1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.c3 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.Bg5

7.Re1 exd4 8.e5 (8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Rxe4 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Bxd4 15.Be3 Bxb2 16.Rb1 f5 17.exf6 was drawn in Unzicker-Fischer, Leipzig 1960.; 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 d6 transposes) and here Keres suggested 8...Ng4 9.h3 (9.cxd4? Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Qh4) 9...Nxf2 10.Kxf2 f6

Analysis position after 10...f6

Black has considerable compensation for the piece. The position has never been tested in practice.;

7.Bxc6 bxc6 (7...dxc6 8.Nxe5 Nxe4 9.Re1 Schmidt-O'Kelly, postal 1954 9...Nd6 with equality) 8.Nxe5 Nxe4 9.Re1 Nd6 10.Bf4 a5 11.c4 f6 12.c5 fxe5 13.Bxe5 Nc4 14.cxb6 Nxb6 15.Nc3 d6 16.Bg3 Qf6 was even in O'Kelly-Karaklajic, Bognor Regis 1960.;

7.Qd3 d6 8.b3 Bd7 was played in Mainka-Mihalchishin, Dortmund 1992, and here Mihalchishin suggests 9.d5 Ne7 10.a4 with unclear chances.

7...h6 8.Bh4

Not very promising is 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Bxc6 Qxc6 10.Nxe5 (10.Nbd2? exd4 11.cxd4 d5 12.e5 Bg4 13.Qb3 a5 14.a4 Qd7) 10...Qxe4 11.Nd2 Qf5 12.Nec4 d5 (I do not like 12...d6 13.a4) 13.Nxb6 (13.Ne3 Qe6 14.Nb3 and here ECO-3 claims advantage to White, "intending Re1, f4 and Qf3." I don't get the point of this, since 14...Re8 15.Re1 Bd7 16.f4 Qe4 appears favorable to Black) 13...axb6 14.Re1 Be6 with an even game.

8...d6 9.a4

9.Re1 exd4 10.Bxc6 dxc3 11.Nxc3 bxc6 12.Qa4 Qd7 13.Bxf6 gxf6 with unclear chances, was played in Kavalek-Spassky,Solingen 1977. Black's extra pawn is without much value, but his two bishops offer compensation for his structural weaknesses.;

9.Qd3 Qe7 10.Nbd2 Nb8! 11.Rfe1 c6 12.Bc4 Rd8 13.Nf1 Nbd7 14.Qc2 Nf8 15.Ne3 Ng6 was even in Suetin-Karasev, USSR 1963.

9...a5

Analysis position after 9...a5

One of the critical positions for the theory of the Classical Defense.

10.Bxc6

White can delay the exchange on c6, but not with any special benefit: 10.Re1 exd4 (10...Bd7!? 11.Na3 exd4 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Nxd4 g5 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Bg3 was tried in Rodriguez-Sariego, Cuban Champ. 1990. Here, according to Rodriguez, 15...d5 would have equalized.) 11.Bxc6 (11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 c6 13.Bc4 Re8 is roughly equal; 11.cxd4? Bg4 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Nc3 g5 14.Bg3 Re8) 11...bxc6 12.Nxd4 Re8

A) 13.Na3?! g5 14.Bg3 (worse is 14.Nxc6 Qd7 15.Qf3 Nh7) 14...Nxe4 15.Nxc6 Qf6 with initiative for Black;

B) 13.Nxc6 Qd7 14.Bxf6 Qxc6 15.Bd4 Rxe4 16.Rxe4 Qxe4 17.Bxb6 cxb6 18.Nd2 Qc6 19.Nf3 Bb7 20.Qd4 Re8 21.Re1 Rxe1+ 22.Nxe1 Qe8 23.Qd1 Qe4 and Black has sufficient compensation for his inferior pawn structure;

C) 13.Nd2 g5 14.Bg3 transposes into the text;

10.Qd3 exd4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 Ba6 (12...Bxd4 13.Qxd4 c5 14.Qd3 Rb8 15.Qc2 g5 16.Bg3 Nh5 17.Na3 Be6 18.Qe2 Nf4 19.Bxf4 gxf4=) 13.c4 Bxd4 14.Qxd4 c5=; 10.Na3 exd4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 c5

10...bxc6 11.Nbd2

11.Re1 exd4 12.Nxd4 Re8 13.Nd2 g5 14.Bg3 transposes into the text below;

11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Re1 Ba6 Sibarevic-Knezevic, Yugoslavia 1976 14.Na3=

11...Re8 12.Re1 exd4 13.Nxd4 c5

Analysis position after 13...c5

Theory prefers 13...Bd7 but I don't care much for it. 14.Qf3 g5 15.Bg3 h5?! (15...Bg4 16.Qd3 c5 17.Nb5!? followed soon by Nc4) 16.h3! h4 17.Bh2 Bxd4 18.cxd4 Re6! 19.e5 Qe7! 20.Qd1! so far as I know, this innovation is due to Nunn's Chess Openings (20.Ne4 Nxe4 21.Rxe4 Rb8 22.b3 Rb4 is even; so is 20.Rf1 Nh7 21.exd6 cxd6 22.d5 cxd5 23.Qxd5 Qe8!) 20...Nd5 21.Ne4! and White is much better: 21...Re8 (21...dxe5 22.dxe5 Re8 23.Qd2; 21...f6 22.exf6 Nxf6 23.Nxg5) 22.Qd2 f6 23.Qxa5;

13...g5 14.Bg3 Bg4

Analysis position after 14...Bg4

This is my idea, as is the analogous move with the moves of the a-pawns omitted. What follows is my analysis. (14...Bxd4 15.cxd4 Rb8 16.f3 Be6 17.b3 Rb4 18.Bf2 was significantly better for White in Spassky-Zuidema, Belgrade 1964) 15.f3 Be6

A) 16.Qc2 Qd7 17.e5 Bf5 18.Qb3 Nh5 19.Nc4 (19.Bf2 Rab8 is good for Black) 19...Nxg3 20.hxg3 Bxd4+ 21.cxd4 dxe5 22.dxe5 Qd4+ 23.Kh2 Be6 24.Rac1 Rab8 and Black seems to have adequate play;

B) 16.Kh1 Qd7 (Black can also try 16...Bxd4 17.cxd4 Qb8) 17.Nxe6 Rxe6 18.Nc4 Nh5 19.Nxb6 Nxg3+ 20.hxg3 cxb6 21.Qd4 Qc7 Black is slightly worse due to his weak d-pawn. However, his position is otherwise sound and the single weakness is unlikely to cost him the game.;

C) 16.e5 Nh5 17.Bf2 (17.Ne4 f5 18.exf6 Nxf6 19.Qd3 Nxe4 20.Qxe4 Qf6) 17...c5 18.Nxe6 Rxe6 19.Nc4 (19.exd6 Rxd6! is good for Black) 19...d5 with balanced chances in a difficult position.

14.Nf5

14.N4f3 Bb7

A) 15.e5! dxe5 16.Nxe5 g5 17.Bg3 Qd5 18.Ndf3 (18.f3 c4+ 19.Kh1 Nh5 20.Nexc4 Nxg3+ 21.hxg3 Bf2 looks good for Black; 18.Nef3 c4 and Black is good; 18.Qf3 Qxf3 19.Ndxf3 Kg7 and Black's bishops atone for his stuctural weaknesses.) 18...Rad8 19.c4 (19.Qxd5 Bxd5 20.c4 Be4 is satisfactory for Black) 19...Qe6 with unclear chances;

B) 15.Qc2 Re6 16.Re3 (16.Rad1 Qe8) 16...Qe8 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Rae1 Re6 19.Nc4 Qc6 and Black was in good shape in Thorsteins-Spassky, Reykjavik 1985;

14.Nc2 Bb7 15.f3 c4+ 16.Nd4 and now:

A) I analyzed 16...d5

A1) 17.exd5 g5 18.Rxe8+ Nxe8 19.Bf2 Qxd5 20.Qe2 (20.Ne4 Rd8) 20...Nd6 with equality;

A2) 17.e5 g5 18.exf6 gxh4 19.Rxe8+ Qxe8 20.Qe1 Qxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Bc6 and White, not Black, is the one in trouble;

B) 16...g5 was played in Ree-Knezevich, Kiev 1978, continuing 17.Bf2 d5 18.exd5 Qxd5 19.Rxe8+ Rxe8 20.Qf1 g4 21.Nxc4 gxf3 22.Nxb6 fxg2 23.Nxd5 and here the draw was agreed.

14...Bxf5 15.exf5 Rxe1+

15...d5?! 16.Rxe8+ Qxe8 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.c4! Held-Lang, Germany 1990.

16.Qxe1 d5 17.Qe5

17.c4 c6 is no trouble for Black.

17...c4!

Analysis position after 17...c4!

Pointless is 17...Ng4 18.Qg3 Nf6 19.Re1 with advantage to White.

18.Bxf6

18.Re1 Ng4 19.Qg3 Nxf2! 20.Bxd8 Ne4+ 21.Qe3 Bxe3+ 22.Rxe3 Nxd2 23.Bxc7 Ne4 and the game looks roughly even;

18.Nf3 Bc5 19.Rd1 c6 with balanced chances.

18...Qxf6 19.Qxf6 gxf6 20.Re1 Bc5

I doubt that Black has much to fear in this ending.