The Modern Italian Game

Bishop's Opening, and the Modern treatments of the Giuoco Piano and Two Knight's Opening.

Bishop's Opening, Tim Harding [Chess Player]

Simple Chess, Michael Stean [Faber]

Secrets of Grandmaster Play, Nunn and Griffiths [Batsford]

The Open Game in Practice, Anatoly Karpov [Batsford]

Winning with Bishop's Opening, Gary Lane [Batsford]


Let us open 1. e4 and after 1...e5, 2. Nf3

All square?

As many juniors already know, we can continue with moves like Bc4, d3, Nc3 and Be3/Bg5 followed by O-O, White has achieved an easy development. However, this system of development puts no pressure on Black whatsoever, and Black's only task is to keep up with White's development. For example, after 2. Nf3 Black might reply 2...Nc6, then after 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 (Giuoco Pianissimo) we can try 6. Be3 Bb6! when Black has an easy game, while after 6. O-O Bg4! White may even feel that the King has been committed too soon (7. h3 h5!?). 6. Bg5 may give Black a few ways of going wrong but basically the impression is that this game with Knights on their natural squares of c3 and f3 is not a difficult system for Black to equalise against because Black can develop easily.

Going for d2-d4?

In order to put early pressure on Black, White cannot use the pieces alone. Plan A must include development by d2-d4 at some point. This will put pressure on the Black Pawn at e5 and give a few more possibilities for both sides.

  The immediate 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 leads to release of central tension and denies White the opportunity of ever achieving a 'perfect' centre with Pawns on e4 and d4. This is a perfectly reasonable opening (Scotch Game), but perhaps we can do better:

Preparing d2-d4 with c2-c3

Supporting the d4 Pawn with c2-c3 seems a good idea, so that ...e5xd4 can be met with c3xd4. Then our Knight on b1 could go to c3 anyway. However, 3. c3 (Ponziani's opening) has been thought for a long while to offer White little: it is a well-motivated move but for the moment does not restrict Black at all. Black can make an immediate nuisance by either 3...Nf6 or perhaps even 3...d5, when the natural 4.exd5 Qxd5 cannot be met by tempo-gaining 5.Nc3.

The old Italian Game with c2-c3

There can be little objection to the Italianate 3. Bc4, which retricts ...d5, enables castling by White, and after 3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano) 4.c3! is an excellent way to proceed, since after the spoiling attempt 4...Nf6, 5.d4! can follow in any event. These are well-known lines, which perhaps do not offer White much more than equality in theory, but in practice usually lead to an open game where Black has lots of chances to go wrong. This old-fashioned Italian Game, concentrating on fast development and attacking play, is a great choice for your first chess opening system.
Euwe Max - Van Mindeno H [C54], It "AVRO", Netherlands, 1927
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 0-0 11.Rxe4 Ne7 12.d6 cxd6 13.Qxd6 Nf5 14.Qd5 d6 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxf7+ 1-0

  However, this is not the way most folk play the opening these days.

  If there is a problem with 3. Bc4 it is 3...Nf6 (Two Knights' Defence), which does not allow us to play 4. c3/5. d4. 4. d4!? (the Max Lange Attack) can be tried as a reply, but this again detracts from the goal of setting up Pawns on d4 and e4.

Garcia C - Taulbut Shaun M It active, 1982
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. Rxe4+ Be7 9. Nxd4 f5 10. Bh6 Kf7 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. h4 Be6 15. Rxe6 1-0

  Again, the play is open and unclear, which is fine for those with an adventurous spirit and a good memory (for this line is very well researched), but we may prefer to avoid this.

Getting to d4 in two moves: the modern Italian Game

However, if after 3...Nf6, 4. d3 seems an admission of failure, this may be only a temporary setback. 4. d3 may be followed by protecting the e-Pawn (with Nbd2, or castling and Re1), and then we can play c2-c3 and d3-d4 as originally planned. This slightly delayed occupation of the centre may be stronger than doing so immediately, because it is more solid.

  The most important test in this position is, of course, the simple 4...d5: if this equalises then White will have to try something else. In fact, it seems that after 5. exd4 Nxd4 6. O-O and 7. Re1 Black can experience some difficulty defending the e-Pawn. So this idea of d3, c3 and only later d4 seems quite playable.

  Also, after 3...Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3! we enter similar lines. The main variations of the Giuoco Piano with 5. d4 are well-explored and well-known, so your opponent may equalise without much thought if they know the book lines, whereas these lines with d3 are less familiar and offer more scope for original play.

  In any event, the system with c3 and d3 may be more interesting than a Four Knights' type of system with Nc3 and d3. The Queen's Knight can play first to d2, which looks a little slow, but, because the centre is solid, it can then plan grand tours like Nd2-c4-e3-d5 or Nd2-f1-g3-f5, or some other combination like Nd2-f1-e3. If a general King's-side push is being considered, once the King's Knight on f3 moves, the Queen's Knight can pop around from d2 to f3.

  There has been much Grandmaster interest in this apparently slow style of playing these old openings. What can Black do in response to this plan?

Plans for the d-Pawn for both sides in the modern Italian Game

We have considered four central formations for White above:

d3 only (with Nc3), which in itself may be too slow

d4 only, which in itself may be too early

c3 and d4, which may be vulnerable to ...Nf6

d3 and c3 with d4 later, which may be the best plan so far

  Black of course has all these plans available from the other side:

...d6 and ...Nc6

...d5 only

...c6 and ...d5

...d6 and ...c6 (with maybe ...d5 later)

  Because Black may be trying only to equalise, lack of aggression in these different plans may be no great drawback.

  White is going to stick the King's Bishop on c4, while Black has yet to commit it to a square: ...Bc5 is natural, ...Be7 is solid, and some folk have tried it on g7.

  This combination of different possible plans by White and by Black is rather interesting. It is this strategic complexity and relatively slow unfolding of plans which has led to a growth of interest in these lines, together with a re-appraisal of some old variations.

The modern Italian Game and the Bishop's Opening

A point of order: I have introduced these lines from a move order with 2. Nf3. But it may be interesting to play 2. Bc4 instead: the Bishop's Opening. After 2. Bc4 we can reach the same lines after either 2...Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 or 2...Nc6 3. Nf3 or 2...Nc6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3. Are there advantages to playing 2. Bc4 instead of 2. Nf3? In the early 1980s when interest was growing in 2. Bc4, Petroff's Defence (the reply 2...Nf6 to 2. Nf3) was proving to be a good equalising try for Black at all levels of chess. The Bishop's Opening move order obviously avoids this defence, and one or two others besides (like Philidor's Defence and the Latvian Gambit). So, yes, there may be practical advantages in starting out with 2. Bc4.

  The growth of interest in Bishop's Opening actually began with Bent Larsen's researches in the 1960s. [He wanted to get into a line of the Vienna Opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d3 without encouraging the wild 3...Nxe4 4. Qh5, so introduced the line with 2. Bc4.] He discovered, amongst other things, that after 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 Black has no easy time of it. The other theoretical development, published in a little Tim Harding book, was a series of correspondence games by Koch in which he showed that the supposed equalising line 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 led to a position in which, hypermodern style, Black was left defending an overambitious centre against strong pressure from White's minor pieces.

  There are old-fashioned 'Italian' and gambit approaches to Bishop's Opening - for example, White can essay the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3!?] or the Urusoff Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4!?], both of which have yet to be refuted and the latter actually claimed a scalp of the young Karpov. But here I am interested mostly in the modern treatments.

The Bishop's Opening and the Ruy Lopez

Before getting stuck into the details, there is another general point to consider: the strategically heavyweight lines of the Ruy Lopez are generally reckoned to be one of the most important battle-grounds in chess, being complex and offering White good chances to play for an advantage, and, indeed, giving both sides chances to win. These positions in fact have parallels in the modern lines of the Bishop's opening. For example, the main lines of the Ruy Lopez include the old Tchigorin Defence:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 [Kasparov - Donchenko, 1976]

  and the modern Breyer system:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d3 Nbd7 [Vasiukov - Karpov, 1971]

  Now, positions similar to these can readily be reached through Bishop's opening: after:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 [Kosten-Cooper, 1988]

  ...we have a formation similar to the Tchigorin; to find a parallel system to the Breyer we can try:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6 6. c3 Nbd7.

  These parallels help explain the GM interest in the old Bishop's opening. The differences between the parallel lines lie principally in White's more restricted route for the Bishop: Bf1-c4-b3-c2 rather than Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2 in the Ruy Lopez, chased by Black's a- and b-Pawns. Whether these advances represent Queen's-side counterplay more than Queen's-side weaknesses has yet to be resolved!

Pawn formations in Bishop's opening

What is going on strategically in Bishop's Opening types of positions? You will find layers of tactical details (like the attack on f7) when you look at master games in this opening, which can obscure what is going on underneath the surface. The easiest way to think about the plans in different lines is to consider is the Pawn formations. If White succeeds in playing d3, c3 and d4 we create a tense pawn formation (a), in which the tension can be resolved in a number of ways. Before White can do this, it is possible for Black to set up such a formation, so we have all the possibilities available to both sides. The possibilities of a quick shift to another formation will be better handled by the side with the more advanced and more flexible development.

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)


The tension may even be added to by Black playing ...c5, analogous to the Tchigorin line. In the long term, the adjacent central Pawns should confer a space advantage, so exchanges should be avoided by the side trying to maintain them.

Black may resolve the tension by playing ...e5xd4 (c3xd4) which results in an unbalanced position where White has an extra central Pawn (b).

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed


These adjacent Pawns in a more open position confer a bigger advantage but in a more open position may be more vulnerable to attack e.g. along the e-file.

White may resolve the tension in the first formation, by playing either d4-d5 (giving a closed centre (c) with an advanced d-Pawn), or by playing d4xe5 (...d6xe5) with a balanced, semi-open KP centre (d).

(c) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.


The advanced d-Pawn gives a space advantage, particularly on the Queen's-side. To play for a win the c-Pawn and maybe b-Pawn should be advanced, to sieze more space and perhaps open lines on that side. The opponent may consider an advance of the f-Pawn to undermine the d-Pawn and counter-attack on the King's-side.

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre


This is a very common formation in KP openings. If neither side can achieve a sharp advance of the f-Pawn, play will be dominated by piece play on either wing. There are natural posts for Knights on d5 and f5 (d4 and f4 for Black), and if Black's c-Pawn has pushed to c5 earlier, the d5 point is even more attractive. Control of the d-file is a good idea but can usually be countered, resulting in exchanges. Occupation of the mutual outposts f5 and f4 by Knights is less straightforward to counter, and while your opponent is sorting out that threat, it may be that you can get the d-file then.

  If Black anticipates the d3-d4 advance with ...d7-d5, after e4xd5 and ...Nf6xd5 we have a semi-open unbalanced KP centre (e), typical of the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez with colours reversed.

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.


The e-Pawn confers a space advantage and attacking prospects on the King's-side, which may be added to by f2-f4. The e-Pawn is exposed on the half-open file, and should be restrained (e.g. by ...Re8) from breaking open lines for the attack by e4-e5. Black's break ...d6-d5 is a natural plan to dissolve the centre.

  If neither side ventures d4/...d5, then we have a balanced, closed KP centre (f).

(f) balanced, closed KP centre


Unless one side or the other goes for a pawn break we get a slow game where play on the wings is dominant: on the Queen's-side we may see a pawn rush, but on the King's-side we are more likely to see more modest plans like the occupation of f5 or f4 by a Knight.

  The flexibility of the Bishop's Opening is such that you can end up playing any of these Pawn formations, and playing each side of the unbalanced ones [a,b,c and e] as either White or Black! Interestingly, White often ends up playing against a Black preponderance in the centre. Let's see:

Variations with (a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Bb6 5. d4 Qe7 6. O-O d6 [closed Giuoco Piano]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 [Paulsen's Defence with ...d5]

Variations with (b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 exd4 12. cxd4 Ba7 [Speelman-Yusupov, 1989/90]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5 [Nunn-Murey, 1982]

Variations with (c) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.Bb3 Be6 8.Bc2 h6 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Qc7 11.d4 Rfe8 12.h3 Nf8 13.c4 Ng6 14.d5 [Kasparov - Georgadze,1979]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 d4 [Nunn-Kortchnoi, 1981]

Variations with (d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 d5?! 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4 [Kosten-Cooper, 1989]
Variations with (e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 [Larsen-Berger, 1964]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6 6. h3 Nbd7 7. a4 O-O 8. Re1 Nc5 9. Nc3 h6 10. d4 exd4 11. Nxd4 [Vogt-Tseshkovsky, 1981]

Variations with (f) balanced, closed KP centre
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d6 [Paulsen's Defence with ...d6]
This flexibility and variety is the final clue to understanding the GM interest in the old Bishop's opening - because it can be interpreted in a fully modern way by both sides.

  [Examples of pawn formations]

Variations of Bishop's Opening.


1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

  Black can adopt a variety of systems. The Black King's Knight nearly always goes to f6, so assume 2...Nf6 will be played. White responds 3. d3 to play in the modern style. Now Black has a choice:

3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)
3...Nc6 (Two Knight's Defence)
3...c6 (Paulsen's Defence to the Bishop's Opening)

3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

3...Bc5 4. Nf3 usually transposes to the Giuoco Piano. Black can be expected to play ...Nc6 and ...d6. We can see a typical interpretation of this line by Karpov below, but the most precise move-order as far as I am aware is seen in the game Torre-Kamsky, where White avoids having to defend against ...Nf6-g4 with h2-h3 (then Nd2-f1-e3), by playing instead Nd2-c4-e3, keeping watch on g4.


3...Nc6 (Two Knight's Defence)

3...Nc6 4. Nf3 invites the Two Knights' Defence, assuming Black does not play ....Bc5. Black can play ...d6 or ...d5. Playing ...d5 immediately seems to leave Black's e-Pawn exposed (Nunn-Garcia), although if White prepares d2-d4 with an early c2-c3, Black may show the d-Pawn is weaker after ...d5 (Yudasin-Ivanchuk), so White does best to preserve options until Black shows where the d-Pawn will go (Kosten-Cooper). Black cannot successfully delay entirely a move of the d-Pawn (Taulbut-Rumens), nor trick White by playing ...d6 and then ...d5 (Kosten-Conquest).


3...c6 (Paulsen's Defence to the Bishop's Opening)

3...c6 4. Nf3 is a pure Bishop's Opening, a line known as Paulsen's Defence. Black can play ...d5 or more modestly with ...d6. 4...d5 5. Bb3 leaves Black defending a big centre in a complex middle-game (Nunn-Murey). Black cannot seem to simplify without disadvantage (Taulbut-Westerinen, Larsen-Nunn).

  Because of this Black may prefer to play modestly in the style of Philidor's Defence, with ...c6 and ...d6. This is rather playing White's own game, thinking about ...d5 in two moves. White has some prospects of advantage (Vogt-Chekhov) in a slow position.

  [Examples of variations]

Example Games

Examples of pawn formations

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

No games here - really, the whole point of this formation is that it can become another. With the tension generated by these unresolved choices, neither side can commit themselves to very much. Only when there is some decision made might some plan be readily undertaken, although a phase of manoeuvring may follow the establishment of such a centre. So, several of the games below maintain this formation for a move or two, and I will note this with "[RLTF]".

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed

Ivanovic,B - Ilincic,Z [C50] Jugoslavija, 1986
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. c3 a6 10. d4 [RLTF] exd4 11. cxd4 Ba7 12. Rc1 O-O 13. h3 Re8 14. O-O Rxe4 15. Bd3 Re8 16. Bb1 g6 17. Qd2 Kg7 18. Rfe1 Be6 19. Nf4 Bd7 20. Rxe8 Qxe8 21. Nd5 Rc8 22. Re1 Qd8 23. g4 Be6 24. Nf4 Bd7 25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Re6 Be8 27. d5 Ne7 28. Nh5+ Kh7 29. Nf6+ Kg7 30. Qc3 Kf7 31. Re4 c6 32. Rf4 cxd5 33. Nh7+ Nf5 34. Qd2 Kg7 35. gxf5 Kxh7 36. Rh4 h5 37. Ng5+ Kh8 38. Ne6 Qf6 39. Qh6+ Kg8 40. Rxh5 Rc7 41. Nxc7 Bf7 42. Qh7+ Kf8 43. Qh8+ Qxh8 44. Rxh8+ Kg7 45. Ra8 Bc5 46. Ne8+ Kh6 47. Rd8 d4 48. Nxd6 Bxa2 49. Nxb7 Ba7 50. Rd6 Bc4 51. Rxg6+ Kh5 52. Nd6 Bd3 53. Nf7 1-0
Speelman Jonathan S - Yusupov Artur [C53] It (cat.14), Hastings (England), 1989
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 [RLTF] exd4 12. cxd4 Ba7 13. d5 Bg4 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. Nxe3 Bh5 16. Nf1 Ng6 17. Ng3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nd7 19. Rac1 Nde5 20. Qe3 c6 21. dxc6 bxc6 22. Nf5 Nh4 23. Red1 Nxf5 24. exf5 a5 25. Qd4 Re8 26. Ba4 Rc8 27. h3 Qf6 28. Rc3 Qxf5 29. Qxd6 Re6 30. Qd2 Rce8 31. Bb3 R6e7 32. Bc2 Qf6 33. Re3 Qg5 34. Qd4 c5 35. Qc3 g6 36. Ba4 Rb8 37. Rde1 f6 38. Qxa5 Kf8 39. Rd1 c4 1-0
Nunn - Murey Luzern cq, 1982
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Re1 O-O 11. Qd2 b6 12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Nxe5 d4 14. Nb1 Bb4 15. c3 Bxb3 16. cxb4 Qa6 17. b5 Qa4 18. Na3 Bd5 19. Rec1 Rac8 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Nec4 Bxc4 22. Nxc4 Rd8 23. Na3 Nd5 24. Kf1 h6 25. Rc1 Qb4 26. Qxb4 Nxb4 27. Ke2 Nxa2 28. Rc4 Rd5 29. Kd2 Kf8 30. Ra4 Rg5 31. g3 Rf5 32. f4 g5 33. Nc4 gxf4 34. Rxa2 Rh5 35. gxf4 Rxh2+ 36. Ke1 h5 37. Rxa7 h4 38. Kf1 Kg8 39. Rd7 Rh3 40. Rxd4 Rg3 41. Kf2 1-0


(c) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.

Kasparov,Gary - Georgadze,T (1) Minsk, 1979
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d3 Nf6 5. c3 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Bb3 Be6 8. Bc2 h6 9. Re1 Nbd7 10. Nbd2 Qc7 11. d4 [RLTF] Rfe8 12. h3 Nf8 13. c4 Ng6 14. d5 Bd7 15. Nb1 Bf8 16. Nc3 c5 17. Ba4 a6 18. Bxd7 Nxd7 19. g3 Be7 20. h4 Nf6 21. Nh2 Qd7 22. a4 Qh3 23. Qf3 Qd7 24. a5 Nf8 25. Bd2 Rec8 26. Nf1 Ng4 27. Na4 Bd8 28. Rec1 Rab8 29. b4 cxb4 30. Bxb4 h5 31. Nb6 Bxb6 32. axb6 Qe7 33. Qa3 Rd8 34. f3 Nh6 35. c5 dxc5 36. Bxc5 Qf6 37. Kg2 Re8 38. Be3 Nd7 39. Rab1 Qe7 40. Qxe7 1-0
Nunn - Olafsson (Teesside) [C50] potential, 1982
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 Qe7 [6... O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7] 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 O-O 9. Re1 Be6 10. Nf1 [10. Bc2] 10... Ba7 11. Bc2

  "But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black's position be so awkward? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black's pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.

"The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6...Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position." -- NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

11... Kh8 12. Ng3 [12. Bg5] 12... Qd7 13. d4 [RLTF] [13. h3 ! 13... Bxh3 14. gxh3 Qxh3 15. Be3 ! 15... Bxe3 16. Rxe3 Ng4 17. Re2 wins 17... f5 18. exf5 e4 19. dxe4 Nce5 20. Nxe5 Qh2+ 21. Kf1 dxe5 22. Rd2 and Qf3] 13... Bg4 [13... exd4 14. cxd4 Bg4 15. Be3 Bxf3 16. gxf3 +-] 14. d5 [14. Be3 Bxf3 15. gxf3 =+] 14... Ne7 15. h3 Bxf3 [15... Bxh3 draws, says nunn] 16. Qxf3 Nfg8 17. Bd2 g6 18. c4 f5 19. exf5 Nxf5 20. Nxf5 gxf5 21. Bc3 Rae8 22. b4 Ne7 23. h4 Rg8 24. h5 Rg7 25. c5 Reg8 26. g3 h6 [26... f4 27. Rxe5 dxe5 28. Bxe5 Qh3 29. Re1 fxg3 30. fxg3 b6 31. Qd3 Qxh5 32. Kg2 idea Rh1 wins] 27. Rad1 Qe8 28. Rxe5 dxe5 29. Bxe5 b6 30. d6 Nc6 31. Bf6 Qe6 32. Bxg7+ Rxg7 33. Qxc6 bxc5 34. Qa8+ Rg8 35. Qxa7 Rxg3+ 36. Kh2 Qe5 37. Qxc5 1-0

Nunn - Korchnoi, Johannesburg, 1981
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne2 Na6 8.c3 dxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Ng3 Nh5 13.h3 Nxg3 14.fxg3 Bh5 15.g4 Bg6 16.h4 f6 17.h5 Bf7 18.d4 Ne6 19.Bb3 Qa5 20.Bd2 exd4 21.cxd4 Bb4 22.Be3 Rae8 23.h6 Kh8 24.g5 fxg5 25.Ne5 Bg8 26.hxg7+ Kxg7 27.Rf5 Be7 28.Qf3 Qd8 29.Qh5 Rxf5 30.exf5 Nf4 31.Bxf4 Qxd4+ 32.Kh1 Qxa1+ 33.Kh2 Rf8 34.Ng4 gxf4 35.f6+ Rxf6 36.Qg5+ Rg6 37.Qxe7+ Kh8 38.Bxg8 Qg7 39.Bf7 1-0


(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

Kosten,Anthony - Cooper,Lawrence [C55] London open, 1988
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 12. Ng3 g6 13. h3 Bg7 14. d4 [RLTF] cxd4 15. cxd4 exd4 16. Nxd4 d5 17. e5 Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Bf4 Bxe5 20. Rxe4 Bxf4 21. Rxf4 Bd7 22. Qf3 Qe7 23. Qd5 Nc6 24. Bxg6 Ne5 25. Re1 Bc6 26. Qb3 Qg5 27. Rg4 Nxg6 28. Rxe8+ Rxe8 29. Rxg5 hxg5 30. Nxc6 bxc6 31. Qb7 Re1+ 32. Kh2 Re2 33. Qxa7 Rxb2 34. a4 1-0


(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

Larsen,Bent - Berger,Bela [C24] Amsterdam izt, 1964
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O Bg4 7. Re1 Be7 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd4 10. Qg4 O-O 11. Rxe5 Nf6 12. Qd1 Bd6 13. Re1 Re8 14. Be3 c5 15. Nd2 Bc7 16. Nf3 Qd6 17. Bxd4 cxd4 18. Rxe8+ Rxe8 19. c3 dxc3 20. bxc3 Nh5 21. Qa4 Re7 22. Qxa7 Nf4 23. Qxb7 h5 24. Qc8+ Kh7 25. h4 1-0
Vogt L - Tseshkovsky V, It cat. 10 , 1981
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.Re1 Nbd7 7.h3 0-0 8.a4 Nc5 9.Nc3 h6 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Re8 12.Bf4 Bf8 13.Qf3 Ne6 14.Be3 Ng5 15.Bxg5 hxg5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Re5 18.Qf3 Qa5 19.Bb3 Rae8 20.Re2 1/2-1/2


(f) balanced, closed KP centre

Karpov,An - Yusupov A M [C53] It, Bugojno, 1986
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Re1 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7 9. h3 h6 10. Nbd2 Nh5 11. Nf1 Qf6 12. Be3 Nf4 13. Bxa7 Rxa7 14. Kh2 Ne7 15. Ne3 Ra8 16. a4 Be6 17. Bxe6 fxe6 18. Ng1 Rad8 19. g3 Nfg6 20. Rf1 d5 21. Qe2 Nc6 22. Ng2 Rf7 23. h4 Rdf8 24. Rad1 Nge7 25. h5 g6 26. Nh3 Qf3 27. Qxf3 Rxf3 28. hxg6 Nxg6 29. Ne3 d4 30. Nc2 R3f7 31. cxd4 Nxd4 32. Nxd4 exd4 33. f4 c5 34. a5 b6 35. axb6 Rb7 36. Rc1 Rxb6 37. Rxc5 Rxb2+ 38. Rf2 Rxf2+ 39. Nxf2 Ra8 40. Ra5 Ne7 41. Ng4 Nc6 42. Rc5 Ne7 43. Rc7 Kf8 44. Ne5 a5 45. g4 a4 46. f5 exf5 47. gxf5 Nxf5 48. exf5 Ra5 49. Rc5 Rxc5 50. Nd7+ Ke7 51. Nxc5 a3 52. Kg3 Kd6 53. Nb3 Ke5 54. Kg4 h5+ 55. Kg5 h4 56. f6 Ke6 57. Kg6 h3 58. f7 h2 59. f8=Q h1=Q 60. Nc5+ Ke5 61. Qb8+ 1-0
Dolmatov S - Kruppa Y (12) [C53] Ch URS ( 1 liga ), Irkutsk, 1986
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Ne7 10. Bg5 Ng6 11. Nh4 Bg4 12. Qc2 Nf4 13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Bxe6 Bxe6 15. Nhf5 h6 16. Bh4 Kh7 17. d4 g5 18. Bg3 Nh5 19. Qe2 Nf4 20. Qf3 Rg8 21. dxe5 dxe5 22. Rfd1 Qf8 23. Ng4 f6 24. Nfxh6 Rh8 25. Nf5 Kg6 26. h4 Bc4 27. Bxf4 gxf4 28. Nxe5+ 1-0
Larsen,B - Torre (2) Brussels, 1987
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O d6 6. Re1 O-O 7. Nbd2 Nbd7 8. a3 h6 9. Ba2 Re8 10. Nf1 Nf8 11. Ng3 Be6 12. Bxe6 Nxe6 13. d4 Qc7 14. c4 Nh7 15. d5 Neg5 16. Nf5 Nxf3+ 17. Qxf3 Kh8 18. Be3 c5 19. Rac1 Bg5 20. h4 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Rac8 22. b4 Qd8 23. Qg3 Rg8 24. f4 f6 25. b5 Qd7 26. fxe5 fxe5 27. Qg6 Rcd8 28. Rg3 Nf8 29. Qh5 Nh7 30. Re1 Rdf8 31. Rg6 Rf6 32. Rxf6 Nxf6 33. Qg6 Rf8 34. g4 Ne8 35. g5 Qf7 36. Qxf7 Rxf7 37. g6 Rd7 38. Rf1 Kg8 39. a4 h5 40. Kf2 Nf6 41. Ke3 Kf8 42. a5 Rd8 43. Kd3 Rd7 44. a6 b6 45. Rg1 Ng4 46. Rxg4 hxg4 47. Ke3 Rd8 48. Kf2 Kg8 49. Kg3 Rd7 50. Kxg4 Kf8 51. Kg5 Kg8 52. h5 Kh8 53. h6 gxh6+ 54. Nxh6 Kg7 55. Nf5+ Kf8 56. Kf6 1-0


Examples of variations

3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

Torre Eugenio - Kamsky Gata (1.119) [C53] Manila (Philippines), 1990
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Be6 11. Be3 Bxe3 12. Nxe3 Qd7 13. Nh4 Bxb3 14. Qxb3 b6 15. Nhf5 Kh7 16. Rad1 Rfe8 17. Nd5 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Rad8 19. d4 [RLTF] Kg8 20. Ne3 b5 21. h3 Ne7 22. Qb3 Qc6 23. d5 Qc5 24. a4 Rf8 25. Qc2 Rb8 26. b4 Qb6 27. Ra1 Ra8 28. c4 bxc4 29. Qxc4 f5 30. Rec1 Rac8 31. b5 axb5 32. axb5 fxe4 33. Ra6 Qd4 34. Qa2 Qd3 35. Rc4 Rxf2 36. Qxf2 Rf8 37. Qe1 Nxd5 38. Ra3 Qxa3 39. Nxd5 Rf7 40. Kh2 Qb3 41. Qxe4 Qxb5 42. Nxc7 Qd7 43. Nd5 Qe6 44. Ra4 g6 45. Ra8+ Kg7 46. Rd8 h5 47. Qc4 Qf5 48. Rxd6 Qg5 49. Nc7 Qf4+ 50. Qxf4 exf4 51. Ne6+ Kh6 52. h4 Rf6 53. Ng5 Rxd6 54. Nf7+ Kg7 55. Nxd6 Kf6 56. Ne4+ Kf5 57. Ng5 Kg4 58. Nf3 Kf5 59. Kg1 Kg4 60. Kf2 Kf5 61. Ke2 Kg4 62. Kd3 Kf5 63. Kd4 Kg4 64. Ke4 Kg3 65. Ke5 Kg4 66. Kf6 Kg3 67. Kg5 1-0


3...Nc6 (Two Knight's Defence)

Nunn John D M - Fernandez Garcia Jose L Lugano Switzerland, 1983
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. h3 Bh5 10. g4 Bg6 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Rxe5 c6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. Re2 Qh4 15. Bxd5 cxd5 16. Nc3 Kh8 17. Qxd5 Rad8 18. Bg5 Qxh3 19. Qg2 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 f6 21. Bh4 h5 22. gxh5 Bxh5 23. f3 Rfe8 24. Rh1 Kg8 25. Bxf6 Rxe2+ 26. Nxe2 Bxf3+ 27. Kxf3 Rf8 28. d4 Rxf6+ 29. Ke3 Bf8 30. Nc3 Re6+ 31. Ne4 Ra6 32. Ra1 b5 33. d5 Kf7 34. Kd4 g6 35. Nc5 Bg7+ 36. Ke4 Bxb2 37. Rf1+ Rf6 38. Rb1 Ba3 39. Rxb5 Bxc5 40. Rxc5 Ra6 41. Ke5 Ke7 42. Rc7+ Kd8 43. Rg7 1-0
Taulbut - Rumens Civil Service Open, 1981
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bb3 O-O 6. O-O Re8 7. Nc3 d6 8. Ng5 Rf8 9. f4 Na5 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. Nxf7 Rxf7 12. Bxd5 c6 13. Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. b4 Qb6+ 15. Kh1 Qxb4 16. Bd2 Qc5 17. Qh5+ g6 18. Qxh7+ Ke8 19. Qxg6+ Kd7 20. Qg4+ 1-0
Yudasin Leonid - Ivanchuk Vassily (2) Ch World match cand., 1991
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c3 d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. Nbd2 Kh8 10. a4 f6 11. a5 Rb8 12. Nf1 Be6 13. Qa4 a6 14. Bxa6 Nxa5 15. Qxa5 Ra8 16. Qb5 Nb6 17. Be3 Bd7 18. Qb3 bxa6 19. d4 e4 20. N3d2 f5 21. d5 Rb8 22. Qa2 Bf6 23. Rad1 Na4 24. Nc4 Bb5 25. Na5 Nxb2 26. Qxb2 Bxf1 27. Qa2 Bb5 28. c4 Bd7 29. Nc6 Bxc6 30. dxc6 Qe8 31. Qxa6 Bc3 32. Rf1 f4 33. Ba7 Ra8 34. Qb7 f3 35. Qxc7 Be5 36. Qd7 Rxa7 0-1
Kupreichik,V - Yusupov,A Minsk, 1982
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Bb3 Qc7 7. O-O Na6 8. a3 Nc5 9. Ba2 d6 10. b4 Ne6 11. Ne2 a5 12. Bb2 Re8 13. Qd2 Bf8 14. Ng3 c5 15. b5 h6 16. Nh4 Qd8 17. Ngf5 g6 18. f4 gxf5 19. fxe5 dxe5 20. Nxf5 Nf4 21. Rxf4 exf4 22. Qxf4 Bxf5 23. Qxf5 Bg7 24. Rf1 c4 25. Bxc4 Qb6+ 26. Kh1 Rac8 27. Bxf6 Qxf6 28. Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Qh5+ Kg8 30. Rxf6 Bxf6 31. Qxh6 Bg7 32. Qd2 Rf8 33. g3 Bd4 34. Qg5+ Bg7 35. c4 Rf2 36. e5 Rcf8 37. Qe3 Ra2 38. Kg1 Kh7 39. e6 Bf6 40. d4 b6 41. d5 Be7 42. d6 Rd8 43. h3 1-0
Spraggett,Kevin - Marin,Mihail (06) [C54] Manila izt, 1990
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d6 6. Bb3 O-O 7. O-O a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Be6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3 Ne7 13. Ne3 Qd7 14. Re1 Kg7 15. d4 [RLTF] Nxe4 16. dxe5 d5 17. Nd4 Rad8 18. Qh5 Nc6 19. Nxe6+ Qxe6 20. Rad1 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Qf6 22. Bxd5 Nxg3 23. hxg3 Nxe5 24. Be4 Ng4 25. Rf1 Qe6 26. Re2 Nf6 27. Qf3 Nxe4 28. Rxe4 Qxa2 29. Rb4 b5 30. Qc6 Qa5 31. f4 Qb6+ 32. Qxb6 cxb6 33. Ra1 Rfe8 34. fxg5 hxg5 35. Rxa6 Re2 36. Rd4 Rxd4 37. cxd4 Rxb2 38. Rxb6 f6 Q
Kosten Anthony C - Conquest Stuart (14) London England, 1989
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 d5 [RLTF] 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Rd1 Qc8 13. Nc4 h6 14. Bc2 Qe6 15. Ne3 Rad8 16. Bd2 Rfe8 17. Nf5 Bf8 18. g4 Bg6 19. N3h4 Bxf5 20. gxf5 Qe7 21. Kh2 Nh7 22. Nf3 Rd6 23. Be3 Qd7 24. Rg1 b5 25. Rg3 Rf6 26. Rd1 Qc8 27. Rdg1 Kh8 28. Qf1 1-0
Kosten Anthony C - Hebden Mark It open, 1987
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 Na5 8. Bc2 c5 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. a3 b5 11. b4 Nc6 12. a4 cxb4 13. axb5 Nb8 14. cxb4 d5 15. Bb2 Bxb4 16. Nxe5 Bb7 17. Ndf3 a6 18. bxa6 Rxa6 19. Rxa6 Bxa6 20. Ng5 Rf8 21. Bb3 Bb7 22. Nexf7 Qe7 23. e5 Ne8 24. Qh5 h6 25. Qg6 1-0


3...c6 (Paulsen's Defence to the Bishop's Opening)

cf. Nunn-Murey above
Taulbut - Westerinen Brighton, 1981
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 dxe4 6. Ng5 Bc5 7. Nxf7 Qb6 8. O-O Ng4 9. Nc3 Rf8 10. Nxe4 Rxf7 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. h3 Nf6 13. Nxf6 Kxf6 14. Qh5 h6 15. Kh1 Be6 16. f4 Ke7 17. Qxe5 Bd4 18. Qe2 g6 19. f5 gxf5 20. Bxh6 Na6 21. c3 Bh8 22. Rae1 c5 23. Qh5 Kd7 24. Rxf5 Bg8 25. Rf7+ Kd8 26. Qh4+ Kc8 27. Rf8+ 1-0
Vogt,L - Romanishin,O Riga, 1981
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 Qc7 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 Bg4 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Rxe4 Nd7 14. d4 exd4 15. Re7 Qd6 16. Rae1 Kh8 17. Bxf7 Rad8 18. Qg4 Nf6 19. Qh4 Qb4 20. Bg6 Rd7 21. Re8 Rd8 22. c3 Rdxe8 23. Rxe8 Qd6 24. Rxf8+ Qxf8 25. cxd4 Qb4 26. b3 Qd2 27. Bf5 Qxa2 28. Qg3 Qe2 29. Qb8+ Qe8 30. Qxb7 g6 31. Bd3 a5 32. Bf1 Qd8 33. Qxc6 Qxd4 34. Qa8+ Kg7 35. Qxa5 Ne4 36. Qe1 h5 37. Qe3 Qb4 38. Bc4 Nf6 39. Qe5 Qb6 40. g3 Kh6 41. Qe3+ 1-0
Larsen, Bent - Nunn, John (6) London, 1986
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 dxe4 8. Nxe5 O-O 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Ndf3 Nd7 11. O-O Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qf6 13. Qd4 Bf5 14. f4 Qd8 15. Rad1 Qxd4+ 16. Rxd4 Nc5 17. Bc4 Rae8 18. b4 Ne6 19. Rd7 b5 20. Bb3 Rd8 21. Rxa7 Rd2 22. Nf3 Rd6 23. Nh4 g6 24. Nxf5 gxf5 25. c3 Rd3 26. Rf3 Rxf3 27. gxf3 Rd8 28. Bxe6 fxe6 29. Rc7 Rd1+ 30. Kf2 Rd2+ 31. Ke3 Rxh2 32. Rxc6 Kf7 33. Ra6 Rc2 34. Kd4 Rf2 35. a4 bxa4 36. b5 Ke7 37. c4 Rxf3 38. Kc5 a3 39. b6 Rb3 40. Ra7+ Kf6 41. Kc6 e5 42. b7 exf4 43. Rxa3 1-0
Vogt,L - Chekhov, Halle, 1981
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.Re1 Nbd7 8.a4 a5 9.Nc3 h6 10.Ba2 Re8 11.d4 Bf8 12.Be3 Qc7 13.Nh4 b6 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Qf3 Bc5 16.Nf5 Bxe3 17.Rxe3 Kf8 18.Rd1 Ba6 19.Nxh6 Re7 20.Nf5 Ree8 21.g4 Nc5 22.g5 Ng8 23.g6 f6 24.Bxg8 Kxg8 25.Qh5 1-0


Example of Queen's-side advance

Ljubojevic,Ljubomir - Kortchnoi,Viktor (08) [C54] Brussels SWIFT, 1987
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. b4 Bb6 6. d3 d6 7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. Nbd2 Ng6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bb3 d5 12. Ba3 Re8 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Ne4 Ndf4 15. Nfg5 Be6 16. Nxe6 Nxe6 17. g3 Kh8 18. Qf3 f6 19. h4 Ngf8 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. Rfe1 Rad8 22. Bc4 h6 23. Qh5 Nh7 24. Kh2 Ba7 25. Rf1 Bb8 26. Nc5 Nxc5 27. Bxc5 b6 28. Ba3 c5 29. bxc6 Qxc6 30. Bb5 Qxc3 31. Bxe8 Qxa3 32. Bb5 Bd6 33. d4 exd4 34. Rfe1 Be5 35. f4 Bd6 36. Re8+ Rxe8 37. Qxe8+ Bf8 38. f5 Qf3 39. Qe6 Qxd1 40. Bc4 Qc2+ 41. Kh3 Qxc4 42. Qxc4 Bc5 43. Kg4 Nf8 44. Qd5 Kh7 45. Kf3 Kh8 46. Ke4 Kh7 47. Kd3 Kh8 48. Kc4 Kh7 49. Kb5 Kh8 50. Kc6 Kh7 51. Kc7 h5 52. Kd8 Kh6 53. Ke8 1-0
Mestel A Jonathan - Pinter Jozsef [C53] It (cat.14), Las Palmas (Spain), 1982
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Nbd2 Ng6 11. Ba2 Bg4 12. h3 Bh5 13. Qc2 Nf4 14. Kh2 g5 15. Ng1 g4 16. g3 gxh3 17. f3 Kh8 18. gxf4 Rg8 19. Nxh3 Qf8 20. Nc4 Qg7 21. Ng5 Qh6 22. Nxb6 Bxf3+ 23. Kg3 exf4+ 24. Bxf4 Rxg5+ 25. Bxg5 Rg8 26. Kxf3 Qh3+ 27. Ke2 Rxg5 28. Rf2 Ng4 29. Qd2 h6 30. Rg1 cxb6 31. Qf4 f5 32. Rxg4 Qxg4+ 33. Qxg4 fxg4 34. Rf5 Rxf5 35. exf5 Kg7 36. Ke3 1-0

legacy nid: