Leningrad System. A Complete Weapon Against 1.d4

209 Pages·2016·15.16 MB·English

by  Kindermann Stefan.

B L A C K R E P E R T O I R E
FOR TOURNAMENT PLAYERS
Stefan Kindermann
S' ;
n
V I " '
Progress in Chess
Volume 16 of the ongoing series
Editorial board
GM Victor Korchnoi
GM Helmut Pfleger
GM Nigel Short
GM Rudolf Teschner
2005
EDITION OLMS
0
Stefan Kindermann
Leningrad System
Jf
A complete Weapon against 1 d4
BLACK REPERTOIRE
2005
EDITION OLMS
O
Also available:
Kindermann, The Spanish Exchange Variation
A Fischer Favourite ISBN 3-283-00479-X
Bibliographic Information published by
Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic
data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
V________________________________________________J
Copyright © 2005 Edition Olms AG
Breitlenstr. 11 • CH-8634 Hombrechtikon/Zurich, Switzerland
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.edition-olms.com
All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition mat it shall not by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form.qf binding or cover
other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Printed in Germany
Translator: Brian Ings
Editor: Ken Neat
Typesetting by Art & Satz • Ulrich Dirr, D-80331 Munchen
Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, 049624 Loningen
Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg
ISBN 3-283-00478-1
a
Contents
1 History and Introduction.............................................................................................7
1.1 Foreword to the English edition..........................................................................13
1.2 Foreword to the German edition........................................................................14
2 Typical themes and ideas...........................................................................................16
2.1 Black themes.......................................................................................................16
(1) The advance of the f-pawn - the ‘Dutch lance’...........................................16
(2) The advance of the black e-pawn.................................................................19
(3) Black kingside attack - the g-file.................................................................21
(4) Black queenside attack.................................................................................22
(5) Black play on the queenside..........................................................................22
(6) Black pressure on d5.....................................................................................23
(7) The white dark-square bishop as object of attack.....................................23
(8) The exchange on e6.......................................................................................24
(9) The ‘Dutch king’..............................................................................................24
(10) Leningrad Stonewall.....................................................................................25
2.2 White themes......................................................................................................26
(1) The white advance e4...................................................................................26
(2) The square e6..................................................................................................27
(3) White attack on the queenside....................................................................28
(4) The central lever c4-c5.................................................................................29
* (5) Attacking with the h-pawn...........................................................................30
3 Illustrative games.......................................................................................................32
3.1 Main line 7 £>c3 We8 8 d5 a5.............................................................................32
3.1.1 9 Ae3 (Yusupov-Bareev).......................................................................32
3.1.2 9 £»d4 (van der Sterren-Nikolic)............................................................40
3.1.3 9£}e1 (Rogozenko-McDonald)..............................................................45
3.1.4 9 Ad2 (Beliavsky-Glek)...........................................................................49
<1?
3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £}a6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann)...............................53
3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White.......................................................................60
3.3.1 8 b3 (Ibragimov-Kramnik).........................................................................60
3.3.2 The knight move 8 £id5 (Lugovoi-Kindermann)....................................67
3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 He1
(Filippov-Potapov & Filippov-Zhang).....................................................74
3.3.4 8 ®b3 (Yusupov-Kindermann)...............................................................84
3.4 Various systems with b3....................................................................................87
3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5; White omits c4
(Tukmakov-Malaniuk)..............................................................................87
3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4 without an early £ic3
(Damljanovic-Onischuk)..........................................................................92
3.4.3 The alternative: the central 7...£*e4 (Hansen-Berg)...............................98
3.5 White systems with £±>d2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4
(Weber - Ki nderman n).........................................................................................102
3.6 White systems with an early b4 (Chekhov-Vyzhmanavin)............................106
3.7 Karlsbad Variation (4»h3)...................................................................................110
3.7.1 White plays c4 (Sher-Beim)...................................................................110
3.7.2 White omits c4 (Krasenkow-Malaniuk).................................................117
3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 #b3 (Anand-Fritz)....................................................123
3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3 (Gavrikov-Vyzhmanavin)..............................129
3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £lc3 (Claesen-Gurevich)...............................133
3.11 System with 2 £rf3 £}f6 3 Ag5 or 3 Af4 (Oms Pallise-Movsziszian)...........137
3.12 System with 2 £>c3 (Gurevich-Topalov).........................................................143
3.13 System with 2 Ag5 (Lerner-Malaniuk).............................................................153
3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann - Kindermann)............................................163
3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2 (Tregubov-Malaniuk).....................172
3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions..........................................177
3.16.1 The Lisitsyn Gambit (Zude-Lutz)..........................................................177
3.16.2 1 £if3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White! (Carlsen-Dolmatov)..............179
3.16.3 Playing the Dutch against 1 c4 (Gelfand-Kindermann).......................184
4 Appendix.....................................................................................................................189
4.1 Bibliography.......................................................................................................189
4.2 Index of symbols................................................................................................191
4.3 Index of players.................................................................................................192
4.4 Index of games...................................................................................................195
4.5 Index of variations.............................................................................................207
6
a
1 History and Introduction
Dutch and Leningrad Systems: historical variation’ shows how closely Black is court­
development and the path to the main line ing disaster: 2 e4 g5?? 3 ®h5 mate.
with 7...&e8 8 dS; notes on the difficulties
of certain move sequences I # ▲ I
f t
k k k k A k
1 d4f5
k k
a b c d e f g h
A A 9
8 I 4AW I 8
7 7
A A A A A A
6 6 $ H
k fi,
5 5
(Analysis diagram after 3 &h5#)
4 A 4
3 3 But with the right continuation, the pawn
& push to f5 has much to recommend it. If
2 A A A A A A 2
White wishes to get in the desired advance
ehA
1 I S 1 e2-e4, he must, just as in the Sicilian de­
<1?
a b c d e f g h fence, generally consent to the exchange of
a central pawn for a flank pawn, which in the
This black defence against the double ad­ long run will give Black a strategic advan­
vance of the d-pawn was first examined by tage.
the Dutch theoretician Elias Stein in his chess
The special virtue of the move 1 ...f5 is that it
treatise of 1789. Thus, according to accepted
provides Black with space on the kingside to
criteria for naming openings, calling it ‘The
expand and develop relatively undisturbed.
Dutch’ or ‘The Dutch Defence’ is quite feas­
The knight on f6 is on the whole safe from
ible.
I attack by the white pawns and Black dis­
What lies behind the black move, which poses, by and large, of a greater amount of
judged by classical opening principles space on the kingside than is the case with
seems a little strange? As with either 1 ...d5 other defensive systerhs. At the same time,
...£tf6
or 1 Black strives to prevent the white as already mentioned, the black forces are
pawn push to e4, which would allow White to well placed to exercise significant influence
set up the ‘perfect centre’. 1 ...f5, of course, on the centre. Not infrequently Black has
in contrast to the other two candidate moves, prospects of a direct assault on the king, in
contributes nothing at all to Black’s develop­ which the f-pawn, after f5-f4 will often spear­
ment. In addition the crucial diagonals e8-h5 head the attack. Should Black succeed in
(of especial importance before castling) and favourable circumstances in getting in the
g8-a2 (of importance after castling short) are move ... e5 as well, he will often transpose
seriously weakened. The following ‘sample into a King’s Indian several tempi ahead. (In
7
1 History and Introduction
the King’s Indian the knight on f6 has first to it i choose this opening according to who
move, to release the important f-pawn). The my actual opponent is. If the opposition
white central thrust e2-e4 can prove double- lacks fire and all desire for battle, then
edged, since it opens up both the f-file and I especially like playing the Dutch. They
the c8-h3 diagonal for Black. Experience tread water to no good effect, whilst Black
has shown that Black gets play all over the seeks to create attacking chances on the
board with the Leningrad System because kingside.
of his flexible and well-centred piece dis­ David Bronstein
position, whilst for White, in contrast to the
King’s Indian, there is no clear line of play. The Dutch brings out the “chicken” in
many players. Bent Larsen
In sum, although Black is clearly taking some
strategic risks with this opening line, he has
in compensation excellent prospects of seiz­ Now it’s up to the reader to make up his own
ing the initiative and playing for a win. mind!
Thus the Dutch Defence belongs to the range 2g3
of typically hypermodern openings, in which
Black does not, as in classical openings (like,
a b c d e f g h
for example, the Queen’s gambit) strive for
8 1*4.# J.*X 8
equality, but seeks instead to actively seize
the initiative. 7 ▲ ▲A ▲ 1 A A 7
6 6
This explains why few opening lines have
attracted such contrasting views from the 5 A 5
grandmasters as has the Dutch Defence: 4 A 4
3 A 3
One of the openings against which both
I and the majority of grandmasters are 2& D A A A A 2
delighted to play. 1 S£i0 1
Tigran Petrosian a b c &d e f g h
ICYou can only play the Dutch against
Since the beginning of the twentieth cen­
patzers... The only good thing about the
tury it has been the consensus of almost all
Dutch is that it provokes your opponent
the experts that fianchettoing White’s king
into premature attacks, (or words to that
bishop is positionally the most advantageous
effect)
way of handling the Dutch Defence. The
Victor Korchnoi
bishop bears strongly on both the centre and
the black queenside and will simultaneously
fifi A sharp defence, which I only play in ex­
protect the white king from black attacks
ceptional circumstances.
should White decide to castle short.
Alexander Alekhine
2...4tf6 3 Ag2
fit The problem with the Dutch is that in
many positions ...f5-f7 would be the best (see next diagram)
move, (or words to that effect)
Artur Yusupov Now the playable black lines diverge:
8
(In the standard line Black can no longer
hope for promising changes to this pawn
set-up.) A crucial consideration is the weak­
ness of the dark squares: eventually a white
knight will gladly occupy the outpost on e5.
The hemmed-in bishop on c8 can also eas­
ily become a problem. So it was in the first
three decades of the twentieth century that
the Russian master and theoretician llyin-
Genevsky began experimenting with a differ­
ent central formation, which aimed at avoid­
ing the weakening of the dark squares and
keeping the centre mobile, but which, for
The oldest version of the Dutch Defence reasons mentioned below, never became
must certainly be the ‘Stonewall’, which is really popular: 3...e6 4 £rf3 Ael 5 0-0 0-0
typified by the black pawn formation c6- 6 c4 d6.
d5-e6-f5, reminiscent of a bulwark in stone.
I ft A W I
(Often the black c-pawn will stay on c7). A
frequently played modern move sequence A A A A A A
would be: 3...e6 4 £if3 d5 5 0-0 Ad6 6 c4 A A
f t
c6 A
A A
I # i
1 A A A £iA
A A A AAA
AA A
f t
A A Ufa 0 I®
A A
(Analysis diagram after 6...d6)
& A
Here we see the classical and most frequent­
A A A Ai A
Tgf ly-played set-up for the white pieces, which
0 £>4 n *
we shall take, at this point, as the basis for
(Analysis diagram after 6... c6) investigation.
From the end of the 1930s up to the 1950s Black hopes to force ...e6-e5, which, in
both David Bronstein and especially Mikhail favourable circumstances, would give him
Botvinnik had great success using this set­ good play. But this method of play has ser­
up (at that time, incidentally, the king’s ious drawbacks: the bishop on e7 is rather
bishop was mostly developed at el). And passive and generally it will not be difficult
in no other variation of the Dutch Defence for White to get in e2-e4, after which the
does Black actually have so much space black e-pawn tends to be weak.
and stability in the centre; frequently anni­
With that we come to ‘the best of all possible
hilating attacks could be worked up on the
Dutch worlds’, the Leningrad System.
kingside against unsuspecting opponents.
But the positional disadvantages are equally 3...g6! 4 £tf3 &g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6
obvious: the black pawn formation is some­
what rigid and has no dynamic potential. (see next diagram)
9
1 History and Introduction
In 1920 he chose a Leningrad set-up (com­
bined, it must be said, with an early ...e6)
against Nimzowitsch; in 1923 he tried out,
against such opponents as Alekhine and Bo-
goljubow, a completely modern move order
(with, objectively speaking, the somewhat
risky 2...g6).
But we are still only speaking here of isolated
experiments, not really of a genuine opening
system.
The true pioneers of the system enter the
scene in 1936: the Leningrad master Niko­
lay Georgyevich Kopylov, Evgeny Filipovich
Here, just as in the Ilyin-Genevsky vari­
Kuzminikh and Kirill Vinogradov. These three
ation, Black has a flexible centre and good
spent years developing the basic ideas of our
prospects of forcing through ...e5. But now
system in theory and in practice. But it was
the king’s bishop is superbly positioned at g7
not until Kopylov’s sensational victory with
from where it can strongly (albeit indirectly)
the Leningrad (this was the first time it could
influence the centre. At the same time the
truly be described as such) over the reigning
other bishop is free to emerge, which will
world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, during the
be of particular importance after the disap­
19th USSR Championship, that the attention
pearance of the f5-pawn. (Either after ...f5-
of the chess world was drawn to this de­
f4 or after the exchange of the f5-pawn for
fence. In addition to a ‘converted’ Botvinnik,
the white e-pawn). Should White succeed
the young Victor Korchnoi, who was himself
in opening the e-file after e2-e4, the black
born in Leningrad, was one of the leading
pawn on e7 will be generally easier to defend
players who would afterwards employ the
than if it were on e6. Not least among Black’s
system from time to time. Outside of the So­
trumps is one often overlooked by critics:
viet Union, Leningrad supporters included
It is in the endgame that the black king can the top British player C. H.O’D Alexander as
mostly intervene (via f7) much more quickly in well as, a little later, the Yugoslav grandmas­
the play than can his white colleague, which ter Milorad Knezevic. The Leningrad could
is one of the main reasons that Leningrad not yet lay claim to much wider popularity
endgames often turn out to be favourable to than this.
Black.
A decisive role was certainly played by the
According to Tim Harding, the first game starting position of the main variations which
played with a Leningrad-type set-up (arrived we examine here. How is Black to continue
at, it is true, by a different order of moves) after
was in 1874 (between Potter-Coburn and Bal­
7£>c3
lard). But this opening system subsequently
enjoyed little popularity. Up to the beginning of the 1980s there were
The most important pioneer of this opening only two alternatives at this point:
in the twentieth century was definitely Saviely A) 7...c6, which is very solid but offers hardly
Tartakower, an original and famed represen­ any winning prospects in the sort of pos­
tative of the Hypermodern School, who at itions which arise after 8 d5 e5 9 de6 Ae6
that time belonged to the world chess elite. 10 b3 (or 10 m3).
10