The Double Queen's Gambit: A Surprise Weapon for Black

By Alexey Bezgodov

Alexey Bezgodov provides a complete chess opening repertoire for Black against 1.d4. After replying with 1…d5, the former Russian Chess Champion advises you to take up the Double Queen’s Gambit and play 2…c5! against both 2. c4 and 2. Nf3.
In The Double Queen’s Gambit Black’s attitude is as active and ambitious as that of White in the Queen’s Gambit. This ambition may seem premature at first sight, but many strong grandmasters have already successfully played this system.

After thoroughly investigating and analysing this opening, Bezgodov has gained a lot of experience in practical grandmaster play. The system not only turned out to be playable but also brought him success, and not just because of its surprise value.
Bezgodov’s conclusion is that there is no clear and compelling way for White to reach an advantage. The fresh ideas and the clear explanations in The Double Queen’s Gambit may change your view on modern chess opening theory. Bezgodov provides dozens of exercises to test your understanding of his system.

• Language: English
• Publisher: New in Chess
• Release date: Nov 24, 2015
• ISBN: 9789056916121

Alexey Bezgodov

Alexey Bezgodov (1969) is a Russian Grandmaster and writer. He was Russian Champion in 1993 and came shared first in the 1999 Ukrainian Championship. He has written numerous chess books.

Book preview

Introduction

The Double Queen’s Gambit is a name so far unknown to chess players. This is my name for the opening which starts 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5.

This aggressive thrust with the c-pawn looks very unusual and even somewhat scary. How can it be? Without any preparation, Black, acting as if he thinks he is White, copies the latter’s play? This is a breach of classical canons, and of the rules of playing the opening! That is what many would think. However, things are not so simple. Black’s attempt to solve his opening problems with this immediate central counterattack has been known for a long time and was used by many classical players, including World Champions. In reality, this sharp attempt has no refutation. In our day, it is played by quite a few grandmasters.

The leading players who have used the opening:

Emanuel Lasker, Max Euwe, Rudolf Spielmann, Vera Menchik, Gyula Breyer, Siegbert Tarrasch, Jacques Mieses, Frank Marshall, Carl Schlechter, Georg Marco, Nikola Padevsky, Richard Réti, Pal Benko, Burkhard Malich, Andrija Fuderer, Jeroen Piket, Heikki Westerinen, Arthur Bisguier, Maxim Dlugy, Peter Svidler, Boris de Greiff, Ilmar Starostits, Mikhail Ulibin, Evgeny Gleizerov, Yury Kryvoruchko, Mikhailo Oleksienko, Zsuzsa Polgar, Konstantin Landa, Roman Ovetchkin…

An impressive list, don’t you think? It would be premature to describe it as great, but the fact that so many strong players from different epochs have been and are willing to use this apparently risky-looking variation attests to its reliability.

How did the name ‘Double Queen’s Gambit’ come about? Looking through the games in the line, I noticed the remarkable degree of variation in the names used for it. Some sources call it the Queen’s Gambit, others the English Opening, and occasionally it is even called the Caro-Kann. And so I took the decision to name it in a way that would not create any confusion.

The Double Queen’s Gambit (hereafter referred to as DQG) is characterised by the very early establishment of the pawn quartet c4-c5-d4-d5. Meanwhile, the other pawns remain at home for the time being.

Earlier (and even still today) the opening could arise via the move-order 1.♘f3 ♘f6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4. There are many other move-orders. The main one, the most topical and dangerous line for Black to this day, is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5! ♕xd5! 4.♘f3 cxd4 5.♘c3 ♕a5 6.♘xd4 ♘f6 or 6…e5. This is dealt with in Part 6. If the white knight comes to f3 at move 3, or earlier, it seems to me that this helps Black.

In attempting to give due credit to those who have studied this opening before me, I should mention the names of the Austrians, Hans Haberditz (1901-1957) and Hans Müller (1896-1971). Several decades ago, they analysed the line quite thoroughly (in the pre-computer era). The results of their work were published in various articles… in my book, these variations are studied from scratch. Naturally, I do not agree with all of their conclusions. But even so, these authors’ contribution to the development of the line is quite considerable, and it is no coincidence that in a number of countries, it is known as the ‘Austrian Variation’.

This book is devoted to a very sharp attempt by Black to solve his problems immediately in the closed openings. It is no secret that many players do not like to take on a lengthy defensive task, which can often arise after 1.d2-d4, thanks to the gigantic body of modern theory. Whatever opening Black chooses, in all lines he either faces dangerous tactical lines, or rather passive, cramped positions. In order to play dynamic openings (such as those involving a fianchetto of the king’s bishop, for example), he not only has to accept great strategic risk, but also the fact that a highly booked-up opponent may lure Black into a prepared variation. Things can be very difficult for Black! My book sets itself a large and difficult task – to save the black player from lengthy opening suffering, and ensure him a solid, and at the same time quite active position. How did this come about?

A couple of years ago, whilst studying some games from the world blitz and rapid championship, I noticed that the elite GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov had fearlessly played against strong opponents the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5!?. This was nothing terribly surprising in itself, as the Azeri GM is noted for his fighting and uncompromising style. But what did surprise me was that his results with this line were very good, and his opponents seemed to have no convincing responses to this rather committal opening. I became very interested, studied many of his games, did my own analyses, and eventually decided to publish this book. If the world’s top grandmasters could not get any real advantage against this energetic and fighting line, then this must mean that it fully deserves the right to exist. If it is correct (and that is my opinion at this moment), then it closes off practically all of White’s chances to get an advantage. There is comparatively little to study. The exceptionally early central conflict leads to a quick exchange of a pair of pawns on each side, on the c- and d-files. This in itself eases the defence. However, White retains an advantage in development. It is not very great, and as happens in many modern openings, Black can extinguish it quite quickly, with accurate defence. The result is a symmetrical and relatively simple position, with no weaknesses and very decent prospects for Black – what more can one ask?

I am convinced that my book can provoke considerable interest from players of all levels, from amateur to grandmaster. The surprise effect is, of course, considerable, but even with good preparation by White, one can oppose him with confidence. I am sure that this system of play will bring many practical successes and much creative satisfaction to those who study this book thoroughly and have the courage to play the line in practice. I will say that I myself play the line constantly, and very few of my opponents (including grandmasters) have achieved any real advantage. Therefore my results as Black have improved. I wish you the same, with all my heart!

Alexey Bezgodov

Khanty-Mansiysk, June 2015

Part I

White avoids the main variations

It often happens that White, convinced that his opponent knows the subtleties of the opening very well, avoids a theoretical duel. This is the reality of practical play. Therefore, I intend to treat very seriously the question of what players of the DQG should do, if their attempt to play their favourite line is thwarted by White. This first chapter is devoted to precisely this problem. In it, there is much that will be of interest not only to players of the DQG, but also those who, as Black, face the Trompowsky, the Sicilian, Slav, and Caro-Kann. How come? The fact is that Black’s central attack with …d7-d5 and …c7-c5 is so logical, so lively and contemporary, that positions can be reached from a variety of openings! All the details are given below.

Contents of this Part

Chapter 1 – White accepts the gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.♘f3 c5 3.dxc5

Game 1. Stefanova-Neelakantan, Calcutta 1998

Chapter 2 – The white bishop comes out (♗g5, ♗f4 on moves two or three)

Game 2. Bromann-Grandelius, Reykjavik 2014

Game 3. Skatchkov-Bezgodov, St. Petersburg 1998

Game 4. Prié-Vaisser, Caen 2011

Chapter 3 – The transposition into the Alapin System of the Sicilian (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 ♕xd5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 e5)

Game 5. Trent-Cernousek, England tt 2009/10

Chapter 4 – The transposition into the Exchange Slav (1.d4 d5 2.♘f3 c5 3.c3 cxd4 4.cxd4)

Game 6. Rakhmanov-Kamsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2013

Game 7. Sanikidze-Mirzoev, Konya 2011

Game 8. Gufeld-Petrosian, Tbilisi 1956

Game 9. Girya-Charochkina, Khanty-Mansiysk 2012

Game 10. Sokolov-Porper, Ottawa 2013

Game 11. Nguyen Duc Hoa-Dreev, Jakarta 2013

Chapter 5 – The transposition into the Panov-Botvinnik (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.e3 cxd4 4.exd4 ♘f6 5.♘c3 ♘c6)

Game 12. Jobava-Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009

Game 13. Meier-Gustafsson, Dortmund 2012

Game 14. Yilmaz-Shimanov, Konya 2011

Game 15. Ulibin-Berczes, Winterthur 2009

Game 16. Svidler-Giri, Germany Bundesliga 2010/11

Game 17. Ivanchuk-Aronian, Nice 2009

Game 18. Gaponenko-Kosteniuk, Belgrade 2013

Chapter 1

White accepts the gambit

1.d4 d5 2.♘f3 c5 3.dxc5

Game 1

Antoaneta Stefanova 2475

Narayanan Neelakantan 2260

Calcutta 1998 (3)

1.d4 d5 2.♘f3 c5 3.dxc5

This move is not so rare, and White scores quite well with it. The pawn on c5 must be dealt with at once, so as to avoid problems later on.

3…e6 4.e4

Although the outcome of this short game cannot please supporters of the white side, this move is very principled. The idea is to give Black an isolated pawn. But, of course, there are other moves. If a pawn comes to c4, instead of e4, then Black takes on c5, with a great position. And if 4.b4 a5, or 4.♗e3 ♘a6!.

4…♗xc5 5.exd5 exd5 6.♗b5+ ♘c6 7.0-0 ♘f6!

Black much more often develops the knight to e7, but such unnecessary modesty reduces his possibilities.

8.♘d4?!

Stefanova is a strong and fighting player, but in this position, premature activity can only harm White. He has no advantage at all, so it was logical to go for mass exchanges: 8.♘c3 0-0 9.♗g5 a6 10.♗xf6 ♕xf6 11.♕xd5 axb5 12.♕xc5 b4 13.♘d5 ♕xb2 14.♖ab1 ♕xa2 15.♘xb4, and a draw is the only possible outcome to the game.

Black also has everything fully in order after 8.♖e1+ ♗e6=.

8…0-0!

Such a sacrifice of one or two pawns is a common idea in a number of openings, which at the very least permits Black to solve his development problems. Quite often, it leads to a winning black counterattack, as happens in this game.

9.♗xc6

Something similar to the game could happen after the other way of winning a pawn: 9.♘xc6 bxc6 10.♗xc6 ♖b8! (slightly weaker, although also better for Black, are both 10…♗g4 and 10…♗a6) 11.c4 ♘g4 12.♕xd5 ♕h4 13.♗f4 ♗xf2+ 14.♔h1 ♘xh2! 15.♗g5 ♕h5 16.♗f4 ♗f5–+, and Black at the very least wins the queen for two minor pieces.

Probably White should forget about immediate material gains and try to set up some sort of defence: 9.♘b3! ♗g4 10.♗e2 ♗xe2 11.♕xe2 ♖e8 12.♕d1 ♗b6. This does not guarantee salvation, but quite an interesting game would follow.

9…bxc6

10.♘xc6?!

The last barrier before the black attack was 10.♘c3 ♖e8 11.b4! ♗b6 12.♗f4!, and it is still possible to resist.

10…♕d6

Whereas now analysis quite clearly shows that White cannot save the game.

11.♘d4

By way of appreciating Black’s position, we will look at the line 11.b4 ♘g4 12.g3 ♗xf2+ 13.♖xf2 ♘xf2 14.♔xf2 ♕f6+!? (of course, one could also take the knight) 15.♗f4 ♕xa1–+.

11…♘g4 12.g3 ♘e5

13.♗e3

After 13.♗f4, there follows 13…♗xd4 14.♕xd4 ♘f3+ 15.♔g2 ♕h6! (a striking manoeuvre, winning the exchange) and now 16.♗xh6 ♘xd4–+; or 16.♔xf3 ♕h5+ 17.♔e3 ♖e8+ 18.♔d2 ♕e2+ 19.♔c3 ♗f5–+ (there is also nothing wrong with 19…♕xf1–+).

13…♗h3

Even more striking and stronger is the computer’s 13…♗g4! 14.f3 ♘xf3+ 15.♖xf3 ♖fe8 16.♗f2 ♕b6–+.

14.♘c3 ♗xf1 15.♘f5 ♕f6 16.♗xc5 ♕xf5 17.♗xf8

A desperate attempt to get the exchange back, which leads to a quick crush.

17…♗h3 18.f4 ♗g4 19.♘xd5 ♕e4!

0-1

Conclusion

White quite often plays this variation and obtains good results. Even so, it seems to me that this happens not because White’s position is better, but because many black players are poorly prepared for this variation. From a purely chess point of view, Black’s position looks very attractive. He regains the pawn without trouble and has full influence over the situation in the centre, without in the meantime experiencing the slightest problem with his development. Could Black really hope for more from the opening? I do not think so. The one game given above is enough for us to feel sufficiently confident and to have no fear of the move 3.dxc5.

Chapter 2

The white bishop comes out

♗g5, ♗f4 on the second or third move

Game 2

Thorbjorn Bromann 2369

Nils Grandelius 2542

Reykjavik 2014 (9)

1.d4 d5 2.♗g5

This developing move (a powerful weapon in the hands of several very strong players) does not prevent the black pawn coming to c5.

2…c5

This is far from the most popular reply to 2.♗g5, but Black has no problems here. I propose to play in this way, so as not to confuse the reader!

3.dxc5

More solid is 3.e3 ♕b6 4.♘c3 e6, although Black has nothing to complain about.

Also possible is the unassuming-looking 3.c3 f6 4.♗f4 ♘c6 5.e3 e5 6.♗g3 ♕b6 with some initiative to Black.

The aggressive move 3.e4 has been used successfully by such players as Hodgson, Adams and Ivan Sokolov. The idea is to meet 3…dxe4 with 4.d5, with a reversed Albin Countergambit, where White has the aggressive extra move ♗g5 thrown in.

3…♘f6

3…f6!? is also very good, followed by putting the neighbouring pawn on e5.

4.♘f3

And if he exchanges on f6? Black can achieve a good game in more than one way: 4.♗xf6 gxf6 5.e4 dxe4 6.♕xd8+ ♔xd8 7.♘c3 f5, but also possible is 4…exf6!? 5.e3 ♗xc5=.

The attempt to hang onto the extra pawn is unconvincing: 4.c3 e6 5.b4 a5 6.e3 axb4 7.cxb4 b6, and Black is better.

4…♘e4

5.♗h4

Out of sympathy with fans of the white position, I can suggest a path to equality: 5.♗e3 e6 6.♘bd2 ♘xc5=.

Also very interesting is the combinative 6…♗xc5 7.♘xe4 ♗xe3 8.fxe3 dxe4 9.♕xd8+ ♔xd8 10.♘g5 ♔e7 11.♘xe4 b6 with good compensation for the pawn.

5…♘c6 6.♘bd2 ♘xc5

Thus Black regains the pawn. Thanks to his superiority in the centre, his position can already be considered preferable.

7.e3 g6 8.♘b3 ♗g7!?

A little joke.

Objectively, it was stronger to put the knight on e4.

9.c3

White’s defence is easier after 9.♘xc5 ♕a5+ 10.c3 ♕xc5 11.♗e2, and Black has only a small space advantage.

9…♘a4

Or 9…♘e4 10.♗d3 0-0 11.0-0 ♕c7 12.♕c2, and Black is a little better.

10.♕d2 0-0 11.♗e2 ♘b6 12.0-0 ♕c7 13.♘bd4

White also has difficulties after 13.a4 ♖d8. His position is cheerless, because he lacks space.

13…e5

It is interesting that Houdini assesses this position as equal.

However, it is obvious that Black’s game is easier to play. Thanks to his strong centre, he can create threats all over the board.

14.♗g3 ♕e7 15.♘c2

I would prefer the exchange on c6.

15…♗e6 16.a4 ♖fd8 17.b4 ♖ac8

Without having made a real mistake, White finds himself in a very difficult position. He has no counterplay, whilst Black can strengthen his position at his own pace and in a great many ways.

18.♖fd1 ♗f5 19.♗h4 f6 20.♘a3 a5!

A timely and useful prod from Black.

21.b5 ♘b8

The knight threatens to come to c5, ending all White’s resistance.

22.c4 ♕b4

Now Black wins material anyway.

23.♕xb4 axb4 24.a5 ♘a4 25.♘b1 ♘b2 26.♖d2

26.♖c1 g5 27.♗g3 dxc4–+ is in no way better.

26…♘xc4 27.♖d1 ♗c2 28.♖e1 g5 29.♗g3 b3

White could already resign.

30.a6 bxa6 31.bxa6 ♘c6 32.♘fd2 ♘b4 33.♖a4 ♗f8 34.♗g4 f5

0-1

Game 3

Pavel Skatchkov 2420

Alexey Bezgodov 2545

St. Petersburg 1998 (3)

1.♘f3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.♗f4

A fairly harmless move-order. Black should take on d4 at once, before White can defend the pawn with a colleague.

3…cxd4! 4.♗xb8 ♕a5+

As far as I recall, during the game I had a very high opinion of this check. However, it is of course too early to be thinking of an advantage for Black.

I did not like 4…♖xb8 5.♕xd4, and the pawn on a7 is hanging. If it is defended, White can equalise by force, for example 5…e6 (too slow is 5…a6 6.♘c3 ♘f6 7.0-0-0 e6 8.e4 with advantage; 5…♘f6 6.♕xa7) 6.♕xa7 ♗d7 7.♘c3. Of course, Black has compensation for the pawn, but at the board, it was hard to assess if it is sufficient. Probably the queen check is stronger.

5.c3

5…♖xb8

Also possible is 5…dxc3 6.♘xc3 ♖xb8 7.e4 a6!, preventing an unpleasant check on b5 (significantly weaker is 7…♗d7 8.♘e5 ♘f6 9.♘xd7 ♘xd7 10.♗b5 ): 8.exd5 ♘f6 9.♗c4 ♕b4 10.♗b3 g6 11.0-0 ♗g7 12.d6 0-0 13.dxe7 ♕xe7 14.♖e1 ♕b4, and Black has fully sufficient resources to extinguish White’s slight initiative.

6.♕xd4 ♘f6 7.♘bd2 e6 8.e3 ♕c5

Of course, Black could also play 8…a6 9.♕f4 ♖a8=.

9.♕h4

9…♗d6

Why does the bishop go here? Of course, 9…♗e7 is more natural, but I was afraid of the reply 10.♕g3, forking the rook and the g7-pawn. Evidently, I simply could not be bothered to calculate variations, since the consequences of this ‘terrible’ fork are actually very nice for Black. For example, 10…0-0! 11.♕xb8 (otherwise White’s previous move makes no sense) 11…♗d6 12.♕a8 ♕b6 13.0-0-0 ♗d7 14.♘c4! dxc4 15.♖xd6! ♗c6 16.♕xf8+ ♔xf8 17.♖d4 ♕c7. Now it is clear that the black queen is stronger than the white rooks.

10.♗d3 0-0?

Satisfied with how things were going, I made a bad mistake, which could have had very serious consequences. A sense of danger should have pushed me towards the accurate 10…♗d7! 11.g4 ♗b5, and Black is fine.

11.0-0?

White misses a very good chance to complicate the game. It was fully in the style of Pavel Skatchkov to go 11.g4!. I only saw this whilst Pavel was thinking over 11.0-0. It was an unpleasant realisation! 11…h6 (there was only a dismal choice: 11…♗e7 12.g5 ♘e4 13.♗xe4 dxe4 14.♘xe4 ♕f5 15.♘d4 ♕g6 16.♕f4 ♗d7 17.h4 ; 11…e5 12.g5 ) 12.g5 hxg5 13.♘xg5 (13.♕xg5) 13…♖d8 14.♖g1 ♕c7 15.♘df3. It seems Black is losing in all variations!

11…♗e7 12.♕f4

12.♘e5 ♕c7 13.f4 g6 14.♘b3 ♘h5=.

12…♕d6

I suspect that in reply to 12…♗d6 the queen would have returned to h4. In those far-off days, I did not like short draws, even with Black.

13.♕d4

White does not stand worse after any sensible move, for example 13.♖fe1!?.

13…♘d7

A positional and temporary pawn sacrifice.

14.e4

My opponent does not fall for the continuation 14.♕xa7 ♘b6 15.♕a5 ♖a8 16.♕b4 ♕xb4 17.cxb4 ♗xb4, when White faces a long battle for a draw.

14…dxe4

The line 14…f5 15.e5! deserves a close look (taking on d5 or f5 would cost White material: 15.exd5 e5 16.♕e3 e4 17.♖ae1 ♖f7; 15.exf5 e5 16.♕e3 e4 – in both variations, White stands badly) 15…♕c7 16.c4=.

15.♕xe4 ♘f6

Nowadays I would prefer 15…g6, so the knight can come into play on either flank.

16.♕e2 ♕f4

Again, a sharp and poorly-founded decision. Solid was 16…b6 17.♘e4 ♕c7 18.♘xf6+ ♗xf6=.

17.♖ad1

No worse is 17.♘e5 ♘d7=.

17…♖d8 18.♘c4 ♗d7 19.♘ce5 ♗a4

Provoking a weakening of the pawn on c3.

20.b3

20.♗c2= is very solid.

20…♗e8 21.♗b5?!

My adventurous play has brought a partial success – Pavel does not understand what Black wants. Better was 21.g3 ♕h6 22.♗b5 ♗xb5 23.♖xd8+ ♗xd8 24.♕xb5 ♗b6 25.c4 ♕h5 26.♖e1 ♕f5 27.c5 ♗c7.

21…♕e4!

Ensuring a transition into a very favourable ending. White has many weaknesses, so his position is very hard to defend.

22.♕xe4 ♘xe4 23.♖xd8 ♖xd8 24.♗xe8 ♖xe8 25.♖c1

25.c4 ♖d8 26.♖e1 ♘c3 27.♔f1 ♗c5–+ is extremely unattractive.

25…♖d8 26.♔f1 f6 27.♘c4 ♗c5 28.♖c2 b5?!

Stronger is 28…♖d3! 29.b4 ♗f8, winning a pawn.

29.♘e3?!

Once again, White does not take his chance – I am not sure I could have won after the accurate 29.♘b2!.

29…♖d3 30.♘d4 ♖xc3 31.♘xb5 ♖xc2 32.♘xc2 ♗xf2 33.♘b4 ♗b6 34.♘c6 a6 35.♘a3 ♔f7 36.♘c4 ♗c7

37.b4?

A surprising pawn sacrifice. However, with accurate play, Black should still win.

37…♗xh2

The rest is simple.

38.a4 ♔e8 39.♔e2 ♔d7 40.♘d4 ♘c3+ 41.♔f2 ♗b8 42.a5 ♘d5 43.b5 e5 44.♘c6 ♗d6 45.♘xd6 ♔xd6 46.♘a7 axb5

0-1

Game 4

Eric Prié 2490

Anatoli Vaisser 2536

Caen 2011 (11)

1.d4 d5 2.♗f4 c5 3.e3

A solid and reliable continuation. But that is the limit of its qualities – White cannot hope for any advantage against accurate play by Black.

As on the third move of the previous game, 3.e4 has also been tried here, with the same idea of 3…dxe4 4.d5, with an Albin plus an extra tempo.

3…cxd4 4.exd4 ♘c6

Black takes play into the Caro-Kann Defence. This variation is perfectly fine for him, because he has no weaknesses and no real problems with his development.

5.c3

Black also has no development problems after 5.♘f3 ♗g4 (of course, 5…♗f5 is also possible) 6.c3 e6 7.♕b3 ♕d7 8.♘bd2 ♘ge7 9.h3 ♗xf3 10.♘xf3 ♘g6=.

5…♗f5

The bishop comes out to an accurate position. Now Black only has to deal with the possible attacks on b7 – White has no other object of attack.

6.♘f3

It is important that no success comes from the aggressive 6.♕b3 ♕d7 7.♘f3 e6 8.♗b5 ♗d6=.

6…e6 7.♕b3

The tame 7.♗d3 ♗xd3 8.♕xd3= is quite devoid of ambition. Black can play the resulting position in different ways. He can exchange the remaining bishops or delay doing so. He has no problems in either case.

7…♕d7 8.♘bd2

The exchange of knights does not change the assessment: 8.♘e5 ♘xe5 9.♗xe5 ♘e7 10.♘d2 ♘c6 11.♘f3 a6 is equal.

8…♘ge7 9.h3

Hunting down the black bishop only favours the second player: 9.♘h4 ♘g6 10.♘xf5 exf5!. The bishop on f4 turns out to be in an unusual trap. 11.g3 ♘xf4 12.gxf4 ♕e7+ 13.♔d1 0-0-0, and Black stands better.

9…h6

An interesting alternative is 9…♘g6 10.♗h2 h5!?.

10.a4 ♗h7 11.a5 a6 12.♗h2

12…♘c8

Freeing the path of the bishop on f8.

13.♘e5 ♘xe5 14.♗xe5 f6 15.♗g3 ♗d6 16.♗xd6 ♘xd6 17.♗e2 0-0 18.0-0

The position is equal and quite boring. Neither player has any targets.

18…♔h8 19.♖fe1 ♖ae8 20.♘f1

20…♗g8

This unusual bishop manoeuvre is tied up with the idea sooner or later of carrying out the advance …e6-e5. The assessment of the position does not change, but the game can become a bit livelier in that case.

21.♗f3 ♘c4 22.♘e3

White does not object to the exchange of his bishop for the knight.

22…♘d2 23.♕d1 ♘xf3+ 24.♕xf3 e5 25.♕d1

25…f5!?

Interesting play. The f-pawn advances.

26.dxe5 f4?!

Objectively better is 26…♖xe5 with equality.

27.♘g4?!

White could punish his opponent for his enterprising play with 27.♘c4! f3 28.♘d6 ♖e6 29.♖e3 fxg2 30.♕g4!, and Black would have cause to regret his earlier fearlessness.

27…f3 28.e6

White can still retain some advantage with 28.g3, but White was evidently more concerned with the solidity of his own position.

28…♖xe6 29.♘e5 ♕b5 30.♘xf3 ♕xb2 31.♕d2 ♕xd2 32.♘xd2 ♖xe1+ 33.♖xe1 ♖c8

The small bit of excitement dies down and material is becoming less and less. The draw is getting closer.

34.♖e7 ♖xc3 35.♘f3 ♖c5 36.♘e5 d4 37.f4 d3 38.♘xd3 ♖xa5 39.♖xb7 ♗d5 40.♖d7 ♗e4 41.♘e5 ♖a1+ 42.♔f2 ♖a2+ 43.♔e3 ♗xg2 44.♘g6+ ♔h7 45.♘f8+ ♔g8 46.♘e6 ♖a3+ 47.♔f2 ♗xh3 48.♖xg7+ ♔h8 49.♖g6 ♗xe6 50.♖xh6+ ♔g7

½-½

Conclusion

White’s attempts to get an advantage with the early development of the bishop to f4 or g5 have been known for