5. Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bibliography
Introduction
The Classical 2...ds
2...g6 and Minor Lines
The Positional Choice: 2...e6
The Uncompromising 2...cs
The Popular 2... Ne4
The Modern Preference: 2... Ne4 3 Bf4
The Main Line: 2... Ne4 3 Bf4 cs
Index of Variations
Index of Complete Games
4
5
9
39
54
100
142
163
201
260
268
6. Bibliography
Chess Openings for Black, Explained, Lev Alburt, Roman Dzindzichashvili & Eugene
Perelshteyn (CIRC 2005)
Dealing with d4 Deviations, John Cox (Everyman 2005)
El Ataque Trompowsky, Jesus De Ia Villa (Evajedrez 2001)
Fighting the Anti-King's Indians, Yelena Dembo (Everyman 2008)
Secrets of the Trompovsky, Julian Hodgson (Hodgson Enterprises 1997)
The Soviet Chess Conveyor, Mikhail Shereshevsky (Semko 1994)
The Trompowsky, Joe Gallagher (The Chess Press 1998)
The Trompowsky (second edition), Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess 2005)
The Trompowsky: The Easy Way, Andrew Martin (ChessBase DVD 2006)
The Veresov, Nigel Davies (Everyman 2003)
Trends in the Torre and Trompowsky, Julian Hodgson (Trends Publications 1995)
Winning with the Trompowsky, Peter Wells (Batsford 2003)
Other Sources
Good use was made of Chess Informant, Mega Database 2008 (ChessBase), New in
Chess Yearbook and Tim Harding's UltraCorr 2 CD. I can also heartily recommend
Eric Prie's Trompowsky coverage in his 'd-Pawn Specials' section of the ChessPub
lishing website.
Last, but by no means least, I am most grateful to John Emms and Peter Wells for
their help with this project.
4
7. Introduction
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 (Diagram 1)
Diagram 1 (B)
The Trompowsky
Introduction
Few openings allow White to stamp his authority on the game as early as the
Trompowsky. At a stroke Black discovers that his favourite King's Indian, Nimzo
lndian, Modem Benoni, Griinfeld or even Benko Gambit has been side-stepped
and without his obtaining easy equality in the process. The Trompowsky is no
longer quite the shock weapon it once was, but even nowadays it carries a fair
amount of surprise and practical sting; opponents might have decided on a re
sponse to 2 BgS, but generally they have studied that line much less than the more
critical parts of their repertoire after 2 c4.
Whether one is looking for an occasional weapon for surprise use or a full-time
opening to be employed against 1 d4 Nf6, the Trompowsky fits the bill. It is not
that hard to learn and White can expect to be somewhat more familiar with the
resulting complex lines and often unusual middlegames than his opponent. I hesi
tate to describe the attributes of a typical Trompowsky player, though, as I believe
5
8. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
that the opening appeals to a wide range of tastes. That said, in connection with
the Trompowsky one tends to think first and foremost of that most creative of
English Grandmasters, Julian Hodgson. Even in 2009 a number of unbalanced and
fascinating lines remain far from worked out, and so the creative and original
player will still find 2 BgS an enjoyable and successful opening to adopt, but so
too will those looking for something a little more solid and positional.
Throughout this work we will see that White has at least a couple of fully viable
options against Black's main defences to 2 BgS. Which path to follow is often a
matter of taste, and nowadays one can broadly see two main Trompowsky
schools. One contains the aforementioned creative types; the other the more posi
tional, 'systems-orientated' player. These are players who often have some experi
ence of openings like the Torre and London, and like to employ simple but by no
means innocuous set-ups. Many with a 1 e4 background have taken up the Trom
powsky too, and even they will find some structures in which they have experi
ence. After all we should not forget that an opening which arises after just two
moves is likely to give rise to a wide range of middlegames and structures.
I don't want to over-theorize on these two schools, though, as the lines between
them can become quite blurred at times and quite a few Trompowsky players have
a foot in both camps. Indeed, many players will choose to include a mixture of fairly
positional and much sharper lines in their Trompowsky repertoire. Moreover, even
those who revel in sharp positions sometimes have to play more quietly and posi
tionally, especially in the case of 2...d5 and 2...g6. Indeed, we should never lose sight
of the fact that by playing 2 BgS White prepares to double Black's pawns, and after
both 2...d5 and 2...g6 he is probably best advised to carry out that threat.
The Structure of this Book
Opening books often consider the more critical and theoretical lines first, moving
on to the less forcing and theoretical lines towards the end. That will not, how
ever, be our approach here. Rather I have begun with a discussion of two fairly
simple defences, 2. ..d5 and 2... g6. These are especially popular at club level and
there is no point taking up the Trompowsky if one isn't happy handling the re
sulting middlegames. The doubled f-pawn structure (Diagram 2) might give rise
to fewer complications than some would like, but even here White has a choice of
set-ups, including some quite pleasant ones in my view.
Our journey then continues with 2...e6, which is especially popular with Nimzo
players. Black is happy to put up with a slightly cramped position in return for
avoiding doubled f-pawns, although he usually gains the bishop-pair in any case
after 3 e4 h6 4 Bxf6 Qxf6. Of course, White obtains a strong centre that way and
there's always the systems-based alternative, 3 e3, for those who prefer to keep
their bishop.
6
9. Introduction
The most critical sections of this book deal with 2...c5 and Black's most popular
response, 2...Ne4. Then the play can become quite forcing and a certain body of
theory has built up. However, in both cases White has a choice between some fas
cinating approaches, can easily gain an early initiative and still needs much less
theoretical knowledge than to play 2 c4! Moreover, in keeping with the Starting
Out format, here too I have included a number of tips, notes and warnings to help
the reader understand their chosen lines as well as possible.
Diagram 2 Diagram 3 (B)
An important structure A fascinating gambit
In the case of 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 c5, which one can consider to be the main line of the
Trompowsky, I haven't shirked on supplying theoretical detail, largely because
White has a wide range of options. These include a fascinating gambit which was
unknown until introduced by Konstantin Chemyshov in 2005, namely 4 f3 Qa5+ 5
c3 Nf6 6 d5 Qb6 7 e4!? Qxb2 8 Nd2 Qxc3 9 Bc7! (Diagram 3), trapping the black
queen mid-board. In other sharp variations too I have aimed to supply up-to-date
theoretical coverage, which should help both those new to the opening and even
long-term Trompowsky practitioners. Even after 2 Bg5 theory continues to evolve;
there are now more than 40,000 Trompowsky games in my various databases!
Balancing plenty of explanation with supplying enough theoretical coverage for
even the stronger club player to adopt 2 Bg5 doesn't come without its drawbacks.
Chiefly I have had to include less new analysis than I would have liked, and much
less than one finds in two of my all-time favourite opening works, De Ia Villa and
Wells's respective works on the Trompowsky. Still, this work is hardly devoid of
new ideas and suggestions, at least in the Trompowsky proper. Please be aware
that there's no coverage whatsoever of 1 d4 d5 2 Bg5, the so-called Pseudo Trom
powsky, largely because I consider it to be a much less challenging and fun rela
tive: Black is fine in the complications after 2...f6, and the solid and popular 2...h6
7
10. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
3 Bh4 c6 is a pretty tough nut to crack.
Garry Kasparov has enjoyed success with the Trompowsky in his many simulta
neous exhibitions, while the creative young Azeri, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, has
made good use of the opening on occasion throughout his career, as has the lead
ing English Grandmaster, Michael Adams. More regularly, while Hodgson is
sadly no longer playing actively, the 2600-rated Serb Grandmaster, Igor Miladino
vic, continues to play his favourite Trompowsky against all-comers, as does the
former Women's World Champion, Antoaneta Stefanova. We will see plenty of
inspiring games from these players and many more leading grandmasters
throughout this work. I hope that their efforts will inspire both the new and exist
ing Trompowsky player alike, just as they have helped to remind me why the
Trompowsky has long been one of my favourite openings.
Happy Tromping!
8
Richard Palliser,
York,
June 2009
11. Chapter One
The Cla ssical 2••• ds
m Introduction
m The Solid 3•••exf6
m The Dynamic 3••. gxf6
m White Declines to Exchange
12. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
Introduction
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bgs dS (Diagram 1)
Diagram 1 (W) Diagram 2 {W)
A simple and solid defence White has the better structure
A solid approach which has been played in 20% of all the Trompowsky games in
my database. 2...d5 is regularly employed by several solid Russian Grandmasters
and is an especially popular choice at club level.
NOTE: Even in 2009 there are some without a prepared line against
the Trompowsky, and such careless players often fall back on 2...ds
followed by seemingly natural development.
It must be said that if White can't reach a position he's happy with after 2...d5,
there's not much point playing the Trompowsky! However, the resulting different
types of position offer something for everyone, whether White begins by carrying
out his positional threat on f6 or aims for a kind of improved Torre with 3 e3. The
latter is fairly popular with the more positional school of thought, but there is ab
solutely no reason for the more solid Trompowsky player to avoid exchanging on
f6. Likewise those of ambitious bent might be drawn towards the less-theoretical 3
e3 - there really is something for everyone here! That also applies to Black: 2...d5
is only a solid choice if he recaptures on f6 with his e-pawn; one could never ac
cuse 3...gxf6 of being a little dull.
The Solid 3...exf6
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bgs ds 3 Bxf6 exf6 (Diagram 2)
10
13. The Classical 2...d s
The obvious recapture, opening a standard path for the bishop on f8. Already we
have a classic Trompowsky debate before us: will Black's bishop-pair prove useful
or ineffective? As we will see, it is hard for Black to make his bishops felt for some
time and patience really must be his watchword in this line. Moreover, White's
knights often find good roles, putting pressure on Black's centre from such
squares as c3, c4 (the c2-c4 advance is White's main pawn break) and f4. It is far
from clear that White has any objective advantage here, but his game has always
struck me as being the easier to play.
4 e3 Be6
Black takes steps to prevent White rushing through with c4, generating some early
pressure. However, 4...Be6 is by no means universally played:
a) 4...Bf5 5 Bd3 (White is happy to trade bishops and speed up his development; 5
Ne2 c6 6 Nd2 Qb6 7 Ng3 followed by b3 and c4 is a decent alternative, but Black
should allow such an expansion, whereas 7...Bg6 8 Rb1 Bb4 9 a3 Bxd2+?! 10 Qxd2
0-0 11 f4! Be4 12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 c4 Nd7 14 Be2 gave White a pleasant advantage
with the better prospects on both flanks in R.Palliser-G.Bak, Leeds 2007) 5...Bg6
(less compliant than 5...Bxd3 6 Qxd3 c6 when 7 Nf3 Bd6 8 Nbd2 Na6 9 0-0 0-0 10
c4 dxc4 11 Nxc4 Bc7 12 Rfd1 Re8 13 a3 Qd5 14 b4 Rad8 15 Rab1 f5 16 Ncd2! Bb8 17
Rdcl was rather depressing for Black despite his apparent solidity in J.Hodgson
E.Teodoro, Winnipeg 1994; White's control and queenside prospects give him
clearly the upper hand) 6 Ne2 Bd6 7 0-0 Nc6?! (Black has the ambitious ...Nb4 in
mind, but he must have underestimated White's next) 8 Bb5! 0-0 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10
Nbc3 Rb8 11 b3 (Diagram 3) gave the pure knight-pair the upper hand in
M.Shereshevsky-E.Barkovsky, Minsk 1981; White will expand with Na4 and c4,
and can always hinder the bishops with Nf4 if necessary.
Diagram 3 (B)
White is in control
Diagram 4 (B)
White attacks the isolated pawn
11
14. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
TIP: Even when White begins by coordinating his minor pieces, the
c4-break should remain at the front of his mind. Pawn breaks are the
keyto most middlegames and this variation is most certainly no ex-
ception.
b) The pseudo-active 4...c5 appears a little at odds with Black's last, but might be
tried by those with little Trompowsky experience. Here White has a pleasant
choice between 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Nge2 Be6 7 g3, as played by Smyslov and investi
gated further via the move order 2...c5 3 Bxf6 exf6 4 Nc3 dS in Chapter Four, and
the even simpler 5 dxcS Bxc5 6 Nc3! Be6 7 Bb5+ Nc6 B Nge2 0-0 9 0-0 Ne5 10 Nf4!
(Diagram 4), which retained a pleasant edge in M.Gurevich-P.Wolff, Palma de
Mallorca 19B9.
c) 4...Bd6 has actually been a more popular choice in practice than our main line
and introduces an important dilemma: how best to deploy White's pieces. Essen
tially White has three options: a quick c4 followed by rapid and often aggressive
development; an outwardly-aggressive set-up with Bd3, Nd2, Qf3 and Ne2, which
may pack some punch if Black is careless; and a sensible set-up with g3, Bg2, Ne2
and often Nd2, preparing c4 while keeping the position under control. Thus we
have:
cl) 5 c4 dxc4 6 Bxc4 0-0 7 Nc3 is an easy-to-play approach. Game 1 will reveal why
I feel Black is probably best advised to avoid this line with 4...Be6.
c2) 5 Bd3 0-0 6 Qf3 c6 (the aggressive 6...c5!? becomes a better bet with White's
queen already committed; Black fears an isolated d-pawn less as he will obtain
counterplay on the queenside and in the centre) 7 Nd2 ReB (theory has generally
approved of 7...Na6! B a3 Nc7 when long castling would be risky to put it mildly
and 9 Ne2 Ne6 10 c4 Ng5 1 1 Qh5 g6 12 Qh4 ReB 13 cxdS cxd5 14 Nc3 Be7 gave
Black sufficient counterchances in J.Hodgson-M.Taimanov, Yerevan 19B6) B Ne2
Qb6 9 0-0-0!? (Diagram 5) 9...Na6 10 c3 Be6 11 g4! Nc7?! (there is no time to waste;
Black has to get on with 1l...c5!) 12 h4 RecB 13 gS NeB 14 Rdg1 QdB 15 Nf4 gives
White strong pressure, A.Zubarev-A.Bets, Obninsk 2007.
c3) 5 g3 c6 (or 5...0-0 6 Bg2 c6 7 Ne2 and now Black should hinder White's break
with 7...Be6, transposing to the notes to his 7th move in our main line, whereas
7...Bf5?! B 0-0 Nd7 9 b3 ReB 10 c4 dxc4 11 bxc4 Be4 12 Bxe4 Rxe4 13 Nd2 ReB 14 cS
Bc7 15 Qc2 left him under unpleasant queenside pressure in R.Palliser-P.Swallow,
Leeds 2004) 6 Bg2 (if White is worried about ...Qb6 ideas, he might consider 6
Nd2) 6...Nd7 (6...Qb6 has been proposed by some commentators, but after 7 b3 I
have been unable to find a good way for Black to disrupt White's development,
and 7...0-0 B Ne2 BfS 9 0-0 aS!? 10 c4 dxc4 11 bxc4 Qa6 12 cS Be7 13 Nbc3 again saw
White seizing the advantage on the queenside in K.Rusev-V.Kukov, Blagoevgrad
2009) 7 Ne2 0-0 (Howell later preferred 7...f5 when B b3 Nf6 9 Nd2 Be6 transposes
to our main line) 8 0-0 fS 9 b3 Nf6 10 c4 (Diagram 6) sees White's aims become
clear. Sometimes he can exchange on dS and attack a resulting isolani (if there's no
12
15. The Classical 2...ds
knight on f6 to recapture on d5 or if White has a knight on c3), but more often he
is after a direct queenside assault with c5, b4-b5, etc.
Diagram 5 (B)
Highly-aggressive play
Diagram 6 (B)
White's key pawn advance
NOTE: Due to the omission of...Be6, White has managed to break
with c4 without resorting to the preparatory Nd2. This is definitely a
gain, as White would like a knight on c3 and can now keep his king's
knightflexibly placed on e2.
Note too that White shouldn't fear an exchange on c4, opening up the b-file for his
use. Just take a look at the game P.Wells-D.Howell, Halifax (rapid) 2004: 10...dxc4
11 bxc4 Qe7 12 Nbc3 ReB 13 Rb1 Ne4 14 c5! Bc7 15 Nxe4! (a well-judged trade to
leave Black low on counterplay and the remaining knight with good prospects in
the resulting structure) 15...fxe4 16 Nc3 f5 17 Qa4 Rd8 18 Rb2 h5 (perhaps the grim
18...a6!? 19 Rfb1 Ra7 had to be tried) 19 Rfb1 h4 20 Rxb7! (not so hard to find, but
still beautifully logical) 20...Bxb7 21 Rxb7 Qd7 22 Bh3 (Diagram 7) and White was
in control with rich pickings in prospect on both flanks.
d) Finally, before returning to 4...Be6, we should note that 4...Be7 is rather passive
and does little to help the dark-squared bishop: for example, 5 c4 (White plays as
per Game 1; again a set-up with 5 g3 0-0 6 Bg2 is very possible too, as, indeed,
Hodgson later employed: 6...c6 7 Nd2 Be6 8 Ne2 Nd7 9 0-0 f5 10 c4 Nf6 11 Nf4
Qd7 12 Rcl gave White an edge in J.Hodgson-T.Upton, Moscow Olympiad 1994)
5...dxc4 6 Bxc4 0-0 7 Nc3 c6?! (ultra passive) 8 Nge2 Nd7 9 Qc2 Bd6 10 Bd3 g6 11
h3! (White prepares to meet Black's plan of ...f5 and ...Nf6 with an undermining g4
thrust) 11...Qe7 12 0-0-0 (Diagram 8) 12...a5 13 Kb1 Nb6 14 h4! saw White whip up
a strong attack in J.Hodgson-J.Gokhale, British Championship, Dundee 1993.
13
16. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
Diagram 7 (B) Diagram 8 (B)
A strong exchange sacrifice Black's kingside is vulnerable
5 g3
There's no need for 5 Nd2 just yet if White is after a g3 set-up, although 5...c6 6 g3
has also been seen.
'
WARNING: White must not hurry with c4 once Black's bishop is on
X
e6: 6 c4?1 dxc4 7 Bxc4? Bxc4 8 Nxc4 QdS (Diagram 9), forking c4 and
g2, is most certainly one to avoid.
Diagram 9 (W)
One to avoid
Diagram 10 (B)
A harmonious set-up
White might, th ough, begin with 5 Bd3 fS an dn ow 6 Nd2 is sensible, but a leading
14
17. The Classical 2...ds
Trompowsky authority preferred to plough a creative furrow in I.Miladinovic
M.Krivokapic, Pancevo 2006: 6 h3 Nd7 7 g4!? (who'd have thought that h7 would
be an early target?) 7...Qf6 8 Qe2 hS (the immediate 8...0-0-0!? might be stronger) 9
gxfS BxfS 10 Nd2 Bd6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0-0! 12 BxfS QxfS 13 Qf3 Qe6 14 h4 and a complex,
manoeuvring middlegame lay ahead. I would, however, be in less of a hurry to
undouble Black's pawns.
s...c6 6 Bg2 Bd6 7 Ne2 (Diagram 10) 7...Nd7
The most flexible, although there can't be too much wrong with 7...0-0 - the sub
ject of Game 2.
8 Nd2
White too refuses to commit his king just yet. Moreover, the knight must go to d2
either here or after 8 0-0 fS 9 b3 Nf6 to support the c4-break.
s...fs
Common. Inexperienced Trompowsky players have been known to worry about
8. ..h5, but after 9 h4 Black's advance is likely to cause him at least as many prob
lems as White: for example, 9...0-0 10 0-0 Bg4 1 1 c4 dxc4 12 Nxc4 Bc7 13 Qc2 Re8
and now White might well elect to get his queenside play under way with 14 b4.
9 b31?
Peter Wells has done much to support this approach, which has an ambitious fol
low-up in mind. More routine is 9 0-0 Nf6 10 b3 when Tiviakov's 10...Ne4! dem
onstrates that Black is alert to the needs of the position. Now 11 c4 QaS!? gives
Black decent counterplay and 11 f3 Nf6 12 c4 0-0 13 cS Bc7 14 b4 Re8 saw Black
playing most aggressively to target the weakness on e3 with 15 Qb3 Bc8 16 Rfe1
aS!? 17 a3 Qe7 18 Kf2 gS, which was rather unclear in M.Cebalo-D.Solak, Portoroz
2004.
White has also tried 9 Rcl Nf6 10 0-0 0-0 11 c4, but then 1l...dxc4! 12 Nxc4 BdS 13
Nxd6 Qxd6 14 Nc3 Bxg2 15 Kxg2 Rfe8 was extremely solid for Black in
R.Wojtaszek-K.Landa, German League 2006. Indeed, the fS-pawn can hardly be
considered a weakness here, binding down most effectively on the e4-square.
9...Nf6 10 c4 (Diagram 11)
White fights for the initiative with a pawn sacrifice. Despite good coverage in
Winning with the Trompowsky, this position remains quite unexplored and I must
confess that the premature end at this point to a game of mine with Jon Speelman
(British League 2005) did not help to flesh out the theory! White really should con
tinue and here we have:
a) 10...Bb4 11 0-0!? (okay, only now do we actually have a pawn sacrifice, but 11
cxdS BxdS would be very solid for Black a Ia Landa) ll...Bxd2 12 Qxd2! (12 cxdS
Bxd5 13 Qxd2 Bxg2 14 Kxg2 QdS+ 15 Kg1 Ne4! is again fine for Black) 12...dxc4 13
Nf4 cxb3 14 Nxe6 fxe6 15 Rfb1 ! 0-0 16 Rxb3 gave White good pressure for his
pawn in J.Hodgson-S.Tiviakov, Groningen 1994, but Black should not be worse.
15
18. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
b) 10...Ne4 11 c5!? Bc7 12 b4 g6 13 Qb3 Kf8 14 a4 led to a rather complex manoeu
vring battle in A.Walton-M.Schaefer, Bad Worishofen 2003.
c) 10...h5 11 h4 Ne4 12 c5 Bc7 13 b4 g6 14 a4 (Diagram 12) is similar and after
14...Kf8 15 Qc2 Kg7 16 Qb2 Bd7 17 Nf4! Rb8 18 Ra3 Qe7 19 Nf3 a6 20 Ne5 Be8 21
Ned3 White had manoeuvred well, but the position remained extremely rich in
potential in P.Wells-J.Parker, British League 2003.
Diagram 11 (B)
White will sacrifice a pawn!
Conclusion
Diagram 12 (B)
Heavy manoeuvring beckons
White's score of 55% from 2,800 games with 4 e3 suggests that his position is the
more pleasant to play. Indeed, he often has a decent choice of set-up. I quite like
an approach with g3, but must concede that Black's precise play in our main line
should enable him to equalize. However, at sub-grandmaster level Black is some
times on his own even as early as move 4, and one will often encounter the alter
natives to 4...Be6.
Illustrative Games
Gamel
D V.Kramnik • V.Tkachiev
Tal Memorial Blitz, Moscow 2008
It's often hard to include a blitz game in a book. There are bound to be mistakes,
but here White's approach is highly thematic and his overall play still of high
16
19. The Classica l 2... ds
quality, as one would expect from such a strong player.
1 d4 d5 2 Bg5
This is often referred to as the Pseudo-Trompowsky. I must admit that I'm not a
fan (White should play 2 c4 or 2 Nf3!), but Tkachiev generously returns play to
standard Trompowsky waters.
2.. .Nf6 3 Bxf6 exf6 4 e3 Bd6 5 c4
And why not with Black having made no attempt to dissuade this ideal break?
s. ..dxc4 6 Bxc4 0-0 7 Nc3 (Diagram 13)
Diagram 13 (B)
White enjoys easy development
7...c6
Diagram 14 (W)
How to net a pawn?
Solid and fairly popular, but hardly essential at this stage. Thus practice has also
seen:
a) 7...f5 8 Nf3 Nd7 9 Qc2 (the more solid 9 0-0 c6 10 Rei Nf6 11 Qc2 Qe7 12 Bd3 g6
13 a3 Be6 appears fine for Black, although both Hodgson and Miladinovic on oc
casion have been happy to play this way and then manoeuvre) 9. .. Nf6 10 0-0-0!?
Qe7 11 h4 (11 Bd3 would be consistent with Kramnik's approach in our main
game; then Black might block things up with l l...g6 12 h4 h5, but 13 Ng5 gives
White something to play with: Rhel and e4 may follow) ll...h5 12 Ng5 c6 13 Kbl
g6 14 Bd3 (thus we reach the same sort of position after all) 14...a5 15 Rdel!?
(White wants to keep his king's rook on the h-file) 15...Nd5?! (this doesn't fit in too
well with Black's 14th and further weakens his structure) 16 Nxd5 cxd5 17 Qa4!
Bb4 18 Re2 saw White abandon his kingside lust for a positional edge in V.lotov
}.Borisek, Dresden Olympiad 2008.
17
20. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
TIP: Never forget that White's superior pawn structure often allows
him a decent degree offlexibility, as lonov fully exploited here.
b) 7...Nd7 8 Bd3 cS!? 9 Nge2 cxd4 10 Nxd4 NeS 1 1 0-0 Bd7 12 Be4 restricted White
to just a pull in I.Miladinovic-D.Ivanovic, Mataruska Banja 2007.
c) However, the immediate 7...c5? is misguided for the same reason that 7...a6 8
Rei cS? (Diagram 14) 9 dxcS BxcS 10 Bxf7+! Kxf7 11 QhS+ Kg8 12 QxcS cost Black a
pawn in J.Hodgson-K.Arkell, London 1991.
8 Nf3
This can't be faulted, especially as White is happy to chase the bishop in the event
of ...Bg4, but a decent case can also be made for 8 Qf3 followed by Nge2.
s...f5
More recently 8...Nd7 9 Qc2 ReB 10 Rg1!? (I'm not too sure why White rejected 10
0-0-0, although after 10...f5 he must, of course, avoid 11 QxfS? on account of
1l...Ne5) 10...Nf8 11 g4 aS 12 h4 a4 13 a3 QaS 14 gS fS 15 hS led to a rather unbal
anced middlegame in M.Bosiocic-F.Berkes, European Championship, Budva 2009.
9 Qc2 Nd7 10 Bd31 (Diagram 15)
Diagram 15 (B)
Only now is fS en prise
Diagram 16 (W}
Prising open the kingside
White avoids the aforementioned tactic and forces Black to weaken his kingside.
10...g6 11 h41
Kramnik wastes no time exploiting the hook on g6 to launch a strong attack.
11...Qe7
Risky. More solid would have been 11...h5, although after 12 NgS Nf6 13 0-0-0 Qe7
14 Kb1 play has actually transposed to the fairly pleasant waters (from White's
point of view) of Iotov-Borisek.
18
21. The Classical 2. ..d s
12 h 5 Nf6 13 hxg6 fxg6 (Diagram 16)
13...hxg6 isn't as risky as it looks, since Black can bring a rook to the h-file in time,
although with 14 0-0-0 Be6 15 Qd2!? Kg7 16 Ne5 White retains the upper hand and
has aggressive ideas of e4 as well as f4.
14 Bc4+ Be6?1
Black trades his supposedly bad bishop, but this leaves his light squares vulner
able and enables White to maintain the initiative with some vigorous play. Thus I
suspect that Black should have taken his chances with the more active 14...Kg7 15
0-0-0 b5!.
15 Bxe6+ Qxe6 16 Ng5 Qc4 17 g41?
Olt�! Kramnik presses on with his attack, although a decent case might be made
for 17 b3 Qa6 18 0-0-0 when White remains slightly for choice due to his central
(Kb1 and e4 is a plan) and kingside options.
17...Bb41?
Critical. Black had to avoid 17...fxg4?? 18 Rxh7!, but might have considered the
solid 17...Nxg4 18 Nxh7 (18 b3 Qa6 is possibly worth flicking in, but then White
must avoid 19 Rxh7? Rae8! when it's suddenly Black who has all the nasty threats)
18...Rfe8 19 0-0-0 Kg7 20 Ng5 Rh8, restricting White to just a pull.
18 gxf5 Nd51
Tkachiev has pinned everything on the pin, but Kramnik is up to the challenge.
19 fxg61 Nxc3 20 bxc3 (Diagram 17)
Diagram 17 (B)
A critical position
20...Qxc3+?
Diagram 18 (B)
Black's king is overwhelmed
Too greedy. Black had to prefer 20...Bxc3+! 21 Kdl QdS when matters wouldn't
19
22. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
have been at all clear: 22 f3 Bxal (22...Qxg5!? 23 gxh7+ Kh8 24 Qxc3 Rxf3 is a
calmer defence) 23 Qh2 Qd7 24 Qe5 (this queen manoeuvre appears powerful, but
White has invested a whole rook) 24...Rae8 25 gxh7+ Qxh7 26 Nxh7 RxeS 27 dxe5
Rd8+ 28 Ke2 Bxe5 29 f4 and White retains the initiative, but the resulting ending is
far from clear.
21 Qxc3 Bxc3+ 22 Ke2 Bxa1 23 gxh7+ Kh8 24 Rxa1
Taking stock we can see that White has two good pawns for the exchange. Even
more importantly, his knight is extremely well placed, guarding the fishbone on
h7 and assisting the central pawns' advance.
24...Rf5?
White's prospects were already quite bright, but there was no need to force him to
improve his f-pawn and king. Much better would have been 24...Rae8 when 25 e4
RfS! 26 Rgl Ra5 would have given Black some counterplay with his resulting
passed a-pawn.
25 f4 ReS 26 Kf3 c5?
This loses, but Black was already in huge trouble. A more solid defence was
26...Ref8, but after 27 Kg4 Rb5 28 e4 Rb2 29 Kf3! Rd2 30 e5 White's pawns are roll
ing.
27 e4 Rxgs
Alternatively, 27...Rf6 28 dxc5 Ref8 29 f5 and there's no stopping those pawns.
28 fxgs cxd4 29 g6 Kg7 30 Rh11 (Diagram 18}
Kramnik has everything worked out and has realized that the pawn ending will
be an easy win.
TIP: When a pawn or two ahead in an endgame, remember to con
sider ways to return some or all ofthe extra material to simplify to a
straightforward winning task.
30...Rh8 31 e5 Kxg6 32 Ke4 Rxh7 33 Rxh7 Kxh7 34 Kxd4 Kg7 35 Kd5 Kf7 36 Kd6
White wins by a tempo.
36...Ke8 37 Kc7 as 38 a4 Ke7 39 Kxb7 Ke6 40 Kb6 Kxes 41 Kxas Kd6 42 Kb6 Kd7 43
Kb7 1-0
Gamel
D K.Georgiev • A.Horvath
European Club Cup, Fuegen 2006
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 d5 3 Bxf6 exf6 4 e3 c6 5 g3 Bd6 6 Bg2 0-0 7 NeZ Be6
Related play to our main game occurred with 7...Re8 (there's no need to commit
this rook so early) 8 b3 f5 9 0-0 Be6 10 Qd3!? in R.Palliser-S.Mannion, British
20
23. The Classical 2...d s
Championship, Scarborough 2004, which continued 1 0...Nd7 11 c4 Nf6 12 Nbc3 a6
13 c5! Bc7 14 b4 (White presses ahead with his typical queenside expansion)
14...h5! (Diagram 19) 15 a4 (I wasn't so keen on 15 h4 Ne4, but this is a reasonable
defensive concept so long as White continues 16 Nf4, rather than 16 Bf3? g5! when
suddenly Black whips up a strong attack) 15...h4 16 b5 axb5 17 axb5 Rxa1 18 Rxa1
hxg3 19 hxg3 Ng4 and now the calm 20 Bf3 followed by Kg2 would have retained
a pleasant edge.
Diagram 19 (W) Diagram 20 (B)
Black must seize some counterplay The plan is b3, c4 and Nc3
8 0-0
Georgiev castles having a specific follow-up in mind. More usually White has pre
ferred 8 Nd2 Nd7 9 b3 along the lines of the main line of the theory section.
8...Nd7 9 Qd31? (Diagram 20)
A rare but notable idea from the strong Bulgarian Grandmaster. White wants to
force through c4 without needing to develop his queen's knight to d2; he has the
more aggressive c3-square in mind for this piece.
9.. .fs
The only other example of 9 Qd3 which I could find continued 9...Re8 and now I
dare say Georgiev would have played 10 b3, rather than follow the 10 e4 dxe4 11
Bxe4 Nf8 of V.Zhikharev-S.Bystrov, correspondence 2002; White does have the
superior structure here, but Black is extremely solid and exploiting that extra cen
tral pawn will be far from easy.
10 b3 Nf6 11 C4 Qd7
The alternative was l l...Ne4, but I dare say that the Hungarian Grandmaster
wasn't so sure how to follow up after 12 Nbc3. Then White might well roll for
wards with c5 andb4-b5, but a plan of exchanging on d5 followedby playing
21
24. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
down the c-file is also possible.
12 Nbc3 Rae&
Black readies himself for an exchange on d5, but White prefers to keep the queen
side closed.
13 cSI Bc7 14 b4 hSI
15 h4
NOTE: Black's position might appear quite solid, but it is also rather
passive -just look at the prospects ofthat bishop on e61 He thus
needs counterplay and as the ...b6-break would only help White,
Horvath must turn to the kingside.
Deciding when to block Black's kingside play in this manner is never easy, but
Georgiev has seen deeply into the position and discovered a strong follow-up.
15...Rfe8 16 Nf41 Bxf4 17 exf4 (Diagram 21)
Diagram 21 (B) Diagram 22 (B)
White retains a pleasant pull White has options on both flanks
It might seem strange at first to have allowed Black to damage White's kingside
structure, but just compare the remaining bishops and pawn breaks! White's
bishop has clearly the better prospects and just where is Black's counterplay
against White's long-term advance on the queenside?
17...Ne4 18 Ne2 bsl?
Radical butby no means bad defence. White will now gain the better prospects
down the a-file, but at least Black remains fairly solid. Note that Black couldn't
prepare a counterattack with ...g5 because 18...f6? 19 f3 would trap and win the e4-
knight, and 18...Rb8 19 a4 Rec8 20 Rfcl looks like a pleasant pull for White,
whether or not Black tries to counter on the queenside with ...b6.
22
25. The Classical 2.. .d5
19 a4 a6 20 f3 Nf6 21 Ra3 Qb7 22 Qd2 RaB 23 Rfa1 Reba
Both sides have deployed their major pieces along logical lines, but what now for
White?
TIP: It's rarely a bad idea to improve your worst-placed piece (or
even pieces). Note too how Georgiev doesn't hurry here - Black
hasn'tany counterplay.
24 Bf1 NeB 25 Nc11 Nc7 26 Nd3 f6 27 Be2 Qc8 28 Nc1
Having provoked a small weakness (...f6), the knight heads back as White remains
content to slowly probe. Moreover, it's not only the queenside on which he has
options, whereas Black, for his part, has the rather unenviable task of having to sit
tight and suffer.
28...Bd7 29 Bd3 Qf8 30 Ne2 Qe8 31 Kf21
Continuing to improve his pieces and this will help should White later decide to
open the kingside with g4.
31...g6
Horvath's position was rather unpleasant, but I wonder whether he would have
been better off trying 31...bxa4!? 32 Rxa4 Qc8 at some point. This does leave a6
rather weak, but with b4 at least a little sensitive, White might not have found it as
easy as in the game to retain control while opening the kingside.
32 Nc3 Kg7 33 Nd11 Be6 34 Ne3 Qd7 35 Qc2 (Diagram 22)
Black is being outmanoeuvred. Too late it appears he realized White's kingside
designs.
35...Rh8
White's play has been impressively patient thus far and only now does he invade
on the queenside.
36 axb5 axb5 37 Ra7 Rxa7 38 Rxa7 RaB?
Black continues to underestimate White's plans. Trading the rooks is natural, but
he had to keep things solid with 38...Bf7! when White would have had to gradu
ally probe with his queen; a2-a5-b6 being one possibility.
39 Rxa8 Nxa8 40 g41
Black's bad bishop and fixed queenside pawns arguably constitute a weakness,
but to win White would like to classically attack a second weakness. The text pre
pares to do just that: Black's king now becomes exposed and his knight can but
spectate from a8.
40...hxg4 41 fxg4 Qc7 42 Ng2 (Diagram 23) 42...fxg4?1
Not the stiffest of defences. Instead 42...Qd7 43 hS gxhS 44 gxhS Nc7 45 Nh4
would have left Black under heavy pressure, but at least this way he would have
given White some issues to ponder: to cash in on fS or try to mate down the g-file.
2 3
26. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
43 Bxg6 Qa7 44f51
The final blow. White's queen and knight will enter on the kingside with decisive
effect.
44...Bf7 45 Qe2 Bxg6 46 Qxg4 Qa2+ 47 Kg3 1-0
Diagram 23 (B)
Black cannot hold fS
The Dynamic 3...gxf6
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 d5 3 Bxf6 gxf61? (Diagram 24)
Diagram 24 (W)
Much more active than 3...exf6
The much more dynamic recapture and quite a challenging approach. Indeed,
those who like dynamic, unbalanced positions could do far worse than make
2...d5 and 3...gxf6 their defence to the Trompowsky.
4C41
A challenging response; White wants to open the position to take advantage of
Black's potentially vulnerable kingside.
WARNING: Despite having been used by a number of strong players,
I feel quite stronglythat White should avoid 4 e3?1 as 4...c51
(Diagram 25) gives Black easy and fairly effective counterplay.
White has tried a number of ideas here, but without enjoying all that much suc
cess:
a) 5 c3 risks leaving White a little passive and even the active attempt S...Nc6
(S...Qb6 is a good alternative, after which 6 Qc2 Nc6 7 Nf3 cxd4 8 exd4 Bg4 9 Be2
Rc8 10 Nbd2 e6 1 1 Qb3 Bh6 was about equal in S.Conquest-G.Jones, Hastings
2008/09, but might Black not have gone 8...e5?) 6 dxcS!? e6 7 b4 aS 8 Qb3 f5!? 9 Nd2
24
27. The Classical 2... ds
Bg7 10 Rcl f4! failed to dent the notion that Black was having the greater share of
the fun in A.Walton-R.Palliser, Crewe 2001.
b) 5 dxc5 e6 6 c4 treats the position like a Queen's Gambit, but 6...dxc4! is an easy
equalizer; Black's bishop-pair fully compensates for his fractured kingside.
Diagram 25 (W)
Black fights for the initiative
Diagram 26 (B)
It's a Veresov!
c) 5 c4 cxd4 6 exd4 is White's most active try, but probably his least convincing
one too: 6...Nc6! (stronger than both 6...Qb6 7 Nc3 Qxb2 8 Nxd5 Bf5 9 Qcl Qxcl+
10 Rxcl Na6 11 c5 0-0-0 12 Ne3 Be4 13 Bxa6 bxa6, which reached a pretty unbal
anced middlegame in E.Torre-S.Tiviakov, Turin Olympiad 2006, and 6...dxc4 7
Bxc4, which enables White to escape into our main line) 7 Nc3 dxc4 and White is
yet to demonstrate anything better than 8 d5 Ne5 9 Bxc4 Nxc4 10 Qa4+ Bd7 11
Qxc4 ReS, but practice has shown Black to be at least equal here with his bishops.
d) Taking play out of the Trompowsky and into the Veresov with 5 Nc3 (Diagram
26) is perhaps not such a bad idea. Nevertheless, I consider 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3
Bg5 c5!? to be a decent, dynamic line for Black. Those who disagree and like
White's better structure and ideas of a quick Qh5 should consult Nigel Davies's
The Veresov (Everyman, 2003).
e) 5 Bb5+!? Bd7 (I wonder what Morozevich intended after 5...Nc6!?; perhaps 6
Ne2, since 6 dxc5 e6 7 c4 dxc4 8 Nc3 Qxd1+ 9 Rxd1 Bxc5 10 Nf3 Ke7 is comfortable
for Black, Z.Rahman-H.Mas, Kuala Lumpur 2008) 6 Bxd7+ Nxd7 7 Nf3 e6 8 0-0
Bg7 9 Nc3 f5 10 Ne2! Rc8 11 c3 0-0 12 Nf4 wasn't entirely clear, but gave White
good chances of emerging with an edge in A.Morozevich-P.Leko, Monaco (blind
fold) 2007.
Having seen why 4 e3 is probably best avoided, we tum our attention to 4 c4:
4...dxc4
25
28. Sta rting Out: The Trom powsky Attack
Black opens the centre in a bid to assist his bishops and saddle White with a cen
tral weakness. Practice suggests that this is his best approach, but he has been
known to prefer something more solid on occasion:
a) 4...c6 5 e3 e6 (the bishop might come out first: 5...Bf5 6 Nc3 e6 7 Nge2 Qb6 8 Qd2
dxc4 9 Ng3 Bd3 10 Bxd3 cxd3 and now immediately going long is sensible, al
though 11 Nh5!? Nd7 12 g4 0-0-0 13 0-0-0 Qa5 14 Kb1 Rg8 15 h3 f5 16 f3 left Black
facing certain structural difficulties in A.Stefanova-E.Kovalevskaya, Russian
Women's Team Championship 2006) 6 Nc3 f5 7 Nf3 Bg7 8 Qc2 Nd7 9 h3!? (9 cxd5
cxd5 10 Bd3 followed by playing on the queenside would be a simple route to a
pleasant edge) 9...dxc4 10 Bxc4 Qc7?! 1 1 0-0-0 b5?! 12 Bb3 Ba6 13 g4! left Hodgson
well on his way to a classic Trompowsky crush in J.Hodgson-A.Martin, British
Championship, Plymouth 1992.
b) 4...c5 5 cxd5 Qxd5 6 Nf3 cxd4 7 Nc3 Qa5! (more active than 7...Qd8 when Hodg
son has shown the way: 8 Nxd4 e6 9 e3 a6 10 Qh5! and Black cannot be happy
with the outcome) 8 Nxd4 Bg7 9 e3 0-0 10 Bd3 (10 Bc4!? with the idea of IO...Rd8?!
11 Qb3 is another possibility) IO...Rd8 11 0-0 f5 (1l...Nc6!? 12 Nxc6 bxc6 would at
least give Black the b-file for counterplay, albeit at the cost of a further structural
weakness) 12 Qh5! e6 (12...Bxd4 13 exd4 Rxd4 14 Qg5+ Kf8 15 Rad1 gives White a
strong initiative for the pawn) 13 Rad1 Qe5 (Diagram 27) gave White various
pleasant options in P.Wells-S.Sulskis, Port Erin 2003, including the simple 14 Rd2
followed by doubling rooks and the somewhat more ambitious 14 g4!?.
0
26
Diagram 27 (W)
A little shaky for Black
Diagram 28 (B)
Unexplored aggression
NOTE: Black's third move isolated and weakened his h-pawn. Thus
hs is often an excellent outpostforthe white queen; targeting that
pawn while posing serious difficulties for the black king.
29. The Classical 2...ds
5 e3
Despite some attention from Wells, 5 e4!? (Diagram 28) hasn't really taken off. In
deed, much remains to be discovered here and those who revel in sharp, unbal
anced positions could do worse than give 5 e4 a closer look. One critical line runs
s... Nc6 (5...f5!? is an ambitious alternative; the game S.Fowler-C.Crouch, London
2007, continued 6 Bxc4 fxe4 7 Nc3 Bg7 8 Qh5 0-0 9 0-0-0 Qd6! with a double-edged
fight ahead and forcing ...e6 with Wells's 7 Qh5!? is very possible too) 6 d5 Ne5 7
f4 and now practice has chiefly debated 7...Nd3+ 8 Bxd3 cxd3 9 Qxd3, which looks
fairly attractive for White, but the untried if risky 7...Ng4!? might be more of a
concern. Then 8 Bxc4 c6! leaves White a little vulnerable on the dark squares and
even the superior 8 Qf3! can hardly be described as anything but rather murky
after a continuation like 8...Qd6 9 h3 h5!?.
s...cs
The greedy 5...Rg8 has some logic, but is rather ambitious and has been rather rare
in practice. With good reason I would say: 6 Nc3 c6 7 Bxc4 Rxg2 8 Nge2 Rg7 9 Qc2
gave White decent value for his pawn in J.Fries Nielsen-N.Huschenbeth, Ham
burg 2005, and Wells's 7 g3!? most certainly has its logic too- just where is Black's
king going to reside?
6 Bxc4 cxd4 7 exd4 Bg7 (Diagram 29)
Diagram 29 (W) Diagram 30 (W)
Both sides have weaknesses Should the d-pawn be advanced?
Thus the contours of the forthcoming struggle begin to take shape: Black has in
flicted an isolani and will pressure it with ...f5, but White has free piece play and
would like to build up a kingside attack.
8 Ne2
Considering what we said about h5 being an ideal square for the white queen, it's
27
30. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
no surprise that Wells's idea of 8 QhS!? has received some attention since the pub
lication of his fine work. However, here the queen has perhaps been committed a
touch early and Black appears to have the answer in 8...0-0 9 Ne2 Nc6 10 Nbc3
QaS!, as first played in Cao Sang-Z.Gyimesi, Hungarian Championship, Budapest
2004.
8...0-o 9 Nbc3 fs (Diagram 30)
Both sides have developed logically: White's knight went to e2 rather than f3, for
instance, to avoid being pinned and because it dreams of landing on hS with
aplomb. At this point White has two main approaches:
a) 10 Qd2 Nc6 11 Rd1 keeps the pawn on d4 for the time being and will be dis
cussed in Game 3.
b) 10 0-0!? Nc6 11 dS is a more ambitious try, after which ll...NeS 12 Bb3 Qd6! (a
more critical defence than 12...a6 13 Qd2 Qd6 14 Qf4! Kh8?! 15 Rfe1 Qf6 16 Rad1
Rg8 17 Nd4 which enabled White to take control in R.Palliser-K.McPhillips, Street
2004) 13 h3 Bd7 (Diagram 31) 14 Ba4! (White prevents ...bS and sensibly ends any
hopes Black may have harboured of one day seeing his bishops operating in tan
dem) 14...Nc4 15 Bxd7 Qxd7 16 b3 Nb6 17 Qd3 Rac8 18 Rad1 ReS 19 Qf3 Rfc8 20
Rd3 Kh8 was finely balanced and agreed drawn in a leading Trompowsky battle,
I.Miladinovic-K.Georgiev, Bar 2008.
Diagram 31 (W)
Dynamically balanced
Conclusion
Diagram 32 (W)
Black attacks d4
The dynamic recapture on f6 is quite a challenging idea. White should avoid 4 e3
cS when he has only scored 44%. He has done better (56%) with 4 c4, although that
falls to just 51% after 4...dxc4. Indeed, both sides should be fairly happy to contest
28
31. The Classical 2...ds
our main line here, which gives rise to a rather unbalanced middlegame and a
typical Trompowsky battle between White's knights and Black's bishops.
Illustrative Games
Game3
0 A.Bigg • K.McPhillips
Street 2004
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 d5 3 Bxf6 gxf6 4 c4 dxc4 5 e3 c5 6 Bxc4 cxd4 7 exd4 Nc6 8 Ne2 Bg7 9
Nbc3 o-o 10 Qd2 f5 11 Rd1 a6
Black usually flicks this in, although it's far from clear why he has been so keen to
avoid 11...Qd6 12 NbS Qb4.
12 0-0
This might be delayed further and 12 Qf4!? Bd7 (12...Qd6 13 Qxd6 exd6 14 0-0 Bd7
15 NdS is perhaps a little better for White) 13 0-0 Qb8 14 Qh4 Qd6 15 Rfe1 Rad8 16
a3 Bc8 was seen in G.Van Perlo-E.D'Adamo, correspondence 1988. This unbalanced
position is unclear and White might like to look into both 17 Rd3 and 17 BdS!?.
NOTE: High-level correspondence games are an excellent source of
opening ideas and inspiration. Readers who like to study their open
ings in some depth could do far worse than purchase a decent corre
spondence database, such as Tim Harding's UltraCorr 2.
12...Qd6 (Diagram 32) 13 Bd51?
White finds a creative way to keep the pawn on d4 and deal with Black's pressure
down the d-file. Again he might also advance and 13 dS NeS 14 Bb3 Ng4 (proba
bly too ambitious and 14...Bd7!? might well be preferred) 15 Ng3 Bd7 16 h3! Bh6!?
17 Qe2 Ne3 18 fxe3 Qxg3 19 Rf3 QeS would have favoured White in M.Galyas
A.Naiditsch, Budapest 2000, had he now taken aim at the kingside with Wells's 20
Bc2 and 21 Qf2.
13. ..Rda 14 Qg5 Qg6
I suspect that Black feared the white knight joining the attack with 14...Bd7 15 Nf4
Kh8 16 NhS, but this might well be manageable for him after 16...Bh6.
15 Qe3 Bf6?1
Black's bishops probably don't supply quite enough compensation after 15...Bd7
16 Bxc6 Qxc6 (16...Bxc6 is well met by 17 d5) 17 Qxe7 Re8 18 Qb4, but he might
have returned with 15...Qd6!? when 16 Nf4 Nxd4! is an important tactical point.
Indeed, the tactics appear to hold up for Black and leave him with rough equality
29
32. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
after 17 NhS f4 18 Nxf4 e5.
16 f41 (Diagram 33)
Diagram 33 (B)
The fl-rook will be lifted
Diagram 34 (B)
Black can activate his queen
Bigg wants to attack, although a decent case might also be made for 16 Bxc6!? bxc6
17 Nf4, leaving White with a pleasant edge; Na4-c5 may follow.
16...Qg7 17 Rf3 Kf81l
Creative defence. Few people would have allowed their queen to be buried in the
comer, but McPhillips wants to maintain pressure against d4 and is confident that
his queen will later re-emerge. The alternative was 17...Kh8 18 Rg3 Qf8 when
White might trade on c6 and leave Black a little tied up or prefer the more aggres
sive 19 Bf3!? followed by dS.
18 Rg3 Qh8 19 Bxc6 bxc6 20 d5ll
White opens the position, but this fails to trouble the black monarch and actually
increases the black queen's prospects. Better was the simple approach: 20 Na4! Be6
21 b3, retaining a grip and a fairly pleasant edge.
20...cxd5 21 Rxd5 Be6 22 Rxd8+ Rxd8 23 Qb6 (Diagram 34)
White may have been relying on this queen raid, but now Black is able to solve all
his problems down the a1-h8 diagonal.
23...Bd4+ 24 Nxd4 Qxd4+ 25 Qxd4 Rxd4 26 Rf3 Bd7 27 Rf2
White's queenside majority and slightly better structure still give him a few hopes,
but McPhillips moves quickly to activate his central majority.
27...f6 28 Kf1 e5 29 Ke1 Ke7 30 Rd2
Trading rooks is the obvious way to attempt progress, but Black doesn't need fear
their exchange.
30
33. The Classica l 2...ds
3o...Rxd2l 31 Kxd2 Kd6 32 Ke3 Kc51?
A slightly ambitious try. Black might have drawn more simply by keeping
White's majority in check with either 32...a5 or 32...Be6!? 33 b4 Bc4 34 a4 Bfl 35 g3
Bc4.
33 h4
White must have looked long and hard at 33 g4!?, and presumably concluded that
33. . .exf4+ 34 Kxf4 fxg4 35 Ne4+ Kb4 is fine for Black because he is most certainly
not worse in the race situation after 36 a3+ Kc4 37 Nxf6 Bb5 38 Nxh7 Kb3 39 Kxg4
Kxb2 40 h4 Kxa3.
33...Be6 (Diagram 35)
34g3
Diagram 35 (W)
Tense if drawish
Diagram 36 (B)
Torre-like play
Once again 34 g4!? deserved attention, although 34.. .fxg4! (34...Kd6 35 gxf5 Bxf5 36
Ne4+ Ke7 37 Nc5 gives White a pull) 35 Ne4+ Kb4 36 Nxf6 exf4+ 37 Kxf4 Bxa2 re
veals the bishop's advantages over that of the knight. Both sides have a couple of
small tricks here, but 38 Nxh7 Bf7 39 Kxg4 Kb3 40 Ng5 Bg6 should really lead to a
draw.
34...Kb435 Kd3 Yz-Yz
White Declines to Exchange
1 d4Nf6 2 Bg5 d5 3 e3 (Diagram 36)
This is a reasonable choice for those with some experience of the Torre Attack or
31
34. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
those who like to go their own way as soon as possible, not that the exchange on
f6 can really be described as being especially theoretical. The text is White's main
alternative to that exchange. Instead 3 Nf3 reaches a poor form of the Torre,
against which 3...Ne4 followed by 4...c5 gives Black active, early and good coun
terplay. A more important alternative is 3 Nd2 when 3...e6 is likely to lead into our
main line with 3 e3. Black might well, though, prefer one of:
a) 3...c5!? is quite a challenging riposte. Then 4 Bxf6 (not forced, but 4 dxc5 e6 5
Nb3 Nbd7 is fine for Black and I'm not overly convinced by the gambit which 4 e3
cxd4 5 exd4 Qb6 entails; moreover, Black doesn't even have to grab the pawn and
6 Ngf3 Ne4!? 7 Nxe4 dxe4 8 Ne5 Nc6 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Be2 g6 gave him promising
counterplay in S.Fowler-M.Hebden, Halifax (rapid) 2006) 4...gxf6 (Diagram 37)
should be compared to our last section. White has tried to avoid an early e3 here,
but both 5 dxc5 Na6 6 e4 Nxc5 7 Bb5+ (7 Qh5!?) 7...Bd7 8 Qe2 dxe4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10
Bxd7+ Qxd7 11 Qxe4 f5 (A.Sokolov-A.Veingold, Upplands Vasby 2000) and 6 g3
Nxc5 7 Bg2 Bg7 8 Ngf3 0-0 9 0-0 f5, as in S.Dishman-A.Law, British League 2003,
are fine for Black.
Diagram 37 (W)
Dynamic play from Black
Diagram 38 (W)
It's a Torre Attack proper!
b) However, 3...Nbd7 4 Ngf3 g6 doesn't seem as good as against 3 e3 in view of
Hodgson's vigorous reaction 5 c4!? dxc4 6 e4 unless Black can make the ambitious
5...Bg7!? 6 cxd5 Nxd5 7 e4 h6 8 Bh4 Nf4 work.
3... e6
This solid choice has been Black's most popular in practice, but it is the alterna
tives which worry me more:
a) 3...c5! is a serious challenge because 4 Bxf6 gxf6 is quite pleasant for Black as we
saw in the last section. Instead White might contest a Veresov with 4 Nc3 or try 4
c3, but Black has a few good responses to that, including 4...Nc6 and 4...Ne4 5 Bf4
3 2
35. The Classical 2...ds
Nc6, after which 6 Nd2 Nxd2 7 Qxd2 Bf5 8 Nf3 e6 saw Black equalize without any
difficulty whatsoever in N.Sedlak-Y.Dembo, European Championship, Budva
2009.
b) 3. ..Nbd7 4 Nf3 (Hodgson's more ambitious 4 c4!? Ne4 5 Bh4 is well met by the
active 5...g5!? 6 Bg3 e6 according to Davies) 4...g6 (far from forced, but a tempting
move because White is likely to lose a tempo with his e-pawn if he now goes in for
5 c4) 5 Nbd2 Bg7 6 Bd3 (6 c4 does, indeed, appear less challenging here; after
6. ..0-0 7 Be2 c5 8 cxd5 Nxd5 9 0-0 h6 10 Bh4 b6 11 Nb3 Bb7 Black was fairly com
fortably placed in Zhang Pengxiang-Chao Li, Jiangsu Wuxi 2008) 6...0-0 7 0-0
transposes to a solid line of the Torre Attack (1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Bg5) in which
Black usually prepares ...e5 with 7...Re8 (Diagram 38).
TIP: Neverforget about transpositions when planning your reper
toire. Not only do they occur between various Trompowsky varia
tions, but sometimes it's even possible to take play into entirely dif-
ferent openings!
c) Indeed, one should not assume that just because he didn't move the knight last
go Black won't here: 3...Ne4 4 Bf4 transposes to a position more usually reached
via a 2...Ne4 3 Bf4 d5 4 e3 move order - see Chapter Six.
4Nd2
White keeps his options open and refuses to commit his king's knight just yet. In
stead 4 Nf3 would take play into a normal Torre Attack and it's also possible to
reach the Queen's Gambit! Indeed, 4 c4 Be7 5 Nc3 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 Nf3 takes play
into a key tabiya of the Queen's Gambit Declined. There really are a lot of possible
transpositions after 3 e3!
4... cs 5 c3 (Diagram 39)
Diagram 39 (B)
Black still has options
Diagram 40 (B)
An improved Stonewall
33
36. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
s. ..Be7
Black will develop his knight to d7 in our main line, shoring up the defence of f6
and refusing to block the path of a fianchettoed bishop on b7. However, the text is
far from essential and S...Nc6 has also been seen: 6 f4!? Be7 (6...Bd6!? looks like an
idea to me; the point is that 7 Ngf3 h6 8 Bh4 cxd4 forces White to recapture with
the c-pawn, rather than the more ideal recapture with the e-pawn, and so White
might consider giving up the bishop-pair on f6) 7 Bd3 0-0 (Black castles into it; a
more creative defence is 7...Qc7 8 Ngf3 Bd7 9 Ne5 h6 10 Bxf6 gxf6!?, but with the
thematic manoeuvre 1 1 Nxd7 Qxd7 12 Qh5! White obtained the upper hand in Bui
Vinh-Nguyen Van Hai, Hanoi 2009) 8 Ngf3 b6 and now I would attack in standard
Torre fashion with 9 Ne5 followed if possible by Qf3 which appears fairly danger
ous. Moreover, 9 h4!? NeB 10 Ne5 Nxe5 11 fxe5 f5 12 QhS Rf7 13 Nf3 also left
White for choice in J.Ehlvest-F.De Ia Paz Perdomo, Santo Domingo 2006.
6 Bd3 Nbd7 7 f41 (Diagram 40)
Thus we get to see why White held back the development of his knight from gl.
By first placing the pawn on f4 White essentially obtains an improved Torre At
tack (in which Ne5 followed by f4 is a common theme), or a turbocharged Stone
wall if one prefers - that bishop is certainly much better on g5 than cl.
7...b6
Related play occurred after 7...h6 8 Bh4 b6 9 Ngf3 (9 Nh3!? and Qf3 might be tried
a Ia our next note) 9...Bb7 10 Ne5 in I.Miladinovic-O.Cvitan, Zadar 2007, in which
Black demonstrated a typical exchanging ploy: 10...0-0 11 0-0 Ne4! (Diagram 41)
Diagram 41 (W)
An equalizing attempt
Diagram 42 (B)
White has some pressure
12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 Ndf3 Nxe5 14 Nxe5 Qe8 and the exchanges left him close to
equality.
34
37. The Classical 2.. .ds
TIP: When slightly cramped it's often a good idea to exchange pieces
tofree one's position.
Before returning to our main line, let's consider an interesting twist on this im
proved Torre theme which Hodgson liked to employ: 7...0-0 8 Nh3!? b6 (better the
more active 8...b5!) 9 Nf2 Bb7 10 Qf3 cxd4 11 exd4 Qc7 12 0-0 aS 13 Rfe1 Ba6 14 Bc2
bS 15 Qh3 gave White a very dangerous attack in J.Hodgson-T.Hebbes, Southend
1998; Ng4 will follow.
s Ngf3 Bb7 9 Nes (Diagram 42)
White sinks his knight into its favourite outpost and now Black must be a little
careful:
a) 9...0-0 10 0-0 Ne4! can be compared with the notes to Black's 7th move, but per
haps here White can consider 10 Bxf6!? Nxf6 11 Qf3, still hoping to attack.
b) However, ...Ne4 per se does not equalize: 9...a6?! 10 0-0 Ne4?! 11 Bxe4! dxe4
(1l...Bxg5? runs into 12 Nxf7!) 12 Ndc4 Nf6 13 dxcS BxcS 14 Qxd8+ Rxd8 15 b4 Be7
16 Nxb6 netted a pawn in I.Miladinovic-A.Dragojlovic, Zlatibor 2007.
c) 9...Nxe5 10 fxeS Nd7 is another equalizing try, as we'll consider in Game 4.
Conclusion
3 e3 will appeal to those with some experience of related system-based openings,
especially the Torre. Overall, White has scored well with 57% from over 1,600
games, but that's largely because of 3...e6 which sees his score rise to a whopping
64%; these improved Torre lines pose definite problems. However, 3...c5! is much
of a theoretical hurdle, albeit one which won't appeal to everyone; Black really has
to be happy to then meet 4 Bxf6 with 4...gxf6.
Illustrative Games
Game 4
0 Tu Hoang Thong • A.Vul
Ottawa 2007
1 d4 Nf6 2 BgS dS 3 e3 e6 4 Nd2 Nbd7
Black delays ...cS and prepares to meet 5 Bd3 with 5...e5. Thus White must ad
vance the f-pawn without delay (or acquiesce to a normal Torre with 5 Ngf3).
5 f4 Be7 6 Bd3 cs 7 c3 b6 8 Ngf3 Bb7 9 Nes Nxes?I 10 fxes Nd7 (Diagram 43)
This type of exchanging method is quite common in the Torre, but here it fails to
35
38. Sta rting Out: The Trom powsky Attack
convince. However, it's easy to see it being popular with a panicking black player
concerned about White's kingside intentions.
Diagram 43 (W)
Black's kingside can be pressured
Diagram 44 (B)
Keeping up the pressure
11 Bf41?
White keeps the bishops on, thereby leaving Black a little cramped. However, ex
changing them also leads to a pleasant advantage: 11 Bxe7 Qxe7 12 QhS 0-0-0 13
0-0 f6 14 BbS (14 Qh4!? looks quite reasonable too, causing problems with the pin
as well as against h7) 14...Rdf8 15 a4! (Diagram 44) favoured White in V.Georgiev
S.Barrientos Chavarriaga, Turin Olympiad 2006. It's worth noting how Georgiev
intended to meet 15...fxe5: 16 Bxd7+ Kxd7 17 QxeS Rxfl+ (or 17...Ba6 18 Rxf8 Rxf8
19 aS with strong pressure) 18 Rxfl Rf8 19 Rxf8 Qxf8 20 Nf3 and White's classic
queen-and-knight tandem are favourite against Black's queen and bishop.
11. ..0-0?1
Highly risky, but Black's king position was a serious concern for him in any case.
Previously 11...c4 12 Bc2 Qc7 had been tried, but after 13 QhS g6 14 Qh6 0-0-0
(14...Bf8?! 15 Qh3! only assists White's cause, as shown by, for example, 15...Be7 16
Bh6 0-0-0 17 0-0 and a pawn will fall) 15 0-0 Rdf8 16 Nf3 Qd8 17 Rf2 Bc6 18 Rafl
Kb7 19 BgS White was in complete control and it wasn't long before he won a
pawn in A.Miles-P.Van der Sterren, Linares Zonal 1995. Observe too how 11 ...Qc7
12 0-0 0-0-0 13 Bg3! Rdf8 14 QhS leaves White clearly better.
0
NOTE: Once again h5 proves to be a great square for the white
queen! Black's king might be safe on the queenside, but his kingside
pawns can be attacked regardless.
I suspect that Black really ought to try 1l...Bh4+!? 12 Bg3 (12 g3 gS! isn't so clear)
36
39. The Classical 2...ds
t z. . .Qg5, although after 13 Qf3 White still enjoys an edge.
12 Qg4 Kh8 13 0-0
The Vietnamese Grandmaster wastes no time attacking. The text not only enables
White to pressure f7, but also introduces ideas of a timely rook lift. White most
certainly has a dream Torre/London attacking situation!
13...Bc8?l
Black wants to break with ...f5. Perhaps he already should have tried the desperate
13. . . f5!?, although after 14 exf6 Nxf6 15 Qxe6 Bc8 16 Qe5 White's queen will es
cape, leaving him a clear pawn to the good.
14 Qh31 (Diagram 45)
Diagram 45 (B)
A simple and strong attack
Diagram 46 (B)
There's no defence
Less clear would have been 14 Rf3 f5!, but the text forces a serious kingside weak
ness.
14...g6
Black's problem is that 14...f5? fails to the tactic 15 exf6 Nxf6 16 Bc7! Qxc7 17 Rxf6,
destroying the defence of h7.
15 Bh6 f5
The only move; he couldn't let the floodgate on f7 open.
16 exf61
White is so confident in his attacking chances that he spurns winning a clear ex
change and who can blame him?
16...Rxf6 17 Qg3
Taking control of the eS-square and now White is all set to include his remaining
37
40. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
pieces in the attack.
11...as11
Black wants to trade the light-squared bishops. This is far too slow a plan to save
him, but even after 17...Kg8 18 e4! his chances of survival would have been slim
indeed.
18 Nf3 Ba6
Neither would 18...Ra7 19 Ng5 Qe8 20 Bb5! have enabled Black to defend, and it's
also almost impossible to find a reasonable move for him after 18...Kg8 19 Ng5.
19 Bxa6 Rxa6 20 Ne5 (Diagram 46) 20...Nxe5
The check on f7 had to be dealt with and Black's vulnerable back rank would have
cost him after 20...Qe8 21 Nxd7 Qxd7 22 Rxf6 Bxf6 23 Rfl.
21 Qxes b5 22 Rf3
The pin is decisive.
22...Kg8 23 Raf1 1-0
Crushing stuff.
38
41. Chapter Two
2•••g6 a nd Mi nor Li nes
� Introduction and Rare Defences
� Black Plays 2•••g6
42. Sta rti ng Out: The Trompowsky Attack
Introduction and Rare Defences
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 (Diagram 1)
Diagram 1 (B)
Black has several unusual tries
Diagram 2 (W)
Oops!
In this chapter we continue our study of those lines in which Black doesn't fear the
exchange on f6 with the notable exception of the dynamic 2...c5, which can be
found in Chapter Four. By far Black's most common alternative to both that and
2...d5 is 2...g6, but before we look at the fianchetto we should examine some un
usual but not implausible tries:
a) 2...d6 3 Bxf6 exf6 is very similar to 2...g6, since Black's dark-squared bishop
hardly has a better square than g7 unless he wants to lose a tempo with ...d5. In
deed, here 4 c4 g6 5 Nc3 fS 6 e3 Bg7 7 Nge2 0-0 8 g3 transposes to the main line of
our next section.
b) 2...h6?! is a clear error, albeit one not unknown at lower club level. White
should be quite happy to be provoked into 3 Bxf6 exf6 (3...gxf6 4 e3 is also ex
tremely pleasant for White; already that hS-square is calling the queen) 4 e3 when
the inclusion of ...h6 is undoubtedly questionable.
c) 2...c6 forces White to display some care if he isn't a fan of exchanging on f6 in
general.
WARNING: 3 e3?? Qa5+ (Diagram 2), exploiting the loose bishop, is
most certainly a trap to avoid.
Thus those after a Torre-like position should prefer to begin with 3 Nd2. How
ever, there's no reason whatsoever to avoid 3 Bxf6 exf6 (we saw that 3...gxf6 4 c4
40
43. 2...g6 and Minor Lines
d5 is pleasant for White in note 'a' to Black's 4th move in the third section of the
previous chapter) 4 c4, since 4...d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Nc3 looks like an inferior version
of the Slav for Black with his d-pawn a little weak. Instead 4...Bb4+ 5 Nd2 d5 6 e3
Be6 7 cxd5 Bxd5!? saw Black avoiding such a scenario in J.Hodgson-R.Slobodjan,
German League 1999, but 8 a3 Bd6 9 e4 Be6 10 Bc4! Bxc4 1 1 Nxc4 0-0 12 Ne2 still
left him worse as it wasn't so easy to undouble those pawns with ...f5.
d) 2...b6 has its logic as we can see by exploring 3 Bxf6 exf6 when White would
like to go 4 g3?, but 4...Bb7 beats him to the long diagonal and, rubbing salt in the
wound, 5 Nf3 Qe7! actually wins a pawn. Unlike previous commentators, though,
1 am not so unhappy with 3 Nd2 when Black has two main tries:
d1) 3. ..e6 4 e4 h6 5 Bxf6 Qxf6 6 Ngf3 reaches a position which can come about via a
number of move orders; the rare 2...e6 3 e4 h6 4 Bxf6 Qxf6 5 Nf3 b6 6 Nbd2, as per
our next chapter, being one. After 6...Bb7 7 Bd3 (Diagram 3) I quite like the control
White's centre affords him: for example, 7...Qd8 (the queen scurries out of the
way; this isn't forced, but 7...a6 8 Qe2 d6 9 0-0-0 Nd7 10 Kb1 e5 11 c3 Be7 12 Nc4
gave White an edge too in no lesser clash than V.Korchnoi-A.Karpov, Hastings
1971/72) 8 Qe2 Be7 9 0-0-0 d6 10 h4! (discouraging Black from going short while
seizing some useful space) 10...a6 11 Nc4 Nd7 12 Ne3 was a little more pleasant
for White in K.Lerner-L.Yudasin, USSR 1983.
Diagram 3 (B)
A handy centre
Diagram 4 (B)
White is in control
d2) 3...Bb7 4 Bxf6 exf6 (or 4...gxf6 5 Ngf3 f5 when White is able to get his fianchetto
in with 6 g3 Bg7 so long as he then spots the threat and continues 7 e3 c5 8 c3 d6 9
Bg2 with good chances for an edge; a timely Nh4 may cause problems and White
can also press with a4 ideas) 5 Ngf3 g6 (the logical try as Black doesn't want to
obstruct his other bishop with ...d5) 6 e4!? (more ambitious than the far from im
plausible 6 g3) 6...Bh6 7 Bd3 0-0 8 0-0 Re8 9 Rel d6 10 a4! (Diagram 4) left White
41
44. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
slightly for choice with his centre secure in J.Timman-E.Rozentalis, Malmo 1997.
NOTE: Timman-Rozentalis actually began with the move order 1 d4
Nf6 2 Nf3 b6 3 Bg5 towhich the Trompowsky player might trans
pose by meeting 2...b6 with 3 Nf3.
This probably allows Black more options than one would like, but White should
emerge with a pull in all lines, as I demonstrated in Starting Out: d-pawn Attacks.
Finally after 2...b6, we should note Wells's preference for 3 Nc3!? Bb7 4 Nf3, again
being prepared to trade the bishop-pair for the centre along the lines of our next
chapter with 4...e6 5 e4 h6 6 Bxf6Qxf6. Then 7 Bd3 Bb4 8 0-0!? Bxc3 9 bxc3 Nc6 had
certain similarities to the Nimzo-Indian in R.Palliser-J.Radanovic, London (rapid)
2004, and now I should probably have freed the f-pawn without delay with 10 Nd2 .
e) 2...Nc6?! echoes the Tango, but I'm not convinced with White not committed to
c4, and 3 Nc3 e5 (or 3...e6 4 e4 Bb4 5 e5! h6 6 Bd2 Bxc3 7 bxc3 Ne4 8 Qg4 with a
terrible version of the McCutcheon French for Black) 4 d5 Ne7 5 d6! (not the only
good approach, but this positional gambit will leave Black badly cramped for a
long time to come) 5...Nf5 (5...cxd6 6 e4 Nc6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Bc4 had previously
given White excellent compensation in L.Trent-S.Gregory, British Championship,
Torquay 2002) 6 dxc7 Qxc7 7 Bxf6 gxf6 8 Nd5 (8 Qd3!? Bb4 9 0-0-0 is also strong)
8...Qc6 9 e4 Ne7 10 Bb5! (Diagram 5) saw White making good use of some tactics to
retain control in A.Walton-S.Gregory, British Championship, Scarborough 2004.
Diagram 5 (B)
Punishing overly-creative play
Conclusion
Diagram 6 (W)
Solid but a touch passive for Black
The lines covered here amazingly account for 5% of all Trompowsky games in my
database, so they are not as rare as one might imagine. Nevertheless, White
42
45. 2...g6 and Minor Lines
should not be unhappy to see any of these offbeat tries and he has a good score
against them.
Black Plays 2. . . g6
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 g6
The move which a King's Indian or Griinfeld player would like to make work, but
the resulting positions tend to be a little more solid for Black than such dynamic
players would like. 2...g6 was employed by a number of grandmasters when the
Trompowsky still packed a certain surprise punch in the Eighties and early Nine
ties, but in general such players, including even Kasparov, subsequently moved
on to other defences. However, this variation remains fairly common at lower lev
els and has occurred in 8% of all Trompowsky games in my database.
3 Bxf6
The consistent follow-up. White might take play into the Torre Attack with 3 Nf3
or go 3 Nc3 when 3...d5 is a Veresov and 3...Bg7 4 e4 d6 a Pirc, but to play along
such lines rather begs the question: why did White select 2 BgS in the first place?
3...exf6 (Diagram 6) 4 e3
White's play in this variation tends to be quite strategic and largely driven by
general ideas, but there are some move order issues.
NOTE: Almost everyone agrees that White's best set-up involves a
combination of the moves e3, c4, Nbc3 and Nge2 allied to a fi
anchetto ofthe king's bishop, but not over what order to make
these moves.
These move order options boil down to the optimum way to prevent an early ...cS
causing too many difficulties. The text has been by far White's most common
move order, but Wells has made a good case for the alternative 4 c4 Bg7 (it's too
early for 4...c5 to do much damage; White continued 5 e3 Bg7 6 Nc3 in M.Navarro
Cia-J.Escofet Llongueras, Pamplona 2007, and might well have recaptured with
the queen had Black now exchanged on d4, rather than allow White an easy pull
with 6...a6?! 7 dxcS!) 5 Nc3 0-0 6 e3 d6 (6...f5 7 Nge2 cS!? might be Black's best at
tempt, as Adam Hunt played against me at Blackpool in 2003; that game contin
ued 8 dxcS Na6 9 g3 NxcS 10 Bg2 d6 1 1 0-0 Be6 12 b3 a6 13 Rb1 Rb8 14 Nd4 ReB 15
Qc2 Bd7 16 Rfd1 and a draw was agreed, but plenty of play remains in the posi
tion and I slightly prefer White, who might combine NdS with an advance of the
a-pawn to aS) and now not the common 7 g3, but rather 7 Nge2 (Diagram 7) when
7...f5 (White might now be happy to meet 7...c5 with 8 dxcS!? dxcS 9 Qxd8 Rxd8 10
NdS Nc6 11 0-0-0 Be6 12 Nef4, as he did in I.Schneider-D.Schulze, Bad Lauterberg
2005) 8 g3 Nd7 9 Bg2 Nf6 takes play back into our main line.
43
46. Starting Out: The Trom powsky Attack
Diagram 7 (B) Diagram 8 (B)
Not hurrying with g3 and Bg2 Black remains structurally worse
4... Bg7
Black's usual continuation. He can also delay developing the bishop here until
after 4...d6 5 g3 f5 6 Bg2. Ideas involving ...Bh6 have been tried too on occasion,
but White should maintain a slight edge, such as with 6...h5!? 7 h4 (it makes good
sense to keep Black's kingside ambitions under lock and key) 7...Nd7 8 c4 Nf6 9
Nc3 Bh6 10 Nge2 0-0 1 1 Qd3 ReB 12 b4 which was followed by the standard
queenside assault in Hoang Thanh Trang-Huang Qian, Beijing (rapid) 2008.
5 g3 0-0
Play will often transpose after 5...f5 6 Bg2 unless Black prefers 6...d5, which is
similar to the ...exf6 variations considered in our previous chapter. I doubt that
Black's bishop is better placed on g7 than d6 and certainly 7 Ne2 0-0 (7...c5?! 8
Nbc3! takes good aim at d5) 8 0-0 c6 once again sees White playing to advance
with c4. Following 9 Nd2 (not essential, although after 9 b3 Be6 10 Nf4 Nd7 I
would move the knight to support c4, since the 11 c4?! of M.Kanep-S.Kukk, Tal
linn 2006, might well have been met by 11...dxc4! 12 Nxe6 fxe6 13 bxc4 e5 14 Nc3
exd4 15 exd4 Nc5, thereby obtaining decent counterplay) 9...Nd7 10 Nf4!? (a slight
change of approach to exploit the bishop's absence from the h2-b8 diagonal)
10...Nf6 11 c4 Be6 12 Qb3! Qd7 13 cxd5 Bxd5 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15 Racl Rfd8 Black
was solidly placed in M.Bezold-H.Reitz, Wuerzburg 1995, but the instructive ma
noeuvre 16 Nf3 Qe7 17 Ne1! Rac8 18 Nd3 (Diagram 8) left White with a pleasant
edge.
6 Bg2 d6
Consistent with Black's dark-square approach, although he might also take play
back into the waters of our last note with 6...d5.
44
47. 2...g6 and Minor Lines
7 Ne2 f5 8 c4 (Diagram 9)
Diagram 9 (B)
Black should try ...cs
Diagram 10 (B)
An harmonious white set-up
This move order looks very sensible and has been used by some strong players,
but I remain uncertain whether is it is more precise than beginning with 4 c4 fol
lowed by prioritizing central development.
8... Nd7
Black manoeuvres his knight to f6, but 8...c5!? might well be more critical. Play
continues 9 Nbc3 cxd4 (9...Nc6 10 0-0! is another key line when I agree with De la
Villa that even 10...cxd4 1 1 exd4 f4!? fails to equalize after 12 Nxf4 Nxd4 13 Re1) 10
exd4 (Wells's 10 Nxd4!? Nc6 11 Nde2 deserves attention when the issue is
whether 1l...Be6 12 b3 aS! gives Black quite enough counterplay) 10...Nc6 11 Qd2
f4! 12 gxf4 Qh4 13 dS Ne7 and at this stage Black had decent compensation in
I.Sokolov-R.Har-Zvi, Wijk aan Zee 1993.
9 Nbc3 Nf6
WARNING: Don't ignore this ...cs issuejust because many black
players are unaware of itl As we have seen, White has a number of
ways to both dissuade and meet ...cs, and it's good to find a method
which you are happy with.
Transpositions are rife at this point; Black is just as likely to begin with either 9...c6
or 9...Re8 before transferring his knight to f6. However, White should be a little
careful after 9...Re8 10 0-0 c6 when 11 Qd3 appears best, since 11 b4 permits
11...Nb6!? 12 cS Nc4 when even the positional treatment 13 cxd6 Nxd6 14 a4 Be6
15 bS Rc8 16 bxc6 bxc6 didn't seem too bad for Black in V.Akopian-L.Yurtaev,
Calcutta 2000.
45
48. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
10 o-o (Diagram 10)
White has also delayed this in favour of accelerating his queenside approach.
That's an interesting idea, but White is likely to have to castle at some point and I
can't see too much wrong with the text.
10... Re8
Black usually flicks this in, but as ...Ne4 isn't obligatory, he might prefer 10...c6 11
b4 and then one of:
a) 11...h5!? wastes no time developing counterplay, although 12 Nf4 (White rightly
doesn't overly fear Black's counterplay; 12 h4 would hold up the advancing h
pawn, although perhaps an ambitious black player might try his luck here with
12...g5!? 13 hxg5 Ng4) 12...h4 13 b5 Bd7 14 Rb1 Rc8 15 bxc6 bxc6 (Diagram 11) 16
Rb7 (16 Qd3 also looks logical, but quite possibly White was hoping to provoke
Black into a committal ...g5 when he still had Nh5 available in response) 16...Rc7
17 Rb3 Re8 18 Qd3 Bc8 19 Ra3 Ng4 20 Rb1 left Black struggling to break through
on the kingside and White slightly for choice with Rb8 next up in T.Nalbandian
A.Pashikian, Yerevan 2006.
Diagram 11 (W)
White seems to be ahead in the race
Diagram 12 (B)
Holding up ... Ne4 for a move
b) 1l...Be6 tries to tempt d5 out of White. I feel he does better to keep the a1-h8
diagonal closed and 12 Qd3 d5 13 c5 sees him racing ahead on the queenside.
11 Qd3 (Diagram 12)
White keeps the knight out of e4 for the time being, although it doesn't really
make too much difference whether he starts with 11 b4 and only then goes 12
Qd3, such as after 1l...Ne4.
After 11 Qd3 we will examine the typical plans for both sides by studying 11...Qe7
12 b4 c6 13 b5 Ne4 in Game 5 and the more ambitious l l ...c6 12 b4 h5!? in Game 6.
46
49. 2...g6 and Mi nor Lines
conclusion
z. . .
g6 is a fairly solid line, but it's probably a little too simplistic unless Black
closely investigates early ...c5 ideas. Our main line appears more pleasant for
White, although I was still surprised to discover that he has scored an impressive
65'Yo from the 58 games which I could find after 11 Qd3.
Illustrative Games
Game S
o M.Galyas • G.Voiteanu
Budapest 2006
1 d4 Nf6 2 BgS g6 3 Bxf6 exf6 4 e3 fS 5 g3 Bg7 6 Bg2 0-0 7 Ne2 d6 8 0-0 ReS 9 c4 c6
10 Nbc3 Nd7 11 b4 Nf6 12 Qd3 Qe7 13 bs (Diagram 13)
Diagram 13 (B)
Making good use ofthe g2-bishop
13...Ne4
Diagram 14 (B)
Excellent play for the exchange
Black plugs the long diagonal in a bid to reduce White's queenside pressure. He
has also been known to defend with 13...Bd7, but in both cases he lacks counter
play while White can play down the b-file.
14 a41?
White decides that he even has time to include his a-pawn in the attack. A more
popular choice has been 14 Rabl, which also looks good:
a) 14...Be6 relies on the rook's position on bl, but White can actually fall headlong
47
50. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
into the trap: 1S bxc6 bxc6 16 Nxe4!? (16 Nf4 is also promising, but the transforma
tion generated by the text is a very tempting one) 16...fxe4 17 Bxe4 dS 18 cxdS cxdS
19 Bf3 BfS (this skewer is the point of Black's play) 20 Qd2 Bxb1 21 Rxb1 Rab8 22
Rxb8 Rxb8 23 BxdS (Diagram 14) gave White excellent compensation for the ex
change in A.Aleksandrov-E.Janev, Sas van Ghent 1992. Perhaps Black might now
have tried 23...Qb4!?, but after 24 Qxb4 Rxb4 2S Bb3 aS 26 Nc3 I would still take
White: he has control of the position, two good pawns for the exchange and Black
faces a long defence, although he does have chances to make it a successful one.
TIP: When your opponent is reliant upon a long, forcing line to keep
his position together, always try to look a little further. There's often
a sting in the tail or the opponent mayjust, as here, have misjudged
the resulting position.
b) 14...hS is a more active try, albeit less dangerous than when played in our next
game: 1S h4 (this is definitely a case where White doesn't have toblock; the 1S a4!?
h4 16 aS Bh6 17 a6 cxbS 18 NdS Qd8 19 cxbS of E.Torre-S.Safin, Aden 2002, being a
tempting alternative) 1S...Bd7 (the extremely ambitious 1S...Bh6 16 Nf4 Kh8 17 Bf3
gS? 18 hxgS QxgS failed to convince in K.Berg-J.Ibarra Padron, Skanderborg 200S,
and now White might even have gone in for 19 Nxe4!? fxe4 20 Bxe4 h4 21 bxc6 bxc6
22 Bxc6!) 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 Rb7 Nxc3 18 Nxc3 Rec8 19 Rfb1 left Black on the back foot
in K.Rusev-D.Dochev, Pleven 200S; Ne2 and Qa3 will increase the pressure.
14...a5
Black has no desire to allow aS-a6, but this will hardly keep the queenside closed.
I also like White after 14...Bd7 1S aS!? cxbS 16 cxbS, since his knight can come to
dS, and 14...gS!? 1S aS hS 16 a6 h4 17 axb7 Bxb7 18 RaS cxbS 19 RxbS also leaves
him in control of proceedings, M.Navarro Cia-J.Ibarra Jerez, La Algaba 2001.
15 Rab1 h5 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 Rb6 Qc7?1
The solid 17...Ra6!? 18 Rb8 Qc7 19 Rfb1 Nf6 would have been a better defence,
keeping the entry squares down the b-file covered for the time being.
18 Rfb1 (Diagram 15) 18...Ba6
By now it was too late for 18...Ra6?! on account of 19 cS!; that queen really can be
pretty effectively placed on d3.
19 Nxe4
White might also have improved his pieces with 19 Nf4!?, but Galyas is happy to
transform the structure.
19...fxe4 20 Qc21
Remarkably this had all been seen before in S.Martinsen-C.Hoi, Kiel 2004. There
White won material with 20 Bxe4?! dS 21 Rxa6 dxe4 22 Rxa8 exd3 23 Rxe8+ Kh7 24
Nf4, but matters were actually far from clear after 24...c5!, activating the queen
with some effect.
48
51. 2. ..g6 and Minor Lines
2o...f5?
Diagram 15 (B)
White has good pressure
Diagram 16 (W)
Spot the breakthrough!
Too static. Black would have done better with 20...d5, even if 21 Nc3! would have
facilitated Bfl and enabled White to meet 2l...Bxc4 with 22 Nxe4, thereby retain
ing a pleasant pull.
21 Nf4 Kh7 22 c51 d5 23 Bf1
Black's dark-squared bishop might nominally be his 'good' bishop, but his struc
ture is horribly static and White is in complete control.
23...Bc8? (Diagram 16)
It's natural to want to keep b7 covered, but this allows a decisive blow. Voiteanu
had to exchange even if 23...Bxfl 24 Kxfl Ra7 25 Qb3 Re7 26 Rb8 would have left
White calling all the shots and with excellent winning chances.
24 Rxc61 Qxc6 25 Bb5
Now White regains his material with a crushing advantage.
2S...Qe6
NOTE: Even quiet manoeuvring positions are not completely devoid
of tactics. Always try to remain alert to tactical opportunities, espe
cially those which exploit loose pieces.
A desperate try as 25...Qc7 26 Bxe8 Ra6 27 Qb3 would have been curtains for
Black.
26 Nxe6 Rxe6 27 Qb3 Rb8 28 Qxds h4 29 Qd8 1-0
49
52. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
Game 6
D E.Mensch • N.Giffard
French League 2004
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 d6 3 Bxf6 exf6 4 e3 f5 5 g3 Nd7 6 Bg2 Nf6 7 Ne2 g6 8 c4 Bg7 9 Nbc3
o-o 10 o-o Re8 11 b4 c6 12 Qd3 hSI (Diagram 17)
Diagram 17 (W) Diagram 18 (B)
Black begins his counterplay The f4-knight is a good defender
A decent attempt to acquire some counterplay and a better try than the 12...Qe7 of
our previous game.
13 h4
Once again I wonder if this is definitely best; it all depends on the strength of the
positionally risky but potentially dangerous ...gS-break. In M.Svensson-C.Holst,
Swedish Team Championship 2007, White preferred 13 a4 h4 14 bS hxg3 15 hxg3
Bd7 16 aS a6 17 bxc6 bxc6 (17...Bxc6!? would at least enable Black to weaken
White's kingside with a later trade of bishops, although 18 Bxc6 bxc6 19 Kg2 Ng4
20 Nf4 should keep matters under control there) 18 Rfb1 Ng4 19 Rb7 Bh6 20 Nf4!
(Diagram 18) when his alert knight helped to keep Black at bay on the kingside
and after 20...Rb8 perhaps 21 Rxb8 Qxb8 22 Rbl Qd8 23 Rb6 was possible, since
23...Bxf4 24 gxf4 Qh4 25 Qd2 Kg7 26 Rxa6 Rh8 doesn't actually threaten very
much at all.
50
NOTE: In this variation we really get to see the power ofthefi
anchettoed bishop at work. Not only does White's key piece pres
sure the black queenside, but it is also an excellent defender and can
keep some rather powerful opposition pieces at bay.
53. 2. ..g6 and Minor Lines
13.
..Ng4 14 Nf4
Annotating in his excellent 'd-pawn Attacks' column for the ChessPublishing web
site, Eric Prie points out that this wasn't yet necessary. Instead 14 bS!? Bd7 15 Rfbl
g5 16 hxgS QxgS 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 Rb7 Bc8 19 Rc7 h4 20 Bxc6 hxg3 21 Nxg3 Qh4 is a
highly-instructive line given by the French Grandmaster. Black's attack looks
strong, but White still controls the key kingside light squares and 22 Ndl Rxe3!?
23 fxe3 Qxg3+ 24 Kfl Rb8 25 Rbl, for instance, appears to defend. It's never easy
not to panic when facing such an attack, but in general it does seem that Black of
ten doesn't have quite enough, scary though his sacrificial possibilities may ap
pear.
14...g51 15 hxgs Qxgs (Diagram 19)
Diagram 19 (W)
Black has saved a tempo
Diagram 20 (W)
White's defences hold tight
And so the queen is developed to g5 in one go, without having to come via e7.
16 Rae1
White abandons his queenside ambitions for the time being, but perhaps he might
have got away with the more straightforward 16 Rfe1!?, after which 16...h4 17 Nh3
Qh6 18 gxh4 Qxh4 19 Ne2 echoes the game and leaves f2 sufficiently well de
fended.
l6...h4 17 Nh3 Qh6 18 gxh4 Qxh4 19 Ne21
Mensch rushes pieces over to help the defence.
19... Re6 20 Nef4 Rh6 21 bS Bd7 22 bxc6 bxc6
Trading the bishops would only have helped White because of one downside to
...gS: 22...Bxc6? 23 QxfS Bxg2 24 Kxg2 and White has won a pawn while keeping
his defence together.
5 1
54. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
23 Rb11 Kh8 (Diagram 20) 24 Rb7
White might have lost a tempo with his rook, but I wouldn't be surprised if he
was still better here.
NOTE: Knights are often excellent defenders and here White's
knight-pair are proving something of an obstacle to Black.
24...Nf6 25 Qa3?1
Active, but counter-attacking with the queen will prove rather risky. Instead a
decent case might have been made for trading a pair of rooks with 25 Rfb1!, after
which 25...Rg8 26 Kfl Bf8 27 Rxa7 Qg4 28 Ke1 still leaves Black chasing that elu
sive tactic. Moreover, we should not forget that Black's own king might eventually
become weak should he never get anywhere himself on the kingside.
2S...Rg8 26 Rxd7?
White panics and I'm not sure why. Like Prie, I haven't found anything especially
devastating after 26 Qxd6 Bf8 27 QeS when 27...Be6 28 Rcl Qg4 29 Kfl Bxc4+ 30
Kel BbS 31 Rb1 is extremely unclear; admittedly with his king on el White must
remain pretty vigilant, but Black too has his problems.
26...Nxd7 27 Qxa7? Besll (Diagram 21)
Diagram 21 (W)
A stunning blow
Diagram 22 (W)
The attack is too strong
One can only assume that Mensch missed this amazing if logical move; Black
simply wants to remove the knight on f4.
28 dxes Rxg2+?
Black suffers a rush of blood to the head. He shouldn't have rejected the straight
forward 28...dxe5 29 Qxd7 exf4 when there's no defence, as 30 Qxf5 Qxh3 31 Qxh3
Rxh3 32 exf4 Rh4 merely leads to a hopeless ending for White.
52
55. 2...g6 and Minor Lines
29 Nxg2?
Returning the favour. A much better defence was 29 Kxg2 dxeS!? (29...Qg4+ 30
J(h2 NxeS looks very strong_ but Prie points out that those knights keep every
thing together after 31 f3 Nxf3+ 32 Rxf3 Qxf3 33 Qd4+ Kh7 34 Qd2) 30 Qa8+ Kh7
(30...Kg7 31 Rgl is fine too for White) 31 Qe8! when Black has nothing better than
31...Qg4+ 32 Kh2 exf4 33 Qxf7+ Kh8 34 Qe8+ Kh7, repeating moves.
29. . .Qxh3 30 f4 Ncsl (Diagram 22)
Now Black is back on track and there's no hope of salvation for White's ex
tremely-vulnerable king.
31 QaB+
Alternatively, 31 Qxf7 Qh1+ 32 Kf2 Nd3+ 33 Ke2 Qxg2+ 34 Kxd3 Qe4+! and the
king will eventually be hunted down.
31. . . Kh7 32 QfB Qh2+ 33 Kf2 Nd3+ 34 Ke2 Qxg2+ 35 Kxd3 Qxf1+
35...Qe4+ would have been more precise, but the text is plenty good enough.
36 Kc3 Qc1+ 37 Kd3 Qb1+ 38 Kc3 Qb7 39 exd6 Rh2 40 Kd3 cS 41 Qe7 Qb1+ 0-1
5 3
56. Chapter Three
The Position a l Choice: 2•••e6
m Introduction
m White Plays 5 Nc3
m White Plays 5 c3
m The Torre-like 3 e3
57. The Positional Choice: 2. .. e6
1ntroduction
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 e6 (Diagram 1)
Diagram 1 (W}
A respectable defence
Diagram 2 (B)
Spot Black's little tactic!
A sensible approach and the only alternative to moving the knight if Black wishes
to avoid the doubling of his pawns. This positional approach is Black's second
most popular response to the Trompowsky, occurring in 23% of all the games in
my database, and was recommended in John Cox's popular 2005 work Dealing
with d4 Deviations.
3 e4
White takes up the challenge. This is critical and by far his most popular response,
although it's also possible to again aim for a kind of improved Torre with either 3
e3 or 3 Nd2, as we'll see in the final section of this chapter.
3...h61
Best. Black obtains the long-term advantage of the bishop-pair. There are other
possibilities, though, of which 'a' is pretty popular at lower levels and 'd' quite a
creative defence:
a) The solid 3. ..Be7 does little to combat White's spatial advantage, but does set a
little trap.
WARNING: One might be forgiven for thinking that 4 Nc3 (Diagram
2) will lead to the French Defence after 4...d5, but Black also has
4...Nxe41 5 Bxe7 Nxc3 6 Bxd8 Nxd1 7 Bxc7 Nxb2 8 Bd6 Na4 when
White has decent compensation forthe missing pawn, but no more
than that.
55
58. Starting Out: The Trom powsky Attack
Thus White might prefer 4 Bd3 when 4...c5 (4...d5 5 e5 Nfd7 6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 c3 c5 8
Ne2 gives White a good version of the French Tarrasch, whereas here 6 Be3 c5 7 c3
Nc6 8 Nf3 Qb6 doesn't seem so clear - compare with variation 'b') 5 dxc5! is an
aggressive idea to make use of White's active set-up. Play might continue 5...Qa5+
6 Qd2 (by no means forced: 6 Nc3 Nxe4!? 7 Bxe7 Nxc3 8 Qd2 Kxe7 9 Ne2 Qxc5 10
Nxc3 offers White decent value for his pawn, and 6 Nd2!? Qxc5 7 Be3! might be
considered by those with some Open Sicilian experience) 6...Qxc5 7 Nf3 d6 (Dia
gram 3) 8 c4!? Nc6 9 Nc3 a6 10 Rcl Bd7 11 0-0, which gave White a small edge
thanks to his cramping bind in M.Nikolov-P.Masouros, Aghios Kirykos 2008.
Diagram 3 (W)
Sicilian-like play
Diagram 4 (W)
White should play a Ia Steinitz
NOTE: In this variation we've reached positions quite similar to both
the French and the Open Sicilian. Some experience of those openings
can't do any harm, but is farfrom essential; White has quite a pleas
ant version ofboth openings and hasn't directlytransposed to any
thing horribly theoretical.
Finally, we should observe that those who wish to force play into French lines
should give serious consideration to the closely-related 4 Nd2!?; the point being
that 4...c5?! 5 e5! Nd5 6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 Ne4 is pretty dangerous, G.Kasparov
D.Doukas, Patras (simul) 2001 .
b) 3...d5 4 e5 h6 5 Be3 Nfd7 6 f4 c5 7 c3 is another position which rather resembles
the French, although it cannot arise from a 1 e4 move order. Here Black has had to
spend a tempo on ...h6, which may make it harder for him to break with ...f6. Play
might continue 7...Nc6 (7...cxd4 8 cxd4 Nc6 is similar, but enables White to develop
his knight to c3 and 9 Nf3 Qb6 10 Qd2 Bb4?! 11 Nc3 Qa5 12 Rcl Nb6 13 a3 Bxc3 14
Rxc3 Na4 15 b4! Qd8 16 Rcl left him in control in P.Wells-R.Auschkalnis, Bad
56
59. The Positional Choice: 2...e6
zwesten 2005) 8 Nf3 Qb6!? (more positional is 8...Be7 9 Bd3 cxd4 10 cxd4 Nb4 11 Be2
Nb6!?, which restricted White to an edge after 12 a3 Nc6 13 Nc3 Nc4 14 Bel!? Bd7 15
b3 Nb6 16 0-0 in M.Adams-V.Ivanchuk, Moscow (blitz) 2007) 9 b3!? (this weakens
the dark squares and provokes a sharpening of the struggle; 9 Qd2 might be more
prudent, leaving the issue of the queen's knight until later) 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 Bb4+
(Diagram 4) 11 Kf2 (essential by this point, but White's king often goes to f2 in the
related variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4) 11...0-0 12 a3 Be7 13 Nc3
(the king mustn't show too much ambition: 13 Bd3 f6 14 Kg3? fxe5 15 fxe5 Ncxe5! is
one to avoid) 13...Qd8 (sharper and more principled would have been 13...f6!? when
14 Na4!? Qd8 15 Bd3 fxe5 16 fxe5 Ndxe5!? 17 dxe5 Nxe5 18 Kg1 Nxf3+ 19 gxf3 gives
Black some typical compensation, but not quite enough for his piece) 14 Bd3 f6 and
now in R.Palliser-l.Lewyk, York 2005, 15 Ke2! would have left White's Steinitzian
king quite safe in the centre and Black fairly cramped.
c) 3...d6?! 4 Nc3 Be7 fails to contest the centre, but is another line far from un
known at club level. In P.Cech-W.Uhlmann, German League 2007, White showed
little respect for his legendary opponent: 5 Nf3 (5 f4!? h6 6 Bxf6 Bxf6 7 Nf3 is
rather tempting too) 5...h6 (White also attacked after 5...0-0 6 Bd3 c5 7 dxc5 dxc5 8
h4! Nc6 9 e5! in V.Baklan-O.Dolzhikova, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2000; note Black's
lack of counterplay and the Greek Gift possibilities) 6 Be3 b6 7 Bb5+! (disrupting
Black's development as the c8-bishop would prefer not to go to d7) 7...c6 8 Bd3
Ba6 9 Bxa6 Nxa6 10 Qe2 Nc7 1 1 0-0-0 Nd7 12 h4! Qc8 13 h5 Qb7 and having seized
some useful kingside space, White decided it was time to press ahead in the centre
with 14 d5!?.
d) 3...c5!? (Diagram 5)
Diagram 5 (W)
Sharpening the struggle
Diagram 6 (B)
Uncompromising stuff!
is a provocative idea which I both played and explored in an article for CHESS a
few years back. The critical response runs 4 e5 (4 d5 d6 5 Nc3 Be7 is possible but
57
60. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
pretty solid for Black, who was certainly fine after 6 Bb5+ Bd7 7 Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8
dxe6 fxe6 9 Nf3 0-0 in R.Pert-A.Collinson, British League 2002, and the unchal
lenging 4 c3 cxd4 5 cxd4 Bb4+! is even more pleasant for him) 4...h6 5 Bel!.
NOTE: It may seem strange to retreat the bishop back to base, but
this does keep it away from the clutches of the black knight and also
keeps b2 usefully protected in the event ofany ...Qb6 ideas.
Black now has two options:
a) 5...Nd5 6 c4 (Diagram 6) refuses to let Black settle and gives White good chances
of emerging with the initiative:
a1) 6...Nc7?! 7 dxc5! (White opens the position as he enjoys smooth development
and wants to target g7) 7...Bxc5 (7...Nc6 8 Nc3 Nxe5 9 Bf4 Ng6 10 Bd6 Na6 11 Bd3!
was promising too in R.Eames-T.Abergel, British League 2003) 8 Qg4 (Diagram 7)
8...Kf8 9 Nf3 d5 10 Be2 Nc6 1 1 0-0 Qe7 12 Rd1 dxc4 13 Bxc4 gave White a pleasant
edge in B.Macieja-R.Wojtaszek, Polish Championship, Lublin 2008.
Diagram 7 (B)
It's not so easy to cover g7
Diagram 8 (W)
Black's king is a concern
a2) 6...Ne7 7 dxc5 Nbc6 (G.Sargissian-M.Sorokin, Ubeda 2000) prevents such Qg4
ideas, but Wells's suggestion of 8 Nf3!? Ng6 9 Be3 Ngxe5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 1 1 Nc3
appears to give White the edge.
a3) 6...Nb4!? is the most ambitious try and quickly leads to quite sharp play, as
we'll see in Game 7.
a4) 6...Nb6 7 dxc5!? (again the most challenging approach; 7 d5 d6! breaks up
White's centre with easy play for Black) 7...Bxc5 8 Qg4 g6!? (8...Bf8 avoids creating
a weakness, but fails to equalize after 9 Nf3 Nc6 10 Nc3 d6 11 Bf4) 9 Nc3 Nc6 10
Nf3 d6 (Diagram 8) might be Black's best try, since White's queen isn't ideally
placed, although 11 exd6 (1 1 Be2!? dxe5 12 0-0 is another gambit which might be
58
61. The Positional Choice: 2. . .e6
investigated) ll...Bxd6 12 cS! BxcS 13 BbS gave White decent play for his pawn
due to Black's kingside weaknesses in P.Wells-Z.Efimenko, Hastings 2003/04.
b) s.. . Nh7!? is very modem, countering one strange-looking retreat with another.
We now have a final divide:
b1) 6 Bd3?! is a radical way to deal with the h7-knight, but doesn't fully convince:
6...cxd4 7 Nf3 (7 Bxh7 QaS+ 8 Nd2 Rxh7 9 Ngf3 Nc6 is also good for Black) 7...Ng5!
reveals Black's main strategic idea, after which 8 0-0 Nc6 9 Re1 d6 10 Nbd2 Bd7 11
a3 Qc7 12 exd6 Bxd6 left him somewhat for choice in T.Clarke-V.Bologan, Euro
pean Club Cup, Rethymnon 2003.
b2) 6 dS has been White's most popular response and 6...exd5 (or 6...d6 7 Nc3 exdS
8 QxdS Nc6 9 BbS dxeS 10 QxeS+ Qe7 1 1 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 Bf4 with a clear edge,
M.Cebalo-G.Franchini, Reggio Emilia 2006) 7 QxdS Nc6 8 Nf3 (preferable to 8
Bc4?! Qe7 9 Nf3 Nf6!) 8...Qe7 9 Be3! (Diagram 9) certainly looks quite dangerous,
even if 9.. .f6!? (9...d6 is more solid, but fails to equalize after 10 BbS Bd7 11 exd6
Qxd6 12 Nc3 Nf6 13 Qxd6 Bxd6 14 0-0-0 Be7 15 Rhe1 0-0-0 16 Na4!) 10 Nc3 (far
from essential and both 10 Bd3 and 10 Nh4!? NxeS 11 Nc3 deserve closer scrutiny)
lO...fxeS 11 Bd3 Nf6 12 Bg6+ Kd8 13 Qc4 Nd4 might be okay for Black thanks to
his strong centre.
Diagram 9 {B)
Overly-artificial play?
Diagram 10 {B)
More French-like play
b3) 6 dxcS!? is a less-explored idea, although then 6...Nc6 7 Nf3 (7 Be3!? NxeS 8
Nc3 is an attempt to speed up White's development) 7...Ng5 8 NxgS hxgS 9 Be3 b6
10 cxb6 axb6 1 1 Nc3 Bb4 gave Black sufficient counterplay in A.Smirnov
V.Iordachescu, Russian Team Championship 2008.
After that long but important digression, we return to Black's main move, 3...h6,
exploiting the undefended e-pawn:
4 Bxf6 Qxf6 5 Nf3
59
62. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
White's old choice, reaching a position which often comes about via the Torre: 1 d4
Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 Bg5 h6! 4 Bxf6 (4 Bh4 d6 followed by ...g5 is fine for Black) 4...Qxf6 5
e4. Nowadays White usually prefers to keep his f-pawn free and so selects either 5
Nc3 or 5 c3, the respective subjects of our next two sections. The only other move is
5 Qd2, angling to avoid the variation 5 Nc3 Bb4, but I suspect that such avoidance
only makes things worse if Black responds actively with 5...c5! 6 e5 Qd8.
s...d6
By far Black's most popular choice, although with White's f-pawn blocked 5...d5 is
far from illogical. Following 6 e5 (the less committal 6 Nbd2 is probably a better
try) 6...Qd8 7 Bd3 (I have seen the position after 7 c4!? dxc4 8 Bxc4 Nd7 9 Nc3 Nb6
10 Bb3 Bd7! 11 0-0 Bc6, as in J.Hodgson-M.Lodhi, London 1987, assessed as fa
vouring White, but Black shouldn't be more than a touch worse with his light
squared bishop well placed on c6) 7...c5 8 c3 Nc6 9 a3 cxd4 10 cxd4 (Diagram 10)
the position resembled an Advance French in K.Chernyshov-T.Abergel, Cappelle
Ia Grande 2006. Exactly who this favours is not clear: Black's kingside has been
slightly weakened and it's tempting for White to aim for a Bc2 and Qd3 battery,
but then again White may miss his dark-squared bishop in any kingside attack.
6 Nc3
Via the Torre move order White often hasn't been so keen on this aggressive
move, but quieter choices also fail to trouble Black: for example, 6 Bd3 Nd7 (hold
ing up ...e5 before fianchettoing the dark-squared bishop) 7 Nbd2 g5! 8 c3 g4 9
Ng1 h5 10 h3 Bh6! (Diagram 11) 1 1 hxg4?! (not liking Black's initiative, White pre
pares an overly-aggressive counterstrike, but he would have done better to house
his king with 11 Qe2 a6 12 0-0-0) 11 ...hxg4 12 e5?! dxe5 13 Ne4 Qg7 was superb for
Black, who enjoyed his usual dark-square pressure as well as an extra pawn in
H.Temmerman-S.Vanderwaeren, Ghent 2003.
60
Diagram 11 (W)
White has lost the initiative
Diagram 12 (W)
Black is fine
63. The Positional Choice: 2...e6
NOTE: White might have a small lead in development after 5 Nf3,
but it's extremely hard to do anything with it, which is why grand
master interest has ratherwaned in this variation.
It would be ideal to open the centre with d5, but that is usually well met by ...e5,
or with e5, which in tum can often be countered by ...d5. Meanwhile it's not all
that difficult for Black to advance and develop on one wing or the other, just as
we'll see in our main line.
Bearing these problems in mind, one can see why it would be nice to make 6 e5!?
work, but unfortunately 6...dxe5 7 dxe5 Qe7 8 Nc3 Nc6 appears fine for Black too:
9 Bb5, Burgess's suggestion from The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack, can be met
by just 9...Bd7 (Diagram 12) followed by ...0-0-0 and then either ...Qc5 or ...g5, and
9 Bd3 g5! 10 Qe2 Bg7 1 1 Bb5 (saving the e-pawn, but Black cannot complain about
acquiring a second bishop) 1l...Bd7 12 Bxc6 Bxc6 13 0-0-0 Qb4! gave Black the
edge due to his pressure against e5 in K.Shirazi-L.Christiansen, US Champion
ship, Berkeley 1984.
6... Nd7 (Diagram 13)
Diagram 13 (W)
Black may play for ...cs
Diagram 14 (W)
Both sides press forwards
Black's most flexible and probably best approach, keeping the e5-square closely
monitored. Karpov once preferred 6...g6 against Korchnoi, but this may allow
White to better time 7 e5!?, as well as to consider the more usual 7 Qd2 Bg7 8
0-0-0. Surprisingly Karpov has also dabbled in 6...g5!? at this stage, which may
Well be taking the whole provocation angle a little too far. In K.Chernyshov
B.Thorfinnsson, Budapest 2005, White handled things calmly and the instructive
manoeuvre 7 eS Qe7 8 h3!? (rather than Timman's 8 BbS+) 8.. . Bg7 9 Qe2 a6 10 0-0-0
dS 11 Qe3 bS?! 12 Ne2! Nd7 13 Ng3 cS 14 NhS saw him seizing the upper hand.
61
64. Starting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
7 Qd2
Here too White has tried 7 Bd3, but 7...Qd8 (moving the queen away from a poten
tial e5-advance while facilitating the development of the bishop to e7 is often a
good plan in this variation) 8 Qd2 a6 9 0-0-0 Be7 10 h4 b5 11 g4 c5! gave Black
good counterplay in A.Stefanova-M.Gurevich, Antwerp 1997.
7...a6
WARNING! Black should not consider this variation totally harmless:
7...c6 8 o-o-o es?l 9 dxesl dxes? 10 Nbsll, as in J.Kiinger-D.King,
Lucerne 1989, is a trap which continues to claim vidims.
8 0-0-0 Qd8
Any reader unconvinced that White can't put his better development to good use
should pause at this point and try to find an acceptable plan. It isn't so easy and in
practice White has usually resorted to pushing his kingside pawns.
9 h4 bs (Diagram 14)
Black too is allowed to mobilize his own potential attackers.
10 Bd3
Hodgson's choice. White later attempted to improve with 10 Rh3!? in C.Crouch
M.Adams, European Club Cup, Slough 1996, although after 10...Bb7 11 Qf4 b4 12
Ne2 c5! 13 dxc5! (White must open the position, since 13 d5?! e5! 14 Qe3 Qa5 15
Kb1 c4 would have already left Black with a pretty useful attack) 13...Nxc5 14 e5
Black had a number of reasonable options, including 14...Bd5!?.
Once again 10 d5 e5 doesn't especially help White either, but 10 e5!? might be his
best chance to pose at least a few problems, as we'll see in Game 8.
10...Bb7 11 Kb1 cs 12 dxcs Nxcs
We've followed the game J.Hodgson-A.Miles, Kuala Lumpur 1992; two highly
creativeTrompowsky users in opposition here. Unfortunately for Hodgson Black
had managed to obtain a pretty comfortable version of the Sicilian, as was borne
out by the further 13 Qe3 Qc7 14 Nd4 0-0-0! (Diagram 15) 15 f4 Kb8. It's notable
that it didn't take Hodgson long after this encounter to switch to 5 Nc3 (and later
to 5 c3).
Conclusion
I've covered Black's 3rd-move alternatives to 3...h6 in fair detail because they crop
up quite often at sub-international levels. Only 3...c5!? should really concern
White, though, when it's important to be prepared and so avoid joining the fairly
large ranks of those who have been caught by surprise.
Bagging the bishop-pair with 3...h6 is a classical and fairly reasonable response.
62
65. The Positional Choice: 2...e6
f-{ere too White must have some ideas and these days 5 Nf3 just looks pretty
toothless. Indeed, I'm not surprised that White has scored a little under 50% here;
he rnust undertake more active measures to counter Black's long-term advantage
of the two bishops.
Diagram 15 {W) Diagram 16 (B)
An acceptable Sicilian for Black Can White maintain control?
Illustrative Games
Game 7
D R.Palliser • P.Taylor
Golders Green Rapidplay 2004
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 e6 3 e4 c5 4 e5 h6 5 Bel Nd5 6 c4 Nb41? 7 a3
The best move order if White plans to exchange on c5.
WARNING: I later preferred the careless 7 dxc5, only realizing during
my opponent's subsequent think that 7. ..Bxc5 8 a3? is not the way
to go on account of 8. . .Qh41 9 Qd2 Be31? 10 Qe2 Bxf2+ when White
is struggling, albeit perhaps not quite as much as he deserves to be
after 11 Kd11 Bxg1 12 axb4 o-o 13 Nd2.
Even more fortuitously 7...N8c6? appeared on the board in R.Palliser
M.Carpenter, York (rapid) 2008, and after 8 a3! Na6 9 b4 Nxe5 10 Bb2 Qc7 11 Nc3
Ng6 12 NbS Black found himself horribly bound.
Playing to hit g7 is not the only plan, though: 7 dS!? being a worthy alternative.
Then 7...d6 (7...exd5 8 cxd5 already looks a little precarious for Black and 8... Qe7?
63
66. Sta rting Out: The Trompowsky Attack
9 f4 d6 10 a3 N4a6 11 Nf3 Bg4 12 Bb5+ saw his Pseudo-Benoni brutally annihilated
in B.Savage-J.Bick, Las Vegas 2006) 8 a3 N4a6 9 Bf4! (Diagram 16) may well retain
an edge: 9...dxe5 10 Bxe5 Nd7 11 Qa4!? (11 Bg3 is a simpler, respectable alterna
tive) 11...Qg5?! (Black faces some difficulties in any case, but this tempting idea is
probably too ambitious) 12 f4 Qg6 13 Nf3 Be7 was quite complex in M.Karttunen
O.Sepp, Finnish League 2004, but I suspect that 14 d6!? Bf6 15 Nbd2 favours
White.
7...N4c6 8 dxcs Bxcs
The critical move, but not the only approach. Black might also try his chances in
the extremely murky structure which 8...Nxe5!? 9 Be3 Na6 10 b4 b6 gives rise to.
9 Qg41 (Diagram 17)
Diagram 17 (B)
Again g7 is pinpointed
Diagram 18 (W)
It's getting messy...
Ambitious, but also quite critical and far from easy to deal with at a fast time limit.
I no longer agree with all my earlier (2005) analysis for CHESS, but do still feel
that 9 Nf3 Qc7 should be comfortable for Black and that 10 b4!? Nxe5 11 Bb2 Bd6!
12 Nbd2 0-0 13 c5 Nxf3+ 14 Nxf3 Be7 15 Be5 Qd8 doesn't offer White quite enough
for his pawn.
9. ..Qb6?
I'm not a huge fan of analyzing with an engine, but must admit that they can be
pretty helpful at times! Previously I had quite liked Taylor's choice, but now I
suspect that Black does much better with 9...Qa5+!, which is quite a disruptive
check. Nevertheless, this is far from being all doom and gloom for White, not least
because 10 Nc3! Bd4 11 Bd2 Qxe5+ 12 Be2 offers a decent lead in development in
return for the pawn.
64
