Your Questions Answered By Andrew Martin

International Master Andrew Martin from England presents a regular series of articles to answer any questions that Chess.com readers have about the game of chess.

If you want to ask Andrew a question, then send an email to askandrew@chess.com and next time your question could be featured!  Please include your real name and your chess.com member name, but you can ask to remain anonymous if you wish!

Now it's over to Andrew for this week's questions and answers...

Alex B Hey, love your articles Andrew. I was just wondering about your opinion over the differences in the e6 vs. g6 pawn move in the early stages of the Dutch Defense. I've seen both moves used but can't quite understand the subtleties behind each one. I prefer sharp, tactical lines so your recommendation on which one would be ideal for achieving such would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, keep up the awesome work!!

Hi Alex. There is no doubt that the Leningrad Variation, where Black plays with ...f7-f5,....g7-g6 and ...Bg7 is more dynamic than Classical lines, where Black plays with ..e7-e6. The rewards are there for the aggressor, but the risk factor is higher when one Black employs the Leningrad. The Leningrad is more straightforward for the average player as far as I can see, but it boils down to a question of taste.

1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d4 c6 6.Nf3 d6 7.0–0 0–0 8.d5 e5 This is the main line,which I recommend for Black in a recent Chessbase DVD. Black inherits a weak, backward d pawn (risk) but in return has very active play for his pieces (reward). Modern chess is a bit of a juggling act like this, where you have to choose your weapons according to temperament and taste.

9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.b3 [10.Bf4 Bxc4 11.Bxd6 Re8 12.Ne5 Be6 13.Ba3 Nbd7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.Qc2 Rad8 16.Rfd1 Qf7 17.Rxd8 Rxd8 18.Rd1 Rxd1+ 19.Qxd1 Qd7 20.Qc2 Nd5 21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.e4 fxe4 23.Bxe4 Bxe4 24.Qxe4 b6 25.Qc4+ Kh8 26.b3 c5 27.Bc1 h5 28.Be3 Kh7 29.Kg2 Bd4 30.Bf4 Qc6+ 31.f3 Kg7 32.Qe2 Qd7 33.a4 Kf7 34.Qe4 Bf6 35.h4 Qe7 36.Qc4+ Kg7 37.Kf1 Qd7 38.Ke2 Qh3 39.Qe4 Qg2+ 40.Kd1 Qf1+ 41.Kc2 Qf2+ 42.Kd3 Qf1+ 43.Qe2 Qb1+ 44.Kc4 a6 45.Qd2 b5+ 46.axb5 axb5+ 47.Kxc5 Be7+ 48.Kc6 Qxb3 49.Be5+ Kf7 50.Qf4+ Ke6 51.Kb6 Qd5 52.Bb2 b4 53.Qe3+ Kf7 54.Qf4+ Ke8 55.Qe3 Kd7 56.Qf4 Bd8+ 57.Ka6 Qc6+ 58.Ka7 Bb6+ 59.Ka6 Bc7+ 60.Ka7 Bxf4 61.gxf4 Qa4+ 62.Kb6 Qc2 63.Be5 Ke8 0–1 Adianto,U (2554)-Reinderman,D (2543)/Beijing 2008/CBM 126 Extra; 10.Qd3 Nbd7 11.Ng5 Re8 12.Nxe6 Rxe6 13.e3 Ne5 14.Qe2 Qa5 15.Bd2 Qa6 16.b3 Nf7 17.Rac1 Ne4 18.Rfd1 Nxd2 19.Qxd2 Qa5 20.Ne2 Qxd2 21.Rxd2 a5 22.h4 Re7 23.a3 Be5 24.Bf3 Kg7 25.Kg2 Ra6 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 Ra4 28.b5 cxb5 29.cxb5 Rb4 30.Rd5 Rb2 31.Rc8 Bf6 32.Kf1 Rb1+ 33.Rc1 Rb2 34.Nf4 Be5 ½–½ Citak,S (2328)-Gurevich,M (2631)/Istanbul 2008/CBM 125 Extra]

10...Na6 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.Rc1 Rad8 13.Nd4 Bc8 14.a3 Ng4 15.Nf3 f4 A move typical of this system, after which Black gets a ferocious attack.

16.Rc2 Bf5 17.Rd2 fxg3 18.hxg3 Ne3!! White definitely overlooked this strike and there is no way back!

19.fxe3 Bxc3 20.Bxc3 Qxe3+ 21.Kh2 Qxc3 22.Rxd6 Bc2 23.Qd4 Qxd4 24.Rxd4 Bxb3 25.Re4 Rde8 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Rb1 Nc5 a superb, unassailable square for the Knight. Nijboer handles the rest of the endgame effortlessly.

28.Nd4 Re3 29.Nxb3 Rxb3 30.Rxb3 Nxb3 31.Be4 Kf7 32.Kg2 Kf6 33.Bc2 Nd4 34.Bd1 Nf5 35.Kf3 Nd6 36.Bb3 Ke5 37.Kg4 Ne4 38.Bc2 h6 39.e3 Nf6+ 40.Kf3 g5 41.Bg6 a5 42.Bc2 Nd7 43.Bh7 Kd6 44.Bg8 Ke7 0–1

To the Classical now, which I have always found difficult to handle, although Simon Williams would disagree. Black doesn't get the same freedom of movement and can often end up passively placed.

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.b3 d6 7.Bb2 Qe8 8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.e3 [RR 9.Re1 Qg6 (RR 9...Ne4 10.c4 Bf6 11.a3 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.e4 fxe4 15.Ng5 Bxg5 16.Qxg5 Qf7 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Bxe4 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 Na5 20.Re3 b5 21.Rf1 Nc6 22.cxb5 Rad8 23.Qc1 Nd4 24.Qc4 Lieb,H (2336)-Walton,A (2144)/Bad Woerishofen 2003/CBM 093 ext/1–0) 10.e3 Bd7 11.a3 Rad8 12.Qe2 Qh6 13.e4 f4 14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5 Nd5 16.c4 Nb6 17.Rad1 fxg3 18.hxg3 Be8 19.Ne4 Bh5 20.Rxd8 Nxd8 21.Qe3 Qg6 22.Nd4 Nd7 23.Ne2 a5 Boursier,J (2106)-Lafeuille,B (1910)/France 2008/EXT 2009/½–½ (80)]

9...Qg6N [RR 9...Qh5 10.Ne1 Qh6 11.Qe2 Bd7 12.Nd3 Rae8 13.f3 Kh8 14.a4 e5 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Nc4 e4 17.Nde5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Be6 19.Rad1 Bd6 20.Nc4 Bxc4 21.Qxc4 Qxe3+ 22.Kh1 exf3 23.Rxf3 Qh6 24.Bxf6 Haydon,R (2208)-Hughes,H (2199)/Sunningdale 2007/EXT 2008/0–1 (47); RR 9...Bd7 10.Qe2 Qh5 11.e4 fxe4 12.Nxe4 e5 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Qc4+ Kh8 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Nd2 Bh3 17.Bxh3 Qxh3 18.Ne4 Rad8 19.Rad1 Rxd1 20.Rxd1 Qg4 21.Rd2 Be7 22.Qe2 Qf5 23.a3 h5 24.Kg2 Orbaan,C-Dueckstein,A/Wageningen 1957/MCD/½–½ (66); RR 9...Bd8 10.Nc4 Ne4 11.Ne1 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Nd3 Bf6 14.Ncxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Be6 16.Qe2 Bxb3 17.axb3 Bxe5 18.Bxe5 Qxe5 19.Qc4+ Kh8 20.f4 Qe7 21.Bxe4 fxe4 22.Ra4 Rfe8 23.Rd1 a6 24.Qc3 Vinke,D (2237)-Pessi,J (2188)/Finland 2001/CBM 085 ext/½–½] 10.c4 Nd8 11.Rc1 Nf7 12.c5 d5 This is the sort of position I don't like. White has slightly more space and although Black has a tight grip on e4 at present,it can be shaken off by a well-timed f2-f3.

13.b4 Ne4 14.b5 Qh6 15.Qe2 Nfg5 16.Nxg5 Bxg5 17.Nf3 Bf6 18.c6 b6 19.a4 a6 20.Ra1 Qh5 21.Qc2 Be7 22.Ne5 Nd6 23.Ba3 axb5 24.axb5 Qe8 25.Bxd6 Rxa1 26.Rxa1 Bxd6 27.f4 This should be a good reminder about the light-squared Bishop in the Dutch,which can often be a problematic piece.

27...Qe7 28.Nd3 g5 29.fxg5 Qxg5 30.Qe2 Kf7 31.Nf4 Ke7 32.Kh1 Rg8 33.Bf3 Qg7 34.Rd1 Qh6 35.Qg2 Kd8 36.Be2 Qf8 37.Qh3 Rg7 38.Qh6 Qe7 39.Ra1 Bxf4 40.Qxf4 Qb4 41.Qe5 Qe7 42.Rf1 Rg8 43.Rxf5 1–0

Summarising, the Leningrad is preferable to the Classical for the average club player in my opinion. In club chess, with fast time controls, the initiative is of key importance and Black goes for it right from the outset with ...g7-g6. The Classical is tough to break down, but do you really want to be concentrating on defense the whole game through?  

Chess.com member: kosmeg Firstly,  I would like to say that your column is great and instructive.  Here is my question:  I have never seen the variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 played in top level and I can't find it in any database.  Despite that fact I have faced it a couple of times and I can't find a way to grab the initiative with white.  Is there a way to achieve advantage,  and if there isn't why isn't this variation played at top level?

Hi Kosmeg. The variation you describe was played a lot by the great Frank Marshall. There is no direct refutation, but ...c7-c5 is very loose for Black when the white Knight stands on c3; that's why it isn't played at master level much. It is thought that White can put too much pressure on the Black central pawns.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5?! 4.exd5 exd5 5.dxc5! This is just one way for White. The pawn on d5 looks sick.

5...Nf6 [5...d4 6.Qe2+! Be7 (6...Be6 7.Qb5+ Qd7 8.Ne4±) 7.Nb5]

6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Nf3 0–0 9.h3 Be6N [9...a6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.0–0 Qc7 12.b4 Ne4 13.Bd4 a5 14.a3 Qf4 15.Qc1 Qf5 16.Re1 Bd8 17.Qb2 f6 18.Qb3 Kh8 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Nd2 Qg6 21.Rxe4 axb4 22.axb4 Rxa1+ 23.Bxa1 Bf5 24.Re1+- Friedrich,N (2275)-Farina,S (2126)/Bratto 2001]

10.0–0 White has deployed his pieces accurately and Black is struggling to get his pawn back. 10...Qc7 11.Bxc6 [I quite like 11.Re1 Rad8 12.Nd4! noting that 12...Bxc5 fails to 13.Nxe6]

11...bxc6 12.b4 Rad8 13.Nd4 Nd7 14.f4 Nf6 15.Qf3 Rfe8 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Bd4± Black remains a pawn down for nothing.

17...Qd7 18.a3 Rf8 19.Rad1 Rde8 20.g4 h6 21.Qg3 Nh7 22.Ne2 Bf6 23.Qe3 Qc7 24.Rde1 e5 25.fxe5 Bxe5 26.Rxf8+ Nxf8 27.Kg2 Qf7 28.Ng1! Ng6 29.Nf3 Nf4+ 30.Kh1 Black has no moves left. 30...Nxh3 31.Nxe5 Rxe5 32.Qxe5 Qf3+ 33.Kh2 Qxg4 34.Rf1 h5 35.Rf3 h4 1–0 You can probably get away with 3...c5 in blitz and the open nature of the game will always give Black some chances. Objectively though, I don't think 3...c5 is completely sound.

Robert Can you give an overview of the main ideas behind the Sicilian Najdorf, and why it remains so powerful for black despite being behind in development after move 5 of the main line?

Hi Rob. The Najdorf is all about flexibility and potential; that is why the strongest players like it so much.  5...a6 is the perfect waiting move, preparing ...e7-e5 or ...b7-b5 against passive responses, but if White gets aggressive then Black can react in many different ways: 1) Black has an extra central pawn. 2) Black has yet to define his pawn structure or his piece placements. 3) Black has active plans available with either ...b7-b5 and ...Bc8-b7, hitting e4 or ...e7-e5.

There now follows a very recent Najdorf example from the highest level.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 This is the Sozin Variation,a favourite of Bobby Fischer and many others since. White stations his Bishop actively and then often goes for the pawn lever f4-f5, taking a can opener to the Black Kingside.

6...e6! So Black shows the ELASTICITY of his pawn chain and blocks the diagonal.

7.Bb3 b5 8.0–0 Be7 9.Qf3 Adams changes his mind about the immediate f4 and plans to position his Queen intimidatingly on g3.

9...Qb6 10.Be3 Qb7 11.Qg3 b4 [RR 11...Nbd7 12.f3 b4 13.Nce2 0–0 14.Bh6 Ne8 15.Ba4; RR 11...Nc6 12.Rad1 (RR 12.Rfe1 Bd7 13.Rad1 b4 14.Nce2 0–0 15.Bh6 Ne8 16.Bg5 Bxg5 17.Qxg5 Nf6) 12...0–0 13.Nxc6 Qxc6 14.Bh6 Ne8 15.Rfe1 Bb7 16.a3 Kh8 17.Bg5 Bxg5 18.Qxg5 Nf6 19.Rd3; RR 11...h5 12.Nf5 exf5 13.Qxg7 Rf8 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Nc6 16.Rfe1 Be6 17.Bxc6+ Qxc6 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bg5 Ra7 20.Rxe7+ Rxe7 21.Bh6; RR 11...0–0 12.Bh6 Ne8 13.Nf5 (RR 13.f3 Bd7 14.Kh1 Nc6 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.a4 b4 17.Nd1 Kh8 18.Bf4 e5; RR 13.Rad1 Kh8 14.Be3 Nd7 15.f3 Nc5 16.a3 Nxb3 17.Nxb3 a5) 13...exf5 14.Bd5 Nc6 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Qf3 Bd7 17.Rfe1 Bf6 18.Ne4 Be5]

12.Na4 Nbd7 13.f3 0–0 14.a3N [RR 14.c3 bxc3 15.Nxc3 (RR 15.bxc3 Nc5 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.Nc2 c4 18.Bxc4 Qc6 19.Bb3 Qxc3 20.Kh1 a5 21.Bd4 Qc6 22.Ne3 Rd8 23.Rac1 Qe8 24.Ba1 Ba6 25.Rfe1 a4 26.Bc4 Bxc4 27.Nxc4 Qb5 28.e5 Ne8 29.Nd6 Bxd6 Morozevich,A-Nevostrujev,V (2385)/Orel 1992/EXT 1997/1–0 (91)) 15...Nc5 16.Qf2 (RR 16.Bc4 Bd7 17.Rab1 Rfc8 18.Be2 Rab8 19.Rfc1 e5 20.Nf5 Bxf5 21.exf5 Ncd7 22.f4 e4 23.Qf2 d5 24.Na4 Qb4 25.b3 Rxc1+ 26.Rxc1 Qa3 27.Rc6 Qxa2 28.Bd1 Qa1 29.Rc1 Qa3 30.Rc6 Qa1 Vonthron,H (2308)-Hillarp Persson,T (2535)/Gibraltar 2008/CBM 122 Extra/0–1 (40); RR 16.e5 dxe5 17.Qxe5 Nd3 18.Qa5 Nxb2 19.Na4 Bd8 20.Qd2 Nxa4 21.Bxa4 Bd7 22.Bb3 Nd5 23.Bf2 Rc8 24.Rab1 Qa8 25.Rfe1 Bf6 26.Bg3 Nc3 27.Rb2 Nb5 28.Be5 Bxe5 29.Rxe5 Qa7 30.Re4 e5 Komissarov,I-Moiseev,V (2480)/Podolsk 1992/EXT 1997/0–1) 16...Bd7 17.Rfd1 Rfc8 18.Bc4 Ncxe4 19.Bxa6 Rxa6 20.Nxe4 Nxe4 21.fxe4 Qxe4 22.Qf3 Qxf3 23.Nxf3 f6 24.b4 e5 25.Rdb1 Rb8 26.a3 Kf7 27.Nd2 d5 28.Nb3 d4 Arakhamia Grant,K (2395)-Zaichik,G (2500)/Moscow 1989/TD/0–1 (34); RR 14.Bh6 Nh5 15.Qh3 gxh6 16.Qxh5 Qa7 17.Rad1 e5 (RR 17...Bf6 18.c3 e5 19.Qxh6 exd4 20.cxd4 Bxd4+ 21.Kh1) 18.c3 (RR 18.Qxh6 exd4) 18...exd4 19.cxd4 Kg7 (RR 19...Bg5 20.Qg4 (RR 20.f4 Nf6 21.Qe2 Bg4) 20...Kh8) 20.Qg4+ (RR 20.Kh1 RR 20...Nf6 21.Qh4 Ng8) 20...Kh8 (RR 20...Bg5 21.f4 (RR 21.Qg3 ) 21...Nf6 22.Qg3 Nh5 23.Qf3 Nxf4 24.h4 f5) 21.Qf4 Kg7 a) RR 21...Nf6 RR 22.Qxh6 Be6 23.Bc2 (RR 23.Kh1 ) 23...Rac8 24.Bb1 b3 25.e5 (RR 25.a3 Rc4) 25...dxe5 26.Kh1 bxa2 27.Bd3 e4; b) RR 21...h5 22.Kh1; 22.Kh1 Nf6 23.Qg3+ (RR 23.e5 dxe5 24.dxe5 Ng8 25.Qe4) 23...Kh8 24.Qf4 Ng8 25.e5 dxe5 26.Qxe5+ (RR 26.dxe5 a5 (RR 26...Be6 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Qc4 Rae8) ) 26...Bf6 27.Qf4 Qb8 28.Qe4 Bg7 Polgar,J (2630)-Gelfand,B (2685)/Dos Hermanas 1994/CBM 041/[Boensch,U]/0–1 (40) RR 29.Bc2 Nf6; RR 14.Rad1 Kh8 15.Ne2 a5 16.c4 bxc3 17.Naxc3 Rb8 18.Kh1 Qa8 19.Na4 Ba6 20.Rfe1 Rfc8; RR 14.Rfd1 Kh8 15.Rac1 Ne5 16.c3 Bd7 17.Nb6 Nh5 18.Qh3 Qxb6 19.Qxh5 Qb7]

14...bxa3 15.Rxa3 Rb8 16.Rfa1 Nh5 17.Qh3 Nhf6 18.Qg3 Nh5 19.Qh3 Nhf6 20.Ba2 On with the show. White hopes to create pressure on a6.

20...Nc5 21.Nxc5 dxc5 22.Rb3 Qc7 23.Nc6 Rxb3 24.Nxe7+ Qxe7 25.Bxb3 Nd5!? 26.Bf2 [So that if 26.exd5 exd5 and suddenly two White pieces are attacked.]

26...Nf4 27.Qh4 Qd6 28.Be3 Ne2+ 29.Kh1 Nd4 30.Rd1 Qb6 31.Qe7 Nxb3 32.cxb3 Qb7 33.Qd6 Qxb3 34.Bxc5 Re8 35.h3 h6= Black protects against back-rank tricks and now the presence of opposite-coloured Bishops mitigates in favour of a draw.

36.Rd2 e5 37.Kh2 f6 38.Ba3 Qb5 39.Rd5 Qb7 40.Rc5 Be6 41.Rc7 Qb8 42.Qc6 Qb5 43.Qxb5 ½–½

Chess.com member: Farbror the Guru Hi Andrew, I am a firm believer of your "daily 20 minutes" training regime. Also, I do believe that most of my training should be devoted to tactics training. Silman has in an interview suggested that U1900 players should spend about twice as much time on master games as compared to tactics training. I fail to see how patzers such as me could efficiently learn something from studying master games. I think it easily turns out to be a pleasant learning by nodding exercise.

My guess is that it is easier to work intensely with tactics problem and training should be "close to your limits" to be most efficient.

1. How should a patzer approach the studies of master games to make it worthwhile?

2. Would it be possible for you to suggest a weekly 20 minutes a day regime? It would be great to have some alternatives to solving tactics problems.

Dear Farbror, Whatever routine you devise for yourself has to be varied and interesting to you. It sounds as though you aren't mixing things up enough. For starters I would schedule in three playing sessions per week of 20 mins each. One session should concentrate on openings, one on tactics, one on endgames perhaps and in the final session I would make notes to your own games, using an analysis engine for company or better still a friend who has constructive comments to make and who is a strong chess thinker. As time goes by, extend the sessions to 25 mins and then 30 minutes etc, say each month. In this way you will keep chess deodorized and prevent yourself from getting stale.

The very best players make chess look easy and are able to take big decisions at any stage of the game. They train themselves to keep it simple wherever and whenever possible. Observe here how Vishy Anand makes a mess of a very strong Grandmaster by sticking to the basics.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 d6?! This is a passive, Steinitz-like approach; it really cannot be recommended to Black, even to very tough defenders. When Black plays this way he's ceding the intiaitive and relying on a mistake; poor strategy.  Anand lays out his pieces simply, accurately and forcefully, reducing Black to an inferior position.

5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bxc6! Bxc6 8.Re1 Simple chess. White takes the centre and obliges Black to look after e5.

8...exd4 What else? 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.h3! A nicety which many players would not observe. White prepares Qf3 without allowing ...Ng4 or ...Bg4.

10...0–0 11.Qf3! Now Black has problems. White threatens further centralization with Bf4 and Rad1, in turn menacing e4-e5! Nf5 or Nd5 is also on the menu. Black is completely passive.

11...Re8 [11...c6 is similar, but doesn't solve the problems: 12.Bf4 Qb6 13.Rad1 Rad8 (13...Qxb2 14.Rb1 Qa3 15.Nd5+-) 14.b3 Rfe8 15.Re3 Bc8 16.Red3 h6 17.Nde2 Qc7 18.Ng3 Nd7 19.Qe3 Nf8  Lanka,Z-Callergard,R Jyvaskyla 1991 and now 21 Qxa7 is good as well as the game move 21 Nh5.] 12.Bf4 c6 13.Rad1 An ideal piece deployment for White. Black struggles to create effective counterplay.

13...Qb6 14.Nb3 a5 [14...d5 15.e5 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Qxe4± gives zero compensation for Black.]

15.Bxd6 Bxd6 [If 15...a4 16.Bxe7 Rxe7 17.Nd4 Qxb2 18.Rb1 Qa3 19.Nd5+-]

16.Rxd6 a4 17.Nd2 Qxb2 Black was clearly relying on this move but White's next move is very strong indeed.

18.e5! Qxc2 [18...Bc8 19.Rb1 Qa3 20.Qd3 Rxe5 21.Nc4+-]

19.Re2! Bf5 [19...Qc1+ 20.Kh2]

20.exf6 Rxe2 21.Nxe2 Bg6 22.a3  Why not? White tidies up.

22...Re8 23.Qe3! 1–0 Many Lopez games see Black lashing out at an early stage trying to break White's grip or hoping to weather the storm by playing safe, rather passive moves. Either way the simple approach is best, with centralization, quick effective development and domination of the centre high on the agenda. In our featured game Anand got his pieces on to good squares early and won with ease.