surprise your opponents

with the tricky 2 Nc3!

theveresov

by Nigel Davies
EVERYMAN CHESS
Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2003 by Gloucester Publishers plc (fonnerly Everyman Publishers

plc), Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
Copyright 2003 Nigel Davies
The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 857443357
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester
Publishers plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD
tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060
email: info@everymanchess.com
website: www.everymanchess.com
Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.

To Louise & Sam

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov

Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs
Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.
Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Production by Navigator Guides.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd.

CONTENTS

Bibliography
Introduction

4
5

1 d4lbf6 2lbc3 d5 3.tg5

7
26
43
62
76
89

3... tLlbd74 f3

3... tLlbd7 4 'it'd2 and 4 'it'd3

3... tLlbd7 4 tLlf3, 4 e3 and Others

3... c5

3... c6

3... i.f5

3... h6, 3... tLlc6, 3... g6 and Others

105

3... e6 (including French Transpositions)

118

Other Variations

9
10

1...tLlf6 2 tLlc3 c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ...g6 and 2 ... e6

131
144

Index of Complete Games

159

1... d5 2 tLlc3 e6, 2.. .5 & Others

BIBllIOGRAPHY

Books

The Chameleon Chess Repertoire, Gufeld & Stetsko (Thinkers Press 1999)
Richter Veresov System, Adams (The Chess Player 1987)
Queen's Pawn: Veresov~stem, Bellin (Bats ford 1983)
ECO D, 2nd Edition (Sahovski Informator 1977)
ECO Busted, Hays & Hall (Hays Publishing 1993)
Meeting 1 d4, Aagaard & Lund (Everyman Chess 2002)
Beating the Anti-King's Indians, Gallagher (Bats ford 1996)
Periodicals, Magazines and Websites
Chess Informators 1-86
MegaBase 2003
TWIC 1-446
Chesspublishing.com web site
Tigerchess Yahoo Group

I INTRODUCTION I

The Veresov is a little played opening that is ideal for creative, aggressive players. As early as
the second move White dares to be different by developing his knight to c3, and in so doing
he contravenes the conventional wisdom about Queen's Pawn Openings which states that you
must never obstruct your c-pawn. In fact White has a far more ambitious idea in mind; he
wants to play for e2-e4.
The first Grandmaster to use this opening regularly in tournaments was Saviely Tartakower,
but he was certainly not to be the last. Over the years many great players have enriched it with
their games and ideas, including David Bronstein, Mikhail Tal, Boris Spassky, Bent Larsen, Lev
Alburt and Kurt Richter. Yet it is Gavril Veresov who has contributed most to the theory of
this opening, having played it week in and week out during his heyday in the 1950s and 60s. It
is therefore fitting that it carries his name.
My first contact with the Veresov Opening came when I was a teenager and read a 1975 article in the magazine Chess. The author, Robert Bellin, wrote 'The Veresov is young and still
molten, the crust of definite variations has yet to form. You can participate in the making of a
new opening - if you try.' Being young and still molten myself, this sounded pretty good, and
during my teenage years I played the Veresov regularly. It turned out that many other British
amateurs had the same idea and this opening experienced an explosion of popularity in club
and county games.
Since that time interest dwindled away with many of the Veresov specialists moving on to
pastures new or disappearing from the chess scene altogether. Books have been written showing what are supposed to be effective answers for Black. Yet the Veresov is alive and well with
the supposed 'antidotes' having been directed only at the traditional lines such as 3...tt:lbd7 4 f3
or 3...tt:lbd7 4 tt:lf3. Having examined the evidence I believe that 3...tt:lbd7 is by no means as
good as some books have made out, with 4 'ifd2!? (the ultra-violent approach), 4 ttJf3
(Veresov's own favourite) and 4 e3 (my personal recommendation) being quite dangerous for
Black.
It's not just in the 3...ttJbd7 lines that I've found myself disagreeing with the experts; it
seems to me that just about every variation of the Veresov has been misanalysed and/or misassessed. This presents a wonderful opportunity for practical players to surprise and outfox
their opponents. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the Veresov has recently attracted the

The Veresov

attention of the Swedish GM J onny Hector and the up-and-coming Russian superstar Alexander Morozevich. Morozevich in particular seems to revel in the complex and original positions
that the Veresov offers.
Because of the uncharted nature of the Veresov I haven't attempted to pin down the 'theory' and 'main lines' on the basis of a handful of obscure games. Instead I've written this book
as an exploratory guide, saying what I think is happening and what White's most promising
plans are. Accordingly you will fmd a lot of my own suggestions and ideas which I've worked
out in conjunction with Fritz 8 as an analysis partner. Fritz has been very good at checking
tactics and some of the sharp variations, though I have frequently had to lead it by the hand in
positions where strategy predominates or a material imbalance exists.
In order to provide a complete repertoire I have suggested an option for White against
moves which transpose into other openings. Thus in Chapter 8 you'll find my suggested
method of dealing with 3...e6, which normally transposes to a French Defence. In Chapter 9
I've given some lines against 1 d4 d5 2 ltJc3 e6, 2... f5 and 2...c6, whilst in Chapter 10 I'll show
you some things you can play against 1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 c5, 2...d6, 2...g6 and 2...e6. In these
three chapters I've 'doctored' the early move order of games to show how they arise from a
Veresov. My aim was to lend greater clarity to the material.
Learning a new opening should be a gradual process through which you get used to the positions before using them in serious games. The way I suggest you do this is by following the
steps below:
1) Famih'arise yourself with the basic pattern of play by playing through the games at speed.
At this stage you should ignore the notes and sub-variations.
2) PIqy these lines in quick games at your local club or on the internet (www.freechess.org or
www.chessclub.com).
3) Look up the lines that occurred in your games and cross-check your play against my own
thoughts on these variations.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 for a month or two.
5) Stu4J the book more carefully, working from cover to cover and making notes about any
points of interest. Analyse the points of interest.
6) Adopt your new weapon in competitive games and matches.
7) AnalYse your competitive games to establish what was happened and whether either side
could improve.
I hope you enjoy this voyage through the uncharted waters of the Veresov Opening. I have
certainly found this to be a fascinating subject to think and write about and after a 30 year hiatus I have started playing the Veresov again in a few games on the internet.
If you have any suggestions, comments or recommendations you might like to discuss them
with me at the Tigerchess Yahoo Group. To enrol for this discussion group please go to my
home page at http://www.tigerchess.com and enter your email address in the form provided. I
look forward to meeting you and hearing about your Veresov triumphs!

Nigel Davies,
Southport,
July 2003
6

CHAPTER ONE

3 ... ltJbd7 4 f3

1 d4 ~f6 2 iDe3 d5 3 .i.g5 ~bd7 4 f3

The move 3....!Dbd7 has been almost universally recommended as the most solid option
for Black. He develops a piece, avoids the
doubling of the f-pawns with 4 iLxf6 and
prepares ...c7-c5. On the other hand the
knight is not as actively placed on d7 as it
would be on c6. It also blocks in the lightsquared bishop, which might be well placed
on fS.
White's main line against 3....!Dbd7 has traditionally been 4 f3 which has the clear aim
of building a broad pawn centre with e2-e4.
Yet this move has a somewhat extravagant
look about it as White is doing very little for
his development and is weakening dark
squares such as e3. And in fact Black can
exploit these factors by launching an energetic counter-attack in the centre.
Games 1-3 show Black's traditional strategy of ... c7-c6 followed by bringing the
queen out to as or b6. The 6...e5!? of Rossetto-Gufeld already looked quite attractive
for Black and 1O...JLa3! will send White scurrying for earlier improvements. He should
probably investigate the speculative 7 .!Df3,
but I, for one, don't trust it for White. Nor
am I too convinced by Morozevich's pawn
sac in Game 2 (6 ...'iib6 7 .!Df3) and even the
6...'iWa5 of Adam-Muller leaves me sceptical.

If I had to play 4 f3 then I would certainly

meet 4...c6 with 5 'iWdZ, transposing to Chapter 2.
Besides 4...c6, Black has another promising line in 4... c5, which is covered in Games
4-8. White's most popular reply to this has
been 5 e4!?, after which I suggest that White
meets 5...dxe4 with 6 d5!? (Kuijf-Hoeksma)
rather than 6 fxe4 (Rajna-Vogt). This looks
quite dangerous for Black, so he's probably
well advised to play 5...cxd4 instead. I can't
say that I'm particularly attracted by either of
White's options in that position, 6 'iWxd4 e5 7
'iWa4 d4 looking preferable for Black (though
complex) in Bellon Lopez-Keene, whilst 6
iLxf6 looks distincdy dodgy after 6....!Dxf6
(Ranniku-Bulinova; see the note to Black's
6th move). The 5 dxc5 of WockenfussTimman is an attempt to cast doubt on 4...c5,
but several authors have had a lot of fun
showing the strength of Black's position after
5...'ii'a5. They're not wrong about this being
quite good for Black, although the simple
5... e6 might be even betrer.
If Black has a more nervous disposition
he might be disinclined to enter the complexities of 4...c6 or 4...c5, even though these
seem favourable for him. However, the slow
4...e6 of Alburt-Kapengut and 4...h6 of
Czerniak-Hamann do not seem as logical
7

The Veresov

because White manages to erect his pawn

centre. Nonetheless, these don't seem too
bad for Black either.

Gamel
Rossetto-Gufeld
Camagury 1974
1 d4 tLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 ~g5 lLlbd7 4 f3

A very logical move which has the clear

aim of expanding in the centre with e2-e4.

The drawback is that this costs some time,

which Black can try to exploit by reacting
energetically.
4 ... c6
Protecting the d-pawn and freeing a path
for Black's queen to come out to b6 or as.
The alternatives are 4...c5, 4...e6 and 4... h6.
5 e4

The sharpest continuation, but Black

seems to obtain excellent counterplay. 5 'ii'd2
transposes to the line 4 'iWd2 c6 5 f3, which is
examined in the next chapter (De Souza
Haro-Vescovi).
5 ... dxe4 6 fxe4

White has also tried the Blackrnar-Diemer

style 6 'iWd2, after which 6.. .'ii'a5 7 fxe4 e5
transposes to the note to White's 7th move
in the Chapter 2 game, De Souza HaroVescovi. Black can also simply take the pawn
- for example 6...exf3 7 iDxf3 'iWa5 8 O-O-O?!
e6 was the continuation of David-Ribeiro,
Lnares 1995, when White could fmd nothing
8

better than 9 a3 iDd5 10 iDe4, entering an

endgame a pawn down. 8 i.d3 is probably
better, but White will be struggling to fmd
compensation against an accurate defence.
6 ... e5!?
Black, in tum, plays the most trenchant
continuation, counter-attacking on the central dark squares. But this is not the only
move... For 6...'iWb6 see Morozevich-Lazarev,
whilst 6...'iWa5 is examined in Adam-Muller.
7 dxe5
White has also tried swift development
with 7 iDf3, though this doesn't look like
anything special after 7... exd4 (7 ... h6 8 i.h4
'iWb6 9 'ii'd2 exd4 10 ttJxd4 i.b4 11 0-0-00-0
was quite promising for Black in the game
Zhang Pengxiang-Shipov, Internet Chess
Club 2002) 8 'iixd4 (8 ttJxd4 i.b4 9 iDfS 0-0
10 i.d3 ttJe5 11 i.xf6 'ixf6 12 0-0 i.xfS 13
':'xf5 'ilVe7 was good for Black in SchillerLgterink, Reykjavik 1986) 8...'iWb6 9 'iVd2 (9
'iWxb6 axb6 10 e5 iDg4 11 i.f4 was played in
Berges-Delaunay, Angers 2001 and now
11 ...:a5 renders e5 indefensible, rather than
11...i.b4 as played in the game) 9...'ii'xb2 10
l:tb1 'iia3 11 e5 iDd5 (11...iDg4) 12 iDxd5
cxd5 13 i.b5!? (White is attempting to tie
Black down but the simple 13 'it'xd5 seems
good; after 13 ... i.b4+ 14 'iii>f2 i.c5+ 15 ~g3
White's king reaches a safe position and his
pieces are very active) 13...i.c5 (13 ... a6 14
i.xd7+ i.xd7 15 l:txb7 i.e6 was the more
solid option, with a fairly equal game) 14
'ii'xd5 O-O!? (sacrificing a piece to get his king
safe and obtain a dangerous passed a-pawn)
15 i.xd7 i.xd7 16 'ii'xd7 'ii'xa2 17 'id1 h6
18 i.h4 as 19 l:ta1 'iib2 20 l:tb1 'ii'a2 21
'iii>e2?? (White should probably take a draw
with 21 l:.al) 21...g5 22 i.f2 l:.ad8 0-1,
Zhang Pengxiang-Benjamin, Cap d'Agde
2000. White's resignation seems somewhat
overly prompt as after 22...l:tad8 23 ttJd2 (23
iDd4 l:tfe8) 23 ... i.b4 24 l:txb4 he can still
fight on.
7 ..."85!?
This is the standard move, although Black

3 ... li:Jbd7 4 (3

can also play 7... liJxe5. The game De Souza

Haro-Tsuboi, Brasilia 2000 continued 8
'Wxd8+ ~d8 9 liJf3 .i.d6 10 .i.e2 <l;;c7 11
0-0-0 and now l1...liJfg4 (Davies) would
have been slightly better for Black. In the
game he played l1...liJfd7, which was sound
enough but less incisive.

liJe5+ <:td6 28 .l:ha5 i.h4+ 0-1.

The alternatives all look rather good for
Black, for example 8 liJf3 liJxe4 9 .i.d2
liJxd2 10 'ii'xd2 .i.b4 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 a3
.i.xc3 13 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 14 bxc3, which was
soon drawn in Sahovic-W.Schmidt, Vrnjacka
Banja 1981, but Black must surely have what
chances are going because of his healthier
pawn structure. Both 8 'ii'd2 and S i.d2 are
met by S... liJxe5 when Black's nicely centralised knight leaves \Vhite struggling for equality.
8 ... gxf6 9 a6!?

8.txf6

Intended as an improvement for \Vhite,

but I still don't trust his position. The stem
game in this line was Alburt-Tal, USSR Ch.,
Baku 1972 which went 8 exf6 'ii'xgS 9 fxg7
.i.xg7 10 'ii'd2 (10 liJf3 'ii'e3+ 11 .i.e2 i.xc3+
12 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 13liJd2liJe5 140-0 i.e6 15
liJf3 nd8 16 'WeI liJxf3+ 17 i.xf3 'Wxel 18
l:!.fxe1 l:!.d2 19 :e2 l1xe2 20 i.xe2 rJ:;e7 21
rJ:;f2 1:tg8 22 h4 'it>d6 brought about a horrible endgame for \Vhite in ElinaChiburdanidze, USSR 1976) lO...'ii'xd2+ 11
'it>xd2 liJc5 12 i.d3 .i.e6 13 liJf3 (13 liJge2
0-0-0 14 .l:[hfl seems more solid to me)
13...0-0-0 14 rJ:;e2 b5 (another good move
was 14...l:ihe8) 15 a3 as 16 h3 (16 ':hdl
.l:!.heS 17 'it>f2 .i.g4 looks good for Black)
16....l:r.he8 17 l:thdl f5 18 e5 (18 exf5 .i.xf5+
19 rJ:;f2 .i.xd3 20 cxd3 liJxd3+ wins the b2pawn) 18...liJd7 19 .l:[el .i.xe5 (19 ...liJxe5 was
equally good) 20 rJ:;f2 .i.f6 21 .l:[e3 liJc5 22
.l:[ael rJ:;d7 (and not 22... f4? in view of 23
.l:[xe6! liJxe6 24 .i.f5 ~d7 25 liJe4, winning
material) 23 liJxbS f4 24 .l:[e5 (24 .l:[xe6
liJxd3+ 25 cxd3 .l:[xe6 is no improvement)
24... liJxd3+ 25 cxd3 cxb5 26 ':xb5 nbS 27

Trying to contest the initiative. After 9

exf6 Black's best may be the simple 9...liJxf6
(9 ...'ii'b6 10 l1bl .i.c5 11 liJh3 liJeS 12 'ii'd2
.i.xh3 13 liJa4 'ii'b4 14 liJxc5 'ii'xc5 15 b4
'ii'b6 16 'Wc3 turned out to be better for
\Vhite in Kohout-Koenig, Bayern 1995; after
9...i.a3 \Vhite defends with 10 'it'c1 liJxf6 11
liJge2, and 9....i.b4 is well met by 10 'Wd4) 10
'it'd4 i.g7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 'ii'd2 (12 liJge2
i.e6, while 12 'it'a4? 'ii'xa4 13 liJxa4 liJxe4
was just very bad for \Vhite in PhilippeKennefick, Haifa Olympiad 1976) and now
Gallagher suggests that 12...liJxe4!? should be
considered as after 13 liJxe4 'ii'xaZ 14 'iff4
'ii'a1+ 15 <:td2 'Wxb2 Black's a-pawn is very
dangerous. 12... .i.e6 is simpler and gives
good play for the pawn.
9 ...fxa6 10 .tc4

After 10 'ii'g4?! Black's simplest reply is

10...liJe5 (1O .. :ii'g5 11 'ii'xe6+ .i.e7 and
9

The Veresov

10... tDb6 have also been tried and seem fme,

but the e5-square is tailor-made for Black's
knight) 11 'ir'h5+ ~d8 and now the threat of
... tDd3+ makes White lose further time with
his queen. Black's king, meanwhile, finds a
nice post on c7.

16 ... lLlg4 17 O-O-O!

10 ... i.b4?!

The move which appears in most of the

books, but there may be two much stronger
lines. At the Tigerchess Yahoo Group,
Volker Jeschonnek pointed out that
10... i.a3! is very strong, a game of his from
1988 continuing 11 'ir'b 1 tDc5 (11..."g5 is
also good) 12 iLd3 (after 12 <;tn Jeschonnek
17 ... lLlf2 18 "ii'xh7 "ii'g5+ 19 Iitb1 .u.g7
gives 12...ifh4! 13 i.b3 b6 which gives Black
20 ~h8+ Jlg8 21 "ii'h7 :g7
a winning attack) 12... iLxb2 13 'iWxb2 tDa4
21...tDxd1 22 ':xdl 'ii'g7 23 'iWh5+ 'fig6
when Black won a pawn and later the game.
24 'fic5 is very risky for Black as his king is
It's also good to centralise Black's knight
still in the centre.
with 10... tDe5 11 'ii'h5+ (11 i.b3 i.a3 12
'ii'c1 ~xc3+ gave Black a clearly advanta- 22 'ii'h8+ :g8 Y.z - Y.z
geous endgame in Kostic-Todorovic, Nis . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
1995) 11...'itd7 12 0-0-0+ ~c7 and White is
Game 2
threatened with both 13. .. tDxc4 and
Morozevich-Lazarev
13 ... tDd3+.
Alushta 1993
11 lLlge2 lLle5 12 i.b3 :l.g8

As White gets compensation by sacrificing

the g-pawn this might also not be Black's
best. After 12...'ir'b6 13 a3 i.xc3+ 14 tDxc3
'iWe3+ 15 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 16 tDxe2 <it>e7 17 tDf4
Black agreed a draw in what is probably a
slightly better position in the game GralkaJagodzinski, Bydgoszcz 1978. Another possibility is 12...i.d7, after which MaksimovicChandler, Nis 1983 continued 13 'ir'd2 c5
(the immediate 13 ... 0-0-0 is also quite possible) 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 a3 ~xc3 16 'ii'xc3
'fixc3 17 tDxc3 ~hg8 18 g3 b5!? and now 19
tDxb5! i.xb5 20 i.xe6+ ~c7 21 i.xg8 held
the balance.

1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .tg5 lLlbd7 4 f3 c6

5 e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 'ii'b6!?

13 a3! i.xc3+

After 13. .. i.c5 White can play 14 tDf4,

when 14.. ..l:lg4 15 g3 is complex and doubleedged.

A murky alternative to the sharp 6... e5.

Black hits the b2-pawn and prepares ... e7-e5.

14lLlxc3 .!:!.xg2 15 "ifh5+ :g6 16 "iJ'h3!?

This is no time to go passive. After 7 ~b 1

Black can play 7... e5! more effectively as
6...'iVb6 is a far more useful move than 7

And not 16 'fixh7 due to 16... tDf3+ 17

~f2 'ii'g5 18 <it>xf3 I:.h6!.
10

7 lLlf3

3 ... ti::Jbd7 4 13

l:[b 1. White does have a couple of interesting

alternatives at this point:
a) 7 e5 'ii'xb2 8 .id2! (8 iba4 'ifb4+ 9 c3
"as 10 .td3ibxe5! led to a win for Black in
Ismail-Mikuev, Elista 1998) 8...ibd5 9 ibxd5
cxd5 10 ib3 gives White compensation for
the pawn (Davies).
b) 7 ir'd2 e5 8ib3 exd4 9lbxd4 .tb41O
0-0-0 (10 ibfS 0-0 11 .id3 ~e8 also leaves
White under pressure) 10...0-0 11 'ii'e3 lIe8
12 .td3 h6 13 .ih4 ibg4 14 ir'f4 'ii'xd4 15
'ikxg4ibe5 16 'ikg3 .txc3 17 bxc3'ii'xc3 and
Black soon won in Juglard-Kouatly, France
1991.

White already has a clear advantage.

7 ... e5

After 22...cj;;xa7 23 'ii'xa5+ ~b8 24 .tc2

Black is still a piece down and his queen is
shut out of the game.

Perhaps mindful of the identity of his opponent, Black decides against taking the
pawn on b2 but, objectively speaking, White
seems to have it all to prove: 7...'ii'xb2 8 .td2
e5 9 dxe5 (or 9 :b1
10 ibxe5ibxe5 11
dxe5 ibd7) 9...ibg4 10 l:tb1 'ika3 11 e6 fxe6
does not leave White with a clear continuation of the attack and, meanwhile, Black has
an extra pawn.

"'a3

10 ...ti::Jxf3+ 11 gxf3 ti::Je5 120-0-0

Threatening mate on d8.

12....i.e6 13 .i.e3 'ifa5?
Black had to try 13...'ii'c7, although after

14 f4ibc415 .ixc4 .txc416 "'d4 .ta617 fS

he is tied up and very passive.
14 f4 ti::Jf3 15 'iff2

Winning the knight. Black can only play

for tricks, which are safely negotiated by the
young Russian star.
15 ....i.b4 16 ti::Jb1 'ifxa2 17 'ifxf3 'ira1 18
c3 .i.a5 19 .i.d3 .i.a2 20 'ifh5 0-0-0 21
'iff5+ ~b8 22 .i.xa7+ 1-0

Game 3
Adam-Muller
Berlin 1989
1 d4 ti::Jf6 2 ti::Jc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ti::Jbd7 4 f3 c6
5 e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 'ifa51?

8 dxe5 ti::Jg4?

Still avoiding the capture on b2, which

would transpose to the previous note after
8......xb2 9 .id2. Black's refusal to capture
this pawn leaves White with an excellent
home for his king on the queenside.
9 'ird2 ti::Jdxe5 10 h31

Forcing Black to exchange on 3, after

which White obtains a useful pawn duo.

Another alternative to 6... e5, hitting the

bishop on g5 and threatening the e4-pawn.
One of the main differences is that it does
not prevent 7 e5 by White...
7 e5
This is White's critical reply, radically preventing ... e7-e5 and attacking the knight on
f6. Two alternatives have been tried. 7 .td2
e5 8 d5 ~c5 9 ibh3 was played in Ranniku11

The Veresov

Chiburdanidze, Thilisi 1974, and now

9.. .'i!fb4! (Fritz 8) wins a pawn for inadequate
compensation. 7 'iid2 is not very effective
thanks to 7... eS!, which leads to the note to
White's 7th move in de Souza Haro-Vescovi
in Chapter 2.
7 ...ltJe4
And not 7...ltJxeS? because of 8 iLxf6,
winning a piece.

c) 8... f6!? is also worth considering, though

I think White gets good compensation for a
pawn after 9 iLd2 ltJxd2 10 'iixd2 fxeS 11
0-0-0 etc.

albf3

10 dxe5 'iVxe5+ 11 ltJce4 f6 12.i.c4

Aiming at the sensitive f7 -square.
12... fxg5 130-0 .i.e6?

White continues developing at top speed,

although Black has a fork trick which makes
this line controversial. A couple of alternatives have been tried in this position, of
which the second looks quite promising:
a) 8 iLe3 ltJxc3 9 'ifd2 ltJb6 to bxc3 iLe6
11 ~d3 (11 ltJ3 ltJc4 12 iLxc4 iLxc4 leaves
White unable to castle) l1...ltJc4 12 ~xc4
iLxc4 13 ltJe2 0-0-0 14 ltJc1 f6 was promising for Black in Klaman-Boleslavsky, USSR
Ch., Leningrad 1947.
b) 8 iLd2ltJxd2 9 'iixd2leaves Black with
the bishop pair but less space, and in fact
looks rather promising for White. Miladinovic-Charbonneau, Montreal 2002, for example, continued 9... e6 to ltJ3 iLb4 (to...iLe7
11 iLd3 cS was played in Gasparian-Hefter,
Fuerth 1999, and now I think that 12 dS
exdS 13 ltJxdS looks very promising for
White) 11 a3 cS 12 lIbl iLxc3 13 bxc3 'iVxa3
14 i.d3 and now 14... fS should have been
met by 15 0-0, threatening to trap Black's
queen with 16 l:Ial. In the game White
played 15 dS?! which could have been met by
IS...'iia2!, forking bl and dS.

a...ltJxg5
Taking the opportunity to win a pawn and
break up White's pawn centre, although,
meanwhile, White gets a huge lead in development. The alternatives are as follows:
a) 8...ltJxc3 9 bxc3 'iixc3+ to iLd2 gives
White compensation for the pawn.
b) 8...ltJb6 9 iLd2ltJxd2 to 'iVxd2 iLfS 11
i.d3 e6 120-0 g6 13 a3ltJd7 14 b4 'iic7 15
'>t>hl h6 16 ltJe4 0-0-0 17 'iVe2 '12-'12, Bykhovsl-y-Ljavdansky, USSR Ch., Tallinn 1965.

12

9 ltJxg5 ltJxe5!

The point of Black's play, breaking up

White's centre before he can consolidate.
Meanwhile, however, White gets a huge lead
in development...

Black hurries to exchange White's dangerous bishop but, in doing so, further weakens
the light squares. 13...iLfS is a much tougher
nut to crack; Black blocks the f-fIle and is
threatening to develop his pieces with 14... e6
or 14...g6, while 14 ltJxgS? is met by
14...'iie3+.
14 .i.xe6 'ilxe6 15 'ilf3

ISltJxgS? 'iVe3+ loses the knight.

15 ... h616ltJd6+?!

Spectacular but quite unnecessary. Instead

16ltJcS is strong.
16.. .'it>d7

The only move. Black loses his queen after either 16...exd6 17 lIael or 16...'it'xd6 17
'iff7+ 'iii>d8 18l:Iadl.
17ltJb5?!

Once again choosing the spectacular

move. 17 ltJxb 7 looks more effective as
17...<1;c 7 18 ltJcs 'iVdS 19 ltJe4 leaves Black
rather hopelessly placed.

3 ... tiJbd7 4 '3

17 ... g4?

Losing immediately. 17...lite8 18 .:lae1

'ikg6 is far from clear.
1S l:.ad1+ ~cS 19 'ii'xfS+! l:txfS 20 l:txfS
mate

Game 4
Rajna-Vogt
Leipifg 1976
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJc3 d5 3 .tg5 tiJbd7 4 f3 c5

Another interesting means of trying to exploit the dark side of 4 f3. Black immediately
counter-attacks the d4-pawn.
5 e4!?

The sharpest response, stepping up the intensity of the batde for the centre. 5 dxc5 will
be examined in Wockenfuss-Timman.
5 ... dxe4

For 5... cxd4 see Bellon Lopez-Keene.

6 fxe4
Although this has been White's most
popular choice, the resulting positions look
rather bad for him. I recommend that White
sacrifices a pawn at this stage with 6 d5!?,
which is covered in Kuijf-Hoeksema.

position after 8... a6 9 tDf3 i.d6 10 i.e2 'ikc7)

8...g6
9 'iid5
tDb6!
(MorozevichTimoshenko, Alushta 1994 went 9... ~e7 10
i.b5 0-0 11 i.xd7 %td8 120-0-0 ':xd7 '12-V2,
but the text is much stronger if followed up
correcdy) 10 .i.b5+? (White's best appears to
be 10 'iib3 cxd4 11 'iib5+ 'ti'xb5 12 tDxbS,
after which 12...i.b4+ leaves him struggling
for a draw) 10...'ii'xb5? (missing the opportunity to win White's queen with 1O...We7! 11
'ili'xc5+ 'iii>d8! etc.) 11 'tJxb5 tDxd5 12 exd5
'i&i>d8 with an approximately equal endgame
in Turner-Gross, Prague 1995. Does White
have to play something as insipid as 8 tDf3
here?
In Morejon Rodriguez-Penillas Mendez,
Mondariz 1997 Black played 6...'ili'b6 and
reached an excellent position after 7 i.xf6
tDxf6 8 i.b5+ .i.d7 9 i.xd7+ tDxd7 10 tDd5
'iid8 11 dxc5 tDxc5 12 'ili'e2 a6 130-0-0 e6
14 tDc3 'if'a5. While this may be of minor
importance due to the apparent strength of
6...'iia5, it does reinforce the impression that
6 fxe4leaves White fighting for equality.
7'ii'xd4

6 ... cxd4?!

This may well be okay for Black, but it

appears that the main alternative is much
stronger. In my opinion Black should play
6...'iia5 7 .i.xf6 reS tDe4 is rather good for
Black, a game Maksimovic-Janosevic,
Bjelovar 1979 continuing 8 tDf3 e6 9 d5
'tJxc3 10 bxc3 i.e7 11 dxe6 tDxe5 12 exf7+
'tJxf7 13 i.d2 0-0 14 ~c4 'iii>h8 with much
the better pawn structure) 7...exf6! (the most
solid recapture - 7...'tJxf6 8 e5 cxd4 9 'iixd4
gave White excellent attacking chances in
Juergens-Schrems, Gennany 1990) 8 'ikh5?!
(an ingenious way of preventing Black from
capturing on d4 which has enjoyed the
patronage of Alexander Morozevich, but
Black has a massive improvement which puts
this line out of business ... 8 d5 would leave a
gaping hole on e5, Barreto-Macagno, Mendoza 1985 leaving Black with an excellent

7 .. :i'a5?!

After the game Vogt was highly critical of

this move, but he might have been underestimating his defensive resources. Nevertheless it seems that Vogt's recommendation of
7...e5 8 'ii'a4 i.c5 is quite comfortable for
Black (8 ...i.e7 may be less so after 9 i.xf6!?
i.xf6 10 0-0-0 a6 11 tDf3, threatening 12
13

The Veresov

i..bS, as in the game Muratov-Umansky,

Moscow 1989), for example 9 0-0-0 0-0 10
lLldS (10 i..bS is answered by 1O ...'irb6, after
which 11 i..xd7 i.xd7 12 ':xd7 lLlxd7 13
'ii'xd7 i..xgl leaves White the exchange
down) 1O... i.e7 11 lLlxf6+ (11 lLlxe7+ 'ii'xe7
12 lLlf3 'iVe6 also seems fine) 11...~xf6 12
i.e3 i.gS 13 'iVa3 i..xe3+ 14 'iVxe3 'ilVaS and
Black was at least equal in JuergensSchlaeger, Bundesliga 1990.

A better try is 12.. :iVb6 when White must

play 13 i.h6 (the bishop is less potent here
than on f6) to maintain the pressure. 13
'ii'xb6 i..xc3+ 14 bxc3 axb6 lS i..h6 f6 followed by 16 .. .'iitf7 sees Black fighting back.
13 'ifxcs lLlxcS 14 0-0-0 iLd7 1S iLf6

Putting Black in a horrible bind.

1s ... iLc6 16 lLlgS!? h6 17 lLlh7 lLld7 18
l:!.hf1 iLxg2?!

8 eS! e6

In his notes Vogt claimed that 8... 'ii'xe5+

was poor in view of 9 'ii'xeS lLlxeS 10 lLlbS
but, on closer examination, this is not so
clear. Black can defend with 10...<iti'd8, after
which 11 i..f4 (11 0-0-0+ i..d7 was fine for
Black in a game Svobodova-Gonzalez Garcia, Budapest 1995) l1...lLlg6 12 i..c7+ 'it>d7
13 lLlf3 gives White what looks like good
compensation for the pawn. Whether this
can be defined as an advantage remains to be
seen.
9 iLbS iLb4

Here Vogt claimed that 9...lLldS 10 0-0-0

was also a clearly better for Wbite, but this is
probably nothing more than a slight edge in
the endgame after 10... a6 11 i.xd7+ i..xd7
12 lLlxdS exdS 13 'ii'xdS 'ii'xdS 14 llxdS. I
think White's advantage in development and
control of the d-ftle will slightly outweigh
Black's bishop pair.
10 exf6 'ii'xbS 11 fxg7 ':g8 12 lLlf3

This should have lost on the spot. Vogt

pointed out that Black had to play 18... .i.e7,
when 19 g3 lLlxf6 20 lLlxf6+ i..xf6 21 ':xf6
.l:!.xg7 22 l:.xh6 leaves him a pawn down but
with some drawing chances.
19 :lf4?

Missing an immediate win with 19 lLlbS!

nc8 20 :f4 i..cs 21 .l:!.c4 which threatens 22
.l:f.xcS followed by 23 lLld6 mate. And if
White does not land a heavy blow soon, one
starts to wonder about the position of his
knight on h7 ...
19 ... iLcs 20 '>iib1 a6 21 l:Z.d3?!

A further slip after which White is struggling to draw. He should probably play 21
lLle4, although this still looks promising for
Black after 21...i..xe4 22 .l:!.xe4 i..e7 due to
White's badly placed knight and the passed
centre pawns.
21 ... i.c6 22 lLle4 iLxe4 23 ':xe4 i.e7!
24 iLd4 f6 2S .l:l.g3

12 .. JWcS
14

And not 2S .l:!.xe6 because 2S ....l:!.xg7 26

lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 27 ~xf6 .l:!.g1+ would result in
mate.

3 .. .ti:Jbd7 4 f3
25 .. .'~f7 26 l:teg4 e5 27 .i.c3 f5 28 l:tg6
liJf6 29 liJxf6 .ixf6 30 l:txh6 l:tae8

Black is now playing for the win.

30.J:txg7? would allow White to escape with
31 l:txf6+! ..ti>xf6 32 i..xeS+ <it>xeS 33 l:txg7
with a drawish rook endgame.
31 a4 l:txg7 32 l:txg7+ ~xg7 33 l:th3 f4
34 ~c1 '>fi'g6 35 ~d1 ~5 36 '>fi'e2 .i.g5
37 l:th7 84 38 h4

A move in the style of the BlackmarDiemer Gambit! White offers a pawn to

accelerate his development and drive a wedge
into Black's position. 6 dxcS is well met by
6...WaS.
6 ... exf3

Accepting the gambit. There are also a

couple of ways to decline White's offer:
a) 6...WaS 7 Wd2
i.xf6 exf6!) 7...a6
In the event of 38 lIxb7 there follows
exB 8 4:JxB a6 9 0-0-0 bS 10 ~b1 i.b7
38... 3+ 39 ~f2 ~g4 etc.
11 i.xf6 4:Jxf6 12 We3 gave White good
38 ... .i.87 39 h5 f3+ 40 'it;f2 .i.c5+ 41
compensation
in
Mertanen-Seppanen,
Finland 1992, and after 7...e3 8 i.xe3 g6 9
\1>g3 .i.d6+ 42 ~h4
After 42 ~f2 Black wins with 42...i.c5+ 0-0-0 i.g7 10 i.h6 0-0 11 h4 White's attack
looked the more dangerous in Johnsen43 <it>g3 l:tg8+ 44 :g7 l:[xg7+ 4S i.xg7 f2 46
Volodin, Prague 1996) 8 fxe4 bS 9 i.xf6
..t>g2 e3 47 ~f1 ~g4 etc.
42 ....te5! 43 ':'xb7 .i.xc3 44 bxc3 e3 45
4:Jxf6 10 eS 4:Jg4 11 4:JB (11 Wf4 is strongly
met by 11...1i'b4! as in Ehrke-W.Hartmann,
~g3 82 46 l:tf7 + ~e6 0-1
Bad Neuenahr 1984) 11...g612 d6 i.e6 was
Game 5
approximately equal in Keller-Hartmann,
H.Kuijf-Hoeksema
Krumbach 1981.
The Netherlands 1987
b) 6...e3 7 'ir'd3!? (7 i.xe3 4:Jb6 8 i.xcs
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 4:JbxdS was approximately equal in Stawski1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 liJbd7 4 f3
Alien, Gold Coast Open, Australia 1999)
7...g6 8 'ii'xe3 i.g7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 h4 hS 11
c5!? 5 e4!?
The most logical response, stepping up
g4 gave White a promising attack in
the intensity of the battle for the centre. S Duckworth-Stein, USA 1996.
c) 6...a6 seems well met by 7 Wd2, intenddxcS is featured in Wockenfuss-Timman.
ingO-O-O.
5 ... dxe4
7liJxf3
S...cxd4 is a popular alternative which is
White can also play 7 'iWxB, after which
examined within the game Bellon Lopez7...g6
h6 8 i.h4 gS 9 i.g3 a6 10 0-0-0
Keene.
i..g7 11 d6 gave White a dangerous initiative
6 d5!?

r ...

r-----------------.

r ...

15

The Veresov

in Pasman-Lau, Skien 1979) 8 0-0-0 ~g7 9

d6!? (I think this looks stronger than 9 .i.bs,
e.g. 9...0-0 10 d6lLles 11 dxe7 "xe7 12lLlds
lLlxds 13 .i.xe7 - Keller-Till, Bayem 1999 and now 13....i.h6+ 14 ~bl lLlxf3 15 .i.xf8
lLld2+ would be at least equal) 9... 0-0 10 dxe7
'iWxe7 IllLlds gives a dangerous attack.
I also think that 7 'iWd2!? is worth considering as after 7... fxg2 8 'iWxg2 White has very
rapid development and open lines.
7 ... g6
After 7...a6 I suggest that White plays 8
'iWe2!? intending 0-0-0, supporting the e4square for his knight and preparing ds-d6 in
some circumstances.
8'ilfd2

White's idea is simple: castle queenside

and launch a devastating attack on the enemy
king. Another interesting possibility is 8 a4
~g7 9 as which prevents Black's two main
tries for counterplay with ...lLld7-b6 or ... a7a6 and ... b7-bs. Heyken-Sosnicki, Pardubice
1996 continued 9...0-0 10 ~c4 h6 11 .i.h4
lLle8 12 'iWe2 gs 13 .i.g3 lLld6 14 0-0 when
it's not easy for Black to free his position.
8 ...iLg7 9 0-0-0
The immediate 9 ~h6 is also possible.
9 ... 0-0
9... h6 10 i.f4 menaces ds-d6 and leaves
Black temporarily unable to castle in view of
the weakness of the h6-pawn.
10 i.h6
It is always a key idea to eliminate Black's
16

dark-squared fianchettoed bishop as a prelude to a kingside pawn storm. Another possibility is 10 d6!? exd6 (1O... e6!?) 11 1i'xd6
'iVb6 12 .ibs which left White with some
pressure for the pawn in Mateuta-Istrate,
Tusnad 1997.
10 ...J:e8 11 i.xg7 \t>xg7 12 h4
Threatening to rip Black's kingside apart
with 13 hs. Black's next move prevents this,
but by doing so he creates a new weakness
ong6.
12... h5 13 'ifg5 a6 14 i.d3 b5 15 liJe2
:th8
Black should have played lS ...c4, after
which White would continue his attack with
16 .if5 (the immediate 16 .i.xg6 does not
work because of 16... fxg6 17 lLlf4 lLlfS) and
after 16...lLlb6 play 17 .ie6 with strong
threats.
16liJf4 J:h6
The point of Black's previous move. Unfortunately he missed something...
17 i.xg6! J:xg6 18 'ifxg6+! 1-0

Black probably missed this when he

played his 15th move. After 18... fxg6 19
lLle6+ White wins material.

Game 6
Bellon Lopez-Keene
Dortmund 1980
1 liJc3 d5 2 d4 liJf6 3 i.g5 liJbd7 4 f3 c5
5 e4 cxd4

3 .. .ti'Jbd7 4 '3
8 liJd5

This is a major alternative to 5... dxe4,

which was dealt with in previous games.
6 'if'xd4

And this is another parting of the ways.

For 6 .ltxf6 see Ranniku-Bulinova.
6 ... e5 7 'ifa4
It's now too late to interpose the capture
on f6. 7 .ltxf6 leaves White much worse after
7...exd4 8 .ltxd8 dxc3 9 .lta5 cxb2 10 1:[b 1
dxe4 thanks to his weak pawns.
7 ... d4

The immediate 8 .ltxf6 is interesting, for

example 8...'ii'xf6! (8 ...gxf6 9 ttJd5 .lth6 10
'ii'a3 left Black in trouble because of his
pawn weaknesses in Steinberg-Stummer,
Budapest 1993) 9 tLld5 'ii'd8 10 f4!? ~c5 11
tLlf3 0-0 12 0-0-0 and now 12...exf4 (rather
than 12...a6 13 fxeS ttJxeS 14 tLlxd4 .ltg4, as
played in Shteinberg-Anka, Balatonbereny
1993) 13 tLlxd4 tLlb6 is probably Black's best,
when he has a clear advantage.
8 ... i.e7 9 liJxe7
Securing the 'advantage' of the two bishops, although in this position they are not
very effective. Once again White has tried
capturing on f6, though once again with relatively little effect: Moreno Ruiz-Kolev, Vilanova 1993 went 9 ~xf6 .ltxf6 10 "a3 (10
tLle2 0-0 11 tLlc1 ttJb6 12 tLlxb6 'ii'xb6 was
better for Black in Alekseev-Akimov,
Togliatty 2001, due to the potential pressure
Black has on the c-file against the c2-pawn)
1O... .lte7 11 tLlxe7'ii'xe7 12'ii'xe7+ rJ/;xe7 13
~c4 tLlb6 14 .ltb3 as and the pressure on
the c-fIle left Black better in Moreno RuizKolev, Vilanova 1993.
9 ... 'ifxe7 10 liJe2

White has also played 10 ~d2 0-0 11 .ltb4

but this favours Black after 11...tLlc5 12 "a3
b6 13 .ltxcs bxcS 14 .ltd3 'ii'c7 15 b3 .lte6
(intending ... c5-c4), as in Zappas-Carvajal,
Tel Aviv 1964.
10... h6 11 i.d20-0 12 g4!?

Black can also play 7... dxe4 but he would

certainly have to be careful after 8 O-O-O!? (8
ttJxe4 .lte7 9 .ltxf6 gxf6 brought about a
complex position in Nieminen-Issakainen,
Finland 1999) 8...~e 7 (8... exf3 9 tLlxf3,
threatening 10 .ltb5, would be far too risky
for Black) 9 .ltb5 a6 10 ~xf6 hf6 11 tLlxe4
iLe7 12 tLle2 l:tb8 13 iLxd7+ iLxd7 14 'ifb3
intending 15 ttJ2c3 and 16 ttJd5.

17

The Veresov

A risky but entetpnsmg continuation

which invites complications. After the sensible 12 It)g3 Black is probably slighdy better,
for example H.Kuijf-Hoeksema, Holland
1996 continued 12...lt)cs 13 'ifa3 Jte6 14
.te2 .l:.fc8 15 0-0 'i'd7 16 .l:Hdl 'ifa4 with
some pressure on the queenside.
12 ...lOb6?!
In his notes to the game GM Raymond
Keene suggested 12...lt)cs! 13 'iVa3 .i.xg4!?
14 fxg4lt)fxe4, but this is far from clear after
15 .tb4, for example Is ...lt)d3+ 16 cxd3
"'4+ 17 It)g3 It)xg3 18 .i.e7 with complex
play.
13.b4 'WIe7 141Og31Oe8 15 e4 i.e6 16
.a5 lOd7 17 'ilfa3 lOd6!? 18:e 1 ?

White should accept the exchange sacrifice offered by Black's previous move by
playing 18 .tb4! It)c8 (not 18...lt)xc4 19
llc1!) 19 .txf8 It)xf8 although, admittedly,
Black gets good compensation in the form of
his passed d-pawn and the fact that his
knight on f8 is en route for f4. Now Black
gets his positional superiority at zero cost.
18 ... b6 19 h4 f6 20 lOf5 lOxf5 21 gxf5
i.f7 22 b3 i.h5 23 ..ti2 a5 24 i.e2 lOe5
25 :eg1 'ith7 26 :g2 'ifb7 27 :hg1 :g8
28 :e1 :ad8 29 'iVe1? i.xf3!
This neat tactic finishes matters quickly.
30 'itxf3
Not 30 .txf3 in view of 30...lt)d3+ etc.
30 ...lDxe4 31 i.xh6 gxh6 32 :g6 :xg6
33 fxg6+ 'itg7 34 i.d1 lLle5+ 0-1
18

Game 7
Ranniku-Bulinova
USSR Women's Ch., Sochi 1971
1 lOe3 d5 2 d4 lOf6 3 i.g5 lObd7 4 f3 e5
5 e4 exd4 6 i.xf6

This zwischenzug aims to improve

White's chances in comparison with 6 'iVxd4
es by denying Black the possibility of ... e7-es.
6 ... gxf6?!
A controversial if not downright dubious
decision. Black compromises his pawn strucrure for no particularly good reason and he
should probably give preference to one of
the alternatives:
a) 6...lt)xf6 seems to be fine for Black after
7 'iixd4 dxe4 8 Jtb5+ (after 8 'ii'xd8+ ~d8
9 0-0-0+ ~c7 10 Jtc4 e6 Black's king is safe
and his bishop pair might become significant) 8... .td7 9 O-O-O? (9 'iVes might be relatively best, after which Black played it safe
with 9...'iib8 10 Jtxd7+ It)xd7 11 'iVxe4 'iVes
in G.Portisch-Szeberenyi, Hungary 2000,
while 9... e6!? and 9... exf3 could be considered
in this line) 9....txbs 10 It)xbs 'iVxd4 11
.l:.xd4 es (after 11....l:.c8 12 It)xa7 es White
should play 13 It)xc8 exd4 14 fxe4 It)xe4 15
It)f3 with approximate equality) 12 ':c4 (12
It)c7+ ~e7 13 It)d5+ is equal according to
Alburt, presumably on the basis that the
game is about to end in a draw by repetition,
but I don't see why Black shouldn't take a

3 .. .liJbd7 4 (3

pawn with 13...'iti'd6 14 :dl exH etc.)

12...l:r.d8 13 fxe4 a6 14lUc7+ (14lUc3 b5 15
:'c6 b4 16 lUa4 lUxe4 17 lUf3 was VoglerMuench, Germany 1996, and now 17.. .f6 18
llxa6 lUc5 19 lUxc5 ~xc5 would have left
Black with an edge because of his superior
pawn structure) 14.. .'~d7 15 lUH ~d6 and
White was struggling to rescue his errant
knight in Vogler-Friedrich, Wiesbaden 1993.
b) 6...dxc3 7 ~xc3 dxe4 8 fxe4 e6 also
seems to be quite playable for Black, for example 9 lUH (White has nothing special after
other moves: 9 'ii'H 'i'h4+ 10 g3 'i'h6 was
played in G.Portisch-Tunik, Budapest 1992,
and 9 'i'h5 'Wb6 10 0-0-0 'ii'c5 11 'ifg4 h5
appeared in Heyken-Chernyshov, Pardubice
1996, with good play for Black in both cases)
9... f6! 10 ~c4 (10 'ii'd2 is an alternative)
10...'iib6 l1lUd4lUe5 12 ~b5+ 'iti'fl 13 'iie2
a6 14 ~a4 ~b4! 15 0-0 ~c5 16 l:lad1 ':'d8
17 'iid2lUc4 18 'ifd3 ':'xd4! 19 ~xd4lUxb2!
20 ~e8+ (20 ~xc5 'ii'xc5+ 21 'ii'd4 lUxa4!)
20...'iti'xe8 21 .i.xc5 'ii'xc5+ 22 'iid4lUa4 and
Black had a decisive material advantage in
D.McDonald-Gallagher, Hastings 1991/92.
c) 6...exf6 7 lUxd5 ~c5 (Vogler-Doery,
Wiesbaden 1990) might also be playable despite the weak d-pawn. Black has quick development and may be able to cause \Vhite
some problems in view of the weaknesses on
the dark squares.
7 "xd4 dxe4 S 0-0-0

the pawn. White's huge lead in development

is becoming a serious problem.
S .....b6
Hoping in vain for the exchange of
queens. Treppner-Kyas, Bundesliga 1995
varied at this point with 8... a6, but then
\Vhite still had massive pressure after 9 ~c4
~h6+ 10 Wbl 0-0 11 'ii'xe4 e6 12 g4, threatening 13 ~d3. I think that Black should develop his kingside with 8...~g7, albeit with
an unappealing position.
9 'iVxe4 lUe5 10 'ilh4
Further hindering Black's development by
preventing him from moving the e-pawn.
10 ... .i.d7 11 .i.c4 lUa4 12 lUxa4 .i.xa4
13lUh3
Still pursuing his policy of fast development. 13 ~xfl+ Wxfl 14 'iixa4 wins a pawn
but allows Black to develop after 14... ~h6+.
13 ... .i.b5 14 .i.b3 .i.g7 1511he1 lldS

This loses, but it's hard to suggest a move

for Black.
16 llxdS+ "xdS
After 16...'Wti>xd8 17 ~xfl White threatens
lUh3-f4-e6.
17 'ilh5 1-0
White is hitting f5 and b5.

Game 8

Wockenfuss-Timman
Bad Lauterberg 1977
There is no particular hurry to recapture

1 d4 lUf6 2 lUe3 d5 3 .i.g5 lUbd7 4 f3 e5

19

The Veresov

5 dxc5!?

Black meets 7 e4 with 7...e6, once again

emphasising rapid development.
7 ... e5!?

Less thematic than 5 e4 but not necessarily weaker. White wants to win a pawn.
5 .. jIVa5

It could be that the simple 5... e6 1S

stronger, for example:
a) 6 b4 is met by 6... h6! 7 i..M b6 8 c6 (8
e4 bxc5 9 exd5 cxb4 10 lDe4 'iVa5 11 dxe6
fxe6 12 i..d3 ttJd5 was complex but better
for Black in Heyken-Chernikov, Ceske Budejovice 1995) 8...lDe5 9 a3 (after 9 b5 i..b4 10
"fid4 ttJc4 11 .:fobl ~c5 we see the point of
driving White's bishop back to M - the e3
square is very weak) 9...ttJxc6 10 e4 g5 11
i..b5 i..d7 12 exd5 lDxd5 13 ttJxd5 gxh4 14
lDe3 'lWf6 and Black had the initiative in
Chiricuta-Kupreichik, Dresden 1969.
b) 6 e4 i..xc5 7 exd5 (7 ttJh3 d4 8 lDa4
"fia5+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 ttJxc3 0-0 11 "ii'a4 "ii'xa4
12 lDxa4 i..d4 13 0-0-0 e5 left White struggling for equality in Heyken-Stripunsh.-y,
Ceske Budejovice 1995) 7..."iVb6 8 ttJa4 (8
dxe6 ~f2+ 9 ~e2 ~xgl 10 exd7+ i..xd7 0-1
was Meijer-Vajda, Groningen 1997) 8...'iVa5+
9 c3 ~xgl 10.:foxgl and now 1O... b5 is a very
risky way to win a piece, but the alternative
10... ttJxd5 is much safer.
Perhaps the critical line is 6 b4 b6 7 e4.
6 i.xf6 ttJxf6

6... exf6 7 a3 "fixc5 8 "ii'xd5 left Black with

inadequate compensation for his pawn in
Rossetto-Reshevsky, Mar del Plata 1966.
7 'iVd4

20

A very sharp move, giving up a pawn to

gain more time for development and to prevent White from supporting his c5-pawn
with b2-b4. A couple of alternatives have
been tried:
a) 7... e6 8 b4 'iVd8 9 e4 i..e7 10 i..b5+
i..d7 was played in Mestrovic-Janosevic,
Sarajevo 1967, and now best is 11 i..xd7+ (in
the game White's 11 e5 was met by the nonchalant 11...0-0, after which 12 exf6 ~xf6 13
"ii'd2 i..xb5 would have won back the piece
with an immensely powerful pair of bishops)
11...'iVxd7 12 l1dl and it's not easy for Black
to find compensation for the pawn.
b) 7... i.d7 8 e3 (8 b4 'iVc7 9 lDxd5 ttJxd5
10 'it'xd5 as gave Black very strong play in
1996)
Rabinowitz-Shapiro,
Philadelphia
8...:c8 9 b4 'iVa3 10 l:tbl b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12
~d2 e6 13 J::l.b3 'iHa7 and Black had excellent
compensation for the pawn in Espig-Vogt,
Weimar 1968.
8 'iVxe5+ i.e6 9 e4

White steps up the tension in the centre

and threatens 10 i..b5+ but his development
isn't good enough for him to launch an attack. It might be better to play the quiet 9 e3,
which gives White much more control of the
dark squares. Khachian-Minasian, Yerevan
1994 continued 9...0-0-0 10 lDge2 i..xc5 11
lDd4 i..d6 12 ii'g5 h6 13 "ii'M g5 14 'lWf2

3 .. .lobd7 4 (3

i.a3 15 ltJb3 and now in my view Black

should have sacrificed his queen with
15... i.xb2, after which 16 ltJxa5 i.xc3+ followed by 17...i.xa1 leaves him with good
compensation for the queen. In the game he
played 15...'iib4 and was worse after 16 bxa3
'ili'xc3+ 17 'iWd2 'ii'xd2+ 18 ~xd2 followed by
ltJb3-d4. Also good is 9...i.xc5 as in Przewoznik-Tomaszewski, Polish Ch. 1980,
which saw Black recover his pawn after 10
i.b5+ ~f8 11 ltJge2 a6 12 i.d311e8 13 0-0
i.d7 14 'i!kg3 i.xe3+ 15 ~hl g6 and now
White's best is probably 16ltJd1.
9 ... i.xc5!?
Another possibility is 9... 0-0-0 but Timman's move is much crisper.

doesn't mention 16 i.d3 but Black's a-pawn

will be dangerous after 16.. Jhe5 17 :xe5
"xb2) 16 .. :iVxfl and Black has a continuing
attack for the piece while White still can't
develop his king's knight.
10...~f8!

After 10... ~e7 Black's king is much more

vulnerable and the bishop on e6 pinned.

11 0-0-0

10 i.b5+?!

This turns out badly but White's position

looks unenviable in any case. The alternative
is 10 0-0-0, when Gallagher gives some long
and complex variations which look good for
Black: 10...0-0 (in N.Cummings-Dive, New
Zealand 1996 Black played the simpler
10...0-0-0 and after 11 i.b5 a6 12 exd5 ltJxd5
13 ltJxd5 i.xd5 14 c4 axb5 15 cxd5 'ii'xa2
had strong threats such as 16...11he8 and
16... b4) 11 exd5 i.xd5 12 ltJxd5 (12 :Xd5
ltJxd5 13 "xd5 l:tad8 14 'iib3 is answered by
14...i.xgl! 15 ':'xgl 'ii'g5+ 16 ~b1 "e3,
winning on the spot) 12...ltJxd5 13 ':'xd5 (13
'ili'xd5 i.e3+ 14 ~bl l:lad8! etc.) 13.....xa2
14 ':'xc5 'ii'a1+ (after 14...':'fe8 White has 15
l:ta5) 15 'iti>d2 ltfe8 16 'ii'g3 (Gallagher

After 11 ltJge2 a6 12 i.d3 (or 12 i.a4

dxe4) 12... dxe4 Black threatens 13...1.2+.
Black is also better after 11 exd5 ltJxd5 12
ltJge2 a6 13 0-0-0 i.e3+ 14 c;!;>bl axb5 (and
not 14...ltJxc3+? 15 ltJxc3 axb5 16 "xe3 b4
17 ltJe4 'ili'xa2+ 18 'it'd because White's king
runs away) 15 llxd5 i.xd5 16 'i!kxd5 b4 with
an extra exchange.
11 ... i.e3+! 12 ~b1 d4 13 "ii'd6+

13 'ii'c5+ is no better after 13. ..'iitg8 14

ltJd5 i.xd5 15 exd5 a6 etc.
21

The Veresov

13 ... litg8 14 b4 "ii'a3 15lL1d5

thanks to his space and better bishop.

White cannot play the alternative 15 ~xd4

because of 15 ..."ii'c1 mate, and after 15lLlge2
there follows 15 ... dxc3! 16 lLlxc3 ii'xc3 17
"itd8+ lLle8 18 "ir'xa8 ifxb4+ 19 <it?a1 i.d4+
20 l:txd4 "ii'xd4+ 21 c;tJb1 iib4+ and
22...ifxb5.

6 ... c6 7 0-0-0 b5 8 e5 lLIg8 9 lLIh3 lLIb6

10 ii.d3 a5 11 f4 a4 12 .l:!.hf1 lLIc4 13
ii.xc4 bxc4 14 a3 ~b6 15 lLIe2?!

15 ... lLIxd5 16 exd5 ii.f5 17 lLIe2

Neither of the lines 17 i.d3 as! nor 17

i.c4 d3! 18 cxd3 .i.d4 19 ~d2 "il'c3 would
save White.
17 ... a5 18 lLIxd4 axb4 19 ii.c4 ii.xd4 20
'!::'xd4 ii.xc2+! 21 Iitxc2 b3+ 0-1

Game 9

Alburt-Kapengut
USSRCh., Baku 1972
1 d4 lLIf6 2 lLIc3 d5 3 ii.g5 lLIbd7 4 f3 e6

A stronger line of play is 15 i.xe7 lLlxe7

16 lLla2! when White can block the b-ftle
with lLla2-b4.
15 .. J1b8 16 "ii"c3 h5 17l:tde1 h4!

Threatening ... fl -f6.

18 f5?!

Attempting to take the initiative but this

doesn't get enough compensation for the
pawn. The simple 18 i.xe7 is better.
18 ... exf5 19 lLIef4 ii.e6 20 ii.xe7 lLIxe7
21 lLIg5 J:.h6

And not 21...<it?d7? in view of 22 lLlxfl!

i.xfl 23 e6+ with a strong attack.

A solid move which steers the game along

the lines of the French Defence. White has
lost time with 2-f3 but Black's knight on d7
is poorly placed and takes away a square
from the one on f6.
5 e4 ii.e7 6 "ii"d2
Another possibility is 6 e5 lLlg8, e.g. 7 f4!?
i.xg5 8 fxg5 'ii'xg5 9 lLlf3 "ii'e3+ 10 i.e2
(intending lLlb5) 1O ... a6 11 a4! lLle7 12 ~a3
ii'h6 13 0-0 lLlf5 14 ~e 1 0-0 15 i.d3 which
gave White attacking chances for the pawn in
Lombard-Masic, Reggio Emilia 1971. A sensible way of playing it is 7 Ji.xe 7 lLlxe 7 8 f4
with what is probably a slight edge for White

22

22 .l:!.d1 lLIc8 23 Iitb1 lLIa7 24 lita1 "ii"d8

25 lLIgxe6 fxe6 26 lLIe2 lLIb5 27 "ii"f3
"ii"e7 28 'itta2 Iitd7 29 l:tb1 :g6 30 h3
"ii"g5 31 lLIf4 .l:!.h6 32 "ii"e3 ~e7 33 .l:!.fd1
l:tb7 34 "ii"e1 "ii"g5 35 "ii"d2 'ii'g3 36 lLIe2!
~g6 37 lLIf4 ~e8 38 ~b4 ~b8!?

This gives Black an attack, though it's not

necessary to return the pawn. With 38 ..."ii'a8
Black maintains a big advantage.
39 "ifxa4 ~f8 40 c3 na7?
It would have been better to play 40 ...g5!

41 lLle2 I:.a7 42 1ib4 ifa8, threatening

43 ....l:!.h8 followed by 44... ~b8.
41 "ii"b4 'ii'a8?!

Black finds it difficult to give up his

dreams of mate. He should settle for

3 .. .tiJbd7 4 (3

41...'ilfxb4! 42 cxb4 g5 (42...c3? 43 ~b3 cxb2

44 a4! followed by liJf4-d3-c5) 43 liJe2 l:[h8
when Black has a slight edge in what is
probably a drawish endgame.

45 ...:a4 46 'ii'c5 "a7 47 'ii'f8 c5! 48

:c1! :xa3+ 49 bxa3 'ii'xa3+ % -%

Came 10
Czerniak-Hamann
Buenos Aires 1947
1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 .tg5 liJbd7 4 f3 h6

42 g4! g5

After 42... hxg3 there would follow 43 ngl

g5 44 l%.xg3! g4 (44...gxf4 45 .l:!g7+ wins
Black's queen) 45 hxg4 :h2 46 ng211xg2 47
liJxg2 fxg4 48 liJf4, threatening to bring the
knight to f6 via h5.
43 gxf5!

And not 43 liJh5 lIa4 44 "c5 :a5 45

<;!tal (45 'ilfb4 c5! 46 dxc5 'iitc6 followed by
47 ...lIa4 wins the queen) 45 ...~e8!, threatening 46 ...liJxa3.
43 ... gxf4 44 :g1 l:lh7 45 :g6!

This last precise move secures the draw.

After 45 f6 lIa4 46 "c5 :a5 47 'ii'b4 Black
can once again trap White's queen with
47...c5 48 dxc5 ~c6 etc.

5.txf6!?

White gives up the bishop pair but gains

time. 5 ~h4 c5 is very similar to 4...c5 and
possibly even better for Black than those
lines because White's dark-squared bishop is
further from the queenside. Play might continue 6 e4 (or 6 dxc5, when Black's best may
be 6... e6 - as pointed out within the Wockenfuss-Timman game) 6...cxd4 7 J.xf6 exf6?!
(capturing with the knight or on c3 are quite
playable with very similar play to that seen in
the note to Black's sixth move in RannikuBulinova) 8 "xd4 ~c5 9 'ilfxd5 ~xgl
(9 ...'ilfb6 10 0-0-0 ~xgl 11 ~b5 J.e3+ 12
~b 1 0-0 13 i.xd7 l:[d8 was suggested by
Djukic and Illic, but 14 ~xc8! lhd5 15
liJxd5 looks good for White) 10 ~c4 0-0 11
lIxg1 and Black had inadequate compensation for his pawn in Maksimovic-Geller, Nis
1977.
A more interesting retreat of the bishop is
5 ~f4 (threatening 6liJb5), when 5...c6 6 e4
e6 7 e5 liJg8 left White ahead in development in Meijer-Fontaine, Brussels 2000. He
should probably now play 8 i.e3 (in the

23

The Veresov

game he played the apparently less accurate 8

'iVd2) when B. ..liJe7 9 f4leaves White with a
useful looking space advantage. It's not clear
to me that Black has as much counterplay
here as in the similar positions arising from
the Classical French.
5 ... ~xf6 6 e4 dxe4?!

Unless Black can counter-attack White's

pawn centre with either ...c7 -cS or ...e7 -es he
should not surrender the centre like this. A
better continuation is 6... e6, e.g. 7 'iVd3 (7 es
liJd7 8 f4 cs 9 liJf3 is also worth considering)
7...j"e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 f4 cs 10 dxcs!? ~xcs
11 'iotb 1?! (11 .te2 is safer) 11...liJg4 12 liJh3
ttJe3 13 .l:!.e1 d4 14 ttJd1 ~as 15 .te2 .l:!.d8
16 g4 and now 16...es should be tried as
16... j"d7 17 gs hxgs 18 liJxgs was very dangerous for Black in Sasu Ducsoara-Jovanovic, Banja Dvorovi 2000.
7 fxe4 c6 8 ~f3 "a5 9 'ifd2 ~e6 10
~d3

Steadily marshalling his forces behind the

broad pawn centre.
10 ... g6 11 0-0 J:.d8 12 b4
Gaining time on the queen and ruling out

24

a possible ...c6-cs.
12 .....c7
After 12...'ii'xb4 13 .l:!.ab1 'i'as 14 ':xb7
White wins his pawn back and has the initiative.
13 e5 ~d7
Or 13 ...liJds 14liJe4 and White is ready to
eject Black's knight from ds with 15 c4.
14 ~e2 ~b6 15lbf4 i.g4?

Given the strength of White's next move

Black had to protect the bishop with
1s ... 'i'c8.
16 e6!
Shattering Black's defences.
16 ... i.xe6 17 ~xe6 fxe6 18 ~e5!
More accurate than the immediate capture
on g6. White prevents his opponent's king
from running away via d7.
18 .. .J:~d5
Black is forced to surrender material.
19 .bg6+ Iti>d8 20 ~f7+ ~d7 21 ~xh8
~g7 22 c3 i.xh8 23 :U8 i.f6 24 ~e8+
Iti>d6 25 'ii'f4+ 1-0
After 2s ... es there follows 26 ':xf6+ exf6
27 'iVxf6 mate.

3 .. Jijbd7 4 f3
Summary

The fact that 4 f3 has been White's main line has done much to damage the reputation of the
Veresov. The play is tricky and intricate but if Black knows what he's doing his chances are
rather promising.
After 4... c6 White could and should escape into Chapter 2 with 5 'iVd2, but 4 ... c5(!) deprives
him of this option. I suppose that against a nervous opponent 4 f3 might be worth a try for its
psychological value alone. But even Black's quiet options (4...e6 and 4... h6) don't look too bad.
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 lLlbd7 4 f3 (D) c5
4... c6
5 'ii'd2 - Game 12
5 e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 (D)
6 ...eS - Game 1; 6 ...'iWb6 - Game 2; 6 ...'iVaS - Game 3
4... e6 - Game 9
4...h6 - Game 10
5 e4 (D)
5 dxcS - Game 8

5 ... dxe4
5... cxd4
6 'iVxd4 - Game 6; 6 SL.xf6 - Game 7
6 d5 - Game 5
6 fxe4 - Game 4

4 f3

6 fxe4

5e4

25

CHAPTER TWO

3 ... ltJbd7:
4 "iVd2 and 4 iVd3

1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 i.g5 liJbd7

By moving his queen to d2 or d3 White

prepares to castle queenside. Meanwhile he
hasn't forgotten about playing for e2-e4, the
usual follow up to 4 'iVd2 being 2-f3 and e2e4. On d3 White's queen supports the e2-e4
advance directly and he might play this either
with or without a preliminary tt'lgl-f3. This
means that the lines here can also be reached
by transposition from 4lLlf3.
In Game 11 Black meets White's 4 'iVd2
with 4...cS, which is well worth comparing
with 4 f3 cS. As the position arising from the
moves 4 f3 c6 5 'ifd2 can also be reached via
4 'iVd2 c6 5 f3 the choice between these two
orders of moves is largely dependent on this
comparison. I suspect that 4 'Wd2 is the more
promising of the two, although my 'seat of
the pants' judgement may not last the test of
time.

Game 12 does in fact feature 4 'iVd2 c6 5

f3, but White plays the innocuous 7 ttJxe4. It
looks more interesting to play 5 O-O-O!? or 6
O-O-O!?, although these can involve a sacrifice
of White's a2-pawn. Khachian seems quite
happy doing this and White does obtain attacking chances, but whether this is totally
sound is another question entirely...
As usual 4... e6 is a sound reply and White
can easily get into trouble if he doesn't react

26

energetically. In Game 13 (SmimovYagupov) White was in trouble until his opponent lost the plot and finally produced an
astonishing blunder. But 7 lLlf3 is a definite
improvement for White.
4 'Wd3 makes a lot of sense, but White
might be well advised to first play 4 tt'lf3 and
see Black's fourth move before deciding
whether or not to commit his queen to this
square. The reason is that this doesn't look
very promising for White after either 4... h6
(Rossetto-Darga) or 4... e6 (Smyslov-Geller)
but causes Black some problems after 4...g6
(Donev-Zlatilov)
and
4...c6
(AlburtZilberstein, Miles-Watson and Ben Menachem-Boric).

Game 11
Reprintsev-Evelev

Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999

1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 i.g5 liJbd7 4 'ifd2

An interesting move. Rather than play the

immediate 4 f3 and get hit by a central
counter-attack, White first develops his
queen and prepares to castle long.
4 ... c5!?
A sharp response which steers the game
into unknown territory. For 4... c6 see De
Souza Haro-Vescovi, and for 4... e6 see Smir-

3 .. Ji:Jbd7 4 'Wd2 and 4 'iid3

nov-Yagupov.

5 dxc5 e6 6 e4!?
It's worth noting that White has achieved
this thematic breakthrough without having to
prepare it with f2-f3.
6 ... dxe4 7 0-0-0

It was also worth considering 7 i.bs!?, after which an independent possibility is 7...a6
(7 ...i.xcs 8 0-0-0 would lead us back to the
game) 8 .i.xd7+ i.xd7 9 0-0-0 .i.c6! 10 'iff4
'i!ib8 and White may have trouble equalising
due to the strength of Black's light-squared
bishop. Alternatively, after 9 .i.xf6 Wxf6 10
0-0-0 Black can also play 10... .i.c6, when 11
l2Jxe4 'iffS 12 lLld6+?! i.xd6 13 iVxd6 loses
material after 13...Wg5+ followed by capturingong2.
7 ... i.xc5 8 i.b5 O-O!
An excellent counter, temporarily parting
with a piece for development.

9 i.xf6 'iixf6 10 tiJxe4

After 10 i.xd7?! l::td8 11 lLlxe4 'i'es 12
lLlxcs 'ii'xcs Black recovers the piece with a
slight edge. His bishop will be marginally
stronger than White's knight.
10 .. :.e5! 11 'iie2 tiJf6 12 tiJxc5 'iVxc5
13 tiJf3 b6
Black can also play 13...a6 14 .i.d3 .i.d7,
which looks more or less equal.
14 We5 tiJd5?!
This attempt to obtain dynamic play
seems somewhat misguided. Black can equalise with either 14...'i'xes 15 lLlxes i.b7 16
i.c6 l!ab8 17 l::td4 :fc8 18 l:thdl ~f8 or
14....i.b7 15 .xcs bxcs 16 i.e2 l:tfd8 followed by .. .'~g8-f8-e7.
15 i.d3 Wxf2?!
With Black already behind in development
it's very dangerous to grab pawns like this.
He can still go solid with ls ....i.b7 and meet
16lLlgs with 16...lLlf6 etc.
16 :the1 'Wc5
Not 16...Wxg2?? 17 l::tgl f6 18 'iihs etc.
17 i.e4! i.b7
Both 17... f6? 18 l:txds! exds 19 'ii'xd5+
and 17...l1d8? 18 i.xds exds 19 l::txds!! l::txd5
20 'i'xd5! would win quickly for White, but
Black could have considered 17... a6 and
17...h6.
18 tiJg5! 'it>h8?

In a difficult position Black makes a mistake. Both 18...g6 and 18...h6 are refuted by
19 lLlxe6, but there's nothing dear after the
27

The Veresov

cool 18. ...l:lac8.

19 lbxh7 .l:!.fb8 20 .i.xd5 ..txh7

After 20....ixdS there follows 21 'ifhs

~g8 22 ctJgS 'ii'f2 23 %l1 with a winning

attack.
21 'We4+! f5 22 'ii'h4+ 1-0

Black is mated after 22... ~g6 (or 22...<t>g8

23 .ixe6+) 23 %lxe6+ etc.

Gamef2

De Souza Haro-Vescovi
Sao Paulo Zonal200f
1 d4 lbf6 2 lbc3 d5 3 .i.g5 lbbd7 4 'ifd2
c6 5 f3

This position could also have arisen via 4

f3 c6 S 'il'd2. In Khachian-Vlad, Bucharest
1993, White tried S O-O-O!? which amounts to
a gambit after S...bS! 6 f3 'iNaS. The game
reeled on with 7 e4 b4 8 ctJb 1 dxe4 (after
8...'iNxaZ the idea is 9 eS when Black's knight
has to go back to g8) 9 .ic4 e6 and now
White's best line may be 10 .ixf6!? ctJxf6 11
'ii'e2! exf3 12 ctJxf3 with an improved version of the Blackmar-Diemer gambit as his
king is safe and he can take pot-shots at
Black's king on the e- and f-files. In the game
he played 10 %lel and after 1O ....ie7 11 h4
Black could have obtained a clear advantage
with 11 ...cS!'
5 ...'ifa5

Black can also interpose S... h6, which is

quite similar to 4 f3 h6. The differences are

28

that Black will now lose a tempo should he

play ... c6-cS, and 6 SLf4 will not threaten 7
ctJbS. Complex play resulted in KoneruPataki, Eger 2002 after 6 .i.f4ctJhS 7 .ie3 eS
8 g4 ctJhf6 9 SLf2 exd4 10 .ixd4 bS 11 0-0-0
b4 12ctJbl .ie7, and 6 .i.xf6ctJxf6 7 e4 e6 8
eS ctJd7 9 f4 cS 10 ctJf3 brought about an
unusual kind of French Defence in MaidlaPuranen, Vantaa 1993.
Consequently 6 SLh4 is more attractive
now, e.g. 6... e6 7 0-0-0 bS 8 'it'e1:
a) 8... b4 9 ctJbl 'iNaS ended in a draw in
Khachian-Milu, Bucharest 1995. I don't
know what's happening in this position. Fritz
likes Black, especially after a sacrifice of the
aZ-pawn, but computers tend to assess positions with a material imbalance quite poorly.
Certainly Khachian was willing to repeat this
in a later game so he evidently considers the
position playable for White. And judging
from his encounter with Vlad, he would
probably sacrifice a pawn at this point with
10 e4 'ifxa2 11 eS etc.
b) 8...'iWaS 9 ~bl ctJb6 10 e4ctJa4? (Khachian-Groszpeter, Cannes 1996) and \x-'hite
can win a pawn with 11 ctJxdS!, so Black
should play 10... ~b4 11 ctJge2 ctJc4 12 i.xf6
gxf6 13 %ld3 with a double-edged situation.
6 e4
I imagine that Khachian would play 6
O-O-O!? here with a murky position after 6... bS
7 'iNel b4 8ctJbl 'iNxa2 9 e4 etc.
6 ...dxe4

3 .. .tlJbd7 4 'iid2 and 4 fld3

Here this is a good idea because Black can
hit back in the centre with ...e7-e5. After the
solid 6...e6 White can hope for an edge with
7 e5 tLlg8 8 ~e3 thanks to his extra space.
7liJxe4
Playing for a draw. The thematic move is
7 fxe4 which can also arise after 4 f3 c6.
Black should act in the centre with 7...e5!, e.g.
8 dxe5 tLlxe5 9 0-0-0 ~e6 10 lZ:\f3 lZ:\fd7 11
a3 h6 12 ~h4 ~c5 13 tLld4 0-0, VooremaaBronstein, Tallinn 1981, and now 14 tLlxe6
(in the game 14 ~e2 was played when
14...J:r.fe8 would have left Black with an edge)
14... fxe6 15 ..ie2 would have been fairly
even.
8 ~xf6 tLlxf6 9 dxe5 tLlg4 10 lZ:\f3 was
played in Chernyshov-Rogic, Ohrid 2001 and
now simply 1O ...lZ:\xe5 is slighdy better for
Black in view of his two bishops and White's
isolated e-pawn.
7 ...flxd2+ 8 itJxd2 e6

Black has a solid game and might even

think about how to generate some winning
chances. With this in mind he could consider
8...g6, when 9 J.c4 J.g7 10 lZ:\e2 0-0 11 0--0
c5 12 l:.fel a6 13 a4 b6 produced slighdy less
balanced play in Treppner-Dydyshko,
Bundesliga 1994.
9 i.d3 i.e7 10 liJe2 b6 11 0-0 i.b7 12
c30-0 13liJe4 J:l.fd8 14 J:l.ad1
14 l:.fd 1 looks slighdy safer to me, freeing
f1 for White's king.
14.. .'~)f8 15 liJxf6 liJxf6 16 liJg3?!

Almost imperceptibly White is giving his

opponent chances. Here he should probably
play 16 :lfe1 with a likely draw.
16... c5 17 i.xf6?!
White gets flustered and gives up his important dark-squared bishop but, in fairness,
the position is no longer easy for him. After
17 dxc5 J.xc5+ his king is forced into the
corner; and 17 ~e4 tLlxe4 18 J.xe7+ 9:txe7
19 fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 llac8 also leaves Black
with some pressure.
17 ... gxf6 18 dxc5
White would like to initiate further exchanges with 18 ~e4 but after 18 ... i.xe4 19
fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 lIxd4! 21 lhd4 i.c5 22
tLle2 e5 he loses a pawn.
18...i.xc5+ 19 <;t>h1 f5 20 i.e2 <j;e7 21
l:!.de1 f4! 22liJe4 .i.e3 23 l:td1 f5

By now it has become clear that Black has

a large advantage. His bishop on e3 is a thorn
in White's flesh and his e-pawn is a candidate
for promotion.
24liJg5 h6 25liJh3 J:l.xd1
Black sees that after the exchange of rooks
he can use his king to attack White's queenside pawns. The immediate 25 ...e5 was also
worth considering.
26 J:l.xd1 J:l.d8 27 J:l.xd8 'it>xd8 28 g3 fxg3
29 hxg3 <i;e7 30 'it>g2 i.e1 31 b3 i.d2
32 c4 'it>d6 33 ~2 'it>c5
Another good move was 33 ...e5, e.g. 34 f4
(or 34 J.d3 e4) 34...e4 35 g4 J.c8 36 gxfS
i.xfS 37 9:tg3 'iii>c5 etc.

29

The Veresov
34 g4 fxg4 35 fxg4 ~e4 36 ~f3 ~d3 37
tLlg1 ~b1 38 .td1 ~xa2 39 tLlf3 .tf4 40
tLle1 'it>d4 41 'it>f3 ~d2 42 tLlc2+ 'it>c3 43
tLla3 a6 44 'it>e2 ~c1 0-1

Game 13
Smirnov-Yagupov
Alushta 2002

gave Black a good game in SmirnovZubarev, Alushta 2002.

c) 5 e3 seems inconsistent when combined
with 4 ~d2. It may be sound enough (especially if White castles shon) but will certainly
lack bite.
5 ... h6 6 ~h4

I suggest that 6 ~f4!? is worth consider-

...- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... ing, with the idea of 7lt:lb5.

6 ... c5 7 e3?!
1 d4 d5 2 tLlc3 tLlf6 3 ~g5 tLlbd7 4 ~d2
e6

This sensible-looking move is a good answer.

5 0-0-0

In keeping with 4 'ii'd2, White hoists the

pirate flag. There are a number of alternatives, for example:
a) 5 e4!? dxe4 6 0-0-0 but in the game Sagalchik-Albun, Parsipanny 2002 he found
himself somewhat worse when he fmally
regained his pawn: 6... h6 7 ~h4 ~b4 8 It:lge2
b6 9 a3 ~e7 10 .ixf6lt:lxf6 11 It:lg3Sl.b7 12
~e1 0-0 13 It:lgxe4 It:lxe4 14 It:lxe4 'ilt'd5 15
It:lc3 'ii'g5+ and Black had a useful pair of
bishops. Instead 6 f3 is interesting, with Loboda-Suetin, USSR Team Ch. 1975 seeing
Black decline the sacrifice with 6 ... e3!? but
having slightly the worse of it after 7 .i.xe3
.i.b4 8 a3 .ixc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 .id3 c5 11
It:lh3.
b) White can prepare e2-e4 with 5 f3 but
after 5... c5 6 dxc5 ~xc5 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 h6
9 ..te3 0-0 10 0-0-0 'ii'a5 11 .id3 .ib4 this

30

Abandoning the idea of e2-e4 in these

lines seems like an admission of defeat. I
suggest 7 It:lf3!? as being more promising after 7... a6 White can play 8 e4! g5 (or
8 ... dxe4 9 It:le5) 9 .ig3 dxe4 10 It:le5!? "'1th
the initiative.
7 .. .a6 8 'it>b1 b5!
Black can get away with a delayed development as long as White cannot open up the
position. Meanwhile he's taking a lot of
space.
9 dxc5 ~xc5 10 ~d3 ~b7 11 tLlf3.u.c8

Black has a good game but 11 ... .i.b4!

looks even better. White will not find it easy
to break the pin on his knight and it's very
difficult for him to achieve the critical e2-e4
advance.
12 tLle2

Evading 12.....tb4.
12 ... ~e7 13 ~g3 tLlc5 14 tLled4 tLlfe4 15
~e1 tLlxg3 16 hxg3 ~f6 17 tLld2 ~b6 18
tLl2b3 b4

Black should eliminate White's remaining

3 .. .li:Jbd7 4 "ilJd2 and 4 'iid3

bishop with 18...lDxd3 with what must be an

edge. Now things get very messy...
19 t2Jxc5 l:xc5 20 f4 a5 21 g4 a4 22 g5
hxg5??

A truly horrific blunder by such a high

rated player. It's difficult to imagine what was
going through Black's mind. 22...i.e7 23
gxh6 gxh6 leaves a complex position in
which both sides have chances.
23 l:xh8+ 1-0

r---------------__
Game 14
Rossetto-Darga
Lugano OlYmpiad 1968

1 d4 t2Jf6 2 t2Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 t2Jbd7 4 'ii'd3

Once again preparing to castle long, the

queen also supporting the critical e2-e4 advance. There are some additional advantages
of this move in that White's bishop might

drop back to d2 in some circumstances,

while his queen may fmd useful employment
along the third rank.
4 ... h6
GM Joe Gallagher has experimented with
4... c5!?, for example 5lDB cxd4 6 'ii'xd4 e5 7
lDxe5 i.c5 8 'ii'a4 'ilb6 9 0-0-0 d4 10 lDc4
'ife6 11 lDb5 0-0 was P.Moore-Galiagher,
Jersey 1984 and now 12 lDxd4 i.xd4 13
l:txd4 and Black still has to demonstrate that
he has enough for his pawns. In the game the
greedy 12 lDc7 'iff5 13 i.xf6 was played,
giving Black excellent compensation for his
small material investment after 13 ... b5! 14
lDxb5 lDxf6 etc.
5 e4 cxd4 6 'ii'xd4 e5 7 'iVa4 d4 8 lDd5
i.e7 9 i.xf6 i.xf6 10 i.b5 0-0 11 i.xd7
i.xd7 12 lDxf6+ gxf6 13 1i'a3 l:tc8 140-0-0
l:tc6 gave Black an attack down the c-flie in
Richmond-Gallagher, Nottingham 1987.
5 i.h4
White has also played 5 i.f4 but then
5... c6 looks like a good reply there, too. 6 e4
leaves White with nothing after 6...dxe4 7
lDxe4 lDxe4 8 'iVxe4 lDf6 9 'iVd3 'ii'a5+ 10
i.d2 "f5 etc. Thus Porper-Smirin, Tel Aviv
1991 continued 6 lDB e6 and now White
played the passive 7 a3 (1 e4 is admittedly
well met by 7...i.b4) which allowed Black to
assume the initiative after 7... b5 8 lDe5lDxe5
9 i.xe5 b4 10 axb4 i.xb4 11 'iVg3 lDe4 12
'ifxg7l:tfS 13 i.f4 'iib6 etc.
5...c5!? was tried in Bellin-J.Nikolac, Eerbeek 1978, when I think White should have
played the immediate 6 lDb5, after which
6... c4 7 'iVd2 lDe4 8 lDc7+ 'iVxc7 9 i..xc7
lDxd2 10 <iitxd2 lDf6 11 B leads to an endgame in which his position looks preferable.
5 ... c6
The main alternative is 5...e6, which leads
to a kind of Rubinstein French after 6 e4
dxe47 lDxe4 i.e7 8lDxf6+ (and not 8 0-0-0
lDxe49 i..xe7 lDxf2 which won a pawn for
Black in Lalev-Espig, Varna 1983), but one
which is harmless for Black. Ansell-Whiteley,
1995
continued
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
31

The Veresov

8...i.xf6 9 i.xf6 lilif6 10 l'Ll3 0-0 11 g3 b6

12 i.g2 i.b7 13 0-0 i.e4 14 'iVe2 'iVd5 with
complete equality.
Also playable is 5... b6 6 e4 dxe4 7 l'Llxe4
i.b7 (it's too late for 7... e6 because of 8 \I'3!
.l:!.b8 9 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6?! to i.b5+ i.d7 11
i.xd7+ when Black has to play 11...c,i;>xd7 or
give up a pawn) 8 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 9 i.xf6 gxf6
10 0-0-0 e6 which was fIne for Black in Khachian-Stripunsky, Pardubice 1996.

6... e6 7 e4 'ii'a5 8 l'Lld2 i.b4 was played in

Panagiotopoulou-Kaza, Athens 2000 and
now 9 e5 looks nice for White. After 6...g6
White must once again be careful to avoid 7
e4?!, e.g. 7...dxe4 8 l'Llxe4 lilie4 9 'ii'xe4 g5
10 i.g3 'ii'a5+ 11 c3 f5 12 ii'e6 f4 although,
admittedly, White gets more compensation
than with 6 e4. Karayannis-Tsichlis, Panormo 1998 continued 13 'ii'g6+ ~d8 14 h4
fxg3 15 hxg5 with some chances.

60-0-0?!

6 ... b5! 7 f3 b4 8 tiJb1

After 8 ltJa4 there follows 8...'ii'a5 9 'iVb3

to...i.c4.
8 ..Wb6 9 e4 e6 10 e5 tiJh5 11 tiJh3 g5!

~a6!, threatening

12 i.f2 c5! 13 g4?

White should prevent Black's next with 13

dxc5, when 13. ..i.xc5 14 i.xc5 l'Llxc5 15
'ii'd4leaves White worse but still fighting.
13... c4 14"e3 liJf4!

White's position is not very easy to playas

two of his most natural moves leave him in
trouble. Castling long turns out to be risky
because of the speed of Black's counterplay
on the queenside. He should be even more
careful to avoid 6 e4??, which lost a piece
after 6...lilie4 7 l'Llxe4 dxe4 8 'iVxe4 g5! 9
i.g3 \l'a5+ to c3 f5! 11 'iVe2 f4 12 1i'h5+
c,i;>d8 13 i.xf4 ltJf6 in Doljanin-Arsovic,
Vrnjacka Banja 1999.
Relatively best is 6 ltJ3, e.g. 6...'ii'a5 7
ltJd2 e5 (Giannakoulopoulos-Dvoirys, Ano
Liosia 2000 saw the preliminary 7...'iVb6!?,
but after 8 0-0-0 e5 9 dxe5 ltJxe5 to 'ii'g3
ltJg6 11 i.xf6 gxf6 12 e4 d4 13 ltJc4 ii'c5
White should have played 14 'ii'd3 i.g4 15 3
with the better chances) 8 dxe5?! (I think
White should take a look at 8 i.xf6 lilif6 9
dxe5 ltJg4 to \l'g3 with complex play)
8... l'Llxe5 9 ii'e3 ltJfg4 10 \l'd4 i.c5 and
White had serious problems in PonomarevGranda Zuniga, Kissimmee 1997.

32

Not losing any time.

15 tiJxf4 gxf4 16 1!fxf4 i.e 7

Threatening 17...~g5.
17 h4 "a5 18 i.e1 "ifxa2 19 c3 b3 20
l:th2 a5 21 l:tdd2 a4 22 g5 hxg5 23 hxg5
lbh2 24 1i'xh2 tiJf8 25 f4"a1 26 f5 a3
0-1

Came 15

Smyslov-Geller
USSR Ch., Leningrad 1977
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJc3 d5 3 i.g5 tiJbd7 4 1i'd3
e6 5 e4

3 .. Jl'lbd7 4 "WId2 and 4 "WId3

playing it, trying to retain a modest space

advantage) 9... c5 (9 ... b6 is quite possible here
too) 10 dxc5 ~a5 11 'it>b1. In Rodriguez
Vargas-Cacho Reigadas, Spain 1993, White
played 11 'ib5 with the idea that 11 ...'iixa2
would be met by 12 i.c4. But this looks
quite good for Black after 12... a6 13 i.xa2
axb5 etc.
8 i..xf6 lLlxf6

It does not make much sense delaying this

move in favour of 5 tDf3 but this position is
significant because it can arise after 3... tDbd7
4 tDf3 e6 5 'iUd3. One example is
D.Trifunovic-Scherr, Frohnleiten 1999 which
went 5... i.e7 6 0-0-0 tDg4 7 i.e3 tDxe3 8
'i!fxe3 c5 9 'iid2 and now Black should have
played 9... cxd4, when 10 tDxd4 0-0 11 e4 can
be met by l1...e5 12 tDf3 (12 tDf5?? i.g5)
12... d4 with a tertitorial advantage. In the
game he released the central tension with
9... c4, after which 10 e4 looked better for
White.
5 ... dxe4
An interesting alternative is 5... i.b4!? 6 e5
h6, which steers play along the lines of the
McCutcheon Variation of the French. Tests
required!

Black does not fmd it easy to equalise after

8... ~xf6 9 tDf3, for example 9... c5 10 0-0-0
cxd4 11 'jl'xd4 'iixd4 12 tDxd4 a6 (12 ... tDf6
looks better as after 13 i.b5+ Black can play
the cold-blooded 13. .. i.d7 14 i.xd7+ 'iitxd7)
13 g3 b6 14 i.g2 and Black was under pressure in Tolnai-Balogh, Budapest 2000. Hector-Koneru, Wijk aan Zee 2003 went 9... 0-0
10 ~e3 c5 11 0-0-0 b6 12 i.b5 cxd4 13
1:txd4 with an edge for White.
9 lLlf3 0-0 10 i..e2 b6 11 0-0

11 O-O-O!? would be an altogether sharper

interpretation of the position. Smyslov prefers to keep it simple and safe.
11 ... i..b7 12 nfd1 i..e4 13 ikb3 "WIb8!?
14lLld2 i..d5 15 c4 i..b7 16lLlf1 J:td8 17
lLle3 i..e4

After 17... c5 18 d5 \Xihite gets a passed

pawn.
18 f3 i..b7 19 d5!?

6 lLlxe4 i..e7 7 lLlxf6+

This looks like the only genuine attempt

to eke something out of the position. After 7
Si.xf6 tDxf6 8 0-0-0 tDxe4 9 'iWxe4 'iWd5
Black had equalised in MyagmarsurenJ.Roose, Lugano 1968, and 7 tDc3 0-0 8 tDf3
c5 9 0-0-0 'iWa5 gave Black active counterplay
in the game Ponomarev-Shipman, Los Angeles 2001.
7 ... i..xf6

The alternative is 7... tDxf6, which leads to

much sharper play after 8 tDf3 (8 0-0-0 'iVd5
forces White to exchange queens with 9
"iib5+, which is quite hannless) 8... 0-0 9
O-O-O!? (9 i.e2 b6 10 0-0 is a quieter way of

Perhaps ~'hite should continue to build

with 19 1:td2 followed by .l:tad 1.
19 ... exd5 20 cxd5 c6 21 dxc6 i..xc6 22
i..c4 i..e8 23 lLld5 'iVe5 24 "WIc3 Y, - Y,

33

The Veresov

On 24.l:lel Black intended 24...'iVd4+ 25

<t>hl b5 (25 ...lbxd5? 26 il.xd5 - threatening
27 .i.xf7+ and 27 il.xa8 - is unpleasant and
the attempt to meet this with 26...lIxd5 is
answered by 27 .J:tadl il.a4 28 'ii"xd5, winning material) 26 lbxf6+ 'ii"xf6 27 il.d5 (27
il.xb5?! is met by 27 ...lIab8!) 27 ...l:tac8 with
equality.

r-----------------.
Game 16
Donev-Zlatilov
Elenite Open 1986

g4 lbg3 9 lIh2 was very messy in LaenglG.Timoscenko, Seefeld 1999) is similar to 5

0, but the extra developing move enjoyed by
both sides may help Black's defence more
than White's attack. Laengl-M.Ivanov, Bad
Worishofen 2000 continued 6...0-0 7 e4 dxe4
8 fxe4 c5 9 d5 (9 e5!? lbg4 10 lbd5 is certainly worth considering) 9... b5!? 10 lbxb5
il.a6 and Black had good counterplay.
c) 5lbo il.g7 6 e4 transposes back to the
main line.
5 ... dxe4 6 lbxe4 .tg7 7 lbf3 0-0 8 0-0-0

, d4 lbf6 2 .!Dc3 d5 3 .tg5 lbbd7 4 'ii'd3

g6

5e4

A logical follow-up, though White has

tried a number of alternatives:
a) 50!? attempts to build a broad pawn
centre but only after Black has 'wasted' time
with ...g7-g6, and appears to be more promising than other f2-0 lines as Black finds it
difficult to counter-attack in the centre. Play
might continue 5...SLg7 6 e4 dxe4 (6 ...c6 7 e5
lbg8 8 h4 was also promising for White in
Chernyshov-Szekely, Pardubice 2002) 7 fxe4
0-0 8 e5 lbe8 9 h4 c5 10 lbd5 f6 11 'ikb3 e6
(after l1...fxg5 there follows 12 lbxe7+ <t>h8
13lbxg6+ hxg6 14 hxg5+) 12lbxf6+ lbdxf6
13 0-0-0 'iVb6 14 exf6 lbxf6 15 dxc5 'ii'xc5
16 il.c4 and White had a large advantage in
Hector-Moberg, Sweden 2001.
b) 50-0-0 il.g7 6 0 (6 h4!? c6 7 Olbh5 8

34

The sharp approach. White can also proceed quietly with 8 il.e2, when a draw was
agreed in Negulescu-G.Timoscenko, Cappelle la Grande 1993 after 8...c5 9 lbxf6+
lbxf6 10 dxc5 'iWa5+ 11 c3 'iVxc5 12 0-0 b6
13 'ii'd4.
8 ... b6
Playing for solid development, although
with White having castled long this may be
rather too rneek. A number of alternatives
have been tried:
a) 8...c5!? is Black's sharpest response. In
Poteas-Grivas, Nikea 2002 White played 9
lbxf6+ lbxf6 10 'iVa3, when 1O...cxd4 11
I:txd4 'it'b6 was probably best, with approximate equality. The critical line is 9 lbxc5
lbxc5 10 dxc5 'iIVas 11 'ilVb5! 'ii"xa2 12 il.c4
il.d7! (both 12...'ii"a1+ 13 'iitd2 and 12...a6 13
'iib4 as 14 'iib5 .i.d7 15 SLxa2 .i.xb5 16
lIhel give White some pressure) 13 il.xa2
il.xb5 14 lIhe 1 e6 15 lbd4 .ltd7 was Zhang

3 .. .ti:Jbd7 4 ~d2 and 4 ~d3

Pengxiang-Pigusov, FIDE World Ch.

Knock-Out, Moscow 2001, and now 16
liJf5!? was best, after which 16...gxfS 17
..ixf6 ..ixf6 18 l:txd7 would have been equal
according to FinkeL In the game White
played 16 t3?! and got the worst of it after
16...:fc8 17 ..ie3 i.8 18 i.gS i.e7 19 liJf5
gxf5 20 i.xf6 ..ixf6 21 .uxd7 nab8.
b) 8...c6 9 ~bl (9 h4!?) 9... bS expands on
the queenside but it's difficult to see how
Black intends to transform this into an actual
attack. Khachian-Casella, Costa Mesa 2002
continued 10 h3 as 11 g4 b4 12liJxf6+ liJxf6
13 ..ixf6 i.xf6 14 ..ig2 'ifc7 15 l:.he1 with a
slight edge for White, with more space and a
grip on the centre.
c) 8...liJxe4 9 'ifxe4 liJf6 10 .ixf6 (to
'ilh4!?) 10....ixf6 11 i.c4 cS 12 dxcS 'fIc7 13
'ike3 ..ig4 14 h3 ..ixt3 15 'ikxt3 'ikxcs equalised for Black in Freisler-Voloshin, Nymburk
1997.
d) 8... h6 9 .ih4 (9 i.xf6liJxf6 10 liJxf6+
..ixf6 11 'fIe3 i.g7 12 .ic4) 9... c6 10 i.e2
'ffaS 11 'it>b1 liJxe4 12 'ffxe4 liJf6 13 ..ixf6
..ixf6 14 ..ic4 i.f5 was about equal in Ljubicic-Leventic, Pula 1994.

come to eS or gS but blocking in the bishop

on g7 and giving White a queenside pawn
majority. The cold-blooded 11....ixf6 might
be better but requires nerves of steeL Play
could continue 12 h5 'ili'd5 13 hxg6 hxg6 14
'fIe3 ..ig7, when 15 .id3!? (to prevent
lS ...'fIe4) IS ...'fIxa2 16 c3 'ffa1+ 17 .ibl cS
18liJg5 is very complicated.
12 h5 ~d6 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 ~b3 a5 15
i.c4 a4 16 'ifd3 "f4+ 17 'iPb1 i..e4 18
'ilVa3 "d6

Leading to an inferior endgame. Black's

pawns are rather weak, a factor which White
exploits with great ingenuity.
19 'ii'xd6 cxd6 20 :the1 f5
It might be better to support the bishop

with 20 ... dS 21 i.d3 and only then 21...f5 as

White's bishop is no longer on the critical a2g8 diagonal.
21 tDg5 i..c6

After 21 ....ixg2 there comes 22 t3! .if6

23 ':d2 ..ixgS 24 :txg2 followed by %Leg6+
when the bishop moves.
22 :te6!?

9 h4!?

Taking the bull by the horns. 9 .ie2 ..ib7

10 liJxf6+ liJxf6 11 'iitb1 'fId6 12 i.h4 cS
was very comfortable for Black in Kaganovski-Kagan,IsraeI1988.
9 ....i.b7 10 tDxf6+ tDxf6 11 .i.xf6 exf6

An interesting exchange sacrifice. Black

has to accept as both d6 and g6 are under
fire.
22 ...fxe6 23 i.xe6+ 'iPh8 24 :th1 + i..h6
25 :txh6+ ~g7 26 :th7+ ~f6 27 f4

The point. Black's king is very poorly

placed on f6.
27 ...:tae8 28 :tc7 i.d5 29 c,tc1 i.xg2

Making sure that a white knight can't

Not 29 ...i.xe6 in view of 30 liJh7 mate.

35

The Veresov

30 d5 .l:.e7 31 l2Jh7+

White should take this opportunity to cash

in as the careless 31 llc6?? meets with
31 ...1he6 32 ltJxe6 i.xd5, completely turning
the tables.

Gamet7
Alburt-Zilberstein
USSR Ch., Baku 1972

31 .. Jbh7 32 l:I.xh7 g5 33 ':h6+ ~g7 34

l:I.h5 g4 35 l:I.g5+ 'ith6

1 d4 l2Jf6 2 l2Jc3 d5 3 i..g5 c6 4 'iVd3

l2Jbd7 5 e4

36 c4

With the moves ... h6 and i.g5-h4 interposed this is simply bad, for reasons which
were explained in the note to White's 6th
move in Rossetto-Darga. Here it is quite
playable. 5 ltJf3 is a good alternative and
features in Miles-Watson (Game 18).

Around here White loses the plot. He

should break up Black's kingside pawns with
36 i.xf5, when 36 ...i.xd5 37 i.xg4 .i.e4 38
llb5 llxf4 39 .i.dl leaves him with excellent
winning chances.
36 ...i.e4 37 b4 axb3 38 axb3 l:I.f6 39 b4
i.d3

This gives White some chances. Black can

draw with 39 ...:g6, for example 40 lhg6+
~xg6 41 ~d2 g3 42 ~e3 i.d3 43 'it>f3 i.xc4
44 ~xg3 when neither side can make progress.

5 ... l2Jxe4

5...dxe4 6 ltJxe4 g6 7ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 8 i.xf6

exf6 was Mestrovic-S.Martinovic, Sarajevo
1973, and now 9 'iWe3+ i.e7 10 .i.c4 looks
slighdy favourable for White.
6 l2Jxe4 dxe4 7 'iVxe4 l2Jf6

40 ~d2 i.xc4 41 i.xf5 g3 42 ~e3 i.xd5

43 i.h3 i.c6?

After this Black encounters unexpectedly

serious difficulties in the shape of White's
passed f-pawn. Black should exchange bishops with 43 ... .i.e6 when a draw is still likely.
44 l:I.xg3 :g6 45 i.g4 J::!.g8 46 :h3+
~g6 47 i.e6 .l:.a8 48 f5+ 'ittg7 49 .l:.g3+
'it16 50 ~f4 :a1 51 :g6+ 'itte7 52 :g7+
~f8 53 :f7+ ~e8 54 J:!.c7 i..b5 55 f6
~8 56 .l:.c8+ i.e8 57 f7 .:n + 58 ~e4
l:I.xf7 59 i.xf7 ~xf7 60 'itd5 ~e7 61
l:I.c7+ i.d7 62l:1.a7 b5 63l:!.b7 1-0

36

Black is willing to accept doubled pawns

3 ... tiJbd7 4 'ild2 and 4 "fId3

after i.xf6, but the positions which then

arise are far from comfortable for the defender. He would do well to check out one
of the alternatives:
a) 7...h6 8 i.d2 ltJf6 9 'fif4 (9 'ii'd3 'fids
10 ltJe2 i.fS 11 ltJf4 'fie4+ gave Black complete equality in Mestrovic-Knezevic, Zagreb
1977) 9...gs 10 'fie3 i.fS 11 i.d3 (11 O-O-O!?)
11...-txd3 12 'Wxd3 'Wds 13 ltJ3 'iVe4+ 14
'ii'xe4 ltJxe4 brought about an equal endgame in Alburt-Furman, USSR Ch., Baku
1972.
b) 7...'Wa5+ 8 -td2 'Wds (8. ..'Wb6 9 0-0-0
tLlf6 10 'Wf4 i.g4 11 3 i.d7 was also okay in
Wockenfuss-Lombardy, Amsterdam 1985) 9
'iVe3 (exchanging queens on ds gives White
nothing - Goldin-Karpov, Moscow 1993
went 9 'Wxds cxds 10 tLlf3 e6 11 i.d3 -td6
120-0 b6 with equality) 9...ltJf6 10 tLl3 i.fS
11 c4 'We4 12 tLles l:.d8 13 'it'xe4 tLlxe4
(maybe 13. .. i.xe4 14 i.e3ltJd7 is more solid,
when Segal-Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1978
continued 15 3 i.fS 16 i.e2 e6 17 ~f2 i.e7
with a solid position for Black) 14 i.e3 f6
(14... e6 can be met by 15 g4 -tg6 16 i.g2,
when 'J(;'hite has some pressure) 15 ltJ3 e6
16 0-0-0 ri;f1 17 tLlh4 tLld6 18 cs gs 19 tLlxfS
tLlxfS 20 i.c4 and White's pressure on e6
was enough for an advantage in KhachianKoniushkov, Moscow 1996.
c) 7...'Wb6!? is an interesting move as
Black intends to meet 8 0-0-0 with ...'Was,
forking gs and a2. Negulescu-Kr.Georgiev,
Cappelle la Grande 1992 continued 9 ds
tLlb6 10 dxc6 'Wxgs+ 11 f4 'iWfS 12 'fixfS
i.xfS 13 i.bs a6 14 cxb7+ axbs 15 bxa8'W+
tLlxa8 when Black's two minor pieces should
outweigh the rook and pawn. 8 b3 might be
White's best but there is no advantage.
S .i.xf6 "85+

After the immediate 8...gxf6 White should

similarly play 9 -tc4!. Instead 9 0-0-0 'iWds!
10 'Wxds cxds was equal in Klaman-Ilivitzki,
Thilisi 1949.
has

more

11 tiJe2 'it'f5 12 'it'xf5 i.xf5 13 0-0 .i.d7

This looks like a necessary precaution. After 13. ..e6 there follows 14 tLlg3 -tg6 15 f4
when Black is obliged to play Is... fS,
entombing the bishop on g6.
14 l:.8e1 %:te8?!

Aiming for ... c6-cs but Black should

probably settle for defensive moves for the
time being. 14...e6 is better, although I still
prefer White.
15 tiJg3 \ti8 16 :'e4 e6 17 l:.h4 .i.g5 18
:'h5 .i.f4 19 tiJe4 f5 20 tiJf6!? <3;e7 21
tiJxh7
An enterprising if risky pawn grab. It's not
easy for White to extricate this knight but

then neither can Black easily trap it.

21 .%:teg8

9 e3 gxf6 10 .i.e4 .i.h6

Black

10...i.fS after which 11 'iWf4 -tg6 12 tLl3

-tg7 13 0-0 0-0 14 llfel e6 15 ltJh4 cs was
flne for Black in Alburt-Doda, Lublin 1972,
while 11 'iWe2 should be met by the simple
l1...e6 with equality. 11 'it'3 is probably
White's most dangerous move, NegulescuTomescu, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993 continuing 11...i.d7 12 tLle2 llg8 13 tLlg3 'iWgs 14
0-0 i.g4 15 'iVd3 'fig6 16 f4 and White was
in the driving seat.
Another possibility is 1O...'WfS but then 11
'ii'e3 'iWg6 12 'iVg3 i.h6 13 tLle2 0-0 14 i.d3
'figS 15 f4 'iVg416 0-0 led to a similar advantage for White in Mestrovic-Krogius, Hastings 1970/71.

commonly

played

Perhaps Black should take this opportu-

37

The Veresov
nity to develop counterplay elsewhere; 21...cs
looks logical.
22 lle1 J:.g6 23 h4l::thg8?!
Black should maintain the pin.
24 g3 f6?
After this further slip White's advantage
crystalises. 24...l:th8 is preferable.
25 llxf5 ~d2 26 J:le2 ~e1 27 1:1f3 J:lh6
28l::tc2

c6!? 5 'iVd3!

5 .. :ifa5
Certainly a consistent follow up but this is
not the only move:
a) s ...g6 6 e4 dxe4 (6... h6 7 .ltf4 dxe4 8
lbxe4 lbxe4 9 'ii'xe4 lbf6 10 "it'd3 'ii'as+ 11
"iid2 'iixd2+ 12 .ixd2 was equal in BellinLanka, Amsterdam 1994) 7 lbxe4 .ig7 8
O-O-O!? (White can also keep pieces on with 8
28 .id3 is probably even stronger, but the
lb g3, when Borge-Tzenniadianos, Arnhem
text stays a good pawn up.
1989 went 8... lbfS 9 'i'd2 lbe6 10 .ih6!
28 ... J:l.xh7 29 J::!.xe1 J:l.xh4 30 ':'e1 J:.h6 31
.ixh6 11 "ii'xh6 lbxd4? 12 0-0-0 'tWaS 13
J:!.f4 J:tgh8 32 Wg2 Wd6 33 b4 f5 34 Wf3
:xd4 'i'xa2 14 ~c4 'ii'a1+ 15 'it>d2 with inb6 35 ~e3 J:.h2 36 J:.g1 J:l.8h6 37 g4
adequate compensation for Black, while
J:!.6h3+ 38 J:.f3 fxg4 39 .:!.xg4 llxf3+ 40
L.Karlsson-Jonsson, Sweden 1994 saw the
Wxf3 J:Xh3+ 41 J:lg3 1:1h1 42 'ite4 J:.e1 +
solid 8 c3 but White had nothing after
43 Wd3 c5 44 Wd2 1:[e4 45 Wd3 %:tel 46
8...'i'b6 9lbxf6+ lbxf6 10 'ii'c2 ~fs 11 'iib3
dxe5+ bxe5 47 b5 e5 48 ':'g6+ We7 49
.ie6 etc.) 8... 0-0 9 h4?! (White should probaJ:!.a6 Wb8 50 a4 ~f5+ 51 Wd2 %:tb1 52
bly settle for the quiet 9 :e1 'ifas 10 Wb 1
J:.f6 llb2+ 53 We3 l:le2 54 J:.xf5 J:.xe3+
lbxe4 11 "iVxe4.i:!.e8 12 .ic4, which was a bit
55 ~d3 e4 56 l:txe5 llxd3+ 57 'itte4 .!:!.a3
more comfortable for White in Bellin-Toth,
Torino 1983) 9... lbxe4 10 ifxe4 lbf6 11
58 Wd5 J:.f3 59 ~e2 rJite7 60 ~xe4 Wb6
61 lle6+ Wb7 62 lle7+ Wb6 63 a5+
.i.xf6 (11 'ii'e3 .ie6 12 ~bl cs gave Black
'itxa5 64 J:.xa7+ Wb6 65 %:ta2 J:.f4+ 66
strong couoterplay in Martinez-Magem
~d5 J::tf8 67 J:.b2 lld8+ 68 We6 :f8 69
Badals, Alicaote 1989) 11....i.xf6 12 hs ifds
'ite5 lle8+ 70 Wf6 llf8+ 71 ~g6 J:.g8+
13 'iVxds cxds and Black's bishops gave him
72 Wf7 J:.g4 1-0
the better of it in Alburt-Savon, USSR 1970.
b) s ... bs 6 a3 as discourages White from
Game 18
castling long, but leaves Black's queenside
Miles-W. Watson
pawns weak. Donev-Weindl, Bad Ragaz 1993
British Ch., Torquqy 1982
continued 7 e4 b4 8 axb4 .ia6 9 bs cxbs 10
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... lbxds lbxds 11 exds b4 12 'iVxa6l:txa6 13
1 d4 lLIf6 2 lLIe3 d5 3 ~g5 lLIbd7 4 lLIf3
i.xa6 with more than enough for the queen.

38

3 ... Ci:Jbd7 4 '*id2 and 4 "ild3

c) s ...'iVb6 pushes White into castling long,

but he probably wants to do that anyway.
After 6 0-0-0 e6 7 e4 i.b4 8 tLld2 WaS 9 es
i.xc3 10 'fixc3 'ii'xc3 11 bxc3 tLlg4 12 i.h4
White had an edge in Van Mil-Bosch, Wijk
aan Zee 1995.
d) s ...e6 is a solid move which hasn't been
tried much. Comas-De la Villa, Palencia 1999
continued 6 e4 dxe4 7 tLlxe4 i.e7 8 tLlxf6+
i.xf6 and now 9 h4 looks promising (rather
than the anemic 9 i.xf6, as played in the
game).
For s ... h6 see the next main game.
6.i..d2

One of the ideas behind Black's last move

is that 6 0-0-0 can be met by 6 ... tLle4!? 7
tLlxe4 dxe4 8 ~xe4 Wxa2 when White has
problems with his king. Besides the move
played in the game White has two alternative
ways of handling the position:
a) The exotic 6 tLld2 e6 7 h4 was played in
Shirazi-Lazic, Le Touquet 1998, after which
Black should probably play 7...'iVb6 8 0-0-0
es with a good game for Black. Instead
7...i.d6 8 e4 tLlxe4 9 tLlcxe4 dxe4 10 'ii'xe4
was quite promising for White.
b) 6 a3 e6 7 llbl was played in SchweberBravo, Ville de Parque 1998, but this is
hardly going to harm Black if he plays sensibly with 7...i.d6, for example.
6 ...b6
The solid 6... e6 is possible here although it
looks rather passive for Black after 7 e4 dxe4

8 tLlxe4. Black has also played 6...Wc7, when

7 e4 dxe4 8 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 9 ~xe4 tLlf6 10
'it'e3 i.f5 11 0-0-0 e6 12 tLlh4 i.g6 13 'ii'h3
was played in Van Mil-Markus, Antwerp
1995. Black met the threat of 14 tLlxg6 with
13...l:tg8 but stood slightly worse after 14
tLlxg6 hxg6 15 i.e2 0-0-0 16 c3. Here the e3square seems best for the queen, as 10 'it'd3
saw Black generate counterplay in NeukirchCsulits, Gera 1962 after 10...g6 11 0-0-0 i.f5
etc.
70-0-0 e5?!

After White's reply this starts to look suspicious as it looks as if Black has opened the
centre prematurely. A solid move is 7...e6,
transposing to Opocensky-Schubert, Prague
1919 after 8 e4 dxe4 9 tLlxe4. This garne
went 9...as 10 tLles tLlxe4 11 tLlxd7 i.xd7 12
Wxe4 i.e7 13 i.e3 Wd8 14 g4 with attacking
chances for White.
8 e4!
Not 8 dxes? tLlg4.
8 ... exd4 9 Ci:Jxd4
In his notes Miles also suggested 9 tLla4!?,
and after 9...tLlcs! (both 9...'ii'c7 10 exds and
9...'iVbs 10 Wxd4! are good for White) 10
tLlxb6 tLlxd3+ 11 i.xd3 axb6 12 exds tLlxds
13 l:the1+ claimed an edge for White.
9 ...Ci:Jc5
After 9... tLles Miles suggested that 10 'ii'g3
'ii'xd4 11 i.f4 tLlxe4 12 tLlxe4 Wxe4 13
i.xes would give White adequate compensation for the pawn but it seems to me that he

39

The Veresav
is struggling to do so after 13 .. :ii'g4 (or
13..:~g6).
10 'ifg3 tLlcxe4 11 tLlxe4 tLlxe4

In this position 11..:iixd4 gives White

more for his pawn than in the previous note
after 12 It'lxf6+ 'ii'xf6 13 ..tc3 etc.
12 'ife5+ i..e7 13 i..e3! f6

The attempt to bail out with 13 ...'ii'dB 14

'iixg7 .lif6 15 'i!Vh6 .ligS leaves Black with
the worse endgame after 16 .lixgS 'ii'xgS+ 17
'ii'xgS It'lxgS due to his split pawns.
14 'iVh5+ g6 15 'ii'h6 i..f8 16 'ii'h4 c5?!

White wins back his pawn with a large advantage. Black had to try 19 ....l:!.cB, meeting
20 .lixgS fxgS 21 'ii'eS with 21...'iitf7 22
'ii'xhB .lig7 23 'ii'xh7 ~hB 24 'ii'xhB i.xhB
when Black has attacking chances on the
queenside.
20 i..xg5! fxg5 21 'ili'e5 :g8 22 J:!.e1!
J:!.g7
Or 22 ... 'iitf7 23 'ii'xe6+ 'iixe6 24 ~xe6

<3;xe6 25 i.c4+, winning the rook on gB.

23 'ifxe6+ J:!.e7 24 i..c4 .l:!.xe6 25 J:!.xe6+
~xe6 26 i..xe6 <tJe7 27 i..d5 1-0

Game 19
Ben Menachem-Boric
European Cup} Eupen 1997
1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 i..g5 tLlbd7 4 tLlf3
c6 5 'ili'd3 h6 6 i..d2

Further weakening his structure by leaving

dS unprotected. Black's best is 16 ...'ii'dB,
when 17 f3 It'ld6 1B Ite1 <3;f7 leaves White
with adequate compensation for the pawn
but not more.
17 tLlb3! i..e6 18 f3 tLlg5 19 'ili'e1! d4?

Accidentally opening the floodgates for

White's pieces. After 19 ... 0-0-0 20 'ii'c3!

40

After 6 .lih4 Black can play 6...'ilVaS under

better circumstances than in Miles-Watson as
White can no longer play his bishop to d2.
After 7 e3 Black has a good reply in 7... lt'le4,
so White should try 7 It'ld2!?, when 7... eS?!
leads to interesting complications after B
i.xf6! It'lxf6 (B ...gxf6? 9 It'lb3 "fic7 10 e4!
leaves Black with problems over his pawn
structure and where to put his king) 9 dxeS
It'lg4 10 h3 (10 f4? is powerfully met by
10... ..tcS) 10... lt'lxeS 11 'ii'e3 f6! (11...d4 12
'iixd4 i.e6 13 It'lb3 ..txb3 14 cxb3 was good
for White in Karayannis-Pavlovic, Nikolaos
Open 1997) 12 f4 i.cs 13 'iig3 It'lf7 14

3 ... tobd7 4 "fId2 and 4 "iid3

'ii'xg7 .1i.e3 15 'ii'xf6 'iWb4 16 0-0-0 l:tg8 and

\X'hite is threatened with 17....td4. 6... e6 7 e4
'ii'a5 is also possible, as in Schinzel-Suetin,
Lublin 1976.
The attempt to save time with 6 .txf6
leaves White with less than nothing after
6.. .'~Jxf6 7 e4 dxe4 8 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 9 'ii'xe4
'tli'd5 etc., but 6 .1i.f4 is worth considering.
Krsnik-Starcevic, Bela Crkva 1983 went 6...e6
7 e4 .1i.b4 8 e5 ltJe4 9 ltJd2 ltJxc3 10 bxc3
.te7 11 'ii'g3 with attacking prospects for
\Vhite.
6 ... b5

Trying to prevent White from expanding

with 7 e4 (Black would reply with 7... b4)
whilst gaining space on the queenside to
make it less habitable for White's king. White
gets a good game after 6...'iWb6 7 0-0-0 e6 8
e4 (Schumacher-Staller, Bad Ragaz 1991), but
chances are fairly balanced after 6...g6 7 e4
dxe4 8 ltJxe4 .1i.g7, as in J.ZaitsevMakarichev, Moscow 1986.
7 a3 .tb7 8 e4 dxe4 9 toxe4 e6 10 toe5

In his notes to the game Boris Avrukh

gave 10 ltJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 (1O...ltJxf6 11 c4 bxc4
12 'ii'xc4 'iWb6 13 b4 is slighdy better for
White because of his pressure on the c-file)
11 c4 c5!? 12 cxb5 .txf3 13 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 14
gxf3 cxd4 15 ..td3 with a complex endgame
in which chances are about equal.
10 ...toxe5 11 dxe5 'it'xd3?!

The endgame is marginally better for

White thanks to his extra space and the potential vulnerability of Black's queenside
pawns. Avrukh gave l1...ltJxe4 12 'ii'xe4
'ifb6 as equal.
12 .txd3 toxe4 13 .txe4 0-0-0 14 .i.e3
c5 15 .i.xb7+ ~xb7 16 ""e2 .i.e7 17 c4!
a6 Ya-Ya
A rather dubious move which would leave
Black under serious pressure had his opponent not agreed to a draw. Black should play
17... bxc4 18lir.hc1 :d5, when 19 f4 g5! gives
him some much needed counterplay. After
17...a6?! White should continue 18 .l:.hc1 .l:tc8
19 a4 with a definite pull.

41

The Veresov

Summary

4 'iVd2 seems like a dangerous move in the hands of rabid attackers such as Reprintsev and
Khachian. I'm not sure I'd recommend it to everyone; White should be able to unleash unexpected tactical blows and not worry too much about his a2-pawn disappearing when his king is
castled queenside.
Putting the queen on d3 is a good idea, but White should wait a move with 4 ~f3 before
committing himself. 5 'iVd3 is quite a good line after 4 ... c6 or 4...g6, but against 4 ... e6 it is better
to play 5 e4, while 4... h6 should be answered with 5 J.f4!?
1 d4 ll'lf6 2 ll'lc3 d5 3 i.g5 ll'lbd7 4 'ilr'd3 (D)

411'd2 (D)
4... cS - Game 11; 4... c6 5 f3 - Game 12; 4 ... e6 - Game 13
4 ... c6
4... h6 - Game 14; 4 ... e6 - Game 15; 4...g6 - Game 16
5ll'lf3 (D)
Se4-Game17

5 .. :iVa5 - Game 18
S... h6 - Game 19

4 'fId3

42

4'iJid2

5ll'lf3

I CHAPTER THREE I
3 ... ttJbd7:
4 ttJf3, 4 e3 and Others

1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ltJbd7

Veresov himself used to meet 3...ttJbd7

with either 4 ttJf3 or 4 e3 and, in my opinion,
he was right to do so. White has some initiative with these moves, whereas after the
'main line' 4 f3 he appears to be fighting for
survival.
One of the most frequendy recommended
replies to 4 ttJf3 is 4...g6, but White can
choose between 5 e3 (as in Miles-Andersson)
or 5 'it'd3 (transposing to Donev-Zlatilov
from Chapter 2) with chances of a pull in
either case. The other recommended set-up
is to play ...e7-e6 either before or after ...h7h6, when the gambit line (reached via 4 ttJf3
e6 5 e4 h6 6 ~4 or 4 ttJf3 h6 5 .i.h4 e6 6
e4) seems playable for White after 6...gS 7
i.g3 ttJxe4 8 ttJxe4 dxe4 9 ttJd2 (OteroCamacho), but very dubious after 9 ttJeS
(Reynolds-Nunn).
White has ways of avoiding this after either move order by Black. After 4 ttJf3 e6 5
e4 h6 he can play 6 i.xf6 ttJxf6 7 'ii'e2, as in
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov, and he might also
consider 7 'iVd3!? After 4 ttJf3 h6 he can
vary from the traditional 5 .i.h4 with 5 i.f4,
and in Kupreichik-Gutman it wasn't at all
clear that White's ambitious play was so bad.
White can add a few twists to the play
with the quiet 4 e3, one of the main points

being that he has the option of going for a

Stonewall formation with a later 2-f4. After
the standard 4...g6 White delayed this a lillie
in Ermenkov-Grivas, but in BrandnerMiniboeck he plunges straight in with 5 f4.
White can also answer 4... c6 with 5 f4 but
after 4...e6 I consider it a bit premature. Here
I suggest 5 'it'f3!? as a move that offers \x'hite
interesting possibilities.

Game 20
Miles-Andersson
London Phillips & Drew 1982
1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ltJbd7 4 lZ'lf3
g6

After 4...c6 White can play 5 'ifd3, transposing to positions from Chapter 2.
5e3

A quiet developing move, but one which

calls for accurate play from Black. The interesting 5 'ii"d3!? is dealt with under the 4 'it'd3
lines in Chapter 3.
5 ....i.g7 6 .i.d3

Aiming to open the game up with e3-e4.

White can also play 6 .i.e2 at this point, but
this essentially commits White to a plan
based on ttJf3-eS and 2-f4, which can be
thwarted by Black. A case can be made here
for the immediate 6 ...c6!?, but in E.Sokolov43

The Veresov

Lautier, Bad Zwesten 1999 the game went

6... 0-0 7 0-0 (the immediate 7 tZJeS!? is worth
considering, before Black protects his dpawn). Now after 7... b6 8 tZJeS JLb7 White
should support his prize knight with 9 f4!?,
while 7...tZJe4?! is dubious in view of 8 tZJxe4
dxe4 9 tZJd2 f5 10 f3! etc. Instead Lautier
played 7... c6!, an excellent idea, defending the
d-pawn and taking the sting out of White's
main plan: tZJf3-eS followed by 2-f4. The
point is that 8 tZJeS can be answered by
8... tZJxeS 9 dxeS tZJd7. The game continued 8
h3 b6 9 i.f4 i.b7 10 ]::tel cS 11 tZJeS a6 (after 11...e6?! White can probe Black's position
with 12 tZJbS) 12 a4 :c8 13 JLf3 e6 14 'fie2
'ili'e7 and Black was at least equal, the main
problem for White being his lack of effective
pawn levers.

6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 c5

Challenging the centre before White plays
e3-e4. In Miles-King, Amsterdam 1982,
Black played 7... b6 but found himself under
pressure after 8 e4 dxe4 9 tZJxe4 JLb7 10
'fie2 h6 11 ,i,f4 tZJxe4 12 i.xe4 JLxe4 13
'fixe4 tZJf6 14 'ili'e2!, intending l:hdl and
nfel with more space and central pressure.
Black can also interpose 7... h6 before playing ... c7 -cS. In l\fiJes-Portisch, London 1982,
Black managed to keep the balance after 8
,i,f4 cS 9l:!.el b6 10 tZJeS ,i,b7 11 'it'f3 tZJhS
12 JLbS tZJxeS 13 ,i,xeS i.xeS 14 dxeS 'fic7
15 tZJxdS 'fixeS 16 tZJf6+ tZJxf6 17 'it'xb7
'fixb2 18 'fixe7 tZJdS 19 'iVb7 'ili'xbS 20

44

'iWxdS li!.ad8 etc. 8 JLM is also possible and

would probably transpose to l\fi1esChristiansen in the note below.
8:e1

Continuing the build-up for e3-e4. In this

particular position White should not play 8
tZJeS?! because of 8... cxd4 9 exd4 tZJxeS 10
dxeS tZJg4. Peters-Browne, USA Ch. 1981
continued 11 ,i,e2 d4! 12 tZJbS (12 i.xg4?!
dxc3 13 'iixd8 .l::f.xd8 14 ,i,xc8 cxb2 ruins
White's structure) 12...tZJxeS 13 tZJxd4 'iVb6!
14 c3 (14 JLxe7 ne8 15 ,i,a3 %1d8 16 c3 tZJc6
recovers the pawn with some initiative)
14.....xb2 15 JLxe7 .l:te8 16 ,i,b4! as! and
now White should have played 17 l:Ib 1! (17
'iWb3? 'ili'xb3 18 axb3 i.g4! was good for
Black in the game) with drawing chances
after 17...'iIi'xa2 18 .:tal 'iidS (18 ... 'iVb2 is
only a draw) 19 tZJbS 'iWxdl 20 JLxdl (20
l:tfxd1? tZJc6! is even better) 20 ... JLd7 21
tZJc7 axb4 22 l:Ixa8 .l:txa8 23 tZJxa8 bxc3 although, as Gallagher points out, Black has all
the chances.
8 ... b6
Black can also play 8... h6 here. l\fi1esChristiansen, London 1982 continued 9 ,i,M
b6 (9 ... e6) 10 e4 (10 tZJeS!? is also worth considering as after 10... tZJxeS 11 dxeS tZJg4
White has 12 JLe2 tZJxeS 13 'iWxdS) 10... dxe4
11 tZJxe4 cxd4 (11...JLb7 12 tZJxf6+ tZJxf6 13
dxcS will give White an edge in the shape of
Black's isolated c-pawn) 12 tZJxd4 JLb7 13 c3
l:Ic8 14 'ii'e2 tZJcS!? 15 tZJxf6+ exf6 16 JLc4

3 .. JiJbd7: 4 4:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

when White's healthier pawn majority was

the main factor in the position.
ge4

Black's last move made 9 liJe5 possible,

leading to complex play after 9...i.b7
(9 ...liJxe5 lO dxe5 liJg4 is met by 11 i.e2
liJxe5 12 'iVxd5) lO f4 liJe8!? (10...licS!? 11
'iVf3 liJe8 12 .l:.ad1 a6 13 a3 f6 14 liJxd7
"xd7 15 i.h4 liJd6 16 g4 b5 17 ~h 1!? also
led to a tense and interesting position in Tihonov-Neverov, Minsk Open 1996) 11 i.h4
liJxe5 12 fxe5 (12 dxe5 f6!?) 12...liJc7 13 i.e2
"d7 14 i.g4 liJe6, Meshkov-Sergienko, St
Petersburg 1999. Then 15 liJe2?! f5 16 exf6
exf6 17 liJf4 f5 favoured Black, so White
should have played 15 e4!, when 15...cxd4 16
liJxd5 %:tfe8 (16 ...i.xd5 17 exd5 "xd5 18
i.f3 'ii'c5 19 i.xa8, while 16...i.xe5 meets
with 17 i.xe7 :tfe8 18 liJf6+ i.xf6 19 i.xf6
with dangerous weaknesses on the dark
squares around Black's king) 17 iVxd4!?
liJxd418 i.xd7 %:ted8 19liJxe7+ ~f8 20 e6!?
with a sttong initiative.
9 ... dxe4 10 4:Jxe4

10... cxd4

Miles-Speelman, London 1982 varied with

lO...i.b7 11 liJxf6+ (11 c3 cxd4 12 liJxd4
goes back into the main line) after which
Black mutilated his own pawn sttucture with
11 ... exf6 in order to gain some time. The
game continued 12 i.h4!? (Miles sacrifices a
pawn for the initiative but this is not mandatory - 12 i.f4!? and 12 i.e3 are also worth

considering and the latter move looks like a

slight edge for White to me) 12... i.xf3 13
'it'xf3 cxd4 14 :tadl ':c8 15 i.a6 ':'xc2!? 16
:txd4 liJe5 17 'ifd1 'iVc7 18 f4 and now
Black played the imaginative 18...liJg4! 19
'ifxg4 f5 with the game leading to equality
after 20 'it'd1 'ifc5 21 i.f2 l:!.xf2 22 :c4
:d2+ 23 l:!.xc5 %:txd1.
11 4:Jxd4.i.b7 12 c3 l:c8

In the game Black has difficulty finding a

decent square for his queen, inspiring a
search for alternatives:
a) 12.....c7 13 'ii'e2 %:tfe8 14 %:tadl a6 15
liJxf6+ liJxf6 16 liJf3 e6 17 'ife5 'ii'xe5 18
liJxe5 b5 kept the balance for Black in MilesOlafsson, Lucerne Olympiad 1982.
b) 12...liJe5 13 liJxf6+ exf6 14 i.f4liJxd3
15 'ifxd3 'iVd5 16 'iff3 'ii'd7 (16 .....xf3 17
liJxf3 i.xf3 18 gxf3 is good for White because his pawn majority can yield a passed
pawn whilst Black's cannot) 17 "g3 and
White had an edge thanks to his superior
pawn sttucture in Hoi-King,Jurmala 1985.
c) 12... h6 13liJxf6+ (13 i.h4 is more testing) 13...liJxf6 14 i.h4 'ifd5 15 i.f1 g5 16
i.g3 liJe4 17 liJb5 "c6 18 liJd4 'ii'd5 was
fme for Black in Berg-Gschnitzer, Bundesliga
1988-89.
d) 12...liJxe413 i.xe4 i.xe4 14 %:txe4liJf6
15 %:tel 'ifd5 16 liJf3 'ifb7 was only minimally better for White in Plaskett-Hazai,
Maribor 1985.
e) 12...liJc5 can be answered by 13 liJxc5!
bxc5 14liJb3 'iVd5 (Gallagher suggested that
the modest 14...'ii'c7 may be Black's best) 15
'iff3! 'iVxf3 (not 15... c4? 16 i.xc4, or
15...'ifd7? 16 liJxc5) 16 gxf3 i.xf3 17 ':'xe7
and the rook on the seventh plus Black's
pawn weaknesses leave him with problems
according to analysis by Gallagher. Instead
after 13 i.xf6 exf6 14 liJxc5 bxc5 15 liJb3
'iVb6 16 'iVe2 f5 Black's bishop pair compensated for his sttuctural weaknesses in
Veresov-Shagalovich, Byelorussian Ch. 1957.
13 'ili'e2 4:Je5

Black also seems to be under pressure af45

The Veresov

ter other moves. 13...Wc7 14ltJxf6+ ~xf6 15

~xf6 exf6 leaves him with the usual problem
of having the kingside pawn majority crippled, while 13...:e8 141:tad1 is uncomfortable.
14 i.c2liJc415 .l:.ad1 flc7

After 15 ...ltJxb2 Miles simply mentions 16

ltJe6 but this is far from clear after 16...'ii'e8.
White can win Black's queen with 17 ltJxg7
rJitxg7 18 ltJxf6 (18 l:d4!? looks much more
dangerous for Black) 18...exf6 19 ~h6+
rJ:itxh6 20 'iVd2+ ~g7 21 :!.xe8 1:tfxe8 but
Black has quite adequate compensation.
16 liJb5! 'if'b8 17 i.xf6! i.xf6
17...exf6 18 ~b3 is much better for White
- he has the better pawn structure and his
knights are about to jump into the d6-square.
18 liJxf6+ exf6 19 i.b3 liJe5 20 f4 liJc6
21 liJd6 .l:.c7 22 fle8!

great precision and power. 22 ltJe8 is far

from clear after 22....l:!.e7!.
22 ...l:txe8 23 .l:.xe8+ 'i'xe8 24liJxe8 ne7
25liJd6!
The spectacular 25 ltd7!? allows Black to
defend with 25 ... f5.
25 ... i.a8 26 liJxf7! 'ii'g7
Not 26 ...:xf7 27 l:.d7.
27 liJd8 liJxd8 28 J:txd8 i.c6 29 'ii'f2 h5
30 .l:.d6 :c7 31 .l:.e6 i.b7 32 g3 i.c8 33
J:[d6 i.d7 34 i.d5 i.g4 35 a3 .l:.e7 36
ii.c4 .l:.c7 37 i.n <3;f7 38 h3 <i;e7 39 .l:.d4
i.e6 40 i.d3 i.xh3 41 i.xg6 i.g4 42
nd5 'ii'e6 43 i.e4?
According to Miles, 43 :d8! would have
been more precise.
43 ...:c8 44 ~e3 <3;e7 45 f5?
And here White starts to lose the plot by
moving his pawns away from the dark
squares.
45 ... .l:.g8 46 .l:.d2 i.h3 47 .l:.h2??

Returning the pawn! 47 ~f3 keeps

White's winning chances alive.
47 ....l::!.xg3+ 48 ~2 h4
It seems that Miles had missed this simple
move. He was probably counting on
48...:g4??, when White wins with 49 ~f3
.l:lh450~g3.

Miles conducts this part of the game with

46

49 .l:.h1 <3;d6 50 lId1 + ~e5 51 .l:.d4 i.g4

52 a4 a5 53 ii.h1 i.xf5 54 .l::!.xh4 .l:.h3 55
l:Lxh3 i.xh3 56 i.c6 <i;d6 57 i.e4 i.d7
58 i.c2 <i;e5 59 It>e3 i.g4 60 i.b3 i.f5
61 i.d1 i.b1 62 ii.b3 f5 63 i.d1 f4+ 64

3 .. JiJbd7: 4 liJf3, 4 e3 and Others

~3 ..i.e4+ 65 ~2 'ittd5 66 ..i.b3+ 'ittc5

6 ... g5!

67 'itte2 ..i.c6 ~-~

Game 21
Otero-Camacho
Cuba (1st matchgame) 1997
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJc3 d5 3 ..i.g5 tiJbd7 4 tiJf3
h6

After 4... e6 5 e4 h6 White has an interesting alternative in 6 j.xf6, as in YennolinskyKaidanov.

5..i.h4
White can also try 5 ~f4 (KupreichikGutman).
5 ... e6
Leaving White to decide how to develop
his pieces. For 5...c5 see Mestrovic-Deze.
6 e4!?
The sharpest and most logical move in the
position, although probably insufficient to
give White an advantage. The quiet 6 e3 may
be objectively better but does not pose Black
particular problems after 6... j.e7 7 tiJe5
It)xe5 8 dxe5 It)d7 9 ~g3 ~b4 10 'iWg4
j.xc3+ 11 bxc3 'iig5, which led to complex
play in Hort-Szmetan, Biel 1982. Black had a
good game in O.Rodriguez-Christiansen,
Indonesia 1982 after 7 ~d3 c5 8 0-0 0-0 9
It)e5 It)xe5 10 dxe5 It)d7 11 ~xe7 'ilxe7 12
f4 f6 13 exf6lt)xf6 14 'iif3 j.d7 15 e4 c4 16
e5 "c5+ 17 'it>hl cxd3 18 exf6 ':'xf6 19 cxd3
l:!.afS 20 g3 e5.

This is probably good for Black but some

players might be afraid to go down this route
due to the sharp nature of the ensuing positions. Accordingly Black has also played a
number of more solid alternatives:
a) 6... j.e7 7 exd5 exd5 8 j.d3 0-0 9 0-0 c6
10 litel l::te8 was equal in Saigin-Averbakh,
Moscow 1963, but White engineered attacking chances in Seul-Schlick, Wittlich 1985: 7
e5!? tiJe4 8 j.xe7 'iWxe7 (another possibility is
8...lt)xc3!? 9 j.xd8 It)xdl, which Averbakh
might have rejected because the position
looked too drawish after 10 l:txd1 ~xd8) 9
It)xe4 dxe4 10 It)d2 'it'b4 (1O... f5!? is interesting) 11 c3 'ii'xb2 12lt)xe4 0-0 13 j.d3 etc.
b) 6...dxe4 7lt)xe4 j.e7 is super-solid and
8 tiJxf6+ .txf6 9 ~xf6 'iWxf6 10 'ild2 0-0 11
0-0-0 e5 was a complete equaliser in HoiLarsen, Copenhagen 1985.
c) 6... ~b4 turns out to be difficult for
Black after 7 exd5 exd5 8 'iWe2+ 'iWe7
(8... j.e7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 It)e5, intending 11 f4
and 12 g4, looks dangerous) 9 'iixe7+ ~xe7
(9 ... j.xe7 10 tiJb5 j.d8 11 .tg3 is strong for
White) 10 0-0-0 g5 11 ~g3 according to my
analysis.
7..i.g3ltJxe4
There's no reason to avoid this move as
White will find it difficult to justify his play.
Less good is 7...dxe4 8 tiJd2 (after 8 It)e5
.tb4 White will find it difficult to generate
enough compensation) 8....tb4 (after 8....tg7
47

The Veresov

White can play 9 ife2, preparing to castle

long and recapture on e4) and now 9 ife2,
when 9... ~xc3 10 bxc3 c5 11 ttJc40-0 12 h4
starts prising open a lot of dark squares (my
analysis).
The game Alburt-Lutikov, USSR 1970
varied with 7...i.b4 8 exd5 ttJxd5 9 'it'd3 c5
10 ttJd2 .ixc3 11 bxc3 ifa5 12 h4 g4, and
now I think that 13ttJc4 (rather than 13 i.d6
b6 14ttJb3 'ii'xc3+ 15 ifxc3 ttJxc3 16 dxc5)
13. ..ifxc3+ 14 "iWxc3 ttJxc3 15 dxc5 would
have been nice for White and his two bishops.
B 4Jxe4 dxe4 9 4Jd2

tion for the piece) 11 i.e5 .ig7 (11...i.d6 12

"iWe2 .ixe5 13 dxe5 ttJg4 14 f3 e3 15 fxg4
"ii'xd2+ 16 'ii'xd2 exd2+ 17 'it>xd2 fxg4 18
.l:.hfl was better for White despite his pawn
deficit in van Mil-Geenen, Virton 1988) 12 f3
e3 (12 ... exf3! is probably Black's best) 13
ttJb3 0-0 14 "iid3 ttJd5 (14... f4 is strongly
answered by 15 0-0-0, threatening 16 g3) 15
0-0-0 ttJb6 16 i.xg7 'it>xg7 17 ttJa5! ttJd5 18
.ixd5 "iixd5 19 ttJc4! b5 20 ttJeS "it'xa2 21
ifxe3 and White had a clear advantage in
Veresov-Radashkovich, USSR 1969 as his
control of the dark squares more than compensated for the pawn. Had Black taken a
second pawn with 21...ifa 1+ 22 ~d2 ifxb2,
White would have played 23 .l:.b1 ifa2 24
l:txb5 with his rook coming to c5 and the h2h4 lever in the air. Alternatively, ShagalovichSakharov, USSR 1969 went 10 h4 f4 11
"it'h5+ 'it>e7 12 hxg5 fxg3 13 0-0-0 "iie8 14
ifh4 ~d815ttJxe4 i.e7 and now Bellin's 16
'ii'xg3 gives White two pawns plus a strong
initiative for the piece.
10 h4!

For 9ttJe5 see Reynolds-Nunn.

9 ... .l1.g7

The critical line. The alternatives glVe

White excellent attacking chances, for example:
a) 9... ttJf6 10 i.e5 .id6 11 h4?! (rather
than pouring gasoline onto the flames White
should try the simple 11 i.xf6 "it'xf6 12
ttJxe4 with a useful space advantage)
11...gxh4 12 'iYe2 i.d7 13 l:txh4 ~c6 14
"ii'e3? ttJd5! 15 "iih3 i.xe5 16 dxe5 "ii'g5 17
l:txe4, Shagalovich-Zinn, Berlin 1967, and
now Black should play 17... 0-0-0! threatening
18..."iixd2+. In the game he played 17 ... ttJf4?
and stood worse after 18 'iYc3! ttJxg2+ 19
i.xg2 'ii'xg2 20 J::td4.
b) 9.. .f5 is quite weakening, for example
10 i.c4 ttJf6 (after 10... f4 11 'ih5+ ~e7 12
i.xf4 gxf4 13 ttJxe4 White gets compensa-

48

Offering a second pawn in order to accelerate his initiative. It's difficult for White to
justify his play after 10 c3, for example 10.. .f5
11 h4 g4 12 i.c4ttJb6 (12 ... ttJf6 13 ife2 0-0
14 h5 ttJd5 15 0-0-0 c6 16 f3 b5 17 .ib3 was
also very difficult to assess in IgnatievRogovoi, Russia 1998. White is hoping to
worm his way into the holes around Black's
king but he is a pawn down) 13 i.b3 0-0 14

3 .. .ti::Jbd7: 4 !i:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

~e2 as (the immediate 14... f4!? is also inter-

esting as White would be obliged to sacrifice

a piece with 15 i.xf4) 15 a3 1Ir'e7 16 0-0-0
l'la6 17 ttJxe4 fxe4 18 ~xe4 left White with
inadequate compensation for the piece in
Hoi-Larsen, Denmark 1989, though the position isn't easy for Black as shown by the fact
that Hoi managed to win.
10 ... .i.xd4 11 c3
Less good is 11 ttJxe4 i.xb2 12 hxg5 (12
llbl ttJf6! 13 'ii'xd8+ ~xd8 left Black material up in the endgame in NeukirchUhlmann, DDR 1972) 12... hxg5 13 :xh8+
i.xh8 14 c3 i.g7! 15 'ifb3 (15 'iVh5? ttJf6! 16
'iVxg5 ttJxe4 17 'iVxg7'ifd2 mate) 15... f5! and
White had little compensation for the sacrificed pawns in Mestrovic-Vukic, Yugoslav
Ch.1974.
11 ... .i.e5!

This, in tum, looks like Black's best defence. If Black plays 11....tg7 White gets a
strong initiative for the pawn with 12 hxg5
hxg5 13 :Xh8+ .i.xh8 14 'iVh5 followed by
0-0-0.
The other move to have been tried is
Y1 ...gxh4?, but then there follows 12 :xh4!
i.f6 (relatively best is 12...i.g7 but then 13
ttJxe4 Ve7 14 'iVh5 ttJf6 15 ttJxf6+ .txf6 16
.l:f.f4 e5 17 l:txf6 'iVxf6 18 i.xe5 gave White
more than enough for the exchange in Tischbierek-Uhlmann, Leipzig 1983) 13 'iVh5!
i.g5 14 ttJxe4 :g8 15 :g4 a6 (15 .. JIVe7 is
met by 16 f4) 16 :dl (16 f4 is more brutish

but equally effective) 16...e5 17 i.h4 "ike7 18

i.c4 ttJf6 19 lhg5! hxg5 (or 19...litxg5 20
'iVxh6 etc.) 20 i.xf7+ ~f8 21 ttJxf6 1-0,
Veresov-Zheliandinov, USSR 1969.
11 ... e3 has been suggested by the likes of
Alburt and Yudovich but apparently never
tried. White's position looks promising after
12 cxd4 exd2+ 13 1Ir'xd2 with very good play
on the dark squares.
12.i.xe5
Preferable to 12 ttJxe4 .i.xg3 13 fxg3 gxh4
141lxh4 'fie7 15 'iVd2 (after 15 'iVd4 White
is driven back with 15...e5 16 'ii'd2 ttJf6!?)
15... f5! 16 ttJg5 (16 ttJf2 ttJf6 17 ':xh6 :xh6
18 'fixh6 i.d7, when Black intends to castle
long and ultimately use the passed e-pawn)
16... ttJf6 17 0-0-0 i.d7 18 ttJf3 0-0-0 19
:xh6 ttJe4 20 'ii'e3 :xh6 21 'iixh6 (after 21
'iVxa7 Black defends with 21...c5 22 i.a6
i.c6 etc.) 21...ttJxg3 and Black emerged with
a good extra pawn in Galkin-Volzhin, Perm
1997.
12 ...!i:Jxe5 13"a4+
After 13 hxg5 there follows 13...e3
(13 ...'iVxg5 14 ttJxe4 'iif4 15 "ikd4 is good for
White) 14 ttJe4 (not 14 fxe3 'fixg5) 14... exf2+
15 ~xf2 "xdl 16 litxdl ~e7 17 .i.e2 h5 18
gxh5 with a likely draw in the endgame.
13 ... .i.d7 14 'ii'xe4

In the third game of their match Otero

varied with 14 'fid4!? but failed to trouble
Black unduly. The game went 14...ttJg6 15 h5
e5 16 'ii'xe4 .i.c6 17 i.b5!? ttJe7 (17 ....i.xb5
49

The Veresov

18 hxg6 is very dangerous for Black) 18

"xeS 0-0 19 0-0-0 "dS! 20 'irxe7 ~xbS 21
liJb3 'it'fS 22 liJd4 lWf4+ 23 ~b1 %lfe8 24
lWcs ~d7 25 g3 lWeS and Black had equalised. Another possibility is 15 'iVg7!?, when
Camacho analzyed 1S...'ii'e7! 16 hS 'iff8 17
'ird4 eS! 18 "xe4 ~c6 19 ~bS! liJe7 20
1i'xeS 0-0-0 21 SLxc6liJxc6 221i'fS+ ~b8 23
0-0-0 1i'g7 as being equal, but White might
also consider 20 SLxc6+ liJxc6 21 "fS. Both
15 hxgS?! 'ii'xgS 16 ltJxe4 1i'eS and 15
liJxe4?! ~c6! leave White struggling to fmd
enough for the pawn.

quate compensation. Black can simplify the

position and leave White struggling to recapture the e4-pawn. For 9 liJd2 see GalkinVolzhin.
9 ....i.g7

14... tOe6 15 tOf3

15... gxh4

Black can also equalise with 1S...1i'f6, the

likely sequel being 16 hxgS hxgS 17 l:txh8+
1i'xh818liJxgS 'ii'f6 etc.
16 tOe5!?

White doesn't have enough for the pawn

after 16 O-O-O?! 'ire7, intending ... 0-0-0.
16...tOxe5 17 'ii'xe5 :tg8 18 %:td1 'ile7 19
'ilxe7 .i.e6 20 'ii'xe7+ Q;xe7 %-%

poo-------------Game 22
Reynolds-Nunn

London 1987

Black should be careful to avoid 9...lLlxeS

10 SLxeS f6? (to....:tg8 is mandatory) because
11 'ii'h5+ ~e7 12 'irg6! fxeS 13 dxeS brings
with it the deadly threat of 14 'ii'f6+. However, Black does have interesting alternatives
here:
a) 9... hS to h4 g4 11 'ife2 (or 11 ~c4
liJxeS 12 dxeS "xd1+ 13l:txd1 SLh6, which
left White with the task of regaining the e4pawn in Schmittdiel-Mainka, Dortmund
1988) 11...liJxeS 12 dxeS 1i'd4! (stubbornly
hanging onto the pawn makes it difficult for
White to justify his play, whereas 12...SLh613
l:tdl "e7 14 'it'xe4 favoured White in Amnian-Nalbandian, Yerevan 1996) 13 c3 'ifa4
and White still needs to get that e4-pawn
back!
b) 9.. .l:lg8 10 1i'e2 liJxeS 11 ~xeS (11
dxeS 'ifd4) 11...f6 12 ~g3 1i'xd4 13 1i'hs+
~e7 also put the onus on White to prove his
compensation in Spal-Soukal, Czech Republie 1995.
10 h4

1 d4 tOt6 2 tOe3 d5 3 .i.g5 tObd7 4 tOt3

e6 5 e4 h6 6 .i.h4 g5 7 .i.g3 tOxe4 8
tOxe4 dxe4 9 tOe5

A sharp gambit continuation, though one

which leaves White struggling to find ade-

50

White is also struggling for equality after

to 'it'e2. Then to ...1i'e7 11 0-0-0 liJxeS 12

dxeS ~d7 13lWxe4 0-0-0 14 ~a6 c6 1Sl!d6!
led to a spectacular win for White in Muratov-Upman, USSR 1980, the concluding

3 .. .tiJbd7: 4 tiJf3, 4 e3 and Others

moves being Is ... ~e8 16 l:!.hdl l:.xd6 17

exd6 'ii'd7 18 'itb4 bxa6 19 l:I.d3 as 20 Wxas
f5 21 :b3 1-0. However, Black has the far
superior lO...liJxes! 11 dxes .ds 12 .l:tdl
'ii'a5+ (even 12.. .'iVxa2 13 'ii'd2 0-0 is not
unthinkable) 13 c3 ~d7 14 'ii'xe4 0-0-0, intending Is ... ~c6.
10...tiJxe5
lO ...We7 is also playable but not quite as
incisive.
11 .i.xe5
After 11 dxes 'iixdH 12 .:xdl ~d7 Black
keeps the extra pawn.

11 ... .i.xe5
An interesting alternative is 11...f6!?, when
Shagalovich-Shamkovich, Grozny Team Ch.
1969 continued 12 ~g3 O-O! (after 12.. .'iii'f8
13 hxgs hxgs 14 .!:!xh8+ ~xh8 15 'ii'hs ~g7
16 0-0-0 White had enough compensation in
Spal-Pachrnan, Ceske Budejovice 1992) 13
hxgs fxgs! (opening lines for the counterattack; 13. ..hxgs 14 'ii'hs is unpleasant) 14 c3
~d7 15 ~c4 'ii'f6 16 'ii'e2 'ii'fS. Now Black
obtained a strong attack after 17 ~xc7?!
llac8 18 ~g3? (18 ~d6 l:I.fd8 19 0-0 ~c6 20
~g3 ~ds 21 .i.xds exds is nice for Black
but still a game) 18...l:.xc4! 19 'ii'xc4 e3 20
'tie2? (White should bail out with 20 0-0
~bs 21 'tics, exchanging as many pieces as
possible) 20... exf2+ 21 .txf2 (21 'i'xf2 is
strongly met by 21...'ii'ds!) 21....tbs 22 'ii'd2
(after 22 'ii'e3 Black opens more lines with
22...es!) 22.. JWe4+ 23 .te3 (23 'iWe3 'ii'xg2 is

also good for Black but offers more resistance than the text) 23 ...'ii'h4+! 0-1. According to Shamkovich White should have played
17 0-0, after which 17 ... bs! 18 .tb3 b4 19
.tc2 ~c6 would bring about a double-edged
position with chances for both sides. Another possibility is 17 0-0-0.
12 dxe5 .i.d7 13 'iVg4

Bellin's recommendation for White to

'hang on', although this is hardly a mandate
for 9 liJes. In Mestrovic-Bobotsov, Sarajevo
1971 White played 13 'ii'd2 but found himself struggling after 13...gxh4 14 'ii'b4 ~c6 15
~bs 'iid5 16 .i.xc6+ bxc6 17 litxh4 e3 18
fxe3 0-0-0 etc. In the event of 13 'ii'd4 Black
replies 13. .. ~c6! 14 'ii'xd8+ l:I.xd8 15 hxg5
l:I.dS and after 16 gxh6 (16 l:txh6 l:txh6 17
gxh6 l:IxeS 18 .te2 'it.>f8 also leaves the h6pawn weak) 16....:.xeS he will round up h6
with 17...l:I.gS and 18....!:!g6.
13 ...e7
Black can also play 13 ....tc6 14 hxgS 'iid4,
Muratov-Kiselev, Moscow 1988 continuing
15 c3 'ii'xeS 160-0-0 'it.>e7 17l:txh6 l:Ixh6 18
gxh6 :b8 with the h6-pawn being in big
trouble.
140-0-0

In Hector-Simon, Naestved 1988 White

varied with 14 'ii'xe4 but he was still struggling after 14... .tc6! 15 'ii'd4 (the ingenious
15 .tbS backfires after IS ....txbS 16 'it'xb7
'ii'b4+ 17 c3 'it'xb2, threatening mate on e2
and the rook on al) lS...1!d8 16 'iic3 gxh4
51

The Veresov

etc.
14... 0-0-0 15 .xe4 i.e6 16 :xd8+
l:txd8 17 'ili'e3 gxh4! 18 'ili'xa7?!

Capturing the other rook's pawn would

also be wrong: 18 Wxh6? is answered by
18..."c5 19 Wf4 (or 19 'ii'xh4 Wxe5)
19...'ii'd5 20 b3 h3! etc. White's best is 18 f4!,
when 18...'iVb4 19 1:'1xh4 'ii'a4 20 a3 i.e4
gives White good drawing chances after 21
.td3 (21 'ii'c3 l::.g8, threatening 22...l:tg3!,
with some pressure for Black) 21 ....txd3 22
cxd3'ii'c6+ 23 'iitbl 'ii'xg2 241:txh6 etc.
18..."g5+ 19 .e3 :d4! 20 'ili'xg5

Or 28 :2 l:tg5 etc.
28 ...i.b5 29 :f2 i.e2 30 e4 e5 31 a3 b6
32 b4 <li'e7 0-1

Game 23
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov
New York 1993
1 d4 d5 2 tOe3 ibf6 3 i.g5 tObd7 4 tOf3
e6

Black can avoid the line played in this

game (6 .txf6!?) by playing 4... h6 5 .th4, and
only then 5...e6. But in this case he must also
reckon with 5 i.f4.
5 e4 h6 6 i.xf6!?
White has this option if Black plays 4...e6
and 5... h6. We have already seen 6 i.h4 in
Galkin-Volzhin and Reynolds-Nunn.
6 ...ibxf6! 7 "e2!

The only move. In response to 20 c3

Black has 20...:te4, while after 20 .td3 there
is 20 ....txg2 followed by ... h3 etc.
20 ... hxg5 21 f3 l:td5 22 f4 gxf4 23 :xh4
f3! 24 l:th5?

This certainly makes it easier for Black, although White might be losing in any case.
White had to try 24 gxf3 li[xe5 25 i.g2 (25
.td3 .txf3 26 nf4 .th5 is probably winning
because of the connected passed pawns),
which is nevertheless quite unpleasant after
25 ...l:te2 26 l:tg4 'iitd7.
24 ...:d8! 25 J:!.h2

Neither 25 l1g5 li[h8, 25 g3 l1g8, nor 25

g4 :d4 26 l:tg5 2 followed by 27...:e4
would help.
25 .. J~g8 26 g3

After 26 gxf3 !!gl 27 :2 i.b5 White

loses a piece.
26 .. J:txg3 27 <li'd2 :g1 28 ~e1

52

An excellent innovation from Yenno,

which really deserved a better fate. Here are
the alternatives:
a) 7 i.d3 is strongly met by 7....tb4! 8
exd5 (8 e5 ttJe4 is good for Black) 8...itJxd5!
(8 ... exd5 9 0-0 0-0 was slighdy better for
Black in Rossetto-Gligoric, Havana 1967 but
the text is even stronger) 9 'ii'd2 c6! 10 ttJe5
(10 a3 is met by 10...'iWa5) 1O...'ii'b6! (and not
the immediate 10...'iWa5? because of 11 ttJc4,
when 11....txc3 12 ttJxa5 .txd2+ 13 ~xd2
actually looks better for \x'hite) 11 l:tc1 (11
0-0 'ii'a5 wins a pawn in this position, the
fact that White has casded leaving the knight

3 ... 4Jbd7: 4 4Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

on d2 unprotected) 11..."ili'xd4! 12 0.xfl

liJxc3! 13 0.xhs 'ii'e5+! 14 c.t>f1 lDxa2 15 c3
0.xc1 16 'ifxc1 (16 SLg6+ <:l;e7 is no better)
16...SLcS, with a good extra pawn for Black
in Arkell-Thipsay, Calicut 1987.
b) 7 eS 0.e4 is very comfortable for Black.
c) 7 'ifd3!? in my view deserves consideration. like 7 "ili'e2, it prevents 7...SLh4? due to
8 'ifb5+. It also prepares queenside castling,
leaves e2 open for White's bishop and may
afford White the option of using his queen
on the third rank.
7 ... i.e7
The point of Yermo's last move is that
7... ~b4? can be answered by 8 'ifb5+, picking up the bishop. White maintains a slight
advantage after 7...dxe4 8 0.xe4 0.xe4 9
'ifxe4 'iVdS 10 ~d3, or 7... a6 8 exdS (here 8
O-O-O?! is answered by S... dxe4 9 0.xe4 0.xe4
10 'ii'xe4 'ifdS, hitting the a2-pawn) 8...0.xdS
9 0.e4 etc.
8 e5 4Jd7 9 0-0-0 a6 10 h4 c5 11 g4?!

Black's attack becomes too strong.

12 ... b4 13 4Jxd5
Played with the courage of despair. After
13 0.bl "as or 13 0.a4 c4 14 0.d2 litb8
Ontending 1S..."ili'aS) White comes under a
strong attack.
13 ... exd5 14 dxc5 4Jxc5 15 4Jd4 i.b7
16 f4
White's compensation is also inadequate
after 16 0.fS g6 (or 16... 0-0 17 SLxdS i.xdS
18 .l:r.xdS 'ii'c7) 17 0.xe7"ili'xe7 etc.
16 ...4Je6 17 4Jxe6 fxe6 18 g5 hxg5 19
hxg5 :'xh1 20 :'xh1 if'b6 21 if'h5+ ~d7
22 if'f7 if'e3+ 0-1
After 23 c.t>b1 118 24 "ili'xg7 'iVxf4 Black
wins easily, 25 .l:r.h7? being answered by
2S .. :ii'f1+!.

Game 24
Mestrovic-Deze
Yugoslavia 1969
1 d4 4Jf6 2 4Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 4Jbd7 4 4Jf3
h6 5 i.h4 c5!? 6 dxc5!?

Lurching forward on the kingside might

not be the correct plan. White should probably focus on the centre with 11 dxcS ~xcS!
12 0.d4! bS 13 f4 'iVc7.
11 ... b5?!
Ftacnik recommended 11...c4, and it does
seem quite good for Black after 12 'iVe3 bS
13 0.e2 b4 with ideas such as .. :tWaS or ...c4c3.
12 i.g2?
White should still/opt for 12 dxcS before

Only with this greedy capture can Black's

idea be tested. The solid move is 6 e3.
6 ... e6
After 6.. :ii'aS White obtains an edge with
7 i.xf6! 0.xf6 8 e4 (8 'ifd4 is also worth
considering) 8... e6 (it looks as if White is
better after 8... dxe4 9 0.eS a6 10 'ii'd4, intending 11 h4 or 11 0-0-0, while 8...0.xe4??
loses on the spot to 9 i.bS+) 9 i.b5+ i.d7

53

The Veresov

10 i.xd7+ liJxd7 11 exd5.i.xc5 12 dxe6 fxe6

13 0-0 0-0-0 14 'ite2 and White had an edge
in Hort-Ostenneyer, Dortmund 1982.
7 b4!?

other hand it's well worth examuung 11

:b I!? without the preliminary exchange on
f6, the point being that l1...iLa5 121:1b3 e5?
makes 13 liJxe5 possible. Tests required!
11...gxf6 12 J:r.b1

In the event of the alternative 12 liJd2

there follows 12...:tc8 13 liJcb 1 lhc2 14 e3
':c1+ 15 ..ti>e2 0-0 when White is horribly tied
up.
12....lta5 13 .l:[b3

After 13 ..ti>d 1 Deze gave 13...':c8! 14 l:tb3

.u.c4 15 \i'd3 (or 15 'ite3 d4 16 liJxd4 \i'd6
winning back the piece with a huge advantage) 15...'it'c5 16 liJbl ..ti>e7! but White may
be able to continue with 17 e3 ':c8 18 ':b2
etc.
13 ... e5 14 'iixd5 0-0 15 e3?!
7 ... b6

This certainly succeeds in undennining

White's advanced pawns but it involves
Black in the sacrifice of a piece. A less costly
way of attempting to do this is with 7...a5,
after which Ribli-Planinc, Sombor 1970 continued 8 a3 g5 9 iLg3 iLg7 10 1:1bl (10 liJb5!?
liJe4 11 liJfd4 could be an improvement)
1O...axb4 11 axb4 liJe4 12 liJxe4 dxe4 13
liJd4 liJxc5!, recovering the pawn with a
good game.
8 c6 .ltxb4! 9 cxd7+ .ltxd7 10 'ii'd4 'ii'e7

This looks like desperation on White's

part - he patts with a whole rook in order to
try to regain the initiative. He should play 15
liJd2 .i.e6 16 'it'd3 though even then Black's
attack looks very strong because White finds
it so difficult to develop. A possible line of
play is 16...,Uac8 17 liJcb 1 iLxb3 18 axb3
nfd8 19 \i'g3+ ..ti>h7 20 c3 .i.xc3 21 liJxc3
'ita3 etc.
15....lte6 16 'ii'e4 .ltxb3 17 axb3

11 i.xf6?!

After 17 iLd3 there follows 17....i.xc3+ 18

..ti>n 5! 19 'iixf5 e4 20 iLxe4 .i.c4+ 21 ..ti>gl
nfd8 etc.

Unpinning the knight on c3 with 11 ~dl

runs into 11...1:1c8 12liJbl iLa4 with a powerful attack for the sacrificed piece. On the

17 ....ltxc3+ 18 ~e2 f5 19 'ii'xf5 .l:[fd8 20

'ii'e4 'ii'd6 21 'ii'd3 'ii'c5 22 'ii'c4 'ii'xc4+
23 bxc4 e4 24 ttJd4 a5 25 f3 a4 0-1

54

3 ... li:Jbd7: 4 li:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

r----------------... Black has 6...~b4+ 7 c3 .i.aS) 6...a6 7 a3 cS 8

Game 25
Kupreichik-Gutman
USSR 1976

e3 bS, which gave him quite a good game in

Galinsky-Grabinsky, Alushta 2002.
6 e4!?

1 d4 li:Jf6 2 li:Jc3 dS 3 i..gS li:Jbd7 4 li:Jf3

h6 S i..f4!?

An unstereotyped move. \1V'hite threatens

6 liJbS, though there are a number of ways
for Black to meet this idea.
S ... a6
Black can also defend the bS-square with
S...c6, when \1V'hite should play 6 'iVd3, preparing e2-e4 and 0-0-0. This transposes to
the note to \1V'hite's 6th move in the game
Ben Menachem-Boric in Chapter 2. Aiming
for nothing more than quiet development
with 6 e3 will not trouble Black. A good way
to meet this is with 6...liJhS (6 ...e6 is also
quite solid) 7 ~eS liJxeS 8 liJxeS liJf6 9 .i.d3
e6 10 0-0 .i.d6 11 f4 'iVe7 12 'It>h1 ~d7 13 e4
dxe4 14 liJxe4 liJxe4 15 ~xe4 0-0-0 which
was fine for Black in Bairachny-Tolnai,
Zalakaros 1996.
The immediate S... cS can lead to interesting complications after 6 dxcS liJxcs 7 e4
liJcxe4 8 liJbS eSt? (8...liJd6 9 liJxd6+ exd6
10 ~b5+ .i.d7 11 ~xd7+ 'iVxd7 120-0 .i.e7
13 liJd4 0-0 14 'iVd3 gave \1V'hite compensation for the pawn in Bairachny-] .Horvath,
Budapest 1996) 9 ~xeS ~cS 10 liJc7+ 'iti>f8
11 liJxa8 liJxf2 etc. Black can also prepare
this lever with S...e6 6 "d2 (after 6 liJbS

An ambitious idea from Kupreichik. It is

also possible to prepare this thrust with 6
'it'd3, when 6 ... e6 (or 6 ... c5 7 e4) 7 e4 dxe4
(7 ....i.b4!?) 8 liJxe4 liJxe4 9 'ii'xe4 liJf6 10
'it'd3 .i.d6 11 liJeS was slightly better for
\1V'hite in Biyiasas-Vranesic, Toronto 1972.
Quiet development with 6 e3 leaves \1V'hite's
knight on c3 somewhat misplaced. In
L.Karlsson-Dive, Wrexham 1994 Black had a
good game after 6... e6 7 ~e2 .i.e7 8 0-0 cS 9
h3 0-0 10 liJeS liJxeS 11 dxeS lLld7 12 ~g3
bS 13 f4 b4 14 liJb 1 f5 thanks to the extra
space on the queenside space and \1V'hite's
lack of kingside counterplay.
6 ... dxe4 7 li:Jd2 e3 8 fxe3 g6 9 i..e2 i..g7
10 e4 0-0 11 eS?!

55

The Veresov

White's pawn centre briefly looks quite

impressive but over the next few moves
Black effectively undermines it. Here it seems
better to play instead the line 11 0-0 cS 12 dS
with a complex position which needs some
tests.
11 ...lZleS 12 lZlde4 c5! 13 dxc5 lZlc7 14
ltJa4?!

Probably overlooking or underestimating

Black's 16th. Both 14 'iYd2 and 14 'iYc1 look
better.
14... lZle6 15 .ig3 "a5+ 16 c3 b5! 17
cxb6 lZlxb6 1S lZlxb6

After 18 ttJacS Black has 18... .l:!.d8 with a

continuing initiative.
1S ...'ii'xb6 19 'ii'c2 .ib7 20 .if3 llabS 21
O-O-O?!

This looks rather harmless but there are

some subtle effects compared with 4 ttJf3.
For one thing White keeps open the option
of advancing his f-pawn; in some positions
he might also bring his queen out to f3 ...
4 ... g6
After 4... e6 I suggest S 'ii'f3!? which prepares queenside castling but also supports a
pawn storm with a later g2-g4. Meanwhile
White's queen is relatively safe from harassment because the e6-pawn restricts the activity of Black's light-squared bishop. A sample
variation is S...!i..e7 6 0-0-0 0-0 7 g4 cS 8 h4
with what I think is quite a promising position for White. Tests are required! For 4...c6
see Bricard-Todorov.
5.id3

An incredibly risky decision, castling

straight into open files.
21 ...l:tfcS

Black's open flies on the queenside give

him more than enough compensation for the
pawn.
22 Iii'b1 .a5 23 ~a1 l:tc4 24 lZld2 lZld4
25 'irc1 :a4 26 a3 .ixf3 27 gxf3 lZle2!
2S lZlc4 llxc4 29 'ii'e3 llxc3 30 'ii'xe2
llxa3+ 31 'it>b1 lla1 + 0-1

For the immediate S f4 see the next game.

It's not clear why Ermenkov delays this advance for so long; perhaps he wanted Black
to castle first.
5 ....ig7 6 "d2!?

White can still transpose to MilesAndersson with 6 ttJf3. The text lends the
game an independent flavour.
6 ... 0-0 7 f4 c5!

Grivas felt that 7...c6?! would have been

, . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , poor in view of 80-0-0 when White has danGame 26
gerous attacking chances. While I'm not sure
Ermenkov-Grivas
that Black is without resources in this posiSofia 1986
tion, the idea of castling long is certainly
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... worth noting.
1 d4 d5 2 lZlc3 lZlf6 3 .ig5 lZlbd7 4 e3!?

56

slZlf3 b6 9ltJe5 .ib7 10 nd1!

3 .. .lbbd7: 4 !i:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

15 'ii'xdS 'ifaS+ 16 c3 tLlc7 17 'ifxcs lDxbS

18 J.xe7 .:tfe8, when the piece is worth far
more than the three (weak) pawns.
11 ...!i:Jd6 12 ~h4 ':c8! 13 !i:Jb5 !i:Jxb5 14
i.xb5 !i:Jxe5 15 fxe5 c4!?

Almost always a controversial decision because it presents White with an e3-e4 pawn
lever.
16 c3 ~c6 17 ~xc6lbc6 18 e4! f6

After 18. ..dxe4? 19 'ii'e2 White wins the

e4-pawn.
19 exf6 i.xf6 20 'iVe1! i.xh4! 21 Wxh4

According to Grivas 10 O-O? is punished

by 1O...lDe4! 11 J.xe4 dxe4 12 lDxd7 1i'xd7
13 lDe2 cxd4 14 exd4 (or 14 lDxd4 eS)
14...J.a6. Certainly White's position has no
great appeal here.
10...!i:Je8!?

In this position 1O...lDe4 fails to 11 i..xe4

dxe4 12 tLlxd7 'ii'xd7 13 dxcS etc. Gallagher
mentions the possibility of 1O...cxd4 11 exd4
tLle4 but this seems better for White after 12
tLlxe4 dxe4 13 J.bS (rather than Gallagher's
13 J.c4, which is well met by 13...tLlxeS followed by 14...'iWc7) 13...tLlxeS 14 fxeS 'Ic7
15 0-0 with more space and the better pawn
structure.

White can also interpose 21 l1xf8+ 'tIixffi

before playing 22 'ifxh4 but then Black can
hang on with 22...dxe4! 23 Wxe4 .l:!.f6 24
'ii"d5+"iVf7 2S'ifa8+~g7 26 Wxa7 'ii'e6 with
adequate counterplay.
21 ....:cf6 22 ':xf6 ':xf6 23 exd5

After 23 J:1el Black has 23...e6!, gaining

time with the threat of 24...:f1+.
23 .. :i!i'xd5 24 Wg3 .d6! 25 ""'e3 'iilf7!
26 l:te1 We6 27 ""'g3

In the pawn endgame Black can draw by

eliminating his e-pawn: 27 'ifxe6+ .l:.xe6 28
~xe6 ~xe6 29 ~f2 ~dS 30 ~e3 eS! with
equality.
27 .. :.f5 28 h3 'iff4 29 <t>h2 h5

Another possibility was 29 ...gS.

11 0-0

30 h4 'iff2! 31 l:te4 .f5

The attempt to win the dS-pawn with 11

tLlxd7 .xd7 12 dxcS bxcS 13 J.bS falls flat
after 13...'ii'c7! 14 tLlxdS (or 14 J.xe8 l:!fxe8
15 tLlxdS J.xdS 16 'ifxdS .l:.ad8) 14...J.xdS

Better than 31...'ifxb2 32 'ii'c7 'iVa3 33

'ii'xc4+ when \x-'hite retains some chances.
32 ""'e3 l:te6 33 l:txe6 Wxe6 34 'iff4+
Or 34 'ifxe6+ ~xe6 35 <Ji>g3 <Ji>f5 36 ~f3

57

The Veresov

b5 etc.
34.Ai'g7 %-%

but after 8 0-0 'iWb6 White can calmly play 9

:b1.
80-0 i..b7 9 f5

Game 27
Brandner-Miniboeck
St Poelten 2002
1 d4 .!tJf6 2 .!tJc3 d5 3 i..g5 .!tJbd7 4 e3

The immediate 4 f4 looks premature to

me. Gueneau-Lane, Parthenay 1992 went
4...e6 5 a3 c5 6 e3 'ifa5! 7 ttJf3?! (White
should unpin with 7 Wd2 but then 7...cxd4 8
exd4 Ji.b4 looks better for Black, while 7
i.d3 doesn't help White after 7... c4 8 i.e2
ttJe4 etc.) 7...ttJe4 8 c1xc5 .i.xc5 9 i.d3 ttJxc3
10 Wd2 Wb6 11 Wxc3 f6 120-0 i.xe3+ 13
~h 1 0-0 14 i.h4 i.xf4 0-1.
4 ... g6 5 f4!?

The standard move is 9 ttJe5 but White

approaches the situation far more imaginatively. Breaking open lines on the kingside
like this illustrates a further disadvantage of
Black's 3...ttJbd7. The light-squared bishop
no longer covers f5.
9 ... c5 10 fxg6

White could also think about delaying this

exchange as after 10 Wel!? c4 11 Ji.e2 gxf5
he has attacking chances against Black's
weakened kingside.
10... hxg6

It's probably better to play lO... fxg6, leaving Black's king somewhat better protected.
11 'iVe1 ~e4 12 'i'h4 f6?

With Black having played ...ttJbd7 and

...g7-g6 this becomes very interesting. Had he
been able to play ...c7-c5 and ...ttJb8-c6 he
would put far more pressure on White's centre. And had he not played ...g7-g6 he could
put pressure on the knight on c3 as in the
note above.

The decisive error. Black had to play

12...ttJdf6 when White would probably bring
his queen's knight over, starting with 13 ttJe2.

5 ... i..g7

14... i..xe4 15 1i'xe4 'ii'e8

5...c6 transposes to Bricard-Todorov.

6 ~f3 0-0 7 i..d3

White might also consider the modest 7

.i.e2 which reduces Black's opportunities for
counterplay by leaving d4 better protected.
7 ... b6
Black should play the more active 7...c5

58

13 .!tJxe4 dxe4 14 i..xe4

14 i.c4+ was even better as after 14...Ilf7

15 ttJd2 White wins the exchange for zero
compensation.
Black prefers to decline the piece and stay
a pawn down in a hopeless position. Admittedly it's very dangerous to take as after
15... fxg5 16 'i'e6+~h817 ttJxg5 ttJf6 White
with powerful threats.
has the nasty 18
16 i..f4 e6 17 i..d6 f5 18 'i'h4 :f7 19

:f3

.g3

3 .. .li:Jbd7: 4 ti:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

time the justification being the somewhat

passive ...c7-c6. This pawn will lose a tempo
in advancing to cS. White can also develop
some pieces before switching to the tDf3-eS
and f2-f4 plan, for example VyzhmanavinBronstein, Moscow Ch. 1981 went S tDf3 e6
6 jLd3 jLe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tDe5 tDxeS 9 dxeS
tDd7 10 jLxe7 'iVxe7 11 f4 f6 12 "'hS! g6 13
exf6 'fixf6?! (13 ...tDxf6 14 'iVh4 eS was better
with complex play) 14 'fih6 and White had a
slight edge.
5 ... g6
Black doesn't generate much counterplay
after this move so he would do well to conAfter 19 lLlg5 Black can delay resignation
sider the alternatives:
with 19...jLf6.
19 ..J:l.f6 20 ti:Jg5 .th6 21 .tf4 ~g7 22
a) After S......aS 6 jLd3 e6 I suggest that
:ae1 J:l.c8 23 c3 '6'g8 24 e4 J:l.e8 25 ti:Jh3
White gambits a pawn with 7 tDf3 (7 a3 c5
was awkward for White in Ratolistkacxd4 26 cxd4 .txf4 27 ti:Jxf4 1-0
Altschul, Kosice 1961 as 8 tDf3 could be
Besides 28 lLlh5+ White threatens 28 eS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . " answered by 8...c4 9 jLe2lLle4) 7...jLb4 8 0-0
Game 28
jLxc3 9 bxc3 'ii'xc3 10 lilbl!? (10 tDeS?! cS
Bricard-Todorov
favoured Black in Stulik-Hannak, Olomouc
5t Aifrique Open 2000
1944) 1O...lLle4 11 .l:.b3 'iVaS 12 jLxe4 dxe4
13lLld2.
b) S... bS 6 jLd3lLlb6 was played in Atana1 d4 d5 2 ti:Jc3
sov-Sydor, Ruse 1984 and now 7 b3 makes
The move order was actually 2 jLgS c6 3
sense, simply depriving Black's knight of the
lLlc3 lLld7 4 e3 tDgf6 S f4. I've used a
c4-square. In the game White played 7 lLlf3
Veresov move order for the sake of clarity.
after which 7...lLlc4 8 'it'c1 'ii'b6 9 0-0 e6 10
2 ..ti:Jf6 3 ~g5 ti:Jbd7 4 e3 c6
f5 jLe7 11 e4 eSled to a complex game.
This position can also arise via 3...c6 4 e3
c) S..."ifb6 6 %:tb1 e67 jLd3 cS 8lLlf3 cxd4
lLlbd7.
9 exd4 a6 10 0-0 jLe7 11 ~h1 gave White
5 f4
good attacking chances in Wade-Shah,
Hampstead 1998.
d) 5... h6 6 jLh4 g5!? (sacrificing a pawn
for a dangerous initiative; 6...'it'aS 7 jLd3
lLle4 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 9 'it'd2 'fihs 10 .i.f2 lLlf6
11 tDge2 'ilg6 12 lIg1 .i.g413 0-0-0 e6 14 h3
left White with the superior pawn structure
in R.Pert-Taksrud, Copenhagen 2002) 7 fxgS
(I think that White should decline the offer
with 7 .i.g3, when there are some weaknesses
in Black's camp) 7... hxgS 8 .i.xgS eS 9 lLlf3
'ii'b6 10 lIb1 lLlh7 11 jLh4 e4 12 lLld2lLldf6
13 jLe2 .i.h6 and Black had plenty for the
pawn in Francisco-Leite, Odivelas 2001.
Once again this becomes interesting, this

59

The Veresov

6 .lid3 .lig 7 7 lLlf3

13f5!g5

White can also consider 7 'ii'd2!? with the

idea of meeting 7...0-0 with 8 0-0-0 and then
launching some sort of attack on the kingside. The passive nature of ...c7-c6 makes
such things possible.

After 13...ttJxe5 14 dxe5 'ii'xe5 White can

trap his opponent's queen with 15 ~g3.

7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 c5

14 ~g3 lLlh5 15 lLlxd7 lLlxg3 16 'ii'xg3

'iVxd7 17 dxc5 bxc5 18 h4?

A good move at the wrong time. White

should first win the d5-pawn with 18 Sl.b5
'ii'c8 19 ttJxd5 .ltxd5 20 ':'xd5 and only after
20... ~xb2 play 21 h4.
18....lif6?

8... b6 9 'ii'd2 (White would do better to

play 9 ttJe5 at once or even 9 fS!? - in either
case the position looks promising for him)
9... ~b7 10 l:.ae1 c5 11 ttJe5 a6 12 fS ttJe4 13
Sl.xe4 dxe4 14 ttJxd7 'ii'xd7 was WadeD'Costa, British League, Birmingham 20Ot,
and now 15 f6 (rather than 15 fxg6 as played
in the game) looks promising after 15...exf6
16 i.xf6 i.xf6?! 17 ':'xf6, attacking b6.
9 'i'e1 h6 10.lih4 b6 11 ltJe5.lib7 12
.l:td1 'Wic7
Black should probably try the move

12...e6 in order to cover the fS-square. But

even then I don't like his position after 13 g4,
for instance. White's next move is very
strong and inflicts pennanent damage on
Black's kingside.

60

Giving White a second bite of the cherry.

Black should play 18...i.xc3 19 bxc3 'ifd6 20
'ifg4 'ii'f6, holding his position together.
19 .lib5 ii'c8 20 lLlxd5 .lixd5 21 l:!.xd5
nb8 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 .lid7 'ila6 24 b3
<3;g7 25 a4 'ii'e2 26 lbc5 J:th8 27 .lib5
'iht5 28 ~d3 g4?

A forlorn attempt to attack which just

loses another pawn.
29 nc4 1-0

29 ...'ifh1+ 30 ~f2 Sl.h4 31 l:.xhl i.xg3+

32 ~xg3 ':'xh1 33 .l:tc7 will soon leave White
with three connected passed pawns on the
queenside.

3 ... ti:Jbd7: 4 ti:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

Summary
The gambit lines with 4 ttJf3 e6 5 e4 h6 6 ~h4 are just about playable for White, but only if he
plays 9 ttJd2. He also has the option of avoiding this with either 4 ttJf3 h6 5 ~f4 or 4 ttJf3 e6 5
e4 h6 6 ~xf6, both of which offer White some interesting possibilities.
My own favourite move is 4 e3, which steers play into some unexplored backwaters in which
White's prospects appear to be quite promising. The 'Stonewall' formation looks rather good
once Black's knight is committed to the passive d7-square, and 4... e6 5 '6'f3 deserves to be
tested.
1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ti:Jbd7 4 ti:Jf3 (D)
4 e3 (D) g6
4 ...c6 5 f4 - Game 28
5 f4 - Game 27; 5 iLd3 - Game 26

4 ... e6
4... h6
5 iLf4 - Game 25; 5 iLh4 cS - Game 24
4...g6 - Game 20
5 84 h6 6 .i.h4
6 ~xf6 - Game 23
6 ... g5 7 .i.g3 ti:Jx84 8 ti:Jxe4 dxe4 (D)
9 ttJd2 - Game 21; 9 ttJeS - Game 22

4 ti:Jf3

4e3

8 ... dxe4

61

CHAPTER FOUR

3 ... c5

, d4 l2Jf6 2 l2Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5

3... cS is a fighting move which brings
about a Chigorin with colours reversed (1 d4
dS 2 c4lt:)c6 and now 3 It:)f3 i.g4). The Chigorin itself has a somewhat dubious reputation which mayor may not be deserved. In
any case we are getting this position with an
extra tempo, and that makes a difference in
an open and potentially sharp position.
White certainly can't consider any attempts to build up with 2-f3, he has to attack Black's centre. The traditional way to do
this is via 4 i.xf6, when 4...gxf6 is Black's
most important move, as in Games 29-31. In
Veresov-Shustef, White plays the razor-sharp
S e4, and after S... dxe4 6 dxcS 1i'aS White
might be well advised to play 7 1ifdS rather
than Veresov's 7 1i'hS. Although White won
this game in glorious style it was hardly convincing when subject to scrutiny by Fritz. In
addition to the problems after 6.. :~aS White
must also be prepared to face 6... 5. Thus far
this has looked distinctly unappealing for
White, Miladinovic-Smagin being an excellent advert for Black's position.
White is probably better off playing the
deceptively quiet S e3, as in MihaijlovskijGershon. In fact this has the dangerous idea
of bringing White's queen to hS, castling
queenside and later launching a pawn storm

62

with 2-f4 and perhaps g2-g4. Although

White lost the game in question his play
could certainly be improved - I quite like 6
1ifxd4, for example.
The search for improvements for White
has led him to consider delaying i.xf6 and
instead continue development with 4 e3
(Games 32-34). After 4...lt:)c6 White can still
play 5 .i.xf6, leading back to MihaijlovskijGershon whilst removing the possibility of
...h7-hS. In Hort-Van der Wiel White's slt:)f3
also looked interesting after S...i.g4 6 dxcS,
but the big question is whether White has
anything after quiet moves like ... e7-e6, as in
Mestrovic-Zivkovic and Speelman-Saltaev.
On the evidence of these games this doesn't
look like much for White, although there is a
tiny drop of poison.
Last but not least we come to SagalchikAriel, in which White brought about a reversed Albin Counter Gambit with 4 e4 and
the play followed a wild path. If you think
this is your kind of game then go for it - just
don't blame me for the consequences!

Game 29
Veresov-Shustef
USSR 1974
, d4 l2Jf6 2 l2Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 i.xf6

3 ... c5

Taking the earliest opportunity to weaken

Black's pawn structure. As we'll see in later
games White can also delay this capture.
4 ... gxf6

the quieter S e3 see Mihajlovskij-Gershon.

5 ... dxe4 6 dxc5
6 dS!? is an attempt to playa strange looking Albin Counter Gambit with colours reversed, although White's compensation appears to be rather nebulous. Play might continue 6... 5 7 'tins i.g7 8 i.bS+ (8 ctJge2
'ifb6 9 0-0-0 'ii'h6+ 10 "iixh6 i.xh6+ 11 'i.t;b 1
ctJd7 left White with woefully insufficient
compensation for the pawn in HebdenY.Milov, Isle of Man 1995) 8... ';11'f8 9 ctJh3
'iWd6 10 i.e2 'tin6 11 ctJgS "i*'xhS 12 Ji.xhS
ctJd7 13 l:td 1 (13 ctJx7 ctJf6 wins material)
13 ... Ji.xc3+ 14 bxc3 ctJf6 IS Ji.e2 l:.g8 16
ctJh3 :'xg2, when Black went on to win in
Mestrovic-Sermek, Tucepi 1996.
6 .....a5

The alternative recapture may also be

playable, despite the obvious weakening of
Black's d-pawn. After 4...exf6 White plays 5
e3, intending to build up pressure against the
d5-pawn, usually with ctJge2, g2-g3 and Ji.g2.
Play might continue 5...i.e6 6 ctJge2 ctJc6 7
g3 cxd4 (7 .. .'ii'b6 8 Ji.g2 cxd4 9 exd4 l':td8 10
0-0 i.b4 11 ctJa4 was nice for White in Kuebart-Balanel, Miedzyzdroje 19S2) 8 exd4
i.d6 (8 ...i.b4 9 Ji.g2 1Wd7 10 0-0 0-0 11
ctJbl .ll.g4 12 c3 .ll.aS 13 'iid2 i.h3 14 ctJa3
with a pleasant position for White in Rossetto-Alvarez, Quilmes 1980) 9 Ji.g2 ctJe7 10
0-0 a6 11 ctJc1 (11 'ii'd2 seems better, envisaging 12 ctJd4 or 12 ctJdl followed by ctJe3)
l1...hS 12 ltel 'i.t;f8 13 ctJd311c8 14 ctJe2 gS,
and complex play had resulted in SmyslovBobotsov, Sochi 1963.
After S... ctJc6 White can try 6 dxcS!? i.e6
7 'iifhs intending to castle long with the initiative. Black has also tried 5... c4, but after 6
ctJge2 i.b4 7 g3 bS 8 JLg2 i.b 7 9 a3 i.aS 10
0-0 'iWd7 11 b4 Ji.c7 12 a4 bxa4 13 ctJxa4 the
outpost on cS and the weak pawn on dS gave
White a clear advantage in Shaw-A. Hunt, Isle
of Man 1993.
5e4
Blasting the position wide open in order
to try to exploit his lead in development. For

For 6.. .S see Miladinovic-Smagin.

7 'ii'h5
This prepares long castling, defends cS
and probes the weak 7 -pawn. But is it
White's best? According to Gligoric, White
should play 7 'iWd4 with an even game but
then 7...ctJc6 8 i.bS 'it'xbS 9 ctJxbS ctJxd4 10
ctJxd4 Ji.d7 gives Black the better endgame
according to Gufeld and Stetsko. A superior
version of this is 7 "iidS, when GoldinAseev, Podolsk 1990 continued 7... a6
(7 ...ctJc6 8 .ll.bS Ji.d7 9 0-0-0 is unpleasant
for Black) 8 0-0-0 ctJc6 9 'fixe4 fS 10 'iWe3
i.e6 11 a3 i.g7 12 ctJge2 ctJe5 13 ctJd4 ctJg4
14 "iWe2 Ji.xd4 IS ':xd4 'ilkxcs 16 'ili'd2.l:.c8,
which was about equal. Goldin-Khalifman,

63

The Veresov

USSR 1984 went instead 9 ~c4 ~e6 10

"xe4 fS 11 'ii'e2 ~xc4 12 Wxc4 e6 13 tDa4
'iVbs 14 Wb3 tDd4 15 "xb5+ axbS and now
White should have played 16 c3 tDc6 17 tDb6
l1xa2 18 litfb 1 followed by 19 b4 with equality.

7 ... ~g7
After the passive 7... e6 White generated a
powerful attack in Veresov-Smoljaninov,
USSR 1963 with 8 0-0-0 fS 9 ~b5+ (9 tDh3,
intending 10 tDgs, also looks strong) 9...tDc6
10 g4! a6 11 ~xc6+ bxe6 12 gxfS exfS 13
tDge2 "xcS 14 tDd4 nb8 15 nhe1 ~e7 16
tDxe4! fxe4 17 l:txe4. Black should avoid
7... fS 80-0-0 "xeS in view of9 tDxe4! etc.
8~b5+

White concentrates on completing his development as soon as possible while leaving

open the option of castling short. The other
natural move is 8 O-O-O!?, e.g. 8...0-0 9 ~c4
tDc6 (9...tDd7 10 ~ds tDxcs 11 tDxe4 ~e6
12 tDc3 fS 13 tDge2 was double-edged in
Haubt-Mevel, Bundesliga, Germany 1981) 10
~ds (10 ~b3 tDeS 11 'iVh4 "xcs 12 tDxe4
"c7 13 tDe2 tDg6 14 'iig3 'ilt'xg3 15 hxg3
~fS was also fairly even in Vaisman-Pytel,
Wroclaw 1972) 10...tDes 11 f4!? tDg6
(11...exf3 12 gxf3 opens the g-f.tle) 12 fs tDf4
13 'ii'h4 tDxds 14 l:hdS e6 15 ltd2 exfS 16
tDge2 and in Hoi-Bang, Copenhagen 1991
White had compensation for his pawn(s) in
the form of the beautiful f4-square.
8 ... tLlc6

64

Black can also play 8... ~d7 as the supposed refutation with 9 'ilt'g4!? is quite playable for Black after 9.. .'~f8 (9 .. J:tg8 10
~xd7+ tDxd7 11 tDge2 "xcs 12 'iixe4 0-0-0
is also okay, as in Schneider-Odendahl, Germany 1993) 10 ~xd7 fS! 11 'ilt'xfS ~xe3+ 12
~f1 tDxd7 13 'ilt'xd7 Wa6+ 14 tDe2 ~xb2,
Heitland-Wessendorf, Dortmund 1987. Ths
leaves an argument for 9 ~xd7+ followed by
10 0-0-0, when Black would lose the f7 -pawn
if he castled long.
9 tLlge2 0-0

9...a6 10 ~xc6+ bxc6 11 0-0 (11 O-O-O!?

looks like an extra tempo compared with the
analogous 9...0-0 10 ~xc6 line) 11...nb8
(11...fS 12 nad1 is given as slightly better for
White by Kapengut and Boleslavsky, but the
position looks complex and unclear to me)
12 tDxe4 nxb2 13 tDd4 0-0 14 llae1 'ii'c7 15
tDg3 e6 16 'iVh4 followed by 17 tDhs gave
White a dangerous attack in RadashkoviehMart, Israel 1974.

10 ~xc6

In such a sharp and little explored position

it's difficult to know which line is best. Although this move works beautifully in the
game, it does seem that Black was doing well
when you take a closer look.
a) 10 0-0-0 allows 10...tDeS, when the
knight helps in the defence of Black's kingside. Nevertheless this is far from clear, for
example 11 'ii'h4 a6 12 ~a4 ~g4 13 ~b3
~xe2 14 tDxe2 Wxcs 15 'ii'xe4 'ii'xf2 left

3 ... c5

\,{'hite with a tremendously active game for

his pawn in Veresov-Lomaja, USSR 1967.
The game continued 16 tiJd4 e6 17 Uhfl
jLh6+ 18 Wb1 'iie3 19 'iNxb7 as, and nowinstead of 20 a4 - 20 !tfe1 'iWf2 21 l:te2
would have been best, with a possible edge in
this sharp position. 11 f3!? a6 12 i.a4 'ii'xc5
13 'it>b1 exf3 '/2-'/2, Bellin-Schellhorn, Hamburg 1980 doesn't tell us much except that
both players could have been worried.
b) With 10 a3 \'{'hite intends to hold the
c5-pawn by capturing on c6 and then playing
b2-b4, although this might not be sharp
enough to be in tune with the position. After
10... f5 11 0-0 fic7 12 b4 i.e6 13 l:tad1 .l::!.ad8
14 ..ta4 as Black had a very active game in
Mestrovic-Gligoric, Hastings 1970/71.
c) 10 0-0 f5 11 'iig5 e6 was played in
Schneider-Mehler, Bundesliga Germany
1983. Then the simple 12 a3 was interesting,
trying to maintain the c5-pawn. In the game
White played 12 f3 exf3 13 ~xf3 but his 'attack' was unconvincing after 13 ... 'iWd8 14
'ih5 tiJe5 15 l:th3 h6 16 ~g3 Wh 7 etc.

critical in my opinion, as Black wants to play

13 ...'iVb4.
1 2 ttJd4 f5 13 g4 l:!.ab8

After 13.....txaZ \'{'hite can simply get on

with it by playing 14 gxfS ..tc4 15 l:thg1 as
15 .. .'iii'h8 leads to mate after 16 l:txg7 cJixg7
17 f6+ exf6 18 .l:tg1+ 'iti>h8 19 'iVh6 etc.
14 gxf5l:!.xb2

What does \'{'hite do after 14...'iVb4 here?

It seems to me that 15 tiJb3 is forced (15
.l:!.hg1 'iVxb2+ 16 cJid2 l:tbd8), after which
15 ...i.xb3 16 axb3 i.xc3 17 bxc3 fixc3 18
'tig4+ 'it>h8 19 'ii'xe4 ~xb3 20 'iVd4+ might
escape with a draw in the rook endgame.
15 fxe6 'ii'xc3 16 l:!.hg 1 lixa2?

10 .. bxc6 11 0-0-0

In my view it's only here that Black makes

the decisive mistake. He still seems to be
okay after 16... ~xc2+ 17 tiJxc2 'ifb2+ 18
'it>d2 'iVc3+.
17 :'xg7+ 'it>xg7 18 it'e5+ 1-0

Black will either lose his queen (if he allows tiJf5 with check) or get mated.

Probably necessary, as 11 0-0 f5 leaves

White with little compensation.
11 ... ~e6

Too slow? In my view Black should be attacking b2 as quickly as possible. The position after 11...fS 12 g4!? 1!i'xc5 13 gxf5 'iixfS
14 'ii'h4 has been evaluated as 'unclear' by
Boleslavsky and Kapengut. Here 12....llb8 is

Came 30
Miladinovic-Smagin
Montreal 2000
1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 ~g5 c5 4 ~xf6
gxf6 5 e4 dxe4 6 dxc5 f5

A serious alternative to the more popular

6 ...'iVa5. If Black manages to complete his
development unscathed he'll have an extra
pawn and the two bishops.

65

The Veresov

71&.b5+
1bis fails to cause Black much trouble and
we soon reach a position in which \Vhi.te has
zero compensation. Therefore White should
probably look for improvements at this
point:
a) 7 1ihs is a standard move in these lines
but then 7...e6 (l ... iJ.g7 8 iJ.b5+ tLlc6 9 tLlge2
is given as 'unclear' by V.Kovacevic) 8 g4
i.xcs 9 gxfS 'ii'd4 10 'iih4 (after lO 'ile2?!
exfS 11 tLlbS 'ii'eS Black has a massive position) lO... e3 11 'ikxd4 iJ.xd4 12 fxe3 iJ.xc3+!
13 bxc3 exfS brought about complete equality in Mestrovic-Popov, Banjaluka 1974.
Popov gave the line 8 l:.dl 'iff6! 9 iJ.b5+
iJ.d7 10 iJ.xd7+ tLlxd7 11 tLlbS O-O-O! 12
tLlxa 7+ ~b8 13 tLlbS iJ.xcs, when Black is
clearly better.
b) 7 g4!? is an attempt to break up Black's
pawn centre but seems well answered by
7...'iiaS 8 'ii'd4! J::.g8 9 b4!, when Florian
claimed a clear advantage for White. The
exact opposite seems to be the case after
9 ...ltJc6! 10 iJ.bS "xbS 11 tLlxbS tLlxd4 etc.
Alternatively 7 ...'iixd1+ 8 :Xd1 fxg4 9 tLldS!
is obviously good for White, but Black can
consider 7...tLld7 8 gxfS iJ.g7 with a lead in
development and a strong dark-squared
bishop. 7... iJ.g7 8 'iixd8+ 'ittxd8 9 0-0-0+
iJ.d7 10 tLlge2 fxg4 11 tLlxe4 was about even
in Bellin-Duncan, Gausdal1996.
c) 7 'iixd8+ attempts to cause problems by
displacing Black's king but in fact looks

66

rather good for Black according to Gufeld

and Stetsko after 7...~xd8 8 0-0-0+ iJ.d7 9
i.c4 e6 10 b4 (10 g4?! fxg4 11 tLlxe4 ~e 7! 12
f3 i.c6 favoured Black in Floreen-Alburt,
New York 1993) 1O... aS 11 a3 b6 12 ltJa4
bxcS 13 tLlxcs iJ.xcs 14 bxcS ~c7 followed
by 1S...tLla6. Lipski-Lorenc, Wisla 1998 went
8...tLld7 9 g4, and now 9... fxg410 tLlxe4 fS 11
tLlgS .i.h6 12 h4 'it>c7 looks good for Black.
7 ... j.,d7 8 ~ge2
After 8 iJ.xd7+ tLlxd7 9 'ii'dS e6 10 'ikxb7
.l:.b8 11 'ii'xa7 iJ.xcs 12 'ii'a4 J:tg8 Black's
pieces start to generate demonic activity.
8 ... ~c6 9 'i6d2 e6 100-0 l:I.g8!
lO...i.xcS? runs into 11 tLlxe4! fxe4 12
'ikc3, forking cS and h8, though even this
might be only equal.
111:1.ad1 1&.xc512~a4
1bis position is distinctly unappealing for
White. Both 12 tLlg3 .l:.g6 and 12 'ii'h6 'ii'gS
repulse White's pressure.
12...1&.b4 13 c3 1&.f8 14 b4 ~e5
1bis leads to massive exchanges and an
easy win for Black. All by move 14!
15 j.,xd7 + 'Wxd7 16 'iVxd7 + ~xd7 17 f3
~f6

17...exf3 18 .l:.xf3 tLlf6 is also good.

18 ~d4 11d8 19 11fe1 exf3 20 ~xf3
l:I.xd1 21 l:I.xd1 ~d5 22 ~d4 a6! 23 ~xf5
b5 24 ~c5 1:I.g5!

Ejecting the knight.

25 ~d4 ~xc3 26 l:I.d3 1&.xc5 27 bxc5
:'xc5 28 ~b3 :'c7 29 :'d6 :a7 30 a3

3 ... c5

ltJb 1 31 ltJe5 ltJxa3 32 ltJxa6 ltJc4 33

ne6 ltJe5 34 l:tb6 ltJd7 35 l:te6 ltJe5 36
l:tb6 ltJd7 37 l:tc6 ':b7 38 ':c7 l:[xe7

edge.
5 ... exd4

After 5...l'Llc6 White could play 6 'iWh5!,

making life rather awkward for Black. An
alternative is 5... e6 6 l'Llge2 l'Llc6 7 g3 iVb6 8
dxc5 ~xc5 9 ~g2 'it'xb2 10 0-0 'it'a3?!
(1O...iVb4 is better, intending 11 litb1 'it'c4
39ltJxc7+ 0-1
etc.) 11 e4 dxe4 12 l'Llxe4 ~e7 13 l'Lld4 and
Game 31
White had compensation for his pawn in
Mihajlovskij-Gershon
Mensch-Gofstein, Paris Ch. 2000. Here after
(5 ... e6) 6 'iVh5 Black can try 6...l'Lld7 with the
World U16 Ch., Menorca 1996
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... aim of playing ... f7-f5 and ...l'Llf6 in order to
displace White's queen and secure Black's
1 d4 ltJf6 2 tOe3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 i.xf6
kingside.
White can also vary his move order with 4
6 exd4
e3, when 4...l'Llc6 5 ~xf6 gxf6 6 'iWh5 transNot the only move, and possibly not the
poses back to the game but having cut out
best. White can also play 6 'ii'xd4
6...h5!? Knaak-V.Georgiev, Germany 1999
continued 6...e6 7 0-0-0 fS 8 f4 c4 (8...cxd4!?
9 exd4 ~b4) 9 g4?! fxg4 10 e4 l'Lle7 11 fS
exfS 12 exd5 "d6 13 .l:.e1 a6 and White had
inadequate compensation.
'This looks like mutual time trouble with
White's flag falling after his next move.
38....:tb6 is easier.

4 ... gxf6 5 e3

A quiet alternative to the aggressive 5 e4,

the text leads to complex middlegames in
which Black has the bishop pair and central
pawns but his pawn weaknesses make his
structure rather unwieldy and immobile. Another possibility is 5 l'Llf3, when an interesting line is 5...l'Llc6 6 e4!? (quiet moves such as
6 e3 and 6 g3 fail to trouble Black) 6... dxe4 7
d5 exf3 8 dxc6 fxg2 9 ~xg2 iVb6 10 'ii'f3
.l:.b8 (1O.....xb2? 11 lIb1) 11 0-0-0 ~h6+ 12
'iit?b 1 bxc6 13 l'Lla4 with what looks like an

Then 6...e6 7 0-0-0 l'Llc6 8 ~b5 ~d7 9

j,xc6 (9 'iWh4 is possible here too, as is 9
'ii'f4!?) 9... bxc6 10 l'Llge2 i.e7 11 f4 \ib6 12
'it'd3 nb8 13 b3 Itg8 14 e4 ~hg2 15 fS gave
White attacking chances for his pawn in DayDlugy, Toronto 1989. 8 'i'h4 is very similar
to an analogous variation of the Chigorin
Defence, for example 8... fS 9 'ii'g3 i.d6 10
'iWh3 ~e5 11 l'Llb5 'iVf6 12 c3 a6 13 l'Lld4
j,d7 14 l'Llgf3 produced a fairly balanced
knights versus bishops and weak pawns contest in Nikolic-Karpatchev, Leutersdorf2001.
6 ...tOc6?!

Surprisingly this natural move might actually be a mistake. White's most dangerous
idea in this position is to play 7 'iWh5, which
67

The Veresov

Black can prevent with 6... h5!? MaksimovicTatai, Vrnjacka Banja 1979 continued 7 i.e2
h4 8 i.f3 e6 9 tLlge2 (9 'ii'e2 tLlc6 10 i.xd5
tLlxd4 11 'ili'e4 e5 12 i.xb7 i.xb7 13 'ii'xb7
.l:!.b8 14 'ii'e4 l:Ixb2 was good for Black in
Navinsek-B.Avrukh, Ljubljana 1998) 9... i.h6
10 0-0 tLlc6 11 .l:!.e 1 i.d7 12 tLlc1 Wf8! 13
tLl3e2 'ii'b6 with a good game for Black
thanks to the bishop pair and centre pawns.
Tatai gave 7 h4 i.g4! 8 i.e2 .l:!.g8 as being
favourable to Black, although it doesn't look
like very much. Perhaps White should play 7
'ii'f3, when 7... e6 8 0-0-0 tLlc6 9 tLlge2 f5 10
'iitbl i.g7 11 h4 'ii'b6 12 'ii'e3 was about
equal in West-Ahn, Elista Olympiad 1998.
7 'WIi'h5

tLlb4 13 tLlg3 tLlxd3+ saw him win the exchange after 14 cxd3 l:!.g7 15 'ii'h5 i.g4 etc.
8 0-0-0 .i.b4
Not the only square for the bishop. In
B.Maksimovic-A.Rodriguez, Belgrade 1980
Black played 8... i.g7, the game continuing 9
g4 i.d7 10 i.g2 'ii'b6 11 tLlge2 O-O-O!
(11...0-0 12 Itd3 gives White a very strong
attack) 12 'iifxf7 .l:!.dg8 13 'ii'h5 ~b8 14 f4! fS!
15 gxf5 tLlxd4 16 tLlxd4 i.xd4 17 fxe6 i.xe6
18 i.f3 l:!.c8 19 :the 1 llxc3! 20 Itxd4 'ii'xd4
21 bxc3 'iVxf4+ 22 ~b2 and the complications had burned out to equality. After the
alternative 13 tLla4!? 'ii'c7 14 tLlc5 Black can
play 14... tLle5! 15 dxe5 'iVxc5 16 tLld4 'iiff8 17
'ii'xf8+ l:!.xf8 18 exf6 l:!.xf6 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn (Rodriguez).
Another idea is 8... i.d7, keeping Black's options open with his king's bishop whilst getting nearer castling long.
9ll'lge2

Tsesarsky suggested an interesting plan for

White in 9 tLlce2! - after 9...'iia5 10 c:tbl
White threatens to win the h-pawn with 11
'ii'h6 and 12 'iii'g7, which would cause Black
to play 1O ... h6 (or possibly the retrograde
10... i.f8).
9 ... .i.d7 10 g4!?

7 ... e6
7... tLlxd4? is poor in view of 8 0-0-0 e5 9
tLlf3 i.c5 (or 9... tLlxf3 10 i.b5+ i.d7 11
'::'xd5 etc.) 10 tLlxe5 with a winning attack.
Kravtsov-Lubansky, Vladivostok 1994 continued in interesting fashion: 7...i.e6 8 0-0-0
'iid7 9 h3 i.f5 10 g4 i.g6 11 'iixd5 i.h6+ 12
~bl i.xc2+! 13 ~xc2 tLlb4+ 14 ~b3 tLlxd5
15 i.b5 0-0-0 16 i.xd7+ .l:!.xd7 with approximate equality. And in ShrentzelHodgson, Tel Aviv 1988 Black chose to sacrifice a pawn for active play with 7...l:Ig8,
when 8 'iixh7 (8 'ii'xd5 is also possible)
8... :tg6 9 0-0-0 i.fS 10 i.d3 'iid7!?
(1O ... i.xd3 11 .l::.xd3 Iixg2 looks playable and
recovers White's pawn) 11 tLlge2 (11 i.xfS
'ii'xfS 12 .l:td2 is better) 11...0-0-0 12 'iixf7

68

A thematic advance, preventing .. .6-f5

and preparing to tackle the enemy pawn centre with a subsequent f4-fS. After the immediate 10 f4 Black has 10... f5 11 g4 fxg4 12
'iixg4 'ii'f6 with a good game.

3 ... c5

10... lLla5 11 a3 i.d6 12 i.g2?!

Both here and on the next move White

can also consider 12 f4.
12...i.c6 13 .::the1 'iVd7 14 .bd5!?
Sacrificing a piece in order to try to catch

keeping Black on his toes, the drawback being that the option of doubling Black's
pawns can be lost, depending on the response.

Black's king in the centre. White can cause

problems for Black with the simple 14 'it'h6.
14... exd5 15 lLlf4+ ~d8 16 lLlfxd5 i.xd5
17 lLlxd5 lLlc4 18 liJxf6 .c6 19 ~g5?

Allowing Black's king to slip away to

safety. White should play 19 ttJd5 with good
compensation.
19.. /.tc7 20 lDd5+ ..ti>b8 21 ~g7?

Carried away with thoughts of the attack,

White forgets to take care of his own monarch. He should challenge Black's knight with
the immediate 21 ttJe3.
21 ....::tc8! 22lLle7?

4 ...lLlc6

Both 4...e6 5 ttJf3 ttJc6 and 4...ttJc6 5 ttJf3

(5 ~xf6!?) 5... e6 transpose to MestrovicZivkovic.
5lLlf3

Either missing or rejecting 5 .txf6 gxf6 6

'iVh5, when 6...cxd4 7 exd4 ttJxd4? leads to a
strong attack for White after 8 0-0-0 e5 9
ttJf3 ~c5 10 ttJxe5 etc.
5 ... i.g4!? 6 dxc5!?

This loses quickly. The best chance is 22

"iVxf1 ttJxa3 23 c3
24 'ii'h5 and the game
goes on.

:8

22...b5
22...~f4+ 23 ~b 1 'ii'bs is also good.
23 b3 i.f4+ 24 .::te3 i.xe3+ 25 fxe3
~a5 0-1

Game 32
Hort-Van der Wiel
Amsterdam 1982

The last two moves have lent the game a

sharp and independent flavour. Quieter al- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... tematives give White nothing, for example:
a) 6 ~xf6 gxf6 7 .te2 e6 8 0-0 f5 9 lie 1
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 e3
cxd4 (Black could also consider 9...l:.g8, or
More flexible than the immediate capture on
even 9...1!i'f6 followed by castling queenside)
f6. White maintains this as a possibility, thus
69

The Veresov

10 ttJxd4 .i.xe2 11 1i'xe2 .i.g7 12 :adl 0-0

13 'fIh5 with a dynamically equal position in
Zilbennan-Rotman, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1993.
9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 ttJd4 h5 11 1i'd3 1i'g5 12 f4
1i'e7 13 ttJxc6 bxc6 14 ttJa4 .i.d6 15 c4 'iib7
16 ':ac1 .l:lg8 17 ~hl h4 18 c5 .i.xe2 19
'ifxe2 .i.e7 20 'ifd2 was about equal in HoiKristiansen, Naestved 1985.
b) 6 .i.e2 e6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 h3 Si.h5 9 ttJe5
.i.xe2 10 ttJxe2 was Richter-Rohacek, Munich 1941, and now (instead of lO...ttJd7)
10...ltJxe5 11 dxe5 ttJd7 would have been at
least equal.

tfd7 20 ft2 0-0 21 'l'f6 'l'xd6 22 'l'g5+

~h8 23 'iff6+ ~g8 24 'iVg5+ %-%

6 ... e6 7 h3

5 ... e6 6.id3

Game 33
Mestrovic-Zivkovic
Croatia Cup, Pula 1997
1 d4 tLJf6 2 tLJe3 d5 3 .ig5 e5 4 e3 tLJe6
It is probably more accurate to play 4...e6

5 ttJf3 ttJc6 in order to avoid White's capture

onf6.
5 tLJf3

As previously noted,S .i.xf6 is interesting.

This peters out to rather dull equality. In

his notes to the game Hort pointed out that 7
ttJa4!? is critical, for example 7....i.xc5 8
ttJxc5 'ii'a5+ 9 c3 1i'xc5 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 11
~e2 with slightly the better pawn structure
for White. Alternatively 7...'ii'a5+ 8 c3 ttJe4 9
'iib3! is good for White - 9...ttJxc5 10 ttJxc5
'ii'xcs 1t ttJeS! ttJxeS 12 1i'xb7, threatening
13 'ifxa8+ and 13 .i.b5+. The quiet 7 .i.e2
leads to stone cold equality after 7...~xc5 8
0-0 0-0 9 ttJd4 .i.xd4 10 exd4 .i.f5, as in
Skembris-Vander Wiel, Groningen 1977.
7 ...Jixf3! 8 'ii'xf3 'iVa5 9 Jixf6 gxf6 10
.ib5

A logical developing move which intends

either to open the game up with a later e3-e4
(probably preceded by d4xc5) or establish a
knight in the centre with ttJf3-e5 followed by
f2-f4. There are a couple of alternatives
which make sense, though they are not as
strong: 6 ttJe5 seems to be well met by
6...'iVb6 7 .i.b5 a6, and 6 .i.b5 .i.e7 7 0-00-0
8 dxc5 ~xc5 91i'e2 ~e7 10 :fd1 a6 11 .i.d3
ttJd7 12 ~xe71Wxe7 13 e4 d4 14 ttJbl e5 15
ttJbd2 ttJc5 gave Black a nice position in
Kogan-Savchenko, Cappelle la Grande 1995.
6 ... Jie7

After 10 1i'xf6 .:tg8 Black gets excellent

compensation for the pawn.
10 ... f5 11 0-0 .ixe5 12 a3 .id6 13 b4
'iVb6 14 tfe2l::te8 15 tLJa4 tfc7 16 c4 a6
17 .ixe6+ 'ifxe6 18 e5 'ifxa4 19 exd6

70

Black can also prevent dxc5 by playing

6... cxd4 first. Burnazovic-Jelen, Ljubljana
1993 continued 7 exd4 .i.d7 8 0-0 ~e7 9
:el 0-0 10 a3 :c8 11 ttJe2 ttJh5 12 i..xe7
1i'xe7 13 c3 1i'f6, and now an improvement
on 14 ttJe5 is 14 ttJg3 ttJf4 15 iLf1, which

3 ... c5
looks slightly better for White.
7 dxc5 'Wa5

After 7...SLxc5 play might continue 8 e4

d4 9lbe2 e5 100-00-0 11lbg3, when White
has some attacking chances on the kingside.
8 0-0 'iWxcs 9 e4 dxe4 10 itJxe4 itJxe4
11 i.xe7 'Wxe7 12 i.xe4 0-0 13 c3 i.d7
14 'iVe2 l:tfd8 15 :fe1 i.e8 16 'iVe3 l:tac8

This position is almost equal, not to mention dull. Nevertheless the players manage to
fight on for another 50 moves before peace
is agreed.
17 i.c2 l:tc7 18 itJg5 h6 19 itJf3 'iff6 20
:tad1 l:tcd7 21 l:txd7 l:txd7 22 h3 l:td8 23
itJh2 h5 24lbf3 b6 25 itJg5itJe7 26itJe4
'iWe5 27 'ifc1 itJg6 28itJg3 'Wf4 29 itJxh5

This pawn snatch doesn't help White as

Black gets a rook to the 7th rank with adequate compensation.
29 ..'Wxc1 30 l:txc1 l:td2 31 itJg3 itJf4 32

b4 i.c6 33 i.e4 i.xe4 34 itJxe4 itJe2+

35 ~1 itJxc1 36 itJxd2 itJxa2 37 itJb1
itJc1 38 ~e1 itJd3+ 39 ~e2itJeS 40 itJa3
~f8 41 f4lbc6 42 g4 f6 43 ~d3 <ii;e7 44
b5 itJb8 45 itJc4 itJd7 46 h4 itJc5+ 47
~e3 itJb7 48 h5 itJd8 49 itJd2 itJf7 50 c4
e5 51 itJf3 exf4+ 52 <ii;xf4 itJd6 53 itJd2
~e6 S4 ~e3 itJf7 55 ~4 itJd6 56 Wf3
itJf7 57 <ii;e4 lbd6+ 58 ~d4 itJf7 59 itJf1
f5 60 gxfS+ ~xfS 61 ~dS itJd8 62 ~d6
itJb7+ 63 ~c7 itJa5 64itJd2 ~4 65 ~b8
~e3 66 itJf1 + <ii;d4 67 ~xa7 itJxc4 68
lbg3 'it>eS 69 ~b7 YZ-YZ

Game 34
Speelman-Saltaev
Hastings Premier 1998/99
1 d4 itJf6 2 i.gS dS 3 e3 cS 4 itJc3 itJc6

S a3!?
Speelman often plays such 'half-moves'
and here nudging the a-pawn has some subtle effects. In some positions White may
threaten to take on c5, in others Black might
get his queen trapped with lba4, should he
be so foolish as to snatch the pawn on b2 at
the wrong moment. Of course this does
represent a lost tempo...
S ... e6

Alternatively Black can play 5...cxd4 6

exd4 SLfS, when in Lys-Pisk, Prague 1992
Black had a good game after 7 SLd3 lbxd4 8
SLxfS lbxfS 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 'ilxd5 'ii'xd5 11
71

The Veresov

ltJxdS 0-0-0. Perhaps White can do better

with 7 'iVd2.
6 liJf3 "b6 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 i.d3 i.e7 9
h30-0

Not 9...'iVxb2?? 10 ltJa4.

10 0-0 l:.d8 11 ~e2 g6 12 J:tfd 1 i.d7 13
l:.ab 1 i.e8 14 e4 dxe4 15 liJxe4 liJxe4
16 ~xe4 i.xg5 17 liJxg5 1!fd4 18 c3
"xe4 19 i.xe4 l:.xd1 + 20 J:txd1 J:td8

for example 33 b5+ ~d6 34 h4 e5+ 35 fxe5+

fxe5+ 36 ~e4 h5 37 a4 ~e6! (37...~cS? 38
~xe5 ~xc4 39 'Ot>f6 sees White come first)
38 ~d3 'iii>d6 39 'Ot>e4 with a draw.
33 c5+ ~c6 34 a4 ~c7 35 b5 <it>d7 36
~e4 ~c7 37 ~3 a6 38 'iPe4 axb5 39

axb5 'iPd7 40 ~3 rj;e7 41 h4 h5 42 'iiile4

rj;d7 43 ~d4 rj;c7 44 <ttc4 ~d7 45 rj;b4
'iPc7 46 ~a5 <ttc8 47 ~b6 e5 48 fxe5
fxe5 49 <tta5 1-0

Game 35
Sagalchik -Ariel
USA Ch., Seattle 2002
1 d4liJf6 2liJc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 e4!?

Black seems to be coasting to a draw, yet

even the most innocent looking position can
contain a dash of poison ... In this one White
has the more active pieces and a queenside
pawn majority.
21 l:.xd8 liJxd8 22 f4 f6 23 liJf3 i.c6 24
i.xc6 liJxc6 25 ~f2 ~7 26 ~e3 <tte7 27
liJd4 ~d6 28 liJxc6 ~xc6 29 c4 ~c5 30
<it>d3 h6 31 b4+ <it>c6 32 ~d4 ~d6?

An enterprising idea which resembles an

Albin Counter Gambit with colours reversed
and a useful extra tempo in 3 .ig5. Black has
a choice about which pawn to take.
4 ... liJxe4

The decisive error. 32... b6! would prevent

White from getting his pawns to bS and cS,
72

After 4... cxd4 5 'ii'xd4 ltJc6 6 .ib5 dxe4 7

'iVxd8+ (7 .txf6 exf6 8 'ili'xe4+ 'ike7 9 'iHxe7+
.txe7 10 ltJd5) 7...~xd8 (thus far HuhnOberhofer, Bad Worishofen 2000) White can
play 8 .ic4 (8 :d1+ .id7 9 ltJge2 'Ot>c8 was
just equal in the game). After 4... dxe4 we get
the aforementioned reversed Albin Counter
Gambit. White has good compensation after
5 d5, for example 5....ifS 6 ltJge2 1!i'aS 7
ltJg3 .tg6 8 h4 h6 9 .ixf6 gxf6 10 ~b5+
ltJd7 11 .ixd7+ 'Ot>xd7 12 'iVg4+ 'Ot>e8 13 h5
.th7 14 0-0 with a powerful initiative in

3 ... c5

Bletz-Hovde, Gausdal 1982. White would

meet S...lDbd7 with 6 lDge2 a6 7 lDg3, which
recovers the pawn with a good game. S... h6 6
.if4 e6 7 .ibS+ .id7 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 'ii'e2
liJc6 10 0-0-0 liJd4 11 'ii'e3 .ie7 12 lDge2
was promising for White in RichterOpocensky, Podebrady 1936.
5 ltJxe4 dxe4 S d5

Now we have a gambit. White has an interesting (and probably sensible) alternative
in 6 dxcS, for example 6...'ifa5+ (6 ...liJd7 7
.ie3 e6 8 'iid2 'ii'c7 9 b4 produced a doubleedged game in Wade-Palliser, Hampstead
1998, and 6...'ifxdH 7 l:lxdl g6 8 .ic4 i.g7
9 c3 h6 10 .ie3 liJd7 11 liJe2 eS 12 0-0 0-0
13 lDg3 gave White an edge in TrescherAnkerst, Bad Wiessee 1997) 7 'ifd2 'ii'xcs
(7 ...'iixd2+ 8 .ixd2 eS was played in BoevenBu Xiangzhi, Budapest 1999 and now instead
of 9 .ie3 White's best appears to be 9 b4) 8
0-0-0 lDc6 9 .ie3 .as 10 'ii'xaS lDxaS 11
.ib5+ (11 liJe2 .ig4 12 h3 .ixe2 13 i.xe2
gave White adequate compensation for the
pawn in Czerniak-Bednarski, Polanica Zdroj
1963) l1...lDc6 12 lDe2 e6 13 .l::[d4 f5 14
.l::[hdl and White had the initiative for his
sacrificed pawn in Einarsson-Van der Weide,
Reykjavik 1998.
S.. JWbS

Preventing White from finding a safe haven for his king on the queenside with 7
'ii'd2 and 8 0-0-0. After 6...g6 7 f3 'iib6 8
fxe4 'iib4+ 9 'ifd2 'ii'xb2 10 l:ldl h6 11 .ie3

.ig7 Black stood better in N.BenjaminBellin, Brighton 1977, so White should take
the opportunity to play 7 'ii'd2, intending to
castle long. In W.Ernst-Unzicker, Essen
1948 he rightly adopted this plan after
6...liJd7 7 'ii'd2 g6 8 0-0-0, and after 8....ig7
9 .ih6 0-0 10 .ixg7 rJ;;xg7 could have continued more consistently with 11 f3 with
dangerous attacking chances; in the game he
won back his pawn with 11 'ifc3+ liJf6 12
'ifxcs but stood slightly worse after 12...i.g4.
71tJe2
Throwing another pawn on the fire, but
this could be a case of discretion being the
better part of valour... In Rocha-Yakovich,
Santo Antonio 1999 White limited his material deficit to a single pawn with 7 b3, after
which 7...g6 (7 ...eS!?) 8 'ifd2 .ig7 9l:tc1liJd7
10 lDe2liJf6 11lDg3 0-0 12 .ie2 l:ld8 13 c4
e6 was quite double-edged.
7 ... gS
If there's a reason why Black can't play the
consistent 7... ii'xb2, then I don't see it.
White should probably offer a third pawn
with 8llbl, but would he really have enough
compensation?
8 Ab1 i..g7 9 ltJc3 f5

Hanging on to the e-pawn. After 9...liJd7

10 lDxe4 'iib4+ 11 liJd2 liJf6 12 c3 'iib6 13
liJc4 'ii'd8 14liJe3 White recovered his pawn
with a space advantage in Eriksson-Medvegy,
Stockholm 2001.
10 i..e2 hS 11 i..e3 ltJd7 12 0-0 0-0 13

73

The Veresov

'ii'd2 >t>h7 14 f3

The e4-pawn currently inhibits the activity

of White's pieces so he quite rightly undermines it.
14... exf3 15 .bf3 .a5

15...liJf6 is answered by 16 b4.

16 .e2 .i.xe3!?

Not 26 d6 in view of 26 ...Sl.a6+ 27 ~el

l::te8 28 .i.c6 exd6! etc.
26 ... tbf6 27 .i.f3 .i.a6+ 28 'it'f2 J:td8 29
.i.e1 :d7 30 .i.b2 tbg8?!

Black should play 30...Sl.c4!, when 31 d6

liJg8! leaves White in serious trouble.
31 a4.i.c4 32 l:!.d1 h5?!

Grabbing a second pawn. Black might

have been bothered by the fact that 16 ...liJf6
17 Sl.f4 l:te8 18 liJb5 gives White a continuing initiative, consequently deciding to alter
the course of the game.
17 bxe3 "xe3 18 .i.e1

And here Black should play 32... tLlf6.

Now White gets some play...
33 h3 tbh6 34 g4 h4 35 l:!.e1 lDf7 36
.i.g2 tbd8 37 l:!.e5 tbf7 38 .:I.e1 tbd6?! 39
:te6 .i..a2 40 .i.e1 .i.b1 41 .i.g5 .i.xe2 42
.i.xe7 tbe8

18 :bel is an interesting alternative.

Perhaps 42 ... liJc4 43 Sl.xh4 rl;;g7 is better.

18 ..."e5 19 .f2 "d6 20 1IVh4 f4

In the game Black manages to get three con-

After 20... h5?! 21 %:tel White has massive

pressure. Finkel's suggestion of 21 Sl.xh5
gxh5 22 'ii'xh5+ isn't clear after 22...~g7.

nected passed pawns but his king is in serious danger.

21 .i..e4 'iVf6

The idea of 22... 'iVd4+ virtually forces the

exchange of queens. White's initiative starts
to diminish.
22 'ii'xf4 'it'd4+ 23 "e3 :xf1 + 24 >t>xf1
"ifxe3 25 .i..xe3 b6 26 :e1

74

43 .i..xh4 .i..xa4 44 .i.e4 ':g7 45 .i.g3

.i.d7 46 ':f6 a5 47 'ot>f3 a4 48 .i.e5 a3 49
':f8 a2 50 :d8 b5 51 h4!

Suddenly it becomes clear that Black is in

a mating net.
51 ...tbb6 52 h5 >t>h6 53 hxg6 :xg6 54
l:th8+ 1-0

J .. CO

Summary

The sharp 3...c5 is one of Black's best options in the Veresov and leads to double-edged, challenging play. 4 i.xf6 gxf6 5 e4 is under a cloud but 5 e3 is playable. The play looks rather quiet
after 4 e3, although Black has to play carefully to maintain the balance. It can also be used to
transpose to the 4 i.xf6 line whilst avoiding 4 ...gxf6 5 e3 cxd4 6 exd4 h5.

1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 d5 3 .i.g5 c5 (D) 4 .i.xf6

4e3lDc6
5lLlf3 (D)
5... i.g4 - Game 32
5...e6 6 i.d3 - Game 33
5 a3 e6 5 lLlf3 - Game 34
4 e4 lLlxe4 5 lLlxe4 dxe4 6 d5 - Game 35
4 ... gxf6 5 e4
5 e3 - Game 31
5 ... dxe4 6 dxc5 (D)
6...'ii'a5 - Game 29; 6.. .f5 - Game 30

3 ... c5

5tbf3

6dxc5

75

CHAPTER FIVE

3 ... c6

, d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6

This is one of Black's most flexible options, protecting the dS-pawn, allowing his
queen to come out to b6 or as and leaving
open the possibility of playing ...ius. Black
also avoids placing his queen's knight on the
passive d7-square. The most aggressive answer is 4 f3, trying to construct a pawn centre
with S e4. Black can transpose to the
3... ttJbd7 4 f3 c6 lines by playing 4... ttJbd7,
and possibly this should be his preferred
course of action. He has also played 4 ...'iNb6
but this looked quite promising for White in
Games 36 & 37 (Richter-Rogmann and Pasman-Georgiev).
One of the objections to 3... c6 (by comparison with 3... ttJbd7) is that White can
double Black's f-pawns with 4 .ltxf6 and,
after 4 ... exf6, play S e3 followed by .ltd3,
~f3, ttJge2, 0-0-0 followed by g2-g4 etc.
Unfortunately I'm completely unconvinced
by this plan as Black can play ... f6-f5 (as in
Gurgenidze-Stein) and position his pieces so
that White cannot lever open the game with
either e3-e4 or g2-g4. I think White should
really be playing for c2-c4 with a kingside
fianchetto, bringing the knight from c3 to e2,
but all this takes time. Besides 4... exf6 Black
has also played the extravagant 4...gxf6, but I
think that White had a good position in
76

Kohlhage-Langheinrich before he misplayed

the early middlegame.
Morozevich played 4 '*i'd3 in his game
against Malaniuk, though I'm not sure he'd
be that eager to repeat the experience. This
move didn't work out too well in MarkovicCvitan either and, although White's play can
be improved in both cases, it doesn't seem as
if Black is under any pressure here. I'm similarly unimpressed with 4 'iWd2, though it's
not clear that this move should be the unmitigated disaster suggested by StryjeckiVokac.
Last but not least there is the modest 4 e3.
This was Veresov's own choice again
Krogius and, despite looking quiet, it contains a drop of poison. Once again White has
the Stonewall 1-f4 plan (especially if Black
plays ... ttJb8-d7), and after developing his
pieces he can sometimes playa later e3-e4.

Game 36
Richter-Rogmann
Berlin 1937
, d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6

Bronstein liked this move, reinforcing dS

and giving Black's queen access to the queenside. It must always be remembered that 3
.ltgs leaves b2 unprotected.

3 ... c6

4f3

As in most Veresov lines, this is White's

most ambitious plan.
4 ..."b6
Hitting the b2-pawn, which White is really
obliged to sacrifice. Of the alternatives,
4 ...1.fS makes sense. White can offer a pawn
with 5 e4 dxe4 6 1.c4, when 6... exf3 7 lDxf3
creates Blackmar-Diemer style compensation. After 4...'ifa5 White can play 5 'ifd2,
preparing e2-e4, although this transposes to
de Souza-Vescovi from Chapter 2 after
5...ltJbd7 (which, by the way, is not mandatory). 4 ...lDbd7 transposes to 3...lDbd7 4 f3
c6, which is covered in Chapter 1.
5e4
For 5 'ifd2 see Pasman-Georgiev.
5 ...'ii'xb2 6 ltJga2 a6 7 e5 ltJfd7 8 ':'b1
'iWa3 9 ':b3 .a5 10 i.d2 'iWc7 11 ltJf4
White can also consider 11 f4, intending
to lever open Black's kingside with f4-f5.
Richter returns to this idea later, but after
first bringing his knight to h5.
11 ... a6 12 i.d3 i.e7
With regard to ... c6-c5 Black probably
feared a sacrifice on d5, but he certainly
should have tried this, as passive play allows
White to engineer an impressive attacking
position. After 12...c5 I'm sure that the 'executioner of Berlin' would have played 13
lDcxd5!?, when White obtains a dangerous
attack for the sacrificed piece after, for example, 13...exd5 14 O-O!? But this would

probably have been better than the mildly

suicidal plan of putting his king on the kingside. Over the following moves we see Richter prepare, then execute, a massive kingside
onslaught.
130-00-0 14 'iVa1 ':'e8 15 'iVg31tJf8 16
ltJh5 ltJg6 17 f4 i.d8 18 'ifh3 b5 19 g4
.e7 20 g5
Black's last move prepared to meet 20 f5
with 20...'iih4, so Richter changes tack.
20 ...i.b6 21 ltJe2 c5

22 ltJf6+! gxf6 23 gxf6 "f8 24 'it'h1

cxd4
24... c4 25 i.b4 and Black loses his queen.
25 ':'g1 ltJd7 26 'iVh5
White finally has a concrete threat to sacrifice on g6. With the storm about to break
Black desperately tries to disperse some of
the gathering enemy forces.
26 ... ltJxf6 27 exf6 ':'a7 28 i.b4 i.c5 29
i.xc5 'iVxe5 30 i.xg6 fxg6 31 ':'xg6+
~h8

In the event of 31...hxg6 there follows 32

'ifxg6+ ~f8 33l::tg3 etc.
32 f7 1-0
White's two threats of fxe8'if and 'ife5+
cannot be dealt with.

Game 37
Pasman-Kr .Georgiev
EU U20 Ch., Groningen 1977
1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 f3 .b6
77

The Veresov

5 'iVd2!? ~xb2 6 .l:l.b1 'iVa3 7 84

with the threat of 3-f4-f5, and his bishop on

e7 will want to make room for the knight on
g8. Sokolov's 13 .ixe7 is relatively harmless
after 13...ltJxe7.
12 fxe4.i.b4 13 a3!?

An ingenious second pawn sacrifice

which, if accepted, sets up an awkward pin
on Black's bishop. 13 .l:[b3 is a reasonable
alternative.
13 ... .ixa3 14 :a1 'ii'b4 15 e5!?

7 ... e6

In a later game Stean played 7...ltJbd7, and

8 .id3?! dxe4 9 fxe4 e5! 10 ltJ3 .ib4 11 l:I.b3
'ii'a5 12 dxe5 ltJg4 13 e6 ltJde5 14 exfl+
ltJxfl left White with inadequate compensation for the pawn in Pasman-Stean, Beer
Sheeva 1980. Instead White should have
driven Black's knight away with 8 e5, when I
think that 8...ltJg8 9 f4 e6 10 .id3 "as 11
ltJge2 gives White a dangerous looking attacking position. This, as with many Veresov
lines, 'requires tests'!

Already planning the following exchange

sacrifice, although this might be getting a bit
carried away! 15 l:tfb1 looks very strong to
me as after 15...'ii'fS there follows 16 e5ltJd5
17 ltJe4 with tremendous pressure for the
two pawns.
15 ... lOd5 16 .l:l.xa3! 'iVxa3 17 lOa4 0-0 18
lOf6+! lO7xf6

18...gxf6? 19 'i'xh6 f5 20 .:1.3 is decisive,

and after 18. ..'it>h8 White has 19ltJxd5 exd5
20 "f4, intending 21 ltJg3 with terrible
threats on the kingside.
19 exf6 e5! 20 fxg7 ~xg7 21 dxe5
'ii'c5+ 22 ~h1 f5

8 .i.d3 'iWa5 9lOge2 h6?!

Weakening Black's kingside. Black should

play 9...ltJbd7!?, when 10 e5ltJg8 11 f4 leads
to similar play to the line given above.
10 .ih4lObd7 11 0-0 dxe4?!

Black can exchange queens with 22......e3

but then 23 "xe3 ltJxe3 24 .if6+ 'it>g8 25
.l:[3 ltJg4 26 .l:[g3 as 27 ltJd4! followed by
ltJf5 will leave his king in a mating net.
23 exf6+ lLlxf6 24 ~f4 lLld5 25 'ifg3+
~h8 26 'ii'a5+ ~g8 27 'ifg3+ ~h8 %-%

V.Sokolov suggested 11.. ..te7!? 12 e5

ltJg8 but then 13 .iel!? leaves Black to deal

78

At the board White evidently saw nothing

better than this repetition, but he can in fact
win with 28 ,Uxf8+ (not 28 'ile5+ 'it>g8 29

3 ... c6
lU6 :xf6 30 ~xf6 due to 30...'i!tt7!)
28...ihf8 29 c4 "iKg7 30 'iff2 when Black
must give up his knight Gust the beginning).

Game 38
Gurgenidze-Stein
Kislovodsk 1972
1 d4 lDf6 2 lDc3 d5 3 .1g5 c6 4 .1xf6
exf6

ltJ4c3 was slightly better for White in LarsenWesterinen, Hastings 1972/73.

5... ~f5 leads to similar play to 3... ~f5,
with White's best being 6 ~d3.
6 .1d3

An alternative plan is 6 g3 ltJd7 7 ~g2

ltJf6 8 ltJce2, intending ltJf3, 0-0, b2-b3 and
c2-c4. If Black were then to capture on c4
White would retake with the b-pawn. This
plan is known in the Trompovsky (1 d4ltJf6
2 ~g5) but I cannot find any examples of it
in the Veresov.
6 ... g6 7 lDce2 lDd7 8 lLIf3 i.d6 9 c4 lDf6
10 lDc3 dxc4!?

Black can also hold the centre with

10... ~e6 with what is undoubtedly a good
position.
1 1 .1xc4 b5 12 .1b3 0-0 13 0-0 a6 14
lDe2?

According to Suetin White should play 14

a4 in an attempt to inhibit the thrust with
... c6-c5.
14....1b7 15 l:c1 "fie7 161Df4 c5

The most natural move, aiming for quick

kingside development. For 4...gxf6 see Kohlhage-Langheinrich.
5 e3

There's defInitely an argument for 5 e4,

which at least gives White a queenside pawn
majority after 5...dxe4 6 ltJxe4. But 6...'ifb6!?
looks quite awkward. In Klinger-Wetscherek,
Oberwart 1991 White continued 7 b3, but
then 7...~b4+ 8 c3 f5 looks quite strong.
5 ...f5

Immediately addressing the critical e4square, and preventing pawn levers such as
e3-e4 or g2-g4. Black has also tried simple
development with 5....i.d6 6 .i.d3 0-0 but
this does little to stop White on the kingside.
Miles-Tisdall, England 1982 continued 7 Vf3
ne8 8 ltJge2ltJd7 9 0-0-0 "iVa5 10 ~b1 ltJf8
11 g4 b5 12ltJg3 ~e6 13ltJf5 ~a3 14ltJe2
'ifb4 15 b3 c5 16 dxc5 "iVxc5 17 h4 with
good attacking chances on the kingside. 9 a3
'ifc7 10 e4 dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ~e7 120-0 b6 13
llad1 ~b7 14 c4 ]';lad8 15 b4 g6 16 c5 f5 17

Opening the position for Black's bishop

pair. Black is already better.
17 dxc5 i.xc5 18 'iVe2 .1d6 19 lDd4
:'fe8 20 "iVd3 l:ad8 21 l:fd1 lDg4! 22
~d2 .1b8 23 h3 lDe5 24 "iVe2 'iVg5

Suddenly Black has some very unpleasant

threats against both g2 and the insecurely
placed knights on d4 and f4.
25 ~n 'iff6 26 ~g 1 1Dc4 27 'iVn? .1xf4
0-1

79

The Veresov

Game 39
Kohlhage-Langheinrich
Schloss Open, Werther 2000
1 d4 itJf6 2 itJc3 dS 3 ~gS c6 4 ~xf6
gxf6 S e3

5 e4 dxe4 6 ttJxe4 resembles a BronsteinLarsen Variation of the Caro-Kann Defence

(1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 ttJc3 dxe4 4 ttJxe4 ttJf6 5
ttJxf6-+- gxf6) except that White has parted
with his dark-squared bishop. This has the
effect of making 6...1!fb6!? look interesting,
although after 7 ttJB Black curiously decided
to decline the b-pawn in Hoi-Hansen, Copenhagen 1982, which went 7....i.5 8 .i.d3
ttJd7 9 0-0 e6 10 c3 0-0-0 11 b4 !:tg8 12 ttJg3
with mutual attacks in the offing and White's
chances looking the more promising. Here
6... 57 ttJgS e6 8 'ifhs 'fIe7 9 ttJIB ttJd7 10
0-0-0 ttJf6 11 'ifh4 h6 12 ttJh3 ttJg4 was fine
for Black in ShagaIovich-Osnos, Leningrad
1967.
White has an interesting alternative in 5
.d2, when Miladinovic-Mantovani, Saint
Vincent 1998 continued S...iL5 6 e3 ttJd7 7
ttJge2 e6 8 ttJg3 ~g6 9 ~d3 i.d6 10 ttJce2
fIIc7 11 c4 dxc4 12 ~xc4 with a nice game
for White.

S... eS

A very ambitious move which deserves to

be taken seriously. After the relatively meek
S...iL5 White gets a good game with 6 ttJge2

80

ttJd7 7 ttJg3 .i.g6 8 h4 h6 9 .i.d3, which was

very promising in R.Watson-Klappert, Oberjoch 2001. Wade-Kieninger, Reykjavik 1966
was less dangerous for Black after 6 i.d3
.i.g6 7 h4 ttJd7 8 hS ~xd3 9 'ii'xd3 eS 10
. 5 'ike7 11 ttJge2 'ike6 12 'ii'xe6-+- fxe6.
6 'iIIhS

6 ... il.d6

In Wade-Kinzel, Varna 1962 Black made a

quick exit after 6...e4? 7 B 5? 8 fxe4 fxe4? 9
.e5+ 1-0. In the main game Black also
pushes ...eS-e4, which looks strategically dubious to me. But at least he doesn't lose a
rook!
7 0-0-0 e4 8 f3

My first thought in this position was to

play 8 g3 (intending 9 iLh3) but then Black
could answer with 8... 5 9 .i.h3 'it'f6 and
1O...'ikg6. I therefore suggest 8 g4!? in order
to prevent ... f6-5, after which White will
continue undermining operations with 9 B.
8 ...fS 9 g4 il.b4 10 gxfS?!

A very risky move due to the weakening

of White's queenside. 10 ttJce2 would have
been a good idea as after 1O... exB (1O.. :ii'f6
looks better) 11 ttJxB fxg4 White has 12
ttJeS with good play.
10...il.xc3 11 bxc3 itJd7 12 il.h3

Removing the defence of the c4-square is

not a clever idea. 12 fxe4 ttJf6 13 'ii'h6 ttJxe4
is also quite good for Black, but 12 'ifh6
offers reasonable counterplay.
12... 'iVe7 13 f4?

3 ... c6

For 4...g6 see Morozevich-Malaniuk, while

4...11Jbd7 leads to lines covered in Chapter 2.
5 J.xf6

White seems oblivious to the danger facing his king. He had to try for some counterplay with 13 'iih6.
13...liJb6 14 'ifg5?!

nus loses in short order. White could

have tried defending the c4-square with 14
~f1 but after 14.. :iia3+ 15 ~d2 llJa4 16
llJe2 llJb2 Black's knight will get there anyway.
14.. :.a3+ 15 'itd2liJc4+ 16 'ite2 'ii'xc3
17 J.g4 "x83+ 18 ~1 h6 19 "g7
'iii'xf4+ 20 ~82 lU8 21 liJh3 "83+ 22
1t>f1 h5 0-1

Retreating the bishop with 5 .id2 is well

met by 5...11Ja6 611Jdl 'ifb6 7 f3 (J 1lJf3l1Je4
8 e3 1lJb4 is less than nothing for White)
7...c5 8 c3 e6 9 e3 .id7 10 llJh3 .id6, and
Black had the better game in PimenovMoisieev, Yerevan 1955. In the event of
5.. :iia6!? White should consider 6 'iVg3 because 6 e4 'ii'xd3 7 .ixd3 dxe4 8 llJxe411Jxe4
9 .ixe4 llJd7 was equal in VokacVesselovsky, Czech Republic 1999. If Black
plays 5...g6 6 f3 and only then 6.. :ii'a6 White
doesn't have this option, and HectorGdanski, Gothenborg 1997 was about equal
after 7 e4 'ii'xd3 8 .txd3 b6 9 .tgS .tg7 10
llJge2 e6 11 b411Jbd7 12 0-0 .tb7.
On the other hand the immediate 5 f3 is
worth considering, and after 5... bS 6 .td2 b4
711Jdl 'ilfb6 8 e4 .ia6 9 'ife3 .txfl 10 ~xfl
e6 11 llJe2 c5 12 c3 llJc6 a double-edged
game arose in Sobolevsky-Kosikov, Kiev
1998.
5 ... 8Xf6 6 84 ~b4 7 exd5 O-O!

Game 40
Markovic-Cvitan
Bosnian Team Ch., Neum 2002
1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 J.g5 c6 4 'iWd3
'iia5

An interesting pawn sacrifice. After the

immediate 7...cxd5 White plays 8 'iib5+ as
the isolated pawn on d5 might be more of a
factor after the exchange of queens. Recapturing with the queen is good enough for
equality, Leonidov-Sanakoev, Voronezh
1997 going 7.. :iixd5 8 0-0-0 .txc3 9 'ifxc3
0-0 10 1lJf3 .ie6 11 b3 'ti'd6 12 .tc4 .ixc4
81

The Veresov

13 'ii'xc4 lLld7 14 l:the1 l:tfe8 15 g3 as when

the slight weakness of White's king position
is sufficient compensation for the inferior
quality of his pawn majority.
8 tiJge2 exd5

1bis seems like the sensible move but the

weakness of the d5-pawn is now a permanent factor. In Mestrovic-Bronstein, Sarajevo
1971 the famous Russian Grandmaster continued to offer a pawn sacrifice with
8...lLla6!? 9 0-0-0 l:td8 10 l:tg1 .tfB and had
dynamic compensation after 11 g4 ~b8
(l1...lLlb4!? is also worth considering) 12lLlf4
lLlb4 13 Wc4 b5 14 'ib3 'ifc7. 1bis seems
like the best way for Black to treat the position.

'uxe3 31 'uxe3 f5

With the disappearance of the doubled

pawn Black is no longer worse.
32 tiJb3 fxg4 33 hxg4 lIf6 34 ~e1 i.f4
35 'ue2

35 l:th3 ~g7 36lLlc5.

35 ...i.d6 36 'ue3 i.f4 37 'uh3 ~g7 38
ltJe5 h6 39 i.d3 tiJe8 40 ~1 i.d2 41
i.e2 tiJe7?!

9 0-0-0 tiJe6 10 'ifb5

Even better might be 10 a3 .td6 11 'i!ib5

as Black can't tuck his bishop away on fB.
10...'ii'xb5 11 tiJxb5 .t:!.d8 12 tiJf4 i.a5 13
e3 a6 14 tiJa3 i.e7 15 tiJd3 'ue8 16 tiJe2
i.g4 17 'ud2 i.f5 18 tiJe3 i.xd3 19
i.xd3

A rather passive move which renews

Black's difficulties. He should play
41...lLld6!?, when 42 l:td3 lLlc4 43
l:IxO
44 .i.xf3 .txc3 45 .txd5 lLla3 leads to a
draw.

:0

42 'ud3 i.f4 43 i.d1 g5 44 a4 bxa4 45

i.xa4 'ud6 46 'ud 1 tiJg6 47 i.e2 tiJh4 48
i.d3 :f6 49 ~e2

Possibly showing undue concern over

Black's idea of 49 ....i.e3. White should play
the cold-blooded 49 .i.xa6, after which
49 ....i.e3 50 ~e2 .txf2 51 .tb7lLlg6 52lLld3
offers excellent winning chances.
White has a nice advantage here because
of the weakness of the d5-pawn. The problem, of course, is how to actually win!
19...i.f4 20 'ue2 g6 21 g4?!

A rash looking move which throws away

White's advantage. After the natural 21 l:the1
Black is under some pressure.
21 ...'ue6 22 ~d1 lId8 23 h3 b5 24 'uhe1
i.c7 25 tiJe2 'udd6 26 'ue3 >itf8 27 i.f1
tiJa5!? 28 b3 tiJe6 29 b4 tiJe7 30 tiJa1

82

49 ...i.d6 50 tiJxa6 tiJg2 51 tiJe5 tiJf4+

52 ~1 h5 53 gxh5 g4 54 i.e2?!

After this Black gets enough counterplay

to draw. White can retain some winning
chances with 54 .te2, when 54...lLlh3 55
lLld3 lLlxf2 56 lLlxf2 g3 57 l:ld3 ':'xf2+ 58
'it>e1 .li!.h2 59 .to, threatening the d5-pawn,
leaves Black with some problems left to
solve.
54 ... l:.h6 55 tiJd3 l:!.xh5 56 tiJxf4 i.xf4
57 b5 i.e7 58 ~g1 l:!.h3 59 i.f5 l:.xe3

3 ... c6

Finally a draw is on the cards.

60 i.xg4 i.b6 61 i.e2 l:.b3 62 ~g2 ~f6
63 l:.h1 i.xd4 64l:th4 ~e5 65l:!.h1 %-%

r----------------.
Game 41
Morozevich-Malaniuk
Alushta 1994

1 liJc3 liJf6 2 d4 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 'iVd3 g6

5 f3

It is well worth considering S i.xf6, securing a higher quality pawn majority at the cost
of the bishop pair after S...exf6 6 e4 dxe4 7
Vi'xe4+. In theory, at least, it makes more
sense for Black to keep the queens on with
7...~e7 as 7...'ife7 8 0-0-0 'iWxe4 9 li.Jxe4 f5
10 liJdZ ~e6 11 J.c4 ~xc4 12 liJxc4 liJd7
13 liJf3 left White with an edge in SchmidtRasmussen, Aarhus 1984. However, in AIburt-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1966 White was
anyway better after (1... ~e7) 8 0-0-0 f5 9
Vi' e3 0-0 10 ~c4 li.Jd7 11 h4 liJf6 12 li.Jf3
ctJg4 13 Vi'e2 ~b4 14l:tde1.

5 .. :ifa5
Designed to inhibit White's e2-e4 plan.
Favouring White is S....i.g7 6 e4, for example
6...0-0 (or 6...liJa6 7 eSli.Jd7 8 'ifd2 h6 9 J.e3
with a space advantage) 70-0-0 bS 8 eS b4 9
li.Jce2 liJe8 10 i.d2 (the immediate 10 h4
also looks interesting, so as to meet 1O... f6
with 11 exf6 exf6 12 ~dZ) 1O... aS 11 h4 cS
12 dxcS liJd7 13 Vi'xdS liJc7 14 'ife4 liJxcs
15 'i!r'c6 left Black with only nebulous com-

pensation for the pawn in MuratovAirapetian, Yerevan 1981. White can also
keep open the option of castling short with 7
eS, for example 7...liJe8 8 J.e3 f6 9 f4 J.fS
10 'ii'd2 'ifb6 11 l:tb1 and the central pawn
wedge remains intact.
Black can try 5... ~f5 in this position because 6 e4? meets with 6...dxe4 7 fxe4 liJxe4!
8 liJxe4 "d5 9 liJc3 ~xd3 10 liJxdS ~xf1
11liJc7+ c;,t>d8 12li.Jxa8 .i.xg2 etc. The problem is that after 6 'ifd2 it isn't clear whether
5... ~f5 has achieved much. White might gain
time on the bishop with a later g2-g4.
Finally there is S... h6, when 6 i.xf6 (6
~h4 is possible) 6...exf6 7 e4 brings about a
position akin to those arising after 5 i.xf6
but with ...h7-h6 and f2-f3 included. It's not
clear who this will favour, practical tests being required.
6 h4?!

Morozevich is an interesting and creative

player but occasionally his ideas walk on the
wild side. The reasoning behind this move is
that an immediate 6 e4 dxe4 sees Black
threatening the bishop on gS with his queen.
Another way to try to solve this problem is
with 6 i.xf6, although after 6...exf6 7 e4
i.b4 8 exdS Black can sacrifice a pawn with
8...0-0! 9 0-0-0 liJa6! along the lines of the
Mestrovic-Bronstein game, given as a note
within Markovic-Cvitan. There is also 6 ~d2,
but this seems okay for Black after 6... ~g7 7
e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 e5! (rather than 8... 0-0 9 eS

83

The Veresov

with a space advantage for White).

6 ... b5 7 e4 b4 8 liJee2 .ta6 9 'ii'e3 dxe4!
10 fxe4 liJbd7 11 liJf3.tg7

Intending to break open the centre with

12... e5. White's reply prevents this but runs
into other problems.
12 .txf6 exf6!

A good alternative is 32 ... lDxe4, when 33

.l:!.xf7 lDxd6 34 .l:!.xd7+ lDxc4 35 .l::txd8+ i.f8
also gives Black excellent winning chances.
33 "Wi'xe6 fxe6 34 :g3 liJxe4 35 liJxe4 e4
36 %:.xg6 'itf7 37 .l:l.g3 .td4?!

An excellent and unstereotyped idea with

which Black aims to exert pressure on the efile.
13 h5 0-0 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 liJe1 .txf1
16 'itxf1 ':fe8

Threatening to demolish White's centre

with 17 ... f5 18 e5 c5 etc.

37 ... .ltb2 stops the rook corning to a3 and

leaves White in serious trouble, although
even now he's not out of the woods.
38 J:!.a3 'ite7 39 .l:l.a4! .l:l.e8?!
Black should try 39 ... c3 since after 40 ':c4

(40 c;t;d 1 e5, planning 41....l:tg8, is also good

for Black) 40 ....l:!.b8 41lDxc3 (41 l:.xd4.l:.bH
42 'itte2 c2) he has the stunning 41 ....l:th4!.
40 liJd2 .te3 41 'ite2 1f.,-1f.,

17 'iVd3 e5 18 e3

Trying to keep hold of the central dark

squares. After 18 d54:'le5 194:'lxe5 l:.xe5 the
threat is 20... f5, putting White in all sorts of
trouble.
18 ... bxe3 19 bxe3 .l:!.ae8

Black has an interesting alternative in

19 ...l:.ab8, when Malaniuk suggested White
should play 20 'iitf2 (20 lDd2 cxd4 21 cxd4
f5! is very dangerous) 20 ....l:!.b2+ 21 c;t;g3 not that this looks very comfortable for
White!
20 liJb3 'ifa4 21 liJbd2 'iVa3! 22 liJe4
"tWa6 23 d5 liJb6 24 liJfd2 .l:!.ed8

Threatening ... f6-f5.

25 ne1 f5 26 exf5 .u.xe1 + 27 'itxe1
liJxd5 28 li!.h3 "tWf6 29 liJe4 'ii'xf5 30 %:.f3
"Wi'd7 31 liJed6 liJxe3! 32 'iVe4 'ii'e6

84

Game 42
Stryjecki-Vokac
Czech Extra League 2001
. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -....
1 d4 liJf6 2 liJe3 d5 3 .tg5 e6 4 "tWd2

3 ... c6

As with 4 'it'd3 White prepares queenside

castling and keeps the option of playing 2-f3
and e3-e4. The queen is slightly less exposed
on d2 but does not support the e4-square.
4 ... i..f5

A natural developing move, but possibly

not the best. 4... b5 is an attempt to launch an
attack on the queenside even before White's
king has gone there. White can consider
changing plans with 5 iLxf6 (5 f3 is also possible and leads to positions from Chapter 2
after 5...lt'lbd7) 5...gxf6 6 e4!? b4 7 It'lce2
dxe4 8 "'xb4 'ii'b6, and now 9 "'c3 looks
interesting, rather than 9 "'xb6? axb6 which
gave Black the bishop pair and a clear advantage in Johnsen-Akesson, Gausdal 1996.
Summerscale-Lalic, Coulsden 1999 saw
4... h6, and after 5 iLxf6 exf6 6 e4 i.b4 7
exd5 i.xc3 8 "iWxc3 "'xd5 9 "'e3+ i.e6 10
It'le2lt'ld7 11 It'lf4 "'a5+ 12 "'d2 "'xd2+ 13
~d2 the resulting ending was only slightly
worse for Black. 4...lt'lbd7 transposes to
Chapter 2.

6 0-0-0

The immediate 6 e4 is rather dubious after

6...dxe4 7 "'f4 "'a5 8 0-0-0 e6 9 i.xf6 It'lxf6
10 fxe4 i.g6 11 i.d3 i.b4 12 It'lge2, and
now according to Bogolyubov Black's best is
12...e5! with a clear advantage. 12...0-0-0 13
e5lt'ld5 14lt'lxd5 'it'xd5 15 i.xg6 fxg6 16 a3
"'xg2 was also better for Black in SpielmannBogoljubov, Moscow 1925.
A better way of enforcing e2-e4 is with 6
"iWf4 i.g6 7 e4 'ii'b6 8 0-0-0 e6 as in KulaotsVeingold, Pamu 1996. Then the immediate 9
e5 is best, with an interesting struggle in
prospect, rather than the game's 91i'e3.
The quiet 6 e3 is inconsistent - in Rubinetti-Sunye Neto, Moron 1982 Black
emerged with a good game after 6...h6 7 i.h4
e6 8 g4 i.g6 9 i.g3 h5 10 g5 h411 i.2 ttJg8
12 e4 i.b4 as his king's knight was reemerging neatly to e7.
6 ... h6

5 f3liJbd7

Black can prevent White from playing e2e4 on his next move with 5...i.g6, which also
means not having to worry about White attacking the bishop with a later "'f4. White
should probably play 6 It'lh3 with the idea of
It'lf4xg6. Instead 6 h4 h6 7 iLxf6 exf6 8 h5
iLh7 9 e4 dxe4 10 It'lxe4 i.e7 11 lLlh3 It'ld7
was very solid for Black in Sliwa-Doda, Polanica Zdroj 1966.
Black must be careful not to play 6......a5,
when 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 iLg4 (8 ...ttJxe4? 9
ttJxe4) 9 iLe2 i.xe2 10 ttJgxe2 0-0-0 11 l:!.hfl
gave White the better chances in DemenyBach, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993. The natural
6...e6 also appears to allow 7 e4, although
after 7...dxe4 8 fxe4 Black can play 8...iLxe4.
Filchev-Pelitov, Bulgaria 1956 continued 9
:LeI (9 It'lxe4? ttJxe4 exchanges queens)
9....tb4 10 a3 iLxc3 11 "'xc3 'ii'b6 12 It'lf3
h6 13 i.h4 iLh7 14lt'le5 with healthy compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
85

The Veresov

7 i.h4

Perhaps White should avoid any loss of

time and opt for the immediate 7 ~xf6 It:\xf6
8 e4. Then 8... dxe4 allows White to recover
his pawn with 9 'tWf4 with a broad pawn centre, so Sandipan-Yurtaev, Guntur 2000 went
8... ~d7 9 eslt:\g810 f4 e6, and now 11 <ifi>b1
would have been relatively best, with a complex game in prospect. In the game Black
was doing very well after 11 It:\f3?! 'tWaS 12
<ifi>b1 ~b4.
7 ...i.h7

A useful waiting move. Black is in no

hurry to push the e-pawn since doing so
would only encourage White to make his
central break. On 7...e6 White could play 8 e4
thanks to the pin on the knight. Hence the
text. In Smirnov-Zavgorodniy, Lvov 2002
Black's attempt to start an attack on the
queenside with 7... bs was met with the razor
sharp 8 e4!?, when there followed 8...dxe4 9
dS cxd5 10 ~xf6 It:\xf6 11 fxe4 ~d7 12 es
It:\h7? (12... b4 seems best, with Black reaching a solid position after 13 It:\xds It:\xds 14
'tWxds e6). Smirnov chose the interesting 13
e6, but White's simplest is 13 1i'xds, when
13... e6 14 'ii'xd7+ 'ii'xd7 15 ~xbS earns a
good pawn and a huge lead in development.
8 e4

It:\xf3 e6 11 ~c4, with pressure on the e- and

f-ftles akin to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
Declining the gambit is not bad, and is certainly less dangerous.
10 'iYxe3 e6 11 i.c4?!

Perhaps White should have played 11

~d3, but then 11...~xd3 12'ii'xd3'ii'aS is no

worse for Black.

11...i.e7 12 i.b3 0-0 13 tLlh3 c5

Initiating counterplay on the queenside,

Black being helped by the fact that the rook
is no longer on d 1.
14 i.xf6?

A somewhat careless pawn grab which

gives Black an uninhibited dark-squared
bishop. 14 <ifi>b 1 is safer.
14...i.xf6 15 dxc5 Wc7 16 tLla4 %:tac8 17
:td1 b5! 18tLlc3

White has no good move. After 18 cxb6

there follows the spectacular 18...'ii'xc2+! 19
.i.xc2 l:txc2+ 20 <ifi>b 1 lhb2+ 21 <ifi>c1 (21
~al lIbl mate - Black's bishops call all the
shots!) 21...':c8+ etc.
18...tLlxc5 19 %:td2 tLlxb3+ 20 axb3 Wa5
0-1

White has no satisfactory defence to the

threats of 21...'ifa1+ and 21...':'xc3.

Anyway!
8 ... dxe4 9 %:te1 e3

Black is evidendy worried about the compensation White would have after 9...exf3 10

86

Game 43
Veresov-Krogius
USSR Team Ch. 1953
1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 e3

3 ... c6

b4!? etc.
7 cxd3 ltJbd7 8 ltJf3 e6 9 0-0 h6 10 ~h4
.i.e7 11 b4 0-0 12 ltJa4 "d8 13 'iVb3 b5
14 lbc5 ltJxc5 15 bxc5 a5 16 :fe 1 ltJd7
17 ~g3 .:tc8 18 e4 ~f6 19 ~d6 :e8 20
l:!.e2

Black's main problem is that he is very

passive, enabling White to improve at leisure.
20 ...ltJf8 21 :be1 'iVd7 22 ltJe5 .i.xe5 23
dxe5 ltJg6 24 g3 'iVd8 25 f4 dxe4

Once again we see that Veresov himself

prefers this quiet and unassuming move. 4
tbf3 seems less precise in view of 4.. :iib6!,
e.g. 5 l1b 1 tbbd7 6 e3 g6 7 i.d3 i.g7 8 0-0
0-0 9 h3 (9 e4 dxe4 10 liJxe4 liJxe4 11 i.xe4
liJf6 12 i.d3 i.g4 13 c3 'tWaS! was quite
promising for Black in Potterat-Cvitan, Bad
Ragaz 1992) 9.. .l:le8 10 liJe2 e5 11 dxe5
ttJxe5 12 liJxe5 lIxe5 13 i.f4 ne8 with
equality. Here 9...c5 invites 10 i.xf6! liJxf6
11 liJa4, when trying to avoid losing a pawn
with 11...'ii'a5 12 tbxc5 'i'xa2 runs into 13
'ifd2! etc.

With the position being so unpleasant for

Black this exchange is understandable. But
now the problem is that White can penetrate
on the d-file.
26 dxe4 f6 27 exf6

27 a4 looks very strong as after 27 ... b4

White can play 28 fSltJxeS 29 .l:ldl, threatening 30 i.xeS, and in response to 29...ltJf1
there comes 30 fXe6liJxd6 31 e7+ etc.
27 ..."xf6 28 'it'd3 e5!

4 ...'iVb6 5 J:tb1

White has also tried the gambit of the bpawn with the variation 5 i.d3 'iVxb2 6
tbge2, an idea which would not be possible if
the knight were already committed to f3.
White had some compensation for the pawn
in the game Gardner-Levit, Chicago 1989
after 6... liJbd7 (the alternative try 6...1ib6 7
0-0 liJbd7 8 e4 leads to similar play) 7 0-0 g6
8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 liJxe4 10 i.xe4 i.g7 11
'i'd3.
5 ... ~f5 6 ~d3 .i.xd3

nus leaves White with a nice positional

edge. His doubled pawns cover key squares
and he has the makings of a 'minority attack'
on the queenside with an advance of the bpawn. Preferable is 6...i.g6 but this still looks
nice for White after 7 liJf3 e6 8 0-0 i.e7 9

Suddenly the Black pieces start to cooperate.

29 f5 ltJh8 30 'iVc3 ltJf7 31 :d1 a4 32
'iitg2 l:!.cd8 33 J:ted2 :d7 34 h4 :ed8 35
'iVb4 ~h7 36 l:!.d3 g6 37 fxg6+ 'iVxg6 38
J:tf1 'iVe6 39 'iVd2 ltJxd6 40 :d 1 'iVg4 41
.l:[xd6 'iVxe4+ 42 'iith2 .l:[xd6 43 cxd6 :d7
%-%

Black must have been relieved to get away

with a draw, but in the final position he could
and should continue.

87

The Veresov

Summary

3... c6 is a solid move against which I think there are two good choices for White. The ftrst is to
play 4 3, making a gambit of the b-pawn after 4 .. :ifb6 and transposing to Chapter 2 after
4...lLlbd7 5 'ii'd2!? The second is to play 4 e3, when Black's position is not as comfortable as it
might appear.
, d4lLlf6 2lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 (D) 4 f3
4 i.xf6 (D)

4 ... exf6 - Game 38; 4 ...gxf6 - Game 39

4 ifd3
4.. :ii'aS - Game 40; 4 ...g6 - Game 41
4 'ii'd2 - Game 42
4 e3 - Game 43
4 . 'W!Vb6 (D)
4... lLlbd7 5 1i'd2 - Game 12
5 e4 - Game 36
5 'ii'd2 - Game 37

3 ... c6

BB

4 i.xf6

4 ... 'W!Vb6

CHAPTER SIX

3 ... ..tf5

1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 .i.f5

TIlls simple developing move is seen quite

often, Black developing the bishop to its
most natural square and hoping to inhibit e2e4. The drawback is that the bishop can be
exposed on fS, either to lDxd5 combinations,
a g2-g4 thrust or by having to retreat or exchange after a challenge with .td3.
Despite the sound appearance of 3....tfS
Black certainly needs to know what he's doing against 4 f3. The complications arising
from 4...lDbd7 5 lDxd5!? (Bairamov-Smagin)
appear to bum out to approximate equality
but only after considerable excitement. The
best answer may well be 4...c5, though the
accuracy with which this must be played is
shown by the fact that Black lasted only 15
moves in Jagielsky-Pytlakowski! And even
after the sound 4....tg6 International Master
Strikovic also managed just 15 moves against
Khachian. Generally speaking I don't like 4
f3 lines, but here it is genuinely interesting
and there are many pitfalls for Black.
Another reasonable treatment for White is
4 i.xf6. I don't usually like this move either
but in this position it's not too bad; Black's
light-squared bishop is not on the best square
and may later lose time retreating. After
4...gxf6 5 e3 e6 6 .td3 .tg6 White tried to
take advantage of the bishop's location with

7 f4 in Maryasin-Tyomkin, and Black seemed

to be okay in this game, although it wasn't as
good as Tyomkin thought. In KupreichikWesterinen White adopted a different approach, with 6 lDge2 followed by lDg3 and
h2-h4, but I thought that his e3-e4 was a bit
rash. If Black plays 4... exf6 he has to follow
up very carefully; he can improve on GufeldUjtumen by dropping the bishop back to e6
on move five, as by move six it is already a
bit too late.
4lDf3 isn't very good because of 4...lDe4
(Bochkarev-Vinokurov) but 4 e3 seems interesting. I would not be too enthusiastic
about following the game Ciocaltea-Tabor as
the game was distincdy dubious for White.
The simple 5 ~d3 is quite promising.

Game 44
Bairamov-Smagin
USSR 1982
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 .i.f5 4 f3

As usual in the Veresov, this is White's

sharpest response.
4 ... lLlbd7

TIlls seems like a very solid move, developing a piece and supporting the knight on
f6. But White has a tactical trick which
throws the game into wild complications.

89

The Veresov

The alternatives are as follows:

a) 4... e6? is very bad in view of S e4!.
b) 4...h6 S ~xf6 (after S ~h4 Black might
play S...e6, when 6 e4 iLh7 7 ~xf6 'ifxf6 8
exdS iLb4 is an interesting pawn sac) S...gxf6
(5...exf6 is more solid) 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 ~h7
8 tUf3 ~g7 9 iLd3 0-0 10 0-0 ttJd7 11 'ii'd2
left Black's bishops looking rather miserable
in Schumacher-Tack, Antwerp 2000.
c) 4...c6 S 'ifd2 ttJbd7 transposes to Stryjecki-Vokac from Chapter 5. White has
alternatives here. S g4!? ~g6 6 h4 h6 7 ~f4
e6 8 e3 iLd6 9 ttJh3 gave White a space
advantage on the kingside in Long-Sholl,
Moline 1992, while Ciocaltea gave 5 e4 dxe4
6 i.xf6 exf6 7 fxe4 iLg6 8 ttJf3 ttJd7 with an
'unclear' assessment.
For 4... c5 see Jagielsky-Pytlakowski, and
for 4... ~g6 see Khachian-Strikovic.
5lDxd5

After Summerscale's suggestion of 5 g4

~g6 6 h4 I think that Black can play 6... h5 7
~xf6 exf6! (7...ttJxf6 looks quite good for

White after 8 gS ttJg8 9 ttJh3, intending 10

ttJf4) 8 ttJxd5 hxg4 with a strong position
because 9 fxg4? loses a piece after 9... iLe4!.
5 ..lDxd5 6 e4 h6
6... f6 is a little played continuation which
has the benefit of allowing the bishop a retreat square on fT. 7 ~h4 ~e6 8 exd5 iLxd5
9 c4 i.fT 10 f4 (trying to dissuade Black
from carrying out thematic pawn break but...)
10... e5 (Black plays it anyway!) 11 fxe5 iLb4+

90

12 'it>f2 g5 (and continues to play very energetically) 13 e6 (13 ~g3 fxeS makes White's
king feel very uncomfortable) 13...i.xe6 14
a3 iLe7 15 i.g3 0-0 16 ~d3 f5

Matters are delicately balanced. White has

better control of the centre but Black has the
superior development and good kingside
attacking prospects. Tallova-Babula, Czech
Extra League 2000 continued 17 'ife2 iLfT
18 'it>f1 (18 ~xc7!? 'iKxc7 19 'ifxe7 - pawn
grabbing is not always advisable, but this may
have been preferable to the game) 18...iLg6
19 tUf3 (19 ~xc7!?) 19 ... iLf6 20 'ife6+ 11n
21 h4 (a double-edged decision; it is extremely dangerous for White to open the
kingside with his own king still stuck there)
21...tUf8 (21...ttJc5!?) 22 'ife2 f4 23 hxg5 fxg3
24 ~xg6 tUxg6 25 %ld1?? (what a shame - a
stupid blunder in an otherwise well contested
game, where the sensible 25 gxf6 'ifxf6
would have left all to play for) 25 ...iLxg5 0-1
(based on notes by Aaron Summerscale).
Black should avoid 6...iLxe4 7 fxe4 ttJ5b6
as after 8 ttJf3 White has the bishop pair and
control of the centre. D.MacDonald-Rix,
Hastings 1991/92 continued 8...g6 9 a4 a6 10
as tUc8 11 ~c4 iLg7 12 e5 c5 13 c3 'iVc7 14
'ifb3 and Black was in serious trouble.
7 ~h4

After 7 iLc1 Black can develop at top

speed with 7...e5! 8 tUe2 (both 8 exd5 and 8
exf5 can be answered by 8...'ilib4+, when
Black recovers his pawn with an excellent

3 ... ~f5

game) 8...ioxe4 9 fxe4 ii'h4+ 10 ~g3 ~sf6

11 'ilfd3 0-0-0 and White was under serious
pressure in Herz-Bree, Wuerttemberg 2000.
7 ... tLle3

7... ~7b6 is also interesting for after 8 exf5

~e3 9 "d3 Black has 9.....xd4.
8 'ii'd3
White has also tried 8 'iVe2 at this point,
but the current theoretical verdict is that this
is favourable for Black after 8...tDxfl 9 exfs
~b6 10 0-0-0 'ilfds! (l0.....d6 11 g4! was
played in Khachian-Elkin, USSR 1986, and
now Khachian gave 11...~c4! 12 'ii'xc4'iif4+
13 'it>bl ~d2+ 14 :!.xd2 'ii'xd2 15 ~e2 with
compensation for the exchange) 11 ~bl (or
11 b3 "xf5 12 i.f2 ~xh2 etc.) l1...tDc4! 12
l:lxfl (12 "xfl? "bs) 12.....xd4! 13 c3
'ii'xh4 14 g3 "gs 15 'iixc4 "xf5+ and Black
was a good pawn up in Khachian-Obukhov,
USSR 1986.
8 ...tLlxf1 9 exfS tLlcS!

1O... ~a4 11 'iVd3 ~xb2 12 'iVb5+ 'iid7 13

'ilfxb7 :!.d8 14 ~xfl tDc4 gives Black excellent counterplay, but 11 'iWb3 is better, e.g.
11...~b6 12 ~e2 (Black meets 12 0-0-0 with
12...'iids, and 12 i.f2 with 12...'iid7)
12.....ds 13 :!'xfl 'iVxf5 140-0-0 with White
having a shade the better of it thanks to his
extra space, or 11...'ii'xd4 12 'ii'b5+ 'iVd7 13
'ii'xd7+ ~xd7 14 0-0-0+ ~c6 15 :!.xfl, which
is slightly better for White because the
cramping pawn on f5 will leave Black with
some weak pawns whether he liberates his
kingside with ...e7-e6 or ...g7-g6.
10 ... c6 11 'ii'xc5 tLle3 12 'iPe2
Not 12 iog3 "xd4!, or 12 ~f2 ~xf5 13
'iVxf5 "xd4+ 14 ~g3 gs.
12...tLlxg2 13 ~g3 e6 14 'ire5 .i.e7! 15
fxe6

After 15 'ii'xg7 Black gets the better endgame with 15...i.f6 16 'i'g4 'l'xd4 17 'i'xd4
ioxd4, and 15 ~fl can be met with 15... ~h4
16 fxe60-0.
15 ... 0-0 16 c3 i.f6 17 'ii'h5

A better defence might have been 171i'c7,

e.g. 17...'iVxc7 18 ioxc7 fxe6, which is equal,
or 17......ds 18 ~f2 ~h4 19 'ii'xb7, which is
far from clear.
17 ... fxe6 18 ~f2 tLlh4 19 'ii'g4 tLlfS 20
tLle2 'ii'b6 21 b4 :ae8 22 :hd1 .i.gS 23
'ii'e4 e5! 24 i.xe5 .i.f6!

The start of some pyrotechnics with the

knights which should lead to an equal game
with best play. After 9... ~xh2 10 l:.xh2 the
cramping effect of the pawn on f5 will make
life difficult for Black.
10 'ii'bS+?!

In this complex and difficult posltton

White goes astray. Capturing the knight gives
Black the better endgame after 10 dxcs
'iVxd3 11 cxd3 ~e3 12 'it>e2 ~xf5 in the
form of the weak squares in front of White's
d-pawn. He had to play 10 "c3!, when

The most important defender is the

bishop on es, so Black sets about removing it
from office. Doing this 'combinatively' with

91

The Veresov

24... ltJd6 25 'iVg6 1:.xeS is not clear after 26

it'xd6 because Black has had to part with his
superb knight.
25 'it>e1 ltJd6 26 'iVg4 ltJc4 27 f4 ~xe5
28 dxe5

After 28 fxeS 1:.1 +! the queen goes.

ltJe3 .ig6 19 ltJc4 would have maintained

the pressure. 6 'tIi'xd4 ltJc6 7 .ibS seems
natural but favoured Black after 7... dxe4 8
ii.xc6+ bxc6 9 'iVcs 'iVc8 10 ii.xf6 exf6 in
Klemp-Lindemann, Spree 1997.
6~b5+

28 ....l:I.xe5! 29 l:[d7

And here 29 fxeS?? allows mate in one.

29 ... l:!.xe2+ 30 ~xe2 "ii'e3+ 31 ..ti>d1
"ii'xc3 32 l:I.c1 ltJb2+ 33 ~e2 J:!.e8+ 34
..ti>f2ltJd3+ 35 J:l.xd3 "ii'xd3 36 :g1 "ii'd2+
37 ~g3 J:l.e3+ 0-1

Game 45
Jagielsky-Pytlakowski
Poland 2000
1 d4ltJf6 2ltJc3 d5 3 ~g5 ~f5 4 f3 c5

White can also playa kind of reversed Albin Counter Gambit with 6 dS, for example
6... 'iVaS 7 .ixf6 exf6 8 fxe4 ii.d7 9 ltJf3 i..d6
10 .ie2 0-0 11 0-0 bS 12 a4 b4 13 ltJbS ii.f4
14 ltJd2 and White had an edge in
D.Farrand-Harari, Eastman Plate Final 1999.
7 'iVd2 makes sense as White's threat to recapture the e4-pawn with 8 fxe4 t"Dxe4? 9
ltJxe4 almost forces Black to accept the
gambit pawn with 7... exf3, when 8 ltJxf3
leaves White with compensation.
6 ... ~d7 7 i.xd7 +

As in many lines this is the most incisive

response to 4 f3. Black immediately counterattacks by challenging the d4-pawn and
makes room for his queen to come out to b6
or as. White now responds with an equally
sharp reply.
5 e4 dxe4
The alternative is S... cxd4, when 6 ii.xf6
dxc3 7 ii.xc3 dxe4 8 'iVxd8+ 'i.ti>xd8 9 0-0-0+
gives White more than enough initiative for
the pawn in the endgame, for example
Krogius-Aronin, USSR Ch Semi Final 1952
went 9.. /:;c7 10 ii.c4 e6 11 fxe4 iLxe4 12
ltJe2 ltJc6 13 1:.h1 .ig6 14 ltJf4 .irs 15 h3
hS, and now 16 ii.e2 h4 17 ltJd5+ 'it>c8 18
92

White has an interesting alternative in 7

dxcS, for example 7... 'iVaS 8 ii.xf6 ii.xbS 9
b4 'iVxb4? (9 ...'iia3 is forced) 10 1:.bl won a
piece and the game in Peperle-Ertelt, correspondence 1974.
7 ...ltJbxd7 8 d5 exf3 9 "ii'xf3 g6 10 0-0-0
"ii'b6 11 ltJh3 ltJe5?!

A flimsy looking manoeuvre which leads

to Black's pieces becoming uncoordinated.
After 11...ii.g7 12 l:!.hel Wbite has sufficient
pressure to force Black to return the e-pawn
if he wants to castle. Black's best might be
l1...h6, after which 12 ii.xf6 t"Dxf6 13 d6
0-0-0 leaves me wondering if White has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

3 ... ~f5

12 'ii'e2 ttJfd7 13 d6! exd6 14 liJd5

'ii'a5??

Black has to play 14...'fic6 when the position still looks unclear.
15 'ii'b5! 1-0

15 1i'el would have been equally effective.

In either case Black must lose his queen as
capturing White's allows mate with 16liJc7.

with 6 e5 liJfd7 7 liJge2 f6 8 i.e3!?, for example 8... fxe5 9 dxe5 liJxe5 10 liJd4 with
compensation) 6 'fid2 e6 7 fxe4 i.b4 8 'fie3
liJg4 9 'ii'd2 liJf6 10 'iWe3 liJg4 11 'iIV f4?!
(White should have allowed the repetition
with 11 "ii'd2) 11...'iWxd4 12 liJge2 i.xc3+ 13
liJxc3 h6 14 "ii'xg4 hxg5 15 'Wxg5 and White
stood worse in Spas sky-Filip, Amsterdam
(Candidates) 1956, although he did eventually
manage to draw.
The immediate 5 liJh3 is also worth considering, for example 5... e6 6 liJf4 R.d6
(6 ...R.e7 7 'iWd2 liJbd7 8 0-0-0 would lead
back to the game) 7 'iVd2 c6 8 h4 (a preliminary 8 0-0-0 is more circumspect) 8... h6 9
liJxg6 i.g3+ 10 'iitd1 fxg6 11 R.f4 liJh5 12
.txg3 ttJxg3 13 l::1h3 ttJxf1 14 'i'd3 0-0 15
'iite1 ttJg3 16 ~xg3 'ii'xh4 17 'ii'xg6 ':7 18
l:td 1 liJd7 19 e3 e5 and Black had freed himself and taken over the initiative in IipskiKholmov, Warsaw 1989.

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 5 ... ttJbd7

Game 46
Khachian-Strikovic
Candas Open 1996

Khachian has played this position several

times and showed that it is deceptively dangerous for Black. Khachian-Goletiani, Ere- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... van Open 1996 went S...e6 6 0-0-0 i.b4 7
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 ~g5 ~f5 4 f3 ~g6
liJh3 liJbd7 8 a3 i.e7 9 liJf4 cS 10 dxcS
A prophylactic move, anticipating White's
liJxc5 11 e4 dxe4 and now 12 1i'e3!? looks
central pawn expansion with e2-e4.
interesting. 12 i.b5+ 'ittfS 13 "ii'e2 'WaS 14
5 'ii'd2
liJxg6+ hxg6 15 fxe4 a6 was the game continuation, when 16 e5 axb5 left Black somewhat better.
60-0-0 e6 7 ttJh3 ~e7 8 ttJf4 liJg8!?

White can also offer a gambit with 5 e4,

for example S... dxe4 (if Black declines the
pawn with 5... c6 White can offer another one

93

The Veresov

Black had no doubt been relying on this to

free his game, but he comes under considerable pressure anyway. The problem with the
natural 8...0-0 is that White can play 9 h4,
when 9... h6 10 liJxg6 causes serious damage
to Black's pawn structure.
9 iLxe7 liJxe7 10 e4 c6 11 h4 h6 12
.1d3 dxe4

This turns out to be a surprisingly serious

mistake. Black should keep his outpost on d5
intact and play 12...i.h7.
13 liJxg6liJxg6 14liJxe4 'iic7?

main problem with Black's setup is that it is

not very active.
6.1d3

The standard continuation, but not a very

threatening one. For the more dangerous 6
lLlge2 see Kupreichik-Westerinen.
6 ...iLg6

Black can also play 6...it.xd3 when the

game Schweber-Szmetan, Buenos Aires 2001
continued 7 cxd3 lLlc6 8 lLlge2 5, and now 9
0-0 followed by a minority attack on the
queenside (a2-a3, b2-b4, l:tct, lLlc3-a4-c5)
would have been best. In the game White
played 9 lLlg3?! but 9.. .f4 10 lLlh5 fxe3 11
fxe3 'i6'g5 12 'i6'f3 St.h6 handed Black the
initiative.
7 f4!?

Missing White's reply? Actually this position is far from easy for Black as after
14...lLlb6 White has 15 lLlc5, and 14...0-0
walks into an attack after 15 h5 lLle7 16 g4,

threatening 17 gS.
15 'iib4 1-0

Game 47
Maryasin-Tyomkin
Israeli Open Ch., TelAviv 1999
1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 .1g5 .1f5 4 .1xf6
gxf6

Recapturing towards the centre like this is

Black's most ambitious line. For 4... exf6 see
Gufeld-Ujtumen.
5 e3 e6

5.. :ifd7 also seems quite reasonable, intending ...lLlc6 and ...0-0-0. White's best is
probably 6 lLlge2 lLlc6 7 lLlg3 i.g6 8 h4 h6 9
h5 i.h7 10 St.d3 St.xd3 11 'i6'xd3 when the

94

An interesting approach which threatens

to ruin Black's pawn structure with 8 5. The
standard 7 lLlge2 is innocuous after 7...c5 (or
7...lLld7 8 h4 c6 9 h5 it.xd3 10 cxd3 5 11
lLlf4 ~d6 12 g3 'ii'b6 with equality in Speelman-Ledger, England 1997) 8 0-0 lLlc6 9
dxc5 (9 f4 5 10 dxc5 it.xc5 was good for
Black due to the weakness of e3 in IppolittiPanno, Buenos Aires 1998) 9...it.xc5 10 e4
d4 11 lLlb1 'i6'd7 12 lLld2 0-0-0 13 f4 f5 and
Black stood well in Ostapenko-Bocharov,
Novosibirsk 1998.
7 ... f5!?

A simple yet radical way to prevent f4-5.

The other way to take the sting out of this
plan is by exchanging bishops on d3, but

3 ... JJ..f5

after 7...~xd3 8 cxd3 cs 9 dxcs ~xcs 10 d4

~b4 11 lLlf3 lLlc6 there was equality in
~bryasin-Cherepkov, Minsk 1981. Perhaps 8
.-xd3lLld7 9 fS is worth investigating.
Allowing White to play f4-fS turns out
rather badly for Black, for example 7...lLlc6?!
8 fS ~xfS (8 ... exfS 9 .-f3) 9 ~xfs exfS 10
.-f3; or 7... cs?! 8 fS! exfS 9 "f3 lLlc6 10
lLlge2 'it'd7 11 0-0 and White stood better in
Chernyshov-Ovetchkin, Smolensk 2000.

8liJf3.th5

With his position starting to creak from a

strategic point of view, White launches an
interesting attack involving the sacrifice of
his knight. Quiet moves leave Black better
thanks to his superior pawn structure.
14....txc3 15 exd5 .tb4 16 dxe6

Bringing the bishop back into play. Another possibility is 8... cs, when 9 0-0 (or 9
i..b5+ lLlc6 10 lLles 'it'c7 intending 11...f6)
9...lLlc6 10 lLles cxd4 11 lLlxc6 bxc6 12 exd4
'i!Vb6 was good for Black in BuhmannKomljenovic, St.lngbert 1987.
9 .te2 liJd7 10 liJe5 .txe2 11 "ifxe2
liJxe5 12 dxe5

Perhaps 12 fxes (threatening 13 1Wbs+)

would have been better, although this still
looks at least equal for Black after 12...a6
(12 ...c6 and 12...i..h6 look like good alternatives) 13 0-0-0 "gs, preventing White's positional threat of 14 g4 and securing a good

game.
12... a6?!

I would prefer the solid 12... c6. Black evidently wanted to retain the option of playing
...c7-cs but he's playing with fire while his
king is in the centre.
130-0-0.tb4 14 e4!?

This seems to leave White with slightly inadequate compensation. After 16 'it'c4 Black
would be forced to return the piece with
16 ... 'ii'e7 (16 ...i..f8 17 dxe6 'ii'e7 18 exf7+
'it'xf7 19 e6 is very dangerous for Black) 17
d6 ~xd6 18 exd6 cxd6 but, although this
leaves him a pawn up, the situation is far
from clear after 19 ];the1.
16..."ife7 17 exf7+ "ifxf7 18 e6 'ii'f6 19
:d7 .td6 20 g3 0-0 21 :e1 :lae8 22 :f7
'iVg6 23 'ii'c4 b5 24 "ifd5 :e7 25 :lxe7
.txe7 26 'ii'c6 .l:I.d8 27 'ii'xc7?!

27 1i'xa6 is preferable. Tyomkin then gave

27 ...'it'f6 28 'it'xbs 'it'd4 but White can defend with 29 'it'd3 'it'b4 30 c3 'it'as 31 "c4
with everything left to play for.
27 ...W'f6 28 c3 b4 29 'iitc2

After 29 :es Black has 29 ...bxc3 (not

29...i..d6? 30 litxfS!) 30 bxc3 'ii'f8 when
White's king has serious problems, not to
mention the immediate threat of 31 ...i..d6.
29 ... bxc3 30 bxc3 :d6 31 "ifc8+ <t>g7
32 :e5 "ifh6 33 h4 'ii'h5- + 34 :le1 'ii'f3
35 "ifc4 "iff2+

There was nothing wrong with the coldblooded 3s...'it'xg3, though Black was understandably nervous about opening the g-fIle

95

The Veresov

when short of time. The text is good enough.

In Miles-Hort, Amsterdam 1982 Black

played 6....id6 in order to meet 7 ~g3 .ig6
8 h4 with 8... .ixg3. Miles, in turn, used the
position of Black's bishop on d6 to play 7
~bs .ie7 8 ~g3 .ig6 9 c4, and after 9... c6
10 ~c3 hs could have secured a slight edge
with 11 .id3 according to Hort. Another
playable move is 6...'iWd7 though this seems
slighdy better for White after 7 ~g3 .ig6 8
h4 h6 (8 ...hs? 9 .ie2) 9 hs .ih7 10 .id3
.ixd3 11 'iVxd3 .id6 12 ~ce2, intending a
later c2-c4.
7ibg3

36 tie2 'iVxe2+ 37 .l:.xe2 ~6 38 h5

.l:.xe6 39 :g2 ~7 40 ..ti>d3 %1h6 41 .l:.h2
ltd6+ 42 ~e3 .l:.e6+ 43 ~d3 .l:.e1 44
.l:.b2

There are too many weak white pawns,

and with the following move White brings
out the rook, hoping to generate counterplay.
44 ....l:.g1 45 .l:.b6 .l:.xg3+ 46 ~c4 .l:.g4 47
.l:.xa6 .l:.xf4+ 48 <Jo>d5 l:[f1 !

White can no longer stop the f-pawn.

49 c4 f4 50 <Jo>e4 f3 51 .l:.a5 f2 52 <M3
i.h40-1

r---------------...
Game 48

7 g3 is not as innocuous as it looks.

Kacheishvili-Buehl, Kona 1998 continued
7...~c6 8 dxcs .ixcs 9 .ig2 'iWd7 10 e4 dxe4
11 ~xe4 .ixe4 12 .ixe4 0-0-0 13 'iVxd7+
:xd7 14 .ixc6 bxc6 15 ~1 and Black's
weak pawns made life difficult for him.
7 ...i.g6 8 h4

After the immediate 8 .id3 Black is not

forced to exchange bishops, which made life
awkward for White in Braga-Rodriguez Cespedes, Bayamo 1984. After 8... ~c6 9 0-0
cxd4 10 exd4 'iVb6 11 ~ce2 0-0-0 White was
already in trouble as both b2 and d4 were
attacked.
8 ... h6 9 e4?!

Kupreichik-Westerinen
Dortmund 1975
1 d4 ibf6 2 ibc3 d5 3 i.g5 i.f5 4 i.xf6
gxf6 5 e3 e6 6 ibge2 c5

True to form, Kupreichik begins to play

very sharply, opening up the centre. Objectively stronger is 9 hs .ih7 10 .id3, when
10... cxd4 11 exd4 .ixd3 12 'iWxd3 ~c6 13
0-0-0 is somewhat better for White due to his

96

3 ... 1H5
superior pawn structure and more active
pieces.

Black a strong pair of bishops in an open

position.

9 ... cxd4

20 ...i.xf5 21 lLlxd4 i.xd4 22 Itc8+ ~e7

Krnic claimed that 9... dxe4 was bad in

view of 10 d5, but 10... f5! is far from clear.
Krnic only gave 10... exd5 11 'iixd5 "ifxd5 12
lOxd5 which, admittedly, is unpleasant for
Black.
10 i.bS+ lLlc6 1 1 exdS
White can also try 11 'iixd4!? although
this looks very comfortable for Black after
l1...a6 12 .ltxc6+ bxc6 13 0-0 .ltd6, intending
....lte5.

In the event of 22 ...l:.xc8? 23 bxcS"if+

'iixcs 24 'iixd4 0-0 25 ~gl White's king
scuttles away to safety and he's left with the
better pawn structure.
23 'iie1+!

11 ... a6!

After l1...exd5 12 'it'xd4 Black's badly

weakened pawn structure will leave him with
problems, for example 12...'iie7+ 13 lOge2
0-0-0 14 .i.xc6 bxc6 15 0.-0-0 and Black's
king looks vulnerable.
1 2 dxc6 axbS 1 3 cxb 7 J:[b8 14 lLlce2
i.b4+ 1S ~1 eS 16 f4 'iid7!

Heading for a draw by repetttton. 23

'iixd4?? .ltd3+! is one to avoid! .
23 ... c,t>d6 24 'Vi'd1! <3;e7
Attempting to avoid the repetition with
24...~e6? runs into 25 lOxf5 ~xf5 26 l:tc5+!
'iti>e6 (26... ~g6 27 'ifh5+ ~h7 2Sl:td5 recovers the piece with the better game) 27 'ii'b3+
~e7 28 l:td5 and White regains the piece
with a large advantage in the form of Black's
weak pawns and poor king position.
25 'iie1+ %-%

Black prevents f4-fS, which would shut

his bishop out of play and give White a great
square for his knight on e4. 16... d3? doesn't
work because of 17 fS! dxe2+ 18 'iixe2 :xb7
(18....i.h7 19 'iixb5+ picks up the bishop on
b4) 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 "ife4, hitting b4, b7 and
g6!
17 c3 i.cs 18 cxd4 exd4 19 J:[c1 i.b6
20 f5!

The best move. 20 lOxd4? doesn't work

due to 20...'iixd4 21l:tc8+ 'iti>d7, and 20 l:tc8+
.l:txc8 21 bxc8'ii+ 'iixc8 22 lOxd4 0-0 gives

Game 49
Gufeld-Ujtumen
Tbilisi 1971
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 i.f5 4 i.xf6
exf6

A solid reply, keeping a nice row of pawns

on the kingside and preparing to develop his
king's bishop. Black's problems stem from
his pawn structure; his lack of central pawns
means that he has to control the centre with
pieces and may find himself with a qualitatively inferior pawn majority should White
97

The Veresov

playa later e2-e4.

5 e3 c6
Black's best plan is to retreat his bishop
from f5 to e6, play ... f6-f5 and then bring his
knight from b8 to e4 via d7 and f6. With this
in mind, 5... c6 makes perfect sense, though
there are a number of alternatives:
a) 5...i.e6 also looks logical. The standard
6 i.d3 doesn't get anywhere after 6... f5 7
'ii'3 g6 8 4Jge2 c6 9 4Jf4 4Jd7 10 h4 4Jf6,
which gave Black an excellent game in Tiberkov-Spassov, Sofia 1988. Consequently I
suggest 6 4J3 f5 7 4Je2!? (1 i.d3 4Jd7 8
4Je2 i.d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 4Jd2 4Jf6 11 l:tc1 c6
12 c4 dxc4 13 i.xc4 was a bit better for
White in Maljutin-Tiviakov, Forti 1992, but
in my view White is even better off putting
his bishop on g2) with a possible sequel being 7 ...i.d6 8 g3 c6 9 i.g2 4Jd7 10 0-0 4Jf6
11 c3 0-0 12 it'c2, intending b2-b3 and c3-c4
with some pressure. This slow plan is known
from the Trompovsky.
b) 5...4Jc6 looks considerably less logical
because it moves the knight to a square
which is four moves from e4. TattakowerSpielmann, Copenhagen 1923 continued 6
i.d3 'iVd7 7 4Jge24Jb4 (1 ...i.b4 8 0-0 0-0 9
a3 i.xc3 10 4Jxc3 4Je7 11 4Je2 c6 12 c4
favoured White in Christiansen-Biyiasas,
Hastings 1979/80) 8 hfS 'ii'xfS 9 0-0 i.d6
10 a34Ja6 (10...4Jc6 11 4Jb5 "e6 12 c4 was
also better for White in Tanakower-Pokorny,
Maehrisch Ostrau 1923) and now instead of
98

11 4Jg3 i.xg3 12 fxg3, as in the game, 11

4Jb5 i.e7 124Jg3 'ii'd7 13 "d3 c6 144Jc3
looks better for White.
c) 5...i.b4 doesn't seem quite right either
after 6 i.d3 (6 4Jge2 c6 7 4Jg3 i.g6 8 i.d3
i.xd3 9 it'xd3 g6 10 e4 was also an edge for
White in Tartakower-Colle, Budapest 1929)
6...i.xd3 7 "xd34Jc6 (1 ...i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 c6
9 4Je2 0-0 10 0-0 4Jd7 11 4Jg3 b5 12 3 4Jb6
13 e4 gave White the more promising game
in Tal-Vladimirov, USSR Ch., Baku 1961) 8
4Jge2 'ii'd7 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 10 g3 i.xc3 11
"xc3 4Je7 124Jf4 and White stood slightly
better in Veresov-Bronstein, Moscow 1959.
Stein-Lazarev, Kiev 1960 went 6...i.g6 7
4Jge2 c6 8 a3 i.a5 9 h4 4Jd7 10 h5 i.xd3 11
'ii'xd3 'ii'e7 12 0-0-0 i.xc3 13 4Jxc3 0-0 14
4Je2, planning 4Jg3, with an edge for White,
while 6.....d7 7 'ii'3 i.xd3 8 cxd3 c6 94Jge2
0-0 10 0-0 lle8 11 e4 dxe4 12 dxe4 i.xc3 13
bxc3 was seen in Veresov-Lapienis, Novgorod 1961. Black's most logical move is
6... i.e6, when White should probably try 7
4Jge2 0-0 8 a3, for example 8...i.d6 9 4Jb5
i.e7 10 4Jf4 c6 11 4Jc3 i.d6 12 'ii'h5 g6 13
'ii'3 f5 14 h4 with the more promising position.
6 i..d3

White has also tried 6 4Jge2, after which

6...g6 7 4Jf4 i.d6 8 i.d3 i.xd3 9 4Jxd3 fS
10 "3 4Jd7 was equal in SpeelmanPopovic, Groningen 1976.
6 ... i..xd3

3 ... i.f5

I chose this game as the main line because

it is a good illustration of White's strategy
rather than a model of defence by Black. The
exchange on d3 is very helpful for White as it
becomes difficult for Black to control the e4square. The most 'logical' move is 6 ... ~e6
but then 7 'ilkf3 lDge2 fS S 'it'd2lDd7 was
fine for Black in Tartakower-Griinfeld, Vienna 1921) 7...i.h4 S lDge2 0-0 9 a3 seems
to prevent Black from setting up his ... f6-fS
blockade.
Gufeld and Stetsko give 6...i.g6 but don't
mention White's most promising looking
move which is 7 'it'f3!?, intending lDle2 and
perhaps a later g2-g4. They also give 6.. :iVd7,
when an interesting plan for White is 7 i.xfS
'ilkxfS S 'it'd3 'it'g4 (S .. :iVxd3 9 cxd3 leaves
White with the better endgame) 9 ~f1 followed by lDge2. White would then have a
variety of interesting middlegame plans, including h2-h3 and g2-g4 or just e3-e4. Black
doesn't have any compensation for his weakened pawn structure.

Soderborg, Vama 1962. Another possibility

is 7...i.d6 S e4 0-0 9 exd5 cxd5 10 lDge2
'it'a5 11 0-0 lDc6 12 a3, leaving Black with
some concerns regarding his isolated d-pawn
in Wade-Garcia, Cienfuegos 1975.
8lbge20-0

Bronstein-Vasiukov, Moscow 1959 went

S...lDd7 9 e4 (after 9 0-0-0 Black can contemplate 9...lDb6 10 g4 'it'e7 followed by
11...0-0-0 as his king is relatively safe on the
queenside) 9...lDb6 10 exd5 lDxd5 11 0-0
lDxc3 12 lDxc3 0-0, and now 13 a3 (rather
than 13lDdl as played in the game) 13... ~d6
14 lDe4 would have given White a slight but
persistent advantage.
9 0-0-0

7'ifxd3

7 ... i.b4
Black's position is sound enough but he is
on the negative side of the board, defending
against White's aggression rather than instituting his own ideas. The alternatives also see
White pressing, for example 7...lDa6 SlDge2
~d6 9 e4 0-0 10 0-0 dxe4 11 lDxe4 l:1eS 12
'it'f3 'it'd7 13 l:1ad1 and White an edge because of his healthier pawn majority in Tal-

The dynamic treatment, and quite promising now that Black has committed his king to
the kingside. An alternative plan is to play for
e3-e4, for example Tartakower-Norman,
Hastings 1926/27 went 9 0-0 l:1eS 10 e4
i.xc3 11 lDxc3 dxe4 12lDxe4lDd7 13 l:1fe1
with a typical edge thanks to White's queenside pawn majority - not that it is easy to win
this kind of position ...
9 ... lLld7 10 g4! :l.e8 11 h4 b5 12 ~b1
lLlb6 13 itJg3 :l.b8

An optimistic move. Perhaps Black should

play 13... ~xc3 while he still has the chance,
reducing the attacking chances of both sides.
After 14 'it'xc3 lDc4 15 h5 followed by 16
lDfS White has the more comfortable game.
14 lbce2 itJc4 15 itJf5 :l.b6?

99

The Veresov

The attack against a2 will not get anywhere as White can simply defend with lOe2c1. lS...aS is a better try, followed by ...as-a4.
16 g5 :a6 17 ltJc1 'ifa5?

by coming to c5) 25 bxa3 'ii'xa3 26 'iVh6+

'it>e8 27 :tg8+ 'it'd7 28 ~c5+ 'it'c7 29 lOxe6+
fxe6 (or 29 ...'it>b6 30 .nb8+ ~a5 31 .nd3 etc.)
30 'iixh7+ ~b6 31 ltb8+ ~aS 32 ltd3 1i'b4+
33 .l::[b3 'ii'eH 34 ~b2 lOc4+ 3S 'it>a2 'ili'xf2
36 f1 followed by the crowning of another
queen.

'This attempt to attack falls woefully short.

Black should defend the kingside with either
17 ...g6 or 17 .....i.f8.
18 gxf6 gS

After 18.....i.d2 White sets in motion a

mating attack with 19 lOh6+ gxh6 20 :hgH
etc.
19 h5! gxf5

Had Black played 19...lOxb2 he would

have allowed White to crown the game with
a queen sacrifice: 20 hxg6 lOxd3 (20... hxg6
21 lOh6+ ~f8 22lOg4, or 20 ... fxg6 21 %lxh7
tiJxd3 22 I:.g7+ ~f8 23 liJh6 followed by
mate) 21lOh6+~f8 22 g7 mate.
20 'ifxf5 l:eS 21 'iff4!

White must preserve the f4-pawn, for after 21 l:thgH ~f8 22 'ili'xh7? Black can escape with 22....l:txf6.
21 ...<;t>f8

After 21...'ifd8 White's most effective line

is 22 lOd3, when 22 ... i.d6 23 'iVgS+ ~f8 24
'ili'g7+ ~e8 2S 'ili'g8+ ..i.f8 26 ~c5 gets very
ugly for Black.
22 l:hg1 .idS

On 22 ...lOd6 White decides the game

most easily with 23 a3 (23 c3 should also be
good), for example 23 ... i.xa3 24 ~b3 'iia4
(24...'iVb6 25 bxa3 is hopeless for Black because White's knight will reinforce the attack
100

23 'ifhS+ ~e8 24 l:g8+ <;t>d7 25 'if97

.ie7

2S ...'iVb4 26lOb3 'iVa4 27 a3 is decisive.

26 fxe7 l:xe7 27 'ifxh7 ltJd6 28 h6 b4
29 'ifd3 f5 30 l:97 c5 31 dxc5 1-0

Came 50

Bochkarev-Vinokurov
Voronezh Open 2001
1 d4ltJt6 2lbc3 d5 3 .ig5 .it5 4ltJt3

Black's reply is the most direct argument

against this move, the other disadvantage is
that it obstructs the f-pawn. If White wants
to play quietly then the immediate 4 e3, as in
Ciocaltea-Tabor, is the best course.
4 ...ltJe4

Clearly Black has a number of choices

here, of which 4... e6 is probably the most
solid. Rodchenkov-Gorbunova, Togliatty
2001 continued S e3 ..i.b4 (S ...i.e7 is very
sound) 6 .i.d3 i.g4!? (ambitiously playing for
... e7-eS; 6...i.xd3 7 cxd3 strengthens White's
centre, but 6... i.g6 looks very solid) 7 0-0
lOc6!? 8 h3 i.hS 9 a3 ..i.d6 (9 ... i.xc3 10 bxc3
eS favours White after 11 dxeS lOxeS 12 g4)

3 ... ~f5

10 liJbS h6 11 liJxd6+ 'it'xd6 12 .tf4 'ike7 13

c4 with White holding the advantage due to
his bishop pair and potential pressure on the
c-file.

advance when the game is totally lost.

14... dxe4 1S ~a6 exf4 16 0-0 :g8 17

Iith1 .\th6 18 :e1 f3 19 'i'a1 fxg2+ 20
Iitg1 .ixd2 21 .\te2 lLlxe2+ 0-1
5~h4

Perhaps S liJxe4 dxe4 6 liJgl is better, although this hardly inspires much confidence
in White's position.

One could hardly say that White's resignation was premature!

Game 51
Ciocaltea-Tabor
Baja 1971

S... eS 6 dxcS

Not very desirable but the threat of

6...'ii'aS left White little choice in the matter.
6 ...lLlxe3 7 bxe3 .as 8 :b1 lLle6 9.11xb7

1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLle3 dS 3 .igS .ifS 4 e3

A rather desperate looking attempt to hit

back which results in disaster. White should
either set about developing his kingside with
9 e3 or play 9 'ikxdS 'ii'xc3+ 10 'i'd2.
9 .. :ii'xe3+ 10 tiJd2?

Probably missing Black's reply. White had

to play 10 'ikd2, when 10...'it'aH 11 'it'dl
'ii'xa2 leaves him much worse but still fighting.
10 ...lLld4! 11 'ire1

After 11 e3 there follows l1...liJxc2+ 12

<;te2 .tg4+ 13 liJf3 d4 with a truly horrific
position for White.
11 ... g5!?

Throwing in another pawn to accelerate

development. A more prosaic continuation
was l1...liJxc2+ 12 ~dl 'it'xcs with an extra
pawn and a strong position.
12 .\txgS f6 13 ~f4 e5 14 e4

This game is not a great advert for the

Veresov. White finally plays this thematic

Once again this simple move is one of

White's best options.
4 ... e6

This looks sensible but White has an interesting and dangerous reply. Black should
probably prefer 4...liJbd7, though there too
White has some interesting ideas. WeeninkEuwe, Amsterdam 1930 continued S .td3
101

The Veresov

i.xd3 6 'Wxd3 c6 7 lDf3 e6 8 e4 dxe4 9 lDxe4

1ib6?! (an attempt to mix it up which rebounds badly; 9...i.e7 is the solid option,
when White has only a minimal space advantage) 10 i.xf6 gxf6 11 0-00-0-0 and now just
12 'We2 (rather than 12 a4?!) would leave
White with a promising game, 12.. .'iWxb2
giving White a dangerous initiative after 13
a4. Also worth considering is 6 cxd3 c6 7
f4!?, when Mestrovic-Kecic, Ljubljana 1995
continued 7...e6 8lDf3 i.e7 9 0-0 h6 10 i.h4
0-0 11 'We2 with White's central pawns giving him the slighdy easier game. Instead of
the trade on d3 Black has dropped the
bishop back to g6: 5... i.g6 6 f4!? e6 7 fS
i.xfS 8 J\.xfS exfS 9 lDxd5 h6 10 i.xf6 lDxf6
11 lDxf6+ 'Wxf6 12 'iIIf3 i.d6 13lDe2 0-0 14
0-0 'ii'e7 15 lDc3 c6 16 litae1 i.b4 17'WxfS
i.xc3 18 bxc3 'Wa3 19 'iIId3 'Wxa2 20 c4 'ii'a5
21 c5 was better for White in MestrovicKurajica, Cateske Toplice 1968.
Another solid try is 4...c6, although after 5
i.d3 i.g6 I think that White's most interesting move is 6 f4!? (6 lDf3 lDbd7 7 0-0 e6 8
lDe5 'ii'b6 was fine for Black in RellstabKeres, Kemeri 1937), with the sunnier prospects for White after 6... e6 7 lDf3.
S 94!?

Unstereotyped and audacious play. White

gains time on the bishop and space on the
kingside. Having said that, the quiet 5 J\.d3
might be better, offering White good chances
for an edge after 5...i.xd3 6 cxd3. Karaklajic102

Minic, Belgrade 1962 continued 6...J\.e7 7

lDf3 (7 f4!? is worth considering) 7...0-0 8 0-0
lDe8 9 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 10 J:lc1 (10 'Wc2 with the
idea of 11 b4 seems more logical to me)
10...lDd7 11 e4lDb6 12 J:le1 lDf6 13 e5lDe8
14 'iib3 as 15 a4 'ii'b4 and Black had equalised. Alternatively 6 'Wxd3 c5 7 J\.xf6 gxf6 8
dxc5 lDd7 9 e4 dxe4 10 'iNxe4lDxc5 11 'Wf3
i.g7 was fine for Black in Bronstein-Fischer,
Mar del Plata 1960. This leaves 5...J\.g6 6
lDf3 J\.e7 7 lDe5lDbd7 8 f4 a6 9 'iVf3 i.xd3
10 cxd3 c5 11 O-O!? cxd4 12 exd4 which
brought about an interesting structure in
Sakharov-Shiyanovsky, USSR 1958. White's
doubled d-pawns cover important squares
and his pieces are very actively placed.
S ... .i.gS Slbge2 cS
In Navinsek-Gjuran, Ljubljana 2001 Black
tried to equalise by exchanging pieces with
6...i.e7 7 lDf4lDe4, but after 8 J\.xe7 'iVxe7
9 lDxg6 hxg6 10 lDxe4 dxe4 White was better thanks to his superior pawn structure.
The game continued 11 'iVe2 'iVd6 12 h4 g5
13 h5 lDd7 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 "'5 with quite
unpleasant pressure on Black's position.
Black should certainly consider 6 ... h6, making room for his bishop to retreat.
7 liJf4 'ii'bS 8 .i.bS+ lbcS 9 a4!? cxd4 10
as 'Wic7 11 .i.xfS gxfS 12 'Wixd4 0-0-0

Giving up a pawn in order to make his

king safe. 12...e5 runs into 13 lDcxd5!, but
simply 12...i.e7 looks fine. Ciocaltea's suggestion of 13 a6 0-0 14 'ii'a4 looks unimpres-

3 ... i.f5

sive after 14...4:Je5.

13 i.xe6 'iVxe6 14 tiJxg6 hxg6 15 "xf6
Not 15 'ii'xa7?? .i.c5 and the queen goes.
15 ... d4 16 0-0-0 i.h6
White meets the spectacular 16... .lta3 with
17 4:Jb I! which favours White after 17....i.c5
18 exd4 .i.xd4 19 'ii'xfl. The other move is
16 ....i.e7, although after 17 'ii'xe7 dxc3 18
lifxfl cxb2+ 19 'iti>xb2 Black is still struggling
to demonstrate equality.
17 lLle2 dxe3 18 95! 'ifb5 19 gxh6 "xe2
20 h7?!
With the benefit of hindsight it appears
that the alternative 20 fXe3 might have been
better.
20 ... exf2??

In this complex and tricky position Black

loses the plot, sacrificing a rook for totally

inadequate compensation. Ciocaltea gave

20...'ii'h5 as Black's best and claimed a clear
advantage for White after 21 'ii'c3+ 'it>b8 22
l:!d7. But Black can defend with 22 ...:c8 23
'ii'b3 'iVf3, covering b7. Two other moves
seem playable: 20...:de8 and 20...l:tdfS.
21 l:xd8+ l:xd8 22 'ifxd8+ ~xd8 23
h8'if+ r3;e7
Both 23 ...'it>c7 24 'ii'c3+ and 23 ...'iti>d7 24
'iVd4+ lose on the spot.
24 'iVh4+ f6 25 'ii'b4+ 'it>e8 26 "a4+
'it>f8 27 ii'a3+ ~g7 28 'ifd3 'iVe1 + 29
"d1 'ifxa5 30 ~b1 "e5 31 ii'd2! 'iVxh2
32 'ifd7 + 1-0

Black is losing his entire queenside after

32...'it>fS 33 'ii'c8+ 'iti>g7 34 'iVxb7+ 'it>g8 35
'iVa8+ 'iti>g7 36 'ii'xa7+, when White can win
easily by capturing on h2.

103

The Veresov
Summary

The natural 3...1'-5 leaves White with several attractive options and requires accuracy from
Black if he wants a playable game. Once again I like the simple 4 e3 followed by 5 ~d3, but 1'd
also be tempted to play 4 f3 or 4 ~xf6.
, d4 l'Llf6 2l'Llc3 d5 3 .ig5 .if5 (D) 4 f3

4 i.xf6 exf6 - Game 49

4...gxf6 5 e3 e6 (D)
6 i.d3 - Game 47; 6liJge2 - Game 48
4liJf3 - Game 50; 4 e3 - Game 51
4 ... l'Llbd7

4...c5 - Game 45; 4... ~g6 - Game 46

5 l'Llxd5 l'Llxd5 6 84 (D) - Game 44

3 ... .if5

104

5 ... e6

6e4

CHAPTER SEVEN

3 ... h6, 3 .. .ltJc6,

3 ... g6 and Others

1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 ~g5

In this chapter we'll consider four of

Black's less usual options, namely 3...g6,
3... h6, 3...lLle4 and 3...lLlc6. The first two
seem perfecdy sound but I have my doubts
about options three and four.
I've played 3...g6 myself in one game as I
guessed that my opponent would play for a
Stonewall set-up with 4 e3 and 5 f4, and I
wanted my queen's knight on the more active
c6-square rather than d7 (compare Chapter
3). One of the reasons it has not been popular is the old myth that White should be prevented from doubling Black's pawns with 4
~xf6 (Miles-Spassov). Yet Black has a good
plan starting with 6... f5 and followed by
bringing the queen's knight to f6 via d7. The
pawn on g6 supports this advance and produces a position which looks quite good for
Black.
If there is an objection to 3...g6 then it lies
in 4 'ii'd2 (Reprintsev-Kachar). Here White
prepares to exchange Black's dark-squared
bishop with ~h6, casding long. He can also
think about building a broad pawn centre
with f2-f3 and e2-e4 and levering open the hftle with h2-h4-h5. Comparing with the 4
'ii'd2 lines from Chapter 2 it is clear that playing this move after ...g7-g6 is a clear improvement.

3... h6 has been similarly dismissed because

of 4 ~xf6, yet once again the assessment of
this plan as being good for White is premature to say the least. In Bellin-Penrose Black
could have played 6... 5 with quite a good
game, which casts doubt over the whole plan
with ~d3, lLlge2 etc. I think that White is
much better off adopting a kingside fianchetto, repositioning the knight on c3
(probably to e2) and playing b2-b3 followed
by c2-c4. This is quite a heavy positional
treatment but I think it is White's best way to
play. White's main alternative to 5 e3 is (4
~xf6 exf6) 5 e4, the aim being to get a pawn
majority on the queenside which is healthier
than Black's on the kingside. The problem is
that the two bishops become considerably
more active after 5 e4 than had the position
remained closed. Spassky-Korchnoi was fine
for Black, but perhaps White can improve
with 7 'ii'd2.
I can't say that I like 4 ~h4 after 3...h6 as
Black gets an improved version of just about
every Veresov line if these two moves are
inserted. Bellon-Spassky was just one example of what Black can do, and he also has
moves such as 4...lLlbd7 and 4... e6.
3...lLle4 was well met by 4lLlxe4 dxe4 5 e3 in
Maryasin-Manor, and 3...lLlc6 4 f3 also
looked promising for White in Sammalvuo105

The Veresov

Ronman. These offbeat attempts to take

White 'out of the book' appear to be a little
misplaced against Veresov practitioners as
the opening tends to appeal to individuals
who like to improvise.

Game 52
Miles-Spassov
Surakarta-Denpasar 1982

There's a strong argument for establishing

a qualitatively superior pawn majority with 5
e4 dxe4 6 li:Jxe4, even though this hasn't
done terribly well in practice. After 6...i..g7 7
li:Je 0-0 8 i.e2 f5 9 li:Jc5 b6 10 li:Jb3 .tb7 11
0-0 li:Jd7 12 c3li:Jf6 13l:!.e1 a6 14 a4 lte8 15
as li:Jd5 16 i.f1 White had a slight edge in
Alburt-Marjanovic, Bucharest 1978.
5 ... i.g7 6 i.d3 O-O?

1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 d5 3 i.g5 g6 4 i.xf6

I can't say that I particularly like this capture here. After ... exf6 Black can easily adopt
the plan with .. .f6-f5, ... c7-c6 and a transfer
of his knight to f6 via d7. In fact 3...g6 is
quite useful for this.
4 ... exf6 5 e3
Because it tends to steer the game away
from the main lines the Veresov attracts
more than its fair share of oddball practitioners. In Chemyshov-Beliavsky, Ohrid 2001
the interesting course was 5 'iVd3!? f5 6 'iig3
i..g7 (6 ...i.d6?! 7 'iVe3+ i.e7 8 'iVe5 wins a
pawn for what is probably inadequate compensation) 7 li:Jb5!? li:Ja6 8 'iVa3 c5?! (Black
could equalise with 8...'iVe7 but he wants
more) 9 dxc5 0-0 10 e3 'ike7 11 li:Jd6 li:Jxc5
12 "xc5 l:!d8 13 0-0-0 and White had the
better game thanks to the isolated d-pawn.
After 5...i..g7 White can play 6 e4 dxe4 7
'i'xe4+ 'i'e7 8 'i'xe7+ <t;xe7 9 0-0-0 as in
Zoeller-Baeumer, Germany 1992, when he
might claim a slight advantage.
106

Black should take this opportunity to play

6... f5 before he's prevented from doing so.
White's next two moves secure the advantage
by ruling out this possibility.
7 'ii'f3! c6 8 g4! :e8 9 0-0-0 a5
White could meet 9...b5 10 li:Jge2 b4 with
11 li:Ja4, for example 11...'ila5 12 b3 li:Jd7 13
'it>b1 li:Jb6 14 li:Jc5, keeping the queenside
closed while continuing to prepare the assault
on the opposite side of the board. Consequently Black first advances his a-pawn in
order to rule out the possibility of White
putting his knight on a4.
10 tbge2 a4 11 a3!
White can construct a queenside blockade
and his next two moves make it diffIcult for
Black to make progress there. After 11 h4 b5
12 h5 b413li:Jb1 b3 Black forces open some
lines and gets counterplay.
11 ... b5 12 tba2 tba6 13 c3 tbc7 14 h4
tbe6 15 e4!
Switching play to the centre. Black's
queenside pawn advances have noticeably
weakened his structure (especially c6) and

3 ... h6, 3 .. .luc6, 3 ... g6 and Others

this central action by White brings these
weaknesses to light.

axb4 a3 25 .ixe4 fxe4 26 'iiie2 .1i.a6 etc.

24 .be4 fxe4 25 'ifg3 .1f5 26 ~a1 litc8
27 ttJg2 .1e6 28 ttJe3

Now there's no more doubt as White's

king is securely protected and his knight is
well placed to come to g4 and f6.
28 ... 'iVd7

After 28 ... b4 29 cxb4 'i'b6 White wins

with 30 tbg4! ~xd4 (30 ... ~xg4 31 ~xg4) 31
l:txd4! 'ii'xd4 32 tbf6+ followed by mate.
29 l:th4! 'ife7 30 l:!.dh1 'fic7 31 'ifxc7
IJ.xc7 32 ttJg4 ~f8 33 ttJf6 ~e7 34 .l:!.f4
.l:!.c8 35 .l:!.h7 .1xf6 36 I:.xf6 l:!.b8 37 ~b1
l:tc8 38 ~c1 l:tb8 39 ~d2 nc8 40 Jaxg6
.1f5 41 ':xf7+ 1-0
15 ... ttJc7 16 ttJb4 .....d6 17 exd5 ttJxd5 18
ttJxd5 cxd5 19 h5 .....c6 20 ~b1 l:ie4

Offering the exchange like this looks like

the only chance. If Black waits any longer he
will be crushed on the kingside. 20 ... ~f8 is
answered by 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 g5 fxg5 23
.!:lxh7! ~xh7 24 'ikf7+ followed by mate,
whilst 20 ... .i.e6 21 tbf4 leaves Black wondering what to do next.

Game 53
Reprintsev-Kachar
Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 .195 96 4 'i!Vd2

21 hxg6

White could also capture the rook immediately with 21 ~xe4, for example 21...dxe4
22 d5!? 'iic4 (22...exf3 23 dxc6 fxe2 24 :d8+
~f8 25 c7 and Black is completely tied up)
23 'ii'e3 .i.xg4 24 %ld2 with Black having
inadequate compensation.
21 ... hxg6 22ttJf4 f5 23 g5 .1d7?

Black had to play 23... b4, for example 24

I take the view that this is White's most

logical move. I don't like the plan with 4 e3
i.g7 5 f4?! in this position as Black's queen's
knight can come to c6 rather than d7.
Walton-Davies, Lancaster Rapidplay 2002
went 5... 0-0 6 tbf3 c5 7 .id3 tbc6 8 O-O?
tbg4! 9 "it'e1 tl'lxe3! etc. 4 tbf3 is also rather
questionable in view of 4...tbe4!.
4 ....tg7
After 4... h6 the arguments are stronger
than ever that White should capture on f6,
for example 5 i..xf6 exf6 6 O-O-O!? (6 e4 dxe4
107

The Veresov

7 ttJxe4 JLg7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 .i.c4 is the 'normal' way to play) 6.. .5 (6 ...JLg7 7 'iVe3+ JLe6
8 ttJh3 intending 9 liJf4 looks better for
White) 7 'iVe3+ JLe6 8 'iVeS l::tg8 9liJh3 ttJd7
10 'ii'e3 (followed by 11 ttJf4) with chances
for an edge. A more aggressive idea for
White is 5 JLf4 .i.g7 6 liJf3 c6 7 e3 ttJbd7 8
JLe2 0-0 9 liJeS followed by attacking on the
kingside with the g- and h-pawns, although
Black could also react more actively with
S...cS!?, for instance. As usual there are very
few practical examples.
5 i..h6

options: 6... ~xg7 7 e3 (70-0-0 c6 8 f3 leads

to the Begun-Smimov example, quoted below) 7... ttJbd7 8 f4 b6 9 ttJf3 JLb7 10 .i.e2
produced an unusual kind of Stonewall set
up in Spal-Prandstetter, Ceske Budejovice
1992, as White was the one with the better
bishop. Mestrovic-Grosar, Portoroz 1996
featured the wild 6 h4!?, when 6...liJc6 7 hS
(7 JLxg7 ~xg7 8 hS looks quite good)
7...JLxh6 8 ii'xh6liJxd4 90-0-0 ttJg410 'ii'd2
ttJxf2 11 'ii'xd4 ttJxh t 12 'Wh4 eS! was double-edged.
6 ... c6 7 f3 b5 8 h4!

Not just an attacking move - Black's

king's bishop is the 'good' one, without
which he has a certain vulnerability on the

This natural attacking move seems very

unpleasant for Black, although it's not the
only way to treat the position. 8 JLxg7 ~xg7
9 e4 b4 10 eS bxc3 11 exf6+ exf6 12 'ii'xc3
was slightly better for White in BegunSmirnov, Belorus Ch., Minsk 1966.
8 ... ttJh5!
Ducking rather than punching seems appropriate in this position. The attempt to
create something on the queenside appears
to fall short, for after 8... b4 9 ttJb1 'iVaS 10
h5 JLxh6 11 'ii'xh6 'iVxa2 White's attack
proves to be the stronger: 12 e4 b3 13 c3
dxe4 (13 ... cS 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 eS .i.fS 16
JLd3) 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 JLc4+ e6 16 fxe4,
threatening 17 eS.
9 g4 ttJg3 10 llh3 ttJxf1 11 ':xf1 f5?
Not what you would call 'cold-blooded
defence'. Black should aim to keep the kingside closed with 11...f6!, when 12 JLxg7

dark squares ...

5 ... 0-0
With the disappearance of his fianchettoed bishop Black is well advised to put his
king on the queenside. For example he might
play S...JLxh6 6 .xh6 cS (6 ...'iVd6 7 ttJf3
liJc6 8 e3 JLfS 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 was fine for
Black in Muratov-Reprintsev, Moscow 1991)
7 e3 cxd4 (7 ... ttJc6 8 0-0-0 "as 9 dxcS "xeS
10 ttJge2 JLe6 11 ttJd4 0-0-0 was defensible
for Black in Prins-Petrosian, Leipzig Olympiad 1960) 8 exd4 liJc6 9 JLbS .i.d7 10 ttJf3
'ii'b6 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 "ii'e3 e6 13 a4! and
White had promising attacking chances on
the queenside in Sulava-Duda, Metz 2000.
6 0-0-0
The immediate 6 .i.xg7 gives White extra
108

3 ... h6, 3 ... 0.c6, 3 ... g6 and Others

<:bxg7 13 h5 g5 14 e3 e5 15 ltJge2 ..ie6 16

ltJg3 ltJd7 is far from clear.

23 ...Ag8 24 e4 ~f7 25 'ii'xb5 Ag5 26 f4

1-0

12 .i.xg7 ~xg7 13 h5!

Going for the throat.

13 ... fxg4
It is too late for Black to blockade the
kingside as after 13... f4 there follows 14 hxg6

hxg6 15 e3 'ii'd6 16 ltJge2, threatening 17

1:[dh 1 with a winning attack.
14 Ah1 'ifd6

If Black keeps the h-flle closed with

14...g5 there is 15 'it'xg5+ ~h8 16 h6l:tfl 17
'jie5+ 'iitg8 (or 17...Itf6 18 fxg4) 18 .l:th5!
followed by 19 l:Ig5+.
15 hxg6 'iVxg6 16 0.h3!

When the rook moves away, 27 f5 will win

a piece.

Game 54

Bellin-Penrose
British Ch., Clacton 1974
1 d4 d5 2 0.e3 0.f6 3 .i.g5 h6

16 ... gxh3

nus doesn't give Black enough for the

queen but he might be losing in any case.
After 16... b4 17 ltJa4 g3 18 l:Ifg1 there's little
to stop White charging down the g- and hflies.
17 :fg1 .i.e6 18 0.d1 0.d7 19 0.f2

There's no need to take the queen just yet

- White can watch his opponent stew.
19...:f6 20 'ife3
White could win by capturing his oppo-

nent's queen, but he should be careful to

avoid 20 ltJxh3? ..ixh3 21 l:.xg6+ l:Ixg6 22
1:[xh3? l:Ig1+ etc.
20 ...'ifg2 21 :xg2+ hxg2 22 1:g1 1:[g6
23 'ifxe6

The harvest of pawns commences.

Meanwhile the guy on g2 is going nowhere.

Immediately asking White's bishop this

question makes a lot of sense, although it has
been frowned upon by successive generations of writers for encouraging White to
playa move he'd like to make anyway.
4 .i.xf6 exf6

The most solid and popular option. White

should meet 4...gxf6 with 5 e3 when SpasskyUusi, USSR Team Ch 1960 gave White some
pressure after 5...e6 6 'ii'h5 c5 7 0-0-0 cxd4 8
109

The Veresov

exd4 ttJc6 9 f4 ~b4 to ttJge2 f5 11 h3 ~d7

12 g4 ttJe7 13 ~g2 .c7 14l::thfl, with Black
unable to casrle long due to the pressure
against fl. Instead 5 Wd3 e6 6 0-0-0 ttJd7 7
e4 c6 8 exd5 cxd5 9 f4 f5 10 g4 fxg4 11 f5
ttJb6 was unconvincing in Matich-RByrne,
Leipzig 1960, as was 5 e4 dxe4 6 ttJxe4 f5 7
ttJg3 c5 8 d5 'i'b6 9 l:tb 1 e6 in ZakharovSimagin, Moscow 1961.
5e3
With this move White intends a simple
plan of attack with ~d3, Wf3, ttJge2 and
0-0-0 and then launching a kingside pawn
storm with g2-g4 and h2-h4. The problem is
that Black can try to prevent the pawn storm
element of this strategy with ... fl-f5. For 5 e4
see Spassky-Korchnoi.
5 ... c6 6 i.d3

An alternative plan of development might

be possible here, namely 6 g3 intending ~g2,
ttJf3, 0-0, ttJce2, b2-b3 and c2-c4. There's a
lot to be said for this slow preparation of c2c4 - White will be in a position to recapture
with a pawn should Black take it and his
bishop on g2 will have considerable influence
on the centre.
6 ... i.d6?
Allowing White to execute his plan.
Black's best is .. .f6-f5, for example 6...g6 7
ttJge2 f5 8 'iid2 ttJd7 followed by 9...ttJf6,
which favoured Black in BalashovT.Giorgadze, USSR Ch. 1979, or 6.. .f5 7 h4
h5 8 ttJce2 'iVb6 9 b3 g6 10 ttJf3 ttJd7 11 0-0
110

.lth6 as in Bellin-Kharitonov, Lodz 1980.

White's problem is that if g2-g4 is his only
pawn lever, what does he do if Black manages to stop it?
7 'iVf3 0-0 8 ltJge2 :e8 9 0-0-0

There is a strong argument for the immediate 9 g4 as after 9... b5 he is able to nearly
reposition his knights with 10 ttJg3 b4 11
ttJce2. Rabinovich-Sorkin, Herzliya 1993
continued 11...g6 12 h4 as 13 0-0-0 a4 14
:dg1 ~f8 15 g5 fxgS 16 hxg5 hxg5 and now
White should have played 17 l::th8+! (in the
game 17 ttJh5 allowed Black to defend with
17....lte7) 17...~8 18 "xfl .lth3 19 :hI
g4 (or 19.....d7 20 Wxg6) 20 ttJf4 and Black
is helpless.
9 ... b5 10 g4 ltJd7 11 h4 b4 12 ltJa4 g6?!
Black should set about removing the
knight on a4 with 12...ttJb6, when ClarkBarbagello, Correspondence 1986 went 13
ttJxb6 (13 ttJc5 looks better to me) 13... axb6
14 ~b1 We7 (Black should prevent White's
next with 14....lte7) 15 g5! b3 16 cxb3 Wa7
17 ttJc1, leaving his king completely secure
before delivering mate on the other side of
the board.
13 J:tdg1 i.e7 14 g5! fxg5 15 h5! g4
The attempt to secure Black's kingside
with 15...'it>g7? loses to 16 hxg6 fxg6 17
.ltxg6! 'it>xg6 18 'iih5+ etc.
16 l:xg4 g5 17 J:tgg1 'i'a5?
Superficially this looks strong, but Black is
leaving his kingside up for grabs. Black

3 ... h6, 3 . .. !Dc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others

should probably try 17...i.fS.
18 b3 !Df6

Black may have been intending to play

1s...lbb6 here, only now realising that 19
lbc5 'ii'xa2 20 'it>d2 is very good for White in
view of the threat to win Black's queen with
21l:h1. The fantastic 19 ii.g6!? fxg6 20 hxg6
is worth considering.

Yanofsky, Havana 1966) with what looks like

a slight edge due to the queenside pawn majority (Black's kingside majority cannot produce a passed pawn). These positions closely
resemble those arising from the Exchange
RuyLopez.
6 exd5 'tixd5

19 !Dg3 j.g4 20 'itg2 'it>h8 21 ~f5 j.xf5

22 !Dxf5 .li.f8 23 f4 !De4 24 fxg5 !Dxg5

Black's best defence is 24 ... hxg5. Now

White finds a way through.
25 l:th4 Ite4 26 llf4! :ae8 27 lLlxh6!
j.xh6 28 l1f6 'ili'd8

After 2S...l:!.4e6 there follows 29 .l:txh6+

l:txh6 30 'iHxg5 etc.
29 J:txh6+ ci;;g7 30 l:lxc6 f6 31 'itf1 l:txe3

In the event of 31...1l4e6 White has 32

.l:!.xe6 .l:Ixe6 331Wf5 'ij'eS 34lbc5.
32l:!.xg5+! fxg5 33 Itg6+ 1-0

It is sensible to regain the pawn immediately. In Wade-Perez, Havana 1965 Black

tried to play in gambit style with 6...0-0 7
lbf3l:.eS+ S i.e2li'e7 but after 9 'iHd2lbd7
10 0-0 lbb6 11 .:rfel i.d7 12 a3 i.xc3 13
bxc3lbxd5 14 c4 White had a clear edge.
7 lLlf3

Perhaps White should play 7 'iVd2, which

led to the better game after 7.. :~a5 S ii.c4
i.xc39 bxc3 0-0 10 lbe2 in Vogler-Wegener,
Wiesbaden 1994.
7 ... 0-0 8 .li.e2 'iVa5 9 'iVd2 !Dd7! 10 a3
lLlb6 11 :b1!?

Black finds himself in a mating net after

33 ... ~hS 34 'iVf7.

Game 55
Spassky-Korchnoi
Candidates Match, Belgrade 1977
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 ~g5 h6 4 j.xf6
exf6 5 e4.1i.b4

After the simple 5... dxe4 6 lbxe4 i.e7

White should play 7 lbf3 0-0 S i.e2 lbd7 9
0-0 f5 10 lbed2 (10 lbg3 lbf6 11 i.d3 g6 left
the knight on g3 looking strange in Kleopas111

The Veresov

After 11 0-0 i..xc3 12 "xc3 "xc3 13

bxc3 lDd5 14 c4 lDc3 Black gets slightly the
better endgame, so Spassky tries to improve
his chances by leaving his king in the middle.

should play 29 ...a5! either now or on the next

move.
30 ttJb2 bxc4 31 ttJxc4 .u.cS 32 ~b4 nfS
33 f4 gxf4 34 .l:I.xf4

11 ....txc3 12 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3+ 13 bxc3

ttJdS 14 ~d2 ttJf4 1S.in b6 16 g3 ttJh3

Korchnoi prefers to get bishop for knight

rather than damage White's pawn structure.
Stean claimed that Black was also slightly
better after 16...i..b 7 17 gxf4 i..xf3 18 klg1
g5 but this seems to be patently untrue after
19 .l:tg3 g4 (or 19...i..h5 20 h4) 20 h3 etc.
17 .ixh3 .ixh3 18 ttJe1 llfd8 19 ttJd3
J:!.ac8 20 J:!.he1 ~f8 21 l:!.bS c6 22 .l:I.b4
cS?!

In view of White's reply Black should

prepare this with 22....l:r.c7!.
23 J:!.a4! cxd4

Black's pawns become targets after either

23 ...llc7 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 c4, intending lla5,
or alternatively 23... a5 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 'it;c1.
Therefore Korchnoi is forced to seek simplification.
24 J:txd4!

The game has seen quite a turnaround,

with White now standing clearly better.
Black's kingside majority is useless whereas
White has a passed c-pawn.
34 ...nhS 3S IU2 .l:!.dS 36 ttJaS l:[d6 37
a4?!

The wrong pawn move as it is vulnerable

on this square. White should push his cpawn.
37 ....:tb6+ 38 ~cS .id7 39 .l:l.f4 %:le6 40
c3 fS! 41 ttJb3 J:!.eS+?

Missing an immediate draw with 41...l1e2!,

after which 42 llh4 can be met by 42...Ite4!
etc.
42 ~b4 ne2 43 ttJcS! .ie6!?

After 43 ...llb2+ 44 ~c4 I:!xh2 White can

play 45 lDxd7 ~xd7 46 llxfS with some
practical chances in the rook endgame.
44 l:I.h4l1b2+ 4S ~aSl:tc2 46 'iii>b4?!

White has to be careful about the safety of

his rook, for example 24 cxd4 is answered by
24... a5! (threatening 25 ...i..d7), and after 25
lDb2 there follows 25 ...l:.a8 (threatening
26... b5) 26 l:tc4 i..e6 winning the pawn on
d4.
24 ...nd7 2S l:txd7 .txd7 26 1:[e4 gS 27
c4 .ie6 28 ~C32 <3;e7 29 .l:[d4 bS?!

Around here Black is losing the plot. He

112

White can keep his winning chances alive

with 46 ~a6! .u.xc3 47lDb7, winning the a7pawn. Now it's a dead draw.
46 ...l::lb2+ 47 ~aSl1c2 48 'iii>b4

After the sequence 48 'it;a6 llxc3 49lDb7

llc4! 50 llxc4 i.xc4+ 51 <t;xa 7 ~e6 52 as
<t;e5 53 a6 f4 54 gxf4+ <;i;>xf4 55 lDd6 i..xa6
56 ~xa6 <t;g4 Black will eliminate White's
last pawn.
48 ....I:I.b2+ %-%

3 ... h6, 3 .. .li:Jc6, 3 ... g6 and Others

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . and now 9 0-0, intending either e3-e4 or

Game 56
lZ)3-e5, is best. In the game White attempted
Bellon Lopez-Spassky
to exploit Black's ...h7-h6 with 9 h3?! ~d6 10
Unares 1981
g4 but the problem is that he hasn't castled
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . so it represents nothing more than a loss of
time. The game continued 10...'ifc7 11 ~xf6
1 lLlc3 d5 2 d4 lLlf6 3 ~g5 h6 4 ~h4
lZ)xf6 12 e4 dxe4 13 lZ)xe4 lZ)xe4 14 'iWxe4
~f5
ifa5+ 15 c3 ifd5 and Black stood well. Here
Black must decide how to benefit from
7 cxd3 might be stronger, especially in conthe insertion of the moves 3... h6 and 4 i.h4,
junction with 8 f4. Take a look at the analoand I don't believe that this is the best way.
gous positions from Chapter 6.
After 4...lZ)bd7 5 3 there is at least one
5 ... c6 6 "d2
advantage for White in having the bishop on
If White wants to play e2-e4 he has to surh4 in that the variation 5... c6 (5 ...c5 might be
render the bishop pair. Kharitonov gives the
Black's best here) 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 e5 8 dxe5
'i6'a5?? would now just drop a piece. One of line 6 ~xf6 exf6 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 i.h7 9 a3
i.d6 10 lZ)3 0-0 11 ~d3 lZ)d7 with an 'unBlack's best moves in this position might be
4...g6 because White no longer has the opclear' assessment. Chances seem fairly balportunity to exchange Black's dark-squared
anced to me.
6 ...lLlbd7 7 lLlh3?
bishop with 'iVdZ and ~h6. Another good
idea is 4...e6 followed by 5...c5 because 5 e4
This move is probably a mistake, but
is well met by 5...i.b4, transposing into a line
Black's position is unappealing in any case.
of the MacCutcheon French which is supKharitonov gave 7 e3 and 7 g4 ~h7 8 e3 e5
posed to be quite good for Black.
9 0-0-0, although neither of these looks very
5 f3?!
attractive to me after 7... e5 and 9...i.b4 respectively.
7 ...~xh3 8 gxh3 e5 9 dxe5?

Spassky had probably guessed that the aggressive Bellon would play this way, and designed his choice of 4...i.f5 accordingly. The
right way to play the position is with 5 e3 as
after 5... e6 6 ~d3 the fact that Black has
moved his h-pawn means that he can no
longer retreat his bishop to g6. Myagrnarsuren-Koskinen, Lugano Olympiad 1968
continued 6... ~xd3 7 'i6'xd3 c6 8 lZ)3 lZ)bd7

In playing this and his next move White

probably missed Black's 10th. White should
play 9 e3 but then 9...ifc7 followed by
...0-0-0 looks good for Black.
9 ...lDxe5 10 "e3?

10 0-0-0 is certainly a better try. Now

comes the thunderbolt...
113

The Veresov
10 ... lLlfg4! 11 hxg4

White loses on the spot after 11 i.xd8

lbxe3, and 11 'ii'xe5+ lbxe5 12 .i.xd8 l:txd8
is also very bad.
11...'ilt'xh4+ 12 'ilt'f2 'WiVf6! 13 a3

An even worse continuation is 13 O-O-O?

lbxg4!. White could have tried to stay on the
board 'With 13 lbdl lbc4 14 l:tb1 d4, as unappealing as this is.
13 ... lLlc414lLld1

Or 14 0-0-0 ii.xa3 etc.

14 ... lLlxb2 15 'WiVe3 + !Le 7 16 lLlxb2 'iWxb2
17 .l:!.d1 'iWxa3 18 'WiVxa3 !Lxa3 19 e4
dxe4 20 fxe4 b5 21 !Lg2 li!d8 22 ~e2

A kind of Bird's Defence to the Veresov,

the analogous Spanish Opening line going 1
e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 ~b5 lbd4. Actually it
looks rather worse than the Bird because
White can play e2-e3 and a later c2-c4 without weakening his king position.
4 ttJxe4 dxe4

After 22 e5 there follows 22..Jlxd1+ 23

'iii'xdl 'iii'd7 24 :1 l:tf8 when White's fun is

at an end.
22 ... ~e7 23 e5 ':'xd1 24 .l:txd1 .l:!.c8 25
h4

25 .l:.a1 ~c5 26 .I:ta6 ~b6 and Black protects everything.

5 e3
White's most aggressive move is 5 f3,
which needs to be handled with the utmost
White also has to resign after either 31
precision. The game Roesch-Henkel, Nuremberg 1990 continued 5.....tf5 (Black could
<t>e4 .l:.xd5 32 <t>xd5 a3 or 31 l:txf7+ <t>e8 32
also play 5... 'it'd5 6 ..tf4 lbc6 7 e3 e5 8 c1xe5
'it>e4 .l:.xd5 etc.
31 ... bxc30-1
'ii'c5 with a good game) 6 fxe4 .ltxe4 7 lbf3
. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . lbd7?! (7 ... lbc6! 8 c3 'ii'd5 followed by
Game 57
9 ... 0-0-0 is better) 8 e3 c6 9 i.f4 (not 9
Maryasin-Manor
..td3?? ..txf3 10 'it'xf3 'iVa5+ winning the
Israeli Team Ch. 2002
bishop on g5) 9... e6 10 ~d3lbf6 11 0-0.id6
12 .i.g5 .i.xd3 13 ~xd3 ~e7 14lbe5 0-0 15
1 d4 lLlf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 !Lg5 ttJe4
.l:.f3 'iVd5 16 .l:.a1 with massive pressure.
25 ... a5 26 li.td3 b4 27 l:td4 a4 28 ~d3
c5 29 J:tf4 !Lb2 30 !Ld5 J:td8 31 c4

114

3 ... h6, 3 .. .tiJc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others

Another possibility is 5 'ifd2, for example

5... c5!? 6 dxc5 'iixd2+ 7 i.xd2 e5 8 b4 ttJc6 9
e3 .i.e6 10 a3 g6 11 ttJe2 and Black was
struggling to find adequate compensation in
Schneider-Langeweg, Porz Open 1991.
5...ttJc6 might be better, e.g. 6 d5 h6 7 i.f4
e5 with a good game for Black, or 7 i.h4
ttJe5.
S ... cS

on d6 at any time. 17 d5 is also promising

here.
6...g6 is not sufficiendy energetic. In Bukal-Jelen, Zagreb 1997 \X'hite gained a decisive advantage after 7 f3 (7 dxc5 also looks
good) 7....tg7 8 c3 exf3 9 ttJxf3 0-0 10 .i.c4
ttJc6 11 0-0 b6 12 'iWe1 h6 13 'ii'h4! etc.
7 dS

7 c3, intending 8 f3, is playable but lacks

the energy of the text.

Black has also played 5...c6 but this seems

rather too quiet to offset Black's structural
problems. C.Bauer-L.Adams, Mainz 1997
continued 6 'it'd2 ttJd7 7 ttJe2 h6 8 i.h4
it'b6 9 0-0-0 (9 c4 also looks quite good)
9... e6 10 a3 as, and now (instead of 11 g4) 11
ttJc3 f5 12 f3 looks very good for White.

A hammer blow, cutting right across

Black's plans to peacefully casde.

6'ir'd2

12... f6

The more I look at this position the less

appealing it seems for Black. In ECO D
Bagirov gave 6 dxc5 'iWa5+ 7 'ii'd2 as being
an edge for White, although this doesn't
seem at all true after 7......xc5 8 .i.h4 ttJc6,
with healthy development and the danger for
White that his dark-squared bishop will be
shut out of the game (by ... f7-f6 and ... e7-e5).

After 12...'iWxd6 there follows 13 .tb5+!

<it>f8 (13. .. i.d7 14 i.xd7+ <it>xd7 15 WaS wins
the queen) 14 'iWa5 etc.

6 ... tDc6

14... j.e6 15 'i!Vc3 f5

Black has also played 6...'ifd5, when

Fomina-Iimberg, Tallinn 2000 continued 7
i.f4 cxd4 8 c4! 'it'd7 9 exd4 e6 10 a3 i.d6 11
'ud1 0-0 12 ttJe2 'fIc7 13 .i.xd6 Wxd6 14
ttJc3 f5 15 .te2 ttJc6 16 ttJb5 'ii'e7 17 c5 with
a clear advantage to White due to the pawn
structure and the fact that a knight can land

In the event of 15...it'b6 there follows 16

.tc4 i.xc4 17 'iWxc4+ e6 18 d7, threatening
19l:td6.

7 ...tDe5 8 0-0-0 g6 9 f4! exf3

More or less forced, but this leads to the

acceleration of White's development.
10 tDxf3 tDxf3 11 gxf3 j.g7 12 d6!

13 .tb5+ ~f7 14 j.f4

14 d7 is even more deadly because

14... fxg5 15 'iWd5+ e6 16 dxc8'iW Wxc8 17
'ife4leaves Black facing the unpleasant threat
of 18 i.d7.

16..te5

It might have been better to play 16 'iWxc5,

picking up another pawn.
16....txe5 17 "'xe5 'ifb6?

115

The Veresov

by 6 f4, 7 Ji.d3 and 8 ltJf3 because Black

cannot advance his c-pawn in order to
counter-attack the d4-pawn. 5 ltJf3 i..e7 6
Ji.d3 h6 7 Ji.h4 b6 8 0-0 Ji.b7 9 Ji.bS 0-0 was
rather innocuous in Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1923.
4 ....lif5 5 .lixfS gxfS?

It is much better to recapture with the epawn as after S... exf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 Black
can play 7...'fIe7, hitting the e4-pawn and
preparing ...0-0-0. After 8 Ji.bS, 8...Ji.xe4 9
ltJxe4 'ii'xe4+ 10 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 11 ltJxe20-0-0
can follow with an advantage for Black.
Cracking under the pressure. Black had to
play 17...a6, when 18 Ji.e2 exd6 19 l::txd6
"fIe7 20 l:thd1 is very unpleasant but far from
over.

S e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 .ligS 8 lLlf3

18.lid7 1-0

Probably overlooking White's brilliant

10th move. Black should probably play 8...a6
followed by ...'fId6 and ...0-0-0, or perhaps
...Ji.hS. With the bS-square protected Black's
chances are far superior.

Game 58
Sammalvuo-Ronnman
Vantaa 1991

There's a strong argument for the immediate 8 .ilbS.

8 ....lih5

9 d5lLle5??
1 d4 tLlfS 2 tLlc3 d5 3 .lig5 tLlcS

Black hopes to discourage the advance of

White's e-pawn by putting pressure on the
d4-pawn but, in this game at least, it has the
opposite effect. However, Black's play can be
improved...

9...ltJb8 is mandatory, when Black has a

playable (if somewhat inferior) game.
10 tLlxe5!

This spectacular queen sacrifice wins by

force. It is surprising that Black missed it as
the theme is well known.

4f3

10....lixd1 11 .lib5+ cS 12 dxcS

The most ambitious move, preparing e2e4. The quiet 4 e3 seems quite good to me,
for example after 4...e6 I like 5 a3!? followed

12... bxcS 13 .lixcS+ 'it'd7 14 i.xd7+

'itfd8 15 tLlxf7 + 1-0

116

Threatening both 13 cxb7+ and 13 c7+.

3 ... h6, 3 ... t'i:Jc6, 3 ... g6 and Others

Summary

White's most dangerous response to 3...g6 is 4 'ii'd2, aiming for a vigorous attack against
Black's king. 4 .i.xf6 is playable against both this and 3... h6, but here White should adopt a
slow plan based on a kingside fianchetto and playing for c2-c4.
Both 3...tZ'le4 and 3...tZ'lc6look dubious and White can apply pressure in rather simple fashion. I wouldn't recommend either of them.
1 d4 t'i:Jf6 2 t'i:Jc3 d5 3 .\ig5 h6 (D)
3...g6 (D)
4 .i.xf6 - Game 52; 4 'ii'd2 - Game 53
3...tZ'le4 - Game 57
3...tZ'lc6 - Game 58
4.\ixf6
4 .i.h4 - Game 56
4 ... exf6 (D)
5 e3 - Game 54; 5 e4 - Game 55

3 ... h6

3 ... g6

4 ... exf6

117

CHAPTER fiGHT

3 ... e6 (Including
Transpositions to the French)

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lc3 d5 3 i.g5 86

3... e6 is one of Black's most natural

moves, the drawback being that Black should
know something about the French Defence
before playing it. The point is that 4 e4 lands
Black straight into a Classical French (usually
reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lLIc3 lLIf6 4
.i.gS) and is White's usual option.
Aware of the fact that Veresov players are
likely to want to stay off the beaten track I
suggest that White therefore avoids transposing to the French for just one more move in
order to cut out options such as the MacCutcheon Variation (4 e4 .i.b4!?) and some
variations of the Burn (4 e4 dxe4 S lLIxe4
lLIbd7). He can do this by playing 4lL1f3.
After 4 4Jf3 i..e7 White can enforce the
e2-e4 advance by first capturing on f6, S
i..xf6 i.xf6 6 e4 transposing to the French
but possibly not the version that Black is
hoping for. We have in fact reached the old
Anderssen Attack (normally it comes via 1 e4
e6 2 d4 dS 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 i..gS i.e7 S i.xf6!?
i.xf6 6 4Jf3), which has been virtually ignored by modem masters but seems to me to
be very dangerous (see Tartakower-Lilienthal
and Norman-Hanlon). Black can transpose
to one form of the Burn Variation by playing
6... dxe4 and here I suggest the trendy 8 i.c4
(see Shirov-Akopian). Black can also meet S
118

i.xf6 with S... gxf6!? in order to reach another form of Burn but my antidotes are
contained within Almasi-Andersson and
Shirov-Topalov.
There are a couple of other possibilities
after 44Jf3, namely 4...cS and 4... .i.b4. These
are covered within Lobron-Murei and Hector-Berg respectively.

Game 59
T artakower-Lilienthal
Paris (match) 1933
1 d4 d5 2 tt:lc3 lLlf6 3 i.g5 e6 4 lbf3
i.e 7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 84

The game has transposed to a supposedly

harmless variation of the French Defence,

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

the so-called Anderssen Attack. Yet a closer

look at this position has convinced me that
Black's task is by no means easy. He can also
fall victim to a sharp and devastating attack
on his king... Lev Psakhis states in The Complete French (Batsford, 1992): 'Black shouldn't
be in a hurry to castle' and Alexander
Alekhine played this line extensively in simultaneous displays, no doubt attracted by
White's attacking chances ...
6 ... b6

A cautious move, delaying castling while

continuing development. Here are some
examples of the alternatives:
a) 6...cS is the theoretically approved move
but White might gain an edge with 7 exdS
exdS 8 dxcS (Black must also be careful after
8 .ltbS+ ltJc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 dxcS .ltxc3 11
bxc3 i.g4 12 :tel etc.) 8...0-0 9 'iid2 l:te8+
(9 .....e7+ 10 'iie3 i.xc3+ 11 bxc3 'iVxe3+ 12
fxe3 i.e6 13 ltJd4 gave White a slight pull in
Ljubojevic-Messing, Zagreb 1977) 10 i.e2
i.xc3 11 'iVxc3 'iie7 12 'iie3 'ii'xe3 13 fxe3
ltJd7 140-0-0 and White had an edge in Negulescu-Schneider, Washington 1998.
b) 6...ltJc6 puts pressure on d4 and effectively forces White to close the centre with 7
e5 but, meanwhile, Black has obstructed the
c-pawn. The game might continue 7....lte7 8
a3 (after the immediate 8 i.d3 Black can free
his position with 8. ..ltJb4 followed by ...c7c5) 8. ..i.d7 (8... f5 9 h4 0-0 10 ltJe2 'iVe8 11
ltJf4 ltJd8 12 c4 c6 13 ':c1 favoured White,
with pressure and more space, in SpeelmanKnox, Morecambe 1975) 9 .ltd3 as 10 h4 h6
(after 10... 0-0 Black falls victim to 11 i.xh7+
~xh7 12ltJgs+ etc.) 11 'iVe2ltJa7 12 ':h3 cS
13 dxcS i.xcs 14 ':g3 'ii'b6 lSltJd1 g6 16 c3
0-0-0 17 b4 and White had a promising position in Alekhine-Williams, Bridgeport 1932.
c) 6...a6 7 i.d3 0-0 8 eS i.e7 9 h4 h6 10
ltJe2 cS 11 c3 ltJc6 12 a3 was pleasant for
White in Alekhine-Macias, Alicante 1935.
d) 6...g6 7 h4 hS 8 i.d3 c6 was played in
Alekhine-Fuentes, Madrid 1935, and now 9
e5.ltg7 10 ltJe2looks very comfortable.

e) 6... c6 7 i.d3 ltJd7 8 'iie2 0-0 9 0-0-0

.lte7 10 e5 .l:.e8 11 h4 ltJf8 12 ltJg5 f6 13 f4
f5 14 g4ltJg6 15 ':dfl with a powerful attack
for White in Alekhine-Linares, Panama 1939.
7.td3

If White first closes the centre with 7 eS

i.e7 8 .ltd3 Black can counter-attack with
8... cS! etc.
7 ....tb 7 8 'li'e2 dxe4
Tartakower suggested that 8...0-0 might be
an improvement in order to meet 9 eS .lte7
10 h4 with 10... h6. Nevertheless this looks
quite promising for White after 11 ltJd1 followed by c2-c3 and ltJe3.
9 .txe4 c6 100-0-0 'fic7

Preparing to complete development with

11...ltJd7 and 12...0-0-0. White decides to
strike fIrst...
11 ttJe5 ~xe5

After 11...4Jd7 White reinforces the

knight with 12 f4.
12 dxe5 'i!fxe5 13 'i!fd3! 0-0

In reply to 13...'I'c7 White has 14 ltJbS,

e.g. 14...'fif4+ 1S -Ji>b1 0-0 16 g3 'fieS 17 f4
'ii'f6 18ltJc7 or 14...cxb5 15 .ltxb7 'ii'xb7 16
.d8 mate.
14.txh7+

14... ~h8 15 .te4 f5

After 1S...g6 White continues the attack

with 16 h4.
16 .tf3 ttJa6 17 'li'c4 'if6 18 l:.d6 l:.fe8
19 l:.e1 b5 20 'li'f4 e5

After 20...b4 White plays 21 ltJb5! with

119

The Veresov

lots of horrible threats.

21 J:[xf6 exf4 22 l:txeS+ l:txeS 23 J:[xf5
1-0

After 23 ... b4 24 lDe2 Black will lose more

of his pawns.

Game 60

Norman-O'Hanlon
Hastings 1921/22
1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 i.g5 e6 4 liJf3
i.e7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 e4 0-0 7 i.d3

9...cxd4 to ii.xh7+ is dangerous for Black,

for example to ...<it>xh7 11 lDg5+ Wh6 12
'ilfd3 g6 13 h5 ii.xg5 14 hxg6+ ii.h4 15 'iVg3
fxg6 16 .l:txh4+ Wg7 17 O-O-O! (after Euwe's
old recommendation of 17 .l:tg4 Black can
defend with 17...<it>f7) 17...dxc3 18 l:ldhl
cxb2+ 19 Wbl'iP"xh4 20 'iP"xh4 Wfl 21 'iVf6+
<it>e8 22 'iVxg6+ etc.
A much tougher defence is offered by
9... h6, but again Black comes under fire: to
dxc5 (to g4 looks inadequate after to... cxd4
11 lDe2 f6) to ...ii.xc5 (10 ...lDd7 11 'ilfe2
lDxc5 12 0-0-0 iLd7 13 g4 led to sporting
play in Napierala-liedtke, Kassel 1998) 11
g4!? 'iVb6 12 'iVd2 St.xf2+?? (12 ...lDc6 is
somewhat better for White after 13 lDa4
'ifb4 14lDxc5, so the critical line appears to
be 12...iLd7 13 0-0-0 iLxf2 14 'it>bl with
attacking chances for the pawn) 13 'i!i'xf2
'ii'xb2 14 Wd2 with an extra piece for White
in Charousek-Maroczy, Budapest 1895.
10 liJg5!

Now that Black has castled White can

push with 7 eS, when 7...i..e7 8 iLd3 cS will
transpose back to the game. If he wants to
maintain the tension a better way of doing so
might be 7 'i!i'd2, when B.Ivanovic-Franke,
Berlin 1988 continued 7... b6 8 0-0-0 as?! 9 h4
i..a6 to iLxa6 lDxa6 11 Wbl c6 12lDg5 b5
(White meets 12... h6 with 13 f4 as the opening of the h-fl1e would be fatal) 13 e5 iLe7 14
f4 b4 15 lDa4 c5 16 dxc5 lDxc5 17 lDxc5
ii.xc5 18 'iP"d3 g6 19 h5 1-0. An instructive
demolition job. Instead 7...dxe4 8 lDxe4
transposes to a line of the Bum Variation in
which White has committed his queen to d2
- see Shirov-Akopian for details.
7 ... c5

After 7...:e8 8 e5 ii.e7 9 h4 c5 to ii.xh7+

'ithh7 11 lDg5+ 'it>g8 12 ifh5 White obtained

a strong attack in the game AlekhineAsgeirsson, Reykjavik 1931.
S e5 i.e7 9 h4 f6

120

In Pillsbury-Maroczy, London 1899 White

played relatively quietly with 10 dxc5, after
which to ...lDc6 11 exf6 gxf6 12 'iWd2 .l:tfl 13
0-0-0 iLxc5 14 g4 produced a double-edged
game. However, the text is much stronger if
followed up correctly.
10 ...fxg5 11 'iVh5 h6 12 .g6 .llf5 13 g4
i.d7 14 hxg5?

A far more effective continuation is 14

lDxd5!, which seems to be winning for White
after 14....i.e8 (14...exd5 15 iLxfS) 15 'iVxe6+

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

:7 16 'ii'g6 etc.

Mark Hebden.

14... ~xg5?

8 ... lLlc6!?

Returning the favour, after which White is

on top again. Black can weather the stonn
with 14.. J:hg5, for example 15 'ii'h7+ W7 16
~xh6 'ii'g8 and Black's king manages to slip
away.

Black varies from the usual piece fonnation of ...liJd7, ... b7-b6 and ....1b7. This is in
fact quite difficult for Black after 8... liJd7 9
'fie2 iLe7 lO O-O-O!?, when TopalovKramnik, Monte Carlo 1997 went lO ... c6 11
h4 b5 12 .1d3 flc7 13 ~b1liJf6 (13. .. c5!? 14
dxc5 liJxc5 is interesting, giving up a pawn in
an attempt to gain couoterplay) 14 liJxf6+
.1xf6 15 '*Ie4 g6 16 h5 iLb7 17 hxg6 hxg6
18 liJe5 l:!.fd8 19 'fig4 (the immediate 19
liJxg6 is met by 19 ....l:!.xd4, but now this is a
genuine threat) 19 ... i.xe5 20 dxe5 'iVxe5 21
iLxg6! with a very dangerous attack.

15 gxf5 ~e8 16 ~xe6+ .i.f7 17 'ii'd6

'it'xd6 18 exd6 cxd4 19 lLle2 lLlc6 20 f4
.i.f6 21 a3 l:!.d8 22 ~2 l:!.xd6 23 l:!.ag1
'itf8 24 lLlg3 lLla5 25 b3 lLlc6 26 J:l.e1 a6
27 lLlh5 ~xh5 28 ':'xh5 ~f7 29 l1h2 lLld8
30 .i.e2 ~f8 31 ~h5 lLlf7 32 ~f3 %:I.d8
33 ~xf7 ~xf7 34 l:!.e6 J:!.c8 35 J:!.d6
l:!.e3+ 36 'itg4 d3 37 cxd3 lixb3 38
l:.xd5 .li!.xa3 39 l:tc2 litb3 40 .!:te8 Itb2 41
J:!.c7+ ~e7 42 J:ldd7 lie2 43 ~3 1-0

9 e3 e5 10 d5

Gaining space in the centre. 10 dxe5 is at

r---------------__.
best harmless.
Game 61
10 ... lLle7

Shirov-Akopian
European Club Ch., Halkidiki 2002
1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 .i.g5 e6 4 lLlf3
.i.e 7 5 ~xf6 .i.xf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 lLlxe4 0-0
8.i.c4

Envisaging a piece set-up in which White's

queen comes to e2. An alternative approach
is 8 '*Id2 (White's queen would have to be on
this square had he answered 6...0-0 with 7
'fid2) 8... b6 9 0-0-0 .1b7 10 iLd3liJd7 11 h4
i.e 7 and now an aggressive try for White is
12 liJfg5!? h6 13 Ith3!?, as played in a few
games by England's aggressive Grandmaster

This is looking like Black's main line, despite the doubling of his kingside pawns.
Two alternatives have been tried:
a) lO ...liJb8 should be met with 11 'i'e2
because 11 0-0 iLg4 12 h3 .1xf3 13 'fixf3
i.e7 14 .1b5 a6 15 .1a4liJd7 16 :'ad1 .1d6
17 b4 liJf6 18 liJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 19 'iVxf6 gxf6 20
.1c2 favoured White but was nevertheless
rather drawish in Ivanchuk-Ehlvest, Reggio
Emilia 1989. Therefore the only way White
can really trouble his opponent is by castling
long. Leko-Khalifman, Budapest (match)
2000 continued (11 'iVe2) 11....1f5 12 0-0-0
liJd7 13 liJg3 iLg6 14 iLd3! (preventing
121

The Veresov

14... e4, this is a big improvement on Bologan-M.Gurevich, Belfort 1999 which saw
Black obtain excellent counterplay after 14
h4 e4! 15 tOxe4 :e8 16 tOxf6+ 'l'xf6 17 'l'd2
tOb6 etc.) 14....i.xd3 15 'l'xd3 ~c5 16 'ii'e3
b6 17 h4!? (17 ~e4 was also better for White
but Leko decides to play it much more
sharply) 17...:e8 (this was Black's last chance
to play 17...e4!?, when 18 tOxe4 l:te8 would
have given Black some compensation for his
pawn; now he winds up very passively
placed) 18 tOe4 ~xe4 19 'ii'xe4 g6 20 g4
.i.g7 21 h5 and Black had serious problems,
stemming from the fact that his bishop has
been made 'bad' by the inhibiting effect of
the e4-pawn.
White has a promising alternative in 12
.i.d3 here, when 12....i.xe4 13 .i.xe4 ~d7 14
0-0-0.i.e7 15 g4 .i.d6 16 ~bl l:.b8 17 h4 set
in motion a powerful kingside attack in
Short-M.Gurevich, Shenyang 2000.
b) 1O...liJa5!? is dangerous for Black,
Baklan-Goloshchapov, Ordzhonikidze Zonal
2000 continuing 11 .i.d3 b6 12 h4!? (12 'ilc2
g6 13 tOxf6+ 'iVxf6 140-0 .i.g4 15 ~d2 tOb7
was fairly even in Levenfish-Bondarevsky,
Leningrad 1939) 12...g6 (12...ltJb7 is better)
13 h5 .tg4 14 'ii'd2 .i.g7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16
~fgS with dangerous attacking chances.
11 liJxfS+ gxfS 12liJh4

White has a major alternative in 12 'ifd2,

which worked out well after 12...'iVd6 13
0-0-0 .i.g4?! 14 'l'e3 ~h8 15 h3 .i.d7 16 g4
122

in Tischbierek-Izoria, Ohrid 2001. However,

after 12.. .'~h8 13 0-0-0 .i.g4 14 .i.e2 'l'd6
15 ~h4 1Ig8 16 g3 :ad8 Black stood well in
Anand-Shirov, Sydney (Olympic Exhibition)
2000.
12...tOg6 13 'iFh5
In Bezgodov-Akopian, Ohrid 2001, White
tried to improve with 13 g3!? bS (13...tOxh4
14 gxh4 ~h8 15 :gl l:tg8 16 :g3 is slightly
better for White according to Bologan) 14
.tb3 as 15 'fid2 fS 16 0-0-0 ':a6 17 ltJg2 a4
18 .i.c2 a3 19 b4 :d6 and now 20 f4 would
have been slightly better for White according
to Bologan. In the game White played 20
~e3, when Bologan suggests 20.. .f4 21 tOf5
.i.xfS 22 .i.xfS c6 with a good game for
Black.
13.....d7
An interesting alternative is 13... ~h8!?,
when 14 0-0-0 (Finkel has suggested 14
.i.d3!?) 14... fS 15 tOeltJf4 16 'ifh6 'ii'd6 17
'ii'xd6 cxd6 18 g3 led to an edge for White in
the endgame in Bologan-Kacheishvili, Ohrid
2001. Here 15 ~xf5?! is better for Black after
15... ~f4 16 'fie .i.xfS 17 g3 'ifd7 18 gxf4
.i.g4 19 'ife4 Sl.xd1 20 :xd1 exf4, and 15 g3
is ineffective after 15...tOxh4 16 gxh4 'ii'f6 17
l:.hg1.td7.
14 h3 'iVa4

The game Short-M.Gurevich, England

(British League) 2000 went 14... ~xh4 15
'ifxh4 'ii'f5 16 0-0-0 .i.d7 17 f4 'l'xf4+ 18
'l'xf4 exf4 19 l:thfl with an edge for White,

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

although in his notes to the game Gurevich
indicated that his 14th move was dubious.
What does he have in mind as an improvement? Perhaps 14... b5, when 15 JL.d3 can be
met by 15... e4! 16 ~xe4? ':'e8, winning.
15 b3 'it'a5 16 0-0

Perhaps White should play simply 16 :tel

to protect the c3-pawn.
16.. :iVxc3 17 d6 rt;g7?

Preferable is 17...ll)f4, when 18 'ii'h6 'ii'd2

191i'xf6 'ii'xd6 is excellent for Black.
18 dxc7 'it'd4 19 g3 'it'd7 20 :ac1 'it'xh3

After 20 ...'ii'xc7 there follows 21 JL.e6

'iWd8 22 ll)f5+ <;i;>h8 23 ];Xfdl and Black must
part with the queen.
21 i.d3 We6 22 i.e4 'it'b6 23 :fd1 1-0

sharp positions. White should probably respond with 8 ll)c3, supporting the d4-d5
pawn push, when Pavlovic-Sakaev, Vrnjacka
Banja 1998 continued 8... ~f6 (8... a6 9 'ii'e2
b5 is an interesting plan, 10 0-0-0 b4 11 ll)a4
"d5 12 c4leading to sharp play in GrischukSakaev, Moscow 2002) 9 "d2 cS (9 ...ll)c6 10
~b5 is good for White but 9...0-0!? is an
interesting alternative, Gipslis-Chemin, St.
John 1988 becoming rather complicated after
10 g4 fxg4 11 ':gl e5! 12 ~d3 JL.g7 13 dxeS
'iti>h8 14 0-0-0 f5!) 10 dS 0-0 (1O ...exd5 11
'ii'e3+ wins back the pawn with an edge, for
example 11...~e6 12 "xcS ll)d7 13 i.b5
:1c8 14 'ii'e3 0-0150-0 a6 16 JL.xd71i'xd7 17
ll)d4 'ii'd6 18ll)ce2 'it>h8 19litadl .:tg8 20 f4,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Arnason-Bjarnason, Reykjavik 1989) 11 0-0-0

Game 62
eS

Almasi-Andersson
Ubeda 1997
1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 ~f6 3 i.g5 e6 4 lLlf3
i.e 7 5 i.xf6 gxf6 6 e4

White has to play this before Black plays

6... f5.
6 ... dxe4 7 lLlxe4 b6

The game has transposed into the Burn

Variation of the French with 5...gxf6. The
fianchetto of Black's queen's bishop is the
solid line, which aims first of all to tuck
Black's king away on the queenside. Of
Black's alternatives, 7... f5!? is the most energetic and direct treatment, leading to ultra-

12 h4 (preparing to put the knight on g5,

while 12 <it>bl ll)d7 13 g4!? e4 14 ll)gl fxg4
15 ll)xe4 ~g7 16 h3 1i'b6 17 c3 ll)e5 18
hxg4.i.xg4 19 .:tell:i.fe8 also led to a razorsharp struggle in Saulin-Kiriakov, Moscow
1999) 12...ll)d7 13 .:tgl (13 d6ll)b6 141i'e3
e4 15 ll)g5 JL.d7 16 g4! JL.d4 17 ':'xd4 cxd4
18 'ii'xd4 f6 was very messy in Lau-Sakaev,
Dortmund 1991) 13 ... e4 14 ll)g5 ll)eS 15
JL.e2 (Sakaev gave 15 f3 h6 16ll)h3 ~g7 17
fxe4 'ii'xh4 as an alternative - which is also
very complicated) 15... h6 16 ll)h3 JL.g7 17
ll)f4 bS!? (certainly consistent but possibly
not the best; Black can also play 17...'ii'xh4,
when the attempt to smash through the king123

The Veresov

side with 18 g4 is insufficient after 18... fxg4

19 tDxe4 i.fS 20 l::th1 'ii'd8 21 tDg3 i.g6
according to Sakaev) 18 g4 b4 19 tDa4 fxg4
20 tDh5 with a complex and double-edged
game.
Returning to the position after 12 h4,
Black has also played 12...i.g7, but after 13
d6 i.e6 14 tDg5 tDc6 the position of the
knight on c6 did not prove that helpful in
Klovans-Dizdar, Groningen 1991. That
game continued 15 g4 tDd4 16 gxfS i.xfS 17
i.d3 'ii'd7 18 i.xfS 'ixfS 19 tDd5 Wh8 20 c3
tDc6 21 tDe3 'it'd7 22 'iVd5, when White was
taking control. 12... a6?! is another try, but in
such a sharp position this kind of relaxed
build-up looks too slow.
For the trendy 7... a6!? see Shirov-Topalov.
8i.c4
8 i.b5+ c6 9 i.c4 is a common inaccuracy, giving Black the useful ...c7-c6 for nothing.
8 ... ~b7 9 "e2 c6 10 0-0-0 fic7 11
l:he1 tt:Jd7 12 ~b1 0-0-0

Castling immediately is not mandatory,

Black can also keep his options open with
12... h5 13 tDc3 tDfS, as in GoloshchapovVolkov, Novgorod 1999.
13 i.a6 i.xa6
Black has tinkered with a number of different moves in this position but the respective strategies are basically the same. White
exchanges light-squared bishops and then
tries to engineer a central breakthrough with
124

c2-c4 and d4-d5. Black, on the other hand,

will try to restrain d4-d5 and perhaps even
attack the d4-pawn with a subsequent ... f6-fS
and ...i.f6.
Another plan for Black is to generate play
on the half-open g-flle. One thing he should
be quite wary of, however, is playing ... f6-fS
prematurely. 1bis lessens control of the centre and invites a white knight to step in to e5.
Here are some examples of the alternatives in
action:
a) 13...l::the8 14 i.xb7+ Wxb7 15 c4 (the
passive 15 c3 has also been played but should
hardly trouble Black after 15... tDfS followed
by ...tDg6) 1S... tDfS 16 'iHc2 fS 17 tDc3 i.f6
18 l::te3 (18 dS!?) 18...l:le7 19 I!ed3 tDg6 20
dS (20 g3 is interesting, keeping the tension a
little longer) 20...:ed7 21 'iVa4 tDe7 22 dxc6+
tDxc6 23 tDbS l::txd3 24 l:lxd3 'itb8 25 'iHd1
1/2_1/2, Korchnoi-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988.
b) 13...:hg8 14 g3 fS 15 tDed2 h5 16
i.xb 7+ Wxb 7 17 tDc4 is similar to the game.
c) 13 ...tDfS 14 g3 tDg6 15 h4 h5 16 i.xb7+
Wxb 7 17 l:.d3 fS 18 tDegS i.d6 (18 ... i.f6 19
c4 l:td7 20 l::ted1 l::thd8 21 a3 was also better
for White in Izeta-Alvarez, Ueida 1991) 19
tDd2 i.fS 20 f4 i.g7 21 tDb3 i.f6 22 tDf3
tDe 7 23 c4 ~hg8 24 tDg5 and White had an
advantage in Guliev-Radjabov, Baku 1998.
d) 13... fS? is poor due to 14 i.xb7+ Wxb7
15 tDegS :dfS 16 dS!, when White had
achieved his breakthrough very easily in
Timman-Andersson, Yerevan Olympiad
1996.
d) Last but not least Black played 13...b5!?
in Neelakantan-Speelman, Calcutta 1998.
Black's idea is that White will not be able to
achieve his thematic c2-c4 and d4-d5 breakthrough. The game went 14 i.xb7+ ..t>xb7 15
c4 bxc4 16 'ii'xc4 tDb6 17 'i6b3 ~a8 18 l:I.c1
l:.b8 19 'iHc2 I!hc8, defending everything.
14 'ii'xa6+ Wb8
1bis is probably slightly stronger than
14...'itb7, which forces White's queen back
to its best square after 15 'ii'e2.
15 9 3

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

The queen is optically impressive on a6

but nothing more. 15 'ii'eZ may be White's
best after which 15...:he8 16 c3 liJf8 17 g3
f5 18 liJedZ liJg6 19 liJc4 was marginally
better for White in Leko-Andersson, Ubeda
1997. 15...liJf8!? and 15...:hg8 are also possible and lead to similar play.
15... f5 16liJed2 h5

The thematic means of gaining counterplay after White's gZ-g3. 16....1f6 17 'ii'eZ
was slightly better for White in ASokolovAndersson, Bar 1997, when White's knights
homed in on e5.
17 ~e2 h4 18 tLlc4 hxg3 19 hxg3 .i.f6
20 :d3 b5?!

42 :c7+ 'ot'b6 43 tLle8 :h8 44 ':'xf7

.i.xd4 45 liJxd4 :xe8 46 :f6 liJc5 47 f4
~b7 48 b4 :d8 49 liJxe6 :d2+ 50 'Ot>b1
liJe4 51 l:th6 lU2 52 <1i>c1 ~a7 53 Ilh3
'Ot>b6 54 'it>d1 a5 55 bxa5+ 'ot'xa5 56 'ot'e1
:a2 57 :e3 tUf6 58 liJd4! tUg4 59 :g3
liJf2 60 f5 tUe4 61 :e3 liJg5 62 f6 tbb6
63 :c3 :92 64 :c6+ 'ot'b7 65 :c5 liJf7
66liJe6 ~b6 67 a4 :94 68 a5+ 'ot'a6 69
tUc7+ r:3;a7 70 tUd5 ~a6 71 'Ot>d2 :a4 72
tUc7+ r:3;b7 73 'ot'e3 'Ot>a7 74liJe6liJh6 75
'ot'd3 ~a6 76 :h5 :a3+ 77 'ot'c4 liJf7 78
liJc7+ ~b7 79 :h7 tLle5+ 80 rjo>b5 l:r.b3+
81 <t>c5 :d3 82 liJd5+ 1-0

This is often a good idea, although here

White rapidly generates pressure against c6.
Black should settle for 20...11he8 with a solid
enough position.

Game 63
Shirov-Topalov
Sarajevo 2000

21 liJcd2 liJb6 22 :c1 :d5 23 c4 bxc4

24 liJxc4 ~a8

1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 .i.g5 e6 4 tLlf3

.i.e 7 5 .i.xf6 gxf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 liJxe4 a6

A further mistake since Black receives inadequate compensation for the pawn. He
should eliminate White's knight before it
comes to e5.

A relatively recent idea which is designed

to push ... b7-b5 before fianchettoing the
queen's bishop. The aim is to give Black
more of a grip on the central light squares
but it costs time and creates some weaknesses.

25 tLlce5 'ifb7 26 liJxc6 :c8 27 :dc3

liJa4 28 :c4 liJb6 29 :4c2 ':d7 30 llJa5
l:txc2 31 :xc2 'ii'e4 32 liJb3 'iVxe2 33
l:txe2 :d8 34 l:tc2 liJd5 35 liJa5 Ah8 36
a3 a6 37 'Ot>a2 <1;a7 38 liJc4 l:th7 39 :c1
f4 40 gxf4liJxf4 41 liJd6 liJd3?!

41...liJd5 improves, when Black should

still be able to hold the draw.

8c4

This move makes perfect sense. White

cuts across his opponent's plans and fights
for the same central light squares, now putting the onus on Black to demonstrate counterplay.
125

The Veresov

8 ... t5 9 llJc3 .it6

After 9... c5 10 d5 i.f6 White can place his

queen more effectively: 11 'ii'c2 e5 12 0-0-0
0-0 13 ltJd2 i.g7 14 f3 'ii'f6 15 it.d3 b5 16
l:[dfl! h6 17 ~b 1 b4 18 ltJa4 as and now 19
g4! undennined e4 and fS, thus securing
White a clear advantage in Anand-Shott,
Dubai 2002.
10 'iVd2 c5 11 d50-0
White should probably meet the immediate l1...e5 with 12 h4, transposing back to
the game after lZ ...0-0 13 0-0-0. Instead 12
'ili'h6 e4 13 ltJdZltJd7 14 h4 'ifb6 gave Black

d4 via c6. Shirov-Morozevich, Astana 2001

went 1Z... .i.g7 13 h4! exd5 14ltJxd5 (14 cxd5
'ild6 followed by ... b7-bS looks complex)
14...ltJc6 15 h5 h6 (preventing 16 h6) 16l:[h3
and now Black has an interesting possibility
in 16... b5!? (in the game Black lost a pawn
after 16 .. .f4? 17 l:.h4 ltJb4 18 ltJxb4 'ii'xdZ+
19 .llxdZ cxb4 ZO l:txf4 etc.). In EsplanaKastanieda, Lima 2000, Black tried 12.. :it'a5
but after 13 'it>bl .i.g7 14 h4 e5 15 l:tel
ltJd7?! 16 i.d3! White found a way to use the
position of Black's queen, 16 ... e4? being refuted by 17 ltJxe4.
13 h4!?
Obtaining the g5-square for the knight
whilst in some positions the rook might
come into play via h3.
13 ... b5
After 13... e4 14 ltJg5 White is ready to
challenge e4 with 15 f3.
14 d6

good counterplay in Prasad-Barua, Raipur

2002.
120-0-085

According to Ftacnik White is clearly better after lZ ... exdS 13 ltJxdS, yet Morozevich
certainly felt that the capture on d5 had potential in order to bring his knight from b8 to

126

14 ...11Jc6?!
Allowing the d-pawn to march on to d7 is
probably a mistake, although after 14...ltJd7
15 ltJd5 the position still looks very good for
White.
15 d7! .ib7 16 .d6 e4
After 16...i.e7 White has 17 'ii'h6 (intending ltJf3-g5), and after 16.. :iVe7 there is 17
"iJc7, threatening the bishop on b7 and 18
ltJdS.
17 llJd5 .i.g7
After 17....i.xb2+ 18 ~xb2 exf3 19 gxf3

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

White also has the g-file for an attack.

18 liJg5 liJd4?!

The attempt to drive away the knight from

g5 with 18... h6 is beautifully refuted by 19
cxb5 axb5 20 i.xb5 lbd4 21 lbe7+ 'iii>h8 22
'it'g6!! fxg6 23lbxg6+ 'it>g8 24 i.c4+ etc.
19 liJe7+! Ii>h8 20 l:th3!

After 27 ...'iWf6 (27 ...h6 28 gxf7) there follows 28 l:lxh 7+ ~g8 29 gxf7+ l:lxf7 30
d8'iW+ :xd8 31 :xd8+ 'iWxd8 32 'ii'xf7 mate.

Gamc64
Lobron-Murey
Randcrs Zonal 1982
1 d4 liJf6 2 liJe3 d5 3 .ig5 e6 4 liJf3 c5

A logical move, hitting White's d4-pawn.

Unless White wants to play the solid but
somewhat dull 5 e3 he has no choice but to
play the next move.
5 e4 dxe4 6 liJxe4 cxd4 7 .ixf6?!

Threatening to bring the rook to g3. Black

prevents this but at the same time weakens
his pawn structure.
20 ... f4 21 'i.tb1 b4 22 .ie2!

White also wants his bishop in the attack,

this piece being en route to h5.
22 ...f3

After 22...lbxe2 White plays 23 'it'xc5,

threatening 24 'ji'fS, while after 22...e3 or
even 22...h6 there follows 23 iLh5! - in short
it seems that White has a winning attack.
23 gxf3 liJxe2 24 "xe5 liJf4 25 'iif5
liJg6 26 h5! "xe7 27 hxg6 1-0

I don't think that White should make this

exchange because Black now has nice centre
pawns and the two bishops. Another
interesting possibility is 7 ~b5+, when
7...lbc6 8 lbxd4 i.d7 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 i.e2
'ji'a5+ 11 i.d2 'ii'e5 12lbxf6+ 'iWxf6 13 .ltc3
'iWg5 14 0-0 left White with the superior
pawn structure in Kotronias-Tseshkovsky,
Niksic 1997. Alternatively 7...i.d7 8 .ltxd7+
lbbxd7 9 'iixd4 ~e7 10 0-0-0 lbxe4 11
~xe7 'ii'xe7 12 'iixe4 lbc5 13 'iWe5 0-0 14
l:Id6 :fd8 15 l:thd1 .l:txd6 16 'ili'xd6 'iixd6 17
:'xd6 gave White a nagging edge in Janowski-Teichmann, Ostende 1905 thanks to
the queenside pawn majority and more active
pieces.
7 ... gxf6 8 'ilfxd4

With White having exchanged on g6 already, 8 .ltb5+ seems to be quite well met by
127

The Veresav
8... ttJc6 rather than 8... .i.d7 9 .i.xd7+ ttJxd7
10 ir'xd4, which looked dangerous for Black
in Landenbergue-Bouaziz, Cannes 1997. TIlls
probably explains why Bouaziz avoids repeating the second time around, for 8... ttJc6
was played in Fontaine-Bouaziz, Cannes
1998, and this time, after 9 ttJxd4 i.d7 10
ttJxc6 bxc6 11 .i.e2 'iia5+ 12 c3 'iie5 13 ttJg3
h5, Black had the initiative.
8 .. :~xd4 9 tt'lxd4 f5 10 tt'lf6+

17 l::!.h8 tt'lf6 18 .ic4 .if8 19 ':'e1 + .ie6

20 .id3 'ittd7 21 lIe5 'ittc7 22 .ixf5 tt'ld7
23 .ixe6 tt'lxe5 24 .!':!.xh7 'iitb6 25 .id5!
.l:!.d8 26.ie4

Having built up a large advantage, White

plays indecisively. Both 26 iLxf7 and 26 c4
seem to ensure the capture of the f7-pawn,
when White should be winning.
26 ....ic5 27 a3 tt'lc4 28 .id3 .ie3+ 29
'iitb1 tt'ld6

Thus Black succeeds in protecting f7 and

lives to tell the tale. White still has what
chances are going, but the winning moment
has passed.
30 .l:Z.h5 'iitc6 31 c3 b5 32 'iitc2 .ig1 33
J:.h6 'iitc7 34 J:.h5 l:!.e8 35 .ixb5 tt'lxb5 36
.l:!.xb5 .l:l.e2+ 37 'iitb3 .l:!.xh2 38 .l:!.f5 .l:!.h7
39 g4 'iitd6 40 g5 .ie3 41 'iitc2 .l:!:h4 42
l::!.xf7 ::'xf4 43 l::!.xf4 .i.xf4 44 g6 'iite6 45
b4 'iitf6 46 'iitd3 'iitxg6 47 'iitc4 .ie5 48
a4 'ittf6 49 b5 'iite6 50 a5 'ittd7 51 'iitc5
.ig3 52 'ittd5 .ie 1 53 c4 Y.z - Y.z

An adventurous continuation - will

White's knight be well placed on h5 or not?
It could be that the only way to justify 7
.ixf6 is to indulge in such adventures. After
the simple 10 ttJd2 Paavilainen-Kiltti, Finland
1998 continued 1O ....i.d7 11 ttJc4 ttJc6 12
0-0-0 ttJxd4 13 ':xd4 .i.c5 with an excellent
game for Black.
10 ... 'itte7 11 tt'lh5 .ih6 12 f4 .l:!.d8

12... ttJc6 looks much simpler to me, evicting the knight on d4 without further ado. If
Black wants to keep his queenside pawns
together then 12....i.d7 followed by ... ttJc6 is
a good idea.
13 0-0-0 tt'ld7 14 g3 tt'lf6

Black might have seen the following combination coming but assessed the resultant
position as being satisfactory for him. However, by now it's rather too late to do much
about it; 14... ttJb6 is met by 15 .i.g2, with
masslve pressure.

53 ... .i.xa5 54 c5 'i&>c8 55 'i&>c4 'i&>b 7 56

'i&>b3 iLd8 57 'i&>a4 is a positional draw. White
keeps his king on b4, c4 and a4, and if
Black's king comes around towards d5 he
exchanges the a-pawn with b5-b6.

Game 65
Hector-Berg
S olett Open, S kelleftea 200 1

15 tt'lxf5 + exf5 16 .!':!.xd8 tt'lxh5

16... 'it>xd8 17 ttJxf6 wins the h7-pawn.

128

1 tt'lc3 d5 2 d4 tt'lf6

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

The move order in the game was actually

2...e6 3 lDB lDf6 4 ~g5 ..tb4 etc. For the
sake of clarity I am getting into a cyeresov'
position as quickly as possible.
3 .i.g5 e6 4 liJf3 i.b4
The 'MacCutcheon' move, against which I
see only one interesting option for White ...
To complete the round-up of Black's possibilities, 4... h6 is possible, when 5 ..txf6 'ii'xf6
6 e4 ..tb4 transposes to Akopian-Antonio in
Chapter 10.
5 'iWd3!?

was played in Huerta-Rodriguez Cespedes,

Havana 1986, and now 7 0-0-0 looks preferable to 7 f4 (as played in the game), which
seems rather exotic to me. Here 6... c5 can be
met by 7 a3.
c) 5... 0-0 6 a3 ..txc3+ 7 "xc3 lDbd7 was
Opitz-Seifert, Dresden 1999, and now 8lDd2
looks interesting for White, who has a useful
bishop pair, and an improvement on 8 e3 h6
9 ..txf6 lDxf6, which was utterly harmless.
6.i.xf6
This looks quite nice for White so I'm not
that bothered about fmding an alternative.
But perhaps White can also play 6 ..th4 c5 7
a3 here. 7 dxcS lDbd7 favoured Black in Kagas-Mamedova, Chania 1997.
6 ......xf6 7 a3 .i.d6
After 7.....txc3+ 8 'ii'xc3 c6 9 e3, intending
10 ..td3, White has more freedom.
8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 "fiIe7 10 g3 0-0 11
.i.g2 liJd7 12 c4 % -%

5 ... h6

This position has appeared in only a few

games so it is difficult to know for sure what
is best. Black has several very reasonable
looking alternatives:
a) 5...c5 6 a3 (6 dxc5lDbd7 7lDd2 .ixc5 8
e4? ~xf2+ won a pawn for Black in Van der
Lijn-Ward, Guernsey 1991) 6....ixc3+ 7
'ii'xc3 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 lDc6 was played in
Kivisto-Manninen, Espoo 1990, and now I
like 9 'ilVh4. In the game 9 'ii'f4 "ile7 10 lDe5
h6 11 ..txf6 gxf6 12lDxc6 bxc6 looked quite
good for Black.
b) 5...lDbd7 6 lDd2 (6 0-0-0 c5) 6....ie7

I don't know if there was any special reason

why Hector agreed a draw here. Objectively
speaking his position looks very attractive,
with a nice space advantage and well placed
forces.

129

The Veresov
Summary

After 3...e6 White really has to go e2-e4 if he wants any kind of initiative, and this inevitably
means transposing to a French Defence. Yet by delaying this for a move with the cunning 4
lLlf3 White can cut out several of Black's options and keep the element of surprise on his side.
1 d4 ~f6 2 ~c3 d5 3 ~g5 e6 4 ~f3 (D) ~e7

4...c5 5 e4 - Game 64
4...i.b4 5 'it'd3 - Game 65
5 i..xf6 ~xf6
5...gxf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 lLlxe4 (D)
7... b6 - Game 62; 7...a6 - Game 63
6 e4 (D)
6...b6 - Game 59
6...0-0 7 i.d3 c5 - Game 60
6... dxe4 7lLlxe4 0-0 - Game 61

4~f3

130

7 t'Dxe4

6e4

CHAPTER NINE

1 ... dS 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .fS

and Others

, d4 d5 2 lbc3
After White plays 1 d4 dS 2 It'lc3 Black
can attempt to steer the game onto his own
turf with a variety of second moves apart
from 2...lt'lf6. Thus 2... e6 and 2...c6 lead to
the French and Caro-Kann respectively after
3 e4, while 2... fS transposes directly to a
Dutch Defence (normally this position is
reached after 1 d4 fS 2 ~c3 dS) and 2...~c6
3 e4 is a Nimzowitsch. Fortunately White can
cut down the amount of work involved by
side-stepping most of these openings.
Veresov himself used to transpose to a
French after 1 d4 dS 2 It'lc3 e6 3 e4, but
White can also play 3 It'lf3, as in TaegerTessars. Should Black answer this with
3... ~f6 we'd get a transposition to Chapter 8
after 4 .llgS. In the game he played 3....llb4,
when White surprised him with 4 'it'd3!? and
soon obtained a nice two bishop advantage.
There's no way around the transposition
to a Dutch after 1 d4 dS 2 ~c3 fS, but White
can stick to the Veresov pattern with 3 .llgS.
After the further 3...lt'lf6 my recommended
line for White is the Veresovian 4 f3 (see
Sokolov-Illescas and Macieja-Bartel) which
offers interesting and dynamic play. My own
view is that 3...lt'lf6 4 .llxf6 is rather harmless
for Black, yet many exponents of the Dutch
choose to avoid these somewhat stodgy posi-

tions by selecting different third moves. Thus

3...g6 features in Khalifman-Lerner, 3... c6 in
Sokolov-Nikolic (White should improve here
with 4 e4!) whilst the very dodgy looking
3...lt'lc6 was played in Romero HolmesVallejo Pons.
Hort-Polgar illustrates how White can
avoid transposition to a Caro-Kann by meeting 2...c6 with 3 .llgS. This is also interesting
news for Trompovsky specialists as after 1 d4
dS 2 .llgS they can meet the feared 2...c6
with 3 ~c3 to reach the same position.
White's development is somewhat easier and
Black can soon find himself in trouble if he
plays inaccurately.

Game 66
Taeger-Tessars
Bundesliga 1983/84
, d4 d5 2 lbc3 e6 3 tbf3 .i.b4 4 ~d3
A similar idea to the 2...lt'lf6 3 i.gS e6 4
~f3 i.b4 5 'it'd3 variation which we saw in
the Hector-Berg game from the previous
chapter. White supports the knight on c3 and
prepares both e2-e4 and queenside castling.
In Igoatiev-Khavsky, St Petersburg 1996,
White tried 4 .llgS f6 5 i.d2 fS 6 e3 It'lf6 and
now instead of 7 i.d3 an interesting treatment is 7 It'le2 i.d6 8 It'lf4, achieving the
131

The Veresov

ideal anti-Stonewall position for White's

knights.

4 ...liJe7

The only other example of this position I

could fmd was Kunath-Erpel, Weilburg 1998
in which Black played 4...tDc6, when 5 i.f4
tDf6 6 0-0-0 i.xc3 7 "xc3 tDe4 8 'iVe3 f6 9
tDd2 tDd6 10 g4 'fie7 11 iog2 was promising
for White. Black's most natural move seems
to be 4...tDf6, transposing to Hector-Berg
after 5 i.g5.

White soon steps up a gear...

12 "a5 0-0 13 a4 "b8 14 "c3 .i.a6 15
axb5 i.xb5 16 ':'e 1 'ifb6 17 e4 .l:!.fe8 18
tbg5 liJf6 19 e5 liJg4 20 .i.a3 a5 21 'iff3
liJh6 22 i.c5 'fic7 23 'ifxh5 a4 24 c4
dxc4 25 bxc4 i.xc4 26 i.e4 liJf8 27 ':'e3
i.d5 28 ':'f3 .i.xe4 29 liJxe4 liJg6 30
liJd6 .l:!.f8 31 'ifg5 'ifd8 32 'ifd2 liJe7 33
l:lfa3 tbhf5 34 liJxf5 exf5 35 l::txa4 l:txa4
36 ':'xa4 ':'e8 37 'fig5 liJg6 38 "xf5 'fid5
39 .l:!.a7 "e6 40 'fixe6 l:txe6 41 f4 f5 42
h5 liJh8 43 l:!.a8+ ~h7 1-0

Game 67
I.Sokolov-lIIescas Cordoba
Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee 1997
1 d4 d5 2liJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 liJf6 4 f3!?

5 a3 i.xc3+ 6 "xc3 "d6 7 g3liJg6 8 h4

h5 9 .i.g2 liJd7 10 0-0 c6 11 b3

White is clearly better here due to Black's

weaknesses on the dark squares and awkward
piece placements. Clearly it is far too soon to

make any deflIlitive assessment of 4 'i'd3,

although it certainly looks interesting.
11 ... b5?!

The move which is most in the spirit of

the Veresov. White wants to play e2-e4.
4 ...liJc6

Yet another pawn goes to a light square.

132

Trying to prevent e2-e4 by putting pressure on the d4-pawn. There are a number of
alternatives:
a) 4... e6 5 e4 i.e7 is a solid nut against
which it is difficult for White to achieve very
much. The best is probably 6 exf5 (6 e5
tDfd7 7 i.xe7 'iWxe7 looks like a super-solid
version of the French) 6... exES 7 'iVd2 0-0 8
0-0-0 c6 9 i.d3 (the immediate 9 tDh3!? is
worth considering) 9... tDh5 10 i.xe7 'i'xe7
11 l::tel 'i'd6 12 tDh3 tDd7 13 'i'g5 g6 14
tDe2 'ii'f6 15 g4 fxg4 16 fxg4 'ii'xg5+ 17

1 ... d5 2 tiJc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

liJxgS liJg7 and Black maintained the balance

in Sakaev-Malaniuk, Elista 1998.
b) 4...cS is a sharper alternative, when
there can follow 5 e4 (5 e3 e6 6 Wd2liJc6 7
0-0-0 cxd4?! 8 exd4 .i.b4 9 a3 .i.aS 10 g4 was
promising for White in Thorhallsson-Bern,
Arnhem 1987) S...liJc6 (S ...dxe4 6 dxcS 'ii'aS
7 'iWd2 'ii'xcs 8 0-0-0 .i.e6 9 liJh3 Wc8 10
itJf4 gave White a strong initiative in Malaniuk-Kamenets, Polanica Zdroj 2000,
whilst S... cxd4 is probably best met by 6
'ii'xd4 liJc6 7 .i.bS) 6 .i.bS (6 .i.xf6 exf6 7
exdS cxd4 8 dxc6 dxc3 9 .i.bS bxc6 10
i.xc6+ .i.d7 11 .i.xd7+ 'ii'xd7 12 'ii'xd7+
c;t>xd7 13 bxc3 .i.cs was no worse for Black
in Vaisman-Santo Roman, France 2000)
6... a6 7 .i.xc6+ bxc6 8 ~xf6 gxf6 9 exdS
cxdS 10 dxcS e6 11 'ii'd4 'ii'c7 12 liJa4 c;t>f7
13 b4, producing a complex and messy game
in which Black had compensation for the
pawn in Antonsen-Malaniuk, Lyngby Open
1991.
c) 4...liJbd7 5 'iVd3 e6 (S ...g6 6 e4 itJb6 7
eS liJhS 8 .i.e2 h6 9 .i.c1 c6 10 f4 itJg7 11
'iWg3 put Black in all sorts of trouble in
Klaric-Sinka, Caorle 1982) 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7
liJh3 0-0 8 e4 liJb6 9 exfS exfS 10 liJf4 h6 11
.i.xf6 l:txf6 12 h4 with an edge for White in
Stefanova-Montell Lorenzo, Salou 2000.
For 4...c6 see Macieja-Bartel.
S "ilfd2

Preparing to castle long before proceeding

with any central action. After the impetuous
5 e4?! Black plays S... fxe4 6 fxe4 itJxe4! 7
itJxe4 dxe4 8 dS itJb4! 9 .i.c4 c6 with an
excellent game.
S ... g6
The alternative way for Black to develop is
with S... e6 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7 e4 dxe4 (7 ... 0-0!? is
not unthinkable) 8 fxe4 fxe4 (8...itJxe4 9
itJxe4 fxe4 10 h4 gives White compensation
for the pawn) 9 .i.bS! .i.d7 10 ~xf6 .i.xf6 11
itJxe4, which favours White thanks to his
superior development and the weak e6-pawn.
Bronstein-Magergut, Moscow 1947 saw the
interesting 6 e4!? dxe4 7 0-0-0 .i.b4 8 a3 ~aS

9 .i.c4 0-0 10 liJge2 exf3 11 gxf3 and White

had a promising initiative for the pawn.
60-0-0 i.g7 7 i.h6

Not so much an attacking move as a positional one. The bishop on g7 is Black's

'good' bishop and without it his dark squares
look rather weak.
7 ... 0-0 8 tiJh3 a6 9 i.xg7 <;t>xg7 10 tiJf4
"ilfd6 11 e3

After 11 h4? Black can equalise with

11...liJxd4! 12 liJfxdS (after 12 hS or 12
'ii'xd4 Black plays 12...eS) 12...ti:)xdS 13
'ii'xd4+ liJf6 etc.
11 ...i.e6 12 h4 i.f7 13 hS gS 14 h6+
<;t>h8 1S ltJh3 g4

Not 1S....:g8? 16 e4.

16 tiJgS i.g6 17 tiJe2 eS 18 dxeS 'ii'xeS
19 tiJf4 l':.ae8 20 i.d3 'ifxe3 21 'ifxe3
l':.xe3 22 tiJfe6 l':.e8

If Black protects the c-pawn with 22...l::tc8

White has 23 ~d2 d4 (or 23 .. J:teS 24 f4) 24
liJxd4 winning material.
23 fxg41!
It might have been better to try 23 itJg7

':'8e7 (23 ...lI8eS 24 f4 :e7 25 ~xfS) 24

.i.xfS although 24...:e2 continues to be uncomfortable for White.
23 ...tiJxg4 24 tiJxc7 l':.8eS1!

According to Illescas Black should have

played 24...l:tc8 25 liJxdS l1g3.
2S tiJf3! tiJf2 26 tiJxeS l':.xeS 27 J:Lhe1
tiJxd1 28 <;t>xd1 l':.xe1 + 1!

Probably the losing move. Black has to try

133

The Veresov

28 ... f4.

can, for example 6... fxe4 (6 ... h6 might be met

by 7 i.xf6 1i'xf6 8 exfS exfs 9 f4, intending
lL'lgl-f3-es) 7 fxe4 i.b4 8 es lL'le4 9 i.xd8
lL'lxd2 10 ~xd2 ~xd8 11 a3 ~e7 12lL'lf3 cs
13 dxcs ~xcs 14 ~d3 lL'lc6 15 :hfl gives
White the initiative in the endgame.

29 ~xe1 ttJe7 30 c;i;>f2 ttJg8

Trying to keep White's king at bay with

30...d410ses to 31 'iii>g3lL'lg8 (or 31...~g8 32
lL'le6) 32 ~f4 lL'lxh6 33 lL'le6, threatening
both the pawn on d4 and 34lL'lcs.
31 ttJxd5 ttJxh6 32 c;i;>g3 i.f7 33 ttJe3
i.xa2
Or 33 ...~g7 34 'it>f4 rt;f6 3slL'lxfS etc.
34 b3 ttJg4 35 ttJd5 ttJe5 36 i.xf5 ttJc6
37 ttJe3 ttJb4 38 c;i;>t4 ~g7 39 c;i;>e3 h6 40
~d21iff6 41 i.e8 b5 42 life 1 1-0

6 0-0-0

'iVd2

6 ...ttJbd7 7 e3

White should seriously consider the immediate 5 e4, for example s ...'iVb6 (s ... fxe4 6
fxe4 lL'lxe4 7 lL'lxe4 dxe4 8 .i.c4 gives White
excellent compensation for the pawn) 6 es
lL'lfd7 7 a3 e6 (7...Wxb2?? 8 lL'la4) 8 b4 as 9
lL'la4 'iic7 10 c3 b6 11 lL'lh3 and Black was
cramped in Doroshkievich-Rotshtein, Lvov
1986.

Another possibility is 7 lL'lh3, although after 7...h6 8 .i.xf6 lL'lxf6 9 lL'lf4 ~f7 Black
seems to be doing fine.

After 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 fxe4 White can't

bring his bishop to c4. If he recovers his
pawn with 8 .i.xf6 exf6 9 lL'lxe4 Black is at
least equal after 9... 'ifb6 (followed by castling
long). In Bukal-Beim, Austria 2002 White
played the indecisive 6 lL'lh3 lL'lbd7 7 Wd3?!
Game 68
(7 0-0-0 is better) with Black gradually
Macieja-Bartel
assuming the initiative after 7...g6 8 0-0-0
Polish Ch., Warsaw 2002
~g7 9 We3 .i.f7 10 ~h6 0-0 11 .i.xg7 rt;xg7
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 12 lL'lf4 Wc7 13 lL'le6+ ~xe6 14 Wxe6 lL'lg8
1 d4 d5 2 ttJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 ttJf6 4 f3 c6 5
15 g3 :f616 .e3 es etc.

5 ....i.e6!?

Directed against 6 e4, although White can

also delay this move. After s ... e6 6 0-0-0 ~b4
7 e3 lL'le4 8 fxe4?! Wxgs Black had an edge in
Nestorovic-Orlov, Belgrade 2001. With this
in mind White should play 6 e4 while he still
134

7 ... h6 8 i.xf6

Here Tyomkin suggested 8 .i.f4!? and assessed the position as slightly better for
White after 8...gs 9 i.g3 i.g7 10 h4. This
may well be true, but 8...gs certainly isn't
forced. Black could, for example, consider
8... bs which both commences queenside
action and prepares to undermine the knight
on c3, one of the main supporters of the
crucial e3-e4 advance.
8 ...ttJxf6 9 i.d3 'ifd7 10 h3 0-0-0 11 g4

1 ... d5 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

g5 12 h4

"xe6 26 'iWxg7, winning a pawn.

Had White tried 12 tL\ge2 (planning 13

tL\g3) Black could take the initiative on the
kingside with 12... h5.

24~f5+

12.~g7 13 gxf5 ~xf5 14 hxg5 hxg5

15 tDge2 g4! 16 e4

In his notes Tyomkin suggested 16 i..xfS

and assessed the position after 16...'iWxf5 17
f4 l:.h3 18 l:.hg1 as equal. It seems to me that
Black is better after 18...l:.dh8 19 ltJg3 'iVd7
due to his domination of the h-ille and
passed pawn. Of course it's not easy to break
through in this position.

White could also play 24 'iWg3, when

24...ltJf3 25 ltJe4 'iWf7 (25 ...'iWxd426 c3 wins
a piece) 26 ':'1 leaves Black's knight in all
sorts of trouble.
24 ... '1t>d8

24...e6 meets with 25 i..xe6+, and after

24... ~b8 White has 25 'iWg3+ 'iii>a8 26 i..e4,
keeping Black's knight locked away in the
corner.
25 "f4 'ifd6 26 "e3 ~h6 27 'ii'e2 ':'f8

16 ... ~e6 17 exd5? .i.xd5?

28~e4?

Missing the opportunity to win a pawn

with 17.. .lhh1 18 l:txh1 i.xd5 19 ltJxdS
Wxd5, picking up f3. White could have
avoided this by exchanging rooks on h8 before capturing on d5.

White had an even stronger possibility in

28 ltJe4, when the knight heads for e6. The
tactical point is that 28 ...'iVf4 29 tL\c5 'i'xfS
30 ltJe6+ followed by ltJxfS and 'iWxh2 wins
the exchange.
28 ...'ii'g3

Around here Black's pieces start to lose

their coordination. Instead 21...'iWd7 22 ~b1
i.h6 is equal.

After 28 ...e6 (to prevent 29 dS) White can

choose between 29 ltJa4 (intending 30 ltJc5),
29 i.h 1 (intending 30 ltJe4 followed by ltJcS)
and 29 'iWhs followed by 30 'iVa5+-, picking
up the a7-pawn.

22 ~b1 lLlh2?

29 d5 c5 30 'ifb5

Black could still hold the balance with the

precise 22 ...ltJf2, after which 23 1:.1 i.xd4
24 i.f5+- 'iWxfS 25 'iWxd4 e5 26 'iWxa7 l:th 1
simplifies the position and makes a draw
likely.

White also has the immediate 30 d6, after

which 30... exd6 31 "iWbs leaves Black defenceless.

18 ':'xh8 ':'xh8 19 fxg4 tDxg4 20 tDxd5

"ii'xd5 21 tDc3 "ii'f7?!

23 "ii'g5 -.f6

The attempt to evacuate the knight with

23 ...ltJf3 runs into 24 i.f5+ e6 2S i.xe6+

30 ...'ifc7

30.....d6 would have been a more stubborn defence as the reply 31 'iVxb7 can be
answered by 31...'iib6. Nevertheless, this
looks very promising for White after 32
135

The Veresov

'iVa8+ 'it>d7 (32...~c7 33 d6+) 33 'iic6+ 'iVxc6

34 dxc6+ as all his pieces are superbly placed
and the passed pawn on c6 is particularly
dangerous.
31 d6! exd6 32 'iVe2 i.f4 33 lOd5 'ilf7
34 lOxf4?

Game 69

Khalifman-Lerner
Knjbyshev 1986
1 d4 d5 2 lOe3 f5 3 i.g5 g6

Letting Black off the hook. White could

conclude matters with 34 .tg6!, when
34...'iig7 35 tDxf4 nxf4 36 ltxd6+ ~c7 37
'ii'xh2 wins a piece.
34 ...'iVxf4 35 i.xb7 lOf1??
It looks as if both players were short of

time. Black can force a draw

which forces the exchange
pieces after 36 'i'd2 'i'xdH
etc. Now his king proves to
posed.

with 35 ...'ii'fl!
of the major
37 'iVxdl :%f1
be far too ex-

36 a3 lOe3 37 ll81 lleS 3S 'ila6 lOe4 39

l:txeS+ 'it>xeS 40 i.d5 lOb6 41 'ifxa7!
lOxd5 42 'ii"aS+ 'iifd7 43 'iVxd5

The queen endgame is winning for White

thanks largely to the superb position of his
queen. She later comes to b3 to support the
advance of the a-pawn.
43 .. .'~e7 44 'iifa2 'iitb6 45 'ii"b3+ 'iite7 46
c4 'iVe4 47 a4 WaS 48 'ifb5 Wa7 49 a5
WaS 50 'ii"b6+ 'iitd7 51 a6 'ile6 52 Wa5
'iVaS 53 a7 'iite6 54 'ii'b5+ 'iite7 55 Wa6
1-0
After 55 ... ~d7 56 'it>a3 rj;;c7 (or 56 ...'iVf3+

57 'iii>a4 'iWdH 58 c;f;ta5) the simplest is probably 57 b3 'ifh8 58 a8tD+ ~b8 59 'iVxd6+
~xa8 60 'iVxc5 with an easy win.
136

Black chooses not to commit his knight to

f6 for the time being, avoiding the doubled
pawns that result from 3...tDf6 4 .txf6 and,
with ....tg7 to now follow, ruling out plans
based on li'd2 and .th6. For 3... c6 see Sokolov-Nikolic, while 3... tDc6 is covered in Romero Holmes-Vallejo Pons.
4 e3 i.g7 5 h4 i.e6

Black has a major alternative in 5... c6,

when 6 .tf4!? (intending 7 h5) is quite promising (the immediate 6 h5 is answered by
6...h6 7 .tf4 g5). After 6...tDd7 or 6...tDh6
White should open the h-ftle with 7 h5, so
play might instead continue 6...tDf6 7 h5

1 ... d5 2 li:Jc3: 2 ... e6, 2 ... f5 and Others

ttJx:h5 8 .l:!.x:h5 gxh5 9 1ifx:h5+ ~f8 10 ~d3

'lIVe8 11 'iih2, as in Gelfand-Kontic, European U20 Ch., Arnhem 1988, when White
had good compensation for the exchange.

and White gets his first pawn for the exchange whilst maintaining a powerful bind.

6 li:Jf3 c6 7 .i.f4

Once again the immediate 7 h5 is answered by 7... h6 8 ~f4 g5 so (again) White

first retreats the bishop.
7 ..li:Jf6 8 h5 li:Jxh5?

12 .i.d3 e6 13 g4 h6 14 li:Jf3 .i.f7 1S

'ii'h3 fxg4 16 'ifxg4 li:Jd7 17 .i.d6+ ~g8
18 0-0-0 li:Jf6 19 'iff4 .i.hS 20 .i.eS .i.xf3
21 'ii'xf3 "ile7 22 :'g1 :'f8 23 'ilfg3

White can also bring his knight into the attack with 23 ttJe2, when 23 ...ttJd7 24 ttJf4
ttJxe5 25 dxe5 h5 26 'iVg2 is deadly.
Allowing the following exchange sacrifice
in the mistaken belief that he can weather the
storm. But White's positional compensation
will persist for a long time. Black should keep
developing with 8...ttJbd7!?, when IonovMalaniuk, Budapest 1989 continued 9 hxg6
hxg6 10 :xh8+ ~x:h8 11 ttJe5 (KalinitschevLegky, Thilisi 1985 went 11 ~d3 ttJe4 12
ttJg5!? and Black should have played the immediate 12...~g8 rather than 12...ttJxc3 13
bxc3 i.g8, allowing 14 i.xf5!) 11...~f7 12
~e2 "as 13 'iVd2 ttJxe5 14 ~xe5 0-0-0 15
0-0-0 and White was marginally better. Black
was fine in Khalifman-Legky, USSR 1987
after 9 h6 ~f8 10 'iVd2 ~f7 11 ttJe5 e6 12 f3
~e 7 13 g4 ttJxe5 14 i.xe5 fxg4 15 fxg4 0-0.

23 . hS 24 .i.d6 h4 25 'ii'a5

Also possible are 25 'ii'h2 and 25 'iVg5,

both of which look very strong.
2S ...'ifd7 26 .i.xf8 ~xf8 27 li:Je2 li:Jh5 28
'ifb8+ ~f7

After 28 .. .'it'e7? there is 29 J::txg7+ ttJxg7

30 'iVxh8 and White emerges a piece up.
29 .i.g6+ ~e7 30 .i.xhS l':.xb8 31 ltxg7+
~d6 32 :'xd7 + ~xd7

9 :'xh5! gxh5 10 li:JgS .i.g8

After 1O...'iVd7 there follows 11 'iVx:h5+

~d8 12 i.d3 with considerable pressure for

the sacrificed exchange.

11 'ifxhS+ ~f8
If Black heads for the hills with 11...~d7

there follows 12 ttJf7 ~xf7 (or 12...'iVe8 13

'tIixf5+ e6 14 ttJe5+) 13 'ii'xf7 ~f6 14 ~d3

The endgame is winning for White but he

needs to make sure that Black's h-pawn is
137

The Veresov

finnly blockaded. Khalifman handles any

technical difficulties very well.
33 ~g4 'ifi'd6 34 Wd2 l:g8 35 f3 e5 36
dxe5+ ~xe5 37 ~e1 l:h8 38 ~h3 c5 39
~f2 b5 40 itJf4 l:h6 41 itJd3+ 'ifi'd6 42 f4
b4 43 f5 c4 44 itJf4 Wa5 45 Wf3 l:d6 46
itJh5

White also has 46 liJe6 as after 46 ...l:la6

there follows 47liJcS ':xa2 4SliJd7+ ~d6 49
f6 etc.
46 ... d4 47 exd4+ l:xd4 48 f6 l:d8 49
~f1 ~f5 50 ~xc4 c,t>g5 51 itJf4 ~xf6 52
itJd5+ ~g5 53 itJxb4 l:d2 54 We3 J:[d1
55 itJd3 h3 56 itJf2 h2 57 b3 h1"if 58
itJxh1 l:xh1 59 ~d4 l:h4+?

Black's last chance was S9 ...~f6, when 60

WcS We7 61 Wc6 .l:th2 62 .i.d3 <;i;1dS 63 <;i;1b7
as offers some practical chances.
60 ~a5 ~g4 61 ~e6+ ~f3 62 c4 l:h2
63 c5 l:xa2 64 c6 1-0

Game 70
I.Sokolov-Pr .Nikolic
Dutch Ch., Rotterdam 1998
1 d4 d5 2 itJc3 f5 3 ~g5 c6 4 a3

This quiet approach may not be White's

best. Very sharp is 4 e4!

This looks far more dangerous for Black.

4... dxe4 S f3 'tib6 6 ii'd2 Wxb2 7 l:lbl e3!? S
'il'xe3 Wa3 9 .i.c4 presented White with excellent compensation for the pawn in Poluliakhov-Glek, USSR 1990, which leaves
138

4... fxe4: S f3 liJf6 6 fxe4 dxe4 7 .i.c4 .i.g4!? S

ii'd2liJbd7 9 h3liJb6 10 .i.b3 ~hS l1liJge2
h6 was Litus-Malaniuk, Katowice Open
1991, and now, instead of 12 ~e3? liJbdS 13
liJg3 ~g6, which was good for Black, 12
.i.xf6 exf6 13 liJxe4 would have favoured
White. White also maintains a strong initiative after either 7...~f5 S liJge2 liJbd7 9 0-0
liJb6 10 ~b3 Wd7 11 liJg3, as in BauerM.Tseitlin, Bad Zwesten Open 1997, or
7...liJbd7 8 'il'e2 WaS 9 ~d2 'if'f5 10 liJh3
liJb6 11 .i.b3, Popchev-Panbukchian,
Bulgarian Ch., 1994.
Another interesting possibility is 4 ii'd3!?,
when Glek-Fishbein, Philadelphia 1990 continued 4...liJa6 5 f3 'ii'a5 6 'ii'd2 liJf6 7 a3
(the immediate 7 e4?! allows Black to equalise
with 7... fxe4 8 liJxe4 'ii'xd2+ 9 liJxd2 liJb4)
7... b5 8 e4 fxe4 9 liJxe4 'ii'xd2+ 10 liJxd2
.i.d7 11 liJb3 e6 12 a4! liJb4 13 <;i;1d1 bxa4 14
liJc5 ~xc5 15 dxc5 and White had slightly
the better endgame. Perhaps S...b4 should be
tried, matters being far from clear after 9
liJa2 fxe4 10 .i.xa6 ~xa6 11 axb4 'iib6.
Less good for White is 4 'ii'd2 h6 5 .i.f4
liJf6 6 f3 e6 because 7 e4?! here is dubious
due to 7... fxe4 8 fxe4 ~b4 etc.
4 .. :i'b6 5 l:b1 itJd7 6 ~d3 g6 7 h4

With White being unable to castle queenside I don't think this is the right plan. He
might be well advised to choose a different
move here:
a) After 7 liJh3!? Black should find an al-

1 ... d5 2 ttJc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

ternative to 7... e5?! as White can then gain

the advantage with 8 i.xf5! iLg7 9 iLd3 exd4
10 exd4 iLxd4 11 0-0 as in Loeffler-Videki,
Kecskemet 1991.
b) 7 f4 is a heavyweight positional move
used in Crouch-Galdunts, Krumbach Open
1991, when 7...tDgf6 8 tDB tDe4 9 iLxe4
dxe4 10 tDd2 'iVa6 11 g4 e6 gave rise to a
complex positional battle.
c) As White's rook is already on bl, ready
to support a queenside pawn advance, 7 tDf3
i.g7 8 tDe2 tDgf6 9 0-0 made a lot of sense
in Dokhoian-Kisnev, Copenhagen Open
1991 as White is going to advance his queenside pawns. The game continued 9...tDe4 10
c4 h6 11 i.h4 tDdf6 12 i.xf6 tDxf6 13 tDe5
g5 14 tL'lg3 e6 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 tL'lh5 0-0 17
tL'lxg7 <j;xg7 18 'iVa4 with a clear advantage.
7 ....i.g7 8 h5 h6 9 .i.f4 g5 10 .i.h2 e5!

A strong move which solves Black's opening problems. After 1O... e6 White can apply
pressure to Black's kingside pawn structure
with 11 g4!.
11 .i.xf5 exd4 12 exd4 ttJe 7!
12...iLxd4 13 i.g6+ ~d8 14 'iVd2 leaves
Black's king displaced.
13 'i'e2
Attempting to hold the pawn with 13
i.xd7+ iLxd7 14 tL'lge2 gives Black excellent
counterplay after 14...tL'lf5 15 i.e5 i.xe5 16
dxe5 'fic7 or 16...0-0-0. After either 14 tL'lce2
or 14 tL'lf3?! Black can play 14...iLg4, while 14
i.e5 is well met by 14... iLxe5 15 dxe5
or

:f8

15 ... 0-0-0.
13......xd4?!

It might be even better to play 13...i.xd4!,

when 14 i.xd7+ i.xd7 15 iLe5 i.xe5 16
"xeS 0-0-0 is very unpleasant for White.
Alternatively 14 tL'ldl 'ittd8! 15 i.xd7 (or 15
i.e6 l:le8 16 c3 tbf5 when White's king is
getting caught in the centre) 15...i.xd7 and
Black has a clear advantage due to his bishop
pair and well centralised forces.
14 ttJf3 "'f6 1 5 .i.e6
White is left with an unpleasant position
after 15 iLxd7+ iLxd7 16 i.e5 'ikfl followed
by castling long. At least Black cannot castle
queenside when the bishops are exchanged
onc8.
15...ttJb6 16 .i.xc8 l:I.xc8 17 0-0 0-0 18
ttJe5
There is a strong case for 18 iLe5 to trade
off Black's strong dark-squared bishop.
18 ...l:I.ce8 19 l:I.be 1 ttJf5
Preferable to 19...d4?! because after 20
tL'le4 'fie6 21 tL'lg4 White's knights take up
threatening posts.
20 "'g4 ttJh4 21 ttJd1 'Wi'e6 22 'Wi'b4 .c8
%-%

Game 71
Romero Holmes-Vallejo Pons
Elgoibar 1997
1 d4 d5 2 ttJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 ttJc6

139

The Veresov

i.a4 Jib4 9 ltJge2 bs 10 i.b3 ltJe7 giving

Black a solid game in Vesely-Florian, Kosice
1961.
6 tOf3 tOf7 7 .tf4 'ifd7?!

This move is completely beyond me. I

would play simply 7... iog7 in order to complete development.
8 tOa4 e6

After 8... b6 9 c4 Black would be in all

sorts of trouble, so he has to give up his
dark-squared bishop, leading to other problems.
9 tOe5 .txe5 10 dxe5 b6?

A somewhat strange looking move which

does have certain points to it. Black develops
a piece, covers the es-square and gets himself
a move closer to castling long. On the other
hand the knight might be pinned by a bishop
coming to bs, thus renewing the problem
with the es-square.
4e3 g6

Dinstuhl-Hoffmann, Germany 1992 featured the weird 4...'it'd7?!, when sltJf3 seems
the most sensible, threatening 6 iobs followed by 7 ttJes. In the game White played
some strange moves himself, starting out
with 5 'it'f3, and s ... e6 6 h3 iod6 7 a3ltJge7 8
i.d3 0-0 9 iLxe7 'i'xe7 10 ttJge2 brought
about a fairly equal game.

Black should probably play 1O...'ike7, not

that this is pleasant after 11 ioxc6+ bxc6 12
'it'd4, clamping down on the es-square. Now
White seizes the opportunity to open things
up.
11 c4! bxe5?

Black's last chance was to play 11 ...a6,

when 12 ioxc6 'it'xc6 13 cxds 'ii'xcs 14 0-0
'ii'xds 15 'iVxds exds 16 ioxc7 bs is still excellent for White.
12 exd5 exd5 13 ':e1 e4 14 b3! .l:.b8 15
bxc4 dxe4 16 'ifa4 .l:.b6 17 'iVxe4!

5.tb5

After 17 l:.d1 a6 18l:txd7 axbs Black has

some fighting chances. Now it's just a question of time.
17 ... .tb7 180-0 <l;>d8
It can't have been easy to play this move
5 ...tOh6

but 18... 0-0 runs into 19ltJd4 etc.

Another odd move by Black. The simple

s ...ltJf6 looks better, 6 ioxf6 exf6 7 'it'f3 a6 8

19 'u'fd1 tOd6 20 .txd6

140

White can also play 20 ltJes ltJxc4

1 ... d5 2 ti:Jc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

(20...tLlxe5 21 .ig5+ wins the queen with

check) 21 ':'xd7+ ~c8 22 .ixc4 with an extra
piece.
20 ... cxd6 21 ti:Jd4 <:;c7 22.i.a4

Another powerful move is 22 'i+'a4,

threatening - amongst other things - to double on the c-file.
22 ...l::tc8 23 ti:Jb5+ 'iii>b8 24 ti:Jxd6 l::td8
25ti:Jf7

Also good is 25 tLlb5 'i+'e7 26 "f4+ c;t;>a8

27 ':xd8+ etc.
25 .. :Wi'xd1 + 26 .i.xd1 J:td7 27 .i.f3 l::tc7
28 ti:Jd6 .i.a6 29 "g8+ 1-0

Game 72
Hort-So.Polgar
Amsterdam 2001

with colours reversed and an extra tempo for

White. Perhaps White can best exploit this
with 3 e4 cxd4 (3 ...dxe4 4 d5 tLlf6 5 f3 exf3 6
tLlxf3 puts Black in a quite dangerous line of
the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as the inclusion of the moves ...c7-c5 and d4-d5 give
White a lot of central space) 4 1i'xd4 dxe4 5
'i+'xd8+ ~xd8 6 tLlxe4 tLlf6 was played in
Richter-Mieses, Swinemuende 1931, and now
7 tLlxf6 would have weakened Black's structure and left him with a permanent disadvantage. Richter's 7 tLlg5, on the other hand,
earned only a temporary initiative.
2....tfS 3 .ig5 c6 transposes to the main

game.
3 .i.g5 .i.f5

1 d4 d5 2 ti:Jc3 c6

Naturally this could transpose to a CaroKann should White play 3 e4, but here we
will look at an independent try for White
which keeps the play along Veresov lines.
2...tLlc6 is a peculiar response which leads
to the Nimzowitsch Defence after 3 e4.
Again an independent try is 3 .ig5, when
H.Myers-Sage, Chicago 1984 staggered along
with the moves 3... h6 4 .th4 g5 5 .tg3 iog4
6 f3 .ih5 7 e3 .ig7 8 .ib51i'd7 9 tLla4 e6 10
tLlc5 'i+'c8 11 c3 tLlge7 12 h4, with White
clearly better. Not that this proves very
much!
After 2...c5 we get a Chigorin Defence

A preliminary 3... h6 doesn't help that

much, but Black should certainly aim to castle kingside in this position. Hort-Hanley,
Wijk aan Zee 2002 went 4 .ih4 .if5 5 e3
tLld7 6 .id3 .ixd3 7 'i+'xd3 tLlgf6 8 tLlf3 e6 9
e4 dxe4 10 tLlxe4 .ie7 11 .ig3 tLlxe4 12
'i+'xe4 tLlf6 13 'i+'e2 0-0 14 0-0 with only a
slight space advantage for White to work
with.
After the immediate 3...'i+'b6 White should
play the sensible 4 .l:.b1, e.g. 4...g6 5 e3 .ig7 6
tLlf3 (6 .id3 tLlf6 7 f4 is well worth considering) 6... tLlf6 7 .id3 .ig4 8 h3 .ixf3 9 gxf3!?
tLlbd7 10 f4 e6 11 b4 which led to a heavyweight positional battle in Hoi-Rasmussen,
Tonder 1993. However, in KhachianDoroshenko, Bucharest 1993 White offered
141

The Veresov

the b-pawn with 4 'iWd2, which turned out to

be a good move when Black didn't take it
and played 4....i.fS instead!
4 e3lDd7

After 4.. :ifb6 the move S 'ub1 can come

in handy in lines such as S... lt:'Jd7 6 .td3
.txd3 7 cxd3 thanks to the possibility of a
minority attack (b2-b4-bS).
5 .td3 .txd3 6 'ii'xd3 WIl6

Black should play simply 6... lt:'Jgf6 and aim

to castle kingside.

square if White later moves one of his rooks

along the third rank. Exchanging queens with
16...'iffS is also bad after 17 'i'xfS gxfS 18
.tf4+ ~c8 19 dS, so the modest 16...'iVc7 is
probably the right move.
17 'iWc2 e6 18 .tf4+ ~a8 19 c5 b6

Black must have been loathe to play this

move, but she no doubt saw 20 ':e3 coming.
20 .tc7 :tc8 21 .td6 llhe8 22 :te3 ifb7
23 :tb3 .te7 24 .txe7 ':xe7 25 lDd2

7 0-0-0 0-0-0 8 lDf3 96 9 e4 dxe4 10

lDxe4 h6 11 .te3 'iVa5 12 ~b1

The knight is heading for d6, which induces some additional desperation.
White's extra space gives him a clear edge.
Black's version of the Caro-Kann looks distinctly dubious ..
12....tg7 13 c4 lDgf6 14 lDxf6 .txf6 15
:the1 'iitb8 16 .td2 "a6?!

Black's queen is awkwardly placed on this

142

25 ...'iVc7 2693 e5 27 cxb6 axb6 28 :te3

'u'ce8 29 d5 lDb8 30 :ta3+ ~b7 31 d6!
'iVxd6 32 lDe4 "e6 33 lbd6+ rJiJc7 34
'u'a7+ ~d8 35 lDxf7+ 9;;c8 36 lDd6+
<;t>d8 37 lDb7+ ~c8 38 lDd6+ ~d8 39
lDxe8+ ~xe8 40 :ta8 1-0

A classy performance by Hort.

1 ... d5 2 0.c3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

Summary

Despite Black's best efforts White can keep the game along Veresov lines by using sub de
move orders. White is not obliged to transpose to the French, Caro-Kann or Nirnzowitsch
Defences, and can insist on the Veresov treatment should Black go for a Dutch with 2... 5.
1 d4 d5 2 0.c3 f5

2...e6 3 tLlf3 Ji.b4 (D) - Game 66

2... c6 3 Ji.gS - Game 72
3.*.95 (D) ~f6
3...g6 - Game 69; 3...c6 - Game 70; 3...tLlc6 - Game 71
4 f3 (D)
4...tLlc6 - Game 67; 4...c6 - Game 68

3.*.g5

4 f3

143

CHAPTER TEN

1 ... 'tJf6 2 'tJc3: 2 ... c5,

2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

, d4 lbf6 2 lbc3
By refusing to meet 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 with
2...dS Black announces his intention to try to
unbalance the position. With 2...cS he invites
transposition to a Schmid Benoni (with 3
dS), 2... d6 and 2...g6 would lead to a Czech
or Pirc Defence after 3 e4 and 2...e6 prepares
to playa French after 3 e4 dS. To avoid playing in your opponent's back garden we need
some more 'Veresov' moves and ideas.
There aren't too many players who enjoy
the Schmid Benoni after 2...cS 3 d5 but this
can occasionally crop up and White must
have a plan of action. I think that the move
which is most in the spirit of the Veresov is 3
i..gs, which officially transposes to a line of
the Trompovsky (1 d4 ttJf6 2 ~gS cS 3 ttJc3)
and leads to very sharp play. The main line
occurs after 3... cxd4 4 'ilxd4 ttJc6 5 'iii'h4 e6
when White will hoist the pirate flag by castling long (see Miladinovic-Gustafsson).
Varying with S... bS worked out alright for
Black in Grimm-Tseitlin but White played
very passively in this game and he can improve by castling long on move 7 or 8.
Black's other options are to play 3...'ii'aS and
3...'i+b6, which are covered in De la VillaGlavina Rossi.
If White wants a somewhat quieter life he
might well consider 3 dxcS, as in Mestrovic144

Medic. This takes the game right off the

beaten track and results in positions in which
Black has to be careful. In theory Black may
be able to equalise but in practice he has
experienced some difficulties.
As far as the 'attempted Pirc' is concerned, White can meet 2...g6 with 3 i..gS,
after which 3...d6 can be met with 4 ~xf6
(Klinger-Maxion). Generally speaking I'm
not very fond of this exchange on f6 but here
Black is several moves further away from his
best set up (one with pawns on dS and fS). If
he protects the knight with 3... ~g7, then
White can prepare to exchange this bishop
and castle long with 4 'iid2.
If Black plays 2... d6 a transposition is possible after 3 i..gS g6 4 i..xf6, but there is
another option in 3...ttJbd7. In Fahnenschmidt-Eis the game transposed to a line of
the Philidor in which White's bishop is supposed to be poorly placed on gS. However,
I'm not so sure this is the case.
In the event of 2 ...e6 White would normally
play 3 e4, when 3... dS is a Classical French.
But we can avoid transposing directly to a
French by playing 3 i..gS. If Black then plays
3... dS we would be in Chapter 8. 3... h6 4
i..xf6 'ii'xf6 5 e4 leads to a line of the Trompovsky and is covered in Anand-Karpov and
Hall-De Firmian.

1 .. .tDf6 2 l?Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

Game 73
Miladinovic-Gustafsson
Germaf!Y-Greece Match, Fuerth 2002

can develop a strong attack on the queenside

in case White casdes immediately.

1 d4l?Jf6 2l?Jc3 c5 3.tg5!?

5 ... 86

The 'Veresov' move, though this position

usually arises via a Trompovsky move order
(1 d4 lLlf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 lLlc3). White's 'best'
move may well be 3 d5 which transposes into
a Schmid Benoni, but here we'll concern
ourselves with the move which is most in the
spirit of the Veresov.
3 ... cxd4
3... d5 transposes to Chapter 4, and 3...'ila5
is examined in the game De la Villa-Glavina
Rossi. One other possibility for Black is
3...'ilb6, when Gufeld and Stetsko consider
only 4 d5 'ilVxb2 5 i.d2 with a Trompovsky.
White has an interesting alternative in 4 lLlf3,
when Nataf-Levacic, Cannes 1996 continued
4 ... cxd4 (after 4...'ilVxb2 White can play 5
lLla4 1ib4+ 6 c3 'ilVa5 7 lLlxc5 d6 S lLlb3
'ilVxc3+ 9 lLlfd2 lLlc6 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 11 e3
with compensation for the pawn) 5 'ilxd4
'ilVxd4 6 lLlxd4 lLlc6 7 lLldb5 llbS S 0-0-0 a6
9lLlc7+ 'iti>dS 10 lLl7d5 and White had strong
pressure. Also worth consideration is 4 i.xf6
gxf6 5 liJd5.
4 iYxd4l?Jc6 5 iVh4
This position is very interesting for both
sides. White intends to casde queenside, push
e2-e4 and f2-f4. Black, on the other hand,

The most common move, but not the

only one. In De la Villa-Miezis, Elgoibar
1995 Black played 5... d6, although after 6 e4
.i.e6 7 .i.d3 l:tc8 8 lLlgeZ tiJeS 9 f4 tiJxd3+ 10
cxd3 'ilb6 11 f5 White had more space, a
lead in development and active pieces. For
5... b5 see Grimm-Tseidin.
6 e4
White has also played the immediate 6
0-0-0, transposing after 7 e4.
6 ....te7
After 6 ... h6 White should probably play 7
0-0-0 with similar play to the main line, while
in reply to 7 f4 Black has 7...1ib6, when S
O-O-O? is bad in view of S...lLlh71.
7 f4

It may well be that 7 0-0-0 is a more accu145

The Veresov

rate move order. 1bis can also lead to the

position after White's 9th move but with
different divergences being possible en route.
For example 7.....aS 8 f4 d6 9 ttJf3 leads
back to the game, 7...a6 8 f4 bS 9 eS b4 10
exf6 gxf6 11 ttJe4 fxgS 12 fxgS "as 13 ~bl
b3 14 axb3 ttJb4 15 ttJf6+ ~d8!? 16 'it'd4
'ifa2+ 17 ~c1 'ifa1+ 18 ~d2 produced a wild
situation in Vaganian-Knaak, Tallinn 1979
which White went on to win, 7...0-0 8 f4 h6 9
ttJf3 hxgS 10 ttJxgS 'ifc7! 11 eS! ttJxeS 12
ttJdS! exdS 13 fxeS 'ifxes 14 1:1el 'iff5! 15
1:1xe7 'ifg4! 16 'ifxg4 ttJxg4 17 Ji.bS! gave
White the better endgame in KrasenkowDegraeve, Cappelle la Grande 1990 and
7... h6 8 f4 %lg8 9 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 10 'ifg3 ~xc3
11 'ii'xc3 'ifaS 12 'ii'xaS ttJxaS 13 eS gS! gave
Black quite a good endgame in DorfanisAtalik, Katarini 1993. In this last variation
one should note that 9 ttJf3 hxgS 10 fxgS
leaves Black's knight on f6 without a move,
and I wonder if White can use this to develop his initiative.
Besides the ultra-violent lines based on
castling long, White can also consider going
the other way. Conquest-S.Garcia, Havana
1996 went 7 ttJf3 'ifaS 8 Ji.bS d6 9 0-0 ~d7
10 nfel a6?! (10... 0-0 is probably better) 11
Ji.xc6 Ji.xc6 12 eS dxeS 13 ttJxeS 1:1c8 14
1:1adl O-O?! (14...'Wb4) 15 :d3! when, suddenly, White had a very potent attack. The
game concluded lS ...'Wb4 16 f4 'Wb6+ 17
'it>h1 'ii'xb2 18 1:1g3 ..ti>h8 19 i.h6 g6
(19 ...gxh6? 20 'iixh6 ttJe8 allows 21 'ifxf8+
~x8 22 ttJx7 mate) 20 Ji.gS ~g7 21 'ii'h6+
~g8 22 i.xf6 1-0, since 22...i.xf6 23 :h3
leads to forced mate.
7 ... d6
The main argument against 7 f4 is that
Black can use the fact that White hasn't castled to play an immediate 7... bS!?, NeiTaimanov, USSR 1981 continuing 8 eS b4!? 9
ttJbS (9 exf6 gxf6 is better for Black) 9...a6 10
ttJd6+ (10 exf6 gxf6 11 ttJd6+ Ji.xd6 12 ~xf6
Ji.e7 13 ~xe7 l6xe7 also leaves Black with
the more compact structure) 1O ... ~xd6 11
146

exd6 ttJd4!? and now, according to Taimanov, White should play 12 Ji.d3 when
12...i.b7 13 'ikf2 h6 14 ~h4 ttJbS 15 i.xbS
axbS 16 ttJf3 is complex. In the game 12
0-0-0 ttJf5 13 i.xf6 ttJxh4 14 ~xd8 'S\i>xd8 15
ttJe2 ~b7 16 JIgl f6!? gave Black the better
endgame due to the pressure against White's
kingside. Note that here (7 ... bS) 8 ttJxbS
'ii'a5+ 9 ttJc3 ttJxe4 is just bad for White, and
8 Ji.xbS 'iVb6 gives Black compensation for
the pawn.
Another attempt to reveal the dark side of
7 f4 is with 7..."ikb6, when Ochoa-Browne,
New York 1989 went 8 0-0-0 l6e3+ 9 'S\i>bl
ttJxe4 10 ttJxe4 'ifxe4 11 Ji.d3 Ji.xgS 12
'iixgS 'ii'd4 13 ttJf3 l6f6 14 "ikhs 'ifxf4 15
ttJgS ttJeS 16 lthfl l6g4 17 'ii'xg4 ttJxg4 18
ttJx7 1:18 19 ttJd6+ ~e7 20 .l:!.x8 'ittx8 21
Ji.xh7 ~e7 22 h3 ttJe3 23 :d2 ttJdS 24
ttJxc8+ :xc8 25 ~e4 and White had the
better endgame, though it's not clear what
was happening en route.
S 0-0-0 "a5 9 tlJf3

9 ... h6
1bis has been applauded as being Black's
best option, although it seems that there are
other possibilities:
a) 9 ... ~d7 looks like a natural developing
move, when 10 'ifel, 10 ~bS and 10 ~d3 all
seem reasonable for Black after 10... h6.
However, 10 ttJd2 with the idea of 11 ttJc4 is
problematic for Black, Sell-Berger, Gennany
1999 continuing 10...:c8 11 ttJc4 16cS 12

1 .. .tcd6 2 tiJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

ttJa4 'ii'b4, and now 13 a3 'iixa4 14 b3 'iia6

15 ttJxd6+ wins Black's queen for what appears to be inadequate compensation.
b) 9...a6 protects bS (when 10 ttJd2 can be
met by 10... bS) but Black needs a good answer to 10 'iiel, as 10... bS 11 eS b4 12 exf6
gxf6 13 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 14 ttJe4 was good for
\X'hite in Mensch-Nicoara, France 1999.
c) 9...0-0 seems to 'castle into it' but I
don't see any concrete objection.

ficult to assess. White clearly has compensation for the pawn thanks to his superior development and Black's loss of castling rights.
But is it enough?

14 ...'irc5 15 We1 a6 16 .i.d3

Probably the best square for the bishop as
after 16 i.a4 bS 17 i.b3 i.b7 Black gains
time for development.

16 ... .i.d7 17 l:[n

10 e5

TIlls seems to be most in the spirit of the

opening, but White has also played a preliminary 10 i.bS. Rabinovich-Gershon, Israel
1996 went 10...i.d7 11 eS dxeS 12 ttJxeS
ttJxeS 13 XeS i.xbS 14 ttJxbS (14 exf6 i.c6
was good for Black in Sjodahl-Akesson,
Sundsvall 1989) 14...'iixbS 15 exf6 'iVxgS+
and Black had a large advantage in the endgame. According to Serper White should play
12 .ltxc6! .ltxc6 13 ttJxeS, after which
13. ..:c8 is equal in his view but nice for
Black in mine. White should avoid 12 XeS?
ttJxeS.

10 ... dxe5 11 fxe5 lbxe5 12 tiJxe5

In luldachev-Serper, Tashkent 1993 White
played 12 i.b5+ i.d7 13 ttJxeS i.xbS 14
ttJxf7!? but after 14...'it>xf7 15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16
1Wh5+ 'it>g817'iixbS i.xc3 18 'iixb7 i.xb2+!
19 Wxb2 (19 'it>xb2? We5+!) 19...~h7
White's king was the more exposed.

12 ...'irxe5 13 .i.b5+

~8

14 .i.f4

TIlls position is very complicated and dif-

A logical move, eyeing Black's king down

the f-file. In San Emeterio-Lalic, Madrid
2001, White allowed exchanges before playing this move, but after 17 ttJe4 ttJxe4 18
i.xe4 i.c6 19
:c8 20 .ltg6 i.e8 21 i.d6
'iVgS+ 22 ~b1 'ii'xg6 23 i.xe7+ 'it>g8 his
compensation disappeared. KalinitschewGustafsson, Dresden 2002 varied with 17
lIgl i.c6 18 g4 l:[d8 19 h4 i.f3 20 gS hxgS
21 hxgS ttJdS 22 ttJxdS WxdS but here White
saw nothing better than going into an endgame a pawn down after 23 i.e2 'iixd1+ 24
i.xd1 ':xd1+ etc.
17 ... .i.c6 18 g4 ':'d8
Can Black get away with 18... ttJxg4 here?
It is cerrainly not for the faint-hearted, but I
don't see a clear attacking line for White.
Practical trials would be helpful...

:1

19 .i.e3 'ire5 20 .f2 .i.b4!? 21 lLle2

:td7! 22 h3 ~e8 23.i.d4
White could also consider safeguarding his
king with 23 'it>b 1 before undertaking positive action.

23 ...'ird5
147

The Veresov

7 ~xf6 gxf6 8 lLle4 ~e7 9 lLld6+ ~xd6 10

.u.xd6 ~e7 11 .l:.dl was quite good for White
in Puranen-Shishkov, Paide 1999.
6 ... a6 7 lbf3?!

23 ...'ii'g5+ 24 ~bllLle4 25 ~xe4 ~xe4 26

lLlf4 is quite promising for White, who
threatens 27 lLlhS, while 26 ...eS can be answered with 27 "e2.
24 i.xf6 gxf6 25 ~b1
Snatching back the pawn with 25 'iVxf6?
leaves Black with much the better endgame
after 2S ...'ilfg5+ 26 ~bl 'ilfxf6 27 .l:.xf6 ~e7
and 28... hS.
25 ... i.e7 26 lbf4 'ire5!
Offering to return the pawn in order to
exchange queens. Stubbornly hanging on to
the booty with 26 ...'iVgS puts Black under
considerable pressure after 27 .l:.de1 (or perhaps 27lLlhS!?).
27 'ifxe5 %-%
Black might have considered playing on as
after 27...~xcS 28 lLlh5 ~e7 29 lLlxf6+ Sl.xf6
30 .u.xf6 <it>f8 his passed e-pawn might become dangerous.

The critical line seems to be 7 0-0-0 "as

(7 ... h6 8lLldS ~b7 9 Sl.xf6 gxf6 10 lLle2 'ii'aS
11 ~bl was good for White in Nei-Diesen,
Helsinki 1990) 8 ~bl d6 9lLlge2 ~e6 (9 ... b4
10 ~xf6 gxf6 11 lLldS looks better for
White), and now instead of 10 lLlct, as in
AJackson-Gladyszev, Isle of Man 2000, 10
~xf6 gxf6 11 lLlf4 looks better for White.
7 ... d6 8 i.e2?!
White's plan of castling kingside is quite
out of the spirit of the position. Here too I
prefer 8 0-0-0; White's king seems safe
enough on the queenside.
8 ...e6 9 i.xf6?! 'iVxf6 10 'ilxf6 gxf6 11
0-0-0 i.b 7 12 lbd4 ne8
This endgame is better for Black's two
bishops.
Game 74
13lbxe6 i.xe6 14 a4 ':g8 15 .l:[hg1 bxa4
Grimm-Mi.Tseitlin
16 i.xa6 nb8 17 .l:!.d4? .l:!.g5
Passau 1998
Missing an opportunity presented by
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. . White's last move. Black can play even more
1 d4 lbf6 2 lbe3 e5 3 i.g5 exd4 4 'irxd4
strongly with 17...~h6+ 18 Wbl ~f4, when
the bishop is coming to eS with great effect.
lbe6 5 'ifh4 b5!? 6 e4
18 i.d3?
Not 6 lLlxbS? in view of 6...'ilfb6!, when
White should play 18 g3 in order to meet
the b2-pawn falls. White has an alternative in
18. ...l:.cS 19 .l:.c4 .l:.xc4 20 ~xc4 ~h6+ with
6 0-0-0, after which 6... b4 7 lLldS 'ilfaS 8 e4
'ilfxa2 9 lLlc7+ ~d8 10 lLlxa8 'ilfa1+ 11 Wd2
21 f4. The entry of Black's dark-squared
bishop will decide matters.
'ilfxb2 produces a wild position which is difficult to assess with any accuracy, while 6...e6
18 ....:e5 19 .l:!.c4?!

r-----------------.

148

1.. .ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

19 liJaZ is more tenacious.

19 ....i.h6+ 20 ~b1 ':xc4 21 .i.xc4.i.d2
22 ~a2 .i.xc3 23 bxc3 .i.xe4 24 .i.d3
.i.xd3 25 cxd3 ':b3 26 ':c1 d5 27 d4 f5
28 g3 h5 29 h4 ~e7 30 c4 dxc4 31
lbc4 ':f3 0-1
A bit of a lame performance from White.
~--------------.

rial pressure on the e-file.

After s ... e6 White played 6 iibs in Uobel
Cottell-Zapata, Andorra ZOOZ, and after
6...ds 7 0-0-0 cxd4 S exd4 liJc6 9 ~b 1 i.d7
10 liJgeZ %:.cS he should have played 11 f4,
intending f4-fS with promising play. In the
game 11 Wf3 was rather pointless. 6 ds .i.g7
7liJgeZliJa6 S g3liJc7 9 .i.gZliJbs 100-0
Game 75
liJxc3 11 liJxc3 fs wasn't clear in De la VillaDe la Villa-Glavina Rossi
Wiersma, Berlin 1997.
Zaragoza Open 1995
If Black plays a preliminary s ...cxd4 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. exd4 and then 6 ...e6 White can't put his
1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3 c5 3 .i.g5 'i'a5 4 .i.xf6
queen on hs. 7 ds .i.a3 8 'i'c1 'iWb4 9 :bl
gxf6 5 e3
'it'xc3+ 10 bxc3 i.xc1 11 l:txc1 b6 was fme
for Black in Mi.Tseitlin-Pokojowczyk, Slupsk
1978, but 7 'i'f3 fS 8 0-0-0 looks quite good
to me. 6...d6 7 i.b5+ i.d7 8 .i.xd7+ liJxd7 9
Wf3 e6 10 liJgeZ was good for White in De
la Villa-Glavina Rossi, Aceimar 1995.

6 'ill5 lOc6 7 .lc4 a6

The only other way to defend f7 is with
7...liJdS but then S i.b5+ is very unpleasant.
8 d5!

White can also gain space with 5 dS,

though s ... fS clears a nice diagonal for
Black's dark-squared bishop and gives him
greater potential for counterplay. PlachetkaFtacnik, Frenstat 1982 continued 6 e3 i.g7 7
'iWdZ d6 S liJge2 liJd7 9 liJf4liJb6 10 i.b5+
~f8 11 i.e2 'i!Vb4 12liJd3 'iWas 13liJf4 i.d7
and White's queenside came under fire.
5 ... d6?!
This natural looking move has surprisingly
serious consequences due to the weakening
of Black's light squares. In this position s ... fS
has nothing like the same effect as the a I-h8
diagonal is blocked by the pawn on d4.
Shereshevsky-Veremeichik, Minsk 1978 continued 6 'iWhs cxd4 7 exd4 'i'b6 8 0-0-0
'iWh6+ 9 'it'xh6 i.xh6+ 10 ~bl d6 11 g3 i.d7
12 i.g2 i.c6 13 ds .i.d7 14 f4 and White
had a significant space advantage and poten-

8 ...ti:Je5
8... exds 9 i.xds is horrible for Black in
view of his pawn weaknesses, but the text is
not much better.
9 dxe6 ~d8 10 e7+ .i.xe7 11 .i.e2 b5 12
liJf3 .i.b7 13 ti:Jxe5 fxa5 14 0-0-0 f6
Ugly, but by now there is little choice. After 14... b4 there follows 15 "xeS l:tgS 16
nxd6+ i.xd6 17 'it'xd6+ ~c8 ISliJds etc.
15 .i.xb5 a6 16 .i.a4 'i'c7 17 ti:Jd5 .i.xd5

149

The Veresov

18l:!.xd5
The opposite coloured bishops favour
White in this position due to Black's appalling weaknesses on the light squares. There's
litde he can do to repair the damage.
18 ... J:!.b8 19 l:I.hd 1 l:I.b6 20 'ikf7 ~c8 21
l:I.5d3 'it>b7 22 i.b3 <j;{a7 23 .td5 a5 24
l:I.a3 .u.b5 25 .tc4 l:I.b7 26 Add3 l:I.hb8 27
l:I.db3 l:I.b4 28 c3 d5

A final attempt to complicate matters

which White could probably have negotiated
more effectively. 2S .. ..::txb3 29 axb3 leaves
Black with no counterplay whatsoever.
29 cxb4 cxb4 30 l:I.xa5+
I prefer 30 'i'xdS, when 30...bxa3 31 .l:.xbS
'iki'xbS 32 b3 should be winning for White.
30 .. :ii'xa5 31 .xd5 .c7 32 'ilf7?
32 ~b 1 is better, now Black gets right
back into it.
32 ... l:I.c8 33 It>d2 'ikxc4?
Returning the favour. 33 ...e4! poses White
unexpectedly difficult problems as it takes
escape squares from the king and leaves the
rook stuck on b3.
34 'ilxe7+ l:I.c7 35 'ifd6 f5 36 l:txb4
.c1 + 37 It>e2 'ikc2+ 38 'ifd2 'ifc6 39 f3
f440 exf4 'ifa6+ 41 1t>f2 1-0

Game 76
Mestrovic-Medic
Pula Open 1996
1 d4 ibf6 2 ibc3 c5 3 dxc5
150

Mestrovic has shown a preference for capture, which leads to Sicilian type structures.
3 . e6

After 3...'iVa5 Mestrovic has most recendy

played 4 a3!?, when 4 ...'ii'xcs S e4 d6 6 .te3
'ii'a5 7 .td3 g6 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 lLlb5!? 'ifd8 10
0-0-0 a6 11 lLlc3 bS 12 lLldS lLlxd5 13 exd5
left him with a significant space advantage in
Mestrovic-Termeulen, Gent 1999. This is an
improvement on 4lLlf3 e6 5 lLld2 'ii'xcs 6 e4
d5 7 lLlb3 'ii'c7 8 exdS .tb4 9 i.bS+ i.d7 10
i.xd7+ "xd7 11 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3 'ii'xdS,
which left him with the inferior position in
Mestrovic-Fercec, Zadar 1997.
4 e4 ibc6 5 .te3
Making Black agree to the exchange of
dark-squared bishops before returning the
pawn. In Mestrovic-G.Horvath, Keszthely
1981 White played 5 lLlf3 but after S....txcS
6 i.d3 'ii'c7 7 0-0 a6 S 'ii'e2lLlg4 Black had a
thoroughly satisfactory position.
5 .. :l'a5 6 .td3 .txc5 7 .txc5 .xc5 8
ibf3 0-0 9 0-0 a6
This position contains just a dash of poison. In order to cover his dark squares Black
should put a pawn on d6 but this pawn can
then become a target. A sample is 9... d6 10
a3 eS 11 h3.te6 12lLla4 'ii'aS 13 c4 with the
better game for White. Mestrovic-Tomasic,
Opatija 1995 varied with 9... h6, when 10 a3
dS 11 'ii'e2 a6 12 .l:.ad1 b5 13 .l:.fe1 b4 14
axb4 'ii'xb4 1511b1 .tb7 16 exdS exdS gave
White an edge thanks to the isolated d-pawn.

1 .. .ti:Jf6 2 4Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

10 a3 ttJg4 11 ttJa4 'ika7

This allows a clever reply, but in any case
White has something. 11..."ii"a5 12 c4 gives
White a space advantage.
12 e5! f5
The point behind White's last move is that
12...lt'Jcxe5 is answered by 13 ltJxe5ltJxe5 14
i.xh7+ ~xh7 15 'iWh5+ followed by 16
'iixe5, when Black has serious weaknesses on
the dark squares. In the game Black is also
left with pawn weaknesses.
13 exf6 tDxf6 14 c4 d5 15 "'e2 .i.d7 16
b4 ':ae8 17 ttJc5 .i.c8 18 'iWc2 dxc4 19
'ifxc4 ~h8 20 ttJe4 e5 21 ttJfg5

Switching from positional play to a direct

attack. The threat is 22lt'Jf7+.
21 ... ttJxe4 22 .i.xe4 ':f4
After 22...g6 there follows 23 i.xg6 hxg6
24 'iWh4+ <i;g7 25 'i6'h7+ <i;f6 26 ltJe4+ with a
winning attack.

23 g3 ':f6 24 ttJf7+ ~g8 25 ttJg5+ 'it>h8

26.i.g6?
Spectacular but quite wrong - the players
could have been in time-trouble around here.
The obvious 26 tZ:lxh7 is winning.
26 ....:e7?
Missing a chance to get back into the
game with 26...l:ef8! when Black is suddenly
threatening the f2-pawn.
27 .:tad1 "b6 28 .i.xh7 .i.e6 29 ttJxe6
~xh7 30 ':d6 "*'h8 31 'ikh4+ ~g8 32
ttJg5 ':h6 33 'ifc4+ ~8 34 ':fd1 'ifc7 35
l:.xh6 gxh6 36 ttJe6+ ':xe6 37 'iVxe6
ttJd4 38 "xh6+ "*'g8 39 'ikg6+ ~h8 40
'ike4 ~g8 41 'ifd5+ 1-0

Game 77
Klinger-Maxion
Bad Worishofen 1990
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 g6 3 iLg5 d6
If Black plays 3... ~g7 in this position it
makes sense for White to set about exchanging his dark-squared bishop with 4 ii'd2.
Chubenko-Babaev, Baku 2000 continued
4 ...d6 (4... d5 transposes to Reprintsev-Kachar
from Chapter 7) 5 0-0-0 0-0 6 h4!? c6 and
now rather than the wild 7 g4!? (which, admittedly, gives White compensation after
7...~xg4 8 f3 i.e6 and now 9 h5!) White
could have played 7 h5!, opening the h-file.
4 .i.xf6 exf6 5 g3

White has established slighdy the better

151

The Veresov

pawn structure. The problem for Black is

that the only effective arrangement for his
pawns is to play ...d6-d5 and ... f6-5 followed
by bringing his knight to f6 via d7. But in the
current position this takes time.
5 ... ..tg7 6 ..tg2 0-0 7 It'lh3 J:l.e8
Had Black tried the immediate 7... 5
White could play S 0-0 lDd7 9 e3 lDf6 10
lDf41::[eS 11lDce2 d5 12 b3 intending 13 c4.
8 0-0 c6 9 e3 It'ld7 10 It'le4 It'lf8 11 It'lf4
d5 12 It'ld2It'le6 13lt'ld3lt'lg5 14 c4

White could also prepare this thrust with

14 b3.
14... dxc4 15 It'lxc4 ..te6 16 J:l.c1 ..td5 17
lOf4 .txg2 18 ~xg2 lOe6 19 It'lxe6
'iVd5+?!
I don't understand why Black wanted to
recapture on e6 with the queen rather than
rectifying some of the damage to his pawn
structure. After 19... fxe6 20 b4 White has a
small but clear advantage, with extra space
and a queenside bind.
20 'it'f3 'ii'xe6 21 b4 J:l.ad8 22 It'la5 'ii'e7
23 b5 J:l.d5
Allowing White a decisive positional sacrifice of a piece. In any case Black's position is
very difficult; after 23 ... cxb5 24 lDxb7
White's control of the c5-square secures control of the c-me.
24lt'lxb7! 'it'xb7 25 bxc6 'it'b5 26 c7 ':'c8
27 J:l.b1 'iVd7 28 'u'b8 ':'h5
White wins material after 2S ...:b5 29
'ii'aS.
152

29 J:l.c1! ..tf8

If Black first grabs the h2-pawn with

29 ...'iVh3+ 30 'it>g1 'iixh2+ (30...i..f8 31 'iWg2)
31 'it>f1 and then plays 31...~f8 there follows
32 ..ti>e2! :!xc7 33 ':'xc7 :f5 34 'ilxf5! gxf5 35
:ccS with a winning position for White.
30 h4 J:l.xc7 31 'ii'a8 J:l.a5
31...:xc1 introduces a mate: 32 l:hf8+
'it>g7 33 :gS+ 'it>h6 34 'iWffi.
32 J:l.xc7 'iVxc7 33 J:l.xf8+ 'iPg7 34 J:g8+
~h6 35 .f3 f5 36 e4 'it'c1 37 g4 fxg4
38 'ii'xf7 J:a3 39 'ii'g7+ Iith5 40 .xh7+
'it'h6 41 J:h8 1-0

Game 78

Fahnenschmidt-Eis
Rheda-Wiedenbrueck 2001
1 d4 It'lf6 2 It'lc3 d6 3 ..tg5 It'lbd7

Besides 3... g6 (as in Klinger-Maxion)

1 .. .r:iJf6 2 liJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 .. . d6, 2 . .. g6 and Others

Black can try 3... c6, when I suggest waiting

for a move with 4 tiJf3. Then 4... b5
(4...tiJbd7 5 e4 e5 6 Ji.c4 transposes to the
note to Black's 5th move, below) 5 .txf6
exf6 6 e3 favours White due to Black's compromised pawn structure.
4 e4 eS S liJf3 iLe 7
After 5... c6 6 .tc4 b5 7 .tb3 a6 S a4 b4
(S ....tb 7 9 d5 b4 10 dxc6 ~xc6 11 tiJd5 also
looks like an edge for White) 9 tiJe2 h6 10
i.xf6 1Ii'xf6 11 0-0 Black's weak pawns on
the queenside are a target. White can also
play 6 a4, when 6... h6 7 i.e3 tiJg4 S .tel
exd4 911i'xd4 tiJde5 10 i.e2 i.e7 11 0-0 i.f6
12 ~d1 tiJxf3+ 13 .txf3 tiJe5 14 .te2 0-015
f4 tiJg6 16 1Ii'd3 was slightly better for White
in Vaganian-Kasparov, USSR Ch., Minsk
1979.
6 iLc4 0-070-0 c6 8 a4 ~c7

9 h3

I prefer this calm waiting move to the 9

"ii'e2 of Rausis-Areklett, Pelaro 2002, though
there too White had a little something after
9...IteS 10 ..ih4 tiJb6 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 ..ib3
..ig4 13 h3 iLxf3 14 "ilixf3 l:tadS 15 tiJe2
tiJcs 16 tiJg3 thanks to the latent pressure
against 1.
9 ... ne8 10 .I1e1 ttJf8

The most typical 'Philidor' move is

10... b6, but here the position of White's
bishop on g5 has an interesting effect. After
11 d5 ..ib7 (11...c5 12 as leaves Black very
cramped) 12 ..ixf6! tiJxf6 13 dxc6 .ltxc6 14
it'd3 White has control over the dS-square.
11 ~d2 a6?!

We have reached a Philidor Defence in

which conventional wisdom states that
White's bishop is not too effectively placed
on g5. I'm not at all sure about this, as you
shall see. In Bronstein-Summerscale, Hastings 1995, Black varied with S... b6, when 9
lIe1 a6 10 1Ii'd3 i.b7 11 l:iad1 "ilic7 12 tiJh4
g6 would have left White with a pull after 13
tiJf3, intending .th6 and tiJg5. In the game
Bronstein played 13 tiJe2, but then 13... exd4
14 tiJxd4 tiJe5 15 1Ii'b3 tiJxc4 16 'ii'xc4
tiJxe4! 17 tiJe6! fxe6 1S 'ii'xe6+.l:!1 19 .txe7
d5 20 ..ia3 'iVcs 21 "ilixcS+ l:txcS left him
slightly worse in the endgame.

Allowing White to mark the b6-square

down as a weakness. A more consistent follow-up to Black's previous move would have
been 11...tiJg6 but then 12 as still leaves
White with a slight plus.
12 as iLe6 13 iLf1l:1.ad8 14 iLe3 cS?!
White was menacing the b6-square but the
cure is worse than the disease. Black should
probably hang tough with 14...ifbS.
1S dxeS dxeS 16 ~c1 iLd7
It looks wrong to retreat the bishop like

this - 16 ... h6 must surely be a better move.

However, White would have an edge after 17
tiJd2 followed by 1S tiJc4 with insidious
pressure mounting due to Black's weak
squares.
17 iLc4 iLe6 18 l:I.a4 iLd7? 19 ttJgS! ttJe6
153

The Veresov

20 tbxe6 .i.xe6 21 .i.xe6 fxe6 22 'it'a1

.i.d6 23 ':c4 'it'e7 24 tba4
Concentrating further on the c5-pawn.
Black's position goes rapidly downhill.
24 ... ':c8 25 'ii'a3 tbd7 26 ':d1 ':c6 27
'ilfd3 b5 28 axb6 tbxb6 29 tbxb6 ':xb6
30 b4 ':c8 31 bxc5 .i.xc5 32 ':xc5 1-0
32....l:txc5 33 'ifd8+ wins a piece.
,...--------------Game 79

Anand-Karpov

FIDE World Ch., LAusanne 1998

1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 a6 3 .i.g5 h6
Black has another independent try in
3...c5, when 4 d5 'iib6 5 i.xf6 gxf6 6 ':'bl f5
7 e3 i.g7 8 lLlge2 d6 9 g3 iDd7 was the continuation of Riedel-Ksieski, Germany 1998,
and now 10 i.g2 would have left White with
an attractive position due to the difficulties
Black will have in resolving the pawn position in the centre (in the game White solved
the problem for Black with 10 dxe6?!). White
can meet 4... h6 quite effectively with 5 i.xf6
'i!fxf6 6 e4, when his permanent space advantage and better development more than
compensate for Black's possession of the
bishop pair.
3...i.b4 4 'ii'd3 d5 5 ltJf3 transposes to
Hector-Berg in Chapter 8, and 3...d5 is also
covered in Chapter 8.
4 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 5 e4

Reaching a position which is well known

154

from the Trompovsky.

5 ... d6
Black can also play 5...g6, although this
gives up the option of an extended fianchetto
with ...g7-g5, which prevents White's dangerous and expansive plan based on 'ii'd2
and 2-f4. After 6 'ii'd2 i.g7 7 0-0-00-0 8 f4
d6 9 iDf3 b6 10 h4 h5 11 e5 'ii'e7 12 i.d3
i.b7 13 iDe4iDd7 14iDfg5 dxe5 15 fxe5 c5
16 c3 cxd4 17 cxd4 ':'ad8 18 ~bl iDb8 19
iDd6 White was more comfortable in Gelfand-Rozentalis, Tilburg (rapid) 1992, while
he was also better in Benjamin-Yermolinsky,
US Ch. Playoff 1994 after 6... d6 7 f4 'ife7 8
lLlf3 i.g7 9 0-0-0 a6 10 i.d3 lLld7 11 f5 eS
12iDd5 'ifd8 13 dxe5 lLlxe5 14 ':'hfl c6 15
lLle3 0-0 16iDxe5 i.xe5 17iDg4.
6 'i'd2 g5
Preventing White's 2-f4 idea. 6...g6 7 f4
transposes to the 5...g6 lines above.
7.i.c4!?

An interesting and quite dangerous idea.

White intends to put his knight on e2, castle
kingside and then possibly open up the f-file
with 2-f4. Another idea is to bring his knight
to h5 via g3. Several other moves have been
tried, for example:
a) 7 0-0-0 i.g7 8 g3 lLlc6 9 i.b5 (9 ltJb5
'ii'd8 10 ltJe2 a6 11 lLlbc3 b5!? gave Black
cOlUlterplay in Adams-Topalov, Madrid
1996) 9...i.d7 10 iDge2 a6 11 i.xc6 i.xc6 12
f4 0-0-0 13 .l:r.hfl 1-0 was Hodgson-Gabriel,
Horgen 1995. Alternatively 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5

1 .. .1'1)(6 2 0,c3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

~e7 10 f4ltJc6 11 ltJf3 j.d7 12 h4 gxf4 13
.xf4 0-0-0 14 ltJe4 ltJb8!, intending ... ~c6
and ...ltJd7, gave Black a good game in Adams-Karpov, Las Palmas 1994, while 8 'ifi>b1
ltJc6 9 i..bs ~d7 10 es?! dxes 11 ds exds 12
lLlxds 'ii'd6 left White with inadequate compensation in Gunter-Britton, Hastings 1995.
b) 7 h4!? j.g7 (7...g4!? 8 f4 gxf3 9 gxf3 hs
10 f4 ~h6 11 lLlge2 lLlc6 12 0-0-0 ~d7 13
~b 1 0-0-0 14 ~e3 es was double-edged in
Forchert-Brenke, Bundesliga,
Germany
1996) 8 hxgs hxgs 9 l:lxh8+ i..xh8 10 0-0-0
lLlc6 11 lLlf3 .f4 (according to Tsesarsky
11 ...g4 would have been good for White after
12 lLlbs ~d8 13 es! 'ii'g7 14 lLlg1) 12 "xf4
gxf4 13 j.bs j.d7 14 lLle2! es 15 l:lh 1 and
White had the berter endgame in TyomkinTsesarsky, Ramat Aviv 2000.

l:tfg8 22 d5

7 ...0,e6 8 0,ge2 .tg7 9 l:td 1 .td7 10 0-0

0-0-0

29 0,xh8 .txf3 30 0,f7 'i'h4

22 lLlxhs is strongly met with 22... 5.

22 ....te8

After 22 ... ~xf4 White plays 23 dxc6! es

24 cxb7 in order to weaken Black's queenside.
23 'ikf2

23 lLlxhs? is still a dubious proposition after 23 .....gs! 24 lLlg3 'ii'h4 with dangerous
threats.
23 ....tg7 24 0,d4! .td7 25 dxe6 .txd4
26 exd4 fxe6 27 e5 .te6 28 0,g6 'ifd8??
An oversight which costs Black the game.

He should play 28..Jhg6, when 29 j.xg6 (29

30 'ii'xfB+ lLlc8 31 i..xg6 ~gs
wins for Black) 29 ... j.xf3 30 'ii'xf3 dxes 31
dxe5 lLlc6 (or 31.....xb4 32 "f6) 32 "f6
offers White slightly preferable prospects.

:8+ l:lxfB

According to Anand White would meet

10...0-0 with 11 "e3, intending 1-f4.
11 0,b5!

Forcing White to be careful. After

30 ...i..xg2 White wins with 31 lLlxd8 ~e4+
32 'iVg3 ':'xg3+ 33 hxg3 j.xd3 34 l:[fB! etc.
31 'ikxf3

The immediate 11 b4 is less effective due

to 11...g4 12 bs lLlas, when the knight does a
good job in holding up White's attack.
11 ... a6 12 0,a3

Threatening to launch a queenside pawn

storm with 13 c3 and 14 h4. Black must react
quickly before his position becomes critical.
12... g4! 13 f4 gxf3 14 l:txf3 'ike7 15 e3
h5 16 l:tdf1 l:tdf8 17 b4 0,87 18 0,e2
.th6 19 'ike1 ~b8 20 .td3 .te6! 21 0,f4

Not 31 "xh4?? :Xg2+ 32 'Oith1111+with

a draw.
31 ...'ifxd4+ 32 'it>h1 d5 33 l:td1! 'ikxb4
34 l:tb1 'ifa4 35 'ifxh5 0,e6 36 .e2 'it>a7
37 'iff2+ b6 38 l:te1! 'it>b7 39 h3! l:te8
40.f6

Having secured his defences White can finally go after the e6-pawn.
40 ... 0,d441 0,d8+!

Anand pointed out that White could also

155

The Veresov

play 41 ttJd6+, when 41...cxd6 42 'ii'e7+ ~b8

43 l:!xc8+ ~xc8 44 exd6 'ii'c6 45 'ii'f8+ (45
.txa6+ is probably also good) 4s .. .'ittd7 46
'ii'g7+ 'ittxd6 47 'it'xd4 wins without too
much trouble.
41 ... 'it>b8 42 tLixe6 1-0

After 42 ...'iia3 43 ':dl White is simply a

pIece up.

Game 80

Hall-De Firmian
Malmo 1999
1 d4 tLif6 2 tLic3 e6 3 ~g5 h6 4 ~xf6
"ii'xf6 5 e4 ~b4

According to Trompovs\...1' guru Julian

Hodgson this is the most testing continuation. Black proceeds with his development
and after exchanging his dark-squared bishop
will put his central pawns on dark squares.

Tchoubar-Solozhenkin, New York 1994

continued 8...dxes 9 lLlxes ttJd7 10 i.bs c6
11 lLlxd7 ~xd7 12 .td3 0-0 13 'it'g4 .:I.ac8 14
':bl b6 15 0-0 cs 16 i.a6 ':c7 17 'iig3 'ii'd8
18 ':fdl and White had the initiative. Another possibility is 6... d6 but after 7 "ii'd2
lLld7 8 a3 i.as I think that 9 b4 i.b6 10 lLla4
followed by 11 c4 gives White a space advantage that will not be easy to combat.
6 ... c5
Black's main alternative is the solid 6...d6.
Gallagher has suggested the immediate 7 f4
but this seems to be well answered by 7... es.
Instead there is 7 a3, e.g. 7... .txc3 (7 ... .tas 8
lLlge2 c6?! 9 b4 .tc7 10 a4 a-a?! 11 as left
Black very cramped in Knaak-Enders,
Bundesliga 1998) 8 'ili'xc3 lLlc6 (Black has
also tried 8...0-0 9lLlB "iie7 but then 10 .td3
b6 11 0-0 i..b7 12 .u.ael cs 13 d5 still leaves
White with a useful space advantage) 9 lLlB
0-0 10 .td3 'iie7 11 es (White has to do this
before Black equalises with his own ...e6-e5)
11...f6 (11....l::!.d8 120-0 .td7 13 ':fel dxes 14
dxe5 left Black with little breathing space in
Szymanski-Balogh, Artek 1999) 12 exd6 cxd6
13 0-0 f5 14 .u.ael 'i+'f6 15 b4 a6 16 a4 ~d8
17 b5 axb5 18 axb5 lLle7 19 ':al lLlds 20
'it'b3 i.d7 21 :tfel and the tension was
building in White's favour in GelfandRozentalis, Tilburg 1994.
7 a3 i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 f4!?

6 "ii'd2

The sharpest continuation, but not the

only one. White has also tried simple development with 6 lLlB, when 6... ds 7 es 'ii'd8 8
a3 .te7 9 .td3 cs 10 dxcS .ltxcs 11 0-0 lLlc6
12 b4 ~e7 13 lLlbs a6 14lLlbd4 'ii'b6 15 c3
i.d7 16 'iid2 lIc8 17 %:tact gave White a
clear advantage in the form of his nicely centralised pieces in Akopian-Antonio, Las Vegas 1999. Igor Stohl's suggestion of
6....txc3+ 7 bxc3 d6 should be met with 8 es
before Black plays that move himself and
fIxes the central pawns on dark squares.
156

This enterprising continuation is the most

dangerous for Black, and it might also be

1 .. .tbf6 2 {jjc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

dangerous for White. After his brilliant win

against Yudasin (see below), Hodgson curiously switched to 9 lbf3, when HodgsonRowson, York 2000 continued 9... 0-0 10
jLe2 lbc6 11 0-0 e5 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 ~e3
.i.g4 (13 ... b6 14 .i.c4 .i.g4 was equal in
Hodgson-De Finnian, Amsterdam 1996) 14
'iWxc5 .l:!.fc8 15 ~e3 'iYf4 16 ~xf4 exf4 17
~abl i.xf3 18 gxf3 b6 when White's extra
pawn was quite immaterial. The suspicion
must be that he does not like 9 f4 e5!?, although the consequences do not seem terribly clear.
9 ... e5!?

Taking some dark squares before White

gets in 10 e5. In Hodgson-Yudasin, New
York 1994 White stood better after 9... 0-010
lbf3 lbc6 11 ~b5 lba5 12 ~d3 b6 13 0-0
.i.b7 14 ltael :lac8 15 e5 'iIIe7 16 f5 etc.

.l:tfe8 is about equal.

12lLle2 g5 13 ~xd7+ {jjxd7 14l:lxb7

Now Black has serious problems because

the powerful posting of White's rook on the
seventh rank causes a certain amount of inconvenience; Black must lose time castling.
14... lLlb6 15 'iWd3 'i'e6

\x-'hite meets 15... 0-0 with 16 h4, when all

his pieces are converging on Black's king.
16 h4 'iVc8

Black could win the exchange with 16...c4

17 'if'f3 'tlVc8 but after 18 l;1xb6 axb6 19 hxg5
.l:Ixa3 20 'it>d2 White threatens both 21 hxgG
and 21 lbf4 and gets excellent positional
compensation.
17 'iWa6 0-0 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 e5!

'0~b5+ ~d711l:tb'!

Maintaining the initiative. 11 .i.xd7+

lbxd7 leaves Black excellently placed.
11 ... exf4?

McShane gave 19 'iIYd3 as winning for

White after 19 ...'it'xb7 20 'iVh3 f6 21 'i:tb8+
<J.if7 22 'i:tb7+ but Black can improve on this
with 19....l:!.d8.
19 .. J~e8?

After this the position resembles a King's

Gambit - in fact quite a good one because
\x-'hite soon recovers his pawn. It seems preferable to play l1...cxd4 12 cxd4 exd4, when
13 lbf3 (13 .i.xd7+ lbxd7 14 ltxb7 meets
with 14...lbc5) 13 ... lbc6 140-00-0 15 lbxd4

Losing. McShane recommended 19 ...c4

but after 20 exd6 !le8 White can win with 21
d7 lbxd7 22 'iVh6 etc. Black's only chance is
19 ...lbc4, although after 20 exd6 it is probably good for White in any case.
20 'iWd3! 1-0

20 ... 'iWxb7 21 'ii'h7+ Wf8 22 'iVh6 We7

(22 ... Wg8 23 'iVh8 mate) 23 'iVxd6 is mate.

157

The Veresov
Summary

Conventional wisdom states that Black doesn't need to worry about the Veresov ifhe plays the
Pirc or Schmid Benoni. I don't think this is the case, White can keep the game in Veresov
channels, which are very dangerous for Black.
Once again the attempt to transpose to the French (this time with 1...lt)f6 and 2...e6) can be
side-stepped by White quite effectively.
1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 c5 (D)

2 ...g6 3 .i.g5 - Game 77

2... d6 3 .i.g5 - Game 78
2... e6 3 .i.g5 h6 4 i.xf61i'xf6 5 e4 (D)
5... d6 - Game 79; 5... i.b4 - Game 80
3.i.g5
3 dxc5 - Game 76
3 ... cxd4

3.. :ifa5 - Game 75

4 'iVxd4 tLlc6 5 Wh4 (D)

S... e6 - Game 73; S...bS - Game 74

2 c5

158

5 e4

5 'iVh4

INDEl OF COMPLETE GAMES

Adam-Muller, Berlin 1989........................................................................................................ 11

Alburt-Kapengut, USSR Ch., Baku 1972 .............................................................................. 22
Alburt-Zilberstein, USSR Ch., Baku 1972 ............................................................................ 36
Almasi-Andersson, Ubeda 1997 ........................................................................................... 123
Anand-Karpov, FIDE World Ch., Lausanne 1998................................................................ 154
Bairamov-Smagin, USSR 1982 ............................................................................................. 89
Bellin-Penrose, British Ch., Chcton 1974.............................................................................. 109
Bellon Lopez-Keene, Dortmund 1980 .................................................................................... 16
Bellon Lopez-Spassky, Linares 1981 ................................................................................... 113
Ben Menachem-Boric, European Cup, Eupen 1997.............................................................. 40
Bochkarev-Vinokurov, Voronezh Open 2001 ........................... ,.. " .. " ... ,... " .. " .. "." .. " ... ".,',. 100
Brandner-Miniboeck, 51 Poelten 2002 ................................................................................... 58
Bricard-Todorov, St Aifrique Open 2000 ................................... ,............................................ 59
Ciocaltea-Tabor, Baja 1971 .... ,.................... ,........... ,...... " ........ "..... ,........ ,....... ,...... ,...... ,', ... 101
Czerniak-Hamann, Buenos Aires 1947.. ,................................................................................ 23
De la Villa-Glavina Rossi, Zaragoza Open 1995................................................................. 149
De Souza Haro-Vescovi, Sao Paulo Zona/2001 ................ ,.................................................. 28
Donev-Zlatilov, Elenite Open 1986...... ,............... ,....... ,... ,.... ,..... " .. ,............ " .. ,............... ,....... 34
Ermenkov-Grivas, Sofia 1986 ................................................................................................. 56
Fahnenschmidt-Eis, Rheda-Wiedenbrueck 2001 ....................... ,.......................................... 152
Grimm-Tseitlin.Mi, Passau 1998 ." ... ,... ,... " ... ,.. ,.. " .. " ... " .. " .. ', ..... ,', .. ,... '"." ... ,...... ', .. " ... ,.... , 148
Gufeld-Ujtumen, Tbilisi 1971 .................................................... ,............................................ 97
Gurgenidze-Stein, Kislovodsk 1972......................................................................................... 79
Hall-De Firmian, Ma/mo 1999.............................................................................................. 156
Hector-Berg, 50/elt Open, 5kelliftea 2001 .............................................................................. 128
Hort-Polgar.So, Amslerdam 2001 .......................................................................................... 141
Hort-Van der Wie1, Amsterdam 1982 ..................................................................................... 69
Jagielsky-Pydakowski, Poland 2000 ...................................................................................... 92
Khachian-Strikovic, Candas Open 1996 ................................................................................. 93
Khalifman-Lemer, Kuji?J1shev 1986 ., .... ', .............. ,.................... ,', ..... ,....... ,... " ...... ,... ,.. ,' ... ,... 136
Klinger-Maxion, Bad Wijrishifen 1990 .................................................................................. 151
Kohlhage-Langheinrich, Schloss Open, Werther 2000 ........................................................... 80
159

The Veresov

Kuijf.H-Hoeksema, The Netherlands 1987 ............................................................................ 15

Kupreichik-Gutman, USSR 1976.......................................................................................... 55
Kupreichik-Westerinen, Dortmund 1975 .............................................................................. 96
Lobron-Murey, Ronders 20naI1982 ...................................................................................... 127
Macieja-Bartel, Polish Ch., Warsaw 2002.............................................................................. 134
Markovic-Cvitan, Bosnian Team Ch., Neum 2002 .................................................................. 81
Maryasin-Manor, Israeli Team Ch. 2002 ............................................................................... 114
Maryasin-Tyomkin, Israeli Open Ch., Tel Aviv 1999............................................................. 94
Mestrovic-Deze, Yugoslavia 1969............................................................................................ 53
Mestrovic-Medic, Pula Open 1996........................................................................................ 150
Mestrovic-Zivkovic, Croatia Cup, Pula 1997......................................................................... 70
Mihajlovskij-Gershon, World U16 Ch., Menorca 1996 ......................................................... 67
Miladinovic-Gustafsson, Germaf!Y-Greece Match, Fuerth 2002 ........................................... 145
Miladinovic-Smagin, MontreaI2000 ...................................................................................... 65
Miles-Andersson, London Phillips & Drew 1982 ................................................................... 43
Miles-Spassov, Surakarta-Denpasar 1982.............................................................................. 106
Miles-Watson.W, British Ch., Torqut91 1982 ........................................................................... 38
Morozevich-Lazarev, Alushta 1993 ....................................................................................... 10
Morozevich-Malaniuk, Alushta 1994.................................................................................... 83
Norman-O'Hanlon, Hastings 1921 / 22................................................................................ 120
Otero-Camacho, Cuba (1st matchgame) 1997.......................................................................... 47
Pasman-Kr.Georgiev, EU U20 Ch., Groningen 1977 ................................................................. 77
Rajna-Vogt, Leipzig 1976 ......................................................................................................... 13
Ranniku-Bulinova, USSR Women's Ch., Sochi 1971 ............................................................. 18
Reprintsev-Evelev, Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999................................................................. 26
Reprintsev-Kachar, Geller Memorial, Moscow 1999 .............................................................. 107
Reynolds-Nunn, undon 1987 ................................................................................................ 50
Richter-Rogrnann, Berlin 1937............................................................................................... 76
Romero Holmes-Vallejo Pons, Eigoibar 1997 .................................................................. 139
Rossetto-Darga, Lugano OlYmpiad 1968 ................................................................................. 31
Rossetto-Gufeld, Camaguf!Y 1974 ...............................................................................................8
Sagalchik-Ariel, USA Ch., Seattle 2002.................................................................................. 72
Sammalvuo-Ronnman, Vantaa 1991.................................................................................. 116
Shirov-Akopian, European Club Ch., Halkidiki 2002 .......................................................... 121
Shirov-Topalov, Sar,!/evo 2000............................................................................................... 125
Smirnov-Yagupov,Alushta 2002 ............................................................................................ 30
Smyslov-Geller, USSR Ch., Leningrad 1977........................................................................... 32
Sokolov.I-Illescas Cordoba, Hoogovens, Wijk aan 2ee 1997.............................................. 132
Sokolov.I-Nikolic.Pr, Dutch Ch., Rotterdam 1998 ............................................................... 138
Spassky-Korchnoi, Candidates Match, Belgrade 1977............................................................ 111
Speelman-Saltaev, Hastings Premier 1998/99 ............................................................................... 71
Stryjecki-Vokac, Czech Extra League 2001 ............................................................................. 84
Taeger-Tessars, Bundesliga 1983/84 ................................... ------------..................................... 131
Tartakower-Lilienthal, Paris (match) 1933......
.. ................ 118
Veresov-Krogius, USSR Team Ch. 1953..........
.. .................. 86
Veresov-Shustef, USSR 1974...........................
.................... 62
Wockenfuss-Timman, Bad Lauterberg, 1977...
.. .................. 19
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov, New York 1993........
.. .................. 52
160

Looking for a new opening?

The Veresov could be the one for you!
It's a surprisingly tricky system that, in the right hands,
can be forged into a powerful attacking weapon.
White forgoes the normal queen's pawn opening ideas in
favour of speedy development of the queenside pieces.
One advantage of this underrated line is that players with
the black pieces are less likely to be familiar with all the
subtleties here than in a more mainstream opening.
In this book, Grandmaster Nigel Davies arms the reader
with a complete repertoire with the white pieces, with
the Veresov being the central line. Davies delves into the
secrets of the opening, explaining tactical and positional
ideas, and highlighting the main plans for both sides.

An aggressive opening repertoire for White

Ideal for club and tournament players

Full explanation of the latest theory

Nigel Davies is both an experienced Grandmaster and

chess trainer. A former British Open Quickplay Champion,
Davies is the author of several successful chess books
and is highly experienced in chess publishing. Previous
works for Everyman include A/ekhine '5 Defence and
The GnJnfe/d Defence.
,

r - - - - - - - - - - - -----'U". ' ,

,.

ISBN 1-85744-

14.99

$19.95