Sokolsky/Polish Opening (1.b4) - Bugayev Advance Variation

  • Eugen
  • | Apr 27, 2014 at 10:14 AM
  • | Posted in: Eugen's Blog
  • | 2609 reads

>>Main article: Sokolsky/Polish Opening (1.b4). Basic Opening Theory.<<

After 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 f6 White can choose to avoid the Gambit Variation (3. e4) and advance the b-pawn to 3. b5. This line is known as Bugayev Advance Variation.

As a result Black forms a pawn center and White is planning to undermine it with either d2-d4 or c2-c4. The 4. e3 move prepares both these choices.

The resulting position is very typical of the 1. b4 opening. White is attacking wide front on the queenside and Black achieves his counterplay on the kingside. A possible continuation might be: 8... f5 9. Nh3 Nf6 10. Qb3 0-0 11. Ba3! giving White better chances.

The Bugayev Advance Variation better suits conservative 1. b4 players. Attacking maniacs could consider playing the Gambit lines (see the links below) Cool

>>Main article: Sokolsky/Polish Opening (1.b4). Basic Opening Theory.<<

More about the Sokolsky:
Exchange variation

Czech Defense

Outflank Variation
Main Line

Baltic Defense
King's Indian Variation

German Defense
Ware Defense
Sokolsky Gambit (Accepted)
Sokolsky Gambit (Declined)
Queen's Indian Variation
Dutch Defense

Advance Variation
Birmingham Gambit
Symmetrical Variation
Grigorian Variation


  • 3 years ago


    Here is a nice game with Bugayev advance variation I played against a much higher rated opponent in a 10|0 live chess tournament. White was dominating during the whole game (which is proven by post game analysis), however I  eventually lost mostly because of great defense by my opponent, partly because of my own mistakes and time pressure. 

    I think this game very well illustrates how unprepared your opponent may be against a rare opening. It seems he was just caught off guard. 

  • 3 years ago


    Thanks for the very nice overview.  Not sure I have ever encountered the expression "conservative 1. b4 players"!

  • 3 years ago


Back to Top

Post your reply: