Leningrad [A81 & A87−89]

Written by GM Glenn Flear & GM Neil McDonald

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzppzp-+p0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPP+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

The Leningrad nearly gained public acceptance in the 80s, but ... not quite. Like its
relatives, the Leningrad lives in that odd space, openings that no one really prepares for
because they aren't quite popular enough, and don't really scare one enough. At the same
time, these openings always annoy you when you face them, and you always wonder why
you don't know more about them. On top of this familiar (go on, admit it) feeling, the
Leningrad is exceptionally annoying because of its chameleon properties. Naming some
unifying themes can be done, but may be less useful than listing all the forms the defence
may take.
Like all forms of Dutch, White can usually gain a lasting advantage if he achieves
the advance e4. This results in pressure on the e−file, exposure of the Black king position,
and an increase in space controlled. In the Leningrad, White must beware that this advance
does not allow terrific counter−pressure against f3, with ...¥g4,...£h5 and rooks piling up
on the f−file. In lines where Black delays the advance of his e−pawn, he is usually best
advised to leave it there as long as possible. Even in positions where Black has an optically
powerful centre — say after White has played dxc6, and Black has a centre: c6, d6, e7, f5,
outnumbering White's c4, e2, f2 — moving the e−pawn or trying to set this pawn centre in
motion very often means creating a sea of weak squares trailing behind. The other more or
less constant feature of a Leningrad is the ever present danger of the e6−square becoming a
fatal weakness for Black.
The Leningrad made its comeback thanks to plans involving the move ...£e8. This
sometimes threatens ...e5, sometimes expansion with ...h6,...g5 and ...£h5. It may even aid
in the counter−thrust ...b5 on the other flank. Black may simply run through his repertoire
of useful moves:...c6,...¤a6−c7,...¥d7 and then react. Sometimes Black plays ...c5 and both
players prepare breaks with their b−pawns, on b4 and b5 respectively. Dolmatov made a
living playing ...c6 and ...e5 with positions similar to King's Indians. There are lines with an
early ...¤c6, which have yet another type of flavour.
Confused yet? There are no quick and easy recipes for either side of the Leningrad.

All the games given in blue can be accessed via ChessPub.exe, simply head for their
respective ECO code.

2
 Contents

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzppzp-+p0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzPP+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

4 c4
4 ¤f3 ¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b4 (6 b3 d6 7 ¥b2 ¤a6 8 ¤bd2 Nd2 versus Leningrad [A81]) 6...d6 7
¥b2 b2−b4 versus Leningrad [A81]
4 c3 ¥g7 5 £b3 c2−c3 versus Leningrad [A81]
4 ¤h3 Nh3 versus Leningrad [A81]

4...¥g7 5 ¤f3
5 ¤c3 0-0 6 ¤h3 Nh3 with c2−c4 v Leningrad [A86]

5...0-0 6 ¤c3 d6 7 0-0 £e8

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤a6...Na6 in Leningrad Mainline [A87]

7...c6 7 Nc3 c6 Leningrad [A88]

3
7...¤c6 7 Nc3 Nc6 Leningrad [A89]

8 d5
8 ¤d5 7 Nc3 Qe8−not 8 d5 [A87]

8...¤a6
7 Nc3 Qe8 8 d5 [A87]

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go
straight to that section.
Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

4
 b2−b4 versus Leningrad [A81]

Last updated: 14/01/03 by Glenn Flear

1 d4 f5 2 ¤f3 ¤f6 3 g3
If White intends b2−b4 and Bb2, it is probably most accurate to delay it until after the
fianchetto of the King's bishop. Playing it at once gives Black more options, for
example 3 c4 g6 4 g3 ¥g7 5 b4 0-0 6 ¥b2 c6!? A flexible approach by Black. He
prepares Na6 and Nc7 and reserves the possibility of either d7−d5 with a Stonewall
set up or d7−d6. If White had began with Bg2 and Nc3 rather than b2−b4 and Bb2
he could now have swapped plans with d4−d5 to stop Black playing this move− in
the actual game position this would leave White looking fragile on the long diagonal
a1-h8. Note also that because White has already played Bb2 he can no longer answer
d7−d5 with Bf4 putting the bishop on a more active square than b2. However, as it
turns out in the illustrative game the pawn stays on d7 until it is captured on the last
move of the game!
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zpp+pzp-vlp0
9-+p+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zPPzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PvL-+PzP-zP0
9tRN+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¥g2 ¤a6 8 a3? Much more active was 8...¤c7 9 ¤bd2 b5! Now we see the damage done
to White's position by his tame eighth move. Black is able to eliminate the important
c4 pawn which guards the d5 square. Vasovski,N−Guliev,S/Ohrid MKD 2001.

3...g6 4 ¥g2
Or first 4 b4 when White lays an early claim to a space advantage on the queenside, 4...¥g7
5 ¥b2 d6 6 ¤bd2 0-0 7 c4 e5! A counterattack in the centre seems logical as White's
king has yet to castle. 8 dxe5 ¤g4 9 £b3 ¤xe5 (9...dxe5? fails to 10 h3 as there won't
be any compensation for the loss of the e−pawn.) 10 ¥g2 ¤bc6 11 0-0 White has the

5
 slightly more active pieces but in Black's camp any soft spots are easily covered,
Dautov,R−Beim,V/Stuttgart GER 2002.

4...¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b4

Probably this is the best time to play b4, when Black can't respond with an immediate ...e7−
e5.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9P+P+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Instead 6 c4 d6 7 b4 e5 8 dxe5 ¤fd7 was played in Vladimirov−Malaniuk, Tashkent 1987.

6...d6
Interesting is 6...¤e4!? 7 c4 e6 when White cannot stop the fianchetto of Black's queen's
bishop, which should solve his opening problems.
Other ideas include 6...¤c6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+n+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9P+P+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 a3 A typical Speelman move, refusing to be provoked forwards until the time is definitely
right. 7...¤e4 8 ¥b2 d6 9 ¤bd2 e5 Now a forced sequence clarifies the situation in
the centre. 10 b5 ¤xd2 11 £xd2 ¤xd4 12 ¤xd4 exd4 13 ¥xd4 £e7 14 e3 White
seems to have secured a small advantage but Black evacuates the diagonal a8−h1
and then exchanges light squared bishops, after which most of the danger
evaporates. 14...a6! First he gets rid of the need to defend the a pawn. 15 a4 ¦b8 16

6
 ¦a3 b6 17 ¦c3 ¢h8 18 ¦b1 axb5 19 axb5 ¥b7 20 ¥xb7 ¦xb7 21 ¦a1 White has the
open a file and pressure against c7, but he has no obvious pawn breaks to increase
his advantage. The heavy pieces on their own cannot strike a fatal blow.
Speelman,J−Reinderman,D/Escaldes 1998.
Alternatively 6...d5 As Black is never afraid of a hole on e5 in the Dutch, it is natural to
grab some space in the centre. 7 ¥b2 c6?! but why create a target for White's b
pawn? 8 ¤bd2 ¥e6?! 9 ¤g5 ¥f7 10 c4! ¤a6 11 b5! White's pawns smash through
the underdefended Black queenside. Mikhalchishin,A−Kavcic,U/Ljubljana 1997.

7 ¥b2 h6
A characteristic move in such situations. Black wants to put his queen on f7 without being
disturbed by Ng5.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vl-0
9-+-zp-snpzp0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zP-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PvLP+PzPLzP0
9tRN+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Instead 7...c6 8 c4 ¤a6! The knight will be excellently placed on c7. 9 £b3 ¤c7 10 ¤c3
¢h8 11 d5 Bareev succeeds in making this advance look dubious. 11...e5! 12 dxe6
¥xe6 13 b5 Now the c pawn becomes very weak. 13...cxb5 14 ¤xb5 ¤xb5 15 £xb5
a6! 16 £b4 a5 17 £b5 ¦c8 18 ¦ac1 £e8! 19 ¤d2 £xb5 20 cxb5 b6 21 a4 ¤d7 22
¥xg7+ ¢xg7 The endgame is bad for White because of the weakness of the a pawn,
which can be attacked by Nc5 or in some cases Bb3. Van Wely,L−
Bareev,E/Frankfurt GER 2000.
Meanwhile 7...£e8 allows White to keep the advantage e.g. 8 c4 ¤c6 (8...¤g4?! 9 ¤c3 e5?
this fails in this particular move−order, Lautier,J−Reinderman,D/Mondariz
Balneario 2000 8...e5!? this looks playable and is a refreshing change, 9 dxe5 ¤g4
Shchekachev,A−Santo Roman,M/Montpellier 2000) 9 b5 ¤d8 10 £b3 ¤e4 Instead
11 ¤bd2 ¤xd2 12 ¤xd2 e5? This is a gruesome move which leads to the destruction
of his own pawn chain. 13 c5+ £f7 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 ¤c4 exd4 16 ¤xd6 £xb3 17
axb3 ¥e6 18 ¦fd1! The beginning of a well calculated tactical sequence in Khenkin−
Genocchio, Capodano 1999.

8 c4 £e8 9 ¤c3

7
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vl-0
9-+-zp-snpzp0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zPPzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PvL-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Or 9 ¤bd2 g5 10 e3! f4? Black assumes that the assault on the f file will give him the
initiative, but he is quite wrong. The attack White now gets against e7 and the
weakness created on Black's light squares is much more significant. 11 exf4 gxf4 12
¦e1 fxg3 13 hxg3 ¥g4 14 £c2 ¤c6 15 b5 ¤d8 16 ¤h4! Threatening 17 Ng6. Now
we see trying to attack on the kingside has been a catastrophe for Black. Van
Wely,L−Guliev,S/Ohrid MKD 2001.

9...£f7
The white pawn on c4 cannot be supported by its comrades and the bishop on g2 is also a
long way from its defence. Nor can it advance to c5 without leaving a light square
hole on d5. Therefore it is very logical for Black to begin a siege of this pawn.

10 £b3 c6 11 ¦ad1 ¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+nzpqvl-0
9-+pzp-snpzp0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zPPzP-+-+0
9+QsN-+NzP-0
9PvL-+PzPLzP0
9+-+R+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

12 b5?
This pseudo attacking move just leads to trouble. The immediate
12 d5! was necessary and should maintain a slight advantage for White.

8
12...¤b6 13 bxc6 bxc6
The opening of the b file exposes the white queen to attack and also clears the way for Ba6
attacking c4 in some variations.

14 d5 c5!
This fixes the weakness on c4.

15 ¤b5 ¥d7 16 ¥a1 ¦ab8 17 ¦b1 ¤e4 18 ¥xg7 £xg7

All Black's minor pieces are excellently placed whereas the white bishop on g2 is inert.
Therefore it is no wonder that White finds himself outgunned in the battle on the b
file. Bates−Conquest,S/4NCL Birmingham ENG 2000.

9
 c2−c3 versus Leningrad [A81]

Last updated: 03/04/02 by Neil McDonald

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 c3
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzppzp-+p0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

4 ¤h3 d6!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zp-+p0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zPN0
9PzPP+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

(4...¥g7 5 c3 ¤a6!? A rather unusual move. I didn't want to adopt a rigid structure with d7−d5
and so decided to test out the idea of preparing c7−c5. 6 ¤d2 c5 7 d5 d6 8 ¤f4 ¤c7 9 h4
0-0 10 e4 fxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¥f5 12 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 13 a4 £d7 14 0-0 ¥e5 15 ¥e3 Tyomkin told me
after the game that he had provoked the exchange sacrifice as he believed it to be
unsound. Instead 15...¥xf4 16 ¥xf4 ¥h3 It is a slight paradox that the exchange of
bishops should be welcome to Black as White's bishop doesn't appear to be doing
much on g2. On the other hand, the bishop on g2 is restricting Black's active play as

10
 it becomes a monster if he ever tries e7−e6. It is also defending d5 and besides in
this instance it is the prelude to a strong exchange sacrifice. 17 c4 ¥xg2 18 ¢xg2 ¦xf4!
The point of this sacrifice isn't to mate the white king−Black's attacking resources
aren't strong enough. Instead he hopes to use threats against the white king to
demolish White's entire pawn structure. Tyomkin,D−McDonald,N/Oakham ENG
2001 ) 5 c3 c6 6 ¤f4 This is too soon. Instead
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-zp-+p0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-sN-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

(6 ¤d2 ¥g7 7 £b3 d5 8 ¤f4 e6 9 h4 ¤g4! This subtle move overprotects the h6 square in
anticipation of the further advance of White's h pawn. 10 ¤f3 0-0 11 h5? This doesn't
achieve the desired aim. 11...g5 12 h6 ¥xh6 13 ¤h3 f4 14 gxf4 gxf4 15 ¤hg1 ¥g7 16 ¤h3 e5!
Black returns the pawn to seize control of the position. Mirzoev,A−
Dzhumaev,M/Abudhabi UAE 2000 ) 6...e5! 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 £xd8+ ¢xd8 9 ¤d3 e4
10 ¥g5 ¢e7! This is the best way to defend the knight as it also moves the king
away from any possible discomfort on the d file should White castle queenside.
Burmakin−Malaniuk,V/Krasnodar 1998.
Another option for White is 4 ¤f3 ¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 ¤bd2 but this is rather old fashioned
play. Instead of fighting for the d5 square with 6 c4 White prepares the advance e2−
e4. However, he is ignoring the fact that Black hasn't yet played d7−d6, and so can
adopt a type of Stonewall in response.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPPsNPzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤c6!? 7 c3?! ¢h8 8 ¦e1 d5! Stopping White's e2−e4 advance in its tracks. 9 c4 ¥e6! 10
c5 An unnatural move which gives Black a freehand to prepare an attack in the

11
 centre with e7−e5. However, White doesn't want to activate Black's light squared
bishop with (10 cxd5 ¥xd5 Here the white knight belongs on c3, which shows that
White was wrong to stick to his original plan when the circumstances demanded a
more flexible approach.) 10...¥g8 11 ¤b3 ¤d7! 12 ¥f4 There is no holding back the
flood. 12...e5! 13 dxe5 ¤dxe5 14 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤d4 £e7 16 ¦c1 g5! The theme:
open the f file and mate the white king! Or if not, then at least entice the white pieces
away from the defence of the queenside .... Bogdanovski,V−Conquest,S/Ohrid MKD
2001.

4...¥g7 5 £b3
This line is irritating (for a human, of course!) as it prevents Black from castling. So to
facilitate castling, Black usually responds by playing ...d5 at some point and setting
up a solid, though perhaps not entirely secure, Stonewall.

5...¤c6
Or 5...c6 Black wants to set up a firm Stonewall in the centre. he does so in the most
favourable circumstances as he hasn't expended a tempo with d7−d6. Korobov,A−
Kim,A/Moscow RUS 2002.

6 ¤f3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+n+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+QzP-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

There are two other moves: Firstly 6 ¤d2 This isn't the best move order as White has less
control over the centre. 6...d5 7 ¤h3 e5!? Black takes advantage of his opponent's
imprecise sixth move to seize space in the centre. Assuming nothing nasty happens
to him before he can stabilise his centre he will have a good position.

12
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-+-vlp0
9-+n+-snp+0
9+-+pzpp+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+QzP-+-zPN0
9PzP-sNPzPLzP0
9tR-vL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 dxe5 ¤xe5 9 ¤f3 ¤c4! 10 ¤f4 c6 11 £c2 ¤e4! Black is in no hurry to castle. First of all
he puts extra pressure on c3 to make b2−b3, driving away his knight, harder to
achieve. 12 ¤d4 This is necessary to prepare b2−b3, but the knight is a target here.
12...£e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 b3 ¤cd6 15 ¥b2 g5! With two vigorous pawn moves Black
drives back the white knights and increases his space advantage. Czerwonski,A−
Grabarczyk,B/Plock POL 2000.
Secondly 6 ¤h3
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+n+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+QzP-+-zPN0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6...e6 7 0-0 0-0 8 ¤d2 ¢h8 9 ¤f3 The knight on h3 makes it hard for White to assert
control of the centre. 9...b6! The fact that Black can make this move with impunity
suggests that White's build up has gone wrong. 10 ¤f4 ¥b7 11 h4 ¤e4 12 ¤g5
¤xg5 13 hxg5 £e7 14 £c2 ¦ae8 15 e4 ¤d8! This all purpose retreat counters the
threat of d4−d5, prepares to exchange bishops to weaken White's light squares on the
kingside and also in some lines prepares to capture the g5 pawn after Nf7.

13
 XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-snrtr-mk0
9zplzppwq-vlp0
9-zp-+p+p+0
9+-+-+pzP-0
9-+-zPPsN-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9PzPQ+-zPL+0
9tR-vL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 exf5 ¦xf5 17 ¥xb7 ¤xb7 18 ¤g2 d5! Black prepares to claim e4 as an outpost for his
knight. 19 ¤h4 ¦f7 20 f4 White was in a dilemma as if he kept control of e4 with
f2−f3 then Black could prepare the e6−e5 break in the centre to activate his bishop.
Mosconi,A−Rodriguez,A/Vicente Lopez ARG 2000.

6...d6
The imperturbable Fritz, on the other hand, is happy to seize space in a conventional
Leningrad manner.
An unusual method for Black is 6...e6!? 7 c4 £e7 8 0-0 d6 9 d5 ¤d8 10 dxe6 ¤xe6 11 ¤c3
0-0 12 ¥e3? A very unfortunate square for the bishop. 12...c6 13 ¦ad1 ¤g4! 14 ¥c1
¤c5 15 £c2 ¤e4 and Black takes control of the centre in Pedersen,N−Van
Beers,E/Brussels BEL 2000.

7 0-0 e5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-+-vlp0
9-+nzp-snp+0
9+-+-zpp+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+QzP-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 d5

14
This doesn't turn out particularly well, but then again I can't see any alternative that exploits
his queen's control of the long diagonal or Black's inability to castle. So maybe
Black has been afraid of ghosts all these years when he felt obliged to play a ...d5
system to allow castling?

8...¤e7 9 c4 0-0 10 ¦d1?

Simply
10 ¤c3 looks better.

10...¤e4! 11 ¤c3 ¤xc3 12 £xc3 a5!

Black stops 13 b4. Incidentally, this move shows that computers can play purely
positionally. It is a restraining pawn move without a tactical variation in sight!

13 £c2 a4 14 ¦b1 f4!

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9+pzp-sn-vlp0
9-+-zp-+p+0
9+-+Pzp-+-0
9p+P+-zp-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzPQ+PzPLzP0
9+RvLR+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This clears the f5 square for either knight or bishop. The computer was doing very
nicely in Anand−FRITZ, FSC Computer Match 2000.

15
 Nd2 versus Leningrad [A81]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by Neil McDonald

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 ¤f3

Or 4 b3 ¥g7 5 ¥b2 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+P+-+-zP-0
9PvLP+PzPLzP0
9tRN+QmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

6 ¤d2 d6 7 ¤gf3 ¤c6 8 0-0 e5? White has played a harmless looking opening and so Black
thinks the moment has come to free his game with this pawn advance. Unfortunately
for him it leads to unexpected trouble. It was necessary to spend one more move
preparing it: 9 dxe5 ¤g4 This is the standard idea, which in most similar set ups
leads to the instant recovery of the pawn. But ... . 10 ¤c4! and Black is struggling to
regain his pawn in Borges Mateos,J−Gonzalez,B/Guillermo Garcia Premier I 2000.

4...¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b3 d6 7 ¥b2 ¤a6 8 ¤bd2 £e8

16
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+P+-+NzP-0
9PvLPsNPzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¦e1
Remarkably, I cannot find any games where White proceeded with this straightforward plan
to execute one of his main ideas in the opening.

9...c6
9...¤e4 looks like a sensible alternative, especially since the possibility of ...c5 might be
nice to have in reserve.

10 c4 h6?!
I don't like this,
10...¤e4 looks like a viable option. In the game, the weakened kingside makes normal
Leningrad reactions a bit difficult − for example Nh4 is often more unpleasant with a
weakness on g6.

11 e4 fxe4 12 ¤xe4 £f7 13 £d2

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zpp+-zpqvl-0
9n+pzp-snpzp0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzPN+-+0
9+P+-+NzP-0
9PvL-wQ-zPLzP0
9tR-+-tR-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

17
A move with many assets − it completes development, prevents any ideas of the Na6
reentering the game via c5 thanks to the pin on the d−pawn, and eyes the queenside.

18
 Nh3 v Leningrad [A81]

Last updated: 14/05/03 by Glenn Flear

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 ¤h3 c6

Kindermann and Beim both recommend 4...¥g7 5 ¤f4 ¤c6! in their respective books. 6 h4
with the central counter (or 6 d5 ¤e5 7 h4 ¤f7 when h4−h5 can be met by ...g5.) 6...e5!
4...d6 5 ¤f4 ¤c6 6 b3 A quiet approach, but not one to be underestimated. Double−
fianchetto lines are a fairly effective way of meeting most lines of the Dutch as the
bishops have influence as and when the centre starts to open up. 6...¥g7 7 ¥b2 0-0 8
¤d2 e5?! A typical response but is it any good? (How about 8...¤xd4! 9 ¥xd4 e5 as a
simple way to equalize?) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 ¥xc6! With the e−pawn en prise Black has
little choice. 10...exf4 11 ¥f3 fxg3 12 hxg3 The early skirmish has cleared to leave
White with an open h−file and an extra central pawn. He thus has an edge and can be
adjudged as winner of the opening discussion. 12...£e7 13 ¤c4?! (13 c4! followed by
Qc2 and 0-0-0 constitutes a reasonable plan and one that I prefer.) 13...¥e6 14 ¥a3
(14 ¤e5 allows an awkward pin after 14...¤e4 etc.) 14...c5 15 £d6 £xd6 16 ¤xd6
¤e4 17 ¦d1 ¥c3+ 18 ¢f1 ¦ad8 (18...¤d2+ 19 ¦xd2 ¥xd2 20 ¤xb7 gives White more
than enough for the exchange: He will pick off a second pawn and retain dynamic
minor pieces whereas Black's rooks don't gel.) 19 ¥xe4 fxe4 20 ¢g2 (20 ¥xc5 leaves
Black with the initiative after 20...¦f5!) 20...¥d4 (The continuation 20...e3 21 fxe3 b6 has
it's points as the extra pawn is nigh on useless.) 21 ¤xe4 ¥d5= Murshed,N−
Dzhumaev,M/Dhaka BAN 2003 (April 2003)

5 ¤f4 d6 6 ¤c3!
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zpp+-zp-+p0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-sN-+0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzPP+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

19
6 h4 e5 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 £xd8+ ¢xd8 9 ¤d3 ¤bd7 10 ¥g5 ¥e7 11 ¤d2 e4 with a good game
for Black who is able to support his central advance, Eingorn−Dolmatov, Moscow
1990

6...¥g7
Black should consider playing 6...e5 immediately e.g. 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 £xd8+ ¢xd8 9 ¤d3 (9
¤h3?! h6 10 ¥d2 ¥e6 11 f3 ¥d6 12 ¤f2 ¤bd7 13 e4 f4 was at least equal for Black in
Atalik,S−Grivas,E, Zonal 1998) 9...e4 10 ¥g5
a) less convincing is 10...¢e7 11 ¤f4 ¢f7 12 f3 exf3 13 ¥xf3 h6 14 ¥xf6 ¢xf6 15 0-0-0
(critical is surely 15 ¤cd5+! cxd5 16 ¤xd5+ ¢g7 17 ¤c7 ¥d6 18 ¤xa8 ¤c6 19 0-0-0 ¥e5 20
¦d5) 15...¤d7 16 e4 ¤e5 with a double−edged struggle in Al.Abdulla−Dzhumaev,
Asian Ch. 2001
b) 10...¥e7! 11 ¤f4 ¢e8 12 f3 exf3 13 ¥xf3 ¢f7 14 ¤d3 ¥e6 15 0-0 h6 16 ¥d2 ¤bd7 17
¦ae1 ¤c5= Berry,J−Gardner,R, Canada 2002.

7 h4 e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 £xd8+ ¢xd8 10 ¤d3

Compared to the previous note White has the extra move h2−h4 and Black ...Bg7. White is
quickly able to exploit this difference.

10...e4
10...¤bd7 is worth considering as the text move doesn't solve the problem of developing
the light−squared bishop anyway.

11 ¤f4
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlmk-+-tr0
9zpp+-+-vlp0
9-+p+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-+psN-zP0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzPP+PzPL+0
9tR-vL-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...¢e7 12 h5! ¢f7

As usual in such positions 12...g5 is met by 13 h6!

20
13 h6 ¥f8 14 ¤h3!
White annexes the g5−square and fixes Black's pawns and keeps somewhat the better of it,
Vallejo Pons,F−Kuczynski,R/Bundesliga 2002/3 (Feb 2003).

21
 Nh3 with c2−c4 v Leningrad [A86]

Last updated: 17/10/02 by Neil McDonald

1 d4 f5
White has two main ways of meeting Nh3. In a nutshell, he can either play Nc6 aiming to
answer d4−d5 with Ne5 when the knight is nicely centralised
or he can play Na6 combined with moves like Qe8 and c7−c6 if appropriate as a
preparation for the e7−e5 break. As will be seen, the e7−e5 advance has to be well
timed: if Black gets it right he equalises comfortably, but if not he may be in serious
trouble.

2 g3 g6 3 ¥g2 ¤f6 4 c4
4 ¤h3 d6 5 d5 White immediately clamps down on the centre.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzp-zp-+p0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zPN0
9PzPP+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

5...c6 6 c4 e5 7 dxe6 ¥xe6 Now play transposes to the standard Leningrad mainline with
7...c6. 8 b3 ¥g7 9 ¥b2 ¤a6 10 0-0 0-0 11 ¤d2 In what follows White has an
extraordinary mental block: he completely forgets that he has a knight on h3!
11...£e7 12 £c2? ¤b4 13 £b1 d5! Black takes advantage of the knight's absence
from the central struggle to free his game. Saurash,K−Dzhumaev,M/Beirut LIB
2000.

4...¥g7 5 ¤c3 0-0

Or 5...d6 6 d5 ¤a6 This is an ambitious scheme of development,

22
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwqk+-tr0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¤h3 e5 (7...0-0 looks safer.) 8 dxe6 ¤c5 9 ¤f4 c6 10 0-0?! (The crux of the matter is 10 h4!
as in Badea−Solonar, Bucharest 1992. Pedersen makes a case for 10...¤g4 as being
OK for Black, for example 11 e4 ¤xe6 12 exf5 gxf5 but I like White's position after 13 0-
0 −Black has weak pawns on d6 and f5 ) 10...0-0 11 £c2 £e7 12 ¦e1 ¥xe6 Having
delayed capturing on e6 for so long, I would have thought Black would take the
chance to play (12...¤xe6 and challenge the white knight on f4. Perhaps he was afraid
of the reply 13 e4!? though 13...fxe4 14 ¤xe4 ¤c5!? 15 ¤xf6+ £xf6 followed by 16...Bf5
looks fine for Black.) 13 ¤xe6? This is a strategical mistake after which Black has
complete equality or more. White's knight was worth more than Black's light
squared bishop as it helped maintain his bind on the centre. Correct was (13 b3 with a
small advantage to White, though Black is solidly entrenched after 13...¥f7)
13...£xe6 14 b3 ¤fe4 15 ¥b2 ¦ae8 16 ¦ad1? After the positional misjudgment on
move 13 here is a tactical blunder. 16...¤xf2! led to a nice sacrificial finish in Ait
Messaoud,A−Van Beers,E/ Brussels BEL 2000.

6 ¤h3
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zppzppzp-vlp0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+-zPN0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQmK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy

6...d6

23
Noteworthy is 6...¤c6!? Black reasons that White will have to respond to ...d6 with d5, or
else ...e5 will equalise easily, therefore the e5 square is sure to become a central post
for his knight. 7 0-0 d6 8 d5 ¤e5 9 b3 c5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-zpPsnp+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+PsN-+-zPN0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 £c2 (Similar is 10 ¥d2 ¥d7 11 £c2 a6 12 a4 and now 12...¦b8?! 13 ¤f4 followed in
Ovsejevitsch−Onischuk, zt 1 9 Ordzhonikidze UKR 2000. This is a standard
position for this line. In the Kachiani game Black is careful to answer a2−a4 with
b7−b6, to rule out White's a4−a5 move, which would take the sting out of his
queenside play with b7−b5. Kramnik also played b7−b6 when in a similar situation.
However, here Black allows a4−a5 both immediately and for the next few moves.
And White turns down the chance! I would be curious to know Onischuk's
reasoning, as a player rated 2637 knows what he is doing!) 10...a6 11 a4 b6 12 ¥d2
¦b8 13 ¦ae1 As Black will sooner or later advance ...b5, it is quite possible that (13
¦ab1 was the better move. After all, there are already enough pieces to force through
the e2−e4 advance
the rook is therefore better deployed on the queenside in preventive measures.) 13...¥d7 14
f4? (Here White is in too much of a hurry. It was better to delay this in favour of 14
¤f4 Black's best plan is probably 14...Ne8! aiming to put the knight on c7, where it
both covers e6 and supports the b5 advance. Chances then remain balanced, though I
suspect White should be able to combine the ideas of Ne6 and e2−e4 to achieve
some advantage.) 14...¤f7 15 e4 fxe4 16 ¤xe4 b5! Now all is well with Black. A
certain light square weakness is beginning to appear in White's position. Kachiani−
Berg, Bundesliga 1999−2000.

7 d5
7 0-0 ¤a6 8 d5

24
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-zPN0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...e5? Premature. He should have made do with a solid move like (8...£e8 which might
transpose to the 7 d5 mainline below.) 9 dxe6 £e7 10 ¥g5! c6 11 e4! In this type of
centre it is a sure sign that things have gone wrong for Black if White can make this
advance without meeting any resistance. In the Leningrad e4 is a key square and
Black should always make sure he has a knight on c5 or a pawn on d5 to challenge
White's control of it! 11...¥xe6 12 ¦e1 £f7 13 ¤f4! Everything is flowing nicely for
White. 13...¤xe4 14 ¥xe4 ¥xc3 15 ¥d5!! A very fine display by White in
Georgiev,V−Heyken,E/Hamburg GER 2000.

7...c6 8 0-0 £e8

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+-zPN0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Bad is 8...¥d7? This move looks plausible as it defends c6 and so frees the knight to go to
a6. But after 9 c5! dxc5 10 £b3! Black is already in serious trouble. Kliewe,H−
Papenbrock,V/Rostock GER 2002.

9 ¤f4 ¤a6 10 ¦e1 ¤c5 11 f3?

This is a serious positional mistake which weakens his dark squares and shuts in the king's
bishop. Black is able to at least equalise with his reply.

25
11...e5! 12 dxe6 £e7!
The delayed recapture on e6 is a very common idea in the 7...Qe8 Leningrad. The e6 pawn
won't run away so Black has time to defend d6.

13 £c2 ¥xe6 14 b3 a5 15 a4
Another weakening pawn move in Nombre Rosario,J−Dias,P/Lisbon POR 2000.

26
 7 Nc3 Qe8−not 8 d5 [A87]

Last updated: 29/07/03 by Glenn Flear

1 ¤f3 f5 2 d4 g6 3 g3 ¤f6 4 ¥g2 ¥g7 5 c4 0-0 6 ¤c3 d6 7 0-0 £e8 8 ¤d5

This is very logical and aggressive: White aims at the c7 square which Black has weakened
with his last move. Now Black has to find a precise sequence to avoid falling into a
bind.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+N+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Or 8 b3 e5 Considered risky by many, it's important to be well−prepared to navigate the

following complications. (The game Flear,G−Prakken,G, Pierrevert 2003 continued
8...c6 9 ¥a3 ¤a6 10 £d3 ¦b8 11 ¤d2 when Black should have played 11...b5! as 12 ¥xc6
£xc6 13 cxb5 £b6 14 ¤c4 £c7 15 bxa6 ¥xa6 yields him adequate counterplay e.g. 16 d5
¦fc8 17 ¦ab1 ¥xc4 18 bxc4 ¦xb1 19 ¦xb1 £xc4 20 ¦b8 £c7 with equal chances.) 9 dxe5
dxe5 10 e4 (Instead 10 ¤d5 ¤xd5 11 £xd5+ ¢h8 was played in Thorsteins,K−
Malaniuk,V/Warszawa 1989.) 10...¤c6 11 ¤d5 £d7 12 ¥a3 ¦d8 13 £c2! which
looks like a very strong pawn offer. (13 exf5 Black seems to be OK after this move
though the position remains unclear. 13...e4 This leads to a very messy position. 14
¤g5 gxf5 15 ¥b2!? ¤xd5 16 cxd5 ¥xb2 17 dxc6 £e7 18 £c2 ¥xa1 19 £c4+ ¢g7 20 cxb7 ¥xb7
21 ¤e6+ ¢f6 22 ¤xd8 ¦xd8 23 ¦xa1 £e5 Now Black's king is exposed and c7 weak, but
his pieces are so active that he can hold the balance. Jankovic,A−
Bromberger,S/Balatonlelle HUN 2000.) 13...¤xe4 14 ¦ad1 ¢h8
a) Critical is 15 ¤f6 which is best met by 15...¥xf6! (15...£f7?! gives White a comfortable
edge after 16 ¦xd8+ ¤xd8 17 ¤xe4 fxe4 18 ¤g5) 16 ¦xd7 ¥xd7 17 ¥b2 ¥e8!? Jakab,A−
Markus,R Subotica 2001 with adequate compensation for the queen.
b) Dubious are both 15 ¤c3?! because of 15...¤d4 16 ¤xd4 ¤xc3! 17 £xc3 exd4 and
c) 15 ¤b6?! as the open a−file following 15...axb6 16 ¦xd7 ¥xd7 is great news for Black.

27
d) 15 ¤e7 15...¤d4 (15...£e8?! when White gets the better of things after 16 ¤xc6 ¦xd1 17
£xd1 bxc6 18 ¥b2 ¥b7 19 £a1 ¦d8 20 ¦e1 c5 21 ¥xe5) 16 ¤xd4 exd4 17 ¥xe4 fxe4 18
£xe4 £g4 (18...£e6 19 £h4 ¥f6 20 ¤xg6+ ¢g7 21 ¤f4 ¥xh4 22 ¤xe6+ ¥xe6 23 gxh4 ¢f6 24
f4 gives Black more or less enough compensation for his half−pawn deficit.) 19 f4
£e6 20 £xe6 (20 £f3 is met by the awkward 20...£a6 hitting the bishop on a3 and
preparing to develop his own queen's bishop.) 20...¥xe6 21 f5 ¥xf5 22 ¤xf5 gxf5 23
¦xf5 Flear,G−Bauer,C/Montpellier 2003 (July 2003) Black has equalized.
8 e3? This passive move is symptomatic of White's whole approach to the game. The d4
square didn't need any more defending so this non developing move merely wastes
time. It also creates a slight weakness on d3 which Mainka will exploit in excellent
style after further inexactitudes from White. Naturally there were all sorts of active
ways to handle the position such as
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-zPNzP-0
9PzP-+-zPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...e5 Already Black is able to seize an equal share of the centre. 9 dxe5? Having
overprotected the d4 pawn White now exchanges it off! This second error
relinquishes control of the c5 and e5 squares and so clears the way for Black's knight
to reach an excellent outpost square on d3. 9...dxe5 10 b3 e4 11 ¤d4 £e7! Black is
in no hurry. First of all he rules out Ba3. 12 ¥b2 White has completed his
development but thanks to his failure to contest key points in the centre he has no
constructive plan. Meanwhile Black has a clear aim: put a knight on the d3 square.
12...c6 This denies the white knight the d5 square. 13 £c1 ¦e8 14 ¥a3 £f7 15 £c2
¤bd7 16 ¦ad1 ¤e5 17 ¥c1 ¥d7 18 f4 Just what Black was hoping for in delaying
Nd3. Oud,N−Mainka,R/Bad Woerishofen GER 2001.
8 ¦e1!? £f7 9 b3 ¤e4 10 ¥b2 ¤c6 (10...¤d7!) 11 ¦c1 e5 12 dxe5! ¤xc3 (12...dxe5 13 ¤xe4!
fxe4 14 ¤g5 £xf2+ 15 ¢h1 with excellent compensation, Filippov−Potapov, Elista
2001) 13 ¥xc3 dxe5 14 £d5! with a clear advantage for White, Freitag,M−
Beim,V/Austrian tch. 2003 (Feb 2003).

8...¤xd5 9 cxd5 £b5!?

28
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-+p+0
9+q+P+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Or 9...¤d7!? a recent move that has been scoring well. This seems so good that it could put
8 Nd5 out of commission. It's good to see a chess author believing in what he writes!
Kindermann's recommendation holds water here... 10 ¤g5 Very logical− the knight
aims at the undefended hole on e6. 10...¤b6 (Or 10...¤f6 Black keeps the knight on
the kingside, which lessens the effect of an attack by White with h4 and h5
on the other hand the knight on f6 blocks in the bishop on g7, so that White's queen has
freedom of movement without worrying about Bxd4. The question is: where should
she go? 11 £b3 Gonda,L−Markus,R/Budapest HUN 2002.) 11 a4 (11 h4!? With the
black knight so far away from the kingside it makes sense to start a direct attack
there.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-sn-zp-+p+0
9+-+P+psN-0
9-+-zP-+-zP0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPL+0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...c6 Black looks to establish the knight on d5 ... 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 d5! c5 14 a4 ¤c4! ...but when
that option is denied the knight heads for the equally strong e5 square. 15 ¦b1 ¦b8 16
b3 ¤e5 with balanced chances in Lukacs,P−Hoang Thanh Trang/Budapest HUN
2001.) 11...c6 (11...a5 12 h4 ¥d7 13 ¤e6 ¥xe6 14 dxe6 d5 15 £b3 £d8 16 ¥g5 h6 17 ¥f4 ¦f6
led to a Black win in Erdos,V−Antal,Ge. Budapest 2002) 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 d5 c5 14
£c2 (14 ¤e6?! turned out to be premature in the following encounter
14...¥xe6 15 dxe6 ¦b8 16 £c2 £c8 17 ¦d1 ¢h8 18 a5 ¤a8 19 h4 ¤c7 20 h5 gxh5 21 ¦a4 ¤xe6
Zaremba,An−Pixton,A USA Jch. Dallas 2002 and Black was much better as White's
attack failed to impress.) 14...¦b8 15 ¥d2 h6 16 ¤e6?! ½-½ Komarov,D−

29
 Kindermann,S Clermont−Ferrand French tch. 2003 (16 ¤h3 however is unclear.)
16...¥xe6 17 dxe6 £c8 still looks better for Black.

10 ¤g5 h6!
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vl-0
9-+-zp-+pzp0
9+q+P+psN-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

This is more accurate than 10...c6?! for example 11 e4 (Or 11 a4 £b6 12 a5 and Black's
position was crumbling after 12...£xd4 13 £b3 c5 14 ¤e6 ¥xe6 15 dxe6 ¤c6 16 £xb7 ¤b4
17 £xe7 in Wells,P−Tozer,R/4NCL, Birmingham ENG 1999.) 11...fxe4 12 ¤xe4
£b6 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 d5 ¢h8? (Black wants to seize the initiative and so avoids the
solid 14...c5 ) 15 ¤c3! ¥a6?! The consistent move, but it just seems to lead to the
destruction of Black's position. 16 ¦e1 £xf2+ 17 ¢h1 Black has won a pawn, but
how is he going to deal with the threats of 18 dxc6 or 18 Rxe7? He finds an
ingenious method to stay in the game. 17...¤d7!? 18 ¦xe7 ¤e5 19 ¤e4 ¤d3 This is
the clever idea. Both the knight and queen are immune from capture. Unfortunately
for Black White also has an attack. 20 ¦xg7! ¢xg7 21 ¥d2! This cold blooded
development leaves the black king fatally exposed. Achang,A−Jaghubov,E/St
Petersburg RUS 2000.
Instead 10...¤a6!? I had regarded this move as inferior to the alternative 10...h6, but Black
achieves a lot of dynamic play, 11 h4 c5 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 a4! an improvement over
(13 d5 Flear,G−Santo Roman,M/St Chely d'Aubrac FRA 2002) 13...£b6 14 d5 c5 15
h5 Flear,G−Wall,G/Torquay Bch. 2002.

11 ¤h3

30
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vl-0
9-+-zp-+pzp0
9+q+P+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zPN0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The knight can also go forwards when 11 ¤e6 ¥xe6 12 dxe6 d5! is best play for Black.

11...e5!
This breaks White's bind on the centre before he has time to play 12.Nf4 or 12. e4.

12 dxe6 ¥xe6 13 ¤f4 ¥f7 14 a4 £b6 15 a5 £b5 16 £a4 £xa4 17 ¦xa4 c6 18

¦b4
Now how is Black going to defend b7 against capture?

18...g5 19 ¤d3 ¥h5!

The key move− Black clears the f7 square with gain of time.

20 ¦e1
Here a draw was agreed. Black is at least equal in Horvath−Hoang Thanh Trang/FSGM
February 2000.

31
 7 Nc3 Qe8 8 d5 [A87]

Last updated: 20/05/03 by Glenn Flear

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 ¤f3 ¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 ¤c3 £e8

'This line is still the most fashionable in the Dutch.'

8 d5
When White clamps down on the centre in the Leningrad a hard tussle is always in
prospect.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤a6
Or 8...a5 Black wants to put the brakes on White's queenside expansion with b2−b4. This
approach is recommended by Kindermann.

32
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+qtrk+0
9+pzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9zp-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

a) or 9 ¤d4 ¤a6 10 b3 ¤c5? A very natural move but it turns out to be a serious positional
mistake. Instead correct was the semi−waiting move (10...¥d7) 11 ¦b1 ¥d7 12 e3 (12
a3 c6 13 b4 axb4 14 axb4 ¤ce4 with double−edged complications, Mikhalevski−Zhang
Zhong,/Tan Chin Nam Cup 2002) 12...c6 13 ¥b2 ¦c8 14 ¥a1 g5 15 f4 Not wanting
Black to unleash a timely ...f4, so White first fixes matters over there. 15...¤g4 16
¦e1 £g6 17 b4!?² Hansen,C−Dirr,U/Koenig Plauen GER 2002 Opening the b−file
for the rook, but before the pressure proves effective White must do something about
the black knight on c5.
b) 9 ¤e1 ¤a6 10 ¤d3 £f7!? An unusual move (keeping most options open), but by no
means a bad one. More normal is (10...c6 and if 11 e4 then 11...e5) 11 ¦b1 (Not
dangerous is 11 ¤f4 e.g. 11...¤c5 12 ¥e3 ¤fe4 13 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 14 ¥d4 g5 15 ¥xg7 £xg7 16
¤d3 b6 17 £c2 ¥d7 18 e3 ½-½ Lukacs−Anka, Budapest 1994) 11...¥d7 (Or 11...¦b8 12
b3 (a bit slow, 12 a3 as in the game is more testing) 12...h6 13 ¥b2 g5 14 £d2 £h5 15
¤b5 ¥d7 16 ¤d4 b6 17 a3 ¤c5 and Black had no worries in Campos Moreno,J−Zhang
Zhong, Cap d'Agde 2000) 12 a3! The natural plan of queenside expansion seems to
create problems for Black.
b1) 12...c6! for instance 13 ¤a4 (or 13 b4 axb4 14 axb4 ¤c7) 13...cxd5 14 ¤b6 dxc4! with
excellent chances for the exchange.
b2) 12...¦ab8?! In the Leningrad after d4−d5 Black always has to decide between the
timing of ...c6 and ...e5 and here I feel that he chooses the wrong one. Better is 13 b4
axb4 14 axb4
b2a) 14...b6?! is not refuted by 15 ¦a1 due to Black obtaining a fine game after (15 ¥b2! e5
16 ¦a1) 15...¤e4! 16 ¦xa6 ¤xc3 17 £c2 b5 The problem with 14...b6 is shown up
after 15 Bb2! e5 16 Ra1 when the knight is very badly placed on a6.
b2b) 14...c6! is still the right idea!
b2c) 14...e5? Positionally this is dubious on the queenside. Instead 15 b5 ¤c5 16 ¤xc5
dxc5 17 b6! Chabanon,J−Koch,J/Besancon FRA 2003 (April 2003) Guaranteeing
the better structure for White.
c) 9 ¥e3 Fairly well−known since it was employed once by Kramnik against Bareev. 9...h6
(9...¤a6 has been a popular choice. Here's a recent example where Black obtained a
reasonable game: 10 £d2 ¤g4 11 ¥f4 ¤c5 12 ¤d4 ¥d7 13 h3 ¤e5 14 b3 ¤f7 15 ¦ad1 c6
Horvath,P−Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest 2003) 10 ¤b5 ¤a6 11 £d2 ¤e4!?
Provoking complications, but at the cost of a pawn. (The sharp 11...c6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13

33
 £xa5 ¥d7 14 ¤a7 c5 15 £xa6 £b8 of Jelen,I−Zhang Zhong Bled Ol. 2002 should have
been followed up by 16 ¤e5 ¦xa7 17 ¤xd7 with balanced chances. Otherwise
11...¤g4!? 12 ¥d4 e5 13 dxe6 £xe6 doesn't look bad for Black either.) 12 £xa5 ¥xb2 13
¥xh6 ¥xa1 14 ¥xf8 ¥f6 15 ¥h6 with a double−edged struggle in prospect,
Hebden,M−Koch,J/Clermont−Ferrand French tch. 2003 (May 2003)
d) 9 ¦b1 White prepares a queenside fianchetto. 9...¤a6 10 b3 ¥d7 11 ¥b2 ¤c5 12 e3 c6
White's quiet opening play has allowed Black to equalise without any trouble.
Perhaps Mikhail Gurevich couldn't quite bring himself to attack his beloved
opening? Gurevich,M−Mainka,R/Frankfurt GER 2000.

9 ¦b1
A direct and powerful idea. White intends to swamp Black on the queenside with b4, Be3,
and c5. Black responds correctly by attacking d5, but this facilitates the creation of a
white passed pawn on the queenside.
Here also 9 ¥e3!?
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+qtrk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-vLNzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9...c5!? 10 dxc6? I don't like this move which gives up his space advantage and allows the
black centre to become mobile. White should only make this concession if he is
ready to strike a telling blow against either the pawn on d6 with c5 or the pawn on
c6 with b4 and b5. Since White has made no preparatory moves for either plan, and
neither can he do anything active along the h1-a8 diagonal, it is easy to conclude that
he has made a faulty decision. 10...bxc6 11 ¦c1 c5! Black rules out any idea of a c5
pawn thrust by White. 12 £d2 ¦b8 13 b3 ¤c7 14 ¥h6 ¥xh6 15 £xh6 e5! Black's
unrestrained pawns now conquer a lot of space in the centre. Hovhanisian,M−
Dzhumaev,M/Linares ESP 2000.

9...c5

34
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+qtrk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-zpP+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9+RvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Instead 9...c6 10 b4 ¥d7 11 ¥e3!? White's idea is simple. He wants to contest control of the
long diagonal with Bd4, or maybe Qd2 and Bh6. Meanwhile, if Black centralises his
queen's rook with Rd8, White simply takes the a7 pawn. 11...¤c7 Black has to tread
carefully here. 12 £d2 ¤g4! 13 ¥d4 ¥h6 14 e3 e5 15 dxe6 ¤xe6 16 c5 After this
Black has a solid centre and no more worries about a weak d pawn. Vigus,J−
McDonald,N/London League 2000.
Also playable is 9...¤c5 10 b4 Against other moves Black has time to play a7−a5 and
solidify his knight on c5. 10...¤ce4 11 ¥b2 e5! 12 dxe6 ¥xe6 13 ¤d2 ¤xd2 14
£xd2 ¥xc4!? 15 ¥xb7 ¦b8 16 ¥g2 ¦xb4! This looks too risky. However Black has
calculated that his light squared bishop will become very powerful after the
forthcoming exchange sacrifice. Twyble,M−Gayson,P/Birmingham ENG 2001.

10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4 ¥d7

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+qtrk+0
9zp-+lzp-vlp0
9n+pzp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9+RvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...¦b8 12 a3 c5 13 b5 ¤c7 14 a4 ¥b7 15 ¥b2 £f7 16 £b3 White consolidates his

queenside majority, but this is the signal for Black to get things moving elsewhere,
see Antic,D−Gelashvili,T/Korinthos GRE 2002.

12 a3

35
White has three alternatives.
12 £a4? This isn't recommended. 12...¤c7 13 £a5 This queen expedition doesn't really
achieve anything. Meanwhile Black is gearing up for an attack on the kingside.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+qtrk+0
9zp-snlzp-vlp0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9wQ-+-+p+-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9+RvL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤e6 14 e3 Another passive move: 14...g5! 15 e4 g4 16 ¤h4 f4 Already Black has a

clear advantage as she will be able to make sure the white knight remains stranded
on h4. Bouwmeester,H−Ioseliani,N/ Munich GER 2000.
12 b5 Now a critical line runs 12...cxb5 (Or 12...¤c5 ) 13 cxb5 ¤c7!? (More usual is 13...¤c5
) 14 a4 ¤e4 15 ¤xe4 fxe4 16 ¤d4 d5 17 ¥a3 ¤e6!? 18 ¤b3 ¦f5 19 e3 a6 20 g4!?
The game now becomes incredibly complex. White succeeds in destroying the black
pawn centre and maintains a passed pawn on the queenside, but his kingside
becomes very loose. Ippolito,D−Dzhumaev,M/Ubeda ESP 2000.
12 £b3!? e5?! (12...¢h8 has been played and makes sense.) 13 c5+ d5 14 £a3 ¤c7 15
¤xe5! £xe5 16 ¥f4 £d4 17 ¦bd1 £c4 18 ¥xc7 Cobb,C−Wall,G Telford 4NCL
2003 and White was on top.

12...h6
Black utilises his pawns for immediate action on the kingside. He also prepares the way for
the queen to join the attack on the h5 square. This unsophisticated approach to the
position proves very effective. Instead Mikhail Gurevich has tried the plan of
12...¤c7 13 ¥b2 ¤e6! also aiming for a kingside expansion with ...g5.

13 ¥b2 g5

36
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+qtrk+0
9zp-+lzp-vl-0
9n+pzp-sn-zp0
9+-+-+pzp-0
9-zPP+-+-+0
9zP-sN-+NzP-0
9-vL-+PzPLzP0
9+R+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

14 e3?
This is a routine and pointless move. White had to find an active plan to exploit the
awkward position of the knight on a6. I would suggest the incisive
14 £a4 ¤c7 15 c5!?

14...¤c7 15 £e2
Of course, this is all too slow and passive to disturb Black, who can go about his business
of expanding in the centre without any worries.

15...e5! 16 ¦fd1 e4 17 ¤d4 ¦d8 18 b5 c5 19 ¤b3 f4!

Black seizes the initiative with a pawn sacrifice. Hebden,M−Firman,N/Master Open
Lausanne SUI 2000.

37
 Na6 in Leningrad Mainline [A87]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by Neil McDonald

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 c4
Here we look at lines in which Black plays Na6. Often it is after some encouragement by
White− for example he delays Nc3 or plays Nbd2, when there is less immediate
pressure on Black's centre and so he feels he can afford the luxury of a Na6, c7−c6
and b7−b5 manoeuvre− or perhaps Rb8 and b7−b5. Here are some variations on this
theme:
4 ¤f3 ¥g7 5 c4 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 b3 ¤a6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+P+-+NzP-0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¥b2 £e8 9 ¤bd2 ¦b8 At the risk of making a stupid and ugly suggestion, I would be
tempted as white to play a4−a5 here, simply because allowing ...b5 seems to solve
all of black's problems in rather simple fashion. 10 £c2 b5 11 cxb5 £xb5 12 £c4+
£xc4 13 ¤xc4 c5 White has not had impressive results from this type of position,
and the explanation is probably because he doesn't have much to write home about −
Black has a nice active position and a sturdy central majority. Plachetka,J−
Lutz,C/Batumi GEO 1999.
4 b3 White's strategy over the next couple of moves is aimed at dissuading Black from
playing e5.

38
 XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwqkvl-tr0
9zppzppzp-+p0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-zP-+-+0
9+P+-+-zP-0
9P+P+PzPLzP0
9tRNvLQmK-sNR0
xiiiiiiiiy

4...¥g7 5 ¥b2 0-0 6 ¤f3 d6 7 0-0 c6 8 c4 ¤a6 9 ¤bd2 h6! As his centre has been
restrained, Black utilises his kingside pawns.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zpp+-zp-vl-0
9n+pzp-snpzp0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+P+-+NzP-0
9PvL-sNPzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10 £c2 g5 Perhaps a more precise move order was (10...£e8 11 ¦ae1 £f7 when the black
queen has crossed the e file before there can be any tricks involving e4 and the white
rook on e1. Then) 11 ¦ae1 ¢h8 Whilst Black is probably no more than slightly
worse after this move, it is hardly in the spirit of a daring defence! In a tense position
such as this, with White aiming for a central breakthrough and Black looking for
counterplay on the kingside, a quiet king move is an impermissible luxury. 12 ¥c3!
Ruling out any tricks with Nb4. 12...£e8 13 e4! This breakthrough comes too
quickly for Black, who can only rue the tempo wasted on 11...Kh8 Sharavdorj,D−
Mahjoob,M/Beirut LIB 2000.

4...¥g7 5 ¤c3 0-0 6 ¤f3 d6 7 0-0 ¤a6 8 ¦b1

Another variant of the battering ram approach.

39
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9n+-zp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9+RvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...c6 9 b4 ¤c7!? 10 ¥b2 ¥e6!?

This invites a rather typical explosion where black tries to insist on giving the exchange in
return for a bit of centre and some light squares.

11 d5 cxd5 12 ¤d4 dxc4 13 ¥xb7 ¥f7 14 £a4 e5 15 ¤c6 £d7 16 ¦fd1

White would prefer the a−pawn to the exchange.

16...¤cd5 17 ¥xa8 ¦xa8 18 b5

White has finally settled for being material up, and despite some nebulous compensation,
Black does not really have enough. Ricardi,P−Campora,D/ch−ARG Najdorf mem
1999.

40
 7 Nc3 c6 Leningrad [A88]

Last updated: 13/02/02 by Neil McDonald

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 c4 ¥g7 5 ¤c3 0-0 6 ¤f3 d6 7 0-0 c6 8 b3

XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+PsN-+NzP-0
9P+-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Regarding 8 ¦b1 Jon Tisdall writes: I have to admit that I am rather fond of most white
ideas that revolve around using the b−pawn as a battering ram against the Leningrad,
possibly due to traumatic experiences from my own Leningrad days. 8...¤e4 9 ¤xe4
fxe4 10 ¤d2 d5 11 e3 ¥e6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9-+p+l+p+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9-+PzPp+-+0
9+-+-zP-zP-0
9PzP-sN-zPLzP0
9+RvLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

12 b4 b5 13 cxb5 cxb5 14 a4 bxa4 15 £xa4 ¤d7 16 £a2 ¥f7 17 ¤b3!? ¤b6 (17...e5!? still
seems most logically played at once, when the knight still has the option of
capturing on e5, and the queen might be able to try pressuring b4 from e7 ) 18 ¤a5
Beliavsky−Agrest, Eu Team Ch Batumi GEO 1999.

41
Alternatively White can try to put pressure on the d6 pawn after 8 d5 e5 9 dxe6 ¥xe6 10
£d3 ¤bd7!? 11 ¥f4 ¤b6 12 ¥xd6 ¥xc4 13 £d1 ¦e8 14 ¥e5 ¤e4 15 ¥xg7 ¢xg7 16
¤xe4 ¦xe4 17 £c1 ¦xe2 18 ¦d1 £f6? 19 ¥f1 ¦ae8? (The position looks fairly equal
after 19...£xb2 20 ¥xe2 £xc1 21 ¦dxc1 ¥xe2) 20 ¥xe2 ¥xe2 21 ¦e1 The pin will prove
fatal. A sad outcome for Black but theoretically the opening line looks at least equal
for him. Shipov,S−Rey,G/ICC INT 2001.
Finally 8 ¥f4? This doesn't fit in with White's opening set up. In fact it loses time and
allows Black to immediately think about seizing the initiative.
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnlwq-trk+0
9zpp+-zp-vlp0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+PzP-vL-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤h5 9 ¥d2 The bishop is worse here than on c1, as it interferes with the queen's defence
of the d4 pawn. 9...e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 e4 f4 After this Spraggett strengthened the
attack move by move in Ochkoos,J−Spraggett,K/Toronto CAN 2000.

8...¤a6 9 ¥b2 £e8

Now Black plans ...e5, so White decides to plug the centre.
A very bold alternative for Black was 9...£a5 10 a3 f4 11 gxf4 £h5 as in O'Connell−
Danner, Eu Team Ch Batumi GEO 1999.

10 d5 ¥d7
All White players in the Leningrad Dutch rejoice in the en passant rule. Now of course

42
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+qtrk+0
9zpp+lzp-vlp0
9n+pzp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+PsN-+NzP-0
9PvL-+PzPLzP0
9tR-+Q+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

10...e5 11 dxe6 £xe6 leaves the d6 pawn weak.

11 ¤d4 ¦c8 12 ¦b1 ¤c7 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 b4 e5

An ambitious move. More solid was
14...¤e6

15 ¤b3 £e7?
A natural move, but it gives White just enough freedom of action to mobilise his queenside
pawn majority. Instead
15...£e6! would prepare to answer 16 ¤a5 with 16...d5 with enormous complications.

16 ¤a5! e4 17 b5 cxb5 18 ¤xb5!

Not giving Black the chance to activate his centre after
18 cxb5 d5!

18...¤xb5 19 cxb5 ¥e6

Here 19...d5 20 ¥d4! paralyses the black centre as in the game.

20 ¤c6 £d7 21 ¥d4 a6 22 a4 axb5 23 axb5

The passed pawn is very powerful, but it needs the assistance of the entombed bishop on g2
to force its way through. Therefore White concentrates on freeing his bishop,
whereupon the black position instantly collapses. Damaso,R−Malaniuk,V/Erevan
1996.

43
 7 Nc3 Nc6 Leningrad [A89]

Last updated: 10/11/02 by Glenn Flear

1 d4 f5 2 g3 ¤f6 3 ¥g2 g6 4 ¤f3 ¥g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 ¤c3 ¤c6 8 d5

This is the only challenging move.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+nzp-snp+0
9+-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

If 8 b3 ¤e4! 9 ¥b2 ¤xc3 10 ¥xc3 e5 Black has already fully equalised. 11 dxe5 dxe5 12
£d5+?! A poor plan as White can achieve nothing on the d file. He should have
headed for completely equal endgame with (12 £xd8) 12...¢h8 13 ¦ad1? £e7 14 e4?
This leaves a hole on d4 and weakens his kingside. Stamenkov,V−Minasian,A/Ohrid
MKD 2001.

8...¤e5
A major alternative is 8...¤a5 attacking c4.

44
 XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-zp-snp+0
9sn-+P+p+-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

9 £a4 (Or 9 ¤d2 c5 10 ¦b1 a6 This is a crucial moment− Black has to choose between
counterattacking in the centre with e7−e5 or preparing an attack on c4 with b7−b5.
11 b3 ¥d7 12 a4? This amounts to the loss of a tempo as White cannot stop Black
playing b7−b5. Instead he should think about strengthening the c4 square in order to
prove that the knight on a5 is badly placed. 12...¦b8 13 £c2 b5 14 axb5 axb5 15 cxb5?!
¥xb5 16 b4? White thinks he can equalise by liquidating all the queenside pawns but
he has missed that he is falling into a fatal pin. Maduekwe,C−McDonald,N/MSO
Ron Banwell tournament 2001 ) 9...c5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 c5! This sacrifice, first used
with success by Gelfand in 1994, is still causing Black problems.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zp-+-zp-vlp0
9-+pzp-snp+0
9sn-zP-+p+-0
9Q+-+-+-+0
9+-sN-+NzP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

11...dxc5! This ugly move is virtually forced. 12 ¤e5 ¦b8! 13 ¤c4 (13 ¦d1 £b6 14 ¥e3 ¤g4!
a fine novelty, Erdos,V−Kun,G/Savaria HUN 2002) 13...¦b4 Black has to play
actively. 14 £xa5 ¦xc4 15 £xa7 ¤d5 16 ¥d2 f4! Black's pawn structure is in ruins,
but what do you expect in the Leningrad? He wants to attack! 17 ¦ad1 ¥xc3 18
¥xc3 £d6 19 £a8! ¥e6! Black shows excellent judgment. After this he is
committed to an exchange sacrifice but his pieces achieve tremendous dynamism.
Haba,P−Agdestein,S/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2000.

9 ¤xe5
An interesting sideline is 9 £b3 as in Knott,S−McDonald,N/Match Kent v. Herts. 2002.

45
9...dxe5 10 e4
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-+-snp+0
9+-+Pzpp+-0
9-+P+P+-+0
9+-sN-+-zP-0
9PzP-+-zPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The other critical variation is 10 c5 This has become established as the most dangerous
move. 10...h6 11 £b3 ¢h8 12 ¦d1
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-tr-mk0
9zppzp-zp-vl-0
9-+-+-snpzp0
9+-zPPzpp+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+QsN-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPLzP0
9tR-vLR+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

(Not 12 £c4? This gives Black time to undermine White's centre after which his own
kingside pawns become very mobile. 12...e6! 13 e4 exd5 14 exd5 g5 15 ¥d2 ¥d7 16 ¦fe1 c6!
It is important to prevent 17 c6. Black concedes White a protected passed pawn, but
on the other hand he partially closes the centre. This facilitates his attack on the
kingside. 17 d6 £e8 18 f3 b5! Black's use of his pawns is highly instructive. The b
pawn will soon dislodge White's knight from it's post on c3. This will open the way
for a future e5−e4 breakthrough as the knight will no longer be guarding this
square.) 12...g5 (Or 12...a6 In order to play Qe8 without being hassled by Nb5, though
White's next move prepares to pounce on the weakness created on the a5−d8
diagonal. 13 ¥d2 £e8 With Qe8 before g6−g5 Black is hoping to take the sting out of
White's plan of Na4 and Ba5, as the immediate 14 Na4 can be answered by 14...Bd7
forcing the knight to retreat. However, after White's move in the game he gets to
carry out Na4 and Ba5 anyway. 14 ¦ac1! g5 15 ¤a4 e4 16 ¥a5 Getting the bishop to a5
just in time before Black plays Bd7, as the riposte c5−c6 would no longer work− the
bishop on g2 has been shut in by Black's last move. Pelletier,Y−Vallejo Pons,F/Biel
SUI 2002 )

46
a) If 13 £b4!? e4 14 f3 a5 (Black has to play energetically as 14...exf3 15 exf3 would just be
horrible for him. The game move clears a6 for the rook and forces White's queen to
a less powerful square.) 15 £c4 e5 Black offered a pawn to keep his position active
in Richardson,J−McDonald,N/London League Match 2001.
b) 13 ¥d2 13...a6 14 ¤a4 Jon Tisdall writes: This is by far and away the most threatening
move. Black has been sorely pressed to survive after this.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-tr-mk0
9+pzp-zp-vl-0
9p+-+-sn-zp0
9+-zPPzppzp-0
9N+-+-+-+0
9+Q+-+-zP-0
9PzP-vLPzPLzP0
9tR-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

(Instead 14 ¥e1 £e8 was played in Ortega,L−Rossi,C/Arco ITA 1999 ) 14...e6 (Or 14...£e8!?
Black plans to develop an attack on the kingside with a combination of the moves
Qe8, Qh5, Bh3 and Ng4 but his queenside is collapsing. Who will get in first?
Theory suggests White, but in a practical game Black has serious dynamic chances.
15 ¦ac1! transposing to the note to 12...g5 above: Pelletier,Y−Vallejo Pons,F/Biel
SUI 2002 ) 15 d6 cxd6 16 ¤b6 and White had the initiative in Frois,A−
Dias,P/Lisbon POR 1999.

10...f4
10...¤d7!? An unusual but highly interesting idea. Rather than press on with the attack
Black takes timeout to prevent c4−c5. He also prepares the advance of the f pawn
without having to offer it as a sacrifice. Erdogan,H−Varley,P/Leon ESP 2001.

11 gxf4!
Here 11 b4? is an obvious move− when he was a youngster Karpov made a similar error.
11...g5 However once Black has been allowed to strengthen f4 in this way he is
guaranteed to have a fierce attack. 12 ¥b2 g4 (More straightforward was 12...£e8! In
this variation Black normally plays the move ...a6 almost automatically to rule out
Nb5 before playing his queen to e8. However, the game continuation shows that
Black's attack is so strong that he doesn't need to waste a move on preventive
measures. 13 ¤b5 ¤g4! 14 h3 £h5! 15 hxg4 ¥xg4 16 f3 fxg3 with a winning attack in
Kreminitsky−Rendle,T/Chekhov 2000 ) 13 ¦e1 White lets Black advance f4−f3. If
he thought that blocking the position in this way would lessen Black's attacking
chances he is soon proved wrong. 13...f3 14 ¥f1 h5! Black's pawns just keep on
coming! 15 c5 h4 16 £d2 ¤h7 The winning scheme begins to take shape− Black

47
 wants to play his queen to h5, his knight to g5 and his rook to h6 via f6 or possibly
to h8 after Kf7. Sarakauskas,G−Keskinen,S/Helsinki FIN 2001.

11...¤h5
This line might be in some trouble. An alternative is
11...exf4 12 e5 ¤g4 13 e6 ¤e5 14 £b3 f3 15 ¥h3 g5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+lwq-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-vlp0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+-+Psn-zp-0
9-+P+-+-+0
9+QsN-+p+L0
9PzP-+-zP-zP0
9tR-vL-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

16 ¦e1 (16 ¥xg5!? is a rare customer, probably because it looks like it loses material. It does,
but the resulting position gives white an attack on the kingside, and black isn't
exactly getting much mileage out of his queenside pieces.) 16...g4? (16...£e8 is much
more testing, Black needs the g4 square as a potential home for his knight. After the
game continuation black's attacking chances grind to a halt.) 17 ¥f1 £e8 18 ¤e4 and
White won in Sutkovic,D−Zelic,M/Zadar CRO 1999.

12 fxe5 ¥xe5 13 ¤e2 £d6

XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zppzp-zp-+p0
9-+-wq-+p+0
9+-+Pvl-+n0
9-+P+P+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzP-+NzPLzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy

14 f4! ¤xf4 15 ¥xf4 ¥xf4 16 ¤xf4 ¦xf4 17 ¦xf4 £xf4 18 £d4 e5

An attempt to strengthen Black's play is 18...£g5 but it isn't particularly convincing.

48
19 £c5 b6 20 £c6! £e3+ 21 ¢h1 ¥h3? 22 £xa8+ ¢g7 23 ¥xh3 £xh3
Although a rook down Black hopes he can force perpetual check.

24 £c6!
and it turned out Black didn't have perpetual check in Hernandez,R−Otero,D/ Havana CUB
1999.

49