7. Conclusiones y recomendaciones
7.1 Conclusiones
7.1.2 Conclusiones enfocadas en la preparación de pedidos:
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ltJc3 .tb4 4 e3 b6 5 .i.d3 .tb7 (D)
6lLlf3
In connection with the main line, there are a few lines that deserve atten tion:
a) 6 f3 often ends up transposing to
the Samisch Variation, but play can also
develop independently: 6 ... c5 (other moves have been tried at this point, such as 6 ... 0-0, 6 ... d5, 6 ... ltJh5 and 6 ... .txc3+, but in each case White generally obtains a better game) 7 ltJe2 (7 a3 .txc3+ 8 bxc3 is the Samisch Variation, which is not the subject of this book) and now:
a 1 ) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 d5 10
cxd5 ltJxd5 and Black has a pleasant game, Einarsson-H.Olafsson, Reykja vik 1 996.
a2) 7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 0-0 9 .tg5 .te7 10 0-0 d5 1 1 cxd5 lLlxd5 1 2 .i.xe7 "ikxe7 is equal, Ilic-Romanishin, Bel grade 1 988.
a3) 7 ... ltJc6 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 d5 10 cxd5 ltJxd5 1 1 ltJxd5 ( 1 1 "ika4 0-0
=) l l ..."ikxd5 1 2 .tf4 .te7! = Capa
blanca-Kan, Moscow 1935.
b) 6 lLle2!? is far more interesting: bl) 6 ... c5 ! ? can be tried.
b2) 6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 (7 a3 .txc3+ 8 ltJxc3 { 8 bxc3 is another Samisch } 8 ... d5 9 cxd5 exd5 10 0-0 .ta6 1 1 .txa6 lL!xa6 1 2 1Wd3 ltJb8 1 3 b4 with a little plus for White, Paramos-Vehi Bach, Zaragoza 1 994) 7 ... d5 8 cxd5 lLlxd5 9 e4 lL!xc3 10 bxc3 .te7 1 1 c4 ltJd7 1 2 .i.b2 e5 ! = Gelfand-Akopian, Cap d' Agde rpd 1 996. b3) 6 ... .txg2 7 :gJ is the critical line:
b3 1 ) 7 ... .te4 8 a3 (this makes it a real gambit, but after 8 .txe4 ltJxe4 9 :xg7 lLlxf2 10 Wc2 Wh4 1 1 ltJg3 both l l ....i.f8, as in Szilagyi-Florian, Hungarian Ch (Budapest) 1 946, and l l ...lLld3+ 1 2 Wxd3 �f8 leave Black with a sizeable advantage) 8 ... .txc3+ 9 ltJxc3 .txd3 10 "ikxd3 lLlh5 1 1 e4 lL!c6 ( 1 1 ... g6 12 .i.g5 f6 13 .i.h6 gives White sufficient compensation for the pawn) 1 2 .i.e3 ( 1 2 .i.g5 f6 1 3 .te3 ltJe7 1 4 0-0-0 d6 1 5 f4 "ikd7 1 6 �bl g6 17 d5 0-0-0 and White is fighting to show compensation for the pawn, Paramos Dominguez-Vehi Bach, Bar celona 2000) 12 ... d6 1 3 0-0-0 ltJe7 1 4 c5 g6 1 5 cxd6 cxd6 16 �bl and White has adequate compensation for the pawn, Dzindzichashvili-de Firrnian, New York 1 996.
DUTCH VARIATION 181
b32) 7 ... i.f3 8 'ifc2 (8 :g3 i.h5 9
e4 lbc6 10 f3 i.g6 + Zsinka-Cherny
shov, Zalakaros 1995 ; 8 :xg7 i.xc3+ { or 8 ... lbg4!? 9 h3 i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 f5 !
and the rook is trapped - Emmsl Fritz }
9 bxc3 lbe4 10 'ii'c2 'ifh4 = V.Geor
giev-Genov, Bulgarian Ch (Plovdiv) 1 999) 8 ... lbh5 (8 ... g6 is another good move) 9 i.d2 (9 i.e4 i.xe4 10 'ii'xe4
lbc6 1 1 d5 lbe7 + Agrest-Zsinka, Ober
wart 1 993) 9 ... 'ii'h4 10 0-0-0 lbc6 1 1 :dn i.d6 1 2 lbb5 i.xh2 with a few extra pawns for Black, J.Eriksson-Bry nell, Ronneby 1 998.
We now return to 6 lbf3 (D):
6 ... lbe4
Otherwise:
a) 6 ... 0-0 is the subject of Chapters 1 3 and 1 4.
b) 6 ... 'fle7 7 0-0 i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 lbd2 e5 10 e4 lbbd7 I I :e 1 0-0 1 2 lbfl :fe8 1 3 lbg3 with an initiative for White, Lukacs-Sidorov, Budapest 1 994.
c) 6 ... i.e4 7 0-0 i.xc3 8 bxc3 i.xd3
9 'ii'xd3 0-0 10 e4 d6 1 1 i.g5 'ife8!? 12 i.xf6 gxf6 1 3 lbh4 �h8 14 f4 ;!; Vyzhmanavin-P.Nikolic, New York rpd 1 994.
d) 6 ... i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 and now:
d l ) After 7 ... lbe4, White can trans
pose to the note to Black's 7th move in Line A with 8 'ifc2, and note 'b' to Black's 7th move in Line B with 8 0-0. d2) 7 ... i.e4 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 c5 10 lbd2 i.b7 1 1 f3 d5 12 dxc5 bxc5 1 3 :bt "ikc7 14 'ii'b3 (Taimanov-Gulko, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1 974) and now Taimanov gives 14 ... i.c6 ;!; as best.
d3) 7 ... d6 8 0-0 lbbd7 (8 ... 0-0 9 lbd2 e5 10 e4 lbc6 transposes to note 'b2 1 ' to Black's 7th move in Chapter 1 3) 9 lbd2 e5 10 e4 0-0 ( l 0 ... 'ife7 1 1 :e 1 0-0-0 1 2 lbfl �b8 1 3 a4 a5, Visier-Debamot, Nice OL 1 974, 14 lbe3 ;!;) 1 1 :et :es 12 f3 lbf8 l 3 lbfl lbe6 14 i.e3 lbh5 15 'ifd2 'iff6 and Black has fully equalized, lbragimov Lavrov, Budapest 1 993.
We now return to 6 ... lbe4 (D):
Here we have it, the position that is the starting position of the Dutch Vari ation. The name isn't a result of this line being invented or played by Dutch players, but rather that this line after Black's next move, 7 .. .£5, resembles the Dutch Defence.
In one of the very first games with this line, Capablanca won very in structively as Black against Winter in
182 THE N!MZO-INDIAN: 4 e3
Ramsgate 1 929 in a game that has been publicized in several instructional manuals.
However, the line has never really caught on among the strongest players in the world, although several have tried it once or twice.
Now there are the following main lines:
A: 7 �c2 1 82
B: 7 0-0 1 86
Or:
a) 7 .txe4?! .txe4 (7 ... .txc3+ 8 bxc3 .txe4 is also good for Black) 8 0-0 .tb7 9 d5 0-0 l O .td2 .te7 l l ltJd4 (A.Schneider-Mtiller, Budapest 1 993) l l ...c5 ! ?, answering both 1 2 lDc2 and l 2 lDde2 with l 2 .. . f5 !? with chances for both sides.
b) 7 �b3 c5 (another interesting attempt is 7 ... .txc3+ 8 bxc3 lDg5 !?, after which White's best appears to be 9 lDd2!? with a complicated struggle ahead) 8 0-0 .txc3 9 bxc3 0-0 l 0 a4 d6 with chances for both sides, Panagop oulos-Zimmermann, Amsterdam OL 1 954.
c) 7 .td2! ? was used as far back as 1946. Black obtains an OK position after 7 ... .txc3 8 .txc3 lDxc3 (8 ... 'ii'e7 9 .txe4 .txe4 10 lDd2!? .tg6 l l 'ii'f3 c6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 e4 is slightly better for White, F.Portisch-Dgebuadze, Loh mar 1 999) 9 bxc3 0-0 (or 9 .. .f5 10 0-0 0-0 l l 'ii'e2 'ii'f6 1 2 e4 fxe4 1 3 .txe4 .txe4 14 1t'xe4 lDc6 with approxi mately equal chances, Purdy-Tartako wer, radio game 1 946) l O h4 f5 l l 'ii'e2?! ( l l llbl is equal) l l ...c5 1 2 lDg5?! h6 l 3 lDf3 lDc6 and Black i s in control, A.Calvo-Galliamova, Oviedo rpd 1 993.
A)
7 'ii'c2 (D)
B
7 ... f5
The signature move of the Dutch Variation. However, another continua tion is also noteworthy: 7 ... .txc3+ 8 bxc3, and here:
a) 8 ... lDg5 9 lDxg5 �xg5 l O f3 ( 1 0 .te4! ?) l O .. . 'ii'h4+ l l �fl lDc6 1 2 e4
.ta6 1 3 .te3 ltJa5 14 'ii'e2 d6 = Ole
sen-I.Ivanov, Philadelphia 1 992. b) 8 .. .f5 will usually transpose to the main line after 9 0-0, but in Con quest-Emms, British Ch (Eastboume)
1 990, White tried 9 a4. After 9 ... ltJg5 l O lDxg5 'ii'xg5 l l f3 1i'h4+ 1 2 'ii'f2 �xf2+ 1 3 �xf2 lDc6, the chances were equal.
8 0-0
The natural continuation, as White continues his development. Other tries: a) 8 a3?! makes no sense and Black easily obtains the better game after
8 ... .txc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 l O 0-0 c5 l l a4 �c7, Minev-Langeweg, Leipzig OL 1 960. b) 8 .td2 lDxd2 (or 8 ... .txc3 9 .txc3 0-0 l 0 .te2 d6 l l 0-0 ltJd7 = Romani-Keene, Lugano OL 1968) 9 'ii'xd2 0-0 l 0 a3 .txc3 1 1 'ihc3 d6 1 2
DUTCH VARIATION 183
0-0-0 lZ:ld7 with an equal position, L.Cooper-I.Ivanov, London Lloyds Bank 1 987.
8 .•• ..ixc3
8 ... lZ:lxc3 was Capablanca's choice in the stem game of this variation: 9 bxc3 ..ixf3 10 gxf3 'ii'g5+ (the imme diate 1 0 ... ..id6 has also been tried in this position) 1 1 �h 1 ..id6 1 2 f4 'it'h6 1 3 l:.g1 lllc6 1 4 'ii'e2 1Wf6 15 'ii'f3 0-0 16 ..id2 g6 and even though White has a slight initiative at this point, in Win ter-Capablanca, Rams gate 1 929 Black went on to win in impressive fashion.
9 bxc3 (D)
B
9 ••• 0-0
Black has two alternatives, of which the latter is especially noteworthy:
a) 9 ... d6?! 10 lZ:le1 lZ:ld7 1 1 f3 lZ:lef6 (Aorea-Keller, Dortmund 1 997) 12 g4! g6 ( 1 2 .. .fxg4 1 3 fxg4 leaves too much in White's hands) 1 3 e4!? with an ini tiative for White.
b) 9 ... c5 !? I 0 lZ:ld2 ( 1 0 lZ:le I 0-0
transposes to note 'e l ' to White's l Oth move) 10 ... lZ:lxd2 ( 1 0 ... 1Wh4 can also be tried; for example, 1 1 f3 { 1 1 ..ixe4 ..ixe4 12 lZ:lxe4 'ii'xe4 =} 1 1 ...lllxd2! ( I l ...lZ:lg5?! 1 2 f4 'ii'g4 1 3 d5 lZ:lf7 14 e4 ± Milic/Bozic } 12 ..ixd2 0-0 =) 1 1
..ixd2 lZ:lc6 1 2 f3 0-0 = Leai-Ratcu, Sao Paulo 1 998.
10 lZ:ld2
White has tried several other things, but none of the alternatives really test Black:
a) 10 ..ia3, as recently played by GM Kozul, seems best countered with 10 ... l:.f6!? 1 1 l:.ad1 c5 1 2 llle 1 ? ! l:.h6, when Black had the initiative in Zam firescu-Breahna, Romanian Cht 1 993. b) 10 ..ib2 c5 1 1 l:.ad 1 d6 (Kraid man-Keene, Beersheba 1978) 1 2 llle l = Keene.
c) 10 d5 lZ:lc5 (it's unclear whether White has enough for the pawn after IO ... exd5 1 1 cxd5 ..ixd5) 1 1 ..ia3 lllba6 1 2 lZ:ld4 'ii'f6 1 3 l:.abl l:.ae8 = Pla chetka-Franzen, Trnava 1982.
d) 10 l:.b1 c5 1 1 a4 1Wc7 12 a5 d6 is equal, Uhlmann-Botvinnik, Munich OL 1 958.
e) 10 llle1 (D) is White's main al
ternative to 10 lZ:ld2. White wants to kick the e4-knight away without giv ing him the opportunity to exchange it. Unfortunately for White, Black has no fewer than four reasonable options to pick from:
B
184 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3
e l l ) I l ...ltJg5 is supposed to be re futed by I 2 d5 ! ; e.g., I2 ... 'ii'f6 1 3 e4 f4 I4 e5 ! 'ii'h6 I 5 ..te4! ± Ink.iov-Psa khis, Minsk I 982; or I 2 ... exd5 1 3 cxd5 ..txd5 I4 ..txf5 ..tc4 I 5 l:f2 'ii'f6 I6 ..td3 ..txd3 I7 1t'xd3 l:f7 I 8 ltJc2 ltJc6 I9 e4 ltJe6 20 f4 ± Fraga-Fernan dez, corr. I 987. However, I 2 ... ltJf7 ! ? may change that evaluation; for exam ple, 1 3 dxe6 dxe6 I4 e4 g6! ? or 1 3 e4 ltJe5 ! ?.
e i 2) I l ...ltJd6 and then:
e i 2 l ) 1 2 e4?! fxe4 1 3 fxe4 l:xfl + I4 �xfl e5 15 ltJf3 ltJf7 (Muir-King, British Ch (Swansea) 1 987) 16 'ii'f2! ? d6 1 7 d5 ltJd7 1 8 �gi liJf6 I 9 ltJh4 ..tc8 and although Black has the long term initiative due to the pawn-struc ture and piece distribution, White should be able to defend.
e i 22) I 2 ..ta3 ltJa6 ( 1 2 ... 'ii'c7 is another worthwhile move: I3 'ii'e2 ltJc6 I 4 ltJc2 ltJa5 I5 e4, lbragimov-Grosar, Komotini I 993, and now 1 5 ... fxe4! ? I6 fxe4 e5 ! I 7 d5 ..ta6 i s better for Black) 1 3 e4 ( 1 3 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 I 4 ltJc2 e5 15 e4 f4 I6 g3 g5 and Black can be happy with the result of the opening, Psakhis-Lezcano, Copenhagen 200I ) I 3 ... fxe4! ( 1 3 ... 'ii'e7?! I4 e5 ltJf7 I5 f4 g5 !? I6 d5 gxf4 I7 ltJf3 ltJh8 1 8 l:ae I ltJg6 I 9 ..tc I �h8 { Timman gives I 9 ... l:ae8 as better ) 20 'ii'f2 'ii'g7 2I h4! ± Yusupov-Timman, Tilburg Ct ( 1 ) I986) I4 fxe4 l:xfl + I 5 �xfl (Bohle-Zlatilov, Porz I 990) I5 .. .'ii'h4 I 6 ltJf3 l:f8 I7 �gi 'ii'g4 I 8 h3 'ii'g3 I9 l:fl l:f6! "with active counterplay for Black" - Pliester.
e2) 10 ... 'ii'h4 is premature accord ing to Pliester, but in practice Black has had good results. I I f3 and here:
e2 I ) I I ...ltJg5 and then:
e2I I ) I2 'ii'f2 is a less critical move: I2 ... -.xf2+ ( 1 2 ... 'ii'h5? ! 1 3 .i.e2 'ii'g6 14 'ii'g3 d6 I5 ltJd3 ltJd7 I6 h4 ltJf7 17 'ii'xg6 hxg6 with a solid advantage for White, Hoffman-Wedberg, Novi Sad OL I 990) 1 3 l:xf2 c5 I 4 ltJc2 l:c8 I5
ltJa3 ltJf7 = Filip-B.Andersen, Havana
OL I 966.
e2I 2) I 2 c5 ! l:f6!? ( I 2 ... bxc5 1 3 l:bl ..tc6 I 4 ..ta3 ± Ehlvest-Vaiser, Volgodonsk 1982) 1 3 'ii'f2 'ii'xf2+ I4 l:xf2 bxc5 15 l:bi ..tc8 I6 e4 (Vil kov-Chemusevich, Smolensk 1 992)
l6 ... ltJf7 I 7 dxc5 ltJe5 I 8 ..tc2 f4 I 9
ltJd3 ;!;.
e22) l l ...ltJf6 12 a4 ( 1 2 ..ta3 d6 1 3 c 5 dxc5 14 dxc5 and now rather than the passive I 4 ... l:e8? ! I 5 'ii'b3 �h8
16 ltJc2 ;!; Levitt-Emms, British Ch
(Swansea) I 987, l 4 ... l:d8 ! improves; e.g., 15 'ii'b3 ..td5 with at least even chances for Black) 1 2 ... d6 1 3 d5 ( 1 3
a5 !? ;!; ECO) l 3 ... g6 14 e4 (Raisky
Kveinys, USSR 1982) l 4 .. .f4! with equality.
e3) IO ... d6 I l f3 ltJf6 (Black can also consider I l ...ltJg5) I 2 e4 (White has tried other moves here, including 1 2 c5 ! ?) l 2 .. .fxe4 1 3 fxe4 ltJbd7 14 ltJf3 e5 15 c5 ! ? 'ii'e7 (15 ... bxc5?! is worse: 16 'ii'h3+ ..td5 I7 exd5 e4 I8 ltJg5 exd3 19 ltJe6, Buehl-Dake, Los Angeles I 99 I , and here Black's best is I9 ... 'ii'e7 20 ltJxf8 l:xf8 21 ..tg5, al though White is solidly better) I6 cxd6 'ii'xd6?! ( 1 6 ... cxd6!? makes much more sense, even though White should be a little better, thanks to his bishops) I 7 ltJh4?! (trying to get Black to weaken his position further, but 17 a4!? is better, leaving White with a good ad vantage) I7 ... g6? ( 1 7 ... exd4!? I 8 ltJf5 'ii'e6 I 9 ltJxd4 'ii'f7 is OK for Black)
DUTCH VARIATION 185
1 8 ltJf3 �g7 1 9 i.b2 ± Rossiter-Har ley, London Lloyds Bank 1987.
e4) l O ... ltJc6 is also met by 1 1 f3. Then:
e41 ) l l ...lL'lf6 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 .:tbl ! ? d6 1 3 e4 e5 14 c5 is also interesting) 12 ... fxe4 1 3 fxe4 e5 14 lL'lf3 1i'e7 and then:
e41 1 ) 1 5 i.g5?! h6?! ( 1 5 ... exd4 is fine for Black; e.g., 16 cxd4 lL'lb4 1 7 1i'b3 ltJxd3), Burke-Rizzitano, Chi cago 1 988, and now White can obtain the better game with 16 �xf6 .:txf6 1 7 c5 !? .:taf8 1 8 a4.
e41 2) 15 c5 !? helps White rid him self of the doubled c-pawns, since 1 5 ... bxc5?? loses a piece to 1 6 1i'h3+.
e42) 1 l ...lL'lg5 12 'ii'e2 1i'e7 (Van der Wiel gives 1 2 ... e5 1 3 e4 f4 14 �b2
ltJf7 = as better) 1 3 ltJc2 e5 14 i.a3 !
d6 1 5 c5 bxc5 16 dxc5 ltJe6 (Por tisch-Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1 985) and here both 17 i.c4 and 17 :tab 1 are better for White.
e43) 1 1 ...lL'ld6 1 2 i.a3 ! .:tf6 1 3 c5 ltJf7 (Florea-Bunzmann, Apolda 1 997) 1 4 e4 e5 1 5 1i'b2 fxe4 16 �xe4 exd4 17 cxd4 �a6 1 8 .:tf2 with a better game for White.
We now return to the position after
10 lL'ld2 (D):
B
10 . . . 1i'h4
This aggressive approach is not only Black's most popular option, but it also scores better percentage-wise than the alternatives, although these also have some merit:
a) l O ... d5 1 1 cxd5 exd5 1 2 c4 ltJa6 1 3 i.a3 ltJxd2 14 'ii'xd2 c5 15 .:tac l ( 1 5 .:tabl !?) favours White, Afanas iev-Nakhaenko, corr. 1 99 1 .
b) l O ... ltJxd2 1 1 i.xd2 and then: b 1 ) 1 1 ... 1i'h4 1 2 f3 transposes to the main line.
b2) 1 1 ...1i'f6 12 f3 lL'lc6 1 3 e4 ltJa5 1 4 exf5 exf5 15 c5 ;!;; Stigar-S.Horvath, Copenhagen 1 986.
b3) l l ...c5 !? is very rarely played, but it seems that further tests are nec essary. One line is 1 2 e4 'ii'h4 1 3 exf5 i.xg2! with a perpetual check to come, Appei-Smith, e-mail 1 999.
b4) l l ...lL'lc6 12 e4!? fxe4 13 i.xe4 'iWh4 and now:
b4 1 ) 14 f3 ltJa5 15 �d3 i.a6 1 6 �e 1 'ifh6 1 7 'ife2 c6 1 8 �d2 'iWf6 1 9 .:tfe l .:tfe8 and Black's chances are no worse than White's, Portisch-P.Niko Iic, Niksic 1 983.
b42) 14 .:tael !? ltJa5 15 c5 ( 1 5 �xb7 ltJxb7 16 .:te4 is better, but not more than equal) 15 ... i.xe4 1 6 .:txe4 'ii'h5 17 c4 ltJc6 1 8 �e3 bxc5 1 9 dxc5 'ii'g6 and Black has a pleasant posi tion, Kantsler-M.Botvinnik, Tel-Aviv
1 999.
b43) 14 f4 ltJa5 15 i.d3 .:tf6!? 16 f5 'ii' g4 (Piiester gives 16 ... exf5 as better for Black, but 17 �f4 d6 1 8 i.xf5 i s playable for White) 1 7 �e3 .:taf8 1 8 .:tf4 'ii'h5 1 9 :an exf5 20 d5 and White has a pleasant game, Agde stein-0gaard, Gj0vik 1 983.
186 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3
Or:
a) I I g3? simply weakens the light squares around the king too much. Af ter l l ... ltJg5 ! the white king is already scrambling as 1 2 e4 can be met with 1 2 .. .fxe4! and 1 2 d5 and 1 2 f3 are not particularly attractive either.
b) 1 1 i.a3? is even worse. Black has the direct I I ...liJxd2 1 2 'it'xd2
i.xg2! 1 3 �xg2 ( 1 3 i.xf8 i.f3 14 l:tfc I
'ii'h3 0- 1 Blayvas-Friedrichs, Reck linghausen 1 999) 1 3 ... 'ii'g4+ 14 �hi 'iff3+ 15 �gl l:.f6 16 l:.fbl 'ii'h3 -+. Astonishingly, this idea was missed by
both ECO and Pliester.
c) 1 1 f4 lDxd2 1 2 i.xd2 'ii' g4 1 3 l:.f2 'ii'g6 14 l:.afl d6 ( 1 4 ... c5 !?) 15 l:.e2 i.e4! with a comfortable position for Black, Darga-Portisch, Oberhausen Echt 1 96 1 .
ll ... ltJxd2
l l ... ltJg5 is another noteworthy idea:
a) 1 2 e4? quickly leads to a strate gically lost position: 1 2 .. .fxe4 1 3 lDxe4 ltJxe4 1 4 i.xe4 i.xe4 1 5 'ii' xe4 'ii' xe4 16 fxe4 lDc6 and Black can rub his hands in excitement, Eckert-Miles, Las Vegas 1 997.
b) 12 'iWd I l:.f6 ( 1 2 ... c5 ! ? is an en tirely different plan, but nonetheless worth considering) 1 3 'ife I 'ii'h5 14 e4! lDc6 15 lDb3 fxe4 16 i.xg5 'ii'xg5 17 i.xe4 l:.e8 1 8 c5 is slightly better for White, Inkiov-Guedon, Bourbon Laney 1 998.
c) 12 f4!? represents the sternest test of Black's knight move according to Emms. He gives 1 2 ... 'ii'g4 1 3 d5 lDf7 14 i.a3 d6 15 e4 and 1 2 ... lDf7 1 3 e4, i n both cases with White the one benefiting from Black's knight ma noeuvre.
12 i.xd2 d6
Or 1 2 ... ltJc6:
a) 1 3 l:.abl ?! d6 1 4 e4 fxe4 1 5 i.xe4 ltJaS 16 i.xb7 lDxb7 17 l:.bel l:.ae8 1 8 'ii'a4 ltJa5 1 9 f4 'ii'h5 20 l:.f3 e5 2 1 dxe5 dxe5 and Black is doing better, I.Sokolov-Cu.Hansen, Novi Sad OL 1 990.
b) 1 3 e4?! fxe4 1 4 fxe4 e5 !? 1 5 d5 lDe7 1 6 c5 lDg6 (Maurer-Donaldson, Liechtenstein 1 994) and here Emms gives 1 7 g3 as best, when he mentions 1 7 ... 'ife7 1 8 i.e3, although he also offers 17 ... 'ii'h3!? for Black, which seems to be about equal.
c) 1 3 i.el 'ii'g5 1 4 i.g3 d6 (Knott Lawson, Edinburgh 1 989) 1 5 l:.ael 'ifh5 16 c5 !? is quite interesting.
13 i.e1 'ii'hS 14 'ii'b3
14 i.g3 !?, intending c5, is another idea.
14 .•• lDd7 15 i.g3 �h8 16 l:.ael eS
Here in Rizantsev-Lukianenko, Mos cow 1 997 White went for 17 'ii'b5, but 1 7 c5 ! ? seems better; e.g., 17 .. .f4 1 8 exf4 exf4 1 9 i.f2 dxc5 20 'ifa4 'ii'f7 21 i.b5 with a complicated struggle ahead.
8)
7 0-0 (D)
DUTCH VARIATION 187
7 . . . rs
Or:
a) 7 ... llJxc3? ends up costing Black too much time: 8 bxc3 ..ixc3 (8 ... .i.e? 9 e4 d6 10 ..ie3 lL!d7 I I lL!d2 0-0 I 2 �g4 with an advantage for White, Farago-Romanishin, Kiev I978) 9 l:tbi lL!c6 10 l:tb3 ..ia5 I I e4 h6 I2 d5 lt:Je 7 I 3 ..ib2 0-0 I 4 lLle5 ± Balashov-Rom anishin, Lvov I 978.
b) 7 ... ..ixc3 8 bxc3 and then: b 1 ) 8 ... 0-0 9 lLle I f5 transposes to line 'b353' .
b2) 8 .. . lt:Jxc3 9 �c2 ..ixf3 10 gxf3 �g5+ I I �h i �h5 I 2 l:tgl ! 'iWxf3+ 1 3 l:tg2 f5 I 4 ..ia3 llJe4 I 5 l:tfl is sup posed to be very nice for White, but then I 5 ... lt:Jc6!? ( 1 5 ... l:tg8?! I 6 ..ie2 �h3 I 7 f3 lLlf6 I 8 d5 ± Keres-Spas sky, Riga Ct (8) I 965) I6 d5 !? ( I6 ..ie2? is met with I 6 ... lt:Jxd4!) I 6 ... lt:Je5 I7 ..ie2 �h3 I 8 f4 lLlg6 19 dxe6 0-0-0 20 c5 �b8 21 e7 l:tde8 22 cxb6 axb6
23 l:tc i lLlh4 24 �xc7+ �a8 25 .in ,
as analysed by Nunn, looks like a probable draw.
b3) 8 .. .f5 and here:
b3 I ) 9 'ii'c2 transposes to Line A. b32) 9 d5 transposes to the main line.
b33) 9 ..ia3 !? deserves more at tention, as Black seems to have real problems equalizing: 9 ... d6 (Pliester suggests 9 ... c5 as Black's best, but 10 ..ixe4 ..ixe4 I I dxc5 wins a pawn with a good game for White) 10 d5 exd5 I I lt:Jd4 dxc4 12 ..ixc4 �g5 1 3 lL!e6 "iie7 14 f3 llJg5 I 5 e4 fxe4 (Schon-Wahls, Bundesliga 1987/8) and now 16 ..ib5+! is best; e.g., 16 ... ..ic6 17 ..ixc6+ lL!xc6 1 8 "iia4 "iixe6 19 "iixc6+ and Black is scrambling to keep the balance.
b34) 9 lt:Jd2 0-0 10 f3 lt:Jxd2 I I ..ixd2 lLlc6 I 2 �c2 ..ia6 1 3 e4 g6 14 ..ih6 l:tf7 I5 exf5 exf5 I 6 l:taei �h4 I 7 ..ie3 lLla5 I 8 ..if2 'iWf6 ;t J.lvanov Sulsk.is, Ubeda 2001 .
b35) 9 lLle i leads to similar play to Line A, but where White has saved a tempo by not playing 'ii'c2. Black has then tried:
b35 I ) 9 ... lt:Jxc3 10 'iWh5+ g6 1 1 �h6 lt:Je4 ( 1 1 ... �f6 has also been
played and even if ECO claims it to be
better for White, it, too, is about equal) I 2 f3 lt:Jg5 1 3 e4 lLlf7 I4 �g7 �e7 I 5 exf5 gxf5 I 6 ..ixf5 ! lLlc6 ( 1 6 .. . exf5?! 17 lLld3 �d8?! I 8 lLle5 l:tf8 I9 l:tei d6 20 lL!d3 pretty much wins for White) I7 lL!c2 0-0-0 I 8 ..ia3 � g5 I 9 �xg5 lLlxg5 20 ..id3 with only a very slight advantage for White, Semkov-Wilder, Saint John I 988.
b352) 9 ... �h4 10 f3 lt:Jg5 I I ..ia3 lLlc6 I 2 l:tbi lLle7 1 3 d5 ( 1 3 ..ic2!? is an alternative) with a pull for White, Holm Petersen-B.Andersen, Danish Ch (Aalborg) I 965.
b353) 9 ... 0-0 IO f3 and then: b353 1 ) I O ... lLlf6 1 1 lLlc2 'ii'e8 12 c5 �h5 1 3 cxb6 axb6 I 4 c4 lLlc6 I5 ..ib2 leads to an initiative for White, Gulko-Kuzmin, Lvov Z I 978.
b3532) IO ... lt:Jd6 I I ..ia3 l:tf6 I 2 �e2 lLlc6 1 3 lLlc2 e5 I4 e4 f4 I 5 c5 and White's pieces wake up, Wilder Cu.Hansen, Dortmund I 988.
b3533) 10 ... llJg5 1 1 l:tbi d6 I 2 l:tb2!? lt:Jd7 1 3 l:tbf2 e5 I4 c5 dxc5 I 5 h4 e4 I 6 "iib3+ �h8 (Portisch-Ink.iov, Cannes I 992) I 7 ..ic4 is very good for White.
8 d5
With this move, White takes on the burden of a ruined pawn-structure.
188 THE NJMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3
White can lead the play away from this in a number of ways:
a) 8 'ii'c2 transposes to Line A. b) 8 jlxe4 fxe4 9 �d2 jlxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 I I 'ji'g4 l:tf5 1 2 d5 l:tg5 13 'ji'f4 exd5 I4 cxd5 jlxd5 I 5 c4 jlc6 I6
�xe4 l:tg6 I7 jlb2 �a6 = Gligoric
Larsen, Havana I 967.
c) 8 �e5 !? 0-0 (the retreat 8 ... �f6 is also playable) 9 �xe4 (9 �e2 jle7 10 f3 �f6 I I jlc2 c5 !? is worth look ing into for either side) 9 ... fxe4 IO jle2 jld6 I I f4 exf3 I 2 jlxf3 jlxf3 I3 �xf3 �c6 I 4 e4 jlf4 I 5 d5 with some initiative for White, Chatalbashev Ciora, Nova Gorica 2000.
d) 8 �e2 and now:
di) 8 ... 0-0 9 �ei (9 b3 jle7 trans poses to line 'd3 ' ; 9 �g3 jld6 10 'ii'c2 jlxg3 ! 1 1 hxg3 'it'e8 1 2 �d2 'it' g6 1 3 b4 a5 14 b5 d6 gives Black a good game, Yusupov-Kengis, Riga 1 995) 9 ... Wh4 (after 9 ... jld6! ? 10 f3 �f6 1 1 �c3 c5 1 2 d5 jle5 Black can be happy, Sernkov-Franco, Berga 1993) 10 f3 �f6 1 1 c5 jlxe1 I 2 'it'xe1 Wxe1 1 3 l:txe1 jla6 14 cxb6 axb6 with a fairly level game, Volke-Wahls, Biel open 1993.
d2) 8 ... jld6 9 b3 0-0 10 jlb2 ( 10 �e5 !? has also been played, but the untried 10 ... �c5 !? 1 1 jlc2 jlxe5 1 2 dxe5 �6 1 3 jlb2 a5 equalizes) 10 .. . c5 1 1 dxc5 bxc5 1 2 �g3 jlxg3 13 hxg3
d6 14 �d2 'ii'e7 1 5 'it'c2 112-112 Malan
iuk-Ikonnikov, Werfen 1996.
d3) 8 ... jle7 9 b3 0-0 10 jlb2 jlf6 1 1 'it'c2 c5 12 l:tad I 'iie7 1 3 �g3 �xg3 14 hxg3 �c6 1 5 'ji'e2 g6 16 jlb1 (Lautier-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 199 1 ) and now 16 ... g7 !? gives Black a decent game.
We now return to 8 d5 (D):
B
8, . ,jlxcJ
Taking with the knight has also been proved playable: 8 ... �xc3 9 bxc3 jlxc3 10 l:tb1 jlf6 1 1 e4 0-0 1 2 l:te1 �a6 1 3 exf5 exd5 14 cxd5 �c5 1 5 jlc2 l:te8 1 6 l:te3 l:txe3 1 7 jlxe3 'ike7 with a decent position for Black, Ata lik-Grosar, Bled I 999.
9 bxc3 �c5
Some alternatives are:
a) 9 ... exd5? ! 10 cxd5 jlxd5 (after 10 ... �xc3 I I 'iic2 �xd5 I 2 jlxf5 �b4 1 3 'ii'bi jlxf3 I 4 gxf3 'il'h4 I 5 f4 White is much better, Visier-Feman dez, Lanzarote I 974) I I c4 jlb7 I2 �d4 0-0 1 3 f3 �d6 I 4 'ii'c2 'iff6 I 5 c5 ± Bolbochan-Enevoldsen, Havana OL I 966. b) 9 ... 0-0?! 10 jlaJ l:tf6 I I 'ifc2 exd5 I2 cxd5 jlxd5 1 3 �4 c5 I4 �xf5 ± Renet-Moran, Dubai OL I 986.
c) 9 ... �a6 and now:
c i ) 10 �d4 �ac5 ( 1 0 ... �ec5 I I jla3 transposes to note 'b' to White's I I th move) I I jlxe4 fxe4 I 2 jla3 0-0 I 3 l:tbl ! l:tb8 I4 jlxc5 bxc5 I 5 �e2 jla6 I6 l:txb8 'ji'xb8 I7 'ii'a4 'ji'b6 I 8
�f4 t Gligoric-Bukic, Vrbas I 980.
c2) 10 jla3 will normally trans pose to the main line via 10 ... �ec5, but Black has also tried 10 ... �ac5: I I
DUTCH VARIATION 189
i.xe4 llJxe4 ( l l ...fxe4 ?! 12 llJci2 0-0 1 3 i.xc5 bxc5 14 l:bl l:b8 15 llJxe4 with a good advantage for White, Muir Seaton, Scotland 1 99 1 ) 1 2 llJd4 exd5
1 3 f3 llJc5 14 cxd5 i.a6 1h-1h Scholl
Engel, corr. 1 993. The chances are about equal.
10 i.a3
Or:
a) 10 e4 looks very strange, allowing Black to fork two of White's pieces, but it isn't as simple as that: 10 .. .fxe4 1 1 i.g5 'ii'c8 1 2 i.c2 0-0 ( 1 2 ... exf3? looks tempting at first glance, but after 1 3 'ii'xf3 d6 1 4 l:ael e5 1 5 'ii'h5+ �f8 16 f4 e4 17 i.xe4 llJxe4 1 8 l:xe4 real ity sets in and Black will end up with a lost position) 1 3 llJd2 exd5 14 cxd5 ( 14 i.e7 dxc4, Hemandez-Georgadze, Aceimar 1999, and here 15 i.xf8 'iWxf8 16 llJxc4 'ii'f6 17 'ii'd4 1i'e6 leaves the game balanced) 14 ... l:f5 ( 1 4 ... 'iWe8! ?) 15 'iWg4 l:xd5 1 6 i.h6 1i'f8 17 llJxe4 llJba6 1 8 l:ael llJd3 ( 1 8 ... �h8 ! ? is more solid and probably Black's best choice) 1 9 l:e3 llJe5 20 'ii'g3 gives White more than enough compensa tion for the pawn, Pelletier-Wahls, Bundesliga 1999/00.
b) 10 l:el 'ii'f6! 1 1 'ii'c2 0-0 1 2 e4 fxe4 1 3 i.xe4 llJxe4 14 'ii'xe4 llJa6 1 5 i.a3 and now, instead of the standard 15 ... llJc5 which is better for White after 16 i.xc5 bxc5 17 l:ab 1 l:ab8 1 8 'ii'e3 (Muir-Farrell, Scottish Ch 1 991), Black has the somewhat unusual 15 ... c5 !?, keeping the pressure on White's centre intact; e.g., 16 'ii'd3 llJc7!? 17 l:abl ( 1 7 dxe6?! is met by 17 .. . i.xf3 ! 1 8 e7 l:r.f7, followed by ... llJe6) 17 ... i.a6 1 8 dxe6 dxe6 and Black is in control.
lO . . • llJba6 (D)
11 l:r.el
Or:
a) 1 1 i.c2! ? has served White well on several occasions, but Black is the oretically OK: 1 1 ...0-0 ( l l ...'ii'f6 !? is a new try in this position: 1 2 llJd4 0-0 1 3 f3 g6 1 4 'iWd2 e5 1 5 l:r.f2 d6 16 llJe2 llJd7 17 �h 1 llJac5 and Black has a pleasant game, G.Buckley-Ward, Brit ish Ch (Torquay) 1 998) 12 llJd4 l:r.f7 ( 1 2 ... l:r.f6 1 3 f3 and now, instead of
13 .. lth6?! 14 'ii'e2 'ii'f6 15 b l l:r.e8 16
i.e 1, which is much better for White, Gligoric-Cafferty, Teesside 1 972, Tai manov gives 1 3 .. .'ii'e7 as equal) 1 3 f3 (alternatively, 1 3 llJb3 'ii'e7 14 l:r.el e5 1 5 f4 d6 with an equal position, Bala shov-Emms, 2nd Bundesliga 1 994/5)
1 3 ... 'iWg5 (both 1 3 ... 'ii'e7 and 1 3 ... 'ii'f6 seem better than the text-move) 14 i.c l 'iff6 15 i.d2 l:r.e8 16 e4 ;!; Lukacs Merlina, Szolnok 1975.
b) l l llJd4 0-0 12 l:r.bl (or 12 f3 g6 13 'ii'e2?! { 13 l:r.bl , followed by llJb3, is about even } 1 3 ... e5 14 llJb3 d6 15 i.xc5 llJxc5 16 llJxc5 dxc5 17 f4 'ii'f6 with a better game for Black, Brinck Claussen - Cu.Hansen, Silkeborg 1983)
12 ... l:r.f7 13 llJb3 'ii'e7 14 e4 fxe4 15 i.xe4 and here, instead of 15 ... e5? (Chatalbashev-Hauchard, Elista OL 1 998), which loses to 16 i.xc5 ! 'ii'h4
1 90 THE NIMZO-INDIAN: 4 e3
(or 1 6 ... ll:lxc5 1 7 d6!) 17 f4 bxc5 1 8 ll:ld2 l:.b8 1 9 fxe5; Black should play
1 5 ... exd5 16 .i.f3 d6 17 cxd5 'ii'e5 with chances for both sides.
l l . . .'iff6
1 1 ...0-0?! got Black into trouble in Rechlis-Brunner, Berne Z 1 990: 1 2 e4 fxe4 1 3 .i.xe4 l:.f4 14 .i.c2 l:.xc4 (this is my definition of asking for it; 14 .. .'iff6 is more appealing; e.g., 15 ll:le5 l:.f8 16 f3 exd5 17 cxd5 l:.h4 1 8 'ii'd2 although here too White has the better chances) 15 ll:le5 :Xc3 16 .i.xh7+! �xh7 17 'ifh5+ �g8 1 8 .i.b2! 'ili'f6 (18 ... ll:la4 1 9 .i.xc3 ll:lxc3 20 'ii'f7+ �h7 2 1 l:.e3 +-;