Sunteți pe pagina 1din 128

Vienna Game

IIIE TOURNAMENT PLAYER'S REPERTOIRE OF OPENINGS Series edited by R.D.Keene OBE

Vienna Game

ALEXANDER

KONSTANTINOPOLSKY

VLADIMIR

LEPESHKIN

Translated by Eric Schiller

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1986 © Alexander Konstantinopolsky, Vladimir Lepesbkin

1986

ISBN 0 7134 3615 8(limp)

Photoset by Andek Printing, London

and printed in Great Britain by Billing & Son Ltd, London and Worcester, for the publishers

B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, OBE

Technical Editor: P.A.Lamford

13

39

Contents

Translator's Preface Symbols and Abbreviations Preface

Introduction

PART ONE Alternatives to 2 •.• ltJf6

1

2

lLlc3 �c5 3 �c4 d6

2

Gambit Lines: 2 ltJc3 lbc6 3 f4 ef

3

2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 �c4 �c5

PART TWO Main Lines and Bishop's Opening

4

2

lLlc3 ltJf6 3 f4 d5

5

2 lLlc3 ltJf6 3 �c4 lLlxe4 4 'flh5 lLld6

6

5 �b3 lLlc6 6 lLlb5 - Introduction

7

5 �b3 lbc6 6 ltJb5 - Main Line

8

2 ltJc3 ltJf6 3 �c4

9

2 ltJc3 ltJf6 3 .i.c4 lbc6

10

2

ltJc3 lLlf6 3 �c4 lbc6 4 d3

Vlll

.
.

lX

1

16

21

24

36

42

56

65

73

PART THREE Fianchetto Systems

12

2

liJc3 liJf6 3 g3 d5

95

13

2 liJc3 liJf6 3 g3 - Miscellaneous

100

14

2 liJc3 liJc6 3 g3

111

Index of Variations

117

Translator's Preface

The authors strove to include all relevant material through November 15 1982. I have updated the material to include all meaningful games in my possession as at 31 March 1985. In addition, some historical material has been added where appropriate. Tim Harding's Vienna Opening (The Chess Player, 1976) was consulted on historical points and for obscure Western references which might not have been available to the authors. Evaluations of positions are credited where taken from an annotated source. In the rare cases where I have ventured my own opinion this is clearly indicated. It has been my pleasure to translate the work of the distinguished Soviet theoreticians A.M.Konstantinopolsky and V.F.Lepeshkin. I would like to thank US National Master Billy Colias for his assitance in checking the manuscript and George Szaszvari for proofreading the typeset copy.

Eric Schiller May 1985

Symbols and Abbreviations

+

±

-

±+

±±

=

+

++

check slight advantage clear advantage winning advantage

level position

level position

00

unclear position

'

good move

"

outstanding move

!?

interesting move

?f

dubious move

••

?

weak move

??

blunder

corres

correspondence

01

Olympiad

IZ

Interzonal

z

Zonal

L

League

Ch

Championship

tr.

translator

ed

editor

Preface

This work deals with the contemporary status of the Vienna Game and selected variations of other openings which may transpose into the Vienna Game. Our attention is focused primarily on the currently

fashionable lines as at 15 November 1982. The theory of the openings can be compared with a living organism, undergoing constant evolution. Obsolete parts are replaced by new ones.

Evaluations change and variations move in and out of fashion. As we worked on the book, we managed to correct a number of errors which have survived in the published literature. We eagerly await the new developments which are sure to appear in our readers' games.

Introduction

The perfection of contemporary chess technique has led to new demands being placed on the opening. One can rarely over­ whelm one's opponent in the early stage of the game, build up an unstoppable attack or reap material gain, without a major error on the part of the opponent. When one player aims at such goals, in gambits, for example, then things usually turn out badly for him after correct counterplay. In contemporary openings the struggle has taken on a more subtle form, involving the rein­ forcement of one's position, with the long-term goal of maintaining an opening initiative in order to exploit the tiniest weaknesses in the opponent's defences. This has led to the popularity of the Closed and Semi-closed openings. The Open Games, which dominated (with a few exceptions) the first 400 years of the develop-

ment of chess theory, gradually gave way to these newcomers. It seems that the positional school has eclipsed the Gambit systems, but in the contemporary interpretation of the Open Games (leaving aside the Spanish Game for the moment) all seem to have gradually headed towards com­ plicated strategical battles. The recent re-working of the variations has enabled White to create good chances, and Black now has to work just as hard to equalise as he does in the Closed Games. The Open Games, having fallen behind, are abandoning the bold thrust d4 in favour of the more cautious d3, taking on more of the quality of positional openings. It is no accident that the Open Games are being seen more often in tournament play. The Vienna Game occupies a significant place, joined by a form of the Bishop's Opening, which can be reached via

2

Introduction

a number of move orders, the Two Knights', the Italian Game and the King's Gambit Declined. The Vienna Game was researched in the middle of the 19th Century by Viennese chessplayers, in par­ ticular K.Hamppe, and this has led

to the naming of the opening after

that city. Hamppe was credited individually with the development

of one of the gambit lines - the

Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit.

In an article The ideas of the .Vienna Game (Chess vol 7, 1928),

the distinguished grandmaster and well-known gambiteerRudolf Spielmann wrote: "What is the

thinking behind the Vienna Game? What fundamental strategic plan is White trying to carry out? With the move l0c3 White first of all is strengthening the pillar of his centre, the pawn on e4, eo that at an appropriate moment he can launch an attack on the flank with f4. I would call the Vienna Game an attempt to play an improved form of the King's Gambit, without permitting Black to choose

a defensive scheme which is

unfavourable for White. Attacks are not undertaken hastily but are thoroughly prepared, presenting White with excellent chances. The promise of the Vienna Game per­ sists even though strong counter­ play has been found for Black in some lines. I wouldn't be surprised,

though, to find much new material for White, if one gives up the groundless fear of Open Games, or, to put it better perhaps, 'the fear of combinations in general', and devotes to it (as well as to several other openings which are lying on the shelf) the same degree of loving attention as the Closed Games receive. Without doubt, Spielmann was in his day the leading advocate of the Vienna Game. The following two miniatures will clearlydemon­ strate the romantic style of the Shining Knight ofthe Open Game.

Spielmann-Fiamberg Mannheim 1914

3 f4 d5 4 fe

1

lbxe4 5 lbf3 �g4 6 We2 lbc5 7 d4

lbe6!) 8 1fxf3 'tlfh4+?

�xf3 (7

e4 e5

2 lbc3

lbf6

9 g3 Wxd4 10 .ie3 W'xe5 11 c6 (1)

1 w
1
w

12 lbxd5! cd 13 liixd5 11re6 14 .ic4 •e4 1 S .i.xcS 1-0.

Introduction

3

Spielmann-Vidmar Semmering 1926

I e4 e5 2 lbc3 lbf6 3 f4 d5 4 fe lbxe4 5 lbf3 -'.b4 6 1fre2 -'.xc3 7be 0-0 8 \!Ve3 lbc6 9 �d3 f5 10 0-0 f4

II

1We2 lOgS

12

�a3 lbxf3+

13

1i'xf3 IU7 14 liael g5 15 e6 Itg7 16

'Wh5 lbe7 17 j.c5 lDc6 18 e7lbxe7 19 J.xe7 l-0.

Consider the interesting charac­ terisation of Spielmann given by Richard Reti in his Contemporary

Manual of Chess.

"He is the last bard of gambit

play, in part he has tried to breathe new life into the King's Gambit. Now we can already try to look at Spielmann's achievements in historical perspective. He has excellent tools for the realisa­

tion of his questions - possessing not only great c.ombinational gifts and imagination, but also a pro­ found understanding of compli­ cated positions, by means of which

he has been able to overcome chess­ players (such as Capablanca) even as a child. "From this it is quite clear that he has achieved successes even

when his attempts met with disaster. The best of his results

were obtained against weak oppo­ sition, who went astray in compli­ cated positions. The games which he won in his old age were quite

interesting, but not particularly impressive, and he never attracted

many followers. With the passing of time his bold attacks have become more and more diluted with boring prudence. "The old style has disappeared,

never to return, but Spielmann will be noted by history as the last Romantic."

The tremendous amount of effort Spielmann put into the

theory and practice of the Vienna Game must not be undervalued. Many of his ideas retain their vitality even today.

What changes have taken place in the theory of the Vienna Game? How correct was Spielmann's prog­ nosis that new ideas will be found in the various lines of this opening?

We will attempt to answer these questions in the chapters that follow. This book consists of four

parts. In the first part we examine

the positions after 1 e4 e5 2 lbc3 where Black declines from the

main continuation 2

takes up one of the (at present)

lbf6 and

rarer replies 2

lbc6.

.tc5 and 2

We have managed to defend the Steinitz Gambit, the ingenious invention of the first World Champion, shown to advantage in

the following game.

4

Introduction

Steinitz-Zukertort 19th Match Game 1886

1 e4 e5 2 �c3 �c6 3 f4 ef 4 d4 d5 5 ed 1fh4+ 6 �e2 1re7+ 7 �f2 tlb4+ 8 g3 fg+ 9 �g2 �xd4 10 hg

1fg4 1 1 1fe 1+

e7 12

f5 13

�0

14

f6 15 �e4 �gh6

16

�xh6 17 llxh6 gh 18

�xf6+ ¢'f8 19 �xg4 1-0.

Contemporary theory considers this gambit incorrect for White in view of the possibilities for Black to exploit the exposed position of the White king. Thus, forexample, ECO gives the following variation:

clear that the Steinitz Gambit deserves a great deal of respect and consideration. On the other hand, we have found convincing variationswhich support the evalua�ion of the Pirs and Hamppe-Allgaier Gambits as incorrect. Recent work by Glazkov and Estrin has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the second part of the book we consider the contemporary handling of the Vienna Game with

2

�f6. A considerable portion

of this work will be devoted to the Vienna Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 c3 f6 3 f4 d5). It is because of this

4

7

1rh4+ 5 �e2 d6! 6 �f3

approach that the Vienna Game

0-0-0 8 �e3 tfh5 9

g5

has lost its former popularity.

10 �xg5 �f6 11 h3

with

Here our achievements are more

advantage to Black, Barle-Portisch, Portoroz-Ljubljana 1975.

modest. Supporting Spielmann's opinion

But instead of 11 h3 stronger is 11 lift ! (2)

2 B
2
B

after 4 fe �xe4 that "in answer to

5 �0 the position quickly becomes

untangled after Breyer's continu­

ation 5

leads in our time not to 6 d4 0-0 7 .id3 f5 8 ef .txf6, with mere equa­

lity, but to a position which holds better prospects for Black after

6

against 6 1i'f3, a move which was

once quite popular but which is no longer frequently seen, using 5 f5 6 d3 �xc3 7 be d4 8 Wg3 �c6

Black can equalise

this variation

Doubtless the above position

9

.te6, followed by

t!fe7,

will be the subject of considerable

and

.tc5, or

0-0-0.

attention, but it is already quite

Spielmann proposed that after

Introduction

5

.te7

.tb7

I e4 e5 2 l0c3 l0f6 3 f4 d5 4 fe l0xe4 White should choose neither 5 Wf3 nor 5 l0f3. He also gave a negative review to 5 d3. But recently it is just this variation which has been widely adopted. Here is one of the games which gave new impetus to the systems with 5 d3 which have not found their way onto the pages of popular chess literature.

Knox-Webb British Ch 1974

I e4 e5 2 l0c3 l0f6 3 f4 d5 4 fe

l0xe4 5 d3 l0xc3 6 be d4 7 l0f3 c5

i.e6

8 i.e2 l0c6 9 0-0 h6 10

II llbl Wc7 12 a4 b6 13 cd cd

14 c4 i.c5 lS i.f4 gS 16i.g3 0-0-0

el

17

l0d2 hS 18 h3 g4 19 h4 i.b4

20

'ttcl i.xd2 21 tfxd2 l0a5 22

lilfcl l0b7 23 �h2 lld7 24 llbS 'ird8 2S aS lOcS 26 ab ab 27 11t'b4 litb7 28 llb11!fc729 lixb6lixb630 1Vxb6 't!Vxb631 llxb6 �c7 32 lld6 lita8 33 lhd4 lia2 34 .tfl lld2 35 llf4 l0xd3 36 lld4 i.fS 37 e6+ 1-0.

We hope that in future more

attention will be paid to the

system s lt,)f3

Janosevic is an enthusiastic prac- titioner of the line. Here is one of

his recent encounters.

6

1!fe2.

I

Janohvic·Apbuchl Biel 1981

e4 e5

2

l0c3

l0f6 3

f4 dS

4

fe

l0xe4 5 lOD J.e7 6 'tt e2 fS 7 d3 l0c5 8 lObS 0--0 9 h4 c6 lO l0bd4

g3 l07e6 13

l0xe6 l0xe6 14 d4 b5 1S 0-0-0 b4

16 �bl aS 17 'W'd2 .ta6 18 lOgS J.xg5 19 .txg5 l0xg5 20 hg J.xfl 21 'tth2 .tbS 22 1Wxh7+ �f7 23 e6+ �e8 24 \!fg6+ 1-0.

l0ba6 11 .tf4 l0c7 12

As regards the variation 1 e4 e5 2 l0c3 l0f6 3 i.c4, Spielmann put it bluntly: "That 3 i.c4 gives nothing is shown in all textbooks, which conclude that after the temporary sacrifice of the knight

(3

l0xe4) Black equalises

comfortably." This assessment has been supported by later praxis

and theoretical investigation. The following game was of great importance to the theory of the Vienna Game, and it was widely published.

Hansen-Nunn World Junior Championship Teesside 1974

1

e4

2

l0c3

3

i.c4

4

1!fh5

5

J.b3

6

lObS

7

1!1f3

8

'i!fdS

9

l0xc7 +

10

l0xa8

11

d3

eS

l0f6

l0xe4

l0d6

l0c6

g6

fS

1We7

8

b 6

It

/Hitllf/IWIIIIII

ll h4 f4 slightly better. l.l 1tf3 .tb6! (3) 14 e4! 15 .txf4 ed+ .I
ll
h4
f4
slightly better.
l.l
1tf3
.tb6! (3)
14
e4!
15
.txf4
ed+
.I
u
w
Not
16
�d1 l0e5!
17
.txe5
Wxe5 18 c3 lle8 H.
1()
.txf4
•••
17
1!fxf4
lU8
18
't!fg3
Or 18 Wg5 llxf2 19 �xf2l0e4+
20 �fl l0xg5 21 hg lOeS 22 cd
1Vf8+ 23 �e1 hg2 H.

Or 13

l0d4 14 1!fg4 .ih6.

18

l0e4!

14

1!fg4?

19

1!fc7+

�e8

Better was 14 i.d5 .txa8 (14

20

l0h3

l0d4 15 .i.xb7l0xf3+ 16 .txf3 and

20 f3? Wc5 H. Black also wins

now

not 16

e4? 17 de l0xe4 18

on 20 l0f3 Wc5 21 �g1

IIxf3 22

l0e2 d5 19 0-01Wb7 20 .txf4 .txf4

�h21Wh5! 23 gf(23 llfel l0e5 H)

21

l0xf4 tha8 22 l0xd5 ±± but

23

't!t'xh4+ 24 �g2 9xf2+ 25

16

l0f5 17 c3 l0xh4 18 .te4

�h3 lOgS+ 26 \tig4 1!rg2+ 27 Wg3

.i.g5) 15 Wg4! (Better than 15 c3?

ltJe5+ 28

�4 Wd2+ and 29

lle8 16 l0e2 e4 17 .txe4 l0xe4 18

We3+.

de l0d4! 19 l0xd4 .txe4 20 \!fe2

20

de l0d4! 19 l0xd4 .txe4 20 \!fe2 20 lOxfl

lOxfl

hg2 H or 18 111xe4 1td6 19 'ifc4

21

lOxfl

'tlfe2+

tOeS H. 16 .te4 is no better for

22

\tigl

9xfl+

White: 16

l0d4! 17 cd l0xe4 18

23

�h2

ttxh4+

de ed 19 �1 .txe4 20 �el .td3+

24

�gl

'tl'd4+

H or 18 l0e2 tfb4+ H) and

e4

because of 16 .txf4 ed+ 17 �1 tOeS

now Black cannot play 15

18 .txe5 tfxe5 19 .txa8 Wxb2 20

25

26

\tib2

llhfl

tOeS

26 llfe1 leads to mate after 26

9h4+ 27 \tig1 Wf2+ 28 �h2 Wxg2.

lle 1 d2 21 lld 1 ±±. This leaves

26

l0g4+

15

lit'S! 16 l0e2 e4 17 .txf4

27

�g3

.txf4 18l0xf4 and now it is White who must be careful because 19

.txc6 20 l0e2

.txc6? allows 19

On 27 �hl Black wins with 27 .txg2+! 28 \tixg2l0e3+ 29 \tih1

111e4+, while 27 �h3 fails to 27

ed 21 cd lle8 =F. After 19 tfg5!

.txg2+ 28

�g3

.txfl

29 lie1+

\txg5 20 hg lixf4 Black is only

.te2 H.

Introduction

7

 

27

1te3+

 

This brilliant success added to

28

�xg4

the authority of the continuation

Or 28 h4 't!fh6+ 29 �g4 Wli5+ 30 �g3 1!f'g5+ 31 �h3 'Wxg2+ 32 h4 g5+ 33 h5 9h3+ 34 �xg5 h6+ 35 �g6 .i.e4+ 36 �g7 \tg4+.

lDxe4, and the number of

games by well-known players using the exchange sacrifice ·in­ creased after 1974. Nevertheless in

with 3

 

28

h5+

this complicated variation there

 

28

9e2+! would have been

are several unclear moments, and

more efficient.

 

the authors have put a lot of time

 

29

�h4

g5+

into the analysis of these variations.

29

Black could also have chosen 1i'e4+ 30 �g5 •e7+.

Our results will be set forth in the second part of the book. Our

 

30

�xh5

llh8+

 

general conclusion is that the

31

�g6

move order 1 e4 e5 2 lDc3 lDf6

 

Too

late

for

retreat:

31

�g4

3 .i.c4 is fully playable, and that

llh4+

32

�f5

1le4+

33

�xg5

White can survive in all the

llg4+.

 

exchange sacrifice lines. To Nunn's

31

•••

i.e4+

 

13

i.h6 we recommend 14 i.d2

32

llf5

(4)

Neither 32 f6 llf8+ 33 �g7 'Wd4+ nor 32 �g7 'ttd4+ 33 llf6 llh7+ 34 �g8 tfxf6 =FF bring White any relief.

4 B 32 .i.xf5+ 33 �xf5 llf8+ 34 �g6 @d4+ 35 34 'ti'e4+
4
B
32
.i.xf5+
33
�xf5
llf8+
34
�g6
@d4+ 35
34
'ti'e4+

Again there is no looking back.

If 34 �g4 Black has 34 �h5 'tth8+.

35 �g7

'@e7+

36 �g6

1i'f6+

Secured by analysis, the move order can be kept in circulation. Now many additional opportunities open up for White. We then look into transpositions into variations of the King's Gambit Declined. Emanuel Lasker

37 '\t>h5

ttfh8+

38 �g4

Or 38 �g6 lif6+ 39 �xg5 ttfg7+.

38

'Wh4 mate

Notes by John Nunn in The

Chess Player.

8

Introduction

c4

c4

himself remarked that "Black can

6

i.g4

7

tba4

successfully defend, although the f4 pawn, which Black scorned earlier, will put pressure on the

centre."

Spielmann achieved a number of excellent results with this variation.

7

ef

In the light of contemporary positional considerations (White

8

lDxcS

de

is

not obliged to play for mate), we

9

i.xf4

ife7

show that such a metamorphosis of the Vienna Game has a right to

a future. To demonstrate this we

present the following game where Spielmann achieved a transposi­ tion to the King's Gambit Declined, using his own move order.

Spielmann-Perlis Match, Vienna 1910

1

2

3

4

s

e4

d3

lDc3

f4

eS

lDf6

�cs

d6

lbc6

6 lDf3 (5)

5 B
5
B

The game Spielmann-Schlechter, Ostend 1906, which saw the exact same order of moves, continued

9

lDh5 10 i.e3 0-0 ll 0-0 tOeS 12 !Dxe5 i.xdl 13 lDxf7 lixf7 14 i.xf7+ �h8 15 Haxd l !Df6 16 �xc5 b6 17 i.f2 lDg4 18 i.d5 c6 19 �xe6 lDxf2 20 llxf2 \!fd4 21 c3 t!fe3 22 �1 g6 23 Hf3 Wh6 24 h3

IIe8 25 i.d7 l'iif8 26 i.g4 �g7 27

d4? (better 27 �e2) 27

lilxf8 xf8 29 �f3 c:tle7 30 e5 d7 31 e6+ c:3;e7 32 i.xc6 1ff4+ 33 �e2

�xe6 Y2-Y2.

1fe3 28

10

11

12

13

14

i.bS

i.xc6

0-0

1!rd2

eS

0-0

be

lifd8

!DdS

15

16

17

18

19

If 19

lhd4 21

i.

gS

ef

llae1

d4

!DeS

f6

lDxf6

'tileS+

1fd6

i.hS

@xd4+ then 20 'it'xd4

i.xf6 and

c3

IIe4 22

White wins.

So we have reached one of the

20

l'iif4

IIf8

primary tobias of the King's

21 lDxc4

"ifdS

Gambit Declined.

22 i.xf6

'it'xc4

Introduction

9

Or 22

gf 23

!De3

±.

23

b3!

9a6

24

.ieS

lhf4

25

'ttxf4

.ig6

26

.ixg7

'tlfxa2

27

.ih6

'tWaS

28

lUl

1-0

The following chapter is given over to analysis of the position

after 1 e4 e5 2 !Dc3 !Df6 3 i.c4llJc6 when White plays either 4 llJf3 or 4 f4. We invite the reader to form his own interpretation of the well­ known variation of the Italian Game which arises after 4 !Df3

i.c5 5 d3 d6 6 i.g5. We then move on to material with a great deal of practical

significance, examining plans which are quite popular at present,

namely, after l e4 e5 2 !Dc3 !Df6

3 i.c4 !Dc6 4 d3: 4

i.b4, 4

!Da5 and 4 Against 4

.i.c5.

.i.b4, 5 !De2 d5 6 ed

llJxd5 7 .ixd5 9xd5 8 0-0 Wd8

was considered best by Spielmann:

"There is no best square for the queen. This justifies the exchange at d5." Just after the publication of the abovementioned article

Ideas in the Vienna Game there

was an international tournament at Dortmund (1928) in which Spielmann and Reti played a game where the queen withdrew to a5.

After 9 a3 0-0 10 .le3 .ixc3 11

!Dxc3 llJd4 Black obtained equality. The evaluation of the position as providing equal chances has per­

sisted until the present day.

.ib4 contemporary

theory recommends the moves

Against 4

5 llJf3 and 5 .ig5.

the moves A g a i n s t 4 5 llJf3 and 5 .ig5. Some

Some curious problems anse

after 4

.ic5 (6)

6 w
6
w

Here the paths of several

openings meet. After 5 f4 d6 6 llJf3

we have lines of the King's Gambit Declined which are known to be favourable for White. If

d6 6 ,lg5 brings

5 llJf3, the 5

about the Italian Game. Finally,

5 i.g5 leads to the Vienna Game. All three openings form a single complex of this complex plan. In

his oft-quoted article Spielmann dealt with this theme as well: "I

have often been reproached for my predilection for the Bishop's Opening, which has ostensibly been tied in with the ancient understanding of the game and which was actually the most

10

Introduction

popular opening of the 18th century. But to pass judgement on the Bishop's Opening as early as the second move is, in my opinion, premature, since contemporary theory defines openings by the systems with which they are connected. That, of course, is logical." We have rushed forward some­ what in our description of the material. The problem, touched upon by Spielmann, is extra­ ordinarily relevant to our own time. The contemporary handling of the Bishop's Opening is detailed in Chapter 11. Spielmann consider­ ed that "if White really wants to play the Vienna Game, then he must use a transpositional move order, which hinders the move 3 l0xe4. Therefore it follows that one should begin with 2 i.c4!". This conclusion is based on the

fact that after 1 e4 e5 2 i.c4 lt!f6

lbc6.

"There is nothing better. It is

d5 is not

good here, since White can play

4 ed l0xd5 5 lbf3 (with 5 1i'e2 White could win a pawn, but Black would easily whip up a

strong attack) 5

J.g4 can be repelled

with an immediate h3! with advantage to White since the weakness of his pawn on e5 1s

lbc6 6 0-0 and

after lle1,

3 d3 Black must play 3

important to note that

after lle1, 3 d3 Black must play 3 important to note that Spielmann turned out to

Spielmann turned out to be

d5,

although contemporary praxis

does not consider White's advan­ tage to be unquestionable if Black sacrifices the weak e5 pawn for

rapid development. 3

lbc6 is not

seen much nowadays, since the

schemes with 3

i.e7

correct in his evaluation of3

c6 and 3

have had widespread exposure re­ cently. The variations with the

move 3

place in this book. A word about 3

c6 occupy a significant

i.e7. A large

part of the countless recent games

with this line transposed into the Two Knights Defence after 4 l0f3

lbc6, and that material lies outside the scope of this book. More often we see the order of moves 1 e4 e5 2 l0f3 lbc6 3 .i.c4 lbf6 4 d3 i.e7,

i.c5. The game

usually involves a lot of positional manoeuvres. White prepares the advance d4 with all of his forces, giving Black chances of counter­ play. Such a tactic, in the face of

proper defence, does not lead to success but guarantees freedom from surprises and demands cold­ bloodedness and extreme resilience on Black's part. Take a look at the following game. Nunn-Suttles, Lucerne 01 1982.

1 e4 e5 2 i.c4 lbf6 3 d3 l0c6 4 l0f3

e7 5 0-0 l0a5 6 J.b5 a6 7 .i.a4 b5

d6

8 J.d2 l0b7 9 J.b3 l0c5 10

or 4

h6, or 4

Introduction

11

lbel h5

18 lbc3 h4 19 lbd5 lbxd5 20 cd t!fxb4 21 i.a4 't!¥xe4 22 .txd7+ '.!i>xd7 23 l:a4 't!¥f5 24 l:xg4 h3 25 g3 i.d6 26 ltlc2 l!rh7 27 ltle3 f5 28 t!fa4+ 1-0.

i.d7

15

c3 g5 16 cb

g4 17

The third part of the book is dedicated to positional systems with the fianchetto of White's light-squared bishop. Here a

number of different middlegame structures can arise. Thanks to the great deal of practical examples, gathered for over I 00 years, there is an enor­ mous amount of material on the Vienna Game.

We conclude with the words of Rudolf Spielmann: "The paths of

the opening are wondrous and complex. Their precise investigation is one of the most important tasks of the Chess Master. There is

nothing more difficult than the first steps in the course of a game. Nothing exposes error like super­ iority of judgement in the opening. The Vienna Game was snubbed by the high priests of chess art, but

it did not die. It continued to live in a charmed box, and awaits the moment when it will be awakened to take its rightful place among the serious and beloved openings of the tournament repertoire!"

Part One:

Alternatives to 2

li:Jf6

The next three chapters deal with less popular replies to the Vienna, the

most significant of which is 2

tLlc6.

l

2 lLJc3 .i.c5 3 .i.c4 d6

1

e4

e5

Game after 3

lbc6. Another

2

ltlc3

good reply is 3 f4, and one can

With the move 2 ltlc3 White strengthens his pressure on the d5

square and overprotects the e4 square, so that he will be able to attack in the centre with f4. Never­

! hcless, this plan is somewhat slow and is not particularly aggressive by comparison with 2 l/)f3, and this gives Black time to

prepare counterplay. Black has a

wide choice of formations for his

Black h a s a wide choice of formations for his p1eces. .ic5 (7) our survey

p1eces.

.ic5 (7) our survey of the

opening with this aggressive deploy­

ment of the bishop. The theoretically

lbf6, will be

best move, 2

2

We will begin

considered in the second part of

lbc6 also

occupies a meaningful place in the repertory, but other continuations are met less frequently and are not appropriate to the Vienna Game. Consider, for example 2 i.b4. White can reply 3 lbf3, transposing to the Three Knights

our book.The move 2

even follow Bardeleben's line 3

lbd5 i.a5 4 .ic4 c6 5 ltle3 d6 6 ltle2 ltlf6 7 ltlg3 d5!?. Here is a

practical example of yet another

strategy: 3 i.c4 d6 4 f4 ltlc6 5 ltlf3

.ig4 6 0-0 ltlf6 7 d3 0-0 8 h3 i.xf3 9 'ti'xf3 lbd4 10 1!fd I .ic5 11 �h1 with an advantage to White in Alekhine-Dauepman, simultaneous exhibition, St Louis 1924.

7 w
7
w

3

.ic4

To be honest, even here 3lbf3 is

apparently the best move. After 3

lbc6 there follows 4

ltlxe5 ltlxe5 5 d4 with a good game

d6 (on 3

14

2 �c3 .ic5 3 .ic4 d6

for White) 4 d4(In the game Kan­ Capablanca, Moscow 1936, 4 �a4 .ib6 5 lbxb6 ab 6 d4 ed 7 9xd4

'tlff6 8 .ig5 't!fxd4 9 �xd4 led to a position with even chances. The

1We7 7

.id3 lbf6 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3lbc6 10 c3

h6 in Benko-Larsen, Las Palmas

ed 5 lbxd4 �f6 6 .ig5

h6 7 .ih4 lbc6 8 lbxc6 be 9 .td3

play was also level after 6

1972) 4

I!g2 1fh3 8 lbb5 lba6 9 .txf4 d6

�e7 12

lbxf7! tre6 13 lbxh8 li.Jf6 14 e5 'i!if8 15 b3! li.Jg4 16 Wf3+ 1Wf5 17 't!fdS ifxfl + 18 'i!id2!, Betting­ Haaken, Riga 1908.

10 .i.xd6! ed 11 lbxd6+

3

d6

We will examine the replies 3

lbc6 and 3

ltlf6 later in the

book. Here we turn our attention

'fle7 10 0-0 or 7

0-0 8 �b3 .tb6

to:

9 .id3 �e8 10 0-0 .te6 11 �h1

A

4

d3

lbbd7 12 f4, Shevelev-Saburov,

B

4 lba4

 

Moscow 1979, White's chancesare

A

somewhat better. Transposition to

 

4

d3

.i.e6

the Scotch Game can also take

 

On 4

c6 a possible line is 5 f4

lbc6 6 �b3 .tb6 or

6 .te3. The continuation 3 f4 (3 �a4 .ie7!) does not lead to an advantage for White, since he cannot reach the favourable lines

place via 5

of the King's Gambit Declined

.ixg1?! 6 �xg1 •h4+ 7 �fllbf6!

8 llhI ef 9 \te1 1!fh6 (9

10 �xelltlh5 11 I!fl g5 12 g3 ±­ Betting, or even 11 lbe2!) 10 e5 ltlg4 11 ed+ .te6 12 "e4 with advantage to White, Mieses­

1txel+

Marshall, Monte Carlo 1902.

after 3

d6!, e.g. 4 lbf3 �c6 and

5

.txe6

fe

now the bishop on f1 must be

6

1!ft1S+

'iW7 (8)

The move 6

g6 weakens the

deployed at b5, since after 5 .tc4 .ig4 6 h3 .i.xf3 7 tfxf3lbd4 81!Vg3

dark squares on the kingside.

ef 9 11fxf4 'iff6 10 'ti'g3 1fg6 Black held the advantage in Spielmann­ Albin, Vienna 1907. 5 lba4 leads

only to equality after 5

.tb6 6

lbxb6 ab 7 d3lbf6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 0-0

Ite8 10 c31We7, Alapin-Janowski, Prague 1908. On the other hand,

White would achievehis objectives

after 3

t!fh4+ 5 g3 •xh2 6 lig2 ti'h3 7 fe

ef 5 d4 \Wh4+ 6 g3 \txh2 7

.txgl ?!,

e.g. · 4

lixg1

or 4

8 w
8
w

2 lbc3 .*.c5 3 J.c4 d6

15

7

lba4 9 w J.b6 lbe2 is in White's lbxb6 ab lbe2
lba4
9
w
J.b6
lbe2 is in White's
lbxb6
ab
lbe2

Some opening manuals recom­

mend 7 �e3 �b6 8 lbge2 lbc6 9 0-0 lbf6 10 1!t'h3 1We8 with an even game.

7

7

favour.

lba6 8

8

9

In this position White has the better prospects.

8

4

lba4

4 f4 also comes into considera­ tion.

10

b3!

The only way to strive for ad­

vantage. 10 J.b3 c4 is unpleasant.

10

11

lbxd4

lbd4!?

Wxd4

Preventing the thematic f4.

4

fi:lf6

12

J.xe6

fe

After 4

J.b6 5 lbxb6 ab 6 d4

13

We2

White has a slight edge.

White has the better prospects.

5

lbxc5

de

Miles-Kneievic, Porz 1981-82,

6

d3

0-0

continued 13

lbd7 14 We3 Wd6

7

lbe2

lbc6

15

1i'g3 (15 llael llt7 16 f4 llaf8

8

J.d2

17

g3 ;!; comes into consideration)

The threat of 8

lba5 had to be

15

lil:t7 16 i.c3 llaf8 17 llae 1

parried.

lU4 18 t!ig5 Il4f6 19 lle3 :S:g6 20

8

8 \i'd6 '@h5 llh6 21 't!t'd1 lbb8 22 :S:g3

\i'd6

'@h5 llh6 21 't!t'd1 lbb8 22 :S:g3

9

0-0

�e6 (9)

lbc6 with a slight edge for Black.

2

Gambit Lines: 2 lbc3 c6 3 f4 ef

1

e4

e5

Chess Magazine, May 1974, Bill

2

�c3

�c6

With this move Black maintains

Hartston wrote an article titled 'Bring Back the Steinitz Gambit'

the symmetry, but this leaves White with the right to strike the

- tr.]

3

 

ef(IO)

 

first blow. All the same, theory

Black

has

no other means

of

declining

the

offer of the pawn

considers this reply satisfactory for obtaining equality.

besides

3

.ic5

4

fe d6!

(4

3

f4

The Steinitz Gambit has not lost its relevance even today! "The

.ixgl? is bad because of 5 lbgl xe5 6 d4 �g6 7 i.e3 d6 8 't!lf3

.ie6 9 .id3 �8e7 10 0-0-0 0-0 11

acceptance of this pawn sacrifice, with transposition into lines of the King's Gambit, is almost forced. The inclusion of the moves �bl­

c3 and �b8-c6 turn out to favour

Black. Therefore the move 3 f4 is not considered best." - Paul Keres. This conclusion was based on careful consideration of tourna- ment experience and home analysis.

It is well known how heavy the burden of authority is. While working on this book we often returned to the same theme. After a number of unsuccessful attempts

we finally managed to find a promising line. [In the British

g4 with advantage to White, Spielmann- Duras, Ostend 1907) 5 ed !fxd6 6 f3 i.g4 where Black holds the initiative. Therefore White must play 4 �f3, transposing to the King's Gambit Declined.

10

W

initiative. Therefore White must play 4 �f3, transposing t o the King's Gambit D e c

Gambit Lines: 2 li:lc3 li:l c6 3f4 ef

17

g5

li'g3+

li'f4+

15

5

From this starting position we we will examine two lines:

A

4 li:lf3

 

B

4

d4!

A

 

4

li:lf3

Now

White

has

a

choice

gambit continuations:

AI

5

5

h4 (Hamppe-Allgaier) d4 (Pierce)

A2

Al

5

h4

of

"The Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit is unplayable for White. Black's defensive task is even easier than it is in the case of the fully acceptable Allgaier Gambit." -

Paul Keres. We are not going to spend much time on the analysis of this gambit, which was refuted almost a century ago. As chess has

developed, defensive technique has improved. If one rummages around long enough, some new ideas can be found. We'll give just a single example:

5

.••

g4

6

li:lg5

h6

7

li:lxf7

cJtxfi

8

d4

dS

9

.i.xf4!

li:lf6

10

.i.d3

If 10 li:lxd5 then Black has 10

i.d6!.

12 i.d6! lba5 or 12 13 i.xd6 13 @xd6
12
i.d6!
lba5 or 12
13
i.xd6
13
@xd6

lbe7,

I I

B

Most opening books give only

e.g.

12

Romashkevich-Kolenko, 1895!

On any other reply the black knight occupies a strong post at

e5.

14

de

15

<t>dl

15 cJtfl would be bad because of

15 llf8.

Black is guaranteed at least a draw.

Al

5

d4

The Pierce Gambit is more dangerous for Black, but it is also dubious in view of the following line.

[Not 5

g4

i.g7? 6 d5 li:le5 7 d6!

10

de

± Mik.Tseitlin-Probotorov, USSR

11

i.c4+

cJte8

1984 - tr.]

12

d5 {11)

6

i.c4

18

Gambit Lines: 2 lllc3 lllc6 3/4 ef

'ifh4+

Naturally White is not obliged to sacrifice a piece as in the text

continuation. Paulsen-Gunsberg, Breslau 1889, saw 6 llle5 t!Jxe5 7 de @h4+ 8 <it>e2 b6 9 9d3 f3+ 10 gf gf 11 <it>dl .i.b7 12 l!t'xf3 0-0-0

13 .i.d3 with a promising position

for White. Theory now frowns on

6 t!Je5, preferring 8

of 8

b6. Estrin and

Glazkov do not agree with this

evaluation and consider that

chances are roughly level after 11 t!Jd5 .i.a6+ 12 c4 0-0-0 13 @xf3.

t!Je7,

Now if Black tries 13

f3+(instead

b6) 9 gf gf+ 10 Wd3 and

only now 10

intending 14

White can parry the threat with 14

.i.f4 (but not 14 9£6 .i.xc4!) 14 t!Jxd5 15 ed .i.xc4 16 <it>c3! (16

�xc4? .i.h6) 16

t!Jxd5 15 ed 'ifxc4,

.i.xfl 17 d6 ti'h3

12

w

9

10

eS

�xn

dS (12)

.i.xfl 17 d6 ti'h3 12 w 9 10 eS �xn dS (12) Black should be able

Black should be able to survive the attack - analysis.

B

4

S

d4

�e2

d6!

d5 was

considered to be the strongest line.

The position which arose after

For a long time 5

18

llaxf l. But stronger is 13

c6!

6

ed .ig4+ 7 �f3 0-0-0 8 de .i.c5

14 t!Jf4 .ig7! when Black will be

9

1!fe I \!t'h5 10 cb+ ci;b8 (I3) was

able to play chances.

d5 with the better

6

gf

7

0-0

[Harding gives the interesting alternative 7 1Wxf3 and after

Glazkov's 7

g31Wg5 suggests 10 \!t'f2 intending

d5! 8 .i.xd5 tlh4+ 9

10 lll f6 II .ixc6+ be - tr.]

7

8

9

.i.xf4

.i.xn+

t!Jxd4!

.t g 7

Otherwise Black will break in

the centre with

d5, e.g. 9 e5 d5!

evaluated as better for Black.

e.g. 9 e 5 d 5 ! evaluated as better for Black. 13 w But later

13

w

But later it was discovered that by continuing 11 d2 White

Gambit Lines: 2 t0c3 t0c6 3f4 ef

19

and Black will find

tl difficult to continue the attack

without his dark-squared bishop.

Or 11

'8'xf3 14 't!t'fl! ( 14 l!fe4 is bad

15 el 'itf2+ 'ilg4 ( 14

hct:ause of 14 16 �d1 lDf6) 14

�c6 15 �dl) 15 lDe2. [Another dubious defence for

llxd4+ 13

12 gf

13

Black is 5

7 a4 White is clearly better

b6. After 6 lDb5

( ± -

h3 is best, although most opening books examine only 9 i.d3 lD f6 10 i.g5 0-0-0 11 .txf6 \txf6 12 lDd5 'tifh6+ with better chances for

Black . After 9 h3, however, White

has the better game, e.g. 9

fe (9

g5 10 i.xg5) 10 hg ef+ 11 �xf3. Interesting developments arose in a game between Chigorin and a number of consulting players at St Petersburg, 1890: 7 . g5!? 8 i.g3

New in Chess). But White must

avoid 6 g3? fg 7 lDf3 .ia6 8 �d2

Wh5 9 �f2 .ig7 10 .ib5 0-0-0 11

g2! H Hase-Casas, Argentine Ch

.ixc6 be 12 't!¥d3 t0e7 13 lihd1 f5 14 ef lihf8! 15 'i!¥a6+ �d7 16 d5 with a complicated struggle.

1984. - tr.] Returning to the text

 

8

�e3

'int5

6

lDf3

9

.ie2

g5!

7

0-0-0

Steinitz-Paulsen , Baden Baden

�e3 fle7 (14) is an

'Wh5

White can fight for the advantage wit h 9 .ie2. Less effective is 9 h3

g5 10 i.h2 f4+ 11 �f2

0-0-0 13 lDd5 .ig7 14 c3 lDce7 with a good game fbr Black, Gufeld-Anikayev, Nikolayev 19 81.

7

f5

8

1i'a5 I 0 a3

.ixf3 11 �xf3 'Wh5+ 12 �e3 with advantage to White. The text is an

improvement by Portisch.

1870, saw instead 9

alternative, but against 8

12 gf

10

lDxgS

t0f6 (15)

14

w

15 w 11 lifi!
15
w
11
lifi!

In the diagrammed position 9

This novelty breathes new life into the Steinitz Gambit. The

20

Gambit Lines: 2 li:Jc3 li:Jc6 3 f4 ef

rook controls a number of important points along the f-file. For example,

.i.h6 White can obtain an

advantage with 12 li:Jxf7!. Barle- Portisch, Portoroz-Ljub­ ljana 1975, saw 11 h3 .ixe2 12

on 11

\txe2 \tg6 with a dangerous initiative for Black. [Harding suggests 13 b4!? here - tr.]

11 •••

12

13

1Wxe2

't!fc4

.i.xe2

't!lg6

White's prospects are better. We can conclude that although the possibilities for Black are by no means exhausted, the Steinitz Gambit deserves great respect and attention.

3

2 tiJc3 tiJc6 3 .ic4 .ic5

1

2

3

e4

lbc3

eS

lbc6

(16)

4 ti'f6 turns out in White's

favour after 5 lbd5! \i'xf2+ 6 <it>dl

�f8 7 lbh3 't!'d4 8 d3

9 lUI

In the previous chapter we drew �onclusions about the possibilities

lbd8 10 c3 \i'c5 11 lbg5 lbh6 12 \i'h5, Alekhine-Lugovsky, 1939,

mherent in 3 f4!?. In the present

or 8

d6 9 t!ff3!

10 lUI!.

section we examine the plans with

More stubborn is 4

<it>f8!? 5

' .ic4 where Black does not

1mmediately deploy his king's knight at f6.

/()

IV

not 1 mmediately deploy his king's knight at f6. /() IV Now White can choose between:

Now White can choose between:

"Wf3 lbf6 6 lbge2 d6 7 d3 h6 8 h3

with a slightly better game for White.

5

'itf3

Less promising is 5 1Wg3 d6 6 d3

e6

. 12 lbge2 lbe7, Spielmann-Tarrasch,

10 ab f6 II .i.e3 0-0-0

1Wd7 9

lbd4 7

8

g5

0-0-0

.ixb3

Vienna 1922, or 6 lbf3

fe 8 0-0 lbf6 9 d3 \i'e7.

7

5

lbf6

d6

lbge2

Keres recommended 6

6

followed by

A 4 �g4

 

7

d3

B

4

d3

8

'itg3

h6

A

Estrin-Ravinsky, Moscow 1964,

4

'ilg4

One of the rare instances of an early queen sortie in modern chess.

4

g6

saw 8

White could have continued 10

9 lbxe2 lbh5. Here

'fif3 ±.

9

f4

22

2 lbc3 lbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5

On 9 !rh4 Blackobtains equality

7 g3 'ffxh2 8 .te3 lt.Jd4 9 .tf2 lbf6

through 9

i.xe2

10 lbxe2 d5.

10

f5 h5 11 jtxd4 ed 12 lt.Je2 lt.Jg4

Notice that 10 .tg5 does not work

13

c3 'fi'f2+ 14 �d2 de+ 15 be c6

because of 10

9

.txf2+.

jtxe2

with advantage to Black, Honfi­ Wesman, Baden Baden 1981.

White obtained a clear advantage

5

.tb6

'in Larsen-Portisch, Santa Monica

6

c3

1966, after 9

"fie7 10lt.Jd5lt.Jxd5

In Evans-Addison, US Ch 1969,

11 Wxg4 lt.Jf6?! 12 irh3 lt.Ja5 13

.tb5+ c6 14 jta4 b5 15 jtb3 d5 16

White obtained the better prospects after 6 a3 lbf6 7 lbe2 i.e6 8lt.Jxb6 ab 9 .txe6.

fe irxe5 17 c3! ±. Black could have limited the damage with 11 lbe3 12 .txe3 ;!;.

6

lt.Jf6

7

lbxb6

ab

10

lt.Jxe2

ire7

8

f4

lt.Ja5

Chances are roughly level.

9

jtbS+

jtd7

B

4

d3

d6

9

c6

lO .ta4 b5 11 i.c2 c5 12

a4! is in White's favour.

4

lt.Ja5 comes into considera­

10

.txd7+

't!lxd7

tion. Against this flank strategy

11

lt.Jf3

lt.Jc6

White should continue 5 lt.Jge2,

12

0-0

0-0

trying to control the d5 square and

13

b3

Ilad8

the d-file in general. After 5 ltJO it

14

Wet (17)

is hard for White to make any

positional progress. Here is a

good classical example: 5

lt.Jxc4

6

de d6 7 'iWd3 lt.Je7 8 .te3

jtxe3

9

1!¥xe3 b6 10 0-0-0 lt.Jc6 11 lt.Jd2

0-0 12 f3? i.e6 l3 g4 a6 14 b3 b5

b4 might be better)

16 lt.Jxc4 a5 17 a4 lt.Jb4 18 t!fe2

"fle7 19 lt.Je3 lil:fb8 20lt.Jcd5lt.Jxd5

21 lt.Jxd5 "fid8 with roughly level chances, Meitner-L.Paulsen, Vienna

15 1!¥d3 be (15

1873.

5

lt.Ja4

5lt.Jge2 comes into consideration

here as well, but 5 f4?! is dubious

White stands slightly better.

17

B

but 5 f4?! is dubious White stands slightly better. 17 B Zukertort-Mortimer, London lt.Jh5? 15 f

Zukertort-Mortimer,

London lt.Jh5? 15 f5

1886, continued 14

lt.Jf6

16 jtg5 't!fe7 17 lt.Jh2 with a

Part Two: