Torre Attack 2

The Torre Attack or the Obnoxious Legacy of a Chess Genius (Part II)

Continuing with my review of what I believe may be the second greatest “obnoxious” legacy from our glorious past (I would give clear first prize to the London System, the most “obnoxious” device to play against if you are obsessed with playing for a win...) we will be dealing now with...

The Trompo-Torre

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bxf6

When White instead of moving to h4 takes the noble beast at f6.
After 4...Qxf6, the only move that makes sense is...

5.e4

...because once White has surrender the Bishop pair he must at least take the center if he has dreams about getting some kind of edge/compensation. Now, we must not forget a very important fact in this position, having played Nf3 – blocking the f pawn – White is not playing the most testing Trompowsky available in this variation. A reasoning textually confirmed by GM Peter Wells in his excellent (a kind of redundance as everything that he produces seems to be first class) “Winning with the Trompowsky” where he writes (after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6), “I have rejected 5.Nf3 because I cannot conceive that the solution to White’s problems lies in blocking the f-pawn which is so pivotal to effecting the sought after e5 advance.”

And he continues recommending three differnet approaches instead of the rather insipid (of course not bad, but just not topical and lacking punch) 5.Nf3, namely 5.Nc3; 5.Qd2; 5.c3.

Being myself a French Defence advocate, my first choice in this position used to be 5...d5. But after 6.e5 Qd8 White may not choose to play the expected c3 scheme, but instead 7.c4!? which of course is far from being the end of the world for Black, but produces a situation that does not suit my likings, despite Andrew Martin’s opinion (See his “Trashing the Tromp” also here at www.jeremysilman.com) after the further: 8...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nd7 9.Nc3 Nb6 10.Bb3 Bd7 11.0–0 Bc6 12.Rc1 Be7 13.Qd3 which corresponds to the game Hodgson-Lohdi, London 1987. Martin now recommends –instead of the inferior 13...Bxf3 played in the game – 13...Qd7 (by the way, John Cox in his very good book “Dealing with d4 deviations” suggests 13...a5). Both authors believe that Black is doing OK here.

Position after 13…Qd7

An opinion that I don’t dispute, but also a position that I simply wouldn’t like to try myself, an attitude that has somehow prevailed, as we cannot find anyone that entered again in this particular line.

Besides, we have our old plan with 5...d6 available, which is still proving viable and sound. This is my suggested “a la Karpov” line.

Black’s pawn structure is more flexible than after d5. Which means that White’s task finding a plan is not as straightforward as it was after 5...d5.

From this position (after 5…d6) we now have three branches:

6.e5
6.Nc3
6. Lines where White plays around c3 (mainly with Bd3 and Nbd2)

6.e5

Seems to me to be a rather too hasty continuation which Graham Burgess considered “could well be worth investigating” in his “Guide to the Torre Attack” (Gambit, 1999).

Now we have a further deviation, depending on Black’s exchanging on e5 or abstaining from that immediate policy. I will concentrate on my personal choice, which is the immediate exchange on e5, covering lightly the other approach for the sake of completeness.

a1) 6...Qd8 7.Bd3

Other moves have also been tried:

* 7.exd6 cxd6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.Nbd2 a6 11.0–0 0–0 12.Ne4 d5 13.Ng3 Re8 14.Kh1 Bf8 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 g6 17.f4 Bg7 18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 b5 20.Bd3 Bb7 21.Be4 Re7 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.Ne4 Rd7 24.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 25.Rxd1 Qa5 26.b3 Rc8 27.h3 Qb4 28.Qd3 Qa3 29.Qd2 Bf8 30.Nd6 Rd8 31.Qe3 Qxa2 32.Qa7 Bxd6 33.exd6 Qc2 34.Rd4 Qc6 35.b4 Qd7 36.Qxa6 Rc8 37.Kh2 f6 38.Qb6 g5 39.Rd1 gxf4 40.Ra1 Rd8 41.Ra6 f3 42.gxf3 Qc8 43.Ra2 Rd7 44.Rg2+ Kh7 45.Qd4 Qf8 46.Rd2 Qf7 47.Qd3+ Qg6 48.Qc3 Rg7 49.Qd3 f5 50.Qf1 Qg3+ 51.Kh1 Rd7 52.f4 Qc3 53.Rd3 Qxb4 54.Kh2 Rxd6 55.Rxd6 Qxd6 56.Kg3 Qa3+ 57.Kh2 Qb2+ 58.Kh1 Qb3 59.Kh2 Qc4 60.Qf2 b4 61.Qa7+ Kg6 62.Qb8 Kf7 63.Qb7+ Ke8 64.Qb8+ Kd7 65.Qb7+ Kd6 66.Qb8+ Kd5 67.Kg3 Kd4 68.Qe5+ Kd3 69.Qe1 b3 70.Qd1+ Kc3 71.Qe1+ Kb2 72.Qd2+ Qc2 73.Qd6 Qc3+ 74.Kh4 Qe3 75.Qc7 Kb1 76.Qc4 b2 77.Qf1+ Kc2 78.Qg2+ Kd1 79.Qf3+ Kd2 80.Qg2+ Qe2 81.Qb7 Qe1+, 0-1, Cruz Ravina,F (2285)-Suba,M (2529)/Campillos 2007.

* 7.Nbd2 d5 8.Be2 b6 9.c3 Qd7 10.g4 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Qe2 Nb8 13.Nh4 c5 14.Ndf3 Nc6 15.0–0 Be7 16.Ng2 h5 17.gxh5 Rxh5 18.Nd2 g6 19.f4 cxd4 20.Qa6 dxc3 21.bxc3 Kf8 22.Rae1 Kg7 23.f5 Bc5+ 24.Kh1 Rah8 25.f6+ Kg8 26.Nf3 Qc7 27.Nf4 Rf5 28.Nd4 Nxd4 29.cxd4 Bxd4 30.Nxe6 Qc2 31.Re2 Rxf1+ 32.Kg2 Rg1+ 33.Kf3, 0-1, Stirling,Nathan - Rogers,Ian (2565) Doeberl Cup 32nd Canberra, 1994.

And, after 7.Bd3, we are going to follow the game that my friend (I had the honor of her visit at my home in the mountains with her husband and also my good friend GM Juan Manuel Bellon back at 1994), the Swedish GM Pia Cramling, played against the British GM James Plaskett:

7…b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.a4 a6!

A very important move, never forget to play it in this type of situation, not allowing a free a5 – which can be answered now by b5 – or you will stand worse.

10.0–0 Nd7 11.Re1 Be7 12.c4 dxe5 13.dxe5 Bb4 14.Rd1 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Nxe5 16.Qe4 Bd6 17.a5 Nxd3 18.Rxd3 0–0 19.Nc3 Qe7 20.axb6 cxb6 21.Rad1 Rad8 22.Na4 Qc7 23.g3 Be7 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rxd8+ Bxd8 26.b4 Qd6 27.Qa8 Kh7 28.c5 Qd1+ 29.Kg2 Qxa4 30.Qxd8 bxc5 31.Qd3+ f5 32.bxc5 Qc6+ 33.Kg1 Qxc5 34.Qxa6 Qd5 35.Qc8 Qe4 36.h3 Qe1+ 37.Kg2 Qe4+ 38.Kg1 Qe5 39.Kg2 Qf6 40.Qd7 Kg6 41.Qe8+ Qf7 42.Qc6 Qe7 43.Kg1 Kh7 44.Qc8 Qf6 45.Kg2 Qe5 46.Kg1 Qe4 47.Qd7 e5 48.Qe6 f4 49.gxf4 Qxf4 50.Kg2 Qf6 51.Qb3 Kg6 52.Qb7 Qf5 53.Qb6+ Kh5 54.Qc7 Kh4 55.Qc3 Qg5+ 56.Kh2 g6 57.Qe1 Qf4+ 58.Kg2 Kg5 59.f3 Qd4 60.Qc1+ Kh5 61.Qc2 Qe3 62.Qb2 Qg5+ 63.Kh2 Qf4+ 64.Kg2 Kg5 65.Qe2 h5 66.Qc2 h4 67.Qf2 e4 68.fxe4 Qxe4+ 69.Qf3 Qc2+ 70.Kf1 Qc1+ 71.Kg2 Qd2+ 72.Kf1 Qf4 73.Kg2, ½–½, Plaskett,Jim (2495) - Cramling,Pia (2400) Hastings, 1985.

As you have seen, Pia acquired a comfortable position with very sound and logical play and just let Plaskett escape with a draw due to some late inaccuracies (perhaps in time trouble).

a2) 6...Qe7

Also a sound move, again “a la Karpov” who has played this device with idea of developing the Bishop on g7.

7.c3

Or:

* 7.Nbd2 g6 8.Bd3 Bg7 9.0–0 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Qe2 Bd7 12.a3 g5 13.Be4 g4 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Nd4 Qd7 16.Nxc6 Qxc6 17.Nc4 0–0–0 18.Qxg4 Rdg8 19.Rfe1 Bxe5 20.Nxe5 Rxg4 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.f3 Rc4 23.Rac1 Rd8 24.Kf2 Rd5 25.c3 a5 26.b3 Rh4 27.h3 a4 28.g4 Rg5 29.Rh1 axb3 30.Rb1 f5 31.Kg3 Rhh5 32.Rxb3 fxg4 33.fxg4 Rg8 34.Re1 Kd7 35.Rb4 Rd5 36.Re3 Kd6 37.Rbe4 Rg6 38.c4 Rd1 39.Rf3 c5 40.Kh4 Rd4 41.Rfe3 Rf6 42.Kh5 Rd1 43.a4 Ra1 44.Rd3+ Ke7 45.Re5 Rxa4 46.Rxc5 Ra7 47.h4 Rf4 48.Re3 Kd7 49.Rd3+ Ke7 50.g5 hxg5 51.hxg5 Rf5 52.Rc6 Rf1 53.Re3 Kf7 54.g6+ Kg8 55.Rexe6 Ra5+ 56.Kg4 Raf5 57.Re8+ Kg7 58.Re7+ Kf8 59.Re3 Kg7 60.Re7+ Kf8 61.Re3 Kg7, ½–½, Grivas,E (2440)-Luther,T (2410)/Leningrad 1989.

* 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Be2 g5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.d5 exd5 11.Nb5 Qe7 12.Qxd5 Bg7 13.0–0–0 0–0 14.Rhe1 Rd8 15.Qc4 Be6 16.Qa4 a6 17.Nbd4 Qf6 18.c3 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Qxf2 20.Bf3 Bd5 21.Re2 Qh4 22.Bxd5 Qf4+ 23.Kb1 Rxd5 24.g3 Qf6 25.Rde1 c5 26.Nc2 b5, ½–½, Gil Gonzales,J (2395)-Collado Galarza,J (2280)/Barcelona 1996.

7...g6 8.Nbd2 Bg7 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.Qe2 dxe5 11.dxe5 Qc5 12.Nb3 Qb6 13.0–0 Nc5 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Rad1 g5 17.Rd4 c5 18.Re4 Qc7 19.Nbd2 g4 20.Rxg4 Bxe5 21.Nc4 Bf6 22.Rd1 Rd8 23.Re4 Nb6 24.Rxd8+ Qxd8 25.Nce5 Nd7 26.g3 Nxe5 27.Nxe5 Bxe5 28.Rxe5 b6 29.f4 0–0 30.f5 exf5 31.Rxf5 Qd6 32.Qg4+ Kh7 33.Qe4 Qg6 34.Kf2 Kg8 35.Re5, ½–½, Hertneck,Gerald (2555) - Stefansson,Hannes (2500) Katerini GP, 1993. No comments, Hertneck just barely maintained the initiative of the first move without giving Stefansson headaches to acquire the draw.

Now we come to our choice:

a3) 6...dxe5

Black simplifies the struggle in a way that is definitely not worse for him.
In fact, Burgess gives this move a ?! sign in his aforementioned book, an evaluation that has definitely not been proved with further practice (quite the contrary). To be fair, Burgess has produced excellent books on several different openings, but nobody could expect perfect evaluations from anyone everytime.

7.dxe5 Qe7 8.Nc3

The most natural move, though not the only one. Other choices:

* 8.Nbd2 g6 9.Bd3 Bg7 10.Qe2 0–0 11.h4 h5 12.0–0–0 Nd7 13.c3 Nc5 14.Bc2 b6 15.Nd4 Bb7 16.N2f3 Rad8 17.Rhg1 Nd7 18.Be4 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 Nb8 20.Rde1 c5 21.Ne2 Qd7 22.Rd1 Qc6 23.Qe3 ½–½ Griego-Rachels, USA CH.U20 1983.

* 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.0–0 g5 10.Qe2 Bd7 11.Na3 Bg7 12.Nc4 0–0–0 13.c3 Be8 14.Rfd1 g4 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.cxd4 Rxd4 17.Be4 Rxd1+ 18.Rxd1 Bb5 19.Nb6+ axb6 20.Qxb5 Rd8 21.Rc1 Qc5 22.Rxc5 Rd1+ 23.Qf1 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 bxc5 25.b3 Bxe5 26.g3 b6 27.Bc6 Kd8 28.Ke2 Ke7 29.f4 Bd4 30.Bg2 Kd6 31.h3 h5 32.hxg4 hxg4 33.Be4 Ke7 34.Bc6 f5 35.Bb7 Kf6 36.Bc6 e5 37.Bd7 Bb2 38.Kd2 Bd4 39.Ke2 Bg1 40.Kf1 Be3 41.fxe5+ Kxe5 42.Ke2 Bd4 43.Bc8 Kf6 44.Bd7 Kg5 45.Bc6 Be5 46.Kf2 f4 47.gxf4+ Kxf4 48.Ke2 g3 49.a4 Bd4 50.Kd3 Bf2 51.Bg2 Bg1 52.Bc6 Bf2 53.Bg2 Be1 54.Bc6 Ba5 55.Bg2 Bb4 56.Bc6 Be1 57.Bg2 c4+ 58.bxc4 Bf2 59.Bc6 Ke5 60.c5 Bxc5 61.Kc4 Bf2 62.Bg2 Be1 63.Kd3 c5 64.Ke2 Bf2 65.Kd3 Kf4 66.Bc6 Be1 67.Ke2 Ba5 68.Bd5 Ke5 69.Bc6 Kd4 70.Bd7 c4 71.Bf5 Bb4 72.Bh3 c3 73.Bf5 g2 74.Kf2 g1Q+ 75.Kxg1 Ke3 76.Kg2 Kd2 0–1 Benko,Francisco (2165)-Valerga,Diego (2455) Buenos Aires1996.

* 8.c3 Nc6 9.Nbd2 Bd7 10.Bd3 g5 11.h3 Bg7 12.Qe2 h5 13.Be4 g4 14.hxg4 hxg4 15.Rxh8+ Bxh8 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.Nd4 Bd7 18.Qxg4 Bxe5 19.Qe4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 Qd6 21.Qh8+ ½–½ Bernasek,J (2517)-Stocek,J (2572) Ceska Trebova 2007.

8...Nc6

Here Burgess claims an adge for White with 9.Bb5. For all of us devotees of the French Defence, this must be a familiar structure, and I don’t see how Black could be deprived of his rights for a balanced game with good chances of later using his Bishop pair.

Burgess now critizices 8.Bd3 (as played in Shirazi-Christiansen US CH. 1984) where Black duly won after 8...g5 10.Qe2 Bg7 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.0–0–0 Qb4 14.Nd4 Bxg2 15.Rhg1 0–0–0 16.Qe3 Bc6 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qxa7 Bxe5 19.Qa8+ Qb8 20.Qxc6 Qb7 21.Qc5 Bxh2 22.Rh1 Bd6 23.Qc4 Rd7 24.Kb1 Rhd8 25.b3 Be5 26.Rhf1 Rxd1+ 27.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 28.Nxd1 Qf3 29.Qa6+ Kd8 30.Qf1 h5 31.Ne3 Ke7 32.Nc4 Bd4 33.a4, 0–1.

As Burgess does not provide any analysis after 9.Bb5, just the ! sign and the ellusive comment: “gives White good chances”, we are on our own, except for John Cox short line at his aforementioned book: 9.Bb5 Bd7 10.Qe2 0–0–0 11.0–0–0 a6 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Rxd8+ Qxd8 14.Rd1 Qe7

When Cox, quite naturally, does not find any White advantage, and neither do I. If anything, unless White is being played by a computer, the two Bishops could, eventually, prove stronger than the Knights, though objectively the position is just delicately balanced.

Since the aggressive 6.e5 didn't lead to anything, it's time to look at a more restrained continuation for White:

6.Nc3 Nd7

This is the most flexible and less compromising move, though Karpov’s 6...g5 is perfectly feasible, as a good example at the highest correspondence level I will give the following: 6...g5 7.e5 Qe7 8.Bd3 Bg7 9.0–0 Nc6 10.exd6 cxd6 11.Ne2 0–0 12.c3 e5 13.d5 e4 14.Bxe4 Qxe4 15.dxc6 Qxc6 16.Nfd4 Qd5 17.Ng3 f5 18.f4 Bd7 19.Rf2 Rad8 20.Nf3 Qxd1+ 21.Rxd1 gxf4 22.Nh5 Ba4 23.b3 Bc6 24.Nxg7 Kxg7 25.Nd4 Kf6 26.Rxf4 Be4 27.Rh4 Rh8 28.Rf1 Ke5 29.Nxf5 Bxf5 30.Rh5 Rhf8 31.g4 d5 32.Rhxf5+ Rxf5 33.Rxf5+ Ke4 34.Kf2 Rd6 35.Kg3 Kd3 36.Rf3+ Kc2 37.h4 Kb2 38.Rd3 Kxa2 39.c4 d4 40.Kf4 Kb2 41.c5 Rd8 42.Ke4 Rg8 43.Rg3 d3 44.Kxd3 Kxb3 45.g5 hxg5 46.Kd4+ Kb4 47.Rxg5 Rh8 48.h5 Rh7 49.Re5 Rd7+ 50.Rd5 Rh7 51.Re5 Rd7+ 52.Rd5 Rh7 53.Re5 Rd7+, ½–½, Boissel,Brice (FRA) (2625) - Bachmann,Andreas (GER) (2635), SSKK-60 corr. 1998. A very hard fought game from begining to end.

A Flexible Position

Here we have a further branching:

7.Bd3
7.Qd2
7.Others , which will be deal with shortly here: 7.d5 e5 (with similar play as in several exanmples below) 7.Bc4 and again Black may play along lines similar to those given below, those who want more may take a look at the thematic game Meduna-Kalinichev, Passau 1997.

1) 7.Bd3 c6

Flexible, but not the only approach. Black can still choose the Karpovian …g5 and …Bg7. Also possible, by the way, is the thematic and interesting 7...Qd8 from Stefanova-M.Gurevich, 1997, where the beautiful Antoaneta received a brilliant lesson from the much uglier and older Mikhail Gurevich, a game which you can find at any database.

8.e5

White has several choices here, but the main theme is whether he will allow or not black’s e5. For example:

* 8.0–0 e5 9.d5 a5 (9...Qd8 10.a4 Nf6 11.Nd2 Be7 12.Nc4 cxd5 13.exd5 0–0 14.f4 exf4 15.Rxf4 Nd7 16.Qh5 Ne5 17.Nxe5 dxe5 18.Rf3 Bg5 19.Raf1 Bf4 20.Kh1 Kh8 21.g3 g6 22.Bxg6 fxg6 23.Rxf4 exf4 24.Qxh6+ Kg8 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qh6+ Kg8 27.Qg6+ Kh8 28.Qh6+ Kg8 29.gxf4 Qf6 30.Rg1+ Kf7 31.Qh7+ Ke8 32.Nb5 Bd7 33.Nc7+ Kd8 34.Nxa8 Qxf4 35.Qg7 Kc8 36.h3 Kb8 37.Qxd7 Qe4+ 38.Kh2 Rf2+ 39.Kg3 Qf4# 0–1 Haik,A-Benjamin,J Cannes 1989) 10.a3 Qd8 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.b4 Be7 13.b5 Bb7 14.bxc6 Bxc6 15.Bb5 Rc8 16.Bxc6 Rxc6 17.Nd5 Nf6 18.Rb1 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Rc5 20.Qd3 Qc8 21.Rb5 0–0 22.c4 Rxc4 23.Rxa5 Qc6 24.Re1 Rb8 25.h4 Rb2 26.Ra8+ Qxa8 27.Qxc4 Qxa3 28.Qc8+ Bf8 29.h5 Qa7 30.Re3 Qa2 31.Nh4 Rb1+ 32.Kh2 Qxf2 33.Nf5 Qg1+ 34.Kg3 Rb2 35.Ne7+ Kh7 36.Qf5+ Kh8 37.Ng6+ Kg8 38.Qf3 Rxg2+ 39.Qxg2 Qxe3+ 40.Kh2 fxg6, 0-1, Vasiukov,E Makarichev,S Frunze 1979.

* 8.Ne2 g6 9.c3 Bg7 10.0–0 0–0 11.Re1 e5 12.Ng3 Nb6 13.h3 Be6 14.Nf1 Rfe8 15.Ne3 h5 16.Bf1 Rad8 17.a4 exd4 18.Nxd4 Bc8 19.a5 Nd7 20.a6 Rxe4 21.axb7 Bxb7 22.Rxa7 Rb8 23.Nc4 Rxe1 24.Qxe1 Ne5 25.Qa1 c5 26.Rxb7 Rxb7 27.Qa8+ Kh7 28.Qxb7 cxd4 29.cxd4 Nxc4 30.Bxc4 Qxd4 31.Qxf7, ½-½, Guidarelli,L-Dydyshko,V Roznov 2002.

* 8.Qe2 e5 9.d5 Be7 10.0–0–0 Bd8 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.Ba6 0–0 13.Bxc8 Rxc8 14.Nd2 Ba5 15.Ncb1 d5 16.Qf3 Qg6 17.Nc4 Bd8 18.Nc3 d4 19.Ne2 Nb6 20.Nxb6 axb6 21.Kb1 Ra8 22.h4 b5 23.Rh3 c5 24.Nc1 c4 25.Rg3 Qe6 26.Rh1 Ra6 27.Rhh3 Be7 28.Qh5 Rfa8 29.Qg4 Qxg4 30.Rxg4 Bb4 31.f4 exf4 32.Rxf4 Bd2 33.Rf5 Re8 34.Rxb5 Rxe4 35.Rh1 Rg6 36.Rc5 c3 37.Nd3 Rxg2 38.a4 cxb2 39.Kxb2 Re6 40.Kb3 Rb6+ 41.Rb5 Rc6 42.Rc5 Rxc5 43.Nxc5 Rg3+ 44.Nd3 g5 45.hxg5 hxg5 46.Kc4 Kg7 47.Rb1 f6 48.Rb7+ Kh6 49.Ra7 g4 50.a5 Rg1 51.a6 Ra1 52.Ra8 Kg7 53.Nf2 g3 54.Nh3 Be3 55.Ra7+ Kh6 56.Ra8 g2 57.Rg8 Bg5 58.Kb5 Kh5 59.Kc4 Rxa6 60.Kxd4 Kg4 61.Nf2+ Kg3 62.Ne4+ Kf4, 0-1, Depasquale,C -Rogers,I North Sydney 1986.

Instead, after the more direct 8.e5 White is trying to take the bul by the horns.

8…dxe5 9.Ne4 Qd8 10.dxe5

White dare not to repeat White’s dubious and speculative experiment in Rahman,Ziaur (2430) - Nelson,M Asia-ch U18 Kuala Lumpur, 1993: 10.0–0 exd4 11.Nxd4 Nf6 12.c3 Be7 13.Qe2 0–0 14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Rfe1 Bd7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.h4 c5 18.Nb5 Bxb5 19.Bxb5 Rfd8 20.g3 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Rd8 22.Rxd8+ Qxd8 23.Bd3 Kf8 24.Qe4 Qd5 25.Qxd5 exd5 26.Kg2 c4 27.Bf5 Ke7 28.Kf3 b5 29.Ke3 b4 30.Kd2 a5 31.h5 Kd6 32.Kc2 d4 33.cxd4 Bxd4 34.f3 a4 35.g4 b3+ 36.axb3 axb3+ 37.Kb1 Ke5 38.Be4 Be3 39.Bc6 Bd4 40.Bb5 Kd5 41.Be8 f6 42.Bf7+ Kc5 43.Be6 Kb4 44.Bf5 c3 45.bxc3+ Kxc3 46.Be6 b2 47.Bf5 Kd2 48.Be4 Ke3 49.Kc2 Kf4, ½–½. White’s sacrifice looks fishy and can only be justified based on rating differences.

Now we will witness an excellent display of aggression based on strong central play and Black’s Bishop pair

10…Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qa5+ 12.c3 Qxe5 13.0–0 Be7 14.f4 Qc7 15.Qe2 0–0 16.Rae1 Bd7 17.g4 Qb6+ 18.Kh1 c5 19.c4 Bc6 20.Kg1 Qd8 21.g5 Qd4+ 22.Rf2 Rad8 23.Bb1 hxg5 24.f5 exf5 25.Ng3 g6 26.Bxf5 Bd6 27.Rd1 Qh4 28.Ne4 Be5 29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Bg4 Bd4, 0–1, Kasparavicius,Laimutis (2430) - Bjuhr,Arne (SWE) (2500) Baltic Sea tt-7 bd03 ICCF, 2002.

2) 7.Qd2

Perhaps the strongest move at White’s disposal, aiming for O-O-O and direct central play.

7...a6 8.O-O-O

In the game Boissel,Brice (FRA) (2625) - Bachmann,Andreas (GER) (2635), SSKK-60 corr. 1998 (apparently these two strong Masters were engaged in a kind of theoretical duel around this line) White choose not to castle long and instead played 8.a4 b6 9.Bc4 Bb7 10.0–0 g6 11.Rad1 Bg7 12.Rfe1 0–0 13.e5 Qd8 14.Qe3 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 d5 16.Bf1 c5 17.Qd3 g5 18.g3 g4 19.Re3 Qc7 20.Rde1 Rfc8 21.Bg2 Ra7 22.Rf1 h5 23.h3 cxd4 24.Qxd4 Qc5 25.Ne2 Qxd4 26.Nxd4 Nc5 27.hxg4 hxg4 28.Re2 Ne4 29.Rd1 Bxe5 30.c4 Bxd4 31.Rxd4 Nf6 32.cxd5, ½–½.

8...Qd8 9.Kb1

Sidestepping White’s most usual approach here which is 9.h4 b5 and here, instead of the usual 10.Kb1 – as in Hodgson-Miles 1992 or Rogers-Stefansson, 2000 among many others – (10.Rh3 as in Crouch-Adams 1996 is also viable) White has experimented a couple of times playing first 10.d5, which postionally makes sense, but in practice does not seem fearful for Black: 10…e5 11.a4 (or 11.Kb1 Be7 12.Qe3 Nc5 13.g3 b4 14.Ne2 a5 15.Nd2 a4 16.f4 Bf6 17.f5 Bd7 18.Ng1 h5 19.Ngf3 Qb8 20.Bc4 Qa7 21.Qe2 Qa5 22.Rc1 Ke7 23.Ng5 Ra7 24.Rh2 Qb6 25.g4 hxg4 26.Qxg4 a3 27.b3 Na4 28.Ngf3 Qe3 29.Bd3 Nc3+ 30.Ka1 Nxd5 31.exd5 e4+ 32.Kb1 exf3 33.Nxf3 Kf8 34.Qxb4 Ra8 35.Rf1 Rh5 36.Re2 Qa7 37.Qg4 Rh6 38.Ng5 Qa5 39.Qc4 Bb5 40.Qxb5 Qc3 41.Kc1 Qa1+ 42.Kd2 Bc3+ 43.Ke3 Qxf1 44.Qc4 Be5 45.Rf2 Qc1+ 46.Kf3 Qh1+ 47.Ke2 Re8 48.Be4 Qxh4 49.Nf3 Qg4 50.Kd3 Bf6 51.Re2 Rh3 52.Re3 Qf4, 0–1, Grivas,E (2520)-Mastrovasilis,A (2488)/Aghia Pelagia 2004) 11…b4 12.Na2 a5 13.Bb5 Be7 14.g4 0–0 15.Rdg1 Nc5 16.Qe3 Bd7 17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.b3 c6 19.g5 h5 20.g6 cxd5 21.exd5 Qf5 22.gxf7+ Rxf7 23.Rg3 Ne4 24.Rgh3 Rc8 25.Kb2 Nc3, 0–1, Hamilton,Robert (2330) - Spraggett,Kevin (2530) CAN-ch Hamilton (4), 1994.

Also possible is 9.e5 d5 10.h4 b5 11.Ne2 Nb6 12.Nf4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.Nh5 Qd7 15.Qc3 Rb8 16.a3 Qb5 17.Rh3 Rb6 18.Rg3 g6 19.Nf6+ Kd8 20.h5 g5 21.Ng1 a5 22.Ne2 Ba6 23.f4 gxf4 24.Nxf4 Kc8 25.Ng6 fxg6 26.hxg6 Bg7 27.Nh5 Rg8 28.Rf1 Bxe5 29.dxe5 d4 30.a4 Qxe5 31.Qf3 d3 32.c3 Bb7 33.Qd1 d2+ 34.Qxd2 Qxh5 35.g7 Qe8 36.Qf4 Rd6 37.Qxc4 Ba6, 0–1, Annageldyev,O-Rogers,I/Istanbul 2000.

9...b5 10.d5 e5 11.Ne2 Be7 12.Ng3 0–0 13.Bd3 Nc5 14.Rhe1 c6 15.dxc6 Qc7 16.Ne2 Qxc6 17.Nc3 Be6 18.Nd5 Bd8 19.c3 f5

As many of you may have noticed already Black is playing a Sicilian Sveshnikov of sorts!

20.Nb4 Qc8 21.exf5 Nxd3 22.fxe6 Nxe1 23.Qd5 Bf6 24.Rxe1 Re8 25.e7+ Kh8 26.Qxd6 Bxe7 27.Qd3 Bxb4 28.cxb4 Qc7 29.Qe4 Rad8 30.g4 Kg8 31.g5 h5 32.g6 Qd6 33.a3 Qd3+ 34.Qxd3 Rxd3 35.Nxe5 Rd2 36.f4 Rxh2 37.Rf1 Rd8 38.Nf3 Rg2 39.f5 Kf8 40.Rc1 Ke7 41.Rc6 Rg3 42.Re6+ Kf8 43.Ne5 h4 44.f6 gxf6 45.Rxf6+ Kg8, 0–1, (Kmiecik,Klaus (GER) (2294) - Santagata,Carlo (ITA) (2449) EM/MN/022 ICCF Email, 15.06.2000. A very incisive game by the Italian Master which merits close scrutiny.

Now we go to the final branch of this part II article with White’s last attempts based on 6.Bd3 with natural Nbd2, c3 ideas. Black should now move his remaining stallion to its most flexible square.

6.Bd3 Nd7 7.O-O

White may try several other moves. Here’s a good example of Black’s play against a fancy white idea: 7.c3 e5 8.Na3 Be7 9.Qe2 c6 10.Nc4 Bd8 11.a4 a5 12.Bc2 0–0 13.0–0 Re8 14.Ne3 Nf8 15.Rfd1 Ng6 16.Rd2 Bc7 17.Qd1 Nf4 18.g3 Nh3+ 19.Kg2 g6 20.Ng1 Nxg1 21.Qxg1 Kg7 22.Rf1 Qg5 23.h4 Qe7 24.Qh2 h5 25.f4 exd4 26.cxd4 f5 27.e5 Be6 28.Kh3 Rad8 29.Qe2 dxe5 30.dxe5 Rxd2 31.Qxd2 Rd8 32.Qc3 Qb4 33.Qxb4 axb4 34.Rd1 b3 35.Bb1 Rxd1 36.Nxd1 Bb6 37.Kg2 Bd5+ 38.Kf1 Bf3 39.Nc3 Bd4 40.Ke1 Bxc3+ 41.bxc3 Be4, 0-1, Font,Josep - Marin,Mihail, Berga op 1996.

7...g6

The safest approach, though adventurous players may also try 7...g5, for example: 8.Nc3 (8.c3 Bg7 9.Nbd2 0–0 10.b4 e5 11.d5 h5 12.Nc4 Re8 13.Nfd2 g4 14.f3 g3 15.hxg3 h4 16.gxh4 Qxh4 17.Qe1 Qg5 18.Qf2 Nf6 19.Rfd1 Bh6 20.Nf1 Kh8 21.Qg3 Qh5 22.Qh2 Qg5 23.Qg3 Qh5 24.Qh2 Qg6 25.Nce3 Rg8 26.Ng3 Rg7 27.f4 Rh7 28.Ne2 Bxf4 29.Nxf4 Qg5, 0-1, Sandler,L-Plaskett,J (2460)/Hastings 1989) 8...g4 9.Nd2 Qxd4 10.Nb5 Qb6 11.Nc4 Qc6 12.Qxg4 a6 13.a4 b6 14.Nd4 Qc5 15.c3 Qg5 16.Qe2 Bb7 17.f4 Qh4 18.a5 b5 19.Ne3 c5 20.g3 Rg8 21.Ng2 Qh3 22.Nf3 c4 23.Bc2 Nf6 24.Ne3 Bxe4 25.f5 d5 26.fxe6 fxe6 27.Nd4 Be7 28.Bxe4 Nxe4 29.Ng2 e5 30.Nf5 Bc5+ 31.Kh1 Rg5 32.Ngh4 0-0-0 33.Rf3 Rf8 34.Raf1 Rfxf5 35.Nxf5 Rxf5 36.g4 Ng3+, 0-1, Alyonkin,A-Tsesarsky,I (2425)/Israel 1998. Just don’t get overexcited by these results, as objectively, the arising positions are rather double-edged and offer mutual chances.

8.Nbd2 Bg7 9.c3 O-O 10.Re1 e5

Now Black is playing a kind of King’s Indian against an Old Indian reversed, not the most usual scenario indeed, but chances are balanced, though I personally will be happier with Black’s two prelates and the more dynamic type of levers available.

Here are a few examples, according to White’s approach (leaving or taking e5 pawn):

* 11.Nf1 Re8 12.Qd2 exd4 13.cxd4 c5 14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5 Qc6 16.e6 Rxe6 17.Bc4 Rd6 18.Qf4 Rf6 19.Qd2 Kh7 20.Re7 Rxf3 21.gxf3 Ne5 22.Qd5 Be6 23.Qxc6 Nxc6 24.Rxe6 fxe6 25.Bxe6 Rd8 26.Ne3 b6 27.Rb1 Rd2 28.b3 Nd4 29.Bd5 Ne2+ 30.Kf1 Nc3, 0-1, Ovetchkin,Roman - Lugovoi,Aleksei URS-ch U18 Alma-Ata, 1991.

* 11.Nc4 Re8 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Ne3 c6 14.b4 h5 15.a4 Nf8 16.a5 a6 17.Bc4 Ne6 18.Bxe6 Bxe6 19.Qe2 Rad8 20.Rad1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Rd8 22.Rxd8+ Qxd8 23.h3 f6 24.Ne1 Bf8 25.Qd3 Qc7 26.N1c2 b5 27.axb6 Qxb6 28.Nc4 Qb5 29.Nb2 c5 30.Qxb5 axb5 31.Nd3 cxb4 32.cxb4 Kf7 33.f3 Bb3 34.Nce1 Bh6 35.Kf2 Bd2 36.g3 Bc4 37.f4 exf4 38.gxf4 Ke7 39.Kf3 g5 40.f5 Kd6 41.Kf2 h4 42.Nf3 Bc3 43.Nfe1 Bd4+ 44.Kf3 Bb3 45.Kg2 Bc3 46.Kf2 Bc4 47.Ke3 Bxe1 48.Nxe1 Bf1 49.Nf3 Bxh3 50.Kf2 Bg4 51.Nd4 Ke5 52.Nxb5 Kxe4 53.Nc3+ Kd4 54.b5 Bxf5 55.b6 Bc8 56.Nd1 g4 57.Ne3 g3+ 58.Kf3 Bb7+, 0-1, Sosna,J (2423)-Petr,M (2417)/Czechia 2006.

* 11.a4 Qe7 12.Qc2 Nf6 13.Bf1 Bg4 14.h3 Bd7 15.Qb3 Rab8 16.Qa3 Rfe8 17.Bb5 c6 18.Bf1 exd4 19.cxd4 d5 20.e5 Qxa3 21.Rxa3 Nh5 22.b4 Bf8 23.Rb3 Nf4 24.Nb1 Bf5 25.Nc3 Red8 26.Kh2 h5 27.g3 Ne6 28.Rb2 b6 29.Rd1 a5 30.Na2 c5 31.dxc5 bxc5 32.b5 c4 33.Nd4 Nxd4 34.Rxd4 Be6 35.Nc3 Bc5 36.Rbd2 Bxd4 37.Rxd4 Rd7 38.f4 Kg7 39.Bg2 Rbd8 40.Kg1 f6 41.exf6+ Kxf6 42.h4 Bf7 43.Kf2 Ke7 44.Bf3 Kd6 45.Bxd5 Bxd5 46.Rxd5+ Ke6 47.Re5+ Kf7 48.Ne4 Re7 49.Ng5+ Ke8 50.Rc5 Rd2+ 51.Kf3 Rd3+ 52.Kf2 Rc3 53.Rc6 Rd7 54.Ke2 Rc2+ 55.Ke1 Rd3 56.Rxg6 Ra3 57.Re6+ Kd7 58.Re2 Rxe2+ 59.Kxe2 Rxa4 60.Kd2 Ra3 61.Ne4 Rd3+ 62.Kc2 Kc7 63.Nd2 Rxg3 64.Nxc4 a4 65.b6+ Kb7 66.f5 Rg4 67.Kd3 Rxh4 68.f6 Rf4 69.f7 h4 70.Ke3 Rxf7, 0-1, Azaladze,S (2332)-Gelashvili,T (2612)/Tbilisi 2007.

* 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nf1 Nc5 13.Bc2 Rd8 14.Qe2 Ne6 15.Ne3 Nf4 16.Qf1 c6 17.Rad1 Re8 18.Bb3 Bf8 19.h3 Nxh3+ 20.gxh3 Qxf3 21.Rd3 Bxh3 22.Ng2 Qxg2+ 23.Qxg2 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Rad8 25.Rf3 Re7 26.Re2 Kg7 27.a4 Red7 28.Rc2 Bc5 29.Re2 f6, 0-1, Kirsch,Sebastian - Biro,Sandor (2316) GER U18 Gr-B Oberhaching (6), 04.08. 2004. (we arrive to the position by transposition).

* 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Bc4 Rd8 14.Qe2 h5 15.Rad1 Bh6 16.Nf3 Bg4 17.h3 Bxf3, ½–½, Mayo Martinez,Manuel (2205) - Fernandez Garcia,Jose Luis (2475) Euskadi-ch Absoluto Euskadi, 1997.

We have finished the second part of our Torre survey, I wait for you at my next and last installment!