Grandmaster Repertoire

Leningrad Dutch
By

Mihail Marin
To my late mother, who used to tell me:
“Play beautifully, Bobiță!”

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents
Symbols & Bibliography 4
Preface 5
Introduction – Structures and Strategy 7

7...£e8
1 Move 8 Sidelines 28
2 8.¦e1 63
3 8.b3 96

8.d5 Main Line

4 Introduction to 8...¤a6 115
5 9.¦b1 148
6 11.dxc6 164

Other Lines
7 6.b3 200
8 6th Move Deviations 231
9 6.¤h3 259
10 4.c4 and 4.¤h3 291
11 Rare Fianchetto Lines 321

Variation Index 339

 Preface

The magic of the Leningrad Dutch has accompanied my chess career for several decades.

For a relatively short time, about one or two years, this was my main opening against 1.d4 during
my teenage years, sometime around 1980. At that age I was not mature enough to understand
its strategic subtleties and I soon switched to more natural systems. But I kept following the
theoretical developments in the Leningrad Variation, in the 80s and early 90s, and also chose a
few “personal heroes”. Malaniuk’s rigorousness in standard positions was highly instructive, while
Beliavsky’s fighting spirit added colour to this strategic opening. But my absolute champion was
Mikhail Gurevich, whose games gave an impression of fluency, with harmonious connections
between the wings and a perfect balance between dynamic and static elements.

Later, as an experienced player, I started using the Leningrad system occasionally in the early
90s, without bothering to study theory more than superficially. I had a feeling that I could find
my own way in positions with complex pawn play. The only reason why I did not play it more
frequently was the fear that, without thorough study, some of the lines examined in Volume 2
(such as 2.¤c3, 2.¥g5 or even 2.e4, for example) would be problematic. This is why for a long
time most of my occasional Dutch games started with 1.d4 d6 or 1.c4 f5.

The following episode helped me to understand my inner feelings about this opening. During
an important knockout tournament, I needed a draw with Black against a difficult opponent
to qualify for the final. Without hesitation, I chose the Leningrad Dutch and achieved my aim.
My friend WIM Angela Dragomirescu asked me why I decided to play such a risky opening. “I
always play the Leningrad when I need to win,” I replied and after a brief hesitation added, “or if
I need to make a draw.” We both instantly understood the paradox involved in my answer, and
started to laugh. Indeed, no one ever needed to lose!

But then I understood what all this was about. In order to be successful with the Dutch, one
needs full focus and determination. The first move is very committal and Black needs to play
accurately in order to prove it is useful for the global plan.

When Quality Chess suggested the project that resulted in these two companion volumes, I
was pleased by the idea that I would finally have the opportunity to examine this old favourite
opening thoroughly, something I had failed to do over the past decades.

My fears regarding the early deviations disappeared, and I became so deeply involved in the world
of the Leningrad that in five consecutive tournaments early in 2019 I played 1...f5 in all my
6 Grandmaster Repertoire – Leningrad Dutch

games, except those starting with 1.e4. I actually adopted a similar strategy with White, starting
all my games in those tournaments with 1.f4.

This first volume examines all the important systems involving g2-g3. Many decades of theoretical
investigation and over-the-board practice have established these as the main lines against the
Dutch.

I am now better prepared to play the Leningrad on a regular basis in the future and I hope that
these two volumes will also encourage the reader to do so.

Mihail Marin
Bucharest, March 2021
 
Ç
96 Æ  

er
a pt Å   
Ä   

7...£e8
à   
Ch
Â  
3 Á 
À  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ

8.b3
Variation Index
1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.b3
8...¤a6!?

A) 9.¥b2 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.e4 f4! 101

A1) 12.¤d5 102
A2) 12.gxf4 103
B) 9.¦e1 104
C) 9.¥a3 108

A) note to move 12 B) note to 11.¥a3!N C) after 18.bxc4

  
   
      
      
       
    p    
       
       
          
  
13...¤d7!N 11...f4!N 18...¦b7!N
 Chapter 3 – 8.b3 97

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.0–0 After going through the lines recommended
0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.b3 below, one might ask whether this is a
This is the last move we need to cover before good moment to try to transpose with
we reach the main line of 8.d5, which we shall 10...f4, having avoided the pinning 9.¥a3
see in Chapters 4-6. as examined in line C. The problem is that
While working on this book, I eventually White no longer needs to spend a tempo
learned that this apparently inoffensive move, on ¦e1, and can simply win an exchange
which does not take any direct measures with 11.¤d5 ¤a6 12.¥a3 ¦f7 13.¤g5 ¦d7
against Black’s ...e7-e5, requires very accurate 14.¥h3± as 14...¦d8 runs into: 15.¤e7†
play from Black. If White’s only intention was ¢h8 16.£xd8! £xd8 17.¤f7#
developing the bishop to b2, things would be 11.¤d5!
simple for Black, but we also have to be ready The only challenging move.
for ¥a3, which, if played at the right moment, If 11.¥a3 ¦f7 12.exf5 ¥xf5, possibly followed
could be unpleasant. by ...¦d8, Black’s position is preferable
already, as their pieces are very active.
8...¤a6!? 11...£d7
Choosing this move came as a result of a This is held to be Black’s most reliable move.
long, and at times painful, process. Before While defending the pawn on c7, the queen
we get to the analysis of my recommended also establishes contact with the g7-bishop,
move, I will explain the main reasons for my in view of the probable opening of the long
disappointment about the lines I had tried diagonal and a bishop exchange; this move
initially. Of course this is a repertoire book, also keeps the d8-square clear for the rook.
but I believe that the following “rejected lines” The obvious drawback of this move is that it
will enhance the reader’s understanding of the blocks the bishop on c8, but until recently
Leningrad. White had not been able to question the
viability of this plan.
The critical move is supposed to be: 
8...e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.e4 Ç 
 Æ 
Ç Å  
Æ   Ä  
Å    Ã  
Ä    Â  
à   Á  
Â   À  
Á   ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
À   12.exf5 e4 13.¤g5 gxf5
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Throughout the decades, White has tried
10...¤c6 several moves here, leading to entertaining
Black’s wish to bring this knight closer to d4 play with mutual chances. Only recently
is natural, but now White’s knight also gets a was the most troublesome move played in a
stable post on d5. couple of games.
98 7...£e8

14.¦b1!? Both games went this way, but 16.¥b2N is

The rook evacuates the exposed diagonal, also worth mentioning: 16...£xd5 17.£h5
keeping flexibility with respect to the way h6 18.¤xe4 £f7 19.£xf7† ¢xf7 20.¤c5 c6
White will develop the queen’s bishop. In 21.¦fe1² With the better development and
certain cases ¦b2-d2 may also be an issue. structure.
Even though this move looks very neutral, 
it has the merit of taking measures against Ç 
Black’s attempts to break free using forcing
variations, and reveals the fact that Black’s
Æ 
queenside development is anything but easy Å    
to complete. Ä  
14...¤xd5 Ã   
14...h6 only helps White’s knight to reach a Â   
better square: 15.¤h3 ¤xd5 16.cxd5 ¤b4
17.¥a3 a5 18.¤f4² With perfect control for
Á  
White. À 
14...¦d8 15.¦b2 ¤xd5 16.cxd5 £xd5 The ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
intermediate capture on b2 would weaken 16...£xd5
the king and increase the strength of The text move is somewhat better than
£d1-h5. 17.£h5 h6 In the absence 16...c5 17.£h5 h6 when in Gupta – Bajarani,
of the bishop, this move would not be Al Ain 2015, White missed 18.¤e6!N ¤xe6
available. 18.¦d2 ¤d4 19.¦fd1! White 19.dxe6 £e8 20.£h4 £xe6 21.¥xc5 ¦e8
keeps increasing the pressure without 22.¦fd1± with a persistent initiative and a
caring about the knight on g5, which has lead in development.
already contributed to the weakening of the 17.£h5
kingside. 19...hxg5 20.¦xd4 ¥xd4 21.¥f1 Another way of retaining the initiative
 is: 17.f3 h6 18.fxe4 £e5 19.¤f3 ¤xf3†
20.£xf3 fxe4 21.£xe4 ¦xf1† 22.¦xf1 £xe4
Ç  23.¥xe4 c6 24.¦f4² Black will most likely
Æ    lose the h6-pawn, but should be able to
Å     generate some counterplay with the rook.
Ä  17...h6
à    
Â    Ç 
Á    Æ   
À   Å    
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Ä 
With Black’s king weak and the d4-bishop à   
under an unpleasant pin, Black cannot Â   
satisfactorily parry the combined attack
of all White’s pieces. For instance: 21...b5
Á  
(preventing ¥c4) 22.¥e3 c5 23.¥xb5+– À  
15.cxd5 ¤d4 16.¥e3 ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
 Chapter 3 – 8.b3 99

18.¤xe4 £f7 19.£xf7† ¦xf7 11.¦xc3 and now, instead of the usual
19...¢xf7?! is rather pointless: 20.¤c5 c6 11...f4, I discovered that Black’s best is
21.¦bd1± With a perfect regrouping and 11...a5!? preparing either ...¤b4 or ...a4,
the better structure for White in Peralta – and keeping the kingside break in reserve.
Kholopov, Sitges 2018. 9...e5
20.¤c3 
With the black king’s rook active, 20.¤c5 Ç
is less effective: 20...¤e2† 21.¢h1 f4
22.gxf4 c6 23.¦bd1 ¥f5 with reasonable
Æ  
compensation for the pawn. Å  
20...¤c2 21.¥d2 c6 22.¤e2² Ä   
Followed by ¤f4 with very pleasant play. Ã   
In this line I have mentioned a few Â  
alternatives for White to prove that finding a
completely satisfactory defence for Black is far
Á 
from easy. If there had been just one critical À  
position, it would have made sense to try to ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
fix it. 10.¤d5!N
This untested move offers White a clear
For quite a long time I was tempted to advantage.
recommend the following move as our Most of the games continued 10.dxe5
repertoire choice: dxe5, with adequate play for Black. The
8...¤c6 main difference is made by the open d-file.
I was close to believing that this was the best Concretely, it is worth comparing 11.¤d5
way to continue, but at the last moment I ¦f7 12.¤g5 ¦d7 13.e4 h6 with the similar
noticed an untried idea which ruins the line below with the d-pawns still on the
whole system. board.
 10...¦f7 11.¤g5 ¦d7 12.e4
Ç 
Æ   Ç
Å   Æ 
Ä    Å  
à    Ä  
Â   Ã  
Á  Â   
À   Á  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ À  
9.¥b2 ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
In practice, 9.¥a3 is slightly more popular As in the line starting with 8...e5, a black major
and achieves far better results, which explains piece blocks the c8-bishop’s development.
why I dedicated a lot of time to checking it. Things are in fact even worse now, as the rook
My main line went 9...¤e4 10.¦c1 ¤xc3 on d7 has no prospects at all.
100 7...£e8

12...h6

There are several ways of releasing the Ç
tension, but none of them offers Black an Æ  
easy life: 12...¤xd4 13.¥xd4 h6 14.¤xf6† Å  
¥xf6 15.¤h3 exd4 16.exf5 gxf5 17.¤f4 Ä   
As in other lines above, White is better à   
developed and has attacking chances against
the weakened black kingside. Black’s extra
Â   
pawn does not count for much. Á  
12...¤xd5 13.cxd5 ¤xd4 leads to similar À  
play: 14.¥xd4 exd4 15.exf5± followed by ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
¦e1 and/or ¤e6 soon. Here and in the similar line above, Black
If 12...¤xe4 then the best reply is 13.¥xe4! could instead have taken on e5 with a piece,
fxe4 14.¤xe4, putting strong pressure on f6. but this would yield White a positional
14...£d8 15.£d2 ¦f7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.f4 advantage without the need to prove any
¥f5 18.¤g5± With a strong initiative. concrete ideas.
13.¤xf6† ¥xf6 17.¥xc6!
 With the rook on f7 this works out very well.
Ç 17...bxc6
The point is that 17...£xc6 runs into:
Æ   18.¤d8 ¥xd8 19.£xd8† ¦f8 20.£h4±
Å   With better development and a strong attack
Ä    with opposite-coloured bishops.
à   18.¤c5
Â    Black’s whole structure is weak and the
Á   bishop on c8 is no guarantee of a successful
counterattack.
À   18...f4 19.£h5 ¥g7 20.¦ae1 ¥f5 21.g4 ¥h7
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ 22.f3±
Things would be fine for Black if White did
not have: There is a more flexible move that I considered,
14.¤e6! ¦f7 before choosing 8...¤a6 as our main
Defending the bishop in order to avoid continuation, namely:
a later pin along the long diagonal, but 8...c6
exposing the rook.
If 14...¦e7 then: 15.exf5 gxf5 16.dxe5 dxe5

17.¤f4 ¥g7 18.¤d5± Ç
The knight is not really edible: 14...£xe6 Æ  
15.d5± followed by dxc6, exf5 and ¥xc6. Å  
15.exf5 gxf5 16.dxe5 dxe5 Ä   
à   
Â  
Á 
À  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
 Chapter 3 – 8.b3 101

If 9.¥a3 ¤a6 then play would transpose The start of the thematic kingside attack,
to line C below, but my main worries are involving a pawn sacrifice. We will examine
connected with: A1) 12.¤d5 and A2) 12.gxf4.
9.¦e1 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.e4
In line B below we have almost the same Maintaining a neutral policy would allow
position, but with ...¤a6 instead of ...c7-c6. I Black to consolidate the position. For instance:
find the former more useful, as it contributes 12.£e2 c6 13.¦ad1 £e7 14.¦fe1 ¤h5 15.a3
to development while also ensuring the ¥g4 16.b4 ¤c7µ White had no obvious way
safety of the c7-square. Continuing the line to free himself from the pressure in Haessler –
a few more moves, we can see that Black Ehlvest, Las Vegas 2009.
cannot do without the knight move anyway.
11...f4 12.gxf4 ¤h5 12.h3
Or if 12...¥g4 13.¥a3 ¦f7 14.h3 and White This would waste a tempo and weaken the
is clearly better. kingside.
13.f5 ¤a6 14.¥a3 ¦f7 15.¤g5 ¦d7 16.£g4± 12...c6 13.£e2
Black’s planned counterplay has lost its 
momentum. Ç
Æ  
After that explanation of why the alternatives Å 
were lacking, we will return to my
recommended move 8...¤a6:
Ä    
à  
 Â 
Ç Á 
Æ   À   
Å   ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
Ä    13...¤d7!N
Over-defending e5 in order to prepare
à    ...¤ac5-e6.
Â   The kingside pawn assault is not too effective:
13...h6 14.¦ad1 g5 15.gxf4 g4? 16.hxg4
Á  ¥xg4 17.f5 ¤h5 18.£e3± Black did not
À   have enough compensation for the pawn in
Batchuluun – Fier, Abu Dhabi 2017. Instead
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ of 15...g4?, 15...gxf4 is better, but White
We will examine A) 9.¥b2, B) 9.¦e1 and retains the better chances with 16.¤h4²
C) 9.¥a3. due to Black’s lagging development and
weaknesses on the light squares.
A) 9.¥b2 14.¥a3 ¦f7 15.¤a4 ¤c7=
Black has comfortable play.
This neutral move allows Black to display some
typical ideas under favourable circumstances. We will not examine 12.¥a3 as this would lead
to similar play as in line B, but with a tempo
9...e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.e4 f4! less (¦e1) for White.
102 7...£e8

A1) 12.¤d5 15...exf4

 After the queen has developed on a passive
square, this recapture is even stronger than
Ç in the main line.
Æ   16.e5
The text move is somewhat better than
Å   16.¥xf6 ¦xf6 17.£c3 £e7 18.¤e5 when
Ä    in Karavade – Vovk, Al Ain 2013, Black’s
à   strongest continuation was: 18...¥h5 19.f3
¦d8µ Black has the better structure and
Â   superior coordination, while the g2-bishop
Á   is clearly suffering from claustrophobia.
16...¥g7 17.¦fe1 £e7³
À   Followed by the knight’s transfer to e6.
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ 
With the knight defending c7, this is not so
effective, as Black can immediately attack the
Ç
intruder. Æ  
Å 
12...c6 13.¤xf6† ¥xf6 14.gxf4 exf4
Without a white rook on e1, this is an entirely Ä    
satisfactory answer, as the white e-pawn does à  
not have its natural support.
Â  
But the following gambit line is also entirely Á  
viable:
14...¥g4!?
À  
 ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
15.¥xf6 ¦xf6 16.£d4
Ç  White tries hard to get some control in the
Æ   centre.
Å 
16...£e7 17.e5 ¦f8 18.£d6N
Ä     The best chance to keep troubles away.
à  The line to have been tested in practice is:
Â   18.h3 ¥f5 19.¦ad1 ¤c5 20.b4 ¤d3 21.c5
Á   (21.¦xd3 ¦ad8–+ wins material) 21...¦ad8
À   22.£c4† £e6 23.£c3 In Postny – Pruijssers,
Belgium 2018, Black could have retained
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ better chances with 23...¦fe8N³, achieving
15.£c2?!
perfect coordination.
White would do better to go all the way:
15.fxe5 ¥xe5 16.¥xe5 ¥xf3 17.£d4 ¦d8 18...¦e8 19.¦fe1 ¥g4 20.¦ad1 ¤c5 21.b4
18.¥d6 £f7= With a probable draw by ¤e6=
perpetual after ...¥xg2 and ...£f3†. With perfect stability for Black.
 Chapter 3 – 8.b3 103

A2) 12.gxf4 16.exd5 ¤f4 17.£d2

 The only square where the queen is not
exposed.
Ç 17...¤xg2 18.¤g5 ¤f4³
Æ   Due to the strong knight on f4, White’s
compact centre does not offer entirely adequate
Å   compensation for the piece.
Ä    
à   13...¦d8 14.¤d5 ¥h5 15.¥xe5!N
The only move to keep White in the game.
Â  
Á   15.fxe5? ¤d7µ led to a familiar picture in Zult
– Riemersma, Amsterdam 2012.
À   
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Ç  
This leads to entertaining play, but does not
offer chances of an advantage either. Æ  
12...¥g4 13.h3
Å  
Continuing the pawn-grabbing is likely Ä  
to cause White serious problems, as it offers à  
Black the time to invade the weak squares:
13.fxe5 Â 
In Moehring – Mainka, Senden 1999, Black Á  
should have played:
13...¦d8N 14.£e2
À  
Or if 14.¤d5 ¤d7µ followed by ...¤xe5, ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
with overwhelming play on the dark squares. The strategic plot after the last move is clear.
14...¤h5 15.¤d5 White will try to prove that three pawns are
 stronger than the piece about to be lost on d5,
Ç   while Black will mainly rely on the weaknesses
on f4 and on the dark squares in general to
Æ   challenge that evaluation.
Å  
Ä   15...c6 16.¥xf6
à  Analysis proves that the following optically-
Â   impressive move is less accurate:
16.£d4 ¥xf3!
Á  This is the most precise move order.
À    If 16...cxd5 17.exd5 ¥xf3 18.¥xf3 £d7
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ 19.¢g2 b6 20.¦ad1 £f5 21.¦fe1 ¥h6 the
15...¦xd5! chances are roughly equal.
Eliminating the only defender of the 17.¥xf6!
f4-square.
104 7...£e8

A forced intermediate move, leading to a

long mutual grabbing sequence.
The point is that if 17.¥xf3 then Black can
deviate from the line above with: 17...¤xd5!
18.cxd5 ¥xe5µ
17...¥xg2 18.¥xg7 ¥xf1 19.¥xf8 £xf8
20.¤f6† ¢f7 21.¤d7 £g7 22.¤e5† ¢e8
23.£e3 ¦d3 24.£e1 ¦xh3 25.£xf1 ¦h4
26.¦d1 ¤c5³
Black will retrieve either central pawn, while
keeping the safer king position.

16...¥xf6 17.¤xf6† ¦xf6


Ç  
Æ  
Å 
Ä   
à  
Â 
Á  
À  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
18.£c1 ¤c5 19.¤e5
The text move is slightly more ambitious
than: 19.£e3 ¦d3 20.£xc5 ¥xf3 21.¦ae1
¦xf4= White’s king is weak and the least Black
can expect is to regain the pawn on e4.

19...¤e6 20.f5 gxf5 21.¢h2 fxe4 22.¥xe4

¤f4
Black’s perfect coordination, and the strong
knight on f4 in particular, offers at least enough
compensation for the pawn.
 Abridged Variation Index
The Variation Index in the book is 5 pages long. Below is an abridged version giving just the main
variations, not the sub-variations.

Chapter 1 Chapter 4

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7 1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7
5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.d5
5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 ¤a6
A) 8.b4 30 A) 9.¥e3 120
B) 8.e4 35 B) 9.¤d4 131
C) 8.¤d5 39
D) 8.£b3 51 Chapter 5

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7

Chapter 2
5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.d5
¤a6 9.¦b1 ¥d7
1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7
5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.¦e1
A) 10.b3 149
£f7!
B) 10.b4 152
A) 9.£b3 67 Chapter 6
B) 9.£d3 69
C) 9.b3 73 1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7
D) 9.¤g5 81 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.d5
E) 9.e4 87 ¤a6 9.¦b1 ¥d7 10.b4 c6 11.dxc6 bxc6

Chapter 3 A) 12.b5 165

B) 12.a3 176
1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7
5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.¤c3 £e8 8.b3 Chapter 7
¤a6!?
1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7
A) 9.¥b2 101 5.0–0 0–0 6.b3 d6 7.¥b2 £e8
B) 9.¦e1 104
C) 9.¥a3 108 A) 8.¤bd2 202
B) 8.c4 212
Chapter 8

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7

5.0–0 0–0

A) 6.b4 232
B) 6.¤bd2 240
C) 6.¦e1 252

Chapter 9

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6 4.c4 ¥g7

5.¤c3 0–0 6.¤h3 e6!?

A) 7.¤f4 261
B) 7.0–0 263
C) 7.d5 286

Chapter 10

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6

A) 4.c4 ¥g7 5.¤c3 0–0 292

A1) 6.e4 293
A2) 6.e3 295
B) 4.¤h3 299

Chapter 11

1.d4 f5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 g6

A) 4.¤d2 322
B) 4.c3 327
C) 4.¤c3 336