Grandmaster Repertoire

The Queen’s Indian Defence

By

Michael Roiz

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents
Key to symbols used 4
Preface 5
Bibliography 6

Rare Options
1 4.¥g5 & 4.¥f4 7
2 4.e3 – Introduction 23
3 4.e3 & 5.¥d3 39
4 4.¤c3 56

Petrosian System
5 Introduction 73
6 6.cxd5 103
7 7.¥d2 & 7.e3 114
8 7.£c2 138

4.g3
9 5.¤bd2 159
10 5.£a4 178
11 5.£b3 203
12 5.£c2 – Sidelines 220
13 5.£c2 & 10.¦d1 236
14 5.b3 – Introduction 265
15 9.cxd5 285

Catalan
16 Sidelines 314
17 4.¥d2 332
18 8.£c2 358
19 9.¥f4 380

Variation Index 416
 Preface

Following the success of my previous book Grandmaster Repertoire – The Nimzo-Indian Defence,
I was delighted when Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw offered me the opportunity to write a
companion volume covering the Queen’s Indian and Catalan from Black’s perspective, making
for a complete repertoire after 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6. As a long-time 1.d4 player, I have used a variety
of weapons against the Queen’s Indian and have also incorporated it into my Black repertoire.
Despite all this experience in my playing career, I could never have imagined how strategically
rich this opening is, until I analysed it for this book. Even though the Queen’s Indian has a
reputation for solidity, certain variations can lead to extremely sharp, double-edged play.

I believe the Queen’s Indian and Nimzo-Indian combine perfectly, since Black’s strategic goals are
similar in both openings: he develops quickly and aims to control the centre with pieces initially,
while keeping a flexible pawn structure. In this book we will encounter a few lines where an early
¤c3 allows Black to transpose to a pleasant version of a Nimzo-Indian with ...¥b4. Moreover, I
have endeavoured to make our complete repertoire as compact as possible, which is one reason
why I opted to meet 3.g3 with 3...¥b4†, after which 4.¤c3 would lead straight to Chapter 7 of
my Nimzo-Indian book.

Apart from making the repertoire theoretically robust and sharing numerous theoretical novelties,
one of my main goals in this book has been to share my knowledge of certain thematic pawn
structures such as hanging pawns, isolated d5-pawn, Hedgehog structure and more. It is worth
mentioning that it is mostly Black who gets to choose which structure to enter, and the correct
decision will depend on how well his pieces will coordinate in the resultant positions, as well as
taking into account the opponent’s set-up. For instance, after 4.g3 ¥a6 5.¤bd2 White’s ability to
exert pressure on the centre is limited, so 5...d5 becomes more appealing. If, on the other hand,
White goes for some other 5th-move option which enables his knight to go to the more active
c3-square, then I would refrain from fixing Black’s central structure so soon.

The Queen’s Indian is justifiably popular at all levels and has proven its reliability even in World
Championship matches. I hope the readers will enjoy this book and find many useful things for
their chess education.

Michael Roiz
Rishon LeZion, October 2018
 
  
 

er
  M 
a pt  p 

Petrosian System
    
Ch
6    
  
 


6.cxd5
Variation Index
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7 5.¤c3 d5 6.cxd5
6...¤xd5
A) 7.e4?! 104
B) 7.£a4† 106
C) 7.¤xd5 £xd5! 110
C1) 8.g3 110
C2) 8.e3 112

B) note to 8.¤xd5 B) note to 9.£c2 C1) note to 9.¥e3

  
       
   
 n         
+     
         
          
         
      
  
10...£h4!N 13...¦fc8!!N 14...£c3!N
104 Petrosian System

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7 5.¤c3 a small edge with virtually no risk in
d5 6.cxd5 Vi. Kovalev – Avdeenko, Tomsk 2008.
This is White’s most popular choice by a 12.cxd4
considerable margin. 12.¤g5? d3! 13.£xd3 £xd3 14.exd3 ¥xg2
15.¢xg2 ¦d8µ leaves White in a depressing
6...¤xd5 endgame due to his pawn weaknesses.
As usual, we avoid the more rigid ...exd5 12...¤c6 13.¦d1 ¦c8 14.£d3
pawn structure where possible. 
  
This chapter will deal with some minor options:
A) 7.e4?!, B) 7.£a4† and C) 7.¤xd5.
 
  
7.¥d2 and 7.e3 are analysed in the next     
chapter, while the big main line of 7.£c2 can     
be found in Chapter 8.   
7.¥g5 ¥e7 leads back to variation D1 of the
  
previous chapter.    

7.g3 This occurred in Loureiro – Sunye Neto,
The fianchetto set-up is playable but it Sao Jose de Rio Preto 1995. The simplest
contains no real venom here, as Black is well continuation is:
placed to contest the light squares. 14...¥f6N=
7...¤xc3 8.bxc3 ¥e7 9.¥g2 0–0 10.0–0 c5 Black has no problems.
11.£c2
This seems like White’s best try. A) 7.e4?! ¤xc3 8.bxc3 ¥xe4
After 11.¥e3 ¤d7 12.£d3 £c8 13.a4 ¤f6
Black had a comfortable game in Al-Zendani

– Le Quang, Guangzhou 2010.   
   
      
      
   
        
        
       
   
    
 This pawn sac has been tried by several
11...cxd4 strong players but White’s compensation is
11...¤d7?! allows a thematic trick: 12.¤g5! questionable.
¥xg5 13.¥xb7 ¦b8 14.¥g2² White had
 Chapter 6 – 6.cxd5 105

9.¤e5 £h4! 11.¥b5†? c6 12.f3 cxb5 13.fxe4 ¤d7µ was

This move may appear artificial but it serves poor for White in A. Mikhalevski – A. Sokolov,
an important purpose in limiting White’s Biel 1992.
activity on the kingside – especially with
regard to the queen. 11.£a4†?! is not much better. Play continues
11...c6 12.f3 ¥d5 13.c4 and now a serious
9...c6? cannot be recommended. True, after improvement is:
10.£e2 ¥g6 11.h4 £d5 Black went on to 
win in Piket – Korchnoi, Roquebrune 1992,   
although White certainly has compensation
at this stage. However, 10.£h5! is a finesse
  
which puts Black’s 9th move out of business.   
The point is revealed after 10...£c7N    
(10...g6 11.£e2 ¥f5 12.g4 £d5 13.gxf5!   
£xh1 14.¤xf7!+– was devastating in Hart    
– B. Watson, Auckland 2010) 11.£e2 ¥g6
12.h4± when Black is in trouble.
    
  
10.g3 
 13...b5!N (in the game Black tried to get too
clever with 13...¥e4?, after which 14.¥e3! left
   White with a strong initiative for the pawn
   in Kopasov – M. Kaufmann, email 2003)
14.cxb5 ¥d6µ Black has returned the extra
    material to reach an excellent position where
     White suffers from serious weaknesses.
    We have been following the game Aoiz Linares
     – Veingold, Barcelona 1992. Black has a few
     good options but the most promising seems to
be:
  
   
10...£d8!
The queen is not really wasting time, as   
White’s development has been disrupted
and he now has to spend another tempo
   
safeguarding his rook.     
   
10...£f6 is less accurate; after 11.¥b5† c6
12.f3! ¥d5 13.¥e2 b5 14.a4 White has     
promising play for the pawn.     
11.¦g1
  

106 Petrosian System

11...¥d5!N 12.¥b5† B) 7.£a4†

Black would be happy to provoke 12.c4,
when 12...¥b7 leaves the light-squared

bishop restricted, thus limiting White’s active   
possibilities. Play might continue 13.£a4† c6  
14.¥e3 ¥e7 15.¥g2 0–0µ when, aside from
being a pawn down, White’s king faces an    
uncertain future.    
12...c6 13.¥d3 b5!
   
Securing the future of the excellent bishop    
on d5.
  
14.a4 a6 15.axb5 cxb5   
My analysis continues: 
 We have, in the previous chapter, already seen
   a few incarnations of this queen check, which
White hopes will disrupt our development
   and provoke a concession of some kind. This
   approach was employed by Garry Kasparov
back in 1983, and has been used by many
   other GMs.
    
7...¤d7
    I favour this natural developing move.
    
    7...£d7 8.£c2 ¤xc3 9.bxc3 leaves Black
with a less harmonious set-up compared with
 variation B of Chapter 8.
16.c4 bxc4 17.£a4† ¤d7 18.¥xc4 ¥xc4
19.¤xc4 ¥e7 20.¤e5 f6 21.¤c6 £c7³ 7...c6 is playable and has scored well for Black;
The game goes on, but White is clearly nevertheless, I regard this move as a slight
struggling to find compensation for the pawn. concession.

8.¤xd5
8.¤e5?! ¤xc3 9.bxc3 ¥d6 gives White
absolutely nothing, for instance:
 Chapter 6 – 6.cxd5 107

 9.£c2
   This is the most ambitious try; White wants
 to establish a strong pawn centre.
   
     9.¥g5
This move is popular yet harmless.
    Azmaiparashvili has played it three times;
     strangely, his opening play became worse
   each time, as shown in the examples below.
   9...¥e7 10.¥xe7 £xe7 11.¦c1?!
 This is the most interesting move to analyse,
10.¤xd7 (10.¤c6?? could have led to disaster as long as it’s from Black’s side of the board!
for White in Petronic – Ostojic, Belgrade White is playing with fire, attacking a pawn
1989, if Black had only found 10...£h4!N at the expense of his development.
with the deadly threat of ...¤c5. White has no 11.¤e5 is safer, when 11...a6 12.£xd7†
real choice but to retreat with 11.¤b4, when £xd7 13.¤xd7 ¢xd7 14.f3 f5 gave Black
11...c5–+ leaves him hopelessly uncoordinated comfortable equality in Azmaiparashvili –
and behind in development.) 10...£xd7 Grischuk, Moscow (rapid) 2002, which was
11.£xd7† ¢xd7 12.f3 f5 13.e3 c5 Black the first of the aforementioned games of the
had the more pleasant game in Dzagnidze – Georgian GM.
A. Muzychuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2014. 
  
8...¥xd5  
8...exd5 was Korchnoi’s choice, which
brought him a draw against Kasparov in Game
   
3 of their 1983 Candidates match. However,    
blocking the diagonal of the b7-bishop is    
an indisputable achievement for White, so    
most strong players have preferred the bishop   
recapture.
  
 
   11...0–0!
  Naturally we can sacrifice the c-pawn.
12.¦xc7
    Obviously this is the critical move to
    consider. It’s extremely risky though: White
not only expends another tempo, but also
    opens the c-file which Black can now use to
    invade. I checked two other ideas:
a) 12.e3 is safer but Black is at least equal
   after: 12...c5 13.¥b5 ¤f6 14.dxc5 bxc5
   15.0–0 ¦ab8 16.£a5 This was Buhmann
 – Cvitan, Pula 2003, and now 16...¦b6!N³
108 Petrosian System

would have caused White some problems, Conveniently escaping the pin while
with ...¦fb8 or perhaps ...¥xf3 followed by activating the knight.
...£b7 coming soon. 13.¦xe7 ¤xa4 14.¢d2
b) 12.e4? was Azmaiparashvili’s bizarre 14.b3 ¥xb3 15.¤d2 ¥a2 16.e4 ¦fc8 was
attempt to improve, but it can be refuted by: horrible for White in Bonin – Adorjan, New
13...¥xe4 13.¦xc7 York 1986.
 14...¦fc8 15.¤g5 ¥b3
   Black had a dangerous initiative in
Azmaiparashvili – Kramnik, Cap D’Agde
  (rapid) 2003.
   
     
     
     
       
      

13...¦fc8!!N (13...¤c5!? 14.dxc5 £xc7     
15.£xe4 £xc5 gave Black a good position    
with rook against two minor pieces in
Azmaiparashvili – Macieja, Ermioni
 
Argolidas 2006, but the text move is even   
better) 14.¦xd7 £f6 Threatening to win
the rook with ...¥c6, while also setting up

9...¥e7
attacking ideas against White’s king. 15.£d1 The other natural continuation 9...c5 10.e4
£f4 16.¥c4 (16.¤d2 ¥c6 traps the rook) ¥b7 11.¥f4! offers White some more activity.
16...¥xf3 17.£xf3 £c1† 18.¢e2 £xc4†
19.¢e3 ¦f8µ White will be hard pressed 10.e4
to keep his position together with his king 10.¥f4N ¦c8 11.e4 ¥b7 transposes to the
placed in such a way. main line.

   10...¥b7 11.¥f4
  11.¥b5 has achieved a plus score for White
    but 11...0–0 12.¥c6 ¤c5! is a nice resource
which enables Black to unblock the c-pawn
    at once. 13.¥xb7 (after 13.dxc5N ¥xc6
    14.cxb6 £d6 15.bxc7 ¦ac8 16.0–0 £xc7
    17.¤d4 ¥b7 Black’s excellent bishops provide
   full compensation for the pawn) 13...¤xb7
   14.0–0 c5 15.¦d1 £c7 16.dxc5 Here I found
a slight improvement over Mchedlishvili –
 Werle, Emsdetten 2010:
12...¤c5!
 Chapter 6 – 6.cxd5 109

 12...0–0 13.¥d3

   13.¥b5!? c6 14.¥e2 occurred in Sanikidze
  – Matlakov, Gjakova 2016. My new idea is
    14...¤f6N 15.0–0 c5! when any problems
     along the d-file are illusory, for instance:
    
      
    
       
     
16...£xc5N 17.£e2 ¦fd8= Black has no    
problems.    
  
     
 
16.dxc5 ¦xc5! 17.£a4 £a8 18.e5 ¥c6 19.£b3
    ¤d5 Black has a comfortable game and the e5-
     pawn might become weak in the long run.

    
      
   
      
     
11...¦c8    
11...c5N is possible although 12.dxc5
gives Black something to think about, since
  
12...¤xc5 13.¥b5† forces the king to move.   
The text move is a simpler solution.   
12.¦d1 
Other continuations don’t bother Black 13...c5 14.d5
either, for instance: White relies on the power of the passed
pawn. Keeping the c-file closed is also desirable
12.¥b5N 0–0 13.¥c6 ¥xc6 14.£xc6 ¤b8 for him.
15.£a4 £d7 16.£xd7 ¤xd7 17.¢e2 c5 is
equal. 14...c4!
Fortunately, the rook still has some value
12.¥c4N ¤f6 13.¥b5† c6 14.¥d3 c5 15.£e2 on c8.
0–0 16.dxc5 ¦xc5 17.0–0 £a8= also gives
Black no problems. 15.¥e2 exd5 16.exd5 ¥f6 17.0–0N
110 Petrosian System

White should not keep his king in the centre The text move is clearly best: the queen is
any longer. active yet not vulnerable to attack, and Black
has good control over the central light squares.
The over-aggressive 17.h4 ¦e8 18.¤g5 ¤f8³
led White nowhere in Kincs – Amstadt, We will consider C1) 8.g3 and C2) 8.e3.
Zalakarosi 2008.
 8.¥f4 has been played several times but it
proves harmless after 8...¥d6, for instance:
   9.¥xd6 £xd6 10.e3 0–0 11.¥d3 ¤d7= Nutiu
 – Parligras, Baile Tusnad 1999.

     C1) 8.g3
    
      
     
     
      
     
17...¦e8 18.¥e3 a6 19.a4 h6
White’s pieces are rather ineffective and    
don’t support the passer, so Black is at least not    
worse.
 
C) 7.¤xd5 £xd5! 
White’s opening play would be fully justified This has been quite a popular choice;
after 7...¥xd5 8.£c2, when the position is the apparently the centralized queen is an inviting
same as variation B except that Black’s knight is target. However, White comes under pressure
on b8 instead of d7. Play may continue 8...¥e7 in the centre after the following strong reply.
9.e4 ¥b7 10.¥f4² and White is doing well.
8...¤c6!
 Another attractive option is:
   8...c5!? 9.¥e3
9.¥g2?! ¤c6 10.£a4 was seen in Mietner –
  Wegener, Recklinghausen 1999, when Black
    should have played 10...0–0–0!N 11.dxc5
    b5!, punishing White for keeping the king in
the centre for too long. For instance: 12.£c2
     ¤d4 13.£d3 ¤b3 14.¦b1 £xd3 15.exd3
    ¦xd3µ
9...¤c6 10.dxc5 £xd1† 11.¦xd1 ¥xc5
   12.¥xc5 bxc5
 

 Chapter 6 – 6.cxd5 111

 of subsequent games. Black can obtain a clear

   advantage with the following improvement:
  
      
      
        
        
        
      
    
13.¦c1
13.¥g2 ¤d4 14.¤xd4 ¥xg2 15.¦g1 cxd4
 
16.¦xg2 0–0–0 is equal. 
13...¢e7 14.¦xc5 ¦ac8 14...£c3!N 15.£d2
Black’s development advantage fully 15.¥f4 0–0µ
compensated for the pawn in Salvatore – 15...£xd2 16.¥xd2 ¤b3 17.¥c6† ¢e7
Wassilieff, corr. 2007. 18.¥c3 ¦d1† 19.¢g2 ¦xh1 20.¢xh1 ¦d8µ
Black has excellent winning chances due to
 his extra queenside pawns, which will soon
   become passers.
  9...0–0–0 10.¥g2 e5 11.dxe5
   
       
      
       
       
      
    
9.¥e3
This is White’s only way to maintain the   
balance.   
9.¥g2?! 
This is the move White would like to play, 11...¤xe5N
but the following complications favour This simple innovation is a safe equalizer,
Black. which sees Black regain the pawn in a
9...¤xd4! 10.¤h4 £a5† 11.b4 ¥xb4† 12.axb4 comfortable situation.
£xa1 13.¥xb7 ¦d8 14.¢f1
This position was reached in S. Ivanov – The more complicated alternative is:
Anastasian, St Petersburg 1994, and a couple 11...£xd1†!? 12.¦xd1 ¦xd1† 13.¢xd1 ¤xe5
112 Petrosian System

14.¥h3†! (after 14.¦g1 ¤xf3 15.¥xf3 ¥xf3 C2) 8.e3

16.exf3 ¥e7³ White suffers from an inferior
pawn structure) 14...¢b8 15.¤xe5 ¥xh1

16.¤xf7 ¦g8 17.f3 The position is unclear and   
holds mutual chances, and a draw ensued in  
Uberos Fernandez – I. Jones, corr. 2016.
   
12.£c2    
In the event of 12.£xd5 ¦xd5 (but not
12...¥xd5? 13.¥h3† ¤d7 14.0–0–0ƒ) 13.0–0
    
¤xf3† 14.¥xf3 ¦d8= Black has nothing to    
worry about.
   
I also checked 12.£a4 ¢b8 13.0–0 ¤xf3†  
14.¥xf3 £d7 15.£c2 (15.£xd7 ¦xd7=) 
15...¥xf3 16.exf3 £d3 17.£a4 £d7= when This normal move was played in several
the activity of White’s pieces can be neutralized, game, including Fedorovtsev – Smirnov, St
while Black’s pawn structure is preferable in Petersburg 2005. Surprisingly, I can offer a
the long run. normal developing move as a novelty.

12...£a5† 13.¢f1 8...¥e7N 9.¥d3 c5 10.e4 £d6 11.0–0 0–0

13.¥d2 ¤xf3† 14.¥xf3 £c5 is also level. 11...cxd4 is also good enough, for instance:
 12.e5 £d7 13.¤xd4 0–0 14.¥e3 ¤c6=

    
    
      
        
         
       
    
      
   
13...¤g4 14.¥d4 ¥xf3 15.exf3 ¦xd4 
16.fxg4 £c5= 12.e5
Black has no problems and the opposite- 12.dxc5 can be met by 12...bxc5!?, in the
coloured bishops make a draw a likely outcome. style of some other lines we have seen, such
as D41 from the previous chapter. Here too,
after 13.¥e3 ¤c6= Black’s control over the
d4-square and future play along the b-file
compensates for the structural drawbacks.
 Chapter 6 – 6.cxd5 113

12...£d7 13.£e2 ¤c6 14.dxc5 bxc5! Other pawn moves on the kingside should
By now you should be expecting this choice be met in the same way.
of recapture!
22...¤d4„
15.¦d1 £c7 16.£e4 g6 White can exchange the knight with either
Black is not worse at all. Before completing his knight or his bishop; either way, Black gets
development, White has to move his queen to a passed pawn and a full share of the chances.
avoid a nasty discovered attack.
 Conclusion
   This short chapter has dealt with a few sidelines
  after 6.cxd5 ¤xd5, beginning with the pawn
sacrifice 7.e4?!. There is no doubt that White’s
  gambit is objectively unsound, so all you have
     to do is remember some key lines and remain
    vigilant at the board.

   7.£a4† is not too challenging although please

    remember that, unlike the previous chapter
where we blocked this check with ...£d7, here
    we should prefer 7...¤d7 and recapture on d5
 with the bishop.
17.£f4 ¦fd8 18.¥e3 ¦d5
The vulnerability of the e5-pawn prevents Finally we considered 7.¤xd5 £xd5! when
White from developing any attack on the Black’s queen is rather well placed in the centre,
kingside. as evidenced by the lines after 8.g3 ¤c6! when
White must play accurately to maintain the
19.¥e4 ¦xd1† 20.¦xd1 ¦d8 balance. 8.e3 is safer but this is clearly not an
opening variation which will cause Queen’s
 Indian players to lose sleep.
   
 
 
    
   
   
   
   

21.¦c1 £d7 22.h4
 Abridged Variation Index
The Variation Index in the book is 9 pages long. Below is an abridged version giving just the
main variations, not the sub-variations.

Chapter 1 Chapter 6
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7
5.¤c3 d5 6.cxd5 ¤xd5
A) 4.¥g5 ¥b7 8
B) 4.¥f4 ¥b4†!? 16 A) 7.e4?! 104
B) 7.£a4† 106
Chapter 2 C) 7.¤xd5 110
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.e3 ¥b7
Chapter 7
A) 5.a3 24 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7
B) 5.¥e2 26 5.¤c3 d5 6.cxd5 ¤xd5
C) 5.¤bd2 29
D) 5.¤c3 32 A) 7.¥d2 115
B) 7.e3 118
Chapter 3
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.e3 ¥b7 Chapter 8
5.¥d3 d5 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7
5.¤c3 d5 6.cxd5 ¤xd5 7.£c2 ¤xc3
A) 6.cxd5 40
B) 6.0–0 41 A) 8.£xc3 139
B) 8.bxc3 145
Chapter 4
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.¤c3 ¥b7 Chapter 9
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6
A) 5.£d3 57 5.¤bd2 d5
B) 5.¥f4 58
C) 5.£c2 61 A) 6.cxd5 160
D) 5.g3 68 B) 6.¥g2 164

Chapter 5 Chapter 10
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.a3 ¥b7 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6
5.¤c3 d5 5.£a4 ¥b7 6.¥g2 c5

A) 6.£a4† 75 A) 7.d5!? 180

B) 6.¥f4 77 B) 7.0–0 182
C) 6.£c2 79 C) 7.dxc5 186
D) 6.¥g5 87
Chapter 11 D) 11.¦c1 292
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 E) 11.¦e1 293
5.£b3 c6!? F) 11.£c2 295
G) 11.¤e5 300
A) 6.¥g2 204
B) 6.¥f4 205 Chapter 16
C) 6.¥g5 209 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6
D) 6.¤c3 213
A) 3.a3 315
Chapter 12 B) 3.e3 316
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 C) 3.¥g5 318
5.£c2 c5 D) 3.g3 ¥b4† 4.¤d2 321

A) 6.¥g2 ¤c6 221 Chapter 17

B) 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 ¥b7 224 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ¥b4† 4.¥d2 ¥e7
5.¥g2 d5 6.¤f3 0–0 7.0–0 c6
Chapter 13
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 A) 8.¤a3!? 335
5.£c2 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 ¥b7 8.¥g2 B) 8.b3 336
¤xd5 9.0–0 ¤c6 10.¦d1 ¥e7 C) 8.¤c3 338
D) 8.¥f4 343
A) 11.¤c3 237 E) 8.£b3 347
B) 11.a3 238
C) 11.£f5 242 Chapter 18
D) 11.£a4 ¤f6 250 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ¥b4† 4.¥d2 ¥e7
5.¥g2 d5 6.¤f3 0–0 7.0–0 c6 8.£c2
Chapter 14 ¤bd7
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 5.b3
¥b4† 6.¥d2 ¥e7 A) 9.¥g5 359
B) 9.¦c1 361
A) 7.¥c3 266 C) 9.a4!? 363
B) 7.¤c3 267 D) 9.¦d1 369
C) 7.¥g2 0–0 8.0–0 d5 271
Chapter 19
Chapter 15 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ¥b4† 4.¥d2 ¥e7
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 5.b3 5.¥g2 d5 6.¤f3 0–0 7.0–0 c6 8.£c2
¥b4† 6.¥d2 ¥e7 7.¥g2 0–0 8.0–0 d5 ¤bd7 9.¥f4 b6
9.cxd5 exd5 10.¤c3 ¦e8!
A) 10.¤bd2 382
A) 11.¥f4 287 B) 10.cxd5 384
B) 11.a3 288 C) 10.¤c3 385
C) 11.¦b1 290 D) 10.¦d1 391