The following is the first article by García on the Antoshin Dutch. The notes and analysis are solely his.

Dutch Defense – Antoshin Variation, Note One
By Hebert Pérez García
Translated by Mitchell A. Stern

"An Interesting Novelty in an Old Variation"

     For many years from time to time I have played the Antoshin Variation of the Dutch Defense. It is one of those variations which is often used because of its “surprise factor” and can still give you good results against experienced opponents. This is especially true when black is granted certain liberties on the kingside. But I must advise the reader not to abuse its surprise value and use it systematically. Remember that “all that glitters is not gold.” 
     The Antoshin variation reached its height in the mid-1960s and was promoted by GM Vladmir Antoshin in a spectacular article called “7.5 out of 8 in the Dutch…” which was translated into several different languages. You can imagine the impact caused by such a title. Furthermore, amongst the victims of Antoshin were GMs Victor Korchnoi and Lev Polugaevsky.
     In future articles I will discuss the various complexities of this complicated variation, but now let us examine the first example cited by Antoshin in his famous article and the theoretical contributions he made to this variation.

(1) Selesniev,A - Antoshin,V [A85]
URS, 1960
[Pérez García,Hebert]
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d6 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Qc7 The characteristic move of the Antoshin, planning to seize the initiative in the center with the ...e5 advance 6.Nf3 e5 7.dxe5!? [Theory recommends 7.0–0! with the dangerous threat of 8. dxe5 followed by 9. e4. However, we will first occupy ourselves with this alternative. The disadvantage of the exchange on e5 is that it frees black's king bishop] 7...dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4! putting pressure on the important e4-square 9.Qb3 good alternatives are [9.Qc2 or; 9.Bd2] 9...Na6 10.e4 according to Antoshin, this is a dubious try to open up the game at the cost of a pawn. Nevertheless, I don't think this is the last word on this idea 10...fxe4 11.Ng5 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Bf5 13.Re1? after this error, black dominates the game and white's position is very poor. The rest of the game leads to a premature conclusion. The next example revitalized white's plan and led to a re-evaluation of the pawn sacrifice. 13...Nc5 14.b4 Nd3 15.Re2 0–0 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.Rxe4 Nxf2 19.Rxe5 Rad8 20.c5 Qf7 21.Bg5 Rd3 0–1

     In the semi-finals of the 1981 Dutch Championship, I played against Dutch IM Leon Pliester, who unleashed an interesting and strong novelty:

(2) Pliester,L - Pérez García,H [A85]
NED-ch sf Eindhoven, 1981
[Pérez García,Hebert]
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d6 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Qc7 6.Nf3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4  9.Qb3 Na6 10.e4 fxe4 11.Ng5 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Bf5 13.f3! This is Pliester's novelty. The opening of the position definitely compensates for the invested material. White's pieces are ready to exploit their own strengths and to take advantage of black's weak dark squares. If these impressions are correct, then this line raises serious concern for the Antoshin system 13...Nc5 14.fxe4 Bg6 15.Qe3 Qe7 16.b3 0–0 17.Ba3± Pliester went on to finish the game in a convincing manner 1-0

     Although we now have an abundance of databases with millions of games, I had not found any other relevant practical examples since my game against Pliester. Fifteen years after that encounter, I had the apportunity to introduce an improvement for black which appears to have theoretical value.  

(3) Obers,F - Pérez García,H [A85]
Enschede Tt KNSB (9), 1995
[Pérez García,Hebert]
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d6 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Qc7 6.Nf3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.e4 Bb4 9.Qb3 Na6 10.0–0 Bd6!? This is my novelty! With the text move, black consolidates the central e5-pawn and wins time for the centralization of the Na6 due to the vulnerable position of the Qb3 (threat: Nc5). 11.Qc2 g6! 12.Re1 0–0 13.Qe2 The queen must find a more suitable spot to prevent black's tactical threats 13...Nc5 [Also deserving of consideration were the lines after 13...fxe4 14.Ng5 Bg4 15.Qc2 Nc5 etc.] 14.Bh6 [14.exf5 would have been bad because of 14...Bxf5 15.Nxe5 Rae8 16.f4 Nd3 with excellent play for black] 14...Re8 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Rad1? [16.Bg5 was the correct move. This position is critical in determining the merits of black's opening] 16...Ne6?! [16...e4 was better and would have given black a clear advantage] 17.Be3 Bg4 18.h3?? this grave error costs white the game [White ought to have played 18.Qc2 or; 18.Qd3] 18...Nd4 19.Rxd4 exd4 0–1

       This practical example provides a strong incentive to give 10…Bd6!? further attention and more detailed analysis. For the moment this is my own conclusion, the reader may think differently. Your suggestions are most welcome.

Quote:


This does look like a fun line to throw White for a loop.  Can't the queen on c7 work its way over to the kingside along the seventh rank after the inevitable e5?  I'm sure it is slower than it would be in most lines of the IZ or Leningrad, but it does look as though this line would make for an intriguing secondary line...

This looks like fascinating stuff. If anyone is interested, I can translate some of the Garcia analysis from the link provided by TalJechin.

Long live my old sources. Schwarz (1964) and Taimanov (1980) mention the Antosjin Variation. Both are suspicious, because of 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.c4 c6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Nf3 (or 6.d5 Lilienthal-Saizev, Jalta 1964) e5 7.o-o and according to T Black has a weak pawn after Be7 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.e4. In stead e4 8.Ne3 Be7 9.f3 was good for White in Udovcic-Antosjin,1964.

Fascinating! I'm not qualified to say when this system might be good but I can tell you that Antoshin played it numerous times with good results! Have a look at these games:

Etruk--A, Leningrad 62
Udovcic--A, Leningrad 64
Bertok--A, Zagreb 65
Golovko--A, Moscow 70
Filipovic--A, Rubinstein Memorial 70
Szabo--A, Budapest 73
Romanishin--A, Cienfuegos 77
Moehring--A, Sochi 79
Grigorian--A, Baku 80
Vaganian--A, Moscow 82
Gulko--A, Moscow 82
Aseev--A, Moscow 82 (a L'grad with an early ...g6/...c6)
Vyzmanavin--A, Moscow 84