I. Igor Khenkin
W
e will introduce you to the main ideas of the 'Stonewall' set-up in the Dutch Defence, and also touch briefly on the Leningrad Variation.I have to admit that the move 1 .. .f5 has always seemed to me to be positionally not altogether correct. When playing against it, I usually avoid the main opening lines, and prepare some rare set-up, which neverthe
less has a definite strategic basis. Such a set-up will usually serve me faithfully for a year or two, then my opponents adapt to it, after which it has to be repaired or replaced . In both of the afore-mentioned variations I aim to develop my king's knight at h3. The f3-square remains free for the other knight, and sometimes it does indeed move there.
Let us make the following initial moves:
1 d4 f5
2 g3 tt:'lf6
3 �g2 g6
Here for many years I successfully employed an idea of Viktor Gavrikov.
4 c3
White brings out his q ueen to b3, to prevent castling . A very u n usual set-up! Often the black player proves unprepared for it. This is not surprising - he always also has plenty of problems in the main , more popular varia
tions.
4 . . . �g7
5 'ifb3
(see diagram)
Here Black has many possible moves. The most usual are 5 . . . d5 or 5 . . . c6, while in recent times the idea of . . . c7-c5 has appeared .
5 . . . d5 allows me clear play on the dark squares. The moves 6 tt:'ld2, 7 tt:'lh3 and 8 tt:'lf3 follow almost automatically. Then the knight goes from h3 to f4 (occasionally it can also be placed on g5) and the pawn to h4, after which White plays either h4-h5, or (if this is prevented) tt:'ld3 and �f4.
[Kramnik: All is not so simple - if the knight is developed at h3, the opponent acquires quite a good counter-plan: . . . e 7-e6, . . . t:Lle4, . . . tt:'lc6, . . . a 7-a5, . . . b 7-b6 and .. . �a6. I have played this a couple of times with Black and, in my opinion, here White has no
advantage. In reply to 5 . . . d5 1 am much more concerned about the simple 6 tt:'lf3.]
A few years ago Sergey Gorelov tried 5 .. . c6 against me. The game developed as follows:
6 tt:'ld2 'it'b6 7 tt:'lc4 'it'c7?! 8 tt:'lh3, and then 9 0-0, when White was evidently better. Later I came to the conclusion that Black should
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
lZJ
1 63have exchanged queens by 7 . . . 'ifxb3 8 axb3 lt:Ja6, with chances of equalising . Neverthe
less, I am satisfied with the resulting pattern of play. 'i'b4 �xb7 9 'it'xb7 t"Llc6 with the irresistible threat of 1 0 .. J::ta7) 7 . . . lt:Ja6 8 �xa6 �xa6 9
However, in view of the possibility of 6 dxc5, I was still prepared to try and uphold this variation. But soon Stuart Conquest, an international master from England, devised a set-up which would appear to put an end to
tions. It would probably have been better to concern myself with maintaining equality, but I did not yet sense the danger. b2-pawn should be defended .
1 3 . . . 1 4 c4
aS lt:Ja6
Black's position is clearly better, and he went on to win the game.
The set-up with . . . t"Lla6, . . . c7-c5, . . . d7-d6 and . . . t"Llc7 seems to be an excellent antidote to the plan of c2-c3 and 'ii'b3. This plan cannot be employed until an improve
ment is devised for White.
I had to change my opening weapon . I have to admit that, when playing against the Leningrad Variation , I don't like placing my
pawn on c4, and so I again tried to manage without this move.
1 d4 f5 2 g3 tt:\f6 3 j_g2 g6 4 tt:\h3
My favourite knight manoeuvre!
4 . . . j_g7
For some reason Black very rarely plays 4 ... d6 here, after which Wh ite should proba
bly reply 5 tt:\c3 ! ? . The endgame after 5 . . . e5 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 �xd8+ �xd8 8 e4 is clearly in White's favour. 5 . . . c6 6 d5!? j_g7 7 tt:\f4 leads to roughly the same situation as after 4 . . . j_g7. The move 5 . . . d5 is of independent significance. White's plan of action in this case is simple: 6 0-0, then j_g5, tt:\f4, e2-e3, tt:\ce2 and tt:\d3. I cannot guarantee an advantage, but this kind of position appeals to me.
Incidentally, this move - 5 tt:\c3 - was played in the game Korchnoi-M .Gurevich (Rotter
dam 1 990), in which White scored a fine win . Here are the opening moves: 5 ... j_g7 6 tt:\f4 c6 7 d5! e5! 8 dxe6 d5! (if 8 . . . �e7, then 9 e4! is very strong) 9 h4! 'ii'e7 1 0 h5 g5 1 1 h6 j_f8 12 tt:\h5!? .l::i.g8 13 tt:\xf6+ 'i!Vxf6 1 4 j_xd5!? j_e6? (Black should have accepted the challenge) 1 5 j_xe6 'i!Vxe6 1 6 e4! j_xh6 17 'i!Vf3! fxe4 18 'i!Vxe4 .l::i.g6 19 j_e3 tt:\d7 20 0-0-0, with an appreciable advantage for White.
5 tt:\f4 d6
After 5 ... 0-0 there is the unpleasant reply 6 h4. The game Savchenko--Malanyuk (Kher
son 1 989) continued 6 ... d6 7 c3!? c6 8 'ikb3+ d5 (8 .. . 'it>h8 9 h5) 9 h5 g5 1 0 h6 with the initiative for White.
6 d5
It is also possible to transpose moves: 6 tt:\c3 followed by d4-d5.
6 . . . c6
7 tt:\c3 0-0
If 7 . . . cxd5 the correct capture is 8 tt:\fxd5 ! , in view of the variation 8 ... e6 9 tt:\xf6+ j_xf6 9 e4! .
This position was reached in the game Khenkin-Wilson (Gausdal 1 992). The theo
retical continuation here is 8 e4. But I had not prepared for the game (in Swiss tourna
ments you find out only at the last minute who you are playing against). My opponent's rating was fairly modest (around 2300), and I decided that it was not essential to create tension immediately - it would do no harm to first consolidate the knight's position with h2-h4. But this once again confirmed how dangerous it is to underestimate your oppo
nent - he manoeuvred very confidently.
8 h4?!
Threatening h4-h5-h6.
8 . . . tt:\g4!
An excellent response! If 9 h5 Black replies 9 . . .'iVb6 ! , and only after 1 0 e3 or 1 0 00 -1 0 .. . g5.
9 0-0 1 0 e4 1 1 exf5
tt:\e5 tt:\a6
It is unfavourable to continue 1 1 h5 g5 1 2 tt:\e6 j_xe6 1 3 dxe6 g4 (or 1 3 .. . f4!?).
1 1 . . . j_xf5 1 2 h5
I felt quite optimistic about this position, expecting only 1 2 .. . g5 1 3 tt:\e6 j_xe6 1 4 dxe6 h 6 1 5 'i!Ve2 d5 1 6 f4, or 1 2 .. . tt:\b4 1 3 hxg6 hxg5 1 4 tt:\e4.
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
l2J
1 65A continuation of the same optimistic tactics - the knight aims for g5. It would have been Black was faced with solving a fairly simple little problem in the calculation of variations.
With what should he take on f3? The most natural captures lose, for example: 1 6 .. . i.xf3?
1 7 llxf3! tt'lxf3+ 1 8 i.xf3 l:.xf3 1 9 tt'lxc7, or 16 .. . tt'lxf3+? 1 7 .l:txf3! i.xf3 1 8 i.xf3 .l:!.xf3 1 9 liJxc7 . Correct was 1 6 .. . l:txf3 ! ! (I saw this possibility only after the game). The cunning point is that all the subsequent captures on f3 are made with gain of tempo - with check or with an attack on the white queen. For is probably even stronger to g ive a cunning check: 1 9 .. . tt'le 1 +! 20 'ii'xe 1 (2 1 <iftf2 tt'lxc2!
22 tt'lxc7 'ifxc7 23 'i!Vd5+ e6! 24 'ii'xe6+
iff?+ ) 20 .. . tt'lxd5, and Black is a sound pawn to the good . 1 9 'ii'xf3 tt'lxd5 20 tt'lg5 'ii'b6+ 2 1
<iftg2 tt'lf6 is no better for White.
1 6 . . . tt'lxf3+?
Fortunately, my opponent did not see what was bad about this move, and so he did not consider the capture with the rook. I nciden
tally, when playing in Swiss tournaments I have noticed that less skilled players usually go wrong in a tense tactical battle. At decisive moments I have often succeeded in out-calculating them.
17 l:txf3 !
Here everything became clear to my oppo
nent, but it was no longer possible to change course. than the rook and pawn , especially since the black king comes under attack.
1 9 . . . i.xb2
Everything turned out well, although it could have been the other way round.
For the moment this variation suits me for opening and plays 3 ... d6. Now it is ridiculous to place the knight on h3 because of the reply 4 . . . e5. Of course, one can simply play 4 lLlf3, transposing into the main lines of the Dutch Defence. But I don't like developing my knight on f3 and, when I encountered this problem a couple of years ago, at the board I devised a new plan. consideration. White continues 5 ltJf3 and 6 0-0. This leads to a rather unusual, compli
cated position, with chances for both sides.
4 . . . c6
Here Black offered a draw. Evgeny Vasyukov is an active player and it was apparently tedious for him to play without the queens.
But in the endgame I am not in any danger at best Black can hope for equality.
1 1 'ii'xd5 cxd5
1 2 lLlh3
1 2 lLle2 is equally good . White then castled, placed his rook on e 1 and his knight on f4, and retained a slight but stable initiative.
After a lengthy struggle I managed to win.
I like the situation arising after 4 lL\c3!?, and I am ready to play it again. I n recent times I have come to realise that it is not so important whether you gain an opening advantage with White - this is problematic in any opening. The main thing is to obtain
White has also tried immed iately developing his knight at h3 with his pawn still on c2. But I think that after 4 lLlh3 the reply 4 . . . c5!? is unpleasant (quite logical: as soon as the knight has moved onto the rim , Black attacks the centre).
4 . . . d5
For some reason this is the reply I have faced , although it is considered more accu
rate to begin the construction of the 'stone
wall' with 4 . . . c6!?, waiting to see where the g 1 -knight goes. After 5 lLlh3 Black places his
Modern Interpretation of the Dutch Defence
l2J
1 67pawn not on d5, but on d6, preparing . . . e6-e5. For White I can recommend that you check 5 d5!?, which , I think, as yet no one has played .
Of course, I must also mention the l lyin
Genevsky Variation (4 . . . .i.e7, 5 . . . 0-0 and 6 .. . d6). 4 . . . .i.b4+ has also been employed , with the idea after 5 .i.d2 of retreating 5 . . . .i.e7 - the bishop on d2 is not too well placed . 5 lDd2 is stronger, when it is not clear what the black bishop is doing on b4.
5 lDh3!
For Black this plan is the most dangerous.
When I made my first grandmaster norm , I scored a very important win in this variation against Vladimir Tukmakov.
Khenkin - Tukmakov Metz 1 99 1
5 . . . .i.e7
5 ... .i.d6 6 0-0 c6 has also been played . If 7 i.f4 Black should reply 7 ... .i.e7 ! . I n the game Bareev-Vaisser (Pula 1 988) after 8 'ii'b3 0-0 9 lDa3 (if 9 lDc3 there is the unpleasant reply 9 . . . 'ii'b6) 9 . . . h6!? 1 0 l:lad 1 g5 1 1 i.d2 a5! 1 2 f3 b5! Black seized the initiative. But later Kozul improved White's play against Bareev (Biel 1 99 1 ): 8 lDd2 0-0 9 'ii'c2 h6 (after 9 . . . lDbd7 1 0 cxd5 Black does not have 1 0 .. . exd5, the essential capture in
such cases - his f5-pawn is 'hanging') 1 0 .i.xb8! l:.xb8 1 1 lDf4. White's chances are better - he places his knights on d3 and f3, and then he begins an attack on the queenside, by advancing his b-pawn . 7 b3 fie? 8 .i.b2 0-0 9 lDd2 is another promising set-up. Then the d2-kn ight goes to e5, and the other knight is quite well placed on h3, controlling the f4-point. (If it had come out in the opening to f3, to obtain a similar construction White would have had to spend a couple more tempi: lDf3-e5-d3 and lDd2-f3-e5). One of the possible subsequent plans is 'ifc2 , l:tad 1 , lDf4, f2-f3 and e2-e4 .
6 0-0 0-0
7 b3
7 'ili'c2 is also possible, but I prefer first to develop my bishop - who knows, perhaps the queen will also come in useful on d 1 .
7 . . . c6
Grandmaster N igel Short, who constantly employs the Dutch Defence with Black, plays 7 . . . lDc6!? and then . . . a7-a5 in such positions. The knight presses on d4, thereby preventing the exchange of the dark-square bishops (8 .i.a3? .i.xa3 9 tDxa3 dxc4 ). After 8 .i.b2 a5 White is obliged to make the not very useful move 9 e3 - otherwise he cannot develop his queen's knight. However, even in this case I prefer White's position.
8 i.b2
The exchange of bishops does not bring White any particular benefits - after 8 i.a3 .i.xa3 9 lDxa3 the black queen obtains a comfortable post at e7, whereas the knight at a3 is badly placed , and it faces a lengthy journey via c2 and e 1 to d3 or f3. If the king's knight were at f3, controlling the e5-point, such a plan would make sense, but here, while the quean's knight is on its way, Black will surely have time to play . . . d5xc4 and . . . e6-e5.
8 . . . lDe4
Black has problems with the development of
his queen's knight: 8 . . . tt:Jbd7? 9 lt:Jf4 is bad for him. For the same reason - the weakness of the e6-point - the normal (with the knight on f3) plan of . . . b7-b6 and . . . ..tb7 does not work.
Tukmakov plans . . . ..tf6 and . . . c6-c5, not fearing 9 f3?! lt:Jd6 (or 9 . . . 4:Jf6). I was able to find a strategic refutation of his idea. With his other knight on c6, . . . tt:Je4 would have been more justified - Black would have retained pressure on the opponent's centre.
Theory mainly deals with 8 ... 'ike8 . It is recommended that 8 ... b5 should also be considered . But I am sure that Black's problems cannot be solved in this way -White can simply reply 9 lt:Jd2 or 9 c5.
[Kramnik In the 'stonewall' the . . . b7-b5 advance has always seemed dubious to me - a whole complex of squares is immediately weakened , and Black does not gain any real cou nterplay.]
9 lt:Jd2 ..tf6
1 0 tt:Jxe4!
I exchange the opponent's only active piece, and then open lines in the centre by f2-f3, to exploit my lead in development. It is impor
tant that the pawn is still at e2 - after the exchange on f3 White will recapture with this pawn .
1 0 . . . dxe4
1 1 'iVc2
For the moment 1 1 f3 is premature in view of 1 1 . . . exf3 1 2 exf3 c5! .
1 1 . . . 'iVe7?!
The threat was 12 .l:lad 1 and 13 f3. 11 . . .'ii'c7 1 2 f3 exf3 1 3 exf3 e5! was more tenacious, but after 1 4 dxe5 ..txe5 1 5 ..txe5 'ikxe5 1 6 l:tfe 1 White has an obvious advantage. I f is very difficult to find a good post for the c8-bishop.
12 f3 c5
1 2 .. . exf3 1 3 exf3 c5 14 d5! exd5 1 5 cxd5.
13 fxe4!
Here 1 3 d5 is no longer so good in view of the reply 1 3 .. . e3! .
1 3 . . . ..txd4+
1 4 .Yi.xd4 1 5 exf5 1 6 lt:Jf4 1 7 .l:r.ad 1
cxd4 exf5 tt:Jc6 ..td7
Now White has to find an energetic plan . He only needs to delay slightly, by allowing his opponent time to play . . . 'ifi>h8, . . . l':.ad8 and . . . ..tcB, and his entire advantage will evapo
rate. After all, my position has its weakness
es on the e-file. Of course, I need to play e2-e3.
18 c5!
18 . . . .l:r.ad8 1 9 b4! . 1 9 lt:Jd5
'it>h8
'ii'e5
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
lZJ
1 69Tukmakov is an active player, and he tries to avoid going totally onto the defensive.
However, after 21 .. J1ae8 22 l:txe3 'i!fb8 23 l:!.de 1 l:.xe3 24 l:.xe3 Black's position would also have remained difficult - his bishop on d7 has no future, and the threatened pawn advance b3-b4-b5 is extremely unpleasant.
The ending arising after 24 .. J1e8 25 1i'c3 .l:.xe3 26 'ii'xe3 'i!fe5 27 Vxe5 tt:'Jxe5 28 tt:'le7!
is obviously in White's favour.
22 gxf4 'ii'h5
23 l:lxe3 l:tadB
24 l:.de1 ! £Lg4
25 Vc4
Black would have compensation for the pawn if he were able to drive the knight from d5, but it is not possible to achieve this.
Initially I wanted to exchange something, to simplify the position , but then I realised that this was incorrect strategy. The active
It was possible to support the knight with 28 'i'd4 followed by .l:!e5, but I decided to force
White forces the most favourable version of the exchange. simple exchange of pieces on this square.
The central idea of Black's strategy is the restriction of the g2-bishop. In my view, here it is no stronger at all than the bishop on c8.
I have played this opening for both sides and as a result I have become aware that it is even simpler to play for Black than for White.
At any event, it is usually more difficult for White to choose a plan. His actions must often vary depending on the opponent's plans, i.e. he has to adapt flexibly to Black's play, which is never easy. I like to employ the 'stonewall' as Black against a player with an attacking, combinative style, because here White will not give mate, and the strategic problems sometimes prove too difficult for such players.
In one order or another let us make the initial moves:
1 d4 fS
2 c4 lZ'lf6
3 lZ'lf3 e6
4 g3 dS
5 ..1ll.g2 c6
6 0-0 il.d6
After Black castles, he has to choose one of two ways of developing his quean's bishop.
Sometimes he directs it via d7 to e8, vacating the d7 -square for the knight. Later the bishop can be taken further, to h5, after
which it can be exchanged , or . . . c6-c5 prepared .
But Black more often plays . . . b7-b6, . . . .ib7 and . . . lZ'lbd7, developing his queenside as in the Queen's I ndian Defence or the Catalan Opening. The main difference with these openings is the position of the pawn on f5.
White's thematic e2-e4 advance is now greatly hindered (if White prepares it with f2-f3, Black immed iately counters with . . . c6-c5). On the other hand, after Black carries out his basic plan - completes his develop
ment, places his rooks on c8 and d8, and advances . . . c6-c5 - pawn exchanges occur in the centre and the weakness of the e5-square may become perceptible.
White usually chooses one of two continua
tions: 7 il.f4 or 7 b3. 7 lZ'lbd2 (or 7 'i¥c2) has no independent significance - all the same he cannot manage without b2-b3. The move 7 lZ'lc3 is not very dangerous for Black, and in general it seems to me that the knight is not best placed at c3 - all the time White has to reckon with . . . d5xc4. However, this is some
times played with the idea of developing the bishop at g5 on the next move. 7 l2Je5 also occasionally occurs.
I think that the development of the bishop at f4 is more logical. With it on b2, both white bishops lack prospects: one is obstructed by its own pawn on d4, and the other by the enemy pawn on d5. Incidentally, I agree with Khenkin : it is more difficult for Black to defend if the opponent's king's knight is developed not at f3, but at h3.
7 b3
Plan with b2-b3 'iie7
If 7 . . . 0-0 there follows 8 ..ta3, and White's position is better - he gains control of the e5-square. There is no point in allowing the exchange which is advantageous to White.
8 ..lll.b2
8 lZ'lbd2 is also played .
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
ltJ
1 71First let's analyse the plan with . . . .i.c8-d7--e8.
8 . . . 0-0
9 ltJbd2 .i.d7
10 ltJe5 1 1 lDdf3
i.e8
White's moves are natural, but if you ask what does he want, what is his plan, it is not easy to obtain a sensible reply. Most probably he has to adapt to the actions of his opponent.
1 1 . . . �h5
12 'ifc2 1 3 ltJd3
Black prepares . . . c6-c5.
14 .l:.ac1
ltJbd7 I!ac8
The game Schmidt-Haba (Prague 1 989) developed as follows: 14 . . . ltJe4?! 1 5 ltJfe5 lt:lxe5? 1 6 dxe5 i..c7 1 7 f3 lDg5 1 8 h4 ltJf7 1 9 lt:lf4 .i.g6 20 h5, and the battle was decided . A curious example, but it vividly demon
strates how ruinous superficial decisions can be (such as 14 . . . ltJe4?!).
14 ... c5! is correct, with good chances of equalising, although accuracy is still required - after all, White can maintain the tension in the centre by playing, say, 15 'ifb1 ! ?.
In principle, this entire plan does not really appeal to me. Of course, at h5 the bishop is better placed than at c8 , but even so it is
hardly doing anything here. I magine that Black has not managed to exchange it: the knight has gone from f3 to e5, and the e2-pawn has moved to e3. When Black advanc
es . . . c�5. the g2-bishop immediately begins operating on the long diagonal, and there is nothing to oppose it.
8 . . . b6
This move is probably more accurate than 8 . . . 0-0.
9 'iVc1
White insists on the idea of exchanging bishops. A completely harmless undertaking!
It simply wastes too many tempi. Once I myself played this, but I immediately ended up in a somewhat inferior position .
9 . . . �b7
1 0 i..a3 ltJbd7
11 �xd6 'ii'xd6
12 'ika3?!
12 e3 may still maintain the balance, but in several games White went in for the ex
change of queens. For example: Alburt
Short (Subbotica 1 987) and Goldin-Dol
matov (Kiaipeda 1 988).
12 . . . 1 3 ltJxa3
'ili'xa3 1;e7
In my view, Black's position is preferable. His king is closer to the centre and he is ready to play . . . c�5.
Incidentally, after 8 . . . 0-0 (instead of 8 . . . b6) 9 1Vc1 b6 (9 .. . b5!?) 1 0 ..ta3 ..tb7 1 1 ..txd6 1Vxd6 1 2 'iVa3 Black can play the same endgame, although without his king on e7 -here t-here is nothing terrible for him. But he is not obliged to go into the endgame -1 2 .. . c5 is not bad .
If White really wants to exchange the dark
square bishops on a3, he should do this by 8 a4 and 9 ..ta3.
8 a4 aS
8 . . . 0-0 9 ..ta3 ..txa3 1 0 tt:Jxa3 a5 is equally good , but not 11 a5! with the better chances for White, as in the game Kasparov-Short
8 . . . 0-0 9 ..ta3 ..txa3 1 0 tt:Jxa3 a5 is equally good , but not 11 a5! with the better chances for White, as in the game Kasparov-Short