An historical bit:  in (Scottish IM) David Levy's 1972 Dragon book, 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.Bb3 was regarded as inaccurate due to 10...Nxd4 -- "Parma's equalizing finesse."

XChess1971 wrote on 09/26/16 at 14:50:02:


Why do you call this the Parma Variation? He never played it - the first one who did on a regular basis and with success is the Hungarian GM and champion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C5%91z%C5%91_Forintos

His variation is very similar to the Topalov Variation. If White insists on castling queenside it's even better, because by no means it's clear that the rook belongs on c8. At the other hand in the Forintos Variation White still can castle kingside and imo those positional lines are critical. The Forintos Variation is especially important because White has to deal with it if he/she wants to play the Yugoslav against the Accelerated Dragon: after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O White is almost forced to play 8.Bb3.

Throughout the years I have understood that a knight on e5 is always needed. It defends the kingside an is ready to attack on the queenside. White looks for a positional way to put pressure on black's position nowadays (9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.Kb1).

Two things are important in the Yugoslav attack for black.

1.-Get a faster counterplay on the queenside or you will be busted.
2.-Keep control of the white bishop (9.Bc4) or exchange it without giving any positional advantages to White.

The Topalov system (9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.Nd5) has a bunch of forced moves that even a GM can forget. Maybe in correspondence it can have a better effect. So a much more practical choice is needed.
The Parma Variation might be a better option where black is already playing on the queenside (9.Bc4 Bd7 10.Bb3 Nx4 11.Bxd4 b5) and it is less forced. This option is only if White plays 10.Bb3 at once.
On 10.h4 h5 should be fine.
Developments of the Na5 have been tried such as in the Chinese Dragon. Nowadays the attack with g4, h4, and h5 without Kb1 asks black the question of the viability of this system.

Over three decades ago Qa5 (inserting the queen on the queenside at once!) was played:

a) 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Qa5 11.h4 Ne5 12.Bb3 Rfc8. This system has suffered setbacks.
b) 9.Bc4 Qa5 threatening Qb4, and after white moves the bishop to "b3" would give us the option ...Nxd4 and in case of white taking Bxd4? black would continue ...Nxe4!. After 10.0-0-0 (protecting the Nd4) many games continued 10...Bd7 11.h4 Ne5 12.Bb3 Rfc8.

So 9.Bc4 Qa5 10.0-0-0 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Be6 12.Bb3 sounds like a very interesting option for black to me.

It can even be reached from 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O (7...Qa5!?) 8. Bb3 d6 9. f3 Qa5 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Be6 12.0-0-0 or 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Qa5 11.Qd2 Be6 12.0-0-0 or 9...Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Be6 11. Qd2 Qa5 12. O-O-O

By getting Qa5 you cut white with the possibility of playing Nd5.

Two model games:
============

Karpov, Anatoly - Gik, Evgeny 1-0
B79 Moscow-ch MGU      
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Bc4 Nc6 9. Qd2 Qa5 10. O-O-O Bd7 11. h4 Ne5 12. Bb3 Rfc8 13. h5 Nxh5 14. Bh6 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 Rxc3 16. bxc3 Qxc3 17. Ne2 Qc5 18. g4 Nf6 19. g5 Nh5 20. Rxh5 gxh5 21. Rh1 Qe3+ 22. Kb1 Qxf3 23. Rxh5 e6 24. g6 Nxg6 25. Qxh7+ Kf8 26. Rf5 Qxb3+ 27. axb3 exf5 28. Nf4 Rd8 29. Qh6+ Ke8 30. Nxg6 fxg6 31. Qxg6+ Ke7 32. Qg5+ Ke8 33. exf5 Rc8 34. Qg8+ Ke7 35. Qg7+ Kd8 36. f6 1-0

Grischuk, Alexander - Nakamura, Hikaru ½-½
B77 1st FIDE GP London 2012      
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Be6 11. Bb3 Qa5 12. O-O-O Rfc8 13. Kb1 b5 14. Rhe1 Bxb3 15. cxb3 Rab8 16. Rc1 a6 17. g4 Rc6 18. h4 Rbc8 19. a3 b4 20. Na2 Rxc1+ 21. Rxc1 Rxc1+ 22. Nxc1 h5 23. g5 Nd7 24. Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Nd3 Ne5 26. Nxb4 Nxf3 27. Qc3+ Ne5 28. Qc8 Nf3 29. Qc3+ Ne5 30. Qc8 Nf3 31. Qc3+ Ne5 1/2-1/2

Opinions are welcome!