King's Indian: Saemisch 5...O-O 6.Nge2 c5 7.d5

King's Indian: Saemisch, 5...O-O 6.Nge2 c5 7.d5

Definition

This line arises in the King’s Indian Defence after the moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 (O-O) 6.Nge2 c5 7.d5. It belongs to the Saemisch Variation, characterised by White’s early f2-f3, and is catalogued in ECO codes E83–E84. By replying 6…c5 Black immediately strikes at the centre, steering play toward Benoni-type pawn structures while keeping the typical King’s Indian kingside possibilities.

Move-order summary

1. 1.d4 Nf6
2. 2.c4 g6
3. 3.Nc3 Bg7
4. 4.e4 d6
5. 5.f3 O-O  (diagram position A)
6. 6.Nge2 c5
7. 7.d5  (diagram position B – the tabiya)

Strategic ideas

• White
  • Maintains a broad space advantage with pawns on d5, e4, and f3.
  • Considers the typical Saemisch kingside pawn storm: g2-g4, h2-h4-h5, often preceded by Bg5 and Qd2.
  • May castle long or keep the king in the centre, exploiting the semi-closed nature of the position.
• Black
  • Accepts a cramped centre but seeks dynamic counterplay with the pawn breaks …e6 or …b5.
  • The fianchettoed bishop on g7 eyes the d4–e5 squares; after …e6 Black may open the long diagonal.
  • Piece pressure along the e-file and on the d4-square becomes critical if the centre opens.

Historical & theoretical significance

The Saemisch was popularised in the 1920s by German master Friedrich Sämisch. The specific 6…c5 7.d5 set-up gained traction in the 1960s when defenders of the King’s Indian sought a more immediate challenge to the huge white centre. Modern specialists such as Veselin Topalov, Teimour Radjabov, and Richard Rapport have kept the line alive, updating ideas with engines and fresh pawn sacrifices.

Typical plans for both sides

• White plans
  1. Queenside development: Be3, Qd2, 0-0-0.
  2. Kingside expansion: g4-g5, h4-h5, sometimes f4 to clamp …e5.
  3. Piece manoeuvres: Nc1-e2-g3 to reinforce f5 and h5 squares.
• Black plans
  1. Break with …e6 (after …Nbd7) to hit d5 and free the g7-bishop.
  2. Queenside counterplay: …a6, …b5, …Rb8, often sacrificing a pawn for activity.
  3. Piece manoeuvres: …Nfd7-e5 or …Nh5-f4, rerouting knights to aggressive posts.

Illustrative games

• Kramnik – Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2004: Kramnik showcased 0-0-0 and a rapid g-pawn push. Topalov’s exchange sacrifice on c3 led to mutual attacks before the game fizzled into perpetual check.
• Radjabov – Bacrot, Linares 2006: A model display of Black’s …b5 break; Radjabov (Black) sacrificed a pawn, opened the b-file, and launched a decisive rook invasion.
• Kamsky – Shirov, Las Vegas 1999: White demonstrated the power of slow kingside strangulation, eventually forcing …e6 and winning the resulting weak d6-pawn.

Interesting facts & anecdotes

• The structure after 7.d5 is sometimes called the “Sämisch Benoni” because it blends King’s Indian themes with classic Benoni pawn formations.
• Garry Kasparov tried the Black side several times in the early 1990s, but abandoned it after a painful defeat to Kamsky in Linares 1993.
• Engines rate the position close to equal, yet practical results favour White in rapid events, reflecting the difficulty of finding precise Black counterplay over the board.

Key takeaways

• The 6…c5 7.d5 line is double-edged: White enjoys space and a clear attacking plan; Black relies on timely pawn breaks and piece activity.
• Understanding typical pawn structures (Benoni vs. King’s Indian) is more critical than rote memorisation of moves.
• Endgames can be favourable for Black if the minor-piece pressure yields them control of d4 and an active king, despite structural weaknesses.