Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been as-
serted 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.
ISBN 1 857443357
Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.
Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under license from Random House Inc.
Bibliography 4
Introduction 5
1 3... tLlbd74 f3 7
2 3... tLlbd7 4 'it'd2 and 4 'it'd3 26
3 3... tLlbd7 4 tLlf3, 4 e3 and Others 43
4 3... c5 62
5 3... c6 76
6 3... i.f5 89
7 3... h6, 3... tLlc6, 3... g6 and Others 105
8 3... e6 (including French Transpositions) 118
Other Variations
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)
4
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 ar-
ticle 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 show-
ing 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 mis-
assessed. 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
5
The Veresov
attention of the Swedish GM J onny Hector and the up-and-coming Russian superstar Alexan-
der 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 'the-
ory' 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 po-
sitions 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 hia-
tus 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 I
3 ... ltJbd7 4 f3
7
The Veresov
because White manages to erect his pawn better than 9 a3 iDd5 10 iDe4, entering an
centre. Nonetheless, these don't seem too endgame a pawn down. 8 i.d3 is probably
bad for Black either. better, but White will be struggling to fmd
compensation against an accurate defence.
Gamel 6 ... e5!?
Rossetto-Gufeld Black, in tum, plays the most trenchant
Camagury 1974 continuation, counter-attacking on the cen-
tral dark squares. But this is not the only
1 d4 tLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 ~g5 lLlbd7 4 f3 move... For 6...'iWb6 see Morozevich-Lazarev,
A very logical move which has the clear whilst 6...'iWa5 is examined in Adam-Muller.
aim of expanding in the centre with e2-e4. 7 dxe5
The drawback is that this costs some time, White has also tried swift development
which Black can try to exploit by reacting with 7 iDf3, though this doesn't look like
energetically. anything special after 7... exd4 (7 ... h6 8 i.h4
4 ... c6 'iWb6 9 'ii'd2 exd4 10 ttJxd4 i.b4 11 0-0-00-0
Protecting the d-pawn and freeing a path was quite promising for Black in the game
for Black's queen to come out to b6 or as. Zhang Pengxiang-Shipov, Internet Chess
The alternatives are 4...c5, 4...e6 and 4... h6. Club 2002) 8 'iixd4 (8 ttJxd4 i.b4 9 iDfS 0-0
5 e4 10 i.d3 ttJe5 11 i.xf6 'i¥xf6 12 0-0 i.xfS 13
':'xf5 'ilVe7 was good for Black in Schiller-
Lgterink, 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
The sharpest continuation, but Black solid option, with a fairly equal game) 14
seems to obtain excellent counterplay. 5 'ii'd2 'ii'xd5 O-O!? (sacrificing a piece to get his king
transposes to the line 4 'iWd2 c6 5 f3, which is safe and obtain a dangerous passed a-pawn)
examined in the next chapter (De Souza 15 i.xd7 i.xd7 16 'ii'xd7 'ii'xa2 17 'i¥d1 h6
Haro-Vescovi). 18 i.h4 as 19 l:ta1 'iib2 20 l:tb1 'ii'a2 21
5 ... dxe4 6 fxe4 'iii>e2?? (White should probably take a draw
White has also tried the Blackrnar-Diemer with 21 l:.al) 21...g5 22 i.f2 l:.ad8 0-1,
style 6 'iWd2, after which 6.. .'ii'a5 7 fxe4 e5 Zhang Pengxiang-Benjamin, Cap d'Agde
transposes to the note to White's 7th move 2000. White's resignation seems somewhat
in the Chapter 2 game, De Souza Haro- overly prompt as after 22...l:tad8 23 ttJd2 (23
Vescovi. Black can also simply take the pawn iDd4 l:tfe8) 23 ... i.b4 24 l:txb4 he can still
- for example 6...exf3 7 iDxf3 'iWa5 8 O-O-O?! fight on.
e6 was the continuation of David-Ribeiro, 7 ..."85!?
Lnares 1995, when White could fmd nothing This is the standard move, although Black
8
3 ... li:Jbd7 4 (3
can also play 7... liJxe5. The game De Souza liJe5+ <:td6 28 .l:ha5 i.h4+ 0-1.
Haro-Tsuboi, Brasilia 2000 continued 8 The alternatives all look rather good for
'Wxd8+ ~d8 9 liJf3 .i.d6 10 .i.e2 <l;;c7 11 Black, for example 8 liJf3 liJxe4 9 .i.d2
0-0-0 and now l1...liJfg4 (Davies) would liJxd2 10 'ii'xd2 .i.b4 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 a3
have been slightly better for Black. In the .i.xc3 13 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3 14 bxc3, which was
game he played l1...liJfd7, which was sound soon drawn in Sahovic-W.Schmidt, Vrnjacka
enough but less incisive. 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 central-
ised knight leaves \Vhite struggling for equal-
ity.
8 ... gxf6 9 a6!?
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
8.txf6 liJge2, and 9....i.b4 is well met by 10 'Wd4) 10
Intended as an improvement for \Vhite, 'it'd4 i.g7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 'ii'd2 (12 liJge2
but I still don't trust his position. The stem i.e6, while 12 'it'a4? 'ii'xa4 13 liJxa4 liJxe4
game in this line was Alburt-Tal, USSR Ch., was just very bad for \Vhite in Philippe-
Baku 1972 which went 8 exf6 'ii'xgS 9 fxg7 Kennefick, Haifa Olympiad 1976) and now
.i.xg7 10 'ii'd2 (10 liJf3 'ii'e3+ 11 .i.e2 i.xc3+ Gallagher suggests that 12...liJxe4!? should be
12 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 13liJd2liJe5 140-0 i.e6 15 considered as after 13 liJxe4 'ii'xaZ 14 'iff4
liJf3 nd8 16 'WeI liJxf3+ 17 i.xf3 'Wxel 18 'ii'a1+ 15 <:td2 'Wxb2 Black's a-pawn is very
l:!.fxe1 l:!.d2 19 :e2 l1xe2 20 i.xe2 rJ:;e7 21 dangerous. 12... .i.e6 is simpler and gives
rJ:;f2 1:tg8 22 h4 'it>d6 brought about a horri- good play for the pawn.
ble endgame for \Vhite in Elina- 9 ...fxa6 10 .tc4
Chiburdanidze, 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 b2-
pawn) 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) After 10 'ii'g4?! Black's simplest reply is
24... liJxd3+ 25 cxd3 cxb5 26 ':xb5 nbS 27 10...liJe5 (1O .. :ii'g5 11 'ii'xe6+ .i.e7 and
9
The Veresov
10... tDb6 have also been tried and seem fme, 16 ... lLlg4 17 O-O-O!
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.
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
gives 12...ifh4! 13 i.b3 b6 which gives Black 17 ... lLlf2 18 "ii'xh7 "ii'g5+ 19 Iitb1 .u.g7
a winning attack) 12... iLxb2 13 'iWxb2 tDa4 20 ~h8+ Jlg8 21 "ii'h7 :g7
when Black won a pawn and later the game. 21...tDxd1 22 ':xdl 'ii'g7 23 'iWh5+ 'fig6
It's also good to centralise Black's knight 24 'fic5 is very risky for Black as his king is
with 10... tDe5 11 'ii'h5+ (11 i.b3 i.a3 12 still in the centre.
'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 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .tg5 lLlbd7 4 f3 c6
the g-pawn this might also not be Black's 5 e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 'ii'b6!?
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 Gralka-
Jagodzinski, Bydgoszcz 1978. Another possi-
bility is 12...i.d7, after which Maksimovic-
Chandler, Nis 1983 continued 13 'ir'd2 c5
(the immediate 13 ... 0-0-0 is also quite possi-
ble) 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.
13 a3! i.xc3+
After 13. .. i.c5 White can play 14 tDf4, A murky alternative to the sharp 6... e5.
when 14.. ..l:lg4 15 g3 is complex and double- Black hits the b2-pawn and prepares ... e7-e5.
edged. 7 lLlf3
14lLlxc3 .!:!.xg2 15 "ifh5+ :g6 16 "iJ'h3!? This is no time to go passive. After 7 ~b 1
And not 16 'fixh7 due to 16... tDf3+ 17 Black can play 7... e5! more effectively as
~f2 'ii'g5 18 <it>xf3 I:.h6!. 6...'iVb6 is a far more useful move than 7
10
3 ... ti::Jbd7 4 13
l:[b 1. White does have a couple of interesting White already has a clear advantage.
alternatives at this point: 10 ...ti::Jxf3+ 11 gxf3 ti::Je5 120-0-0
a) 7 e5 'ii'xb2 8 .id2! (8 iba4 'ifb4+ 9 c3 Threatening mate on d8.
"as 10 .td3ibxe5! led to a win for Black in 12....i.e6 13 .i.e3 'ifa5?
Ismail-Mikuev, Elista 1998) 8...ibd5 9 ibxd5 Black had to try 13...'ii'c7, although after
cxd5 10 ib£3 gives White compensation for 14 f4ibc415 .ixc4 .txc416 "'d4 .ta617 fS
the pawn (Davies). he is tied up and very passive.
b) 7 ir'd2 e5 8ib£3 exd4 9lbxd4 .tb41O 14 f4 ti::Jf3 15 'iff2
0-0-0 (10 ibfS 0-0 11 .id3 ~e8 also leaves Winning the knight. Black can only play
White under pressure) 10...0-0 11 'ii'e3 lIe8 for tricks, which are safely negotiated by the
12 .td3 h6 13 .ih4 ibg4 14 ir'f4 'ii'xd4 15 young Russian star.
'ikxg4ibe5 16 'ikg3 .txc3 17 bxc3'ii'xc3 and 15 ....i.b4 16 ti::Jb1 'ifxa2 17 'ifxf3 'ira1 18
Black soon won in Juglard-Kouatly, France c3 .i.a5 19 .i.d3 .i.a2 20 'ifh5 0-0-0 21
1991. 'iff5+ ~b8 22 .i.xa7+ 1-0
7 ... e5 After 22...cj;;xa7 23 'ii'xa5+ ~b8 24 .tc2
Perhaps mindful of the identity of his op- Black is still a piece down and his queen is
ponent, Black decides against taking the shut out of the game.
pawn on b2 but, objectively speaking, White
seems to have it all to prove: 7...'ii'xb2 8 .td2 Game 3
e5 9 dxe5 (or 9 :b1 "'a3 10 ibxe5ibxe5 11
dxe5 ibd7) 9...ibg4 10 l:tb1 'ika3 11 e6 fxe6
Adam-Muller
Berlin 1989
does not leave White with a clear continua-
tion of the attack and, meanwhile, Black has 1 d4 ti::Jf6 2 ti::Jc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ti::Jbd7 4 f3 c6
an extra pawn. 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
11
The Veresov
Chiburdanidze, Thilisi 1974, and now c) 8... f6!? is also worth considering, though
9.. .'i!fb4! (Fritz 8) wins a pawn for inadequate I think White gets good compensation for a
compensation. 7 'iid2 is not very effective pawn after 9 iLd2 ltJxd2 10 'iixd2 fxeS 11
thanks to 7... eS!, which leads to the note to 0-0-0 etc.
White's 7th move in de Souza Haro-Vescovi 9 ltJxg5 ltJxe5!
in Chapter 2. The point of Black's play, breaking up
7 ...ltJe4 White's centre before he can consolidate.
And not 7...ltJxeS? because of 8 iLxf6, Meanwhile, however, White gets a huge lead
winning a piece. in development...
albf3 10 dxe5 'iVxe5+ 11 ltJce4 f6 12.i.c4
White continues developing at top speed, Aiming at the sensitive f7 -square.
although Black has a fork trick which makes 12... fxg5 130-0 .i.e6?
this line controversial. A couple of alterna- Black hurries to exchange White's danger-
tives have been tried in this position, of ous bishop but, in doing so, further weakens
which the second looks quite promising: the light squares. 13...iLfS is a much tougher
a) 8 iLe3 ltJxc3 9 'ifd2 ltJb6 to bxc3 iLe6 nut to crack; Black blocks the f-fIle and is
11 ~d3 (11 ltJ£3 ltJc4 12 iLxc4 iLxc4 leaves threatening to develop his pieces with 14... e6
White unable to castle) l1...ltJc4 12 ~xc4 or 14...g6, while 14 ltJxgS? is met by
iLxc4 13 ltJe2 0-0-0 14 ltJc1 f6 was promis- 14...'iie3+.
ing for Black in Klaman-Boleslavsky, USSR 14 .i.xe6 'ilxe6 15 'ilf3
Ch., Leningrad 1947. ISltJxgS? 'iVe3+ loses the knight.
b) 8 iLd2ltJxd2 9 'iixd2leaves Black with 15 ... h616ltJd6+?!
the bishop pair but less space, and in fact
looks rather promising for White. Miladino-
vic-Charbonneau, Montreal 2002, for exam-
ple, continued 9... e6 to ltJ£3 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 Spectacular but quite unnecessary. Instead
Taking the opportunity to win a pawn and 16ltJcS is strong.
break up White's pawn centre, although, 16.. .'it>d7
meanwhile, White gets a huge lead in devel- The only move. Black loses his queen af-
opment. The alternatives are as follows: ter either 16...exd6 17 lIael or 16...'it'xd6 17
a) 8...ltJxc3 9 bxc3 'iixc3+ to iLd2 gives 'iff7+ 'iii>d8 18l:Iadl.
White compensation for the pawn. 17ltJb5?!
b) 8...ltJb6 9 iLd2ltJxd2 to 'iVxd2 iLfS 11 Once again choosing the spectacular
i.d3 e6 120-0 g6 13 a3ltJd7 14 b4 'iic7 15 move. 17 ltJxb 7 looks more effective as
'>t>hl h6 16 ltJe4 0-0-0 17 'iVe2 '12-'12, Byk- 17...<1;c 7 18 ltJcs 'iVdS 19 ltJe4 leaves Black
hovsl-y-Ljavdansky, USSR Ch., Tallinn 1965. rather hopelessly placed.
12
3 ... tiJbd7 4 '3
13
The Veresov
i..bS, as in the game Muratov-Umansky, A better try is 12.. :iVb6 when White must
Moscow 1989), for example 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 play 13 i.h6 (the bishop is less potent here
lLldS (10 i..bS is answered by 1O ...'irb6, after than on f6) to maintain the pressure. 13
which 11 i..xd7 i.xd7 12 ':xd7 lLlxd7 13 'ii'xb6 i..xc3+ 14 bxc3 axb6 lS i..h6 f6 fol-
'ii'xd7 i..xgl leaves White the exchange lowed by 16 .. .'iitf7 sees Black fighting back.
down) 1O... i.e7 11 lLlxf6+ (11 lLlxe7+ 'ii'xe7 13 'ifxcs lLlxcS 14 0-0-0 iLd7 1S iLf6
12 lLlf3 'iVe6 also seems fine) 11...~xf6 12 Putting Black in a horrible bind.
i.e3 i.gS 13 'iVa3 i..xe3+ 14 'iVxe3 'ilVaS and 1s ... iLc6 16 lLlgS!? h6 17 lLlh7 lLld7 18
Black was at least equal in Juergens- l:!.hf1 iLxg2?!
Schlaeger, Bundesliga 1990.
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 Gar-
cia, 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 This should have lost on the spot. Vogt
Here Vogt claimed that 9...lLldS 10 0-0-0 pointed out that Black had to play 18... .i.e7,
was also a clearly better for Wbite, but this is when 19 g3 lLlxf6 20 lLlxf6+ i..xf6 21 ':xf6
probably nothing more than a slight edge in .l:!.xg7 22 l:.xh6 leaves him a pawn down but
the endgame after 10... a6 11 i.xd7+ i..xd7 with some drawing chances.
12 lLlxdS exdS 13 'ii'xdS 'ii'xdS 14 llxdS. I 19 :lf4?
think White's advantage in development and Missing an immediate win with 19 lLlbS!
control of the d-ftle will slightly outweigh nc8 20 :f4 i..cs 21 .l:!.c4 which threatens 22
Black's bishop pair. .l:f.xcS followed by 23 lLld6 mate. And if
10 exf6 'ii'xbS 11 fxg7 ':g8 12 lLlf3 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 strug-
gling 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
And not 2S .l:!.xe6 because 2S ....l:!.xg7 26
lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 27 ~xf6 .l:!.g1+ would result in
12 .. JWcS mate.
14
3 .. .ti:Jbd7 4 f3
15
The Veresov
16
3 .. .ti'Jbd7 4 '3
8 liJd5
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 bish-
This is a major alternative to 5... dxe4, ops, although in this position they are not
which was dealt with in previous games. very effective. Once again White has tried
6 'if'xd4 capturing on f6, though once again with rela-
And this is another parting of the ways. tively little effect: Moreno Ruiz-Kolev, Vila-
For 6 .ltxf6 see Ranniku-Bulinova. nova 1993 went 9 ~xf6 .ltxf6 10 "a3 (10
6 ... e5 7 'ifa4 tLle2 0-0 11 tLlc1 ttJb6 12 tLlxb6 'ii'xb6 was
It's now too late to interpose the capture better for Black in Alekseev-Akimov,
on f6. 7 .ltxf6 leaves White much worse after Togliatty 2001, due to the potential pressure
7...exd4 8 .ltxd8 dxc3 9 .lta5 cxb2 10 1:[b 1 Black has on the c-file against the c2-pawn)
dxe4 thanks to his weak pawns. 1O... .lte7 11 tLlxe7'ii'xe7 12'ii'xe7+ rJ/;xe7 13
7 ... d4 ~c4 tLlb6 14 .ltb3 as and the pressure on
the c-fIle left Black better in Moreno Ruiz-
Kolev, 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!?
17
The Veresov
18
3 .. .liJbd7 4 (3
pawn with 13...'iti'd6 14 :dl exH etc.) the pawn. White's huge lead in development
12...l:r.d8 13 fxe4 a6 14lUc7+ (14lUc3 b5 15 is becoming a serious problem.
:'c6 b4 16 lUa4 lUxe4 17 lUf3 was Vogler- S .....b6
Muench, Germany 1996, and now 17.. .f6 18 Hoping in vain for the exchange of
llxa6 lUc5 19 lUxc5 ~xc5 would have left queens. Treppner-Kyas, Bundesliga 1995
Black with an edge because of his superior varied at this point with 8... a6, but then
pawn structure) 14.. .'~d7 15 lUH ~d6 and \Vhite still had massive pressure after 9 ~c4
White was struggling to rescue his errant ~h6+ 10 Wbl 0-0 11 'ii'xe4 e6 12 g4, threat-
knight in Vogler-Friedrich, Wiesbaden 1993. ening 13 ~d3. I think that Black should de-
b) 6...dxc3 7 ~xc3 dxe4 8 fxe4 e6 also velop his kingside with 8...~g7, albeit with
seems to be quite playable for Black, for ex- an unappealing position.
ample 9 lUH (White has nothing special after 9 'iVxe4 lUe5 10 'ilh4
other moves: 9 'ii'H 'i'h4+ 10 g3 'i'h6 was Further hindering Black's development by
played in G.Portisch-Tunik, Budapest 1992, preventing him from moving the e-pawn.
and 9 'i'h5 'Wb6 10 0-0-0 'ii'c5 11 'ifg4 h5 10 ... .i.d7 11 .i.c4 lUa4 12 lUxa4 .i.xa4
appeared in Heyken-Chernyshov, Pardubice 13lUh3
1996, with good play for Black in both cases) Still pursuing his policy of fast develop-
9... f6! 10 ~c4 (10 'ii'd2 is an alternative) ment. 13 ~xfl+ Wxfl 14 'iixa4 wins a pawn
10...'iib6 l1lUd4lUe5 12 ~b5+ 'iti'fl 13 'iie2 but allows Black to develop after 14... ~h6+.
a6 14 ~a4 ~b4! 15 0-0 ~c5 16 l:lad1 ':'d8 13 ... .i.b5 14 .i.b3 .i.g7 1511he1 lldS
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 de-
spite the weak d-pawn. Black has quick de-
velopment 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
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
20
3 .. .lobd7 4 (3
i.a3 15 ltJb3 and now in my view Black doesn't mention 16 i.d3 but Black's a-pawn
should have sacrificed his queen with will be dangerous after 16.. Jhe5 17 :xe5
15... i.xb2, after which 16 ltJxa5 i.xc3+ fol- "xb2) 16 .. :iVxfl and Black has a continuing
lowed by 17...i.xa1 leaves him with good attack for the piece while White still can't
compensation for the queen. In the game he develop his king's knight.
played 15...'iib4 and was worse after 16 bxa3 10...~f8!
'ili'xc3+ 17 'iWd2 'ii'xd2+ 18 ~xd2 followed by After 10... ~e7 Black's king is much more
ltJb3-d4. Also good is 9...i.xc5 as in Prze- vulnerable and the bishop on e6 pinned.
woznik-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 Tim-
man's move is much crisper.
11 0-0-0
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
10 i.b5+?! an extra exchange.
This turns out badly but White's position 11 ... i.e3+! 12 ~b1 d4 13 "ii'd6+
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 13 'ii'c5+ is no better after 13. ..'iitg8 14
l:ta5) 15 'iti>d2 ltfe8 16 'ii'g3 (Gallagher 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 6 ... c6 7 0-0-0 b5 8 e5 lLIg8 9 lLIh3 lLIb6
because of 15 ..."ii'c1 mate, and after 15lLlge2 10 ii.d3 a5 11 f4 a4 12 .l:!.hf1 lLIc4 13
there follows 15 ... dxc3! 16 lLlxc3 ii'xc3 17 ii.xc4 bxc4 14 a3 ~b6 15 lLIe2?!
"itd8+ lLle8 18 "ir'xa8 ifxb4+ 19 <it?a1 i.d4+
20 l:txd4 "ii'xd4+ 21 c;tJb1 iib4+ and
22...ifxb5.
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
A stronger line of play is 15 i.xe7 lLlxe7
1 d4 lLIf6 2 lLIc3 d5 3 ii.g5 lLIbd7 4 f3 e6 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.
22 .l:!.d1 lLIc8 23 Iitb1 lLIa7 24 lita1 "ii"d8
25 lLIgxe6 fxe6 26 lLIe2 lLIb5 27 "ii"f3
A solid move which steers the game along "ii"e7 28 'itta2 Iitd7 29 l:tb1 :g6 30 h3
the lines of the French Defence. White has "ii"g5 31 lLIf4 .l:!.h6 32 "ii"e3 ~e7 33 .l:!.fd1
lost time with £2-f3 but Black's knight on d7 l:tb7 34 "ii"e1 "ii"g5 35 "ii"d2 'ii'g3 36 lLIe2!
is poorly placed and takes away a square ~g6 37 lLIf4 ~e8 38 ~b4 ~b8!?
from the one on f6. This gives Black an attack, though it's not
5 e4 ii.e7 6 "ii"d2 necessary to return the pawn. With 38 ..."ii'a8
Another possibility is 6 e5 lLlg8, e.g. 7 f4!? Black maintains a big advantage.
i.xg5 8 fxg5 'ii'xg5 9 lLlf3 "ii'e3+ 10 i.e2 39 "ifxa4 ~f8 40 c3 na7?
(intending lLlb5) 1O ... a6 11 a4! lLle7 12 ~a3 It would have been better to play 40 ...g5!
ii'h6 13 0-0 lLlf5 14 ~e 1 0-0 15 i.d3 which 41 lLle2 I:.a7 42 1ib4 ifa8, threatening
gave White attacking chances for the pawn in 43 ....l:!.h8 followed by 44... ~b8.
Lombard-Masic, Reggio Emilia 1971. A sen- 41 "ii"b4 'ii'a8?!
sible way of playing it is 7 Ji.xe 7 lLlxe 7 8 f4 Black finds it difficult to give up his
with what is probably a slight edge for White dreams of mate. He should settle for
22
3 .. .tiJbd7 4 (3
41...'ilfxb4! 42 cxb4 g5 (42...c3? 43 ~b3 cxb2 45 ...:a4 46 'ii'c5 "a7 47 'ii'f8 c5! 48
44 a4! followed by liJf4-d3-c5) 43 liJe2 l:[h8 :c1! :xa3+ 49 bxa3 'ii'xa3+ % -%
when Black has a slight edge in what is
probably a drawish endgame. 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 5.txf6!?
knight to f6 via h5. White gives up the bishop pair but gains
43 gxf5! time. 5 ~h4 c5 is very similar to 4...c5 and
And not 43 liJh5 lIa4 44 "c5 :a5 45 possibly even better for Black than those
<;!tal (45 'ilfb4 c5! 46 dxc5 'iitc6 followed by lines because White's dark-squared bishop is
47 ...lIa4 wins the queen) 45 ...~e8!, threaten- further from the queenside. Play might con-
ing 46 ...liJxa3. tinue 6 e4 (or 6 dxc5, when Black's best may
43 ... gxf4 44 :g1 l:lh7 45 :g6! be 6... e6 - as pointed out within the Wock-
enfuss-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 Ranniku-
Bulinova) 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 compensa-
tion for his pawn in Maksimovic-Geller, Nis
1977.
A more interesting retreat of the bishop is
This last precise move secures the draw. 5 ~f4 (threatening 6liJb5), when 5...c6 6 e4
After 45 f6 lIa4 46 "c5 :a5 47 'ii'b4 Black e6 7 e5 liJg8 left White ahead in develop-
can once again trap White's queen with ment in Meijer-Fontaine, Brussels 2000. He
47...c5 48 dxc5 ~c6 etc. should probably now play 8 i.e3 (in the
23
The Veresov
24
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.
4 f3 6 fxe4 5e4
25
CHAPTER TWO I
3 ... ltJbd7:
4 "iVd2 and 4 iVd3
26
3 .. Ji:Jbd7 4 'Wd2 and 4 'iid3
27
The Veresov
cool 18. ...l:lac8. that Black will now lose a tempo should he
19 lbxh7 .l:!.fb8 20 .i.xd5 ..txh7 play ... c6-cS, and 6 SLf4 will not threaten 7
After 20....ixdS there follows 21 'ifhs ctJbS. Complex play resulted in Koneru-
~g8 22 ctJgS 'ii'f2 23 %l£1 with a winning Pataki, Eger 2002 after 6 .i.f4ctJhS 7 .ie3 eS
attack. 8 g4 ctJhf6 9 SLf2 exd4 10 .ixd4 bS 11 0-0-0
21 'We4+! f5 22 'ii'h4+ 1-0 b4 12ctJbl .ie7, and 6 .i.xf6ctJxf6 7 e4 e6 8
Black is mated after 22... ~g6 (or 22...<t>g8 eS ctJd7 9 f4 cS 10 ctJf3 brought about an
23 .ixe6+) 23 %lxe6+ etc. unusual kind of French Defence in Maidla-
Puranen, Vantaa 1993.
Gamef2 Consequently 6 SLh4 is more attractive
De Souza Haro-Vescovi now, e.g. 6... e6 7 0-0-0 bS 8 'it'e1:
Sao Paulo Zonal200f a) 8... b4 9 ctJbl 'iNaS ended in a draw in
Khachian-Milu, Bucharest 1995. I don't
1 d4 lbf6 2 lbc3 d5 3 .i.g5 lbbd7 4 'ifd2 know what's happening in this position. Fritz
c6 5 f3 likes Black, especially after a sacrifice of the
aZ-pawn, but computers tend to assess posi-
tions 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? (Kha-
chian-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.
This position could also have arisen via 4 6 e4
f3 c6 S 'il'd2. In Khachian-Vlad, Bucharest I imagine that Khachian would play 6
1993, White tried S O-O-O!? which amounts to O-O-O!? here with a murky position after 6... bS
a gambit after S...bS! 6 f3 'iNaS. The game 7 'iNel b4 8ctJbl 'iNxa2 9 e4 etc.
reeled on with 7 e4 b4 8 ctJb 1 dxe4 (after 6 ...dxe4
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 ver-
sion 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
3 .. .tlJbd7 4 'iid2 and 4 fld3
Here this is a good idea because Black can Almost imperceptibly White is giving his
hit back in the centre with ...e7-e5. After the opponent chances. Here he should probably
solid 6...e6 White can hope for an edge with play 16 :lfe1 with a likely draw.
7 e5 tLlg8 8 ~e3 thanks to his extra space. 16... c5 17 i.xf6?!
7liJxe4 White gets flustered and gives up his im-
Playing for a draw. The thematic move is portant dark-squared bishop but, in fairness,
7 fxe4 which can also arise after 4 f3 c6. the position is no longer easy for him. After
Black should act in the centre with 7...e5!, e.g. 17 dxc5 J.xc5+ his king is forced into the
8 dxe5 tLlxe5 9 0-0-0 ~e6 10 lZ:\f3 lZ:\fd7 11 corner; and 17 ~e4 tLlxe4 18 J.xe7+ 9:txe7
a3 h6 12 ~h4 ~c5 13 tLld4 0-0, Vooremaa- 19 fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 llac8 also leaves Black
Bronstein, Tallinn 1981, and now 14 tLlxe6 with some pressure.
(in the game 14 ~e2 was played when 17 ... gxf6 18 dxc5
14...J:r.fe8 would have left Black with an edge) White would like to initiate further ex-
14... fxe6 15 ..ie2 would have been fairly changes with 18 ~e4 but after 18 ... i.xe4 19
even. fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 lIxd4! 21 lhd4 i.c5 22
8 ~xf6 tLlxf6 9 dxe5 tLlg4 10 lZ:\f3 was tLle2 e5 he loses a pawn.
played in Chernyshov-Rogic, Ohrid 2001 and 18...i.xc5+ 19 <;t>h1 f5 20 i.e2 <j;e7 21
now simply 1O ...lZ:\xe5 is slighdy better for l:!.de1 f4! 22liJe4 .i.e3 23 l:td1 f5
Black in view of his two bishops and White's
isolated e-pawn.
7 ...flxd2+ 8 itJxd2 e6
29
The Veresov
34 g4 fxg4 35 fxg4 ~e4 36 ~f3 ~d3 37 gave Black a good game in Smirnov-
tLlg1 ~b1 38 .td1 ~xa2 39 tLlf3 .tf4 40 Zubarev, Alushta 2002.
tLle1 'it>d4 41 'it>f3 ~d2 42 tLlc2+ 'it>c3 43 c) 5 e3 seems inconsistent when combined
tLla3 a6 44 'it>e2 ~c1 0-1 with 4 ~d2. It may be sound enough (espe-
cially if White castles shon) but will certainly
Game 13 lack bite.
Smirnov-Yagupov 5 ... h6 6 ~h4
Alushta 2002 I suggest that 6 ~f4!? is worth consider-
...- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... ing, with the idea of 7lt:lb5.
1 d4 d5 2 tLlc3 tLlf6 3 ~g5 tLlbd7 4 ~d2 6 ... c5 7 e3?!
e6
30
3 .. .li:Jbd7 4 "ilJd2 and 4 'iid3
bishop with 18...lDxd3 with what must be an drop back to d2 in some circumstances,
edge. Now things get very messy... while his queen may fmd useful employment
19 t2Jxc5 l:xc5 20 f4 a5 21 g4 a4 22 g5 along the third rank.
hxg5?? 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
A truly horrific blunder by such a high i.xd7 12 lDxf6+ gxf6 13 1i'a3 l:tc8 140-0-0
rated player. It's difficult to imagine what was l:tc6 gave Black an attack down the c-flie in
going through Black's mind. 22...i.e7 23 Richmond-Gallagher, Nottingham 1987.
gxh6 gxh6 leaves a complex position in 5 i.h4
which both sides have chances. White has also played 5 i.f4 but then
23 l:xh8+ 1-0 5... c6 looks like a good reply there, too. 6 e4
r---------------__ leaves White with nothing after 6...dxe4 7
Game 14 lDxe4 lDxe4 8 'iVxe4 lDf6 9 'iVd3 'ii'a5+ 10
Rossetto-Darga i.d2 "f5 etc. Thus Porper-Smirin, Tel Aviv
Lugano OlYmpiad 1968 1991 continued 6 lDB e6 and now White
played the passive 7 a3 (1 e4 is admittedly
1 d4 t2Jf6 2 t2Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 t2Jbd7 4 'ii'd3 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, Eer-
beek 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 end-
game 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
Once again preparing to castle long, the lDxe49 i..xe7 lDxf2 which won a pawn for
queen also supporting the critical e2-e4 ad- Black in Lalev-Espig, Varna 1983), but one
vance. There are some additional advantages which is harmless for Black. Ansell-Whiteley,
of this move in that White's bishop might Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1995 continued
31
The Veresov
8...i.xf6 9 i.xf6 lilif6 10 l'Ll£3 0-0 11 g3 b6 6... e6 7 e4 'ii'a5 8 l'Lld2 i.b4 was played in
12 i.g2 i.b7 13 0-0 i.e4 14 'iVe2 'iVd5 with Panagiotopoulou-Kaza, Athens 2000 and
complete equality. now 9 e5 looks nice for White. After 6...g6
Also playable is 5... b6 6 e4 dxe4 7 l'Llxe4 White must once again be careful to avoid 7
i.b7 (it's too late for 7... e6 because of 8 \I'£3! e4?!, e.g. 7...dxe4 8 l'Llxe4 lilie4 9 'ii'xe4 g5
.l:!.b8 9 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6?! to i.b5+ i.d7 11 10 i.g3 'ii'a5+ 11 c3 f5 12 ii'e6 f4 although,
i.xd7+ when Black has to play 11...c,i;>xd7 or admittedly, White gets more compensation
give up a pawn) 8 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 9 i.xf6 gxf6 than with 6 e4. Karayannis-Tsichlis, Panor-
10 0-0-0 e6 which was fIne for Black in Kha- mo 1998 continued 13 'ii'g6+ ~d8 14 h4
chian-Stripunsky, Pardubice 1996. 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
~a6!, threatening to...i.c4.
8 ..•Wb6 9 e4 e6 10 e5 tiJh5 11 tiJh3 g5!
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!
32
3 .. Jl'lbd7 4 "WId2 and 4 "WId3
33
The Veresov
On 24.l:lel Black intended 24...'iVd4+ 25 g4 lbg3 9 lIh2 was very messy in Laengl-
<t>hl b5 (25 ...lbxd5? 26 il.xd5 - threatening G.Timoscenko, Seefeld 1999) is similar to 5
27 .i.xf7+ and 27 il.xa8 - is unpleasant and 0, but the extra developing move enjoyed by
the attempt to meet this with 26...lIxd5 is both sides may help Black's defence more
answered by 27 .J:tadl il.a4 28 'ii"xd5, win- than White's attack. Laengl-M.Ivanov, Bad
ning material) 26 lbxf6+ 'ii"xf6 27 il.d5 (27 Worishofen 2000 continued 6...0-0 7 e4 dxe4
il.xb5?! is met by 27 ...lIab8!) 27 ...l:tac8 with 8 fxe4 c5 9 d5 (9 e5!? lbg4 10 lbd5 is cer-
equality. tainly worth considering) 9... b5!? 10 lbxb5
r-----------------. il.a6 and Black had good counterplay.
Game 16 c) 5lbo il.g7 6 e4 transposes back to the
Donev-Zlatilov main line.
Elenite Open 1986 5 ... dxe4 6 lbxe4 .tg7 7 lbf3 0-0 8 0-0-0
34
3 .. .ti:Jbd7 4 ~d2 and 4 ~d3
35
The Veresov
30 d5 .l:.e7 31 l2Jh7+
White should take this opportunity to cash Gamet7
in as the careless 31 llc6?? meets with Alburt-Zilberstein
31 ...1he6 32 ltJxe6 i.xd5, completely turning USSR Ch., Baku 1972
the tables.
31 .. Jbh7 32 l:I.xh7 g5 33 ':h6+ ~g7 34 1 d4 l2Jf6 2 l2Jc3 d5 3 i..g5 c6 4 'iVd3
l:I.h5 g4 35 l:I.g5+ 'ith6 l2Jbd7 5 e4
36
3 ... tiJbd7 4 'ild2 and 4 "fId3
after i.xf6, but the positions which then 10...i.fS after which 11 'iWf4 -tg6 12 tLl£3
arise are far from comfortable for the de- -tg7 13 0-0 0-0 14 llfel e6 15 ltJh4 cs was
fender. He would do well to check out one flne for Black in Alburt-Doda, Lublin 1972,
of the alternatives: while 11 'iWe2 should be met by the simple
a) 7...h6 8 i.d2 ltJf6 9 'fif4 (9 'ii'd3 'fids l1...e6 with equality. 11 'it'£3 is probably
10 ltJe2 i.fS 11 ltJf4 'fie4+ gave Black com- White's most dangerous move, Negulescu-
plete equality in Mestrovic-Knezevic, Zagreb Tomescu, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993 continu-
1977) 9...gs 10 'fie3 i.fS 11 i.d3 (11 O-O-O!?) ing 11...i.d7 12 tLle2 llg8 13 tLlg3 'iWgs 14
11...-txd3 12 'Wxd3 'Wds 13 ltJ£3 'iVe4+ 14 0-0 i.g4 15 'iVd3 'fig6 16 f4 and White was
'ii'xe4 ltJxe4 brought about an equal end- in the driving seat.
game in Alburt-Furman, USSR Ch., Baku Another possibility is 1O...'WfS but then 11
1972. 'ii'e3 'iWg6 12 'iVg3 i.h6 13 tLle2 0-0 14 i.d3
b) 7...'Wa5+ 8 -td2 'Wds (8. ..'Wb6 9 0-0-0 'figS 15 f4 'iVg416 0-0 led to a similar advan-
tLlf6 10 'Wf4 i.g4 11 £3 i.d7 was also okay in tage for White in Mestrovic-Krogius, Hast-
Wockenfuss-Lombardy, Amsterdam 1985) 9 ings 1970/71.
'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 tLl£3 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 ltJ£3 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 Khachian- 11 tiJe2 'it'f5 12 'it'xf5 i.xf5 13 0-0 .i.d7
Koniushkov, Moscow 1996. This looks like a necessary precaution. Af-
c) 7...'Wb6!? is an interesting move as ter 13. ..e6 there follows 14 tLlg3 -tg6 15 f4
Black intends to meet 8 0-0-0 with ...'Was, when Black is obliged to play Is... fS,
forking gs and a2. Negulescu-Kr.Georgiev, entombing the bishop on g6.
Cappelle la Grande 1992 continued 9 ds 14 l:.8e1 %:te8?!
tLlb6 10 dxc6 'Wxgs+ 11 f4 'iWfS 12 'fixfS Aiming for ... c6-cs but Black should
i.xfS 13 i.bs a6 14 cxb7+ axbs 15 bxa8'W+ probably settle for defensive moves for the
tLlxa8 when Black's two minor pieces should time being. 14...e6 is better, although I still
outweigh the rook and pawn. 8 b3 might be prefer White.
White's best but there is no advantage. 15 tiJg3 \ti8 16 :'e4 e6 17 l:.h4 .i.g5 18
S .i.xf6 "85+ :'h5 .i.f4 19 tiJe4 f5 20 tiJf6!? <3;e7 21
After the immediate 8...gxf6 White should tiJxh7
similarly play 9 -tc4!. Instead 9 0-0-0 'iWds! An enterprising if risky pawn grab. It's not
10 'Wxds cxds was equal in Klaman-Ilivitzki, easy for White to extricate this knight but
Thilisi 1949. then neither can Black easily trap it.
9 e3 gxf6 10 .i.e4 .i.h6 21 .••%:teg8
Black has more commonly played Perhaps Black should take this opportu-
37
The Veresov
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 Bellin-
Lanka, 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 in-
b6 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 proba-
J:!.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,
58 Wd5 J:.f3 59 ~e2 rJite7 60 ~xe4 Wb6 Torino 1983) 9... lbxe4 10 ifxe4 lbf6 11
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, 8 tLlxe4. Black has also played 6...Wc7, when
but he probably wants to do that anyway. 7 e4 dxe4 8 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 9 ~xe4 tLlf6 10
After 6 0-0-0 e6 7 e4 i.b4 8 tLld2 WaS 9 es 'it'e3 i.f5 11 0-0-0 e6 12 tLlh4 i.g6 13 'ii'h3
i.xc3 10 'fixc3 'ii'xc3 11 bxc3 tLlg4 12 i.h4 was played in Van Mil-Markus, Antwerp
White had an edge in Van Mil-Bosch, Wijk 1995. Black met the threat of 14 tLlxg6 with
aan Zee 1995. 13...l:tg8 but stood slightly worse after 14
d) s ...e6 is a solid move which hasn't been tLlxg6 hxg6 15 i.e2 0-0-0 16 c3. Here the e3-
tried much. Comas-De la Villa, Palencia 1999 square seems best for the queen, as 10 'it'd3
continued 6 e4 dxe4 7 tLlxe4 i.e7 8 tLlxf6+ saw Black generate counterplay in Neukirch-
i.xf6 and now 9 h4 looks promising (rather Csulits, Gera 1962 after 10...g6 11 0-0-0 i.f5
than the anemic 9 i.xf6, as played in the etc.
game). 70-0-0 e5?!
For s ... h6 see the next main game.
6.i..d2
39
The Veresav
is struggling to do so after 13 .. :ii'g4 (or White wins back his pawn with a large ad-
13..:~g6). vantage. Black had to try 19 ....l:!.cB, meeting
10 'ifg3 tLlcxe4 11 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 20 .lixgS fxgS 21 'ii'eS with 21...'iitf7 22
In this position 11..:iixd4 gives White 'ii'xhB .lig7 23 'ii'xh7 ~hB 24 'ii'xhB i.xhB
more for his pawn than in the previous note when Black has attacking chances on the
after 12 It'lxf6+ 'ii'xf6 13 ..tc3 etc. queenside.
12 'ife5+ i..e7 13 i..e3! f6 20 i..xg5! fxg5 21 'ili'e5 :g8 22 J:!.e1!
The attempt to bail out with 13 ...'ii'dB 14 J:!.g7
'iixg7 .lif6 15 'i!Vh6 .ligS leaves Black with Or 22 ... 'iitf7 23 'ii'xe6+ 'iixe6 24 ~xe6
the worse endgame after 16 .lixgS 'ii'xgS+ 17 <3;xe6 25 i.c4+, winning the rook on gB.
'ii'xgS It'lxgS due to his split pawns. 23 'ifxe6+ J:!.e7 24 i..c4 .l:!.xe6 25 J:!.xe6+
14 'iVh5+ g6 15 'ii'h6 i..f8 16 'ii'h4 c5?! ~xe6 26 i..xe6 <tJe7 27 i..d5 1-0
Game 19
Ben Menachem-Boric
European Cup} Eupen 1997
40
3 ... tobd7 4 "fId2 and 4 "iid3
'ii'xg7 .1i.e3 15 'ii'xf6 'iWb4 16 0-0-0 l:tg8 and In his notes to the game Boris Avrukh
\X'hite is threatened with 17....td4. 6... e6 7 e4 gave 10 ltJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 (1O...ltJxf6 11 c4 bxc4
'ii'a5 is also possible, as in Schinzel-Suetin, 12 'ii'xc4 'iWb6 13 b4 is slighdy better for
Lublin 1976. White because of his pressure on the c-file)
The attempt to save time with 6 .txf6 11 c4 c5!? 12 cxb5 .txf3 13 'ii'xf3 'ii'xf3 14
leaves White with less than nothing after gxf3 cxd4 15 ..td3 with a complex endgame
6.. .'~Jxf6 7 e4 dxe4 8 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 9 'ii'xe4 in which chances are about equal.
'tli'd5 etc., but 6 .1i.f4 is worth considering. 10 ...toxe5 11 dxe5 'it'xd3?!
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
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 unex-
pected 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!?
42
I CHAPTER THREE I
3 ... ttJbd7:
4 ttJf3, 4 e3 and Others
1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ltJbd7 being that he has the option of going for a
Veresov himself used to meet 3...ttJbd7 Stonewall formation with a later £2-f4. After
with either 4 ttJf3 or 4 e3 and, in my opinion, the standard 4...g6 White delayed this a lillie
he was right to do so. White has some initia- in Ermenkov-Grivas, but in Brandner-
tive with these moves, whereas after the Miniboeck he plunges straight in with 5 f4.
'main line' 4 f3 he appears to be fighting for White can also answer 4... c6 with 5 f4 but
survival. after 4...e6 I consider it a bit premature. Here
One of the most frequendy recommended I suggest 5 'it'f3!? as a move that offers \x'hite
replies to 4 ttJf3 is 4...g6, but White can interesting possibilities.
choose between 5 e3 (as in Miles-Andersson)
or 5 'it'd3 (transposing to Donev-Zlatilov Game 20
from Chapter 2) with chances of a pull in Miles-Andersson
either case. The other recommended set-up London Phillips & Drew 1982
is to play ...e7-e6 either before or after ...h7-
h6, when the gambit line (reached via 4 ttJf3 1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 ltJbd7 4 lZ'lf3
e6 5 e4 h6 6 ~4 or 4 ttJf3 h6 5 .i.h4 e6 6 g6
e4) seems playable for White after 6...gS 7 After 4...c6 White can play 5 'ifd3, trans-
i.g3 ttJxe4 8 ttJxe4 dxe4 9 ttJd2 (Otero- posing to positions from Chapter 2.
Camacho), but very dubious after 9 ttJeS 5e3
(Reynolds-Nunn). A quiet developing move, but one which
White has ways of avoiding this after ei- calls for accurate play from Black. The inter-
ther move order by Black. After 4 ttJf3 e6 5 esting 5 'ii"d3!? is dealt with under the 4 'it'd3
e4 h6 he can play 6 i.xf6 ttJxf6 7 'ii'e2, as in lines in Chapter 3.
Yermolinsky-Kaidanov, and he might also 5 ....i.g7 6 .i.d3
consider 7 'iVd3!? After 4 ttJf3 h6 he can Aiming to open the game up with e3-e4.
vary from the traditional 5 .i.h4 with 5 i.f4, White can also play 6 .i.e2 at this point, but
and in Kupreichik-Gutman it wasn't at all this essentially commits White to a plan
clear that White's ambitious play was so bad. based on ttJf3-eS and £2-f4, which can be
White can add a few twists to the play thwarted by Black. A case can be made here
with the quiet 4 e3, one of the main points for the immediate 6 ...c6!?, but in E.Sokolov-
43
The Veresov
Lautier, Bad Zwesten 1999 the game went 'iWxdS li!.ad8 etc. 8 JLM is also possible and
6... 0-0 7 0-0 (the immediate 7 tZJeS!? is worth would probably transpose to l\fi1es-
considering, before Black protects his d- Christiansen in the note below.
pawn). Now after 7... b6 8 tZJeS JLb7 White 8:e1
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 (af-
ter 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. 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
6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 c5 only a draw) 19 tZJbS 'iWxdl 20 JLxdl (20
Challenging the centre before White plays l:tfxd1? tZJc6! is even better) 20 ... JLd7 21
e3-e4. In Miles-King, Amsterdam 1982, tZJc7 axb4 22 l:Ixa8 .l:txa8 23 tZJxa8 bxc3 al-
Black played 7... b6 but found himself under though, as Gallagher points out, Black has all
pressure after 8 e4 dxe4 9 tZJxe4 JLb7 10 the chances.
'fie2 h6 11 ,i,f4 tZJxe4 12 i.xe4 JLxe4 13 8 ... b6
'fixe4 tZJf6 14 'ili'e2!, intending l:hdl and Black can also play 8... h6 here. l\fi1es-
nfel with more space and central pressure. Christiansen, London 1982 continued 9 ,i,M
Black can also interpose 7... h6 before play- b6 (9 ... e6) 10 e4 (10 tZJeS!? is also worth con-
ing ... c7 -cS. In l\fiJes-Portisch, London 1982, sidering as after 10... tZJxeS 11 dxeS tZJg4
Black managed to keep the balance after 8 White has 12 JLe2 tZJxeS 13 'iWxdS) 10... dxe4
,i,f4 cS 9l:!.el b6 10 tZJeS ,i,b7 11 'it'f3 tZJhS 11 tZJxe4 cxd4 (11...JLb7 12 tZJxf6+ tZJxf6 13
12 JLbS tZJxeS 13 ,i,xeS i.xeS 14 dxeS 'fic7 dxcS will give White an edge in the shape of
15 tZJxdS 'fixeS 16 tZJf6+ tZJxf6 17 'it'xb7 Black's isolated c-pawn) 12 tZJxd4 JLb7 13 c3
'fixb2 18 'fixe7 tZJdS 19 'iVb7 'ili'xbS 20 l:Ic8 14 'ii'e2 tZJcS!? 15 tZJxf6+ exf6 16 JLc4
44
3 .. JiJbd7: 4 4:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
when White's healthier pawn majority was considering and the latter move looks like a
the main factor in the position. slight edge for White to me) 12... i.xf3 13
ge4 'it'xf3 cxd4 14 :tadl ':c8 15 i.a6 ':'xc2!? 16
Black's last move made 9 liJe5 possible, :txd4 liJe5 17 'ifd1 'iVc7 18 f4 and now
leading to complex play after 9...i.b7 Black played the imaginative 18...liJg4! 19
(9 ...liJxe5 lO dxe5 liJg4 is met by 11 i.e2 'ifxg4 f5 with the game leading to equality
liJxe5 12 'iVxd5) lO f4 liJe8!? (10...licS!? 11 after 20 'it'd1 'ifc5 21 i.f2 l:!.xf2 22 :c4
'iVf3 liJe8 12 .l:.ad1 a6 13 a3 f6 14 liJxd7 :d2+ 23 l:!.xc5 %:txd1.
"xd7 15 i.h4 liJd6 16 g4 b5 17 ~h 1!? also 11 4:Jxd4.i.b7 12 c3 l:c8
led to a tense and interesting position in Ti- In the game Black has difficulty finding a
honov-Neverov, Minsk Open 1996) 11 i.h4 decent square for his queen, inspiring a
liJxe5 12 fxe5 (12 dxe5 f6!?) 12...liJc7 13 i.e2 search for alternatives:
"d7 14 i.g4 liJe6, Meshkov-Sergienko, St a) 12.....c7 13 'ii'e2 %:tfe8 14 %:tadl a6 15
Petersburg 1999. Then 15 liJe2?! f5 16 exf6 liJxf6+ liJxf6 16 liJf3 e6 17 'ife5 'ii'xe5 18
exf6 17 liJf4 f5 favoured Black, so White liJxe5 b5 kept the balance for Black in Miles-
should have played 15 e4!, when 15...cxd4 16 Olafsson, Lucerne Olympiad 1982.
liJxd5 %:tfe8 (16 ...i.xd5 17 exd5 "xd5 18 b) 12...liJe5 13 liJxf6+ exf6 14 i.f4liJxd3
i.f3 'ii'c5 19 i.xa8, while 16...i.xe5 meets 15 'ifxd3 'iVd5 16 'iff3 'ii'd7 (16 .....xf3 17
with 17 i.xe7 :tfe8 18 liJf6+ i.xf6 19 i.xf6 liJxf3 i.xf3 18 gxf3 is good for White be-
with dangerous weaknesses on the dark cause his pawn majority can yield a passed
squares around Black's king) 17 iVxd4!? pawn whilst Black's cannot) 17 "g3 and
liJxd418 i.xd7 %:ted8 19liJxe7+ ~f8 20 e6!? White had an edge thanks to his superior
with a sttong initiative. pawn sttucture in Hoi-King,Jurmala 1985.
9 ... dxe4 10 4:Jxe4 c) 12... h6 13liJxf6+ (13 i.h4 is more test-
ing) 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 mini-
mally 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
10... cxd4 and the rook on the seventh plus Black's
Miles-Speelman, London 1982 varied with pawn weaknesses leave him with problems
lO...i.b7 11 liJxf6+ (11 c3 cxd4 12 liJxd4 according to analysis by Gallagher. Instead
goes back into the main line) after which after 13 i.xf6 exf6 14 liJxc5 bxc5 15 liJb3
Black mutilated his own pawn sttucture with 'iVb6 16 'iVe2 f5 Black's bishop pair compen-
11 ... exf6 in order to gain some time. The sated for his sttuctural weaknesses in
game continued 12 i.h4!? (Miles sacrifices a Veresov-Shagalovich, Byelorussian Ch. 1957.
pawn for the initiative but this is not manda- 13 'ili'e2 4:Je5
tory - 12 i.f4!? and 12 i.e3 are also worth Black also seems to be under pressure af-
45
The Veresov
ter other moves. 13...Wc7 14ltJxf6+ ~xf6 15 great precision and power. 22 ltJe8 is far
~xf6 exf6 leaves him with the usual problem from clear after 22....l:!.e7!.
of having the kingside pawn majority crip- 22 ...l:txe8 23 .l:.xe8+ 'i'xe8 24liJxe8 ne7
pled, while 13...:e8 141:tad1 is uncomfort- 25liJd6!
able. The spectacular 25 ltd7!? allows Black to
14 i.c2liJc415 .l:.ad1 flc7 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
After 15 ...ltJxb2 Miles simply mentions 16 squares.
ltJe6 but this is far from clear after 16...'ii'e8. 45 ... .l:.g8 46 .l:.d2 i.h3 47 .l:.h2??
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!
46
3 .. JiJbd7: 4 liJf3, 4 e3 and Others
Game 21
Otero-Camacho
Cuba (1st matchgame) 1997
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJc3 d5 3 ..i.g5 tiJbd7 4 tiJf3
h6
47
The Veresov
White can play 9 ife2, preparing to castle tion for the piece) 11 i.e5 .ig7 (11...i.d6 12
long and recapture on e4) and now 9 ife2, "iWe2 .ixe5 13 dxe5 ttJg4 14 f3 e3 15 fxg4
when 9... ~xc3 10 bxc3 c5 11 ttJc40-0 12 h4 "ii'xd2+ 16 'ii'xd2 exd2+ 17 'it>xd2 fxg4 18
starts prising open a lot of dark squares (my .l:.hfl was better for White despite his pawn
analysis). deficit in van Mil-Geenen, Virton 1988) 12 f3
The game Alburt-Lutikov, USSR 1970 e3 (12 ... exf3! is probably Black's best) 13
varied with 7...i.b4 8 exd5 ttJxd5 9 'it'd3 c5 ttJb3 0-0 14 "iid3 ttJd5 (14... f4 is strongly
10 ttJd2 .ixc3 11 bxc3 ifa5 12 h4 g4, and answered by 15 0-0-0, threatening 16 g3) 15
now I think that 13ttJc4 (rather than 13 i.d6 0-0-0 ttJb6 16 i.xg7 'it>xg7 17 ttJa5! ttJd5 18
b6 14ttJb3 'ii'xc3+ 15 ifxc3 ttJxc3 16 dxc5) .ixd5 "iixd5 19 ttJc4! b5 20 ttJeS "it'xa2 21
13. ..ifxc3+ 14 "iWxc3 ttJxc3 15 dxc5 would ifxe3 and White had a clear advantage in
have been nice for White and his two bish- Veresov-Radashkovich, USSR 1969 as his
ops. control of the dark squares more than com-
B 4Jxe4 dxe4 9 4Jd2 pensated 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 h2-
h4 lever in the air. Alternatively, Shagalovich-
Sakharov, 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!
48
3 .. .ti::Jbd7: 4 !i:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
~e2 as (the immediate 14... f4!? is also inter- but equally effective) 16...e5 17 i.h4 "ike7 18
esting as White would be obliged to sacrifice i.c4 ttJf6 19 lhg5! hxg5 (or 19...litxg5 20
a piece with 15 i.xf4) 15 a3 1Ir'e7 16 0-0-0 'iVxh6 etc.) 20 i.xf7+ ~f8 21 ttJxf6 1-0,
l'la6 17 ttJxe4 fxe4 18 ~xe4 left White with Veresov-Zheliandinov, USSR 1969.
inadequate compensation for the piece in 11 ... e3 has been suggested by the likes of
Hoi-Larsen, Denmark 1989, though the posi- Alburt and Yudovich but apparently never
tion isn't easy for Black as shown by the fact tried. White's position looks promising after
that Hoi managed to win. 12 cxd4 exd2+ 13 1Ir'xd2 with very good play
10 ... .i.xd4 11 c3 on the dark squares.
Less good is 11 ttJxe4 i.xb2 12 hxg5 (12 12.i.xe5
llbl ttJf6! 13 'ii'xd8+ ~xd8 left Black mate- Preferable to 12 ttJxe4 .i.xg3 13 fxg3 gxh4
rial up in the endgame in Neukirch- 141lxh4 'fie7 15 'iVd2 (after 15 'iVd4 White
Uhlmann, DDR 1972) 12... hxg5 13 :xh8+ is driven back with 15...e5 16 'ii'd2 ttJf6!?)
i.xh8 14 c3 i.g7! 15 'ifb3 (15 'iVh5? ttJf6! 16 15... f5! 16 ttJg5 (16 ttJf2 ttJf6 17 ':xh6 :xh6
'iVxg5 ttJxe4 17 'iVxg7'ifd2 mate) 15... f5! and 18 'fixh6 i.d7, when Black intends to castle
White had little compensation for the sacri- long and ultimately use the passed e-pawn)
ficed pawns in Mestrovic-Vukic, Yugoslav 16... ttJf6 17 0-0-0 i.d7 18 ttJf3 0-0-0 19
Ch.1974. :xh6 ttJe4 20 'ii'e3 :xh6 21 'iixh6 (after 21
11 ... .i.e5! '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
49
The Veresov
18 hxg6 is very dangerous for Black) 18 quate compensation. Black can simplify the
"xeS 0-0 19 0-0-0 "dS! 20 'irxe7 ~xbS 21 position and leave White struggling to recap-
liJb3 'it'fS 22 liJd4 lWf4+ 23 ~b1 %lfe8 24 ture the e4-pawn. For 9 liJd2 see Galkin-
lWcs ~d7 25 g3 lWeS and Black had equal- Volzhin.
ised. Another possibility is 15 'iVg7!?, when 9 ....i.g7
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.
14... tOe6 15 tOf3
50
3 .. .tiJbd7: 4 tiJf3, 4 e3 and Others
moves being Is ... ~e8 16 l:!.hdl l:.xd6 17 also good for Black but offers more resis-
exd6 'ii'd7 18 'itb4 bxa6 19 l:I.d3 as 20 Wxas tance than the text) 23 ...'ii'h4+! 0-1. Accord-
f5 21 :b3 1-0. However, Black has the far ing to Shamkovich White should have played
superior lO...liJxes! 11 dxes .ds 12 .l:tdl 17 0-0, after which 17 ... bs! 18 .tb3 b4 19
'ii'a5+ (even 12.. .'iVxa2 13 'ii'd2 0-0 is not .tc2 ~c6 would bring about a double-edged
unthinkable) 13 c3 ~d7 14 'ii'xe4 0-0-0, in- position with chances for both sides. An-
tending Is ... ~c6. other possibility is 17 0-0-0.
10...tiJxe5 12 dxe5 .i.d7 13 'iVg4
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.
51
The Veresov
52
3 ... 4Jbd7: 4 4Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
53
The Veresov
10 i.xd7+ liJxd7 11 exd5.i.xc5 12 dxe6 fxe6 other hand it's well worth examuung 11
13 0-0 0-0-0 14 'ite2 and White had an edge :b I!? without the preliminary exchange on
in Hort-Ostenneyer, Dortmund 1982. f6, the point being that l1...iLa5 121:1b3 e5?
7 b4!? 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 advan-
tage) 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 con-
tinued 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
54
3 ... li:Jbd7: 4 li:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
55
The Veresov
56
3 .. .lbbd7: 4 !i:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
57
The Veresov
58
3 .. .li:Jbd7: 4 ti:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others
59
The Veresov
60
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.
61
CHAPTER FOUR I
3 ... c5
62
3 ... c5
63
The Veresov
USSR 1984 went instead 9 ~c4 ~e6 10 Black can also play 8... ~d7 as the sup-
"xe4 fS 11 'ii'e2 ~xc4 12 Wxc4 e6 13 tDa4 posed refutation with 9 'ilt'g4!? is quite play-
'iVbs 14 Wb3 tDd4 15 "xb5+ axbS and now able for Black after 9.. .'~f8 (9 .. J:tg8 10
White should have played 16 c3 tDc6 17 tDb6 ~xd7+ tDxd7 11 tDge2 "xcs 12 'iixe4 0-0-0
l1xa2 18 litfb 1 followed by 19 b4 with equal- is also okay, as in Schneider-Odendahl, Ger-
ity. many 1993) 10 ~xd7 fS! 11 'ilt'xfS ~xe3+ 12
7 ... ~g7 ~f1 tDxd7 13 'ilt'xd7 Wa6+ 14 tDe2 ~xb2,
After the passive 7... e6 White generated a Heitland-Wessendorf, Dortmund 1987. Ths
powerful attack in Veresov-Smoljaninov, leaves an argument for 9 ~xd7+ followed by
USSR 1963 with 8 0-0-0 fS 9 ~b5+ (9 tDh3, 10 0-0-0, when Black would lose the f7 -pawn
intending 10 tDgs, also looks strong) 9...tDc6 if he castled long.
10 g4! a6 11 ~xc6+ bxe6 12 gxfS exfS 13 9 tLlge2 0-0
tDge2 "xcS 14 tDd4 nb8 15 nhe1 ~e7 16 9...a6 10 ~xc6+ bxc6 11 0-0 (11 O-O-O!?
tDxe4! fxe4 17 l:txe4. Black should avoid looks like an extra tempo compared with the
7... fS 80-0-0 "xeS in view of9 tDxe4! etc. analogous 9...0-0 10 ~xc6 line) 11...nb8
8~b5+ (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 Radashkovieh-
Mart, Israel 1974.
64
3 ... c5
\,{'hite with a tremendously active game for critical in my opinion, as Black wants to play
his pawn in Veresov-Lomaja, USSR 1967. 13 ...'iVb4.
The game continued 16 tiJd4 e6 17 Uhfl 1 2 ttJd4 f5 13 g4 l:!.ab8
jLh6+ 18 Wb1 'iie3 19 'iNxb7 as, and now- After 13.....txaZ \'{'hite can simply get on
instead of 20 a4 - 20 !tfe1 'iWf2 21 l:te2 with it by playing 14 gxfS ..tc4 15 l:thg1 as
would have been best, with a possible edge in 15 .. .'iii'h8 leads to mate after 16 l:txg7 cJixg7
this sharp position. 11 f3!? a6 12 i.a4 'ii'xc5 17 f6+ exf6 18 .l:tg1+ 'iti>h8 19 'iVh6 etc.
13 'it>b1 exf3 '/2-'/2, Bellin-Schellhorn, Ham- 14 gxf5l:!.xb2
burg 1980 doesn't tell us much except that What does \'{'hite do after 14...'iVb4 here?
both players could have been worried. It seems to me that 15 tiJb3 is forced (15
b) With 10 a3 \'{'hite intends to hold the .l:!.hg1 'iVxb2+ 16 cJid2 l:tbd8), after which
c5-pawn by capturing on c6 and then playing 15 ...i.xb3 16 axb3 i.xc3 17 bxc3 fixc3 18
b2-b4, although this might not be sharp 'tig4+ 'it>h8 19 'ii'xe4 ~xb3 20 'iVd4+ might
enough to be in tune with the position. After escape with a draw in the rook endgame.
10... f5 11 0-0 fic7 12 b4 i.e6 13 l:tad1 .l::!.ad8 15 fxe6 'ii'xc3 16 l:!.hg 1 lixa2?
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 'at-
tack' was unconvincing after 13 ... 'iWd8 14
'i¥h5 tiJe5 15 l:th3 h6 16 ~g3 Wh 7 etc.
10 ..• bxc6 11 0-0-0
Came 30
Miladinovic-Smagin
Probably necessary, as 11 0-0 f5 leaves Montreal 2000
White with little compensation.
11 ... ~e6 1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 ~g5 c5 4 ~xf6
Too slow? In my view Black should be at- gxf6 5 e4 dxe4 6 dxc5 f5
tacking b2 as quickly as possible. The posi- A serious alternative to the more popular
tion after 11...fS 12 g4!? 1!i'xc5 13 gxf5 'iixfS 6 ...'iVa5. If Black manages to complete his
14 'ii'h4 has been evaluated as 'unclear' by development unscathed he'll have an extra
Boleslavsky and Kapengut. Here 12....llb8 is pawn and the two bishops.
65
The Veresov
66
3 ... c5
67
The Veresov
Black can prevent with 6... h5!? Maksimovic- tLlb4 13 tLlg3 tLlxd3+ saw him win the ex-
Tatai, Vrnjacka Banja 1979 continued 7 i.e2 change after 14 cxd3 l:!.g7 15 'ii'h5 i.g4 etc.
h4 8 i.f3 e6 9 tLlge2 (9 'ii'e2 tLlc6 10 i.xd5 8 0-0-0 .i.b4
tLlxd4 11 'ili'e4 e5 12 i.xb7 i.xb7 13 'ii'xb7 Not the only square for the bishop. In
.l:!.b8 14 'ii'e4 l:Ixb2 was good for Black in B.Maksimovic-A.Rodriguez, Belgrade 1980
Navinsek-B.Avrukh, Ljubljana 1998) 9... i.h6 Black played 8... i.g7, the game continuing 9
10 0-0 tLlc6 11 .l:!.e 1 i.d7 12 tLlc1 Wf8! 13 g4 i.d7 10 i.g2 'ii'b6 11 tLlge2 O-O-O!
tLl3e2 'ii'b6 with a good game for Black (11...0-0 12 Itd3 gives White a very strong
thanks to the bishop pair and centre pawns. attack) 12 'iifxf7 .l:!.dg8 13 'ii'h5 ~b8 14 f4! fS!
Tatai gave 7 h4 i.g4! 8 i.e2 .l:!.g8 as being 15 gxf5 tLlxd4 16 tLlxd4 i.xd4 17 fxe6 i.xe6
favourable to Black, although it doesn't look 18 i.f3 l:!.c8 19 :the 1 llxc3! 20 Itxd4 'ii'xd4
like very much. Perhaps White should play 7 21 bxc3 'iVxf4+ 22 ~b2 and the complica-
'ii'f3, when 7... e6 8 0-0-0 tLlc6 9 tLlge2 f5 10 tions had burned out to equality. After the
'iitbl i.g7 11 h4 'ii'b6 12 'ii'e3 was about alternative 13 tLla4!? 'ii'c7 14 tLlc5 Black can
equal in West-Ahn, Elista Olympiad 1998. play 14... tLle5! 15 dxe5 'iVxc5 16 tLld4 'iiff8 17
7 'WIi'h5 'ii'xf8+ l:!.xf8 18 exf6 l:!.xf6 with compensa-
tion for the sacrificed pawn (Rodriguez).
Another idea is 8... i.d7, keeping Black's op-
tions open with his king's bishop whilst get-
ting 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 con-
tinued 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 ap-
proximate equality. And in Shrentzel-
Hodgson, Tel Aviv 1988 Black chose to sac-
rifice a pawn for active play with 7...l:Ig8,
when 8 'iixh7 (8 'ii'xd5 is also possible) A thematic advance, preventing .. .£6-f5
8... :tg6 9 0-0-0 i.fS 10 i.d3 'iid7!? and preparing to tackle the enemy pawn cen-
(1O ... i.xd3 11 .l::.xd3 Iixg2 looks playable and tre with a subsequent f4-fS. After the imme-
recovers White's pawn) 11 tLlge2 (11 i.xfS diate 10 f4 Black has 10... f5 11 g4 fxg4 12
'ii'xfS 12 .l:td2 is better) 11...0-0-0 12 'iixf7 'iixg4 'ii'f6 with a good game.
68
3 ... c5
10... lLla5 11 a3 i.d6 12 i.g2?! keeping Black on his toes, the drawback be-
Both here and on the next move White ing that the option of doubling Black's
can also consider 12 f4. pawns can be lost, depending on the re-
12...i.c6 13 .::the1 'iVd7 14 .bd5!? sponse.
Sacrificing a piece in order to try to catch
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 mon-
arch. 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 Mestrovic-
Zivkovic.
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!?
Game 32
Hort-Van der Wiel The last two moves have lent the game a
Amsterdam 1982 sharp and independent flavour. Quieter al-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... tematives give White nothing, for example:
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 e3 a) 6 ~xf6 gxf6 7 .te2 e6 8 0-0 f5 9 lie 1
More flexible than the immediate capture on cxd4 (Black could also consider 9...l:.g8, or
f6. White maintains this as a possibility, thus even 9...1!i'f6 followed by castling queenside)
69
The Veresov
10 ttJxd4 .i.xe2 11 1i'xe2 .i.g7 12 :adl 0-0 tfd7 20 ft2 0-0 21 'l'f6 'l'xd6 22 'l'g5+
13 'fIh5 with a dynamically equal position in ~h8 23 'iff6+ ~g8 24 'iVg5+ %-%
Zilbennan-Rotman, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1993.
9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 ttJd4 h5 11 1i'd3 1i'g5 12 f4 Game 33
1i'e7 13 ttJxc6 bxc6 14 ttJa4 .i.d6 15 c4 'iib7 Mestrovic-Zivkovic
16 ':ac1 .l:lg8 17 ~hl h4 18 c5 .i.xe2 19 Croatia Cup, Pula 1997
'ifxe2 .i.e7 20 'ifd2 was about equal in Hoi-
Kristiansen, Naestved 1985. 1 d4 tLJf6 2 tLJe3 d5 3 .ig5 e5 4 e3 tLJe6
b) 6 .i.e2 e6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 h3 Si.h5 9 ttJe5 It is probably more accurate to play 4...e6
.i.xe2 10 ttJxe2 was Richter-Rohacek, Mu- 5 ttJf3 ttJc6 in order to avoid White's capture
nich 1941, and now (instead of lO...ttJd7) onf6.
10...ltJxe5 11 dxe5 ttJd7 would have been at 5 tLJf3
least equal. As previously noted,S .i.xf6 is interesting.
6 ... e6 7 h3 5 ... e6 6.id3
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
Black can also prevent dxc5 by playing
After 10 1i'xf6 .:tg8 Black gets excellent 6... cxd4 first. Burnazovic-Jelen, Ljubljana
compensation for the pawn. 1993 continued 7 exd4 .i.d7 8 0-0 ~e7 9
10 ... f5 11 0-0 .ixe5 12 a3 .id6 13 b4 :el 0-0 10 a3 :c8 11 ttJe2 ttJh5 12 i..xe7
'iVb6 14 tfe2l::te8 15 tLJa4 tfc7 16 c4 a6 1i'xe7 13 c3 1i'f6, and now an improvement
17 .ixe6+ 'ifxe6 18 e5 'ifxa4 19 exd6 on 14 ttJe5 is 14 ttJg3 ttJf4 15 iLf1, which
70
3 ... c5
looks slightly better for White. b4 i.c6 33 i.e4 i.xe4 34 itJxe4 itJe2+
7 dxc5 'Wa5 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
After 7...SLxc5 play might continue 8 e4 Speelman-Saltaev
d4 9lbe2 e5 100-00-0 11lbg3, when White Hastings Premier 1998/99
has some attacking chances on the kingside.
8 0-0 'iWxcs 9 e4 dxe4 10 itJxe4 itJxe4 1 d4 itJf6 2 i.gS dS 3 e3 cS 4 itJc3 itJc6
11 i.xe7 'Wxe7 12 i.xe4 0-0 13 c3 i.d7 S a3!?
14 'iVe2 l:tfd8 15 :fe1 i.e8 16 'iVe3 l:tac8 Speelman often plays such 'half-moves'
This position is almost equal, not to men- and here nudging the a-pawn has some sub-
tion dull. Nevertheless the players manage to tle effects. In some positions White may
fight on for another 50 moves before peace threaten to take on c5, in others Black might
is agreed. get his queen trapped with lba4, should he
17 i.c2 l:tc7 18 itJg5 h6 19 itJf3 'iff6 20 be so foolish as to snatch the pawn on b2 at
:tad1 l:tcd7 21 l:txd7 l:txd7 22 h3 l:td8 23 the wrong moment. Of course this does
itJh2 h5 24lbf3 b6 25 itJg5itJe7 26itJe4 represent a lost tempo...
'iWe5 27 'ifc1 itJg6 28itJg3 'Wf4 29 itJxh5 S ... e6
This pawn snatch doesn't help White as Alternatively Black can play 5...cxd4 6
Black gets a rook to the 7th rank with ade- exd4 SLfS, when in Lys-Pisk, Prague 1992
quate compensation. Black had a good game after 7 SLd3 lbxd4 8
29 ..•'Wxc1 30 l:txc1 l:td2 31 itJg3 itJf4 32 SLxfS lbxfS 9 ~xf6 gxf6 10 'ilxd5 'ii'xd5 11
71
The Veresov
ltJxdS 0-0-0. Perhaps White can do better for example 33 b5+ ~d6 34 h4 e5+ 35 fxe5+
with 7 'iVd2. fxe5+ 36 ~e4 h5 37 a4 ~e6! (37...~cS? 38
6 liJf3 "b6 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 i.d3 i.e7 9 ~xe5 ~xc4 39 'Ot>f6 sees White come first)
h30-0 38 ~d3 'iii>d6 39 'Ot>e4 with a draw.
Not 9...'iVxb2?? 10 ltJa4. 33 c5+ ~c6 34 a4 ~c7 35 b5 <it>d7 36
10 0-0 l:.d8 11 ~e2 g6 12 J:tfd 1 i.d7 13 ~e4 ~c7 37 ~3 a6 38 'iPe4 axb5 39
l:.ab 1 i.e8 14 e4 dxe4 15 liJxe4 liJxe4 axb5 'iPd7 40 ~3 rj;e7 41 h4 h5 42 'iiile4
16 ~xe4 i.xg5 17 liJxg5 1!fd4 18 c3 rj;d7 43 ~d4 rj;c7 44 <ttc4 ~d7 45 rj;b4
"xe4 19 i.xe4 l:.xd1 + 20 J:txd1 J:td8 '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!?
72
3 ... c5
Bletz-Hovde, Gausdal 1982. White would .ig7 Black stood better in N.Benjamin-
meet S...lDbd7 with 6 lDge2 a6 7 lDg3, which Bellin, Brighton 1977, so White should take
recovers the pawn with a good game. S... h6 6 the opportunity to play 7 'ii'd2, intending to
.if4 e6 7 .ibS+ .id7 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 'ii'e2 castle long. In W.Ernst-Unzicker, Essen
liJc6 10 0-0-0 liJd4 11 'ii'e3 .ie7 12 lDge2 1948 he rightly adopted this plan after
was promising for White in Richter- 6...liJd7 7 'ii'd2 g6 8 0-0-0, and after 8....ig7
Opocensky, Podebrady 1936. 9 .ih6 0-0 10 .ixg7 rJ;;xg7 could have con-
5 ltJxe4 dxe4 S d5 tinued 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 mate-
rial 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
Now we have a gambit. White has an in- If there's a reason why Black can't play the
teresting (and probably sensible) alternative consistent 7... ii'xb2, then I don't see it.
in 6 dxcS, for example 6...'ifa5+ (6 ...liJd7 7 White should probably offer a third pawn
.ie3 e6 8 'iid2 'ii'c7 9 b4 produced a double- with 8llbl, but would he really have enough
edged game in Wade-Palliser, Hampstead compensation?
1998, and 6...'ifxdH 7 l:lxdl g6 8 .ic4 i.g7 8 Ab1 i..g7 9 ltJc3 f5
9 c3 h6 10 .ie3 liJd7 11 liJe2 eS 12 0-0 0-0
13 lDg3 gave White an edge in Trescher-
Ankerst, Bad Wiessee 1997) 7 'ifd2 'ii'xcs
(7 ...'iixd2+ 8 .ixd2 eS was played in Boeven-
Bu 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. Hanging on to the e-pawn. After 9...liJd7
S.. JWbS 10 lDxe4 'iib4+ 11 liJd2 liJf6 12 c3 'iib6 13
Preventing White from finding a safe ha- liJc4 'ii'd8 14liJe3 White recovered his pawn
ven for his king on the queenside with 7 with a space advantage in Eriksson-Medvegy,
'ii'd2 and 8 0-0-0. After 6...g6 7 f3 'iib6 8 Stockholm 2001.
fxe4 'iib4+ 9 'ifd2 'ii'xb2 10 l:ldl h6 11 .ie3 10 i..e2 hS 11 i..e3 ltJd7 12 0-0 0-0 13
73
The Veresov
74
J .•. CO
Summary
The sharp 3...c5 is one of Black's best options in the Veresov and leads to double-edged, chal-
lenging 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.
75
CHAPTER FIVE I
3 ... c6
76
3 ... c6
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!?
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
7 ... e6 17 ltJe4 with tremendous pressure for the
In a later game Stean played 7...ltJbd7, and two pawns.
8 .id3?! dxe4 9 fxe4 e5! 10 ltJ£3 .ib4 11 l:I.b3 15 ... lOd5 16 .l:l.xa3! 'iVxa3 17 lOa4 0-0 18
'ii'a5 12 dxe5 ltJg4 13 e6 ltJde5 14 exfl+ lOf6+! lO7xf6
ltJxfl left White with inadequate compensa- 18...gxf6? 19 'i'xh6 f5 20 .:1.£3 is decisive,
tion for the pawn in Pasman-Stean, Beer and after 18. ..'it>h8 White has 19ltJxd5 exd5
Sheeva 1980. Instead White should have 20 "f4, intending 21 ltJg3 with terrible
driven Black's knight away with 8 e5, when I threats on the kingside.
think that 8...ltJg8 9 f4 e6 10 .id3 "as 11 19 exf6 e5! 20 fxg7 ~xg7 21 dxe5
ltJge2 gives White a dangerous looking at- 'ii'c5+ 22 ~h1 f5
tacking position. This, as with many Veresov
lines, 'requires tests'!
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?!
78
3 ... c6
lU6 :xf6 30 ~xf6 due to 30...'i!tt7!) ltJ4c3 was slightly better for White in Larsen-
28...ihf8 29 c4 "iKg7 30 'iff2 when Black Westerinen, Hastings 1972/73.
must give up his knight Gust the beginning). 5... ~f5 leads to similar play to 3... ~f5,
with White's best being 6 ~d3.
Game 38 6 .1d3
Gurgenidze-Stein An alternative plan is 6 g3 ltJd7 7 ~g2
Kislovodsk 1972 ltJf6 8 ltJce2, intending ltJf3, 0-0, b2-b3 and
c2-c4. If Black were then to capture on c4
1 d4 lDf6 2 lDc3 d5 3 .1g5 c6 4 .1xf6 White would retake with the b-pawn. This
exf6 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 Kohl-
hage-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 e4-
square, and preventing pawn levers such as
e3-e4 or g2-g4. Black has also tried simple Opening the position for Black's bishop
development with 5....i.d6 6 .i.d3 0-0 but pair. Black is already better.
this does little to stop White on the kingside. 17 dxc5 i.xc5 18 'iVe2 .1d6 19 lDd4
Miles-Tisdall, England 1982 continued 7 Vf3 :'fe8 20 "iVd3 l:ad8 21 l:fd1 lDg4! 22
ne8 8 ltJge2ltJd7 9 0-0-0 "iVa5 10 ~b1 ltJf8 ~d2 .1b8 23 h3 lDe5 24 "iVe2 'iVg5
11 g4 b5 12ltJg3 ~e6 13ltJf5 ~a3 14ltJe2 Suddenly Black has some very unpleasant
'ifb4 15 b3 c5 16 dxc5 "iVxc5 17 h4 with threats against both g2 and the insecurely
good attacking chances on the kingside. 9 a3 placed knights on d4 and f4.
'ifc7 10 e4 dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ~e7 120-0 b6 13 25 ~n 'iff6 26 ~g 1 1Dc4 27 'iVn? .1xf4
llad1 ~b7 14 c4 ]';lad8 15 b4 g6 16 c5 f5 17 0-1
79
The Veresov
80
3 ... c6
Game 40
Markovic-Cvitan
Bosnian Team Ch., Neum 2002
1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 J.g5 c6 4 'iWd3
'iia5
81
The Veresov
82
3 ... c6
83
The Veresov
84
3 ... c6
85
The Veresov
Game 43
Anyway! Veresov-Krogius
8 ... dxe4 9 %:te1 e3 USSR Team Ch. 1953
Black is evidendy worried about the com-
pensation White would have after 9...exf3 10 1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 e3
86
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
With the position being so unpleasant for
Black this exchange is understandable. But
now the problem is that White can penetrate
Once again we see that Veresov himself on the d-file.
prefers this quiet and unassuming move. 4 26 dxe4 f6 27 exf6
tbf3 seems less precise in view of 4.. :iib6!, 27 a4 looks very strong as after 27 ... b4
e.g. 5 l1b 1 tbbd7 6 e3 g6 7 i.d3 i.g7 8 0-0 White can play 28 fSltJxeS 29 .l:ldl, threaten-
0-0 9 h3 (9 e4 dxe4 10 liJxe4 liJxe4 11 i.xe4 ing 30 i.xeS, and in response to 29...ltJf1
liJf6 12 i.d3 i.g4 13 c3 'tWaS! was quite there comes 30 fXe6liJxd6 31 e7+ etc.
promising for Black in Potterat-Cvitan, Bad 27 ..."xf6 28 'it'd3 e5!
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.
4 ...'iVb6 5 J:tb1
White has also tried the gambit of the b-
pawn 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 Suddenly the Black pieces start to cooper-
0-0 liJbd7 8 e4 leads to similar play) 7 0-0 g6 ate.
8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 liJxe4 10 i.xe4 i.g7 11 29 f5 ltJh8 30 'iVc3 ltJf7 31 :d1 a4 32
'i'd3. 'iitg2 l:!.cd8 33 J:ted2 :d7 34 h4 :ed8 35
5 ... ~f5 6 ~d3 .i.xd3 'iVb4 ~h7 36 l:!.d3 g6 37 fxg6+ 'iVxg6 38
nus leaves White with a nice positional J:tf1 'iVe6 39 'iVd2 ltJxd6 40 :d 1 'iVg4 41
edge. His doubled pawns cover key squares .l:[xd6 'iVxe4+ 42 'iith2 .l:[xd6 43 cxd6 :d7
and he has the makings of a 'minority attack' %-%
on the queenside with an advance of the b- Black must have been relieved to get away
pawn. Preferable is 6...i.g6 but this still looks with a draw, but in the final position he could
nice for White after 7 liJf3 e6 8 0-0 i.e7 9 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.
BB
CHAPTER SIX I
3 ... ..tf5
89
The Veresov
The alternatives are as follows: 12 'it>f2 g5 (and continues to play very ener-
a) 4... e6? is very bad in view of S e4!. getically) 13 e6 (13 ~g3 fxeS makes White's
b) 4...h6 S ~xf6 (after S ~h4 Black might king feel very uncomfortable) 13...i.xe6 14
play S...e6, when 6 e4 iLh7 7 ~xf6 'ifxf6 8 a3 iLe7 15 i.g3 0-0 16 ~d3 f5
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 Stry-
jecki-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 Matters are delicately balanced. White has
for 4... ~g6 see Khachian-Strikovic. better control of the centre but Black has the
5lDxd5 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 ex-
tremely 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
After Summerscale's suggestion of 5 g4 would have left all to play for) 25 ...iLxg5 0-1
~g6 6 h4 I think that Black can play 6... h5 7 (based on notes by Aaron Summerscale).
~xf6 exf6! (7...ttJxf6 looks quite good for Black should avoid 6...iLxe4 7 fxe4 ttJ5b6
White after 8 gS ttJg8 9 ttJh3, intending 10 as after 8 ttJf3 White has the bishop pair and
ttJf4) 8 ttJxd5 hxg4 with a strong position control of the centre. D.MacDonald-Rix,
because 9 fxg4? loses a piece after 9... iLe4!. Hastings 1991/92 continued 8...g6 9 a4 a6 10
5 •..lDxd5 6 e4 h6 as tUc8 11 ~c4 iLg7 12 e5 c5 13 c3 'iVc7 14
6... f6 is a little played continuation which 'ifb3 and Black was in serious trouble.
has the benefit of allowing the bishop a re- 7 ~h4
treat square on fT. 7 ~h4 ~e6 8 exd5 iLxd5 After 7 iLc1 Black can develop at top
9 c4 i.fT 10 f4 (trying to dissuade Black speed with 7...e5! 8 tUe2 (both 8 exd5 and 8
from carrying out thematic pawn break but...) exf5 can be answered by 8...'ilib4+, when
10... e5 (Black plays it anyway!) 11 fxe5 iLb4+ Black recovers his pawn with an excellent
90
3 ... ~f5
game) 8...ioxe4 9 fxe4 ii'h4+ 10 ~g3 ~sf6 1O... ~a4 11 'iVd3 ~xb2 12 'iVb5+ 'iid7 13
11 'ilfd3 0-0-0 and White was under serious 'ilfxb7 :!.d8 14 ~xfl tDc4 gives Black excel-
pressure in Herz-Bree, Wuerttemberg 2000. lent counterplay, but 11 'iWb3 is better, e.g.
7 ... tLle3 11...~b6 12 ~e2 (Black meets 12 0-0-0 with
7... ~7b6 is also interesting for after 8 exf5 12...'iids, and 12 i.f2 with 12...'iid7)
~e3 9 "d3 Black has 9.....xd4. 12.....ds 13 :!'xfl 'iVxf5 140-0-0 with White
8 'ii'd3 having a shade the better of it thanks to his
White has also tried 8 'iVe2 at this point, extra space, or 11...'ii'xd4 12 'ii'b5+ 'iVd7 13
but the current theoretical verdict is that this 'ii'xd7+ ~xd7 14 0-0-0+ ~c6 15 :!.xfl, which
is favourable for Black after 8...tDxfl 9 exfs is slightly better for White because the
~b6 10 0-0-0 'ilfds! (l0.....d6 11 g4! was cramping pawn on f5 will leave Black with
played in Khachian-Elkin, USSR 1986, and some weak pawns whether he liberates his
now Khachian gave 11...~c4! 12 'ii'xc4'iif4+ kingside with ...e7-e6 or ...g7-g6.
13 'it>bl ~d2+ 14 :!.xd2 'ii'xd2 15 ~e2 with 10 ... c6 11 'ii'xc5 tLle3 12 'iPe2
compensation for the exchange) 11 ~bl (or Not 12 iog3 "xd4!, or 12 ~f2 ~xf5 13
11 b3 "xf5 12 i.f2 ~xh2 etc.) l1...tDc4! 12 'iVxf5 "xd4+ 14 ~g3 gs.
l:lxfl (12 "xfl? "bs) 12.....xd4! 13 c3 12...tLlxg2 13 ~g3 e6 14 'ire5 .i.e7! 15
'ii'xh4 14 g3 "gs 15 'iixc4 "xf5+ and Black fxe6
was a good pawn up in Khachian-Obukhov, After 15 'ii'xg7 Black gets the better end-
USSR 1986. game with 15...i.f6 16 'i'g4 'l'xd4 17 'i'xd4
8 ...tLlxf1 9 exfS tLlcS! 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!
91
The Veresov
24... ltJd6 25 'iVg6 1:.xeS is not clear after 26 ltJe3 .ig6 19 ltJc4 would have maintained
it'xd6 because Black has had to part with his the pressure. 6 'tIi'xd4 ltJc6 7 .ibS seems
superb knight. natural but favoured Black after 7... dxe4 8
25 'it>e1 ltJd6 26 'iVg4 ltJc4 27 f4 ~xe5 ii.xc6+ bxc6 9 'iVcs 'iVc8 10 ii.xf6 exf6 in
28 dxe5 Klemp-Lindemann, Spree 1997.
After 28 fxeS 1:.£1 +! the queen goes. 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
92
3 ... ~f5
12 'ii'e2 ttJfd7 13 d6! exd6 14 liJd5 with 6 e5 liJfd7 7 liJge2 f6 8 i.e3!?, for ex-
'ii'a5?? ample 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 con-
sidering, 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 prelimi-
nary 8 0-0-0 is more circumspect) 8... h6 9
Black has to play 14...'fic6 when the posi- liJxg6 i.g3+ 10 'iitd1 fxg6 11 R.f4 liJh5 12
tion still looks unclear. .txg3 ttJxg3 13 l::1h3 ttJxf1 14 'i'd3 0-0 15
15 'ii'b5! 1-0 'iite1 ttJg3 16 ~xg3 'ii'xh4 17 'ii'xg6 ':£7 18
15 1i'el would have been equally effective. l:td 1 liJd7 19 e3 e5 and Black had freed him-
In either case Black must lose his queen as self and taken over the initiative in Iipski-
capturing White's allows mate with 16liJc7. Kholmov, Warsaw 1989.
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 5 ... ttJbd7
Game 46 Khachian has played this position several
Khachian-Strikovic times and showed that it is deceptively dan-
Candas Open 1996 gerous 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 con-
tinuation, when 16 e5 axb5 left Black some-
what better.
60-0-0 e6 7 ttJh3 ~e7 8 ttJf4 liJg8!?
93
The Veresov
Black had no doubt been relying on this to main problem with Black's setup is that it is
free his game, but he comes under consider- not very active.
able pressure anyway. The problem with the 6.1d3
natural 8...0-0 is that White can play 9 h4, The standard continuation, but not a very
when 9... h6 10 liJxg6 causes serious damage threatening one. For the more dangerous 6
to Black's pawn structure. lLlge2 see Kupreichik-Westerinen.
9 iLxe7 liJxe7 10 e4 c6 11 h4 h6 12 6 ...iLg6
.1d3 dxe4 Black can also play 6...it.xd3 when the
This turns out to be a surprisingly serious game Schweber-Szmetan, Buenos Aires 2001
mistake. Black should keep his outpost on d5 continued 7 cxd3 lLlc6 8 lLlge2 5, and now 9
intact and play 12...i.h7. 0-0 followed by a minority attack on the
13 liJxg6liJxg6 14liJxe4 'iic7? 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!?
94
3 ... JJ..f5
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
7 g3 is not as innocuous as it looks.
36 tie2 'iVxe2+ 37 .l:.xe2 ~6 38 h5 Kacheishvili-Buehl, Kona 1998 continued
.l:.xe6 39 :g2 ~7 40 ..ti>d3 %1h6 41 .l:.h2 7...~c6 8 dxcs .ixcs 9 .ig2 'iWd7 10 e4 dxe4
ltd6+ 42 ~e3 .l:.e6+ 43 ~d3 .l:.e1 44 11 ~xe4 .ixe4 12 .ixe4 0-0-0 13 'iVxd7+
.l:.b2 :xd7 14 .ixc6 bxc6 15 ~1 and Black's
There are too many weak white pawns, weak pawns made life difficult for him.
and with the following move White brings 7 ...i.g6 8 h4
out the rook, hoping to generate counterplay. After the immediate 8 .id3 Black is not
44 ....l:.g1 45 .l:.b6 .l:.xg3+ 46 ~c4 .l:.g4 47 forced to exchange bishops, which made life
.l:.xa6 .l:.xf4+ 48 <Jo>d5 l:[f1 ! awkward for White in Braga-Rodriguez Ces-
White can no longer stop the f-pawn. pedes, Bayamo 1984. After 8... ~c6 9 0-0
49 c4 f4 50 <Jo>e4 f3 51 .l:.a5 f2 52 <M3 cxd4 10 exd4 'iVb6 11 ~ce2 0-0-0 White was
i.h40-1 already in trouble as both b2 and d4 were
r---------------...
Game 48
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
96
3 ... 1H5
superior pawn structure and more active Black a strong pair of bishops in an open
pieces. position.
9 ... cxd4 20 ...i.xf5 21 lLlxd4 i.xd4 22 Itc8+ ~e7
Krnic claimed that 9... dxe4 was bad in In the event of 22 ...l:.xc8? 23 bxcS"if+
view of 10 d5, but 10... f5! is far from clear. 'iixcs 24 'iixd4 0-0 25 ~gl White's king
Krnic only gave 10... exd5 11 'iixd5 "ifxd5 12 scuttles away to safety and he's left with the
lOxd5 which, admittedly, is unpleasant for better pawn structure.
Black. 23 'iie1+!
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.
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 recov-
ers 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+ %-%
Game 49
Black prevents f4-fS, which would shut Gufeld-Ujtumen
his bishop out of play and give White a great Tbilisi 1971
square for his knight on e4. 16... d3? doesn't
work because of 17 fS! dxe2+ 18 'iixe2 :xb7 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 i.f5 4 i.xf6
(18....i.h7 19 'iixb5+ picks up the bishop on exf6
b4) 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 "ife4, hitting b4, b7 and A solid reply, keeping a nice row of pawns
g6! on the kingside and preparing to develop his
17 c3 i.cs 18 cxd4 exd4 19 J:[c1 i.b6 king's bishop. Black's problems stem from
20 f5! his pawn structure; his lack of central pawns
The best move. 20 lOxd4? doesn't work means that he has to control the centre with
due to 20...'iixd4 21l:tc8+ 'iti>d7, and 20 l:tc8+ pieces and may find himself with a qualita-
.l:txc8 21 bxc8'ii+ 'iixc8 22 lOxd4 0-0 gives tively inferior pawn majority should White
97
The Veresov
98
3 ... i.f5
I chose this game as the main line because Soderborg, Vama 1962. Another possibility
it is a good illustration of White's strategy is 7...i.d6 S e4 0-0 9 exd5 cxd5 10 lDge2
rather than a model of defence by Black. The 'it'a5 11 0-0 lDc6 12 a3, leaving Black with
exchange on d3 is very helpful for White as it some concerns regarding his isolated d-pawn
becomes difficult for Black to control the e4- in Wade-Garcia, Cienfuegos 1975.
square. The most 'logical' move is 6 ... ~e6 8lbge20-0
r
but then 7 'ilkf3 lDge2 fS S 'it'd2lDd7 was Bronstein-Vasiukov, Moscow 1959 went
fine for Black in Tartakower-Griinfeld, Vi- S...lDd7 9 e4 (after 9 0-0-0 Black can con-
enna 1921) 7...i.h4 S lDge2 0-0 9 a3 seems template 9...lDb6 10 g4 'it'e7 followed by
to prevent Black from setting up his ... f6-fS 11...0-0-0 as his king is relatively safe on the
blockade. queenside) 9...lDb6 10 exd5 lDxd5 11 0-0
Gufeld and Stetsko give 6...i.g6 but don't lDxc3 12 lDxc3 0-0, and now 13 a3 (rather
mention White's most promising looking than 13lDdl as played in the game) 13... ~d6
move which is 7 'it'f3!?, intending lDle2 and 14 lDe4 would have given White a slight but
perhaps a later g2-g4. They also give 6.. :iVd7, persistent advantage.
when an interesting plan for White is 7 i.xfS 9 0-0-0
'ilkxfS S 'it'd3 'it'g4 (S .. :iVxd3 9 cxd3 leaves
White with the better endgame) 9 ~f1 fol-
lowed by lDge2. White would then have a
variety of interesting middlegame plans, in-
cluding h2-h3 and g2-g4 or just e3-e4. Black
doesn't have any compensation for his weak-
ened pawn structure.
7'ifxd3
99
The Veresov
The attack against a2 will not get any- by coming to c5) 25 bxa3 'ii'xa3 26 'iVh6+
where as White can simply defend with lOe2- 'it>e8 27 :tg8+ 'it'd7 28 ~c5+ 'it'c7 29 lOxe6+
c1. lS...aS is a better try, followed by ...as-a4. fxe6 (or 29 ...'it>b6 30 .nb8+ ~a5 31 .nd3 etc.)
16 g5 :a6 17 ltJc1 'ifa5? 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.
100
3 ... ~f5
10 liJbS h6 11 liJxd6+ 'it'xd6 12 .tf4 'ike7 13 advance when the game is totally lost.
c4 with White holding the advantage due to
his bishop pair and potential pressure on the
c-file.
101
The Veresov
i.xd3 6 'Wxd3 c6 7 lDf3 e6 8 e4 dxe4 9 lDxe4 Minic, Belgrade 1962 continued 6...J\.e7 7
1ib6?! (an attempt to mix it up which re- lDf3 (7 f4!? is worth considering) 7...0-0 8 0-0
bounds badly; 9...i.e7 is the solid option, lDe8 9 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 10 J:lc1 (10 'Wc2 with the
when White has only a minimal space advan- idea of 11 b4 seems more logical to me)
tage) 10 i.xf6 gxf6 11 0-00-0-0 and now just 10...lDd7 11 e4lDb6 12 J:le1 lDf6 13 e5lDe8
12 'We2 (rather than 12 a4?!) would leave 14 'iib3 as 15 a4 'ii'b4 and Black had equal-
White with a promising game, 12.. .'iWxb2 ised. Alternatively 6 'Wxd3 c5 7 J\.xf6 gxf6 8
giving White a dangerous initiative after 13 dxc5 lDd7 9 e4 dxe4 10 'iNxe4lDxc5 11 'Wf3
a4. Also worth considering is 6 cxd3 c6 7 i.g7 was fine for Black in Bronstein-Fischer,
f4!?, when Mestrovic-Kecic, Ljubljana 1995 Mar del Plata 1960. This leaves 5...J\.g6 6
continued 7...e6 8lDf3 i.e7 9 0-0 h6 10 i.h4 lDf3 J\.e7 7 lDe5lDbd7 8 f4 a6 9 'iVf3 i.xd3
0-0 11 'We2 with White's central pawns giv- 10 cxd3 c5 11 O-O!? cxd4 12 exd4 which
ing him the slighdy easier game. Instead of brought about an interesting structure in
the trade on d3 Black has dropped the Sakharov-Shiyanovsky, USSR 1958. White's
bishop back to g6: 5... i.g6 6 f4!? e6 7 fS doubled d-pawns cover important squares
i.xfS 8 J\.xfS exfS 9 lDxd5 h6 10 i.xf6 lDxf6 and his pieces are very actively placed.
11 lDxf6+ 'Wxf6 12 'iIIf3 i.d6 13lDe2 0-0 14 S ... .i.gS Slbge2 cS
0-0 'ii'e7 15 lDc3 c6 16 litae1 i.b4 17'WxfS In Navinsek-Gjuran, Ljubljana 2001 Black
i.xc3 18 bxc3 'Wa3 19 'iIId3 'Wxa2 20 c4 'ii'a5 tried to equalise by exchanging pieces with
21 c5 was better for White in Mestrovic- 6...i.e7 7 lDf4lDe4, but after 8 J\.xe7 'iVxe7
Kurajica, Cateske Toplice 1968. 9 lDxg6 hxg6 10 lDxe4 dxe4 White was bet-
Another solid try is 4...c6, although after 5 ter thanks to his superior pawn structure.
i.d3 i.g6 I think that White's most interest- The game continued 11 'iVe2 'iVd6 12 h4 g5
ing move is 6 f4!? (6 lDf3 lDbd7 7 0-0 e6 8 13 h5 lDd7 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 "'5 with quite
lDe5 'ii'b6 was fine for Black in Rellstab- unpleasant pressure on Black's position.
Keres, Kemeri 1937), with the sunnier pros- Black should certainly consider 6 ... h6, mak-
pects for White after 6... e6 7 lDf3. ing room for his bishop to retreat.
S 94!? 7 liJf4 'ii'bS 8 .i.bS+ lbcS 9 a4!? cxd4 10
as 'Wic7 11 .i.xfS gxfS 12 'Wixd4 0-0-0
102
3 ... i.f5
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.
104
CHAPTER SEVEN I
3 ... h6, 3 .. .ltJc6,
3 ... g6 and Others
105
The Veresov
Ronman. These offbeat attempts to take There's a strong argument for establishing
White 'out of the book' appear to be a little a qualitatively superior pawn majority with 5
misplaced against Veresov practitioners as e4 dxe4 6 li:Jxe4, even though this hasn't
the opening tends to appeal to individuals done terribly well in practice. After 6...i..g7 7
who like to improvise. 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
Game 52 as li:Jd5 16 i.f1 White had a slight edge in
Miles-Spassov Alburt-Marjanovic, Bucharest 1978.
Surakarta-Denpasar 1982 5 ... i.g7 6 i.d3 O-O?
106
3 ... h6, 3 .. .luc6, 3 ... g6 and Others
this central action by White brings these axb4 a3 25 .ixe4 fxe4 26 'iiie2 .1i.a6 etc.
weaknesses to light. 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 Game 53
Offering the exchange like this looks like Reprintsev-Kachar
the only chance. If Black waits any longer he Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999
will be crushed on the kingside. 20 ... ~f8 is
answered by 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 g5 fxg5 23 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 .195 96 4 'i!Vd2
.!:lxh7! ~xh7 24 'ikf7+ followed by mate,
whilst 20 ... .i.e6 21 tbf4 leaves Black wonder-
ing what to do next.
21 hxg6
White could also capture the rook imme-
diately 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?
107
The Veresov
7 ttJxe4 JLg7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 .i.c4 is the 'nor- options: 6... ~xg7 7 e3 (70-0-0 c6 8 f3 leads
mal' way to play) 6.. .£5 (6 ...JLg7 7 'iVe3+ JLe6 to the Begun-Smimov example, quoted be-
8 ttJh3 intending 9 liJf4 looks better for low) 7... ttJbd7 8 f4 b6 9 ttJf3 JLb7 10 .i.e2
White) 7 'iVe3+ JLe6 8 'iVeS l::tg8 9liJh3 ttJd7 produced an unusual kind of Stonewall set
10 'ii'e3 (followed by 11 ttJf4) with chances up in Spal-Prandstetter, Ceske Budejovice
for an edge. A more aggressive idea for 1992, as White was the one with the better
White is 5 JLf4 .i.g7 6 liJf3 c6 7 e3 ttJbd7 8 bishop. Mestrovic-Grosar, Portoroz 1996
JLe2 0-0 9 liJeS followed by attacking on the featured the wild 6 h4!?, when 6...liJc6 7 hS
kingside with the g- and h-pawns, although (7 JLxg7 ~xg7 8 hS looks quite good)
Black could also react more actively with 7...JLxh6 8 ii'xh6liJxd4 90-0-0 ttJg410 'ii'd2
S...cS!?, for instance. As usual there are very ttJxf2 11 'ii'xd4 ttJxh t 12 'Wh4 eS! was dou-
few practical examples. ble-edged.
5 i..h6 6 ... c6 7 f3 b5 8 h4!
Not just an attacking move - Black's This natural attacking move seems very
king's bishop is the 'good' one, without unpleasant for Black, although it's not the
which he has a certain vulnerability on the only way to treat the position. 8 JLxg7 ~xg7
dark squares ... 9 e4 b4 10 eS bxc3 11 exf6+ exf6 12 'ii'xc3
5 ... 0-0 was slightly better for White in Begun-
With the disappearance of his fianchet- Smirnov, Belorus Ch., Minsk 1966.
toed bishop Black is well advised to put his 8 ... ttJh5!
king on the queenside. For example he might Ducking rather than punching seems ap-
play S...JLxh6 6 .xh6 cS (6 ...'iVd6 7 ttJf3 propriate in this position. The attempt to
liJc6 8 e3 JLfS 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 was fine for create something on the queenside appears
Black in Muratov-Reprintsev, Moscow 1991) to fall short, for after 8... b4 9 ttJb1 'iVaS 10
7 e3 cxd4 (7 ... ttJc6 8 0-0-0 "as 9 dxcS "xeS h5 JLxh6 11 'ii'xh6 'iVxa2 White's attack
10 ttJge2 JLe6 11 ttJd4 0-0-0 was defensible proves to be the stronger: 12 e4 b3 13 c3
for Black in Prins-Petrosian, Leipzig Olym- dxe4 (13 ... cS 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 eS .i.fS 16
piad 1960) 8 exd4 liJc6 9 JLbS .i.d7 10 ttJf3 JLd3) 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 JLc4+ e6 16 fxe4,
'ii'b6 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 "ii'e3 e6 13 a4! and threatening 17 eS.
White had promising attacking chances on 9 g4 ttJg3 10 llh3 ttJxf1 11 ':xf1 f5?
the queenside in Sulava-Duda, Metz 2000. Not what you would call 'cold-blooded
6 0-0-0 defence'. Black should aim to keep the king-
The immediate 6 .i.xg7 gives White extra side closed with 11...f6!, when 12 JLxg7
108
3 ... h6, 3 ... 0.c6, 3 ... g6 and Others
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 h-
flies.
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. Immediately asking White's bishop this
19...:f6 20 'ife3 question makes a lot of sense, although it has
White could win by capturing his oppo- been frowned upon by successive genera-
nent's queen, but he should be careful to tions of writers for encouraging White to
avoid 20 ltJxh3? ..ixh3 21 l:.xg6+ l:Ixg6 22 playa move he'd like to make anyway.
1:[xh3? l:Ig1+ etc. 4 .i.xf6 exf6
20 ...'ifg2 21 :xg2+ hxg2 22 1:g1 1:[g6 The most solid and popular option. White
23 'ifxe6 should meet 4...gxf6 with 5 e3 when Spassky-
The harvest of pawns commences. Uusi, USSR Team Ch 1960 gave White some
Meanwhile the guy on g2 is going nowhere. pressure after 5...e6 6 'ii'h5 c5 7 0-0-0 cxd4 8
109
The Veresov
110
3 ... h6, 3 . .. !Dc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others
should probably try 17...i.fS. Yanofsky, Havana 1966) with what looks like
18 b3 !Df6 a slight edge due to the queenside pawn ma-
Black may have been intending to play jority (Black's kingside majority cannot pro-
1s...lbb6 here, only now realising that 19 duce a passed pawn). These positions closely
lbc5 'ii'xa2 20 'it>d2 is very good for White in resemble those arising from the Exchange
view of the threat to win Black's queen with RuyLopez.
21l:h1. The fantastic 19 ii.g6!? fxg6 20 hxg6 6 exd5 'tixd5
is worth considering.
19 !Dg3 j.g4 20 'itg2 'it>h8 21 ~f5 j.xf5
22 !Dxf5 .li.f8 23 f4 !De4 24 fxg5 !Dxg5
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 Kleopas-
111
The Veresov
After 11 0-0 i..xc3 12 "xc3 "xc3 13 should play 29 ...a5! either now or on the next
bxc3 lDd5 14 c4 lDc3 Black gets slightly the move.
better endgame, so Spassky tries to improve 30 ttJb2 bxc4 31 ttJxc4 .u.cS 32 ~b4 nfS
his chances by leaving his king in the middle. 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 The game has seen quite a turnaround,
Black's pawns become targets after either with White now standing clearly better.
23 ...llc7 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 c4, intending lla5, Black's kingside majority is useless whereas
or alternatively 23... a5 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 'it;c1. White has a passed c-pawn.
Therefore Korchnoi is forced to seek simpli- 34 ...nhS 3S IU2 .l:!.dS 36 ttJaS l:[d6 37
fication. a4?!
24 J:txd4! The wrong pawn move as it is vulnerable
on this square. White should push his c-
pawn.
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 can keep his winning chances alive
White has to be careful about the safety of with 46 ~a6! .u.xc3 47lDb7, winning the a7-
his rook, for example 24 cxd4 is answered by pawn. Now it's a dead draw.
24... a5! (threatening 25 ...i..d7), and after 25 46 ...l::lb2+ 47 ~aSl1c2 48 'iii>b4
lDb2 there follows 25 ...l:.a8 (threatening After the sequence 48 'it;a6 llxc3 49lDb7
26... b5) 26 l:tc4 i..e6 winning the pawn on llc4! 50 llxc4 i.xc4+ 51 <t;xa 7 ~e6 52 as
d4. <t;e5 53 a6 f4 54 gxf4+ <;i;>xf4 55 lDd6 i..xa6
24 ...nd7 2S l:txd7 .txd7 26 1:[e4 gS 27 56 ~xa6 <t;g4 Black will eliminate White's
c4 .ie6 28 ~C32 <3;e7 29 .l:[d4 bS?! last pawn.
Around here Black is losing the plot. He 48 ....I:I.b2+ %-%
112
3 ... h6, 3 .. .li:Jc6, 3 ... g6 and Others
113
The Veresov
114
3 ... h6, 3 .. .tiJc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others
115
The Veresov
116
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 fash-
ion. I wouldn't recommend either of them.
117
CHAPTER fiGHT I
3 ... e6 (Including
Transpositions to the French)
1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lc3 d5 3 i.g5 86 i.xf6 with S... gxf6!? in order to reach an-
3... e6 is one of Black's most natural other form of Burn but my antidotes are
moves, the drawback being that Black should contained within Almasi-Andersson and
know something about the French Defence Shirov-Topalov.
before playing it. The point is that 4 e4 lands There are a couple of other possibilities
Black straight into a Classical French (usually after 44Jf3, namely 4...cS and 4... .i.b4. These
reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lLIc3 lLIf6 4 are covered within Lobron-Murei and Hec-
.i.gS) and is White's usual option. tor-Berg respectively.
Aware of the fact that Veresov players are
likely to want to stay off the beaten track I Game 59
suggest that White therefore avoids transpos- T artakower-Lilienthal
ing to the French for just one more move in Paris (match) 1933
order to cut out options such as the Mac-
Cutcheon Variation (4 e4 .i.b4!?) and some 1 d4 d5 2 tt:lc3 lLlf6 3 i.g5 e6 4 lbf3
variations of the Burn (4 e4 dxe4 S lLIxe4 i.e 7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 84
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 ig-
nored 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 The game has transposed to a supposedly
(see Shirov-Akopian). Black can also meet S harmless variation of the French Defence,
118
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
the so-called Anderssen Attack. Yet a closer e) 6... c6 7 i.d3 ltJd7 8 'iie2 0-0 9 0-0-0
look at this position has convinced me that .lte7 10 e5 .l:.e8 11 h4 ltJf8 12 ltJg5 f6 13 f4
Black's task is by no means easy. He can also f5 14 g4ltJg6 15 ':dfl with a powerful attack
fall victim to a sharp and devastating attack for White in Alekhine-Linares, Panama 1939.
on his king... Lev Psakhis states in The Com- 7.td3
plete French (Batsford, 1992): 'Black shouldn't If White first closes the centre with 7 eS
be in a hurry to castle' and Alexander i.e7 8 .ltd3 Black can counter-attack with
Alekhine played this line extensively in simul- 8... cS! etc.
taneous displays, no doubt attracted by 7 ....tb 7 8 'li'e2 dxe4
White's attacking chances ... Tartakower suggested that 8...0-0 might be
6 ... b6 an improvement in order to meet 9 eS .lte7
A cautious move, delaying castling while 10 h4 with 10... h6. Nevertheless this looks
continuing development. Here are some quite promising for White after 11 ltJd1 fol-
examples of the alternatives: lowed by c2-c3 and ltJe3.
a) 6...cS is the theoretically approved move 9 .txe4 c6 100-0-0 'fic7
but White might gain an edge with 7 exdS Preparing to complete development with
exdS 8 dxcS (Black must also be careful after 11...ltJd7 and 12...0-0-0. White decides to
8 .ltbS+ ltJc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 dxcS .ltxc3 11 strike fIrst...
bxc3 i.g4 12 :tel etc.) 8...0-0 9 'iid2 l:te8+ 11 ttJe5 ~xe5
(9 .....e7+ 10 'iie3 i.xc3+ 11 bxc3 'iVxe3+ 12 After 11...4Jd7 White reinforces the
fxe3 i.e6 13 ltJd4 gave White a slight pull in knight with 12 f4.
Ljubojevic-Messing, Zagreb 1977) 10 i.e2 12 dxe5 'i!fxe5 13 'i!fd3! 0-0
i.xc3 11 'iVxc3 'iie7 12 'iie3 'ii'xe3 13 fxe3 In reply to 13...'I'c7 White has 14 ltJbS,
ltJd7 140-0-0 and White had an edge in Ne- e.g. 14...'fif4+ 1S -Ji>b1 0-0 16 g3 'fieS 17 f4
gulescu-Schneider, Washington 1998. 'ii'f6 18ltJc7 or 14...cxb5 15 .ltxb7 'ii'xb7 16
b) 6...ltJc6 puts pressure on d4 and effec- .d8 mate.
tively forces White to close the centre with 7 14.txh7+
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 ...c7-
c5) 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 Speelman-
Knox, 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 posi-
tion in Alekhine-Williams, Bridgeport 1932.
c) 6...a6 7 i.d3 0-0 8 eS i.e7 9 h4 h6 10 14... ~h8 15 .te4 f5
ltJe2 cS 11 c3 ltJc6 12 a3 was pleasant for After 1S...g6 White continues the attack
White in Alekhine-Macias, Alicante 1935. with 16 h4.
d) 6...g6 7 h4 hS 8 i.d3 c6 was played in 16 .tf3 ttJa6 17 'li'c4 '¥if6 18 l:.d6 l:.fe8
Alekhine-Fuentes, Madrid 1935, and now 9 19 l:.e1 b5 20 'li'f4 e5
e5.ltg7 10 ltJe2looks very comfortable. After 20...b4 White plays 21 ltJb5! with
119
The Veresov
120
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
121
The Veresov
14... e4, this is a big improvement on Bolo- in Tischbierek-Izoria, Ohrid 2001. However,
gan-M.Gurevich, Belfort 1999 which saw after 12.. .'~h8 13 0-0-0 .i.g4 14 .i.e2 'l'd6
Black obtain excellent counterplay after 14 15 ~h4 1Ig8 16 g3 :ad8 Black stood well in
h4 e4! 15 tOxe4 :e8 16 tOxf6+ 'l'xf6 17 'l'd2 Anand-Shirov, Sydney (Olympic Exhibition)
tOb6 etc.) 14....i.xd3 15 'l'xd3 ~c5 16 'ii'e3 2000.
b6 17 h4!? (17 ~e4 was also better for White 12...tOg6 13 'iFh5
but Leko decides to play it much more In Bezgodov-Akopian, Ohrid 2001, White
sharply) 17...:e8 (this was Black's last chance tried to improve with 13 g3!? bS (13...tOxh4
to play 17...e4!?, when 18 tOxe4 l:te8 would 14 gxh4 ~h8 15 :gl l:tg8 16 :g3 is slightly
have given Black some compensation for his better for White according to Bologan) 14
pawn; now he winds up very passively .tb3 as 15 'fid2 fS 16 0-0-0 ':a6 17 ltJg2 a4
placed) 18 tOe4 ~xe4 19 'ii'xe4 g6 20 g4 18 .i.c2 a3 19 b4 :d6 and now 20 f4 would
.i.g7 21 h5 and Black had serious problems, have been slightly better for White according
stemming from the fact that his bishop has to Bologan. In the game White played 20
been made 'bad' by the inhibiting effect of ~e3, when Bologan suggests 20.. .f4 21 tOf5
the e4-pawn. .i.xfS 22 .i.xfS c6 with a good game for
White has a promising alternative in 12 Black.
.i.d3 here, when 12....i.xe4 13 .i.xe4 ~d7 14 13.....d7
0-0-0.i.e7 15 g4 .i.d6 16 ~bl l:.b8 17 h4 set An interesting alternative is 13... ~h8!?,
in motion a powerful kingside attack in when 14 0-0-0 (Finkel has suggested 14
Short-M.Gurevich, Shenyang 2000. .i.d3!?) 14... fS 15 tOeltJf4 16 'ifh6 'ii'd6 17
b) 1O...liJa5!? is dangerous for Black, 'ii'xd6 cxd6 18 g3 led to an edge for White in
Baklan-Goloshchapov, Ordzhonikidze Zonal the endgame in Bologan-Kacheishvili, Ohrid
2000 continuing 11 .i.d3 b6 12 h4!? (12 'ilc2 2001. Here 15 ~xf5?! is better for Black after
g6 13 tOxf6+ 'iVxf6 140-0 .i.g4 15 ~d2 tOb7 15... ~f4 16 'fie .i.xfS 17 g3 'ifd7 18 gxf4
was fairly even in Levenfish-Bondarevsky, .i.g4 19 'ife4 Sl.xd1 20 :xd1 exf4, and 15 g3
Leningrad 1939) 12...g6 (12...ltJb7 is better) is ineffective after 15...tOxh4 16 gxh4 'ii'f6 17
13 h5 .tg4 14 'ii'd2 .i.g7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 l:.hg1.td7.
~fgS with dangerous attacking chances. 14 h3 'iVa4
11 liJxfS+ gxfS 12liJh4
122
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
although in his notes to the game Gurevich sharp positions. White should probably re-
indicated that his 14th move was dubious. spond with 8 ll)c3, supporting the d4-d5
What does he have in mind as an improve- pawn push, when Pavlovic-Sakaev, Vrnjacka
ment? Perhaps 14... b5, when 15 JL.d3 can be Banja 1998 continued 8... ~f6 (8... a6 9 'ii'e2
met by 15... e4! 16 ~xe4? ':'e8, winning. b5 is an interesting plan, 10 0-0-0 b4 11 ll)a4
15 b3 'it'a5 16 0-0 "d5 12 c4leading to sharp play in Grischuk-
Perhaps White should play simply 16 :tel Sakaev, Moscow 2002) 9 "d2 cS (9 ...ll)c6 10
to protect the c3-pawn. ~b5 is good for White but 9...0-0!? is an
16.. :iVxc3 17 d6 rt;g7? interesting alternative, Gipslis-Chemin, St.
Preferable is 17...ll)f4, when 18 'ii'h6 'ii'd2 John 1988 becoming rather complicated after
191i'xf6 'ii'xd6 is excellent for Black. 10 g4 fxg4 11 ':gl e5! 12 ~d3 JL.g7 13 dxeS
18 dxc7 'it'd4 19 g3 'it'd7 20 :ac1 'it'xh3 'iti>h8 14 0-0-0 f5!) 10 dS 0-0 (1O ...exd5 11
After 20 ...'ii'xc7 there follows 21 JL.e6 'ii'e3+ wins back the pawn with an edge, for
'iWd8 22 ll)f5+ <;i;>h8 23 ];Xfdl and Black must example 11...~e6 12 "xcS ll)d7 13 i.b5
part with the queen. :1c8 14 'ii'e3 0-0150-0 a6 16 JL.xd71i'xd7 17
21 i.d3 We6 22 i.e4 'it'b6 23 :fd1 1-0 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
123
The Veresov
side with 18 g4 is insufficient after 18... fxg4 c2-c4 and d4-d5. Black, on the other hand,
19 tDxe4 i.fS 20 l::th1 'ii'd8 21 tDg3 i.g6 will try to restrain d4-d5 and perhaps even
according to Sakaev) 18 g4 b4 19 tDa4 fxg4 attack the d4-pawn with a subsequent ... f6-fS
20 tDh5 with a complex and double-edged and ...i.f6.
game. Another plan for Black is to generate play
Returning to the position after 12 h4, on the half-open g-flle. One thing he should
Black has also played 12...i.g7, but after 13 be quite wary of, however, is playing ... f6-fS
d6 i.e6 14 tDg5 tDc6 the position of the prematurely. 1bis lessens control of the cen-
knight on c6 did not prove that helpful in tre and invites a white knight to step in to e5.
Klovans-Dizdar, Groningen 1991. That Here are some examples of the alternatives in
game continued 15 g4 tDd4 16 gxfS i.xfS 17 action:
i.d3 'ii'd7 18 i.xfS 'i¥xfS 19 tDd5 Wh8 20 c3 a) 13...l::the8 14 i.xb7+ Wxb7 15 c4 (the
tDc6 21 tDe3 'it'd7 22 'iVd5, when White was passive 15 c3 has also been played but should
taking control. 12... a6?! is another try, but in hardly trouble Black after 15... tDfS followed
such a sharp position this kind of relaxed by ...tDg6) 1S... tDfS 16 'iHc2 fS 17 tDc3 i.f6
build-up looks too slow. 18 l::te3 (18 dS!?) 18...l:le7 19 I!ed3 tDg6 20
For the trendy 7... a6!? see Shirov-Topalov. dS (20 g3 is interesting, keeping the tension a
8i.c4 little longer) 20...:ed7 21 'iVa4 tDe7 22 dxc6+
8 i.b5+ c6 9 i.c4 is a common inaccu- tDxc6 23 tDbS l::txd3 24 l:lxd3 'itb8 25 'iHd1
racy, giving Black the useful ...c7-c6 for noth- 1/2_1/2, Korchnoi-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988.
ing. b) 13...:hg8 14 g3 fS 15 tDed2 h5 16
8 ... ~b7 9 "e2 c6 10 0-0-0 fic7 11 i.xb 7+ Wxb 7 17 tDc4 is similar to the game.
l:he1 tt:Jd7 12 ~b1 0-0-0 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.
Castling immediately is not mandatory, Black's idea is that White will not be able to
Black can also keep his options open with achieve his thematic c2-c4 and d4-d5 break-
12... h5 13 tDc3 tDfS, as in Goloshchapov- through. The game went 14 i.xb7+ ..t>xb7 15
Volkov, Novgorod 1999. c4 bxc4 16 'ii'xc4 tDb6 17 'i6b3 ~a8 18 l:I.c1
13 i.a6 i.xa6 l:.b8 19 'iHc2 I!hc8, defending everything.
Black has tinkered with a number of dif- 14 'ii'xa6+ Wb8
ferent moves in this position but the respec- 1bis is probably slightly stronger than
tive strategies are basically the same. White 14...'itb7, which forces White's queen back
exchanges light-squared bishops and then to its best square after 15 'ii'e2.
tries to engineer a central breakthrough with 15 9 3
124
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
125
The Veresov
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 (intend-
ing ltJf3-g5), and after 16.. :iVe7 there is 17
According to Ftacnik White is clearly bet- "iJc7, threatening the bishop on b7 and 18
ter after lZ ... exdS 13 ltJxdS, yet Morozevich ltJdS.
certainly felt that the capture on d5 had po- 17 llJd5 .i.g7
tential in order to bring his knight from b8 to After 17....i.xb2+ 18 ~xb2 exf3 19 gxf3
126
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
White also has the g-file for an attack. After 27 ...'iWf6 (27 ...h6 28 gxf7) there fol-
18 liJg5 liJd4?! lows 28 l:lxh 7+ ~g8 29 gxf7+ l:lxf7 30
The attempt to drive away the knight from d8'iW+ :xd8 31 :xd8+ 'iWxd8 32 'ii'xf7 mate.
g5 with 18... h6 is beautifully refuted by 19
cxb5 axb5 20 i.xb5 lbd4 21 lbe7+ 'iii>h8 22 Gamc64
'it'g6!! fxg6 23lbxg6+ 'it>g8 24 i.c4+ etc. Lobron-Murey
19 liJe7+! Ii>h8 20 l:th3! 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?!
127
The Veresav
8... ttJc6 rather than 8... .i.d7 9 .i.xd7+ ttJxd7 17 l::!.h8 tt'lf6 18 .ic4 .if8 19 ':'e1 + .ie6
10 ir'xd4, which looked dangerous for Black 20 .id3 'ittd7 21 lIe5 'ittc7 22 .ixf5 tt'ld7
in Landenbergue-Bouaziz, Cannes 1997. TIlls 23 .ixe6 tt'lxe5 24 .!':!.xh7 'iitb6 25 .id5!
probably explains why Bouaziz avoids re- .l:!.d8 26.ie4
peating the second time around, for 8... ttJc6 Having built up a large advantage, White
was played in Fontaine-Bouaziz, Cannes plays indecisively. Both 26 iLxf7 and 26 c4
1998, and this time, after 9 ttJxd4 i.d7 10 seem to ensure the capture of the f7-pawn,
ttJxc6 bxc6 11 .i.e2 'iia5+ 12 c3 'iie5 13 ttJg3 when White should be winning.
h5, Black had the initiative. 26 ....ic5 27 a3 tt'lc4 28 .id3 .ie3+ 29
8 .. :~xd4 9 tt'lxd4 f5 10 tt'lf6+ '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
128
3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)
The move order in the game was actually was played in Huerta-Rodriguez Cespedes,
2...e6 3 lDB lDf6 4 ~g5 ..tb4 etc. For the Havana 1986, and now 7 0-0-0 looks prefer-
sake of clarity I am getting into a cyeresov' able to 7 f4 (as played in the game), which
position as quickly as possible. seems rather exotic to me. Here 6... c5 can be
3 .i.g5 e6 4 liJf3 i.b4 met by 7 a3.
The 'MacCutcheon' move, against which I c) 5... 0-0 6 a3 ..txc3+ 7 "xc3 lDbd7 was
see only one interesting option for White ... Opitz-Seifert, Dresden 1999, and now 8lDd2
To complete the round-up of Black's possi- looks interesting for White, who has a useful
bilities, 4... h6 is possible, when 5 ..txf6 'ii'xf6 bishop pair, and an improvement on 8 e3 h6
6 e4 ..tb4 transposes to Akopian-Antonio in 9 ..txf6 lDxf6, which was utterly harmless.
Chapter 10. 6.i.xf6
5 'iWd3!? 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 Ka-
gas-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 I don't know if there was any special reason
like 9 'ilVh4. In the game 9 'ii'f4 "ile7 10 lDe5 why Hector agreed a draw here. Objectively
h6 11 ..txf6 gxf6 12lDxc6 bxc6 looked quite speaking his position looks very attractive,
good for Black. with a nice space advantage and well placed
b) 5...lDbd7 6 lDd2 (6 0-0-0 c5) 6....ie7 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.
130
CHAPTER NINE I
1 ... dS 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .fS
and Others
131
The Veresov
Game 67
I.Sokolov-lIIescas Cordoba
4 ...liJe7 Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee 1997
The only other example of this position I
could fmd was Kunath-Erpel, Weilburg 1998 1 d4 d5 2liJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 liJf6 4 f3!?
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.
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
Trying to prevent e2-e4 by putting pres-
sure 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
Yet another pawn goes to a light square. tDe2 'ii'f6 15 g4 fxg4 16 fxg4 'ii'xg5+ 17
132
1 ... d5 2 tiJc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others
liJxgS liJg7 and Black maintained the balance 9 .i.c4 0-0 10 liJge2 exf3 11 gxf3 and White
in Sakaev-Malaniuk, Elista 1998. had a promising initiative for the pawn.
b) 4...cS is a sharper alternative, when 60-0-0 i.g7 7 i.h6
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 Ma-
laniuk-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 Not so much an attacking move as a posi-
cxdS 10 dxcS e6 11 'ii'd4 'ii'c7 12 liJa4 c;t>f7 tional one. The bishop on g7 is Black's
13 b4, producing a complex and messy game 'good' bishop and without it his dark squares
in which Black had compensation for the look rather weak.
pawn in Antonsen-Malaniuk, Lyngby Open 7 ... 0-0 8 tiJh3 a6 9 i.xg7 <;t>xg7 10 tiJf4
1991. "ilfd6 11 e3
c) 4...liJbd7 5 'iVd3 e6 (S ...g6 6 e4 itJb6 7 After 11 h4? Black can equalise with
eS liJhS 8 .i.e2 h6 9 .i.c1 c6 10 f4 itJg7 11 11...liJxd4! 12 liJfxdS (after 12 hS or 12
'iWg3 put Black in all sorts of trouble in 'ii'xd4 Black plays 12...eS) 12...ti:)xdS 13
Klaric-Sinka, Caorle 1982) 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7 'ii'xd4+ liJf6 etc.
liJh3 0-0 8 e4 liJb6 9 exfS exfS 10 liJf4 h6 11 11 ...i.e6 12 h4 i.f7 13 hS gS 14 h6+
.i.xf6 l:txf6 12 h4 with an edge for White in <;t>h8 1S ltJh3 g4
Stefanova-Montell Lorenzo, Salou 2000. Not 1S....:g8? 16 e4.
For 4...c6 see Macieja-Bartel. 16 tiJgS i.g6 17 tiJe2 eS 18 dxeS 'ii'xeS
S "ilfd2 19 tiJf4 l':.ae8 20 i.d3 'ifxe3 21 'ifxe3
Preparing to castle long before proceeding l':.xe3 22 tiJfe6 l':.e8
with any central action. After the impetuous If Black protects the c-pawn with 22...l::tc8
5 e4?! Black plays S... fxe4 6 fxe4 itJxe4! 7 White has 23 ~d2 d4 (or 23 .. J:teS 24 f4) 24
itJxe4 dxe4 8 dS itJb4! 9 .i.c4 c6 with an liJxd4 winning material.
excellent game. 23 fxg41!
S ... g6 It might have been better to try 23 itJg7
The alternative way for Black to develop is ':'8e7 (23 ...lI8eS 24 f4 :e7 25 ~xfS) 24
with S... e6 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7 e4 dxe4 (7 ... 0-0!? is .i.xfS although 24...:e2 continues to be un-
not unthinkable) 8 fxe4 fxe4 (8...itJxe4 9 comfortable for White.
itJxe4 fxe4 10 h4 gives White compensation 23 ...tiJxg4 24 tiJxc7 l':.8eS1!
for the pawn) 9 .i.bS! .i.d7 10 ~xf6 .i.xf6 11 According to Illescas Black should have
itJxe4, which favours White thanks to his played 24...l:tc8 25 liJxdS l1g3.
superior development and the weak e6-pawn. 2S tiJf3! tiJf2 26 tiJxeS l':.xeS 27 J:Lhe1
Bronstein-Magergut, Moscow 1947 saw the tiJxd1 28 <;t>xd1 l':.xe1 + 1!
interesting 6 e4!? dxe4 7 0-0-0 .i.b4 8 a3 ~aS 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.
134
1 ... d5 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others
28~e4?
White had an even stronger possibility in
Missing the opportunity to win a pawn 28 ltJe4, when the knight heads for e6. The
with 17.. .lhh1 18 l:txh1 i.xd5 19 ltJxdS tactical point is that 28 ...'iVf4 29 tL\c5 'i'xfS
Wxd5, picking up f3. White could have 30 ltJe6+ followed by ltJxfS and 'iWxh2 wins
avoided this by exchanging rooks on h8 be- the exchange.
fore capturing on d5. 28 ...'ii'g3
18 ':'xh8 ':'xh8 19 fxg4 tDxg4 20 tDxd5 After 28 ...e6 (to prevent 29 dS) White can
"ii'xd5 21 tDc3 "ii'f7?! choose between 29 ltJa4 (intending 30 ltJc5),
Around here Black's pieces start to lose 29 i.h 1 (intending 30 ltJe4 followed by ltJcS)
their coordination. Instead 21...'iWd7 22 ~b1 and 29 'iWhs followed by 30 'iVa5+-, picking
i.h6 is equal. up the a7-pawn.
22 ~b1 lLlh2? 29 d5 c5 30 'ifb5
Black could still hold the balance with the White also has the immediate 30 d6, after
precise 22 ...ltJf2, after which 23 1:.£1 i.xd4 which 30... exd6 31 "iWbs leaves Black de-
24 i.f5+- 'iWxfS 25 'iWxd4 e5 26 'iWxa7 l:th 1 fenceless.
simplifies the position and makes a draw 30 ...'ifc7
likely. 30.....d6 would have been a more stub-
23 "ii'g5 -.f6 born defence as the reply 31 'iVxb7 can be
The attempt to evacuate the knight with answered by 31...'iib6. Nevertheless, this
23 ...ltJf3 runs into 24 i.f5+ e6 2S i.xe6+ looks very promising for White after 32
135
The Veresov
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 with 35 ...'ii'fl!
which forces the exchange of the major
pieces after 36 'i'd2 'i'xdH 37 'iVxdl :%f1
etc. Now his king proves to be far too ex-
posed.
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 Black chooses not to commit his knight to
The queen endgame is winning for White f6 for the time being, avoiding the doubled
thanks largely to the superb position of his pawns that result from 3...tDf6 4 .txf6 and,
queen. She later comes to b3 to support the with ....tg7 to now follow, ruling out plans
advance of the a-pawn. based on li'd2 and .th6. For 3... c6 see Soko-
43 .. .'~e7 44 'iifa2 'iitb6 45 'ii"b3+ 'iite7 46 lov-Nikolic, while 3... tDc6 is covered in Ro-
c4 'iVe4 47 a4 WaS 48 'ifb5 Wa7 49 a5 mero Holmes-Vallejo Pons.
WaS 50 'ii"b6+ 'iitd7 51 a6 'ile6 52 Wa5 4 e3 i.g7 5 h4 i.e6
'iVaS 53 a7 'iite6 54 'ii'b5+ 'iite7 55 Wa6 Black has a major alternative in 5... c6,
1-0 when 6 .tf4!? (intending 7 h5) is quite prom-
After 55 ... ~d7 56 'it>a3 rj;;c7 (or 56 ...'iVf3+ ising (the immediate 6 h5 is answered by
57 'iii>a4 'iWdH 58 c;f;ta5) the simplest is proba- 6...h6 7 .tf4 g5). After 6...tDd7 or 6...tDh6
bly 57 b3 'ifh8 58 a8tD+ ~b8 59 'iVxd6+ White should open the h-ftle with 7 h5, so
~xa8 60 'iVxc5 with an easy win. play might instead continue 6...tDf6 7 h5
136
1 ... d5 2 li:Jc3: 2 ... e6, 2 ... f5 and Others
ttJx:h5 8 .l:!.x:h5 gxh5 9 1ifx:h5+ ~f8 10 ~d3 and White gets his first pawn for the ex-
'lIVe8 11 'iih2, as in Gelfand-Kontic, Euro- change whilst maintaining a powerful bind.
pean U20 Ch., Arnhem 1988, when White
had good compensation for the exchange.
6 li:Jf3 c6 7 .i.f4
Once again the immediate 7 h5 is an-
swered by 7... h6 8 ~f4 g5 so (again) White
first retreats the bishop.
7 ..•li:Jf6 8 h5 li:Jxh5?
137
The Veresov
finnly blockaded. Khalifman handles any 4... fxe4: S f3 liJf6 6 fxe4 dxe4 7 .i.c4 .i.g4!? S
technical difficulties very well. ii'd2liJbd7 9 h3liJb6 10 .i.b3 ~hS l1liJge2
33 ~g4 'ifi'd6 34 Wd2 l:g8 35 f3 e5 36 h6 was Litus-Malaniuk, Katowice Open
dxe5+ ~xe5 37 ~e1 l:h8 38 ~h3 c5 39 1991, and now, instead of 12 ~e3? liJbdS 13
~f2 b5 40 itJf4 l:h6 41 itJd3+ 'ifi'd6 42 f4 liJg3 ~g6, which was good for Black, 12
b4 43 f5 c4 44 itJf4 Wa5 45 Wf3 l:d6 46 .i.xf6 exf6 13 liJxe4 would have favoured
itJh5 White. White also maintains a strong initia-
White also has 46 liJe6 as after 46 ...l:la6 tive after either 7...~f5 S liJge2 liJbd7 9 0-0
there follows 47liJcS ':xa2 4SliJd7+ ~d6 49 liJb6 10 ~b3 Wd7 11 liJg3, as in Bauer-
f6 etc. M.Tseitlin, Bad Zwesten Open 1997, or
46 ... d4 47 exd4+ l:xd4 48 f6 l:d8 49 7...liJbd7 8 'il'e2 WaS 9 ~d2 'if'f5 10 liJh3
~f1 ~f5 50 ~xc4 c,t>g5 51 itJf4 ~xf6 52 liJb6 11 .i.b3, Popchev-Panbukchian,
itJd5+ ~g5 53 itJxb4 l:d2 54 We3 J:[d1 Bulgarian Ch., 1994.
55 itJd3 h3 56 itJf2 h2 57 b3 h1"if 58 Another interesting possibility is 4 ii'd3!?,
itJxh1 l:xh1 59 ~d4 l:h4+? when Glek-Fishbein, Philadelphia 1990 con-
Black's last chance was S9 ...~f6, when 60 tinued 4...liJa6 5 f3 'ii'a5 6 'ii'd2 liJf6 7 a3
WcS We7 61 Wc6 .l:th2 62 .i.d3 <;i;1dS 63 <;i;1b7 (the immediate 7 e4?! allows Black to equalise
as offers some practical chances. with 7... fxe4 8 liJxe4 'ii'xd2+ 9 liJxd2 liJb4)
60 ~a5 ~g4 61 ~e6+ ~f3 62 c4 l:h2 7... b5 8 e4 fxe4 9 liJxe4 'ii'xd2+ 10 liJxd2
63 c5 l:xa2 64 c6 1-0 .i.d7 11 liJb3 e6 12 a4! liJb4 13 <;i;1d1 bxa4 14
liJc5 ~xc5 15 dxc5 and White had slightly
Game 70 the better endgame. Perhaps S...b4 should be
I.Sokolov-Pr .Nikolic tried, matters being far from clear after 9
Dutch Ch., Rotterdam 1998 liJa2 fxe4 10 .i.xa6 ~xa6 11 axb4 'iib6.
Less good for White is 4 'ii'd2 h6 5 .i.f4
1 d4 d5 2 itJc3 f5 3 ~g5 c6 4 a3 liJf6 6 f3 e6 because 7 e4?! here is dubious
This quiet approach may not be White's due to 7... fxe4 8 fxe4 ~b4 etc.
best. Very sharp is 4 e4! 4 .. :i'b6 5 l:b1 itJd7 6 ~d3 g6 7 h4
This looks far more dangerous for Black. With White being unable to castle queen-
4... dxe4 S f3 'tib6 6 ii'd2 Wxb2 7 l:lbl e3!? S side I don't think this is the right plan. He
'il'xe3 Wa3 9 .i.c4 presented White with ex- might be well advised to choose a different
cellent compensation for the pawn in Poluli- move here:
akhov-Glek, USSR 1990, which leaves a) After 7 liJh3!? Black should find an al-
138
1 ... d5 2 ttJc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others
139
The Veresov
140
1 ... d5 2 ti:Jc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others
(20...tLlxe5 21 .ig5+ wins the queen with with colours reversed and an extra tempo for
check) 21 ':'xd7+ ~c8 22 .ixc4 with an extra White. Perhaps White can best exploit this
piece. with 3 e4 cxd4 (3 ...dxe4 4 d5 tLlf6 5 f3 exf3 6
20 ... cxd6 21 ti:Jd4 <:;c7 22.i.a4 tLlxf3 puts Black in a quite dangerous line of
Another powerful move is 22 'i+'a4, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as the inclu-
threatening - amongst other things - to dou- sion of the moves ...c7-c5 and d4-d5 give
ble on the c-file. White a lot of central space) 4 1i'xd4 dxe4 5
22 ...l::tc8 23 ti:Jb5+ 'iii>b8 24 ti:Jxd6 l::td8 'i+'xd8+ ~xd8 6 tLlxe4 tLlf6 was played in
25ti:Jf7 Richter-Mieses, Swinemuende 1931, and now
Also good is 25 tLlb5 'i+'e7 26 "f4+ c;t;>a8 7 tLlxf6 would have weakened Black's struc-
27 ':xd8+ etc. ture and left him with a permanent disadvan-
25 .. :Wi'xd1 + 26 .i.xd1 J:td7 27 .i.f3 l::tc7 tage. Richter's 7 tLlg5, on the other hand,
28 ti:Jd6 .i.a6 29 "g8+ 1-0 earned only a temporary initiative.
2....tfS 3 .ig5 c6 transposes to the main
Game 72 game.
Hort-So.Polgar 3 .i.g5 .i.f5
Amsterdam 2001
1 d4 d5 2 ti:Jc3 c6
141
The Veresov
the b-pawn with 4 'iWd2, which turned out to square if White later moves one of his rooks
be a good move when Black didn't take it along the third rank. Exchanging queens with
and played 4....i.fS instead! 16...'iffS is also bad after 17 'i'xfS gxfS 18
4 e3lDd7 .tf4+ ~c8 19 dS, so the modest 16...'iVc7 is
After 4.. :ifb6 the move S 'ub1 can come probably the right move.
in handy in lines such as S... lt:'Jd7 6 .td3 17 'iWc2 e6 18 .tf4+ ~a8 19 c5 b6
.txd3 7 cxd3 thanks to the possibility of a Black must have been loathe to play this
minority attack (b2-b4-bS). move, but she no doubt saw 20 ':e3 coming.
5 .td3 .txd3 6 'ii'xd3 WIl6 20 .tc7 :tc8 21 .td6 llhe8 22 :te3 ifb7
Black should play simply 6... lt:'Jgf6 and aim 23 :tb3 .te7 24 .txe7 ':xe7 25 lDd2
to castle kingside.
7 0-0-0 0-0-0 8 lDf3 96 9 e4 dxe4 10
lDxe4 h6 11 .te3 'iVa5 12 ~b1
142
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 I
1 ... 'tJf6 2 'tJc3: 2 ... c5,
2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
, d4 lbf6 2 lbc3 Medic. This takes the game right off the
By refusing to meet 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 with beaten track and results in positions in which
2...dS Black announces his intention to try to Black has to be careful. In theory Black may
unbalance the position. With 2...cS he invites be able to equalise but in practice he has
transposition to a Schmid Benoni (with 3 experienced some difficulties.
dS), 2... d6 and 2...g6 would lead to a Czech As far as the 'attempted Pirc' is con-
or Pirc Defence after 3 e4 and 2...e6 prepares cerned, White can meet 2...g6 with 3 i..gS,
to playa French after 3 e4 dS. To avoid play- after which 3...d6 can be met with 4 ~xf6
ing in your opponent's back garden we need (Klinger-Maxion). Generally speaking I'm
some more 'Veresov' moves and ideas. not very fond of this exchange on f6 but here
There aren't too many players who enjoy Black is several moves further away from his
the Schmid Benoni after 2...cS 3 d5 but this best set up (one with pawns on dS and fS). If
can occasionally crop up and White must he protects the knight with 3... ~g7, then
have a plan of action. I think that the move White can prepare to exchange this bishop
which is most in the spirit of the Veresov is 3 and castle long with 4 'iid2.
i..gs, which officially transposes to a line of If Black plays 2... d6 a transposition is pos-
the Trompovsky (1 d4 ttJf6 2 ~gS cS 3 ttJc3) sible after 3 i..gS g6 4 i..xf6, but there is
and leads to very sharp play. The main line another option in 3...ttJbd7. In Fahnen-
occurs after 3... cxd4 4 'ilxd4 ttJc6 5 'iii'h4 e6 schmidt-Eis the game transposed to a line of
when White will hoist the pirate flag by cas- the Philidor in which White's bishop is sup-
tling long (see Miladinovic-Gustafsson). posed to be poorly placed on gS. However,
Varying with S... bS worked out alright for I'm not so sure this is the case.
Black in Grimm-Tseitlin but White played In the event of 2 ...e6 White would normally
very passively in this game and he can im- play 3 e4, when 3... dS is a Classical French.
prove by castling long on move 7 or 8. But we can avoid transposing directly to a
Black's other options are to play 3...'ii'aS and French by playing 3 i..gS. If Black then plays
3...'i+b6, which are covered in De la Villa- 3... dS we would be in Chapter 8. 3... h6 4
Glavina Rossi. i..xf6 'ii'xf6 5 e4 leads to a line of the Trom-
If White wants a somewhat quieter life he povsky and is covered in Anand-Karpov and
might well consider 3 dxcS, as in Mestrovic- Hall-De Firmian.
144
1 .. .tDf6 2 l?Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
5 ... 86
The most common move, but not the
only one. In De la Villa-Miezis, Elgoibar
1995 Black played 5... d6, although after 6 e4
The 'Veresov' move, though this position .i.e6 7 .i.d3 l:tc8 8 lLlgeZ tiJeS 9 f4 tiJxd3+ 10
usually arises via a Trompovsky move order cxd3 'ilb6 11 f5 White had more space, a
(1 d4 lLlf6 2 i.g5 c5 3 lLlc3). White's 'best' lead in development and active pieces. For
move may well be 3 d5 which transposes into 5... b5 see Grimm-Tseidin.
a Schmid Benoni, but here we'll concern 6 e4
ourselves with the move which is most in the White has also played the immediate 6
spirit of the Veresov. 0-0-0, transposing after 7 e4.
3 ... cxd4 6 ....te7
3... d5 transposes to Chapter 4, and 3...'ila5 After 6 ... h6 White should probably play 7
is examined in the game De la Villa-Glavina 0-0-0 with similar play to the main line, while
Rossi. One other possibility for Black is in reply to 7 f4 Black has 7...1ib6, when S
3...'ilb6, when Gufeld and Stetsko consider O-O-O? is bad in view of S...lLlh71.
only 4 d5 'ilVxb2 5 i.d2 with a Trompovsky. 7 f4
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, It may well be that 7 0-0-0 is a more accu-
145
The Veresov
rate move order. 1bis can also lead to the exd6 ttJd4!? and now, according to Tai-
position after White's 9th move but with manov, White should play 12 Ji.d3 when
different divergences being possible en route. 12...i.b7 13 'ikf2 h6 14 ~h4 ttJbS 15 i.xbS
For example 7.....aS 8 f4 d6 9 ttJf3 leads axbS 16 ttJf3 is complex. In the game 12
back to the game, 7...a6 8 f4 bS 9 eS b4 10 0-0-0 ttJf5 13 i.xf6 ttJxh4 14 ~xd8 'S\i>xd8 15
exf6 gxf6 11 ttJe4 fxgS 12 fxgS "as 13 ~bl ttJe2 ~b7 16 JIgl f6!? gave Black the better
b3 14 axb3 ttJb4 15 ttJf6+ ~d8!? 16 'it'd4 endgame due to the pressure against White's
'ifa2+ 17 ~c1 'ifa1+ 18 ~d2 produced a wild kingside. Note that here (7 ... bS) 8 ttJxbS
situation in Vaganian-Knaak, Tallinn 1979 'ii'a5+ 9 ttJc3 ttJxe4 is just bad for White, and
which White went on to win, 7...0-0 8 f4 h6 9 8 Ji.xbS 'iVb6 gives Black compensation for
ttJf3 hxgS 10 ttJxgS 'ifc7! 11 eS! ttJxeS 12 the pawn.
ttJdS! exdS 13 fxeS 'ifxes 14 1:1el 'iff5! 15 Another attempt to reveal the dark side of
1:1xe7 'ifg4! 16 'ifxg4 ttJxg4 17 Ji.bS! gave 7 f4 is with 7..."ikb6, when Ochoa-Browne,
White the better endgame in Krasenkow- New York 1989 went 8 0-0-0 l6e3+ 9 'S\i>bl
Degraeve, Cappelle la Grande 1990 and ttJxe4 10 ttJxe4 'ifxe4 11 Ji.d3 Ji.xgS 12
7... h6 8 f4 %lg8 9 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 10 'ifg3 ~xc3 'iixgS 'ii'd4 13 ttJf3 l6f6 14 "ikhs 'ifxf4 15
11 'ii'xc3 'ifaS 12 'ii'xaS ttJxaS 13 eS gS! gave ttJgS ttJeS 16 lthfl l6g4 17 'ii'xg4 ttJxg4 18
Black quite a good endgame in Dorfanis- ttJx£7 1:1£8 19 ttJd6+ ~e7 20 .l:!.x£8 'ittx£8 21
Atalik, Katarini 1993. In this last variation Ji.xh7 ~e7 22 h3 ttJe3 23 :d2 ttJdS 24
one should note that 9 ttJf3 hxgS 10 fxgS ttJxc8+ :xc8 25 ~e4 and White had the
leaves Black's knight on f6 without a move, better endgame, though it's not clear what
and I wonder if White can use this to de- was happening en route.
velop his initiative. S 0-0-0 "a5 9 tlJf3
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, sud-
denly, 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+
~x£8 22 ttJx£7 mate) 20 Ji.gS ~g7 21 'ii'h6+
~g8 22 i.xf6 1-0, since 22...i.xf6 23 :h3
leads to forced mate. 9 ... h6
7 ... d6 1bis has been applauded as being Black's
The main argument against 7 f4 is that best option, although it seems that there are
Black can use the fact that White hasn't cas- other possibilities:
tled to play an immediate 7... bS!?, Nei- a) 9 ... ~d7 looks like a natural developing
Taimanov, USSR 1981 continuing 8 eS b4!? 9 move, when 10 'ifel, 10 ~bS and 10 ~d3 all
ttJbS (9 exf6 gxf6 is better for Black) 9...a6 10 seem reasonable for Black after 10... h6.
ttJd6+ (10 exf6 gxf6 11 ttJd6+ Ji.xd6 12 ~xf6 However, 10 ttJd2 with the idea of 11 ttJc4 is
Ji.e7 13 ~xe7 l6xe7 also leaves Black with problematic for Black, Sell-Berger, Gennany
the more compact structure) 1O ... ~xd6 11 1999 continuing 10...:c8 11 ttJc4 16cS 12
146
1 .. .tcd6 2 tiJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
ttJa4 'ii'b4, and now 13 a3 'iixa4 14 b3 'iia6 ficult to assess. White clearly has compensa-
15 ttJxd6+ wins Black's queen for what ap- tion for the pawn thanks to his superior de-
pears to be inadequate compensation. velopment and Black's loss of castling rights.
b) 9...a6 protects bS (when 10 ttJd2 can be But is it enough?
met by 10... bS) but Black needs a good an- 14 ...'irc5 15 We1 a6 16 .i.d3
swer to 10 'iiel, as 10... bS 11 eS b4 12 exf6 Probably the best square for the bishop as
gxf6 13 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 14 ttJe4 was good for after 16 i.a4 bS 17 i.b3 i.b7 Black gains
\X'hite in Mensch-Nicoara, France 1999. time for development.
c) 9...0-0 seems to 'castle into it' but I 16 ... .i.d7 17 l:[n
don't see any concrete objection.
10 e5
147
The Veresov
148
1.. .ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
149
The Veresov
150
1 .. .ti:Jf6 2 4Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
151
The Veresov
152
1 .. .r:iJf6 2 liJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 .. . d6, 2 . .. g6 and Others
153
The Veresov
154
1 .. .1'1)(6 2 0,c3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
155
The Veresov
play 41 ttJd6+, when 41...cxd6 42 'ii'e7+ ~b8 Tchoubar-Solozhenkin, New York 1994
43 l:!xc8+ ~xc8 44 exd6 'ii'c6 45 'ii'f8+ (45 continued 8...dxes 9 lLlxes ttJd7 10 i.bs c6
.txa6+ is probably also good) 4s .. .'ittd7 46 11 lLlxd7 ~xd7 12 .td3 0-0 13 'it'g4 .:I.ac8 14
'ii'g7+ 'ittxd6 47 'it'xd4 wins without too ':bl b6 15 0-0 cs 16 i.a6 ':c7 17 'iig3 'ii'd8
much trouble. 18 ':fdl and White had the initiative. An-
41 ... 'it>b8 42 tLixe6 1-0 other possibility is 6... d6 but after 7 "ii'd2
After 42 ...'iia3 43 ':dl White is simply a lLld7 8 a3 i.as I think that 9 b4 i.b6 10 lLla4
pIece up. followed by 11 c4 gives White a space advan-
tage that will not be easy to combat.
Game 80 6 ... c5
Hall-De Firmian Black's main alternative is the solid 6...d6.
Malmo 1999 Gallagher has suggested the immediate 7 f4
but this seems to be well answered by 7... es.
1 d4 tLif6 2 tLic3 e6 3 ~g5 h6 4 ~xf6 Instead there is 7 a3, e.g. 7... .txc3 (7 ... .tas 8
"ii'xf6 5 e4 ~b4 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
According to Trompovs\...1' guru Julian building in White's favour in Gelfand-
Hodgson this is the most testing continua- Rozentalis, Tilburg 1994.
tion. Black proceeds with his development 7 a3 i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 f4!?
and after exchanging his dark-squared bishop
will put his central pawns on dark squares.
6 "ii'd2
The sharpest continuation, but not the
only one. White has also tried simple devel-
opment 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 cen-
tralised pieces in Akopian-Antonio, Las Ve-
gas 1999. Igor Stohl's suggestion of
6....txc3+ 7 bxc3 d6 should be met with 8 es
before Black plays that move himself and This enterprising continuation is the most
fIxes the central pawns on dark squares. dangerous for Black, and it might also be
156
1 .. .tbf6 2 {jjc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others
dangerous for White. After his brilliant win .l:tfe8 is about equal.
against Yudasin (see below), Hodgson curi- 12lLle2 g5 13 ~xd7+ {jjxd7 14l:lxb7
ously switched to 9 lbf3, when Hodgson- Now Black has serious problems because
Rowson, York 2000 continued 9... 0-0 10 the powerful posting of White's rook on the
jLe2 lbc6 11 0-0 e5 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 ~e3 seventh rank causes a certain amount of in-
.i.g4 (13 ... b6 14 .i.c4 .i.g4 was equal in convenience; Black must lose time castling.
Hodgson-De Finnian, Amsterdam 1996) 14 14... lLlb6 15 'iWd3 'i'e6
'iWxc5 .l:!.fc8 15 ~e3 'iYf4 16 ~xf4 exf4 17 \x-'hite meets 15... 0-0 with 16 h4, when all
~abl i.xf3 18 gxf3 b6 when White's extra his pieces are converging on Black's king.
pawn was quite immaterial. The suspicion 16 h4 'iVc8
must be that he does not like 9 f4 e5!?, al- Black could win the exchange with 16...c4
though the consequences do not seem terri- 17 'if'f3 'tlVc8 but after 18 l;1xb6 axb6 19 hxg5
bly clear. .l:Ixa3 20 'it>d2 White threatens both 21 hxgG
9 ... e5!? and 21 lbf4 and gets excellent positional
Taking some dark squares before White compensation.
gets in 10 e5. In Hodgson-Yudasin, New 17 'iWa6 0-0 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 e5!
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.
'0~b5+ ~d711l:tb'!
Maintaining the initiative. 11 .i.xd7+
lbxd7 leaves Black excellently placed.
11 ... exf4?
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.
2 c5 5 e4 5 'iVh4
158
INDEl OF COMPLETE GAMES I
159
The Veresov
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.
,.
ISBN 1-85744-
£14.99 $19.95