Queen’s Gambit Declined:

Vienna

Jacek Ilczuk and Krzysztof Pańczyk

www.everymanchess.com
 About the Authors

The authors have regularly been publishing together for 16 years. So far they have written
four books and over 50 surveys (theoretical articles on chess openings) in the Dutch quar-
terly New in Chess Yearbook. They are leading chess theoreticians, well known for the depth
and thoroughness of their analysis.
Jacek Ilczuk is a strong correspondence chess player with Senior International Master ti-
tle which is an ICCF title between IM and GM in correspondence chess.
Krzysztof Panczyk is an international master. He was placed third in the 1991 Polish
Championship and has been awarded a medal for outstanding services to chess by the Pol-
ish Chess Federation

Also by the Authors:

Offbeat King’s Indian
Ruy Lopez Exchange
The Classical King’s Indian Uncovered
 Contents

About the Authors 3

Introduction 5

Introduction to the Main Line: 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9 bxc3 Ëa5 16
1 The Main Line: 10 Íb5+ Ìbd7 11 Íxf6 Ëxc3+ 12 Êf1 gxf6
13 h4 a6 14 Îh3 Ëa5 20
2 The Main Line: 10 Íb5+ Ìbd7 – Deviations 45
3 The Main Line: 10 Íb5+ Íd7 72
4 The Main Line: 10 Íxf6 110
5 The Main Line: 10 Ìb5 137
6 7 Íxc4 – Deviations 163
7 7 e5 cxd4 8 Ëa4+ Ìc6 9 0-0-0 202
8 6...c5 – Deviations 229
9 Black plays 6...h6 259
10 6 e4 – Deviations 289
11 White avoids 6 e4 303

Index of Variations 328

Index of Complete Games 335
 Introduction

Vienna was a place of rich chess life as early as the second half of the nineteenth cen-
tury. It held its first international chess tournament in 1873 and by the end of the century
eight international tournaments had taken place there. The participants included such
prominent chess players as Steinitz, Blackburne, Paulsen, Zukertort, Schlechter, Janowski,
Tarrasch and Pillsbury, and later on Duras, Maróczy, Réti, Sämisch, Rubinstein and Tarta-
kower all played in the now Austrian capital. As such, it is scarcely a surprise that some
chess openings are named after this very city. One of them is the Vienna variation in the
Queen’s Gambit which arises after:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Ìc3 Ìf6 4 Ìf3 dxc4 5 Íg5 Íb4
W________W
[rhb1kDW4]
[0p0WDp0p]
[WDWDphWD]
[DWDWDWGW]
[Wgp)WDWD]
[DWHWDNDW]
[P)WDP)P)]
[$WDQIBDR]
W--------W
This is the key position of the Vienna. The opening floats somewhere around the realms
of the Queen’s Gambit, the Nimzo-Indian and the Ragozin. Sometimes the play may even
transpose to sidelines of the Botvinnik complex in the Semi-Slav. In practice, apart from
general knowledge, both sides need to be familiar with a number of theoretical opening
variations, as well as ideally possessing decent tactical and calculation skills.
Not only does Black’s idea look very aggressive, but also it is extremely ambitious. He
develops his dark-squared bishop to pin the knight on c3 and then (after ...c7-c5) plans to
increase the pressure by ...Ëa5. By capturing the c4-pawn, Black avoids the exchange on d5

5
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

which would lead to a Karlsbad structure or an isolated pawn on d5 if Black would like to
push ...c7-c5. Consequently, the c- and d-files are left open.
White, on the other hand, gives as good as he gets and usually actively takes the centre
by advancing e2-e4. Black is often forced to leave his king in the centre, as queenside cas-
tling is usually impossible due to problems with development of the light-squared bishop,
and kingside castling is dangerous as White usually exchanges his bishop on f6, weakening
the pawn structure on the kingside.
After the most popular 6 e4 Black should play the active 6...c5. Here a very complicated
position with mutual chances appears. Now White has at his disposal very sharp variations
in the classical system with 7 e5. This forced line was common in the early days of the
popularity of the Vienna, but nowadays it is again becoming fashionable, as it allows
White to considerably sharpen the play and depart from the deeply worked out variations
in the main line which remains 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9 bxc3.
W________W
[rhb1kDW4]
[0pDWDp0p]
[WDWDphWD]
[DWDWDWGW]
[WDBHPDWD]
[DW)WDWDW]
[PDWDW)P)]
[$WDQIWDR]
W--------W
Now the play has more a strategic if also sharp character. Theory, however, suggests
that after a complicated middlegame a more peaceful ending may arise – if both sides
know their stuff.
In the Vienna variation both players ideally should demonstrate a whole range of skills:
tactical, especially the ability to obtain an initiative as a compensation for the pawn, and
strategic, as well as excellent knowledge of both concrete variations and endings. Not eve-
ryone is up for that and the opening certainly allows both sides to play for a win.
The earliest game in the Vienna ended in a draw, and in a sideline of the opening.

Game 1
E.Bogoljubow-H.Wolf
Karlsbad 1923

1 d4 Ìf6 2 Ìf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Ìc3 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4 6 Íg5 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Íh4 g5 9 Ìxg5 Ëd5?

6
 Introduction

W________W
[rhbDkDW4]
[0W0WDpDW]
[WDWDphW0]
[DpDq)WHW]
[Wgp)WDWG]
[DWHWDWDW]
[P)WDW)P)]
[$WDQIBDR]
W--------W
Black has to play 9...hxg5 as we will see in Chapter Ten.
10 Ìxf7! Ëe4+ 11 Íe2 Êxf7
After 11...Ëxh4 12 Ìxh8 Ìd5 13 0-0 Íxc3 White can evacuate his knight, keeping both
a material and a positional advantage.
12 Íxf6 Îg8 13 Ëd2 Íxc3 14 bxc3 Ìd7 15 0-0-0
After 15 Ëxh6! Black has no better than 15...Ìxf6 16 Ëxf6+ Êe8 17 Ëf3 Íb7 18 Ëxe4
Íxe4 19 f3 Íd5 20 Êf2 a5 21 Îab1 with a lost endgame.
15...Ëg6
15...Ëf5 looks slightly better, but White still has a winning ending after 16 Ëxh6 Ìxf6
17 exf6 Ëg5+ 18 Ëxg5 Îxg5 19 Íf3 Îb8 20 h4.
W________W
[rDbDWDrD]
[0W0nDkDW]
[WDWDpGq0]
[DpDW)WDW]
[WDp)WDWD]
[DW)WDWDW]
[PDW!B)P)]
[DWIRDWDR]
W--------W
16 Ëf4
The simplest solution was 16 Íf3 Îb8 17 Íh4.
16...Ìxf6

7
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

After 16...Íb7 White wins in all variations with 17 d5!: 17...Ìxf6 18 Íh5 Ëxh5 19 dxe6+
Êe8 20 exf6 Ëg5 21 f7+ Êe7 22 fxg8Ì+, 17...Íxd5 18 Îxd5 exd5 19 e6+ Êxe6 20 Íg4+
Êf7 21 Íh4+ Êg7 22 Íxd7 or 17...exd5 18 e6+.
17 exf6
17 Íf3 was again better: 17...c6 (or 17...Îb8 18 exf6 Ëg5 19 Íh5+!) 18 Íxc6 Îb8 19
exf6 Ëg5 and compared with the game, White is a pawn up.
17...Ëg5 18 Ëxg5 hxg5 19 Íg4?!
By now only with 19 h4 White could fight for the advantage. After many adventures the
game was later drawn:
19...Íb7 20 Îde1 Íd5 21 Îhf1 Êxf6 22 f4 gxf4 23 Îxf4+ Êe7 24 Íxe6 Íxe6 25 d5 Îg6 26
Îfe4 Êd6 27 dxe6 Êe7 28 Îh4 Îag8 29 g3 Î8g7 30 Êd2 Îxe6 31 Îh6 Îxe1 32 Êxe1 Îf7
33 g4 Îf3 34 Îh7+ Êf6 35 Êd2 Êg5 36 Îg7+ Êf4 37 h4 Îf2+ 38 Êd1 Îxa2 39 g5 Îh2 40
Îh7 Êf5
W________W
[WDWDWDWD]
[0W0WDWDR]
[WDWDWDWD]
[DpDWDk)W]
[WDpDWDW)]
[DW)WDWDW]
[WDWDWDW4]
[DWDKDWDW]
W--------W
41 Îh6?
41 h5 Êxg5 42 Îxc7 Îxh5 43 Îxa7 Êf5 44 Îe7 Êf4 45 Êc2 Îe5 is only a little better for
Black, whereas after the text he might have won with 41...Êe4! 42 g6 Êd3 43 Êe1 b4.
41...c5? 42 Êe1? b4 43 Îc6 bxc3?
After the obvious 43...b3 Black could have won easily.
44 Îxc5+?
44 Êd1 c2+ 45 Êc1 Êe4 46 Îd6 Îxh4 47 Êxc2 draws.
44...Êe4 45 g6 c2 46 Îxc4+ Êd3 47 Îc7 Îxh4??
The final mistake. Instead, 47...Îe2+ 48 Êf1 Îe7 49 Îc8 Îe8 50 Îc7 a5 wins.
48 Îd7+ Êc3 49 Îc7+ Êb2 50 Îb7+ Êc1 51 g7 Îe4+ 52 Êf2 Îe8 53 Îxa7 ½-½

In a game in a 1925 simultaneous display given by Alekhine in Amsterdam, his oppo-

nent deployed the Vienna variation and defeated the grandmaster.

8
 Introduction

Game 2
A.Alekhine-H.Woher
Amsterdam (simul) 1925

1 d4 Ìf6 2 Ìf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Ìc3 dxc4 5 Íg5 h6 6 Íxf6 Ëxf6 7 e4 Íb4 8 Íxc4 c5 9 0-0
Íxc3 10 bxc3
Here 10 e5 Ëe7 11 bxc3 Ìc6 12 Ëe2 cxd4 13 cxd4 leads to a similar type of position; for
example, 13...Íd7 14 Îac1 Îc8 (A.Astashin-A.Ostrovsky, Leningrad 1967) 15 Íd3 with a
small edge for White.
10...0-0
The immediate 10...cxd4 is discussed in Chapter Nine.
11 e5 Ëe7 12 Ëe2 cxd4 13 cxd4
13 Ìxd4!? Îd8 14 h3 (or 14 Íd3 Ìd7 15 f4) 14...Ìd7 15 Îad1 Ìc5 16 Ìb5 offered
White more chances of obtaining an initiative.
13...Íd7 14 d5 exd5 15 Íxd5 Íc6 16 Îad1 Íxd5 17 Îxd5 Ìc6 18 Îfd1 Îad8 19 h3 Îxd5
20 Îxd5 Îd8 21 Ëe4 Ëe6 22 Îxd8+ Ìxd8 23 a4 Ëc6
W________W
[WDWhWDkD]
[0pDWDp0W]
[WDqDWDW0]
[DWDW)WDW]
[PDWDQDWD]
[DWDWDNDP]
[WDWDW)PD]
[DWDWDWIW]
W--------W
24 Ëb4?
The fourth world champion might have maintained the balance with 24 Ëd4 Ëc1+ 25
Êh2 Ìc6 26 Ëd7.
24...Ìe6 25 Êh2 b6 26 Êg3 Ìc5?
26...a5! 27 Ëh4 b5 wins.
27 a5 Ìe4+?!
And here the amateur would have been doing pretty well after 27...Ìe6 28 axb6 axb6.
28 Êh2 Ìxf2 29 a6 Ëe4 30 Ëe7??
30 Ëc3! would only have been a little better for Black.
30...Ëf4+ 31 Êg1 Ìxh3+ 32 gxh3 Ëg3+ 33 Êh1 Ëxf3+ 34 Êh2 Ëf2+ 35 Êh1 Ëf1+ 36 Êh2

9
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

Ëxa6 37 Ëe8+ Êh7 38 Ëxf7 Ëe2+ 39 Êh1 Ëxe5 40 Ëxa7 Ëe4+ 41 Êh2 b5 42 Ëa3 b4 43
Ëb3 Ëe5+ 44 Êg2 Ëc3 45 Ëb1+ g6 46 Ëe4 h5 47 Ëe7+ Êh6 48 h4 b3 49 Ëg5+ Êh7 50
Ëe7+ Ëg7 51 Ëb4 b2 52 Ëb8 Ëc3 53 Ëb7+ Êh6 54 Ëb8 Ëc6+ 55 Êg3 Ëc3+ 56 Êg2 Ëd2+
57 Êf3 Ëc3+ 58 Êg2 Ëg7 59 Ëb6 Êh7 60 Ëb5 Ëd4 61 Ëb7+ Êh6 62 Ëb8 Ëe4+ 63 Êf2
Ëxh4+ 64 Êf3 Ëh1+ 65 Êg3 Ëg1+ 66 Êf3 Ëf1+ 67 Êg3 b1Ë 68 Ëh8+ Êg5 69 Ëd8+ Ëf6
70 Ëd2+ Êf5 0-1

The greatest contribution to the development of the variation was made during the late
1920s and then 1930s by such players as Albert Becker, Hans Kmoch, Heinrich Wolf and
Hans Müller. Due to the popularity the variation enjoyed during the 1933 Chess Olympiad
in Folkestone, it was first named the Folkestonian Variation. However, the Viennese master
Ernst Grünfeld is acknowledged to have been the real author of our favourite system. He
named it ‘the Grünfeld Variation in the Queen’s Gambit’ and won two important games
with it.

Game 3
F.Apsenieks-E.Grünfeld
Folkestone Olympiad 1933

1 c4 e6 2 Ìf3 Ìf6 3 d4 d5 4 Íg5 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4+ 6 Ìc3 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 exf6 gxf6 9 Ëa4+?
9 Íh4 is definitely better, but here too Black has excellent play. These variations are dis-
cussed in Chapter Eight.
9...Ìc6 10 0-0-0 Íxc3 11 Íh4 b5!
W________W
[rDb1kDW4]
[0WDWDpDp]
[WDnDp0WD]
[DpDWDWDW]
[QDp0WDWG]
[DWgWDNDW]
[P)WDW)P)]
[DWIRDBDR]
W--------W
Black already has a winning position and such a scenario is by no means unknown ei-
ther these days at club level.
12 Ëxb5 Îb8 13 Ëxc6+ Íd7 14 Ëxc4 Íxb2+ 15 Êc2 Ëa5 16 Ìxd4 Îb4 17 Íxf6 Îxc4+ 18

10
 Introduction

Íxc4 Ëc3+ 19 Êb1 Ía3 20 Ìc2 Ëxf6 21 Ìxa3 Êe7 22 Íb3 Ëxf2 23 Ìc4 Íc6 24 Îd2 Ëf5+
25 Êa1 Ëf6+ 26 Ìb2 Îg8 27 Îc1 Îxg2 28 Îxg2 Íxg2 29 a4 Ëf4 30 Îc2 Íe4 31 Îc4 Ëxh2
0-1

Game 4
C.Rosenberger-E.Grünfeld
Vienna 1934

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Ìf3 Ìf6 4 Íg5 Íb4+ 5 Ìc3 dxc4 6 Ëa4+ Ìc6

Now the play transposes to a sideline of the Ragozin system.
7 e3 Ëd5 8 Íxf6 gxf6 9 Ëxb4?
9 Ëc2 and 9 Ìd2 are definitely better. In both cases White has enough compensation
for the pawn, as we will see in Chapter Eleven.
9...Ìxb4 10 Ìxd5 exd5 11 Êd2 Íe6 12 Êc3 Ìc6 13 Íe2 b5
W________W
[rDWDkDW4]
[0W0WDpDp]
[WDnDb0WD]
[DpDpDWDW]
[WDp)WDWD]
[DWIW)NDW]
[P)WDB)P)]
[$WDWDWDR]
W--------W
14 b4?
After this move Black wins immediately. However, in any case White did not have
enough compensation for the pawn one way or another.
14...a5 15 a3 Êe7 16 Ìh4 Îa6 17 bxa5 Îxa5 18 Îhb1 Îha8 19 Êb2 b4 20 a4 Îxa4 21 Îxa4
Îxa4 22 Îa1 c3+ 0-1

These games were so interesting that other masters felt encouraged to start playing the
variation. For example, during the 1935 Chess Olympiad in Warsaw one of the main lines
in the Vienna (with 7 e5) was played in the game M.Napolitano-A.Muffang:
1 d4 Ìf6 2 Ìf3 e6 3 c4 d5 4 Ìc3 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4 6 Íg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 exf6?! gxf6 9 Íh4 Ìc6
10 a3 (even after the preferable 10 Ìxd4 Ìxd4 11 Íxc4 White does not have full compen-
sation for the pawn, as discussed in Chapter Eight) 10...Ía5

11
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

W________W
[rDb1kDW4]
[0pDWDpDp]
[WDnDp0WD]
[gWDWDWDW]
[WDp0WDWG]
[)WHWDNDW]
[W)WDW)P)]
[$WDQIBDR]
W--------W
Now after 11 Ìxd4 Ëxd4 12 Ëxd4 Ìxd4 13 Íxf6 Ìc2+ 14 Êd2 Ìxa1 15 Íxh8 the
knight has the b3-square: 15...Ìb3+ 16 Êc2 Íxc3 17 Êxc3 b5 with an edge for Black. In-
stead, the game saw 11 Íxc4 dxc3 12 Ëxd8+? (better was 12 b4 Ëxd1+ 13 Îxd1 Íd8 14
Îc1 Íd7, but White does not have enough compensation for the pawn) 12...Íxd8 and
Black was already doing extremely well.

The first world champion who used the Vienna variation as Black was Emanuel Lasker.

Game 5
V.Chekhover-Em.Lasker
Moscow 1935

1 c4 Ìf6 2 Ìc3 e6 3 Ìf3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4 6 Íg5 c5 7 Íxf6

Taking on f6 now, or in the move order 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Íxf6 Ëxf6, does not give White
chances of obtaining an advantage. All these sidelines are discussed in Chapter Six.
7...Ëxf6 8 Íxc4 cxd4 9 Ëxd4 Ìc6 10 Ëxf6 gxf6 11 Îc1 Íd7 12 0-0 Îc8 13 a3 Íd6

12
 Introduction

W________W
[WDrDkDW4]
[0pDbDpDp]
[WDngp0WD]
[DWDWDWDW]
[WDBDPDWD]
[)WHWDNDW]
[W)WDW)P)]
[DW$WDRIW]
W--------W
Black already has good play.
14 Ìe2 Ìe5 15 Ìxe5 Íxe5 16 Íb5 Îxc1 17 Íxd7+ Êxd7 18 Îxc1 Îc8 19 Îxc8 Êxc8 20 b3
Êc7 21 Êf1 b5 22 Êe1 Íb2 23 a4 bxa4 24 bxa4 Êc6 25 Êd2 Êc5 26 Ìc3 Êb4 27 Ìb5 a5 28
Ìd6
The only way to prolong resistance was 28 Êd3 Íe5 29 h4 f5 30 exf5 exf5 31 h5 f4 32 f3
Êxa4 33 Êc4.
28...Êxa4 29 Êc2 Íe5?! 30 Ìxf7 Íxh2 31 Ìd8 e5 32 Ìc6? Íg1 33 f3 Íc5 34 Ìb8 Êb5 35
g4 Íe7 36 g5 fxg5 37 Ìd7 Íd6 38 Ìf6 Êc4 0-1

One more historical game is worth mentioning, the occasion when the world champion
Alekhine played a consultation game as White against the Vienna.

Game 6
A.Alekhine & H.Frank-E.Bogoljubow & Pfaffenroth
Exhibition game, Warsaw 1941

1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 e6 3 Ìf3 d5 4 Íg5 Íb4+ 5 Ìc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Ëa5 9 Íxf6
Íxc3+! 10 bxc3
This is the key position for the whole system as discussed in Chapter Four.
10...Ëxc3+ 11 Êf1 Ëxc4+?!
Black is too greedy. The best move is 11...gxf6.
12 Êg1 Íd7 13 Îc1

13
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

W________W
[rhWDkDW4]
[0pDbDp0p]
[WDWDpGWD]
[DWDWDWDW]
[WDqHPDWD]
[DWDWDWDW]
[PDWDW)P)]
[DW$QDWIR]
W--------W
13...Ëa6??
This move loses immediately. The only chance for Black was 13...Ëb4!, as we will see
later on.
14 Ìxe6 fxe6 15 Îc8+ Êf7 16 Îxh8 gxf6 17 Ëh5+ Êe7 18 Ëc5+ Êf7 19 Îf8+ Êg7 20 Ëe7+
1-0

In all these games White chose the classical 7 e5 or different sidelines, whereas the con-
tinuation 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9 bxc3, which was recognized as the main line before
the 1980s, was represented only by a few games. The first one was:

Game 7
M.Bartosek-L.Pachman
Prague 1943

1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 e6 3 Ìf3 d5 4 Íg5 Íb4+ 5 Ìc3 dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9
bxc3 Ëa5 10 Íb5+ Íd7 11 Íxf6 gxf6 12 Ëb3 0-0 13 0-0 Íxb5 14 Ìxb5 Ìa6?!
14...Ìc6 looks best and will be discussed in Chapter Three.
15 Ìd6
According to Ribli, 15 c4 with the idea of Ëg3 gives White an initiative.
15...Ìc5 16 Ëc4?
White would have been doing well after switching his queen with 16 Ëd1!.
16...Îad8

14
 Introduction

W________W
[wDW4W4kD]
[0pDWDpDp]
[WDWHp0WD]
[1WhWDWDW]
[WDQDPDWD]
[Dw)WDWDW]
[PDWDW)P)]
[$WDWDRIW]
W--------W
17 Îfd1
After 17 Îad1 Îd7 18 Ëd4 Îfd8 19 e5 Ëc7 20 Ëg4+ Êf8 21 Ëh4 fxe5 22 Ëh6+ Êe7 23
Ëg5+ the game ends in perpetual check.
17...Ëb6??
This is a very serious blunder. Black should have played 17...Îd7, with a small advantage
for Black, as pointed out by Ribli.
18 e5 fxe5?! 19 Ìe4??
After 19 Îab1 Îxd6 (if 19...Ëc7 20 Îxb7!) 20 Ëg4+ Êh8 21 Îxb6 Îxb6 (Ribli) 22 Ëh5 f5
(or 22...f6 23 f4) 23 Ëh6 Êg8 24 Ëe3 Îc6 25 Ëxe5 White wins.
19...Ìxe4
Now the position is equal. The players later swapped inaccuracies, with Pachman even-
tually coming out on top.
20 Ëxe4 Îxd1+ 21 Îxd1 Îd8 22 Îxd8+ Ëxd8 23 h3 Ëd5 24 Ëe3?! a5 25 a3 Ëd6 26 Ëc1?!
b5 27 h4?! a4 28 h5 Ëe7?
Black should have played 28...h6 with good winning chances.
29 Ëe3? f6 30 Ëg3+ Êh8 31 h6! Ëf8 32 Ëh4 Êg8 33 Ëh5 f5 34 g3 e4 35 Êg2 Ëd8 36 g4
Êf8 37 gxf5 Ëd5 38 Êg3? exf5 39 Ëg5 Ëe5+ 40 Êg2 Êf7 41 Ëh5+? Êf6 42 Ëh4+ Êg6 43
Ëh3 f4 44 Êf1 Ëf5 45 Ëh4 e3 46 Ëe7 Êxh6 47 Ëc7 Ëd3+ 48 Êg2 Ëe4+ 49 Êh2 exf2 50
Ëd6+ Êh5 51 Ëc5+ Êg4 52 Ëxf2 Ëe3 53 Ëf1 Ëg3+ 0-1
After the World War II the Vienna practically sank into oblivion and only since 1987 has
been back in grace amongst the world’s top players. These days the variation enjoys great
popularity and is quite regularly used by such top players as Kramnik, Gelfand, Grischuk,
Aronian and Anand. As for our fellow Polish players, the Vienna is sometimes seen in the
games of Wojtaszek, Piorun, Gajewski, Dragun and Macieja.
We hope that you will enjoy joining us on a fascinating journey through the rich and
sometimes fairly theoretical lines of the Vienna variation.
Jacek Ilczuk & Krzysztof Panczyk,
June 2018

15
 T h e M a i n L i n e : 1 0 Íb 5 + Ì b d 7 – D e v i a t i o n s

Game 19
A.Dreev-S.Kishnev
European Cup, Kallithea 2002

1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 e6 3 Ìf3 d5 4 Ìc3 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4 6 Íg5 c5 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9 bxc3
Ëa5 10 Íb5+ Ìbd7 11 Íxf6 Ëxc3+ 12 Êf1 gxf6 13 h4 Ëa5
W________W
[rDbDkDW4]
[0pDnDpDp]
[WDWDp0WD]
[1BDWDWDW]
[WDWHPDW)]
[DWDWDWDW]
[PDWDW)PD]
[$WDQDKDR]
W--------W
14 Îh3
White sometimes delays developing the rook to h3 which often leads to a different
move order; i.e. 14 Îc1 Êe7 15 Îh3 Îd8. Here:
a) 16 Ëc2 Ëb6 (as in C.Koch-J.Toscano, correspondence 2001; instead, 16...a6 17 Íe2
Ìe5 18 Ëb2 Îd6 was seen in S.Lputian-C.Gabriel, Baden-Baden 1996, when 19 Îd1!? with
the threat of Îa3 followed by f2-f4 leads to an advantage for White) 17 Ëb2 Ìe5 18 Îd1
Íd7 19 Ëa3+ Êe8 20 Íe2 with slightly the better chances for White.
b) 16 Îhc3 allows Black to exploit the pin on the d-file: 16...a6 (or 16...Ìe5 17 f4 Ìg6 18
a4 Ëb6, as in C.Gabriel-R.Rabiega, German League 1995, and after 19 Ëf3 Íd7 20 Îc7 Êf8
21 Íxd7 Ëxd4 22 Îd1 Ëb6 23 Îcc1 Ëb2 24 Îb1 Ëc2 the game should end in a draw) 17
Ía4 (as in J.Speelman-P.Wells, Copenhagen 1996; 17 Íe2 Ìe5 was preferred in
N.Zhukova-N.Kosintseva, Krasnoturinsk 2005, when 18 Ëd2 Êe8 19 f4 Ìg6 20 f5 exf5 21
exf5 Ìe7 22 Îe1 results in an unclear position) 17...Ìb6!?. With this resource Black can
equalize; for example, 18 Îc7+ (if 18 Íb3 Íd7 19 Îc7 Ëe5 20 Îxb7 Êf8 21 Êg1 Íc8 22
Îxb6 Îxd4) 18...Êf8 19 Ëf3 (or 19 Íb3 Ëe5 20 Ëd2 Îxd4 21 Ëh6+ Êe8 22 Îxf7 Êxf7 23
Ëxh7+) 19...Ëe5 20 Ëa3+ Ëd6 21 Ëf3 Ëe5 22 Ëa3+.
14...e5?
A forcing but misguided move, which makes White exchange his bishop or sacrifice it.
Instead, 14...a6 was discussed back in Chapter One. Black has also tried 14...Êe7 15 Îb1
Îd8 16 Ëc1 Ëb6!? (or 16...a6 17 Îa3 Ëb6 18 Ìc6+ bxc6 19 Íxc6 Ëa7 20 Îc3 and White

63
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

has the upper hand, P.Lukacs-M.Dzevlan, Budapest 1991, while a blunder is 16...Ìe5? 17
Ëc5+! Îd6 18 Îd1! Ëb6 19 Ìc6+! bxc6 20 Ëxd6+ Êe8 21 Îg3 Ëxb5+ 22 Êg1 1-0
A.Adorjan-A.Chernin, Debrecen 1990) 17 Ìf5+ exf5 18 Íxd7 Ëd6 19 Íxf5 b6 20 Êg1 with
the advantage, P.Bazant-J.Sykora, correspondence 2000.
W________W
[rDbDkDW4]
[0pDnDpDp]
[WDWDW0WD]
[1BDW0WDW]
[WDWHPDW)]
[DWDWDWDR]
[PDWDW)PD]
[$WDQDKDW]
W--------W
15 Ìf5!
This sacrifice wins. Much weaker is 15 Íxd7+? Íxd7 16 Ìf5 Îd8 (H.Jones-G.Van Erps,
correspondence 2002) 17 Ëh5 Íxf5 18 Ëxf5 Êe7 19 Îf3 Ëa6+ with good play for Black.
15...Ëxb5+ 16 Îd3 Ëb6
Others also lose, as shown by Ribli: 16...Êf8 17 Ìd6 Ëa6 18 Ëb3 or 16...Ëa6 17 Êg1.
17 Îb1 Ëa6
Even after the preferable 17...Ëc7 Black is not able to free himself from the pins one
way or another, as shown by 18 Îc1 Ëb6 19 Îc4 Ìc5 20 Îd6.
18 Êg1 Ëxa2?
This move accelerates Black’s defeat. However, he was pinned like a cured shoulder of
pork and after, instead, 18...Ëc6 19 Îc1 Ëb6 20 Ëh5 Îf8 21 Îdc3 Êd8 22 Ëd1 Îg8 23 Ëc2
White wins.
19 Îc1 b5
Neither 19...Êf8 20 Îdc3 nor 19...Êd8 20 Îxc8+ Êxc8 21 Îxd7 would have saved the
game either.
20 Îc7 Ëa4 21 Ëc1 Ëa6 22 Îd6 Ëxd6 23 Ìxd6+ Êe7 24 Îxc8 1-0

Game 20
A.Greenfeld-J.Piket
European Cup, Bugojno 1999

1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 e6 3 Ìf3 d5 4 Ìc3 dxc4 5 e4 Íb4 6 Íg5 c5 7 Íxc4 cxd4 8 Ìxd4 Íxc3+ 9 bxc3

64
 T h e M a i n L i n e : 1 0 Íb 5 + Ì b d 7 – D e v i a t i o n s

Ëa5 10 Íb5+ Ìbd7 11 Íxf6 Ëxc3+ 12 Êf1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 Îc1 Ëb4 15 Ía4 Ëd6 16 Îh3
b5
W________W
[rDbDkDW4]
[DWDnDpDp]
[pDW1p0WD]
[DpDWDWDW]
[BDWHPDW)]
[DWDWDWDR]
[PDWDW)PD]
[DW$QDKDW]
W--------W
17 Îc6
White has the better ending after 17 Îhc3! Íb7 18 Ìxb5! Ëxd1+ 19 Îxd1 axb5 20
Íxb5 Íxe4 21 Îxd7 0-0.
17...Ëe5
No better is 17...Ëf4 18 Íc2 0-0 19 Ìe2 Ëh6 20 f4 Êh8 21 Ëd6 and White has the up-
per hand.
18 Îhc3 Íb7
Weaker is 18...0-0 19 Íc2 Ëf4 20 Îc7 Ìe5 21 g3 Ëh6 22 Ìc6 Ìxc6 23 Î3xc6 with a
clear advantage for White.
19 Îc7
W________W
[rDWDkDW4]
[Db$nDpDp]
[pDWDp0WD]
[DpDW1WDW]
[BDWHPDW)]
[DW$WDWDW]
[PDWDW)PD]
[DWDQDKDW]
W--------W
19...Íxe4??

65
Queen’s Gambit Declined: Vienna

A terrible blunder.
Not much better would be 19...Ëxe4 20 f3 Ëxh4 21 Îxb7 Ìe5 (after 21...Îd8 22 Îxd7!
White wins; likewise, if 21...bxa4 22 Êg1 with a huge attack for White, 21...Îg8 22 Ìxe6
Ëh1+ 23 Êf2 Îxg2+ 24 Êe3 and Black’s counterplay fails, or 21...Ëh1+ 22 Êf2 Ëh4+ 23
Êg1 Ìe5 24 Ìc6 0-0 25 Íb3 Ìxc6 26 Îxc6 Îad8 27 Ëe2 with some advantage to White)
22 Ìxe6! fxe6 23 Ëd6 and White wins, as analyzed by Ribli.
According to the Hungarian Grandmaster and theoretician, the best continuation is
19...bxa4 20 Îxb7 Ìc5 21 Îxc5 Ëxc5 22 Ëxa4+ Êf8.
W________W
[rDWDWiW4]
[DRDWDpDp]
[pDWDp0WD]
[DW1WDWDW]
[QDWHPDW)]
[DWDWDWDW]
[PDWDW)PD]
[DWDWDKDW]
W--------W
After 23 Ëd7 (if 23 Ìxe6+ fxe6 24 Ëd7 Ëc1+ 25 Êe2 Ëc2+ with perpetual check)
23...Ëc1+ 24 Êe2 Ëc4+ Ribli estimated the position as equal. However, it is not clear if this
assessment is correct. Following 25 Êd2 e5 26 Ìf5 Ëxa2+ 27 Êe1 Ëa1+ (Black has to drag
white king to the third rank; otherwise in many variations White will have the move Ëd3
with the threat of Ëa3+ and then Ëe3 or Ëg3) 28 Êe2 Ëa2+ 29 Êf3 Ëe6 30 Ëc7, in spite
of the fact that Black has a solid material advantage, he is completely paralyzed; for exam-
ple, 30...h6 (30...h5 might be better, making more room around black king, although here
too White can play for a win, as with 31 Êg3 Îc8 32 Ëa5 Êg8 33 Êh2 Îh7 34 Îb6) 31 g3
Îc8 32 Îb8 Îxb8 33 Ëxb8+ Ëe8 34 Ëd6+ Êg8 35 Ëxf6 with a clear advantage for White.
20 Ìf5!! 1-0
And Black resigned. Indeed, White wins in all variations: 20...Îd8 (or 20...Ìb6 21 Ëd7+!!
Ìxd7 22 Îc8+ Îxc8 23 Îxc8 mate) 21 Îxd7 Íd5 (if 21...Îxd7 22 Îc8+ Îd8 23 Îxd8 mate)
22 Îe7+ Êf8 23 Ëh5 Íxg2+ (23...exf5 fails to 24 Îxe5 fxe5 25 Ëg5) 24 Êxg2 Îg8+ (no bet-
ter is 24...Ëd5+ 25 f3 Îg8+ 26 Êh1 exf5 27 Îcc7 Îg6 28 Íb3) 25 Êf1 Îg7 26 Îd7! Ëb8 (or
26...Îxd7 27 Îc8+) 27 Îxd8+ Ëxd8 28 Ìxg7, as correctly pointed out by Ribli.

66