
Black quickly exchanges his 'bad' bishop but
also allows early exchanges.
We look at two lines involving the reply
...Jtd7 to a white Jtb5+. These are:
A: 5±b5+±d7 58
B: 5 ftgf3 ftffi 6 &b5+&d7 61
A)
5 ±b5+ (D)
W//A V/////A
Wfi^Wfr
4BW/, ~ V//////,
B I
ABAB BAH
0 mw'm w
This move-order also has the useful purpose
of cutting out the possibility of Black playing
5...a6.
5...±d7 6#e2+
After the immediate exchange on d7, 6
Jtxd7+, Black can recapture in two ways:
a) 6...£\xd7 and now:
al) 7 £>gf3 £>gf6 - 5 thg/3 ^hf6 6 Ab5+
±d7 7±xd7+£hbxd7.
a2) 7 dxc5 ±xc5 8 £ib3 ±b6!? 9 #xd5
^gf6 10 Wd3 (10 Wxb7 0-0 followed by ...Se8
is risky for White) 10...0-0 11 £>f3 le8+ 12
±e3 ±xe3 13 fxe3 «b6 14 0-0-0 Sxe3 15 «d4
Be2 16 ld2 lxd2 17 #xd2 a5 = Ivanchuk-
Cabrilo, Manila IZ 1990.
a3) 7 £>e2 £>gf6 8 0-0 ±d6 9 dxc5 £>xc5 10
&f3 0-0 11 Ae3 £>ce4 12 ±d4 ±c5 13 c3 Be8
14 #c2 ±xd4 15 £>exd4 ± Zapata-Psakhis, Las
Vegas FIDE KO 1999.
b) 6...«xd7 7 ffe2+ ±e7 8 dxc5 £rf6 9
£>gf3 0-0 10 £ib3 Se8 11 0-0 £>a6 12 c6!? (12
£>e5 «c7 13 c6 bxc6 14 #xa6 «xe5 15 #xc6
lac8 is better for Black - Psakhis) 12...#xc6
13 ^fd4 #c7 (in Xie Jun-Bareev, Jinan tt 2003,
Black chose a different square for the queen:
13...«d7 14 «f3 g6 15 h3 £>e4 16 ±e3 £>c7 17
ladl «a4 =) 14 «f3 ±d6 15 h3 Ah2+ 16 *hl
Jte5 17 c3 £te5 = and Black is doing well as his
pieces are very active, Xie Jun-Korchnoi, Mar-
bella (Ladies vs Veterans) 1999.
6...±e7
Inviting an endgame with 6...#e7 is reckoned
to be slightly unpleasant for Black, because
White's king's knight has not been developed
yet and therefore can recapture on e2. After 7
Jtxd7+ £}xd7 8 dxc5, Black has two options:
a) 8...«xe2+ 9 £>xe2 Axc5 10 &b3 ±b6
11 Af4 £>gf6 12 f3 0-0 13 0-0-0 lac8 14 £>c3
and White is better, Beliavsky-Bareev,
Munich 1994.
b) 8...£>xc5 9£ib3(D)andnow:
bl) 9...0-0-0!? 10 ±e3 (10 £>d4 is an
alternative, suggested by P.Nikolic, but also simply
10 #xe7 ±xe7 11 £>d4, as in Rodl-Bogol-
jubow, Nuremberg (3) 1931, gives White an

4...exd5: SYSTEMS WITH ...k,d7
59
edge) 10...£>xb3 11 axb3 d4 12 Ai4 Wxe2+ 13
*xe2 ±c5 14 la4 ld5! 15 £rf3 £>e7 16 Idl
b5 17 laal f6 = Van der Wiel-P.Nikolic,
Plovdiv Echt 1983.
b2) 9...#xe2+ 10 £>xe2 £>xb3 11 axb3 ±c5
12 &d2 £>e7 13 £>f4!? (White might also aim
for immediate control of d4 with 13 Jlc3 0-0 14
i.d4±) 13...0-0andnow 140-0?! Hfd8 15 £>d3
Jtb6 16 c3 f6 left White with no real advantage
in Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City Wch (16)
1978. Filip gave 14 £>d3! as more accurate,
with the idea 14...A.b6 15 ±b4! Ife8 16 ±xe7!
Sxe7+ 17 4>d2, and Black will be struggling in
the endgame.
7 dxc5 (D)
White should capture this pawn at one time
or another. Whether he does it here or on the
next move makes little difference.
7...£>f6 8 £>b3
8 £>gf3 0-0 9 £>b3 le8 and now:
a) 10 &&-8 Q&3 0-0 9 &.e3Ze810 &J3.
b) A rarer idea is 10 0-0 ±xc5 11 #d3 but
Black has no real problems; e.g., ll...Jlb6 12
±g5 ±xb5!? 13 «xb5 £>bd7 14 ladl «c7 15
#d3 le4 16 c3 Iae8 = Nisipeanu-Lastin, Ohrid
Ech 2001. In a later game, this time with Black,
Nisipeanu played ll...a6 12 Jlxd7 £>bxd7,
which also looks fine since Black doesn't fear
an exchange of his bishop when the knights
then become very active. Instead the game went
13 a4 ±a7 14 a5 Wc7 15 la4 le4 16 £>bd4
Sc8 and Black was better due to his superior
piece activity, L.Vajda-Nisipeanu, Romanian
Ch (Curtea de Arges) 2002.
8...0-0 9 ±e3
9 A.g5?! is worse, in view of 9...1e8! 100-0-0
a5!, when Black is ready to create weaknesses
in White's king position with ...a4-a3. White
can hardly allow this, but 11 a4 £>a6 12 £>h3
(12 £tf3 £>xc5 13 £>xc5 Jlxc5 is slightly better
for Black according to Uhlmann) 12...^c7!
(12...£>xc5 13 £>xc5 ±xc5 14 Wf3 is White's
idea) 13 ±xd7 Wxd7 14 We5 £>e6 15 ±xf6
Jlxf6 16 #xd5 #xa4 was also very good for
Black in Dvoirys-H.Griinberg, Sochi 1983.
9...Ie8 (D)
10 £tf3
White's knight usually goes to f3 anyway
but 10 0-0-0 is also seen (although this seems
like an inferior move-order). Black then has
two promising options:
a) 10...a6 11 ±xd7 (11 ±d3 a5! ? Sareen-
Dolmatov, Calcutta 1996) ll...£>bxd7 12 Wd3
(12 £>h3 £>xc5 13 ±xc5 ±xc5 14 Wf3 ±a7 15

60
The French: Tarrasch Variation
4&f4 Se5 = Kuzmin-Korchnoi, Moscow tt 1973)
12...*c7 13 £>f3 £>xc5 14 £hxc5 ±xc5 15
i,xc5 #xc5 16 £>d4 Ie5. Black has already
comfortably equalized because White cannot
yet challenge Black on the e-file in view of 17
Uriel? Sxel 18 Ixel #a5, and the a-pawn
drops off. Instead, 17 f3 Sae8 18 a3 g6 19 <4>bl
#c7 20 #d2 fie3 21 g3 #e5 ¥ left Black with
complete control of the e-file in Barua-Dolma-
tov, Calcutta 1996.
b) 10...a5!? 11 a4 £>a6 12 i,xd7 #xd7 13
#b5 #xb5 14 axb5 £k7 15 c6 bxc6 16 bxc6
a4 17 ?M4 a3 gave Black at least enough
compensation for the pawn in Holmsten-Psakhis,
Linares 2001.
10...a6
10...Axc5 11 £>xc5 #a5+ 12 #d2 #xb5
regains the pawn immediately but should be
better for White after 13 0-0-0 (D).
Then:
a) 13...b6?! 14 £>xd7 £>bxd7 15 <4>bl was
pleasant for White in Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio
City Wch (22) 1978.
b) 13...i,e6 14&d4#xc5 15 £}xe6«c4 16
b3 lfc6 17 £>f4! Hc8 18 f3 a5 19 g4 a4 20 *bl
£>a6 21 g5 £>b4 22 gxf6 axb3 23 cxb3 Ixa2 24
Bel! £>c2 25 Ad4 Wa6 26 Ixc2 Iaxc2 27
#xc2 Ixc2 28 &xc2 + Plaskett-Summerscale,
London 2000.
c) 13...±,g4 14 h3 JkhS (14...Axf3 15 gxf3
gives White attacking chances along the g-file
but more importantly Black is deprived of
access to the e4-square) 15 g4 Jtg6 16 £tfi4! ^a6
17 £>xg6 hxg6 18 ^xa6 #xa6 19 <4>bl Iad8 20
f3 with a slight advantage for White, Tsesh-
kovsky-Vaganian, Lvov Z 1978.
11 J,d3 (D)
11 Jlxd7 ^bxd7 gives Black little cause for
concern. He will regain the sacrificed pawn
immediately and obtain good piece-play. An
example is L.A.Schneider-Brynell, Swedish Ch
playoff (Helsingborg) 1991: 12 0-0 ^xc5 13
£tfd4 £>a4! 14 c3 Wdl 15 h3 i,d6 16 Sabl
£>b6 17 Wf3 £>c4 and Black was doing well.
11..JU4
This frees d7 for the knight, and by easy
means Black can now exert further pressure on
the c5-pawn. Thus, White should seek a
simplified position with play against the isolated d-
pawn. That is to some extent manageable but
Black remains active, and doesn't look worse.
Other moves:
a) ll...a5 12 a4 <§}g4 13 0-0 4te6 14 c6!
i,xc6 15 i,d4 (15 i,xa6 Ixa6 16 i,d4 is also
better for White according to Karpov) 15...^b4
16 Af5 Ad7 17 £xd7 #xd7 18 h3 £>f6 19 c3
£ic6 20 Axf6! Axf6 21 #b5 followed by Bfdl
was very comfortable for White in Karpov-
Bareev, Tilburg 1994.
b) 1 l...£ta6!? is a suggestion by Van Wely,
with the idea of ..JLg4 and ...£he5. This looks
very relevant if White castles kingside. And if
White plays 12 0-0-0, then 12...a5 13 a4?!
£ia7!? 14 #d2 ±,xa4 15 £>xa5 £>c8 looks
dangerous for White, Mannion-Shaw, Scottish Ch
(Largs) 1998. The idea has attracted little
attention, probably for good reason, since looking
into 12 0-0 JLg4 (which is the supposed idea)

4...exd5: SYSTEMS WITH ...k.d7
61
13 h3 ±,h5 14 g4 Ag6 15 ±,xg6 hxg6 16 Sadl,
this looks very unconvincing for Black.
12 £>fd4
This makes it somewhat harder for Black to
regain the pawn. 12 ^bd4 is seen occasionally
but leaves no big impression. Then Asrian-
Dolmatov, Krasnodar 1997 went 12..JLxc5 13
h3 £>c6 14 c3 £>xd4 15 £>xd4 ±,xd4 16 cxd4
£.b5!? 17 0-0 (17 ±,xb5 #a5+ is one point)
17...±,xd3 18#xd3V2-V2.
12...£>bd7 (D)
13 0-0-0
It is the same recipe against 13 0-0, viz.
13...±,xb3 (13...£>xc5 is also fine) 14 £>xb3
•£>xc5 = Sahovic-Korchnoi, Biel 1979.
13...±,xb3
13...£>xc5 14 0X5 £>xd3+! 15 #xd3 Af8
isn't bad either; e.g., 16 JLg5 (White should
already look for an improvement here) 16...h6 17
±h4 g5!? 18 ±,g3 ±,b5 19 #d4 Se4 20 #d2
Se2 21 #d4 Se4 (maybe Black can even play
for more with 21...Ic8) 22 #d2 Se2 23 #d4
V2-V2 Rublevsky-Bareev, Frankfurt 2000.
14 £>xb3 £>xc5
14...a5?! 15 a4! is a beneficial interpolation
for White, who now gains valuable control over
the b5-square: 15...£>xc5 16 ±,b5! £>xb3+ 17
cxb3 Hf8 18 *bl Ic8 19 f3 ±,c5 20 ±,g5 with
slightly the better position for White, Kopy-
lov-Glek, corr. 1986.
15 Wf3 (D)
15...£>xb3+
This is the right piece to exchange. Instead
White would be slightly better after 15...^xd3+
16 Sxd3 because Black's minor pieces are
comparatively worse.
16 axb3
16 cxb3 #a5 17 *bl ±,c5 18 ±,d2 #b6 19
Ael Ab4 20 ±,c2 Axel 21 Ihxel g6 22 a3 a5
? Kacheishvili-Vaganian, Erevan Z 2000.
16...#a5
16...Ad6!? 17 A,g5 A,e5 (Ljubojevic-Korch-
noi, Buenos Aires 1979) is another good option
for Black, again leading to an equal position.
17 *bl ±,c5 18 ±,xc5
18 JLg5 £>e4 = Istratescu-Knaak, Porz-
BucharestECC 1991.
18...#xc5 19#f4
Akopian-Bauer, Enghien-les-Bains 2001.
Now Psakhis suggests 19...a5 20 Uriel b5
followed by ...b4 as fine for Black.
B)
5 £)gf3 £tf6 6 ±b5+ ±d7 (D)

62
The French: Tarrasch Variation
7 ±,xd7+
Or7#e2+:
a) 7..Jte7 8 dxc5 transposes to 5 Jib5+
kd7 6 We2+ Le7 7 dxc5 ?hf6 8 fogfi (note to
White's 8th move in Line A).
b) Black is also close to equality in the line
7...*e7 8 ±xd7+ £>bxd7 9 Wxe7+ ±xe7 10
dxc5 £\xc5.
7...£>bxd7 8 0-0 Ae7 9 dxc5 ^xc5 (D)
Now White has three options:
Bl: 10£>d4 62
B2: 10 £>b3 63
B3: lOlel 66
A logical plan for White is to put something
on d4. The problem is that White has almost
too many pieces that would like to be on the
same square, which is one reason that the plan
of playing Eel and £\fl has become more
popular, as then White at least doesn't have
two knights wanting to be on d4, and from f 1
the knight might go to e3, attacking the d-
pawn.
Black will seek counterplay on the queenside,
usually in the form of advancing his a- and b-
pawns to create some sort of weaknesses, but
also has good squares on c4 and e4.
Bl)
10£>d4
A logical move, with a further hop to f5 in
mind, and it also vacates f3 for the other knight
or the queen.
10...#d7
It is usually a good idea for Black to prevent
£ff5 in the first place. The queen is well placed
on d7 and if White manages to play £tf5 later,
the bishop can retreat to d8. 10...0-0 11 £tf5
Se8 is also feasible and not bad at all, although
White should get a small edge by exchanging
on e7. For example: 12 £>b3 £>e6 13 £>xe7+
Wxe7 14 Ae3 a6 15 lei lad8 16 c3 Wc7 17 f3
± A.Sokolov-Short, Linares 1989.
11 £>2f3
Otherwise:
a) 11 £>2b3 should be met by 11 ...£fce4 -10
?hb3 foce4 11 *bfd4 Wd7. Instead, ll...^a4?!
is wrong in view of 12 Wf3 0-0 13 £tf5 ±d8?!
14 l,h6! g6 15 ±xf8 *xf8 16 £>e3 ± Serper-
Kovalev, Krumbach 1991.
b) 11 Wf3 0-0 12 £rf5 ±d8 13 Idl Ie8 14
£tfl £>ce4 15 c3 ±b6 16 ±e3 Ie5 17 £>lg3
#b5 18 Habl Hae8 = Arnason-Bareev,
Moscow 1990.
11...0-0 (D)
12 ^e5!?
White usually plays this at some stage - the
question is when. White has also prepared it
with 12 JLf4 Ife8, and then:
a) 13 £>e5 #a4! 14 c3 ±d6 15 £>g6! Wdl
16 ±xd6 #xd6 17 £>h4 g6 18 £M3 a6! with
roughly equal chances, Adams-Bareev, Gro-
ningenPCA1993.
b) 13 lei Af8 14 £>e5 #a4 15 c3 #a6 16
#e2, Karpov-Bareev, Linares 1994, and now
Karpov suggests 16...1,d6!? 17 #xa6 bxa6! 18
®£5 &c7 co.
12...#c8

4...exd5: SYSTEMS WITH ...k,d7
63
Now 12...*a4 13 £tf5 is better for White; in
:he note above with 12 Jtf4 Ufe8 inserted, this
a asn't possible due a hanging bishop on f4. Al-
.ernatively, Black might try 12...*fc7 13 ±f4
©1)6. In Dvoirys-Nikolenko, Cappelle la Grande
1995, this led to slightly better play for White
after 14 £>f5 fife8 15 Ae3!? ±f8 (15...We6 16
-i.xe7+ Wxe7, as in Breyther-Beliavsky, Bern
1995, is worth considering) 16 £>d3 Wc6 17
lxc5 ±,xc5 18 £>xc5 Wxc5 19 c3 Ie5 20 Wd4
*'c7 21 £>e3 ±.
13 Wf3 Ie8 14 £tf5 £>ce4 15 c3 ±,f8
This is better than 15...1,d8 16 £>g4 Ie6 17
h3. intending JLe3, with advantage for White,
Van der Wiel-Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1992.
16 £>d3 b5 17 ±,e3 a5 18 Ifel b4 19 ±,d4
Sa6
with roughly equal play, McShane-Summer-
scale, British Ch (Millfield) 2000. White has
good control of the dark squares, but as usual in
this variation Black also has a good square on
e4, and counterplay on the queenside.
B2)
10 £>b3 £>ce4 (D)
Black should not voluntarily allow White
any easy exchanges. 10...0-0 11 ^xc5 Jbcc5 12
i.g5 Ic8 13 c3 Ic6 14 £>e5 Ie6 15 £>g4 ±,e7
16 £>e3 fieS 17 JLh4 gave White a distinct
advantage in Tal-Benko, Skopje OL 1972.
11 £>fd4
White must decide which piece to put on d4.
By using the king's knight, White frees f3 for
his queen, thus obtaining the most harmonious
piece configuration. After that White can
follow up with £}f5. Another idea is to put the
bishop on d4, as seen in the following two
examples:
a) 11 £>bd4 Wc8!? 12 c3 0-0 13 ±,e3 (with
the idea of £>c2 followed by JLd4) 13...Ie8 14
£>c2 ±d6! 15 ±,d4 Wc6 16 ^e3 Iad8 17 lei
±,b8 18 Wc2 £>h5 (having finished
development, Black now seeks counterplay on the
kingside) 19 g3 Wg6 20 £>h4 Wg5 21 £>f3 Wg6
= Ye Jiangchuan-M.Gurevich, Belfort 1999.
b) 11 ±,e3 0-0 12 ±,d4 Ie8 13 *U3 ±,d6 14
ladl Wcl 15 Ifel a6 16 c3 Ie6!, intending
...Uae8 =, Gavrikov-Dokhoian, Klaipeda 1988.
Il...tfd7
11...0-0 12 £tf5 Ie8 13 £>xe7+ Ixe7 14
JLe3 ± has been seen in several games.
12 f3
This is White's latest idea.
12 Wf3 0-0 has been more common, with
two possibilities for White:
a) 13 Wf5 Wd8!? (it seems logical to avoid
the exchange of queens, because such an
exchange is likely to increase White's advantage;
yet 13...Ifc8 has also done well) 14 JLf4 g6 15
Wh3 Ie8 16 ladl ±,d6 V2-V2 Rublevsky-
Bareev, Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998.
b) 13 £rf5 ±d8 14 JLe3 (D) and now there is
a choice for Black:
bl) 14...g615^g3(15^h6+*g7 16h3!?)
15...Ue8 (another idea is 15...Wc6, intending
...£>d6-c4 and possibly ...Wa6) 16 c3 (16 ±,d4 a5
17 a4 Ua6 with approximately equal chances)

64
The French: Tarrasch Variation
16...a5! 17 a4 2a6!, intending ...2ae6 or ...£>g4
and ...Sf6, with active play for Black, Kotro-
nias-Psakhis, Khalkidhiki 1992.
b2) 14...Ic8 15 c3 and then:
b21) 15...a5 16 ^bd4 a4 17 a3 g6 18 £>g3
£>d6 19 ladl £>c4 20 ±,cl #g4!? 21 #xg4
£>xg4 22 £>c2 Se8 23 £ib4 h5 24 £>xd5 h4 25 f3
hxg3 26 fxg4 gxh2+ 27 *xh2 <4>g7 with
equality, Akopian-Vaganian, Groningen FIDE KO
1997.
b22) 15...g6 16 £>g3 (Goloshchapov gives
16 £>h6+ <4>g7 17 h3!? as stronger) 16...Ie8 17
Ifdl fTb5 18 £ie2 a5! 19 £ied4 Wd7 20 £id2
£>g4 21 £tfl a4 22 a3 ±,h4!? 23 g3 Af6 was
marginally better for Black in Berelovich-Gol-
oshchapov, Kharkov 1998.
b23) 15...Ie8 (D) is Black's latest idea. Only
after placing his rooks optimally will he start
queenside counterplay with ...a5-a4.
Now White's most natural is to play a rook to
dl but it is almost impossible to say which is
best:
b231) 16ladla5(16...g617^h6+*g7 18
h3 a5 {Berelovich gives 18...1fa4!? as worth a
try} 19 £M4 b5 20 £>g4, Berelovich-M.Gure-
vich, Hoogeveen 1999, and now 20...b4! isn't
worse for Black) 17 £>d2 (17 «h3!? a4 18 £>bd4
and now 18..JLb6 19 JLf4 looks better for
White, but Black could try 18...a3!?) 17...#e6
18 a4 (after this it might have been better to
have to rook on al rather than on fl) 18...jk,c7
19 £>d4 #e7 20 £ib5 ±e5 21 £ib3 Sc4 with
counterplay, Nevednichy-Lastin, Ohrid Ech
2001.
b232) 16 Ifdl a5 (16...Ie5!? 17 £>g3 &xg3
18 hxg3 Sf5 19 We2 Se5 = Miralles-M.Gure-
vich, Bundesliga 1999/00) 17 £>d2 (17 #h3 a4
18 £>bd4 isn't good here since on 18...a3 White
doesn't have 19 f3 due to 19...axb2) 17...1fe6
18 £>d4 #e7 V2-V2 Oral-Nogueiras, Varadero
2000. Play is roughly balanced. Structurally
White is better in view of the isolated d-pawn,
but Black's pieces are harmoniously placed and
there is counterplay on the queenside. Besides,
the d5-pawn isn't really weak and can easily be
defended. What White would like to benefit
from is the strongpoint on d4 but there are
almost too many pieces that would like to be on
this square to make real use of it.
12...£id6 13 £>c5 (D)
13...#c8
This may be the best place for the queen,
although choices between c8 and c7 seem fairly
evenly split. From c8 the queen controls the
light squares on the c8-h3 diagonal (of which
f5 is the most important) and, as opposed to
...#c7, also makes the manoeuvre ...Jk,d8-b6
possible. The alternative is 13...Wc7 14 £ki3
0-0 and is more harmonious in terms of
keeping the rooks connected. In general, I like
White in this line, and there seems to be a
choice of reasonably promising options:
a) 15 ±,f4 #b6 16 ±,e3 #d8 17 c3 (17 b3
followed by #d2 is also a little better for White)
17...Ie8 18 lei a6 19 #b3 Wcl 20 ±,f4 gives
White a slight advantage, McShane-Rozentalis,
Hastings 1997/8.
b) 15b3(Z)jandnow:

4...exd5: SYSTEMS WITH ...k,d7
65
w
ABA!
bl) 15...2ac8 16 *hl Ife8 17 #d2 a6 18
a4, intending Ab2, favoured White in Ako-
pian-Rozentalis, Tbilisi 1989.
b2) 15...Ife8 and here:
b21) 16 Ab2? £ic4! 17 bxc4 dxc4 18 £>f2
c3 19 Ac 1 Sad8 and Black will regain the piece
with a clear advantage.
b22) 16 *hl #b6 (16...£id7 followed by
.. Af6 may be better) 17 Ae3 Ad8 18 Af2 #a5
19 a4 Ic8 20 lei ± Svidler-Bareev, Elista 1995.
b23) 16 #d2!? followed by Ab2 and #f2
looks perhaps slightly better for White.
b24) 16 Ae3 Af8 17 #d2 g6 18 lael Ag7
19 Af2 a6 20 Ixe8+ Ixe8 21 lei £ic8 22 a4
and the ending may give White a slight pull,
Kharlov-M.Gurevich, Istanbul Ech 2003.
b3) 15...£id7!16Ae3lfe8 17#d2Af618
Sadl Sac8 19 &f2 £\e5 was approximately
equal in Rowson-Kaminski, Bratislava U-16
Wch 1993. The idea of ...£>d7 followed by
...Af6 seems to give Black the best chances of
equalizing but has surprisingly been neglected
in practice.
14 £id3 0-0 (D)
15Ae3
Or:
a) 15lelAd8!16Ag5(16Ae3Ab617c3
Ie8 18 Af2lxel+ 19#xel Wdl 20#d2£ic4
21 #c2 Se8 = Akopian-Vaganian, Groningen
FIDE KO 1997) 16...£>f5 17 £>xf5 #xf5 18
Se5 #c8 19 *hl #c4 20 Ie2 Ie8 V2-V2 Ser-
mek-Dizdar, Austria 1997.
b) 15c3He8 16Af4Etf5 17Elxf5Wxf5 18
#d2 £id7 19 ladl £>b6 = S.B.Hansen-Bry-
nell, Hamburg 2002.
c) 15 b3 (Akopian's set-up from above is
not as effective because Black can exchange the
knight on d4) 15...£>f5 16 £>xf5 #xf5 17 Ae3
(17 Ab2 £>d7, intending ...Af6 =, Nevostruev-
Nikolenko, Russian Cht (Smolensk) 2000)
17...Ife8 18#d2a6 19lael Iac8 20lf2 Ad6
21 Ife2 £id7 22 a4 h6 23 Af2 Ixe2 24 Ixe2,
Cu.Hansen-Brynell, Reykjavik 2000, and now
Psakhis suggests 24...^b8!?, intending ...£ta6,
with good chances of equality, and gives 25
£ib4 Axb4 26 #xb4 Ixc2 27 Ie8+ 4>h7 28
Wxbl (28 h3? £>c6! 29 #xb7? £ie5!) 28...Icl+
29 Ael £\c6 with good counterplay.
15...Ie8 16 Af 2 (D)
16...Ad8
This introduces one of the ideas of Black's
choice of square for the queen on move 13, as
the bishop can now be directed to b6, from
where it challenges its white counterpart. Other
moves:

66
The French: Tarrasch variation
a) 16...£tf5 17 1U2 ±d6 18 Sael £sxd4 19
±xd4 «f5 20 Sxe8+ £ixe8 21 Sel £lc7 22
Ae5 with a favourable endgame for White,
McShane-Summerscale, Southend 2002.
b) 16...±f8 17 Bel g6 18 «d2»d7 19 #f4
Ag7, Jansa-Kindermann, Bundesliga 2002/3,
and now the simple 20 c3 keeps an edge for
White.
17 a4 a6
Or:
a) 17...£if5 18 1U2 J.b6 19 £sxf5 ±xf2+
20 #xf2 #xf5 21 Sfel «c8 22 Sxe8+ #xe8
23 b3 ttc6 24 Sel Se8 25 Sxe8+ £lxe8 26 We3
gives White an edge in the endgame, McShane-
N.Pert, British Ch (Torquay) 2002.
b) 17...£)c4!? 18 «cl ±b6 19 b3 £ia5 20
Vf4 £)c6 21 £)f5 J.xf2+ 22 Sxf2 ®d8 =
Akopian-Dolmatov, Russian Cht (Sochi) 2004.
18 *hl ±b6 19 a5 ±a7 20 b3 «d7
= Wells-Kindermann, Austrian Cht (Fiirsten-
feld) 2003.
B3)
10 Sel (D)
ABAS 'BAB
\mi mmmi m
i swi
White's idea after this is sensible and clear.
He will play tfof 1 and follow up with Jte3-d4,
after which the knight goes to e3, or g3 where it
challenges a black knight on e4.
10...0-0 11 £tfl Se8
11 ...£>ce4 is the other option, but Black's
latest idea is to keep this in reserve, so as to have
the possibility of challenging a white bishop
with ...£te6 when it arrives at d4. However,
1 l...£>ce4 12 Ae3 £>g4 13 ±,d4 Af6 (Brunner
rightly observes that 13...&gxf2? 14 JLxf2 £>xf2
15 4>xf2 Jtc5+ doesn't work in view of 16 £te3
d4 17 £>c4 d3+ 18 ifl +-) remains a sensible
attempt to equalize; e.g., 14 SLe2 Se8 15 h3
±,xd4 16 Wxd4 £>gf6 17 a3 Wa5 18 £>e3 £>d6
19 £>e5 1^6!? 20 *xb6 axb6 21 £>f3 £>c4 =
Kotsur-Korchnoi, Lucerne Wcht 1997.
12 Ae3 a5
Introduced by Bareev. Since White's pawn-
structure is better at the moment, Black hopes
to induce a few weaknesses on the queenside by
advancing his pawns on that side. Whether this
will be ...a4(-a3) or ...b5-b4 is not yet clear.
Another uncertainty is where to put the queen; the
most common plan is to put it on d7 but then
White will sometimes be able to increase his
central control by £te5-d3. We shall come across
the most important middlegame manoeuvres
and ideas in Black's alternatives:
a) 12...#d7 13 Ie2 b5 14 c3 £>ce4 15 £>e5
Wb7 16 £>d3 a5 17 ±,d4 b4 18 cxb4 axb4 19
«b3 Af8 20 £>e3 tta6 21 Sc2 ± Rozentalis-
Bareev, Kazan 1997.
b) 12...£>ce4 13 ±,d4 #c7 14 £>e3 Sad8 15
c3 ±,c5 16 tta4 ±,xd4 17 #xd4 a6 18 Sadl ±
Kotsur-Sharavdorj, Shenyang 1999.
c) 12...£tfe4 (?! - Korchnoi) 13 c3 Wd6
(13...Sc8 14 #c2 #a5 15 £id4 #a4 16 #e2!
JkS6 17 GX5 Wd7 18 #g4 ± Xie Jun-Korchnoi,
Wentzou (4) 1995) 14 £>g3 (another promising
set-up is 14 lfe2 intending Sadl) 14.. JLf8 15
*c2 Wa6 16 Sedl ± Tiviakov-Dreev, Wijk aan
Zee 1996.
d) 12...b5 13 c3 a5 (D) and then:
W

4...exd5: SYSTEMS WITH ...k,d7
67
dl) 14 Ad4 b4 15 £ie3 (15 Axf6 Axf6 16
Sxe8+ Wxe8 and now 17 Wxd5 £ia4 18 lei
#d8 19 Wxd8+ Ixd8 20 cxb4 axb4 21 Ie4
5^xb2 22 Sxb4 Sa8 looks possible to defend
for Black, or 17 cxb4 axb4 18 Wxd5 Axb2 19
2bl £ia4 =) 15...£>ce4 16 c4 dxc4 17 £>xc4
2c8 18 £ib6 Ib8 = Svidler-Ulybin, Russian
Clubs Cup (Maikop) 1998.
d2) 14 Icl Ic8 15 Ad4 £ie6 (now 15...M
16 Axf6 Axf6 17 Ixe8+ Wxe8 18 cxb4 axb4
19 Wxd5 ± would be a much better version for
White compared with the similar line above)
16 Ae5 £>e4 17 £ig3 £>xg3 18 hxg3 Ac5
(18...b4!? 19 cxb4 Ixcl 20 Wxcl axb4 21 b3
#a8 * M.Gurevich) 19 Ic2 Wd7 20 g4! Wb7
21 Id2 Ied8 22 £>d4 Axd4 23 Axd4 ± Pono-
mariov-M.Gurevich, Belfort 1998.
We now return to 12...a5 (D):
W
13£id4
Black has slightly weakened b5 with his last
move, so White tries to exploit this by switching
plans. However, we shall see that this weakness
is probably not significant enough for White to
obtain a real advantage. Black has also
successfully equalized against other moves:
a) 13 c3b5-72...2?5 13 c3 a5.
b) 13 We2 Wd7 14 £>d4 a4 15 a3 £>ce4 16
#b5 Wc7 17 ladl £id6 18 Wd3 £ic4 19 Acl
Ac5! is slightly better for Black, I.Gurevich-
Bareev, Hastings 1992/3.
c) 13 Ad4 £ie6 14 Ae5 Ac5 15 £ie3 £ie4
16 Ie2 £>6g5! 17 £>xg5 (17 Wxd5?! Axe3 18
#xd8 Axf2+ 19 *f 1 Iaxd8 % Kostenko-Diz-
dar, Lucerne Wcht 1997) 17...Wxg5 18 Ad4
&xf2 19 Ixf2 Axd4 20 Wxd4 Wxe3 21 Wxd5
le7 = Sermek-Dizdar, Solin 1993.
d) 13^g3g6(13...Wd7=)14Ad4£ie6 15
Ac3 Ac5 16 £ie5 d4 17 Ad2 Wd5 18 a3 b5 =
Tiviakov-Shaw, Port Erin 1998.
e) 13le2!?b5 14 Ad4£>e6(14...Ic8!?) 15
Ae5 and now:
el) 15...£ig4 16 Ag3 b4 17 Sd2 Wb6! 18
Sxd5 (White should probably keep his hands off
this pawn and instead play 18 h3 £}f6 19 £te3,
with approximately equal chances) 18...Ac5 19
Wd2 (19 Sd2 Iad8 20 Wcl! a4 also gives Black
enough compensation) 19...£rf6! 20 Se5 Sad8
21 Wei (21 Wcl might be better) 21...£>d4, and
Black is better, Lastin-Goloshchapov, Moscow
1999.
e2) 15...Ac5 16 ^e3 (16 Wd3!?) 16...b4
(16...£>g5 V2-V2 Rozentalis-M.Gurevich, Belfort
1998) 17 Axf6 Wxf6 18 £ixd5 Wxb2 19 c4
Wa3 20 Wb3 a4 21 Wxa3 bxa3 is at least equal
for Black, who can play on the b-file.
13...Wd7 14 Wf3 g6
In Emelin-Dolmatov, Novgorod 1999 Black
didn't really get much further on the queenside,
but a quick draw was nevertheless agreed after
14...£ice4 15 £if5 Af8 16 Ad4 Ie6 17 Wdl
Iae8 18 £i5e3 Ac5 19 c3 Wb5 20 Axc5 Wxc5.
15 ladl £ke4 (D)
w
I
VLm
mm a. m
Wm
w%
ABA
fc Up
PtAH
^|/^^
mm
16 h3
16 £>g3 £>g4 =.
16...b5 17 Ah6 b4
Now there is always counterplay against c2.
18 Wd3 Ac5 19 Ae3 Iac8
V2-V2 Ponomariov-Short, Shenyang 2000.

5 4...exd5: Deviations from the
Main Lines
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5
In this chapter we shall look at a few lines
that don't quite fit into the previous two
chapters. In the first place, these lines separate
between:
A: 5dxc5 68
B: 5iJb5+ 69
C: 5^gf3 71
A)
5 dxc5 ±,xc5 (D)
after, for example, 7...£te7 8 £rf3 0-0 9 0-0
£>bc6. A study of the main lines of Chapter 3
would pay more dividend than a few
references to games with this exact position. Black
has been able to recapture with the bishop on
c5 in only one move but White's bishop is
better placed on d3 than it would be on b5.
7 £>f3 £>c6 8 Ae2
In anticipation of Black placing his bishop
on g4 later, White's bishop may be best placed
one2.
8...£>ge7 9 0-0 0-0 (D)
W
—-mwmmm
H Wfc, m% Jl
w,
&iM,& Uj. iS. o iM
'm^m-ma
w
m w%
hW& hWB &W§ Z\W$\
Black can be satisfied with this position,
since compared to more normal lines he would
usually have spent a move with the bishop
(such as ... Jtd6) before the pawn exchange on
c5 occurred.
6 £>b3 Ad6
I suppose it is a matter of taste where the
bishop should go. 6...Jtb6 is equally good. If
White plays something like 7 Jtb5+ <£>c6 8
£\f3 he just ends up with a tempo less on
Chapter 3. 7 JLd3 is now the right place for the
bishop. The position would be roughly equal
10 £>bd4
Goldenberg-Yu Mingyuan, Budapest 2000
instead continued 10 ±g5 A.f5 11 &h4 ±t4 12
£>fd4 #b6 (12...^xd4 13 £>xd4 #b6 might be
more accurate; Black has no problems then) 13
c3 £>g6 (maybe Black should look for a better
set-up around here) 14 JLg3 Jtxg3 15 hxg3
£}ge5 16 f3 ±f5 17 If2 Ad7 18 f4! £}c4 19
if 3 and White was better.
10...a6 11 b3 2e8 12 ±,b2 £>g6
The position is equal, Proehl-Ulybin, Berlin
1994.

4...exd5: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINES
69
B)
5 i.b5+ £)c6 (D)
The other move, 5...Ad7, was covered in
Chapter 4.
H'
Hi A W
IiI±SI#il4§l
AHA
% ^V//////, W////, Y/////A
s#s si
6#e2+
6 £}gf3 Jtd6 transposes to Chapter 3.
There is an important alternative in 6 ^e2.
At first sight the knight appears to have more
influence from f3 than it has from e2 but there
is a certain advantage in having the knight on
e2. If play moves along lines similar to the Old
Main Line, White has the useful option of being
able to meet a ... Jtd6 retreat with JLf4.
a) 6...c4 7 0-0 ±d6 8 b3 cxb3 9 ±xc6+ bxc6
10 axb3 £tf6 11 ±a3 0-0 12 £rf3 Ie8 13 ±xd6
«xd6 14 lei ±g4 15 £>e5 c5 16 f3 Af5 17
^g3 favoured White in Ponomariov-Farago,
Croatian Cht (Pula) 2000.
b) 6...±d6 7 dxc5 ±xc5 8 £>b3 (D) and
now:
bl) 8...±d6 9 0-0 £}ge7 10 ±f4 0-0 11
l.xc6 bxc6 12 lei ±a6 13 ±xd6 #xd6 14
^g3 ±c4 15 £>d2 (15 #d4 ±) 15...Wc5 16 c3
(16 £>xc4 dxc4 17 £>e4 is also good) 16...^g6
17 b4 #b5 18 a4 #a6 19 #g4 ±d3 20 #d4 ±
Tseshkovsky-Farago, Moscow Echt 1977.
b2) 8...±b6 9 a4 (9 0-0 £>ge7 10 c4 dxc4 11
*xd8+ ±xd8 12 ±xc4 0-0 13 ^c3 £>e5 14
JLe2 JLf5 equalized easily in Bronstein-Uhl-
mann, Hastings 1975/6). Now:
b21) 9...£>ge7 10 a5 ±c7 11 ±f4 0-0
(exchanging the bishops immediately only helps
White: 1 l...±xf4 12 £>xf4 #d6 13 #d2 0-0 14
mkmm
i
lg| «tittr»
0-0 ±f5 15 a6 ± Mikhalchishin-Vladimirov,
Volgodonsk 1981) 12 ±xc7 (after 12 0-0 White
must reckon with 12...Jtxa5 13 ^xa5 ^xa5;
there is enough compensation but maybe no
more than that) 12...#xc7 13 0-0 £>e5 14 a6
£>c4 15 #d4 bxa6 16 ±xa6 £>c6 17 #c5 ±xa6
18 Uxa6 Sfc8 and White wasn't able to show
any advantage in Tseshkovsky-Ivkov, Riga
1981.
b22) 9...a6 10 ±xc6+ bxc6 11 a5 ±a7 12
#d3 £>e7 (12...Wf6 13 ±e3 ±xe3 14 #xe3+
£>e7 15 #d4 #g6 16 #c5 Wf6 17 0-0 0-0 18
^bd4 gave White an edge in Tischbierek-Uhl-
mann, Potsdam 1985) 13 ±e3 ±f5 14 #c3
±xe3 15 fxe3 0-0 16 £>ed4 #d6 17 0-0 ±e4 18
£>c5 and White was better in Kupreichik-Dol-
matov, USSR Ch (Frunze) 1981.
6...±e7
The ending after 6...#e7 7 dxc5 #xe2+ 8
£>xe2 ±xc5 9 £}b3 ±b6 (D) gives White
reasonable chances of an edge:
W

70
The French: Tarrasch Variation
a) 10 Ae3 ±xe3 11 fxe3 £>e7 12 ±xc6+
£>xc6 13 £rf4 ±e6 14 £>c5 0-0-0 15 £>cxe6
fxe6 16 £>xe6 Ide8 17 £>xg7 Ixe3+ 18 <4>f2
He7 19 £>f5 Hf8 20 g4 £kI4 ? Westerinen-
Kholmov, Budapest 1976.
b) 10 ±d2 ±d7 (10...^e7?! 11 ±a5! or 11
Jtb4, as in Euwe-Botvinnik, The
Hague/Moscow Wch 1948, is very good for White) 11 Jtc3
f6 12 0-0 £>ge7 and instead of 13 £>ed4 Ic8 14
£>xc6 Jtxc6 15 Jtxc6+ bxc6 = Smyslov-Botvin-
nik, Budapest 1952, Keres suggested 13 ±d4
with an edge for White.
c) 10 a4 £>e7 (10...a6 seems like a natural
alternative) 11 a5 ±c7 12 Af4 ±xf4 13 £>xf4
a6 14 jtxc6+ bxc6 15 £}c5 and White has
succeeded in obtaining the exact kind of bind on the
dark squares he is aiming for, Szabo-Barcza,
SaltsjobadenIZ1952.
We now return to the position after 6...j^e7
(D):
W
m
flJJK*flft
mkwm, iiii
m,mkm.
W/,*
o HI I
W%Z> W%> WZ%> Wifc
AHABWHAI
Inf fM Wb '#%
v/™- W&, ££k td\.
7 dxc5 £tf6 8 £>b3 0-0
The position now becomes similar to some
lines of the ...Jtd7 systems, but here it is slightly
harder for Black to regain the pawn. Instead he
aims for active play.
9 ±e3 (D)
9 £rf3 £>e4 10 ±e3 fie8 - 9 ±e3 2e810 £hf3
£he4.
9...2e8
9...a6 puts the question to the bishop at an
early stage, when it may not be apparent what
the right reaction is:
a) 10 ±a4 Be8 11 0-0-0 - SL.Brf 10 0-0-0
a611 ka4.
b) 10 ±d3 d4 11 ±g5 Be8 12 0-0-0 ±g4 15
f3 Jte6 with some compensation for Black,
Ivanovic-Padevsky, Vrnjacka Banja 1973.
10 0-0-0
White could also hide his intentions of where
he wants to castle, though it should be said tha:
White seldom castles kingside: 10 £>f3 anc
then:
a) 10...£ie4 11 0-0-0 (110-0 £>xc5 12 £ib<^
Jtd7 13 Jtxc6 bxc6 was fine for Black in Babic-
Kovacevic, corr. 1985) ll...£>xc5 (ll...±xc5 i*
dubious here in view of 12 £>xc5 £>xc5 13
Jtc4!, which is the main difference from belov.
where the moves ...a6 and Jta4 are interposed
12 ±c4 £ixb3+ 13 ±xb3 ±e6 14 £>d4 wiih
perhaps a slight plus for White, Kuporoso\-
Fedoruk, Daugavpils 1979.
b) 10...a6 11 ±d3 (11 ±a4 ^e4 12 0-(K
Jtxc5! was more than satisfactory for Black ir
Sax-Petrosian, Rio de Janeiro IZ 1979) 1 l...d-
(much stronger than 11 ...±g4 12 0-0-0 £>e5 1 _:
h3 &xf3 14 gxf3 ffc7 15 <4>bl £>ed7 16 c4! dxc-
17 Jtxc4, when Black never really regained thr
pawn in view of 17...£>xc5 18 Jbtf7+! <A>xf7 1 -
jtxc5 ± Smyslov-Uhlmann, Cienfuegos 19"?
12 £>fxd4 ^xd4 13 ^xd4 ±xc5 14 c3 ^g4 1:
0-0 Wh4 16 h3 £>xe3 17 fxe3 ±xh3! 18 g^-
Axd4 19 cxd4 #g3+ 20 <4>hl Ixe3 21 Axh"-
<4>h8 22 #h5 #xh3+ 23 Wxh3 Ixh3+ 24 igl
Ixh7 25 Hxf7 2d8 and Black held the endir.i
without trouble in Brynell-Schmidt, Naest\ec
1988.
We now return to the position after 10 0-C1-
(D):
10...a6

4...exd5: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINES
71
An important alternative is 10...a5 11 a4
i.d7 12 £tf3 £>a7 (D), and now:
a) 13 c4!? £>xb5 14 cxb5 ±xc5 (in Erler-
Abano, corr. 1998 Black played for activity
instead of taking the pawn back: 14...#c8!? 15
i>bl £>g4 16 h3 £>xe3 17 #xe3 ±f5+ 18 <4>a2
Jtf6 19 itt2 ±e4 with compensation) 15 £>xc5
Sc8 16 ibl Slxc5 and Black was doing well in
Vasiukov-Botterill, Hastings 1978/9.
b) 13 £>fd4 £>e4 (13...£>g4 14 <4>bl £>xe3
15 fxe3 ±g5 16 #f3 ± Parma-Vaganian, Ohrid
1972) 14 ±xd7 Wxdl 15 £>b5 £>xb5 16 #xb5
»xb5 17 axb5 a4 18 £>al Ied8 (18...±f6!? 19
2xd5 a3 20 ±d4 ±g5+ 21 Ixg5 £>xg5 22 bxa3
2xa3 23 £>b3 £>e6 is difficult to assess) 19 c3
£>xc5 (19...±xc5 might be preferable) 20 £>c2
^e4 21 f3 £>f6 22 <4>bl h6 23 Hd3 and White
was slightly better in Voicu-Radziewicz, Rim-
avska Sobota girls U-16 Ech 1996.
11 ±a4 (D)
11 ±d3 a5 12 a4 ±d7 is fine for Black when
White's bishop would rather be on b5 as in the
last note.
Or:
a) 1 l...±d7 12 £rf3 £>a5 13 ±xd7 (another
idea for White is 13 £>xa5!?) 13...£>xb3+ 14
axb3 Wxdl 15 Wd3 Iac8 16 Ihel ±xc5 17
Jtxc5 Ixel 18 Ixel Ixc5 = Angantysson-
Whiteley, Ybbs 1968.
b) Il...^e4 12#fl±f5 13^e2lc8 14a3
and White was better in Ribli-Farago,
Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1971.
12 an
12 Wf3 £>xe3 13 fxe3 ±g5! is fine for Black.
12...±f6 13 Ihel
13 c4!? should be examined.
13...£>xe3 14 fxe3 Ie4!
Black already has a good position, Kuprei-
chik-Gulko, USSR 1973.
C)
5 &gf 3 (D)
Now we look at two main replies:
CI: 5...c4 72
C2: 5...£>c6 73
5...£tf6 6 Jtb5+ £>c6?! (the main
continuation, 6.. JLd7, is discussed separately, as Line B
of Chapter 4) 7 0-0 ±e7 8 dxc5 is better for
White after 8...±xc5 9 Iel+ (9 £>e5!?) 9...±e7
10 #e2, while 8...0-0 9 £>b3 leaves Black with
some work to do to regain his pawn.

72 THE FRENCH:
ililiHi
CD
5...c4
This is occasionally played by Korchnoi and
Nikolic but many other strong players have also
played it, including Bronstein.
6 b3 (D)
This is the theoretical recommendation. 6
Jte2 £)c6 7 0-0 Jtd6 is the main alternative
seen. Then:
a) 8 b3 cxb3 9 axb3 (9 c4! ? £>ge7 10 c5 ±c7
11 £>xb3 0-0 12 ±g5 f6 13 ±d2 oo Geller-
Mikenas, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1949) 9...£>ge7
10 &b2 0-0 11 c4 and now ll...£>g6 12 cxd5
£>ce7 13 £>c4 ^,b4 14 d6 £id5 15 £ife5 was
better for White in L.A.Schneider-Bronstein,
Jurmala 1978 but I don't see anything wrong
withll...±f5.
b) 8 lei £>ge7 9 b3 cxb3 10 axb3 0-0 11
&fl Af5 12£>h4 (12£>e3 Ae4 13 ±b2#c7 14
g3 £rf5 15 £>xf5 ±xf5 was fine for Black in
Bellia-Korchnoi, Bratto 1998) 12...±e6 13 c3
Wdl 14 ±d3 £>g6 15 £>xg6 hxg6 16 ±a3!
Ifc8 17 ±xd6 #xd6 18 #d2 ± Larsen-Sloth,
Esbjerg 1978.
6...cxb3
6...b5?! 7 a4 #a5 8 Ae2 ±d6 9 0-0 Erf6 10
£>e5 (10 #el!? is another tricky move, with the
point 10...0-0 11 £>e4!) 10...0-0 11 £>df3 £>e4
12 ±d2! ± Bashkov-Kashin, Perm 1997.
7^,b5+
Or 7 axb3 ±b4 and then:
a) 8 ±b5+ ±d7 9 ±xd7+ (on 9 #e2+,
9...£te7 is now feasible) 9...£>xd7 10 0-0 £>e7
11 ±a3 ±xa3 12 lxa3 0-0 13 c4, Van der
Wiel-Korchnoi, Amsterdam 1988, and now
Van der Wiel gives 13...^c6!? 14cxd5£>b4 15
d6 £>f6 16 £>c4 b5 17 Wd2 £tfd5 with an
unclear position. Indeed, I think Black has no
worries here.
b) 8 ±b2!? £>c6 9 ±e2 £rf6 10 0-0 0-0 11
£)e5 was good for White in Wahls-Schlosser.
W.Berlin 1989.
c) 8 £\e5!? and now:
cl) 8...£tf6 9 ±d3 0-0 10 0-0 (Svidler gives
10 ±b2 as White's best, with slightly better
chances - this would be similar to Wahls's idea
above) 10...±c3 11 fia4±d7! 12 £>xd7 £ibxd7
13 Efol! Aa5 14 Ad2 Ac7 (14...Axd2 15 £>xd2
fie8 with approximately equal play) 15 £ic3
Be8 = Svidler-Korchnoi, Groningen 1996.
c2) 8...£>e7 9 ±d3 £>bc6 10 0-0 ^,c3 11
la4 ^,xd4 12 ^xc6 £>xc6 13 ±a3 ±e6 14 £rf3
±b6 15 Wal ± Carlsen-P.Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee
2005.
7...£d7 8 We2+ Wei 9 ±xd7+ £ixd7 10
axb3 (D)
10...f6!?
This creates a safe place for Black's king on
f7, and Black has no difficulties arranging his
pieces harmoniously afterwards. Black has also
tried:
a) 10...£\h6 11 fia5 (11 ±a3 #xe2+ 12
4>xe2 ±xa3 13 lxa3 and now 13...a6 14 Ha5
£>f6 15 £>e5 0-0 {Tompa-P.Nikolic,
Yugoslavia 1991} 16 f3 is very slightly better for
White; perhaps 13...a6 is a slight luxury which
Black doesn't have to play immediately,
instead 13...0-0 should be fine) 11...£>b6 12£tfl
#xe2+ 13 *xe2 £if5 14 c4 f6 15 c5 £ic8 16

4...exd5: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINES
73
£>e3 £>xe3 17 fxe3 a6 = Beliavsky-P.Nikolic,
Belgrade 1991.
b) 10...£>gf6 and then:
bl) Il^e5lre6120-0±d613f40-014c4
Ab4 15 £>df3 £>xe5 16 fxe5 £>e4 17 ±a3 ±xa3
18 Ixa3 (Beliavsky-P.Nikolic, Novi Sad OL
1990) 18...f6! and now Beliavsky continued his
analysis 19 exf6 Sxf6 =, but perhaps White still
has slightly the better of the endgame after 19
cxd5#xd5 20#c4!.
b2) 11 £tfl #xe2+ 12 <4>xe2 ±b4 13 ±d2
Axd2 14 £>3xd2 £>f8 15 g3 £>e6 16 c3 0-0 17
£>e3, Beliavsky-Gulko, Reykjavik 1991. Now
Beliavsky sees no reason for Black to be
dissatisfied after 17...a5 18 Ia2 Ifc8 19 <4>d3 Ic7 as
there is counterplay against White's centre.
11 £>fl
Maybe White should look for more
aggressive ways. In Adams-P.Nikolic, Bosnian Cht
(Neum) 2002 Black got away with a quick
draw after ll...#xe2+ 12 <4>xe2 ±d6 13 £>e3
£ie7 14 ±a3 ±xa3 15 Ixa3 <4>f7 16 £>el £>f8
17 £>d3 £>e6 18 c3 Ihd8 19 <4>d2 £>c6 20 Idl
Iac8.
C2)
5...£>c6 6 ±e2 (D)
Although not nearly as popular as 6 Jtb5
(Chapter 3), this is not at all a bad idea. Indeed,
in the main lines, White often finds his bishop
slightly exposed on b5 and returns it to d3 or to
e2 (often to unpin the f3-knight after ...Jtg4),
so White may even have hopes of saving a
tempo after the text-move.
6 dxc5 Jtxc5 7 £>b3 will lead to lines
covered after 5 dxc5.
6...£>f6
The early exchange on d4, 6...cxd4, is not a
bad idea and has been played by several French
experts. The main point is that White is forced
to bring a knight to d4 whereas this is not
immediately obligatory in the main line. On the
other hand, Black cannot have a position with
the bishop on b6. After 7 0-0 (D) Black has a
choice of three moves:
a) 7...±d6 8 £>b3 £>ge7 9 £>bxd4 0-0 10 c3
±g4 11 lei Ie8 12 ±e3 a6 13 £>g5 ±xe2 14
#xe2 h6 15 £>gf3 ±c7 16 ladl Vd6 17 »d3
£>xd4 18 ±xd4 £>c6 19 g3 with the usual very
slight edge for White, Proehl-Uhlmann, Bun-
desliga 1999/00.
b) 7...±e7 8 £>b3 ±f6 9 £>bxd4 £>ge7 10 c3
0-0 11 ±e3 ±g4 12 h3 ±h5 13 Wd2 ±g6 14

74
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Sadl with an edge for White, K.Muller-Yusu-
pov, Hamburg 1991.
c) 7...£tf6 8 £ft3 ±e7 and now:
cl) 9£ffxd40-010Af4(10Ae3&e5!?ll
c3 Ie8 = Bareev) 10...£>e4 11 c3 ±f6 12 Af3
Ie8 13 Wc2 £>g5 14 ±xg5 ±xg5 15 Ifel £>e5
16 Sadl is slightly better for White, Tiviakov-
Kosten, Imperia 1991.
c2) 9 £ibxd4 0-0 10 c3 Ie8 11 ±g5 h6 12
±h4 g5 13 ±g3 £>e4, Timofeev-Dolmatov,
Moscow 2002 and now Psakhis gives 14 Jtb5!?
as White's best chance for an advantage; e.g.,
14..J?b6 (14...±d7 15 ±xc6 bxc6 16 £>e5) 15
£te5 £>xg3 16 hxg3, and White is better.
7 0-0 ±d6
Also worth paying attention to is 7...c4 8
lei &e7 9 b3 cxb3 10 axb3 0-0 11 c3 i.f5 with
approximately equal chances, K.Muller-Vag-
anian, Bundesliga 1992/3.
8 dxc5 ±xc5 9 £>b3 ±b6 (D)
W
Note that a good general rule is that the
bishop is best placed here unless White can
immediately exchange it off with Sel and Jte3,
which is not the case here with the bishop on e2.
10 c3 0-0
In Tiviakov-Vaganian, Rostov 1993 Black
decided to prevent Jtg5 with 10...h6, but White
then implemented the dark-squared bishop
exchange with 11 #d3! 0-0 12 ±e3 ±xe3 13
«xe3 Be8 14 Wd2 £\e4 15 «c2 Ai5 16 £\bd4
±g6, and now 17 ±d3 Ic8 18 a3! is better for
White according to Tiviakov.
11 Ag5 Ie8 12 ±h4
This is White's most common but it yields
no advantage. There are a number of
alternatives but none troubles Black.
12...H6
In the game Xie Jun-Miezis, Linares 1997,
Black also solved his opening problems
comfortably: 12...±g4 13 lei Se4!? 14 &g3 £>h5
15 £tfd4 ±xe2 16 Ixe2 £>xg3 17 hxg3 Wg5
(17...Wf6!? also has its points, targeting d4 and
with an eye on f2). It is clear that Black has no
problems and that White should look earlier for
improvements.
13 lei (D)
Kramnik thinks White has to play 13 £tfd4
and content himself with an equal position after
13...£>xd4 14 £>xd4 ±xd4 15 cxd4 Wb6.
B
13...g5!
Not an uncommon idea in this line. Black
can afford to weaken his kingside since he
becomes very active.
14 ±g3 £>e4 15 £>fd4 f5!
Onishchuk-Kramnik, Tilburg 1997. Alread)
Black has a considerable initiative.

6 4 £*gf3 and Other 4th Move
Alternatives
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 £>gf 3
The main body of this chapter examines
White's reply 4 5}gf3. This may transpose to
one of the main lines but should also be
considered as a good practical choice, since White has
options of going his own way against each of
Black's replies, thus striving for less analysed
positions.
First, we shall briefly consider some lesser
alternatives for White:
a) 4 dxc5 Jtxc5 5 Jtd3 is seen but certainly
not frightening. Black is a tempo up on more
common lines from Chapter 11 (3.. JLe7), where
White captures on c5 and Black takes it with the
bishop. White can also play 5 exd5 but after
either capture, 5...#xd5 or 5...exd5, play
transposes to rare lines of Chapter 2 or 5 respectively.
b) 4 c3 is feasible too but again not
especially good. Of course White would like to
transpose to normal ...£rf6 lines if Black plays
4...5if6, but he can simply play 4...£>c6. Even
better is 4...cxd4 5 cxd4 dxe4 6 £>xe4 Jtb4+,
when after 7 £>c3 £if6 8 £tf3 0-0 Black is a
tempo up on common isolated queen's pawn
positions arising from, for example, the Nimzo-
Indian or the Caro-Kann Panov. Black then
develops sensibly with ...b6, ...Jtb7, etc.
We return to 4 £>gf3 (D):
We now look at three main replies:
A: 4...£tf6 75
B: 4...£tc6 76
C: 4...cxd4 77
Another option, 4...a6, transposes to Chapter
12.
A)
This invites a transposition to Chapter 8 via 5
e5 £>fd7 6 c3 £>c6 7 ±63 - 3..&J6 4 e5 ^sfdl 5
±d3c5 6c3£hc6 7thgf3.
5 exd5
Now Black can of course play 5...exd5,
leading to normal 4 exd5 exd5 lines. But there is a
second choice, which takes the game along
independent paths.
5...£>xd5 (D)
w
4...£tf6
6^b3

76
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
This forces a reaction to the threat on the c-
pawn, and White now hopes that an exchange
of the central pawn will give him slightly
superior control of the centre combined with a
minor lead in development. Other options for
White are:
a) 6 dxc5 ±xc5 7 £>e4 ±e7 8 ±b5+ (8 c4
£>b4 =) 8...Ad7 9 ±xd7+ £>xd7 10 c4 £>5f6 11
£>d6+ ±xd6 12 Wxd6 £>e4 13 Wa3 #c7 14 b3
£\dc5 15 0-0 0-0 with equality, Razuvaev-
Ivkov, Ljubljana/Portoroz 1973.
b) 6 c4 £>f6 7 £>b3 cxd4 8 #xd4 4,d7 9
Jtg5 Jtb4+ was fine for Black in Van der Wiel-
Korchnoi, Brussels 1986.
c) 6 Ac4 £\b6 (6...£\c6 looks more
straightforward) 7 0-0 £\xc4 (7...cxd4 is also feasible,
and not bad for Black) 8 £\xc4, Copie-Arkh-
angelsky, corr. 1987, and now 8...£\c6 9 JLe3
#d5 10 b3 cxd4 11 £ixd4 ±d7 looks OK for
Black.
d) 6 £>e4 £>d7 7 g3 ±e7 8 i.g2 £>5f6 9
£ixf6+ and now instead of 9.. Jtxf6 10 Jte3 0-0
11 0-0 cxd4 12 i.xd4 e5 13 Ac3 ± Tompa-
Burmakin, Zalakaros 1993, 9...£>xf6 should be
equal.
e) 6 ±b5+ Ad7 7 Axd7+ £>xd7 8 0-0 ±e7
9 c4 £i5f6 10 £>b3 0-0 11 #e2 Bc8 12 ±e3
cxd4 13 £\bxd4 a6 = Dorfman-Beliavsky, Bun-
desliga 2001/2.
6...£>d7 (D)
Black's main alternative is 6...cxd4 7 £\bxd4,
which transposes to 4...cxd4 5 Zhxd4 ^hf6 6
exd5 foxd5 7 %Mf3 (Line C2).
7£g5
After 7 g3, 7...cxd4 8 ±g2 i.b4+ 9 ±d2 e5
10 0-0 0-0 11 lei f6 12 £>fxd4 gave White an
edge in Svidler-Beliavsky, Yugoslavia 1995.
Beliavsky suggests 7.. JLe7 as a possible
improvement. Indeed, it makes sense, if Black
cannot hang on to the pawn, just to complete
development.
7...Ae7
7...Wc7 8 dxc5 £>xc5 9 ±c4 £ib6 10 ±e2
Jtd7 looks about equal.
8 ±xe7 #xe7 9 ±b5 cxd4 10 #xd4 0-0 11
0-0-0 a6 12 4x4
± Popovic-P.Nikolic, Yugoslavia 1991.
B)
4...£>c6 (D)
mJLmUfm^m
5 4b5
5 exd5 exd5 transposes to Line C2, and most
likely Chapter 3 (after 6 4.b5).
5 dxc5 is another option: 5...4,xc5 6 4,d3
£>f6 7 lfe2 (or 7 0-0). I shall not go into more
detail with this because White is simply a tempo
down on the more common 3...$Le7 4 $Ld3 c5 5
dxc5 ?hf6 6 We2 foc6 7 fogfi and now Black
often captures on c5.
5...a6
This forces White to give up his bishop for
the knight in one way or the other. Other moves
also come into consideration:
a) 5...cxd46ihxd4-4...cxd45foxd4foc66
4.65.
b) 5...^f6 6 exd5 #xd5 7 c4 #h5 (7...Wd8
8 0-0 cxd4 9 £>b3 4,d7 10 We2 d3!? 11 f xd3

4 £hgf3 and Other 4th Move Alternatives
77
£>b4 =) 8 #e2 ±e7 (8...cxd4 9 £>xd4 #xe2+
10 <4>xe2 ±dl =) 9 £>e5 #xe2+ 10 <4>xe2 ±d7
11 ±xc6 ±xc6 12 £>xc6 bxc6 13 £>b3 ± Poe-
nisch-Zingler, corr. 1982.
c) 5...dxe4 6 £\xe4 ±d7 (D) and now:
^ Jl^fi
W
£*|»2 t^%£
cl) 7±g5tra5+8£>c3a6(8...cxd4 9£>xd4
±e7 = Uhlmann) 9 ±xc6 ±xc6 10 d5!
(sacrificing a pawn for active play; otherwise Black
would be slightly better due to the two bishops)
10...±xd5 11 0-0 ±c6 12 £>e5 #c7 13 lei £>f6
14 ±xf6 gxf6 15 £>xc6 #xc6 16 #h5 ±e7 17
Ie3 h6! 18 lael <4>f8 19 £>d5 Id8 20 £>f4 and
White has some play for the pawn, Nicevski-
Uhlmann, Skopje 1976.
c2) 7 ±e3 #a5+ 8 £>c3 cxd4 9 £>xd4 ±b4
10 0-0 ±xc3 11 bxc3 £>ge7 12 Ibl 0-0 13
±d3 £\xd4 14 cxd4 ±c6 15 c4 Iad8 with at
least an equal position, Stein-Uhlmann,
Moscow 1971.
c3) 7 dxc5 #a5+ 8 £>c3 ±xc5 9 0-0 £>f6
(9...Id8!?)10a3lrc7 11±g5a612±d3h613
±h4 ±d6 14 lei £>e5 (14...g5 15 ±g3 ±xg3
16 hxg3 0-0-0 is unclear) 15 ±xf6 gxf6 16
£\e4, Dragiev-Ve.Popov, Struga 2002, and now
I see nothing wrong with 16...<£>xf3+ 17 #xf3
±xh2+ 18 <4>hl 0-0-0 19 #xf6 ±e5 20 #xf7
±xb2 21Ia2±e5.
c4) 7 0-0!? £>xd4 8 ±g5 f6 (White has good
compensation after 8...1rc7 9 ±xd7+ #xd7 10
c3 £>xf3+ 11 #xf3) 9 £>xd4 cxd4 10 ±h4 ±e7
(10...±xb5? 11 #h5+ followed by #xb5(+) is
good for White) 11 c3 ±xb5 12 #h5+ <4>f8 13
#xb5 #d5! 14 #d3 dxc3 15 #xd5 exd5 16
£>xc3, Tal-Uhlmann, Tallinn 1977, and now the
simplest, as given by Minic, is 16...£\h6! 17
£>xd5 £>f5 =.
We now return to 5...a6 (D):
W
A Am A
6 Jtxc6+
A critical line is 6 exd5 axb5 7 dxc6, giving
Black a choice of three replies:
a) 7...c4!? 8 cxb7 ±xb7 9 0-0 £rf6 10 lei
±d6 11 c3 0-0 12 £rfl ± Shamkovich-Filguth,
Lone Pine 1978.
b) 7...cxd4 8 c7!? (8 cxb7 ±xb7 9 0-0 #d5
10 £>b3 d3!? oo) 8...#xc7 9 0-0 £>f6 10 £>b3
±d6 11^ibxd4±d7oo.
c) 7...bxc6 8 dxc5 ±xc5 9 0-0 £>f6 10 c4!?
(10 £>b3 ±d6 11 ±e3 0-0 12 ±c5 £>d5, Gap-
rindashvili-Kholmov, Tbilisi 1974, and now
Gipslis gives 13 lei ±) 10...0-0 11 #e2 ±e7
12 b3 b4 13 Idl ± Ma.Tseitlin-Gulko, USSR
1971.
6...bxc6 7 0-0 £>f6 8 e5 ^d7 9 c4
9 dxc5 ±xc5 10 c4 a5 11 £\b3 was Sutov-
sky-Shulman, Holon jr Ech 1995, and now
ll...±e7 12 £>bd4 #b6 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 lei
Jta6 looks fine for Black.
9...±e710 dxc5 £>xc5 11 £>d4 #b612 ttg4
0-0 13 £>2f3 f5! 14 #h5 £>e4
Black is doing well, Sutovsky-Psakhis, Haifa
1996.
C)
4...cxd4 5 £>xd4 (D)
5 exd5 deserves at least a mention, because it
is a problem if Black wants to play ...exd5 main
lines, i.e. if now 5...exd5 Black has captured

78
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
prematurely on d4. Best is probably 5...#xd5
with a transposition to 4...#xd5 main lines
(Chapters 1 and 2). 5...£tf6 would be an attempt
to transpose to the line 5 Qsxd4 Q\f6 6 exd5.
Then 6 ±b5+ ±d7 7 ±xd7+ Wxd7 is nothing
but 6 dxe6 ±xe6 7 ±b5+ £>c6 8 0-0 looks
better for White.
We now look at two main lines:
CI: 5...£>c6 78
C2: 5...&I5 80
5...dxe4 6 £>xe4 a6 7 ±d3 ±e7 8 0-0 £rf6
and here:
a) 9 b3 £>bd7 10 ±b2 £>xe4 11 £>xe6!? fxe6
12 ±xg7 ±f6 13 ±xh8 ±xh8 14 ±xe4 and now
rather than 14...±xal 15 #h5+! <4>f8 16lxal,
which gave White a strong attack in Yakovich-
Tolnai, Kecskemet 1991, Black should
continue 14...#h4! when I don't see anything
convincing for White.
b) Yakovich suggests 9 ^g3!?, which seems
more sensible to me.
CI)
5...&C6 6 ±b5
White may also opt for a position with the
light-squared bishops on the board, with 6 ^xc6
bxc6 7 ±d3 (D). Then:
a) 7...^f6 8 0-0 reaches a position that
arises more frequently from a Sicilian move-
order; e.g., I e4c5 2 tfof3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ^hxd4
£hc6 5 ?hxc6 bxc6 6 ±d3 ?hf6 7 0-0 d5 8 ^hd2.
However, it's not a position that holds many
terrors for Black. 8...±e7 9 c4 0-0 10 #c2 h6
11 b3 a5, and now:
al) 12 a3 ±a6 13 Ibl (Kamsky-Ribli.
Reggio Emilia 1991) 13...Ib8 14 ±b2 #b6 15
cxd5 cxd5 16 ±xa6 #xa6 17 ±xf6 ±xf6 18
exd5 exd5 19 £>f3 Ifc8 (19...Wd6!?) 20 #d2
d4 21 b4 axb4 22 axb4 = Kamsky.
a2) 12 ±b2 a4 13 bxa4 ±a6 14 £>b3 #b8
15 Ifel #b4 16 £>d2 Ifd8 17 ±c3 #c5 *
Sisniega-Gilb.Hernandez, Linares 1992.
b) 7...ffc7 8 Wq2 £>f6 (8...±d6 - 7..Ad6 8
We2 WcT) 9 0-0 ±d6 and then:
bl) 10 £rf3 dxe4 11 ±xe4 £>xe4 12 #xe4
0-0 13 Idl f6 14 ±e3 e5 15 #c4+<4>h8 16£>d2
Ib8 17 £>b3 ±e7 18 ±c5 ±f5 = Baklan-Kom-
arov, Vrnjacka Banja 1998.
b2) 10 h3 0-0 11 b3 a5 12 ±b2 e5 13 Ifel
Ie8 = Sherwin-Plaskett, London 2000.
c) 7...±d6 8tre2#c7(8...£>e7 9e5±c710
0-0 ±) 9 £tf3 dxe4 10 #xe4 £>f6 11 #h4 ±a6!
12 c4!? (an exchange of the light-squared
bishops would solve Black's opening problems, so
this is a logical attempt to strive for more; 12
±xa6 #a5+ 13 ±d2 #xa6 =; 12 ±h6 Wa5+\
and now 13 c3 ±f8 = or 13 ±d2 #b6 =)
12...Id8 (12...£>d5 13 0-0 £rf4 14 ±xf4 ±xf4
15 ladl Id8 16 Ifel ±) 13 ±g5 (13 0-0?!
±xh2+ 14 £>xh2 Ixd3 15 ±h6 gxh6 16 #xf6
Ig8 17 b3 co) I3...»a5+ (13...±b4+!? 14 <4>e2
±e7) 14 <4>e2 ±e5 (14...±e7 15 Ihdl h6 16 b3
0-0 17 ±d2 {Zubarev-Komarov, Donetsk Z
1998} and now Komarov gives 17...^6! 18
±e3 Wa5 = as best, intending ...£>d5) 15 ±d2
#c7 16 labl £>d7 (16...c5!? 17 ±e3 ±b7 18
£>xe5 Wxq5 19 #g3! ^d7! <*> Krivoshei) 17

4 &sgf3 and Other 4th Move Alternatives
79
Lg5 ±f6 18 ±xf6 £>xf6 19 %3 #xg3 20 hxg3
£>g4 21 £>el £>e5 22 b3 c5 = Ponomariov-
Krivoshei, Kiev 1997.
6...±d7 (D)
7£>xc6
Capturing with the bishop is worse: 7 Jtxc6
bxc6 8 c4 ±d6 9 Wei £>e7 10 e5 ±c7 11 0-0
0-0 followed by ...^g6 and ...f6 with a good
position for Black, Mithrakanth-Dolmatov,
Calcutta 1999.
7...±xc6
7...bxc6 8 Jtd3 gains a tempo on White's
bishop but compared to the immediate 6 ^hxc6,
Black's bishop is now worse placed on d7 than it
would be on c8 where a timely ... Jta6 could
favourably attempt to exchange the light-squared
bishops. 8...Wc7 9 Wei ±d6 10 Etf3 dxe4
(10...^e7 has been recommended but White
will castle and play c4 with the better position)
11 Wxq4 £rf6 12 #h4 and now 12...Ib8?! 13
0-0 £>d5 14 Bel was clearly better for White in
Yudasin-Gulko, Biel IZ 1993. The immediate
12...&d5 is better but 13 a3 still favours White.
8 ±xc6+ bxc6 9 c4 (D)
White's only attempt at an advantage is
quick dynamics. If Black can freely play ...^f6
on his next move, and follow up with ...Jte7
and ...0-0, he faces no problems. After the text-
move, this is more problematic, as White can
step up the pressure on Black's centre by Wa4.
9...#a5
A recent idea with the main priority of
avoiding Wa4 ideas; in other lines that would be
disturbing:
a) 9...dxe4?! 10 Wsl4 (10 £>xe4 #xdl+ 11
^xdl is also promising; e.g., 11...2d8+ can be
met by 12 <4>c2!? Id4 13 lei Ixc4+ 14 <4>d3
Ib4 15 ±e3 ± or 12 <4>e2 Id4 13 *f3!?)
10..J?b6 11 £>xe4 #b4+ 12 #xb4 ±xb4+ 13
<4>e2 £>f6 14 £>xf6+ gxf6 15 ±e3 with a
pleasant endgame for White, Kuijf-Lautier, Lyons Z
1990.
b) 9...£>f6?! 10 Wa4 Wdl 11 e5 and now:
bl) ll...E>g4 12 £>f3 h5 (12...±c5 13 0-0
0-0 14 h3 £>xf2 15 Ixf2 f6 16 Af4 Wcl 17
Wcl ± Kengis-Votava, Prague 1993) 13 0-0
Ib8 14 a3 k.el 15 b4 Ib7 16 Af4 £>h6 17
±xh6 lxh6 18 c5 ± Ma.Tseitlin-Vaganian,
USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1971.
bl) ll...£>g8 12 0-0 £>e7 13 £>f3 £>c8 (or
13...C5 14 Wcl £>c6 15 Idl d4 16 We4 ±
Arizmendi-Karpov, Manises rpd 2001) 14 Jte3
Ib8 15 Well ±e7 16 lacl 0-0 17 b3 f5 18
cxd5 cxd5 19 Wc7 Wxcl 20 Ixc7 ±d8 21 Ic6
Se8 22 Sfcl ± Todorovic-Bjelajac, Yugoslav
Cht(Becici) 1993.
c) 9...Jtc5!? (D) is the most interesting
alternative.
Black is prepared to have his pawn-structure
slightly weakened, favouring instead rapid
development. Now Black can cover c6 with his
knight from e7.
cl) 10 cxd5 cxd5 (10...exd5 11 Wcl #b6
12 0-0 £>e7 13^b3 ±d6 14 lei Wcl 15 h3 0-0
16 exd5 £>xd5 17 ±d2 ±) 11 #a4+ Wdl 12
#xd7+ <4>xd7 13 exd5 exd5 14 £>b3 Ie8+ 15
<4>dl ±xf2(15...±b6 16±d2£>e7 17lcl Ic8
18 <4>e2 She8 V2-V2 Godena-Komarov, Jesolo
1999) 16 Ifl ±b6 17 Ixf7+ <4>e6!? 18 Ixg7

80
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
&f6 19 ±h6 Ihg8 20 Icl £>g4 21 Ic6+ 4>e5
22 Ixh7 £>xh6 23 Ihxh6 Ixg2 24 Ih5+ 4>f4
25 Ixd5 Ixb2 26 £>d2 Ixa2 27 Ic4+ 4>e3 28
Ic3+ 4>f4 29 Ic4+ *e3 30 Hc3+ 4>f4 V2-V2
Godena-Luther, Nova Gorica 2000.
c2) 10 Ka4 £>e7 11 exd5 exd5 12 £>b3
Jtb6 13 c5! (fixing c6 as a target) 13... Jtc7 14
0-0 0-0 (Psakhis suggests 14...h6 15 lfg4
Jle5, so that White cannot attack the knight,
but it doesn't alter the assessment and, for
example, 16 lei #c7 17 !fe2 Af6 18 ±e3 0-0
19 ±d4 ±xd4 20 £>xd4 Ife8 21 #a6 still
looks in White's favour) 15 ±g5 f6 16 Af4
±e5 (16...Ie8 17 ±xc7 #xc7 18 £>d4 Iac8
19 lael ± Wells-N.Pert, Hastings 2001/2) 17
Sael Wcl 18 JLcl! (this strong retreat gives
Black substantial problems; instead 18 Jtd2
±xh2+! 19 *h 1 Ae5 20 f4 £>f 5! 21 If3 ±xb2
22 flbl Jle5 was less clear in Ma.Tseitlin-
Psakhis, Israeli Ch 2000; Black will have three
pawns for the piece and White's king position
is vulnerable) 18...g5 (18...*fd7 19 f4 ±c7 20
£>d4 ±; 18...Axh2+ 19 <4>hl £>f5 20 g4 £>e7
21 £>d4 or 21 <4>g2 is very good for White) 19
g3 mi 20 ±xg5 (20 f4!?) 20...±xb2 21 ±e3
£>f5? (better is 21...Iae8) 22 %4+ 4h8 23
Jtd4! JLa3 24 Jtal with a decisive attack for
White, Ma.Tseitlin-A.Rabinovich, Israeli open
Ch (Tel Aviv) 2001.
10 exd5
10 #b3 Id8 11 mi #b6 12 #xb6 axb6 13
cxd5 cxd5 14 exd5 Ixd5 15 £>b3 £>f6 16 ±e3
£>d7 17 4>e2 ±d6 18 Shdl Ixdl 19 Ixdl 4>e7
20 £>d4 Ic8 = Ma.Tseitlin-Nisman, Ramat-
Aviv 2003.
10...cxd5 11 cxd5 #xd5 12 #a4+ Wd7 13
#xd7+ 4>xd7 14 £k4 £>f6 15 4>e2 (D)
White has hopes of some advantage in the
endgame due to a two vs one majority on the
queenside and a potentially better bishop.
15...£>d5!
15.,.Ad6?! 16 Idl £>d5 17 £>e3 £>xe3
(17...£>b61?) 18 ±xe3 *e7 19 Sd3 Shb8 (it is
quite important that Black cannot defend his
bishop with something like 19...Ihc8 20 ladl
Ic6, since he ends up in an eternal pin after 21
Ixd6 Ixd6 22 ±c5 Sad8 23 f4 and will at
some point get into zugzwang) 20 b3 Jtb4 21
a3 ±a5 22 Icl Ib7 23 Ic4 ± Godena-Bellia,
Milan 2002.
16 £>e3
White must remove the dominant knight.
16...±c5 17 £>xd5 exd5
The change in structure is in fact only to
Black's advantage, as he is now sufficiently
active to hold the endgame without any major
difficulties, Borgo-Bellia, Milan 2002.
C2)
5...£>f6 (D)
6exd5
White has two alternatives but they both ease
Black's opening play:
a) 6 ±b5+ ±d7 7 Axd7+ £>bxd7 8 exd5
£>xd5 9 0-0 ±e7 10 c4 £>5f6 11 b3 0-0 12 ib2
a6 13 !fe2 lfc7 14lacl Iad8 15 Ifdl £>c5 16
£\fl Hfe8 = Chiburdanidze-Nogueiras, Biel
1988.

4 ZhgfS and Other 4th Move Alternatives
81
w
uw® pn
HVS IP 4 Hf 4
mm w% I up «
^1 %u*&jm mm
J'^""ii"A"iii
ABAB BAI
B Hi
l&H
w
HAS S * H *
PAH
"/'""; im^
m m> mm
b) 6 e5 £\fd7 and now:
bl) 7 f4? £>xe5 8 £>xe6 ±xe6 9 fxe5 £>c6
10 £>f3 ±c5 (10...£>xe5! also works) 11 ±d3
f6!? 12 exf6 #xf6 13 lfe2 0-0 + Rozentalis-
Leer Salvesen, Gausdal 2001.
b2) 7 ±b5 #c7 8 #h5? (8 £>2f3 or 8 f4 is
better) 8...g6 9 lfe2 ^c6 10 £>2f3 kgl 11 Af4
0-0 12 £>xc6 bxc6 13 ±d3 2b8 14 b3 Ib4 15
Ag3 Jta6! with comfortable play for Black,
Tkachev-Kaidanov, New York 1995.
b3) 7 £>2f3 £>c6 and then:
b31) 8 £>xc6 bxc6 9 ±d3 ±a6! 10 0-0 ±xd3
11 #xd3 ±e7 = Svidler-Dreev, Rostov 1993.
b32) 8 Af4 #b6 9 Ibl h6 10 h4 (this is not
essential; maybe 10 c3 would be better) 10...a6
11 c3 lfc7 12 £>xc6 bxc6 13 ±d3 a5 14 0-0
±a6 15 ±xa6 Ixa6 16 c4 ±c5 = Todorovic-
Dimitrov, Vrnjacka Banja 1996.
b33) 8 ±b5 #b6! 9 c3 ±c5 is fine for Black
according to analysis by Watson.
6...£>xd5
6...®xd5 (D) also comes into consideration:
a) 7 £>2f3 and now:
al) 7...a6 8 ±d3 e5 (risky; 8...£>c6 is more
solid and yields Black approximately equal
play) 9 !fe2 ±b4+!? (9...e4 10 ±c4 #a5+ 11
c3 ±g4 12 !fe3 intending £>d2 ±) 10 c3 0-0 11
Jtc4!? #d8 (according to S.Ivanov, this is
more accurate than ll...#d6, which can be
met by 12 £>b3! b5 13 Axf7+ Ixf7 14 cxb4
#xb4+ 15 ±d2 ±) 12 £>xe5 #xd4 13 0-0 (13
Jtd2! is stronger; S.Ivanov's conclusion that
13...i.xc3 14 ±xc3 #c5 15 0-0 ^c6 is equal
is wrong in view of 16 £\xf7!) 13...Jtxc3 14
bxc3 (S.Ivanov gives 14 £\xf7'!' as a better try
for an advantage, but after 14...Jtb4 15 Hdl
#b6 16 £>d6+ 4>h8 17 lfe7 £>bd7 White
probably has to force a draw with 18 4?xf8+ £>xf8
19 £tf7+ <4>g8 20 £>h6++, etc.) 14...Wc5 15
#e3 #xe3 16 ±xe3 £>bd7 17 f4 £>e4! with
sufficient counterplay, Ma.Tseitlin-S.Ivanov,
St Petersburg 1997.
a2) 7...£>c6 8 £>b5 (8 £>xc6 #xc6 is also
equal) 8...±b4+! 9 c3 #xdl+ 10 <4>xdl ±a5 =
Yudasin-S.Ivanov, St Petersburg 1997.
b) 7 £>b5 £>a6 8 ±e2!? (8 £>c4 #xdl+ 9
<4>xdl ±c5 10 f3 0-0 11 c3 ±d7 12 a4 £>d5 =
McShane-Kindermann, Bundesliga 2000/1; 8
c4 #d8 9 ±e2 £>c5 10 0-0 a6 11 £>c3 £>d3 12
£>de4 £>xcl 13 Ixcl ±d7 14 Af3 £>xe4 15
£>xe4 Jtc6 = Hamelink-De Jong, Dieren 2004)
8...Wxg2 9 Af3 #g5 10 a4 (D) and now:
/A ^ &k
w, mm mm
W, h W% W§ Wm
f-%, o 1%j f-% ^m
m. al^ i
ini
bl) 10...We5+ 11 *fl (11 #e2? #xe2+ 12
4>xe2±e7 13^c4 0-0?) Il...^d5 (ll...±d7?
12 £>c4 ±xb5 13 axb5 #xb5 14 #e2 ^c7 15

82
The French: Tarrasch Variation
UaS Wd7 16 ±xbl Hb8? 17 £)e5 +- S.Ivanov)
12 *hc4 1Tj8 13 ±g5?! (13 Axd5 exd5 14
Wxd5 &e6 15 £>bd6+ ±xd6 16 £ixd6+ *ffi 17
Wd4 +) 13...h6?! (13...A.C5 »; 13..JU7?! 14
Axd5 exd5 15 Wxd5 &e6 16 £>bd6+ ±xd6 17
£sxd6+*f8 18Wd4±) 14.fiM«f4 15£)cd6+!
±xd6 16 ±g3 WC4+ 17 Ae2 #06 18 £>xd6+
*f8 19 Hgl ± Emelin-S.Ivanov, St Petersburg
1994.
b2) 10...Wh4 11 Hgl!? ±c5 12 lfe2 0-0 13
b3 (13 £>b3 &e7 14 ±g5 ») 13...£sb4 14 £>c4
a6 15 A.g5 lrxh2 16 Hhl Axf2+ (better is
16...!rxf2+ 17 Wxf2 Axf2+ 18 *xf2 axb5,
when White should force a draw with 19 JLxf6
gxf6 20 Iagl+ 4>h8 21 £lb6 Ia6 22 Hh4
followed by Hghl) 17 <4>fl! 1^3 18 Axf6 gxf6,
EmeUn-S.Ivanov, Russia 1996, and now Emelin
points to 19 £ic7! when 19...Wxc7 20 Wxf2
gives White a strong attack.
7 £)2f3 (D)
V/yX///, "~" ////////. '"" '////////.""'"'' ///AS///, '"''"X
7...±e7
This is a solid move. Or:
a) 7...a6!? 8 ±d3 ±d6 9 0-0 #c7 is Dol-
matov's suggestion of a slightly more
aggressive set-up but has curiously not been tested; 10
#e2 intending 10...0-0 11 #e4 &f6 12 #h4
might be an idea for White.
b) 7...AM+ 8 ±d2 ±xd2+ (8...±c5!?) 9
#xd2 0-0 and now:
bl) 10 ±c4 b6?! (10...£>b6 11 ±e2 Wf6 is
better according to Kengis) 11 0-0-0 JLb7 12
Ihel #c8 (12...Wf6 13 £>e5 Wf4 14 ±xd5
#xd2+ 15 Ixd2 ±xd5 16 £>f5 ± Kengis) 13
±xd5 ±xd5 14 £tf5 ± Kengis-Glek, Bonn 1993.
b2) 10 c4 £>b6 11 0-0-0 #f6 12 We3 ±d7 13
£>e5 Ic8 14 <4>bl ±e8 15 ±e2 £>8d7 16 £>df3
#e7 = Zagrebelny-Villamayor, Doha 2003.
8±d3
This seems White's most promising line; he
will follow up with kicking the knight away
from d5 with c4, and then simply developing
the dark-squared bishop with JLf4, for
example. White may have hopes of a slight
advantage in such a set-up because his minor pieces
are actively placed. Other moves:
a) 8 ±c4 0-0 9 0-0 Af6 10 c3 £>c6 11 lei
£>xd4 12 £>xd4 #b6 13 &f3 £>e7! 14 £>g5
£>g6 15 Wh5 ±xg5 16 #xg5 e5 intending
...Jte6 was approximately equal in Kramnik-
Illescas, Dos Hermanas 1996.
b) 8 c3 0-0 9 ±d3 ±f6 (9...£>d7 might be
better) 10 0-0 e5 11 4tf5 £>c6 12 lei £>de7,
Kuporosov-Volodin, Moscow 2000, and now
13 £\d6! is strong.
c) 8 g3!? (D) is White's most interesting
alternative idea.
The bishop is well placed on g2, where it
will exert pressure on the diagonal combined
with a c4 advance. Then:
cl) 8...£\f6 is slightly tricky and may be
best met by 9 c3. In H.Hunt-Zatonskikh, Halle
worn Ech 2000 Black soon became very active:
9 Wq2 (9 k,gl can be met by 9...e5!, because 10
£>xe5? fails to 10...Wa5+) 9...0-0 10 k,gl e5!
11 £>b3 (11 #xe5 ±b4+ 12 *f 1 looks at least
very risky; for example, 12...£\c6!) Il...£\c6 12
0-0 ±d6 13 ±e3 #e7 14 c4 ±g4 15 h3 ±h5 16
g4 ±g6 oo.

4 ?hgf3 and Other 4th Move Alternatives
83
c2) 8...0-0 9 Ag2 b5!? 10 0-0 (10 £>xb5
#a5+ 11 £>d2 ±b7 12 0-0 #xb5 13 c4 #d7 14
cxd5 Jtxd5 also leads to equality) 10...a6 11
«e2 Af6 12 Idl #b6 13 a4 b4 14 a5 #c5 15
A.g5 Ia7 16 Axf6 £>xf6 17 £>b3 #e7 18 £>e5
ib7 19 ±xb7 Ixb7 20 Hd4 Ic8 = Kengis-
Gulko, Riga 1995.
8...0-0
8...£fo4 should solve Black's problems: 9
±e4 f5 10 ±d3 e5 11 ±b5+ *f8 12 ^b3
Wxdl+ 13 <4xdl a6 looks fine for Black.
9 0-0 (D)
9...±f6
This has been somewhat criticized because
Black neglects development but it is not clear
that 9...£>d7 is any stronger. 10 c4 £>5f6 11 Af4
looked slightly more pleasant for White in
Spasov-Dreev, Moscow OL 1994, which
continued ll...£>h5 (11...&C5 12 ±c2 #b6 13
#e2 ±) 12 ±e3 g6 (12...£>hf6!? with the idea of
...Wc7 should be considered, and leaves White
only slightly better, according to Spasov) 13
Sel a6 14 Scl Se8 (Dolmatov also looks at the
more aggressive 14...e5 15 £>e2 f5 but
concludes that White has excellent play for a pawn
after 16 c5 e4 17 ±c4+ <4?g7 18 ±d4+ £>hf6?!
{18...<i>h6! is an interesting idea} 19 £>g5 £>xc5
20 £tf4) 15 JkSl Af8 16 a3 b6 17 b4 ±b7 18
^b3 £>hf6 19 ±d4 a5?! (19...Ah6!? 20 Ic2
e5! is suggested by Dolmatov, with good coun-
terplay) 20 c5 bxc5 21 bxc5 a4 22 £>bd2 Ac6
23 £>e5 £>xe5 24 ±xe5 £>d7 25 ±d6 ±xd6?!
(25...Ic8!?) 26 cxd6 ±d5 27 £>e4 and White
was better.
10 c4 (D)
10...£lb4
10...^e7!? is untested but may be an idea.
Black's pawn-structure is slightly compromised
after 11 ±g5 ±xg5 12 £>xg5 £>f5 13 £>xf5 exf5
but he has no problems completing
development, and thus doesn't look much worse.
11 ±e4 #e7 12 a3 £>4c6 13 £>xc6 £>xc6 14
#c2 g6 15 ±e3 Id8
Gulko suggests 15...a5 16 Sfdl e5 but 17
Sd5! is good for White. The rook is well placed
on the 5th rank; it may be positioned on b5 and
the other rook can come to the d-file.
16 ladl Ixdl 17 Ixdl
White was better in A.Ivanov-Gulko, USA
Ch (Modesto) 1995 which continued 17...a5?
(Black wants to prevent White from expanding
with b4 but this move only weakens his own
queenside; stronger is 17...e5 18 b4 Ag4) 18 c5
a4 19 Id6 ±d7 20 h4! £ia5 21 ±g5! ±xg5 22
hxg5 ±c6 23 ±xc6 £>xc6 24 #d2 e5 25 £>h2!
+.

7 3...^f6 Main Line: 110-0
Ie4e62d4d53^d2^f64e5^fd7 5±d3c5
6 c3 £>c6 7 £>e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 £>xf610
£tf3 ±d6 11 0-0 (D)
This massive chapter deals with this position,
which is of fundamental importance to Tarrasch
theory. Deviations up to here and other major
lines of the 3...£tf6 complex are dealt with in
Chapters 8-10. An essential strategic concept of
this whole system involves White trying to force
through an exchange of the dark-squared
bishops with the aim of enhancing his control of the
e5-square. If White obtains undisputed control
of e5, Black will often have particularly
awkward problems with his backward e-pawn and
bad light-squared bishop.
We shall go through three main lines, the
first of which (11.. .0-0) accepts White
exchanging the dark-squared bishops with 12 JLf4 but
Black will try to compensate for his positional
difficulties by counterplay on the f-file and an
attack against the d4-pawn. Black's two other
choices try to prevent the exchange of bishops
in the first place. The exchange is something
Black can hardly avoid altogether if White is
very persistent but there are ways to make it
less attractive. Both ll...Wb6 and ll..J?c7
usually lead to more positional play.
A: 11...0-0
B: 11...HJ6
C: ll~tfc7
84
93
103
I should mention that there is nothing
tactically wrong with Black's immediate attempt to
free himself by 1 l...e5 but White can force
favourable exchanges and has a large advantage
after something like 12 dxe5 ^ixe5 13 £>xe5
Axe5 14 Af4 Axf4 15 lfa4+ &dl 16 lfxf4 0-0
17#d4.
A)
11...0-0 (D)
w
„ MX
HP AS
12AJ4
This is what White really wants. It can only
be said again that an exchange of the dark-
squared bishops often leads to long-term
pressure on Black's position. We look only very
briefly at other moves:
a) 12^ic3 and now:
al) l2...Wb6-ll...Wb612foc3 0-0.
a2) 12...a613i.g5(13flel«c7-77...«c7
12 Zhc3 a6 13 Zel 0-0) 13...«e8 (13...Wc7 -
U..Mc712 (hc3 a6 13 ±.g5 0-0) 14 #d2 £>h5
15 M4 ±d7 16 Ag3 £«g3 17 hxg3 Wh5 18

J...&/K MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
85
i.e2 Wg6 19 ladl Wf6 20 #e3 ±b8 21 ±d3
ia7 22 Jtbl Sae8 = Barua-Temirbaev, Alma-
Ata 1995.
a3) 12...e5! 13 dxe5 £>xe5 14^xe5 Axe5 is
fine for Black. White should even take a little
care and play 15 h3, for a move like 15 #c2?
loses thematically to 15...Jtxh2+! 16 <4xh2
•5>g4+17<4g3h5! 18lhllxf219lfxf2^xf2
20 <4xf2 #f6+ 21 <4g3 Af5.
b) 12 ±g5±d7(12...#e8 13 Af4! is a
surprising switchback, but the queen may in fact
be worse placed on e8: 13... Jtxf4 14 £M4 £te4
15 Wcl Adl 16 Wq3 £>b4, Rozentalis-Hergott,
Montreal 1995, and now Rozentalis suggests
17 £>e5 £>xd3 18 £>fxd3 ±b5 19 Ifel with an
edge for White) 13 ±h4 ±e8 (D) and then:
bl) 14 ±xh7+?! <4xh7 15 £>g5+ <4g8 16
£>xe6 ±xh2+! 17 *hl (17 *xh2 £>g4+ 18
*g3®d6+ 19£>2f4£>f6!+) 17...We7 18£>xf8
Ad6 19 £>g3 #xf8 20 £>f5 ±g6 21 £>xd6 #xd6
+ Brady-Comas Fabrego, Escaldes Z 1998.
b2) 14 £>g5 Wd7 15 ±g3 ±h5 16 ±xd6
"#xd6 ¥ Brady-Illescas, Escaldes Z 1998.
b3) 14 Wbl h6 (14...*b6!? is messy but
worth a look; Black simply sacrifices his h-
pawn but is very active) 15 Jtg6 Jtxg6 16
Wxg6 #e8 17 #xe8 Iaxe8 18 ±g3 £>e4 19
±xd6 £>xd6 20 Ifdl £>e4 21 £>g3 £>xg3 22
hxg3 Sc8 with an equal position, T.Horvath-
Kindermann, Bundesliga 1995/6. White has
done most things right strategically but Black
has managed to exchange the light-squared
bishops. It has also become clear that White's
d-pawn is often as weak as Black's e-pawn, and
here there is certainly enough counterplay for
Black.
c) 12 Sel is clever according to Emms,
who thinks that Black should transpose to a
...■ttb6 or ...Wcl system. His main point is that
12.. Jtd7 13 Jtf4 favours White, which may be
right but the advantage isn't big; for example:
13...Axf4 14 £>xf4 £>e4 15 £>h3! (15 ±xe4?!
Ixf4 16 ±c2 #b6 17 #d3 g6 18 ladl Iaf8
with counterplay) 15...e5 16 Jtxe4 dxe4 17
£>xe5 £>xe5 18 dxe5 ixh3 19 #b3+ <&>h8 20
#xh3 #d4 21 Ie2 #xe5 22 #e3 and White is
definitely pushing but it still demands a
certain amount of technique to win the position.
We now return to the position after 12 Jtf4
12...±xf4
This is Black's most common move by far.
Although it is a positional concession, Black
hopes to exploit White's temporary instability
on the f-file. Lesser alternatives:
a) 12...&h5 13Axd6Wxd614Wd2Ad7 15
#e3 Iae8 16 g3 £>b4 17 a3 £>xd3 18 Wxd3 ±
Knaak.
b) 12...Wc7 13Axd6Wxd6 14£>g3±d7 15
lei Wf4 16 Wcl Wxcl 17 laxcl and White is
better, Kholmov-Kislov, Warsaw 1989.
c) 12...£>xd4?! 13 ±xh7+! *xh7 14 #xd4
±xf4 15£>xf4±.
13 £>xf4 £>e4
Or:
a) 13..J?b6 - ll...Wb6 12 $Lf4 ±xf4 13
?hxf4 0-0.
b) 13...Wd6 14g3andnow:

86
The French: Tarrasch Variation
bl) 14...e5 15 dxe5 £>xe5 16 £>xe5 #xe5 17
#b3 ±d7 18 Ifel #d6 19 ladl with a slight
advantage for White, Timman-Kuijf, Dutch Ch
(Hilversum) 1987.
b2) 14...WM 15 Ibl ±d7 16 lei Iae8 17
±c2 #b6 18 b4 a6 19 h4 g6 20 a3 4>g7 21 Wd2
£>xd4 (this idea has been in the air for several
moves but White preserves a slight edge) 22
#xd4 #xd4 23 £>xd4 e5 24 £>fe6+ ±xe6 25
Ixe5 ±h3 26 Ixe8 Ixe8 27 f3 Ie3 28 Ib3
Iel+ 29 4>f2 If 1+ 30 4>e3 Iel+ 31 4>f2 If 1+
32 4>e3 Iel+ 33 4>d2 Igl 34 g4 and White is
slightly better in the endgame, Vokarev-Volkov,
St Petersburg 2000.
c) 13...£>g4!? (D) opens the f-file like in the
main line. An advantage over the main line is
that it supports ...e5 but on the other hand it
lacks ...£>g5 ideas. Now:
cl) 14 g3 g5 (14...Wf6 15 h4! ±) 15 £>g2
Wf6 16 ±e2 £>h6 17 #d2 £>f5 18 ladl h6!
(better than 18...g4 19 £>e5 £>cxd4 20 £>xg4
Wgl 21 f4 ± Renet-Hertneck, Altensteig 1987)
19 £>e3 a6!? (avoiding 19...±d7?! 20 £>xf5
exf5 21 ±b5! followed by ±xc6 and £>e5) 20
#c3 (I like Seferian's suggestion 20 h4!? gxh4
21 £>xf5 exf5 22 Wf4! hxg3 23 fxg3 intending
<4>g2, Ihl and playing for an attack) 20...1rg7
21 £>xf5 Ixf5 22 #e3 ±d7 = Godena-Illescas,
EscaldesZ1998.
c2) 14 #d2! #d6 15 g3 ±d7 (15...e5 16
dxe5 £>gxe5 17 £>xe5 £>xe5 18 ±e4 d4 is not
clear either) and here:
c21) 16Ifel Iae8 17 Afl (17ladl!?might
preserve a very slight edge) 17...£rf6 18 Jtd3
£>g4 19 Afl £>f6 20 ±d3 £>g4 V2-V2 Brynell-
E.Berg, Swedish Ch (Linkoping) 2001.
c22) 16 £>g5! g6 17 ±e2 ^h6 18 ±b5! ±
Medvegy-Rudolf, Hungarian worn Ch 2003.
c3) 14 £>e2 Wd6! 15 h3 (15 £>g3?! e5 16
dxe5 £>gxe5 17 £>xe5 £>xe5 and now instead of
18 #b3?! ±e6 19 ladl If7! 20 ±e2 d4 21
#c2 Id8 ? Brynell-Gleizerov, Stockholm 1996,
Gleizerov gives 18 #d2 = as White's best)
15...£>f6! (15...Ixf3 16 hxg4 ±) 16 ±b5 (White
aims for a positional plus but it is interesting
that Black seems just in time to create enough
counterplay) 16...±d7 17 ±xc6 ±xc6 18 #b3
£>e4 19 ladl a6 20 Ifel If6 21 #e3 Iaf8 22
£>c3 If4 23 Ic 1 h6 24 Ie2 Ixf3! 25 gxf3 £>g5
+ Ponomariov-Vysochin, Swidnica rpd 1998.
We return to 13...GteA(D):
Now we have:
Al: 14 g3!? 86
A2: 14#cl 88
A3: 14£ih5 90
A4: 14£ie2 92
Al)
14 g3!?
Obviously, White would like to keep his
knight on f4. The text-move sensibly defends
the knight but it also weakens the kingside.
14...1T6
A more straightforward way to dislodge the
knight from f4 is 14...g5 but this is also far
riskier for Black: 15 £>h5 e5! 16 £>xe5 (16 ±xe4
dxe4 17 #b3+ <4>h8 18 £>xe5 #e8 19 g4 £>xe5

3..&J6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
87
20 dxe5 #xe5 21 lael Ie8 22 £>g3 might also
zive White an edge) 16...£>xd4 17 #a4!? (17
:"??! is worse, since 17...Wb6! 18 fxe4 ±h3
-*ith the idea 19 Ixf8+? Ixf8 20 <4>hl Hf2
rives Black a very strong attack) 17...Wb6 (D)
n\d now:
a) 18ladl?!£>xf2!19lxf2£>e2+20 4>hl
#xf2 21 #c2 2f7! (a major improvement over
21...£>xg3+ 22 £>xg3 #xc2 23 ±xc2 ± Stig-
kin-Basin, St Petersburg 1992) 22 #xe2 (22
Axh7+ *f8 23 #g6 ±h3 24 #xf7+ #xf7 25
£>xf7 4>xf7 +) 22...Ah3 23 #xf2 Ixf2 with a
strong initiative to Black, Anka-Jakab,
Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 2000.
b) 18 Jtxe4! (in line 4a' above we saw a
good reason for removing this knight
immediately) 18...dxe4 19 ladl £>f3+ 20 £>xf3 exf3
21 Ifel! (21 #c4+ #e6 22 Id5 h6 23 Icl
#f7 24 Id6 #xc4 25 Ixc4 ±h3 26 Ig6+ *f 7
27 If6+ 4>g8 =) 21...Af5 22 #c4+ If7, Dabe-
tic-Stamenkovic, Yugoslav Cht (Cetinje) 1991,
and now 23 Id5! #c6 24 #xc6 bxc6 25 Ic5
*f8 26 h3!? is better for White.
Another idea we need to take into account is
14...^g5, which removes the vulnerable knight
from e4 and intends to exchange it for the more
important white knight on f3. However, Black
is positionally worse after 15 ^e5 ^xe5 16
dxe5, and White even has a view to a promising
kingside attack. Thus Black has tried a typical
exchange sacrifice with 16...Sxf4 17 gxf4 £tfi3+
18 4ft 1 ^xf4 but here it is too slow. A good
example is Barkhagen-M.Jorgensen,
Copenhagen 1999: 19 Igl ±d7 20 Hg4 Wf8 21 Wf3
£>xd3 22 #xd3 ±c6 (22...Wxf2? 23 Ifl +-)
23 4>gl Wf7 24 Idl If8 25 Wg3 ±.
15 h4 (D)
15...h6
The immediate 15...g5!? should also be taken
into account. Then Black isn't doing badly after
16 hxg5 £>xg5 17 £>xg5 #xg5 18 £>e2 If3!.
White should play 16 ±xe4! gxf4 17 Jtc2 fxg3
18 fxg3 Wgl 19 4>h2 ±d7 20 #d2 ± Kr.Geor-
giev-Arencibia, Varna 1987.
16 ±xe4
This looks like a better attempt to play for an
advantage than 16 £>e5 £>xd4 17 £>g4 WdS 18
±xe4 dxe4 19 £>xh6+ <4>h7 20 #h5 #e8 21
£tf7+ 4^8 which led to a draw by perpetual
check in Godena-Gleizerov, Cattolica 1994,
after 22 £>g6 £>f3+ 23 <4>g2 <4>xf7 24 £>xf8+
4>xf8 25 #h8+ 4>f7 26 #h5+ 4>f8 27 #h8+
4>f7 28 #h5+ *f8.
16...dxe4 17 £>e5 Id8 18 £>xc6 bxc6 (D)

88
The French: Tarrasch Variation
19#a4!?
Like the alternative, 19 #c2, this attacks c6
but has the additional advantage of preventing
...Jta6, which otherwise is a key element of
Black's play. For example, after 19 #c2 g5 20
hxg5 (20 £>g2 ±a6 followed by ...JLd3 is fine
for Black) 20...hxg5 21 £>e2 Wf3 22 ^c3 ±a6
23 Sfel Ad3 the bishop has taken up a powerful
place on d3 and greatly assists in the attack. In
Sivokho-Apicella, Paris 1996 Black had strong
counterplay after 24 #d2 4>f7! (24...Wf5 25
#e3! If8 26 ladl g4 27 Id2 #g6 28 £>xe4
If3 29 #xf3 gxf3 30 Ixd3 ±) 25 Ie3 #h5 26
£3 Ixd4.
19..J?xd4
Better than 19...g5 20£>g2! Hb8 21 b3 Ixd4
(2L..#xd4!?) 22 #xa7 Ib7 23 #a8 Id8 24
lac 1 Ig7 25 h5 ±b7 26 #a5 Ia8 27 Wd2 Wf3
28 #d6! and White held the advantage in Rub-
levsky-Komarov, Yugoslav Cht playoff (Vrn-
jacka Banja) 1999.
20 #xc6 ±d7 21 #c2 e3 22 ladl exf2+ 23
Wxf 2 Wxf 2+ 24 Ixf 2 e5
The endgame is equal, Baron-Gonzalez Men-
endez, Spanish jr Ch (Seville) 1999.
A2)
14 Wcl (D)
This has several ideas in common with 14
g3!?, viz.: to defend the f4-knight and to kick
Black's knight away from e4 (with, for
example, Bel). Furthermore, White adds the
possibility of playing #e3 to his dark-squared
strategy, and avoids the weakening of his king-
side.
14...£ig5
In the 14 g3!? line White had the strong 15
^e5 as a reply to this but here Black can simply
take on d4. Fortunately, White has other
interesting ideas.
Another option for Black is 14.. J?f6 15 £>e2
e5 (15...±d7 16 #e3 is good for White, who is
taking control over the dark squares) 16 dxe5
£>xe5 17 £>xe5 (17 ±xe4 dxe4 18 £>xe5 #xe5
19 #c3 also gives White a safe edge) 17...Wxe5
18 f3 £>f6 19 #c3 ± Ivanchuk-Ruzele, USSR jr
Cht (Kramatorsk) 1989.
15ftxg5Wxg516&e2
A very important option here is 16 Jbth7+!?
i>xh7 17 ^xe6, which forces an unclear,
probably dynamically equal, endgame where White
has rook and two pawns against bishop and
knight. 17...#f5! (this seems more accurate than
ll...Wxcl 18 £>xf8+ *g8 19 laxcl <4>xf8 20
Sfdl, where White can count on a larger plus
than in the main line) 18 £>xf8+ #xf8 19 Wg5
(D) and now Black has an important choice:
a) 19...±f5 20lfelld8 211e3ld6 22lf?
Sf6. This position has been reached a number of
times. The assessment is difficult to make but it
is clear that White holds any advantage that there
is. White aims to exchange Black's minor pieces
and then hopes that he will make progress with
three pawns against one on the kingside. In m>
opinion White's next move is important:
al) 23 Sel is the most common but
perhaps not best because White must now keep an

3..&J6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
89
eye on his d-pawn. Emms-Vareille, Paris 1994
continued 23...<4?g8! 24 Hg3 (24 If4 ^d8!?)
24... Jte4! with counterplay because 25 f3? can
be met by 25.. .&xd4! with the idea of 26 fxe4?
^e2+ -+.
a2) 23 Sdl is better, I think. The rook is not
doing much on the e-file anyway, and now the
d-pawn is firmly protected. White's idea is to
advance slowly on the kingside with h3 and g4
but making sure that he will be able to put a
pawn on f 3, thus restricting Black's bishop. The
endgame needs further investigation but much
depends on whether Black has enough
counterplay after 23...#f7 24 h3 £>b4, intending to
force weaknesses on the queenside.
b) 19..J?f5!?(T>)andnow:
BeS £>g6! 28 Ixd5 Ae6 29 Ib5! (29 Id6? <4e7
-+) 29...£tf4 30 d5 (30 Ixb7 Ih3+ 31 *f2 Ad5
gives Black plenty of counterplay) 30...2h3+ 31
<4f2 Axd5 32 Idxd5 £>xd5 33 Ixd5 Ixh2+ 34
<4g3 Sxb2 with an equal endgame.
16...Wf5 (D)
Generally White would be happy with an
exchange of queens after 16...#xcl 17 Saxcl
but White's advantage is minimal after 17...a6!
(17...Ad7 18 Ab5! Iac8 19 Axc6 Ixc6 20
Sxc6 Jtxc6 21 Sel allowed a thematic
exchange of Black's knight, with a slight
advantage for White to follow in Wahls-Hertneck,
Bundesliga 1993/4); e.g., 18 a3 Ad7 19 f4
Sac8 20 g3 £>a7 followed by exchanges on the
c-file, Korneev-Moskalenko, Salou 2000.
W
wm,3L\
w/, — vMb
v//, v/J/z/A
^ 'Wffif"""Wifc WB
A W& HI Iff hWik
P?J WB, WB, W W%,
w
bl) 20 #h4+ <4g8 21 lael ±d7 22 He3
2e8 (22...If8!?) 23 Ixe8+ ±xe8 24 h3 #d3
25 lei AH 26 #g4, Dvoirys-Gleizerov, St
Petersburg Z 1993, and now Black should seek
counterplay by 26..J?d2!? 27 Ie2 #dl+ 28
*h2 #xd4 29 #xd4 £>xd4 30 Ie7 b5 31 Ixa7
•S^e2, with an unclear ending.
b2) 20 #xf5+ Jtxf5 is another interesting
endgame. I believe White would be better if a
pair of rooks were traded but here Black might
obtain counterplay. The game Berelovich-Vol-
kov, Minsk 1998 is instructive: 21 Ifel <4g6 22
f3 (22 ladl should be met by 22...Ih8!,
intending ...Sh4 with counterplay, and if 23 g3 then
23.. Jte4! 24 Ie3 If8 to stop White from
playing f3) 22...*f6 (22...£>xd4? 23 ladl £>c2 24
2e2 followed by g4 is good for White) 23 Sadl
g5 24 g4 Ad7! 25 *f2 2h8 26 <4g3 £>e7! 27
17#e3
White hopes to stop ...e5 but this isn't easy.
Another attempt to do that is 17 #c5, which
deserves more attention. A key game is Zarnicki-
Rodi, Mar del Plata 2000, where after 17...Ad7
18 Ab5!? Iac8 19 #d6, 19...If7 20 ladl a6
21 Jtxc6 Jtxc6 22 £>c3 allowed White a clear
positional plus. 19...Sfd8 20 Jtxc6 looks
critical but again Black is likely to end up with an
inferior bishop against White's knight:
a) 20...Axc6 21 #b4 If8 22 lael b6
intends ... Jtd7 or .. Jte8 with counterplay because
White must also watch out for his d-pawn.
b) 20...Ixc6 21 #b4 b6 and again Black
might have just enough counterplay.
JL / • • • C J • •
Or 17...Ad7 18 Ab5!? (18 f4 £>b4 should be
fine for Black) and now:

90
The French: Tarrasch Variation
a) 18...Iac8 19 ±xc6 Ixc6 20 Ifcl Ifc8
21 Ixc6 Sxc6 22 £\c3 Ic4 23 Idl h6 24 h3
a6 25 2d2 and White was better in Dautov-
R.Bagirov, Istanbul OL 2000.
b) 18...£\b8 19 ±xd7 £ixd7 20 lacl £\b6
21 b3 Iac8 22 Ifel <4>h8 23 g3 g5 24 *g2 ±
Berelovich-Volkov, St Petersburg 1999.
18 dxe5 £\xe5 (D)
W
mtk9 W ill
19£>d4
Or:
a) 19 lad 1 £ic4! 20 ±xc4 dxc4 21 £ic3
JLg4 22 f3 JLf5 should be approximately equal
according to Emms.
b) 19b3!?.£,d7 20ladlIae8 2lWd2±g4
22 f3 ±d7 23 ±bl ±c6 24 £>d4 ± Kinder-
mann-Steflitsch, Austrian Cht 2002.
19...£>g4 20Wd2±d7
20...We5 21 g3 Wh5 22 f3 £>e5 23 f4 was
better for White in Fossan-Djurhuus,
Norwegian Ch (Kristiansund) 1992.
21 ±e2 £>e5 22 iadl ±c6 23 b3 Iad8 24
f3
± Dvoirys-Sumaneev, Russian Ch (Elista)
1995.
A3)
14 £>h5 (D)
If White doesn't want to keep his knight on
f4, which would require a somewhat unnatural
protection by 14 Wcl (Line A2) or a slightly
weakening assistance with 14 g3 (Line Al),
this knight move is a lot safer than 14 £\e2
(Line A4) because it doesn't allow an exchange
sacrifice on f3. As with 14 £ie2, the knight can
go to g3, but it doesn't lend further support to
d4, so Black can attempt to exploit this by
attacking the d-pawn.
14...Wb6
In my opinion this simply equalizes. The
main alternative, 14...g6 (14..Ag5 15 £\e5! is
good for White) 15 ^g3, is also solid though.
Then:
a) 15...^g5?! 16 £\xg5 (16 £\e5 £ixd4 17
Wg4 &f5 18 h4 Wf6 oo) 16...Wxg5 17 ±b5 £\e7
18 Wcl Wf6 19 We3 ± Zarnicki-Tibensky,
Erevan OL 1996.
b) 15...£>xg3 16 hxg3 Wb6 17 Wa4! a6 (or
17...Wxb2 18 labl Wc3 19 ±b5 lxf3 20 ifcl
Ixg3 21 Ixc3 Ixc3 22 Wdl ±) is critical.
White can then continue:
bl) 18 Iadl ±dl 19 Wa3 £ixd4 20 £>xd4
Wxd4 21 ±xg6 Wf5 22 Abl ±b5 23 Ad3,
Spasov-Ulybin, Tunja jr Wch 1989, and now
Ulybin and Lysenko give 23... JLc6 24 f4 Hae8 =.
b2) 18lfcl±d7 19Wb3!?Wa7(19...Wxb3
20 axb3 Iac8 21 Ic3 <A>g7 22 lacl h6,
planning ...g5, should be fine for Black) 20 Wc3
Iac8 21 JLf 1 ± A.Ibragimov-Volkov,
Ekaterinburg 1997.
b3) 18 labl Ad7 19 k€l (D) and then:
b31) 19...£>e5 20 Wdl £ixf3+ 21 gxf3 (or
21 ±xf3 Iac8 22 b3 Hc3 with counterplay)
21...Ab5 22 lei ±xe2 23 Wxe2 If6 24 Sbdl
Iaf8 25 Id3 g5 26 <A>g2 Wc7 27 Wd2 h6 held
for Black in Marciano-Apicella, French Ch
(Vichy) 2000, although Black is slightly under
pressure.

3..&J6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
91
b32) 19...e5 20dxe5^e5 2lWa3(2lWdl
£>xf3+ 22 £xf3 d4 23 ±d5+ ±e6 24 ±xe6+
#xe6 25 #xd4 #xa2 = Rublevsky) 21...Iae8
22 Bbdl £\g4 and now:
b321) 23 £\d4?! Ixe2 (23...Ie4!?) 24 £\xe2
±b5! 25 #b3 Ixf2 26 #xd5+ *g7 27 Wd4+
"#xd4 28 Ixd4 Ixe2 29 Ixg4 Ixb2 30 If2
2bl+ 31 <A>h2 2el = Rublevsky-Ulybin,
Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998.
b322) 23 2d2! £\f6 24 £\d4 ±g4 25 Af3 ±
Rublevsky-Volkov, Russian Ch (St Petersburg)
1998.
15 ±xe4
The principled continuation. Instead 15 £\g3
£}xg3 16 hxg3 is similar to the previous note
but Black might not have to play ...g6 then.
A.N.Panchenko-Bareev, Sochi 1987 was messy:
16...Wxb2 17 2bl #xa2 (17...Wa3! Bareev) 18
£>g5! h6 19 £\h7 2f5! 20 £xf5 (20 g4 2f4 21
g5 #a3! and White's attack is parried
according to Bareev) 20...exf5 21 £tf6+ gxf6 22 2el
*g7 23 2e8 b6 242cl kbl 25 2e6! 2f8! (this
is the safest; 25...2c8 26 #h5 #a3 27 2cel
2f8 28 #xf5 with a dangerous attack) 26 #h5
2f7 27 #xf5 Wd2! 28 2cxc6 ±xc6 29 2xc6
#xd4 30 2e6! a5 V2-V2. Bareev believes White
has counterplay with 31 Be8.
15...dxe4 16 £\e5 £\xe5 17 dxe5 (D)
17...e3!
Black could easily end up with a positionally
inferior game. The text-move seeks to exchange
the pawn that Black has little chance of keeping
anyway. 17...1rxb2 18 !U6! is very good for
White according to Bareev. Black can hardly
count on maintaining his e4-pawn and has
great difficulties with the development of his
bishop.
18 Vg4
18 «fe2? exf2+ 19 2xf2 ±d7 would be very
good for Black. White must attempt to exploit
the fact that Black isn't fully developed yet.
18...exf2+ 19 *hl #c7 20 Vg3 2f5 21
£«+ *h8 22 £\e8!? #xe5 23 Wxe5 2xe5 (D)
W
This occurred in S.Pedersen-Hjelmas, Oslo
1992.1 had hoped that I could still exploit the
fact that Black has no time to bring his bishop
into play, but Black has just enough time for
counterplay: 24 Ixf2 <4>g8 25 lafl If5 26
Ixf5 exf5 27 £\c7 Bb8 28 Idl *f7 29 Bd8
(Black is awkwardly pinned on the back rank,
but I didn't find anything convincing) 29...b5
30 £\d5 a5 31 *gl b4 32 *f2 Bb5! 33 £ic7
Ic5 34 Ixc8 Ic2+ 35 *f3 Ixb2 36 Bb8 Ixa2
37 ^d5 g5 and Black had sufficient
counterplay.

92
The French: Tarrasch Variation
A4)
14 £>e2 (D)
This adds further protection to the d4-pawn
and prepares to remove the knight from e4,
either by £\g3 or by simply eliminating it with
Jtxe4. The only problem is the following
exchange sacrifice that has persuaded many white
players to go for one of the alternative lines.
14...Ixf3
The exchange sacrifice is clearly Black's
most promising continuation. White's kingside
is seriously weakened, and Black can soon
open a line for his bishop with ...e5. Instead
14...?}g5 leads to a positionally inferior game
after 15 £>e5 £>xe5 16 dxe5 Wb6 17 Wd2 £>f7
18 Wc3 ±d7 19 lael - V.Ivanov.
15 gxf3 £>g5 (D)
16<A>hl
This is the first critical point. The f-pawn is
indirectly defended, because 16...^xf3 can be
met by 17 Jtxh7+. The alternative is 16 f4!?,
which leads to very complicated play but
actually looks good for White:
a) 16...£>h3+ 17 <A>hl Wh4 18 Wd2! (18
Wei £>xf4 19 £>xf4 Wxf4 20 We3 Wxd4 21
Wxd4 £>xd4 22 f4 ±d7 = Radulov-Gleizerov,
Khalkidhiki 1993) and now:
al) 18...£>xf2+ 19 <A>g2 £>xd3 (19...£>g4?
20 h3 ± Gleizerov) 20 Wxd3 ±d7 21 h3!?
±e8?! (21...If8 22 <A>h2 ±e8 23 We3 ± Kom-
arov) 22 f5! e5 23 dxe5 £>xe5 24 Wd4 Wg5+ 25
£>g3 £>c6 26 Wf4 Wf6 27 lael! ± Komarov-
Barsov, Reims 1994.
a2) 18...±d7 19We3Sf8(19...£>b4 20±bl
If8 21 a3 £>c6 22 Wg3 Wh6 23 f5 ±) 20 ±b5
(20 Wg3!?) 20...£>xf4 21 £>xf4 Ixf4 22 ±xc6
bxc6 23 Sadl was better for White in Nijboer-
Knaak, Wijk aan Zee 1988.
b) 16...£>f3+ 17 <A>g2 and then:
bl) 17...£>h4+ 18 *hl e5 (18...Etf3 19
±xh7+! <A>h8 20 Wd3 ±) 19 dxe5 ±g4 20 f3
£>xf3 21 ±xh7+ <A>h8 (21...*xh7 22 Wd3+ g6
23 Sxf3 ±xf3+ 24 Wxf3 +-) 22 Wd3 ^b4 23
Wb3 £>d2 24 Wxb4 £>xf 1 25 Sxf 1 ±xe2 26
If2 ±a6 27 ±f5 +- Oral-Schnepp, 2nd Bun-
desliga 1998/9.
b2) 17...Wh4 18 <A>xf3 Wh3+ 19 £>g3 e5
(D) and now:
b21) 20 f5?! and here:
b211) 20...£>xd4+ 21 <A>e3 Wh6+ 22 f4 Wb6?
(22...±d7!?) 23 fxe5 ±xf5 24 £>xf5 £>xf5+ 25
<A>f3 Sf8 26 ±xf5 Sxf5+ 27 <A>g2 +-.

3..&J6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0 93
b212) 20...e4+! 21 ±xe4 dxe4+ 22 <4>xe4
Axf5+ 23 &xf5 He8+ 24 *f4 Wg2 25 £ig3
5ib4 261^3+ £d5+ 27 <4>g4 <4>h8 28 Had Hf8
29 h4 (29 f4 «M6+ 30 *g5 h6+ 31 *f5 Wh3+
32 *e5 He8+ 33 *d6 Wd7+ 34 <4>c5 Hc8+ 35
4>b4 £id5+ -+) 29...Hf4+ 30 *h5 Hf5+ 31
A>g4 g6 32 Ie8+ *g7 33 Wxb7+ Hf7 34
#xf7+ *xf7 + Novotny-Nilsson, corr. 1991.
b22) 20 <4>e3 exf4+ 21 <4>d2 fxg3 22 hxg3
th6+ 23 f4 £>xd4?! (23...Wf6!? 24 Wa4 ±d7
25 Hael Hc8 26 ±b5 a5! gave Black some
counterplay in Antonov-Balinov, Djuni 1987)
24 Hhl Wb6 and now 25 ±xh7+ *f8 26 *cl
(26 b3? g6 27 g4 Wc7 28 <4>d3 £xg4! -+
Riha-Svoboda, corr. 1997) 26...Wc6+! is a
draw (27 ±c2? ±f5; 27 *bl?! g6; 27 <4>d2
#b6 repeats). Therefore White should prefer
25 icl!, with some advantage.
16...e5 17 dxe5 £ixe5!?
This is logical but gives White a chance to
defend his f-pawn. In compensation for the
exchange, Black has active pieces and hopes to
place his bishop actively on c6 with a later
... Jtd7-c6. The other attempt is 17...£\xf3, and
then there are two options for White:
a) 18 &gl £tfxe5 19 ±c2 d4 20 Ae4 ±e6
21 He 1 Wh4 22 f3 Hd8 « Rublevsky-Gleizerov,
USSR 1991.
b) 18 ±xh7+ <4>h8 19 &gl £icd4 (19...±g4
20 ±f5! ±xf5 21 &xf3 ±e4 22 *gl ±) 20
±d3! ±g4 21 Wcl &xgl 22 Wf4! was very
good for White in Szuk-Peters, Budapest 2000.
" 18 &gl Wf6 19 ±e2 (D)
m
w niA
nm, nm.
& m
y///M
#, wm mm
AB BAB A
19...±e6?! 20 Wd4 with the idea of 21 f4
was good for White in Antunes-de la Villa,
Seville 1989. The text-move sacrifices the d-pawn
but hopes to place the bishop actively on c6.
20 Wxd5+
In Emms-L.B.Hansen, Gausdal 1992 White
played too passively with 20 #d2?! £\e6 21
Hfel ±c6 22 ±fl £tf4 23 Hadl?, and now
23...£\xf3! 24 &xf3 d4 is winning for Black.
20...*h8 21 Hfdl
21 Had ±c6 22 Hxc6 bxc6 (22...&xc6!?)
23 Wd4 £ie6 24 We4 £tf4 gave Black some
compensation due to her strong dark-square
control in Varavin-Ovchinikova, Omsk/Perm
1998, but an untried idea is 21 Jtb5!?, which
simply aims to exchange Black's most
powerful minor piece. Black might get the f-pawn but
will greatly miss his light-squared bishop.
21...±c6 22 Wd6 £ie6 23 Had He8 24 Hc3
h6
Black has good compensation, since White's
pieces are tied to defending f3, Lhagvasuren-
Maksimenko, Cheliabinsk 1990.
B)
ll...Wb6 (D)
W
m »^tg
19...±d7
This position arises frequently from the
move-order 8...Wb6 9 £hf3 f6 10 exf6 ^xf6 11
0-0 k,d6. If Black wants to play the system with
...#b6, then that move-order gives White fewer
ways to deviate; for example, Black avoids
8...f6 9*hf4.
Now:

94
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Bl: 12±f4!?
B2: 12£>f4
B3: 12£>c3
B4: 12 b3
94
96
97
101
Of the lesser alternatives, some are worth
mentioning:
a) 12 Bel (this often transposes elsewhere)
12...0-0 13 £>g3 (13 £>c3 -12 *hc3 0-013 ReT,
13 Etf4 - 12 E>/4 0-0 73 S*7) 13...*h8 (Uhl-
mann's recommendation, which gains an
important tempo because d4 is now attacked) 14
JLc2 JLd7 = Avdic-Pettinger, Halle jrWch 1995.
b) 12 a3 0-0 13 b4?! (this looks like a very
risky plan; 13 £>c3 ±dl 14 ±c3 - 12 £hc3 0-0
13 ±e3 Ld7 14 a3) 13...e5 14 dxe5 (Watson
mentions 14 #b3 as trickier but apart from
14...JLg4!? 15 dxe5 £}xe5 =, he also gives
14...*h8 15 dxe5 £>xe5 16 £>xe5 ±xe5 17
±b2 ±xh2+ 18 <A>xh2 £>g4+ 19 <A>gl #h6 20
±xg7+ <A>xg7 21 #c3+ <A>g8 22 Wcl ±dl with
an attack; even 22...<4)h8!? looks interesting,
and gave Black a nice win in Steingrimsson-
L.Johannessen, Gausdal 1995) 14...^xe5 15
?}xe5 (15 ?}ed4 a5!? might be promising for
Black, with the idea of 16 b5?! JLg4 17 JLe3
JLc5 with strong pressure) 15...JLxe5 16 2a2
£>g4! 17 £>g3 ±d4 18 £fol (something has
clearly gone wrong for White) 18.. JLd7 19 h3
^e5 20 ±e2 £c3! 21 #b3 Iac8 22 Ic2 ±e6!
23 JLd2 d4 + Govedarica-Uhlmann, Vrbas
1977.
c) 12 ±d2 0-0 (12...Wxb2? 13 fibl #xa2 14
£>cl #a3 15 Ib3 ±xh2+ 16 £>xh2 Vd6 17
?}e2 ±) 13 JLc3 (this manoeuvre places the
bishop with limited scope but increases White's
control over e5) 13...±d7 14 £>g3 Af4 15 £>e5
JLe8 16 ^hl (16 £>xc6 is maybe better but
Black should have few problems) 16...^xe5 17
dxe5 thdl 18 Sell? (a speculative sacrifice of
the f-pawn, but 18 ±d4 Wcl 19 Wg4 £>xe5 20
±xc5 ±xe5 21 #xe6+ ±fl 22 Wh3 g6 is better
for Black according to Shaked) 18...1rxf2 19
fifl #b6 20 ±d4 #b4 21 £>f5! ±g5 22 £c3
#c5 23 Wg4!? (23 ±d4 #b4 24 Ac3 just
repeats, but White goes for more) 23...exf5 24
Axf5 d4 25 ±xd4 «fe7 26 £c3 with
compensation, Rublevsky-Shaked, Groningen FIDE
KO 1997.
Bl)
12 ±f4!? (D)
HUM
#§1 ^
111 a H K Hi *
LA
Just as Black thought he had prevented this
because of the attack against b2...
12...±xf4 13 £>xf4 #xb2
This must be the critical test of 12 JLf4!?,
although Black has more often chosen 13...0-0,
after which 14 ffd2 (D) (14 b3!? - 12 b3 0-0 13
±f4 Jkjf414 ?hxf4 is probably best) gives Black
a choice between:
a) 14...g6 15£>e2±d7 16a3lae8 17 Wg5!?
£>e4 18 Wg4 £>f6 19 #h4 e5 20 dxe5 £>xe5
(20...£rti5!?, threatening to sacrifice the
exchange on f3, is more ambitious and maybe
even good for Black) 21 £>xe5 Ixe5 22 #d4
Af5! (improving over 22...#xd4 23 £>xd4 ±, as
played in Ivanchuk-Brenninkmeijer, Arnhem jr
Ech 1987/8) 23 #xb6 (23 #xe5 ±xd3 24 ladl

3..&J6 Main Line: 11 0-0
95
JLc4 25 £>f4 jbtf 1 26 *xf 1 might be a better
try for an advantage) 23...axb6 24 Jtb5 (24 £>f4
^h5 25 ±xf5 £>xf4 26 ±d7 «) 24...±d7! =
Gavrilov-Seferian, USSR 1991.
b) 14...Wb4!? 15 Wxb4 £>xb4 16 ±e2 Adl
17 £>e5 fiae8 18 fife 1 £>c6 seems to give Black
reasonable chances of holding.
c) 14...*h8!? 15 £>g5!? £>xd4 16 ±xh7 (16
Sfel <A>g8! 17 ladl h6 18 £>gh3 e5 19 Ixe5
lxh3 20 £>xh3 Wd6 =) 16...£>xh7 17 £>g6+
4g8 18 £>e7+ *h8 19 £>g6+ *g8 is a draw
i Hellers) since 20 £>xh7 Ie8 21 £>g5 e5 is
good for Black.
We now return to 13...Wxb2 (D):
14 £>g5!?
Or:
a) 14 Ibl Wxa2 and now 15 £>g5 0-0 just
transposes to the main line, but 15 £te5 0-0 16
■?}h5!? is possible. Then Watson suggests that
Black should defend with 16...h6, when he
says "White's compensation for the two pawns
isn't obvious". The critical line is probably
something like 17 £>xf6+ Ixf6 18 Wh5 Wa3!
(18...£>xe5 19 dxe5 If7 20 Wg6 <A>f8 21 Whl
±) 19 £>g4 (19 £>xc6 bxc6 20 We8+ If8 21
*xc6 Wxd3 22 Wxa8 Wxd4 23 Wc6 is unclear)
19...Wxd3 20 £>xf6+ gxf6 21 Ifdl Wf5 22
*e8+ <A>h7 23 Wf 7+ <A>h8 24 Wf 8+ =.
b) 14 lei 0-0 and then:
bl) 15 fie3!? (a tricky move; not only does
White have thoughts of bringing the rook to
the kingside but Jtf5 followed by fib3 is also
in the air) 15...£>g4 (15...Wb6 16 £>xe6 ±xe6
17 Ixe6 fiae8 18 Ixe8 Ixe8 19 fibl Wa5 20
Wb3 Ie7 21 Ic 1 Sc7 22 Ic2 ± Nadyrkhano v)
16 fie2 Wc3 (Black must be careful: 16...Wb6
17 ?}xe6 Jtxe6 18 fixe6 is now a much better
version for White than the direct 15 ?^xe6,
because White threatens Jtxh7+ followed by
?}g5+, picking up the loose knight on g4, or
even mating) 17 Icl (17 £>xe6?! ±xe6 18
Ixe6 2xf3! 19 gxf3 £>xd4 ? Watson) 17...Wa3
18 g3 might be some compensation but is not
all that convincing.
b2) 15 2e2 Wb6 16 fibl Wc7 (16...Wa5 17
Wc2 is slightly better for White) 17 £>xe6
±xe6 18fixe6fiae8 19 Wei £>d8 (19...Wf7=)
20 fixe8 fixe8 21 ^e5 £>e6 22 ±b5 fie7 23
ficl Wd8 24 We3 ± Miralles-J.L.Roos, French
Cht(Montpellier)2001.
b3) 15 £>xe6 ±xe6 16 fixe6 fiae8 17 fixe8
fixe8 has been seen in several games and is fine
for Black.
14...0-0 (D)
15 fibl
15 £>fxe6 ±xe6 16 £>xe6 fif7 17 ±f5 fie7!?
(17...g6 might also be playable; e.g., 18 Wd3
^b4 19 We3 gxf5 20 fifbl Wc2 21 fixb4 fie8
should be fine for Black) 18 Wd3 Wb4 19 fiabl
Wd6 20 £>g5 g6 21 ±h3 fiae8 with a
comfortable position for Black in Emms-Kinsman,
British League (4NCL) 1999/00.
15...Wxa2 16 £>gxe6
White has a repetition in 16 fial Wb2 17
fibl Wa2, since 17...Wa3 18 Wc2 is dangerous
for Black. Another attacking idea for White is
16 £tfi5?!, but this has proved very
unconvincing in view of 16...h6! 17 £>xf6+ fixf6 18 £>h7

96
The French: Tarrasch Variation
If7 (18...If5!? might be even stronger) 19
Jtg6 Se7 and White's attack soon fades away.
16...±xe6 17 £>xe6 If 7 18 £4
White went on to win in Winckelmann-
Maiworm, corr. 1986 by advancing his f- and
g-pawns. Indeed, White has compensation but
the position needs more detailed analysis
before establishing a more concrete assessment.
Watson suggests 18...£ie4 or 18...Wa3,
intending ...Wd6 and ...a5.
B2)
12£>f4
In the 1950s and up to the 1970s, this was
considered a critical line against the ...Wb6
system but it is now mainly seen in
correspondence play, where it remains a topic of
discussion. Often the move-order is 12 fiel 0-0 13
£rf4, though.
12...0-0 13 Sel (D)
13...1,d7
Black voluntarily gives up the e-pawn in
order to complete development. However, if White
insists on keeping the pawn he has to engage in
some very critical tactics.
Some other moves might also be worth
another look:
a) 13...£>e4?! 14 g3 and now:
al) U..Axf4 15 Axf4 #xb2 16 Se2 #a3
(Rossolimo-Schmid, Dubrovnik OL 1950) 17
jbce4 dxe4 18 Sxe4 ± Uhlmann.
a2) 14...g5 15 JLxe4! gxf4 16 JLxh7+ <A>xh7
17 ^g5+ <4g8 18 #h5 Wcl 19 £ixe6 ±xe6 20
Sxe6 £>e7 21 Sh6 Sad8 22 Sh8+ <A>g7 23
Sh7+ <A>f6 24 ±d2 #c2 25 Sel! +-.
b) 13.. JSe8 is generally dismissed because
of 14 £>g5 (D), when White's minor pieces
begin amassing menacingly around Black's king,
but it might not be all that clear:
bl) 14...«fxd4!? 15 £)h5 (15 Axh7+ ^xh7
16 #h5 &xg5 17 #xe8+ Af8 18 &g6 ^h7 <*>)
15...£xh2+ (15...Se7 16 ±e3 Wxb2 17 Sbl
Wa3 18 £>xf6+ gxf6 19 £>xh7 Ixh7 20 Axh7+
*xh7 21 #h5+ <A>g8 22 Sb3 Wa5 23 We8+
JLf8 24 Sdl +-) 16 *f 1 ±d6 17 £>xf6+ gxf6
18£>xh7<A>f7!?oo.
b2) 14...g6!? 15 £ixh7 £ixh7 16 Axg6 (16
Wg4 £>f8 17 ^xg6 #xd4 18 ^f4+ Wg7 and
Black defends) 16...Se7 17 #h5 Wb4! (not
17...£tf6?! 18 #g5 #xd4 19 Af5+ *f8 20
&g6+ <A>f7 21 ±e3 #xb2 22 flebl #c3 23 Sel
Wb2 24 Sabl #xa2 25 £>h8+ 4>e8 26 Ag6+
<4>d7 27 #xf6 and White keeps his attack
going) 18 Sdl £tf8 19 a3 Wb6 and I don't see
anything convincing for White.
The above is far from a clear evaluation of
13...Se8 but the position is so little investigated
and so complicated that there is plenty of room
for ideas and new analysis.
14 £>xe6
Critical. Also possible is 14 Jte3!?, and then:
a) 14...Sae8 15^e5(15Scl#xb2!16Sbl
Wxa2 17 Sxb7 Jtc8 + Kr.Georgiev-I.Farago,
Prague 1985) 15...#c7 16£\xd7#xd7 17 ^h5
Wf7 (17...e5!? - Watson) 18 £>xf6+ Wxf6 19
Wh5 g6 20 Wg4 e5 = Hurley-Carton, Ireland
1992.

3...£hf6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
97
b) 14...#xb2 15lbl#xa2 16lxb7lab8!
-16...£*4 17 ±xh7+! <A>xh7 18 £>g5+ <A>g8 19
^h5 gave White a strong attack in Smith-
MacDonald, corr. 1996; 16...£>d8!? 17 Ibl
with compensation) 17 Ixb8 Ixb8 18 £>g5
lxf4! 19±xf4lb2+.
14...Ife8 15 ±f5 (D)
Due to the attack against d4 Black has no
problems if White retreats the knight.
15...±b4!?
Black should tread carefully in this position
but with accurate play he should be alright. The
text-move is ambitious but 'b' below could also
be considered:
a) 15...Ie7? 16 ±g5 Iae8 17 £>xg7! Ixg7
(17...<A>xg7 18 ±xf6+ <A>xf6 19 ±xdl +-) 18
±xd7 Ixel+ 19 Wxel £>xd7 20 #e6+ <A>h8 21
±h6 Ig6 22 Wxdl Ixh6 23 Bel with a
decisive attack for White, J.Fries Nielsen-E.Berg,
Stockholm 1998.
b) I5...^a5!?16±g5±xe617±xe6+Ixe6
18 Ixe6 ±xh2+ 19 £>xh2 (19 <A>xh2 #xe6 20
A.xf6 #xf6 21 #e2 £>c6 22 lei If8 23 #e6+
#xe6 24 Ixe6 <A>f7 25 Id6 Id8 =) 19...#xe6
20 ±xf6 #xf6 21 £>g4 Wf4 = Kaliwoda-Lund-
qvist, corr. 1956.
16±d2
16 Ie3 £>a5 17 a3 JLf8 is supposed to be
safe enough for Black.
16...±xd2 17 #xd2 £>e7! (D)
This is the critical position of this line. White
has many pieces pointing in the direction of
Black's king but his e6-knight is loose and a
constant worry.
18 £>xg7!?
This is dangerous, but Black seems to have
no real worries if he defends correctly. 18 JLh3
£>e4 19 Ixe4 dxe4 20 £>fg5 £>g6 (20...h6!? 21
£>xg7 ±xh3 22 £>xe8 Af5 23 £>xe4 Ixe8 24
£>g3 JLd7 ?) 21 d5 £>f8 was roughly equal in
Kahn-Kliesch, corr. 1981.
18...<A>xg7
18...£>xf5!? 19 £>xe8 ±xe8 20 Wf4 ±g6 21
g4!? £>g7 22 Ie7 If 8 23 £>e5!? was
complicated in Rusak-Romano, corr. 1999.
19 Wg5+ £>g6 20 ±xd7 £>xd7 21 h4 h6 22
#xd5 £>f6 23 Wf5 Iad8 24 h5 £>f8
Lundin-Carlsson, corr. 1978 and others. The
position is considered roughly equal; Watson
suggests it might even be slightly better for
Black. I tend to think that White should be able
to hold the balance somehow but admit there is
a danger of Black taking over if he can activate
his knights.
B3)
12£>c3
This used to be White's most common
preference but has now slightly declined in
popularity.
12...0-0 (D)
An alternative is 12...JLd7, which usually
transposes to the main line if Black castles
afterwards. After 13 a3, Black can try to take the
d-pawn: 13...£>xd4 14 £>xd4 #xd4 15 £>b5
#e5 and now 16 f4! 3x5+ 17 <A>hl Wb8 18 b4
looked promising for White in Ye Jiangchuan-
Holzke, Groningen 1996.

98
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
now the straightforward 19...Ixf3! 20 gxf3 Wei
21 bxc6 #h4 gives Black a winning attack.
b2) 13...*h8 14 £>a4 #c7 (14...Wa5!?) 15
Bel Wf7! 16 Bel (16±h4#h5 17±g3±xg3
18 fxg3 was Wells-N.Pert, British Ch (Torquay)
2002 when, in spite of his worsened structure,
White may actually be a little better because
Black has difficulties developing his c8-bishop)
16...Wh5 17 h3 £>xd4 18 £>xd4 Wxg5 19 £>xe6
JLxe6 20 Bxe6 Bad8 = Emms.
b3) 13...*xb2!? 14 £>b5 (White can draw
immediately with 14 £>a4 Wb4 15 ±d2 Wa3 16
ixl Wb4 17 ±d2 but that is all) 14...£ie4 15 a3
Bxf3 (I don't see a clear refutation of 15.. JLb8
bl) 13...±d7 14 a3 (if 14 Icl, 14...*xb2 c2) 14...^g4 15 ±h4 (we see a major draw-
seems to work fine for Black) 14...*h8 (14...JLe8 back of 13 lei in the line 15 h3? £>xf2 16
15 Well ±fl 16 £>b5 ±bS 17 ladl a6 18 £>c3 *xf2 £>xd4 17 ±e3 Wxb2+ +) and now there is
JLd6 19 b4 gave White an advantage in Timof- a choice between:
eev-Sultangareev, Rybinsk 2001) 15 £>a4 (now c21) 15...£>h6 16 ±g3 ±e7!? (16...3.xg3
if 15 JLc2, Black has time to reposition his 17 hxg3 If6 18 £>a4 Wcl 19 Icl was very
bishop: 15...±e8! 16 We2 ±h5 17 #xe6 Axf3 good for White in Van der Wiel-Short, Biel IZ
18 #xd6 #xb2! and the tactics clearly fa- playoff 1985, while the exchange sacrifice
voured Black in Litinskaya-Kristol, worn corr. 16...Ixf3 17 #xf3 £>xd4 18 Wdl ±xg3 19
Wch 1978) 15...Wc7 16 Icl ±eS (16...±f4 17 hxg3 If8 looks at best unconvincing) 17 £>a4
Axf4 WxfA 18 ±b5 ±) 17 b4 ±h5! 18 b5 £>e4 Wsl5 18 ±c2! (this wisely avoids something
19 Ae3, Leko-Arkhipov, Nettetal 1991, and like 18 a3?! Ixf3! 19 gxf3 £>xd4) 18...£rf5

3..&J6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
99
i things don't look clear after the stronger move
18...Iac8!; for example, 19 £>c3 Wb6) 19 a3
£lxg3 20 hxg3 Wc7 21 Icl ± Nijboer-Farago,
Dieren 1988.
c22) 15...*h8!? 16 ±xh7 Wxb2! (Van der
Wiel suggested 16...£>xh2 17 £>g5 Wxd4 18
#h5 Wg4 but later Knaak rightly pointed out
that this is in fact horrible for Black after 19
JLg6+ Wxh5 20 JLxh5 in view of the
imprisoned knight) 17 Icl *xh7! (17...£f4? 18 Ic2
"*a3 19 ±g6 ± Geller-Ulybin, Sochi 1989) 18
5ig5+ *g8 19 Wxg4 Af4 20 Wh5 ±xg5 21
#xg5 £>xd4 co.
c3) 14...*h8 15 ^e5 (15 £>a4 Wa5 16 a3
^ixd4 17 £>xd4 Wxa4 18 Wxa4 ±xa4 19 £>xe6
Ife8 is equal, Timoshenko-Matlak, Gdynia
1989) 15...±e8 16 £>xc6 Wxc6 17 We2 and
now Black should play 17...Wb6! with
reasonable counterplay, rather than 17...h6?! (Gip-
slis-Holzke, Senden 1999), when 18 ±b5! is
very good for White.
We now return to 13 JLe3 (D):
13...±d7
Or:
a) 13...Wxb2? is a type of move that would
often be too risky in view of either ?}b5 or ?}a4.
Here, as Karpov points out, Black is lost after
14 &Sb5 JLe7? (14...^e4 is a superior defence,
but White is still better after 15 £>g5!) 15 Ibl
Wxa2 16 lal Wb2 17 Ia4. This is the biggest
difference from 13 JLg5 instead of 13 Jte3,
when ...Wxb2 actually looks playable. White
could of course avoid this altogether with the
move-order 13 a3 kd714 Le3, or 14 M,g5, but
sometimes White would like to spare the move
a3.
b) 13...Wd8 14±g5!?±d7 15lelWb8 16
±h4 a6 17 Icl b5 18 ±b\ ±f4 19 ±g3 gave
White a strategically clearly preferable position
in Karpov-Hort, Budapest 1973.
14 a3
White's dream set-up is something like ?}e5
and f4, with a promising kingside attack.
Another idea consists of playing Icl and ?}a4-c5.
Here, the immediate 14 £te5 has often been met
by 14...±xe5 15 dxe5 Wxb2 16 exf6 Wxc3 17
fxg7 Wxgl with approximately equal chances,
as seen in several games. This type of position
is examined in more detail in note 'b' to White's
15th move (14 a3 ±e8 15 £>e5).
White can also play:
a) 14 Icl ±e8 15 £>a4 (15 £>g5 £>e7 is
similar to our main line but 15...^b4!,
attacking the bishop and taking advantage of White
leaving out a3, is even better) 15...Wc7 16 ?^c5
We7 was fine for Black in A.Muller-Wiley,
Cannes 1999.
b) 14 lei *h8 (D) and now:
bl) 15lcl±e8 16^a4itt8 17^c5±xc5
18 Ixc5 ±h5 19 ±e2 £>e4 20 Icl Axf3 21
Jtxf3 Wh4 = Campora-Kindermann, Thessa-
loniki OL 1988.
b2) 15 ?}e5?! is premature according to Tal,
as after 15... JLe8 White's best is 16 £>xc6, with
no more than equality. In Tal-Wiedenkeller,
Trud-Rockaden ECC 1986, great
complications followed 16 £>a4?! Wa5!? 17 ±d2 Wc7
18 Icl ±h5 19 f3 £>d7 20 £>xd7 ±xh2+?

100
The French: Tarrasch Variation
(much safer is 20...#xd7 with comfortable play
for Black) 21 4>hl and now 21...±g3 22 Ie5!
left White with a winning position. Tal gave
21 ...ffg3 22 &xf8 &xd4, continuing his line 23
Jte2(?) Sxf8 with compensation. However, 23
&xh7! £>xf3 24 He5!! is a clear win, as Black
has trouble with his back rank and the loose
bishop on h5: 24...* xe5 25 £}g5! +-, 24...Ag4
25 ±el +- or 24...£ke5 25 Wxh5 +-.
b3) 15 a3 ±e8 16 ^g5 ±h5 17 Wbl &xd4!
(D).
This surprising self-pin isn't easy to refute:
b31) 18 &xe6 ±xh2+ 19 4>xh2 £}g4+ 20
4>gl tfd6! +.
b32) 18^a4±xh2+andnow:
b321) 19<A>xh2£}g4+20<A>glffd6 21g3is
given as unclear by Ree but in fact looks very
good for Black after the simple 21...£tf3+.
b322) 19 4>hl ffd6! 20 ±xd4 tff4 also gives
Black a dangerous attack; e.g., 21 Ac5 #xg5
22 4>xh2 Wh4+ 23 <4>gl £}g4 -+, or 21 ±e3
ffh4 22 £fo3 ±d6 +.
b33) 18 h3 e5 19 ±xh7 e4 (Van der Wiel-
Ree, Dutch Ch (Hilversum) 1985) 20 Af5 ±c5
and now Ree gives 21 £te4 ffc6 22 &xc5 £kf5
oo. A possible continuation is 23 £fce6 £ke3
(23...Hfe8?! 24 Bel ±) 24 fxe3 Hfe8 25 £tf4
He5 26 h4 ffe8. However, 21 b4 is worth
looking into. Ree's move 21...#c6 doesn't look
completely convincing after 22 Jtxe4 £ke4 23
£fcxe4 dxe4 24 bxc5.
We now return to the position after 14 a3
(D):
14...Ae8
This is standard French stuff. The 'bad'
bishop is aiming for a better life on h5. Of
course this is at the expense of weakening e6,
and White can try to exploit this, but Black's
defensive resources are adequate. A number of
other normal French moves are available, such
as 14...Wd8, 14...&h8, 14...Hae8 or 14...Hac8,
but none of them offers better chances than the
text-move.
15 £}g5
If Black gets in ...Jth5, he would certainly
have no problems, so it makes sense to act
quickly. However, the direct attack on e6 isn't
White's only option:
a) After 15 «fc2, 15...h6 16 h3 has scored
well for White in some correspondence games.
It is not as direct as White's other options but
could be better for White. Actually, Black is
quite happy when White tries to force matters.
The biggest problem for Black in this position
is his light-squared bishop, which is now
simply kicked back with g4 if Black plays ... Jth5.
Thus, Black would rather not weaken his king-
side with ...h6, so that sometimes he can play
...Ag6. This suggests 15...£te7 but then comes
16 £te5. However, this could be the way for
Black because what White does on 16...£>c6!?
isn't clear.
b) 15 £te5 is dismissed by Emms and leaves
White more or less a tempo behind the line 14
£te5, according to Watson. After 15...Jtxe5 16
dxe5 tfxb2 17 exf6 (17 ±c5? tfxc3 18 Axf8
£ke5 -+) 17...tfxc3 18 fxg7 tfxg7, Emms
doesn't think White's compensation is
sufficient. Nevertheless, I think White's attacking

3...Q$6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
101
chances should be taken a little more seriously
after 19 #(12! (D), threatening Ah6.
If
■ '
Ml
m<,m
'///, amy, ™
AH
W%% WW s< W^> WW
Black has two replies:
bl) 19...fif7 is Watson's suggestion but 20
f4! (with the idea of Hf3-g3) 20...d4 21 Ml was
very good for White in Wang Pin-Matamoros,
Linares 1998. White is a pawn behind but
Black's kingside is exposed and there is plenty
of scope for the two bishops to have their say.
b2) 19...£te5 20 Ml £tf3+ 21 ±xf3 Hxf3 is
unclear according to Tiviakov, but Grishchuk-
Szymanski, Oropesa del Mar U-16 Wch 1998
turned out highly unpleasantly for Black, as the
opposite-coloured bishops give White excellent
attacking prospects: 22 Jtd4 ffg4 23 Had! and
after 23..,±b5? 24 Hc7 ±xf 1 (24...Hf7 25 Hc3
Axf 1 26 Sg3 Wxg3 27 hxg3 ±b5 28 Wg5+ *f 8
29 ±c5+ 4>e8 30 Wg8+ +-) 25 Hg7+ Wxg7 26
±xg7 4>xg7 27 tfg5+ *f 7 28 tfh5+ White won
quickly. 23.. Jtc6 looks stronger but Black still
faces a number of threats. The problem is that
when the rook leaves f 3 White will have access
to the 3rd rank; e.g., 24 Bfel Hf4 25 M5 He4 26
Sc3 and White should win.
15...£te7! (D)
Defending e6 indirectly, as a capture can
now be met by ... Jtxh2+.
16 h3
Threatening £}xe6 without allowing a
capture on h2. Many moves have been tried in this
position but none of them seem very promising.
For example, 16 £te4 ±xa4 17 tfxa4 £tf5 is
fine for Black, as confirmed by several games.
16...±b8!?
W
■ as s up a
e^ m^^im^ f/
m m
m i
w/,
16...Ml is also fully playable, and has
similar ideas. However, with the text-move Black
puts on the safety belt and avoids trouble on the
c-file.
17 #c2 h6 18 £tf3 £tfi5 19 Hfel £tf4 20
±xf4±xf4
The position is equal, Bernard-W.Schmidt,
Poznan 1987.
B4)
12 b3 (D)
m mmm
This is in my opinion White's best system
against 1 l...#b6. The b-pawn is taken care of,
which means that the positional threat of
exchanging the dark-squared bishops is renewed.
While MA on White's next move is an idea,
White can also simply put the bishop on b2,
which reinforces White's control of the central
squares.

102
The French: Tarrasch Variation
12...0-0
12...e5 has also been tried. Black gets rid of
a weakness but only ends up with another one,
and the many exchanges that follow are only to
White's advantage. An example is Brynell-
Rozentalis, Gausdal 2001: 13 dxe5 £>xe5 14
£>xe5 ±xe5 15 Hbl 0-0 16 ±f4 #d6 17 #d2
£>g4 18 ±xe5 tfxe5 19 £>g3 Ml 20 Hbdl
with slightly better chances for White.
13±f4
This is a good positional continuation. With
Black's queen on b6, the thematic exchange
sacrifice on f 3 (compare Line A4) is not as
dangerous. But an important alternative is 13 Jtb2
Jtd7 and now:
a) 14 £>g3 4>h8 (14...Hae8?! 15 £>e5! is
very good for White) 15 <A>h 1! ? (D). The idea of
this isn't obvious, but it turns out that the
attacking concept of playing £\e5 ^xd4, f4 is
very dangerous for Black. Now:
al) 15...Hae8?! 16£>e5! £>xd4 17 f4! (White
threatens Ag6) 17...±c5 18 Hcl Hc8 19 Abl!
£>f5 20 Axf5 exf5 21 £>xd7 £>xd7 22 Wxd5 ±
Serper.
a2) 15...^e7!? could be considered, with
the idea of 16 ^e5 Jtb5!, but after something
like 16 a4 a5 17 £>e5 ±e8 18 f4, I would
slightly prefer White's attacking chances.
a3) 15...&M! 16 ±bl ±b5 17 Bel £>g4 18
<A>gl e5! 19 £>g5 Ad7 was fine for Black in
Rublevsky-Matlak, Ostrava 1992.
b) 14 £>c3 Hae8 (14...*h8!?) 15 £>a4 #d8
16 £>e5 He7 17 Hcl Wb8 18 #e2 £>b4 19 ±bl
±xa4 20 bxa4 ffe8 21 Wb5 £>a6 22 #b3 £>b8
23 Hfel is slightly better for White, Jaracz-
Matlak, Polish League 2003.
We now return to 13 Af4 (D):
13...±xf4
Black doesn't fully equalize after 13...^xd4
14 £>fxd4 e5 15 ±e3 exd4 16 ±xd4:
a) 16...«d8 17 £>g3 ±d7 18 Hcl ffe8 19
#c2 Hc8 20 Wbl Hxcl 21 Hxcl b6 22 Hel Wf7
23 f3 ± Wahls-Zhang Zhong, Beijing 1993.
b) 16...!fc7 17 £>g3 ±g4 18 Wd2 ±f4 19
±e3 ±e5 20 Had Wf7 21 Hfel 4>h8 22 f3
Ad7 23 Jtbl ± Slobodjan-Kindermann, Bun-
desliga 1996/7.
c) Relatively best is probably 16...Jtc5 17
±xc5 Wxc5 18 Hcl #b6! (18...Wa5 19 Wc2
±d7 20 £>d4 ±) 19 «fc2 (19 tfd2 ±g4 20 £>d4
£>e4 =) 19...±g4 20 £>g3 Hac8 21 tfb2 ±d7 =
Kofinas-Jordan, corr. 2000.
14 £>xf4 ±d7 (D)
Black must be careful not to drift into a
passive position where White will be better due to
his superior pawn-structure. Thus, another
interesting idea is 14...^e4!? 15 ^e2 and then:
a) 15...£>d6?! (too passive) 16 Wd2Ad7 17
Hadl a5 18 £>c3 Hae8 19 Hfel Wd8 20 £>e5
£>xe5 21 Hxe5 Wf6 22 He3 g6 23 ±bl Hc8 24
a4! ± S.B.Hansen-0stenstad, Copenhagen 1998.
b) 15...±d7!16^g3(16±xe4dxe417£ig5
Had8 18 ^xe4 e5! is sufficient counterplay for
Black) 16...£>xg3 17 hxg3 Hf6 18 Wd2 ±e8 19
g4 (19 Hfel looks more natural, as 19.. Jth5 is
answered by 20 £>e5 and 19.. Jtg6 20 Jtxg6
Hxg6 21 £he5 ^xe5 22 Hxe5 is also some
pressure for White, but 19...<i>h8! causes White some

3..&J5 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
103
problems due to the threat to the d-pawn and the
idea of playing ...±h5) 19...±g6!? (19...Ixf3 20
gxf3 £kd4 21 <4>g2 e5 should of course be
investigated although I believe in White after 22
*e3) 20 ±xg6 (20 g5? Ixf3 21 gxf3 £kd4 22
A>g2 e5! +) 20...Ixg6 21 g5 h6! «> Kveinys-
Matlak, Polish League 2002.
15 lei!
After 15 Icl £te4, 16 g3 If 5 was played
in Wahls-Kindermann, German Ch (Dudweil)
1996, when White decided to repeat the
position with 17 £tii4 If 7 18 £tf 3 If5 19 £to4 If 7
20 £tf3. On 16 £te2 the right reaction is
probably 16...Iae8! with the idea 17 Jtxe4 dxe4 18
<£>g5 e5 or 17 £}g3 £}xg3 18 hxg3 e5, when
Black is doing well in both lines.
15...Iae8 16 #d2 <4>h8 17 ladl #b4
If 17...&xd4, 18 £>e5 £te6 19 &xd7 &xd7
20 &xe6 If6 21 £}g5 is good for White.
18 #xb4 £M>4 19 £te5
± Luther-Matlak, Groningen 1998.
C)
ll...#c7 (D)
The black queen is not ideally placed on the
c-file, but Black's principal idea is to prevent
White's positional threat of playing Jtf4. The
queen move also helps to control e5 while
preparing ...Ad7, connecting the rooks.
Now:
CI: 12 g3 103
C2: 12±g5 105
C3: 12 £k3 109
Other moves:
a) 12 h3 0-0 13 ±e3 ±d7 14 ^c3 a6 - 12
?hc3 a6 13 h3 0-0 14 k,e3 k.d7.
b) 12 £}g3 0-0 13 ±d2 e5! (this thematic
break comes right in time before White
strengthens his position with Icl, Ac3, Bel, etc.) 14
dxe5 ^xe5 15 &xe5 ±xe5 16 #b3 ±d7 17
±c3 ±xc3 18 Bad Wf4 19 Bxc3 ±c6 20 ±b5
±xb5 21 #xb5 Bf7 = Blodshtein-Mesropov,
Voskresensk 1993.
CI)
12 g3
I used to like this very much for White,
probably because of the cursory view that White is
better when the dark-squared bishops are
exchanged. A more detailed study reveals that
Black is certainly not without chances.
12...0-0 13 ±f4 £}g4! (D)
Quite logically Black should aim for active
play due to White's vulnerable f-file and
weakened kingside. The text-move also supports an
...e5 break. I prefer White after other moves:
a) 13...±d7 14#d2!?(14lellae8 15lcl
±xf4 16&xf4«b6 17le3£kd4! 18£kd4e5 =
Kr.Georgiev-Volkov, Antalya 2002) 14...£fo5
15 ±xd6 #xd6 16 We3! ± S.Pedersen-Jurek,
Odense 1993.
b) 13...±xf4 14^xf4#b6 15#d2<A>h8 16
lfe3!? (Black's last move threatened ...^xd4)
16...#xb2 17labl #a3 18^g5!#d6 19lfel
and White was better in Rozentalis-Ivanchuk,
USSR 1986.
14 Icl

104
The French: Tarrasch Variation
w
This is not White's only option. It is a very
double-edged continuation in the sense that
Black will now sacrifice an exchange to weaken
White's kingside further. On the other hand,
White certainly also gets chances after that.
The main alternatives are also interesting:
a) 14 #d2 e5! 15 dxe5 ^gxe5 16 £ke5
&xe5 17 #c2! (D) and now the following
analysis stems from M.Gurevich:
mmm
A, wk
wm mm
al) 17...#xc2 18 ±xc2 ±g4!? 19 ±b3!
±xe2 20 ±xe5 ±xe5 21 Ifel =.
a2) 17...g5! 18 ±e3 (18 #xc7 ±xc7 19
±xe5 ±xe5 20 f4!? gxf4 21 £kf4 ±xb2 22
labl ±d4+23<A>g2=) 18...£tf3+ 19<A>hl Wf7,
Vink-M.Gurevich, Wijk aan Zee 2001, and now
20 &gl! (White's only defence) 20...#h5 (the
alternative 20...±g4 21 &xf3 #xf3+ 22 <4>gl
Sf7 23 Sfel is not clear since White is not
immediately mated and Black also has his own
kingside problems) 21 £kf3 #xf3+ 22 <4>gl
'=' is M.Gurevich's main line but this is not
immediately understandable since in the previous
bracket Black had this position with the bishop
already at g4. At any rate, 22...jth3? would
now be very wrong because of 23 Jtxh7+ <4>f7
24 ±g8+!! Ixg8 25 #h7+ 4>f8 26 #xh3 and
White wins.
b) 14 ±xd6 #xd6 15 £te3 and then:
bl) 15...±d7? 16 ±xh7+ <4>xh7 17 ^g5+
4>g6 18 #xg4 e5 19 £te6+ &f7 20 #xg7+
<A>xe6 21 f4! ffe7, A.Olsson-E.Berg, Swedish
Ch (Linkoping) 2001, and now 22 #g4+ If5
23 fxe5 #h7 24 Ixf5 #xf5 25 #h4 wins for
White.
b2) 15...e5 16 dxe5 #h6 17 h4 ^gxe5 18
£}g5(18^xe5^xe5 19±e2±e620^b5^c6
co) 18...±g4!? 19 ±xh7+ 4>h8 20 #xd5 Iad8
21 #c5 g6 with an unclear position, Losev-
Moskalenko, Moscow 1995.
We now return to 14 2c 1 (D):
14...±xf4
Black shouldn't hesitate with the following
exchange sacrifice, as the pin on the c-file
makes it difficult to carry out an ...e5 break, and
thus on most other moves, White would simply
strengthen his position with #d2.
15 £taf4 Ixf4 16 gxf4 #xf4 17 ±e2
17 ±b5 ±d7 18 ±xc6 ±xc6 19 flc3 If8
(19...±b5 20 Wcl! is slightly better for White)
20 Wcl #d6 21 #g5! If4? 22 h3? (22 £te5
+-) 22...h6 23 #h5 Ixf3 24 #xg4 If4 25 #g3
#f8 and White's advantage is minimal if at all
existent, Polak-Gokhale, Oakham jr 1992.
17...±d7

3..&J5 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
105
The voluntary retreat 17...£Mi6 could also
be considered, thus trying to prevent 18 Wd2
in view of 18...1rxd2 19 £>xd2 £>xd4, which
wouldn't be possible with the knight on g4.
And 17...£>f6 18 4>hl £>e4 didn't look so bad
for Black either in Azarov-Berescu, Djakovo
2005.
18 Wd2 Wf5
18..J?d6?! 19 h3 £>h6 20 ±b5 If8 21 Ic3
£>f5 22 ±xc6 bxc6 23 £>e5 ± Rozentalis-
Lputian, Kharkov 1985.
19 £>el
19 Wd3 might be a better try for an
advantage; for example, 19...Wf4 20 h3 ^h6 21 We3
*f6 22 ±d3 ±.
19...e5 20 dxe5 Wxe5 21 ^f3 Wd6 22 Ifdl
Black has good counterplay, Kokarev-Kosy-
rev, St Petersburg 2001.
C2)
12±g5
This could transpose to Line C3 if White
plays ^c3 on his next move but there are also
several independent ideas. These often include
going in the other direction with the knight.
12...0-0 (D)
With two main options for White:
C21: 13lcl 105
C22: 13±h4 106
A third option is 13 ^g3 but this sort of spoils
the idea of exchanging bishops with Ah4-g3.
Instead, in some lines White has succeeded in a
direct attack on the kingside but I believe this
was only due to poor defence from Black. For
example, 13...±d7 (13...£>g4!?) 14lcl #b6 15
Axf6!?andnow:
a) 15...Ixf6? 16 ±xh7+! 4>xh7 17 ^g5+
4>g8 18 Wh5 wins for White.
b) 15...gxf6! 16 Wd2 Hf7 17 £Mi5 and now
17...Wd8 18 Wh6 ±e7 was rather unclear in
Frolov-Borovikov, Nikolaev Z 1993. I quite
like 17...*h8! for Black.
C21)
13lcl
This prevents Black from opening the centre
with ...e5.
13...^g4 (D)
With this Black insists on trying to free his
position quickly. Instead a natural continuation
would be 13.. Jtd7. In Brodsky-E.Berg,
Reykjavik 2002 a complicated game arose after 14
^g3 Iae8 15 a3 4>h8 16 ±bl Wb6 17 b4 fle7
18 Ic3 a5 19 bxa5 Wxa5 20 Ie3 ±xa3 21 ^e5
±e8.
Lately, 13...£Mi5!? has attracted some
attention:
a) 14 ±d2 Ixf3! 15 gxf3 We7 16 f4 Wh4 17
4>hl ±d7 18 Igl fl£8 19 Wf 1 ^xf4 20 ^xf4
Jtxf4 21 Wg2 Sf7 with plenty of compensation
for the exchange, Timman-Stellwagen, Almelo
2005.
b) 14 ^c3 a6 15 g3 Wf7 16 4>g2 h6 (Black
could consider 16...£>f6!?) 17 ±e3 g5 18 h4 e5
19 £>xe5 ±xe5 20 dxe5 d4 21 £>e4! £>xe5 22
±xd4 £>xd3 23 Wxd3 gxh4 «> Wells-Mason,
Coventry 2005.
c) 14 £>g3 £rf4 15 Ab5! Wb6 16 ±xc6
bxc6 17 Ic2 £\g6 18 lei ± Pavasovic-Stell-
wagen, Maribor 2004.
14 ^g3
14 h3 Ixf3 15 hxg4 If7 16 ±bl (16 Wc2 g6
=) 16...g6 17 Wd2 ±d7 18 f4 Wb6 was fine for
Black in Hellers-Chernin, Wijk aan Zee 1986.
14...g6
Black often reacts somehow on the kingside,
and this is the more common and better of the
two kingside pawn moves. 14...1^6 could also
be considered but is seen very rarely, and I

106
The French: Tarrasch Variation
w
w
understand that Black is reluctant to take more
ambitious decisions with so little protection of
his kingside. The other option is 14...h6, which
might be preferable from a positional point of
view, but the assessment centres around whether
Black can cover the bl-h7 diagonal. After 15
Jtd2 we have:
a) 15...e5?! 16 dxe5 ^gxe5 17 &xe5 ±xe5
18 ±bl Wf7 19 Wc2 g5 20 f4! +- Korneev-
Supriyanto, Jakarta 1997.
b) 15...ffb616±c3±f4 17lc2e5 18dxe5
£texe5 19 Ad4 ± A.Ledger-L.Johannessen,
Bergen 2000.
c) 15...ffe7 16 ±bl ^xd4 (16...±d7 17
Jtc3! was very good for White in Tiviakov-
Gleizerov, Port Erin 2001) 17 &xd4 tfh4 18 h3
£>xf2 19 Ixf2 Ixf2 (19...Wxd4 20 ±el! ±) 20
&hl! Sf6 (20...Sf7!?is Gleizerov's suggestion
and is probably better since on 21 £tf3 Black's
queen can retreat to f6) 21 £tf3 ffh5 22 «fc2 ±
Kupreichik-Chernin, Sverdlovsk 1984.
We now return to 14...g6 (D):
15 ^d2
With good reason White is eager to have the
knight removed from g4 as it is a constant threat
to White's kingside. Other options:
a) 15 £}h4 is played with the same idea as
the text-move but also casts a menacing look at
g6. Then:
al) 15...e5 16±e2£tf6 17dxe5±xe5 18 b4
Af4 19 Axf4 tf xf4 20 b5 ± Smagin-Dolmatov,
USSR Ch (Kiev) 1986.
a2) 15...^f616ffd2lf7 17h3±d7 18£>f3
ffb6 19 Ae3, Geller-Vaiser, Delhi 1987, and
now Black is only slightly worse after 19...Sc8.
b) 15±b5!?±d7 16^h4£tf6 17ffd3lf7
18 Ifel (18 &xg67! £te4! 19 &xe4 dxe4 20
#xe4 hxg6 gives Black a slight advantage)
18...^g4 (18...£te4? 19 &xe4 ±xh2+ 20 4>hl
dxe4 21 Hxe4!, and now 21...Sxf2? is bad in
view of the reply 22 d5!) 19 £tf3 Ie8 20 a4.
A.Sokolov-Yusupov, Riga Ct (9) 1986, when
Yusupov gives 20...a6 21 Axc6 Jtxc6 as Black's
best, maybe with only slightly better chances
for White.
15...e5
15...£tf6 16 £to3 Wg7 17 Wd2 ±b4 18 #e5
£}g4 19 ffe2 ^h6 20 ±b5 ±d7 21 ±xc6 bxc6
22 £te5 ± Tiviakov-Komarov, Kherson 1991.
16 ±e2 £tf6 17 dxe5 ±xe5 18 b4
White is slightly better, Ye Jiangchuan-Yu
Shaoteng, HeiBei Z 2001.
C22)
13 ±h4 (D)

3...&/B MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
107
A common idea. White pursues his strategic
goal of exchanging the dark-squared bishops
by transferring his bishop to g3.
13...£\h5
White's positional idea of exchanging the
dark-squared bishops is serious so Black takes
measures to prevent it, but it is also an active
move as it opens the way for ...Sxf3 sacrifices.
Alternatively, White will get in Jtg3 with an
edge:
a) 13...Ad7 14 ±g3 Iae8 15 £te3 ±xg3 16
hxg3 e5 (16...ffb6 17 ±b5! is better for White)
17 dxe5 £ke5 18 ±e2 ±c6 19 Wd4 a6 20 ladl
± V.Bagirov-Volkov, Biel 1999.
b) 13...g6 14 ±g3 ±xg3 15 hxg3 %7 16
Wd2 ±d7 17 lacl Iad8 18 Ifel Ide8 19 ±b5
£\e4 20 ffe3 ± Fedorchuk-Firman, Ukrainian
Ch (Sevastopol) 2000.
c) 13...&g4 14 ±g3 (14 h3 Ixf3 15 hxg4
If7 =) 14...±xg3 15 &xg3 Wf4 16 £te2 #d6
17 h3 Ixf3 18 hxg4 If7 19 f4 ±dl 20 a3 ±
Oral-Rabinovich, Budapest 1998.
d) 13...e5 14 dxe5 ^xe5 15 &xe5 ±xe5 16
±g3 ±xg3 17 &xg3 ffb6 18 #b3!? (18 #d2
±d7 19 h3 ±b5 20 ±xb5 Wxb5 21 ladl Iad8
22 #d4 b6 was equal in Psakhis-Riazantsev,
Ubeda 2001) 18...ffxb3 19 axb3 ±d7 20 f3 a6
21 £te2 Bad8 22 £M4 ± Oral-Kristjansson,
Reykjavik 1999.
14 Wc2 h6 (D)
This is necessary as Black cannot continue
14...g6, owing to 15 Jtxg6! with a decisive
advantage for White.
W
15±g6
An important question here is whether it is
preferable for White to throw in Jth7+ before
playing this. Both options have their pros and
cons but in certain lines it is valuable for White
to have the option of checking Black later,
which explains the text-move. The line has
developed heavily in the last few years, and the
preference appears to go slightly towards
omitting the check. Nevertheless, it remains a major
alternative, of course: 15 ±h7+ <A>h8 16 ±g6
Ixf3 17 gxf3 (17 ±xh5 If8 is not a real
problem for Black; we shall deal with this theme in a
little more detail in the note to White's 16th
move in the main line) 17... Jtxh2+ and now:
a) 18 4>g2!? £tf4+ 19 &xf4 Axf4 20 ±g3
±d7 21 Ihl If8 22 Ih4, and now 22...e5!
offers Black reasonable chances of counterplay,
Feoktistov-Iliushin, Russia Cup (Tula) 2001.
b) 18 <A>hl £tf4 19 £}g3 (the most critical)
19...#d6!? (19...±xg3 20 fxg3 &xg6 21 Wxg6
is slightly better for White; 19...#b6!?) 20 ladl
e5 21 if5 Axf5 22 *xf5, Volzhin-Johannes-
sen, Bergen 2000, and now I don't see why
Black cannot play 22...^xd4 as after 23 Sxd4
exd4 24 <4>xh2 If8 25 %4 he has 25...h5, with
theidea26«g5?!fe6!.
15...Ixf3
15...£tf4 is feasible but pleasant for White
after 16 &xf4 Axf4 17 ladl, as in Emelin-
Kostenko, Szeged U-18 Wch 1994.
16gxf3
Black has less to worry about if White
declines the sacrifice. After 16 Jtxh5, 16...Sf8 is
fine for Black because the e2-knight is passive.
For example, 17±g3±d7 18Sacl If6 19ffa2
±xg3 20 hxg3 ffb6 = Heim-Orr, Gausdal 2003.
Even the messier 16.. Jtxh2+ 17 <A>hl If8 18 g3
g5 worked well for Black in
Kotronias-S.Williams, Cork 2005.
16...±xh2+ 17 4>hl
Again White has the option of playing 17
4>g2 £tf4+ 18 &xf4 Axf4 19 ±g3 but I like
this more with the inclusion of Jth7+.
17...£tf4 18 ^g3 (D)
18.Jtb6!?
Gleizerov's idea. But particular attention
should be paid to line 'c' below:
a) 18...±xg3 19 fxg3 ^xg6 20 Wxg6 Wf7
21 #xf7+ 4>xf7 22 g4 £kd4 23 lacl is slightly

108
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Emm jl vvm W% ^^WM
lit
Aw///'^m
i
n^mi
A
ff
H
&§
'^^ es'^
better for White, Navara-Vallejo Pons, Oropesa
del Mar U-18Wch 2000.
b) 18...£>xg6 19 ®xg6 ±xg3 20 i.xg3 #e7
21 Igl ^xd4 22 Ad6 #h4+ 23 Ah2 #e7 24
±e5 #h4+ 25 Ah2 #e7 26 #h5! £>f5 27 ±e5
Ad7 28 lxg7+! &xg7 29 Igl lf8 30 ±xg7
#xg7 31 #xh6 #xgl+ 32 <4>xgl ± Oral-Hag-
ara, Pardubice 2000.
c) 18...#d6!? 19 ladl e5 20 Ah7+ *h8
and now:
cl) 21 dxe5?! £>xe5 22 Ifel (22 £rf5!?)
22...3.h3 (22...g5?! 23 #c3 gxh4 24 Ixe5
4>xh7 25 4>xh2 hxg3+ 26 fxg3 ^g6 27 lexd5
±) 23 Ixe5! ®xe5 24 4>xh2 g5 25 Af5 gxh4?
(25...Axf5 26 #xf5 le8 would have been
slightly better for Black) 26 JLxh3 hxg3+ 27
fxg3 ± Oral-O'Connor, Panormo ECC 2001.
c2) 21 4>xh2 g5! (not 21...£fcd4? 22 lxd4
exd4 23 Sel ±) and now White must be very
careful:
c21) Not 22 £rf5?, as played in M.Hoff-
mann-Stellwagen, Dutch Cht (Enschede) 2003,
when 22...#d7! is almost decisive.
c22) White should try the messy 22 dxe5!
^xe5 23 Af5 Axf5 24 £fof5 #g6 25 Ifel
gxh4 26lgl.
19 ladl
After 19 lac 1 Ad7 20 4>xh2 £>xd4 21 #c7,
21...^xf3+? 22 4>hl £>xg6 23 tfxd7 £>gxh4
24 lc7 Wd4 25 ^h5 <4>h8 26 #xg7+ Wxg7 27
lxg7 allowed White a large advantage in Nai-
ditsch-Kalinitschew, German Ch (Altenkirchen)
2001, but in Heim-E.Berg, Gausdal 2003 Black
improved heavily with 21...ftxg6! 22 Wxdl
£>e5 23 #c7? (White should try 23 #e7 but the
knights look a major force) 23...£klxf3+ 24
4>hl#d4 25±e7g5-+.
19...£>xd4 (D)
W
EzzzWz JL '',
w wm
wmm
WzkWzkM
IA A
&B#Bfl■
w, mi
20#a4!
20 lxd4?! #xd4 21 Ah7+ 4>h8 22 *xh2 g5
23 lfc7 #g7 -+ Aagaard-Gleizerov, Hooge-
veen 2000.
20..Axg6!
It is interesting that Stohl (whose analysis
constitutes my main line here) actually criticizes
this but in his notes ends up with a promising
position for Black! However, the alternative,
20...Jtd7? (which Stohl recommends) is
certainly not good: 21 ±f7+! <4>xf7 22 #xd7+
4^8 23 JLf6! (this fantastic resource is what he
misses) 23...gxf6 24 Hgl <4>h8 (24.. JLxgl? 25
Ixgl *h8 26 ^e4 lg8 27 #h7+! was the
beautiful finish of Todorovic-Kraai, Budapest
2003, and 24...<4>f8 25 £>e4 isn't much better:
Black will suffer heavy losses to avoid being
mated) 25 £>e4 £>h5 26 £>xf6 (26 lg6? £>f5 +)
26..Mel (the point of keeping the bishop, but
White now brings about a transition into a
promising endgame) 27 #xc7 Jtxc7 28 £>xh5
£tf5 29 lg6 ±.
21 #e8+!?
21 #xd4 Wxd4 22 lxd4 ±xg3 23 Axg3
Jtd7 ? Suran-Chytilek, Czech Cht 2001. Only
Black can play for a win here.
21...^f8! (D)
21...4h7? 22 £>h5! was immediately
decisive in Yuldachev-Gleizerov, Abu Dhabi 2002,
which ended 22...£e5 23 Igl £tf4 (23...£tf5
24 #xg6+ 4>g8 25 Af6 #xf2 26 Axe5 #xf3+

3...fof6 Main Line: 11 0-0
109
27 Sg2! #xdl+ 28 *h2 +-) 24 &xf4 £kf3 25
^g6lrc6 26#h8#(l-0).
IV
WB.3L\
Hi
i I
« HI
i
|p p
A 8
*«g?
API p H ■
22 Affi!
This cannot come as a surprise now. Stohl
also gives:
a) 22 ±e7 J.xg3 23 fxf8+ 4»h7 24 ±c5
#c7 25 fxg3 (25 ±xd4 ±d6 26 We8 e5 +; 25
Sxd4 Ae5 26 f4 Af6! +) 25...fcf5 ?/+.
b) 22 £>h5 ±e5 (22...£>f5? 23 £>f6+ gxf6
24 Sgl+ ±g3 25 ±xg3 £lg7 26 Ah4! +-) 23
Ae7 (23 f4 Wc6!? 24 fxc6 bxc6 25 fxe5 £tf3
intending ...±a6 +) 23...£>f5 24 fxf8+ *h7 25
£tf6+ ±xf6 26 i.xf6 e5! 27 ±xe5 (27 ±xg7?
£)xg7 28 Hgl ±g4! -+) 27...fg6 and White's
king is more exposed than Black's.
22...e5! 23 ±xg7
Of course this is with the idea 23...4>xg7? 24
£>h5+ that is winning for White, but Black can
counter-sacrifice. Nevertheless, Stohl doesn't
give anything better for White: 23 jk,xe5 £>xf3
(or 23...«c6!? 24 We7 <&de6 25 *xh2 £>g6 26
#d6 £)g5 with good compensation) 24 Jk,xg7
*xg7 25 £)h5+ *g8 26 #e7 Ae5 27 Igl+Ag4
28 Sxg4+ £}g6 29 Sdgl £sg5 30 Sxg5 hxg5 31
Sxg5 *h8 32 Ixg6 fxg6 33 Wxe5+ 4>h7 ?.
23...±h3 24 #xa8 *xg7 25 4>xh2 ±xfl 26
Sxfl £sxf3+
Black is slightly better according to Stohl.
C3)
12 £>c3
This is the old line but it remains popular.
White gains a tempo due to the threat of £ib5,
and thus after provoking ...a6 has ideas of
following up with Icl and £ia4-c5 at a suitable
moment.
12...a6 (D)
w
13±g5
Clearly White's most frequent choice. The
idea is well-known: to exchange the dark-
squared bishops with Jth4-g3. Another option
is to develop with 13 h3 0-0 14 JLe3 ±dl 15
Scl, intending £ia4-c5, but Black has at least
two satisfactory lines:
a) 15...£e8 16 £>g5 ffe7 17 f4 h6 18 £tf3
£>h5 19 £te5 £>g3 20 If2 £tf5 21 Axf5 Ixf5
22 £te2 If8 23 #d3 Ic8 24 Wbl #d8 25 Ic3
£>e7 26 Sxc8 Wxc8 27 If 1 ±xe5 28 dxe5 ±g6
V2-V2 Valerga-An.Rodriguez, Villa Gesell 1997.
b) 15...Iae8 16 £>a4 Ie7 17 £>e5 Wa5 18
b3 ±a3 19 Ic2 ^b4 20 ±d2 ±xa4 21 bxa4
#b6! (21...Wxa4 22 Ic3! #xdl 23 Ixdl £>xd3
24 Ixa3 ± M.Gurevich) 22 Ic3 £>xd3, Mal-
aniuk-M.Gurevich, USSR Ch (Kiev) 1986, and
now 23 Ixd3 JLd6 24 ffb3! is equal according
to M.Gurevich.
13...0-0 14 ±h4
The immediate 14 Icl is also interesting.
Black might simply reply 14... Jtd7 but in many
of the main lines a strong part of Black's
defence consists in playing ...g6 and ...#g7, and
this would now obstruct that set-up. Instead,
14...£>g4 15 h3 £>h2 16 £>xh2 ±xh2+ 17 4>hl
Ai4 18 ±xf4 tfxf4 19 £>e2 tfh4 20 f4 ±dl is
considered equal, Zapata-Yusupov, Tunis IZ
1985.
14...^h5 (D)

no
The French: Tarrasch Variation
In Rozentalis-E.Berg, Bydgoszcz 2000, White
had slightly the better chances after 14...Jtd7
15 2c 1 (the immediate 15 JLg3 is also sensible)
15...£e8 16We2±f7 17±g3.
W
(\Mi HI W& fsWm
M ifiHS
15lcl
Compared with Line C22 there would now
be nothing wrong with answering 15 #c2 by
15...g6. The main point is that 16 Jtxg6? now
loses to 16...£>f4!, as 17 Ad3 £>b4 costs White
a piece.
15...g6 16 £>a4
Or:
a) 16 ±g5 Wg7 17 ±e3 ±d7 18 g3 £tf6 19
lei £>g4 = Lau-Zsu.Polgar, Dortmund 1985.
b) 16 ±g3?! £>xg3 17 hxg3 Wg7 18 ±bl
and then:
bl) 18...1,d7 19 £>a4 Ixf3 20 gxf3 £>xd4
21 £>c5 Ic8 22 £>b3 Ixcl 23 £>xcl * Mame-
dov-R.Bagirov, Baku 2000.
b2) 18...g5! 19 lei g4 20 £>e5 £>xe5 21
dxe5 ±b8! 22 Ie2 Ad7 23 #b3 l,c6 + Szna-
pik-R0dgaard, Pohja 1985.
c) 16 ±bl #g7 17 £>a4 Ixf3! 18 gxf3 ±d7
19 £>b6 Hf8 20 ±g3 £>f4 21 £>xd7 #xd7 and
despite being an exchange down, Black can
claim some advantage because the d4-pawn is
very weak, Guseinov-S.Ivanov, USSR 1985.
d) 16 Jte2!? prevents exchange sacrifices
on f3. Black has two options:
dl) 16...±f4 17 Ibl #g7 (17...b5!? should
also be considered) 18 £>a4 and now 18...g5?!
(too risky) 19 £>xg5 Axg5 20 Axg5 £>f4 21
±xf4 Ixf4 22 £>b6 Bb8 23 Wcl #xd4 24 g3
Sf 7 25 #e3 gave White a substantial advantage
in Fluvia Poyatos-Gleizerov, Mondariz 2000.
18...Jtc7 is more circumspect.
d2) 16...1rg7 17^a4&d7 18^c5&xc5 19
2xc5 has given White a slight advantage in
several games.
We now return to 16 £>a4 (D):
16...#g7
This is where the queen often belongs in this
line. It defends the kingside and simultaneously
attacks d4. Obviously, the drawback is that
Black has less control over the queenside. Other
moves could also be considered:
a) 16...1b8!? (preparing to play ...lrg7), and
then:
al) 17 lei Wg7 18 ±xa6 Ixf3 19 gxf3
Well (M.Gurevich also gives 19...#xd4 20
±g3 £>xg3 21 hxg3 ±b4! 22 #xd4 £>xd4 23
Sedl £>xf3+ 24 <£>g2 £>el+ with an unclear
position) 20 Ixc6! (on 20 Jtb5, Black would
follow up with a similar idea as in the game, viz.
20...1,xh2+ 21 *g2 Wf4) 20...1,xh2+ 21 *g2
bxc6 22 Axc8 Ixc8 23 £>c5 Wf4! 24 Ae7
Wf5!, intending ...£>f4(+) with a strong attack,
Adams-M.Gurevich, Bundesliga 2000/1.
a2) 17 Ag5!? Wg7 (17...£tf4 18 Bel!? ±)
18 ±e3 Ad7 19 £>c5 £>f4 20 a3 £>xd3?!
(20...±xc5 21 Ixc5 Wf6 22 lei ±) 21 #xd3
£>d8 22 #d2 and White is better, Helmreich-
Polster, corr. 1990.
b) 16...±d7 17 £>c5 Iae8 18 £>xd7 #xd7 19
lei ±bS 20 #a4 ± Ponomariov-Lukin, Yalta
1995.
c) 16...b5!? (this leads to very sharp play but
right now the onus is on White, who needs

3...G%6 MAIN LINE: 11 0-0
111
something in line 'c2') 17 <£)c5 (White can
hardly justify 17 £)c3), and now:
cl) 17...£ixd4 18 £ixd4 (18 &xe6? &xf3+
19 gxf3 J.xh2+ 20 *hl Wdl is very good for
Black) 18...i.xc5 19 #c2 (19 £)b3 ff4 20 g3
i.xf2+ 21 <*g2 We3 +) 19...1rf4 (19...£)f4!?
could and maybe should be considered) 20 £)f 3
i.b6? 21 fc6 fb8 22 Ae7 and White wins,
Matulovic-Sl.Marinkovic, Yugoslav Ch (Kla-
dovo) 1994.
c2) 17...Hxf3! 18 Wxf3 (18 gxf3 i.xh2+ 19
<4>g2 Af4 +) 18...£ixd4 19 #e3 i.xc5 20 b4
Wf4! 21 Ag5 £)f3+ 22 fxf3 Wxf3 23 gxf3
i.xb4 24 Sc7 Ad6 25 Sc6 ±f4 26 ±xf4 £ixf4
27 Sdl *f7 28 Sc7+ <*f6 29 Sxh7 e5 30 Bh8
J.b7 31 Hxa8 J.xa8 with the better endgame
for Black, Sadykov-D.Schneider, Oropesa del
MarU-18Wch2001.
Now we return to 16..MgJ (D):
17 £ib6 Sb8 18 ±xa6
A common tactical motif when the queen
has left c7, but Black can counterattack.
18...£)xd4 19 &xd4 bxa6 20 £«c8 Sbxc8
21 Sxc8 Sxc8 (D)
22Sel
22 Ag3 £ixg3 23 hxg3 #d7 24 #g4 Ae5!
25 lei Ag7 26 b3 i.xd4 27 #xd4 Sc6 was just
OK for Black in Mamedov-R.Bagirov, Dubai
2001.
22... J.b4 23 fg4
Not, of course, 23 Sxe6?? fxd4 24 Wxd4
Hcl+ -+.
23...£)f4
Knaak mentions 23...fe5!? 24 Sdl! Ad2!?
25 #xe6+ #xe6 26 £ixe6 Sc2 with an unclear
position. The question then is whether Black
has sufficient counterplay after 27 Sbl or 27
g4!?.
24 Sdl Sf8 25 ±gS (D)
So far given by I.Gurevich as very good for
White. On 25... JLd6?, White simply wins by 26
J.xf4 (not 26 g3? b.5). Therefore Black has to
try 25...h5 26 fh4 (26 Wg3 lrxd4 27 Sxd4
£)e2+ 28 *f 1 £ixg3+ 29 hxg3 Ac5 30 Sd2 e5
with counterplay) 26...ix5 27 £rf3 JLd6 with
approximately equal chances.

8 7£igf3
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 £>f6 4 e5 ^fd7 5 !,d3 c5
6 c3 £k6 7 £>gf 3 (D)
&i S BAH
17777^ « ' ^VtTt!
I believe Frank Marshall was the first to play
this (against Fritz Samisch in 1930), although
this came from a very different move-order.
The line only gained in popularity in the late
1960s when Korchnoi first employed it, and
subsequently several strong players have taken
it up or at least tried it on occasion.
With 7 £\gf 3 White is more or less committed
to sacrificing a pawn after 7...Wb6, as it is hard
to defend d4, but in return White obtains free
piece-play and a lead in development, and,
consequently, Black often declines the option of
going for the pawn and instead chooses a safer line,
like 7...g6. Systems where Black plays a quick
...f6 are also interesting. These often end up
similar to the main lines with 7 £te2, but with a
slightly different placement of White's knights.
The replies we look at in detail are:
A: 7...f6 112
B: 7...cxd4 113
C: 7...fb6 115
D: 7...g6!? 117
Note that 7...Jte7 is covered in Chapter 11
(Line D2) because it arises much more often
from Morozevich's 3... Jte7, and 7...f5 8 exf6 -
7...f6 8 exf6.
Of a number of slightly irregular tries, the
game Kalod-Korchnoi, Leipzig 2002 went 7...a5
8 a4!? (Korchnoi also gives the sensible line 8
0-0 a4 9 Sel a3 10 b3 cxd4 11 cxd4 £>b4 12
Jtbl £>b8 13 £rfl, when "White's prospects on
the kingside should not be underestimated")
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 £>b4 10 ±b5 ±e7 11 0-0 0-0 12
£fol £>b8 13 Sel £>8c6 14 £>c3 Ad7 15 Af4
*h8 16 Wd2 f6. Black's last move is slightly
risky, but if Black wants to play actively there is
not much else to do. Korchnoi now thinks White
should play 17 exf6 gxf6 18 ±f\\ followed by
£tt>5 with a clear advantage.
A)
7...f6 (D)
This is the most common idea against 7 £te2
(although most frequently played with a
preliminary exchange on d4) but here it is more
speculative since White's king's knight is better
placed.
W
8exf6
The most sensible. White has two sacrificial
ideas:

7&gf3
113
a) 8 0-0 fxe5 9 £>xe5 £>dxe5 10 dxe5 £>xe5
11 #h5+ thfl 12 lei should be compared to
the similar idea after 7...cxd4 8 cxd4f6 9 0-0,
but White's chances are probably more
promising with the c-pawns exchanged.
b) 8 £}g5? often leads to white wins but is
probably not entirely correct: 8...fxg5 9 #h5+
g6 10 ±xg6+ hxg6 11 #xg6+ *e7 12 £>e4 (12
£>f3 £>dxe5! 13 dxe5 *d7 14 ±xg5 We8 +)
12...£kixe5! (again, this counter-sacrifice which
vacates d7 for the king puts a serious question to
the correctness of White's 8th move) 13 Jtxg5+
*d7 14 £>f6+ (or 14 dxe5 £>xe5 15 £>xc5+
l,xc5 16 %7+ ±e7 + Almeida-Romero, An-
dorraZ 1987) 14...*c7 15 £>e8+#xe8 16#xe8
Ag7 (amusingly, White's queen is trapped) 17
±d8+ *b8 18 ±e7 b6! 19 #xh8 £>d3+ 20 *d2
&xh8 21 ±d6+ *b7 22 *xd3 cxd4 and Black is
much better.
8...£>xf6
Or 8...#xf6 9 0-0 (9 £rfl!?) 9...±d6 with
two options for White:
a) 10 c4!? 0-0 (10...£>xd4 11 £>xd4 #xd4
12 £>f3 ±) 11 £>b3 h6 (Nunn instead suggests
ll...cxd4 co) 12 dxc5 £>xc5 13 ±bl! £>xb3 14
axb3 d4 15 #d3! ± Nunn-Ree, Lucerne OL
1982.
b) lOlel cxd4(10...0-0? 11 ±xh7+! *xh7
12 Ixe6 ±xh2+ 13 *xh2 #f4+ 14 *gl Wf5
15 £hf 1 +- Kasparov-R0dgaard, Torshavn sirnul
2001) 11 cxd4 h6 12 £>fl 0-0 13 £>g3 Bd8 14
±c2 - 7 ?he2 cxd4 8 cxd4 fS 9 exf6 Wxf6 10
?hf3 ±d611 0-0 h612 &g3 0-013 k.c2 Zd814
Rel.
9 0-0 (D)
9..JU6
Maybe Black should prefer 9...cxd4 10 cxd4
- 7...cxd4 8 cxd4f6 9 exf6 Zhxf610 0-0.
10 dxc5! ±xc5 11 b4 ±d6 12 b5 £>a5
John Watson calls this equal but I still prefer
White. 12...£te5 13 £>xe5 ±xe5 14 ±b2 0-0
was also not satisfactory for Black in Ehlvest-
Andersson, Reykjavik 1991. Ehlvest suggests
that White should play 15 ffe2! ±d6 16 c4 ±.
13 c4 0-0 14 ±b2
White is better, R.Bellin-Kinsman, Wrexham
1997.
B)
7...cxd4 8 cxd4 (D)
a bah
8...f6
This is similar to Line A but Black avoids
lines where White suddenly captures on c5.
Like with the immediate 7...f6, £>g5 ideas seem
unconvincing. Alternatives for Black:
a) 8...#b6 and in addition to 9 0-0
(transposing to 7...1W 8 0-0 cxd4 9 cxd4\ White
also has 9 £>b3 a5 10 a4 ±b4+ 11 *fl with
slightly better chances; his king position can be
easily improved with g3 and (i)g2.
b) 8...£fo6 9 a3 a5 10 b3 and now:
bl) 10...±d7 11 ±b2 ±e7 12 h4 h6 13 h5
*f8 14 ffe2 a4 15 b4 £>a7 16 Icl ffe8 17 0-0
Jtb5 18 £>el! with a slight advantage for White,
Nunn-Bischoff, Hamburg 1984.
b2) 10...a4 11 b4 ±d7 12 h4 Ic8 13 ±b2
£>a7 14 £>g5?! (14 ffe2 ±) 14...±e7 15 f4 (15
Wf3 ±xg5 16 hxg5 #xg5 ?) 15...1,b5 16 ±c2

114
The French: Tarrasch Variation
h6 17 £>gf3 Ic6 18 h5 Wc7 19 Icl *d7!? t
Degraeve-Apicella, Clichy 2001.
c) 8...a5 (by playing this, Black often wants
to continue with ...£>b6 and ...Ad7 but here
Black avoids a white set-up with a3 and b3, as
in 'b') 9 0-0 £>b6 10 £>bl!? Ae7 11 £>c3 Ad7
12 a3 a4 13 Ac2 Ia5!? 14 Ibl Wa8 15 h4 h6
16 h5 £>d8 17 £>d2 fc8 18 lei Af8 19 £tfl ±
Glek-Bunzmann, Bad Wiessee 1998.
We now return to 8...f6 (D):
W
9exf6
Other moves:
a) 9 £}g5? (a comparison with Line A is
worth making but the preliminary exchange of
the c-pawns is not to White's advantage) 9...fxg5
10 #h5+ g6! 11 Axg6+ hxg6 12 Wxg6+ *e7
13 £rf3 (13 £>e4 £>dxe5! 14 Axg5+ *d7 -+)
13...£>dxe5 14 dxe5 *d7 15 Axg5 tfe8 +.
b) 9 0-0 fxe5 10 £>xe5 £>dxe5 11 dxe5 £>xe5
(ll...g6 12£>f3 Ag7 13»e2±) 12fh5+£>f7
13 Sel (threatening Ab5+, so Black does not
have time for ...g6; 13 £hf3 g6 is considered fine
for Black) 13...Ad6 14 f4! (14 Ab5+*f8 is
unconvincing) 14...g6 (14...Axf4 15 £tf3 Axel
16 laxel g6 17 Wg4 *) 15 Wxd5 0-0 16 Wc4
Axf4! 17 Wxf4 Wxd3 18 £>e4 e5 19 Wh4 Wd8
20 Ag5 £>xg5 21 £>xg5 Wd4+ 22 Wxd4 exd4 23
Sadl = Belikov-Riazantsev, Voronezh 1999.
We now return to 9 exf6 (D):
9...£>xf6
We now get a position similar to the main
lines with 7 £te2, but here the placement of the
knights differs slightly. In the 7 £te2 lines it is
the queen's knight that ends up on f3, after
5M2-f3, and the king's knight goes to e2. Here,
White gets his king's knight to f3, whereas the
queen's knight might take another route, namely
£to3or£tfl.
Black is slightly worse after 9...Wxf6; e.g.,
10 £>b3!? (exploiting the fact that Black made
an early exchange on d4; 10 0-0 Ad6 11 Sel
intending 5^fl-g3 is of course also possible)
10...h6 11 0-0 Ad6 12 Ad2 0-0 13 Ac3 Id8
(13...e5 14 dxe5 £>dxe5 15 £>xe5 Axe5 16
Axe5 £>xe5 17 Ae2 ±) 14 Ac2 £>f8 15 lei ±
Gormally-Lamb, York 1999.
10 0-0 Ad6 11 £>b3 0-0 12 Ag5 (D)
12 tfe2 Wc7 13 lei a5!? 14 Ae3 a4 15
£>bd2 Ad7 16 a3 Iae8 17 lacl Wa5 with
approximately equal chances, Pavasovic-Atlas,
Dresden Z 1998.
12...We8
It is an attractive idea to take the queen in the
direction of the kingside, but 12...Wc7 is also

7&gf3
115
playable; e.g., 13 Icl £>g4 14 h3 £>h2 15
^xh2 ±xh2+ 16 *hl ±f4 17 ±xf4 Wxf4 18
Jtb5 ^e7 with equal chances.
13 Ui4 ^h5 14 lei £>f4 15 ±g3 We7 16
Icl ±d7
±/= Dimitrov-de la Villa, Moscow OL 1994.
C)
7...fb6 (D)
The principled continuation.
8 0-0
Now Black has a main choice between:
CI: 8...cxd4 115
C2: 8...g6 116
8...1,e7 transposes to 3..Ae7 4 Ehgf3 ?hf6 5
e5 £hfd7 6 ±d3 c5 7 c3 £hc6 8 0-0 Wb6 (Line
D21 of Chapter 11).
CI)
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 £>xd4
Black has also tried 9...g6, when he has the
advantage of avoiding 8...g6 9 dxc5 as in Line
C2, but White is better after 10 £>b3. Again,
9.. Jte7 should be compared with Line D21 of
Chapter 11.
10 £>xd4 Wxd4 11 £>f3 Wb6 (D)
12 Well?
White has often chosen 12 Wa4 (intending to
bring the queen to the kingside) 12...Wb4 and
only then 13 tfc2. Then in addition to 13...ffc5,
transposing to 12 Wc2!? Wc5, Black can try
13...£>c5 14 Ad2 (14 l,xh7!? Ad7 should be
OK for Black) 14...»a4 15 b3 Wdl and now:
a) 16l,e2b6!17b4l,a618l,xa6£>xa619
a3 JLe7 + Schreiner-Riefner, Bavaria 1995.
b) 16 £>d4 £>xd3 17 Wxd3 Ac5 18 Ifcl b6
19 £>b5 0-0 is much better for Black, Deev-
Holzke, Bundesliga 1997/8.
c) 16±b4!b6 17&d4&xd3 18±xf8±a6
(18...*xf8 19 Wxd3 is probably very good for
White because Black cannot challenge the
knight on d4 and White can come quickly to the
c-file) 19 Axg7 Ig8 20 if6 favoured White in
Ma.Tseitlin-Holzke, Groningen open 1997.
12...tfc5
12...^c5 is again feasible but after 13 JLe3
Black's best is maybe 13...Wb4, and then he is a
tempo down on the previous note. The other
alternative is 12...h6 but White has had good
results after 13 Af4; e.g., 13...*d8 14 Wa4!?
Ae7 15 Ae3 *f8 16 lacl g6 17 h4 4>g7,
Ehlvest-Dolmatov, Novosibirsk 1993, and now
Ehlvest gives 18 Sc2 followed by Sfc 1 as
promising for White.
13 We2 ±el (D)
14£e3
Nunn-Mednis, Budapest 1978 went 14 Ad2
0-0 15 lacl Wb6 16 ±bl!? (16 Ic3!?) 16...f5
(16...Wxb2 17 Ic3! is very dangerous for Black)
17 exf6 £>xf6 18 Ac3 ±dl 19 Ifel (19 ±d4
I,b5! = Nunn) 19..Jtb4 20 Jtd4, and now
Nunn gives 20...tfd8! 21 ledl tfe7 with
equality.
14...#a5 15 Ifcl
15 a3 is also seen but is probably just a waste
of time.

116
The French: Tarrasch Variation
White has also simply played 15 Bad when
Black hasn't dared to take on a2 anyway.
However, if White doesn't want to risk anything
then the text-move is best. In Kolev-Herraiz,
Linares open 1996 Black felt victim to a quick
assault after 15 lacl 0-0 16 lc3 Be8? (16...f5
17 exf6 £ixf6 18 Ad4 "offers White chances
of a direct attack" according to Emms, as in
Emms-Giddins, Gausdal 1993; Black should
try 16...Wd8) 17 Axh7+! *xh7 18 £>g5+ Axg5
19 #h5+ *g8 (19...Ah6 20 £xh6 g6 21 #h4
Bh8 22 Bfcl! +- Emms) 20 i,xg5. White has
a decisive attack as lh3 is threatened and
20...Bf8 21 M6\ doesn't allow Black to
escape. The game concluded 20...#xc3 21 bxc3
£}xe5 22f4 1-0.
15..;td8!? 16 lc3 0-0 17 lacl f5 18 exf6
I,xf619lc7
White has a strong initiative, Nedev-Mohr,
PulaZ2000.
C2)
S...g6(D)
9dxc5
White has tried various moves but this is
clearly the most critical. It is also very logical.
White is ahead in development and thus seeks
to open the position. What is most important
though is that White need no longer worry
about Black grabbing the d-pawn, and prepares
to complete his development by £to3 and JLf4.
9...Wc7
9...£>xc5 10 £>b3 £>xd3 11 #xd3 is
considered to give White a safe plus, due to a slight
space advantage and the possibility of placing a
knight on d4. Kasparov-Bareev, Cannes rpd
2001 continued 11... Ag7 12l,f4 0-0(12...1,d7
13 Bfel h6 14 h4 0-0-0 15 £>bd4 £>xd4 16
£>xd4 was better for White in Tkachev-Kin-
dermann, Biel 1995) 13 Wd2 Ad7 14 Sfel a5
15 l,h6 a4 16 Axg7 <4>xg7 17 £fod4 £>a5 18
labl ^c4 19 Wf4 Wd8 20 h4 h6 21 Wg3, and
White was better.
10£>b3
This is White's most common and logical.
White proceeds as planned with development,
and is not directly bothered about the e5-pawn,
since there will always be some risk involved
for Black in capturing the pawn. An alternative
for White is 10 Jtb5!?, which isn't a bad idea
either. After 10...Ag7 11 c4 0-0 12 cxd5 exd5
13 £ib3, Benjamin-Remlinger, Honolulu 1996
continued 13...a6?! 14 Jtxc6 bxc6 15 Jtf4 £ixe5
16 Axe5 Axe5 17 £>xe5 #xe5 18 #d2 with a
typically clear advantage for White, who has
much the better minor piece and control of d4.
Benjamin instead suggests 13...^dxe5 14 JLf4
Ag4 (14...£>xf3+ 15 #xf3 ±e5 16 ±xe5 #xe5
17 l,xc6 bxc6 18 #c3 ±) 15 #xd5 £>xf3+ 16
Wxf3 ±xf3 (16...Wd7 17 Wg3 ±xb2 18 labl
±gl 19^a5±)17l,xc7l,g4(notl7...1,d5 18
ladl ±xb3 19 axb3 ±xb2 20 ld7 ±) with an
unclear position. Black has good compensation
in view of his two strong bishops.
10...±g7 (D)
A somewhat safer alternative is 10...^dxe5
11 £ixe5 £ixe5 12 Af4 ±g7 and now:
a) 13 Ab5+ Ad7 14 !,xd7+ #xd7 15 Bel
£k:4 = Maksimovic-Farago, Copenhagen 1989.

7&gf3
117
b) 13lel0-0 14c4!andthen:
bl) 14...f6 is the only move according to
Komarov but I don't quite see why, because
Black can always play this if required but
would rather not if he can avoid it. In Tkachev-
Komarov, French Cht 1996 White had an edge
after 15 Icl Wf7 16 cxd5 exd5 17 £>d4.
b2) 14...1,d7 15 cxd5 exd5 16 Ml Ac6 17
£}d4 Sfe8 18 b4 ± Gershon-Johannessen, Oro-
pesa del Mar U-18 Wch 1998.
W
11 £>fd4!
11 Af4 £>dxe5 12 £>xe5 (12 lei £>xf3+ 13
#xf3 e5 is fine for Black) 12...1,xe5 causes
Black less concern.
Il...#xe5 12f4
White aims to take advantage of Black's
poor development by launching a quick attack.
This involves advancing the f-pawn rapidly and
even sacrificing a piece to open lines if
required. Van den Doel-Gleizerov, Leeuwarden
1997 saw a dangerous sacrifice but Black
reacted calmly: 12lel #b8 (12...»f6 13 ±e3 ±)
13 £>xe6? fxe6 14 Ixe6+ *f7 15 Ac4?!
(objectively White should retreat the rook, but
this was probably the idea of White's sacrifice)
15...£>de5! (15...dxc4? 16#d5 Ae5 {16...^e7
17 If6++!} 17 Ixc6+ *g7 18 Ie6 with £>d4
coining) 16 #xd5 ±xe6 17 #xe6+ *f8 18
Ag5 £>xc4 19 #xc4 h6 20 Ah4 ffc7 and White
did not have enough for the sacrificed material.
12...#f6 (D)
Or 12...#b8 13 f5! e5 (13...gxf5 14 Axf5!?
should also be calculated but intuitively I believe
in White) 14 Jtg5! exd4 15 cxd4 (threatening
at least to regain the piece with Jtf4) 15...£>xd4
16 f6 Axf6 17 Axf6 £>xf6 18 Ixf6 and White
was better in Korneev-Gleizerov, Katowice
1992.
W
v mkmmm
a #f ip mm a mm
y?m ess wmy
I P
13 f5!?
This is an aggressive move, but White can
also continue in quieter fashion: 13 JLe3 0-0
(13...#d8!?) 14 £>xc6 bxc6 15 £>a5 £>b8 16
±d4!Td8 17±xg7*xg7 18#a4#c7 19lael
and White was better in Rotsagov-Johannes-
sen, Oslo 1997.
13...gxf5 14 ±xf5! £>xd4 15 £>xd4 exf5 16
£>xf5 £>xc5 17 #xd5 ±xf5 18 #xc5
White wins his piece back and ends up with a
pawn more in the ending, Sutovsky-Yudasin,
Tel Aviv 1994.
D)
7...g6!? (D)
W

118
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
A solid continuation. Black doesn't have any
ambitions of going for an attack against d4 yet
and simply intends to complete development
with ...Jtg7 and ...0-0. This developing scheme
strengthens Black's kingside and the bishop
will assist in a ...f6 break.
8 0-0
A direct assault with 8 h4!? (maybe the
best, actually) is certainly worth considering.
If Black is then going to castle kingside, White
will clearly benefit from opening the h-file,
and White's king is not in great danger in the
centre since Black has no obvious ways of
breaking it up.
a) 8...&e7 9 0-0 h6 10 lei cxd4 11 cxd4
±xh4 12 £>xh4 #xh4 13 £rf3 !fe7 is probably
a little too ambitious. Navara-M.Gurevich,
Antalya 2004 continued 14 Jte3 £>b6 15 Icl
Ad7 16 a3 0-0-0 17 b4 *b8 18 Ad2 with a
strong attack for White.
b) 8...h6 9 0-0 g5!? 10 h5 #b6 11 c4 cxd4
12 cxd5 exd5 13 £>b3 k.gl 14 £>fxd4 £>xd4 15
Ae3 Axe5 16 lei 0-0 17 £>xd4 Wf6 <*> Zhang
Pengxiang-M.Gurevich, Hoogeveen 2004.
c) 8...#b6 9h5(A)andnow:
c2) 9...g5!? 10 £>xg5 cxd4 11 cxd4 (D) and
now there is a choice between:
cl) 9..Agl 10 Ih4!? (10 hxg6 hxg6 11
lxh8+ Jtxh8 12 #a4 is an attempt to keep the
pawn on d4, but Black has a good position after
12...Jtg7 followed by ...a6, with the idea of
...#a7 and ...b5) 10...g5?! (too risky; Black
should try 10...gxh5) 11 £>xg5 cxd4 12 cxd4
£>xd4 13 h6! ±xe5 14 #h5 with a strong attack
for White, Damaso-Arizmendi, Leon open
1997.
« * ill m
I iio §oA
p P p p
ah m ha
m ill® h
c21) ll...#xd4 12 £>df3 #b4+ 13 *fl (13
Ad2 #xb2 14 Ibl #xa2 15 Ac3 d4! 16 £>xd4
Jtc5! should solve most of Black's problems)
13...£kxe5, Plaskett-Adamson, Newcastle 1998,
and here 14 a3 #b6 looks critical but might be
OK for Black.
c22) ll...£>xd4 12£>df3l,c5!?(12...£>xf3+
13 £>xf3 h6 14 0-0 #b4 15 Ae3 £>c5 16 £>d4
£>xd3 17 #xd3 Ad7 18 b3 was good for White
in Smirin-M.Gurevich, Dos Hermanas 2001).
Now:
c221) 13 ±xh7? £>xf3+ 14 #xf3 £>xe5 is
good for Black since 15 #f6? is strongly met
by 15...Ixh7! 16 £>xh7 Axf2+! 17 *dl #d4+
-+, as in Alikhanov-Potkin, Russian Ch
(Krasnodar) 2002.
c222) 13 0-0 £>c6 14 £>xh7! £>cxe5 15
£}xe5 ^xe5 was Lemmers-Claesen, Belgium
2005. White came out better after 16 £>f6+ *f8
17 £>h7+ *g8 18 £>f6+ *f8 19 h6 but 16
#a4+! also looks very strong. Then 16...4^8
17 #h4+ Ae7 18 Ag5 #d6 19 #g3 Axg5 20
£>xg5 *e7 21 Ifel £>xd3 22 #xd6+ *xd6 23
£>xf7+ *e7 24 £>xh8 £>xel 25 £>g6+ *f6 26
Sxel should win for White.
8...&g7 9 lei 0-0 10 £>fl cxd4 11 cxd4
#b6
Black can also challenge the centre
immediately with ll...f6 12 exf6 £>xf6 but must
then reckon with 13 Jtb5! ±. Black can hardly,
in a reasonable way, avoid White exchanging
his light-squared bishop for the knight on c6,

7&gf3
119
which is a positional gain for White, but first
Black improves the position of his queen.
12 Ac2 f6 13 exf6 £>xf6 (D)
14l,a4
An exchange on c6 is going to increase
White's control of the centre and enlarge the
likelihood of Black ending up with a bad light-
squared bishop. Black has to seek active coun-
terplay. Nisipeanu has played 14 Jtb3 a few
times but it doesn't really impress:
a) 14...£>g4 15 h3 £>h6 16 £>g3 was played
in Nisipeanu-Dgebuadze, Trignac 2002, and
now Black should play 16...£tf7! with the idea
17£e3&a5!.
b) 14...£d7 15 h3 £>e4 16 Ae3 a5 17 Ibl
Ixf3!? 18 gxf3 £>d6 19 Aa4 £>f5 with excellent
compensation, Nisipeanu-M.Gurevich, Aosta
2004.
14...£ie4 15 ±xc6 bxc6 16 £>g3 (D)
White is close to securing a positionally
better game but Black is currently very active,
and indeed seems to have a lot of tactics.
16...e5!?
16...£\xf2 could also be considered but
despite the material gains the position is not at all
clear after 17 *xf2 Axd4+ 18 Ae3 #xb2+ (in
Dembo-Galyas, Budapest 2003, a roughly equal
endgame was reached after 18... Jtxe3+ 19 Sxe3
e5 20 Wb3 e4 21 £>xe4 Wxb3 22 axb3 dxe4 23
Ixe4) 19*gl Wxal 20#xd4fxd421 Axd4.
17Ae3
White has probably not fully equalized after
17 £>xe4 dxe4 18 £>xe5 Axe5 19 dxe5 Wxf2+
20*hl Ae6.
17...exd4!
An improvement over two games by Bry-
nell:
a) 17...£>xg3 18 hxg3 exd4 (18...e4!?) 19
±xd4 Axd4 20 Wxd4 Wxd4 21 £>xd4 Ad7 22
lacl Ife8 23 ledl! ± Svidler-Brynell, Tors-
havn 1997.
b) 17...1,g4!? 18 dxe5 Wc7 19 £>xe4 dxe4
20 Wb3+ 4>h8 21 £>g5 ±xe5 22 h3 if5 23
Jtc5 ± Nouro-Brynell, Stockholm 1998.
18 ±xd4
Or 18 £>xd4 £>xf2! 19 £>xc6 (the lines 19
Wd2 £>g4 and 19 Axf2 Ixf2 both lose for
White) 19...»xc6 20 Axf2 Ixf2! 21 4>xf2
Wc5+! 22 Ie3 ±a6! and Black wins.
18...1,xd4 19 #xd4 £>g5
Black is clearly better.

9 Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £id2 £tf6 4 e5 £)fd7 5 f4 (D)
i 8W9L& ***
This represents one of the more ambitious
systems for White in the Tarrasch Variation.
With 5 f4 White wants to maintain a big centre
and hopes that his advantage in space will pay
off with a successful kingside attack later on.
This is in fact not an unrealistic idea, because it
is very likely that Black will castle kingside, but
on that side Black has little defence in the form
of minor pieces, and especially the pawn on e5
makes it difficult for Black to bring in
assistance. This may sound very rosy for White, but
Black has counterchances, particularly since
White is falling behind in development and
Black may find counterplay in the form of a few
well-timed pawn-thrusts to attack White's
centre. Black has two main defensive plans in this
respect: 5...c5 6 c3 £ic6 7 £idf3 Wb6 8 g3 (this
used to be the main line) 8...cxd4 9 cxd4, and
now either 9.. Jtb4+ 10 *f2 g5!?, or 9..A&110
Ah3 0-0 11 £ie2 f6!?. Lately, White has tended
to avoid these ideas, with 8 h4 (stopping ...g5
ideas) and 8 a3 (making ... JLb4+ impossible but
also introducing the possibility of advancing
with b4 on the queenside) being more popular.
En route to the first main decision-points, the
~o\e> run:
5...c5 6 c3
The main attraction of this system is the big
pawn-centre, so this is played almost
invariably. Yet White can also aim at recapturing on
d4 with a knight. Thus, a few other options are:
a) 6 &df3 ^c6 7 ^e2 and now there is a
choice between:
al) 7...#b6 8 g3 (8 c3 - 6 c3 ?hc6 7 fodf3
Wb6 8 foe!) 8...cxd4 9 £iexd4 £ixd4 10 £ixd4
£ib8 11 c3 Ac5 12 Ibl £ic6 13 Ae3 £ixd4 =
Bareev.
a2) 7...cxd4 8 £iexd4 £ixd4 9 £ixd4 Wb6
10 c3 Ac5 11 a4 a5 12 Ab5 0-0 13 0-0 f6 14
exf6 Axd4+! 15 Wxd4 Wxd4+ 16 cxd4 £ixf6
17 lei £ie4 18 Mi Ml 19 Axe4 dxe4 20
lxe4 lac8 = Nataf-Baklan, Istanbul Ech 2003.
b) 6 £>gf3 £>c6 (D) and now:
W
bl) 7 Ad3 #b6!. This threatens ...c4, and
if White plays 8 c3 he has clearly developed
his bishop prematurely, so there are two
options:
Ml) 8 dxc5 £\xc5 (clearly the most
common, but 8.. Jtxc5 can also be considered with
the idea 9 £ib3 if 2+ 10 *fl £ic5 11 c3 Ad7
oo) 9 £ib3 £ib4 10 Ml £ixb3 11 axb3 d4!? 12
Ac4 Ad7 13 c3 dxc3 14 bxc3 ^d5 = Kapni-
sis-N.Pert, Athens jr Wch 2001.

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
121
bl2) 8 c4 cxd4 9 cxd5 £ic5! 10 Abl (10
£>b3 £ixd3+ 11 Wxd3 £ib4 12 »dl d3 13
£}fd4 exd5 was clearly better for Black in Pena-
des Ordaz-Arizmendi, Valencia 1998) 10...exd5
11 0-0 d3 12 *hl M5 13 ^b3 £ixb3 14 axb3
£>b4 15 Gtel (Wahls-Xia Yu, Beijing 1993) and
now 15...Wg6 is good for Black.
b2) 7£ib3!?andthen:
b21) 7...Wb6 8 c3 a5 9 dxc5 £ixc5 10 Ae3
a4 11 £ixc5 Axc5 12 Axc5 Wxc5 13 Wd2 ±.
b22) 7...cxd4 8 £ibxd4 - 6 ?hdf3 ?hc6 7
?he2 cxd4 8 ?hexd4.
b23) 7...c4 8 £ibd2 b5 9 Ae2 Wb6 10 £tf 1
f6 11 £ie3 fxe5 12 fxe5 Ae7 13 c3 0-0 14 0-0
b4 15 Wei bxc3 16 bxc3 Wa5 17 Adl! looked
promising for White in Smagin-M.Gurevich,
Essen 2001.
We now return to 6 c3 (D):
w> w§ w§ w>
Wk O £M fH
3? y ^7777^ #7777*2
AXa ^v ^f§ £> |H|
*l WWW & €7f
6...£k6
A familiar idea is 6...b6, aiming to exchange
the light-squared bishops but as with many early
...b6 ideas, it is probably not very good since
White's development is only speeded up. One
example is 7 £>df3 Jte7 (if 7.. JU6 8 Jtxa6
£\xa6 9 f5!, White's attack is already going) 8
£ie2 g6 9 g3 Aa6 10 !,h3 £ic6 11 0-0 cxd4 12
cxd4 b5 13 lf2 b4 14 Ae3 Wb6 15 b3 with a
solid advantage for White, Zagrebelny-Temir-
baev, Akmola 1998.
7 £idf 3 (D)
If 7 £\gf3 White has some trouble defending
d4 in a normal way. However, positions where
White defends it with the seemingly unnatural
£\b3 have turned out to be not so bad. Thus:
7...Wb6 8 £ib3 cxd4 9 £ibxd4!? (compared
with the line 6 ?hdf3 ?hc6 7 ?he2 cxd4 8 ?hexd4
?hxd4 9 ?hxd4, the main difference is now that
if Black exchanges knights on d4, White
recaptures with the pawn and maintains a space
advantage) 9...£ic5 10 Ibl Ad7 11 Ae3 lc8 12
Ae2 £ie4 13 0-0 £ixd4 14 £ixd4 Ac5 15 Ad3
and White was better in Klimov-Gleizerov, St
Petersburg 2003.
Now we have:
A: 7...Wa5 121
B: 7...cxd4 122
C: 7...Wb6 124
The typical ...f6 break is not advisable here:
7...f6?! 8 Ad3 cxd4 9 cxd4 Ab4+ 10 Ml Wb6
11 a3 Axd2+ 12 Wxd2 0-0 13 £ie2 h6 14 b4!?
a6 15 Eel ± Speelman-Skembris, Novi Sad OL
1990.
A)
7...»a5
In the late 1970s and early 1980s this was a
fairly popular sideline. Black may want to take
on d4, for the c-pawn is pinned, but the queen
move also has the advantage of supporting
...b5-b4.
8 Ae3 (D)
After this Black could certainly consider
taking on d4 but even if White is forced to
recapture with a piece Black doesn't equalize fully.
White has also insisted on being able to
recapture with the pawn, and has thus tried 8 4>f2,

122
The French: Tarrasch Variation
but then 8.. Jte7 with the idea 9 Jtd3 (9 h4!?)
9...1^6 10 £>e2 f6 is comfortable for Black
since White's king is far from safe on the f-file
or on the a7-gl diagonal.
8...#b6
This is not really as stupid as it might
appear. White has got JLe3 for free but Black
now gains a tempo by attacking the b-pawn.
Other moves:
a) 8...cxd4 9 £>xd4 £>xd4 10 Jtxd4 £>b8 is a
typical French idea but 11 £tf3 £\c6 12 Jte3 is
very good for White.
b) 8...b5 received some interest until White
found 9 dxc5 b4 10 £>d4! (better than 10 a3
b3!? with compensation for Black) 10...#xc5
11 #a4! bxc3 (ll...Ab7 12 Ab5 Ic8 13 *f2!
a6 14 Axc6 Axc6 15 Wxa6 +- Adorjan) 12
#xc6 cxb2 13 Hbl Wa3 14 <4>f2 +- Adorjan-
J.Watson, New York 1981.
9 ttd2 f6 10 Zhe2 (D)
10...g5!?
A very aggressive continuation but 10...fxe5
11 fxe5 cxd4 (ll...Ae7!?) 12 £>exd4! Ac5 13
b4 £>xd4 14 Axd4 Axd4 15 cxd4 0-0 16 Ae2 is
good for White.
11 exf6 gxf4 12 f7+ *xf7 13 £ixf4
This looks so overwhelming for White that
it is hard to believe how Black escapes.
Nevertheless, in Palac-Dizdar, Vinkovci 1993 Black
made a quick draw after 13...£tf6 14 £\g5+
*g8 15 £>gxe6 (15 0-0-0 cxd4 16 cxd4 £>b4
with counterplay) 15...Jtxe6 16 ^xe6 He8 17
&xf8 cxd4 18 cxd4 #xd4 19 Wxd4 £ixd4 20
0-0-0 Ixe3 21 Ixd4 <4>xf8 V2-V2.
B)
7...cxd4 8 cxd4 (D)
8 £ixd4!? £ixd4 9 cxd4 ^b8! 10 £rf3 £ic6 is
roughly equal.
I |«s& m
Now:
Bl: 8...£lb6
B2: 8...f5
122
123
A more common option is 8...#b6, but this
will transpose to positions covered in Line C
(7...W&6).
8...h5 9 Ad3 £ib6 - 8...Q&6 9 k,d3 h5.
Bl)
8...£ib6 9 Ad3
White can also try to exploit Black's move-
order by 9 g4 but in practice this could be risky

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
123
since White easily ends up with a positionally
miserable game if his attack fails. Lane-Bunz-
mann, Leuven 1998 then went 9...h5 10 gxh5
2xh5 (10...Ae7!?) 11 h4 Ad7 12 £>e2 a5 13
5ig3 lh8 14 h5 #c7 with counterplay.
9...H5 (D)
Uhlmann played this often in the late 1960s.
Black's idea is simply to blockade the kingside
but practice has shown that Black isn't flexible
enough and White can make use of his
advantage in space. 9...Ml 10 £>e2 £>b4 11 Jtbl
Jta4!? 12 b3 Jtd7 (intending counterplay on
the c-file) was played in Adorjan-V.Kovacevic,
Sarajevo 1982, and even though Black later
won the game, I don't trust Black's idea. 13 g4,
as Kovacevic suggests, looks good for White.
in
*3
WB 4 ¥m Wfr 4
i W&y W&y HP
i o o m
10 £>e2
The most natural but since Black doesn't
plan on attacking d4, White could also
consider another deployment of the knight, viz. 10
£>h3 when 10...Ad7 (10...a5!?) 11 0-0 g6 12
a3!? a5 13 lfe2 Ae7 14 £>hg5 a4 15 Iff 2 £>a5
16 Ad2 ^b3 17 ladl gave White an
advantage in R.Maric-Uhlmann, Skopje 1968.
10...a5!?
The most accurate move-order. If 10...Jtd7
White may pre-empt Black's coming queenside
play by 11 a3! a5 12 b3 and now after 12.. Jte7
13 0-0 g6 14 *hl *f8 (14...0-0 15 Igl
intending g4 gives White a strong attack, but it is also
worth considering the immediate 14...a4) 15
Sgl a4, Kujala-Anton, corr. 1989-91, Bareev
suggests 16 bxa4 ±.
11 a3 a4 12 0-0 Ad7 13 Wei!?
In Wade-Uhlmann, Skopje 1968, White now
achieved a devastating attack after 13...£\a5?
14 f5! exf5 15 e6! fxe6 16 Wg3 *f7 17 «M4 +-.
Things shouldn't be so bad for Black, though,
and 13...g6 should hold up quite well, although
14 Jtd2 still looks better for White.
B2)
8...f5 (D)
W
"*■*■ Wkk
I ip a w§ 4 Ws
« if if ^
WM f}% £M
' W,
A very solid line. Black wants to play on the
queenside with ...£\b6 followed by ...a5-a4-a3
but first creates a little breathing-space on the
kingside. This type of structure is often
regarded as somewhat better for White since he
can later attack on the kingside with g4, but in
practice Black's position often turns out more
than difficult to knock down, and the
counterplay on the queenside comes quickly.
9 Ad3 Ae7
9...#b6 has little point now as White easily
defends d4: 10 £>e2 Ae7 (10...AM+ 11 *f2
Ae7 ± Suetin) 11 0-0 £tf8 12 *hl Ml 13 ^c3
(13 Ac2 ±) 13...&M? (13...£>xd4 14 Ae3 Ac5
was required) 14 Jte2 £ia6 (14...a5 15 a3 £ia6
± Suetin) 15 a3 £>c7 16 Ml £ig6 17 lei 0-0
18 £>a4 Axa4 19 Wxa4 lac8 20 lc2 ± Sham-
kovich-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi 1969.
10 £>e2 0-0 11 Igl!? (D)
White is now preparing an attack with g4.
Black will have few problems is he is allowed to
advance on the queenside in peace. The
problem with the text-move is obviously that White
keeps his king in the centre but for the time

124
The French: Tarrasch Variation
being there is little risk in doing so, since Black
can hardly hope to open the centre. However,
because White will later spend time on
securing his king by if2, Sg2, d?gl and ihl, there
is something to be said for 11 0-0 ^b6 12 ihl
Jtd7 13 Sgl, when White seems to have saved
a few tempi, but this allows Black to defend his
kingside with 13...Ae8! 14 h3 l,g6. Then 15 a3
a5 16 b3 Wdl 17 Ml a4 18 b4 £ic4 19 Wei b5
was fine for Black in McShane-Knott, British
League (4NCL) 1995/6.
W
wmJL
if i«
IK Ail
%4k '"'
Wfr flf
■ HABA
m
Il...^b612g4l,d713*f2
13 a3 £ia5!? 14 b3 lc8 15 *fl £ia8!? 16
gxf5 exf5 17 Ad2 #b6 gave Black good coun-
terplay in the game McShane-Hertneck, Bun-
desliga 2001/2.
13...a5 14 lg2
It would be naive to think that White could
conduct a successful attack with the king
exposed on f2, so he first takes his time to
improve the position of his king.
14...*h8 15 *gl a4 16 *hl £ib4 17 Abl
£k4 18 gxf5 exf5 19 £ig5
Or 19 Wgl g6 20 h4!? with a promising
attack for White, Conquest-Sharif, French Cht
1999.
19...a3 20b3^b2!?2lltf2
± Sax-Sharif, Dubai 2000.
C)
7...Wb6 (D)
It doesn't make a great difference whether
Black plays this before or after he exchanges on
d4. The pawn exchange is part of Black's plan
for counterplay anyway. Now:
CI: 8g3 125
C2: 8h4!? 129
C3: 8a3 132
I covered 8 £\e2 f6! in The Main Line French:
3 &Sc3 as the position probably more frequently
arises from 3 ^hc3 ?hf6 4 e5 %Sfd7 5 ?hce2 c5 6
c3 ?hc6 7f4 Wb6 8 %sf3f6. We shall not neglect
it entirely here but I shall restrict myself to a
few recent developments:
a) 9 g3 cxd4 and now:
al) In The Main Line French: 3 ^hc3,1 gave
10 £\exd4, maybe slightly preferring White,
but in Atlas-Schenk, Austrian Cht 2003/4 Black
reacted soberly with 10...fxe5 11 fxe5 ^c5! 12
Ah3 Ae7 13 0-0 0-0 14 ife2 £ixd4 15 £ixd4
Sxfl+ 16 ixfl JLd7 and was doing perfectly
well.
a2) 10 cxd4 Ab4+ 11 £ic3 0-0 12 a3 Ae7
13 Ah3 fxe5 14 Axe6+ *h8 15 £ixd5 Vd8 is a
well-established line, with 16 £\xe7 Wxe7 17
d5 e4 18 £>g5 £>c5! not doing badly for Black.
16 Jtxd7 Jtxd7 was seen in Lupulescu-Smer-
don, Calvia OL 2004, with the game
confirming that Black is doing well following 17 dxe5
Ag4 18 0-0 Ac5+ 19 Ae3 Axe3+ 20 £>xe3
Wb6! 21 Wd2 Axf3 22 lxf3 ^d4!. However,
is Black's compensation entirely adequate after
17£W7Wxe7 18£ixe5?
b) 9 a3 JLe7 and here:
bl) 10 h4 0-0 11 lh3 a5 12 b3 Wcl 13 £ig3
b6 with an equal position, Klimov-Danin,
Smolensk 2005.

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
125
b2) 10 b4!? cxd4 11 cxd4 a5 12 b5 £>d8
12...ifxb5 13 f5!? oo) 13 £>c3 £>f7 14 Ad3 0-0
15 £>a4 Wc7 16 Ibl £>b6 17 0-0 £ixa4 18
txa4 Wb6 19 Ad2 Ad7 20 Ifcl fxe5 21 fxe5
= Balaji-Zhang Zhong, Dubai 2005.
CI)
8g3
This used to be White's main line but is now
often substituted for other pawn moves designed
to prevent some of the counterplay Black
develops in this line.
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 (D)
w/z/a jl w/z/a -i-ym wm
v m±Wmm sl
mm * ilflllll • HI •
w. a t&. m
Now:
Cll: 9...1,b4+ 125
C12: 9...1,e7 128
Much of Black's counterplay is based upon a
...f6 break but if played immediately White
moves his bishop and gets f 1 for his king. This
explains 9...Jtb4+, which forces White's king
to f2, where it adds to Black's dynamic options
by being on the a7-gl diagonal.
Thus 9...f6 is now seen rarely, with the main
line going 10 Ah3 Ab4+ 11 *fl fxe5 12 fxe5
0-0 13 d?g2 £\dxe5 (Black has to engage in this
because something slow like 13...4I18 14 £\e2
is simply very good for White due to his
superiority on the kingside) 14 dxe5 £ixe5 15 #e2!
and now:
a) 15...£>c4?! 16 b3 Ac3 17 Ibl e5 18 Wd3
Wa5 (18...Ael 19 Axc8 laxc8 20 bxc4 Wf2+
21 4>h3 +- Dvoretsky-Gedevanishvili, Kutaisi
1978) 19 bxc4 (safe, although 19 Axc8 laxc8
20 bxc4 Wxa2+ 21 <A>h3 also should work)
19...e4 20 Wxd5+ Wxd5 21 cxd5 exf3+ 22
£>xf3 Axh3+ 23 *xh3 ixf3 24 lxb7 +-
Z.Rigo-Iliushin, Aviles jr Ech 2000.
b) 15...&xf3 16 £>xf3 e5 17 Axc8 laxc8
18 Idl! and here:
bl) 18...e4?! 19 £>d4 lc4 20 Ae3 Ac5 21
Wh5 ± Sisniega-Matamoros, Seville 1992.
b2) After 18...»g6 Sisniega gives 19 Ad2T
Sc2 20 Wxe5 as winning for White but this is
certainly not true as 20...Wd3! completely turns
the tables. 19 £>xe5 Iff5! 20 £tf3 lc2 isn't clear
either. Hence in Arkhipov-Poulton, Cappelle la
Grande 1995, White chose the passive 19
&el!? Axel 20 Wxel lc2+ 21 ld2 d4 22
lxc2 Wxc2+ 23 *gl h6 24 b3 and eventually
came out better with his extra piece.
Cll)
9...±b4+ 10 *f 2 (D)
Due to the attack on d4, this is now forced.
Up to now White has violated just about every
opening guideline we are taught when we learn
to play chess: 7 of his first 10 moves have been
with pawns, he has moved the same minor
piece twice, and he has already moved his king.
Nevertheless, White is very close to having a
nice grip on the position. If he managed to
develop his bishop to d3, the knight to e2 and
move the king to g2, Black would find it very
difficult to create any useful counterplay.
10...g5!?

126
The French: Tarrasch Variation
For the reasons given above, Black
immediately seeks active counterplay. White is
attacking g5 twice but any capture would remove the
defence of one of his central pawns. Hence,
White's reply is far from obvious. The move
...g5 has one main point, namely that if White's
king now tries to hide on g2 Black will at least
open the g-file for an attack. The main
alternative for Black has been 10...f6 11 <A>g2 and
now:
a) 11...0-0 12 Ad3 allows White his ideal
set-up since now Black cannot take on d4 due to
a discovered check at the end. White now
prepares £\e2 with a comfortable game. Black has
now tried:
al) 12...£fcd4? 13 Ae3! (13 £ixd4 fxe5 14
fxe5 £ixe5 15 Axh7+ <A>xh7 16 Wh5+ *g8 17
Wxq5 Jtd6 gives Black compensation) 13...fxe5
14 fxe5 Ac5 15 Axd4 Axd4 16 £ixd4 Wxb2+
(16...£ixe5 17 Axh7+ <A>xh7 18 Wh5+ <A>g8 19
Wxe5 Wxb2+ 20 ^ge2 +-) 17 Ac2! £ixe5 18
£>gf3 £lxf3 19 £>xf3 b6 20 We2 ± Yakovich-
Bareev, USSR 1985.
a2) 12...*h8 13 £ie2 fxe5 has the idea 14
fxe5 Sxf3 15 <A>xf3 £\xd4+ with good play for
Black, but White instead plays 14 dxe5! with a
clear advantage; e.g., 14..Jte7 15 h4 £fc5 16
£}g5! ± Gufeld-Khasin, USSR Ch (Moscow)
1961.
a3) 12..JK7 13 £ie2 £tf8 14 h4 Ad7 15 h5
± Sakharov-Geller, USSR 1964.
a4) 12...g5 13 exf6 (13 h3!? gxf4 14 gxf4
*h8 15 Wq2 Ae7 16 Ae3 £ib4 17 Abl a5 18
h4 Hf7 19 £>h3 ± Solak-E.Berg, Batumi Echt
1999) 13...£ixf6 14 £ie2 (14 fxg5 £ie4 «,)
14...gxf4 15 Axf4 ± Sebesta-Skorpik, Czech
Cht 1999.
b) 1 l...g5!? is probably more accurate than
'a4' above, and leads to very complicated play
after 12 exf6 (D). Then:
bl) 12...g4 13 f7+ *f8 (13...*xf7 isn't out
of the question but 14 £>g5+ *e7 15 #xg4 QX6
16 Wdl does look better for White, with the idea
16...»xd4 17 Ad3, intending Wq2 and £>lf3) 14
£ig5 £tf6 15 h3! Wxd4 16 lfe2 gxh3+ 17 lxh3
± Betzelt-Horackova, corr. 1990.
b2) 12.. .£M6! ? looks rather speculative here
but unless White can find a clear refutation of
it, it certainly has its points. 13 fxg5 £te4,
intending ...0-0, isn't clear, and 13 ^e2 would
now obstruct the light-squared bishop.
We now return to 10...g5!? (D):
W
m
Alii? £fev HP A lip Wfr
m n wk
11 fxg5
This is safest, most popular, and probably
best. White now loses his proud e-pawn but
gains other advantages in return, mostly that
Black's kingside is weakened and thus it isn't
easy for Black to find a safe spot for his king.
Other options:
a) 11 h3 gxf4 12 Axf4 (after 12 gxf4, both
12...f6!? and 12...1g8!? are fine for Black)
12...f6 13 <4>g2 Af8!? (a thematic manoeuvre:
the bishop is brought back via f8 to g7, to
increase the pressure against e5 and aid Black's
kingside) 14 lh2!? Ag7 (14...*xb2+ 15 *hl
Wa3 16 Jtb5 with some compensation for White
according to Barsov) 15 ^hl 0-0 16 Se2 fxe5
17 dxe5 ^c5 and Black was doing well in
Zagrebelny-Barsov, USSR 1988.
b) 11 Jte3 and now:
bl) ll...f6 12 JUi3. A typical situation:
White would often want his bishop on d3 but
when Black plays an early ...f6, the bishop may
pop up on h3 to attack the e6-pawn. Now:
bl 1) 12...0-0 (this may lead to the same
positions as 12...fxe5 13 fxe5 0-0, since Black can
exchange on e5 later, but there are a few finesses
that cause this to be an inferior move-order) 13
Axe6+ *h8 14 £ie2!? fxe5 (14...gxf4 15 £M4
fxe5 16 £\xd5 is very good for White according
to Plachetka, but Black should try 14...^cxe5!?.
when 15 dxe5 Wxe6 16 £ied4 Wa6 isn't clear)
15 £\xg5! (a major reason why 12...fxe5 is

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
127
more accurate) 15...exf4 16 &xf4 £tf6 17 <4>g2
jtd6 18 &f 1! ± Dobrovolsky-Tibensky, Trinec
1988.
bl2) 12...fxe5 13 fxe5 0-0 (D) and then:
W
tUP A HP
, wmJLwm
W^,<m--
if m w&m,
h ffF HP f^f
B
bl21) 14 Axe6+? *h8 15 *g2 g4! 16 Axg4
<2Mxe5 + Kosten.
bl22) 14 &g4 Ac5!! 15 Axe6+ *h8 16
dxc5 Wxb2+ 17 Jtd2 g4! led to favourable
complications in Emms-Kosten, British Ch
(Edinburgh) 1985. Emms then suggests 18 Sbl!
#xe5 19 Axd7 »d4+ 20 Ae3 Wxdl 21 Ixdl
Jtxd7 22 Sxd5 Jte6 as best, with a roughly
equal endgame.
bl23) 14 icl <A>h8 15 Ag4 Ae7 16 Wd2,
and now Black should play 16...Jtb4 to annoy
White's queen, when it is not clear after 17 Wd3
Jte7 that White has anything better than a
repetition with 18 Wd2.
bl3) 12...h5!. Watson's suggestion, which
again threatens ...g4. Then:
bl31) 13 fxg5 fxe5 14 £>e2 e4 15 £>h4 £>f8
00.
bl32) 13 l,xe6 gxf4 14 gxf4 fxe5 15 fxe5
£\cxe5! 16 dxe5 Wxe6 17 £\e2 was unclear in
Moss-Harding, corr. 1988.
M33) 13exf6g4(13...gxf4 14f7+<A>xf7 15
Axf4 e5 16 Axd7 exf4 17 !,xc6 bxc6 18 gxf4
Ad6 oo) 14 f7+ *f8 15 £>h4 (Black's idea was
initially dismissed by Bareev as being clearly
better for White at this stage, but Watson rightly
points out that this is not necessarily the case)
15...gxh3 16 £>g6+ *g7 17 £>xh8 £>f6 18 £>xh3
£\g4+ 19 <A>f3 ^xhS, intending ...e5, is not
clear at all.
b2) ll...g4 12 £>d2 (12 £>h4 Ae7 13 Ibl
Jtxh4 14 gxh4 h5 15 h3 f5 is given as unclear
by Yakovich) 12...f6! 13 £ib3 (certainly not 13
Wxg4? Axd2 14 Axd2 Wxd4+ and Black wins,
Gufeld-Hummel, Las Vegas 2000) 13...fxe5 14
Wxg4 (this leads to sharp play, which may be
favourable for Black, but Black is also doing
well after 14 dxe5 Jtc5 15 £>xc5 £>xc5 16 Jbtc5
Wxc5+ 17 *g2 lg8) 14...£rf6 (14...exf4!? 15
gxf4 £>f6 16 %7 If8 is safer but not as fun,
although to be honest Black might be doing well)
15 Wg7 exd4! (this sacrifices a rook for a
fantastic attack) 16 Wxh8+ 4f7 17 Acl (D).
, MX
HI AH
JH mM mm
■*■*
■ in mt
IHA
%sw? ^v////m ^ ''jam mm
A
Now Black has two very good-looking
options:
b21) 17...e5 18 Ag2 e4 19 f5 Axf5! 20
Wxa8 e3+ 21 Axe3 (21 *fl Ad3+ 22 £>e2
Axe2+ 23 *xe2 Wb5+ 24 <4>f 3 Wd3 25 Wxb7+
<«feg6 and White is mated in a few moves)
21...£>g4+ 22 *fl £>xe3+ 23 *f2 ^g4+ 24
<A>fl Jtd3+ (again White is mated) 0-1 Hasse-
Polster, corr. 1988.
b22) 17...Af8!? 18 £>f3 h6 19 Ah3 Ag7 20
Jtxe6+ Jbte6 21 Wxa8 Jth3 is given as 'wild
and unclear' by Watson. In fact I don't think it is
that unclear. With ...£te4 and ...d3 coming I
don't see a defence for White, despite his heavy
material advantage. Watson himself gives the
supplementary moves 22 £lel(?) d3+ 23 <4>f3
£>g4 24 £>xd3 Wxb3! 25 axb3 £>d4#, which is
indeed pretty.
Il...£>dxe5 12 £>xe5
12 <i>g2 is an interesting move-order, after
which 12...£ixf3 13 &xf3 transposes to 12

128
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Zhxe5 Zhxe5 13 <A>g2 foc6 14 ?hf3 but Black
has lost the option of 13...^hc4!?. It might be
worth considering keeping the knights on the
board with 12...£>g6!?.
12...£\xe5 (D)
13<A>g2
This wisely improves the king position. 13
Ae3 £>c4! 14 Axc4 dxc4 15 £>f3 Ad6 is equal,
Rachels-Schussler, New York 1987.
13...£k6
I would slightly prefer White after 13...^c4
14£if3Ad7 15Ad3.
14 £tf3 Af8!
Watson calls 14...jtd7 a slight finesse
because it prevents 15 b3 due to 15... Jtc3. On the
contrary, this gives White the chance to develop
his bishop more actively on f4: 15 Jtf4 Jtf8 16
b3 (16 Wd2 Ag7 17 Idl lc8 gives Black good
counterplay; his first idea is ...£fo4, and on 18
a3, Kalinitschew's 18...£\a5 looks fine for Black)
16...Ag7 17 Icl Ic8 (17...0-0 might be more
accurate) 18 Ad3 0-0?! (18...£ixd4 19 Ixc8+
Axc8 20 Ae3 Ad7 21 lei favours White, but
18...Axd4!? 19 £ixd4 #xd4 20 We2 #g7 is
perhaps not clear) 19 ^e5! £>xe5 20 Jtxe5 ±
Harikrishna-E.Berg, Erevan jr Wch 2000.
15 b3 Ag7 16 Ab2 Ad7 17 Ae2 h618 ttd2
0-0-0 19 h4
± Malakhov-Jurkovic, Montecatini Terme
1997.
C12)
9...J.e7 (D)
10AH3
10 <±>f2 is also seen but Black's bishop is then
definitely better placed on e7 than it is on b4.
10 h4 - 8 h4 cxd4 9 cxd4 k,e710 g3.
10...0-0
The immediate 10...f6 is feasible (perhaps
even more accurate) and often just transposes:
e.g., 11 £ie2 0-0 - 10...0-0 11 *he2 f6. The
game Dobrovolsky-Glek, Odessa 1989 took a
slightly different turn: 11 <4>f 1 (11 Jtxe6 £kixe5!
12 Axc8 £ixf3+ 13 £>xf3 Ixc8 +) ll...£fo4!?
(11...0-0 - 10...0-0 11 <A>/7/6) 12 <A>g2 #a6 13
£ie2 £ib6 14 £ic3 ^d3 15 ftel £ixcl 16 Ixcl
£\c4 with roughly equal chances.
Il£ie2
Adams-Illescas, Erevan OL 1996 continued
11 if 1!? (the immediate transfer of the king to
g2 avoids trouble on the f-file) 11...f6 (11...f5! ?
deserves attention; Black might save a tempo
since he later closes the position anyway) 12
<A>g2 ihS!? (it is premature to open the f-file.
for after 12...fxe5 13 fxe5 White continues Jtg4
and h4, with the better game) 13 b3 a5 14 a4 f5
(14...£Mb8!? - Adams) 15 £ie2 £ib4 16 Ae3
£>b8, and now Adams suggests 17 #d2 Ad7 18
Hhcl with an edge for White.
11..J6!? (D)
This pawn sacrifice has been confirmed b\
many games as Black's best way of seeking
counterplay. If Black waits passively on the
kingside there is a great risk of White being
able to conduct a successful attack.
12 Ifl!?
White seeks to castle 'by hand'. The main
reason for this is that after 12 0-0? fxe5 13

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
129
w
fxe5 £\dxe5 Black wins a pawn. Obviously,
12 Jtxe6+ &h8 also needs to be checked.
Then:
a) 13 Axd5? fxe5 14 dxe5 (14 fxe5 £idxe5!
and now 15 dxe5 £\xe5 is the same, while 15
£\xe5 £}xe5 16 Jtf4 Jtg4! isn't an
improvement for White) 14...^dxe5! 15 fxe5 ^xe5.
Black is a whole piece down but nevertheless
his attack is irresistible; e.g., 16 &f4 Jtb4+ 17
*f 1 lxf4! 18 gxf4 l,h3+ 19 *e2 £ig4 20 £id4
#c5 21 Jte6 ld8 -+ Savon-Gleizerov, Che-
liabinsk 1991.
b) 13exf6!^xf6(13...Ab4+14*fl!£ixf6
15 Jtxc8 iaxc8 16 *g2, Hubner-S.Mohr, Bun-
desliga 1988/9,16...£te4«) 14 £xc8 Haxc8 15
0-0 £ie4 16 a3 £ia5 17 #d3 #b3! with good
compensation for Black, Malakhov-Ulybin,
Oberwart 1999.
12...*h8!
A very useful prophylactic move, avoiding
Jtxe6 coming with check, and postponing the
decision of how to handle things in the centre.
13 If 2
Or:
a) 13 #b3?! #a6! 14 Ad2 £ib6 15 lf2
£\c4 + Malakhov-Ulybin, Russian Ch (Elista)
1995.
b) 13 £ic3 fxe5 14 fxe5 lxf3!? 15 #xf3
£>xd4 16 Wh5 #d8! with compensation, Krup-
kova-Gleizerov, Aaland/Stockholm 1997.
13...fxe5!
A much more dynamic idea than 13...a5 14
£ic3 #d8 15 Afl £ib6 = Hennigan-Apicella,
French Cht 1997.
14 fxe5 £idxe5!
Not an unfamiliar theme in this line.
15 dxe5 Ab4+ 16 £k3 £ixe5
Harikrishna-Visser, Wijk aan Zee 2001.
Black has an excellent attack, although the
position still requires very accurate play from
both sides.
C2)
8 h4!? (D)
Vi.vff«
mm «*• mm » wm
Hf 4 WBi^WB 4 Hi 4
Hf 4 ill W"
*""''W/"""''Wfr A MA
As usual when White plays this move in the
French, it is a combination of aggressive
tendencies and prevention of counterplay.
8...cxd4
It is only logical for Black to try to open the
position when White is lagging in
development, but other moves are also possible:
a) 8...£e7!? 9 h5 f6!? (9...h6 10 a3!? cxd4
11 cxd4 £ia5 12 £ie2 ^b3 13 Ibl £>xcl 14
Wxcl 0-0 15 £ic3 f6 16 #e3 fxe5 17 fxe5 lf7
18 Ad3 ± Zagrebelny-Luther, Schwerin 1999)
10 Ad3 cxd4 11 cxd4 - 8...cxd4 9 cxd4 k,e710
h5f611 $Ld3.
b) 8...a5!? gives White a choice of whether
he should react on the queenside or not:
bl) 9 h5 h6 10 g4 a4 11 Ibl cxd4 12 cxd4
£idb8 13 £ie2 Ml 14 *f2 a3 15 b3 (15 £ic3!?)
15...£>a6 16 Ae3 £icb4 17 £ic3 0-0-0 18 A.e2
*b8 19 #d2 lc8 20 Ibcl Ae7 = Engedal-
Poulton, Witley 1994.
b2) 9 a4 cxd4 10 cxd4 ^db8!? 11 h5 h6 12
Ad3 Ml 13 £ie2 £ia6 14 0-0 0-0-0 15 *hl
Ml 16 Ae3 <4>b8 = Psakhis-I.Farago, Berlin
1988.

130
The French: Tarrasch Variation
9cxd4 (D)
, mJLm+m m
lif 4 HUfclff ill!
9...±b4+
Again the main objective of this move is to
force White's king onto the f-file. The
alternatives are:
a) 9...f610±d3±b4+ll<4>e2!?l,e7 12h5
0-0 13 #c2 f5 14 a3 a5 15 g4 Wd8! 16 gxf5
exf5 17 ^h3 gave White a promising attacking
set-up in Conquest-M.Gurevich, Clichy 1993.
b) 9...Ae7!? and then:
bl) 10 h5 f6! 11 ±d3 0-0 actually looks
dangerous for White:
Ml) 12 Abl fxe5 13 fxe5 ±b4+ 14 <4>e2
£kixe5! 15 dxe5 ^xe5 with strong play for the
piece, Istratescu-Dimitrov, Niksic 1997.
bl2) 12 a3 fxe5 13 fxe5 £>xd4 14 £>xd4
£>xe5 15 ibl (15 £>gf3 ±d6! looks dangerous
for White) 15...±d7 16 £>ge2 Sac8 «> Lane-
Meessen, Leuven 1998.
bl3) 12 £>e2 ±b4+ 13 ±d2 fxe5 14 fxe5
£>cxe5 (14...1xf3!?) 15 dxe5 £>xe5 + Van
Dongen-L.Roos, French Ch 1989.
b2) 10 g3 a5 11 <4f2 a4 12 £>e2 f6 13 <4>g2
0-0 14 h5 a3 15 b3 f5 16 Ae3 £>db8 17 <4>h2
±dl 18 Ah3 £>a6 19 Hgl Sac8 20 Wd2 ±M 21
Wdl Ae7 22 g4 £>cb4 23 £>el £>c7 (intending
...£fo5-c3), with counterplay, Adams-Dimitrov,
Burgas 1993.
b3) 10 £>h3!? f6 (10...a5!?) 11 ±d3 f5 12
±e2 £>f8 13 h5 ±d7 14 £>f2 0-0-0 15 a3 £>a5
16 b4 £>c4 17 £>d3 <4>b8 18 <4>f2 ± Conquest-
S.Williams, Hastings 1995.
b4) 10 a3 (to rule out checks on b4 but also a
good waiting move; 10...0-0 can now be met by
±d3and£>e2) 10...£>a5!?(10...a5!?) Illh3!?
£>b3 12 Hbl £>xcl 13 Wxcl h5 14 ±d3 £>f8
(14...Wd8!? intending ...£>b8-c6 - Yudasin) 15
£>e2 ±d7 16 £>c3 Bc8 17 #d2 g6 18 Shi! with
an edge for White, Yudasin-Gleizerov, USSR
1989.
10 <4f 2 f6 (D)
W
i« ■
w mm 4 iff
lli.e3
11 4>g3!? is not seen so often but is an
important alternative to the main line:
a) 11.. .fxe5! ? 12 dxe5 (it is important to
recapture with the d-pawn; there are too mam
tactics to be alert to if White plays 12 fxe5?!»
12...0-0 (12...£>c5 13 <4>h2 £>e4 14 £>h3 Ad7.
with the idea of castling queenside, is given b>
Liss but he also thinks that 15 Jtd3 0-0-0 16
Wc2 is substantially better for White) 13 d?h2! ?
(13 £>h3 - 11...0-0 12 Zhh3 fxe5 13 dxe5>
13...^e7 (White's idea was to deny Black the
option of playing ...^c5 immediately as this
would then drop a piece to a3; probably Black
should play 13...±e7 followed by ...<£>c5) U
±d3£>f5 15£fo3(15JLtf5!Hxf5 16£>d4fifS
17 ^gf3 is more accurate) 15..Jte7 16 Jtxf5
Sxf5 17 £>d4 Sf8 18 h5, Liss-Zak, Israel 1996
Now Black should play 18...^c5 °°.
b) 11...0-0 12 £}h3!? (White's idea is to wai:
for Black to capture on e5, after which he car
bring a knight to g5; 12 ^2!?, in line with
Liss's idea from above, is also feasible, but no:
12 ±d3? £>xd4! 13 £>xd4 fxe5 14 fxe5 £>xe5
with complications favouring Black, Ljuboje-
vic-M.Gurevich, Linares 1991) 12...fxe5 (Black
should maybe consider not releasing the tension

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
131
in the centre as this leaves White with even
more space on the kingside; a complete
reorganization of the pieces with 12...<SM8 13 Jtd3
£rf7, intending ... Jte7, maybe ...f5 and ...£fo8-
c6 would be interesting) 13 dxe5 ^c5 14 <4h2
^e4 15 £}fg5 and now:
bl) 15...±e7 16 ±d3 ±xg5 17 hxg5 Sd8 18
Wei ± Sax-Berg, Hamburg 2002.
b2) 15...£>xg5 16 hxg5 ±c5 17 ±d3 g6 is
risky and may not be to the liking of many
players. Black is doing well if he can keep White's
knight out - if he cannot, he might be lost.
b3) 15...h6 16 £>xe4 dxe4 17 We2 ±dl 18
Jte3 (18 Wxe4 4te7 gives Black compensation
on the light squares) 18...Wa5 19 a3 ±el 20 g3
followed by Jtg2 was better for White in Sax-
Luther, Bad Zwesten 2002.
We now return to 11 Jte3 (D):
m
mJLmwm m
wmjL.
Ws W, 4 W§ IP
■ ■ S^l
11...0-0
Alternatively ll..JLe7 12 Wd2 and then:
a) 12...Wa5 13 Ad3 ^b6 14 Wxa5 £>xa5 15
b3 ± Istratescu-Topalov, Budapest 1993.
b) 12...a5 13a4!?0-014&e2lto415Wxb4
£>xb4 16 £>c3 £>b6 17 b3 ±d7 18 Scl Sac8 19
±e2 f5 20 h5 Sc6 21 £>d2 Sfc8 22 £>dbl ±e8
23 g4! was better for White in Zagrebelny-
S.Williams, Hastings 1999/00.
c) 12...0-0 13 Bdl!? (13 Bel fxe5 14 fxe5 -
11...0-0 12 2c 1 fxe5 13 fxe5 ±e7 14 Wd2)
13...a5 14 £>e2 (14 <4>g3!? a4 15 £>h3 a3 16 b3
might be an idea) 14...a4 15 a3£>a5(15...Wd8!?
16 £>c3 £>b6 17 h5 £>a5 18 #c2 ±d7 19 h6 g6
20 exf6 £xf6 21 ±d3 ±e8 = Marechal-Vedder,
Amsterdam 2001) 16 £>c3 £>b3! (16...fxe5?!
17 dxe5! ^b3? {Black should play 17...±c5!
with an unclear position} 18 ^xd5! was a
tactical shot missed by Black in Yudasin-de la Villa,
Leon 1992) 17 #c2 fxe5 18 fxe5 £>xe5! 19
dxe5 d4 20 <4>g3 dxe3 21 ±d3 h6 22 ±c4 £>d2!
favoured Black in McKenzie-Lucht, corr. 1997.
12 £>e2!? (D)
Or:
a) 12 ±d3?! fxe5 13 fxe5 £>xd4 14 £>e2
(14 ±xh7+ <4>xh7 15 ±xd4 ±c5 16 <4>g3 ±xd4
17 £>xd4 £>c5 18 Wh5+ *g8 19 £>gf3 £>e4+
20 <4h2 ±dl 21 Bael B£4! 22 Wg6 Haf8 =
S.Salov-Stiazhkin, USSR 1991) 14...<£>xe5 (the
line 14...£>xf3 15 ±xb6 £>fxe5+ 16 <A>g3 £>xb6
is analysis by Kalinichenko and Stiazhkin, and
looks very good indeed for Black; 14...jtc5!?)
15 ±xd4 £>g4+ 16 <4>g3 (16 *gl 1x5 17
±xh7+ <4>h8! 18 ±xc5 #xc5+ 19 £>ed4 e5 20
Scl Wb6 is also good for Black) 16...Wd6+ 17
*xg4 e5+ 18 *g3 exd4+ 19 *f2 ±g4 20 Scl
Sae8 21 ^exd4 ±a5 22 b4 #xb4 23 <4g3 h5 24
Ibl Jtc7+ 0-1 Saltaev-M.Gurevich, Cappelle
la Grande 2001.
b) 12 Scl fxe5 13 fxe5 ±e7 (13...£>dxe5!?
14 dxe5 d4 15 ±d2 £>xe5 16 *el d3 17 ±xb4
and now 17...We3+ 18 £>e2 Sxf3 19 ±c5 d2+
20 #xd2 £\d3+ 21 #xd3 #xd3 22 gxf3 #xf3
23 Sh2 is slightly better for White according to
R.Bagirov;noris 17...#xb4+ 18 Wd2lfe4+ 19
<4>f2 sufficient for Black) 14 Wd2 <£>dxe5!? 15
dxe5 d4 16 ±g5 ±b4 17 Wd3 £>xe5 18 We4
Jtd6, Zagrebelny-R.Bagirov, Abu Dhabi 1999,
and now 19 b3 ±d7 20 *el 1x6 21 Sxc6
Wxc6 22 Wxc6 ^xc6 is only slightly better for
Black - R.Bagirov.

132
The French: Tarrasch Variation
12...a5
12...±e7 13 #d2 #d8!? 14 *gl! f5 15 h5
£>b6 16 £>c3 (16 b3 ±) 16...£>c4 17 ±xc4 dxc4
18 Wt2 favoured White in Zagrebelny-Barsov,
Tashkent 1992.
13 a3
13 Hcl or 13 a4 could also be considered.
13...±e7 14 b3 Sf7 15 h5 #d8 16 *gl a4
17 b4 £>b6 18 ^c3 Ad7 19 ±d3 Sc8 20 £>e2
£>a7
= Zagrebelny-R.Bagirov, Abu Dhabi 2000.
C3)
8 a3 (D)
21 £>e5 If 8 22 gxf5 gxf5 23 Sag2 #e7 was
better for Black in Jansa-Vallejo Pons, Monte-
catini Terme 1998) 15...exf5 16 £>g3 ±e6 17
#c2 Bc8 18 Wg2 Wg6 19 #h3 Wf7 ? Ravi-
Radjabov, Biel 2000.1 am sure White can find
an improvement somewhere in this line but
Black's defence with ...f5 is indeed very solid.
b) 8...c4!? 9 h4 h5 10 £>g5 (10 ±e2 £>a5 11
£>d2 ±e7 12 £>gf3 £rf8 13 £>g5 £>h7 14 *f2
g6 15 Ibl Jtd7 = Dolmatov-Volkov, Tomsk
2001) 10...£>a5 11 #c2 #b3 12 Wf2 £>b6 13
Ae2 Wb5 14 Adl f6 15 exf6 gxf6 16 #c2 <A>e7
17 ^5h3 £>b3 18 Ibl #e8 «> Yakovenko-
Volkov, Elista 2001.
c) 8...a5 (D) and then:
rnkmrn
m swsas
w
I first came across this idea when leafing
through Motwani's S.T.A.R. Chess where Mot-
wani comments on a game Van der Wiel-Van
Driel, and describes a conversation he had with
Van der Wiel after the game. Motwani said to
Van der Wiel: "John, I think the move 8 a3 is
very interesting and a bit unusual". Van der
Wiel then replied: "It is a bit good too!".
From being a slightly unusual option, the
move is now one of White's main moves. Not
only does it prevent ... Jtb4+ ideas, but it also
intends to advance with b4 on the queenside.
8...cxd4
There are a number of other options
available for Black:
a) 8...±e7 9 b4 cxd4 10 cxd4 0-0 11 ±d3 f5
12 £>e2 #d8! 13 Hgl (13 ±d2!? ±) 13...£>b6
14g4#e8 15gxf5(15h3±d7 16£>g3<A>h8 17
Ba2 Bc8 18 £>h5 g6 19 £tf6 £xf6 20 exf6 Ixf6
cl) 9b3±e7 10h4h5 1l£>h3cxd412cxd4
f5 13 ±e2 (13 £>hg5 £>db8 14 Ae3? {14 <A>f2}
14...1,d7? {14...±xa3!} 15 *f2 £>a6 16 ±d3
£>a7 17 #d2 £>b5 18 #b2 2c8 19 £>d2 0-0 did
not look bad for Black in Pridorozhni-Glei-
zerov, Voronezh 2002) 13...g6 14 0-0 £>db8 15
±b2 £>a6 16 ±c3 ±dl 17 #d2 *f7 18 Sfbl
<4>g7 19 <A>h2 Shc8 = Fedorov-Volkov, Moscow
1996.
c2) 9 g3 a4 10 £>e2 ±e7 11 ±h3 cxd4 12
cxd4 #b3!? 13 #xb3 axb3 14 ±d2 £>b6 15
±c3 (15 £>cl ±) 15...£>a4 16 Scl b5 17 *f2
0-0 with equality, Grishchuk-Delchev, Linares
1999.
c3) 9 ^e2 and here:
c31) 9...±e7 10 g3 (10 f5!?) 10...0-0 11
±h3 f5 12 g4 cxd4 13 cxd4 #d8 14 £>g3 £>t*
(14...fxg4 15 ±xg4 <£>b6 16 0-0 looks better for
White) 15 gxf5 exf5 16 #c2 g6 17 ±f 1 ±e6 1S

Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
133
*#g2 a4 19 h4 with a strong attack for White,
McShane-Brynell, Bundesliga 2000/1.
c32) 9...f6 10 g3 ±e7 11 ±h3 cxd4 12 cxd4
^db8 (12...fxe5 13 fxe5 0-0 14 £rf4 ±) 13 0-0
0-0 14 <4>hl £>a6 15 £>c3 £>c7 16 ±e3 ±dl 17
exf6 ±xi6 18 £>a4 #a7 19 £>c5 ±c8 20 Icl ±
Van der Wiel-Van Driel, Vlissingen 1997.
c33) 9...f5 10 h3 ±e7 11 g4g6 12 £>g3 cxd4
13 cxd4 £>f8 14 Ih2 ±dl 15 ±e3 a4 16 gxf5
exf5 17lcl £>a5 18h4h5 19lc3±b5 20l,h3
£ic4 21 ±c\ <£>e6 looked fine for Black in
A.lvanov-0stenstad, Gausdal 1991.
9 cxd4 £>a5 (D)
w
This prepares to move in on the light squares
before White prevents it with a b4 advance.
Other moves would often transpose to lines
covered in the last note.
10£>e2
Aiming to get to c3 quickly with the knight
makes sense but White has two other options:
a) 10 b4 £>c4 11 ±d3 (11 ±xc4 dxc4 12
£>e2 a5! is good for Black; e.g., 13 #a4 is met
by 13...#a6! or 13...#c6!?) Il...a5 12#a4#c6
13 #xc6 (13 b5 £>db6! ?) 13...bxc6 14 ±xc4
dxc4 15 bxa5 c5!? 16 £>e2 ±b7 17 ±d2 ±e7 18
*f2 0-0 19 <4g3 Ifc8 20 Ihcl ±e4 21 dxc5
±d3 22 £>ed4 £>xc5 23 ±\A £>e4+ 24 <4>h3
Jtc5!? ¥ Stanojoski-Volkov, Elista OL 1998.
b) 10 Ia2 #b3 (otherwise White simply
develops with Ad3, £>e2, etc.) 11 #xb3 £>xb3 12
±e3 £>b6 13 £>d2 £>xd2 14 ±xd2 ±dl 15 b3!
Ic8 16 ±d3 ±e7 17 £>e2 a6 18 £>c3 0-0 19
$fee2 was marginally better for White in Stano-
joski-Sarlamanov, Gevgelija 2002.
10...#b3 11 £>c3 (D)
Or:
a) 11 £>d2!? #xdl+ 12 <4>xdl b5 13 b3
Jte7 14 Jtb2 Jtb7? (McShane criticizes this
and thinks the bishop should be on d7, giving
14...£fo6 15 £>cl!? ±dl 16 £>d3 as aplausible
line) 15 £>gl! a6 16 £>gf3 ± McShane-Addi-
son, British Ch (Torquay) 2002.
b) Il»d2b6(ll...^c4 12»c3»xc3+13
£>xc3 a6 14 ±d3 ±) 12 £>c3 £>c4 and now:
bl) 13 #f2 ±a6 14 £>d2 (the more
experimental 14 h4 Ic8 15 Ih3 £>b8 led to Black's
advantage in Grishchuk-Volkov, Elista 2000)
14...Wc2 15 Wg3 ^xd2 (15...Wg6!?) 16 ±xa6
£>b3 17 ±d3 £>xal 18 ±xc2 £>xc2+ 19 *dl
£>xd4 20 #d3 £>c6 21 £>b5 Ic8 22 ±e3 ±e7
with approximately equal chances, Ravi-Ma-
hesh Chandran, Calcutta 2002.
b2) 13»dl!»xdl+14*xdla6 15f5Ae7
16 ±d3 b5 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 £>e2 0-0 19 b3 £>a5
20 d?c2 with the better game for White, Van der
Wiel-Visser, Leeuwarden 2004.
ll...#xdl+ 12 *xdl a6
12...£>b3 13lbla6(13...£>xcl 14£>b5lb8
15 Ixcl ±) 14 ±e3 £>b6 15 <4>c2 £>a5 16 lal
Jtd7 17 b3 is very slightly better for White, and
similar to our main line.
13*c2
13 ±d3 £>b3 14 Ibl £>xcl 15 Ixcl £>b6 =
Van der Wiel-Gleizerov, Hoogeveen 2000.
13...b5 14 b3 £>b6 15 ±d2 ±d7 16 *b2
±el 17 ±e2
White has marginally the better chances,
Bauer-Apicella, French Ch (Vichy) 2000.

10 Deviations from the Main Lines
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 £tf6 (D)
Here we shall discuss deviations from the
main lines examined in the previous three
chapters. This is a bulk of assorted systems, where it
is mostly Black who seeks different ways. This
could be, for example, an early ...b6 (Line Bl),
leaving out ...^c6 to be able to exchange the
light-squared bishops. This is a solid system
but somewhat passive. The two most important
theoretical lines in this chapter are White's 9
£>f4 (Line B231) and Black's 9...#xf6 (Line
B2322). The former is a sharp attempt at
punishing Black for opening up the position at such
an early stage and even without being properly
developed. The latter is an alternative way of
recapturing on f6 that has become more
popular in recent years.
4e5
The only serious alternative to this is 4 Jtd3
(4 exd5 is just a poor version of the Exchange
Variation) but after 4...c5, compared with some
lines from 3... Jte7, Black is satisfied as he can
develop his bishop in one move. For example:
a) 5 dxc5 dxe4 6 £>xe4 £>xe4 7 Jtxe4
#xdl+ 8 <4>xdl ±xc5 =.
b) 5 c3 cxd4 6 cxd4 dxe4 7 £>xe4 £>xe4 8
±xe4 ±b4+ =.
4...£tfd7
This is by far the main move, but two
alternatives should be mentioned:
a) The eccentric 4...^g8 is seen
occasionally but personally I find it very hard to believe
how two extra moves in the Advance Variation
are going to harm White's position, even
bearing in mind that the knight isn't placed
optimally on d2.
b) 4...£}e4(T>)andnow:
bl) 5 £>xe4 was covered in my book The
Main Line French: 3 %hc3. You may consult
that book for a more detailed coverage, but I
shall just repeat the main line here: 5...dxe4 6
±e3 c5 7 dxc5 £kI7 8 %4 £>xc5 9 ±b5+ £>d7
10 £>e2 #a5+ 11 £>c3 a6 12 ±xd7+ ±xd7 13
±d4 ±c6 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 #f4! ±/± Seul-
Zach, Biel 1999.
b2) 5 JLd3 keeps the play independent, but
may promise less than exchanging on e4. Then:
b21) 5...f5 6 exf6 £>xf6 is a viable option,
and can easily transpose to more common lines:
b211) 7 £>gf3 c5 8 c3 £>c6 - 4...^hfd7 5
k,d3 c5 6 c3 *hc6 7 ^hgf3f6 8 exf6 ^xf6.
b212) 7 £>e2 c5 8 c3 £>c6 9 £tf3 cxd4 10
cxd4-4...thfd75Jkd3c56c3the6 7foe2cxd4
8 cxd4f6 9 exf6 ^xf6 10 fo/3.

Deviations from the Main Lines
135
b213) 7 £>h3!? is an attempt to exploit
Black's move-order, and turned out well for
White in Balkov-Rotsagov, Moscow 1996:
7...c5 8c3^c6 9^f3±d6 100-0#c7 11Iel
0-0 12 £ihg5 e5? 13 dxe5 £>xe5 14 ±xh7+!
4>h8 (14...£>xh7 15 £>xe5 ±xe5 16 Wxd5+
4>h8 17 Ixe5 +-) 15 1x2 +-.
b22) 5...£>xd2 6 ±xd2 c5 (D) and then:
b221) 7 £rf3 leads to sharp play: 7...cxd4
(7...Wb6 8 dxc5 #xb2 9 0-0 Wa3 10 ^g5
#xc5, Geller-Vaganian, USSR Ch (Moscow)
1983, and now Makarychev suggests 11 Wh5!
g6 12 Wf3 We7 13 c4 ±) 8 0-0 (8 ^xd4 Wb6 is
equal) 8...£>c6 9 a3 ±e7 10 b4 a6 11 lei 0-0 12
Af4 ±dl 13 Wd2 f5 ? Estrin-K.Pytel, Albena
1973.
b222) 7 c3 (this also allows complications)
7...«b6 8 ^f3 c4 9 ±c2 #xb2 10 Ibl #xa2
(10...Wa3!? 11 ^g5g6 12#f3#e7oo) nSg5
h6 12 £>h7 Jte7 (note that in the following few
moves White has a draw with Sal-bl if he
wants) 13 h4 £>d7 14 Ih3 f5! = I.Gurevich-
Crouch, Hastings 1991/2.
b23) 7 dxc5 (the safest continuation) 7...5M7
(this seems the most accurate as it opens the
possibility of capturing with the knight on c5;
7...£>c6 8 £rf3 ±xc5 9 0-0 ±dl 10 c3 h6 11 b4!?
Jtb6 12 a4 gave White an edge in Akopian-
Naumkin, Vilnius 1988) 8 £>f3 £>xc5 9 ±e2
(Black should be doing fine if he is allowed to
exchange on d3; e.g., 9 0-0 £>xd3 10 cxd3 Jtd7
11 ±g5 {11 Wb3!?} ll...Wa5 12 a3 Bc8 13
Icl Ixcl 14 Wxcl h6 15 b4Wa6 16 ±e3 ±e7
= G.Mohr-Sulava, Pula tt 1997) 9..Adl 10 0-0
Ic8 11 ±e3 a6 12 c3 #c7 13 ±d4 ± Tiviakov-
Anceschi, Montecatini Terme 1995.
We now return to 4...£rfd7 (D):
Here we shall look at:
A: 5^gf3 135
B: 5±d3 136
Instead, 5 c3 usually leads to lines covered
under B. Another option is 5 £>df3 c5 6 c3 £>c6
and now 7 £>e2 (7 ±d3 - 5 ±d3 c5 6 c3 £>c6 7
Q±df3) would be a position also occurring in the
Shirov/Anand Variation - 3 ^hc3 Qtf6 4 e5
Zhfd7 5 Zhce2 c5 6 c3 ?hc6 7 *hf3. This was
briefly mentioned in The Main Line French: 3
$sc3. Then 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 £rf4 ±b4+ 10
±d2 We7 11 ±xb4 #xb4+ 12 Wd2 <4e7! 13
exf6+ gxf6 14 #xb4+ ^ixb4 15 <4>d2 £>b6 16
a3 £>c6 (Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993) was
the line I gave, and after 17 Jtb5 I suggested
17...^a5 or 17...5M8 with equal chances.
A)
5 £>gf3 c5 6 c4!? (D)
This is going to open the centre. With it White
hopes to seize an initiative due to his slightly
better development. However, this is often at the
cost of (temporarily) sacrificing the d-pawn.
6..Ac6
Another option is 6...cxd4 7 cxd5 exd5 which
could transpose to our main line but two
independent games have continued:
a) 8 ±b5!? a6 (8...^c6 9 0-0 Wb6 10 We2
±e7 11 £>b3 0-0 =) 9 Axd7+ ±xdl 10 £>xd4

136
The French: Tarrasch Variation
£>c6 11 £>2f3 ±e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 h3 Sc8 14
±e3 £>xd4 15 #xd4 ±b5 16 Ifcl #d7 =
Yurtaev-Driamin, Tomsk 1998.
b) 8 ±d3 ^c5!? 9 £>b3 £>c6 (9...£>xd3+ 10
#xd3 ±e7 11 0-0 0-0 12 <£>bxd4 ± M.Gure-
vich) 10 0-0±g4!? 11 lei £>e6(ll...£>xd3 12
#xd3 £>b4 13 Wdl d3 14 £>bd4 •) 12 h3 ±h5
13 g4 ±g6 14 M5 ±b4 15 Ie2 #b6 with the
better game for Black, Kotronias-M.Gurevich,
Manila OL 1992.
7 cxd5 exd5 8 ±d3 (D)
Or 8 ±b5!? ±e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 lei #b6 11
Aa4cxd4(ll...Ie8!?) 12£>b3£>c5 13£>bxd4
£>xa4 14 #xa4 ±d7 15 £>xc6 bxc6 16 ±e3
#b7 (16...Wxb2 17 labl #c3 18 Ib7 Ifd8 19
Jtd2 #c5 and now White has at least a
repetition in 20 ±e3 #c3 21 ±d2 but can also go for
more by 20 e6!? fxe6 21 £>e5 •) 17 #c2 Ifc8
18 ±c5 ±xc5 19 #xc5 #xb2 20 lebl We2 21
Eb7 Jte6 22 Eel with good compensation,
G.Kuzmin-Av.Bykhovsky, Moscow 1991.
■■▲a*;
8...g6!?
8...cxd4 9 0-0 £>c5 10 £>b3 - 6..xxd4 7 cxd5
exd5 8 ±d3 fcc5 9 Zhb3 ^c6 10 0-0.
9 0-0 ±g7 10 dxc5
This is stronger than 10 !fe2 cxd4 11 e6 ^c5
12 exf7+ *xf7 13 £>g5+ #xg5 14 £>b3 We5
15 £>xc5 #xe2 16 ±xe2 b6 17 £>d3 ±f5 ?
Khalifman-Bareev, USSR Ch (Kiev) 1986.
10...0-0
10...£>xc5 11 £>b3 £>xd3 12 #xd3 0-0 =.
11 £>b3 £>dxe5 12 ±e2 £>xf3+ 13 ±xf3
The chances are approximately equal, Mah-
joob-R.Bagirov, Dubai 2001.
B)
5 ±d3 c5
If Black wants to play Line B1 below then
5...b6 is also feasible. Then White shouldn't
commit himself to ^e2 yet. Best is probably 6
c3 ±a6 7 ±xa6 £>xa6 8 We2 #c8 9 ^h3! c5 10
a3 with the better game for White, Motylev-
Chigvintsev, Smolensk 2000. Black should be
careful that he isn't getting steam-rollered on
the kingside after 0-0 and f4-f5.
6 c3 (D)
xm*.m&m m
'"P WB A WW W
WB, Hi* m
#1 ww
m
w% w
O
^ W/
"t m
wm
IA
ti
Now we look at two moves:
Bl: 6...b6 136
B2: 6...£sc6 137
Bl)
6...b6

Deviations from the Main Lines
137
This is on old pet variation of Short's. Black
wants to exchange the light-squared bishops
before completing development. It is a solid
line but White usually gets a small plus.
7^h3
The idea of this is that White now can play a
quick Wg4 to exert pressure on Black's king-
side but also stays flexible. Other moves:
a) 7 f4 ±a6 8 £>df3 ±xd3 9 #xd3 £>c6 10
Se2 c4 11 #c2 g6 was about equal in Kr.Geor-
giev-Dimitrov, Bulgaria 1995.
b) 7 <£>e2 ±a6 8 ±xa6 <£>xa6 9 0-0 and now
there are two options for Black:
bl) 9...b5 10 a4 b4 11 c4 £>c7 12 £rf4 ±e7
(12...£>b6 13 dxc5 ±xc5 14 Wg4 g6 15 cxd5
£}bxd5 16 £>e4 gives White a promising attack,
Sturua-Shabalov, Hamburg 1999; 12...cxd4 13
cxd5 £>xe5 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 lei ±) 13 cxd5
exd5 14 dxc5 £>xc5 15 £>b3 0-0 16 ±e3 £>5e6
17 <£>xe6 <£>xe6 18 f4 ± Rozentalis-Shabalov,
New York 1997.
b2) 9...£>c7 10 £>f4 (10 f4 f5! =) 10...±e7
(10...Wc8 11 Wg4 Wa6 12 c4!? dxc4 13 £>e4
cxd4 14 £>d6+ ±xd6 15 exd6 £>b5 16 £>xe6!
fxe6 17 #xe6+ *d8 18 ±g5+ *c8 19 a4 £>c3
20 bxc3 h6 21 Ifel hxg5 22 Wf7 +- da Costa
Junior) 11 Wg4 (11 lei should be met by
11...C4 ao) ll...g6 12 £>f3 h5 13 #g3 g5!? 14
<£>e2 g4 15 <£>el *hf& «> Siklosi-Moskalenko, St
Ingbert 1990.
7...±a6 8 ±xa6 £>xa6 (D)
is more solid but White should be able to
achieve a plus with 10 Wg4 (10 £rf4 - 7 ^he2
ka6 8 kxa6 £hxa6 9 0-0 foc710 £>/4):
a) 10...C4!? 11 £>f3 h6 12 £>f4 g6 13 h4 b5
14 b3 a5 15 Ibl Ib8 16 ±d2 h5 17 Wg3 £>b6
18 £>g5 V2-V2 Zlochevsky-Zakharov, Russia
Cup (Smolensk) 1997.
b) 10...«c8 11^f3«a6 12^f4h6 13i.e3
t Akopian-Gonzales, Ubeda 1996.
c) 10...f5!? 11 exf6 £>xf6 12 We2 ±d6 13
£>f3 0-0 14 Af4 £>e4 15 ±xd6 £>xd6, Brynell-
Yusupov, Stockholm 2003. Yusupov has had
this position a couple of times, and Black seems
to be doing alright despite the weakness on e6.
10«g4
10 a4 is also very interesting and an attempt
to exploit Black's last move: 10...b4 11 c4 ^b6
12 ffe2 £>c7 13 cxd5 (13 dxc5 ±xc5 14 a5 and
now instead of 14...^xc4 15 ^xc4 dxc4 16
Idl Wb8 17 #xc4 Wb5 18 Wg4 ±, 14...£>d7 is
playable) 13...£>bxd5 14 dxc5 ±xc5 15 £>e4
±e7 16 Wg4 0-0 17 ±h6 £>e8 18 £>hg5 #c7 19
££3 ± Sermek-Hatem, Cairo 2001.
10...Wb6
10...£fo6 11 £rf3 Wd7 12 dxc5 £>xc5 13 £>f4
g6 14 ±e3 £>c4 15 ±xc5 ±xc5 16 b3 £>b6 17
£>d4 ± Akopian-Short, Cap d'Agde rpd 1996.
11 £>f3 h612 £>f4 c413 h4 0-0-014 h5 #c6
So far Zapata-Short, Wijk aan Zee 1987.
Now Zapata gives 15 b3 <£>c7 16 Jtd2 with an
edge for White.
W
9 0-0 b5
This prepares counterplay on the queenside
but also gives White a target for attack. 9...<£>c7
B2)
6...£>c6 (D)
W
IMAM*
mm
wj^m
<^\
m
.mm*
J 41
■ 4B In
ab m mm
I

138
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
7 £>e2 (D)
7 £>gf3 was covered in Chapter 8 but 7 £>df3
deserves a mention too. Play could transpose to
main lines after, for example, 7...#b6 8 ^e2. If
Black wants to play a system with an early ...f6,
such as 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6, White has the
additional possibility of developing the knight to h3
after 9 exf6 £>xf6 10 £>h3, but there are very
few practical examples with this plan. Note that
9 <£}g5? doesn't work due to the simple 9... Jtb4+
10 ^fl fxg5. If Black isn't satisfied with
transpositions to other lines, then 7...#a5!? has been
a popular alternative. Now Yurtaev-M.Gurevich,
Manila OL 1992 went 8 ±d2 #b6 9 £>e2 c4 10
±c2#xb2 11 ^g5 (11 £tf4!?) Il...h6 12 Hbl
#xa2 13 £>xf7 <4>xf7 14 £>f4 g5, and here
M.Gurevich gives 15 #h5+ <4>e7 16 £>xd5+
(16 £>g6+ <4d8 17 Wdl Bg8 18 Sal #b2 19
Bbl =) 16...*d8! 17 £>e3 £>b6 18 Wg6 ±e7 «.
Xfi|JL«w^ «a
WMkwd^m'k'm
ikmmmktek
l4iii
m aJtm m A
Kg »^
£*=^
7...cxd4
If Black wants to play a Main Line with
...#b6 then 7...#b6 should be the advisable
move-order. This has the advantage of avoiding
Line B231 (7...cxd4 8 cxd4f6 9 *hf4!?)9 and 8
£rf3 cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 10 exf6 £>xf6 11 0-0 ±d6
transposes to 7...cxd4 8 cxd4f6 9 exf6 £hxf6 10
fof3 ±d6 11 0-0 Wb6 (Line B of Chapter 7).
Other 7th-move alternatives for Black:
a) 7...f6 (this is more accurate with an
exchange on d4 inserted) 8 £rf4 ffe7 9 <£>f 3 cxd4
(9...fxe5? 10 £>g6! hxg6 11 ±xg6+ <4>d8 12
±g5 <£>f6 13 dxe5 ± Tukmakov-Zilberman,
USSR 1966) 10 cxd4 - 7...cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9
!Lf4.'?We710fof3!.
b) 7...1b8 8 0-0 b5 9 £>f3 b4 10 £rf4 ±e7
11 Sel is slightly better for White, Geller-
Bandza, USSR 1983.
8 cxd4 (D)
ii±i#i m
iYA m V//////S ft**. y//////y m Y//W7// m
wkm*mkmk
VI
HH AWi
4m*wm
A if
Pi W§ '#&fc\$%W Pi Wi
m mmm
Now:
B21: 8...£>b6 138
B22: 8...#b6 139
B23: 8...f6 139
A fourth option is 8...a5, which is closely
related to Line B21, 8...&b6. Black is going to
follow up with ...a4, ...£>b6 and ... Jtd7 but the
move-order has the advantage of avoiding the
line 8...*&b6 9 a3!?a5 10 b3.
B21)
8...£>b6
With this Black hopes that the kingside will
hold and immediately prepares counterplay on
the queenside with ...JLd7 and ...a5-a4. The
drawback is of course that Black has very few
pieces to defend his kingside.
9 0-0
An interesting prophylactic concept is here 9
a3!? a5 10 b3. White takes measures against an
...a4 advance, which can now be met by b4.
10..Jtd7 (Black could also interpolate 10...a4
11 b4) 11 Jtb2 (this seems a little slow; 11 0-0
Jte7 12 f4 g6 13 g4 must be critical) ll...ite7
12 0-0 0-0 13 f4 f5 14 g4 a4 15 b4 £>a7 16 £>c3
WtS with good counterplay, Wahls-Orlov, New
York 1994.
9...a5 (D)

Deviations from the Main Lines
139
9...itd7 is also feasible but Black wants to
play ...a4 before White gets a second chance to
play a set-up with a3 and b3.
10 f4
This is the most dangerous. 10 &f3 a4 and
now:
a) 11 £tf4 g6 12 £>h3 £>b4! 13 ±e2 h6 14
£>f4 ±d7 15 a3 £>c6 16 ±d3 £>e7 17 h4 £>f5 18
h5 g5 19 ^e2 ^c4 gave Black good coun-
terplay in Hamdouchi-Bukal, Bolzano 1999.
b) By the way, it is worth mentioning that
White should usually keep his dark-squared
bishop back for a while in this line. A warning
example (a comedy of errors from White's side)
is Himmel-Bukal, Dortmund 1993 (though the
actual game came via a slightly different move-
order): 11 £>c3 ±e7 12 ±e3?! £>b4 13 Abl?!
JLd7 (13...a3 is probably more accurate) 14
£>d2?a3 15#b3?£>c4!0-l.
10...g6 11 £>f3 h5 12 £>c3 ±d7 13 a3 a4 14
±c2 ±e7 15 £>g5
White is slightly better, Tiviakov-Ryan, Port
Erin 1999.
B22)
8...Wb6 9 £>f3 (£>)
9...f6
After 9...itb4+, the endgame following 10
±d2 ±xd2+ 11 #xd2 Wb4 12 Icl #xd2+ 13
4)xd2 is rather uninspiring and White holds a
safe plus due to his space advantage and better
bishop. If White isn't in the mood for such an
early queen exchange he might also try 10 if 1! ?
±e7 (10...0-0? 11 ±xh7+! +-) 11 g3 f6 12 exf6
£>xf6 13 <A>g2 0-0 ±/= Sznapik-Minev, Eksjo
1980.
10£>c3
10 exf6 £M6 11 0-0 ±d6 transposes to 8...f6
9 exf6 £hxf610 ?hf3 ±d611 0-0 Wb6 (Line B of
Chapter 7).White has two more options worth
mentioning:
a) 10 £rf4?! fxe5 11 £>xe6 (11 dxe5 ±b4+
12 *f 1 £>dxe5 13 £>xe5 £>xe5 14 Wh5+ £>f7
should be better for Black) 11...e4 12 if4
£>de5!+.
b) 10 0-0 fxe5 11 dxe5 £>dxe5 12 £>xe5
£>xe5 13 £>f4 £>xd3 (13...±d6!? 14 ±e3!?
Geenen) 14 £>xd3 ±d6 15 ±e3 Wd8 16 Wh5+
g6 17 Wh6 Wf6 ¥ Nevostruev-Maiorov, Tomsk
2001.
10...fxe5 11 dxe5 g6!?
ll...Ae7 12 0-0 0-0 13 lei £>c5 14 £>a4
£>xa4 15 #xa4 Wb4 16 #xb4 £>xb4 17 Abl
±d7 = Gavrilakis-Gdanski, Novi Sad OL 1990.
12±e3
12 h4 £>dxe5 13 h5 £>xd3+ 14 #xd3 gxh5
15 Ixh5 Jtd7 intending ...0-0-0 ? J.Watson.
12...Va5
12... Jtc5!? is a probably playable attempt to
play for more than just a repetition.
13 ±d2 Wb6 14 0-0 ±g7 15 ±e3 Wa5 16
£>b5 0-0 17 ±d2 Wb6 18 ±e3 Wa5
V2-V2 Gavrilakis-Dimitrov, Kavala Balkan-
iad 1990.
B23)
8...f6 (D)

140
The French: tarrasch variation
w
iff * 'sahi""""fif a
^gA B All Hi A
*m. H
mm,
%5%? ?*** «? ^p
HP HP i Up mp
HI 111.*, ill iH „
ft if m^wfc ft in
.s»*
Sl»
Mi a Pli ^#? ii#
mXm m m
m,y M/%//»// mm,
pp A/§i"iiW *'
AH
« f*f Iff ft M
Now White has two options:
B231: 9£tf4!? 140
B232: 9exf6 142
The first of these is a sharp attempt at
refuting Black's opening straight away, while the
second is en route to the Main Line covered in
Chapter 7. Black could avoid Line B231 by first
playing 8...#b6 but then he has restricted his
own options later on.
B231)
9 £>f4!?
This is a very direct attempt to refute Black's
opening play immediately. The e6-pawn is
attacked and White is threatening #h5+. Black's
most promising is now an exchange sacrifice
for active counterplay.
9...£>xd4
The other option is 9...#e7 but this has never
really caught on. The recommended line for
White is 10 £rf3! (10 #h5+ Iff? 11 exf6 £>xf6
12 #xf7+ 4>xf7 13 £>f3 ±d6 =) 10...fxe5 11
dxe5 £>dxe5 (ll...g6? 12 £>xg6! +-) 12 £>xe5
£>xe5 13 #h5+ £>f7 14 0-0 g6 15 #e2 ±g7 16
±b5+ 4>f8 17 ±e3 ±e5 18 ^d3 ±d6 19 f4
with compensation for White, Morozov-Belin-
kov, USSR 1958.
10 Hi5+ 4>e7 11 exf6+
More accurate than 11 £\g6+?! hxg6 12 exf6+
<4>xf6! 13 #xh8 4>f7, when Black's knight is in
fact better placed on d7, from where it can go to
c5.
Il...£>xf6 12 £>g6+ hxg6 13 #xh8 (D)
13...4>f7
This is the first really important juncture.
The text-move is logical as Black's king is
improved and the way is opened for the dark-
squared bishop. A valuable part of Black's play
is naturally an advance of the e-pawn, and this
can also be implemented immediately, viz.
13...e5 and then:
a) 14 ±xg6 e4 (14...#a5 15 0-0 £>e2+ 16
*hl £>xcl 17 ££3 ±) 15 0-0 £>e2+ 16 4>hl
£>f4 17 JUi7 (clumsy, but forced, and White is
still ahead on material) 17...£>d3 (17...£>xg2!°
18 4>xg2 Wdl 19 ±xe4! #g4+ 20 4>h 1 dxe4 21
f3 exf3 22 £>xf3 and White defends) 18 b3 (18
£>b3 #e8!?, intending ...Wh5) 18...Wd6! 19 a4
£>xcl 20 Saxcl Iff4 21 f3!? with a complex
position, Dzhandzhgava-Dreev, Lvov 1987.
b) 14 ££3 £>xf3+ 15 gxf3 ±f5 16 ±xf5
gxf5 17 ±g5 #a5+ 18 4>fl is similar to our
main line but possibly an improved version for
White because he has not spent time on #h4.
Now Black has two options:
bl) 18...e4 19 #h3 4>e6 20 4>g2 ±e7 (or
20...#b4!? 21 ±xf6 gxf6 22 Shel ±) 21 Shel
with the better game for White, Kholmov-Jurek.
Decin 1996.
b2) 18...4>f7 19 4>g2! e4 20 #h3 d4 21
±xf6 <4>xf6 22 #h4+ g5 (22...4>f7 23 fxe4 Se8
might be a better defence) 23 #h8+ 4>g6 24
fxe4 fxe4 25 #g8+ 4>f6 26 #h8+ 4>g6 27 h4 ±
Prandstetter-Jurek, Karvina 1986.
We now return to 13...4>f7 (D):
14#h4
White immediately extricates his queen. This
is an advisable decision since there are some

Deviations from the Main Lines
141
lines where the queen runs into trouble. The
alternative is 14 0-0 e5 15 £tf3 (15 £>b3 £>xb3 16
axb3 ±f5 17 ±xf5 gxf5 18 ±g5 ±c5 is
regarded as giving Black enough counterplay,
but is a better choice for White) 15...£\xf3+ 16
gxf3 e4!? (the immediate 16...£\h5 is good for
White after 17 ±xg6+! 4>xg6 18 *hl; 16...±f5
17 JLxf5 gxf5, with roughly equal chances) 17
fxe4 £\h5 and now:
a) 18 ±e3 #h4 (18...±h3!?) 19 f3 ±h3 20
#h7 ±c5 21 ±xc5 #g5+ 22 4>f2 #d2+ 23
±e2 £>f4 24 4>g3 ±xf 1 25 ±xf 1 £>h5+ gives
Black a clear advantage, Darnstadt-Schafer,
Berlin 1993.
b) 18 exd5! #h4 19 ±xg6+ 4>xg6 20 Wxf8
±h3 (20...±f5 21 #a3 Sc8!? 22 f3! Ic2 23
#d6+ 4>h7 24 #e5 ±; 20...#g4+ 21 *hl ±e6
22 dxe6 Sxf8 23 Sgl ±) 21 Wf3 Sf8 22 #e2
Sf5 23 f3 ±xfl 24 4>xfl #g4 25 f4 #h4!?
with compensation, Pripke-Lutterbeck, corr.
1991.
14...e5 15 £>f3
We have seen several examples of White
letting his pawns be doubled like this. It isn't
pretty but White has to do something about the
strong black knight on d4, and if Black
exchanges on f3, White has at least increased his
control of e4.
15...£>xf3+
Kosten has experimented with 15...e4!?,
which he credits to Miralles, and I think that
this deserves further investigation. The critical
line is 16 £>xd4 ±b4+ 17 ±d2 (17 *f 1 exd3 18
±g5 #b6 19 ±xf6 #xf6 20 #xf6+ gxf6 21
Sdl b6! gave Black excellent compensation in
Daberitz-Kosten, Avoine 1985) 17...±xd2+ 18
4>xd2 #a5+ 19 4>dl exd3 (D) and now:
a) 20 Wf4 ±d7 21 £>b3 ±a4 22 Scl 4>g8
23 f 3 Se8 24 #d2 #b5 <*> Prandstetter-Haba,
Prague 1986.
b) 20 f3!? ±d7 21 Wf2 Sc8 (S.Jackson-
Kosten, London 1985) 22 b3! #c3 (22...±f5 23
#d2 ±) 23 Sbl b5!? (23...±f5 24 #b2! ±
Kosten) 24 g4 b4 25 Sel g5 with an unclear
position. I feel Black should have enough counter-
play as White is thoroughly tied up, but White
can try to free himself with the plan h3 (to
defend g4), #b2, Se3/e5, Wal and Scl.
c) 20 £>b3 #c7 21 Scl #e5 22 Sel ±g4+
23 f3 (23 #xg4 #xel+ 24 4>xel Se8+ and
...£>xg4 is equal) 23...#xb2! (23...£>e4?! 24
Sxe4 #xe4 25 Sc7+ 4>g8 26 #e7 #xe7 27
Sxe7 ±) and now:
cl) 24 fxg4 £\e4! transposes to Ferguson-
C.Morris, British League (4NCL) 2000/1, when
after 25 Sxe4 dxe4 White should have played
26 Sc7+ 4>g8 27 #e7 Sf8 28 ^d2 <*>.
c2) 24 Sc7+ 4>g8 25 See7 £>e8! (25...±d7
26 #d4 #xa2 27 Scxd7 #xb3+ 28 4>el #bl+
29 4>f2 #b6 30 Sxg7+ 4>h8 31 Sh7+ 4>g8 32
Sdg7+ 4>f8 33 #xb6 axb6 34 Sf7+ 4>g8 35
Shg7+ 4>h8 36 Sxg6 +-) 26 #xg4 £>xc7 27
Sxc7 #e2+ 28 4>cl #el+ 29 4>b2 #e5+ 30
Sc3 #e2+ 31 4>bl d2 32 Sc8+ Sxc8 33 #xc8+
4>h7 34 #h3+ 4>g8 35 #c8+ =.
16 gxf3 ±f5 17 ±xf5 gxf5 18 ±g5 (D)
If not this, Black would play ...f4 to restrict
the bishop.
18...#a5+

142 THE FRENCH:
There are other options for Black at this
juncture. The most important is 18...Sc8!? 19
0-0 Sc4 20 #h3 Wdl 21 Sadl #e6 22 Sfel
£M7 23 Se2 a5 (Timman gives 23..Jtc5 24
4>hl intending Sgl °° as better) 24 f4 a4 25
#h5+ 4>g8 26 Sed2 £>b6 27 b3 axb3 28 axb3
Sb4 29 Sd3 exf4 30 ±dS\ ± Timman-Moro-
zevich, Wijk aan Zee 2000. An instructive
example of how Black's centre deteriorates if he
doesn't pay enough attention towards it.
19 4>fl g6!?
Timman has used this with success as Black,
so, bearing in mind the previous note, it is
interesting that he was prepared to enter this line as
White. Black plans ...Jtg7 with good play.
20 ±xf6 #a6+ 21 4>g2 #xf6 22 #a4!?
22 #xf6+ 4>xf6 23 Sacl ±d6 24 Shdl 4>e6
25 Sc3 g5 26 Sdcl 4>d7 (White would have
much better chances of converting his material
advantage if one rook were exchanged, so Black
understandably prevents White from
penetrating) 27 Sb3 b6 28 Sd3 d4 (28...4>e6 =) 29 h4
gxh4 30 f4 Sg8+ 31 4>h3 4>e6 32 fxe5 ±xe5 33
Sel 'idS and Black is at least equal in the
endgame, Van der Wiel-Timman, Brussels 1986.
22...#c6
22...#e6 23 Sadl b6 24 Shel was better for
White in Miroshnichenko-Nosenko, Ukrainian
Ch (Ordzhonikidze) 2001.
23 #b3 ±c5 24 Sacl b6 25 Shel 4>f6
V2-V2 Brodsky-Gleizerov, Port Erin 2001.
B232)
9 exf6 (D)
Now there are two ways of capturing:
B2321: 9...£>xf6 142
B2322: 9...#xf6 143
The first is the more common, which after 10
*hf3 Jtd6 11 0-0 leads to the main line covered
in Chapter 7, and hence we shall only examine
a few deviations here. The second is a relatively
new line that has been seen frequently in recent
years.
B2321)
9...£>xf6 10 £>f3
Another idea is 10 0-0 Jtd6 11 f4, which
certainly prevents Black from freeing himself
with ...e5 and prepares to post a knight on e5
with £M\3-e5, but it also weakens White's own
position and limits the scope of his dark-
squared bishop. Thus it has never been very
popular. One example is Rodin-Ulybin, Minsk
1997: ll...#b6 12 £rf3 0-0 13 4>hl ±d7 14
£>c3 £>e7!? 15 £>e5 ±e8 16 g4 Sd8! 17 a3
£>e4+.
10...±d6 11 ±f4
The main line, 11 0-0, was the subject of
Chapter 7. By aiming to exchange bishops as
early as this White sidesteps ll...#b6 and
11 ..Mel in the Main Line, but there are a few
ways for Black to seek to exploit this move-
order.
Il..;ta5+ (D)
This is the drawback to 11 Jtf4. Instead,
ll...±xf4 12^xf4#a5+(12...0-0 13 0-0-77
0-0 0-012 kf4 kxf4 13 thxf4) 13 #d2 #xd2+
14 4>xd2 0-0 15 Shel £>e4+ 16 ±xe4 Sxf4 17

Deviations from the Main Lines
143
Ad3 £>xd4 (17...±d7 18 ±b5! Iaf8 19 ±xc6
Axc6 20h3±Tal&Bagirov) 18 <4>e3! £>xf3 19
4>xf4 £>xel 20 Ixel ±d7 21 <4>e5! followed by
4>d6 was even slightly better for White in Tal-
Timman, Montpellier Ct playoff (5) 1985.
12 <4>fl
12 ±d2 #b6 and 12 #d2 ±b4 13 £>c3 0-0
are fine for Black, so White gives up his
castling rights as his king position can be improved
by g3 and <4>g2.
12...#c7
12...±xf4 13 £>xf4 0-0 14 g3 ±d7 is also
fine for Black, Wittelsberger-Weiss, Regensburg
1998.
13 ±xd6 #xd6 14 £>c3 0-0 15 We2 ±d7 16
lei Iae8 17 ±b5 £>e4!?
Bareev's suggestion 17...£\b8 might be
simpler. Then White has nothing better than 18
Jtd3 £\c6, with a repetition.
18 £>xe4 dxe419 #xe4 If4 20 #e3 lef 8 21
h4!8f6
Black has compensation, Mallee-Jezek, corr.
1992-3.
B2322)
9...#xf6 (D)
If you go back only 15 years, you wouldn't
see much of this capture. However, it has now
been firmly established as a playable
alternative to the more obvious recapture with the
knight. Black's play is actually very simple:
...h6, ...±d6, ...0-0, ...Id8 (or ...If7), ...£>f8 and
then freeing the bishop with ... Jtd7-e8-g6/h5 is
almost invariably played, no matter how White
places his pieces.
10 &f3
It is possible that the gambit 10 0-0 isn't bad
for White after 10...£>xd4 11 £>xd4 #xd4 12
£\f3 but anyhow Black can just continue as in
the main line, i.e. 10... Jtd6 and White has
nothing better than 11 £>f3 h6 -10^f3h6 11 0-0
±d6.
10...h6
This is now considered the most precise
move-order. The older line is 10...Jtb4+ 11
±d2 ±xd2+ 12 #xd2 0-0 13 0-0 e5, and Black
has freed his position but after a few more
exchanges White ends up with a pleasant plus.
The alternative is 10...±d6 but then 11 ±g5
Wf7 12 0-0 0-0 13 ±h4, which threatens £>g5
and plans JLg3, is better for White.
110-0
White has scored heavily with 11 ±bl!? ±d6
12 #d3, which pinpoints the weaknesses on the
black kingside. There is a choice for Black:
a) 12...£>e7 13 0-0 e5 14 dxe5 £>xe5 15
£>xe5 ±xe5 16 £>c3 ±f5 17 #b5+, Borge-
Bunzmann, Budapest 1998, and now Black
should try 17...±d7 18 Wxbl ±c6 19 #a6 0-0
but it is far from clear that Black has enough for
the pawn.
b) 12...g5 13 ±e3 £>f8 14 0-0 ±d7 15 a3 g4
16 £>d2 e5 17 dxe5 ±xe5 18 #xd5 ± Kveinys-
Sakalauskas, Lithuanian Ch (Kaunas) 2001.
c) 12...&M 13 %6+ #xg6 14 ±xg6+ *e7
15 a3 (15 ±f4!?) 15...£>c6 16 0-0 <4>f6 17 ±c2
g5 18 £>el £>e7 19 £>d3 and White was better
in Kalinitschew-Radjabov, Biel 1999.

144
The French: Tarrasch Variation
d) 12...0-0 (hoping, after 13 0-0, to
transpose to 11 0-0 ±d6 12 ±bl 0-0 13 Wd3, but
here White has a tempo more in the attack,
because he hasn't castled) 13 £>g3! Id8 14 #h7+
4>f8 15 £>h5 Wf7 16 ±xh6! gxh6 17 #xh6+
4>e7 18 £>g5 Af4 19 £>xf4 #xf4 20 #xe6+
4>f8 21 #h6+ 4>e7 22 0-0 If8 23 Iel+ £>ce5
24 #g7+ 4>d6 25 dxe5+ £>xe5 26 ±e4! +-.
Il...±d6 (D)
12£>g3
White's set-up is very sensible. In
anticipation of Black's plan with ...Id8 and ...£\f8, he
now intends to counter with lei and £\e5.
Other moves include:
a) 12 ±bl 0-0 13 #d3 Id8 14 g3!? e5! (this
is a case where the ...£\f8 plan seems too slow
in view of 14...£>f8 15 ±f4 ±) 15 dxe5 £>dxe5
16 £>xe5 ±xe5 17 £rf4 £>d4! 18 #h7+ 4>f7 19
%6+ #xg6 20 ±xg6+ 4>f6 and Black stood
well in Baron-Shaked, Cala Galdana U-18 Wch
1996.
b) 12±c2 0-013lrd3ld814a3^if8 15b4
±d7 16 ±b2 b5! 17 ±c3 ±e8 18 #e3 ±g6 is a
good example of how simple and well Black's
plan can be carried out. Black gradually took
over and won a nice game in Komeev-Knaak,
Bad Worishofen 1992.
c) 12 ±e3 0-0 and now:
cl) 13 ±b5 £>b6 14 a3 ±d7 15 Icl Iac8 =
S.Vajda-Radjabov, Budapest 1999.
c2) 13 Jtc2 has become the main alternative
to 12 5ig3. Rather than aiming for an attack,
White now hopes to exchange dark-squared
bishops with #d2 and Jtf4. There are then two
options for Black:
c21) 13...Id8 14 «d2 £rf8 (14...±b4 15
#d3 ±d6 16 a3 £>f8 17 #d2 ±d7 18 ±f4 ±e8
19 ±xd6 Ixd6 20 Ifel ±g6 21 ±a4 a6 22
±xc6 Ixc6 23 ^c3 £>d7 24 £>e5 £>xe5 25
Ixe5 ± S.B.Hansen-Gausel, Gentofte 1999) 15
±f4 ±xf4 16 £>xf4 ±dl 17 Ifel Iac8 18 Ie2
±e8 19 lael ±f7 20 ±a4 g5 21 ±xc6 Ixc6 22
£>d3 ±h5 23 £>de5 Ic7 24 h3 ± Acs-Hoang
Than Trang, Budapest 1998.
c22) 13...If7 (a recent idea, intending to
prevent White from exchanging dark-squared
bishops, but now the rook obstructs the bishop
manoeuvre ...±d7-e8-g6/h5) 14 #d2 £>f8 15 a3
±d7 16 £>g5! Ie7 (16...hxg5 17 ±xg5 ±f4 18
±xf4 £>xd4 19 £>xd4 #xf4 20 ladl ± Bangiev)
17 f4! ±e8 18 £>f3 ±g6 19 ±a4 ± Hamdouchi-
Zhang Pengxiang, Cap d'Agde 2000.
12...0-0 13 ±c2 Id8 14 lei £>f8 15 £>e5!
(D)
The point of White's set-up. Now Black
cannot take twice on e5 due to £\h5 at the end.
15...#h4
15...±d7 16 f4 ±e8 17 ±e3 Iac8 18 Icl
Ic7 19 ±bl Idc8 20 Ic2 #h4 21 If2 with a
very promising position for White, Rublevsky-
Jacimovic, Erevan Wcht 2001. White is
preparing a breakthrough on the kingside with f5.
16 f4 ±xe5 17 dxe5 ±d7 18 ±e3 ±e8 19
#d2 ±g6 20 f5 exf5 21 £>xf5
White is slightly better, Navara-Radjabov,
AvilesjrEch2000.

11 3...i.e7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 ±e7 (D)
3... Jte7 has been on the map for quite some
time but it only evolved into a real main line
after Morozevich began employing it in the late
1990s. Now it is treated with the same respect
as Black's other main options.
A main idea of Black's is that after the
natural 4 &gf3 £tf6 5 e5 £>fd7 White has been lured
into putting his knight on f3, whereas in the
3...£\f6 Tarrasch most players would prefer to
put the king's knight on e2 and keep f3 free for
the other knight.
Morozevich's regular use of the line has
persuaded notable French experts like Short and
Lputian (among others) to take up the idea too.
White has four main replies:
A: 4c3 145
B: 4e5!? 147
C: 4±d3 149
D: 4£>gf3 156
Other moves are harmless:
a) 4 exd5 exd5 is a rather timid line of the
Exchange Variation where White can hope for
no advantage.
b) 4 g3 is seen occasionally but is fairly un-
established. 4...£\f6 has been the usual reply
(although 4...c5 doesn't look bad either), when
5 ±g2 0-0 6 £>e2 c5 7 exd5 exd5 8 c3 £>c6 9
0-0 Jtf5 was fine for Black in Baran-Bobrow-
ska, Polish Cht (Suwalki) 1999. 5 e5 can also
be considered; e.g., 5...£rfd7 6 c3 c5 7 f4!? £>c6
8 &df3 cxd4 9 cxd4#b6 -3..&J54 e5 £tfd7 5
c3 c5 6/4 *hc6 7 ^hd/3 cxd4 8 cxd4 Mb6 9 g3
±e7.
A)
4 c3 (D)
This quiet move strengthens White's centre
and hopes for Black to play 4...£\f6, after which
White will reply 5 e5 £>fd7 6 ±d3. Then White
isn't committed to putting the knight on f3 and
Black's dark-squared bishop has been
developed prematurely.
4...c5
Black also has the option of playing a
Rubinstein/Burn concept by capturing on e4, viz.
4...dxe4 5 £\xe4, and now 5...£\f6,5...£\d7 and
5...Jtd7 are all viable possibilities. For a more
detailed comparison with the various
Rubinstein/Burn lines I advise you to consult my
book The Main Line French: 3 Qsc3. A likely
transposition would be 4...dxe4 5 £\xe4 £\f6 6

146
The French: Tarrasch Variation
£>xf6+ ±xf6 7 £>f3 - 3 &c3 dxe4 4 ^xe4 ke7
5 £hf3 *hf6 6 £k/<5 + ±xf6 7c3±/=.
5 dxc5 (D)
There are no really independent alternatives
to this. A few transpositions to other lines:
a) 5 &gf3 £tf6 6 e5 £>fd7 7 ±d3 - 4 &gf3
£tf6 5 e5 Zhfdl 6 k.d3 c5 7 c3.
b) 5 ±d3 £>c6 6 dxc5 £>f6 l%€l-4 kd3
c5 5 dxc5 *hf6 6 %e2 £hc6 7 c3.
Aff V% HAH
This may lead to a structure similar to the
line 3...c5 4 exd5 exd5 but there is the slight
difference that here Black will be able to develop
his knight to f6, whereas in the 3...c5 Tarrasch
Black's knight is often best placed on e7. The
reason is that here White has 'wasted' a move
on c3 and thus is not able to get to the e-file as
quickly as in the 3...c5 Tarrasch.
The alternative for Black is 5...&f6 but White
can then try to hang on to his extra pawn with 6
exd5#xd5 7b4!?.Now:
a) 7...e5 8 £>gf3 (8 #b3 a5 9 ±b2 axb4 10
cxb4 £>c6 11 a3 £>d4 12 #xd5 £>xd5 13 ±xd4
exd4 14 ±b5+ ±d7 15 ±xd7+ <4>xd7 16 £>b3
±f6 17 &f3 Sa4 with counterplay, A.N.Pan-
chenko-Knaak, Sochi 1980) 8...e4 9 ±c4 #h5
10 £>d4 #g6 11 ±b5+ <4>f8 12 £tfl #xg2 13
£>g3 £>g4 14 #c2 e3 15 f3 #xc2 16 £>xc2 £>e5
17 ±e2 £>bc6 18 ±xe3 ± Diaz-Knaak, Varna
1985.
b) 7...a5!? 8 £>gf3 0-0 (8...axb4 9 cxb4 b6?!
10 ±c4 #c6 11 0-0 £>d5 12 #b3 bxc5 13 b5
#c7 14 ±b2 ± Antal-Rendle, Millfield 2004) 9
±c4 #h5 10 0-0 £>d5 11 ±xd5 (11 Wb3 £>f4
12 Bel!?) ll...Wxd5 12 a3 b6 13 c4 «h5 14
±b2 bxc5 15 b5 f6 16 £>e4 £>d7 17 £>d6 £>b6
18 £>xc8 Ifxc8 19 #e2 e5 V2-V2 Emms-
Hodgson, British Ch (Scarborough) 2001.
6£>b3
6 £>gf3 £>f6 (6...Wb6!?) 7 e5 #b6 8 £>d4
£>fd7 9 lfg4 0-0 10 £>2f3 £>c6 11 ±h6 g6 12
0-0-0 (12 ±xf8?#xb2) 12...£>dxe5 13Wf4f6!
14 Jtxf8 Jtxf8 with an unclear position, Oni-
shchuk-Morozevich, Bundesliga 1998/9.
6... ±b6 7 exd5 exd5 (D)
W
mkMwMMm
_ JAM
8±b5+
White has tried 8 #e2+ a few times recently,
aiming to force Black to put his knight on e7
and to exchange the dark-squared bishops after
8...^e7 9 Jte3. While this is surely favourable
strategically, the deployment of the pieces is
not very natural and White must subsequently
spend valuable manoeuvring time to get his
kingside pieces out. There are probably several
ways for Black to equalize the game:
a) 9...0-0 10 ±xb6 axb6 11 #d2 £rf5 (Black
may also consider other set-ups in an attempt to
exploit his lead in development; this is not
necessarily best) 12 £rf3 Ie8+ 13 ±e2 #e7 14
&cl £>d6, Solak-Lputian, Istanbul Ech 2003,
and now I don't see a refutation of 15 #xd5!.
b) 9...±xe3 10 #xe3 0-0 11 ±e2 £tf5 12
#d2 Ie8 13 £>f3 #e7 (compared to the line
above, Black's structure is now a lot healthier
and therefore something like 14 £\cl Jte6 is
fine for Black) 14 £>fd4 £>xd4 15 £>xd4 £>c6
16 £>xc6 bxc6 17 0-0, Zatonskikh-Shulman,
Kansas 2002.

3..Ae7
147
c) 9...^bc6 (I don't see anything wrong with
this natural move) 10 £tf3 0-0 11 ±xb6 #xb6
12 #d2 jtg4 and Black was doing well in
A.Ivanov-Gausel, Gausdal 1991.
8...£>c6 9 £>f3 £>f6
Compared to the 3...c5 Tarrasch, Black now
has the chance to develop the knight more
actively on f6. Instead 9...^ge7 10 0-0 transposes
to 3...c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 £hgf3 £hc6 6 k.b5 ±d6 7
0-0 %Sge7 8 dxc5 ±xc5 9 %Sb3 k,b6 10 c3.
10 0-0
10 #e2+ can be met simply with 10...£>e4.
10...0-0 11 ±g5 a6 12 ±a4
12 Jte2 looks more natural but Black had no
problems in Langer-Atalik, Las Vegas 2001
after 12...Be8 13 ±h4 h6.
12...±g4 13 #d3
Womacka-Lempert, Werfen 1994. If Black
now plays 13...#d6 the position is
approximately equal.
B)
4 e5!? (D)
With this, White argues that Black's bishop
has been prematurely developed. Not only does
it obstruct the black knight's most natural
development but it has also weakened g7.
4...c5
An idea that might be worth exploring is
4...£>h6!?, meeting 5 ±d3 with 5...f6. Glek-
I.Farago, Porto San Giorgio 2003 developed
slightly unusually to begin with: 5 £W3 £}f5
(5...c5!? 6 ±xh6 gxh6 7 #d2 £>c6 8 0-0-0 ±) 6
±d3 c5 7 dxc5 l.xc5 8 £>h3! £>c6 9 0-0 £>h4
10lel£>xf3+ll#xf3±
5%4
Less testing seems 5 c3 cxd4 6 cxd4 £\c6 7
£>df3 ±b4+ 8 Ad2 #a5 9 £>e2 ±xd2+ 10
#xd2 #xd2+ 11 4>xd2 f6 12 exf6 gxf6 13 £>f4
£>ge7 14 lei *f7 15 ±d3 ±d7 = Korchnoi-
Short, Wijk aan Zee 2000.
5 dxc5 £>c6 6 £>gf3 ±xc5 7 ^b3 ±b6 8
Jtd3 f6! is also fine for Black, Adams-Moro-
zevich, Dortmund 2001.
5...<Af8
Black may also defend his kingside in other
ways but this is the most common as it for now
avoids weakening the structure. Nevertheless,
in many lines Black will subsequently throw
forward his pawns to harass White's queen.
Other moves:
a) 5...g5?! 6 #h5! cxd4 (6...£>c6 7 dxc5!?)
7 £>df3! £>c6 8 £>h3 Wcl 9 £>hxg5 £>xe5 10
Jtb5+ ±d7 11 £\xe6 with a decisive attack,
Blehm-Ionescu, Budapest Z 2000.
b) 5...g6 6 dxc5 (there is plenty of room for
originality in these lines and, for example,
Watson investigates 6 £Mf3 ^c6 7 dxc5 Jtxc5 8
±d3 f6!; one of his lines goes 9 #h4 fxe5! 10
±xg6+ <4>d7 11 ±g5 #b6 12 0-0-0 ±xf2 13
#h5 £>ge7 =) 6...£>d7 7 £>gf3 £>xc5 8 ±e2
£>h6 9 #h3 £>f5 10 g4 £>g7 11 #h6 Af8 12 h4
±d7 13 Ih3 #c7 14 Wf4 « Jaracz-Lputian,
Istanbul Ech 2003.
c) 5...±f8 6^df3(6dxc5^c6 7^gf3#c7
8 Jtb5, as in Nevednichy-Antic, Yugoslav Cht
2001, might be a better way of playing the
position) 6...£>c6 7 dxc5 Wcl 8 #g3 £>ge7 9 c3
£>g6 10 b4 a5 11 ±b5 axb4 12 cxb4 ±d7 13
Jtxc6 Jtxc6 14 h4! (only with energetic play
does White have hopes of maintaining an
advantage; 14 £\e2 b6! would be very good for
Black) 14...b6 (Adams gives 14...h5 15 £>e2
b6 16 £>ed4 ±d7 17 c6 ±xc6 18 ±d2 Ad7 19
0-0 Sa3 oo) 15 h5 £>e7 16 £>d4 bxc5 17 bxc5
#a5+ (17...£tf5!? also looks interesting) 18
±d2 #xc5 19 £>gf3 ±b5 20 £>xb5 #xb5 21
5M4 ± Adams-Kristjansson, Reykjavik 2003.
We now return to 5...4>f8 (D):
6dxc5
A fairly unexplored idea is 6 ^b3 ^c6 (6...c4
7 £>d2 £>c6 8 c3 h5, H.Hunt-Matveeva, Varna

148
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
W
J§ JH JH JH
ft Iff ft ^f Iff ft ill
worn Ech 2002, and now I like 9 #f3 for White,
intending b3) 7 £>xc5 £>xe5 8 dxe5 ±xc5 9
±d3 ±d7 10 £>h3 (10 ffe2 followed by £tf3
looks slightly better for White) 10...f6 11 b4
±e7 12 ±b2 £>h6 13 Wf4 fori<*> Wells-N.Pert,
Southend 2002.
6...£>c6 7 £>gf3
Obviously, White would like to develop his
pieces as quickly and naturally as possible but it
is not clear that this is best. Two other moves
come seriously into consideration:
a) 7 #g3! ? was given by Adams as the most
accurate. Then 7...f6 8 ^gf3 transposes to 7
fogf3 f6 8 Wg3, while 7...h5 8 £>b3!? £>h6
(8...h4 9 »f4 g5 10 ffe3 »c7 11 £>f3 g4 12
£>fd4 ±) 9 £rf3 a5 10 c3 a4 11 £>bd4 ±xc5 12
±d3 Wb6 13 0-0 was good for White in Kob-
aliya-S.Ivanov, Russian Cht (Togliatti) 2003.
b) 7 £>df3!? f6 (7...±xc5 8 a3!?»b6 9»g3
fogel 10 ±d3 fof5 11 ±xf5 exf5 12 £>e2 ±e6
13 0-0 h6 14 h4 ± Grinfeld-Matveeva, Bled
worn 1994) 8 ±f4! ±xc5 9 ±d3 Wb6!? (9...f5
10 *g3 fogel 11 fool gave White some
advantage in Akopian-Radjabov, Moscow rpd 2002)
10 £>h3 »b4+ 11 c3 »xb2 12 0-0 »xc3 13
±b5! fxe5 14 Sfcl °° Pokorna-Matveeva, Bled
worn OL 2002.
7...h5! (D)
White will be better if he is allowed to
consolidate, so Black should continue
energetically. With the text-move he decides to harass
White's queen. Another idea is 7...f6 8 #g3
fxe5 9 £>xe5 £>xe5 10 Wxe5 ±xc5 11 ±d3 (11
£>e4 ±e7 12 fog5 Vd6 13 £tf3 »xe5+ 14
£>xe5 Af6 15 Af4 foel 16 0-0-0 £>c6 17 Sel
±) ll...£>f6 12 0-0 ±d6 13 We2 Wc7 14 f4!
Axf4 15 £tf3 ±d6 16 c4 e5!? (16...±d7 17
Jtg5 gives White good compensation, Lastin-
Kacheishvili, Ohrid Ech 2001) 17 cxd5 ±g4 18
h3 ±h5 19 ±g5 Se8 20 ±xf6 gxf6 21 ±e4 and
White was better in Kotsur-Radjabov, Bled OL
2002.
W
8#g3
White's queen is driven slightly around after
this but it is not easy to find a good square for it.
Other moves deserve attention too:
a) 8 Wf4 g5 9 We3 and now:
al) 9...d4!? and now 10 We2 g4 11 &gl
Jtxc5 is good for Black according to Adams,
although I am not sure how to evaluate 12 h3 g3
13 fxg3; 10 #e4 is another option and after
10...g4 11 &gl f5 12 exf6 foxf6 13 Wd3 ±xc5
14 £>b3 ±b4+ 15 ±d2 ±xd2+ 16 £>xd2 4>g7
Black has a nice lead in development at the
expense of a rather exposed pawn-structure.
a2) 9...£>h6 10 ±d3 fog4 11 #e2 Axc5 and
now 12 £>b3 ±xf2+ 13 4>dl Wb6 V2-V2 was the
finish of Cioara-I.Farago, Porto San Giorgio
2004. Indeed, Black seems to be doing OK in
this; e.g., 14 ±xg5 ±e3! 15 ±xe3 Wxe3 =. 12
0-0! looks more critical, when 12...#b6 13
£>b3 ±xf2+ 14 4>hl grants White
compensation.
b) 8Wa4!?#c7(8...±d7 9±b5±)9lrf4f6
(9...g5!? 10 £>xg5 Wxe5+ 11 Wxe5 £>xe5 12
£>b3 £>c4 with counterplay) 10 £>h4 Wxe5+
(10...*f7 11 fodtt £>xe5 12 £>g5+ 4>e8 13
±b5+ *d8 14 £>g6! »a5+ 15 »d2 Wxb5 16
£>xe5 ±; 10...£>xe5!? 11 £>g6+ 4>e8 12 £>b3

3...±e7
149
Bh7 13 Ae3 *f7 ») 11 Wxe5 £ixe5 12 f4 g5!?
13 fxe5 gxh4 14 ^f3 Axc5, Liss-I.Botvinnik,
Ramat Aviv 2000 and now 15 ±f4! 4>g7 16
0-0-0 is slightly better for White.
8...h4 91T4 g5 (D)
W
ft W§ ft f% fftl ft iH
if §§ JP & i
Il...£sb4 12 0-0 £)xd3 13 #xd3 £sf5 14
£ld4 £lxd4 15 fxd4 b6 16 cxb6 axb6 17 £>f3
Aa6 18 lei 8c8 19 Ae3 Bc6 20 Wd2 g4 21
£id4 ± Morovic-Hamdouchi, Cap d'Agde 2002.
12 We2 Wc7 13 £ib3
Kosi6 gives 13 £>xg5 as stronger but I don't
think 13...Axg5 14 Wxg4 Bg8 15 We2 £>xe5 is
bad for Black.
13...Ig8! 14 Ad2 £igxe5 15 0-0-0
15 Ac3 &xf3+ 16 #xf3 g4 17 We3 Ag5 18
We.2 e5 also gives Black the initiative.
15...£)xd3+ 16 WxdS b6 17 cxb6 axb6
Black has a nice attacking position, Popo-
vic-del Rio, Kallithea ECC 2002.
C)
4 i.d3 (D)
10«e3
10 tta4 Ad7 (10...1fc7 11 £lb3 £lxe5 12
£lxg5 f6 13 £lh3 ±) 11 JLb5 a6 (ll..JLxc5 12
thb3 ±e7 13 JLxc6! &xc6 14 Wg4 ±) 12 Axc6
±xc6 13 Wd4 £sh6 (13...f5!?) 14 &b3 £>f5 15
Wd3 (15 Wg4!?) 15...d4 16 Bgl Wc7 » Ad-
ams-Morozevich, Sarajevo 1999.
10...£)h6
A major difference over the immediate 8
Wf4 is that White now answers 10...d4 with 11
lfe4 ± (11 We2 g4 12 £lgl ±xc5 13 #xg4
4^xe5 oo).
11 &d3 (D)
IB4B*
A H^ A A A
" nr
HIP a HP ^
iHAill I
lA
ft w ft i^f w ft ^i
» mmm
%m
ll...£>g4
4...c5
4...£\c6 is slowly becoming more popular,
and is not a bad alternative. Then:
a) 5 c3 dxe4 6 Jtxe4 (6 £\xe4 e5! is fine for
Black) 6...£rf6 7 ±f3 0-0 8 £>c4 and now:
al) 8...£lb8?! 9 b4! £>bd7 10 £>e2 Ib8 11
0-0 b6 12 b5 £>d5 13 #b3 ±b7 14 fidl is
slightly better for White, Ye Jiangchuan-Seir-
awan, Elista OL 1998.
a2) 8...1W7!? (with the idea 9 £>e2 e5!) 9
#e2 (9 £>h3!?) 9...£>d5 10 £>e5 £>xe5 11 dxe5
b5 12 £>h3 a5 = Zuechner-Just, corr. 1978.
a3) 8...±d6! 9 £>e2 £>e7 10 0-0 £>g6 11 g3
Hb8 with the idea of ...b6 and ... Jtb7 is Seira-
wan's recommendation.
b) 5 £>gf3 £>b4 6 ±e2 and now:

150
The French: Tarrasch Variation
bl) 6...c5 7 c3 (7 exd5 £>xd5 8 £>b3 cxd4 9
0-0 £\gf6 10 £>bxd4 0-0 = Kotronias-Lputian,
Erevan Z 2000) 7...£>c6 8 dxc5 ±xc5 9 £>b3
Ab6 10 exd5 exd5 (10...ffxd5 11 ffxd5 exd5 12
JLf4 ± Grachev-Akselrod, Novosibirsk 2001) is
similar to Line A but a better version for White.
b2) 6...dxe4 7 £>xe4 £>f6 8 £>xf6+ Axf6 9
c3 £>d5 100-0 0-0 11 Ad3 (11 Wb3 a5 12 a4 b6
13 lei ±bl 14 Ad3 Ib8 15 ffc2 g6 16 Ah6
Ie8 17 £e4 c5 18 Sadl ffc7 = Elseth-Jacimo-
vic, Panormo ECC 2001) 1 l...b6 12 Wc2 g6 13
Sel ±bl 14 ih6 Ag7 15 ±xgl *xg7 16 Ae4
± Adams-Seirawan, Bermuda 2000.
5 dxc5(D)
5 exd5 Wxd5 6 dxc5 £>f6 7 £>gf3 - 4 &gf3
£hf6 5 Ld3 c5 6 exd5 Wxd5 7 dxc5.
Now there are two main lines for Black:
CI: 5...£>d7 150
C2: 5...£>f6 151
Naturally, 5... JLxc5 6 £>gf3 £>f6 is also
feasible and often just transposes; e.g., 7 #e2 &c6
- 5...&/S 6 lfe2 ?hc6 7 Ehgf3 kxc5. White
might also try to exploit the move-order and
play 7 e5!?. Probably Black should now choose
7...£>fd7, since 7...£>g4 8 0-0 £>c6 9 Wei f6 10
£>b3 Ab6 11 exf6 #xf6 12 c4 was very good
for White in Kapengut-Kupreichik, USSR 1976.
CI)
5...£>d7
With this Black attempts to regain the pawn
immediately. It may lead to rather simplified
positions where White easily exchanges some
minor pieces and Black suffers slightly due to
the isolated d-pawn, but White has also tried to
hang on to the pawn, whereupon the play
becomes very tactical.
6 exd5 exd5
6...£\xc5 isn't a correct pawn sacrifice: 7
Ab5+ ±dl 8 Axd7+ Wxd7 9 dxe6 £>xe6 10
&gf3 £>f4 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 Wei ±.
7£>b3
Black needs a good continuation against 7
b4!? - otherwise 5...^hdl can be abandoned.
Thankfully for him, Black doesn't seem worse
off in the complications arising from 7...a5 8
a3!?axb4 9Ab2:
a) 9...£>xc5 10 JLxg7 £>xd3+! (this is much
better than the immediate 10..Jtf6 11 JLb5+!)
11 cxd3 Af6 12 Axh8 Axh8 13 Sa2 *f8!? 14
£ie2 Ixa3 *>.
b) 9...bxa3 10 ±xgl Af6 11 Axh8 Axh8
12 Sa2 £>xc5 13 £>e2 Ae6 14 £tf4 Wg5 15
£\xe6 fxe6 and again Black's active position
should compensate for the slight material
deficit, Baklan-Bartel, Internet 2004.
7...£>xc5 (D)
Delaying this capture is also feasible but
should be better for White: 7...£>gf6 8 Jte3 a5 9
a4 Wcl 10 £>e2 £>xc5 11 Axc5 Axc5 12 Ab5+
*f8 13 £>xc5 Wxc5 14 f3!? b6 15 Wdl h5 16
0-0-0 ± Ulybin-Drasko, Montecatini Terme
1997.
8£>xc5
Other moves give Black good chances of
equalizing:

3..±e7
151
a) 8 Ae3 £>xd3+ 9 Wxd3 £>f6 10 £>e2 0-0
11 0-0 a5 12 a4 Ldl 13 Ad4 Se8 14 £>c3 £.c6
15 ladl Wc8 16 Ifel £>e4 = Hector-Hillarp
Persson, Swedish Ch (Orebro) 2000.
b) 8 Ab5+ ±d7 9 Axd7+ Wxd7 10 £rf3 (in
Kacheishvili-Lputian, Erevan Z 2000, Black
was better after 10 Ae3 £>a4! 11 Wtl £>f6 12
0-0-0 0-0 13 £>h3 Ifc8 followed by ...Ic7 and
...Iac8) 10...^f6 11 0-0 (it is interesting to note
that this position is actually a tempo up for
Black on the line 3...c54 exd5 exd5 5 ?hgf3 ?hf6
6 Lb5+ Ld7 7 kxd7+ ?hbxd7 8 0-0 ±e7 9
dxc5 Zhxc5 10 Ehb3) 1 l...£>ce4 12 Ae3 0-0 13
c3 Ad6 14 h3 Bfe8 15 Wd3 a6 = Shevchenko-
Vysochin, Polanica Zdroj 1999.
8...Axc5 9 £>f3 5M6 (D)
10Ve2+
This is temporarily annoying for Black, but
that's all. Later when a black rook comes to the
e-file, White's queen should move again and
Black's bishop is not much worse placed on e7.
Other options:
a) 10 0-0 0-0 11 c3 (11 h3 might be better)
1 l...Ag4 12 ±g5 (12 Ae2?! fie8 13 ±g5 Wd6 ?
Jaracz-Velcheva, Biel 2000) 12...Ie8 13 Ac2 h6
14 Axf6 Wxf6 15 Wxd5 Axf3 16 Wxf3 Wxf3
17 gxf3 Ie2 = Jansa-Gausel, Gausdal 1991.
b) 10 Ab5+ ±d7 11 We2+ £>e4 12 Axd7+
Wxdl 13 Ae3 0-0 14 Axc5 £>xc5 15 0-0-0
Iac8 16 £>d4 Bfe8 = Lukez-Wrba, corr. 1997.
10...Ae711 ±b5+ Ad712 0-0 0-013 Axd7
Wxdl
The type of position that has arisen is typical
for many ...exd5 lines. White does not have
much advantage but in practice the position
with the isolated pawn can be difficult to
handle. In Laznicka-Erdos, Mitropa Cup (Pula)
2003 the position was roughly equal after 14
±g5 Ife8 15 Wd3 h6 16 Ah4 Iad8 17 ladl
^e4 18Axe7Wxe7.
C2)
5...£>f6 (D)
6lfe2
A good move that keeps the central tension
and avoids the queens being exchanged after an
exchange on e4. Note that usually White is only
going to close the centre if Black takes with the
bishop on c5; otherwise Black would have the
possibility of taking there with the knight after
...£kI7. Other moves transpose elsewhere:
a) 6 £>gf 3 - 4 ?hgf3 £hf6 5 ±d3 c5 6 dxc5.
b) 6 exd5 Wxd5 7 £>gf3 - 4 £hgf3 %\f6 5
±d3 c5 6 exd5 Wxd5 7 dxc5.
6...£>c6
This is the most logical way of developing
the knight but an interesting recent idea is to
bring the knight into play via a6. We look at that
idea along with a few others in the following
notes:
a) 6...Wa5?! 7 c3!? Wxc5 8 £>gf3 dxe4 (or
8...£>c6 9 0-0 0-0 10 e5 £>d7 11 £>b3 Wb6 12
Af4 ± Rublevsky) 9 £>xe4 £>xe4 10 Wxe4 £>d7
11 Ae3 Wa5 12 0-0 £>f6 (12...£ic5? 13 We5!)
13 Wh4 Wh5 14 Wxh5 £>xh5 15 Ifdl 0-0 16
<5^e5 £rf6 17 c4 ± Rublevsky-Sakaev, Panormo
ECC2001.

152
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
b) 6...dxe4 7 £>xe4 £>xe4 8 Axe4 Axc5 9
£>f3 0-0 10 Ad2!? f6 11 0-0-0 Wcl 12 h4 with
the better prospects for White, Brynell-Rylan-
der, Swedish Ch (Orebro) 2000.
c) 6...0-0 7 £>gf3 a5!? (D) and now:
W
cl) 8 a4 £>a6 and here:
cl 1) 9 £>b3 £>b4!? (later Lputian preferred
the safer 9...dxe4 10 Axe4 £>xe4 11 #xe4
£>xc5 12 £>xc5 Axc5 13 0-0 #b6 14 b3 f6 with
equality, Pavasovic-Lputian, Istanbul Ech 2003)
10 exd5 (10 JLg5!? is also unclear) 10...£ixd3+
11 #xd3 £>xd5 12 Ae3 b6! 13 0-0-0 bxc5 14
Axc5 ±a6 15 fte4 Axc5 16 £>xc5 #c8 «
Khachatrian-Lputian, Armenian Ch (Erevan)
2001.
cl2) 9 e5 £>d7 10 £>d4 £>dxc5 11 Axa6
Sxa6 12 £>2f3 £>e4 13 0-0 f6 14 c4 #c7 15
cxd5 exd5 16 Af4 #c4 17 Wdl ±dl 18 2c 1!?
#xa4 19 Sc7 #xdl 20Sxdl fxe5 21 Axe5 ±/=
Navara-Pelletier, Plovdiv Echt 2003.
c2) 8 0-0 £>a6 9 exd5 exd5 and here:
c21) 10 Ab5 £>xc5 (10...Ad7!? 11 Axd7
#xd7 12 £>b3 a4 13 £>bd4 Axc5 =) 11 Sdl
Wcl 12 £tfl a4 13 a3 h6 14 h3 Af5 15 £>d4
±g6 16 Af4 #xf4 17 #xe7 ± Womacka-Reefat,
Gausdal 2002.
c22) 10 Sell? Se8 11 £>b3 £>xc5 (nor is
there anything wrong with 11...a4 12 5Mxi4
£>xc5 13 Ab5 ±dl) 12 Ab5 ±dl 13 Ae3 a4 14
±xdl #xd7!? 15 Axc5 and now the
speculative 15...axb3?! 16 Axe7 Sxa2 17 Sacl! Sa4
18 #e5 Se4 19 Axf6 2xel+ 20 £>xel Sxe5 21
JLxe5 f6 22 JLc3 was better for White in Nai-
ditsch-de la Riva, Pamplona 2004, but the more
sober 15...Axc5 16 £>xc5 #c6 should be OK
for Black.
7 £>gf3 (D)
White cannot hope for anything with 7 c3;
in Van Delft-Langrock, Hamburg 2003 Black
had an easy game after 7...d4! 8 5}gf3 dxc3 9
bxc3 £>d7! 10 0-0 £>xc5 11 Ac2 b6, intending
...Aa6.
B
ABASWBAi
Now:
C21: 7.
C22: 7.
C23: 7.
..JLxc5
.a5
.fib4
152
153
154
After 7...0-0, 8 0-0 transposes to C21 or C22,
depending on whether Black chooses 8... JLxc5
or 8...a5, but White can also consider other
options; e.g., 8 e5!? £>d7 9 £fo3.
C21)
7...JLxc5
The immediate capture on c5 gives Black
more options than, for example, 7...0-0 8 0-0
JLxc5.
8 0-0#c7!?(T>)
Now Black often intends to castle queenside
but also keeps White busy looking for possible
threats to his kingside after a ...^g4.
8...0-0 is also seen but it is less flexible than
the text-move. In Dworakowski-Matlak, Polish
Cht (Suwalki) 1999 White had a slight edge
after 9 e5 £>d7 10 £>b3 Ltl 11 c3 a5 12 a4 b6 13
£>bd4.
9a3

This serves well as both an attacking and a
defensive move. White introduces the
possibility of advancing with b4, which gives White a
useful square on b2 for his bishop, but it is also
nice just to have any ...^b4 ideas eliminated. 9
c3 is also often seen but this has some
drawbacks compared to the text-move, and is
probably inferior. 9... Jtd7 and then:
a) 10 h3 £>h5 11 #dl (11 £>b3?! £>g3 12
#c2 dxe4 13 ±xe4 £>xe4 14 #xe4 ±d6 15
Jte3 ^e7! was better for Black in Zagrebelny-
McDonald, Hastings 1999/00) 1 l...£>f4 12 exd5
£>xd3 13 dxc6 ±xc6 14 £>b3 0-0-0 15 £>xc5
^xcl? (this leads to complications that clearly
favour White; 15...£>xc5 16 ffe2 is equal) 16
£>d4 ±b5 17 £>xb5 Ixdl 18 £>xc7 £>e2+ 19
<4>h2 Ixfl 20 Ixfl <4>xc7 21 g3! Sd8 22 £>b3
Id5 23 lei Ie5, Rizouk-Barsov, York 2000,
and now 24 £k!2! wins for White.
b) 10 e5 ^g4 (now, compared to our main
line, White has difficulties defending his e-
pawn) 11 £\b3 Jtb6 and now:
bl) 12^fd4?!^cxe5 13Af4g5 14Ag3h5
15 lael f6 16 f4? £>xd3 17 #xd3 0-0-0 18
fxg5 e5 is winning for Black, Hector-Barsov,
York 2000.
b2) 12 JLf4 seems like a more sober reply,
and might give White some advantage: 12...f6
13 lael 0-0-0 14 £>bd4 £>cxe5 (14...£>gxe5 15
<4>hl Ide8 16 £>xc6 ±xc6 17 £>xe5 fxe5 18
±xe5 #f7 19 f4 ±) 15 <4>hl Ac5! 16 £>xe5 fxe5
(16...£>xe5 17 £tf3 ±) 17 ±g3 h5 18 £>f3 h4 19
±xe5 #b6 20 ±d4 ±.
We now return to 9 a3 (D):
9...±d7
Black can also prevent a white expansion
with9...a5,butl0exd5^xd5 1lffe4!?£>f612
#c4 b6 13 £>e4 £>xe4 14 #xe4 ±bl 15 ±b5
(15 Af4 ±) 15...0-0-0 16 ffe2 gave White a
slight advantage in Mahesh Chandran-N.Pert,
Witley 2000.
10 e5
After 10 exd5 £>xd5 11 £>e4 ±e7 12 g3, the
opening turned out clearly in White's favour
following 12...h6 13 ±d2 0-0-0 14 c4 £>f6 15
b4 £>xe4 16 ±xe4 ±f6 17 lael £>d4 18 £>xd4
Jtxd4 19 c5 in Ramesh-Cosma, Andorra 2000.
However, 12...e5! doesn't look bad for Black.
10...£ig4 11 b4 £>d4 12 tfdl ±b6 13 ±b2
£>xf3+ 14 £>xf3 ±a4 15 #e2
White is better, Kotronias-Barsov, Patras
2001.
C22)
7...a5 (D)

154
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
It is not easy to describe the concrete idea of
this move. On one hand it is a sort of waiting
move but the simple further advance of the
pawn is annoying for White in some lines.
Besides, after, for example, 8 0-0 0-0, Black need
not worry about 9 e5 ^d7 10 ^b3 as Black can
now simply play 10...a4.
8 0-0
8 a4 ^b4 is similar to Morozevich's
preference, 7...£ta4. Here we have the a-pawns
immediately fixed on a5 and a4, but transpositions
are likely to occur. 9 0-0 (9 £>b3 £>xd3+ 10
cxd3 - 7„Jhb4 8 ?hb3 ?hxd3+ 9 cxd3 a510 a4)
9...£>xd3 10 cxd3 Axc5 11 £>b3 Ae7 12 Ag5
h6 13 Ah4 Wb6 was fine for Black in Ripari-
Drasko, St Vincent 2001.
8...0-0 9 a4
With both sides having castled, this might
make a slight difference. Alternatively, White
has tried:
a) 9 e5 £>d7 10 £>b3? (this idea is sensible if
Black plays 7...0-0, but here it is certainly not
advisable) 10...a4 11 £>bd4 (11 £>bd2 would be
too embarrassing) 11...5Mxe5! 12 <5^xe5 <5^xd4
13 Wh5 f5 14 Sel Axc5 + Kveinys-Pelletier,
Zurich 2001.
b) 9 c4 a4 10 Sdl Axc5 11 exd5 exd5 12
cxd5 £>b4 13 £>e4 £>xd3 14 £>xf6+ Wxf6 15
Wxd3 Af5 (15...Ag4!?) 16 #b5 b6 17 Ag5
Wg6 gave Black sufficient compensation due to
his strong bishop-pair in Asrian-Lputian,
Armenian Ch (Erevan) 2000.
c) 9 c3 and now:
cl) 9...Se8 10 e5 £>d7 11 £>b3 a4 12 £>bd4
£>xc5 13 Ac2 h6 14 Af4 Af8 15 Sfel Ad7 16
Sadl ± Brynell-Hillarp Persson, Gothenburg
2000.
c2) 9...£>d7!? 10 exd5 exd5 11 Ac2 (11
£>b3 a4 12 £>bd4 £>xc5 13 Ae3 £>xd3 14 Wxd3
Af6 15 h3 £>a5 16 Sadl £>c4 17 Acl Se8 =
N.Medvegy-Short, Gibraltar 2003) ll...£ixc5
12 £>b3 Se8! 13 £>xc5 Axc5 14 Wd3 g6 15
Ag5 Wb6 16 Ab3 d4! 17 cxd4 £>xd4 18 £>xd4
Axd4 = Cu.Hansen-Lputian, Istanbul OL 2000.
We now return to 9 a4 (D):
9...£>b4
In Tiviakov-Lputian, Ohrid Ech 2001, Lpu-
tian tried the same idea as against Curt Hansen
above but Tiviakov instructively showed that
White benefits from not exchanging on d5,
which leaves more options open: 9...5M7 10
^b3 (according to Tiviakov Black is OK after
10 exd5 exd5 11 £>b3 £>xc5 12 £>xc5 Axc5)
10..Axc5 11 £>xc5 Axc5 12 c3 ±. In general
White's position is more flexible than in, for
example, Hansen-Lputian from the previous
note, because White can decide whether he
wants to close the centre with e5, or play against
an isolated d-pawn by later exchanging on d5.
10 e5
10 ^b3 is also worth considering. Here a
comparison with the line 7...^hb4 8 Q\b3 a5 9
a4, or 8...£hxd3+ 9 cxd3 a5 10 a4, is
appropriate but a casual remark is that White can be
more happy with both sides having castled.
10...£id7 11 £>b3 £>xd3 12 cxd3 £>xc5 13
£>xc5 Axc5
= Xie Jun-Matveeva, New Delhi FIDE worn
KO 2000.
C23)
7...£>b4 (D)
Morozevich's pet line. Black doesn't always
regain his pawn but in compensation he usually
ends up with a strong bishop-pair.
8£>b3
This is probably White's best. Black has no
problems after other moves:
a) 8 exd5 Wxd5 9 Ab5+ (9 £>b3 Ad7 100-0
£>xd3 11 Wxd3 Wxd3 12 cxd3 Ab5 13 Sdl
Aa4! 14 d4 £>d5 15 Ad2 0-0 16 Sel b6 gave
Black good counterplay in Ganguly-Goloshcha-
pov, Sangli 2000) 9...Ad7 10 Axd7+ £>xd7 11

3..±e7
155
£>b3 £>xc5 12 £>xc5 Wxc5 13 c3 £>d5 14 0-0 =
Vakhidov-Rahman, Dhaka 2001.
b) 8 0-0 £>xd3 9 cxd3 (9 Wxd3 is as far as I
am aware still untested but might be worth a
look) 9...±xc5 10 £>b3 ±e7 11 ±g5 (11 e5
£>d7 12 £>fd4 0-0 13 Af4 £>c5 14 WgA *h8 15
£>xc5 ±xc5 16 £tf3 ±e7 17 Ifel ±d7 18 Wh5
f6 = Svidler-Radjabov, Moscow 2002) ll...h6
12 ±h4 (D) and now:
bl) 12...Wb6 13 e5 £>g8 and then:
Ml) 14 ±xe7 £>xe7 15 £rfd4 (15 £>bd4 =)
15...±d7 16 lacl 0-0 17 Wd2 Ifc8 18 Wa5
Wxa5 19 £>xa5 b6 20 £>ab3 g5! with slightly
better chances for Black, mainly because of
White's weak e-pawn, Leko-Morozevich,
Sarajevo 1999.
bl2) 14 ±g3! (even if White's bishop isn't
the best of pieces, this seems better, since Black
will now have some difficulties completing
development) 14...a5 15 Af4 a4 16 ±e3 Wa6
(Drasko gives 16...Wb5 17 £>bd4 Wdl with the
idea of ...Ad8 and ...£>e7 as better) 17 £>c5 (17
£>bd4 ±d8 18 ±d2 £>e7 19 ±b4 0-0 20 lacl
2e8 21 2c 3 Ad7 = Ye Jiangchuan-Barsov,
Moscow 2001) 17...*a5 18 b4! axb3 19 £>xb3
Wa4 20 £>c5 (Drasko also mentions 20 £rfd4
with the idea of f4) 20...*a3 21 Ifcl b6 22
£>b3 ±d8 23 £>fd4 ±d7 24 Wg4 g6 25 h4 and
White was better in Vuckovic-Drasko,
Yugoslavia 1999.
b2) 12...Ad7!? 13 lacl (13 e5 £>g8 and
now 14 Ag3!? is probably still White's best
set-up, after which Morozevich gives 14...h5 15
Af4 £>h6 16 £>fd4 ±; in Hebden-RH.Nielsen,
Hastings 2003/4 White looked slightly better
after 14 ±xe7 £>xe7 15 £>c5 Wb6 16 Ifcl Ic8
17 d4 ±b5 18 Wd2 a5 19 a4 ±c6 20 Icbl)
13...dxe4 14 dxe4 Wb6 15 Ifdl ±a4 16 Wc4
±xb3 17 axb3 0-0 18 ±xf6 ±xf6 19 e5 ±g5 20
Id6 Wa5 21 b4 Wa4 22 £>xg5 hxg5 with an
equal position, Ponomariov-Morozevich,
Istanbul OL 2000.
We now return to 8 £>b3 (D):
8...£>xd3+
Removing the bishop immediately obviously
has its pluses but it is not clear that Black will
regain his pawn in a comfortable way. Black
may also play 8...a5!?. Then:
a) 9 a4 £>xd3+ 10 cxd3 - 8...Zhxd3+ 9 cxd3
a5 10 a4.
b) 9 ±g5 a4 10 £>bd2 h6 is similar to our
main line.
c) 9±b5+!?±d7 10±xd7+ £>xd7 11 c3 ±.
9cxd3a5 10±g5!?

156
The French: Tarrasch Variation
In his notes to his game with Morozevich
from Sarajevo 2000, Adams comments that he
still considers 10 a4 as a good move, despite
preferring the text-move. Only half a year
before, the game Adams-Morozevich, Wijk aan
Zee 2000 had then continued 10...b6 11 e5 £>d7
12 c6 £>c5 13 £>bd4 Aa6 14 £>b5! (14 Sa3
£>e4! gives White nothing) 14..Ab3 (Black is
also struggling after 14...^xa4 15 £}d6+ JLxd6
16 exd6 £>c5 17 d7+ *f8 18 Sa3 Wcl 19 0-0)
15 Sbl Ab4+ 16 <4>fl 0-0 17 d4 f6, and now
Morozevich thinks 18 Wd3! is very strong. In
a later game, Rublevsky-Radjabov, Hyderabad
2002, Black equalized with 10...dxe4! 11 dxe4
0-0 12 0-0 b6 13 Sdl Wcl 14 ±g5 bxc5 15
Hacl Aa6 16Wc2Hfc8.
10...a4 11 £>bd2 h6
ll...dxe4 12 dxe4 £>d7 13 ±xel Wxel 14
Scl 0-0 (14...&xc5 15 Wb5+ £>d7 16 0-0 0-0
17 Sc7 ±) 15 We3 Sa5 16 0-0 (16 c6 bxc6 17
Sxc6 JLa6 with some counterplay) 16...Sxc5
17 Wa3! b5 18 £>e5! Se8 19 Sxc5 Wxc5 20
Wxc5 £>xc5 21 Scl £>d7 22 £>d3 was
uncomfortable for Black in Z.Almasi-Timman,
Pamplona 1999/00.
12Axf6
12 ±e3 Wa5 13 0-0 ±xc5 14 ±xc5 Wxc5 15
Sfcl Wb6 16 e5 £>g8!? 17 We3 Wxe3 18 fxe3
?htl 19 ^h&A JLd7 was approximately equal in
Navara-Duppel, Pardubice 2000, because Black
has counterplay against e5, which can be
attacked by ...4ftg6 and ...f6.
12...Axf6 13 e5 ±el (D)
w
Adams-Morozevich, Sarajevo 2000 went 14
Scl Sa5?! 15 We3 0-0 160-0±dl 17 Sc2 Wa8
18 Sfc 1 Sc8 19 £rfl and Black did not have full
compensation, because White can now aim for a
kingside attack. Further ideas have been worked
out since, and it has now become clear that
Black should play ...Wa5 and ...b6 in these
positions.
14...Va5 15 Scl b6 16 cxb6 Ad8
Black will win the b-pawn and has good
compensation in the form of a strong bishop-
pair, Godena-Morozevich, Istanbul OL 2000.
D)
4 £)gf3 £)f6 (D)
w
v mkMmm u
■ AB BA,HA
m k'wd" 'W/
mm bah
gg gtsiar
14#e3
We shall now consider two main options for
White:
Dl: 5Ad3 156
D2: 5e5 157
5 exd5 exd5 is feasible but just a timid
version of the Exchange Variation, since White's
knight is placed on d2.
Dl)
5 Ad3 c5 6 exd5
This is somewhat different from the same
capture on the last move, for if Black recaptures
with the pawn he will be saddled with an
isolated d-pawn. Instead, 6 e5 ^hfdl transposes to
5e5Ehfd7 6Ld3c5.
6 dxc5 dxe4 leads to an equal ending:

3...ke7
157
a) 7 ±xe4 £>a6 (7...±xc5 8 ±d3 £>bd7 =) 8
±d3 (8 c6 £>xe4 9 £>xe4 Wxdl+ 10 <4>xdl bxc6
=) 8...£>xc5 9 ±b5+ ±d7 10 ±xd7+ Wxd7 11
0-0 0-0 = Ki.Georgiev-Lputian, Sarajevo 1998.
b) 7 £>xe4 £>xe4 8 ±xe4 Wxdl+ 9 <4>xdl
±xc5 10 <A>e2 £>d7! and now:
bl) 11 ±e3 ±xe3 12 <4>xe3 £>c5 13 £>e5 f6
14 £>c4 £>xe4 15 <4>xe4 <4>e7 16 f4 b6 ? Ravi-
Barsov, Calcutta 2001.
b2) 11 c4 h6 12 ±d2 a5 13 ±c3 £>f6 14
±c2 b6 15 £>e5 ±b7 16 ±a4+ <4>e7 17 f3
2hc8 18 Shdl 2c7 = El Arousy-Matveeva,
Abu Dhabi 2000.
b3) 11 Ad2 £>f6 12 ±d3 b6 13 ±b5+ <4>e7
14 £>e5 ±b7 15 Ihdl Iac8 16 ±g5 Ic7 17
Af4 a6 18 ±a4 £>d5 19 ±g3 b5 20 ±b3 ±d6 is
equal, Zubov-Goloshchapov, Ordzhonikidze Z
2000.
6...1fxd5 7 dxc5 (D)
mm B&m
m fMm'm,
7...£>bd7!?
This is Black's most common; he now hopes
to capture on c5 with the knight. However,
7...Wxc5 might also be satisfactory; e.g., 8 0-0
0-0 9 ffe2 £>c6 10 £>e4 £>xe4 11 Wxe4 g6 =
Stefansson-Antonsen, Internet 2000.
8 b4!?
Morozevich mentions this as the critical line.
Other moves promise White nothing:
a) 8 0-0 £>xc5 9 ±c4 Wd8 10 £>b3 0-0 11
Wq2 b6 12 Af4 ±b7 13 ladl Wc8 = Slobod-
jan-Nogueiras, Havana 2000.
b) 8 Wq2 £>xc5 9 ±c4 Wd6 10 £>b3 0-0 11
±e3 Wcl 12 ±d4 b6 13 ±e5 ±d6 = Shulman-
Morozevich, Elista OL 1998.
c) 8 £>b3 and then:
cl) 8...a5!? led to a fine attacking win for
Black in Kudrin-Short, Port Erin 1999 but is
also risky: 9 c4 Wh5 10 ±e2 e5 11 0-0 a4 12
£>bd2? (12 £>fd4! ? Wg6 13 f4 should have been
tried, with a complicated position) 12...£ixc5
13lel0-0 14£>flld8q:.
c2) 8...£>xc5 (the simplest) 9 £>xc5 ±xc5 10
0-0 ±d7 11 c4 Wh5 12 Af4 Sdg = Burnoiu-
Shulman, Pardubice 1999.
We now return to 8 b4!? (D):
■a "
8...a5 9 Ac4 tth5 10 c3 £>d5 11 ±xd5
Wxd5 12 ±b2
With this, White decides to return the pawn
in order to complete his development in
comfort. Other moves:
a) 12 Wb3?! ±f6! 13 Ibl £>e5 14 0-0 £>d3
with a black initiative in Kholmov-Moroze-
vich, Perm 1998.
b) 12 ^b3 was played in the game S.Has-
linger-Dearing, Witley 1999. Black should
reply 12...*xdl+ 13 <4>xdl axb4 14 cxb4 ±f6 15
£>fd4 (15 £>bd4 Sa4 16 ±d2 £>e5 =) 15...Ia4
16 Ad2 b6! 17 c6 ^e5 with compensation for
the pawn.
12...axb4 13 cxb4 Ixa2 14 Ixa2 #xa2 15
Val Wxal+ 16 ±xal £>f6
The chances are roughly equal, Turov-Shul-
man, St Petersburg 1998.
D2)
5 e5 (D)
5...£>fd7

158
The French: Tarrasch Variation
5...£>e4 6 ±d3 £>xd2 7 ±xd2 c5 8 dxc5
Axc5 9 0-0 £>c6 10 c3 ±dl 11 We2 h6 12 Ae3
gave White an edge in Van der Sterren-Timman,
Amsterdam 1999.
6Ad3
A sharper approach is 6 c4 which tries to
exploit a slight lead in development by opening up
the position. Black's position is fundamentally
sound though, and it could be a risky decision
seen from a positional point of view. Mahjoob-
Lputian, Erevan Wcht 2001 went 6...dxc4 7
JLxc4 £>b6 8 &d3 JLd7!? (maybe an
improvement over 8...£>c6 9 £>e4 £>b4 10 ±bl h6 11
0-0 ±dl 12 a3 ^4d5 13 lei ±c6 14 ±dl with
an edge for White, Aagaard-McDonald,
Oakham 2000) 9 0-0 Ac6 10 lei ±d5 11 £.c2 £>c6
12 ^e4 Wdl with roughly equal chances.
6...c5 7 c3 £>c6
7...b6 is a common plan for Black in this type
of position but as usual a little slow: 8 Wtl cxd4
(according to Lputian White should meet the
immediate 8...a5 with 9 c4!) 9 cxd4 a5 10 £>f 1
Aa6 11 Axa6 and now 11...2xa6?! 12 £>g3 ±
occurred in Ehlvest-Lputian, Manila IZ 1990.
Lputian suggests ll..Axa6 as better. Then 12
^g3 (not 12 a3 Wc8 13 £>e3? Axa3!) 12...h5
13 h4 Wc8 with the idea of ...*Tc4 gives Black
counterplay.
8 0-0 (D)
This position could also arise from, for
example, 3...&/B4 e5 ?hfd75 ±d3 c5 6 c3 Ehc6 7
Qsgfi and then 7...±e7 8 0-0, but I have
included it in the 3... Jte7 chapter because today
that is seen as the most frequent move-order.
We shall consider three main lines for Black:
D21: 8...tHb6 158
D22: 8...g5!? 159
D23: 8...a5 161
There are other moves that deserve to be
mentioned:
a) 8...b6 9 lei cxd4 10 cxd4 £>b4 11 ±b\
JLa6 12 &fl ± Zapolskis-Schaefter, Cuxhaven
1993.
b) 8...0-0 9 lei Wb6 was seen in Nedev-
Lputian, Istanbul OL 2000. This is interesting
since Lputian is such an expert on this line, and
10 c4! cxd4 11 cxd5 exd5 12 £>b3 is meant to be
very good for White, based on Gufeld-Arulaid.
Tallinn 1968. Did Lputian have an improvement
on this, or was he simply not aware of it?
c) 8...h5!? is another fashionable approach,
though I keep being amazed that Black often
does well with these almost random pawn-
thrusts. But two lines after 9 Sel where White
comes out better were:
cl) 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 g5 11 ^b3 a5 12 a4 g4
13 £>fd2 £>b6 14 £fol ^c4 15 £>c3 Wb6 16
JLxc4 dxc4 17 £k!2 is much better for White.
Smirin-Cheparinov, Calvia OL 2004.
c2) 9...g5 10 dxc5 g4 11 £>d4 ^dxe5 12
Ab5 ±dl 13 £>2b3 £>g6 14 c4 a6 15 Axc6
bxc6 16 ±d2 e5 17 Aa5 WbS 18 cxd5 cxd5 19
c6 ±c8 20 c7 Wbl 21 lei ±d7 (21...exd4 22
#xd4 0-0 23 Ad2! ±) 22 ^c5 A,xc5 23 lxc5 ±
Timofeev-Arencibia, Cappelle la Grande 2004.
D21)
8...Wb6 (D)

9dxc5
This is the principled continuation. White is
now better after 9...±xc5 10 We2, so either
Black will have to take with the knight, which
reduces the pressure on e5, or he will have to
move his queen again.
The alternative for White is 9 fiel, and then:
a) 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 and here:
al) 10...^xd4 11 £>xd4 Wxd4 12 £>b3! Wa4
(12...Wb6 13 Ad2±) 13 Ac2£>b6 14 5M4Wa5
15 a3 Ad7 16 Ad2 Wc5, Hartman-Benjamin,
Philadelphia 1986, and now Benjamin gives 17
Wg4 Af8 18 Ab4 Wcl 19 Ad6 ±.
a2) After 10...g5, 11 h3?! h5 12 £>fl g4 13
hxg4 hxg4 14 £>3h2 Wxd4 is meant to be fine
for Black, but White should try 11 £>b3! ? g4 12
£>g5!.
b) 9...g5 10 £>fl g4 11 dxc5 (11 £>g5!?)
ll...Axc5 12 £>d4 £>dxe5 (12...Axd4 13 cxd4
Wxd4 oo) 13 Af4 £>xd3 14 Wxd3 £>xd4 15 cxd4
Axd4 16 Ae3 Axe3 17 ^xe3 with
compensation - Korzubov & Shereshevsky.
9...Wc7 (D)
Instead of simply recapturing the pawn on c5
Black now turns his attention to the e-pawn.
This obviously has positional pluses but White
obtains an initiative in the form of better
development and an advantage in space. 9...^xc5 10
Ac2 Wcl 11 fiel £>d7!? 12 ttfe2 (12 c4!?
£>dxe5 13 cxd5 exd5 14 £>xe5 £>xe5 15 Aa4+
£>c6 16 £>f3 Ae6 17 £>d4 0-0 18 £>xe6 fxe6 19
fixe6 Ac5 with counterplay) 12...0-0 13 £tfl
(13 c4!) 13...f6 14 exf6 £>xf6 = Djeno-Glek,
Recklinghausen 1999.
10 £>b3 £>cxe5
Ae7 159
If instead 10...£>dxe5, 11 £>xe5 Wxe5 12 f4
is better for White.
11 Af4!
11 ^xe5 W\e5 is now less clear, because
Black keeps pressure against c5.
Il...^xf3+ 12 Wxf3 Wd8
12...e5 13 Ag3 Wc6 14 fifel! e4 15 fixe4!
dxe4 16 Axe4 Wf6 17 c6 ± Chandler-Henley,
Surakarta/Denpasar 1982.
13 Wg3 0-0 14 Ac7 We8 15 Ab5
± P.Cramling-Hjartarson, Reykjavik 1984.
D22)
8...g5!? (D)
Black is indirectly attacking d4, which is a
common theme in this line, and indeed lashing
out with ...g5 is seen in slightly different forms.
Black could, for example, avoid White's next
move by first taking on d4 but then White

160
The French: Tarrasch Variation
would have the additional option of replying
with £>b3.
9dxc5
This seems like a natural reaction. White
acts as often prescribed in the centre in reply to
Black's early wing attack. The most important
point is of course that White's knight gets an
escape-square on d4. Other moves that come into
consideration are:
a) 9 h3 h5 only seems to help Black as it
could be supposed that a possible opening of
the h-file would be to Black's advantage. White
can try the provocative-looking 10 g4, and after
10...hxg4 11 hxg4 #b6 (Paavilainen-Vaiser,
Tallinn 1986) Vaiser claims that 12 Sel cxd4
13 cxd4 £>xd4 14 £>xd4 #xd4 15 £>b3 #a4 16
We2 gives White some compensation, although
I doubt this is objectively correct after 16...a6
17±d2b6L
b) 9 ±b5 cxd4! 10 £>xd4 £>dxe5 11 #h5
Ai6 12 f4!? gxf4 13 lxf4 ±d7 14 £>2f3 £>xf3+
(14...£>g6!?) 15 lxf3 £>xd4 16 ±xd7+ *xd7!
17 #xf7+ ±e7 18 cxd4 Hf8 = Gipslis-Schmitt-
diel, Ostrava 1992.
c) 9b4cxb410cxb4^xb4(10...±xb4?! 11
£tt>3 g4 12 £}g5 is very dangerous for Black
according to Gipslis, and he gives 12...h6 13
£>xe6! fxe6 14 ±g6+ <A>e7 15 #xg4 ±c3 16
£}c5 '±' which clearly isn't computer-checked
since 16 ±a3+ ±b4 17 ±xb4+ £>xb4 18 #h4+
just wins for White; perhaps he meant 15...£fo6
16 a3 Jtc3 17 £k5 ±, which was played in
Rasik-Borovikov, Sas van Gent jr Ech 1992) 11
Jte2!? (Black solves his problems fairly easily
after 11 ±bl b6 12 a3 £>c6 13 £>b3 ±a6 14 lei
Jtc4 ? Conquest-Summerscale, British League
(4NCL) 2000/1) ll...^f8 12 £>b3 b6 13 ±d2
h6 14 h4!? gxh4 15 £>h2 a5 16 £>g4 h5 17 £>h2
£>g6 18 ±xh5 *f8 (18..JU6!?) 19 ±e2 <A>g7
with an unclear position, Gipslis-Savchenko,
Alushta 1993.
d) 9 a3 may have a point in some lines but I
don't really trust it. First of all, I don't think
9...#b6 10 dxc5 £>xc5 11 ±c2 £>d7! is bad but
also9...h5! 10b4g4 11 b5^a5 12^el #b6 13
#a4 c4 14 ±e2 f6! looked very attractive for
Black in Gallagher-Volkov, Port Erin 2004.
We now return to 9 dxc5 (D):
9...£>dxe5
Black would prefer not to commit himself to
playing ...g4 too early. The main alternative is
9...^xc5!?:
a) 10 Jtb5 turned out better for White in the
game Rachels-Arencibia, Manila IZ 1990 after
10...±d7 11 #e2 a6 12 ±xc6 bxc6 13 c4! fib8
14 b3 #a5 15 #e3 Sg8 16 £>d4 g4 17 f4 gxf3
18 £}2xf3 ±. However, it was later discovered
that Black's bishop isn't very well placed on d7
if he is going to recapture with the b-pawn
anyway, so correct is 10...#b6! 11 We2 a6 12
±xc6+ bxc6 13 c4 a5! 14 #e3 £>d7! 15 #xb6
^xb6, when Black is certainly doing well.
Kunze-Schaefer, German Ch (Bad Neuenahr)
1991.
b) Perhaps White should immediately just
abandon all hopes of keeping the bishop-pair
and get on with development by 10 ^b3!?, as
played in Garcia-Matamoros, Alcobendas 1993:
10...^xd3 11 #xd3 g4 12 £>fd4 £>xe5 13 Wg3
£>c4 14 #xg4 e5 15 *hf5 h5 16 #f3 ±xf5 17
#xf5 Wd7 18 #d3 with an unclear position.
10 £>xe5
10 ±b5 ±d7 11 We2 #c7 12 lei £>g6 13
£}b3 g4 (this looks like a good time to advance
the g-pawn since Black gets a chance to expand
further in the centre with gain of tempo) 14
£tfd4 e5 15 £te2 a6 16 ±a4 h5 gave Black good
counterplay in Rublevsky-Volkov, Ohrid Ech
2001.
10...£>xe5 (D)
11 £>b3!
11 GX3 £>xf3+ 12 #xf3 ±d7 13 ±e3 Wcl 14
Sfel, Deepan-Ganguly, Visakhapatnam 2004, is
also an interesting idea. Black's pawn-structure

3...±e7
161
w
■'/, + ///,
IfliM
w, wM * w% mm
wm
ii
m
*%~&W,.
I m
ft if ^i if ft m
w
on the kingside is somewhat exposed and on
the queenside White has prospects of a pawn-
storm.
11..JU7
White is also better after ll...«c7 12 f4
±xc5+ 13 £>xc5 #xc5+ 14 If2!.
12 f4! £>xd3 13 #xd3 h6 14 ±e3
White has an advantage. Hracek-Stellwagen,
Solingen 2005 went 14...Wc7 15 ±d4 lf8 16
fxg5 hxg5 17 lael 0-0-0 18 #h7 ±e8 19 H£2 ±.
D23)
8...a5 (D)
With this advance Black gains space on the
queenside and prepares to exchange on d4
followed by ...#b6. A reason for waiting with this
is 8...cxd4 9 cxd4 #b6 10 £>b3! a5 11 a4,
which has shown to be good for White. If Black
wants to play like this he should choose 8...#b6
first, as inLineD21.
After the text-move, Black will have ...a4 in
reply to £>b3.
9fiel
Planning £tfl. White has some alternatives
to this:
a) 9 a4 prepares to meet 9...cxd4 10 cxd4
#b6 with 11 £>b3. Black should then exploit the
weakness on b4 by 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 £fo4 11
±bl b6 with equal play; e.g., 12 lei ±a6 13
£tfl fic8 14 Ha3 b5!? 15 axb5 ±xb5 = Babaev-
Gleizerov, Barlinek 2001.
b) 9 #e2 cxd4 10 cxd4 #b6 and here White
probably has nothing better than 11 Sel
(transposing to 9 Bel cxd4 10 cxd4 Wb6 11 We2\
since 11 #e3 is well met by 11...g5! 12 £>xg5
±xg5 13 #xg5 #xd4 14 ±b5 #xe5 with a
slight advantage for Black.
c) 9 b3 a4! 10 bxa4 c4 11 ±c2 #a5 12 £>bl
h6 13 Jta3 &Sb6 was good for Black in Sulskis-
Lputian, Las Vegas 2001, as White's a-pawn
drops sooner or later.
9...cxd4
Two other options:
a) 9...a4!? 10 dxc5 (10 £tfl cxd4 11 cxd4
£>b6 ±/=) 10...£>xc5 11 ±c2 f6 12 exf6 ±xf6
13 £tfl 0-0 with approximately equal chances,
Ulybin-Shulman, Calcutta 1999.
b) 9...c4 10 ±c2 (10 ±fl!?, intending g3,
h4, Jth3 and play on the kingside could also be
considered) 10...b5 11 £tfl £>b6 12 £>g3 h5 13
«W2 b4 14 tff4 a4 15 a3 bxc3 16 bxc3 ±
C.Bauer-P.H.Nielsen, Bundesliga 2000/1.
10 cxd4 (D)
ft W§ W% Wfo ft Wk
B ill yy
10...#b6

162
The French: Tarrasch Variation
Black immediately attacks the d4-pawn. This
could also be done indirectly with 10...g5 but
I'm not sure that I trust it. Thus after 11 h3! h5
12 £tfl g4 13 hxg4 hxg4 14 £>3h2, White is
better. 14...#b6 is answered by 15 Jte3, and
14...£>xd4 15 Wxg4 ±c5 16 ±g5! #b6 (Hal-
asz-Knaak, Kecskemet 1985) 17 Jte3! is very
good for White. Relatively best is 14.. Jtb4!? 15
Ie3 #h4 16 Ig3 f5 17 exf6 £>xf6 18 A.f4 #h5
19 ±e2 #f7, Sebag-N.Berry, British League
(4NCL) 2003/4.
10...^b6 is an alternative strategy. Black
hopes to hold firm on the kingside and in the
meantime generate counterplay on the queen-
side. White must decide in which direction the
knight should go:
a) Il£>fl±d7 12£>g3(12a3!?a4 13±d2
£>a5 14 ±xa5 Ixa5 15 #d2 Sa8 16 lacl ±
Jansa-Hausner, Hradec Kralove 1981) 12...h5!?
13 £\e2 g5! 14 ^c3 (this sacrifices a pawn for
insufficient counterplay; 14 Jte3 is better)
14...g4 15 £>d2 £>xd4 16 £>b3 £>xb3 17 axb3
Jtc6 and Black is much better, Sutovsky-Short,
Port Erin 1999.
b) 11 £ibl ±d7 12 £>c3 a4 13 h4!? £>b4 14
±bl h6 15 h5 ±c6 16 a3 £>a6 17 £>h2 Wdl 18
#g4 ±f8 19 f4 ± Smirin-Bauer, Saint Vincent
Ech 2000.
ll^ibl
This seems to have become the critical line.
White has attempted to keep the pawn with 11
#a4 but ll...Wb4 is a good reply that gave
Black easy equality in Szabo-Yu Shaoteng,
Budapest 2000 after 12 ±b5 #xa4 13 ±xa4 £>b6.
Even 1 l...g5! looks good. Then after 12 h3 h5
13 g4 McDonald suggests simply 13...^f8!
followed by ...±d7, ...£>g6, etc., and 12 £>b3? g4
13 £>fd2 Well has been a problem for White.
Instead of 11 £M, another way of sacrificing
the pawn is 11 We2but ll...g5! (Il...^xd4 12
^xd4 #xd4 13 £}f3 is possibly a more
comfortable version for White, although this needs
to be tested) 12 h3 h5 13 £tfl £>xd4 (13...g4 14
hxg4 hxg4 15 £>3h2 #xd4 16 £>xg4 ») 14
£>xd4 #xd4 15 £>h2 g4! 16 hxg4 hxg4 17
£>xg4 Bg8 18 £>h6 Ig7 19 ±b5 *f8 looked
fine for Black in Rublevsky-Lputian, Monte-
catini Terme 2000.
Il...£>xd4 12 £>xd4 #xd4 13 £>c3 #b6 14
#g4 (D)
14...0-0
Lately Black has preferred 14...g6, which
seems to indicate that Lputian's exchange
sacrifice perhaps isn't entirely correct, or that there
isn't any reason for it. Then:
a) 15 ±h6 £>c5 16 ±b5+ ±d7 17 ±xd7+
£>xd7 18 lacl d4 19 £>a4 #b4 20 b3 Id8
turned out well for Black in Pavasovic-Minas-
ian, Dubai 2001. White did not find a way to
exploit the fact that Black couldn't castle.
b) 15 ±g5!? ±xg5 16 #xg5 0-0 17 #h6
#xb2 18 lacl #a3 19 h4 with a dangerous
attack, Gormally-Ulybin, Port Erin 2001.
15 ±h6 g6
We have been following Rublevsky-Lputian.
New Delhi FIDE KO 2000, which now went 16
£>b5 £>c5 17 #d4 ±d7 18 ±xf8 Ixf8 19 a4 f6
with very good counterplay for Black. Instead
White should maybe take the exchange
immediately with 16 Jtxf8 Jtxf8, when I am far from
sure that Black's compensation is completely
adequate after something like 17 £>a4 #d8 18
lacl b6 19 #d4 £>c5 20 ±b5.

12 3...a6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £id2 a6 (D)
W
h 'i'f§f ip "a fif *
iWB S A if H
■ BAB ■
^ HP P
HI JHf mm
m ifir j§ &m
This innocent-looking move is closely
related to some of the 3...c5 lines where Black
intends to recapture with the pawn if White
exchanges on d5. It is not just a waste of time
since a white Jtb5+ is ruled out, and some of
the main lines in this chapter even see Black
trying to benefit further from it by attempting to
seize space on the queenside by closing the
position with ...c4.
To begin with, we shall divide the main lines
as follows:
A: 4c3 163
B: 4^gf3 164
White has other options that we shall briefly
go through but a note worth mentioning is that I
find 4 c3 c5 5 e5 more accurate than the
immediate 4 e5 (see below):
a) 4 Jtd3 c5 5 dxc5 and now 5...Jtxc5 6
exd5 exd5 is similar to some of the main lines
of this chapter but here White can put his knight
on e2. This idea is only seen very rarely though.
Instead in the game Psakhis-Giaccio, Andorra
2001, Black played the weaker 5...£>d7?!, after
which White can hang on to his pawn; play
continued 6 b4! a5 7 exd5 *f6 (7...exd5 8
ffe2+ ±e7 9 c3 ± Psakhis) 8 Ibl #e5+ 9 £>e2
axb4 10 dxe6 #xe6 11 0-0 ±xc5 12 £tf4 with a
clear advantage for White.
b) 4 e5 Jtd7! (I find the idea of attempting
an exchange of the light-squared bishops
attractive here, but before seeing how White
reacts to a ... Jtb5, Black should keep his c-pawn
back; 4...c5 5 c3 - 4 c3 c5 5 e5) 5 £>df3 (5 £>e2
c5 6 £rf3 ±b5 7 c3 £>c6 8 ±e3 cxd4 9 £>exd4
±xf 1 10 *xf 1 £>ge7 11 g3 £>xd4 12 cxd4 £>c6
13 *g2 ±e7 14 lei #b6 15 Ie2 Ic8 16 lei
0-0 17 h4 h6 = Oll-Topalov, Zaragoza 1992)
5...±b5 6 Axb5+ axb5 7 £>e2 £id7 8 #d3 c6 9
£>g5!? (9 h4 h6 10 Ih3 £>e7 11 h5 £>b6 12
£>h4 £>c4 13 f4 b4 14 b3 £>a3 15 ±xa3 Ixa3
16 *f 1 #a8 17 f5 £>xf5 18 £>xf5 exf5 19 #xf5
Ae7 20 <4>gl 0-0 oo Prusikhin-Eingorn, Bad
Wiessee 2001) 9...±e7 10 h4 #a5+! (10...h6?
11 £>xe6 fxe6 12 #g6+ followed by £tf4 +-)
11 ±d2 b4 12 #g3?! (Kuijf gives 12 a4!
intending b3 as superior) 12...£}h6 13 £}xe6!?
(otherwise Black plays ...£tf5, and #g3 would
have been pointless then) 13...fxe6 14 #xg7
Etf7 15 Etf4 £>f8 16 Ih3 h5! 17 £>g6, Kuijf-
Eingorn, Tilburg 1994, and now Kuijf gives
17...^xg6 18#xg6<*d7! 19#xf7laf8, when
Black is switching from defence to attack.
A)
4c3c5
With the central structure not yet determined,
a move like 4... Jtd7 would have less meaning.
5 e5 (D)
Alternatively, 5 £}gf3 transposes to 4 ^gf3
c5 5 c3.
5...£te6 6 £>df3 #a5!?
An attempt to interfere with White's simple
planned development of Jtd3, £te2, 0-0, etc.
Other moves are also playable:
a) 6..Age7 7 ±d3 cxd4 8 cxd4 £rf5 9 £>e2
±e7 10 0-0 #b6 11 a3 ±d7 12 ±c2 Ic8 13 b4

164
The French: Tarrasch Variation
a5 14 bxa5 £>xa5 15 ±xf5 exf5 16 £>f4 #c6?
(16...±e6 17#a4+£>c6 18£>xe6fxe6 19±g5
was given by Belov as clearly better for White
after 19...0-0? 20 ±xe7 £>xe7 21 labl, but
19... Jtxg5 20 ^xg5 0-0 is a significant
improvement; the fact that e6 is hanging is not so
important since Black will subsequently capture on
d4 and obtain threats against e5) 17 e6 Jtxe6 18
£>e5 #a6 19 £>xe6 #xe6 20 ±d2! #a6 21
±b4! £>c6 22 £>xc6 Ixc6 23 lei Ie6 24 Icl!
± Dvoirys-Dolmatov, USSR Ch (Odessa) 1989.
b) 6...±d7 7±d3cxd4 8cxd4^ib4!?9±bl
#a5 10 ±d2 #a4!? 11 b3 #b5 «,.
c) 6...cxd4 7 cxd4 f6!? 8 exf6 #xf6 9 ±d3
h6 10 £>e2 ±d6 11 0-0 £>ge7 12 ±e3 ±d7 13
2c 1 0-0 looked fine for Black in Navara-Tiben-
sky, Olomouc 1999.
7 £\e2 cxd4
7...£>ge7 8a3!?±
8 £>exd4 £>ge7 9 ±d3 £>g6
The game is unclear.
B)
4 £>gf3 c5 (D)
Naturally, White should now consider how
to react to the attack on his centre. The main
options are:
Bl: 5c3 164
B2: 5dxc5 165
B3: 5exd5 168
A brief mention of two less common moves:
a) 5 ±e2 cxd4 6 £>xd4 £>c6 7 c3 £>f6 8 exd5
exd5 9 £>2f3 ±d6 10 ±g5 0-0 11 0-0 h6 12 ±h4
2e8 13 2el ±g4 14 #c2 ±c5 15 2adl Wd6 =
Berelovich-M.Gurevich, Hoogeveen 2001.
b) 5 ±d3 c4! 6 ±e2 £>c6 7 0-0 £tf6 8 e5
£>d7 9 c3 b5 10 a3 £>b6 11 £>el h5 12 g3 g6
was fine for Black in Wahls-Kindermann, Bun-
desliga 1997/8.
Bl)
5c3
This is not completely harmless: White
signals that he is prepared to play with an isolated
pawn rather than against one. Since the move
fits in well with most of White's set-ups, Black
cannot just ignore it completely.
5...£k6
Another option is 5...cxd4 when Black
afterwards has an option of placing his queen's
knight differently. But White might also change
plans:
a) 6 cxd4 dxe4 7 £>xe4 £>d7 8 ±d3 £>gf6 9
0-0 ±e7 10 We2 0-0 11 ±g5 £>d5 12 2acl ±
Rowson-Kiriakov, Port Erin 1999.
b) 6^xd4!?^c67#a4^ge7 8±e2±d7 9
0-0 b5? 10 ±xb5! (a nice little tactic) 10...£>xd4
(10...axb5 11 ^xb5 threatens mate and after
1 l...£ig6 12 #xa8 #xa8 13 £>c7+ White wins
material) 11 ±xd7+ Wxdl 12 #xd4 +- Barua-
A.Rodrigues, Ubeda 1998.
6 Jtd3 cxd4 7 cxd4 dxe4
After 7...£tf6 8 e5 £\d7 White can only be
happy that Black has made an early exchange
on d4, and ...a6 appears very cautious
compared with similar lines.
8 £>xe4 (D)

3...a6
165
I i-'t's-i-^t
Now it is White who has an isolated pawn, in
contrast to many Tarrasch lines.
8.~£e7
8...Jtb4+ is also feasible but it is likely that
Black will have to move the bishop back to e7 at
some point.
9 0-0 &K 10 a3
Whether this is that useful is not clear to me.
White could also play 10 Jte3, which is
probably best met by 10...£\d5, similarly to our main
line. In de la Paz-Hoffman, Havana 1999 White
seemed slightly better after 10...0-0 11 £>xf6+
Axf6 12 Ae4 £ie7 13 #b3 £>d5 14 lacl.
10...0-0 11 ±e3
11 Jtc2!? prepares a standard attacking
formation with #d3. Black's best line isn't
obvious but 11 ...Ad7 12 #d3 £ixe4 13 #xe4 g6 14
±h6 Ie8 is maybe not so bad. After 15 h4 #a5
16 Wf4 led8 17 Ifel Ae8 White keeps some
initiative but Black's position is also very solid,
B.Kristensen-Danielsen, Danish Ch (Holstebro)
1987.
Il...£id5
It is interesting that it is Black who
apparently attempts to avoid exchanges but 11... Jtd7
12 Scl £>xe4 13 Jtxe4 is slightly unpleasant,
and after 13...Sc8 14 b4 Af6 15 #b3 g6 16 h3
b6 17 d5! White's advantage in Matanovic-
Mikhalchishin, Yugoslavia 1968 was very
significant.
12 Scl Wb6
The seemingly anti-positional 12...f5!? 13
?hc5 #d6 might be the solution for Black.
13 #c2 h6 14 £>c5
± Short-Kiriakov, Port Erin 1999.
B2)
5 dxc5 Jtxc5
It is worth noting that similar positions arise
in the 3...Jte7 line and so Black basically has
the move ...a6 for free here. Though, often in
the 3...ite7 line Black refrains from
recapturing immediately on c5, and thus it is not simple
to make a direct comparison.
6 ±d3 (D)
6...£>c6
Often 6...^f6 would transpose to lines in
the note to Black's 7th move, but we shall take
a brief look at lines where Black captures on
e4:
a) 7 0-0 dxe4 (7...£te6 - 6...Zhc6 70-0 GifS)
8 £>xe4 £>xe4 9 ±xe4 #xdl 10 Ixdl £>d7 11
c4 £tf6 12 Jtc2 ± Solak-Liogky, Trignac 2002.
b) 7 #e2 dxe4 (7...£>c6 and now 8 0-0
transposes to 6..&c6 7 0-0 ?hf6 8 We2, while 8
exd5 £>xd5 9 £>e4 A.e7 10 0-0 Wcl 11 £>g3!?
Jtd7!?, intending ...0-0-0, looked fine for Black
in Hamdouchi-M.Gurevich, France 1995) 8
£ixe4 £ixe4 9 #xe4 £id7 10 0-0 £tf6 11 #h4 is
better for White, as played in a few games.
7 0-0 (D)
Or:
a) 7 exd5 often transposes elsewhere:
al) 7...#xd5 8 £>e4 Ae7 9 #e2 £>f6 10 0-0
^b4 11 £>xf6+ Axf6 12 A,e4 #h5 13 Af4 ±
Aronin-Ragozin, Leningrad 1957.
a2) 7...exd5 8 0-0 and now 8...&ge7 9 £ib3
Jtb6 is possible, while 8...^f6 transposes to 7
0-0 ?hf6 8 exd5 exd5.

166
The French: Tarrasch Variation
b) 7 a3 is another alternative. This denies
Black the possibility of playing ...£}b4 and will
most likely transpose to main lines.
7...£>ge7
The knight has a brighter future from here in
comparison with the more natural f6-square
because exchanges in the centre then often favour
White. From e7 the knight can go to g6 and
often further hop in on f4. We look at two
alternatives to this plan:
a) 7...£fo4 8 ±e2 £rf6 9 a3 dxe4 10 axb4
exf3 11 bxc5 (11 ±b5+ axb5 12 Ixa8 fxg2 13
fiel Jtxb4 probably gives Black some
compensation) ll...fxe2 12 #xe2 ±d7 13 Idl 0-0 14
£}c4 ± Belikov-Liogky, Spasskoe 1996.
b) 7...£}f6 and now:
bl) 8 a3 gives Black several options:
bl 1) 8...dxe4 9 £>xe4 £>xe4 10 ±xe4 #xdl
11 Sxdl Jtd7 considerably reduces material
but White retains some advantage with 12 b4
±e7 13 ±b2 Ai6 14 ±xf6 gxf6 15 £>d4 Ic8
16 c4 ± Eingorn-Giemsa, Cuxhaven 1993.
bl2) 8...0-0 9 b4 ±e7 10 ±b2 b5 11 lei
±b7 12 e5 £>d7 13 £>b3 Wcl 14 £>bd4 £>b6 15
£>xc6 ±xc6 16 £>d4 ± Gelfand-Dreev, USSR
Ch (Odessa) 1989.
bl3) 8...±a7 9 b4 e5!? (an aggressive but
logical solution as Black gains space to develop
his light-squared bishop) 10 c4 (10 exd5 Wxd5
11 «fe2 ±g4 oo) 10...dxe4 11 £>xe4 ±g4 12
±b2 (12 c5!? and 12 ±g5!? both look like
improvements) was played in the game Efimenko-
Chuprikov, Alushta 2002. Now 12..Jtd4 is fine
for Black.
b2) 8 exd5 exd5 (8...£>xd5 - 7...£hge7 S
exd5 Zhxd5) 9 Iel+ ±e7 10 £rfl 0-0 11 £>g3
Wd6 12 ±g5 h6 13 ±d2 Id8 14 £>h4! ±f8 15
£>hf5 Wc5 16 Wf3 £>e4 17 ±e3 #a5 18 £>xe4
dxe4 19 ±xe4 £>e5 20 «fe2 and White is a
pawn up, Adams-Larsen, Arhus 1997.
b3) 8 e5 (strategically desirable but also
risky because Black quickly attacks the pawn)
8...£>g4 9 £>b3 ±a7 10 A.f4 ±b8! 11 lei f6!
12 £>bd4?! (12 £>fd4!? £>gxe5 13 £>xc6 bxc6
14 ±xe5 fxe5 15 #h5+ *f8 16 Ixe5 ±xe5 17
#xe5 oo) 12...^xd4 13 £>xd4 £>xe5 14 ±xe5
fxe5! 15 #h5+ g6 16 ±xg6+ <A>e7! and White
is in trouble with two pieces hanging, Solov-
iov-Gutman, Pardubice 2001.
b4) 8 #e2 (D) avoids a queen exchange
following liquidations on e4, and also supports an
e5 advance. Then:
Ml) 8...SM 9 e5 £>xd3 10 cxd3 £>d7 11
£>b3 ±e7 12 £>fd4 0-0 13 f4 £>c5 14 ±e3
£>xb3 15 £>xb3 ±d7 16 Wf2 f5 17 lacl ±b5
18 ±b6 «fe8 19 lfe3 ± Penrose-Duckstein,
Berlin 1965.
b42) 8...0-0 9 e5 £>d7 10 £>b3 ±e7 11 c3
b5 12 £}bd4 with promising play for White,
Hulak-Raicevic, Yugoslav Ch (Bor) 1976.
b43) 8...*c7 9 a3 ±a7 10 exd5 (10 b4
£>d4! 11 £>xd4 ±xd4 12 Ba2 e5! is fine for
Black, as in Brodsky-Moskalenko, Donetsk Z
1998) 10...^xd5 11 £>c4!?i.b8 12#e4b5 13
£>e3 «tf6 14 #h4 ±b7 15 lei £>e7 16 £>d4
±a7 17 £>ef5 £>xf5 18 £>xf5 Ig8, Kotronias-
del Rio, Port Erin 2003, and now 19 a4 favours
White.

3...a6
167
We now return to the position after 7...£^ge7
(D):
8a3
White intends to follow up with b4 and Jtb2.
Although this does nothing to prevent the
manoeuvre ..Ag6-f4, it might be White's most
promising plan. Other moves:
a) After 8 exd5, 8...exd5 9 £>b3 ±b6 is
another transposition to Line B31 but Black can
also recapture with the knight: 8...^xd5 9 ^e4
Ae7 10 c4 £rf6 11 a3!? #c7 12 b4 £>xe4 13
Jtxe4 ±f6 14 la2! ±d7 15 Jb3 with a distinct
advantage for White, Anand-M.Gurevich, Wijk
aanZee 1990.
b) 8 #e2 0-0 9 £>b3 ±a7 10 exd5 exd5 11
±e3 (11 ±g5 h6 12 ±h4 #d6 13 ±g3 Wf6 was
fine for Black in Hulak-Psakhis, Plovdiv Echt
1983) 1 1... Jtb8 (exchanging the bishops would
be wrong since White gains superior control of
d4) 12 Ifel h6 13 h3 le8 14 ladl #c7 15
Ac5!? b6 16 ±a3 ± Khalifman-Ratkovich,
USSR 1984.
c) 8 c3 0-0 and now:
cl) 9 #e2 £>g6 10 £>b3 ±d6 (10...dxe4?!
11 ±xe4 ±d6 12 ±e3 #c7 13 ladl ld8 14
«Tc4! ±d7 15 ±xg6 hxg6 16 £>g5! ±, intending
#h4, Rozentalis-PNikolic, Moscow OL 1994)
11 Jtg5 Wcl (1 l...f6 is quite possible but even
though Black gains the bishop-pair after 12
Jte3 ^f4 White will be well centralized and
slightly better after 13 ±xf4 ±xf4 14 ladl ±
Kholmov) 12 exd5 exd5 13 h3 £rf4 14 ±xf4
Axf4 15 ladl ±e6 16 £>bd4 lae8 = Khol-
mov-Dolmatov, Volgodonsk 1983.
c2) 9 lei £>g6 10 exd5 exd5 11 £>b3 ±d6
12 ±g5 (Psakhis suggests 12 £>g5 but 12...#f6,
parrying the threat of #h5 because of ...h6,
seems like a good reply) 12...£fce7 13 JLxg6
(nor does White gain much from 13 ^fd4 h6
14 ±xe7 ^xe7 15 #h5 #c7 16 ladl A.d7)
13...hxg6 14 #d2 f6 15 ±f4 g5 16 ±xd6 #xd6
and Black is not necessarily worse, Cu.Hansen-
Giaccio, Istanbul OL 2000.
We now return to 8 a3 (D):
8...0-0
8...a5?! prevents the following advance but
there are obvious disadvantages with it.
Exchanges on d5 are now more favourable for
White than without the a-pawn moves. Besides,
9 c4 is a good plan and turned out clearly better
for White in Gufeld-Khasanov, Alushta 1993
after9...d410e5!^g6111el0-0(ll...«c7 12
Jtxg6 hxg6 13 £rt>3 followed by ^bxd4 wins a
pawn for White) 12 £>e4 b6?! (12...±e7 looks
more natural) 13 £>xc5 bxc5 14 £>g5! #c7 15
#h5 h6 16 £tf3.
9 b4 ±a7
9...±d6 is worse: 10 Ab2 £>g6 11 lei #c7
12 exd5 exd5 13 c4 ie6 14 #c2 (14 c5 ±f4 15
£>b3 ±) 14...1fe8 15 h3 dxc4 16 £>xc4 ±xc4
(why not 16...Af4 ?) 17 #xc4 lac8 18 lxe8+
lxe8 19 Ae4±S.Salov-Aliesa, Moscow 1991.
10 ±b2 £>g6! (D)
After 10...d4 11 e5 £>g6 12 lei b5, as played
in M.HofTmann-P.Nikolic, Enschede 2002,
Psakhis suggests 13 ±e4 ±b7 14 £lb3. This
indeed looks very comfortable for White.
11 e5

168
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
W
■ iS Hi A IP A
EWsk
1*1
^
11 c4 dxc4 12 £>xc4 b5 13 £>ce5 £>cxe5 14
£}xe5 £}xe5 15 Jtxe5 #g5 gave White no hope
of an advantage in Ermenkov-PNikolic, Tunis
XL 1985. It is worth considering 11 exd5 exd5
and only then 12 c4, but Black should be doing
well in the position after 12...£>f4 13 #c2 £>xd3
14 #xd3 dxc4 15 #c3 f6 16 #xc4+ <A>h8.
Il...£>f4
Upon the sharper ll...f6 there are two
options:
a) 12 exf6 gxf6 13 c4 £>f4 14 Ac2 e5 15
cxd5 £>xd5 16 £>e4 Ae6 17 £>g3 Wd7 18 Wd3
#f7oo.
b) 12 Jbtg6 hxg6 13 £to3 g5 (I see no clear
drawback to 13...&d7!? 14 ^c5 Axc5 15 bxc5
«fe7 * Nedev-PNikolic, Neum ECC 2000) 14
h3 fxe5 15 £>xe5 Ixf2 16 Ixf2 Axf2+ 17
<A>xf2 #f6+ 18 *gl £>xe5. This is analysis by
Svidler. Now Psakhis suggests the very
sensible 19 We2 £>f3+ 20 #xf3 #xb2 21 If 1 with
good attacking chances. Indeed, Black must
play very carefully not to end up with a position-
ally suspect game after something like 21...#e5
22 #f7+ <A>h7 23 #h5+ <A>g8 24 £>c5 ffe3+ 25
*hl g4 (25...b6? 26 ffe8+ <A>h7 27 £>d3 leaves
Black in more trouble as 27... Jtb7 drops a piece
to 28 #h5+ <A>g8 29 Wf7+) 26 #xg4 b6 27
£>d3 kdl 28 If 3 #h6 29 ®d4, when it is clear
that White is taking control.
12 £>b3 (D)
12...±d7
Natural, but not necessarily best. 12...^xd3
13 cxd3 d4, intending ...f6, is an idea. In Tairi-
Brynell, Malmo 2003, Black took over the
initiative after 14Bel (14 Bel f6 15 exf6 #xf6 16
a4 makes more sense) 14...f6 15 exf6 #xf6 16
#e2 e5 17 £>fd2 Af5 18 Icel #g6 19 £>e4
Iae8 20 £>bc5 Ac8 21 ±c\ Ab8 22 *hl <4>h8
23&d2£te7 24£>g3£kI5.
13 Wd2 £>xd3 14 cxd3 £>e7
Black's minor pieces are of little use right
now, and this move aims to improve on their
positions by moving the knight to the king-
side, making room for the light-squared bishop.
Even that seems slightly in White's favour, but
other moves also fail to equalize:
a) 14...Ic8!? 15 a4 £>e7 16 Ad4 Ab8 17
£>c5 (17 £>a5!? Ac6 18 b5 axb5 19 axb5 Axb5
20 £>xb7 Wdl leads to no advantage for White,
but either 17 a5 or 17 Jtc5 should be tried)
17... Jtc6 18 Jtb2 d4! and Black obtains
reasonable counterplay, Nedev-Kiriakov, San
Salvador 2003.
b) 14...f6 15 lacl Ic8 (in analysis to the
game, Svidler also looks in detail at 15...fxe5
16 £>xe5 Bf5 17 We2 £>xe5 18 Axe5 #g5 19
Jtd4 but concludes that White is better) 16 £k5
Jbtc5 17 Ixc5 ± Svidler-Sakaev, St Petersburg
1996.
15 Ad4 b6! 16 a4 Etf5 17 Ac3 #b8 18
£>bd4 £«d4 19 Axd4 Ic8
Motylev-Iliushin, Sochi 1998. Now I would
prefer White after 20 ffe3.
B3)
5 exd5 exd5 (D)
Now:
B31: 6dxc5 169
B32: 6Ae2 172

3...a6
169
MuWM.WWJLW^k
Or:
a) 6 c3 is safe and solid but not a move that
gives Black sleepless nights. 6...^c6 7 Jtd3 (7
dxc5 is feasible but then there is no reason that
White should play c3 so early, compared with 6
dxc5) 7...c4 8 ±c2 ffe7+!? 9 We2 #xe2+ 10
*xe2 Ad6 11 lei £>ge7 12 £rfl 0-0 13 £>g3
f5! 14 <A>fl f4 15 £>e2 ±f5 16 ±xf5 lxf5 and
Black is doing well, Djuric-Yusupov, Sarajevo
1984.
b) 6 ffe2+ ±e7 7 dxc5 £>f6 8 £>b3 0-0 9
±e3 Ie8 10 0-0-0 a5 11 #b5 a4 12 £>bd4
£>g4! 13 #b6 #xb6 14 cxb6 £>xe3 15 fxe3
Jtc5 = Milov-Eingorn, Bad Worishofen 1997.
c) 6 b3 is rare and I believe Black has more
than one good way of playing this. 6...Jtf5 7
±b2 £>f6 8 ±e2 £>bd7 9 0-0 ±e7 10 dxc5
£>xc5 11 £>d4 ±g6 12 £>2f3 0-0 was fairly
equal in Suetin-Petrosian, USSR Ch (Kiev) 1954
but even 6...£>c6 7 ±b2 #f6!? might be worth
considering.
d) 6 c4 £rf6 7 cxd5 £>xd5 8 ±c4 £>c6 9
ffe2+ ±e6 10 0-0 b5 11 ±b3 c4 12 ±c2 ±e7
13 £>e4 ±g4! 14 Idl 0-0 and Black is doing
well, Borisek-Brynell, Plovdiv Echt 2003.
B31)
6 dxc5 Jtxc5
The type of position arising from this should
be familiar to you if you have already consulted
Chapter 3, i.e. the line 3...c5 4 exd5 exd5 5
Zhgfi Zhc6 6 ±b5 ±d6 7 0-0 Zhe78 dxc5 ±xc5.
Here Black's bishop is developed in one go and
he has ...a6 as an 'extra' tempo, but White also
has the option of placing the bishop on d3,
which he often does in the other line as well,
but there spending two moves in the process.
Thus, in principle, the lines don't differ much
and obviously share ideas. For that reason it is
interesting that many theoretical works
consider most positions examined in this chapter as
better for White, but that is probably just
because we are often inclined to assess IQP
positions as better for the one playing against the
isolated pawn. True, they often are but with
only a few pawns exchanged much depends on
piece-play.
7 £>b3 (D)
7...±b6
It is considered best to retreat along this
diagonal but Black also often chooses to put the
bishop on a7. The difference is small but some
general considerations could be that it is a
matter of where Black allows an exchange of the
dark-squared bishops (assuming that White
plays Jte3 at some point). On b6 only the queen
defends the bishop and should Black, for
example, play ...#e7 it will be undefended but it also
has a more natural option of changing
diagonals by moving to c7.
a) 7...±d6 8 ±d3 £>e7 9 ±g5 £>bc6 10 0-0
0-0 is almost identical to the line 3...c5 4 exd5
exd5 5 £hgf3 £hc6 6 k,b5 k,d6 7 0-0 *he78 dxc5
Jbrc5 9 ?hb3 k,d6 and indeed transpositions are
possible. The game Psakhis-Filguth, Graz U-26
Wcht 1981 continued 11 ±h4 #c7 12 c3 ±g4
13 ±g3 ±xg3 14 hxg3 h6 15 lei Iad8 with a
balanced position.

170
The French: Tarrasch Variation
b) 7..Ae7(D) and here:
bl) 8 ±e2 £rf6 9 0-0 £>c6 10£>fd4 £>e5! 11
c3 0-012ffc2He8 13±g5h614±h4±g4!15
Hadl ±xe2 16 £>xe2 £>g6 17 ±xf6 ±xf6 18
£>g3 £tf4 = Kuporosov-Dokhoian, USSR jr Ch
(Tallinn) 1986.
b2) 8 ±d3 £tf6 9 0-0 £>c6 10 Hel ±g4 11
Jtg5 0-0 12 c3 is a set of normal moves for both
sides, though Black could also consider
developing his queen's knight on d7. I should now
draw your attention to the very normal-looking
12...He8?! 13 h3 ±h5?! but then White
instructively wins a pawn for no compensation with 14
±xf6 ±xf6 15 Hxe8+ Wxe8 16 g4 ±g6 17
±xg6 hxg6 18 g5 ±e5 19 Wxd5 Hd8 20 Wc4
ffd7 21 <4>g2. Lukin suggests 12...£>e4!? as
better. This would also be a feasible plan with
12...h6 13 ±h4 inserted, while on 13...ffb6,
Psakhis gives 14 h3!? as slightly better for
White, but not more than that, as it is just a
normal type of position after 14... Jte6.
c) 7..JLa7 (D) is, as mentioned, the most
common alternative to the main line. White has
a several options:
cl) 8±e2£>f690-00-010£>fd4He8 11c3
£>c6 12 ±e3 £>e5 13 Hel Wd6 14 ±f4 £>e4 15
±d3 g5 16 ±xe5 Hxe5 17 Wc2 was better for
White in Garcia Martinez-Spraggett, Havana
1986 but Black's play around move 13 to 15
was unnecessarily risky. For example, 13... Jtg4
looks like a sensible move.
c2) 8 ±d3 ffe7+ 9 We2 £>c6 10 ±g5 f6
(10...!fxe2+ 11 4>xe2 is slightly better for
White; a notable point is that White can now
attempt to exchange bishops by JLe3 without
having to worsen his pawn-structure) 11 JLe3!?
(while 11 ±f4 ±g4 12 0-0 Wxe2 13 ±xe2
£>ge7 14 Hadl Hd8 15 Hfel <4>f7 gave White
no advantage in Vilela-Eingorn, Polanica Zdroj
1984, 11 Jtd2 has been recommended but also
here 1 l...jtg4 seems effective; on 12 0-0 Black
even has 12...£te5) ll..Jtxe3 12fxe3 (probably
White should exchange queens by 12 #xe3)
12...£>h6 13 e4 £>b4! 14 0-0-0 £>xd3+ 15
#xd3 dxe4 16 !fd5 (White can claim some sort
of compensation here but certainly not more
than that, and apart from the text-move Black
might also consider 16...^f7) 16...f5 (but not
16...±e6?! 17 Wxe4 ±xb3 18 Hhel! ±) 17
£>fd4 Iff7 18 ffe5+ V2-V2 Nijboer-Dokhoian,
WijkaanZee 1989.
c3) 8 ±g5 £>e7 (8...£tf6 doesn't make much
difference from 7..Ab6 8 ±g5 fy6\ here White
opts for a slightly different continuation from
that below: 9 ffe2+ ±e6 10 £>bd4 ife7 11
0-0-0 0-0 12 £tf5 Wd8 13 ^3d4 He8 14 Iff3
£>bd7 15 ±d3 ±xd4 16 £>xd4 ±g4 17 Wxg4
£>xg4 18 ±xd8 Haxd8 19 Hd2 £>c5 = Jansa-
Andersson, Biel IZ 1985) 9Wd2! £>bc6 10±e3
(10 0-0-0 should be answered by 10..Jtg4)
10...±xe3 11 Wxe3 0-0 12 0-0-0 ±f5 13 £>fd4
£>xd4 14 £>xd4 ±g6 15 ±d3 He8 16 Hhel
Wd7, Van der Wiel-Seirawan, Biel IZ 1985, and
now Seirawan thinks that White should play 17
^b3! with a slight edge due to his control of the
dark squares.
c4) 8 ffe2+ (D) and then:
c41) 8...£>e7 9 ±e3 £>bc6 10 ±xa7 Hxa7
11 Wd2 ±g4 12 ±e2 0-0 13 0-0 Wb6 14 c3

3...a6
171
Haa8 15 £>fd4 ±xe2 16 Wxe2 £>xd4 17 £>xd4
^c6 18 &f3 d4 = Asrian-M.Gurevich, Batumi
Ech 2002.
c42) 8...ffe7 and now:
c421) 9 ±g5 ffxe2+ 10 ±xe2 <£>c6 11 0-0
h6 12 Af4^f6 13Hadl 0-0 14c3He8 15Hfel
Jtg4, Ivanchuk-Eingorn, USSR Ch (Moscow)
1988. This type of position is far from
uncommon and might be slightly better for White in
practice but holds no big terrors for Black.
c422) 9 ±d2!? ±e6 10 ±e3 £>c6 11 ±xa7
Hxa7 12 ffe3 ±g4 13 ffxe7+ £>gxe7 14 ±e2
0-0 15 0-0 ±xf3 16 Jtof3 £>e5 17 £>d4 £>7c6
with an equal position, Kr.Georgiev-Eingorn,
Moscow 1985.
We now return to 7... Jtb6 (D):
8ffe2+
With this White aims for a slight advantage
in a middlegame without queens. 8 Jtd3 can be
met by 8...#e7+, when White doesn't seem to
be able to avoid the queen exchange at any rate.
That line and a few others:
a) 8 ±e2 £rf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 ±f4 £>c6 11
£tfd4 He8 12 c3 £>e4 13 Hel fff6 14 ±e3 ±d7
and Black had excellent piece-play in Akop-
ian-Dreev, USSR jr Cht (Kramatorsk) 1989.
b) 8 Jtg5!? (this seems a more popular
option against 7... Jta7 - probably because White's
best line of play, 9 ffd2 <£>bc6 10 ±e3, is then
more annoying than here, where Black wouldn't
mind an exchange of bishops as much as he
would with the bishop on a7) 8...£tf6 9 ffe2+
±e6 10 £>fd4 ffe7 11 £>xe6 fxe6 12 g3 Wb4+
13 c3 ffe4 14 ±g2 ffxe2+ (14...ffxg2? 15
ffxe6+ *f8 16 0-0-0 £>c6 17 ±xf6 gxf6 18
!fxf6+ 4>g8 19 Hhel gives White a winning
attack) 15 <4>xe2 <£>c6 16 ±xf6 gxf6 17 f4 f5
with approximately equal play, Sermek-Dizdar,
Croatian Cht (Porec) 1998.
c) 8 ±d3 lfe7+! (the rather unconventional
8...£tf6 9 ffe2+ <4>f8 10 ±e3 £>c6 11 0-0-0
±g4 12 h3 ±xe3+ 13 Wxe3 ±xf3 14 Wxf3 g6
15 Uriel 4)g7 worked well for Black in Moty-
lev-Sakaev, Ubeda 2001, but it looks risky) 9
!fe2 ^c6 10 c3 (10 ±g5 is a better attempt at
acquiring an advantage; compare with 7... JLz7
8 $Ld3) 10...±g4 11 0-0 Wxe2 12 ±xe2 £rf6 =
Mohr-RNikolic, Erevan OL 1996.
We now return to 8 ffe2+ (D):
8...£>e7!?
It isn't clear that Black equalizes by offering
an exchange of queens with 8...#e7:
a) 9 ±g5 ffxe2+ 10 ±xe2 h6 11 ±e3 ±xe3
12 fxe3 £>f6 13 Hdl £>c6 14 £>fd4 £>xd4 15

172
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
exd4 Jtf5 = Van der Wiel-Ree, Rotterdam
1990.
b) 9 JLd2! ? (it is interesting that this move is
rarely played here, although it has been quite
common with Black's bishop on a7) 9...£k6 10
±c3 £tf6 11 ±xf6 gxf6 12 c3 Hg8 13 ffxe7+
<4>xe7 14 £>fd4 £>xd4 15 £>xd4 ±xd4 16 cxd4
Af5 17 f3 Hac8 18 g4 ±g6 19 Bgl f5 20 gxf5
±xf5 21 Hxg8 Hxg8 22 Hcl *d6 = Rozen-
talis-Karlsson, Copenhagen 1988.
c) 9 £tfd4! ±g4 10 f3 (10 ffxe7+ £>xe7 11
Jte3 is also a little better for White, according
to Adams) 10...±d7 11 ±f4 £>c6 12 0-0-0
Wxe2 13 ±xe2 £>ge7 14 £>xc6! (Adams
considers 14 Uriel ^xd4 15 &xd4 0-0-0 as equal,
so maybe Black should have avoided this and
instead have played 13...^xd4 14 ^xd4 £te7)
14...Axc6 15 ±d3 0-0 16 Hhel Hfe8 17 ±e3
±c7 18 g3 £>g6 19 f4. Now White has a very
pleasant advantage, Adams-M.Gurevich, Bun-
desliga 2001/2.
9 Ae3 (D)
9...£>bc6
A similar type of position arises from 9.. Jtg4
10 ±xb6 ffxb6 11 ffe3 (11 0-0-0 £>bc6 12
Hxd5 ±e6 13 Hdl £\b4 gives Black good
counterplay according to Psakhis) ll...#xe3+
12 fxe3 £>bc6 13 *f2 0-0 14 ±d3 Hac8 =
Comas Fabrego-Dreev, ArnhemjrEch 1988/9.
10 ±xb6
10 £tfd4!? makes sense as well if White feels
linle encouragement to go for an endgame, and
could be a reason for Black to choose 9... Jtg4.
10~it'xb6 11 #e3 ffxe3+ 12 fxe3
I find it hard to believe that White should
have much advantage here. On the other hand
the position is far from 'dead', and on the face
of it, the dark squares White controls are more
useful than the light squares Black is aiming
for.
12...0-0
12...±g4 - 9..±g4 10 kxb6 Wxb6 II We3
Wxe3+I2fxe3£hbc6.
13 ±d3 *bSS 14 AxIS ±xf5 15 c3 Hae8 16
<4f 2 ±e4
= Yuldachev-M.Gurevich, Gent 2002.
B32)
6 ±e2 (D)
iBtHSHSH
For a moment this neglects the option of
playing against an isolated pawn (by 6 dxc5)
but White has the cunning idea of adopting that
strategy only when Black has moved his dark-
squared bishop, thereby gaining a tempo. The
most apparent drawback to this is that Black
can now grab space on the queenside by closing
the position with 6...c4. Thus, we shall look at
these two main options for Black:
B321: 6...cxd4 173
B322: 6...c4 173
Another line is 6...<£>f6 7 0-0 ±e7 8 dxc5
±xc5 9 £>b3 and now either 9... Jta7 or 9...Jtb6.
White is in effect a tempo up on some of the
lines discussed under 6 dxc5 £ixc5 7 Q±b3 but
the extra move is not that significant and the
bishop is placed passively on e2, which makes

3...a6
173
this altogether a quite playable line for Black.
In my view White should adopt a plan of
playing c3, ^fd4 and JLe3 as in note 'c 1' to Black's
7th move of Line B21.
B321)
6...cxd4 7 0-0
7 £>xd4 £>c6 8 £>2f3 ±d6 9 0-0 £>ge7 - 7
0-0 kd6 8 fob3 foe7 9 ^bxd4 fcbc6.
7...±d6
The order in which Black develops his pieces
is basically a question of where he wants his
king's knight. This move aims for a position
with the knight on e7, whereas 7...^c6 8 Hel
would force Black to put his knight on f6 with
8...±e7 9 £>b3 <£>f6 (this could of course also
come from 7...^/6 8 U.el ±e7 9 fob3 £hc6).
Now Ivanchuk-Korchnoi, Lvov 2000 continued
10 £>fxd4 0-0 11 ±f4 id6 12 ±xd6 #xd6 13
c3 He8 14 #c2 ±g4 15 ±xg4 (Ivanchuk and
Sulypa also give 15 ±d3 <£>e5 16 h3 ±d7 17
Hadl He7 18 He3 Hae8 19 Hdel as slightly
better for White) 15...£>xg4 16 £>f3 £>ce5 (the
alternative 16...#f4!? is mentioned by
Ivanchuk and Sulypa, and might be a better attempt
for equality; e.g., 17 Hadl Hxel+ 18 Hxel
£>ce5 19 £>bd4 He8!? 20 Hdl h6 21 h3 £>xf3+
22 ^xf3 <S^f6 with roughly equal chances) 17
£>bd4 £>xf3+ 18^xf3 #c5 19 h3 £>f6 20 #b3
b6 21 Hadl He4 22 £>d2 Hxel+ 23 Hxel a5 24
a3 h6 25 ^f3 with a very slight edge for White.
8 £>b3 £>e7 9 £>bxd4 £>bc6 (D)
lOHel
This type of position is considered very
slightly better for White in view of Black's
isolated d-pawn but Black's position nevertheless
appeals to some players since Black has plenty
of space for his minor pieces. The text-move is
natural but White could also dispense with it for
the moment and instead continue 10 c3 0-0 11
Jtd3!?, likewise with an edge for White. In
Am.Rodriguez-Dokhoian, Sochi 1988 White's
advantage even grew after ll...h6?! (Il...#c7
is better) 12 ±c2! He8 13 Wd3 £>g6 14 ie3
Ag4 15 h3 £>xd4 16 £>xd4 #h4 17 £>f5 Axf5
18*xf5±.
Another idea for White, 10 ^xc6!?, is best
met by 10...bxc6 (10...^xc6 11 Jtg5! is
annoying) 11 c4 0-0 12 ±d3 dxc4 13 ±xc4 ±f5 14 b3,
Chiburdanidze-Levitina, Volgograd worn Wch
(4) 1984, and now Chiburdanidze suggests
14...*c7 15 ±b2 Had8 16 ffel £>d5 as Black's
best, which doesn't look bad to me.
10...0-0 11 c3 ±g4 12 ±e3 Wcl 13 h3 ih5
14 #c2 Hfe8 15 ±d3 h6 16 ^h4! £>e5 17 ±e2
Axe2 18 Hxe2
White is slightly better, Svidler-Dreev,
Novosibirsk 1995.
B322)
6...c4 (D)
This is not without risk. Black has yet to move
his first piece and has consequently fallen
behind in development. However, if he can catch
up on that and maintain his queenside space
advantage, his strategy will have succeeded. Thus

174
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
White should quickly begin attacking Black's
queenside pawns.
7 0-0 ±d6 8 b3 cxb3
This capture appears to be a small moral
victory for White since Black immediately admits
that he isn't able to maintain his pawn phalanx
with ...b5. On the other hand, Black gains time
for his development and hopes for counterplay
against White's pawn-structure, either on the
c-file or against the centre if White decides to
play c4 at some point. The other main line,
8...b5 is riskier. White has two options:
a) 9 a4 and now:
al) 9...c3 10axb5! (obviously, 10£>bl?b4
is not an option) 10...cxd2 11 Jtxd2 (D) and
then:
all) ll...±b7 12 bxa6 £>xa6 13 ±xa6 and
here:
alll) 13...±xa614lxa6±xh2+! 15<4>xh2
lxa6 is complicated but after 16 !fe2+ le6 17
Wb5+ *f8 (17...Wd7?! 18 ffxd7+ <4>xd7 19
<£\e5+ ±) 18 ±b4+ <£\e7, White has a promising
choice between 19 fial, followed by J2a7, and
19 Wb7!? with the idea of lei.
all2) 13...Ixa6 14 ffe2+ ffe7 15 #xa6!
(this queen sacrifice is very dangerous for Black,
who is severely lacking development; instead 15
Wb5+ Wd7 16 ffe2+ We7 17 Wb5+ is a
drawing repetition seen in a few games) 15...Jtxa6
16lxa6ffd8!(16...ffc7?!17lel+*d7 18c4
± Geller-Kekki, CSKA-Matynkyla ECC 1986)
17 Ifal £>e7 (17...f6!?) 18 Ixd6 ffxd6 19
Ia8+ <4>d7 20 Ixh8 £>c6! 21 b4! Iff6 is a
much-quoted line of Geller's, which concludes
22 <4>f 1(?) "±, intending b5 and If8xf7".
However, this is probably a typing error, because
White's last move does not rule out 22...^xd4,
since on 23 ±c3 Black has 23...!fa6+. Instead,
22 A>hl! must have been what Geller had in
mind.
al2) ll...£>e7? 12 c4 £>g6 13 c5 ±f4 14
bxa6 0-0 15 b4 £>xa6 16 g3 ±xd2 17 Wxd2 and
White's queenside pawns were too powerful
in Mannion-Buchanan, Scottish Ch (Paisley)
1988.
al3) ll...£tf6! 12 c4 dxc4! 13 bxc4 0-0 14
c5?! (this weakens d5 and should at least have
been followed by JLc4, but it is likely that a
sensible position-improving move like 14 JSel is
better) 14...±e7 15 lei ±e6 16 ffbl ±d5 17
±a5 Wc8 18 bxa6 ±d8 19 ±xd8 Ixd8 20 a7
<£>c6 21 ffb6 £>d7. With White's pawns firmly
blockaded, Black is clearly better, Kr.Geor-
giev-P.Nikolic, Burgas 1993.
a2) 9...±b7 10 bxc4 bxc4 11 ±xc4! (Black
can be satisfied if White proceeds quietly and
allows ...£>e7 and ...0-0) ll...dxc4 12 <£>xc4 ±e7
(12...£>e7 13 £>xd6+ «xd6 14 ±a3 Wc7 15 fiel
£>bc6 16 d5 ± Geller) 13 fiel ffc7 14 fibl
(threatening Ixb7) 14...Wxc4 15 Ixb7 £>c6 16
5M2!? (16 fic7! is perhaps even more
convincing) 16...Wxd4 17 ±b2! Wxa4 (or 17...Wf4 18
g3 lfh6 19 <£>c4 and Black is not able to put up
an adequate defence) 18 He4 Wa2?! (18...ffa5!
is more tenacious) 19 ±xg7 0-0-0 20 fib3 +-
Geller-Dreev, New York Open 1990.
b) 9 fiel <S^e7 10 a4 (compared with the
immediate 9 a4 {line 'a'}, the insertion of the 9th
moves appears to favour Black because of the
time gained to develop, but a noticeable
exception is that Black cannot really consider 10...c3
now because 11 ^fl b4 12 Jtd3 leaves White
very well positioned on the kingside) 10... Jtb7.
Now:
bl) 11 bxc4 bxc4 12 ±xc4 dxc4 13 <£>xc4 is
similar to Geller's idea from above but is
probably an inferior version for White. 13...jtb4! 14
c3 ±d5!? (D) (it looks risky, but I don't find
14...±xc3 15 ±a3 Axel 16 £>d6+ *f8 17
£>xb7 ±xf2+ 18 *xf2 ffd5 totally clear; e.g.,
19 ±xe7+ <4>xe7 20 ffel+ *f8 21 ffb4+ <4>g8
22 Wd6 Wxd6 23 £>xd6 £>d7 24 fiel f6 25 fie7
Id8 26a5h5!?oo)andnow:

3...a6
175
bl 1) 15 cxb4? ±xc4 16 ±a3 0-0 17 b5 Be8
18 £\e5 Jtd5 + Ivanchuk-Dolmatov, Irkutsk
1986.
bl2) 15 Wb3 ±xc4 16 Wxb4 ±d5 17 £>e5
(17 c4! ? JLxf 3 18 d5! is a remarkable idea,
suggested by Fritz 8) 17...f6! 18 £>c4 0-0 19 ±a3
Ba7 20 £>b6 (20 £>a5!?), Carlsson-P.Nikolic,
Kallithea ECC 2002, and now Black should
continue 20...^bc6 21 ffc5 Ml with the better
game.
bl3) 15 £>fd2!? ±xc3 16 ±a3 £>bc6 17
£>d6+ <4>f8 18 £tf5 (18 Bxe7!? £>xe7 19 £>f5
Ba7 20 Wg4 Axal 21 ffxg7+ <4>e8 22 ffxh8+
<4>d7 23 We5 f6 24 Wd6+ <4>c8 25 £>xe7+ Bxe7
26 Wxe7 Wxe7 27 ±xe7 ±xd4 =) 18...±e6
(18...Ba7 19 Wg4 g6 20 £>xe7 £>xe7 21 Bxe7
Bxe7 22 ±xe7+ Wxe7 23 Wc8+ <4>g7 24 Wxc3
±) 19 £>xe7 £>xe7 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Wf3+ <4>g8
22 ±xe7 We8 23 Wxc3 Wxe7 24 Bel with
compensation.
b2) ll£>e5!?(DJandnow:
b21) 11...0-012bxc4bxc413i,f3£>bc614
£>fl Wc7 15 Af4 £>d8 16 ±g3 £>e6 17 Bbl
Bab8 18 ±g4 (the sensible 18 Wd2!? might be
preferable) 18...f5 19 ±h3 (19 Af3? f4 20 ±h4
£>f5 +) 19...^g5 20 Wh5 £>xh3+ 21 Wxh3 f4
22 lfe6+ <4>h8 23 £>f7+ Bxf7 24 Wxf7 fxg3 25
^xg3. We are following Akopian-Piskov, USSR
1988, which is here designated '+-' by Akop-
ian. The game continued 25...Bg8? 26 Bxe7!
±xe7 27 £>f5 Wf4 28 g3! Iff 3 29 Bxb7! and
indeed White was winning, but while on 25...^g8
26 #xc7 ±xc7 27 Be6, the intended 27...£>f6
28 £>h5!! ±c8 29 Bxb8 ±xb8 30 Bc6! Ml 31
Bxa6 is a nice example of the rook
outmanoeuvring the minor pieces, the line has a major
flaw since Black plays 27...g6! and White is
simply not allowed to bring his knight into
action, nor will the power of the rooks be shown
as ...4>g7-f7 forces the e6-rook back (which is
then met by ... Jtc6), or White will have to
defend it with Bbel, and Black will then have
freer play with his minor pieces.
b22) I find ll...f6! 12 £>g4 0-0 13 bxc4
bxc4 14 JLf3 ^bc6 more plausible.
9 axb3 £>e7 (D)
10 Bel
While this sensibly prepares to move the
knight around to the kingside, White also has
an interesting option in the more direct 10 c4.
Then upon 10...0-0, White plays 11 c5 1x7 12
b4 followed by b5 with the better position, so
Black should reply 10...^bc6, and now:
a) 11 ±b2 0-0 12 c5 ±c7 13 ±c3 ±d7 14
b4 £>a7 15 Bel ±b5 16 £tfl Be8 17 ±d3

176
The French: Tarrasch Variation
±xd3 18 #xd3 Wdl with nice play for Black
on the light squares, McShane-M.Gurevich,
Copenhagen 2001.
b) 11 lei 0-0 12 c5 ±c7 13 £tfl ±g4
(ideas of deploying this bishop otherwise come
into consideration; e.g. 13...h6 in order to play
...±e6 and ...Wd7) 14 ^e3 ±h5 15 ±b2 f6 16
±c3 #b8 17 h3 a5 18 £>h4 ±f7 19 ±d3 with
some advantage for White, Womacka-Alien-
kin, Chemnitz 1998.
c) Ilcxd5!?£>xd5 12±c4±e7 (12...£>ce7
13 £>e4 ±b4 14 £>e5 0-0 15 Wf3 looked more
appealing for White in Tiviakov-Russek, Ubeda
1998) 13 £>e4 0-0 14 £>e5 £>cb4 15 ±a3 ±e6
16 #d2 f6 17 £>c5 ±xc5 18 dxc5 fxe5 19 ±xb4
£>f4 20 ±xe6+ £>xe6 21 Wd6 #xd6 22 cxd6
5M4 and Black held his own in Korneev-del
Rio, Coria del Rio 2004.
10...0-0 11 £>fl (D)
It is interesting to observe that both sides
have applied strategies involving an exchange
of the dark-squared bishop, but in general Black
is the one who is happier with this. Thus, after
11 ±a3 £>bc6 12 ±xd6 #xd6 13 Etfl Af5 14
±d3 ±g6 15 c3 Iae8 16 Ia2 White had
achieved very little and a draw was agreed in
Marjanovic-Tukmakov, Moscow 1989. Black
can probably continue in several ways but a
sensible line is 16...±xd3 17 #xd3 £>g6 18
£\e3 h6, intending ...Se6/e4.
11 c4 £>bc6 - 10 c4 ?hbc6 11 Hel 0-0.
Il...£fec6
I don't think Black equalizes fully in the
event of ll...±b4 12 ±d2 ±xd2 13 #xd2
£>bc6 14 £>g3 ±g4 15 h3 ±xf3 16 ±xf3.
12£>g3
Two other options for White:
a) 12 c3 and here Black can either simply
reply 12...h6, which is a good and useful move,
or he can play 12...±f5 13 £>e3 ±g6 14 £>h4
±e4!? (14...Wd7 15 £>xg6 hxg6 16 Af3 is
slightly better for White) 15 f3 ±g6 16 g3!? Ic8
17 £>xg6 hxg6 18 f4 £>b8!, intending ...<£>d7-f6,
with a roughly equal position, Wahls-M.Gure-
vich, Bundesliga 1993/4.
b) 12 £\e3 and now two sensible lines for
Black are:
bl) 12...±b4!?13±d2±xd2 14#xd2fto6
15 c4 (15 c3 would be a more solid set-up
followed by JLd3, but if Black also just develops,
say by ... Jtd7 and .. JSac8, it is difficult to see a
white plan other than playing c4) 15...jte6!?
(15...Jtd7 is also fine and probably safer since
on 16 c5 Black's queen goes to f6 rather than
f4) 16 c5 Wf4 17 ±d3 Bfe8 18 b4 g6 19 #c3 g5
20 b5 axb5 21 ±xb5 g4 22 £>d2 oo Arencibia-
Giaccio, Santiago 1996.
b2) 12...h6 13 c3 (without the dark-squared
bishops exchanged, White is reluctant to go
c4-c5) 13...±e6 14 ±d3 Wd7 15 Ia2 £>g6! 16
±xg6 fxg6 17 ±a3 ±xa3 18 Ixa3 g5 19 Ia2
JSae8 with approximately equal play, Zagre-
belny-M.Gurevich, Metz 2002.
12...£>g6
As the knight is not challenging d5, Black
could also consider the aggressive 12...f5. This
would be more hazardous with the knight on
e3, since White would then play c4.
13 c3 ±e6 14 ±d3 £>f4 15 ±c2 #f6
Now Rodin-Chuprikov, Voronezh 2004
continued 16 ±xf4 #xf4 17 Wd3 g6 18 Ie3 #h6
V2-V2. The position is fairly level.

13 3... 1jc6 and Minor 3rd Moves
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ^d2 (D)
In this chapter we shall cover various 3rd
move alternatives for Black. The most important
of these is 3...£ic6, which looks very illogical
since Black's most common counterplay in the
French Tarrasch consists of an attack against
White's centre. While it is true that 3...^c6
does contribute to an attack against White's
centre, this would look much more dynamic
with a pawn on c5. Nevertheless, 3...^c6
remains a playable alternative to the better-known
and more thoroughly analysed main lines.
Before we jump in to the main body of this
chapter, here are some lesser alternatives:
a) 3...f5?! 4 exf5 exf5 5 £>df3!. This has
been known as the 'refutation' of Black's 3rd
move for a long time. Black has simply
weakened the dark squares fatally, and White now
places his knights ideally to take advantage of
this. A recent example is G.Ginsburg-Schmitt-
diel, Bundesliga 2004/5: 5...£tf6 6 ±d3 ±d6 7
£>e2 c6 8 0-0 Wc7 9 c4 0-0 10 c5 ±e7 11 b4
£>e4 12 a4 £>d7 13 £>el f4 14 Wc2 g5 15 f3
^ef6 16 g3 and White was already winning.
b) 3...^e7 4 ^gf3 gives Black two options:
bl) 4...£}g6 5 h4 (White could of course
also do something similar without the h-pawn
moves) 5...h5 6 g3 (6 e5 is also good) 6...c5 7
±g2 £>c6 8 exd5 ffxd5 9 0-0 (9 dxc5 ±xc5 10
0-0 ±) 9...£>xd4 10 £>xd4 Wxd4 11 ffe2 ±e7 12
^e4 with good compensation for White,
Garcia Martinez-Garcia Gonzales, Havana 1978.
b2) 4...^d7 (not very theoretical but solid
all the same) 5 ±d3 (5 g3 c5 6 ±g2 g6 7 exd5
exd5 8 dxc5 £>xc5 9 £>b3 £>e6 10 £>fd4 ±g7
11 ±e3 0-0 12 0-0 £>c6 ±/= Balogh-Berkes,
Kazincbarcika 2005) 5...c5 6 exd5 £>xd5 7 0-0
±e7 8 £>b3 (8 £>e4 ±) 8...cxd4 9 £>bxd4 0-0 10
c4 ^5f6 with roughly equal play, Palac-Prie,
Cannes 1995.
c) 3...b6 4 £>gf3 £>f6 (D) (4...±b7 5 ±b5+!
c6 6 ±d3 ±e7 7 0-0 dxe4 8 £>xe4 QX6 9 £>xf6+
±xf6 10 Af4 0-0 11 We2 Wd5 12 ±e4 *h5 13
a4 £>d7 14 a5 bxa5 15 ±d6 Ifc8 16 Wd2 ±
Kasparov-Agdestein, Tilburg 1989) and now:
cl) 5^e5!?±b7 6±b5+c67±d3£>bd7 8
£>xd7 £>xd7 9 e5 c5 10 c3 a5 11 Ve2 ffc8 12
0-0 ±e7?! (12...cxd4 13 cxd4 ±a6 seems quite
playable) 13 %4 <4>f8 14 lei! ±a6 15 ±bl
cxd4 16 cxd4 Ia7 17 £>f3 h6 18 ±d2 ± Tisch-
bierek-Hertneck, German Ch (Altenkirchen)
2001.
c2) 5e5^fd7 6c4!?(on6^d3Blackaims
for an exchange of bishops with 6...jta6)

178
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
6..Abl 1 cxd5 ±xd5 8 ±c4! ±e7 9 0-0 c6 10
#e2 0-0 11 £>e4 ± A.Sokolov-Gulko,
Moscow 1983.
d) 3...h6(D).
W
A f| A « W§ ft
With the number of more or less peculiar
pawn moves being played at various stages in
the French, a move like this shouldn't really
come as a surprise. However, to take it
seriously demands a more down-to-earth attitude.
Nonetheless it has occurred in a few high-level
games and there may be some move-order
issues by which White could be tricked or obtain
very little, but there are also some where Black
seems to end up in some sort of main line
having played the slightly irrelevant ...h6.4 c3 c5 5
exd5 and now:
dl) 5...Wxd5 6 £>gf3 £>c6 7 ±c4 Wd8 8
£rt>3 cxd4 9 £>bxd4 ^xd4 10 £>xd4 certainly
seems like a favourable version for White of
the more common 3...c5 4 exd5 Wxd5 lines in
Chapter 1. The game Navara-Cifka, Karlovy
Vary 2005 continued 10...a6 11 ±f4 ±d6 12
£>c6! bxc6 13 Wxd6 #xd6 14 ±xd6 ±b7 15
0-0-0 0-0-0 16 ±e5 £tf6 17 b4 ±.
d2) 5...exd5 6 &gf3 £tf6 7 ±b5+ ±d7 8
ffe2+ ±e7 9 dxc5 0-0 10 £>b3 He8 11 ±e3 and
also here I would rather have White's c3 than
Black's ...h6 in the line 3...c5 4 exd5 exd5 5
£hgf3 £hf6 6 kb5+ kdl 7 We2+ ke7 8 dxc5,
etc., of Chapter 4.
e) 3...dxe4 is of course a major option for
Black here. For coverage of the positions after
4 ^xe4, see The Main Line French: 3 ^hc3
(Chapters 1 and 2).
We now return to the main subject of this
chapter:
3..&C6 (D)
w
I11A
■ kffl
mdmim
mm
m®
Ai
'///, y/////A
y/M 'mm a mm
HP ^IllP^^flP P
iW/, « « J....
ft Iff ft |jf ^f ft Iff
Here we look at:
A: 4c3 178
B: 4£>gf3 180
Black has several options against 4 Jtb5. He
can continue analogously to Line B3 by 4...^f6
5 e5 £kT7, or he can simply play 4...a6 5 JLxc6+
bxc6 6 ^gf 3 c5 =, as in Rausis-Naumkin, Porto
San Giorgio 2001. Nor is 4...dxe4 5 £>xe4 #d5,
as in H.Garcia-Panno, Buenos Aires (3) 1971, a
bad idea.
A)
4 c3 e5 (D)
While this is a consistent (making use of
...^c6) attempt to free his position at once,
Black also has few other reasonable
alternatives:
a) 4...£>f6 5 e5 £>d7 6 ±d3 is simply better
for White. Like in regular 3...^f6 lines, White
has the option of placing his queen's knight on
f3, thereby freeing the sight of the cl-bishop.
b) On 4...dxe4 5 £>xe4 Wd5 (5...£>f6 6
£>xf6+ #xf6 7 £rf3 h6 8 ±d3 is a favourable
version for White of a Rubinstein Variation),
White can transpose to our main line with 6
£>d2 e5 7 £>gf3, or he can play 6 ±d3 e5 7
«fe2! ±e6 8 £tf3 exd4 9 0-0 0-0-0, and then:
bl) 10 Hdl dxc3 (10...±g4 11 £>eg5 £>f6 12
±c4 ±xf3; 10...£>e5 11 £>xe5 Wxe5 12 cxd4)

3...?hc6 and Minor 3rd Moves
179
11 £>xc3 #h5 12 Af4 and after 12...£g4?! 13
Jte4 the pawn sacrifice suddenly looked very
promising for White, with ^b5 coming, in Mit-
kov-Sulava, Yugoslav Cht (Kladovo) 1991.
Instead Black is not worse after 12...Jtd6 13 Jtxd6
Hxd6.
b2) 10 £>xd4 £>xd4 11 cxd4 Wxd4 12 ig5
(12 Hdl ffe5 13 ±e3 might be better, with
some compensation) 12...4^f6 13 Hfdl JLg4 14
Wc2 Axdl 15 Hxdl <£>xe4 (15...ffe5! 16 £>xf6
Jte7! might be a little more accurate) 16 Jtxd8
Wxd8 17 ixe4 id6 18 g3 = Sermek-V.Kova-
cevic, Solin 1993.
W
5exd5
White has little hope of any advantage after 5
dxe5 dxe4 6 Wa4 ffd5 7 Wxe4 (7 f4 exf3 8
£>gxf3 id7 9 Wf4 £>ge7 10 ±c4 £>g6! 11 We3
Wc5 12 ±xf7+ <4>xf7 13 e6+ <4>e8 14 exd7+
<4>xd7 15 £>e4 ffxe3+ 16 ixe3 Ie8 17 0-0-0+
<4>c8 = Sermek-Mohr, Portoroz 1993) 7...ffxe5
8 £>gf3 #xe4+ 9 £>xe4 if5 10 £>g3 ig4 = Xu
Jun-Hamdouchi, Cap d'Agde 1994.
5...ffxd5 6 £>gf3 exd4
6.. Jtg4?! has been known as too risky for a
long time: 7 ic4 Axf3 8 Wb3! Wd7 (8...£>a5 9
Wa4+ Wd7 10 ixf7+ 4>d8 11 ffxd7+ 4>xd7 12
<£>xf 3 +- Keres-Botvinnik, USSR Ch (Moscow)
1955) 9 £>xf3 exd4 10 0-0 + Keres-Christoffel,
Zurich 1961.
7 ic4 (D)
7...WB
This is far from Black's only option but
should be good enough to equalize. A brief
summary of other moves:
AAA HI A Us A
a) 7...Wc5 8 0-0 dxc3 9 bxc3 Af5 10 Wa4
ffa5?! and now in Gufeld-Vaganian, USSR
1973, White missed a small trick in 11 Jtxf7+!
<4>xf7 12 Wb3+ ie6 13 Wxb7.
b) 7...ffh5!? 8 cxd4 ie6!? 9 Wb3 0-0-0 10
Jtxe6+ fxe6 11 #xe6+ (White can also delay
this, but at any rate Black's chances after 11
0-0 £rf6 12 ffxe6+ <4>b8 13 £>e4 <£>xe4 14
Wxe4 He8 15 Wd3 id6 aren't worse, Xie Jun-
Brunner, Shanghai 1995) 1 l...<A>b8 12 0-0 ±d6
13 ^b3?! (13 h3 is more precise but Black has
good compensation anyway) 13...Hf8 14 h3,
Feher-Bricard, Budapest-Paris 1995, and now a
standard exchange sacrifice with 14...Hxf3 15
gxf3 <S^f6 looks attractive.
8£>xd4
8 0-0 ±e6! is safe for Black. The ... Jte6 idea
followed by ...0-0-0 seems like a good solution
throughout this line. After 9 Jtxe6 fxe6 we
have:
a) 10 ffa4 0-0-0 11 <£>b3 and now rather
than ll...Ac5?! 12 £>xc5 ffxc5 13 b4 ffc4 14
^xd4 ^xd4 15 cxd4 + Adorjan-Hubner, Graz
1972, Black should play 11.. .e5! 12 cxd4 e4 =.
b) 10 £>xd4 £>xd4 11 cxd4 0-0-0 12 Wa4
<4>b8 13 <£>b3 <£>e7 14 <£>c5 ^c6 = Stocek-
Naumkin, Cappelle la Grande 1994.
8...£>xd4 9 cxd4 (D)
9...jte6
While the ... Jte6, ...0-0-0 set-up is often
appealing, this might be a time to rethink the
development scheme (in view of the assessment
of our main-line position below). Another
option is 9...id6 10 0-0 £>e7 11 lei 0-0 12 £>e4,
and then:

180
The French: tarrasch Variation
EWffl, JL Wax ~&~ waxy, Jfev ^w^
'"M Ail ttlPl
ill m,*M%
w, iH
W W////, 7//////,
IP <*> i*§ fc w^a
A « fM « A «
#777?/,
a) 12...Ab4 13 id2 Axd2 14 Wxd2 ^g6
15 Sadl might favour White due to his more
active position.
b) 12...Wg6 13 £ixd6 Wxd6 14 Wb3 £ig6
15 Jtd2 ± Boudre-Hamdouchi, Cannes 1998.
c) 12...Ae6! 13 Ad3 »d5 14 £>c3 Wa5 15
Wf3 c6 = Antoli Royo-del Rio, La Roda 2005.
10Wa4+£.d7
10...c6?! 11 0-0 is awkward for Black, and
after ll...£lf6 12 lei Ad6 White plays 13
Wb3! before exchanging on e6, as 13...0-0 or
13...0-0-0 is then answered by 14 Sxe6, while
13...£>g4 14 f3 Wf4 15 fxg4 Wxh2+ 16 *fl
does not look convincing for Black.
11 Wb3 0-0-0 12 0-0 (D)
Not 12 ±xf7?! £ih6 13 Ad5 Ie8+ 14 *fl
Jtb4!, when White is in trouble.
Hi^ m Sim* m,±
'///, '///////, V//////,
i*o hi
^^ ^
» in ,
A w& w% W& ft ifH
(A o MJi o " €3
Now:
a) 12...Ae6 13 Sel Axc4 14 £\xc4 isn't
easy for Black: 14...£>e7 15 Se5 Wg6 16 Ib5
with a strong attack, and 14...f6 15 Jte3 #d5 16
Jtf4! was also very good for White in Hor-
vath-Kuligowski, Naleczow 1986.
b) 12.. Jtd6 and then:
bl) 13 £>f3 f6 14 lei £ie7 15 Ad2 Wh5 16
Se4 g5 with roughly equal chances, Jansa-
J.Sorensen, Herning 1991.
b2) I haven't found any clear compensation
for Black after 13 Axf7! £ih6 14 Ad5 c6 15
JLf3. Following something like 15...£>g4 16 h3
£ih2 17 Ae4 Wf6 18 Idl Ihf8 19 We3 Af4 20
#e2 Sfe8 21 £tf3 White is a pawn up.
B)
4 £>gf 3 (D)
, mm
EW%Z A.
HP Q
HI A ill m%m%
MUfl
■ BAl
ft iff ft ^ff Iff ft M
m mmm&m
4...£>f6
Other moves appear a little eccentric:
a) 4...£>h6 5 i.d3 f5 6 exd5 exd5 7 0-0 ±e7
8 Sel 0-0 9 c4! Af6 10 cxd5 £\xd4 11 £\xd4
Axd4 12 ^>f3 l,b6 13 Ag5 ± Geller-Maric,
Skopje 1967.
b) 4...g6 is a fairly solid option but
somewhat passive. There are several sensible ways
for White to continue but I'll just give one: 5
Ab5 £ige7 6 0-0 ±g7 7 Sel 0-0 8 e5 £tf5
(better is 8...±d7) 9 ±xc6 bxc6 10 ^>b3 ±
Frolov-Vojko, Pula 1994.
5 e5 ^id7 (D)
5...^>e4 6 c3 ^>xd2 7 ±xd2 b6 (7...f6 8 ±b5
Ld7 9 We2 ±) 8 Ad3 h6 9 b4 Ab7 10 a4
(Matulovic also gives 10 h4!? with the idea
10...Wd7 11 a4 a5 12 Ab5 ±) 10...a5?! and
now rather than 11 JLb5 ±e7 12 bxa5 Sxa5 =

3...£hc6 and Minor 3rd Moves
181
Matulovic-Addison, Palma de Mallorca IZ
1970, White should simply play 11 2b 1 with a
clear advantage.
W
compared with our main line. After 8..JLd6 9
0-0 0-0 Black is ready to play ...e5:
bl) 10 £>b3 e5 11 dxe5 £>dxe5 12 £>xe5
£>xe5 (12...Vxe5 is also good, but the text-
move seems even stronger, inviting 13 Wxd5+
i.e6 14 We4 c6 15 Ae2 Ad5 with a strong
attack) 13 f4 fan 14 Ae3 c6 15 ±d3 £>h6 16
±d4 Wh4 17 g3 Wh3 ? Karapanos-Nikolaidis,
Aghia Pelagia 2004.
b2) 10 Bel e5! 11 Wb3 Wf7 12 2e2 h6
(12...a6! 13 JLxc6 bxc6 is good for Black; e.g.,
14 dxe5 £>xe5 15 £ixe5 ±xe5 16 £>f3 Ad6 17
Wa4 Wh5 +) 13 *hl exd4 14 cxd4 £>f6 15
JLxc6 bxc6 16 £\e5 Wh5, again with a strong
attack for Black, Berczes-Naumkin, Balaton-
lelle 2002.
7...fxe5 8 dxe5 (D)
Compared with a regular 3...£\f6 line, Black's
position may seem a little cramped and less
harmonious. Nevertheless, White has been lured
into putting his knight on f3, after which the
other knight may seem slightly misplaced on
d2. Thus Black's thematic attack with ...f6 on
White's centre gains in strength and Black will
often choose such a plan in favour of a slower
regrouping on the queenside.
White's four main options are now:
Bl: 6c3 181
B2: 6£>b3 182
B3: 6£b5 184
B4: 6£e2 186
Bl)
6c3f6
White is preparing a natural set-up with JLd3,
which simply leaves other options too passive.
7±b5!
This is considerably more annoying for Black
than 7 exf6 Wxf6:
a) 8 &e2 e5!? 9 dxe5 £>dxe5 10 £>xe5 (10
Wb3 ±d6 11 £>xe5 Wxe5 12 £tf3 »f5 13 ±e3
0-0 14 0-0-0 £ie7 15 Ad3 ± Akopian-Budni-
kov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1991) 10...£>xe5 11
£>f3 c6 12 £>xe5 Wxe5 13 0-0 ±d6 14 Ah5+
&d& with a good game for Black, Moliboga-
Kruppa, Kiev 2005.
b) 8 JLb5 also gives Black easy development
EWZz JL stir* X
1^ZmtiVA
m m
8...£e7
8...a6 9 Jixc6 bxc6 is seen as well but Black's
potential dynamic possibilities do not make up
for his inferior structure and poor
development:
a) 10 0-0 c5 (10...£e7 11 £>d4 £>xe5 12
Wh5+ £>f7 13 £>xc6 Wd6 14 £ixe7 Wxe7 15 c4
c6 16 b3, intending JLb2 and Bael, is also very
good for White) 11 Wa4 a5 12 Wg4 We7 13 c4
Abl 14 Bel tta6 15 £tfl Wf7 16 cxd5 Axd5
17 £>g5 Vg6 18 We2 ±bl 19 Idl Bb6 20 h4 ±
Lukin-Lastin, St Petersburg 1999.
b) 10 £>b3! ±e7 (10...a5 11 £>bd4 £ib8 12
£>g5 ±) 11 £>a5 £>b8 12 h4 and White already
has a strong attack, Vajda-Todorovic, Herceg
Novi 2005.
9 0-0

182
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
At first, I also liked 9 ffe2 0-0 10 h4 but Black
seems able to solve his opening problems: after
10...a5! 11 ±d3 £>c5 12 ±bl b6 White has no
direct knockout. Consequently Black had no
reason to complain after 13 £>d4 lfe8 14 lfe3
±a6 15 £>2f3 £>xd4 16 £>xd4 lfh5 in Rozen-
talis-Vysochin, Cappelle la Grande 2003.
9...0-010Sel#e8
10...a6 11 ±d3 (11 ±xc6 bxc6 12 ^d4 £>b8
13 Wg4 #d7 14 £>2f3 c5 15 £>b3 ±) 1 l...£>c5
(ll...ffe8!?) 12±c2a5 13 £tfl (13 £>d4! also
looks good) 13...b6 14 £>g3 ±b7 15 ^d4 ffe8
16 %4 Iff7 17 f3 ± Arzumanian-Vysochin,
Simferopol 2003.
11 £>fl £>c5 12 £>g3 a6 13 ±fl a5 (D)
w
Black shouldn't allow b4.
14 b3 b6 15 £>d4 ±a6 16 ±xa6 £>xd4!
Improving on 16...Sxa6 17 Wg4 Wf7 18 f4
with the better position for White,
Torre-Johansen, Jakarta Z 1987.
17±fl
After 17 cxd4 £>xa6 Black would be OK
because compared with the Torre-Johansen game
Black's knight is much better.
17...Etf5 18 £>xf5 Sxf5 19 f3 #c6 20 a4
Sd8 21 ±b5 ffb7 22 Sa2 c6 23 ±fl Sdf8
Black is doing fine, Kotronias-Nikolaidis,
Korinthos 2004.
B2)
6 £>b3 (D)
This is somehow directed against a future
...c5 advance but more importantly frees the
m mmm±f4SL
way for the dark-squared bishop and thus makes
...f6 less attractive for Black.
6...a5
The threat of a further advance of the a-pawn
is enough to persuade White into playing a4.
And having the a-pawns fixed before doing
anything else is an advantage for Black. One
obviously positive thing is that he gains a little
more space on the queenside and that he can
later try to exchange the light-squared bishops
by ...b6 and ... Jk,a6. Alternatives:
a) 6...f6 with two natural replies for White:
al) 7 exf6 #xf6 8 ±g5 Wf7 9 ±b5 ±d6 10
0-0 0-0 11 ±h4 is nothing special for White:
all) ll...h6 12 JLg3 transposes into Geor-
gadze-Vaganian, Tbilisi 1973, which was
approximately equal after 12...a6 13 Jbcc6 bxc6
14 #d2 #f6 15 Sfel c5 16 dxc5 £>xc5 17
£>xc5 Jbcc5. Black's bishop-pair compensates
for his inferior structure.
al2) 11 ...e5 has also worked well for Black
in practice. This involves sacrificing a pawn
after 12 dxe5 £>dxe5 13 £>g5 when White can take
on d5 after the queen moves, but Black's bishop-
pair guarantees good counterplay; 13...#f4,
13...#f5 and 13...#g6 are all good moves.
a2) 7 JLb5 JLe7 (opening the position with
7...fxe5 8 dxe5 only seems to give White
further options, and 8...±e7 9 £>bd4 £>db8 10
£>g5! ±xg5 11 Wh5+ g6 12 Wxg5 Wxg5 13
±xg5 ±d7 14 £>xc6 £>xc6 15 Af6 Sg8 16
Jte2 was certainly to White's advantage in
Estrin-Bagirov, Baku 1958) 8 exf6 (although 8
Jk,f4 is also attractive, this is a good decision
now that Black cannot recapture with the

3...£hc6 and Minor 3rd moves
183
queen) 8...1,xf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 lei Ie8 11 Af4
± Ivkov-Lehmann, Beverwijk 1966.
b) 6...i.e7 7 &b5 £>cb8 (this backward
move plays an essential part in freeing the
queenside, and something like 7...0-0 8 0-0 a6 9
Jtxc6 bxc6 10 £\a5 is definitely not advisable)
8 h4!? (or 8 0-0 with similar play as in 6...a5 7
a4 Le7 8 Lb5 £&cb8 9 0-0) 8...h6 (8...b6 9
£>g5! is similar to 6...a5 7a4 ke7 8 &b5 Z&cb8
9 h4 b6 10 £&g5!) 9 Ih3 b6 10 #e2 a5 11 Ig3
i.f8 (ll...<A>f8 12 a4 is also better for White,
when 12...±xh4 13 £>xh4 #xh4 14 Ih3 #e7
15 #g4 should provide good compensation) 12
c4!? (12 a4 is of course a sensible alternative)
12...c6 (Tal gives 12...a4 as stronger and
continues one line 13 cxd5 axb3 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 #e4
Ixa2 16 #g6+ <4>e7 17 £>g5 #e8 with unclear
play, but I am sure Tal would much have
preferred White after 18 #xe6+ <4>d8 19 £>f7+
#xf7 20 #xf7 Ixal 21 <4>dl) 13 cxd5 cxd5 14
a4 and White was better in Tal-Fichtl, Halle
1974.
We now return to 6...a5 (D):
wants the option of meeting a Jtb5 sortie by
...£\a7, or simply to have the possibility of
exchanging bishops later. Chandler-Timman,
Amsterdam 1984 went 8 h4 h6 9 Ih3 b6 10 Ig3
±f8 11 h5 ±b7 12 a4 £>e7 13 #d2 #c8 14
£\h4 Jta6 15 £\cl c5, and the slow
manoeuvring game had given Black quite a decent
position.
7...i.e7 (D)
On 7...b6 White has the usual choice of
whether to advance his h-pawn or simply
prepare to castle. 8 Jtb5 £>cb8 9 0-0 Jte7
transposes to 7...ke7 8 kb5 focb8 9 0-0 b6, while
after 8 h4 Black was roughly treated in Ivano-
vic-Prie, Meudon 1984 when he became too
ambitious in a defensible position: 8...Jta6 9
±xa6 Ixa6 10 h5 h6 11 Ih3 £>e7 12 #e2 Ia7
13 Ml #c8 14 £>h4 #a6 (14...c5! =) 15 #g4
c5 16 If3 £>c6 17 Ixf7 (17 £>g6!?) 17...*xf7
18 £>g6 Ig8 19 £>f4 £>e7?? (after 19...£>d8 20
#g6+ <4>e7 21 #h7 <4>f71 don't see more than a
repetition for White) 20 #xe6+ <4>e8 21 £>xd5
Ih8 22 dxc5 £>b8? 23 cxb6 1-0.
W
W
7a4
Or 7 i.f4, and then:
a) 7...a4 8 £>cl and now 8...Jtb4+ is
mentioned by Chandler, with the tricky point of
meeting 9 c3?! with 9...a3!. On the better 9 Jtd2
Black should probably play 9... Jte7. Drasko's
suggestion of playing 8...a3 9 b3 f6!? is also
noteworthy.
b) It is also interesting that Black
sometimes has chosen simply to play 7... Jte7, which
seems a little inconsistent with 6...a5, but Black
8±b5
8 h4 is a familiar concept but probably better
after 8 &b5 ?hcb8. In this position Black might
even try 8...f6!? (although risky, I admit) 9 exf6
±xf6 10 £>g5 #e7 (10...£>f8 11 ±b5 #d6 12
0-0 h6 13 £>h3 ±) 11 i.b5 e5 12 0-0 h6 13 dxe5
(13 #h5+ <4>f8 14 £>f3 #f7 =) 13...£>cxe5 14
f4 c6 (14...hxg5 15 fxe5 i.xe5 16 i.xg5 #d6
17 #f3 i.f6 18 Iael+ <4>f7 19 £>d4 ±) 15 £>h3
(15 fxe5 £>xe5 16 £>f3 £>xf3+ 17 #xf3 cxb5
18 #xd5 ±e6 19 #xb5+ #d7 «) 15...cxb5 16

184
The French: Tarrasch Variation
fxe5 £>xe5 17 QX4 i.e6 18 £>xd5 i.xd5 19
Wxd5 bxa4 20 Sxa4 Wd7 «.
8...^a7
Black has to free his queenside somehow
and only two knight retreats come into
consideration. The other is 8...£kb8, and then:
a) 9 0-0b610#e2!?0-011i.d2c612i.d3
±a6 13 ±xa6 £>xa6 14 Sfcl!? £>db8 15 £>el
c5 16 dxc5 i.xc5 (16...£>xc5 17 £>d4 ±) 17
£>xc5 £>xc5 18 Sa3! and White was better in
Tiviakov-Rogers, Saint Vincent 2002. White is
cleverly preparing an attack on the kingside by
swinging the rook over.
b) 9 h4 h6 (9...f6? 10 exf6 Axf6 11 £>g5
±; 9...b6 10 £>g5! h6 11 £>xe6 fxe6 12 Wh5+
*f8 13 Ih3 is difficult for Black; e.g., 13...i.a6
14 Sf3+ *g8 15 Wf7+ *h7 16 i.xh6! +-
Kr.Georgiev-Borngasser, Khalkidhiki 1990) 10
h5 b6 11 Sh3 i.a6 12 Sg3 Af8 13 c4!? (13 *f 1
c6 14 Jtxa6 £>xa6 15 4>gl ± Adams-Brooks,
Sutton 1997) 13...i.b7 14 cxd5 i.xd5 15 £>bd2
£>a6 16 b3 ± Delchev-Furlan, Ljubljana 1998.
We now return to 8...^a7 (D):
9±e2
9 Jtd3 apparently seems more natural but
Black will then threaten to win a piece when he
gets in ...c5. Thus, Liberzon-Vaganian, Baden
1980 continued 9...b6 10 0-0 Ab7 11 Wd2 (11
Af4 c5 12 foel c4 13 Ae2 0-0, intending ...b5,
is given as equal by Kovacevic) 1 l...c5 12 dxc5
£>xc5 (12...bxc5!? 13 £>xa5 ix8 14 Ae2 0-0
might be compensation) 13 ^xc5 bxc5 14 Wf4
c4 15 Ae2 £>c6 16 Wg3 *f8 17 Sdl i.a6 with
an equal position.
9...b6
Black needs to prepare ...c5 since an
immediate 9...c5 10 dxc5 £>xc5 11 £>xc5 i.xc5 12
0-0 is better for White.
10 0-0 0-0 11 ±e3 c5 12 c3
12 c4 cxd4 13 £>bxd4 Ab7 = Hmadi-Beliav-
sky, Tunis IZ 1985.
12...£>c613 £>el Aa614 ±xa6 Sxa615 f4
Now Tiviakov thinks Black should defend
himself with 15...g6 <*>. After 15...f5?! 16 exf6
Ixf6 17 We2 Sa8 18 £rf3 White's advantage
in Tiviakov-Vysochin, Cairo 2002 was more
marked.
B3)
6 i.b5 (D)
6...a6!?
Well, does White really want to exchange
that bishop? Other moves:
a) 6...JLe7 7 0-0 0-0 is slightly passive - a
good way to proceed for White would be 8 c3
a6 9 ±d3 f6 10 exf6 Axf6 11 Sel ± Rocha-
Zarnicki, Buenos Aires 1989.
b) 6...f6 7 0-0 (7 c4!? is maybe best met by
7...£fo4 when both 8 0-0 c6 9 &a4 dxc4 and 8
exf6 gxf6 9 0-0 c6 lead to interesting and
unexplored positions; 7 exf6 Wxf6 8 £tfl can be
compared with 6 kel f6 7 exf6 Wxf6 8 fofl)
7...fxe5 8 dxe5 Ae7 9 i.xc6 bxc6 10 £>d4
£>xe5 11 Wh5+ £tf7 12 £>xc6 Wd6 13 £>xe7
Wxel 14 Sel ± Antunac-Hubner, Dresden 1969.
c) 6...a5. We have already come across this
peculiar move in previous lines. Black wants to

3...thc6 and Minor 3rd Moves
185
chase the bishop away with ...£tei7 and follow
up with ...c5. 7 0-0 4£>a7 8 Ad3 c5 and now:
cl) 9 c4!? cxd4 10 cxd5 £>c5 11 £>c4 exd5
12 Ag5 Wcl 13 £>a3!? ± Djuric-Drasko,
Sarajevo 1984.
c2) 9 c3 c4 (9...£>c6 leaves Black just a
tempo down on the line 3...^hf6 4 e5 Q)fd7 5
Ld3 c5 6 c3 £hc6 7 £hgf3 a5) 10 ix2 b5 11 Sel
ksl 12 £tf 1 £>c6 13 £>g3 h5 14 Ae3 £>f8 15
Wd2 Ad7 16 Ag5 and White is better, Yudo-
vich-A.Zaitsev, Uzhgorod 1966.
7i.xc6
This damages Black's structure but also
leaves him with the potential power of the two
bishops. Hence, it is certainly also worth
considering 7 JLa4, which has been less popular in
practice but may in fact set Black more
problems:
a) 7.. Jte7 is simply met by 8 c3 0-0 9 0-0
followed by a normal set-up like Sel, £\f 1, etc.,
with an advantage for White.
b) 7...b5 8 Ab3 £>a5 9 c3 £>xb3 10 axb3 c5
11 dxc5 £>xc5 12 We2 Ae7 13 b4 £>a4 14 £>b3
0-0 15 0-0 Ad7 16 £>fd4 ± Tzermiadianos-
Sahovic, Novi Sad 1999.
c) 7...£fo6 8 i.xc6+! bxc6 9 £>b3 ±. Black's
knight is worse on b6 compared to our main
line where it is on d7, supporting ...c5 and ...f6
breaks.
d) 7...f6 8 c4!?dxc4 (8...£>b49 exf6gxf6 10
0-0 ±) 9 i.xc6 bxc6 10 £>xc4 £>b6 11 b3 Wd5
12 0-0 ± Belikov-Sergienko, Voronezh 1997.
7...bxc6 8 £>b3 (D)
i±l#i m
8...C5
This carries out a desired break although at a
slight risk because Black is behind in
development. The alternative is 8...a5 with which Black
would like to harass White's knight with ...a4
but also for the moment denies it from hopping
to a5 itself. Then:
a) 9 Ag5 Ae7 10 h4 h6 (10...a4!?) 11 Ae3
a4 12 £hc5 ^hxc5 (keeping the knight is worse
even though the same idea with 12...jbcc5 13
dxc5 Aa6 14 Wd4 Wb8 is available but Black
lacks the suitable square on d7 for his king) 13
dxc5 ±a6 14 Wd4 Wb8! and now after 15 b3?!
Wb5 16 0-0-0 *d7 Black was slightly better in
Potkin-Riazantsev, Moscow 2000. Instead Riaz-
antsev gives 15 Wxa4!? as critical with the
following interesting line: 15...Jtc4 (15...4>d7 16
Wb3 Wa7 17 Wc3 and Black does not have
compensation for the pawn) 16 Wxc6+ 4^8 17
£>d4#c8(17...Sa6 18#xa6i.xa6 19£>c6+is
winning for White) 18 b3 2a6 19 bxc4 Sxc6 20
£>xc6+ *d7 21 cxd5 exd5 22 £>xe7 *xe7 23
0-0 Wa8 24 Sfbl Sb8 25 Sxb8 Wxb8 26 ±d4
Wb5 27 a4 Wa6 28 c3 h5 29 a5 g6 with an equal
position.
b) 9i.d2!?(T>)andnow:
bl) 9...a4 10£>a5 £>b8 11 c4 a3 (ll...dxc4
12 £}xc4 Wd5, Emelin-Riazantsev, St
Petersburg 1997, and now 13 Wc2 Aa6 14 b3 {or 14
Scl} is better for White) 12 b4 dxc4 (Black
cannot really allow White to play c5, when the
a3-pawn would be doomed) 13 0-0 Jta6 14 Sel
±b5 15 Wcl Wd5 16 Wxa3 £>d7 17 Wc3 £>b6
18 a3 ± Am.Rodriguez-Pecorelli, Cuban Ch
(Matanzas) 1997.

186
THE FRENCH: TARRASCH VARIATION
b2) 9..x5! 10£>xa5c6! 11 £>b3 (11 £>xc6?
#b6 traps the knight) ll...cxd4 12 £>bxd4 c5
13 £>b5 ±a6 14 a4 #b6 15 0-0 ±e7 16 #e2
0-0 with good compensation for the pawn, Sto-
janovic-Drasko, Jahorina 2000.
9 ±g5 ^e7
9...f6 10 exf6 gxf6 11 ih4 c4 12 £>bd2 Ae7
13 0-0 £tf8 14 lei £>g6 15 ig3 *f7 16 b3
cxb3 17 cxb3 Jtd7 18 Mel ± Nurkic-Meszaros,
Zenica 2002.
10 £>a5 (D)
In Popovic-V.Kovacevic, Novi Sad 1984, 10
Jtxe7 #xe7 11 0-0 led to an advantage for
White after ll...a5 12 #d2 a4 13 £>xc5 £>xc5
14 dxc5 #xc5 15 b4, but Black should play
1 l...cxd4 12 £>bxd4 #b4, intending ...c5.
10...£>xe5!
Things are easier for White after 10...5ib8
11 i.xe7 #xe7 12 c3 when 12...0-0 13 0-0 c4
14 b4 cxb3 15 axb3 c5 16 Well? Ia7 17 #e3
Hc7 18 Hfcl gave White an advantage in Eme-
lin-Riazantsev, St Petersburg 1996.
11 dxe5
Grinberg-Negri, Argentina 1977 continued
11 £>xe5 i.xg5 12 £>ac6 #f6 13 dxc5 Af4 (I
think the right approach for Black would be
something like 13..JLb7 14 c3 Af4 15 #e2
±xc6 16 £>xc6 *d7 17 £>b4 «fe5) 14 #d4
±d7 15 g3 ±xe5 16 £ixe5 0-0 17 0-0 ±b5 18
Hfel and White had achieved his desired
control of the dark squares.
Il...&xg5 12 £>c6 #d7 13 £>xg5 h6 (D)
It is not quite clear that Black cannot play
13...#xc6: 14 #h5 g6 (14...«fd7 15 £>xh7 ±)
15 Wf3 (15 ®h6!?) 15...Wd7 16 Wf6 0-0 17 h4
(17 0-0-0!? has the idea of meeting 17...Wd8
with 18£>e4±) 17...h5?! (17...Wd8 18h5#xf6
19 exf6 h6 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 Ixh6 Ixf6 <*>) 18
g4 #d8 19 gxh5 #xf6 20 exf6 gxh5 21 Igl
<4>h8 22 0-0-0 lb8 23 £rf3 ± Godena-Naumkin,
Forli 1995.
14£>xf7
Better than 14 #h5 0-0 15 £>a5 #a4 16 £>b3
hxg5 17 0-0Wf4(17...c418£>d4c5 19b3cxb3
20 £>xb3 lTh4 21 #xh4 gxh4 22 £>xc5 Ha7
followed by ...Ic7 is also good) 18 £>xc5 #xe5 19
£id3 #d4 20 #xg5 f6 21 #g6 e5 ? Gallagher-
Vaganian, Calvia OL 2004.
14...#xf7
14...*xf7 15 £>a5 #b5 also looks like a
relevant idea.
15 0-0 0-0 16 #d2 ±d7 17 £>a5
± Yudasin-Drasko, Tbilisi 1985.
B4)
6 Ae2 (D)
This is White's most common move at the
moment. White develops his bishop but does
not place it in danger of possible attacks from
Black. While White of course would like to
castle next, depending on circumstances he might
choose to manoeuvre his knight around to e3
first.
6...f6
This is how Vaganian has played recently,
which is enough to persuade me to consider it
the main line. Other moves:

3...£hc6 AND MINOR 3RD MOVES
187
b31) 12 b3 £V7! and now Black is doing
well after both 13 £>e5 c5! 14 Ab2 Ab7 15 Af3
#c7, Marinkovic-Drasko, Sveti Sava 1994, and
13 Ab2 Ab7 14 Scl £>e4 15 Ic2 £>g6 16 g3
We7, Lobron-Drasko, Sarajevo 1984.
b32) 12 a3!? a5 13 #c2 seems to be White's
best idea, avoiding the ...£\e7-g6 transfer from
above, as 13...£te7 is now well met by 14 c5!.
Speelman-Drasko, Moscow OL 1994 instead
continued 13... Ab7 14ldl (14b3!?) 14...«fe8,
and now Drasko gives 15 cxd5 exd5 16 £\f5 as
promising for White.
7 exf6 (D)
a) 6...b6 7 0-0 Ab7 8 lei Ae7 9 £rfl £>a5
10 c3 c5 11 Ad3 £>c6, Prusikhin-Rustemov,
Morso 2002, ought to be somewhat better for
White. There are several ways for White but
Black retains a solid, although slightly
passive, position. Maybe 12 g3, intending h4, is
best.
b) 6...Ae7 7 £>fl (D) and now:
bl) 7...f6 8 exf6 Axf6 9 £>e3 £>b6 10 £>g4
#d6 11 0-0 Ad7 12 a4 ± Psakhis-Drasko,
Sarajevo 1981.
b2) 7...b6 8^e3i.b7 9a3^cb8 10c4dxc4
11 Axc4 Aa6 12 b3 c6 13 #c2 Axc4 14 bxc4
£>a6 15 0-0 0-0 16 Ab2 ± L.Milov-Prusikhin,
2nd Bundesliga 2001/2.
b3) 7...0-0 8 £>e3 f6 9 exf6 £>xf6 10 0-0
Jtd6. Black has lost a tempo by spending two
moves to get his bishop to d6, but White has also
lost some time manoeuvring with his knight.
After 11 c4 b6 we have:
«•!
JAM-.. «
„B^BAB
SiP ^P A IIP ^P
wm 'wifc"""'#
m it«
7...#xf6
To justify the knight on c6, this makes most
sense in order to gain time by attacking d4.
White's advantage is more significant after
7...£>xf6 8 0-0 Ad6 9 c4! and now:
a) 9...0-0 10 c5 Af4 11 Ab5 Ad7 12 lei
#e8 13 Axc6 Axc6 14 £tfl £>e4 15 Axf4
Hxf4 16 £}g3 with a solid positional plus for
White, Short-Vaganian, Naestved 1985.
b) 9...b6 was Timman's idea against Khal-
ifman in Reykjavik 1991 to avoid the unpleasant
further advance of White's c-pawn. However, it
only walks into another problem: 10 cxd5! exd5
(10...£>xd5 11 £>e4 is very good for White) 11
Ab5 Ad7 12 Iel+ (12 Axc6 Axc6 13 Iel+
might be even better, as on 13...£te4 Black can
hardly expect to survive 14 #c2 Ab7 15 £>xe4
dxe4 16 Sxe4+) 12...£>e7 13 Axd7+ #xd7 14
£>e5 Wf5 15 #a4+ *f8 16 £rf 1 and White was
better.
8 £>fl (D)

/**
The French: Tarrasch Variation
With this White brings the knight around to
e3 and thereby also attempts to prevent Black's
freeing break ...e5. This was allowed in Kor-
neev-Sebestyen, Zalakaros 2003 where 8 £\b3
Ad6 9 0-0 0-0 10 Ag5 Wg6 11 Ah4 e5! 12
dxe5 £\dxe5 gave Black a good position since
13 Wxd5+ Ae6 14 Wdl Wh6 is very fine
compensation.
s J
8...id6
The game Epishin-Vaganian, Reggio Emilia
1991 took a slightly unusual course: 8...b6 9
£>e3 Ab7 10 0-0 Ae7 11 c3 Wf7 12 b4 Af6 13
a4 a6 14 £>g4 h5 15 £>xf6+ gxf6 16 £>h4 £>e7
17i.a3^c8 18b5±.
8...e5 is premature in view of 9 £\e3!, when
9...e4 10 £>xd5 fti6 11 ix4! exf3 12 0-0 gave
White a splendid attack in Panchenko-Kovtun,
Briansk 1978.
9£>e3
White could also develop his bishop first but
this seems to be no particular advantage: 9 JLg5
Wf7 10 £>e3 £>f6 11 0-0 £>e4 12 Ah4 0-0 with
roughly equal play, Ortega-Guimard, Havana
1962.
9...0-0 10 0-0 Wg6
10...£>b6 11 £>g4 Wg6 12 h3 e5 13 £>gxe5
Axe5 14 dxe5 Axh3 15 £>h4 We4 16 f4 Ad7?!
(16...Wd4+ 17 Wxd4 £>xd4 18 Ad3 Ag4 19
Ae3 £>c6 is unclear) 17 Ad3 Wd4+ 18 *hl g6
19 c3 Wc5 20 Wei ± Dolmatov-Yurtaev, Sochi
1978.
11 c4
11 g3 can be a slightly unpleasant move to
meet. White wants to play £\h4 and get a grip
on the centre with f4. After ll...&f6 12 £>h4
We8 13 f4, an example of this transformation in
practice was Mnatsakanian-Vaganian, Erevan
1980: 13...£>e7 14 £>g4 £>e4 15 Ad3 £>f5 16
£tf3 c5 17 c3 b6 18 We2 Ab7 19 Sel Wh5 20
£>f2 £>xf2 21 Wxf2 cxd4 22 cxd4 Sae8 23
Wg2 ±. Black was considerably more
successful with his play in Acs-Varga, Budapest 1998
when after 13...Ad7 14 Sel £>e7 15 ki 1 c5 16
c3 cxd4 17 cxd4 £>e4 18 a3 Sc8 White had to
be careful to hold the balance. Obviously White
can easily improve on this. For starters, the
move Sel turned out to be not at all useful.
ll...£>f612c5i.f4(D)
W
M mm
13£>c2
13 Sel Ad7 14 £tfl Axel 15 Sxcl £>e4 16
Ad3 Sf4 17 £>g3 Saf8 18 a3 h5! is an example
of the hidden prospects of Black's position. The
attack develops with surprisingly quick effect:
19 b4 a6 20 a4 h4 21 b5 axb5 22 axb5 hxg3 23
fxg3 Sxf3 24 gxf3 £>xd4 25 Sf 1 Wh6 26 fxe4
£tf 3+ 27 Sxf 3 flxf3 + Kindermann-Hug, Beer-
sheba 1985.
13...£>e4 14 Axf4 Sxf4 15 £>cel
With the above note in mind, this is a more
cautious approach but also one that sets few
problems for Black. The game Rublevsky-Vag-
anian, Poikovsky 2005 ended with a draw after
15...£>g5 16 g3 £>xf3+ 17 £>xf3 Ad7 18 Ad3
Wg4 19 Ae2 Wg6 20 Ad3 Wg4 21 Ae2 V2-V2.

Index of Variations
Chapter Guide
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3 &d2
Now:
B: 3...£)f6
C: 3.,.Others
A)
4 exd5
4 £>gf 3 - Chapter 6
Other moves - Chapter 6
After 4 exd5:
4...#xd5 and now:
a) 5 £>gf3 cxd4 6 Ac4 #d6 7 0-0 «^f6 8
£>b3 £>c6 9 £>bxd4 £>xd4 10 £>xd4 -
Chapter 1
b) All other lines - Chapter 2
4...exd5 and then:
a) 5 £>gf3 £>c6 6 Lb5 - Chapter 3
b) 5 £>gf3 £>f6 6 Lb5+ &d7 - Chapter 4
c) 5 Lb5+Ld7 - Chapter 4
d) All other lines - Chapter 5
B)
3 ... £>f6
4 e5
Other moves - Chapter 10
4 ... £>fd7
Other moves - Chapter 10
5 Ld3
5 f4 - Chapter 9
Other moves - Chapter 10
6 c3 £>c6
Now:
7 £>e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 £>xf6 10 £>f3
Ld6 11 0-0 - Chapter 7
7 £>gf3 - Chapter 8
All other lines - Chapter 10
C)
3... Jle7 - Chapter 11
3...a6 - Chapter 12
3...£te6- Chapter 13
Other moves - Chapter 13
1: 3...C5 4 exd5 Wxd5 Main Line:
10 ^xd4
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 #xd5 5
£>gf3 cxd4 6 &c4 #d6 7 0-0 £tf6 8 £>b3 £>c6
9 £>bxd4 £>xd4 10 £>xd4 14
A: 10..Ad7 74
B: 10...a6 77
Bl: llc3 77
B2: llb3 79
B3: 11 Ab3 27
B4: Hlel2Jll...#c7 12 &b3 24
B41: \2..Adl 25
B42: 12.. Ad6 26
2: 4...Wxd5: Deviations from the
Main Line
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 #xd5 30
A: 5 dxc5 JO
B: 5 £>gf3 32 5...cxd4 6 &c4 32
Bl:6...#d8 32
B2: 6...#d6 33
B2l:lWe2 33
B22: 7 0-0 36 7...£>f6 8 £>b3 £>c6 37
B221:9lel37
B222: 9 #e2 37
B223:9£>bxd4 39

190
The French: Tarrasch Variation
3: 4...exd5: The Old Main Line,
5...^c6 6 Ab5
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 £>gf3
£>c6 6 Ab5 47 6...Ad6 7 dxc5 Axc5 8 0-0
£ie7 9 £>b3 43
A: 9...Ab6 43
B: 9...i,d6 46
Bl: 10 l,xc6+!? 46
B2: 10 c3 48
B3: 10Ag5 49
B4: 10 £>bd4 51
B5: 10 fiel 52 10...0-0 52
B51: ll.fi.g5 5J
B52: 11 ±d3!? 55
4: 4...exd5: Systems with ...Jtd7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5
A: 5 ±b5+ l,d7 58
B: 5 £>gf3 £>f6 6 Ab5+ ±d7 67 7 Axd7+
£>bxd7 8 0-0 JLe7 9 dxc5 £>xc5 62
Bl: 10 ^d4 62
B2: 10 £>b3 63
B3: 10 lei 66
5: 4...exd5: Deviations from the
Main Lines
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 68
A: 5 dxc5 68
B: 5 ±b5+ 69
C: 5 £>gf3 77
CI: 5...c4 72
C2: 5...<£>c6 73 6 Ae2 £>f6 7 0-0 ±d6 8 dxc5
±xc5 9 £>b3 Ab6 74
6: 4 ^gf3 and Other 4th Move
Alternatives
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 c5 75 4 £>gf3 75
A: 4...£tf6 75
B: 4...£>c6 76
C:4...cxd4 77 5 £>xd4 77
CI: 5...£>c6 78
C2:5...£_f6 80
7: 3...£>f6 Main Line: 110-0
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £id2 £>f6 4 e5 £>fd7 5 ±d3
c5 6 c3 £>c6 7 £>e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6
£>xf6 10£>f3Ad6 11 0-0 84
A: 11...0-0 84 12 ±f4 Axf4 13 £>xf4 £>e4 85
Al: 14 g3!? 86
A2: 14 Wcl 88
A3: 14 £>h5 90
A4: 14 £>e2 92
B: ll...#b6 93
Bl: 12 Af4!? 94
B2: 12 £rf"4 96
B3: 12 ^c3 97
B4: 12b3 707
C: ll...Wc7 70J
CI: 12 g3 103
C2: 12±g5 705 12...O-O705
C21: 13lcl705
C22: 13 ±h4 106
C3: 12£>c3 709
8: 7 ^gf3
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 £>f6 4 e5 £>fd7 5 ±d3
c5 6c3£>c6 7£>gf3 772
A: 7...f6 772
B: 7...cxd4 773
C:7...ffb6 775 8 0-0 775
Cl:8...cxd4 775
C2: 8...g6 776
D:7...g6!?777
9: Maintaining a Big Centre: 5 f4
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 5M6 4 e5 £>fd7 5 f4
720 5...c5 6 c3 £>c6 7 £>df3 727
A: 7...#a5 727
B: 7...cxd4 722 8 cxd4 722
Bl:8...£fo6 722
B2: 8...f5 723
C: 7...Wb6 724
CI: 8 g3 725 8...cxd4 9 cxd4 725
Cll:9...±b4+725
C12: 9...Ae7 728
C2:8h4!?729
C3: 8 a3 732

Index of Variations
191
10: Deviations from the Main Lines
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 £>f6 134 4 e5 £>fd7
134
A: 5 £>gf3 135
B:5±d3 736 5...c5 6c3 736
Bl:6...b6 736
B2: 6...<£>c6 737 7 £>e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 138
B21:8...<£>b6 738
B22: 8...*b6 739
B23: 8...f6 739
B231:9&f4!?740
B232: 9 exf6 742
B2321:9...<£>xf6 742
B2322: 9...#xf6 143
li: 3...±e7
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 ±e7 145
A: 4 c3 745
B:4e5!?747
C:4±d3 749 4...c5 5dxc5 750
Cl:5...£ld7V50
C2: 5...£tf6 757 6 #e2 £>c6 7 £>gf3 752
C21:7...±xc5 752
C22: 7...a5 753
C23: 7...£fo4 754
D:4£>gf3 756 4...£tf6 756
Dl:5±d3 756
D2: 5 e5 757 5...£tfd7 6 ±d3 c5 7 c3 £>c6 8
0-0 758
D21:8...ffb6 758
D22:8...g5!?759
D23: 8...a5 767
12: 3...a6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 a6 763
A: 4 c3 763
B:4£>gf3 764 4...c5 764
Bl:5c3 764
B2: 5 dxc5 765
B3:5exd5 768 5...exd5 768
B31:6dxc5 769
B32:6±e2 772
B321:6...cxd4 773
B322: 6...c4 773
13: 3...^c6 and Minor 3rd Moves
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 £>d2 777 3...<£>c6 778
A:4c3 778
B: 4 £>gf3 780 4...£tf6 5 e5 ^d7 780
Bl:6c3 787
B2: 6 £>b3 782
B3:6±b5 784
B4: 6 ±e2 786

This book continues the coverage of the French Defence that was begun by
Pedersen in The Main Line French: 3 ^hc3. It is essential reading for all those who
play the French, and for those who meet it with the popular and flexible Tarrasch
Variation.
The Tarrasch Variation provides a stern test for the French Defence, and has
always been a favourite of strategically-minded players, such as Michael Adams
and Anatoly Karpov. By putting his knight on d2, White seeks to give his opponent
little scope for counterplay, and in many of the traditional lines ends up with a
slight positional advantage that can prove extremely difficult to neutralize.
This has led to Black developing various sharper approaches, which complicate
the play considerably at the cost of greater risk Notable among these lines are
systems with 3...^f6 where Black sacrifices material to gain the initiative, and the
modern main line 3...c5 4 exd5 ftcdS, where Black keeps his pawn-structure
healthy at the cost of some tempi. To get the most out of these lines as either
colour, thorough up-to-date knowledge is essential, and this book supplies it in
abundance.
Steffen Pedersen is an international master from Denmark who scored a
grandmaster norm when he was 16, and played in several World and European
junior championships. He was joint winner of the Hampstead Grandmaster
tournament in 1998, achieved his second grandmaster norm at the Aars get2net
Cup in 1999, and won the Danish Championship in 2004. Pedersen has written
several highly-regarded opening books, with subjects including the Dutch
Defence, Sicilian Scheveningen, Benko Gambit and the Semi-Slav
Other titles from Gambit Publications include:
The Main Line French: 3 <£>c3
Steffen Pedersen
French: Advance and Other Lines
Steffen Pedersen
How to Beat 1 d4
James Rizzitano
Win with the London System
Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic
The Nimzo-lndian: 4 e3
Carsten Hansen
Gambit Publications Ltd is:
Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM
Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM
Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM
For further information about Gambit Pub
send an e-mail to: info@gambitbooks.cor
http://www.gambitbooks.com
The English Attack
Tapani Sammalvuo
Understanding the Leningrad Dutch
Valeri Beim
A Complete Guide to the Grivas Sicilian
Efstratios Grivas
The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian
Yuri Yakovich
The Queen s Indian
Jouni Yrjola and Jussi Telia
£16 99 $24 95
ISBN 1 1D11A3 4T A