The classical plan for White is to castle queenside and attack on the kingside by advancing the g- and h-pawns.

[3] A drawback to White's plan is that the pawn on f3 deprives the g1-knight of its most natural square, a point summarised by Eduard Gufeld: "Ask the king's knight what it thinks of 5.f3.

According to the theory by Cherniaev and Prokuronov, closing the centre with 7.d5 gives White good chances for an opening edge, although Garry Kasparov frequently played the black side of this line,[9] while maintaining the tension with 7.Nge2 is "less promising", but is an important line for White players who prefer the 6.Nge2 move order.

In return for the material, Black obtains a solid and compact position devoid of weaknesses, the safer king, and control over the dark squares.

[12] Cherniaev and Prokuronov were sceptical of whether Black had sufficient compensation after 12.Qf2, but the line is very dangerous if White plays nonchalantly.

Although trading in the centre with 7...exd4 opens up the diagonal for the bishop, White enjoys a space advantage with a grip on the d5-square.

[14] Positionally, 6...c5 is Black's most natural break, attacking the White centre with a side pawn and leaving the a1–h8 diagonal open for the bishop on g7.

[16] The gambit is rarely accepted in contemporary grandmaster play; instead the main line is to head for a Benoni-type structure with 7.Nge2 followed by 8.d5, which frequently transposes to the Kapengut Variation of the Modern Benoni.

Robert Byrne developed a flexible approach where Black plays ...c6 and ...a6 in order to prepare the push ...b5.

White can decide to halt Black's ...b5 break by playing 7.a4 at the cost of weakening the dark squares on the queenside.

Probably the most popular response to the Byrne is 7.Bd3 aiming for a speedy mobilization of the kingside pieces, but allowing Black to proceed with the ...b5 plan.

White's prospects of gaining an initiative on the kingside means that Black often delays castling so as not to come under attack there.