Countering the Queens Gambot: A Compact (but Complete) Black Repertoire for Club Players against 1.d4

PART I

Typical pawn structures and general ideas

In this first part we will look at the structures and ideas that form the basis of the repertoire. We will start with the famous Carlsbad structure – a structure so rich in ideas that any chess player can benefit from playing and studying it. Then we will look at the important structures that can emerge from another opening system at the core of the repertoire: the Tartakower Variation.

CHAPTER 1

The Carlsbad structure

The move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 ♘f6 4.cxd5 exd5 is usually called the Carlsbad Variation. The name comes from the German name for Karlovy Vary, a Czech spa town. This town was the location for regular world-class tournaments in the 1920s, tournaments in which the said variation was often played and debated on the board.

Chess players understand the Carlsbad pawn structure to mean the following pawn formation:

In addition to structures such as the isolated pawn, the hanging pawns, the Maroczy Bind and others, the Carlsbad structure is one of those typical pawn structures that can arise from completely different openings and therefore occur very often in practice. Knowing the plans and ideas associated with these typical pawn structures is essential for any ambitious chess player.

One rule is that you should attack where the tip of your own pawn chain is pointing, as you have more space on that side of the board. It is precisely this rule that is often used in the diagram above. White’s main plan is the so-called minority attack, in which White sends his b-pawn forward. No matter how Black reacts to b2-b4-b5, he is saddled with one, and in the worst case two, pawn weaknesses on the queenside. For example, if he captures on b5 himself, the d5-pawn becomes isolated and weak; if he allows the capture on c6, he has the weakness of a backward pawn there.

But do not fret, Black has sufficient resources to take the sting out of the minority attack. I will return to this in detail in the section ‘Ideas for defending against the minority attack’. The following section deals with the topic of how Black generates active counterplay on ‘his’ side, the queenside.

Section 1.1: Attacking ideas for Black on the kingside

The following four games illustrate very well Black’s attacking potential and attacking patterns. As a rule, Black first occupies the outpost on e4 (see Games two and three), creates a preponderance of pieces on the kingside and then uses his numerical superiority to strike a decisive blow. Another very typical feature is the knight on the rim on h4, which plays an important role in the attack in the first and fourth examples.

Game 1

Gilles Andruet 2450

Boris Spassky 2565

Germany Bundesliga 1987/88

When the venerable ex-World Champion notched up this brilliant victory, I was forced to cheat a little. The attentive reader will undoubtedly have noticed that the position has not arisen from the Carlsbad Variation of the Queen’s Gambit, but from the Bogo-Indian Defence. However, the way in which the tenth World Champion carried out the attack is very instructive and can be applied correspondingly to the positions resulting from the Queen’s Gambit.

12...♘g6 13.♘e2

The French IM decides to copy his illustrious opponent’s idea: a justifiable decision on this occasion. On g3, the knight will control the important f5-square and protect its own king.

13.h3!? looked tempting, with the idea of preventing the bishop coming to g4 and thus retaining the knight on f3, but with the excellent manoeuvre 13...c6 14.a3 ♘e8!

analysis diagram

Spassky would have revealed the drawbacks of 13.h3. Black’s plan would then be to transfer the knight to d6 (the benefits of deploying the knight on this square will be described in detail in the next section) and move the queen to f6 in order to threaten ...♗c8xh3. Black would then have achieved a good defensive position on the queenside and at the same time a promising attacking position on the kingside.

13...c6 14.♘g3

Here, 14.h3 would have been out of place due to 14...♘e4.

14...♖e8

Boris Vasilievich is pinning everything on planting the knight on e4, which is a very typical plan, but perhaps not the best in this specific position. There were two very promising alternatives in 14...♗g4!? and 14...♘e8!?.

15.♕c5

15...♕d8!

A very important move! Black must keep the queens on the board in this type of position, because his play is aimed at the white monarch, while the white minority attack would function wonderfully in the endgame as well.

16.♘d2?!

Andruet would like to keep the black knight from e4, but the occupation of this outpost was not threatened at all, as the following variation shows: 16.h3!? ♘e4? 17.♗xe4 dxe4 18.♘g5! and then 18...f5 fails to 19.♕c4+ ♕d5 20.♕xd5+ cxd5 21.♖c7 ♖e7 22.♖fc1 when the second player is already in difficulties.

16...♘h4

The proverbial knight on the rim ... is perfectly at home there in this and similar positions! By targeting the squares g2 and f3, the knight sets up threats in front of the goal... er, I mean ‘in front of the opposing king’.

17.b4 a6 18.a4 ♗d7 19.♖b1

Maybe a bit too slow. The hasty 19.b5?! is doubtful as after 19...axb5 20.axb5 cxb5 White cannot capture again: 21.♗xb5? ♖a5 22.♖b1 b6-+, but 19.♕c2! with the intention of occupying c5 with the knight instead of the queen promised the first player somewhat better prospects.

19...♘g4!

This allows the black queen to switch to the kingside and create threats in front of the opposing king.

20.♕c2 g6 21.b5

21.♘b3 was already too slow here: 21...♕g5 22.♘c5 ♗c8 23.♖fe1 (23.b5 axb5 24.axb5 ♕h6 would be a similar sequence) 23...♕h6 24.h3 ♘f6 and threats against g2 and h3 are already hanging in the air. Very weak was 21.h3? ♘xe3! 22.fxe3 ♖xe3 23.♘f3 ♗xh3!! and Black is already attacking ‘for free’ as he has garnered three pawns for the sacrificed knight.

21...axb5!?

Black is faced with the usual dilemma of how to respond to b4-b5. The alternative 21...cxb5!? 22.axb5 a5 certainly came into consideration, the speedy passed a-pawn would compensate for the weakness on d5. But Spassky has no ambitions on this side of the board. His idea is to hold together the queenside and mate on the kingside!

22.axb5 h5!

This pawn could become a dangerous attacking weapon – even though things ultimately turned out differently in the game.

23.bxc6 bxc6 24.♖fe1 ♕f6

24...♘xg2!?, with the idea to actually harass the white king with the h-pawn, was a strong alternative, although in this case White can equalise neatly with a countersacrifice: 25.♔xg2 h4 26.♘f3 (but not 26.♘gf1? ♕g5) 26...hxg3 27.hxg3=.

25.♘df1

The white defence would have been easier to conduct after 25.♖e2, but objectively speaking the move in the game is fine.

25...♖a3!

The white queen is overloaded; 26...♖xd3 followed by 27...♕xf2 is threatened.

26.♖e2

Defends against the aforementioned threat.

26...c5!

The position is still equal, and even though Spassky’s surprising pawn move does nothing to change that... the French player cracks under the increasing pressure and overlooks the main idea of 26...c5!.

27.dxc5?

After 27.h3 c4 28.♗xg6 fxg6 29.hxg4 ♗xg4 30.f3 ♗f5 31.♕c1 ♗xb1 32.♕xa3 ♗d3 33.♖f2, White would still hold, if only just.

27...♘e5!

This is what the push with the c-pawn was about! Spassky wanted the e5-square for his knight! The reason for this will become clear on the very next move.

28.♗b5

28...♕f3!!

What a fantastic move! Accepting the queen sacrifice is forced, its point is the quiet thirtieth move: 29.gxf3 ♘exf3+ 30.♔h1 ♗h3! and it’s impossible to prevent mate on g2.

0-1

Game 2

Ron Henley 2465

Janis Klovans 2530

Biel 1996 (11)

1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.♗g5 ♗e7 6.e3 c6 7.♗d3 0-0 8.♕c2 ♘bd7 9.♘f3 ♖e8 10.0-0 ♘f8 11.h3

11...♗e6!?

One of many possible plans for Black in this position. Also possible in particular was the immediate

11...♘e4!? 12.♗f4 f5 or 11...g6!? with the idea of preparing the exchange of the light-squared bishop: 12.♗h6 ♘h5 13.♖ab1 ♘g7 14.b4 a6 15.a4 ♗f5 16.♗xg7 ♗xd3 17.♕xd3 ♔xg7 18.♖fc1 Prusikin-Stojanovic, Switzerland tt 2016.

12.♖ab1

The standard plan: Henley prepares the minority attack, but the rook move at this point has a small concealed disadvantage.

12...♘e4!?

This move has a tactical justifica­tion despite the blocked e-file, as after a potential general exchange on e4, the white pawn on a2 would be hanging.

13.♗f4N

A typical response and also – when the game was played – a novelty. In this specific case, however, exchanging the bishops would probably have been more precise, as now Klovans exchanges off the bishops anyway, but under even more favourable circumstances.

13.♗xe7 ♖xe7 (13...♕xe7?? 14.♗xe4 dxe4 15.♕xe4+- Bacrot-Tregubov, Fouesnant 2002) and now:

A) 14.♘xe4 dxe4 15.♗xe4 ♗xa2 16.♖a1 ♗d5 17.♗xd5 ♕xd5 18.♖fc1 a6 19.♘e5 ♘e6= Souply-Deforel, cr 2019;

B) 14.♗xe4 dxe4 15.♘xe4 (15.♘d2 f5=) 15...♗xa2 16.♖a1 ♗d5=;

C) 14.b4 14...♘xc3 15.♕xc3 ♖c7 16.♖fc1 ♖ac8= Neverov-Balashov, Perm 1997.

13...♗d6! 14.♗xd6 ♘xd6

And so the knight reaches its dream square. The knight is ideally positioned on d6, as it hampers the minority attack by controlling the b5-square, threatens to block the c-file on c4 and is also ready to take part in the counterplay against the white monarch. You will learn more about this in the section about the ‘Capablanca Formula’.

15.♘a4?!

Too slow. The straightforward minority attack would have been more promising: 15.b4 a6 16.a4 ♕f6 17.♔h2 b5! 18.♘e2 ♘c4. Although White cannot progress any further on the queenside in this position, it would also have been much more difficult for Black to organise his counterplay on the other side of the board than in the game.

15...♕f6

First of all setting up the crude threat of 16...♗xh3.

16.♔h2?

An ineffectual attempt to defend against the aforementioned threat. The ‘active’ knight move 16.♘e5 wouldn’t have solved White’s problems either: 16...♘g6 17.♘xg6 (17.f4 ♗f5 ) 17...hxg6 18.♘c5 ♗f5 . The least unpleasant option was actually the humble retreat 16.♘h2, e.g. 16...♗f5 17.♗xf5 ♘xf5 18.b4 ♘d6 19.♘c5 ♖e7 . Admittedly White is lacking an active plan here, as the minority attack is completely neutralised by the knight on d6, but White’s position should be solid enough to withstand the impending Black attack.

16...♗xh3! 17.♔xh3 ♕h6+ 18.♔g3?!

White presumably overlooked the Latvian player’s next move. More tenacious, although still insufficient, was 18.♘h4 g5 19.g3 gxh4 20.♖h1 (20.gxh4 ♘e4-+) 20...♕f6! (20...hxg3+ 21.♔xg3 ♕g7+ 22.♔f3 ♘g6 23.♖bg1∞) 21.♖bg1 ♘g6 .

18...♖e4!!

Klovans brilliantly cuts off White’s bishop and queen and threatens 19...♘f5#. The alternative 18...♘e4+? doesn’t work so well: 19.♗xe4 ♖xe4 20.♘e5! f6 21.♘c5! and White appears to be holding, although the position is still very complex, of course.

19.♗xe4

Otherwise the threat 19...♘f5+ could not be parried.

19...♘xe4+ 20.♕xe4 dxe4

This was a good time to resign. It’s a mystery to me why Henley dragged out completely futile resistance for another 30 moves.

21.♘d2 ♘e6 22.♖h1 ♕g6+ 23.♔h2 ♘xd4! 24.♘c3

24.exd4 ♕h6+-+.

24...f5 25.♘dxe4 fxe4 26.exd4 e3 27.♖hf1 exf2 28.♖xf2 ♕d6+ 29.♔g1 ♕xd4 30.♖d1 ♕e3 31.♔f1 ♖e8 32.♖f3 ♕e5 33.♔g1 h6 34.♖d7 ♖e7 35.♖xe7 ♕xe7 36.g3 b5 37.a3 a5 38.♔f2 b4 39.axb4 ♕xb4 40.♘e2 ♕xb2 41.♖c3 a4 42.♖xc6 a3 43.♖c8+ ♔h7 44.♖a8 a2 45.♔e3 a1♕ 46.♖xa1 ♕xa1 47.♔f2 ♔g6 48.♔e3 ♔g5 49.♔f2 ♔g4 50.♔e3 ♕e1 0-1

Game 3

Sergey Sergienko 2453

Andrei Kharitonov 2561

Moscow 2004 (2)

1.d4 ♘f6 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.♗g5 ♗e7 6.e3 c6 7.♗d3 ♘bd7 8.♘f3

More usual and more flexible is 8.♕c2, which leaves both options open to the king’s knight... and prevents Black’s next move!

8...♘e4!?

Generally Black castles automati­cally instead of this move, but the thematic occupation of the outpost looks completely logical.

9.♗xe7

The exchange gives Black some time, for example because the knight on e4 is immediately protected by the recapture on e7, so that’s why 9.♗f4!? was also a strong possibility. After for example 9...♘df6 10.♕c2 0-0! 11.0-0 (accepting the pawn sacrifice is much too dangerous: 11.♘xe4 dxe4 12.♗xe4 ♘xe4 13.♕xe4 g5!N (an improvement over 13...♕a5+ played in Pettersen-Jovcic, cr 1958) 14.♗g3 f5 15.♕e5 f4! 16.exf4 g4! 17.♘d2 ♗f6 18.♕h5 ♕e8+ 19.♕xe8 ♖xe8+ 20.♔d1 ♗xd4 and despite the extra pawn White is struggling simply to survive) 11...♗f5 12.♘e5 g6 13.f3 ♘d6 and an interesting battle with equal chances has arisen, Navara-Anton Guijarro, Prague 2020.

The alternative 9.♗xe4 leads to an equal position after 9...♗xg5.

9...♕xe7 10.♗xe4?!

In this position 10.♕c2!? no longer promises much: 10...♘df6 11.♘e5 0-0 12.0-0 ♗f5 13.f3 ♘xc3 14.♗xf5 ♘b5= Mandviwala-Aymard, cr 2012. However, with the premature exchange on e4, White is already in a somewhat uncomfortable position.

10...dxe4 11.♘d2 f5 12.0-0 ♘f6 13.♘c4 0-0 14.♘e5 ♗e6

A strategically interesting position, which is easy to misassess. The knight on e5 looks impressive but is actually not so effective and can be exchanged off at any point. The black bishop is not really restricted by its own pawn chain, firstly because the pawn lever ...f5-f4 is in the air, and secondly because – spoiler alert! – it can enter the game splendidly via c4. On the other hand, of course, Black’s space advantage and the resulting prospects of an attack on the kingside have a role to play. All in all, Black’s chances are already preferable.

15.♘a4 ♖ad8 16.b4

16.♘c5 ♗d5 .

16...♗d5

Of course not 16...♕xb4? 17.♘c5 ♗c8 18.♖b1+-.

17.a3

After this, White’s position is already critical. Stockfish suggests making a real sacrifice out of a sham one: 17.♘c3!? ♕xb4 18.♘xd5 ♘xd5 19.♖b1 ♕e7 20.♕b3 ♖b8 21.♖fc1 with compensation for being a pawn down. But making such a decision at the board is not easy, especially since the need for such a radical measure was not yet apparent.

17...♘d7! 18.♘xd7 ♖xd7 19.♘c3

19...♗c4!

This bishop, which is now in front of the pawn chain, is much stronger than the white knight which has no actual supporting square.

20.♖e1 ♖d6!

The first major piece to switch to the kingside. The rest will soon follow.

21.♖c1 ♖h6 22.h3 ♕g5

23.♔h2?

Already the losing move. Only with

23.♔h1! ♕h4 24.♘e2! was it still possible to put up resistance. The difference between the two moves will become clear in the note to White’s 24th move.

23...♕h4 24.♕d2

Doubly bad: this move offers no real resistance and prevents the following splendid variation from being played on the board: 24.♘e2 ♕xf2! 25.♖xc4 ♖xh3+! (this trick would not have worked with the king on h1!) 26.♔xh3 ♖f6 27.♘f4 ♖h6+ 28.♘h5 g5!! (sending the g-pawn into the battle is the only path to victory) 29.g3 g4+ 30.♔h4 ♕h2+ 31.♔g5 ♖xh5+ 32.♔f6 ♕xg3-+.

24...♖ff6 25.♖h1 ♖fg6 26.♘a4

26...♖xg2+! 27.♔xg2 ♕g5+

The fact that everything works is thanks to the bishop on c4, which guards over the ‘back door’ on f1.

28.♔h2 ♕g4! 0-1

Game 4

Jens Uwe Maiwald 2210

Christoph Singer 2315

Krumbach 1991 (6)

1.c4 e6 2.♘c3 d5 3.d4 ♘f6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.♗g5 ♗e7 6.e3 0-0 7.♗d3 ♘bd7 8.♘f3 c6 9.♕c2 ♖e8 10.0-0 ♘f8 11.♖ab1

I believe that in this position White can only fight for some advantage with the more flexible 11.h3. Unlike after the text move, White can also play in the centre with this plan, e.g. by ♖a1-e1 and ♘f3-e5.

11...a5 12.a3 ♘g6

13.♗xf6

Certainly not an error, but I don’t like this exchange. Although White wins a few tempi to pursue his attack on the queenside by bringing the black bishop to the relatively poor f6-square, giving up the bishop pair seems too high a price to pay.

After 13.b4, Black can play 13...♗d6!, preparing 14...h6, and now:

A) 14.♗f5?! ♗xf5 15.♕xf5 ♖e6 16.♖b3 axb4 17.axb4 b5 . Unlike his colleague on c6, the pawn on b4 is a weakness that must be taken seriously. In Kund-Chopin, cr 2005, White saved the game only with great difficulty;

B) 14.h3 axb4 15.axb4 h6 16.♗xf6 ♕xf6 17.e4 (17.♗xg6?? fxg6-+) 17...dxe4N 18.♘xe4 ♕d8=;

C) 14.♖fe1 axb4 15.axb4 h6 16.♗xf6 ♕xf6 17.e4! ♘h4 18.♘xh4 ♕xh4 19.g3 ♕e7 20.b5 (20.exd5 ♕xe1+ 21.♖xe1 ♖xe1+ 22.♔g2 ♗xb4=) 20...♗h3 21.e5 ♗b4 and Black was completely fine in Brunner-Rosenfeld, Le Touquet 2004.

13...♗xf6