Tips The Queens Bishop Attack Revealed

The Queen's Bishop Attack
Revealed
James Plaskett
BATSFORD
First published in 2005
© James Plaskett
The right of James Plaskett to be identified as Author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
ISBN 0713489707
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form
or by any means without permission from the publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by

Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers
B.T. Batsford Ltd,

The ChrysaliS BUilding
Bramley Road,
London, WIO 6SP
www.chrysalisbooks.co.uk
Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,

387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 100 16, USA
An imprint of chrysalifBOokS Group pic
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Series Editor: Daniel King

Batsford Chess Consultants: Malcolm Pein, Daniel King and Jimmy Adams
Contents
Introduction 5
First Moves 7
Heroes and Zeros 12
Strategy 30
What's Hot? 75
Tricks and Traps 150
Test Positions 187
Solutions 199
Details 213
Before the Fight 217
Definitions of Symbols 219

4
Introduction
The Queen's Bishop Attack or Pseudo-Trompowsky is a great way to

take your opponent out of his familiar territory. Indeed, if he has filled
himself full of Slav or Queen's Gambit theory, he will probably be too
bloated to respond with the necessary dexterity to 2 Bg5!
In any case, one thing is for sure - you will be better prepared than
your opponent, as this is the first book devoted to 2 Bg5.
It follows the typical pattern of the 'Revealed' series. First of all we

establish the starting moves of the Queen's Bishop Attack. Then we
gaze with admiration at the work of its greatest exponents, giving our
greatest bow to the arch maverick Julian Hodgson. In passing we
might even have a quick laugh at World Champion Euwe losing in 10
moves. After that, it is time to get a bit more serious. The Strategy
chapter deals with the basics of the struggle after White takes the
black knight on f6; then there follows a detailed look at the cutting
edge mainline in the 'What's Hot?' chapter. Next is 'Tricks and Traps'
which discusses what happens when Black tries to embroil you in the
sharpest lines that counterattack against d4. Finally, it is over to you -
how well do you understand the opening? Try your luck with the Tests
section.
Although most of the players who buy this book will be intending to
learn how to play it from the white side, I have been objective in my
assessments. I haven't pretended it is a forced win for White, in the
style of some so-called 'Repertoire' books. Here you get the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Good luck with the opening - I hope you use it to score a lot of
points!
5
6
First Moves
The Queen's Bishop Attack begins with the moves I d4 d5 2 .Jtg5 to

stake out some central control and open up developmental pathways.
Wherein, you might say, White 'anticipates' the deployment of the

knight to f6! It has been variously dubbed The Pseudo-Trompowsky,
The Lewitsky and The Chameleon. The opening has not achieved the
same level of popularity as the related idea of I d4lt)f6 2 .tg5: the
Trompowsky. Nonetheless, it has often featured in the games of noted
Trompowsky practitioners, such as Chepukaitis, Miles, Hodgson,
Adams, Akopian, Lputian, Miladinovic, Rogers, Torre, Lobron, etc.
Indeed, I once witnessed the late GM Eduard Gufeld play Black against
the inveterate Hodgson in a rapid play event in Hastings, 1995.
Knowing the Englishman's tendencies, he responded to I d4 with a
grin and 1... d6. The chuckling Hodgson still trotted out his 2 .tg5 (!),
and won. As with 'The Tromp', it may create lively and unusual
7
First Moves
situations from the earliest moves. Players of the black pieces hoping
for a Queen's Gambit may find their preparation sidestepped at move
two. But, one of the problems with pinning a 'ghost' knight thus is
that Black may manage to steer around any structural or tactical
complications whatsoever which might result from ...tDf6, and
engineer a solid formation akin to a Slav variation of the Queen's
Gambit Declined. This has proven to be one of the most popular
responses to the Queen's Bishop Attack. It has, however, been seen
more in recent years than the not unrelated Veresov System: I d4 dS
2 tDc3 tDf6 3 ~gS. Here, for starters, is a recent victory in this
opening by an 1M over a British Candidate Grandmaster.
N.Povah White
A.Ledger Black
4NCl British Team Championship 2003
I d4 d5 2 ~g5 c5
One of several viable alternatives.
3 dxc5
3 e4!? has also been tried here, leading play at times into something
akin to an Albin Counter Gambit with colours reversed. 3 c3 ought to
be no big deal, although Miladinovic did beat the strong GM Tiger
Hillarp-Persson with it at Ohrid, 200 I .
3......a5+
8
First Moves
This move has not fared as well in practice as either 3... ttJc6 or even
3.. .f6!? In the latter instance the game Chepukaitis-Aleksandrov,
Petrov Memorial 2002, went 4 .i.h4 e5 5 e4!? dxe4 6 'ifxdS+ ~dS
7 ttJc3 .i.xc5 S ttJxe4 i.e7 9 0-0-0+ i.d7 with unclear play.
4 ttJcl
Much better than the 4 c3 of Miladinovic-Stanojoski, European Team

Championship, Ohrid 200 I when 4 ...'ifxc5 left Black untroubled.
4 •••e6 5 e4!
S•••hcs
On 5... dxe4? Black is lost because of 6 b4! when his queen must keep
covering dS, and after 6 ... 'ifc7 7 ttJb5! 'ifd7 S 'ifxd7+. The fork at c7
may not be allowed either, so we would have 8. ..~xd7 9 0-0-0+ ~c6
10 %:tdS ttJd7 I I ttJxa7 + and wins.
6exdS
If there is a route to equality for Black from here, then it is not

obvious.
6•••'ii'b6 7 'ifd2
7 i.b5 + i.d7 was less promising.
7 •••.bf2+?
The consistent move, otherwise how to regain the pawn? But Povah
9
First Moves
now excellently exploits his development lead and attacking

possibilities.
8 'iIIxf2 'iIIxb2 9 'it>d2!
9 •••'illxa I I 0 tiJfJ tiJd7

On 10... ii.d7 I I tiJe5 f6 12 dxe6 is strong.
II dxe6
Although here II tiJe5 is accurately met by 11 ... tiJgf6.
11 •••fxe6 12 :'gl!
Moving the rook to a protected square so his king's bishop is freed to

move.
12•••'ilfb2 13 ii.bS tiJgf6
On 13 ... 'illb4 White continues the strong pressure with 14 'iWe3.

Now he insists on keeping the black king in the centre where it poses
a natural object for attack, whilst simultaneously setting up threats to
the queen.
14.bf6! gxf6 15 'iIIeS!
Threatening 16:'b I .
IS •••..t>f7 16 'ifd6!
An accurate move. 16 .txd7 lId8 17 l:[b I does not snare the queen
because of 17...Ld7 + and 18... 'iIIxc2.
10
First Moves
16•••lDb6
17lDeS+!
Another precise choice. Not 17 :bl? because of 17.. :iVxbS! and

18...lDc4+ and he escapes again.
17•••fxeS 18:fI + ~g6 19 .i.d3+ Wh6 20 :f6+
A blistering smash from Nigel Povah.
1-0
II
Heroes and Zeros
Grandmaster of Disaster
Studying the praxis of an outstanding exponent of a particular system

may prove one of the best ways for the student to deepen his own
understanding of it, even with an opening like the Queen's Bishop
Attack which can generate a whole variety of different types of
middlegame. Four times British Champion, Julian Hodgson presents as
heroic a figure as any in the pantheon of the Queen's Bishop Attack.
He has beaten some of the world's best with it and frequently added
interesting, innovative ideas to the theory.
He has also left behind for us (he retired from active play in his early
forties) an oeuvre of beautiful and often highly original and distinctive
games. Many of these featured the Queen's Bishop Attack. Sometimes
he is found on the white side of technical and strategical games. More
often his name here is associated with wildly creative and speculative
attacks.
Here are two instances of the 'Grandmaster of Disaster' in action.
J.Hodgson White
O.Kirsanov Black
London Open 200 I
I cf4 dS 2.tgS c6 3ltJf3 .tfS 4 c4 dxc4?!

Unless Black is going to try to hang on to this pawn then ceding
control of the centre in this manner makes little sense. But attempting
12
Heroes and Zeros
to keep the pawn in such a Slavonic setting. where White is already

ahead on development. is very dangerous. as Hodgson demonstrates
in inimitable fashion.
5 ttJcl h6 6 ~h4 b5 7 e4 ~h7 8 a4 b4
All in Slav mode. But Julian did not obligingly shift his prodded horse.
9~xc4!
In the 19305. Alekhine once sprung a similar novelty in a World

Championship match game against Euwe. that one being in a Slav
mainline.
9 ••.g5
If 9 ... bxc3 then White has a strong attack with 10 ttJe5 .l\.g6 II 'iib3.
amongst other continuations.
10 ttJe5! e6 II he6!
Brilliant.
11 .••bxcl
II...fxe6 12 ~5+ ~e7 13 'ii'f7+ ~d6 14 ttJc4 mate.
12 .bf7 + rJi;e 7 Il 'ii'bl
Chess can be a fun game.
Il ••JWc8 14 ~h5
Another mate threat.
13
Heroes and Zeros
14••JWe6 15 Wb4+ "'d6 16 ""'7+ 4:Jd7 17 4:Jxc6+ "'xc6

She either dies here or to a pawn fork at e5.
18 "'xc6 4:Jgf6 19.tf3

Not wishing to encounter any tricky nonsense after 19 "'xa8 .txe4
20 "'xa7 cxb2.
19•••cxb2 20 l::tbl l:tb8 21 .tg3 l:tb6 22 "'c2 g4 23 as! l:te6 24 dS!

Non-stop tactics from this man.
24•••he4 25 .txe4l:txe4+ 26 ~I 'M7 27 "'xb2 .tcS 28 h3l:the8

29 hxg4 CiJxg4 30 "'bS 4:Jgf6 31 l:txh6.td4 32 d6 ~g7 33 "'gS+ cM7
34 "'g6+ We6 1-0
The next game is also a whirlwind of tactics from start to finish.
J.Hodgson White
G.Roeder Black
Bad Woerishofen 1995
I d4 dS 2 .tgS cS 3 e4 dxe4 4 dS h6 5 .tf4 4:Jf6 6 4:Jc3 a6 7 a4 e6 8

.tc4 .td6 9 4:Jge2 exdS?
9 ...e5 has to be a better bet. This allows White's men in.
10 4:JxdS .txf4 I I 4:Jexf4 O-O? 12 4:Jg6! 4:JxdS 13 lbxf8
Essentially this sequence wins the exchange, but Black hoped to find a
clever way out.
13 ......aS+ 14 c3 4:Jb6? 15 .txf7+!
14
Heroes and Zeros
IS ••• ~ 16 'ifhS+ ~ 17 b4
Trapped! Again and again one sees these unusual and viable ideas in
the games of Hodgson.
17..•.tg4 IS 'ii'eS!
Of course. The rest was not difficult.
IS•••'ii'xa4 19 %ha4 ltJxa4 20 'ii'f4 + '.tgS 21 'ii'xg4 tbc6 22 'ii'xe4 ~hS

23 'ii'e3 cxb4 24 cxb4 tbxb4 25 0-0 as 26 h3 b6 27 l:td I tbcS 2S l:.d6
a4 29 'ii'd4 a3 30 l:txh6+ ~gS 31 'ii'c4+ Wf8 32 I:thS+ '.te7 33 :xaa
"The games of Julian Hodgson are rich and strange, like erotic
dreams." Well, that one turned me on.
1-0
Having honoured its greatest champion, we shall now trace the

history of the opening up until the present day.
Alekhine comes unstuck
According to my database, I d4 d5 2 .tg5 was played for the first

time in 1880 at the 5th US Congress at New York by Preston Ware
against James Grundy. However, the first well known player to make a
mark with it was future World Champion Alexander Alekhine, who
used it to beat Fritz Englund at Scheveningen in 1913. Unluckily for
Alekhine, his loss the following year against Bernhard Gregory was far
more exciting and this is the game I've chosen to give here.
A.AIekhine White
Gregory Block
St Petersburg 1914
I d4 dS 2 .tgS 'iVd6!?
15
Heroes and Zeros
Perhaps a sensible response to the Queen's Bishop Attack, but still a

rarity.
llLlcl
In my opinion, Hodgson reacted better against Andreas Schmidt in the

German Bundesliga of 2002 with the gambit 3 c4. Indeed Black found
himself very rapidly lost after 3... dxc4 4 lLlc3 eS? 5 dxeS 'iVxd I + 6
lb:d I i.e7 7lLln i.xgS (7... c6) SlLlxgS i.d7 9 e3 h6 10 lLlge4 lLlc6
I I lLlcS lLlxeS? 12 lidS! f6 13 f4 i.c6 (13 ... c6 14 lId6 maintains the
attack on d7 and wins) 14 fxeS i.xdS 15 lLlxdS and soon 1-0.
l •••c6
I would prefer 3...i.f5 here, to avoid the effect of the 4 e4 gambit.

This occurred in a 19S9 Nordic game, Bathke-Zahnelsen, where after
4 e3 cS 5 lLln lLld7 6 i.d3 play was balanced.
Torre-G.Giorgadze from the 2000 Istanbul Olympiad saw an

extraordinary escapade following 4lLln i.fS 5 e3lLld7 6lLlh4 e6
(6 ...i.g6!?) 7 i.f4 'ii'b4 SlLlxfS 'iVxb2!? 9lLlxg7 + i.xg7 I0 ~d2 eSt?
I I lib I 'iVa3 12 'iVg4!? 'iVf8 13 i.xeS lLlxeS 14 dxeS i.xeS 15 lb:b7
lLlf6 16 'iVfS i.xc3 + 17 ~c3 lLle4+ IS ~b2 'iVg7 + 19 ~c I 0-0
20 'iVf4 'iVa I + 21 lib I 'iVc3 22 lIb3 'iVa I with repetition. But not via
your average route. Frankly, I am very surprised that neither Torre nor
Alekhine ventured the gambit 4 e4 dxe4 SlLlxe4 'iVb4+ 6 c3, which
obviously yields White loads of play. I am sure that was the best move
here, and the one and only chance that was to come White's way in
this game.
16
Heroes and Zeros
4 ••• ~f5 5 tLlfJ
5 f3!? e6 6 e4 .li.g6.
5 ...tLld7 6 0-0-0 e6 7 tLlh4
A1ekhine may have hoped to scare his opponent, but he gets hit by a
whirlwind sequence of tactical, and strategical, surprises.
7 ...tLlgf6 8 fJ h6!? 9 .li.f4 'iib4 10 ttJxf5 exf5 II .e3+
11 ...~d8!!
A superb recognition that White's clogging of his own pathways

counts for more than the forfeiture of castling rights.
12 .d3 tLlb6! 13 a3
13 .xf5? tLlc4 annoys.
13....a5 14 e4
14 .xf5 ~xa3! also annoys.
14...tLlc4!
Threatening 14....li.xa3!.
15 tLlbl
Remarkably, there was no better move.
15 ...tLlh5!?
17
Heroes and Zeros
16.i.eS?!
On 16 ~d2 'it'b6 17 .i.c3?? tiJf4 traps his queen. It would be better to

continue 17 'it'c3 with a sharp game.
16...~e7!
Threatening a disruptive check at gS.
17 h4 f4!?
Strategically this move is fighting on the new weakness at g3. The less
profound idea is to trap the bishop with .. .f6.
18 exdS cxdS 19 'it'fS
Seeking salvation in complications.
19••• tiJgl 20 "'xf7 :tf8!

20 ... tiJxh I? 22 ~xc4 dxc4 23 ~xg7 was not so good.
21 'it'e6 tiJel!
18
Heroes and Zeros
Maintaining the grip. It is very rare to see knights sunk into sixth rank
outposts with such effect. Only my game with Shipov from the 2000
Hastings tournament springs to mind: I e4 cS 2 ttJc3 d6 3 f4 ttJc6
4 ttJf3 g6 S .ltbS .ltd7 6 0-0 .ltg7 7 d3 a6 S .ltxc6 .ltxc6 9 '1t;h I 'iid7
10 'iie2 fS? I I ttJdS ftdS 12 ttJgS ttJf6 13 ttJb6 "ilc7 14 ttJc4 fxe4
IS ttJe6 "ilcs 16 fS ltgS 17 ttJb6
22 i.d6lte8 23 .ltd3 :le8!
The bind is far more valuable than an exchange.
24 :lhe 1 'iib6!
Forcing the reply.
25 i.xe7+ l:xe7 26 "ilxb6+
The only option was to hide the queen at h7. but that would have not
have worked because of 26 'iigS+ '1t;d7 27 "ilh7 gS when White
would. at least. suffer a loss of the exchange.
26•••axb6 27 :ld2 ttJxe2! 28 l:xe7 ttJxd4+ 29 ttJe3 '1t;xe7 30 '1t;d 1 ttJb3!

31 l:[c2
On 31 tiJxdS+ 'iiid6 32ltc2 :Xc2 White will lose on 33 hc2

(33 'iiixc2 ttJd4+) 33 ...'1f;xdS 34 i.xb3+ ~d4 when the still dominant
black pieces decide. e.g. 3S ~e I ttJfS 36 hS ttJe3 37 '1t;f2 ttJc4. etc.
31 •••lte5 32 tiJa4 l:xc2 33 ~e2 ttJd4+ 34 ~e3 ttJdfS 35 ttJxb6 ~d6 36

.ltxf5 ttJxfS 37 h5 '1t;e6
19
Heroes and Zeros
The theme of domination extends right unto the end of this game.
Now 38 ttJa4 bS traps the knight, so the future World Champion tries
to hide it elsewhere, but unsuccessfully.
38 ttJc8 b5
With ... <it>b7 coming.
39 ~b4 <it>b7 40 <it>xb5 <it>xc8 41 a4 <it>c7 42 as ~d6 43 b4 ttJd4+

44 ~b6 ttJe6 45 a6 d4 46 b5 d3 47 ~a7 ttJc5 48 b6 ttJd7 49 b7 d2
50 <it>aa dl ='ji' 51 a7 'ji'd5 0-1
An unknown victory over Alekhine which plays through like something

from the modern era, and a game of deep and impressive originality
where one might have been mistaken for thinking him the player of
the black pieces. Black's ingenuity and wizardry put me in mind of the
only other famous Gregory in St Petersburg around that time:
Rasputin.
A famous player who was to be a great rival of Alekhine fell victim to

the opening in the following gamelet:
Future World Champion demolished in ten moves
G.Oskam White
M.Euwe Black
Amsterdam, 1920
I d4 d5 2 ..tg5 ..tfS 3 ttJIJ ttJf6 4 c4 e6 5 e3 h6?
20
Heroes and Zeros
Safer was 5 ...c6.
6.bf6 'ii'xf6?
Now 6 ...gxf6 was imperative.
7 'itb3!
Already Black is in deep trouble as there is no good way to defend b7

and d5.
7 •..'iJc6 8 'ii'xb7 ~d7 9 cxdS
But not of course 9 "iixa8?? ..tb4+.
9 •••exdS 10..tbS 1-0
There is no good answer to the threat of I I ttJe5 +.
Here we see the enormous value of taking a well prepared opponent

out of his familiar opening channels. I doubt that Mr. Oskam would
have beaten Euwe in ten moves in the Slav mainline.
The Welder from St. Petersburg
The late Saint Petersburg Master, Genrikh Chepukaitis (1935-2004)

who fIVe times won the Championship of his city, was a wondrous
exponent of blitz chess, and also a great lover of I d4 d5 2 ..tg5 which
he liked to call 'The Mongrel'. He was little known in the West as he
was an amateur who worked his whole life as an electric welder, but
he played many blitz games on the Internet Chess Club as SmartChip.
21
Heroes and Zeros
G.Chepukaitis White
A.Praslov Black
St Petersburg Championship 1999
I d4 d5 2 1i.g5 g6 3 e3 1i.g7 4 ttJci2 lL'ld7 5 c3 lL'lgf6 6 f4
White employs a Stonewall versus the fianchetto of the black king's

bishop.
6 •••c5 7 lL'lgfl 'iVb6 8 l:tb I
8 •••lL'lg4
Sighting an odd tactic, he goes for it!
9 'ife2 'ife6 I 0 lL'le5

He could have tried 10 e4, I suppose, but elects for this.
IO •••lL'ldxe5 I I fxe5 f6 12 exf6 exf6 13 1i.f4 g5 14 1i.g3 ttJxe3 15 dxc5

f5 16 'iVh5 + ~d8
16 .. .'ii'g6 may have been a smarter alternative.
171i.f2
Cool as you like! SmartChip challenges Black to show that he can

profit from the white king's current predicament.
17•••lL'lg4+ 181i.e2l:te8
22
Heroes and Zeros
190-0!
The tables turn! At the cost of a bishop White is able to demonstrate

that the black king has his problems too.
19•• .'ii'xe2 20 l:tbe 1 . 5 21 h3 liJf6 22 'ii'xg5 'ii'd7 23 ii.d4
A monster pin.
23 ...'ii'f7 24liJf3 l:[e4 25 he4 dxe4 26liJh4 h6 27 'ii'd2 <itfeS 2slbxfs

ii.xfS 29 lhf5
Two pawns for the piece and threats and a continuing initiative against
Black's disorganised game and loose king.
29 •••l:tcS30 'ii'f4 l:tc631 'ii'bS+ <itfd7 32 'ii'xb7+ l:tc7 33 c6+ <itfe6

34 'ii'b5 <itfe7 35 ii.c5 + <itfe6 36 g4 1-0
A sweet game from the Old Master.
The English Connection: Tony Miles
The late great English GM Tony Miles had a marked fondness for
openings which involved an early deployment of his queen's bishop,
such as the London System, Torre and Trompowsky. He had a
resounding success when he used I d4 d5 2 ii.g5 to grind down the
young Kramnik and thereby knock him out of the PCNlntel
tournament of 1995. It is rare for fans to get over emotional at chess
events in London, but Miles was applauded off the stage. At Hastings
that same year he demonstrated once again his ability to wear down a
formidable opponent.
23
Heroes and Zeros
A.Miles White
M.Sadler Black
Hastings 1995-96
I d4 dS 2 .JigS h6 3 .Jih4 c6 4 e3 'iib6 5 'ii'c I .JifS
You can find coverage of this variation in the What's Hot chapter,
on page I 12. Instead Kramnik preferred 5... e5 here for which see
page 123.
6 fiJf3 fiJd7 7 c4 e6 8 fiJc3 .Jie7 9 cS 'ii'd8 10 .Jig3 as!?
Noteworthy. Sadler declines transposition directly back into the main

lines and stops the white expansion in its tracks.
I I a3 a4 12 .lle2 fiJgf6 13 0-0 fiJe4 14 tbxe4 .Jixe4 15 'ii'c3 0-0

16 l:tfc I l:ta7!? 17 fiJeS tbxeS 18 .JixeS b6
19 .Jid6!? bxc5
19 ....Jixd6? 20 cxd6 favours White because of his use of the c-line.
20 'ii'xcs llb7 21 ~xe7 'ii'xe7 22 'ii'xe7l:txe7 23 f3 .Jig6 24 .Jidl l:ta7

25 lIc3 llb8
Dynamic equality!?
26 b4 axb3 27 l:txb3 l:txb3 28 hb3
Miles' greatest strength was always his technique. He hoped to

outclass the younger man in the ending.
24
Heroes and Zeros
28••• ~d3 29 a4 l:.b7 30 l:.a3 <M8 31 ~ rJiie7 32 ~el ~a6 33 rJiid2

~d6 34 ~c2 c5
Necessary before White trades bishops with .i.d3. The pure rook
ending, with White's rook behind his outside passed pawn, would
definitely be worse for Black.
35 l:.b3!? l:.xb3 36 ..bb3 .i.fl
36... c4 37 ~c2 and the white king SWiftly goes to b4 with advantage,
as his bishop keeps an eye on the passed c-pawn.
37 g3 e5 38 dxe5+ ~e5 39 .i.c2!? rJi;d6 40 .i.d3 ~xd3 41 ~d3
Black is lost. White's passed a-pawn drags away the defender's king.
White will then play e3-e4 forcing decisive inroads or generating a
second and decisive passed pawn. Sadler comes up with a counterplan
of mobilising two passed pawns of his own, but this proves
insufficient. In such situations it is impossible to generalise and the
player must use concrete calculation. Sometimes the connected
pawns prove the stronger, sometimes the separated ones.
41 ••• h5
For instance, on 41 .. .f5 42 e4 fxe4+ 43 fxe4 dxe4+ 44 ~e4 rJiic6

45 h4 rJi;b6 46 rJiid5 and wins.
42 e4 d4 43 f4 rJi;c6 44 h3 ~b6 45 e5 rJiia5 46 f5 ~b4 47 e6 c4+

48 ~c2 d3 + 49 rJi;cI! 1-0
25
Heroes and Zeros
The biggest name in the Queen's Bishop Attack
In 1991 on a train journey to the Lloyds Bank Masters in London,

Julian Hodgson taught the young Michael Adams how to play the
Trompowsky. He immediately became hooked and tried it at every
opportunity. Nowadays Adams, who ought to have become one of
the various types of World Champion in 2004, has a huge opening
repertoire after I e4 to choose from, but he remains the biggest
name to be associated with the Queen's Bishop attack.
M.Adams White
L. Van Wely Black
FIDE World Championship Knockout, Groningen 1997
I d4 dS 2 i.gS f6 l i.h4 ttJc6
A chunkier approach.
4el
4 ...ttJh6
It's striking still how uncharted these waters are. After 4 ... eS there is
little to gUide us. Miladinovic-Shabalov, Moscow Olympiad 1994
26
Heroes and Zeros
continued 5 .i.b5 exd4 6 exd4 a6 7 .i.d3?!. A dubious gambit.

7 ...ltJxd4! 8 tiJc3 tiJe7 9 tiJge2 and now 9 ...tiJdf5! would have left
Black clearly superior.
5.i.d3
I definitely prefer 5 c4 after Black has played the ungainly .. .f6 in a

Queen's Pawn Opening. 5 ...e6 is to be met with 6 tiJc3, or 5 ... tiJf5 by
6 cxd5 'ifxd5 7 tiJc3 'iff7 8 .i.g3 ttJxg3 9 hxg3 e5 I 0 d5 tiJb8 I I ':c I,
as in Vehi Bach-Alberdi, San Sebastian Open 1995, with White a little
better.
5 .••tiJf5 6 tiJO h5?!
Another galloping h-pawn.
7 .i.g3 tiJb4
7 ...g5 8 h3 is all obscure.
8 e4 dxe4 9 be4 g5 10 c3 tiJd5 1 1 h3 ttJxg3 12 .i.g6 + ~d7 13 fxg3
White emerges from the opening moves with the edge, as the black
king dances around.
13•••c6 14 c4
I think I would have developed with 14 'ife2. Adams gambits, but I do

not believe that he needed to in order to show superiority, and now
the play becomes very murky.
27
Heroes and Zeros
14.••ttJb6 15 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 16 'ii'f2!? lLJxe4 17 ttJe3 'ii'b6 18 0-0-0 <i;;e7

19 'ii'e2 ttJd6 20 ~b I as
20 ...l4h6!?
21 d5 a4
On 21 ... c5? White takes it with 22 ttJa4 and 23 lbxc5!.
22 dxe6 bxe6 23 'ii'e2 'ii'as 24 ttJd4!
The centralised position of his pieces and a huge advantage in

development make White's chances at least equal in the forthcoming
struggle. Luke van Wely weakened himself with his a-pawn advance.
24 •••.td7 25 ttJe4 e5 26 ttJe2 lLJxe4 27 .txe4 'ii'e5 28 ttJe3 .te7

29 ':el! l4a5 30 l4hdl
Note Michael's perfect co-ordination of his game.
30•••l:td8 31 'ii'e2 .te8 32 l:txd8 ~d8 33 a3
Perhaps over-finessing; just taking on a4 was perfectly strong.
33 .••.td6 34 'ii'fJ rtte7 35 'illS?!
Missing a faster way to finish the game with 35 :fl !.
35 •••'ii'e4
Probably time pressure, but on the superior 35 ...'ii'b6 White still

keeps the edge with 36 ':fl .txa3 37 'ii'xf6+ and 38 :f2.
28
Heroes and Zeros
36 ttxiS+ cxdS 37 :Xc4 dxc4 38 'ifh7+ ~d8 39 "g8+
With a decisive penetration.
39•••'it>e7 40 'ifxc4 lIcS 41 "g8 ~f1
Van Wely resigned as 41 ... ~f7 42 "ilh7 ~f8 43 .tg6 strips away his
defences since 43 ....te6 loses to 44 'ifh8+ ~e7 45 "ile8 mate, or
44 ... ~g8 45 ~h7.
29
Strategy in the
Queen's Bishop Attack
The Queen's Bishop Attack does not result in anything like as fixed a
pawn structure as arises normally in openings such as the French or
Benko Gambit.
Because the definition of the opening begins at the second move,

before piece and pawn placements are definite, any strategical
overview must look at a lot of different structures. Through
familiarisation with how Grandmasters have treated certain
formations we become better acquainted with the classical ways of
handling these situations. I have tried to isolate and then examine
some of the commoner structural themes through a survey of top
class games which illustrate generic possibilities.
Black's popular response involving c7-c6 and 'iib6 will be discussed in

the 'What's Hot?' chapter; sharp lines involving a delayed lDf6 are the
remit of the 'Tricks and Traps' chapter. Here we'll concentrate on the
pawn structure that arises after an early i.xf6 by White.
A couple of years ago, Genrikh Chepukaitis expressed the philosophy

behind 2 i.g5 in an interview on Chesscafe.com:
'The bishop-kamikaze is not like Lasker's desperado, a different

concept. I want to play I d4 on the first move, then to put my pawns
on dark squares - c3, e3 ... With this plan I make my bishop on cl a
kamikaze. I want him to die as soon as possible. So, I plan to bring it
to gS, and I am happy when I can exchange it... When you get rid of
your kamikaze bishop, your other bishop becomes a general. Do not
exchange it or your light squares will fall apart.'
30
Strategy in the Queen's Bishop Attack
The bishop gets to fulfil its kamikaze role as early as move three
after either I d4 dS 2 .tgS tiJf6 or the Trompowsky move order
I d4 tiJf6 2 .tgS dS
Now 3 i.xf6 disrupts Black's pawn structure and forces him to make
an important choice.
Part One: I d4 dS 2 .tgS tiJf6 l .txf6 exf6
With the recapture l ...exf6 Black has cleared the way for his bishop
on f8 to enter the game, and the kingside remains a solid residence
for his king. The f6 pawn guards the eS square or could equally
control e4 after f6-fS. In fact, after White plays e2-e3 the plucky
f-pawn could even be used for aggressive purposes with fS and f4.
The downside is that Black no longer has an e-pawn to challenge

White's control of the centre with e7-eS. Furthermore, from a more
defensive point of view, if White arranges c2-c4, the dS point cannot
be bolstered by e7-e6. In that scenario the dS pawn, if supported by
31
c7-c6, becomes isolated after the exchange c4xdS and recapture

c6xdS. Black could avoid the Isolated Queen's Pawn (IQP) with dSxc4,
but this involves conceding ground in the centre.
In the first game, Black readily accepted an IQP in return for active
piece play. White underestimated the dynamism in Black's set up and
the 'defective' doubled pawn on f6 came good.
J.Gallagher White
W.Unzicker Black
Bundesliga 1997-98
I d4 tiJf6 2 .JigS dS 3 i.xf6 exf6 4 e3 ie6 S tiJd2
GM Eric Lobron made the rare decision of taking play back into a line
of the Veresov System when he was faced with 4 ... .i.e6 in his game
with Klovans in 1998 and after S id3 tiJd7 6 tiJc3!? c6 7 'iff3 g6 8 e4
dxe4 9 'ifxe4 fS 10 'iff4 .i.g7 chances were level.
S•••cS
Alternatively S...c6 6 .Jid3 .i.d6 7 'iff3 tiJd7 8 tiJe2 g6 9 e4 0-0 10 0-0

'ifc7 I I h3 dxe4 12 ttJxe4 .i.h2 + 13 ~h I fS 14 tiJgS idS IS 'ife3
:ae8 16 'ifd2 h6 17 c4 hxgS 18 cxdS if4 (Before White goes g3)
19 tbxf4 gxf4 was unclear when two strong GMs, Agdestein and
Heine Nielsen met in the Bundesliga in 2000, although after errors
White won.
6 dxcS
32
A rarer but also strategically justifiable way. as White isolates dS.
6 •••i.xcS 7 tiJb3 ~b6 8 tiJf3 ttJc6 9 tiJfd4 0-0 10 ~e2 15 11 a4 f4!
The old guy was alert.
12 tDxc6 bxc6 13 exf4 W'f6
The regaining.
14 as j"c7 15 g3 W'xb2 16 0-0 ~d6
Black emerges quite comfy from the opening.
17 tiJd4?
Joe not at his best. 17 W'd3 was superior.
17...~h3
33
Winning the exchange, as 18 l:te I i.b4 19:tb I 'iVc3 still insists on the
win, unless White grovels pathetically with 20 ibn i.xa5.
18 tbxc6 i.xfl 19 i.xfl :tfc8 20 :b I 'ii'c3 21 ibd4 'iVxaS 22 :bS 'iVc7

23 .l:txdS i.cs
Wolfgang Unzicker made no mistake in wrapping this up.
24 ibfS l:td8 25 'iVg4 i.f8 26 i.c4 <t>h8 27 ibe3 llxdS 28 i.xdS lid8
29 'ii'fS 'ii'd7 30 'ii'hs <t>g8 31 c4 g6 32 'iVfJ i.g7 33 cS i.d4 34 c6 'iVd6
35 ibc4 'ii'xdS 36 c7
36•••.txfl+! 37 'ii'xfl lIc8 0-1
White had more success in restraining Black's activity in the next

game.
B.Gurgenidze White
E.Ubilava Black
Volgodonsk 1981
I d4 dS 2 i.gS h6 3 i.h4 cS 4 dxcS ibf6 5 i.xf6 exf6 6 e3 i.xcs 7 c3

0-0 8 ibd2 :e8 9 ibb3 i.b6
34
Some similar middlegame to Gallagher-Unzicker is shaping up, but

Gurgendize, whose very best games contain elements of genius,
handled it better.
10 .i.d3 tiJc6 I I tiJe2 .i.c7 12 .i.c2 g6 13 tiJbd4 a6 14 h3 'ifd6 15 'ii'd2

tiJe5
The use of the outpost at c4 for a knight is perhaps not as fully

appreciated as it ought to be by those who sometimes elect to play
with an isolated d-pawn as Black.
16 b3 tiJd7 17 g4 tiJc5 18 f3
Taking away the other outpost, too!
18....i.d7 19 0-0-0 :ac8 20 tiJf4
It is curiously awkward for the bishops to exert influence.
20•..tiJe6 21 tiJfxe6 he6 22 ~b2 .i.b6 23 f4 .i.d7 24 f5!
35
Gurgenidze alertly spots that this unusual thrust is here the apposite
continuation of his kingside developments.
24 •..g5 25 h4
Naturally.
25 •.• ~g7 26 :h3 'iVe5 27 :dhl :h8 28 b4!
Vacating a nice new post for the bishop.
28 ....tb5 29 .lib3 .tc4 30 .lixc4 dxc4 31 hxg5 hxg5
32 liJe6+
A nice tactic concludes matters.
1-0
Obviously, having an IQP isn't to everyone's taste. In the following

encounter the world's highest rated player preferred to concede the
d5 point in return for active piece play.
I.Rogers White
G.Kasparov Black
Europe-Asia, rapid play match, Batumi 200 I
I d4 liJf6 2 .tg5 d5 3 .txf6 exf6
Another transpositional arrival here.
36
4e3
4 •••.lld6 5 c4 dxc4 6 .i.xc4 0-0 7 ttJc3 f5
Better player makes the better decision about which bishop's pawn to
advance.
811Jf3
8 llJge2 led to equality in Hall-A.Sokolov, Bundesliga 2002 after

8...11Jd7 9 0-0 llJf6 10 g3 c6.
8 •••11Jd7
Here the purposeless move 8 ...g6?! would have almost taken us back
into a game Kasparov played himself, as White in a simultaneous
display in Germany in 2000 against D.Baramidze. That one concluded
9 0-0 0-0 10':'c I c6 I I 'iVc2 llJf6 12 ':'fd I 'iVe7 13 g3 .lle6 14 .i.xe6
'iVxe6 15 a3 Drawn.
9 0-0
37
When I got this position against the Uzbek, luldachev, in Dhaka, 1997,
play continued 9 'ifc2 4Jf6 10 h3!? 'ife7 II g4!? 4Je4 12 0-0-0 4Jxc3
bxc3 bS with great obscurity, from which I emerged the victor.
Nobody else proved sufficiently inebriate to copy that plan of g4 with
0-0-0 from here, although Miladinovic-Benderac, Cetinje 1993 saw
9 'ifc2 a6 10 h4!? (10 'ifxfS?? 4JeS wins) 10... bS I I ~d3 b4 12 4Ja4 g6
13 hS with some initiative. I would advocate ... 'ife7 and the planting of
the knight on e4 as the appropriate response to such demonstrations
on the kingside.
9 ••• 4Jf6 10 4JbS
Intending to put the knight to eS. Attempting a minOrity attack

brought White a tiny plus in Rusanov-Motylev, Saint Petersburg 2000,
after 10 'ifc2 a6 I I %:r.ab I 'ile7 12 a3 ~e6 13 ~xe6 'ifxe6 14 b4 %:r.fe8
IS %:r.fel.
I O••• ~e7 II 4JeS c6 12 4Jcl 4Jd7 Il f4!?
Rogers was later criticised for over-ambition, but I am not so sure

about that. His play here may have been correct, and the real reason
why he lost this game, as in the other he played against him in this
match, with the black pieces, was his opponent's being the greatest
chess genius ever. I 3 'iff3 ~d6 14 a3 f
Il ••• 4JxeS 14 fxeS g6 15 4Je2 bS!?
IS ... iLe6 16 ~xe6 fxe6 17 4Jf4 'it'd7 18 'it'b3 rJi;f7 was about equal.
But, as ever, Garry tries his utmost to extract all he can from a
pOSition.
38
16 .tb3 c5 17 tLlf4
17 d5 overextends and Black continues 17....tg5 18 tLlf4 'WeB when

undermining starts.
17•••.tb7
18 dxc5?
The critical moment. White probably misjudged the position arising

after move twenty-two. It was better to have kept the tension with
18 'ifd2.
IS•••.txc5 19 'ife2 'iWb6 20 e6
The consistent follow up, but Kasparov shows that Black can play
around the new f7 pawn and still show advantage. However, it is too
late to reverse policy, as if here 20 Jhe I %lfeB 21 tLld3, then Black
turns it into a Grunfeld proper with 21 ....tfB en route to g7, and the
white structure is wrecked.
20•••.txe3 + 21 'iith I .txt4 22 exf7 + 'iitg7 23 %W4 l:.adS
It turns out that white pawn on f7 can be handled, and the black
bishop is extremely strong on the diagonal aB-h I.
24:el
On 24 'ife5+ 'iff6 25 'ii'xf6+ 'iitxf6 26 l:.b4 %ld2 with domination.
24•••.te4 25 lhe4?!
39
The radical solution to his problems, but not wholly adequate, and he
might have done better with 25 h3.
25 •••fxe4 26 'iVxe4 'iVd4
Always centralisation.
27 'iVe2 'iVe5 28 h3 as 29 a3 ltd6 30:fI l:tf6 31 lhf6 ~6
32 'iVd2 a4 33 i.d5 rJi;g7 34 b4 'iVd6 35 'iVd4+ 'iVf6 36 'iVxf6+ rJi;xf6

37 i.e6
Or 37 rJi;gl rJi;e5 38 i.c6 ltxf7 39 i.xbSl:ta7 and wins. The greater

activity of the black king assists in the realisation of the advantage.
37•••:xt7 38 i.xb5 lta7 39 i.e6 'itte5 40 rJi;h2 rJi;d4 41 b5 rJi;cS
Now the king takes care of the passed b-pawn so that the rook may
go off to take on a3. The game soon ends.
42 ~g3 :tf7 43 <t>g4 :tf2 44 <t>g5 :tal 45 i.e8 :xu 46 b6 <it>xb6

47 ~h6 <t>a5 0-1
An interesting alternative approach for White is to fianchetto the

bishop on g2. This takes the sting out of any attack Black might be
envisaging on the kingside: for one thing, the black pawn lunge f5-f4
is deterred by the fact that White will have pawns on e3 and g3 both
guarding f4. And the bishop on g2 is of course a good defender.
40
T.Nguyen Ngoc White

K.Szabo Black
First Saturday Grandmasters, Budapest, December 2004
I d4 4Jf6 2 iLgS dS
In fact we get there by a transposition.
3 .i.xf6 exf6
Defining the structure. 4 4Jc3 would now go into a line of the Veresov
System (I d4 d5 2 4Jc3 4Jf6 3 iLg5).
4 e3 iLd6
In Anastasian-Solak, Panormo Zonal 1998, Black equalised after

4 ...iLe6 5 .i.d3 f5 64Jd2 c6 74Je24Jd7 8 c4 dxc4!? 9 .i.xc4 iLxc4
I0 4Jxc4 .i.b4 + I I 4Jc3 4Jb6 12 4Je5 .i.d6 I 3 4Jf3 0-0 14 0-0 'ii'f6
and the game was drawn at move 68.
S g3 0-0 6 .i.g2 c6 7 4Je2 f5 8 0-0 4Jd7 9 4Jd2 4Jf6
A standard and natural regrouping as Black's ...f5 both controls e4 and

frees the square f6 for his remaining knight.
IOc4
41
Commencing the engagement. White's fluid piece placement here

reminds me of the handling of a similar structure in Polugaevsky-Miles,
Biel 1990: I d4 d6 2 tbf3 .i.g4 3 g3 .i.xf3 4 exf3 e6 5 f4 c6 6 .i.g2 g6
7 tbd2 J.g7 8 c3 tbd7 9 a4 tbe7 10 0-0 0-0 II l:.e I 'fIc7 12 tbf3 l:tac8
13 J.d2 l:[fd8 14 'fIc2 cS when Miles stood comfortably and went on
to win.
IO•••dxc4
Stonewalling with I0 ....i.e6 was also acceptable, when after I I b3 we

would have transposition to games where White went on with the
healthy plan of gaining queenside space with I 1.. Jk8 12 cS .i.c7
13 b4, e.g. Nieto-Figuera, 40th FIDE Mercenarios event, 1999.
In Ward-Akesson, Monarch Assurance Open, Isle of Man 2000, Chris
went straight on with I I cS .i.e7 12 b4 and after 12... a5 13 a3 axb4
14 axb4 bS the theatre of action was entirely queenside, with all
rooks swapped down the a-line and a turgid impasse developing
which resolved itself into a draw at move fifty.
II tbxc4 .i.c7
Bishops are usually a bit better than knights, so he preserves this one.
12 tbc3 .i.e6 13 'fId3 as

Rather a vague move, as he tailors the pawns to his taste (Szabo
means 'tailor'.) Many of us might have preferred the advancement of
the other rook's pawn by two squares.
14 ':'fdl tbdS ISl:tacl g6 16 b3 hS
Now he gets around to it.
42
17 h4!
A little weakening, but certainly preferable to permitting Black ... h4.
17•• :itg7 18 lLlb2 lLlb4 19 'iWd2 'iWf6 20 lLld3 trued3 21 'iWxd3 l:lad8
Black's last few moves have not been the most accurate, and White
now plays well to make something of his queenside possibilities.
22 lLla4! .lid6 23 lLle5 .lie8 24 'ii'c3
The pressure is mounting.
24 ••• b6
On 24 ....lic7 25 b4, for instance, when 25 ...axb4 26 'iWxb4 and

concessions are also forced. So Szabo chose to move his queenside
pawns now.
25 lLla4 .lial 26 trueb6!?
Not strictly necessary; just 26 l:lc2 was strong.
26••• he I 27 llxe I f4
Understandably he hurries to create kingside counterplay, exploiting

the weakener move h4, before White wipes up the other half of the
board.
28 gxf4 'iWxh4 29 'iWxa5 .lifS
Otherwise White may have wrapped it up with a queen exchange

through 30 'ii'g5.
43
30 lbc4 :taB 31 'i'd2 ii.h3 32 'i'e2 ii.g4 33 'i'c2 ii.h3 34 i.xh3 'i'xh3
35 'i'e2
Looks like some time pressure, but White keeps control.
35 ...'i'e6 36 lbe5
A radiant outpost.
36•.•:tfc8 37 lbd3 h4 38 ~h2 'ii'd6 39 a4 'i'd5 40 lbc5
And the knight reaches an even better one.
40..•:tcb8 41 :g I :e8 42 'i'g4 :th8 43 f5! :h6 44 'i'e4 'i'xe4 45 ttJxe4

:h5 46 fxg6 fxg6 47 lbc5 <M7 48 lbd3 g5 49 ~h3
There is nominal equality, but Black's weaknesses cost him the game.
49 .•.ct>e6 50:cI .:tg8 51 ~g4!
Keeping control.
51. ••:th7 52lbc6+ ~d7 53 lbe5+ ~d8 54:cI ':c7 55 :Xc7 ~c7
56 b4 ~d6 57 b5 ~d5
Or 57...:ta8 58 as!.
58 as :b8 59 b6 :b7 60 lbf3 :g7 61 a6 ~c6 62 b7 ~c7 63 lbe5 :th7

64 d5 :h8 65 d6+ ~b6 66 lbd7 + 1-0
A smooth and professional technical win based on structural

superiority.
Strategy in the Queen's Bishop Attock
Part Two: I d4 dS 2 .tgS tt:lf6 3 iUd6 gxf6
The alternative recapture 3...gxf6 is more enterprising. In the first

example, White is over eager to force matters in the centre and just
ends up in an inferior Grunfeld type position.
J.Hodgson White
J.Plaskett Black
Hastings 1986-87
I d4 dS 2 .tgS tt:lf6 3 .txf6 gxf6!?
As in the o4 ... tt:lf6 variation of the Caro-Kann - I e4 c6 2 do4 d5 3 tt:ld2

dxe4 4 tt:lxe4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lxf6 + - the recapture with the g pawn is the
more interesting alteration to the pawn structure.
45
4 ti)f3
More precise is 4 e3 as seen in the games that follow.
4 ..•cS
Continuing sharply.
5 c4
Pribyl-Lukacs, Sochi 1984 (a tournament in which I myself competed)

did not throw much light upon the theoretical consequences of 5 e3,
as after S...ti)c6 6 c3 'ifb6!? 7 'iib3 eS 8 ti)bd2 iLe6 9 iLe2 'ilc7 they
called it a draw.
S.••dxc4 6 e3 cx:d4 7 exd4 JL.g7 8 JL.xc4 0-0
In Trent-Farago, Porto San Giorgo Open, 2003, White had varied his
move order to reach the position after Black's 8th with his queen's
knight on c3 and king's knight unmoved. After, by transposition,
9 ti)ge2 ti)c6 10 0-0 fS I I dS ti)eS 12 JL.b3 'ild6 I 3 'iid2 JL.d7
chances were balanced.
90-0 JL.g4
As stated above, the outcome of White's early aggression has led to a

pleasant Grunfeld-type position for Black. Shifting the pawn from g6
to f6 - if you will - has not altered things all that much ...
White has little dynamism to compensate him for his isolani. It is
highly probable that in this setting the white king's knight is better off
at e2, a possibility not present with the move order 4 ti)f3.
46
I 0 ttJel ttJe6 I I dS ttJeS 12 .lie2.txfJ Il .txfJ 'iWb6 14:b I f5
The end of the beginning, and Black has a very comfortable and easy
to play position.
15 .lie2 :aeS 16 'ifa4 :lfdS 17 'iff4 'iWf6 IS 1:[bd I :leS 19 .:tfe I b6

20 .lidl ttJg6 21 'ifa4 'iWh4!?
I remember feeling quite proud of that move.
22 d6
On 22 'iWxa7 I planned 22 ....lixc3 23 bxc3 :lcxdS with control, but

that was probably White's better option.
22•••lhd6 2l 'iWeS+ .lifB 24 .lie2 lhd I 25 lhd I 'iWf6
White has really little more than my sad technical skills as

compensation for his pawn.
26 gl rJ:;g7 27 h4 f4!? 2S .bg6 fxgl!? 29 'iWxf7 +
On 29 fxg3 'iWxg6 and the counterattack on g3 stops 30 l:td8,

e.g. 30... 'ifxg3+ 32 rJ:;f1 1:[fS+ 33 rJ:;e2 ::'f2+ and mate on gl.
29•••'ifxf7 lO .lixf7 gxf2+ II rJ:;xf2 rJ:;xf7
Winning, but hardly a piece of cake. Hodgson soon blundered a piece,

which helped my realisation of advantage.
l2 l:Id7 a6 ll1:[a7 as l4 1:[b7 .lig7 lS lhb6?? .lid4+
Next comes 3S ...~c3, so ... 0-1
47
The key position is reached after I d4 dS 1 .i.gS liJf6 l .i.xf6 gxf6

4 el cS, which can also begin via the move order I d4 liJf61.i.gS
dS l el cS 4 .i.xf6 gxf6.
In the following game Miles plays a little too passively beginning with
5 c3. This allows Black not only to carry out the e6-e5 advance but
also to start a counter attack along the semi-open file involving l:gS.
A.Miles White
S.Conquest Black
Hastings 1995-96
I d4 liJf6 1 .i.gS dS l el cS 4 .i.xf6 gxf6 S cl liJc6 6 liJf3 eS!?
The most principled move: Black sets up his centre.
7 .i.el .i.e6 8 0-0 hS!? 9 liJbdl h4
48
A very interesting advancement.
10 dxcS .txcS II c4 e4 12 ttJb3??
A miscalculation. He had to play the grotty 12 ttJe I .
12•••exf3 13 i.xfJ h3!
The crucial tactic, which Miles had underestimated.
14g3
On 14 ttJxcS hxg2 and IS ...'ii'd6 wins.
14•••'ii'b6 15 cxdS %:td8 16 e4
The point of Conquest's neat interpolation now becomes clear, for on

what I am sure Miles had planned, 16 'ii'c I, the crucial difference
would be that after 16 ....txdS the bishop at f3 is undefended and so
White has no time to recover his piece, as 17 .txdS ':'xdS covers cS.
16••• ttJeS 17 .te2 .td7
The rest is the winning of a won game.
18:tel .td6 19 Whl :tg8 20 ttJd2 <t;e7 21 b3 'iVd4 22 fJ bS
A useful controlling of c4.
23 ttJb I 'ii'xd I 24 :tfxd I ':c8 25 <t;g I ttJg6 26 ~ I a6 27 f4 .:.xc I

28.:xcl
49
28••. ttJxf4!
A neat resolution of the technical difficulties.
29 gxf4 i.xf4 30 l:ld 1 hh2 31 i.f3 i.d6 32 'it>e2 h2
This pawn wins the game with ease.
33 tLld2 ltg 1 34 i.h 1 i.h3 35 e5 he5 36 i.f3 f5 37 a4 lhd 1 38 'it>xd 1

i.g4
And a new queen appears.
0-1
So far so good for Black. Nevertheless, there is a less attractive side

to 3...gxf6. The black king might well feel obliged to linger in the
centre as his kingside structure is ruptured, which means he could
become a target. The presence of the monarch in the centre also has
a secondary drawback as it harms the coordination of the black pieces
- in particular, the rooks become difficult to connect.
J.Plaskett White
H.Jonkman Black
Mondariz Zonal 2000
1 d4 d5 2 i.g5 tLlf6 3 i.xf6 gxf6 4 e3
Allowing the development of my knight to e2 which, as the game

Hodgson-Plaskett, Hastings 1987 showed, may be more desirable for
White here.
50
4 •••cS 5 dxcS
A radical departure from the middlegames arising from 5 c4.
S•••lDc6
Oddly, this natural developing move appears to be new. Black rapidly

equalised in Lombardy-Ivkov, Amsterdam 1974 with 5 ... e6 6 c4 dxc4
7 'iVxd8+ 'it>xd8 8 ~xc4 ~xc5. In Hodgson-Crouch, Mind Sports
Olympiad, London 2000, White played more like me in this game with
6 lDc3 ~xc5 7 'iVh5!? ~d7 8 0-0-0 'iVaS 9 lDge2 lDc6 10 'it>b I f5.
No bishop fianchetto imminent here. I I g4 fxg4 12 l:lg I 0-0-0 with
unclarity and a draw by perpetual check resulting at move thirty-
three.
6 lDc3 e6 7 'iVhS!? ~d7 8 0-0-0 b6!?
The immediate capture on c5 leads to troubles after 9 e4, but Black

can prepare it by 8 .. .f5, when 9lDo ~xc5 is approximately level.
51
But the gambit with B... b6 is not so bad too, because Black gets a lot
of play on the queenside.
9 cxb6 'ii'xb6 10 i.b5 .l::tb8 II ttJge2 ttJe5?!
Tyomkin proposes that I I ... a6 is to be met by 12 i.xc6 i.xc6

(12 ...'fixb2 +? 13 Wd2 i.xc6 14':b I wins) 13 b3 f5, with a similar
game to that which developed. But, knowing me, it would have been
12 ttJxd5!? exd5 13 'ifxd5 and 14 'fie4+ that I would have chosen.
12 i.xd7 + tiJxd7 13 b3 'fia5 14 Wb I f5?
Missing or underestimating the response. The attack with 14...ttJb6

just fails to a central counter-demonstration, viz 15 e4! ttJc4 16 exd5!
'ii'a3 17 ttJa4!. Giving up a piece to keep the white attack going.
I 7... 'ii'xa4 IB dxe6 ttJe5 I 9 f4 ttJg6 20 exf7 + 'iitxf7 2 I f5. Perhaps
14 .. JkB was best, when 15 ttJxd5 exd5 16 ~xd5 'fic7 17 c41eaves
White happy but Black also in the game.
15 tiJxd5!
By this blow White destroys Black's pawn centre.
15 ••. exd5 16 'ii'xfS 'ii'a6
No way to hang on to d5.
17 ':xd5 'fie6
Only way for Black to stay alive for a while.
18 ttJd4 'fixfS 19 ttJxf5
52
Four pawns for the bishop give White a big advantage. In addition, all
the Black pawns are separated, and his pieces are not connected yet.
19•• JlgS 20 %:thd 1 l%b7 21 g3 1:[g6 22 f4 i.e7 23 1:.1 d4 %:tc7 24 e4
It's essentially a 'slow roll up the board' exercise. Black is a spectator.
24••• tDb6 25 ~e5 tDcS
There is no outpost for the black knight on the board! Black can not
create any target for attack in White's camp.
26 a4 %:tgc6 27 c4 f6 2S 1:[ed5 tDb6?! 29 tDxe7 :Xe7 30 %:tdS+ rJ;f7

31 as tDcS
The black knight still didn't reach one good square!
32 ~c2 l:tb7 33 ~c3 tDe7 34 %:t4d6 lhd6 35 :Xd6 tDcs 36 .l:.a6 ~e7
37 c5
The game is effectively finished; White just advances pawns on the

queenside.
53
37 •••rM138 b4ltJe7 39 .:td6ltJc8 40 .:ta6ltJe7 41 ~c4
It rarely hurts to repeat the position when you are in control. Just
don't do it three times!
41 ••• h5 42 b5 .:td7 43 .:td6 l'ir.b7 44 c6 ltJc8 45 .:td7 + %hd7 46 cxd7

ltJd6+ 47 ~d5 ltJb7 48 a6 ltJd8 49 ~d6 ltJe6 50 b6 axb6 51 a7 1-0
Peter Leko has the reputation of being solid in the opening, but he is
willing to play sharp lines if he has looked at them in detail at home.
Against 5 c4 he comes up with a very sharp treatment of the position
for Black.
A.Anastasian White
P.Leko Black
FIDE World Championship Knockout, Moscow 200 I
I d4 ltJf6 2 ~g5 d5 3 e3 c5!? 4 .bf6 gxf6 5 c4
As so often in the Queen's Bishop Attack, the position under

theoretical discussion has arisen via a Trompowsky start.
5•••cxd4 6 exd4
6 'ii'xd4 dxc4 7 'ii'xd8+ ~d8 8 .i.xc4 e6 is equal.
6 •••'ii'b6!?
Attacking the pawn on b2. Leko starts out sharp, but soon the draw
master came into mode. Or, could it be that he already had the
54
repetition at move eleven in mind!? There are similarities here with

some lines of the Panov-.Botvinnik Attack against the Caro-Kann
Defence, and I would advocate 6 ...tbc6 instead. Then Wall-Sadler,
British Championship 1996 continued 7 c5 blg8 8 tbc3 e5 9 .Jtb5
lir.xg2 with complications favouring Black, and 7 tbc3 dxc4 8 tbf3 .Jtg4
9 .Jtxc4 .Jtg7 10 d5 tbe5 I I .Jtb5 + ~f8 12 .Jte2.Jtxf3 I 3 .Jtxf3 'ifb6
was unclear in Summerscale-Y.Giorgiev, Linares 1999.
7 tbc3 'ii'xb2
7... dxc4!?
8 ttJxdS .JtfS 9 'it'c 1
White is not satisfied with a draw after 9 tbc7 + ~d8 10 ttJxaS .Jtc2!
I I 'it'cI 'ii'c3 + 12 ~e2 'it'd3 + 13 ~e I 'it'c3 + and neither side can
deviate from repetition of moves. Of course, on 9 Iitc I, 9 ... .Jth6
would spoil the fun.
9 •••'ii'xc 1+ 10 %hcl tba6 1 1 cS
I I tbe3 .Jtg6 12 c5 tbc7 13 tbf3 0-0-0 14 .Jte2 .Jth6 15 0-0 .Jte4

16 Iitc4l:thg8 was unclear in Hort-Tatai, Venice 1971.
1 1•••.Jth6 12 tbe3
12 lir.c3?! .Jte6 13 tbe3 tbb4 14 a3 tbd5 15 ttJxd5 .Jtxd5+.
12••• tbc7 13 .tc4 .Jte4
Often an effective centralisation for this bishop.
55
14 ttJe2 e6?!
Black is just too solid. He might well have preferred the line
14...ii.xe3!? 15 fxe3 ii.xg2 16 ltg I ii.dS (16 ... ii.c6 17 ~ e6 is
unclear) 17 ii.xdS ttJxdS 18 e4 ttJc7 19 ltb I 0-0-0 20 :g7 l:tdfB 21
'it>d2 ttJe6 and White still has to prove that he has sufficient
compensation for the pawn.
15 0-0 0-0-0 16 l:ted I :thg8 17 f4 b6
18 cxb6 axb6 19 g3 f5 20 :td2 iLg7 21 'it>f2 'iitb7 22 :tfdl ltd6 23 ii.b3

l:tgd8 24 ttJe4 lt6d7 25 ttJeS
With every exchange of the pieces the draw comes closer and closer,
but neither side can really play for a win in this position.
2S ...ii.xeS 26 fxeS iLdS 27 ttJf4 ii.xb3 28 axb3 ttJdS 29 itJxdSl:txdS

30 'it>e3 l:tbS 31 ltd3 :ta8 32 'it>f4 l:tg8
56
In contrast to Leko's overtly aggressive play, in the final game in this

section Gligoric solidifies his centre by building a c6/d5/e6/f5 pawn
shelter and only then tries to gain counterplay.
J.Timman White
S.Gligoric Black
Wijk aan Zee 1975
I d4 4:Jf6 2 i.gS dS 3 i.xf6 gxf6 4 e3 e6
Instead 4 ... c6 5 c4 'ifb6 6 'ifc2 i.e6?! looks awkward and turned out
poorly for Black after 7 c5 'ifc7 8 i.d3 in Povah-Hughes, British
League match 1997.
5 c4
S•••c6
Gligo does a Slav, not a fianchetto. If you want to take a Slavonic

stance here, then please do not copy the play of Herr Steinmacher in
his game as Black against Villing from the Baden Championship of
1999: 4 ...i.f5 5 c4 c6 6 4:Jc3 dxc4 7 i.xc4 i.g6 (Not really where this
piece belongs. In Jugelt-Wronn, Norwegian League game 1999, Black
did better with 7 ... e6 8 4:Jge2 i.d6 9 'ii'd2 4:Jd7) 8 4:Jf3 i.g7 9 4:Jh4
0-0 10 4:Jxg6!? hxg6 I I h4! %:tea 12 h5 e6 I 3 hxg6 fxg6 14 'ifg4 Wf7
15 4:Je4 and the weakened Black structure soon collapsed. Marcelin-
Stepanov, Hallsberg Open 2000, saw 6 ...'ii'b6 7 'ii'd2 e6 8 %:tc I i.b4
9 4:Jge2 4:Jd7 10 a3 i.e7 I I 4:Jf4 0-0 and was drawn at move forty.
57
Black also managed to equalise in Degraeve-Cooper, Metz Open

2000, after 6 ... e6 7 ttJge2 ttJd7 8lZJg3 iLg6 9 cxdS cxdS and Black
later won.
6 ttJe3 ttJd7 7 :e I f5 8 a3 a6 9 ttJh3 ttJf6 10 ttJf4 .td6 I I e5 iLe7 12 b4
As so often in the Queen's Bishop Attack, White gets the space over
this side.
12••. e5
Svetozar hits back in the middle.
13 c:lxe5 he5
With ... d4 ideas.
14 ttJee2 ttJe4 15 f3 ttJf6 16 ttJd4 0-0 17 'ii'd2 ttJe8 18 <t>f2 'ii'f6

19ttJfe2 'ii'h6 20 g3ttJg7 21 ttJf4 iLd7 22 iLe2 lUeS 23 :bl '!:.e7
24l:[b3
The early middlegame has all been a bit turgid, as each side sorts their
game out and there is little engagement.
24 •••:ae8 25 a4 'ii'f6 26 iLd I iLe7 27 iLe2 'iith8 28 ttJfe2 b6 29 as

bxe5 30 bxe5 ttJe6
Now things hot up.
31 lZJxf5 lZJxe5 32 lZJxe7 'ii'xe7!?
58
Gligoric prefers tricks to the regain of the exchange with 32 ...ttJxb3

33 lDxdS etc.
ll.:tbbl
No way to stop Black's next, as 33 !:ta3 allows 33 ...lDe4+ 34 fxe4

'ifxa3.
ll •••i.xaS!
Since 34 'ifxa5 permits 34...'ifxe3+.
l4 'ifd4+ 'ittgSlS !:thcl lDe6 l6 'iVdllDfS
The knight hurries, first to defend ...
l7 Jia4lDg6
... and then to attack!
lSf4
lS•••JifS
With tactical ingenuity, Gligoric held his position together.
19 'ifd4 hb 1 40 lbb 1 cS 41 'ifdl %:tdS

White may now get his pawn back at a6. A scrappy, but exciting game.
59
Part Three: the Stonewall treatment
Despite the advocacy of the venerable Chepukaitis, White's bishop

doesn't always choose to be a Kamikaze.
The Stonewall is an often underestimated formation. In the 'Heroes

and Zeros' Chapter on page 22, we saw Chepukaitis himself employ it
versus the fianchetto of the black king's bishop. Here we'll see two
other heroes of the Queen's Bishop Attack showing just how
dangerous the pawn lever with f2-f4 can be against passive play.
A.Miles White
P.Van der Sterren Black
Linares Zonal 1995
I d4 dS 1 iLgS ttJf6 l el e6 4 ttJdl cS S cl ttJbd7 6 iLdl iLe7 7 f4!?
Miles (TonyM on the Internet Chess Club) makes the interesting

choice of passing over transposition to a regular Torre Attack to
advance his f-pawn. Was he thus inspired by Chepukaitis (SmartChip)?
Alas, both masters are no longer with us.
7 ••• b6 8 ttJgf3 iLb7 9 ttJeS
I drew a Torre Attack with the black pieces against Miles at Hastings
once, and in the post mortem expressed the opinion that some of the
problems Black experienced against very simple White play were
perhaps greater than those he gets in a main line Queen's Gambit.
60
9 ••.ttJxeS 10 fxeS 4:Jd7 I I ~f4!?
11 •••c4
Paul van der Sterren, who not long before had qualified as a PCA
Candidate, burns his strategic boats. Perhaps he was inspired by a
famous victory of Petrosian over Spassky from a I960s World
Championship match where something similar was tried!? Most
people would have preferred 11 .. :fic7, I am sure, and Black soon
finds himself without much counterplay.
12 ~c2 'ikc7 13 'ikhS!? g6 14 'ikh6 0-0-0 150-0 l::tdf8 16 4:Jf3 'i'd8

17:tf2 ~c6 18 :tafl ~b7
19~9S
Simple chess. Doubling along the f-line and swapping dark square
bishops certainly gives White the advantage.
19•••f5
61
The necessary break out, but insufficient.
20 exf6 .hf6 21 .i.xf6 lhf6 22 ttJgS "iie7 23lhf6 ttJxf6 24 ii.xg6
Domination leads to a win of a healthy pawn.
24••• ~a6 25 .i.f7 ttJg4 26 "iig7 :c8 27 1:f4 hS 28 ttJfl .i.e8 29 "iig6 eS
30 dxeS 'iVcs
Desperately searching for tricks, as we do in such cases, but Miles

keeps his grip on it all.
31 1:[d4 .i.xf7 32 'iVxf7 truce3 33 ~h 1
The new e-pawn is a big asset.
:aa 34 'i!fxhS ttJ15 35 1:[f4 'iVa 36 'iVgS

33 •••
Not 36lhfS? 'iffl + 37 ltJgl :xt'S and the tables turn.
36•••"iixb2 37 ttJg 1!
Locking up.
37•••'iVc2 38 e6
Decisive.
38••• ttJg7 39 llxf8 truce6 40 'if15 1-0
The next game may give a feeling of deja vu, but there is a typical
moment of Hodgson quirkiness at move seven when he prefers ttJh3
to the move every one else would play: ttJgf3.
62
J. Hodgson White
K.McEwan Black
St Helier Open 1997
I d4 liJf62 ii.g5 e6 3 liJd2 d5 4 e3 ii.e7 5 ii.d3 liJbd7
Now 6 liJgf3 would take us into the standard Torre Attack.
6 f4!?
6 .•• b6 7 liJh3!?
Hodgson concerns himself with control of e4.
7•••ii.b7 8 liJf2 c5 9 c3 h6 10 ii.xf6 ii.xf6 II liJf3 'fIc7 12 liJe5 ii.xe5
Giving the bishop back. Not my preference, and, as in the game Miles
- Van der Sterren, he is to be teased on the kingside dark squares.
13 fxe5 0-0-0 14 \Wg4
Probe.
14•••g5 15 0-0-0 l:.df8 16 <;t>b I 'fId8 17 ii.b5 c4
Here I would prefer 17...\We7 or 17... liJb8!? Too many of these guys
were anxious to come to ... c4.
18 e4 liJb8 19 l:.he I a6 20 ii.a4 h5 21 'fIg3 15 22 exf5 Ibd5 23 ii.c2
Clearly the superior to its black counterpart.
63
23 •••l:tff8 24 ttJh3 :thgS 25 %:[fI ttJd7 26 .lhf8 ttJxf8 27 %:[fI
Now the targets along and adjacent to the f line give White a big edge.
27 .••g4 2S ttJgl 'fIe7 29 'fIf4 iLe6 30 ttJe2 iLeS
Veering toward its optimum posting, but already too late.
31 'fIh6 ttJg6 32 %:[f6 ::thS 33 'figS ttJf8 34 ttJf4 'iitdS 35 al!
Emphasising the domination, by taking time out to rub it in. Often the
swiftest way to bring about a collapse.
3s ..•iLd7 36 tiJxhS ttJh7 37 'fIh6 ttJxf6 3S 'fIxhS+ ttJeS 39 ttJf6 1-0
Part Four: Various other methods for White
After 1 d4 ttJf6 2 iLgS dS 3 e3 e6
64
Hodgson has tried keeping his options open with 4 ttJd2!? . If then
4 ...g6 he can exchange with 5 J.xf6 forcing Black into the e7xf6 pawn
structure. as he can no longer recapture with his g pawn.
J.Hodgson White
Y.Gavrikov Black
Bundesliga 1997-98
I d4 ttJf6 2 J.g5 d5 l el c6 4 tiJd2 g6 5 ibcf6 exf6 6 M!?
6 •••J.d6
Gavrikov. a strategically schooled Russian. decides that the middle is

the place for his bishop.
7 c4 dxc4 8 J.xc4 tiJd7 9 h5 'ili'e7 10 hxg6 fxg6 II 'ili'c2 f5 120-0-0

ttJb6 Il ttJgfl
Hodgson was always at his most dangerous in attacking middlegames.

Viktor hastens to try to shut him down.
Il •••J.e6 14 ttJe5 .i.xe5 15 dxe5 :d8 16 he6 "iVxe6 17 'ili'bl!?
65
17.•:ii'xeS!?
Allowing the trick, but not losing control.
IS lbh7 'ii'eS+ 19 ~bl lhh7 20 'ii'gS+ 'iVf8 21 'ii'xh7 'iVf7 22 'iVhS+

~e7 23 'iVeS+ 'iVe6 24 'ii'g7+
The pinning of the knight at d2 means that it is unwise to avoid

repetition.
In the same situation English GM Luke McShane has essayed 4 .lid3: a

sound developing move. Then 4 ...'iVb6 5 lIVc I is in the style of 2... c6 3
lDO 'iVb6 lines, but is less solid for Black as his knight is already
committed to f6. Not that McShane's opponent had any wish to play
solidly, as the game demonstrates.
L.MeShane White
Y.Tseshkovsky Black
Hastings 2002-3
I d4 lDf6 2 .ligS dS 3 e3 e6 4 .lid3 'ii'b6 S lIVe I lDbd7 6 lDo h6 7 .lih4

eS!?
66
With this move Black shows he has no fear to play with double pawns
on the f-file. 7 ...g6 or 7 ... e6 were quieter alternatives.
8 i.xf6
Black has no problems after 8 dxe5 ~e5 9 i.xf6 (9 ~e5 'iWb4 +

10 lDd2 'iWxh4+) 9 ... lDxd3 + 10 cxd3 gxf6 I I lDbd2 lIg8 12 g3 i.h3
13 'ifc2 'iWa6+ Cmelik-Mezovsky, Slovakia 1999.
8 •••gxf6 9 i.e2
9 i.f5!?
9 ••• hS
On 9 ... e4 I guess he goes 10 lDh4. But 9 ... c5!? might have made for
more of a fun day out!?
10 c4 e4 11 lDfd2 f5 12 lDc3 lDf6 13 'iWc2 h4
Black has a very comfortable position due to his spatial advantage in

the centre and bishop-pair.
67
140-0-0
14 a3 i.e6 15 b4 i.e? 16 tDb3 1::tg8 left chances for both sides.
14•••i.e6 15 'ittb I
Further safety for the king and forseeing activity to come down the
c-line.
IS •••i.e7 16 tDa4 'iVd8 17 tDcS i.c8!?
White can break neither on the kingside nor on the queenside so

Black can afford himself a retreat with the bishop back to c8.
18 cxdS cxdS 19""3
19 i.b5 + 'ittf8 only helps Black.

19•••'ii'b6 20 'iVa4+ 'ittf8 21 1::tcl 'ittg7 22 1::tc3 a6!?
Preparing b6.
23 f4 'iVd6
24 'ii'b3!
The automatic 24 1::thc I? lost to 24 ... b6! 25 ttJxa6 b5 or 25 tDcb3 i.d?

26 'iVa3 'iVe6.
24 ••• b6 25 tDa4 i.d7 26 1::thc I 1::thb8 27 a3 i.d8 28 l:.3c2 'iVe6 29 'it>a I

i.e8!
68
With the idea to play tiJd7 forcing the knight to come to c3.
30 ttJc3?!
30 tiJfl was better.
30••• b5
Now an automatic and powerful black attack comes raining down.
31 'ii'a2 as 32 tiJb3 b4 33 tiJc5 'ii'd6 34 tiJd 1 tiJd7 35 a4 ttJxc5 36 dxc5

'ii'f6 37 .i.b5!?
Looking for complications in time-trouble. 37 'ii'b3 .tc6 38 tiJf2 d4!

39 exd4 'ii'xd4 left Black dominant.
37•••.i.xb5 38 axb5 %lxb5 39 'ii'xd5 ltc8 40 'ii'd7
Fishing for chances with his c-pawn. He might also have considered
starting action on the other side with 40 g4!? hxg3 41 hxg3 a4 42 g4.
40••J:tbbS 41 c6
Again, 41 g4!?
41 •••':'c7 42 'ii'd5 a4 43 ~b 1 'ii'e644 ':c5 .i.e7 45 'ii'xf5?!
Much better was 45 :as 'ii'xd5 46 ltxd5 Itbc8 47 :xr5 ltxc6 48ltxc6
ltxc6 with a probable draw.
45 •••.txc5 46 'ii'g5+ Wf8 47 'ii'xc5+ 'ii'e7 48 'ii'd4 'iiig849 tiJf2 .%ld8

50 'ii'c4
69
Strategy in the Queen's Bishop Attock
On 50 'ii'xe4 'iWxe4 51 liJxe4 l:.d3 52 liJf6+ ~f8 53 e4 Black stays

ahead with 53 ... l:ld6.
50•••a3?!
More convincing was 50...:td6!? 51 'iWb5 l:ld2 52 :'c5 f6 53 'ii'bS+

~g7 54 :h5 'ii'dS and Black is winning.
51 ttJxe4 axb2 52 'it>xb2 :te8 53 ttJf2 'ii'xe3 54 ttJd3 l:la8
The white king is just too exposed here to be objectively defensible.

The way to have done it was 54 .. J:tdS! 55 ttJxb4 l:lb8 and the three
major pieces in concert will soon do for him.
55 f5 'iWg5 56 ttJxb4 l:lb8?!
Missing the last chance to win the game after 56... 'ii'xg2+ 57 l:lc2
'iWg I.
57 ~b3 ~h7 58 l:lc3 :tb6 59 'iWd4 :!b5 60 %:th3 hc6 61 hh4+ l:lh6
62 hh6+ 'iWxh6 63 'ii'd7 l:le5 64 'ii'xf7 + 'iig7 65 'ii'xg7 +
A flawed but entertaining struggle.
Finally we see an original treatment of Black's Slav set up by Tony

Kosten, but unfortunately for him it backfires in spectacular style.
70
N.Legky White
A.Kosten Black
IBM Open, La Reunion 1997
I d4 ttJf6 2 ~gS dS
Again we enter the Queen's Bishop Attack territory by transposition.
3 e3 ttJbd7 4 c4 c6 S ttJc3 'ifa5!? 6 ttJf3 ttJe4
Akin to lines of the Cambridge Springs Defence to the Queen's

Gambit Declined.
7 cxdS!?
7 •.. cxdS
r
On 7... cxd5, 8.2. There existed the bizarre option of 7... e6?! which
would have led us, again by transposition, back to a known game,
Tukmakov-Ljubojevic from the 1984 U.S.S.R. vs The Rest of the World
match in London's Docklands. I do not think Ljubo repeated the
experiment for, after 8 dxe6 fxe6, g5 now hangs and Black must
regain his pawn at c3. But he has voluntarily weakened his kingside
and central structure. 9 ~h4 ~b4 10 ttJd2!? ttJxc3 I I bxc3 J.xc3 12
I:tc I e5 13 ~c4 exd4 14 exd4 ttJf6 15 'ifc2 J.b4 16 a3!? J.e7 17 0-0.
The problems with his king in the middle were difficult for him to
cope with and after I 7...~f5 18 ttJb3! ~xc2 19 ttJxa5 White went on
to win.
8 ~d3!?
71
Very enterprising, where duller spirits might have covered c3.
8 •••f6 9 ii.h4 ttJxc3
Tony accepts. And why not?
10 bxc3
And definitely not here 10 "'d2?? as IO... e5 wins.
10......xc3+ II <MI
Enough for a pawn? Legky thought so, but I am far from convinced.
11 •••g6
I I ... e6!? was probably a better way of getting it all together. Kosten
underestimates the power of the coming h-pawn advance.
12 ~g3! ~g7 13 h4!
72
13 ••• 0-0?
Right into the teeth of it! Kosten explains that this tournament was
held on an island off the Southern African coast, and that dubious
behaviour from the organiser prompted he and other masters to
spend much time on the beaches, having agreed to short draws. He
later wrote most unfavourably about the whole business in the French
chess magazine Echecs & Mat. However on this day, the last, the play
was to be for real, and he woke up in the early middlegame to realise
that it was already too late.
14 h5 g5
On 14.. .'it)f7 IS hxg6+ hxg6 16liJh4 and it all caves in.
I 5 h6 .i.h8 16 I:.cI 'ii'b2
17 trucg5!
Crash!
17•••fxg5 18.i.xh7+
Bash!
18••• ~
If 18.. .'it>xh7 19 'iWd3+ ~g8 20 'iWg6+.
19 'iWh5+ <it>e6 20 'iWg6+ iLf6
73
20...ttJf6 21 'iff5+ <Ml22 iLg6+ ~g8 23l:[xc8 'iVai + (23 ...l:[axc8

24 'ife6+ :f7 25 'ifxf7 mate) 24 ~e2 'iVxa2+ 25 ~d I 'ifa4+ 26.iilc2
'ifal + 27 :tel 'ifa4+ 28 ~el 'iWa5+ 29 ~fl 'iVa6+ 30 ~gl was
better. But not much.
21 .i.gS+ %hgS22 'ifxgS+ ~ 23 'ifxd5+ ttJe5 24 e4+ ~g4
On 24 ... ~g6 25 'ifg8+ iLg7 26 'ifxg7 is mate.
25 :tel e6
26he5!
Cute. On 26 ... exd5 27 f3+ does the business. A most uncharacteristic

Kosten game.
1-0
74
Opening theory is always advancing and modifying itself, and systems
come and go as ideas are honed and refined. The QBA exponent
needs to be aware of what is most likely to be used against him, based
upon current trends, and also to familiarise himself with the very
sharpest lines, just in case they occur. In this chapter we consider
Black's most popular and challenging response to the Queen's Bishop
Attack: namely a quick c7-c6 followed in most cases by 'ii'b6 hitting
the unguarded b2 pawn. We look at some of the currently
theoretically significant games, as well as some highly topical ones, in
order to facilitate the student's preparations for what will be the
variation most likely to come his way after I d4 d5 2 iLg5.
A typical sequence is
I d4 dS 2 iLgS h6 3 iLh4 c6 4 e3 (or 4 tbf3) 4 •.:iib6
75
What's Hot?
First of all Black kicks the bishop away to h4, so that there is no
chance of it defending the b2 square. This rules out any nonsense
similar to I d4 itJf6 2 1.g5 itJe4 3 1.f4 c5 4 d5 'iib6 5 1.c I !? in the
Trompowsky. As will be seen, the position of the bishop on h4 can
also generate a crucial tactical trick that facilitates a future space grab
by Black with e7-e5.
Having cleared the way with 3... c6, which also strengthens his centre
in good Slav style, Black sends his queen to b6 to terrorise b2. If there
is anything intrinsically wrong with 2 1.g5, this is the way players as
Black usually seek to prove it. Indeed, the early 'ifb6 approach
accounts for at least a third of the games played with the Queen's
Bishop Attack, which makes it a white hot variation.
White already has a big choice to make after 3 ... c6: namely whether
to play 4 itJf3 or 4 e3. You might think there isn't much of a difference
between the moves, but in fact they can lead to markedly contrasting
middlegames.
Part One: White offers to gambit the b2 pawn with 4 itJfJ 'ifb6
SitJbd2
No examples from master praxis of Black taking the pawn that I

found, except Parrasmaa-Sergiev, from the Heart of Finland Open of
1998, and two of mine ... One was a 2004 game played on the
Internet site of the World Chess Network, with each player having
twenty five minutes, plus slight increment, for all his moves and the
other was against an expert player in a rapid play event from April
2005 in the Spanish village of Guadalest.
So Rogozenko accepted the gambit after I offered it.
S•••'ifxb2 6 e4
One can hardly give a concrete conclusion. Suffice to say that White
has three of his men out and the black queen wandered off whilst
development was neglected. A classical gambit.
6 •••e6 7 1.dl 1.e7
76
What's Hot?
The Guadalest game varied with 7... dxe4 Slbxe4 i.b4+ 9 ~e2!?
Not such an indignity for his Majesty to lodge here. Spassky made a
similar early improvisation in a Torre Attack game with Miles from
Tilburg. I97S. 9... ttJd7 10 %lb I 'ilfa3 II :b3 'ii'aS 12 'ii'b I i.e7
13 i.g3 ttJgf6 14 ttJd6+ i.xd6 15 ii.xd6. and I was happy as the
bishop slices his game in two. It ended 15 ...'ii'dS 16 c4 b6 17 :d I
ii.b7 IS ttJe5 c5 An attempt to return the pawn for some freedom.
but white need not oblige.
19 ii.g6!. Decisive. 19... lbxe5. There was nothing much better.

20 dxe5 ttJd7 21 :g3! 'ii'h4 22 ii.xf7 +! ~dS 23 i.xe6 :eS 24 ii.xd7
'ii'xc4+ 25 ~el i.a6 26 i.g4 'ilffl + 27 'iitd2 'ii'xf2+ 2S'iitc3 and
Black resigned.
B i.g3
Keeping pieces on when looking for an attack. as Gufeld advocated. In

the aforementioned Finnish game White took on e7. which I find less
natural. but he still went on to win.
B.••ttJf6 9 0-0.6 10:b I
Gaining a bit more time.
10•••'ii'dB I I 'ife2
By now I was feeling cheery. Lots of development lead.
11 •••ttJbd7 12 llfe I dxe4 13 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 14 'ifxe4 ttJf6 15 'ii'h4!?
Provoking the crisis.
77
What's Hot?
Is...gs
Taking the bait. 15 ... 0-0 was certainly safer, although White would
keep a lot of play for his gambit pawn.
16 ttJxgs! lbds
On 16...lbh7 I also planned 17lbxe6! with similar variations, e.g.

17... fxe6 IS 'ifh5 + etcetera.
17 lbxe6! ~xe6
Or 17... ~xh4 IslbxdS+ and wins, or 17... fxe6 IS'ifh5+ 'iiiifS

(IS ...'iiiid7 19 l:.xe6! 'iiiixe6? 20 'ii'f5 mate) and White keeps on piling
up the pressure on Black's disorganised game with stuff like 19 ~e5
with a strong attack for the piece. I was even looking at 19 l::te3!?
during the game, when after 19...lbxe3 20 fxe3 due to the newly
opened f-line White is doing very well even though he is now behind a
full rook, e.g. 20 ... ~f6 21 lifl with terrible threats.
IS lIxe6! fxe6 19 'ifhS + ~
Neither did running the other way work as 19 ... 'iiiid7 20 l:.xb7+ 'iiiicS
21 ~a6 kills him, e.g. 21 .. :iiaS 22 l::txa7 + 'ii'xa6 23 lha6 l::txa6
24 'ii'e5 spearing a rook.
20~es
78
What's Hot?
20••• tbf6
On 20 ....id6 21 Jhb7 or 20 .. .1:[g8 White has various pleasant options,

including 21 .tg6, 21 ltxb7 and 22 g3!?
21 i.xf6 .txf6 22lb:b7 .te7 23 'iWf3+ ~g7 24 'ii'g4+ ~ 25 .tg6+

<Me 26 .th5
White correctly passed over the draw by perpetual check to continue
the attack a rook down. His threats soon proved too strong for Black
to cope with.
J.Hodgson White
V.Smyslov Black
Sochi 1986
~ d4 d5 2 .tg5 h6 3 .th4 c6 4 tbf3 'ii'b6
5 tbbd2
Hodgson remarked that when Belyavsky, in this same event, attacked

his b2 pawn with ...'iWb6, he defended it, as he felt certain that had he
not then it would have been captured. In this game he explained that
he did not bother, as he was sure that Smyslov would not. Play the
man, not the board.
5 ....tfS
Another way to decline, of course, is development with 5 ...tbf6 when
Hodgson, in his game with Alburt from the 1995 PCA New York
Qualifier, chose to take it and after 6... exf6 then protect b2 with
7 'ifcl.
79
What's Hot?
6e3 e6
Taking it now makes more sense to me - indeed I would not here

have offered the gambit! Vassily continued to play it cool, but
6...'iVxb2, when c2 is hanging, was critical (and also mysteriously
declined by several other players of the black pieces in this position!).
7 ~d3 tDd7 8 i.xf5 exf5
Kasparov told me he regards Smyslov as one of the greatest ever

strategical minds. Here the ex-World Champion shows that the
increased central control granted him by the exchange on fS
compensates for the doubling of his pawns.
9 0-0 ~e7
Even here there are certain spirits who would take on b2 and boast of
their extra pawn after 9 ...'iVxb2 10 .l:tbl 'iVxa2 II l:xb7. I think I am
not amongst those.
10 c4 hh4 I I tDxh4 g6 12 cxdS cxdS 13 'ii'a4 tDgf6 14 'iVal
Stopping castling, but in so placid a setting that is not such a big

headache for Black.
14•••a5 15 tDhfl 'iVe6 16 .l:tacl 'iVe7 17 'iVxe7+ ~e7 18 .l:tc7 I:thb8

19 l:.fc I ~d8 20 tDeS tDxeS 21 dxeS tDd7 22 f4 .l:tc8
80
What's Hot?
The end of getting his act together.
23 lhc8+ :Xc8 24 lhc8+ ~c8 25 tbb3 a4 26 tbd4 tbc5 27 <itfl tbd3

28 b3 axb3 29 axb3 1J2-1J2
Part Two: White's queenside pressure after 4 tbfJ 'ifb6 5 'iWc I
Here White aims to seize space on the queenside with c2-c4 and
c4-cS. This is all the more attractive as it will come with a time gaining
attack on the black queen. Once the c6 point is fixed, a follow up
advance with b4-bS will expose it to attack and hopefully open the
b-file to White's advantage. Let's see how it can work out in practice.
2a) Black defends solidly but passively
This approach just plays into White's hands: he has all the fun of
pressing for a win with little risk of losing. The two games that follow
show how quickly planless play can ruin Black's position.
81
What's Hot?
I.Miladinovic White
D.Sebastianelli Black
Porto San Giorgo Open 2003
I d4 dS 2 i.gS h6 3 i.h4 c6 4 ttJf3 'ii'b6 5 'ifc I i.f5 6 e3 e6 7 c4 ttJd7

8 ttJc3 i.e7 9 .tg3 ttJgf6 10 cS
The Grandmaster decides to flick in the pawn advance straightaway.
10•••'iVd8 II h3 0-0 12 i.e2
Igor gets on with his development where Nigel Povah had preferred
to throw up the queenside pawns.
12 •. Jle8?! 13 0-0 'ifc8?!
Black drifts. His plan it seems is to exchange dark squared bishops.

but even this leaves White just structurally better. Here again. I would
have preferred the plan of ...ttJe4.
82
What's Hot?
14 b4
Naturally.
14••• .ltd8 15 bS .ltc7 16 bxc6
Simple chess.
16••• bxc6 17 .ltd6
Mladinovic crosses up Black's simple schemes by throwing in some

tactics along with the strategy!
17•..tiJe4
On 17....ltxd6 18 cxd6 cS? 18 ttJbS!, or 17 .. :ifbS 18 'ii'a3 and a rook

swiftly comes to b I or a knight to eS and the d-pawn lives on!
18 tZJxe4 .ltxe4 19 ttJeS!
Domination. Black has no way to avoid major strategical concessions

either in the form of weakened dark squares and/or a passed white
pawn at d6.
19••• ttJb8
Ugh.
20.lthS!
A Karpovian probe (you will see the move bishop to rook's flVe-
either king's or queen's, as an exploratory probing device, in many of
his games) Here, it flattens Black outright.
83
What's Hot?
20•••g6 21 f3!
A sweet tactic.
21 •••ii.xd6 22 cx:d6 1-0
Black resigned because on 22 ...ii.fS 23 e4! annihilates through

introduction of the white major pieces to the party.
As can be seen, Black has to play very precisely to hold the balance
against White's seemingly eternal slight advantage. In the next game
he suffers a similar fate.
N.Povah White
C.Frostick Black
4NCL British Team Championship 2003
1 d4 d5 2 ii.g5 h6 3 ii.h4 c6 4 ttJf3 'ii'b6 5 'ii'cl ii.f5 6 e3 e6 7 c4 ii.e7

8 ii.g3 ttJf6 9 ttJc3
9 •••0-0
9... ttJhS would be met with the probing 10 ii.eS!, and ifthen 10.. .f6
I I ii.xb8 lhbS 12 h3! ii.e4 13 ii.e2 and Black is in big trouble, e.g.
13 .. .fS 14 ttJd2 and he will lose a minor piece.
10 h3
Bishop preservation, although the alternative of 10 ii.e2!? might have

allowed for an interesting shift of plan had Black then gone after it
84
What's Hot?
with 10 ...ttJh5. for White could try I I .Jixb8!? l:taxb8 12 ttJe5 ttJf6
13 g4 and 14 h4 with chances for attack.
10.••ttJbd7 II cS 'it'd8 12 b4 bS?!
This way of addressing queenside developments did not work out all
that well. 12... a5 13 b5 favoured White. but 12 ... ttJe4. as we shall be
seeing. has a good current reputation.
13 a4! a6
Black will now have to contend with the threat ofaxb5 and an
invasion down the a-file.
14 .Jie2 ttJe4 15 ttJxe4 he4 16 0-0.Jixf3 17 .Jixf3 f5
On 17....Jif6 18 'it'c3 and 19 e4 keeps the edge.
18 'ii'c3 ttJf6
Not challenging enough in defence. He ought to have tried 18....Jif6.

aiming for ... e5. 18...g5 19 .Jie5 ttJxe5 20 dxe5.
19 l:ta3 'fId7 20 l:tfall:tac8 21 axbS axbS 22 l:ta7 'fIe8 23 l:tb7 ~h8

24 :aa7
Completing a Karpovian infiltration.
24 ••• ttJg8
On 24 .. .l:tf7 also 25 .Jid6!.
25 ..td6! hd6 26 cxd6 :taB 27 .lbg7 %ha7 28 lha7 ttJf6 29 :tc7 ttJe4
30 he4 fxe4 31 'ii'xc6 'fIxc6 32 :Xc6 :td8 33 d7 lhd7 34 l:txe6 ~g7
85
What's Hot?
35 l:[b6
A model game from Povah.
1-0
2b) Black takes action in the centre
The games above are very encouraging for White, but in the next
encounter, Black plays with just enough energy to disrupt White's
queenside build up. He arranges ll:\e4 and the pawn push e6-e5 to
breathe life into his pieces. The fact that he holds the draw against
Hodgson is a testament to the power of his centre counter action.
In fact, Black may have shown a clear way to equality by making an
improvement on move IS!
J.Hodgson White
A.Naumann Block
Bundesliga 2003
I d4 d5 2 i..g5 h6 3 i..h4 c6 4 ll:\f3 'iib6 5 'iic I i..fS 6 c4 e6 7 ll:\c3

i..e7 8 i..g3 ll:\f6
9 c5
Hodgson has had a LOT of experience in this line. In 1998 he tried

9 e3 against both Strenzwilk in Kona and against Vescovi in Bermuda.
86
What's Hot?
After 9... 0-0 10 ..te2 ttJbd7 I I cS 'iVdS 12 0-0 ttJe4 13 ttJxe4 ..txe4
14 ttJd2 ..th 7 IS b4 lleS 16 'iVb2 ..tf6 he took radical steps to prevent
Strenzwilk's ... eS, with 17 f4 and after 17.....th4 IS ..txh4 'iVxh4 19 bS
stood slightly better. The Vescovi game varied with I O... ttJe4 and after
I I ttJxe4 ..txe4 12 0-0 ttJd7 13 ttJd2 ..tg6 14 cS 'iVdS IS b4 a6
16 ttJb3 ..tf6 he this time permitted the black central advance and we
were left with a situation of some dynamic equality after 17 ttJaS l::[a7
IS ..td6. The common arrival point for this guy in this opening.
IS .....te7 19 ..txe7 'iVxe7 20 'iVb2 eS, although, in a scrappy
conclusion to the game, Hodgson fell into unfavourable complications
when both sides' kings opened up, and he resigned around move
forty. Now he goes straightaway for the gain of space with c4-cS. The
plus of the knight on as is the additional pressure when the white
pawn breakthrough lands. The minus is the absence of a potential key
defender.
9 ...'iVd8 10 e3 ttJbd7
In this game, like quite a few others of the type, the broad outlines
are that White gains space on the queenside early on whilst Black tees
up a central response of ... eS. But there have been some instances of
Black reacting swiftly on the queen's wing, e.g. Hodgson-Boensch,
Germany 2002, saw 10...0-0 I I h3 b6 12 b4 as 13 a3 'iVcs 14 ..te2
ttJbd7 IS 0-0 'iVb7 16 'iVd2 ::tfcS 17 1.:[fc I ..tdS with balanced play, and
Hodgson-Chernin, Pardubice 1993 went I I ..te2 b6 12 b4 as 13 a3
'iVcs 14 ttJa4!? ttJbd7 IS ttJeS it'b7
16 tbxc6 'iVxc6 17 bS 'iVb7 IS c6 "iia7 19 cxd7 ttJxd7 20 it'b2 with an

approximately even situation. In Hodgson-Grunfeld, Philadelphia 200 I
Black started actions on the other side after 10... 0-0 I I b4 ttJbd7
S7
What's Hot?
12 J.e2 ttJhS!? 13 J.eS. The probing response so often the reaction to

such a ...ttJhS. 13 ... ttJhf6 14 J.f4 ttJhS IS J.xh6!? gxh6 16 g4 J.h7
I 7 gxhS 'ith8 with unclear play.
II h3
Bishop preservation. But here, when reviewing the instant game and
also by comparison with those cited in the earlier notes, I think that it
is a move better omitted. I I J.e2 ttJe4 12 ttJxe4 J.xe4 13 b4 J.xf3
14 gxf3!? J.h4 IS f4 J.xg3 16 hxg3 left White's pawns straightened
out to form a structure where he was clearly better in Hodgson-
Abdullah, Scarborough 1999.
11 ••• 0-0 12 b4
As stated, broadly speaking, White's plan is to advance the pawns on

the queenside while Black's idea is to push eS. So this time White
defers development of his king's bishop and motors away.
12••• ttJe4
Much more appropriate and active than 12 ... bS?! in the Povah-Frostick
game above.
13 ttJxe4 J.xe4 14 ttJd2
I am not wholly sold on the idea of moving the knight.
14•••J.g6 15 'iVc3
IS •••J.f6!?
88
What's Hot?
New. Preparing an advance of the e-pawn. Hodgson had two other

games where Black played 16....lth4. Each resulted in complex play
over the whole board and in each he demonstrated superiority.
15 ....lth4 16 .ii.d6:e8 17 .ltd3 .ltxd3 18 'ii'xd3 e5 190-0 a6 (19 ....ltf6
20 a4 a6 21 b5 axb5 22 axb5 lha I 23 :xa I exd4 24 exd4 cxb5
25 ttJf3 left White better in Hodgson-Thorhallsson, Istanbul 2000)
20 a4 e4 21 'ii'e2 :e6 22 b5 :g6 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 l':.ab I ttJf8 25 f3
exf3 26 ttJxf3 again with the better game, Hodgson-Turner, Kilkenny
1999.
16 ttJb3 :e8 17 .ltd3 .ltxd3 18 'ii'xd3 e5 19 0-0 a6 20 a4
20•••'ii'e7
No point in closing the centre by ... e4 since the white dark squared
bishop is very strong on the diagonal bS-h2. For example 20 ... e4?!
21 'ii'e2 .ltM 22 .ltf4 l::te6 23 b5 l::tg6 24 bxc6 bxc6 25 :ab 1;1;.
21 ttJaS exd4 22 exd4 ttJf8 23 .ltd6 'ilfd7 24 ':ae I lhe I 25 l':.xe I b5!?
Getting rid ofthe weakness on b7.
26l':.al
26 cxb6? 'ii'xd6 27 b7 l::tbS 28 'ii'xa6 'ii'xb4-+
26••Jle8 27 ttJb3 ttJe6 28 axb5 axb5 29 'ii'd2?! ttJg5 30 'ii'd3 ttJe4 31

.ltf4 'ii'fS 32 .ii.e3 ttJg3
32 ...ttJd6!? 33 ':d I 'ii'xd3 34 .l:.xd3 ttJc4 35 ttJaS ttJxa5 36 bxaS .:as

37.ii.d2=
89
What's Hot?
33 :d I JigS!?
Black is consistently trading all the pieces, heading for a draw.
34"ifxf5liJxf5 35 Jixg5 hxg5 36 cJ.tf1 :e4 37 g4 ttJe7 38 :al f6

39 :a7 Wf8 40 ttJa5 g6
Of course not 40.. JIxd4? 41 lhe7 ~e7 42 ttJxc6+ winning.
41 f3 .l:Ie6 42 .l:r.a8+ r:tig7 43 'it>f2 f5 44 ttJb7 f4 45 lIe8 %le3 46 ttJd6

cJ.tf6 47 l:tf8+ r:tig7 48 :f7 + ~g8 49 h4 gxh4 50 :xt'4 :b3 51 :f7
l:.b2+ 52 r:tigl
On 52 r:tie3 Black can't save his knight but the advance of his pawn
will save the game, e.g. 53 ... h3 54l::txe7 h2 and White must take a
repetition by checking with his rook, 55 :e8+ r:tih7 56 '!J.e7 + r:tig8
(56 ... r:tih6? 57 g5+ wins) 57 l:te8+ etc.
52 •••:e2 53 f4 h3 54 f5 gxf5 55 gxf5 l:.g2+ 56 r:tih I
And definitely not 56 r:tifl?? lIg4 and the pawn sails away.
56.. .l:le2 57 'it>g I .:tg2+ 58 r:tih I lIe2
A well played game, reflecting credit on both players
90
What's Hot?
2c) Black hunts down White's dark squared bishop
In the above examples, Black used the position of the enemy bishop
on h4 to boost his development with i.e7!? when, in order to keep
up the tension, White tended to avoid the exchange of bishops with
the retreating i.g3. A different approach for Black is to target White's
dark squared bishop with his king's knight.
SAgdestein White
S.Skembris Black
Cappelle la Grande Open 200 I
I d4 dS 2 i.gS h6 3 i.h4 c6 4 tbfJ 'iib6 5 'ii'c I i.f5 6 c4 e6
On 6 ... dxc4 7 tbbd2 regains the pawn nicely.
7 tbc3 tbd7 8 cS
The early push instead of e3.
8•••'ii'aS!? 9 a3 tbgf6 10 e3 gS
Expansion. Neither Grandmaster has an entirely classical approach to

chess. Skembris plays bass in a Grecian band and Agdestein played
soccer for Norway.
I I i.g3 tbhS 12 b4 'ii'd8 13 'ii'd2
White prepares i.d3 intending e3-e4.
91
What's Hot?
13•••ltJxg3
Nabbing it now. If 13 ... iLg7 White plays his bishop into d6.
14 hxg3
So Black achieves the aim of eliminating White's bishop for the knight.
Michael Adams made the following remark in Chess in the Fast Lane
about a similar scenario versus Nigel Short: I\Ithough there is no
reason for White to be concerned about the doubled pawns, the loss
of the dark squared bishop is important'. Still, in the present game
Agdestein builds a wall of pawns on the dark squares that ensures
Black's own bishop on g7 is never that special.
14•••iLg7 15 iLd3 iLxd3 16 'ifxd3
16•••f5
Skembris decides to go Dutch with Simen. 16... eS!? was an interesting

alternative.
17lLld2!
A cute manouevre, as White prepares f4 and also to bring the knight

to a new action zone on the other flank.
17•••a5!?
A bid for counterplay based upon the tactical nuance that if White
plays 18 bS then 18 ...'iff6 prepares the unstoppable ... eS due to the
other threat of ... lLlxcSL
92
What's Hot?
18 :b I axb4 19 axb4 0-0
Now f5 is defended he intends ... e5.
20f4
Agdestein stops it.
20•••lIal 21 0-0
Closed opening. Late castling.
21 •••ltJf6 22 :a I tWa8 23 :xu tWxal 24 :b I :as 25 b5

White's attempts to prosecute a simple plan of queenside expansion
are greatly hindered by Black's activity.
25 •••ltJg4 26 ltJb3 'ii'b4 27 tDd2 'Wal
28 <MI!?
Playing on where the repetition was at least as logical.
28•••gxf4 29 gxf4 l::ta4 30 ~e2
The king is a strong piece, and Agdestein gets his act together by
making full use of his king.
30•••:b4 31 l::txb4 'Wxb4 32 ltJd I!? cxb5 33 ltJc3 'WaS 34 ltJxb5
Finally the queenside operations get somewhere.
34 •••'Wd8 35 ltJf3
93
What's Hot?
Keeping her out of h4. The play remains complex, across the whole
board.
35 •••iLf8 36 ""3 'fiaS 37 tbd2 'iWd8 38 tbc3 'iWh4 39 tbd I 'it'h I
A miscalculated counterattack which fails. Better to have kept her in

defence with 39 ...'fie7!.
40 'fixb7 'fixg2+ 41 'itd3 'it'gl 42 'itc2!!
Well played! He gives up two pawns to get the passer on the c-line
moving. The pedestrian 42 'fib3? would have allowed Black a drawn
minor piece ending, in view of his own h-pawn, with 42 ...'fixd I!
43 'fixd I tbf2 +, etc.
42 ••• tbxe3+ 43 tbxe3 'fixe3 44 c6 'ii'xd4 45 c7 'fia4+ 46 ~d3 'iWa3+

47 ~e2 d4 48 c8='fi 'fie3+ 49 ~d I d3
Spirited resistance, but a queen is a queen.
50 'iWg2+ r:M7 51 'fic7+ iLe7 52 tbc4 1-0
2e1) Black grabs a pawn after 4 tbf3 'fib6 5 'fie I g5!?
The following game, played in the first round of a FIDE World

Championship Zonal event, was one of the sharpest and most
significant to contribute to recent theory in the Queen's Bishop
Attack. The jury is currently still out as to precisely what degree of
94
What's Hot?
compensation white will receive for his proffered Queen's Pawn and
some interesting new developments are arriving. It is fair to observe,
though, that Black has not been the winner in all that many of those
where the gambit was accepted.
J.Hodgson White
M.Godena Black
Mondariz Zonal 2000
I d4 d5 2 J.g5 h6 3 J.h4 c6 4 liJf3 'iVb6
Actually 5 b3 is the only move to avoid loss of a pawn. Compare

Short-Kasparov, Skelleftea 1989-1 d4 liJf6 2 liJf3 c6 3 J.f4 "ii'b6!?
after which the World Champion went on to win a great game. I have
no problem with the Queen's Bishop Attack gambit with 5 liJbd2.
But there now follows a very different type of pawn offer, one which
Black has to stretch himself somewhat to grab.
5 'it'cI g5
By no means forced, but the most critical and the hottest line. We
have already seen a lot of theory on 5 ...J.f5 in the games above.
Six years before Godena had dodged the complications when he had
faced Hodgson in another Zonal tournament in Spain, and after
95
What's Hot?
5 ....Jtg4 6 ttJbd2 ttJd7 7 e3 e6 8 c4 .Jte7 9 .Jtg3. They often avoid the

trade in this manner. 9 ...ttJgf6 10 .td3.JtxfJ I I gxf3 c5 12 cxd5 exd5
13 0-0 0-0 14 dxc5 ttJxc5 15 .Jtf5 ttJe6 16 ttJb3.
Here 16 ...lhc8 looks natural, but in tournaments which offer

qualification places for stages of the World Championship, play often
gets spicey. 16...ttJh5 17 .Jte5 g6 18 .th3 .Jtf6. It hardly looks likely
that White could whip up an attack from here, but Hodgson is
Hodgson. 19 f4 .Jtxe5 20 fxe5 d4 21 exd4 ttJxd4 22 'ii'xh6!? ttJf3 +
23 ~hl ttJxe5 24 f4 ttJd3 25 f5!? ttJf2+ 26 1:1xf2 'ii'xf2 27 fxg6. The
bishop shields his king from checks, and the white attack proves
sound. Amazing stuff. 27... fxg6. Or 27 ...ttJf6 28 g7. 28 'ii'xg6+ ttJg7
29 .Jte6+ 1:f7 Forced. 30 ttJd4. Bringing another guy into it and
covering the check at f3. 30...1:Ie8. To knock the bishop out. 31
.Jtxf7 + 'ifxf7 32 'ifg2. Black must retain reasonable practical chances
of drawing here, but Hodgson scored a swift tactical victory. 32... ~h8
33 1:Ifl 'ifc4 34 ttJf3 1:Ie2 35 'iWg3 l:lxb2 36 1:Igi .f7 37 'iWb8+ 'ife8
38 'ifc7 'iffB 39 ttJh4 1:Ib6? 40 'ifxb6 and Black resigned. Neither man
made it past the Zonal stage, and it was the Englishman Peter Wells
who came through to emerge as the surprise winner.
6 .tgl g4
Consistent.
7 ttJeS 'ii'xd4
96
What's Hot?
7 •••'it'xd4
A key position. as Black takes his booty. Here 7...tiJd7 would have
taken us back towards Hodgson-Shaw. British Championship.
Scarborough 200 I. where the inveterate Hodgson insisted on
continuing. anyway. in gambit fashion after (by transposition) 8 c4
ttJxe5 9 i.xe5 f6 10 i.g3 'ifxd4. Black has stretched himself and
White certainly has. in my opinion. at least as much compensation for
the pawn as he receives in the main lines following 5 ...g5 6 i.g3 g4
7 ltJe5 'it'xd4. Play continued I I cxd5 'ifxd5 12 ltJc3 'iff7 13 e3 e5
14 i.d3 i.e6 15 'fic2 0-0-0 160-0 h5!? 17 i.h4. (17 f4!?) 17... i.e7
18 i.g6 'fig7 19 i.f5 Draw agreed. In general. White has a
development lead. the weakening of ...g5-g4 and the imminent gain of
more time for him in kicking around the black queen as compensation
for his sacrificed pawn. The jury is still out and in my view will remain
out for some time yet.
8 c4
Very logical. 8 e3 is an alternative tried in Astrom-Hector. Excelsior

Cup 1999. and play continued 8 ...'ifb6 9 c4ltJd7.
97
What's Hot?
By contrast with similar lines resulting from 8 c4, here White did not
pull the knight back but chose 10 cxdS .lig7!? I I liJc4 'iWb4 + 12 liJc3
cxdS 13 a3 .lixc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'cs IS liJd2 when he kept some play for
his pawn, and won in 81 moves. 8 liJd2 was tried in Djurhuus-Borge,
Reykjavik Open 1996, and play went 8 ...liJd7!? 9 c3 'ifb6 and here
White elected to take back his pawn by 10 ltJxg4, but he thereby lost
something of his co-ordination and after 10... hS I I liJeS ttJxeS
12 i.xeS f6 13 .lif4 eS 14 .lie3 cS IS f3 .lie6 16.lin 0-0-0
Black stood comfily and went on to win. Material over position? Still
something to be debated, long after Capablanca taught that position
was the more important. Lastly, in Mladinovic-Fontaine, Cap d'Agde
2003, White punted 8 a4!?, perhaps arguing that the move often came
in useful in other games in this gambit line, so why not throw it in
now!? After 8 ....lig7 9 c3 'ife4 10 f3 gxf3 I I gxf3 'ii'fS 12 ltJd3 liJd7
13ltJa3 eS 14 :!gl liJe7 we were left with a complete mess. White
won in 37 moves.
98
What's Hot?
8 •••i..g7
They tend to force White's hand with this developing move which
also threatens the knight. S... tDf6 has been less common. In Hodgson-
Zlatdinov, Guernsey Open 1991, he played 9 tDc3 i..e6 10 e3 'iVb6
I I cxd5 cxd5 12 i..b5 + tDc6 and then tried to make something of the
pins. I 3 a4 as 14 tDe2!? i..d7 15 tDxd7 tDxd7 16 0-0 i..g7 17 tDf4 tDf6
IS i..h4 e6 19 'iVc3 tDh5 20 'iVa3 i..f6 21 i..xf6 tDxf6 22 :ac I with
continuing annoying pressure for the pawn, which he converted into a
win by attack at move 39. Lots of unanswered questions, still.
9 e3 'iVcs 10 tDd2 tDd7 1 1 tDd3 'iVb6
12 a4
In Hodgson-Antunes, Benidorm Open 1988, he moved his other

rook's pawn. After 12 h3 tDgf6 13 hxg4 tDxg4 14 cxdS cxdS 15 i..e2
play was obscure and ended in a draw following IS ...tDde5 16 tDf4
tDf6 17 'iVc3 tDe4 IS tDxe4!? dxe4 (IS ... tDf3+? 19 i..xf3 i..xc3+
20 tDxc3 'iVxb2 21 0-0 'iVxc3 22 tDxd5 and 23 tDc7 + will leave White
winning on material) 19 <;tfl!? 0-0 20 tDh5 f6 21 tDxg7. Perhaps
Hodgson thought that, messy though the play is, 12 h3 did not yield
enough winning chances?
12••• tDcS 13 cxdS tDxd3+ 14 i..xd3 cxdS
They don't go 14...i..xb2 since the game Hodgson-Lalic, British

Championship 1999, which continued 15 as! 'iVb4 16 'ilfb I
(threatening 17 i..e5) 16... tDf6
99
What's Hot?
17 l:ta4!! 'ii'xa4 18 'ii'xb2. Neither capture on d5 is now permissible.

so Lalic took another pawn. to stand the exchange and two pawns
ahead. 18... 'ii'xaS 19 d6!. The problems facing the disorganised black
game. notwithstanding his huge development lead. proved too great.
19 ... i.f5 20 e4! i.xe4 21 i.xe4 ltJxe4 22 O-O! ltJxg3 23 'ii'xh8+ 'it>d7
24 'ii'xa8 ltJe2 + 25 'it>h I 'ii'xd2 26 dxe7 'it>xe7 27 'ii'xb7 + 'it>f6
28 'ii'xc6+ 'it>g7 29 'ii'e4 and White realised his material advantage.
Another amazing Hodgson performance.
15 i.bS+ <M8 160-0
White has obvious compensation as Black yet lags in development

with a weakened position. and has lost his right to castle.
16... i.f5
100
What's Hot?
Healthy development. After 16 ... a6 it was spotted that the bishop is

not actually threatened, and 17 e4 was played in Hodgson-Krasenkow,
Bundesliga 1998. As 17... axb5 18 axb5 would threaten as and allow
mate on c8 were a I captured, 18...ii.xb2! is the only move, but Black
does not want the position after 19 'iWxb2 :xa I 20.:xa I. The game
ended 17...ii.e6! 18 exd5 ii.xd5 19 .tc4, and here they called it a
draw. But Black played on to win in both Lawson-LeSiege. Canada
2003 and Hodgson-Scvhandorff, Bundesliga 200 I , with 19...:tc8.
Lawson continued 20 as 'ifb4 21 'ifd I !? An ingenious way of escaping
the pin. 21 ...ii.xc4 22 :ta4 'iWb5 23 liJxc4 ttJf6 24 ttJb6 :te8 25 :te I
when he had obvious domination as compensation, although the GM
wriggled his way to victory at move 79. The Bundesliga game was
fabulous: 20 .txd5? With the wisdom of hindSight, we may dub this
'over-exuberant'.20 ....:xel 21 ::.axel
21 ... ii.xb2! A startling and essential resource, possibly discovered with

computers pre-game, which sets the cat amongst the pigeons.
22 ':c8+ Wg7 23 ttJc4 'iWb4! 24 :tb I ttJf6! 25 .:xh8 ~h8 26 ii.xf7
<3;g7 27 ii.e6 'iWxa4 28 liJxb2 'iWc2. This trusses White up as he has to
cling on to his material for as long as possible. 29 ii.a2 as. So Black
gets on with advancing the pawns. 30 ii.e5 a4 31 l:td I a3 32 ii.b I
'iWe2. Finally guaranteeing a material lead, but there are still
considerable technical obstacles to be overcome. 33 ii.c3 axb2
34 ':'e I 'iWc4 35 .txb2 (35 ':'xe7 + <3;f8 36 :te3 ttJd5 wins) 35 ... <3;f7
and, after highly ingenious organisation and subsequent advancing of
his b-pawn, Black won at move 56.
17 .tc7 'iWg6 18 'iWcs ttJf6
101
What's Hot?
19 as
Povah-Shaw, 4NCL British Team Championship 2003, varied here
with Nigel's 19 .i.e5. The irritating white pressure against the queen's
wing was such that John decided that the best solution was to give
back the pawn with 19 ... a6 20 .i.e2 ':c8 21 'ii'b4 tbd7 22 .i.xg7 +
~xg7 23 'ii'xb7 'ii'd6 when play was about balanced and the game
ended in a draw at move 42.
19.••a6 20 .i.a4 tbe8! 21 .i.f4 .i.xb2
As in the Schandorff game, this move is both freeing up his kingside

for organisation, as well as grabbing a pawn.
22 ':abl
22l:r.a2 ':c8 23 'ii'xd5 .tc3 24 'ii'xb7 e5 25 e4 .te6 26 .i.e3 tbd6

27 'ii'xa6 tbxe4 28 tbxe4 'ii'xe4.
22 •••I:.c8 23 'ii'xdS .i.xb 1 24 'iWxb7
102
What's Hot?
24 .. J~cI 25 :Xci i.xcl 26liJxbl ~g7 27 i.e5+
On 27 'iJJxe7 'iVxbl 28 i.e5+ ~g6 and the threats to White's back

rank decide matters.
27•••lUf6 28 'iVxe7 i.b2! 29 i.e2 ':'e8! 30 lUe3 'ii'xe2 31 'ii'xf6+ ~

32 'iJJxh6+ ~e8
This time Black escaped the Hodgson attack, as White has no more
purposeful checks.
33 h4 i.xe3 34 i.f4 'ifg6
Hodgson was one of the pre-tournament favourites, but it was

actually to be Godena who went through to qualify and take one of
the places in the Candidates tournament in India. Just as in the 1995
Zonal, Miles looked like a contender for top honours, but then his
years and the effects of diabetes caught up on him. I can also testify
that Godena is a useful flVe-a-side soccer player.
0-1
Part Three: 4 lUfl 'itb6 5 b3
Rather than gambit the pawn or defend it with the queen, White
simply moves the pawn forwards. The critical response is 5 ...i.f5,
getting the bishop outside the pawn chain before setting up a Slav
centre. Then a typical sequence is 6 e3 e6 7 i.d3 i.xd3 8 'ii'xd3 as
in the Morozevich-Kramnik game below.
103
What's Hot?
White can try for pressure with c2-c4 but it is hard to believe that this
is going to disturb Black very much.
J.Hodgson White
Y.Mikhalevski Black
North American Open, Las Vegas 2000
I d4 dS 2 .i.gS h6 3 i.h4 c6 4 tiJIJ 'Wb6 5 b3 .i.f5 6 e3 tiJd7 7 i.d3

bd3 8 'Wxd3
8 ...e6
Lobron-Breutigam, Bundesliga, 2000 continued 8 ... tiJgf6 9 0-0 e6

10 tiJbd2. (Far more commonly in this line it is placed at c3, as in
Gunawan-Kosasih, Bali 2000, which saw 10 c4 tiJe4!? I I c5 'Wc?
12 tiJc3 g5 13 i.g3 ttJxg3 14 fxg3!? i.g? 14 e4 with unclear play)
104
What's Hot?
10....te7 I I c4 0-0 12 c5 'iWd8 13 b4 tDh5 14 .tg3 tlJxg3 15 hxg3

i/ic7 16 'it'c3 .tf6 17 .:tab I b5 18 a4 a6 19 l:ta I e5 with balanced play
and the game ended a draw at move 55.
9 0-0 .te7 10 .txe7 tDxe7 II c4 cS
Mikhalevski prefers to challenge in the centre now rather than permit

Hodgson the option of c4-c5.
12 tDc1 cxd4 11 exd4 'it'a6 14 tDbS ':c8 15 c5 0-0 16 :tfd I tDc6

17 tDd6 'it'xd1 18 hd1 ':b8 19 a3 as 20 b4
Initiating a long and tricky tactical sequence.
20••• b6 21 bS
Forced. otherwise his queenside just crumbles.
21 .••tDxd4! 22 c6!
On 22 tDxd4 tDxc5 and 23 ...l:tbd8 to win the knight. Or 22 l:txd4

bxc5 and 23 ...l:tb6 rounds it up. Hodgson is now a pawn behind. but
the guy at c6 is mighty compensation.
22•••ltJxfJ + 21lhfl tDcs 24 l:tcl
Preferring this to the regain of material with 24 c7 l:tbc8 25 tDxc8

:Xc8 when Black will have two pawns and an impenetrable position
for it.
24•••:tbd8
105
What's Hot?
25 ttJxi7! .lbf7 26.lbf7 rJ;;xf'T 27 lhcS! bxcS 28 c7 ~e8
The only move, as all others allow 29 b7 and White will keep a queen.
=
29 cxd8 'if + ~d8 30 a4 1/2- 1/2
The protected passed b-pawn means that, a pawn down, White still
holds the game by stationing his king around d2 or c2 whereupon an
impasse becomes apparent as the black king may not step outside the
queening square of the bS pawn.
Now we'll see another highly creative player getting into trouble as
White when he tries for too much against Black's super-solid set up.
A.Morozevich White
Y.Kramnik Black
Astana 2001
I d4 dS 2 .tgS c6 3 ttJf3 h6 4 .th4 'ifb6 5 b3 .tIS
In a game from Lucerne, 1997, Kaidanov tried S...aS!? against

Hodgson. After 6 a3 .tfS 7 e3 ttJd7 8 c4 e6 play would have been
level with 9 ttJc3.
6 e3 e6 7 i.d3 .txd3 8 'ifxd3 .te7
8 ... ttJd7 is often played here. In a game from their 1998 World
Championship Match, Anand then innovated against Karpov with 9 c4
(9 0-0 was customary) and Anatoly spotted the interesting idea of
9...ttJe7!? Anand reacted oddly with 10 cS?! and Black quickly got the
edge after 10...WaS I I ttJc3 b6, when an unnerved Anand even
followed up with 12 b4? and had little to show for that pawn after
106
What's Hot?
12... 'i'xb4 13 0-0 tiJfS and quickly lost. In Wahedl-Chandler, Messen

2001, White met 8 ... tiJe7 with 9 c3, and went on to win.
9 ~xe7 ttJxe7 10 c4 tiJd7 II tiJc30-0 120-0
A solid Slav stance for Black.
12••• 'ifa6!?
An interesting deployment quite often to be seen in these formations.
13 llfd I ::tfd8 14 !:tab I b6 15 'iff I :ac8
Pretty much the end of the beginning. Black has equalised.
16 ::td2 tiJf6 17 tiJe5 dxc4 18 ttJxc4 tiJed5 19 ::tc2?
This natural move turns out to be a serious miscalculation. He ought

to have played 19 tiJxdS.
19••.ttJxc3 20 :Xc3 c5
107
What's Hot?
There is now no adequate way to deal with Black's threat to isolate

the queen's pawn. Moro goes downhill fast.
21 dxc5 b5! 22 ttJe5 ttJe4
The exchange must now go.
23 ':d3 ttJd2 24 LdS+ LdS 25 ':d 1 tDxfl 26 LdS+ ~h7 27 c6

'ifa5
Putting an end to the tricks, as he is threatening d8 and e I , and on

28 ':d I 'ifc3 29 ttJf3 ttJxe3 30 fxe3 'ifxe3+ and 31 ...•c5 wraps up.
0-1
The moral of the games above for White seems to be: patience is a
virtue - leave it to Black to weaken himself.
Joel Lautier is a fine player, but in the next game he virtually presents
the point to Gelfand with his loose opening play.
B.Gelfand White
J.Lautier Black
FIDE World Championship Knockout, Groningen 1997
1 d4 d5 2 ttJf3 c6 3 J.g5 h6 4 J.h4 . 6
Once again it is a transpositional move order which gets us here.
5 b3 ttJd7!? 6 e3 e5
The same tactic based upon the loose h4 bishop but in a different
form. Now 7 dxe5 ttJxe5 8 ttJxe5?! 'ifb4+ favours Black.
7 J.e2 e4 S ttJfd2
108
What's Hot?
S •••cS?
Quite a rare mistake from a player of his level. After the move in the
game Black is saddled with serious problems concerning the pawn at
d5. On the more standard S... ltJe7 White has the interesting option of
9 .Jig4!? when 9 .. .f5? fails to 10 .Jixf5. 9... ltJg6 10 .Jig3 ltJf6 II .Jixcs
.l::r.xcS would lead to equality.
9 dxcS ltJxcs
9 ... 'iWxc5!?
10 ltJc3!
10•••gS?!
This does not work, but on 10....Jie6 White has II .Jib5+ ltJd7
12 0-0 and Black is under strain, e.g. 12 ... 'ii'c5 I 3 .Jixd7 + .Jixd7
14 ltJe2. Note that 10... 'ii'e6 lost instantly to I 3 ltJc4!.
II ltJxdS'ii'dS 12 .JibS+ .i.d7 13 .i.g3!± ':'cS 14 .Jixd7+ 'ii'xd7

15 .JieS! ':'h7 16ltJf6+ ltJxf6 17 .Jixf6 ':'c6 IS .Jib2
The game is actually decided in White's favour: he is a pawn up and

Black has no compensation for it.
IS•• J:td6 19 i..d4 'ilfS
On 19 ... 'ii'c6 20 'ilg4 is winning.
20 'ile2 ltJe6 21 c3 :d7
109
What's Hot?
There were those ruthless spirits who even advocated here the
'Nigel Short approach' of 22 iLxa7! 'ii'aS 23 Jid4 ttJxd4 24 cxd4 JiM
25 Wd I b5 26 h4 and whatever headaches Black's activity may cause
White are hardly going to fully compensate for two pawns. Gelfand,
understandably, preferred to keep more control over matters.
22 f3? exf3 23 'ii'xf3 'ii'b5 24 'iVe2 'iVc6 25 0-0 Jid6 26 ttJc4 Jib8
27 'ii'c2! ttJf8 28 %H6 'iVc8 29 .:taf 1 b5 30 ttJd2 "iic7 31 'ii'e4 +!
Forcing an easily winning endgame.
31 •••.:.e7 32 "iic6+ "iixc6 33 lhc6 Wd7 34 ':'a6 Wc8 35 :f5
35 ...Wb7
On 35 ....l:.b7 White has 36 ttJe4 ttJe6 37 :Xe6 fxe6 38 :f8+ Wc7

39 Jie5 + and wins. Gelfand now tidies up efficiently.
36 ':'af6
110
What's Hot?
Winning another pawn.
36 ••• ttJe6 37 Ihb5 + 'it>c8 38 ttJc4 h5 39 ..te5 ..txe5 40 tZJxe5 a6

1 ~d5 h4 42 h3 ttJc743 %:tc5 'it>b7 44 ttJc4 ttJe6 45 %:.cf5 %:td7 46:xt7
1-0
Part Four: 4 e3 "ii'b6
At this point we switch from looking at 4 ttJf3 to 4 e3. It can amount

to a mere transposition, with White throwing in a quick ttJf3 anyway;
but sometimes it can make a huge difference, as we shall see.
After either 4 e3 'ifb6 5 b3 or 4 e3 "ii'b6 5 "ii'c I it seems that Black

should seize the chance for the liberating advance S... eS!? which has
the cute point 6 dxeS?? 'ii'b4+ and Black wins a bishop.
However, before looking at S... eS lines, we should briefly consider

what happens if Black makes do with S.....tfS. Of course, it could be
that your opponent plays like this as has never studied the theory of
the Queen's Bishop Attack and doesn't even notice that S... eS is
possible!
4a) 4 e3 "ii'b6 5 'ii'c 1 ..tfS
Here play is similar to lines discussed in Part Two above where after 4
ttJf3 'ifb6 5 'ii'c I Black replies S.....tfS.
III
What's Hot?
Khalifman once spumed the opportunity of 5... e5 and played like this
against Hodgson. He held the draw, but White looked slightly better
throughout thanks to his customary queenside pressure.
J.Hodgson White
A.Khalifman Black
Hastings 1995-96
I d4 d5 2 iLg5 h6 3 iLh4 c6 4 e3 'ii'b6 5 'ifcl iLf5 6 ttJf3 e6 7 c4 iLe7

8 i.xe7 ttJxe 7 9 ttJc3 ttJd7 10 iLe2 0-0 I I 0-0 iLg4 12 b3 .l:tac8 13 ltd I
ttJg6 14 'ilfa3 a6 15 .l:tac I ttJf6
The end of the beginning!?
16 h3 iLxf3 17 i.xf3 !:tfd8
Future PCA World Champion Khalifman would sometimes take a

tactician very seriously when he had the black pieces. Despite his
excellent tactical ability, here he plays very solidly.
18 iLe2 'ilc7 19 cxd5 exd5 20 b4
Hodgson switches to a minority attack. Twenty-three moves later it

lands.
20•••'ile7 21 'ii'b3 ttJe4 22 ttJxe4 'ilxe4 23 iLd3 'ife6 24 a4 ttJe7 25 .l:tc5
112
What's Hot?
For all the effect it has when he eventually gets it in, it might have
been better just to go b4-b5 right now!
25 •••'iVd6 26 ':'de I %:taS 27 ':'5e2 ':'e8 28 'ife3 :ted8 29 'iVe5 %:td7

30 ':'b2 'iti>f8 31 l:tbb I ~g8 32 'iVa5 :dd8 33 . 6 %:td7 34 %:ta I tDe8
35 'iVe5 tDe7 36 'ilaS 'ike7 37 'iVe5 'ikd6 38 :tal g6 39 l:tea I ~ 40 g3
h5 41 ~g2 :dd8 42 'ilxd6 :Xd6 43 b5
Finally!
43 ••.axb5 44 axb5 %hal 45l:txa2 cxb5 46 bb5 :b6 47 ~e2 ~e8

48 g4 hxg4 49 hxg4 f6 50 ~ Wf7 51 liaS :tb2 52 :tb8 'itte6 53 ~a6
:b6! 54 ~d3 :b2 55 :e8 ~d7 56 l:tf8 ~e6 57 :e8
He could have kept it going with 57 ~g3.
4b) 4 e3 'ikb6 5 b3 .tfS
Play here can easily transpose to lines discussed in Part Three: ... tDf3
'iVb65 b3 above after Black's reply 5 ....tf5. Here is one brief
example.
A.Rakhmangulov White
A.Miles Block
Alushta 1999
I d4 d5 2 ~g5 h6 3 ~h4 e6 4 e3 'ifb6 5 b3
113
What's Hot?
S••• .tfS 6 .td3 .txd3 7 'ii'xd3 e6
Marcus-Bromann, Budapest 1999 ended 7... tDd7 8 tDfJ e6 9 0-0 .te7

10 .tg3 cS Draw Agreed, whereas Jugelt-Meijers, Nord West Cup
200 I saw an unusual fianchetto after 7 ... tDd7 8 tDe2!? g6!? 9 0-0 .tg7
10 c4 tDgf6 I I tDbc3 0-0 and was eventually a draw too.
8 tDfJ .te7 9 .txe7 tDxe7 10 0-0
Obviously games with the strongest parallels to Morozevich-Kramnik,

and symptomatic of Black's equalising potential in this line.
4c) Black grabs space with 4 e3 'fib6 5 b3 eS!? 6 tDfJ e4
If S... eS is a useful move, does this mean that 4 tDfJ is to preferred to

4 e3, as it rules out the possibility? Well, first of all. 4 tDfJ has a
downside of its own as it exposes White to the pawn grab of the
Hodgson-Godena game above. And perhaps White is happy to
provoke Black into setting up a pawn centre with eS and e4, as it can
then be undermined. Even if Black is objectively OK, it leads to a far
more interesting battle than lines in which Black is content to set up
the Slav triangle of pawns on c6, dS and e6.
First of all we see Michael Adams trying to start a direct attack, but
Boris Gelfand spoils things by forcing off the queens.
114
What's Hot?
M.Adams White
B.Gelfand Black
Chalkidiki 1993
I d4 dS 2 JtgS c6 3 e3 h6 4 Jth4 'ifb6 5 b3 eS 6 ttJO e4
7 ttJeS!?
Like Skembris in a similar setting, Michael perceives that this is an

option. Maybe a Greek motif!? Boris adopts a no nonsense approach
to swiftly neutralise it.
7 ...ttJd7 8 'ifhS!? ttJxeS
Forced, but quite adequate.
9 'ifxeS + Jte6 10 Jte2 'ifb4 +
IO ... cS!?
II c3 'ifd6
Ultra solid. Those of the wilder disposition might have ventured

IO... 'it>d7!? instead.
12 'ifxd6 ~xd6 13 ~g3 Jtxg3 14 hxg3 ttJf6 15 c4 'it>e7 16 ttJc3 l::thd8

17 %itc I :ac8 18 cxdS cxdS 19 'it>d2 l::tc7 20 ttJbS :Xc I 21 lhc I ~d7
22 a4 a6 23 ttJc3 as 24 0 exf3 25 gxf3 hS 26 e4 dxe4 27 fxe4 Jtg4
28 hg4 ttJxg4 29 ttJdS + Wf8 30 <itd3
115
What's Hot?
Mestel believes that endings with rooks and knights are always played
exceptionally well by really strong players. Adams' forces have
become the more centralised and effective, so Gelfand hastens to
mobilize a passed pawn asset, but it does not look as though it is
going to suffice for equality.
30...g5 31 :1fl ~g7 32 ctJe7 ~d7 33 tbf5+ ~g6 34 d5 ctJh6 35 ctJe3 f6

36 ~d4 ctJf7 37 ctJf5 ctJe5 38 d6 :!h7 39 ~d5 h4 40 gxh4 gxh4 41 ~e6
Substantial progress by Adams. But Gelfand remains unflustered and

pushes that h-pawn.
41 ... ~g5 42 ctJe3 ctJd7 43 :1f5 + ~g6 44 ctJg4 h3 45 ltJxf6 h2 46 Ci:Jxd7

hi ='if 47 ctJf8+ ~g7 48 ~f7+ ~g8 49lhh7 'ii'xe4+ 50 ~d7 ~
51 :1h8+ ~ 52 %:te8
Such is the power of the advanced d-pawn that here White is not
losing.
116
What's Hot?
52 •• .'iWfJ 53 14c 1 'ife3
On 53 ...'ifxb3 54 ~c7!.
54:fI + ~g7 55 ~d8 'iWb6+ 56 ~e7 'ife3+
56 ...'ifxb3 57 d7 'ife3+ 58 ~d6 'ifd3+ 59 ~c7 and the pawn secures

the draw.
57 ~d8 'ifg5+ 58 ~d7 b5 59 Il.al 'iff5+ 60 ~c6 'ifc2+ 61 ~b6 'ifd3

62 d7! 'ifxd7 63 14g 1+ ~h6 64 Il.h 1+ ~g5 65 axb5
And draws.
65 .•.'ii'd8+ 66 ~a7 'ifc7+ 67 ~a6 'ifc8+ 68 <Jita7 'ifc7+ 'h-\h
Evidently Adams realised that a more logical course was to arrange

pressure on the queenside with a series of pawn advances. He had a
second chance against the same opponent, but the outcome was
rather disappointing: Gelfand's bishop pair had the last word.
MAdams White
B.GeHand Black
Investbanka, Belgrade 1995
1 d4 d5 2 ~g5 c6 3 e3 h6 4 ~h4 'ifb6 5 b3 e5 6 ltJfJ e4 7 ltJfd2
Michael tries another square. I doubt any future Adams-Gelfand game

will see 7ltJgl.
117
What's Hot?
7•..tDe7
As if 5 'ifc I had been played. Boris aims at the h4 guy.
8 c4 lUfS 9 ~g3 l2Jxg3
The older I get the more I personally value the pair of bishops.
10 hxg3 ~e6
IO ...'iWd8!?
II ~e2
11 •••lUd7
Again the regrouping with I O...'ifd8 was to be considered. Often the

queen will have no future on the queenside in such formations, as
White is going to be gaining ground over there.
12 a3
12 lUc3 is an alternative.
12...'ifd8 13 b4 ~d6 would have brought the bishop to a more active

diagonal.
13 lUc3 lUf6 14 b4 0-0 15 ':c I 'iWd8 16 lUb3

Just as in his earlier struggle with Short, Adams is in no hurry to castle.
118
What's Hot?
16••• b6
16....td6!? 16... dxc4 17 ttJaS would have allowed White to regain his
pawn.
17 cS as?!
Just 17... b5 18 a4 a6 would have sealed up the queenside and left

things around equal. but. typically. Gelfand strives to complicate.
18 bxaS
Taking him on. Had he not. Black may have played ... a4. then ... b5 to
close up the queenside whilst White is denied as for a knight. and only
then attempt a pawn break on the other wing.
18••• bxcS
On 18... bxaS 19 ttJa4.
19 dxcS ttJd7
20 ttJd4!
Correctly passing over 20 ttJa4 because of the sequence 20 ...ltxaS!

21 ttJxas "ifxaS + 22 ~fI lita8 23 ttJb6 ttJxb6 24 cxb6 'ifxb6 and Black
has the bishops and a mobile pawn roller. A very Gelfandian
counterattacking concept.
20•••'ifc7 21 a6 ttJxcS
A very sharp position. both tactically and strategically. has arisen.
119
What's Hot?
220-0 lUe8 23ltJa2!
23 tiJa4 liJxa4 24 'ii'xa4 c5 favours Black. Adams, the great master of

the middlegame, keeps his bearings.
23 •••it.d7
23 ...ttJxa6 24ltxc6 'ifb7=.
24 4:Jb4 'i'd6 25 'ife2
Forcing play with 25 .i.g4 leads to an equal game after 25 ... ttJxa6
26 .i.xd7 'ifxd7 27 4:Jdxc6.
25 •••.i.f8
In a tense situation, Gelfand keeps his nerve.
26 ..Ud 1 g6 27 ltd2 h5 28 4:Jb3
28 'ifd I 4:Je6.
28 •••liJxb3 29 'iWxb3 'iWe6 30 'iWd 1 .i.e7 31 4:Jc2 'iff6 32 ltb 1 lta7
Both players were running short of time.
33 4:Jb4 ltea8 34 'ife 1 'ifd6 35 ltb3 lte8 36 ':e3 ltee7 37 .i.d 1 .i.f6
38':e4
38 l::tc5!? was another way of tacking.
120
What's Hot?
39 i.e2?
In time pressure Michael slips up. A line such as 39 lhc6 would have
left things equal. Boris now seizes his chance.
39.••e5! 40 ttJxd5
This, the last move of the time control, is insufficient, but on a retreat
Black would roll on powerfully with 40... d4.
40•••i.xd5 41 'iVd I l::td7 42 lhe4 'iVe6
Gelfand sets about tidying up, and from now on he never lets his
control of the position slip.
43 l::te8+ r:l;g7 44 l::tb8 e4! 45 l::tb7 e3! 46 i.b5
46 l::txa7lha7 47 l::txd5 c2.
46•••'iVxb5! 47 lbb5 cxd2 48 'it'xd2 i.e4 49 'iVb4 i.xb5 50 'it'xb5 :d6

51 e4 l::te6 52 'iVd3 l::texa6 53 <itth2 l::txaJ 54 'iVd6 l::t3a6 55 'it'd3 l::ta I
56 f4 l::tcl 57 g4 hxg4 58 'iVe2 :aa I 59 r:l;g3 Ital + 0-1
In the third game we see a maestro at work. White manages to break

through on the queenside, but in the meantime he comes under a
withering attack on the other wing. Don't blame the Queen's Bishop
Attack for this defeat: it's never easy facing Anand in a rapid play game.
S.Drazie White
VAnand Black
Corsica Masters, Bastia 2000
I d4 d5 2 i.g5 h6 3 i.h4 e6 4 e3 'iVb6 5 b3 e5 6 ttJf3 e4 7 ttJfd2 i.e7

8 i.g3 i.e6 9 i.e2 ttJf6
121
What's Hot?
Notably, Vishy declines to play .. .f5 first.
10 0-0 0-0 I I c4 'ii'd8 12 ttJc3
Reasoning that she will have to be moving soon anyway, Anand shifted
his queen back last move. It also prepared his next.
12••• ~d6 13 ~xd6 'ii'xd6 14:K.b I ttJbd7 15 a4
15 b4 seems more natural.
IS •••aS!?
Holding things up in that sector, for a while.
16 cS 'Wie7 17 .l:.b2 .l:.fb8 18 'iVb I b6 19 cxb6 :Xb6 20 .:tel l::tab8
Unusually for this variation, it is Black now in control along the b-line.
21 ~fl hS
A familiar attacking gesture.
122
What's Hot?
22 lbe2 h4 23 %:tbc2 'iVd6 24 lbf4 id5! 25 :c5 g5 26 lbe2 lbfB 27 'iVc2
The immediate 27lha5 allowed 27 ...'ii'h4 winning a piece.
27 •••.i.d7
28 %0015?
28 h3 had to be better. Black probably plays 28 ...:la8 then followed

by ... lbg6 and a continuing kingside build up.
28•••lbg4 29 g3 'iVf6
And as f2 is indefensible, the white game collapses.
30 lbxe4 dxe4 31 lbc3 hxg3 32 hxg3 'iVh6 33 .i.g2 lhb3 34 lbxe4 :b2
35 :txg5+ lbg6 36 'iVc5 'iVh2+ 37 <til lbxe3+! 0-1
4d) Black grabs space with 4 e3 'iVb6 5 'iVc I e5
Now 6 c3 has the virtue that it doesn't lose time with the knight as
occurs after 6lbfJ e4. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine an
inert move like this setting Black any real problems.
A.Miles White
G.Flear Black
4NCL British Team Championship 1998
I d4 d5 2 .i.g5 h6 3 .i.h4 c6 4 e3 'ii'b6 5 'ii'c I e5
123
What's Hot?
6 cl
In Chepukaitis-Volkov, Chigorin Memorial Open 2000, play became

intricate after 6 lDn lDd7 7 lDbd2 e4 S lDg I. Not the usual retreat
square. S....te7 9 Jig3lDgf6 10 lDe2 0-0 II a3!?:te8 12 c4lDh5
I 3 lDc3 lDxg3 14 hxg3 lDf6 15 b4 Jie6 16 Jie2 whereupon Black
decided to resolve the central situation with 16 ... dxc4, although he
had many other plausible moves, e.g. 16.. JlacS, 16 .. J:tadS, 16...'iVdS,
16 ...'it>h7, etc. The game ended in a draw. In, by transposition, Orazic-
Radlovackl, Milivoj 2002, 7 Jie2 was seen and then 7...e4 SlDfd2 Jie7
9 Jig3 and Black once again went after the bishop at g3. 9 ... h5
10 h4?!. A dubious decision, I0 ...lDh6 and ...lDf5 left Black clearly
better off.
6... Jie7!?
Offering a true gambit?! Miles-Kramnik, Intel London 1995 saw the

less enterprising 6 ... exd4 7 cxd4 Jie7 S Jixe7 lDxe7 9 lDc3 Jif5
10 lDn lDd7 I I Jie2 0-0 12 0-0 Jig4 13 'iVc2 !:tfeS when Black had
quite equalised, even though Miles went on to win the game and
receive the reward of a bear hug on stage from Ray Keene.
Whatever turns you on ...
7 Jixe 7 lDxe7 8 dxeS lDd7 9 lDfJ
124
What's Hot?
Seems Miles did not think so, as 9 f4 4:Jf5 would have necessitated a
king move to hang on to his pawn, and then Glenn would have gone
to work with 10... ttJxe3! II 'ii'xe3 'it'xb2.
9 •••'ii'c710e6
Doing a little damage as he dies.
10•••fxe6 I I c4 0-0 12 4:Jbd2 'it'd6 13 .Jie2 eS 14 cxdS cxdS 15 'ii'c3 e4

16 4:Jd4 4:JeS 17 f4
An interesting moment, as Miles voluntarily weakens his kingside.

Could he have been worried that Flear would have gone over to the
attack after the more regular 17 0-0 (?).
17••• exfJ 18 4:J2xf3 4:Jg4 19 0-0 V2-'/2
A short but valuable game, as Flear, solid as ever, dealt with the White
opening with characteristic efficiency to equalise.
Naturally the main battleground has been after 6 4:Jf3. If now 6 ... exd4
then 7 ttJxd4!? keeps up the tension.
S.Nguyen Ngoc Truong White

A.Vajda Black
First Saturday Grandmasters, Budapest 2004
I d4 dS 2 .JigS h6 3 .Jih4 c6
125
What's Hot?
4 e3 'ii'b6 5 'ii'c 1
No gambit today. Well, not yet anyway.
S•••eS 6 ttJf3 exd4 7 tiJxd4
The boy likes piece play.
7 •••i.e7
Miiadinovic-I.Sokolov, Istanbul Olympiad 2000 saw 7 ... cS!? S ttJf3 i.e7

9 i.g3 i.f6. An unusual but viable way to fianchetto. 10 ttJc3 ttJe7
I I ttJbS O-O! 12 c3 (12 ttJc7? i.xb2! favours Black) 12...ttJa6 13 i.e2
ttJfS 14 i.f4 i.d7 IS ttJa3 :feS and Ivan took over control
of the centre and developed an advantage which he pursued in
characteristically powerful style to win a pawn and then, in face of
dogged resistance, let the advantage slip and drew.
S .tg3 hS?!
One could hardly approve! S ...ttJf6 was rational and level.
9 c4!? dxc4 10 i.xc4 h4 1 1 i..xb8:XbS 12 ttJc3
White gave away the bishop pair for a development lead and some
chances, he would surely have thought, against the weaknesses
created by the advancing h-pawn.
12•••'ii'cS
126
What's Hot?
Both men were really going for it. Perhaps each was in pursuit of a
norm!? 12...ttJf6 was sounder.
13 .tb3 'ifgS 14 'iVd2
The consistent follow up to his last move.
14•••'iVxg2
Normally in this line it is the queen's knight pawn which Black accepts
as a gambit, but this time it was the king's!
150-0-0 'iVg6 16 :hgl 'iff6 17 f4
White continues in a direct and logical manner. He has strong

compensation in the shape of development lead, active pieces, open
lines and the black queen to kick around. I 7 ttJe4 'iVe5 IS 'iVc2 was
also good, but the text is probably even stronger, since the f-pawn
itself may become a useful unit.
17•••.tb4?
To stop ttJe4, but the bishop will be missed by the king.
18:gS
Missing a shot with the splendid IS !txg7!! 'iVxg7 19 ttJxc6! when the
threat of mate decides. Black would do better with IS ....txc3 19 bxc3
ttJh6, but then 20 :g5 leaves the Black game greatly compromised
through the loss of the g-pawn, and where is his king now to live?
127
What's Hot?
Also, if you are not going to take on g7, then I would have thought
18 e4 to be a more purposeful move, as that pawn then enters the
fray.
18•.. ~
He is stuck for natural moves.
19 a3 ~xcl 20 'ifxcl g6 21 'ii'cs +
21 %:tfl, planning the advance of the e-pawn, was also strong.
21 ... 'ii'e7 22 'ii'cl?!
What was that all about? We might as well say 'B' with 22 'ii'xa7
'ii'xe3 + 23 'iitb I 'ii'xf4 24 %:tgg I when White may be two pawns down
but the black queen must take care of the rook at b8 and the threat
of bringing a rook to the f-Iine is very hard to meet.
22 .. JlhS
Dreadfully compromising, but 22 ... iDf6 would allow 23 %:te5 'ifc7

24 'ii'c5+ and 25 %:te7.
2l l:txhS gxhS 24 :gl 1.g4 25 hl!
2S ....txhl 26 11g7!
Blasting his way in. Now, as 26 ...~7 27 iDf5+ wins on the spot,
Black is finished.
26 ...c5 27 iDf3! c4 28 iDgS! iDh6 29 %:th7 1-0
128
What's Hot?
This brings us to the crux of the matter, which is 6 ttJf3 &4. In the first
game Black allows himself to be provoked by White's unobtrusive play
into a wild adventure. The verdict is perhaps 'unclear' but this is just
the kind of fight White is looking for when he plays 2 ~gS.
Y.Milov White
A.Mikhaievski Black
Biel 1999
I eM d5 21i.g5 h6 3 ~h4 c6 4 e3 'ii'b6 5 'ifcl e5 6 ttJO e4 7 ttJfd2 J..e7

8 J..g3 h5
Another galloper.
9 c4 h4 10 ~f4 g5 1 1 J..e5 f6
12bbS
Interestingly Milov has egged the black pawns on before conceding his
bishop for the knight, although it is far from clear that those advances
do constitute authentic weakening.
12•••:xb8 13 ttJc3 ~e6 14 'ifc2 f5
The usual stuff. Is White playing a French where he has rid himself of
his problem bishop?! The rook on b8 is conveniently placed insomuch
as White's offer now of a queen exchange with 15 'ifb3 may be
declined, with the b7 pawn covered, by IS ...'ifd8.
129
What's Hot?
15 fl!? lbf6 160-0-0:c8 17 ~bl 0-0
The stage is set.
ISg4
Here he goes.
IS••. hxg3 19 hxg3 c5
Touche.
20g4!
Again! The centre melts and, as so often in a middlegame with

opposite sides castling, it turns out that king safety is the deciding
feature.
20 •••cxd4 21 exd4 f4
21 ...e3 22 cS and lbb3 still leaves Black troubled by the fall of fS.
22 fxe4lbxg4 23 lbxd5 hd5 24 exd5 :f7
His king is open, and that is what counts most now.
25 lbe4 Wg6 26 .td3 'iWg7 27 d6
He surely had other ways to do the business, but this is strong.
27 •.•lbe3 2S 'ifh2lbxdl 29 dxe7lbe3 30 lbd6lhe7 31 lbxcS1!d7

32 'fIh5 :dS 33lbe7+ ~ 34lbg6+ ~eS 35 'iWxg5lhd4 36l:thS+
~ 37lbe5+ 'fixeS 3S l::th7+ 1-0
130
What's Hot?
A popular alternative plan for Black is to go hunting the white bishop

on h4 with tiJe7 and tiJfS. Everything else being equal, this is of course
a strategical coup as the dark squared bishop is a valuable piece.
Nonetheless, it takes time to carry out the plan and in the meantime
White can build up pressure on the queenside.
I.Miladinovic White
P.Charbonneau Block
Match, Montreal 2000
I d4 dS 2 ~gS h6 3 ~h4 c6 4 e3 'iVb6 5 'it'cI eS 6 tiJf3 e4 7 tiJfd2
7 •••tiJe7
GaJyas-Postny, Budapest 2000, continued 7 ...~e6 8 c4 tiJe7 9 tiJc3

tiJd7 I0 ~g3 a6!? I I cSt? 'ifd8 12 h3. Meaning to hang on to his
bishop. 12...gS 13 'it'c2 ~g7 14 ~e2 tiJfS IS ~h2 0-0 16 0-0-0 tiJh4
and just as the stage was set for something to happen, they stopped
and agreed to a draw.
8 c4 tiJf5
Straight after it. Brumen-Petrov, Pula 2000, continued, by
transposition, 8 ...tiJd7 9 cxdS!? A relatively rare option. 9... cxdS
10 tiJc3 gS I I ~g3 a6. To stop someone dropping in via bS. 12 f3!?
exf3 13 tiJxf3 ~g7 14 ~d3 fS IS 0-0 and White won.
9 ~g3liJxg3 10 hxg3 ~e6 II tiJc3 ~e7
Charbonneau was probably expecting a3 and b4, but Miladinovic

played more simply.
131
What's Hot?
12 'ifc2 0-0
Not troubled by the queen exchange. there was something to be said

for 12...'ii'd8.
13 'ifb3 tiJd7 14 i.e2 f5 15 'ifxb6 tiJxb6?!
Here the pawn recapture was right.
16 c5 tiJd7 17 b4 b5
17... a6 was another better strategy than the one he devised. Pascal
explained to me that this was the final game of a match which he had
already won.
18 tiJb3
Black is now faced with the problem of how to cope with White's
projected a2-a4, and it's not easy. If he braces with 18... a6 then 19 a4
lIfc8 20 tbaS leaves him already vulnerable to a sacrifice at c6. So
then 20 ...:ab8 21 ~d2 i.d8 was probably best. Instead he uncorked
a counter sacrifice which proved just a bit too clever for his own
good. The knight remains en prise to the end of the game.
18••.tiJb6?! 19 a4!
19 cxb6? i.xb4 and 20 ...axb6 gave Black two nice pawns and every
chance of taking the third at a2 whilst White's activity has gone. But
Miladinovic steamed on and Charbonneau's hanging knight just adds to
his woes.
132
What's Hot?
19••• bxa4 20 liJa5! l:tfc8 21 i.a6! l:te7 22 i.b7 l:tb8 23 i.xc6 tbc4
24 i.xdS
A smooth game, indeed.
1-0
In the last game in this section, White's plan of a queenside pawn

storm is given a curious twist. The pawns become interlocked there,
which provides a robust shelter for the white king on the queenside;
meanwhile Black has been advancing pawns on the kingside looking
for counterplay, but the wide open spaces created prove the undoing
of his own king.
R.Ovetehkin White
A.Lastin Black
Chigorin Memorial, St Petersburg 1998
1 d4 dS 2 i.gS h6 3 i.h4 c6 4 e3 'ii'b6 S 'ii'e 1 eS 6 tbf3 e4
7 tbfd2
Another trick to avoid is 7 tbe5?? after which 7...g5 8 i.g3 tbe71eaves

the guy at e5 right in the soup. Srientz-Gartner, Austrian Team
Championships 1996 did not last much longer: 9 i.e2 h5 10 'ii'd I .
Otherwise I0 .. .f6 traps the knight. But now Black went and won the
bishop instead. 10... h4 II i.h5 i.e6 12 0-0 i.g7. No hurry. 13 tbg4
133
What's Hot?
hxg3 14 fxg3 ibd7 and White threw in the towel. An inglorious end to
the queen's bishop.
7 ..•~e6
On 7... ~e7 White understandably preferred to keep the bishop on

the nice h2-b8 line in Martin-Burgess, British Championship 2002,
with 8 ~g3. After 8 ...ibf6 9 c40-0 10 ibc3 ~e6 II c5.d8 12 b4
ibbd7 chances were equal.
8 c4 ibd7 9 ibcl
A similar situation developed in Short-Adams Brussels Activeplay,

1992, with 6 c3 ibd7 7 ibf3 e4 8 ibfd2 f5 9 ~g3 ibgf6 10 c4.
White has lost a tempo through his choice of c3 and a later c4, but
the contours of the play are characteristic. 10...ibh5 I I ibc3 ibxg3.
Nigel axes the very useful walker. 12 hxg3 ibf6 13 a3 ~e6 14 b4.
The standard gaining of space. 14 ...'iWd8 Out of the way and towards
his action zone. 15 ~e2 ~e7 Why ever not to d6? 16 c5. Further
Lebensraum and removing d6 from the bishop. 16... 0-0 (16 ...g5!?)
17 ibb3 b6?! Probably unwise. I prefer prefacing expansion with
17.. .':Ji;h7. 180-0. The canny Cornishman deferred castling until a
situation had arisen where the threats of black kingside advance were
more easily contained and also where he had begun to make progress
on the other wing. 18....:.b8 19 'iWc2 g5 20 b5!. Adams capitalises on
Short's inaccuracies - he would have done better to have shorn up
the queenside with ... b5 - and starts his break-in. 20 ... bxc5 21 dxc5
'iWc8 22 bxc6 ~f7 23 ibd4
134
What's Hot?
A splendid outpost from where the knight radiates influence. Short

has been outplayed and starts to thrash in desperation, but Adams
:fb
easily copes with the attack. 23 .. .f4 24 ttJcb5! f3 25 gxf3 'ifh3 26 I
exf3 27 ..txf3. The black game is gone. He threw 27... ttJe4 at Michael,
but it was just taken and Short resigned at move 44.
9 ••. ttJe7!?
Threatening to nab the h4 bishop, hence White's next.
10 f3 exf3
Thus the structure shifts.
I I gxf3 g5 12 ..ttl ..tg7 13 'iVc2 ':'c8
I 3 .. .f5 was a healthy alternative.
14 c5 Yi'd8 15 ..td3 b6 16 b4 f5 ?
He ought to have taken his chance to flick in 16 ... aSL
17 ttJb3!
Locking that out.
17••• 0-0 18 h4
Naturally.
18 •••ttJg6 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 0-0-0
135
What's Hot?
A rich and complex middlegame with plenty of opportunities for both

sides as play develops across the whole board.
20•••a5
Black too tries to jemmy his way in.
21 iba4!
Certainly preferable to grabbing out with 21 cxb6? 'ifxb6 22 bxa5

when after 22 ...'ifa7 a highly disruptive ... c5 will not be long in
arriving.
21 ••• b5 22 ttJc3 axb4 23 ttJe2
It will be hard for Black to make much use of the temporary extra
pawn, and White can cope with whatever is coming along the new
a-file.
23 •• JIf7 24 .l:dg 1 ttJdf8 25 %:th5 ttJh7 26 f4
Jemmy number three. Now 26 ...g4? fails to 27 :xg4! fxg4 28 i.xg6

etc.
26•••.l:a8 27 ~b 1 'ifc8 28 fxg5
Not only winning a pawn and contributing to his attack, but also
re-opening the h2-bS diagonal for his bishop.
28•••.l:fa7 29 ttJec 1 ttJhfB 30 i.g3
Ovetchkin later preferred the finesses of first 30 i.e I to force the

rook to a worse square and only after 30 .. Jla4 to play 31 i.g3.
136
What's Hot?
30•• :ife8 31 :th2 ~c8 32 %:te2
Had he nothing better? Time pressure starts to affect the play.
32.••:e7 33 'iWd2 tiJh7 34 ~d6
Reaching its optimum capacity.
34 •••%:te4
Ovetchkin now thought this the only practical chance.
35 he4 dxe4 36 :tl?
Another inaccuracy. 36 ':'h2! keeping the black horse out and with
the intent of some breakthrough sacrifice with .:th6! was clearly
winning.
36••• tiJh4! 37 'iWd 1 ~e6 38 ~e5 tiJo
In a time scramble, the game spins out of control.
39.bg7 ttJxgl 40 d5
Reaching the time control, but as so often, the last move before was
weak and simply 40 'iWxg I <ii;>xg I 41 dS!, vacating d4 for the knight,
ought to have done the job.
40••• tiJO! 41 dxe6 ~7 42 tiJd4 tiJhxg5 43 tiJce2 <M6 44 tiJf4 lId8

45 ~ 1 ~8 46 tiJh5+ ..ttg6 47 tlJxc6 tlJxe6 48 lIg2+ c:Jim 49 tlJxd8+
'iWxd8
137
What's Hot?
50 'ii'cl?
Short of time again, he throws his last clear win away. With 50 ttJf4!
he would have covered the check on d3 and brought the knight also
into the game with decisive influence, e.g. 50 ... ttJxf4 51 'iVh7 + 'it>e6
52 'ii'h6+ 'it>d5 53 'it'xf4 'it>xc5 54 'iWxf5+ 'it>b6 55 'iVxe4! ttJd2
56 lb:d2 'it'xd2 and the pawn ending is won after 57 'it'd4+.
50 •••'ii'd3 + 51 'it>a I ttJe5 52 :d2 'ifc3 + 53 'iWxc3 bxc3 54 J::tc2 b4

55 a3 ttJc4 56 axb4 ttJxe3 57 lhc3 ttJd5 58 :'c I
White must be careful as the black passed pawns are also dangerous.
He wisely let it all peter out.
58".ttJxb4 59 c6 ttJd5 60 :fI f4
Or 60 ...'it>g6 61 ttJg3.
61 ttJxf4 ttJexf4 62 lbf4+ 'it>e6 63 lhe4+ 'it>d6 64 l:tc4 'it>c7 '12- 11z
Part Five: White's Anti-'ifb6 Variations after 2".c6
Here we'll look at two of the off beat methods White has tried to
take the sting out of Black's 'ifb6 idea.
138
What's Hot?
Sa) The Slav Treatment I d4 dS 2 .tgS c6 3 c4!?
Here the way is cleared to defend b2 along the second rank after
l ... h6 4 .th4 'ifb6 with 5 'ifd2: a more economical method than the
usual l el h6 4 .th4 'ii'b6 4 'ficl as it doesn't block in the rook on al
and leaves the white queen seeing more daylight. Let's see how it
might work in practice.
E.Meduna White
Z.Szymczak Black
Ceske Budejovice 1992
I d4 dS 2 .tgS c6 3 c4
The rarer method which angles play back towards a Slav.
3 •.• h64 .th4 'iWb6 5 'ii'd2 dxc4 6 e4 gS 7 .tg3 .tg78 4JO 4Jf69 4Jc3
.te6
Trying to hang on to it. There were no better moves.
10.te2
10 dS would have forced Black to give up defence of c4 but after

either IO ... cxdS I I exdS .tg4 or IO ....tg4 he is comfortably placed.
10•••lZJa6 I I 0-0 0-0-0
Decidedly double-edged, and probably unwise!
12 l:r.fd I g4 13 lZJes 4JhS 14 llJxc4 .txc4
139
What's Hot?
15 iLxg4 +! .te6 16 bhS .txd4
16...':xd4 was wiser.
17 tiJdS!
17•••.txdS 18 exdS .txb2
Now 19 .tg4+ e6 19 dxe6! :Xd2 20 e7 + will win, so ...
1-0
Sb) Prie's Baby I d4 dS 2 .tgS c6 3 al!?
A bizarre idea that has been championed by French GM Eric Prie:
Now 3... h6 4 .th4 'ili'b6 can be met with 5 ':a2 !? defending b2

without inconveniencing the white queen or weakening the pawn
140
What's Hot?
front with 5 b3. Though, of course, doubts can be expressed about

the rook's role on a2. Prie dared to try 5lta2 against the former
Russian Champion Mikhail Gurevich, who said to him with gentle
irony in the postmortem "When I saw I:.a2, I began to understand I
had to be cautious".
On the positive side, you will notice that 3 a3 has also defended the
b4 square, so that the 5 ...e5 trick that works after I d4 d5 2 J1.g5 c6
3 e3 h6 4 ~h4 'ii'b6 5 'ii'c I is here prevented as 5 ... e5?? 6 dxe5! is
safe for White as Black win the bishop by checking on b4.
E.Prie White
C;.t(o~cikBlock
French Team Championship 2004
I eM dS 2 ~gS c6 3 al!? h6 4 ~h4 'ii'b6 5 lta2!? ~f5
In Prie's game vs GM David from Montpelier 2004 play continued

5 ....i.g4 6ltJf3 .i.xf3 7 gxf3 e6 8 e4 J1.e7 8 J1.g3 ltJd7 with level play,
although White later won.
6 e3 e6 7 c4 ltJd7 8 ltJc3 ltJgf6
A similar formation to lines arising from 5 'ii'c I , but with the rook
unusually positioned.
9 cS "'d8 10 b4 .i.e7 II .i.d3 hd3 12 'ifxd3 eS 13 ltJge2 0-0 14 f3

ltJh7 15 .i.g3 .i.h4 16 0-0 hg3 17lLlxg3 exeM 18 exd4 g6
141
What's Hot?
An approximately equal middlegame.
19 b5 'iff6 20 f4 b6
Provoking a crisis.
21 fS
A very useful tool to take apart the black structure.
21 ••• bxc5 22 fxg6 'iVxg6 23 lbfS \tth8 24 dxc5 lbe5
Of course 24 ...lbxc5 lost to 25 'ifd4+.
25 'iVd4 f6 26 lbe7
Just 26 bxc6 was good.
26•••'iVe8 27 lbxc6 lbxc6 28 bxc6 'ifxc6 29 lbe2 :tfe8 30 l:.c2 l:.e4

31 'iVd2 lbg5 32 lbg3
This knight is moving in the direction of the black king. Black's sundry
weaknesses start to tell against him.
32 •••l:.c4 33 :Xc4 dxc4 34 'it'd4
Centralised and dominant.
34•••lbh7 35 'iVxc4 lIc8 36 l:.c 1 l:.e8 37 lbfS lle4 38 'it'd3 'it'e8?
But he was lost.
39lbd6
142
What's Hot?
On 39 ...l:te 1+ 40 Wf2, so Black resigned.
1-0
Part Six: When 'irb6 is a strategical mistake.
Finally in this chapter we look at some instances in which Black was

wrong to put his queen on b6. In the first game White's relentless
pressure on the queenside culminated in a piece sacrifice. Many
players of the black pieces have underestimated the effect of the
c4-c5 clamp in conjunction with a bishop on the h2-bS diagonal, and
gotten s-q-u-e-e-z-e-d.
J.Plaskett White
M.Petursson Black
Hastings 1986-87
1 d4 dS 2 iLgS c6 J lbfJ iLfS 4 c4 h6 S iLf4 e6 6 'iibJ 'iib6?!
Fundamentally wrong, in my opinion. 6 .. :ifc8! I advocate.
7 cS
...ala Vlado Kovacevic. Space can always come in handy. Not only do
your men have more room for manouevre, but those pawns are just
that bit further toward the queening squares.
7 ••:ifxbJ 8 axbJ
143
What's Hot?
The white queenside pawns are now set to launch.
8...bbl
A big decision, he stops the roller of ttJc3, b4-bS, but cedes his nice
bishop.
9:xb1 g5 10 .te5
"Probe", as Mark Hebden would say.
10•••f6 I I .tg3 ttJd7 12 e3 ttJe 7 13 b4 a6
Stopping bS.
14 l:tal l:te8
Again stopping bS, and so now creating time to nab the g3 bishop
with '" ttJfS.
15 h3
Preserving a prelate.
15 •••ttJf5 16 .th2 h5 17 .td3 <M1 18 ttJd2
Off to as - the familiar route through life for this knight in this
structure.
18•••.te7
Off to eat him. There is little else Black could do about it now that
...eS is not possible.
19 ttJb3 .td8 20 ttJaS .txas 21 bxa5
144
What's Hot?
Straightened pawns, and b7 to hit.
21 ...tDfB 22 %:ta4
Naturally.
22•••:d8
Preparing defence.
23 :b4 l:td7 24 ~e2 :g8 25 g4

I read somewhere that when you have the two bishops it is well to
keep open the option of play over as wide a front as possible. So I
opened things up over here.
25 ••• hxg4 26 hxg4 tDe7 27 l:tal

Another attacker against b7 comes up.
27 ...:g7 28 :a3 ~g8 29 :ab3 tDc8
Organised defence?
145
What's Hot?
Margeir plans to send a plug to bS.
30..txa6
I thought I had better exchange and that the consequences were
certainly at least unclear.
30••. bxa6 31 ~b8 0,a7 32 ~3b6 ~gf7 33 lha6
Two down, and he is still tied up.
33 ...~g7 34 ..td6
Before ... eS shuts him out. So often in such lines we see White post
his bishop at d6.
34...0,g6 35 ~ab6 e5 36 a6
More or less the kind of position that I had in mind when making the
break-in sacrifice.
36... exd4 37 exd4 0,f4+ 38 ~e3 0,e6 39 ~a8
With the unpleasant options of ..tb8 or ltbbB.
39 •••0,b5 40 lhc6 0,exd4 41 ~cc8
I sealed this after long thought. 41 :b6 may have been better.
41 •• ..l::tfe7+
He must try for activity, otherwise White's passed pawns and
dominant pieces must win.
42 he7lhe7+ 43 ~d3 %lei 44 a7 %:tdl +
146
What's Hot?
Black sets out on a long series of irritating checks with his three
remaining pieces against the lone white king. But they are - just -
insufficient, and the a pawn is going to queen.
45 ~e3 :tel + 46 ~d2 ttJf3+ 47 ~d3 ttJe5+ 48 ~c2 .l:.e2+ 49 ~bl

l:el + 50 ~a2 ttJd3 51 :g8+ ~h7 52 :h8+ ~g6 53 :ag8+ cM1
54 1:[f8+ ~g7 55 :hg8+ ~h7 56 :th8+ ~g6 57 as=.l ttJcl + 58 ~bl
ttJe2+ 59 ~c2 ttJbd4+ 60 ~d3 ttJf4+ 61 r,t;xd4:td 1+ 62 ~c3
And NOT to e3.
1-0
A similar story follows. Once the queens are exchanged, White's

queenside ascendancy is set in stone. Black's attempt to gain
counterplay only makes matters worse.
A.Chemin White
A.Kundin Black
Biel Open 1997
I d4 d5 2 .i.g5 .i.f5
A sound but rarer reply.

3 c4
A position which could, I suppose, arise via the move order

I dol dS 2 c4 .i.fS!? 3 i.gS! One of the more usual ways forward
from there is 3 cxdS .i.xb I 4 'ii'a4 +!?
147
What's Hot?
3 •••c6 4 ttJc3 h6 5 1.h4 g5 6 1.g3
The bishop arrives at what may prove to be a very effective diagonal

in this Slavonic structure.
6 ••• e6 7 ""3 ""6?
Definitely wrong here. I say again that Black oUght to prefer 7...'ifc8,
perhaps even followed by capturing at c4. What follows now is classic.
8 c5! 'ifxb3 9 axb3
The Yugoslav GM, Vlado Kovacevic, made a living out of such systems
with White. The gain of queenside space, in conjunction with his
excellent queen's bishop, won him many points.
9 ••• ttJd7 10 b4
Compare Plaskett-Petursson, Hastings 1986-87.
IO ••• e5
He did not want to come under the Kovacevic squeeze, so broke out
now.
I I ttJf3 1.g7
Not liking bringing the knight with tempo to the nice d4 square after
as
11 ... exd4 12 tiJxd4, nor pushing it along the route to after 11 ... e4
12 ttJd2.
148
What's Hot?
12 ttJxeS ttJxeS 13 .i.xeS .i.xeS 14 clxeS d4 15 ttJb I
15 e4!? dxc3 16 exfS cxb2 17 lib I or 15 ....i.g6 16 ttJe2 was to be

considered.
IS ••• ttJe7 16 ttJd2
Eyeing d6.
16••• ttJdS 17 ttJc4! 0-0
On 17...ttJxb4 18 ttJd6 + ~f8 19 :a4 ttJc2 + 20 ~d2 .i.g6 21 e4 dxe3

e.p. + 22 fxe3 the knight is in trouble, and 22 ... a5 23 .i.c4 ttJb4
24 lIha I leaves the white pieces on dominating squares and Black
floundering.
18 bS! ttJb4 19 'iitd2 cxbS 20 ttJd6 .i.g6 21 g3
Excellent strategical understanding by Sacha Chemin, who appreciates

that the horse, the c5 pawn, the mobile phalanx of kingside pawns
and the effect of the to-be-fianchettoed bishop combine to give him a
big edge.
21 ••• ttJc6 22 f4 a6 23 .i.g2 l%ab8 24 .txc6!
Killing the remaining black minor unit.
24••• bxc6 25 f5
A very Russian win from one of Mark Dvoretsky's students.
149
Tricks and Traps
In this chapter we'll concentrate on lines in the Queen's Bishop Attack

that generate the most tricks and traps. These typically occur when
Black arranges a direct challenge to White's control of the centre with
moves like 2... c5 or 2.. .f6 or 2...tDc6. In essence, they all have the
expansionist theme of e7-e5.
But as regards thematic problems in the Queen's Bishop Attack, I
refer again to the fluid nature of play and the many and varied
situations which may arise.
It is difficult to generalise, and the rich games of earlier chapters will
have already given a feeling for the sundry hazards of the play. Here,
by contrast with long term problems ensuing from a space
disadvantage resulting from c4-c5, all of the examples demonstrate
attacking play in the middlegame stage.
Before we look at opening theory, here is a warning of the danger
inherent in Black opening up the centre without exercising sufficient
caution.
J.Hodgson White
KArkell Black
Watson Farley Williams, London 1991
I d4 tDf6 2 ii.g5 d5 3 ii.xf6 exf6 4 e3 ii.d6 5 c4 dxc4 6 ii.xc4 0-0

7 tDc3
After 7 tDn tDd7 8 tDc3 f5 9 0-0 tDf6 Black went on to equalise and
then win a drawn rook ending in Timman-Kasparov, Hoogovens Blitz
150
Tricks and Traps
tournament I99S. Note the characteristic shift forward with .. .fS,

increasing central control and vacating a nice square for the remaining
knight.
7 •.,a68l:lcl
I also competed in the event, and at this point Hodgson commented

to me, "There's a trick in this position." I soon saw what.
8 •••cS?! 9 dxcS .txcS?
8 ....teS!? was perhaps the last chance to strive for equality.
IO~+!
This trick. White thus wins a clear pawn and there is no Black
compensation whatsoever. Remarkably, the late ex-World
Championship Candidate Lev Polugaevsky fell into exactly the same
thing against Michael Adams at a rapidplay event in France in 1992,
after 7... cS? 8 dxcS .txcS 9 .txf7+!. Equally surprisingly, Mickey only
managed to draw from there. Things went even worse for French 1M
Giffard against Sibarevic at the 1989 Lugano Open. He overlooked 9
.txf7+! entirely, played 9 iYhS? and went on to lose from that level
position, as did Nelmann in his game from the French 2002
Championship with Beudaert. The moral may be not to grab on f7 in
France?! Bogdan Lalic also missed his chance vs Boric in the 2000
Croatian Championship. He too went 9 'iWhS?, but the game shortly
ended in a draw. In both Zlochevski-Quinto, A1mantea Open 1995
and Bezold-Vokanian, New York Open 1995, White grabbed and won.
So, now you know! Make sure your name is never added to that
illustrious list of plonkers. Hodgson, too, swiftly wrapped things up.
lSI
Tricks and Traps
10••• ~ II 'iVhS+
Le point.
I I ••• ~g8 12 'iVxeS iDe6 13 iDge2 .i.e6 14 0-0 iDeS 15 iDf4 ~f7
16 iDed5 b6
Fishing for counterplay. Julian kept control.
17 'iVd4 g5 18 ttJxb6 gxf4 19 ttJxaa 'iVxa8 20 exf4
White has transformed his advantage.
20 •••%ld8 21 'iVe3 iDe4 22 'iVe7 l:r.e8 23 'iVxf6 %:te6 24 'iVd4 :d6 25 'iVe5
%le6 26 'iVe7 %lg6 27 f3
Quashing his possibilities.
27•••iDd2 28 f5! :g7 29 'iVd7! iDe4 30 'ii'd4 'iVd5 31 .:xe4!
As 31 ...'iVxc4 32 'iVd8+ mates, the game ended.
1-0
GM Keith Arkell also tried the plan of c7-cS in his next encounter with
Julian Hodgson. Although there was no catastrophe on f7 this time,
the liquidation in the centre didn't provide the easy equality he might
have been hoping for. Instead, White was able to use the heightened
mobility of his pieces to power up a decisive attack on the black king.
152
Tricks and Traps
J.Hodgson White
KArkell Black
Lloyds Bank Open 1991
I d4 tt)f6 2 ..tgS dS 3 .lbcf6 exf6 4 e3 ..td6 S c4 dxc4 6 hc4 0-0

7lbc3 a6
8a4
Ah variety! The spice of life!
8 .•.lbd7 9 lbge2 cS
Certainly a rational move, but I think I would have preferred 9 .. .f5,

like Garry against Jan.
10 dxcS ..txcS
No trick on f7 now.
II 0-0 lbeS 12 ..tdS
Interesting play; there is a hole at d5, but what kind of hole, and how
much should it matter anyway?
12•••'iVb6
153
Tricks and Traps
13 as
A quirky move. I would have preferred 13 'iWc2.
13 ••• 'iVe7?!
There are several draws by repetition after 13 ...'ifxb2, e.g. 14 lIb I

'iWa3 15.lir.a I ifb4 16 .l:la4 ifb2 17 .l::[a2, etc, but no win nor clear
advantage for White, even. So, that ought to have been given the
preference. Perhaps Hodgson's intent was 15 liJa4, planning to take
on b7!?
14 liJf4 .td7 I S 'iib3 liJe6
The black game is inherently sound, despite the d5 lacuna. Keith, who
was disinterested in the as pawn at move 13, now went after what
proved to be, in this instance, the somewhat more poisoned bait.
16 liJe4!
An alarming shift of emphasis.
16•••ltJxaS 17 ife3 .tb6
Forced. 17... b6 18 b4 forks.
18ltJxf6+!
154
Tricks and Traps
18••• ~h8?
Without a fight. Black was lost after IS ...gxf6 19 'iWxf6 :ae8 20 ttJh5
'iVe5 21 'ii'h6 threatening 22 ttJf6+. 21 ...~hS 22 ttJf6 ~f5 23 ttJxe8
Ib:e8 24 'iVxb6, or 21 ...:e6 22 ~xe6 fxe6 and White may keep the
kettle boiling with 23 f4! 'iWxb2 24 :tab I be3 + 25 ~h I 'it'c3 26 :f3
with winning threats. Alternatively, there is a route to being a pawn
ahead with 21 'it'xb6 'iVxh5 22 ~f3 (22 ...ttJc4 23 'it'b4).
19 'iWxc7 bc7 20 tiJxd7
Up a whole piece now.
20••JUd8 21 ttJcS
Hodgson, who retired from active play in 2004, had a truly unique
style.
1-0
Now that we have hopefully switched on your tactical radar with

these sharp games, we should start looking systematically at ways for
Black to stir up trouble - for himself and his opponent.
Part One: Black attacks the white centre with 2 •••cS
A good place to begin. With 2... c5 Black plans to eliminate the d4

pawn or push it aside to c5, thus clearing the way for e7-e5. White is
compelled to respond actively, as otherwise Black will set up a
155
Tricks and Traps
powerful centre at no cost. The appropriate riposte is the pawn

thrust e2-e4: White can play it immediately as a pawn sacrifice, or first
capture on c5. We shall consider both ideas.
la) The pawn sacrifice 3 e4!?
Black's centre is split in half after 3... dxe4 4 d5. It is also awkward for
him that the knight on bS is denied the natural c6 square. Here is a
highly tactical game in which Black tried to solve his poSitional
problems by launching a quick counterattack against b2.
E.Lobron White
A.Nadanian Black
European Championship, Saint Vincent 2000
I d4 dS 1 i.gS cS 3 e4!?
Instead 3 e3 brought White little in Alburt-Adams, Newark 1995 after

3... cxdo404 exdo44:Jc6 5 co4 h6 6 i.e3 4:Jf6 74:Jc3 g6! S4:Jf3 i.g79 h3
0-0 10 i.d3 dxco4 I I i.xco4 4:JaS 12 i.d3 i.e6. But Eric strives to
sharpen it up a.s.a.p!
3 ...dxe4
Many other ideas have been seen. 3... cxdo4?! 4 'ifxdo4 accelerates
White's development and is almost certainly advantageous for him.
3... h6 4 i.fo4 cxdo4 5 'ifxdo44:Jc6 6 i.b5 'ifaS+ 74:Jc3 'ifxb5 S4Jxb5
4Jxdo4 9 4:Jxdo4 g5 10 i.g3 was good for White in Hodgson-Dlugy from
a 1995 Blitz event in Las Vegas.
4 dS
156
Tricks and Traps
Shades of an Albin Counter Gambit (I d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4)

reversed, with an extra tempo!?
4.. Ji"6 !?
This was a new move, and an interesting experiment. It would seem

that Black too was after a fight, certainly more than either player in
the game from the 200 I French Team Championships between
Giffard and Marciano where after 4 ... h6 5 ..te3 e5 they agreed to a
draw. However, in the Heroes Chapter we saw Hodgson build up a
winning attack versus Roeder after 4 ... h6 5 ..tf4.
5 ttJc3 .xb26 ..tbS+ ..td7 7..td2!?
7•..~
7 .....txb5? 8 %:tbl was lousy, but he had here a quaint alternative in

7... e3!? 8 fxe3 'ii'b4, e.g. 9 lIb I 'fIh4+ 10 g3 'ii'f6 II ..txd7 + tiJxd7
12 llxb7 'ii'a6 with unclear play. In that line the e4 pawn dies in the
good cause of messing up White's structure a little.
8 l:[b 1 'ii'aS 9 bd7 + tiJxd7 10 lhb7 'ii'a6 II 'fib I ttJgf6 12 ttJge2
157
Tricks and Traps
12•..0-0-0?!
A mistaken concept. From now on it is king safety which is the most

significant feature of the middlegame, and in that respect Black is
never equal. He ought to have played 12 .. .tiJb6 when I 3 ""5 + 'iVxb5
14 4Jxb5 4Jxd5 15 4Jxa7 c4 leads to a perfectly acceptable position
for him. Indeed, in view of this option, future games may see White
trying 12l:.b I instead.
13 llb5 e6 14 dxe6 'iVxe6 15 0-0 lbb6 16 .i.f4
White's men move towards the attack squares.
16•••.i.d6 17 l::ta5 .i.xf4
Or 17... 'ittb8 Islbb5 and the king hunt is on.
18 tiJxf4 1i'e5 19 llxa7 lld6 20 tba4!
20•.•lbfd7 21 'ii'b5
158
Tricks and Traps
Sacrificing a piece to pursue the attack.
21 ...ttJxa4
Or 21 .. :iVxf4 22 tbxb6+ tbxb6 23 'iVxc5+ and the roof caves in.
22 'iVxa4 'iVxf4 23 g3
A useful nudge to cope with future back rank problems, before he

returns to the prosecution of his attack, although 23 :b I and 23 'iVb5
were also powerful moves.
23 •••'iVh6?
A weak defence in time trouble. Toughest was 23 ... 'ii'f6 with best play.
Perhaps then 24 l:tbl lbb6 25 :as+ tbxaS 26 'iVxa8+ 'it>d7 27 'ilxh8
when Black would have to cope with the threat of the rook's
incursion with 27... l:tb6 and then 28lhb6 'ilxb6 29 'iVxg7leaves
White clearly better in the queen ending.
24 l:tbl?
Inaccurate. The right way was 24 ~aS+! lbb8 25 'iVa7 l:tb6

26lhbS+! l:txbS 27 'iVxc5+ 'it>d7 28 l:td 1+ 'it>e8 29 'iVe5+ and bS
gets picked off.
24•••'it>d8?
And another error! Sharp positions demand precision! He had a route

to an inferior, but not entirely hopeless, setting with 24 ... lbb6!
25 :as+! tbxaS 26 'ilxa8+ 'it>d7 27 :tb7+ 'it>e6 28 'ii'xh8 etc.
159
Tricks and Traps
25 ltaS+ cj;e7 26 l1xh8 e3 27 lte 1!
Stopping all nonsense.
27•••l:te6 28 fxe3 g5
Or 28 .. Jlxe3 29 'iWh4+!
29 l:td 1 lbfB 30.aS 1-0
In contrast, Black developed his pieces quickly in the next game

- as it turned out, too quickly. White gained a rampaging attack with
absolutely no risk to his own king. Big name games don't often end so
drastically.
I.Sokolov White
L.On Black
Parnu 1996
1 d4 d5 2 i.g5 c5 3 e4 dxe4 4 d5 lbd7
A respected alternative, although Ivan was to show it little respect.
5 lbc3lbgf6 6 .d2 g6 7 0-0-0 i.g7?!
If this line is seen in the future, then I imagine that here it would be
7...a6 or 7...•a5 that is tried.
8 i.h6
160
Tricks and Traps
Straight to work. again very much in the style of an Albin Counter

Gambit (I d4 dS 2 c4 eS 3 dxeS d4) but with an extra tempo!
8 ....b:h6
8... 0-0 looks very dodgy after 9 h4. but was probably preferable.
Bringing the queen to h6 prevents himself castling to any kind of
safety. and the whole thing comes down like a pack of cards with
frightening rapidity.
9 'ifxh6 a6 10 liJhl 'ifc7
II d6! exd6 12 liJgS
With great threats already.
12•••dS
12...liJeS lost to 13 'ifg7 and meanwhile White is threatening to just

take on e4 and thus get into d6.
161
Tricks and Traps
13 ttJxdS ttJxdS 14 ltxdS 'iff4 + I 5 'it>b I tbf6
On 15 ...'ifxf2 16 .i.c4 threatens 17 1:.fl and on 15 ...'it>e7 16 g3 'jfxf2

17 .i.h3 with an unstoppable initiative.
16 l%dS+
Not often you get such a chance against a strong Grandmaster.
16...~dS 17 ttJxf7 + 'it>e7 IS 'jfxf4 'it>xf7 19 .i.c4 + 'it>g7 20 ~d I .i.f5

21 "ilc7+ ~h6 22 h3 1-0
I b) White delays the e2-e4 advance
White isn't obliged to sacrifice a pawn at move three. In fact, it could

be even more effective if he delays his stab against d5 for a move or
so. As you can see, Hodgson has used 3 dxc5 to beat two strong
Grandmasters.
J.Hodgson White
I.Sokolov Black
Groningen 1996
I d4 dS 2 .i.gS cS 3 dxcS f6
Black decides to build a pawn centre. Instead 3...'ifa5+ came to grief

in glorious style in Povah-Ledger in the First Moves chapter.
Meanwhile 3 ...tbc6 features in the next game.
4.th4 eS
162
Tricks and Traps
4 ....e6 S e4 ~xcS 6 ttJc3 ttJe7 7 'ifhS+ g6 S 'iVh6 d4 9 0-0-0 ttJd7

10 liJa4 led to a White advantage in Hodgson-Strijbos, Dutch League
1996.
Se4
S ttJf3 is an interesting alternative.
S•••~e6
A new move, but I am not sure that it is stronger than S... d4, when
6 ~c4 ~xcS 7 ttJe2 'ii'b6 S ttJd2 ~e6 was equal in Mohrlok-Beikert,
Belgium 1993. Fans of H.G.Welis would appreciate why we would not
wish to see a match between the player of the white pieces in that
game and French GM Relange, whose first name is Eloi. S... dxe4
6 'iixdS+ 'it'xdS 7 ttJc3 bcS S 0-0-0+ ttJd7 9 ttJxe4 ~e7 was how
Hodgson-Van Wely, Horgen 1995 began. Julian then enlivened it with
10 f4 exf4 I I ttJf3 ~c7 12 ttJc3 ttJb6 13 a4 ~b4 14 as ~xa5
IS ttJbS + and he eventually won, although there were many
unexplored branches already even by that point in the game.
6 exdS 'ii'xdS 7 'iVxdS bdS 8 ttJc3
White now already gets an advantage in development and Black's

defence is not easy. I do not believe that Sokolov repeated S... ~e6.
8 ...~e6
On S...~c6 it could get sharp after 9 b4 as lObS ~d7 I I ttJdS ~dS

12 f4!?
163
Tricks and Traps
9 tDbS ttJa6
On 9...~d7 10 tDd6!.
IOf4
Very Hodgson, but for the more restrained amongst you, please note
that 10 tDd6+ iLxd6 I I cxd6 tDb4 12 0-0-0 also looks very strong.
10•••iLxcs 11 fxeS fxeS 12 0-0-0
The active position of all White's pieces plus the terrible knight on a6
guarantee a clear advantage for Hodgson.
12••• tDf6 13 tDfl 0-0
On 13 ... iLxa2 14 b3 e4 15 tDe5 leaves White better, as he would also

be after 13 ... e4 14 tDfd4 l:.d8 15 .te2.
14 tDxeS tDe4
Ivan lost a pawn, and his only chance now is activisation of his pieces.
164
Tricks and Traps
15 ttJd4
This keeps his advantage, but it was even stronger to continue

15 it.c4!? it.xc4 16 ttJxc4 ttJf2 I 7 it.xf2 %:txf2 18 %:td2 :afS 19 lie I.
15•••it.xa2!
An alert grab!
16 .ba6 bxa6 17 :the I ttJf6 18 it.xf6! lhf6 19 ttJd7 bc14 20 lhd4
Nominal material equality, but White has the better pieces and pawns
plus the threat of trapping the bishop with b2-b3.
20•••l:tc6 21 ttJe5 lic5
21 .. .l::tc7 was probably better. Hodgson makes use of a gift tempo to

generate play on the queenside.
22 b4! lic7 23 'ittb2 it.e6 24 c4± :f8 25 'ittc3 it.c8 26 :ed I :e7
27 ttJc6 ':'c7 28 ttJa5
Often also a good middlegame square for a knight when White has
such play with his queenside pawns.
28•• JU2 29 ':'1 d2 IIfI 30 c5 h6 31 c6 'it>f7 32 'ittb2 'itte7 33 :e2 + 'it>f7
Sokolov tries to stay active whilst fighting the c-pawn, but 33 ...it.e6
may have been better there.
34 ttJc4
165
Tricks and Traps
34....tf5?!
In time pressure Ivan allows a killer fork. There was a tougher

defence in 34 ....te6 3S ttJd6+ rile7 36 %:tde4 rilxd6 37 :Xe6+ rildS
38 %:t2eS+ rilc4 39 ltd6.
35 ttJe3 :e7
The only alternative of 3S ...:bl + lost to 36 rila2 .tg6 37 ltd7+

%:txd7 38 cxd7 rile7 39 ttJc2+. This denouement indeed was to occur.
36 l::tdd2
The fork and the pawn mean that Black is now over the edge.
36•••%:tbl +
Or 36.. Jn4 37 itJxfSlhfS 38lhe7+ rilxe7 39 :d7+ rile6 40 lhg7

wins.
37 rila2 .tg6 38 :d7 %hd7 39 cxd7
Now 39... rile7 40 ttJc2+ wins the rook.
1-0
In the next game Black eschews the f7 -f6 plan in favour of piece play
which begins with 3 ... ttJc6 and culminates in a tactical slugfest. Two of
the world's more creative Grandmasters clash, so it was bound to be
an interesting opening.
166
Tricks and Traps
J.Hodgson White
T.Hillarp Persson Black
Vikings Grandmasters, York 2000
I d4 d5 2 ..tg5 e5 3 dxe5 ltJe6!? 4 e4!? h6 5 ..th4 dxe4 6 ltJc3 g5

7 ..tg3 'ilfa5!?
Not pushing his luck with 7... 'ilfxd 1+ 8 l:xd I f5 to drown out the
bishop, as then White might have, for example, 9 .tc4!? f4 10 ltJbS,
etc.
S ..tb5!? ..tg7 9 ltJge2 ..tg4 10 'ii'd5! :teS I I ..te5!? .txe5
I think Black overestimated his chances in the minorpieceless

middlegame that arises. He would have done better here with
I 1... ltJf6!.
12 'ilfxe5 ltJf6 13 ..txe6+ Ihe6 14 'ifbS+ %:teS 15 'iVxb7 'iVxe5 16 ltJxe4

ltJxe4 17 'ifxe4 ..txe2 IS 'ifxe2 'ifxe2
167
Tricks and Traps
The end of the beginning.
19 'iVe3
Meeker souls might have preferred 19:d I.
19•••'iVc4 20 b3 'iVa6 21 'iVe2 'iVaS+ 22 rMl 0-0
Hillarp-Persson naturally considered that he had come out of the

opening with Black in a more than satisfactory condition, but he
misses the STOP sign over the next ten moves, and tries too hard to
win the game.
23 h4!
Luft and counterattack too.

23 •••:fd8 24 hxgS 'iVxgS 2S ..ttg 1 :d2 26 'iVf3 :cc2 27 :fI ...,S 28 g3
'iVc6 29 'iVf4
Timman once observed that only the greatest players were able to
defend an inferior or even lost game whilst also keeping in mind the
possibility of playing for a win. He mentioned Fischer, Karpov and
Korchnoi as rare exemplars of this. I do not suggest that Mr
J.M.Hodgson was ever of that stature, but I do believe that
throughout all of his clever defensive footwork in this game he had in
mind the prospect of going on to the front foot if Black overstepped.
29•••eS 30 'iVf5!
Why not? 30 'iVxh6 led to a drawn ending, but he keeps the game
alive.
168
Tricks and Traps
30... e4?
30... 'iIi'g6.
31 'ii'f4 cJi;g7 32 l:Ih4!
The tide turns! It transpires that it is now the self-exposed black king
who is the worse off.
32 •••.La2 33 l:[g4+ cJi;f8 34 'ili'bS+ cJi;e7 35 ltgS cJi;e6 36 l:Ie8+ cJi;dS
36 ...cJi;fS 37 'ili'eS+ was a quick mate too.
37 'ili'eS mate
Part Two: Black attacks the bishop with 2 •••f6
We have already seen the f7-f6 idea in conjunction with 2... cS, and
2.. .f6 can possibly transpose to these lines. It may look ugly, but Black
intends to construct a pawn centre with e7-eS, and 2 .. .f6 is a useful
building block. The pawn move also facilitates e7-eS in a secondary
way by breaking the pin on the e7 square. As it comes with gain of
time by hitting the white bishop, it is no Patzer move. There is,
however, a drawback: the knight on g8 is disgruntled at finding itself
deprived of its natural square on f6. Indeed, it is hard to think of a
Queen Pawn Opening in which the knight doesn't almost
automatically land on f6.
169
Tricks and Traps
2a) The bishop goes to the edge: 3 ..th4
Here Black normally decides to develop the horse via h6 and f5 which
leads to a highly interesting struggle. As you can see from the notes to
the illustrative game, some very highly powered players have taken
this route as Black.
J.Hodgson White
J.Shaw Black
East Kilbride Open 1996
I d4 dS 2 ..tgS f6 3 ..th4 tiJh6!?
A principled move, and quite possibly the strongest here.
4 e3
In Clarke-B.Lalic, Target Recruitment Masters 200 I, White tried 4 f3?!

and 4 ..•c5 left Black standing well already. You cannot take too much
licence in such openings.
4 •••tiJf5
I am not quite sure what Black was up to in Miladinovic-Ibragimov,

Ano Liosia 1999, as he mixed his systems into a quite indigestible
pottage: 4 ... c6 5 ..td3 'iWb6 6 b3 ..tf5 7 ..tg3 tiJd7 8 tiJf3 e6 9 h3! ..te7
10 0-0 0-0 I I c4 'iVaS 12 ..th2 b5 13 a4 bxc4 14 bxc4 'iWa6 15 ..te2
and White was clearly better.
S ..tg3
170
Tricks and Traps
No mention here from any p~~s commentator of the possibility of

S .Jld3!?~6 'i'hS+ g6 t.xh'" Must be worth a go.
5 ••.g6
In Gallagher-Crouch, Nottingham 1987, we saw some extraordinary

stuff: S... hS!? Many people have commented that it is almost
impossible to predict the play of 1M Colin Crouch. Actually this is the
most critical move, as White may not move his f-pawn and certainly
would not want the consequences of 6 h3ltJxg3 7 fxg3. 6 iLe2.
Gallagher improvises: 6 ... h4 7 .JlhS + ~d7 8 iLg4 e6 More
challenging than 8 ... hxg3 9 iLxfS + e6 10 .Jlh3 9 iLf4 gS 10 e4
The only way out, but I personally find it unconVincing. IO ... dxe4
II iLci ~e7. When this position arose in the game Adams-Van Wely
from a Hoogovens Blitz tournament of 1998, Luke preferred I 1... c6
12 iLg4 ~c7, and after many adventures and many errors it all ended
in a draw. Like many great players, Adams is also lucky. To return to
171
Tricks and Traps
Gallagher-Crouch. 12 c3 'it'd5!? 13 liJh3 liJd6. I think I would have

preferred to have developed a new piece there. 14 0-0 ..td7 15 b3
liJc6. Somehow Crouch has not got his act properly together. 16 ..te3
b5 17 a4!. Now, as after 17... a6 IS axb5 a recapture with the pawn
would be impossible, White guarantees himself the critical advance of
c3-c4. 17... l:tbS IS axb5 "xb5 19 liJd2liJf5 20 liJxe4. 20 c4 was also
strong. 20 .....xb3 21 'iWf3. As so often in the games of Gallagher, his
pieces have gravitated to attacking posts. 21 ...<i;;f7 22 ..th5 + <i;;g7
23 liJhxg5! Smashing his way in. 23 .. .fxg5 24 1Wg4 J.e7 25 J.xg5 <j;;f8
26 J.xe7 + liJcxe7 27 "g5. Black may not defend against these
incursions. 27 ...:h6 2S g4!. Decisive. White opens up the f-line.
2S ... hxg3 29 fxg3 l4xh5 Desperation. 30 'iWxh5 J.c6 3 I liJg5 ~g7
32 'it'h7+ ~6 33 h4! ..teS. Or 33 ...:18 34 :ael wins. 34liJe4 mate.
6c4 e6
6 ... liJxg3 7 hxg3 c6 SliJc3 ..tg7 9 J.d3 would have, believe it or not,
transposed into a game from the 1935 World Championship match
172
Tricks and Traps
between Euwe and A1ekhine (which had begun I d4 tLlf6 2 c4 g6

3 tLlc3 d5 4 .Jif4 tLlh5 5 .te5 f6 6 .Jig3). At that point Alexander was
unguarded enough to castle, and following 9... 0-0?? he received a rude
shock from 10 l:xh7!
when capturing the rook would have permitted I I 'ii'h5 + ~g8

12 .Jixg6 and then the capture of the black defender rook. Still, due to
the Grunfeld move order, Max Euwe does not become a hero of the
Queen's Bishop Attack.
7 tLlc3 .tg78 cxdS exdS 9 'ii'a4+!
Opportunistic and effective. Typical Hodgson.
9 .••c6
9 ... ~f8!? . Now Hodgson grabs a pawn and Shaw never demonstrates
much for it.
10 .bb8lbbS II 'ii'xa7.td7 12 'iVal I:ta8 13 'ii'b4.JifS 14 'iib3 <M1

15 tLlfl ~g7 16 .td3 bS 17 0-0
173
Tricks and Traps
17••• b4 IS lLle2 ii.d6 19 l::tac I 'ii'aS 20 ii.xfS gxf5 21 lLlg3 'ii'xal

22 'iWc2 ii.xg3 23 hxg3 b3 24 'iWd2 'iWa6 25 lLle I
Material equality may have been restored, but the black structure is
ghastly. Shaw produces a trick to snaffle back an exchange, but White
still holds all the trumps.
25 •••c5!? 26 dxc5 ii.b5 27 lLlfJ ii.xfl 2S l::txfl 'ii'e6 29 lLld4 'ii'e4

30 lLlxb3 h5 31 lLld4 h4
This counterattack is the only hope, but Hodgson deals with it

adrOitly.
32 fJ 'ii'e5 33 gxh4 %hh4 34 'ii'd3 lth5 35 f4! "ife7 36 r,t>a ~ 37 ':cI

llgS3S ':'c2l::th239 <it>gl l:lh340 lLlxf5 'ife6 41 %:te2 %:th5
42 e4! :laS 43 'ii'b5! :la7 44 c6 dxe4 45lLld6+! <it>g6 46 f5+ :1xf5 47

'ifxfS + 'ii'xfS 4S lLlxf5 <it>xfS 49 l::rc2 l::rc7
He could have resigned.
50 b4 <it>e6 51 b5 <it>d6 52 r,t>a l:tcS 53 <it>e3 f5 54 <it>f4 %:tf8 55 b6
In this game the Grandmaster of Disaster once again amply

demonstrated his unique chess talent..
1-0
174
Tricks and Traps
2b) The bishop goes to the centre: 3i.f4
Although White won the game above with the statistically most
popular bishop retreat to h4, attention might be shifting to 3 i.f4. For
one thing, 3... lbh6? can now be answered by 4 i.xh6 wrecking Black's
kingside pawn structure (yes, it is White's third bishop move in a row,
but such opportunities mustn't be missed!). Furthermore, the white
bishop might have some joy aiming in the other direction towards the
c7 square if Black is careless. Take a look at what happened to poor
Black in the next game and you will see what I mean.
S.Nguyen Ngoc Truong White

T.Banusz Block
First Saturday Grandmasters, Budapest, February 2004
I d4 dS 2 .tgS f6 3 .tf4 cS
Nobody seems to have gambited here with 3... e5!? 4 dxe5lbc6.

I think I might.
4 e3
Both Hodgson and Torre have played 4 .txbS lhbS 5 lbc3 here.
4 ••• lbc6 S lbfJ 'iVb6
As so often in the Queen's Bishop Attack, Black makes this probing

move, arguing that the white queens ide is minus a key defender.
But here White spotted that he could just carry on developing.
6lbc3!
175
Tricks and Traps
6•••e6?
Losing the plot at move six. He ought to have preferred something

like 6 ... cxd4 7 exd4 e5!? with interesting complications since White
may not here win material with 8 dxe5 (8 ttJxd5? 'ifa5+ wins)
because of 8 ... d4 followed by recapture at e5 with the pawn, with
White still unable to take twice there as ...'ifa5+ at the end would
win a loose piece.
7 ttJbS!
Straight in.
7 •••'ifaS+ 8 c3 ~ 9 .ic7!
I presume it was this that Barnusz underestimated. 9 dxc5 .ixc5

10 b4 ttJxb4 granted him good counterchances and 9 ttJc7 :b8 does
not lead anywhere.
9...b6
9 ...'ifa6 10 ttJd6+ wins.
10 dxcS .txcS II al!
The win with b4 is now unstoppable, so Black resigned.
1-0
Instead of counterattacking with c7-c5, Black can rapidly mobilise his

queenside pieces and entrench himself in the centre, albeit at the cost
of a disadvantage in space. However, here is how he was gradually
outplayed by the Grandmaster of Disaster:
176
Tricks and Traps
J.Hodgson White
S.Dishman Black
4NCL British Team Championship 200 I
I d4 d5 2 .ltg5 f6 3 .ltf4
The other way.
3 ••• ttJc6 4 ttJf3
Something had to be done about ... e5.
4 ••. .ltg4
Gouret-Geenen, Mans 200 I saw 4 ...g5!? 5 .ltg3 h5 6 h4. I prefer 6 h3.

6 ...g4 ? ttJg I ttJh6 8 e3 ttJf5 9 .i.f4 (9 ttJge2) 9... e5 10 dxe5 fxe5 I I
.i.g5.lte? 12 he? 'fixe? 13 'fixd5 .lte6 14 'fie4 0-0-0 when Black
went on to win it.
5 ttJbd2 e6 6 .i.g3 .ltd6 7 c3 f5!?
Clearly there were lots and lots of alternative approaches for Black.
Mr Dishman sets his mind on a kind of Dutch.
S ttJe5
Typically inventive; Hodgson strives to make out that the bishop at g4

is misplaced. Most of us would have played 8 e3.
S •••J.xe5 9 dxe5 ttJge7 10 ttJb3 0-0 II f4
Because of Black's excellent reply this was probably an inaccuracy,

and he ought to have preferred II 'fid2.
1I •••g5!
Inventive play. I 1... b6 and I 1... h6 were the more sober moves, but
Dishman takes his chance to undermine the white centre.
12 ttJc5 'ficS 13 ttJd3
A unique player.
13••• ttJg6 14 'fid2
The curious effect of the bishop at g4 is to deny White the chance to

bolster his centre with e3.
177
Tricks and Traps
14•••gxf4 15 liJxf4
15•••liJxf4?
Dishman loses his nerve. He ought to have played IS ... liJcxeS!

meeting 16 h3 with 16 ...liJc4 17 'ifc I liJxf4 when he will be better
than alright after either 18 'ii'xf4 i&hS or 18 hxg4 liJg6. Instead, he
allows Hodgson the chance to get his act together.
16 'ii'xf4 'ii'e8 17 i.h4 'ifg6 18 0-0-0 'ii'g7 19 i.f6 1:lxf6
Maybe the best chance, as h3 and g4 would come anyway, and that is
an unpleasant house guest.
20 exf6 'ii'xf6 21 h3 i.h5 22 g4 i.g6 23 i.g2 liIfB 24 gxf5 i.xf5 25 e4
A simple move inflicts decisive structural damage.
25 •••i.xe4 26 'ii'xf6 1hf6 27 i.xe4 dxe4 28 l:!de I llf4 29 llhg I + rM7

30 llg4 lhg4 31 hxg4
The technical phase is not difficult, as the black passed-pawn poses no

threat and there are plenty of open lines giving the rook scope to
prove its superiority.
31 ...'itf6 32 lhe4 e5 33 'ii?d2 ~g5 34 llc4 h5 35 gxhS ~hS 36 b4 a6

37 a4 'ii?g5 38 bS axbS 39 axbS liJa7 40 l:.cS 'itf4 41 c4 c6 42 b6 liJc8
43lhc6!
After 43 ... bxc6 44 b7 it's a girl, so ...
1-0
178
Tricks and Traps
Part Three: The Chigorin treatment 2 i.gS ttJc6
Black tries to live without c7-c5 or c7-c6: a controversial decision, as

one of these pawn moves form the core of almost every black
defence in Queen's Pawn Openings.
In the first example, Black decides he needs the help of c7-c6 after all
to safeguard d5, but arranging it disrupts the coordination of his
pieces.
E.Prie Black
O.Renet White
French Team Championship 2004
I d4 dS 2 i.gS ttJc6!? l el jLlS 4 c4 'ii'd7 S ttJcl e6
Some form of Chigorin's Defence to the Queen's Gambit?
6 l::tc I i.e7 7 cxdS exdS 8 i.f4!?
179
Tricks and Traps
S••• ttJf6 9 .tbs 0-0 10 ttJf3 'WeS
Avoiding ttJeS.
110-0
A lot of people would have taken the knight.
11 •••ttJdS
Renet does not want the worry of the doubled c-pawns.
12 .tes!? ..te6
Not 12... c6?? because of 13 ..txf6 and 14 ttJxdS.
13 'We2 e6 14 ..td3 h6 15 h3 ttJd7
Black has some problems finding natural squares for his men.
16 ..th2 ttJb6 17 ttJes
White has played skillfully and stands better. amongst other nice
options he has here is the Pillsbury plan of advancing his f-pawn.
17••• ttJd7 IS e4
18 f4!?
IS •••dxe4 19 ttJxe4 ttJb6 20 al!? ..tds
21 ttJg3!
180
Tricks and Traps
Off to f5, where Garry Kasparov was always telling me you ought to
send them.
21 ...ttJe6 22 ttJf5 'iWd8 23 'iWe2 g6
This does not work out, but he was under gathering pressure, and
probably a bit frustrated at the little activity he had enjoyed so far in
this game.
24 liJxh6+ <J;;g725 ttJhxf7 lhf726 'iWg4!
26•••%lf6 27 ttJxg6 <J;;f7 28 ttJe5 + <J;;fa 29 %lfe 1
With three healthy pawns for his knight and still dominant pieces,
White is going to win this game.
29 ••• ttJg7 30 ttJg6+ :xg6 31 i.xg6 ttJd7 32 l:.c3 ttJf6 33 'iWg3 'iWd7
34 %lce3 .i.d8 35 'iWf4 <J;;g8 36 'ifh6 <J;;fa 37 .i.e5
Nothing to be done about further White incursions, so Black resigned.
1-0
Black is bolder in the next game: he accepts his pawn structure is

never going to be perfect and so trusts in his piece activity. This is the
only philosophy consistent with the move 2... ttJc6 and leads to an
impressive draw against Hodgson. In fact he could have punished
White's over zealous attempts to win by playing on in the final
position.
181
Tricks and Traps
J.Hodgson White
R.Baumhus Black
Bundesliga 200 I
I d4 dS 2 .i.gS tbc6!? 3 e3 f6 4 .i.h4 .i.f5 5 .i.bS 'ifd7
Almost a do-it-yourself or mix 'n match approach to the opening

moves. So, please do have some sympathy for your author in his
efforts to provide explanatory material on so protean a system!
6 .i.g3 tbh6 7 tbe2 a6 8 iLa4 e6 9 tbd2 iLd6 10 iLxd6 'ifxd6 I I c4
The move which I feel confident White, broadly speaking, ought to be

trying to work into his schemes after Black has compromised his
structure with .. .f6.
182
Tricks and Traps
I 1..•dxc4 12 e4 .i.g6 13 liJxc4 'iVb4 + 14 liJd2 b5 15 'iWc2
15 ...'iVd6 16 .i.b3 0-0 17 'iVc3 :ad8 18 d5 liJe7 19 !:tel exd5 20 'iVxc7

~h8 21 liJf4
Somehow one can detect the authorship of Hodgson. even were the
identity of the player of the white pieces hidden. His playing style was
quaint and highly original.
21 •••dxe4 22 0-0 'iVxc7 23 lhc7 ~fe8
Black rallies well.
24 liJb I .i.1S 25 liJc3 liJg6 26 liJh5 :d7 27 l:.c6 l:.d2 28 lha6 b4

29 liJd5 .i.g4 30 liJg3 .i.e2 31 ttJxe2 lhe2 32 ttJxb4 l:.xb2 33 liJd5 liJlS
183
Tricks and Traps
Activity holds the game for Black. His sleeping knights wake to cause
some mischief of their own.
34lbc7 lIb8 35 h3lbf4 36lbdSlbxdS 37 bdS e3!
Neutralising the position.
38 lIa8 lha8 39 .i.xa8 :Xal 40 fxe3 lbxe3 41 l:te I lIa3 IJ'z-lJ'z
Part Four: The double edged 2 iLgS h6 3 iLh4 cS
A more aggressive approach than 3... c6, which figured in the What's
Hot? chapter.
We have come full circle, as this line is clearly related to the 2 ...c5
variation with which we started the chapter. The sharp position that
arises after 4 dxc5 'ii'aS + 5 lbc3 lbc6 needs investigation. It should be
compared with the similar situation that arose in Povah-Ledger in the
First Moves Chapter, but without the moves h7-h6/iLh4 thrown in.
184
Tricks and Traps
GoChepukaitis White
So.vanov Black
St Petersburg Championship 1999
• d4
One last genuflection to the master, with a game from his final years .
... odS 2 iLgS h6 3 iLh4 cS 4 dxcS 'ii'aS + 5 tbc3 tbc6
Already a very interesting moment.
6 'ii'd2 iLf5 7 e3 gS 8 iLg3 iLg7 9 tbge2 'ii'xcs
Before White plays tbd4 .
•0 'ii'xdS 'ii'xdS • • tbxdS 0-0-0 12 0-0-0
12.. oiLxc2!
185
Tricks and Traps
Getting the pawn back, but still not quite equalising.
13 ~e2 lhd5 14 lb::d5 lbb4 + 15 <t>b3 lbxd5 16 e4 lbb6 17 lbe3

he3
18 bxe3
Inexplicable. Classical rules say you never split pawns without good
reason. Chepukaitis' chances of realising the advantage of the pair of
bishops would have improved had he kept the pawns together. As it
was, he probed and stretched for fifty-five more moves before they
shook hands.
18•••lbf6 19 f3 I:[d8 20 'If.?e2 lba4 21 .tfl b6 22 h4 lbe5 23 .te4 e6

24 .td4 lbed7 25 hxg5 hxg5 26 .l:lh6 lbe8 27 :h7 e5 28 .te3 f6
A fortress of sorts goes up.
29 .te6 <t>e7 30 e4 <t>e6 3 I ,.U7 a6 32 .td5 + <t>d6 33 .te I lbe5 34 .tal

l:.d7 35 %:tfB 'If.?e7 36 :th8 :e7 37 <t>d2lbd6 38 'If.?e3lbe8 39 g3lbd6
40 <t>e2 lbe8 41 <t>f2 lbd6 42 <t>g2 'If.?d7 43 <t>h3 lbd3 44 .:tfB lbe8 45
.tf7 lbd6 46 .tg8 lbe8 47 <t>g4 b5 48 cxb5 axb5 49 :f7 + 'If.?d8 50 .tfB
lbe I 51 .tb4 lhf7 52 .txf7 lbe2 53 .te5 lbd4 54 f4 gxf4 55 gxf4 <t>d7
56 f5 lbd6 57 .td5 lbe2 58 .tb4 lbf4 59 .ta8 lbd3 60 .td2 lbe4
61 .th6 lbb6 62 .tb7 lbe5 63 .te3 <t>d6 64 <t>h5 lbxb7 65 .txb6 <t>e6
66 <t>g6 lbd6 67 'If.?xf6 lbxe4 + 68 ~e5 lbd6 69 .td4 lbxf5 70 <t>xfS b4
71 'If.?e4 <t>b7 72 'If.?d5 'If.?a8 73 'If.?e6 'If.?b8 Ih_I/2
186
Tests
To help you to keep your tactical and strategical wits honed, here are
some Test Positions, each of which began life as I d4 dS 2 .tgS or, in
a few cases, as I d4 ttJf6 2.tgS.
B.Larsen - M.Bain
US Open, Boston 1970
White to play
Bent Larsen has turned a Trompowsky into a Queen's Bishop Attack

into a Stonewall. Ms Mary Bain has seen her dark squared bishop
traded off in a formation where the central pawns are now fixed on
the same colour of squares as the remaining bishop. How ought things
now to develop?
187
Tests
Y.Jansa - Z.Ribli
Bucharest 1971
White to play
A turgid and blocked situation. How did Vlastimil Jansa bring it to life?
What is the best move here for White.
Y.Hort - H.Ree
Wijk aan Zee 1972
White to play
An early escapade in the Queen's Bishop Attack. Structurally Black

stands well, but his queen has meandered away to a strange posting.
What is going on here?
188
Tests
Y.Jansa - P.Ostojic
Vmjacka Banja 1973
White to play
Still very early in the game, and White is thinking about a plan. What is
his best option now?
C.Oepasquaie - S.Byme
Australian Championship, Melbourne 1991
White to play
Chris Depasquale hit upon an enterprising plan from here. What was
it?
189
Tests
M.Adams - A.Kovalev
Osten de Open 1991
White to play
Michael Adams' opponent here was a strong Russian GM. But he

played the opening moves of what he must have dismissed as a
non-serious system a bit too lightly. Instead of the standard 6 ... c6,
his last move was 6...i.d6? How did Adams proceed?
J.Hodgson - A.Martin
British Championship, Plymouth 1992
White to play
Hodgson had played for initiative and Martin had made some very odd
decisions, including saddling himself with a weak cS square and putting
his queen bishop out in limbo. What is best play from here?
190
Tests
G.Chepukaitis - G.Tunik
St Petersburg Open 1994
Black to play
As in so many instances where White has advanced with c4-c5 in this

opening, he now plans to place the entire black queenside under a
clamp with a knight on as. How may Black counter this idea?
S.Drazic - S.Skembris
Cesenatico Open 2000
White to play
How should he proceed with getting his act together?
191
Tests
M.Adams - VAnand
PCNlntel-Grand Prix, London 1994
White to play
Another situation where White has gained queenside space in the

Queen's Bishop Attack through c4-cS. Any thoughts on how to
continue to increase your pressure here with White?
J.Hodgson - M.Petursson
Horgen 1994
White to play
Black's decision to play an earlier ... hS was inexplicable, when the safer
option of ... h6 existed. What is a good plan from White here?
192
Tests
A.Miles - W.Janocha
Cappelle la Grande 1995
White to play
Miles liked to play for small technical edges with White. How did he
continue here?
M.Adams - C.Lutz
Wijk aan Zee 1995
White to play
As so often in the games of Michael Adams (and of Speelman in his

prime) he has assured that his king has the safer placement. How now
to proceed?
193
Tests
J.Degraeve - E.Neiman
French Championship, Narbonne 1997
White to play
Black has dithered a bit and White has progressed things on the
queenside. What should he play now?
J.Fries Nielsen - J.Nilssen

Copenhagen Open 1995
White to play
Black thought his pawn sac had clogged White up due to a pin on the
h6-c I diagonal should he try to unscramble with 24 f4 gxf4 25 tiJxf4?
~h6. How did Fries-Nielsen demonstrate that this is inaccurate?
194
Tests
B.Larsen - B.Birk
Hedehusene Open, 1992
White to play
Black had lost a pawn on the queens ide early on. But with an
otherwise solid structure and opposite coloured bishops, his cause
was far from hopeless until he made an inaccurate twenty-third move.
How did Bent Larsen exploit it?
J.Hodgson - W.Huebner
San Bernardino Open 1989
White to play
The known idea of g4 but Hodgson gave playa quaint twist. How to
continue with White?
195
Tests
Z.Rahman - Shetty
Calcutta 1992
White to play
Rahman is a dangerous dude. Here his structure is mangled. but how

did he make the most of his attacking chances?
M.Adams - E.Sveshnikov
Tilburg 1992
White to play
How did Michael Adams make progress here?
196
Tests
J.Hodgson - J.Gokhaie
British Championship, Dundee 1993
White to play
Hodgson attacking. How did he carry on?
A.Romero Holmes - M. Palacios Perez

Spanish Team Championship, Cala Galdana 1994
White to play
What plan strikes you as best here?
197
Tests
MAdams - J.Lautier
Groningen 1995
White to play
Adams at it again. How did he continue?
198
Solutions
B.Larsen - M.Bain
us Open, Boston 1970
White to play
Larsen figured that the black knight is better here than her bishop, so
he swapped it off. 12 liJxd7 'ifxd7 13 ttJc4 Off to the eS outpost.
13 .••0-0-0!? 14 'ife I 'iie7 15 b4 Larsen in the, for him,
comparatively rare role of the middlegame attacker. 15 •••Jte8 16 a4
Carrying on the pawn storm whilst stopping ...JtbS. 16••.g5 The
counter demonstration is nothing like as effective. 17 ttJe5 gxf4
18 lbf4 :tg8 19 c4 'iig5 20 'iif2 Jth5 Always the problem child in
the Dutch Defence, here this bishop is not really outside of the pawn
chain so much; more stuck on the board's edge. 21 b5 :g7 22 ~h I
:dg8 23 1::[gl Coping with all of Black's stuff. 23 •••'iie7 24 c5
Grabbing space as well as prosecuting an attack. 24 ••.'iid8 25 'ilal
'iif6 26 as Jte8 27 c6 and White broke in and soon won.
199
Solutions
Y.Jansa - Z.Ribli
Bucharest 1971
White to play
Jansa tried 19 lbe5 +!? The idea is to open things up against an

insecure black king. Ribli took it: 19•••he5 20 dxe5 'ifxe5. Had he
declined with 19.. /it>c8. Jansa may well have shifted his attention to
opening lines with 20 l:r.fb I !? intending b3. 21 l:r.fd I The extra black
pawn is useless as his e6 bishop is so poor. Meanwhile White sets
about getting at the black king. 21 •••c;t>c6 22 .l:.d4 ~gd8 23 'iffJ
Shifting over to the action zone. 23 •••c;t>c5 Unlikely to live a happy life
under such street circumstances. 24 'ifd I 'ifc7 25 b3 Opening lines.
25 •••a5 26 %:ta2l:r.d6 27 :ad2 :bd8 28 a4 b4 29 cxb4+ axb4
30 bxc4 dxc4 31 tDxe6 fxe6 32l:r.xc4+! c;t>b6 Or 32 ...c;t>xc4 33
'ifc2 mate. 33 a5+! and Ribli resigned. 1-0
200
Solutions
Y.Hort - H.Ree
Wijk aan Zee 1972
White to play
V1astimil Hort showed that the black queen is in trouble with 16 l:.b3!
Play continued 16•••'iVxa2 (16 ...'iVa4 17 tLlb I! threatening 18 l:.a3.
17... 'ii'xa2 18 tLlc I 'ii'a I 19 l:.a3 'iVb2 20 0-0 would transpose to the
game.) 17 tLlcl 'iIIal (17 ...'iVa4 18 tLlbl) 18 tLlbl! as A rescue
mission too late to help. 19 l:.al 'iVb2 20 0-0 and there is clearly no
way out. 20•••axb4 21 l:ta2 bxc3 22 l:txb2 cxb2 23 tLle2 and White
rounded up b2 and won the game.
Y.Jansa - P.Ostojic
Vmjacka Banja 1973
White to play
V1astimil Jansa could certainly have castled short, or played e4,

amongst other ideas. But he actually chose 9 g4!? and after 9 •••tLlfB
201
Solutions
10 0-0-0 ~e6 I 1M!? l:lc8 12 Wb I he had set the stage for a

dangerous kingside attack for himself.
C.Oepasquaie - S.Byrne
Australian Championship, Melbourne 1991
White to play
Depasquale, perhaps appreciating that the horse on b6 is a bit out of

it, opted for 12 f4! and the game went 12.•.'Wc7 13 e4 ~g4 It was
probably better to have dealt with White's advances by 13 ... dxe4
14 ttJxe4 ttJdS. Now Depasquale steams on. 14 e5! ~xe2 Before
White goes 15 ttJg3. 15 ~xe2 ~e7 16 'Wf5!? A cute way of swinging
the queen across to the attack zone. 16••.'Wd7 17 'ii'h5 fxe5 18 fxe5
The new open f-file will be a useful avenue. 18••• ~g5 19 ~g4 'We7
20 ttJf3 ~e3 + 21 Wh I Intending 22 :ae I. 21 •..g6 22 'Wh3 h5 In
view of the threat of :ae I, Byrne could dig up no better defence than
this. But it invites an automatic and strong sacrifice of a bishop for two
pawns. 23 ~xh5! gxh5 24 l:!ae I ~h6 25 'ii'xh5 'ii'e6 26 ttJh4 ttJd7
27 :f3 There are just too many of them. 27 .••Wh7 28 I!afl l:tad8
29 l:tf6! Even stronger than 29 .l:r.xf7 +. 29 •..ttJxf6 30 lhf6 'ii'xf6
31 exf6 l:tde8 32 g4 and ttJfS will follow. 32 •••lite I + 33 Wg2 :e2 +
34 Wli l:txa2 35 g5 l:tal + 36 Wg2 .l:r.a2+ 37 Wf3 and Black
resigned.
202
Solutions
M.Adams - A.Kovalev
Ostende Open 1991
White to play
Michael simply went 7 'ii'bS+ ttJc6 and then, not 8 'i!fxd5? ii.b4+,
nor 8 'i!fxb7 ttJb4 when he must cover c2 allowing Black at least a
draw with 9 .. Jitb8 and 10 ....l:r.a8. Instead he just played 8 ttJcl! and
there was no way for Black to avoid clear loss of a pawn for no
compensation.
J.Hodgson - A.Martin
British Championship, Plymouth 1992
White to play
Hodgson continued with 16 ttJxi7! Wxf7 (16 ... 'ii'xf7 17 'ii'xc6 + )

17 dS and Black's deficiencies are graphically illustrated as White
carves into his game. 17 ... ii.eS Or I 7... exd5 18 lhd5 ttJe6 19 ':f5 +,
or 17... ii.c8 18 d6 and 19 exf4 with an overwhelming grip. 18 dxe6+
203
Solutions
<t;g7. Or IS ...ttJxe6 19 ttJcS wins. 19 'ii'c5. Another strong

continuation was 19 ttJcS .tcS 20 'iff5 .tf6 21 exf4. 19•••.tc8?
Overlooking the main threat, but on the tougher 19.. J:lh7 White has
20 l:td6!! which is a clever way to force Black to give up his dark
square protection via 20 ....txd6 21 ttJxd6. Now White threatens
22 'ikeS+ and on 21...<t;hS he may establish a winning pawn carpet
simply with 22 exf4!. 20 :td7 +! Black resigned as capturing it
permits 21 'ike7 + and mate.
G.Chepukaitis - G.Tunik
St Petersburg Open 1994
Black to play
Tunik could have chosen to cover b7 with a rook, but after, say,
23 ...ttJbS 24 :fl and the trade of a pair of rooks, White would have
the unpleasant plan of placing his knight at as, the other at a4 or b6,
his king at c3 and then Black might always be vulnerable to the kind of
breakthrough sacrifices which we saw in the earlier game, Plaskett-
Petursson, Hastings 19S6-S7. He rightly preferred activity with
23 •••ttJxe5!? 24 dxe5 d4 when play went 25 ttJd I d3 26.tfl .te4
27 :tg I .txe5 This was the sort of thing he had in mind when
sacrificing the knight. He has two healthy pawns, the bishop pair, an
irritant passed pawn and all of the White men have been pushed back
to their lower ranks. 28 <t;d2 .td5 29 :tal 1:[fl Continuing in active
vein. 30 ttJc3 .txg3 31 ttJxd5 + l:txd5 32 <t;d I :ttl (3 I ....tf2!?)
33 ttJc I .tf4 34 l:txd3lhb2 35 l:txd5 cxd5 36 ttJd3 .l:th2 37 .l:tg2
:th I 38:ttl e5 and Black's healthy pawns and active pieces enabled
him to keep the balance and the game was agreed drawn at move
sixty-eight.
204
Solutions
S.Drazic White
S.Skembris Black
Cesenatico Open 2000
White to play
Drazic made the standard retreat of 8 liJfd2 and after 8 ....txe2

9 'ii'xe2 .te7 10 .tg3 liJf6 I I 0-0 liJbd7 12 c4 the play was level. But
he had the unusual and viable option of advancing with S liJeS!?
Should Black the retreat the bishop. 8 ....te6!? White has the
intriguing possibility 9 .tg4!? On S ••• he2 9 'iWxe2 there are some
tactics which do not normally crop up in such positions. as White has
ideas of'ifg4 and 'ii'hS and so 9 ....td6? loses to 10 'ii'g4!. So 9 ••.liJf6 is
more precise when 10 .txf6 gxf6 I I liJg4 liJd7 is unclear. A rational
line might be 10 0-0 .td6 I I c4 'iWc7 12 .tg3 liJbd7 13 liJcl!?
ttJxeS 14 dxeS heS 15 cxdS with chances for both players.
M.Adams - V.Anand
PCNlntel-Grand Prix. London 1994
White to play
205
Solutions
Mickey brought his superior minor piece into it with 23 e4 and after
23 •••lUf6 he played 24 exdS. If Black takes back with the pawn then
25 :te7 is very strong. so he preferred the knight recapture:
24••• ttJxdS Adams patiently built it up with 2S .l:.b2 rJitg7 26 'ife2
lId8 27 'ifeS+ rJitg8 28 .l:.eb I .l:.d7 29 .l:.b6! 'ife8 and. having
pushed his queen to a passive square. only now did he take the knight.
30 ~xdS lb:dS 31 'ii'e4 It turns out that the pressure on b7 is not to
be contained. as either 3 1•••l:r.b8 or 3 1•• J:ta7 is decisively met by
32 c6. Anand grovelled with 31 •••'iff8 32 .l:.xb7 .l:.ad8 when Adams.
rather than hanging on to d4. preferred to use his mobile c-pawn as a
cashable asset with 33 e6! .l:.xd4 34 'ii'e2 :d2 3S 'ife I lita2 36 e7
.l:.e8 37 .l:.b6 l::ta8 38 'iff4 and Anand resigned it.
1-0
J.Hodgson - M.Petursson
Horgen 1994
White to play
Hodgson refused to be distracted at all by the rogue Black h-pawn.

and instead pressed on where he held space with 18 bS and the Black
game was already near crisis. 18.••axbS 19 axbS cxbS 20 .l:.xa8
'ifxa8 21 .l:.a I 'ife8 22 .i.xbS ~d8 To challenge the very powerful
bishop on the h2-b8 diagonal. but it is too late. 23 :a7 .i.e7
24 he7 'ifxe7 2S lUeS f6 26 lUd7 l:r.d8 27 e6 eS 28 cxb7! hd7
29 hd7 and Margeir Petursson resigned. Relentless and ruthless
execution. 1-0
206
Solutions
A.Miles - W.Janocha
Cap pelle la Grande 1995
White to play
Miles went straight over to the attack with 23 'ifh5. Black played
23 •• J:tc7, perhaps reasoning that 23 ...iLxe5 24 dxe5 just allowed the
rook on c4 to swing straight over to the offensive. 24 'ifg5+ 'it>f8
25 f4! and the problems for the black defence were becoming acute.
25 .••'iib6? Better to have taken on e5 now, although after 26 dxe5 he
would have been unlikely to be able to hang on to his h-pawn. Miles
now topped things off efficiently. 26 'ifd8+ r:Jitg7 27 tiJd7! 'ifxb2
28 .g5+ r:Jith8 29 tiJf6 and, as 29 .. Jk8 allows 30 'ifh6, Black
resigned.
M.Adams - C.Lutz
Wijk aan Zee 1995
White to ploy
207
Solutions
Michael started opening things up with 26 e4! and Lutz had real
concerns about the security of his king. He sought complications with
26 •••b4 but Adams kept his cool and continued with moves which
nicely blended attack and defence. 27 ~xa6! bxc3 2S bxc3!
Not 2S ~xcS? cxd2 29 ~xd7 1:tc I + and Black wins. 2S •••.:.aS
29 ~bs 'iWd6 30 ~xeS Removing a key defender. 30••• tLlc4 31 'iWe2
:tea7 On 31 ... ~e8 White can continue to attack and defuse via
32 %:.xg7!. But neither is the text sufficient. 32 tLlc6+! ~eS
33 ttJxa7 'iWcs Adams now quickly put it all to sleep. 34 exds %ha7
35 dxe6! 'iWxgs 36 exf7+ ~ 37 'iWxc4+ ~ 3S 'iWb4+ ':'e7
39 1:th I Or 39 1:te I. 39 •••'i!?eS and Black resigned.
J.Degraeve - E.Neiman
French Championship. Narbonne 1997
White to play
GM Oegraeve pressed on with 14 bs when 14...'iVa4 would allow

White to continue with 15 bxc6 bxc6 16 cS tLld7 17 1:tab I tLlgf6 and
now IS ~c7! ensures the penetration with big advantage. Or here
IS ... dxc4 enables White to get the edge through tactics with
16 tLlxc4! when if the knight is captured White will take on b7 and
queen the pawn. and 16...'iVxc6 16 tLlgeS gives White a huge initiative.
So Black chose 14•••cxbs 15 cxbs 'ii'a4 16 1:tfc I and. as one might
expect. the opening of the c-line favoured the better developed party.
16•••1:tcS On 16... -tdS White may pursue the edge through 17 -tc7
or more directly with 17 -teS tLlf6 IS tLlgS 'i!?e7 19 tLlb3 tLlfd7
20 tLlcs tLlxcs 21 dxcS tLlc4 22 'iVd4. 17 %hcS+ ttJxcS IS 'ii'c3 tLlb6
19 'iWc7 and the undeveloped black army had no adequate way of
dealing with this incursion. 19•••'ii'xbs 20 'ii'bS+ -tdS
20S
Solutions
21 Ji.c7 'ifd7 and White had more than one way to cash in,
preferring 22 l:tc I 'ifc8 23 'ifxc8 ttJxc8 24 Ji.xd8 hd8 25 ttJg5!
ttJd6 26 ttJxe6+ and 27 ttJxg7 with clear win of a pawn.
J.Fries Nielsen - J.Nilssen

Copenhagen Open 1995
White to play
23 f4! gxf4 24 g5! and Black caught on that is he who gets done over
by just such a mirror image pinning. The game ended 24 •••'ifxg5
25 iLh3 ':'de8 26 liJxf4 iLh6 27 ttJxe6 'iff6 28 ttJg5 + and Black
resigned.
B.Larsen - B.Birk
Hedehusene Open 1992
White to play
209
Solutions
One of the greatest tournament players ever took his chance with
24 "e7! and f7 was indefensible. Play concluded 24•• :ifd5
25lbcS+ lbcS 26 ..txc4lhc4 27 bxc4 'ii'xc4 2S l:ta8+
and Black conceded. 1-0
J.Hodgson - W.Huebner
San Bernardino Open 1989
White to play
He sidestepped any headaches that his own king might have in the
event of long castling, and prepared the attack by going the other way
with 12 O-O!?, which still allowed rapid contact. The game continued
12•..tDb6 13 'it;h I ! 'ifd7 14 1:.g I ..tfB 15 g5 f5 16 tDh5 ..te7
17 tDf6+! ..txf6 IS gxf6 g6 19 dxc5 and White was going well.
19•••tDa4 20 'iff4 'it;hS 21 'ifh6 :gS 22 tDIJ and before the roof
formally caved in, Black resigned.
Z.Rahman - Shetty
Calcutta 1992
White to play
210
Solutions
Kasparov taught me that the establishment of a white knight at f5 may

be worth one pawn, but here the best move - and these types are
often the hardest to spot - involves not only the retreat of a well-placed
piece, but also the backwards move of a knight, AND from f5! II lbgl!
and the black pOSition was indefensible, as 31 ...:e7 allows either a
capture at c5 or the unpleasant 32 lbh5. The game ended ll ••• hel
l2 :xt7 'ifdl II 'iffl .i.d6 l4 'ilff6 and Black resigned.
MAdams - E.Sveshnikov
Tilburg 1992
White to play
As against Anand, above, Adams opened up another front to go with

his already existing advantage on the queenside. l2 e4! :Ld8 II :e I
dxe4 l4 he4 'ifd6 lS 'ifel :Le8 l6 :fl and Black found it hard to
cope with additional problems in the newly-opened sector. After
l6•••'ifdS White broke in decisively with l7 lteS! fxeS l8 'ifgS+
<Jih7l9 'ifxhS+ <Jig7 40 'ifxe8 exd4 41 'iff8+ <Jih7 42 .:tf7+
lhf7 4l 'ifxf7 + and Black resigned.
211
Solutions
J.Hodgson - J.Gokhaie
British Championship, Dundee 1993
White to play
24 liJdf4 'ii'd7. On 24 ... i.g8 White smashes in with 25 liJg6+ hxg6

26 hxg6+ ~g7 27 liJd4 'ii'd7 28 'ii'c2 and with the fall of f5 Black's
defences collapse. On 24 ...i.xf4 25 liJxf4 and the trade of minor
pieces has done little to relieve the pressure, e.g. 25 ... i.d5 26 f3!! is a
cute way of continuing the attack, 26 ... i.xf3 27 liJg6+! hxg6
28 hxg6+ i.xhl 29 g7+ ~h7 30 gxf8=liJ+'ii'xfS 31 'ifc7+ and mate.
In this line 28 ... ~g8 loses to 29 'ii'c4+ 'iVd5 30 l:lh8+! ~xh8
31 'ifh4+ and mate. Lastly 26 .. Jk8 27 'ifd4 i.xf3 28 liJg6+ is much
the same thing. 25 liJg6+! hxg6 26 hxg6+ ~g8 27 g7 l:lfc8
28 'ifxf6 i.xa2+ Spite check. 29 ~al and Black now resigned.
A.Romero Holmes - M. Palacios Perez

Spanish Team Championship, Cala Galdana, 1994
White to play
212
Solutions
Some of us might play 14 e4, but Romero Holmes preferred the

classical continuation of 14 b5 and the game carried on 14...axb5
15 axb5l:ta5 16 tiJd2 'ii'a8 17 tiJb3l:tal 18 'ii'c2 .fhal 19lhal
'ii'c8 20 b6 Thus White secures his massive space advantage and is
about to hit b7 and c6 hard. With the white pawns now so close to
their queening squares, the black position is very vulnerable to
breakthrough sacrifices. 70 years earlier Capablanca was already
winning games in such manner. 20•••l:te8 21 .l:ta7 tiJfB 22 tiJa5 l:te7
23 'ii'a4 and the pressure was unbearable. 23 •••e5 24 ttJxc6 lte6
25 l:ta8! 'ii'xc6 26 'ii'xc6lhc6 27 ttJxd5 <J;g7 28 tiJe7 .l:te6
29 tiJf5+ and White soon won.
M.Adams - J.Lautier
Groningen 1995
White to play
16 .i.xg6! fxg6 17 .i.h2 left White with his preserved and excellent
bishop on the h2-bS diagonal, the e5 outpost and pressure. After
17•• ifB 18 ttJe5 'iff6 19 .l:te3! l:te6 20 ~f3 'ii'd8 21 g4 tiJf6
22 ttJxg6 won a clear pawn and then the game.
213
Details
In terms of opening theory, the Queen's Bishop Attack is more like a

forest of stunted but heavily entangled trees than a neat orchard. The
variations are twisted together in a vast panoply of transpositions: for
example 2 ... c6, 2 ... h6, 2 ... .tfS could all easily lead you to the same
position after fIVe or six moves. Therefore you should try out various
routes in the index to get to the starting point of the line you want to
study.
Slav type lines with 2 ••• c6 or 3 ..• c6
These are the subject of the 'What's Hot' Chapter. The main division is
whether White plays 4 tt:Jf3 or 4 e3
I d4 d5 2 .tg5 h6 3 .th4 c6 4 tt:JO 'ikb6
And now:
5 tt:Jbd2 76, 79
5 'ii'c I
S ... .tfS 82, 84, 86, 91
S ... gS 95
214
Details
5 b3
5 ... tiJd7 108
5 ... ~f5 104, 106
I d4 dS 2 ~gS h6 3 ~h4 c6 4 e3 'iib6
5 'ii'c I
5 ... e5 123, 125, 129, 131, 133
5 ... ~f5 24, 112
5 b3
5 ... e5 115, 117, 121
5 ... ~f5 113
Alternative third moves after after I d4 dS 2 ~gS c6
3 a3 140
3 c4 139
3 tiJf3 ~f5 4 c4 12, 143
Unes with 2 .•• tiJf6 3 ~xf6
These are mainly to be found in the Strategy Chapter.
I d4 dS 2 ~gS tiJf6 3 ~xf6 exf6 4 e3

4 ... ~d6
5 c436, 150, 153
5 g3 41
4 ... ~e632
I d4 dS 2 ~gS tiJf6 3 ~6 gxf6

4 tiJf3 45
4e3
4 ... e657
4 ... c5
5 dxc5 50
5 c454
5 c3 48
215
Details
Lines with 2 .•• ~f6 l el
Note: the most popular line 3 ... cS 4 .i.xf6 gxf6 transposes to 3 .i.xf6
gxf6 4 e3 cS as directly above.
3 ... ~bd7 71
3 ... c6
4 .i.d3 66
4~d2
4 ... g665
4 ... cS 5 c3 60 [planning Stonewall. d I d4 ~f6 2 .i.gS e6 3 ~d2 dS 4 e3
.i.e7 5 .i.d3 63]
Other Variations
These are mainly considered in the Tricks and Traps chapter
2 •.• 'ifd6 15
2 ••• h6 3.i.h4 cS 34. 185
2 •.. .i.f5 20. 147
2 ••• cS
3 e4 dxe4 4 dS 14. 156. 160
3dxcS8.162.167
2 ••• f6
3 .i.f4 175. 177
3 .i.h4 26. , 70
2 ••. ~c6lel
3 ... f6 181
3 ... .i.fS 179
216
Before the Fight
Well, I hope that survey gives you a feeling for the many different
types of play which the Queen's Bishop Attack may generate, and has
also given you an appetite to try out I do4 d5 2 Jt.g5 for yourself.
There is still a lot of uncharted territory in those lines where Black
plays an early .. .f6, to nudge the bishop and probably prepare the way
for a central advance. But, as I say, to me .. .f6 is a definite weakener,
and, broadly speaking, aim for c2-co4 against it. In the lines where
Black has done a sturdy Slav stance with ... c6, positions of middlegame
solidity have tended to result. But we have still seen, in e.g. Povah-
Frostick and Plaskett-Petursson, some nice positional victories based
upon White's space gain with co4-c5. In the sharpest and longest
theoretical line we saw; I do4 d5 2 Jt.g5 h6 3 Jt.ho4 c6 4 4Jf3 'ii'b6
5 'ii'c I g5 6 Jt.g3 g4 7 4Je5 'ii'xdo4 8 co4, White's results have not been
bad. Remember that commencing your games with the White pieces
with I do4 means that you will also need a repertoire prepared against
the Pirc/Modem systems, with 1...g6, or I ... d6. You will need to know
how to confront those of your opponents who will try the Dutch,
1... f5 and the majority who will be playing 1...4Jf6. In each instance
you might do what so many others of the Jt.g5 mind have done, and
play it at move two there. The Trompowsky with I do4 4Jf6 2 Jt.g5
I have referred to many times throughout this volume, and we have
seen more than a few examples of direct transposition into lines also
stemming from that move order. There is nothing here about the
'Veresov Dutch', with I do4 f5 2 Jt.g5, but that is also a respected line
deployed by various strong GMs, e.g. the late Tony Miles. To 1...c5 the
recommended theoretical response used to be 2 dxc5 e6 3 4Jc3
217
Before the Fight
i.xc5 4 ttJe4, wherein White aims to check at d6 and/or take the

black dark squared bishop. But then the finesse for Black of 4 ... i.b4+
5 c3 d5! was discovered, and the consequences of 6 cxb4 dxe4 are
not nearly so clearly favourable for the first player. Accordingly, go
2 d5 and continue with ttJc3 without c2-c4 first. All opening texts
concur that White is better in the Schmid Benoni. That just about
covers everything, oh, unless of course your opponent does
something silly like 1... a6, in which case you just centralise your pieces
and demonstrate a simple, classical advantage. In contrast to Karpov
who, as World Champion and playing board one for the U.S.S.R, let
Miles beat him with such nonsense. Well, it's goodbye now, and over
to you. Best wishes for some excellent results now that you have seen
The Queen's Bishop Attack, revealed!
James Plaskett
Playa Flamenca, Espana 2005
218
Definitions of Symbols
+ check
++ double check
;!;; slight advantage for White
+ slight advantage for Black
± clear advantage for White
=+ clear advantage for Black
+- decisive advantage for White
-+ decisive advantage for Black
= equal game
good move
!! excellent move
!? move deserving attention
?! dubious move
? weak move
?? blunder
219

Tips The Queens Bishop Attack Revealed

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tips The Queens Bishop Attack Revealed

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Queen's Bishop Attack

Printed in Great Britain by

for the publishers

B.T. Batsford Ltd,

Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,

An imprint of chrysalifBOokS Group pic

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Series Editor: Daniel King

Heroes and Zeros 12

Tricks and Traps 150

Test Positions 187

Before the Fight 217

Definitions of Symbols 219

The Queen's Bishop Attack or Pseudo-Trompowsky is a great way to

It follows the typical pattern of the 'Revealed' series. First of all we

The Queen's Bishop Attack begins with the moves I d4 d5 2 .Jtg5 to

Wherein, you might say, White 'anticipates' the deployment of the

One of several viable alternatives.

Much better than the 4 c3 of Miladinovic-Stanojoski, European Team

If there is a route to equality for Black from here, then it is not

7 i.b5 + i.d7 was less promising.

now excellently exploits his development lead and attacking

8 'iIIxf2 'iIIxb2 9 'it>d2!

9 •••'illxa I I 0 tiJfJ tiJd7

Although here II tiJe5 is accurately met by 11 ... tiJgf6.

Moving the rook to a protected square so his king's bishop is freed to

12•••'ilfb2 13 ii.bS tiJgf6

On 13 ... 'illb4 White continues the strong pressure with 14 'iWe3.

14.bf6! gxf6 15 'iIIeS!

Another precise choice. Not 17 :bl? because of 17.. :iVxbS! and

17•••fxeS 18:fI + ~g6 19 .i.d3+ Wh6 20 :f6+

A blistering smash from Nigel Povah.

Studying the praxis of an outstanding exponent of a particular system

I cf4 dS 2.tgS c6 3ltJf3 .tfS 4 c4 dxc4?!

to keep the pawn in such a Slavonic setting. where White is already

5 ttJcl h6 6 ~h4 b5 7 e4 ~h7 8 a4 b4

In the 19305. Alekhine once sprung a similar novelty in a World

II...fxe6 12 ~5+ ~e7 13 'ii'f7+ ~d6 14 ttJc4 mate.

12 .bf7 + rJi;e 7 Il 'ii'bl

Chess can be a fun game.

Another mate threat.

14••JWe6 15 Wb4+ "'d6 16 ""'7+ 4:Jd7 17 4:Jxc6+ "'xc6

18 "'xc6 4:Jgf6 19.tf3

19•••cxb2 20 l::tbl l:tb8 21 .tg3 l:tb6 22 "'c2 g4 23 as! l:te6 24 dS!

24•••he4 25 .txe4l:txe4+ 26 ~I 'M7 27 "'xb2 .tcS 28 h3l:the8

The next game is also a whirlwind of tactics from start to finish.

I d4 dS 2 .tgS cS 3 e4 dxe4 4 dS h6 5 .tf4 4:Jf6 6 4:Jc3 a6 7 a4 e6 8

10 4:JxdS .txf4 I I 4:Jexf4 O-O? 12 4:Jg6! 4:JxdS 13 lbxf8

13 ......aS+ 14 c3 4:Jb6? 15 .txf7+!

Of course. The rest was not difficult.

IS•••'ii'xa4 19 %ha4 ltJxa4 20 'ii'f4 + '.tgS 21 'ii'xg4 tbc6 22 'ii'xe4 ~hS

Having honoured its greatest champion, we shall now trace the

Alekhine comes unstuck

According to my database, I d4 d5 2 .tg5 was played for the first

Perhaps a sensible response to the Queen's Bishop Attack, but still a

In my opinion, Hodgson reacted better against Andreas Schmidt in the

I would prefer 3...i.f5 here, to avoid the effect of the 4 e4 gambit.

Torre-G.Giorgadze from the 2000 Istanbul Olympiad saw an

4 ••• ~f5 5 tLlfJ

5 ...tLld7 6 0-0-0 e6 7 tLlh4

7 ...tLlgf6 8 fJ h6!? 9 .li.f4 'iib4 10 ttJxf5 exf5 II .e3+

A superb recognition that White's clogging of his own pathways

13 .xf5? tLlc4 annoys.