Download sample pages. (pdf) - New In Chess

Preface 

CODE NAME: ZUKA 

After finishing Zuke ’Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized, 

a recurring question from readers and players on the 

Colle System Players Forum was “When are you going to write 

a book discussing how to meet ...g6?” Several other readers 

asked about the Dutch. 

Zuke ’Em gave little guidance against an early ...g6 or 

...f5 (other than directing the reader to other books) for two 

reasons: 

• I didn’t have any new ideas I deemed worth advocating 

against these lines. 

• Those systems were outside the intended scope of the 

work. 

To clarify this second point, Zuke ’Em provided ammunition 

against anti-Colle lines, especially those where Black 

deviated after White had already blocked his dark-squared 

Bishop with e3. Its other main purpose was to address tricky 

move orders that leave Black the option of transposing to a 

typical QGD. 

My thinking was that systems like the KID, Pirc, Modern, 

Grünfeld, and Dutch generally take the game so far outside 

normal Colle territory before White commits to e3 that they 

represent less of a repertoire challenge for the first player, who 

is free to pick any of several opening systems more suited to 

meeting ...g6 or ...f5 than the Colle. 

To some extent that basic idea still holds, but even within 

its truth we find the source of a frustration for Colle System

Zuka: The Zuke Companion 

players. I’ve long advised players to weave the Colle into 

a larger repertoire, but that larger repertoire tends to have 

several disparate pieces with different pawn structures. Contemporary, 

serious players who use the Colle System have to 

use one system against the Pirc, another against the Dutch, 

another against the King’s Indian Defense, and (perhaps 

most annoyingly) two different tacks when facing the Grünfeld—one 

against the typical move order (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 

followed by ...d5) and another against the Sneaky Grünfeld 

(1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 g6!?). 

It’s not surprising that different Black defensive systems 

are best met by different White choices, but it sure would be 

nice if those various White continuations were closely related 

to one another. This would significantly reduce the study time 

required because one would face similar structures, execute 

familiar strategies, and avoid traps lurking in foreign contexts. 

Furthermore, the more cohesive your repertoire, the less likely 

you will find yourself foundering when a clever move order 

forces you to switch from one system to another. 

After much work, I believe I can now present to readers the 

perfect regime to combine with the Colle System. It is a structure 

that can be used (with a few exceptions and a couple of 

tweaks) against repertoires based on the Dutch, Pirc, Modern, 

KID, and both Grünfeld move orders. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$zxzxzxzx% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxzxzxzx% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 

$πpzx∫pπp% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Zuka: The Zuke ’Em Companion

Preface 

I have dubbed this setup “Zuka,” because I believe it is the 

perfect companion to those using a Zuke ’Em repertoire, but it 

also integrates well with a c3-Colle system repertoire. In fact, 

our move order allows the system to be used by almost any 

1.d4-player, whether you prefer 2.c4 or 2.Nf3. 

It might seem arrogant to assign this setup a name. I’m 

quite definitely not the first person to propose the configuration. 

It is becoming more and more popular to meet the 

Grünfeld with this setup, and it is not uncommon for people 

to use it against the Dutch, though we will be incorporating 

a twist by developing the Bishop to f4 early. 

I’m giving it a name for four reasons. First, I believe it has 

never previously been developed as an integrated system designed 

to combine seamlessly with the Colle, allowing White 

to meet practically any defense the Colle struggles against. 

Second, we will be using a novel move order in most cases, 

delaying Nc3 to avoid certain troublesome lines. Third, of all 

the relevant defensive systems, the KID poses by far the biggest 

problem for those who play quiet e3-systems, and I know of 

no modern work exploring this setup for White against the 

KID. Finally, I’ll be referring to this complex frequently, and 

didn’t want to say “The c4/d4/e3/Nf3/Be2/Nc3 configuration” 

over and over again. 

Normally one expects these one-size-fits-many approaches 

to come with a concomitant reduction in power, but the advantage 

sacrificed for simplicity is surprisingly small in this 

case. As we shall find later, there are just not many critical 

setups Black can use against the Zuka configuration once he 

has played ...f5 or ...g6, and White has every reason to expect a 

genuine advantage against each. Sure, White can score better 

against the KID if he knows the Classical Variation 20 moves 

deep, but I suspect such people have little interest in the Colle 

in the first place, and knowing the KID so well doesn’t solve 

the problems of the Dutch, the Grünfeld, etc.

10 


Perhaps best of all, the Zuka system allows White to take 

the game into waters that are both unexplored and thematic, 

so he should expect to understand the relevant strategy better 

than his opponent. Finally, I believe the lines I propose here 

will appeal to readers of Zuke ’Em because they achieve the 

same goals that informed the variations in that book: they 

suppress Black’s counterplay while giving White either an 

initiative or long-term, concrete advantages. 

As always, I hope to see you on the forum (http://www. 

zuke-dukes.com/forum), and feel free to write me with feedback 

at David@zukertort.com. 

David Rudel 

Budapest, Hungary

Preface 

A Stand-Alone System Created for 

Colle Players but Usable by Anyone 

Author’s Note to Non-Colle Players 

The Zuka System developed and explained in this book 

can be used by most players who open 1.d4, whether they 

intend 2.c4 or 2.Nf3. Because Colle System players constitute 

a large proportion of my readership, I have used 2.Nf3 

throughout the book. 

Unless Black plays a delayed Dutch, this should make no difference 

at all because 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 and 1.d4 Nf6 

2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 are equivalent. In the case of a delayed Dutch 

(1.d4 e6, planning …f5) there are a couple of lines where 2.c4 

and 2.Nf3 lead to different possibilities. These are covered in 

Chapter 14. The extra-delayed Dutch, in which Black waits 

until his 3rd move before playing …f5, should really only 

pose a concern to Colle System players, so in the specific case 

of 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6, the coverage assumes White is aiming 

for a Colle setup. 

In all other variations the book should serve Queen’s Gambit 

players and their Colle System peers equally well, and Collecentric 

remarks are mainly confined to the preface and an occasional 

framing discussion in other introductory material. 

11

Background: The Current Status of 

Queen’s Pawn Game Responses to 

…g6-systems 

B efore jumping into a detailed look at how Zuka can be 

used against various ...g6 systems, a quick discussion of 

the current state of theory seems appropriate. 

When discussing deviations from “Queen’s Pawn Game” 

openings, loosely defined as anything where White opens 

1.d4 and delays or omits c4, one can identify two categories 

that match two very different kinds of Black repertoires. 

The first category comprises the various pet defenses, 

each designed to defuse an individual opening. The second 

category comprises recognized opening systems that naturally 

cut across White’s plans; examples include the Benoni, Dutch, 

and King’s Indian defenses. While challenging lines exist in 

both categories, the members of the second group are particularly 

problematic because they tend to result in structures the 

second player is well versed in playing. A tournament player 

might have to use each of his pet defenses once a year, but a 

Benoni specialist is going to bash out 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 many 

times each month. 

Furthermore, these “real” defenses are much more likely to 

provide Black substantial winning chances. Compare this to 

many pet defenses that make White work harder to achieve a 

significant advantage in the opening, but which can be quite 

hard for Black to win with even against mediocre play should 

White be happy with a draw. Examples include meeting the 

Colle with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Bf5 or the accelerated London 

with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d6. 

But these two categories differ in another important regard. 

Pet lines are rarely tested at high levels, and their theory 

15

16 


changes slowly. Once White finds the proper refutation for 

such a line, it can be a long time before it gets resurrected. 

At one point many of these variations could have been considered 

silver bullets, but their tips have since degraded to 

bronze or clay. Not so with the Modern, Pirc, Benoni, Grünfeld, 

Dutch, and Indian systems. Many of these are played at 

high levels regularly, and the opportunity for developments, 

even in their sidelines—the variations Queen’s Pawn Game 

players may adopt—is much greater. A recommendation for 

White that looked good in 2000 may have already had its 

coffin made by 2010. 

Of these various defensive systems, those employing an 

early ...g6 are particularly difficult for Colle System players to 

meet. The knee-jerk explanation for this is that White’s powerful 

Bishop on d3 bites on g6-granite. This reasoning contains 

some truth, especially for the C-K version which relies heavily 

on that Bishop. Yet it glosses over a more fundamental 

point. As I described in Zuke ’Em, the Colle-Zukertort aims to 

render Black’s light-squared Bishop as worthless as possible. 

If Black fianchettoes his dark-squared Bishop, White has no 

real hope of containing Black’s light-squared Bishop with a 

Colle structure because there is no compelling reason for the 

second player to issue ...e6. 

This short circuits White’s whole setup. Not only will Black 

get to make some use of his light-squared Bishop, but he does 

not need to take any drastic early action to do so. No wonder 

the Colle stands to do poorly against the ...g6 systems: Black 

has sabotaged from the start the whole basis of White’s opening! 

(Incidentally, the Zuka system I will be recommending 

renews this idea of suppressing Black’s play with this Bishop 

by eventually covering g4 and f5 with pawns on e4 and either 

f3 or h3.) 

Because theory can change relatively rapidly even in the 

sidelines of these defensive systems, many different suggestions 

for White have been given over the years. Smith and Hall

The Current Status of Queen’s Pawn Game …g6-systems 

actually suggested something close to the Zuka system against 

one particular ...g6 line, but they looked for massive Q-side 

expansion with a4 and b4, allowing Black to play ...e4. Soltis 

suggested White simply use a Torre against these openings in 

his 1992 repertoire pamphlet. 

A new era began when GM Summerscale suggested the 

Barry and 150 Attack in the original edition of A Killer Chess 

Opening Repertoire. 

The Barry Attack 

The Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 

5.e3 0-0 6.Be2) provoked much debate as it was used with 

some success by several strong players. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰NıQzRapplex% 

$P∏PzP∏B∏% 

$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzx∏xzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 

$πpπx∫pπp% 

$rzxœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

The Barry instantly became the preferred method for upto-date 

Colle players to engage the ...g6 defensive complexes. 

Unfortunately, as is often the case in chess, success for White 

at high levels accelerated the evolution of the line. Black finally 

found a reliable response involving an annoying retreat: 

6...c5 7.Ne5 cxd4 8.exd4 Nfd7! 

1

1 


!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏x˜P∏B∏% 

$zxzxzx∏x% 

$xzx∏nzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xznzxzxz% 


$rzxœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White doesn’t have anything better than 9.Nf3, so he had 

to find a way to make progress without Ne5. 

This ...Nfd7 tactic had been known even before Summerscale’s 

book. Long-time Barry proponent Mark Hebden beat 

widely renowned opening theorist GM John Nunn in 1998 

by castling long after playing Qd2, Ne5, and Be3. However, 

Hebden evidently didn’t trust the specific continuation in 

that game and ran into trouble with this line in 2005-6 as 

he started looking for something better. He even tried Ng1 

against fellow GM Jonathan Rowson. Nothing came of this 

experimentation and he agreed to a couple of draws from the 

position in 2006. 

In my view 7...cxd4 8.exd4 Nfd7 is the biggest issue for 

Barry Attack players. IMs Richard Palliser and Yelena Dembo 

(writing from opposite sides of the chess board) have each 

put more weight on the 7...Nc6 variation.


!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıQzRapplex% 

$P∏xzP∏B∏% 

$zx˜xzN∏x% 

$xzP∏nzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xznzpzxz% 


$rzxœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Position after 7...Nc6 

It’s true that White has gotten the worse of it from this 

position in recent years if one looks at all games, but closer 

examination shows that this is largely due to White stubbornly 

trying to attack come hell or high water with h4 or 

playing Nxc6 too early. The traditional move, 8.0-0 continues 

to work fine for White, who must now play positionally on 

the Q-side. 

The variation that Dembo gives as the refutation to White’s 

setup is 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4 Qb6 10.Nxc6 Qxc6. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıxzRapplex% 

$P∏xzP∏B∏% 

$zxŒxzN∏x% 

$xzx∏xzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xznzxzxz% 


$rzxœx®kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Does this pose 

a problem for White? 

1

20 


Palliser agrees with Dembo’s assessment that White has 

nothing here, but I think they have under-estimated 11.Re1 

a6 12.Bf3, which Dembo gives a “?!” The Greek IM criticizes 

this move because it does not stop Black’s minority attack, 

but in the suggested continuation she gives, 12...Be6 13.a4 

b5 14.axb5 axb5, I don’t see what Black has accomplished 

after 15.Na2. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xzxzRapplex% 

$xzxzP∏B∏% 

$zxŒxıN∏x% 

$x∏x∏xzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xzxzx∫xz% 

$ñpπxzpπp% 

$rzxœrzkz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

The b4-square belongs to White 

Following c3, Nb4, and probably Rc1, Black cannot make 

anything of the a-file. Note that he has problems finding a 

spot for his light-squared Bishop. He would like to move 

the Bishop to allow ...e6, shoring up the twice-hit d5-pawn. 

Rerouting it to e8 is complicated by the weakness on e7, and 

moving it to f5 invites a powerful K-side pawn storm. Retreating 

all the way to c8 leaves Black even less well-prepared to 

meet a K-side assault. 

While I don’t see 7...Nc6 as particularly problematic, it 

does prevent White from playing for an immediate K-side assault. 

It is a stylistic obstacle rather than a theoretic one. 

The Tarzan Attack 

The Barry Attack lost its greatest advocate when Hebden 

switched openings after his dispiriting encounters of 2005- 

2006 against 8...Nfd7. He began tilling the fields of 1.d4 Nf6


2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.Qd2, which Israeli GM Arthur 

Kogan had been cultivating for some time. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰NıQapplexzR% 


$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzx∏xzxz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xznzxñxz% 

$πpπqπpπp% 

$rzxzk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White’s play, aiming at Bh6 with a K-side assault, may not 

appear particularly nuanced, but it has proven quite hard to 

contain. The variation has received a fair amount of attention 

recently, and its theory is still evolving. Several repertoire 

books have suggested Black play for a relatively early ...c5 after 

5...Ne4 6.Nxe4 dxe4 7.Ne5 Nd7 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 9.e3 0-0. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıxzRapplex% 

$P∏PŒP∏B∏% 

$zxzxzx∏x% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxzp∏bzx% 

$xzxzpzxz% 

$πpπqzpπp% 

$rzxzk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White can really only stop …c5 temporarily with 10.Qc3. 

After 10...c6 11.Be2 b6, Black will get …c5 in eventually. The 

question is whether White can get anything out of it. 

While White has had some rough games recently with 

this variation, I think it is still too early to render judgment. 

Kogan has looked for improvements on move 10, and there 

are plenty of possibilities left to explore. White might find 

21

22 


something in 11.a4, though Hebden only managed to draw 

with it against the significantly lower-rated Houriez in 2008. 

White could consider preventing ...c5 with 10.Qb4 instead 

of 10.Qc3. Castling long rather than developing his Bishop 

(11.0-0-0) is also a possibility. 

As of this writing, many of Kogan’s personal suggestions 

for White involve Be5, either played immediately on move 12 

or after 12.a4 or 12.0-0-0. 

I don’t think White has run out of ideas here, but it is hard 

to make a solid repertoire suggestion. 

The 150 Attack 

The 150 Attack refers to an opening system normally 

employed against the Pirc that emphasizes (to the point of 

caricature) the importance of classical development. White 

gets his pawns on e4/d4 and, meeting no resistance, proceeds 

to simply plop his pieces on their classically best squares. For 

Queen’s Pawn Game players, this means d4, e4, Nf3, Nc3, 

Be3, and normally Bd3 and Qd2 as well. The downside is 

that his Knight on c3 blocks his c-pawn, limiting his ability to 

transform the center and bringing a certain degree of inflexibility 

to his game. 

Back in 1999 GM Summerscale wrote that he thought the 

150 Attack was putting Black off the Pirc at all levels, and he 

may well have been right. To this day Pirc players continue 

to struggle badly against the 150 regardless of whether they 

castle early (e.g., 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be3 

0-0 6.Qd2 c6 7.Bh6) or delay castling (e.g., 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 

3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be3 c6 6.Qd2 b5 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Bh6). 

This latter idea, shown below, is considered Black’s best, but 

White still tends to mop the floor with him in these lines as 

long as the first player knows the theory.


!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıQapplexzR% 

$Pzx˜P∏B∏% 

$zx∏PzN∏b% 

$x∏xzxzxz% 

$zxzpπxzx% 

$xzn∫xñxz% 

$πpπqzpπp% 

$rzxzkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Position after 8.Bh6 

While the 150 continues to dominate the Pirc, it has been 

on the business end of a rude awakening against the Modern 

Defense. In particular, after 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.e4 Bg7 4.Nc3 

a6!, White has had a terrible time proving any advantage 

(practical or otherwise) at all. Opening manuals written for 

players using the 150 Attack tend to suggest 5.Be3 b5 6.Qd2 

Bb7 7.Bd3 Nd7 8.a4! b4 9.Ne2, but no convincing response 

to 9...c5! has been found. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xzQapplex˜R% 

$xıx˜P∏B∏% 

$∏xzPzx∏x% 

$xzPzxzxz% 

$πPzpπxzx% 

$xzx∫bñxz% 

$zpπqñpπp% 

$rzxzkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Eggshell in the omelet 

Tiger Hillarp Persson suggested 10.c3 be met with 10... 

Ngf6 in his Tiger’s Modern. That line has been good for Black. 

Worse, even if White finds a promising rebuttal to that particu- 

23

24 


lar variation, there appears to be no end to Black’s worthwhile 

ideas and potential improvements elsewhere in this system. 

This ...a6-version of the Modern has increased in popularity 

tremendously over the past 15 years, and I don’t see any 

good way around it for those wanting to use the 150 Attack. 

White has other ways to meet 4...a6, but none of them are 

particularly compelling. Of course, White could elect to play 

the 150 only when Black plays an early ...Nf6, but this is no 

solution in terms of repertoire preparation because Black 

can remain flexible longer than White can. Eventually White 

will have to decide whether to play an early c4 (the only real 

deterrent to the Modern), and Black can keep all his options 

available until then. 

Thus, the only way White can reliably incorporate the 

150 Attack selectively against the Pirc while still having good 

chances for an opening advantage against the Modern is to 

allow himself to be pulled into the King’s Indian Defense after 

1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.c4 Nf6! 

Speaking of the King’s Indian, there is one other minor 

annoyance that sometimes goes unmentioned in manuals. 

Players using the Barry/Tarzan and 150 Attacks as a repertoire 

will often say they “use the Barry against the King’s Indian and 

the 150 against the Pirc/Modern.” But that is not true. 

The Barry, after all, follows the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 

g6 3.Nc3 d5, but ...d5 is not a King’s Indian move. What is 

really going on is that White assumes that after 3.Nc3, Black 

will opportunistically switch to an unusual version of the 

Grünfeld, taking advantage of the fact that White has omitted 

c4. 

This is a reasonable enough idea. Black may not be particularly 

interested in playing a Pirc, and fixing a ram on d4/d5 

is the most direct way of removing flexibility from White’s 

setup. It also takes c4 away from White’s pieces. However, 

while Black certainly has the option of switching to a Grünfeld 

and playing for ...c5 (as is thematic in that opening), there


is nothing requiring him to do so. As Richard Palliser has 

pointed out, there is no reason why a KID player cannot play 

the typical KID moves against a Barry/Tarzan/150 repertoire: 

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 5.Be3 0-0 6.Qd2 e5!? 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏Pzx∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzxzPzxz% 

$zxzpπxzx% 

$xznzbñxz% 

$πpπqzpπp% 

$rzxzk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Position after 6...e5!? 

In the few games between comparably rated, strong players, 

Black has done fine in this variation, which illustrates 

one problem with weaving together a repertoire based on 

two rather disparate, thematic systems. If your opponent 

mixes and matches moves from the two in an intelligent way, 

you can find yourself in uncharted waters where thematic 

components of neither system are necessarily critical or even 

pertinent. 

25

26 

Zuka: The Zuke Companion

Overview: 

Using Zuka Against ...g6-defenses 

Adopting a new opening requires committing both time 

and energy. Moreover, it involves overcoming a certain 

degree of psychological inertia, which is all the greater when 

the decision pertains to a defensive setup as important and 

common as the early-...g6 complex. Before discussing specific 

lines, I want to make sure you understand what you are getting 

into, and why. 

!@@@@@@@@# 



$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 


$rzbœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Typical position of Zuka system against ...g6 

An Integrated System 

As described in the CODE NAME: Zuka preface, the Zuka system 

is a natural choice for those who use the Colle System (either 

type) against ...d5 because the two integrate seamlessly. 

White doesn’t have to learn two different systems based on 

2

2 


different Grünfeld move orders, and he uses the same basic 

pawn structure against most deviations from a Colle, including 

the Dutch, KID, and several anti-Colle lines (e.g., 1.d4 Nf6 

2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Bf5). 

Another level of this cohesion shows through when one 

considers just the ...g6-defenses. Most players using a Colle 

System nowadays have to use one setup against the KID and 

another against the Pirc. Given the resilience (and recent 

popularity) of the ...a6-Modern, they probably need a third 

system just against that opening, and a fourth against 1.d4 

Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 g6. 

In addition to requiring extra study time, this many-system 

approach is vulnerable to sabotage when Black employs a 

crafty move order. I gave a couple of examples in the previous 

chapter: there is nothing stopping Black from starting with a 

Pirc and switching to a KID, nor is there anything preventing 

him from feinting at a Modern and switching to a Pirc. When 

White relies on different systems with different pawn structures, 

he can find himself in unfamiliar territory after Black 

throws a curve ball. 

Using an integrated system cuts such dangers down 

considerably. I feel strange saying this, but White really can 

use the d4/Nf3/c4/e3/Be2/Nc3 setup against practically any 

early-...g6 system without surrendering early equality to the 

Black player. 

Why does saying this make you feel strange? 

If you’ve read my Colle System books, you may recall that 

I give quite the opposite view when discussing that opening. 

The Colle System can be played safely against any Black 

setup, but that doesn’t mean White is well advised to do so. 

Class-level Colle System players have traditionally been lazy 

about learning proper refutations to various anti-Colle lines. 

It’s fine to start out using the Colle System against everything,

Overview: using Zuka Against …g6-defenses 

but you should gradually refine your repertoire by learning 

how to respond to Black’s deviations. 

But this really does not apply to the earliest moves of the 

Zuka when played against ...g6. Situations where White need 

vary his 4 th and 5 th moves after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 are 

few and easily recognized. Yet the opportunity to optionally 

deviate as a matter of taste is present, which brings me to my 

next point. 

Extensibility 

The Zuka system is “extensible” in the sense that players 

who happen to like other openings can work those into their 

repertoire. In some cases this simply lets White play a position 

he knows well. In other cases White’s willingness to play 

one line gives him more flexibility when meeting other lines. 

Sometimes this additional flexibility allows White to play a 

stronger response than he might otherwise have access to. 

Can you give an example of how a willingness to play 

one line allows White more freedom when faced with a 

completely separate one? 

Sure. A useful optional line for White is the closed Grünfeld: 

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 d5 5.e3 0-0. 

!@@@@@@@@# 



$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzx∏xzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 

$πpzxzpπp% 

$rzbœk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

The C losed Grünfeld is optional in the Zuka 

2

30 


The repertoire proposed here does not require White to 

play this line, but if he is willing to do so, he can delay for an 

extra move the deployment of his light-squared Bishop. To 

avoid this version of the Grünfeld, White has to delay Nc3, 

meeting 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 with 4.e3 0-0 5.Be2. 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏P∏P∏B∏% 

$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xzxzpñxz% 


$rñbœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White can avoid the Closed Grünfeld by delaying Nc3 

So long as White holds back Nc3, he can meet ...d5 with 

the Sneaky Grünfeld line, where he exchanges on d5 and 

then plays e4, after which Black cannot exchange his Knight 

because there is nothing on c3 for Black’s Knight to capture. 

If White is willing to play the Closed Grünfeld, then he 

can instead play 4.e3 0-0 5.Nc3, arriving at the same position 

but with Nc3 instead of Be2. 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏P∏P∏B∏% 

$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzxzxzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 

$πpzxzpπp% 

$rzbœk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&*


The value of this line is that White may wish to play his 

Bishop to d3 rather than e2 on the off chance that Black plays 

...c5, leading to an irregular Benoni. 

Best of all, if Black plays this way, he probably hasn’t studied 

the Benoni much. Benoni players do not typically begin 

their games 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6. Actually, even if Black is a Benoni 

specialist, he will likely be flummoxed by this particular 

Benoni. As we shall see, his standard tool for generating play 

(an early …b5) does not work in this line. 

This last point applies in general to most lines White will 

play when using the Zuka setup, leading to my next point. 

Black Is on His Own 

The Closed Grünfeld’s recent popularity notwithstanding, 

modern chess theory tends to sneer at an early e3, unless 

White has already developed his dark-squared Bishop. This 

goes double against the ...g6-systems, perhaps because it is 

assumed White should secure a good post for his c-Bishop because 

his f-Bishop is unlikely to find a good square early on. 

The flip side of this disposition is that opening manuals 

tend to dismiss the possibility of an early e3. Many treatments 

of the King’s Indian don’t discuss the line at all. Ironically, one 

of the few places I’ve found worthwhile discussion of the idea 

is Volume 2 of John Watson’s excellent Mastering the Chess 

Openings, which is generally devoted to the most important 

or illustrative lines. Not even Yelena Dembo’s Fighting the 

Anti-King’s Indians gives any analysis of the Zuka setup. One 

paragraph in her Colle System chapter applies to the Zuka system 

by transposition, but she gives no variations or strategic 

advice. We will discuss her suggestion later in this chapter. 

Other than the practical advantage of taking Black out of 

book, what does White accomplish by playing e3 instead of 

e4? 

31

32 


I thought you’d never ask... 

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 

Delaying e4 

In most lines I will be suggesting White eventually play 

e3-e4. Since mainstream play in these lines calls for White 

to play e2-e4, one could see this as the forfeiture of a tempo. 

However, such a judgment is rash, for the lines I recommend 

only involve playing e4 after Black has already been forced to 

abandon his typical play. 

To accurately evaluate White’s slow approach, we must 

look at it in context. The whole point of hypermodern opening 

strategy is to speed development by forgoing early central 

control, and then use that faster development to undermine 

and attack White’s center. If Black is unable to attack White’s 

center, the onus is on him to show adequate compensation 

for his lack of central presence. 

Black’s lead in development is only meaningful if he can 

use it to force a concession, but the Zuka setup presents no 

targets for the second player. Much of Black’s general play in 

more popular (e2-e4) lines revolves about the relative weakness 

of White’s d4-pawn, and the early moves can depend 

critically on the presence of a pawn on e4 that Black can 

attack. 

To put a finer point on this, let’s look at Black’s most common 

response when White uses a Zuka setup. 

King’s Indian Defense 

In the case of the KID, the relevance of the e4-pawn shows 

up on move 6 in the standard move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 

3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5.


!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏Pzx∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzxzPzxz% 

$zxπpπxzx% 

$xznzxñxz% 


$rzbœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Black can play ...e5 safely 

A rote beginner could be forgiven for asking why Black 

can even play 6...e5, yet KID practitioners do it without the 

barest hint of concern for their pawn. They know White cannot 

win material owing to 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe4. With 

White’s pawn on e3 though, this central push is a dubious 

gambit at best. 

For this reason the standard method of dealing with e3 is 

to support ...e5 by first playing ...Nbd7, but this already takes 

Black outside the modern treatment of the line; that Knight 

normally goes to e7 by way of c6. Long ago, ...Nbd7 was 

Black’s standard play, and its advantages and disadvantages 

(compared to ...Nc6) are well known. Our proposed move 

order allows White to maintain an opening advantage in this 

thematic line, even playing a move down. The basic position 

is shown below. 

33

34 


!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıQ‰xapplex% 

$P∏P˜x∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzxzPzxz% 

$zxπpzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 

$πpœx∫pπp% 

$rzbzx®kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White to move 

I give plenty of analysis of this position later, but for now 

I point out that Black’s ...Nbd7 gives White greater fluidity in 

the center, allowing him to catch up on his development. By 

the time the center becomes static, Black is unable to conveniently 

attack it as he does in more familiar variations. 

This position is particularly important for those utilizing 

the Zuka system. It is also rather unexplored. Finding serious 

games between strong, comparable opponents is like searching 

for a straight pool cue in a low-class honky tonk. That is to 

say, they are uncommon. Yet, I claim White has good chances 

and, perhaps more importantly, a comprehensible plan. The 

lines I suggest give White control of the center and a space 

advantage while suppressing Black’s counterplay. 

If Black’s repertoire is centered on the KID, he should 

reach the diagramed setup through natural play, but even if 

his repertoire is built on some other ...g6 opening, he is likely 

to end up there anyway. With the d4-pawn solidly defended, 

...Bg4 loses much of its sting, so Pirc players will probably find 

themselves there as well. The c6-Modern just leaves Black a 

move down on the Grünfeld; its brother, the a6-Modern, is 

particularly ill-suited to meet White’s setup because d4 cannot 

be undermined, e4 cannot be targeted, and (most of all), 

Black cannot play for …a6/…b5 after White has played c4.


Neither can Black move-order White by playing a delayed Leningrad 

(1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 f5) because White 

can just transpose into the Dangerfield Attack with Bf4. Nor 

is 1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 f5 to be relied upon, for that move order is 

particularly prone to 3.h4! 

To wit, whatever Black may originally intend to play after …g6, 

he will likely end up transposing to the position shown above unless 

he plays into a Grünfeld line. In a tiny minority of games, Black 

will steer into Benoni waters by playing ...c5 instead. 

The Delayed Benoni 

In her Fighting the Anti-King’s Indians, IM Dembo suggests 

Black change course, presumably because she wants to avoid 

the standard ...Nbd7/...e5 line described in the previous section. 

Dembo does not give any lines, but suggests that 1.d4 

Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.e3 be met by 4...c5 or 4...0-0 and 5... 

c5, which she says yields “a very weak and harmless Benoni” 

if White responds with d5. 

It’s worth mentioning that Dembo’s general suggestion 

for fighting the Colle System centers on inflicting hanging 

pawns that can then be attacked. The Zuka setup is the only 

one that allows White to avoid that by advancing his d-pawn 

before Black can exchange it, so our setup represents a unique 

challenge to her entire suggested strategy. From a repertoirebuilding 

standpoint, one can understand the temptation to 

dismiss it as a rare line one hopes not to see too often. 

I do not mean to single Dembo out for criticism. In fact, 

her ideas are important to consider, and they lead to lines 

where White’s objecttive advantage is smaller than in the more 

common KID continuations. Still, I believe she has uncritically 

dismissed White’s potential, and a slew of strong GMs 

would appear to agree. I present these lines at this early stage 

because they provide further examples of how White’s delaying 

e4 has subtle benefits. 

35

36 


The First Benoni Continuation 

Let’s first look at the idea of 4...0-0 followed by 5...c5, assuming 

White plays 5.Be2. (5.Nc3 will transpose to Dembo’s 

4...c5 line, which we treat later in this subsection. Strong players 

should consider 5.h3!?, a tricky optional play discussed in 

the Shrewd 5.h3 chapter.) After 4...0-0 5.Be2 c5 6.d5 d6 7.Nc3 

e6 8.0-0 exd5 9.cxd5, we arrive at a near-copy of the “old” 

Classical Variation of the Modern Benoni, the only difference 

being that White has a pawn on e3 rather than e4. 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏xzx∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzPπxzxz% 

$zxzxzxzx% 

$xznzpñxz% 


$rzbœx®kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

The fact that White’s e-pawn is on e3 rather than e4 does 

not impact his long-term trump, his central majority. While a 

case could be made that the pawn on e3 prevents White from 

even contemplating Bf4, a thematic threat in this line, the 

truth of the matter is that Black typically avoids this anyway 

with 9...Re8, provoking 10.Nd2, blocking the Bishop. 

In fact, taking a closer look at …Re8 highlights the value 

of delaying e4. In the Classical Variation, which can be visualized 

by mentally moving White’s e-pawn to e4 in the above 

diagram, the targeting of White’s e-pawn is a critical component 

to Black’s game plan. After White uses a move on Nd2 he 

finds his pieces all a jumble, so he uses another move on f3 to 

allow Nc4. Of course, c4 is often a great square for a Knight, 

but that is irrelevant here because Black is just going to play 

…b6, …Ba6 and …Bxc4.


A typical version of this line illustrating all the time spent 

by White shoring up the vulnerable e4 is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 

3.c4 c5 4.d5 d6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.cxd5 g6 7.Nd2 Bg7 8.e4 0-0 

9.Be2 Re8 10.0-0 Na6 11.f3 Nc7 12.a4 b6 13.Nc4 Ba6. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xzQ‰xapplex% 

$PzNzx∏B∏% 

$ıPzPzN∏x% 

$xzPπxzxz% 

$πxñxπxzx% 

$xznzxπxz% 

$zpzx∫xπp% 

$rzbœx®kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

The time White has lavished on e4, directly or indirectly, 

has allowed Black to prepare his Q-side expansion, which 

is now more or less impossible to stop. Black’s …b6 cannot 

even be considered a waste of time because it prevents White 

from holding Black back with the simple a5. Moreover, since 

Black is certain to achieve …b5, White must use another move 

retreating his Bishop from c4 after it recaptures. 

From the diagram, White generally plays Bg5, and after 

…h6 Black has actually scored pretty well in top-level play, 

scoring exactly 50% in my database (though there are not 

many games to be found since White now prefers Bd3 instead 

of Be2 and this gives him such a good game that interest in 

the Benoni at top levels has dwindled). 

The vigor of Black’s Q-side initiative must be respected. For 

those who have never been on the receiving end of a Benoni 

Q-side assault, I’ll give the bloodbath seen in Kožul-Cvitan, 

Stari Mikanovci 2010, which involved the strongest players 

I can find locking horns in recent times over this line. That 

game continued 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 Qd7 16.Re1 Rab8 17.Bf2 

Bxc4 18.Bxc4 a6 19.Bf1 Qd8 20.Rc1 Nd7 21.f4 b5 22.axb5 

axb5 23.b4 cxb4 24.Na2 Na6 25.Rc6 Ndc5 26.e5 b3 27.Nc3 

3

3 


dxe5 28.f5 gxf5 29.Ne2 Rc8 30.Ng3 Qg5 31.h4 Qf4 32.Nh5 

Qb4 33.Rxc8 Rxc8 34.Nxg7 Kxg7 35.Rxe5 b2 36.Qb1 Ne4 

37.Be3 Rc1 38.Bxc1 bxc1Q 0-1. 

I bet you’re going to tell me that White can avoid such massacres 

by delaying e4. 

Quite so. Since White does not have to spend time tending 

to his e-pawn and then untangling the aftermath, he can 

play a4 and Rb1 (threatening b4) much sooner. Black’s entire 

strategy is neutralized, and White still has his long-term positional 

advantage (space and a central pawn majority). Black’s 

thin hope at play lies in advancing his c-pawn to c4 and then 

making use of c5. But then White can target the c-pawn, which 

will enjoy no pawn cover—unlike in similar variations of the 

Classical Benoni where Black gets pawns on a6, b5, and c4. 

You might be surprised to see who has opted to play 

this “very weak and harmless” Benoni. IMs Managadze and 

Renner, GMs Strikovic, Hort, Ftáčnik, Miles, and Lobron have 

all chosen White’s side of this position, as well as super-GM 

Morozevich, who played it in the 2007 World Championship 

tournament against reigning champion Kramnik, and won! 

Following 9.cxd5 (see first diagram of this section), that 

game continued 9... Bg4 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nbd7 12.a4 a6 

13.g4 c4 14.Be2 Rc8 15.g5 Ne8 16.f4 Qe7 17.Ra3 Rc5 18.Bf3 

Ra5 19.Bd2 Nc5 20.Qe2 Nb3 21.Ne4 Nxd2 22.Qxd2 Qd8 

23.Qb4 b5 24.axb5 Rxb5 25.Qxc4 Qb6 26.Qc6 Bxb2 27.Qxb6 

Rxb6 28.Ra2 Bg7


!@@@@@@@@# 

$zxzx˜Rapplex% 

$xzxzx∏B∏% 

$∏RzPzx∏x% 

$xzxπxzpz% 

$zxzxñpzx% 

$xzxzp∫xπ% 

$®xzxzxzx% 

$xzxzx®kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

29.Rc1 h6 30.h4 hxg5 31.hxg5 f6 32.Rc6 Rxc6 33.dxc6 fxg5 

34.Nxg5 Nc7 35.Rd2 Rd8 36.Bg4 Bc3 37.Rd3 Ba5 38.Kg2 d5 

39.e4 d4 40.e5 Bb6 41.Rb3 Rb8 42.Rh3 Ba5 43.Rh6 Rb2+ 

44.Kg3 Be1+ 45.Kf3 d3 46.Rxg6+ Kf8 47.Rd6 d2 48.Ke4 1-0 

Notably, White’s g4-g5 would be impossible in the normal 

Benoni, with White’s pawn on e4, because Black could play 

...Nc5, forcing the e-pawn forward and dissolving the center. 

Some of these games where an IM or GM plays an e3-version 

of the Benoni come from an English move order, but in 

most cases White willingly plays e3 after Black has already 

signaled his interest in a Benoni. A couple (IM Renner – IM 

Kolbus 2008/9 Bundesliga and GM Lobron – GM Wojtkiewicz, 

2000 Frankfurt) are notable for matching exactly the 

move order expected when the Zuka system is used against 

an early ...g6. 

The Other Benoni Continuation 

Dembo’s other suggested move order provides a further example 

of the subtle value of delaying e4. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 

g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.e3 c5 5.d5, White can transpose to the line discussed 

above, but he can also push for a Bd3-continuation. 

After 5...d6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.h3 e6 8.Bd3 exd5 9.cxd5, we arrive 

once again at a near-replica of a major tabiya of the Benoni, 

but with White having his pawn on e3 rather than e4. 

3

40 


!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏xzx∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$xzPπxzxz% 

$zxzxzxzx% 

$xzn∫pñxπ% 

$πpzxzpπx% 

$rzbœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Modern Benoni with e3 instead of e4 

If White’s e-pawn were on e4 rather than e3, we would be 

at the critical position for the modern main line of the Benoni, 

reached thousands of times in tournament play between titled 

players. Black’s essential problem in that system is a lack of 

natural pawn breaks. He cannot prepare ...b5 with ...a6 because 

White can just play a4. Even if he manages to get ...f5 

in, it is quite risky owing to the weakness on e6. 

For that reason, the critical line for Black (in the mainline 

version) is 9...b5!? 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$Pzxzx∏B∏% 

$zxzPzN∏x% 

$x∏Pπxzxz% 

$zxzxπxzx% 

$xzn∫xñxπ% 

$πpzxzpπx% 

$rzbœkzx®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Normal Modern Main Line after 9...b5!?


Black depends on the tactic 10.Bxb5 (10.Nxb5 Re8 avoids 

material loss owing to further tactics) Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qa5+ 

to get compensation for his material after 12.Nfd2 Qxb5 

13.Nxd6. Black can exert pressure down the e-file and create 

practical chances by making a mess of the Q-side with his 

pawn mass on that wing. (See Mastering the Chess Openings: 

Volume 2 for illustrative examples and more discussion.) 

But with White’s pawn still on e3, this will obviously not 

work. Black’s Knight no longer eats a pawn on its way to e4. 

Instead, Black has to come up with some other way to find 

play because White still has the long-term trump, his central 

majority. 

There are fewer typical move orders that arrive at this e3version 

of the modern main line, but I did find one high-level 

game between Vladimir Burmakin and Andrey Zontakh (Portoroz, 

1995), one year after the former had earned his GM title 

and two years before the latter would do the same. 

That game continued 9...a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.0-0 Re8 12.Re1 

Qc7 13.e4 Rb8 14.Bf4 Nh5 15.Bh2 c4 16.Bf1 Ne5 17.Nxe5 

Bxe5 18.Bxe5 Rxe5 19.a5 b5 20.axb6 Rxb6 21.Ra4 Rxb2 

22.Rxc4 Qd8 23.Qc1 Rb8 24.Ne2 Bd7 25.Nd4. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$zRzQzxapplex% 

$xzxıx∏x∏% 

$∏xzPzx∏x% 

$xzxπRzx˜% 

$zx®nπxzx% 

$xzxzxzxπ% 

$zxzxzpπx% 

$xzqzr∫kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

White has a great position because Black cannot stop an 

eventual Nc6. Black can lance the boil by exchanging on c6, 

but that gives White a dangerous, advanced, passed pawn. 

Instead, Black just decided to live with the Knight and White 

41

42 


built up a very strong position after 25...Qb6 26.Qd2 Rc8 

27.Rxc8+ Bxc8 28.Nc6 Re8 29.Qc2 Nf6 30.Rb1 Qc7 31.f3 Nh5 

32.Rb8 Rf8 33.Qb2 f5. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$zrıxzRapplex% 

$xzQzxzx∏% 

$∏xñPzx∏x% 

$xzxπx∏x˜% 

$zxzxπxzx% 

$xzxzxπxπ% 

$zqzxzxπx% 

$xzxzx∫kz% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

From here, opening the a3-f8 diagonal with e5 would have 

been decisive, but White instead continued with 34.Qb6?, allowing 

Black to exchange on e4 and then pressure that square. 

Black sacrificed one pawn to allow him to trade off enough 

others to escape with a draw. 

Conclusion 

The Zuka system works against Black’s basic strategy in 

the various hypermodern ...g6 lines by refusing to give Black 

easy targets on d4 and e4 until after White has developed 

sufficiently (and forced Black to deviate from his preferred 

setups) to make attacking those squares unfeasible. 

The system is rather unexplored, and even a small amount 

of study will generally guarantee that you have a better grasp 

on the relevant strategy than your opponent. 

There are only a handful of important variations to know. 

In most games when White faces an early ...g6, he will find 

himself playing against either ...d6/...Nbd7/...e5 or the Sneaky 

Grünfeld. Rarely, White may find his opponent switching into 

a Benoni. In all three cases, White’s delay of e4 has subtle and 

important benefits.

Chapter 11 

Introducing the Dangerfield Attack 

I If you are a class-level player, you probably hate facing the 

Dutch. After spending so much time studying the typical 

lines of your main opening, you find yourself staring down 

at that silly pawn on f5, knowing your opponent knows his 

opening better than you do. 

Time to make your opponent an alien on his own 

planet. 

The Colle-Zukertort possesses several appealing qualities. 

The “double-barreled” system I propose for meeting the 

Dutch Defense shares several of those qualities. 

• Against many Dutch setups, White has a particular configuration 

to aim at. 

• There are plenty of tactics, but they are generally thematic 

and strategically motivated (so mere mortals like me 

can find them). 

• At the same time, the repertoire here should keep all the 

fun on White’s side of the board. Black finds himself with little 

in the way of counter-attacking options. 

If you have ever found yourself matched against someone 

proficient in the Dutch, you likely appreciate this last point. 

Finally, like the C-Z, the system described here is offbeat. 

In fact, “offbeat” is a mild term. It makes the rather syncopated 

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b4!? 

look like a main line. No matter what manual your opponent 

used for his repertoire, you can be reasonably confident he 

will soon be out of book. 

20

210 

Chapter 11 

Book Survey 

Fundamentally, my system against the Dutch combines two 

threats, hence the “double-barreled” adjective. First, White 

hints at gaining fantastic piece placement by developing his 

dark-squared Bishop to f4 and then opening up the other 

with e3. 

1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰NıQappleBzR% 

$P∏P∏PzP∏% 

$zxzxzNzx% 

$xzxzx∏xz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xzxzpzxz% 

$πpπxzpπp% 

$rñxœk∫n®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Then, most of the time he will switch gears and aim for 

a powerful K-side pawn fusillade. For example, a common 

continuation is: 

3…g6?! 4.h4 

These two threats, actively placing both Bishops and storming 

the K-side, complement one another. In the Dutch Black’s 

standard antidote against a K-side pawn raid is to set up a 

Stonewall formation, and that is precisely what Black does not 

want to do against 2.Bf4! Indeed, Aagaard writes in his Dutch 

Stonewall, referencing the position after 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 

d5, “This version of the Stonewall cannot be recommended. 

White’s fluid development soon leads to a dangerous initiative.” 

The reason for his disapproval becomes clear after 4.Nf3 

c6 5.Bf4, “White should not be allowed the luxury of bringing 

out both Bishops.” In his summary he writes “Systems involving 

e2-e3 are not a threat to the Stonewall player unless White 

has already brought his Queen’s Bishop into play.” Aagaard 

gives no suggested method to meet this contingency.


For this reason, I believe 2.Bf4 is vastly underestimated. It 

is certainly not well examined in the various opening manuals. 

A survey of recent books yields stunning results. 

Book and Author Year Pgs 

Dutch Defense by Christiansen and Silman 1989 1 

The Dutch for the Attacking Player by Pedersen 1996 ½ 

The Dutch Leningrad by McDonald 1997 0 

Dutch Stonewall by Aagaard 2000 0 

Classical Dutch by Pinski 2002 1 

Understanding the Leningrad Dutch by Beim 2002 0 

Play the Classical Dutch by Williams 2003 0 

Starting Out: the Dutch Defense by McDonald 2004 0 

Leningrad System by Kindermann 2005 ¼ 

Win with the Stonewall Dutch by Johnsen et al. 2009 4 

Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch Palliser et al. 2009 0 

I’ve estimated the coverage in what I hope is a fair manner. 

Johnsen, Bern, and Agdestein give 1.d4 e6 as a repertoire 

line. For the Zukertort player, this means you are going to be 

playing 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bf4, so I counted coverage for those 

lines. Similarly, Pinski only spends 1/8 of a page on 2.Bf4, but 

two or three variations he gives in various annotated games 

land in our repertoire by transposition, so I included that coverage 

in the statistics. Lastly, though Aagaard spends 1½ pages 

describing how Black should not contemplate the Stonewall 

after White plays Bf4, he doesn’t provide any guidance for 

what Black should do, so I indicated 0 pages for his book. 

Many of these books treat lines where White plays Bf4 

later, but there appears a decided tendency to omit move 

orders that allow White to use the double-barreled plan. 

For example, several manuals give coverage of 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 

with Bf4 coming later, but with that move order much of the 

fizzle has escaped from White’s standard method of punish- 

211

212 

Chapter 11 

ing a Stonewall played against Bf4. The c-pawn is blocked. 

Similarly, Kindermann spends four times as much space on 

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 g6, as he does on 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4, but 

the Knight on f3 turns out to be misplaced as it blocks the 

Queen’s access to the K-side. 

The Move That Gets No Respect 

Rodney Dangerfield built a career on the catchphrase “I 

get no respect.” The authors of books written from the Black 

side of the Dutch have some pretty harsh words for 2.Bf4. In 

one of his books McDonald makes a blanket statement that 

any development using e3 rather than g3 is “completely harmless,” 

and evidently does not consider Bf4 worth even a line of 

discussion. Pinski uses precisely the same phrase, “completely 

harmless,” to refer to the same setups. Kindermann is particularly 

unabashed in his disdain. In one place he speaks of how 

“Bf4 has little to recommend it,” and in another he groups it 

with a collection of odds and ends upon which he casts the 

aspersion “I would not recommend a single one of the White 

ideas in this section.” 

Yet Kindermann’s suggested antidote to an early Bf4 is 

hopeless, saving Black from the fire only by transporting him 

to the frying pan. He recommends 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 

4.h4! h6, allowing Black to close the K-side should White 

play 5.h5, but this gives White both an enduring attack and 

fantastic position so long as he knows the key, one-move 

refutation.


!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏P∏Pzxz% 

$zxzxzN∏P% 

$xzxzx∏xz% 

$zxzpzbzp% 

$xzxzpzxz% 

$πpπxzpπx% 


^&&&&&&&&* 

White to play and eviscerate 

Do you see how White can exploit the vulnerability on g6 

created by Black’s 4…h6? (See next chapter for details.) 

Only Aagaard and Johnsen et al. give much respect to this 

line, the latter giving several variations where White achieves ≈ 

without any suggested improvements for Black. It is likely no 

coincidence that their books focus on the Stonewall variation, 

which they do not recommend Black adopt against Bf4. 

Some of the invective ladled upon Bf4 can be attributed 

to the tendency of authors to favor the side from which their 

book is written. These are all books written from the Black 

side of the board, so it is not surprising to see negative sentiment 

concerning uninteresting side variations they hope the 

reader never actually has to engage. 

However, these authors have been kind enough to describe 

the problems they see in an early Bf4, so it is appropriate to 

discuss these as well as the move’s virtues. We shall do this in 

the next two sections. 

Bf4’s Supposed Vices 

Contempt for Bf4 is commonly justified by referencing three 

shortcomings: 

1. The Bishop is vulnerable to attack by …h6 and …g5. 

213

214 

Chapter 11 

2. Developing the Bishop in this way is inconsistent with 

White’s desire to fianchetto his other Bishop. 

3. Black’s thematic …e5 comes with tempo and practically 

guarantees equality. 

Hold on a sec. Why is Bf4 “inconsistent” with fianchettoing 

the light-squared Bishop? 

If Black plays …d6 and White plays g3, there is not much 

breathing room for a dark-squared Bishop on that wing. 

Anyway, I contend these concerns lose significant potency 

if White castles long, or at least retains the ability to do so. 

White then welcomes the expansion of Black’s K-side pawns, 

so the first point listed above is hardly a concern. It will, in 

fact, seldom even be a reasonable plan to consider. Similarly, 

the value attached to playing Bg2 depends on the assumption 

that White castles short. In typical play, White attacks on the 

Q-side while Black presses on the K-side. A Bishop on g2 helps 

defend White’s King and also hinders Black’s Q-side development, 

particularly in that Black has trouble safely playing 

…Bb7. In our repertoire, however, lines with a Bishop on b7 

are not particularly troublesome, especially as they leave e6, 

f5, and g4 with less protection. 

With regard to the third point, Black has by no means 

solved all his problems once he plays …e5. Indeed, the pawns 

on e5 and f5 are high-maintenance and can be real liabilities if 

White castles long. To see an example of this, consider a typical 

position suggested by Pinski (via transposition) after: 

1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 d6 5.c4 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Qc2 

Qe8 8.h3 Nc6 9.a3 Bd8 10.0-0-0


!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xıBŒRapplex% 

$P∏PzxzP∏% 

$zx˜P∏Nzx% 

$xzxzx∏xz% 

$zxπpzbzx% 

$pznzpñxπ% 

$zpœxzpπx% 

$xzk®x∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

After 10...e5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Bh2, Black’s pieces are tied 

down defending his e-pawn. White has a free hand to prepare 

standard opposite-castle operations: Kb1, Rg1, perhaps Nd2 

(to safeguard e4) and/or Be2 (sometimes needed to defuse 

tactical threats against the Knight on f3 after g4). 

Bf4’s Virtues 

So, what does Bf4 have to commend it? Several things. 

We have already mentioned how a Bishop on f4 dissuades 

Black from establishing a Stonewall setup, and the pressure 

on c7 and e5 is obvious. There are two more nuanced points 

worth noting. 

First, Bf4 allows White to play e3 with a clear conscience, 

opening a transportation lane for the Queen. For example, 

many books grudgingly discourage Black from using the line: 

1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏P∏Pzx∏% 

$zxzxzN∏x% 

$xzxzx∏xz% 

$zxzpzbzx% 

$xzxzpzxz% 

$πpπxzpπp% 


^&&&&&&&&* 

215

216 

Chapter 11 

And now the continuation mentioned above, 4.h4! Bg7?! 

5.h5, is very dangerous. Kindermann suggests that 4…h6 is 

the antidote. But it does not save Black, as we shall see later. 

Second, Black’s flexibility is limited by the moves he makes 

while White is playing Bf4 and e3. For example, after 1.d4 f5 

2.c4 e6 3.Nc3, Black can play 3…Bb4. However, if White’s 

move order involves playing Bf4, e3, and Nf3 before c4 and 

Nc3, Black will either no longer have the option of playing 

…Bb4 (e.g. 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 d6 5.c4 Be7 

6.Nc3) or will have at least already moved his dark-squared 

Bishop once (e.g. 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.c4 

0-0 6.Nc3). Actually, my official recommendation in the latter 

case involves not allowing Black to pin a Knight on c3 even at 

the cost of the tempo. Playing 6.Be2 is preferable. 

Why a New Response to the Dutch? 

Players who use the lines suggested in the first volume 

of Zuke ’Em likely have A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire by 

Summerscale and Johnsen, and it is reasonable to question 

the time required to learn a new system. Obviously, only the 

reader can determine this. If you like playing the system in 

AKCOR and are comfortable with it, your study time is probably 

better spent elsewhere. That said, certain concerns are 

worth mentioning. 

Summerscale’s recommendation, 2.Bg5, is a strong move. 

Unfortunately, because of its strength, there is now a good 

deal of theory known. Right now it appears the wind is at 

Black’s back in the main line: 

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.Nd2 Bg7 4.e4 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5! 6.Nc5 b6 

7.Nb3 Nh6!


!@@@@@@@@# 


$PzPzPzB∏% 

$zPzxzx∏N% 

$xzx∏xzbz% 

$zxzpzxzx% 

$xñxzxzxz% 

$πpπxzpπp% 

$rzxœk∫n®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

If your opponent is building his repertoire from a book 

published after 2003, he probably knows this continuation, 

which looks very good for Black. It is frustrating to know your 

theory solidly as White and still get the worse position! 

If you want to keep playing 2.Bg5 as your solution here, I 

would instead suggest the somewhat simplistic: 

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.Qd2!? 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏P∏Pzx∏% 

$zxzxzB∏x% 

$xzxzx∏xz% 

$zxzpzxzx% 

$xznzxñxz% 

$πpπqπpπp% 

$rzxzk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

From here White can castle long, play e3, and then get 

down to business with h4. I’d be happy to play the White 

pieces in that position. 

White’s 3rd move has been recently criticized as looking 

poor after Black plays an eventual d5, but if you are aiming 

at the line given above, you should end up at pretty much 

the same place if Black continues 3…d5 4.h4 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 

6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qd2. 

21

21 

Chapter 11 

If you are going to play these lines as White, be psychologically 

prepared for 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.h4 Bg7 5.Nf3 

c6!? 6.Qd2 Be6 7.Qe3 Bf7 8.h5 Nd7. 

!@@@@@@@@# 

$‰xzQapplex˜R% 

$P∏x˜PıB∏% 

$zx∏xzx∏x% 

$xzx∏x∏bπ% 

$zxzpzxzx% 

$xznzqñxz% 

$πpπxπpπx% 

$rzxzk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

This and similar positions have occurred several times in 

strong competition, and Black can get a Q-side pawn storm 

brewing very quickly. Be warned! Indeed, we will be aiming 

for a much improved version of this in this book. 

Unfortunately, a less easily addressed problem occurs in 

the Dutch Deferred (1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5). If you currently use 

AKCOR’s recommendation, 3.d5, then I suggest you take a 

long, hard look at what happens when Black shows no rush 

to recapture his pawn after 3…Nf6 4.dxe6 d5! 

!@@@@@@@@# 


$P∏PzxzP∏% 

$zxzxπNzx% 

$xzx∏x∏xz% 

$zxzxzxzx% 

$xzxzxñxz% 

$πpπxπpπp% 

$rñbœk∫x®% 

^&&&&&&&&* 

Igor Naumkin has played this as Black several times with 

success. The good thing is that you can find another response 

to 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 while keeping 2.Bg5 as your standard way


of meeting 1.d4 f5, should that be your aim. In our repertoire, 

there is no need to learn a separate line for 1.d4 e6. 

21

Download sample pages. (pdf) - New In Chess

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?