To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Philidor Defence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philidor Defence
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
d6 black pawn
e5 black pawn
e4 white pawn
f3 white knight
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
d2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6
ECOC41
Named afterFrançois-André Danican Philidor
ParentKing's Knight Opening
Synonym(s)Philidor's Defence

The Philidor Defence (or Philidor's Defence) is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6

The opening is named after the famous 18th-century player François-André Danican Philidor, who advocated it as an alternative to the common 2...Nc6. His original idea was to challenge White's centre by the pawn thrust ...f7–f5.

Today, the Philidor is known as a solid but passive choice for Black, and is seldom seen in top-level play except as an alternative to the heavily analysed openings that can ensue after the normal 2...Nc6. It is considered a good opening for amateur players who seek a defensive strategy that is simpler and easier to understand than the complex positions that result from an opening such as the French Defence.

The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings code for Philidor Defence is C41.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    150 641
    179 195
    46 331
    45 420
    79 569
  • Chess openings - Philidor Defence
  • Philidor Defense - Chess Openings
  • Introduction to the Philidor Defense
  • Philidor Defense Explained | Ultimate Beginner Guide to King Pawn Openings Part 1
  • Deconstructing The Philidor Defence | The Sensei Speedrun | Grandmaster Naroditsky

Transcription

Welcome back to Chessopenings.com. Today's video is about the Philidor's defense. The Philidor's defense is a reply to the king's pawn opening which begins with the moves, pawn to e4, pawn to e5, knight at 3 and now pawn to d6, the Philidor's defense. In the Philidor's defense, by defending the pawn on e5 with a pawn, Black avoids some of the usual hassles associated with the move, knight to c6, and then often bishop b5 waiting to the Ruy Lopez. And yet by playing the move, pawn to d6, Black immediately gives up some of his development potential especially regarding the bishop on f8. We'll get a chance to ponder the implications of this and other things during this video. Let's take a look. The Philidor's defense is employed by Black in the king's pawn game after the moves, e4, e5, knight at 3, and now instead of knight c6 which would be the main line, Black plays d6 and we have the Philidor's defense, the subject of this video. The Philidor's defense is regarded as a somewhat inferior approach to the defense of the e5 pawn. The reasons for this have to do with the fact that bishop on f8 can no longer find an active location outside of the pawn chain, and unlike the move, knight c6, which is the main move, Black has done nothing to increase his defense over the important d4 square, and we'll see that White is able to make use of this factor in just a moment. On the other hand, because Black has defended the pawn with a pawn, he will find that he does not have to create any weakness for some time to come. Also Black's development tends to flow quite naturally from this position, and it is possible that White may find himself caught by an opponent who knows the ins and outs of this system a little bit better. Today we'll take an upbeat approach to the White side of this position and look at some of the strategic trumps that White has in his favor. Now at this point White nearly always takes the opportunity to place the strategically valuable move, pawn to d4, and this practically forces Black to play pawn takes pawn on d4, and White recaptures with knight take d4 reaching the following position. The exchange of pawns which took place on the square d4 has benefited White in a couple of ways. In the first place, the move, d2 to d4, itself contributes to the development by increasing the scope of the dark squared bishop and of the queen. Also, White has eliminated Black's most advance central pawn and this leaves White with space advantage in the center. White's bishops each possess a full range of possible squares, whereas Black's bishops, particularly his dark squared bishop. are harder to deploy actively, and due to the exchange on d4 White has gained a free move to bring his knight to a more centralized square on d4, and this also contributes to the mobility of the F pawn which can be used aggressively with f2 to f4 or for defensive purposes with f2 to f3 defending the e4 pawn. This position has much in common with the Open Sicilian, but notes the important difference that Black does not have an open C file, but instead an open E file. In some ways, this is useful for Black, since he may be able to pressure the e4 pawn along the E line. But mostly, this factor dampens Black's chances of counter-play, since he does not have the pawn majority in the center, nor does he have the open C file, that are the hallmarks of counter-play in the Sicilian. Now if Black's major issue is the deployment of his dark squared bishop, why then doesn't he simply play g6, and deploy the bishop on g7? It turns out that the move, g6, is a little bit to weakening for the king side pawn cover, and White can directly exploit this fact by first setting up his pieces in a standard attacking formation. This goes knight c3, bishop g7, bishop to e3, knight at 6, queen e2, preparing the queen side castling, Black castles king side, and now White castles queen side. And with the White king safely tucked away on the queen side, White is now able to use his pawns and all of his pieces in an attack against the weakened king side. And one way to do this is to use the g6 pawn as a hook for this attack. White can do this by playing for f3, g4, and h4 to h5 preparing to bring the rook into the attack by opening the file. White can also assist this plan with bishop h6, exchanging bishops on the dark squares, and then making use of the dark squares, in order to continue his attack. Now, if you're familiar with the Sicilian dragon, you'll know that this position is very similar and you'll know that all of these things are difficult enough to deal with in the Sicilian. But here, it's going to be even more difficult, because Black does not have the open C file, which assists Black in the Sicilian dragon, in gaining rapid compensating pressure on White's position. Therefore, the move, g6, simply turns out to be to weakening, and White can exploit this by castling queen side and setting up his pieces and pawn to directly exploit the weakened king side. Instead, Black almost universally plays knight to f6, and then after knight c3 he plays bishop to e7. And this is a very instructive moment, since White now has quite a few options of about how to proceed. Black's position has no weaknesses, but he also has some problems finding active plans for his pieces, and cannot easily threaten White. White's first goal is to maintain his pleasant spatial advantage. In this position, that means White will want to ensure that Black does not achieve a successful d5 break. Just as important, White wants to be sure that the e4 pawn receives adequate protection. While restraining Black's active possibilities, White will want to develop a plan of gradually developing an attack against the Black position. One attractive option for White in this position is to play the move, bishop f4, and this combines attack with restraint of the opponent's possibilities. The first basic goal of this move, bishop f4, is simply to help prepare queen side castling, and White will do this with the move, queen b2. But after the moves castling king side and queen to d2, another hidden point of the bishop's placement of f4 is revealed. Black's pawns on the queen side lacks some mobility due to this aggressive placement. For example, Black cannot even really think of the move, pawn to c5, since after knight D to b5, the attack on the d6 pawn would be too strong, and this fact arises partly because of the bishop's active placement on f4. Another example of this same point is that many strong players have also tried the move, pawn to d5, but here, too, the simple reply knight D to b5 has been found to be a very adequate reply, and this again stems from the aggressive placement of the bishop on f4. On the other hand, White is prepared to advance his king side pawns forward, and to push Black backwards, and also to potentially look for opportunities to create a breach in Black's king side pawn cover. So an example of how play may continue after queen b2, is simply knight to c6 preparing to create a square on e6 for the bishop, castling queen side, knight takes knight on d4, queen takes knight on e4. And now after bishop e6 and pawn to f3, White is ready to continue his plan with g2 to g4. Black has still not gotten very far in creating active possibilities for himself and so White has some advantage. Bishop f4 then, is a promising plan for White against the Philidor defense. Another promising idea White has is g3, which very logically extends support to the e4 and d5 squares. In fact, White has an excellent score with this plan, since the clamp's positions will be very hard for Black to find a decent planning. Then White can just gradually play for an attack at a later phase of the game. Thus, after Black castles king side, bishop g2, rook e8, castling king side, and now bishop f8 and White often plays h3 here. White generally takes his time positioning his pieces and pawns however he'd like, since White still lacks effective pawn breaks. Quite frequently White still turns to the eventual expansion of his king side pawn majority and wants to create weaknesses near Black's king. g3 and bishop f4 are both in harmony with the overall plan that we described earlier, of restricting Blacks options to move his pawns forward or find any meaningful activity for his pieces, while at the same time preserving a plan, and creating a plan to advance forward into the position. There's one more move I'd like to discuss. Surprisingly, White's most popular move turns out to be, also, his most questionable move, and that move is bishop to e2. It's easy to assume that White will simply complete development, and a plan will surface on its own, probably in the form of f2 to f4. But after castling king side, and castling king side rook e8, White actually finds in this position, that his options are a bit reduced, because Black's pieces will get a little bit of meaningful activity, in the form of an attack on the e4 pawn. In the variations we saw, beginning with bishop to f4, the move, f2 to f3, was a logical part of White's plan since this move would also support the g2 to g4 thrust, which was a logical part of White's attacking ambitions. In the variation with pawn to g3, the defense of this pawn had already been accounted for by the Fianchetto bishop which was on g2. But in this position, White needs to go a little bit more out of his way to make arrangements for the defense of the e4 pawn, and he does not want to play f2 to f3, since the pawn more likely belongs on f4. An example of how play can continue is f4, bishop f8, bishop f3, and now in this position, Black actually can play pawn to c5. The knight must retreat, it cannot go to b5 with any threat, so it must retreat to e2, and then after knight to c6, Black is approximately equal. Black never had to worry about nagging pressure on d6, and for his part White hasn't provided much for his dark squared bishop in the way of meaningful opportunities. In general, White has squandered the benefits of his space advantage, because he's had to take a time-out to defend the e4 pawn. This is an excellent lesson in why prophylactic thinking is an essential component of realizing a space advantage, and this simply means looking ahead at the opponent's ideas and taking them into account while crafting your aggressive plan. I hope you enjoyed this look at the Philidor's defense. We've seen how just a very slight inaccuracy by Black in the opening can be the basis of long- range plans for White. And we've seen how such long ranging plans are formed and also carried out. At the same time, we now have concrete ideas about how to handle these positions with both White and Black. That's all for today. I'll see you next time.

History

In his 1561 book, Ruy Lopez, seeking to debunk Pedro Damiano, advocated 2...d6 as superior to 2...Nc6, on the grounds that 2...Nc6 allows the strong move 3.Bb5, now known as the Ruy Lopez or Spanish Opening. Philidor evidently concurred with this assessment, though he also considered 2.Nf3 inferior to 2.Bc4. Philidor advocated the risky continuation 3.d4 f5!? The Philidor Defence subsequently became a popular opening, though 2...Nc6 remained the most common reply.

The Philidor occurred in one of the most famous games ever played, "The Opera Game" played in 1858 between the American chess master Paul Morphy and two strong amateurs, the German noble Duke Karl of Brunswick and the French aristocrat Count Isouard. The game continued 3.d4 Bg4, a deviation from modern standard lines. The Philidor Defence declined in popularity as positional play became more developed, and it had almost completely vanished from top-tier chess by World War I.

As of 2017, there are no top players who employ the Philidor with regularity, although Étienne Bacrot and Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu have occasionally experimented with it in classical play. Its popularity in master play has increased slightly, however, over the last 20 years. It has also become fairly popular in rapid, blitz, and bullet chess.[1]

Main line: 3.d4

With 3.d4, White immediately challenges Black in the centre. Black has several options.

3...exd4

The most common Black response is 3...exd4 which relieves the central tension, although it gives up the centre. After 4.Nxd4 Nf6 (4...d5 5.exd5, the Paulsen Attack,[2] continues 5...Qxd5 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.Nb5 Na6 8.N1c3+/= Paulsen[3]) 5.Nc3, Black normally continues ...Be7 and ...0-0 (the Antoshin Variation) and achieves a strong defensive position. A sample line is: 5...Be7 6.Bc4 0-0 7.0-0 c5, and the position is equal.

In this line Black can also fianchetto his bishop to g7, although this is uncommon. Bent Larsen tried this in a few games, including a draw against Mikhail Tal in 1969.[4]

Instead of 4.Nxd4, White can play 4.Qxd4, as Paul Morphy favoured, intending 4...Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bg5 followed by 0-0-0. This line was played in many 19th-century games.

Hanham Variation

abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
f8 black rook
g8 black king
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
d7 black knight
e7 black bishop
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
c6 black pawn
d6 black pawn
f6 black knight
e5 black pawn
a4 white pawn
c4 white bishop
d4 white pawn
e4 white pawn
c3 white knight
f3 white knight
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
f1 white rook
g1 white king
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 7...c6. Black's aim in the Hanham is a strongpoint defence of e5.

The other main option for Black is to maintain the central tension and adopt a setup with ...Nd7, ...Be7, and ...c6. This plan is named the Hanham Variation (after the American chess master James Moore Hanham) and was favoured by Aron Nimzowitsch. A common line is: 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 (6.Ng5 is an interesting alternative: after 6...0-0 7.Bxf7+ Rxf7 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qd8 10.Nxa8, White is up material, but Black can develop a strong initiative after, for example, 10...b5 11.Nxb5 Qa5+) 6...0-0 7.a4 (to prevent ...b5) c6 (see diagram).

Grandmaster (GM) Larry Kaufman notes that the Hanham Variation aims to maintain Black's pawn on e5, analogously to closed lines of the Ruy Lopez, and opines that "it would be quite popular and on a par with the major defences to 1.e4, except for the annoying detail that Black can't actually reach the Hanham position by force."[5]

As an alternative to 4.Nc3 in response to Black's 3...Nf6, according to both Kaufman and GM Christian Bauer, White retains some advantage with: 4.dxe5! Nxe4 5.Qd5! (the Rellstab Variation;[6] 5.Nbd2 is the Sokolsky Variation[7]) 5...Nc5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Nc3.[8][9]

Alternative move order

Black sometimes tries 3...Nd7 intending 4.Nc3 Ngf6, reaching the Hanham Variation. But then 4.Bc4! is awkward for Black to meet, since 4...Ngf6 loses to 5.dxe5 Nxe5 (5...dxe5?? 6.Ng5! wins) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 winning a pawn, and 4...Be7 loses a pawn to 5.dxe5 Nxe5 (5...dxe5?? 6.Qd5! wins) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Qh5![8][10] So 4...c6 is best for Black, but leaves White with the advantage of the bishop pair after 5.0-0 Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 (6...Nxe5 loses a pawn to 7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qh5) 7.Ng5! Bxg5 8.Qh5! Qe7 and now 9.Bxg5 or 9.Qxg5.[11]

Black experiments to reach the Hanham Variation

In recent years, Black has experimented with other move orders in an attempt to reach the Hanham Variation while avoiding 3...Nf6 4.dxe5! and 3...Nd7 4.Bc4!

  • One such line is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 intending 4.Nf3 e5. White can deviate, however, with 4.f4!?[12][13] or even 4.g4!?[14]
  • Another try is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 which transposes to the Hanham after 4.Nf3 Nbd7, but White can instead try to gain a small advantage with 4.dxe5 (Kaufman opines that 4.Nge2 is "also promising") 4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4.[13] After 4.dxe5, Bauer concludes that "White stands a trifle better", but that "provided he plays accurately, Black doesn't have much to fear following 6.Bc4, by choosing any of the three valid replies, 6...Ke8, 6...Bb4, or 6...Be6. Then 7.Bxe6 fxe6 his position remains a hard nut to crack."[15]

Philidor Countergambit: 3...f5

abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
d6 black pawn
e5 black pawn
f5 black pawn
d4 white pawn
e4 white pawn
f3 white knight
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Philidor Countergambit: 3...f5!?

A more aggressive approach for Black after 3.d4 is 3...f5!? (diagram), Philidor's original intention and recommendation. In the 19th century, 3...f5 was also played by Paul Morphy. The move can lead to more open positions than the other lines, but is often considered dubious.[16][17] Others maintain that 3...f5 is a valid idea. GM Tony Kosten considers the move respectable in his monograph on the opening.[18] The move was also played by David Bronstein and by Teimour Radjabov.

After 3...f5 White has several ways to proceed:

  • 4.Nc3 (the Zukertort Variation[19]) and White obtains a clear advantage:
    • 4...fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 (if 5...Nf6 6.Nxf6 gxf6 7.dxe5 fxe5 8.Bc4 Qf6 9.Ng5+/− Polugaevsky[20]) 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 Nf6 (if 8...hxg6 9.Qxh8 Be6 10.Qe5+/− Larsen) 9.Qe5+ Kf7 (if 9...Be7 10.Nxh8 Nc6 11.Bb5 Qd5 12.Bg5+/− Zukertort[21]) 10.Bc4+ Kg7 11.Bh6+ Kxh6 12.Nxh8 Bb4+ 13.c3 Qxh8 14.cxb4+/− (Keres).[22]
    • 4...exd4 5.Qxd4 fxe4 (if 5...Nf6 6.e5![23]) 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Nxe4 Be7 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Qe3+/− (Sozin).[24]
    • 4...Nf6 5.dxe5 Nxe4 6.Nxe4 fxe4 7.Ng5 d5 8.e6 Bc5 9.Nxe4!+/− (Sozin, Sokolsky).[23]
  • 4.Bc4 leads to clear advantage for White:
    • 4...exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.0-0 (6.Nxh7, the Jaenisch Variation,[25] leads to an unclear position after 6...Ng4! 7.Nxf8 Kxf8 8.Qxd4 Nc6[26]) 6...Nc6 7.Re1 f4 (or 7...fxe4 8.Nxe4 Ne5 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.f4 Nxc4 11.Nxd6+ +/−) 8.Bxf4 Qf6 9.Qd2 Ne5 10.Be2 Bg4 11.f3 Bd7 12.Bg3 0-0-0 13.f4+/−.[27]
    • 4...Nf6 5.Ng5 Qe7 (or 5...d5 6.dxe5 dxc4 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.exf6+/−) 6.Bf7+ Kd8 7.Bb3 exd4 8.0-0+/− (Berger).[26]
    • 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Nf6 8.Qe5+ Be7 and continuing either 9.Qxe7+,[23] 9.Nxh8 (Steinitz),[27] or 9.Bb5+ (Keres).[27]
  • 4.dxe5 forces Black to complicate matters further with 4...fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 with an unclear position.[27]
    • After 6.e6 (the del Rio Attack[28]), White obtains the upper hand after 6...Bc5 7.Nc3 (the Berger Variation[29]), or 6...Nh6 7.Nc3! (Berger);[30] however, Black can maintain lack of clarity with 6...Nf6!? 7.Nf7 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Bxe6, or 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Bc5 8.Nf7 Qf6 9.Be3 Bxe6 10.Nxh8 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh6 13.Qd2 Nd7 14.c4 Ne5 15.Be2 dxc4 16.Nc3 Nd3+ 17.Bxd3 exd3 (Makarov).[30][31]
    • White also has 6.Nc3!? (Steinitz) and 6.c4.[32]
  • 4.exf5 e4 5.Ng5 Bxf5 6.Nc3 and White has a slight plus after 6...Nf6 7.f3 (Sozin),[33] or 6...d5 7.f3.[23]

3...Bg4?!

Inferior is 3...Bg4?!, in light of 4.dxe5 Bxf3 (Black cannot recapture since 4...dxe5? 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Nxe5 wins a clean pawn; or, Black can gambit a pawn with 4...Nd7, the Albin Variation[34]) 5.Qxf3 (or White can obtain an endgame advantage with 5.gxf3 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.f4+/− Maróczy[35]) 5...dxe5 6.Bc4 giving White the advantage of the bishop pair in an open position as well as a large development advantage. Black cannot block the attack on the f7-pawn with the "natural" 6...Nf6? because White wins a pawn with 7.Qb3 (played in the famous "Opera Game", where Morphy as White refrained from taking the b7-pawn and retained a strong initiative after 7...Qe7 8.Nc3). Black does better with 6...Qf6 7.Qb3 Bc5 8.0-0 Bb6 9.a4 a5 10.Nc3 Ne7 11.Be3 Nd7 12.Rad1+/−, or 6...Qd7!? (Maróczy).[35]

Other 3rd moves for White

An alternative approach for White is 3.Bc4, delaying d2–d4, or forgoing it entirely, playing d2–d3 instead. The move 3.Bc4 is also White's route to a possible Légal Trap. Some continuations:

Against the alternative 3.c3, Black can try 3...f5 (3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 transposes to the Ponziani Opening) 4.exf5 Bxf5 5.Qb3 Nf6 6.Ng5 d5 7.Qxb7 Nbd7 8.Qc6 Bd6 with compensation and initiative.[38]

See also

References

  1. ^ "The Philidor". Chessgames.com.
  2. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 293. Paulsen Attack.
  3. ^ Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 214, n. 19.
  4. ^ "Mikhail Tal vs. Bent Larsen, Eersel NED (1969)". Chessgames.com.
  5. ^ Kaufman 2004, p. 65.
  6. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 334. Rellstab Variation.
  7. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 378. Sokolsky Variation.
  8. ^ a b Kaufman 2004, p. 69.
  9. ^ Bauer 2006, p. 32.
  10. ^ Bauer 2006, p. 16.
  11. ^ Bauer 2006, pp. 17–22.
  12. ^ Bauer 2006, p. 179.
  13. ^ a b Kaufman 2004, p. 199.
  14. ^ Bauer 2006, pp. 197–206.
  15. ^ Bauer 2006, p. 174.
  16. ^ Kaufman 2004, p. 22.
  17. ^ Bauer 2006, pp. 22–32.
  18. ^ Tony Kosten, Winning with the Philidor, Batsford Chess, 1992.
  19. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 460. Zukertort Variation.
  20. ^ Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 21.
  21. ^ Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 197, n. 24.
  22. ^ Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 214, n. 6.
  23. ^ a b c d Korn 1982, p. 16, n. (p).
  24. ^ Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 214, n. 3.
  25. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 185. Jaenisch Variation.
  26. ^ a b Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 14.
  27. ^ a b c d Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 214, n. 2.
  28. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 104. del Rio Attack.
  29. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 36. Berger Variation.
  30. ^ a b Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 10.
  31. ^ Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 13.
  32. ^ Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 9.
  33. ^ Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 8.
  34. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 6. Albin Variation.
  35. ^ a b Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 7.
  36. ^ Matanović 1997 (Vol C), p. 214, n. 1.
  37. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 234. López Countergambit.
  38. ^ a b c Matanović 1981 (Vol C), p. 196, n. 2.
  39. ^ François André Philidor, Analyse du jeu des Échecs, 1749.
  40. ^ Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 398. Steinitz Variation.
  41. ^ Kasparov & Keene 1982, p. 294.

Bibliography

Further reading

External links

This page was last edited on 8 December 2023, at 05:24
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.