Semi-Slav Defense

Non-Meran Variations
by
1 John Donaldson
IM Jeremy Silman
SUMMIT PUBLISING
Copyright 1988 SUMMIT PUBLISIG
All rights resered. No par of this work may b reproduced or
tansmtted in any for or by any means, electonic or mechani
cal, includng photoopying ad recording, or by any infora
tion storage or retieva system, except as may be expressly
permtted by the 1976 copyright act or in writing from the
publisher.
First printing: Febrary 1988
Request for permissions and republication rights should b
addressed to
SUMMIT PUBLISIG
P.O. BOX 67 A48
LOS ANGELES, CA 9067
805 379-2272
typesetting by: Marianne Zaugg and Summit staf
profng by: National Master John Hillery
The publisher would lie to thank the following for their
assistance:
David Cook, David Gershenson, llene Haber, Marianne Zaugg,
Daniel Doyne, Gwen Feldman, Mark Stem, Sandra Darin, and
Daniel Upton.
RIP
Walden Robrt Cassotto and May Douvan
dedicated to
Gwenn Feldman,
my chess coach
Table Of Contents
A. Table Of Contents
B. Intouction
Chp
1) 6.Bd3 Bd6 Plus 4.N2 Nf6 5.e3 Nb7 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0
0-0 8.e4 e5.
2) 6.Bd3 Bb.
3) 6.Bd3 Be7 Plus 6 ... a6.
4) 6. Qc2 with a) 6 . . . dc4; b) 6 . . . a6; c) 6 . . . Be7; d) 6 . . . Bb4. Also
examined is 6 . . . Bd6 7 .Be2 0-0 8.0-0.
5) 6. Qc2 Bd6 7.Bd2-Taianov System.
6) 6. Qc2 Bd6 7.b3.
7) 6. Qc2 Bd6 7.e4.
8) 6.Ne5; 6. a3; 6.b3; 6.Be2; Plus 5 . . . a6.
9) 4.e4-Marshall Gambit.
10) 4.Nf dxc4- Notebom/ Abraham Def.
1 1 ) 5. Qb3, 5.Qd3, 5. g3 Plus Qc2 Vaiations.
12) Odds and Ends.
Bibliography
Evaluation Key
' +=' equas a slight advantage for White.
' =+' equals a slight advantage for Black.
' +-' equals a clea advantage for White.
'-+' equas a clear advantage for Black.
' ++- ' equals a winning positon for White.
' -++' equals a winning positon for Black.
.`
stands for an even position.
Introduction
The subject of this book, the
Semi-Slav, is characterized by
the moves . . . d5, . . . . e6, and . . . c6
versus the Queen' s Gambit. In
side the reader will fnd complete
coverage of all lines excepting
the Meran [ l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3
c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3
dxc4.] and the Botvinnik system
ll .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4.Nf3
Nf6 5. Bg5 dxc4.] .
The Semi-Slav is an opening
complex which runs the gamut
from tactical play [The Marshall
Vaation: l. d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3
c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4ch.
6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4ch.] to
refined positional stuggles [The
Romih Variation: 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6
3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. e3 Nbd7
6.Bd3 Bb4. ]. In the past such
players as Botvinnik, Kotov,
Najdorf, Reshevsky, and Euwe,
debated its fner points. Today
G.M.'s Noguieras, Yusupov,
Van der Wiel, Flear, and Bisguier
all use it on a regular basis.
One of the beauties of the Semi
Slav is that it can provide Black
with a full tme answer to 1 .d4.
One interesting reperoire for the
defender of 1 . d4 is the following:
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3
dxc4 . . . Abraham's varation.
4.e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4ch . . . Ma
shall variation.
4.e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 a6 . . . Keres-Minev
vaiation.
These three vaiations plus a sys
tem against lines with Qb3/Qc2
would give Black a complete and
interesting answer to 1 .d4 d5
2.c4.
For the White player facing the
Slav and Semi-Slav the task of
obtaining an opening advantage
without having to face an incred
ible amount of analysis [Slav
proper, Meran, ad Anti-Meran.]
is rather daunting. One interest
ing idea favored by Larsen and
Porisch is the move order 1 .d4 d5
2.c4 c6 [2 . . . e6 3. Nc3 c6 4.e3
comes to the same thing.] 3. Nc3
Nf6 4.e3. Now 4 . . . Bf5 fails to
5. cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 [An example
of this is the game Farago
Kuczynski, Polanica Zdroj 1985,
which continued 6 . . . Bc8 7 .f4 Nc6
8.Nf3 e6 9. Bd2 a6 10. Ne5 Nd7
l l .Bd3 Be7 12.0-0 with advan-
tage] . This leaves Black with ei
ther 4 . . . e6 heading into the Semi
Slav or 4 . . . g6 steering ito a Slav
Grunfeld. In this way the entire
Slav Defense is avoided. Thus
with a line against 4 . . . g6 and a
system like 1 . d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3
c6 4.e3 Nf6 5. Nf Nbd7 6.Qc2
White has a way to handle the
Slav/Semi-Slav which combines
economy of learing with some
punch.
By now the reader will have no
ticed that Black has continually
answered with 1 . . .d5, 2 . . . e6, and
3 . . . c6. Actually the second and
third moves are interchangeable.
However 2 . . . e6 has cerain prac
tica advantages. After 1 .d4 d5
2.c4 c6 the move 3.cxd5 takes a
lot of steam out of the game. The
symmetrical pawn structure
promises fewer winning possi
bilities for either side. With 2 . . . e6
Black can answer cxd5 with
. . . exd5-an asymmetical posi
tion. Since Black' s Knight is not
yet committed to . . . Nf6 the posi
tion doesn' t have to tanspose
into a regular Queen' s Gambit
Declined-exchange variation
position. Instead Black can get a
very comfortable game by ex
changing off his bad Queen
Bishop.
A model game for Black is
Inkiov-J usupov, Dubai ( ol) 1986.
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf c6 4. Nc3
Nf6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.0c2 Be7
7.Bg5 g6 8.Bxf6 [On the theory
that Knights are better than
Bishop' s in closed positions.
Also the Bishop on f6 will now b
out of play.] 8 . . . Bxf6 9.e3 Bf5
10.Bd3 Bxd3 1 1 .0xd3 N 12.0-
0 Be7 [To hold up b and to bring
the Bishop to d6 where it will
work on both the Kingside and
Queenside.] 13.Rab1 a5 14. a3
0-0 15.0c2 Bd6 16.b4 axb4
17. axb4 Nb6 1 8.b5 Nc4 19. Ra1
O7 20.bxc6 Oxc6! [For the ' c'
line and the passed ' b' pawn.
Now White' s position is very
diffcult.] 21.e4 Rxa1 22.Rxa1
Nb6 23.Qb3 Rc8 winning a pawn
and eventually the game .
J.Donaldson
J. Silman
Semi-Slav Defene
1
CHAPTER 1 D46/SL8
6 ... Bd6 Semi-Slav
#U
A system of development frst
favored by Chigorin. Black' s
idea i s to play for the advance
. . . e6-e5. To counter this White
usually advances in the center
himself by e3-e4 which produces
a certain amount of simplifca
tion but also gives White
Kingside attacking chances due
to his space advantage. To ac
complish these ams White will
invariably play one of the follow
ing two moves:
A. 7 0-0 B. 7 e4.
. 7 0-0
This has long been considered
imprecise in that it allows Black
the option of answering a later e4
with . . . dc4 as well as . . . dxe4. It
would seem to be more a question
of economy of leaing since
. . . dxc4 lines lead to a clear edge
for White.
7 B 0-0
8 e4 dxc4
For 8 . . . dxe4 see Variaton B.
9 Bxc4 e5
This position has also been
reached via l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3
Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 [A Capablanca
Anti-Meran system] 5 . . . dxc4
6.Bxc4 Nbd7 7.0-0 Bd6 8. Nc3 0-
0 9.e4 e5. However White could
have advantageously avoided
this by 7. Nc3 Bd6 8.e4 when
8 . . . e5 is forced and leads to a
position favorable to White dis
cussed under B in the note to
Black' s seventh move. A better
move order (and one in which he
can safely reach the text) for
2 6 e . Bd6
Black is 5 . . . Nbd7 and only on
6.0-0 does he play . . . dxc4.
10 Bg5
The most active system of devel
opment. Other ties are:
1) 10.h3 exd4 [10 . . . b5?! 1 1 .Bd3
exd4 12. Nxd4 Ne5 13.Bc2 b
14. Na4 c5 15. Ne2+=, Gheor
ghiu-Bohm, Amsterdam 1975.]
1 1 . Qxd4 [ l l . Nxd4 Nc5 12.Re1
Be5] 1 1 . . . Bc5 1 2. Qd3 Nb6
13. Qxd8 Rd8=, Forintos-Paoli,
Miskolc 1963;
2) 10.Re1 exd4 1 1 .Nxd4 Ne5
12.Be2 Bc5=.
# 1 .2
10 MMM Qe7
The alterative is 10 . . . h6- 1 1 .Bh4
Qe7 [ 1 1 . . . Qc7 1 2. d5! cxd5
13.Bxd5 a6 14.Rc1 Qb8 15.Bb3
b5 16. Nd5 leads to a clear advan
tage for White, Loginov-An-
toshin, Yaoslavl 1982.] 12.Re1
Rd8 [Here 12 ... Nb6 would tans
pose back to the main line. The
text is an old suggeston of
Euwe.] 1 3.Bg3 Nh5 [ 1 3 . . . b5
14.Bb3 Bb7 15. Nh4 with the idea
of Nf5; 1 3 . . . Nb6 14.dxe5 Bxe5
15.Bxfch.] 14.dxe5 Bb8! [Typi
cally ingenious Mariotti. Again if
14 . . . Bxe5 15.Bxfch.] 1 5.e6fxe6
16.Bxb8 Rxb8 17.Qc1 b5 1 8.Bfl
e5 19.Nd1 Qf6 20.Ne3 Nf8
21 .Qc5 +=, Gligoric-Mariotti,
Bled-Portoroz, 1975.
11 Re1
The long established main line
but probably not best. Harmless
is 1 1 .d5- 1 1 . . .Nb6 [White man
aged to gain an edge after 1 1. . .h6
12.Bh4 (Better then 12.Bxf6
Qxf6 13.Nd2 Rd8 14. Qe2 Nf8
1 5.dxc6 bxc6 with equaity,
lnkiov-Granda, Zagreb 1987.
White can aso consider 12.dxc6
bxc6 13.Bh4 += but perhaps
Black can play 1 2 . . . hxg5! ?
1 3.cxd7 Nxd7 1 4.Nd5 Qd8-
D.Gurevich.) 12 . . . Rd8 13.Re1
Nf8 14.dxc6 bxc6 15. Qa4+=,
Reshevsky-Bisguier, U. S. ch.
1966.] 12. Nd2 [ 1 2.Bb3 Bg4
13.h3 Bh5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.g4
Semi-Slav Defense 3
Bg6 16.Nh4, left White with
some advantage in the old game
J anowsky-Chigorin ,Budapest
1 896. 12 . . . Bg4 seems to be the
culprit here. As an improvement
Nikitin suggested 12 . . . h6 13.Bh4
g5 14. Bg3 Bg4 in his book on
Chigorin.] 12 . . . h6 13.Bh4 g5
1 4. Bg3 Kh7 1 5. dxc6 bxc6
1 6. Qe2 Bc5 1 7. Kh1 Bd4=,
J. Adamski-Kirov, Prague 1983.
Quite interesting though is
1 1 .Bb3! ?.
sation for the pawn after
1 3 . . . Bxh2ch. 14.Kxh2 Qe5ch.
1 5.f4 Qxd4 1 6. Radl . ] 14. f4
Nxb3 15.Nxb3.
#1 .4
11 && Nb6
The time-honored scheme of
development in this variation.
Black prepaes to develop his
Bishop to g4 and then retur his
Knight to the center. Alteratives
are:
1) 1 1 . ..Rd8 [Similar to Gligoric
:t
Mariotti discussed ealier. The
With this move White antcipates exclusion of . . . h6 and Bh4 makes
Black' s pl an of . . . Nb6, for some difference. Now Bg3 is
. . . Bg4,: . . . and . . . Nbd7. In no longer available for White
O. Rodiguez-Paol, Cienfuegos while Black has to live with his
1973, White quickly obtained a pinned King Knight.] 1 2.d5
clear advantage after 1 1 .Bb3 Rd8 [ 1 2.Bb3 looks better.] 12 . . . h6
12. Qe2 exd4 1 3. Nxd4 Nc5 1 3.dxc6 bxc6 14. Bh4 Rb8
[White has temendous compen- 1 5. Qd2 Nf8 1 6. Bg3 Ng6=,
4 6 ... Bd6
Denker-Bisguier, New York
1986;
2) 1 1 . . .exd4! ? [Considered quite
bad by theory but matters ae not
so simple.] 12.e5 [Here Suetin
gives 12. Nxd4Ne5 1 3. Nf5! Bxf5
14.exf5 +=.] 12 . . . Nxe5 13.Ne4
Nxc4 14.Nxf6ch. gxf6 1 5.Rxe7
Bxe7 1 6.Bh6. This is considered
to be clearly better for White by
theory which cites van Schelt
inga-Taovsky, Helsinki ( ol)
1952, with no more moves given.
I've been unable to locate this
gae score but judging fom
G.Szilagyi-Tamovsky, Wasaw
1949, an evauation of += seems
closer to the mark. There Black
got a playable game after
16 . . . Rfd8 17. Qe2 Be6 18.Rad1
c5 19.b3 Nd6 20.Nh4 Kh8 21 .f4
Rd7. For simar play see Kozma
Minev, Lyon 1955 from Chapter
2, B4;
3) 1 1 . . . Re8 12.Bb3 h6 13.Bh4
exd4 14.Nxd4 Nc5 15.e5 Bxe5
1 6.f4 Bxd4ch. 17. Qxd4 Nxb3
1 8.axb3 Qf8 19.Bxf6 Re1ch
20.Rxe1 gxf6 21 . Ne4 with a
winning position for White,
Zemgalis-Rellstab, Oldenburg
1949.
12 Bb3
A new idea is 12.Be2. In Green
feld - Pachman, Netanya 1986,
White got a slight edge after
12 . . . Rd8 13.dxe5 Bxe5 14. Qc2
Re8 15. Rad1 Bd7 16. Nxe5 Qxe5
17. Bh4.
12
Bg4
Here 12 . . . exd4? is stongly an-
sweredby 13.e5 Bxe5 14. Ne4but
an important alternative is
12 . . . h6. Then White' s best is
13.Bh4as 13.dxe5Bxe5 14.Nxe5
Qxe5 1 5.Bh4can be answered by
15 . . . Nh5! [not 15 . . . Bg4 1 6. Qcl !
+-, Pic-van Scheltinga, London
1951 .]. After 13.Bh4 Bg4 14.h3
Bxf3 15. Qxf3 Gligoric-Pach
man, Budapest 1948 continued
1 5 . . . g5 16.Bg3 Nfd7 17. Qf5 Kg7
18. Rad1 f6=. According to Pach
man White could have obtaned
the advantage by 1 8.dxe5 an
swering 1 8 . . . Nxe5 with 19. Rad1
and 1 8 . . . Bxe5 by 19. f4. Instead
after 15.Qxf3 Black should have
played 1 5 . . . Nbd7 and after 16.d5
a position would arise exactly
similar to Gligoric-Pachman,
Sarajevo 1961, [discussed be
low] except that the White
Bishop stands on h4 instead of e3.
Semi-Slav Defense
5
#1. 5
13 h3
14 Qxf
Bxf
Nbd7
Here 14 . . . exd4?! runs into 1 5.e5!
Ixe5 16.Ne4 Qd8 17. Qf5 Nbd7
1 8.f4 (with the idea of Bc7
19.Bc2) and White has a clea
advantage, Szabo-Honf, Hun
gary (ch.) 1950.
15 d5 h6
Completely mi staken i s
1 5 . . . Bb4?! - 16.Redl h6 17. Bh4
Rfe8 1 8.dxc6 bxc6 19.Ne2! Nc5
20. Ng3 and White is obviously
better, Gutman- Petkevich,
USSR 1973.
16 Be3
Offering only a microscopic ad
vantage is 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17 .dxc6
bxc6 18. Na4. The major altera
tive is 16.Bh4 which is fairly
important since if Black played
. . . h6 a few moves ealier the
Bishop would have undoubtedly
reteated there. By tansposition
ECO reaches this position giving
an evauation of+=. Playing . . . g5
is a very double-edged proposi
tion in view ofNe2-g3-f5. Also to
be avoided is the tap 16 . . . Bc5
1 7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8. Rad1 Bd4
19.Ne2! Bxb2 20.Ng3 +- [with
the idea ofNf5] . ECO seems cor
rect in its evauation.
An interesting new try i s
1 6.dxc6! ?. In Smagin-Flea,
Zenica 1987 White got a clear
edge after 1 6 . . . bxc6 [Or
16 . . . hxg5 17.cxd7 Qxd7 1 8.Radl
with advantage to White.] 17 .Be3
Nc5 1 8.Bc4 Rab8 19. b3 Kh8
20. Rac1 Rb7 21 .Redl .
16 ... cxd5
17 Bxd5
Bc5
18 Bxb7 Rab8
19 Bc6
Rxb2
20 Bxd7 Bxe3
21 Qxe3
Qxd7
22 Rad1 Qb7
23 Nd5
Nxd5?
Here 23 . . . Nh7 was better with
only a tiny edge for White.
24 exd5!
Rd8
6
25 Qxe5
Rb5
26 Qf5!
6 ... Bd6
The point of White's preceding
play as now 26 . . . Rbxd5 27 .Rxd5
Qxd5 runs into 28.Re8ch. After
26. Qf5! White easily won the
ending in Gligoric-Pachman,
Saajevo 1961 . This was an inter
esting game not only for theory
but also for move order as well. It
stared out as a Nimzo-Indian
l . d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.e3
8 Nxe4
9 Bxe4
Nxe4
0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 dxc4 7 . Bxc4- #1. 6
and then tansposed into the
Chi gorin system with 7 . . . Bd6
8. Nf3 Nbd7 9.e4 e5 10. Bg5, the
exta move a3 not playing any
real role.
l
7 e4 dxe4
Pretty much forced as 7 . . . dxc4
8.Bxc4 e5 allows 9.dxe5 Nxe5
[9 . . . Bxe5 1 0. Nxe5 Nxe5
1 1 .Qxd8ch. Kxd8 12. Be2 +-]
10. Nxe5 Bxe5 1 1 .Qxd8ch. Kxd8
1 2. Bxt Rf 13.Bb3 Bxc3ch.
14.bxc3 Nxe4 1 5.0-0 Nxc3
16.Bb2Nd5 [ 1 6 . . . Ne2ch. 17.Kh1
g6 1 8.Rad1ch. Kc7 19. Be5ch.
Kb6 20.Bc4 Nf4 21 .Bd6 is ex
temely good for White-Grun
feld] 17. Bxg7 +-.
A critical juncture where Black
has four major possibilities of
which only the last two hold any
promise. B.l. 9 MMM Bb4cb .. B.2.
9 MMMNf6. B.3. 9 MMM e5. B.4. 9 M0-0.
Experimental is 9 . . . c5. I Sos
onko-Smyslov, Tilburg 1982
White got a slight advantage with
10.0-0 Qc7 1 1 .Re 1 Nf6 12.Bc2
Bd7 13.Ne5 cxd4 14.Qxd4.
l 9 B .. Bb4ch.
10 Bd2 Bxd2ch.
Or 1 0 . . . Qa5 1 1 . 0-0 Bxd2
1 2. Nxd2 0-0 1 3. Re 1 Nf6
[ 1 3 . . . Rd8 1 4.Qc2 Nf6 1 5. Bf3
Qc7 16.Qc3 c5 17.dxc5 Qxc5
1 8.Rad1 +-, Najdorf-Evans,Cuba
1952.] 14.Bf Qc7 15.c5 with a
Semi-Slav Defense
7
clear advantage for White,
Najdorf-Reilly, Moscow 1956.
11 Qxd2 0-0
Perhaps better is 1 l . . .c5 12.0-0
Nf6 13.Bc2 cxd4 14.Nxd4 0-0
1 5.Rfe1 Bd7 16. Rac1 Qc7 17. h3
Rfd8 1 8. Qc3 Rac8 19.Bb1 with
only a slight edge for White in
Cvitan-Ivanovic, Budva 1986.
12 0-0 cS
On 12 . . . Nf6 White has 13.Rfe1
Qc7 14.c5! with a clear advan
tage in Hor-Mariotti, Manila
1 976.
13 Rad1
14 Ng5!
15 dxc5
16 b4
17 Nxe4
18 f4
19 Nd6
20 Qe3
21 NfS!
22 QeS
1 -0
Qf6
g6
Nxc5
Nxe4
Qg7
b6
Rd8
Rb8
Qf6
Berok-Natalucci, Reggio Emilia
1976n7.
9 ...
10 Bc2
Nf6
Bb4ch.
#1 .7
A recent and better ty is 10 . . . b6! ?
with the idea of having the option
to caste on either wing. In Far
ago-Spiridonov, Polanica Zroj
1981 , White was only slightly
better after 1 1 .0-0 Bb7 1 2.Bg5
Qc7 13. Qe2.
11 Bd2 Bxd2ch.
Equaly horrible for Black is
1 1 . . . Qa5. In Barcza-Reicher,
Bucharest 1953, the execution
was swift: 12.0-0 Bxd2 13.Nxd2
0-0 14.c5! [Not as precise is
14. Nf which allows Black to
free himself with 14 . . . c5 1 5.Re1
cxd4 16. Qxd4 Rd8 17. Qh4 h6
1 8.a3 Bd7 19. b4 Qc7, Lau
Sehner, Bad Neyenahr 1987.]
14 . . . Rd8 15.Nc4 Qc7 1 6. Qd3 [Or
1 6. Nd6 +- as in Danner
Weerakoon, Duba (ol) 1986.]
8
6 ... Bd6
1 6 . . . b6 17. Nd6 bxc5 18.dxc5 a5
1 9. Rfd1 Ba6 20. Qf3 Rab8
21 .Rd2 Nd5 22. Re1 Rb4 23.a3
Rh4 24.Bd1, 1-0.
12 Qxd2 0-0
13 NeS Qc7
14 0-0-0 c
15 g4! +-
Szabo-Bisguier, Buenos Aires
1955.
The violent 1 1 .Bg5 f6 1 2. Nxd4
fails to 12 . . . . Ne5 13.Bh4 0-0
1 4. Nf5 Bc5 1 5. Qb3 Be6!
1 6.Rad1 Qc8 =+, Tamanov-Ta
novsky, Szcawno-Zoj 1950.
11 & Qf6
12 Qd1
On 12.Bg5 Black can just equal
ize with 12 . . . Qxd4 1 3. Nxd4 Nc5
[Not 13 . . . h6? on account of
1 4. Bh4 0-0 1 5. Rad1 Be5

16. Nxc6! +-, Honf-Paoli, M-
9 MM. eS
skolc 1963 or 13 . . . Be5?! 14.Rad1
A contnuaton that is better than f6 15. Bc1 Nc5? 1 6.Nxc6! +-,
its reputation.
10 0-0
The ending after 10.dxe5 Nxe5
1 1 . Nxe5 Bxe5 12. Qxd8ch. Kxd8
is only equal.
10 ... exd4
Langeweg-Marovic, Amsterdam
1973. ] 14. Bf5 0-0 1 5. Bxc8
[ 1 5. Rad1 Re8 1 6. Be3 Bf8
17. Bxc8 Raxc8 1 8.Nb3 Na4
19. Rd2 Rcd8=, Ghitescu-Van
Geet, Beverwij k 1 967 . ]
1 5 . . . Rfxc8! [15 . . . Raxc8? 16.Nf5
Ne4 17.Be7! , 1 -0, Taakover
Euwe, Budapest 1921 .] 16.Nf5
Bf8=.
Another ty is 12.Be3 but agan
Black can hold with 12 . . . Qxd4
1 3. Bxd4 0-0 1 4. Rad1 Be7
1 5. Rfe 1 Bf6 1 6. Bf5 Bxd4
17.Nxd4 Nb6 with equality,
Szabo-Paoli, Salgotara 1967.
12 ... NeS
Semi-Slav Defense
9
#1.9
Not 12 . . . Bf4 because of 13. Qe2!
when 13 . . . 0-0 is answered by
14. Bxh7ch. In Sakharov-Sve
shnikov, Lvov 1973, Black an
swered 13.Qe2 with 1 3 . . . Kf8 and
was clealy worse ater 14. Bxf4
Qxf4 1 5.Radl . Besides 12 . . . Ne5
Black also has Taovsky' s sug
gestion of 12 . . . h6! ?.
13 Rel
Not as effective is 1 3. Bg5-
13 . . . Nxf.ch. 14.Bxf Bxh2ch.
15. Kxh2 Qxg5 16. Qd6 Qh6ch.
17. Qxh6 gxh6 18. Rfe1ch. Kf8
19 .Kg3 Be6 20.b3 Rg8ch. 21 .Kf4
Rg5 =, Ostein-Velikov, Pam
porovo 1981 .
13 ... Nxfch.
1 5.Qc2 f6 16. Nd4 Qf, O'Kelly
Yanofsky, Barcelona 1947, and
now 17.Bd2! . Note that 1 3 . . . 0-0
fail s to 1 4. Nxe5 Bxe5
15. Bxh7ch., Gudmundsson-Grz
esik, Chicago 1983.
14 Bxf ch. Be7
15 Be3 0-0
16 Bd4 Qd6
17 c Qd8
Necessay as 17 . . . Qd7 allows
18. Bxg7 while 17 . . . . Qc7 runs
into 1 8.Be5 Qd8 19.Bd6.
18 Qa4
Bf6
19 Rad1
In this position White has an edge
in development and in fact threat
ens to win with 20.Be5. But see
ing that Black has no weaknesses
perhaps it shouldn't mean that
much. Instead of 19 . . . Be6?, as
was played in Reshevsky-How
ard, New York 1955, Black
should play 19 . . . Bxd4 20.Rxd4
Qc7 with equality according to
Horowitz. However White still
looks better after 21 . Rd6 Be6
22.Rfd1 a6 23.Qd4.
On 13 .. Bg4 White keeps the . 9 ... 0-0
advantage with 14. Bg5 Qe6 10 0-0
10
6 ... Bd6
lL
The branching off point for Black
with four possibilities: B.4.a.
10 f: B.4.b. 10 @ Nf6: B.4.c.
10 c: B.4.d. 10 $ h6.
10 N f5?!
An active but suspect system that
shouldn't quite work.
11 Bc2 e5
The new ty 1 1 . . .c5 also favors
White after 12.Re1 [Also good is
12. Qe2 Qf6 13.Bg5. The game
Brenninkmeijer-Sehner, Am
sterdam 1 986, continued
1 3 . . . Qg6 1 4. dxc5 Nxc5? !
15. Rad1 Ne4 16. Rxd6! Nxd6
17. Be7 Nf 1 8.Ba4! b5 19.Bxb5
Bb7 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21 .c5 Be4
22. Bd3 Bxf3 23. Qxf3 Qf6
24. Qe2 f4 25. Be4 Qd4 26.Rc1
Rd8? 27 .c6 Nd6 28.c7 Rc8
29.Bb7, 1-0.] 12 . . . Nf6 13.dxc5!
Bxc5 14.Be3 Bxe3 1 5.Rxe3 Qc7
1 6. Qd4 b6, D. Stauss-Reefsch
lager, London 1984, and now
17.Rael ! Ba6 1 8.b3 or 17 . . . h6
1 8.Ne5 are both +- according to
Kuijf.
B
12 Bg5! Qa5
#1. 1 1
Other ties also fall shor:
1 ) 1 2 . . . Be7 1 3. Bxe7 Qxe7
14.Nxe5 Nxe5 1 5. Re1 Qb4
16.Rxe5 Qxb2 17. Rb1 Qxa2
1 8.Qd2 with great advatage to
White, Benko-Donovan, U. S.
Open 1960;
2) 12 . . . Qe8 13.dxe5 Bc7 [Or
13 . . . Bxe5 14.Re1 Qh5 1 5. Nxe5
Qxg5 16. Nxd7 Rd8 17.f4 Qh4
1 8.Bxf5.] 14.Re1 Nc5 1 5. b4 +-,
Kotov-Cvetkov, Moscow 1947.
13 c5!
Bb8
14 Bb3 ch. Kh8
Semi-Slav Defense 1 1
15 dxe5 Nxe5
If 15 . . . Nxc5 then 16. Be7 Re8
17. Bxc5 Qxc5 1 8.Ng5 g6 19.Rcl
is much better for White.-Bole
slavsky.
16 Re1 Ng6
On 16 . . . Qxc5 White has a beauti
ful win with 17.Rc1 Qa5 1 8.Be7
Re8 19.Rc5 Nxf3 ch. 20.gxf
Bxh2ch. 21 . Kxh2 Qc7ch.
22.Kg1 Rxe7 23. Rxe7 Qxe7
24.Re5 Qf8 25.Qd6-Despotovic.
17 h4 Qxc5
The helplessness of Black' s posi
tion is revealed in the line 17 . . . h6
1 8. h5 hxg5 19. hxg6 g4 20.g3!
Rd8 21 .Kg2! Rxdl 22.Rh1ch.
Rhl 2.Rxh1mate.-Despotovic.
18 h5
Ne5
19 Rc1 Qa5
20 Nxe5
Bxe5
21 Be7
1 -0
Despotovic-Marjan, cor. 1976.
M
10 ... Nf6
Another continuation that is de
servedly out of favor.
11 Bc2 c5
12 Bg5
Be7
Even worse is 12 . . . cxd4 13.Qxd4
Be7 14. Qh4 h6 15.Bxh6! as in
Geller-Papapavlou, Amsterdam
1954.
13 Qd3 g6
14 dxc5 Qa5
15 Qd4
White has a significant
a d v a n t a g e , K r o g i u s
Zeljandinov,USSR1959
l
10 ... c5
An old variation partly rehabili
tated by Larsen.
11 Bc2
Also promising a small White
advantage is 1 1 .dxc5 Nxc5 [or
l l . . . Bxc5 12. Qc2 Nf6 13.Bg5 h6
14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Bxf6 gxf6
1 6. Qc3, Antoshin- Gofman,
USSR 1981 .] 12.Bc2 a 13. Qd4
Be7 14. Qg4 Bd6 1 5.Qd4 Be7
1 6.Qe5! , Keres-Havski, USSR
1974.
In Groszpeter-Flear, Zenica 1987
White tied 1 1 .Be3 but the game
was a rather uninteresting affair
after 1 1 . . . Qc7 12. Qe2 cxd4
13.Bxd4 f5 14. Bc2 e5 15.c5
Nxc5 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.Nxe5
Be6 1 8.Rfe 1 Rac8, 1/2- 1/.
11 ... Qc7
12
6 ... Bd6
#1.1 2
Larsen' s improvement over
1 1. . . b6 which led to a catastophe
in Rubinstein-Bogolyubov, Trib
erg 1924. . . 12. Qd3 g6 1 3.Bh6
Re8 14.Rad1 Bf8 15.dxc5! Bxh6
16.c6 Qf6? 17 .cxd7 1 -0.
Also offering poor prospects for
Black is 1 1 . . . Nf6. White obtained
a clea advantage in Csom-Bel
lon, Malaga 198 1 with 12.B g5 h6
1 3. Bh4 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 g5
15. Rad1 Bxh2ch. 1 6.Kh2 Qxd4
17. Rxd4 gxh4 1 8.Ne5.
12 Re1
On 12. Qd3 Black has 1 2 .. .f5.
Porisch-Larsen, Teesside 1972
continued 1 3.b4 b6 14.dxc5 bxc5
1 5.Rd1 Be7 16.b5 Bf6 17. Rbl .
Now best play would be 17 . . . Ne5
1 8. Qe2 with equal chances.
12 ...
Rd8
13 dxcS
BxcS
14 Qe2 Nf
15 Bd2 b6
16 Rad1 Bb7
17 Be4
Vaganian-Miles, Hastings 1974/
75, White is slightly better.
l
10 &&.
h6
#1 . 1 3.
This multi-purpose move takes
away g5 from the White pieces
while preparing . . . . e5. Despite
the fst player' s lead in develop
ment it's very hard for White to
obtain a tangible advantage.
11 Bc2
The main line preparing for Qd3.
Other ties are:
1) 1 1 .Bd2 e5 1 2.dxe5 Nxe5
1 3.Bc3 Qf6=, Furan-Geller,
Sverdlovsk 1947;
Semi-Slav Defense
1 3
2) 1 1 .Re1 e5 12.Bf5?! [ 1 2.Bc2
tansposes back into the main
line.] 1 2 . . . exd4 13. Qxd4. Now
instead of 1 3 . . . Qf6= Black
should have tied 13 ... Ne5! in
Korchnoi-Bisguier, Lone Pine
1981 . Then 14.Nxe5 [ 14.Rxe5
Bxe5 15.Qxe5 Re8 wins for
Black.] 14 . . . Bxf5 would leave
Black slightly better-Acers;
3) 1 1 .b3 e5 12.dxe5 [White does
no better with 12.Bb2 since ater
12 . . . f5! 13.Bc2 e4 14. Ne5 Nxe5
15.dxe5 Bc5 Black has a slight
edge, Tataev-Gorelov, USSR
1985. However, by 1 2. Bc2!
White can tanspose into the
promising lines gives in the Main
Line note to move 12. ] 12 . . . Nxe5
13.Bb2 Qf6 14.Kh1 Bg4 1 5. Qd4
Rfe8 16. Rae 1 Re6 =, Quinteros
Andersson, Amsterdam 1973.
11 &&& eS
12 Rel
Other attempts for advantage are:
1) 12.c5 Bc7 13.Rel exd4 14.b4
Re8 15. Rxe8ch. Qxe8 16.Qd3
Nf8 17.Bb2 Qd8 18.Re1 Be6=,
Geller-Bacza, Zagreb 1955;
2) 1 2. Be3 Re8 1 3. Re1 e4
[ 1 3 ... exd4 14.Qd3! Nf8 15.Bxd4
favors White.] 14. Nd2 Nf6! =
[and not 14 .. .f5 when 1 5.f3! Nf6
16.BfQc7 17. h3 Bh2ch. 1 8.Kh1
Bg3 19.Bxg3 Qxg3 20. fxe4 fxe4
21 . Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 Bxh3
23.Qf! led to a slightly better
ending for White in Kotov-An
toshin, USSR 1955];
3) 1 2. b4! ? Re8 [ 1 2 . . . Bxb4
13. dxe5 Nc5 14. Qe2.] 1 3.c5 Bc7
[ 1 3 . . . Bf8 ! ? 1 4. Re 1 exd4
1 5.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 1 6.Bb2 Nf6
17. Qxd4Be6 1 8.Re1 Qd7 19. Qf4
+-, Marynov-Sabanov, USSR
1986.] 14.Rel exd4 15. Rxe8ch.
Qxe8 16.Bb2 ad now 16 . . . Nf8
left White with an edge in Mar
tynov-Sorokin, USSR 1986.
However in the game Karolyi
Pekarek, Tbilisi 1986 Black
equalized with16 ... Ne5 17. Qxd4
Nxf3ch. 1 8.gxf3 f6! ;
4) 12. Qd3 #1 . 14
14
6 ... Bd6
[the most serious alterative to
12.Rel.] 12 . . . f5 1 3.c5]
The latest t for White in this
position was seen in the game
Ftacnik-Pekaek, Warsaw 1987
in which 1 3. Qb3 ! ? was
uncorked.The game continued
13 . . . Kh8 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15. Bf4
Nxf3ch. 16. Qxf3 Bxf4 17. Qxf4
Qf6 1 8.Rad1 Qxb2 19. Rd6 Be6!
20.Rxe6 Qxc2 2l . Rxh6ch gxh6
22.Qxh6ch Kg8 23. Qg6ch, l/2-
l/2] 13 . . . Bc7 14.dxe5 [A danger
ous ty for White is Igor Zaitzev' s
suggestion of 14.Bb3ch. Kh8
1 5.Bg5
!
Now 15 . . . Qe8 can b met with
16. Nh4 with the idea of 1 6 . . . hxg5
17. Qh3. Critical is 15 . . . hxg5
16. Nxe5 Qf6 when the following
line appears forced for both sides:
17. Qh3ch. Qh6 1 8. Ng6ch. Kh7
19.Nxf8ch. Nxf8 20.Qxh6ch.
Kxh6 21 . Rfe l . Here with
21 . . .Bd7 Black appears fne since
he can answer 22. Re7 with
22 . . . Bd8 23.Rf Bf6.
In Cvitan-Arkhipov, Tbilisi 1986
White played 14.Qc4ch. but this
only led to equality after 14 . . . Kh8
1 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxe5
17.Bf4 Qd4.] 14 . . . Nxe5 1 5. Qb3.
ch. Kh8 16.Rel
#1. 16
16 . . . Be6! 17.Qxe6 Nxf. ch.
1 8. gxf3 Qh4 19. Bxf5 Rae8
20.Qxe8 Qxh2ch. 2l .Kfl Qh1ch.
22.Ke2 Rxe8ch. 23.Be3 Qh5
24.Bd3 Bf4, 0- 1 , Stauss-Frias,
Lone Pine 1981 ;
5) 12. a3 f5 1 3.c5 Bc7 14. Bb3ch
Kh8 15. Ng5 Nxc5 16. dxc5 Qxd1
Semi-Slav Defense
15
17 .Rxd 1 hxg5 1 8.Bxg5 was
slightly better for White in Ga
gain-Volodin, USSR 1987;
6) 12. b3! ? [This move has been
having good results lately. ]
12 . . . Re8 [In the game Buturin
Sergeev, USSR 1986 Black tied
12 . . . f5! ? when after 13. dxe5
Nxe5 14.Bb2 Qc7 15. Re1 (Also
quite reasonable is 1 5. h3
Nxf3ch. 16. Qxf Be6 17. Rfe1
Rae8 1 8.Re2! Bc8 19.Rae1 Qf?
{ 19 . . . Rxe2 20.Rxe2 b6 keeps
White down to a very small
edge. } 20.c5! with a clear advan
tage for White, Tukmakov
Bareev, USSR 1987. ) 15 . . . Nxf.
ch. 16. Qxf3 Bxh2ch. 17. Kf l
(17. Khl ! ?.) 17 . . . Bf4 1 8.Rad1 c5
19.Qd5ch. Kh8 20.Ba3 White
had a signifcant advantage.
However perhaps Black can
improve by 17 . . . Bd6! 18.Rad1
Bb4 1 9. Re2 Qh2-Silman. ]
13. Re1 [ Perhaps more promising
is 1 3.Bb2! ? e4 14.Ne5 Qc7?!
(14 . . . Nf6! ?. 14 . . . Bxe5! ? 15.dxe5
Nc5. ) 15.f4 Nf6 16. Qe2 b5 17.c5
Bf8 18.g4 +-, Yrjola-Binham,
Helsi nki 1 986. ] 1 3 . . . exd4
14.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 15.Qxd4 Bc5
16.Qc3 [According to Kapengut
1 6.Qh4! ? Qe7 1 7. Bg5 Qe2
1 8.Bd2 Qe7 19. Rel ! is a good
alterative for White. In the game
Slutsky-Antoshin, USSR 1973
White tied 16. Qd3 but Black
equalized after 1 6 . . . Nf8 17.Bb2
f6 1 8.Re1 Qf 19. Nd4Bd7 .] Qe7
17.Bb2 Nf6! [In the game Gel
fand-Rasky, Minsk 1986 Black
played 17 . . . Qf6 but after 18. Re1 !
Qxc3 19.Re8ch. Bf8 20.Bxc3
Nb6 21 .Bd4! Bd7 22.Rxa8 Nxa8
23.Bxa7 White had a winning
game.] 18. Qd3 Qd6 19.Qxd6
Bxd6 20.Rd1 Be7=, Polga-Bis
guier, New York 1987. At the
moment 12. b3! ? is the rage and
certain! y poses a threat to Black' s
system.
After 12.R Black has the
choice between: B.4. d. l.
12 ... exd4 and B.4.d.2. 12 ... Bb4!.
B.4.dl
12 ...
13 Qxd4
14 Qc3
exd4
Bc5
Also played is 14. Qf4- 14 . . . Nf6
15. h3 [Or 15.b3 Ng4 16.Rfl Re8
1 7. Bb2 Re2 1 8 . Rad1 Qe7
19. Nd4 Bd6 20. Nxe2 Bxf4
21 . Nxf4 Be6 22.h3 Nf6 23.Nxe6
fxe6 24.Rde1 Qf 25.Re3 Rd8
16
6 .. Bd6
26.Bc3 c5, 1/2- 1/2, Strauss
Bisguier, U. S. Open 1987.]
1 5 . . . Bd6! Until this move was
discovered Black had done rather
poorly: 1 5 . . . Bb4 1 6.Rd1 Qe7
17.Be3 Nh5?! 1 8. Qd4 Be6 19. a3
Rad8 20.Qe5 Bd6 21 . Qxh5 f5
22.Re1 c5 23.Bxh6, 1-0, Tatai
Ferandes, B udva 1981 . Also
stong for White is 15 . . . Be6
16.b3 (Unsound is 1 6. Qh4 Re8
17. Bxh6? gxh6 18. Rad1 Nd7
19. Qxh6 Qf6 20.Qh7ch. K8
2l .Qh5 Bxc4 22.Rxe8ch. Kxe8
23. Bf5 Nf8 -+, Toth-Campora,
Biel 1983) 16 . . . Bd6 17. Qh4
Nd7? 1 8.Bg5! Qa5 19.Bxh6gxh6
20. Qxh6, 1 -0, F. Olafsson
O' Kelly, Vaa 1962.] 16. Qh4
Nh7! 17. Qd4 [ 17.Qh5 Nf6 is
nothing but 17 .Bd2 should keep a
little something for White.]
1 7 . . . Bb4 1 8 . Rd 1 , 1/2- 1/2,
Donaldson-Bisguier, Philadel
phia 1987.
14 BMM
aS #1 . 1 7
Played as much to stop b4 as to
threaten . . . Bb4. Alternatives
quickly give White the upper
hand:
1) 14 . . . Qb6 15.Be3 a 1 6. a3 a4
17. Bxc5 Nxc5 1 8.h3 Be6 19.Re5
Rfd8 20.Rae1 +-, Romanishin
Vaganian, USSR ch. 1974;
2) 14 ... Re8 15. Rxe8ch. Qxe8
16.b4 Be7 17.Bb2 Bf6 1 8. Re1
Qd8 19.Qd3 g6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6
2l . Re8ch. +-, Euwe-Stumpers,
Holland 1949.
15 a3
Offering nothing is 1 5. Be3 Bb4
1 6.Qd3 Nf6 17.Qxd8 Rxd8
1 8.Red1 =, Belov-Kaidanov,
Moscow 1985 and Levin-Bis
guier, USA 1986. Very interest
ing is Euwe' s analysis of 1 5.Rd1
which goes 15 . . . Qb6 1 6.Rxd7
Bxfch. 17.Kf1 Bxd7 1 8. Qd3
Rfd8 19. Qh7ch. K8 20.Qh8ch.
Ke7 21 . Qxg7 unclear. White
looks to be doing very well after
21. . . Be6 22.b3 Bd4 23.Ba3ch
Bc5 24.Bb2.
15 &&& Nf6
16 Be3 Bxe3
17 Rxe3 ReS
18 Rd1 +=
Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York
Semi-Slav Defense
17
1954/55.
B.4.d.2
12 ... Bb4!
t.
Causing some confusion in
White' s ranks.
13 Qd3! ?
An interesting sacrificial attempt
which just seems to fall short.
With 13.Bd2 White dosn' t risk
anything but any chance of ob
taining a meaningful advantage is
slim. On 1 3.Bd2 Black has
1 3 . . . Bxd2 1 4. Qxd2 exd4
1 5.Nxd4 Nf6 16.Rad1 Qc7 when
neither 1 7.h3 Bd7 1 8.Re3 nor
17. Qd3 Bg4 1 8.f3 Bd7 19.c5
R a e 8 2 0 . b 4 , , Z . P o l g a r
Donaldson, San Francisco 1986,
offers Wite anything.
13 ... fS
14 RxeS NxeS
#1 . 19
15 NxeS
16 Bf4
Bd6
Be6!
A clear improvement over
16 ... Qf6 when White had com
pensation for his material deficit
ater 17.Re1 Re8 1 8.Re3 in
Razuvaev- Chernikov, USSR
1970.
17 Rel?
Already a mistake but i White
has to tae time out for a move
like 17.a3 then Black doesn' t
have much to fear.
17 ... QaS!
18 Bd2 Bb4
19 Nxc6 bxc6
20 Bxb4
Qxb4
21 Rxe6 Qxb2 -+
Nenashev-Gorelov, USSR 1985.
1 8
6 . e+ Bd6
ANNEX
1 d4 d5
2 c4 c6
3 Nt e6
4 e3 Nf6
5 Bd3 Nbd7
6 0-0 Bd6
With 6 . . . dxc4 7 . Bxc4 Bd6 8. Nc3
0-0 9 .e4 e5 play has tansposed
into variation A discussed at the
star of this chapter.
7 Nbd2
#1 .20
The positon in the diagam can
easily tanspose into lines already
considered- 7 . . . 0-0 8.e4 dxe4
[8 . . . dxc4 9. Nxc4! . ] 9. Nxe4 Nxe4
10.Bxe4h6- but also has qualities
all its own. With the White knight
on d2 instead of c3 less pressure is
exered on d5 allowing for a
quick . . . e5.
7 0-0
Here 7 . . . e5 is prematue- 8. cxd5
cxd5 [8 . . . Nxd5 9. Nc4 Qe7 10.e4
N5b6 1 1 .Nxd6ch. Qxd6 1 2.a4!
+-, Speelman-Pieterse, Holland
1984.] 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5
Bxe5 1 1 . Nf3 Bc7 12.Bb5ch. Bd7
1 3. Bxd7ch. Qxd7 1 4. b3 +
Bagirov-Utasi, Juraa 1985.
8 e4 e5! ?
#1 . 21
Here 8 . . . dxe4 would tanspose
into lines already covered. The
text is what gives this variation
independent character.
9 cxd5
cxd5
10 exd5 exd4
11 Ne4
Another ty for White is 1 1 .Nc4.
In Ftacnik-P.Nikolic, Vrsac
Semi-Slav Defense
19
198 1 , a sharp position arose after
1 1 . . .Nb6 12.Nxd4 Nxc4 13. Bxc4
Qc7 14. b3 Bxh2ch. 15. Khl . Now
instead of 15 . . . Be5?! Ftacnik
suggests 15 . .. Ng4 with the se
quence 1 6. Ne6 Bxe6 17. dxe6
Bg1 1 8.extch. Kh8 19. f4Nf2ch.
20. Rxf2 Bxf2 2 1 . Qf3 Bd4
22.Rb1 with equality.
11 ... Qb6! ?
White was better in Botvinnik
Ryumin, Moscow 1931 , after
1 1.. .Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nc5 13.Bc2
Bg4 14. Qxd4 Bxf3 1 5.gxf3 Re8
1 6.Rd1 Re2 17.Bf5. If l l . . .Ne5
[ 1 1 . . . Nc5? 1 2. Nxf6ch. Qxf6
13.Bg5.] 1 2.Bg5 Bg4 13.Be2 is
slightly better for White accord
ing to Botvinnik.
12 Nxd6
13 Nxd4
Qxd6
Qxd5
An imprvement over 13 . . . Nxd5
which quickly landed Black in
great touble in Vidmar-Gilg,
Semmering 1926. After 14.Nf5
Black realized that 14 . . . Qb6 lost
to the beautiful variaton 15.Bh6
Ne5 16.Bxg7 Nxd3 17. Qxd3 Nb4
1 8.Bc3! . Instead 14 . . . Qf6 was
tried but after 1 5. Qh5 h6
16. Nxh6ch. gxh6 17. Qxd5 the
game was effectively over.
14 Be2
In his book, Slavenska Odbrana,
Yugoslav GM Drazen Maovic
suggests that 14.Nf5 gives White
the advantage. After 14 . . . Re8
Black holds equaity on 1 5. Bf4
with 1 5 . . . Ne5 1 6. Bc2 Bxf5
17.Bxf5 Nf3 ch. 1 8. Qxf3 Qxf5.
However with 15. Nd6! White' s
clearly better.
14 ...
15 BgS
16 Bxf6
17 f
18 NbS
1/2- 1/
NeS
b6
Bb7
gxf6
QcSch
A. Mikhalchisin-Nogueiras, Ha
vana 1982.
Conclusion: Despite an old his
tory Chigorin' s 6 ... Bd6 is still
changing. The long held conten
tion that White should play 7 .e4
instead of 7.0-0 appears false.
Against 7.0-0 the Black system
7 . . . 0-0 8.e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5 ap
peas to have major difficulties
with 10.Bg5 Qe7 1 1 .Bb3. As a
result attention has focused on
7.0-0 0-0 8. e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4
1 O.Bxe4 h6 (other moves are dis
tinctly inferior. ). This seemingly
20 6 .. Bd6
innocuous system, pioneered by tion devoid of weakness.Impor
Soviet GM Antoshin, is very dif- ant for Black is the refnement
ficult to crack. White has a slight 10 . . . h6. l l.Bc2 e5 12.Rel Bb4!
lead in development but this is forcing imporant siplifcation,
diffcult to tanslate into anything while White's most promising
meaningful aganst a Black posi- line seems to b l l .Bc2 e5 1 2.b3.
Semi-Slav Defense
21
CHAR 2 DI
6 Bd3 Bb4 Lines
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf
e6 5.e Nbd
7
6.Bd3 Bb4
#2. 1
The move 6 . . . Bb4, first played in
Vidmar-Marshall , Carlsbad
191 1 and later employed by the
Italian Romh at San Remo
1930, seeks to delay e4 by White.
It has been employed on a regu
lar basis by such stong players
as Botinni, Tal, Taimanov,
Evans, and Bagirov. Besides the
Slav move order it can also be
reached fom the Nimzo-Indian
via l.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4
4.e3 0-0 5. Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 Nbd7
7. 0-0 c6 as occurred in Donner-
Pachman, Madid 1960.
Against 6 @@@Bb4 White has: A
7
.a3
and
B. 7.0-0.
7 a3
Many opening authorites con
sider 7 .a3 to be the most precise
opening contnuaton. The rea
soning is that it immediately
forces Black to make a decision
between . . . Ba5 and . . . Bd6. One of
the ideas behind 6 . . . Bb4 is to steer
for favorable versions of
Chi gorin' s 6 . . . Bd6 line. From that
chapter we know that 6 . . . Bd6 7.0-
0 0-0 8.e4 allows Black the exta
opton of 8 . . . dxc4 9.Bxc4 e5.
What Black would like from
6 . . . Bb4 is 7.0-0 0-0 8. a3 Bd6 9. e4
dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5. The exta move
a3 would have little significance.
By playing 7.a3 White hopes to
cut across this.
7 MMM
Bd6
For 7 . . . Ba5 see ' B' . Not at all in
the spirit of this opening is
7 . . . Bxc3ch?! 8.bxc3 0-0 9.0-0
Qc7 10.Nd2 e5 1 1 .Bb2 e4 12.Be2
22 6 Bd Bb
b5 13.cxb5 cxb5 14. a4 bxa4
1 5. c4! +-, Euwe-Alekhine,
World Championship Match
(game 3) 1937.
8 e4 dxe4
As in the analagous lines with
6 . . . Bd6 this is forced. If 8 . . . dxc4
then 9.Bxc4 e5 10.dxe5 Nxe5
1 1 . Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Qxd8ch. Kxd8
13. Bxf Bxc3ch. 14.bxc3 Nxe4
1 5. 0-0 leaves White well on top.
9 Nxe4 Nxe4
10 Bxe4 0-0
Also possible is 10 . . . e5 along the
lines ofReshevsky-Howard from
Variation B3 in the chapter on
6 . . . Bd6.
11 0-0
Noraly the exta move a3 has
little signifcance but the diagram
is an exception. In the late 1960' s,
the late Yugoslav G .M. Petar
Trifunovich, the so-called "draw
Kng' , came up with a very
imaginative idea for Black to
hold the game.
11 e5! ?
12 dxe5
It is also possible for White to
decline the pawn sacrifce. With
12.Bc2! ? a position very similar
to that of B4 fom the chapter on
6 . . . Bd6 is reached-but with the
inclusion of a3, the omssion of
. .. h6, and Black on the move. If
Black can' t avoid . . . h6 then a3
may be a useful tempo stopping
. . . Bb4 in some lines. After
1 2. Bc2 Kasparov-Huebner,
Brussels 1986, went 12 . . . Re8
13.Re1 exd4 14. Rxe8ch. Qxe8
15. Qxd4 Be7 [ 1 5 . . . Bc5?! 1 6. Qd3
Nf8 17. b4 Be7 18.Bb2 Be6
19.Re1 Rd8 20.Qe3 is clearly
better for White. ] 1 6. Bg5!
Bxg5?! 17 . Nxg5 Nf6 [ 1 7 . . . Nf8
#2.2 1 8. Ne4 Be6 19. Nd6 Qd7 20.Rd1
This position is identcal to that of
b6 21 .b4 Rd8 22.c5! is +- accord
B4 in the chapter on 6 . . . Bd6 but
ing to Kaspaov. ] 1 8. Rd1 Be6?
with one important distncton. 19. Re1 Qd8 20. Nxe6 fxe6
Semi-Slav Defense
23
21. Qe3 Kh8 22.h3 Qd7 23. g4!
Re8 24. Qe5! Qd8 25. Kg2 Qb6?
26.Rdl ! c5 27. Ba4, 1 -0. Instead
Black should play 1 6 . . . Nf6
17.Rel Be6 18. Qh4 h6 with only
a small disadvantage according
to Pachman, or he may ty
Kasparov' s recommendation of
16 . . . Nf 17.Rel Be6 1 8. Qh4
Bxg5 19. Nxg5 h6 20.Nxe6 Nxe6
21 . Qe4 g6 22.Qe3 Kh7 23.h4
Ng7 ad once again White is only
slightly better.
#2.3
12 ...
NxeS
13 NxeS BxeS
14 Bxh7ch. Kxh7
1S QhSch. Kg8
16 QxeS
If the pawn were on a White
would simply b winning but
here the situation is makedly
different.
16 ... Qd3!
The point of Black' s preceding
play. With the move b3
unavailable White is forced to
play c5 ceding d5 to Black' s
Bishop. Despite his material
advantage it had been thought
that Wite has few winning
chances. This does not seem to be
the case however.
17 c
Be6
18 Be3
After 18.Bf4 Bd5 19.Rfe1 f6
20.Qh5 Bf 21 . Qg4 Rfe8 22.h3
Qc4, The chances are even,
Larsen-Bisguier, San Juan 1969.
18 ... Qg6
19 Rfe1
Rfe8
20 h4
BdS
21 QgS
QxgS
22 hxgS
Re6
23 f
Bb3
24 Rac1 aS
2S Rc3
a4
26 Rd3
Rae8
27 Kf ReS
28 Rc1 RdS
29 RxdS
30 Rd1
31 Rd4
32 Rb4
BxdS
Kf
Ra8
Ra7
24
6 Bd Bb
33 Bf4
White had a clear advantage and
eventually won on the 66th move,
Nikolic-Huebner, Tilburg 1987.
B. 7 0-0 0-0
#2.4.
Now White has several
possiblites: B.l. 8.0e2: B.2.
8.0c2: B.3. 8.Bd2: B.4 8.a3. On
8. Ne5 Black has . . . Nxe5 9.dxe5
Nd7 10.f4 Nc5 1 1 .Be2 dxc4
1 2. Bxc4 Qxd1 13. Rxd1 Bd7
1 4. e4 h6 1 5.Be3 Rfd8 =.
B. l.
8 Qe2 dxc4
9 Bxc4 Bd6
Black sacrifces a tempo to get in
... Bd6 when e4 is no longer espe
cially effective.
10 Rd1 Qe7
11 e4
e5
12 d
cxd5
13 Nxd5 Nxd5
14 Bxd5 Nf6
15 Bg5 h6
16 Bxf6 Qxf6
=, Addison-Evans, U. S. ch. 1965/
66;
J
#2.5
8 Qc2 dxc4
Not 8 . . . Bd6?! because of 9.b3! -
9 . . . dxc4 10.bxc4 e5 1 1 .Bb2 Re8
12. Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 h6?! [bet
ter is 13 . . . g6 though even then
White is better after 14.Bd3! Qe7
15.c5 Be? 16.Bc4! . ] 14.Rad1
exd4 15. Bh7ch! Kh8 1 6.Rxd4
with a big initatve for White in
Petosian-Taimanov, USSR ch.
1955. Thenice fnishofthat game
was: 1 6 . . . Bc5 1 7 . Rf4 Qc7
1 8.Rh4 f6 19.Bg6 Re7 21 .Rh5
Bd6 22.Rd1 Be5 23. Ba3! c5
Semi-Slav Defense
25
24.Nh4, 1 -0.
Also dubious for Bl ack i s
H . Qe7?! . The game G. Stoltz
van Scheltnga, Beverwijk 1946
continued 9. Ne5! dxc4 10.Nxc4
e5 1 l . a3! Bxc3 12. bxc3 e4
13. Be2 Rd8 1 4.a4 Nf8 15.Ba3
Qe6 1 6.Ne5 [Even better is
1 6.Bxf8! Rxf8 17.f3! or 17.f4! .]
1 6 . . . Ng6 17.Nxg6 hxg6 1 8.Rb1
g519.c4 g420. a5 Nh7 21 .a6 bxa6
22.d5! cxd5 23.cxd5 Qf5 24.Be7!
Re8 25.d6 and White went on to
wm.
9 Bxc4
Bd6
10 e4
1 quiet alterative is 10.b3! ?.
The game Smyslov-Van der
Wiel, Reggio Emilia 1986/87,
showed that there is some sting to
this plan: 10 . . . Qe7 1 1 .Bb2 g6
12. Ne4 Nxe4 1 3. Qxe4 Nb6
14.Be2 Nd5 15.Ne5 Bd7 16. Bf
Rfd8 17. Qc2 Ba3 1 8.Bxa3 Qxa3
1 9.e4 Nc7 20.Rfd1 Qf8 21 . Nc4
Be8 22.e5 Rd7 23.a4 Qb4 24.Nd6
Rxd6 25.exd6 Qxd6 26.Qc5
Qxc5 27.dxc5 and White' s mate
rial advatage eventually led to a
wm.
For 10.a3 e5 1 1 .Ba2 see B.4.
10 WWW eS
Black has lost a tempo with . . Bf8-
b4-d6 but the White Queen isn' t
particularly good on c2 when e4
has been played.
11 dxeS
Other tes for White are:
1 ) 1 1 .h3 exd4 12.Nxd4 Ne5
1 3.Be2 [Diesen-Bisguier, New
York 1977.]
and now Black can gain equality
by 13 . . . Ng6 14.Be3 Bf4;
2) 1 1 . Be3 Qe7 12.Rae1 exd4
13.Bxd4 Ne5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5
1 5. Bxe5 Qxe5 1 6. Kh1 Nh5
17. Ne2 Be6 18.Bd3 g5 with
equality, Condie-Noguieras,
Thessaloniki (ol) 1986;
3) 1 1 . Rd1 Qe7 1 2. h3 exd4
13.Nxd4 Nb6 14.Bfl Re8 1 5.Be3
Bd7 16. a4 Nxe4! =, Cebalo
Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1987.
11 QQQ
NxeS
12 NxeS BxeS
13 h3 NbS
14 Ne2 Qh4
15 f4
Bc7
the positiOn is unclea, Doro
shkevich-Antoshin, USSR 1969;
l
8 Bd2
Threatening Nxd5.
8 WWW Qe7
26 6 Bd Bb
Possible is 8 . . . Bd6 but after 9.e4
dxc4 10.Bxc4 e5 1 1 .Bg5 White
has tansposed into lines stem
ming from the chapter on 6.Bd3
Bd6 .. .lines that tend to favor
White. After 8 ... Bd6 other ties
seem quite playable for Black:
9.b3 [9.h3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 e5
1 1 . Qc2 exd4 1 2.exd4 Nb6
13. Bb3 Nbd5 14.a3 Be6 15.Rfe1
Qc8 16. Bg5 Bf5 17.Qc1 Re8
1 8.Ne5 Bg6 is equal, Uhlmann
Bisguier, Zagreb 1965.] 9 . . . Qe7
10. Qc2 e5 1 l .cxd5 cxd5 12.dxe5
Nxe5 13.Nd4Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Qe5
15.f4 Qe7 16.Rac1 Rd8 17.Rc2
Bc5 1 8. Na4 Bxd4 19.Qxd4 Bf5,
Black has equalized, Kotov
Botvinnik, USSR ch. 1955.
Another try for Bl ack i s
8 . . . dxc4! ? though in the game
Larsen-Flear, London 1 986,
White emerged with a slight
advantage after 9. Bxc4 Bd6
10. Qc2 e5 1 1 .Rae1 Qe7 12.Ng5
h6 1 3.Nge4 Be? 14.d5.
9 Qb3! ?
#2.6
Renewing the threat of Nxd5.
Other possibilites for White in
clude:
1 ) 9. Qc2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5
1 1 .Rad1 [A better plan mght be
1 1 . a3 Bd6 12.Bd3! Re8 1 3.Ng5
h6 14.Nge4 Bb8 1 5. Ng3 Nb6
16.Rae 1 with some advantage for
White, Bondarevsky-Szabo,
Sczawno Zdroj 1950.] 1 l . . .e4
1 2.Ne5 Nxe5 1 3. dxe5 Ng4
14. Qxe4 Qxe5 =, Tukmakov
Bagirov, USSR ch. 1972;
2) 9. Ne5 c5! 10.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .a3
Bxc3 12. Bxc3 Nxe5 13. dxe5 Ne4
14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Kh1 a5 16. Qa4
Bf5 17.Rad1 Ra6! with the idea
of . . . Rh6. The position is no
clear, Porti sch-B otvinnik
Leipzig (ol) 1960;
'
Semi-Slav Defense 27
3) 9. Qel dxc4 10.Bxc4 Bd6 [The 14.Bxf Rd8 =of Szily-Simagin,
right answer to White's some- Budapest-Moscow 1949, with
what atifcial ninth move is 10.c5! Bc7 l l . Rfel with the idea
1 0 . . . e5 meeting 1 1 . a3 with . . . Bd6 of 12.e4 +-. . . Analysis by Sos-
1 2. dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 onko.
with equality. ] 1 1 . Bb3 e5 10 Qxc4 Bd6
1 2.Ng5! ? Bc7 [ 12 ... e4? 1 3.f3! . ] 11 Ne4 Nxe4
1 3. Nge4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 a5 15.d5 12 Bxe4 e5
t
=
, lvkov-Kolarov, Wageningen 13 Qc2 g6
1 957; If 13 . . . Nf6 14.dxe5 is slightly
4. ) 9. a3 Bd6 1 0. c5 Bc7 better for White while 13 . . . h6
1 1 0 . . . Bb8? was the game Korch- 14. Radl is also in favor of the
noi-S . Agdestein, Jerus alem first player.
1 986, which continued 1 1 .e4 e5? 14 Bc3 ReS
1 2.exd5 exd4 1 3.d6 Qd8 14.Na4! 15 Rfel f5
h5 15.b4! bxa4 16. Qxa4 Nb6 and
now White could have gotten a So far Seirawan-Tal, Montpellier
dea advantage with 17. Qxc6 1985. Instead of Seirawan' s
Bd7 1 8.Qb7 Bc8 19. Qe7-Korch- 16. dxe5=, Sosonko holds that
noi. ] l l .e4 dxe4 12. Bxe4! ? White should play 1 6.Qb3ch.
1 1 2.Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Bxe4 e5 is Kf8 [ 1 6 . . . Qf7 1 7 . Bc2 +-.]
equal. ] 12 . . . Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Rd8 17. dxe5 Nxe5 1 8. Nxe5 fxe4
1 4. Qc 1 Nf8 1 5. Bf4 Bxf4 19.f4! with advantage. That
1 6.Qxf4 Ng6 17. Qg3 Rd5! ? seems true- 19 . . . exf3 20. Nxf3
1 8.Rfel b6 19.b4 Ba6 20. Rac1 Be6 21 .Qa4 with the idea ofQd4;
Bd3 21 . Nd6 bxc5 22.bxc5 +=,
L.Portisch-Huebner, Tilburg M
1 986.
8 a3
9 &&& dxc4 By far the most commonly
On 9 . . . Bd6 White can improve played move.
upon 10.Rfe1 dxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 e5 8 &&& BaS
1 2.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Be2 Nxf3ch.
28 6 Bd Bb
After 8 . . . Bd6 White ca ty to
avoid all this [i.e. Trifunovich' s
drawing line and the abve
Minev game.] by9. Qc2. This was
tied in Karpov-Tal, USSR ch.
1973 which continued 9 . . . dxc4
10.Bxc4 Qe7 1 l .h3 e5 12. Ba2 a5
[In Gulko-Huebner, Biel 1987
Black tied to improve with
12 . . . b6 but White still got an edge
after 13. Re1 Ba6 14.e4 exd4
#2.7 1 5. Nxd4 Qe5 1 6. Nf3 Qh5
Here 8 . . . Bd6 would tanspose 17. Qd1 Be5 1 8.Nxe5 Nxe5
into Larsen-Bisguier from ' A' 19.Qxh5 Nxh5 20.Rdl .] 1 3.a4?!
after 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 Bb4! = and 1/2- 1/2 in 21 moves.
1 1 .Bxe4 e5. However Black
might consider 9 . . . dxc4! ? However according to Tal White
10.Bxc4 e5 which tansposes into could have improved with
lines fom Chapter One with the 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4+=.
excepton that White has gotten Harding and Whitely, in their
the ' free' move a3 in. One ex- book Q.G.D.-Semi-Slav, suggest
ample of the resulting play [for that Black might do better by
the reader who is too lazy to tur playing 10 . . . e5. Their idea is to
to Chapter One] is the game pick up a tempo over Doro
Kozma-Minev, Lyon 1 955 shkevich-Antoshin of B. 2. This
which continued 1 1 .Bg5 Qe7 assumes of course that White
1 2.h3 Rd8 13. Rfe1 exd4! 14. e5 will play 1 1 .e4. 1finstead the frrst
Nxe5 15. Ne4 Nxc4 16.Nxf6ch.
player ties 1 1 .Ba2
gxf6 17.Rxe7 Bxe7 1 8.Bh6 Kh8
19. Qd3 Be6 20.Re1 b5 21 .b4 c5
22. bxc5 Bxc5 23.Nd2 Rd5 and
Black was firmly in contol.
Semi-Slav Defense
29
!
then 1 1 . . .Qe7 would tanspose
back to the Karpov-Tal game. In
Donner-Pachman, Madrid 1960,
Black in answer to 12.h3 [played
to answer the threat of 12 . . . e4
1 3. Ng5 Bxh2ch.] tied 12 . . . Kh8
in place of Tal ' s 1 2 . . . a5
1 1 2 . . . exd4 13.exd4 +-; 12 . . . h6
1 3. Nh4 +-.] . After 13.Bd2 h6
l 4. Ne4 [ 14.e4 Nh5 is unclear.]
14 . . . Nxe4 1 5.Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qh4
e4 17. Ne5 Be6! 1 8.Nc4 Rfe8
1 9. f4 exf3 20. Rxf3 Bxc4
21 .Bxc4 Ne4 Black was slightly
better. An improvement after
12 . . . Kh8 is 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4
+=.
As in many lines with 6 . . . Bb4 the
problem for Black is the Queen
on e7 which invites Nf3-d4-f5
and Nf-h4-g6. Best after 1 1 .Ba2
seems to b 1 1 . . .h6! ? 12.h3
[ 1 2. Rd l ! ?. ] 1 2 . . . Re8 when
13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nd4 isn' t so
stong with the Black Queen still
on d8.
Another try to avoid
Trifunovich' s drawing line is
9.c5! ?. This ended in disaster in
I.Ivaov-Rizzitao, New Haven
1984, afer 9 . . . Bc7 10. e4 dxe4
1 1 . Nxe4 Nxe4 1 2. Bxe4 e5
13. Bg5 f6 14. Bh4?! g5! 1 5.Qc2
gxh4 16.Bxh7ch Kh8 17. Nxh4
f5! -+. However Rizzitano sug
gests White could have improved
with 14.Be3 keeping a slight
advatage.
9 Qc2
On 9.b4 Black equalizes with
9 . . . Bc7 10.Bb2 dxc4 1 l .Bxc4 e5
[ 1 1 . . .a5 12. Ne2 Qe7 13.Qb3 e5
14. Ng3 e4 1 5.Nd2 Nb6 16.Be2
Be6 is also equal, Vaganian-Van
der Wiel, Amsterdam 1986.]
1 2. Qc2 Qe7 1 3. Ne4 Nxe4
14. Qxe4 Nf6 15. Qh4 e4 1 6. Ne5
Be6, Polugaevsky-E
Y
ans, Siegen
(ol) 1970.
9 ... dxc4
[Other ninth moves are:
30
6 Bd Bb
1) 9 . . . Qe7 10.cxd5 [or 10.Bd e5
1 1 . dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qxe5
1 3.cxd5 cxd5 14.Ne2 Bxd2
1 5. Qxd2 Ng4 1 6. Ng3 Qg5
17 .Be2 with a clear advantage for
White, Donner-Nikolac, Opatija
1953. ] 10 . . . exd5 1 1 . Bd2 Qd8
[better is 1 1 . . .Bxc3! ? 12. Bxc3
Re8 1 3. Bb4 Qd8 14. Ng5 g6
1 5.h3 Nf8 16. Bxf8 Rxf8 17.b4
Ne8 1 8.Nf3 Nd6 19.Rf1 a6
20.a4 Bd7 21 . Qc5 Be8 22.Nd2,
1/2- 1/2, Timman-Tal, Bugojno
1978. ] 12.Ne2 Bb6 13.Ng3 Re8
14. b4 a6 1 5.Bc3 Nf8 16.Rae1 +
Korchnoi-Huebner, Brussels
1986;
2) 9 ... a6?! 10.Bd2 Bc7 1 1 .Rad1
Qe7 12. cxd5 exd5 13.Rfe1 Qd8
14. e4 dxe4 15. Nxe4 h6, Taima
nov-Botvinnik, USSR ch. 1955,
ad now 1 6.Qc l ! Nxe4 17.Rxe4
Re8 1 8.Rxe8ch. Qxe8 19. Bxh6is
clearly better for White;
3) 9 . . . h6 10.Bd [ 1 0.b4! ?-ECO]
10 . . . Re8 1 l .e4! dxe4 12. Nxe4
Bxd2 13.Nxf6ch. Qxf6 14. Qxd
b6 1 5.Qe3 Bb7 16. Qe4 Nf8
17. b4+=, Tal-Johansson, Havana
1966;
4) 9 . . . Bc7 10.b3! [ 10.e4 dxc4
1 1 .Bxc4 e5 12.Be3?! ( 12.d5! ?-
ECO) 12 . . . N6 1 3.Nxe5 Ng4!
14. Nxg4Nxc4 15.Ne2Be6 1 6.h3
h5 17 .Nh2 Nxe3=, Ostein
Kupreichik, Dortmund 1975.]
10 . . . e5 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.Nb5Bb8
13.dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5
15.Bb2 +=, Pachman.
10 Bxc4 Bc7
Preparing . . . e5 by playing . . . Qe7
leaves the Bishop on a (or c7)
exposed to attack- 10 . . . Qe7
1 1 .Bd e5 12. Ba2 Bc7 [ 1 2 ... Bd8
13.Rae1 aS 14.h3 b6 15.dxe5
Nxe5 1 6. Nxe5 Qxe5 17.f4, Va
ganian-Shabaov, USSR 1973;
12 . . . Bxc3 1 3. Bxc3 exd4
14. Nxd4 +-, Rogoff-Lombardy,
US ch. 1978. ] 13.Nb5! Bb6
1 4. Bb4 c5 1 5. dxc5 Bxc5
16.Bxc5 Nxc5 17. Rfc1 Whitehas
Semi-Slav Defene
31
Worth considering is 1 1 .Ba2 Qxc7 21 .Qg6 Qf 22.Qxfch.
along the lines considered earlier Kxf 23.Be3 Rf8 24.Rd4 Kg8
when the Bishop stood on d6 25.Rfd1 b6 26.Rh4 Rf5 27. Nd4,
i nstead of c7. One practical ex- 1-0, Kasparov-Van der Wiel,
ample i s Ligterink-R. Kuij f, Brussels 1987.
Amsterda 1982, which contin- Untested but interesting is
ued 1 1 . . .e5 12.Re1 [Probably 12. Rdl ! ?.] 12 . .. h6 13.Bd2 Re8
stonger is 12.h3! ? h6( 12 . . . Qe7 14. Qb3 Qe7 15.e4 exd4 1 6. Nxd4
1 3. Rel ! favors White, but Ne5 17.Rad1 Bb6 1 8.Bf4 Bxd4
1 2 . . . exd4 13. exd4 Nb6 14.Re1 19. Rd4 Be6 and Black held the
Nbd5 1 5. Bg5 Qd6 with equality
may be an improvement, Evans
Minev, Vaa (ol) 1962.) 13.e4
(Black is fne ater 13.Nh4! ?-
1 3 . . . exd4 14.exd4 Nb6! 15.Bxh6
Nfd5! 16.Bb1 f5 -+ or 16.Nxd5
Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Qxh4 1 8.Be3
Bxh3.) 13 ... Re8 14.Be3 Nh5?
(14 . . . Qe7 is a better move when
1 5. Rfe1 is slightly better for
White. White ca also consider
15.d5! ? cxd5 16.Nxd5 Nxd5
1 7. Bxd5 Nf6 1 8. Bc5 Bd6
1 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.Rfd1 when
according to Ta Wite is very
slightly better.) 15.Rad1 +- exd4
(15 . . . Qf6 1 6.Nd5! cxd5 17. Qxc7
dxe4 1 8. Nxe5 is manifestly bet
ter for White.) 16.Bxd4 Qe7
1 7.e5! Nf8? (17 . . . Nf4 1 8. Rfe1
+- . ) 1 8. Nb5! Ne6 ( 1 8 . . . cxb5
1 9. Bc5. ) 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Nxc7
advantage.
Another 1 1 th move possibility is
1 1 . Ne2 but this proved harmless
in H. Olafsson-Van der Wiel,
Wijk aan Zee 1987: 1 1 . . .e5
1 2. Ng3 exd4 1 3. Nxd4 Ng4
14. Be2 Qh4 15.Nf3 Qf6 16.Bd2
Nde5 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 1 8.Bc3, 1/2-
1/2.
11 @@@ e5
O 1 1 . . . Qe7 12. Ne4 [ 1 2.Ba2! ?
ECO] 12 . . . a 13.Ng3 e5 14.Nf5
Qe8 15.e4 exd4 16. Re1 Nb6
1 7. e5 Bxf5 1 8. Qxf5 Qc8
19. Qxc8 Rfxc8 20.Bb3
N
d5
21 .Nxd4 +=, Fura-Taimanov,
USSR ch. 1949.
12 Ba2
Alteratives for Wite at this
stage are:
1) 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Bxe5
14.h3 Re8 [The right aswer to
32
6 Bd Bb
White' s plan is 14 . . . Qe7 15.Rad1
Be6 =.] 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Bd3 h6
17. Re1 Be6 1 8.Na4 Bd6 19. e4
b5 20.e5! +-, Forintos-Kolarov,
Havana 1966;
2) 1 2.Rae1 exd4 13.exd4 Nb6
14.Be2 [on 14. Ba2 or 14.Bd3 the
reply . . . Bg4 is good.] 14 . . . h6!
[better then 14 . . . Bg4 of Botvin
nik-Taimanov, Match 1953,
which was stongly countered by
15.Bg5 Qd6 ( 15 . . . Bxf3 16.Bxf
Qxd4 17 .g3 with the idea of Re7
and Radl . ) 1 6. Ne5! . ] After
14 . . . h6! Black has equalized.
12 &&& h6
Also not bad despite its reputa
tion is 12 . . . exd4. This has been
under a cloud since Szabo-Evans,
Dallas 1957, which continued
1 3. exd4 Nb6 1 4. Bg5 Qd6
1 5.Racl Nbd5 16.Bxf6 Nxf6
17. Nb5 Qd8 1 8.Nxc7 Qxc7
19. Re1 +-. An improvement for
Black comes after 15 .Rae 1 #2. 1 0
In Commons-W okenfuss, Mex
ico City 1977, Black took time to
stop the threat of Nb5. This
worked out nicely- 1 5 . . . a6! ?
16.Nce4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Be6
1 8.Bb1 f5 19. Qh4Nd5 20.Bd2h6
21 . Rfe1 Rae8 22. Re5 Qd7
23.Re2 f4 24. Ne5 Bxe5 25.Rxe5
Nf6 26.Rce1 Qf with equality.
13 dxe5
13.Rae1 was tied by David
Bronstein against Larry Evans in
the high pressure USSR-USA
match of 1955. Black came out
quite well after 1 3 . . . Re8 14.dxe5
Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Rxe5 1 6.f4 Bf5
17. e4 Bb6ch. 1 8.Kh1 Rxe4!
19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Bxe4
21 . Qxe4 Qxd2 22.Bb1 Rd8.
Another ty is 13.h3! ?. In the
game Lukacs-Tischbierek,
Polanica Zoj 1986 White man
aged to win: 13 . . . Re8 14. Nh4Nf8
1 5. dxe5 Rxe5 1 6. f4 Rh5? !
17. Nf3 Bf5 1 8.e4 Bb6ch. 19. Kh1
Be6 20.f5 Bxa2 21 .Rxa2 Ng4
22.Ne2 Nf2ch. 23.Kh2 Ng4ch.
24.Kh1 Nfch. 25. Kh2 Ng4ch.
26. Kg3 Ne3 27 . Bxe3 Bxe3
28. Kh2 Qc7ch. 29. g3 Nh7
30.Kg2 Ng5 31 .h4 Nxf3 32.Rxf
Qb6 33. Qc3, 1 -0. However
Semi-Slav Defene 33
Black's rather weak opening play
can surely b improved.
13 NxeS
14 NxeS
15 f4
16 h3
17 Qd1
BxeS
Bc7
BfS!
ReS
Black has a comforable position,
Bi sguier- Rukavi na, Sombor
1974.
Conclusion:
White does not seem to b able to
gain a concrete advantage against
6 . . . Bb4. However the usua small
opening. If he doesn' t want to
enter into Trifunovich' s drawing
pawn sacrifce (7.a3 Bd6 8.0-0 0-
0 9.e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4
l l .Bxe4 e5! ? 1 2. dxe5 Nxe5
1 3Nxe5 Bxe5 1 4. Bxh7ch. )
which now looks dubious, he
should simply refuse the pawn
offer by 12.Bc2! which should
secure at least a small edge for the
frst player.
If White would like to dispense
with 7. a3 altogether then
Seirawan's experimental 7. 0-0
0-0 8. Bd2 Qe7 9. Qb3! ? is an
' something' (+=) can b gotten interesting ty, cerainly in need
with an accurate handling of the of more tests.
34
6 .. Be7 and 6 ... a6
CHAPER 3 DSL
6 ... Be7 and 6 ... a6
In this chapter we will discuss
two inferior continuations for
Black. The frst one, 6 . . . Be?,
does little for Black in the
achievement of an . . . e5 advance
ad is nowadays considered too
passive. The other move, 6 . . . a6,
is not nearly as fexible as the
system with 5 . . . a6, and White
scores very well against it.
After ld4 d52.c4 c63.Nc3 Nf6
4.Nf e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3
First we will look at A. 6 ... Be7.
Next we will examine B. 6 ... a6.
A
6 &&& Be7

An old-fashioned continuation
favored by Bogoljubov. Rather
then stive for active counterplay
via the Meran by 6 . . . dxc4 or play
for an eventual . . . e5 by 6 . . . Bb4 or
6 . . . Bd6, Black places his hope on
a somewhat passive but solid
position. Many lines where Black
plays . . . b6, . . . Bb7, and . . . c5 lead
to position from the 4.e3 Q.I.D.
but with a tempo less for Black
because he has moved his c7
pawn twice . . . frst to c6 and then
to c5.
7 0-0
The most natual continuation
but other moves ae also quite
reasonable:
1 ) 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 b6 9. Qc2 Bb7
10.Ne5 g6? [ 10 . . . c5 is only +=
according to the ECO.] 1 1 . f4Ne8
1 2. 0-0-0 +- , Naj dorf
Gudmundsson, Amsterdam
1950;
2) 7.Qc2 fpoorl 7 . . . dxc4 8.Bxc4
b5 9. Bd3 a6 1 0. 0-0 c5 =, Jost-
Semi-Slav Defense
35
Madsen, Helsinki 1952;
3) 7.e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 c5 [or
8 . . . Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10.Bc2 0-0
1 1 .Qd3 Qa5ch 12.Bd2 Bb4 13.0-
0-0 Bxd2ch. 14. Rxd2 b5 15.c5
Qxa 1 6. Ne5 g6 17. h4, +-, Ala
tortsev-Zamikhovsky, USSR
193 1 . ] 9. Nxc5 [Black was
slightly better after 9.dxc5?
Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Nxc5, Makag
onov-Levenfish, USSR ch.
1934.] 9 . . . Bxc5 [White is also
better after 9 . . . Nxc5 10.dxc5
Bxc5 1 1 . 0-0] 10.dxc5 Nxc5
1 1 .Be2 Qxd1ch. 12.Kxdl ! +
according to Alatortsev.
7 B 0-0
Black can also try 7 . . . dxc4
8. Bxc4 when 8 . . . Nb6 9. Bb3 0-0
1 0. Qe2 Nbd5 1 1 . e4 Nxc3
12.bxc3 b6 13.e5 Nd5 14. c4 was
clearly better for White in Gligo
ric-Horvat, Yugoslav ch. 1948-
49. Instead of 8 . . . Nb6, Black has
given 8 . . . b5 some testing: 9. Bd3
b4 [9 . . . a6 10.e4 b4 1 1 .Na4 c5
12.dxc5 +-, Danner-Lehmann,
Beverwijk 1966.] 10.Na4 c5
1 1 .dxc5 Nxc5 12. Nxc5 Bxc5
13.e4. We have now tansposed
into the Lundin Variation of the
Meran [See Donaldson' s book on
the Meran, published by Chess
Enterrises, Inc.] except that
Black has lost a tempo by playing
. . . Be? before . . . Bxc5. White has a
good game:
1 ) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4. e5 Nd5
1 5.Bxh7ch! winning-ECO;
2) 13 . . . Bb7 14.e5 [14.Qe2! ? is
recommended in ECO.] 14 . . . Nd7
15. Bf4 Be? 16.Bb5! a6 17. Ba4
Bd5 18. Nd4 +=, Ivkov-Ro
batsch, Maribor 1967;
3) 13 . . . h6 14.a3 Qb6?! [ 14 . . . bxa3
+= according to ECO.] 1 5.axb4
Bxb4 16. Qe2 Bc5 17. Bd2 Nd7
1 8.b4 +-, Daga-Prins, Leysin
1967.
After 7 @@@0-0 White has a choice
between a immediate and a de
layed e4 advance: A. I. 8.e4; A.2.
Hl
l
8 e4 dxe4
9 Nxe4 b6
Alternatives are even less prom
ising:
1 ) 9 . . . c5? ! 1 0. Nxc5 Nxc5
1 1 .dxc5 Bxc5 12.Qe2 is clearly
better for White according to
Bogoljubov;
2) 9 . . . Nxe4?! 10. Bxe4 Nf6
1 1 .Bc2 [ l l .Bd3 b6 12. Qe2 Bb7
38
6 . . .Be7 and 6 . . . a6
1 9. Re3 Rad8 20. Qf4 +=, A
Donaldson-Dauvergne, Phila- 10 QQ ReS
delphia 1986. 11 Rad1
11 ... Rad8 White can also consider an e4
12 Rfd1 Qb8 advace im ediately via 1 1 .e4.
13 Ne5 Nxe5 In the game Chemin-Utasi, Stay
14 dxe5 Nd7 Smokovec 1984 White achieved
15 cxd5
an excellent position after
In the game Gligoric-Krzisnik,
1 1 . . .dxe4 12. Nxe4 c5 13. Rad1
Yugoslav ch. 1952, White tied a Qc7 14.dxc5 bxc5 1 5.Rfel ! Rfd8
highly interesting but somewhat 16. Neg5.
unsound i dea: 1 5. f4 Rfe8
11 &Q Qc7
1 6. Rfl ?! [It is not logical for
White to play for a Kingside at
tack. He should play in the center
and on the Queenside as Smyslov
does in our main column.]
16 ... dxc4 17 .Bxc4 b5 1 8.Bd3
Nc5 19. Bb1 b4 20.Qc2! g6
21 . Ne2 Ba6 22.Nd4! ! Bxfl ?!
[22 . . . Bd3! was better.] 23.Rxfl
Qb6 24.f5! exf5 25.Nxf5! Bf8
26. Bd4 Qb5? [26 . . . Rxd4!
27.exd4 Ne6 is stong.] 27.Qf2
Rd7 28.Nd6! , White has a power
ful attacking position and went
on to win the game.
15 QQ cxd5
16 f4 +-
12 Ne5
On 12.e4 Black can relieve some
of his cramp with 1 2 . . . dxe4
13.Nxe4 c5.
12 &&& c
Capturing on e5 also fails to solve
Black' s problems:
Smysl ov- Szily,
Budapest 1949;
Moscow- 1) 12 . . . Nxe5 1 3. dxe5 Nd7 14.f4
Rfd8 1 5. RI1 Nf8 16.Rh3, +-,
Semi-Slav Defense
39
Landau-Feigen, Kemeri 1937;
2) 1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3. bxc4 Nxe5
14. dxe5 Ne8 15. Qh5 g6 16. Qg4
Qxe5? 17.Nd5! Qd6 1 8.Bxg6
hxg6 19. Nf4 Qb4 20.Nxg6 and
White is winning, Sanguinetti
Donoso, Fortaleza 1975.
13 cxdS cxd4
If 13 . . . exd5 then 14.f4 +-.
14 exd4 NxeS
Not 1 4 . . . Nxd5 because of
1 5. Nb5! Qd8 1 6. Nxa7 Nf4
17. Qe3 Nxd3 1 8.Nxc8 Nxb2
19. Nxe7ch. Qxe7 20. Rd2-Uhlm-
ann.
15 dxeS NxdS
16 NbS! Qb8
17 Qg4 g6
18 Qg3 Rfd8
19 h4
Ba6
Uhlmann-J anosevic, Sarajevo
1969. Now Uhlmann gives
20. h5! Nb4 21 . Bc4 Bxb5
22.Bxb5 Nxa2 [Or 22 . . . Rc2
23. Ba3! Rxa 24.Bxb4 Bxb4
25.Qh4! Rxd1 26.Rxd1 Bf8
27. Qf6 winning.] 23.hxg6 hxg6
24. Bd7 Rc2 25. Bxe6 Kg7
26.Bxt g5 27 .Rd7! ! and White
wins;

10 ... cS

With this move Black enters the
Queen' s India a tempo down but
it still remains his best contnu
ation.
11 cxdS
Other attactive moves for White
ae:
1 ) 1 1 . Rad1 Ne4 [ 1 1 . . . dxc4
12.Bxc4 a6 13.dxc5 b5 14.Bd3
Bxc5 15.Ng5 Qb6 16. Nce4 is +-,
Kons tan tinopol sky- Arlasi n,
USSR 1966. Also stong for
White is 1 1 . . . cxd4 12.exd4 Rc8
13. Ne5 g6 14. f4 Re8 15. Qe3
dxc4 16.bxc4 Bf8 17. Kh1 a6
1 8. Qh3 Qe7 19. a3 Red8 20.Rfe1 ,
Zuckerman-Gliksman, New
York Open 1985. For historical
interest 1 1 . . . Qc7 was played in
the game Bogolj ubov-Spiel-
40
6 .. .e7 and 6 . .. a6
mann, Semmering 1932. The
continuation was 12. Ne5! cxd4
13. exd4 Rad8 14.f4 g6 15.Bb1 !
Rfe8 16.Rd3 Nf8 17 .Rg3 a6
1 8.h4 N67 19.h5 Bf6 20.cxd5
exd5 21 .hxg6 fxg6 22.Nd1 ! Bg7
23.Ne3 Nf6 24.f5 with a clea
advantage for White.] 12. dxc5
Nxc3 13. Bxc3 bxc5?! [Accord
ing to SoultanbeieffBlack should
play 13 . . . Nxc5.] 14.cxd5 exd5
1 5. Ba6 left White with stong
pressure against Black's hanging
pawns i Euwe-Winter, Notting
ham 1936;
2) 1 1 . Ne5 Qc7 1 2. f4 cxd4
1 3. exd4 dxc4 14. bxc4 Rac8
1 5. Rad1 is very goo for White
according to Taimanov;
3) 1 l .Rfd1 cxd4 12.exd4 Re8
13. Racl a6 [Perhaps 13 . . . Bf8 or
13 . . . Bc8 is a bit better.] 14.Ne5
Bd6 1 5. Rc2! Qe7 16.Bc1 Bc7
1 7. Bf4 dxc4 1 8. bxc4 Nxe5
19. Bxe5! Red8 20.f4! , +-, Hor
Biyiasas, Petopolis 1973.
11
exdS
On 1 l . . . Nxd5 Whitehas 12.Nxd5
Bxd5 13.Rfd1 cxd4 14.Nxd4Nc5
15. Bc2 Qe8 1 6.Nf5 f6 17.b4 with
a clear advantage, Lilienthal
Tipary, Moscow-Budapest 1949.
12 Rfd1!
Stronger then 12. Ne5 cxd4
1 3.exd4 Bb4 14. Nd1 Ne4 when
White is just slightly better,
Uhlmann-Botvinnik, Hastings
1966-67.
12
ReS
O 12 . . . Bd6 13.Ba6 Bc6 14.Rac1
Qe7 15.Bb5 +-, Trifunovic-Ger
mek, Bled 1961 .
13 Rac1 ReS
14 BbS
Bd6
15 dxcS
16 Ba6
17 Bxb7
1S Qd2 +-
bxcS
Qb6
Qxb7
Si magin-Tipary, Moscow
Budapest 1949.
Conclusion: There isn' t much
good one can say about 6 . . . Be7.
With almost any reasonable con
tinuation White emerges with
some advantage.
l 6 && a6 #3. 6
Semi-Slav Defense 41
Another continuation that makes
it easy for White to obtain the
advantage.
7 b3
This is the best move for White,
though 7 .e4 is a reasonable alter
native: 7 .e4 dxc4 [7 . . . dxe4
8. Nxe4 is simply good for
White.] 8.Bxc4 c5 [8 . . . b5 9.Bb3!
tansposes ito a favorable line of
the Mera.] 9. d5 [Or 9. e5 Ng4
10. Ng5 cxd4 1 1 .Nxf Qh4 12.g3
Qh5 13.Nxh8 dxc3 14.Be2 Bb4
1 5. Kfl Qh3 ch. 1 6.Kg1 Ndxe5
17.Bfl Qh5 18.h3 Nf6 19.g4 Qh4
20.Bf4 +-, Ogaard-Karaklajic,
Manila 1975.] 9 . . . Nb6 [9 . . . exd5
10. Nxd5 Be7 1 1 .Bf4 is clearly in
White's favor. ] 10.Bb3 exd5
1 1 .e5, Polugayevsky-Karaklajic,
Manila 1975, and now instead of
1 1 . . .Nfd7?! 12.Nxd5 which was
very stong for White, Black
should play 1 1 . . .c4! 12.Bc2 Ng4
13. 0-0! when White is just
slightly better-Polugaevsky.
Besides 7.b3 and 7.e4, White
could tanspose into an old and
rather harmless line of the Meran
by7.0-0dxc48. Bxc4b5 9.Bd3 c5
=. Or he can ty to gain space by
7 .c5 though Black ca get a good
game by countering in the center
with 7 . . . g6! 8. b4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0
10.Bb2 e5! .
7 &&& Bb4
Black has aso gotten terrible
results with other moves:
1) 7 . . . b5 8. Qc2 dxc4 9. bxc4 b4
1 0. Ne4 c5 1 l . Bb2 Bb7
12. Nxf6ch. Nxf6 1 3.Ne5, +-,
Pachman-Gereben, Budapest
1948;
2) 7 ... Bd6 8. 0-0 0-0 9.Bb2 Re8
10. Qc2 b5 1 1 .a3 Bb7 1 2. e4 dxc4
13.bxc4 e5 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Ne2
Rad8 16.h3 exd4 17 . Nexd4 bxc4
1 8.Bxc4 Nxe4 19.Nf5! Ndf6
20. Nxd6Rxd621 .Be5 and White
is winning, Malich-Kor, Am
sterda 1971 .
8 Bd2 0-0
9 0-0 Bd6
9 ... b5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .cxd5
Bxd2 12.dxe6 is given in ECO as
being very good for White.
Dr. Minev once te 9 . . . Qe7 here
but after 10.Ne5 Bd6 1 1 . f4 c5
1 2. Be1 dxc4 1 3. bxc4 Qd8
14. Qf Rb8 1 5.Rd1 Black had an
uncomforable position, Uhlm
ann-Minev, Havana 1966.
10 e4
dxc4
Or 10 . . . dxe4 1 1 .Nxe4 Nxe4
42 6 .. . Be7 and 6 .. . a6
1 2. Bxe4 e5 1 3. dxe5 Nxe5 17 Nd2 ReS
14.Bc3! with a clear plus for 18 a4 b4
White according to Saidy. 19 Ncb1 Be7
11 Bxc4 e5 20 Bd3 Ne8
12 Bg5 b5 21 Qe2 aS
13 Be2 Bb7 22 Nc4 +-
14 Rcl c
15 d5 h6 Pan no-Unzicker, Gothenburg
16 Bxf6 Nxf6 1955.
Semi-Slav Defense
43
CHAPTER 4 D45/SL8
6 Qc2 Lines
After 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 6,Bh4: D. 6,dxc4.
4.Nf Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.0c2 We will also examine an altera
White avoids losing a tempo by
6.Bd3 dxc4 and keeps many op
tions open. He can play for a
quick e3-e4 advance, he can play
positionally with 7.b3, or he can
mix 7 .Bd2 with Queens ide cas
tling for a very shar stuggle.
In reply to 6.Qc2 Black usually
plays 6 . . . Bd6 with an eventual
. . . e6-e5 advance as his plan. This
chapter though deals with
Black's less common moves,
namely: A. 6,a6: B. 6,8e7: C.
tive for White ater 6,8d6.
namely 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0. This
system has been rather popula
recently and can be found at the
end of this chapter.
A
6 ... a6
With this little move Black in
tends to keep his position fex
ible. However it is a little slow
and White should be able to ob
tain some advantage.
7 b3
This move is highly thought of.
White may also consider the
more forcing 7.e4! ?: 7 . . . dxe4
[7 . . . dxc4 8.e5! Nd5 9.Bxc4 is
good for White. ] 8. Nxe4 Nxe4
9. Qxe4 Bb4ch. [9 . . . Nf6 10.Qc2
c5 l l .dxc5 Bxc5 12.Bd3 b6 13.0-
0, Hadzhipetov-Klovan, P
morsko 1976 is a small but com
forable edge for Wite.]
10. Bd2 Bxd2ch. l l .Nxd2
44
6 Qc2
16.Nxd6ch. Ke7 17 .Nf5ch. Kf8
1 8.0-0-0 g6 19.Nd6 Ke7 20.Be2
Rd8 21 .Rd5 f6 22.Rhdl . How
ever Black soon demonstated
that this was more illusory then
real and after the furher 22 . . . Nf8
23.b3 Be6 24.R5d2 Rd7 25.Kb2
b6 26.b4 Rc7 27.a3 Rb8 28.Rcl
f5 Black was quite al right, Toth
#4.2 Velikov, Rome 1983. ] 13 . . . bxc6
[We have entered the positions 14. Be2 Rb8 15.b3 0-0 16.0-0 c5
from 6. Qc2 Bd6 7 .e4 dxe4 [In the game Ahlander- Hoi,
8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Qxe4 Bb4ch. but Malmo 1985/86, Black tied
with Black getting . . . a6 thrown in 16 . . . e5 but his game became un
for free.] 1 1 . . .c5 [In the game tenable after 17 .Qe3 f5 1 8.c5 Nf6
Danner-Velikov, Albena 1983, 19. Nc4 e4 20.Nd6 Nd5 21 .Qd4
Black held off this advance for a Kh8 22.Bc4 Be6 23.f3 exf3
moment and instead played 24.Rxf. ] 17. Qe3 Bb7 1 8.Bf3
1 1 . . . 0-0. After 1 2.0-0-0 c5 Bxf 19. Nxf3 Rfd8 20.Rad1 +=,
1 3. Nf3 Nf6 1 4. Qe5 cxd4 Schussler-Kirov, Eksjo 1982.
1 5. Rxd4 Qe7 1 6. Bd3 Bd7 White went on to win after
17. Rh4 g6 1 8. Qg5 Bc6 19. Ne5 20 . . . Nf6 21 .Ne5 Rd6 22.Rd3
Rfe8 20.Rd4 Rad8 21 .Rxd8 Rbd8 23.Rfd1 Rxd3 24.Rxd3
Rxd8 22.Rd1 Kg7 23. h4 h6 Rd3 25.Nxd3 Nd7 26.h3 Qd6
24. Qe3 Nd7 25. g3 Nxe5 27. Kfl e5 28. Ke2 f5 29. Qg5 Qf6
26. Qxe5ch. Qf6 27 . Qxf6ch. 30. Qxf6 gxf6 3 1 . Kd2 Kf7
Kxf6 Black had no problems at 32. Kc3 a5 33. Kb2 Ke6 34. Ka3
all.] 12.dxc5 Qc7 1 3.c6 [Interest- Kd6 35.Ka4 e4 36.Nf4 Ne5
ing is 13. Qd4! ? when White 37. Kxa5 Nd3 38. Ne2 Nxf2
seemed to obtain the more com- 39.Kb6 Nd3 40.a4 f4 41 . a5 f3
forable endgame after 13 . . . e5 42. gxf3 exf3 43.Ng3 Nb4 44.a6
14. Qd6 Qxc5 1 5. Ne4 Qxd6 Nc6 45.Ne4ch. Ke5 46.Nd2 Kd6
Semi-Slav Defense 45
47 .Nxf, 1-0.
7 ... bS
The only move that actively
maes use of 6 . . . a6. Other ties
are:
1) 7 . . . b6 8. Be2 Bb7 9.0-0 Be7
10. Bb2 0-0 l l .Radl leaves
White with a comortable edge,
Reshevsky- Shai nswi t, New
York 1951 ;
2) 7 . . . Bb4 8. a3 Bd6 9.e4 [9.Be2! ?
+=.] 9 . . . dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4
l l .Qxe4 e5 12.c5? Be7 13.Nxe5
Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bxc5 was slightly
better for Black in Stoltz-Pach
man, Prague 1946. However
White' s 12th move was clearly
an eror. Simply 12.dxe5 is indi
cated when 12 . . . Nxe5? 1 3.c5! is
stong as in the analogous posi
tion from Chapter Seven;
3) 7 . . . Bd6 8. Be2 0-0 9.0-0 Qe7
10. Bb2 b5?! [10 . . . e5 is better.
Compare with Chapter Six.]
l l . e4 dxe4 1 2. Nxe4 Nxe4
1 3. Qxe4Nf6 14. Qh4 +=, van den
Berg-van Scheltinga, Amster
dam 1950.
8 Bd3
Be7
White is better after 8 . . . Bb7 9.c5
a5 10.h3 g6 l l .a3 Bg7 12.Bb2
0-0 13.b4 Nh5 14.0-0-0 axb4
1 5.ab4 f5 16. Rdgl Nhf6 17.g4.
Also poor for Black is 8 . . . dxc4
9. bxc4 b4? 10.Ne4 c5 l l .Bb2
Bb7 12. Nxf6ch. Nxf6 1 3.Ne5,
Pachman-Gereben, Budapest
1948.
9 0-0 0-0
10 Bb2 Bb7
11 c5! ?
The simple l l .Rfdl also de
seres consideration.
11 ... Qc7
12 Ne2! Kh8
The immediate 12 . . . Re8 may be a
little better.
13 Ng3
14 a3
15 Rae1
16 b4
aS
Rae8
Bc8
Bd8
Black' s lack of space leaves him
without any real hope of salva-
tion.
17 a4! bxa4
18 bS Bb7
1 8 . . . cxb5 19. Bxb5 would leave
Black without any good moves.
19 Qxa4 eS
20 b6 Qb8
21 Nxe5 Nxe5
22 dxe5 Nd7
23 Qxa5 Nxe5
46
6 Qc2
24 Be2 Bf6
25 Bd4
Black' s game is lost, Haitonov
Barczay, Sochi 1979.
l 6 Q$ Be7
#4.3
From this somewhat passive
square the Bishop does not aid in
the fght for the critical . . . e6-e5
advance. This should give White
excellent chances of obtaining
some advantage.
7 b3
Other moves are interesting but
less clear:
1) 7.e4?! [Perhaps the greatest
justifcation for 6 . . . Be7-this ad
vance is now an error.] 7 . . . dxe4
8. Nxe4 e5 ! 9. dxe5 Nxe5
10. Nxf6ch. Bxf6 1 l .Be2 Nxf3ch.
12.Bxf3 Qa5ch. ! -+, Forintos
Smagin, USSR 1983;
2) 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 b6 9. e4 dxe4
10.Nxe4 Bb7 1 l . Ne5 h6 12.Be3,
Podgayets-Rashkovsky, Odessa
1 974, and now 1 2 . . . Nxe5
1 3. dxe5 Nxe4 14. Bxe4 Qc7
15. h4 c5 is equal according to
Gufeld;
3) 7. Bd2! ? leads to sharp, unex
plored play.
7 QQQ 0-0
8 Bb2
b6
9 Be2
Also good i s 9. Bd3 Bb7
10.Ne5[ 10.0-0! ?.] 10 . . . g6 1 l .f4
Ne8 12.0-0-0 f6 13. Nxg6! hxg6
14.Bxg6 when White had a very
strong attack, Naj dorf
Gudmundson, Amsterdam 1950.
An improvement for Black is
10 . . . c5! though even then White
could try 1 1 .0-0-0 Rc8 12. Kb1
with attacking chances
J.Watson.
9 $QQ Bb7
10 0-0
ReS
11 Rfd1
Orl l . Rad 1 Qc7 1 2. Bd3 Bd6
1 3. e4 +=, Stoltz- Kottnauer,
Groningen 1946.
11 $qq Qc7
12 e4 dxe4
13 Nxc4 Nxe4
Semi-Slav Defense
47
14 Qxe4 Bf6
15 Rd2 c5
16 Qg4 Rfd8
17 Rad1 cxd4
18 Nxd4 Ne5
19 Qg3
White has a signifcant edge. The
game Silman-Biyiasas, San
Francisco 1 983 continued
19 . . . Nc6 20.Qxc7 Rxc7 21 .Nb5
Rxd2 22.Rxd2 Rc8 23.Bxf6 gxf6
24.Rd7 and White held a great
advantage that eventually led to
victory.
. 6 ... Bb4
7 a3
More complicated but perhaps
also good i s 7 . Bd2 of
Polugaevsky-Szabo, Marianske
Lazne 1959. That game contin
ued 7 . . . 0-0 8.0-0-0c59.Kb1 cxd4
1 0. Nxd4 Ne5? ! and now
1 1 .N xd5! was advantageous for
White.
White dosn' t seem to get much
fom 7.Bd3: 7 . . . 0-0 [7 . . . dxc4
8.Bxc4 0-0 9.Bd2 Qe7 10.Ne5
was equal in Gligoric-Evans,
Buenos Aires 1960.] 8.0-0 Re8
9.Bd2 e5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5
Re5 1 2. cxd5 cxd5 13.Ne2 Bd6
1 4. Ng3 Ng4! ? 1 5. h3 Qh4
16. Bf5? Nxf2 17. Rxf2 Qxg3
1 8.Bxc8 Re7 19.Rc1 Qh2ch.
20.Kf1 d4! , Zaichik-Sveshnikov,
USSR 1979, and now 21 .Rf3!
Rc7 22. Qf5 g6 23. Qf6 Raxc8
24.Rxc7 Rxc7 25.exd4 Bf8 offers
equal chances.
7 ...
BaS
Harding in his excellent but dated
book on the Semi-Slav gives
7 . . . Bd6(! ) but then White can
play 8. e4 when he enters the
position from Chapter Seven
with the exta, and very useful,
move a3 thrown in for fee.
8 b4
Bc7
9 Bb2
0-0
10 Rd1 Qe7
11 Be2
Nb6
12 c5 Nbd7
13 e4
and White' s advantage in space
gives him a clear plus, O' Kelly
Flores, Moscow 1956.
1 6 ... dxc4?!
What's this?! Black takes the
pawn for no apparent reason and
forces White to move his unde
veloped Bishop. Has he gone
mad or is there intelligence be
hind this capture.
48 6 Qc2
#4.4
With this move Black is saying
that the White Queen stands no
better on c2 than it did on dl .
However the fact that White now
controls the e4 square, has
cleaed the back rank, and has
some pressure down the ' c' fle
must count for something!
7 Bxc4
b5
This leaves White a useful tempo
up on Meran lines. The altera
tive is 7 . . . Bd6 but White comes
out on top here too: 8. Bd2! ? [8.0-
0! ? e5 9. e4 exd4 10.e5 is an un
tested recommendation of
J.Watson' s. ] 8 . . . 0-0 [Harding
gives 8 . . . e5 9.Ne4Nxe4 10. Qxe4
Qe7 l l .Bc3 as +-. Watson how
ever points out that Black can
imprve with 10 . . . Nf6 1 l . Qh4
exd4! (though 1 2. Nxd4 still
seems +=.) ad so he feels the
simple 9.0-0-0 should b pre
fered.] 9.Ne4! Nxe4 10. Qxe4
Qe7 1 1 .Bc3 Nf6 12. Qh4, +-,
Flohr-Tolush, USSR ch. 1948.
8 Bd3
The natural square for the Bishop
but 8.Be2 also has its advantages:
8 . . . Bb7 9.0-0 [9.a3! ? a6 10. b4 a5
l l . Rb1 axb4 1 2. axb4 Nd5
13.Na2! +-, Taimanov.] 9 . . . a6
10.e4 c5 1 l . e5 cxd4?! [ l l . . .Nd5
is equal according to Tamanov.]
12.Nxb5 axb5 1 3.exf6 Qb6
[ 1 3 . . . Qxf6 14. Bg5 ( 1 4. Qc7-
Youngworh. 14 . . . Qg6 15.Bd3
Qh5 16.Bxb5! Bxf3 17. Qc7! is
winning for White-Taimanov.]
14.Rd1 e5 15. a4 [ 1 5. fxg7 Bxg7
16. Qf5 b4 17.Bd2 is clearly bet
ter for White-Taimanov. ]
15 . . . Rxa4 16. Rxa4 bxa4 17.fxg7
Bxg7 1 8.Qxa4 Bc6 19. Qa3 e4
20. Nh4 d3, Taimanov-Nei,
USSR 1981 , and now 21 .Bg4 is
+=: 21 . . . Bd4 22.Be3! Bxe3
23. fxe3 Qxe3ch. 24.Kh 1 fol
lowed by 25.Nf5-Youngworth.
8 Bb7
8 . . . a6 is well met by 9.e4 or 9. a4! .
9 e4 b4
10 Na4 ReS
Semi-Slav Defense
49
11 Be3! Ng4
12 Bg5 Qa5
13 0-0 c5
14 Racl
h6
15 Bh4 g5
16 Bg3 h5
16 . . . c4 17. Bxc4 Rxc4 1 8.Qxc4
Qxa4 19.d5! +-, Zaichik.
17 h4! gxh4
18 Bxh4 Bc6
19 Nxc5 Nxc5
20 dxc5
Bd7
21 c6
Rxc6
22 Qxc6 Bxc6
23 Rxc6
Be7
23 . . . Bg7 24.Rfc1 threatens both
Rc8ch. and Ra6.
24 ReSch. Kd7
25 Rxh8 Bxh4
26 Rh7 Bxfch.
27 Rxf Nxf
28 Kxf Qxa2
29 Ne5ch. Kd6
30 Nc4ch.
and White won without diff
culty, Zaichik-Bronstein, Tbilisi
1980.
Conclusion: If Black wants real
istic prospects of equaizing ater
6. Qc2, he must ty 6 . . . Bd6.
The Modern White System
Wi th 6 ... Bd6 7.Be2
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6
5.Nf Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.e
0-0 80-0
White has recently been doing
well with this setup. The idea is to
hold off on an e4 advance and
instead simply improve the posi
tion while Black plays . . . e5 and
. . . exd4. White will then recapture
by exd4 and in the resultant iso
lated ' d' pawn position he hopes
to have attacking chances.This
al sounds good on paper but can
this ca really be effectve?
8 ... dxc4
Other tes are:
1 ) 8 . . . Qe7 9. e4! [9.h3 Re8
10.Bd2 dxc4 1 1 .Bxc4 b5 12.Bb3
a5, l/2- l/2, Nogueiras-Pinter,
Zagreb (izt) 1987. ] 9 . . . dxe4
1 0. Nxe4 Nxe4 1 1 . Qxe4 f5
12. Qc2 e5 1 3.c5 Bc7 14.Bg5 led
to a clear advantage to White in
Garcia Palero-Novikov, Cama
guey 1987;
2) 8 ... e5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nb5 Bb8
l l .dxe5 Nxe5 12. Bd2 [In Dlugy
Flea, Clichy 1986 White got a
50 6 Qc2
small edge with 12.Nxe5 Bxe5
1 3.Bd2 Bd7 14.Bc3 Rc8 15. Qb3
Bb8 16. Nd4 Qc7 17. Nf3 Bg4
1 8.Be5 Qe7 19.Bxb8 Rxb8
20.Nd4 Rfc8 21 .Racl .] 12 ... Bg4
[O 12 ... a6 13.Nb4 Re8 1 4.Bc3
Ne4 15.Rad1 Qd6 16.Nxe5 1/2-
1/2, Miles-Adiato, San Fran
cisco 1 987. ] 1 3. Nbd4 Qe7
14.Bc3 Rc8 1 5. Qb3 Bd6 16.Rfc1
Nc4 17. Nb5 Bc5 18.Bd4 Ne4
19. Bxc5, 1/2- 1/2, Miles-Noguei
ras, Zagreb (izt) 1987.
9 Bxc4
e5
9 . . . b5 10.Be2 Bb7 1 1 .Rd1 led to
an edge for White in Halifman
lvachuk, USSR 1987.
10 h3
O 10.Bb3 Qe7 1 1 .Bd2! e4?!
1 2. Ng5 Bxh2ch. 1 3. Kxh2
Ng4ch. 14.Kg1 Qg5 15. Qxe4
Ndf6 16. Qf4 with an edge for
White, Polugaevsky-Pinter, Za
greb (izt) 1987.
Lacking in ambition is 10.dxe5
Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5 Bxe5 12.h3 Qe7
13. a4 Rd8 14.Rd1 Be6 1 5.Bxe6
Qxe6 and Black doesn' t have a
care in the world, Sygulski-Vera,
Cuba 1985.
10 O Nb6
11 Bb3 exd4
12 exd4
A critcal position and one that
has given White excellent results.
12 Qq h6?
This turs out porly. Also bad is
12 . . . Be6? 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14.Re1
with obvious advantage for
White in Glek-Andrianov, USSR
1986. A sane defense was seen in
the game Dlugy-Bisguier, Phila
delphia 1987: 1 2 . . . Nfd5 1 3.Bg5
f6 =.
13 Bxh6! gxh6
14 Qg6ch. Kh8
15 Qxh6ch. Nh7
16 Ne4
Be7
1 6 . . . f6? 17.Nxd6 Qxd6 18.Bc2
R 19.Ng5! Qe7 20.Rae1 ! .
17 Nf6!
Bf5
17 . . . Bxf6 loses immediately to
1 8.Bc2
18 Nh5 Bf6
19 Ng5!
Bxd4
20 Nxh7 Bxh7
21 Rad1 f5
White also wins on 21 . . .c5
22. Rxd4 Qxd4 23.Rd1 Qe5 24.f4
Qxb2 25.Nf6.
22 Rfe1!
Qf6
23 Nxf6
and White won in a few moves,
Smagin-Monin, Minsk1986.
Semi-Slav Defene
51
CHAPTER 5 D45/SL8
7 eeeBd2
Taimanov's Variation
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf
Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6
1!

1.
This move, which plans castling
Queenside followed by e4 andor
a Kingside attack, was frst seen
in Taimanov-Botvinnik, USSR
1953. Castling Queenside is a
most always risky in Queen's
Gambit forations, but in this
paticular sequence it' s less so
due to the inactiveness of . . . c6
and . . . e6. Theory has never come
up with a clea verdict on this
dangerous but seldom-played
variation.
The other mai systems for
White that arise out of 6.Qc2 are
covered in Chapters Si and
Seven. A new system, namely
7.Bd3 (or 7. Be2) 7 . . . 0-0 8.0-0
dc4 9.Bxc4 e5 10.h3 is covered
at the end of Chapter Four.
7 B 0-0
It's logical to secure the King
before commencing operations
in the center. Two premature at
tempts to break fee are:
1 ) 7 . . . Qe7 8.0-0-0 e5?! [8 . . . 0-0
tansposes into A1 considered
below] 9.e4 [Here 9.cxd5 makes
little sense as the Bishop on d6 is
guarded-i.e. 9 . . . cxd5 10. Nb5
e4! .] 9 . . . dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4
1 1 .Qxe4 Nf6 [Here 1 1 . . . 0-0
12.Bg5! tansposes directly into
Taimanov-Gromek, Moscow
52 7 Bd2
(ol) 1956.] 12. Qh4 exd4 1 3.Bd3 After 8 0-0-0
Be6 14. Nxd4 0-0-0. So far
R.Weinstein-Sherwin, St. Louis
1960, where instead of 15.Rhe1
which allowed 15 . . . Ng4! White
should have played 15. Nxe6
Qxe6 16.Rhe 1 with a clear ad
vantage;
2) 7 . . . e5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 [8 . . . cxd5
9.Nb5 Bb8 10.Bb4 (or 10. Rc1
0-0 1 1 .Bb4 Re8 12. Nd6 +=)
10 . . . e4 1 1 .Nd2.] 9.Nxd5! ? [9. e4]
9 . . . cxd5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nxe5
Bxe5 12. Bb5ch. Bd7 13. Qf5!
Bxb2 14.Rb1 Bxb5 15.Rxb2 with
a clear advantage to White-
Black must choose between:
8 ... 0e7: B. 8 MM Ne4: C. 8 MWWe: D
8 ... c5: E. 8 MMM b5.
J.Watson.
A
8 0-0-0
8 &&& Qe7
The natural followup to 7 .Bd2. A
ticky but harmless move is 8.h3.
The idea is to be able to answer
8 . . . e5 with 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nb5
Bb8 1 1 . Rc 1 Re8 [ 1 l . . . e4
12. Bb4! . ] 12. Nc7 +-, Paros-Ro
tariu, Romania (ch.) 1972. Black
can easily equalize with either
8 . . . c5 9. cxd5 exd5 10.Be2 b6,
Cvetkovic-Lukacs, Belgrade
1984 or 8 . . . a6 9.0-0-0 b5 10.c5
Bc7 1 1 . g4 b4 12.Na4 a5 13.Be1
Ne4 1 4. Ng1 e5, Dj uric
Petursson, Ljubljana 1981 .
Two other inferior ties for Black
are:
1) 8 . . . b69.e4dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4
1 1 . Qxe4Bb7 12.Bd3 Nf6 13. Qe2
Qc7 14.Bc3 Be7 1 5.Rhe1 Rfe8
16. Ne5 Bf8 17 .g4 +-, Gheorghiu
R. Anderson, USA 1980;
2) 8 . . . dxc4 9. e4! [9.Bxc4 c5
10.Nb5 Be7 1 1 . dxc5 a6 12.Nc3?
Qc7 13.Kb1 Nxc5 -+, Djantar
Trifunovic, Yugoslavia ch.
1 961 . ] 9 . . . e5 1 0. Bxc4 b5
[ 10 . . . Qc7 1 1 .Kb1 exd4 1 2. Nxd4
+-, Benko-Shipman, New York
Semi-Slav Defense
53
1960.] 1 1 .Bb3 [ 1 l .Be2? Qe7
1 2. dxe5 Nxe5 1 3. Nd4? b4
14. Na4 Neg4! -+, Matulovic
Vospernik, Yugoslavia ch.
1961 .] 1 1 . . .Qe7 12.Rhel a5 1 3. a4
b 14. Ne2 c5 1 5. Ng3 += accord
ing to J.Watson.
9 e4 dxe4
10 Nxe4 Nxe4
11 (xe4 e5
Alteratives fae no better:
1 ) 1 1 . . .f5 1 2.Qe3 e5 1 3.dxe5
Nxe5 14.c5 Bc7 15. Bc4ch. Kh8
1 6.Rhel f4 17. Qd4 +-, Berliner
S.Jones, Albuequerque 1960;
2) 1 1 . . . Nf6 1 2. Qh4 Ne8 13.Bg5
f6 14.Bd3! +-, Vaitonis-Angos,
Munich (ol) 1958.
12 Bg5! f6
Or 1 2 . . . Qe6 1 3. dxe5 Bxe5
[ 1 3 . . . Nxe5 1 4. Rxd6 Qxd6
15. Nxe5 f6 16.Bd3! .] 14.Bd3 f5
1 5. Qh4 when White has a dan
gerous attack.
13 Bd3 g6
14 Bh6 ReS
15 c Bc7
16 Bc4ch. Kh8
17 Rhel +-
Taimanov-Gromek, Moscow
(ol) 1956.
B.
8 ... Ng4
1
With this move Black plans to
"stonewallize" the position with
. . . f5. However, the plan not only
loses time but aso weakens the
Black Kingside. With a timely g4
break White will be able to crash
through.
9 Bel f5
10 h3 Nh6
This arifcial loking move is
necessary to delay g4. On
10 ... Nf6 White has 1 1 .g4! imme
diately.
11 Be2
Also good as John Watson points
out is 1 1 .Bd3 meeting 1 1 . . . Nf6
with 12. Ne5 preparing g4 and f4.
For example 1 1 .Bd3 Nf6 12.Ne5
Qc7 13.f4 Ne4 14. g4 +-.
11 ...
Nf6
54
7 . . eBd
12 Ne5 Nf
13 f4 Ne4
14 Nxe4
15 g4
16 c5
17 dxe5
18 Rg1
dxe4
Bd7
Bxe5
Qe7
White is clearly better, Taima
nov-Karaklaic, USSR 1957.
..
8 ..& e5
#5.
With this move Black accepts an
isolated queen pawn in exchange
for easy development. White has
to play very caefully to obtain
anything.
9 cxd5 cxd5
White stands clearly better after
9 . . . exd4 with 10. dxc6 dxc3
1 1 .Bxc3 Nb6 12.Ng5 g6 13. Bxf6
Qxf6 14. Ne4 Qe7 15. Nxd6,
Bilek-Neikich, Leipzig 1960.
Interesting is 9 . . . Nxd5! ?. After
10. Nxd5 cxd5 1 l .dxe5 Nxe5
12.Bc3 Black must t 1 2 . . . Qe7
[ 1 2 . . . Nxf3 13.gxf Be6 14.Rg1
f6 15.Bd3 +-, Bischoff-Wester
inen, Reykjavik 1982.] sacrifc
ing material to get some open
lines to the White King. In
Radev-Lukov, Bulgaia 1983 a
very unclear position was
reached after 1 3. Rxd5 f6
14. Nxe5 Bxe5 1 5. Qe4 Be6
1 6.Bd3 Rfc8 17. Qxh7ch. Kf8
1 8.Rxe5 fxe5.
10 NbS
Bb8
11 dxe5
Not 1 1 .Bb4 here because of
. . . Re8 12.Nd6 Bxd6 13. Bxd6 e4
1 4. Ne5 Nxe5 1 5. dxe5 Bg4
threatening . . . Rc8. Petosian
Korchnoi, USSR ch. 1955, went
instead 14.Bc7 Qe7 15. Ne5 Nxe5
1 6.dxe5 Ng4 17.Bd6 Qe6 with
advantage to Black.
11 ...
12 Bc3
13 Bd4
Nxe5
Qe7
An interesting ty for White is
13. Qa4! ? though this does not
lead to anything after 13 . . . Bd7.
The game Dahlberg-Hillery, Los
Angeles 1 98 1 continued
14. Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5
16. Qd4 Rfc8ch. 17.Kb1 Qxd4
Semi-Slav Defene
55
1 8.Rxd4 and now instead of the Akesson-Dlugy, Gausda 1982.
mistaken 1 8 ... Ne4? 19.f! Nf2 1
20.Rg1 Bf5ch. 21 .e4! of the cS
gae, simply 1 8 . . . Ng4! gives
Black the advantage.
The text move [ 1 3.Bd4] clears c3
for the Knight while threatening
Bc5. If 1 3.Kb1 then Black has
13 . . . a6 14.Nb4 Ne4 with equal-
ity.
13
Rd8
On 13 ... b6 White keeps a com
forable edge with 14.Nc3 Bb7
1 5. Kbl . If 1 5.Qf5 Black has
1 5 . . . Neg4 1 6.Bd3 Nxf2 17.Bxf6
Nxd3ch. 1 8.Rxd3 Qxf6 19. Qxf6
gxf6 20.Nxd5 Be5 with only a
very small disadvantage in the
ending, Tal-Trifunovic, Munich
(ol) 1958.
14 Nc3 g6! ?
Taimanov gives 1 4 . . . Nxf3
15. gxf3 Be5 as equal but Watson
points out that after 16.Kb 1 in
tending to pressure the d-pawn,
White is still better.
15 NxeS
16 BxeS
17 Rd4
18 Bd3
19 Qd2
BxeS
QxeS
Be6
a6
bS
Black stands quite comforably.

This is Black' s most natural
move.
9 cxdS
Other moves are also worh look
ing at:
1) 9.e4! ? cxd4 10.Nxd4 dxc4
[White is a bit better after
1 0 . . . Nxe4 1 1 . Nxe4 dxe4
12. Qxe4 Qe7 13.Bd3, Bergraser
Borsony, 2nd World Cores. ch.
1956-59. Perhaps Black' s best
line is10 . . . Be5 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bh4
and now instead of 12 . . . Bxd4
13.Rxd4 Qb6 14.Rd1 d4 15.Na4
Qa5 16.Rxd4 Qelch. 17.Rdl
Qxe4 18.Qxe4 Nxe4 19.Bd3 +=,
as in Tal-Gipslis, Riga 1953,
Black has a big improvement in
56
7 . e Bd2
12 . . . Qb6! with a good position, game.
Akesson-Andianov, Groningen 9 ggg exd5
198 1 . ] 1 l .Bxc4 a6 [Euwe sug- 10 Bel
gested 1 1 . . .Nb6 12.Be2 Bd7 with
the as sessment ' unclear' . ]
12. Be3 Qe7 13.Be2 Ne5 14.h3
Ng6 1 5.Kb1 Bf4 16.Qd2 e5
17. Nf5 +-, Taimanov-Fichtl,
European Teams ch. 1957;
2) 9.Kb1 [Smyslov' s move.]
9 . . . cxd4 [9 . . . Re8?! 10.e4! cxd4
1 l . Nxd4 dxc4 1 2. Bxc4 Nb6
13. Bb3 favors White. In the game
Sahovic-Pavlovic, Nis 1985,
Black played the logical 9 . . . a6
and got an excellent position after
10. cxd5 exd5 1 l .Ng5 h6 12. h4
Re8 1 3.Nh3 b5 14.f3 cxd4
1 5. exd4 Nb6 1 6. Bf4 Bxh3
17. Bxd6 Qxd6 1 8. Rh3 Rac8.]
1 0. Nxd4! ? [ 1 0. exd4 dxc4
1 l . Bxc4 a6 12.Bd3 b5 13.Ne4
Be7 14. Ne5 led to a complicated
game in Smyslov-Whiteley,
Hastings 1976n7. ] 10 . . . dxc4
1 l . Bxc4 a6 12. g4! ? unclear
Watson. However 12 . . . Ne5!
looks like a good reply here so we
would like to recommend
1 2.Be2! ? when 12 . . . b5 runs into
13. Bf and aganst quieter moves
White has 1 3.g4 with a sharp
Taimanov' s recommendation
which has since become the main
line. Other moves don' t put many
diffculties in Black' s way:
1) 10. h3 a6 [ 10 . . . c4 1 1 .g4 Re8
12. Bg2 Rb8 1 3. Nh4 Bb4=,
Holmov-Serfc, Dresden 1956]
1 l .g4 Re8 12.Bg2 b5 13.Ne5
cxd4 14. Nc6 Qb6 15.Nxd5 Nxd5
1 6. Bxd5 Bb7 1 7. Ba5 Bxc6
1 8. Bxc6 Qxa5 19.Bxa8 Nb6
20.Bc6 Rc8 2l . Rd4, +-, Saidy
Weldon, New York 1987;
2) 10.Kb1 [The main alterative
to lO.Bel.] 10 . . . c4! ? [Black does
not have a lack of good moves. I
Taimanov-Botvinnik, Match
1 953, Black equalized with
Semi-Slav Defense
57
10 . . . a6 1 1 .Bc1 c4 13.g4 Nb6
1 3.h3 Re8 14.Bg2 Bb4, while in
Kaer-Vaganian, Tallinn 1968,
Black got stong counterplay
with 1 0 . . . Re8 1 1 . Nb5 Bf8
1 2. dxc5 Nxc5 1 3. Bb4 b6
1 4. Nbd4 Bd7 1 5. Bb5 Rc8
1 6. Qe2 Nfe4. ] 1 1 . Ng5 ! ?
[ l l .Bc l ! ? a6 12.g4 Nb6 13.h3
Re8 14. Bg2 Bb4! 15. Ne5 Bxc3
1 6. Qxc3 Ne4=. ] 1 1 . . . h6
[ 1 1 . . . Re8? 1 2. Nxd5 ! Nxd5
13. Qxh7ch. Kf8 14.Qh8ch. Ke7
15. Qxg7 is stong for White.]
12. h4 g6 [On 12 . . . Re8 White
would play 13.f3 followed by
14.e4.] 13.f3!
#5. 7
[If White reteats his Knight he
loses the initiative: 13. Nh3 b5!
14. Nxb5 Nb6 followed by . . . Bf5
with a stong attack.] 13 . . . hxg5
14.hxg5 Nh7! [ 14 . . . N5 15. Nxd5
Ng3 16.Rh3 Nxf1 17. Rfl gives
White a good attack against the
Black King.] 15. Nxd5 b5! 16.e4,
Averkin-Andri anov, USSR
1983, and now Black can gain the
advantage with 16 . . . Bb7! 17. Nf4
Bxf4! 1 8.Bxf4 Nxg5 19.d5 Re8.
10 &&& c4
Not so good is 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 . Nxd4
Nc5 1 2.Kb1 Be6 1 3. f3 a6
14. Nxe6 fxe6 15.e4 b5 16.exd5
b4 17.Ne4 Ncxe4 1 8. fxe4 exd5
19.Bg3! Bxg3 20.hxg3 +-, An
toshin-Bikhovsky, Moscow
1958.
A major alterative to 10 . . . c4
though, is 10 . . . Nb6! ?: 1 l .dxc5
Bxc5 12. e4?! Nxe4?! [ 1 2 . . . Be6!
followed by ... Rc8 gives Black an
edge.] 13. Nxe4Bf5 14. Qxc5 Rc8
15. Qxc8 Qxc8ch. 16.Nc3 Qc5
17. Nd4 +=, Foigel-Andrianov,
USSR 1979.
11 g4 Nb6!
Black must avoid 1 1 . . . Nxg4
12.Nxd5 b5 13. Qe4+-, Zhdanov
Kriukov, 4th USSR Cores ch.
Also bad is 1 1 . . . Re8? 12. g5 Ne4
13. Nxd5 b5 14.Ne5! +-.
In the game Benko-Bisguier, US
ch. 1960/61 , Black chose another
58 7 e e e Bd
good plan: 1 1 . . . Bb4 12. Ne5 Re8
13.Bg2 Nb6 14.f3? Nfd7 15. Bg3
and after 1 5 . . . Nf8 the e5 Knight
had nowhere to run to. White
gave up a pawn by 16.g5 but after
16 . . . Qxg5 17. f4 Qd8 18.e4 Bxc3
19. Qxc3 f6 Black eventually
crashed through to victory. In
stead of 14.f3? White should ty
14.Bf! Nfd7 15.Nxd7 Bxd7
1 6.h4 with an interesting battle
ahead.
12 h3
White has no choice. 1 2.g5?
leads to a Black superiority after
12 . . . Nh5 1 3.Rg1 g6 14.Ne5 Bf5,
Gerink -Serfc, Bratislava 1957.
12 ... ReS
13 Bg2 Bd7
14 Nd2
1 4.Ne5 Bxe5 1 5.dxe5 Rxe5
16. f4! ? Rxe3 17.Bf2 Rd3! is
unclea-J.Piter.
14 ... Bb4!
15 Ndb1 h6
Pinter gives 15 . . . Bc6! 16. g5
Bxc3 17. Nxc3 Ne4! =+. How
ever after 1 8. Bxe4 dxe4 19. d5!
White seems to have excellent
chances.
16 a3
17 Bf
BaS
ReS
1S Rg1
Nh7
19 Rh1
If White captures on d5 Pinter
gives the following variation:
19.Bxd5 Nxd5 20. Nxd5 Bxe1
21 . Rgxe 1 Bc6 22. Nf4 Bf3
23.Rd2 Be4 24.Qd1 Ng5! with
compensation for the sacrifced
pawn.
19 ...
Nf6
20 Rg1 Bxc3
21 Nxc3 Ne4?!
Better is 21 . . . Bc6 22.h4 Ne4
23.Bxe4 dxe4 24.g5 += accord
ing to Pinter.
22 Bxe4 dxe4
23 d5! +
Bischoff-J.Pinter, Plovdiv 1983.
E. s ... b5! ?

Black gambits a pawn so he can
Semi-Slav Defense 59
open lines on the Queenside and
thus take over the initiative. No
defnite verdict has been given on
this plan however.
9 cxbS cS!
10 e4! Bb7
1 0 . . . dxe4 1 1 . Nxe4 Nxe4
1 2. Qxe4 Rb8 1 3. Bd3 Nf6
14. Qh4 should favor White. In
the game Sahovic-Kosanovic,
Yugoslavia 1986, Black played
the new but bad idea 10 . . . cxd4?.
After 1 1 .Nxd4 Bb7 1 2. exd5
Nxd5 13.Nc6 Bxc6 14.bxc6 Nb4
15. Qe4 Nc5 16. Qc4 Qb6 17.Nb5
Nxc6 1 8. Nxd6 Ne5 19. Qc3 Ne4
20. Qxe5 Nxf2 21 .Bc3 Black
gave up.
11 exdS
If 1 1 .e5 Black gets good play
with 1 l . . . cxd4: 12.exd6 dxc3
1 3. Bxc3 Ne4-Euwe.
11 && NxdS!
Experience has shown that
1 l . . . exd5 favors White: 12. Qf5!
[In the game Trapl-Fichtl,
Czechoslovaki an ch. 1 953,
White got the better game after
12.dxc5 Nxc5 1 3.Nd4 Nce4
14. Be1 ! Rc8?! 15. f3! Nxc3
16. Bxc3 Qb6 1 7. Qb3 +-. How
ever Black can improve with
14 . . . Nxc3! 15.Bxc3 Ne4! with
good play-Euwe. In the later
game Beni-Plater, Leipzig (ol)
1 960 White tried another
scheme: 12.Kb1 c4 1 3.Nh4 Re8
14. Nf5 Bf8 15.Be2 but after
1 5 . . . a6! 16.b6! Qxb6 Black had a
good game.] 12 . . . Re8 1 3.Bd3
cxd4 14. Nxd4 Ne5 15. Bb1 g6
16.Qg5 Neg4 17. Qh4Re5 18.Bf4
+-, Vladimirov-Fuchs, Lenin
grad 1967. Since the discovery of
1 2. Qf5 ! nobody has tried
1 l . . . exd5.
12 Ne4
It is not at all clea what White' s
best move is. Here ae a couple of
untested possibilities:
1 ) 1 2. Nxd5 Bxd5 1 3. Bc4
[ 1 3.Bc3 c4 i s unclear.] 1 3 . . . Bxf!
14. gxf cxd4, Black stads well
Kupreichik;
2) 12. Ng5! ? g6 13. Nge4 Be7
[ 1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4. Nxd6 dxc3
1 5. bxc3 ! -Watson. ] 1 4. dxc5
Nxc5 15. Nxc5 Bxc5 16.Bh6 Re8
and Black is okay according to
DeFirmian and Donaldson.
Black could also answer 12.Ng5
with 12 . . . N7f6! ? 13.dxc5 Bxc5
14. Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bc3 g6 and
now Watson notes that 16.Kb 1 or
60
7 e .Bd2
16.h4 are good, since 16 . . . h6 is
met by 17.Nxe6! .
12 ...
Be7
13 dxc5 Nxc5
14 Nxc5
Bxc5
15 Ng5
1 5. Kb1 Bxf 16.Bb4? Nxb4!
17 .Rxd8 Rfxd8 is winning for
Black-Kupreichik.
15 ...
16 Ne4
17 Kb1
18 Qd3
19 f
g6
Bd4!
ReS
Nf6!
Nxe4
20 fxe4 Qf6
21 Bel Rfd8
22 Qf Qe5
23 Bd3 Rxclch.
24 Rxc1 Bxb2
25 Rc2
Ba3
26 Rfl f5
27 Qe2
Rd4
0- 1 , Marovic-Kupreichik, Med
ina del Campo 1980.
Conclusion: Black appears to get
good play by both 8 . . . c5 and
8 . . . b5.
Semi-Slav Defense
61
CHAPER 6 D45/SL8
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 tual . . . c5 advance by . . . b6, . . . Bb7,
5.Nf Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.b3 etc.
7 9N 0-0
Black will usually play this with
out any thought at all. On a few
rare occasions Black has tied to
star an immediate cental attack
without castling: 7 . . . Qe7 8. Bd3
[8.Be2 is usual.] 8 . . . e5?! [8 . . . 0-0]
9. cxd5 cxd5 1 0.dxe5 Nxe5
1 1 . Nxe5 Bxe5 1 2. Bb2 d4
1 3. Nb5 ! dxe3 [ 1 3 . . . Qb4ch.
#6. 1 14.Kfl ! leaves Black in a bad
With this move White prepares a way since both 1 5.exd4 and
long ter build up for e4 [Bb2, 15. Ba3 are threatened.] 14.Ba3!
Be2 (not Bd3 because of . .. e6-e5- exf2ch. 15.Kf1 Nd5 [ 15 . . . Qe6
e4.), 0-0, Rad1 and then e4. ]. To runs into 16.Qe2! while 1 5 . . . Ng4
counter this plan Black has sev- 1 6. Qe2 Qg5 i s killed by
eral options. The fist is to play an 17 . Nd6ch. Kd7 1 8. Bf5ch. Kc7
early . . . e5 and accept an isolated 19.Rcl ! -Forintos.] 1 6. Qxf2 Qf6
Queen pawn. The second is to 1 7. Re1 Be6 1 8. Qxf6 gxf6
give White hanging pawns by 19.Nd6ch. Bxd6 20.Bxd6 0-0-0
. . . dxc4, . . . e5, and . . . exd4. The 21 . Rc1 ch. Kd7 22. Bc5! a6
thid is . . . dxc4 followed by estab- 23. Kf Rc8 24.Rhd1 b6 25.Ba3
lishing a wedge with . . . e5 and Rxc1 26.Bxc1 Kc6 27.Bb2 Kd6
. . . e4.The fourh is to calmly play 28. Be4, +-, Forintos-O. Zak,
for a solid positon and an even- Benidor 1985.
62
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
8 Be2 Ng5 17 .Be2 Ne6 and Black has
As stated in the intoduction to
the btter chances, Nei-Antoshin,
this chapter, d3 is a risky square
Zinnowitz 1966.
for the Bishop because Black will After 8 Be2
later play . . . e5 and threaten a fork

on e4.
The alterative to Be2 is 8.Bb2.
Though this will usually tans
pose back to 8. Be2 lines there are
independent ideas: 8 . . . Re8 [ Or
8 . . . dxc4 9.Bxc4! ? e5 10.0-0-0! ?
Qe7 1 1 . Nb1 aS with a sharp,
unclear game, Bronstein
Dvoretsky, Tifis 1980.] 9.Bd3
e5! 1 0.cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .Nb5?! #6.2
[Bagirov gives 1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 Black has the following choices
1 2. Nxe5 Bxe5 13.0-0-0 with an of set-up: A. 8 b6!?: B. 8 ... a6!?:
unclear position.] 1 1 . . .Bb4ch.
C. 8 ... e5: D 8 adxc4.
1 2. Nd2 e4 1 3.Be2 Re6! =+, Aside from these moves Black
Dydysko-Bagirov, USSR 1985. can also play 8 . . . Qe7 and 8 . . . Re8,
Perhaps the biggest argument both of which will usually tans
aganst 8.Bb2 is that White' s pose into positions fom Line D.
King will be staying in the center We will give one example where
longer than it might like. To take 8 . . . Re8 takes on independent sig
advantage of this fact Black nifcance: 8 . . . Re8 9.0-0 e5?!
should open the center, and the 10.cxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .Ne4! [ 1 1 .Nxd5
quickest way to do this is the cxd5 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13. Bb2 also
immediate 8 . . . e5! 9.cxd5 cxd5 looks comfortable for
10. dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Nb5 [ 1 1 .Be2 is
White . . . +=.] 1 1 . . .Bc7 12.Neg5 f5
better. ] 1 1 . . . Bb4ch. 1 2. Bc3 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Bb2 Ng4 15.g3
Bxc3ch. 1 3.Qxc3 Ne4 14.Qc7 Qe7 16. Bc4 Bb6? 17.Rae1 h6
Nxf3ch. 15. gxf Qf6 16.Nd4 1 8. e4! hxg5 1 9. exd5 Qf8
Semi-Slav Defense
63
20.dxc6ch. Kh8 21 .Ba3 Bxfch.
22. Qxf Nxf2 23.Bxf8 Nh3ch.
24.Kg2 Rxf8 25.Ne5, 1-0, Por
tisch-Miolo, Indonesia 1983.
A
8 ... b6! ?
This move, a favorite of the Pol
ish I.M. Kosto, is not seen very
often but leads to a safe and solid
position. It seems an excellent
choice for those who don' t wish
to discuss the theoretical subtle
ties of Black' s more common
choices.
9 0-0
Bb7
10 Bb2
10. e4 with a spatial advantage
Archives 1950.
10 ... c5
11 cxd5
1 l .Rc1 Rc8 12. Nb5 Bb8 13.dxc5
dxc4 14.cxb6 cxb3 1 5.Qxb3
Qxb6 was equal in Adamski
Kosto, Poland 1970.
11 ... exd5
12 Rad1
12.Nb5?! Bb8 13.Ne5 a6 14.Na3
cxd4! 1 5.exd4 Bd6 16.Qd3 Re8
17 . Nxd7 Qxd7 was slightly in
Black's favor, Pytel-Kosto, Po
land 1972.
12 ... Qe7
Also good is 12 . . . Rc8 13. Qf5
Qe7 14.Rc1 a6 with a comfor
able posi tion for Bl ack,
Langeweg-Tore, Wijk aan Zee
1981 .
13 Bb5?!
Rfd8
14 Qe2 a6!
15 Bxd7
Qxd7
16 Na4 Qb5!
17 Rfe1 c4
18 Nc3
Qc6
19 bxc4
Qxc4!
=+, Schauwecker-Kosto, Swit
zerland-Poland 1974;
l
8 ... a6

#6.3
Another rare system that keeps
many options open. Black can
play for a Queenside advance by
. . . b5, or he can stike in the center
with . . . c5 or . . . e5. What makes
8 . . . a6 desirable is that there is
little experience with it and the
6 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
positions that arise tend to be
quite sharp.
9 Bb2
In the gae L.Porisch-Kaspa
rov, Dubai (ol) 1986, White
played 9.0-0 and Black decided
to go with the tied and tue . . . e5
advance: 9 . . . e5 10.cxd5 cxd5
1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 1 2. Bb2 Be6
[ 1 2 . . . Bg4! ?-Kaspaov.] 1 3.Racl
Rc8 14.Qbl Nfg4! 15. Nxe5
[ 1 5. g3? Qf6! 16. Nxe5 Bxe5
17. Na4 Rxcl 1 8. Qxcl Rc8
19. Qd2 b5 -+, aalysis by Kaspa
rov.] 15 . . . Bxe5 16.Bxg4 Bxg4
17. Na4 Bb8! 1 8. Rxc8 Bxc8
19. Bd4 and White has a small
advantage.
9 O.. dxc4! ?
In the game Lombady-Remlin
ger, New York 1987, Black tied
9 . . . Qe7 lO.Rdl b5 but ended up
with a terrible game after 1 1 .0-0
b4 12.Na4Bb7 1 3.c5 Bc7 14.Bd3
g6 15. Rfel Rad8 16. Bc1 Nb8
1 7. e4 dxe4 1 8. Bxe4 Nxe4
1 9. Qxe4 Rd5 20. Nb2 Nd7
21 . Bf4 Nf6 22. Qe3 Bxf4
23. Qxf4.
10 bxc4 c5
11 0-0
cxd4
12 exd4 b6
13 a4
13. Ne4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 followed
by 15.Bd3 may be a better plan.
13 ...
Bb7
14 Ba3
Bxa3
15 Rxa3
ReS
16 Nd2 Qe7
17 Qb2 Qd6
18 Nd1 aS!
Black has a comforable position.
The game Ree-Kupreichik,
Hastings 198 1/82 continued
19.c5 Qc6 20. Ne3 [20.Bd3 Nd5.]
20 . . . bxc5 21 .Bf Nd5 22.dxc5
Qa6! 23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Nxd5
exd5 25.Rg3 g6 26. Qd4 Nxc5
27.Qxd5 Rfd8 28. Qg5 Ne6!
29.Qe3 Nd4 30.Rh3 Ne2ch.
31 . Kh1 Rxd2 32. Qxd2 Nf4
33.Rc1 Nxh3 34.gxh3 Rxclch.
35.Qxc1 Qd3! 36.Qc8ch. Kg7
37.Kg2 Qe4ch. 38.Kg3 h5!
39.Qc3ch. Kg8 40.f4 h4ch. , 0- 1 .
.. 8 ... e5 #6.
Semi-Slav Defene 65
Black allows White to saddle him
with an isolated Queen pawn but
he expects his active pieces to
give hi good counterchances.
9 cxdS Nxd5
The alterative 9 . . . cxd5 is more
comforable for White but proba
bly tenable: 10. Nb5 Bb4ch.
1 1 .Bd2 Bxd2ch. 12.Nxd2 e4 [or
1 2 . . . a6 1 3.dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nd4
Qd6 15.0-0 Bg4 16.Bxg4 Nexg4
1 7. N4f3 Rac8 1 8. Qd3 Ne5
1 9. Nxe5 Qxe5 20. Nf3 Qe4
21 . Qd4 Rc2 22.Qb6 Qe7 23.Nd4
+=, Groszpeter-Braga, Berlin
1984.] 1 3. Rc1 +=a6 14. Nd6 Nb6
1 5.Qc7?! [ 1 5.Qc5 +=] 1 5 . . . Qxc7
1 6. Rxc7 Rb8 17.f3 exf3 1 8.gxf3,
Knezevic-Velikov, Athens 1981 ,
and now 1 8 . . . Rd8! 1 9.Nxc8
[ 1 9.Nxt? Ne8 20.Nxd8 Nxc7
wins for Black.] 19 . . . Rdxc8
20.Rxc8 Rxc8 21 .Kd1 equalizes
for Black-Knezevic.
10 Nxd5
White gains no advantage from
10.Bb2 Bb4 [ 10 . . . Nxc3 1 1 .Bxc3
Qe7 1 2.Bd3 prevents . . . e4 and
thus is +=, analysis by Archives
195 1 . ] 1 1 .0-0 Bxc3 1 2.Bxc3
Nxc3 1 3. Qxc3 exd4 14.Nxd4
Qf6 15.b4 Rd8 16. Rfd1 h6 17. a4
a6 1 8.Qc2 Nb6 19.Bf3 Be6
20.Rab1 Bd5, Reshevsky-Euwe,
New York 1951 .
10 ...
11 dxe5
#6.5
cxdS
Nxe5
A critical position for the theory
of 8 . . . e5. If White can complete
his development and get his King
to safety he will stand better due
to the weakness of Black' s iso
lated Queen pawn. However at
the moment Black's pieces are
extemely active and some insid
ous taps exist in the position. For
example at one time many years
ago White used to play 12.0-0?
and after 12 . . . Nxfch! 1 3.Bxf3
Qh4 14.g3 [Thegame L.Portisch
Ribli, Montpellier 1985 saw
White suffer a terible fate after
14.h3? Bxh3! 15. Rd1 Bh2ch.
66 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
1 6.Kf1 Qf6 17.Bxd5 Bf5 1 8.e4
Bg4 19.Ba3 Qa6ch., 0- 1 . A
shocking result from such an
opening expert as Portisch.]
14 . . . Qf6 1 5.Bxd5? [Better is
1 5. Bg2 Bf5 16.e4 Rac8 17. Qb1
Bxe4 =+.] and now White would
expect 1 5 . . . Qxa1 ? 16. Bb2 Qxa2
17. Ra1 or 17. Qc3 with great
advantage. However Black play
ers soon discovered a ' slight'
improvement: 1 5 . . . Bf5!
#6.6
and all of a sudden White is lost! -
1 6. e4 [ 16. Qd2 Be5 was Minev
Fichtl, Munich 1958. ] 16 . . . Bh3
17. Rd1 [To meet 17 . . . Qf?? with
1 8.e5.] 17 . . . Be5! , 0- 1 since the
dual threats of 1 8 . . . Bxa1 and
lona 1973.
12 Bb2!
This move has been given a cer
tan degree of attention during the
early and mid 80's. The only
other move that seems to be
worth considering is 12. Nd4! ?.
Tim Harding then recommends
1 2 . . . Bd7 1 3. 0-0 Qh4! but
J.Watson notes that 1 3.Bd2 Rc8
14. Qb2 is not so clea. In the
game Tomashovsky-Hawelko,
Polish ch. 1985, Black did not
bother with 12 . . . Bd7 and instead
attacked White right away with
12 . . . Qg5 and after 13. g3 Qf6
White' s Kingside was full of
holes. White then tied to push
Black back with 14.f4 but after
14 . . . Nc6 15.Bb2 Qe7 16.Kf2 Re8
17. Qd3 Bc5 18. Bf3 Bh3 19.Rhe1
Rac8 20.Re2 Bb6 2l .a3 Qd7 he
was under pressure.
12 ... Bb4ch.
13 Kfl
Imprecise is 13.Bc3 because of
13 . . . Nxfch. 14.Bxf3 Qc7! [Not
so clea is 14 . . . Bf5! ? 15. Qd2
Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Rc8] 17. Qd4 Be4
1 8. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Qxe4 Qa5ch.
1 8 . . . Qf3 win a whole Rook for with compensation for the sacri
Black, Lengyel-Hamann, Barce- fced pawn-Foisor. Slightly infe-
Semi-Slav Defene 67
rior is 14 . . . Qf6 1 5.Rc1 Bf5
16. Qd2 Bxc3 17.Rxc3 Rac8
1 8 . Rxc8 Rxc8 1 9. 0-0 Be4
20.Bxe4 dxe4 21 .h3 Qe7 22.Rd1
when White has a small edge,
Foisor-Kajdanov, Thilisi 1986.]
1 5. Rc1 Ba3 1 6. Bb2 Qa5ch.
[ 1 6 . . . Bb4ch. 17. Ke2! followed
by Rhd1 +=.] 17.Bc3 Qc7 -.
Analysis by Foisor.
An even simpler antidote to
13.Bc3 is Huebner' s suggestion
of 1 3 . . . Bf5 when 14. Qd2Nxfch.
1 5.Bxf3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Be4 pro
duces dead equality.
13 ... Nxf
Bad is 13 . . . Nc6? 14.h4! Be7
[ 1 4 . . . h6 15. Ng5 g6 16.Rdl ! +-.]
1 5. Ng5 g6 16.Rd1 Bf6 17.Ne4!
with a clear advantage for White,
Porisch-Lukacs, Hungay 1986.
13 ... Ng4! ? is interesting but un
tested. After 14.h3 Nf6 15.Ng5
White forces . . . g6 but Black has
. . . Bf5 and . . . Rc8 coming up to
compensate for his stuctural
weaknesses.
14 Bxf
Be6
15 Qd3
I the game Silman-Minev, Port
land 1984, White played 15.h4
Be7 16.g3 but after 16 ... Rc8
Black's play on the 'c' fe just
held the balance: 17. Qd2 Rc6
1 8. Kg2 Qd7 19. Rac 1 Rfc8
20.Rhd1 Rxc1 21 .Rxc1 Rxc1
22.Qxc1 f6 23.Bd4 a6 24.Qd2
Bg4 25. Bxg4, 1/2- 1/2.
On 15. g3 Black should also be
okay. In Huebner-Westerinen,
Solingen 1986 White stod better
ater 15 . . . Bh3ch. 16.Ke2 Qg5
17. Qd3 Rfd8 1 8.Rhd1 Bg4?
19. Rac l . However, Huebner
points out Black could have im
proved with 1 8 . . . Rac8 when
19. Rac1 Bc5 20.Bd4 b6 21 .Qd2
a5 22. Qb2 [ 22. Bxc5 bxc5
23. Qxa5 d4 24.b4 Qf5 threaten
ing . . . d3 with an attack.] 22 . . . h5
offers equal chances.
15 ...
Be7
On 15 . . . Qa5 Wite has 16. Ke2
Bd7 17 .a4 intending Rhc 1 with a
small advantage-Huebner.
16 Ke2! ?
Black equalized easily after
16. g3 Qd7 17.h4 Rfd8 1 8.Kg2
Bf5 19. Qe2 Be4, Agdestein-Pin
ter, Taco 1985. One of the fst
games with this line was Lom
bady-Noguieras, Mexico 1980
in which White ganed a smal
edge with 1 6.h4 Bf6 17 .Bd4
68
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
Bxd4 1 8. Qxd4 Qa5 19. h5h6
Now Black can play for an e5
20.Rh4, however with accurate
advance without ever having to
play Black can expect to secure
wor about getting an isolated
equality. The game continued:
'd' pawn.
20 . . . Rfc8 21 . Qb4 Qa6ch. 22.Kg1
9 bxc4 eS
Rc2 23.a4 Qc6 24.a5 Rc8 25. Rd1
10 0-0 ReS
Rb2 26.Rhd4 and now Black can
In the game Foi sor-
equalize with 26 ... Qc2 27.R4d2
Mnatsakanian, Tbilisi 1983,
Rxb3 28.Rxc2 Rxb4 29.Rxc8ch.
Black left his 'e' pawn on e5 and
Bxc8 30. Rxd5 Be6.
kept White in the dark as to his
16 ... QaS
intentions: 1 0 . . . Qe7 1 l . Bb2
17 Rhcl Rac8
Bc7! ? 12.Bd3 [Perhaps 12.Rfe1
18 a3 h6
Re8 1 3.Radl .] 12 . . . Re8 13.Ne4
19 Kfl Qb6
Nxe4 14.Bxe4 h6 1 5. Rfe1 Nf6
20 Kg1 Qd6
16. dxe5 Ng4 17. Bh7ch. Kh8
21 Bd1
1 8. Bf5 Nxe5 19.Nxe5 Bxe5
White has a small but lasting
edge, L.Portisch-Huebner, Brus
sels 1986.
20.Bxe5 Qxe5 2l .Bxc8 Raxc8,
Black has no problems whatso
ever. The game Huebner-Don
oso, Buenos Aires 1978 saw
another waiting game: 10 . . . Qe7
1 l .Bb2 Re8 12. Rfe1 [Or 1 2. Rae1
Bc7 13.c5 h6 14. Ba3 e4 1 5. Nd2
Nf8 16. Nc4 B g4 17 .Nxe4 +=,
Kuzmin-G.Agzamov, USSR ch.
1981. ] 12 ... b6 1 3.a4 a5 14.Rab1
Ba6 1 5. Ba1 Bc7?! [ 1 5 . . . e4
1 6. Nd2 Bb4 gave Black better
chances for equality.] 16.g3 Rab8
1 7 . Bfl Qf8 1 8. Ne2 c5?
[ 1 8 . . . exd4 19.Nexd4Qc5 20.Nd2
Ne5 21 . h3 with the idea of f4
I
8 ... dxc4
#6.7
Semi-Slav Defense
69
would have only given White a
small edge according to Hubner.]
19. dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Bxe5
21 . Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Nc3 +- Qe8
23.e4 Qc6 24.f4 Ree8 25.Bg2,
White is clearly in contol of the
game.
Another plan that Black may
choose is to keep the Rook on f
for the moment and instead play
for the exchange of dak squared
Bishops: 10 . . . Qe7 1 1 .Bb2 exd4
1 2.exd4 Ba3 13.Bxa3 Qxa3.
However, White' s position is a
bit more comfortable after
14.Bd3 Rd8 1 5.Rfe1 , Knezevic
Dr. Troger, Porz 1981 . ll.Bb2
Clealy White' s only real ty for
advantage. Others are:
1 ) 1 1 .Rd1 Qe7 12.h3 e4 13. Nd2
Nf8 14.Nfl , 1/2- 1/2, Knezevic
Mednis, Kragujevac 1977;
2) 1 1 . a4 Qe7 12.Rb1 e4 13. Nd2
Nf8 1 4. f exf3 15. Nxf c5!
1 6.Bd3 Ng6 17.Kh1 a6 1 8.Bd2
Rb8 19. a5 Bd7! is equal, Rogoff
Mednis, USA ch. 1978. After
ll. Bb2 Black must choose
between D.l. ll,exd4 or D.2.
ll...e4.
I
11 exd4

12 exd4
13 Radl
Nf
The modern plan. Other moves
are:
1 ) 13.d5? Ng6 14.Rad1 cxd5
1 5.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 6.cxd5 Bd7
17. Ba1 Nf4 18. Bc4 Rc8 19. Qb2
f620. Qb3 Qa5 21 .Rd4 b5 22.Bd3
Ne2ch. 23.Bxe2 Rxe2 24.a4 bxa4
25.Qd1 Rec2 with great advan
tage to Black, Miles-Ree, Wijk
aan Zee 198 1 ;
2) 1 3.Bd3 Bg4 14. Ne5 Bxe5
1 5.dxe5 N6d7 16. f4 Nc5 17. Be2
Qd4ch. 1 8.Kh1 Bxe2 19. Qxe2
Qd3 20.Rad1 Qxe2 21 .Nxe2
Rad8 22.Kg1 Na4 23.Bd4 c5
24. Be3 Nd7 25. Rb1 Ndb6
26.Rc 1 f6 and White was under
considerable pressure, Drasko
Sveshnikov, Sarajevo 1983;
70
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
3) 1 3 . Rfe 1 Bg4 [ 1 3 . . . Qc7
14. Rad1 Ng6 1 5.h3 Bd7 16.Bfl
a6 17.c5! Bf8 1 8.Bc4 Re1
19.Rxe1 Re8 20. Re3 Re7 21 . Ng5
+=] 14. h3 Bh5 15.d5 cxd5
1 6. cxd5 Rc8 1 7. Qb3 N8d7
1 8. Nd4 Nc5 19.Qd1 Bg6 20.Nb3
Nfe4 21 .Nxe4 Nxe4, Black has a
good game, Berg-Flea, Gausdal
1981 ;
4) 13.h3 [This was once consid
ered the main line and was often
awaded with an ' ! ' . ] 13 . . . Ng6
14.Rfe1 Qa5 [Or 14 . . . Nh5 15.c5
Bc7 16.Bc4 Rxe1ch. 17.Rxe1
Nhf4 1 8. Qb3 Be6 19.Bxe6 Nxe6
20. Ne4 Ngf4 21 .g3 Nd5 22.Ne5
with an edge for White, Najdorf
Horowitz, New York 1951 .]
1 5.c5 Bf4 [ 15 . . . Bf8 16.Bc4 is
+=.] 16. Bc4 Be6 17. Bxe6 Rxe6
1 8.Rxe6 fxe6 19. g3 Bc7 20.Qb3
+-, Najdorf-Bisguier, New York
1951 . Evidently the old 13.h3 is
still one of White' s best choices.
13 BOO Qc7
Black has also tied 13 . . . Bg4 and
13 . . . Ng6 here but White seems to
emerge with some advantage
against both:
1 ) 1 3 . . . Bg4 1 4. Ne5 ! Bxe2
1 5. Nxe2 Qc7[ Or 15 . . . Qa5
16. Nf Qh5? ( 1 6 . . . Ne4! +=.)
1 7.Ng3 Bxg3 1 8. hxg3 Ng4
19. Rfe1 Rxe1ch. 20.Rxe1 Ne6
2 1 . Qb3 b5 22. cxb5 Qxb5
23. Qxb5 cxb5 24.d5 Nc5 25. Bd4
+- , Huebner- Si gurj onsson,
Luzern 1979.] 16.c5 [ 1 6. Nf3 Ng6
17. Ng3 may be very slightly +=.]
16 . . . Bxe5 17.dxe5 Ng4 [White
would have a clea advantage
after 17 . . . Nd5 1 8. Ng3 Ne6
1 9. Nf5 followed by Nd6. ]
1 8.Ng3 Nxe5 19. Nf5 f6 20.Nd6
Re7 21 .Bxe5! fxe5 22.f4 exf4
[ 22 . . . Ng6 23. Qb3ch. Kh8
24. fxe5 Nxe5 25.Rf5 ! Ng6
26.Nfch. Kg8 27. Ne5ch. Kh8
28. Nxg6ch. hxg6 29.Rd3 wins
for White.] 23.Rxf4 h6 24.Rdfl
Ne6 [24 . . . b6 runs into 25. Qb3ch.
Ne6 26.Re4 ++-. ], Ligterink
Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1985, ater
24 . . . Ne6 White has 25. Qc4! b5
26.Qb3 Kh8 [26 . . . Kh7 27.Rf
Nxc5 28. Qc2ch.] 27.Rf [threat
ening 28. Qxe6! . ] 27 . . . Nxc5
28.Rf8ch. Rxf8 29.Rxf8ch. Kh7
30.Qc2ch. winning;
2) 1 3 . . . Ng6 1 4. Ne5 ! Nxe5
1 5.dxe5 Rxe5
Semi-Slav Defense
71
#6.9
Black must be in touble here!
However matters ae not as
simple as they seem. Here the
often recommended 1 6. Nb5
loses to 16 ... Rxe2! 17. Qxe2 cxb5
1 8.Qd3 [ 1 8.c5 Qe7! ] 1 8 . . . Bg4! .
The Knight move to e4 runs into
the sae type of thing: 1 6. Ne4
Rxe4! 17.Bxf6 Rxe2! 1 8.Qxe2
gxf6 19.c5 Qe7! . After 1 5 . . . Rxe5
White should simply play the
'quiet' 1 6. Qd2 when it becomes
clea that Black will meet with
disaster on the 'd' line bcause of
the pin.
14 c5!
Only this active move gives
White any real hope for an advan
tage. Previously the quieter
14.Rfe1 was played but Black did
not experience any diffculties
after 14 . . . Ng6 1 5.g3 Bg4 1 6.Ng5
Bxe2 17.Rxe2 Rxe2 1 8. Qxe2
Re8 19. Qd3 Qe7, Diesen-Dol
matov, Mexico 1980.
14 ... Be7
14 ... Bf4 15.g3 Bh6 1 6. Ne5 +=
according to Tamanov.
15 Ne5 Be6
15 . . . Ng6?! 16.f4 is stong for
White.
16 f4 Nd5
This is now accepted as the best
move. Black has also tied:
1 ) 1 6 . . . Rad8 17.f5 Bd5 1 8. Nxd5
Nxd5 19.Bh5 g6 20.fxg6 fxg6
21 . Rf7 gxh5 22. Qc 1 Qxe5
23.Rxf8ch. Rxf8 24.dxe5 and
White won without difculty,
Ligterink-Zuidema, Holland
1985;
2) 16 ... Bd5 17. f5 N8d7 1 8.Nxd5
Nxd5 19.Bh5! +- Rf8 20.Rde1
Bg5 21 . Qb3 N7f6?! 22.Bd1 Rae8
23.Qg3 Bd2 24.Re2 Bf4 25. Qf
h5 26. Bb3 Bh6 27 . g3 Re7
28. Rfe1 Rfe8 29.Bxd5 cxd5
30.Ba3 Qa5 31 .c6 Rc7 32.Bd6
Rxc6 33.Nxc6 and Wite son
won, Groszpeter-Pinter, Hun
gary 1984.
17 f5 Nxc3
72
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
According to Taimanov White
gets excellent play after 17 . . . Ne3
1 8. Qe4Nxd1 19.fxe6f620.Nxd1
fxe5 21 .Bc4.
18 Bxc3
In the game Taimanov-Chekov,
USSR 1980, White contnued to
play very sharply with 1 8.fxe6! ?.
The game proved interesting but
did not demonstate that 1 8.fxe6
gives White any particular ad
vantage: 1 8 . . . Nxe2ch. 19. Qxe2
f6 [ 1 9 . . . fxe6 20. Qg4 gives White
goo compensaton for the sacri
ficed pawn. ] 20.Qg4 Bd8 ! ?
[White gets a very stong attack
after 20 . . . fxe5 2 1 . Rf7 g6
(2l . . .Ng6 22.h4 followed by
23.h5.) 22. Rdfl Qc8 23.d5! . For
example 23 . . . Bxc5ch. 24.Kh1
cxd5 25.Bxe5 Qxe6 26.Rg7ch.
Kh8 27 . Rxg6ch. Qxe5
2 8 . Rg 8 ma t e . - Ta i manov . ]
21 .d5! ? cxd5 22.Rxd5 Qe7!
[22 . . . Rxe6? 23. Rd7 ! ++- . ]
23. Nf Qxe6 24.Nh6h. Kh8 and
now White should have played
25.Qxe6 Nxe6 26.Nfch. Kg8
27 .Nd6 Re7 28. Ba3 followed by
29.Rb1 with pressure for the sac
rifced pawn. -Taimanov.
18
Bd5
19 Bel
Perhaps something like 19.Bf3! ?
can b considered.
19
b6!
20 cxb6 axb6
21 Bc4 Bd6
22 Bxd5 cxd5
23 Qb3 Nd7
24 Bg3 Nxe5
25 dxe5
#6. 10
With this move Black reveals his
disdain for mere equality and
instead gains space in the center
in the hopes of creating a
Kingside attack. The negative
side of the move is that White will
put pressure on this advaced
Semi-Slav Defense 73
pawn and together with an f2-f3
advance will force Black to cap
ture by . . . exf, thereby losing his
valuable cental pawn for a less
useful ' f' pawn. If White can then
advance his pawn on e3 to e4 he
will gain a large cental prepon
derance and with it the advan
tage.
12 Nd2
The most natural squae for the
Knight. An interesting altera
tive though is 12.Ng5! ?. The
point of this move is that
1 2 . . . Qe7? is an eror due to 13.c5
Bc7 14.Bc4 with advantage. I
the game Sideif Zade-Akopov,
USSR 1 982, Black played
12 . .. Nf8 and after 1 3.Ncxe4
Nxe4 14. Nxe4 Bf5 [ 14 . . . Bxh2ch.
15.Kxh2 Qh4ch. 16.Kg1 Rxe4
17.g3 Qe7 1 8.Bf3 favors White.]
1 5.Bd3? [ 1 5.Bf3?? is a blunder:
1 5 . . . Qh4 1 6.g3 Bxe4.] 15 . . . Bxe4
1 6. Bxe4 Bxh2ch. 1 7 . Kxh2
Qh4ch. 1 8. Kg1 Re4 19. g3 Rg4!
20.Qf5?! [20.Kg2! Qg5 21 .Rh1
Re8 Keeps Black' s advantage
down to a minimum.] 20 . . . Re8
21 .Rae1 Re6 22.Kg2 Rf6 23.Qc8
Rxg3ch. 24.fxg3 Qe4ch. 25.Kg1
Rh6 26.Re2 Rh1ch. White had to
give up . . . 0- 1 . Instead of playing
the weak looking 15. Bd3? White
should ty 1 5.f3! when 1 5 . . . Qh4
1 6.g3 Bxe4 [Simply bad is
1 6 . . . Bxg3? 1 7. hxg3 Bxe4
1 8. gxh4 Bxc2 19.Kf2 Bg6 20.e4
Nd7 21 .Bd3 when White' s posi
tion is clearly superior, Co.
Ionescu-Hawelko, Naleczow
1985.] 17. fxe4 Bxg3 [Perhaps
it' s better to play 17 . . . Qxe4
1 8. Qxe4 Rxe4 19.c5 Bc7 20.Bc4
Ne6 when White' s advantage is
more manageable.] 1 8.Bf3 [Even
better is probably 1 8.Bd3! Re6
(Or 1 8 . . . Bc7 19.e5 +-.) 19. Rf3
when White had a clear advan
tage in the game Gelpke-R.Kuijf,
Netherlands 1983. ] 1 8 . . . Bc7
19. Qf2 [ 1 9. Kh l ! ?. ] 1 9 . . . Ng6
20.e5 seems to be better for
White-J.Watson. I these lines
don' t please Black as an answer
to 12.Ng5 he can do one of two
things:
1) Black can ty Chemin' s sug
gestion of 12 . . . Ng4! ? 13.Bxg4
Qxg5 =;
2) He can play a different move
order . . . namely 1 1 . . . Qe7 when
12.Rfe1 e4 tansposes back into
our main line.
74
6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
12 ... Qe7
Black should really guard this
pawn. 12 . . . Nf8? goes back into
the Gelpke-R.Kuijf game.
13 Rfe1
A bad experiment was 13.a4 Nf8
14.c5 Bc7 15.Nc4 Ng4 16.Bxg4
Bxg4 17. f4 exf3 1 8. gxf3 Be6
19. Ne4 Bd5 20.Ra3 Bxe4 and
White was a pawn down and soon
lost the game, Knezevic-Wester
inen. White' s major alteratve to
13. Rfe1 is 13. Rae1 ! ?. The game
Co. Ionescu-Chemin, Soci 1986
continued 13 .. . Nf8 14. Bd1
#6. 1 1 [This is a recent attempt.
It's also possible to use the usual
forula: 14.f3 Bf5?! (14 . . . exf!
is corect and ater 15. Bxf3
moves like 1 5 . . . Ng4 or
15 ... Qc7! ? should offer Black
good chances.) 15. fxe4 Nxe4
16. Ncxe4 Bxe4 17 .Nxe4 Qxe4
1 8.Bd3 Qh4 19.g3 Qe7 20.e4
Bb4 21 .Re2 Rad8 22.Ref2 +-,
Nei-Mnatsakanian, USSR 1966.
We should use this moment to
illustate what kind of disasters
can befall White if he is not care
ful : After 13.Rae1 Nf8 White
chose the weak move 14.Kh1 in
the game L.Lengyel-J.Pogats,
Budapest 1953. White died a
horrible death after 14 . . . Bc7
15.f3 Ng4! ! 16.Ndxe4 (lf 1 6.fxg4
Black wins by 16 . . . Qh4 17.h3
Qg3 18.Kg1 Qh2ch. 19.Kf2 Bg3
mate. ) 16 . . . Qh4 17. h3 Nxe3
18. Qd2 Bxh3! , 0- 1 .] Now we are
back to Diagram#6. 1 1 : 14 . . . Bc7!
[Better then 14 . . . Ng6 1 5. f exf3
16.Nxf Be6, Azmajparasvili
Kajdanov, USSR 1982, and now
17.Be2! Ng4 1 8.Bd3 is good for
White-Azmajparasvili.] 15. f3
exf3 16.Nxf3 Be6! 17.Be2 Bg4
1 8 . Bd3 Rad8 1 9. Kh1 Ng6
20.Nd1 Nh5 21 . Qf2 f5! ? 22.e4
Nhf4 23.Bc2 fxe4 24.Re4 Qd7.
According to Cherin, Black has
a slight advantage.
13 ... Nf
14 f exf
Semi-Slav Defense 75
In the game Barbero-H.Franke,
Boblingen 1986, Black tied the
new 14 . . . Qc7! ? and equalized
after 15. Nfl Bf5 [In Sakaev
Sherbakov, USSR 1987 Black
tied 1 5 . . . exf3 but after 16.Bxf
Ne6 17.c5 Bf8 1 8.Ne4 Nxe4
1 9. Bxe4 h6 20.Ng3 White held
an edge.] 16.fxe4 Nxe4 17.c5
Nxc3 1 8. Qxf5 Nxe2ch. 19.Re2
Be7. However, according to Bar
bero White should have played
1 5. f4! when he would hold a
slight advantage.
15 Bxf Ng4
Perhaps 1 5 . . . Ne6! ? deserves an
other look. One source then gives
16. Nde4! as +- but this was not
demonstated in the gae Barre
ras-Frey, in which Black quickly
built up a winning position after
1 6. Nce4 Nxe4 17. Bxe4 Qh4
1 8 . Nf3 Qh5 1 9. Qe2 Ng5
20.Nxg5 Qxh2ch. 21 .Kf1 Qh 1 ch.
22.Kf Qh4ch. 23.Kg1 Qxg5.
The same basic idea tured up
once again in the game Adamski
Chekov, Halle 198 1 : 15 . . . Bd7! ?
16.Rad1 Ne6 17. Nce4 Nxe4
1 8. Nxe4f5 19.Ng3 Ng5, 1/2- 1/2.
16 Nf
This is the reason that 13. Rfe1 is
usually preferred over
13.Rael . . .White has feed the f1
square and can now quietly de
fend his delicate h2 point with the
Knight.
16 OOO QgS
Black can also consi der
16 . . . Qh4! ? 17.g3 [ 1 7.h3 Nf6
1 8.e4 Ne6 followed by . . . Ng5
gives Black good attacking
chances.] 17 . . . Qg5 1 8.Ne4?!
[ 1 8. Qd2 is just one of many
moves that White may like to ty
here. 1 8.Ne4 doesn' t seem to tur
out too well.] 1 8 . . . Qg6 19.Qg2
Bb4 20.Re2 Bf5 21 .Nf Nxf
22.Rxf Be4 23.Rd1 Nd7, =+,
Taimanov-Barbero, Montpellier
1986.
17 Qd2
17.Qe2! ? with the idea of Ne4 is
possible. Perhaps best of all is
17.c5! when 17 . . . Bc7 1 8.e4 is
probably somewhat in White' s
favor: 18 . . . Ne6, Agdestein-Tal,
Taxco 1985, and now 19.Radl !
Nxd4 [White is much better after
19 . . . Nxh2? 20.Nxh2 Bxh2ch.
21 .Kxh2 Nxd4 22. Qf2. Also
good for the first player is
19 .. . Nf4 20.Bcl ! Qg6 21 . Khl .]
20. Rxd4 Nxh2! 2 1 . Nxh2
76 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 b3
Bxh2ch. [21. . . Qh4! ?.] 22.Kf1
Bg3 gives Black some chances
for the sacrifced materia.
17 MMM Bf5
18 Rad1 Rad8
19 g3 Qg6
20 Qg2 Bb4
21 e4
Bc8
22 h3
Nh6
#6. 1 2
An interesting position. At frst
glance White' s stong cental
mass looks as if it must give him
the advantage. However, it turs
out that with White' s Kingside
weakened, this same ' stong'
center is actually rather diffcult
to defend.
23 g4
Ne6
24 Qf Ng5
25 Qg3
25. Bg2 loses a pawn to 25 . . . Bxc3
26.Bxc3 Nxe4. After 25.Qg3 this
same pawn grabbing line gives
White a lot of activity: 25 . . . Bxc3
26.Bxc3 Nxe4 27. Bxe4 Rxe4
28.Rxe4 Qxe4 29.Re1 followed
by 30.Qc7.
25 MMM
f5! !
Cracking White open.
26 e5
Loses quickly but 26. exf5 Nxf5
27 . Rxe8ch. Rxe8 28. gxf5
Nx f 3 c h . 2 9 . Kf2 Qx g 3 c h .
30.Kxg3 still wins for Black after
30 . . . Ngl ! 31 .Kg2 Ne2! -Ligter
ink.
26 MMM fxg4
27 Bxg4 Nxg4
28 hxg4 Bxg4!
0- 1 , Gelpke-Van der Wiel, Hil
versum 1986.
Conclusion: The vaiations ais
ing from 6. Qc2 Bd6 7.b3 ae ex
temely rich in stategical and
tactical possibilities. Lines like
7 . . . 0-0 8. Be2 and now 8 . . . a6 or
8 . . . b6 have hadly been tested
enough to give a definite assess
ment but they seem to give White
a free hand. The time tested 8 . . . e5
9.cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 cxd5
Semi-Slav Defense
77
1 1 .dxe5 Nxe5 favors White
chance for activ
e
play and win
slightly
after
12.Bb2 Bb4ch. ningchances a
e thelin
es coming
13. Kfl . Another vaaton also
frm 8 ... dxc4
9. bxc4
e5 10.0-0
giving White a very small edge is
Re8 1 1 .Bb2 e4
. In
playing this
that arising fom 8 . . . dxc4 9. bxc4
way Black gr
a
t
s W
ite a cental
e5 1 0.0-0 Re8 1 1 .Bb2 exd4. At pawn mass bu
t
gets lots of
present the second player's best counterplay aga
i
nst
it.
78
7 e4 main line
CHAPER 7 D45/SL8
7 e4 Main Line
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6
5.Nf Nbd7 6.0c2 Bd6 7.e4
#7. 1
Intoduced by the Swedish GM
Gosta Stoltz before the Second
World War this line has recently
become very popular. It might
seem stage that White can ex
pend an exta tempo (e3-e4) and
still hope for an advatage. The
fst player' s justfcation for this
is the feeing of the c 1 Bishop and
the fact that the Black feeing
move . . . e5 isn't so easy to get in
counts for a lot.
7 ... dxe4
Almost invariably played. The
one exception was the surprising
innovation seen in the 1 st. Kar
pov-Kasparov match: 7 . . . e5! ?
8. cxd5 cxd5 9. exd5 exd4
10.Nxd4 0-0 1 1 .Be2 Nb6 12. 0-0
[ 1 2. Bg5 ! ? Nbxd5 1 3. Nxd5
Qa5ch. 14. Qc3 Qxd5 1 5.Bxf6
gxf6 is given as unclear by
Gufeld.] 1 2 . . . Nbxd5 13. Nxd5
Nxd5 14.Rd1 Qe7 15.Bf3 Re8
16.g3 Bh3 17 .Bd2 Be5 18.Bxd5
Bxd4 19.Bc3 Bxc3 20.Qxc3, 1/2-
1/2. Such an easy solution to
Black's problems should have
undoubtedly made 7 . . . e5 very
popula. However this has by no
means been the case! Since its
debut nobody has cared to repeat
Kasparov's 7 . . . e5. Why?
8 Nxe4 Nxe4
9 Qxe4 #7.2
Semi- Slav Defense 79
The staing position for the 7 .e4
line. Black can ty A. 9 @e5. B.
9 ... c. C. 9 &&& Bb4ch . . D 9 ... Nf6.
E 9 &&& 0-0?!.
9 B.B e5
Originally this was thought to be
the ' complete' answer to White' s
system. However the lines that
were thought to lead to 'easy
equality' were found to be bad
and new ideas for both sides have
made the theoretical status of
9 . . . . e5 rather unclear.
10 dxe5
: (after 10 .de5)
The position after 10.dxe5 is a
critical one and Black has played
three moves here: A.l10,Nxe5.
A.2. 10 ... 0e7. A.3. 1 ... 0-0!
Nobody plays anything else A.l.
nowadays. The two other moves 10 ... Nxe5
[both bad] that have been consid- This was once thought to lead to
ered ae:
easy equality but today most
1) 10.Bd3? f5 1 1 . Qe2 [ 1 1 .Qxf5 people considerit tobe amistake.
Nf6 12.Qg5 e4 13.Bxe4 Nxe4 However the tuth may be some-
14. Qxg7 Qf6 is -+ according to where in between.
va Scheltinga.] 1 1 . . .e4 12.Ng5
11 c!
Bb4ch. 1 3. Kfl Nf6 =+, This is Mikhalchisin' s improve
Polugaevsky-Taimanov, USSR ment, which led to a revival of the
ch. 1956;
whole variation. Before this most
2) 1 0. c5 Be7 ! [ 1 0 . . . Bc7?
1 l . Bc4 ! . ] 1 1 . Nxe5 Nxe5
12. Qxe5 0-0 and White has prob
lems-Archives 1950.
sources only gave 1 1 .Nxe5?
which gives Black an easy game
after 1 1 . . . Qa5ch. The game
Zidkov-Mikhalchi sin, USSR
1980 continued 12.Bd2 Qxe5
80 7 e4 min line
1 3.Bd3?! [Correct is 13.Qxe5ch.
Bxe5 14.0-0-0 with equaity.]
1 3 . . . Qxe4 14.Bxe4Be6! 15.Bd3?
[Equality ca still b had by
1 5. b3. ] 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 1 6. 0-0-0
Bxh2! 17.Bg5 f6 1 8.Bh6! Be5
19.Bxg7 Rhg8 and Black' s
chaces were slightly superior.
An alterative to both 1 1 .c5 and
1 1 . Nxe5 is Gufeld' s suggestion
of 1 1 .Bf4! ?. He then gives 1 1 . . . f6
1 2.0-0-0 Qe7 1 3. Bxe5 fxe5
14. Bd3 g6 1 5.Rhe1 Bf5 16.Qh4!
with a slight edge for White. In
stead of this Black can consider
l l . . . Bb4ch. when 12.Ke2! seems
strong: 1 2 . . . f6 1 3.Bxe5 0-0
14.c5! winning for White.
11 ...
Bc7!
Alteratives are:
1 ) 1 1 . . . Qa5ch?? 12. b4 wins;
2) 1 1 . . . f5? 1 2. Qe2! Qa5ch.
13.Bd2 Qxc5 14.Bc3 0-0 [Or
14 . . . Be6 15.Nxe5 0-0-0, Mikhal
chisin-Sveshnikov, USSR ch.
1978, and now 16.f4! intending
Qf2 would b stong according to
Mikhalchisin. ] 1 5.Nxe5 Re8
16. Qc4ch. , Watson-Shkolnikov,
Berkeley 1984, and now 16 . . . Be6
1 7. 0- 0- 0! [ 1 7. Qxc5 Bxc5
1 8 . Nd3 ! also looks good. ]
17 . . . Bxc4 1 8. Bxc4ch. Kh8
19.Ntch. Kg8 20.Nxd6ch. Kf8
21 .Bd4! Qa5 22.Nxb7 is very
stong for White according to
Watson.
12 Nxe5 Qe7
13 f4 f6
14 Bd3! ?
John Watson points out that
Mikhalchisin' s original sugges
tion of 14. Be3 can b met by
14 . . . g6! 15. g4 fxe5 1 6.f5 Qh4ch!
17 .Bf gxf5.
14 ...
fxe5
15 0-0! g6
1 5 . . . Qxc5ch. 1 6. Be3 Qd5
17. Qxd5 cxd5 1 8.fxe5-J.Watson.
16 fxe5 Bf5
17 Qc4 Bxd3
18 Qxd3 Qxc5ch.
19 Be3 Qxe5
20 Bf4
Qc5ch.
21 Kh1
Analysis by J.Watson. Black's
king is caught i the center and
only heavy material loss will al
low it to escape alive. One gets
the impression that there are still
many unanswered questions in
the 10 . . . Nxe5 variation.
u
10 ... Qe7
Semi-Slav Defense
81
#7.
By directly attacking the pawn
and keeping . . . B b4ch in reserve
until White has moved his QB
Black will usually be able to get
his lost pawn back and reach the
' safety' of an endgame. How
' safe' this endgame really is turs
out to be a major question though,
as White' s winning percentage is
extemely high.
11 Bf4 Bb4ch.
12 Bd2
Nobody has had the 'courage' to
t 12. Ke2.
12 ... Bxd2ch.
13 Nxd2
In Seirawan-Bellon, Las Palmas
198 1 , White won with 13.Kxd2?!
Nc5 14. Qh4 g5 15. Qh6 Bf5
1 6.Re1 Qd8ch. 17. Qd6 Qa5ch.
1 8.Ke3 Ne4 though Black has the
better game at this point.
1 3.Kxd2 cannot be recom
mended.
13 ... Qxe5
No better is 13 . . . Nxe5 14. f4 Ng6
15. Qxe7ch. Kxe7 1 6.g3 Rd8
17. 0-0-0 K 1 8.Bg2 Rd4 19.b3
Bg4 20.Nf3 Bxf 21 .Bxf3 Rad8
22. Rxd4 Rxd4 23. Kc2 Ne7
24.Kc3 Rd8 25. b4, +-, Garcia
Padron-Bellon, Las Palmas
1981 .
14 0-0-0 0-0
In Speelman-Kuligowski, Mari
bor 1980, Black tied 14 . . . Qxe4
but found himself in touble after
1 5. Nxe4 0-0 1 6. f4! Nb6? !
[ 1 6 . . . Nf6 17. Nxf6 gxf6 with the
idea of . . . f5 and . . . Be6 is only
slightly better for White accord
ing to Kovacevic.] 17.Be2 aS
1 8.b3 Nd7 19.Rhe1 Rb8 20.Bf3
h6 21 .g3 Nf6 22.Nxf6ch. gxf6
23.g4! . White had a won position
after the furher 23 .. a4 24.f5 axb3
25. axb3 Ra8 26. Kb2 Ra5
27.Rd6! Kg7 28. Kc3.
15 Bd3 g6
16 Bc2! ?
82
7 e4 main line
Other interesting moves that de
sere consideration ae 16. h4! ?
and 16. Bb1 [guarding a2] . On the
other hand, completely haless
is 16.Qh4 Qf6! 17. Qxf6 Nxf6
1 8.Ne4 Nxe4 19. Bxe4 Bg4 20.f
Be6 with equality, Mikhalchisin
Beliavsky, USSR ch. 1981 .
16 ...
ReS
16 . . . Qa5 would allow White
stong chances on the Kngside
with 17. h4.
17 f4!
18 Nxe4
19 Nd6
20 Rhe1
21 g4!
22 g5
23 Rxe7
24 Re1ch.
Qxe4
Kg7
Re7
Kf
Nf6
NeS
Kxe7
Be6
A sad necessity since 24 . . . Kxd6
25. Rxe8 b6 26. Rh8 leaves
Black's Kingside dying off.
25 Nxb7
Black has lost a pawn and since
he has nothing whatsoever to
show for it he eventually lost the
game, M. Gurevic-I. N ovikov,
USSR 1982. The whole lie with
10 . . . Qe7 is rather diffcult for
Black;
10 ... 0-0!
Originally recommended by
Pachman, this is one of Black' s
best lines vs. the 7 .e4 system.
11 exd6! ?
:.
This move has an interesting his-
tory. First the alteratives were
all considered harless:
1) 1 1 .Be2? Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qa5ch
is in Black' s favor;
2) 1 1 .Ng5? Nf6! is good for
Black who will chop on e5 after
White moves his Queen;
3) 1 1 .Bd3 f5 once again leaves
Black with a stong initatve;
4) 1 1 .Bf4! ? [the best of the alter
native choices. ] 1 l . . . Bb4ch
1 2. Ke2! ? [Safer is 1 2. Bd2
Bxd2ch 13.Nxd2 Nxe5 14. 0-0-
0. ] 12 . . . Nc5 and Black has excel-
Semi-Slav Defense
83
lent compensation for the pawn
minus. Though the alteratives to
1 1 .exd6 were not highly thought
of, most books thought even less
of 1 1 .exd6 . . . usually adoring it
with a ?? mark of disapproval.
Then in 1980 Mikhalchisin won
convincingly using 1 1 .exd6 and
opinion switched over to consid
ering it clealy better for White!
Evolution did not stop here how
ever. As time went by Black
found better ways of defending
his position and now we seem to
b back to stage one . . . nobody
knows what the tuth is! At any
rate the whole line seems to b an
excellent way for Black to ty to
win.
11 ...
12 Qxe8ch.
13 Be3
ReS
Qxe8ch.
Nf6
The most popular defensive ty
but by no means clealy best.
Black has also tied:
1 ) 1 3 . . . b5! ? is an untied sugges
tion of Dorfman' s when 14.0-0-0
Qe6 would tanspose into line 4)
with 1 3 . . . Qe6;
2) 1 3 . . . Ne5 was the reply in the
stem game Mikhalchisin-Flear,
Mexico 1980: 14.0-0-0 Nxf3
[ 14 . . . Ng4 15.Bd3 Nxe3 1 6.Rhe1
is very stong for White-Mikha
chisin.] 15. gxf3 Bd7 16. Bd3
[Mikhalchisin gives 16.h4! ? with
the idea of 17 .Bh3 but this would
fail immediately to 17 . . . Bxh3 and
1 8 . . . Qe6. The old addage still
holds tue: ' Play what the Master
does, not what he recommends. ' ]
16 . . . Qe5 17.Rhg1 g6 1 8.f4 Qf6
[Or 18 . . . Qh5 19. f5! Bxf5 20.Rg5
Qxd1ch. 21 .Kxd1 Bxd3 22. Re5!
Bxc4 23.Bg5 Be6 24.Rxe6 fxe6
25.d7 with a win for Wite
Mikhalchisin.] 19. f5! b6 20.Bc2
Qh4 21 .Kb1 c5 22.Bg5! Qxf2
23.fxg6 hxg6 24. Rdfl Qd4
25. Be7 a5 26.h4 Bg4 27.Bf6
Qxc4 and now Mikhalchisin
gives 28.d7 Bxd7 29.h5 as lead
ing to a quick win. 13 . . . Ne5 does
not seem to b the proper way for
Black to play! ;
3) 13 . . . Nb6! ? 14.Bd3 Be6 15.0-
0-0 Rd8 [ 15 . . . Nxc4? 16.d7 Qd8
17. Bg5 f6 1 8.Rhe1 wins for
White.] 16.Rhe1 h6 17. Ne5 Rxd6
1 8.c5 Rxd3 19.Rxd3 Nd5 20.Bd4
Nb4 21 .Rg3 Nxa2ch. 22.Kb1
Qd8 23.Rxg7ch. Kf8 24. Re4 Qd5
25. Rgg4 Qb3, 0- 1 , Legky
Nekrasov, USSR 1980. White' s
84 7 e4 main line
play can obviously be improved
but 1 3 . . . Nb6 could certainly use
more tests;
4) 1 3 . . . Qe6! ? 14.0-0-0 b5 15.Bd3
Nf8 1 6.Rhe1 Bd7 17.h3 Qe8
1 8. Bf4 Ne6 19.Ng5 h6 20.Nxe6
Bxe6 21 .Bf5 Rd8 22.Rd4 c5
23.Rde4 bxc4 24.Bxe6 fxe6
25. Re6 Qa4 26.Be5 c3 27.Bxc3
Qf4ch. 28. Bd2 Qc4ch. 29.Bc3
Qf4ch. 30.Bd2 Qc4ch. 31 .Bc3, 1/
2- 1/2, Gorelov-Vaiser,
Sverdlovsk 1984. There can be
no doubt that the plan of 13 ... Qe6
with . . . b5 deseres serious con
sideration.
14 0-0-0
Be6
Bad is 14 ... Ng4? 15.Bd3 Nxe3
16.Rhe 1 , but a move that must be
given sober thought is 14 . . . Bf5.
After 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16. Rxd3 Qe6
17.b3 we arrive at the critical
moment.
The position in the dagram is a
good illustation of the fght be
tween White' s Rook, Bishop and
pawn vs. Black' s Queen. The
passed pawn is very threatening
but the somewhat lose position
ofWhite' s Kinggives Blackdef
nite counterplay. Black has tied
the following ideas here:
1 ) 17 . . . b5! ? 18.c5 Qg4 19.Rel!
Re8 [Opening the 'g' fle would
be suicidal: 19 ... Qxg2 20.Bd4
Qg6 21 .Ne5.] 20.Bd2 Rxe1ch.
21 .Nxe1 Qf5 22.b4 a5 23.a3 a4
24.f3 Nd5 25. Rd4, White has a
clear advantage, Rivas
Noguieras, Seville 1982;
2) 17 ... a5 1 8.Rhd1 a4 [J.Watson
feels that 1 8 . . . Nd7 may b better
while Chekhov gives the text an
exclamaton mak.] 19.d7! Rd8
20.Bg5! Rxd7 21 .Rxd7 Nxd7
22.Re1 Qg4 23. Re8ch. Nf8
24.Be7 h6 25.Rxf8ch. K7
26.Bc5 f6 and now White went
wrong with 27. Be3? Qxg2
28. Nd4 Qxh2 29.Rf? Qe5!
30. Rxb7 h5! and suddenly
Black's pawns were quite stong
in the game Schneider-Chekhov,
USSR ch. 1982. Instead of this,
Chekov gives 27 . Kd2 Qxg2
Semi-Slav Defense 85
28. Ke2 Qg6! as best with the
assessment of ' unclear' ;
3) 17 . . . Nd71 8.Rhd1 [ 1 8.Rhel ! ?.]
1 8 . . . Qg6 19. g3 Re8 20.Bd4!
Qxd6, Andruet-Bryson, Lucere
1982, and here instead of the
weak 21 .Be5? Qh6ch. 22.Bf4
Qf6! of the game White should
try Vilela' s 21 . Bxg7 ! Qg6
22.Bc3 with good attacking
chances.
All in all 14 . . . Bf5 seems to be
quite reasonable, and if White is
better it is not by much. In par
ticular the line with 17 . . . a5
should be studied.
15 Bd3 b5
A very logical move and one that
goes aong with Black' s best
stategy . . . to make use of his
Queen he must create some ven
tilation aound the White King.
The older move here was
15 . . . Rd8 though White has al
ways enjoyed good results
against it: 16.b3 Bg4 17. Bf4 [To
stop the Queen fom going to e5
as it would in the case of
17.Rhe1? Bxf3 1 8. gxf3 Qe5! .]
17 . . . Bxf 1 8. gxf Nh5?! [Ac
cording to Dorfman better was
1 8 . . . c5 followed by . . . Qc6. After
1 8 . . . c5 Watson gives 19.Rhe1
Qc6 20.Be4 Nxe4 21 .fxe4 with
some advantage for White.]
19.Rhe1 Qxe1ch. 20.Rxe1 Nxf4
21 . Rd1 c5 22.a3 g6 23.Be4 b6
24.b4 f5 25. Bc6, White has a
clear advantage, Dorfman-Sve
shnikov, USSR ch. 1980.
16 c5!
The game N aumkin-Sveshnikov,
Moscow 1983 went 1 6.Ne5 bxc4
17 . Nxc4 Rd8 which most sources
give as unclear but J. Watson feels
is promising for White. Be that as
it may 16.c5! seems to be the
superior move.
16 ... Bxa2
17 Rhe1!
An improvement on the game
lvkov-Panchenko, Sochi 1983,
which went 17.Bg5 Nd7 1 8. Rhe1
Be6 19.Nd4! Nxc5 20.Bf5 Qd7
21 . b4! and now 21 . . . Qxd6
22.Nxe6 Nb3ch. 23.Kc2 Qb4 is
quite nice for Black.
17 ...
Bb3
John Watson analyses the follow
ing lines:
1) 17 . . . Qe6 1 8. Bg5 Qg4 19. Bxf6
Qf4ch. 20.Rd2 Qxf6 21 .Ne5 Bd5
22.Bxb5! ;
2) 17 . . . Nd7 1 8. Bd4! Be6 19.Ng5
86
7 e4 main line
h6 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21 . Re3 e5
22.Rde1 Qh5 23.Bxe5 Nxc5
24.Bb1 ;
3) 17 . . . Be6 18. Bd4 [or 1 8.Nd4]
1 8 . . . Qd8 19.Ng5 is "at best diff
cult for Black", since 19 . . . Bg4
20.f Bh5 21 .Ne4! Nd7 22.g4
Bg6 23. f4.
18 Bg5 Qd8
19 Nd4!
and White is clearly better.It
seems that if Black is going to
have a chance for equality in the
1 3 . . . Nf6 lines he should try
14 . . . Bf5 since the positions ais-
ing fom 14 . . . Be6 tend to favor
White. For those who ae not
happy with Black' s chances after
13 . . . N f6, very interesting aterna
tives are prvided by 13 . . . Nb6! ?
and 13 . . . Qe6! ?, both of which
offer Black plenty of chances for
creativity.
.
9 ... c5
A very logical move. White has
yet to fnd a convincing answer to
it.
10 BgS
Another ty here is 10. Bd2. Rec
ommended several yeas ago by
John Watson it has only recently
received some practical tests.
After 10 . . . Nf6 White has three
queen moves:
A) 1 1 . Qh4 cxd4 1 2. Qxd4
[ 12.Nxd4 Be5 intending 13.Bc3
g5! ] 12 . . . e5! 13.Nxe5 Qe7 14.f4
Bc5 and Black has good compen
sation for the pawn according to
Cherin and Dvoretsky;
B) 1 1 . Qd3 0-0 1 2.Bc3 b6 1 3.0-0-
0 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 Be7 15. Qe5 Bd7
16. Bd3 Rc8 17 .Kb 1 led to a
White advantage in Ionescu
Holzl, Dubai (ol) 1986;
C) 1 1 .Qc2 cxd4 1 2.Nxd4 Bc5
[ 1 2 . . . Bd7! ? intending . . . Qc7-
Chernin,Dvoretsky. ] 1 3. Nb3
Be7 14.Be2 Qc7 15. 0-0 Bd7
16. Racl Rc8 17.Nd4 0-0 *g
Smyslov-Chernin, Subotica (izt)
1987.
In the never-ending search for
l Oth move alteratives White has
also tried 1 0.dxc5?! . While
1 O.Bd2 may be a move that is
Semi-Slav Defense
87
worh looking into, 10. dxc5 will
certainly fade into obscurity.
After 10. dxc5?! the game Ruder
fer-Timoschenko, USSR 1979
continued 10 ... Nxc5 1 1 . Qd4 e5!
12. Qc3 0-0 1 3.Be2 e4 14. Nd2 e3
1 5. fxe3 Qh4ch. 16. Kfl Re8
17. Qd4 Qe7 1 8.N3 Ne4 19.Bf
Bf5 20.Qd1 Qh4 21 .Bxe4 Bxe4
22. Bd2 Bxh2 23. Bc3 Re6
24. Nd4 Bxg2ch., 0- 1 .
10 ...
QaSch.
This move may make things a bit
too easy for White. More chal
lenging tries ae:
1) 10 . . . Nf6 1 1 .Qh4 [Watson' s
recommendation of 1 1 . Bxf6
Qxf6 12.0-0-0 with the idea of
1 2 . . . Qf4ch. 1 3. Qxf4 Bxf4ch.
14. Kb1 followed by g3 and Bg2
has yet to b tied in practice.]
1 1 . . . cxd4 12.0-0-0 e5 13.Bd3 h6
14.Rhe1 [John Watson gives the
following interesting analysis
demonstating some of the inter
esting possibilities present in the
position: 14.c5! ? Bxc5 15. Nxe5
Qc7 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0 16.Bxh6! Qc7
17. Bxg7! Be7ch. 1 8.Nc4 Kxg7
19. Qg5ch. Kh8 20.Qh6ch. Kg8
21 . Rhel . ) 1 6. Rhel ! ? Bb4ch.
17. Nxc4 Bxe1 1 8.Rxe1ch. Be6
19. Bxf6 gxf6 20. Qxf6 Rg8! ad
now White does not seem to have
more then a draw by 21 .Rxe6ch.]
14 . . . 0-0 15. Bxh6 gxh6 1 6. Qxh6
Re8! 17.Ng5 Be6! 1 8.Bh7ch.
Nxh7 [Bad is 18 . . . Kh8 19.Bf5ch.
Kg8 20.Bxe6 Rxe6 21 .Nxe6 fxe6
22. Qg6ch. Kf8 23. Rd3. ]
19. Qxh7ch. [ 19. Nxh7 Be7 holds
for Black since 20.Rxe5? runs
into 20 . . . Qc7! and 20.Rd3 is an
swered by 20 . . . Bf5.] 19 . . . Kf8
20.Qh6ch. Ke7 [20 . . . Kg8 21 .Re4
is stong for White.] 21 .Nxe6
Rh8! 22.Nxd8 Rxh6 23.Nxb7
Kd7! 24.Nxd6 Kxd6 25.f4 f6
26.g4 Rh2 27 .Rd2! Rh4 28.Re4
Rg8 29. Rde2 Rgxg4 30.fxe5ch.
fxe5 31 . Rxe5 d3! 32.Rd5ch. Kc6,
1/2- 1/2, Dorfman-Dolmatov,
USSR 1980. It is clear that
10 . . . Nf6! ? is still a critical reply
to 10.Bg5 and if White is to b
successful against it he must do
his homework and come up with
some new ideas;
2) 1 0 . . . Be7 ! ? 1 1 . Bxe7
[J.Watson' s 1 1 .h4! ? could use a
tout.] 1 1 . . . Qa5ch! [In the game
Georgadze-Dolmatov, USSR
1980 Black played the natura
1 1 . . . Qxe7 but after 12. 0-0-0cxd4
88 7 e4 main line
1 3. Qxd4 White was a little better.
The text is a much more dynamic
interpretation of the position.]
1 2. Nd2 Kxe7 1 3.0-0-0! ? [ 1 3. Bd3
or 1 3. Qh4ch. ! ? also come into
con si derati on . ] 1 3 . . . Rd8 !
[ 1 3 . . . Qxa2 14. Bd3 is dangerous
for Black.] 14.Qxh7 [This gives
the initiative to Black. More in
the spirit of the position would be
1 4. Nb3 ! ? when 1 4 . . . Qxa2
1 5. Kc2 leaves White with vari
ous promi sing possibilities. ]
1 4 . . . Nf6 1 5. Qxg7 Rxd4 1 6.Qg5
Bd7! 1 7. Bd3 Rg8 [ 1 7 . . . Rxd3??
1 8. Ne4! . ] 1 8.Nb3 Rxg5 1 9. Nxa5
Rxg2 20.Nxb7 Ng4! 21 .Nxc5
Nxf2 22.Rd2 Bc6 [22 . . . Nxd3ch.
23 . Nxd3 Rxc4ch. 24. Kd 1
Rxd2ch. also appears to be
strong. ] 23. Rf l Nxd3ch.
24.Nxd3 Rxc4ch. 25. Kd 1 Rd4,
Gorelov-Kisnev, USSR 1 984.
Black has an obvious advantage
and won on the 43rd move.
11 Bd2 Qc7
1 4. Bxf8 [ 1 4.0-0-0! ? Rd8 1 5. h4. ]
14 . . . Qa5ch. 1 5. Nd2 Bxf8 gives
Black compensation according to
Yusupov;
2) 12. Bc3! ? Nf6 1 3. Qh4 cxd4
1 4. Qxd4 [ 1 4. Nxd4 a6 looks fine
for Black.] 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5. Rd1 Rd8
1 6. Bd3 e5! 1 7. Qh4 [Black is bet
ter after 1 7.Nxe5? Re8 1 8. Qxd6
Qxd6 1 9. Bxh7ch. Kxh7 20.Rxd6
Ng4 21 .f4 f6. ] 17 . . . h6! ? 1 8.0-0
Bg4 19. Rfe1 Re8? [Black could
secure equality by 1 9 . . . Bxf3. ]
20.Re3! +=, Seirawan-Yusupov,
Toluca 1 982.
12 .... Nf6
13 Qh4
cxd4
1 3 . . . Bd7 1 4.dxc5 Bxc5 1 5.Bc3
gives White control of the critical
e5 square.
14 Nxd4
Bd7
15 Kb1 a6
After 1 5 . . . e5 1 6. Nb5 Bxb5
17 .cxb5 White would also enjoy
a clear advantage.
16 Bd3 0-0-0?
J.Watson quite rightly points out 17 cS! BeS
that 1 1 . . . Qb6? is met by 1 2. b4! . Black i s also busted on 1 7 . . . B xc5
12 0-0-0!
1 8. Rc1 or 1 7 . . . Be7 1 8. c6! .
Alternatives are not as crisp: 18 c6 Bxd4
1 ) 1 2. Qg40-0! ? [ 1 2 . . . g6 1 3.0-0-0 Or 1 8 . . . Bxc6 1 9. Nxc6 Rxd3
is good for White.] 1 3. Bh6 g6 20.Nxe5 Qxe5 21 . Qc4ch.
Semi-Slav Defense
89
19 cxd7ch. Qxd7
20 BaS! gS?
21 Qg3 NdS?
22 Rclch.
1 -0, Silman-Pollard, San Fran
cisco 1983. A horrible fate for
Black and perhaps a condemna
tion of the move 10 . . . Qa5ch.
Black need not panic though
since both 10 . . . Be7 and 10 . . . Nf6
seem to be quite playable.
C
9 ... Bb4ch.

#7. 8
With this move Black tries to ease
his problems with the exchange
of the dak squaed Bishops and
the temporay decentralization of
the White Knight.
10 Bd2
Panchenko has suggested
10. Ke2! with the idea of 1 1 . g3
and 1 2. Bg2 with some advantage
for White' . However the simple
fact that nobody will ty this idea
as White speaks volumes about
its soundness.
10 ...
Bxd2ch.
Also very interesting but most
likely not sufficient for equality
is 10 . . . Qa5! ? l l . Bd3 [Lame is
l l . Qc2 e5 1 2. Bxb4 Qxb4ch.
1 3. Qd2 Qxd2ch. 1 4.Kxd2 exd4
1 5. Rel ch. Kf8 1 6. Nxd4 Nc5
1 7. Re5 Ne6 1 8.Nxe6ch. Bxe6
1 9. Be2 Ke7 20. Kc3 Rhd8
21 . Rd1 Rxd1 22. Bxdl Kd6, 1/2-
l/2, Van der Vliet-Ree, Dutch ch.
198 1 . ] 1 1 . . .c5?! l l l . . . Bxd2ch!
1 2.Nxd2 c5 keeps White' s ad
vantage to a minimum. I 1 2.0-0-
0! Bxd2ch. 1 3. Rxd2 Qxa2
1 4. Re l ! h6 [White would have a
strong attack after 1 4 . . . cxd4
1 5. Qxd40-0 1 6. Qh4! Nf6 1 7. g4.]
1 5.Ne5! Nf6 1 6.Qf4 cxd4 17.g4!
Qa5 1 8. h4 Qc7 1 9. g5 hxg5
20.hxg5 Nd5 21 . Qxd4 b5 22. Kb1
bxc4 23. Bxc4 Bb7 24. g6! f6
25 . Nf7 Rh5 26. Qg4! Kf8 !
27. Qxh5 Qxc4ch. 28. Rc2 ! ,
Plachetka-Diesen, Odzaci 1 978,
Black eventually got mated.
11 Nxd2 0-0
90 7 e4 main line
Worthy of consideration i s
1 1 . . . Qa5! ?: 1 2.0-0-0! [ 1 2. Bd3! ?
c5! 1 3. a3 Qb6? ( 1 3 . . . cxd4 fol
lowed by . .. Qe5 i s correct. )
14. b4! cxd4 ( 1 4 . . . cxb4 1 5. c5 Qc7
1 6. axb4 +-.) 1 5.c5 Qc7 1 6. Nc4
Nf6 1 7. Qxd4 +- 0-0 1 8. Qd6!
Qxd6 1 9 . N xd6 Rd8 20.0-0-0 Kf8
21 . Be2 Ne8 22.Nc4 Ke7 23. Bf3
Rb8 24. Na5! Nc7 25.Rxd8 Kxd8
26. Rdl ch. Ke7 27 .Kb2 f5 28. Nc4
Bd7 29. Kb3 ! Be8 30. a4 b5
3 1 .cxb6 axb6 32.b5 Bf7 33. Kb4!
g6 34. Rd6 Nd5 35. Bxd5 exd5
36. Rxb6, 1 -0, Horvath-Szab
olcsy, Hungary 1 986. ] 1 2 . . . Qxa2
1 3. Bd3 Nb6! ? [Perhaps the solid
but passive 1 3 . . . Nf6 followed by
1 4 . . . Bd7 is a better ty. ] 1 4.c5!
Nd5 1 5. Nc4 Bd7 1 6.Nd6ch. Kf8
17. Qf3 Be8 1 8. Rhel Kg8 1 9.Bc4
Qa1 ch. 20.Kc2 Qa4ch. 21 . Kbl
The one example I have found
with this move was rather boring
but it was encouraging from
Black' s point of view: 1 2.dxc5
Qa5 1 3. Be2 Qxc5 1 4.0-0 Nf6
1 5. Qc2 Bd7 1 6.a3 0-0 1 7.b4 Qc7
1 8. Rac l , 1/2- 1 /2, Kindermann-
Tatai, Dortmund 1 98 1 . More
tests will be needed before the
real worth of 1 1 . . .c5 is known.
12 0-0-0
In the game Rubinetti-Torre,
Toluca 1 982, White tried 1 2. Bd3
but Black equalized quickly after
1 2 . . . Nf6 1 3.Qh4 e5 ! 1 4.0-0-0
Qxd4 1 5. Qxd4 exd4 1 6. Nb3 Rd8
b6! 22. Bb3 Qb4 23. Bxd5 cxd5
24.Nxe8 Rxe8 25. Qxd5 bxc5
26.dxc5, White' s advantage is
obvious, Cebalo-P. Nikolic, Yu
goslavia 1982. Though these two
examples don' t spea well for
=
1 1 . .. Qa5, another possibility ex
12 ... e5
ists for Black, namely: 1 l . . . c5! ?.
The main alterative to this is
12 . . . Qa5 ! ? but White' s game
always seems more comfortable
Semi-Slav Defense 91
after 1 3.Bd3 Nf6 [Or 1 3 . . . g6
14. h4 h5 1 5. f! e5 1 6.g4 exd4
17. Qxd4Qe5 1 8. QfNc5 1 9. Bc2
hxg4 20.fxg4 Bxg4 21 .Rdg1 f5
22.h5 g5! 23. Re1 Qd6 24.Qe3
Kh8 25. Qxg5 Rad8?! (25 . . . Rg8!
26.Qe3 Rad8 is an improve
ment.) 26. Re7! Rg8 27. Qe3 Ne4
28. Rxe4! Qxd2ch. 29. Qxd2
Rxd2 30.Kxd2 fxe4 3 1 . Bxe4 and
White won on the 48th move,
G. Stoltz-Bogoljubov, Beograd
1 952. ] 1 4.Qh4 Qh5 1 5. Qxh5
Nxh5 1 6. Rhe1 Rd8 1 7. Nf3 Nf4
1 8. Bfl b6 1 9. g3, Sosonko-Ree,
Wijk aan Zee 1 979. White won
on the 49th move.
13 dxe5 Qa5
14 Bd3 g6
J. Watson recommends 1 4 . . . f5! ?
and if 1 5.exf6 Nxf6 1 6. Qh4 Qxa2
1 7. Rhe1 Bg4! . However, by
1 5. Qd4 Qxe5 1 6. Nf3 White can
retain a small edge.
15 Bb1 Qxe5!
In the game Knezevic-Kupreic
hik, Stary Smokovec 1 975, Black
played 1 5 . . . Nxe5? but came un
der heavy pressure after 1 6. Rhe1
f6 1 7 .Qh4. The game concluded
1 7 . . . Qc5 1 8.f4! Ng4 1 9. Re2 Kg7
20. Rde 1 Rf7 2 l . Re8 b5
22.Bxg6! ! Kxg6 23. Rxc8 Nf
24.Rxa8 Nd3ch. 25. Kb1 Qf5
26.g4 Qxf4 27.Rg8ch. , 1 -0.
16 Rhe1 Qg7
17 Qf4 Nb6
18 Re7
Na4
19 Qe5 Qxe5
20 Rxe5
Rd8
21 Bc2
White has a very slight edge but
Black should be able to hold the
position. The game Chandler
Torre, Hastings 1 980/81 , contin
ued 21 . . .Nb6 22.c5 Nd5 23. Ne4
Be6 24. Ng5 Nc7 25. Nxe6
Rxd1 ch. 26. Bxd1 fxe6 27. Bb3
Kt7 28.Bc4 Nd5 29. g3 Kf6 30. f4
Rd8 3 1 .a3 Nc7 32. Kc2 Rd4 with
an eventual draw.
D. 9 BB& Nf6
#7. 1 0
92
7 e4 main line
Not as bad as its reputation.
White will not get more then a
very slight advantage.
10 Qc2 c5
A new idea is 10 . . . Bb4ch! ?. In the
game Donchev-Stefanov, Bul
garia 1984, Black easily held the
game after 1 1 .Bd2 Bxd2ch.
12. Qxd2 Ne4! 13.Qe3 Qa5ch.
14. Nd2 Nxd2 15. Qxd2 Qxd2ch.
16.Kxd2 Ke7 17 .Be2 Rd8. In
stead of 1 3. Qe3 White has to ty
13. Qb4 when Black does best
with 13 . . . c5 14.dxc5 Qc7.
11 dxc5
Bxc5
12 Bd3
12. Be20-0 1 3.0-0b6 14.Bd2Bb7
was all right for Bl ack in
O' Kelly-Lundin, Groningen
1946.
12 ... 0-0
13 0-0 h6
14 Bd2! b6
15 b4
Be7
16 Bc3
+= according to J. Watson.
E
9 ... 0-0?!
The worst of the 9th. move possi
bilities.
10 Bd3
Nf6
11 Qe2
O 1 1 .Qh4! ? Bb4ch. 1 2.Ke2 Be7
1 3 . Bg5 h6 1 4. Rad1 hxg5
1 5. Nxg5 intending 15 . . . g6?
16.Qh6! or 15 . . . Re8 16.Bh7ch.
Kf8 17.Bc2 with the idea ofRd3-
J.Watson.
11 ... c5
12 dxc5 Bxc5
13 0-0
h6
14 Ne5
In the game A verbakh-Vaganian,
USSRch. 1970, White played the
less accurate 14.Bf4andhadto be
satisfied with a small edge after
14 . . . b6 15.Rad1 Qe7 16. Ne5 Bb7
1 7. Bc2 Rfd8 1 8. Ba4 Rd4
19. Rxd4 Bxd4 20. Bc6 Rd8
2l .Bxb7 Qxb7 22.Rdl .
14 ... Qe7
15 Qf
+- according to Gufeld.
Conclusion: Aside from the
unanswered questions concer
ing 7 .e4 e5! ? Black has several
good possibilities. For winning
chances 9 . . . e5 is the choice as it
keeps the position unbalanced
and complicated. For equality
9 . . . c5, 9 . . . Bb4ch. and even
9 ... Nf6 can all be considered.
Semi-Slav Defense
93
CHAPER 8 D45/SL8
6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and
5 e3 a6
This chapter consists of a variety
of lesser known systems in the
Semi-Slav. Some of them like
6. a3, 6.b3, and 6.Be2 ae essen
tially haless. However 6.Ne5
contains some poison. Discov
ered and developed by the great
Rubinstein as an atidote to his
newly intoduced Meran defense
6.Ne5 got a lot of tryouts in the
1930' s and 40' s. After a forty
yea hiatus Argentine G.M. Car
los Garcia Palero has recently
brought it back into the limelight.
Another reasonable vaiation that
has suffered unexplained neglect
is l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4.e3
Nf6 5. Nf3 a6. This line, origi
nally favored by Paul Keres and
later championed by I.M. s Boris
Kogan and Nikolay Minev, has
many tanspositional possibili
ties. On 6.Bd3 Black has . . . dxc4
7 .Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 c5 leading the
game into a comfortable var
ation of the Q.G. A. On 6.Qc2
Black has 6 . . . c5! ? when the op
tion of placing the Knight on c6
more then offsets the loss of a
tempo. The theoretical antidote
of 6.c5 has never been clearly
worked out. As the reader will
discover, White has real touble
gaining an advantage against this
little known system.
Rare but Solid System With
5 QMa6
l.d4 dS 2.c c6 3.Nc3 e 4.Nf
Nf 5.e a6:
#8. 1
1). 1 6 Ne5; 6 a; etc. and 5e3 a6
Now White has A.6.Bd3: B.6.b3:
C.6.a3: D. 6.a4: E. 6.Ne5: F.
6.0c2; G. 6.c5.
A
6 Bd3
This move completely falls in
with Black' s plan.
6 ... dxc4
Most logical. Also playable is
6 ... b5! ? 7.b3 Nbd7 8. 0-0 Bb7
9.c5! Be7 [Euwe recommends
9 . . . g6 here.] 10.a3 a5 [ and here
Euwe gives 10 . . . 0-0 as equal.]
1 1 .Bb2 0-0 12.Qc2 Qc7! [In the
game Bronstei n-Botvi nnik,
Match 1951 , Black played the
inferior 12 . . . g6 and after 13.b4
White was better. The text
( 12 . . . Qc7! ) is an ECO sugges
tion.] 13.b4 axb4 14. axb4 Rxa1
1 5. Rxa1 Ra8 with mutual
chances.
7 Bxc4 b5
8 Bd3
Naturally 8. Bb3 is also possible
when play might easily tanspose
into one of the main lines of the
Q.G.A. where Black has been
doing well-8 . . . c5 9. 0-0 Bb7
10. Qe2 Nbd7 1 1 .Rd1 Qb6 [a
tempo behind the noral move
order as White has played Bfl -
d3xc4 and Black c7-c6-c5. ].
8 . . . c5
9 0-0
Black got an edge in Gofstein
Vorotnikov, Spaak Club ch.
1976 after 9.e4 Bb7 10.d5? exd5
1 1 . e5 Ne4 1 2. Qc2 Nc6 13. a3
Nxc3 14.bxc3 c4 15.Bxh7 d4
16.Be4 d3.
9 . Bb7
With 9 ... Nbd7 a position from the
Mera has been reached where
White has taded the active 9. e4
for the less precise 9.0-0 [see
Meran Defense-Chess Enter
prises 1987, Chapter 5. ]. Black
should have few problems after
9 . . . Nbd7 but perhaps the simplest
answer is 9 . . . cxd4. This gave
Black easy equality after 1 O.exd4
[ 1 0. Nxd4 is a safer move.]
10 . . . Bb7 1 1 . Bg5 Be7 12. Qe2 0-0
1 3 . Rad1 Nbd7 in Lasker
Reshevsky, Nottingham 1936.
10 dxc5
Bxc5
11 e4 Nbd7
12 Qe2 Qb8
13 h3 0-0
14 Be3 b4
15 Na4
Bd6
16 Nd2 Bc6
17 b3 Ne5
Semi-Slav Defense
95
18 Nb6 Nxd3
19 Qxd3 BbS
20 Ndc4 Rd8
21 Qc2 Ra7
22 Rfd1 Be7
23 Rxd8ch Bxd8
24 Rd1 Rb7
25 Bf4 Bc7
26 Bxc7 Qxc7
27 Qd2 Rb8
28 Qd4
with an edge that eventually
tured into victory, Peev-Kola
rov, Primorsko 197 6;
1
#8.2
6 b3
Bb4
7 Bd2
8 Bd3
9 0-0
0-0
Bd6
A blunder is 9 . . . b5?? 10.Nxd5
Nxd5 1 l .cxd5 Bxd2 12.dxe6 ++
; Playable is 9 . . . Qe7 when after
1 0. Qc2 Black must avoid
10 . .. e5?? because of 1 1 . cxd5
cxd5 12.Bxh7ch.; 9 . . . c5 10.a3 is
+= according to Saidy.
10 Qc2
Black has no problems after
10.e4 dxc4! [ 10 . . . dxe4 1 1 . Nxe4
Nxe4 12.Bxe4 e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5
14.Bc3! +- according to Saidy.]
1 1 .bxc4 e5 12.d5 Nc5 13. Bg5 h6
14.Bh4 Bg4 1 5.h3 Bxf 1 6. Qxf3
Be7 17.Bg3 Nfd7 1 8. Rfd1 g6
1 9. Bc2 Bg5 20. Na4 Qe7
21 .Nxc5 Nxc5 22.Qa3 Rfd8
23.Rab1 Rac8 24.Rb6 cxd5
25. exd5, 1/2- 1 /2, Farago
Velikov, Baile Herculane 1982.
10 eS
10 . . . dxc4! ? 1 1 .bxc4 e5.
11 cxdS cxdS
12 dxeS
13 NxeS
14 f4
NxeS
BxeS
Bd6
Bad is 7.Bb2? Ne4 8. Qc2 Qa5 14 . . . Bb8 1 5.e4 Ba7ch. 1 6.Khl
9.Rc1 Qxa2 with a clear advan- Ng4 17.h3 de4 1 8.Bxe4 Nf2ch.
tage for Black. 19. Rxf Bxf2 20.Bxh7ch. Kh8
7 ... Nbd7 21 .Ne4 gives White good com-
6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and5e3 a6
pensation for the exchange
Saidy.
15 e4
dxe4
16 Nxe4 Nxe4
17 Bxe4
h6
18 Kh1 Rb8
19 Bc3 Qc7
20 Qb2
f6
21 Qd2! Rd8
22 Racl!
+-, Saidy-Minev, Saajevo 1971 ;

6 a3 Nbd7
7 Bd3
White did not fare very well with
7. b4 in the game Averbach-Pet
rosian, USSR 1971 . The continu
ation was 7 . . . Bd6 8.c5 Bc7 9.Be2
0-0 lO.B b2 e5 with advatage to
Black.
7 ... dxc4
8 Bxc4 b5
9 Be2
9. Ba2! ? may be better.
9 ... c5
10 dxc5 Bxc5
=, Poreca-van Scheltnga, Dub
rovnik 1950;
.
6 a4
#8. 3
A veryuglymove that can' t cause
Black any problems.
6 ... c5
7 Bd3
Nc6
8 0-0
Be7
N. Popov-Novopashin, USSR
1979 went 8 . . . dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bd6
10.Qe2 Qc7 1 l .dxc5 Bxc5 12. e4
Ng4 13. g3 0-0 14.Bf4 e5 15. Nd5
Qd6 16.Be3 Nxe3 17. fxe3 Bg4
18. Qd3 Rad8 19.Kg2 Qh6 20.h4
Kh8 21 .Qc3 Qg6 22.b4 Ba7
23.Nd2 aS 24.bxa5 f5 25.Rab1 ,
1-0 in 32.
9 b3 0-0
10 Bb2 b6
11 cxd5 exd5
12 Ne5 Nb4
13 Bb1 Bd6
14 Ne2 ReS
Semi-Slav Defense 97
15 Nf4
Ra7
16 Nfd3
Rc7
17 aS
18 Nxd3
19 Kxh2
20 Kg3
21 Ne5
22 f4
23 Kf
24 dxe5
25 Ke2
Nxd3
Bxh2 ch.
Ng4ch.
h5
Qg5
h4ch.
Nxe5ch.
Qg3ch.
Bg4ch.
0- 1 , Ivanov-Kogan,
1977;
Tashkent
E.
6 Ne5
This does not offer White much
of anything.
6 ...
7 cxd5
8 Be2
c5
Nxd5
Also unclea i s 8.Bd3 Nc6
9. Nxc6 bxc6 1 0. 0-0 cxd4
1 1 . Nxd5 Qxd5 12. exd4 c5
13. Re1 Qxd4 14. QfRb8 15.Rd1
Bb7 1 6.Qe2 Qa4, Kasa-Vo
rotnikov, Lvov 1983.
8 ...
Nc6
9 Nxc6 bxc6
10 0-0 cxd4
11 Qxd4 c
12 Qg4 Qc7
13 Bf Bd6
14 Qxg7 Bxh2ch.
15 Kh1 Be5
16 Qg4 Rb8
17 Ne4 c4
bth sides have chances in this
very complicated position,
Bogoljubov-Alekhine, Berne
1932;
E 6 Qc2
:
6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6
This is one of White' s most
common replies to 5 . . . a6.
6 BBO c
This is the move that N.Miev
favors. Other moves are also per
fectly playable:
1 ) 6 . . . Nbd7-see Chapter 4;
2) 6 ... Bb4 7.a3 Ba5 8.Be2 Nbd7
9.0-0 0-0 10.Bd2 Bc7 1 1 .e4 e5
1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3. Bg5 dxe4
14.Nxe4 exd4 1 5.Nxd4 Bb6
1 6. Nf5 +=, Fl ohr-Lundi n,
Saltsjobaden 1948;
3) 6 ... b5 7.c5 [7.b3! ?.] 7 ... Nbd7
8.Bd3 g6 9.a3 Bg7 10.e4 dxe4
1 1 . Nxe4 Nxe4 12. Bxe4 Qc7
13.0-0 0-0 14.Re1 Nf6 1 5.Ne5
Nd5, Kolarov-Neikirkh, Bulga
ian ch. 1962. The position is
unclea;
4) 6 . . . dxc4 [With 6 . . . c5, this is
Black' s most popular response to
6. Qc2. However examples tend
to favor White ad it now seems
that 6 . . . dxc4 does not quite equal
ize.] 7.Bxc4 b5 [White had an
edge in van Scheltinga-Wade,
Amsterdam 1954 after 7 . . . c5 8. 0-
0 b5 9.Be2 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bb7
1 1 . Rd1 Qc7 12.Ne4. Euwe also
mentions 7 . . . Nb7 8. a4 which he
feels is slightly better for White.]
8.Bd3 [8.Be2! ?.] 8 . . . N7 [Black
loses a pawn after 8 . . . c5? 9.dxc5
Bxc5 10.Nxb5! .] 9.0-0 [9.a4 b4
10. Ne4 was mentoned by Ar
chives magazine as needing ex
amination way back in 1951 .]
9 . . . c5 1 0. a4 c4? [ 1 0 . . . cxd4
1 1 .exd4 bxa4 keeps White' s
advantage to a bare minimum.]
1 1 .Be2 Rb8 12.axb5 axb5 1 3.e4
b4 14. Na4 b3?! [A little better
was 14 . . . Ba6 though 1 5.Nc5
would still be in White' s favor.]
15. Qxc4 Nxe4 16.Qd3! Ndf6?
[Black had to play 16 . . . Bb7!
17. Bf4 Bd6 1 8 . Bxd6 Nxd6
19. Qxb3 when White is just
slightly better according to Cia
ma a.] 17. Ne5 Bd7 1 8.Nxd7
Qxd7 19.Bf3! Rb4 20.Nc3 Qxd4
21 .Ra8ch. Kd7 22.Qa6 Nd6
23.Qc6ch. Ke7 24.Rd1 Qb6
25. Rxd6, 1 -0, Kaufman
Boskovic, USA 1979.
7 dxc
White gained a microscopic ad
vantage with 7 .cxd5 exd5 8.Be2
Nc6 9.0-0 cxd4 [Perhaps 9 . . . Be6
is better: 10.Rd1 cxd4 1 l .Nxd4
Nxd4 12.exd4 ( 12.Rxd4 Bc5
1 3. Rd1 Qc7 is nothing for
White.) 12 . . . Be7 13. Bg5 0-0
Semi-Slav Defense
99
14.Bf3 b5 1 5. Qb3 Qd6! , 1/2- 1/2,
Horowitz-Euwe, New York
1 948/49. ] 1 0. Nxd4 Nxd4
1 l . exd4 h6 12.Bf3 Be6 13.Bf4
Be7 14.Rac1 0-0 15.Na4 Bd6
1 6. Bxd6 Qxd6 17.Qc5 Qf4
l 8. Nb6 Rad8 19. Rc3 Rfe8
20.Re3 Nd7 21 .Nxd7 Rxd7
22. Re5 Red8 23. Rfe 1 ,
Donaldson-Minev, Hama 1983.
7 MMM BxcS
8 a3
8. cxd5 exd5 9.Be2 Nc6 10.0-0 0-
0 is equal according to Minev.
8 MMM
dxc4
9 Bxc4 0-0
10 0-0
Nbd7
1 O . . . Nc6! ? -Gheorghiu.
11 Bd3!
White gets nowhere with 1 1 .b4
Be7 12.Bb2 b5 13.Bd3 Bb7
1 4. Rfd1 Qb6=.
11 MMM Qc7
12 b4
Bd6
13 Bb2 bS
14 Ne4
1 4.e4 Ng4! .
14 MMM
15 Bxc2
16 Nxf6cho
17 NeS
18 Bd4
Qxc2
Be7
Nxf6
Bb7
Rfc8
19 Bd3 aS
20 BxbS axb4
21 axb4
Bxb4
Gheorghiu-Minev, Vara 1971 .
The game i s dead even;
..
6 cS
!
This is White' s shapest ty at
'punishing' 5 . . . a6. White fxes a
weakness on b6 and if Black
plays . . . b6 or . . . b5 White can
capture by cxb6 ad then gener
ate play against the pawn on c6.
However Black, by playing for an
. . . e5 advance should b able to
achieve a satisfactory position.
6 MMM
Nbd7
A very logical move. White
seems to keep an edge vs. 6 . . . b6:
7.cxb6! [7.b4? a5 8. Na4 Nbd7
9. b5 Bb7 is slightly i Black' s
1 0
6 Ne5; 6 a; etc. and 5e3 a6
favor-Euwe.] 7 . . .
Nbd7 8. Na4
corr. 1962.
Nxb6 [Inferior is 8 . . . Ne4 9. Qb3 7 b4
Rb8 10.Bd3 Nxb6 1 1 . Bxe4 dxe4 On 7.Na4 Black equalizes by
12. Ne5 +- accordingtoGligoric.]
7 . . . g6! [Also playable is 7 . . . Ne4
9.Bd2 and now Black has:
8. Bd3 e5 9. Nd2 Nxd2
1 ) 9 . . . Nxa4 1 0. Qxa4
Bd7
(Alekhine' s recommendation of
[ 1 0 . . . Qb6 1 1 . Rc1 Bd7 12. Ne5
9 . . . Ng5 followed by . . . Ne6
Qxb2 13. Nxd7 Nxd7 14.Bd3 Rb8
should be looked at.) 10. Bxd2 e4
15.Ke2! Rb6 16. Rb1 +-, Euwe-
1 1 .Be2 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.f3,
Alekhine, Match 1935.] 1 1 .Ne5
Botvinnik-Thomas, Nottingham
c5 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Qxd7ch.
1936, and now 13 . . . exf3! intend
Kxd7 14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. b4 Bd6
ing 14. gxf3 f5! is not completely
1 6.Bd3 +=, Spielmann-van der
clear-Euwe.] 8.Be2 Bg7 9.0-0 0-
Bosch, Match 1936;
0 10.Bd2, Kmoch-Mulder, Rot-
2) 9 . . . Nb7 10.Rc1 Bb7 1 1 .Bd3
terda 1940, and now 10 . . . Ne4!
[White also gained a slight ad-
is equa.
vantage with 1 1 . a3 Bd6 12.Bb4
7 MMN
g6
Bxb4 13. axb4 0-0 14.Be2 a5
Other moves:
1 5.b5 +=, Stumpers-van Schelt-
1) 7 . . . b6 8.Bd2 bxc5 9.bxc5 e5
i nga, Amsterdam 1 950. ] 10. dxe5 Ng4 1 1 .Qa4 Ngxe5
1 l . . . Bd6 1 2.0-0 0-0 [ 1 2 . . . Qe7
1 2. Nxe5 Nxe5 1 3 . f4 Nd7
13. Qc2 Re8 14.b4! is good for
14. Qxc6 Ra7 15. Qxd5 Bxc5
White since 14 . . . Bxb4 is not pos-
16. Ne4 +-, Vladimirov-Lutikov,
sible due to 1 5. Bxb4 Qxb4 RSFSR ch. 1960;
1 6. Rbl . Analysis by Euwe.]
2) 7 ... Qc7 8.Bb2 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5
13. Qb3 [Euwe also mentions
1 0. Nxe5 Qxe5 1 1 . Na4 Qe6
13. Qc2 as bing worhy of atten- 12.Nb6 +-, Euwe-van Steenis,
tion.] 13 ... Rb8 14.Bc3 Ne4?! Beverijk 1940;
[ 1 4 . . . Qe7 intending . . . c5 or . . . e5 3) 7 . . . Ne4 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9. Nd2 f5
keeps White' s advantage to a
10.f exf3 1 1 . Qxf3 Nf6 12.Bc4
minimum. ] 1 5. Bxe4 dxe4 +-, Euwe-van Steenis, Amster-
16.Ne5 +-, Meyer-Shaposnikov,
dam 1951 ;
Semi-Slav Deense
101
4) 7 . . . a5! ? [This may well be
stonger then 7 . . . g6.] 8.b5 e5!
[8 . . . Ne4? 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10. Nd2 f5
1 l . f3! ++-, Euwe-Alekhine,
Match 1935. ] 9. Qa4 [Euwe men
tions 9.Be2! ?.] 9 . . . Qc7 10. Ba3 e4
1 1 . Nd2 Be7 12.Be2 h5 13. b6
Qd8 14.h3 Nf8 1 5.0-0-0 Ne6?
16.Ndxe4! wins a pawn for
White, Reshevsky-Keres, World
Championship 1948. However
Black can do better by 1 1 . . . g6!
when 1 2.Be2 Bh6 is equal ac
cording to Pachman.
8 Bb2 Bg7
9 Be2 0-0
10 0-0 Qe7
Black has not equalized with al
teratives either:
1) 10 . . . Qc7 1 l .h3! e5 12.dxe5
Nxe5 13. Nd4 +-, Analysis by
Euwe;
2) 10 . . . Ne8 1 1 .e4 dxe4 12. Nxe4
Ndf6, Euwe-van Scheltinga,
Amsterdam 1950, and now ac
cording to Euwe White can gain a
clear advantage with 13. Nxf6ch.
Nxf6 14.Ne5;
3) 10 . . . Re8 1 1 .a4 Qe7 12. b5 e5
1 3.bxc6 bxc6 14. a5 exd4 15. exd4
Rb8 16.Qc2 Ne4 17.Bd3 Qd8
1 8.Na4! , Matanovic-Simonovic,
Yugoslavia 1949.
11 Na4 Ne4
White i s better after both
1 1 . ..Ng4 12.h3 Nh6 1 3. Ne5! f6
14. Nxd7 Bxd7 1 5. Nb6 and
1 1 . . . . e5? ! 1 2. Nxe5 ! Nxe5
13. dxe5 Nd7 14.f4 f6 15.e4!
Pachman
12 Bd3 fS!
An improvement on 12 . . . e5?!
13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Nxe5 Nxe5
15. dxe5 Bxe5 1 6. Bxe5 Qxe5
17.Qd6! .
13 NeS
According to Pachma White has
a slight advantage.
Dubious System with 5 ... dxc4.
1
.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e 4.Nf
Nf6 5.e3 dxc4?!
1
This loses a tempo over the main
102
6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6
lines for no good reason and
therefore cannot be recom
mended.
6 Bxc4
Be7
7 0-0 0-0
8 e4 Nbd7
9 e5 Nd5
10 Re1 ReS
11 Ne4 Nf
12 h4 + - Qb6
13 h5 h6
14 Bd2 Bd7
15 b4 Rad8
16 Rb1 Bc8
17 Qc2 Qc7
18 g4 f6
19 exf6 Bxf6
20 Rb3 Qt
This passive and infexible move
is rightfully unpopula.
6 Bd3
Naturally, since Black' s Bishop
will no longer be going to its bst
square [ d6] white has a nice
choice of systems that will be a bit
stronger then they normally
might be. For example 6. b3 is an
excellent choice: 6 . . . Ne4 7 . Nxe4
dxe4 8. Nd2 f5 9.f3 exf3 10.Nxf3
0-0 1 1 . Bd3 Nd7 1 2.0-0 c5
13.Bb2 Bf6 14.Qc2 g6 1 5.Rae1
+=, Panno-Aloni, Amsterdam
1954.
6 ... dxc4
7 Bxc4
b5
8 Bd3 b4
21 Ne5 8 . . . a6 has aso been te: 9.0-0
1-0 in 42, Tukmakov-Mikhal- [9.e4 Bb7 (9 . . . c5! ?-ECO) 10.e5
chisin, USSR 1978. Nd5 1 1 .Ne4 h6 12.0-0 Nd7
The Pssiv and Commital
5,Be7.
t
5 ... Be7
1 3. Qe2 +=, Osnos-Kovacs,
Budapest 1965.] 9 . . . c5 [9 . . . 0-0
10.e4 c5 1 1 .dxc5 b 12.Na4 Qa5
13.Nb6 +=, Yanofsky-Beyen,
Nice 1974.] 10.dxc5 Nc6 1 l .Qe2
Bxc5 12.e4e5 13.Rd1 0-0 14.Be3
Nd4 15.Bxd4 Bxd4 1 6.Nxd4
Qxd4 17 .Nd5 Nxd5 1 8.exd5 Qf4
1 9 . Rae 1 +=, Polugaevsky
Kozomaa, Saajevo 1964.
9 Na4
Ba6
Semi-Slav Defene 103
10 0-0 0-0
11 Ne5 Qa5
Alteratives:
1) 1 1 . . .Bxd3 1 2. Nxd3 Nbd7
13.Bd2 a 14.Rc1 Rc8 15.f3 Nb6
16. Ne5 +-, Euwe-Szabo, Am
sterdam 1950;
2) 1 1 . . . Qd5?! 12. Qe2! Bxd3
1 3. Nxd3 Nbd7 1 4. b3 Qb5
15.Bb2Rac8 1 6.Rac1 c5 17. dxc5
Nxc5 1 8.Bxf6! gxf6 19.Qg4ch.
Kh8 20.Ndxc5 Bxc5 21 .Nxc5
Rxc5 22.Qd4! Rfc8 23. Qxf6ch.
+ - , K o t o v - L . S t e i n e r ,
Saltsjobaden 1948.
12 b3 Nfd7
O 12 . . . Nbd7 13.Bxa6 Qxa6
14. Nd3 Qb5 1 5.Qc2 +-, ECO.
13 Bxa6
Qxa6
14 Nd3 Qb5
and now according to Taimanov
White can get an edge by 15.Qc2.
Black Plays 5 &Bd6 .
.. 5 ... Bd6
Of course this will usually tans
pose into man line Sem-Slav
positions. However on occasion
Black will avoid . . . Nbd7 and give
the game some independent sig
nifcance.
6 Bd3 0-0
7 e4 dxe4
8 Nxe4 Nxe4
9 Bxe4
and now 9 . . . Nbd7 tansposes
back into Chapter One while
9 . . . Bb4ch. 10.Bd2 can also go
i nto known l i nes. After
9 ... Bb4ch. only 10.Ke2! ? gives
matters an independent slant:
10 . . . Nd7 1 1 .Bf4 Nf6 1 2.Bc2 Re8
13.Qd3 Bd6 14. Ne5 +-, Yudo
vich-Gergely, USSR 1970.
Harmless Sixth Moye Alterna
tives For White.
Now we will look at positions
a iving after J.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
3.Nf Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7:
White can play A. 6.a3: B. 6.b3:
C. 6.Be2.
A
6 a3
104
6 Ne5; 6 a; etc. and 5e3 a6
fl
This move is much too slow to
cause Black any problems.
6 ... Bd6
This is Black' s usual choice since
it leaves him a solid tempo up on
the Romih variation [ 1 .d4 d5 2.c4
e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7
6.Bd3 Bb4 7 .a3 Bd6.] . Also satis
factory is 6 . . . g6 7. Bd3 Bg7 8.0-0
0-0 9. b4 e5 10.cxd5 [Or 10.Nxe5
Nxe5 1 1 .dxe5 Ng4 1 2.f4 dxc4
1 3.Be2 ( 1 3. Bxc4 Qh4 14. h3
Nxe5.) 13 . . . Qh4 1 4.h3 Nxe5
1 5.fxe5 Bxe5 1 6. Rf4 Bxf4
1 7 . exf4 Bxh3-Anal ysi s by
Smysl ov. ] 1 0 . . . exd4 1 l . exd4
Nxd5 1 2. Nxd5 cxd5 13.Bg5 f6
14. Bf4 N6 15. Rc1 Rt 1 6.Re1
Bd7 17.b5 Rc8=, P.Littlewood
Smyslov, Hastings 198 1/82.
7 Bd3
Other ties for White are:
1 ) 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Qe7 9. Qc2
dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5 1 1 . h3 b5
1 2. Bd3 Bb7 1 3. Ne4 Nxe4
1 4. Bxe4 Nf6 1 5. dxe5 Nxe4
16.exd6 Nxd6 17. Nd4 Qg5 1 8.e4
Qe5 19.Nxc6, Smejkal-Cvitan,
Zagreb/Rijeka 1985, and now
19 ... Qe6 is slightly better for
Black;
2) 7. Qc2 0-0 [Also quite adequate
is 7 . . . e5 8.cxd5 cxd5 9. Nb5 Bb8
10.Bd2 0-0 1 l . Bb4 Re8 1 2. Rc1
exd4=, Ljubojevic-F.Silva, Paa
da Rocha 1978.] 8. Be2 dxc4
9.Bxc4 e5 1 0.0-0 Qe7 1 l . h3 h6
1 2. Ba2 Re8 1 3. dxe5 Nxe5
1 4. Nd4 Bc5 1 5. Bd2 Kh8
1 6. Rae1 Ng6 17. b4 Bb6 1 8.Kh1
Nh4 19.Bc4 Bxh3 20.gxh3 Qd7
2l .Kh2 Bxd4 22.exd4 Nfch.
23.Kg2 Nh4ch. 24.Kh2 Nf3ch.
25.Kg2 Nh4ch. 26.K2, 1/2- 1/,
Alburt-Mikhalchi si n, USSR
1 978.
7 ... Qe7
Black is also safe after? . . . 0-0 8.0-
0 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5 10. e4 Qe7
1 1 . Bg5 exd4 1 2. Qxd4 Ne5
13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Qe3 h6 1 5. Bf4
Ng4 16.Qg3 Bxf4 17. Qxf4 Qe5
Semi-Slav Defense 105
18. Qxe5 Nxe5 19.Be2 Be6, 1/2-
1/2, Dr. Ostermeyer-Schmidt,
Porz 1981 .
8 b3
9 Bxc4
10 Bb2
11 dxe5
12 Be2
13 Bxf
dxc4
0-0
e5
Nxe5
Nxf ch.
Bf5
14 Ne2 Rad8
15 Qc1 Ne4
16 Nd4 Bg6
17 b4 aS
18 bxa5 Nc5
19 Be2 Na4
20 Nf Bb4ch.
Vasiliev-Sveshnikov, USSR
1978; Black i s better.
.
6 b3
#8. 1 1
White intends to go into lines
from Chapter Six with Bb2, Qc2,
etc. However this is a poor way of
going into that system, 6.Qc2
being the accurate method.
6 ...
Bb4!
If it were not for this stong move
6. b3 would be fne. However
White is now forced to play Bd2
and his original plan is disrupted.
7 Bd2
7. Bb2? loses a pawn to 7 . . . Ne4
8. Qc2 Qa5 9.Rc1 Qxa2.
7 N 0-0
The immediate 7 . . . Bd6 will usu
ally tanspose into the same posi
tions arising from 7 . . . 0-0.
8 Be2 Qe7
9 0-0 Bd6
10 Qc2 dxc4
There is no reason to allow White
to give Black an isolated pawn
after 1 0 . . . e5 1 l .dxe5 Nxe5
12. cxd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 etc.
11 Bxc4
It' s probably better to play
1 l .bxc4.After1 1 . . .e5 H.Muller' s
suggestion of 12. Ng5! Re8
13.Bd3 reaches a positon with
chances for both sides.
11 ... e5
12 Rae1 h6
13 dxe5 Nxe5
106
6 Ne5; 6 a; etc. and 5e3 a6
14 Nxe5 Bxe5
15 f4 Bc7
16 e4 Ng4
17 g3 b5!
18 Bd3 Rd8!
19 e5 Bb6ch.
Black has the superior position,
Seirawan-Kuligowski, Philadel
phia 1980.
!.
6 Be2
#8. 12
This move has little independent
signifcance since Black will
usually play 6 . . . dxc4 which
tansposes into the Meran. I
those instances where Black does
not chose to go into the Meran
and instead plays 6 . . . Bd6, we will
usually see a tansposition to
Chapter Six by 7.b3 0-0 8. Qc2.
Actually the only independent
lines associated with 6.Be2 are
those in which White plays b3 but
avoids placing his Queen on c2.
6 ...
Bd6
7 b3 0-0
8 Bb2 dxc4
9 bxc4 e5
10 0-0 exd4
11 exd4 ReS
12 a4
Nf
13 Re1 Bf5
14 g3 Bb4
15 Qb3 aS
16 Ba3
Bxa3
17 Qxa3 Bg4
18 d5 cxd5
19 cxd5 Nxd5
Black has no prblems. The game
Petrosi an-Taimanov, USSR
1973 concluded: 20.Rad1 Qe7
21 . Qxe7 Nxe7 22.Nb5 Ne6
23.Nd6 Red8 24.Nxb7 Rxd1
25.Bxd1 , 1/2-1/2.
Rubinstein's Anti-Meran
Weapon: 6.Ne5!?
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6
5.Nf Nbd7 6.Ne5!?
Semi-Slav Defense 107
!.
This move was intoduced in
1930 by Rubinstein as a means of
avoiding the complications of the
Meran. The idea found few fol
lowers however, though Spiel
mann and a few others recog
nized its attacking potential and
played it from time to time. To
day, as in the past, the line is not
very popula, though it is a good
way to avoid the well todden
paths of the Meran and generate
an attacking position with mini
mal book knowledge.
6 ...
Nxe5
The most popular move. Other
possibilities are:
1) 6 . . . Be7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.f4 c5 9.0-
0 Qc7 [Horowitz' s suggestion of
9 ... Qb6may beanimprovement.]
10.cxd5 exd5 [ 1 0 . . . Nxd5 1 1 .Qf3
N7f6 12.g4! is clearly better for
White according to Spielmann.
1 1 . Qf3 cxd4 1 2. exd4 Qb6
1 3.Be3! Qxb2 14. Rfc1 Qa3
15.Rab1 Bd8? [ 15 ... a6 is best
according to Gligoric though
White would still retain excellent
attacking chances.] 16.Bf2! Qd6
1 7 . Nb5 Qb8 1 8. Bg3 Ne4
19. Bxe4 dxe4 20.Qb3 ! Bb6
21 . Nxf Rxf 22.f5 Ne5 23. Kh1 !
Bxf5 24.Bxe5 Qe8 25.Nd6, ++-,
Spielmann-H. Muller, Ebensee
1933;
2) 6 . . . dxc4 7.f4! ? [Dubious is
7. Bxc4?! Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxd1ch.
9.Nxd1 Nd5 and White has
gained nothing from the opening.
Also very por is 7.Nxd7?! Bxd7
8.Bxc4 c5 (Or 8 . . . Be7 9.0-0 0-0
10.e4 b5 1 1 .Bd3 b 12. Na4 Qc7
1 3.Be3 e5 14. dxe5 Ng4 1 5.Bf4
Nxe5 with equality in Conquest
Piket, Mexico 198 1 . ) 9.d5 exd5
1 0. Nxd5 Bc6 1 1 . e4 b5 !
12. Nxf6ch. Qxf6 13.Bd5 Bxd5
14. Qxd5 Rd8 1 5. Qb7 Qb6
( 1 5 . . . a6! ?-Tucker. ) 1 6. Qxb6
axb6, Spielmann-Bogolyubov,
108
6 Ne5; 6 a; etc. and 5e3 a6
Zandevoort 1936. It is clear that
7 . Nxd7 is a rather lame continu
ation. lf7. f4 is not White' s cup of
tea then he can consider
7. Nxc4! ?.] 7 ... Nxe5 [Perhaps it is
better to play 7 . . . Be7. The game
Ulvestad-Burge, Ventnor City
1939 saw Black reach equality
after 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.0-0 c5 10.b3
cxd4 1 l .exd4 Nb6.] 8.fxe5 Nd7
and now not 9. Bxc4? Nxe5!
10. dxe5 Qh4ch. picking up the
loose Bishop on c4, but rather
9.Be2 with very good attacking
chances for the pawn according
to Barden;
3) 6 . . . Bd6 7. f4 0-0 8. Bd3 dxc4?
[Much better is 8 . . . c5 when the
game Fang-Griego, Framingham
1987 saw Black achieve the supe
rior position after 9.cxd5 Nxd5
10.0-0 N7f6 1 l . g4 cxd4 12.exd4
Nxc3 1 3.bxc3 b5 14.Qf3 Qb6
15. Qh3 g6 16. Rb1 a6 17.Be3
Nd5 18.c4 Bxe5 19.fxe5 Nxe3
20. Qxe3 Bb7 21 . cxb5 axb5
22.Rxb5 Qc6.] 9.Nxc4Bb4 10.a3
Bxc3 1 1 .bxc3 c5 12.0-0 b5
1 3. Nd6 c4 [ 1 3 . . . a6! -Toth. ]
14.Bc2 Qb6 1 5.Nxc8 Rfxc8
16. Qf3 Qc6 17.e4 Nb6 18. g4,
White has a very stong attack in
the works, Rubinstein-Lafora,
Hamburg Olympiad 1930;
4) 6 . . . Bb4 7. Bd2 Nxe5 8.dxe5
Nd7 9.f4 dxc4?! [More depend
able moves are 9 . . . 0-0 or 9 . . . Qb6
as in the Rubinstein-Vidmar
game.-see note to Black' s 8th
move in the man line.] 10.Ne4
[And not 1 0. Bxc4? Nxe5 !
1 1 .fxe5 Qh4ch.] 10 . . . Bf8?! [Bet
ter i s 1 O . . . Be7 or even
10 . . . Bxd2ch.] 1 1 . Qg4 f5? [And
here 1 l . . .Nb6 followed by . . . Nd5
was preferable.] 1 2. Nd6ch. !
Bxd6 13.Qxg7 Bxe5 14. fxe5 Rf8
15.Qxh7 Nxe5 16.0-0-0 Qb6
17 .Bc3 Qxe3ch. 1 8.Kb 1 Qe4ch.
1 9.Kal Qg4 20.Be2! ! Qxe2
2l .Re1 Qg4 22.Bxe5 Rt. After
this move White announced mate
in five, thus . . . 1 -0, Spielmann
Apscheneek, Riga Match 1934;
5) 6 . . . c5! ?-An unted suggeston
of Alekhine' s.
7 dxe5 Nd7
8 f4
Bc5
Generally considered to be
Black' s easiest route to equality.
However this assessment can still
be questoned. Other moves for
Black bear looking at:
1) 8 . . . Be7 9.Be2 (Not as good is
Semi-Slav Defense
109
9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bd3 Nc5 1 1 .Bc2 Ng4 19.Rh3 Nxe3 20.Qe2! Qf6
a5 12.0-0 g6 13.e4 d4 14. Na4 b6 21 .Bxh7ch. Kf 22.Bh4! , 1-0,
15. Nxc5 bxc5 with chances for Tartakower-Ravn, Southsea
both sides, Tartakower-Ma- 1951 ;
rozy, Nice 1930 )9 . . . 0-0 10.0-0 6) 8 . . . Bb4
b6 1 1 .Kh1 Bb7 1 2.e4 dxc4
13.Bxc4 b5 14.Be2 with an edge
for White, Garcia Palermo
Boehm, Dormund 1986;
2) 8 . . . a5! ? is an untied sugges
tion of Panov and Estn.
3) 8 . . . dxc4! ? 9.Bxc4 Nb6 10.Bd3
Nd5 1 1 .0-0 [1 1 .e4! ?-Tucker.]
1 1 . . .Bc5 1 2.Qe2 0-0 13. Kh 1 f5
14.exf6 Nxf6 15.Bd2 Qe7 with
an equal positon, Tucker-Boyer,
USA 1979;
4) 8 . . . f6 9.cxd5 [9.exf6 is a good
alterative.] 9 . . . cxd5 [9 . . . exd5?
1 0. e6! Nc5 1 l . f5 Be7??
12. Qh5ch 1-0, Tucker-Fierstein,
USA 1 975. ] 1 0. Qh5ch.
[ 10.Bd3! ?. ] 10 . . . g6 1 1 . Qh3 Qb6
12.Bd3 Bg7 1 3.exf6 with a
slightly more comfortable posi
tion for White, Duz Khotimirsky
Kubbel, Leningrad 1925;
5) 8 ... f5 9.exf6 Qxf6 [9 ... Nxf6 is
probably stonger.] 10.Be2 Bc5
1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.Kh1 a6 1 3.Qc2 b5
14. cxb5 cxb5 1 5. Bd3 Qh4
16.Bd2 Nf6 17.Be1 Qh6 1 8. Rf3!
[A common move that does not
seem to equalize.] 9.Bd2 [Not so
good is 9.cxd5 exd5 10. Bd3 Nc5
1 1 .Bc2 (According to Botvinnik
1 1 .0-0 was somewhat better.)
1 1 . . . Qh4ch. 1 2. g3 Qh3 1 3.Kf2
Bxc3! 14.bxc3 Bf5 15. Bxf5 Qxf5
1 6.g4 Qe6, Makogonov-Botvin
nik, Sverdlovsk 1943, Black' s
contol of the e4 square gives him
a clear advantage. In the game
Garci a Palermo-Cifuentes,
Dubai (ol) 1986 White ted
9.Be2 but his opening play
proved to be a failure after 9 . . . 0-0
10. 0-0 f6 1 1 .exf6 Nxf6 12. Qb3
1 10
6 Ne5; 6 a3; etc. and 5e3 a6
Qe7 13. Bd2 K8 1 4.Rad1 Bd6
1 5. Be1 e5 1 6.cxd5 exf4 17.dxc6
bxc6 1 8. Qa4 Bc5. ] 9 . . . Qb6
[Much better than 9 . . . dxc4
10. Ne4! with pressure on the d6
square as in the Spielmann-Ap
scheneek game given above.
Also dubious is 9 . . . f5 10. a3 Bc5
1 1 .b4 d4 12. Na2 (As Tucker
points out, White is also better
after 12. bxc5 dxc3 1 3.Bxc3 Nxc5
14. Qc2 Ne4 1 5.Rd1 Qc7 16.Bd3
Nxc3 17. Qxc3 0-0 1 8.0-0 b6
19. Be2 Bb7 20.Rd6.) 12 . . . dxe3
1 3. Bc1 Be7 14.Bxe3 c5 1 5. Be2
Qc7 1 6.0-0 b6 17. Nc3! a6 1 8.b5
a5 19. g4, White' s advantage is
clear, Spielmann- Pokorney,
Sliac 1932.] 10.Be20-0 [Accord
ing to Kmoch White is better after
10 . . . d4 l l .exd4 Qxd4 1 2.Qc2
followed by 1 3.0-0-0.] 1 1 .0-0
Bxc3 1 2. bxc3 dxc4 1 3. Bxc4 Rd8
14. Qc2 Qc5 15. Be2! , White' s
two Bishops give him the advan
tage, Rubinstein-Vidmar, San
Remo 1930.
9 a3
White played the new move
9. Bd2: 9 . . . a6 1 0. cxd5 cxd5
1 1 . Bd3 Ba7 12. 0-0 Nc5 1 3. Bc2
d4 14. exd4 Qxd4ch. 1 5. Kh1 Bd7
1 6. Qe2 Bc6 1 7. Be3 Qd7 1 8. b4
Na4 1 9. Bxa4 Bxa4 20. Bxa7
Rxa7 21 .f5 Bc6 22. Radl Qe7
23. b5 Bd7 24.Qe3 Ra8 25. f6 gxf6
26. Ne4, 1 -0.
Also deserving of attention is
Tucker' s recommendation of
9. Be2 when 9 . . . dxc4 i s met by
10. Ne4! . After 9. Be2 critical is
9 . . . f6 1 0. exf6 Nxf6 1 1 . 0-0 0-0
1 2. Kh1 when White may be a bit
better. Tucker also mentions
some gambits White may ty, i. e.
9. b3! ? 0-0 10. Bb2 Bxe3 1 1 . Qf3
or 9. Bd3! ? dxc4 1 0. Bc2. It is
quite clear that there is a lot of
room for new ideas here.
9 &&& Qe7
9 . . . a5! ?.
10 b4 Bb6
11 Be2 0-0
12 0-0 f6!
13 cS Bc7
14 exf6 Nxf6
An excellent illustration of Spielmann-Lokvenc , Vienna
White' s chances in this line is the 1936. Both sides have chances in
game Garcia Palermo-Huerta, this complicated position.
Bayamo 1985. In that game
Semi-Slav Defense 1 1 1
Conclusion: The defensive sys- After 5 e e . Nbd7 alteratives to
ter 5 . . . a6 is a tough nut to crack. 6.Bd3 and 6.Qc2 offer White
White can obtain a very small little though 6.Ne5 promises
edge with 6.Qc2 or 6.c5 but some surprise value.
seemingly nothing more.
1 12
Marshall Gambit
CHAPER 9 D31/SL
Marshall Gambit
#9. 1
This continuation, named after
longtime U. S. champion Frank
Marshall, leads to very sharp
play. Unlike many other Semi
Slav variations, which tend to
ward closed positions and pro
tacted positiona stuggles, the
Marshall leads to a wide open
boad with lots of tactical possi
bilities.
After 4 . . . dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4ch.
White has two ties. Alekhine's
old favorite of 6. Nc3 has recently
been revived but still seems a
little too quiet for an advantage.
The "gambit" in the Marshall
comes about afer 6.Bd2 Qxd4.
The positions that aise after
7.Bxb4 Qxe4ch. 8.Be2 offer
some of the most original and
sharp play in chess. White has a
lead in development, some exta
space, the two bishops, and a lot
of pressure on the dark squares.
Black has an exta pawn and no
real weaknesses.
4 ... dxe4
Invariably played, but worh
consideraton is 4 . . . Bb4! ?. After
5. e5 [5.exd5 cxd5 6.Nf3 Nf6=,
Panov- Botvinnik/Ni mzo-In
dian.] 5 . . . Ne7 6. a3 Bxc3ch.
7. bxc3 b6 8.cxd5 Qxd5 9. Nf3 c5
10.c4 Qe4ch. 1 1 .Be2 Nbc6
12. dxc5 Nxe5 13.Bb2 Nxfch.
14. gxf Qc6 a wild position was
reached in Borisenko-Korchnoi,
USSR ch. 1955.
5 Nxe4 Bb4ch.
Here 5 . . . e5?! is clearly a loss of
time-6.dxe5 Qa5ch. 7 . Bd2 Qxe5
8. Bd3 [with the point 8 . . . f5
Semi-Slav Defense
1 1 3
9.Qh5ch. g6 10.Qe2 fxe4 1 1 .Bc3
Qe7 12. Qxe4 winning.] 8 ... Na6
9.Nf Qc7 10.Qe2 Be6 1 1 . Neg5
with a clear advantage for White,
Karpov-Ivanovic, Skopje 1976.
In the game Ungureanu-Suba,
Bucharest 1 976 Black tried
5 . . . Nf6 but got a bad game after
6. Nxf6ch. Qxf6 7. Nf Nd7 [Or
7 . . . Bb4ch. 8.Bd2 which also fa
vors White. See the Boleslavsky
Kotov,Budapest 1950 game un
der the move order 5 . . . Bb4ch.
6.Bd2 Bxd2ch. 7. Qxd2 Nf6.]
8.Bd3 Bb4ch. 9.Kf1 ! +- h6
10.Qe2 Qe7 1 1 . c5! e5 1 2. a3! BaS
13.b4. Also inadequate is the
rather passive 5 . . . Nd7 6.Nf
N gf6. A game between V aiser
Dejkalo, Tallinn 1986 continued
7 .Bd3 Nxe4 [7 . . . Bb4ch. 8.Bd2
Qa5 9.Nc3 is quite good for
White.] 8. Bxe4 Bb4ch. [Or
8 ... Nf6 9.Bc2 Bb4ch. 10.Bd2
Qa5 1 1 .a3 Bxd2ch. 1 2. Qxd2
Qxdch. 13. Kxd2 with a small
but lasting edge for White, Kar
pov-Korchnoi, Vienna 1986.]
9.Bd Qa5 10.0-0 Bxd2 1 1 .Nxd2
0-0 12. Qc2 h6?! [Vaiser feels that
12 . . . Nf6 is better.] 13.c5! e5
1 4. Nc4 Qc7 1 5. dxe5 Nxe5
1 6. Nd6 Ng4?! 17. Rfel Nf6
1 8. Qc3! Nxe4 19. Rxe4 Be6
20.Rae1 b6 21 . R1e3! with a clear
advantage for White.
6 Bd2
The most consistant course,
gam biting a pawn to ty to exploit
Black's weaknesses on the dak
squares brought on by . . . c6 and
. . . e6. Frank Marshall ' s first
choice when tying 4.e4 was to
play 6.Nc3 [Marshall-Lasker,
Paris 1900.] . I that game Lasker
got a good game with 6 . . . c5 but
later blundered and lost. Since
then various attempts have been
made to resurect 6.Nc3, most
notably by Hungarian GM Actor
jan. After 6.Nc3 c5 White has a
choice between 7 .Be3, 7 .Nf3 and
7 .a3. On 7 .Be3 Black got easy
equality in Raicevic-Ciic, Tuzla
1979 by 7 . . . cxd4 8.Bxd4 Nf6 9 .a3
Be? 10. Nf3 0-0. Now instead of
fnishing his development White
dallied with the result that after
1 1 .Qc2 [ l l .Be2 looks equal.l
l l . . . Nc6 12.Be3 Ng4 13. Bf4Qa5
1 4. h3 Nge5 1 5. Nxe5 Nxe5
16. Be2 Ng6 17.Be3 Bd7 1 8.0-0
Bc6 19.b4 [ 1 9.c5! Qc7 20.f4 Nh4
also favors Black.] 19 . . . Qe5!
1 14
Marshall Gambit
20. Rfe 1 ? [20. g3 ! b6! -+. ]
20 . . . Bxg2! ! 21 . Kxg2 Nh4ch.
Black had a winning attack.
Against 7 .Nf the second player
has 7 . . . Nf6 8.Be2 Nc6 9. a3
Bxc3ch. 10. bxc3 h6 1 1 .0-0 0-0=,
Anikaev-Cernikov, Mongolia
1972.
The most recent attempt to reha
bilitate 6.Nc3 has been 7 .a3, but
even here a well-prepaed Black
has nothing to fear.
#9.2
7 . . . Bxc3ch. [Or 7 . . . Ba5! ? 8.Be3
Nf6 9.Rc1 (Gheorghiu-Sor,
Lugano 1986 went 9.Ne2 Ng4?!
{ A better move is 9 . . . cxd4! .
Conquest-South, England 1986
conti nued 1 0. Qxd4 Qxd4
1 1 .Bxd4 Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 1 3.0-
0-0 Bb6 14. b4 Bxf 1 5.Kb2 Ke7
16.g3 Ne5 17. Nf4Bd7 1 8.Be2 a6
19. Rhfl Ba7 20.g4 Bc6 21 . Nh5
Rad8 22.Kb3 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rg8
24.h3 Rg5 25.c5 Nd7 26.h4 Re5
27.Bd3 h6 28.Ng3 Re3 29. Nge4
Ne5 30.Bc2 Bb8 31 . Ka2 Nxg4
32.Rd3 Rxe4, 0- 1 . } 1 O.dxc5
Nxe3 1 1 .Qxd8ch. Bxd8 1 2.fxe3
a5 1 3. Ne4Ke7 14. Nd4a4 1 5.Be2
f5 16.Nc3 Ba5 17. Bf3 Bxc3ch.
1 8 . bxc3 e5 1 9. c6 bxc6
20.Nxc6ch. Nxc6 21 .Bxc6 Ra7
22.Rbl Be6 23.Rb4 Rc8 24.Bb5
Rae? 25.Rxa4 Bxc4 26.Bxc4
Rxc4 27 .Rxc4 Rxc4 28. Kd2 Ra4
29.Ra1 Kd6 and Black should be
able to hold onto the
draw.However, it is clear that
White was in contol for a long
time and that 9 . . . cxd4! is Black's
corect choice.
Another interesting ty for Wite
is 9.dxc5! ?. :.
Semi-Slav Defense 1 1 5
Piskov-Dreev, USSR 1982 con
tinued 9 . . . Qxd1ch. 10.Rd1 Ne4
l l . Ne2 Nxc3 12. Nxc3 Bxc3ch.
1 3.bxc3 Bd7 14.Be2 Bc6 15.0-0
Nd7 16. Rd2 0-0-0 17 .Rb2 e5
1 8. f4 Rhe8 19. fxe5 Nxe5 20.Bd4
f6 21 .Rfb1 Be4 22.Rd1 Nc6
23. Kf2 Re7 24. Rbd2 Red7
25. Bg4 f5 26. Re2 Bxg2 27.Bxf5
Rf8 28. Bf6! Rxf6 29.Re8ch. and
White went on to win. Black' s
opening play was not the cause of
his defeat though and 9.dxc5
should not prove to be a threat to
Black players.
Finally mention must be made of
9. Nf3! ?. The game Lerner
Lukacs, Polanica Zdroj 1986
continued 9 . .. Nc6 10.dxc5! ? {
On 1 0. Be2 Lukacs gives
10 . . . Ng4! 1 1 .d5 Nxe3 12.fxe3
Ne7 13.e4 0-0 14.0-0 Ng6=. }
10 . . . Qxd1 ch. { 1 0 . . . Bxc3ch.
1 1 .bxc3 Qa5 12. Be2 Ne4 13.0-0
Nxc3 14. Qd2 Nxe2ch. 1 5. Qxe2
is += according to Lukacs. }
1 1 .Rxd1 Ne4 12.Rc1 { Or 12.Bd2
Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3
Bd7! 15. Nd4 Rc8 16.Nb5 Ke7
with an equal game. } 12 . . . Nxc3
13. bxc3 e5 14. Nd2! Bf5! 15.f3!
0-0-0 1 6. Ne4 Bc7! ? { Black
should also b able to gan equal
ity by 16 . . . Bxe4 17 .fxe4 Nd4
1 8. g3 Nb3! 1 9. Bh3ch. Kc7
20.Rc2 Na1-Lukacs. } 17. Be2
Bg6 1 8.g4! f6 19.Kf2! h5 20.h3
hxg4 with equal chances.) cxd4
10. Qxd4, 1/- 1/2, Adorjan-Pin
ter, Hunarian ch. 1984.] 8. bxc3
Nf6 [Here Adorjan gives 8 . . . Qa5
9.Bd2 Nf6 10.Bd3 0-0 1 1 . Nf
with a small edge to White. The
game Romanishin-Sveshnikov,
Frunze 1982 continued 1 1 . . .Nc6
12. 0-0 Rd8 13.Qc2 b6 14.Rfb1
cxd4 15.cxd4 Qh5 16.Rb5 Qxf
17.gxf3 Nxd4 1 8. Qc3 e5 19. Rd5
Nxd5 20.cxd5 Bb7 21 .Kg2 Rac8
22. Qb4 Bxd5 23.Rc1 Bxfch.
24.Kg3 and White eventually
won.] 9.Nf 0-0 [It would be in
teresting to know what the al
ways well-prepared Adorjan had
up his sleeve to use against
Euwe's suggestion of 9 . . . Qa5
1 0. Bd2 Ne4 1 l . Qc2 Nxd2
12. Qxd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 Qxd2ch.
14. Kxd2 Nc6.] 10.Bd3 b6 1 1 .0-0
Bb7 12.Bg5 Nbd7 1 3. Ne5 Qc7
14.Re1 cxd4 1 5. Nxd7 Nxd7
16. cxd4 Rfe8 [A position has
been reached that is similar to that
arising from Kaov' s Vaation
1 16 Marshall Gamit
of the Nimzo-Indian ( 4.e3 c5
5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 dxc4
8. Bxc4 cxd4 9.exd4 b6 followed
by a later . . . Bxc3. ), but with the
imporant distinction that one
extra pair of minor pieces
(Nf, Nf6) has been exchanged
off. White ties to tanslate this
difference into a kingside attack.]
1 7. Qg4! Rac8? ! [ 1 7 . . . Nf8]
1 8.Bh6 g6 19. h4 Qd6 20.Radl !
Qxa3, Admjan-Lukacs, Hungar
ian ch. 1984. Now instead of
21 . Qg3?! White could have ob
tained a very stong attack with
21 .Re3.
6 ... Qxd4
Black can sidestep the following
complications by 6 . . . Bxd2ch.,
but only by agreeing to take on a
passive, slightly inferior posi
tion. After 6 . . . Bxd2ch. 7. Qxd2
Nf6 White has two ways to keep
the better game:
1) 8. Nc3 0-0 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.Be2
b6 1 1 .0-0 Qc7 12.Rfe1 Bb7
1 3. Rad1 Rad8 14.b4 +=, Pfleger
Wiemer, West Gerany 1983/
84;
2) 8. Nxf6ch. Qxf6 9.Nf3 0-0
[9 ... Nd7 10.0-0-0 0-0 1 1 . Qe3! c5
1 2. dxc5 Qf5 1 3. Bd3 Qxc5
14.Rhe 1 +-, Steinitz-Marco,
Nuberg 1 896.] 10. Be2 Nd7
[ 10 . . . c5 1 1 .dxc5 Rd8 12. Qe3
Qxb2 1 3.0-0 Bd7 14. Rab1 Qxa
15. Rxb7 Qa6 16.Rf1 +-, Bole
slavsky-Kotov, Budapest 1950.]
1 1 . Qe3 b6 12.0-0 c5 [ 1 2 . . . Bb7
1 3.c5! ?.] 1 3.Rad1 Bb7 14. dxc5
Nxc5 1 5. b4 Na6 16.a3 Rfd8
1 7 . Ne5+=, Bronstein-Kotov,
USSR ch. 1948.
!
7 Bxb4
8 Be2
Qxe4ch.
By fa the most commonly
played move in this position, but
occasionally seen is 8.Ne2. It has
the points that g2 is defended and
the cental squares a little better
covered. This doesn't compen
sate the artificial nature of the
move, which causes develop-
Semi-Slav Defense 1 17
ment problems for White on the
Kingside. Black has more than
one route to a playable game:
1 ) 8 . . . Ne7 9. Qb3! ? [8. Qd2 c5! ?
9.Bxc5 Nbc6 intending . . . 0-0 and
. . . e5 is unclear according to Sve
shnikov. ] 9 . . . Nd7 10.0-0-0 c5
l l . Bc3 0-0 1 2. Ng3 Qf4ch.
1 3 . Rd2 Nf6 1 4. Bd3 Nc6
1 5. Qb5?! Ne5! -+, Antoshin
Sveshnikov, Soc hi 1979;
2) 8 ... Na6 9.Bf8 Ne7! [9 . . . Qg6
1 0.Qd2 Qf6 1 l .Bd6 Ne7 12.0-0-
0 0-0 13.Nc3 Rd8 14.Bd3 Ng6
1 5. Ne4Qd4 16.Qg5 f6 17.Qg3 +
Terpugov- Smyslov, USSR
1 949.] 10.Bxg7 Nb4! 1 1 .Qd6!
[ l l . Bxh8? e5! with terrible
threats.] 1 1 . . .Nd3ch. 12. Kd2 Nf5
1 3. Qxd3 Qxd3ch. 1 4. Kxd3
Nxg7=, Holmov-Novotelnov,
USSR 1951 ;
3) 8 . . . Nd7 9. Qd6 [On 9. Qd2?!
Black has 9 . . . c5 10.Bc3 Ngf6
1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 12. Ng3 Qh4 with a
clear advantage. Interesting is
Sveshnikov' s suggestion of
9.Bd6! ?.] 9 . . . c5 [Not 9 . . . e5?! on
account of 10.0-0-0 Qg6 l l .Qc7
Qe6 12.Ng3 f5 13.Rd6 Qf7
1 4. Ba5 b6 1 5. Qxc6 Rb8
16. Re6ch. with White' s clear
advantage, Berliner-Steinmeyer,
US ch. 1962.] 10. Bxc5 Nxc5
1 1 .Qxc5 Bd7=. Analysis by
Euwe.
After 8.Be2 Black has no less
tha fve different moves to con
sider. In order of value they ae:
A
8 ... Nf6: B. 8 ... 0x22
: C.
8 ... Nd7: D.8 ... c5: E.8 ... Na6.
A
8 &&& Nf6
This move has the dawback of
weakening the e7 square.
9 Nf Nbd7
10 Qd6 c
11 Bc3
Qc6
12 Qxc6 bxc6
13 Nd2
White is better, Flohr-Shamkov
ich, USSR 1942. He has the ad
vantage because of the Bishop
pair and the pressure he can gen
erate against the doubled c
pawns with Bf3 and Nb3;
.. 8 q&@ Qxg2
A very risky continuation by
which Black wins a second pawn
but at a horrible cost in develop
ment. A better way to capture on
g2 is by first inserting 8 . . . c5
9. Bxc5 as we will see later.
9 Qd6
1 1 8 Marshall Gambit
Going staight for the thoat. Also
quite good is 9.Bf3 Qg6 10.Ne2
Na6 1 l .Ba3 Ne7 1 2.Rg1 Qf6
1 3. Nc3 Nf5 1 4. Ne4 Qd8
1 5.Rxg7 with advantage, Wood
Alexander, London 1948.
9 ... Nd7
10 0-0-0 Qxf
A suggestion of Pachman. The
earlier ty, 10 . . . Qg5ch., clealy
favored White in Furman
Kopaev, USSR 1949, after 1 1 .f4
Qe7 1 2.Qd c5 13. Bc3. One pos
sible continuation might be
13 . . . Ngf6 14. Qc2 0-0 1 5.Nf3 b6
16.Rhg1 and now noral devel
opment with 1 6 . . . Bb7 runs into
17.Rxd7.
11 BhS
12 Kb1
13 Bxfch.
14 Rflch.
15 Qe7ch.
16 Qd8ch.?
Qe3ch.
QeS
Kxf
Ngf6
Kg8
Instead, according to Sosonko
and Pliester, White could have
won with 1 6.Nf3! Qe4ch. 17.Ka1
h6 1 8.Rhg1 Rh7 19. Nd2++- or
16 . . . Qh5 17. Rhg1 Qf7 1 8. Qd8ch.
Qe8 1 9.Rxg7ch. Kxg7 20.Rg1ch.
Qg6 21 .Rxg6ch. hxg6 22.Qe7ch.
++-.
16 ...
K
17 Qe7ch.
1/2- 1/, Ree-Pliester, Amster
dam 1982;

8 ... Nd7
A logical continuation that has
been more or less abandoned by
theory as inferior. Black prepares
. . . c5 to close the a3-f8 diagonal
while catching up in develop-
ment.
9 Nf
Black got good play in Roskin
Karasev, USSR 1972 after 9. Qd6
c5 10.Bxc5 Qxg2 1 1 .Bf [Euwe
gave 1 1 .0-0-0 an ! here. However
that assessment is open to ques
tion after 1 1 . . . Qc6! 12. Qxc6 bxc6
13.Bf3. Gulko says that this posi
tion is stong for White but
13 . . . Bb7 14. Bd6 ( 14. Ba3 0-0-0
threatens to lock the Bishop out
by . . . c5.) 14 . . . 0-0-0 1 5.b4 Nh6 or
14 . . . Ne7 15. Ne2 Nf5 seems to
favor Black. In the game Haik
Flear, Clichy 1986/87 Black
played 1 1 . . . Qg5ch. (Instead of
the correct 1 1 . . .Qc6! . ) and got a
lost game ater 12.Be3 Qa5
13. Nf3! Ne7 14.Nd4 a6 15.Rhg1
Qe5 16. Qa3 h6 17. Nb5 0-0
Semi-Slav Defense 1 19
1 8. Nd6 Qxh2 19. Rl .] 1 1 . . .Qg5
1 2.Ba3 Ne7.
9 ...
10 Bc3
11 Qd6
c
Ngf6
To slow is 1 1 .0-0. After 1 1 . . . 0-0
1 2.Bd3 Qg4! 1 3.h3 Qh5 14.Qd2
b6 15. Qf4 Bb7 White had noth
ing to show for the pawn in
Schulz-Reefschlager, West Ger
many 1983/84.
11 ... Qc6
12 Qg3
Here 12. Qxc6! bxc6 13.Nd2
transposes into the Flohr-Sham
kovich game of variation A,
8 . . . Nf6. White would then stand
better.
12 ... 0-0
13 Rd1 Ne8
14 0-0 f6
15 Bd3 Rf
16 Rfe1 Nf
17 b4
pieces and to attact the White
dak-squared Bishop to a more
exposed square.
9 Bxc5
The refusal gives Black the bet
ter of it-9.Bc3 Ne7 10. Bxg7 Rg8
1 1 .Bf6 Nd7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7.
9 ... Qxg2
10 Bf
Here 10.Qd6 Nd7 l l .Bf3 leads
to the game Roskin-Karasev,
mentioned ealier in Variation C.
Another possibility for the fist
player, and one some theory
books consider best, is 10.Qd4.
After 1 0 . . . Nd7 1 1 . Bf3 Qg5
12. Bb4 old theory concentated
on 12 . . . Qe5ch. with the conclu
sion that after 13. Ne2 Qxd4
14.Nxd4 Ne5 15.0-0-0 [ 15.Be2?!
Bd7 16.Rg1 Ne7 17.Bd6 N5g6
1 8.Rd1 e5, Dalko-Honf, Hun
gary 1950.] 15 . . . Bd7 16.Bxb7
Rb8 17.Bd6 Rxb7 18. Bxe5 f6
Christiansen-Raicevic, Lone 1 9. Bd6 Ne7 20. Rhe1 e5,
Pine 1980. White has compensa- Sapundziev-Popov, Bulgarian
tion for the pawn in the for of Ch. 1960/61 , White can gain
greater piece activity and the two pressure by 21 .Nb3. Instead of
Bishops; 20 . . . e5 Harding feels that Black
.
8 ... c can get equality by 20 . . K since
Black temporaily returns the 21 . Bxe7 Kxe7 22.Nf5ch. Kf8! is
pawn to gain the use of c6 for his satisfactory.
120 Marshall Gambit
A new ty for the second player is
12 . . . Ne7. In Leontxo-Flear, Be
nidor 1985 a very sharp game
arose after 1 3. Rdl Qe5ch.
1 4. Ne2 Nc6 1 5. Bxc6 Qxd4
1 6. Nxd4 bxc6 1 7. Bd6 Bb7
1 8.Rg1 g6 19. Rg3 Nb6 20.c5
Nd5 21 .Rb3 0-0-0 22.Nf3 f6
23.Nd2 e5.
10 ... QgS
The point of throwing in . . . c5.
Now the queen reteat picks up a
tempo.
11 Bd6
Here 1 1 .Be3 gave Black the bet
ter game in Kovacs-Van Schelt
inga, Amsterdam Olympiad
1954 after 1 l . . . Qa5ch. 12.Bd2
Qc7 1 3. Ne2 Nc6 14.Bc3 (No
better was 14. Nc3 Nge7 15.0-00-
0 1 6.N5 Qb8 17.c5 b6 18.Rc1
Rd8 -+, Dawen-Berg, Ribe
1978. ) Ne5 15. Nd4 Bd7.
11 ... Ne7
Not l l . . . Nc6 as White quickly
gets the better of it with
12. Bxc6ch. bxc6 1 3. Nf3. In
Vaiser-Ermenkov, Odessa 1977
the first player had a clear advan
tage i n the endi ng after
13 . . . Qa5ch. 14.b4 Qf5 15.Qe2
Nf6 16.Rg1 Ba6 17. Rxg7 Bxc4
1 8. Qxc4 Qxf3 19. Be5 Nd7
20. Bb2 Rf8 2 1 . Rc 1 Nb6
22.Qxc6ch. Qxc6 23.Rxc6.]
12 Nh3!
An improvement over the older
1 2. Ne2 Nf5 13.Rg1 Qd8 when
Black consolidates.
12 ...
13 Rg1
14 Ba3
15 Kf1
Qf6
NfS
QeSch.
Nc6
On 1 5 . . . Qxh2 White has 16. Ng5
intending Ne4-d6.
16 Qd3
17 Bxc6ch.
18 Qe2
19 NgS
20 Rd1
21 Qf
22 Ne4
23 Rxg7
Qd4
bxc6
Qh4
Qxh2
h6
Qc7
Bb7
White has a winning attack, Vla
dimirov-Monin, Leningrad
1980;
L
8 ... Na6
The classical contnuaton in this
vaiation where Black develops
with tempo. After 8 ... Na6 White
has three major contnuatons:
E.J. 9.Ba5; E.2. 9.Bc3; E.3.
9.Bd6. Bad is 9. Bf8? on account
Semi-Slav Defense
121
of9 . . . Qxg2 10. Qd6 Bd7 1 1 .0-0-0
0-0-0 intending . . . Nh6.
E
9 BaS
account of the forcing vaiation
12 . .. Ne4 1 3. Qd4 f6 14.Nh4 e5! .
12 ... Qxfch.
13 Kxf Ne4ch.
14 Kf Nxd6
15 Rad1 Ke7
16 Rxd6
The attempt to build up pressure
by 16.Rd2 fails to 1 6 . . . Be8
17.Rd1 Nf5 1 8.Bd8ch. Rxd8
19.Rxd8 f6 20.Ng4 c5 and Black
is clearly better according to an
old analysis of Shamkovich.
16 ... Kxd6
17 Nxtch. Ke7
18 Nxh8 Rxh8
19 Bc3
An old continuation that isn' t With approximately equal
seen anymore.
chances according to Euwe;
9 ... Bd7

One of the points behind 9 .Ba5 is
that 9 . . . b6? can be stongly met
by 10.Bc3 Nf6 1 1 . Qd6.
10 Nf Nf6
11 Qd6
QfS
Opening the game with . . . c5 fa
vors White- 12.Rd1 b6 1 3.Ne5
Rd8 14.Bc3 Qa8 15.Bf with a
clear advantage to White, Mike
nas-Suetin, USSR ch. 1950 .
12 NeS
Here 12.Bc3 favors Black on
9 Bc3
Ne7
Black' s best answer to the threat
against g7. On 9 . . . f6 White
emerges with a clear advantage
with 10.Qd6 Bd7 [After 10 . . . Nh6
1 1 .Bxf6 gxf6 12.0-0-0 the threats
of Bh5ch. and Qd8ch. are had to
meet.] 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 12. Qg3 e5
[ 1 2 . . . Qg6 13. Qe3 b6 14.Nh3 aso
gives White a stong attack,
Bronstein-Szily, Moscow 1949.]
13.Bd3 Qf4ch. 14. Qxf4 exf4
1 22
Marshall Gambit
1 5. Ne2 g5 16.h4. In Archipov
Vera, Sochi 1985 Black tied to
rehabilitate 9 . . . Nf6. After 10. Nf3
Bd7 1 1 . Ne5 Rd8 White tied
something new with 12.0-0. Ear
lier games of Salo Floh' s saw
White get the advantage with
12. Qd2- 12 . . . Bc8 13.Qg5 Rg8
14.f3 h6 1 5.Qc1 Qh4ch. 16. g3
Qh3 1 7.Bfl Qf5 1 8. Qe3 c5
19. h4+-, Flohr-Tur, USSR 1945
or 12 . . . 0-0 13.f3 Qh4ch. 14.g3
Qh3 1 5.Bfl Qh6 1 6.Qxh6 gxh6
17.0-0-0 again with clear advan
tage, Flohr-Judovic, USSR 1944.
On Arhipov' s 1 2. 0-0 Vera
emerged slightly worse after
12 . . . Nc5 13. Rel Bc8 14.Qc1 0-0
1 5.Bf Qh4 16.g3 Qh3 17.Bb4b6
1 8. Bxc5 bxc5 19.Nxc6 Rd7
20.Bg2.
10 Bxg7
White has two other options-one
doubtful, the other quite promis
ing. Black had no problems in
Korzubov-Novikov, USSR 198 1
after 10.f3?! Qg6 1 1 . g4 f6 12.h4
e5 1 3.Qd2 Bd7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0.
More promising for the frst
player is 10.Nf3. In Rudnev
A.Menas, cor. 1982 White had
a stong initatve after 10 . . . 0-0
1 1 .0-0 Ng6 12.Re1 Qf4 [O 1 2.
. . . Nh4 13. Qd6 Nxf3ch. 14. Bxf
Qxc4 1 5.Be4 f6 16.Bxh7ch. Kf
1 7. Bg6ch. Kg8 1 8. Qg3 e5
19. Re4 Qd5 20.Qh4+-, Bonsch
Hamori, Hungary 1986.] 13. b4
Qc7 14.Bd3 f6 15.Qc2 Qf
16.h4! .
In view of these games Black' s
best answer to 1 O.Nf appears to
be 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .0-0 Ng6 1 2.Re1 f6
tying to get in . . . e5 to develop his
queenside pieces. In Estevez
Diaz, Bayamo 1984, sharp play
developed after 13. b4Nf4 14.Bfl
Qg6 1 5.g3 e5 16.N4 Qg5 17. b5.
10 O&@
RgS
Bad is 10 . . . Qxg2 l l .Bf6! Qxh1
12. Qd6 0-0 1 3.Qg3ch. Ng6
14.Bf and White picks up te
Black Queen.
11 Bc
The game Glek-Neferov, Tallinn
1986, rased many questions de
spite its brevity. Glek played
1 1 .Bf6 which theory considers
bad on account of 1 1 . . . Qf4. In
stead Neferov tried 1 1 . . .Rg6
which is aso frowned upon by
the authorities. After 12.Bc3
Qxg2 Glek played 13. Qd4? al
lowing 1 3 . . . e5 ad soon went
Semi-Slav Defense
1 23
under- 14. Qd2 Qxh1 1 5.0-0-0
Bf5 with clea advantage to
Black. It would b interesting to
know what Neferov had planned
against 13. Qd2. Now 1 3 . . . Qxh1
is answered by 14.0-0-0 Nd5
1 5. Nf3 ! Qg2 [ 1 5 . . . Qxd1 ch.
1 6.Bxd1 Nxc3 17. Qxc3 when
Black stands well from a material
standpoint, but White' s develop
ment edge tells] 16. cxd5 with a
strong initiative. If 1 3 . . . Nd5
White doesn' t play 14.cxd5 al
lowing 14 . . . Qxh1 but rather 14.0-
0-0 when Black doesn' t seem to
have anything better than to
tanspose into the line just dis
cussed.
11
Nd
line. Black would like to take on
g2, but then would have problems
along the d-file. With the text he
hopes to close the d-file and then
capture. On 1 1 . . .Qxg2?! White
has 13. Qd2! Qxh1 13.0-0-0 Nd5
1 4. Nf3 Qxd1 ch. [ 1 4 . . . Qg2
1 5. cxd5 cxd5 1 6. Qf4 Bd7
17. Bxa6 bxa6 1 8. Rgl.] 15.Bxd1
Nxc3 1 6.Qxc3 Ke7? [Black
might b able to hold on after
1 6 . . . e5 ! . For example
17. Qxe5ch. Be6 1 8.Ng5 0-0-0
19. Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6ch. Kb8
etc.] 17.Ne5 Bd7 1 8. Qa3ch. c5
19. Qf3 with a winning position in
Bronstein-Kotov, Budapest
1950.
12 cxd5 Qxg2
13 dxe6
Not 1 3.Bf3? on account of
1 3 . . . Qxhl . Or 1 3.Bfl when
1 3 . . . Qxh 1 1 4. Nf3 exd5
1 5. Qe2ch. Be6 16.0-0-0 0-0-0
leaves Black on top.
13 ...
Bxe6
Necessary, as 13 . . . Qxh1 ? runs
into 14.exfch. Kxf 15. Bc4ch.
Be6 16. Qh5ch. winning.
14 Bf6
A rather staling move at frrst A critcal juncture for the theory
glance but a thematic move in this of this variation. Now ' ECO'
1 24 Marshall Gambit
[Euwe] gives the game Dukic
Seslija, Yugoslavia 1967, which
continued 14 . . . Qxh1 1 5.Qd6
Rxg1 ch. 1 6. Kd2 Qd5ch.
17. Qxd5 Bxd5 18.Rxg1 Kd7
1 9. Rg7 Rh8 20. Bxa6 bxa6
21 .Rxfch. =. Much more inter
esting for the second player is the
text.
14 ...
Rg6
15 Bh4 Qxh1
16 Qd6
Now old analysis by Roma
novsky runs 1 6 . . . Qxg1 ch.
17 .Kd2 Qg5ch. 1 8.Bxg5 Rxg5
1 9. Kel Rd8 unclear. With
16 ... Rxg1ch. play would develop
similar to the lines arising fom
14 . . . Qxh1 discussed earlier.
However, with the interpolation
of . . . Rg6 and Bh4 Black has a
thid possibility now available.
2 16 ... RgS!
This discovery of the Russian
master Razmoglin seems to ren
der this vaation as btter for
Black. Stangely enough his
analysis [given in 1 973 in
Schachmatny Bulletin] was ig
nored by the ' Encyclopeda' [in
both editions of volume D] .
17 Bxa6
Other ties by White aso seem to
fail:
1) 17.Bf3 Qxglch. 1 8.Ke2 Qxal
1 9. Bxg5 [ 1 9. Bxc6ch. bxc6
20.Qxc6ch. Kf8 21 . Qxa8ch. Kg7
22.Bxg5 Qxb2ch.] 19 . . . Qxb2ch.
20.Kdl Qblch. ;
2) 17.Bh5 Qe4ch. 1 8.Ne2 Rd8
19. Qxd8ch. Kd8 20.Bxg5ch.
Kc8;
3) 17.Bxg5? Qxglch. 18. Kd2
Qxg5ch. ;
4) 17.0-0-0 Rc5ch. 1 8. Kbl
[ 1 8.Qxc5 Nxc5 19. Nf3 Qg2
20.Rgl Qxgl 21 .Nxgl Bxa2.]
1 8 . . . Qe4ch. 1 9. Bd3 Qxh4
20. Bxa6 Rd8-Analysi s by
Razmoglin.
17 ...
18 Kd2
18.Bfl Rd8.
18 ...
19 BxgS
Qxg1ch.
Qxa1
Qxb2ch.
Semi-Slav Defense
125
20 Ke1
20.Kdl Bg4ch. or 20.Kd3 Bf5ch.
are bt terrible for White.
20 ... Qc3ch.
21 Ke2 Bg4ch.
22 Kfl Bh3ch.
23 Ke2 Qc2ch.
24 Ke1 Qe4ch.
25 Be2 Bg4
26 Be3 Rd8
and Black wins- Analysis by
Razmoglin.

9 Bd6
r
The main line of 4.e4, to which
Black has fve replies: ..
2 $ 0x2: E.3.b. 9 ... Bd7: E.3.c.
9 &0(: E.3.d. 9,e5: E.3.e.
2
E
9 ... Qxg2
10 Qd2!
With the point that lO ... Qxhl is
answered by 1 1 . Qg5 threatening
Qxg7 and Bf.
10 ...
Bd7
11 0-0-0 0-0-0
12 cS
Be8
13 Bxa6 Qxh1
14 QaS
Rd7
15 Be2 Qe4
16 Qxa7 ++-
Rovner-Novotelnov, USSR
1952;
9 ... Bd7
10 Nf c
11 NeS
Bc6
12 Nxc6 bxc6
Or 1 2 . . . Qxc6 1 3. Bf3 Qd7
14.Bxb7! Qxb7 1 5.Qa4ch. Kd8
16.0-0-0 ++-, Taimanov.
13 0-0 Ne7
14 Qa4
White is clearly better, Taima
nov-H.Steiner, Stockholm Inter
zonal 1952;
E. 9 ... QfS?!
126 Marshall Gambit
# 9.9
A recent attempt to bring Black' s
Queen back to safety via a5.
Unforunately, the idea takes too
much tme.
10 Nf
Less clear are 10. Qd2 Nf6
l l .Bd3 Ne4 1 2. Qe2 Qa5ch.
1 3.b4 Qd8 (13 . . . Nxb4 14.Bxe4
Nc2ch. 1 5.K1 Nxa1 with White
clearly on top. ) 14.Be5 Nf6 and
10. Qd2 Nf6 1 1 .Bd3 Qg4 1 2. Ne2
Ne4 13.Bxe4 Qxe4 14.0-0-0
Qxc4ch. 1 5.Nc3-Analysis by
Bykhovsky.
10 ...
11 Nd2
12 0-0
QaSch.
Ne7
NfS
13 Ne4 Nxd6
14 Nxd6ch. Ke7
15 Qd3
Rd8
16 Rad1 Qc7
17 Qxh7!
Rxd6
18 Qxg7 eS
So fa lvanchuk-Dreev, Lenin
grad 1985. Now instead of
19. Qxe5ch? White could have
won immediately with 19.Rxd6
Qxd6 20.Rd1 Qg6 21 .Qh8! ;
.J
l.
9 ... eS
A modern teatment by which
Black retus the pawn to de
velop his pieces.
10 Nf
Possible is 10. Qb3! ? with the
idea of 10 . . . Qxg2 1 1 .0-0-0 Qxh1
12.Qg3. Instead of 10 . . . Qxg2
Black ted 10 ... f6 in a postal
game between Leoni-Flammin
ger, 1954-56. Even so, Wite had
pressure ater 1 l .Nf3 c5 12.0-0
Qc6 13.Radl .
Semi-Slav Defense
127
10 ...
Bg4!
10 ... Be6! ? 1 1 .Bxe5 Rd8 is pos
sible as well as 10 . . . Bf5! ?.
11 0-0
Black obtained equality in
Vaiser-Novikov, Volgodonsk
1 983 after l l . Nxe5 Bxe2
12.Qxe2 Qxe2ch. 13.Kxe2 Nh6.
11 ... 0-0-0
12 Bd3 Qf4
13 Bxe5 Qxe5
14 Nxe5 Bxd1
15 B fSch. Kc7
16 Nxt Ne7?
According to Tal Black could
have equalized with 16 . . . Nh6! -
17. Nxh6 [ 17.Nxh8 Nxf5 1 8.Nf
Rd7 19.Ne5 Be2! 20.Nxd7 Bxfl
21 . Ne5 Be2 22.Re1 Nd4! ad
Black is clearly better; 17 .Nxd8
Rxd8 1 8. Bxh7 Be2 19.Rfcl
Rd2=.] 17 . . . Bh5! 1 8.Bg4 Bxg4
19. Nxg4 Rd2.
17 Bxh7!
18 Nxh8
19 Rfel
Bg4
Rxh8
White is superior, Tal-Dorfman,
USSR 1978;
9 Q b6
#9. 1 1
Planning to complete develop
ment with . . . Bb7 and . . . 0-0-0.
10 Qd2
A new scheme of development
for White in this line, planning 0-
0-0. The stem game for this line,
Ragozin-Schaposnikov, USSR
cor 1953, went 10.Nf Bb7
1 1 . Ne5 [Trying to stop Black
fom castling long. Also playable
is 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 (O 1 l . . .Rd8
12. Ne5 Ne7 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3
Qf6 1 5.Ng4, I.Sokolov-Vera,
Pororoz-Ljubljana 1987. Now
instead of 15 . . . Qf5?! 1 6.Qd4!
Black should have repeated with
15 . . . Qg6 16. Ne5 Qf6 according
to Sokolov.) 12. Ne5! Qf5 1 3.Bg4
Qf6 14.Bf! Ne7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7
1 6. Qa4 Qc7 1 7. Nxc6 Bxc6
1 8. Qxa6ch. Kb8 with equality in
1 28 Marshall Gambit
Verduga-Vera, Havana 1986.] 25. Rbxb7ch.
1 1 . . . f6 1 2.0-0! 10 @@@ Bb7
11 Nf Rd8
Most books give 1 1 . ..0-0-0 as
Black's best move but matters ae
not so easy after 12.0-0-0 when
Black can ty the following
moves:
1) 12 ... Ne7?? 13.Bd3;
2) 1 2 . . . Nb4 1 3. Qxb4 Qxe2
14.Rhe1 Qxf2 1 5. Rd2 winning
for White;
3) 12 ... Nc5 1 3. b4 +-;

4) 12 . . . c5 13.Ng5! [and not
12 . . . fxe5 1 3.Bh5ch. g6 14.Re1 13.Ne5? Nb4! ad Black wins! ]
Qh4 [Both 14 . . . Qd4 15.Bxe5
13 ... Qg6 14.Bd3 f5 [White wins
Qxd1 16.Bxd1 Nf6 17.Bxf6 and after 14 . . . Rxd6 15.Bxg6 Rxd2
14 . . . Qxc4 15.Be2 Qd5 16.Qxd5
16.Rxd2 hxg6 17. Nxf. Also
cxd5 17.Bxe5 Nf6 1 8.Bxa6 Bxa6 note that 14 . . . Qf6 1 5.Ne4! Qd4
19 .Bxf6 0-0 20.Re6 are in 16. Qe2 Rxd6 17 .Bc2 is stong for
White' s favor.] 15.Bg4 Rd8 White.] 15. Bf4! Nb4 [Or 15 ... h6
1 6. Rxe5. Now i nstead of 16.Nxe6! Qxe6 17.Bxf5 winning
1 6 . . . Nc7?, which allowed a for White.] 16.Qe2! Rxd3 [Wite
crushing Queen sacrifce after wins on 16 . . . N xd3ch. 17 .Rxd3
17.Bxe6 Ne7 1 8.Bxc7! , Black Rxd3 1 8.Qe5! , while a quiet
had to ty 16 . . . Nc5. According to move like 1 6 . . . Qf6 17.Bb1 sim
aalysis by Ragozin White has ply leaves White better. ]
nothing better than a perpetual 17. Qe5! ! Rxd1ch 1 8.Rxd1 Na6
with 17.b4 Nh6 18. bxc5 Qxg4 19.Nxe6! Ne7 [ 19 ... Nf6runs into
19. Qxg4 Nxg4 20.Rxe6ch. Kd7 20.Nf8! ! .] 20.Qd6 Qe8 21 . Nxg7
21 . Re7ch. Kc8 22.Rae1 bxc5 Qc6 22. Qxe7 and White should
23.Rc7ch. Kb8 24.Rb1 Rxd6 win. Analysis by Donaldson and
Semi-Slav Defense
129
Silman.
12 0-0-0 Qf5
1 2 . . . c5 1 3. Bd3 Qc6 14.Bc2 Ne7
1 5.Ne5 Qc8 1 6. Qf4 is also
clearly better for White, while
1 2 . . . Qg6 1 3.g4! Ne7? [ 1 3 . . . c5
1 4. Ne5 Qh6 1 5. g5 Qh4
1 6.Rhgl ! -Vera.] 14.Ne5 Qh6
1 5. Qxh6 gxh6 16.Ba3! was cer
tainly no improvement for Black,
Toskov-Vera, Vaa 1986.
13 g4 Qa5
14 Qf4 f6
15 Ba3 bS
16 Rxd8ch. Qxd8
17 Rd1 Qc8
18 Bd6 Ne7
19 Kb1 Ng6
20 Qe3 b4
21 Nd4 Kt
22 c5 ++-
Donchev-Semkov, Bulgarian ch.
1985.
Conclusion:
The lines arising fom 4.e4 sel
dom feature boring chess. After
l. d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4.e4
dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4ch. 6.Bd2 Qxd4
7. Bxb4 Qxe7ch. 8. Be2 it' s quite
clear that 8 . . . Nf6, 8 . . . Qxg2 and
8 . . . Nd7 are bad. Of the two other
possibilities 8 . . . c5 seems play
able, but without a doubt 8 . . . Na6
is the critica line. There 9. Ba5
and 9.Bd6 [9 . . . e5 10. Nf3 Bg4! . ]
seem to offer White little. Critcal
is 9.Bc3 Ne7 10.Nf3 [In place of
10. Bxg7 which helps Black to
develop. ] preferring to gambit
the pawn and rely on the Bishop
pair, space and lead in develop
ment for compensation. Critical
tests are needed to judge the va
lidity of 4.e4.
1 30 Abraham's Defense
CHAPER 10 D31/SL6
Abraham'sDefense
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf

!l
Often called the Noteboom V ari
ation after the Dutch Master
Daniel Noteboom, this line was
frst analysed and tested by the
English player Gerald Abrahams
in the ealy 1920' s. Nowadays the
champions of this uncompromis
ing defense are Grandmasters
Jesus Noguieras of Cuba and
Glenn Flear of England.
With 4 . . . dxc4 Black immediately
imbalances the positon. In many
vaations White gets a big pawn
center while Black gets a pair of
connected passed pawns on the
Queen side. In such positions the
key plans for both sides ae clea.
White ties to mobilize his center
and crash through with a
Kingside attack. For Black the
recipe is to blockade White' s
center pawns and activate his
Queenside passers.
After 4 ... dxc4 White usually
plays one of following moves: A.
5.e3: B. 5.e4: C. 5.a4.
Aside from these main line ties
White may occasionally experi
ment with less analysed moves:
1) 5.g3 Bb4 6. a4 [6.Bg2! ?-Ghe
orghiu.] 6 . . . c5! = 7. Bg2 Nc6
8. Be3 Nf6 9. dxc5 Qxd1ch.
10.Rxd1 , Gheorghiu-Czemiak,
Vratsa 1975, and now 10 . . . Ng4
1 1 .Bd4? e5! favors Black so
White should play 1 1 .Bd2 with a
complicated game;
2) 5.Bg5! ? Qc7 [5 . . . Be7 6.Bxe7
Nxe7 7.e4 is in White' s favor.]
6.e4 b5 7. a4 Bb4 8. Nd2 [Or
Semi-Slav Defene 131
8.Be2 Nf6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.0-0
Bb7 1 1 .axb5 Bxc3 12.bxc3 cxb5
13. d5 exd5 14.Nd4 a6 15.Bh5
dxe4 16. Ne6 Qd7 17. Qg4 Ke7
1 8. Qxg7 ad White eventually
won, lvanchuk-Sorokin, Sochi
1986.] 8 . . . a6! 9.axb5?! [9.Qg4! ?;
9.e5! ?.] 9 . . . cxb5 10.Nxb5 axb5
l l . Rxa8 Bb7 1 2. Ra1 Bxe4
13. Qg4 f5 14. Qg3 Bd6 1 5.Qh3
Bd5 1 6. Be2 Ne7, Bagirov
Chekov, USSR 1982, and now
17.Bxe7! Bxe7 1 8.Bh5ch. Kd7
19 .Bf is slightly better for White
according to Chekov.
Since all this seemed good for
White perhaps a better answer to
5.Bg5 is 5 . . . Qa5! ?. The game
Zuger-Antunes, Dubai 1986 con
tinued 6. a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 Nd7
8.Ne4 Bxd2ch. 9.Qxd2 Qxd2ch.
10. Nfxd2 e5 1 l .Nd6ch. Kf8.
For those who like to live danger
ously Black can also consider
5 . . . f6! ? : 6.Bd2 [Also critical is
6.Bf4 b5 7.e4 a6 8.Be2 Ne7 9.h4
Bb7 10.h5 Nd7 1 1 .0-0 c5?!
(1 1. . .g5 with the idea of . . . h6 and
. . . Bg7 is btter-Semkov.) 12.d5
with advantage to White,
Rajkovic-Semkov, Vrnj acka
Banja 1987.] 6 . . . b5 [6 . . . Bb4 is
met by 7 .e3 b5 8. Ne4. A more
important alterative is 6 . . . a6!
when the game Lukacs-Semkov,
Vmjacka Banja 1987 contnued
7. g3 b5 8.Bg2Ne7 9.0-0Nd5 and
now instead of 10.b3? Nxc3
1 1 . Bxc3 b4 12.Be1 c3 when
Black was clealy better White
should have played 10. Ne4 in
tending b3 with compensation
Semkov.] 7. g3 [An imporant
game is Psahis-Bareev, USSR
(ch.) 1987 which went 7. a4 b4
8. Ne4 Ba6 9.Rc1 Qa 10. e3 c3
1 1 .bxc3 Bxfl 1 2. cxb4 Qd5
1 3. Nc3 Qd7 14. Kxfl Bxb4
15. Ne4 and White had a signif
cant advantage.] 7 . . . Ne7 8.e4
Ng6 9.h4 e5 10.h5 exd4 1 1 .hxg6
dxc3 12.bxc3 h6 1 3.Nd4 Bc5,
naturally both sides probably
have many improvements along
the way, but now White goes
berserk. . . 1 4. Rxh6 Rxh6
1 5.Bxh6 Bxd4 1 6.cxd4 gxh6
17. Qh5 Be6 1 8.g7ch. Ke7 19. 0-
0-0 Qd6 and Black went on to win
a crazed battle! . .. Zuger-Klinger,
Munich (zona) 1987 .
Finally if Black is stll dissatis
fed with his replies to 5. Bg5 he
might consider the natural
1 32
Abraham's Defense
5 . . . Nf6 when 6.e4 [6.a4! ?.] 6 . . . b5
'C' [5.a4] .
7.e5 h6 is the Semi-Slav Botvin-
7 Ne4
nik Vaiation . . . a highly compli
cated system not covered in this
book.
It is safe to say that 5.Bg5! ? cer
tanly deserves more tests!
A
5 e3 bS
6 a4 b4! ?
#1
0
.2
Not 6 ... Qb6? 7. ab5 cxb5 8. Ne5!
Bb7 9.b3 Bb4 10. Bd2 Nf6
1 1 .bxc4 bxc4 1 2. Nxc4 Qd8
13. Qa4ch. Nc6 14. Ne5 Bxc3
1 5.Bxc3 0-0! 1 6.Ba6! Bxa6
1 7. Nxc6 Qc7 1 8. d5 ! Bb7
19. Bxf6 gxf6 20.Qg4ch. Kh8
21 . Qh4 with a maked advantage
for White, Marshall-Rubinstein,
Kissingen 1 928. Note that
6 ... Bb4 would tanspose to line
7.Nb1 tansposes into the Slav.
7
Ba6
8 Qc2
QdS
9 Ned2
Others:
1 ) 9.Nfd2 Nf6 10.Nxf6ch. gxf6
1 1 .Nxc4 is unclear, Rauzer
Moskolov, USSR 1931 ;
2) 9. Be2? b3 10.Qb1 Nf6 1 1 .Nc3
[ l l .Nxf6ch. gxf6 12.0-0? c3! is
winning for Black.] 1 l . . . Bb4
12.Bd2 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Ne4 is
clearly better for Black-Gligoric.
9 c
10 bxc3 bxc3
11 Qxc3 Bxfl
12 Nxfl aS
13 Ba3 Bxa3
14 Qxa3 Na6
15 Ng3 Nb4
16 Rc1
According to Grunfeld the game
is even.
I
5 e4
Semi-Slav Defense
1 33
This vigorous response has less
point here than in the Tolush
Geller Gambit against the Slav
[ l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf Nf6 4.Nc3
dxc4 5.e4 b5.] simply because
there is no Knight on f6 to hit with
an e4-e5 advance.
5 b5
Wite has now tied the follow
ing moves: B.l. 6.e5?! ; B.2. 6.a4;
8.3. 6.Be2.
B.l.
6 e5?!
Bb7
7 Be2
Black is fne after 7 .Ng5 Nh6! or
7. Ne4 f6! -Litmanowicz.
7 Ne7
Bobotsov-Popov, Bulgara 1962
went 7 . . . a6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Ne4 h6
10.Bd2 Be7 1 1 .Qc2 Nd7 12.b3
cxb3 13.ab3 Qb8 with an un
clear position.
8 Ne4 Nd5
9 0-0 Nd7
10 Nfg5
Be7 =+
White does not have sufficient
compensation for his sacrifced
pawn. Spielmann-Eli skases,
match 1 932 continued 1 1 . f4
[ 1 1 .Bh5 g6 12. Qf3 Rf8 1 3.Nxh7
gxh5 14.Nxf8 Nxf8 -+.] 1 1 .. .g6
1 2. f5 exf5 13.e6 fxe6 14.Nxe6
Qb6 1 5. a4 [ 1 5. Rxf5 c5!
1 6. Ng7ch. Kd8 1 7. Rxd5 ! ?
Grunfeld.] 15 .. .fxe4 16. a5 Qa6
17. Qc2 N7f6 1 8.Rxf6! Bxf6
1 9. Qxe4 Kf7 20.Nc5 Rae8
21 .Qf Rxe2! 22. Nxa6 Re1ch.
Black is much better.
l
6 a4 Bb4
#10. 4
Not sogoodis 6 . . . b4?! 7.Nb1 Ba6
8. Qc2 Nf6 9.Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6
Qxf6 1 1 .Bxc4 Bxc4 12.Qxc4
when White has an edge,
Rokhlin-llyin Genevsky, match
1926. Grunfeld' s suggeston of
6 ... Qb6 7. Bd2 Nf6 [which he
claims is clearly better for
Black!] has never been tested.
7 Bd2
Other moves are plentiful:
1) 7. g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 Nf6 9.e5
1 34 Abraham's Defense
[9.Bg5 h6! ] 9 . . . Nd5 10.Qc2 Nd7
1 1 .0-0 a6 12. Ng5 [ 1 2.Bg5 Qc7!
1 3. Nxd5 cxd5 14.axb5 axb5
1 5. Rxa8 Bxa8 16.Ra1 Bc6 is
heavily in Black' s favor-Marin.]
12 ... Qb6 13. Rd1 Be7 14. Nxd5
cxd5 15. Nxh7 bxa4! 16. Ng5
[ 1 6.Rxa4 Rxh7! 17. Qxh7 Qb3! .]
16 . . . Qb3 17. Qe2 Bc6 1 8.Be3
Rb8 19. Qg4 Bxg5 20.Qxg5 g6!
2 1 . Rd2 Qb4 22. Ra3 Qe7
23. Qxe7ch. ! Kxe7 24.Bg5ch.
Kf8 25. Rc3 Rb4 -+, Gallagher
Martin, England 1984;
2) 7. Qc2 Nf6 8.Bg5 Bxc3ch.
9. bxc3, Spassky- S. Szabo,
Bucharest 1953, and now 9 . . . Qc7
is =+ according to Euwe;
3) 7. axb5 cxb5 8. Bd2 Bxc3
9. bxc3 a6 10.g3 Nf6 l l .e5 Ne4
1 2.Bg2 Bb7 13.0-0 is unclear,
D. Gurevich-Kaufman, USSR
1974;
4) 7 .Be2
!.
[This is a major aterative to
7. Bd2.] 7 . . . Nf6 [7 . . . Bb7! ? 8.0-0
a6 9. Qc2 (9.e5 Ne7 10. Ne4 Nd5
1 1 .Bd2 Bf8 12.b3 cxb3 13. Qxb3
Nd7 14. Rfc1 h6 15. Ne1 Qb6
1 6. Nc2 Rc8 1 7. Rab1 Qa7
1 8. Qh3 Be7 19. Qg3 g6 20.Bg4
N7b6 21 .Nd6ch. Bxd6 22.exd6
Nc4 was far fom clea in Coo
per-Mestel, British ch. 1978.
However things tued out better
for White in te game Hulak
Barle, Pula 1986/87: 9.e5 Ne7
10. Ne4 Nd5 1 1 .Bg5 Qc7 12. Bd2
Be7 13.b3 cxb3 14. Qxb3 Nd7
1 5. Nfg5 h6 1 6. Qh3 Nxe5
17. Nxe6! fxe6 1 8.dxe5 Qxe5
19. Bh5ch. Kd7 20.Re1 Nf4
21 .Bxf4 Qxf4 22.Red1ch. Kc7
23.Qxe6 with a winning attack.)
9 . . . Nf6 10. Bg5 Qb6 1 1 .e5?!
( l l .Bxf6 gxf6 12. Rfd1 leads to a
complicated position with
chances for both sides.-Taima
nov. ) 1 1 . . . Nd5 12. Ne4 Nd7
13.Bd2 Be7 14.Bg5 Bf8! 15.b3
h6 16.Bd2 cxb3 17.Qxb3 Be7
1 8. Bd3 0-0, Najdorf-Larsen,
Havana 1966, and now 19.Bc2! ?
followed by Qd3 and Rf 1 might
give White some compensation
for his pawn according to Euwe.]
Semi-Slav Defense 1 35
8.0-0 [Also leading to a complex
game is 8. Bg5 Nbd7 9.e5 h6
10.exf6 hxg5 1 1 .fxg7 Rg8 12. h4
gxh4 13.Rxh4 Qf6 14. Qc2 Bb7
1 5.0-0-0, Spassky-Nei, USSR
1959.] 8 . . . 0-0 [8 . . . Bxc3 9.bxc3
Nxe4 left White with good com
pensation for the pawn after
1 0. Qc2 Nf6 1 1 . Ba3 Nbd7
1 2. Nd2 Qc7 1 3 . Bf3 Bb7
14.Rab1 , Kuzin-Sedov, USSR
1958. ] 9.Qc2 [9.axb5! ? Bxc3
1 0.bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bh4
gives White Kingside chances
according to Kan.] 9 . . . h6 10.axb5
Bxc3 1 1 .bxc3 cxb5 12.e5 Nd5
13. Nd2 Nc6 14. Ne4 a5 15. Rd1
Rb8 1 6.Rb 1 Qe7 17 .f4 Rd8
1 8. Bd2 Qa7 1 9. Nd6 Rxd6
20.exd6 Qd7 21 .Bf Qxd6 -+,
Flohr-Kan, USSR ch. 1955.
O:
7 ... aS
1) 7 ... Bb7 8. axb5 [Or 8.b3 Nf6
9. Qb1 wi th complications,
Biluov-Karasev, USSR 1972]
8 . . . Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10. Qb1 !
Bc6 1 1 . Ne5 a6 1 2.Be2 Ne7
1 3.Bc1 ! ? 0-0 14.Ba3 is unclea,
Dzandzgava-Gofstein, USSR
1987;
2) 7 . . . Nf6 8. Qc2 a6 9.Be2 Bb7
1 0.0-0 Be7 1 l .e5 Nd5 1 2.Ne4 h6
1 3.b3! +=, Schlechter-Maoczy,
Vienna 1902.
8 axb5
8.Be2 Nf6 9.Qc2 h6 10.0-0 0-0
1 1 .e5 Nd5 12.axb5 Bxc3 13. bxc3
cxb5 14.Rf1 ?! Ba6 1 5. Bc1 Nc6
1 6.Nd2 f5 17. exf6 Qxf6 -+, Ma
rovic-Nei, Zinnowitz 1 966.
Taimanov gives 8. Qb1 ! ? as inter-
esting.
8 ...
Bxc3
9 bxc3
Not 9.Bxc3? cxb5 10.b3 Nf6
1 l . Qb1 Bb7 1 2. bxc4 Nxe4
1 3. Qxb5ch Bc6 14. Qb2 Nxc3
15. Qxc3 Bxf3 16. Qxf Qxd4
when Black had the advantage,
Foisor-Dolmatov, Groningen
1 977.
9 ...
10 Rb1!
11 Qc2
12 e5
13 Ng5
cxb5
Bd7
Nf6
Nd5
with a complicated game, Haik
Barle, World Jr. ch., Athens
1971 .
B.3.
6 Be2 Bb7
Here 6 . . . a6leads to play similar to
that which arises after 6 . . . Bb7.
1 36 Abraham's Defense
On a historica note we will men
tion the frst major game i this
line. Ragozin-Abrahams, USSR
Great Britain 1 946 went
6 . . . Nbd7? and ater 7.0-0 Bb7
8.d5! Nc5 9.dxc6 Bxc6 10. Nd4
Qd7 1 1 .Nxc6 Qxc6 12.a4 Rd8
13. axb5 Qb7 14.Qc2Nb3 15.Ra6
White had a clear plus.
7 0-0 Nf6
8 a4
8.e5 Nd5 is an unfavorable tans
position to the Tolush-Geller
Gabit.
8 ... a6
9 Bg5 Nbd7
Not 9 . . . Be7 10.e5 Nd5 1 1 .Ne4
ad Black would have to play
1 1 . . . f6 because of the threatened
Bxe7 followed by Nd6.
10 e5
h6
11 Bh4 g5
Black stands better than in the
Botvinnik system.
12 Bg3
Black is better after 12.exf6 gxh4
1 3. Ne5 Nxf6 while 12. Nxg5
hxg5 13.Bxg5 fals to 1 3 . . . Qc7
14. f4 b4! .
12 ... Nd5
13 Ne4 c!
Also playable i s 1 3 . . . Qb6
14. Nd6ch. Bxd6 1 5. exd6 f6
[ 1 5 . . . c5 is probably more accu
rate.] 16.b4 with complications,
Petrosian-Averbach, USSR
1950.
14 Nd6ch. Bxd6
15 exd6 Qb6
16 dxc5
Qxc5
17 Nd4 0-0
and 'Black stands completely
satisfactorily' -Tourament book
of the 1950 USSR ch.
!
5 a4
#10. 6
White' s best move. In this way he
gets his pawn back.
5 ... Bb4
The most consistent move.
5 ... Nf6 tansposes into a line of
the Slav [Soultanbeieff Va
ation] that is favorable to White,
Semi-Slav Defense 1 37
while 5 . . . c5 6.d5! Nf6 7.e4 exd5
Qxf6 was equa in Hertneck-
8.e5! leads to a populaQGAline
Backwinkel, W.Genany 1986/
[norally reached by l .d4 d5
87.] 7.dxc5 Nf6 8. e3 Nc6 9. Bxc4
2.c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5
0-0 10.0-0 Bxc5 1 1 .Qc2 Qe7 was
5. d5 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.e5] .
slightly better for Black in
6 e3
Tikovsky-Pachman, Bmo 1944;
Other moves are not as good:
2) 6.g3 a5 [6 . . . Nf6 'only' led to a
1) 6.Bd2 c5! [6 . . . a5 (6 . . . b5! ?
level game after 7.Bg2 c5 8.0-0
7. axb5 Bxc3 8. Bxc3 cxb5 9.b3
Nc69.dxc5 Qxd1 (9 ... 0-0 10.Nd2
cxb3 10.e3 { Clearly better for
favors White: 10 . . . Na5? 1 1 . Qc2
White according to Gligoric. }
Qc7 12.Nce4 Nxe4 1 3. Nxe4 f5?
10 . . . Qd5 unclear-Euwe.) 7.Qb1
14.Bd2! +-, Rivas Pastor-Sehner,
(A good illustaton of Black' s
Amsterdam 1 986. ) 10. Rxd1
chances can be seen in the follow-
Bxc5, Minev-Popov, Bulgaria
ing variaton: 7 .e4 b5 8.Be2 Nf6
1953. A good alterative to 6 . . . a
9. Qc2 h6 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .e5 Nd5
is 6 . . . c5 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Be3 Nge7
1 2. axb5 Bxc3 1 3.bxc3 cxb5 9. dxc5 Nd5 1 0. Bd2 Nxc3
14. Rf1 Ba6 15. Be1 Nc6 1 6.Nd
1 1 .Bxc3 Bxc3ch. 12.bxc3 Qa5
f5 1 7 . exf6 Qxf6 1 8. Bf3 b
13.0-0 Qxc5 when Black had the
1 9. Ne4 Qg6 20. Qd1 Rxf3 superior position, Saigin-Nei,
21 .Qxf R8 22.Qe2 Nf4 23. Qf3
USSR Teams ch. 1955. ] 7.Ne5
Bb7 24.Nc5 Ba8 25.Qe4 Qxe4
Nf6 8.Bg2 Nd5 9.Bd2 Nb6! ?
26. Nxe4 Nxd4
27.Ng3 bxc3
10. e3 N8d7 1 1 .f4 0-0 12.Ne4?!
28.Bxc3 Nde2ch. and Black
[ 1 2. Qe2 i s unclear] 12 . . . f6
wins.) 7 . . . Nd7 (7 . . . b5 8.cxb5
13. Nxd7 Qxd7 14.0-0Nd5 1 5.g4,
Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Qxb5ch fa-
Seirawan-Korchnoi, Bad Kssin
vors White.) 8. e4 (O 8.e3 Nb6
gen 1981 , and now 15 . . . f5! with
9. Ne5 Nf6 1 0. Nxc4 Nxc4
the idea of . . . b6 is clearly better
1 1 . Bxc4 0-0 with the idea of . . . e5
for Black.
leads to equality according to
6

b5
Backwinkel.) 8 . . . Nb6 9.Be2 f5!
Giving the pawn back without a
10. 0-0 Nf6 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6
fight makes things easy for
138
Abraham's Defense
White: 6 . . . Nf6 7.Bxc4 Nbd7 8. 0-
0 0-0 9. Qb3! Qe7 10.e4! +-.
Analysis by Gufeld.
7 Bd
The main line. White has experi
mented with several other moves
though:
1) 7.g3 Bb7 8. Bg2 Nd7 9.0-0 a6
10. Qc2 Ngf6 1 l .e4 h6 12.h3 0-0
13. g4! ? leads to an obscure game,
Hodos-Shashin, USSR 1963;
2) 7 .Ne5? Nf6 8.Bd2 Bxc3
9. Bxc3 0-0! 10. axb5 cxb5 1 l . b3
Bb7 ! - + according to
Bogoljubov;
3) 7 .Nd2 Qb6 [Interesting is
7 . . . Ne7! ?. The game Djuric-Mar
tin, Hastings 1984/85 saw White
outplay his opponent after 8. axb5
Bxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ba3 Nbc6
1 1 . Be2 Rb8 1 2. Bf3 a5
13. Bxc6ch. Nxc6 14. Qg4 g6
1 5.Bc5 f5 16.Qg3 Kt 17.h4 h6
1 8.e4Bd7 19.0-0 g5 20.exf5 exf5
21 . Rfe1 Be6 22. hxg5 hxg5
23.Nf3 Rg8 24.Ne5ch. Nxe5
25. Qxe5 but Black should b able
to improve.] 8. Qg4 Kf8 9.g3
[White must avoid the tempting
9. axb5 cxb5 1 0. Nd5 exd5
1 1 . Qxc8ch. Ke7 12.Be2 Qc6! -
+.] 9 . . . Nf6?! [9 . . . Bb7 is probably
better.] 10. Qf3 Bb7 1 1 . Bg2 a6
12.0-0 Nbd7 13.Na Bd6 14.b3
cxb3 1 5. Nxb3 Ke7? [Here Black
could have gained a clear advan
tage by 15 . . . Rb8! . ] 16.Bd2 Rab8
1 7. Na5 ! Ba8 1 8. Nb4 Nd5
19. Naxc6 Bxc6 20.Nxc6 Qxc6
21 .e4, Speelman-Flear, Lon
don1986, and now 2l . . . N5b6
22. e5 [ 22. axb5 Qxb5 ! - +]
22 . . . Qxf3 23 . exd6ch. Kf6
24.Bxf Nc4 leads to a large plus
for Black-Speelman;
4.) 7 .Be2 a6 8.0-0 Bb7 9. Qc2 Nf6
[Or 9 . . . Nd7 10.e4 Ngf6 l l .Bg5
h6 1 2. Bh4 Be? 1 3. e5 Nd5
1 4. Bxe7 Qxe7 1 5. Ne4 0-0
16. Nd6 N7b6 17.Nd2 f5 1 8. b3 c3
19 . Nf3 Nc8 20.Nxb7 Qxb7 21 .a5
Qe7 22.Rd1 Na7 23.Ne1 c5
24. Bf3 cxd4 25. Bxd5 exd5
26.Nf3 Rac8 and Black went on
to win in the game Uhlman
Skobek, Halle 1978.] 10.e4 c5
[Not clear is 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .e5 fol
lowed by Ng5 ad Nce4-Har
ston.] l l .dxc5 [ 1 l . e5? cxd4
12.exf6 d3 -+] l l . . .Bxc3 12.bxc3
[ 12. Qxc3 0-0! 1 3.Bg5? Nxe4.]
12 . . . Nxe4 13. Nd4 Nxc5 14.axb5
Be4! 15. Qb2 Nd3 16.Bxd3 Bxd3
17. Re1 0-0 =+ 1 8.b6 Qd5!
Semi-Slav Defense
1 39
19.Bf4? Nd7 20.Bc7 Qb7 2l .Qb4
Nf6 22.Qd6? Be4 23.Ra5 Rfc8
24.Rg5 Ne8 25.Qe5, Hartston
Czemiak, Beersheba 197 6, and
now 25 . . . Bd5! is much better for
Black.
After 7.Bd2 we reach another
critical position.
!l
Black has tied many moves here:
C.l. 7 ... Nf6?: C.2. 7.a6; C.3.
7 ... Bb7: C.4.
7
... 0e7: C.S.
7
... Ob6: C.6. 7 ... a5.
c
7 ...
Nf6?
Not to be recommended.
8 axb5
Bxc3
9 Bxc3 cxb5
10 b3 0-0
10 . . . Ne4! ?-Taimanov.
11 bxc4 bxc4
12 Bb4
White was only a little better after
12.Bxc4 Qc7 13. Qd3 a 14.0-0
Bb7 1 5.Rfc1 , Bagirov-Kupreic
hik, Lvov 1984.
12 ...
ReS
13 Bxc4
Rajkovic-Nikolic, Vrbas 1982,
White' s game is clearly superior
but Black nevertheless managed
to eventually gain a daw;

!.
7 ... a6
8 axb5 Bxc3
9 Bxc3 cxb5
10 b3 +=
7 ...
Bb7
8 b3
White can tanspose into C.6.
[7 . . . a5] by 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3
cxb5 10.b3 a 1 l .bxc4 b4 etc. If
8. Ne5?! Black has . . . Nd7! while
8. Ne4 is adequately met by
. . . Be7.
8 ... aS
9 bxc4
10 . . . Nd5 1 l . Ba5! Qe7 12.bxc4 9. axb5 would still go into C.6.
bxc4 1 3.Bxc4 +-; 10 . . . a 1 l . bxc4 9 ... Bxc3
b4? 1 2. Bxb4! -Gligori c; The best move may be 9 . . . bxc4
140
Abraham's Defense
when White only had a tiny edge
after 10. Bxc4 [ 1 0. Ne4?! c5
1 1 .Nxc5 c3! .] 10 . . . Nf6 1 1 .0-00-0
12. Qe2 c5 1 3.dxc5 N7 14.c6
Bxc6 1 5.Nd4 Bb7 16.Rfc1 Qe7
17. Bb5, Spraggett-Klnger, Vi
enna 1986.
10 Bxc3 b4
11 Bb2 Nf6
12 Bd3
c
=+ according to Harding.
13 0-0 Nbd7
14 Re1 ReS
15 Rcl Qc7?
Better was 1 5 . . . 0-0! when
White' s chances are slightly pref
erable according to Pytel!
16 d5! exd5
17 cxd5
Bxd5
18 e4!
Be6
19 e5 Nd5
20 Ng5 Nf4
21 Bb5 h6
22 Nxe6 Nxe6
23 f4 g6
24 Qd3 Rb8
24 . . . Nxf4 25.e6! ! .
Knaa-Karasev, Lublin 1974,
and now 25.Bc4!_s +-;
!
7 Qe7?
#10. 8
This move has been played many
times . . . usually with bad results.
8 Qc2
Other excellent possibilities are:
1) 8.Be2 Nf6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10. Qc2
Nb6 1 1 .Ne5! Bxc3 1 2. Bxc3
Nxa4 13.Ba5 Bb7 14.Nxc4 +=,
Kottnauer-Christoffel, Gronin
gen 1946;
2) 8. Ne5 Nf6 9.ab5! ? Bxc3
10. bxc3 cxb5 1 1 . Bcl ! Nd5
1 2. Ba3 +-, Negyesy-Florian,
Hungay 1949;
3) 8. axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5
10.d5 Nf6 [ 1 0 . . . f6?! 1 1 .Nd4! -
ECO] 1 l .dxe6 [ l l .d6! is also
promising.] 1 1 . . .fxe6 [ l l . . . Bxe6
1 2.Nd4 0-0 13. Qf3 Bd5 14. Qg3
+-, analysis by Grunfeld. ]
12. Nd4 0-0! [ 12 . . . Qb7 13. Be2
+-; 12 . . . Ba6 13.b3+-; 12 . . . Bd7
Semi-Slav Defense
141
13.Qf Nd5 14.Nf5 +-.] 13. Nxb5
Ne4 1 4. Bxc4 Nxf2 1 5.Qh5,
Euwe-Koomen, Amsterdam
1 942, 1 5 . . . Ne4 [ 1 5 . . . Nxh 1 ?
1 6. Bd3 Rf5! 1 7. Bxf5 exf5
1 8. Nc7! +-.] 16.Rfl ! Rxfl ch.
17. Kxfl Nxc3 1 8.bxc3 +=, van
Scheltinga-Alexander, Hilver
sum 1947.
8 Q Nf6
9 axbS BxcJ
10 Qxc3! cxbS
11 b3 Ne4
12 QaS Nxd2
13 Nxd2 0-0
14 QxbS cxb3
15 Be2
Bb7
16 0-0
Bc6
17 Qxb3 Nd7
Denker-Chistoffel, Groningen
1946, and now 18.Ra5 is very
stong for White;

7 ... Qb6?!
8 Ne4
Perhaps 8.Ne5! ? is even stonger:
8 . . . Nd7 [Both 8 . . . Qb7?! 9.Ne4
Be7 10. Qg4 g6 1 1 . Qf4 f6
12.Ng4! g5 13.Nxg5 h5 14.Ne5
+- , Lachmann-Junge, Bad
Oeynhausen 1941, and 8 . . . Nf6
9. axb5 cxb5 10.b3 0-0 1 1 .bxc4
Bxc3 12.Bxc3 b 1 3.Qb1 Na6,
Tamasi- Sokolov, Yugoslavia
1952, 14.c5 +- (Euwe) ae very
good for White.] 9.axb5 Nxe5
[Not 9 . . . cxb5? 10. Qf3 threaten
ing 1 1 . Qxa8 and 1 1 . Qxf-
Becker.] 10. dxe5 cxb5 1 1 .Ne4
Be7 12. Qg4 +-, Consultation
game Alekhine vs. Kashdan and
H. Steiner, Manhattan Chess
Club 1929.
8 Be7
8 ... Bxd2ch. 9.Nfxd2 Nd7 10.Qg4
is much better for White-Taima
nov.
9 b3
9.Ne5! ?-Pachman.
9 MN cxb3
10 Qxb3 bxa4
11 Qxa4
Nf6
12 Nxf6ch. gxf6
13 Bd3 Qc7
13 . . . Bd7! ?-Spasov.
14 0-0 Nd7
15 Rfcl Bb7
16 Be4 0-0
17 Bxc6
Nb6
18 Bxb7 +=
Spassov-P. Povov, Bulgaria
1985;
! 7 aS
142
Abraham's Defense
popula alteratve to 8. axb5.]
8 . . . Nf6 [8 . . . Bb7 9.axb5 Bxc3
1 0. bxc3 cxb5 1 1 . Rbl ! (+-)
1 1 . . . Qd5 1 2.Qg4 Kf8 1 3. e4
Qxe4ch. 14.Qxe4 Bxe4 1 5.Rxb5
+-.] 9.Qf [Or 9.axb5! ? Bxc3
10.Bxc3 cxb5 1 1 .b3 Bb7 1 2. bxc4
b4 13.Qa4ch. Nfd7 14.c5 0-0
1 5. Nxd7 Bc6 1 6. Bb5 Qxd7
17.Bxc6 Qxc6 1 8.Bxb4 Qxg2
19.Rfl Nc6 20.Bc3 Nb4 and
White' s position does not inspire
#1 0. 9 confidence though he later man
Preparing to mobilize his Queen- aged to win anyway, Piket-Kuijf,
side pawns ad enter the main Holland 1986.] 9 . . . Bxc3 10.bxc3
lines of the Noteboom [Abra- Qd5 1 1 .Qg3 0-0 12. f Ne8 13.e4
ham] variation.
8 axbS
On ocasion White gives some
thing else a t:
1) 8.Be2 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10. Ne5
Bxc3 1 1 .Bxc3 Bb7 12.Bf Nd5
leads to a complicated position
with chances for both sides, Ch
eremi
s
in-Hramtsov, USSR 1975;
2) 8. Qc2 Bb7 9. axb5 Bxc3
10. Qxc3 cxb5 1 1 .Rxa5 Rxa5
12. Qxa5 Qxa5 13.Bxa5 Nc6
14.Bd2 [ += according to Pach
man] 14 . . . Nf6 = according to
ECO;
3) 8. Ne5 [This is White' s most
#10. 10
[This position was felt to offer
White adequate compensation.
However the present gae fails
to bear this out.] 1 3 . . . Qd8 14.Be2
f6 15.Ng4 Nd7 1 6.0-0 Nb6 17. f4
Semi-Slav Defense 143
Nxa4 1 8. Qh4 Bd7 19.f5 exf5 14. Nd4 Nxd4 15.exfch. Kxf
20.exf5 Nd6 21 .Ne3 Nb6 22.Bh5 16.exd4 Rd8? 17. f Rd4ch.
Be8 23.Rf4 Nd5 24. Nxd5 cxd5
25. Qh3 Bxh5 26. Qxh5 Qe8
27. Qh3 Qe2, 0- 1 , Panczyk
Vilela, Polanica Zroj 1982.
8 Bxc3
9 Bxc3
Virtually always played nowa
days. However 9.bxc3! ? can b
given consideration i you are the
tye of player who dos not mind
a slight materal disadvantage in
exchange for nebulous attacking
chances. One example of White
bing successful with 9. bxc3 is
the game Boleslavsky-Randviir,
USSR Team ch. 1955: 9 . . . cxb5
10.Qb1 [Spraggett recommends
10.Ne5.] 10 . . . Ba6 1 l .Be2 Nc6
1 2.0-0 Nf6 1 3.e4 b4 14.cxb4
Nxd4 1 5.Nxd4 Qxd4 1 6.Rxa5
Qxe4 17.Be3 0-0 1 8.Qxe4 Nxe4
19.Rfa1 Bb7 20.Bxc4 +-.
9 NNN
cxbS
10 b3
Regaining the pawn. A rather
dubious experiment was seen in
the game Donner-Pliester, Am
sterdam 1 982 which went
10.d5?! Nf6 1 1 .dxe6 Qxd1ch.
1 2. Kxd1 Ne4 1 3. Be 1 Nc6!
1 8.Ke2 Nc5 1 9. Rxa5 Rxa5
20.Bxa5 Na4 21 .Ke3 Rd5 22.Bc3
Nxc3 23. bxc3 Bf5, l/2- l/2. It's
tue that Wite surived this
game, but Black can improve
with 16 . . . a4! when Black has a
signifcant advantage.
10
Bb7
Naturally 10 . . . b4? 1 1 . Bxb4!
must be avoided.
After 10 & Bb7 we reach the main
line position of the Abraham Def.
#10. 1 1
White now has two moves:
ll.bxc and C.6.b. l l.d5!?.

11 bxc4 b4
Creating the typical imbalance of
the Abrahams/Noteboom. White
will stive to mobilize his center
1 44 Abraham's Defense
pawns while Black will seek to
blokade them with a timely . . . e5
and then crash through with his
Queenside runners.
12 Bb2
Not so popula is 12.Bd2 Nf6 and
now:
1) 1 3. Ne5 N7 14. Qa4 0-0
1 5. Nc6 Bxc6 1 6. Qxc6 e5 !
17.Be2 Re8 1 8.Bf3 Rc8 19. Qa6
exd4 20.Rxa5 Nc5! -+, Voisin
Noteboom, Hamburg 1930;
2) 1 3. Bd3 Nbd7 [ 1 3 . . . Ne4?!
14. Qc2 f5 1 5. Ne5 0-0 16.f?
Qh4h. led to a quick win for
Black in Allcock-Abrahams,
London 1925 but White has sev
eral improvements such as
14. Qa4ch. Qd7 15.Qc2 with the
threat ofNe5.] 14.0-0 0-0 15.Qc2
Qc7 16.e4 e5! 17.d5 Nc5 -+,
Plater-Trifunovic, Hilversum
1947;
3) 13. Be2! ? Nbd7 14.Qa4 0-0
1 5.c5 Qc7 1 6.Bb5 Nb8 17.0-0
Nc6 1 8.Rfd1 Ne4 19.Bd3 Ne7
mer-Dlugy, New York 1982.
12 ... Nf6
13 Bd3 Nbd7
Preparing to meet e4 with . . . e5.
The alterative plan is to ty and
stop e4 altogether. Clearly better
for White is 1 3 . . . Ne4? on account
of 14. Qa4ch! Kf8 [ 1 4 . . . Bc6
1 5.Qc2 f5 16.Ne5 or 14 ... Qd7
1 5.Qc2 f5 16.Ne5 are both very
much in White's favor.] 15.Qc2
f5 16.0-0 Nd7 17.d5! Ndc5
1 8. Nd4 exd5 19.f3! +-, Gligoric
Abrahams, Hastings 1951/52.
Equally as popular as 1 3 . . . Nbd7
is 13 . . . Be4
20. Ne5 f6 21 .Nc4 Bc6 22.Qc2 #1
0
.1
2
Nxd2 23.Rxd2 g6 24.Nb6 Ra7 athough recent experience has
25. Bc4 Nd5 26.Bxd5 Bxd5 27 .e4 greatly favored White. After
Bc6 28.Qc4 Kg7 29.d5 Qe5 13 . . . Be4 White does best with
30. Rda2 Bb7 31 .c6 and White 14.Bxe4 [Bad is 14.Qc2? Bxd3
went on to win on move 46, Kra- 15. Qxd3 a4! with advantage for
Semi-Slav Defense
145
Black-Gligoric, but 1 4. Ne5
seems quite reasonable: 14 . . . 0-0
1 5.0-0 Nbd7 16.Bxe4 Nxe4
17.Nc6 Qc7 18.d5 (+-) 1 8 ... Ndf6
19. f Nc5, Bisguier-Kohalmi,
USA 1979, andnow20.Be5! Qb6
2l. Qd4 is +- according to Cia
mara.] 14 . . . Nxe4 15. Qc2 Nf6
[Or 15 . . .f5! ? 16.0-0 (Also pos
sible is 1 6.d5 0-0 17.Nd4 Nc5!
which is at best just slightly better
for White. Pachman' s recom
mendation of 1 6. Ne5! ? +=
should also be looked at.) 16 . . . 0-
0 17. Rfd1 Nd7 18.d5 Ndc5
19.Nd4 Qb6 20.dxe6 b3 21 . Qb1
Nxe6 22. Nxf5! N6g5! 23.Rd7
Ra7 24.Ne7ch. Kh8 25.Nd5
Nf3ch. 26. Kfl Rxd7?
(26 . . . Nfd2ch! is stonger with
equality. ) 27 .Nxb6 Nfd2ch.
28. Kg1 Nxb1 29. Nxd7 Rd8
30. Rxa5 h6, Ogaard-Mestel,
Esbjerg 1978, and now31 .Ra7! is
stong for White.] 16.e40-0 17.0-
0 [The sharper 17. h4! ? Nfd7
1 8.Ng5 e5 19.c5! Qc7 20.f4 h6
2l . fxe5 hxg5 22.hxg5 Nxe5
23. dxe5 Rd8 24.Rd1 aso led to a
White advantage in Sterud
Blednov, corespondence 1983.]
17 . . . Nfd7 1 8.c5 Qc7 19.Rfc1 Rc8
20. Qd2 Ra6 2l .h4 Nf6 22.d5!
Nxe4 23.Qd4 Nf6 24.d6 Qb7
25.Ne5 Nc6 26.Nxc6 Qxc6
27.g4! Rd8 28.g5 Ne8 29.Re1 ,
Knaak-Vera, Berlin 1982, White
has a winning game.
14 Qc2
Usually tansposing is 14.0-0
when 14 . . . 0-0 1 5.Qc2 Qc7 1 6.e4!
goes into our main line. Note that
16.Ne5? [an old suggestion of the
Dutch master Barendregt in an
analogous position. ] fails to
1 6 . . . Nxe5 1 7. dxe5 Nd7
1 8. Bxh7ch. Kh8 1 9. Rfd1
[ 1 9.Be4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Nc5 is
clearly better for Black.] 19 .. . g6
20.Bxg6 fxg6 21 .Qxg6 Nc5
22.Bd4! Nb3 23.Qxe6, S. Saeed
Pliester, Amsterdam 1982, now
instead of 23 . . . Rg8 Black could
have obtained a decisive advan
tage with 23 . . . Qg7! 24.Qh3ch.
Qh7 25.e6ch. Nxd4 26.Qxh7ch.
Kxh7 27.Rxd4 Rfb8! -Analysis
by Sosonko and Pliester.
After 14.0-0 Black has an origi
nal new option . . . namel y
14 . . . Ra7! ? followed by 1 5 . . . Qa8.
This invention of the Cincinanti
master Dan Meinking deseres
serious consideration. The ideas
146
Abraham's Defense
behind it ae very logical: it
makes an e3-e4 advance harder to
achieve for White and it prepares
the advance of his own Queen
side pawns by . . . a5-a4.
14 .B & 0-0
15 e4 e5
16 0-0
Others:
1 ) 1 6. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Nd7
followed by 1 8 . . . Nc5-Taimanov;
2) 1 6.dxe5 Nc5! 17. Rd1 Nfxe4
1 8.Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Rxd8 Bxc2 is
clearly in Black' s favor-Abra
hams;
3) 16. d5! ? when Abrahams and
Taimanov recommend 16 . . . Qc7
followed by . . . Re8, . . . Nc5 and
eventually . . . a4. Euwe suggested
1 6 . . . Re8 17.c5 Bxd5! 1 8.c6 b3!
+.
16 ... Qc7
16 . . . Re8 is alsoplayable: 17.Rfel
h6 1 8.h3 Nh5 19.c5 Rc8 20.Bb5
exd4 21 .Bxd4 Re7 22.c6 Re6
23. Qa Bxc6 24.Bxc6 Rexc6
25.Qxa5 Nf4 with chances for
both sides.
17 c
17 ...
Rfe8
An attempt to improve on this
was seen in the game Shestop
erov-Koifman, USSR 1978,
which went 17 . . . exd4 1 8.Bxd4
Ba6, however after19.e5 Bxd3
20. Qxd3 Nh5 21 .Ng5 g6 22.e6
White had a winning attack.
18 Rfcl Rac8
19 dxe5 Ng4
20 Bb5 Ndxe5
21 Nxe5 Rxe5
Gaister-Kaufman, USSR 1961 .
Both sides have chances i n this
complicated position.

11 d5! ?
#10. 1 3
O 17. Rfe1 Re8 1 8.c5 h6 with
White' s shapest move by which
equal chances, Aratovsky-Stol-
he ties to refute Black' s play.
yar, RSFSR ch. 1955.
11 ... Nf6
Semi-Slav Defense
147
Necessa, as 1 1 . . .f6 falls for
1 2. bxc4 b4 1 3 . Bxb4 axb4
14.Rxa8 Bxa8 15.Qa4ch. Nd7
16.dxe6.
12 bxc4
Wite gains nothing by 12.dxe6
Qxd1 ch. 1 3. Kxd1 Ne4
14.extch. Kxt 1 5.Be1 Rd8ch.
16. Kc1 Nc6 17. bxc4 b4! when
Black has good compensation for
the sacrifced pawn-Gligoric.
12 ... b
Not 1 2 . . . 0-0 13.dxe6 Qxd1ch.
1 4. Rxd1 b4 1 5. Bxf6 gxf6 #1
0
.
4
1 6.ext7 ch. Kxt 1 7 .c5 Ba6 A key position for the 1 1 .d5 line
1 8.Nd4! with a clear advantage of the Abrahams/Noteboom.
for White-Argentnian analysis. Now 15 . . . exd5 is a por idea in
13 Bxf6 Qxf6 view of 16.c5 Rc8 17.Bb5. Inter-
A recent new attempt that worked
well in its debut was 1 3 . . . gxf6?! .
In Ki.Georgiev-Pieterse, Lugano
1986 Black quickly got a very
comforable position after 14.e4?
Nd7 15.Nd4 Nc5 1 6.Bd3 e5
17 .Nb3 Qb6. More challenging
to 13 . . . gxf6 is 14.Nd4! , planning
14 . . . exd5 15.c5 with more then
enough play for the pawn, Blees
Pieterse, Amstelveen 1986.
14 Qa4ch. Nd7
Forced, as 14 . . . Kf8 allows
1 5.Nd4exd5 16.Qb5 Bc6 17.Qb6
esting is Karasev' s attempt to
rehabilitate 1 5 . . . Ke7. In
Gavkov-Karasev, Severodon
etsk 1982 White got the edge
against 1 5 . . . Ke7 with 16.d6ch.
Kxd6 17. Rd1 Ke7 [An improve
ment over 1 7 . . . Rhd8 of
Spanjaard-Cortlever, Holland
1950, where White was winning
after 1 8.c5ch! Nxc5 19. Qb5.]
1 8.Nf5ch Kf8? 19.Rxd7. How
ever, as Gavrikov points out,
Black could have improved with
1 8 . . . exf5 when 19.Qxd7ch. Kf8
148
Abraham's Defense
20. Qxb7 allows a perpetual by
20 . . . Qc3ch. 2l . Ke2 Qc4ch.
22. Kel .
15 ... e5
The move responsible for a resur
gence of this line. However in the
game Pliester-Pieterse, Dieren
1986, Black uncorked another
idea- 1 5 . . . Qe7! ?. The further
course of the game gave a nice
impression concerning Black' s
chances: 1 6.c5 Bxd5 17 . B b5 Ra7
1 8. Bc6 0-0 1 9. Bxd5 Nxc5
20. Qd 1 exd5 2 1 . Nc6 Qd7
22. Nxa7 a4 23. Rc 1 Qxa7.
Black's Queenside pawns make
life very unhappy for White.
Only time will tell if 15 . . . Qe7! ?
has a future.
16 Nb3 Ke7
Sooner or later Black must play
this if he is going to complete his
development. Inferior is 1 6 . . . e4?:
1 7. Nd4 [ 1 7. Nc5? Bc6! ! - Pi
eterse.] 17 . . . Qd6 1 8.c5! Qxc5
19. Bb5 Qc3ch. 20. Kd1 Rd8
21 . Rc1 Qa3 22.Qxa3 bxa3, Van
der Sterren-Pieterse, Dieren
1986, and now 23.d6! is nearly
winning for White according to
Pieterse.
17 QbS! ?
New attenton has been laid upon
this move. Other ties are also
interesting:
1) 17.Rd1 Qb6 1 8.Be2 [ 1 8.d6ch.
Kd8 threatening 19 . . . Bc6 and
. . . a5-a4-Taimanov . ] 1 8 . . . Rhd8
1 9.0-0 Kd6 20. c5ch. Nxc5
2l .Nxc5 Qxc5 22. Rc 1 Qb6
23.Qc2 h6 is unclea but 1/2-1/2
in Mayonov-Andrianov, USSR
Junior ch. 1980;
2) 17.Be2 Rhc8
#1
0
. 1 5
A critical position. Some ex
amples:
2.a.) 1 8.Nxa5? Qb6! -+, Korelov
Vorotniov, Leningrad 1964;
2.b.) 1 8.Qb5 Ba6 19.Qxa5 Qd6is
obscure;
2.c.) 18.0-0 Nc5 19. Nxc5 Rxc5
offers chances to both sides;
Semi-Slav Defense
149
2.d.) 1 8.Bg4 Qd6 is unclear since
19.0-0 is a mistake due to
19 . . . Rxc4 20. Qxd7ch. Qxd7
21 .Bxd7 Kxd7 22.Nxa5 Rc3
23.Nxb7 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 b3 -+.
17 &&B
Ba6
The man line, but still not com
pletely resolved is 17 . . . Rhb8. In
Ionov- Havski, USSR 1 984
White played 1 8.Rxa5 which
should have been answered by
1 8 . . . e4! 19. Qxb4ch. [ 1 9. Nd4
b3! . ] 1 9 . . . Ke8 20.Nd4 Ba6
21 .Nb5 Bxb5 22.cxb5 Rxa5
23.Qxa5 Qb2 with equal chances
according to Ionov and Livsic.
18 Qxa5
Rhb8
19 d6ch.
Behind in development, White
returs the pawn to ty to keep the
Black king in the center. 19.Qc7
Rc8 is a draw since 20.d6ch?!
fails to 20 . . . Qxd6 21 .Qxd6ch.
Kxd6 22.c5ch. Nxc5 23.Nxc5
Bxfl 24. Ne4ch. Kd5-Taimanov.
19 ...
Qxd6
Most commonly seen but
1 9 e . e Ke8! may well b the best
move here.
#10. 1 6
The game Ionov-Moroz, USSR
1984 saw Black obtain a winning
position with apparent ease after
20.Be2? [Kondratev in his book
on the Slav/Semi-Slav in the
Russian Physical Culture series
gives 20.c5 as an interesting way
for White to play. However Ca
nadian Master Gordon Taylor
points out the move' s faw with
the following variation: 20 . . . Bb7
21 .Qc7 Rxa1ch. 22.Nxa1 e4
23.Bb5 Qxa1ch. 24.Ke2 Qb2ch.
25.Ke1 Ra8! 26.Qxd7ch. Kf8
27 . Ba4 Qc3ch. 28.Kd 1 Bd5 and
Black wins. ] 20 . . . Bb7 21 .Qc7
Rxa1ch. 22.Nxa1 Bxg2 23.Rg1
e4! 24.Nb3 Qc3ch. 25.Nd2 Bf3
26.Bdl Bxdl 27.Kxdl Ra8. I
1 50
Abraham's Defense
White cannot fnd an improve
ment then he must go back to his
19th move ad play 19. Qc7 with
a resultant draw.
20 c5
21 Bxa6
22 0-0
23 Qc7!
Qd5
Qxb3
Qe6
23.Rfdl b3! favors Black.
23 ...
Rxa6
23 . . . Kf6 24.Bb7! Rxal 25.Rxal
b3 26. c6 b2 27 . Rfl Qc4
28. Qd6ch. Kg5 29.f4ch. wins for
White according to the Armenian
I.M. Mnatsakanian.
24 Rxa6
Qxa6
25 Rd1 Qc8
Wite wins after 25 . . . Rd8 26.c6
Qc8 27.Qd6ch. Ke8 28.c7.
26 Qd6ch!
Better then 26.Rxd7ch. which
also seems to be strong:
26 . . . Qxd7 27. Qxe5ch. Qe6
28. Qxb8 Qd5? [28 . . . b3 is a better
ty.] 29. Qc7ch. Ke8 30.h3 b3
3 l .c6 f6 32.Qb8ch. Kf 33.c7
and White wins.
26 ...
Ke8
27 c6 Nf
28 c7 Ra8
29 Qxe5ch Qe6
29 . . . Ne6 30. Rd8ch. Qxd8
31 .cxd8=Q Rxd8 32.Qb5ch. Rd7
33.g3 ++-.
30 Qb5ch. Ke7
30 . . . Nd7 3 1 . Qb7 Nb6
32.Qxa8ch. Nxa8 33.Rd8ch. ++-
31 Qxb4ch. Kf6
3 1 . . . Ke8 32. Rd8ch. Rxd8
33. Qxf8ch. ++-.
32 Qc3ch.
Ke7
32 . . . Kg6 33. Rd8 ++-
33 Qc5ch. Kf6
34 h4
and White wins because of the
deadly threats of Qg5 mate and
Rd6. Analysis by Mnatsakanian.
Conclusion: This variation is a lot
better than its reputation. Black
seems to have satisfactory re
sources agai nst l l . d5
[19 . . . Ke8! .], long considered the
main line. Completely unclea
are the positons arising from
l l . bxc4. Both lines promise an
exciting and dynamic game in
which pre-game prepaation is of
the utost imporance.
Semi-Slav Defense
1 51
CHAPER 11 D43/SL6
5 Qb3; 5 Qd3; 5 g3
and Qc2
This Chapter is made up of lines
in which White plays in a very
restained, positional manner. By
moving his Queen to b3,d3, or c2
he guards his c4 pawn. This al
lows him to develop comfortably
and ty to make his space advan
tage tell. In these lines White will
usually place his K-Bishop on g2,
thus we get many similarities
with (and often dect tansposi
tion to) the Catalan Opening.
Since the ideas in this chapter
tend to b very different from
those in the rest of the book we
have given a large amount of
games . . . often amounting to notes
within notes within notes. It is our
hope that rather than confuse the
reader, he will b able to play
through this material and come to
an understanding as to what both
sides are tying to accomplish.
Lne wh Oc2.
1 d4 d
2 c4 e6
3 Nf c6
4 Qc2
The immediate 4. g3 is also pos
sible. We will give just one ex
ample that demonstates what
can happen i Black gets greedy:
4 . . . dxc4 5.Bg2 Nd7 6.0-0 Ngf6
7. a4 b5? 8.b3! cxb3 9.axb5 cxb5
10.Qxb3 Qb6 1 l .Nc3 a6 1 2.Ne5
Bb7 13.Nc4! bxc4 14. Qxb6
Nxb6 15.Bxb7 Ra7 1 6.Bc6ch.,
1-0, Albur-Frey, USA 1987.
4 OOO Nf6
1 52
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and
Qc2
5 g3 bS
This is one of Black' s sharpest
ties, but since White seems to
score well against it Black may b
well advised to ty one of the
alteratives:
1) 5 . . . Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 Nbd7
[ A new idea that deserves futher
tests is 7 . . . Na6! ?.
#1 1 . 2
The game Lerner-Arkhipov,
Moscow 1986 continued 8. Bg5
(8.Nd2 b6 9.e4 Bb7 10. b3 c5
1 l . exd5 exd5 1 2. Bb2 Nb4
1 3. Qb1 dxc4 1 4. bxc4 cxd4
1 5. Nxd4 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 Re8
17. N2f3 Bf8 18.Rd1 Qc8 19. Nf5
Qc6! 20.Qc1 Ne4 21 . Qf4 f6
22. Qg4 Ng5 =+, Inkiov
Arkhipov, Moscow 1986. ) 8 . . . b6
9.cxd5 cxd5 10. Ne5 Bb7 1 l .Nc3
N 12. Qd2 Rc8 13.Rac1 Nc6
14.Rfd1 a6 1 5.Na4 h6 16.Bxf6
Bxf6 17. Qe3 Be7 1 8.a3 Nxe5
19.dxe5 Rxc1 20.Rxc1 (20.Qxc1
Qd7! 21 . Nxb6 Qb5 22.Qc7 Bd8
23.Qxb7 Qxe2 24.Rfl Qxb2
25. Qxa6 Bxb6=+. ) 20 . . . d4!
2l .Qb3 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Qd7
23.Kg1 (23.f3 Bd8! followed by
. . . Qb5. ) 23 . . . Rc8 24.Rxc8ch.?!
(24.Rdl ! Bd8 25.Nc3 Qc7
26. Rxd4 Qxe5=. ) 24 . . . Qxc8
25.Qxb6 Qc4.]
8.b3 [Back in the early 60' s
White was successful with the
more staightforard 8.Bf4. The
idea is to answer 8 . . . b6 with
9.cxd5 when 9 . . . cxd5 leaves
White with pressure on the open
' c' file. I the game Benko
Mednis, U.S. ch. 1963/64, Black
equalized with 8 . . . Nh5! 9.Bd2
Nhf6 10.Rc1 a5! 1 l . Bf4 Nh5
12. Be3 (12.c5 Nxf4 13.gxf4 b6!
14.cxb6 Qxb6 15.Qxc6 Qxb2-
Benko.) 12 . . . f5 13. Bd2 Kh8
14.Bel Bd6 15.Nc3 g5 1 6.e3 Qf6
17. Qe2 and now Black ered with
17 . . . Qh6? when White got an
edge by 1 8.h4! gxh4 19. Nxh4
Be7 20.Nf Nhf6 21 .Qd3 Ne4
22. Ne2 Ng5 23. Nf4. Instead of
the weak 17 . . . Qh6? Black should
Semi-Slav Defense
1 53
have played 17 . . . Qg6 with a e3 30.Rxf6,1/2- l /2, Pozhasky
completely satisfactory game.] Codes, USSR 1979.) 13. Qxe4
8 . . . b6 [Less fexible is 8 . . . b5 9.c5 Ba8 14. Qe2 Bf6 1 5.Bb2 Qc7
a5 10. a3 Ne4 1 1 .Bb2 Qe8 12.Ne1 1 6.Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Be7
f5 1 3. Nd3 Qh5 14.f3 Nf6 15.Nd2 1 8. Rd3 c5 1 9. Bxa8 Rxa8
g5 16.Rae1 Bd8 17.e4 fxe4 20.Radl Rad8 21 .Qe4 Rxd3
18. fxe4 Ng4 19.Rxf8ch. Nxf8 22.Rxd3 Rd8 23. Kfl Rxd3
20.h3 Nf6 21 . Ne5 Bc7 22.Rfl 24.Qxd3 Qd8 25.Ke2 Qxd3ch.
Bxe5 23. dxe5 Ne8 24.Nf3 b 26.Kxd3 h5, 1/2 in 46, Schneider-
25. axb4 Ba6 26. Rf2 axb4 Imanaiev, Frunze 1983.] 9 ... Bb7
27. exd5 cxd5 28 . g4 Qg6
29.Qxg6ch. Nxg6 30.Nxg5 Bc8
31 .Nt Bd7 32. Nh6ch. Kh8
33. Bxd5 Ra5 34. Bd4 Nc7
35.Bb7 and White eventually
won in Schmidt-Hure, Helsink
1981 .] 9.Bb2 [White can also
delay Bb2 for awhile: 9. Nc3 Bb7
l O. Rdl Rc8 l l .e4 dxe4 ( l l . . .c5
12. exd5 exd5 1 3. Bb2 Qc7
14.Nxd5 Nxd5 1 5.cxd5 Bxd5 !.
16. dxc5 Bxf 17 .Bxf3 Nxc5 [ Also deserving of consideration
1 8. Qf5! with a clear advantage is the more aggressive 9 . . . Ba6
for White.) 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 (Quite 10.Nbd2 Rc8 l l .e4 c5 12.exd5
good is 12 . . . c5 13.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 exd5 13. Qf5 (1 3. dxc5 Bxc5
14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.Bxb7 Rc7! 14. Rad1 b5 1 5.Bh3 bxc4 16. bxc4
1 6. Bg2 Bf6 1 7. Bb2 cxd4 dxc4 17.Bc3 Qb6 1 8. Ng5 h6
18. Bxd4 b5! 19. Bfl Qe7 20.Qb2 19.Bxd7 hxg5 =, Stein-Keres,
e5! 21 . Be3 e4 22.Bd4 Ne5 Parnu 1 97 1 ; 1 3.Rfd1 cxd4
23. Be2 bxc4 24.bxc4 Nxc4 14. Nxd4 dxc4 15. bxc4 Qc7
25.Bxc4 Rxc4 26.Bxf6 gxf6 1 6.Nf5 Rfe8=, Voronkov-An-
27.Rac1 Ra428.Rc6Kg7 29.Rd5 toshin, USSR 1 956.) 13 . . . g6
1 54
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
14. Qh3 cxd4 1 5. Nxd4 Nc5 Sochi 1 985, Black tried
1 6. Rad1 , Lerner-Razuvaev,
Frnze 1979, and now 16 . . . dxc4
17 .Nxc4 Qd7 is even according
to Kotov.] 10. Nc3 Rc8 1 l .Rad1
Qc7 [ 1 1 . . .c5 1 2. cxd5 Nxd5
13. Nxd5 Bxd5 14. e4! is good for
White.] 12.e4 de4 [ 1 2 . . . Rfd8
13.Rfe1 Bb4 14. Nd2 Qb8 15.a3
Bf8 1 6.e5 Ne8 17. Nf3 was in
White ' s favor in Bukic
Janosevic, Skopj e 1 97 1 . ]
13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 c5 1 5.d5
Bf6! =;
2) 5 . . . Nb7 [Tis move has not
enjoyed good results.] 6. Bg2 Ne4
[Good for White is 6 . . . b5 7.cxb5
(7.c5?! e5 8.dxe5 Ng4 9. Bf4
Bxc5 10.0-0 Qe7 favors Black.)
7 . . . cxb5 8. Qc6 Rb8 9.Bf4 Rb6
10. Qc2 Bb7 1 1 .0-0 Rc6 12. Qb3
Qb6 13.Nc3 Ba6 (White is also
better after 13 . . . a6 14. a4 bxa4
15. Qxa4 Qxb2 16.Rab1 Qxc3
17. Rb7.) 14. a4 b4 15. Nb5 Be7
16. Racl Bxb5 17. axb5 Qxb5
1 8. Rxc6 Qxc6 1 9. Rc 1 Qa6
20.e3! 0-0 2l .Bfl Qa5 22.Bc7!
Nb6 23.Ne5! and White had a
winning position in Ghitescu
Hak, Bagneux 198 1 .
In the game Barlov-Arhipov,
6 . . . Bb4ch! ? and got a reasonable
gae after 7 .Bd2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0
9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 1 l .e3
f5 12. Nc3 b6 1 3. Rfc1 Bb7
14. cxd5 exd5 15. Qb3 Rae8. Te
following moves though saw
Bl ack' s game deteriorate:
16.Rel Kh8 17. Rad1 g5 1 8. Qc2
Qf6 19.Nd2 Re6 20.Nfl Re8
2l . Qd3 Nf8 22.f3 Nd623.e4fxe4
24.fxe4 dxe4 25. Nxe4 Nxe4
26.Rxe4 Rxe4 27.Bxe4 Ba6
28. Qf White has al the chances
in this position.] 7. 0-0 Bd6
8. Nbd2 f5 9.Nxe4 fxe4 10.Ng5
Nf6 1 l .f3 exf 12. exf3 0-0 1 3. f4
Bd7 14.c5 Bc7 1 5.Bh3 Qe8
16. Qe2 Qg6 17.Nxe6 Bxe6
1 8. Qxe6ch. Kh8 19. Qf5 Qh6
20.Bg2 Rad8 21 .Qg5, Fine-Bis
guier, N 1951 ;
3) 5 . . . dxc4 [As was the case with
5 . . . Nbd7, this move dos not
seem to be entirely satisfactory. !
6. Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 a 8. Bg2 a4
9. Qc2 Bb7 10.0-0 Na6 1 l .Nc3
Be7 12.Bg5 0-0 1 3.Radl Nd7
14. Bc1 Qb6 15.e4 c5 16.d5 e5
1 7. Bh3 Rab8 1 8. Be3 Bd6
19. N4 g6 20.f4 Kh8 2l .f5,
White' s advantage is clear,
Semi-Slav Defense 155
Helmers-Kogan, Reykj avik
1982;
4) 5 ... Ne4! ? 6.Nfd2?! f5 7.Bg2
Bd6 8. Nxe4 fxe4 9.f3 exf
10. Bxf3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 e5! 12.dxe5
Bxe5 13.cxd5 Bh3 14. Rd1 cxd5
1 5.Be3 Nc6 16.Nc3 [ 1 6.Rxd5
Nb4! .] 1 6 . . . d4 17. Bf Rxf3!
1 8. exf3 Qf6 19. Qb3ch. Be6
20. Ne4 Qf 21 .Qa3 h6 22.Kg2
Rf8 23.h4 Bd5 24.Rd2 b5!
25. Rc1 Bc4, Black won on the
40th move, Shipman-Durao,
New York 1986. More tests ae
needed of 5 . . . Ne4 to determine if
it is of any value. White' s play
certainly did not inspire conf
dence.
6 cS
Also commonly seen is 6.cxb5
cxb5 7. Bf4 [7.Bg2Bd7 8.0-0Nc6
9. Bf4 Rc8 lO.Qdl Qb6 1 1 .Nc3
Be7 12.e3 0-0 1 3.Ne5 Na5
1 4. Bg5 Rfd8 1 5.Ng4 b4 1 6.Ne2
Nxg4, Gross-Vera, Rome 1985. ]
7 - . . Bd7 8.e3 Be7 9.Nbd2 0-0
I O. Bxb8 Qxb8 1 1 . Bd3 Rc8
1 2.Qb1 a5 1 3.0-0 Ra7 14.Rc1
Rxc1ch. 1 5.Qxc1 Rc7 16. Qfl a4
1 7. Rc1 b4 1 8. Ne5 Bd6 19. Nxd7
Nxd7 20.Rxc7 Qxc7, 1/2- 1/2,
Vilela-Vera, Bayamo 1983.
6 eee Nbd7
7 Bg2
A good aterative is 7 .Bf4 Nh5
8. Bg5 f6 9.Bd2 f5 10. a4 bxa4
1 1 . Qxa4 Qc7 12. b4 Be7 13.Nc3
0-0 14.Bf4Nxf4 15. gxf4a6 1 6.e3
Bb7 17. Bd3 K8 1 8. h4 Bf6
19. Ra3 Rfb8 20.Nd2 Qd8 21 .h5
Rc8 22.N3 Rc7 23.Na5 Nb8
24.Qd1 Ra7 25. Kd2 Bc8 26. Qe2
Bd7 27 . Na4 Be8 28.Nb6 Qe7
29. Nb3 Bf7 30. Bxa6 Qe8
31 .Ra5, 1 -0 in 38, Dlugy-Bis
guier, NY 1986.
7 e eS
Or 7 ... Ne4 8. Nc3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 f5
10. a4 Ba6 1 1 .axb5 Bxb5 12.Nd2
Qf6 13.Bb2 e5 14.dxe5 Qe6
1 5. Nf3 Bxc5 1 6. Nd4 Bxd4
17. cxd4 0-0 1 8.0-0 a5 19. Ba3
Rf 20.Rfc1 Nb6 21 .Bc5 Nc4
22.Bh3 a4 23. Rcb1 h6 24.Rb4
Re8 25. e4 Nxe5 26.dxe5 Qxe5
27. Qb2 Qxb2 28.Rxb2 Rxe4
29.Bg2 Rc4 30.Bb6, 1 -0 in 37,
Smejkal-Vera, Bratislava 1983.
# 1 1.4

1 56 5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2

8 Nxe5
9 dxe5
10 e4
11 0-0
12 Nd2
13 f4
14 Qc3
15 b4
16 a3
17 Rf
18 axb4
19 Qxa1
20 e5
21 bxc5
22 Qc3
23 Kxf
NxeS
Nd7
d4
Nxe5
Bg4
d
Nd7
aS
Be2
axb4
Rxa1
Nxc5
Qc8
Bxc5
Bxfch.
1 -0 in 41 , Velikov-Vera, Thessa
loniki, 1984.
Line With 5.0d3:
1 d4
d5
2 c4
3 Nc3
4 Nf
5 Qd3
e6
c6
Nf6
!
This continuation supports the 'c'
pawn ad prepares g3 or e2-e4.
5 ... Nbd7
Cerainly not the only reply. For
example:
1) 5 . . . c5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7. Nxd5
exd5 8.g3 c4 9.Qc2 Nc6 10. Bg2
g6 1 1 .0-0 Bf5 1 2. Qa4 Qd7
13.Bf4 a6 14.Rfe1 b5 15.Qd1
Bg7 [ 15 ... Be4 may be better.]
1 6.Ne5 Nxe5 1 7. dxe5 Rd8
1 8.Qd4 Qe7 [An unsound pawn
sacrifice. He should try
1 8 . . . Be6.] 19.Bxd5 g5 20.e4 Bh3
21 .Be3 Bxe5 22. Qd2 h6 23.Rad1
Rc8 24.Bd4 Bg4 25. f! Bxf
26.Bxe5 Qxe5 27.Bxtch. Kxt
28.Qd7ch. Qe7 29. Qf5ch. 1 -0,
Miles-Lombard, Biel 1977;
2) 5 . . . b6! ? [Sveshnikov went as
fa as to give this move a excla
mation point back in 1977.] 6.e4
dxc4 [AndhereSveshnikov gives
this as dubious, preferring in
stead 6 . . . Ba6 which he calls un
clear.] 7. Qxc4 Ba6 8. Qb3 Bxft
9.Kxfl Be7 10. g3 Nb7 1 1 .Kg2
0-0 12. Rel Re8 1 3.Bf4 Qc8
14.Radl Qb7 15.h3 Rac8 16.g4
Bf8 17.Bg5 c5! =+ 1 8.d5?1
[ 1 8. Qc2] 1 8 . . . exd5 1 9. e5
[ 19.exd5 c4 20.Qc2 Rxel -+]
Semi-Slav Defense 1 57
19 . . . d4! 20.exf6 gxf6 2l .Bf4
[2l . Nd5 fxg5 22.Nxg5 Nf6! ]
21. . . dxc3 22.Qxc3 Bg7 23. Kg3
f5 24. Qc2 fxg4 25.hxg4 Nf8
26. Ng5 Rxe1 27.Rxe1 Rd8 -+,
Alburt-Sveshnikov, USSR 1977.
6 g3 Be7
O 6 . . . Bd6 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 Re8
9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 1 l .e4
dxe4 12.Nxe4 Be7 13.Rad1 Qc7
1 4.Rfe1 Rd8 15. Nxf6ch. Bxf6
1 6.c5 Bd7 17. Ne5 Be8 1 8.Qc3
Rac8 19. f4 h5 20.Be4 g6 2l .Kg2
Bg7 22.Bd3 Qe7 23.a4 Kh7
24.b4 a6 25.Qc2 Rc7 26.Bc4 Qf6
27. Qf, 1 -0 in 39, Beliavsky
Bojkovic, Novi Sad 1979.
7 Bg2 0-0
8 0-0 b6
IIl
l )uietly building up his position.
I lt her ties for White are:
1 ) 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Bf4 Bb7
1 1 .Rac1 , Camara-lvkov, Sao
Paulo 1978. White has a very
small edge;
2) 9.e4 Ba6 10.b3 dxc4! ? [Black
has also tied 10 . . . Rc8 1 l .Rdl !
( l l .Bf4Re8?! 12.Rfd1 Nf8 13. a4
Bb4 14.e5 was slightly better for
White in Korchnoi-Petosian,
Moscow 1 975, but 1 l . .. c5!
probably equaizes for Black.)
1 l . . .c5 12. exd5 exd5 1 3.Bb2
dxc4 14.bxc4 cxd4 1 5.Nb5! +-,
Romanishin-Ciric, Dortmund
1976.] 1 l .bxc4 e5! 12. Rd1 [Mat
ters are not clea afer 12. dxe5
Ng4 13.Bf4 g5 when White can
t 14.Bh3, 14. e6, 14.Bxg5, or
1 4. Nxg5.] 1 2 . . . Qc7! [White
gained a clear advantage in the
game lnkiov-Letzelter, Buenos
Aires 1 978, after 1 2 . . . Bb4?
1 3. Bb2 exd4 1 4. Nxd4 Ne5
15. Qc2 Qc8 16. Nf5.] 1 3.dxe5
[And here 1 3.Bb2 Rad8! would
be somewhat in Black' s favor.]
1 3 . . . Nxe5 1 4. Nxe5 Qxe5
15. Bb2? [After this White is def
nitely worse. Corect was 1 5.Bf4
Qe6 16. Nd5! cxd5 17.exd5 with
the idea of d6; or 1 5 . . . Qc5 16.Bd6
Bxd6 17. Qxd6, in both cases with
158
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and
Qc2
an unclea position.] 1 5 . . . Qe6
1 6. e5?! Ng4 17.Re1? [White
should just accept the loss of a
pawn by 17. Ne4 Nxe5 1 8. Qc3
f6.] 17 . . . Nxf! 1 8.Kxf2 Bc5ch.
19. Re3 Rad8 20.Qc2 Bxe3ch.
21 .Kxe3 Qh6ch. 22.Ke2 Bxc4ch.
23.Ke1 Qe3ch. 24. Ne2 Bd3! , and
Black won in a few more moves,
Plaskett-Botterill, London 1980.
9 ... Ba6
10 Bb2 ReS
11 Racl! Qe7
White i s better after1 1 . . . c5
12.Nb5 cxd4 1 3.Nfxd4.
12 e4
dxe4
13 Nxe4 Nxe4
14 Qxe4 Nf6
O 14 . . . Bb7 15.c5! bxc5 16.dxc5
Nxc5 17.Rxc5 Bxc5 1 8.Ng5 g6
19. Qh4h5 20.Ne4 Be7 21 .Nf6ch.
++-, Analysis by Donner.
15 Qe2 Nd7
1 5 . . . c5 comes into consideration.
16 Rfd1 Bf6
17 Re2 RedS
1S Red2 QeS
19 Ne1
Bb7
20 Nd3 BaS
21 Ba3
RfeS?l
Black must play 21 . . . Bxd4
22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23. Ne1 c5 fol-
lowed by 24 . . . e5 when things a
not so clear.
22 Ne5 Qa6
23 Bd6
White has the advantage, Don
ner-Capelan, Berlin 1971 .
Ljnes wb 5.2:
1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Ne3 e 4.Nf
Nf 5.23
!l
This gambit variation has close
connectons to the Slav (D1 5)
and the Cataan (E07).
5 g3 dxe4
In the gae Ivachuk-Dreev,
Tallinn 1986 Black prepaed this
capture by 5 . . . Nbd7 but White
stood well after 6.B g2 dxc4 7.0-0
Be7 8. a4 0-0 9.e4 b6 10.Qe2 a5
[The immediate 10 . . . Ba6 tas
poses into Kopec-Bisguier given
in the note to Black' s sixth
Semi-Slav Defense 1 59
move.] 1 l .Rd1 Ba6 12.Bf4 Re8
[ 1 2 . . . Ra7 1 3.d5 cxd5 14.Nd4aso
favors White. ] 1 3. Nd2 Nf8
14. Nxc4 Ng6 15.Be3 Nd5 16.e5!
Rc8 17. Rac1 Nxe3 1 8.fxe3 b5?!
1 9.Na3 Qb6 20.Bfl Rb8 21 .axb5
cxb5 22.Naxb5 Bg5 23.h4 Bh6
24.Re1 Ne7 25.g4 Nd5 26.Qf
Nxe3 27. Rxe3 Bxe3 28. Qxe3, 1-
0 i 41.
6 Bg2
White got the better game in
Kopilov-Grigorian, Cor. 1969/
1970, by playing the more force
ful 6.e4 b5 7.Be2 Ba6? 8.0-0 b4
9.Na4 Qa5 10.Ne5 b3 1 1 .axb3
cxb3 12. Qxb3! . However Black
can do better on his 7th tum by
playing 7 . . . Bb7.
6
b5
Perhaps Black dosn't have to
weaken his Queenside with this
advance. I the game Sosonko
V a der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee
1987, Black achieved an excel
lent positon ater 6 . . . Nbd7 7.0-0
Be7 8.e4 0-0 9.a4 [Bad is 9. Qe2?
b5 10.Rd1 Bb7 1 1 .Ne1 Re8
12.Nc2 Qb6 with clear advantage
for Black, Menchik-Pirc, Pode
brady 1936.] 9 . . . e5 [Neishtadt
gave 9 . . . a5 10.Qe2 Nb6 1 l .Rd1
Bb4 12. Ne5 Qe7 13.Be3 Bd7
1 4.Nxc4 Nxc4 1 5. Qxc4 e5
(15 . . . b5?! 1 6. Qe2! +=, Botvin
nik-Lasker, Moscow 1936. )
16.dxe5 Ng4 with equality. A
recent game between Kopec-Bis
guier, US Open 1987 was furher
proof that Black is doing well
here: 9 . . . b6 10. Qe2 Ba6 1 1 .Rd1
Rc8 12. Bf4 Re8 13.h3 Bb4 14.g4
Bxc3 1 5.bxc3 Qe7 16.Bg5 h6
17. Bc1 Nh7 and Black was
slightly better.] 10.dxe5 Ng4
1 1 .Bf4 Qa5 12.e6 fxe6 13.Bd6
Bxd6 14.Qxd6 Nde5 15.Nxe5
Nxe5 16.Rab1 Rd8 17. Qe7 Ng6
18. Qa3 e5 19. b4 Qc7 20.b5 Be6.
7 0-0
Not so good is 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.e4
Nxc3 9.bxc3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0
1 1 .f4 f6 12.Nf Nd7 13. Be3 N6
1 4. Qc2 Na4 1 5. Rad1 Qa5
16.Bd2 Bd7 17. Kh1 Ba3 1 8. Rb1
Nb6 19. g4 Qa4 20.Qxa4 Nxa4
21 .d5 exd5 22.exd5 c5 23. g5
Rae8 24.gxf6 gxf6 25.Ng1 Bb2,
Machenko-Sveshniov, USSR
1978, 0- 1 in 34.
7 B Bb7
8 a4
By tansposition from a Slav
Gambit [4 . . . dxc4 5.e4 b5 6. Qc2.]
1 60
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
Spassky-Bagirov, USSR (ch.)
1960 went 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9.e4 Be7
10.h3 a6 1 1 .a4 Qb6 12. Rd1 c5
13.d5 exd5 14.a5 Qa7 15.exd5 0-
0 1 6.d6 Bd8 17. g4 Bc6 1 8.Re1
Qb7 with a slight advantage for
Black.
8 ... a6
9 Ne5 Nd5
10 axb5 axb5!
1 O . . . cb5 1 l . Nxd5 Bxd5
[ 1 1 . . .exd5 runs into 12.e4.] 12.e4
Bb7 1 3.d5! .
11 Rxa8 Bxa8
12 Bd2 Nd7
Interesting is 12 . . . Bd6! ? 13. Qa1
Bxe5 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.b3! with
complications. -Geller.
13 Nxd7 Qxd7
14 e4 Nxc3
15 Bxc3
Be7
16 d5! 0-0
17 Qg4 g6
18 Rd1 cxd5
19 exd5 f5
According to Geller White is
slightly better after 19 ... Qb7
20. Qd4 f6 21 .Qe4 e5 22.d6 Qxe4
23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24.dxe7 Re8
25.Rd8.
20 Qe2 exd5
21 Rxd5 Bxd5
22 Bxd5ch.
Qxd5
23 Qxe7 Rf
1/2- 1/, Geller-Dolmatov, USSR
1979.
Lnes with 5.0b3:
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf Nf 4.Nc3

Other moves:
1) 5 . . . Qb6 6.c5 Qxb3 [Possibly
better is 6 . . . Qc7. The game Bel
lon-Antunes, Thessalonika (ol)
1984 then continued 7 .g3 Nbd7
8. Bf4 Qd8 9. Qa4 Be7 10.Rc1 0-0
1 1 . b4 Ne4 12.N xe4 dxe4 13. Nd2
e5 14.dxe5 e3 15.Bxe3 Nxe5
16.Ne4 f5 17. Rd1 Qe8 1 8.Nd6
Bxd6 19.cxd6 f4 20. gxf4 Ng4
21 .Bc1 Be622.Bg2Rd8 23. Qxa7
Rf7 24.Bf3 Nf6.] 7. ab3 Na6
8.Ne5 Nd7 9.Rxa6 bxa6 10.Nxc6
Nb8 1 1 .Na5 Be7 12.b4Bd8 13.e4
Semi-Slav Defene
1 61
Bxa5 14.bxa5 Nc6 1 5.exd5 Nxd4
16.Bf4 exd5 17 . Nxd5 0-0 1 8.Bd6
Re8 19. Kd2 Ne6 20.Ne7ch. Kh8
21 .Nxc8 Raxc8 22.b4 Red8
23.Bd3, 1 -0 in 33, Rogers
Pavlovic, Nis 1985;
2) 5 . . . Nbd7 6.Bg5 Qa5?! [6 . . . Be7
leads play back into more nora
positions.] 7 .Bd2 Qb6 8.e3 Qxb3
9.axb3 a6 [9 . . . Bd6 10.c5 Bc7
1 1 .b4 with the idea of 12.b5 is +
;9 . . . Bb4 10.Ra4 a5 1 1 .c5 +=.]
10.Bd3 Bd6 1 1 .e4 dxe4 [White
also has a signifcant advantage
after 1 1 . . . dxc4 1 2. bxc4 e5
13.dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bxe5
15. f4 Bd4 16.e5 Ng4 17.Ndl .]
1 2. Nxe4 Nxe4 1 3. Bxe4 e5
1 4. Bc3 exd4 1 5. Nxd4 Nf6
16.Bf3 +-, Portisch-Ljubojevic,
Torino 1982;
3) 5 ... Be7 [Very rare is 5 ... Bd6
6.g3 (White also failed to gain
anything in paricula in the game
Portisch-Ljuboj evic, London
1982, which continued 6.Bg5
Nbd7 7.e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Be7
9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be2 c5 1 1 .dxc5
Nxc5 12. Qc2 b6 13.Rd1 Qc7
14.Nb5 Qb8 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16.b4
Nb7 17.0-0 a6 1/- 1/2. ) 6 . . . 0-0
7.Bg2 Nbd7 8. Bg5 b6 9.0-0 Ba6
10.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .Radl Qc7
12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13. Nh4 h6 14.Bc1
Qb7 15. Nf5 Bf8 16. Qc2 Rac8
17. a3 Qa8 1 8.Bf4 Re6 19. Qa4
Bb7 20.b4 Kh7 21 . Bc l g6
22.Ne3 Ree8 23.Qb3 a6 24.Nfl ,
1/2 in 50, Vilela-Vera, Cuba
1982.] 6.Bg5
[Similar play results from 6.Bf4
Nbd7 7 .e3 0-0 8.Be2 b6 (8 . . . dxc4
9. Qxc4 Nd5 1 0. Bg3 N7b6
1 1 . Qb3 Nxc3 12. bxc3 c5 13.0-0
Bd7 14. a4 cxd4 1 5. Nxd4 Nd5
16.a5 Rc8 17 .c4 Nb4 1 8.Bf3 Bc6
19. Nxc6bxc620.Rfd1 Qe8 21 .c5
Bxc5 22.Ra4 Nd5 23.Rc4 Qe7
24.e4 Nf6 25.Qc3 Rfd8 26.Rc1
Nd7 27 .Rc5, 1-0 i 40, Gui.
Garcia-Frey, Bayamo 1983. )
9.cxd5 exd5 10.0-0 Bb7 1 1 .Rfdl
Re8 12. Rac1 Nf8 13. Ne5 Ng6
14. Qa4 Nxe5 15. dxe5 Nd7 1 6.b4
Bf8 17. b5 c5 1 8.Nxd5 Nxe5
19.e4Bd620.Bg3 g5 21 .Ne3 Qc7
22. Rd2 Rad8 23. Rcd1 Be7
24. Qxa7 f6 25. Bxe5 fxe5
26.Bc4ch. Kh8 27 .Nd5 Qb8
28. Qxb6, 1-0 in 37, Donchev
Radev, Bulgarian ch. 1984;
Another idea is to go back into
Catalan-like lines by 6.g3 0-0
(Also typical is 6 . . . dxc4 7 .Qxc4
162 5 Qd3; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
b5 8. Qb3 0-0 { Or 8 . . . Bb7 9.Bg2
a6 10.0-0 c5 1 1 .dxc5 Nbd7
1 2.Be3 Nxc5 1 3. Bxc5 Bxc5
14. Nxb5 Bd5 1 5. Qc2 Bxfch.
1 6. Rxf2 axb5 1 7. Qc5 Ne4
1 8. Qxb5, and White went on to
win the game. } 9.Bg2 b4 10. Na4
Nbd7 1 1 .0-0 Ba6 12.Qc2 Qa5
13.b3 Rac8 14. a3 Qb5 15.Ra2 c5
1 6.Qb2c4 17.bxc4Rc4 1 8. axb4
Rxb4 19. Qa3 Nd5 20.Nc3 Nxc3
2 1 . Qxc3 Ra4 22. Rb2 Qc4
23. Qxc4 Bxc4 24.Bf4, 1/2 in 35,
Gur e v i c h - S i g u rj on s s on ,
Brighton 1982. ) 7.Bg2 Nbd7
!
(The main move here. Also seen
is 7 . . . b6 8.0-0 Ba6 9.cxd5 cxd5
10. Bf4 Nc6 1 1 . Qa4 { Not as ef
fective is 1 1 .Rfc1 Na5 12.Qd1
Rc8 1 3.Ne5 Bb4 14.Bg5 Be7
1 5. Rab1 h6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17. b4
Nc4 18.b5 Bb7 19.Nxc4 Rc4
20.e3 Qc7 21 .Rb3 Qe7 22.Bfl
Rc7, 1/2 in 37, Cebalo-Noguei
ras, Reggio Emilia 1985/86. }
1 l . . .Bb7 12.Rfcl Rc8 13. Qd1
Na5 14.Nb5 Nc6 1 5. Ne5 a6
16.Nc3 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Nd7 1 8.e4
dxe4 19. Nxe4 Bxe4 20.Bxe4
Rxc1 21 .Rxc1 Nc5 22. Bb1 a5
23.Qe2 Qc7 24.a3 a4 25.Qc2 g6
26. Qxa4, 1 -0 in 78, Christiansen
Ree, Lone Pine 1981 .
While 7 . . . b6 may b seen fom
time to time 7 . . . Qb6 is rather rae.
The game Porisch-Lasen, Porec
1968 continued 8.0-0 Qxb3
9. axb3 Na6 10.Bd2 Rd8 1 1 .c5
Nd7 12.Na4 with advantage.)
8.0-0 b6 (Black got a good posi
tion in Nickoloff-Ribli, Duba
( ol) 1986 by 8 . . . N6 9 .cxd5 exd5
10. Ne5 Re8 1 1 .Bg5 h6 12.Bf4
Be6 13. Rfd1 Nfd7 14.Nxd7
Qxd7 15.Na4 Nxa4 16.Qxa4 Bf5
17. Rac1 Bf6 1 8.Re1 g5. Also
quite reasonable is 8 . . . Qb6 9.Rd1
Qa6 10.cxd5 exd5 1 l .Bf4 Qb6
12.Qc2 Re8 1 3.a3 a5 14.Rab1
Nf8 15. b4 axb4 16.axb4 g6
17. Rb3 Bf5 1 8.Qb2Ne4 19. Nxe4
Bxe4 20.b5 c5 21 .dxc5 Bxc5
22.e3 Ne6 23.Bh6 Be7 24.Ne5
Semi-Slav Defense 1 63
Rad8, 1!2 in 47, Suba-Inkiov,
Baille Herculane 1982.) 9.Rd1
(Wite gets no advantage with
9 .B g5 Ba6 1 O.cxd5 cxd5 1 1. Rac 1
b5 12. Nxb5 Rb8 13.a4 Bxb5
14. axb5 a6 15.Rc2 Rxb5 16. Qa2
Ra5 17.Qb1 Bd6 1 8.Rfc1 Qb8,
Bellon-Vera, Rome 1 985. )
9 . . . Bb7 10. cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .Bf4
Nh5 (In Albur-Kogan, US ch.
1984 Black eventually equalized
with 1 1 . . .Rc8 1 2. Rac 1 Nh5
13.Be3 Nf6 14.Rc2 Rc4 15.a3
Qa8 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6
1 8.Ne5 Rfc8 19. Rdc l R4c7
20.Nb5 Rxc2 21 .Rxc2 a6 22.Nc3
b5. ) 1 2. Bd2 Nhf6 1 3. a4 a6
14. Rac1 Rac8 15.e3 Ne4 16. Be1
Nd6 17.Bfl Nc4 1 8. Qa2 Rc7
19. Ne2 Qb8 20.b3 Na5 21 .Rxc7
Qxc7 22.Rc 1 Qb8 23. Nf4 Rc8
24.Rxc8ch. Qxc8 25.Qb1 h6
26.Bh3 Nf8 27.Nd3 Nc6 28. b4
Nb8 29.Bfl Bc6 30.b5 axb5
3 1 . axb5 Be8 32. Bb4 Ng6
33.Nde5 Nxe5 34. Nxe5 Bxb4
35.Qxb4 f6 36.Nd3 Qc7 37.Bh3
Kt 38. Nf4 Bd7 39.Bxe6ch. 1-0,
Seirawan-Kogan, World Open
1986.]
6 . . . 0-0
#1 1. 1 0
[ 6 . . . dxc4 i s aso very popular:
7. Qxc4 b5 (It is also possible to
delay this by 7 . . . 0-0 8.e4 b5
9. Qd3 { 9.Qb3! ?. } 9 . . . b4 10. Na4
Ba6 1 1 .Qc2 Bxfl 12.Kxfl Nbd7
13. g3 c5! { 13 . . . Rc8 14. Rdl ! c5
1 5.d5 favors White. } 14.dxc5
{ 1 4. Bxf6 ! ? gxf6 1 5. d5. }
14 . . . Nxc5 15.Rd1 { 1 5.Nxc5 Rc8
16. Be3 Ng4 17.Bd4 e5 1 8.h3
exd4 19.hxg4 Rxc5 20.Qd3 Qd7
=+. } 1 5 . . . Qe8 1 6.Bxf6 gxf6
1 7. Nxc5 Rc8 1 8. Kg2 Rxc5
19. Qd2! , Seirawan-Yusupov,
Linares 1983, and now 19 . . . Qb8!
20.Qh6 Qb7 is =.
Insteadof8.e4 white can ty 8.g3.
The game Chri sti ansen
Yusupov, Luzer 1982 contn
ued 8 . . . b5 9.Qb3 Nbd7 { 9 . . . b4
1 0. Bxf6 gxf6 l l . Ne4+=. }
1 64
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
10.Bg2 b4 1 1 . Na4 { 1 1 . . .Bxf6 Kavalek-Ribli, Dubai (ol) 1986.)
gxf6! is not clear. } 1 1 . . .Ba6 8 . . . cxd5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 b5
1 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 { 1 2 . . . gxf6! ? . } 1 1 . Rac 1 Bd7 1 2. Ne5 Nxe5
1 3. Rcl ! { Black is better after 1 3. dxe5 Ng4 1 4. Bf4 Qb8
1 3 . Qc2 Qa5 1 4. 0-0 Bxe2 15. Nxd5 exd5 1 6.e6Bd6 17.exd7
15. Qxe2 Qxa4 or 13.Qxb4? c5! Bxf4 1 8.exf4 Qxf4 19. g3 Qh6
14. dxc5 Rb8 1 5. Qd2 Bb5. } 20.h4 Qe6 21 .Rc5, 1/2- 1/2, Por-
1 3 . . . Qa5 14.Nc5 Nxc5 15.Rxc5 tisch-Nogueiras, Reggio Emilia
Qb6 1 6. Qc2 Rac8 1 7. Ne5 1985/86.]
{ Geller mentoned the line 17. 0- 8.Be2
0 Be7 18. Rc1 Bxc5 19.Ng5 g6
20.dxc5 with compensation. }
1 7 . . . Rfd8! 1 8.0-0! Bxe5 { Black
could get equality by 1 8 . . . Be7 or
even 1 8 . . . Rxd4. } 19.dxe5 Bxe2
20.Rc1 Ba6 21 .h4, the game was
dawn on move 27 . ) 8.Qd3 b4
(8 ... 0-0 9. Qc2! b4 10.Na4 Ba6
1 1 . Bxf6! gxf6 12. Nc5 Bxc5
1 3.dxc5 Qa5 14.Nd4! b3ch.
1 5.Qd2 Qxc5 1 6. Nxb3 Qb6 #1 1 . 1 1
17. Qd4 led to a advantage to [Other ties ae:
White in Portisch-Yusupov, 1) 8.Rdl a6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10. a4
Toluca 1982.) 9.Na4 Ba6 10. Qc2 Nb8 1 1 .Bd3 Nc6 12.0-0 Bd7
Qa5 1 1 .Nc5 Bxc5 12. Qxc5 Qxc5 1 3. Ne5 Nxe5 1 4. dxe5 Ng4
13.dxc5 Ne4 14.Be3 Nd7 15.Rc1
15.Bf4 Qb8 16.Nxd5 exd5 17.e6
e5 16.g3 f5 17.Bg2 Bb5 1 8.Nh4 Bd6 1 8.exd7 Bxf4 19. exf4 Qxf4
g6 19. g4 f4, 1/2 in 62, Browne- 20.g3 Qh6 21 .h4 Qe6 22.Qxb7
Henley, US ch. 1984.] 7.e3 Nbd7 Nf6 23.Rfe1 Qxd7 24. Qxd7
[The modem solution is 7 . . . a6 Nxd7 25.Bfl Nf6 26.b4 Ra7
8. cxd5 (0r 8.Rd1 b5 9.cxd5 cxd5 27.Rd4 h5 28.Rc1 Rb8 29.a5
10.Ne5 Bb7 1 1 .Be2, 1/2- 1/2, Kf8, Haritonov-Timoshenko,
Semi-Slav Defense
1 65
Volgodonsk 1981 , 1/2 in 53; g6 ( 1 2 . . . c5? 1 3.e5! c4 1 4.exf6!
2) 8.Bd3 dc4 (O 8 . . . b6 9.0-0 cxd3 1 5.fxe7.) 1 3.Bh6? (Corect
Bb7 1 0.Rfd1 Kh8! l l .Racl Ne8 was 1 3. e5 when 1 3 . . . Nd5
1 2. Bxe7 Qxe7 1 3. cxd5 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 1 5.0-0 favors
{ 1 3. e4+=. } 1 3 . . . exd5 14. Qa4! ? White. 14 . . . Nxe7 has been rec-
{ 1 4.e4! +=. } 14 . . . Nd6! = 1 5. Qa3 ommended with the idea of. . . cS. )
Rae8! 1 6.Re1 fS 17. Ne5?! NxeS 1 3 . . . Re8 14. e5 Ng4! 1 5.Bf4 cS
1 8. dxe5 QxeS 19. Qxa7 d4! 20.f4 1 6. Ne4 cxd4 17.h3 fS! 1 8.Ned2
Qf6 21 .Nd1 Qd8 22.Re2 cS NcS! 19. Qfl ? (He had to play
23. exd4 c4! 24.Rxe8 Rxe8 1 9. Qxd4.) 1 9 . . . d3! 20. Bd1 gS
25.Bfl Rel ! 26.Qa3 Ne4! 27.d5 (20 . . . Rf8! .) 21 . hxg4gxf4 22.Qg1
Nd2 28.Kf Rxflch. 29.Ke2 Rf8 23.Qh2 R, 0- 1 i 35, Por
BxdS 30. Qe3 c3! , 0- 1 , Korchnoi- tisch-Lombard, Biel 1 976. ]
Petrosi an, Moscow 1 97 1 . ) 8 . . . . a6
9. Qxc4! (Better then 9.Bxc4 cS
1 0. Rd1 cxd4 1 1 . Nxd4 QaS
1 2.Qb5 Qc7 1 3. a4 NcS 14.Be2
Bd7 15. Qc4 Rac8 1 6.0-0 Qb8
17. Qa2 Rfd8 1 8.Bb5 a6 19.Bxd7
Ncxd7 20.Nb3 Bd6 21 .h3 h6
22. Bxf6 Nxf6 23. Nd4 Bb4
24.Qb3 Bxc3 25. bxc3 Qc7
26.Rb1 Rd7 27.Rfc1 Ne4 28.Qa3
Qc5 29.Qxc5 RxcS 30.c4 Rdc7
3 1 .Nb3 Rxc4 32.Rxc4 Rxc4 #1 1.1 2
33. Na5 Rxa4 34.Nxb7 Ra2 35.f [Black has also done well with
Nc3 36.Rb3 NdS 37.Nd6 aS plans based on . . . b6. For example
38. h4 a4 and Black went on to 8 . . . b6 (Throwing in . . . h6 is also
win, Commons-Mednis, US ch. fine: 8 . . . h6 9.Bh4 b6 1 0.cxd5
1978. ) 9 . . . a6 10. Bc2 bS 1 1 . Qd3 exdS 1 1 .0-0 Bb7 1 2. Rad1 Rc8
( 1 1 .Qxc6? Ra7 threatens both 13. Rfe1 Re8 14. Bd3 cS 1 5.Bxf6
. . . Rc7 and . . . Bb7. ) 1 1 . .. Bb7 1 2.e4 Nxf6 1 6.dxc5 RcS 17.Bb5 Rf8
166
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and
Q
c2
1 8. e4 Qa8 1 9.exd5 Nxd5 20.Ne4
Rc7 2 1 .Ne5 Bb4 22. Nd2 Qd8
23. Bc4 Re8 24. Nef3 Rxe1ch.
25. Rxel Bxd2 26.Nxd2 Nf4
27 . Ne4 Qd4 28 . Qg3 Rxc4
29. Qxf4 Bxe4 30.b3 Rc6 31 . h3
Re6 32.Kh2 Qb4 33. Re3 Qe7, 0-
1 , Jaobsen-Hansen, Esbjerg
1984. ) 9. cxd5 exd5 1 0.0-0 Bb7
1 1 . Rfdl Re8 1 2. Rac 1 Bd6
13. Bd3 Qb8 14. Bf5 g6 1 5.Bh3
Kg7 1 6.Bxd7 Nxd7 1 7.Ne2 f6
1 8. Bf4 Bxf4 1 9. Nxf4 Qd6
20.Qa4 Re7 21 .b4 b5 22.Qb3 a
23.Nd3 Nb6 24.a3 Nc4 25. a4
ab 26. ab5 Ra3 27.Qb1 Bc8
28. Nxb4 Bf5 29. Nc2 Rb7
30.Nd2 Rc3 3 1 .Nxc4 Rxc4 32.b6
c5 33. dxc5 Rxc5 34.Qa2 Qc6
35. Qb2 Bxc2, 0- 1 , Frias-Noguei
ras, Havana 1983.] 9.0-0 b5
10. cxd5 cxd5 1 1 .Rfc1 Bb7
1 2.Qdl h6 1 3.Bf4 Rc8 14.Ne5
Nxe5 1 5. Bxe5 Qd7 16.f Bc6
17.Bd3 b 1 8.Ne2 Bb5 19.Nf4
Qb7 20. Bxb5 Qxb5 21 .Nd3 Nd7
22.Bg3 a5 23.b3 Qa6 24.Qd2 h5
25.h3 Rfe8 26. Bc7 Bd6 27 .Bxd6
Qxd6 28. Rc2 Rxc2 29. Qxc2 e5
30. dxe5 Nxe5 3 1 . Rd1 Ng6
32.Qf Qe7, 0- 1 in 55, Portisch
Larsen, Liares 1981 .
6 Qxc4 bS
#1 1. 1 3
On rare occasions Black does not
play . . . b5: 6 ... b6 7. g3 [Or 7.Bg5
Be7 8. e4 Ba6 9. Qb3 Bxfl
lO.Rxfl 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 Nbd7
12.Ne5?! Nxe5 1 3.Bxf6 Nd7
14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.f4 Rad8 16.e5
f5, Ahkmylovskaya-Alexanda,
Kislovodsk 1980. ] Be7 8.Bg2
[8. Bg5! ? has been recommended
in some sources.] 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 b5
1 0. Qb3 b4 1 1 . Na4 Ba6,
F . P o r t i s c h - No g u e i r a s ,
Kecskemet 1979, and now ac
cording to Kavalek 12. Qc2!
would give White a signifcant
advantage. Afer Black plays
6 ... b5 White can reteat to A
7
,0d3
and B. 7.0b3.
A 7 Qd3 Nbd7
Semi-Slav Defense
1 67
#1 1 . 14
Other moves are:
1) 7 . . . b4?! 8.Ne4 Ba6 9. Nxf6ch.
gxf6 1 0.Qc2 +=, Ioffe-Panch
enko, USSR 1982;
2) 7 ... a6! ? 8. e4 [Or 8. g3 c5 9.Bg2
Bb7 1 0.0-0 Nbd7 1 1 .Rd1 (White
also got a clear advantage with
l l . Bg5 Qb6 1 2. Rad1 Rc8
1 3.Ne5 Bxg2 1 4. Kxg2 cxd4
1 5. Nxd7 Nxd7 1 6. Qxd4 Qxd4
17. Rxd4 Bc5 1 8.Ne4 f6 19.Nxc5
Nxc5 20.Bd2 e5 21 .Rd5, Baa
gar-Inkiov, Zagreb (izt) 1987.)
l l . . .c4 1 2.Qc2 b4 1 3.Nb1 Rc8
1 4. Bg5 Be7 1 5. Ne5 Bxg2
16.Kxg2 0-0 17. a3 c3 1 8.bxc3
bxc3 19.Nxc3 Qc7 20. Nxd7
Qxd7 21 .Bxf6 gxf6 22.Rd3 Rc7
23. Qd2 Rfc8 24.d5 f5 25.Rb1
Bxa3 26.de6 Qxe6 27 . Nd5 Be 1
28.Rxc1 Rc1 29.Re3 Qc6 30.f
Qc5 31 .Ne7ch. Kf8 32.Nxc8
Qxc8 33.Rd3 Qc6 34.Rd6 Qc3
35. Rd8ch. 1 -0, Sosonko-Kogan,
Lone Pine 1 981 ] 8 . . . c5 9. dxc5
Qxd3 1 0.Bxd3 Bxc5 1 l .e5! Nfd7
[ 1 1 . . . Ng4? 1 2. Ne4 Bb4ch
1 3.Ke2 Nd7 14.Bf4 +-.] 1 2.Be4
[ 12.Ne4? Nc6! 1 3. Bf4 Nb4=+.]
1 2 . . . Ra7 1 3.Bf4 Bb4! 1 4.Rcl
Rc7 1 5.Bd2 Bxc3 1 6.Rxc3 Rxc3
1 7 . Bxc3 Nc5 , Browne
S.A. Saeed, Taxco 1985, ad now
instead of 1 8.Bc2? Na4! = which
was played, Browne gives
1 8.Nd2 Nxe4 1 9. Nxe4 Nc6!
20.b3+=;
3) 7 . . . Bb7 8.e4 [Since this dos
not seem to offer White anything,
better choices are 8.g3 or 8.Bg5.]
8 . . . b4 9.Na4 Nbd7 1 0. Be3
[ 1 0.Be2 Qa5 1 1 .b3 c5 1 2.e5 Nd5
1 3. 0-0 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 Be7
1 5.Bg5 Bxg5 1 6.Nxg5 Bc6
1 7. Rac1 Bxa4 1 8.bxa4 Rd8
1 9.Rc6 Nc3 20.Bh5 0-0 21 .Rd6
Nxe5 22.Re1 Ng6 23.h4 e5
24. Qd2 Rxd6 25. Qxd6 Rd8
26.Qc6 Qd5 27. Qc7 e4 28. a3 f6
29. axb4fxg5 30.Qxc3 Nf4, l/2in
39, Horvath-Sveshnikov, Sohi
1 985. ] 1 0 . . . Qa5 1 1 . b3 Be7
1 68 5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
[ 1 1 . . . c5? ! 1 2. dxc5 Bxe4
13. Qb5+=.] 12.Rc1 0-0 13.Be2
Rfd8! =+ 14.e5 Nd5 15.0-0 c5
16. dxc5 Rac8 17. Rfd1 Nxe3
1 8. Qxe3 Bc6! -+, Romanishin
Sveshniov, Sochi 1983;
4) 7 ... Ba6 8.Qc2 [8.Ne4 Be?
9.Bd2 Nbd7 10. Nxf6ch. Bxf6
1 1 .e4 0-0 was equal i Baraga
Pinter, Zagreb (izt) 1 987. ]
8 . . . Nbd7 [ Spasov-lnkiov, Bul
garia 1983 went 8 . . . Qa5 9.Nd2b4
1 0. Nb3 Qc7 1 1 . Na4 Bb5
12.Nac5 Nbd7 13.Bg5 Nxc5
1 4. Nxc5 Nd7 1 5 . e4 Bxfl
1 6.Kxfl Nxc5 17. dxc5 Qa5
1 8 . Be3 b3 1 9. Qxb3 Bxc5
20.Bxc5 Qxc5 21 .g3 0-0 22.Kg2
Rab8 23.Qc3, l/2- 1/2.] 9.e4 Qa5
10.Nd2 Rc8 1 1 .Be2 c5! 12. Nb3
Qb6 1 3.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Be3 b4
15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16. Qa4ch. Ke7,
Bellon Lopez-Flear, Graz 1984.
Both sides have chances.
8 g3 #1 1.15
The main move here. White gains
nothing from 8.e4 b4 9.Na4 c5=,
while 8.a3 a5 [Perhaps an easier
solution is 8 . . . b4 9. axb4 Bxb4
with . . . c5 to follow with equal
ity.] 9. Qc2 Bb7 10. Bg5 Rc8
1 1 .e3 [ l l .e4 b4 12.Na4 c5.]
1 1 . ..Be7 12.Bd3 b4 13. axb4 axb4
14.Na4 c5= 15. Bxf6! [ 1 5.dc5?
Nxc5 16.Bb5ch. ( 16.Nxc5 Rxc5
with the idea of . . . Bxf3 and
. . . Rxg5.) Kf8 -+ according to
Sveshnikov. ] 15 . . . gxf6 16.dxc5
Nxc5 17. Nxc5 Rxc5 1 8. Qe2
Bxf3, 1/2- 1 /2, Torre- Sve
shnikov, Manila 1982. Sve
shnikov mentions that Black
could have also tied 1 8 . . . Rg8
when 19.0-0! is met by 19 ... Rh5
with complications.
8 &&&
Bb7
9 Bg2 a6
Others:
1) 9 . . . Be7 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .Bg5
[ 1 l .e4?! b4 12. Na4 c5! =+]
1 1 . . . b4 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Na4
Qa5 14.Qc2 Nd7 15. b3 Rfd8
16.Rac1 , Kavalek-Kogan, New
York 1984, and now instead of
the mistaken 16 . . . c5? 17 .dxc5
Rac8 1 8.Ng5! which gave White
the advantage, Black should b
Semi-Slav Defense 1 69
all right after 1 6 . . . Rac8! 17. Nd2
Ba6 1 8. Ne4 Nb6! ;
2) 9 . . . b4 1 0.Ne4 c5 1 1 .Nfg5
Nxe4 1 2. Nxe4 Bd5 1 3.0-0 c4
14. Qc2 Be7 1 5.h4 h6 1 6.Bh3 0-0
17.Nd2Rc8 1 8.e4Bb7 19. Rd1 c3
20. bxc3 Rxc3 2l . Qb1 Nf6
22.Bb2 Rc7 23.Bg2, +-, Skem
bris-Passeratti, Rome 1985.
10 Bg5 c5
11 dxc5 Bxc5
12 0-0
h6!
13 Bxf6 Nxf6
14 Ne5 Bxg2
15 Kxg2 0-0
16 Rfd1?
1 6. Qxd8 Rfxd8 1 7. Rfd1 or
1 6.Racl ! ?.
16 ... Qb6!
17 e3 Rfd8
18 Qe2 Bd6!
19 Ng4 Qc6ch.?!
More accurate is 19 . . . Nh7 20.h4
[20.e4 b4 21 . Na4 Qc6 22.b3 f5
23.Racl Qb7-+.] 20 . . . f5 21 .Nh2
b4-+.
20 Qf
Qxfch.
21 Kxf Nxg4
22 Kxg4 Be5 =+
Bellon-Chekov, Barcelona 1984.
B. 7 Qb3 Nbd7
#1 1 . 1 6
The alteratives ae:
1 ) 7 . . . a6 8. Bg5 [Or 8.g3 Bb7
9.Be3 Nbd7 10. Bg2 c5, Gheor
ghiu-Inkiov, Dubai (ol) 1986.]
8 ... c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 1 0.e3 Nd7
1 1 .Bd3 h6 1 2. Bh4 Bb7 1 3.0-0
Be7 14.Rad1 Nd5 15. Ne4 Qb6
16.Bxe7 Kxe7 1 7.Bb1 Rac8
1 8. Ng3 Nc5 19. Qc2 Nf6 20.Nd4
h5 21 .Nh1 Bd5 22.f3 g6 23.Qf
e5 24.Ne2 Bc4 25.Rfe1 Rhd8
26.Nc 1 b4 27 .Rxd8 Rxd8, 1/2 in
89, Romanishin-Sveshnikov,
Erevan 1982;
2) 7 ... b4 8. Na4 Qa5 9.g3 Ba6
10.Bg2 Nbd7 1 1 . Qd1 Rd8 1 2.0-0
c5 13. a3 bxa3 14. Ra3 cxd4
1 5. Nc5 Qxc5 1 6.Rxa6 e5 17. Qa4
Be7 1 8. Bd2 0-0 1 9. Rfc 1 ,
D.Gurevich-Adianto, San Fran
cisco 1987.
170
5 Qd; 5 Qb3; 5 g3 and Qc2
8 BgS
The alteratives are:
1) 8.Bf4 a6 9.e4 b4 10.Na4 Nxe4
1 1 . Bd3 Nef6 12.0-0Be7 13.Rac1
Bb7 14.Rfe1 0-0 1 5.Ng5 Nh5
1 6. Nxe6 fxe6 17. Qxe6ch. Kh8
1 8.Bd2 Bf6 19. Qg4 g6 20.Bxb4
Re8 21 .Rxe8ch. Qxe8 and Black
went on to win in Antoshin
Kaidanov, USSR 1985;
2) 8. g3 Be7 [8 . . . a6! ? also seems
to equalize: 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.0-0 c5
1 1 . Bg5 cxd4 12. Nxd4 Bxg2
1 3.Kxg2 Qb6 14.Rad1 Bc5
1 5. Nf 0-0 16.Nd2 h6 17. Bxf6
Nxf6, Radulov-Gruenberg, Sofa
1986.] 9.Bg2 0-0 10.Nd2 e5!
1 1 .Bxc6 Rb8 12. dxe5 [ 12.e3
exd4 1 3.exd4 Qb6! is unclear as
is 12.Bxd7 Nxd7 13.dxe5 Bb7! .]
12 . . . Nxe5 1 3.Bg2 Be6 14.Qd1
Qc8! [14 . . . b4=+] 15.0-0 Rd8
1 6. Qe1 Bb4 17. Nde4 Nxe4
18. Bxe4 Bh3 19.Bf4, Kouatly
Kuijf, Montpellier 1985, and now
19 . . . Re8 favors Black;
3) 8.e4! ? b4 9. Na4 Nxe4 10.Bd3
Nef6 1 1 .Bg5 Be7 12.0-0 Qa5?!
[Simply 12 . . . 0-0 is better.]
1 3. Rfel Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxa6
1 5. Ne5 Nxe5 1 6. dxe5 Nd5
17. Bxe7 Kxe7 1 8. Nc5 Qb6
19. Rac1 Rhd8 20.Qf3, ++-, Va
gaian-Chekov, USSR 198 1 .
8 Be7
8 . . . a6 9.e3 c5 was equal in Bukic
Bagiov, BanjaLuka 1976. Black
also seems to be able to equalize
with 8 . . . Qa5 9. e3 b4: the game
Yudasin-011, USSR 1986 contn
ued 10.Na4 c5 1 1 .Bxf6 Nxf6
was eventually
b
#1 1.17
10 Bxf6 Nxf6
11 Na4 Ba6
12 Rcl 0-0
13 e3 BbS
14 BxbS cxbS
15 NcS aS
Semi-Slav Defense
171
16 NeS ReS
21 Rfd1 f6
17 0-0 Bxc5
22 c6 Kf =
18 dxc5 Ne4 A . Pe t r o s i a n - Ge or g a d z e ,
19 Qd3 Qxd3
Tashkent 1984.
20 Nxd3 Rfd8
172 Odds and Ends
CHAPR12
D30-3 1!SL1
Odds and Ends
This chapter covers all the loose worked out.
ends that didn' t ft into any of the
earlier chapters. By far the most
White Play Fr A Quick e4
important loose end is l .d4 d5
AdyanceYia Oc2andNbd2.
2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4.e3 [ 4.Nbd2
ld4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf e6 4.Nbd2
can tanspose.] 4 . . . Nf6 5.Bd3.
Nf6 5.0c2 Nbd7 6.a3! ?
This line, a favorite anti-Meran
system of Capablanca, circum
vents a lot of complications by
developing the QN at d2 to an
swer . . . dxc4 with Nxc4. Black
can, if he likes, head for a tanspo
sition to Chapter One by . . . Nbd7
6.0-0 Bd6 or opt for independent
lines.
Another line covered in this
chapter is the rather new idea of
playing 4.Bf4. Used successfully
by the US G. M. Larry Chris
tiansen and the British G.M.
Anthony Miles it has tended to
score well for White. Perhaps this
is more due to surrise than to
tue merit however, and it seems
as though Black' s corect defen
sive ideas are fnally being
A new and interesting move.
Note that the immediate 6. e4
dxe4 7. Nxe4 Nxe4 8. Qxe4
Bb4ch. is an exact tansposition
to 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7.e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Qxe4
Bb4ch. but a move quicker [ e2-e4
as opposed to e2-e3 followed by
e3-e4 and . . . Bf8-b4ch. as op-
Semi-Slav Defense
173
posed to . . . Bf8-d6-b4ch.] .This
can be found in Chapter Seven.
6 OO Bd6?!
Stangely enough this gets Black
into touble. It seems the corect
move here may well b 6 . . . Be7! ?
when 7 .e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 can b
met by 8 . . . e5! since the Bishop is
no longer attacked on d6.
7 e4 dxe4
8 Nxe4 Nxe4
9 Qxe4 eS
This is no longer good with a3 in
for White.
10 BgS
11 c
12 Be3
13 Nh4
14 0-0-0
15 NfS
16 Nxe7
17 d
18 d6
19 Qc2
20 BgS
21 Bc4
22 Bd2
23 Rhe1
f6
Be7
0-0
Kh8
Qe8
g6
Qxe7
fS
Qg7
Nf6
NdS
Be6
Qt
Plans Based On An Eary f
AdyanceByWhite
l.d4 dS 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e Nf6

This raely seen idea has the
simple point that White wishes to
dominate the e5 square as an
outpost for his Knight. However
the fact that this does nothing for
his development and also creates
some K-side and cental weak
nesses allows Black to get a sat
isfactory game by a centa
counter-thrust, namely . . . c6-c5.
A similar plan for White was seen
i n L. Karl sson-Donaldson,
Lugano 1983 which saw 5.Qc2
Nbd7 6.f4 c5 7 .b3 Be7 8. Nf3 b6
ad White has a considerable 9. Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0 0-0 1 l .Bb2
advantage, J. Whitehead- Rc8 12.Rad1 cxd4 1 3.exd4 g6
Donaldson, Reno 1986. [The position that has arisen
174
Odds and Ends
bears close afnity to the 4.e3
Queen' s Indian. Besides the dif
ference ofthe pawn on f4 Black' s
Knight i s on the inferior post of
d7. Normally White would like to
play Ne5 and Qe3 but there are
tactical difficulties here on the
a7-g1 diagonal. Perhaps most
accurate is 14. Kh1 i order to
meet the relocation of the Nd7
with Ne5 since a Knight on c6
gives Black flexible counter
chances aganst c4 and d4-
J.Tisdal.] 14.Qe2 Nb8 15. Kh1
Nc6 1 6. cxd5? ! [ 1 6. Rfe 1 =]
1 6 . . . exd5 17. f5 Nb4! 18. fxg6
hxg6 19. Bb1 Ba6 20.N5 Nxa2
2l .Ne5 Qe8 22.Rf3 Bxb5 23.Qd2
Kg7 24.Bxa2 Ne4 25.Qe1 Rc2
26.Rb1 f6! 27.Ng4 Bd6 28. b4
Rxb2 29.Bxd5 Rxb1 30.Qxb1 f5,
0- 1 .
5 ... c5
6 Nf Nc6
7 a3
Or 7. Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne5
dxc4 1 O.Nxc6 bxc6 1 1 .dxc5
Bxc5 12. Bxc4 Qxd1 13.Rxd1
Nd5 with equal chances, Rubin
stein-Bogolubov, Prague 1931 .
7 N a6
8 Ne5
Be7
9 cxd5 Nxd5
10 Be2 Nxe5
11 fxe5 b5
12 Nxd5 exd5
13 0-0 0-0
1/2- 1/2, Seirawan-Cherin, Wijk
a Zee 1986.
Capablanca's Anti-Meran Sy
tem Based On Nbd2.
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf c6 4.e3 Nf6
and now we have two ways to
play the system: A. 5.Nbd2. B.
S.Bd.
A
5 Nbd2
#12. 3
In playing this line White allows
Black [after playing . . . c5] to
place his QN on c6 where it will
actively pressure the center.
5 ... c!
Semi-Slav Defense 175
Ceranly the most critca move
at Black' s disposal. Other moves
allow White to go about his plans
unencumbered:
1) 5 . . . Ne4 6.Bd3 f5 7.Ne5 fol
lowed by 0-0 with an edge to
White;
2) 5 . . . g6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.0-0 Nbd7
8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4
0-0 1 1 .Bd2 Qc7 12.Bc3 Nf6
1 3. Bc2, Kmoch-Rubinstein,
Semmering 1926, White has a
plus;
3) 5 ... Bd6 6.b3 0-0 7.Bd3 Nbd7
8. Bb2 dxc4? [Better was
8 . . . Qe7! ? followed by . . . Ba3.]
9. Nxc4! Bb4ch. lO.Kfl b6 1 1 .h4!
Be? 12.e4 h6 13.Qe2 c5 14.Rd1
Qc7 1 5. Bb1 cxd4 16.e5 Nd5
17.Nxd4 Nc5 1 8.Nb5! ! White
has a winning positon, Vaisman
Borkowski, Sandomierz 1976.
6 Be2
White has tied severa other
moves:
1) 6.Bd3 Nc6 allows Black to
generate some pressure on the
White d4 pawn;
2) 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7 .a3 a5 8.cxd5
exd5 9.Bb5ch. Bd7 10. Bxd7ch.
1966;
3) 6.cxd5 exd5 [White seems to
get an edge against 6 . . . Nxd5:
7.Be2! (Less good is 7.Bc4 Nf6
8. Bb3 Nc6=, Bannik
Mnatsakanian, USSR ch. 1963.)
7 . . . Nc6 8.Nb3 cxd4 9.Nfxd4
Nxd4 10. Qxd4 +=.] 7. Bb5ch.
Bd7 8.Bxd7ch. Nbxd7 9.0-0
(9.dxc5 Bxc5 also offered White
nothing in Golombek-Bogol
yubov, Belgrade 1952.) 9 . . . Bd6
10.b3 0-0 1 1 .Bb2 Re8 12. Rcl
Rc8 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Nb1 , 1/2-
1/2, Kurajica-Inkiov, Bor 1983;
4) 6.b3 Nc6 [6 . . . cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6
(7 . . . Nbd7! ?.) 8.Bb2 Be7 9.Bd3
dxc4 10. bxc4 Nxd4 1 1 .Nxd4 e5
1 2. Qa4ch. Bd7 1 3. Nb5 a6
14. Qb3 axb5 15.cxb5 0-0 is a
good way to gain equality for
Bl ack, Pachman-Botvinnik,
Munich 1958.] 7.Bb2 Bd6 8. Rcl
[The ECO recommends 8.dxc5
saying that White would then
have a slight edge.] 8 . . . cxd4
9. exd4 Qe7 10.Ne5 Ba3 =, Kan
Levenfish, Moscow 1935.
6 ...
Nc6
7 0-0 cxd4
Nbxd7 only offers White equal On 7 . . . Bd6 Nei in Inforant 15
chances, Donner-Nei, Beverijk
says White can gain an edge by
176
Odd and End
8.cxd5 exd5 9.dxc5 or 8.dxc5 This move is a bit more subtle
Bxc5 9 .a3. In the game Alekhine- then the imediate Nd2. White
Vidmar, Semmering 1926, White develops naturally and waits for
replied to 7 . . . Bd6 with 8. a3 but Black to play the usual . . . Nb7.
failed to get any real advantage: Only then, when his QN can no
8 . . cxd4 9. exd4 a5 10.Bd3 0-0 longer go to c6 [after a . . . c5 ad-
1 1 .Re1 b6 12.b3 Bb7 13.Bb2Ne7 vance.] will White play N.
14. Ne5 Ng6 15.Ndf3 Ne4. After 5.Bd3 Black has two plans:
8 exd4 Be7
B.l. 5,dxc4: B.2. 5 ... Nbd7.
9 a3 0-0
U
White' s game is preferable after
9 . . . dxc4 10. Nxc4, but according
to Keres 9 . . . a5! ? is possible.
10 c! += Ne4
And now the game Keres-Nei,
Tallinn 1973 was drawn after
1 1 . Qc2 Bf6 1 2. Rd1 Nxd4!
13. Nxd4 Nxf2 14.N2f3 Nxd1
15. Qxd1 e5 1 6. Nc2 e4, l/2- 1/2.
5 ... dxc4
Black makes this capture bfore
White can reply with Nxc4. Now
Black hopes to enter lines simila
to, or tanspose directly into, the
Me ran.
6 Bxc4 b5
6 . . . Nbd7 tansposes into lines
that stem fom 5 . . . Nb7 6.0-0
However Keres felt that 1 1 .Qc2 dxc4. See B. 2.
was inaccurate and that 1 1 .Bd3! 7 Bd3 a6
would grant White some advan
tage. His aalysis runs: 1 l . . . Bf6
[ 1 1 . . .f5 12. b4 +=.] 12.Nxe4 dxe4
13.Bxe4 Nxd4 14.Rb1 += .
.l
5 Bd3 #1 2.4
8 a4
8. Nc3 Nbd7 tansposes into nor
mal Meran positons while 8.e4
c5 9 .e5 Nd5 1 O.dxc5 Bxc5 1 1 .0-0
Bb7 12. Qe2 Nd7 13.Re1 Be?
14.Bd2 b4 was about even in
Sofevski-Sveshnikov, Plovdiv
1973.
8 ...
9 0-0
10 e4
Bb7
Nbd7
Be7
Semi-Slav Defense
177
11 BgS
h6
1 1 . . .0-0! ? should be looked at.
12 Bh4 0-0
13 Qe2
ReS
14 Nbd2 NbS
15 Bg3 Nxg3
16 hxg3 Nb6?!
Better was 16 . . . b followed by
. . . c5 when White would only be
slightly btter.
17 b3 Bb4?!
1S Rfc1 Nd7
19 eS Qb6
20 Ne4 RedS
21 Qe3! cS?
Better is 21 . . . Be7 though White
would still be winning ater22. a5
Qa7 23.g4 c5 24.g5.-Georgadze.
22 dxcS
NxcS
23 NxcS BxcS
24 RxcS bxa4
25 bxa4
1 -0, Lein-Raicevic, Hastings
1979/80.
U 5 ... Nbd7
With Black' s Knight unable to
eventually go to c6, this is quite
an effective line and Black must
use great cae if he is going to
equalize. At times White may
wish to keep his options open and
play 6.0-0. In reply to this Black
has the following:
1) 6 . . . Ne4! ? 7. b3 [A solid option
to this is 7.Nc3 f5 8. Nd2 Bd69. f4
when White should have some
advantage, Razuvayev-Kaasev,
USSR ch. 1977.] 7 ... Bd6 8. Bb2
0-0 9.Nbd2 f5 10.Ne5 Nxd2
1 1 .Qxd2 Nxe5 1 2.dxe5 Be7
l . Qc2 Bd7 14.c5 Kh8 1 5.f4 Rf
1 6.Bd4 Qc7 17.Kh1 Rg8 1 8.g4
h6 19. Rg1, White is frmly in
control, Vyzmanavin-Zijatdi
nov, Tashkent 1985;
2) 6 . . . dxc4 7.Bxc4 Bd6 [Also
common is 7 . . . b5 8. Bd3 a6 9.e4
(White also got nothing with 9. a4
b 1 O.e4 c5 1 1 .B g5 Be7 12. Nd2
cxd4 13.Nc4 h6 14.Bh4 0-0
6 Nbd2 #1 2.5
1 5. Nxd4 Bb7 1 6. e5 Ne4
^
17 .Bxe7, 1/2- 1/2, Frias-Salazar,
Santiago 1981 .) 9 . . . c5 (9 . . . Bb7?!
10.e5 Nd5 1 1 .Ng5! is i n White' s
favor, Romani shi n-Klovan,
USSR ch. 1975.) 10.e5 (Ro
manishin feels that White is
178
Odds and End
slightly better afer 10.d5 e5 16. Qe4, 1 -0, Lemer-Dolmatov,
1 l .a4 c4 1 2. Bc2. ) 10 . . . Nd5 Kutaisi 1978. This whole line
1 1 .Ng5?! (Better is 1 1 .Nc3.) startingwith 6.0-0dxc4 is closely
1 1 . . .Be7! 12.Qg4 cxd4 13. Nxe6? related to 5.Bd3 dxc4 (B. l . ) and
(White would only have a slight it doesn' t take much for them to
disadvantage after 13.Re 1 Nc5 tanspose into each other.
6 Be7
14. Bxh7 Bxg5! 15.Bxg5 Qc7 This is the most commonly seen
16.Bc2 d3 17. Bd1 f5! 1 8. Qf3 reply but it has a poor theoretical
Bb7. ) 13 . . . fxe6 14.Qxg7 Rf8 reputation. His other choices are:
1 5. Bxh7 Nc5 1 6. Qg4 Kd7! 1) 6 . . . dxc4 [Long thought to be
1 7. Qxd4 Rh8 1 8. Nc3 Bb7 dubious, but it is not easy to get a
19. Be4 Rh4! , Black is clearly meaningful advantage against it.]
better, Vadasz-Tompa, Hungary 7. Nxc4 c5 8.0-0 Be7 [8 . . . cxd4?
1977.] 8. Bd3 [It' s not clear what 9.Nxd4 a6 10.Bd2 Be7? 1 1 .Nc6!
White' s best move is here. For is terrible for Black since
example 8.Nc3 is possible and 1 l . . .bxc6 is met by 12.Ba5. Also
8. Bb3 0-0 9.Nbd2 c5 (9 . . . Bc7 good for White , though very
10.e4 += according to ECO.) complicated, was the game Dorf-
1 0. Qe2 cxd4 1 l . exd4 Nb6 man-Karasev, USSR 1 977,
12. Ne4 Be7 13.Nxf6ch. Bxf6 which went 8 . . . b5?! 9.Nce5 c4
14.Qe4 led to an edge for White 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 1 1 . Ne5 Qd5
in Keres-Nei, USSR 1960. In the 12.Be2 Bb7 13. f3! Nd7 14.e4
recent game Djuric-Smagin, Qd6 15.Bf4 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Qb6
Talinn 1986 White tied 8. Re1 ?! 17. a4 Rd8! 18.Kh1 f6 19.Bg3
but after 8 ... 0-0 9.e4 e5 10.Bg5 Rxd4 20.Qc1 a6! 21 .Bf Bc5
Re8 1 1 . dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 22. axb5 axb5 23. b4! Be7
1 3. Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Nc3 h6 15.Bh4 24.Qc3! and White went on to
b5 16.Bb3 a5 17.a4 b 1 8.Rd1 win.] 9.Qe2 0-0 10.Rd1 cxd4
Rd7 Black had achieved equal- 1 1 .exd4 b6 12. Bf4 Bb7 1 3.Rac1
ity.] 8 . . . c5 9. Re1 cxd4 10. exd4 0- Nd5 14.Bg3 N7f6 15.Nce5 and
0 1 1 .Nc3 b6 12.Bg5 Bb7 13. Qe2 White' s game is no more then
h6 14.Bh4 Be7 15.Rad1 Nd5? slightly preferable, Suetin-Dol-
Semi-Slav Defense
179
matov, Daugavpilis 1978;
2) 6 . . . Bd6 7. 0-0 [7. e4 dxe4 tans
poses into Chapter One.] 7 . . . 0-0
8.e4 [On 8.b3 Black has the ex
cellent move 8 . . . e5! , e.g. 9.cxd5
cxd5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 1 1 .Be2 Qe7
12.Bb2 Bf5 with equality, Wa
ter-Baumbach, East Gerany
1973. ] 8 . . . e5?! [This turs out
poorly. Best is 8 . . . dxe4 9. Nxe4
tansposing into Chapter One.]
9. cxd5 cxd5 10. exd5 exd4
1 1 . Nxd4 Nxd5 12.Bxh7ch. and
White has won a pawn, Botvin
nik-Riumin, USSR ch. 1931 ;
3) 6 . . . c5!
B
#12.6
[Theory gives this as Black' s best
move. Indeed, i he has a way to
equalize this is probably it.] 7.b3
[White's only rea ty for advan
tage. The game Alekhine-Soul-
tanbeieff, Folkestone 1933 con
tinued 7.0-0 Be7 8.cxd5 exd5
9.b3 cxd4 10.exd4 0-0 1 1 .Bb2
Re8 12.Ne5 Bb4! 13. a3 Bxd2
14.Qxd2 Ne4 15. Qc2 Qb6! 1 6. a4
Nxe5 17.dxe5, and now Black
could get complete equality by
17 . . . Bd7! (to meet 1 8.a5 by
. . . Qb4 without fearing Ra4.)
1 8. Bxe4 dxe4 with a probable
draw-Alekhine.] 7 . . . cxd4 [Clear
ing up the position somewhat.
Dubious is 7 . . . g6? 8.0-0 Bg7
9.Ba3! b6 10.cxd5 Nxd5 1 1 .Ne4!
when White had a signifcant
advantage, Petrosi an-Ivkov,
Yugoslavia-USSR match 1979.
Instead of 7 ... cxd4 a quite plau
sible move is 7 . . . Be7. An excel
lent illustation of how the White
side is handled was provided by
the game Benko-Siguronsson,
Caracas 1 970: 8. 0-0 (after
7 . . . Be7) 8 . . . 0-0 9. Bb2 b6 10. Qe2
Bb7 1 1 .Rfd1 Rc8 12. Rac1 Rc7
1 3.dxc5 Nxc5 1 4. Bc2 Qa8
15.Ng5! Ncd7 16.cxd5 Rfc8
17.dxe6! Rxc2 1 8.exd7 Nxd7
19. Rxc2 Rxc2 20.Qd3 Bxg5
21 . Qxc2 Bxg2 22. Qf5, 1-0.]
8. exd4 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10. Qe2 Be7
1 1 .Bb2 0-0 12. Rad1 [Black was
1 80
Odds and End
also all right after 12. Rac 1 Rc8
1 3. Ne5 Rc7 14. Qe3 Bd6 1 5.Qh3
Re8=, Lilienthal-Ebralidze,
USSR ch. 1937.] 12 . . . Re8 [Or
1 2 . . . Nh5 1 3.g3 g6 14.Rfe1 Rc8=,
Lutkov-Sakharov, USSR 1960.]
1 3. Ne5 Nf8 14.Ndf3 Bd6 15. Ng5
Re7 1 6. f4 h6=, Bobotsov
Mohrlok, Vrjacka Banja 1967.
7 0-0
Avangad 1983 Black tied 7 . . . c5
but he had a bad experience: 8. b3
cxd4 9.exd4 b6 10.Bb2 Bb7
1 1 . Qe2 0-0 12.Rad1 Rc8 1 3. Ne5
Nxe5? 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.cxd5
Bxd5 16. Ne4 Nc5? 17. Nf6ch.
gxf6 1 8.Qg4ch. , 1-0.
s b3!
8.e4 dxe4 is Chapter Three.
s OOO b6
Also very goodis 7.b3 b6 8.0-00-
9 e4
0 9.Bb2 Bb7 10. Qe2 c5 [or 9.Bb2 would tanspose into the
10 . . . a5 1 1 . a4 Bb4 12.e4 dxe4 note to White' s 7th move. The
1 3. Nxe4 with advantage for
White, Alekhine-Bogolj ubov,
Match 1 934.] 1 1 .Rad1 Qc7
1 2. Ne5! [Stonger than the game
Hort-Honfi, Kecskemet 1966,
where Black equalized after
1 2. e4 dxe4 1 3 . Nxe4 Rab8
14.Rfe1 Rfe8.] 12 . . . Rad8 1 3.f4
Ne4 14.cxd5 exd5 15. Nxe4 dxe4
16. Bc4 Nf6? [Better is 16 . . . Nxe5
though White is still better after
17. fxe5 Bd5 1 8. dxc5.] 17. dxc5
Bxc5 1 8.Nxt! , +-, O' Kelly
Kottnauer, Amsterdam 1950.
7 N 0-0
White is better ater 7 . . . dxc4
8. Nxc4 c5 9. e4, Balashov-Fichtl,
Novi Sad 1975. In the game
Mikhalchisin-Schmidt, Porz-
text is a sharper attempt to crsh
Black.
9 BB
Ba6
10 Qc2 g6
11 Re1 ReS
12 Bb2 cS
13 exdS exdS
14 Rad1 cxd4
.15 Nxd4
ReS
Semi-Slav Defense
1 81
16 Bxg6! !
17 Ne6
18 Qxg6ch
19 Rxe6
20 Bxf6
21 Qh6ch
22 Qg7ch
23 Bxd8
hxg6
fxe6
Kf
Bc5
Rxe6
K
Ke8
and Whi te soon won,
Vyzmanavin-Gusinov, Tashkent
1985.
don' t put much pressure on
White:
1) 4 . . . Bd6 5. Bxd6 Qxd6 6.e4
dxe4 7.c5 Qe7 8. Nxe4 Nf6
9. Nd6ch. Kd8 1 0. Nf3 Ne8
1 l . Nc4 b5 12.Na5 Qc7 1 3.Qd2
Nd7 14. Ne5 Nxe5 1 5. dxe5ch.
Ke7 16.Qd6ch. Qxd6 17.cxd6ch.
Kd7 1 8. Rc1 , Miles-Or. Troger,
Porz 1981 . White scored a quick
victory;
2) 4 . . . Nf6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Be7
Whiteplay4.Bf4!?. 7.Nfdxc4 8.Bxc4Nd5 9.0-00-0
ld4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bf!? 1 0. Qe2 N7f6 1 l . Be5 Nxc3
#12. 8
White sacrifices a pawn [tempo
raly! ?] with the usual aspira
tions of quick development and
pressure on the Black position.
4 &&& dxc4
The only way to challenge
White' s system. Other moves
12.bxc3 c5 13.Rfd1 Bd7 14.dxc5
Bxc5 15. Ng5 Be7 16.Rab1 Qc8
1 7. Qd3 Rd8 1 8. Bxf6 Bxf6
19. Qxh7ch. Kf8 20.Qh8ch. Ke7
21 .Qh5 g6 22.Qh4 Qc5 23.Nxe6
Qe5 24.Qh7 Rh8 25.Rxd7ch.
Kxd7 26. Qxf7ch. Be7
27.Rxb7ch. Kc6 and Black re
signed, 1-0, Garcia Palero
Bonsch, Havana 1986.
5 e3
5. a4! ? may b more accurate:
5 . . . Bb4 6.e3 Nf6 [6 . . . b5 tans
poses into an inferior subva
ation of the main lines, i.e. 7 .axb5
axb5 8. Qf Qd5 9.Qg3 etc.]
7. Bxc4 Nd5 8. Ne2 Nxf4 9.Nxf4
+=, Andrianov.
1 82 Odd and Ends
5 ... bS
6 a4 Nf6! ?
It is not yet clear what Black's
best move is: here are his choices:
1 ) 6 . . . Bb4? 7.axb5 cxb5 8. Qf
Qd5 9.Qg3 is embarassing for
Black;
2) 6 . . . Bd7 can be met by 7 .Be2 or
even 7. Nf3. However 7. Qf? is
well answered by 7 ... Qa5;
3) 6 . . . b4 [The most commonly
seen reply but probably a ms
take.] 7. Ne4 [Christiansen is of
the opinion that 7 . N 1 is stonger
and defnitely good for White.
The game Miles-Dlugy, London
1982 seemed to bear this out:
7 . . . Bd6 8. Bxd6 Qxd6 9. Nd2 Ba6
10. Qg4 K 1 1 .Bxc4 Nf6 12. Qe2
Bxc4 1 3.Nxc4 Qd5 14.Nf Nbd7
1 5. 0- 0 Qh5 1 6. Rac l Ke7
17. Nce5 Nxe5 1 8.dxe5 Nd5
19. e4 Nb6 20.Qd2, 1-0. ] 7 . . . Ba6
[Very complicated is 7 . . . Qd5! ?
8. Nd2 c3 9.bxc3 bxc3 10. Ndf
Bb4 1 1 .Qc2 Nf6 12. Bd3 Ba6
1 3. Ne2Bxd3 14.Qxd3 0-0 15.0-0
Ne4 (Black seems to be doing all
right but he gets slaughtered in
the next fewmoves! ) 16.Be5 Nd2
17. Ng5 g6 18. e4 Qd8 19. Nxh7
Nd7 20.Qh3 Nxe5 21 .dxe5 Kg?
22.Nxf8 Qxf8 23.Rfe1 and White
went on to win, Groszpeter
Hofmann, Lugano 1984.] 8. Nf3
Nf6 9. Nxf6ch. gxf6 10. Rc1 c3
1 1 . Bxa6 Nxa6 1 2. 0-0 Bd6
13.Bxd6 Qxd6 1 4.bxc3 Rb8
15. Nd2 Ke7 16.Qe2 Nc7 17. Nc4
Qd7 18. cxb4 Nd5 19.e4 Nxb4
20. Rfd1 Rhg8 21 .g3 Kf8 22.Ne3
[White is obviously better but the
way he finishes his opponent off
is rather pleasing.] 22 . . . Rg5
23.Ng4 Qe7 24.h4 Rg6 25. Qf
Kg? 26.Rc5 Rd8 27 .h5 Rg5
28. h6ch. Kh8 29.Rxg5 fxg5
30.Nf6 a5 31 .Kg2 Qf8 32.e5 Nd5
33.Nxd5 cxd5 34.Qf6ch. Kg8
35.Rh1 , 1-0, Christiansen-Bis
guier, Bermuda 1986;
4) 6 ... Qb6! ? To our knowledge
this very logica move has only
been played i one game: 7. Qf3?
bxa4! and Black already had a
clear advantage since 8. Ra2 Qb3
9.Bxb8 Rxb8 10.Qxc6ch. Bd7
1 1 . Qxc4 a3 is winning for Black,
Epishin-Boiman, Krasnodar
1982. I White can' t fnd a good
reply to 6 . . . Qb6 then 5.a4 will
have to be tied.
7 axbS
8 NxbS
cxbS
Bb4ch.
Semi-Slav Defense
1 83
9 Nc3 Nd5
10 Qc2
Bb7
According to Nogueiras, even
better is 10 . . . Nxf4 1 1 . Qa4ch.
Nc6 12. Qxc6ch. Bd7 13. Qxc4
Nd5 with good compensation for
the sacrificed pawn.
11 Nh3
1 1 .Bg3! ?.
11 ... Nxf4!
12 Nxf4 Bd6
13 Bxc4 Bxf4
14 Qa4ch?!
Better i s 14.exf4 Qxd4 15.Ne2
Qb6 with equality.
14 ...
15 exf4
16 Bd3
Nd7!
0-0
Christiasen-N ogueias, Du bai
(ol) 1986, ad now 1 6 . . . Bxg2!
17.Rg1 Bd5 is clearly better for
Black-Nogueiras.