Gambiteer 1 - Davies

Nigel Davies

gambiteer I a hard-hitting chess opening repertoire for White

EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pie

www.everyrnanchess.com

First publishedin 2007 byGloucester Publishers pk (formerlyEverymanPublishers pk), Northburgh House, 10 NorthburghStreet, London ECl VOAT Copyright© 2007 Nigel Davies The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been as­ serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and PatentsAct 1988 . All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re­ trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN13 : 978 1 85744 5169 Distributed in North America by TheGlobe Pequot Press, P. O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All othersales enquiries should be directed toEveryman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 NorthburghStreet, London EClVOAT; tel: 020 7253 7887; fax: 020 7490 3708; email: [email protected]; website: www. everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.

To the memory of David Bronstein who was never afraid to sacrifice a pawn. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typeset and edited by FirstRankPublishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production byNavigatorGuides. Printed and bound in the US byVersaPress.

Contents

I

Bibliography

1

Introduction

5

Sicilian Defence, Wing Gambit

7

2

Danish Gambit

3

French Defence, Wi�g Gambit

4 5

6 7 8

9

4

Caro-Kann, Fantasy Variation

40

71 88

Alekhine's Defence with 3 �c3

112

Scandinavian Defence

144

Pirc Defence, Austrian with 5 a3

Nimzowitsch Defence

131 156

The Pseudo-Philidor and Other Defences

164

Index of Complete Games

175

Bibliography

I

Books

Alekhine's Defence, Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess 200 1 ) Danish Dynamite, K.Miiller & M.Voigt (Russell Enterprises 2003) Marshall's Best Games of Chess, F.J.Marshall (Dover 1942) Nimzowitsch Defence, 1 e4 tbc6, T.Harding (Batsford 198 1 ) The Complete Alekhine, Graham Burgess (Batsford 1992) The Sicilian Defence: Book One, S.Gligoric & V.Sokolov (Pergamon 1 970)

The Ultimate Pirc, J.Nunn & C.McNab (Batsford 1 998) Chess Databases Mega Database 2003 The Week in Chess Chess Informant 1-91 Chess Engines

Extensive use was made of Shredder 8 and Fritz 9.

Introduction

I

Cry '1-Iavoc', and let slip the dogs of war ...

William Shakespeare I'd better say this up front so you don't buy the wrong book. If you're worried about being a pawn down or having to sacrifice the odd piece, this really isn't for you. Put it down and get that nice book on the London System. You'll like it, really you will. If, on the other hand, your heart beats a little faster when playing through a nice win by Tal or Bronstein, then maybe this is for you. You'd like to attack your opponent's king, right? Not give them a moment's peace until they resign, or bet­ ter still let you mate them? I'd better check one more time that you're willing to pay something; a pawn down is OK, right? It should be. Having examined literally thousands of club players' games over the years, I have noticed several things: 1 ) The player with the more active pieces tends to win. 2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage. 3) Nobody knows much theory. 4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower. Accordingly I suggest that a different approach to that used by the 'big boys' and their opening science is in order, especially when one considers the fast time limits under which most club games are played. Activity is the key, pawns don't matter too much, and if you play something your opponent hasn't seen before he's likely to respond very passively. Therefore I suggest that gambits represent

5

Gambiteer 1

an excellent practical proposition to any club player with a decent eye for tactics. Are you worried that these openings might not be sound? Get over it! We can deal with St Peter when we go to collect the harp, but until that time comes our chess sins can mean wins! Not to mention that this kind of chess is a lot more fun than trying to blockade some isolated queen's pawn and exchange your oppo­ nent's goo d bishop. Yawn. In this volume I present a repertoire for White based on playing 1 e4 and then going for the jugular with a variety of gambits. You'll find some interesting new ideas and original analysis by myself. The lines I suggest offer 'compensation' for any pawns or pieces offered and excellent practical chances. But the rest is up to you. Nigel Davies Southport, England March2007

Chapter One

I

S i c i l ian Defe n c e : Wi ng G ambit

For many years I've found it �trange that the Morra Gambit (1 e4 c5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3) has enjoyed great popularity while 2 b4!? has been almost ignored. Whilst the Morra gives away an impor­ tant centre pawn for what are, in my view, a bunch of cheap tricks, the Wing Gambit offers genuine positional com­ pensation. Suffice it to say that the Wing Gambit has been used on occasion by many of the greatest names in chess history: Marshall, Bronstein, Keres, Ca­ pablanca and Alekhine. To be fair the last two only used it in simultaneous exhibitions, but this does seem to indi­ cate that they thought it was an espe­ cially good try against dub-level play­ ers. The main line of the Wing Gambit is 1 e4 c5 2 b4 cxb4 3 a3 d5 4 exd5 'iVxd5 5 tt'lf3 e5 6 axb4 i.xb4, which features in the first five games. The most usual move is 7 c3 when Black has to decide where to retreat his bishop. Bronstein­ Chess Master 4000 (Game 1 ) and Haub-

Lukov (Game 2) feature 7 . . . �d6 which leads to sharp positions where White has ongoing pressure for the pawn. And after 8 tt'la3 tt'lc6, instead of 9 �c4 White could consider 9 tt'lc4 as I men­ tion in my analysis. The encounter Rossetto-Iliesco (Game 3) features the move 7 . . . �c5, which is held by many to be the 'refu­ tation' of the Wing Gambit. Against Rossetto' s try 8 tt'la3 it does indeed look good if one assumes best play by Black, but the obvious move is surely the more active 8 d4. I could only find one game with this move but it looks very good, and this is rather typical of an opening such as the Wing Gambit in which the theory has always remained relatively dormant. The modest 7 . . . �e7 (Marshall­ Heinemann, Game 4) is probably the weakest of Black's seventh move op­ tions despite its modest and solid ap­ pearance. White has a number of at­ tractive alternatives to the way Mr

7

Gambiteer 1 Frank James played it. I don't find the 7 tt:Ja3 of Bronstein­ Benko (Game 5) to be hugely convinc­ ing for White, though it's pretty good if Black takes the knight. On the other hand, the 6 i.b2 followed by 7 c4 that features in Grabinsky-Sharevich (Game 6) is very interesting and represents one of the few developments to have taken place in the Wing Gambit in the last half century. The popularity of 6 1i.b2 in the Ukraine is probably how a solid GM like Scherbakov got the idea to play the Wing Gambit in his game against Das (Game 7), and we see traces of his intention when he meets the covering 5 . . e6 with the move 6 1i.b2 anyway. In Capablanca-Michelsen (Game 8) we see the even more timid 3 . e6, which is actually the kind of move that many club players will come up with. The 3 . . . b3 of Muzychuk-Tairova (Game 9) could be a better way to play it safe, though White may be better after 4 c4! ? . Besides 3 a 3 White has a bevy of third move alternatives, none of which have been properly tested and are al­ most sure to catch people off guard (see Mariotti-Holm, Game 10). Finally there are two of my own efforts from some incognito internet encounters, 'Milorad' declining with 2 . . . eS (Game 1 1 ) and 'IBA' with 2 . . .b6 (Game 12). The fact that the declined lines don't seem that safe for Black is a definite plus for the gambiteer; opponents can' t easily reach the safe shores of a dull positional game. .

. .

8

Gamel D.Bronstein-COMP Chess

Master4000 AEGON Tournament, The Hague 1 995 1 e4 cs 2 b4 Bronstein is a great believer in sacri­ ficing pawns against computers: 'it throws out all their assessments,' he once told me. It's certainly a refresh­

ingly different approach to the stan­ dard strategy of blocking it up and then outsmarting the machine with long-term planning. 2 cxb4 3 a3 This is the most popular move for White, but it is not the only one. There are several alternatives including 3 d4, 3 �b2 and 3 .llc4 which we'll look at in Mariotti-Holm (Game 10). 3 ds ...

...

And this in turn is Black's main re­ ply, speeding up his development and stopping White from developing a pawn centre. The problem is that his

Sicilian Defence: Wing Gambit queen comes out quite early, and this allows White to gain time by attacking it. 4 exd5 'it'xd5 5 lti f3 As a teenager at Southport Chess Club I won a game as Black via 5 axb4 1i'e5+, picking up the rook on al . Of course one of the requisites of being a G ambiteer should be a good eye for forks, so hopefully this won't happen too often. s es 6 axb4 6 .i.b2!? is an interesting alternative for White - see Grabinsky-Sharevich (Game 6) for details. 6 .i.xb4 7 C3

Illesco (Game 3), whilst 7. . . i.e7 is cov­ ered in Marshall-Heinemann (Game 4).

.•.

••.

Still the 'main line', as much as there is a main line in the Wing Gam­ bit! The immediate 7 ltia3 is also inter­ esting and is covered in Bronstein­ Benko (Game 5). 7 .i.d6 This may be the best as on this di­ agonal Black's bishop covers the cru­ cial d6 and c7 squares, not to mention the vulnerable eS-pawn. But it's not the only square to which the bishop can be retreated, for 7. . . .i.c5 see Rossetto.••

B ltia3 The humanoid choice, supporting .i.c4 next move and preparing to bring the knight to c4,or b5 later. When com­ puter Super Nova was faced with this position it preferred the direct 8 d4, the game proceeding 8 . . . ltic6 (8 . . . lLi£6 9 .i.e2 exd4 10 cxd4 0-0 looks more sensible to this humanoid when White seems to be struggling to demonstrate compensa­ tion) 9 .i.e2 exd4 10 cxd4 .i.b4+ 1 1 .i.d2 1i'd6 12 0-0 .i.xd2 1 3 1i'xd2 ltige7 14 ltic3

a5?! 15 d5 ltib4 16 .i.b5+ 'ifi>f8 17 l:lfel with a crushing position for the pawn in Super Nova-Polgar 5mhz, computer game 1990. B ltic6 Making room for the d6-bishop to retreat to b8 if necessary. Other moves aren't as good. For example: a) 8 . . . .i.d7 9 .i.c4 'ii'e4+ 10 .i.e2 ltie7 1 1 ltic4 .i.c7 12 .i.a3 left Black's king stranded in the middle in Hobson­ Fillery, correspondence 1949. b) 8 ... .ixa3 9 .i.xa3 .i.g4?? (9 ... ltic6 is better, but White still stands well after ...

9

G a m bite e r 1

10 'iVa4 ) 10 'iVa4+ �d7 11 1Wb4 1-0 was C.Hurt-Thayer, Memphis 1975. c) 8 ... �g4 looks like the best of these eighth move alternatives, but then 9 'iVa4+ .id7 10 %5 ll:)f6 11 ll:)xd6+ 'iVxd6 12 'ii'b3 followed by 13 �a3 causes trouble.

9 ..ic4 Despite Bronstein's patronage I'm not convinced this is best. 9 ll:)c4 looks very interesting; for example, 9 . . . ll:)ge7 (9 ... ..tc7 1 0 ll:)e31Wd7 1 1 �b5 ll:)ge7 12 0-0 0-0 13 d4 gives White the initiative, with

Black's pieces rather tangled ) 10 ll:)b6 1We4+ 11 ..ie2 l:!.b8 12 ll:)xc8 (or 12 d31Wg6 13 ll:)xc8 .i::lxc8 14 0-0 0-0 15 ll:)g5) 12 ... l:!.xc8 13 1Wb3 'iVg6 14 0-0 0-0 15 d3 .i::l c7 16 ll:)g5 h6 was Scacco-Reikl, corre­ spondence 1 999, and now White gets good compensation with 17 ll:)e4 (rather than the 17 llh3 of the game). Another possibility is 9 ll:)b5, after which 9 . . . �b8 10 d4 (10 l:!.a4 ll:)ge7 1 1 ..ic41We4+ 1 2 'ii.? f l ? ! 1Wg6 1 3 d4 0-0 1 4 d5 l:!.d8 left White a pawn down with a bad position in Rombaldoni-Miladin­ ovic, Assisi 2003) 10 . . .ll:)ge7 1 1 �e2 e4 12 ll:)d2 0-0 13 0-0 gives White good 10

compensation because o f his active pieces and mobile pawn duo on c3 and d4. 9 1i'e4+ 10 � e21Wg6 This looks like the best as now White has to watch out for . . . e4 by Black in conjunction with snatching the g2-pawn. See Haub-Lukov (Game 2) for alternatives. 11 ll:)c4 ..ic7 12 d4 •..

Both 12 �a3 and 12 0-0 are well met by 12 . . . e4. After White has played d2d4 this thrust by Black is less effective because it leaves White with a pro­ tected passed d-pawn. 12 exd4 It's very risky to capture on g2: 12 . . .'iVxg2 13 l:!.gl 'iVh3 14 l:!.g3 (White might also consider 14 l:!.xg7, for exam­ ple 14 . . . e4 15 ll:)g5 'iVxc3+ 16 �d2 'iVxd4 1 7 .i::lxf7 �d7 18 'iVcl threatening 1 9 �c3 ) 14 . . . 'iVd7 15 ll:)fxe5 ll:)xe5 1 6 ll:)xe5 ..ixe5 17 dxe5 'iVxdl+ 18 �xdl g6 1 9 ..ig5 and White has more than enough for his pawn because of his play on the dark squares. 13 cxd4 ..te6 13 . .1Wxg2 . 14 l:!.gl 'iVh3 15 d5 looks ..•

S ic il i a n D efe nce: W i n g G a m b i t

even worse for Black than on the last move. 14 llJe3 llJge7 15 o-o

1 5 ... .l:tdB Trying to keep White's d-pawn un­ der lock and key. After 15 ... 0-0 White can try 1 6 dS .C.ad8 17 .td3; for exam­ ple, 17 . . . 1"f6 18 dxe6 (the immediate 1 8 i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 9 'ifc2+ 'it>g8 2 0 .i.b2 'iih6 2 1 dxe6 fxe6 isn't enough for White) 18 . . . 'ii'x al 19 i.xh7+ (19 exf7+ Wh8 20 "il'c2 is also interesting, though less dra­ matic) 19 ... 'it>xh7 20 llJgS+ 'it>g6 21 'ifg4 llJeS 22 1"g3 with many threats against Black's wandering monarch. 16 .i.a3 .i.b6 11 1i'a4 o-o 18 llJe5

18 l::tfdl!? is another possibility, also giving White strong pressure for the pawn. 18 ...'iff6 19 llJxc6 bxc6 20 .i.c5 .txc5 2 1 dxc5 .i::t d 2 Or 2 1 .. .%1d7 22 .i.f 3 .i.dS 23 llJxdS llJxdS 24 .l:tf el with a continued initia­ tive for White. Black's pawn is mean­ ingless unless he gets to advance it. 22 .i. f 3 .l:tfdB After 22 . . . llJf5 White can keep up the pressure with 23 1i'a5, but this might have been better for Black than the game. Now White gets his pawn back and keeps the initiative. 23 'ifxa7 And not 23 .i.xc6 because of 23 . . . llJxc6 24 'ifxc6 .:.Xf2 etc. 23 ... llJf5 24 llJxf5 .i.xf5 2 5 1Wc1 1Wd4 2 6 .l:t a 7 l:.fB 2 7 'ifxc6 .t d 3 2 8 .l:tfal After 28 l::ta 4 Black can defend him­ self with 28 . . . 'ifc3 29 l:a8 g6 (if 29 . . . .txfl? then 30 'it"c8 wins on the spot), for example 30 J:Hal .l:tc2 31 h3 'ifxc5 32 :xf8+ 'iii>x f8 33 'iff6 .l:tcl+ with a draw in the offing.

2 8...'ii'xf2+?! Not the

easiest

way to

draw. 11

G a m bite e r 1

28 . . . Ac2 gets the c5-pawn back because 29 Aa8 is met by 29 . . .'ifxf2+ 30 'ifi>hl 'ifxc5 etc. 29 �h1 i.fs 30 'ifc7 Or 30 Aa8 !? J:ldd8 31 l::tx d8 l::tx d8 32 'ifd5 with a clear advantage. 30 ... i.g4 31 'ifg3 .i.xf3 32 � xf2 l::tx f2 3 3 gxf3 Axf3 34 c 6 l1C3 3 S c 7 hS 36 %1d1 %1c2?? A blunder from the machine! 36 . . . 'ifi>h7 is the right move, meeting 37 J:ld8 with 37 . . . %1xc7. 37 Ads gs 3S AxfS+ �xfS 39 :as+ �e7 40 cS'if 1-0

respondence 1967, and now White's simplest would have been 12 0-0 intend­ ing 13 d4 or 13 i.a3. For 10 . . . 'ifg6 see Bronstein-Chess Master 4000 (Game 1). 11 ttJc4 Another possibility is 11 lLib5 and·af­ ter 1 l . . . i.b8 12 0-0 a draw was agreed in De Baere-Kliche, correspondence 1996.

Game2 T.Haub-V.Lukov G iessen 1994 1 e4 cs 2 b4 cxb4 3 a3 dS 4 exdS �xdS S lLif3 es 6 axb4 i.xb4 7 c3 i.d6 s lLia3 lLic6 9 i.c4 'ife4+ 10 i.e2 ttJge7

A solid and sensible-looking move, putting another piece on the a3-f8 di­ agonal as advance protection against i.a3 ideas. Instead 10 . . . h6 1 1 lLib5 i.b8 was played in Santarius-Campbell, cor12

This position is quite interesting, for example 12 . . . 0-0 13 d4 'ifg6 (or 13 . . . exd4 14 cxd4) 14 d5 J:ld8 15 c4 e4 16 lLig5 with good compensation. I quite like the flexible 1 1 0-0, after which 1 1 . . .0-0 might be met by 12 d4! ? ( 1 2 Ael J:ld8 1 3 lLig5 'iff5 14 d 4 h 6 1 5 .i.d3 wasn't clear i n Pinasco-Sarobe, correspondence 2000). One possible line is 12 . . . exd4 13 lLib5 l::td 8 (13 . . . i.b8 14 cxd4 ) 14 cxd4 i.g4 15 h3 i.h5 16 g4 i.g6 17 i.c4 'ifc2 18 'ifxc2 i.xc2 19 lLig5 i.g6 20 f4 lLixd4 21 f5, successfully tar­ geting f7. As with so many gambits White gains time in return for his pawn and can easily whip up a deadly initia­ tive. 11 i.c7 12 i.a3?! Because of m y suggested improve­ ment for Black on move 13, I don't like •••

Sicilia n D efe nce: Wing G a m bit

this move. Instead 12 0-0 0-0 13 d4 exd4 14 cxd4 is worth considering, although White doesn't cause quite the same disruption (i.e.·getting Black to put his bishop back on b8, as in the lines with 1 1 ll'ibS or 1 1 0-0). 12 0-0 13 o-o ..te6 Allowing White to get the bishop pair, after which he'll always have compensation. An interesting alterna­ tive for Black is 13 .. .\i'f4, and indeed this suggests that White's 12 ..ia3 might have been a tad early. With the bishop still on cl Black wouldn't have such possibilities. 14 lbgs 'iWg6 1s ll'ixe6 'ii' xe6 16 'iVb3?!

'it'xa2 29 llaxa2 fs 30 h4 'it>g7 31 'it>g2 'it>f6 32 f 4 exf3+ 33 .txf3 ll'ies 34 d4

•..

34 ...lbxf3 The rook endgame turns out to be drawish. 34 . lbc4 might have been a better try, for example 35 l:tb4 litc7 with a long defence ahead for White. 3S 'it>xf3 .::r. de6 36 C4 .l:te3+ 37 'it>f2 .l:!.3e4 38 cs bxcs 39 dxcs l:tc7 40 :bs f 4 41 ..

'it>f3 l:tc4 42 gxf4 �fs 43 c6+ 'it>f6 44 .l:tb7 l:tc3+ 4S 'it>e4 l::t 7 xc6 46 .l:taxa7

l:.6c4+ 47 �d s :cs+ 48 'it>e4 Y2-Y2

Game3 H.Rossetto-J.lliesco

I think that White would do better to play 16 'ii'bl, so as to meet 16 . . . :ab8 with 17 lbe3 followed by 18 ..ic4 and putting his queen on e4. White's play on the light squares would give him nice compensation for the pawn. In the game, too, he gets light-square play, but it never looks like quite enough. 16.-l:tab8 17 I:r.fb1 l:tfd8 18 �cs b6 19 ..txe7 'iVxe7 20 :a6 e4 21 g3 g6 22 'Wa2 1i'e6 2 3 l:tbs l:.d7 24 \i'b1 lir.bd8 2 s l:ta4 l:.e7 26 :b2 ..id6 27 lbxd6 l:.xd6 28 ii'a2

M a r del Plata

1943

1 e4 cs 2 b4 cxb4 3 a 3 ds 4 exds \i'xds s lbf3 es 6 axb4 ..ixb4 7 c3 .tcs This outwardly more aggressive and natural square for the bishop may have become popular because of a White ob­ session with the c7-square and an at­ tempt to reach it with his knight. In fact he seems to have a simple way of get­ ting a good game, though one which

has yet to be seen in practice. 13

Gambiteer 1

8 tt:'ia3?1 I think this pursues a mistaken idea. The simplest and most natural move must surely be 8 d4!, but I only found one game with this move and even there White followed it up incorrectly. After 8 . . . exd4 9 cxd4 i..e 7 (9 . . . i..b4+ 1 0 i.. d 2 i..x d2+ 1 1 tt:'ibxd2 intending 12 i.. c 4 offers excellent compensation for the pawn) 10 tt:'ibd2! (10 tt:'ia3?! ll'if6 1 1 tl'ib5 '1Vd8 1 2 .tf4 0-0 was very comfort­ able for Black in Ottenweller-Peto, cor­ respondence 2001, and now the big idea of 13 tt:'ic7 would lose to 13 . . . i.. b4+) 10 . . . ll'if6 (10 . .. tt:'ic6 1 1 .tc4 "ifh5 12 d5 is also unpleasant for Black) 11 i.. c 4 '1Vd8 12 'ir'b3 0-0 13 tl'ie5! '1Vxd4 14 i..b 2 '1Vf4 15 l:ta4! '1Vg5 16 .hf'l+ 'it>h8 1 7 ll'idf3 gives White a winning attack. 8 tt:'if6 Getting ready to castle kingside. Black has tried several alternatives but they seem to be less good; for example: a) 8 . . . tt:'ic6 9 tl'ib5 '1Vd8 10 d4! ? (10 i..c 4 ll'if6 11 0-0 0-0 12 d4 exd4 1 3 cxd4 i..b 4 was fine for Black in Kessler­ Larsen, Philadelphia Rifle Club simul 1970) 10 . . . exd4 1 1 i..f4 '1Ve7+?! 12 i..e2 ...

14

i..b6 was Mordiglia-Esposito, Formia 1995, and now 13 cxd4 would have been strong. b) 8 . . . i..d 7 is strongly met by 9 d4 exd4 10 tl'ib5 i.xb5 (10 . . . i.b6 11 i.. c 4!) 11 i.xb5+ tt:'ic6 12 0-0, with a strong ini­ tiative for the pawn. c) 8 . . . a6 9 tl'ib5 i.b6 10 i.c4 '1Vc5 1 1 d4 exd4 1 2 i.a3 won on the spot in Neumann-Lacey, correspondence 2000. d) For 8 . . . i.xa3 see the 8 ... i.xa3 note in Marshall-Heinemann (Game 4). 9 tl'ib5

Although this succeeds brilliantly in the game under review, objectively speaking it seems to fall short. White's other possibility is 9 i..c 4 '1Ve4+ 10 i.e2, though here too I doubt that he has enough if Black defends precisely. Play might continue 10 . . . 0-0 ( after 10 . . . i.d7 11 0-0 0-0 12 d4 exd4 13 cxd4 i.. b 4 1 4 i..g 5 White gets excellent play) 1 1 tl'ib5 tt:'ic6 12 0-0 (12 l:ta4 '1Vf5 13 0-0 was Hurt-Middleton, correspondence 1985, and now 13 . . . e4 would have left White struggling) 12 . . . i..g 4 13 d4 ltad8 14 i..e 3 a6 and I don't see a good move for White.

Sicilia n D efe nce : Wing G a m bit

9 ... 0-0 10 .i.e2 The books like to mention 10 t:Dc7 i.xf2+, after which 11 �xf2 'ii' c 5+ wins the knight on c7. The attempt to im­ prove this line with 10 d4 exd4 1 1 t:Dc7 doesn't work either after l l...'it'd6 1 2 t:Dxa8 l:!.e8+ 1 3 i.e2 d 3 etc. 10... .ib6 Black could also play 10 . . . e4, for ex­ ample 11 t:Dc7 ( 1 1 t:Dfd4 'iVg5 12 g3 'i'e5 leaves White with no compensation) 1 l . . .i.xf2+ 12 'itfl 'iV f5 13 t:Dxa8 i.h4 1 4 g 3 .i.g5 1 5 ltig2 exf3+ 1 6 .i.xf3 t:D a 6 with White's exposed king being likely to cause him problems. Not that the text is bad. 1 1 ii.a3 :ds 12 c4 'i¥c6 13 csl? i.c1 Allowing himself to be scared off. Instead 13 ... .i.xc5! 14 iLxc5 'ii'xc5 15 l:lcl •e7 16 t:Dc7 e4 17 t:Dgl t:Dc6 18 t:Dxa8 .i.e6 looks like a very good exchange sacrifice. 14 o-o t:Dbd1 1s d4 e4 16 t:Dgs h6??

Allowing a devastating combina­ tion. 16 . . . t:Df8 looks fine for Black. 17 t:Dxf7 11 'ifi>xf7 18 .i.c4+ 'lt>g6 19 d s ll:Jxds 19 ...t:Dxc5 20 dxc6 l:rxdl 21 t:Dxc7

would not be much better. 20 .i.xds 'ii' xbs 2 1 .i.xe4+ 1-0 After 21. ..'it>f6 22 'ilt'f3+ 'l;e7 23 c6+ i.. d 6 24 .ixd6+ 'i.t>xd6 25 cxd7 .i.xd7 26 ii.xb7 Black's king would get poleaxed in the centre. Game 4 F.Marshall-C.Heinemann

M a rs h a l l C hess C l u b, New Yor k 1942 1 e4 cs 2 b4 cxb4 3 a 3 dS 4 exds 'Wxds s 0,f3 es 6 axb4 ii.xb4 7 c3 i.e7

This conservative-looking move appears to be the least critical of Black's bishop retreats. 8 0,a3 8 c4 has been tried in a couple of games but seems to give up one of White's major trumps, the possibility of creating a passed d-pawn. After 8 ... '1Ve6 9 ii.b2 t:Dc6 10 i.e2 t:Df6 11 0-0 0-0 12 t:Dc3 e4 1 3 t:Dg5 'iVe5 Black had a good game in the all computer encounter Pentagon 1.2-Capture R1, computer olympics 2003. 15

G a m bit e e r 1

for a piece after 15 lLid4 lL!xd4 1 6 .i.xd7 lL!xd7 17 1:!.xe4 lL!c6 18 d4 intending 19 dS) 15 .id6 exf3 16 'ifxa7 1-0 was the spectacular conclusion of Anders­ Bellizzi, correspondence 1980: 1 6 ...lL!xe7 1 7.l:!.xa7 .ixbS 1 81:!.e7! mates.

8 .i.d7 Getting ready to lop off the knight should it land on bS, but this has an artificial look about it. The alternatives are as follows: a ) 8 . .. .i.xa3 9 �xa3 lL!c6 10 'ifa4 (other moves are also worth consider­ ing here, for example 10 1:1.bl lL!f6 1 1 .i.e2 e 4 1 2 lL!d4 lL!xd4 1 3 cxd4 .id7 1 4 0-0 .i.c6 1 5 'l!Vcl was Marshall-Sussman, New York 1941; and 10 .ie2 lL!ge7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 d4 exd4 1 3 lL!xd4 .l:!.d8 14 .if3 'it'gS 15 .l:!.el lL!fS 16 'ife2 was Her­ rnkind-Kindermann, Munich 1985 White had compensation for the pawn in both cases) 10 . . .lL!f6 (White also had the initiative after 10 ...lL!ge7 1 1 .i.xe7 rt;xe7 12 'it'h4+ f6 13 .ic4 'it'd7 14 'ife4 'ifg4 15 'ifdS in Radziejowski­ Dabrowski, Polish Ch 1992, and 10 . . . .i.d7 1 1 .ic4 'ife4+ 12 rt;fl 'iff4 13 d3 lL!ge7 14 'iVbS as in Neumann-Dikmen, correspondence 2000) 1 1 .tbs .id7 (Fritz likes ll ... .ig4 at first, but changes its mind after 12 0-0 .ixf3 13 gxf3 a6 14 l:tfbl 'ifxf3 15 .ifl 0-0-0 1 6 1:!.xb7 etc ) 12 O-O e4 13 c4 'oi'h5 141:!.fel 0-0-0 (14 ...rt;d8 is better, but White gets a strong attack ...

16

b ) 8 ...lL!c6 9 lL!bS 'ifd8 (9 ... rt;d8 leaves Black's king as a permanent target)

10 d4 (10 .ic4 is trappy but uncon­ vincing after 10 ... e4 11 lL!fd4 lL!f6 12 lL!xc6 bxc6 13 lLixa7 .id7 14 'ifb3 0-0 and White's knight was fatally trapped in K.Lutz-De Firmian, Biel 1993, while 13 lL!d4 .td7 14 .l:!.a6 0-0 left White with little for his pawn in Langer-Dehne, Dortmund 2001 ) 10 ... exd4 (this seems to

Sicili a n D efe nce: Win g G a m bit

he better than 10 ....ig4, for example 1 1

d5 a 6 1 2 dxc6 'ii'x dl+ 1 3 �xdl 0-0-0+ 1 4 �c2 hf3 was Harnilton-Birchbeer, cor­ respondence 1 995, and now 15 llJa7+ �b8 16 gxf3 �xa7 17 .ie3+ �b8 18 cxb7 �xb7 19 .i.xa6+ �c6 20 .ic4 would have been strong; instead ll . . . e4 12 'ifa4 exf3 13 '1Vxg4 lllf6 14 'ifxf3 llle5 15 '1Ve2 0-0 16 'ifxe5 l:e8 1 7 .i.e3 a6 18 llld4 .i.b4 19 llle6 fxe6 was the entertaining continua­ tion of Haub-Heppekausen, German League 1992, and now 20 cxb4 exd5 21 'ifd4 l:e4 22 'fih2 would have left Black struggling to find compensation for his piece) 11 cxd4 ( 1 1 .if4 appears to draw after 1 1 . . .�£8 12 lllc7 l::tb8 13 lllb5 l:a8 14 lllc7 l:b8 112-112 Goebl-Krewett, corre­ spondence 1998) l l ... .ib4+ 12 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 13 '1Vxd2 lllf6 14 d5 llle7 15 d6 llled5 16 .i.c4 .ie6 was Selva-Bixquert, Valencia 1996, and now 17 0-0 a6 18 .i.xd5 lllxdS 1 9 lllc 3 lllxc3 (19 ... 'ii'xd6 20 .l:tfdl l::td8 21 lllx d5 .ixd5 22 l:.a4 hf3 23 '1Vxd6 lhd6 24 l::txd6 looks drawish) 20 'ifxc3 0-0 21 l::tf dl and White's strong d-pawn is ample compensation for the gambited pawn. c) 8 . .. lllf6 9 lllb5 'ii'd 8 10 lll xe5 (10 l::lx a7 l:xa7 11 lllx a7 e4 12 llld 4 0-0 1 3 .i.e2 .i.d7 14 0-0 also looks quite nice for White as his knights get anchored on d4 and b5) 10 ... lll c6 11 lllxc6 bxc6 was Neumann-Verdier, correspon­ dence 1999, and now 12 lll d 4 'ii'c7 1 3 .i.e2 0-0 1 4 0-0 leaves Black with the inferior pawn structure. d) 8 . . . e4?! looks premature after 9 lllb5 '1Vd8 10 llle 5 a6 ( 1 0 . . . llld 7 is better, but White has a dangerous initiative after 11 lll c4 lllb6 12 lllx b6 'ifxb6 1 3

it'h5; for example, 13 ... lllf6 14 'ife5 forces Black to displace his king either to f8 or d8) 1 1 .i.c4 lllh6 12 d4 f6? 1 3 .ixh6 fxe5 1 4 .i.xg7 .i.f5 15 "ifhS+ .ig6 16 'ii'xe5 and White won quickly in Baere-Kivisto, correspondence 1998.

9 tt:lc4 Another plan is 9 .i.c4 'ii'e4+ 10 .ie2, for example 10 ... lllf6 1 1 0-0 0-0 was Hamann-Menacher, Nuremberg 1990, and now 12 d4 (12 l:el .i.a4 was good for Black in the game) 12 . . . exd4 13 llel 'ifc6 14 cxd4 would have given White good compensation for the pawn. 9 lllc 6 After 9 . . . 11fe4+ White can even ex­ change queens with 10 'ii'e 2, and now 10 ...'ifxe2+ 1 1 .i.xe2 lllc6 12 lll fxe5 lll xe5 13 lllxe5 lllf6 14 .i.£3 put Black under serious pressure in K.Lutz-Ullrich, Ger­ many 1988. 10 lll e 3 White might also consider getting the bishops with 10 lllb6 'ii'e4+ 1 1 .i.e2; for example, l l . . .l:d8 12 lll xd7 l::txd7 1 3 0-0 'ii'd5 1 4 d4 exd4 1 5 lll xd4 lllf6 16 .ie3 0-0 17 .if3 gave White compensation in 'Rolly'-'Goofy', Internet 2004. ...

17

G a m b iteer 1

10 ...'it'd6

I'm not convinced this is the best the immediate 13 d4 looks preferable. Following 13 . . . exd4 ( 1 3 . . . e4 14 .ixc6 bxc6 15 tlle5 is pleasant for White) 1 4 cxd4 0-0 15 d 5 tll e5 16 ..ixd7 tllf xd7 1 7 tll£ 5 White has better chances than after 14 . . . exd4 in the game. 13 .. o-o 14 d4 e4 Quite a big decision, handing White a supported passed d-pawn rather than just a passed one, and depriving his own pieces of the e4-square. In my view 14 . . . exd4 15 cxd4 a6 would have been better, when White has attacking chances without them being quite as dangerous as in the game. 15 .ixc6 ..ixc6 15 . . . exf3 is strongly met by 16 l:txb7. 16 tt:les �c7 11 tll fs .i.d6 18 i.f4 .ixes 19 .ixes 'ifd7 20 tllx g71? .

1 1 .i bs I'm not convinced this is White's best here, despite the fact that Frank James played it. Instead 1 1 .ia3 'ifl,8 12 'ifl,3!? looks interesting (12 d4 .ixa3 13 l::lx a3 exd4 14 cxd4 tllf6 was too easy for Black in Scacco-Kaczorowski, corre­ spondence 1999). One possible line runs 12 . . . e4 13 tll d 4 .ixa3 14 'ifxa3 l2Jge7 15 d3 exd3 16 i.xd3 0-0 1 7 0-0 :le8 18 %1fbl with White's active pieces and the possibility of tll c 4-d6 making life none too easy for Black. 11 ...tllf6 It seems to be more difficult to demonstrate White's compensation after ll . . . e4; for example, 12 .ia3 'it°e6 13 .ixc6 bxc6 14 tlld 4 'it°g6 looks com­ fortable for Black and he has kept his extra pawn. 12 o-o 'it'bB Perhaps 12 ... 'it'c7 would have been better, but White still gets the initiative via 13 d4; for example, 13 . . . e4 14 .ixc6 .ixc6 15 tlle5 0-0 16 tll f 5 with similar play to the game. 13 .l:.b1 18

A thematic piece sacrifice which leads to tricky play. 20 ...� xg7 21 'it'hs h6 22 c4 Had Marshall seen the possibility of 22 . . .'it°e6 he might have tried 22 f3 e3 (or 22 . . . exf3 23 ..ixf6+) 23 ..ixf6+ �xf6 24 'ifxh6+ �e7 25 :lfel with a strong attack for the sacrificed piece.

Sicili a n D efe nce: Wi n g G a m bit

22 l:taeB? 22 .. .'tli'e6 is better, with the idea of meeting 23 dS with 23 ... 'iti>h7. 2 3 l:tb3? Underestimating the following ex­ change sacrifice. Marshall should have played 23 .ixf6+ 'iti>xf6 24 Wxh6+ 'iti>e7 25 'ifh4+ f6 26 dS, with ongoing problems for Black's king. ..•

23 :xes 24 'ili'xeS 'i!te6 2S 'ili'g3+ �h7 26 ds ttJxds 2 7 cxds .i.xds 28 l:te3 Wf6 •••

29 'ili'c7 :aa 30 l:td1 .i.c6 31 .l::t a 3 l:tgB 3 2 l:tg3 And not 32 l::txa7 because of 32 . . . e3. 32 ...l:txg3 33 hxg3 e3?

say, 37 l:d6 'iibl+ 38 �h2 Wxe4 39 Wxh6+ 'iti>g8 40 WgS+ 'iti>f8 41 l:td8+ etc. 37 'it>h2 f6?? Losing on the spot. 37 . . . 'iti>g7 is still the right move, though probably White is winning anyway after 38 Wg4-+- 'iti>f8 39 l:td8+ .ie8 40 'iVf4 etc. 38 Wxf6 1-o Game s D.Bronstein-P .Benko B uda pest 1949

1 e4 cs 2 b4 cxb4 3 a 3 dS 4 exds 1Wxd s S lDf3 es 6 axb4 J..xb4 7 tDa3 1 ?

This pawn sacrifice ends u p weak­ ening Black's king more than it does White's. 33 . . . 'iti>g7 is the logical move, consolidating the kingside and prepar­ ing to use his passed pawns on the other flank. 34 fxe3 'it'e6 Here, too, 34 ... 'iti>g7 is better, but Black is getting carried away with the idea of giving mate on g2. 3S 'ii'f4 'tli'a2 36 e4 Wc4? Once again 36 . . . 'iti>g7 is best, though by now Black would be suffering after,

A n interesting alternative t o 7 c3, heading for bS whilst Black's bishop is still on the less than optimal b4-square. Bronstein probably chose it in this game for its psychological effect, but against accurate defence by Black I doubt its value. White has one other possibility in 7 .ia3, though in my view this is the least dangerous of White's options because he gives up his dangerous dark-squared bishop. After 7... .ixa3 (7... lDc6 8 .ixb4 19

Gambiteer 1

lbxb4 9 lbc3 'Wes 10 .tb5+ l2'1c6 l l 'ife2 £6 12 l2'1e4 gave White a fierce initiative in R.Bass-Weberg, correspondence 1962, while 8 . . . Vi'e4+ 9 'ife2 'ifxe2+ 10 he2 lbxb4 1 1 lba3 sees White's initiative compensate him for the pawn even in the endgame, for example 11... �6 12 tt'b5 <;i;f8 13 c3 lbge7 14 i.c4 f6 15 l2'1d6 as in the all computer encounter Dragon 4.5-Amyan, Internet 2004) 8 lllxa3 (8 l:txa3 lbc6 9 lllc3 'if d6 10 lllb5 �e7 fol­ lowed by 11...lllf6 and 12 . . . 0-0 allows Black to mobilize very comfortably) 8 . . . lll c6 (8 ... lllf6 has been played here too, but there seems to be nothing wrong with protecting e 5 and a7) 9 lllb 5 (9 .ic4 'iVe4+ 10 i.e2 lllf6 l l lllb5 0-0 was also good for Black in Seknadje-Guyot, correspondence 1993) 9 ... 'i'd8 10 ii.c4 (White can get his pawn back with 10 lllxe5 'bxe5 1 1 'ii°e2, but after l 1 . . . l2'1e7 12 't!Vxe5 0-0 Black's superior development gives him at least equality) 10 . . . lllf6 1 1 d 4 exd4 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 lllbxd4 lllxd4 14 4'lxd4 �c7 and White had no compensa­ tion for his pawn in Ballarani-Cimmino, correspondence 1991. 1 .i.xa3 Giving up the bishop pair to pre­ vent 4:'ia3-b5, but Black can get away without this concession and it seems that he would be well advised to do so: a) 7... 'bc6 8 4'lb5 'i'd8 9 c3 (9 ii.b2 lbf6 1 0 4'lxe5 0-0 would leave White's king in more trouble than Black's) 9 ... .i.e7 (9 . . . .i.c5 10 'ife2 lllge7 11 lllxe5 0-0 is similarly good for Black, who is ahead in development and White's queen exposed on the e-file) 10 ii.c4 (Boettcher-Kakoschke, Vormeister 1995) ...

20

i s well met by 10... a6 1 1 �3 lll h6, with White struggling to justify his play. b) 7. . . 4:'if6 8 lllb5 0-0!? is an intrigu­ ing rook sacrifice which leads to wild complications; for example 9 4:'ic7 (9 .1e2 e4 10 ctJfd4 lll c 6 1 1 lllxc6 bxc6 was very good for Black in Rossetto-Iliesco, Mar del Plata 1 944) 9 . . . 'i'c5 10 4:'ixa8 e4 1 1 ctJgl ( 1 1 4:'ih4 4:'ig4 12 'i'e2 4:'ic6, threatening 13 . . . lt:Jd4, looks very un­ pleasant for White)

l 1...e3 (Black has an interesting al­

ternative in l L. lllg4, for example 12 4:'ih3 e3 13 i..e2 exd2+ 14 i.xd2 lii.d 8 15 Ji..d 3 i.. xd2+ 16 'it'xd2 lllc6 with a power­ ful attack) 12 fxe3 'i¥xe3+ 13 'ife2 (13 i..e2 llle4 14 lt:Jh3 i.xh3 saw Black win quickly in Argunow-Ermakow, Kubi­ shev 1958) 13 . . . 'itcS 14 c3 i.xc3 15 i..a3 i.xd2+ 16 'ifxd2 'i'e5+ 17 llle2 'iVxal + 18 'i'cl 'ifxcl+ 19 i.xcl and the game has fizzled out into an endgame in which Black has three pawns for the piece. 8 .i.xa3 8 Iha3 has also been tried, allowing the rook to swing along the third rank, and intending to put White's bishop on b2. After 8 ... lt:Jc6 9 c4 (9 .ib2 4:'ige7 10 c4

S i c il i a n D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

'it'd6 11 ..te2 0-0 12 0-0 ltifS wasn't really enough for White in Lamothe-Garbett, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) 9 ... 'it'd6 10 !le3 ltige7 1 1 h3 'it'c7 12 ..td3 f6, now 13 °Wbl (13 0-0 0-0 14 ..tbl?! !ld8 15 ltih4 ..te6 wasn't enough in Lamothe-Fair­ clough, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990) 13 ... g6 14 0-0 0-0 15 ..te4 would have given White pressure for the pawn. Black's position must be softened up strategi­ cally before taking out the big dub. 8 ...ltic6 The immediate 8 . . .e4!? leads to in­ teresting complications, for example 9 c4 'it'd8 10 'it'e2 when 10 . . . ltif6 1 1 d3 ( 1 1 ltigS .tis 12 f 3 i s also worth consider­ ing) 1 1 . . . ..tfS 12 dxe4 'it'aS+ 13 l'tid2 ltixe4 14 l:ta2 Wd7 was a game Lonnie­ Scrappy (computer), Internet 1998, and now 15 'it'f3 l:te8 16 ..te2 would have been critical and very messy. 9 C4 White is right to prevent an annoy­ ing advance of Black's e-pawn here: after 9 i.e2? e4 10 c4 'it'e6 11 ltigS 'it'eS Black stood very well in Richard-Salmi, correspondence 1 997. 9 ... 'it'd8 10 'it'b1ltige7 11 .td3

11 ...fs Gligoric and Sokolov suggested that Black might keep his pawn with ll . . . h6 in this position, but White develops strong pressure via 12 0-0 0-0 13 .!itel, for example 13 . . .'it'c7 14 ..txe7·'it'xe7 15 1'.e4 f6 16 ..tdS+ ..te6 17 d4 ..tf7 1 8 .i.xf7+ Axf7 1 9 d S ltib4 20 ltid4 coming into fS or e6. 12 .i.xe7 'it'xe7 13 .i.xfs .i.xfs 14 'it'xfs 'it'f7 1S 1lt"e4 o-o 16 o-o J:r.ad8 17 J:r.ab1 !ld7 18 J:r.bs 'it'f4 19 d3 'it'xe4 2 0 dxe4 ltid4

Black is managing to hoover the board of pieces, but even so he falls short of full equality. 21 ltixd4 !lxd4 22 f3 Af7

This rook endgame should really be a draw, but White has whatever chances are going. And it looks like Benko soon finds himself in time trou­ ble, which may have been a side effect of Bronstein's 2 b4!?. 23 l:tfb1 J:r.xc4 24 !lxb7 l:tc1+ 2S J:r.xc1 !lxb7 26 Iles l:r.e7 27 !las 'it>f7 28 'it>f2 'it>e6 29 J:r.a6+ 'it>f7 30 h4 h5 31 J:r.as 'it>f6 32 f4 exf4 33 'it>f3 Iles? A time-trouble slip from Benko? He 21

G a m b iteer 1

should have played 33 . . . �g6, when 34 .l:.a6+ �f7 35 �xf4 doesn' t look at all winnable for White. 34 l:ta6+ .::f. e 6 3S l::t x a7 gs 36 hxgs+ �xgs 37 :a s+ �g6 3S 'ifrixf4 l::tf6+ 39 .l:.fs l::t a 6 40 :gs+ �h6 41 .l:.g3 :as? This looks like another mistake, one move after the time control; but per­ haps Black played the extra move just to be on the safe side. Instead it looks as if he can draw with 4 1 . . . l:i.f6+, after which 42 �es (or 42 �e3 l:tb6) 42 l:tfB 43 .l:.e3 h4 44 �d6 l:f2 picks up the g­ pawn and draws. 42 es l::tfS+ 43 'it>e4 .::t.b s 44 'it'fs l::tf s+ 4S 'it'e6 h4 46 l:tg4 'it>hs 41 l:tg1 �h6 4S l:[f7 IteS+ 49 'ifrid6 l::tdS+ SO �7 l::t d 2 S1 .l:.fS �g7 S2 .l:.f4 .l:txg2 S3 .::f. x h4 �g6 .. .

S4 e6? Missing a win. White should first play 54 .l:.a4, when 54 .. . .l:.b2 (or 54 . . . �fS 55 e6) 55 '!J.a6+ 'it>g7 56 .l:.a7 will see the pawn gain promotion. s4 ... l::ta 2 SS l1d4 l::t a6 S6 .l:.ds l::t a 7+ S7 .l:.d7 :as ss l:tc7 �g7 S9 �d7 �s 60 l:l.b7 �g7 61 @e7 l:ta6 62 '!J.c7 l::t a S 63 l:!.d7 'iii> g 6 64 .l:.d4 l:ta1+ 6S 'it>d6 l::t a6+ 66 'it>es 1:1.as+ 67 l:.d s l:.a7 6S lies l:ta6 69 22

:cs l:tas+ 1 0 'iii> d 6 '!J.a6+ 7 1 �d7 l:ta7+ 12 l:.c7 :as 73 e1 �7 74 l:i.b7 :es 7S �d6 :as 76 'iii> d7 l::t e S Yz·Yz Game 6 V.Grabinsky-A.Sharevich

R u s s i a n C u p, St Pete rsb u rg 2003

1 e4 cs 2 b 4 cxb4 3 a3 d s 4 exds 'ii' x ds s llJf3 es 6 .ib2!?

An intriguing alternative to the usual 6 axb4, aiming for quick devel­ opment. There are two distinct hotbeds of interest in this line: some players from Lvov (especially Zajarnyi) and Portsmouth correspondence players. One wonders if the towns will be twinned on this basis. It looks very dangerous for Black and his only good line may be 8 . . llJf6. More tests are re­ quired to determine its exact value, but meanwhile I suspect that White will pile on the points here. 6 llJc6 The most natural Alternatives look rather attractive for White, for example: .

.•.

Sicili a n D efe n c e : Win g G a m bit

a) 6 . . . .tg4 7 J.e2 tLlc6 8 0-0 tLlf6 9 h3 il.fS 10 c4 bxc3 1 1 tLlxc3 'ii' d 6 12 'iVa4 leaves Black facing ideas of d2-d4 and/or tLlbS. b) 6 .. .f6 7 c4 'i!Vd8 8 .i.e2 tLlc6 9 0-0 'it>f7? ! 10 �3 J.e6 11 d4 exd4 12 l;.dl aS 13 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 14 J.xd4 'i!Vc8 IS axb4 axb4 16 :xa8 'i!Vxa8 17 .i.hS+ g6 18 .tf3 saw White win quickly against Black's exposed king in Zajamyi-Nekrasov, Lvov 1999. 7 C4!? White has tried a couple of other moves, but neither of them look very convincing: a) 7 tLlxeS tLlxeS 8 'i!Ve2 is well met by 8 . . . ttie7 (8 . . . .td6 9 f4 .i.g4 10 'ifbs+ 'iVxbS 1 1 .i.xbS+ tLlc6? 12 .i.xg7 won material in Van Dijk-Russell, New York 1993; but 8 .. .f6 9 d4 .i.d6 10 dxeS fxeS 11 axb4 tLlf6 12 c3 0-0 was good for Black in Van Dijk-Winslow, New York 1993) 9 iVxeS "ii'xeS+ 10 J.xeS tLlc6 1 1 .tbs .td7 12 i.b2 a6 13 .td3 .td6 14 .i.xg7 :gs IS i.£6 l:.xg2 and Black was better in the game Schulz-Zulauff, correspondence 2004. b) 7 axb4 ..txb4 8 tLlc3 (8 tLla3 tLlf6 9 tLlbS can be met by the nonchalant 9 . . . 0-0 10 tLlc7 'ii'e4+) 8 ... 'i!Vd6 (8 . . . i.xc3 9 i.xc3 tLlf6 10 .l::tb l 0-0 also looks quite good for Black) 9 tLlbS 'i!Ve7 10 .i.c4 tLlf6 11 0-0 0-0 12 :el e4 (12 ... .tg4 is also possible) 13 c3 .i.d6 14 tLlxd6 °i!Vxd6 IS .i.a3 'iVf4 16 ..txf8 exf3 was good for Black in Dunne-Grandelius, Balatonlelle 2006. 1 'ii'e6 Alternatively Black has the follow­ ing tries: ...

a) 7 . . . 'i!Ve4+ 8 .i.e2

8 . . .lt:Jf6 (8 ...bxa3 9 tLlxa3 'ii'f 4 10 tLlbS e4 1 1 g3 'ifh8 12 lt:JgS .i.fS was played in a game Wall-Amenhotepiii, Internet 1 997, and now rather than 13 °i'bl, as played by Wall, 13 f3 exf3 14 0-0! a6 IS .l::txf3 tLlge7 16 cS! axbS 17 .l:txa8 'i!Vxa8 18 'ii'b3 would have given White a win­ ning attack) 9 0-0 bxa3 (9 . .. 'ii'f4 10 d4 e4 1 1 tLleS tLlxeS 12 dxeS tLlg4 13 .i.xg4 'i!Vxg4 14 'iWdS .i.e7 IS axb4 0-0 16 tLlc3 was about equal in Robertshaw­ Wochnik, correspondence 1997) 10 tLlxa3 .i.cS 11 tLlxeS tLlxeS 12 d 4 0-0 (12 . . . .i.xd4 13 'i!Vxd4 'ii'x d4 14 .i.xd4 tLlc6 IS .i.e3 0-0 16 tLlbS was a bit better for White in Zajarnyi-Salinnikov, Alushta 2000) 13 dxeS tLlg4 14 .if3 'iWf4 IS g3 'iWfS 16 'iWdS was about equal in Yakivchik-Rohonyan, Lvov 2003. b) 7 . . . bxc3 8 tLlxc3 'ii' d 8 9 .tbs .i.d6 (9 . . . .tg4 looks nice for White after 10 0-0 tLlge7 1 1 .l::te l, when Black will find it difficult to develop) 10 tLle4 tLlf6 1 1 tLlxd6+ 'ii'x d6 1 2 ..txeS 'iWdS 1 3 'iVe2 0-0 14 ..txf6 .i.g4 IS i.xc6 bxc6 16 .i.e7 :tfe8 17 0-0 l:lad8 18 :tabl saw the tactical slugfest resolve in White's favour in 23

G o m biteer 1

Kravtsiv-Blomqvist, Herceg Novi 2006. 8 ii.d3

s ii.cs Many other moves have been tried here: a) 8 . . . lL!f6 looks best, developing the kingside. After 9 0-0 ii.d6 10 l:tel 0-0 (10 . . . bxa3 11 lL!xa3 0-0 was Chulivska­ Lelekova, Halkidiki 2001, and now 12 'it'bl would have given White strong pressure) 1 1 axb4 lL!xb4 12 ii.fl e4 13 d3 'ii' d 7 (13 . . . l:Id8 14 lL!bd2 ii.e7 15 'it'bl recovers the e4-pawn with advantage, and 13 . . . ii.c5 14 lL!bd2 'it'b6 15 d4 ltJc6 16 llbl exf3 17 dxc5 'ii'xc5 18 'ii'xf3 gave White excellent compensation for the pawn in Zajarnyi-Kravets, Lvov 1998) 14 ii.xf6? (14 dxe4 is better, but after 14 . . . lL!xe4 15 .l::t x e4? is impossible be­ cause of 15 . . . ii.xh2+, so White would have to seek compensation via 15 ii.d4 lL!c5 16 lLic3) l 4 . . . exf3 15 ii.c3 fxg2 16 ii.xg2 lL!xd3 and Black went on to win in M.Yakivchik-Kurenkov, Minsk 2005. b) 8 .. .f6 9 0-0 ii.e7 10 llel ltJh6 1 1 ii.e4 'ii'xc4 1 2 d 4 exd4 1 3 ii.xc6+ 'ii' xc6 14 lL!xd4 'ii' d7 15 'ii'e2 saw White whip up a strong attack in Oleksienko...

24

Yaroshenko, Lvov 2001. c ) 8 . . . ii. d 6 9 0-0 lL!ge7 1 0 l:I e l f6 11 axb4 lL!xb4 12 ii.e4 0-0 1 3 d 4 f5 14 ii.d5 lL!exd5 15 cxd5 'ii' x d5 16 lLic3 'ii' c 4 1 7 dxe5 ii.e7 18 J::te2 followed b y 1 9 .l::t d 2 gave White compensation for the pawn in Zajarnyi-Raceanu, Techirghiol 2000. d) 8 . . . bxa3 9 lL!xa3 ii.xa3 10 l:txa3 lL!ge7 11 0-0 f6 12 l:Iel 'ii'f 7 (12 . . . 0-0 13 ii.bl 'ii'f7 14 d 4 exd4 15 lL!xd4 lL!xd4 1 6 'ii' xd4 gave White compensation i n Za­ jarnyi-Spulber, Techirghiol 2000) 13 'iVbl ( 1 3 ii.e4 followed by 14 d4 also looks interesting) 13 . . . 'ith5 14 ii.e4 0-0 15 d4 exd4 16 lLixd4 lL!e5 17 J::t g 3 l:Id8 1 8 f 4 lLixc4 1 9 ii. d 3 lL!xb2 2 0 .l::t x e7 lL!xd3 21 .l::tgxg7+ 'ith8 2 2 'ii' x d3 f5 23 J::tg5 'ith6 24 lLie6 1 -0 was Zajarnyi-Malakhov, Lvov 1999. e) 8 ... e4 9 0-0 f 5 10 lie 1 lL!ge7 11 ii.c2 'ii' d 6 ( l l . . . 'ii' g6 12 d4 exf3 13 'ii' x f3 gives White a strong attack for the sacrificed piece) 12 lLig5 h6 13 lL!xe4 fxe4 14 ii.xe4 ii.e6 was Chulivska-Kovtoniuk, Lvov 2003, and now the continuation 15 d4 ii.xc4 16 d5 looks best with a tremen­ dous attack. 9 o-o bxa3

After 9 .. .f6 10 :tel (there's a case for delaying l:tel here with 10 axb4 - actu­ ally it looks very promising for White after 10 . . . ii.xb4 11 lL!c3 lL!ge7 12 lL!b5 'ii' d 7 13 'ii'c2 b6 14 ii.e4 followed by 15 d4) 10 . . . lL!ge7 1 1 axb4 lL!xb4 (ll ... ii.xb4 looks better, and it inhibits d2-d4 be­ cause of the rook's placement on el) 12 ii.e4 'ii'xc4 1 3 d4 exd4 14 lL!bd2 'it'b5 was Zajarnyi-Milu, Olanesti 1996, and now 15 lL!b3 would have been very strong.

S i c i l i a n D efe n c e: W i n g G a m b i t

10 ll:ixa3

(18 . . . 'ifg6 1 9 'if dS+) 1 9 ll:ixf7 l:txdl 20 :xdl �xf7 isn't an easy one for White to win. 17 ll:id6 'ifc7 17 . . . lld8 18 c5, threatening 19 ..ta2, is also rather horrific for Black. 18 'it'ds+ �hB 19 .i.xg6 ll:ie1 20 ll:if7+ 'it>gB 21 ..txh7+! 'it>xh7 22 'iWhs+ 'it>gB 2 3 ll:i h 6 + ! gxh6 2 4 l:tg3+ 'it>h7

10 .txa3 Defending the e-pawn with 10 .. .£6 lands Black in hot water after 1 1 ll:ib5 �f8 (both l l . . . 'ife7 and ll . . . 'it"d7 are answered by 12 ..te4 intending 13 d4) •••

12 'ii'b 3 with Black having serious prob­ lems because of his misplaced king. After 10 . . . ll:if6 1 1 ll:ixe5 ll:ixe5 12 .i.xe5 White recovers the pawn with a good game, but this may well have been Black's best option at this stage. 11 nxa3 ll:ige7 12 l:te1 f6 13 .tb1 1ff7 14 d4 exd4 15 ll:ixd4 o-o 16 ll:ibs ll:ig6?

25 l:t xe7+! 1-0 25 ... 'ifxe7 26 1i'g6+ 'it>h8 27 'ifxh6+ leads to mate. Game 7 R.Scherbakov-A.Das

P u n e 2004

Losing. Black should try 1 6 ... ll:ifS, when 17 .i.xf5 .i.xf5 18 ll:id6 :ad8

1 e4 C5 2 b4 When sensible players like Scherba­ kov play the Wing Gambit it makes one sit up and take notice. Probably he got the idea from some Ukrainian friends, as indicated by his treatment with 6 .i.b2. 2 .-cxb4 3 a3 d5 4 exd5 'ifxd5 A game Davies-Hook, Bury (rapid) 2006, went 4 . . .ll:if6 5 axb4 ll:ixd5, and 25

G a m b i t e er 1

now rather than the wimpy 6 b5 I should ha�e played 6 tll f3 tllxb4 7 i.c4 e6 8 .i.b2 with dangerous attacking chances for the pawn. 5 tllf3 e6 The kind of 'solid' reaction that many players will come up with when faced with the Wing Gambit. But cow­ ering like this will usually lead to a strengthening of White's initiative. 6 i.b2!

This makes perfect sense, waiting for Black to move his king's bishop before capturing on b4. The alterna­ tives seem less effective: a) 6 .i.e2 tllf6 7 0-0 tllc6 8 i.b2 bxa3 (after 8 . . . .i.e7 9 axb4 .i.xb4 White should probably play 10 c4 followed by 11 d4, getting a grip on the centre which will inhibit Black's play) 9 tllx a3 i.e7 was E.Rotshtein-Gufeld, Kiev 1964, and now 10 c4 (rather than 10 tllb 5) 10. .. 'it°d8 1 1 d4 makes sense to me, with plenty of play for the sacrificed pawn. b) 6 axb4 has been quite popular but helps Black get his pieces out after 6 . . . .i.xb4. For example, 7 c3 (7 i.a3 tll f6 8 .i.xb4 'it°e4+ 9 .i.e2 'it'xb4 1 0 tll c3 tll c6 26

1 1 0-0 0-0 left White with nothing for his pawn in Schultz Pedersen­ Mortensen, Roskilde 1998; and 7 tll a 3 tll c6 8 tllb 5 'it'd8 9 .i.b2 tllf6 10 i.d3 0-0 1 1 0-0 i.e7 12 l:a4 tllb 4 13 i.e2 i.d7 was comfortable for Black in Chu­ livska-Tukhaev, Alushta 2005) 7 . . . i.e7 8 tll a3 tll c 6 (or 8 . . . tll f6 9 tllb 5 'it'd8 10 d4 0-0 1 1 i.d3 tll c6 12 0-0 b6 13 liel .i.b7 as in Naff-Krom, Chicago 1989) 9 tllb5 'ikd8 10 d4 tll f6 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 12 0-0 a6 13 c4 i.d7 14 tll c 3 'Wlc7 15 'it'e2 tllb 4 16 i.bl b5 17 c5 and White had some compen­ sation in K.Lutz-Anka, Biel 1992. c) 6 c4?! bxc3 7 tll x c3 'it'a5 8 i.e2 tll f6 9 0-0 tll c 6 1 0 i.b2 i.e7 1 1 'it'c2 0-0 left White with inadequate compensation in Vetoshko-Bodrova, Illichevsk 2006. 6 ... tllf6 7 .i.d3 The bishops are lined up against Black's kingside, which is where Black's king will reside. 7 ... tllc6 8 o-o .i.e7 9 l:te11 Stronger than 9 axb4 tll xb4, when White doesn't have a particularly good square for his bishop. Capturing on b4 can wait. 9 .. 0-0 10 tll e s .

Sici l i a n D efe nce: W i n g G a m b i t

10 .td7

'ii'xa6 d 4 3 6 exd4 cxd4 37 h 4 l-O.

The dangers Black faces are illus­ trated by the line 10 ...ClJxeS 1 1 l:lxeS 1Wd8 12 axb4 hb4 13 ,l:lgS .ie7 (13 ... .id6 can be answered by 14 1Wf3, for example 14 ... 'ifi>h8 lS l:la4 es 16 IDl4 with deadly threats) 14 l:lxg7+ 'ifi>xg7 1S 1Wg4+ Wh8 16 1Vh 4 with a winning attack.

18 'it>xg7 191Wg4+'itf6 ?

The losing move. 1 9 . . . Wh6 would have been a much tougher nut to crack, for example 20 l:la3 .igS 21 l:lh3+ 'iti>g6 22 f4 'ii' x f4 23 'ii' h S+ 'ifi>g7 24 1W}17+ 'ifi>f6 2S l:lfl wins Black's queen but the situation is still far from clear.

11 axb4 ClJxb4 12 ClJc3 1Wd413 .ie41Wb6

20 ClJc31 CLJcs

14 ClJxd7 ClJxd7 15 .txh7+11

After 20 ... 'ii'b6 there follows 2 1 ClJe4+ 'ifi>eS 22 'ii'hS+ f S (22 . . . Wd4 23 c3+ 'ifi>c4 24 cxb4 is winning for White) 23 ClJgS+ Wd6 24 l:.xe6+ 'ifi>c7 2S .l:.xb6 win­ ning Black's queen.

•••

lS ClJa4 first was also worth consid­ ering. 1s 'it>xh7 16 "it"hs+ 'ifi>gB 11 ClJa4 1Wd6 •••

18 .ixg711

•••

21:te3

The logical follow-up to White's first sacrifice, reminiscent of a famous game Em.Lasker-J.Bauer, Amsterdam 1889: 1 f4 dS 2 e3 ClJf6 3 b3 e6 4 .ib2 .ie7 S .id3 b6 6 ClJf3 .ib7 7 ClJc3 ClJbd7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ClJe2 cS 10 ClJg3 1Wc7 1 1 ClJeS ClJxeS 12 hes 'ii'c6 13 1We2 a6 14 ClJhS ClJxhS lS .ixh7+ 'ifi>xh7 16 'ii'xhS+ 'iti>g8 17 .ixg7 'ifi>xg7 18 1Wg4+ 'ifi>h7 19 l:lf3 es 20 :h3+ 1ih6 21 :Xh6+ Wxh6 22 'ii'd7 i..£6 23 1Wxb7 'ifi>g7 24 :fl .l:.ab8 2S 1Wd7 :fd8 26 'ii'g4+ 'ifi>f8 27 fxeS .tg7 28 e6 l:lb7 29 'ii'g6 f6 30 :xf6+ .txf6 31 1Wxf6+ 'ifi>e8 32 'ii'h8+ 'ifi>e7 33 1Wg7+ 'ifi>xe6 34 'ii'xb7 .:d6 3S

21...1Wc6

Or 2 1 . . . .id8 22 'ii' h 4+ etc. 22 1Wf4+'it>g6 23 .l:.g3+ 'it>h7 241Wg41-o

There is no defence against the mul­ tiple mate threats. A spectacular game by the Russian GM. Gam e B

J.Capablanca-E.Michelsen

New Yor k 1910 1 e4 cs 2 b4cxb4 3 a3 e6 27

G a m b it e e r 1

l:a2 �g6 7 'ii'f4 CL!c6 8 'llf3 with a weird and wonderful position. Not that this is at all necessary; S c3 is a perfectly good move. s i.. e7 S . . . i.. f8 6 d4 dS (6 . . . d6 7 i.. d 3 'll f6 8 CL!e2 iie7 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 gave White a good attacking position in Mufics­ J.Horvath, Hungary 199S) 7 eS leads to positions similar to those in Chapter Three, but with White having the op­ tion of putting his knight on e2. A game Keres-Vulberg, Estonian Ch., Tallinn 193S, continued 7 . . . i.. d 7 8 i.. d 3 bS 9 'lle 2 °Wb6 10 0-0 aS 11 'lld 2 'llc6 12 'll b 3 a4 13 tllc S i.. x cS 14 dxcS 'ii' x cS lS it.e3 'ii'e7 16 i..xbS lLixeS 17 i..x a4 with dangerous attacking chances against Black's uncastled king. ...

This betrays even greater nervous­ ness than 3 . . . dS 4 exdS 'ii'xdS S 'llf3 e6. By keeping his head down Black hopes it won't get blown off. 4axb4

This looks right as White is going to build a centre here. Other lines to have been tried are 4 d4 dS S eS and 4 'llf 3 'llc 6 S d4 dS 6 eS, which transpose into the Wing Gambit line of the French that we'll look at in Chapter Three. 4...i..xb4

4 . . . 'llf6 S eS 'll d S (the tricky S . . . 'i!Vc7 is probably best met by 6 'llf3) 6 bS J..e7 (6 . . . b6 7 LLlf3 d6 8 it.b2 dxeS 9 tllxeS i.. e7 10 �S 0-0 1 1 i.. d 3 'llf6 12 �3 left Black perilously placed in Aristegui­ Perrichon, Paris 2001) 7 d4 0-0 was a game Schad-Nurnberger, Bayern 1999, and now 8 c4 'll c 7 9 i.d3 d6 10 exd6 it.xd6 11 lLif3 would have given White a clear strategic edge and with the lux­ ury of material equality. 5 c3

An interesting alternative is S 'ilfg4!?, hitting the g7-pawn. A game Gliksman-Susnik, Slovenia 1991, con­ tinued in original fashion with S . . . 'jj'f6 6 28

6 'llf3

It seems better to play the immediate 6 d4, keeping options such as 'ildl-g4 or a set-up with i.fl-d3 and 'llg l-e2. For example 6 . . . d6 (there are several alterna­ tives: 6 ... dS 7 eS 'll c6 8 'ii'g4! ? g6 9 i..d3 i..d7 10 'lle 2 J:c8 1 1 0-0 a6 12 'll d 2 t'llh6 13 � gave White a nice game in Vlas­ veld-Stuart, correspondence 1998;

Si cili a n D efe n c e: Win g G a m bi t

6 ... lb£6 7 eS lLidS 8 'ii'g4 �f8 was a game F.Berry-Delaune, correspondence 1981, and now 9 �3 looks natural, with long­ term attacking prospects against Black's displaced monarch; and 6 ... b6 is well met by 7 'it'g4) 7 i.d3, intending lLie2 and 0-0, gives White a promising attack­ ing position; for example, 7 ... lLif6 (or 7. . . eS 8 ll'ie2 llJf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 lLibd7 as in Kinnunen-Pollari, Helsinki 1999, and now 11 ll'id2 looks right) 8 ll'ie2 lLic6 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 i.d7 11 ll'ig3 'ifb6 12 'lla 3 a6 13 ll'ic4 'i//c7 14 ll'ie3 l:tfc8 lS eS and White had a strong attack in Noire­ Ribeiro, correspondence 1999. 6...lLif6 7 esll'ids s c4 lt'if4 8 ... ll'ib4 looks like a better move, though White still has a nice attacking position after 9 d4 0-0 10 'llc 3. 9 d4 i.b4+ 10 i.d2 'lte7 11 i.xb4 'ifxb4+12 ll'ibd2

13 liib1 lLid3+ 14 i.xd3 'ifxd3 15 l:tb3 'iWg6 16 0 -0 fS

Black is still trying to be too fancy. Simply 16 . 0-0 is better. . .

17 exf6 gxf6 ?

After this Bl�ck's kingside isn't really a fit habitation for his king, which makes one wonder where the monarch will live. 17 . . . 'it'xf6 is better, though White would have a large edge there too after 18 lLie4 'fle7 19 llJeS 0-0 20 cS followed by 21 lLld6. 18 liJh4'6'h6 19:th3 l:.g8 20 llle4

12 ...'it'c3

Black should really be trying to get his pieces out rather than mess around with just queen and knight. 12 . . . dS looks more sensible, though White still gets a nice game after 13 g3 lllg 6 14 i.d3.

20 ds ?I •••

This belated occupation of the cen­ tre just helps White open lines. 20 . . . lLic6 29

G a m b iteer 1

looks more tenacious, but in any case Black's prospects would be bleak in­ deed after 21 as.

28 ti:ld6+ cJi;d8 29 tt:lf7+ cJi;e8 30 Ael + tt:leS 31 tt:lfxeS etc.

21 cxds exds 22 tt:ld6 +
tt:ias 31'it'd3+1-0

28 'it'd6 + cJi;b6 29 J:b1+ 'iifa6 30 'it'a3+

'iWfB 24 'iff3 tt:lc6 2 5 ti:lg6 1

Black is mated in a couple of moves. Game 9 A.Muzychuk-E.Tairova

E u ropea n J u n i o r C h a m p io n s h i p, U rg u p 2004 1 e4cs 2 b4cxb4 3 a3 b3

Capablanca appears t o have been showing off a bit in this one. The knight sacrifice is not really necessary, though it is absolutely winning. 2 s 'it'f1 Or if 2S . . . Axg6 there follows 26 1i'xdS+ cJi;c7 27 Axh7+
26 .l:r.xh711 'ifxh7 27 'ifxds+

An attempt at safely declining the pawn, reminiscent of the line 1 d4 fS 2 g4 fxg4 3 h3 g3. 4CXb3

4 c4!? is an interesting alternative, for example a game Scharl-Tudosa, Bayern 1997, continued 4 . . 'ifb6 S .ib2 d6 6 d4 tt:lf6 when 7 .i.d3 (rather than 7 tt:lc3) 7 . . . tt:lc6 8 tt:le2 as 9 a4, intending to castle and play tt:l bl-a3-bS, would have been strong. .

4 ds •• •

27 �c7 •••

After 27 . . . We8 there would follow 30

The logical move, stopping White from building a pawn centre. After 4 . . . d6 S tt:lf3 tt:lc6 6 .i.e2 tt:lf6 7 tt:lc3 i..g4

S i c i l i a n D efe n ce : Win g G a m b i t

8 0-0 g6 9 d4 .i.g7 10 .ie3 White had the better game in Krylov-Lysyj, Toljatti 2000. sexdslbf6

14. .ixb1 ..

6 .i.b2

6 .ib5+ lbbd7 is harmless for Black, for example 7 lbc3 a6 8 .ixd7+ 'ili'xd7 9 'ilff3 b5 10 ltJge2 .i.b7 as in Zhdanov­ Abrashkin, Samara 2001 . On the other hand there's definitely a case for delaying .ib_2 until B lack plays . .. e6, mainly in order to direct White's play against . . . .i.g4 ideas. A sample line is 6 ltJf3 ltJxd5 7 .i.c4 ltJc6 8 0-0 i..g 4 9 ltJc3 ltJxc3 1 0 .ixf7+!? (10 dxc3 may be slightly better for White, but it's hardly going to be as much fun) 10 . . .@xf7 11 lbg5+ @e8 12 1Wxg4 ltJd5 (if 12 ... ltJe5 13 'it'h.4 ltJe2+ 14 @hl Wd5 1 5 d4 ltJxd4 1 6 .i.b2 continues the pres­ sure) 13 ..ib2 'ii'd 6 14 'it'f5 ltJf6 15 J:!.fel and White has strong pressure for the sacrificed piece.

14 ... 'i!i'd6 makes more sense than giving up the bishop and it looks quite nice for Black after 15 ltJc3 'Lif4. White's play in this game is not given as a glowing exampl�. 1s l:lxb1

It seems better to play 15 'it'xbl, hit­ ting h7; for example 15 .. J%g6 16 g5 ltJf4 1 7 h4 brings about a strange position, but one which looks better for White. 1s l:tg6 16 i.e3 hs 11 .i.bs'it'd6 ? 1 .•.

1 7. . . ltJxe3 1 8 dxe3 hxg4 1 9 'i!i'xd8+ l:lxd8 20 hxg4 l:r.xg4+ 21 �fl is only slightly better for White. 18 gs ltJxe3 19 dxe3'it'xa3 ?

6 ... ltJxd s 7 t;Jf3 ltJc6 8 .i.c4 .i.g4 9 o-o e6 10 h3 .ihs 11 l:te1 .ie7 12 g4 ?!

Too weakening. The alternative 12 ltJc3 looks better. 12 . . . .i g6 13 .i.xg7 l:lg8 14 .ih6 31

Gambiteer 1

Eliminating the wrong pawn. Black should play 19 . . . ..ixgS, when 20 'ilt'xd6 ..i.f4+ 21 �fl ..ixd6 is better for White, but not decisively so. Now White reinforces his kingside and establishes a stranglehold on the position.

Game 1 0 S.Mariotti-5.Holm

B u d a pest 1975 1 e4c s 2 b 4cxb4 3 d4! ?

20 h4 .tf6 2 1 .txc6 +

There wasn't really any need to cap­ ture straight away, 21 tLld4 looks even stronger. 21 ... bxc6 22 'ii'c2 �cs 23 �e4 'Wes 24 .:ted1 1Wfs 2s'ii' xfsexfs 26 f1 .ids ?

White's reply to this is very strong. Black had to keep the knight out of d4 with 26 . . . .i.g7. 27 tLld4

21

. .•

J..c1

27 . . .£4 28 exf4 isn't much of an im­ provement for Black. 2s tLlxfs.l:tbS 29 f4 l:tb4 30 l:td4l:xd4 31 t'bxd4 cs 32 tLlbs.tbs 33 : c i l:.c6

If 33 . . . a6 then the reply 34 l::t xcS threatens to win the bishop with 35 :cs+. 34 tLld4! l:[cS 3S tLlf S 'itd7 36 tLlg7 ii.d6

37 l:d 1 �c6 3S tLlxhs l:thS 39 tLlg3 as 40 hS l:bS 41 tLlfS .tfS 42 h6 1-0

32

One of several alternatives to 3 a3 which have had very few practical out­ ings. They therefore represent a fertile field for investigation by adventurous gambiteers; as Gerald Abrahams com­ mented, they 'lead to sporting chess' . The other possibilities are as follows: a) 3 i..b 2 dS (3 . . . tLlf6 is also possible, for example 4 .i.c4 tLlxe4 5 .txf7+ �xf7 6 1fh.5+ �g8 7 ._dS+ e6 8 1i'xe4 tLlc6 9 tLlf3 dS was l.Rogers-Hoeksema, Groningen 1991, and now 10 'ii'e3 was probably best, with at least some compensation because of the grip on the d4 and eS squares) 4 exdS 'iixdS (another possibil­ ity is 4 . . .tLlf6, for example 5 a3 1Wxd5 6 ttJf3 .tg4 7 ..ie2 e6 was Bender-Altrock, correspondence 1993, and now just 8 axb4 looks like the right move to me, the point being that 8 ... i.xb4? loses material to 9 ..ixf6 gxf6 10 c3 followed by 1 1

S i c i l i a n D efe n c e: W i n g G a m b i t

1Wa4+) 5 c4 (5 a3 e5 6 lbf3 leads back into Game 7, Scherbakov-Das) 5 ...bxc3 (after 5 ... 'ii'e4+ 6 .i.e2 Wxg2 7 .i.£3 'i!i'g6, 8 d4 e5 9 dxe5 lll c6 10 llle2 .td7 11 llld 2 lll ge7 12 llle4 lllf5 13 l:tgl We6 14 lll g5 We7 15 i.d5 lll h 6 16 f4 started to look very sporting from White's point of view in Abrahams-Dom, Bad Gastein 1948; 8 llle2 seems less good after 8 ... e5 because 9 .i.xe5 loses to 9 ...'i!i'f5, as in Buth­ Prestel, Ladenburg 1992) 6 lllxc3

6 ... 'ifd8 (6 ... 'if a5 was met by the trappy 7 .tb5+ .td7 8 'iih5 lllc6 9 llld5 in Shepherd-Kostya, Internet 2004, and now 9 ... lbf6? 10 hf6 gxf6 1 1 .i.xc6 .lxc6 12 lllx f6+ won Black's queen) 7 d4 lllf6 8 d5!? a6 9 '1Va4+ (in a later game Villing varied with 9 lllf3 lllbd7 10 'ifa4, though it's not at all clear why; Villing-Dubeck, Waldshut 1981, continued 10 ... 1tb8 1 1 l:tcl g6 12 g3 .i.g7 1 3 �g2 0-0 14 0-0 lll c5 15 'ifd4 it'a5 16 l:tfel with inadequate compensation, but White played rather too slowly) 9 . . . .i.d7 10 1ib3 fta7 11 lbf3 g6 12 .i.d3 .i.g7 13 llle4 0-0 14 0-0 lllxe4 15 he4 hb2 16 'i!i'xb2 and White had quite good compensation in Villing­ Schuh, Eberbach 1980.

b) 3 �c4 acts against Black's thematic ... d5. Play might continue 3 ... lllf6 (after 3 . . . e6 I like the move 4 'ii'e2, delaying ... d5, but can't find any practical examples) 4 e5 d5 and now after 5 .i.e2 llle4 (5 ... lll g8 6 d4 also gives play a!ong the lines of the French Wing Gambit) 6 f3 lllc5 7 d4 lll e6 8 f4 White has a good attacking position for the pawn. 3

... ds

a) 3 . . .e6 4 lllf3 lllf6 ( 4 ... d5 5 e5 trans­ poses into the French Wing Gambit, while 4 ... d6 is answered by 5 .i.d3 .i.e7 6 0-0 lllf6 7 'ife2 aiming for e4-e5 and 'ife2-e4) 5 e5 llld5 6 .i.d3 .i.e7 7 0-0 lll c6 8 a3 0-0 9 axb4 llld xb4 10 .i.e4 d5 (or 10 .. .£5 11 exf6 .i.xf6 12 c3) 11 exd6 .i.xd6 12 c4 (12 .i.xh7+ �7 13 lllg5+ 'iitg6 does not look quite good enough) 12 ... .i.e7 13 �b2 f5 14 .ixc6 bxc6 15 'ife2 gives White good play. b) 3 . . . lllf6 should probably be met by 4 .i.d3, a game Alekhine-Portela, Buenos Aires 1926, continuing 4 . . . d6 5 f4 e5 6 lll f3 exd4 7 0-0 .!Lic6 8 Wel .i.g4 9 lllb d2 'ifc7 10 .i.b2 .i.xf3 11 lll xf3 0-0-0 12 'ifi>hl d5 13 e5 lll e4 14 .i.xe4 dxe4 1 5 11fxe4 with a good game for White, which he went on to win. 4 e5

If 4 exd5 then 4 ... lllf6!, as recapturing on d5 with a knight does not cost Black any tempi compared to ...'i!Vxd5 lines. 4... e6 ?I

Shutting the queen's bishop in like this doesn't seem the best, and certainly it's unnecessary at this stage. Black's best is probably 4 ...lllc6, when White should defend the d4-pawn with 5 �e3; for example 5 . . . �f5 6 llle 2 e6 7 lllg3 �g6 33

Gamb iteer 1

(after 7... li:Jge7 8 h4 looks interesting, in

6 .td3 li:Jc6 7 li:Je2 f6 8 f4 "flb6 9 axb4

order to gain space on the kingside with

li:Jxb4 10 o-o f5 11 li:Ja3 li:Jxd3 12 'i!Vxd3

h4-h5) 8 h4 fS 9 li:Je2 .th5 10 f3 .te7 11

li:J e7 13C41

.tf2 i.£7 12 li:Jf4 'ifb6 13 .i.d3 0-0-0 14 li:Jd2 g S 15 hxgS .txgS 16 li:Je2 h S 17 llbl 'flc7 18 a3 bxa3 and the game was agreed drawn in this messy position in Arbakov-Suetin, Moscow 1981.

.

With White's superior development

it makes sense to open the game up. 13 'if dB 14li:Jbsli:Jc6 15 cx�s exds

If 15 . . . li:Jb4, 16 'ii'g3 li:JxdS 17 li:Jd6+

•••

.txd6 18 '1Vxg7 with a clear advantage. 5 a3

16 .ta3 .te6 17 .td6 1 'itf7 18 g41 g6 19

The English master Harold Bird once played 5 .td3 in this position, Bird­

li:Jg3 'i'd7

And not 19 . . . fxg4? because 20 fS!

Mackenzie, London 1883, continuing

gives White a winning attack.

5 ... li:Jc6 6 li:Je2 g6 7 a3 i.d7 8 0-0 li:Jh6 9

20 l:[fbl b6 21 l:[ci .l:tgB 22 l:tc3 :cs

.td2 l[Jf5 10 .txfS gxfS 11 axb4 .txb4 12

c3 .tf8 13 li:Jg3 .tg7 14 li:Ja3 a6 15 'ii'hs with good attacking chances for the

pawn. As with the Wing Gambit varia­

tion of the French, Black has trouble finding a decent home for his king. 5 li:Jf3 would transpose directly into the French

(see

Game 23, Salmensuu-Lalic).

s...1Wc7

Black can also capture on a3, for ex­ ample 5 . . . bxa3 6 c3 .td7 7 li:Jxa3 li:Je7 8 .id3 a6 9 li:Je2 li:Jbc6 10 h4 li:JaS 11 hS

li:Jec6 12 l:lbl bS 13 li:Jc2 f6 14 l[Jf4 "fle7 15 1Vg4 0-0-0 was far from clear at this

23 :xc6 1'irxc6 24 Jitxa7+.td7

point in Mariotti-B.Larsen, Milan 1975.

li:Jc7+ :Xc7 26 :xc7 'i!Va4 27 gxfS gxfS 28

34

After 2 4 . . . 'iii> e8 White could play 25

S i c i l i a n D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

�xf8 Wxf8 29 .!:[xh7 with a likely win.

A n odd, but far from silly reply

25 gxf5 'iic 1+ 26 'it>g2 'iib2 + 27 'it>h3

which leads to barely explored posi­

W eB 28 l:xd71 'it>xd7 29 e6 +'it>dB

tions.

Or 29 . . . Wc6 30 0ia7+ etc.

3 0if3

White can also pour gasoline on the fire with 3 f4!?, for example 3 . . . exf4 (3 . . . d6 4 0if3 �g4 5 �c4 0ic6 6 0-0 0id4 was a game Bird-NN, London 1895, and now 7 �xf7+ Wxf7 8 0ig5+ would have been a nice simple way to play, the point being that 8 . . . 'it'xg5 9 fxg5+ is check; in the game he tried a specula­ tive queen sacrifice with 7 0ixd4 �xdl 8 �b5+ We7 9 0if5+ We6 10 0ic3) 4 0if3 d5 5 exd5 'it'xd5 6 0ic3 'iVhS was a si­ multaneous display game, Capablanca­ 30 f6 .�xd6 31 0ixd6 :c2 32 e7+ 'it>c7 33

Viana, Rio de Janeiro 1928, in which

'Wxc2 +1 'ii xc2 34 f71 'it>xd6 35 fxgB'iV

Capa should have played 7 0ib5 0ia6 8

White could also have promoted to

bxc5 'it'xc5 9 d4 followed by a quick c2-

a knight if no queen was available.

c4 with a nice space advantage in the

35 ... 'it>xe7 36 'ii xd5 1-0

middle.

Game 1 1

N.Davies-'Milorad'

I nternet ( blitz) 2005 1 e4c5 2 b4e5

3 cxb4 •••

a) In another Internet Blitz game against ' lpe' my opponent played 3 .. .£6 4 0ixe5 fxe5 (4 . . . 'it'e7 is better but Black is still way behind in development af­

ter 5 0if3 'it'xe4+ 6 .l:Le2) 5 'ifu5+ 1-0, which is one of my fastest ever wins.

Had Black continued with 5 . . . g6 there would have followed 6 'it'xe5+ 'it'e7 7 �b2 cxb4 8 'it'xe7+ 0ixe7 9 .ltxh8 etc. Of the other moves: b) I think 3 . . . 0if6 was better for White after 4 0ixe5 'it'e7 5 �b2 d6 6 �b5+ i..d 7 7 0ixd7 'it'xe4+ 8 'it'e2 'it'xe2+ 9 Wxe2 0ibxd7 10 .l:Lxf6 gxf6 1 1 0ic3 0-0-0

12

�xd7+

.!:[xd7

13

0id5

in

].Nemeth-Wilkinson, Melbourne 2002. c) 3 . . . 'it'c7 also looks better for White after 4 0ic3 0if6 5 0ib5! 'ifb6 6 0ixe5 35

G a m b it e e r 1

cxb4 7 t'Llc4. d) 3 . . . t'Llc6 4 bS t'Lld4 5 i.c4 d6

(5 . . . 'iVf6 6 t'Llc3 t'Llxf3+ 7 gxf3 t'Lle7 8 'it'e2 was good for White in Kadas-Mede, Hungary 1997) 6 c3 t'Llxf3+ 7 'i'xf3 'i!i'f6 8 iVe2 left White with a positional advan­ tage in Nanu-Gal, Szeged 1 998.

9 i.e7 .••

Hitting back in the centre with

9 . . . dS is probably better, but I claim a slight structural advantage for White after 10 exd6 i.xd6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 'it'hs aS 13 a3 bxa3 14 t'Llxa3 a4 15 i.a2. 10 o-o o-o 11 a3 as 12 axb4 axb4 13 .l:f.xaB t'LlxaB 14 d3 dS l S exd6 'ifxd6 16

4 t'Llxes

A bit boring, but then I used to play

t'Lldz i.f6 ?

the English and Reti openings! 4 i.c4 is more in the spirit of things, when 4 . . . t'Llc6 5 0-0 i.cS 6 d4! ? Ji.xd4 7 t'Llxd4 t'Llxd4 8 f4 lt'ie6 9 �b2 t'Llf6 10 i.xeS 'it'b6+ 1 1 �hl t'Llxe4 12 fS t'Llf2+ 1 3 :xf2 'i!Vxf2 14 fxe6 left White up on material in Yakivchik-Shliahtich, Alushta 2002. 4 t'Llc6 S t'Llxc6 •••

If I got this position again I might

try 5 d4, one variation running 5 . . 'ife7 .

6 t'Llf3 'i!i'xe4+ 7 �e2 t'Llf6 8 0-0 with compensation for the pawn because of Missing the rather obvious reply.

Black's exposed queen.

16 . .. 'it'h6 is better, with only a slight

s bxc6 •••

Black

can

also

play 5 . . . dxc6,

to

which White would reply with 6 i.b2. I quite like White in this position as he has more centre pawns than Black.

6 �bz t'Llf6 7 es t'Llds B i.c4t'Llb6 9 .i.b3 36

advantage to White. 17 '2ie4

Effectively ending the game . Black gets zero compensation for the destruc­ tion of his king position.

�W�i �Gambb ii t Sicilian ': Def ....:..: �:2.. e �nc�e'..:._: n�g � ��..

------11 ... 'ii' dB 18 li)xf6 + gxf6 19 'it'f3 f5 slll c 3 lilc6

:=�

20

11Vg3+ 1-0

Game 1 2

I

-

.

5 . . . 11l16 6 e5 lile4

4 . e6 9 0-0 gave Whi:a� De mce J. game sm1'< e4

xe4

Vita-Blasi, R ome 1990 . "' b1 llb8 7 il.c4 6 �

N . Davies-'IBA'

I n t ernet (blitz) 2005

I

1 e4C5 2 b4 b6

7 e6 •••

�

3 bxcs It's

probably better to wait

for

Black's bishop to go to b 7 before pla y . mg this, so now I prefer 3 ltJf3, for ex� b7 4 bx c5 bxcS (if 4 . . . .a.xe � 45 ample 3 . . . .a.

7 . . . g 6 8 0-0 .t

;9

J:lel ltJf6 10 es

ll'l 4 11 i..xf7+ 'it> !7 12 ltJg5+ led to a _ Pin t Pal vaqmck win for Wh"i t e m ° B raz m an Nobre ga, Championshi p 1 964 .

ltJ d6 10 o-o ile7 11 es 8 d3 liJf6 9 .tf4 dxes 12 ttJxes

x e5 13 .txes

7 il.e2) 5 lilc3 . ould tran spose mto the game ' _ Black the supe · :ut without allowmg _ nor 4 . . . ltJc6 . ltJc3 .tb7 6 cxb6

:::

3 bxcs 4 ll)f3 .i.b7 .•.

As the bi shop turns out to be v ul-

nerable on the open b- file there's a case . for dela ymg · or even omitting thi S . move. 4 ... liJc6 IS better , for example 5

ii_c4 e6 6 ltJc3 ttJ e ' ? 7 0-0 ltJ g6 8 d4 cxd4 9 ltJxd4 ltJ a: : h2 .te7 1 1 llbl

�

0-0 left Black with he superior pa wn . structure in Sh u " azi-Spra ggett, Cappelle la G rande 2006.

13 0-0 ? .••

Givmg · away the house. Black took . � fnght at the thou g,.h . t. of 13 . . .... d 6 14 --------- = � 37

Gambiteer 1 i..bS+ �f8, but this is certainly better

1S ... i..x f3 19 l:lxbS+ i..f S 20 gxf3

than the game.

14 i..x bS 'it'xbS

1S .ta61 .txa6? OK, this was a blitz game. 15 . . "it'eS .

was relatively best, but it' s still an extra exchange for White. After the text it ' s a matter of technique.

16 :xbB .l:.xbS 17 "it'f3 i.. b 7 1S .l:.b1 Giving back the queen to get a really easy ending.

38

20 ... g6 21 lll e 4 ll\xe4 22 fxe4
Sicilian Defence: Wing Gambit Summary Th e Sicilian Wing Gambit is still largely unexplored territory, in which Black must defend very accurately if he's to avoid having his king caught in the centre or fal­

ling into a passive position. I find the 6 i.b2 of Grabinsky-Sharevich to be a par­ ticularly exciting development and the extra bold may wish to explore White's third move alternatives.

1 e4 cs

2 b4 (D) cxb4

2 ... e5 - Game 1 1

3 a3

2 . . .b6 - Game 1 2

3 d 4! ? - Game 10

J ...ds 3 ... e6 - Game 8

3 . . .b3 - Game 9

4 exds 'ffxds s ll'lf3 (D) es 5 . . . e6 - Game 7 6 axb4 6 i.b2!? - Game 6 6 ... hb4 7 c 3 7 lt'la3 - Game 5 7 . . . i.d6 7 ... i.cS - Game 3 7. . . Jie7 - Game 4 8 ll'la 3 ll'lc6 9 i.c4 'ii'e 4+ 10 i.e2 (D) 10 ... 'ii' g 6 - Game 1 10 . . . lt'lge7 - Game 2

2

"4

s lt'l/J

2o i.e2

39

Chapt e r Two

I

D a n i s h G a m b it

Ever since recording a video on this

met 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 with 4

opening (The Dashing Danish) I've had

tllx c3, probably because he had little

club players approach me to say how

faith in White's prospects for an advan­

effective it has been at club level . And

that's not to mention the fun aspect! It

tage after 4 i.c4 cxb2 5 i.xb2 d5 6 .i.xd5 tll f6, the so-called Schlechter Defence.

has to be said that this is a really scary

Now conventional wisdom has it that 4

opening to meet if you don't know ex­

tllxc3 leads to a Goring Gambit (1 e4 e5

actly what you're doing, and very few

2 tllf 3 tll c 6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 tllx c3),

players under 2200 will have a clue. It's

but Alekhine' s games told a different

the kind of opening that makes people

story. Sometimes it transposes but usu­

want to hide behind a row of pawns as

ally it does not. And Black's best de­

they do in the French, not that this is

fences are ruled out by Alekhine's cun­

immune from swashbuckling gambiteers

ning move order.

as we shall see in the next chapter.

Onto

As with the Sicilian Wing Gambit,

specifics,

and

when

Black

plays 4 . . . tll c 6 5 i.c4 tllf6, White's best is

the Danish has a remarkably good

to play 6 tllf3 reaching a variation of

pedigree. As usual we find Marshall

the Goring. In Bryson-Sorri (Game 13)

and Alekhine amongst its list of expo­

and Ghizdavu-Dake (Game 14) Black

it

then played 6 . . i.b4, reaching a sharp

mainly in simuls but also in serious

endgame after 7 e5 d5 8 exf6 dxc4 9

tournament

'i!Vxd8+ followed by 10 fxg7. The jury is

nents,

the

latter

having

games.

played

Capablanca and

.

Lasker also used it in simuls, whilst

still out on some of these lines but I

Mieses played it whenever he could.

tend to prefer White's chances. And if

Whilst I was preparing the material for this chapter I noticed that Alekhine

40

Black is unprepared it will be very dif­ ficult for him to find the right moves.

Danish Gambit Instead of 6 . . . .i.b4 Black can also play 6 . . . d6. There then follows 7 'ifb3

ifd7 8 lL!gS lL!es 9 .i.bS c6 10 £4 when

ment o n e2, once again with long-term positional compensation for the pawn. From a practical point of view one

Black has a choice of moves. After

of the main problems with the Danish

10 . . . cxbS the critical line is 1 1 fxeS dxeS

Gambit has been the economical de­

12 .i.e3 aS 13 0-0 a4 14 'ifxbS and now

fence afforded by 3 . . . dS, especially Ca­

Black played 14 . . . .i.d6 in Fluvia Poya­

pablanca' s 4 exdS 'ifxdS 5 cxd4 lL!c6

tos-Grischuk (Game 1 5 ) . It could be

and if 6 lL!f3 .i.g4 7 .i.e2 i.b4+ 8 lL!c3

that White only has a draw in this line

.i.xf3 9 .i.xf3 'ifc4 (a Garing Gambit

after 15 "iVe2 h6, but once again Black

Declined). Theory maintains that W h ite

must know exactly what he's doing.

has a choice of two endgames, either 10

When pla yers like the young Grischuk

"iVb3 or 10 .i.xc6+ bxc6 11 'ife2. Neither

go astray (Fluvia Poyatos should have

of them offers any real prospect of an

slaughtered the young Russian), one

advantage. For this reason I am rec­

can safely assume that other players

ommending the little-explored 6 .i.e3 ! ?

won't know how to draw either. The

(Chapman-Solomon, Game 2 1 ) , which

14 . . . .i.e7 of Ginsburg-Slipak (Game 1 6)

has the virtue of throwing Black on his

seems less good, White maintaining a

own resources and seems very interest­

promising position.

ing by comparison with the Capab­

In Dolgov-Anohin (Game 17) Black

lanca line. Last but not least we come to the

preferred 10 ... lL!eg4 to 10 . . . cxbS, and I liked White's play up to the point he

game Piay Augusto-Leite (Game 22) in

played 18 .i.h6 (instead of the superior

which I examine various other options

18

for declining the gambit. None of them

.i.£4).

The

10 . . . lL!g6 of Vaassen­

Lambooy (Game 18) seems less good:

seem particularly safe for B lack.

it's rather too passive a move to play

Game 1 3

against a White who is charging for­ ward, meat cleaver in hand. There

is

much

evidence

D.Bryson-J.Sorri

of

Correspon dence 1987

Alekhine' s thinking on the Danish in his game against Kohn (Game 19): he meets 4 . . . d6 with 5 'Wb3 (preventing

1 e4 es 2 d4

5 . . . .i.e6) and then puts his knight on e2

Both this and several other games i n

on move 7. Conceptually I find this

this chapter arose v i a the Goring Gam­

very interesting; conventional wisdom

bit, 2 lL!f3 lL!c6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3, but I've

has it that the knight's most 'natural'

given a Danish move order for the sake

square is £3, but from e2 it can go to g3

of clarity.

In Alekhine-Pomar (Game 20) we see

Amazingly, this natural move has been

another example of the knight's place-

quite rare in this particular position,

and leaves the £-pawn free to advance.

2 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 lL!xc3 1 ? ...

41

Gambiteer 1 though the great Alekhine liked to play it in simultaneous exhibitions.

The critical line. After 7 0-0 .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6 White finds it more difficult to generate some initiative, for example 9 e5 (9 .i.a3 .tg4) 9 . . . lll xe5 10 lll xe5 dxe5 1 1 'ii'x d8+ ( 1 1 'ii'b 3 'ile7 12 .ta3 c5 13 .tbs+ 'iti>f8 14 l:ladl .ie6 also fails ta impress) l l . . .'it>xd8 1 2 .ixf7 'iti>e7 1 3 i.b3 .te6 is better for Black.

7 ... ds 8 exf6 dxc4 9 Wxd8+ lll x d8 This seems better than 9 ... 'iti>xd8?! 10 fxg7 li!.e8+ 11 .i.e3 i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 'iti>e7 13 0-0-0! 'iti>f6 14 lll d 4! .ig4 15 lll xc6 .i.xdl 16 .td4+ 'iti>g5 17 h4+ 'iti>h5 18 lll b4! ( 1 8 �xdl w a s played in Wcrafty­ Obviously it's similar to the so-called

Comet, computer game 1998, but seems

Goring Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 lllf3 lll c6 3 d4

far less good than the text) 18 . . . .ta4 19

exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 lllx c3) and in many

lll d 5 l:led8 20 g4+ 'iti>h6 (20 . . . 'iti>xg4 21

lines transposes. Yet in some variations

l:lgl + gives White a winning attack de­

the delayed development of White's

spite the limited material, for example

knight to £3 can have subtle effects, such

2 1 . . .'iti>h3 22 l:.g3+ �h2 23 lllf6 etc) 2 1

as allowing White's £-pawn to advance,

lll e 7 i. c 6 22 l:.el and Black i s com­

or reserving the option of lll ge2 (see

pletely tied up because of his poor king

Games 19-21) from where the knight

position and the passed pawn on g7.

can recapture on c3 or go to g3 and then

10 fxg7 l:r.g8

h5 or £5. It seems to me that this offers a

Black can also play 10 . . . .txc3+ first,

fertile field of investigation for the pro­

when 1 1 bxc3 li!.g8 12 .th6 will trans-

spective gambiteer.

pose.

4 ... lll c 6 5 .tc4 lllf6 6 lll f3 .ib4 7 e s !

11 J.h6

42

Danish Gambit If White wants to play for an advan­

c 5 18 lll f5 lllxf5 1 9 .litxd5 lllxh6 2 0 f5 won

tage here, he must really keep the

the exchange in Schiffer-Micic, German

pawn on g7.

League 1995) 16 lllh4 (16 :td4?! llle8 was

11 f6

played in De Donno-D'Adamo, corre­

...

Here, too, Black can either take on

spondence 1984, and now 17 .litxc4 would

c3 immediately or wait a move, the key

have been best with equality; White has

difference between his defensive tries

some more promising alternatives, for

being where he puts the rest of his

pieces. In this there are several major

example 16 lll d4 'itf6 17 i..f4! ? c5 18 i..e5+

alternatives:

l:lg5+ '3;h6 22 ..if4 cxd4 23 :dgl 1-0 was

a) l l . . .lll e6 1 2 0-0-0 .i.xc3 1 3 bxc3

'3;g5?! 19 h4+! �xg4 20 l:gl + '3;h5 21 Levy-McDonald Ross, Dundee 1976, and

lLJxg7 (13 . . . .i.d7?! 14 :hel 0-0-0?! is an­

16 h3 llle8 17 i..g5+ '3;f8 18 i..£4 llld 6 19

swered by 15 lll e5 lllx g7 16 i.. x g7 :xg7

lll g5 gave White a solid advantage in

17

Steiger-Stroeher,

lllx d7

.litxd7

18

.lite8+

etc;

and

correspondence 2001)

13 . . . lll cS 14 lll g5 lll d 3+ 15 J:lxd3 cxd3 1 6

16 ... llle8 17 h3 llld6 18 f4 and White had a

lll xh7 '3;e7 1 7 :el+ i..e 6 18 f4 f5 1 9 g4

strong attack in Mischke-Creus, corre­

litd6 20 gxf5 .i.xf5 21 lllf6 was winning

spondence 1986.

for White in Levy-Karakajic, Cienfue­ gos 1972) 14 J:lhel+ and now:

a2) 14 . . . lll e6 15 i..£4 '3;f8 (there are other moves here, for example: 15 .. .£6 16 i.. x c7 '3;f7 17 i.. g 3 lll c 5?! 18 i..d 6 lll d 3+ 19 .litxd3 cxd3 20 .:.e7+ �g6 21 lllh4+ '3;g5 22 l:txh7 and Black's king is trapped according to Muller and Voigt; 15 . . .bS 16 .i.xc7 .i.b7 17 lll d 4 l:txg2 1 8 i.. g3 trapped Black's rook i n Marchi­ sotti-Pecchini,

correspondence

1995;

15 . . . c6 16 .i.g3 f6 17 lll d 4 '3;f7 18 lll f5 gave White a huge initiative in Dosi­ Cottarelli, correspondence 1984; and 15 . . . cs 16 lll g5 h5 17 h4 b6 18 lllh7 l:tg6 19 g4! hxg4 20 h5 led to a quick win for al) 14 . . . .ie6 15 g4 (White has an in­

White in Meinecke-Lubos, correspon­

teresting alternative in 15 lllg 5!?, for ex­

dence 1988) 16 i..h6+ (16 i..g 3 looked

ample 15 . . .lll fS 16 g4! lllxh6 17 lLJxe6 fxe6 18 :Xe6+ '3;£7 19 :xh6 '3;g7 20 :h5 gives

OK for Black after 16 . . . bS 17 lll d4 lll x d4

White a favourable rook endgame ac­

in Abromeit-Ster, correspondence 1999)

18 .litxd4 .i.b7 19 l:td7 .ixg2 20 :xc7 .Ug6

cording to my analysis with Fritz 9; an­

1 6 . . . 'ite7 (16 ... 'ite8 should probably be

other untried and previously unanalysed

met by 17 g3, when Black still has to

possibility is 15 .litd5!? threatening 16

sort out the development of his pieces)

l:lg5) 15 ... �e7 (15 . . lld8 16 lll d4 .l:.d5 17 f4

17 lll h4 'itf6 18 ltd5 b6 19 litf 5+ '3;e7 20 43

Gam biteer 1

interesting,

�d5 a6 17 l2Jh4 l2Jxg7 18 i.xg7 l:txg7 1 9

though White seems to have at least a

i.g5+

�d6

(20 . . . �f8

is

.U. d 8 i.b7 2 0 l:td7+ �f8 21 .U.xg7 i..xe4 2 2

draw via 21 i.h6+ �e7 22 i.g5+ etc) 2 1

.U.xc7 .U. e 8 23 l:i. a 7 and White scrambled

i.e3 l2J d 8 2 2 .U.h5 and White stood bet­

a draw in Schreyer-Dobsa, correspon­

ter in Bahkrak-Gyimesi, Budapest 1994.

dence 2001.

b) 1 1 . ..i.fS 1 2 0-0-0 i.xc3 13 bxc3

b) 1 4 l:i.d4 ! ? looks more interesting,

l2Je6 ( 1 3 .. .£6 can be met by 14 .ki.hel+

when 14 . . . �g6 15 .U.h4 c6 16 .U.dl .�.£5 1 7

@f7 15 �d4 with many threats, for ex­

.ie3 i.d3 ( 1 7. . .�xg7 looks best, though

ample 15 . . .bS ? ! 16 �f4 �g6 17 l2Jh4+

it looks a bit better for White after 1 8

@xh6 18 l2Jxf5+ �g5 19 .U.f3 1-0 as in

.l:!.xc4) 18 l:i.g4+ �f7 1 9 tlJ e l h 5 2 0 .U.h4

Grevlund-Binas, correspondence 1978)

1'.f5 21 l::lf4 i.g4 22 f3 1'.e6 23 1Ld4 was

1 4 i::t h el .U.d8 1 5 l2Jd4 .U.d5 1 6 l2Jxf5 .U.xf5

very good for White at this stage in

17 f4 l:rh5 18 i.g5 .U.xg5 19 fxg5 .U.xg7 20

Dolgov-Kaverin, St Petersburg 1 99 1 .

h4 1-0 was L . Richter-Claus, correspon­

1 4 ... tt:Jc6 Black might well do better to play

dence 1975 .

1 2 o-o-o .txc3 13 bxc3 @f7

14 . . . l2Je6 in this position, for example 1 5

For 13 . . . l2Jc6 14 �hel+ see the next

.U.hel l2Jc5 ( 1 5 . . . l2Jxg7 1 6 i.xg7 l:txg7 1 7

game, Ghizdavu-Dake; while 13 . . . ..ifS

.U.d8 !tg8 1 8 l:i.xg8 �xg8 1 9- lie8+ �f7 2 0

transposes into note 'b' to Black's 1 1th

.U.h8 �g7 21 l:i.d8 b 6 2 2 l2J£5+ �£7 23 g4

move

was good for White in Wrinn-Bogin,

above,

the

subvariation with

13 . . . £6.

correspondence 1983) 16 �bl l2Jd3 1 7 .l:!.e2

a5

18

h3

was

Asmundsson­

Bessenay, N ice 1 974, and now 18 . . . fS 1 9 l2Jf3 .U.a6 looks quite good for Black. Unless improvements can be found here then White should opt for 14 �d4.

15 f 4 i.. g 4 16 .U.de1 .U.ge8 17 h3 1Le2 18 g4 JL.d3 19 gs

14 l2Jh4 A couple of other moves have been tried here: a) 14 �hel l2Je6 (Voigt and Muller give 14 . . . �g6 15 i.f4 l2Je6 16 l2Jh4+ �f7 17 .ih6 l2Jc5 as the antidote, but White can do better with 1 7 l:te4) 15 .U.e4 b5 16 44

D a n is h G a m b i t

2 5 i.f1

19 b5?!

• • •

•.•

Launching

into

a

counter-attack

If 25 . . . .i.xfS 26 l:thfl wins on the

when he should really be thinking

spot.

about defending his kingside. 19 . . . tt)e7

26 l:te4

looks better, defending the kingside

If 26 lZJxc7 llxel 27 lhel J:td8 28

light squares (fS and g8 in particular).

cxb4 l'iJxb4.

2o gxf6 b4

26 l:t a bB 27 l:td1 •••

This is certainly consistent, but here

White shouldn't let himself be dis­

too it was better to focus on the king­

tracted by Black ' s queenside pawns. 27

side. 20 . . . 'ifi>xf6 21 tt)f3 'ifi>f7 22 :hgl

l:hc4 bxc3+ 28 'ifi>xc3 l?Je7 starts to look

.:!.xel + 23 :xel is good for White be­

better for Black.

cause his g7-pawn continues to tie

27 bxc3+ 28 'it>xc3 tt)b4 29 l:td2 c6 30 'it>xc4 l::t b 5?

Black down, but this is certainly better

.•.

After this White i s clearly winning.

for Black than the game.

21 'it>b2 'ot>xf6 22 tt)f3 'it>f7 23 tt)g5+ It was worth considering the imme­

Black can make a real fight of it with 30. . . l'iJdS, for example 31 'ifi>cS (or 31

diate 23 fS!?, for example 23 . . . i.xfS is

'ot>d3 l:tb4) 31 . . JlbS+ 32 'ifi>xc6 tt)c3 33

answered b y 24 J:txe8 l:r.xe8 25 llfl and

if 25 . . . J:.e2+ then 26 'ifi>cl looks good.

l:te3 !hf5, breaking the stranglehold on

23 'it>gB 24 l'iJe6 .ig6?

31 l:td7 l:lebB

•••

Missing

White's

reply?

the kingside.

24 . . . l:te7

would have been better so as to meet

25 fS (25 �gs is probably best) with 25 . . . :£7.

25 f5!

32 l:txf7 ! A nice exchange sacrifice which eliminates a key defender of the light squares. 32 l:txa7?! l:txfS would have let Black off the hook. A key move for White; this pawn on f 5 will play a crucial role in keeping Black's kingside in a bind.

32 'it>xf7 33 tt)g5+ 'it>f6 34 tt)xh7+ c;t>f7 3 5 tt)g5+ ..tf6 36 .:.e2 :td 5 ? ••.

3 6 . . . l'iJa6

37

l'iJh7+

'ifi>f7

38

f6 45

Gambiteer 1 wouldn't make a huge difference.

37 lll h 7+ 'iitt1 3s f6 :ts 39 lll gs+ 'iii> g6 40 f7 l:.f4+ 41 'itcs lll d 3+ 42 @d6 .l:.xf7 43 lllxf7 'itxf7 44 l:.e3 l:.gs 4S l:.f3+ @g6 46 l:.xd3 @xh6 47 .l:.g3 1-o Game 1 4

D.Ghizd avu-A.Dake

Lone Pine 1975

.l:.xel @f7 20 lll d 2 h5 21 lll x c4 hxg4 22 .!Lid6+ @g7 23 hxg4 left Sorri in a worse state at this stage than in his game against Bryson, though he eventually managed to scramble a draw.

14 ... 'itf7 1s .l:.e4 .te6?1 After this Black can't easily get to the p awn on g7. He should probably play

15 . . . @g6 16 ilf4 ( 1 6 .l:.h4 .te6

leaves White's rook a bit misplaced on h4) 16 . . ..l:.xg7, when 17 .l:.xc4 .te6 1 8

1 e 4 e s 2 d 4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 lll x c3 lll c 6 s .tc4 lll f 6 6 lll f3 .tb4 7 es ds s exf6 dxc4 9 'iVxdS+ lll x dS 10 fxg7 llgS 11 .th6 .txc3+ 12 bxc3 f6 13 o-o-o lll c 6

.l:.e4 .txa2 ( 1 8 . . . @f7 1 9 lLih4 intending t o take o n c 7 is a bit awkward) 1 9 @b2

.tg8 20 g4, intending 21 .!Lih4+, gives

White the initiative for his pawn.

16 g4

Discouraging White from using the d4-square and aiming to get his pieces

16 ....l:.adS

out, but here too Black is struggling for

In Pirrot-Gebhardt, Saarlouis 1986,

equality. For 13 . . . @f7 see the previous

Black played 16 .. .llae8, after which 1 7

game, Bryson-Sorri.

g5 f5 1 8 .l:t.e2 .l:t.e7? ( 1 8 . . . .tc8 i s better,

14 l:.he1+

but still pleasant for White after 1 9

In a game Lehtivaara-Sorri, Helsinki

.lir.del .l:.xe2 20 .l:.xe2) 1 9 .l:t.del, threaten­

1990, White played 14 h3, after which

ing 20 g6+, won quickly.

14 . . . @f7 15 g4 'itg6 16 ilf4 @xg7 1 7

17 gs l:.xd1+ 1s @xd1 .l:.dS+ 19 'itc1 :gs 20 h4

.txc7 l:le8 ( 1 7. . . .te6 1 8 .l:.hel .l:.ae8 looks like a better way, with only a slight advantage for White because of his more active pieces) 18 .l:t.hel .l:t.xel 19 46

White tightens his grip.

20 ... .td1 2 1 hs White might also have played 21

Danish Gambit gxf6, when 2 1 . . . .i.fS 22 l:tf4 Wxf6 23 hS

lLJaS 1 0 'Wc2 lLixc4 1 1 ltJdS Vd8 1 2 'Wxc4

leaves Black helpless.

c6 13 l:Hel or 13 lLixf6+ gxf6 14 'Wc3 i.e7 15 i14 l:tg8 1 6 lLJd4 with excellent compensation for the pawn)

2

1

•••

bs?

Losing

immediately.

The

last

chance to stay on the board was with

8 ... ltJg4 (the alternatives also look

21 .. .fS 22 ltxc4 .lir.e8, but this also looks

bad for Black, for example: 8 ... ltJd7 9

good for White after 23 ltJd4 .lir.eS 24 f4

ltJdS ltJcS was a game Alekhine-Clotas,

.l:te4 25 lLixc6! bxc6 (if 25 . . . .i.xc6 26 l:kS

Spain 1943, and now 10 "i!Vc3 would

wins on the spot) 26 lkS, threatening

have been very unpleasant for Black;

27 litaS. Black is completely tied up and

8 ... lLJeS 9 �xeS dxeS 10 .i.gS c6 1 1 J:tadl

can only wait whilst his opponent im­

a6 12 ii.xf7+ 'it'xf7 13 .l:Id8+ We7 14 �6

proves his position.

We6 15 l:tfdl is just horrible; and 8 . . . h6 9

22 gxf6 .ifs 23 Af4 Wxf6 24 .i.gs+ �e6 2s h6 as 26 ttJh4

.lir.el leaves Black's king i n the middle

1-0

Game 1 5 J.Fluvia Poyatos-A.Grischuk

World J u n ior C h a m pion s h i p, O ropesa del M a r 1998

ltJdS 'Wd7 10 'it'c3 lLixdS 1 1 exdS lLJe7 1 2 and with White having a huge lead in development) 9 ltJdS 'Wd7 (9 . . .'Wd8 1 0 .i. g S f6 1 1 .i. d 2 �geS 1 2 .i.e2 i.e7 1 3 l:H c l aS 14 � e 3 again leaves Black un­ able

to

castle

whilst

White

strengthen his position) 10 .i.f4 ltJceS 1 1

can

lLixeS lLixeS ( 1 1 . . . dxeS 1 2 l:.ad l ! ? exf4 13

1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 �xc3 ttJc6

�f6+ lLixf6 14 �xd7 ltJxd7 15 .i.xf7+ Wd8

Black has also tried 7 . . . 'fle7, but this

i.d6 14 f4 0-0 (14 .. .f6 15 fxeS fxeS 16 �e3

tends to leave Black's queen exposed

leaves Black's king hopelessly placed)

on the e-file: 8 0-0 (8 .i.gS ! ? is also in­

15 fxeS .i.cS+ 16 'it>hl 'it'c6 17 l:xf7 l:txf7

after 8 . . . i.d7 I think that

18 lLib6 .i.e6 19 .i.xe6 axb6 20 .i.xf7+ Wh8

S i.c4 ttJf6 6 lLif3 d6 7 'ii' b 3 'it'd7

teresting;

White can get excellent play via 9 0-0

16 .l:tdl is horrid) 12 .ixeS dxeS 13 .lir.adl

21 .tdS gives White all the play. 47

Gambiteer 1

s ll)gsl

Lambooy (Game 18). c) 1 0 . . . h6 hasn't been played much

and rightly so: after 1 1 fxeS dxeS ( 1 1 . . .hxgS 12 exf6 cxbS 13 t£JdS is mur­ der) 12 t£if3 cxbS 13 t£JxeS 'ii'e6 14 'ii°xbS+ t£Jd7 lS .i.f4 a6 16 'iVdS t£JxeS 1 7 .ixeS 'ii°xdS?! 1 8 t£JxdS Black h a s no good defence to the threats of 19 t£Jc7+ and 19 ll)b6.

11 fxes dxes After ll . . . t£Jg4 White plays 12 e6! fxe6 13 t£JxbS a6 (Reides-Servat, Argen­ tine Ch. 1994), and now 14 t£Jd4 eS lS

s ...t£Jes

t£Jde6 h6 16 'ii'c4 hxgS 17 t£Jc7+ 'ifi>e7 18

8 ... t£Jd8 is just too passive, for ex­

.ixgS+ t£if6 19 ll)xa8 'ii°c 6 2 0 l:tc l wins

ample 9 0-0 (9 f4! ? ) 9 . . . h6 (9 . . . t£Jg4 10 f4[

material.

deprives

12 i.. e3

Black's

knight

of the eS­

square) 10 t£if3 t£Jc6 (10 . . . ll)e6 1 1 l:ldl leaves Black to figure out how to meet 12 eS) 1 1 .tbs a6 12 eS ll)g4 13 exd6 (13 llel .ie7 14 exd6 cxd6 l S .i.fl 0-0 1 6 t£JdS i s also pretty good, but the text i s far

more

ambitious)

13 . . . axbS

(13 . . . hd6 14 l:lel+ 'ifi>f8 was necessary) 14 llel+ �d8 lS dxc7+ 1i'xc7 16 t£JxbS 'iVb6 17 .if4 'ii'xf2+ 18 'ifi>hl gives White a winning attack according to Voigt and Miiller.

g i.bs 9 .i.e2 was recommended b y Voigt and Miiller, but I don't find it too con­

12 ... a s This strange-looking move i s clearly

vincing. The text, on the other hand,

the best; Black wants to drive White's

seems to put Black under a lot of pres­

queen away from b3. Alternatives are

sure and even Grischuk finds himself

as follows:

on the ropes in this game. 9

...

c6 10 f4 cxbs

13 . 0-0 . .

(13 . . . h6

14 t£JxbS

A major parting of the ways. . .

hxgS lS ll)xd6+ @f8 16 t£Jxf7 'ii'xf7 17

a ) 1 0 . . .ll)eg4 i s the next game, Dol­

1:ld8+ 'ifi>e7 1 8 i.cS+ 1 -0 was the conclu­

gov-Anohin. b) 10 . . . t£Jg6 is covered in Vaasen48

a) 12 . . . i.. d 6 13 l:tdl (13 ll)xbS 0-0 will transpose)

sion of Rosso-Dold, correspondence 1977) 14 t£JxbS t£Je8 (14 . . . h6 lS .l:txd6

Danish Gambit 'i!Vg4 1 6 l:i.xf6 gxf6 17 tl:lf3 gave White

ilb6) 15 ii.. x e7 ilxb3 1 6 ilxf8 l:i.xf8 (if

two pieces for a rook in Rath-J.Hansen,

16 ... ii.. x dl 17 ..ixg7 wins material) 1 7

Vejle 1 974)

axb3

leaves

Black

with

inadequate

compensation for the piece. d) 1 2 . . . �e7 is strongly met by 1 3 l:i.dl ! .

15 0-0! ( 1 5 tl:lxd6 tl:lxd6 16 J.c5 1i'g4 17 ii.. x d6 'i!Vxg5 18 ii..xf8 'i!Vxg2 wasn't at all clear in Fortes-Seba, Bratislava 1993) 15 ... h6 (after 1 5 ... 'i!Ve7 White wins with

For example,

16 tl:lxd6 tl:lxd6 17 l:i.xd6 'i!Vxd6 18 l:txf7

tl:ld7 15 tl:ld5 fid8 16

ile6 19 llxf8+ 'iWxf8 - 1 9 . . . l:i.xf8 20 tl:lxe6

etc.

1 3 . . . ii.. g4 1 4 'i!Vxb5+

0-0 ilxdl

17 tl:lxf7

- 20 'it'xe6+ 'it>h8 21 tl:lf7+ �g8 22 tl:lxe5+

e) 12 . . . b6 13 lidl �7 (if 13 . . . 'i!Ve7 1 4

�h8 23 tl:lf7+ �g8 24 tl:ld6+ �h8 25 il.d4

0-0 h 6 1 5 tl:l d 5 � 7 1 6 tl:lxf7 wins) 1 4

threatening 26 tl:lf5) 16 tl:lxd6 ( 1 6 tl:lxf7

'i!Vxb5+!? il d 7 ( 1 4 . . .tl:l d 7 1 5 0-0 is hope­

l:.xf7 17 tl:lxd6 tl:lxd6 18 l:.xd6 'i!Vxd6 19

less for Black) 15 'i!Vxe5+ ile7 16 tl:lb5

'iVxf7+ is also pretty good) 1 6 ... tl:lxd6

'it>f8 17 tl:ld6 'ij'a6 18 tl:lgxf7 ilg4 19 Jitd2

(16 . . . hxg5 17 tl:lxf7 'i!Ve6 18 tl:lxe5 .l:txfl+

is horrible for Black.

19 'it>xfl 'i!Vxb3 20 axb3 gives White all

f) 1 2 . . .b4 13 .l:tdl 'i!Ve7 (or 13 . . . ild6 14

the chances in the endgame) 17 !:txf7

tl:lb5) 14 tl:lb5 ii.. e 6 (if 14 ... ilg4 15 tl:ld6+

tl:lxf7 18 �d7 ilxd7 19 tl:lf3 with a clear

'it>d8 16 tl:lgxf7+ wins) 15 tl:lxe6 fxe6 1 6

advantage for White.

tl:ld6+ 'i!Vxd6 1 7 !i.xd6 ilxd6 18 'i!Vxe6+

b) 12 . . . h6 13 .:r.dl 'i!Ve7 (if 13 . . . 'i!Vc7 14 tl:lxb5!

is

winning)

14

ilc5

fic7

(14 . . . ii.. e 6 15 'i!Vxb5+ kd7 16 �3 ile6 1 7

and White won in Arguelles Garcia­ Rodriguez Garcia, Asturias 1 999.

13 0-0

tl:lxe6 'i!Vxe6 1 8 'i!Vxb7 i s also good) 1 5

The most natural and best move. 13

tl:lxb5 'i!Va5+ 1 6 �fl hxg5 1 7 'i!Va4 1-0

.:r.dl a4 1 4 1i'c2 ( 1 4 'i!Vxb5 'i!Vxb5 1 5 tl:lxb5

corre­

ilb4+ is also comfortable for Black)

c) 12 . . . a6 13 l:i.dl 'i!Ve7 (if 13 . . . 'i!Vc7 14

drum up any play; and 13 a3 a4 14

Chudinovskikh-N ogovicyn, spondence 1 964.

ilb6! wins) 14 ilc5 ile6 (or 14 . . . 'i!Vc7 15

14 ... 'i!Vc6 leaves White struggling to 'i!Vxb5 ile7 1 5 1i'xe5 tl:lg4 is even worse. 49

Gambiteer 1

13 a4

1 s 1We2

...

The most consistent follow-up for Black. Alternatively:

This in turn looks like White's best move, though he has tried several al­

a) 13 . . . .i.d6 14 lLixb5 0-0 15 :ladl

ternatives:

:la6 (or 1 5 ... a4 1 6 'iVc4 l:ta6, Comet B.05-

a) After 15 'ii'c4 0-0 White's most in­

Crafty 1 6 . 1, computer game 1 999, when

teresting move is probably 1 6 l1xf6 !?

17 b3 axb3 18 1i'xb3 would have kept

(16 lladl 'ife7 1 7 lLid5 lLixd5 1 8 :lxd5 h6

some pressure) 16 h3 h6 17 lLixd6 :lxd6

19 lLixf7 .ie6 20 lLixd6 'iVxd6 21 litxd6

(if 17 . . . hxg5 18 .i.c5 Wc6 19 't!fe3 gives

.ixc4 gave Black what chances were

White the initiative) 18 .i.c5 l:txdl 19

going in Little Goliath 2000-Crafty 19 03

:lxdl a4 20 'ii'f3 1i'e8 21 't!fa3 hxg5 22

ST Capa, computer game 2003; and 1 6

i.xf8 was better for White in Walte­

lLib5 i.e7 1 7 llacl h 6 1 8 lLic7 b5 was

mathe-Schranz, correspondence 1986.

good for Black in Shredder 5.32-Crafty

b) 13 ... .i.b4? 1 4 lladl 'ii' e 7 1 5 lLid5

1 8 . 12, computer game 2001 ) 1 6 . . . gxf6 1 7

lLixd5 16 :xf7 'ii'xf7 17 lLixf7 �xf7 1 8

lLid5 i.e7 (if 1 7. . .'ifc6, 1 8 'iffl fxg5 1 9

'i1Vxd5+ saw White win quickly i n Przy­

l k l Wa6 2 0 'iff6 .i c 5 21 1i'xg5+ "ifg6 2 2

byla-Bak, correspondence 1992.

'ii'x g6+ fxg6 23 i.xc5 will get t h e ex­

c)

13 ...b4?

14

lLib5

:la6

(here

change back with the better game for

14 . . .'ii"x b5 15 1i'xf7+ �d8 1 6 l:tadl+ .id7

White) 18 .i.c5 i.xc5+ 19 1i'xc5 'i'd8 20

17 :Xf6 gxf6 18 lLie6+ �c8 19 1i'e8+

:ldl �g7 2 1 lLif3 .ie6 22 lLih4 'l'a5 23

i.xe8 20 :d8 mate is a nice line) 1 5

't!fe7 'ir'd8 (23 . . . i.xd5 24 exd5 also gives

:lfdl a 4 1 6 Wc2 :l c 6 1 7 'ii'xa4 leaves Black defenceless.

1/2-1h

14 'ii'x b5 i.d6

1 996. White has compensation for the

14 ... .ie7 is examined in the next

White ongoing compensation) 24 1i'b4 was

Sermek-Berebora,

Tucepi

exchange - just how much isn't clear.

game, Ginzburg-Slipak. On the other

b) 15 J:tadl 'ii'xbS 16 lLixbS .ib8 17 i.c5

hand 14 . . . 1i'xb5? is very bad for Black

.ig4 18 llJ£3 lLixe4 is good for Black,

after 15 lLixb5 �e7 16 l:tadl etc.

Saradjen-Ibragimov, Portoroz 1996.

50

D a n i s h Ga m b i t

c) 15 'ilxd7+ .txd7 16 .J:r.adl .J:r.a6

2 1 'ith 5 '3itxh7 22 .J:r.fl f 5 (if 22 . . . .te6 2 3

leaves White without compensation for

'ilxh6+ '3itg8 2 4 l:l.f3 �g4 25 l:t g 3 "ifd7 2 6

his pawn.

h 3 .tf8 27 "if g5+ .t g 7 28 l:txg4 i s win­

d) 15 l:tfdl 1i'xb5 16 ll:lxb5 �b8 1 7

ning) 23 'ilxh6+ '3itg8 24 "ifg6+ '3ith8 25

l:tacl .tg4 is good for Black according

exf5

1-0

to Cimmino, an assessment with which

spondence 1993.

I agree. 1s o-o?

1 8 . . . "ifxe6 19 ll:lc7+ wins) 19 "ifh5+ (the

b2)

...

was

Przybyla-Sapa,

1 7 ... .te7

18

ll:le6!

corre­

fxe6

(if

Grischuk doesn't know the theory

immediate 19 ll:lb6 is also interesting,

and plays into a losing line. There are

for example 19 . . . "ifc6 20 'ith5+ '3itd8 2 1

several superior options:

J:l d l+
a) After 15 ... .J:r.a5 I agree with Voigt

l:tdl + is at least a draw for White, while

and Miiller that 16 .tb6! should be

20 ...
played (16 l:tadl ?! h6 17 "ifd3 .tc5 18

23 ll:lxa8 "ifxe4 24
"ifxd7+ .txd7 19 .txc5 J:lxc5 20 ll:lxf7 0-0

may be better for White, though admit­

21 J:txf 6 gxf 6 22 ll:lxh6+ '3itg7 gave White

tedly it's very complex) 19 . . . '3itf8 20 ll:lb6

insufficient compensation in Lifshitz­

'ilb5 (if 20 . . . 'ilc6 White can try to do

Silkin,

after

better than deliver perpetual check

which 16 . . . .tc5+ (if 16 . . .l:ta6 17 :Xf6 gxf6

with 21 l:tcl ! ?, after which 2 1 . . .'ilxcl+ 22

correspondence

2002),

18 ll:ld5 is very dangerous) 17 .txc5

.txcl .tc5+ 23
.:.Xc5 18 .J:r.adl gives White the initiative

25 .txh6+ l:txh6 26 "ifxh6+
for his pawn.

makes the h-pawn difficult to stop) 2 1

b) 15 . . . h6 looks like a draw, but

.txh6+ :Xh6 2 2 "ii'xh6+
Black has to know what he's doing.

ll:lxa8 "ifxb2 24 "ifh7+
The line goes 16 l:txf6! gxf6 17 ll:ld5 and:

White

chances)

23

ll:lxa8

'ii'xb2

(23 . . . .td7!?) 24 'ii'g6+
litxf6 1h-1h was Maksimov-Kulvietis, cor­

respondence 2002) 16 . . . ll:lxd5 17 exd5 0-0 18 "ifc2 g6 (18 . . . e4 19 'i!lxe4 f5 was Gronemann-Bastian,

correspondence

2003, and now 20 'i!lc4 looks like White's best to me when I slightly prefer his chances) 19 ll:le4 f5 20 ll:lxd6 'ii'xd6 21 bl) 17 . . . '3itf8? 18 ll:lxf6 "ifd8 19 ll:lgh7+

i.c5 "ifc7 22 .J:r.acl lte8 23 'ii'c4 gave

l:l.xh7 (or 19 . . . '3itg7 20 .txh6+! '3itxh6 21

White compensation for the pawn in

"ifh5+ '3itg7 22 "if g5 mate) 20 ll:lxh7+ '3itg7

Dulik-Efendiyev, correspondence 1999. 51

Gambiteer 1 d ) 15 . . . 'ifg4 16 'ii' d 3 (after 16 'WbS+ i.d7 17 'iVxb7 l::tb8 18 'iVa6 l::txb2 gives Black counterplay according to Cim­ mino) 16 . . . .l:a6 17 lll d S h6 18 h3 ii'd7 19

l::th3 'ii'xh3 23 lllxe7+ 'iti>g7 24 gxh3 fxe3 25

'iVxeS+ 'ifi>h7 (if 25 .. .f6 26 'iVhS l:!.£7 27 lllxc8

lbc8 28 'iVg4+ wins a rook) 26 'iVhS+ 'iti>g7

27 'ii'gS+ 'ith7 28 llld S l:ta6 29 lll£6+ !txf6

l:.xf6 hxgS 20 l:kl gives White the ini­

30 'iVxf6 l:!.g8+ 31 'ifi>fl .ixh3+ 32 'ifi>e2 etc.

tiative according to Voigt and Muller.

But he wants something simpler. . .

16 l:!.xf6! gxf6 17 lllxh7 �xh7 18 'ifhs+

21 l:.a6 2 2 ii.gs?? .•.

This looks like sheer panic after missing B lack's last. Instead 22 lllxe7+ 'iVxe7 23 llxeS leaves Black unable to escape White's rook attacks without allowing perpetual check, for 23 . . . 'iVc7 24 l:.cS 'iVd8 25 l:tgS+ l:lg6 26 .l:lxg6+ fxg6 27 'iVxg6+ is a draw.

22 ... i.cs+ 23 'ifi>h1 'it'xd s !

18 'itgS?! •..

Black's best is probably 1 8 . . . 'iti>g7 19 'iVh.6+ � g8 20 llfl .ie7 21 :tfS 'ii'xfS 22 exf5 lld8, but he's losing here too after 23 'iVhS a3 24 b4 etc.

19 lll d s i.e7 20 l:!.f1 fs

Giving Black too many bits and pieces for the queen. For White the dream is over.

24 .if6 24 exdS ..L:fS 25 .i.d2 ii.d7 should be winning for Black in the long run, but this was White's best chance.

24 ... 'it'd1+ 2S 'it'xd1 .ixfs 26 exfs llxf6 27 'ii'c 1?l l:!.d8 28 g4 .ifs 29 'iVa l:d2 30 'it'xb7 21 �xfs?? White misses out on a chance for immortality. 21 lli3 wins after 21...f4 22 52

30 'iVc3 l:!.fd6 31 f6 lle2 is deadly.

30 ... l:.h6 31 gs 1:1.hxh2+ 32 �g1 .ics+ 33 'ifi>f1 l:td1 mate

Danish Gam bit Game 1 6 M.Ginzburg-5 .Slipak

tl:) d 5 i. d 8 1 9 1i' g 3 puts Black under tremendous pressure.

18 tl:)f3

Argentine C h a m pion s h i p, B u e nos Aires 1998 1 e 4 es 2 d 4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 tl:)xc3 tl:)c6 s i.c4 tl:)f6 6 tl:)f3 d6 1 'it'b3 'it'd7 B tl:)gs tl:)es 9 i.bs c6 10 f4 c x b s 11 fxes dxes 12 i.e3 as 13 o-o a4 14 'it'xbs i.e7

18 ...?!a6 It seems less good to play 1 8 ... i.d8, for example 1-9 1W g3 tl:)h5 20 1W f 2 i.g4 21 i.c5 i.e7 22 i.xe7 1i'xe7 23 tl:)d5 1i'xe4 24 !ld4 i.xf3 (24 . . . 1i'e6 25 !tel) 25 !lxe4 left Black with inadequate compensa­ tion for her queen in Ciuksyte-Micic, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. The bishop is less exposed here than

19 'it>h1

on d6, but this doesn't protect the

White's king is better on h l so this

pawn on e5. The loss of this pawn en­

is quite a good move. But there are al­

ables White to use the d4-square, i n

ternatives here, for example:

particular for his bishop.

1s 'it'xes o-o

a)

19

tl:)d5

!le6 20 1i'g3 tl:)h5?!

(20 ... i.d6 is better) 2 1 1i'f2 !lxe4 22

15 . . . 1i'd6 gives White a strong initia­

tl:)xe7+ !lxe7 23 i.c5 !le2 24 1i'd4 !le4 25

tive after 16 1i'xd6 i.xd6 17 i.d4 h6 (if

1i'd6 and White won the exchange for

17 . . . tl:)g4 18 h3 f6 19 hxg4 fxg5 20 tl:)b5

inadequate compensation in AnMon

is strong) 18 e5 i.xe5 19 !lael etc.

5 . 15-Pharaon, computer game 2001.

16 l:tad1 'it'eB 17 i.d4I h6

b ) 19 1i'f4 tl:)h5 2 0 1i'e3 takes the

17 . . . i.d8? is strongly met by 18

pressure off g7 voluntarily, but White

W'xe8 (18 1i'g3 tl:)g4 keeps Black on the

stands well because of his grip on the

board) 18 . . . tl:)xe8 1 9 tl:)xh7! 'iti>xh7 20

central squares and active pieces.

i.c5 i.g4 21 i.xf8 i.xdl 22 !lxdl with

19 ... ?!e6 20 'it'g3 tl:)hs 21 'it'f2 f6

extra pawn in the endgame. An­

This is one ugly-looking move, cut­

other possibility is 17 . . . Jita6, but then 1 8

ting off the knight's retreat and weak-

an

G a m biteer 1

ening the kingside. 2 1 . . . .!LJf6 22 e5 .!LJd7 looks better, though admittedly this is nice for White after 23 .!LJd5.

3 1 .i.xh61 8Xh6 3 2 /lJxf6 l:t e 2 3 3 'it'xb7 1 l:.xb7 34 .!LJxe8 l:lxe8 35 .!LJxh6 Compared with the 30 j_xh6 line,

22 .!LJh4 j_d6 2 3 .!LJf 5 j_e5 24 j_c5 l:f.f7 2 5 .!LJd5 b6 26 j_e3 j_b7 2 7 84 Winning

material,

though

Black

White has won the pawn on h6.

35 .. .1187+ 36 �h1 j_c71 This

should

lose.

Black's

best

does get compensation with play along

chance to make a fight of it was with

the hl-a8 diagonal. There's a case for

36 . . .�h7, when 37 /lJf5 ..:I.gs 38 l:td7+

just leaving the knight on h5 with 27

�h8 39 llJe7 ..:!.xh5 40 .l:!.f2 leaves White

l:itd2, which simply leaves Black in a

still a pawn up but with difficult tech­

difficult position. But instead White

nical problems.

decides to bite.

3 7 litde1 l:l8e7

27 .i.b8 28 8Xh5 l:Ixe4 29 'if82 Wh8 30 � 81 •••

This is not a time to snatch irrele­

37 . . . ltxel 38 %bel j_f4 looks best.

38 litf8+ �xf8 39 li[xe7 .i.f 4 40 llJ84 .i. c 1 41 /lJe5?1 %:tf2

vant pawns and 30 j_xb6 l:id7 31 lLJfe3

l:lxe3 32 .i.xe3 ifxh5 is a more than am­ ple reason why. A better p awn to cap­ ture is the one on h6, with White being slightly better after 30 j_xh6 gxh6 3 1 .!LJxf6 l:le6 32 .!LJxe8 .i.xg2+ 3 3 �xg2 :txe8, but a draw is the most likely outcome.

30 .. J:td7? I don't think this is the best. Black should play 30 ... .l:!.eS ! ? and meet 31 l:ld4 with 3 1 . . .'it'c8 when White may soon have to return his extra piece. 54

42 l:lc711

Danish Gambit 42 tll d 3 would keep White's advan­

respondence 1 999, and now 1S . . . tllf6 1 6

tage more or less intact; the text lets

d 6 'ii'e6 would have been best with

Black off the hook. It looks to me like

what is probably the better game) 14

White was in time trouble.

dxc6 'ii'e7+ lS Wfl 0-0 16 .i. d 2 .i.fS ! !

42 ... .txb2 43 :cs+
(16 . . .bxc6 1 7 :tel 'ii' d 8! isn't bad, but the

Yz-Yz

text is inspired) 1 7 cxb7 ( 1 7 h3 is• met by 17 . . .tll f 2, whilst both 17 'ii'x b7 and 1 7 :tel are met b y 1 7 . . . 'ii'd 6 hitting the

Game 1 7

bishop on d2) 17 . . . .l:lab8 18 :tel 'ii'd7 1 9 .i. d S l:lbd8 20 tllxf7? (the critical line is

Dolgov-Anohin

20 l:le2 .tb6! ) 20. . . 'ii' xdS 2 1 tll x d8 'ii'xb3

Le n in gra d 1988

22 axb3 .i.d3+ 23 .l:le2 .l:lxd8 24 Wel .i.a6 2s h3 tll f 2! 26 .l:lfl tll d 3+ 27 Wdl tllxb2+

1 e 4 es 2 d 4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 tll x c3 tll c 6 s .tc4 tll f 6 6 tll f 3 d6 7 'it"b3 'it"d7 s tll g s tlle s 9 .tbs c6 10 f4 tll e g4I? ·

28 Wel tlld3+ 29 Wdl .txb7 30 Wc2 .ta6 31 .l:lal tllxf4 0-1 Fedoseev-Obukhov, Russia 1996. b) 11 .td3 h6 12 tll f3 dS 1 3 eS tll e4 14 .txe4 dxe4 lS tlJxe4 hS 1 6 .td2 .te7 17 0-0-0 'ii'e6 18 'ii'd 3?! 'ii'x a2 19 tll d6+ .i.xd6 20 exd6 0-0 was good for Black in Mate Adan-Korneev, Bilbao 2000. c) 11 .te2 h6 ( 1 1 . . . dS looks better for White after 12 h3 tllh6 13 eS, as in Porzig-Reichert, correspondence 1980) 1 2 tll f 3 dS (both 12 ... hS 13 h3 tll h 6 and 12 . . . tllhS 13 0-0 leave Black struggHng because

of

his

awkwardly-placed

knights) 13 h3 (13 exdS .tcS 14 .l:lfl 0-0 An interesting and relatively little­

was good for Black in Potter-Schulman,

explored alternative to the popular

Vancouver 1 96S; whilst 13 eS is strongly

10 . . . cxbS.

met by 13 . . . tll e4) and now 13 . . . dxe4 14

11 h3

tll gl .tcS l S hxg4 'it'd4 gave Black excel­

lhis looks like the best, but there are a few alternatives: a) 1 1 .tc4 ! ? dS! ( l l . . . tllh6 12 0-0

lent

compensation for the piece

in

O'Neill-Murnz, Asturias 199S.

1 1 cxbs •••

leaves Black very passive) 12 tllx dS! ( 1 2

lhe alternative is ll . . .tll h6, when

exdS ? ! .tcS 1 3 dxc6 'ii'e7+ w a s good for

play might continue 12 .i.e2 (12 .tc4 dS

Black in Seger-Flechsig, Breslau 1886)

13 tll x dS tll x dS 14 exdS .i.cS sees Black

12 ... tll xdS 1 3 exdS .tcS (13 ... h6 1 4 tll e4

solve his development problems and

'it'e7 lS .i.d3 was D.Cleto-Deforel, cor-

obtain a very good

game)

12 . . . .i.e7 55

Ga mbiteer 1 ( 1 2 . . . 'i'c7 13 .i.e3 b6 14 0-0 .i.e7 15 i.. d 4

enough for the exchange i n Dumik­

gave White more than enough for the

Blatny, Tmava 1987) 14 . . . a6 15 Cl:ic3

pawn in Kling-Reinhardt, correspon­

'i'xg4 16 e5 ( 1 6 �fl ? ! i.e7 17 tt:lxd5

dence 1987; while 12 . . . d5 13 e5 Cl:ie4 14

Cl:ixd5 18 'i'xd5 0-0 gave Black the safer

Cl:icxe4 dxe4 15 i. e 3 i.e7 16 g4! left

king and the advantage in Rustamov­

Black in serious trouble because of his

Lybin, correspondence 1991; but 16

prospectless knight on h6 and lack of

Cl:ixd5 ctJxd5 17 'i'xd5 iJ..b4+ 18 �f2 is

space in R.Hall-M.Barlage, correspon­

worth serious consideration) 16 . . . 'iJ/g3+

dence 1998) 13 iJ..e 3 'iJ/c7 14 0-0-0 d5 1 5

17 .i.f2 'iJ/xf4 18 exf6 �xg5 19 0-0 i.d6

g 4 gave White a strong initiative for his

(if 19 . . . gxf6 20 l:tael+) 20 fxg7 l:tg8 21

sacrificed

Aael + gave White a winning attack in

pawn

in

Flechsig-Dresel,

Dresden 1888.

Schultz-Volbert, correspondence 198 1 . There have been a couple of games

12 hx g 4

with the passive-looking 12 . . . a6, but this looks good for White after 1 3 i.e3 Cl:ixg4 (or 13 . . . h6 14 .i.d4 intending 15 .i.xf6) 14 Cl:id5 with a multitude of threats.

13 CL:id s The materialistic 13 'i'xb4 doesn' t really seem to be in the spirit of the position, for example 13 . . . d5 ( 1 3 . . . "ii'xg4 14 'ifb3 "iWxg2 15 "iWxf7+ �d8 16 .Z:.h6!? is a wild continuation mentioned in ECO) 14 'i'd4 dxe4 15 'i'c4 .i.d6 1 6 t°lJcxe4

1 2 b4 ...

Black has also played 1 2 ... h6; for ex­

l2Jxe4 17 tlJxe4 0-0 18 0-0 was slightly better

for

ample, 13 Cl:ixb5 ( 1 3 .i.e3 b4 14 'i'xb4

Cuba 1995.

i.e7 15 Cl:if3 tt:lxg4 16 .i.d4?! d5 was

13

...

White

in

Nunez-Valdes,

b6

good for Black in Bronstein-Fuderer,

Another possibility is 1 3 . . . ttJxd5!?,

Kiev 1959; as was 13 f5 b6 14 .i.f4 i..b 7

for example 14 'it'xd5 h6 1 5 f5 :gs 16

15 0-0-0 hxg5 16 :xh8 gxf4 in Villafane­

l2Jf3 'ii" c 6 17 'i'd3 b5 18 .i.d2 Ji.. b7 19 0-0

Komeev, La Coruna 1999, but 13 Cl:if3 is

gave White compensation for the pawn

worth considering) 13 . . . d5 ( 1 3 . . . a6 14

in Casa-Jacobs, Ramsgate 1981 .

Cl:ic3 d 5 15 e5 Cl:ixg4 16 Cl:ixd5 i.c5 1 7

14 t2Jxf6+

i. d 2 b 6 w a s Schultz-Neumann, Austra­

Doubling

the

pawns

looks

like

lia 1981 , and now 18 Cl:ie4 looks quite

White's best. He has also tried 14 .i.e3,

good for White) 14 .i.e3 (14 'i'a4 .tc5 15

but after 14 . . . t°lJxd5 15 'i'xd5 (15 exd5

ctJc7+ �e7 16 'i'xd7+ .i.xd7 17 tlJxa8

'ifxg4 is just good for Black) 15 . . . Ji..b7 16

l:txa8 18 e5 tlJxg4 gave Black more than

� 3 h 6 1 7 e5 (Panbukchian-J .Pinter,

56

Danish Gambit Varna 1977) and now 17 .. Jk8 (rather

i.e3 'tWxe4 2 0 'ii'xe4 i.xe4 2 1 i.d4 is

than 17 . . . d5 as played in the game) 18 e6

equal) 19 . . . i6'xe4+ (if 19 . . . \t>d7 20 l:tdl

fxe6 19 lbxe6 i..x g2 20 l:.gl i.e4 makes it

'i'c5 2 1 'tWxc5 bxc5 22 g5! fxg5 23 i.xd6 is

difficult for White to justify his play.

good for White) 20 i6'xe4 i..xe4 21 i.xd6

14 ... gxf6

i.xd6 22 lbxf6+ \t>f8 23 lbxe4 l:te8 24 0-0-0 i.f4+ 25 lbd2 .l:te2 26 g3 gives White whatever chances are going.

17 fS White has to play this way as 1 7 "ii'xb4? 'tWxg4 i s just good for Black

11 ... i.b1 1 s i.h6?

15 l::t x h7 White can a lso consider 15 lbxh7!?, for example 15 . . . i.e7 (if 15 . . . i.g7 then 16 £5 i.b7 1 7 'ii'xb4 d5?! 18 l:th3 0-0-0 1 9 i.£4 threatening to check o n the c-file i s good for White, whilst 15 . . .'ii'e 7 1 6 £5! ? ""i'xe4+ 1 7 \t>f2 leaves Black facing dan­

Certainly ingenious, but Black has a

gerous threats) 16 £5 'tWc6 17 'ii' x b4 i.b7

strong reply. White should probably

18 i..£4 'tWxe4+ 19 'tWxe4 i..xe4 20 �cl

play 18 i.£4 0-0-0 (or 18 . . . 'ii' c6 19 \t>f2)

isn't clear.

19 'ii'c4+ when he is for choice. The

15 . l::tx h7 16 lbxh7 i.g7

knight on h7 looks very bad, but White

.

.

Again if 16 . . . i.e7 White should play 17 £5! (17 g5 fxg5 18 f5 'tWc6 gave Black excellent

counterplay

in

Ljubojevic­

can extricate it with g4-g5.

18 .. 1i'c6?1 .

Not the most accurate. Black should

Smejkal, Wijk aan Zee 1972), intending

play 18 . . . i6'e7!, when 19 i.d2 'ii'xe4+ 20

to free his knight with i.cl-e3-d4. After

'ii' e 3 i6'e5 looks good for him.

17 . . . 'ii'c6 ( 1 7 . . . i.. b7 seems to be best met

19 "ii e 3

by 18 i.e3, for example 18 . . . 'ii'c6 1 9

And

not

19

i.. x g7?

because

of

·tvxb4 'ii'xe4 20 'itxe4 .b:e4 was Gon­

19 . . .'ii'xe4+ 20 \t>d2 "ii' xg2+ 21 \t>e3 'ii'g 3+

zalez Perez-Perez, Santa Clara 2003, and

22 \t>d2 t!Vh2+ 23 \t>d3 i.a6+ 24 �e4

now the immediate 21 i.d4 followed by

'ii'eS+ (24 . . . i6'xh7? is bad because of 25

capturing on f6 was probably best and

'ii'xh7 28 .ixf6 1i'h.6+ 29 g5 �h3+ etc.

is about equal) 18 'ii'xb4 i.b7 19 i.£4 ( 1 9

"ii'a4+) 25 @£3 i..b7+ 26 \t>f2 t!Vh2+ 27 �e3

57

Gambiteer 1 19 ... �xh6 20 ll'ixf6+ r:j;e7 21 'it'xh6 'it'cs 2 2 'ite2'1! In view of the possibility of 22 'ifi>e2 :CB, maybe White should force the

tt:'ies 9 �bs c6 10 f4 tt:'ig6

draw with 22 llcl, when 22 . . . 1i'gl + 23 'ifi>e2 1i'xg2+ 24 'ifi>el 1i'g3+ 2S 'ifi>dl 1i'd3+ 26 'ifi>el leaves Black with nothing better than perpetual check.

One other possibility for Black is 10 . . .h6, with White getting slightly the better of it after 1 1 fxeS dxeS! ( 1 1 . . .hxgS 12 exf6 cxbS 13 0-0 is just very good for White) 12 ll'if3 cxbS 13 tt:'ixeS 1i'e6 14 'iVxbS+ tt:'id7 lS tt:'id3, with a nice out­ post on dS for the knight on c3.

11 �d3

2 2 ... 'it'c2+ Opting for a draw, but maybe Black could have done better here

with

22 .. J:k8!?, for example 23 l::t d l 'iVeS 24

Other moves have also been tried here, for example: a ) The aggressive-looking 1 1 �c4?!

tt:'idS+ �xdS 2S l::tx dS 'ii'xb2+ 26 l::td 2

is well met by 11 . . . dS!, for example 12

'iVeS with Black having all the chances.

tt:'ixdS (12 exdS �cS gave Black excel­

23 'itf1

lent play in Lutikov-Lisitsin, Leningrad

White can't avoid the draw because

19Sl) 12 . . . tt:'ixdS 13 exdS �cs 14 dxc6

23 'ifi>f3 'ii' d3+ 24 r:j;f2 'iVd4+ wins the

1i'e7+ lS 'ifi>fl 0-0 gives Black excellent

knight on f6.

compensation for his pawn.

2 3 ... 'it'd3+ 24 r:j;e1 �xe4 2 5 :c1 'if g3+ 26 Wdl 'ifd3+ 1/z-1/z Game 1 8

J.Vaassen-J. Lambooy

Corresponde nce 1993

b) 1 1 �e2 h6 12 ll'if3 dS 13 eS tt:'ie4 1 4 �e3 tt:'icS lS 1W d l �e7 1 6 0-0 0-0 left White with inadequate compensation in Jensen-Rosell, Randers 1970. c) 11 eS! ? is very interesting, the game Mastrovasilis-Ovod, Groningen 1999, continuing ll . . . h6 ( l l . . .tt:'ig4 12 �c4 d S 1 3 tt:'ixdS wins back the pawn

1 e 4 e s 2 d 4 exd4 3 c 3 dxc3 4 tt:'ixc3 tt:'ic6 5 �C4 tt:'if6 6 ll'if3 d6 7 'ifb3 'ifd7 8 tl'ig5 58

with an excellent game) 12 exf6 hxgS 1 3 0-0 cxbS ( 1 3 . . . gxf4 ! ? ) 14 tt:'idS 1i'c6 l S

Danish Gambit l%el+ 'iti>d8 16 fS ltieS?! (16 . . . gxf6 is criti­

l:tael .i.e7 1 8 iLJd4 'it'eS 1 9 Wxf7+ 'iti>d8

cal, for example 17 ltixf6 ltieS 18 .i.xgS

20 iLJf3 1WcS+ 21 'iii' h l left Black with

rj;/c7 19 ltidS+ 'iii>b8 20 l:tacl ltic4 21 'i!i'f3

problems

with ongoitjg compensation) and now

king in Kampfhenkel-Bondick, corre­

17 fxg7 (rather than 17 �xgS as in the

spondence 1981.

game) 17 . . . �xg7 18 �xgS+ f6 19 ltixf6

1 3 .i.dz

would have been stronger.

ment, when 13 .. .'ifg4 14 h3 1WhS IS fS

because

of his misplaced

1 3 0-0 seems a more natural treat­

11 h6 12 ltif3 ...

iLJeS 16 �e2 leaves Black's queen very awkwardly placed.

13 ...0-0? This allows White to justify his pre­ vious move. The critical move appears to be 13 . . . 1i'g4!? when my analysis runs 14 es 'i!i'xg2 15 0-0-0 •xf3 16 hg6 fxg6 17 exf6 �xf6 (17. . . gxf6 18 l:the l ) 18 l:thel+ 'iti>f8 1 9 :e3 which gives White a strong initiative for his pawns.

14 0-0-0 °Wg4 15 h3 12 ....i. e7 Several

other

moves

have

been

played: a) 12 . . . 'ii'c 7 13 'ifc2 ( 1 3 0-0 looks more natural) 13 . . . dS? 14 eS ltie4 IS ll'lxe4 dxe4 16 .i.xe4 .i.b4+ 17 'iii'f2 was good for White in Belmonte-Casas, Santiago 1971 . b) 12 . . . 'ifg4 13 0-0 dS ( 1 3 . . . ll'ld7? 14 h3 1Whs IS .i.c4 11t'cS+ 16 'iii' h l dS 1 7 exdS was very good for White in Luniaczek-Paty,

Ceske

Budejovice

197S; and 13 . . . iLJxf4 14 .i.xf4 'ii'xf4 IS

1 5 ...'ifg3 IS . . . 1i'xg2

16

l:tdfl

leaves

l%ael .i. e 7 1 6 eS dxeS 17 lLJxeS 1it'd4+ 1 8

struggling to save his queen.

'iii> hl 0-0 1 9 �c4 gives White a powerful

16 lllez 'iffz

attack) 14 exdS .i.cS+ IS 'iti>hl 0-0 1 6

If 16 . . . 'ii'x g2 1 7 lLJed4, threatening 1 8

dxc6 bxc6 1 7 'ii'c4 is better for White

:dgl.

according to Schwarz.

1 1 lll e d4 c5

c)

12 . . . iLJhS 13 lLJe2 'ifg4 14 0-0

iLJhxf4 IS lLJxf4 lLJxf4 16 .i.xf 4 1i'xf4 1 7

Black

Or 17 ... 'ii'g 3 1 8 lLJe2 'ii'f2 1 9 lLJed4 with horrible threats. 59

G a m b iteer 1

18 l1df1 'if g3?

A noteworthy move order: White stay on the board was with 18 . . . 'i!f xg2,

Losing the queen. The last chance to

figures he wants to play this anyway

when 19 tlfgl Wkxhl 20 l:txhl cxd4 gives

his queen's bishop. 5 .i.c4 i.e6 6 i.xe6

and, by hitting b7, stops Black moving

Black more for the queen than in the

fxe6 7 'Wlt'b3 'ifc8 looks like a tougher

game.

nut to crack.

19 llie2 C4 20 'ii' xc4 'ifxg2 21 llie1 'ifxfl 2 2 !txfl i.xh 3 2 3 lll c 3 .i.xfl 24 i. xf1 l:UcB 25 'ifd4 lllfB 26 llic2 llie6 27 'ii' g 1 'it>fB 28 i.h3 llies 29 lll d 4 lll B c7 30 llifs :es 31 tlids llixds 32 exds 1-0

s ... llic6 In Rubinstein-Phillips, New York 1908, Black tried 5 . . . c6, the game con­ tinuing 6 i.c4 'iff6 7 lll f3 lll d 7 8 i.. g 5

'ifg6 9 h4 h5 10 0-0-0 lll c5 1 1 VWb4 d5 1 2 .i.xd5 ! ? (there doesn' t seem t o be any-

Game 1 9

thing wrong with

12

exd5 as

12 . . . lll d3+

13 i.. x d3 hits Black's queen) 12 . . . lll d 3+?

A.Alekhine-Kohn

S u botica (si m u l) 1930

( 1 2 . . . cxd5 13 lll xd5 Wkc6 14 @bl isn't clear) 13 l:txd3 .i.xb4 14 .i.xf7+! Wxf7 (or 14 . . . 'ii'xf7 15 l::l d 8 mate) 15 llie5+ 'ite6 16

Despite this being a simultaneous

llixg6 l:th7 1 7 f4 lll f6 18 f5+ 'itf7 19 l:td8

display game, with all the flaws in­

b5 20 l:lhdl 1-0.

volved

6 .i.c4 'We7

in

such

play,

it

reveals

Alekhine' s thoughts on the Danish and a much slower strategic approach. It

Because of its rarity there are many unanswered questions in this line:

shows that White doesn't have to play

a) 6 . . . 1i'd7 looks like a natural alter­

like a madman to get compensation but

native, when 7 lll f3 lll a 5 (7 . . . lllf6 8 lll g 5

can rely on the natural contours of the

llie5 transposes into the line covered in

position for its power.

Games 1 5 - 1 8 above) 8 VWb4 llixc4 9

1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 lll x c3 d6 5

'ifxc4 leaves White with a substantial

'ii' b 3

lead in development for his pawn,

60

Dan ish Gambit though he has yet to create a breach in

lll f 5.

Black's structure. My feeling is that he has very adequate compensation, but tests are required. b) 6 . . . lll e5 is another untried possi­ bility, when 7 ..ie2 (7 lll f3 lll xc4 8 'i!Vxc4 also looks interesting, leading to a posi­ tion similar to the 6 . . . 'i!Vd7 line above but with Black's queen on d8) 7 . . . lll f6 8

f-1 llle d7 9 lllf3 lll c5 10 °i!Vc2 gives White

excellent compensation; the thrust e4e5

hangs over Black's head.

7 lll ge21? 10 ... lllx c4 11 'ii' x c4 h6 After l l . . .°i!Ve5 12 £4 (12 .i.e3 ..ie7 1 3 ..i d 4

'i!Ve6

14

'iVd3

is

also

good)

1 2 . . . 'ii'c5+ 1 3 'iVxc5 dxc5 14 ..ixf6 gxf6 15 :tadl White's compensation runs on into the endgame, for example 15 ... i.d7 1 6 lllh 5 il.e7 1 7 lll g7+ �d8 18 lllf 5 l:e8 19 e5! ? fxe5 20 fxe5 �c7 21 lll d 6 l:f8 22 lll ce4 etc.

12 lllf s?

I must admit that I like this devel­ opment of the knight, keeping open the possibility of moving the £-pawn or bringing the knight to g3 and perhaps later £5. It represents a much more stra­ tegic interpretation of the position than going for a quick breakthrough or threats based on lll f 3-g5. For those averse to such subtlety 7 �3 is a good alternative, when 7 . . . lll f6 transposes into the 7 . . . 'i!Ve7 note in Flu­ via-Grischuk (Game 15).

1 lllf6 s o-o lll e s 9 ..igs c6 10 lll g 3 ...

Getting ready to roll the £-pawn for­ ward whilst also threatening lllh 5 or

The kind of quick move that is characteristic of simuls. 12 ..id2, in­ tending l:tael and £4, would have been Alekhine's likely choice in a 'normal' game. 61

Gambiteer 1 1 7. . .'ifaS 1 8 a4 .i.xdS 1 9 exdS cS 20 b4

12 ...'it'es? Letting White off the hook, after

'it"xb4 21 lkbl 'if as 22 :tbs 'ifc7 23 liabl

which we see a masterful performance

.l:td7 24 aS is just one illustration of

from Alekhine. 12 . . . 'it"e6 ,would have

White's attacking chances.

made life awkward for White, the 'best'

17 exds �d7 18 dxe6+ fxe6 19 tlJd4 !teB

being a pawn down endgame after 1 3 'ifxe6+ ( 1 3 t'LldS?! cxdS 1 4 exdS 'it"xdS just isn't going to work!) 13 .. .fxe6 1 4 .i.xf6 gxf6 l S t'Ll d 4 etc.

13 .i.xf 6 gxf6 After 13 . . . 'ifxf6 the most solid way to play would be 14 .l:.fel (14 l:tael .i.e7 lS t'Llxe7 'if xe7 16 f4 0-0 17 �hl is an­ other interesting plan, intending f4-fS­ f6) 14 . . . .i.e7 lS t'Llxe7 'if xe7 16 l:ladl 0-0 17 'ifb4 cS 18 t'LldS 1i'd8 19 'it"c3 with excellent

compensation

because

of

Black's weak d6-pawn and the mighty knight on dS. White could consider lifting a rook to the third rank, either to double on the d-file or menace Black's king from g3.

14 !tfe1 'if cs 15 'it'd3 .i.e6 16 tlJd sl

20 .li:f.ac1 'it'ds 2 1 tlJxe6l 1-o A neat finish. The point is that 2 1 . . .'it"xd3 22 l:tc7 is mate.

Game 2 0 A.Alekhine-A.Pomar Salamanca

M a d rid (si m u l) 1943 1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 tlJxc3 .i.b4

1 6 ... cxds 16 ... 0-0-0 would be somewhat more tenacious, but then 17 l:lecl ! ? ( 1 7 l:tacl is also not bad, but I like the idea of keeping the other rook on the a-file) 62

D a n is h G a m b i t

Aiming to take the wind out of White's sails by capturing the knight on c3. This works quite well in the Goring Gambit line 1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 lllc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 lllxc3 .ib4 6 .i.c4 .ixc3+. Does White do better without the moves lll f3 and . . . lll c6 inserted? The other reasonable way to de­ velop Black's bishop is with 4 . . . i.c5, for example 5 .ic4 d6 (instead, 5 ... 1t'f6 6 lll f3 llle 7 7 0-0 lllb c6 was A lekhine­ Rozanov & Simson (consulting), Mos­ cow 1917, and now 8 lll d 5 lll x d5 9 exd5 tl:Je7 10 .i.g5 'ii'xb2 11 l:tbl 'i!Va3 12 1i'e2 seems best, with serious problems for Black; and 5 . . . lll c 6 is downright . bad because of 6 .txf7+ �xf7 7 'ifh5+ estab­ lishing material equality but with Black unable to castle, a line that can also be reached via 4 ... lll c6 5 .ic4 .ic5) 6 lll f3 (I don't like 6 'ii'b 3 because of 6 ... 1Yh4) 6 ... lllc 6 (6 ... lll f 6 7 e5 Ve7 8 0-0 dxe5 9 �xe5 0-0 10 l:tel gives White a strong initiative) 7 1Vb3 'Wd7 (White can meet 7 . . . ile7 with 8 0-0 lll f6 9 .ig5 threaten­ ing 10 lll d 5) 8 lll d 5 lll ge7 9 'ii'c3 f6 1 0 0-0 llle5 1 1 lll xe5 fxe5 12 .ie3 lllx d5 13 .ixd5 was very awkward for Black in Penrose-A.Green, British Champion­ ship, Plymouth 1 957, as the game is opening up with Black's king unable to castle. 5 i.c4 Miiller and Voigt mention the pos­ sibility of 5 'ii'd4 ! ? ..txc3+ 6 1t'xc3 lll f6 7 e5 'fie7 8 i.e2, but now 8 ... lll e4 looks critical (rather than their 8 . . . lll d 5 9 1i'g3 0-0), for example 9 1t'xc7 (or 9 �d4 f5) 9 . . . 0-0 10 lllf3 1i'b4+ 1 1 lll d 2 lLlc6, with Black's pieces getting very active.

s .txc3+ It's now or never if Black wants to inflict some structural damage. After 5 . . . lll c 6 I think White should protect the knight on c3 with 6 lll ge2; for example 6 ... d6 (other moves to have been tried are 6 . . . lll e5 7 i.b3 lll f6 8 0-0 h6 9 f4 ...

..tc5+ 10 �hl llle g4 as in Cogswell­ Pitman, Boston 1905, and now 1 1 e5! would have been immensely strong; 6 ... tl:Jge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 a3 Lc3 9 lll xc3 d6 10 f4 �h8 was a game S.Trent-J.Lutton, London 1999, when 11 f5 lLJe5 12 .ia2 f6 13 'iVh5 threatening 14 :£4 would have given White a strong attack; and 6 . . . lll f6 7 0-0 0-0 8 a3 Lc3 9 lllx c3 d6 1 0 .t g 5 threatened 1 1 lll d 5 i n Matoussi-El Jihani, Algiers 2000) 7 0-0 .ixc3 (7 . . . lllf6 8 llld 5 lllx d5? 9 exd5 llle 5 1 0 'W'a4+ won a piece in Regan Neal-Ford, Berkeley 1991) 8 lll xc3 lll f6 9 ..tg5 h6 10 .th4 0-0 11 f4 left Black facing a very unpleasant pin on his f6-knight in Firnhaber­ Huels, correspondence 1992. 6 bxc3 d6

Probably the most solid, though there are alternatives here: a) 6 . . .Vf6 7 'i!Vb3 lllh 6 8 lll f3 0-0 9 o-o 63

G a m bi t e e r 1

l::Le 8 10 es �fS 1 1 ..txh6 gxh6 12 t'Uh4

ifus 13 f4 dS 14 �xdS it..e6 IS i.. xe6

fxe6 16 iVxb7 and White won quickly in B.Wall-Latell, Mt View, 1 986. b) 6 ... t'Uf6 7 eS llie4 (7 ... fke7 8 -.We2 t'Ug8 9 t'Uf3 t'Uc6 10 0-0 f6 1 1 l:l.el left Black hopelessly behind in develop­ ment in l.Fernandez-J.Sanchez, Juvenil 1998) 8 'ii'g4 t'Uxc3 9 iVxg7 l:tf8 10 i.. gS 1-0 B.Wall-Tanker, Internet 2001 . c) 6 . . . 'fle7 is probably best met by 7 t'Ue2 t'Uf6 8 0-0 t'Uc6 9 .tgS d6 10 f3 when White's two bishops, mobile kingside pawns and annoying pin on the knight offer him good compensa­ tion for the pawn. d) 6 . . . t'Uc6 7 t'Ue2 t'Uf6 8 0-0 0-0 (if 8 . . .t'Uxe4 9 .txf7+ 'it;xf7 10 �dS+) 9 f3 d6 10 ..tgS and here too White has compen­ sation because of his bishop pair, mobile kingside pawns and the pin on f6. 7 ifb3 Another move worth considering here is 7 t'Ue2, for example 7 . . . t'Uc6 8 0-0 t'Uf6 9 f3 0-0 10 �gS offers compensa­ tion as in notes 'c' and ' d' to Black's 6th move. 1 .. :fle1 8 t'Ue2 t'U c6 9 o-o t'Uf6 10 t'Ud4

64

1 0... t'Uxd4?! Giving White a couple of nice cen­ tral pawns and ironing out the defects in his structure. 10 . . . 0-0 looks better, after which 1 1 t'Uxc6 bxc6 12 f3 offers White ongoing compensation. 11 cxd4 0-o Black can't take the e4-pawn, as af­ ter 1 l . . . t'Uxe4 12 nel 'it;d8 13 f3 llicS 14 'it'b4 aS IS 'ii' d 2 ltJe6 16 dS White wins a piece, and 1 1 . . .'i/Uxe4 12 it..xf7+ 'it;d8 13 .ib2 would leave Black's king too ex­ posed. 12 :e1

The immediate 12 eS was also worth considering, for example 12 . . . t'Ue8 (12 . . . dxeS? 13 it.. a 3) 13 it.. a 3 fih4 14 J:tadl with excellent compensa­ tion. 12 ... h6 It seems tempting to try and ex­ change pieces with 12 . . . it.. e6, but after 13 dS it..c8 14 .ib2 t'Ug4 IS �g3 White would have a magnificent attacking position. 13 ..ta3 t'Ug4? A decisive loss of time. 13 . . .t'Uh7 may be the best chance, though Black's

D a nish G a m b it

position is admittedly rather bad after 14 es l:te8 15 f4 etc. 14 f3 lllf6 1s es lll d 7 16 exd6 'i'f6 17 dxc7 1i'xd4+ 18 lith1 llics 19 .i.xf7+1

The start of a nice finish. Alekhine was pretty good when it came to at­ tacking, even in simuls. 19 ... J:txf7 Instead 19 . . . Wh8 20 'it°dS 'iff4 21 .i.g6 would have been pretty horrible for Black too. 20 .i.xcs 'i'f6 21 llad1 b6 22 l:td6 'i'fs 2 3 l':tdS 1i'f6 24 .i.e71 l':txe7 2 s l:txe7 'itf8 26 l:te1 .i.b7 2 7 l:ld7 .i.c6 2 8 'i'b4+ 'it>g8 29 l:td6 'i'f8 30 'i'c4+ 'it>h8 31 'i'xc6 1-0 Game 2 1

M.Chapman-5.Solomon

M e l bou rne 2002 1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 ds The most important method of de­ clining the Danish, and one which is likely to occur very commonly in prac­ tice. Other methods are discussed in the next game, Piay-Leite. 4 exds 'i'xds S cxd4 llic6 6 .i.e3 1?

Heading for uncharted territory. I don't believe White gets anything via the standard 6 lllf3 due to the strength of Capablanca's defence, 6 . . . .i.g4 7 lll c3 .i.b4 8 .i.e2 .i.xf3 9 .i.xf3 'it°c4. White hasn't achieved anything with either 10 'ifb3 or 10 .i.xc6+, which suggests an alternative approach is required. I don't think White forces an advantage with 6 .i.e3 but it has the virtue of nov­ elty. Black will at least be on his own resources. 6 ... lllf6 a) 6 ... .i.b4+ is a very important alter­ native, for example 7 lllc3 llige7 (alter­ natively 7... .i.f 5 is best met by 8 llige2!, for example 8 ... 0-0-0 9 a3 .i.xc3+ 10 llixc3 'it°d6 1 1 dS 'Wg6 12 'it°a4 .i.c2 13 'iff4 with the better game for White; while 7... 'it"aS 8 llige2 .i.g4 9 f3 .i.e6 10 a3 .i.xc3+ 1 1 llixc3 llige7 1 2 .i.bS 0-0-0 1 3 .i.£2 a 6 14 .i.xc6 llixc6 15 0-0 gives White attacking chances along the c-file; and 7... .i.e6 8 lll f3 lllf6 9 .i.d3 0-0 10 0-0 .i.xc3 11 bxc3 lll aS 12 llleS gave White a nice two bishop game in P .Hagesaether-Fant, Gausdal 2000) 8 lllf3 .i.g4 (if 8 ... 'it"aS 9 'it°c2 .i.g4 10 .i.e2 0-0-0 11 0-0 Lf3 12 65

G a m biteer 1

ii.xf3 lbxd4 13 ..txd4 llxd4 14 a3 J.xc3 1 5 bxc3 and his powerful bishop gave White good attacking chances for the pawn in Rustamov-Sattarov, corre­ spondence 1991) 9 i.e2 hf3 10 .i.xf3 'ii'c4 1 1 �cl 0-0-0 (if l l . . .'ii'xa2 12 0-0 'ii'xb2 13 lbb5 puts Black's queen in danger, for example 13 . . . 0-0 14 l:tbl 'iVa2 15 �al �2 16 �d3 threatening 17 l:.fbl) 1 2 a3 ..ta5? (Black had to play 12 . . . ..txc3+, but then White's bishops give him a clear edge after 13 .l:.xc3) 13 b4! lLixb4?! (13 . . . ..tb6 14 lba4 it°e6 15 lbxb6+ axb6 16 0-0 is good for White, but now Black is just lost) 14 ..te2 'iVxc3+ 15 l:txc3 ltJbd5 16 0-0 ltJxc3 1 7 'ifc2 lLixe2+ 18 it'xe2 and Black had inade­ quate compensation for the queen in Emma-Ornstein, Skopje 1972. b) 6 . . . .i.e6 7 lbc3 'iVa5 8 .tbs (8 a3 0-0-0 9 b4 �f5 was less effective in the game Manne-P.Wolff, Copenhagen 1982) 8 . . . ..tb4 9 ..txc6+ bxc6 10 ltJge2 and my view is that White's better pawn structure gives him a slight edge here. 7 CLJC3 i.b4 8 llJge21

Once again this is one of the key 66

moves for White in the 6 i.. e 3 line. White wants to recapture on c3 with a knight so as to drive Black's queen from the centre. 8 ..tg4 A natural alternative is 8 . . . 0-0, whett play might continue 9 a3 ..txc3+ 1 0 lLixc3 'iVd6 1 1 lLib5 'iVd7 ( l l .. .'iVe7 1 2 ..te2 lb d 5 1 3 ii'd2 a 6 1 4 lbc3 lll xe3 15 fxe3 isn't clear either) 12 ..tc4 a6 13 lLic3 with an interesting position in which White's bishop pair balances the iso­ lated d-pawn. My personal preference would be for White but practical tests are required. I don't think 8 ...'iVaS is good because of 9 a3 j_xc3+ 10 lbxc3 ltJe4 11 'l'b3, when White's two bishops look like the most significant factor. 9 'ii'd2 I like Voigt and Miille r's suggestion of 9 h3!?, for example 9 . . . j_xe2 10 .i.xe2 'iYxg2 1 1 ..tf3 'ii'g6 12 'ii' b3, followed by castling long, gives White excellent compensation for the pawn. This too awaits tests. 9 0-0-0 10 f3 ...

...

10 ilfs ...

Da nish Gam bit

10 . . . �xf3 1 1 'Llf4 will leave Black with inadequate compensation for his piece. 1 1 a 3 �a s

Black might also consider 1 J . . .j_xc3, for example 12 tl:lxc3 ( 1 2 bxc3!?) 12 ... '\!Vd6 13 l:.dl l:.he8 14 @f2 tl:ldS 1 5 •:JxdS �xdS 1 6 j_e2 looks fairly bal­ anced.

Game 2 2 D.Piay Aug usto-C. Leite

Poio 2002

1 e4 e s 2 d 4 e x d4 3 c 3 d3

1 2 l:!c1 i.xc 3 1 3 tl:lxc3 l:the8 14 Wf2 i2Jd s 1s tl:lxd s �xd2+ 16 i. xd2 l:txd s

Black was probably hoping to draw this endgame without too much pain but the bishops mean that White is better. 1 1 j_c 3 bs 1 8 g 4 i. g 6 1 9 � g 2 @d7? 20 :he1 I:.xe1 21 l:!.xe1 fs 22 f4! Wd6

22 . . . l:.d6 23 dS is just horrible, so Black gives up the exchange to try and construct a light square blockade. But he's got nothing like enough compen.s ation 23 i.xd s 'it>xds

2 4 h3 as 2S l:.c1 fx g4 2 6 hx g 4 j_e4 27 � e 3 � g 6 2 8 j_d2 Wd6 29 � c s b 4 3 0 a x b 4 a x b 4 3 1 fs � f 7 3 2 W e 4 g 6 3 3 1':.f4+ 'it>d7 3 4 d s g xfs+ 3S g xfs 'Lle 7 3 6 : x c 7 + 'it>e8 3 7 d 6 tl:l d s 3 8 .i::t xf7! 1 - 0

A sensible way to decline the pawn, though White can still achieve quite a good attacking position. Others: a) 3 ... 'Llf6 is possible, but only if fol­ lowed up accurately, for example 4 eS tl:le4 (4 . . . tl:ldS 5 �xd4 tl:lb6 6 'Llf3 tl:lc6 7 '\!Ve4 is a bit better for White because of his greater space) 5 '\!Ve2 tl:lgS 6 £4 tl:le6 7 £5 d3 was F.Panchenko-Tichonov, Alushta 2006, and now 8 �e3 ( rather than 8 �f2 as played) would have been very good, for example 8 . . . tl:lcS 9 b4 �h4+ 1 0 g3 �e4 1 1 'Llf3 '\!Vxe3+ 1 2 j_xe3 tl:le4 13 j_xd3 dS 14 exd6 tl:lxd6 15 tl:ld4 with a substantial space advantage. b) 3 . . . tl:le7! ? is the Svenonius De­ fence and is quite interesting despite its rarity. The line I like for White is the Voigt and Muller suggestion of 4 cxd4 dS 5 tl:lc3 ! ? dxe4 6 i.c4 'LlfS 7 tl:lge2 with compensation for the pawn. 67

Gam biteer 1

c) 3 . . . 'it'e7!? is really a form of ac­ cepting the gambit, though perversely Black does not want the pawn that is being offered. A good way for White to deal with this is via 4 cxd4 'ifxe4+ 5 .i.e3, for example 5 . . . ..ib4+ 6 llJc3 llJf6 (6 . . . dS 7 llJf3 .ifs 8 l:l:cl 'it'e7 9 ..id3 .i.xd3 10 'it'xd3 llJf6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 i.gS c6 13 l:tfel 'ii'd 6 14 llJh4 llJbd7 15 llJ£5 l!i'c7 16 'iVh3 gave White good attacking chances in Voigt-Rausis, Hamburg 2000) 7 llJf3 llJdS 8 'ii' d 2 llJxe3 9 fxe3 'it"e7 10 .i.d3 dS 1 1 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3 0-0 (after either 12 . . . llJd7 or 12 . . . llJc6 White plays 13 e4 with excellent attacking chances along the open e- and £-files) 13 .l:tael £5 14 c4! ? (better, in my view, than either 14 'ii'h 2 or 14 'ii'f2, as given by Voigt and Miill e r) 14 . . . dxc4 15 .i.xc4+ �h8 16 e4 fxe4 _1 7 llJeS .i.£5 1 8 g4 (18 l:l:xe4 ..ixe4 19 :Xf8+ 'ii'xf8 20 CiJf.7+ doesn't look like more than a draw) 18 . . . llJd7 19 llJf7+ llxf7 20 .i.xf7 ..ixg4 21 .i.dS llJf6 22 ..ixe4 llJxe4 23 'ii"f 4 i.e6 24 .l:.xe4 and White's rook probably out­ weighs the bishop and two pawns be­ cause the rooks are just so good here. 4 i.xd3 dS?I

I can't say I'm a big fan of this move though, since it opens the centre for the better developed player (White). 4 . . . llJc6 seems like a more sensible ap­ proach to me, for example 5 llJf3 d6 6 ..ic4 llJf6 7 .i.£4 ..ie7 8 llJbd2 0-0 9 0-0 ..ig4 10 lit.el llJhS 1 1 .i.g3 ( 1 1 .i.e3 is bet­ ter, when White can still claim a slight edge because of his space advantage) ll . . . llJxg3 12 hxg3 llJe5 13 ..ifl .i.gS was fine for Black at this stage in Marshall­ Showalter, USA 1909. 5 if e2 dxe4 6 .i.xe4 .i.e7 7 llJf3 llJf6 8 i.c 2 o-o 9 o-o l:te8 10 .l:.d1 .i.d6 11 'it'd3 ii.g4 12 ..tgs tt:ibd1 13 tt:ibd2

White has the initiative here; his lead in development having translated into kingside pressure. 13 .i.hs 14 llJc4 ..ics 15 b4 ..ifs 16 'it'd41? Allowing Black to double White's kingside pawns may be seen by some as a controversial decision. A safer ap­ proach is 16 l:tel, but then again this book isn't really about safety. 16 ... .tg6?1 It's interesting how often you see bold play answered by an excess of •••

68

D a n is h G a m bit

timidity; the text 'looks' solid but al­ lows White to develop his initiative uninhibited by any counterplay. Black might have considered taking the bull by the horns with 16 . . . .txf3 ! ? 17 gxf3 cS, for exam pie 1 8 bxcS .txcS 19 .txf6 ·wxf6 20 'ii'x d7 'ii'xf3 21 .!:.fl .l:.e6 22 t'bd2 l.xf2+ 23 .l:.xf2 'ii'g4+ 24 �hl :el+ 2S :xel 'ii' x d7 looks far from clear with Black having queen and two pawns for rook and two minor pieces, but with White's king being rather exposed. 17 .i.xg6 hxg6 18 °it'h4 This is surprisingly unpleasant for Black as his king is way more vulner­ able than it looks. The particular dan­ ger is of a white rook landing on the h­ file or a knight coming to gS or eS. 18 ... "it'c8 19 l:.e1 t'bb6 20 lLices lLibdtl

Missing the devastating reply. He

had t o try 2 0. . . lLlfdS, when 2 1 a 3 in­ tending 22 c4 is unpleasant but not 'game over'. 21 lbxf7! Crushing. Black can't take because of 22 'ifc4+. 21 ... :e1 2 2 .i.xf6 gxf6 Or 22 . . . .!:.xf7 23 .td4 etc. 23 lLlh6+ Another good line is 23 �8+, for example 23 . . . @xf7 24 �h7+ @eB 2S l:he7+ .txe7 26 l:tel lLieS (if 26 . . . �dB 27 'ifxg6+ �fB 28 t'bd4 wins) 27 lLlxeS fxeS 28 :xeS �dB 29 'ifxg6+ @d7 30 'ife6+ @eB 31 :ds is the end of the road for Black. 23 ... 'it>g7 24 lbg4 'iVe8 25 VWh6+

2s ... @f7 2S . . . @g8 26 :xe7 .txe7 27 :el etc. 26 VWh7+ .tg7 27 lLlh6+ 1-0

69

Gam biteer 1

Summary The lines 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 ltJxc3 and 3 ... d 5 4 exd5 'tf xd5 5 cxd4 ltJc6 6 Ji.e3 form the backbone of a fresh approach to Danish Gambiteering, which I hope

the reader will find inte�esting and worthwhile. Neither of these lines has been well explored, which once again offers an interesting field of investigation to the creative White player, whilst denying Black the safe shores of theory and well­ remembered variations. 1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 (D) dxc3 3 ... d5 - Game 2 1 3. . .d 3 - Game 22 4 ltJxc3 liJc6 4 ... d6 - Game 19 4 ... i.b4 Game 20 -

S .i.c4 ltJf6 6 ltJf3 d6 6 ... Ji.b4 7 e5 d5 8 exf6 dxc4 9 'ilt'xd8+. ltJxd8 1 0 fxg7 ltg8 1 1 .i.h6 (D) Ji.xc3+ 12 bxc3 f6 13 0-0-0

13 . . . �f7 - Game 1 3 1 3. . .ltJc6 - Game 14 1 °ii b 3 1i'd7 s ltJ gs ltJes 9 .t b s c6 10 f4 (D) cxbs 10 ... ltJeg4 - Game 1 7 1 0. . .tlJg6 - Game 1 8 1 1 fxes dxes 1 2 i.e3 a s n o-o a 4 14 'ii x bs 14 . . . i.d6 Game 1 5 l 4 . . . .i.e7 Game 1 6 -

-

3 c3

70

11 .i.h6

10 /4

Chapter Thre e

I

F re n c h Defe n c e : W i n g G a m b it

The Wing Gambit of the French (1 e4 e6 2 ll'if3 dS 3 es cs 4 b4! ? ) is probably more respectable than its Sicilian cousin and has found the support of several contemporary International \fosters. By luring Black's c-pawn away from cS White's ensures that his d4-pawn will not get undermined whilst he's trying to go forward on the kingside. Meanwhile it will be difficult for Black's king to find safety on the other flank, as White can easily open lines there too. After 4 . . . cxb4 White should imme­ diately play S d4, rather than have Black drive a wedge into his position after S a3 d4. Following S d4 ll'ic6 6 a3 we reach a major junction with what are probably the two most critical moves: 6 .. .f6 featuring in Salmensuu­ Lalic (Game 23) and 6 ... bxa3 in Tate­ Chipkin (Game 24). Instead of accepting the gambit pawn Black has several ways of turn­ ing it down, with the sensible 4 . . . b6

being played in Ardelean-Mijanic (Game 2S), while 4 . . . c4 features in Mar­ tens-Romero Holmes (Game 26). A more trenchant approach was seen in Rahls-Heinsohn (Game 27), Black's 4 . . . d4 establishing a wedge in return for giving up some light squares. Fi­ nally, the game Golubovic-Petrovic (Game 28) gives a good way for White to play against 3 . . .b6, the kind of timid move one might expect if Black spots us frothing at the mouth as we sit down. Game 23 O.Salmensuu-B.Lalic

G ro n i ngen 1999 1 e 4 e 6 2 ll'i f3 d S It's highly unlikely that a French player would play 2 . . . cS, but then 3 b4 would be a Sicilian Wing Gambit in­ stead of a French. 3 es cs 4 b4 cxb4 s d41

71

G a m b it e e r 1

An important move. The immediate S a3 is strongly met by S . . . d4!, for ex­ ample 6 ..ib2 (6 axb4 i..x b4 7 .ta3 i.. x a3 8 lt'ixa3 lt'ie7 9 ..id3 ll'lg6 10 0-0 lt'ic6 1 1 l:tel 0-0 is better for Black according to Djurhuus) 6 . . . ll'lc6 7 .tbs .td7 8 "i!i'e2 and now 8 . . . ..icS makes sense to me; how would White then justify his play? Instead 8 . . . a6 was Dannevig-Djurhuus, Norwegian Ch. 1990, when White should have played 9 ..ixc6! .txc6 1 0 lt'ixd4 .lxg2 1 1 l:tgl bxa3 1 2 lt'ixa3 .tdS 13 lt'iabS! axbS 14 'iVxbS+ i.c6 lS ll'ixc6 J:.xal+ 16 i.. x al bxc6 17 �xc6+ 'ifd7 1 8 �a8+ 'ii'd 8, which i s a draw b y perpet­ ual check according to Djurhuus's analysis. Even so, this all looks rather dubious for White with improvements such as 8 . . . i.. c S waiting in the wings. s lt'ic6 6 a3 f6 Trying to avoid the kind of strategic bind that so often occurs in this line. Instead, 6 . . .bxa3 is examined in the next game, and there are a couple of other alternatives: a) 6 ... i.d7 7 axb4 .txb4+ 8 c3 i.. aS (going back this way allows Black to untangle his kingside, though the dark ...

72

squares are left weak; alternatives also give White his chances, for example 8 . . . .tf8 9 i.d3 fS 10 g4! fxg4?! 1 1 lt'igS lt'ih6 12 ll'lxh7 lt'ie7? 13 .txh6 gxh6 1 4 ll'if6+ r;i;f7 lS "ii'xg4 saw White win quickly in Vinzenz-Kappelt, Dussel­ dorf 1990, whilst 8 . . . .te7 9 .td3 i:!.c8 1 0 0-0 a6 1 1 ll'i e l lt'ia7 1 2 'ii'g4 g6 1 3 'ifg3 .tbs 14 ..ie3 ..txd3 lS ll'ixd3 lt'ibS 16 :ct hS 17 ll'if4 .th4 18 1'Vh3 '¥1/e7 1 9 ll'ixdS set in motion a dangerous attack in P.Chandler-T.MOller, Moscow 1990) 9 .td3 lt'ige7 (9 .. . fS 10 exf6 ll'ixf6 1 1 .la3 is also awkward for Black) 10 0-0 h6 (oth­ erwise 1 1 lt'igS will be very dangerous) 1 1 .ta3 a6 12 ll'ifd2 i.. c 7 13 f4 g6 14 lt'if3 ll'ifS lS 'ife2 bS 16 lt'ibd2 followed by 1 7 g 4 gave White excellent compensation for the pawn in Hanser-Filzmeier, Vel­ den 1996. b) 6 .. . fS 7 axb4 .lxb4+ 8 c3 .le7 9 ..id3 .ld7 10 h4 ( 1 0 g4!? fxg4 1 1 ll'igl ..igS? 12 'ilixg4 .ixcl 1 3 1flxg7 was good for White in Borge-Hamann, Danish Junior Ch. 1993, but Black's 1 1th move was very bad here) 10 . . . hS 1 1 ll'igS g6 1 2 0-0 ll'ih6 1 3 c 4 gave White a strong at­ tacking position in Rahls-Albrecht, Ber­ lin 200 1 . 7 axb4 ..ixb4+ 7 .. . fxeS 8 dxeS (8 bS ll'ixd4 9 ll'ixeS 1!1/h4 10 g4 .tcS 1 1 c3 ll'ifS was good for Black in B aretic-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 197 4) 8 . . . i.xb4+ 9 c3 ..icS 10 .td3 gives White compensation, for example 10 . . . lt'ige7 1 1 ..ia3 i.. b6 12 'i!Vc2 g6 1 3 lt'ibd2 0-0 1 4 0-0, when Black has king­ side weaknesses and difficulty devel­ oping. 8 c3

F re n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

19 J:.c1 Simply 19 cxdS tlJxdS 20 l:tel would have been better, with Black's king still trapped in the middle. Now he man­ ages to cobble together a defence. 19.,. d4 20 lDe4 o-o 21 'fkhs tlJg6 22 f4 And here White should probably just take the exchange with 22 i..xf8, as after 22 . . . tlJf4 23 'ii'f3 �xf8 24 cS Black's compensation isn't adequate. 22 ... 'ii' d 8? 8 ... i.. a s Black can also retreat the bishop to e7 or f8, for example: a) 8 . . . .i.e7 9 i.. d 3 fxeS 10 dxeS 'fkc7 11 'i!t°e2 .i.d7 (after ll . . . d4 12 0-0 J.. c S 1 3 i.. a3, threatening 1 4 tLlbS, was very strong in Van den Berg-Kuijpers, Vlissingen 2005) 12 0-0 tLlaS 13 tlJd4 a6 14 �hS+ d8 15 "it'g4 1 -0 was the dra­ matic conclusion of Westphal­ Witkowski, German League 2003. b) 8 . . . J.. f 8 9 .i.d3 fS 10 g4! tlJge7 1 1 gxfS lLJxfS 1 2 .ixfS exfS 1 3 tl'lgS .i.e7 1 4 h4 gave White a strong initiative in Rahls-Gorelli F agiolini, Arco 1999. 9 i.d3 i.. c 7 9 .. . fxeS 10 dxeS ilc7 1 1 0-0 tt:'ige7 1 2 .i.a3 0-0 1 3 .i. d 6 gave White more than enough compensation in Skiotis­ B.Thomas, Canberra 200 1 . 1 0 o-o fxes 11 lDxes i.. x es 12 dxes tDxes Going two pawns up, but now his king is getting trapped in the middle. 13 'fkhs+ ll'lf7 14 .i.a3 a6 1 5 ll:id2 'ii' g s 16 'iVe2 lDe7 17 c4 'ii'e s 18 'fkd1 'fkc7 After 18 . . . 'ii'c 3 19 i.. c 2 dxc4 20 tlJe4, White would have a very strong attack.

Giving up material unnecessarily; it's interesting to see that even a player of Lalic' s class can be intimidated by a player who just goes for the jugular. Lalic might have been disturbed by the variation 22 . . . .l:td8 23 tlJf6+ gxf6 24 .i.xg6, but he can defend himself with 24 . . . tlJh6 25 �xh6 hxg6 26 'ii' x g6+ Wi/g7. 23 l:tf3 Anyone for a rook with 23 i.. x f8? Apparently not. 2 3 ...J.. d 7 23 . . . 'i!Vh4! ? was worth considering here. 24 l:g3 tlJh6 2s lDgs? White has an interesting queen sac­ rifice in mind, but he could win the 73

Gam biteer 1

game by taking the exchange: 25 �xf8 1fxf8 26 ltJc5 is just good for White. 2s ...ttJxf4 26 "ifxh6 gxh6 27 ttJxe6+ lLig6 28 ltJxf 8 �es 29 �f1

29 ... "ifh4 There seems to be nothing clear for White after 29 . . . 1!fa5. Why on earth did he sacrifice his queen when he could have sacrificed his opponent's rook? 30 i.. d 6 "ifhs 31 i.. e 4 )f;>hs? And here it seems that 31 .. . i.£7 32 lLixh7 1f e2 i s OK. 32 �f3 "if as 33 �ds �f7 34 :r.xf7 "it"e1+ 3S l:r.f1 "it"e2 36 �cs "it"d2 37 l:r.g4 1-0 An interesting and creative game, despite the flaws. Game 24 E.Tate-L.Chipkin

New York Open 1995 1 e 4 e6 2 ltJf3 dS 3 es c s 4 b 4 cxb4 S d4 lLic6 6 a3 bxa3 This immediate capture of t he pawn betrays an element of contempt for White's opening. But it seems to help White develop his initiative. 74

7 C3

A good move, supporting d4 whilst waiting for Black to commit himself before recapturing on a3. 7 ... �d7 Black has played numerous other moves. Here's a brief summary: a) After 7 .. .£5 White should play for g2-g4; for example, 8 �d3 .i.d7 (8 . . . lLih6 9 �xh6 gxh6 10 lLixa3 �xa3 1 1 �xa3 left Black with long-term problems over where to put his king in Bosch­ Peelen, Amstelveen 1994; and 8 . . . a6 9 g4 lLige7 10 lLixa3 �b8 1 1 lLic2 g6 1 2 lLie3 �g7 1 3 h 4 h 6 1 4 l:t g l gave White a promising attacking position in Djur­ huus-Fossan, Norway 1997) 9 g4 lLige7 (9 . . . g6 10 gxf5 gxf5 1 1 lLig5 h5 12 �e2 1 -0 was the conclusion of Vangsgaard­ Drechsler, correspondence 1 99 1 ; and 9 .. .fxg4 is strongly met by 10 lLig5 g6 1 1 lLixh7 l:txh7 1 2 .ixg6+ l:tf7 1 3 �xf7+ @xf7 14 'itxg4 giving White a very strong attack) 10 gxf5 lLixf5 1 1 lLig5 tLice7 ( l l . . . 'ite7 12 lLixa3 0-0-0? 13 lLib5 @b8 14 �xf5 exf5 15 e6, followed by 1 6 �f4+, led t o a quick win for White i n Hald-Jensen, Copenhagen 1990) 12

F r e n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

ltJxa3 h6 13 ltJh3 'fi/c7 14 ltJbS .i.xbS 1 5 .i.xbS+ 'iitf7 1 6 .i. d 2 and Black's awk­ ward king position plus the open g-file gave White long-term compensation for the pawn in Mortensen- L.Karlsson, Copenhagen 1985. b) 7 ... a6 8 .i.d3 bS (8 ... h6 9 0-0 .i.d7 1 0 ltJxa3 ltJaS 11 ltJel 'fllc 7 1 2 .i.d2 ltJc4 13 ltJxc4 dxc4 14 .i.c2 ltJe7 was a game O.Kristjansson-Stefansson, Akureyri 1 987, and now 15 'ti'hS was probably best with compensation for the pawn) 9 ltJgS h6 10 �hS 'ilie7? 1 1 ltJxf7! 'ifxf7 12 .i.g6 1 -0 was Helin-Domingo Arag'n Pons, Internet 2003. c) 7 . . . ltJge7 8 .i.d3 ltJg6 9 h4 .i.e7 10 hS ltJf8 11 ltJxa3 a6 12 .i.d2 ltJd7 was Vermeulen-Delers, Belgium 1998, and now 13 h6 g6 14 ltJc2 would have pro­ vided excellent compensation. d) 7 .. .£6 8 .i.d3 fxeS (8 . . . 'i'c7 9 .i.£4 i.d7 10 0-0 0-0-0 11 ltJxa3 a6 12 .i.g3 £5 13 c4 was very good for White in Tae­ ger-Zadlo, Bad Wiessee 2000) 9 dxeS 'iilc7 10 0-0 ltJxeS ( 1 0 . . . ltJh6 11 ttJxa3 l'tJf7 12 ltJbS 1i'b8 13 .i.£4 a6 14 ltJbd4 gave White a nice game in Loskarn-Voelkel, Ruhrgebiet 1997) 1 1 ltJxeS 'it'xeS 12 l:tel 'flc7 13 1!t°h5+ 'if £7 14 .i.bS+ @e7 15 ixa3+ 'iit f 6 16 �es+ 'iit g 6 17 .i.d3+ 'iith6 18 .i.cl+ 1 -0 was Storey-Martin Cortes, Internet 2003. e) 7 . . . ltJh6 8 .i.d3 l'tJfS 9 0-0 .i.e7 1 0 g4 ltJh4 1 1 ltJxh4 .i.xh4 1 2 £4 .i.e7 1 3 i.xa3 .i.d7 1 4 £5 gave White good at­ tacking chances in Rahls-Von Hartlieb, Berlin 1993. f) 7 ... 'ti'aS 8 .i.xa3 .i.xa3 9 :xa3 'ti'c7 1 0 .i.d3 ltJge7 1 1 0-0 .i.d7 ( l l . . . ttJg6 1 2 'i'cl .i. d 7 1 3 h 4 ltJa5 1 4 h 5 l'tJf8 1 5 'iWgS

:gs 1 6 h 6 g6 was good for White in Rahls-Danerud, Travemunde 1989) 12 ltJbd2 ttJaS 13 'fi/e2 ltJg6 1 4 g 3 a6 1 5 ltJg5 ltJc6 16 f4 ltJce7 17 g4 gave White a nice space advantage and attacking chances in Hebbinghaus-Wetzel, Chemnitz 1998. 8 .i.d3

8 ltJge7 This developing move makes sense, but Black has tried a number of differ­ ent moves. The same attacking themes tend to permeate the play, for example: ...

a) 8 . . . a6 9 ltJxa3 (or 9 ltJgS, or 9 0-0) 9 . . .£5 10 g4 g6 1 1 gxfS exfS 12 'i6'e2 .i.e6 13 ltJgS 1We7 14 ltJbS 1-0 was Keres­ Remmelgas, correspondence 1935 . b) 8 . . . bS 9 ttJgS (not 9 .txbS ltJxeS) 9 . . . b4 10 ltJxh7 .i.e7 1 1 'ti'hS �b6 was Haub-Lazic, Munich 1992, and now 1 2 ltJf6+ gxf6 1 3 'filxh8 0-0-0 1 4 .i.e3 would have been good for White. c) 8 ... .i.e7 9 .i.xa3 a6 10 0-0 .i.xa3 1 1 ttJxa3 ltJge7 1 2 ltJgS h 6 1 3 'iVhS g 6 1 4 �h3 'iitf8 1 5 £4 gave White good attack­ ing chances in Milanollo-Zielbauer, Graz 1997. d) 8 .. . l:tc8 9 0-0 £5 should probably 75

Gambiteer 1

be met by 10 lLixa3 with ideas of lLib5 or c4. 10 g4 is the typical idea after Black's .. .f7-f5, but here it's bad because of 10 .. .fxg4 1 1 lLig5 lLih6 J.2 lLixh7 'ini4 13 lLixf8 lLif5 14 .if4 g3 etc. e) 8 . . . lZJh6 should probably be met by 9 i..xh6 (9 0-0 lLif5 10 lLixa3 i.. e 7 1 1 g4 lZJh4 1 2 lLixh4 .ixh4 1 3 lLib5 i.. e 7 1 4 i.a3 i.. x a3 1 5 l:ha3 0-0 1 6 f4 f6 saw White' s king begin to look exposed in Salmensuu-Keskisarja, Finland 2002) 9 . . . gxh6 10 lt:lxa3, with long-term play against Black's weaknesses. White will probably bring his knight on a3 to c2, e3 and maybe g4. f) 8 .. .£6 is strongly met by 9 lt:lh4 threatening 'iflt5+. 9 lZJg5

.ixg5 lZJ6e7 1 3 0-0 lLib6 1 4 f4 i n Wohl­ fart-Karabalis, German League 1996; but 9 . . .lLif5 looks like the best and hasn't been tried as far as I can see) 1 0 lll g5 1Wa5 1 1 itd2 lk8 1 2 0-0 "i&'d8 1 3 "ii'e2 i.. e 7 1 4 1i'h5 .ixg5 1 5 .ixg5 lt:lce7 16 .id2 a6 17 f4 0-0 18 g4 and White had a strong attack in Cuartas­ Calderon, Skopje 1972. b) 9 h4!? lZJc8 (9 ... h6 10 h5 lll a 5 1 1 lLixa3 a6 1 2 lLih4 1Vc7 1 3 i.. d 2 b5 was Levi-Kontorovich, Canberra 1996, and now 14 0-0 looks like the most natural move) 10 lLig5 'i!Va5 1 1 �h5 lt:'ld8 1 2 i.. x a3 i.. b 5 1 3 i..b4 'i!Vb6 1 4 i.. a 5 was winning for White in Levi-Garbett, Melbourne 1 993. c) 9 0-0 lt:lc8 (9 . . . g6 10 i..g 5 i.. g 7 1 1 lZJxa3 0-0 1 2 'ifcl lll a 5 was Chretien­ Divine, French Junior Ch. 2004, and now 13 'ili'f4 followed by 'i'h4 would have given White a strong attack; but 9 . . . lll f5 deserves serious consideration) 1 0 lll g5 .ie7 1 1 "i&'g4 ( 1 1 f4! ?) l l . ..h6 1 2 lt:'lh 7 g6 was Nurkic-Mrdja, Salso­ maggiore 1 997, and now the spectacular 13 'i!Vxg6! would have won on the spot. d) 9 .ixa3 lZJg6 10 .ixf8 lllx f8 1 1 0-0 lLig6 12 g3 lll g e7 13 lZJa3 a6 14 c4 gave

The most aggressive way to go. White can a lso play with greater re­ straint, but I like the idea of doing some damage before Black gets devel­ oped. For example: a) 9 lt:lxa3 lt:lg6 (9 . . . a6 10 h4 lLif5 1 1 g4 lLife7 1 2 i.. d 2 h5 1 3 gxh5 :xh5?! 14

White an initiative for his pawn in Bryan-Bakker, Massachusetts 2000. 9 ... lt:lg6 An alternative possibility is 9 . . . lllf 5, when I like the line 10 .ixf5 exf5 1 1 'i'h5 g6 1 2 'i!Ve2, with ongoing problems for Black because of his dark square weaknesses. If Black's bishop goes to

lll g5 l:lh8 1 5 'itf3 was good for White in Rahls-Casagrande, Arco 2003; as was 9 . . . lLic8 10 lll g 5 i.. e 7 11 'in15 .ixg5 1 2

g7 then White would play .ixa3, and if it goes to e7 then h2-h4 will be danger­ ous.

76

F re n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

10 'ii' h s ltJce7? This looks like a solid move but Black can't defend f7. A better try is 10 . . .'ifaS, though I still like White after 1 1 ..txa3 lL!xd4 12 0-0. One possible line is 12 . . . JlbS 13 Jlxf8 'ifxal 14 Jlxb5+ lL!xbS 15 i.xg7 .l::t g 8 1 6 'jj'xh7 'it>d7 1 7 .if6 'iir> c 6 1 8 ilxf7 with a strong attack

21 'ii'xc4 .l:r.xc4 2 2 dS

for the exchange. 11 'il'f3 ltJfs 12 Jtxfs exfs 13 �lrxds 'ile7 14 'ifxb7 :cs 1s h4 ltJxes

Winning a piece and the game. 2 2 h6 23 dxe6 fxe6 24 /Dxe6 ..txa3 2 S /Dxa 3 l:.e4 2 6 /Dxg7+ x g7 29 l:txa7 wins the bishop. .•.

Game 25

G.Ardelean-8.Milj anic Evidently hoping that White will take the knight, but when Tate de­ clines, the e-file proves to be a new avenue for attack. Black's other try is 15 ... h6 16 ltJf3 Jle6, but this is hardly encouraging after 17 'WbS+ 'if d7 1 8 'jj'x d7+ 'iti>xd7 1 9 ..txa3 .ixa3 2 0 l:.xa3, when White has connected passed pawns in the endgame. 16 o-ol ltJc6 17 ..txa3 °ii' e 2 18 �b3 ltJdS 19 l:.a2 'Wc4 Black is losing a piece along the e­ file in all lines, thus 19 . . .'WbS 20 :et + tLie6 21 'Wxb5 Jlxb5 22 d5 is just as deadly. 20 l:e1+ /De6 Or 20 . . i.e6 21 'ifxc4 .l::t x c4 22 d5 etc. .

B u c h a rest 2000 1 e4 e6 2 /Df3 d s 3 e s c s 4 b4 b6

A sensible-looking move which keeps a pawn on c5 and prepares to 77

Ga m biteer 1

exchange light-squared bishops via ... ii.a6. At first sight it looks as if 4 b4 will prove to be nothing more than a weakness, but White can use this ad­ vanced pawn to secure a space advan­ tage. 5 C3! After 5 a 3 Black can free his position with 5 . . . i.a6!, for example 6 ii.xa6 lbxa6 7 c3 li:Jc7 8 d4 �d7 9 0-0 CiJe7 10 bxcS bxcS was comfortable for Black in Schulz-Krusemark, Spree 1 997. 5 bS is rather poor because of 5 ... a6,

6 a3

leading to the break-up of White's pawns. Vermeulen­ queenside Barendse, Antwerp 1998, continued 6 .ib2 axbS 7 i.xbS+ i.d7 8 �e2 i.xbS 9 'it'xbS+ tl:Jd7 10 0-0 tl:Je7 with the better game for Black because of his more homogenous pawn structure. s �d7 Again preparing to exchange light­ squared bishops with 6 . . . ii.a6. Black must of course avoid 5 . . . i.. a 6?? 6 i.xa6 CiJxa6 7 �a4+ which costs him a piece. There are a few attempts to stop White achieving his programmed space edge with d2-d4 but none of these seem very good: a) 5 . . . lbc6 6 a3 d4 7 bS ll:iaS 8 d3 dxc3 9 lbxc3 leaves the knight on as out of play b) 5 .. . f6 6 a3 ll:ie7 7 d4 �c7 8 i.d3 lbbc6 9 i.f4 lbg6 10 ..tg3 saw White develop very smoothly in Brustkern­ Khadempour, Budapest 2005 . c) 5 . . . c4 6 d4 cxd3 7 i.. x d3 li:Je7 8 0-0 'Wc7 9 l:[el lbec6 (P.Larsen-0. Vovk, Copenhagen 2004) and now 10 lba3 a6 1 1 lbc2 looks nice for White.

6 lba3 is a n interesting alternative, favoured by some strong players, but 6 . . . cxb4 (6 . . . i..b 7 7 lbc2 lbe7 8 i.e2 lbg6 9 d4 ..ta6 10 h4 ii.xe2 1 1 \'ixe2 was bet­ ter for White in Reinderman-Boersma, Dieren 1 991, as was 6 . . . ii.a6 7 bS ii.b7 8 lbc2 a6 9 a4 axbS 10 i.xbS lbc6 11 d4 i.a6 1 2 �e2 in Kogan-Paillard, An­ dorra 2000) 7 cxb4 i.. a 6 (7 . . . lbc6 8 bS lba5 9 i.e2 favours White) 8 bS i.xa3 9 bxa6 (or 9 i..x a3 i.xbS) 9 . . . i..x cl 10 l:txcl lbe7 looks at least equal for Black. 6 tl:Je7 6 . . . .ia6 7 .ixa6 lbxa6 8 d4 leads to similar play to the game. Instead, Black can try to stop White getting in d2-d4 by playing 6 . . . d4 himself, for example 7 cxd4 cxb4 8 dS �xdS (8 . . . exdS 9 d4 looks better for White) 9 axb4 i.. xb4 1 0 \'ia4+ lbc6 1 1 �bS i.d7 1 2 0-0 lbge7 was a game Mortensen-Bjerring, Den­ mark 1986, and now Mortensen later thought he should have played 13 �dl ! intending 1 4 lbc3, with what he claimed would be a clear advantage. Seems interesting. 7 d4 i.. a 6 8 .ixa6 li:Jxa6 9 'l'ie2

...

78

...

F re n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

This move and White's next is an interesting attempt to sharpen the play. The 'normal' way to play the position is with 9 0-0, for example 9 . . . ti:Jc7 (after 9 . . . :c8 White can consider 10 �d3 ti:Jc7 11 dxc5 bxc5 12 c4; and after 9 . . . ti:Jg6 1 0 h4 h5, a s i n Blimke-Szymanska, Lub­ niewice 2002, White can play 1 1 i..g5 i-e7 12 i..xe7 ti:Jxe7 13 ti:Jbd2 with a nice space advantage) 10 a4 ctJc6 1 1 bxc5 bxc5 12 i..a3 i..e7 13 ti:Jbd2 c4 14 i.xe7 �xe7 15 ti:Jel 0-0 16 f4 f5 17 exf6 ifxf6 18 g3 and White was slightly better because of his space and the weak pawn on e6 in S. Moosavian-Mohajerin, Iran 2003. 9 ... l0c7 After 9 . . . �a4 10 0-0 Black can't play 10 . . . cxb4 1 1 cxb4 ti:Jxb4? because of 12 tLlc3 �c2 1 3 if xc2 ti:Jxc2 1 4 :a2, trap­ ping the knight. And 9 . . . c4 would be strategically poor as after 10 0-0 ti:Jc7 1 1 a4 there would be nothing doing on the queenside, whilst White' s space gives him whatever kingside chances are going. 10 bxc s!? 1 0 0 - 0 is again the 'normal' move,

when I personally like White' s space which should be good for an edge. 10 ... bxcs 11 dxc5 ctJf5 Alternatively Black could consider ll . . . ti:Jg6, with the idea that 12 i.. e3 ifc6 13 tll d 4 can be answered by. 13 . . . if a6 with a good game for Black. 1 2 g4 l0h6 13 'Lid4 White might also consider 1 3 c6 �xc6 1 4 a4! ? (14 ti:Jd4 �a4 is unclear), for example 14 . . . i.. c 5 15 i.. xh6 gxh6 1 6 tlJbd2 l:g8 1 7 h3 l:tb8 1 8 �d3 with complex play in prospect. 13 ... i.xcs

14 tt:Jd2!? I would have preferred 1 4 i..x h6 gxh6 and only then 15 ti:Jd2. 14 ...i.. x d4 15 c xd4 'i!Va4 16 ti:Jf3 16 i.. b 2?! is strongly met by 1 6 . . J�b8. 16 ... tt:Jxg4 17 J:.g1 'Lih6 Alternatively Black might have tried 17 . . . h5 18 h3 'Lih6, when interest­ ing play arises from 19 i..xh6 gxh6 (not 19 . . . l:rxh6 20 .l:.xg7) 20 l:bl ! ? (20 'i!Ve3 is just equal) 20 . . .'�xa3 21 ifc2. 18 i.. x h6 gxh6 19 'it'd2 lObs 20 :g3 1tc8 21 .l:icl <J;; e 7 79

Ga m biteer 1

After other moves, too, White's at­ tack is worth the pawn, for example 2 1 . . .l:k 4 22 l:r.bl, 2 1 . . .l:r.c4 22 l:tbl, or 2 1 . . .�d7 22 :g7.

22 'it'xh67 This slip could have had quite seri­ ous consequences. White should first play 22 lhc8 lir.xc8 and then 23 W'xh6, which looks strange optically because it brings Black's rook into play; but after 23 . . . 'i'c4 (23 . . . 'i'c2?! 24 'it'f6+ Wf8 25 Wfl is just good for White) 24 'ii'f6+ Wf8 25 "ifu8+ White has perpetual check. 22 ... l:txcl+ 23 "if xcl 'it'xa3 24 1Vgs+ 'iti>d7 25 'ifi>fl 25 Wg7? 'i'cl+ 26 �e2 'tJc3+ 27 Wd3 �1+ 28 �xc3 l:k8+ leads to mate, whilst 25 'ii'f4? ! 'i'al+ 26 We2 tl'ic3+ 27 We3 l::!.f8 also leaves White struggling. 2 5 ...'ii' d 3+7! Missing his chance with the cold­ blooded 25 ... tl'ixd4!, for example 26 tl'ixd4 (or 26 'i'g7 tl'if5 27 "ifxf7+ We7) 26 . . . .-al + 27 �g2 "ii' xd4 28 :g4 'it'c5 with two extra pawns and insufficient compensation for White. 26 'it>g2 tl'ixd4 27 'it'f41 Bo

2 1 ... tl'ifs Or 27 . . . tl'ixf3 28 "ifxf7+ Wc6 29 � Wb5 30 °ifd7+ (30 lixf3 �g6+ looks a drawn rook endgame) 30 . . . Wbi "ii' d 6+ with a draw by repetition. 28 "if a4+ 'it>d8 28 . . . �c8 also seems to lead draw after 29 :g4! (or 29 "ii' xa7 tl'ix� �a8+) 29 . . . h5 30 �c6+ Wd8 31 1 Wc7 32 "if xa7 + etc. 29 'ifxa71 Forcing Black t o play very a rately to draw. 29 l:tg4 �c3 30 "itxa would give Black all the chances. 29 ... tl'ixg3 30 hxg3 l:tf8?7

A time-trouble mistake which

c

F r e n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

Black the game. Both 30 . . . "ii' c 2 31 t!LigS l:tf8 32 'ii'b 8 + We7 33 'i!Vb4+ We8 and 30 . . . "ii' c 4 31 cogs .l:tf8 32 �b8+ rtJe7 33 'ifd6+ �e8 leave White with nothing better than a draw. 31 CLJd4 'iWC4 3 1 . . . � l 32 ft'a8+ We7 33 ft'a3+ rtJe8 34 '2Jc6 and 3 1 . . . 'i!fe4+ 32 Wh2 are win­ ning for White. 32 'it'bB+ 'it>d7 Black is mated after 32 .. ."�c8 33 t'Dc6+ rtJd7 34 'i'd6+ We8 35 'it'e7. 33 Vi'd6+ 'it>cB 34 �xfB+ 1-0 Game 2 6 M.Martens-A.Romero Holmes Wij k a a n Zee 1 9 9 1

h e gets developed. The alternatives seem to allow White to keep control of the position, for example S . . . t'De7 6 d3 cxd3 7 1Lxd3 '2Jg6 (7 . . . t!Lid7 8 0-0 'i!f c7 9 l:tel 'll c6 10 'i!fe2 .i.e7 1 1 �f4 a6 12 a4 b6 13 'll a3 gave White an excellent game in Day-Ackermann, Ottawa 1966) 8 'ife2 i..d7 9 h4 'll c 6 10 hS '2Jge7 1 1 'lla3 'llc 8 12 tlJbS a6 13 'll b d4 and White had a clear positional advantage in Z.Szilagyi-Pali, Szombathely 2003. 6 bS Giving Black the cS-square, but tak­ ing c6 away from his knight. So it makes sense for the knight to head for the new outpost on cS.

1 e4 e6 2 '2Jf3 ds 3 e s c s 4 b4 c4!?

6 QJd7 There are others, but White seems to get a nice set-up in all cases: a) 6 . . . itb6 7 d3 cxd3 8 i.. x d3 �cs 9 0-0 t2Je7 10 a4 'lld7 1 1 tLlbd2 ( 1 1 tLla3 tlJg6 12 "ike2 would allow White to do without the pawn sac, but this is a book about gambits) l l . . . tLlg6 12 CLJb3 tlJgxeS 13 tlJxeS tlJxeS 14 tlJxcS 'ifxcS l S i.a3 'i!fxc3 1 6 i. e 2 left Black's king pre­ cariously placed in Dovzik-Malar, Hlo­ hovec 1996. .•.

Trying to throw a spanner in the works by cutting off the b4-pawn from the rest of White's army. But the down­ side of this advance is that Black is giv­ ing away the d4-square. 5 c3 as A consistent follow-up, trying to mess up White's pawn structure before

81

Ga m b i t e e r 1

b) 6 ... i.cS 7 d3 cxd3 8 i.xd3 tLld7 9 0-0 tbe7 10 �e2 h6 1 1 a4 0-0 was a game M.Hermann-Libeau, German League 1 992, and now 12 tLlbd2 intend­ ing tLld2-b3 and tLlb3-d4 looks best with a nice game for White because of the magnificent d4 outpost. c) 6 . . . a4 7 d3 cxd3 8 i_xd3 tbd7 9 0-0 'Wlc7 10 l:te 1 tLlcS 1 1 .tc2 i.d7 12 tba3 tl:Je7 13 c4 dxc4 14 tL:ixc4 favoured White in Wohlfart-Schild, German League 2000. 7 d 3 cxd3 8 i.xd3

8 ... tbe7 If Black tries to break up White's pawn centre with 8 . . . f6 then White plays 9 �c2, for example 9 . . .tL:ixeS 1 0 ltJxeS fxeS 1 1 .txh7 .td6 1 2 i.xg8 l"txg8 was Najer-Moskalenko, Moscow 1995, and now 13 �g6+ (rather than 13 c4 as played in the game) 13 . . . �f8 14 0-0 looks better for White. Another possibility is 8 . . . 'W/c7, but this fails to make much of an impres­ sion after 9 �e2 tl:lcS 10 .tc2 tl:Je7 1 1 h4, when White had a space advantage and attacking chances in Kadas-Kosa, Hajduboszormeny 1 999. 82

9 0-0 White can also take the opportunity to secure his eS-pawn with 9 .tf4 tbg6 10 .tg3, for example 10 . . . .te7 ( 1 0 . . . i_cS 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 h4 fS 13 exf6 'ii'xf6 14 �c2 was also promising for White in Rahls­ Bednarski, Travemunde 1 987) 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 'ii'e 2 tLlcS 13 .tc2 .td7 14 tLlbd2 1!t'b6 15 a4 fS 16 exf6 .txf6 17 .txg6 hxg6 18 tl:leS and White was better in Bochkarev-Potkin, St Petersburg 1998. 9 ... tbg6 10 � e2 White can also play 1 0 l:tel first, but it doesn't look like much of an im­ provement. 10 ... i.cs 11 �e1 o-o 12 a4 White has a very interesting alterna­ tive in 12 h4!?, the point being that 12 ...tl:lxh4? is met by 13 i_xh7+ Wxh7 14 tL:igS+ '1¥lg6 15 Wg4 with a winning attack. 12 ... i.a7 13 tLla3 i.bS

Forcing White to give up his light­ squared bishop in order to defend es. It's difficult for him to claim much of an advantage after this because his kingside attacking chances disappear. 14 i.xg6 fxg6 15 c4 ltJcs 16 �gs iieS 17 tL:ic2 b6 18 cxds exds 19 tbcd4 h6 20

Fre n ch D efe n c e : Wing G a m b i t

.i.c1 gs 21 'it'a2 There were a couple of other moves worth considering, namely 21 llJc6 ! ? and 21 e6. 21 ... .i.b7 22 h3 i..c 7 2 3 l:le3 l:lcB 24 i.. a 3 .i.bB 2 S l:lael .z:r.f4 26 g3 Yz-1h ·

White is nowl somewhat better here, but Romero Holmes was much higher rated than his opponent. Game 2 7 P .Rah ls-M.Heinsoh n

German League 1999 1 e4 e6 2 llJf3 ds 3 es cs 4 b 4 d41?

A radical and interesting way to prevent White playing d2-d4, but White gets light squares such as e4 and c4 as compensation. Similarly motivated is 4 . . . llJc6 5 bxc5 d4 which should trcmspose back into the game. 5 . . . .i.xc5, on the other hand, allows White to build a secure centre with 6 d4 i..e7 7 c3, and after 7 . . . i.. d 7 8 i..d3 a6 9 0-0 :cs 10 llJel llJa7 11 1"g4 g6 12 a4 White had an excellent game in Medina-Calderon, Barran­ quilla 1995. s bxcs .i.xcs After 5 ... llJc6 I think it's a waste of time trying to hold the c5-pawn in any way and that White should just de­ velop with 6 i.. d 3 i..x c5 7 0-0, transpos­ ing back into the game. 6 i.. d 3 A game LaRota-Roman, Internet 1995, witnessed 6 i..c4, but I don't think the bishop is well placed on this square; after 6 . . . llJe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 b6 9 lLibd2 i.. b7 10 'ife2 llJbc6 1 1 llJe4 llJg6 Black had the better game. 6 ... llJc6 7 o-o llJge7 8 'if e2 h6 Black could also consider 8 . . . llJg6, intending 9 . . . llJf4, when White should probably play 9 'ife4. This needs to be tested in practice. 9 .i. a 3 'if as 10 .i.xcs 'it'xcs 11 c3 .i.d7 1 2 'ife4 dxc3 n lLlxc3 lLifs 13 . . . llJg6 looks like a more solid move to me. White still seems to have a nice initiative after 14 �acl, say, but the position is playable for Black. 14 l:.ab1 l:.b8 And here Black might have consid­ ered 14 . . . llJfd4 15 llJxd4 llJxd4 16 'it"xb7 83

Gam biteer 1

I:.d8 with a pawn minus but nothing more serious than that. 15 ll:)b5

1s ... a6? After this Bl ack seems to be lost. lS . . 'itf8 looks like the only good de­ fence. 16 .l:tfc1 ile7 Or 16 . . . 'iWf8 1 7 ll:)c7+ �e7 18 1"c4 threatening 1 9 'fies+.

21 ... exfs? After this it's very easy for White. The only way to stay on the board was with 2 1 . ..iVb4, after whi ch 22 'fia8+ 'it'b8 23 'fixb8+ ll:)xb8 24 .i.e4 leaves White a pawn up in the endgame, but the game must still be won 22 'fia8+ 'itc7 23 'fixh8 'fia3 24 :e1 ll:)b4 25 e6 �xe6 26 ilxg7 ll:)d3

.

17 ll:)c7+ �d8 18 ll:)xa61 bxa6 19 : xb8+ ll:)xb8 20 ilb7 ll:)c6

27 .l:!.fl White could also play 27 l:he6 'ftcl+ 28 ll:)el, but it doesn't matter much at this stage. 27 ...ild6 28 'fic3+ 'itd7 29 J::t b 1 1-o Game 2 8 B.Golubovic-Si.Petrovic

C roat i a n C h a m p i o n s hi p, Zagreb 2002

21 �xfs?I Missing an easy win via the line 21 'ii'a8+ cj;c7 (or 2 1 . . .i.. c B 22 .i.xa6) 22 'ifxh8 etc. 84

1 e4 e6 2 lbf3 ds 3 es b 6 Sidestepping the gambit like this i s a sign of some respect. Black hopes to lead the game along the lines of the 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 eS b6 variation, which isn't that great for Black but tends to be very stodgy.

Fre n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

4 C3 �d7 Black manages to avoid 4 . . . i.a6?? 5 i.xa6 t0xa6 6 �a4+ and it looks like nothing can now come in the way of his programmed exchange of light­ squared bishops. But White comes up with a cunning way to stop it. 5 i.d3!?

After the hackneyed 5 d4 , Black would exchange off his light-squared bishop with 5 . . . i.a6. The text takes ad­ vantage of the fact that White has not yet played d2-d4 by aiming to tuck the bishop away on c2. Note that this same plan can be used against other fourth moves by Black such as 4 . . . tl'ie7, 4 . . . cS

and even 4 . . . as. s ... .i.a6 The game S.Biicker-Peist, Nord­ walde 1988, went 5 . . . cS 6 �e2 tiJe7 7 0-0 tiJbc6 8 tl:ia3 a6 9 i.c2 i.b7, and now the natural move is 10 d4 (rather than Bucker's weird 10 tl'ib l ), when 10 . . . tiJg6 11 i.gS h6 12 i.e3 looks more pleasant for White. 6 i.c2 tl'ie7 In Klip-Van der Griendt, Enschede 1 991, Black varied with 6 . . . cS, after which 7 d3 tiJc6 8 0-0 11Jge7 9 .l:.el tiJg6 10 h4 �c7 11 d4 i.e7 12 g3 saw White get nicely organized and start space­ gaining operations on the kingside. 7 d3 t'L'ifs B o-o i.e7 9 l:Iel hs?!

This and Black's follow-up are a common way for Black to try and blockade the kingside in the French. But I think this plan is much better when White has played f2-f4 and can't exchange dark-squared bishops with i.cl-gS. Here this is patently not the case. 10 d4 g6 11 .tgs i.xgs 12 tl'ixgs cs 13 tiJa3 tl'ic6 14 i.xfs gxfs 1 5 h4 tl'ias 16 tl'ic2 l:tcB 17 �f3 'it>dB? 85

G a m biteer 1

�xc2 .i.c4 2 7 llc1 b 5 2 8 �h3 Having done its duty on gS the knight is repositioned on the f4-square. From there it hits the weak pawn on hS. 2s ... "iVe1 29 g3 �c6 30 �f4

Black's king is heading for the queenside, but it won't find shelter there. He should have tried to ex­ change queens via 17 . . . 'iibS 18 b3 ( 1 8 b4 �c6) 18 . . . 'i!t'd3, when White keeps an edge with 19 �e3 'i!t'xc3 20 �xfS 'i!fxf3 21 �d6+ @f8 22 �xf3, but there' s still a tough fight ahead. 18 b3 <J;; c 7 19 lladl �bB 20 �e3 A sharper and possibly stronger way to play is with 20 c4!?, when 20 . . . .i.b7 (if 20 . . . dxc4 21 dxcS) 21 cxdS .i.xdS 22 dxcS is just very good for White. The text is also good, but the defects in Black's game take longer to show up. 20 ...cxd4 21 cxd4 �c6 22 J:td2 �b4 23 a3 �c6 24 b4 �dB 2 5 .l:tc2 .l:txc2 26

86

30 ...f6? Losing (sacrificing?) the exchange for insufficient compensation. 30 . . . llg8 is the best chance, as 31 'i!t'xhS can be answered by 31 . . . i.b3. 31 �g6 °iVg7 31 . . . 'i!t'e8 32 �xh8 fxeS 33 dxeS 'i!t'xh8 looks like it might have been a slightly better try. Now it's as good as over. 32 �xhB 'it'xhB 33 exf6 'it'xf6 34 'it'xh5 �xd4 35 �xd4 'it'xd4 36 'it'eB+ �b7 3 7 °iVe7+ 1-0

F re n c h D efe n c e : W i n g G a m b i t

Summary The Wing Gambit of the French offers good compensation if Black takes the pawn, and original play if he declines. One of the key points is that White should meet 4 ... cxb4 with 5 d4. How he then arranges his forces on the kingside is largely a matter of taste. 1 e4 e6 2 ll:Jf3 ds 3 es (D) cs 3 . .b6 Game 28 4 b4 (D) cxb4 4 ... b6 Game 25 4 ... c4 Game 26 4 . . .d 4 - Game 27 S d4 ll:Jc6 6 a 3 (D) 6 . £6 Game 23 6 ... bxa3 Game 24 .

-

-

-

.

.

-

-

3 e5

4 b4

6 a3

87

Chapter Four

I

C a ro - K a n n Defe n c e : F a nta sy Va r i a t i o n

The Caro-Kann i s known as one of Black's most solid defences to 1 e4 and has been favoured by such giants of chess strategy as Capablanca, Botvin­ nik and Karpov. Generally speaking it leads to a rather dry technical struggle in which White will find it difficult to generate creative attacking ideas. The move 3 f3 represents a serious challenge to Black's strategy, in that it attempts to maintain a duo of pawns on e4 and d4. White argues that this apparently extravagant move is possi­ ble because of the passive nature of 1 . . .c6 which did not contribute any­ thing to Black's development. The names of Grandmasters associated with this method of play for White are Bronstein, Murey, Gallagher and Smagin, to name but a few. Most high level Caro-Kann special­ ists play 3 . . . e6 which 'threatens' to win a pawn with 4 . . . dxe4 5 fxe4 11Vh4+. In the early days of 3 f3 White used to argue that this was a sacrifice by play-

88

ing 4 .lte3 dxe4 5 tLld2. This line i s in­ teresting, but I prefer 4 tt:lc3 which is the more modern option. Black has two basic choices after 4 tt:lc3, he can play 4 . . . i.b4 or 4 . . . tt:lf6. In Zvjaginsev-Kharitonov (Game 29) he chose the former move, but had to face a very interesting innovation: 5 a3 i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 dxe4 and now 7 �e2, when White seems to get excellent compensation for his pawn. In Lu­ tikov-Gavrilov (Game 30) Black went 4 . . . tt:lf6 instead, with a double-edged game arising after 5 .igS. By bringing his bishop to g7 (Da­ vies-Pieterse, Game 31) Black hopes to put pressure on d4, whilst at the same time safeguarding his kingside. Yet, once again, White can develop danger­ ous attacking chances with a harmoni­ ous plan of development involving gueenside castling. Black should probably play 5 . . . �6 with a double­ edged game in which I have a slight preference for White.

C a r o - Ka n n : Fa n t asy Va r i a t i o n

The variation 3 . . . dxe4 4 fxe4 eS tries to refute White's opening directly by threatening both to capture on d4 and check on h4. But with S '1Jf3 exd4 6 .i.c4 White turns it into a kind of Danish Gambit; see Murey-Kelecevic (Game 32) for details. Instead of S . . . exd4 a safer idea is S . . . .i.e6 (as in Smagin­ Summerscale, Game 33), preventing White from putting his bishop on c4. White can then support his centre and claim an edge because of this, but the position is by no means easy. Finally we come to Gallagher­ Tukmakov (Game 34), in which Black tries to punish his opponent even more drastically with 3 . . . eS. This is not the kind of move a club-level Caro-Kann player will come up with, but we need to know what to do about it just in case. Game 29 V.Zvj ag in sev-A.Kh aritonov

Tom s k 2006

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 e6

4 tLlc3 Whilst I'm recommending Zvjagin­ sev's play as my 'main line', I am in­ trigued by an idea in the line 4 .i.e3 dxe4 (4 . . . itb6 S tLld2 �xb2 6 i.d3 �a3 7 tLle2 b6 8 0-0 �a6 9 tLlb3 .i.xd3 10 �xd3 'ii' a6 11 'ilfd2 i.a3 12 '1Jg3 tLid7 13 tt:Jcl t?Je7 14 '1Jd3 0-0 lS tLlhS �c4! proved to be a tough nut to crack in Mitkov­ Dreev, Neum 2000) and now S fxe4!? (S 'Lid2 is the usual move) S . . . ..-h4+ 6 g3 'ii'xe4 7 �e2, when 7 . . . �xhl 8 .ig2 'if xh2 9 i.. x c6+ 'Lixc6 10 'ilfxh2 tLif6 1 1 t?Jc3 i.. d 7 12 0-0-0 left Black with in­ adequate compensation for the queen in S.Biicker-H.Koller, Bad Wiessee

200S. Alternatively Black can also con­ sider 7 . . . '1Jf6 8 i..g2 �g4 9 t2lf3 or 7 . . . �dS 8 i.. g2 �aS+ 9 c3 t2lf6 10 t2ld2 as in E. Pedersen-Aaskov, Vejle 1992. In both cases White has compensation for the pawn, though it isn't easy to meas­ ure how much. 4 ... i.b4 5 a3 White has also tried S 'ii'd3 and S t2lge2, but the gambit introduced by the text move is far more interesting. s .. .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 dxe4 .

89

Gam biteer 1

1 'it'e2!? There's another interesting move here, namely 7 i.. f4. After 7. . . �f6 (on 7 . . . �aS I like 8 �d2, intending 9 c4, since 8 ... e3 9 ..ixe3 'ii'xc3+ 10 'i!r>f2, in­ tending ..id3 and �e2, gives White ex­ cellent compensation for the pawn) 8 fxe4 �xe4 9 �g4 �f6 (9 ... 0-0 may be an improvement here, the point being that 10 hb8 can be answered by 10 . . .fS 1 1 1i'f4 l:txb8 12 'ifxb8 �gs with a wirming attack for Black) 10 J.. d 3 (10 �h3!?) 10 . . .hS 11 �f3 �xc3 12 it'g3 (12 �e2!?) 12 ...�d7 1 3 �f3 g6?? was ZverevaAstashov, St Petersburg 1998, and now 14 J..gS! would have been strong (rather than 14 0-0 as played in the game). But 13 ... h4 is better and actually looks rather good for Black after 14 "iig4 eS. 7 . exf3 8 �xf3 �f6 .

White's plan may seem rather cum­ bersome, but the two bishops are a po­ tent force in this open position and White's queen will soon reach the pen­ alty area. It's not an easy job to play Black here. 9 ... �bd1 10 i.d3 b6 11 o-o i.. b 1 12 1i' g s

:gs

After 12 . . .0-0 White gets a strong at­ tack with 13 'it'h4, for example 13 . . . cS 14 �gs h6 (or 14 ... it'c7 lS ..ixf6 �xf6 1 6 �gs h6 1 7 l:.xf6 gxf6 1 8 'ifxh6 etc) lS ..ixh6 gxh6 1 6 it'xh6 �e4 1 7 i.. xe4 ..ixe4 18 �gs i.. g 6 19 �xe6 fxe6 20 'ifxg6+ �h8 21 it'h6+ �g8 22 �xe6+ �g7 23 �g4+ with three pawns for the piece and at least a draw. 13 a4!

.

N.Davies-Surtees, Heywood (rapid) 2007(!), saw 8 . . .�aS 9 �d2 "ifa4 10 �es f6 11 it'g3 g6 12 �d3 �e7 13 0-0 'Was 14 W°h4 0-0 lS �h6 l:!.f7 16 �eS! �fS (if 16 .. .fxeS 17 'ifxe7!) 17 UxfS exfS (or 17 . . . gxfS 18 'it'g3+) 18 J.. c 4 1-0 (if 18 .. .fxeS 19 'ii'f6 mates). 9 1i'e3

As Black's king seems to be heading for the queenside White prepares to open that up too. The other point be­ hind this move is to prepare i.. c l -a3 should Black's queen step foot on the e7-square. 13 cs 14 lll e s h6 White also gets a very attractive po­ sition after 14 . . . �xeS lS dxeS lll d 7 16 �g3, threatening 1 7 i.xh7. ...

90

C a ro - Ka n n : F a n t a sy V a r i a t i o n

15 'it'g3 ll:Jxe5 16 dxe5 ll:Jd7? Getting the same variation a s in the previous note, but with Black having played the useless . . . h6. He should have tried 16 ... ll:JdS, when 17 .i.h7 :£8 18 %1dl is horrible for Black, but not quite a s horrible a s the game. 17 .i.xh6 'ilc7 18 :xf7! o-o-o And not 18 . . . �xf7 19 'it"g6+ We7 (or 19 . . . Wf8 20 :m+) 20 .i.gS+ ll:if6 21 exf6+ Wf8 22 :n when White wins on the spot. 19 .i.h7 :ha 20 l:xg7

Game 30 A.Lutikov-N.Gavrilov

USSR 1973 1 e4 c 6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 e6 4 ll:Jc3 ll:if6 5 .i.g5

5 'ii b 6 It may be better for Black to inter­ pose S . . . h6, when White should proba­ bly avoid maintaining the pin, for ex­ ample 6 .i.e3 (6 .th4 'ii'b6 7 a3 cS 8 ll:ige2 ll:ic6 9 dxcS .i.xcS 10 ll:ia4 1" aS+ 1 1 ll:iec3 .i.e7 1 2 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 3 exdS ll:id4 was fine for Black at this stage in Smys­ lov-Botvinnik, Moscow 19S8; but 6 .i.d2 ! ? looks like an interesting gambit, White getting compensation after 6 . . . dxe4 7 fxe4 'ifxd4 8 ll:if3 'itb6 9 .i.d3 intending 10 eS) 6 ... 'ii'b6 7 a3 and now 7 ...1"xb2? would be bad because of 8 ll:ia4 winning the queen. Black also has some other possibili­ •••

20 ... 'ii'c 6? Black could have put up better re­ sistance with the alternative 20 . . . 'ifxeS 21 .i.f4 'ii'f6, though White is a clear pawn up and has an attack to boot af­ ter 22 as. 21 .tg5 :des 22 :d1 ll:Jf a 23 .t gs 'it>bB 24 .i.f6 :h6 Or 24 ... .i.a6 2S .l:.e7 .l:.xe7 26 .i.xe7 etc. 25 'it'g5 l:th3 26 :xb7+! 'it'xb7 27 gxh3 1-0 A crushing win by Zvjaginsev against a player who is notoriously difficult to beat.

ties, but none of them challenge White's space advantage: a) After S . . . .i.e7 the best independ­ ent line is 6 'ii'd 3 (6 es ll:ifd7 7 .i.xe7 'ifxe7 8 f 4 0-0 transposes into a French) 91

Gam biteer 1

when 6 . . . b6 (6 . . . 'fVb6 7 0-0-0 lbxe4 8 t'llxe4 dxe4 9 'i'e3 f6 10 ..tf4 exf3 1 1 t'llx f3 gives White excellent compensa­ tion for the pawn) 7 0-0-0 .ia6 8 'i'd2 (not 8 'iVe3? Q:Jg4 ! ) 8 . . . h6 9 i.f4 gives White quite a promising attacking po­ sition. b) S . . . 'iVaS is quite well met by 6 'iVd2 .i.b4 7 .i.xf6 gxf6 8 tllge2, when Black's king may find it difficult to build a secure home. c) S . . . .ib4 6 eS h6 7 i.d2 is an im­ provement over the MacCutcheon variation of the French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 t'llc 3 t'll f6 4 .i.gS .1Lb4 S eS h6 6 .i.d2 .1Lxc3 7 bxc3 t'lle 4) because the p awn on f3 stops Black's knight from using the e4-square. After 7 . . . lbfd7 8 f4 .1Le7 (as in Schirmer-Schumacher, correspondence 2002) White should probably play 9 lbf3 (rather than 9 'i'g4) and would then have an excellent game. d) S . . . dxe4 6 fxe4 i.b4 is well met by 7 lbf3, for example 7. . . h6 8 .1Lxf6 'i'xf6 9 a3 .lii. aS 10 J.d3 gives White the better game thanks to his superior develop­ ment and strong centre. 6 a3!

This indirect defence o f the b2p awn looks like the best - compared to 6 .l::tbl it keeps open the option of cas­ tling long and rules out any pins with . . . J.f8-b4. 6 cs The way to justify moving the queen to b6 is to capture the pawn on b2, but here and on the following moves it turns out to be poisoned. At this point 6 . . . 'iVxb2?? is answered sim­ ply by 7 lba4 ..tb4+ 8 �f2, but this b­ pawn issue will recur over the next few moves. Instead, 6 . . . lbbd7 looks like a sensi­ ble move, but it has the drawback of taking d7 away from the knight on f6. ...

After 7 eS lbg8 8 b4 (8 J.e3) 8 . . . lbe7 9 lZJa4 'i!lc7 10 J.e3 aS (Adamski­ Steczkowski, Tarnow 1979) White should probably play 11 ii.d3 (rather than 1 1 c3, as in the game), after which 1 1 . . .lbfS 12 .ixfS exfS 13 lZJcS axb4 14 axb4 .lh al lS 'iVxal b6 16 lZJd3 keeps a solid space advantage. Another possi­ bility is 6 . . . 'IWaS, when 7 'i'd2 looks best, staying flexible in the centre. 1 .te3! .id7 92

Ca ro - K a n n : Fa n t a sy V a r i a t i o n

Black prepares the capture by tak­ ing the a4-square away from White's knight. 7 ... 'ifxb2? is again answered by 8 ltJa4. B es

tt:lgB And now not 8 . . . 1¥xb2? 9 ltJge2 ltJg8 10 dxc5, with the deadly threat of 11 lla2. 9 ltJge2 f6 9 . . . 'ifxb2? 10 dxc5 transposes into the previous note. 10 f4 'll h 6 Here, too, 10 . . . 'ifxb2? 11 dxc5 leaves Black defenceless against 12 .l:ta2. 11 exf6 gxf6 12 llJg 3! 8

..•

1 2 ...'ii' x b2 In the end Black can't resist the b­ pawn, but it still turns out to be poi­ sonous. Black might also have consid­ ered 12 . . . llJg4, when an entertaining line runs 13 'ifxg4 'it'xb2 14 �d2 'ifxal 15 i.b5 1¥xa3 1 6 'ii'xe6+ i.. e 7 17 tt:lxd5 cxd4 18 i.xd4 with what looks like a winning attack. 13 tt:Jbs �xbs 14 �bl 'ifc3+? Black should have dispensed with this check as it does nothing to im­ prove his chances. The immediate 14 . . . 'ilha3 was correct, when White should probably sacrifice a piece for a strong attack in the line 15 i.xb5+ Wd8 16 :b3 Wa5+ 17 i.. d 2 'Wc7 1 8 f5 c4 1 9 l1e3 a6 2 0 i.a4 b5 2 1 fxe6 bxa4 22 Vi'f3 etc. 15 i.d2 'ifxd4??

Leaving her majesty without a suit­ able exit. 15 . . 'ifxa3 was the only way to play, though White still has a strong initiative after 16 i..x b5+ llJc6 17 f5. 16 i.xbs+ 'it>dB 16 . . . tt'ld7 17 c3 is equally embarrass­ ing for Black's queen. 17 c3 1-0 .

93

Gam biteer 1

Game 3 1 N.Davies-G.Pieterse

9 'ifxd4 .i.xd4 10 l::t x d4 leaves Black in serious trouble despite the exchange of queens) 7 :bl 'i!fa3 8 exd5

Ramat H a s h a ro n 1991 1 e4 c 6 2 d4 dS 3 f 3 g6 4 ltJc3

This simple and natural move looks like the best to me. White has tried a number of weird and wonderful alter­ natives, but we won't examine them here. 4 i.. g 7 Black can also try delaying - or even omitting - the development of his bishop with 4 . . . ltJh6, but this makes a very artificial impression. White should play 5 .i.e3 f6 (or 5 . . . dxe4 6 fxe4 .i.g7 7 ltJf3 ltJg4 8 .i.g5) 6 'if d2 ltJf7 7 h4, after which 7 . . . ltJa6 8 exd5 cxd5 9 .i.b5+ .i.d7 10 .i.xa6 bxa6 11 ltJxdS saw him win a pawn in Giaccio-Kutirov, Elista Olympiad 1 998. 5 i.. e 3 dxe4 Giving White a broad p awn centre like this seems to me to be a conces­ sion. The critical line is 5 . . . Vb6 6 'it'd2 'ilfxb2 (6 . . . e5 7 0-0-0! exd4 8 .i.xd4 'ilf xd4 •..

94

8 . . . ltJf6 (8 . . . cxd5?! 9 ltJxdS �d6 10 .i.c4 leaves Black facing some very un­ pleasant threats; whilst 8 . . . �a5 9 dxc6 bxc6 10 .i.c4 ltJd7 11 ltJge2 ltJb6 12 .i.b3 ltJf6 13 ltJa4 �xd2+ 14 .i.xd2 gave White the better endgame in Speelman­ J.Houska, London 2004) 9 dxc6 bxc6 (after 9 . . . ltJxc6? White can play 10 d5, when a sample variation is 10 . . . ltJeS 11 .id4! 'it'd6 12 liJbS �8 13 �a5! b 6 1 4 .i.xb6!! axb6 15 �xa8 �xa8 1 6 ltJc7+ winning for White) 10 .i.d3 ! ? (10 .i.c4 allows Black an additional line of de­ fence in 10 . . . 0-0 11 ltJge2 ltJbd7 12 0-0 ltJb6 13 .i.b3 .i.a6 which is fine for him) 10 ... ltJbd7 11 ltJge2 0-0 12 0-0 h6 13 �b3 �as 14 .i.xa6 �xa6 15 .i.h6 (I think this is better than 15 l:tel, when Black secured his king's bishop from exchange with 15 . . . :fe8 in Adams-Leko, Tilburg 1996) 15 . . . cS 1 6 hg7 'ifi>xg7 17 d 5 and White was slightly better in Rowson-K.Berg, Richmond 1 994. The move 5 ... ltJf6 has also been played in a few games, but it seems

Ca r o - Ka n n : F a n t a sy Va r i a t i o n

poor for Black after 6 es etJg8 (6 . . . ttJfd7 7 f4 looks like a horrific form of the French Defence, in which Black will find it difficult to get in . . . c6-cS, while his king's knight is not well placed to restrain White's kingside ambitions with a later g2-g4 and/or f4-fS) 7 iVd2 bS 8 .id3 hS was Radojevic-Delmar, Prievidza 1973, and now 9 l2Jge2, fol­ lowed by castling short, would have given White a very attractive game. 6 fxe4

g3 �e7 1 1 �d2 ttJ d 7 was Lupulescu­ Barnaure, Bar 2004, and now 12 0-0-0 looks best, when 12 . . . tlleS can be pow­ erfully met by 13 tlldbS! according to Nisipeanu) 10 'i'd2 tllbd7 1 1 0-0-0 'fke7 12 �f4 ltJeS 13 i.e2 i.g4 14 .ixg4 l2Jfxg4 IS l:thfl , threatening 16 h3, gives White a strong initiative according to Nisipeanu. 7 tll f 3

0-0 Black has tried a few others, but none of them seems very satisfactory: a) 7... ltJg4 8 .tgS! h6 (8 . . . 1Vb6 9 'iVd2 ifxb2 10 .tr.bl 'iVa3 1 1 i.c4 is similar to the main line, while 8 . . . £6 9 it.£4 eS 10 dxeS �xdl+ 1 1 l:xdl tllxeS 12 ltJxeS fxeS 13 i.gS .ie6 14 .tr.d6 i.d7 IS i.c4 put Black in deep trouble in the endgame in Ganguly-Syed Anwar, Dhaka 200S) 9 .th4 �6 (9 . . . tlle3 10 �d2 lllx fl 1 1 .tr.xfl .i.e6 12 0-0-0 'i'aS 13 dS gave White a strong initiative in Gallagher-J.Bellin, 1

6 ... ttJf6 Hunting the b-pawn after g1vmg White a broad pawn centre is very risky. V.Umansky-Seger, Bojnice 1994, went 6 . . . 'iVb6? ! 7 �d2 'i:Vxb2 8 :bl �a3 9 .tc4 l2Jd7 10 ltJf3 ttJb6 1 1 .i.b3 ttJf6 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 llJgS! e 6 14 e S llJfdS lS tll c e4! fS! ? 16 exf6 ttJxf6 17 tllxf6+ �xf6 18 l:txf6 i.xf6 19 �fl! 'We7 20 tll e 4! and Black was in all sorts of trouble. A much more sensible move is 6 . . . eS, but this still favours White after 7 lllf 3 exd4 (7 . . . .i.g4 8 dS cxdS?! 9 .ibS+

i.d7 10 'iVxdS was very unpleasant in Ionica-Fratila, Eforie Nord 1 997) 8 i.xd4 .i.xd4 9 tll x d4 tllf 6 (9 . . . 'ifh4+!? 10

...

London 1984; White's idea is that 13 . . . i.xc3 is answered by 14 bxc3! with the weakness of White's king position being of minor importance) 10 'iVd2! 'ii'xb2 11 J:lbl 'iVa3 12 .i.c4!? (12 eS!?) 95

Gam biteer 1

12 . . . e5?! 13 l::.b3 'ii'a5 was Barczay­ Vadasz, Hungarian Championship 1980, and now 14 0-0 (rather than the game's 14 h3, which should have been met by 14 . . . exd4!) 14 . 0-0 15 ltJd5 'iVxd2 16 ltJe7+ �h7 17 lllx d2 would have left Black facing multiple threats. b) 7 . . . b5 8 i.d3 0-0 9 h3 ltJbd7 10 e5 lll d 5 1 1 lllx d5 cxd5 12 0-0 was very pleasant for White in W.Watson­ Conquest, Hastings 1985/86. c) 7 . . . i.g4 8 i.c4 0-0 9 0-0 b5 10 i.d3 b4 was Lukez-Kock, Liechtenstein 1988, and now 11 ltJe2 looks like the most natural move to me with an excel­ lent game for White. d) 7 . . .'ii' a 5 8 i.d3 i.g4 (if 8 . . . lll g 4 9 i. d2) 9 0-0 ltJbd7 10 h3 h5?! 11 e5 ltJh7 12 hxg4 hxg4 13 ltJh4 ltJxe5 was a good candidate for the ' ridiculous sacrifice of the year award' in G.Wolf-Wunderlich, Bayern 200 1 . White should now take on e5, of course, when Black doesn't have much for his pieces. 8 �d2 bS Here, too, 8 . . . lll g 4 is strongly met by 9 i.g5, and if 9 . . . c5 then 10 d5. 9 i. d3 .

.

9 a6 In a later game Black tried 9 ... ttJbd7, but after 10 e5 b4 1 1 ltJe4 ltJd5?! (1 l . . .ltJxe4 12 i.xe4 'iVb6 13 0-0 is strate­ gically better for White, but not car­ nage) 12 i.h6 f5 13 exf6 lll 7xf6 14 i.xg7 'iitxg7 15 0-0 White was clearly better due to Black's ragged pawns in Franke­ Molinaroli, German League 1998. 1o i.h6 i.g4 After 1 0 . . .i.xh6 11 ilxh6 e5 White could go all in with 12 ltJg5, for exam­ ple 12 . . . 'i¥xd4 13 l:.fl 'iVe3+ 14 l2Je2 ll'ibd7 15 .i::tf3 'ilc5 16 0-0-0, threatening 17 :dfl . 11 i.xg7 'iii>xg7 12 es tLldS 13 llle 4 ..•

My aim at this point was to get as many players in the penalty area as possible. Avoiding exchanges is part of that process. 13 ... lLid1 14 h4 hs 1s lll h 2 .ifs 16 g4!? I forget what I had for lunch that day but probably it wasn't lentil casse­ role. The text smashes open files on the kingside without counting the cost, and more of the same will follow. 16 ... hxg4 17 h s

96

C a r o - Ka n n : Fa n t a sy Va r i a t i o n

O r 21...gS 22 .i.xd5 cxd5 2 3 t2if6 etc. 22 .i.xds cxds Black's kingside would get less spectacularly dissected after 22 .. .fxg4 23 %1xg4 tbf8 24 .i.e4. 23 tL!f 6! t2ixf6 24 l:txg6+ �f 7 25 l:1xf6+ <J;;e7 26 'ifb4+ <J;;d7 27 :tf7+ �es 28 %1g7 1-0 Gam e 3 2 J.Murey-N .Kelecevic

11 e6? The sight of my meat cleaver makes him lose his cool. Instead, Shredder suggests 17 . . . 'ifb6, when it isn't that easy to successfully prosecute the at­ tack. White's best appears to be 18 c3, for example 18 . . . cS ( 1 8 . . . gxh5? 19 lLJxg4 i.xg4 20 'i'g5+ 'ith8 21 lLJg3 gives White a mating attack) 19 lLJg3 i.xd3 20 'i'xd3 cxd4 21 t2ixg4 1i'e6 22 1lt'xd4 with White's chances being marginally bet­ ter in this sharp position. 18 o-o-o f6 19 l:idg1 1'.xe4 After 19 .. .fxe5 20 t2ixg4 White's at­ tack would be crushing. 20 .i.xe4 fs 21 t2ixg4 :ha

Zu rich 1991

•••

1 e 4 c 6 2 d 4 dS 3 f 3 dxe4 A much sharper way of playing it (than either 3 . . . e6 or 3 . . . g6), which aims to open the game up and exploit the perceived 'looseness' of White's posi­ tion. 4 fxe4 e5

Threatening 5 . . .'i'h4+ and forcing White to play in gambit style. But as this book is about ripping your oppo­ nent to shreds with gambits, we shouldn't object to that too strongly. 5 t2if3 exd4 For 5 . . . 1'.e6 and 5 . . . �g4 see the next 97

G a m b iteer 1

game. The text brings about positions which resemble the Danish Gambit more than your typical Caro. 6 i.. c 4!

The only consistent move. 6 Wxd4 leds to an endgame in which White has an isolated e-pawn without any par­ ticular play, while 6 l'lJxd4 is bad be­ cause of 6 . . . 'ii'h4+. 6 i.e7 This looks like the best defence in what is a very dangerous position for Black. An amazing number of alterna­ tives have been tried: a) 6 . . . .i.g4? is bad because of 7 i.xf7+ 'itxf7 8 l'lJeS+, winning back the piece having displaced Black's king, Janz-Strumpf, Fredeburg 1 994. b) 6 . . .'ili'e7 7 0-0 i.g4 (if 7 . . . i.e6, 8 i..x e6 fxe6 9 l'lJgS is very strong) 8 Wxd4 'ii'cS 9 c3 'ili'xd4+ 10 cxd4 .i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 and with two bishops plus a strong pawn centre, White had a clear advan­ tage in Maroczy-Lee, London 1 899. c) 6 ... 'ilfd6 7 0-0 i.. e 6 8 i.xe6 fxe6 9 l'lJgS l'lJh6 10 'ilfhS+ �d7 1 1 .if4 was horrid for Black in Sebok-Rigan, Nyir­ segi Toma 1998.

d ) 6 ... 'flc7 7 0-0 .i.g4 8 c3 dxc3 9 liJxc3 .i.cS+ 10 'itiih l llJ£6 1 1 eS liJdS 12 .i.xdS cxdS 13 l'lJxdS 'ii'd 7 14 .i.h6! 0-0 lS 'Wcl! .i.e7 (after 1S ... 'ifc6 16 'ifc4 is strong) 16 llJ£6+ gxf6 1 7 exf6 .i.xf6 18 liJeS! .i.xeS 1 9 'figS+ 'ifr>h8 20 'ii'xeS+ f6 21 � 6 .l::txf6 22 'ii'xf6+ 'itiig8 23 'ii'f 8 mate was the brilliant finish to Foguenne-Van Damme, Ant­ werp 199S. e) 6 .. . WaS+

...

98

7 c3 dxc3 (7 ... J..e7 8 iVb3 "ifhS 9 cxd4 was an easy route to a White advantage in T.Johansson-Malesevic, Sweden 2002) 8 l'lJxc3 bS (8 ... .i.b4 9 iVb3 .ixc3+ 10 bxc3 'ii' c7 was M.Ginzburg-Koziak, Krasno­ dar 1 996, when 1 1 0-0 llJ£6 12 l'lJgS would have been strong; while 8 . . . l'lJd7 9 'itb3 'iths 10 0-0 l'lJgf6 1 1 es l'lJg4 12 i.xf7+ 'ifxf7 13 e6 .i.cS+ 14 'itiih l iVfS lS exd7+ �xd7 16 l'lJeS+!? iVxeS 17 'flf7+ 'ii'e7 18 l:r.dl+ 'iti1c7 19 i.£4+ ct>b6 20 ii'b3+ 'itiiaS 21 'ii'a4+ brought about a draw by repetition in Jimenez-Conde, corre­ spondence 2000, but White may have improvements on this, particularly around move 16) 9 .i.xf7+ 'itxf7 10 l'lJeS+ 'ite7 11 ini.S i.e6 12 i.gS+ llJ£6 was Vol­ gin-Bojarinov, Murom 2000, and now 13

C a r o - K a n n : F a n t a sy V a r i a t i o n

:!fl looks good for White after, say, 13 . . . 'i!Vc7 14 l:txf6 gxf6 lS i.xf6+ 'itxf6 16 �4+ 'itxeS 1 7 •g3+ winning Black's queen. f) 6 . . . l2Jf6 7 lDgS

7. . . hfJ (if 7 . . . i.g4, 8 i.xf7+ 'ite7 9 'ii"d2 h6 10 'i!Vb4+ °ii d 6 11 'if xd6+ 'itxd6 12 l2Jf3 ctJxe4 13 l2Jxd4 gives Black prob­ lems with his king in spite of the sim­ plification) 8 i.xe6 fxe6 9 c3 es 10 �b3 "ike7 (if 10 . . . 'ifd7, 11 0-0 i.cS 12 :fs dxc3+ 13 'ithl l2Jg4 14 h3 l2Jf2+ lS 'ith2 l2Jd3 16 l2Jxc3 gives White a dangerous attack) 1 1 0-0 h6 12 l2Je6 l2Ja6?! 13 cxd4 exd4 14 eS was pretty good for White in the game Nordhaug-M.Haslinger, Zagan 199S. g) 6 . . . cS 7 0-0 l2Jf6 8 lDgS i.g4 9 'ifd3 i.e6 10 i.xe6 fxe6 11 eS and White won quickly in Raeuchle Walter-Bessonov Yevgeni, correspondence 1999. h) 6 . . . h6 7 0-0 i.e6 (7 . . . l2Jd7? 8 i.xf7+ 'it>xf7 9 lDeS+ wins on the spot) 8 .ixe6 fxe6 9 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 10 eS .i.cS 1 1 c3 i.. x d4+ 12 cxd4 lDdS 13 'ifg4 gave White a strong attack in Pinkas-Porubszki, Salzburg 200 1. i) 6 . . .£6 takes the e S and g S squares

from White's knight, b u t weakens the a2-g8 diagonal. After 7 0-0 i.g4 8 i.£7+ 'ite7 (8 . . . 'itxf7 9 lDeS+ 'ite8 10 l2Jxg4 gives White more than enough for the pawn) 9 i.b3 l2Jd7 10 'if el i..xf3 11 :Xf3 lDeS 12 :I.fl 'itd7 13 i.£4, Black's ex­ posed king gave him ongoing prob­ lems in Muri-Oberc, Slovenian Ch. 1 99 1 . j) 6 . . . i.cS 7 0-0 f6 (if 7 . . . l2Jf6, 8 e 5! d3+ 9 'ithl l2Jg4 10 lDgS l2Jf2+? 11 l:.xf2 i.xf2 12 'ii'f3 wins for White) 8 l2Jh4! g6 9 lDfS!? hS 10 l2Jh4 ..tg4 (if 10 . . . l2Je7 1 1 'ild3 i s strong) 1 1 'ife l l2Je7 1 2 .!:txf6 l2Jd7 13 i.f7+ 'iif f8 14 :!fl gave White a strong attack in Schlenker-Korholz, Heidelberg 1979. k) 6 . . .bS 7 i.b3 i.cs (7 .. .f6 8 0-0 i.g4 9 es i.e7 10 'i'el i.xf3 11 l1xf3 'itf8 12 l2Jd2 l2Ja6 13 l2Je4 gave White a winning attack in Simkin-Zelkind, Marianske Lazne 2003) 8 0-0 l2Jf6 was a game Jimenez-Kreutz, correspondence 1 999, and now the continuation 9 eS d3+ 10 'ithl l2Jg4 11 l2Jc3 would have been strong, 1 1 . . .l2Jf2+ being met by 12 J:lxf2 i.xf2 13 l2Je4 etc. l) 6 . . .i.b4+ 7 c3

99

Gam biteer 1

7 . . . dxc3 (7 . . . .i.a5 8 �3 'ikc7 9 llJg5 llJh6 10 0-0 0-0 11 cxd4 gives White an ideal position) 8 ilxf7+ <j;e7 (8 . . . <j;xf7 9 'iix d8 cxb2+ 10 <j;dl liJf6 1 1 'Wc7+ .i.e7 12 llJg5+ <j;g6 13 'iVxe7 .ig4+ 14 <j;c2 bxcl'iV+ 15 <j;xcl is winning for White) 9 'i1Vb3 cxb2+ (both 9 . . . a5 10 bxc3 �d3 1 1 cxb4 'Wxe4+ 1 2 <j;f2 and 9. . .'iVb 6 1 0 bxc3 .i.c5 11 ilxg8 are winning for White, while 9 . . . c2+ 10 'i!kxb4+ <j;xf7 11 'iVb3+, followed by 12 'iVxc2, leaves Black in trouble because of his loss of castling rights) 10 'iVxb4+ <j;xf7 1 1 i..xb2 'ii'e7 (11 . . . llJf6 12 'Wc4+ <j;e8 13 0-0 gave White a strong attack against his oppo­ nent's uncastled king in Resznikov­ Schone, Germany 2003) 12 'Wc3 liJf6 13 0-0 <j;e8 1 4 liJbd2 llJa6 15 i.a3 and White's attack proved to be decisive in the game Neffe-Frohberg, German League 1999. m) 6 ... llJd7 7 0-0 (not 7 llJg5?! llJe5) 7. . .llJgf6 (7 ... liJdf6 8 c3 d3 9 i..e3 i.e6 10 i..xe6 fxe6 11 'iVb3 put Black in very se­ rious trouble in Schlesinger-Schuh­ macher, Wiesbaden 1990; while 7 ... 1J..e7 8 .hf7+ <j;xf7 9 llJg5+ <j;e8 1 0 llJe6 'iVa5 1 1 llJxg7+ <j;d8 12 liJe6+ <j;e8 was Kripp­ Kasueschke, Bad Bertrich 1996, when 13 .if4 would have been very strong) 8 e5 llJd5 was Malaschitz-Brijs, correspon­ dence 1999, and now I suggest 9 c3!? dxc3 10 1J..xd5 cxd5 (10 ... 'i!kb6+ 11 <j;hl cxb2 12 hf7+ <j;xf7 13 e6+ <j;g8 14 hb2 is very good for White) 1 1 llJxc3 i..c5+ 1 2 <j;hl 0-0 13 i..g 5 'Wa5 14 llJxd5 with the better game for White. n) 6 . . . .ie6 7 i.xe6 fxe6 8 0-0 and, here too, Black has tried a whole truck­ load of moves: 100

n l ) 8 . . . i..e7 9 llJxd4 'Wd6 1 0 .if4 reaches note 'b' to Black's 7th move. n2) 8 . . . i.d6 is probably best met by 9 llJxd4 'iVe7 10 °ifh5+ g6 11 'M-13 i.c5 12 i.e3, with serious problems for Black because of his weaknesses and laggard development. n3) 8 . . . d3 9 cxd3 j.,e7 10 d4 �6 1 1 llJg5 .i.xg5 1 2 °ifh5+ g6 1 3 'Wxg5 was Llaneza Vega-Barrio Garcia, Santa Olaya 1999, and now 13 . . . 'iVxd4+ 14 i.e3 'iVxb2 15 liJd2 llJd7 16 llJc4 'iVb4 1 7 llJe5 would have led swiftly t o Black's demise. n4) 8 . . . i.c5 9 ttJg5 d3+ 10 <j;hl dxc2 11 'iVxc2 llJd7 was Skripchenko Lautier­ Tsiganova, Elista Olympiad 1998, and now 12 llJxe6 it'b6 13 liJd2 would have been quite horrific for Black. n5) 8 . . . c5 9 llJg5 llJh6 10 'ilih5+ g6 1 1 'M-1 3 'ii' d 7 1 2 llJxe6 was winning for White in Mathe-Fabian, Bu dapest Ch. 1981. n 6 ) 8 ... e5 9 llJxe5 liJf6 10 liJd3 liJbd7 1 1 e5 llJd5 12 'i'g4 was very strong in A.lvanov-Rocabert Andreu, Manresa 1993. n7) 8 ... llJe7 9 llJe5 d3 10 i.e3 'i'c7

C a r o - Ka n n : F a n t a sy Va r i a t i o n

was Kovacs-Pajer, Hajduboszormeny 1992, and now 1 1 tl:Jf7 would have been winning. n8) 8 . . 1"b6 9 tl:JeS tl:Jf6 10 l:lxf6 gxf6 11 'ii'hS+ �d8 12 tl:Jf7+ �c8 13 tl:Jxh8 won quickly for White in Tessem­ Smith, Internet 2004. n9) 8 . . . tl:Jd7 9 tl:JgS tl:Jgf6 10 tl:Jxe6 1Vb6 1 1 i.f4 �f7 ( 1 1 .. Jk8 12 tl:Jd2 was very strong in Hazenfuss-Toshev, Mu­ nich Olympiad 1936) 12 tl:JgS+ �g8 1 3 es d3+ 14 �hl dxc2 l S 1Wxc2 1tbs 1 6 llJc3 'ilc4 1 7 exf6 won a piece i n Naga­ shima-Leal, Sao Paulo 1998. nlO) 8 ... tl:Jf6 ! ? 9 eS tl:Je4 10 1We2 °iVdS 11 l:.el tl:JcS 12 l:.dl 1We4 was Sventek­ Galovic, Slovakia 2001, and now 1 3 1Wc4 d 3 14 1Wxe4 tl:Jxe4 l S cxd3 llJcS 1 6 d 4 tl:Jca6 1 7 tl:Jc3 would have given White the initiative. 7 0-0 .

a) 7. . .tl:Jf6 8 llJgS 0-0 9 tl:Jxf7 :xf7 (9 . . . "i!f aS 10 tl:JgS+ �h8 1 1 eS tl:JdS 1 2 'ilthS saw White win quickly in Alva­ rez-Echeverria Acuna, Guaymallen 2001; whilst after 9 . . . 1Vb6 White has 1 0 lixf6! d3+ 1 1 �hl gxf6 12 ."ifhs f s 1 3 tl:JgS+ � g 7 1 4 1Wxh7+ with a mating at­ tack in Levin-Machavarian, Tbilisi 1971) 10 i.xf7+ �xf7 11 eS �g8 ( l l . . .tl:Jbd7 1 2 exf6 tl:Jxf6 13 tl:Jd2 'i!VdS 14 tl:Jf3 i.g4 lS °ii' d 3 cs 16 b3 'iii>g 8 17 tl:Jh4 lie8 18 tl:JfS wasn't quite enough for Black either in Aturupane-J.Santos, Lucerne 1982) 12 exf6 i.xf6 13 tl:Jd2 ( 1 3 'Wlt'e2 has also been played, but the text seems stronger) 13 . . . i.e6 ( 1 3 . . . "i!fdS 14 'Wlt'e2 i.e6 l S tl:Je4 tl:Jd7 1 6 i.gS i.eS 17 a 3 l:te8 18 l:tael also left Black with questionable compensation in Kostic­ Pfeiffer, Bled 19SO) 14 tl:Je4 i.. e 7 lS 'ii'hS tl:Jd7 16 i.gS 'ifaS (16 . . . i.. d S 17 l:tael i.. x gS 18 tl:JxgS h6 19 tl:Jf7 tl:Jf6 20 tl:Jxh6+ was winning in Mitkov-Gokhan, Santi­ ago 1990) 17 'ilh4 i..f 8 18 i.d2 'ii'd S 19 tl:JgS i.fS 20 c4 dxc3 21 i..x c3 and White won quickly in Teichmann-Mieses, Berlin 1910. b) 7 . . . i.e6 8 i.xe6 fxe6 9 tl:Jxd4

7 f6 An odd-looking move, though one which takes away gS and eS from White's knight at least. Once again Black has tried a number of alterna­ tives, albeit not as many as on the pre­ vious move: ...

1 01

G a m b it e e r 1

9 . . . 'i!Vd6 (alternatives also favour White, for example 9 . . . �f6 10 eS i.. e 7 1 1 lbxe6 'iVxdl 1 2 lbxg7+! 'iit d 8 1 3 l::t x dl+ was Bentancor-Wisniacki, · Buenos Ai­ res 2002; 9 . . .lbf6 10 lbxe6 'ii' xdl 1 1 :xdl lba6 12 lbc3 @f7 13 lbgS+ 'it>g6 14 ltJh3 lbb4 lS i.. f4 lbxc2 16 l:tacl i.. cS+ 1 7 'it>hl lbe3 18 ltd3 won quickly in Milner B arry-Golombek, British Champion­ ship, Hastings 19S3; 9 . . . �d7 10 �hS+ 'it>d8 11 ltdl h l cS 11 'ifuS+ g6 12 'ires i.f6 13 'ifxe6+ simi­ larly in Graciela Redondo-Alvarez Sol, Juvenil 1996; while 9 . . . g6 10 i.. f4 ltJa6 1 1 i.. eS i.. f 6 12 'iff3 w o n quickly i n De Sousa-Mendes, Porto 2000) 10 i..£4 1i°d7 (if 10 . . . 'ii'cS there follows 1 1 b4 'ii' b 6 12 'iVhS+ g 6 1 3 'ires ltJd7 14 'ifxh8 as in Tan-E.Blees, Nijmegen 2002; whilst 10 . . . eS is bad because of 11 'it'hS+) 1 1 i..x b8 l:txb8 1 2 'ifhS+ 'iit d 8 13 Vies i.d6 14 lbxe6+ clrc8 lS 'ifxg7 'ifxg7 16 lbxg7 and White was two pawns up in Zver­ eva-Orsagova, Ziar nad Hronom 1996. c) 7 . . .ii'aS

8 b4 (8 i.xf7+ 'it>xf7 9 ltJeS+ @e8 10 lbf7 i.e6 1 1 lbxh8 ltJf6 i s not that clear because the knight on h8 is cornered) 8 . . .'ifxb4 (8 . . . ti'hS should probably be met by 9 c3!?, for example 9 . . . dxc3 10 ltJxc3 ltJh6 1 1 i.xh6 1i°xh6 1 2 ltJeS 'ii'e3+ 13 'it>hl with a winning attack for White) 9 ltJeS 'ires 10 i.. xf7+ 'iii>d8 1 1 lb d 3 1!VaS 1 2 ltJ d 2 and Black's exposed king gave White a winning position in Klip-Knoppert, Dutch League 1993. d) 7 ... 'ii' d 6 8 ltJgS ltJh6 9 i..xf7+ 'iit d 8 10 i.. b 3 �f6 11 i.. f4 'ires 12 eS 1-0 was the speedy conclusion of Smagin­ Peregudov, St Petersburg 1994. 8 ltJxd4 Not 8 ltJeS?! fxeS 9 �hS+ @d7 with an unclear position in Udov-Kaem, Moscow 1964. s cs 9 lbbs ...

9 a6 9 . . . 'i!Vxdl 10 l:.xdl tl:ia6 11 tl:ilc3 is hardly better, as White's knight would just land on dS with a horrific position for Black. 10 �xd8+ The immediate exchange of queens ...

is pretty good, but there's also a case 1 02

C a ro - Ka n n : Fa n t a sy Va r i a t i o n

for 10 'ifhS+ g6 1 1 'ifdS, for example 1 1 . . . 'ii'x dS 12 l'!Jc7+ 'iti>d7 (12 . . . 'ifi>d8 13 l'iJxdS is just as bad) 13 l'iJxdS .id8 14 .ie3 'ifi>c6 15 a4 b6 16 aS bxaS 17 l'iJd2 l'iJd7 18 l'iJb3 and White went on to win in the game Adamski-Bujupi, Wroclaw 1980. 10 �xdB 11 .l:.d1+ l'iJd7 12 l'iJSC3 'iteB 13 l'!Jds i.dB 14 i.. e 3 l'!Je7 15 l'/Jbc3 •••

2 s lle8 2 6 l'!Jac3 :a1 2 7 l'!J b s l:td7 2 8 •••

l:lbd1 gs 2 9 .tf2 hs 30 l'iJ e 3 l:txd2 31 l::t x d2 i.. e 7 3 2 i.. g 3 %%dB 3 3 l'!Jds l:.bB Black could try to keep the kingside closed with 33 . . . h4, but that would leave all his pawns on dark squares. 34 h4 gxh4 35 i.xh4 l:lgB 36 l:lf2 And not 36 l'iJxb6?? l'/Jf3+ etc. 36 l'!Jd7 37 l::tfs l::tg 4 38 l:lxhs l:txe4 39 l::thB l'iJfB 40 l'!Jxe7 l:lxe7 41 l'iJd6+ 'ifi>g7 42 l'/Jf 5+ 'ifi>xhB 43 l'!Jxe7 l'!Jd4 44 i.. xf6+ ©h7 45 i.. xd4 cxd4 •••

1s l'!Jes Black avoids weakening his queen­ side with 15 . . . bS, probably because of lines like 16 i.. f l l'!Jg6 17 a4 b4 18 eib1, followed by re-routing the knight to c4 and/or c2-c3. 16 i.. e2 b6 17 a4 l'iJ7c6 18 h3 i.. b 7 19 l'!Ja2 J:lcB 20 c3 asll Hoping to keep the queenside blocked, but creating weaknesses. Black should play 20 . . . 'ifi>f7, when 21 b4 cxb4 22 cxb4 is better for White but not necessarily decisive. 21 l:tab1 :as 22 l:td2 i.. a6 23 i.. x a6 !:txa6 24 b3 �f7 25 C4 With the light-squared bishops off the board Murey sets out to show that Black's dark-squared bishop is a bad piece. •••

46 M2 ti)e6 47 ti)ds tt)cs 48 l'!Jxb6 ti)xb3? Losing. Instead 48 ... �g6 was the last chance. 103

G a m b iteer 1

49 lbd7 e6 sz lLld3
1 d 4 c 6 z e 4 d5 3 f 3 dxe4 4 fxe4 e s 5 lLlf3 i.e6

T.Schmid-Barthel, Germany 1995. c) 6 ... 1i'xd4 is ' clever', but it also looks better for White after 7 i.xf7+ �e7 8 �xd4 exd4 9 i.b3. Degraeve­ B agheri, Gent 2001, continued 9 . . . .i.xf3 10 gxf3 ltJd7 1 1 c3 dxc3 12 lLixc3 ltJcS 1 3 .i.c2 �f7 1 4 i. e 3 :dB 15 �e2 lLlf6 1 6 .l:thdl with the bishop pair giving White a nice pull. d) 6 ... ltJd7 7 0-0 (renewing the threat of .i.xf7+ which is not possible imme­ diately because of 7 i.xf7+?? �xf7 8 ltJgS+ �xgS etc) and then:

Stopping White's bishop from com­ ing to c4 and getting ready to support his e-pawn with . . . ltJd7 and . . . i.d6. Another possibility is 5 ... i.g4 putting more pressure on d4, but it allows White to play 6 .i.c4, when Black has to pay attention to the threat of 7 .i.xf7+; for exam pie: a) After 6 . . . lLlf6 there is 7 .i.xf7+
dl) Trying to win material with 7 . . . i.xf3 8 �xf3 ltJdf6 is inadvisable because of 9 'iVb3 Ylxd4+ 10 .i.e3 'iWd7 11 ltJc3 a6 12 l:ladl Ylc7, as in Gereben­ Glass, Budapest 1936, when 13 i.b6! Yle 7 14 i.d8 !! llxd8 15 i.xf7+ Ylxf7 16 l:txd8+ would have won on the spot. d2) In A.Fernandez-Sequeira, Lis­ bon 1986, Black tried 7 .. .£6, but after 8 c3 'iib6 9 ltJbd2 0-0-0 10
Game 33 S.Smagin-A.Summerscale

N imes 1991

1 04

C a ro - Ka n n : F a n t a sy Va r i a t i o n

sure against f7, for example 8 . . . �d6 is strongly met by 9 't!Vb3 0-0 10 tt:Jg5 i.h5 11 i'ixb7 etc; another way of doing this would be 8 . . . b5, but this also looks bet­ ter for White after 9 �b3 1t'b6 10 Whl, for example 10 . . . j_e7 1 1 i.. e3 0-0 1 2 tt:Jbd2 'i/c7 1 3 'ilel tt:Jh5?! 14 tt:Jg5 caused serious problems in J.Nagy­ Obran, Balatonbereny 1995) 9 lUbd2 b5 10 jLb3 't!Vb6 1 1 a4 .Yl.e7 was l. Zaitsev­ Zhelesny, Moscow 1992, and now the immediate 1 2 'Yi'el looks much better than first closing the queenside with 1 2 a 5 . After 12 . . . 0-0 13 Whl White has good attacking chances based on ideas such as 'ifel-g3 and tt:Jf3-h4-f5. 6 c3 Here 6 dxe5 'ifxdl+ 7 �xdl lUd7 8 �d3 0-0-0 9 ..tg5 ile7 1 0 i.. f4 was Rabovszky-Mullner, Balatonbereny 1 995, but now 10 . . . tt:Jc5 would have given Black pretty good compensation for the pawn. 6 ...tt:Jf6 6 . . . exd4 7 cxd4 tt:Jf6 8 �d3 trans­ poses to the 7 . . . exd4 line in the next note. Another possibility is 6 . . . tt:Jd7, for example 7 �d3 �d6 (7 . . . 'i/c7 8 0-0 0-0-0 9 i.e3 tt:Jgf6 10 'iii> hl �d6 was Hoiberg­ E.Pedersen, Aarhus 1991, and now 1 1 lllbd2 looks right, with White being for choice because of his centre) 8 0-0 f6 (8 . . . tt:Je7 is strongly met by 9 tt:Jg5 ! ) 9 i.e3 lUe7 10 tt:Jbd2 �c7 1 1 ilc4 �xc4 1 2 tt:Jxc4 exd4 13 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jf8 (13 . . . lUb6 1 4 i'ih5+ tt:Jg6 15 tt:Je6 'fi/e7 1 6 tt:Jxc7+ Vfilxc7 17 i.f4 led to a quick win for White in correspondence Monasterio-Masi, 1 999) 14 'irh5+ g6 15 �f3 tt:Jg8 16 l:i'.adl

'Yi'c8 1 7 e 5 f5 1 8 g 4 and White came thundering through his opponent's defences in Jimenez Zerquera-Hort, Moscow 1963. 7 ..td3 tt:J bd7 7 ... exd4 8 cxd4 lUbd7 9 0-0 't!Vb6 10 Whl gave Black no compensation for his opponent's strong pawn centre in Kohl-Doll, Kehl 1 989. 8 o-o

8 j,, d 6 ...

Black has tried several other moves here: a) 8 . . . i.e7 can be met by 9 tt:Jg5 as in the main game, for example 9 . . . tt:Jf8 1 0 �e3 h 6 1 1 tt:Jxe6 tt:Jxe6 1 2 ltJd2 exd4 13 cxd4 tt:Jxd4 14 e5 with dangerous at­ tacking chances for the pawn. Another way to play it is 9 tt:Ja3!? 0-0 10 tt:Jc2 �b6 1 1 'lto>hl l:lad8 12 tt:Je3 h6 13 �c2 'Yi'c7 14 tt:Jh4, which featured in Spraggett-Barbeau, Quebec 1986; and 9 'ithl looks like another good move. b) 8 . . . �6 9 @hl 0-0-0 10 tt:Jbd2 exd4?! 11 cxd4 c5 12 d5 ..tg4 13 lUc4 'Yi'c7 14 \l1Va4 and White won quickly in W.Watson-P.Johansson, G ausdal 1 991 . c) 8 . . . h6 rules out tt:Jf3-g5 but costs 1 05

G a m biteer 1

time, for example 9 lLibd2 ..id6 (9 . . . 1i'c7 10 b3! ? 0-0-0 1 1 lLic4 .id6 12 a4 ..ixc4 1 3 bxc4 g S 14 c S ..ie7 l S a S was horrid for Black in C.Koch-Radeiski, correspon­ dence 2002) 10 lLic4 i.c7 (10 . . . .ixc4 1 1 ..ixc4 0-0 1 2 1i'c2 1i'c7 1 3 .id2 llae8 1 4 llael gave White a nice two bishop game in T.Johansson-Ori, Copenhagen 1 999) 1 1 dxeS lLig4 12 lLid6+ <j;e7 13 .i.f4 lLigxeS 14 lLifS+ .ixfS lS exfS lLixd3 1 6 °ifxd3 .ixf4 1 7 °ife4+ <j{f8 1 8 'it'xf4 and Black's loss of castling rights proved fatal in Gofshtein-Fontaine, Montpel­ lier 1 998. d) 8 ... 'it'c7 9 lLigS (9 �hl ) 9 ... 0-0-0 10 ..ie3 'it>b8 11 lLid2 ..ig4 12 .ie2 ..ie6 was played in D.Pedersen-J.Christiansen, Danish Junior Ch. 1994, and now 1 3 .ic4 would have left Black struggling, for example 13 . . . lLicS 14 ..ixe6 lLixe6 l S dxeS lLixgS 16 exf6 with a clear advan­ tage. 9 lLi gs

Going after the bishop pair. An al­ ternative treatment is 9 <j;hl, getting off the a7-gl diagonal and preparing the development of his queen's bishop (it's handy to have gl as a potential retreat 106

square). There might follow 9 . . 0-0 (9 .. JWe7 10 .igS!? 0-0 1 1 lLibd2 is also annoying for Black) 10 .igS 'i!i'c7 1 1 lLibd2 l:r.ae8 12 'i*'el h 6 13 .ie3 lLig4 14 .igl f S l S exfS .ixfS 1 6 .ixfS :xfS 17 'ii'e2 and White had some initiative in Morozevich-Bareev, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2004. 9 lLifB This looks a bit passive but it's not easy to break down. Black has tried several alternatives here: a) 9 . . . 1i'e7 10 lLixe6 'it'xe6 .

...

1 1 lLid2 0-0 12 'itb3 favoured White in ] .Myers-Truscott, Queensland 1 994. Instead, 11 . . . 0-0-0 was the sharp con­ tinuation of Monin-Malyshev, St Pe­ tersburg 1 997, and now White should have taken the wind out of his oppo­ nent's sails with 12 it'b3 (12 �c4 1i'e7 13 °iff3 .i.c7 14 <j;hl �b8 lS �b3 lLib6 was quite good for Black in the game), when 12 . . . lLicS 13 'it'xe6+ lLixe6 (13 .. .fxe6 14 ..ic2 lLicd7 15 lLif3 also favours White) 14 lLic4 ..ic7 lS dxeS l1xd3 16 exf6 gives White the better endgame. b) 9 . . . exd4 10 cxd4 1i'b6 1 1 ..ie2 0-0-0 12 ..ie3 'it'xb2 13 lLixe6 fxe6 14 lLid2

C a ro - Ka n n : F a n t a sy V a ri a t i o n

gave White dangerous attacking chances for the pawn in R.Farley­ Bagnall, correspondence 1994. c) 9 ... 0-0 is well met by 10 lll xe6 fxe6 1 1 lll d 2 (not 11 'it'b3? lll c S!), for exam­ ple l l . . .exd4 12 cxd4 ll:\cS 13 ll:\f3 lll c xe4? 14 \i'c2 etc. d) 9 . . . i.. g 4? is refuted by 10 lll x f7! i..x dl 1 1 lll x d8 lhd8 12 :txdl, winning a pawn. e) 9 . . . 1Wb6!? 10 lll xe6 fxe6 1 1 i..e3 exd4 ( l l . . .�xb2 12 lll d 2 gives White compensation) 12 cxd4 favours White, for example 12 . . . hS 13 h3 eS 14 llld 2 exd4 15 ll:\c4 •c7 1 6 i..x d4 etc. 10 i.. e 3?1

Once again too passive. 1 3 . . . i.cS i s more challenging, when 1 4 dxcS .l:!.xd3 15 "ir'e2 l:!.d8 16 b4 looks a bit better for White because he might bring a knight to d6. But this is much better than the game. 14 lll b 3 i.b6 15 .i:!ad1 exd4

It looks like Black is winning a pawn, but there's a sting in the tail. 16 cxd4 ll:\xd4 17 lll x d4 .txd4 18 i.xd4 llxd4 19 e51 The point. 19 ll:\d5 And not 1 9 . . . iVxeS?? 20 l:!.fel etc. 20 e6 �f4 Capturing with the queen would get her pinned on the e-file, while 20 . . . fxe6 is bad because of 21 'iVhS+ 'it>d8 22 iVeS etc. 21 exf7+ J:.xf7 22 iVh 5 ll:\f4? Black should play 22 . . . ll:\f6, when 23 itfS 0-0 (or if 23 ... ll:\d7 24 'ifu3 keeps some pressure) 24 i.c4 ll:\dS 25 l:txdS cxdS 26 i.. x dS is good for White. 23 l:txf4 Vi'e3+ 24 'ith1 'i*'xf4 25 �f1 "flc7 Or 25 . . . g6 26 \i'e2+ ne7 27 ltxf4 and wins. 26 i.g6 .••

I'm not convinced that Smagin fully appreciated the strength of 10 . . . exd4 in reply. If he had, he might have chosen 10 'it>hl at this point. 10 iVe7?1 After this White keeps control. The critical line is 10 . . . exd4, after which 1 1 cxd4 ( 1 1 lll x e6?! lllx e6 1 2 cxd4 looks bad because of 12 . . . ll:\xe4 13 i.. xe4 'tWh.4) ll ... il.xh2+ 12 'it>hl i.. c 7 leaves me wondering what Smagin had i n mind. 11 ll:\xe6 ll:\xe6 12 ll:\d2 .l:!.d8 13 'ii°f 3 .tc7 •••

107

Gam biteer 1

tainly not my cup of tea, and I doubt that it's anyone else's either) Black will normally transpose into the main line with 5 . . i.c5, though he has also tried 5 . . . i.e6 (5 . . . d4 6 ltice2 c5 7 ltif4 ltie7 was Butkiewicz-Maciaga, Polish Team Ch. 2003, when 8 c4! ? ltibc6 9 ltid3 ltig6 10 f4 leaves Black struggling t o justify his pawn deficit) 6 exd5 cxd5 7 i.b5+ ltic6 8 ltixd5 i.xd5 9 'it'xd5 .l:r.d8 10 'ifb3 and White is a pawn up for insufficient compensation. Another possibility is 4 . . . dxe4, but after 5 'it'xd8+ Wxd8 6 fxe4 Black is struggling to justify his pawn deficit, for example 6 . . . i.e6 7 ltif3 ltid7 8 i.f4 ltie7 9 ltibd2 ltig6 10 i.g3 i.b4 1 1 0-0-0 was clearly better for White in Mashin­ skaya-Vaclavik, Moravian Team Ch. 1 997. S ltic3 .

2 6 hxg6 26 ... l:thfB 27 'it'xh7 is good for White, for example 27 . . . @e7 28 i.xf7 l:txf7 29 .l:r.el+ will leave Black's king too ex­ posed. 2 7 'ifxhB+ �e7 28 1Vh4+ 'itfs 2 9 'i!fhB+ rtle7 30 I:te1+ r;i;>f6 Losing rather easily. 30 . . . �d6 is a better try, though still good for White after 31 �h3. 31 'ifh4+ gs 32 'it'e4 g4 33 "if e6+ 'it>gs 34 l:tes+ r:tlf4 3S l:te4+ 'it>gs 36 .!:.xg4+ 1-0 .••

Game 34

J.Gallagher-V.Tukmakov

Geneva 1994 1 e4 c6 2 d4 ds 3 f3 e s ! ? 4 dxes The right way to capture. 4 exd5 exd4! 5 'ifxd4 cxd5 6 ltic3 ltif6 7 i.g5 �e7 8 i.d3 ltic6 gives Black more than enough play for his isolated queen's pawn. 4 .i.cs After 4 ... 'iib 6 5 ltic3 (5 exd5 i.c5 6 ltih3 .ixh3 7 gxh3 i.f2+ 8 @e2 is cer•..

1 08

s ...1i'b6 5 . . . ltie7 is an interesting attempt to

improve this line for Black; for example 6 f4 (6 i.d3 0-0 7 f4 ltia6 8 'iff3 'ifb6 fa­ voured Black in Mitkov-Kallai, French League 1994; whilst 6 ltia4 �a5+ 7 c3 i.xgl gains a tempo compared to the

C a r o - K a n n : F a n t a sy V a r i a t i o n

game) 6 . . . .ib4 7 l2Jf3 0-0 8 .id2 .ixc3 9 .ixc3 � 10 .id3 l2Ja6 1 1 'ii'e2 l2Jc5 1 2 0-0-0 dxe4 1 3 .ixe4 l2Jxe4 14 'it'xe4 .if5 15 'it'd4 and the players surprisingly agreed to a draw in Mannion­ Gormally, British Championship, Scar­ borough 2004, but White is a pawn up and should continu e. Less good is 5 ... d4 6 l2Jce2 .ie6, as after 7 c3 dxc3 8 'it'xd8+ �xd8 9 l2Jxc3 l2Jd7 10 f4 Black didn't have any com­ pensation for his pawn in Kuijpers­ Schuurman, Roosendaal 2003. 6 l2Ja4 �as+ After 6 ... .if2+!? 7 �e2 Black is forced to exchange queens with 7 . . . 'it'd4 8 'it'xd4 .ixd4, and then 9 exd5 .i.xe5 (9 ... cxd5 is good for White after 10 f4, and 9 ...b5 10 l2Jc3 .i.xe5 1 1 dxc6 also leaves Black struggling to show much for his loss of material) 10 dxc6 l2Jxc6 1 1 c3 l2Jge7 1 2 'iiff2 .i f5 was Rohde-Gierth, Internet 2002, and now 13 l2Jc5 looks best, when Black still needs to demonstrate com­ pensation for his pawn. 7 C3

7 ... .ifB A strange-looking retreat, which

hopes to demonstrate that White's knight on a4 i s badly misplaced. Black has tried a couple of alternatives: a) 7 . . . .i.xgl 8 J:txgl dxe4 (8 . . . l2Je7 is strongly met by 9 i..g 5, and 8 . . . l2Jd7 9 exd5 cxd5 10 b4 'it'd8 1 1 'it'xd5 left Black without enough compensation in Soylu-Rombaldoni, Saint Vincent 2004) 9 .i.f4 l2Je7 (other moves seem even less satisfactory, for example 9 . . . l2Jd7 10 b4 'it'd8 1 1 'it'd6 1Vh4+ 12 g3 'it'xh2 13 :g2 1Vh5 14 0-0-0 gave White tremendous pressure in B .Nagy-Rombaldoni, Bu­ dapest 2005; whilst 9 ... exf3 10 gxf3 opens the g-file for White's rook) 10 b4 'it'd5 (10 . . . 'it'c7 1 1 fxe4 l2Jg6 12 .ig3 'it'e7 was San Claudio Gonzalez-Lopez Re­ boso, Preferente 1998, and now 13 'it'd6 would have been very unpleasant for Black) 1 1 'ii'e2 l2Jg6 ( l l . . .exf3 12 gxf3 again just opens the g-file for White) 1 2 fxe4 'it'e6 1 3 .ig3 l2Jxe5 1 4 l2Jc5 and White was better in Murey-Kadimova, Cappelle la Grande 1996. b) 7 ... .ie7 8 exd5 cxd5 9 b4 'it'c7 10 i.b5+ .id7 11 'it'xd5 .ixb5 12 'it'xb5+ l2Jc6 13 l2Je2 0-0-0 was Mitkov-Barbero, Barcelona 1992, and now White should make it difficul t for his opponent to get the e5-pawn back with 14 .ie3. 8 b4 'ii'c 7 9 exd s �xes+ 10 �e2 �xe2+ 11 l2Jxe2 t2Jf6 l l. . . cxd5 12 l2Jd4 gives White a posi­ tional advantage. So Tukmakov tries to mix it up with a pawn sac, but he never looks like getting enough compensa­ tion. 12 dxc6 l2Jxc6 13 b5 ttias 1 3 . . .l2Je5 is also answered by 14 l2Jd4, when it's difficult to see Black 1 09

Gambiteer 1

having enough with such a powerful knight on d4. 14 lbd4 lbd5 15 lbb3 lbb6 16 lbb2 lbxb3 17 axb3 i.e6 1S i.e31

This is getting quite excruciating for Black. Maybe he should have played 17 .. i.cS to stop this, but even so White would be well on top. 1s ... lbd5 19 i.d4 b6 20 lbc4 i.c5 2 1 .txg7 :gs 2 2 i.d4 i.xd4 2 3 cxd4 That makes it a second pawn, with Black still having very little in the way of compensation. Gallagher handles the technical phase well. .

110

2 3 ... f6 2 4 c;t>t2 l:tg7 2 5 :e1 �d7 2 6 g3 h 5 2 7 f4 h4 2s .tg2 l:tdS 2 9 :e2 lbc7 30 l:the1 hxg3+ 3 1 hxg3 i.g4 3 2 i.c6+ �cs 3 3 :e1 l:xe7 34 :xe7 :xd4 3 5 l:tf7 lbe6 36 :xa1 lbc5 37 lbxb6+ rj;ds 3S :as+
Taking care of any danger to his own king. The b-pawn will soon be ready to roll. 41 ... i.e6 42 lbxf6 i.xb3 43 l:.e2 .tc4 44 :c2 rj;e7 45 lbg4 �d6 46 lbe5 i.e6 47 rj;e3 l:tb4 4S l:txc 5 1 1-0 A great win by Gallagher against a strong Russian GM

C a ro - Ka n n : F a n t a sy V a r i a t i o n

Summary The Fantasy Variation of the Caro is not an easy line for Black to deal with, es­ pecially with Zvjaginsev's treatment against Kharitonov providing a very danger­ ous new option. As Black I would probably go for 3 . . . g6, but here too he has some problems. And perhaps the most potent thing about this line is that it presents Caro players with unpleasantly complex positions, a far cry from their uiually blocked or simplified games. 1 e4 c6 z d4 d5 3 f3 (D) e6 3 . . . g6 - Game 3 1 3. . .es Game 34 3 ... dxe4 4 fxe4 eS S tll f 3 (D) S ... exd4 - Game 32 S ... .te6 Game 33 4 tll c 3 (D) 4 ... .tb4 - Game 29 4 . . . tllf6 Game 3 0 -

-

-

3/3

5 tll/3

211

C h apter Five

I

A l e kh i n e' s D efe n c e w i t h 3 ctJ c 3

Although 1 e4 li:Jf6 2 eS li:JdS 3 li:Jc3 is not a gambit as such, it is in the gam­ biteer spirit by aiming for free and fast development. There are also lines in which White can sacrifice a pawn, so one hopes that the reader will not be too dismayed by the thought of short­ term material equality. The main line is thought to be 3 ... li:Jxc3 4 dxc3 d6, the main aim of which is to play . . . dxeS at a suitable moment and establish a superior pawn structure. The negative side of this plan is that it further helps White's devel­ opment, a factor which is very much in evidence in the first four games of this section. After 5 li:Jf3 the immediate 5 . . . dxeS featured in the game Hiibner­ Ghizdavu (Game 35), with White gen­ erating a lot of pressure in the end­ game. In Keres-Schmid, Richter-Foltys and Radulov-Stefanov (Games 36-38) we see the line 5 . . . li:Jc6 6 i.bS i.d7 7 �e2, and Black answering with

112

7 . . . dxeS, 7 . . . a6 and 7 . . . e6 respectively. In all these games there's a conflict be­ tween White's active piece plan and Black's better pawn structure. Another popular choice is 4 . . . dS, when a plan I like for White is seen in Knaak-Espig (Game 39). A more recent development has been for Black to switch away from the capture on c3 altogether, with 3 . . . tt:lb6 (Men­ Shabalov), 3 . . . e6 (Oral-Pribyl) and 3 . . . c6 (Oral-Sergeev) featuring in Games 4042 respectively. Against all these op­ tions I've given lines that I feel are most in keeping with the gambiteer approach. Game 35 R.Hiibner-D.Ghizdavu

World Student Tea m C h a m pion s h i p, G ra z 1972 1 e 4 li:Jf6 2 es li:Jds 3 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 4 dxc3 d6 5 li:Jf3 dxes

A l e k h i n e 's D efe n c e w i t h 3 ltl c 3

The most ambitious line for Black, which tries to show that his kingside pawn majority will be more effective than White's on the queenside. Due to the doubled c-pawns, White will find it difficult to generate a passed pawn on that side. But there is also a serious drawback to Black's play, which is that he is allowing his king to be displaced while falling seriously behind in devel­ opment. 6 �xdB+ 'iii>xdB 7 lll x e5

7 'it>eB In Ashton-Baburin, British League 2005, Black played 7 . . . .ie6, the game continuing 8 .ie3 llld 7 9 0-0-0 'ite8 10 ...

lllf3 J.g4 1 1 .ie2 es 1 2 h3 .�.£5 1 3 l1hel (13 J.c4 also looks pretty good) 13 .. .£6 14 J.c4 i.e4 15 lllh 4 gS 16 f3 J.cS, and now 17 i.d2 (instead of 17 .if7+) would have been very good for White; for ex­ ample, 17 . . . J.xc2 18 'itxc2 gxh4 19 .;te4, recovering the pawn whilst keeping a nice two bishop advantage. 8 i.e3 I now believe that this is White's best. The alternatives don't really look like much; for example: a) 8 .ic4 e6 9 .ie3 (9 .if4 J.d6 1 0 0-0-0 lll d 7 1 1 lll d 3 .ixf4+ 1 2 lllxf4 lllf6 13 .:hel i.d7 14 llldS lll x dS 15 J.xdS c6 16 i.e4 'ite7 was comfortably equal for Black in Lechtynsky-Hlousek, Lu­ hacovice 1971) 9 ... llld 7 10 lll d 3 (10 lll x d7 i.xd7 11 0-0-0 J.c6 1 2 f3 J.d6 13 i.d4 'ite7 1 4 .%% d el J:lhg8 was fine for Black in Stefanov-L.Popov, Sofia 1982) 1 0 ... .id6 11 0-0-0 lll e S (this seems like Black's most solid option: 1 l . . .'ite7? is dubious because of 12 l:thel b6 13 .igS+ lllf6 14 f4 which gave White very strong pressure in Radulov­ W esterinen, Helsinki 1 972; l 1 . .. lllb6 isn't too bad, but after 12 .ib3 J.d7 13 c4 i.e7 1 4 lll eS White had the initiative in Maurer-Huber, Passau 1999; but an­ other good move is 1 l . . .a6, when 12 a4 b6 13 f3 .ib7 14 litd2 hS was fine for Black in Evchin-Katkov, Kiev 2002) 1 2 lll xeS .li.xeS 1 3 f4 (13 J.d4 .if6 14 J.xf6 gxf6 15 l:td4 .id7 1 6 l:tel 'ite7 was also quite equal in Szilagyi-Hazai, Hungar­ ian Championship 1 974) 13 . . . J.d6 14 g3 .i.d7 15 l:thel 'ite7 was completely equal and agreed drawn at this point in Lechtynsky-Pribyl, Luhacovice 1973. 113

G a m biteer 1

b) 8 i.bS+ is a bit tricky, for example 8 . . . i.d7 (8 . . . c6 9 i.c4 e6 10 i.f4 f6 11 llJf3 makes it difficult for Black to develop with ease, but 8 . . . llJd7 � i..f4 f6 10 llJxd7 i.. x d7 11 i.. x d7+ 'itxd7 12 0-0-0+ 'itc6 wasn't bad either in Lopez Martinez­ Jimenez Villena, La Roda 2004) 9 llJxd7 llJxd7 10 i.. f 4 c6 1 1 i.e2 e6 12 c4 i.cS 13 c3 'ite7 14 l:ldl aS and Black reached safe waters in Rozentalis-Volzhin, Za­ kopane 2000.

g3 i.d6 1 1 i.. g 2 'ite7 1 2 c4 c6 1 3 0-0 :td8 14 cS i.. c 7 lS b4 and White's queenside pawn advance gave him some initia­ tive in Makropoulos-Hemdl, Athens 1987. 9 llJf3 White can also consider 9 llJd3, for example 9 . . . eS (9 ... llJc6 1 0 f4 e6 11 0-0-0 b6 12 c4 i.. b 7 13 cS bS 14 i.e2 i.. e 7 lS .l:(.hel 'itf7 16 llJf2 a6 17 i.. f3 was a bit awkward for Black in Radulov­ Smejkal, Siegen Olympiad 1970) 10 f4 (10 0-0-0 i.. e6 1 1 llJcS i.. x cS 12 i.. xcS llJd7 was just equal in Dolzhikova­ Dobronovsky, Alushta 2006) 10 . . . e4 1 1 llJf2 fS, which i s given b y Burgess in The Complete Alekhine, and now 12 g4 causes problems for Black. 9 es After 9 ... e6 White can play 10 llJd4! (threatening 11 llJbS) 10 ... c6 1 1 i.c4 �f7 12 0-0-0, with ideas such as lithel and/or f2-f4. This looks like very strong pressure to me as Black doesn't have any pieces out. 10 llJdz i.. e 6 11 f4 llJd7 12 o-o-o '

...

8 . f6 Black has a major alternative in 8 ... llJd7, when White's best is probably Keres' recommendation of 9 llJd3 (9 llJc4 llJb6 10 0-0-0 e6 was fine for Black in Balashov-Zhidkov, USSR Ch., Baku .

.

1972, and in fact Black won very quickly when White had a brainstorm with 1 1 llJxb6 axb6 12 i.bS+ c6 13 i.xb6?? cxbS 14 l:td8+ �e7 lS l:thdl f6 0-1; instead 9 llJf3 blocks the undermin­ ing f2-f4 and thus gives White little chance of making an impression, for example 9 . . . eS 10 0-0-0 f6 1 1 llJd2 i.cS 12 i.xcS llJxcS 13 i.c4 was ListergartenBagirov, USSR 1974, and now 13 . . . i.. e 6 looks at least equal for Black) 9 . . . e6 10 114

12 ... i.d6 After 12 . . . i.e7 Hiibner suggested 13

A le k h i n e 's D efe n c e w i t h 3 lll c3

.id3, intending f4-f5 and lLid2-e4, but how does White meet 1 3 ... .ixa2? If there is no good answer to this ques­ tion then he might prefer first 13 Wbl, or even 13 .tc4 with what looks like some initiative for White. 13 lLie4 <J;; e7 14 lLixd6 cxd6 15 83 White's two bishops are more than enough compensation for his slightly inferior pawn structure. From e3 and g2 they bear down quite effectively on Black's queenside. 15 .l:r.ac8 15 . . . .txa2?? 16 b3 would win the bishop. 16 .t82 And not 16 .i.xa7 because of 16 ... b6, the same theme that appeared on Black's last move. 16 b6 17 a3 l:lhd8 18 .l:r.d2 lLib8?I Having played well thus far Black starts to lose the plot. He should play either 18 . . .h6 or 18 .. .fS, intending 1 9 . . . lLif6. 19 .tf3 .l:r.d7 20 .l:r.hd1 lLia6? •••

these would admit that his 1 8th move was a mistake. 21 <J;; b 1? Missing an opportunity to cause immediate damage with 21 fxeS, for example 2 1 . . .fxeS (if 21 . . . dxeS 22 .:.X.P7+ .i.xd7 23 .i.b7 wins the exchange) 22 .tgS+ Wf7 23 .l:r.xd6, winning a pawn and leaving Black's game a wreck. 21 ... lLic5 22 b3 h6 Missing a chance to complicate mat­ ters with 22 ... lLixb3! 23 cxb3 llxc3. Now White re-establishes control. 23 C4 f5?1 Planning . . . e5-e4, but this is the wrong idea. He should sit tight with 23 . . . ltdd8. 2 4 <J;; b 2 e4 25 .te2

..•

25 lLib1?1 This knight certainly tried out its share of outposts. 25 . . . g6 would have been better. 26 h3 .l:r.cd8 2 7 84 86 28 8Xf5 8Xf5 After 28 . . . .txf 5 Hubner intended 29 .tg4, intending :g2 followed by l:.dgl . •..

Continuing the bad plan started by his previous move. He should play either 20 ... h6 or 20 . . .lLic6, but both of

29 .l:r.81 l:.88 30 l:ldd1 �8 31 .td4 lLid8? This leads to a considerable deterio­

ration of Black's chances. He should 115

Gambiteer 1

play 3 1 . . .tlJcS, when White could im­ prove his position with 32 .i.hS, 32 h4 or 32 �c3. White would be better, but the game must still be won. 32 nxgB+ .i.xgB After 32 . . . �xg8 33 l:lgl+ 'it>f8 (or 33 . . . 'itt>h 7 34 .ihS etc) 34 l:tg6 l:th7 3S .i.hS White would be tightening the noose around Black's neck. 33 c s !

3 7 Z:tb7ll Making it easy for White. 37 ... J:!.d6 38 aS 'ift>e7 would put up more resis­ tance. 38 .i.xd4 ttJxf4 39 .!:!.f1 tlJe6 Or 39 . . . tlJxh3 40 J:r.xfS+ 'ift>e7 41 aS etc. 40 .!:!.xfs+ <j;e7 41 .i.e3 1-0 •••

33 d s ? Neither 33 . . . dxcS 3 4 .i.xcS+ �e8 3S .i.bS, nor 33 . . .bxc5 34 .i.xcS tlJb7 (34 . . . tlJf7 is answered by 3S lldS, and 34 . . . �e7 by 3S .ibS) 3S La7 helps Black. Perhaps 33 . . . tlJe6 is more stub­ born, but it still looks good for White

Game 3 6 P .Keres-L.Sch mid

Zu rich 1961

•••

after 34 cxb6 axb6 (or 34 . . . tlJxd4 3S bxa7 l:txa7 36 :lxd4) 3S .ixb6, for example 3S . . . tlJxf4 36 .i.bS l:tb7 37 :xd6 �e7 38 .!:!.c6 tlJe6 39 a4 etc. 34 cxb6 axb6 3S .i.xb6 ttJe6 36 a4 d4 36 ... tlJxf4 is answered by 37 .ibS l:tb7 38 aS, with the threat of 39 a6 l:[xb6 40 a7 followed by queening. 37 .i.bs The alternative 37 .i.c4 was another good move. 116

1 e 4 tlJf6 z es ttJ d s 3 tlJ c 3 ltJxc3 4 dxc3 d6 s etJf3 ttJc6 6 .i.bs

6 .i.d7 .••

A l e k h in e 's D efe n c e w i t h 3 li.J c3

A solid-looking continuation which threatens to take on e5 with the knight. Several other moves have been tried here: a) 6 . . . a6 7 1Lxc6+ bxc6 8 1Lf4 .:b8 9 b3 e6 (or 9 . . . g6 10 �d2 .i.g4 1 1 lLld4) 10 1i'd3 d 5 11 0-0 'i&'d7 12 litadl a5 1 3 .:fel l:ta8 was Torre Repetto-Reti, Baden Ba­ den 1925, and now 14 a4 looks best to me, stopping Black from exchanging or advancing his a-pawn. White's position looks preferable because of his space and mobility. b) 6 . . . g6 7 1Lf4 .i.g7 was played in Mack-Hennigan, British Ch., Blackpool 1988, and now 8 exd6 (8 0-0 0-0 9 .:el dxe5 gave Black the better ending in the game) 8 ... cxd6 9 •d2, followed by castling long, would have been critical. White's queenside is much stronger than in openings such as the Sicilian Dragon, because of the extra queenside pawn on c3. c) 6 . . . e6 7 1Lf4 a6 (7 . . . .i.e7 8 We2 0-0 9 0-0-0 a6 10 .i.d3 .i.d7 1 1 h4 gave White attack an overwhelming in Makarichev-A.Petrosian, Beltsy 1969) 8 .ixc6+ bxc6 9 'iie2 .i.e7 10 l:ldl (10 0-0-0 gives Black something to aim at, for example 10 . . . d5 1 1 h4 a5 12 lLlg5 h6 13 lLle4 was Borngasser-Tischer, German League 1981, and now 13 . . . a4 would have made things tricky) 10 . . . d5 1 1 h4 .i.d7 12 i..g 5 0-0 was Kopec-Crouch, British League 1998, when White should probably play 13 �d3 (rather than the hyper-aggressive 13 l:d4), with the dual ideas of c3-c4 and lLlf3-g5 at some point. Play might continue 13 . . . c5 14 c4 c6 15 0-0 with White for

choice. 1 We2 dxes

Once again setting up a 'kingside pawn majority', but this time with the queens still on the board. For 7. . . a6 see Richter-Foltys (Game 37), and for 7 . . . e6 see Radulov-Stefanov (Game 38). 8 lLlxes lLlxes 9 "ii' x es c6 Now White gets very strong pres­ sure, but Black is not very comfortable after 9 . . . a6 10 .i.c4 e6 1 1 �g3 or 9 .. .f6 10 't!fe2 c 6 11 .i.c4 either. 10 i.c4 'it'b8 11 �e4 e6 12 .i.gs h6 13 i.h4 i.d6 14 o-o-o 'ilc7 15 'ilt°d4 .i.es 16 'ifcs

16 ... 1Lf6? 117

Gam biteer 1

After this inaccurate move White's pressure intensifies. Black should take the bull by the horns with 16 ... .i.f4+ 1 7 @bl gS, after which 1 8 .i.:g3 'Wb 6 1 9 W'a3 .i.xg3 20 hxg3 c S i s only slightly better for White. 17 .i.xf6 1t'f4+ After 17 ... gxf6 White would win a pawn with 18 �d4, for example 18 . . . eS (18 . . . �d8? 19 litd2 is a lot worse) 1 9 �h4 0-0-0 20 1i'xf6 etc. 18 :td 2 gxf6 19 l:thd1 b6 20 'it'hs o-o-o 20 . . . J:lg8 21 'it>bl �xc4 22 l:txd7 etc. 21 .i.a6+ @ctl 21.. .Wb8 i s better, the point being that 22 �xf7 lithf8 is possible without White being able to take the bishop on d7. 22 g3 1Wfs 22 . . . �a4 23 W'xf7 is no better for Black. 23 1Wxf7 es 24 :d6 :th7

'iif x b7 29 �C7+ 1-0 After 29 . . . Wa8 White can also sac his queen with 30 'it'c6+! . Game 3 7 K .Richter-J. Foltys

M u nich 1942 1 e4 t'Lif6 2 es t'Lids 3 t'Lic3 t'Lixc3 4 dxc3 d6 s t'Lif3 t'Lic6 6 .i.bs .i.d7 1 'it'e2 a6

8 .i.xc6 I quite like this move, avoiding the loss of time. More often than not White has played 8 .i.c4, but Black seems to be fine after 8 . . . e6 9 .i.f4 dxeS 10 .i.xeS (10 t'LixeS .i.d6 1 1 .i.g3 t'LixeS 12 .i.xeS

On 24 . . . lithe8 White has 25 litxc6+!! Wxc6 26 'ii'c4 mate. 2S litxc6+11 @bB As with the last note 25 . . . 'it>xc6 is answered by 26 �c4 mate. 26 W'ds 1Wxf2 21 W'd6+ @as 28 .i.b7+1 118

.i.xeS 13 'it'xeS 'it'f6 14 'it'xf6 gxf6 l/2-1/2 was Hug-W.Schmidt, Pula 1975) 10 . . . t'LixeS 11 t'LixeS .i.d6 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:tadl �e7 14 .i.d3 g6 15 t'Lixd7 'it'xd7 and a draw was agreed in Lechtynsky­ W .Schmidt, Czech Championship 1975. 8 .i.xc6 It doesn't make sense to play 8 ... bxc6, seeing that Black could have played 6 . . . a6 and dispensed with the development of his bishop to d7. Even ..•

A le k h i n e 's D efe n c e with 3 l£l c3

so this was tried in Burijovich-Peralta, Mar del Plata 2000, which went 9 0-0 (9 .i.f4! ? seems to keep more options open) 9 . . . e6 10 .tf4 d5 1 1 c4 ( 1 1 h4!?) l l .. . .i.e7, and now 12 'i'd3 (rather than 12 cxd5, which freed Black's game) 12 ... 0-0 13 l:.adl looks sensible and makes it very difficult for Black to gen­ erate any sort of counterplay. 9 .tg s Making it difficult for Black to de­ velop, but a couple of other moves were also worth considering: a) 9 e6! ? is an appealing idea, the point being that 9 . .fxe6 1 0 tt::l d 4 (if 10 'ii'xe6 'ii' d 7) 1 0 ... e5 1 1 tt::lx c6 bxc6 12 0-0 leaves Black struggling to develop. b) 9 .tf4 e6 10 0-0-0 i.. e 7 11 exd6 ( 1 1 h4!?) l l . . .cxd6 1 2 h4 0-0 1 3 �bl llc8 1 4 .t g 5 .txf3 ( 1 4 . . . .txg5 15 tt::lx g5 .txg2?! 1 6 l:.hgl would give White a dangerous attack) 15 "ii' x f3 d5 16 'ii'e3 .i.f6 17 'itf4 lii 1 8 .i.xf6 'iVxf6 1 9 'i'xf6 gxf6 20 :d4 f 5! brought about an equal-looking rook endgame in Seferjan-Nesterov, Moscow 1 994. 9 'ii' d7 10 exd6 cxd6 11 o-o-o °ifg4 12 i.e3 .

There's a case for just playing 12 l:.hgl which keeps all of White's pawns. Richter was a famed attacking player who was nicknamed 'The Berlin Executioner', but not all of his forays resulted in his opponent's execution. 12 1Wxg2 12 . . . e5 looks better than it is after 1 3 h 3 'iVa4 14 'itb l . Black has the two bish­ ops and a pawn centre, but White's king is safe and he has plenty of open lines. 13 tt::l d 4 i.d7 And not 13 ... 'iVxhl? 14 l:.xhl .txhl because of 15 f3, trapping the bishop. 14 :thg1 °ife4 15 f3 'itd s 16 c4 "if as 11 'itb1 '¥1/c7 18 tt::l b 3 i.e6 19 cs i.xb3 20 cxd6 A surprising decision by Richter, though he does have drawing chances in the endgame. Instead he could play 20 cxb3 dxc5 21 l:tcl e6 22 .i.d4, which seems to get a pawn back whilst keep­ ing some initiative. 20 .-.txc2+ 21 1Vxc2 1Vxc2+ 22 xc2 exd6 •••

•••

23 'ifi>d3 l:.c8 24 l:.c1 l:tc6 25 l:.xc6 bxc6 26 llg4 'ifi>d7 27 l:.f4 f6 28 l:.a4 i.e7 2 9 119

G a m b iteer 1

.l:xa6 l:tb8 30 �d4 30 b3 :bs also leaves Black with all the chances. 30 ..J:tb7 31 i.c3 dS 32 l:la8 cs 33 b3 i.d6 34 h3 'ite6 3S 'itc2 d4 36 i.d2 'itds 37 a4 d3+ 38 'itxd3 lilxb3+ 39 'ite2 C4 39 . . . :b2 might have been a better way to play it. 40 l:!.ds 'ite6 41 :es+ 'itds 4 2 as? White should repeat the position with 42 l:td8 and ask Black how he in­ tends to make progress. 42 l:ta3 43 l::t d8 .l:ta2 44 @d1 'itc6 4S i.c3 i.es 46 .:cs+ 'itd7?

Game 3 8 l .Radulov-K.Stefanov

E l e n ite 1986 1 e 4 lLlf6 2 es ttJds 3 tLlc3 lZJxc3 4 dxc3 d6 s ltJf3 lLlc6 6 i.bs i.d7 7 �e2 e6

•••

Giving up his key pawn. Instead 46 . . . 'itt d5 47 �xe5 fxe5 48 .l:td8+ 'itt c 5 49 l:!.e8 .litxa5 50 l:.xe5+ 'itt b4 leaves Black with every chance of victory. 47 .l:txc4 i.xc3 48 l:Ixc3 l:txas 49 l:i:b3 'ite6 so l:.b7 .l:tgs s1 'ite2 hs s2 h4 :es+ S3 'it>f2 g6 S4 'itt g 3 'it>f s ss l:tb4 g s S6 .l:ta4 l:.e3 S7 .i::t a s+ 'itg6 SB hxgs fxgs S9 'itf2 l:te6 60 'iftg3 .l:td6 6 1 l:tbs h4+ 'ith3 .1:td2 63 :tbs 'itfs 64 l::tf B+ 'ites :es+ 'itf6 66 l::tf8+ 'it g 7 67 l:ta8 l:.f2 'itg4 .l:tg2+ 69 'itfs h3 10 :a1+ 'itfs 'itf6 'ite8 7 2 l:.e7+ @dB 73 l:th7 h 2 @fs Y2-1A 120

62 6S 68 11 74

This looks very solid, but Black has to play very accurately now. 8 i.f4 i.e7?! After this natural move B lack finds himself in serious trouble. Black's best move seems to be 8 ... a6; for example, 9 i.d3 (9 i.xc6 �xc6 10 0-0 is worth con­ sidering, for example 10 . . . �e7 1 1 liJd4 �d7 12 l:.adl 0-0 13 llfel gives White the freer game) 9 . . . d5 (9 . . . i.e7 10 0-0-0 f6 1 1 exf6 i.xf6 was Bekooy-Stallinga, Groningen 2001, when 12 lZ:lg5! i.xg5 13 'i!i'h5+ g6 14 �xg6+ would have been very strong; but 9 . . . dxe5 10 tt:'ixe5 i.d6 1 1 i.g3 ltJxe5 12 �xe5 �g5 13 f4 'it'h6 14 0-0-0 .i.c6 was about equal in Ste­ fanov-Segal, Oerebro 1966) 10 lZJg5 i.c5 was Yates-Menchik, Barcelona 1929, and now 11 'iV115 g6 12 'iWh3 h6 13 lZ:lf3 was probably best, with White being

A le k h in e 's Defe n ce w i t h 3 tlJ c 3

for preference because of his space and the weaknesses in Black's kingside. 9 o-o-o d5 10 c4 a6 11 .i.a4 dxc4 12 iVxc4 It looks simpler and stronger to play 12 .txc6 bxc6 13 iVxc4, when Black's position is just horrible. But it seems that White was in 'combination mode'. 12 J:tbS?

ltte8 20 ltJd4, when 20. . .'i!Vb 7 21 lbc6 'iixb2+ 22 'ittd 2 'itt d 7 23 ltt e l+ 'itt c8 24 lZJxb8 leaves him a good pawn up. 18 exf6 gxf6 19 lZJe51 h6 Or 19 .. .fxe5 20 'iVf3+ 'lti>g8 21 .i.xe7 'iie 8 22 .i.f6, which will get .the ex­ change back at the very least whilst leaving Black's position shattered. 20 lZJd7+ <;t(f7

•.

Black should play 1 2 . . .b5 13 ii'e4 0-0 (13 ...bxa4 14 lhd7 °it'xd7 1 5 l:tdl 'ifc8 16 'ilfxc6+ lPf8 17 i.g5 gives White a tre­ mendous attack for the sacrificed ex­ change), when 14 .ib3 is just slightly better for White. After the text White launches into a spectacular series of combinative blows. 13 l:txd7 'ifxd7 14 l:td1 1Wc8 15 i.xc6+ 15 ltJd4! looks even stronger, for ex­ ample 15 . . . 'itt f 8 (if 15 . . . 0-0 16 i.xc6 bxc6 17 l2Jxc6 wins a pawn) 16 .ixc6 bxc6 17 l2Jxc6 :b5 1 8 l2Ja7, recovering the ex­ change whilst keeping an extra pawn and an overwhelming position. 15 bxc6 16 1Wxc6+ 'ittfs 17 .i.g5 f6? 17 . . . h6 seems like a better try. White must then find 18 .i.xe7+ 'itt xe7 19 'iVc5+ ••.

2 1 .i.xf6I Moving in for the kill. 21 lZJxb8?! hxg5 2 2 lbxa6 would be a wimpy way to play it: White has won a couple of

pawns but Black could still put up some resistance. 2 1 .i.xf6 After 21...Ab5 White has several ways to win, of which the simplest may be the blunt 22 .i.xe7 lttxe7 23 l2Jc5 etc. 22 'if f3 1i'd8 23 lZJe5+ 'itg7 24 l:.xdS This is not just a win of Black's queen: his position is wrecked into the bargain. 24 l:thxds 25 ii'g4+ .i.g5+ 25 ... 'ittf8 26 f4 would also be quite hopeless for Black. 2 6 f4 .••

•••

121

G a m b it e e r 1

White has tried other moves here, but I must admit to liking this one. White lends solid support to the pawn on e5 and thus consolidates his space advantage. Later in the game he will aim to use this a springboard for an attack. s cs This makes most sense, taking con­ trol of d4 and leaving Black's options open as to where to develop his pieces. Nevertheless there are several alterna­ tives here; for example: a) 5 . . . g6 6 ..ie3 ..ig7 7 .te2 0-0 8 'ifd2 b6 9 0-0-0 e6 10 h4 c5 11 h5 set a dan­ gerous attack in motion in Demeter­ Petrik, Hlohovec 1975. b) 5 . . . .tf5 6 ..id3 i.xd3 (6 . . . g6?! 7 •. .

2 6 ... .l:f.b4 26 ... .l:f.d4 would be met by 27 g3. 27 g3 .l:f.e4 28 ll:id 3 l:ted4 29 h4 1-0 Game 39 R.Kna a k-L.Espig

East German C h a m pion s h ip, Gorlitz 1972 1 e 4 ll:if6 2 es ll:ids 3 ll:ic3 ll:ixc3 4 dxc3 dS A more solid move than 4 . . . d6, but one which gives Black less chance of counterplay. 5 f41?

122

hf5 gxf 5 8 e6! fxe6 9 ll:if3 ..ig7 10 ll:ig5 led to a quick win for White in Minko­ Radzhabov, Moscow 1996) 7 1i'xd3 'if d7 (7 . . . e6 8 'libs+ ll:id7 9 'ifxb7 lirb8 1 0 1i'a6 'Wh.4+ 1 1 g3 'iVg4 w a s Ponelis­ Gibson, correspondence 2000, when 1 2 'ife 2 would have left Black with inade­ quate compensation for the pawn) 8 ..ie3 e6 9 ll:if3 ll:ia6 (9 . . . .te7 10 0-0 g6 1 1 .l:f.adl 'iia4 1 2 b 3 'if a6 was Piancatelli­ De Vita, Italy 1998, and now 13 a4 might have been best, giving White slightly the better endgame after 13 . . . 'ifxd3 14 cxd3 on account of his space) 10 0-0-0 (10 b4! ? c5 1 1 a3 looks interesting to me, keeping the knight on a6 out of the game) 10 . . . ll:icS 1 1 .txc5 ..ixc5 12 �bl 0-0-0 13 :thfl g6 14 a3 and White's minimal plus didn't amount to much in Ponelis-Fitzpatrick, corre­ spondence 2000. 6 .te3 e6 7 ll:if3 ll:ic6 8 .td3

A l e k h i n e 's D efe n ce w i t h 3 lLl c 3

threats, including 20 ..txb6) 19 ..txb6 axb6 20 l:txb6+ �a8 21 ..tb7+ �b8 22 ..txdS+ �c8 23 l:ta6 with a winning at­ tack.

Another possibility is 8 'ifd2, for ex­ ample 8 . . . .ie7 (8 . . . 'ifaS 9 'iff2 .ie7 10 .ie2 ..td7 1 1 a3 0-0 12 0-0 was slightly better for White in Mironchik-Korobka, correspondence 1999) 9 g3 (9 "ii'f2 looks reasonable here too) 9 . . . .id7 10 h4 'ifaS 11 ..te2 0-0-0 12 g4! ? £6 13 exf6 gxf6 14 gS d4 15 cxd4 'ii'x d2+ 16 .ixd2 was bet­ ter for White in Kopec-Vallieres, Que­ bec 1984. s ... ..te7 9 o-o ..td7 Black can also play 9 . . .0-0, though White will have some attacking chances on the kingside. Monmeneu Chulia-Cardona Cervera, Valence 2004, continued 10 \!kel b6 1 1 'ii'g 3 fS 12 exf6 ..txf6 13 �es �e7 14 'iVh.3 g6 15 g4 with quite nasty kingside pressure. 10 �h1 'fll c 7 11 �e1 o-o-o 12 'f/Jf2 b6 12 . . . c4 would give White the d4square, and after 13 .ie2 �b8 14 b3! White would start prising open files on the queenside. 13 a4 f6 14 a s ! �xas 15 b4 cxb4 16 cxb4 �C4 The b-pawn is poisoned, for exam­ ple 16 . . . .ixb4 17 l:r.fb l ! .tc3 18 ..ta6+ �b8 (if 18 . . . �b7 19 l:ta3 sets up various

17 .ixc4 dxc4 18 c3 �b7 19 'f/Ja2 l:.a8?! 19 ... �a8 is better, when 20 ..td4 is a subtle way to maintain the pressure. I wouldn't like to play Black in this posi­ tion as White's initiative more than compensates for the measly pawn. 20 'if a6+ '&tii bs 21 l1fd1 .tea 2 1 . . . ..tc6 looks more stubborn, though Black's position is none too pleasant whatever he does. 22 'it'bs l::ld S?!

Black is evidently concerned about 123

Ga m b i t e e r 1

White's threat of 23 l:.d4, but he jumps out of the frying pan and into the fire. 23 l:.xd8 .txd8 24 :1d1 .te7 25 'ife8 'it'b7 26 'i!fg8 fxe5 27 'ii' x h7 exf4 28 iVe4+ 'i!f c6 29 '5'xf4 i.f6 30 tll e 5! i.xe5? 31 'i!fxe5 'i!f c7 32 'i¥e4+ 'i!fc6 33 'i¥d4 as?

After this White comes crashing through. 33 . . . g5 is the best try, albeit bad for Black after 34 iVf6, say. 34 b 5 ! 'i!fxb5 35 'i!fxg7+ �a6 36 .l:r.d6 i.b7 36 . . . na7 37 'ii f 8 is every bit as deadly. 37 ilxb6 .l:r.c8 This loses on the spot, but if 37 . . . 'it'xb6 there follows 38 'fJ/c7 'it'xd6 39 'ifxd6+ 'it?b5 40 'ii'xe6 etc. 38 ..tg1+ llc6 39 'it'd4 1-0 White is threatening mate on a7. Game 40 B.Men-A.Shabalov Pitt s b u rgh 1994

1 e4 t'Lif6 2 e5 tlld5 3 t'Lic3 tll b 6 This stays more within the character of the Alekhine than the capture on c3, 124

and steers clear of theoretical lines. 4 a4!?

A very interesting move, threaten­ ing simply to win a piece with 5 a5 . Instead 4 d4 is more common but less dangerous for Black. 4 ... d6 Black can also block the a-pawn's advance with 4 . . . a5; for example, 5 d4 d6 6 f4! ? (6 exd6 is another way to play it, when 6 . . . exd6 7 Cllf 3 i.e7 8 ltJe4 tll c6 9 c3 i.f5 10 i.d3 ..tg6 1 1 0-0 h6 was Ta­ tai-Yanofsky, Netanya 1973, and now 12 lZJg3 i.xd3 13 'ifxd3 looks better for White because of his knight's access to f5) 6 . . . dxe5 (6 . . . g5?! was tried in Berebora-Kahn, Budapest 1990, and after 7 'iVh5 dxe5 White should proba­ bly play 8 lZJf3 i.f5 9 ltJxe5 ..tg6 10 ltJxg6 fxg6 11 'fJ/xg5 when Black's posi­ tion is a bit of a wreck) 7 fxe5 c5? 8 i.b5+ i.d7 was Carrasco-Roy, Paris 2003, and now 9 e6 i.xb5 10 ltJxb5 would have been very unpleasant for Black. Black's only other move is 4 . . . d5, when Boricsev-Varga, Eger 2002, con­ tinued 5 d4 i.f5 6 a5 ltJc8, and now 7

A l e k h i n e 's D efe n c e w i t h 3 tb c3

.td3 (7 g4 .td7 8 .tg2 e6 9 .i.e3 hS 10 gxhS liJe7 was satisfactory for Black in the game) 7 ... .txd3 8 °ifxd3 e6 9 liJf3 is better for White because of his lead in development. s as liJ6d7

tage is 12 .tbs+, when 12 . . . lLJed7 (or 12 . . . .td7 13 f4 hbS 14 fxeS) 13 lLJf3 0-0 14 .txd7 .txd7 15 0-0 leaves Black in something of a bind. 12 0-0 13 f4 lLJed7 14 lLJge2 bSl 15 b4 White's position is becoming .very loose after this. 15 .tg2 ! ? b4 16 liJbS looks better, when the b4-pawn is hanging. 15 .tb7 16 .tg2 At first sight it looks tempting to sac the exchange with 16 a6 .txdS 17 liJxd5 liJxdS 18 'iVxdS .txal 19 c3, but Black will rescue the bishop on a 1 with 19 . . . 'ii'c 8. 16 e6 17 :td1 l:teS 18 o-o lLJxds 19 lLJxdS .txds 20 .txds exds 21 l:.fe1!? •••

..•

..•

6 exd6 6 e6!? has been tried a few times, for example 6 .. .fxe6 7 d4 g6 (7 . . . eS 8 .td3 g6 9 dS liJf6 10 h4 .tg4 11 f3 .tf 5 12 hS .txd3 13 'ii' x d3 liJxhS 14 g4 liJf6 15 lhh7! ? led to complicated play in Behnk-Polzin, Budapest 1993) 8 h4 liJf6 9 hS gxhS 10 .td3 liJc6 11 lLJf3 lLJb4 12 .tc4 c6 13 liJgS and White had more than enough for the pawn in Franco Ocampos-Diano, Piriapolis 1977. 6 ...cxd6 7 d4 g6 7 ... liJc6 is strongly met by 8 dS!, so Shabalov delays the development of his knight for the time being. 8 .te3 .tg7 9 Wld2 lLJc6 10 dS lLJceS 11 h3 lLJf6 12 g4!? Objectively speaking this is a pretty interesting move, although from a practical point of view it's risky against an accomplished tactician such as Sha­ balov. A simple route to a clear advan-

21 lLJc3 ltif6 2 2 l:tfel is answered by 22 ... lLJe4, for example 23 ltixe4 dxe4 24 'it'xd6 'ii'h4. Maybe White's best is 2 1 .td4, when 2 1 . . . .txd4+ 22 ltixd4 a 6 i s about equal. 2 1 ... a6 It could be that 2 1 . . .ltif6 was a stronger move here; for example, 22 'ii'd 3 liJe4 23 a6 1i'h4 is strong. 22 lLJc3 Wih4! 23 �g21 d4 24 .tf2! dxc3 25 'iVxd6 tikdS 26 'iVxd7 125

G a m b iteer 1

White should avoid exchanging rooks on e8, as this will backfire after 26 l:b:e8+ 1lfxe8 27 1lfxd7 when Black wins with 27 . . .1!f e4+ etc. 26 ...'iVxd7 27 l:txd7 .litxe1 2S .i.xe1 l:teS 29 ..lf2 ! ..lfS And not 29 . . . l:te2? because of 30 l:td8+ .if8 3 1 �f3, followed by 32 .icS. 30 ..tcs? 30 l:ta7 is correct, with equality. Now Black is better. 30 ..txcs 31 bxcs :cs Here, too, 3 1 . . .l:te2+ is bad, this time because of the reply 32 �f3 .Uxc2 33 c6 etc. 32 l:td6 •.•

32 ...:txcs?! Missing his chance. The right move is 32 . . .b4!, when 33 l:tb6 (if 33 l:txa6? b3 wins) 33 . . . l:txcS 34 l:txb4 .UxaS gives Black all the chances. Now it's just a draw. 33 l:txa6 :tds In this position 33 ... b4 is answered by 34 l:ta8+ �g7 35 a6 with at least equality. 34 l:tb6 :td2+ 3S 'it>f3 l:txc2 36 l:txbs :tb2 37 :cs c2 3S a6 :ta2 Va-Va 126

Game 41 T.Oral-J.Pribyl

Pa rd u bice 2002 1 e4 tl)f6 2 es tl)ds 3 tl)c3 e6 There's certainly a case for not help­ ing White to develop, and this move does that whilst aiding Black's devel­ opment. Oral finds an interesting way to play it in reply. 4 tl)xds exds s 'iVf3

s ...c6 Defending the dS-pawn has to be Black's most solid move. He's also tried gambiting it, for example: a) 5 . . . d6 6 1lf xd5 tl)c6 7 .ibS J_d7 8 tl)f3 tl)b4 9 .ixd7+ 1lf xd7 10 1lf xb7 tl)xc2+ 1 1 �dl l:td8 12 �xc2 left White a piece up in Strick van Linschoten-Van den Bosch, The Hague 1926. b) 5 ... tl)c6 6 1lfxd5 1!fe7 (6 ... j_e7 7 tl)f3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 exd6 ..lxd6 10 d4 .Ue8+ 1 1 .ie3 left Black with very little for the pawn in Juen-Rigg, Vorarlberg 1997) 7 tl)f3 d6 8 .tbs .id7 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 exd6 1lf xd6 1 1 1lf xd6 ..lxd6 12 c3 gave White

A le k h i n e 's D efe n ce w i t h 3 lll c3

an extra pawn in Lojanica-Nguyen, Adelaide 2003. c) 5 ... d4 6 i.c4 'ife7 7 'ii'g 3 d6 8 t'LJf3 h6 9 0-0 lLJc6 was Fleischer-Muller, Hamburg 2001, and now 10 exd6 'ifxd6 1 1 lir.e 1 + would have been very strong. 6 d4 d6 7 i.d3 An alternative plan would be to play 7 .tf4 and castle long, which would lead to a sharp game. 7 ... dxes 8 dxes

8 .i.e6 After 8 . . . t'LJd7 the most natural move is 9 �f4 (9 e6 'it'e7 10 'ii'xf7+ 'ifxf7 1 1 exf7+ Wxf7 would lead t o a n equal endgame; and 9 'ii'g 3 ltJc5 10 t'LJf3 'ifd7, intending l l . . .'it'g4, is at least equal for Black), when a sample line is 9 . . . 'ife7 1 0 0-0-0 ltJxeS 1 1 'it'g3 t'LJxd3+ 12 l:txd3 11fel+ 13 lir.dl 'i'aS 14 Wbl i.e6 1 5 t'LJf3 0-0-0 16 t'LJd4 with good compensation for the pawn. Another possibility is 8 . . . 'it'e7, when 9 'W'e2 t'LJd7 10 t'LJf3 f6 11 i.f4 gS 12 �g3 (12 �e3!?) 1 2 ... g4 13 t'LJd4 ltJxeS 14 0-0 gave White attacking chances for the pawn in Kiik-Turunen, Helsinki 199 1 . 9 1lt'g3

Making room for the knight on f3. 9 ... t'LJa6 10 t'LJf3 ltJb4 11 o-o t'LJxd3 12 cxd3 'ifd7 Black has the bishop pair and a solid position, but he still has some problems here. The queen on g4 .stops him developing the bishop on f8, and White might try for a minority attack on the queenside with a later b2-b4-b5. 13 i.e3 cs 14 a3 .i.fs 1s %Uc1 d4 16 i.d2 a s After 1 6 . . . 'W'bS White could just pro­ tect his d-pawn with 1 7 ltJel, but there's also a case for sharpening the play with 17 b4! ? 'ifxd3 18 e6!? he6 19 bxcS, with Black's king still stuck i n the middle and the position opening up. 17 b4

•.•

17 ... l:ta6? Black's position falls apart after this. He had to try holding it together with 17 . . .b6, though White still has a dan­ gerous attack after 18 bxcS bxcS 19 e6, followed by 20 t'LJeS. 18 bxcs i.e7? If 1 8 ... l:tg6 there follows 19 e6! �xe6 20 'ilt'b8+ 'ii c8 21 'ifxc8+ i.xc8 22 t'LJxd4 with a winning endgame. 12 7

G a m b iteer 1

19 �xg7 J::lfB 20 c6! bxc6 20 . . . l:txc6 is not much help after 21 .l:ii.xc6 bxc6 22 .U b 1 etc. 21 .l:rab1 l:taB 22 e6 fxe6 Or 22 . . . .txe6 23 l0xd4 cS 24 l0xe6 fxe6 2S 'ifxh7 etc. 23 tOes �ds 24 .l:tb7 �f6

2s �gs!! Setting up an unusual version o f the 'Windmill' combination, made famous by the game Torre Repetto-Em.Lasker, Moscow 192S. 2S ... �xg7 26 J:te7+ @d8 27 l0xc6+ 'it>cB Or 27 . . .'it"xc6 28 1hg7+ �e8 29 l::te7+ �d8 30 .!:txh7+ �e8 31 .!:te7+ �d8 32 .!:txc6 etc. 28 l0b4+ 'it>bB 29 lOxds .txd3 29 . . . exdS 30 .tf4+ is mate in two. 30 l:txg7 exds 3 1 .te1 1-0 Black cannot meet the dual threats of .txf8 and .td6 mate. Ga me 42 T.Oral-V.Sergeev

Czech League 2005 1 e4 l0f6 2 es tOds 3 l0c3 c6 128

This method of protecting the knight is more in keeping with the spirit of the Alekhine Defence than 3 . . . e6. Black keeps the option of devel­ oping his queen's bishop. 4 �f3

4 ... l0b6 One of several moves. Here are the alternatives: a) 4 . . . l0b4 can be met by S .tc4 (S 'it"e4 e6 6 a3 dS 7 exd6 lOdS looks OK for Black), when a possible variation runs S . . . l0xc2+ 6 �dl dS 7 exd6 tl\xal 8 'ifxf7+ �d7 9 lZJ£3 bS (if 9 . . . �xd6 10 'iff4+ �d7 11 lZJeS+ �c7 1 2 lZJ£7+ eS 13 'ifxeS+ i. d 6 14 'ifxg7 wins) 10 lOxbS cxbS 1 1 'iffS+ �xd6 12 'it"eS+ �d7 13 'it"xbS+ lOc6 14 lOeS+ winning for White. b) 4 . . . e6 leaves a hole on d6 which White should exploit with S l0e4, for example S . . . d6 6 l0xd6+ .txd6 7 exd6 'it"xd6 8 d4 with the advantage of the two bishops. c) 4 . . . 'it"c7 S d4 l0xc3 6 bxc3 (6 'ifxc3 is also pretty good) 6 . . . dS 7 .td3 e6 8 l0h3 b6 9 l0f4 .ta6 10 lOhS .txd3 1 1 cxd3 lZJ d 7 12 0-0, and the pressure against g7 and f7 made it difficult for

A le k h in e 's D efe n c e w i t h 3 CiJ c3

Black to develop in Kanefsck-Herrero, Mar del Plata 2001. d) 4 . . .tLixc3 5 dxc3 dS 6 i.d3 e6 7 Wg3 tLld7 8 tLih3 'it"c7 9 f4 g6 10 1'.e3 �cs 1 1 0-0-0 .ixe3+ 12 'it"xe3 'it"b6 13 'ifd2 was better for White because of his space advantage in Anjuhin­ Chistjakova, St Petersburg 2002. s d4 d6 6 1'.f 4 .i.fs 1 o-o-o e6

S exd6 White has several attempts to im­ prove here, namely 8 'it"g3, 8 tLige2 and 8 h4. In my view they all look more interesting than the simplifying text move. Perhaps Oral thought 8 exd6 was stronger than it is. S ... .i.xd6 9 tLige2 llldS 10 .i.xd6 �xd6

11 tLlg3 i.g6 12 h4 h6 13 tLice4 �c7 14 C4 ltJe7 l S hS i.h7 16 .l:th4 t2Jd7 17 l::tg 4 Another possibility was 17 'it"a3, which also looks a bit better for White. 11 ... 0-0 1S tLif6+ tLixf6 19 'ir'xf6 t2Jg6 20 'iff3 tLle7 21 'it'f6 tll g 6 22 'iff3 0Je7 2 3 'it'e3

Rejecting the draw by repetition, but White doesn't really have much advantage here. 23 tllfs 24 'ir'es "iVxes 2s dxes !Uds 26 tll xfs :xd1+ 27 'iit xd1 1'.xfs 2s l::t d 4 cs 29 l:.d7 i.e4 30 f3 .i.c6 31 l:tc7 %1dS+ 3 2 'iit e 2 'iitfS 3 3 'iit e 3 l::t d 1 3 4 .i. d 3 llel+ 3 S 'iitf4 as 36 :cs+ 'iit e 7 37 :lc7+ @es 3 S :cs+ @e7 39 l1c7+ @es 4 0 .l:.cS+ 'iit e 7 •••

Va-Va

129

G a m b iteer 1

Summary The 3 lLJc3 variation represents a suitable option for the gambiteer against the Alekhine, allowing a slight weakening of White's pawn structure in order to de­ velop quickly. White gets the initiative in the 3 ... lLJxc3 4 dxc3 d6 lines and a space advantage after 4 . . . dS. He can also cause some trouble after 3 . . . lLJb6 4 a4, 3 . . . e6 4 lLJxdS exdS 5 'i'f3 and 3 . . . c6 4 'ii'f3. 1 e4 lLJf6 z es tLJds 3 lLJc3 (D) lLJxc3 3 . . . lLJb6 - Game 40 3 ... e6 - Game 4 1 3 . . . c6 - Game 42 4 dxc3 d6 4 . . . dS Game 39 5 lLJf3 (D) lLJc6 5 . .. dxeS Game 35 6 .i.bs .i.d7 7 'ii'e z (D) 7 . . dxeS Game 36 7 . . a6 - Game 37 -

-

.

-

.

7 ... e6 - Game 38

3 0,c3

130

s

tLJ/3

7 'We2

Chapter Six

I

P i rc Defe n c e : A u st ri a n w i t h 5 a 3

The Pirc Defence is another defence against which White will find it diffi­ cult to play a promising gambit. So, as with the Alekhine, I present a line that will appeal to gambiteers, in that it of­ fers sharp, open play. The problem with the main lines of the Austrian Attack are, firstly, that they've been quite heavily analysed over the years and, secondly, that 5 t'2Jf3 cS is holding up very nicely from both a theoretical and practical point of view. Accordingly I'm recommending the little-known 5 a3, a move designed to take the sting out of Black's . . . c7-c5 plan. In Glek vs. Heck (Game 43) we are given a model of how White should play against the ... c7-c5 plans, and also the one square move of Black's c-pawn

with 5 . . 0-0 6 ttif3 c6. In Illescas­ Gurevich (Game 44) Black goes for counterplay against d4 with 6 ... �g4, which might not have been a terrible idea until Black played 12 . . . t'iJhS?. .

Black's queen's knight moves, 6 ... l2Jbd7, 6 . . . l2Ja6 and 6 . . . l2Jc6 are covered in Westerinen-Pinol (Game 45) Moving on to the Modern Defence: the game Velimirovic-Davies (Game 46) is the reason I gave up 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 3 l2Jc3 d6 4 f 4 l2Jc6 as Black, and I can't say I'm too fond of the 4 . . . e6 way of doing things either. In Hansen­ Todorcevic (Game 47) there is a good antidote to 4 . . . c6, and Westerinen's 1 1 0-0 looks even better. Game 43

l.Glek-N.Heck

W i l l i ngen 2001 1 e4 g6 2 d4 .i.g7 3 t'2Jc3 d6 4 f4 t'2Jf6 5 a3!? A fascinating and little-explored idea. The natural 5 t'iJf3 can be an­ swered by 5 . . . cS 6 dxcS 'it'aS, so White prepares to meet this blow on the flank .

131

G a m b iteer 1

s ... o-o The point behind S a3 is that S . . . cS can now be met by 6 dxcS 'ifaS 7 b4. This isn't totally clear-cut but does look good for White. A sample variation is 7 . . .'flc7 (if 7 . . . 'if d8 8 eS! is strong) 8 .i.b2 0-0 9 cxd6 exd6 10 .i.d3 l:le8 1 1 lbge2 .ig4 12 h3 .i.xe2 13 'ifxe2 lbbd7 14 0-0 lbxe4 lS .i.xe4 .i.xc3 16 .i.xc3 '6'xc3 1 7 'itd3, and with bishop against knight and a weak pawn on d6, it's now clear that White is better. 6 ltjf3 cs Black can also play 6 . . . c6, and then 7 .i.d3 (it's also worth considering other moves, for example 7 .i.e3 lt.lbd7 8 eS lt.le8?! 9 h4 hS 10 .i.d3 lt.lc7 1 1 g4 hxg4 12 hS gxhS 13 l%xhS gave White a win­ ning attack in Palac-Medic, Pula 2002; whilst 7 eS lbfd7 8 .i.e3 cS 9 .tbs cxd4 10 .i.xd4 dxeS 1 1 fxeS lbc6 12 .i.xc6 bxc6 13 e6 fxe6 14 .i.xg7 'iti>xg7 lS 'i'd4+ eS 16 lbxeS lbxeS 17 'ifxeS+ 'iti>g8 was about equal in J.Bosch-G.Janssen, Di­ eren 2002) 7. . . lbbd7 (7 . . ..tg4 8 0-0 eS 9 dxeS dxeS 10 fS lbbd7 1 1 h3 .i.xf3 12 'ifxf3 lbcS 13 .i.e3 lbxd3 14 l::t a dl 'ifc7 lS llxd3 was a bit better for White at this 132

stage in Sedina-Qendro, Milan 2002) 8 es lbe8 9 'ife2 lt.lc7 (9 . . . lbb6 10 .td2 lbc7 1 1 h4 i..g 4 12 hS! lbe6 13 'iff2 gave White a strong attack in Cabrilo­ Zontakh, Bled 1991) 10 i.. e3 cS 1 1 dxcS dxeS 12 fS e4 13 .i.xe4 lba6 14 'ifc4 gxfS lS .i.xfS lbdxcS 16 l:t.dl 'ife8 17 l:tdS .txfS 18 l:!.xfS lbe6 19 0-0 and White was clearly better in Djuric-Cabrilo, Zlatibor 1989. 7 dxcs dxcs This leads to an inferior endgame. White is also well prepared for 7 . . . 'ifaS at this stage, for example 8 b4 'ifc7 9 .i.d2 (9 eS dxeS 10 fxeS l::t d 8 isn't clear) 9 . . . dxcS 10 eS lbg4 11 h3 lt.lh6 12 g4 :d8 13 bS with Black looking very passive. 8 �xd8 Exchanging queens is the best way to capitalize on White's space advan­ tage. s_.l:txd8 9 es

9 ttJds A couple of other moves have been tried: a) 9 . . .lt.lhS 1 0 lt.le4 b6 11 .i.c4 .i.b7 12 lbegS e6 13 g4 i.h6 was Deneuville­ Follic, correspondence 1999, and now •••

Pirc D efe n ce : A u s t ri a n w i t h 5 a 3

14 0-0 llJg7 15 f 5! would have seized the initiative. b) 9 . . . llJe8 10 .i.e3 b6 1 1 .i.d3 .i.b7 1 2 0-0 lLJc6 1 3 .i..e4 e 6 1 4 J:!.adl l:.xdl 1 5 l:txdl l: d 8 1 6 J:!.xd8 llJxd8 1 7 .i.xb7 lLJxb7 1 8 llJe4 provided White with a nice edge in Madan-M.Grunberg, Baile Tusnad 2005. 10 llJxd5 l:!.xd5 11 .i.e3 b6 12 .i.d3 .i.b7 In Vouldis-Ramesh, Duisburg 1 992, Black sought exchanges with 12 . . . .i.fS, but after 13 .i.xfS gxfS the move 14 'iti>e2 would have given White a very pleas­ ant position. 13 o-o-o llJc6 14 .i.e4 J:!.xd1+ 15 J:!.xd1 l:tdS 16 b4! ?

would still be better, but the position wouldn't be easy to win. 20 .i.d5+ c;t>ts 21 e6! Making it difficult for Black to acti­ vate either his king or dark-squared bishop. 21 f5 22 b5 llJa5 23 llJe5 .i.xd5 24 cxd5 c2 d3 .i.g7 29 .i.c1 .i.f6 After 29 . . .bS there follows 30 .i.d2 •••

.i.f6 31 .iaS+ �c8 32 .i.c3 .i.xc3 33
16 ...l:txd1+ A sharper try is 16 ... llJd4, but after 1 7 .hd4 .i.xe4 1 8 bxcS bxcS 1 9 h3 (not 19 .i.xcS l:!.c8) 1 9 . . . .Uxdl + 20 �xdl .i.h6 21 c4 Black is struggling to draw. 17 c;t>xd1 cxb4 If 17 ... llJd8 18 .i.xb7 lLJxb7 19 c;t>d2, followed by 20 c;t>d3, trying to break into Black's queenside. 18 axb4 f6 19 c4 ..th6?! 19 ... c;t>f7 makes more sense, trying to get his king into the game. White

Placing Black in zugzwang: what­ ever he does he's doomed. 3 2 g5 After 32 . . . <1i'd8 there follows 33 d6 exd6 34 .i.xd6 winning, for example 34 . . .bS 35 Wc2 aS 36 <1i'b3 'it>c8 37 e7 .i.xe7 38 .i.xe7 cJitc7 39 .i.f8 hS 40 .i.e7 �xc6 41 .id8 a4+ 42 xa4
133

G a m b it e e r 1

to attack g6. 33 f X85 hx85 34 hs as 35 h6 bs 36 i.. c s f4 37 gxf4 84 38 .i.d4 .i.xd4 39
M.lllescas Cordoba­ M.Gurevich

M adrid (ra pid) 1988 1 e 4 d6 2 d 4 ltif6 3 lti c 3 86 4 f4 .i.87 5 a3 0-0 6 ltif 3 i.. 8 4

7 h3 The simplest and most direct ap­ proach, although other moves are worth considering: a) 7 .i.e2 has not been tried much but makes a lot of sense, for example 7. . . c6 (7 . . . d5!?) 8 0-0 1i'b6 9
7. . .ltifd7 i s worth considering, for ex­ ample 8 h3 .i.xf3 9 'ii'xf3 was D.Howell­ Fishbume, British League 2004, and now 9 . . . c5 makes sense) 8 h3 .i.xf3 9 'ii'xf3 c5 10 d5 b5 and Black had good counterplay in Al Marri-Himdan, Abu Dhabi 2002. 7 ixf3 8 11i'xf3 ltic6 This seems better than the other moves, but this position has been little explored: a) 8 . . . c6 9 .i.e3 'ilt'b6 10 0-0-0 'ilt'c7 1 1 g4 was very good for White i n Tabata­ bai-Kukel, Tallinn 1997. b) 8 ...ltifd7 9 e5 c5 1 0 'ilt'xb7 cxd4 should be answered by 1 1 ltidS! ( 1 1 ltib5 was well met by ll . . .'ilt'b6 in Moreno Camero-Narciso Dublan, Pamplona 2001), when it seems to me that Black is struggling to find adequate compensa­ tion after l l . . . e6 12 'ilt'xa8 exd5 13 'ilt'xd5 dxe5 14 ..id3 'ilt'h4+ 15
9 d5 ltid4 10 'ii'f2 c5 would offer Black excellent counterplay. 9 ... e5 10 dxe5 Once again this is the best; 1 0 fxe5

P i r c D efe n ce : A u s t r i a n w i t h 5 a 3

dxeS 1 1 dS t°ll d 4 12 'if f2 c6 gave Black excellent play in Van Hoek-Van Dier­ men, Guernsey 1991. 10.. .dxes 11 f s �d4 White should answer 11 . . . t'llhS with 12 .i.d3 ( 1 2 i.c4 t°ll d 4 13 'iff2 gxfS 14 exfS lll x c2+ was better for Black in M o ­ reno Camero-Perez, Villarrobledo 2006), when 12 . . . t°ll d 4 13 'if f2 gxfS 14 exfS 'it'd6 15 0-0-0 is better for him. 12 'iff2

c6 13 ... gxfS 14 exfS is horrible for Black if he can't put his king's knight on dS. 14 'it>b1 'if e7 Attempting to blockade the king­ side dark squares with 14 . . . .i.i6 would be answered by 15 h4, for example 15 . . . .i.e7 16 .i.e2 lllxe2 17 l:lxd8 lll xc3+ 18 bxc3 l:laxd8 19 g4 with a material and positional advantage. 1S g4 t°llf 4 16 .i.xf4 exf4 17 l:txd4 .i.xd4 18 'it"xd4

12 t'll h s? After this Black finds himself i n ter­ rible trouble, so he should look for al­ ternatives: a) 12 . . . gxfS !? 13 exf 5 l:le8 ( 1 3 . . . c6 has been suggested, but after 14 0-0-0 t°ll d S 15 t'll x dS cxdS 16 .i.xd4 exd4 17 �d3 White is better) 14 0-0-0 t°ll d S 1 5 t'll x dS 'it'xdS 16 Wbl l:lad8? (16 ... 'it'c6) 17 f6 .i.f8 18 .i.d3 e4 19 .i.e2 cS 20 c3 won a piece and the game in V .Milov-West, Moscow Olympiad 1994. b) 12 ... c6 13 g4 t'll e 8 14 .i.d3 (14 gS looks very dangerous for Black) 14 ... bS 15 0-0 .i.f6 was Biti-Nikolov, Ljubljana 2005, and now 16 fxg6 fxg6 17 �h6 t'll g7 18 'it'e3 looks good for White.

In this position the two minor pieces are far stronger than a rook. 1s ... .:fdB 19 'iff2 'if es 20 .i.d3 bs 21 gs as 22 'if h4 b4 23 'it"h6 'it>hB After 23 ... bxc3 24 f6 Black is mated on g7. 24 f6 :gs 2s :g1 'it"e6 26 :g4 1-0 White's most spectacular threat is 27 'ifxh7+ Wxh7 28 %lh4 mate.

••.

13

o-o-o

Gam e 45 H.Westerinen-F.Pinol Fulgoni

G a u s d a l 2004 1 e4 d6 2 d4 t°llf6 3 t°ll c 3 g6 4 f4 �g7 S 135

Gam biteer 1

a 3 0-0 6 ttJf3 tt'ibd7 Black can also put this knight on a6 or c6: a) 6 ... tt'ia6 7 eS (there are other ways for White to play, for example 7 .i.e3 cS 8 .txa6 cxd4 9 .txd4 bxa6 10 'ii'd3 .tb7 1 1 0-0-0 was about equal at this stage in Palac-Sinanovic, Pula 2001; while 7 .txa6 bxa6 8 0-0 .tb7 9 'it'e2 e6 10 es tt'id7 1 1 tt'ie4 was, if anything, rather better for White in Groszpeter-Amold, Zalakaros 199S) 7 . . . ttJd.7 (7 ... dxeS 8 fxeS tt'idS 9 tt'ie4 c6 10 c4 tt'idc7 1 1 h2 cS 12 dS .tg4 13 .lf4 gave White a massive centre in Murey-Bemard, Cappelle la Grande 1993) 8 .le3 cS 9 .txa6 cxd4 10 i..x d4 dxeS 11 fxeS bxa6 12 'ife2 .i.b7 13 0-0-0 tt'ib6 14 h4, followed by h4-hS, gave White attacking chances in Glek­ Samo, Saint Vincent 2002. b) 6 . . . tt'ic6

7 .le3 (Kuijf has tried a couple of other moves here, for example 7 dS tt'ib8 8 .td3 c6 9 dxc6 was M.Kuijf­ Cuijpers, Hilversum 1 989, and now 9 . . . bxc6 !? was worth considering; and 7 .te2 .i.g4 8 .te3 .txf3 9 .txf3 eS 10 fxeS dxeS 1 1 dS tt'id4 12 0-0 c6 was unclear 136

in M.Kuijf-Roobol, Holland 2000; an­ other possibility is 7 eS dxeS 8 fxeS tt'ihS 9 .te3 .tg4 10 'it'd2 f6 11 .tc4+ 'it>h8 1 2 e 6 �xf3 1 3 gxf3 fS 14 0-0-0 which was good for White in V.Milov-Ludgate, Isle of Man 1994, though maybe Black could have considered 8 . . . tt'idS - all these lines await more practical tests) 7 . . . eS 8 dxeS! (8 fxeS dxeS 9 dS can be met by 9. . . tt'id4! 10 tt'ixeS tt'ixe4! 1 1 ifxd4 tt'ixc3 12 1Vxc3 'ifxdS, regaining the piece with a good game) 8 . . . dxeS 9 'iixd8 litxd8 10 fxeS tt'ig4 1 1 .tgS litf8 1 2 tt'i d S tt'icxeS 13 tt'ixc7 and White went on to cause a major upset in Bartholo­ mew-G.Zaichik, Philadelphia 2004. 7 es tt'ie8 In D.Howell-Pacher, Budva 2003, Black played 7 ...ltJg4, but after 8 h3 tt'ih6 9 g4 cS 10 i.. e 3 cxd4 11 ifxd4 his misplaced knight on h6 became a major problem.

s .tc4

White has another good move in 8 .te3, when 8 . . .b6 (8 . . . tt'ib6 9 'it'd2 c6 1 0 h4 hS 1 1 .td3 liJ c 7 was Murey-Pfleger, Royan 1988, and now White might have prepared the f4-fS advance by

Pirc D efe n ce : A u s t r i a n w i t h 5 a 3

first playing 12 0-0-0) 9 h4!? cS 10 hS etJc7 1 1 hxg6 hxg6 12 'iVd2 .i.b7 13 'iVf2 l:te8 14 0-0-0 'iVc8 lS dS soon led to a wmrung attack in Al.David­ Kastanieda, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.

8 ... etJb6 9 i.b3 C6 10 0-0 etJC7 11 etJe4 i.e6 12 c3 dxe5 Allowing the bishop on cl into the game. Black should probably keep it closed with 12 . . . 'iVd7. 13 fxe5 i.xb3 14 'ifxb3 eoe6 15 eofg5 eoxg5 16 i.xg5 h6 17 i. h4 'ifd5 18 'ifc2 1Ife8 19 1If3 g5?

Allowing Westerinen a nice com­ bination. Black should play 19 . . . etJd7, though it's still pretty good for White.

2 0 i.xg 5 ! hxg5 2 1 eoxg5 f6 After 2 1 . . .etJd7 the simplest is 22 'i'h7+ 'iii>f8 23 l:txf7+ 'iVxf7 24 etJxf7 'iii>xf7 2S l:fl + etJf6 26 e6+ �xe6 27 'ifxg7 etc. 22 l:taf1 etJd7 2 3 'ifh7+ 'it>f8 24 'ifg6 'it>g8 25 'ifh7+ 'it>f8 26 l:tg3!

Threatening 27 C'l:ie6+. 26 l:tec8 27 'if g6 'it>g8 28 eoe6!! 1-0 •••

Game 4 6

D.Velimirovic-N . Davies

Vrnjacka B a nja 1991 1 e 4 d6 2 d 4 g6 3 etJ C 3 � g 7 4 f4 etJC6 Because of this game I later switched to 4 . . . e6, though this too has its problems. In Kotronias-Hebert, Montreal 2002, White played quite im­ pressively with s eof3 etJe7 6 .i.e3 b6 7 'iVd2 .i.b7 8 0-0-0 eod7 9 'if el a6 10 .i.d3 cs 11 l:[fl 0-0 12 g4 eof6 1 3 'i'h4 cxd4 14 etJxd4 eod7 l S fS and won in a few moves time. I think that 4 . . . a6 is rather too ne­ glectful of Black's development, for example S etJf3 bS 6 .i.d3 .i.b7 7 0-0 etJd7 8 etJe2!? cS 9 c3 'iVb6 10 'iii> h l etJgf6 1 1 137

G a m b iteer 1

it:)g3 0-0 12 eS it:)dS 13 .i.d2 dxeS 14 fxeS c4 lS i.e2 l:Z.ac8 16 a4 fS 17 exf6 exf6 1 8 ax bS axbS 19 b3 gave White the initia­ tive in Illescas Cordoba�Vokac, Euro­ pean Club Cup, Barcelona 1993. s .i. b s ! A strong move; Black finds it very difficult to get counterplay after this. Prior to this game my opponents had tended to play S .i.e3, after which S . . . it:)f6 6 it:)f3 0-0 7 .i.e2 e6 8 0-0 it:)e7, followed by 9 . . .b6 and 10 . . . .i.b7, gave me the set-up I wanted. s ... a6 Black can also try to avoid doubled pawns with S . . . .i.d7 (not S . . .it:)f6 6 dS a6 7 i.a4 bS 8 it:)xbS), though this isn't a very active move. After 6 it:)f3 a6 (6 . . . e6 7 .i.e3 it:)ge7 8 1i'd2 dS 9 0-0-0 a6 1 0 .i.xc6 i.xc6 1 1 eS was at least slightly better for White in Motwani-McNab, Scottish Championship, Edinburgh 1999; and 6 . . . it:)f6 7 eS it:)g4 8 'it'e2 0-0 9 h3 it:)h6 10 .i.e3 e6 1 1 g4 was very un­ comfortable for Black in P.Wells-Kurz, Crailsheim 199S) 7 .i.e2 (mission ac­ complished on bS) 7 . . . e6 (7 . . . eS 8 dxeS dxeS 9 0-0 .i.g4 10 "ii'el .i.xf3 11 .i.xf3 it:)d4 12 i.dl gave White two bishops and attacking chances in Izmukhambe­ tov-Gelman, Moscow 1997) 8 .i.e3 bS 9 a3 it:)ge7 (9 . . . it:)f6 10 0-0 it:)e7 11 'iii> h l 0-0 was Luther-Ribli, Tilburg 1994, and now 12 it:)gS h6 13 it:)h3 looks like an attractive idea, securing the e4-pawn whilst provoking a weakness in Black's kingside) 1 0 'it'd2 0-0 11 h4 hS 1 2 it:)gS f6 13 it:)xe6 .i.xe6 14 dS ..id7 lS dxc6 i.xc6 16 0-0-0 and White had attacking chances on the kingside in Luther138

Hickl, Altensteig 199S. 6 .i.xc6+ bxc6 7 lt:)f3

1 ...fs?!

This seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I think Black should play something else. For example: a) 7. . ..i.g4 8 0-0 'it'b8 (8 ... it:)f6 is well met by 9 h3 hf3 10 'ii'xf3 and if 10 . .. e6 then 1 1 fS!; while 8 . . . e6 may be best met by 9 'it'd3 hf3 10 .lhf3, once again with an edge) 9 h3 hf3 10 Axf3 'ii'b6 1 1 .i.e3! 'it'xb2 (if Black declines the pawn with ll . . . it:)f6 then 12 .i.f2 0-0 13 'it'd2 favours White) 12 .i.f2 'ii'b7 (12 . . . 'ii'b4 13 Abl 'it'c4 14 :b7 gives White a dangerous initiative, whilst 12 ...it:)f6 13 l:tbl "ii'a3 14 it:)dS 'itaS lS .i.el wins material) 13 fS! cS (White gets an attack after either 13 ... it:)f6 14 eS it:)d7 lS f6! exf6 16 exf6 ..ixf6 17 'it'e2+ Wf8 18 Abl, or 13 . . . it:)h6 14 g4! f6 1S it:)e2 gS 16 l:lbl 'it'c8 1 7 it:)g3 etc) 14 l:tbl 'it'c6 lS it:)dS it:)f6 (lS ... gxfS is an­ swered by 16 :XfS! e6 17 Axf7 !! Wxf7 18 'it'hS+ 'iii>f8 19 l:fl with a strong attack) 16 c4! Wf8 17 eS! it:)xdS 18 cxdS 'it'xdS 19 f6 i.h6 20 l:tfb3 gave White a dangerous attack in Lobron-Azmaiparashvili, Groningen 1993.

P i r c D efe n c e : A u s t r i a n w i t h 5 a 3

b) 7 . . . aS! ? 8 0-0 lLif6 9 eS lLid7 1 0 lLigS h6 1 1 lLige4 dS 12 lLif2 e6 13 b3 .tf8 was played in Camilleri-Toth, Catanzaro 1973, and now: 14 .te3 might have been best, so as to meet 14 . . . cS with lS dxcS lLixcS 16 lLig4. c) 7 . . . lLif6 is the most natural move, but I still like White after 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ikel (9 eS!? lLid7 10 .te3 .tb7 1 1 lLigS h6 12 lLige4 fS 13 exf6 lLixf6 14 lLixf6+ l:.xf6 lS lLie4 :lf7 was fairly even at this point in Forster-Krasenkow, Metz 1994) 9 ... lLid7 (9 . . . e6 10 eS lLidS 11 lLie4 fS 12 lLiegS h6 1 3 lLih3 was better for White because of Black's passive g7-bishop and lack of space in Van de Oudeweetering-Reeh, Wijk aan Zee 199S; whilst 9 . . . .lg4 10 °ikh4 °it"d7 1 1 h3 .txf3 12 l:.xf3 :lab8 13 fS lLie8 14 lLie2 gave White attacking chances on the kingside in Upton-McNab, Scottish Ch., St Andrews 1979) 10 fS e6 1 1 .tgS f6 12 .td2 exfS 13 exfS l:.e8 14 'ikg3 lLif8 lS fxg6 hxg6 16 lLih4 'iti>h7 17 l:.ael gave White a clear advantage in Sprenger­ Glek, Bad Worishofen 2001. B es ·

Shutting the g7-bishop out of the

game. Without this guy i n play Black won't find it easy to make progress on the queenside. 8 lLih6 9 'ike2 e6 10 .ie3 o-o 1 1 o-o-o .id7 12 h3 'iVbB 13 84 °ikb4 Capturing the g4-pawn would not be healthy for Black after 13 . . .fxg4 1 4 hxg4 lLixg4 l S lLigS 14 u 'ii' b 7 1s gs lLif7 16 h4 :tbs 11 b3 cs 18 hS cxd4 19 hxg6 hxg6 20 lLixd4 cs Another possibility is 20... dxeS, when White continues 21 'in12 exd4 22 Wl\7+ 'iti>f8 23 1Wxg6 lLih8 (either 23 ... dxc3 or 23 . . . dxe3 is answered by 24 l:.h7) 24 l:.xh8+ .txh8 2S 1flt7 .ig7 (or 2S . . . cS 26 1Wxh8+ 'iti>e7 27 'ii'f 6+ 'iti>e8 28 g6) 2 6 .ixd4 .ixd4 27 l:.xd4 1'.e8 28 •••

Wh6+ @£7 29 g6+ etc. 21 lLixfS l l

2 1 ... exfs The computer tells me I should have played 2 1 . . .gxfS, but after the long variation 22 g6 lLih6 23 l:txh6! .ixh6 24 'iVh5 .tg7 (24 . . . 'iti>g7 2s Wh4 .tbs 26 'ii'f6+ 'iti>g8 27 Wxe6+ 'iti>h8 28 g7+ 'ii'xg7 29 l:.xd6 looks pretty good for White) 2S l:.xd6 (if 2S 'ii'h7+ 'iti>f8 26 :lxd6 llc8 27 lLidS 'ifxdS! 28 l:.xdS exdS 29 .tf2 139

G a m b it e e r 1

.ie6 30 �h4 l:.c7 seems to hold things together, just about) 25 . . . l:.c8 26 .tf2 �f8 27 i..h4 l:.e8 28 i..f6 �bS 29 ltJdS! it changes its mind. 22 'ifh2 .tc6 23 �h7+ 'iii> fB 24 :th2 'iVetl This loses without much of a fight. 24 . . . c4! ? is a much better try, for exam­ ple 25 'it"xg6 (or if 25 b4 then 25 . . . aS) 25 . . . cxb3 26 l:th7 lLixeS 27 fxeS bxc2 28 'ifxfS+ �g8 29 1Wxc2 °in>3 when Black is right back in the game. 25 'it"xg6 l::t d 8 25 . . . l:te8 is strongly met by 26 l:th7 lLJxeS 27 fxeS 'ifxeS 28 l:txd6! 1Wxe3+ 29 �bl 1i'e7 (or 29 . . . 'ifel+ 30 'ifi>a2) 30 :xc6 �g8 31 J:le6! etc. 26 e6

2 8 ...:a1 2 9 .td2 .td4 3 o c 3 ltJh6 On 30 ... i.c6 White can play 31 l:tel . 31 �xh6+ 1-0

After 31 . . .'ifg7 White can win Black's queen just for starters, or else play 32 J:lh8+ �e7 33 cxd4 with a deci­ sive attack. Game 4 7 Cu .Han sen-M.Todorcevic

Rome 1988

2 6 ... �xc3 Or if 26 . . . l:te8 there follows 27 l:th7 lLih8 28 J:lxh8+ �xh8 29 :xd6, for ex­ ample 29 . . . i.. d 4 30 i..x d4 cxd4 31 lLidS i.. x dS 32 lhdS 1Wg7 33 l:txfS+ 'ifi>g8 34 'iif7+ 'ifi>h8 35 g6 1i'xf7 36 gxf7 .l:txe6 37 f8'if+ leading to a winning rook ending. 21 l:th7 .tea 28 l:tdh1 White could have won a bit faster with 28 .td4!, but the move chosen doesn't spoil things. 140

1 e4 g6 2 d4 .tg7 Against 2 ... d6 3 lLic3 c6 White should probably just steam ahead with 4 £4, for example 4 ... dS 5 eS hS 6 lLif3 etJh6 7 i.. e3 'i'b6 8 lLia4 'iVaS+ 9 c3 .i.g4 10 ltJcS 1Wc7 11 h3 lLJfS 12 .tf2 .i.xf3 13 'ifxf3 b6 14 lLid3! h4 (if 14 . . . e6 15 g4 is strong) 15 e6! fxe6 16 1i'g4 :th6 17 lLieS ltJd7 18 �d3 and White had strong pressure for the pawn in Karjakin­ Kotsur, Kallithea 2002. 3 lLic3 d6 4 f4 c6 5 .te3 'it"b6 6 l:tb1 Although it protects the b2-pawn this serves as the prelude to a gambit of White's e-pawn!

P i r c D efe n c e : A u s t r i a n w i t h 5 a 3

6 ...fs The critical reply, but we should look at the alternatives too: a) The natural-looking . 6 . . . lDf6 doesn't fit in too well with . . . c6 and ... 'iVb6. White has an edge after 7 lDf3 0-0 (7 . . . .i.g4 8 h3 .bf3 9 'itxf3 e6 was Harding-Ludgate, Cork 1 977, and now 1 0 .i.d3 tt)f d7 1 1 lDe2 would have been good for White) 8 'ii'd 2, protecting the bishop on e3 and thus more or less rul­ ing out 8 . . . eS by Black. With this possi­ bility gone it's difficult for him to get counterplay, for example 8 . . . .i.g4 (8 . . . dS 9 es lDg4 10 .i.gl f6 1 1 h3 lDh6 12 g4 shut the knight on h6 out of play in Zinn-Minic, East Berlin 1968) 9 .i.e2 dS 10 es lDe4 1 1 lLJxe4 dxe4 12 lDgl .i.xe2 13 lLJxe2 'ifa6 14 0-0 left Black strug­ gling to protect his e4-pawn effectively in Cherniaev-Sosulin, Tula 1998. b) 6 . . . lDh6 7 lDf3 fS 8 es transposes into 7 ... lDh6 which is covered in the note to Black's 7th move. c) 6 . . . eS 7 lDf3 lLJd7! ? (7 . . . .i.g4 is well met by Sigurjonsson's 8 't!td2 .i.xf3 9 dxeS! "iVaS 10 gxf3 with two bishops and a lead in development) 8 'itd2 'ilc7

9 .i.c4 lDgf6 1 0 dxeS dxeS 1 1 fxeS lDxeS 12 lLJxeS "iVxeS 13 .i.f4 "iVcS 14 .i.b3 was slightly better for White in Sigurjons­ son-Forintos, Cienfuegos 197S. 7 e sl ? dxes Black has also declined the P.awn of­ f er with 7 ... lDh6, but this leaves him very passively placed, for example 8 lDf3 lDf7 (8 . . . dS 9 .i.e2 lLJd7 10 °ii' d 2 lDf8 11 lLJa4 'fkc7 12 b3 lDe6 13 c4 was clearly better for White because of his space in J.Sorensen-J.Fries Nielsen, Aarhus 1 996) 9 "ii' d 2 'i'c7 10 .i.d3 0-0 11 0-0 :dB 12 !Ifel dxeS 13 dxeS e6 14 a4 was not at all pleasant for Black in Cu.Hansen­ Lau, Palma de Mallorca 1989. 8 fxes .i.xes 9 tt)f3 .i. g 7 10 .i.c4

For the pawn White has a lead in development and a potential grip on eS, whilst it won't be easy for Black to get castled . 10 lLJf6 11 'fkd2 White might have a better move in 11 0-0. Westerinen-Lehtinen, Finnish Team Ch. 2003, continued l l . . .e6 ( 1 1 . ..lDg4 can be answered by 12 .i.f4, for example 12 . . . eS 13 'ii'e l e4 14 lLJxe4! with a winning attack) 12 "ii' e2 'ifb4 1 3 •••

141

G a m biteer 1

i..f4 fke7 14 .l:r.bel 0-0 15 lt:)g5 l:te8 1 6 'ii'd 3 �h8 1 7 i.. d 6 'ifd7 1 8 i..xe6 and White won in a few moves. 11 °il'b4 In Bellin-Perkins, British Ch., Brigh­ ton 1 972, Black played ll . . . e6, when 1 2 i..h6 was probably the simplest way to play it. By any measure White has more than enough for the pawn here. 12 lt:)es e6 12 . . . lt:)bd7 is strongly met by 13 a3 'ii'a5 14 b4. 13 o-o 'ife7 14 .tgs bs 1s .ib3 b4 16 •.•

i..xf6 .ixf6 After 16 . . . bxc3 1 7 i..x e7 cxd2 1 8 i..b4 White would win the pawn back with slightly the better endgame. 17 'll e 2 as 1s 11i'e3 a4 19 .tc4 Aas 2 0

.ixe6 2 3 'ifxe6+ 'ifxe6 24 'llxe6 lle8 would let Black become very active. 22 bxc3 23 bxc3 Here, too, it's bad to capture on e6, for example 23 .!Llxe6 is answered by 23 . . . .U.d5! 24 l:!.fel cxb2, while 23 .i.xe6+? is bad because of 23 . . . .ixe6 24 'll xe6 .!Llc7 etc. 23 ... 'llc 7 24 l:!.fe1 :es 2s l:!.bS :as 25 ... .!Lld5 isn't a bad move either. 26 ltxaS 'llxaS 2 7 .!Lies .!Llb6 2S i.. x e6+ .i.xe6 29 'it'd3 Better than either 29 lt:)fxe6 'll d 7 or 29 'ifxe6+ 'ifxe6 30 l:txe6 l:txe6 31 'll fxe6 lt:)d5. .••

lt:) d 3 0 - 0 2 1 lt:)ef4

Continuing the build-up against e6. 21 ...lt:)a6 22 C3 White has to be careful not to cash in too early, for example 22 i.xe6+

142

29 ...'ii'd6 Maybe Black should play 29 . . . lt:)d7 30 llxe6 'll x c5 31 l:txe7 lt:)xd3 32 llxe8+ !i!ff7 33 'll x d3, with a drawish endgame. 30 :Xe6 If 30 'll c xe6 then 30 . . . i.g5 is annoy­ ing. 30 .. J:txe6 31 Cllfx e6 lt:)ds 32 g3 Yz·Yz

P i r c D efe n c e : A u s t r i a n w i t h 5 a 3

Summary The 5 a3 variation looks like a refreshing way of doing things for White, the little­ explored positions offering an opportunity for creative and original thought. Like a reformed smok�r I might have been a little harsh on the Modem Defence, but I really don't see a particularly pleasant line if Black delays the development of the king's knight. Isn't he just shuffling around on the back rank, waiting for the axe to fall? 1 e4 d6 l . ..g6 2 d4 i.g7 3 tLlc3 d6 4 f4 (D) 4 ...tLlc6 - Game 46 4 ... c6 Game 47 2 d4 tLlf6 3 tLlC3 g6 3 ... eS Game 56 (see Chapter 9) 4 f4 (D) .i.g7 5 a3 0-0 6 lDf3 (D) 6 . . . cS - Game 43 6 ...�g4 - Game 44 6 . . . lDbd7 - Game 45 -

-

4 /4

4 /4

6 lD/3

143

Chapt e r S even

I

Sca n d i n avi a n Defe n ce

The ancient gambit line 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 'iVxd5 3 tl:ic3 fia5 4 b4 hasn't been seen much in recent years, the verdict of 'unsound' having been passed down from one openings manual to another. I had no reason to doubt it either until I discovered that White has a new plan. After 4 . . . 'ii°xb4 the move 5 a4!? is being played in some circles. And it looks very interesting. I'm actually recommending it in slightly delayed form, via 4 tl:if3 tl:if6 5 b4 'i'xb4 6 a4 (see Balaskas-Korou, Game 48). Of course some Black play­ ers may be shocked rigid by the sight of White's charging b-pawn and cower in the corner with 5 . . . °in>6. Milner Barry-Van den Bosch (Game 49) shows a good way of dealing with such indi­ viduals. If, instead of 3 . . .'iVa5, Black plays 3 . . . °ifd6 one can pick up the gauntlet by following Yemelin-Keskel (Game 50). In the 2 . . . tl:if6 variation the line 3 tl:if3 tl:ixd5 4 d4 i..g4 is examined within the

144

context of Romero Holmes-Pacheco (Game 5 1 ), while against 4 . . . g6 there's one of my own efforts Ostenstad, Game 52).

(Davies­

Game 4 8

P.Bala ska s-L. Korou

N i kea 2000

1 e4 ds 2 exds 'if xds 3 '2Jc3 ff as 4 tl:if3

Both this game and the next one featured an immediate 4 b4, but I pre­ fer the 4 tl:if3 move order and have changed it in the games to avoid con­ fusion. 4 tl:if6 White can also meet 4 ... i.g4 with 5 b4! ? when 5 . . . "ifxb4 6 l1bl wins the b7pawn. Another possibility is 4 ... tl:ic6, when I like 5 d4 i..g4 6 �b5, for example 6 . . . 0-0-0 7 i.xc6 bxc6 8 h3 'ii"h5 9 'iVe2 bf3 10 gxf3 'iti>b7 1 1 �e3 e6 12 0-0-0 '2Je7 13 tl:ie4 was very pleasant for White in Klovans-Katishonok, Riga 2005. .•.

S c a n d i n a v i a n D efe n c e

5 b4!?

An ancient gambit in a new setting - and White also has an improvement on the way they used to play it: s ii'xb4 For 5 . . . 'ii'b 6 see Milner Barry-Van den Bosch (Game 49). 6 a41? •.•

This is the new concept, which has had some tests in correspondence games after 4 b4 1i'xb4 5 a4. In this po­ sition Black has far fewer options. What are the ideas behind this odd­ looking pawn move? Well, the main one is to play .ta3, which makes it dif­ ficult for Black to move his e-pawn

without losing castling rights. It also controls the bS-square and might even be used as a battering ram, going on to aS and even a6. The final point is that it deprives Black's queen of some squares on the a-file, though this may not be significant. 6 ... c6 This move makes sense, preparing to retreat the queen to c7 in some cases, whilst taking bS away from White's knight. This position is almost un­ known to theory but we should never­ theless consider the alternatives: a) 6 . . . llle4 7 lllbS lll a 6 was played in one correspondence game, but seems to be well met by 8 .ta3 1Wa5 9 .td3, when White is developing at top speed. b) 6 . . . lllc 6 7 lllbS 1Wa5 8 .tb2 has the nice point that 8 . . . a6? 9 .tc3 'ii'b6 1 0 aS! wins on the spot. c) 6 . . . e6 7 .ta3 1Wf4 8 .txf8 deprives Black of castling rights. 7 .ta3 ii'f4 8 d4 .tg4 9 .tez lll bd7 10 o-o e6 11 .txf8 lllxf8

Thus Black keeps the right to castle. But even so he's lost a lot of time. 12 lll e s .txez 13 lll x ez ii'h4 14 l:1b1 145

Gam biteer 1

l:tb8?? Black should play 14 . . . b6 when, be­ sides recapturing the pawn on c6, White can play 15 l:1b3. One entertain­ ing line that comes to mind is 15 . . . ltJg6 16 l:th3 'ite4 17 ltJc3 'itfS 18 .l:.f3 'i'hs 1 9 ltJxf7 0-0 20 l:.xf6 'itxdl 21 ttJh6+ gxh6 22 .:Xf8+ 'iirxf8 23 l:lxdl and White has the better endgame. 15 ttJxc6! :tea 16 ttJxa7 Not just winning a pawn - Black's king is in the centre still and several moves away from safety. 16 ... :c1 17 c4 ltJSd7 18 ltJb5 l:tc6 19 d5

stronger, as 2 0. . .ltJxcS 2 1 ltJc7+ wins the rook on b6. 20 fxe6 21 ltJd6+ •••

2 1 'iitfs If 2 1 . . . �7 22 l:.xb6 ltJxb6 23 'itb3. 22 l:txb6 ltJxb6 23 Wlb3 ltJbd7 24 "it'xb7 1;e1 25 Wlb4 ltJd5 26 Wia3 °ii' g 4 27 f3 1-0 •..

Game 49 P .S. Milner BarryJ.Van den Bosch

E n g l a n d - Ho l l a n d match 1949 19 :lb6? B lack could make White work harder for the point with 19 . . . exdS 20 cxdS l:lcS, but obviously this is still very bad for him. Actually there's a beautiful win for White in this varia­ tion via 21 ltJd6+ 'iti>f8 22 :txb7 l:txdS 23 l:lxd7!! l::.x dl 24 :dB+ 'iire7 25 l:.xdl l:txd8 26 lll fS+ �e6 27 llled4+ lhd4 28 ltJxd4+, and wherever Black moves his king he'll lose his queen to either a fork or discovered check. 20 dxe6 20 cS! would have been even •••

146

1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Wlxd5 3 ltJc3 1Wa5 4 ttJf3 ltJf6 5 b4!? 'itb6

S c a n d i n a v i a n D efe n ce

By declining the gambit Black probably hopes to have an easier life. But the b4-pawn can be quite useful to White, in that it helps control terrain on the queenside. 6 .i.c4 White can also develop the bishop more modestly with 6 .i.e2, for exam­ ple 6 . . . 1'.g4 7 0-0 lDbd7 8 l:tbl e5 9 h3 .i.f5 10 d4 e4 11 lDe5 lDxe5 12 dxe5 lDd7? ( 1 2 .. . l:td8 is mandatory) 13 lDdS won quickly for White in J.Rosen­ Mieses, New York 1908. 6 .i.e6 6 ... e6 looks more solid, but in an internet game ('Nimrod' -'Thirtythree') from 1997, Black lasted just seven more moves: 7 'ife2 c6 8 lDe5 lDbd7 9 lDxf7 �xf7 10 'ifxe6+ �g6 1 1 'iff7+ �h6 12 d3+ g5 1 3 h4 1-0. 7 'i'e2 .i.xc4 8 "ii' x c4 e6 9 o-o lDbd7 10 l:tb1 'Wc6

11 lDds 11 ... .ld6 might be an improvement. 12 lDxds 'it'xd s 13 c4 "ii'fs 14 .:b3 .i.e7 15 .i.b2 .i.f6 16 lDd4 .i.xd4 17 .i.xd4 o-o 18 Af3 'ii' c 2 19 l:tg3 ••.

..•

11 "ii' e 2 There's a case for exchanging queens with 1 1 Wxc6 bxc6 12 lDd4, which looks slightly better for White. But this wouldn't really be to the taste of an at­ tacking player like Milner Barry.

White's pieces are already menac­ ingly placed, his dark-squared bishop being particularly strong. 19 g6 20 f4 :ae8 After 20 ... 'i'xa2 White would probably have played 21 "ii'h 5 (threat­ ening 22 'ifh7+), when 21 . . . eS 22 fxe5 "ii'xc4 23 .i.c3 leaves Black facing dan­ gerous threats. ••.

21 a3 f6 After 2 1 . . . lld8 22 'iVhS White would 14 7

G a m b iteer 1

be threatening 23 'it'xh7+, while 22, . . 1i'f5 23 'it'h6 f6 leaves Black badly weak­ ened. 22 l:tc3 'it'a4 23 .l:[e3 es 24 lle1 l:CdB 2 S �c3 exf4 26 l:.e7 c s ??

with Grandmaster Sermek being a leading exponent. But the queen' s ex­ posed position still lets us take out the meat cleaver. 4 d4 llJf 6 s llJf 3 a6 6 ttJes llJc6 There are a couple of other moves for Black: a) 6 . . . cS 7 �e3 cxd4 (7 . . . e6 8 �e2 llJc6 9 llJc4 1i'c7 10 dxcS llJb4 1 1 llJd6+ �xd6 12 cxd6 was good for White in Nussbaumer-Sterk, B ayern 1999; whilst 7 . . .�fS might be best met by 8 ..i.d3 cxd4 9 .i.xd4, developing at top speed)

26 . . . 'it'c6 is better but still bad for Black after 27 Ae6. 27 'ilfe6+ 'it>hB 28 bS! 'ilfc2 29 :xd7 1-0 Game 5 0

8 'it'xd4 llJc6 was Rogovskoy-V.Zaitsev, Russian Team Ch. 1997, and now 9 llJxc6 'it'xc6 10 0-0-0 �d7 1 1 �e2 looks very dangerous for Black. b) 6 . . . e6 7 �e2 (7 �f4 llJc6 doesn' t seem clear to me) 7 . . . llJc6 (or 7 . . . cS 8 �e3) 8 llJxc6 'it'xc6 9 0-0, followed by �f3, gives White some pressure.

V.Yemelin-M.Keskel

Ta l l i n n 2001

1 e4 ds 2 exds 'iixd s 3 llJc3 ifd6

This has been quite popular of late, 148

7 llJxc6 White has another gambit approach in the immediate 7 �f4, but Black seems to be able to handle it with 7 . . . llJxd4 (7 . . . 'it'xd4 8 llJxc6 'ilfxdl + 9 :Xdl bxc6 10 �xc7 gives White the better endgame because of Black's

S c a n d i n a v i a n D efe n ce

weak pawns; and 7 . . . .i.fS 8 .i.c4 lDxeS 9 dxeS 'ifc6?! 10 'ii'e2 'ifxg2 11 0-0-0 lDe4 12 lDdS 0-0-0 13 lDe3 litxdl + 14 l:txdl •g6 lS 'i'd3 led to a quick win for White Grant­ in Arakhamia Mashinskaya, European Champion­ ship, Varna 2002) 8 .i.c4 .i.e6 (8 . . . e6 9 0-0 gS 10 .i.g3 'it'd8 1 1 lDf3 lDxf3+ 1 2 _.xf3 gave White a tremendous posi­ tion for the pawn in Zvara-Mozes, German League 2000; while 8 . . . lDe6 was well met by 9 'iff3 in Vazquez­ Ivanovitch Balsinde, Pamplona 2002) 9 .i.d3 (9 lDg6 is answered by 9 . . . 'ifcS) 9 . . .'iib 4 ! (9 . . . gS 10 .i.g3 'ifb6 1 1 �d2 lDfS 12 0-0-0 gave White good attacking chances in Erice Alonso-Perez, Marin 2001) 10 _.d2 0-0-0 1 1 0-0-0 g6 12 a3 'Was 13 :hel .i.g7, and White was struggling to justify his play in Ti­ mofeev-Lysyj, Moscow 2006. 7 ...'ifxc6 8 .i.e2 'it'xg2 9 .i.f3 'it'h3 10 .i.f4

10 ... c6 In Plaskett-J.Houska, Islington 1998, Black played 10 ... "ife6+ 11 .i.eS g6 12 "ii' e 2 .i.g7 1 3 0-0-0 0-0, and now White should probably play 14 h4, followed

by lS hS, prising open a line on the kingside. In the game Plaskett played 14 lithel and eventually won a scrappy encounter. 11 :g1 h s In Brzeski-Malaniuk, Mielno 2006, Black played l l . . .g6, after which 12 dS is critical (rather than 12 lDa4 .i.h6 1 3 .i.eS .i.e6 14 :g3 'it'h4 a s i n the game), for example 12 . . . .i.d7 13 'i"e2 1\VfS 1 4 .i.e3 lDxdS (if 14 . . ..i.g7, lS l:lgS 'ii'h3 16 l:tg3 'ii'fS 17 l:lgS is a t least a draw for White) lS .i.xdS cxd5 16 0-0-0 i..g7 1 7 lDxdS 'it'eS 1 8 c 3 l:td8 1 9 f4 t!l'e4 2 0 1Vd3! �xd3? 21 lDc7+ �f8 22 l:txd3 and the pin on the d-file is deadly. 12 dS .i.g4 13 .l:.g3 i.xf3 14 'ifxf3 'it'd7 15 o-o-o lDxds 16 .J:r.xds!

After the alternative 1 6 lDxdS cxdS 17 J:hdS Black can defend himself with 17 . . . 1Wc6 18 'iib 3 e6. The text seems much stronger. 16 .- cxds 17 lDxds .l:tcS 18 %6 'it'c6 19 lDxcS 'ii' x cS 20 'ife4 1i'c6 21 "ifxc6+ bxc6 22 I:tb3 White's active pieces more than compensate for the pawn. 2 2 ... �d7 149

Gom biteer 1

Black should probably play 22 . . . gS 23 .i.xgS 1;lg8, giving back the pawn to mobilize his pieces. After the text he finds himself in some difficulties be­ cause of the passed a-pawn White ob­ tains. 23 :lb7+ 'it>e6 24 :b6 'it>ds zs :xa6 es 26 Jt.e3 fs 27 :aa g6 28 il4 Jt.g7 2 9 l:lxh8 Jt.xh8 30 a s

3 0 ...�d6 After 30 ... cS there follows 31 a6 �c6 32 .i.xcS, getting three connected passed pawns. Black should have drawn this endgame but he gets bam­ boozled towards the end. 31 .tb6 'it>d7 32 b4 gs 33 a6 'it>c8 34 Jt.d8 g4 3S c4 e4 36 bs Jt.d4 37 b6 .ixfz 38 b7+ �b8 39 Jt.e7 Jt.b6 40 .id6+ .ic7 41 a7+ @xa7 42 Jt.xc7 'ii.>x b7 43 Jt.g3 'it>b6 44 �cz �cs?! Black cracks at the finish. 44 . . �aS 4S �c3 cS was a much easier way to hold it. 4S 'it>c3 h4? And here he should play 4S ... e3. Now he's losing. 46 .ixh4 f4 47 Jt.gs f3 48 Jt.e3+ 'it>d6 49 .

'it>d4 1-0 150

Game 51 A.Romero Holmes-J.Pacheco

Portuguese Tea m C h a m p i o n s h i p 1998 1 e 4 d s z exds ltlf6 3 ltlf3

3 .-ltlxd s Black can also consider the immedi­ ate 3 . . . .i.g4, but after 4 h3 .i.xf3 (or 4 . . . .ihS S d4 'i'xdS 6 g4 .i.g6 7 ltlc3 'i'aS 8 ltleS ltlbd7 9 ltlc4 'if a6 10 Jt.f4 'i'e6+ 1 1 ltle3 with a very promising position for White) S 'ifxf3 1i'xdS 6 'if xdS ltlxdS 7 a3 eS 8 ltlc3 ltlxc3 9 bxc3 .i.cS 10 g3 ltld7 1 1 Jt.g2 c6 1 2 lilbl 0-0-0 1 3 0-0, White had a nice two bishop endgame in R.Bumett­ E .Rios, Lindsborg 2002. 4 d4 Jt.g4 s h3 .t h s Black has also exchanged o n f3, for example S ...hf3 6 'it"xf3 e6 (other moves seem less good, for example 6 ... c6 7 c4 ltlf6 8 .i.e3 g6 9 ltlc3 e6 10 Jt.e2 Jt.g7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 l:lfdl 'i'aS 13 lir.abl was very nice for White in Klovans-Furger, World Seniors 2004; or 6 . . . ltlc6 7 c3 e6 8 .tbs 'it°f6 9 ltld2 a6 10 .i.xc6+ bxc6 11 0-0

S c a n di n a v i a n D efe n c e

'ifxf3 12 lllxf3 cS 13 c4 tLlb6 14 b3 cxd4 IS lL!xd4 and White had the better end­ game in Barglowski-Pakleza, Polanczyk

2000) 7 .i.d3 c;5 (7 ... lll c6 8 c3 .i.d6 9 0-0 'it°f6 10 Wg4 hS 11 'ii'e4 was better for White in Spoelman-Naalden, Dieren 2003) 8 lllc3! lL!c6 (if 8 ... lll xc3 9 1i'xb7 'ifdS 10 'ifc8+ rtte7 1 1 bxc3 llld7 12 Wc7 1i'xg2 13 :fl) 9 lllxdS lll xd4 (9 ... WxdS is relatively best, with just a slight edge for White after 10 .i.e4 1i'd7 11 dxcS .i.xcS 12 0-0) 10 lllf6+ Wxf6 11 'ii'xb7 'ifeS+ 12 .i.e3 :b8 13 1i'xa7 :Xb2 14 'ii'a4+ rtte7 1 S 0-0 and White won quickly i n Hage­ Stefanov, correspondence 2000. 6 g4 .i.g6 7 tiles

1 lLid1 •••

This is a major junction, with Black having tried several other moves: a) 7. . . lll c 6 should probably be met by 8 lll xg6 hxg6 9 .i.g2 and then: al) 9 . . . 'ifd6 10 lllc 3 lllf4 (10 . . . lL!xc3 1 1 bxc3 0-0-0 12 J:lbl gives White good attacking chances) 11 �xf4 1ixf4 1 2 llle2 'it"gS ( 1 2 . . . 'ifd6 13 f4 is also better for White) 13 c3 a6 14 0-0 e6 IS f4 Wh4 16 1i'a4 and White was clearly better in Vitolinsh-Gipslis, Riga 1994.

a2) 9. . . e6! ? 10 o-o Wf6 (if 10 . . . .i.d6 1 1 lL!c3! tLlf4 12 .i.xf4 .i.xf4 13 lLie2 'ii'f6 14 c3 0-0-0 IS lL!g3!; while 10 . . . lL!b6 1 1 c3 .i.e7 was Melcher-Holzhaeuer, Zell 1991, when 12 lLid2 would have left White with a clear advantage because of his powerful bishop on g2) 1 1 tLlc3 1i'xd4 12 lll x dS exdS (12 . . . 1i'xdl 13 lL!xc7+ is also good for White) 13 'ii'e2+ .i.e7 14 J:ldl 'iie S IS 1i'xeS tL!xeS 1 6 J:lxdS and White has a clear edge i n the endgame because of his bishop pair . b) 7 . . . e6 8 .i.g2 c6 (8 ... lllc 6 9 .!Lixg6 hxg6 transposes into line 'a2' above) 9 h4! .i.b4+ (9 . . . f6 10 .!Lixg6 hxg6 11 'ife2 is not pleasant for Black) 10 c3 .i.d6 11 hS .i.xbl 12 J:lxbl tLld7 13 1i'e2 1i'aS 14 0-0 .i.xeS IS dxeS 1i'xa2 16 .i.d2 and White's two bishops compensated him for his pawn in Klovans-Wadsack, Loosdorf 1993. c) 7 ... .i.e4 8 f3 .i.g6 9 h4 hS 10 tL!xg6 fxg6 11 c4 .!Lib6 was Dadikina-Goschl, Matinhos 1994, and now 12 cS lll d S 13 1i'c2 looks very strong. d) 7 . . . tL!b4 8 tL!xg6 hxg6 9 .i.g2 c6 1 0 0-0 lll d S 1 1 c 4 tLlc7 12 tLlc3 was very good for White in Krylov-Al Hadarani, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. e) 7 ... 'it"d6 8 .tg2 lll d 7 9 .!Lixg6 hxg6 10 lll c 3 .!Lixc3 1 1 bxc3 0-0-0 12 'i'f3 'i'a6 (12 . . . 'ii'e6+ 13 .i.e3) 13 1i'xf7 won a pawn and later the game in Labbe­ Soderstrom, correspondence 1994. 8 lll x g6 hxg6 9 c4 9 .i.g2 is also possible. 9 ... tL!5f6 After 9 . . . .!LJSb6 White should proba­ bly play 10 cS .!Lids 11 'iib3 e6 12 .!Lic3 lllx c3 13 bxc3 with a nice game. 151

Gambiteer 1

10 .i.g2 c6 11 dS

Once again the sharpest move and the one most in keeping with the gam­ biteer approach. White has tried sev­ eral different developing moves, of which 11 ttJc3 looks like the best, but nothing else really takes the position by the scruff of the neck. 11 ... ttJb6 After l l . . .cxd5 White's simplest is just to recapture 1 2 cxd5, but he could consider more speculative ideas such as 12 g5. In an earlier game, Romero HolmesM. Blasco Blasco, Villalba 1 995, Black tried l l . ..'iWc7, but was clearly worse after 12 ttJc3 ttJb6 (12 . . . e6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 °iVe2 0-0-0 15 �d2, followed by cas­ tling long, also looks good for White) 13 °ife2 e6 14 dxe6 0-0-0 15 �e3 fxe6 1 6 0-0 � bB 1 7 J:tfdl and White's bishops gave him an edge once again. 12 ttJc3 ttJxc4 12 . . . cxd5 13 cxd5 "flc7 14 0-0 leaves White with a great position (two bish­ ops, space, etc), so Black tries to do something different. Unfortunately for him, his departure from the frying pan 1 52

seems to land him squarely in the fire the endgame is very bad. 13 dxc6 Wlxd1+ 14 ttJxd1 es 1s cxb7 .i.b4+ 16 'ite2 .l:tb8 17 .i.e3 ttJxe3 18 ttJxe3 e4 19 gs ttJhs

The alternative 1 9 ... ttJh7 20 h4 isn't going to be much of an improvement for Black. 20 .i.xe4 ttJf 4+ 21 'itf3 ttJxh3 22 .i.c6+ �s 23 ttJds �d6 24 �g2 ttJf4+ 2s ttJxf4 l:txh1 26 ttJxg6+! fxg6 27 l:txh1 With two extra pawns, including the giant on b7, the rest is a matter of technique. There are limits to the drawish tendencies of opposite­ coloured bishops, especially with rooks still on the board. 27 ... 'ite7 28 lie1+ �dB 29 .l:te6 @c7 30 .i.e4 @d7 31 I:.xg6 .i.es 32 .tfs+ �c7 3 3 .tcs 1-0 Game 52 N.Davies-B.Ostenstad

Oslo 1988 1 e 4 ds 2 exds ttJf6 3 ttJf3 ttJxds 4 d4 g 6 S C4

S c a n d i n a v i a n D efe n c e

s tiJb6 The retreat to f6 is also playable, though inevitably it will be less active as Black is inhibiting the action of the bishop on g7. After 5 . . . tiJf6 6 tiJc3 .tg7 7 h3 0-0 8 1'.e3 tiJbd7 (alternatively 8 . . . c5 9 dxc5 "if a5 10 'it'a4 'ii'x a4 1 1 t'iJxa4 tiJa6 12 a3 .td7 13 tiJc3 l:lfc8 14 b4 b6 15 0-0-0 bxc5 16 b5 gave White a clear endgame advantage in Bogoljubow­ Richter, Bad Nauheim 1935) 9 'it°d2 c6 10 .te2 .l:.e8 1 1 .:dl ( 1 1 0-0 can be an­ swered by 1 1 . . . eS) 1 1 . . . 'ii'a S 12 0-0 a6 (Black could again consider 12 . . . eS! ?, when 13 d5 cxd5 14 tiJxd5 'ii'x d2 1 5 .l:t.xd2 tiJxd5 1 6 :txd5 i s slightly better for White but not more than that) 13 a3 'it°d8 14 'ifcl b6 15 tiJe5 .tb7 16 c5 was clearly better for White in Tal­ Bronstein, Moscow 1967. 6 tiJc3 .A.g7 In Svidler-Berend, European Cup, Vilnius 1995, Black played 6 . . . .tg4 (be­ fore White stopped him with h2-h3), but after 7 c5 tiJd5 8 'ii'b3 tiJxc3 9 bxc3 .txf3 10 gxf3 b6 11 .tc4 e6 12 0-0 .tg7 13 'ii'a4+ tiJd7 (or 13 . . . "if d7 14 c6! ) 1 4 .tbs a 6 1 5 .tc6 b 5 1 6 "ifa5 l:t b8 1 7 .tf4 .••

his position fell apart. 7 c s l ? tiJ6d7 Black has a major alternative in 7 ... tiJd5, for example 8 .tc4 tiJxc3 (8 . . . c6 9 'ii'b 3 0-0 10 0-0 tiJxc3 1 1 bxc3 b5 12 .te2 .i.e6 13 'it°b2 tiJd7 1 4 a4 a6 15 axb5 axb5 16 l:xa8 'ii'x a8 1 7 .te3 was better for White in Wist-Veinger, correspon­ dence 1994) 9 bxc3 0-0 10 0-0 b6!? (10 ... .tg4 11 h3 i.xf3 12 'ifxf3 c6 1 3 :tel tiJd7 14 l:lbl gave White a strong initia­ tive in Shirov-Rechi, Andorra 2001) 1 1 .l:el ! tiJc6 ( l l . . .tiJd7 1 2 .tg5 tiJf6 1 3 tiJe5 was better for White in Zhang Zhong­ West, Sydney 1999) 12 .tg5 h6 13 .th4 .tf6 14 .txf6 exf6 15 cxb6 cxb6 16 .tfl, and White was better because of his superior pawn structure in Vorobiov­ Nureev, Moscow 2002. 8 .tc4 o-o 9 o-o

9 tiJc6 Black has tried several other moves: a) In De Firmian-Azmaiparashvili, Yerevan Olympiad 1996, Black played 9 . . . c6, but White was better after 10 :el tiJf6 11 h3 b5 (or l l . ..tiJa6 12 'ife2) 12 .tb3 a5 13 a3 tiJa6 14 'ii'e2, threatening the pawn on e7. •.•

1 53

G a m biteer 1

b) 9 . . .b6 10 it.gs .ib7 1 1 l:tel ll:if6 1 2 ll:ieS e6 1 3 ll:ixf7! l:txf7 14 .ixe6 was strong in Nikolaidou-Kagas, Nikaia 200S. c) 9 . . . eS? is very bad because of 1 0 it.gs .if6 1 1 .ixf6 'ai'xf6 1 2 ll:i d S 'ai'd8 1 3 ll:ixeS and White wins a pawn, which i s what happened in fact i n Valvo-Ewers, Sioux Falls 2000. d) Preparing ... e7-eS with 9 ...h6 leaves Black very passive after 10 l:tel ll:ic6 11 .i.f4, and 1 1 . ..eS 12 ll:ixeS ll:icxeS 13 .ixeS .i.xeS 14 dxeS ll:ixcS lS b4 .1e6 16 ll:idS was good for White in Moreno Camero-M.Blasco Blasco, Spain 1999. 10 a3 h6 11 1Vc2 e6 12 l:ld1 ll:if6 13 b4 Taking even more space. The single hole on dS is not enough for Black to coordinate his pieces effectively. 13 ... ll:ie7 14 .i.f4 b6 15 b5 a6 16 a4

want to be left with the miserable in­ sect he has on c8, but he finds it diffi­ cult to avoid. 11 axb5 18 axb5 lba1 19 Iba1 ll:ixc3 White also has a bind after 19 . . .bxcS, for example 20 dxcS 'ai'e7 21 .ixdS ll:ixdS 22 .i.xg7
ll:ied5 17 .i.e5

And now the knight on f6 cannot move without the dark-squared bish­ ops coming off. Black really doesn't

1 54

Splat! Black faces all sorts of threats and it's a wonder he managed to hang on as long as he did. 27 ... .i.e8 28 dxe6 'iii' d1+ 2 9 Wh2 �d6 30 e7 �gs 31 g3 'iVf6 32 1Ve3 i.xb5 33 ll:ig4 'ii'g 7 Or 33 ... �gS 34 °itd4 etc. 34 'il'xb6 1-0

S c a n d i n a v i a n D efe n c e

Summary The Scandinavian has been quite popular in recent years and there are several in­ teresting lines for Black. But White, too, is not without his chances and he can generate dynamic play in every case. The key line is the gambit with 5 b4! ? which enlivens the traditionally stodgy 3 . . . 'ifa5 variation. 1 e4 dS 2 exds 1txd5 2 .. . ltlf6 3 l'Lif3 l'Lixd5 4 d4 (D) 4 ... .tg4 - Game 51 4 ... g6 - Game 52 3 00 (D) 1Was 3 ...'ifd6 - Game 50 4 l'Lif3 l'Lif6 5 b4 (D) 5 . . . 'it'xb4 - Game 48 5 .. . 'iib6 - Game 49

4 d4

155

Chapt e r Eight

I

N i m z ow i t s c h Defe nc e

For most White players this doesn't need a special treatment - if you play the Spanish (1 e4 eS 2 llJf3 llJc6 3 i.bS) or any other 2 llJf3 line then it's good to meet l . . .llJc6 with 2 llJf3, when a trans­ position with 2 . . . eS is likely. But as Danish gambiteers we have to take on the Nimzowitsch Defence with the natural 2 d4. Actually this is not a bad thing, as after 2 . . . dS 3 llJc3 dxe4 4 dS neither 4 . . . llJeS S Vd4 llJg6 6 i.bS+ i.d7 7 llJge2 (Campora-Wockenfuss, Game S3), nor 4 . . . llJb8 (Keres-Larsen, Game S4) looks very comfortable for Black. There's also 2 . . . eS, when 3 dxeS llJxeS 4 llJc3 i.cS S f4 looks pretty good (Keres-Mikenas, Game SS). Game 53 D.Campora-K. Wockenfus s

Amsterd a m 1985 1 e 4 llJc6 2 d4 dS 3 lLic3

156

3 dxe4 Nimzowitsch used to like 3 . . . e6 here, which leads to stodgy games of manoeuvre in the main lines. On the rare occasions you have to face this move I suggest a new gambit line with 4 i.e3 !? dxe4 S f3 which, after S . . . exf3 6 llJxf3, transposes into a line of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, but one that looks rather dubious for Black. Driike­ Zuechner, correspondence 1986, went 6 . . . llJf6 7 i.bS i.d7 (7 . . . i.b4 8 0-0 i.. d 7 9 Ve2 0-0 10 a3 ii.xc3 1 1 bxc3 was also ...

N i m z o wi t s c h D efe n c e

highly prom1smg for White in 'Pe­ likan'-'Skarpachi', Internet 1999) 8 0-0 i.d6 9 llJg5!? 0-0 10 .i.d3 lL!b4? (10 ... h6) 1 1 lhf6! °it'xf6 1 2 .i.xh7+ �h8 1 3 'iih 5 1-0. 4 ds llJes For 4 . . . lL!b8 see the next game, Keres-Larsen. The text is considered the 'main line' of the Nimzowitsch De­ fence. 5 'ifd4 This, together with White's next two moves, represents a nice way to play for White. Black can hang on to the pawn in some lines but his health suffers as a result. I really wanted to recommend 5 f3 in this position, but couldn't make it work if Black declined the gambit with 5 . . . e6. This is the prob­ lem with many gambits: there can be good ways to decline. s ...lL!g6 6 i.bs+ i.d1 1 llJge2

1 ... lL!f6 The main line. Black has tried some other moves but they seem to leave White better: a) 7 .. .£5 8 h4 c6 9 h5 cxb5 10 hxg6 lLif6 11 .i.g5 h6 12 a3 gave White the

better game i n Schwartz-Dunne, Phila­ delphia 1996. b) 7 ... c6 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 .i.a4 e5 10 1i"c4 °in>6 1 1 lL!xe4 ( 1 1 0-0!?) l l . . .1Wb4+ 1 2 1i°xb4 .i.xb4+ 1 3 c3 .i.e7 1 4 .i.e3 gave White a clear endgame plus in Engel­ bert-Lohmann, German League 1990. c) 7 ... a6 is well met by 8 �xd7+ 11Vxd7 9 0-0, for example 9 . . . lLif6 (9 .. .£5 10 f3! is a great gambit) 10 .i.g5 l:ld8 1 1 l:adl °it'f5 1 2 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 3 lL!g3 recov­ ers the pawn with much the better game. d) 7 . . . .txb5 8 lL!xb5 a6 9 lL!bc3 e5 (af­ ter 9 .. .£5 10 0-0 White threatens 1 1 f3, and if 1 0 . . . e5 then 1 1 dxe6 "it'xd4 1 2 lL!xd4 gives h i m the better endgame) 1 0 dxe6 "it'xd4 11 lL!xd4 llJf6 1 2 exf7+ �xf7 was a game Naselli-Toumier, Guay­ mallen 2001, and now 13 .i.g5 .i.b4 14 lL!de2 would have been unpleasant be­ cause of Black's weak e-pawn. s i.gs i.xbs After 8 ... c6 White should play 9 dxc6 bxc6 10 .i.a4 with problems for Black, both with his development and weak pawns. 8 ... a6 is also better for White after 9 .txd7+ 1i°xd7 10 0-0 (10 .i.xf6 exf6 solves Black's problem of how to de­ velop his king's bishop) 10 ... h6 1 1 .i.xf6 exf6 12 lLixe4 .i.d6 13 c4 and White's queenside pawn majority is looking quite effective. 9 lL!xb5 a6 In the game H.Kristensen-R.Kemp, Ribe 1978, Black found a way to lose quickly with 9 . . . c6 10 dxc6 'ii' a 5+? (10 . . . bxc6 1 1 lL!bc3 is better for White, but not necessarily fatal) 1 1 lL!ec3 bxc6 157

G a m biteer 1

12 .L:f6 cxb5 13 0-0-0 l:l.d8 14 'it'xe4 1i'b6 15 :Xd8+ 'it'xd8 1 6 J:r.dl etc.

lli2g3, when the knight has the addi­ tional option of arriving on f5. 14 ...'it'd7 15 llihS 'it>h8 16 h3 l:tfd8 17 84 White is getting a nice bind on the kingside. 17 ....i.f8 18 C4 cs 19 'it'c3 bS 20 f4 bxc4 , 2 1 l:thg1 l:tab8 Allowing a spectacular combina­ tion, though whether it wins is another question. Black could also play 21...'it'b7, when he can meet 22 lliexf6?! gxf6 23 'it'xf6+ �h7 24 f5 with the reply 24 .. Jld6 !. 2 2 lliexf61?

1o t'Llbc3 h6 In a later game, Barthel-Dirr, Mu­ nich 1 992, Black varied with 10 . . . 'it'd6. Here White should not hurry to get his pawn back, but instead play 1 1 0-0-0 ( 1 1 .txf6 exf6 12 11f xe4+ was the game, and now Black should have played 12 . . . .te7 with at least equality), when l l . . . 'it'e5 12 .txf6 exf6 13 'it'a4+ �dB 14 t'Lld4 gives White more than enough for the pawn. 11 .i.xf6 exf6 12 llixe4 .i.e7 13 o-o-o o-o Beautiful, but unclear. 22 g5 may well be a better move. 2 2 ...gxf6?

14 t'Ll2g3 There's also a case for 1 4 g4 l:l.e8 15 158

This loses. Black should ignore the sacrifice and play 22 . . . 'it'a4 when the position is just very messy. 23 'it'xf6+ 'it>h7 24 fs 'it'e7 25 fxg6+ fxg6 26 l:tge1 'it'c7 27 llif4 c3 The last chance to stay on the board is with 27 ... 'it'g7, but then 28 'it'xg7+ .txg7 29 :te7 is hardly pleasant for Black. 28 �e6 cxb2+ 29 'it>b1 'it'd6 30 llixf8+ 1-0

N i m z o w i t s c h D efe n ce

Game 54 P .Keres-B.La rs en

Stockholm 1966 1 e4 ll:ic6 2 d4 d5 3 lLi c 3 dxe4 4 d 5 lLib8

'i'xd8+ l'Dxd8 (7 . . . �xd8 8 ll:ixe4 es 9 0-0-0+ rtlc7 10 .te3 is also better for White) 8 .tbs+ �d7 9 .i.xd7+ �xd7 1 0 0-0-0+ �c6 1 1 l'Dxe4 Black's exposed king is a source of trouble, despite the exchange of queens. 6 .tc4 l'Df6 1 1We2 White can also gambit a pawn with 7 f3!?, for example 7 ...bS (or 7 . . . e3 8 l'Dge2 with a good game) 8 .i.b3 exf3 9 "ii'x f3 �b7 (9 . . . .tg4 may be an im­ provement) 10 0-0-0 l'Dbd7 1 1 "it'e3 cS 1 2 dxc6 .i.xc6 1 3 l'Df3 .txf3 1 4 'ii'xf3 and White had a tremendous position in Nilsson-Persson, correspondence 1990. 1 ... bs a .tb3

Apparently losing time, but Black might argue that White's d-pawn push hasn't contributed much towards his development either. 5 .tf4 a6 The main line is S . . . lDf6 6 i.c4 g6 (6 . . . a6 transposes back into the game, while 6 . . . c6 7 dxc6 'i'xdl+ 8 Axdl bxc6 9 l'Dge2 l'Dbd7 10 l'Dg3 eS 11 ..igS .tb4 1 2 0-0 h 6 1 3 .t d 2 lLib6 14 .te2 .te7 l S l'Dcxe4 l'Dxe4 1 6 l'Dxe4 0-0 1 7 .i.c3 gave White the better endgame in Bellin­ Saverymuttu, London 1974), when in­ stead of 7 f3, I like Keres' suggestion of 7 °it'e2!?. Play might continue 7 . . . .tg7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 f3!? exf3 10 l'Dxf3 a6 1 1 :thel, which gave White compensation for his pawn in Craig-Sutton, correspon­ dence 1976. Of the lesser-played fifth move al­ ternatives, after s ... c6 6 dxc6 l'Dxc6 7

s . cs

In D.Murphy-Crouch, British U21 Championship, Eastbourne 1973, Black played 8 . . ..tb7, but after 9 0-0-0 b4 1 0 ll:ixe4 l'DxdS 1 1 l'DcS .tc6 1 2 1ihS! h e lost very quickly. Another possibility is 8 . . . i.fS 9 0-0-0 b4 (if 9 . . . l'Dbd7 then 10 f3 is strong), when the simplest line is 10 l'Da4 l'Dbd7 1 1 f3 exf3 12 l'Dxf3 with massive pres­ sure for the sacrificed pawn. 9 dxc6 lLixc6 10 l:td1 'iWas 11 .tdz ..

1 59

Gam biteer 1

White could also consider 11 'ii'e3! ? with the idea o f developing his king's knight on e2.

queen is exposed on the d-file. Black must avoid 12 ... llJxe2? because of 13 .ixa5, when White threatens both the knight on e2 and 14 l:td.8 mate. But he can improve his play with 12 . . . 'ii'c7, after which 13 �f4 ( 1 3 llJxf6+ gxf6 14 'ii'e4 �b7 1 5 'ii'xd4 .txg2 seems to be good for Black) 13 . . . 'ii'aS+ 14 �d2 'ii'c7 15 .if4 was drawn by repetition in Daillet-Dieu, correspondence 1989 13 �e3 tbxe4 If 13 . . . llJxb3 then 14 �b4! seems even stronger than in the game. 14 i.b4!

11 ... llJd4 In the game Urzica-Tomescu, Bu­ charest 1994, Black played l l . . . .tg4, after which 12 f3 exf3 13 llJxf3 'ii'c7 14 .tg5 e6 15 hf6 gxf6 16 llJd5 'ii'a5+ 1 7 c3 .te7 18 'ii'e4 .txf3 1 9 'ii'xf3 0-0 20 lbxf6+ recovered the pawn whilst leav­ ing Black's king seriously exposed. Larsen's move is better, but only if fol­ lowed up correctly. 12 tbxe4 14 ... es 15 i.xf8 �xf8

12 ... �dS?! This seems to be 160

an

error as Black's

And not 15 . . . �f8? because of 16 'ii'xe4 l:ta7 1 7 c3 etc. 16 �xe4 .Us 17 �xes �es 18 �xe8+ l1xe8+ 19 �d2 hs Myers suggested that 1 9 . . . lbxb3+ 20 axb3 :dB+ 21 �cl Axdl + 22 �xdl �e7 would give Black a drawn endgame, but this is clearly an uphill struggle at the very least. 20 llJf3 ?! Keres later opined that 20 c3 would have been better. 20 ...l:te2+?!

N i m z o w i t s c h D efe n c e

20 . . . ttixf3+ 21 gxf3 l::th6 might well have held a draw. 21 'itii c 3 ttic6 22 l:td2 b4+ 23 �c4 l:te8 24 .i.a4 With White's pieces coordinated and his king very active, the rest starts to look relatively easy. 24 ... l::t h 6 2s ttJd4 tties+ 26 �b3 i.d7 2 1 .i.xd7 ttixd7 2 8 �xb4 l:tg6 29 g3 l::t b 8+ 30 'itii a 3 tties 31 b3 l:lgs 32 �a4 And not 32 f4 ?? because of 32 . . . l'tJc4+ 33 bxc4 l:ta5 mate. 32 ... l:tg6 33 c4 l:tgb6 34 l:tc1 �gs 3 S cs l:tb4+ 3 6 'ifi>a3 a s 3 7 f4 ttJg4 38 ttic6 1-0

cause o f 6 "ifxg7) 6 .i.f4 .i.xc3+ ( 6 . . .£6 is strongly met by 7 0-0-0, threatening 8 l'tJd5) 7 'it"xc3 d6 8 0-0-0 l'tJf6 (8 . . . a6 is relatively best, but this represents a further loss of time) 9 i.b5+ c6 10 .i.xe5 dxe5 11 bc6+! won a pawn and the game in B.Wall-'Hot', Internet 1999. b) 4 . . .ttif6 5 f4 l'tJc6 6 e5 l'tJg8 leaves Black massively behind in develop­ ment, and after 7 l'tJf3 d6 8 .i.b5 his po­ sition looks as if it could collapse at any moment. s f4 ttig6

Game 55

P Keres V Mikenas .

-

.

Tbi l i s i 1946 1 e4 ttic6 2 d4 es 3 dxes ttixes 4 ttic3

4 ....i.cs Very much the main line. Black has tried a couple of alternatives, but they look distinctly dodgy: a) 4 . . . i.b4 5 "ifd4 'it"e7 (5 . . . i.xc3+ 6 'it"xc3 just gives White a nice two bishop game, while 5 . . . l'tJc6 is bad be-

Tony Miles used to play 5 ... l'tJc6, but with very mixed results. After 6 .i.c4 d6 7 l'tJf3 i.e6 (7 . . . ttif6 is strongly met by 8 e5!, for example 8 . . . l'tJg4 9 l'tJe4 .i.b6 1 0 l'tJfg5 0-0 1 1 e 6 ! etc) 8 i. d 3 l'tJf6 9 l'tJa4 i.b4+ 1 0 i.d2 0-0 1 1 0-0 l:e8 1 2 c3 ..ia5 13 'it°c2 d5 14 e5 lUe4 15 b4 i.b6+ 16 l'tJxb6 axb6 was Salmensuu-Miles, Reykjavik 2000, and now White has several moves that are stronger than his 17 l'tJd4, such as 17 J::tfd l . 6 ttif3 d 6 7 i.c4 i.e6 In Goldberg-Kubien, Dresden 1986, Black played 7 . . . ei£6, when 8 f5 ruled out the bishop move, and after 8 . . . l'tJe7, 161

G a m b it e e r 1 .

White s hould have played 9 .ig5! with a clear advantage. 8 'llf e 2 .bc4 9 ilxC4 'it'd7 10 f5 lll 6 e7 11 .i.gs f6 12 .i.f4 lll c 6 13 o -o-o 0-<>-0 14 84

White is better here becaus e of his . ex tra space. And the prospect of him · . ht on e6 is something landing a knig . w h >eh demands g reat vigilance from h i· s opponent, Iyi· ng up re sources that m ight have been otherwi· se employe d · 14... gs . Stopping g4-g5, but weakening the pawn on f6. ·

1 62

. d- rank party. Joining the th1r 2 5 ... lll h6 26 lll b4 a s 27 1Wc6+
N i m z o w i t s c h D efe n c e

Summary The Nimzowitsch Defence is unpopular for a reason - the positions are difficult for Black and need very accurate handling to get any kind of playable position. That said, it might well come up every few years or so, which makes it important to know what to do. 1 e4 ltJc6 (D) 2 d4 dS 2 . . eS ( D ) - Game 55 3 ltJc3 dxe4 4 dS (D) 4 . llJeS - Game 53 4 . . lLib8 - Game 54 .

..

.

1

...

llJc6

2

...

es

4 d5

1 63

Chapter Nine

I

T h e Pse u d o- P h i l id o r a n d Ot h e r Defe n ces

The name 'Pseudo-Philidor' i s my own invention that I think is suitable termi­ nology for the lines 1 e4 d6 2 d4 tllf6 3 tll c 3 eS, 3 . . . tll bd7 and 3 . . . c6. Black is aiming for a Philidor Defence struc­ ture, but without having to encounter such horrors as 1 e4 eS 2 tllf3 d6 3 d4 tllf6 4 dxeS. With Black hanging back so much, it's difficult to get any kind of early gambit play in, but I like the plan of tllg e2, f2-f3 and g2-g4 that features in Sax-Nevednichy (Game S6) . White gets dynamic play, with opposite side cas­ tling quite likely, all of which should be grist to the mill of the budding gambiteer. Moving on to l . . .b6, it was interest­ ing to see how popular this has been amongst Grandmasters trying to win American tournaments, especially Pavel Blatny. After 2 d4 .i.b7 3 .i.d3 Black has tried 3 . . . e6 (KaidanovKengis, Game S7), 3 . . . tllf 6 4 'ii'e2 tllc6 (Nevednichy-Blatny, Game 58) and

164

3 . . .fS? (Jansen-Salil, Game S9). It seems that the last of these moves loses by force, but it's good to know how to do this with White. Volovik-Kozlov (game 60) features the one-square moves of Black's rook pawns. My recommendation against 1. a6 plans to get Black excited at the prospect of repeating Karpov-Miles, then hitting him with 1 1 .i.gS ! . It looks good for White to me. _

Game 5 6

G.Sax-V.Nevednichy

Odorhei u Sec u i esc 1993 1 e 4 d6 2 d4 tllf6 3 tll c 3 es

There are two other varieties of the 'Pseudo-Philidor' defence, but White's plan can be used in every instance: a) 3 . . . c6 4 tllg e2 e5 transposes. b) 3 . . . l[)bd7 4 l[)ge2 es s f3 .i.e7 6 g4! ? 0-0 7 .i.e3 c6 (after 7 ... tll e8 8 'i*'d2 c6 9 tllg 3 g6 10 0-0-0 bS 11 Wbl aS 12 h4

T h e P s e u d o - P h i l i d o r a n d O t h e r D efe n c e s

fi)g7 13 h5 gave White a strong attack in C.Horvath-Siebrecht, Budapest 1994) 8 'ii'd 2 b5 9 fi)g3 fi)b6 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 'ii'x d8 %:txd8 1 2 a4 b4 1 3 fi)bl g6 1 4 fi)d2 and his control of the c4-square gave White the better endgame in Magem Badals-Cheng Xinkai, Linares 2002. 4 fi)ge2 c6 5 f3

s hs!? A prophylactic move against 6 g4, though it has the drawback that Black's king may now find the kingside a diffi­ cult place to inhabit. Instead, after 5 ... fi)bd7 6 g4!? White has quite promis­ ing prospects; for example, 6 ... dS (6 ... exd4 7 1ixd4 ltJe5 8 .i.g2 h5 9 g5 .i.h3 10 �f2 .i.xg2 1 1 'i!Vxg2 fi)f d7 12 f4 fi)g6 1 3 .i.e3 �a5 14 0-0-0 was good for White in T.Wall-Willmoth, Sutton 1997) 7 g5 fi)hS 8 exd5 .i.e7 9 dxc6 (9 ltJg3 is also interesting) 9 . . . bxc6 10 iLg2 (10 fi)e4 f5 1 1 gxf6 fi)dxf6 12 fi)4g3 0-0 wasn't clear in Topalov-Leskovar, Ali­ cante 1992) 10 ... .i.xgS 11 0-0 .i.xcl 12 ,l;.xcl and White's superior develop­ ment gives him an edge. 6 a4 as 6 . . . iLe7 is a very reasonable altema-

tive, when White would probably use the same plan as in the game. 7 .i.e3 .i.e7 8 'ii' d 2 fi)a6 After 8 . . . fi)bd7 White would play 9 fi)g3, intending 10 fi)fS, after which 9 . . . fi)f8 10 0-0-0 is better for hi.In. 9 fi)c1 fi)b4 10 fi)b3 .i.e6 11 o-o-o 'ii' b8 It was also worth considering l 1.. . .i.xb3 12 cxb3 exd4, when 13 .i.xd4 d5 14 ..ti>bl dxe4 15 fxe4 is better for White because of his raking bishops and the weakness of Black's kingside. 12 dxes dxes 13 ltJcs 'i'cs Or 13 . . . .i.c8 14 "iff2, menacing 'i!Vg3 or 'ii'h4 in certain circumstances. 14 1i'f2 h4 After 14 . . .b6 15 fi)xe6 ii'xe6 16 b3 White follows' up with 17 .i.c4, when Black's position is deeply unpleasant. 15 b3

...

Intending to take on e6 and then play 16 iLc4. 15 fi)h 7 16 g3 ltJfS 17 .i.e2 .i.f6 18 :hg1 l:tbS 19 :d2 'flc7 The only way to avoid having this bishop is exchanged is to play 19 . . . .i.h3, but then 20 l:tgdl would follow. 20 :gd1 b6 21 fi)xe6 fi)xe6 22 .i.c4 fi)d4 •..

1 65

G a m b iteer 1

This looks like an impressive square for the knight, but it is immediately undermined. 23 f4 lLJdxc2 Or 23 . . . lllbxc2 24 f xe5 .txe5 25 �xd4 lll x d4 26 llxd4 ..ixd4 27 'ii'x d4 with two pieces for a rook. But now White comes crashing through with a sudden and deadly attack.

lllf6 :e6 3 8 'it'hB b4 3 9 'it'aB+ �C7 40 'ii'x a5+ @b7? A time-trouble mistake which shortens his resistance. But 40 . . . @c6 41 lll d 5 lll cxe4 42 lll xb4+ wouldn't have lasted much longer in any event. 41 'i'xc5 1-0 Game 5 7

G. Kaid anov-E.Kengis

G a u sd a l 1991 1 d 4 b 6 2 e 4 ..i b 7 3 .t d 3 e 6 4 tl)f3

24 l:td7! 'ii' xd7 2 5 l:txd7 @xd7 26 fxe5 lllx e3 27 exf6 lllxc4 Or if 27 . . . hxg3 28 1i'xg3 lll xc4 there follows 29 fxg7 lll e5 30 gxh8'i' .l::txh8 31 M ete. zs 'ii'f 5+ White must still be careful: after the careless 28 fxg7?? the reply 28 . . . lll d 3+ wins his queen. 28 ... @c7 29 fxg7 lll d 6 Or 29 ... lll d 3+ 30 'iiii b l lll c e5 31 gxh81i' :xh8 32 t!kf6 etc. 30 gxhB'ii' llxhB 31 'ii'f 6 :es 32 'ii' xh4 32 gxh4 is also very good - at this stage almost anything wins. 32 ... lLJd3+ 33 �cz lllc 5 34 'ii' h 7 White's plan is simply to queen the h-pawn. 34 ... b5 35 axb5 cxb5 36 lll d 5+ 'iiii c 6 37 166

4 ...c 5 Black has also tried the provocative 4 . . . g6, when 5 ..ig5 looks like the most dangerous reply; for example 5 . . . 'ii'c8 (5 .. .£6 6 .te3 �g7 7 h4 lll e 7 8 lll c3 lllbc6 9 a3 a6 10 'ii'd 2 h6 1 1 d5 lll e5 12 lll xe5 fxe5 13 dxe6 d6 14 lll d 5 led to a quick win for White in Wohlfart-Keckeisen, Goetzis 1997; and 5 . . . �e7 6 h4! d6 7 lllb d2 lll c 6 8 c3 lllf 6 9 1i'e2 llld7 10 .th6 .tf8 1 1 ..ig5 �e7 12 lll c4 h6 13 .tf4 �f6 14 h5 g5 15 .tg3 'i'e7 16 lll e3 was cer­ tainly pleasant for White at this stage in Gofshtein-McShane, Arco 2000) 6

T h e P s e u d o - P h i l i d o r a n d O t h e r D efe n c e s

t'LJc3 .i.g7 7 0-0 d6 8 llel t'LJd7 9 e5 d5 (9 . . . .i.xf3 10 1i'xf3 dxe5 is refuted by 1 1 i.a6!, and 9 . . . dxe5 1 0 l'LJxe5 i s none too pleasant either) · 10 a4 a6 (10 . . . L6 1 1 a5! .i.xd3 1 2 'i'xd3 i s also very good for White) 1 1 l'LJe2 l'LJe7 ( l l . . . h6 may well be the only move, as now Black never seems to get her head above water) 12 t'LJf4 l'LJc6 13 c3 a5 14 h4 h6 15 �f6 .i.xf6 16 exf6 t'LJxf 6 17 ..txg6 fxg6 18 l:xe6+ �f7 19 'i'd3 l:lg8 20 l:lael l'LJe4 21 l:lxe4 dxe4 22 'ifc4 1-0 E.Geller-Chiburdan­ idze, Aruba 1992. 5 c3 t'LJf6 6 es t'LJd s 7 dxcsl

I like the plan initiated by this move. White wants to follow up with a later c3-c4, seizing space in the centre. Maiwald-Miles, Ostend 1 991, was a good example of how stereotyped play may not achieve what White hopes, the game going on 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 a3 cxd4 9 cxd4 .i.a6 10 .i.xa6 t'LJxa6 1 1 "if d3 t'LJac7 12 t'LJbd2 0-0 13 l'LJe4 f6 14 exf6 gxf6 1 5 �d2 �h8 with a knight o n d 5 and the g-file for Black. 7 .i.xcs After 7 ... bxc5 White can bring a knight to c4, where it will make it diffi•••

cult for Black t o free himself without incurring weaknesses. Deep Fritz 7-CM 9000, computer game 2002, continued 8 0-0 i.e7 9 t'LJa3 t'LJc6 10 l'LJc4 1Vc7 1 1 llel 0-0 12 l'LJg5 h6 13 t'LJh7 l:lfe8 14 'i'g4 q;.h8 15 .i.xh6 gxh6 16 'i'h5 which fritz had worked out to a forced win. 8 o-o .i.e7 9 'iWez t'LJc6 10 c4 t'LJdb4 11 .i.e4 f 5 12 exf6 .i.xf6 13 t'LJc3

13 ..."ife7 This might be the only move to stay alive. After 13 . . . 0-0 White has, for ex­ ample, 14 a3 l'LJa6 15 "ifc2 h6 1 6 b4, when Black must try his luck in the line 16 ... t'LJcxb4 17 axb4 t'LJxb4 18 'i'b3 .i.xe4 19 l'LJxe4 .i.xal 20 'i'xb4. Frankly, I think that White's two minor pieces are better than the rook and two pawns, and he probably has other strong moves besides 16 b4. 14 a3 t'LJa6 15 t'LJbs d5 16 i.cz l:ldBI And not 16 . . . 0-0 because of 17 cxd5 exd5 18 "ifd3 etc. 17 cxd5 After 17 l:tel Black can hang on with 17 . . . dxc4 18 l'LJg5 l'LJc5!, which looks far from clear. 11 exds •••

167

Gam biteer 1

An interesting, but somewhat weird plan by Black, which Blatny plays quite frequently. He manages to delay put­ ting any pawns in the centre by attack­ ing the guy on d4.

18 J:r.e1 18 'iWxe7+ 0.xe7 19 .i.g5 looks as if it might be stronger, with White able to claim at least a small plus. 1s ... 'it'xe2 19 l:1xe2+ 'it>fB 20 0.gs 0.cs! 2 1 0.xh7+ l:txh7 2 2 .i.xh7 Yz-Yz The final position isn't clear after 22 ... a6 23 0.c7 'ifi>f7! (Kaidanov).

s c3 es 6 0.f 3 exd4 In view of the way the game goes, Black would be well advise to strong­ point e5 with 6 . . . d6. A good example of how to play such positions as White was 7 0-0 0.d7 8 a4 a5 (8 ... .i.e7 9 d5 0.cb8 10 a5 bxa5 was Shabalov-Blatny, New York rapid 2004, and now 1 1 0.bd2 0.c5 1 2 0.c4 would have been pretty good) 9 d5 0.e7 10 .i.b5 h6 1 1 tLlbd2 0.g6 1 2 b4 i.. e7 1 3 bxa5 l:1xa5 14 0.c4 .l:.a7 1 5 .i.e3 0-0 16 a5 and White had a clear advantage in Kamsky­ Blatny, New York (rapid) 2004. 7 0-0!

Game 5 8

V.Nevednichy-P .Blatny

B u d a pest 2000 1 e4 b6 2 d4 .i.b7 3 .i.d3 0.f6 4 "ii'e 2 0.c6!?

7 ...dxc3 White's last turned it into a kind of Danish, and it's an offer that Black can't refuse. After 7. . . .i.e7 White plays 8 e5 0.d5 (8 ... 0.g4 9 h3) 9 i.. e4 0.a5 10 b4 etc. 8 0.xc3 d6 9 i.. b s a6 10 .i.xc6+ .i.xc6 11 es .i.xf3 12 'ii'xf3 dxes 13 .i.gs .i.e7 14 l:tfd1 'i!fc8 1S i..x f6 i..xf6 16 'i!f c6+ 'it>JB 168

Th e Ps e u do - P h i l i d o r a n d O t h e r D efe n c es

Black is two pawns up, but he has lost castling rights. And now a white rook comes storming to the seventh. 17 l:td1 1We8 18 :ad1 There was a case for the immediate 18 �d5, when 18 . . . :d8 19 �xf6 gxf6 20 'ii'xf6 is good for White in a different way to the game. Now Black manages to cobble a defence together. 18 ... :c8 19 �ds 1We6 Bailing out into a worse, but tenable endgame. 20 1Wxe6 fxe6 21 �xc7 hS 22 �xe6+ 22 :1d6 also looks good, but Black can hang on with 22 . . . �g8. 22 ... 'it>g8 23 �C7 'it>h7

24 g3 With Black having a dark-squared bishop I'd prefer not to put pawns on dark squares. I think that 24 �fl may be better. 24 ... h4 2S :1d6 :hd8 26 :xd8 Or 26 �xa6 :xd7 27 :xd7 :c2, get­ ting in amongst the queenside pawns. 26 ....i.xd8 27 �dS 27 �e6 .i.f 6 28 :xb6 might have made it harder for Black. Now he man­ ages to scramble a draw, the pawn on h3 providing a source of counterplay. 21 ... h3 28 'it>f1 .i.gs 29 �c3 .i.c1 30 :xb6 .i.xb2 31 �e4 .i.c1 32 :xa6 l:tc4

33 f3 Hereabouts it looks like time trou­ ble was rearing its ugly head. 33 �d6 keeps some advantage. 33 :c2? 33 ... .i.h6 is a draw. 34 f4 g6? •••

And here 34 . . . �g8 35 fxe5 .i.e3 36 e6 �f8 was better. 3S �gs+? 35 fxe5 g5 36 e6 is a win. 3S ... 'it>h6 36 �xh 3 exf4 37 �xf4 .i.xf4 38 gxf4 'it>hs 39 a4 :xh2 40 :as+ 'it>g4 1 69

G o m biteer 1

41 �g1 :u Yz-Yz A tense and fluctuating struggle. But the opening was clearly very pleasant for White. Game 59

J.Jansen-A.Salil

Corresponde nce 1990 1 e4 b 6 2 d4 .tb7 3 .td3 fs? If 3 ... e6 was quite a good move, and 3 . . . lD£6 bad, then this one is the ugly. White has what seems to be an almost forced win, though he has to sacrifice some material to do it. 4 exfS I J.xg2 There's really nothing else for it but to go after the rook. s 1!Vh s+ g6 6 fxg6 .tg7 This is the only move, 6 . . . lDf6?? get­ ting mated after 7 gxh7+ lDxhS 8 i.g6. 1 'ii'fs ! This looks like the most effective way to play it. 7 gxh7+ 'itf8 8 lDe2 may also be good, but it's still quite messy.

7 ...lLJf6 After 7 . . . j_f6? 8 g7! .i.xg7 9 "it'g4 1 70

Black loses one of his bishops. 8 .i.h6 J.xh6 Instead, 8 ... 0-0 9 gxh7+ @h8 10 .i.xg7+ 'itxg7 11 'itg6+ @h8 1 2 "it'xg2 left White a piece up in Della Morte-Lopez, Villa Martelli 2000, and 8 . . . e6 9 'ifgS j_xh6 10 'i¥xg2 lDc6 1 1 gxh7 @e7 12 lDf3 lLJxh7 13 lLJh4 was strong in Ploder­ Weber, correspondence 1 988. 9 gxh7

9... .i.c1 After 9 . . . j_xhl 10 Vg6+ 'itf8 1 1 'ifxh6+ 'itf7 1 2 lDh3 Black's king won't last long; for example 12 . . .Vf8 13 j_g6+ @e6 14 Vf4 �dS (or 14 . . . dS lS .ifs+ 'itf7 16 lLJgS+ @e8 17 "it'xc7 1 -0 as in Broe­ der-Wegener, correspondence 1981) lS 1i'xc7 lDc6 (or 1S . . . �xd4 16 c3+ 'itdS 1 7 lLJ£4 mate, a s i n D.Mann-Nieuwoudt, correspondence 1997) 16 lDf4+ @xd4 1 7 c3+ @cs 1 8 t'll a 3 1 - 0 was Soellig­ Grajetzky, correspondence 199S. It's actually quite surprising to see so many correspondence players repeat­ ing this king hunt as Black, especially when one considers the lengthy amount of time allowed for thought! 9 . . . 'itf8 doesn't help Black either, as

Th e P s e u d o - P h i l i d o r a n d O t h e r D efe n ces

after 10 'ifg6 �gs 1 1 'it'xg5 �xhl 1 2 1Wh6+ �f7 1 3 lLlh3 we transpose into 9 . . . .txhl, albeit a move behind. 10 1i'g6+ 'itfS 11. 1Wxg2 .ixb2 12 lL!e2 e6 12 . . . eS doesn't make much differ­ ence as White plays 13 llgl anyway. 13 :g1 c:J;e7 14 'i!VxaS lL!c6 15 1i'xd8+

I tend t o think that the main point behind this move is to raise White's blood pressure. Similarly there is l . . .h6, nicknamed 'The Borg' ( i.e. reversed G­ R-0-B) by Mike Basman. A good set-up for White is just to refuse to be pro­ voked, 2 d4 g5 3 .td3 d6 4 tll e2

c.i;ixd8 16 llg7

Black is sort of restoring material equality, at least on the piece front. But he remains a pawn down, and it hap­ pens to be that guy on h7. 16 lL!e7 17 lL!d2 .txa1 1s lLlf3 'ites 19 lLle5 lLlf5 20 .txf5 exf5 21 lL!xd71 A piece goes. Amazingly Black keeps playing, but perhaps his postage costs received government support. 21 ... lL!xh7 22 lhh7 lhh7 23 lLlf6+ c;tf7 24 lL!xh7 .tb2 2 5 lLlg5+ c,i;it6 26 h4 .ta3 27 'itd2 .td6 2 8 C4 'itg6 29 f 4 'ith5 30 c:J;e3 c:J;xh4 31 lL!f7 .t f 8 1-0 •••

4 . . . c5 5 c3 lLlf6 6 0-0 tlic6 7 c.i;ihl .tg4 8 f3 .thS 9 .te3 e6 10 tll d 2 proving very good for White in D.Bryson-Basman, Scottish Ch., Troon 1986. 2 d4 b5 3 tllf3 .ib7 4 .id3 tllf6 5 'i!Ve2 e6 6 a4 C 5

Game 6 o D.Volovik-V.A.Kozlov

USSR 1987

Black has also played the immediate 6 . . b4, but this should transpose back into the main game after 7 tll b d2 c5 8 .

1 e4 a6

1 71

Gam biteer 1

dxc5 .i.xc5 9 e5. Instead, 7 . . . d5 8 0-0 dxe4 9 l'LJxe4 brings about a kind of Rubinstein French in which Black has used time weakening his queenside, while 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 'Llbd7 9 a5 c5 10 e5 put Black in hot water in Drasko­ Krstevski, Star Doiran 1995. 7 dxcs A similar plan to the one used in Kaidanov-Kengis (Game 57), White opening the position for his pieces. Af­ ter 7 c3 Black can play 7 . . . 'Llc6 (7. . . c4! ? 8 .i.c2 d5 is also worth considering) 8 0-0 cxd4 9 axb5 axb5 10 :xa8 ti'xa8 and Black is getting counterplay. 1 . .i.xcs 7 . . . b4 8 'Llbd2 i.xc5 9 e5 would again transpose back into the game. ..

( 1 2 . . . i.e7 13 'Llfg5+ is also winning) 1 3 t'LJfg5+ �g6 14 h 4 .ixc3+ 1 5 bxc3 fxe4 1 6 h5+ 'iltf5 1 -0. 9 es t'LJds 10 'Lle4 .ie7 In

the game TimmermannDiederich, Neumuenster 2000, Black chose 1 0 . . . °iib6, but after 11 a5 'it"c6 12 'Llxc5 'it"xc5 1 3 'Llg5 White's threats in­ cluded 14 'Lle4 followed by 15 'Lld6+. 11 .i.gs! An important improvement which should catch people hoping to emulate Miles' s great victory over Karpov from Skara 1980 (Karpov played 1 1 0-0? ! ) . Black can't take the bishop because of the check on d6, so his choices are rather limited.

11 .. 0-0 The only other decent move is 1 l . . .f6, but after 12 exf6 'Llxf6 (not 12 . . . gxf6? 13 l'LJe5!) 13 1'.xf6 gxf6 (as in Sklavounos-Botsari, Komotini 1992), White could get a strong attack with 1 4 'Llh4! 'it"a5 1 5 t'LJf5! exf5 1 6 'Lld6+ �f8 17 'Llxb7 'it"c7 1 8 0-0-0 'i'xb7 1 9 :l.hel l'LJc6 20 'it°h5 etc . 12 t'LJd6 .i.c6 12 ... 'it°c7? is very bad because of 13 .

8 t'LJbd2 It's nice to keep the option of cas­ tling long, which is one good reason for preferring this move to 8 0-0. 8 ... b4 After 8 . . . 0-0 White can play a Greek bishop sacrifice with 9 e5 l'LJd5 1 0 .i.xh7+!, the game Coelho-Benares d e sa Leitao, Santos 2000, concluding 10 . . . @xh7 1 1 'Lle4 .i.b4+ 12 c3 f5 1 72

The P s e u d o - P h i l i d o r a n d O t h e r D efe n c e s

ltJxb7 1i'xb7 14 1i'e4 etc; but Black could well consider 12 . . . .txg5 13 tl:ixb7 1i'e7. White would be better in this position after 14 g3, JJut it would still be a fight. 13 h41? Another good line is 1 3 .txe7 1i'xe7 14 1i'e4, when 14 .. .£5 (14 . . . g6 may be relatively best) 15 1i'd4 g5 16 0-0-0 was quite good for White in Sakai­ N .Cummings, correspondence 2002.

1s ...fxgs? Folding under the pressure. It wouldn't help Black to play 1 5 .. . fxe5 as after 16 i.xh7+ �xh7 (or 16 ... 'iPg7 17 'iih.5 ) 1 7 "ti'h5+ �g8 1 8 'ii'g 6+ �h8 19 .th6 .tf6 20 .txf8 'i'xf8 21 tl:if7+ he loses his queen. But 15 . . . .txd6 16 .txh7+! �g7! (16 . . . �xh7? 17 1i'h5+ �g8 18 1i'g6+ �h8 19 .th6 1i'e7 20 .txf8 'ii'xf8 21 tl:if7+ wins the queen) is a much tougher nut to crack, the best being 17 "ilfu5 .txe5 1 8 .th6+ Wxh7 1 9 .td2+ �g7 2 0 .th6+ with a disappointing draw. 16 'ii'h s !Us After 16 . . . tl:if6 there follows 1 7 �xg5+ �h8 1 8 tl:ief7+ .:Xf7 1 9 tl:ixf7 mate. 11 .i.xfs e�s Or if 17 . . . tl:if6 18 .txh7+! ! tl:ixh7 1 9 �g6+ �h8 20 tl:ief7 mate. 18 1i'f7+ 'it>hB 19 tl:ig6+1 1-0

13 ...f6 14 exf61? Playing for mate. 1 4 'it"e4 is also not bad, but Black could defend himself with 1 4 . . .£5. 14 ... gxf6? And this lets White achieve his aim in rather spectacular style. Black had to play 14 . . .tl:ixf6, when both 15 tl:ie4 and 1 5 tlJc4 seem promising for White, whose pieces are very active. 15 tl:iesl? 15 1i'e4 was objectively stronger, but the text sets in motion an inspired combinative sequence.

19 . . .hxg6 20 hxg5 mate is the beauti­ ful point. A truly spectacular game with which to finish this volume.

1 73

G a m biteer 1

Summary The plan used in Sax-Nevednichy (Game 56) is a good way of handling all the 'Pseudo-Philidor' lines and I'm surprised that it isn't more popular. Against l . . .b6 the plans presented seem to give White good prospects, though Black can block the position up if he plays like Blatny and then goes 6 . . . d6. We can't always get open positions with White, even with an approach as aggressive as the one pre­ sented in this book. 1 e4 b6 l . . . d6 2 d4 �f6 3 �c3 eS (0) l . . .a6 (0) Game 60 1 . . h6 - notes to Game 60 2 d4 �b7 3 1'.d3 (0) 3 . . . e6 Game 57 3 ... �f6 Game 58 3 .. .£5 Game 59

-

Game 56

-

.

-

-

-

3 es ...

1 74

J

•••

a6

I

I ndex of Com plete G a m e s

Subotica (simul) 1930 . Alekhine.A-Pomar Salamanca.A, Madrid (simul) 1 943 . . Ardelean.G-Miljanic.B, Bucharest 2000 .. Balaskas.P-Korou.L, Nikea 2000 .. ... Bronstein.D-B enko.P, Budapest 1949 . . . .. . ... . Bronstein.D-COMP Chess Master 4000, AEGON, The Hague 1995 Bryson.D- Sorri.J, Correspondence 1987 . Campora.D-Wockenfuss.K, Amsterdam 1985 . . Capablanca.J-Michelsen.E, New York 1910 . . . Chapman.M-S olomon.S, Melbourne 2002 . . Davies.N-'IBA', Internet (blitz) 2005 .. . . . . Alekhine.A-Kohn,

.......... ............. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . ....................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

. . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

..

.

...

...

. . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . ................

.

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . . . .

...

.

60 62 77

144 19

. . . . . . . . . .

8 . 41 156

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

....

..

.

. . . ...............

......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .........

. . . .. .

...

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 65 37

Internet (blitz) 2005 .. 35 Oslo 1 988 . . . . 152 Davies.N-Pieterse.G, Ramat Hasharon 1991 ... .. . 94 Dolgov-Anohin, Leningrad 1988 . 55 Fluvia Poyatos.J-Grischuk.A, World Junior Ch., Oropesa del Mar 1998 47 Gallagher.J-Tukmakov.V, Geneva 1994 . . . . 1 08 Ghizda vu.D-Dake.A, Lone Pine 1975 . . . .. . 46 53 Ginzburg.M-Slipak.S, Argentine Championship, Buenos Aires 1998 Glek.1-Heck.N, Willingen 2001 .. .. . 131 Golubovic.B-Petrovic.Si, Croatian Championship, Zagreb 2002 84 Grabinsky.V-Sharevich.A, Russian Cup, St Petersburg 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Hansen.Cu-Todorcevic.M, Rome 1988 . . . . . .. 140 Haub.T-Lukov.V, Giessen 1 994 12 Hiibner. R-Ghizdavu.D, World Student Team Championship, Graz 1972 1 12 Davies.N-'Milorad',

Davies.N-Ostenstad.B,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

. . . . . . . ...... ..............

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. .

.

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . ........

. . . . . . . .

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ......

. . . . .

.. . . . . .. ..........

.

..

. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

.........

.

. . . .

.

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...

.

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...

1 75

G a m b i tee r 1

Illesca s Cordob a.M-G urevich.M1 Mad rid (rapi d) 1988 Jan sen.J-Sali LA1 Correspondence 199 0 Kaidanov.G-Kengis.E, Gausdal 1991 Kere s.P-L arsen.B , Stockholm 1966 Keres.P-Miken as.V1 Tbilisi 1946 Keres.P-Schmid.1 1 Zurich 1961

.

. .. ... ..... ..... .........

....

.

.. ............ ..... .... .... .......

..... ......................

.

.

...

. ....... ......... ...................

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

.

.

.. .... .... .

................. ........... .... ............................... .......

.. ...........

.............................. .......................... ...

. .

.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kna ak.R-Espig.L , East German Championship, Gorlitz 1972 Lutikov.A-G avrilov.N, USSR 1973 Mariotti.S-Holm.51 Bu dapest 1975

..........

...

..... . ...

13 4

170

1 66

159 1 61

116

122

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marshall.F-Heinemann.C1 Marshall Chess Club, New York 1942 .

...... .... ....... ........ ........................... .... ...............

Martens.M-Romero Holmes.A, Wijk aa n Zee 1991 Men.B-Shab a lov.A1 Pittsburgh 1994

.. ......

.

.

.

. ...... .... .....

. .... ... ..... ....... .

Milner Barry.P.S- Van den Bosch.J1 England-Holl and (match) 1949

32

15

81

12 4

. ...........

. ............... ......... . . . . . ...... ...... ...... .. .... ..... . . . . . . .

91

14 6

Murey. J-Kelecevic.N1 Zurich 1991.. .. ..... ........ .... .. ..... .... ......... .... .... ... ............ ........ 9 7 . .... ..... . . .

Muzychuk.A-Tairova .E, European Juni or Championship, Urgup 2004 Nevednichy.V-Bl atny.P, Budapest 2000 Oral.T-Pri bylJ, Pardubic e 2002

Ora lT-Sergeev. V1 Czec h League 2005 .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

..

Piay Augusto.D-Leite.C1 Poio 2002

.......

R adulov.1-S tefanov.K, Elenite 1986

..

......

.

.....

.

.

.

.............. ............. .........

..................

.

......................

............ .........

.

........ ...

.

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ros setto.H-Iliesco. J, M a r del Pl ata 1943

. ....... ......... ....... ............

... ............ .... .... ..... ....... ..... ....

...... .....

. ..... ....

.

. .......... ....

. .

.

.

. .

. .. . . . . .

. ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Zvjaginsev.V-Kharitonov.A1 Tomsk 2006

.... ....... ..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Westerinen.H-Pinol Fulgoni.F1 Gausd al 2004 Yemelin. V-Ke skel.M1 Tallinn 2001

.

.

.................. ...... ......... ...

............ ... ...... ... .

74

58

13 7

.... ............................ ...... ........... .....

Velimirovic.D-Davies.N 1 Vrnjac k a Banja 199 1

25

104

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V a a ssen.J-Lambooy.J1 Correspondence 1993

13

71

164

.. ..... .... ....

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tate.E-Chipkin.11 New York Open 1995

Volovik.D-Kozlov.V.A1 USSR 1987

.

................. ..... .... .... ......

83

118 150

........ ..... . . . .

.. ................. ...... ....... .... ... .... ..... ..........

Smagin.S-Summerscale.A1 Nimes 1991

1 76

.

.

. ........

67

12 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sa x.G-Nevednichy.V1 Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993 Scherbakov.R-Da s.A1 Pune 2004

128

.............. ...... ....... ........ ....................

Romero Holmes.A-P acheco.J1 Portuguese Team Championship 1998 Sa lmen suu.O-L alic.B1 Groningen 1999

12 6

.............

.. ..... ........ .............................. ..... ..................

Rahl s.P-Heinsohn.M1 German League 1999 Richter.K-Foltys.J1 Munich 1942

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

30

168

.........

..... ..... . . . . . . . ......... ....... ......... . . . . . . . . . .........

171

13 5 148

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89