The Australian Attack
by Philip Hair
This article is concerned with the opening line defined by the sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3. There is very little information on this system; standard works on the openings such as Paul van der Sterren’s “Fundamental Chess Openings” do not even mention this opening line. Even the “Encyclopedia of Chess Openings” (ECO) mentions the line only in a brief footnote in section E00. This is what piqued my curiosity about the line: surely it can’t be that bad that it should just be ignored?
Online, in Wikipedia (article on Indian Defence), 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 is referred to as the Australian Attack, although no reason is given for this name. Perhaps an Australian played the system in a notable game? In addition, the move 3.a3 is given the evaluation marks ?!, which signifies a dubious move. However, no reason for this evaluation is given in the Wikipedia article. Most probably, White’s third move is considered to be a loss of a tempo. Concerning this, the English player and author Gerald Abrahams remarked in his book “Not Only Chess”: “It could be loss of tempo: but that would need demonstrating.” The move does, after all, prevent 3…Bb4 by Black, and this move is often Black’s intention after 2…e6.
After some time spent investigating the Australian Attack, it finally dawned on me that this system does not have an independent existence. Games beginning with the Australian Attack move order invariably transpose to already known, established openings.
The opening systems that we are familiar with (such as the Queen’s Gambit, Ruy Lopez, French Defence, Dutch Defence etc.) each have their own corner of opening theory – positions which arise from that opening and no other. There may be some overlap with other openings – e.g. the Scotch Four Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4) can be regarded as the intersection of the Scotch Opening with the Four Knights Opening – but (in this example) both the Scotch and the Four Knights also have their own unique lines of play. In the case of the Australian Attack, however, there is (as far as I can determine) no unique opening theory that belongs to this system and no other – it is all overlap with established openings. This means that the Australian Attack is effectively a portal into certain standard opening systems.
Therefore a key question in the Australian Attack is: which opening system is likely to result from this line of play, and will it be one in which the move a2-a3 is useful?
There are three main third move responses by Black to 3.a3: 3…d5, 3…c5 and 3…b6. The first of these is the one most often seen, transposing to the Queen’s Gambit. The lines of the Queen’s Gambit in which a3 is a useful move are mainly found in the Semi-Tarrasch Defence, where Black plays …Nf6 followed by …c5 and White plays Nf3 and e3 rather than Bg5. For example: analysis of the position arising after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3 (which would also result after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3) makes up most of section D40 in ECO. White has the possibility of dxc5 and, after …Bxc5, playing b4 with gain of space and gain of tempo. The a3 move also prevents the popular Ragozin System (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4).
The second option, 3…c5, has been recommended by the English GM John Emms; Emms considers that the a3 move is of “limited value” in Modern Benoni positions (which feature a White pawn on d5). Normally in the Modern Benoni White prefers to play a4 to counteract Black’s planned …b5 pawn thrust. The a3 move may therefore be more useful to White in positions where the pawn advance d4-d5 has not been played, so moves such as 4.Nf3 or 4.e3 are most likely more appropriate than 4.d5 in response to Black’s 3…c5. In these lines Black will usually take advantage of the vacant d5 square by playing …d5, with transposition to the Queen’s Gambit.
If Black tries 3…b6 in response to 3.a3 then 4.Nf3 transposes to a very respectable line, the Petrosian Variation of the Queen’s Indian Defence, which is normally reached by the sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3. Up to the mid-1960s the late Tigran Petrosian (World Champion 1963-1969) usually played 4.Nc3 and then (after 4…Bb7) 5.a3, but he eventually came to the conclusion that 4.a3 is more precise because Black is prevented from playing 4…Bb4. So there is support from a former World Champion for White to expend a tempo on a2-a3 to prevent …Bb4! A further point to be noted is that knowledge of the Petrosian Variation is essential when playing the Australian Attack, as this line is the most logical and best response to 3…b6.
The main arena of interest in the Australian Attack proper is therefore the Queen’s Gambit with an early a3, as this arises after 3…d5 and also after 3…c5 if White continues with 4.Nf3 or 4.e3 and Black follows up with …d5. And now for some illustrative games. First, a cautionary tale:
Miles - Ribli
1971
1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.e3 dxc4 Transposing to the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. 5.Bxc4 c5 6.Nf3 a6 7.O-O b5 8.Ba2 Bb7 9.Qe2 Nbd7 10.Rd1 cxd4 11.exd4 Be7 12.Nc3 Nb6 D27 in the ECO classification 13.Bg5 (13.Bf4 Rc8 14.Rac1 Nbd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rxc8 Qxc8 - ECO) ) 13...O-O (13...Nbd5 = ECO ) 14.Rac1 Nbd5 15.Bb1 Nxc3 16.Rxc3 Nd5 17.Qc2 g6 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Rc5 Rad8
Moves are clickable
The position is equal, according to Fritz, but in fact this might be a critical position for White. (The bishop at b1 is not achieving much and if White tries 19...Rad8 20.Ne5 then 20...Qg5 21.Nf3 Qe7 creates a repetition. ) ( Strange variations are possible, such as 19...Rad8 20.Rd2 Nf4 21.Rc7 Qxc7 22.Qxc7 Rc8 23.Qe5 Rc1+ 24.Ne1 Nxg2 25.Re2 Rxb1 which shows up the weakness of White’s king’s-side and back rank. ) ( Routine moves lead to loss of the d-pawn, eg 19...Rad8 20.Rc1 Nf4 21.Rc7 Rd7 22.Rxd7 Qxd7 23.Qd2 Qd6 24.Qe3 Bxf3 25.Qxf3 Qxd4 Miles does not seem to find the right solution here; in another four moves he loses the d-pawn without much compensation to show for it. ) 20.Qd2 Nf4! Showing up the weakness of White’s first rank. 21.Rdc1 Qf6 22.Qe3 Bxf3 23.Qxf3 Qxd4 24.g3 Nd3 25.Bxd3 Qxd3 26.Qb7 Rd6 27.Kg2 Qb3 28.Qe7 Rd2 29.R1c3 Qxb2 30.Rf3 Qd4 31.h4 Qd6 32.Qa7 Rd5 33.Rxd5 Qxd5 34.g4 e5 35.Kg3 e4 36.Rf4 Rc8 37.Qe3 Qd3 38.Rxe4 Rc3 39.Qxd3 Rxd3+ 40.Kf4 Rxa3 41.Re8+ Kg7 42.Rb8 Ra4+ 43.Kg3 b4 44.Rb6 a5 45.h5 gxh5 46.gxh5 h6 47.f4 Ra3+ 48.Kg4 b3 49.Kh4 a4 50.f5 Ra1 51.f6+ Kh7 52.Rb7 (52.Rb7 Rh1+ followed by …a3 forces through a passed pawn. ) 0-1
As an antidote to that, here is a quick win by White:
Abrahams - Spencer
1925
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.Nc3 dxc4 Abrahams considers that Black loses a tempo by this move. 5.e3 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bxc4 cxd4 8.exd4 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.b4 D40 in the ECO classification; apparently the game has transposed to the Semi-Tarrasch Defence. 10...b6 (10...Bd7 was seen in Ufimtsev vs Furman, USSR Championship 1950, which continued 11.Bb2 Rc8 12.Bb3 Qc7 13.Re1 Rfd8 14.Rc1 Qb8 15.d5 Be8 16.Qe2 exd5 17.b5 Na5 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Bxd5 Rxc1 20.Bxc1 Bf8 21.Qe4 h6 22.Bf4 Qc8 23.Ne5 Bxa3 24.Ba2 Bf8 25.h3 b6 26.Ng4 Kh8 27.Be5 f5 28.Qf4 Kh7 29.Rc1 Qd7 30.Nxh6 Bc5 31.Nxf5 Bf7 32.Bb1 ) 11.Bb2 Bb7 12.Qd3 Rc8 13.Rad1 Qd6 14.Rfe1 Qf4 Abrahams thinks Black underestimated White’s next move. 15.d5 exd5 If (15...Rfd8 then 16.Qf1 ) 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Rfd8 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Qg4 20.h3 Qh5 21.Qg3
Moves are clickable
21...g6 (21...Bf8 is essential, according to Abrahams. ) 22.Bxf7+ Kxf7 23.Qb3+ Kf8 24.Bg7+ Kxg7 25.Rxe7+ Kh6 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 Abrahams points out that if White’s queen was at a2 rather than b3, Black could win by: (26...Rc1+ 27.Kh2 Rh1+ 28.Kxh1 Qxh3+ forcing mate. With the queen at b3, h3 is covered. ) 27.Rxb7 With a winning game for White. 1-0
In the following rapid game, White did not transpose to the Petrosian Variation after 3…b6, but tried Nc3 followed by d5 and e4 prior to playing Nf3:
Usmanov - Potapov
2019
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.a3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.d5 g6 6.e4 exd5 7.cxd5 Bg7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Nf3 c6 10.O-O cxd5 11.exd5 d6 This is a line of the Queen’s Indian Defence (E12 in ECO) which can also be reached by the more typical move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3 d6 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 g6 8.e4 Bg7 9.Bd3 c6 10.O-O cxd5 11.exd5 O-O 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bf4 Na6 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.Rad1 Nc7 16.Bc4 Qd7 17.Qd3 Rac8 18.h3 Rfd8 19.Rd2 a6 20.Rfd1 b5 21.Ba2 Re8 The position is equal. 22.Ne1 Re7 23.Nc2 Rce8 24.Nb4 Ne4 25.Nxe4 Rxe4 26.Qg3 Be5 27.Bxe5 R4xe5 28.Kh2 Rg5 29.Qc3 a5 30.Nc6 a4 31.f4 White misses (31.g4! +/- when the rook on g5 is in trouble. ) 31...Rf5 32.Rd4 Rc8?! Either 32…Rh5 or 32…Re2 was preferable, when the game is still about equal. 33.g4! White now has the advantage. 33...Nxd5 Black has to give up the exchange because of White’s pressure ( after 33...Rf6 the rook is still very badly placed ) 34.Bxd5 Rxd5 35.Rxd5 Rxc6
Moves are clickable
36.Qf6 (36.Qd3 intending f5 may be better. ) 36...Rc2+?! (36...Qe8 is the best defence, according to Fritz. After 37.R5d2 to defend the second rank, Black can try ( not 37.R1d2 as the first rank is then not defended after 37...Rc1 ) 37...d5 38.Qd4 Re6 with an effective deployment of his forces. ) 37.R5d2 Qc7 38.Kg3 Rxd2 39.Rxd2 Qc6? (39...Bh1 intending …Qb7 is better, but is still very much to White’s advantage after 40.Rxd6 Qb7 41.Rd2 Qa7 42.Qd4 ) 40.Qxf7+ Kh8 41.Qf8+ Kh7 42.Qe7+ Kh8 43.Qf6+ Kh7 44.Qe7+ Kg8 45.Re2 Qf3+ 46.Kh4 1-0
Transposition to a Queen’s Gambit where Black tried …a6 and …b5 didn’t work out for Black in the following game:
Zaitsev - Estrin
1962
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.Nc3 a6 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 c5 This is now a Queen’s Gambit Declined (D35 in ECO) which could also be reached via the sequence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.a3 a6. 8.Nf3 Be7 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.O-O b5 11.a4 bxa4 (11...b4 12.cxb4 cxb4 might be preferable. ) 12.Qxa4 Black now has weak pawns on the queen’s-side. 12...O-O 13.Bf4 Bb7 14.Rfb1 Qc8 15.Qb3 Ra7 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Bf6 18.Ra2 Re8 19.c4
Moves are clickable
White's last move gives him a dominating pawn centre that blocks Black’s white-squared bishop. This, combined with White's pressure on the queen's-side, gives White a significant advantage. 19...g6 20.Nd2 Be5 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Ne4 Qc7 23.Rab2 Ba8 24.Qc3 Re8 25.h3 Rb7 26.Rxb7 Bxb7 27.Bc2 Bc8 28.d6 Qc6 29.Qf3 Kg7 Better is (29...Kf8 ) 30.Nf6! Qxf3 31.Nxe8+ Kf8 32.gxf3 Kxe8 33.Re1+ Kf8 34.Ba4 Nf6 35.Re5 Bd7 36.Bxd7 Nxd7 37.Re7 Nb6 38.Rb7 1-0
The following encounter is a rapid game in which White attempted to work up pressure against Black’s king’s-side but Black defended well, only to go wrong later in a queen ending:
Mamedyarov - Vidit
2018
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.e3 cxd4 6.exd4 Nc6 7.Nf3 The game has transposed to the Semi-Tarrasch Defence in the Queen’s Gambit Declined (D40 in ECO). 7...Be7 8.c5 Ne4 9.Bd3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 b6 11.cxb6 axb6 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.O-O O-O 14.a4 Qa7 15.Ng5 g6 16.Rd1 h6 17.Nf3 Kg7 18.Ne5 Qc7 19.Nxc6 Qxc6 20.Qe5+ f6 21.Qg3 g5 22.Bb5 Qb7 23.Rb1 Bd7 24.Bxd7 Qxd7 25.Rxb6 Rfc8 26.h4 Rc6 27.Rxc6 Qxc6 28.f4 Qc7 29.Re1 Rxa4 30.Qh3 Ra6 31.hxg5 hxg5 32.Rf1 Bd8 33.fxg5 fxg5 34.Qh5 Ra1 35.Bxg5 Rxf1+ 36.Kxf1 Bxg5 37.Qxg5+ Kf7 38.Qh5+ Kf6 39.Qh6+ Kf5 40.Qe3 Qc4+ 41.Kf2 Kf6 42.g4 Qa2+ 43.Kg3 Qb1 44.Qe5+ Kf7 45.Kh4 Qc2 46.Kg5 Qg6+ 47.Kf4 Qb1 48.Qh5+ Ke7 49.Kg5 Qc1+ 50.Kg6 Qxc3 51.Qg5+ Kd7 52.Qe5
Moves are clickable
52...Qf3? (52...Qd3+ is a better chance, to keep checking the White king and stopping the advance of the g-pawn: 53.Kf6 Qf3+ 54.Kg5 Qd3 55.Qf4 Qe2 56.Kh5 Qe4 57.Qf7+ Kd6 58.Qf6 Qh7+ 59.Kg5 Qd3 and it is not easy for White to make progress. ) 53.g5 Qe4+ 54.Kf6 Qh7 55.Qxe6+ Kd8 56.Qxd5+ 1-0
These examples show that the Australian Attack can lead to interesting situations in the Queen’s Gambit and the Queen’s Indian, and can be a useful device to deflect the game away from a Nimzo-Indian or a Bogo- Indian into opening variations that may be less familiar to the player of the Black pieces.