INNING WITH

THE SCHLIEMANN

•
MAXWELL MA MILLAN CHESS
 INNING WITH
THE SCHLIEMANN

THE SCHLIEMANN, CDR JAENISCH GAMBIT,

IS AN IDEAL OPENING WEAPON FOR THE
ENTERPRISING CLUB PLAYER. AGAINST THE
MIGHTY RUY LOP E Z BLACK DARES TO
SACRIFICE A PAWN ON THE THIRD MOVE IN
RETURN FOR A DANGEROUS INITIATIVE AND
ATTACKING CHANCES.

AFTER YEARS OF RESEARCH,

GRANDMASTER MIKHAIL TSEITLIN, A GREAT
SCHLIEMANN EXPERT, NOW PROVIDES
A DEFINITIVE REFERENCE WORK- INCLUDING
HIS OWN ORIGINAL ANALYSIS- WHICH WILL
GIVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO ALL PLAYERS
STRIVING TO WIN WITH THE BLACK PIECES.

ISBN 185744 017 X

9781857440171
 MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS SERIES

Winning with the Schliemann

Maxwell Macmillan Chess Openings
Executive Editor : PAUL LAMFORD
Technical Editor: JIMMY ADAMS
Russian Series Editor: KEN NEAT

Some othe r books in this series:

ADORJAN, A. & HORVATH, T.

Sicilian: Sveshnikov Variation

ASSIAC & O'CONNELL, K.

Opening Preparation

BASMAN, M.
Play the St. George
The Killer Grab

CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D.

A Complete Defence to 1 e4

GLIGORIC, S.
Play the Nimzo-lndian Defence

KEENE, A.D.
The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory

KOVACS, L.M.
Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation

MAROVIC, D.
Play the King's Indian Defence
Play the Queen's Gambit

NEISHTADT, I.
Play the Catalan
Volume 1 - Open Variation
Volume 2 - Closed Variation

PRZEWOZNIK, J. & PEIN, M.

The Blumenfeld Gambit

SHAMKOVICH, L. & SCHILLER, E.

Play the Tarrasch

SUETIN, A.S.
Modern Chess Opening Theory

TAULBUT, S.
Play the Bogo-lndian

VARNUSZ, E.
Play the Caro-Kann
Play Anti-Indian Systems

WATSON, J.L.
Play the French

A full catal ogue is available from:

Maxwell Macmilla n Chess, London Road, Wheatley, Oxford, OX9 1YR.
 Winning with
the Schliemann
by

Mikhail Tseitlin
International Grandmaster

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

 MAXWELL MACMILLAN IN TERNATIONAL PUBLISHING GROUP

EUROPE/ Maxwell Macmillan International,

MIDDLE EAST I AFRICA Nuffield Building, Hollow Way, Cowley,
Oxford OX4 2YH, Englan d
Tel: (0865) 748754 Fax: (0865) 748808

USA Macmillan Publishin g Company,

866 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 702-2000 Fax: (212) 605-9341

CANADA 1200 Eglinton Avenue East,

Suite 200, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 3N1, Canada
Tel: (416) 449-6030 Fax: (416) 449-0068

AUSTRALIA/ Lakes Business Park, Building A1,

NEW ZEALAND 2 Lord Street, Botany, NSW 2019, Australia
Tel: (02) 316-9444 Fax: (02) 316-9485

ASIA/PACIFIC 72 H illview Avenue, #03-00 Tacam House, Singapore

(Except Japan) Tel: (65) 769-6000 Fax: (65) 769-3731

LATIN AMERICA 28100 US Highway 19 North,

Suite 200, Clearwater, FL 34621, USA
Tel: (813) 725-4033 Fax: (813) 725-2185

JAPAN Misuzu S Building 2F, 2-42-14 Matsubara Setag aya­

Tokyo 156, Japan
Tel: (81) 3-5300-1618 Fax: (81) 3-5300-1615

Copyright © 1991 Murray Chandler

AllRights Reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise. without permission in writing from the publishe'

First Edition 1991

Library of Congreas Cataloging-In-Publication Data

Tseitlin, Mikhail.
Winning wilh the Schliemann I
by Mikhail Tseitlin. - 1st ed.
p. em. - (Maxwell Macmillan chess openings)
Includes index.
1. Chess - Openings. I. Title. II. Series.
GV1450.2.T74 1991
794.1'22-dc20 91-20072

BrHiah Library Cataloguing In Publication Data

Tseitlin, Mikhail
Winning with the schliemann.
1. Title
794.12

ISBN 1 85744 017 X

Cover by Pintail Design
Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter
Contents

Symbols 6
I ntroduction 7
1 4 exf5 a nd others 9
2 4 't!Je2 13
3 4 d3 17
4 4 d4 37
5 4 4jc3 4jf6 and 4 . . . others 49
6 4 4jc3 4jd4 67
7 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 without 5 ... d5 81
8 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 d5 97
9 4 4jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 d5 6 4Jxe5 108
10 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4jxe4 d5 6 4Jxe5 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 't!Jg5 121
Il l us trative Games 139
Index of Variations 154
Symbol s

+ Check
Good move
!! Excellent move
? Bad move
?? Blunder
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
( !) Best move i n difficul t circumstances
± Smal l advantage for White
; Smal l advantage for Black
± Clear advantage for White
+ Clear advantage for Black
+­ Winning advantage for White
-+ Winning advantage for Black
1: 0 White wins
0: 1 Black wins
lf.l:lf.l Draw
The position is equal
co The posi tion is unclear
as Wi th counterplay
t With attack
!:::. With the idea of
D Only move
Ch. Championship
01. Olympiad
 The jaenlsch Gambit

Introduction

In 1847, i n t he French magazine Le Palamede a well known

Russian chess-pl ayer, Karl Andreyevich jaenisch pub­
lished the first analysis of the gambit i n the Spanish game
that occurs after: 1 e4 eS 2 c[)f3 c[)c6 3 .Q.bS fS.

Here he wrote: "This countergambit has not been men­

tioned by any author and has not been played anyw here. I t
is a very i nteresting possibil ity, and i n many variations
Black obtains excel lent counterchances. "

Since then, this gambit h as been rig htful ly known as

the jaenisch Gambit. It should be noted that in many
pl aces the gambit is connected with the name of the Ger­
man chess-player A. Schl iemann . This is incorrect, as
Schliemann used the move . . . fS only in conj unction with 3
. . . .Q.cS 4 0-0.

The newly born gambit did not experience an i mme­

diate s uccess. I ndeed, the first blow to its credibil i ty was
deal t by the author himself! In 1850, in the magazine
Deu tsche Schachzeitung jaenisch wrote that White can
s uccessful ly fight for the initiative with 4 �e2. Further
analyses by I. Bannet ( 1899) and E. Dyckhoff (1902) also
clai med easy advantages for White against the gambit and
it seemed as though this method of defence would dis­
appear from view.

However, the beginning of the twentieth century wit­

nessed a revival of i nterest in jaenisch's Gambit. It w as
analysed by the World C hampion of the time, Emanuel
Lasker and also by o ther leading p layers incl uding K. Bar­
deleben, F. Duz-Hotimirsky , R. Spielmann and especially
F. Marshal l , w ho even risked the gambit in some games in
8 Introduction
his match against Capablanca (New York , 1909), and with
some s uccess .

This revival w a s not necessarily connected w i t h special

innovations from the Black point of view , but more be­
cau se the Spanish game had begun to predominate in open
games. For a long ti me adherents of t . . . eS were u nable to
find an effective antidote against the 'Spanish torture' and
the quest for counterplay was l eadi ng to research in al l
directions.

However, jaenisch's Gambit only real ly began to be

played consi stently in tournament practice around thirty
years ago, and even today there exists a certain scepti­
cis m about the overa l l viability of the gambit.

The authors have col lated and researched a vast

amount of theoretical and practical material in the pre­
sent monograph. If, as a resu lt, the gambit is demon­
strated as a perfectly feasible counter to the 'Spanish
tortu re', then this effort w i l l have been worth w hile.

Mikhai l Tseitlin,
E. Glaskov .
1) 4 exfS and others

1 e4 eS
2 4Jf3 4Jc6
3 �bS fS
4 exfS
This simple capture
does n't present Black with
any difficu l ties and so is
not often seen. However, it
shou l d be noted that, by
playing like this , White can
force a draw at wi l l .
In the event o f 4 Q-0,
Black gets the advantage
after 4 . . . fxe4 S .a_xc6 dxc6
6 4JxeS �d4 7 4Jg 4 (7 �hS+
g6 8 4Jxg6 hxg6) 7 . . . hS 8
4Je3 {)f6 as in Amateur -
van Vliet, London 1 899
Interesting compl ications
can arise after 4 .a_xc6 . The
game Schroder - Nimzo­
vitch, Berlin 1903 continued
4 . . . bxc6 S {)xeS �e7 6
�hS+ g6 7 4Jxg6 hxg6!?
(Youthful fervour! Nimzo­
vitch w as only sixteen) 8
�xh 8 �xe4+ 9 �ft? (neces­
sary was 9 �d1 �xg2 10
�e1 + �f7 1 1 t/JeS t/Jxf2 with
eq uality) 9 . . . t/Jxc2! 10 {)c3
No better is 10 t/JeS+ �f7 I t
t/Je1 in view of I t . . . .a_a6+ 1 2
d 3 .a_xd3+ 13 �g 1 �e8) 10 . . .
t/Jd3+ ! 1 1 �g1 'i:ftf7 12 h 3 .a_a6
13 'i:fth2 .a_d6+ 1 4 g3 {)f6! and
Black won.
Instead of S {)xeS correct
is S exfS! and after S . . . e4 6
t/Je2 t/Je7 7 {)d4 �eS! 8 {)f3
�e7! leads to repetition, as
8 . . . �xfS 9 d3 {)f6 10 4Jbd2
10 4 exfS and Others
d5 1 1 4Jd4 �g6 1 2 0-0 is i n
Whi te's favour. Al terna­
tively 7 . . . 4Jf6 l eads to 8
0-0! c5 (or 8 . . . '«fe5 9 4Jf3
'«fe7 10 r!e1 ) 9 4Jb5! d5 1 0 f3!
with a clear advantage.
In response to the cap­
ture on c6 on move 4, Black
usua l ly responds 4 . . . dxc6
with the fol lowing possib­
il ities:
a) 5 exf5 e4 6 '«fe2 '«fe7
leads to the main contin­
uation.
b) 5 '«f e2 fxe4 6 '«fxe4 will
be examined i n the second
chapter.
c) 5 4Jxe5 '«fd4 6 4Jf3
(after 6 '«fh5+? g6 7 4Jxg6
hxg6 8 '«fxg6+ \tj)d8 9 d3 4Je7
Whi te has no com pensation
for the piece, as jaenisch
showed) 6 . . . '«fxe4+ 7 '«fe2
.Q.d6 with splendid play for
Black.
d) 5 4Jc3 4Jf6 6 '«fe2 fxe4
7 4Jxe4 .Q.g 4 8 h3 .a.h5
(simp ler is 8 . . . .a.xf3 9 '«fxf3
'«fd5 with ful l equality ) .
Here t h e game Nicevsky -
Velimirovic, Y ugoslavia 1981
continued 9 d3 '«fd5 10 g 4
(if 1 0 0-0 then 10 . . . .a.xf3! 1 1
�xf3 0-0-0) 1 0 . . . .a.f7 1 1
4Jc3 .Q.b4 1 2 '«fxe5+ \tj)d7! 13
'«fxd5+ .Q.xd5 1 4 \tile2 .a.xc3 15
bxc3 r!hf8 16 c4 r!ae8+ 17
.Q.e3 .Q.xf3+ 18 1\tj)xfJ, and
after 18 ... 4Jd5+ 19 \tile2
4Jf4+ 20 \tild2 4Jg2 21 !:taft
�f3 chances were comp­
l etely equal . In the game
Ryabchenok - Mik. Tseit­
lin, Kuibishev 1981, White
tried 9 4Jg3 but after 9 4Jg3
.Q.xf3 10 '«fxf3 '«fd5 1 1 \tile2 e4
12 '«f f5 .a.d6 13 '«fxd5 cxd5 1 4
4Jf5 0-0-0 1 5 d 4 exd3+ 16
\tilxd3 4Je4 17 .Q.e3 .Q.c5 18 f3
4Jf2+ Black stood better.
Now we return to the
main variation after
4 exf5
4 e4

The recom mendation of
the old handbooks , 4 ... d6
5 d4 e4 is weak o n account
of 6 4Jg5 .Q.xfS 7 f3.
The best response to 4 ...
.Q.c5 is 5 �e2! The altern­
ative 5 .Q.xc6 dxc6 6 c[)xeS
.Q.xfS gives Black a good
chance to develop an
i nitiative, e.g. 7 0-0 7 ...
c[)f6 8 �e1 0-0 9 c3 .Q.d3 10
�b3+ �h8 11 c[)f7+ �xf7 12
�xf7 c[)g 4! with a tremen­
dous attack, Kade - Schl ie­
mann, Berlin 1867. Or
7 �hS+ g6 8 4Jxg6 hxg6! 9
�xh8 �e7+ 10 �d1 ( 10 �f1
does n't help after 1 0 . ..
.Q.xc2 11 �xg8+ �d7 12 �c4
�e8) tO . . . �xf2! 11 �xg8+
�7 12 �c4 �e8 0 : t S hlet­
ser - Tchigorin, Petersburg
1878.
5 �e2
The variation 5 .Q.xc6
dxc6 6 c[)eS (better 6 �e2
leading to the main contin­
uation) 6 . . . .Q.xfS is favour­
able for Black, e.g 7 �hS+
g6 8 4Jxg6 �xg6 9 �eS+ �e 7
tO �xh8 c[)f6 and the White
q ueen is trapped, Ri ndin -
Glazkov , Tu la t954, or 7 0-0
�d4 8 c[)g 4 .Q.xfS 9 4Je3 .Q.g6
to c[)c3 0-0-0 11 c[)e2 �eS 12
c[Jc4 �fS+ Zarubin - Nest­
erenko, Moscow 1972.
A l so u nsatisfactory is 5
4 exfS and Others 1 t
4Jg14Jf6 6 4Je2 dS 7 4Jg3 hS
8 c4 h4 9 c[)e2 .Q.xfS with
excellent play for B l ack,
Berezhnoi - Nikonov, USSR
1971.
5 �e7
6 .Q.xc6 dxc6
After 6 . . . bxc6 a position
arises w hich was consider­
ed i n the note to White's
fou rth.
7 4Jd4 �e5
The recommendation of
jaenisch, 7 ... c5 is mistaken
in view of 8 4Je6! c[Jf6 9 c[)c3
�xe6 10 fxe6 �xe6 11 d3 and
Black l oses a paw n .
8 4Je6
The s trongest move for
White is 8 c[Jf3! �e7 (but
not 8 . . . �xfS because of 9
d3) leading to a repetition
of moves.
8 4Jb3 is unsatisfactory
after 8 . . . �d6 9 f3 (9 4Ja3
.Q.xa3 tO bxa3 �xfS tt �bt
c[)f6 is good for Black) 9 . . .
exf3 1 0 �xeS+ .Q.xeS t t 0-0
c[je7.
8 .Q.xe6
9 fxe6 .Q.d6
9 ... �xe6? 10 d3!
10 c[)c3 4Jf6
11 b3 o-o-o
12 .Q.b2
12 h3 c[)dS t3 .Q.b2 e3!
Borchardt - Grabczewski,
Poland 1977.
12 4 exfS and Others

has the initiative in this

position, e.g.
12 ...�de8 13 0-0-0 �xe6
14 �del t(1f5 15 �bl �he8
and Black's chances are
preferable, C ue l l ar - Bis­
guier, Bogota 1958.
12 ...�he8 13 0-0-0 �xe6
14 f3 exf3 15 tbxf3 t(1f4 16
�hfl tbxf3 17 �xf3 .Q.xh2 and
Black has won a pawn
Tournament practice Bokuchava - Mik . Tsei tlin,
demonstrates that B lack Sukhumi 1974.
2) 4 �e2

1 e4 eS pawn . In the game Bogdan­

2 4Jf3 4Jc6 ovic - Ku rajica, Yugos lavia
3 .a_bs fS 1985, the original move 4 ...

4 tbe2 tbe7! l ed to compl ications

following 5 d3 �b4+ 6 4Jc3
4Jd4 7 4Jxd4 exd 4 8 exf5+
liftd8 9 a3 tba5 10 -'lg5+ .
After the text move
there are two possibi li ties:

A) 5 .a_xc6
B) S �xe4

A)
5 .a_xc6 dxc6
K. jaenisch considered 6 tbxe4
this contin uation to be the
best ( Deutsche Schach­
zeitung, 1850) , but in real i ty
it can o n ly be worse for
White.
4 fxe4
The usual response. Acc­
ording to jaenisch , also
possible is 4 ... 4Jd4 5 4Jxd4
exd4 6 exf5+ tbe7= as
White cannot hold the
14 4 itte2
6 .Q.d6
Here attention s hould be
given to the sacrifice 6 ...
ciJf61? 7 �xeS+ (7 �e2 .Q.d6
leads to the main contin­
uation) 7 . . . .Q.e7. The game
Gumruksnog l u - Ciocal tea,
Balkaniada t980 went 8 d 4
o-o 9 �e2 .Q.g 4! tO �c4+
4:)dS 1 1 4:)eS .Q.e6 t2 .Q.e3 (if 12
�e2 .Q.gS!) 12 . . . .Q.gS, and
after t3 4:)f3 (13 �e2 .Q.xe3 t 4
fxe3 �h4+ tS g 3 �e4) t 3 . . .
.Q.xe3 t 4 fxe3 �e7 1S �e2
.Q.g4 Black was fi ne.
In the game Agapov -
Kislov , Leni ngrad t981,
White took a different
rou te: 8 4:)c3 0-0 9 �e2 4:)dS
(9 . . . .Q.g4 10 �c4+ �h8 t t
4:)eS .Q.hS 1 2 0-0 �d6 t3 d 4
4:)g4 t 4 4:)xg4 .Q.xg4 = ) t o
4:)xdS, b u t after 1 0
�xdS!? tt �xe7 .Q.g4 1 2 0-0
.Q.xf3 13 �e1 .Q.xg2 14 �e6+
�xe6 1S �xe6 .Q.dS Black
was doing very wel l .
7 4:)xe5
7 d3 4:)f6 8 �e2 0-0 9 .Q.gS
�e8 tO .Q.xf6 gxf6 1 1 4:)bd2
�h8 12 0-0-0 �f7=F Petru­
shin - Lutikov , RSFSR 1986.
Capturing the pawn does
not advance White's cause.
7 4:)f6
8 �e2 o-o
9 d4
9 �c4+? 4:)dS to d4 �h4+
9 �e8
9 �e81? 10 f4 (10 0-0 is
...
best met by 10 . . . cS 1 1 c3
cxd4 t2 cxd4 cS developing
great activity for the pawn,
e.g t3 �et cxd4 1 4 �c4+ .Q.e6
tS �xd4 �d8) 1 0 . . . cS 1 1
dxcS .Q.xeS 1 2 fxeS ( 12 �xeS
�g6! ) t2 . . . 4:)g4 13 .Q.d2 �f2
14 �c4+ .Q.e6 1S �c3 �c6 16
�d1 �xg2+ Doroshkevich -
Bergin, M oscow 1963.
10 o-o
The attempt to strength­
en the position of the
knight, 10 f4 doesn't ad­
vance White's cause, e.g. to
. . . cS 11 .Q.e3 4:)g4 12 c3 cxd4
13 cxd4 cS 14 0-0 4Jxe3 15
�xe3 �b6+ ( Chigori n ) .
10 .Q.e3 .Q.xeS 11 dxeS �xeS
12 4:)d2 .Q.g4 13 �c4+ �dS 1 4
0-0 �ae8 is also better for
Black , Koz lov - Mik. Tseit­
lin, Moscow 1976.
10 .Q.xeS
11 dxeS �d4
12 �d1

Tchigorin here ends his
analysis with 12 . . . �xeS
which g ives Black f u l l eq­
uali ty. However, in Sur­
vil l a - Glazkov, Moscow
1978, Black decided to fig h t
for more with 12 nxeSI 1 3
...
nxd4 nxe2 1 4 t:td8+ litilf7 1S
.Qd2 �e4 16 f3! .Q h3 ! , but
after 17 �xa8 nxg2+ 18 litilft
nxh2+ 19 !ililet �xd2 the
chances were equ al . Better
would have been 1S . . . litile7!
16 �h8 b6 17 f3 cS and
White has problems with
his development.
B �e6 and White remains a
5 �xe4 4:Jf6
6 �e2
6 .Q.d61
This is an original idea of
V. Zak. M uch i n ferior i s
6 . . e4 7 d 3 d S 8 dxe4 dxe4
.
in view of 9 �eS! .Qd7 (9 . . .
�dS t o .Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 �c4)
10 .Q.xc6 .Q.xc6 1 1 �xc6 bxc6
4 �e2 1S
12 �c3 .Q.b4 13 .Qd2.
6 . . . d6 was tried i n
Marco - Bernstein , Stock­
holm 1906, but after 7 d4
e4 8 dS �xdS 9 �d4 �de7
10 �xe4 .Q.d7 Black had a
cramped position, but 9 . . .
�db4! gives Black satis­
factory play .
7 d4
7 .Q.c4 .Q.e7 (7 . . . �e7!? is
interesting, e.g. 8 0-0 e4 9
�gS .Q.xh2+) 8 d4 ( 8 �xeS
�xeS 9 �xeS dS and 10 . . .
0-0 grants Black a danger­
ous i ni ti ative for the pawn)
8 . . . e4 9 �eS �xd4 to �d1
pawn behind, Okh tman -
Shek htman, Leningrad 1964.
7 e4
8 �gS �e7
8 . . . �xd4? is a b l under
on account of 9 �c4! and
Black loses, but deserving
of attention is 8 ... 0-01?
9 c3 h6
10 �h3 gS
16 4 �e2
I n practice, Black has
had the better chances in
this pos i tion, as the fol­
lowing examples show:
a) 11 4Jd2 b6 12 4Jc4 .a,b7
13 4Jxd6+ t!Yxd6 1 4 f4 g4 15
4Jf2 0-0-0 Konstanti nov -
Zak, Leningrad 1 959 .
b) 11 0-0 0-0 1 2 f3 (better
is 12 .Q.e3 and then 4Jd2) 12
. . . exf3 13 t!Yc4+ ( 13 t!Yxe7
4Jxe7 14 gxf3:f) 13 . . . 'i;tjlg7 14
!!xf3 4Jg4 1 5 �xf8 t!Yxf8 16
g3 4Jxh2! with a dangerous
attack, Bangiev - Agzamov,
Tashkent 1964.
c) 11 {)xgS hxg5 1 2 .a,xg5
e3! 13 f4 b6 1 4 4Ja3 .a,xa3 15
bxa3 .Q.b7 16 0-0 0-0-0 17
!!f3 !!deB 18 !!e1 t!Yf7 19 .a,c4
4JdS+ Vitolinsh - Lanka,
Riga 1 978.
3) 4 d3
1 e4 eS
2 {)f3 4Jc6
3 .Q.bS fS
4 d3
This contin uation i s bet­
ter than the ones previou sly
examined, but it cannot be
claimed to be a refutation
of jaenisch's Gambi t. In
fact White must be carefu l
not to play too passively,
when Black can develop a
swift ki ngside attack, in
the manner of a King's
Gambit Decli ned with col ­
ours reversed . If t h e black
bishop comes to cS, as it
does in the modern varia­
tion, there is already a cer­
tain amount of pressure
agai nst the f2 square. This
can be aug mented by ma­
neouvres such as �dB - eB
- g6 (or hS) , {)fo - hS- f4
or even �f8 - f6 - go (or
h6) . Many unsuspecting
Whi tes have fou nd them­
sel ves chopped up on the
kingside in short order in
this l ine.
Now Black has a choice
between an i mmediate ex­
change in the centre or
preparation for comp lex
play -
A) 4 . . . fxe4
B) 4 . . . {)f6
A
4 fxe4
5 dxe4 4Jf6
Thi s move solves the
18 4 d3
problem of the devel op­
ment of the k ing's bishop
( see At below ) . Also poss­
ible is 5 ... d6, w hich after 6
0-0 c[jf6 l eads to A2. In­
stead of 6 0-0 practice has
also witnessed:
a) 6 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 7 0-0
.Q.e7 8 t!Yd3 .Q.f6! is comfort­
able for Black , Fiebig -
Nyhol m , Hamburg 1910.
b) 6 .Q.gS .Q.e7 7 .Q.xe7
c[Jgxe7 8 .Q.c4 c[Jg6 9 c3 t!Yf6
10 c[jbd2 .Q.d7 11 t!Yc2 c[jf4
Ilyi n-Zhenevsky - Nyho l m ,
Leningrad 1926.
c) 6 c4 c[jf6 7 c[jc3 .Q.g4 8
�d3 .Q.e7 9 c[jdS 0-0 10
c[Jxe7+ t!Yxe7 1 1 .Q.a4 c[jd7+
Crepeaux - Lazard, Paris
1930.
d) 6 c[jc3 c[jf6?! (6 . . . .Q.g4
7 c[jdS c[jf6 8 .Q.gS .Q.e7 9
c[jxe7 t!Yxe7 10 h3 .Q.e6 1 1 t!Ye2
h6 12 .Q.xf6 t!Yxf6 13 0-0 0-0
leads to equality, Bradvar­
evic - Marie, Sombor 19S7,
and is preferable to the
text) 7 .Q.gS .Q.e7 8 .Q.xf6
.Q.xf6 9 t!YdS .Q.d7 10 0-0-0
�e7 1 1 b!het 0-0-0 12 t!Yc4!
gS 13 c[jdS t!Yg7 14 b!e3! and
White stood well, Farah -
Merlo, V i l la Gesela 1968.
An al ternative approach
was seen in Forgacs -
Hebak, Prague 1973 - 8 .Q.c4
.Q.g 4 (8 . . . c[jaS 9 t!Ye2 .Q.g 4 1 0
0-0-0 t!Yc8 1 1 h3 c[Jxc4 1 2
hxg4! c[jb6 13 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 1 4
g S .Q.e7 t S g 6 ± ) 9 t!Yd3 t!Yd7
10 0-0-0 0-0-0 ( better is to
. . a6!?) and after 1 1 .Q.e3 .Q.e6
.
12 c[jdS 4Jg4 1 3 .Q.bS!;;!;.
6 o-o
This is the most common
conti n uation, but the other
possibi lities are i m portant:
a) 6 c[jc3 .Q.b4! 7 t!Yd3 d6 8
.Q.d2 .Q.xc3 9 .Q.xc3 0-0 (9 . . .
.Q.d7 10 0-0-0 t!Ye7 11 t!Ye3
0-0 12 h3 ijfth8 13 .Q.c4 aS 1 4
ijftbi .Q.e6 with good play for
Black , Incu tto - Spassky ,
Mar del Plata 1960) 10
0-0-0 �e8 II h3 a6 12 .Q.c4+
.Q.e6 13 nhe1 .Q.xc4 14 t!Yxc4+
ijfth8 IS t!Ye2 c[jd7 16 ijftb1 bS
with an active posi tion,
Nezhmetdinov - Bronstei n,
Tbilisi 19S9.
b) 6 .Q.xc6 bxc6 7 t!Ye2 .Q.d6
8 c[jbd2 0-0 9 h3 ci)hS 1 0
4Jc4 thf6 It .Q.gS 'lhg6 12 g 4
c[jf4 1 3 .Q.xf4 nxf4+ Chis-
 4 d3 19
tiakov - Ravi nsky, Moscow ( worthy of serious atte n­
1961 . I n the correspondence tion is 9 . . . 'M'g6!? 10 0-0 0-0
game Ti l ler - Boey 1 972/7S, 11 4Jxc7 .Q.h3 12 4jh4 t/1gS 13
White played the risky 7 4JxaS t/1xh 4 14 gxh3 t/1xh3
{)xeS the 7 S .Q.f 4 ( S {)f3 with a stro n g attack ) to b4
tf1xe4+ 9 .Q.e3 .Q.a6) a decision ( 1 0 0-0 0-0 and with . . �4 .

he was to regret after S . . . coming, B l ack is fi ne) 10 . . .

gS! 9 .Q.g 3 d6 10 {)d3 t/1xe4+ .Q.b6 1 1 a 4 a 6 1 2 4Jxb6 cxb6
11 lf}d2 t/1fS 12 4Jc3 .Q.h6 13 13 .Q.c4 4Jxb4 1 4 thd2 4jc6 1S
t/1e2+ lf;f7 14 f3 ( 1 4 lf;ct g 4+ 4JgS ( Raina - Yudas i n , Buda­
1S lf;b1 �eS , or 1 4 4jd1 g4+ pest 19S2) and now accord­
1S {)e3 �eS 16 �hf1 t/1e4 ing to Y udas in, ei ther 1S
with advantage to B lack i n t/1f6 16 4jf7 �fS 17 4Jxd6�
both cases) 1 4 . . . g4+ 1S f 4 lf;e7 IS �dl 4jd4 or 1S . . . �fS
c S 16 �ae1 �eS 1 7 t/1f2 .Q.b7 16 4:)xh7 �f4 17 0-0 t/1h4 1S
1S �xeS �xeS 19 �e1 �xe1 g3 thxh7 l eave Black wit h
20 thxe t + . the better prospects.
c) 6 .Q.c4 .Q.cS 7 0-0 d6, e) 6 t/1d3 .Q.b4+ (6 . . . .Q.cS 7
reach i ng a position from {)c3 d6 S .Q.gS was examined
t he King's Gambit Decl i ned i n the previous li ne) 7 c3
with colours reversed. Now .Q.cS S 0-0 (S .Q.xc6 bxc6 q
after S 4Jc3 4JaS 9 .Q.b3 4JxeS t/1e7 10 f4 .Q.b? 11 4jd2
4Jxb3 1 0 axb3 a6! or S c3 d6 12 4Jef3 0-0 i ntending
t/1e7! 9 b4 .Q.b6 10 4Jbd2 aS 1 1 �aeS, with sufficient com­
bS 4JdS 1 2 .Q.a3 .Q.g4 13 t/1c2 pensation for the pawn ) 8
{)d7! 1 4lf;h1 �fS 1S .Q.e2 .Q.e6 . . d6 9 a4 a6 10 .Q.c4 (10
.

16 �ad 1 gS! Black has the .Q.xc6+ bxc6 II thc4 twd?) 10

initiative. . . . twe? 1 1 t£)bd2 .Q.e6 12 b4
d) 6 .Q.gS .Q.cS! 7 4Jc3 d6 S .Q.a?=, Ki ndermann - lnkiov '
t/1d3 ( S 0-0 l eads to the Berlin 19S6.
mai n contin uation) S . . . .Q.b4 f) 6 twe2 .Q.cS 7 .Q.xco (7 c3
9 0-0-0 .Q.xc3 10 t/1xc3 .Q.d7 d6 S 0-0 leads to the mai n
1 1 4jd2 4jd4 1 2 .Q.xd7+ t/1xd7= conti nuation, and if 8 4jbd 2
Marti novic - Vel imirovic, possible are 8 . . aS or 8 . .
. .

Arandzelovac 19SO. Inter­ a6) 7 . . . bxc6 S 4JxeS the? 9

esti ng compl ications can 4jd3 .Q.a6 10 .Qgs .Q.d 4 II 4jc3
arise from the alternative .Q.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 twxe4 13 .Q.xf6
S .Q.xf6 t/1xf6 9 {)dS t/1dS t/1xe2+ = Rozentalis - Glek,
20 4 d3
Tal linn 1986. An alternative
to 6 . . . .Q.cS is 6 . . . .Q.b4+ 7 c3
.Q.cS. Two examples from
this position are: 8 c[:)bd2
t!Je7 9 c[:)c4 d6 10 b4 .Q.b6 It
a4 a6 12 4Jxb6 cxb6 13 .Q.c4 =
Ermenkov - Mik. Tsei tlin,
Pamporovo 1977 and 8 0-0
d6 9 a4 a6 10 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 1
aS .Q.e6 1 2 b 4 .Q.a7 1 3 .Q.e3
.Q.xe3 1 4 t/Jxe3 0-0= Short -
Hecht, England 1982.
Returni ng to 6 0-0.
Now Black can choose
between two conti nuations:
A1) The modern 6 .Q.cS. ...
A2) The classical 6 d6. ...
A1
6 .Q.cS
This active posting for
the bishop is currently the
most popu lar choice.
7 c[:)c3
The usual response, but
White has a nu mber of
alternative possibi lities :
a) 7 t!Je2 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 a4
(9 c[:)bd2 .Q.g4!? (9 . . . t(fth8!?
is possible) 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 11
t/Jc4+ t(fth8 12 c[:)xeS t/Je8 and
Black has an excel lent
posi tion, Yu sto - Lanni,
Lucerne 1982. The contin­
uation was 13 c[:)ef3 t/JhS 1 4
t/Jd3 c[:)d7 1S h3 .Q.e6 16 c[:)d4
c[:)eS 1 7 t/Jg3 .Q.c8! 1 8 4j2f3
.Q.a6 19 c[:)e6 c[:)xf3+ 20 gxf3
�f7=F ) 9 . . . aS 10 c[:)bd2 t(fth8
11 c[:)b3 .Q.b6 1 2 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 13
t!Jxe3 t/Je8 14 4Jbd2 c[:)hS and
Black has obtained the
initiative, S hort - Nunn,
Marbella 1982.
In Martin - lnkiov, Gaus­
dal 1989, instead of 8 c3, 8
t/Jc4 was tried with the
conti nuation 8 . . . t!Je7 9 4Jc3
(9 b4 .Q.e6 tO t/Jc3 c[:)xe4!? 11
t!Jd3 c[:)xf2 w ith s trong

cou n terp lay) 9 . . . -'l.d7 10
.f)dS ( 10 .Q.gS a6!) 10 ... .f)xdS
11 exdS .f)d4 12 -'l.xd7+ �xd7
13 .f)xd4 -'l.xd4= . Martin
mentions 13 .f)xeS ! ? �fS! 14
b4 bS IS �d3, b u t after I S . . .
�xd3! 16 .f)xd3 ( 1 6 cxd3
.f)e2+ 17 l(t}h1 .Q.d4) 16 . . .
.f)e2+ 17 l(t} h t -'l.d4 18 r!bt
.f)c3 Black has the better
prospects.
b) 7 .f)bd2 �e7 (7 . . . 0-0 8
c3 d6 9 t/Je2 leads to a pos­
ition from the preceding
example) 8 c3 a6 9 -'l.c4 d6
10 b4 -'l.a7 11 a4 .f)dB+
Kremenetsky - M i k . Tseit­
lin, Moscow 1 976.
c) 7 �d3 d6 8 .f)bd2 (8 a4
a6! ) 8 . . . �e7 9 .f)c4 (9 c3
a6! ) 9 . . . 0-0 10 -'l.e3 -'l.xe3 11
.f)xe31(t}h8 12 c4 .f)hS 13 cS? !
Urzica - Hecht, Romania
1980. Better than White's
13th is 13 .f)dS �dB. Now
Black could have got the
advantage with 13 . . . r!xf3!
14 -'l.xc6 r!xe3! It should
al so be noted that 8 ... a6 is
possible: 9 -'l.c4 .f)aS 10 r!e1
�e7; 9 -'l.xc6+ bxc6 10 .f)b3
-'l.b6 11 -'l.e3 aS or 9 -'l.a4 �e7
10 c3 bS 1 1 -'l.b3 .f)d8 12 r!e1
-'l.e6 with equal p lay i n all
cases.
d) 7 -'l.xc6 bxc6 8 .f)xeS
0-0. This variation is of
great i mportance for the
4 d3 21
tactical j ustification of 6 . . .
-'l.cS. Let's examine White's
possibi lities:
di) 9 .QgS �e8 10 -'l.xf6
r!xf6 1 1 .f)d3 -'l.d4 12 c3
(Spassky attempted to im­
prove over this with 12 .f)d2
but could make little im­
pression on the black po­
sition after 12 . . . d6 13 �e2
�g6 14 l(t}hl -'l.a6 IS r!abl
r!af8 16 f3 �gS 17 r!fdlt,&z--'.2
Spassky - Antunes , Thes­
saloniki ol 1988. Black's
bishops and active position
provide ample compensa­
tion for the pawn) 1 2 . . . -'l.b6
13 .f)d2 -'l.a6 1 4 c4 dS IS eS
r!f8 16 �e2 �g6 and Black
has excel lent counterplay
for the pawn . Wol ff -
Kolev, K.iljava 1984.
dii) 9 .f)c3 -'l.a6! 1 0 .f)d3
�e7 and now: if 1 1 eS then 1 1
. . . .f)dS; i f 1 1 .Q.gS -'l.d4 and
fi nally after 1 1 r!el Black
plays 11 . . . -'l.xd3 12 cxd3
22 4 d3
.Q.xf2+ 1 3 'i!;lxf2 4Jg 4+ 1 4 'i!;lg1
�h4 15 h 3 �g3! ! - + .
diii) 9 �e2 �e7 1 0 4Jd3
.Q.a6 1 1 4Jc3 .Q.d4 12 �e1 �ae8
13 eS .Q.xd3 (good i s 13 . . .
�f7) 1 4 �xd3 and after 1 4
. . . .Q.xeS 1 5 .Q.f4 4Jg 4 16 .Q.xeS
4Jxe5 Black wins a paw n
with the better position,
Schneider - Greenfeld, Be­
ersheva 1980. Maia de Alz­
ate - Butskinlhom, Lucerne
1982 saw i nstead 10 �c4+
'i!;lh8 11 4Jd3 .Q.b6 ( 1 1 . . . 4Jxe4
is possible) 12 eS 4Jd5 13
4Jc3 .Q.b7 1 4 4Je4 �fS 15 4Jg3
�f7 16 �g4 �af8 1 7 .Q.gS �e6
with a double-edged pos­
ition w here Black has s uff­
icient compensation for the
paw n .
Returni ng t o t h e main
conti nuation:
7 d6
Risky i s 7 ...�0?1 i n view
of 8 4Jg5 ! 'i!;lh8 9 .Q.c4 �e8 1 0
4Jd5 .Q.b6 1 1 .Q.e3 �g6 1 2 h 4
h 6 13 4Jxf6 �xf6 1 4 �dS �e8
15 .Q.xb6 axb6 16 f4 with a
strong White ini tiative,
Thipsay - Inkiov, Calcutta
1986 .
8 .Q.gS
8 .Q.e3 has been much
tested recently . Now 8 . . .
.Q.xe3? ! does not look im­
pressive for Black , e.g. 9
fxe3 0-0 (9 . . . .Q.g4 10 �d3)
10 .Q.c4+ 'i!;lh8 1 1 4Jg5 .Q.g4 12
�e1 ! with a very pleasant
posi tion for White. There­
fore, practice has seen ex­
clusively 8 . . . .Q.b6 9 4Jd5
0-0 (9 . . . 4Jxe4!? is c l early a
critical response, but no­
body has given it a practical
test) 1 0 .Q.gS 'i!;lh8 11 a4 ( 1 1
.Q.xf6 gxf6 12 4Jh4 4Jd4 ( 1 2
. . . Z!g8 13 c 3 .Q.g4 1 4 �d2
�f8 15 .Q.c4 �gS 16 4Jxb6
axb6 17 f4 �hS 18 g3 �h6 19
'i!;lh1 exf4 20 �xf4 4Je5 21
.Q.dS �f8 22 �xh6 �xh6 23
4JfS �hS 24 4Jd4 c6 lf.L-If.L
Sz napik - lnkiov, Stara Za­
gora Zonal 1990} 13 .Q.d3 c6)
and now :
see follo wing diagram
i) 1 1 . . . .Q.cS! ? 12 c3 aS 13
.Q.c4 .Q.e6!? 1 4 4Jxf6 gxf6 15
.Q.xe6 fxgS 16 .Q.g4 �f6 17
�e2 4Je7 1 8 4Jd2? (Not w hat

the position is ca l l ing for.
Thi s loses time and al lows
Black's ki ngside initiative
to develop alarming pro­
portions. Better plans were
18 c[)e1 i n tending c[)d3, 1 8
g3! ? w i t h the follow-up i n
mind of �g2, �h1 , h4 o r 1 8
h 3 ! ? w ith t h e idea of re­
groupi ng the knight with
c[)h2) 18 . . . �f7 ! 19 -'l,hS �g7
20 h3 �ag8 21 g3 g 4! 22
hxg4 ( 22 -'l,xg 4 hS) 22 . . .
c[)g6 23 c[)f3 c[)f4! 2 4 gxf4
�h6! 2S c[)gS exf4! 26 ltiJg2
( Perovic's analysis refutes
26 c[)f7+ with 26 . . . !:!xf7 27
-'l,xf7 �h3! 28 -'l,xg8 f3 29
�xf3 �xf3 30 -'l,e6 �g3+ 31
�h 1 �h3+ 32 �g1 hS!-+ and
26 �h1 with 26 . . . !:!xgS 27
f3 �xhS+ 28 gxhS !:!gS -+)
26 ... �xgS 27 �h3 �xhS+!
28 gxhS �gS 29 �h 4 �f6 30
�h3 f3 0-1 Abramovic -
Perovic, Vienna 1989.
ii) 1 1 . . . -'lg4 ? ! 12 -'l,e2 -'l,xf3
4 d3 23
(Another method of trying
to l i mit White's advantage
to manageab le proportions
is 12 . . . c[)e7 13 -'l,xf6 gxf6 14
c[)xe7 -'l,xf3! ( 1 4 . . . t/1xe7 15
c[)h4 -'l,e6 16 -'lg 4 l 1S .O,xf3
�xe7 16 -'lg4) 13 -'l,xf3 c[)e7
1 4 c[)xf6! gxf6 1S -'l,h6 !:!gB 16
aS -'l,cS 1 7 c3 a6 1 8 -'l,hS! c[)g6
19 �ht �e7 20 g3 c6 21 t/1f3
c[)f8? ! 22 !:!ad 1 c[)e6? ( Black
had to try 22 . . . !:!dB. The
move played a l l ows a pow­
erfu l tactical response) 23
b4! -'l,a7 24 !:!xd6! !Xad8
(Also hopeless are: 24 . . .
�xd6 2S t/1xf6+ +-, 24 . . .
c[)gS 2S �xf6+ t/1xf6 26 !:!xf6
c[)xe4 27 !:!f7 +- and 24 . . .
c[)f4 2 S !:!d2 + - as pointed
out by Khali fman in his
notes i n lnforma tor) 25
!:!fd1! c[)g7 26 �xd8 �xd8 27
!:!xd8+ �xd8 28 -'l,f7 +- t/Je7
29 -'l,c4 fS 30 exfS t/1f6 31
-'l,xg7+ltiJxg7 32ltiJg2 �f8 33
�d3 �e7 34 t/Jd2! �g7 35
�e2 e4 36 -'l,e6 �f6 37 t/Jg 4+
�h6 38 �xe4 t/Jxc3 39 t/1h4+
�g7 40 t!JgS+ �f8 41 f6 1-0
Khalifman - Inkiov, Moscow
GMA 1 989.
iii) 11 . . . c[)e7! 12 aS -'l,cS 13
!:!a4!? is an untested sug­
gestion of Khal ifman.
8 aJ is a loss of time.
After 8 . . . 0-0 9 c[)a4 .O,b6 10
c[)xb6 axb6 11 c3 �h8 12 !:!e1
24 4 d3
�e8 was not i nspiring for
White, Yudasin - Inkiov,
Minsk 1 982.
8 h3 is a similar waste of
time w hich White can i l l
afford. Plaza - Schuermans,
Thessa loniki 01. 1988 saw
White punis hed drastical ly
for this i ndu lgence: 8 . . .
0-0 9 .Q.c4+ � h 8 10 4Jg5 �e8
11 4Jd5 4Jxd5 1 2 �xd5 4jd8
13 .Q.e3 h6 14 .Q.xc5 dxc5 15
4jf3 �xf3 16 gxf3 .Q.xh3 17
�h2 .Q.xf 1 18 �xf1 �h5+ 19
�g2 4Jc6 20 c3 �f8 2 1 .Q.e2
�g5+ 0-1 .
White also gets nowhere
with 8 �d3 0-0 9 4Ja4. I n
the game Vel ikov - Mele­
gehyi, Hu ngary 1979 there
fol lowed 9 . . . .Q.bo 10 4Jxb6
axb6 1 1 .Q.xc6 bxc6 12 'Mtc4+
�h8 13 'Mtxc6 .Q.d7 with a
Black i ni tiati ve. No better
is 9 .Q.g5 �h8 10 4jd5. In the
game Lhagva - Baumgart­
ner, Lucerne 1982, there
fol lowed 10 . . . 4Je7 ( 1 0 . . .
4Jb4 i s possible) 1 1 4Jxf6
gxf6 12 .Q.h6 �g8 13 .Q.c4 �g6
14 �d2 d5! , and after 15 b4
.Q.b6 16 �h1 c6 1 7 .Q.d3 4Jg8
Black stood very wel l .
8 o-o
9 4Jd5
9 4Ja4 .Q.b6 10 4Jxb6 axb6
11 .Q.c4+ �h8 fai ls to pose
any serious threats to
Black's b uild up on the
ki ngside . Riefner - Bru ning,
Bundesliga 1990 witnessed
another fiasco for White,
e.g. 1 2 c3 �e8 13 4jd2 'M'g6
14 .Q.xf6 �xfo 15 f3 4Je7 16
�f2 'M'g5 1 7 4jf1 4Jg6 1 8 'M'd2
4jf4 19 �h1 .Q.d7 20 4Je3 �h6
21 4Jd5 'M'g3 22 h3 .Q.xh3 23
�g 1 .Q.e6 0- 1 .
White must be more di­
ligent i n this variation. It is
essential to find a method
of disrupting the easy flow
of black pieces to the king­
side.
9 �h8
10 4Jh4
10 c3 4Je7 1 1 4Jxf6 ( 1 1 b4
4Jexd5 12 exd5 .a_bo 13 a4 ao
1 4 .Q.e2 �e8+ Rigo - Mele­
hegy i , Topolka 1981) 1 I . . .
gxf6 12 .Q.h6 �g8 13 .Q.c4 �g 4
1 4 'M'b3 and now with 1 4 ...
4Jg8! Black obtained the
better chances, C hel ush­
kina - Borod u l i na, Zhitomir
1986
10 4Jd4
11 .Q.d3 c6
see follo wing diagram
In this position, White
mus t al ready thi nk about
tryi ng to obtain eq uality.
For example 12 4Jxf6 is a
mistake on "ccount of 12 . . .

gxf6 13 .a,h6 �g8 14 c3 � 4
and Black stands m u c h
better. In Grunberg
Parma, Buenos Aires 1978,
Wh ite tried 12 .a,xf6 gxf6 13
4Je3 4Je6 14 4Jef5 4Jg7 15
�d2? (essential was 15 �h5
to keep chances for equal­
i ty) 15 . . . 4Jxf5 16 exf5 (on
16 4Jxf5 .a,xf5 17 exf5 there
wou ld fol low 17 . . . dS) 16 . . .
�e7 17 �h6 �g8 1 8 c 4 �g7
and B lack has an edge.
A2)
6 d6
4 d3 2S
Previously, this move
was considered essential ,
but compared with the
variations we have already
considered Black has great
difficu lty in obtaining
eq uality.
7 4Jc3
Other variations are not
dangerous for Black, e.g. 7
.a,c4 {)aS 8 �d3 {)xc4 9
�xc4 �e7, 7 �S .a,e7 8
.a,xf6 .a,xf6 9 �dS .a,d7 10
{)c3 �c8 11 �ad 1 {)dB or
7 �e1 fle7 8 {)bd2 ( 8 b3 0-0)
8 . . 0-0 9 .a,c4+ �h8 Riz h­
.
kov - Mik. Tseitlin, Kohla­
Yarve 1983. C learly White
is not goi ng to cause Black
serious problems w ith var­
iations from the text.
However 7 �d3
deserves closer atten­
tion:
a) 7 ... .a,e7 8 �c4 ( 8 .a,c4
{)aS 9 �d l ! ) 8 . . . �d7 On
Schmidt - Mark Tseitlin,
26 4 d3
Leningrad 196S, Black pref­
erred 8 . . . a6, but after 9
,C1.xc6+ bxc6 10 4Jc3 dS 1 1
'[t1a4 d4 12 {JdS ,C1.d7 13 4Jxe7
'[t1xe7 1 4 �aS cS 1S '[t1xc7
White was a paw n up) 9
4JgS ! l:tf8 10 ,C1.xc6 bxc6 I I
f4! ;!;; Fischdick - Lau , Luc­
erne 1982.
b) 7 ... .Q.d7 8 a3 '[t1e7 9
4Jc3 0-0-0 10 b4 h6 1 1 ,C1.e3
gS 1 2 l:tfb 1 preparing a
strong attack agai nst the
king .
c ) The best contin uation
for Black from the diagram
is 7... .Q.g4! Now 8 .Q.gS ,C1.e7
9 4Jbd2 �d7 to h3 does not
help White in view of to . . . Bl ack obtai ned the i nitia­
,C1.hS 1 1 a3 h6 12 .Q.e3 gS with
i n i tiative Wol f - Tarrasch,
Monte Carlo 1903.
After 8 h3 best is 8 . . .
.Q.xf3 ( 8 . . . ,C1.hS is also poss­
ible, e.g. 9 4JgS h6 to 4Je6
�e7 11 �c4 'i1;d7 12 4Jxf8+
l:thxf8 13 4Jc3 g S = ) 9 �xf3
,C1.e7 with the fo l l ow i ng
possibi l i ties:
ci) t o '[t1d3 ( 1 0 4Jc3 leads
to the mai n variation) to . . .
0-0 1 1 ,C1.xc6 bxc6 1 2 '[t1c4+ dS
13 '[t1xc6 4Jxe4=F
cii ) to .Q.c4 �d7 11 .Q.gS
0-0-0 12 4Jc3 l:tdf8=F Wojt­
kiewicz - Yudasin, Panevez­
shis 1977.
ciii) to l:tet 0-0 11 c3
( Matanovic Prei ssman,
Buenos Ai res 1978) I t . . .
'i1;h8 ! , and, as i n the other
lines, . . . h6, . . . 'i1;h8 and . . .
.Q.g S with good cou nterplay .
Therefore, in answer to 7
. . . .Q.g 4 theory recommends
8 4Jc3. However, as wel l as
8 . . . .Q.e7, leading to the
main variation, Black has
the interesting a lternative
8 . . . a6!? 9 .Q.a4 bS 10 .Q.b3
{)aS. The game lgnatiev -
Kuindzhi, Moscow 1964
continued 11 .Q.gS c6 12 r;!ad t
h6 13 .Q.h4 gS 1 4 .Q.g3 4Jxb3
IS axb3 {JhS 16 �e3 t/Jc7 17
4Je2 4Jf4 18 c4 !J.e7 and
tive.
Instead of 8 4Jc3, Tarr­
asch recom mended 8 a3!?
intending .Q.c4. S. Tatai and
S. Zi nser recommend 8 . . .
�d7 9 ,C1.c4 .Q.e6? 1 0 4JgS
,C1.xc4 tl t/Jxc4 4Jd8 but this
al low s the unpleasant rep ly
12 f4! Correct i nstead is 9
. . . .Q.e7! after which 10 {JgS
is pointless i n view of 10 . . .
h6! 1 1 4jf3 gS.
Let's return to the main
conti nuation after 7 4Jc3.
7 ,C1.e7
Here the move 7 ... .Q.g4
has no poi nt, e.g 8 h3 ,C1.hS 9
g4 .Q.g6 to 4Jg5 �d7 l 1 {JdS
4Jxe4 12 4Je6±

I n the case of 7 . . . -'l,e6 8
4:Jg5 � 8 9 f4! gi ves White
excel l ent play .
Together with the text
move worthy of interest is
7 ... a6!? 8 .Q.a4 b5 9 .Q.b3
4:Ja5. The game Petrenko -
Mik. Tsei tlin, Smolensk
1986 contin ued 1 0 �d3 c6 11
.Q.g5 h6 1 2 .Q.d2 g5 13 4Jd1
4Jxb3 1 4 axb3 4Jh5 15 c4
�b8 1 6 g3 �f6 17 4Je1 .Q.e7 1 8
\tilg2 0-0 with active play
for Black.
8 �d3
Apart from this, the
normal continuation , White
has a number of al tern­
atives at his disposal :
a) 8 .Q.e3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ \f;ilh8
10 �e2 .Q.g 4 with good play
for Black Consu l tants -
Levin, Kiev 1902.
b) 8 a4 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ \f;il h 8
10 4Jg5 �e8 1 t .Q.eb h b 1 2
.Q.xc8 �xeS= Romanishi n ­
Lombardy, Mexico 1980.
4 d3 27
c) 8 h3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ (9 .Q.e3
\f;il h 8 10 �e1 .Q.e6 1 1 .Q.f1 theB
12 4Jd5 .Q.d8 13 4Jxf6 .Q.xf6 1 4
g 3 �h5 1 5 4jd2 �g6 was
complex with chances for
both sides , Padevsky
Szymczak, Bulgaria 1975) 9
. . . \tilh8 10 4:Jg5 �e8 1 1 4Je6
(after 1 1 f4 exf4 12 .Q.xf4
�g6 13 �e2 4Je5 Bl ack has
satisfactory play) 11 . . . .Q.xe6
12 .Q.xe6 4:]d4 13 .Q.c4 �g6 14
.Q.e3 4Jh5 15 4Jd5 .Q.d8 16 c3
4Jf3+ 17 \tilh1 �xe4 18 4Jxc7
.Q.xc7 19 .Q.d5 �xe3! ! and
Black wins, Meski - Lelch­
uk, j urmala 1980.
d) 8 .Q.c4 .Q.g4 (possi ble is
8 . . . 4Ja5), and now as 9 .Q.e3
�d7 10 a3 h6 11 .Q.e2 g5 12
4jd2 .Q.e6 13 .Q.c4 4Jd8 (Nez h­
metdinov - Hol mov , Mos­
cow 1961) and 9 h3 .Q.h5 10
�d3 4Jb4 11 �e2 .Q.xf3 12
gxf3 �d7 ( Mikenas - Tol­
ush, Moscow 1957) lead to
good play for Black , best is
9 4Jd5!? when 9 . . . 4Jxd5 10
.Q.xd5 �f8 keeps it level.
e) 8 4Jd5 4:Jxe4!? 9 4Jxe7
(9 �e1 deserves attention) <.1
. . . thxe7 10 �d5 4jf6 1 1
.Q.xc6+ \f;ilf8 ! 1 2 thb5 ( o r 1 2
�c4 .Q.e6 1 3 tha4 bxcb 1 4
�xc6 .Q.d5 1 5 �c3 h6) 12 . . .
a 6 1 3 tha4 bxc6 14 thxcb
�b8. The game Karak lajic -
Wi ttman, Kapfenburg 1976
28 4 d3
continued lS �a4 �g8 16
net h6 17 c4 �f7 18 �c2 .Q.b7
19 4Jd2 �f8=F Instead of 8 . . .
4Jxe4, possible i s 8 . . 0-0 9
.
4JgS �h8 ! ? , and after 10
.Q.c4 4JxdS 11 4Jxh7 �f4 12
.Q.xf4 4Jxf4, Black had a
winning position, Mark
Tseitli n - Arbakov , Gomel
1984.
f) 8 a3 0-0 9 .Q.c4+ ( 9 �d3
�h8 to .Q.e3 .Q.g4 11 4Jd2 4JhS
12 f3 .Q.d7 13 g3 .Q.gS 1 4 .Q.xc6
bxc6 1S 4Jc4 aS 16 a4 .Q.e6 17
4jdl �f6+ S hish marev -
Yudasin, Leni ngrad 1 973) 9
. . . �h8 to 4JgS �e8 1 1 4Je6
( 1 1 f4 exf4 12 .Q.xf4 .Q.d8 ) 11
. . . .Q.xe6 1 2 .Q.xe6 4Jd4 = ,
jasnikowsky - Lipsky, Pol­
and 1979. An a lternative to
8 . . 0-0 is 8 . . . .Q.g4 9 h3
. 12 .Q.xdS+ �h8 13 4Jf7+ �xf7
.Q.xf3 to �xf3 0-0 11 �d3
�h8 12 .Q.e3 as in C hibur­
danidze - Gaprindashvili,
Pi tsu nda 1978 . This game
conitnued 12 . . . 4JhS 13 !:tad1
(13 4JdS 4jf4) 13 . . . .Q.gS 14
4JdS ( i f 14 4Je2, Black can
reply 14 . . . .Q.xe3 or 14 .. . a6)
14 . . . .Q.xe3 1S fxe3! 4Jf6 16
�c4i Instead of 14 . . . .Q.xe3,
possible are: 14 . . . 4Jf4 1S
.Q.xf 4 exf 4 16 .Q.xc6 ( 16 �c3
f3!) 16 . .. bxc6 17 4Jc3 f3!
and 14 . . . a6 lS .Q.c4 ( 1 S .Q.xgS
�xgS 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 4Jxc7?
4Jf4) lS . . . 4Jf4 16 .Q.xf4 exf4!
8 .Q.g4
Insufficient is 8 ... .Q.d7?!
9 .Q.c4 4JaS 10 4JgS 4Jxc4 I I
�xc4 �f8 1 2 f 4 exf 4 13
.Q.xf4 h6 14 4Jf3 4Jg4 IS
.Q.d2±
9 h3
AI ternatively :
a) 9 4Jd5 0-0 10 4JgS 4Jd4
( to . . �h8 !?) 1 1 .Q.c4 4Jxd5
.
14 .Q.xf7 .Q.e2 15 �d2 �f8 16
�e1 �xf7 17 �xe2 .Q.gS=
Ledezer - Mal lee, Corres­
pondence 197 4.
b) 9 4Jh4 �d7 10 4Jf5
.Q.xfS 11 exfS dS 12 .Q.gS a6 13
.Q.a4 0-0-0 with good play
for Black, Krasnov - Mik.
Tseitlin, Moscow 1976.
c) 9 .Q.c4 �d7 to a3 h6 1 1
4Jh4 g S 1 2 4Jg6 �h7 13 4Jd5
.Q.d8 1 4 f4 gxf4=F Kaidanov -
Mik. Tseitlin, Bel tsi 1978.
d) 9 a3 0-0 to 4Jg5 �e8 I I
h 3 .Q.d7 1 2 4Jd5 .Q.d8 1 3 .Q.c4
�h8. The game Suchting -

Duz - Hoti mirski, Prague
1908 continued 14 .Q.d2 h6 1S
c[)f3 c[)e7 16 c[)xe7 .Q.xe7 17
!:tae 1 c[)hS 18 !l1h2 c[)f 4 19
.Q.xf4 r!xf4 with the better
position for Black. In Pi n­
kas - M al lee, Lublin 197S,
Black preferred 9 . . . c[)d7 to
c[)dS 0-0 1 1 .Q.c4 !l1h8 12
c[)xe7 t!Jxe7 13 c[)gS c[)d4 1 4
!:t e l h6 1S t!Jg3 c[)f6 1 6 h3 .Q.d7
17 c[)f3 c[)hS 18 t!Jg6 ( 1 8 c[)h4
t!Jf6) 1 8 . . . c[)xf3+ 19 gxf3
t!Jh4 20 .Q.xh6 !:txf3 with a
winning position for Black .
In answer to 9 a3, Black
can also conti n ue in simi lar
fashion to the main line,
i .e . 9 . . . .Q.xf3 10 t!Jxf3 0-0
with the fo ll owing exam­
ples:
di) 11 t!Jd3 !l1h8 12 -'le3
c[)hS 13 c[)dS (Kostro - Fran­
zen , Stary Smokovec 1972)
and now 13 . . . c[)f4! 14 .a_xf4
exf4 tS t!Jc3 f3+
dii) 11 .Q.c4+ !l1h8 12 t!Jd3
c[)hS 13 c[)e2 c[)f4 14 .Q.xf4
exf4 1S f3 .Q.f6= Zatulovs­
kaya - _Gaprindashvili, Pet­
ukov Tribunalski 1979.
diii) 11 t!Jdt (11 t!Jh31?) 11 . . .
!l1 h 8 1 2 .Q.e3 h 6 1 3 !l1 h 1 c[) h7
14 f3 .Q.gS 1S .Q.g 1 hS 16 c[)dS
c[)e7 17 .Q.e2 aS 18 c[)xe7 t!Jxe7
19 a4 h 4 20 .Q.c4 c[)f6 21 !:ta3
c[)hS=F Malinichev - Mik.
Tseitlin, Sochi 1981.
4 d3 29
e) 9 t!Jc4 .Q.xf3! and the
correspondence game Prajn­
falk - Konstantinopolsky
(197S/78) conti n ued to gxf3
t!Jd 7 11 c[)dS a6 12 -'lxc6 bxc6
13 c[)xe7 (or 13 c[)b4 cS 14
c[)dS c[)xdS 1 S t!Jxd5 c6, and
Black begins the counter­
attack) 13 . . . !l1xe7 14 .Q.gS
�hf8 15 !l1h1 t!Jh3 16 t!Je2 ( 16
t!Jc3 !l1d7 17 !:tfd1 t!Jh5) 16 . . .
h 6 , with active Black play .
Preferable to 1 0 gxf3 is
10 .a_xc6+ bxc6 11 t!Jxc6+
t!Jd7! 12 t!Jxd7+ (certainly
not 12 t!Jxa8+? !l1f7 and
White loses the queen) 12
. . . !l1 xd7 13 gxf3 . Here, how­
ever, after 13 . . . c[)h5, Black
has su fficient compensa­
tion for the pawn, e.g. 14
�dt ( 1 4 c[)e2 �hf8) 14 . . .
�hf8 15 �d3 �f6! Instead of
15 . . . �f6 ! , 15 . . . �f7 is in­
accurate as can be seen
from the correspondence
game Mik. Tseitlin - Ban­
falvi (1985/89) which con­
ti nued 16 c[)e2 !:taf8 17 !l1g2
!:tf6 18 c[)g3 g6 19 !:tb3 c£jf4+
20 .Q.xf4 !:txf4 21 �dt h5 22
�dd3 �a8 23 c4 aS 24 c5
and White obtained the
initiative.
Returning to the position
after 9 h3:
9 .Q.xf3
10 t!Jxf3 o-o
30 4 d3
11 �d1
On 11 �d3 �h8 12 .Q.e3 can
fol low 12 .. . 4:jh5 13 c£)d5
c£)f4 14 .Q.xf4 exf4 15 �c3 f3
or 12 . . . 4:Jb4 13 �d2 c6 1 4
.Q.e2 d5 i n both cases with
good Black play.
11 �h8
12 .Q.e3 h61
This continuation has
been worked out by Mik.
Tseitlin. The game Pil nik -
Rubinetti , Mar del Plata
1971 saw a weaker response
from Black, 12 ... �e8?1 and
after 13 4:Jd5! .Q.d8 1 4 c£) xf6
.Q.xf6 ( 1 4 . . . r!xf6 ! ?) 15 c3
�g6 16 �g4 �xg4 17 hxg4
h6 18 g3 Whi te had all the
chances.
Here, Black is threaten­
ing to take the i nitiative on
the kingside. Grigorov -
Mik. Tsei tlin, Pernik 1977
conti nued 13 �d2 4:Jh7 1 4
4:Jd5 .Q.g5 1 5 f4 exf4 1 6 4:Jxf4
.Q.xf4 1 7 .Q.xf4 c£)e5 1 8 .Q.xe5
dxe5 1 9 �xd8 r!axd8 20
�xf8+ �xf8 21 �f1 �xf1+ 22
�xf1 4:jf6. In this res u l tant
posi tion, the Black knight
is stronger than the oppo­
sing bishop .
Also good for Black w as
Solovyev - Mik. Tsei tlin,
Cheliabinsk 1980 w hich
conti nued 13 a3 4:Jh7 14 c£)e2
.Q.g5 15 f4 exf4 16 c£)xf4
.Q.xf4 17 .Q.xf4 �h4 1 8 �d2
4:Je5 19 �ae1 4:Jg5 20 .Q.xg5
hxg5! 21 �xf8+ �xf8 22 �ft
�f4! 23 �d5 �g3 with a
winning position for Black .
B
Here, we have to con­
sider two main variations:
Bt> 5 o-o
B2) 5 exf5
5 �c3 does not present
Black with any problems,

e.g. S . . . .Q.b4! 6 0-0 .Q.xc3 7
bxc3 fxe4 8 dxe4 d6 ( 8 . . .
0-0 9 �e2 �e8 10 4jel d6 l l
f3 .Q.d7 1 2 .Q.c4+ �h8 1 3 .0.e3
4JaS also gives Black no
cause for complaint) and
now:
a) 9 �el 0-0 10 �bl �h8 l l
.a,g s �e8 1 2 �d2 .0.d7 Slivin
- N adezhdin, Rostov 1960.
b) 9 4Jd2 0-0 10 .O.d3 �e8
II 4jc4 4Jd8 12 4je3 4je6 13
4JdS 4jxdS 1 4 exdS 4jf 4 tS
c4 b6 16 f3 �hS 17 .0.e3 .0.d7
18 �d2 �f6+ Po l ovodin -
Arbakov, "Zeni t" C h . 1981.
c) 9 �d3 (note also 9 .a,gs
.0.e6 tO 4jh4 h6!) 9 ... .0.d7
(also good are 9 . . . �e7 10
4jh4 0-0 and 9 . . . 0-0 to
�c4+ �h8 II .O.xc6 bxco 12
�xc6 .a,g4 13 4jd2 4jhS 14 f3
.0.d7 tS �c4 4jf4 1 6 �f2 �b8
17 �ft �gS with a strong
inti tiative for the pawn,
Zolotonos - Korelov, Len­
i ngrad 1973. tO .a,gs ( 10 �b l
4jaS 1 1 .O.xd7+ �xd7 12 .a,gs
�c6 13 .Q.xf6 gxf6 14 4jh4
0-0-0 IS 4jfS �d7 16 4Je3
�g8+ Teichmann - Marsh­
all, Monte Carlo 1902) 10 . . .
h 6 1 1 .Q.xf6 �xf6 12 c 4 a 6 13
.Q.a4 0-0-0 14 �abl 4::)b 8 IS
.Q.xd7+ 4jxd7 16 4jd2 4jcS
and Black is better, Nash -
Li ublinsky, Correspondence
1963.
4 d3 31
Bl
s o-o .a_cs
6 4jc3
6 4Jxe5 4JxeS 7 d4 4Jxe4!?
wi th sharp play.
6 .a_xc6 dxc6 7 4JxeS fxe4
8 dxe4 �xdl 9 �xdl 4Jxe4
10 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 I I fxe3 0-0+
( Fleissig) .
6 .O.c4 leads to a position
from the Ki ng's Gambit
Declined with colours rev­
ersed. As we ll as 6 . . . fxe4
7 dxe4 d6, which leads to a
position examined in part
A ( note to Whi te's sixth
move) , Black can play 6 . . .
d 6 immediately.
And now :
a ) 7 4Jg5 f 4 8 4jf7 �e7 9
4Jxh8 .a,g 4 10 �d2 4jd4 It
�hi 4jf3! 1 2 �aS 4Jxe4! - a
beautiful conclusion to
Black's attack, Bal la - Reti,
Budapest 1918.
b) 7 .O.e3 .O.xe3 8 fxe3 4JaS
9 .O.b3 4jxb3 10 axb3 fxe4 l t
32 4 d3
dxe4 c[)xe4 1 2 c[)xeS c[)f6!:j:
c) 7 �5 h 6 8 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 9
c3 f4 1 0 c[)bd2 gS 1 1 c[)b3
.Q.b6 12 a4 aS 13 .Q.bS .Q.d7 1 4
d 4 g 4 with a strong attack,
Minckwitz Anderssen ,
Berlin 1 866.
d) 7 h3 c[)aS 8 .Q.gS c[)xc4 9
dxc4 h6 10 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 1 1
c[)c3 a 6 12 c[)dS t!;Jf7 1 3 exfS
.Q.xfS 1 4 c[)h4 .Q.h7 15 �h1
o-o; Breyer - Hromadka,
Baden 1914.
e) 7 c[)c3 f4! 8 h3 c[)d4!
and Black's chances are
preferab le, e.g. 9 c[)a4 9 . . .
c[)xf3+ 10 t!;Jxf3 g S , 9 c[)dS
c[)xdS 10 -'lxdS c[)xf3+ 1 1
t!;Jxf3 t!;Jh4, or finally, 9
c[)xd4 .Q.xd4 10 c[)dS ( 10
c[)a4? a6) 10 . . . c[)xdS 1 1 .Q.xdS
t!;Jh 4 12 c3 .Q.b6 13 d 4 �f8.
6 o-o
The natural move 6 ... d6
encountered an unexpected
refu tation in the game
Berger - Duz Hoti mirski,
Carlsbad 1907, i.e. 7 exfS!
0-0 (or 7 . . . .Q.xfS 8 d4) 8
c[)e4 .Q.b6 9 c[)g3 c[)e7 10
.Q.c4+ dS 1 1 -'l.b3 �d6 1 2 t!;Je2
c[)d7 13 c[)e4! t!;Jc6 1 4 c[)c3
with a winni ng position for
White .
7 .Q.gS
7 .Q.c4+ �h8 8 c[)gS d6 ( 8
. . . t!;Je7!?) 9 c[)f7+ �xf7 1 0
.Q.xf7 f4 1 1 .Q.hS gS 1 2 c[)dS
.Q.e6� Tarasov - Tsarev ,
Moscow 1 973.
7 d6
Possible is 7 ... h6 to
meet 8 .Q.xf6 t!;Jxf6 9 c[)dS
t!;Jd8 10 c3 with 10 . . . fxe4 1 1
dxe4 a6, o r i mmediately 1 0
. . . a6 with approximately
equal chances.
j . Belavenets recomm­
ends the i mmediate 7 . .. a6.
8 .Q.c4+
The exchange 8 .Q.xc6 is
illogical. The correspond­
ence game Schi ffers - Har­
di n, ( 1 897 /98) conti nued
bxc6 9 d4 exd4 1 0 c[)xd4
t!;Jd7 (also w orth attention
is 10 . . . t!;Je8! 1 1 �e1 t!;Jg6) 1 1
.Q.xf6 �xf6 1 2 exfS and after
12 . . . dS! 13 Z!e1 t!;Jf7 14 t!;Jd2
.Q.xfS 15 c[)xfS �xfS 16 !.!e2
�f8 17 Z!f1 t!;JhS Black had
the advantage.
A consu l tation game
from 1 899 saw 8 c[)e2 but
after 8 ... t!;Je8 9 exfS .Q.xfS
10 d4 exd4 1 I c[)exd4 .Q.g4 12
t!;Jd3 t!;JhS! 13 c[)xc6 .Q.xf3 the
compl ications favoured
Black.
8 c[)dS is met favourably
by 8 . . . fxe4.
8 �h8
9 c[)dS c[)aSI

Black's chances are to be
preferred here. On 10 4Jxf6
10 . . . gxf6 1 1 ..clh6 there
fol lows 1 1 . . . 4Jxc4! 12 .Q.xf8
fxe4 13 dxc4 exf3 14 .Q.h6
.Q.g 4=i=, and i n the event of
10 exf5 4Jxc4 11 dxc4 .Q.xfS
is also better for Black
(Schiffers - Hardin, Corres­
pondence 1 894) .
B2)
4 4Jf6
5 exf5 .Q.c5
The little known game
Pavlov - A lekhine, Moscow
1920 i s worthy of attention:
5 . .. .Q.e7 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7
4Jxe5 .Q.xfS 8 0-0 0-0 9 f 4
�d4+ to cat h 1 �ad8 1 1 c[)d2
�dS 12 4jdf3 .Q.cS 13 �e1
!:tde8 14 �g3 !:te6 1 5 .Q.d2
c[)hS 1 6 �e1 .Q.g4 with s uff­
icient compensation for the
pawn.
The origi nal 5 ... 4Je717
led to equal chances after 6
4 dJ 33
o-o c6 7 .Q.c4 d6 8 �e1 .Q.xfS
9 .Q.gS �d7 10 4Jc3 h6 11
.Q.xf6 gxf6 12 d4 e4 13 4Jh 4
dS 1 4 .Q.e2 .Q.e6 in Ki nder­
mann - Geenen , Thessalo­
niki 1988.
6 4Jc3
B lack has no problems
after 6 4Jxe5 0-0 ( possible
is 6 . . . 4Jd4) 7 4Jxc6 because
of 7 . . . �e8+ 8 cat f1 dxc6 9
.Q.c4+ cath8.
After 6 0-0, Black should
answer 6 ... 0-0 leading to
the fo l l owing position:
Here White has the fol l ­
owi ng possibi lities at his
disposal :
a) 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 4Jxe5 (a
very risky plan) 8 . . . .Q.xfS.
The game Burba - Havuch­
ek, Prague 1 961 continued 9
4Jc3 �e8 ( 9 . . . .Q.d4 1 0 4Jc4
4Jg4 1 1 4je3 �h4 is recomm­
ended by ECO) 10 �e1 4Jg4
1 1 4Jxg4 .Q.xg 4 1 2 !:txe8
!:taxeS! and Black wins as a
34 4 d3
q ueen move is met by 13 . . .
�xf2.
In the game Goring -
Minckwitz, Leipzig 1S71
White chose 9 .a_e3 t!Je7 10
d4 �adS 1 1 c3 .a_d6 12 4Jc4
(better is 12 f 4) , and there
fol l owed a standard sac­
rifice, 12 . . . .a_x h2+! 13 �xh2
4Jg4+ 1 4 �g l ( i f 1 4 �g3 b5
and . . . t/1d6+) 1 4 . . . t/1h4 15
.a_f4 .a_e4 16 .a,g3 �xf2 1 7
.a_xh 4 �xg2+ 1S �h1 �h2+ 1 9
�g 1 X!h1 + mate. A graceful
miniature.
b) 7 4Jxe5 (7 4Jc3 leads to
the main variation ) 7 ...
4Jxe5 S d4 .a_xd4 9 t/1xd 4 d6
and the game Shiyanovsky
- Gips lis, Riga 1 955 soon
ended as a draw .
c) 7 .a_e3 ( strongest acc­
ording to ECO) 7 . . . c[)d4! S
c3 4Jxf3+ 9 t/1xf3 .a_e7. The
correspondence game Itkin
- Glazkov <t9S5) continued
thus: to 4Jd2 c6 1 1 .a_a4 d5 12
.a_b3 4Je8 13 g4 g6 14 .Q.h6
and now with the move 1 4
. . . 4Jg7! Black could obtain
a good position. On 10 g4
c6 1 1 .Q.a4 dS 12 4Jd2 could
follow 12 ... h5 13 h3 hxg4
14 h xg 4 4Jxg4 15 ttxg4 .Q.xf5
16 tte2 rtf6 w i th a s trong
Black attack, typical of this
variation.
6 o-o
7 o-o
7 4Je4 .a_e7 S 0-0 d5 9
4Jg3 .a_d6 10 X!el 4Jd4 1 1 .a_a4
4Jxf3+ 12 t/1xf3 e4 with a
strong initiative, Chiburd­
anidze - Kantorovich, Mos­
cow 1965.
In the event of 7 ..Q.gS
c[)d4 S .Q.a4 c6 9 0-0 d5 10
4Jxe5 .a_xf5 Black also has
good play. Instead of S
.Q.a4, the correspondence
game Kryukov - Estrin
( 1961) saw 8 .Q.c4+ �hS 9 0-0
c6 10 4Je4 4Jxf3+ 11 t/1xf3
.a_e7 12 .Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 13 4jd6
tte7 1 4 4JxcS �axeS 15 .Q.b3
.a,g5 with good chances.
7 4Jd4
see fol/owing diagram
7 dS is an interesting
...
alternative. Padevsky
Popov, Bulgaria 1959 con­
tinued S .Q.g5 �hS! 9 .Q.xc6
bxc6 10 4Jxe5 .Q.xf5 1t d 4

.Q.d6 (better is It . . the8, as
. After 9 .Q.a4 .Q.xfS Black
White cou l d now play 12
4:Jxc6 �e8 13 4:JeS) 1 2 4:je2
�e8 13 .Q.xf6 gxf6, and after
14 4:jd3 �b8 IS �d2 �g6 16
4:Jg3 �g8 17 b3 hS Black
had a good attacking pos­
ition.
8 4:jxe5
After 8 4:je4 Black can
answer 8 . . . .Q.e7 .
8 dSI
A natural continuation at
first sight is 8 c6 9 .Q.a4
...
dS but this allows the u n­
pleasant reply 10 4:Je2! Kar­
pov - Bellon , Manti l la 1 976
went to . . . �aS ( somewhat
better is to . �c7) 11 .Q.b3
. .
�c7 1 2 4:Jxd4 �xeS 1 3 4:Je2!
�xfS 1 4 4:Jg3 �g6 15 d4 .Q.d6
16 c3 4:Jg4 1 7 f4 �h6 1 8 h3
and Black had no compen­
sation for the pawn .
9 4:Jf3
4 d3 35
has good chances for an
attack on the ki ng's wing.
For example:
a) 10 4:Je2 4:Jg4 with dan­
gerous play .
b) 10 .Q.f4 c6 1 1 4:je2 .Q.g 4 !
12 4:Jxg4 4:Jxg4 1 3 .Q.g 3 ( 13
4:Jxd4? �xf4 1 4 4:Je6 thh4) 13
... 4:jf5 1 4 d4 4:Jxg3 1S fxg3
(15 4:Jxg3 �h4 16 h3 4:Jxf2) 1S
. .. �gS with a strong attack
Tringov - Gru n feld, Skara
1980.
c) 10 ..Q.gS c6 1 I h3 (after 1 1
4:Je2 �e7 12 4:Jxd 4 there w i l l
fol low 1 2 . . . .Q.xd4 13 4:jf3
.Q.xb2) 1 1 . . . �c7. In the
game Kagan - Wedberg,
Lucerne 1 979 White ans­
wered 12 4:jf3? but after 12
. . . .Q.g 4 ! soon had to capitu­
late. Instead of 12 4:jf3?
better is 12 �e1 �ae8 13 .Q.f4!
.Q.d6 1 4 4:Je2 4:Je6 IS d4 4:Jxf4
16 4:Jxf4 .Q.xeS 17 dxeS �xeS,
but even here, Black's pas-
36 4 d3

ition is fine. this position are:

9 c6 a) 11 .O.a4 .O.xfS 12 .Q.gS aS
10 4Jxd4 .O.xd4 13 a3 bS 14 .O.b3 !!a 7 15 �d2
�b6 16 !!ae1 b4 17 axb4 axb4
18 4Jdl 4Jg4 and Black's
active piece play fu l ly com­
pensates for the missing
paw n, Sudoplatov - Berezin,
Moscow 1957 .
b) 11 4Je2 .O.b6 12 .0.a4
.O.xfS 13 .0.f4 4Jh5 14 .Q.g3
.Q.g4 15 thd2 4Jxg3 16 4Jxg3
�h4 with a strong attack,
Zhmarev - Kosterin, Kiev
Practical examples from 1958.
4) 4 d4

1 e4 e5
2 4Jf3 4Jc6
3 -'l,b5 f5
4 d4
Whte p l ayers choosing
this dou ble-edged contin­
uation must be prepared to
sacrifice a piece.
4 fxe4
4 ... 4Jxd4 5 4Jxd 4 exd4 6
�xd4 fxe4 i s a weak al ter­
native. Kupfer - Gul brand­
sen , Denmark v Norway A) 5 .Q.xc6
conti nued 7 0-0! 4Jf6 8 -'l.g5 B) 5 4Jxe5
c6 9 .Q.xf6 �xf6 10 �xe4+
.Q.e7 and now with the move A)
1 1 4jc3! White cou l d get the 5 .Q.xc6 dxc6
advantage. The usual reaction to
After 4 . . exd4 5 eS!
. White's captu re, but poss­
there arises a position from ible is 5 ... bxc6. The game
the Fa lkbeer Counter­ Schiffers - Hardi n, Samara
gambi t with colours rever­ 1895 saw 6 4Jxe5 4Jf6 7 0-0
sed and an extra tempo for .Q.e7 (Tchi gorin recomm­
White. ended 7 . . . .Q.b7 8 4Jc3 dS 9
White now has two alter­ fJ exf3 1 0 �xf3 .Q.e7= ) 8
natives: 4Jc3 .Q.b7 9 -'l.gS 0-0 10 �e2
38 4 d4
and now the move to . . . d6
eq uali ses the p l ay.
Instead of 7 0-0, 7 .Q.gS
!J.e7 8 4Jd2 0-0 9 �e2 �e8
to 0-0, a l l owed Black good
cou nterplay after 10 . . . aS 1 1
!!fe1 !J.a6 1 2 c4 d6 13 4Jd3 dS
14 b3 fld6 15 4JcS flc8 16 4Jf1
tt1g6 17 !J.xf6 tt1xf6 18 !!ad1
tt1h4 19 g3 tt1f6 in Savasky -
Banfa l v i , Budapest 198 1 .
6 4Jxe5
6 �h4
The most u s ual move,
bu t also worthy of atten­
tio n is 6 ...4Jf6. White's
most com mon response is
7 !J.gS with the fol l owing
possibil ities:
a) 7 ... !J.e7 8 4Jc3 0-0 9
0-0 !J.fS 10 �d2 h6= Kupper
- Boey , Lugano 1968.
b) 7 ...cS 8 4Jc3 !J.f5 9 f4
(Shenmann Lublinsky ,
Correspondence t 960) and
now with 9 . . . �xd4 10
�xd4 cxd4 11 4:)b5 !J.b4+ 12
�ft 0-0 Black cou ld get
good counterplay.
d 7 ... !J.fS 8 0-0 fld6 9
4Jc3 h6 to flh4 gS! 1 1 !J.g3
hS! 12 h4 4Jg4 ( 12 . . . .Q.g4! ?)
t3 �e2 gxh4 14 !J.f4 �f6 IS
4Jxe4 !J.xe4 16 tt1xe4 0-0-0
wi th a dangerous Black
attack, Zeitler - M i l ousov,
Pu la t972.
d) 7 ... !J.d6 8 4Jd2 0-0 9
0-0 Of 9 tt1e2 tt1e8 tO 0-0-0
then to . . . cS! ) 9 . . . tt1e8 tO
f4 4JdS! tt �e2. Al ipov -
Chekhlov, Vi lnius 1982 now
saw tt . . . h6 12 flh4 !!xf4 13
!!xf4 4:)xf4 14 �xe4 !J.xeS 1S
dxeS ( I S �xeS �xeS 16 dxeS
!J.fS 17 !!ft gS or 17 c3 4:)d3,
in both cases w ith a Black
advantage) 15 . . . 4Jg6 16 !J.g3
!J.e6 1 7 c4 !!d8 18 4:)ft !J.f7 19
!!e1 tt1e6 20 b3 4Je7 21 4Je3
!J.g6 22 tt1h4 !!d2 23 4Jg4
4jfS+ .
Consideri ng the above
material , a preferab le rep ly
to 6 . . . 4Jf6 would appear to
be 7 0-0 !J.d6 8 c£Jc3 (after
8 �e2, jaenisch recomm­
ended 8 . . . 0-0 9 �c4+ 4:)dS
10 4Jc3 !J.e6 with an excel l­
ent Black position ) . If now
8 . . . 0-0 then 9 !!e1 ! (worse
is 9 �e2 �e8! to !J.f4 4:)d5!)
9 ... !J.b4 10 .Q.gS �e8 t t !J.xf6
gxf6 12 4:)d3! .Q.xc3 13 bxc3
�g6 14 4:)f4 �fS 15 �d2 bS

16 f3 exf3 17 gxf3 .Q.d7 1 8
�h1 = Hecht - Hennings,
Helsinki 1 972. Hasidovsky
- Nadezhdin , Tashkent 1960,
saw instead 8 . . . 't!Je7 9 .Q.g5
.O.f5 and after 10 .Q.xf6 �xf6
11 �h5+ go 12 t/Je2 .Q.xe5 13
dxe5 t/Jxe5 14 g4 .Q.e6 15
t!Jxe4 t/Jxe4 16 4Jxe4 0-0-0
17 f3 .Q.d5 the chances were
equ a l . An inferior a l tern­
ative to 9 .Q.g5 is 9 f4?! 0-0
to !!et . Pav lov - Ivanov, 1 976
continued 10 . . . .Q.f5 11 g4 ( 1 1
h 3 i s more circumspect) 1 1
. . . .Q.xe5! 12 fxe5 ( 12 g xf5
.Q.d6) 12 . . . 4Jxg4 13 4Jxe4
t/Jh4 14 .Q.f4 .Q.xe4 15 .Q.g3
t/Jh3 16 nxe4 !!f2! and White
resigned .
7 t!Je2
7 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 8 4Jc3 (weaker
is 8 t/Jd2 .Q.e6 9 .Q.g5 t/JhS 1 0
4Jc3 4jf6 1 1 4Je2 0-0-0 with
the better play for Black,
Zuckerman - Lazard, Paris
1929) 8 . . . .Q.e6 9 t/Je2! 4Jf6 10
h3 0-0 11 g3 t/JhS 12 �xhS
�xhS 13 4Jg4 !!ae8 1 4 0-0-0
.Q.dS 15 b3 bS t.2 : t.2 Estrin
- Boey , 1979.
After 7 o-o, Furman and
Taimanov recommend 7 . . .
.Q.d6 8 f 3 exf3 9 4Jxf3 t(1hS.
Georgadze - M i k . Tseitlin,
Simferopol 1975 contin ued
10 4Jc3 4Je7 11 4Je4 0-0 12
4jxd6 cxd6 13 t(1e1 �6
4 d4 39
which was fi ne for Black .
Instead of 7 . . . .Q.d6, 7 . . .
4Jf6 leads to the fol l owing
position:
Here the fol lowing poss­
ibilities m ust be consid­
ered:
a) 8 f4 .Q.fS 9 c4 0-0-0 10
.Q.e3 4Jg 4 11 4Jxg4 .Q.xg4 12
t(1e1 t(1hS 13 4Jc3 .Q.b4+ Vuk­
evic - Baretic, Belgrade
1963.
b) 8 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 9 �d2 .Q.e6
10 4Jc3 0-0-0 and Black has
comfortabl e play ( Bilguer) .
c) 8 4Jc3 .Q.d6 9 t/Je2 .Q.e6
tO f4 .Q.fS 1 1 .Q.e3 0-0 12 �aet
�ae8+ Durao - A lexander,
Dublin 1957.
d) 8 f3 .Q.d6 9 �e1 �hS 10
4Jc3 .Q.xeS 11 dxeS �xeS 12
4Jxe4- Rel ls tab - To lush,
Vienna 1957.
7 4Jf6l
P. Keres recommended 7
. . . .Q.e6 8 h3 0-0-0 9 g3 �e7,
as the capture 10 �xe4 is
40 4 d4
very risky on account of 10
. . . c£jf6 11 �f4 �d6 and with
12 . . . cS and 12 . . . gS i n the
air, White has great diff­
icu l ties. However, White
shouldn't accept this pois­
oned paw n. The corres�
ondence game Grabowsky -
Wittman, 1976/77 shows
the correct pat h : 10 .Q.e3!
(preventi ng . . . cS) 10 . . . c£jf6
11 c£jc3 �b4 12 0-0-0 cS 13
a3 �aS 14 dS! c£jxdS ( i f 14 . . .
.Q.d7 then 1S c£jf7 and after
14 . . . .Q.g8 1S c£jxe4 fol lows)
1S c£jxdS �xdS 16 �xdS .Q.xdS
17 �g4+ with a wi nning
posi tion for White, as 17 . . .
fifthS is answered by 1 8
c£jd7+ 'ifta8 19 �hS!
Taking this into account,
8 ... .Q.d6! (instead of 8 ...
0-0-0) deserves consider­
ation. Cardoso - Boey , Sko­
pje 1972 conti nued 9 c£jc3
c£jf6 10 g3 �hS 1 1 g4 (better
is 11 �xhS+ c£jxhS 12 c£jg4
with equality) 11 . . . �h4 12
.Q.f4 and after 1 2 ... .Q.xg 4! 13
c£Jxg 4 .Q.xf4 14 c£jxf6+ �xf6
1S c£jxe4 �e7 16 c£JcS �xe2+
17 'iftxe2 0-0-0 Black had all
the chances.
8 h3
8 c£jc3 .Q.b4 (8 . . . .Q.e6 i n­
tendi ng . . . .Q.d6 is probably
an i mprovement) 9 0-0
.Q.xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 �b1 aS
12 c4 c£Jg4 13 c£jxg 4 .Q.xg 4 1 4
�e3 .Q.e6 1 S nxh 7 .Q.xc4 16
�e1 .Q.xa2 17 Z!xc7 .Q.dS 1 8
.Q.a3 Z!f7= Vasiliev - Mik.
Tseitlin, Dubna 1981.
8 c£jd2 .Q.fS 9 c£jf1 .Q.e6 10
c£Jg3 0-0-0 11 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 12
.Q.d2 �he8 13 0-0-0 .Q.xeS=F
Sudnitsin - Glazkov, Mos­
cow 1973.
Here Black doesn't stand
worse and has many inter­
esting possibil i ties. For
example:
a) 8 . . . c£Jd5 9 g3 �f6 10 c4
c£jb6 11 a3 (11 c£jc3 .Q.b4 12
.Q.d2 .Q.xc3 13 .Q.xc3 is wel l
met by 13 . . . 0-0! and i f 1 4
dS, then 14 . . . �fS with
good play) 11 . . . cS 12 .Q.e3
.Q.d6 13 c£jd2 ( M arkov - Har­
din, Peterburg 1 89S) and
now 13 . . . .Q.fS! would be
strong as on 1 4 g 4? there
fol l ow s 14 . . . cxd4! with the
advantage.
b) 8 ... .Q.d6 9 �c4 (better

9 4Jc3 .Q.e6, leading to a
position from Cardoso -
Boey , w hich is examined in
the notes to Black's sev­
enth move) 9 . . . �hS! and
the threat of 10 .. . .Q.eS
means that White has diff­
icu l ties , e.g. 10 4Jxc6 .Q.d7 1 1
4:)b4 aS, 1 0 g 4 4Jxg4! or,
final ly , 10 .Q.f4 4JdS 1 1 g4
.Q.xg4! - i n a l l cases with a
Black advantage.
c) 8 ... .Q.e6 9 g3 �hS 1 0
�xhS+ ( 1 0 g 4 � h 4 1 1 .Q.f4
4:)dS 1 2 �xe 4 4:)xf4 13 �xf4
0-0-0 with good compen­
sation for the pawn) 10 . . .
4:)xhS 1 1 0-0 .Q.xh3 12 t!el
4:)f6 13 .Q.gS .Q.e7+ Butichin -
Glazko v , Moscow 1986.
d) 8 ... .Q.e7 9 4:)c3 0-0 10
�c4+ ( 10 g3 �hS 11 g4 �h4
12 .Q.f4 4:)dS! ) 10 . . . 4:)dS 11 g3
�f6 12 4Jxe4 �fS 13 �e2 cS
14 4:)xcS?! (better is 1 4 .Q.d2
cxd4 IS 4:)d3) 14 . . . ..Q.xcS 1S
dxcS 4:)b4 16 4:)d3 ( 16 0-0
4Jxc2 17 tlbt 4:)d4) 16 . . .
4Jxc2+ and Black won
quickly, Geissert - M ohring,
GDR 1963.
B)
5 c[)xe5 4:)xe5
The main continuation
leading to very double­
edged positions. However,
a q ui eter a l ternative is av-
4 d4 41
ai lable, e.g. 5 ... 4Jf6 6 0-0
.Q.e7 7 c3 (7 .Q.gS 0-0 8 4:)c3
leads now here in view of 8
. . . �e8! 9 tle1 ..Q.b4!) 7 . . .
4Jb8! 8 �b3 (8 .Q.gS co 9
.Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 10 �hS+ g6 1 1
4Jxg6 hxg6 1 2 �xg6+ �f8)
8 . . . �f8 9 .Q.gS c6 10 .Q.e2 d6
11 4:)c4 dS and White has
nothing specia l .
6 dxe5 c6
7 4:)c3
This piece sacrifice is
more or less forced as the
al ternatives are rather un­
palatable for White. The
fol l owing are practical ex­
amples:
a) 7 .Q.c4 �aS+ and now:
ai) 8 4Jc3 �xeS 9 .Q.xg 8
Hxg8 1 0 .Q.e3 d S 11 �d2 ..Q.e6
12 0-0-0 .Q.b4 van den Bosch
Spielmann, Noordwijk
1938.
aii ) 8 4Jd2 �xeS 9 .Q.xg8
l:Ixg8 10 �e2 dS 1 1 f3 .Q.e6 12
fxe4 0-0-0 1 3 0-0 .Q.cS+ 14
42 4 d4
�h1 �gfB 1S 4jf3 �xe4!
Hol mov - Bronstei n, Mos­
cow 1949 .
aii i ) 8 .Q.d2 �xeS 9 .Q.xgB
�xgB 10 4Jc3 dS 1 1 �e2 .Q.d6
12 0-0-0 .Q.d7 13 f3 0-0-0 1 4
fxe4 �deB Korn usevich -
Karpov Moscow 1967.
b) 7 .Q.e2 �aS+ B 4jd2 ( 8
.Q.d2 tflxeS 9 .Q.hS+ lftdB to
0-0 4Jf6 11 .Q.e3 tf1e6!) 8 . . .
tfJxeS 9 4Jc4 �e6 t O .Q.gS
4Jf6+ Ubi lava - Mik. Tseit­
l i n , Cheliabinsk 197S.
c) 7 Q-0 (a l ess promi sing
sacrifice than that of the
text) 7 . cxbS B 4Jc3 dS 9
. .
exd6 tf1xd6 tO tfJhS+ (in res­
ponse to tO 4JxbS Tchigorin
recom mended to . �cS!) to
..
. . . g6 1 1 tfJxbS+ .Q.d7 12 �xb7
tf1c6 and White has m i ni mal
compensation for the piece,
Marco - Marshal l , Monte
Carlo 1902.
7 cxbS
If 7... �aS good is B 0-0!
.Q.b4 9 4Jxe4. Ki nnmark -
Baretic, Hasti ngs 1963/64
saw further 9 . . . tfJxbS tO c3
.Q.e7 11 �et tfJdS 12 tfJhS+ �dB
13 .Q.f4 h6 t 4 tfjg6 .Q.f8 1S
4Jd6! with a winni ng pos­
ition for White.
After 7 ... dS B exd6 4Jf6
9 .Q.gS cxbS leads to a fav­
ourable variation of the
text ( from Black's point of
view) . Thu s White does
better to resist the tempt­
ation to sacrifice a piece
and p lay more q uietly with
9 .Q.c4 and after 9 ... .Q.xd6 to
.Q.gS .Q.fS we arri ve at the
fol l owing positio n :
Now :
a ) 1 1 tf1d4 h6! 12 .Q.e3 �e7
13 0-0-0 .Q.eS 1 4 �cS �xeS
1S .Q.xcS 4Jd7 16 .Q.d4 0-0-0-
Belousov - Krikunov, 1977.
b) 11 �e2 �e7 12 0-0-0
0-0-0 13 h3 �heB 14 �e3
.Q.cS 1S }';txdB+ nxdB 16 �f 4
.Q.g6- Belousov - Hermlin,

1977. An alternative to 1 3 h3
i s 1 3 f3! ? Koifman - Krik­
unov, 1977 continued 13 ...
!:the8! , as the follow-up 1 4
fxe4 .Q.g6! 1 5 !:thet �e5!
yields sufficient compen­
sation for a pawn, and in
the event of 14 �het h6 15
.Q.xf6 �xf6 16 ci)xe4 .Q.xe4 17
fxe4 �g5+ 18 ljf;jlbt .Q.xh2 the
chances are equal.
Of i nterest i s the recent
development 7 ... �e71? 8
0-0 cxb5. I f White now
tries 9 ci)xe4, then 9 . . . �e6
10 �et ljf;jld8! 1 1 �f3 ( 1 1 ci)d6
ljf;jlc7) 1 1 . . . ci)h6 and Black
can hold the extra piece
without too m uch trouble.
Golubtsov - Anuhin, 1986
saw i ns tead 9 .Q.f4 �c5 10
ci)xe4 �c6 11 �et b6, and
after 12 �f3 .Q.e7 13 ci)d6+
.Q.xd6 14 exd6+ ljf;jlf8 15 �e4
ci)f6 16 �aet .Q.b7 17 .Q.h6
�xd6 Black had repu lsed
the attack, maintaining his
extra piece. Preferable to
12 �f3 i s 12 �h5+! ljf;jld8 13
!:tadt! (not 1 3 �f7 ci)h6 1 4
.Q.xh6 gxh6 1 5 nadt .Q.e7 1 6 e6
�f8 17 �xh 7 �xe6 when
there i s no effective con­
tinuation of the attack) 13
. . . g6 14 �h3 h6!? 15 e6 �h7
16 �g4! and Black's situa­
tion i s critical .
This w h o le variation
4 d4 43
deserves serious research .
Returning t o the main con­
tinuation after the Black
capture 7 . . . cxb5:
8 4jxe4 dS
9 exd6 c[)f6
Worthy of attention i s 9
... .Q.fS 10 �d5 ( 10 �e2 ljf;jlf7 )
10 ... �d7 1 1 o-o. I n Gudens
- Schneider, Berlin 1902,
B lack's response was stan­
dard: 11 . . . ci)f6?, and after
12 ci)xf6+ gxf6 13 !:tel+ ljf;jld8
14 .Q.f4 White had obtained
an overw hel ming position
for the sacrificed piece. I n-·
stead 11 . . . .Q.xe4 12 �xe4+
�f7 13 �d5+ �g6 14 �e4+
�f7 leads to a draw by rep­
etition.
However, Black has one
further i nteresting poss­
ibil i ty, i.e. 1 1 . . . ci)e7!? 12
�e5 .Q.xe4. If now 1 3 !:let
then 13 . . . . 0-0-0; if 1 3 dxe7
�xe7 1 4 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 15 !:let
o-o-o 16 h3 �hf8!-+ and
finally 13 �xe4 �xd6 14 .Q.f4
( 1 4 �xb7 �c6) 1 4 . . . �c6 15
�e5 �d8 and Black has
sufficient defensive resou­
rces.
see following diagram
Here the fol lowing
three alternatives deserve
consideration:
44 4 d4
Bt> 10 o-o
B2) 10 tbd4
B3) 10 �5
If instead 10 tbe2, 10 . . .
'3;f7 i s a good reply, e.g. 1 1
.Q.g5 tba5+ 1 2 .Q.d2 b4 1 3 0-0
ci:)xe4 14 �xe4 .Q.xd6 15 a3
tbf5 16 tbh4 bxa3 0 : 1 Ross­
mann - Mohring, GDR 1982.
B1
10 o-o ci:)xe 4
According to Keres , 10 . ..
'l/f7 11 .Q.g5 .Q.f5 deserves
attention . However, doubt­
ful is 10 ... .Q.fS?I i n view of
11 ci:)xf6+ �xf6 12 !ie1+ '3;f7
(after 12 . . . '3;d8 13 .Q.f4 �c8
14 tbd5 h6 15 !iad1 .Q.d7 16
.Q.e5 tbg6 17 tbxb7 .Q.c6 18
tbc7+! Whi te wins) 13 tbd5+
'3;g6 14 .Q.f4! �dB 15 �ad1
!id7 16 lle3. The game Pinter
- Sze l l , H ungary 1971 con­
tinued 16 ... h6 17 lld4! '3;h7
18 .Q.e5 tbf7 19 tbxb5 �8 20
c4 g5 21 b4 a6 22 tbc5 and
White soon won.
11 tbhS+ g6
12 �eS+ '3;f7
13 tbxh8
13 �dS+ i s a mistake on
account of 13 ... '3;g7! 1 4
�xe4 .Q.xd6 and i f 1 3 �xe4
then 13 . . . .Q.xd6 and Black
beats off the attack, re­
mai ning with an extra piece.
13 ... ci:)f61
This, the s uggestion of
Kurt Bardeleben ensures
Black the advantage in al l
variations. Others are l ess
i mpressive, e.g.
a) 13 ... tbd6 14 tbxh7+ .Qg7
15 .Q.h6 tbfB (15 ... tbf6 16
llfe1 ci:)g5 and now Whi te
gest the advantage with 17
�e7+! '3;xe7 18 .Q.xg5 tbxg5 19
tbxg7+) 16 �ad1 ci:)f6 ( noth­
ing else is satisfactory
either, e.g. 16 . . . .Qg 4 17 f3;.
16 ... .Q.f5 17 g4!; 16 . . . .Q.e6 17

�fet) 17 t/!lxg7+ t/!lxg7 1 B
.Q.xg7 �xg7 1 9 �dB ! b6 20
�fd1 �f7 21 f3 +- Karlsson -
Jansson, Uppsala 1971.
b) 13 ... t/!lf61? 14 t/!lxh7+
.a,g7 1 S .Q.h6 and White has
reasonable c hances.
14 .Q.g5
14 .Q.h6 .Q.e6 IS t/!lxfB+
�xfB 16 .Q.xfB �xfB 17 �ad1
�dB and White loses a
pawn .
14 . . . .Q.e6
Gipslis recom mends 14 ...
,O.f5 IS �adl .Q.g7.
15 �ad1
After 15 .Q.xf6 t/!lxf6 16
t/!lxh7+ .a,g7 and 1 7 . . . �hB,
White loses the queen.
1S .Q.g7
16 t/!lxdB �xdB
17 �fe1
Mal l ee - Parma , Mannheim
197S. Now the simplest for
Black w as
17 .. . .Q.fBI
18 .Q.f4 c£)d5
With a w i n ning position
for B lack ( B . Parma)
B2
10 t/!ld4
see follo wing diagram
10 . . . c£)xe4
A l so seen here is 10
.Q.e7 11 .Q.gS! (the al ternative
4 d4 4S
1 1 .Q.f4 is weaker, e.g. 1 1
0-0 and now 1 2 0-0-0 ( 12
t/!leS �eB! 13 0-0-0 .Q.fB 14
c£)xf6+ gxf6+ Honos - Hor­
vath, Hu ngary 1976) 12 . . .
c£)xe4 1 3 t/!lxe4 �xf4! 1 4
t/!lxe7 ( 1 4 dxe7 �xd1+ 1S
�xd1 �xe4) 14 . . . .Q.d7 I S f3
�cB 16 �hel �fc4 17 c3 b4
1B �e4 �xe4 19 fxe4 bxc3
20 t/!lxdB+ �xdB 21 bxc3
�f7-+ Buiakovich - Mik. Ts­
eitlin, Moscow 1 989) w hen
Black has two ways to play:
a) 11... .Q.f5 12 0-0-0 ( 12
c£)g3? .Q.xc2 13 t/!ld2 .Q.xd6! 1 4
t/!Jxc2 .Q.b4+ + ) 12 . . . .Q.xe4 13
�hel t/!lxd6 (13 ... 0-0 1 4
dxe7 t/!lxe7 1S .Q.xf6 t/!lxf6 = )
14 t/!lxd6 .Q.xd6 1S r;txd6 0-0
16 .Q.xf6 .Q.xg2 and a draw
fol l owed q uick ly in Hal if­
man - Glek, Leni ngrad 19B5.
b) 11 ... h6 12 .Q.h4 .Q.f5
(Gipsl is offers 12 . . . gS 13
... .Q.g3 .Q.f5 1 4 c£)c3 �f7 15
0-0-0 .Q.fB as a double-
46 4 d4

edged continuation) 13
0-0-0 < Diaz - Rodriguez,
Havana 1 982) 13 . . . g5! 1 4
�he1 �f7 1 5 4:Jxg5+! (acc­
ording to Rodriguez, after
15 4:Jg3 .a_xd6! 16 4:)xf5 .a_f4+
17 �b1 �xd4 18 �xd4 �ae8
White cannot avoid mater­
ial l osses) 15 . .. hxgS 16
�xe7+ �g6 ( not 16 . . . �xe??
17 dxe7 gxh 4 1 8 �e5 ± ) 17
.a_xgS �xgS 18 �e3+ with an 15 �xd6 �xd6
attack s u fficient for eq ual­ 16 .a_xd6 �e8+
ity . 17 �f1 .a_rs
11 �xe4+ �f7 Gonzales - Montalvo, Cuba
12 .a_f4 1978. Despite the paw n deficit,
12 �dS+ .a_e6 (if 12 . . . �g6 the endgame is favourable for
13 g4 is unpleasant) 13 Black .
�xb7+ �g8 ( 13 . . . �g6 1 4 h 4
h S ! 15 .a_g5 �aS+ 16 .a_d2 �dB B3
17 .a_gs= > 1 4 .a_f4 �b8 15 �e4 10 .a_gs
�d7 16 0-0= Z uidema - van This modern conti nuation
Sch u ur, Siegen 1970. is the strongest.
12 ... �e8 10 ... �aS+
13 .a_es .a_xd6
Be lousov - Meshkov, 1978
saw 13 . . . �c6 1 4 �f4+ �g8
15 0-0 (better 15 0-0-0!)
and after 15 . . . hS 16 �ad1
�h6 17 �gS .a_d7 Black had a
comfortable extra piece.

see follo wing diagram

14 �dS+
14 �f3+ �e6! 15 0-0-0 Unimpressive is 10 ... .a_fS
.a_xeS 16 �he1 �fB=F 11 .a_xf6 gxf6 12 �hS+ .a_g6 13
14 . . . �e6 �xb5+ �f7 14 �xb7+ +- as

mentioned by Bardeleben in
1904 and seen i n the game
Robatsch Contendini,
Leipzig 1960.
11 cf)c31
This move breathes new
life i nto the variation.
Weaker is 11 .Q.d2 b4 12 �e2
(12 cf)xf6+ gxf6 13 0-0,
Gri mmens htein - Bardele­
ben, Berl in 1904 and now
with 13 . . . .Q.d7 ! 14 �e1+ rtfjlf7
1S a3 .Q.c6 16 .Q.xb4 �gS
Black wou l d get the advan­
tage) 12 . . . �eS 13 cf)xf6+
gxf6 14 �xeS+ fxeS IS .a.xb4
�g8 16 0-0-0 Wttle better
is 16 �d1 �g 4! 17 .Q.a3 �e4+
18 rtfjlf1 .Q.d7 -+ Barry - Mar­
s hal l , Cambridge Springs
1904) 16 . . . .Q.h6+ 17 .Q.d2
.Q.xd2+ 18 !!xd2 !!xg2 19 �e1
.Q.e6 20 f4 !!xd2 21 �xd2 e4!
22 �xe4 �d7 and Black
soon won, Banas - Tatai,
Stip 1979.
11 b4
11 . .Q.d7 12 .Q.xf6 gxf6 13
..
�hS+ �d8 1 4 '/!hf7 .Q.xd6 1S
0-0-0;!;
11 ... .Q.e6 12 �e2 �d7 13
0-0 b4 1 4 .Q.xf6! bxc3 1S
.Q.xc3 '/!hfS 16 .Q.eSt
In the l atter variation, 12
.Q.xf6!? was seen in Bush­
uiev - Chudakov , 1983. The
continuation was 12 . . . gxf6
13 �hS+ �d7 ( 13 . . . .Q.f7 1 4
4 d4 47
d7+ �e7 1S '/!he2+ keeps the
attack going) 14 0-0-0 nc8
IS �het �xc3 16 �xe6! .Q.h6+
17 '/!hxh6! �xc2+ 18 rtfjlxc2
'/!ha4+ 19 �d2 �b4+ 20 �e2 +-
12 .Q.xf6 gxf6
13 cf)dS
Not 13 0-0 bxc3 1 4 net+
rtfjld8 and Black is defend-
in g.
13 b3+
13 . . .Q.e6 1 4 '/!hhS+ (14
.
cf)c7+ rtfjlf7 1S 4Jxa8 �eS+ 16
'/!he2 .Q.xd6:f ) 14 . . . rtfjld8 IS
o-o-o b3! ( m uch weaker is
tS ... !!g8?! 16 d7!! .Q.d6 17
nhet .Q.eS 18 nxeS fxeS 19
�h4+ rtti'x d7 20 �e7+ �c6 21
�xe6+ �bS 22 cf)c3+ 1 : 0
Glek - jandemi rov , 1983) 16
cxb3 ( 16 axb3 .Q.xdS ( 16 . . .
'/!hal+ 17 �d2 �xb2= o r 17 . . .
�aS+- } 17 �xdS �at+ {not
17 ... .Q.h6+? 18 rtfjlb1 � 18 �d2
'/!hxht 19 �f7 !!c8 leads to a
draw) 16 . . . �c8+ 17 �b1 ncs
18 �h4! ( 18 d7 .Q.e7 and 18
48 4 d4

b4 .Q.xdS 19 bxaS .Q.e4+ are 20 a.xb3 !!he81?

u nacceptabl e for White) 1 8 21 �xe8
. . . .Q.xdS 19 �xf6+ \ftd7 20 And now with 21 ... �xe81
�xdS! �xdS 21 �xh8 = 22 �xa 7 \ftc? 23 b4 t/Je6
Returning t o the diagram Black would have got a
position, Pi skov - jandem­ defi nite advantage.
irov, 1984 now continued . . . Instead of the inaccurate
14 c3 .Q.e61 19 !!e1 , 19 a.xb3 \ftc? (19 . . .
15 0Jc7+ \ftd7 !!he8!?) 20 �e1 (20 b4!?) 20
16 o-o .Q.xd6 . . t!Jf7 21 t/Jd4 should have
.

17 0Jxe6 �eSI been tried when White sti l l

18 g3 �xe6 preserves some counter­
19 !!e1?1 t!Jf7 chances .
5) 4 �c3 �f6 and 4 . . . Others
1 e4 eS
2 4:Jf3 4:Jc6
3 -'l_bS fS
4 4:Jc3
It shou l d not be difficu l t
t o convince t h e reader that
al l the prev ious variations
presented few problems
for Black i n obtaining good
play . The move 4 4:Jc3 is the
most common response to
3 .. . fS and the one that
presents Black with the
most di fficu l ties . The re­
mai ning chapters of this
book are concerned with
play after this move.
In this chapter, we spec­
ifical ly consider the reply
4 . . . 4:jf6. The sixth chapter
dea ls with 4 . . . 4:jd4 and the
final three with the most
popular continuation, 4 . . .
fxe4 5 4:Jxe4 .
4 . . . 4:jf6 is an interesting
way for Black to try to
steer clear of the heavy
theory associated with
some variations beginning
with 4 . . . dxe4. Bl ack main­
tain s flexibility whi lst in­
creasing the pressure ag­
ainst White's cen tre. The
drawback is that White can
consider the capture exfS,
either immediately or in the
near future, attempting to
play a 'King's Gambit Ac­
cepted' strategy . The 4 . . .
4:jf6 variation al most al­
ways invol ves the sacrifice
of a paw n for the i nitiati ve,
but if Black players were
SO 4 4)c3 4)f6 and 4 . Others
. .
afraid to fol low s uch a
strategy , they woul d be
u n l i kely to be playing the
Schl iemann in the first
place!
Other possibil ities for
Black on the fourth move:
4... .Q.c5 proves unsatis­
factory fol lowing S 0-0
4:Jf6 6 4:JxeS! 0-0 7 -'l,c4+ dS
8 4:JxdS 4:Jxe5 9 4:Jxf6+ 'ifth8
10 4:Jxh7 4:Jxc4 1 1 �hS �e8
12 �h 4 'iftg8 13 4:JgS �g6 1 4
exfS �xfS 15 �xc4+ 'ifth8 16
d4+- Karajants - Dobro­
jev ic, Belgrade 1 956.
Kaiser's move, 4 ... -'l,b41?
is more deservi ng of atten­
tion, e.g.
a) 5 4:Jd5? fxe4 6 4:Jxb4
exf3 7 .Q.xc6 bxc6 8 �xf3
4:Jf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 a4 as;
Su ndstrom - Kaiser, Stock­
ho l m 1947.
b) 5 d3 fxe4 6 dxe4 4:Jf6
is a position that was ex­
amined i n chapter three.
c) 5 �e2 -'l,xc3 6 dxc3 d6 7
exfS -'l,xfS 8 .QgS 4:Jf6 9
0-0-0 �e7! 1 0 �c4 .Q.d7 1 1
�he1 h6! 1 2 -'l,h4 0-0-0 1 3
4:]d4 ( Skold - Kaiser, Stock­
hol m 1951) 13 . . . 4:Jb8! with a
complex game.
d) 5 exf51 4:Jge7!? 6 f6!
( not 6 d4? e4 7 4:Jg5 4:Jxf5 8
d5 e3! 9 dxc6 bxc6 10 -'l,xc6
( 1 0 4:Je6 �f6!) 1 0 . . . �f6 1 1
-'l,xa8 -'l,xc3+ - + , Kaiser) 6 . . .
gxf6 7 d4±
4 4:Jf6
Now we consider:
A) 5 �e2
B) 5 exf5
Others are harm less:
a) 5 -'l,xc6 bxco 6 �e2 (6
4:JxeS -'l,a6) 6 . . . dS 7 exfS
.Q.d6 8 4:JxeS 0-0 9 4:Jxc6
�d7 10 �e6+ 'ifth8 11 �xd7
-'l,xd7=F Lublinski - Stei n,
Moscow 1 955.
b) 5 d4 exd4 (5 . . . fxe4 6
4:Jxe5 -'l,b4 is also possible)
6 4:Jxd4 fxe4 7 0-0 4:Jxd4 8
�xd4 c6 9 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 10
�xe4+ �e7, and after the
exchange of queens the
chances will be about equal.
Instead in Bilek - Barcza,
Budapest 1954, Whi te de­
cided to sacrifice a piece
with 11 �f3? but after 11 . . .
cxb5 12 -'l,f4 d S 13 �fet .Q.e6
 4 tf)c3 tf)£6 and 4 . . . Others 51
had i ns ufficient compen­ - Mars hal J , Monte Carlo
sation. 1903 went 9 4Jbt (9 c£)dt �e7
(9 . . . �gS!?) 10 c3 c6 1 1 �d3
A ( 1 1 �c4 also fai led to pose
5 �e2 Black any prob lems in
Gru nfeld - Rodriguez , New
Here two responses are York Open 1987. Fol lowing
possible: 1 1 . . . dS 12 exd6 �xe2+ 13
�xe2 c£)f7 14 �et c£)xd6 tS
At) 5 ... 4Jd4 �ft+ �e7 1 6 d3 4Jxc4 17
A2) 5 ... �c5 dxc4 lftf7 1 8 cxd4 �f6 19 d5
cxdS 20 cxdS �d8 21 c£)c3 bS
At 22 a3 �b7 23 �e3 the game
5 4Jd4 was agreed drawn) tl . . .
Mars ha l l 's pet variation, dxc3 ( 1 1 . . . dS!? 12 cxd4 t!Yb4
w hich he successfu l ly em­ 13 t!Ye3 gS!) 12 dxc3 4:Jf7 13
ployed i n his match agai nst �xfS ( 1 3 0-0 d6) 13 . . . �xeS=
Capabl anca ( New York, Spassky - Bisgu ier, Gate­
1909 ) . borg 1955) 9 . . . �gS 10 0-0
6 c£)xd4 exd4 c6 1 1 �c4 f4 12 d3 dS! 13
exd6+ lftd8! 14 4:jd2! �xh3 15
�f3 �f5 16 c£)e4 �xe4 17
dxe4 �xd6 18 c3 d3! with a
balanced position .
7 �e7
a 4Je4! o-o
9 c£)xf6+ �xf6
to o-o d5

see follo wing diagram

7 exf5+ Thi s variation was tested

7 4Jd5 c£)xd5 8 exdS+ �e7
9 0-0 �xe2 tO �xe2 �e7 " = "
( ECO)
7 e5 leads to i nteresting
compl ications after 7 . . .
4Jg4 8 h3 c£)h6. Teichmann
out in the Capabl anca -
Mars hall match mentioned
above.
11 �h5
11 �d3 is inferior to the
text, e.g. 11 . . . cS 1 2 �hS
52 4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4 . . .
t/Je7 13 c4! dxc4 1 4 .Q.xc4+
�h8 IS d3 t!JeS lo g4 .Q.d7 17
a4 was the second match
game. Now with 17 . . . .Q.c6
or 17 . . . t!Je2, Marshal l
could have obtai ned good
play .
11 cS
11. . ..Q.eS 12 .Q.d3 �f6 in­
tendi ng to swing the rook
is worth consideration.
12 .Q.e2 �e8
12 ... .Q.eS 13 g4 d3! 1 4
.Q.xd3 �f6, and 1 2 . . . t!JeB 13
t!Jf3 t!JeS 14 g 4 .Q.d8 also
offer good chances for
Black .
13 !l.g4 d31
14 cxd3 b6=F
Capabl anca - Marshal l ,
also from their New York
1909 match ( 1 0th game).
Black clearly has the more
comfortable position.
A2
5 t!Je2 .Q.cS
Others
6 exfS
6 d3 4jd 4 7 4Jxd4 .Q.xd 4 8
.Q.c4 f4 9 g3 f3! 10 t!Jxf3 dS I I
exdS 0-0 1 2 t/Je2 !l.g 4 13 f3
4je4! with strong threats
for Black , Wolf - Nimzo­
wi tsch , Berl in 1905.
6 t/Je7
7 d3
Tak ing the second paw n
doesn't l ead anyw here for
White , e . g . 7 ,O,xc6 dxco 8
t!Jxe5 .Q.xf2+ (8 . . . t!JxeS+ 9
4Jxe5 .Q.xf5 10 d3 0-0 I t 0-0
�ae8 12 4Jc4 4Jg4 and the
active Bl ack pieces fu l ly
compensate for the missing
pawn , Bertok - Fuderer,
Lj ubl iana 1951) 9 �e2 t/Jxe5+
10 4Jxe5 .Q.d4 1 1 4Jf3 .Q.xc3 12
bxc3 .Q.xf5= Witkowski -
Barcza, Prague 1955.
7 4Je4 4Jxe4 8 t!Jxe4 0-0 9
0-0 d6! 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 I I d4
( 1 1 t!Jxc6 .Q.xfS 12 d3 �ab8 13
b3) II . . ..Q.xfS 1 2 t!Je2 .Q.b6 13
dxe5 dS with an active pos-

ition, Bag irov - Holmov,
Moscow 1 961.
7 4Jd4
8 4Jxd4 .Q.xd4
Here Black has su fficient
compensation for the paw n .
9 0-0
9 �e3 c6 10 !l,a4 !l,xc3+! 11
bxc3 d6 1 2 0-0 !l,xfS 13 �ab1
0-0 1 4 c4 ,O,g6+ Ravinsky -
Sol oviev , M oscow 1955.
9 c6
10 .Q.a4 d5
10 ... d6 1 1 �f3 .Q.d7 12 4Je2
�b6 13 4Jg3 0-0-0 1 4 .Q.gS
h6! 15 �h4 �df8 16 �fet ( 16
4JhS �f7 17 4Jxf6 gxf6) 1 6 . . .
g S ! 1 7 fxg6 �g7 with a dan­
gerous attack, Bardeleben
- Duz- Hoti mirsky, Prague
1908.
11 .Q.g5 o-o
12 .Q.b3 .Q.xf5
Black has a typical ly
good attacking pos i tion,
Chalkhasuren - Boey , Varna
1962
4 tf)c3 f)f6 and 4 . Others 53
. .
B
5 exf5
This is a position from
the King's Gambit Declined
with colours reversed.
White hopes that the extra
tempo (.Q_bS) wi I I lead to an
advantage, but things are
not so simple. Let us con­
sider Black's responses:
B1) 5 ... e4
B2) 5 ... .Q.c5
B3) 5 ... 4Jd4
Others:
a) 5 . . . !l,e7 6 d4 (6 !l,xc6
dxc6 7 4JxeS 0-0 8 0-0 !l,xfS
with an active position) 6 . . .
exd4 7 4Jxd 4 4Jxd4 8 thxd4
o-o 9 o-o dS 10 .o,gs !l,xfS 1 1
.Q.xf6 .Q.xf6 12 �xdS+ thxdS
13 4JxdS !l,xb2= Leonhardt -
Marshal l , Cologne 191 1.
b) 5 . . . !l,b4 6 0-0 (6 !l,xco
dxc6 7 4JxeS!?) 6 . . . 0-0 7 d4
e4 8 4JeS ( 8 4Jh4 dS 9 g4
54 4 tfjc3 tfjf6 and 4 . . .
4:)xg4!? t o �xg4 4:)xd4 1 1
.Q.g S !J.e7 1 2 !J.xe7 �xe7 13
�ht c6 t4 !J.e2 4:)xc2 tS !!adt
�eS t6 !!g1 !J.xfS! 17 c[)xfS
!!xfS 1 8 c[)xdS !!xf2 Maist­
rov ich - Li ubli nski , Corres­
pondence t975) 8 . . . �e8! 9
�e2 !J.xc3 tO �c4+ dS t t
�xc3 4:)xd4! t2 !J.xe8 4:)e2+
13 �ht 4:)xc3 1 4 !J.f7+ !!xf7 tS
4:)xf7 �xf7 1 6 bxc3 !J.xfS t7
fJ.e3 b6 t8 !!fd t ( better is t8
h3) 18 . . . �e6 t9 a4 aS 20
!J.f4 !!c8 2t c4 dxc4 22 !!d4
c[)dS 23 !J.e3 c3 24 h3 hS 25
�h2 �eS + Ekstrom - Liub­
linski, Correspondence t975
Bl
5 e4
This o l d continuation is
viewed by theory as being
to White's advantage, al­
tho ugh i n our estimation
there are insufficient gro­
unds for this assessment.
6 c[)gS
Considered the strong­
est. In Pi l l sbury - Tarrasch,
Monte Carlo 1903 , Wh ite
played weakly: 6 �e2 �e7 7
!J.xc6 bxc6 8 4:)h4 dS 9 d4
aS+ .
6 4:)h4 is an interesting
possibi lity , i nsisting on
holdi ng on to the gambit
paw n in a most direct fas h­
ion. Some old analysis by
Others
Lasker goes 6 . . . 4:)d4 7 !J.e2
(or 7 d3 c6! 8 !J.a4 dS 9 dxe4
dxe4 tO .Q.gS fJ.b4 I I 0-0
!J.xc3 t2 bxc3 c[)xfS= ) 7 . . .
4:)xe2 8 �xe2 d S 9 d 3 !J.b4 = .
However, the only outing
with 6 4:)h4 to date, resu lt­
ed in a singular success for
Whi te after 7 !J.a4!? fJ.cS 8
d3 bS (Black is trying to
exploit White's 7th move,
bu t his aggressive play
backfires when he over­
looks White's cunning tac­
tical ploy on move t2) 9 !J.b3
exd3 10 �xd3 �e7+ 11 !J.e3
4:)g4 t2 f6! gxf6 13 c[)dS c[)eS
t4 �dt t-0 Georgiev - Rod­
riguez, Terrassa 1990. 7
fJ.a4!? is fertile territory for
further research.
6 ... dS (after 6 4:)h4) is
also possible
Practice demonstrates
that Bl ack has su fficient
compensation:
a) 7 g4 4:)d7! 8 4:)g2 (8
 4 fJcJ fjf6 and 4 . . Others SS
4JxdS �xh 4 9 4Jxc7+ 'Jie7 10
4Jxa8 cijd4 t t .Q.e2 cijeS-+) 8
. . . cijd4 9 d3 c6 10 .Q.a4 exd3
11 �xd3 cijeS+ Suchting -
Teichmann , Vienna 1908.
b) 7 d3 .Q.e7 (after 7 . . . d4
Lasker recommends 8 4Jxe4
{8 4Jb1 exd3 9 �xd3 �e7+ 10
�e2 [ 10 'Jid1 c[)e4 ] tO . . . .Q.d7
1 1 .a,gs o-o-o 12 {Jd2 �e8! +
Janowski - Marshal l , match
190S } 8 . . . 4Jxe4 9 �hS+ g6
to {Jxg6 cijf6 t1 �e2+ 'Jif7 12
4Jxh8+ 'JigS with a double­
edged position) 8 dxe4
dxe4 9 �xd8+ .Q.xd8 10 .Q.gS
0-0= Capablanca - Marsh­
a l l , matc h , New York 1909 .
c) 7 d4 .Q.e7 8 g4 0-0 (8 . . .
gS!? 9 .Q.xgS �g 8) 9 !l,xc6?
(9 !lg 1 as in the analogous
King's Gambi t position) 9
. . . bxc6 10 cijg2 .Q.a6 1 1 .Q.gS
�b8 12 �bt cS+ Rosenfeld -
Mars ha l l , New York 19to.
Retu rni ng to the position
after 6 c[)gS
.
6 dS
6 . .. 4Jd4 7 .a.a 4 c6 8 d3
and Black obtained no
compensation in Aroni n -
Klaman , Leni ngrad 1947.
7 d3 .a_xfS
7 h6 8 4Je6 .a_xeo 9 fxe6
. . .
�d6 to dxe4 d4 ( no better
is 10 . . . t/Jxe6 11 0-0! dxe4 12
.a.f4 .a.d6 13 .a.xd6! cxd6 1 4
t/Je2 ( 1 4 f3! ?) 14 . . . d S 1 S
�adt;!;; Yudakov - Goliak­
berov , Talgari 1977) 11
.a.xc6+ bxc6 12 {Je2 0-0-0 13
�d3! cS 14 f3 �xe6 IS {Jf4
t/Jc6 16 b3 .a.d6 t 7 cije2 �de8
(better is 17 . . . �he8) 18 0-0
gS 19 c3! ± Yers hov - Glaz­
kov , Kuibyshev t9S3.
8 dxe4 dxe4
9 �e2
9 .a.xc6+ bxc6 tO �e2 .a.b4
11 .a.d2 ( 11 �c4 .a.xc3+) tt . . .
.a.xc3 12 .a.xc3 0-0 1 3 0-0
t/JdS and with . . . �bS com­
ing up, Black is okay.
9 o-o h6! tO 4Jgxe4 4Jxe4
tt 4Jxe4 �xdt 12 �xd t .a.xe4
13 �et 0-0-0 14 �xe4 �d t+
I S .a.fl !l,cS-+
9 �d71
F. M arshal l's forgotten
recommendation. With this
move Black can consol idate.
9 . . . !l,b4 to .a.d2 �e7 t t
�c4 �d8 12 .a.xc6+ bxc6 13
0-0-0± was Leon hardt -
Spiel mann, Nuremburg 1906
56 4 .f)cJ .f)f6 and 4 ... Others

and also unsatisfactory

was 9 �d6 1 0 �xc6+ bxc6
...

11 �c4 �d7 1 2 �e3 �g8 13

�a4 and Black has no com­
pensation for the n umerous
weaknesses.
10 4:)gxe4 o-o-o

6 o-o
6 �c6 is a mistake, e.g.
6 ... dxc6 7 4:)xeS (7 4:)a4
�xf2+ 8 �xf2 e4) 7 . . . �xf2+
8 �xf2 �d4+ 9 �f3 �xfS 10
�e1 0-0-+
6 4:)xe5 4:)d4 (6 . . . 0-0 7
In this critical position 4:)f3! dS (7 . . . �e8+ 8 �e2) 8
Black has sati sfactory play. d4 �b6 9 0-0 �xfS 10 h3± ,
11 �5 Euwe) 7 0-0 0-0 leads to
Probably better is 11 0-0 the mai n conti nuation.
4:)xe4 1 2 4:)xe4 �e8 13 f3 6 d3!? 0-0 7 4:)e4 �e7 8
�xe4 1 4 fxe4 �d4+ w hich is 4:)g3 4:)d4 9 4:)xd4 exd4 t o
approxi mately eq u a l . 0-0 c6 11 �a4 dS 12 �f4 �d6
11 4:)xe41 13 �d2 �c7 14 �xd6 �xd6 15
12 4:)xe4 �xe4! �b3 �h8 16 !lae1 �d7 17 �e2
13 �xd8 �xg2 4:)g4 18 �gS 4:)h6 19 �e7 4:)f7
14 �g1 �b4++ 20 �h4 4:)h6 21 �fe1 4:)xfS
22 4:)xfS �xfS 23 �g3 1-0
B2) (as after 23 . . . �xg3 24
5 �c5 hxg3, Black is i n a tangle
This was first u sed i n the on the back rank and must
game Bardeleben - Duz­ lose a piece) was v an
Hotimirsky, Prague 1908, Riemsdijk - Klip Dieren
and was then forgotten Open 1989. Black's 7 ... �e7
about for nearly fifty looks rather passive. 7 . . .
years! �b6 maintai ning the s trong
 4 f)c3 f)f6 and 4 . . . Others 57
diagonal for black bishop
looks more to the point.
6 o-o
7 4:)xe5
Practice demonstrates
that White has l ittle chance
of an advantage with other
moves :
a) 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 4:)xe5
.Q.xfS 9 4:)c4 (9 d3 t{ye8 10
t(ye2 .Q.d4 1 1 �et 4:)g4 l ed to
a p romising endgame for
B lack in Magem - Rodri­
guez , Terrassa 1990. Play
contin ued 12 4:)xg 4 .Q.xg 4 13
t{yxe8 .Q.xf2+ 1 4 �ht �axeS
15 �xe8 !Ixe8 16 .Q.f4 .Q.d4 17
h3 .Q.hS 1 8 .Q.xc7 .Q.xc3 19
bxc3 �e2 20 �b1 bS 21 a 4 a6
22 axbS axbS 23 c4 bxc4 24
dxc4 .Q.g6 25 �g1 .Q.e4 26 g3
gS with a p l easant initiative
for Black, a lthough he went
on to l ose) 9 . . . 4:)g4 10 4:)e3
t(yh 4 1 1 h3 4:)xe3 12 dxe3
.Q.xh3 13 gxh3 !If6 14 �g2
!!g6+ 0 : 1 Kuznetsova -
Kantorovich, Moscow 1961 .
b) 7 !Iet d6 8 4:)a4 (better
is 8 d3) 8 . . . e4! 9 4:)xc5
dxcS tO .Q.xc6 bxc6 11 4:)h4
gS! 1 2 fxg6 4:)g4+ M atano­
vic - janosevic, Belgrade
1958.
c) 7 4:)a4 .Q.e7 8 d4 4:)xd4 9
4:)xd4 exd4 10 t(yxd4 cS!? 11
4:)xc5 t(yb6 1 2 .Q.c4+ dS 13
.Q.xdS+ lif;lh8 1 4 .Q.e3 4:)xd5 15
t{yxdS �xfS 16 t(ye4 .Q.xcS 17
t(ye8+ �f8 1 8 t(yxf8+ .Q.xf8 19
.Q.xb6 axb6 20 �fet Zelevin­
sky - Seli vanovsky, Mos­
cow 1957, and now with 20
. . . .Q.d7, Black's bishop pair
woul d give him excel lent
prospects.
7 4:)d4
The continuation 7 . . .
4:)xe5 8 d 4 .Q.xd4 9 t(yxd4 d6
is dubious, e.g. 10 .Q.f4!
.Q.xfS 1 1 .Q.xeS dxeS 12 t(yxeS
.Q.xc2 13 .Q.c4+! �h8 14 4:)b5±
Stein - Nadezhdin , 1962.
Now:
821) 8 .Q.a4
822) 8 4:)f3
Others:
a) 8 4:)d3 .Q.b6 9 4:)f4 dS 10
d3 .Q.xfS 11 .Q.e3 c6 12 .Q.a4
4:)g4+
b) 8 .Q.e2 dS 9 4:)f3 .Q.xfS (9
. . . 4:)xe2+ 1 0 4:)xe2 .Q.xfS) 10
58 4 f]c3 .fJ£6 and 4 . . .
4:)xd4 .Q.xd4 1 1 d3 .Q.eS 1 2 d4
.Q.d6 1 3 4:)bS .Q.e7a5
821
8 .Q.a4
This bishop retreat is a
loss of time and a llows
Black to develop a danger­
ous initiative.
8 dS
Here there is a further
dichotomy:
8211) 9 4:)e2
8212) 9 4:)f3
9 4:)b5?1 .Q.xfS 1 0 c3 4:)xbS
1 1 .Q.xbS d4 12 �b3+ �h8 13
.Q.d3 ( 13 4:)f7+ �xf7 1 4 �xf7
d3) 13 . .. 4:)g4 1 4 .Q.xfS 4:)xeS
15 .Q,h3 4:)d3 16 �c4 dxc3 1 7
dxc3 �xf2-+ Lukov - I nkiov,
Pamporovo 1982.
8211
9 4:)e2
This move, which was
considered the s trongest,
has been re-assessed.
see following diagram
9 �d61
An exce llent reply, found
by Rodriguez. Previously
9 . t/Je7 had been p l ayed
..
w hen, al thoug h 10 4:)xd4
Others
�xeS 1 1 4:)e2 4:)g4 12 g3
4:)xf2! 13 �xf2 .Q.xfS gives
B lack a very dangerous
attack, White can i mprove
with 1 1 4:)f3 ! , e.g. 1 1 . . . �xfS
12 d4 .Q.d6 13 c3 4:)e4 1 4 .Q.e3
Zurachov - Zaitsev, Lenin­
grad 1963. Now with 14 . . .
�f6 Black might j us t about
maintain the balance.
10 4:)xd4
10 4:)d3 .Q.b6 1 1 4:)xd4 ( tt
4:)g3 4:)xf5) t t . . . .Q.xd4a5
10 ... .Q.xd4
11 4:)f3
11 4Jg47 fai ls to 1 1
4:)xg4 1 2 �xg4 �b4! Hul ak
- Rodrig uez, Karlovec 1979.
11 4:)g4
12 c3
Other White tries :
a ) 12 h3 .Q.xfS 1 3 d3 ( 1 3 c3
.Q.e4 1 4 hxg4 .Q.xf3) 13 . . .
4:)xf2 (also good i s 1 3 . . . .Q.e6
6 l:Ixf3) 1 4 !!xf2 .Q.xf2+ 15
�xf2 .Q.xh3!-+
b) 12 g3 .Q.xf2+ 1 3 nxf2
 4 4)c3 f)f6 and 4 . . . Others 59
{)xf2 1 4 fi!ilxf2 �xf5 15 d4 ( 15
d3 .a,g 4 16 �f4 �xf4! 1 7 gxf4
thxf4) 15 . . . �e4 16 �f4
�xf4! 17 gxf4 thxf4 18 the2
�f8+ Marj anovic - Parma,
Y ugosl avia 1979.
c) 12 the2 -'l.xf5 13 thb5
.Q.e6 ! 14 thxb7 �xf3! 15
thxa8+ �f8 16 thxf8+ thxf8
0 : 1 Eme l i n - Roz u menko,
Correspondence 1983.
12 ... �xfS
13 cxd4
13 g3 is no good i n view
of 1 3 . . . -'l.xf2+ ! 1 4 �xf2
{)xf2 15 �xf2 �f6 16 d4 .a,g4
17 -'l.f4 �xf4 18 gxf4 thxf4.
13 h3 �xf3 14 hxg4 .Q.xg4
(also 1 4 . . . �h3 15 gxh3
thg3+ 16 �h1 thxh3+ is very
good) 15 the1 I,!h3!! and
Black won, Gonsher
Freize, 1979.
13 ... �xf3
14 g3 {)xh2
Nikiti n s uggests 14
thh6 15 h4 �f6 or 15 . . . �d3
as being to Black's advan­
tage. Black can a l so try 1 4
. . . �xf2 1 5 �xf2 {)xf2 16
�xf2 -'l.h3! 17 d3 (17 �g1 thf6
{ 1 7 . . . �f8 18 d3 thb4}) 17 . . .
�f8+ 1 8 -'l.f4 thb4! 19 �g1
thxd4+ 20 �h1 thxb2 21 �g 1
.a,g2+ 22 �xg2 �xa1+ 23 thg1
�xa2-+ Tatai and Zinser.
15 �xh2 thh6+
16 �g1
If 16 fi!ilg2 .Q.h3+ 1 7 �xf3
then 17 . . . �e6!-+
16 ... .Q.g 4
17 the1
After 17 d3 thh3 1 8 �e1
the si mples t is 18 . . . �fS!
17 ... thh3
Also very good is 17 ...
�fS, e.g. 1 8 -'l.d1 (18 d3
thh1+!) 18 . . . �h5! 19 .Q.xg4
�h1+ 20 �g2 thh2+ 21 �f3
�f8+ 22 -'l.fS ( 22 �e2 �e8+
23 �d1 �xe1+ 24 �xet �xft+
25 �xft thht + 26 �e2 the4+)
22 .. . �xfS+ 23 �e2 thhS+ 24
f3 ( 24 �d3 �f3+ 25 l{tjlc2
thfS+ 26 �d1 �xft 27 thxf1
�xf2) 24 . . . �f6! 25 d3 �h2+
26 �d 1 thg6! 27 thc3 (27 -'l.d2
thxd3) 27 . . . thxg3 28 -'l.d2
thg2 29 �e1 thxf3+ 30 �c2
�c6 31 �e8+ �f7 32 �ae1
thf2 0 : 1 Polgar - Morvay,
H ungary 1982.
18 -'l.d1 �afB
19 d3
19 h61
60 4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4 . . . Others

19 ... �xf2 a llows White 11 4je2

the possibility of an i nter­ By removing the danger­
esti ng defence - 20 �xf2! ous knight on d4, White
�xf2 21 1if)xf2! �h2+ 22 lif)e1 ! can hope for a successful
�xg3+ 2 3 �f2 �g1 + and defence. Too risky is 11 d3?
Black m ust take a draw ( 23 4:)g4! when Black develops
. . . �xdt 24 �f4Ci5 ) a dangerous initiative, e.g.
20 �f4 �8xf41 a) 12 g3 4Je5! 13 4Je2 � 4!
Not 20 ... �fS? in view of 1 4 c3 �f3! ! and White is
21 �e6+ lif)h7 22 �xf5+! defenceless against the
21 gxf4 �hS terrible threat of �dB - c8
22 �e3 �xe3 - h3.
23 fxe3 �xe3+ b) 12 �f4 4Jxf2! 13 �xf2
24 lif)h1 .Q.g6 �xf2+ 1 4 1if)xf2 �h4+ 15 .Q.g3
25 �f3 �xd4 �d4+ 16 1if)e 1 .Q.g4 0 : 1 Lom­
26 b3 �xd3 bard - jansen, The Hague
27 �ad1 c6 1967.
28 .Q.g2 cS c) 12 �f3 �e6 13 �e2 �h4!
29 lif)h2 c4 14 �xe6+ lif)h8 15 h3 �xf2 16
30 bxc4 dxc4 �e3 �xf1+ 17 �xf1 4Jxe3 18
0:1 �b1 �g3! 0 : 1 Gerhard ­
Votea - Lukacs, Corres­ Nielson , Correspondence
pondence 1 975/76. 1979.
d) 12 �e2 �h4 13 �f4
B212 4jxf2 with a very strong
9 4Jf3 �xfS attack , Mazian - Afek , I s­
10 4Jxd4 �xd4 rael 1980.
11 .Q.g4
12 c3
12 1if)h1 �xe2 (or 12 . . . 4Je4
13 f3 �h4) 13 �xe2 4:)e4 1 4
f3 �h4! 1 5 fxe4 �xf1+ 16
�xf1 �f8 -+
12 ... �e71
13 �bS
13 �e1 �xe2 1 4 cxd4 1if)f7+
Buljovcic - Bojkovic, Novi
Sad 1979.
 4 .£jc3 4)f6 and 4 ... Others 61
13 ... �ae8 �axd1 4Jg3! 20 �fe1 4jf5=
In Karpov - Hermann, Stoica - Ciocal tea, Bucha­
Bad Lauterberg 1977 Black rest 1980.
got carried away with 13 ... 17 .Q.e3 �xe31
.Q.xf2+? and after 14 �xf2 18 fxe3 tf1xe3+
tf1c5 15 tf1b3 White held off 19 C{tlh1 4Jg3+1
the attack while main tai n­ 20 hxg3 tf1h6+
ing the extra piece. 21 C{tlg1 tf1e3+
13 ... a6 14 cxd4 ( 1 4 .Q.d3 With a draw by perpetual.
�ae8 is the mai n l ine) 1 4 . . .
axb5 1 5 f3 !Xae8! ( Dorfman) B22
and B lack gets the advan­ 8 4Jf3
tage in al l variations , e.g 16
!Xe1 .Q.xf3! 17 gxf3 4jh5 or 16
!Xf2 c:£)e4! 17 4jg3 ( 1 7 c:£)c3
gets the same reply) 17 . . .
tf1b4!
14 cxd4
14 .Q.xe8? .Q.xe2.
14 .Q.xe2
15 .Q.xe2 tf1xe2

This i mmediate attack on

In this critical position
Black s tands okay despite
the pawn deficit.
16 d3 4Jh51
Less i ncisive is 16 ... c6 17
h3 4jh5! 18 .Q.e3 tf1xd1 19
the central ised knight red­
uces Black's attacking
possibil i ties.
8 c6
The most common, but
i n our opinion not the best,
rep ly. Preferable is 8 ...
4Jxf51 9 d4 .Q.b6. The game
Bobotsov - Kostov, Sofia
1960 contin ued thus: 10 .Q.g5
c6 11 .Q.d3 d5 12 c:£)e2 h6 13
.Q.xf6 tf1xf6 14 c3 .Q.c7 15 .Q.c2
4jh4 16 4Jxh4 ttlxh 4 17 c:£)g3
and now with 17 . . . .Q.g4! 1 8
62 4 cf)c3 cf)f6 and 4 . . Others
.
�d3 ( 1 8 �b1? .a_e2 1 9 �e1
�ae8) 18 . . . .a_fs B lack
would s tand excell ently .
Other p l an s fai l to equal­
ise for Black:
a) 8 ... 4Jxf3+ 9 �xf3 dS.
Ti mman - Lombardy, Am­
sterdam 1974 conti nued 10
.a_d3 c6 1 1 b3 4Jd7 12 �g3
t/1f6 13 .a_b2 .a_d4 1 4 �aet 4JcS
tS �a3! 4Jxd3 16 cxd3 .a_xfS
17 �xf8! �xf8 18 4Je2 �b6 19
4Jf4 �c7 20 4JxdS;!;;
b) 8 ... 4JxbS 9 4JxbS dS
10 4Jbd4 . Smai lbegovic -
Marie, Y ugos lavia 1 9S7 fur­
ther saw 10 . . . 4Jg4 ( 10 . . .
�d6 I t d 3 4Jg4 1 2 h3 4Jh2 13
4JbS 4Jxf3+ 14 �xf3 �d7 IS
g4! .a_xf2+ 16 �xf2 �xbS 17
.a_f4 �d7 1 8 c3 d4 19 c4 �cS
20 �xb7+- Vasiukov - Eg­
orov, Moscow 19S9) 11 h3
4JeS 12 {)xeS �xd4 13 4Jf3
�b6 and now for some
reason, White refrai ned
from 1 4 g4! w hich would
have maintained two extra
pawns.
White tried to improve
over this with 10 d4 i n
Velimirovic - Terzic, Zenica
1987. However, White failed
to do j ustice to his idea, as
fol lowing 10 . . . �b6 1 1 4JeS
�xfS 1 2 �e3 4Jd7 13 �d2
�e8 he promptly b l u ndered
a piece with 1 4 4Jc3?? B lack
was alert to the tactics in
the position and after 1 4 . . .
{)xeS 1S dxeS d 4 ! 1 6 �xd 4
�d8 17 4Je2 .a_xd4 1 8 4Jxd4
cS he went on to win easily.
White shou ld, of course,
have p layed 1 4 4Jxd7 �xd7
when Black has the typical
compensation of the bishop
pair and open lines for his
pawn sacri fice.
c) 8 ...dS 9 4Jxd 4 �xd4 10
4Je2 .a_b6 1 1 4Jg3 ( 1 1 d4) 1 1 ...
4Je4 12 4Jxe4 dxe4 13 �c4+
'itlh8 14 .a_e6 .a_xe6 1S fxe6.
Arseniev - Kovalenko, Mo­
scow 19S7 now saw 1S . . .
�xf2!? 1 6 �xf2 t/1f6 1 7 t/1e1
�f8 18 d4! �xd4 19 e7! and
after 19 . . . �e8 20 'itlf1 White
hel d off the attack, with a
big advantage. At first
sight, Black cou ld have re­
solved the game in his fav­
our with 19 . . . �xf2, but
White has a beauti ful re­
futation, e.g. 20 .a_e3! ! ( not
20 e�+? �f8+) 20 . . . �xe3
21 �xe3 .a_xe3 22 'itlh1 and
the White pawn promotes.
19 . . . �xf2+ doesn't help
Black - 20 �xf2 �xf2 21
.a_e3 with the same concl u-
sion .
9 4Jxd4
In the correspondence
game Shapovalov - Zhurav­
lev, 1 963 a recommendation
 4 {Jc3 fjf6 and 4 . . . Others 63

of Suetin w as seen: 9 b41? play for more with 17 l:if3?

�xf3+ 10 �xf3 .Q.xb4 1 1 .Q.d3 backfired horribly to the
d5 12 .Q.b2 �e8 1 3 !,1ae 1 and tactical sequence 1 7
now after the error 13 . . . �xeS! 1 8 fxeS .Q.xd4+ 19
�g5? White landed a n u n­ �xd4 c£)e2+ 20 \tilh 1 c£)xd4 21
expected b low 1 4 4:)xd5! �xf8+ �xf8 22 c3 4:)e6 0-1 .
cxd5 15 �xd5+ \tilh8 16 �b5 10 .Q.e2 (perhaps more
.Q.e7 17 f4± convincing than the text)
9 .Q.xd4 10 . . . dS 11 .Q.f3 (11 d3 .Q.xfS 12
.Q.f4 ! �d7 13 �d2± Gligoric
Matu lovic, Y ugoslavia
1957) 11 . . . .Q.xfS 12 4:)e2! .Q.b6
13 d4± Vasi lchuk - Stei n,
Moscow 1956.
10 dS
11 c£)e2 .Q.e51
12 4:)g3 c£)e41
13 .Q.xe4 dxe4
14 d3 exd3
15 �xd3 �xd3
10 .Q.d3 16 cxd3 .Q.xg3
10 .Q.a4 d5 1 1 4:)e2 .Q.b6 12 17 hxg3 .Q.xfS=
d4! .Q.xf5 13 .Q.f4! Unzicker Tal - Spassky, Moscow
- Nievergel t , Zurich 1 959 1957.
continued 13 . .. 4:)h5 ( no
better is 1 3 . . . �e8 1 4 .Q.d6 B3
c£)g4 1 5 f3 �e3+ 1 6 \tilh1 !;tfe8 5 �d4
17 c£)g3 .Q.d7 18 c3±) 1 4 .Q.eS
�h4 1 5 c£)g3 .Q.g 4 16 �d2±
13 c£)g3 s ho u l d a l so be
good for White. Agnos -
Erker, Lloyds ijank 1988
continued 1 3 .. . .Q.g6 14 .Q.f4
c£)e4 15 .Q.eS �gS 16 f 4 c£)xg3
and now w i th 1 7 fxgS White
wou ld have obtain ed a
small endgame advantage.
In the game, his attempt to
64 4 .fJcJ fjf6 and 4 . Others. .
6 o-o
6 4Jxd4 exd4 7 4je2 c6
was Freize - Schuster,
Neis htadt 1957, and Black
obtai ned the advantage
after 8 .Q.d3 .Q.c5 9 4Jg3 0-0
10 0-0 d5 11 �f3 �d6 12 c3
(12 b3 4jd7) 12 . . . .Q.b6 13 4Je2
4je4! =F
6 d3 is wel l met by 6 . . .
c6! 7 .Q.a4 d5.
6 .Q.a4 .Q.c5 7 0-0 (if White
chooses i ns tead 7 d3 then
as wel l as 7 . . . 0-0 8 0-0 ( 8
4:)e4 4Jxe4 9 dxe4 d5} 8 . . .
d5, which is fine, B lack can
also consider 7 . . . 4jxf5!?,
e.g. 8 4je4 .Q.b6 9 4Jxe5 0-0
10 0-0 d5 1 1 4Jxf6+ �xf6 12
4jd7 .Q.xd7 1 3 .Q.xd7 !!f7�
Baikov - M i k . Tseitlin, Mos­
cow 1979) 7 . . . 0-0
Now:
a) 8 4jxd4 exd4 9 4je2 d5
10 d3 ( 10 b4 .Q.b6 11 .Q.b2 d3!
12 4Jg3 �d6 13 �f3 c6 6 1 4
. . . hSt) 10 . . . .Q.xfS 1 1 4Jg3 ( 1 1
.Q.f4 .Q.d6 { 1 1 . . . c6} 12 .Q.xd6
�xd6 13 4Jxd4 4Jg4 1 4 g3
�h6 15 h4 .Q.c8 16 �e2 c5!=F
Chandler - Inkiov , Nis 1983)
11 . . . .Q.g4 12 �el c6 13 f3 ( 13
h3 !!e8 14 �d2 .Q.d6!? 15
hxg4 4Jxg4 and 16 . . . �h4)
13 . . . !!e8 1 4 �f2 !!f8 15
fxg 4 ? ! 4Jxg4 16 �e2 �h4 17
h3 �xg3! -+ Plani nc
Mariotti , Correspondence
1976/77.
b) 8 !!e1 4Jg 4! 9 4je4
!!xf5! 10 4jxd4 (10 4Jxc5?
4Jxf3+ 1 1 gxf3 4Jxh2!) 10 . . .
.Q.xd4 1 1 �xg4 d 5 and Black
has dangerous threats , Vit­
olinsh - Bojkovic, Rijeka
1963.
c) 8 d3 d5 9 4Jxe5 .Q.xf5=F
6 4jxb5
If 6 . . . .Q.cS good is 7
4Jxd4! exd4 (7 . . . .Q.xd4 8
4je2 .Q.b6 9 d4 e4 (9 . .. exd4
10 4Jxd4 0-0 11 4Je2! } 10
4Jg3 c6 11 .Q.e2 0-0 12 f3±
Zhi l i n - Chernov, Rostov
1960) 8 !:tel + .Q.e7 9 4je2 a6 (9
. . . 0-0 10 4jxd4 cS 1 1 4je2!)
10 .Q.d3 cS 1 1 b4! o-o 1 2 bxc5
.Q.xcS 13 4jf4! ± Matanovic -
janosevic, Sarajevo 1958.
After 6 ... c6 unimpress­
ive is 7 .Q.e2 d6 8 �e1 ( 8
4Jxd4 exd4 9 .Q.hS+ �7- )
a llowing 8 . . . 4jxf3+! 9 .Q.xf3
.Q.xfS and now o n 1 0 d4
fol lows tO ... �c7! 1 1 dxeS
 4 fjc3 fjf6 and 4 . Others 65
. .

( 1 1 .Q,f4 0-0-0; 1 1 «Ye2 0-0-0) Worth a look are 7 ... c6

11 . . . dxeS 12 «Ye2 ( 12 .Q.f4 8 4Jc3 dS 9 4Jxe5 .Q.fS or 9
.Q_d6) 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 and Black �e1 .Q.d6 (9 . . . e4) 10 4Jxe5
is fine. Far stronger ( after 0-0 with compensation .
6 . . . c6) is 7 .Q.a4! with the 8 �e1 .Q.e7
fol l ow i ng possibi l i ties: 9 {)gS c6
a) 7 ... bS 8 .Q.b3 {)xb3 9 10 4Jc3 dS
axb3 d6 10 d4 e4 1 1 {)gS dS
12 f3±
b) 7 ... dS 8 �e1 .Q.e7 9
{)xd 4 exd4 tO {)e2 d3 t t
4Jg3±
c) 7 . d6 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9
. .

4Je2 �aS 10 .Q.b3 d3 1 1 4Jd4

or 1 1 4Jg3;t
d) 7 ... .Q.cS 8 4Jxe5 ( 8
4Jxd4 .Q.xd4 9 4Je2± a s i n
Z h i l i n - C hernov) 8. . .0-0 9
4Jf3 dS to 4Jxd4 .Q.xd4 1 1 11 4Je6
4Je2± as i n Unzicker - Niev­ Preferab le is 11 d3 but
ergelt in B2b. In Govart - after 11 ... exd3 12 �xd3 0-0
Brem, Reykjavik 1 982 9 . . . 13 4Je6 .Q.xe6 !:::. 14 . . . .Q.cS
4JxfS was tried leading to Bl ack has su fficient coun­
10 d4 .Q.b4 ( to . .Q.b6 11 dS)
. . terplay.
1 1 4Je2 dS 12 c3 .Q.d6 13 .Q.f4 11 .Q.xe6
4Je4 1 4 .Q.xd6;t 12 fxe6 o-o
7 {)xbS e4 13 d3 .Q.cSI
14 d4
On 14 .Q.e3 d4! fol lows
and if 14 dxe4 strong is 1 4
. . . .Q.xf2+ IS !ifjlxf2 4Jg4+
14 .Q.d6
15 .o.,gs �ea
16 h3 �g6
17 .Q.e3 l:Iae8
18 4Je2 {)hS
19 «Yd2 �f31
20 !ifjlh1 �xe6
66 4 f)c3 t£)f6 and 4 . . Others
.

21 4Jg1 �g31 And Black's direct and

forcefu l play has resu lted
in him obtai ning a wi nning
attack, Penson - Gudziev,
Yugoslavia 1977.
Black's play in this game
is most instructi ve and wil l
repay carefu l study. The
bui l d up of forces on the
kingside and the tactical
moti fs involving the half­
open f-fiJe are particularly
worthy of attention.
6) 4 �c3 �d4

1 e4 eS knight.
2 �f3 �c6 White has n u merous pos­
3 ,O,b5 f5 sible responses, from which
4 �c3 �d4 we shal l discuss the fol­
lowing in detai l:

A) 5 exfS
B) 5 �e5
C) 5 ,O,c4
D) 5 (}-0
E) 5 ,O,a4

5 4Jxd4 exd4 i s too risky,

This eccentric looking
move was suggested by
Alek hi ne and l ater analysed
i n detail by B u l garian mas­
ters .
It looks very curious to
move this piece tw ice in the
opening , but by p l ay i ng 4
�c3, White has given u p
the possibil ity o f c3 , and so
it is no longer simple to
deal w ith the centralised
as borne out by the game
Karaklajic - Matulovic, Sar­
ajevo 1958, which continued
6 �e2 c6 (6 . . . fxe4 7 �xd4
t/Yf6 8 �e2 c6 9 ,O,a4 dS is
possible) 7 ,O,d3 fxe4 8
,O,xe4 dS 9 ,O,f3 w hen after 9
. . . d3! there fol lowed 10
cxd3 ,O,d6 I I d4 �h6 12 0-0
0-0 13 �g3 t/Yh4 and Black
obtai ned strong attacking
chances .
6 exfS is a tricky move,
as Black discovered to his
68 4 fjc3 fjd4
cost in Kostakiev - Vazov ,
B u lgaria 1987, e.g. 6 . . . dxc3
7 �hS+ �e7 8 0-0 4Jf6 9
�e1 + �d6 1 0 �e2! �cS 1 1 a4!
c6 12 �e3+ �b4 1 3 dxc3+
�aS 1 4 b4+ 1 -0. However, 6
. . . �gS! is a considerab le
i mprovement, after w hich
the onus is on White to
demonstrate how the att­
ack can be continued .
6 4Jd5!? c6 7 exfS is inter­
esting. Kostakiev - Ko lev,
Bulgaria 1986 conti nued 7
. . . cxdS ( 7 . . . �gS! may be
preferab le, e.g. 8 4Jc7+ �dB
9 4Jxa8 �xg2 10 �f1 cxbS 1 1
d 3 4:jf6 12 c3 .Q.cS 1 3 .Q.f4
4Jd5 is good for Black) 8
�hS+ �e7 9 0-0 4:jf6 10 �e1+
�d6 1 1 �f3 �c7! and Whi te
is strugg l i ng to find an
effective contin uation of
the attack .
A 4Je1 0-0-0 11 d3 �c7 12 .Q.e3
5 exf5
5 c6
5 ... 4Jxb5 6 4Jxb5 d6 ( i f 6
. . . e4 good i s 7 4Je5 4Jf6 8
4Jg4) 7 d4 e4 8 4Jg5 .Q.xfS 9
�e2 �d7 (9 . . . 4Jf6 10 �c4).
The game Parma - Baias­
kas, Athens 1980 conti nued
10 f3 0-0-0 11 fxe4 �e8 12
0-0 4:jf6 13 �xfS ! ? �xfS 1 4
4Jxc7 �e7 1 5 4Jb5 4Jxe4 16
4Jxe 4 �xe4 17 �c4+ and
now with 17 . . . �cS! 18 �d3
�fS Bl ack cou ld force the
repetition of moves . In­
stead of 10 f3, correct is 10
g4! .Q.g6 1 1 4Je6±
6 4Jxd41?
This leads to puzzling
compl ications, reminiscent
of Steinitz"s Gambit in the
Vienna Game.
Al ternati vely, Wedberg -
Brem, Reykjavik 1982 saw 6
.Q.e2 �f6 ( 6 . . . 4:jf6 7 4Jxe5
�e7 8 4:jd3 dS 9 0-0 .Q.xfS 10
4Jxe2+ 13 4Jxe2 .Q.d6Ci5 Sax -
Romero, Rome 1986) 7 4Jxd4
(7 0-0 dS 8 �e1 4Jxf3+ 9
.Q.xf3 .Q.xfS= ) 7 . . . exd4 8
cfje4 �xfS 9 cfjg3 �f7 10 0-0
dS 1 1 �e1 �dB 12 .Q.g4 d3! 13
cxd3 .Q.cSCC'i .
After 6 .Q.a4 �f6! is a
good reply 7 0-0 ( 7 4Jxd4
exd4 8 �hS+ �f7 9 �xf7+
�xf7 10 cfje2 .Q.cS and White
cannot hold the extra

pawn) 7 . . . d6 8 �el (if 8
4Jd5 t/Jf7 or 8 4Jxd4 exd4 9
t/Jh5+ g6) 8 . . . c£)xf3+ 9 t/Jxf3
�d8 is approximately equal.
6 c[)xeS 4jf6? (6 . . . cxb5 7
t/Jh5+ ± ) 7 -'ld3!± was Nunn ­
de I a Vi l l a, Szirak 1987, but
Nu nn's notes do not men­
tion 6 . . . t/Jg5! wi th total ly
unexp lored compl ications.
6 -'l.d3!? is a radical at­
tempt to defend the f­
paw n . 6 . . . 4Jxf3+ 7 t/Jxf3
c£)f6 8 t/Je2 t/!Je 7 9 b3 d5 I 0 f3
-'l.d7 1 1 -'l.b2 0-0-0 12 0-0-0
�e8 13 t/Jf2 �b8 14 g4 was
clearly better for White in
Wedberg - de Ia Vil la, Lu­
gano 1988. 6 . . . c£)xf3+, de­
velopi ng al l of Whi te's
position for h i m , looks to
be the cu l pri t here. More
to the point is 6 . . . c£)f6.
6 exd4
7 t!JhS+ rJ;e7
8 o-o dS!?
A continuation suggested
and analysed by the Ita l i an
master Tatai w hose analy­
sis we now fol low .
Gheorghiu - Bielick i . Mar
del Pl ata 1 965 saw i nstead 8
... dxc3 9 dxc3 c£)f6 (9 . . . d6?
10 -'l.c4 d5 11 Z!el + rJ)d7 12
t/if7+ 4Je7 13 -'ig5+-) 10 �e 1+
�d6 1 1 -'l.f4+ ltfc5 12 -'l.e3+
(not 12 b4+? rJ)b6) 12 . . . ltfd6
13 -'l.f4+ eventual ly draw n.
4 .f)c3 .f)d4 69
After 8 ... 4Jf6 9 �e1 +
rJ)d6 Tatai's analysis gives
10 c£)e4+ ( 1 0 t/Jh4 ltfc7 1 1
t/ixd4 cxb5 12 c£)xb5+ rJ)b8 13
d3 t/Jb6 1 4 t/Jxb6 axb6 15
-'l.f4+ d6 16 c£)xd6 ,O.xd6 17
-'l.xd6+ ltfa7 18 g4;t) 10 . . .
4Jxe4 I t �xe4 cxb5 1 2 d3!
-'l.e7 13 f6 gxf6 14 t/Jxb5 rJ;c7
15 ,O_f 4+ d6 16 t/ic4+ ( 16 t/Jc5+
�d7 17 t/Jb5+ �c7 18 t/ic5+
leads only to perpetual
check) 16 . . . rJ;d7 ( 16 . . . �b8
17 t/Jf7) 17 t/Je6+ rJ;c7 18 t/Jf7
Z!e8 19 �ael �d7 20 lde6!
Let's return to the main
conti nuation 8 ...dS!?
9 �et+
9 b3 is well met by 9 . . .
dxc3. Garcia - Tatai , Terre­
mol i nos 1983 went 10 -'l.a3+
�d7 I I t/Jf7+ 4Je7 12 f6 ( 12
�fel t/Je8! and White's att­
ack comes to a standsti I I )
1 2 . . . gxf6 1 3 ldfe1 �g8! 1 4
ti!Jeb+ ( 1 4 �e6 �g7 ! ) 1 4 . . .
ltfc7 1 5 t/Jxf6 4Jg6 1 6 t/Jf7+
70 4 .f)c3 .f)d4

.Q.d7 1 7 �xg8 .Q.xa3+ B lack keeps the extra piece

9 'iftd6 having beaten off the
10 �e8 attack.
After 10 d3, the Black 14 ... �xf5
king runs away - 10 . . . 4Jf6
11 .Q.f4+ �cS! 12 b4+ �b6! 13
4Ja4+ ( 13 a4 a6 ! 1 4 �f7 �d7)
13 . . . �xbS 14 c4+ dxc3 15
4Jxc3+ �a6 16 �d1 .Q.xb4 and
White remains a piece
down.
10 4Jxd51? is another try
for White . 10 . . . cxdS 1 1 �e8
�f6 12 d3 4Je7 13 .Q.gS �xfS
14 �h4 4Jc6 15 b4! �c7 16
.Q.d8+ �d7 17 rtae1 gS 1 8 Here it i s di ffic u l t to see
�xd4 �g8 19 �8e5 �xd8 20 an effective White conti n­
�xdS+ �c7 21 rtxfS .Q.xfS 22 uation, and Black threatens
�xg8 �dB 23 .Q.xc6 bxc6 24 to consolidate the material
�xgS .Q.g6 25 �aS+ �c8 26 advantage. The black king
h4 .Q.d6 27 hS .Q.e8 28 c4 .Q.c7 has obtained a curious
29 �fS+ �b8 30 �xh7 1-0 sanctuary on b6 .
Seibold - Bruning, Bundes­ 15 g4
liga 1990. 15 .Q.xe7 .Q.xe7 16 �xfS
10 �f6 .Q.xfS 17 �xe7 dxc3 18 .Q.a4
11 d3 4Je71 and White keeps the mater­
12 .Q.f4+ ial balance but the offside
The attack 12 .Q.g5 �xfS bishop gives Bl ack the
13 g4!? is rep u lsed by 13 . .. chances after 18 . . . g6 or 1 8
�f3! 1 4 .Q.xe7+ ( 1 4 �e1 .Q.xg4) . . . gS
1 4 ... .Q.xe7 15 rtxh8 .Q.xg 4 16 15 �f3
�xh7 �xh8 17 �xh8 dxc3+ 16 .Q.xe7 .Q.xe7
12 ... �c51 17 �xh8 .Q.xg4
13 b4+ �b6 18 �xh7 �xh8
14 .Q.g5 19 �xh8 dxc3+
14 a4 a6 (simpler is 14 . . .
dxc3) 1 5 aS+ �a7 1 6 .Q.a4 B)
dxc3 1 7 .Q.c7 bS! and again 5 4Jxe5

5 t!;f6
This certainly seems to
be Black's bes t. Others
lead to a Whi te advantage.
For example:
a) 5 ... tf1e7 6 t/Jh5+ g6 7
4:Jxg6 t!;f7 8 exf5 4:Jxc2+ (8
. . . hxg6 9 t!;xh8 4:Jxc2+ to
\fidt 4:Jxa1 11 �et+) 9 \fidt
4:Jxa1 10 �c4
b) 5 ... 4:Jf6 6 d3! �c5 ( i f 6
. . . fxe4 7 dxe4 4:Jxb5 8
4:JxbS t!;e7, then Whi te has
a material p l u s after 9
4:Jxc7+ \fid8 1 0 4:Jxa8) 7 0-0
c) 5 ... �g5 6 0-0 fxe4 7
f4 exf3 8 4:Jxf3 4:Jxf3+ ( 8 . . .
�c5 9 c£)xd4 �xd 4+ 1 0 \fiht )
9 �xf3 �c5+ to d4!
6 4:Jf3
Mechkarov analysed the
continuation 6 f4 fxe4! 7
4:Jd5 ( 7 0-0 is a mistake
because of 7 . . . c£)xb5 8
4:Jxb5 �b6+ , but Shamko­
vich's recom mendation 7
�c4!? deserves attention.
4 4)c3 4)d4 71
Another move here is 7 �a4
which l ed to interesting
play i n Mi ner - Hagg lof,
Correspondence 1983, e.g. 7
. . . t/Jh4+! 8 g3 �h3 9 4:Jxe4
�g2 to c£)f2 c£jf6 11 c3 4:Je4!
12 4:Jeg4! 4:Jf3+ 13 \fie2 h5t)
7 . . . t!;d6 and came to the
concl usion that it is good
for Black after 8 �c4 ( 8
t!;h5+ g6 9 4:Jxg6 hxg6 10
�xh 8 �xd5 11 c4 4:Jc2+ 12
\fidt �d3!) 8 . . . c6 9 t!;h5+ g6
10 4:Jxg6 hxg6 1 1 �xh8
4:Jxc2+ 12 \fid1 4:Jxa l .
6 4:Jxb5
6 . . . fxe4 7 4:Jxd4 ( 7 c£)xe4
4:Jxf3+ 8 �xf3 t/Jxf3 9 gxf3
c6 to .Q.e2 d5 11 c£)g3 .Q.h3 is
better for B lack despite the
pawn deficit) 7 . . . �xd4 8
0-0 c6 9 �a4 c£jf6 (9 . . . d5 10
d3 exd3 11 �e3 �g4 12
�xd3± ) 10 d3 exd3 11 �e1+
\fif7 12 �e3 �h4 13 thxd3 d5
14 �d4 �d6 15 g3 Frid -
Schmidt, Correspondence
1958. Now , instead of 15 . . .
�g5? 1 6 .Q.xf6 t!;xf6 17
4:Jxd5! +- Black s hould have
played 15 . . . �hS with eq ual
chances.
7 c£)xb5 fxe4
8 t!;e2 �e7
9 c£)fd4
9 c£)xc7+? \fid8 10 4:Jxa8
exf3+
9 d6
72 4 fJc3 fJd4

10 o-o c£)f6
11 d3 a6
12 c£)c3 �4

5 c6
The best response. If 5 ...
d6 then 6 exfS! gives White
Here Black has eq ual excel lent chances. For ex­
play thanks to the poten­ ample 6 . . . c£)f6 ( 6 . . . .Q.xfS 7
tial acti vity of the bishop c£)xd4 exd4 8 �f3! -'lg6 9
pair. �xb7 dxc3 10 �c6+ �e7 1 1
13 f3! 0-0 �c8 12 ZXe t+ �d8 1 3 .Q.e6
13 t;Ye3 exd3 14 �xd3 c£)e7 1 4 �f3 �b8 IS dxc3
0-0-0 IS -'lgS �d7 t6 l:!fe t cS wi th a decisive attack for
with the initiative, Zaharian the sacrificed piece, Kir­
- Nikiti n , Moscow 1963. ianov - Remeni uk, Semi­
13 ... exf3 Final Ukraine Ch. 19S9) 7
14 �f2! 0-0! .Q.xfS (7 . . . c£)xfS 8 �e1
14 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 simplifies 6 ( d4) 8 c£)xd4 exd4 9 �e1+
Black's task of uti l isi ng the .Q.e7 10 c£)e2 cS 1 1 c£)f4 dS 12
bi shops. c£)xdS! c£)xdS 1 3 �f3± ( Euwe)
14 o-o-o 6 d3 (i nstead of 6 exfS!) 6
15 c£)xf3 �b8 . . . c£)f6 can lead to inter­
16 �5 h6 esting play, e.g. 7 c£)xd4 (7
17 �ae1 t/;Jf7= -'lgS h6 8 c£)xeS hxgS 9 c£)f7
Black can hold his ow n �b6 10 c£)x h8 �xb2 11 0-0
here, Bobo lovich - Nikitin, �xc3 12 eS �xc2 13 exf6
Moscow 1 963. �xd1 14 flf7+ �d8 IS �axd t
gxf6 16 �del flcS 17 �h1 bS
c 18 f4 �c7 19 �e8 aS 20 -'lg6
5 .a_c4 b4 21 fxgS fxgS 22 c£)f7 a4

23 c[)xgS b3 and B l ack went
on to win in Antunes - de
Ia Vi l l a Garcia, Andorra
Zonal 1987) 7 . . . exd4 8 c[)e2
fxe4 9 dxe4 4Jxe4 10 �xd4
4Jf6 1 1 .QgS c6 12 0-0-0 d5 1 3
4Jf4 fle7 1 4 c[)xd5! cxd5 1 5
Jlxf6 gxf6 1 6 flxd5 Jlf5 1 7
�f4 �c8 1 8 flb3 fle6 1 9
flxe6 �xe6 2 0 !!del �xa2 2 1
ti!Jc7 0 - 0 2 2 !!xe 7 t/1a1 + 23
�d2 !!adS+ 24 �e3 1-0 Ab­
ramovic - Kovacevic, Novi
Sad 1985 .
However, Black does
better to take the chance
for 6 . . . fle7 ! (6 . . . c[)xf3+ 7
�xf3 c[)f6 8 .Qg5 l B exf5 c6
then . . . d5 } 8 . . . c6 9 0-0-0
h6! 10 Jlxf6 t/1xf6= Halif­
man - Inkiov, Pl ovdiv 1 982)
7 c[)xd4 exd4 8 c[)e2 Jlf6 9
0-0 c6 t o c[)g3 c[)e7 Faibis­
ovich - Korolev, Leningrad
1962) .
6 o-o
Al ternatives:
a) 6 flxg8 !!xg8 7 0-0 d6
(7 . . . �f6 8 exf5 d5! 9 c[)xe5
4Jxc2CX5 ) 8 !!e1 4jxf3+ 9 �xf3
f4 to d4 ( 10 �h5+ g6 1 1
�xh7 !!g7Ci5 ) 1 0 . . . g5 1 1 dxe5
dxe5 12 c[)e2 (mistaken are
12 t/1h5+ !!g6 13 �xh7? !!h6
14 �g8 fle6 and 12 !!d1 �c7
13 t/1d3 fle6) 12 . . . fle6 13 �c3
fld6 1 4 b3 �b6 15 flb2
0-0-0=F
4 4Jc3 4Jd4 73
b) After 6 d3 c[)xf3+ 7
�xf3 �f6 8 �e2 (8 exfS
c[)e7!; 8 0-0 fxe4 9 �xe4
c[)e7 or 8 flxg 8 !!xg8 9 exfS
d5 a l l leave Black the
better chances) 8 . . . f4!
B lack has good play . For
example 9 fld2 4Je7 1 0
0-0-0 d 6 1 1 f 3 fld7 1 2 �f2 g 5
13 h4 g4 and Black's pos­
ition is preferable, Wester­
inen - Lanka, j u rmala 1978.
c) 6 c[)xeS
Now 6 . . . t/1f6 is ri sky as
after 7 c[)f3! fxe4 8 4Jxd4
t/1xd4 9 d3 d5 10 fle3 �f6 l l
flxd5 ! cxd5 12 4Jxd5 White
obtai ns a very s trong
attack for the piece. The
rig ht continuation is 6 . . .
t/1e7! when after 7 �h5+ ( 7
4Jf7 d 5 8 4Jxh8 dxc4 9 0-0
fle6 /::, . . . 0-0-0) 7 . . . g6 8
4Jxg6 4Jf6 9 c[)xe7+ (9 �h4
hxg6 10 t/1xh8 fxe4) 9 . . .
4Jxh5 10 4Jxc8 4Jxc2+ 1 1 �d1
4Jxa1 12 exf5 d5 13 fle2 c[)f4
7 4 4 .f)c3 .f)d4
Black stands wel l .
6 d6
In Bogolyubov - Reti,
Stockhol m 1919, B lack
played poorly 6 . . . 4Jxf3+?
- c) 7 exfS -'l,xfS ( 7 . . . dS 8
7 �xf3 �f6 8 d4! exd4 9 eS!
�h4 10 4Je2 -'l,cS 1 l b4!±
A better al ternative i s 6
.. . 4Jf61? If White now tries
7 �e1 then with 7 . . . 4Jxf3+
8 �xf3 fxe4! 9 4Jxe4 dS 10
4Jxf6+ �xf6 11 t!YhS+ lt?d8
Black gets good play.
Better is 7 4Jxe5 fxe4 (7 . . .
t/Je7? 8 exfS) 8 4Jf7 �c7! ( 8
. . . �e7 9 4Jxh 8 d S 10 -'l_e2
-'l,fS 1 1 d3 0-0-0 12 -'l_e3
4Jxe2+ 1 3 4Jxe2 ± Gel l er -
Rodriguez , Las Pal mas 1976)
9 4Jxh8 dS 10 -'l,xdS cxdS 1 1
4Jxd5 t/JeS! 1 2 4Jxf6+ gxf6� ,
and if i nstead 10 -'l,e2 -'l,d6
( to . . . -'l,fS) 1 1 -'l,hS+ g6 12
4Jxg6 -'l,xh2+ 13 lt?h1 hxg6 1 4
-'l,xg6+ lt?e7 Black has a
good attacki ng position for
the exchange.
7 �et
Others :
a) 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4Je2
fxe4 9 4Jxd4 �f6�
b) 7 d3 4Jxf3+ 8 �xf3 and
now after 8 . . . f4! 9 g3 �gS
or 9 h3 �h4 Black gets
good p l ay. Mechkarov's
recom mendation 8 . . . �f6 is
wel l met by 9 exfS dS 10
-'l,b3 -'l_xfS 1 1 �g3 -'l,d6 12 .Q.gS
�g6 13 �ae1 and White has
chances for the initiative,
Zacharov - Nikitin, Moscow
1962.
4Jxe5 4Jf6 9 �e1 -'l,e7 10 -'l,d3
4Jxf5 or 10 . . . 0-0 with
compensation; 7 . . . 4Jxf5 8
�e1 -'l,e7 9 -'l,b3 4Jf6 to d3 ( 1 0
4Jg5 d S 1 1 �xeS 0-0 ) 1 0 . . .
�b6 1 1 h 3 �f8! 12 g4 4Jxg4!
13 hxg4 4Jh4 with a strong
attack, Novopashin - Bab­
enishev, Ukraine 1962) 8
4Jxd4 ( 8 d3 4Jf6) 8 . . . exd4 9
�e1+ lt?d7 with sharp play .
7 4Jxf3+
8 �xf3 f4
9 d4
9 -'l,xgB �xg8� 9 g3 �f6
10 d 4 (better to gxf4 �xf4
11 �xf4 exf4 12 d4 gS= ) 10
. . . gS 11 dxeS ( 1 1 -'l,d2 hS 12
gxf4 gxf4 13 h3 t/Jh4 1 4 lt?h2
4Jf6 15 4Je2 -'l,h6! 16 -'l_c3
.Q.xh3-+ Kryu kov - Popov,
Correspondence 1961/62) 1 1
 4 .f)c3 .f)d4 75

. . . dxe5 1 2 �h5+ �g6 13 D

�xg6+ hxg6 1 4 .Q.d2 c[jf6 15 s o-o c6
h4 cijg4 16 �g2 .Q.c5 1 7 �f1 6 .Q.a4
gxh4=F Yoffie - Yudasin,
Leni ngrad 1978.
9 �f6
10 b41 cije7
11 dS hS

6 d6
Black's alternatives:
a) 6 ... cijf6 7 exf5± see
Chapter 5, B3.
b) 6 . . t!Jf6 7 d3 cijxf3+ 8
.

12 d.xc6 bxc6 �xf3 f4 9 d 4 d6 10 dxe5

13 bS .Q.e6 dxe5 1 1 4:jd5 thd6 12 �d1 cijf6
14 .Q.xe6 13 cijxf4 .Q.g4 1 4 �xd6 .Q.xf3
14 .Q.d31? 15 �xc6± Rivera - Santos,
14 �xe6 Lucerne 1 982.
15 �d1 cijg6 c) 6 ... bS 7 .Q.b3 cijxb3 8
16 bxc6 4:Jh4 axb3 b4 9 cije2 fxe4 to 4:Jxe5
17 �e2 cijf6 11 4:Jg3! �c? 12 4:Jg4
17 �d3 �g4 18 g3 cijf3+ 19 4:Jxg4 13 t!Jxg4 d5 14 �g5
�g2 h 4 20 h3 hxg3 and, i f �e? ( 1 4 . . . .Q.d6 15 d3! 0-0 16
anybody, i t i s Black w ho is dxe4± Black has no comp­
for preference . ensation for his nu merous
17 �c8 weaknesses) 15 �e3 tf1c5 16
18 c7?1 �xc7 d4 the? 17 f3 exf3 18 thxf3±
19 cijdS �c8 Nemet - Bojkovic, Skopje
20 �b1 �f7 1962. Whi te has a usefu l
� =� lead in development.
Goldstein - Rozu menko, d) 6 . thaS 7 exf5! d6 8
. .

Correspondence 1983. �b1 ! b5 ( 8 . . . .Q.d7 9 cijxd4

76 4 f)c3 f)d4
exd4 to b4 �a6 { 10 . . . �b6 1 1
�hS+ 't'd8 1 2 4je2} 1 1 �hS+
't'd8 12 bS �aS 13 �h4+!+-) 9
4Jxd4! exd4 10 .Q.b3 4jf6 ( 10
.. . dxc3 1 1 �hS+ 't'd8 12
.Q.xg8 cxd2 1 3 �gS+ .Q.e7 1 4
�xg7 dxct� 1 5 �bxct +-) 1 1
�e2+ 't'd8 1 2 4je4± Anders­
son - Schmidt, Correspond­
ence 1959.
7 �e1
7 exfS is a serious alter­
native w hen Black can con­
sider:
a) 7.•. �aS 8 �bt ! as i n
Andersson - Schmidt above.
b) 7 ... �f6 8 �e1 't'd8 9
d3 4jxf3+ 10 �xf3 �xfS=
c) 7 ... .Q.xfS 8 4jxd 4 exd4
9 �e1 + (9 �f3 �d7 to �e1 +
4Je7 1 1 c£)e2 �e6±) 9 . . . 't'd7
10 �f3 g6 1 1 4je2 and now,
not 11 . . . �f6 w hen 12 b4!
(Tuk makov - Bojkovic, Vrn­
jacka Banja 1 965) is good
for White, but 1 1 . . . .Q.g7! =
7 �aS
7 . .. 4Jf6 8 4jxd4 exd4 9
4jd5 fxe4 10 d3 e3 ( t o . . .
4jxd5 1 1 �hS+) a:> Rubenchik
- Goldenov , Vitebsk 1 960.
8 exfS
8 �bt bS 9 4jxd4 exd4 10
.Q.b3 doesn't su cceed on
account of to . .. dxc3 1 1
�hS+ 't'd8 1 2 .Q.xg8 g6!
8 't'd81
Mis taken is 8 ... !J.e7? as
after 9 4jxd4 exd4 10 4je4!
�xa4 1 1 4jxd6+ 't'f8 12 �hS
Whi te wins.
This position pro mises a
sharp, uncompromisi ng st­
ruggle.
9 a3
Whi te can try to play
more actively, viz 9 b41?
�xb4 10 �b1 �aS 11 .Q.a3 but
Black can then organise
counterplay with 1 1 . . . 4jf6
12 4Jg5 't'c7 13 .Q.b4 �a6 14
f4 bS. Gurgenidze - Boyar­
i nov , M i nsk 1 964 contin ued
15 4jf7 bxa4! 16 4jxh8 .Q.xfS
17 d3 cS 18 .Q.a3 exf4 19 �d2
f3 20 4jf7 h6 21 �f 4 �c6 22
.Q.b2 �b8 23 4je4 4je2+ 24
�xe2 fxe2 25 �xfS �xb2 26
�e1 �d7-+
9 .Q.xfS
10 b4 �b6
11 d3 .Q.g4
12 .Q.e3 4jf61
13 .Q.xd4 exd4
14 4je4 4JdS

With equal chances, N i l ­
sson - O l s s o n , Stockho l m
1964.
E 9 c£)g3 dS to c£)f4 �f7 11 c3
5 �a4
This bishop retreat was
for a long ti me considered
the s trongest continuation,
and gave Black many u n­
pleasant experiences. But
ways have been fou nd for
Black to obtai n fu l l cou n­
terplay .
5 c£)f6
The most promising l ine.
After 5 ... c6, White has a
strong reply i n 6 c£)xe5! If 6
. . . c£)f6 then 7 0-0 fxe4 8
c£)xe4 c£)xe4 9 !let ! dS t o d3!
gives Whi te the advantage.
Mechkarov suggests 6 . . .
thf6 as an a l ternative to 6 . . .
c£)f6, but Black sti l l has
di fficu l ties fol lowi ng 7 f4.
For example:
a) 7 . b5 8 �b3 c£)xb3 9
. .
4 fJc3 f]d4 77
axbJ b4 10 c£)e2 fxe4 1 1 c£)g3!
dS 12 d4 exd3 13 tf1xd3 ±
b) 7 c£)d3 fxe4 (7 . . . �d6 8
0-0 c£)e7 9 �et) 8 c£)xe4 �g6
c£)e6 12 c£)xe6 �xe6 13 d4 and
Black has no compensation
for the paw n.
6 o-o
6 c£)xe5 fxe4 7 0-0 and
now 7 ... �cS is a mistake in
view of 8 c£)g4! 0-0 9 c£)xf6+
�xf6 tO c£)xe4 �h4 1 1 c£)xc5
c£)f3+ 12 gxf3 !lfS 13 �e2± .
Correct i s 7 . . . �d6! 8 c£)c4
�e7 9 c£)xe4 (9 d3 exd3 t o
thxd3 c£)e6) 9 . . . c£)xe4 1 0
�g4 0-0 1 1 �xe4 c£)f3+ ! 1 2
gxf3 dS=
7 c£)g4 ( i nstead of 7 0-0)
is possible. A possible con­
tinuation is 7 . . . �e7 8 0-0
0-0 9 c£)xf6+ �xf6 to c£)xe4
dS 11 c£)xf6+ �xf6 12 c3 bS!
13 �b3 c£)xb3 14 thxb3 c6 15
d4 tf1g6Ci5
6 �c5
78 4 tfjc3 tfjd4
6... fxe4 is not so good
after 7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4Jxe4!
4Jxe4 9 �h5+
6 . . . c6 7 exf5! transposes
to a good line for White
from the fifth chapter
(variation BJ) .
7 c[:)xeS
7 4Jxd4 exd4 8 4jd5 0-0 9
d3 fxe4 10 �5 c6 (10 . . .
!J.e7) 1 1 4Jxf6+ gxf6 1 2 !J.h6
�f7 1 3 �g4+ �h8 1 4 �h5
�e7 15 dxe4 d6 16 !J.b3 !J.e6
17 !ladt !J.xb3 18 axb3 d5a::>
Kochiev - Gutman, Baku 1977.
7 o-o
7 . bS? 8 4Jxb5 fxe4 9 c3
..
4Jxb5 t O !J.xb5 0-0 1 1 d4±
Balanel - Korch noi , Ploesti
1957.
7 . . fxe4 8 d3 or 8 4Jg 4
. a) 10 h3 �d6 11 4Jb3 4jf3+!
are both good .
7... c6 8 b4!? !J.b6 9 4Jc4
!J.c7 10 e5± Kupreichik -
Bel lon, Barcelona 1984.
8 4Jd3
8 exfS d5! is excel lent
for Black (again as i n
Chapter five, B3) .
8 fxe41
An unexpected blow!
This surpri sing and deep
piece sacri fice generates
excel lent play for Black.
8 ... !J.b6 9 e5 4Je4 tO
4Jd5:t is feebl e i n compar-
ison.
9 4Jxc5 dS
10 d3
At first sight, Black
piece sacrifice appears to
be highly optimistic, but
analysis serves to demon­
strate that it is by no
means easy for White to
defend himsel f.
AI ternatives;
12 gxf3 !J.x h3-+
b) 10 f3 exf3 11 gxf3 !J.h3
12 !lf2 4Jg4! 1 3 fxg4 �h4! - +
c) 10 4Jb5 � 4 1 1 �e1
4jf3+ ( 1 1 . . . 4Je2+ 12 �hi 4Jf4
is a lso good) 12 gxf3 !J.xf3
with the decisive threats of
13 . . . �c8 or 13 . . . 4Jg4.
d) 10 4Jb3 !J.g4 1 1 f3 ( 1 1
{jxd4 !J.xd1 12 {jxd1 �d6!
and Black won, Georgiev -
Inkiov, Bulgaria 1980/81 ) 1 1
. . . exf3 1 2 gxf3 4Jxf3+ 13
!lxf3 !J.xf3! 1 4 �xf3 4Je4 15
�g4 �f6 16 �g2 �h4 0 : 1
Tsvei fel - Glazkov , Gelend­
zik 1 977.
 4 fJcJ 4)d4 79
e) 10 .Q.b3 �h8 1 1 .Q.xdS 13 ... 4Je51
(only thus can White a l l e­ The reck less piece s ac­
viate the im mediate danger) rifice 13 . . . 4Jf3+? 1 4 gxf3
1 1 . . . 4Jxd5 12 4:)5xe4 ( 12 leaves Black u nable to jus­
4J3xe4 4jf4 1 3 d3 4Jxg2! 1 4 tify hi s investment:
�xg2 �h4 15 f 4 .Q.g 4 1 6 tbe1 a) 14 . tbxh3 15 fxg4
..

�f3+ 17 ijf}g1 4Je2+) 12 . . . !l_xg4 1 6 4Jg5! tbh4 1 7 �e1 !

4Jb4 ! 13 d3 4Jbxc2 1 4 .Q.g5 !l_f3 1 8 �e6+
tbd7 15 �cl 4:)b4. Lehmann - b) 14 . . 4jh2 15 ijf;xh2
.

Spassky, Vienna 1957 con­ �xh3+ 16 ijf;g1 �xf3 17 !l_b3+

tin ued 16 �a4? ( Tai manov �h8 1 8 �d2
and Furman recom mend 16 c) 14 . .. 4Je5 15 f4 tbxh3 16
a3, �e3 anf f3) 16 . . . tbxa4 17 f3
4Jxa4 4Je2+ 18 ijf;h 1 4Jxc1 and In a l l cases White has a
Black won. wi nning advantage (Tai m­
10 ... 4Jg4 anov and Furman)
Lehmann reco mmends 14 f4
conti nuing the attack with Vukcevic - Matu lovic,
10 . . . �4 1 1 �d2 bo. Sarajevo saw the weaker 14
11 4:)Sxe4 !l_b3+ 'ifth8 15 4Jg5? ( 1 5 f4
White must return the .Q.g4 16 �d2 4Je2+ ! 17 'ifth2
piece , as 11 dxe4? �h4 12 h3 �ae8! D. 18 . . . 4jf3+ with . . .
4Jxf2 and 1 1 h3? �h4 12 �xe4 fol lowing and White
hxg4 4jf3+ are catastrophic. has no satisfactory de­
11 dxe4 fence) 15 . . . 4Jef3+ 16 gxf3
12 4Jxe4 �h4 !l_xh3 and Black won.
13 h3 14 �4

e
80 4 4)c3 4)d4
15 �d2
Of course not 15 �e1?
4Jef3+!
15 ... .Q.f311
An excel lent resource,
discovered by Mechkarov.
After 15 .. . 4Je2+ 16 �h2
Black's attack is stil lborn.
16 4Jc3
Mechkarov claims this is
White's best chance. The
alternative is 16 fxe5 .Q.xe4!
17 dxe4 �xfl + 18 �xfl �f8+
19 �g1 4Jf3+ 20 gxf3 �xf3
res u l ting i n a highly u n­
clear position. White is
best advised to take the
safer course of the text
conti nuation.
16 �f6
17 �f2 �g6
18 �xh4 �xg2+
19 �ht �f2+=
A very instructive var­
iation which emphatica l ly
demonstrates the value of
the in itiative.
7) 4 �c3 fxe4 5 �xe4
w-ithout 5 . . . d5

1 e4 e5 5 ... a6 is weak. Gurgen­

2 4Jf3 4Jc6 idze - Lei n , Bak u 1961 con­
J .a_b5 f5 tinued 6 .a_xc6 bxc6 7 d4 dS
4 4jc3 fxe4 8 c[)xeS (8 4Jg3) 8 . . . dxe4 9
5 4jxe4 �hS+ g6 to 4Jxg6 4jf6 1 1
�eS+ �f? 1 2 4jxh8+ �g8 13
.a,gs .a,g? 1 4 .a_xf6 �xf6 15
�e8+ �f8 16 �xc6±

A)
5 .a_e7

Currently the most pop­

u l ar conti nuation . Here we
concern oursel ves with the
Black tries

A) 5 ... .a_e7
B) 5 ... 4Jf6 This should not be good
for Black but White is
5 .. d5 i s considered i n
. forced to cou nter energ­
the eighth a nd ninth chap­ etical ly .
ters. 6 d4!
82 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 t£Jxe4 without 5 . . . d5
Best. Other continua­
tions pose less problems :
a) 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7 t/Je2 .Q.g4
8 h3 .Q.xf3 9 t/Jxf3 {)f6 10
{)xf6+ .Q.xf6 1 1 t/Jb3! t/JdS! 12
t!Jxb7 t/Jxg2 13 t!Jxa8+ (13 �f1
\tild7) 13 . . . \tild7 14 t/Jxh 8
t/Je 4 + IS \til f l t/Jxh 1 + 1 6 \tile2
t/Je4+ "-'l : "-'l Kel ler - Duck­
stei n, Bad Pyrmont 1 963.
b) 6 o-o dS! 7 {)g3 .Q.g4 8
h3 .Q.xf3 9 t/Jxf3 {)f6 10 t/Jc3
(if to t!Je2, Kapengut re­
com mends 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .Q.xc6
bxc6 12 t/JxeS .Q.d6Ci3 ; to t!JfS
is met by 10 . . . t/Jd7) . White
wins a paw n , but Black
gai ns sufficient counter­
chances with 10 . . . t/Jd7 (10
... 0-0 II .Q.xc6 bxc6 1 2 t/Jxco
.Q.d6! { 12 . . . t/Jc8? 13 c4±
Kapengut - Marjas i n , 1976}
13 c4 e4 14 cxdS .Q.xg3 IS
fxg3 t!JxdSco) II .Q.xc6 bxc6
12 t/JxeS 0-0 13 t/JfS .Q.cS 1 4
t!Jxd7 {)xd7 I S d3 �ae8 16
.Q.d2 hS 17 �ael �xel 18 .Q.xel
h4 19 {)e2 �e8= Nezhmet­
di nov - Lei n, Vologda 1962.
Black s ucceeded in holding
the balance.
c) 6 t!Je2 {)d4 ! (6 . . . {)f6 7
{)g3 ! - see below) 7 {)xd4
exd4 8 t/JhS+ \tilf8 9 .Q.c4 t/Je8
10 t!Jxe8+ \tilxe8 1 t 0-0 c6 12
.Q.e2 dS 13 {)g3 (Teschner
- Duckstein, Salzburg 1 961)
13 ... go! with good play.
d) 6 4:)&3 {)f6?! ( correct
is 6 . . . {)d4! as i n the prec­
eding example) 7 t/Je2 0-0 8
.Q.xc6 dxc6 9 0-0 .Q.d6 to
{)xeS �e8 tt d4 cS t2 .Q.gS
cxd4 13 f4± Ku porosov -
jandemirov , Kostroma 198S.
6 exd4
6 . . . dS 7 {)egS! h6 8 {)h3!±
7 o-o
7 {)xd4 {)f6 8 {)xf6+ ( 8
{)g3 0-0 9 {)dfS d S tO 0-0?
{10 {)xe7+ t/Jxe7+ tt t/Je2=
had to be played } tO . . . .Q.cS
1 1 c3 .Q.xfS 12 {)xfS {)e4 13
{)e3 {)eS 14 .Q.e2 c6 with a
tremendous position for
Black , Kay umov - Nadezh­
di n, Uzbekistan 1971) 8 . . .
.Q.xf6 9 {)xc6 bxc6 to t/Je2+
.Q.e7= lvkov - Duckstei n,
Zagreb 19SS.
7 dS
7 . . . {)f6 proves unsatis­
factory after 8 {)xf6+ .Q.xf6
9 �el + {)e7 (9 . . . \tilf8 tO .Q.f4
d6 ( Holaczek - Duckstei n,
Vienna 1973 } is doubtfu l ,
e.g . I I .Q.xc6 bxc6 t2 {)xd4
cS 1 3 {)e6+ .Q.xe6 14 �xe6
,!!b 8 tS t!Jf3 and Black is
under great pressure and
wi l l find i t difficu l t to re­
pu l se the attack) 10 {)gS
0-0 tt {)xh7! wi th a decisive
attack as in the game Trif­
unovic - Kostic, Rogatska
Zlatina 1939.
 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 without 5 . . . d5
8 �egS!
Only this conti n uation,
i n conju nction with the
sacrifice of a piece, gives
White chances for the ad­
vantage.
Instead , 8 �g3 .!lg4 9 h3
.Q.xf3 10 �xf3 i s not so dan­
gerous for Black, as the
game Voitsek - Nadezhdi n,
Correspondence 1978, dem­
onstrates - 10 . . . �f6! 1 1
�fS 0-0 1 2 .Q.xc6 bxc6 13
�xd4 �e4 1 4 �g 4 �d6 1S
.Q.e3 ( t S �fS �f6 16 .Q.h6 llf7
and Whi te's attack is peter­
ing out) 1S . . . g6 16 �ad1 �f6
17 c4 hS=
8 h6
8... �d6 9 �xd4 .Q.f6 1 0
�a4 �ge7 1 1 .Q.f4±
9 .Q.xc6+ bxc6
10 �f7! �xf7
11 �eS+ �f6
12 �xd4!
After 12 �hS? .Q.fS 13
�f7+ �xeS Black can avoid
83
being mated while mai n­
tai ning the material p l u s ,
e . g . 14 .Q.f4+ ( 14 �e1+ �d6 I S
�xfS �cS) 1 4 . . . �xf4 1 S
�ae1 g6 16 g 3 + (Zaitsev -
Lisenko, 1964) and now
with 16 . . . �gS! Black could
have achieved a decisive
advantage.
12 cS
13 �f 4+ .Q.fS
14 h41
14 g4 �c8 1S �e1 gS! 16
�f3 .Q.d6! 17 �xdS .Q.e6 1 8
�e4 �e7 1 9 b4 .Q.dS 2 0 �e3
�e6 21 .Q.b2 .Q.xeS! 22 .Q.xeS+
�f7+ Han - Nadezhdi n,
Tashkent 197 1 .
14 �g4+ �g6 1S �eS+ �f6
16 g 4 �c8 17 �e 1 gS!+
Whi te's attack is very
strong as is demonstrated
by practice.
14 ... .Q.d6
Better than the text, but
also i nsufficient for eq ual­
i ty i s 14 g6. The corres-
...
84 4 fjc3 fxe4 S fjxe4 without S . . . dS

pondence game Voloshin Now there are two White

- Nadezhdin 1 978 showed moves worthy of consider­
the way for Whi te 1 5 b4! ation:
'it]g7 16 .Q.b2 4Jf6 17 g4 .Q.e6
( B l ack has kept the extra B1) 6 4Jxf6+
piece but the White attack B2) 6 �e2
conti nues) 18 Hfe1 d4 19
4Jc6 �d7 20 4Jxe7 t/Jxe7 21 6 .Q.xc6 dxc6 7 �e2 was
bxcS gS 22 �xd4! and examined in the first chap­
White's advantage is not in ter.
doubt.
15 He1 4Je7 B1
16 g4 .Q.xeS 6 4Jxf6+
17 �xeS+ 'tt]f7
18 gxfS �d6 · � · i� · � ��
19 �e6+ �xe6 � + r� + �. �. +
� ..... � ..... � � .....
20 fxe6+ 'it]g6 ·�
�-- .&\·�
� � � �
� -'1 � w �
21 .Q.f4 HacB
22 Had1
23 c41±
Hhe8
� � � �
Black lost on time! Vol­ � � �{J �
� ·r''"'"
oshin - Savchenko , 1970.
���
�� ��
�. .·'//- �./'/- �
� �
�� · · �·� m � §
B
5 4Jf6 6 t!Jxf61
This simple developing Only thus. 6 ... gxf6
move w as not seen in ser­ proves unsatisfactory after
ious tournaments for many 7 d4. Bardeleben - Leon­
decades, because it was hardt, Vienna 1908 saw 7 . . .
ass u med that after 6 4Jxf6+ d6 ( 7 . . . e 4 8 {)gS! .Q.b4+ 9 c3
�xf6 7 �e2 Black was fxgS 10 �hS+ 'it]f8 11 .Q.xgS
losing a paw n without 4Je7 12 .Q.c4 dS 13 .Q.xdS! 1 : 0
compensation. However, Brinckmann - Kieni nger ,
times have changed and Ludwigs hafen 1932) 8 dS! a6
statistics show that many 9 .Q.e2 4Je7 10 4Jh4 c6 ( 1 0 . . .
modern exponents of the 4Jg6 1 1 .Q.hS Hg8 12 �d3 'it]f7
jaenisch give preference to 13 f4 exf4 1 4 0-0±) 11 .Q.hS+
s . . . 4Jf6. 'it]d7 1 2 dxc6+ bxc6 13 c4!
 4 f)c3 fxe4 S f)xe4 without S . . dS .
w i th a long term i niti ative.
We now have the further
dichotomy:
Btt> 7 0-0
B12) 7 �e2
Others do not test Black ,
e.g. 7 .Q.xc6 dxc6 8 �e2 .Q.g4!
9 �xeS+ .Q.e7 reaching a
favourable position from
the mai n line, or 7 d4 4Jxd4!
8 4Jxd4 exd 4 9 0-0 .Q.e7 1 0
�hS+ g6 t t �h6 c 6 t 2 �e1
\tlf7! 13 �xe7+? (13 .Q.c4+) 13
. . . �xe7 1 4 .Q.gS �eS-+ Neu­
ronov - Ivanov , Tbi lisi 1973.
Btl
7 o-o
7 4Jd4
7 .Q.e7 gi ves White var­
. . .
ious options:
a) 8 �e2 4jd4 leads to
the main line .
b ) 8 �et 0-0 ( 8 . . . 4jd4 is
the m ai n l ine) 9 .Q.xc6 dxc6
8S
10 d4 ( 10 d3 .Q.d6) 10 . . . .Q.g4=
( Belavenets) .
c) 8 .Q.xc6 dxc6 (worse i s
8 . . . bxc6 9 �e1 ! d 6 1 0 d4± )
9 �e1 0-0 ( 9 . . . e4 10 �xe4
.Q.fS) 10 d3 .Q.d6 11 4JgS �g6
12 4je4 .Q.h3 13 4Jg3 .Q.g4=
8 4Jxd4 exd4
9 �et+
Others:
a) 9 �hS+ g6 tO �e1+ .Q,e7
leads to the mai n variation.
b) 9 .Q.e2 .Q.e7 tO d3 0-0 t t
.Q.f3 c6 12 .a,d2 dS= Liang -
Hjorth, Thessa loniki 1984.
c) 9 d3 !J.e7 10 �hS+ g6 1 1
�h6 c6 1 2 .Q.a4 dS t 3 .Q.d2
\tlf7 1 4 �aet .a,fB 1S �f4
�xf4 16 .Q.xf4 .Q.g7= Kruppa
- jandemirov , 198S.
d) 9 b3 .Q.e7 (9 . . . c6 tO .Q.c4
(Tal recommends tO .a,d3 dS
1 1 c4 ( 1 1 �e2+ .Q.e6! t2 .Q.b2
\tlf7 ! } 1 1 . . . .a,e6! t2 cxdS
.Q.xdS 13 �g4 ( 1 3 �e2+ �e6)
13 . . . hSco ) tO . . . bS! 11 �e1+
.a,e? t2 .a,d3 0-0 t 3 �e2 dS t4
�xe7 �xf2+ IS !it}h l .a,h3 t6
�g1 �ae8co Friedrich
Schlesinger, Hu ngary 1988) .
10 .a,b2 c6 1 1 .a,d3 dS 12 �e2
'tflf7!? t3 �ael .a,d6 t 4 f4 !J.d7
IS �f2 cS 1 6 �f3 .a,c6 t7 fS
.a,es 07 . . . �he8) t8 �hS+
\fie? t9 �f2 \tid? Thiemann -
Kitev, Correspondence t982.
9 !J.e7
10 �e2
86 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5
The manoeuvre 10 �h5+
g6 1 1 �h6 is not dangerous
for Black after I I . . . c6 12 d3
lftf7 1 3 -'la4 ! (13 �xe7+?
�xe7 14 -'lgS tfJeS and Black
won in Plato nov - Ivanov ,
Riga 1 975) 1 3 . . . dS 1 4 -'lf4
-'lf8 15 �gS �xgS 1 6 .a_xgS
-'lfS=
10 ... c6
10 . . . b6 1 1 f3 -'lb7 12 b3±
11 .a_d3
l 1 -'la4 came u nstuck i n
Leminski - Ehrke, Bundes­
liga 1987. Black developed a
strong initiative and after
1 1 . . . dS 12 �h5+ �f7 1 3 �e5
0-0 1 4 f3 -'lh4 15 �f1 !l_f6 16
thd6 -'lf5 17 d3 �ae8 18 -'lf4
�e6 19 thb4 -'ld8 20 -'lb3
.a_xd3 2 1 cxd3 �xf4 22 �xb7
nh6 23 g3 �e3+ 24 lftg2
�e2+ 25 �f2 �xh2+ he went
on to w i n .
11 d5
11 ... d61? 12 b3 0-0! 13
thxe7 thxf2+ 14 ltth 1 -'lh3 15
�e4!? .a_xg2+ 1 6 �xg2 t!Jxe1+
17 t!Jg 1 thf2!? 18 thxf2 �xf2
19 -'lb2 c5 20 lftgl ! �af8 21
�el �xd2 22 .a_ct �df2 23
�e7= Shatskes - Auzinch,
1984.
12 b3
12 c3 -'ld7 13 cxd4 ( 1 3 f3
lftf7!) 13 . . . 0-0!
12 f3 lftf7 13 b3 !l_d6 1 4
!l_b2 !l_e6=F Zauerman - Ivan-
ov , Correspondence 1979.
12 . . . o-o
12 . . lftf7 is bad , e.g 13
.
-'lb2 -'ld6 14 c4±
13 thxe7 thxf2+
14 ltth1 -'lh3
15 �g1! ?
Here, White can, if he
wishes, make a draw by 15
gxh3 �f3+ (Adorjan - Par­
ma, Moscow 1 977) . The text
is a risky attempt to p l ay
for the win.
15 ... �ae8
16 �xf8+ t!Jxf81
The correspondence game
Yavorsky - Gartner, 1980/82
saw the weaker 16 ... �xf8?
17 !l_a3 �e8 18 �aft �xd2 19
gxh3 �aS 20 -'ld6 ±
17 �ft .a_xg2+
18 lftxg2
This is a critical position
for the variation. Rabi no­
vitch - Zauerman , Corres­
pondence 1981 186 saw the
i nferior 18 ... �e7? and
 4 f)cJ fxe4 S f)xe4 without S . . . dS
after 19 .a_b2 �gS+ 20 ijf}lht cS
21 rJ:fS White had a winning
position. I ns tead . . .
18 ... �d6!
. . . is the right conti nua­
tio n, keeping co unterchan­
ces - see i l l ustrative game
6, Kalegin - Mik. Tsei t l i n .
B12
7 �e2 .a_e7
8 .a_xc6
8 o-o o-o (8 . . . 4:)d 4 is
exami ned above) 9 .a_xc6
leads to the mai n variation.
8 d3 4:)d4 9 4:)xd4 exd4 10
h4 h6 It .a_d2 c6 12 .a_a4 ijf}ld8!?
13 0-0-0 aS 14 c4 dxc3=F
Korneyev - Mik. Tsei tlin,
Moscow 1 976.
8 dxc6
Also worth attention is
8 bxc6. Penrose - Boey,
...
Lugano 1968 developed 9
�xeS (9 d4 �g6! 1 0 dxeS
0-0 11 0-0 d6) 9 . . . �f7 10
87
0-0 ( taking the second
pawn is dangerous, viz 10
�xc7 0-0 11 d3 { 1 1 0-0 �g6
12 4:)eS �e6} I t . . . �e6+ { I I . . .
.a_d8!? } 1 2 �eS .a_b4+ 1 3 ijf}lfl
(13 c3 �g6) 13 . . . �f7 14 a3
.a_e7 IS .a,gs .a_xgS 16 �xgS
�b8 17 b3 r!bS 18 �e3 �fS =F )
t O . . . d 6 1 1 �g3 0-0 1 2 d4?
( more to the poi nt are 12 d3
or 12 b3) 12 . . . �b8 13 b3
�bS! 14 �e1? ( after the text,
White's posi tion becomes
critica l , preferab le is 1 4
.a_d2 �hS I S �aet .a_d8 1 6 c4
�bfS 17 �e4= Palermo -
Arjala, Fin land t97S) t 4 . . .
�fS 1 S .a_e3 �hS! with very
dangerous threats .
9 4:)xe5
9 d4 .a,g4 tO dxeS �g6=
9 �xeS .a,g4 to �xf6 ( t O
d4 .a_xf3 I t gxf3 �xf3 t2 �g 1
0-0-0 13 .a_e3 .a_f6 1 4 �e6+
ijf}lb8 1S �g4 �dS+ Orlov -
Ivanov , Leni ngrad 1973) 10
. . . .a_xf6
88 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 withou t 5 . . . d5
White's possibilities from
this position:
a) 11 ci:)g1 0-0-0 12 f3 �fS
13 d3 �heB+ 1 4 4:)e2 �e7 IS
�f2 (1S �dt cS!) I S . . . �deB,
and due to his lack of dev­
elopment White w i l l have
trouble defnding himself.
b) 11 o-o o-o-o 12 �et 02
d3 �xf3 13 gxf3 �he8) 12 . . .
�he8 1 3 �xeB �xe8 1 4 �ft
�xf3 1S gxf3 �eS 16 h3 �f8
17 �g2 �f6 18 d3 �g6+ 19
�ht �d4+ Yadul - Ross,
Correspondence 197S)
c) 11 d3 �xf3 ( or 1 1 . . .
0-0-0 and if 12 ci:)gS then 1 2
. . . �he8+ 1 3 4:)e4 �xe4+ !) 1 2
gxf3 0-0-0 1 3 �b1 �dS 1 4
�e3 �eB I S �d2 �aS 16 a3
�hS 17 h3 �h4+ Yusupov ­
M i k . Tsei t l i n , Rostov 1981)
d) 11 c3 cS 12 d3 0-0-0 13
�e2 �dS ( 1 3 . . . c4 1 4 dxc4
{ 1 4 d 4 cS! gives Black good
co unterp lay, e . g . IS dxcS
-'l_fS 16 -'l_e3 �d3+ 17 �e l
�he8 1 8 �d4 �S 1 9 �d2
.a,xe3+ 20 fxe3 �f8 } 1 4 . . .
�e6 I S �dl ( 1 S .a,e3 �xc4+ 16
�e1 �d3) 1S . . . �xc4+ 16 �el
�xd1 + 1 7 �xdt �d8+ 18 lltel
�dS 19 �d2 �aS 20 a3 �bS 21
b4 �dS and despite the
extra w h i te paw n, Black's
chances are better) 1 4 �e3
( Here ECO states that
White's position is better)
14 . . . �hd8 1S �ad1 -'l,fS! 16
d4 c 4 1 7 �d2 �d3+ 18 �dt
�aSa5 M i k . Tseit l i n - Ar­
bakov , Moscow 1988.
Retu rni ng to the main
variation after 9 �xeS:
9 .a,fs
Al so possible is 9
Q-01? 10 0-0 -'l_d6 1 1 4:)c4 ( 1 1
d 4 �fS! 1 2 f 4 �xeS 1 3 dxeS
�g6 1 4 !!f2 �ad8 1S �e3 aS
with good positional com­
pensation for the paw n,
Morozov - Mik. Tseitlin,
Correspondence 198S/87) 1 1
. . . �g6 12 �xd6 cxdo with
good piece play .
10 d3
Weaker is 10 c3 0-0-0 1 1
0-0 cS 1 2 f4 !!he8 1 3 d3 �a6
14 �dt �f6.
10 d4 0-0! I eads to
Morozov - Tsei tlin above,
but in the correspondence
game Levin Banfalvi
( 1 98S/89) Black chose i n­
stead 10 . . . 0-0-0 I I -'l_e3
 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5
�d6 12 f4 �xeS 13 dxeS! ( 1 3
fxeS thg6 1 4 c 3 !:!he8) 1 3 . . .
thh4+? (better 1 3 . . . thg6)
and after 14 thf2! �xf2+ 1 S
�xf2 �xc2 1 6 h 3 hS 17 g4
�e4 1 8 r!hd1 hxg4 19 r!xd8+
liftxd8 20 hxg4 Whi te had
the adva ntage.
10 ... Q-0!
Lyavdansky recom mends
10 . . . 0-0-0 b u t this seems
weaker after 11 0-0! r!he8
( 1 1 . . . �d6 12 c£)c4! !:!hf8 13
�e3! 2:. r!ab1 & b 4 1' ) 12 f4
(also good is 12 c£)c4 �cS 13
�e3 thg6 1 4 thf3) 12 . . . �d6
( 1 2 . . . gS 1 3 thf2) 13 thf2 ( 1 3
thf3!?) 13 . . . �b8 14 .Q.e3 a6
1S �d4 thf8 16 4Jc4 �c8 17
a3! g6 18 b4 thh6 19 �cS �e6
20 .!l_xd6 cxd6 21 4:JaS± Glek
- Arbakov, Sochi 1 98S.
11 o-o
11 ,!l.d2 .!l_d6 1 2 .!l_c3 !:!ae8 13
f4 thh4+ 14 thf2 ( 14 g3 thh3
1S liftd2 .!l_xeS 16 .!l_xeS .!l.g4 17
thft thhS+ ) 14 . . . thxf2+ 1 S
liftxf2 �xeS 16 �xeS �xd3=
11 !:!ae8
see follo wing diagram
In this position, Black
has definite compensation
for the sacrificed paw n .
12 d4
12 4:Jc4 thg6 13 lifth1 �cS 1 4
�e3 bS 1 S thd2 �e7 1 6 c£)eS
89
thf6 17 f4 .!l_d6 ( 1 7 . . . cS) 18
d4 �xeS ( 18 . . . .Q.e4) 19 dxeS
(after 19 fxeS! White would
have the better chances) 19
... thg6 20 c3 .!l_e4 21 r!ad1
thg 4+ Silva - Mik. Tsei t l i n ,
Odessa 1976.
12 �d6
13 f4 .!l_xe5
14 dxe5 thg6
15 !:!f2 h5
15 . �dB 16 .!l_e3 !XdS ( 16
..
. . . aS 17 �h 1 hS 18 h3 �dS 19
�cl !:!fd8 20 r!ff1 b6 21 �f2
cS 22 lifth2 �f8 23 r!fel .!l_e4
24 the2 �fS 2S �fl �fd8 26
thf2 �f8Ci5 Schlosser
Outere l l o, European Team
Ch, Haifa 1989) 17 a4 aS 1 8
r!aft hS 19 � h 1 h 4 2 0 h3
�fd8Ci5 Marjanovic - Vi lmas,
Kavala 198S.
16 �e3
Kindermann - Kotronias,
Dortmund 1989 offered fur­
ther evidence that Black
has no need to be afraid of
90 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 without 5 . . . d5

this position, e.g. 1 6 �h1 B21) 6 ... �e7

�d8 17 �e3 �dS 18 h3 �fd8 B22) 6 . . . d5
19 �e1 b6 20 �h2 �f7 21 �f3
h4 22 �f2 !!d2 23 �c4+ .a_e6 In the event of 6 . . . .a_e7, 7
24 �xc6 !!xc2 25 fS �xc6 26 4Jg3! leads to a favourable
fxg6+ �xg6 27 !!e2 .a_xa2 28 variation from the game
.a_xh4 �e8 29 !!a3 t.24.l . Ku purosov - j andemirov
16 b6 - see variation A, note to
17 b4 h4 White's sixth.
18 !!e1 �e6
19 �d4 !!dB B21
20 c3 �e8 6 �e7
21 �f3 �g6
22 !!d2 �e6
23 �dt h3
24 g3 t/;Jf7
25 �b3
Unzicker - Mik. Tsei tlin,
Moscow 1 982, and now . . .
25 . . . .a_e6!
. . . keeps the bal ance.

B2
6 �e2 7 o-o
Others are not dangerous
for Black :
a) 7 .a_xc6 bxc6 ( 7 . . . dxc6
8 dJ ,a.g4 9 hJ .a_hs to 4Jg3
.a_xf3 1 1 �xf3 0-0-0= Shish­
ov - Mik. Tseitlin, Moscow
1977) 8 d4 4Jxe4 9 �xe4
exd4 to �xe7+ .a_xe7 1 1
4Jxd4 .a_f6+ Ghitescu
Letelier, Leipzig 1960.
b) 7 c4 4jd4 8 4jxf6+ gxf6
Here we analyse the con­ 9 4Jxd4 exd4 10 �xe7+ �xe7
sequences of Black's two 1 1 0-0 �f7 12 �a4 d6 13 .a_d1
responses: hS= Kirpichnikov - Lanka,
 4 fjc3 fxe4 5 fjxe4 without 5 . . . d5
Riga 1 977.
c) 7 c3 dS 8 4jxf6+ gxf6 9
d4 exd4 10 4jxd4 �xe2+ 11
4Jxe2 .Q.e6 12 4Jf4 .Q.f7 "12 : lf.l
Balashov - Bronstei n , Mos­
cow 1978.
d) 7 d3 d6 8 �s ( 8 0-0
.Q.d7 9 .Q.e3 a6 10 .Q.a4 bS 1 1
.Q.b3 4JaS 1 2 .Q.d2 4Jxb3 13
axb3 .Q.c6 14 c4 4Jxe4 IS
dxe4 �d7 16 4:JgS .Q.e7 17 f4
.Q.xgS 18 fxgS !!f8� Tal -
Mik. Tsei t l i n , Moscow 1982)
8 . . . .Q.d7 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 10
�bt h6 11 4Jxf6 gxf6 12 .Q.h 4
!!g8� Fatalibekova - Mik.
Tseitlin, Moscow 1 97S.
7 dS
8 4:Jg3
8 4:Jc3 � 4! 9 �xeS .Q.xf3
10 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 1 1 .Q.xc6+
bxc6 12 gxf3 o-oas
On 8 4:Jxf6+ Black should
answer 8 ... gxf6 9 d4 e4
with the fo l lowing possib­
i l ities:
a) 10 4Jh4 fS! 11 g3 01
.Q.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 �hS+ �f7 13
�xf7+ �xf7 1 4 f3 �7 t S c3
.Q.f6 ! � ) 1 1 . . . �7 1 2 .Q.xc6+
bxc6 13 c3 0-0 14 4Jg2 aS!=
b) 10 4Jd2 .Q.d7 (also poss­
ible is 10 . . . �7!? I t f3 { I t
c 4 0-0 and 1 1 �hS+ �f7 are
favourable for Black } 1 1 . . .
0-0 12 .Q.xc6 bxc6 13 fxe4
�e8 1 4 !!e1 .Q.fS tS �a6 and
now Black can choose bet-
91
ween 1S . . . �d7, 1S . . . �d6
and 1 S . . . cS!? with good
counterplay) 11 c4 0-0-0 12
4Jb3 �g8 13 .Q.f4 dxc4 1 4
.Q.xc4 !!g 4 1 S .Q.g 3 fS. Shash­
in - Ivanov, Leningrad 1963
now contin ued 16 f3 exf3 17
�x f3 4Jxd4 18 4:Jxd4 !!xd4
19 !!ac1 , and with 19 . . . .Q.c6!
20 �xfS+ �b8 Black cou ld
get good cou nterplay .
Retu rni ng to the mai n line
after 8 4:Jg3
8 e4
Black's other possibility
is 8 . . . ..Q.g4 w hich invol ves a
pawn sacrifi ce. Tseshkov­
sky - Bronstein , V i l ni us
197S conti nued 9 �xeS ( 9 d3
0-0-0) 9 . . . .Q.xf3 10 �xe7+
< Bronstei n recommends 10
�c3! as White's bes t. After
10 . . . .Q.xg2 11 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 12
�xc6+ �f7 13 �xg2! !!b8 1 4
d 3 !!b6 tS �c3 �d7 1 6 .o_gs
.Q.e7 Bl ack sti l l has to prove
the correctness of the
92 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 without 5 . . dS .
pawn sacrifice) 10 . . . fili!xe7!
1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 gxf3 filjld? 13
d3 �d6 14 �d2 �hf8 1S f4
{)g8! 16 �c3 and now Black
had the straightforward
possibi l i ty of 16 . . . �f7! 17
fS {)e7 returning a paw n to
get the better position.
9 {)d4 .Q.d7
10 �xc6
10 {)xc6 bxc6 I I �a4 hS 12
�el h4 13 {)ft filjlf7 (better is
13 . . . h3! at once) 14 d3 exd3
IS �dl �b4 16 cxd3 h3+
10 bxc6
11 d3
11 cS!
11 . . . �eS 12 {)f3! �e7 13
dxe4 dxe4 (13 . . . {)xe4 14
{)xe 4) 14 {)gS and I S �c4±
11 ... exd3 12 �xd3 �b4 13
c3 �c4 14 �e1 + ltff7 IS �c2±
Nicevsky - M i k . Tsei tlin,
Nalencow 1 979 .
12 {)dfS
12 {)b3 exd3 13 �xe?+
�xe7 14 cxd3 (Alexandria
- Leviti na, Moscow 197S)
and now Black has various
methods of obtaining a
good position:
a) 14 ... aS IS �e3 d4 16
�s a4 17 {)d2 h6
b) 14 ... .Q.a4 IS .Q.e3 .Q.xb3
16 axb3 ltff7 17 d 4 ( 17 {)fS
d4! 18 .!lgS �hb8) 17 . . . cxd 4
18 �xd4 cS
c) 14 ... �bS! IS �d1 0-0-0.
12 ..
. �xfS
Others :
a) 12 . . . �eS 13 dxe4 {)xe4
( 13 . . . dxe4 1 4 f4 { 1 4 �a6 ! ? }
1 4 . . . �dS I S {)e3 �b7 16
{)c4 C:. 17 {)eS± ) 1 4 f3! !,ixfS
IS {)xfS �xfS 16 fxe 4 �xe4
17 �bS+±
b) 12 . . . �e6 13 dxe4 {)xe4
( 13 . . . dxe4 14 f3 exf3 IS
�xf3 �c6 16 �c3) 14 {)xe4
�xe4 ( 1 4 . . . dxe4 IS {)g3
.Q.c6 16 f3 and Black loses a
pawn without getting any
counterp lay) IS �xe4+ dxe4
16 {)g3 !,ic6 17 �el 0-0-0 18
!,if4! !,id6 19 £l.xd6 �xd6 20
{)xe4 �xe4 21 �xe4 �d2 22
�c4±
13 {)xfS �e6
see follo wing diagram
This position can be
reasonably assessed as
dy namically equal . We w i l l
now fo l low t h e game Don-
 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 without 5 . d5 . . 93

chenko - Mik. Tsei tli n, This continuation gi ves

Moscow 1 975 . Black good counterplay .
14 dxe4 7 {)xf6+
The retreat of the knight There is no convenient
with 14 {)g3 shou l d not retreat for the knight. For
concern Bl ack if he conti­ example:
nues active l y , e . g . 14 . . . -'l_d6 a) 7 {)egS ,O_d6 8 {)xeS
15 dxe4 ..O.xg3 16 fxg3 ( 16 0-0 9 4Jxc6 bxc6 to ..O.xc6
hxg3 0-0 1 7 e5 {)e4 + ) 16 . . . !:!b8 1 1 4Je6 ( t t c3 �b6 12
0-0 1 7 ..O.f4 �f7 ( 1 7 . . . c6) 18 ..O.a4 ..0.f4 13 d 4 4Jg4 ! 14 ..O.xf4
e5 {)e4 and the black initia­ �xf4 15 �e8+ �xe8+ 16
tive gives su fficient com­ ..O.xe8 h6-+ Shlekis - Norm­
pensation for the paw n. antas , Vi lnius 1979) 11 . . .
14 �xe4 ..O.xe6 1 2 �xe6+ �h8 13 �h3
15 �bS+ rJ;f7 �b6 14 ,O_a4 �b4t Huld -
16 �b7 �xfS!? End, Stockholm 1972.
16 . . �dB
. = b) 7 4Jg3 ..0.d6 (also very
16 . . . ..O.e7 1 7 {)xe7 �xe7 1 8 acceptab le for Black i s 7 . . .
..0.f4 �hb8= e 4 8 {Jd4 ..0.d7 9 .Q.xc6 bxc6
17 �xa8 �g8 tO d3 .Q.c5 t t 4Jb3 ..0.d6 12
18 �xa7 ..O.d6 dxe4 0-0 13 exd5 4Jxd5 l v ­
With a s trong attack i n anovic - Tatai , Stip 1979) 8
ret u rn for the sacrificed {')xeS 0-0 9 4Jxc6 (9 ..O.xc6
exchange. bxc6 10 4Jxc6? {preferab le
is 10 d4 c5 t t c3 cxd4 12
B22 cxd4 c5 but Black is de­
6 dS veloping a pleasant init-
94 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 without 5 . . . d5
iative) 1 0 . . . �d7 1 1 �b5 a6
12 �a4 .Q.b7 and White is
left a piece dow n) 9 . . . bxc6
10 .Q.xc6 �b8 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 d3
�b6 12 .Q.a4 �b4 13 b3 �xa4!
14 bxa4 �e8 15 .Q.e3 d4 and
White faces material loss)
1 1 . . . �b6 1 2 .Q.a4 4Jg 4! 13 d4
4Jxh2! 14 �xh2 �h4+ 1 5 �g 1
.Q.a6+ Shutt - Gunter, Corr­
espondence 1 970/71 .
c) 7 4Jxe5 dxe4 8 �c4
�d5 9 �xd5 4Jxd5 10 4Jxc6
.Q.d7 1 1 4Jd4 c6 12 .Q.c4 .Q.c5!
13 .Q.xd5 ( 13 4Je2 �f8 1 4 0-0
0-0-0 15 d4 exd3 16 .Q.xd3
{ 16 cxd3 -'lg4 } 16 . . . �xf2 £:.
. . . �f8 and Black restores
the material balance while
keeping the i nitiative) 13 . . .
cxd5 1 4 4Jb3 .Q.b6 1 5 0-0
0-0=F
7 gxf6
8 d4 .Q.g71
This acti ve defence was
only discovered recently.
The old continuation was in
White's favour, e.g. 8 ... e4
9 4Jh4 (9 4Je5 fxeS 10 �hS+
�d7 1 1 �xeS co ) 9 . . . t/Je7 10
.Q.f4! .Q.e6 (weaker is 10 . . . fS
1 1 g3! .Q.g7 as after 12 t/JhS+
t/Jf7 13 t/Jxf7+ �xf7 14 c3
Black is left a paw n down)
11 0-0 ( 11 g3 a6 12 .Q.xc6+
bxc6 13 .Q.h6± Montice l l i -
Spielmann, Warsaw 1935) 1 1
. . . t/Jd7 1 2 f3 ! exf3 1 3 �xf3
�dB ( 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 .Q.xc6
t/Jxc6? 1 5 �c3) 1 4 t/Jf2 .Q.g7 15
net �e8 16 c3 �c8 17 .Q.d3!±
Persidsky - jorgenson , Cor­
respondence 1979/80.
9 dxeS
9 c4 a6 10 .Q.a4 .Q.g 4 1 1
dxe5 0-0 12 cxdS 4Jxe5 13
.Q.e3 ( 13 .Q.b3 �e8 14 .Q.e3 f5=F )
1 3 . . . c 5 1 4 .Q.b3 �c8 15 �ct f5
16 0-0 ( 1 6 h3? .Q.xf3 1 7 gxf3
f4 and Bl ack is better as 18
.Q.xc5? runs i nto 18 . . . �aS+)
16 . . . �e8 !? 17 d6+ �h8 18
�fe1 (18 . . . f4 was threat­
ened) 1 8 . . . .Q.xf3 19 gxf3
thhS 20 .Q.d5 b6 21 �edt (21
.Q.f4 4Jg6 22 �d2 .Q.d4!?co) 21
. . . �cd8 22 .Q.f4 4Jg6 reach­
ing a sharp position with
approximately eq ual chan­
ces, Mortensen - Wedberg,
Copenhagen 1983.
9 o-o
10 exf6
10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 is not
worryi ng for Black. Nen­
ashev - Arbakov, Moscow
1986 contin ued I I e6 �e8 12
0-0 cS! (del ayi ng the cap­
ture on e6 and maintaining
flexibi l i ty is a very accurate
way to play . 12 . . . .Q.xe6
proved to be less preci se,
but q ui te playab le i n Ochoa
Chiburdanidze, Bi lbao
1987 - 13 4Jd4 �d6 14 �f3
�d8 15 t/Je2 .Q.f7 16 �f3 .Q.g6
 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 without 5 . . . d5
17 c£)f5 � -lt:l) 13 �bS ( 13 c4
�d6! 1 4 �d t �xe6 15 �c2 d 4
1 6 b4 .a_b7=F > 13 . . . .a,rs 14
.a_e3 (14 .a_f4 .Q.xe6 15 �fe1
!J..l -!J..l Sax - Chandler, Has­
ti ngs 1990/91) 14 . . . d4 15
�fd1 .a_d6 16 .a_xd4 cxd4 17
c£)xd4 .a_xeb 18 c£)xe6 �xe6=
11 .a_f4 seems to be an i n­
ferior alternative to 11 e6,
e.g. tt . . . �e8 ( 1 1 . . . fxeS 12
.a,gs t!Yd6 13 c3 �g6 14 h 4
.a,g 4 15 �d2 �e4+ - + Rosch -
Ebe ling, Argentina 1935) 12
0-0-0 fxeS 13 .a_e3 ( 13 .a_xeS
.a,g4; 13 c£)xe5 �f6) 13 . . . �d6
14 c3 .a,g 4 IS h3 .a_xf3 16
�xf3 �ab8 17 �g3 �hB+
Huski - Vindenmann, Corr­
espondence 1980/82.
10 e6 is wel l met by 10 . . .
c£)e5! There are many ex­
amples of this , al l of w hich
bear out this assessment,
e.g.
a) 11 �dl .a_xe6 1 2 c£)d4
.a_cB 13 .a_e2 cS 1 4 c£)b3 b6 15
c3 fS 16 0-0 .a_b7 and Black's
superiority is not in q ues­
tion, Mokry - M i k . Tseitlin,
Prague 1985.
b) 11 o-o c6 12 .a_a4 ( 12
.a_d3 si mply provided fur­
ther evidence of Black's
s uperiority here, e.g. 12 . . .
.a_xe6 1 3 c£)d4 .a,g 4 1 4 f3 .a_d7
15 c£)f5 c£)xd3 16 �xd3 �b6+
17 �h1 �xfS 18 �xfS �ae8 19
95
�f4 �e2 20 b3 �feB 21 h 4
�b4 2 2 �fd1 �cS 2 3 �d2
�xd2 24 �xd2 �d4 25 �d 1
�xh4+ 26 �g1 �e2 27 �g 4
�f2+ 28 �h 1 fS 29 �gS h6
0-1 Renet - Mik. Tsei tlin,
Pal ma Open 1989) 12 ... .Q.xe6
13 c£)d4 .a_d7 1 4 f4 �b6 15 c3
Popov ic - Kurajica, Sarajevo
1985. Ku raj ica now p l ayed
t he i nferior 15 . . . .a,g4 ?! but
after 16 �c2 c£)c4 17 fS �feB
18 thf2 �e2 19 �e1 .a_d3 20
�e6 �xe6 21 fxe6 �e8 22 b3
c£)e5 23 .a_f4 .a,g6 24 �h i �ab
went on to win anyway .
Much better wou ld have
been 15 . . . �ae8 with a de­
cisive advantage.
c) 11 .a_e3 c6 12 .a_d3 .Q.xeb
13 c£)d4 .a,g 4 14 f3 .a_d7 1S
c£)b3 b6 1 6 .a_a6 �e8 17 0-0
.a_cB 18 �fe 1 .a_xa6 19 �xa6
�cB 20 �xc8 �axeS 21 �ad 1
c£)c4 22 �c l fS 23 �xeB+
�xe8 24 c3 aS and Black
eventual ly tri umphed in the
endgame Tseshkovsky
Yil maz , Kusadasi Open 1990
d) 11 .a_f4 c£)g6 ( 1 1 . . . �d6
12 0-0 �xe6 13 �ae1 c6 14
.a_d3 c£)xd3 I S �xd3 �f7 16
.a_d6 �dB 1 7 �a3 .a_e6 1 8 c£)d4
�e8 19 �e3 �d7 20 �fe1 �f7
21 h3 �xe3 22 �xe3 �e8 lt:l-lt:l
He llers - Antu nes, Novi
Sad Olympiad 1990) 12 e7
c£)xe7 13 0-0-0 c£)g6 1 4 �e3
96 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 without 5 . . . d5

c6 15 -'l,d3 �aS 16 'if}bl cS 17

c4 d 4 18 -'l,d2 �c7 1 9 -'l,e4
4Jf4 20 -'l,xf4 �xf4 2 1 �d3
fS 22 -'l,dS+ fitlh8 23 !!del -'l,d7
24 g3 �h6 25 h 4 -'l,f6 26 4Je5
-'l,xeS 27 !!xeS !!ae8 and was
drawn i n fifty moves , Wed­
berg - Hynes, Nov i Sad O l­
ympiad 1990.
10 ... �xf6
11 �d1 4Jd4
A l so very good is 11 16 -'l,e3
.Q.g4!7 e.g. 16 �c4 -'l,xe2 17 �xe2
a) 12 -'l,e2 !!ae8 13 0-0 !!ae8 18 ..Q.e3 -'l,xb2.
!!xe2! 14 �xe2 4Jd4 15 �d3 16 -'l,xe2
-'l,xf3 16 gxf3 4Jxf3+ 17 fitlg2 17 fitlxe2 ..Q.xb2
4Je1 + and the rest is a mop­ 18 !!ad1 !!ae8
ping up operation . 19 !!d3
b ) 1 2 �xdS+ rift h 8 13 0-0 . . . !!xf2+ was a threat.
!!ad8! 14 �gS -'l,xf3 15 �xf6 19 ... c6
!!xf6 16 gxf3 4Jd4 w i t h a 20 �c4
cl ear advantage. 20 � d6 �g7.
12 �xd4 �e7+ The text is fo l low ing
Klovan - Arbakov, 1984.
see follo wing diagram Here Black should have
continued
13 4Je5 20 ... �gSI
13 �e3 is we l l met by 13 21 fitld1
. . . �b4+ 14 c3 �xbS. 21 g3 �hS+
13 -'l,xeS 21 �xg2
14 �xdS+ fitlh8 22 -'l,d4+ ..Q.xd4
15 -'l,e2 .Q.g4 23 �xd4+ �g7=
8) 4 4:)c3 fxe 4 5 4:)xe 4 dS

1 e4 eS tage and Bl ack must be

2 {Jf3 4:Jc6 carefu l not to let this turn
3 .Q.bS fS into a fu l l scale assau lt
4 {Jc3 fxe4 agai nst his ce ntral insta l ­
5 4Jxe4 dS lations.
This heav i ly analysed The other alternati ve, 6
continuation l eads to sharp 4:Jc3 is harm less al lowing
p l ay and demands good Black easy counterp lay , e.g.
theoretical know ledge from 6 . .. .Q.g4! 7 �e2 ,O.xf3 8
both White and B l ack. �xeS+ �f7 (also fi ne is 8 . . .

During rece nt years, its 't!Je7 9 �xe7+ 4:Jgxe7 10 gxf3

reputation has su ffered and 0-0-0 I I 4:Je2 {JeS 12 4:Jd 4
it has not been seen too 4:J7g6C:O ) 9 .Q.xc6 bxc6 10
freq uently, attention hav ­ 't!Jf4+ cfjf6 1 1 't!Jxf3 .Q.d6 12
i ng transferred to S . . . {jf6. 0-0 �f8 13 d4 �g8 1 4 't!Jh3
This , in our opinion, is un­ �e855
j ust. 6 4:Jg3
In this chapter, we ex­
amine the knight retreat 6
4Jg3 . The more aggressive 6
{)xeS w i l l be the subject of
chapter nine.
6 4:Jg3 does not mount an
i mmediate chal lenge the
Black centre, and also puts
the k night s l ightly out of
play . Nevertheless, White
has a development advan-
98 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS
6 .Qg 4
Of the other possible
Black res ponses, only 6 ...
{!Yd6!?, w hich Nikiti n offers
without analysis, seems
worthy of attention. Pract­
ical experience of the alter­
natives is not encouraging:
a) 6 . . . t(;Jf6 7 d4 e4 8 4Je5
�d6 9 4Jxc6 .O,d7 10 {!Yh5+ g6
11 t(;Jxd5 bxc6 12 t(;Jxe4+ <iftf8
13 �e2 �e8 14 �d3 �h4 15
�d2 4Jf6 16 0-0-0± Vasyu­
kov - Bonch-Osmolovsky ,
Moscow 1 961 .
b) 6 . . . .(,ld6 7 4Jxe5 4Jge7
(7 . . . .O,xe5 8 .O,xc6+ bxc6 9
{!Yh5+) 8 .O,xc6+ bxc6 9 d4
0-0 10 0-0 with a sound
extra paw n . Stromberg -
Guggenburger, Buenos Air­
es 1978.
c) 6 . . . e4 7 4jd4 ! {!Yd6 (7
. . . {!Yf6 8 �h5+ <ifte7 9 4jdf5+
<ifte6 was refu ted in neat
fashion in Moiseev - Ivan­
ov , Baku 1985 viz 10 �xc6!
bxc6 11 {!Ye8+ 4Je7 12 4Jxe7
�xe7 13 �xc6+ <ifte5 1 4 f4+ !)
8 d3 exd3 ( 8 . . . 4Jf6 9 dxe4
dxe4 1 0 4Jxc6) 9 {!Yxd3 4Jge7
(better is 9 . . . �d7 10 0-0
0-0-0 1 1 �xc6 �xc6 12 �5
4Jf6 13 4Jgf5 {!Yd7 14 �fe1 ±
Nevednichy - Gips l i s , 1 964)
10 0-0 �d7 11 �xc6! bxc6 ( 1 1
. . . �xc6 12 4Jgf5 �d7 13
�5!) 12 �e1 g6 13 4Jb3 h5 1 4
{!Yd4 �h7 1 5 .(,lf4 and Whi te
won in the correspondence
game Ekstrom - Strom­
berg, 1964.
7 h3
Black is not trou bled by
the alternati ves :
7 0-0 {!Yf6! The pressure
that this generates agai nst
f3 should be sufficient to
alJeviate any opening dif­
ficul ties. For example 8
�e1 4Jge7 9 d4 0-0-0 10 �5
�xf3 1 1 .(,lxf6 �xd 1 12 �xe7
4Jxe7 13 �axd1 a6= Morten­
sen - Tukmakov , Reykjavik
1990.
7 �e2 �d6 8 d4 e4! 9 h3
(9 c4 <iftf8 ! ) 9 . . . �d7 10 4Je5
4Jxd4
7 d3 �d6 ( 7 �d6!?)
0 0 0
7 d4 also promi ses l ittle,
al though it i s more comp­
lex, e.g. 7 . . . e4 (7 . . . exd4 8
0-0 �e7 leads to a pos ition
from chapter seven) 8 h3
exf3 (8 . . . �d7 9 �xc6 �xc6!

lalso perfect ly playable is 9
... bxc6 10 4:Je5 4:Jf6 1 1 4:Jh5
g6 12 4:Jxf6+ �xf6 13 0-0
.Q.d6 1 4 .Q.e3 �e6 IS f4 0-0 16
c4 ktab8 1 7 �e2 �b4 1 8 cS
.Q.e7 19 �h 1 .Q.f6 20 t!ab l
!Xfb8 21 b 3 aS 22 �c2 .Q.cB 23
a3 kt4b5 and Bl ack went on
to convert his advantage in
Panchenko - Sekulic, Be l­
grade 1989) 10 4:Je5 4:Jf6= ) 9
hxg4 fxg2 and now :
a ) 10 .Q.xc6+ bxc6 I I �e2+
�e7=
b) 10 �e2+ �f7!? I 1 �f3+
�f6 12 �xg2 { 12 �xdS+ �e6+
13 �xeo+ �xeb 14 tlg l
4:Jxd 4 + ) 12 . . . �xd4 13 �f3+
4:Jf6! 14 .Q.xco bxc6 IS gS
�g4+ Shusterman - Gusev,
Moscow 1968)
d 10 �g1 �do < tO . �e7+
. .
It �e2 �xe2+ 12 �xe2 0-0-0
13 .Q.e3 4:Jfo 14 �f3 hS IS
gxhS 4:Jxh5 16 4:Jxh5 !XxhS 17
!Xxg2 !Xdo = Ku preichik -
Barreras , Pl ovdiv 1980) 1 1
�e2+ 4:Jge7 12 -'lgS 0-0-0 1 3
0-0-0 h b (Shusterman -
Agzamov, Moscow 1966)
and now after I 4 .Q.xc6 �xc6
IS .Q.xe7 !XeB 16 4:JfS g6 17
�f3 as recommended by
Schwarz , the chances are
approxi mate ly equ a l .
7 .Q.xfJ
8 �xfJ 4:Jf6
In our opinion 8 ... �d617
4 f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 99
also solves Black's prob­
lems. This al ternati ve to
the text has been the sub­
ject of some recent atten­
tion and practical resu lts
bear out our assessment.
Witness the fo llowing ma­
terial:
a) 9 4:Jf5 �e6 10 �g4 �f7
11 4:Je3 4:Jf6 12 �xe6+ �xe6
13 0-0 4:Jd4 I 4 .Q.a4 bS IS
.Q.b3 aS; Cam i l l eri - Boey,
Nice 1974.
b) 9 c3 0-0-0 {9 . . . e4 is
perhaps sligh tly inferior to
the text, bu t nevertheless
left Black with no problems
in Balas hov - Kuzmi n, Mos­
cow 1989, e.g. 10 �e2 0-0-0
11 0-0 a6 12 .Q.xc6 �xc6 13 d3
exd3 14 �xd3 4:Jf6 IS .Q.gS
.Q.cS 16 b4 .Q.b6 17 4:JfS ktd7 18
a4 �c4 19 ktad l �xd3 20
�xd3 4:Je4 21 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 22
ktxe3 g6 23 4:Jd4 cS 24 4:Je6
cxb4 25 cxb4 �bB 26 f3
c£)g3 and was eventual ly
tOO 4 tfJc3 fxe4 5 tfJxe4 dS
drawn after 6 t moves) 10
0-0 �b8 t1 d4 e4 12 �dt g6
13 SlgS fle7 t 4 fleJ hS 15 �d2
h4 16 cije2 cijf6=F Kurajica -
Tatai, Karlovac t979.
c) 9 0-0 0-0-0 tO cijfS
(Others also fai l to make
an impression on the black
posi tion, e.g. to flxc6 �xc6!
11 �fS+ �b8 12 �xeS �xc2
or to cJ cijf6 11 d4 exd4 12
cijfS �cS 13 flxc6 �xc6 1 4
cijxd4 �d7 15 SlgS flcS=
Smirin - Tukmakov, Lvov
1990) to .. . �cS 11 flxc6
�xc6 12 d4 e4= Dj uric -
Tatai , Vrnjacka Banja t979.
d) 9 c4 0-0-0 to flxc6
�xc6 1 1 cxdS �xdS 12 �xdS
!XxdS 13 �e2 4:Je7 gives
Black a perfectly accept­
ab le endgame. Akopian -
Kuzmin, Podol sk t990 con­
tinued t4 dJ c£)c6 tS fle3 flcS
16 !Xhdt !Xhd8 t 7 c£)e4 flb6 18
4:Jc3 !XSd6 t9 c£)e4 !XdS 20
c£)c3 �Sd7 21 a3 cijd4+ 22
flxd4 flxd4 23 !Xd2 a6 24
4:Je4 �dS and was eventual­
ly draw n.
The abov e l ines serve to
demonstrate that 8 . . . �d6
is a perfectly feasible al­
ternative to the main l ines
with 8 . . . 4jf6. The Black
play is a l so consistent with
the themes of this v ariation
and w i l l repay study.
In this position White
has a wide choice. We shal l
examine in detail the fol­
lowing:
A) 9 c4
B> 9 o-o
C) 9 cijhS
Others:
a) 9 d3 �d6 (9 . . . fld6! t o
cijhS 0-0 1 1 cijxf6+ �xf6 12
�xf6 { 12 �xdS+ �h8 13 0-0
cijd4 doesn't help) 12 . . .
gxf6+ Mik. Tseitlin - Kup­
reichik, Minsk 1969) 10 0-0
0-0-0 11 flxc6 �xc6 12 SlgS
h6 1 3 flxf6 gxf6 14 c4 dxc4
15 �xc6 bxc6 16 dxc4 �d4
with good play , Rav insky -
Bronstei n, Moscow 1954.
b) 9 �c3 �d6 10 ..O.xc6+
�xc6 1 1 �xc6+ ( 1 1 �xeS+
�f7 12 �fS �e8+ is risky for
White) 1 1 . . . bxc6 12 d3 fld6
13 fld2 0-0 1 4 0-0 4Jd7! =
Fuchs - Liebert, Berli n 1966.

c) 9 d4 e4 to �c3 ( 1 0 �fS
.Q.d6 1 1 .Q.gS { 1 1 {)hS 0-0 12
4:Jxf6+ �xf6 13 �xdS+ \fth8}
1 1 . . 0-0 1 2 .Q.xf6 -'l,b 4+ 1 3 c3
. instructive to compare this
�xf6 :J: ) 10 . . . �d? 11 a3 .Q.d6
12 .Q.gS 0-0 1 3 0-0 a6 1 4
!l,xc6 bxc6 and Bl ack's
chances are preferable,
Resnichek - Vanka, Brno
1982.
d) 9 !l,xc6+ bxco 10 �c3
�d6 11 0-0 \ltd? ( 1 1 . . . �f? 12
d4 exd4 13 �f3 ( 13 �xd 4
�b4 1 13 . . . g6 or 13 . . . �e8
and Black has good chan­
ces) 12 d 4 �e8 13 .Q.e3
(Tseshkov sky - Menviel le,
Las Pa l mas 1976) and now
13 . . . {!lb4! wou ld have been
eq ual.
A possibilities: 1 1 cxd5 '{;hxd5;
9 c4
9 \ftf7
Black , by threatening to
. 4:Jd4 forces the exchange
. .
of the 'Spanish' bishop.
Thi s move may look
4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 101
strange, but it is consistent
with Black's policy of pro­
tecting the centre. It is
w i th variation C where
Black also tolerates a cer­
tain amou nt of di scomfort
w i th his king in return for
securi ng the centre.
However, there are other
ways to play :
a ) 9 . . . e 4 10 '{;he2 .Q.c5 1 1
d4 -'l,b 4+ 12 \tlf1 .Q.e?! 1 3 {)f5
g6 1 4 4Jxe7 rJ;xe? 15 !l,e3 a6
16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 �cl �d6 1 8
c 5 �e6= Nordstrom
Geransson, correspondence
1965. I nstead of 10 . . . !l,c5,
Euwe recommends 10 . . .
.Q.e? with the fol l ow ing
11 4Jf5 0-0 12 cxd5 4Jb4; 1 1
0-0 0-0 o r fi nal ly 1 1 d 4
-'l,b4+ ( 1 1 ... 0-0 or ( 1 t . . .
exd3!? 12 �xd3 0-0 also
come i nto consideration)
with interesting complic­
ations.
b) 9 ... a6 ( a suggestion
of B. Nesterenko) w hen:
tO .Q.xc6+ bxc6 I 1 0-0 .Q.d6
10 cxd5 �xd5 I I tbxd5
4Jxd5
and
10 .Q.a4 b5 11 cxb5 4:)d 4 12
bxa6+ c6
are a l l worthy of atten­
tion.
102 4 t£jc3 fxe4 5 t£jxe4 dS

c) 9 ... .!l,c51? seeking to B

increase the press ure ag­ 9 o-o
ainst f2.
10 .!l_xc6 bxc6
11 o-o .!l,d6
11 . . . .!l,c5 12 d3 �fB 13 .!l_e3
.!l,xe3 1 4 fxe3;!;; ( Keres ) .
12 d3 �b81
13 b3 �e8
14 .a_e3 aS
15 c5?!

9 .Q.d6
For 9 . . . .!l,e7 see chapter
seven, part A.
9 . . tbd6 10 d4 e4 l1 thfS
.

g6 12 tbeS+ l(!/f7 13 tbxd6

.!l,xd6 = Richardson - Boey,
correspondence 1972/76.
10 c£)h5
We now have the further
15 .!l,f81 dichotomy:
15 ... e4? 16 dxe4 .!l_xg3 17
fxg3 �xe4 1 8 .!l.gS;!;; Beisser B1) 10 ... c£)h5
- Hajek, correspondence B2) 10 ... e4!
1967. After the text. there
is no reason for Black not B1
to face the future with 10 c£)xh5
confidence. 11 tbxh5+ g6
16 c£)h5 12 tbf3
16 .Qg 5 h6!
16 ... l(!/g8 see follo wing diagram
17 .Qg 5 .!l,e7
With the prospect of ex­ 12 ... a6
changes looming up, B lack 12 ... e4 is weak , e.g. 13
can count on excel lent tffc 3 1{!/d7 14 d3 t/1e7 15 dxe4
chances . .!l,b4 16 t/1b3 dxe4 17 .!l.gS±

Kony ukov - Ivanov , Moscow
1963.
13 .Q_a4
The exchange 13 .Q,xc6+
bxc6 serves only to streng­
then Black's pawn centre.
lgnatiev - Pismenny, Mos­
cow 1 964 continued 14 d4
( 1 4 d3 thd7! 15 .Q.h6 thf5 16
the2 0-0-0 L. . . . g5=F , Euwe)
14 . . . e4 15 thc3 �d7 16 b4
thh 4 1 7 a4 �hf8 1 8 .Q.d2 g5 19
bS axbS 20 axbS cxbS 21
�xa8 �xa8 22 �e3 thf 4=F
13 ... thh4
14 c4 thxc4
14 ... e4 15 �b3 0-0 ( 15 . . .
0-0-0) 1 6 c5! ±
15 �f6
see follo wing diagram
15 .Q.b3 the4 16 .Q.xdS (16
t/1f6? �f8 17 �e6+ �e7 + ) 16
. . . t/1xf3 17 .Q.xf3 0-0-0 1 8 d3
�d4 19 .a_e4 11-.l : 11-.l Privor­
otsky - Sel ivanovsky, Mos-
4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 103
cow 1963.
15 . . . �fB
Interesting is 15 ... �d71?
Tatai and Zinser suggest 16
thg7+ 16 . . . �e6 17 .Q.d1 , but
after 17 . . . 4:)d4 or 17 ... 4:)e7,
Black l ooks fine. Black can
also cope with 16 thf7+, e.g.
16 . . . �c8 1 7 .a_b3 thd4 18
thxdS and now 18 . . . nrs or
18 . . . 4:)b4.
16 the6+ �dB
Here, Nikitin gives the
variation 16 ... .Q.e7 1 7 b4!
�xb4 18 .a_xc6+ bxc6 19
t/1xc6+ fitt f7 20 thxdS+ fittg 7 21
d3! ( not 21 �xeS+? because
of 21 . . . .Q.f6 22 �xc7+ �f7 23
thc6 �b7!) 21 . . . thd6 and
White is a little better. Not
however, 21 . . . �adS? 22
thxeS+ .Q.f6 23 �xc7+ nr7 24
.Q.h6+! fittg 8 25 nabt±
17 b4
17 .Q.b3 4:)d4 1 8 .a_xc4 4:)xe6
19 .Q.xdS 4:)c5 20 b4 ( 20 d4
exd4 21 b4 4:)d3 22 .Q_h6 �e8
104 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS

23 .Q.xb7 �b8 + ( Euwe}; 20 20 �xc6 �b8

�dt c6+ ) 20 . . . �d3 21 .Q.xb7 21 dxeS �d4
�b8 22 .Q.e4 �xct 23 �fxct 22 e61 �c8
�xb4 and Black obtai ned a 23 �d7+ �b7
favourable ending, Lepe­ 24 �b1+ 1:0
shkin - Bebchuk, Moscow Bakhchevansky - Kayaski ,
1963. correspondence 1969. This
should serve as a warning
to B lack not to let the posi­
tion become too 'spaced
out'.

B2
10 . .. e41

A critical position for the

variation
17 ... �xb4
If 17 . . . �xb4 then 1 8 d3
but more interesting is 17
... �e8 ! ? with the possible
conti nuation 1 8 �f6+ (18
�f7 �xb4) 1 8 . . . .Q.e7 19 �f7
.Q.xb4 20 �xh7 �d3 l eadi ng
to a very s harp position
where Black has counter­
play .
18 .Q.xc6 bxc6
19 d41 .Q.e7
19
... exd4 20 .Q.h6! �e8 21
.Q.g5+ .Q.e7 22 �aet! !Ib8 ( 22
. . . �d6 23 .Q.xe 7 + �xe 7 24
�xc6 +-) 23 �f7 d3 24 a3!
�xa3 25 �xe7 �xe7 26 !:tel
+-
This energetic conti nua­
tion, associated with a
pawn sacrifice, creates
complex problems for
White.
U �fS
11 �xf6+ �xf6 12 �xf6!
(12 �h5+ �f7 13 �xf7+ �xf7
14 f3 �g6 ! + Lei n - Gheor­
ghiu , Soc hi 1964) 12 . . . gxf6
13 d3 0-0-0 14 dxe4 dxe4 15
.Q.e3 ( Ugterink - Bohm , Wij k
aan Zee 1980) and now 15 . . .
 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 105

{)eS! leads to an unclear 13 t!JxdS+ 'ifth8

p osition. 14 �xc6 bxc6
11 Q-01 15 t!Jxe4
11 . . . tf!Jd7? 12 t!Jxf6 gxf6 13 15 tf!JaS tf!Jf4 16 g3 tf!Jh6 17
{)xf6+ 'l;e7 14 �xd7 'iftxd7 15 'iftg2 .Q.xg3+
d3 left Black wi tho ut com­ 15 !Iae8
pensation for the pawn, 16 t!Jc4 !Ie1!
Nez hmetdi nov Bergin, 17 f4 !Ixf1+
Moscow 1963 . 18 t!Jxf1 .Q.xf4
11 . .. �xh5 12 tf!Jxh5+ g6 13 19 g3? .Q.e3+
tf!Jh6 t!Jf6 ( 13 . . . tf!Jd7) 1 4 d3 0:1
0-0-0 15 tf!Jg5 t!/f5 16 dxe4 It shou l d be noted that
dxe4 17 �e3 h6 18 t!Jxf5+ after 19 tf!Je2 tf!JgS! 20 tf!Jg 4
gxf5 19 �ad 1 h5 ( 19 . . . f4 20 tf!Je5! 21 tf!Jdt tf!Jd4+ 22 �hi
�d4 !Ihg8 21 �c4) 20 �c4± .Q.d6! White's cause is hope­
Dvoiris - S mi ri n , Polanica less.
Zdroj 1989.
c
9 {)h5

B l ack is splendidly devel­

oped and i s already threat­
ening to lau nch an attack
against the White king.
Black's possibi l i ties are
i l l ustrated by the game
Zamanov - Agzamov , Youth
Tou rnament 1965, w hich we
now fol l ow.
12 �Xf6 + t!/xf6
The most frequently seen
conti nuation. White ai ms
to exchange the enemy
knight without wasting
time castling .
9 t!Jd6!
With this move, Black
safely overcomes the open-
106 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS
ing difficu l ties, b u t also
worth consideration is the
recom mendation of Schach
- Archiv, 9 e4 10 4Jxf6+
. . .
( t O �f5 �f7 11 4Jxf6 gxf6 12
�h5+ �gB! l eads nowhere
for White) to . . . �xf6 1 1
�h5+ �f7 1 2 �e5+ ( Keres
s uggested 12 �xf7+ �xf7 13
.Q.xc6 bxc6 14 f3 exf3 15 0-0
.Q.c5+ 16 �h 1 , but after 16 . . .
�aeB! 17 �xf3+ �g6 1 B �g3+
�h5! Black's advantage is
clear) 12 . . . .!l,e7 13 .!l,xc6+
bxc6 14 �xc7 0-0 15 0-0
�e6co
On 9.••a6 t here can fol­
low to .Q.xc6+ bxc6 11 0-0!
And now:
a) 11 ... 4Jd7 1 2 d4 e4 13
�g4! �e7 14 .Q.g5 �f7 15 f3
g6 16 4Jg3± Westerinen -
Cami l l eri , Hal le 1 967.
b) 11 ... �d6 12 �e1 0-0-0
13 �e2 4Jxh5 14 �xh5 e4 15
d3±
c) 11 ... �f7 1 2 d3 .Q.d6 ( 12
... .Q.e7 13 g4; ( 12 . . . g6 13
4Jxf6 �xf6 14 �g4 �e6 15
�a4 .Q.g7 16 f4! t ) 13 .Q.g5 �fB
14 .Q.xf6 gxf6 15 4Jg3±
10 4Jxf6+ gxf6
11 �hS+ �d7
Worth consideration is 11
... �e7 12 c3 .Q.g7 13 .Q.e2 ( 13
0-0 {)dB 1 4 d 4 4Je6co Kris­
tol - Ranniku, Moscow
1972) 13 . . . �afB 14 .Q.g4 e4 15
d4 �dB Olifer - Asaturian,
Sochi 1965.
The strong paw n centre
compensates adequate ly
for the exposed position of
B lack's king.
12 �g4+
12 .Q.e2 {)d4
12 c3 �dB ( Kupreichik
recommends 12 .. . �eB 13
0-0 �e6 14 d4 .Q.d6 15 .Q.e3
�e7! with good play) 13
�g4+ �e6=
12 0-0 �dB 13 d4 lf1cB ( 13
. . . exd4 is not as direct, e.g.
1 4 �g4+ tf1e6 15 tf1xd4 �gB
 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 dS 107

16 .Q.f4 'iftcB 17 .Q.xc6 �xc6 1 8

b 4 �b6 19 �xb6 axb6= Bel­
l i n - Becx Guernsey 1990) 1 4
dxeS! (not 1 4 c3? �e6! IS
.Q.xc6 bxc6 16 .Q.e3 .Q.d6 17
�ael �d7=F Planinc - Parma,
Lj ubliana - Portoroz 1975)
14 . . . fxeS 15 .Q.gS !J.e7 16
.Q.xc6 bxc6 17 t!ae1 .Q.xgS 18
�xgS �deB= M atulovic -
Gasic, Birmi ngham 1 975.
12 �e6
13 .Q,xc6+ bxc6
14 �xe6+ 'iftxe6
9) 4 �c3 fxe4 5 �xe4 dS
6 4:)xe5

1 e4 eS 10 t!YeS �f7 1 1 t!Yxe4 4Jf6 12

2 4Jf3 4Jc6 t!YeJ 4Jb4 13 .Q.a4 4Jbd5 1 4
3 .Q.bS fS t!Yd4 .Qg 7 15 d 3 4Jd7 with
4 4Jc3 fxe4 exce l l ent piece play.
5 4Jxe4 dS
6 4JxeS A) 7 ... bxc6
B) 7 ... t!YdS

7 . t!YgS i s exami ned in

..

the next chapter.

A
7 bxc6
An interesti ng, but very
risky choice.
8 .Q.xc6+ .Q.d7
9 t!YhS+ �e7
Thi s popu lar continua­ 10 t!YeS+ .Q.e6
tion is accompanied by a
temporary piece sacri fice
which leads to a sharp and
interes ting strugg le.
6 dxe4
7 4Jxc6
7 t!YhS+ g6 8 4Jxg6 h xg6 9
t!Yxh8 i s too risky as dem­
onstrated by Sol ntsev -
Sel ivanovsky, Moscow 1961
which conti nued 9 . . . .Q.e6!
 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS
11 .Q.xaBI
The best. Others al low
Black to escape t he worst
and organise cou n terp lay :
a ) 1 1 d4 �f7! 1 2 �S ( 12
.Q.xa8 �xa8 ( 12 . . . .Q.d6 13
�xe4 4Jf6 1 4 �f3 �xa8 } 13
�xc7+ �e7 1 4 c4 4Jf6 1S dS
.Q.d7 16 �f4 gS 17 �e3 .Q.d6 1 8
.Q.d2 �c8 and Black's active
piece play gave him t he
advantage, Zurav l ev - Star­
kov, U lyanovsk 1 960) 12 . . .
4Jf6 13 .Q.xf6 ( 1 3 d S .Q.d7 14
.Q.xa8 .Q.d6!) 13 . . . gxf6 14
�hS+ �g7 1S 0-0-0 �b8 16
.Q.xe4 �d7 17 �d3 .Q.d6 18
�aS �he8 and the two
bishops gave Black the
edge , Ban n i k - Mikenas,
Vil ni u s 1 9S7
b) 11 f4 and now Black
can respond i n two ways:
bi) 11 . • .exf3 1 2 d 4 ( i f 1 2
0-0 �b8 13 d4 then 1 3 . . .
�b6 or 1 3 . . . �d6 with sharp
play) 12 . . . 4Jf6 13 dS f2+! 1 4
�e2 4JxdS 1 S �S+ 4Jf6 16
�hd1 �c8 17 �d?+ �xd7! 1 8
.Q.xd7 �xd7 1 9 �bS+ �e7 and
Black has su fficient comp­
ensation for the queen,
Kovalev sky - Lyubarsky,
1968.
bii) 11 . . . 4Jh6 1 2 �xe4
nbs 13 d4 �f7 14 fS .Q.c4 15
b3 .Q.b4+ 16 lifid 1 .Q.c3 17 dS
�f6 18 �e6+ �xe6 19 fxe6+
109
li:fig6 20 bxc4 .Q.xa1 � Moro­
zov - Starkov , U lyanovsk
1960. Liberzon - A. Ge l l er,
Moscow - Leningrad ( m)
1960 saw 12 fS (instead of 12
�xe4) 12 . . . 4JxfS 13 nft .
Black now b l u ndered with
13 ... 4Jd4?? and got mated
after 14 �cS+! �d6 1S �gS+.
However, with 13 . . . �d6! 1 4
�xd6+ (on 1 4 �xe4 �b8 1S
�xfS? there fo llows 1S . . .
�b4) 1 4 . . . �xd6 I S .Q.xa8 c6
Black could be looking for
the advantage.
Fi na l ly , 13 0-0 (instead of
13 nf1 in the above varia­
tion) 13 . . . �d4+ (better is
13 . . . �d6!) 14 �xd4 4Jxd4 1S
.Q.xa8 4Jxc2 16 -'l.xe4 4Jxa1 17
d4 1ifid7! 18 .Q.f4 4Jb3 19 axb3
.Q.d6 20 dS -'l.g4 21 h3 �xf4
22 �xf4 -'l.hS 23 g4 �6
li2 : li2 was S havernayev -
Starkov , U lyanovsk 1960.
11 �xa8
12 �xc7 + lifie8
1 1 0 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS
12
... �f6 13 0-0! �g6 ( 13
. . . !J.e7 1 4 f3! and 13 . . . �dS
1 4 b3 !J.e7 1 5 !J.b2 + �f7 16 d3!
don't help Black) 14 d3 {:)f6
15 �e1 hS 16 �g3+ �h7 17
dxe4± Smejkal - Duckstein,
1969.
12 !J.d7 13 d3 {:)f6 1 4 0-0
...
h6 15 dxe4 �e8 16 �aS !J.e6
17 !J.e3 a6 1 8 �ae1 �f7 19
�a4 !J.e7 20 f4+- Adamski -
Nilsson , Skopje 1962.
13 o-o !J.e7
14 d3
White has a rook and
two paw ns for two minor
pieces, and the exposed
position of the b lack king
gives him every hope for
victory . Practical examples
are:
a) 14 {:)f6 15 .Q&S! �f7
...
16 dxe4 �c8 ( 16 . . . �xe4 17
�ae1 ) 17 �f4 �xc2 18 �act!
Hennings - Lanka, Riga 1971 .
b ) 14 �f7 15 !J.e3 {:)f6 16
...
dxe4 �c8 17 �xa7 �xe4 1 8
c3 {:)dS 1 9 �fe1 �g6 20 �h 1
Evans - Duckstein , Lugano
1968.
c) 14 ...exd3 15 cxd3 �dS.
This ( recommended by B.
Nes terenko) is probably
Black's best try , but White
sti l l stands we l l .
B
7 �dS
This variation first ap­
peared in practice in 1950
and has successfu l ly s ur­
vived the test of time over
40 years .
8 c4
8 {:)xa7+ c6 9 c4 �cS! and
White loses a piece.
8 �d61
The o l d move was 8 . . .
�gS? w hich i s disastrous
fol lowing 9 d4 �xg2 10
�h5+ . The text move brea­
thes life i nto the variation
and was first u sed by Can­
didate Master Agri nsky
against Krogiu s in Moscow
1950.
We now examine the
fol lowing possibi lities:
Bt> 9 cS
B2) 9 �h5
B3) 9 {:)xa7+
Bt)
9 cS �xeS
 4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf]xeS
10 tha4
10 4)16
10... .Q.d7 is u nsatisfac­
tory . Beggi - Contendini ,
Rome 1962 contin ued 1 1
thxe4+ 4Je7 12 4Jxe7 .Q.xbS 1 3
4Jg6+ �d7 1 4 4JeS+ �c8 and
after 1S a4! Black didn't
have a decent reply as 1S ...
.Q.xa4? 16 �xa4! �xc1 + 17
�e2 thxh t 18 thfS+ l eads to
mate and 1S . . . .Q.e8 1 6 b4!
thxb4 1 7 thfS+ �b8 18 0-0!
gives White a decisive
attack.
11 d4
Tempting but mis taken
is 11 4Je5+? c6 12 4Jxc6 bxc6
13 .Q.xc6+ .Q.d7 14 .Q.xd7+
4Jxd7 1S thxe4+ because of
the prosaic answer· 1 5 . . .
the5 a nd Bl ack must w i n .
11 exd3
Others are also possible:
a) 11 thd6 12 .Q.f4!? thxf4
...
13 4JeS+ c6! 14 .Q.xc6+ bxc6
15 thxc6+ 4Jd7! co ( Gi pslis) .
111
b) 11 �b6 12 4JeS+ c6 13
...
.Q.c4 .Q.b4++ Rantanen -
So llid, Gausdal 1981 . An
example of further play
from here is Hu nerkopf -
Seyffer, Bundes liga 1989 -
1 4 �ft �f8 IS .Q.e3 4Jg4 16
4Jxg 4 .Q.xg 4 17 �b3 0-0-0 1 8
.Q.e6+ .Q.xe6 19 �xe6+ �b8 20
�xe4 �b5+ 21 �g l .Q.d6 22
�c2 .Qf4 23 h4 h6 24 �h3 gS
2S hxgS hxgS 26 �f3 �h8 27
.Q.xf4+ gxf4 28 �d2 'i:t;la8 29
�e1 ndg8 30 �eS �c4 31 �el
�dS 32 �xf 4 �hS 33 �f1
thbS+ 34 �g l thhS 3S �fl
thbS+ 36 �g1 �hS 37 �f1
ll:z-llz
12 o-o
12 .Q.e3 can be met by 12 . . .
d2+ o r 1 2 . . . thd6 13 0-0-0
bxc6! with the advantage
for Black in both cases.
12 .Q.d61
12 bxc6? 13 .Q.xc6+ .Qd7
...
14 .Q.xd7+ �dB IS .Q.c6 and
White went on to win,
1 1 2 4 fjc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 fjxeS

Sukhanov - Shcharansky, 0-0-0 are both approx­

Moscow 1 967. i m ately equal .) 13 . . . �7 14
13 4Je5+ .a_b2 a6 I S b4 ( IS cS 4Je7) IS
13 �e1+ lf}f8 1 4 .a_e3 �hS. . . . 4:)h6 1 6 0-0 0-0 I 7 .a_b3 aS
13 . . . c6 18 bxaS �xaS 19 d4 exd3 20
14 4Jxc6 Q-01 4Jxd3 .Q.xb2 21 4Jxb2 �dB
Black's chances are pre­ with good compensation
ferable, (S. Sinitsin) . for the paw n, Ve li miriovic ­
- Vasyukov , Y ugos lavia -
B2 USSR 1973.
9 �hS+ g6
10 �eS+
10 4Je5+ c6 1 1 4Jxg6 �xg6
12 �eS+ 4Je7 ( 12 . . . lf}f7 13
�x h8 �7) 13 �xh8 �xg2 is
tota l ly u nacceptable for
White.
10 �xeS
11 4Jxe5+ c6
12 .a_a4
12 4Jxc6? a6 13 4:)d4+ ( 13
.a_a4 .a_d7) 1 3 . . . axbS 1 4 13 d4
4Jxb5 lf}d8 and White has 13 f4 exf3 1 4 4:)xf3 .a_fs
insuffici ent compensation (more rel iable is 1 4 . . . � 4!
for the missing piece. as i n Novopas hin - Nikitin,
12 ... !J.g 7 Yalta 1962 w here there
A l ternatively: fol l owed IS 0-0 0-0-0 16
a) 12 ... .a_d6 13 d4 exd3 1 4 .a_c2 4Je7 17 .a_e4 4:)f5 18 h3
.a_f 4 4Jf6 1 S 0-0-0 0-0 16 4Jg3 19 hxg4 4Jxe4 20 �b1
4Jxg6 d2+ 1 7 �xd2 .a_xf4 18 4JcSa5 ) 1 S d4 0-0-0 16 .a_f4
4Jxf4 4Je4 19 �d4 �xf4 20 .a_d3 17 .a_b3 with good play
.a_c2 .a_fs M aizhanov for W hite, as after 1 7
Bogomolov, Moscow 1964, .Q.xd4? 18 0-0-0 fol lows.
and fol lowi ng further 13 ... exd3
i nteresting complications, 14 .a_f4
the game ended as a draw . 14 4Jxd3 is met by 1 4
b) 12 . . . .a_e6 13 b3 ( 1 3 d4 .a_fs and Bl ack develops
exd3 14 0-0 or 14 .a_d2 6 considerable activity. Lach-
 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS
ut - Mohring, 19S8 con­
tin ued IS ci:)cS 1S . . . 0-0-0 16
0-0 cijf6 17 �e1 ci:)d7 1 8
ci:)xd7 �xd7 19 �e3 �xb2 20
�ad1 �hd8 21 �xd7 �xd7
and fol lowing the rash
capture 22 .O.,xa7? Black
responded with the advance
22 . . . bS! and White real i sed
that he had lost a piece.
Passerotti - Tatai , Rome
1979 saw i ns tead the more
sensible 1S ci:)f4 0-0-0 16
0-0 ci:)f6 17 £l.e3 ci:)g4 and
the Black position is s light­
ly, b u t neverthe less cl early,
better.
14 Q-0 is also w orthy of
consideration . After 1 4 . . .
�xeS? I S �e 1 �e6 1 6 �xeS
\filf7 17 £l.b3 c£)f6 18 .o.,gs
White gets the advantage,
so a pre ferable a l ternative
is 14 . . . .O.,fS ( 1 4 . . . .O.,e6!? is
an al ternative w hich can be
considered worthy of con­
sideration, one example of
this contin uation is I S .O.,f4
0-0-0 16 r:!ad l ldd4 17 £l.g3
cijf6 1 8 l:Xfe1 d2 19 lde2 ci:)e4
20 ci:)f3 £l.g 4 21 ci:)xd4 4Jxg3
22 ldexd2 .O.,xd1 23 .O.,xd l ldd8
24 £l.g 4+ ci:)fS 25 ci:)xfS �xd2
26 ci:)xg7+ \tjlb8 27 b3 l:Xxa2co
Mad l - Elstner, Balaton­
bereny 1988) 15 lde1 0-0-0!
leading to the fol lowing
position:
1 13
Now White has two w ays
to play :
a) 16 ci:)f7 d 2 17 .O.,xd2 ldxd2
18 lde8+ \tjld7 19 ldae1 .O.,d4 20
ci:)xh8 (20 \tilh 1 .O.,xf2 21 ldle2
ldxe2 22 ldxe2 .O.,h4 23 ci:)xh8
cijh6 :f ) 20 ... .O.,xf2+ 21 \tjlh I
�xe1 22 �xe1 ldxb2:f
b) 16 �5 d2 17 lde2 lde8
18 f4 ( 1 8 .O.,f4 gS 19 £l.g3 hS!
or 19 . . . ci:)h6) 18 . . . h6 19 .O.,h4
gS 20 £l.g3 £l.d3 21 ldxd2
.O.,xeS 22 fxeS (22 ldxd3 gxf4
23 .O.,h4 .O.,xb2+ ) 22 . . . .O.,xc4=
Better than 17 lde2 looks
17 lde3!? l:Xf8 but even then
Black retains good chances,
e.g. 18 f4 ( 1 8 !!d 1 h6 19 .O.,h 4
gS 20 £l.g3 hS) 18 . . . {Jf6 19
.O.,xf6 .O.,xf6 20 !!d1 !!dB.
14 ... ci:)f6
14 ... �e6 15 0-0-0 0-0-0
16 �hel !!d4 17 .O.,d2 .O.,xc4 1 8
.O.,c3 d2+ 19 !!xd2 !!xd2 20
\tilxd2 �dS 21 ci:)g 4!= Vol­
chok - O l i fer, 1961 .
14 .. gS?I 1s �3 .a_fs 16
.
1 1 4 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 4)xe5

0-0!1' Rodriguez - Barreras, 9 .a_d7

Cienfu egos 1979. Others are clearly in
15 4Jxd3 .a,fs White's favour:
16 o-o-o o-o-o a) 9 ... �d8 10 4JxcB �xcB
17 .a_c2 z:!d4 11 d4 exd3 12 0-0
b) 9 ... c6 10 4JxcB t!xcB I t
.a_a4 4jf6 12 0-0 .a_e7 13 d4!
exd3 14 cS! and now :
bi ) 1 4 . . . �d7 IS .a_b3 !:!dB
16 .a,gs �d4 17 Z:Xe1 t!fB 1 B
�hS+ �d7 19 �h3+± Thie­
mann - Harbers , Corres­
pondence 19B2.
bi i) 14 . . . �xeS 1S �xd3
0-0 16 .a_e3 �hS 17 .a_d 1 �h4
1B .a_f3 �hB 19 �d4! Thie-
18 .a_es mann - Harbers , Corres­
18 .a_e3 z:!xc4 19 b3 t!xc2+! pondence 1 9B2.
20 �xc2 !:!dB 21 f3 4jd5 22 10 .a_xd7+ �xd7
.a_d2 gS 23 t!het cS 24 t!e4
�d6 2S !:!del h6 26 4jf2 .a_d4
27 4jd3 4jf6+ Spasov -
Mo hri ng , Zinnowitz 196S.
18 z:!xc4
19 .a_c3 I:Xxc31
20 bxc3 4Je4
21 z:!del 4Jxc3
22 a4 z:!d8
23 4jc5 .a_h6+
24 �b2 z:!d2
and White soon resigned, Now White's two choices
Kristiansen - Mohri ng, Tel are:
Aviv 1964.
B31) 11 4jb5
BJ B32) 11 �hS+
9 4Jxa7+
This conti n uation is cer- B31
tainly the stronges t! 11 4Jb5 4Jf6
 4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS
12 o-o
12 -'l_cS
The text contin uation
was worked out by Asatur­
yan. In the event of 12 c6
. . .
13 4jc3 -'l_cS (better 13 . . .
.a_e7) 1 4 d4 exd3 Whi te has
the s trong 15 -'l_e3! < I n Cui­
l i p - Becx, Guernsey 1988
White played the inferior 15
�et + and Black obtajned
s u fficient counterplay for
the sacri ficed paw n. The
game res u l ted i n an i n­
structive draw - 15 . . . ifctlf7
16 -'l_e3 .O,xe3 17 �xe3 �ad8
18 �f3 �he8 19 4je4 �d4 20
4jxf6 �xe3 21 fxe3 �xf6 22
�d1 1fctle7 23 �d2 �eS 24 �f4
lfctle6 25 �f2 �d7 26 ifctle1
�xf4 27 exf4 �fS 28 �f2
�d4 29 �d2 �xc4 30 �xd3
�xf4 31 �xf4+ �xf4 32 �d4
b6 33 a4 �fS 34 b4 �e6 35
�c4 �d6 36 aS �c7 37 h 4
�b 7 38 hS �a 7 3 9 axb6+
�xb6 40 g4 l,Cz-lf.z) w hen
115
Gl igoric - Heidenfeld, Mad­
rid 1960 wen t 15 . . . -'l_xe3 16
fxe3 0-0 17 �f4 �ad8 1 8
�f3 '/he6 1 9 4je4 4jxe4 20
�xe4±
A l so of interest is 12 . . .
-'l_e71? 13 d 4 exd3 1 4 ,O.e3 c6
15 4jc3 0-0
when the fo l lowing are
poss ible:
a) 16 f3 -'l_d6! 17 �h1 �ad8
b) 16 4ja4 �fS! 17 �b3
4:Jg 4! Pri ns - Trapl , Corres­
pondence 1960.
c) 16 �d2 4:Jg 4 17 4jd 1 �d6
18 f4 4:Jxe3 19 �xe3 .a_f6 20
�h1 �ae8 21 cS '/hdS Santa -
Mohri ng, Correspondence
1961 .
In al l cases, Bl ack has
good chances.
13 d4
13 b41? -'l_xb4? 1 4 �b1 -'l_cS
15 d 4 exd3 16 �b3 0-0 17
�xd3± Sznapik - Polaizer,
Lj ubljana 198 1 . Black had
to try 13 . . . -'l_d4 14 4:Jxd4
116 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS

�xd4 15 �b1 �xc4a3 - Asaturyan, Moscow 1962.

13 . . . exd3 b) 17 �d2 �heS 1S �ae1
14 �e1+ ( I S �d 1 �xe3! 19 fxe3 { 19
If 14 .Q.f4 Black has time �xe3? �g 4 ! ) 19 . . . c:£)e4 + ) 1 S
to reply 14 . . . 0-0, as 15 . . . �xe3 19 �xe3 c6 2 0 c:£)c3
.Q.xc?? c:£)e4 16 ..Q.g3 c:£)xg3 17 �d4 21 b3 �xc3!! 22 �xc3
hxg3 �xf2! 1S �xf2 �fS is d2-+ Maresov - Shekhtman,
unacceptable for White. loshkar - Ola 1 964.
14 . . . �f7 c) 17 �b3 !!heS 1S �d1 ( 1 S
15 .Q.e3 c5+ �fS 19 �d1 d2) 1S . . . c5
15 .Q.f4 �heS 16 �e3! ? ( 16 19 4Jc3 �xe3 20 fxe3 t/Je7 21
c:£)xc7? �xe1+ 17 �xe1 4:Jg4 c:£jdS �xdS! 22 cxd5 �xe3+
1S ..Q.g3 .Q.xf2+ ! Haag - Henn­ 23 �h1 c:£)e4! 24 d6+ �f6! 25
ings, 1 965) 16 . . . �xe3! ( 16 . . . �ft + �eS 26 tfjf7 �xd6-+
.Q.xe3 17 fxe3) 1 7 fxe3 �eS 1 S (Estrin)
�f3 c6 1 9 4Jc3 �f5 2 0 c:£)a4
g5!+ B32
15 .Q.xe3 11 �hS+ g6
16 �xe3 �ada 11•••�d8 12 tfjaS �eS 13
0-0! 4Jf6 14 d4! exd3 15
.Q.e3±
12 �e5+ �f7

In spite of the paw n

defici t Black's chances are
not worse here as the fo l­
lowing games confirm. 13 4Jb5
a) 17 �f3 �heS 1 S �d1 c6 It is dangerous for White
19 c:£)c3 �d 4 20 �xeS (20 h3 to take the rook, e.g. 13
�xe3 21 �xe3 �xc4) 20 . . . �xh8 4Jf6 1 4 4JbS c6! IS 4Jc3
�xeS 21 h 3 d2! Kosenkov
= �eS (Trapl's IS . . . �g 4! ) 16
 4 tf)c3 fxe4 5 tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS
b3 ( 16 0-0 �d3! 17 r!e1 �cS
18 �xe8+ �xe8 19 4jd l 4jg 4-
20 4je3 4Jxe3 2 1 fxe3 �b4 22
r!ft �xc4=i= ) 16 . . . �cS 17
�xe8+ �xe8 1 8 h3 ( 1 8 0-0
�d3 {also good is 18 . . .
4jg4 ! 19 4jd1 �d6 2 0 g 3 �eS
21 �b2 �hS 22 h4 gS l 19 .Q.b2
�xd2 20 4Ja4 .a_d4 21 �ad1
.a_xf2+ 22 \tilhl �f4 23 .Q.xf6
�xf6 24 �del �h4!-+ Hei l ­
emann - Florian , Corres­
pondence 1 97S/76) 18 . . .
�d3 1 9 �fl 4jhS 2 0 g 3 .Q.d 4-
21 �a3 .Q.xc3! 22 dxc3 �xc3+
23 \tile2 �c2+ 24 \tile1 e3! 2S
fxe3 4Jxg3-+ Ruban - Med­
ler, M i nsk 1 964.
13 c6
14 �d4
a) 14 4Jc3 �e8! 1S �aS OS
�xh8 4jf6) IS . . . 4jf6 16 h3
.a_d6 1 7 cS �eS ( 17 . . . �fS) 18
b4- .a_c7 19 �a4 !!dB 20 t(fb3+
�g7 21 0-0 tiffS ! +
b ) 1 4 b 3 4jf6 ( 14 . . . �e8)
1S .a_b2 .a.,g7 16 4Jc3 4Jg4 with
117
a very active position for
Black , Malmberg - Strom­
berg, Correspondence 1 964.
14
... �e7
Others:
a) 14 . . . 4Jf6 IS �xd7+
4jxd 7 16 4Jc3 4jcS 17 0-0
.a.,g7 18 f3±
b) 14 ... �g4 IS 0-0! cxbS
( l S . . . .Q.g7 16 4jd6+) 16 f3
�h 4 ( 16 . . . �e6 17 fxe4+ 4jf6
18 eS; 16 . . . �hS a l so failed
to help Black in jacobs -
Garcia, Benidorm 1989, e.g.
17 fxe4+ 'it'e6 18 b4-! { not 18
�xh8? .a_d6! intending 19 . . .
.a_es . Meanwhile B l ack was
threatening 18 . . . .a_cS } 18 . . .
.Q.xb4 19 eS! �f8 { 19 . . . �xeS
20 �xeS+ and 21 .Q.b2+ } 20
r!xf8 .a_xf8 21 �dS+ 'it'e7 22
.Q.a3+ \tileS 23 �xbS+ 'ittd B 24
.Q.xf8 1-0) 17 �dS+! \tileS 18
�xbS+ �dB 19 fxe4 .a_d6 20
eS �d4+ 21 \tilh l t
c) 14 . . . �fS I S 4jd6+ ( I S
�x h8) I S . . . .Q.xd6 1 6 �xd6
4Je7 17 0-0 �hd8 18 �b4
�d3 19 �xb7 �ad8 20 b3
and White slowly realised
his advantage in the game
Ciocaltea - Malich, Sinaia
1964.
d) 14 ... �xd4 IS 4jxd4
.Q.g7 16 4je2 �a4 17 b3! and
Black has insufficient com­
pensation for the pawn
sacrifice, e.g. 17 . . . .Q.xal ( 17
l l S 4 tfjc3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS

. . . �xc4 1 S bxc4 .Q.xa1 1 9 0-0 entially unable to streng­

c[:)f6 20 .Q.a3 �aS { 20 . . . .Q.e5
21 �bt l 21 �xat �xa3 22 c[:)c3
Jansa - Vera, Bratis lava
19S3) 1S bxa4 c[:)f6 19 0-0
�aS 20 .Q.a3! :gxa4 (20 . . .
.Q.e5 21 :gb1!) 2 1 :gxa1 :gxa3 22
c[:)c3 ( Despotov id . Know­
ledge of this analysis
proved fruitful in Frolik -
Seyffer, Bundes liga 19SS,
when White went on to win
after 22 c[:)c3 '\t?e6 23 �b1
�a7 24 '\t?f1 '\t?e5 25 '\t?e2 '\t?d4
26 �b4 '\t?c5 27 a3 '\t?d4 2S h3
h5 29 c5+ '\t?xc5 30 c[:)xe4+
c[:)xe4 31 �xe 4 �xa3 32 �e6
b5 33 :gxg6 b4 34 :gg5+ '\t?c4
35 �xh5 b3 36 :gh4+ '\t?c5 37
'\t?d3 b2+ 3S '\t?c2 �b3 39 '\t?b1
'\t?d5 40 �f4 c5 4 1 h 4 c4 42
h5 '\t?c5 43 h6 �b4 44 g3 c3
45 dxc3 1-0
e) 14 ... :gdS 15 �xd7+
�xd7 16 c[:)c3 c[:)f6
then his position , e.g.
a) 17 b3 .Q.c5 18 c[:)a4 -'1.a7
19 -'1.b2 �hd8= Vogt - Moh­
ring, Leipzig 1975.
b) 17 0-0 .a_c5 ts �bt :gas
19 b3 �e6 20 :get �f5 21 :gb2
g5 22 �c2 :gadS 23 �e2 h5
24 -'1.h2 g4 25 c[:)dt c[:)h7 and
Black's chances are not
worse, Augu stin - Mohring,
Stary Smokovec 1976.
c) 17 �f1 -'1.c5 1S f3 exf3 19
�xf3 �g7 20 b3 c[:)g4 21 -'1.b2
�eS+ 22 '\t?d1 '\t?g8 23 '\t?c2
c[:)xh2 24 :gg3 -'1.f2 25 !'td3
:gf7 26 a4 -'1.c5= and Black
held the ba lance in Ivanov -
Rocha, M exico 1980.
15 c[:)c3

� � . .. .
�i: � i � tr � i:
� ..L
� +� � � +�
r.IU ..L �
� � � �
�:Jt � i: � � After 15 �xh8 there can
�
� �
� �
� �
� fol l ow 15 . . . c[:)f6 16 b3 :gds
4l> �: �' 4l> Y.!F/. ( 16 . . . cxb5? 17 .Q.b2! or 16 . . .
Lb � � .�.� Lb �
��- ��f -� �- 9!!9
.

:ge8 1 7 .Q.b2 .(lg7 18 .Q.a3 c 5 1 9

�� � �� � £::! �xeS+ 4Jxe8 2 0 :gd t .Q.e5 21
Here, in spite of the two d4 exd3 22 0-0 c[:)f6 23 �xd3
extra pawns, White is ess- .Q.xh2+ 24 '\t?x h2 �e2 25 �f3
 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 {)xeS
�xft 26 .Q.b2 �e2 27 .Q.xf6
�g8 28 4Jc3 �c2 29 {)dS hS
30 .Q.c3 �xa2 31 4Je7+ �h7
32 �f7+ �h6 33 4Jg8+ �gS
34 f 4+ 1 -0 Watson - Cooper,
Saint john 1 9BB) 17 .Q.b2 .Qg7
18 �xdB �xdB 19 4Ja3 (on 19
4:}d4 there fo l lows 19 . . . cS
20 {}bS �d3+ but deserving
of attenti on is 19 4:}c3 4:}g4
20 0-0-0J and now Black
can obtai n the advantage
with the elegant 19 . . . 4Jg 4
20 0-0-0 4Jx f2! 21 �hft
�xb2+ 22 �xb2 �g7.
White can attempt to
strengthen the above var­
iation with IB .Q.a3 �d7 19
4jdo+ �e6 20 �xdB (not 20
4Jxb7?? �xd2+) 20 . . . �xdB
21 4Jxb7. The correspond­
ence game Buresh - Sheshil,
19BO/Bt conti nued 21
�d 4? 22 0-0 4Jg4 23 �aet
1 : 0. Lawton - Fi nlayson,
England 19BS saw instead 21
... �b6? 22 4JcS+ lftf7 23 0-0
�aS 24 4Ja4 ± . In our opin­
ion the correct path is 21 . . .
�c7! 22 4JcS+ �f7 and a
satisfactory contin uation
for White is not clear, e.g.
23 0-0 4Jg 4 ! It may be that
23 .Q.b2 , chal lenging on the
long diagona l , is White's
best. However, the pos ition
remains high ly complex,
e.g. 23 .Q.b2 hS!? 24 h3 e3 2S
1 19
0-0 ( not 2S dxe3? �aS+) 2S
. . . e2 26 �fet 4Jg4!? 27 hxg4
.Q.xb2 28 �abt .Q.d4 29 4Je4
hxg 4 30 g3 �aS 31 a4 lftg7
32 �xe2 �fS 33 �bet �f3 34
tle3 .Q.xe3 3S tlxe3± and the
coordinated White forces
proved to be the more ef­
ficient and he went on to
win in jacobs - ju lian, Be­
nidorm 19B9.
15 4Jf6
16 �e3
16 0-0 �dB 17 �e3 �d3 18
�e2 �eS 19 tiel ( 19 f4 �d4+
20 �h 1 { Santo - Ma l l ee,
Correspondence 19BO ) 20 . . .
.Q.b4! 21 b 3 �dB and Black
has very strong pressure)
19 . . . .Q.d6 20 g3 �eB 21 �xd3
exd3 22 tixeS �xeS 23 fitjlft
(23 4jd1 .Q.d4 24 4Je3 4Je4+
Rudak - Klompus, Corres­
pondence 1972) 23 . . . .Q.d4 24
f3 gS 2S g4 hS 26 h3 �g6 27
�b l hxg 4 2B hxg4 4Jd7 with
s ufficient compensation
for the two paw ns, as in
the correspondence game,
Petrus hka - Wittman, play­
ed in 197B.
16 �d B
17 d4 exd3
18 �xe7+ .Q.xe7
In order to ease the
defensive task, Wh ite is
ob ligated to return one
paw n.
120 4 t£)c3 fxe4 5 t£)xe4 dS 6 t£)xe5
�he8 23 �xd3 ( Kostro -
Witkowski, 1 966) and now
Black should continue 23 . . .
c5! 24 �f3+ 'iftg8 25 �e3 ( 25
�f6 �a8!) 25 . . . !!d3 26 'iftb2
4Jxf2! 27 �xf2 !!xf3 28 gxf3
�e2+ =
19 �d4
20 b3 4Je4
21 4Jxe4 !!xe4+
22 �e3 �b4+
Black has enough com­ 23 fiftf1 bS
pensation for the paw n . 24 cxbS cxbS
19 �d2 25 g3 �c8=
19 �e3 �b4 20 0-0-0 Sorokin - Kami nnik, USSR
�xc3 21 bxc3 4Je4 22 �d4 1966.
10) 4 4:)c3 fxe4 5 4:)xe4 dS
6 4:)xe5 dxe 4 7 4:)xc6 tl;tgS

1 e4 eS from his World Champion­

2 4Jf3 4Jc6 ship Semi-Final match ag­
3 .O,bS fS ainst jan Ti mman . The
4 4Jc3 fxe4 resu l t was a crushing vic­
5 �xe4 dS tory for Black w h ich hel ped
6 {)xeS dxe4 to keep al ive Speel man's
7 4Jxc6 'fhgS chances in the match .
This high level expos ure
was also a tremendou s ad­
vertisement for the Schl ie­
mann in genera l , which has
thus been thrust i n to the
forefront of theoretica l
research . The mai n ad­
herents of this variation
for Black are the grand­
masters ln kiov and K l i nger,
who have both used it to
This heavily analysed score well agai nst high
conti nuation leads to a class opposition.
complex struggle. Although 8 'fhe2
this co nti n uation has, of 8 c4 {jf6 9 4Jxa7+ c6 10
course, bee n k now n and 4Jxc6 bxc6 II .Q.xc6+ ®f7 12
researched for many years , .Q.xa8 'fhxg2 13 r!,fl .a_h3 1 4
it was given a new lease of 'fhe2 .Q.cS 15 .Q.dS+ {)xdS 16
life by Spee l man's adoption cxdS r!,e8 17 a4 .a,g 4-+ Maz­
of it for a critical game zoni - Boey, Correspond-
122 4 .fJc3 fxe4 5 .fJxe4 dS 6 .fJxeS dxe4 7 .fJxc6 �gS
ence 1966.
8 4Jf6
8 . . �xg2? is a gross
. And now :
error on accou nt of 9 �h5+
8 ... -'ld7 is poor after 9
�xe4+ 4Je7 10 4Jxe7 -'lxb5
( 1 0 . . . �xb5 1 1 4Jg6+ �f7 12
4Jxh8+ �g8 13 a4! �a6 1 4
�d5+ -'leo 15 �b5± > 1 1 4Jg6+
�d7 12 d3! �xg6 13 �d5+ ±
9 f4
9 4Jxa7+ -'ld7 ! 10 -'lxd7+
4Jxd7! gives Black excel lent
chances . Thomas - Bos h­
kovi ch , USA 1 975 continued
1 1 �xe4+ ( 1 1 4JbS �xg2 12
�f1 0-0-0 with a very
strong attack) 1 1 . . . �d8! 12
�xb7 ( 12 d3 �aS+) 12 ...
�xa 7! 13 �xa 7 �xg2 1 4 �f1
-'lcS+
After 9 f4 Bl ack has two
separate paths:
A) 9 ... �xf4
B) 9 . . �h4+
. 4Jd4 �c8 20 �fS �d6 21
A
9 �xf4
A1) 10 4Jxa7+
A2) 10 d4
A3) 10 4Je5+
A1
10 4Jxa7+
L. Svenonius proposed
this move as a refu tation of
9 . . . �x f4.
10 ... -'ld7
10... c6 11 4Jxc8
10 . . . �dB 11 4Jxc8 �xc8
is bad after 12 d4, e.g 12 . . .
�h4+ ( 1 2 . . . �fS 1 3 -'lc4 .Q.d6
1 4 �f1 �aS+ 1S -'ld2 �b6 16
0-0-0! ± Suchko - Myasn­
ikov , Kishinev 1962) 13 g3
�h3 14 -'lf4 4Jd5 15 �xe4! ±
Gufeld - Myasni kov , Riga
1960.
11 .O,xd7+ �xd7
11 . . . 4Jxd7 12 4Jb5 0-0-0
13 d4 and Black has i n­
sufficient for the paw n ,
e . g . 13 . . . �f6 ( 13 . . . �f7 1 4
�f1 �dS 1 5 c 4 -'l.b 4+ 1 6 �f2)
14 �c4! c6 IS �ft
12 d4
Others :
a) 12 4Jb5 �e8 ( 1 2 . . . c6 13
4Jc3 -'ld6) 13 b3 -'lb4 1 4 c3
-'lcS 1S -'la3 �eS 16 -'lxc5
�xeS 1 7 b4 �eS 18 0-0 hS 19
 4 .fjc3 fxe.J. 5 .fjxe4 dS 6 .fjxeS dxe4 7 .fjxc6 �gS 123

4:JbS �b6+= Black won easily , Orlovsky

b) 12 �bS+ 'ifjle6 13 �c4+ - Lipsky, Warsaw 1976.
'ifjld7 ( 1 3 . . . 4:JdS 14 4:JbS -'ld6 17 . . . e3+!
IS 4:Jd4+ lfteS 16 �f1 and 18 �ct -'lxc3
Black has to surrender the 19 bxc3 bS
queen) 14 4:JbS ( 1 4 �bS+ Bel chuk - Lipsky, War­
'ifjle6= ) 14 . . . c6 ( 1 4 . . . -'ld6) 1S saw 197S. Black has excel­
�d4+ 'ifjlc8 16 g3 �fS 1 7 lent chances .
4:jd6+ -'lxd6 18 �xd6 �e8 1 9
�f4 �xf4 2 0 gxf4 4:JdS+ A2
12 �h4+ 10 d4
13 g3 �h3
i �· �·� ��
� + f� �' �
.�. +
� ..L � � � ..L
�/.'\
� 't...J �
�) �
� �
� -'l � � �
� � 1: � �
� � � �
:fi: � 7.ft--� � � �Wffi
� r·':
��� � 'l.;

�� a � ��
10 ... �d6!
Black's positional ad­ 10 �fS is bad after I t
...

vantages compensate for Z!ft ! as i s 1 0 . . . �h4+ I I g3

the missing pawn .
14 4:Jb5
14 �bS+ 'ifjle6 I S �eS+ \tld7
( I S . . . 'ifjlf7!? 16 �xc7+ 'ifjlg6 17
�xb7 -'ld6) 16 �bS+ ( 16 4:jbS
c6 17 4:Jc3 -'ld6) leads to
repetition.
�h3 12 �S! - see game no.
7, Fi scher - Matu lovic.
11 4:Je5+
A fa u l ty path for White
i s 11 4:Jxa7+7 which comes
unstuck as demonstrated in
two recent games: tt . . c6 .

14 c6 12 4:Jxc8 �b4+! 13 c3 �xbS

15 4:jc3 -'lb41 14 �xbS cxbS 15 a4 ( 1S �bo
16 -'lf4 4:Jd5 !!a6 traps the knight) IS . . .
17 \tld2 �xc8 ( IS . . . bxa4? 1 6 �b6
17 0-0-07 -'lxc3 18 bxc3 would be a mi stake) 16 axbS
�xf4! 19 gxf4 �xc3 and -'ld6 17 �a7 ( Remarkably
124 4 .f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 �gS

this en tire sequence was

repeated in Bri nck - C l aus­
sen - Wel l i ng, Lyngby open
1989. Whi te now deviated
with 17 0-0 but it didn't
alter the ou tcome - 17 . . .
0-0 1 8 .a_f4 t[je8 19 .a_e3 .a_bs
20 !:'txf8+ 'i:tt x f8 2 1 !:'tf1+ �g8
22 !:'tfS t[jd6 23 !:XeS tjJ}f7 24
tjJ]f2 t[jc4 25 !:'txe4 t[jxb2 26
�S t[jd 1 + 27 tjJ}e1 t[jxc3 28
�e7+ tjJ}g6 29 h4 t[jxbS 30 dS
t[jd6 31 -'l,f 4 t[jfS 32 !:'te6+
tjJ}f7 33 -'l,xb8 !:'txb8 34 hS
!:XeS 0- 1 ) 17 . . . 0-0! 18 !:'txb7
t[jg4 19 !:1ft ( 1 9 h3 4jf2 20
�g 1 .Q.h2 21 �ft t[jd3+ 22 tjJ}e2 ces .
!:'txf1 23 �xf1 4jxc1-+) 19 . . . 13 ... �xc4
.a_x h2 2 0 !:'txf8+ !:'txf8 2 1 �e7 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 c3 .Q.xc4 IS
�f2!-+ (21 . . . �3+ 22 �e2 t!Yxc4 t[jdS also looks per­
�f2+ 23 �d1 !:'txg2 24 b6 hS fectly okay for B l ack . Her­
25 b7) 22 �xe4 !:'txg2 23 �d2 nandez - Alzate, Ca l i Zonal
�3+ 24 �fl �f2+ 25 �g 1 1990.
t[jh2 ! 0- 1 Georgiev Kir - 14 t!Yxc4 t!Yd5
Inkiov, Bulgaria 1988. Notes 15 thb3 .a_d61 7
based on l nkiov's in Jnfor­ 15 ... thxb3 16 axb3 t[jdS!
mator. 17 0-0 .Q.d6! 18 �3 (worse
u c6 is 18 �ael 0-0 19 �xe4 cS!
12 .a_c4 .a_e6 20 c3 cxd4 21 cxd4 �ac8
12 ... t!Yxd4 is doubtfu l with good cou n terchances)
after 13 .Q.f4 ( not 13 t[jf7? 18 . . . t[jf6 19 .a_h 4 ( 19 t[jg6
� 4) 13 . . . t[jdS ( 1 3 . . . .a_cs 1 4 .a_xg3 20 t[jxh8 .a_c7 2 1 g4
c3! ) 1 4 !:'td1 ! .a_b4+ (or 1 4 . . . t[jxg4 t ) 19 ... 0-0 20 .Q.xf6
t[jxf4 15 �xd4 4jxe2 16 �xe4 �xf6 21 �xf6 gxf6= Eslon -
.a_b4+ 17 �xe2) 15 c3 t[jxf 4 16 Marie, Strasbourg 1972.
!:'txd4 t[jxe2 17 �xe2 �cS 18 16 c4
�xe4 .a_fs 1 9 �f4± 16 thxb7 is ri sky because
13 .Q.f4 of 16 . . . 0-0! 17 thb3 ( 1 7
 4 tf)c3 fxe4 S tf)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS dxe4 7 tf)xc6 �gS 1 2S

c£>xc6 �ab8 ! ) 1 7 . . . �ab8! 1 8 This is the main line and

�xdS+ c£)xdS with a threat- the critica l test of Black's
ening i nitiati ve for the variation.
paw n .
16 0-0 gives White noth­
ing �xb3 ( 16 . . . 0-0) 17 axb3
c£)dS !
16 0-0-0 0-0 1 7 c 4 �e6 C::.
. . . cS =
16 ... �xd4
16 ... �aS+ 1 7 -'ld2 �c7
deserves atten tion.

10 ... c6
11 d4 �h4+!
11 ... exd3? 12 .Q.xd3 �b4+
13 .a_d2 �e7 14 0-0-0 .a_e6 1S
�he 1 ±
12 g3 �h3
13 .a_c4
After 13 c£)xc6 Bl ack can
play 13 . . . a6 14 .a_a4 .a_d7 and
17 cS if IS .Q.gS then IS . . . �g4! 16
17 �d1 �cS �xg 4 c£)xg4 17 dS h6!� Per­
17 �xb7 0-0 18 c£)xc6 �cS! kins - Thales, Correspond­
19 .Q.xd6 �e3+ ence 1 962.
17 . . . .Q.xeS 13 ... .Q.e6
18 �e6+ �f8 13 . . . .a_d6 1 4 .a_f7+! �dB ( 1 4
19 .Q.xeS . . . �e7 1 5 .Q.b3) 1 5 .a_f4 �c7 1 6
Not 19 �d1? �xd 1 + ! 20 �d2±
�xd1 .Q.xf4� 14 .o,gs
19 . . . �e3+ M. Euwe recommends 14
With a draw by perpetual .a_xe6 �xe6 15 �c4. Never­
check . theless after 15 . . . c£)d5 the
position is approximately
A3 equal.
10 c£)e5+ 14 .a,f4 .Q.d6 1 5 0-0-0
126 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 fM'gS
gives White nothi ng, e.g. 1S
... 0-0-0 ( I S ... �dB 1 6 lftb 1
0-0 1 7 .QgS .Q.xeS 18 dxeS
�xd1+ 19 nxd1 .Q.xc4 20
�xc4+ c£)dS+ Kramer - Rap­
oport, Correspondence 1 973.
The swift concl u sion to
this game was 21 �xe4?
�hS 0 : 1) 16 .Q.xe6+ ( 16 lftb1
�he8 17 �hf1 ( 1 7 nhel ! ? ) 17
... .Q.xeS? (This is a bad m is­
take after w hich White ob­
tains a good posi tion. Sen­
sible al ternatives for Black
were 1 7 . . . .Q.xc4 18 �xc4
and 17 . . . �e7!? 18 .Q.b3) 1 8
.Q.xe6+ ! �xe6 19 dxeS nxdt+
20 �xd1 c£)g4 ?! 21 net ! ±
Popovic - lnkiov, Pal rn a de
Mal lorca 1 989) 16 . . . �xe6 17
lftbt �he8 1 8 c4 (18 h3 h6 19
g4 cS 20 c3 cxd4 21 cxd4
lftb8 22 .Q.h2 �c8 23 �cl lfta8
24 �e3 .Q.c7 2S �c4 .Q.b8 26
�eel a6 27 �hdl .Q.a7 and
Black was better i n Hodg­
son - Klinger, San Bernar-
dino 1989, but he proceeded
to overp l ay his hand and
lost after 28 �xc8+ �xc8
29 .Qg1 �dS 30 h4 �xeS 31
dxeS .Q.xe3 32 exf6 .Q.xg1 33
�xgt gxf6 34 �e1 �e8 3S
lftc2 �b8 36 lftd2 hS 37 gxhS
fS 38 �fl �f8 39 h6 f4 40 h7
f3 41 �g 1 1-0) 18 . . . h6 19 h 4
.Q.xeS 20 dxeS 4Jg4! 21
�xd8+ �xd8 22 �dl �xd1+
23 �xdl 4JxeS 24 �d 4 4Jd3
with fi ne play for Black,
Puig - Boey, Varna 1962.
14 ... o-o-o
After 14 ....Q.d6 White
has two ways to get a good
game:
a) IS �fl �f8 (or IS . . . 0-0
16 .Q.xf6 gxf6 1 7 .Q.xe6+ �xe6
18 �g4+) 16 .Q.xf6 gxf6 17
.Q.xe6 �xe6 18 �hS+ lftd8 19
4Jg4 Zaharov - Li psky , Lub­
lin 1978.
b) 1 S .Q.xf6 gxf6 16 .Q.xe6
�xe6 17 �hS+! lfte7 1 8 4Jg 4
�ag8 ( 1 8 . . . fS 19 4Je3 naf8
20 dS! cxdS 21 0-0-0± ) 19
c£)e3 �gS 20 �h4! �hg8 21
�fl with a positional advan­
tage, Vogt - Kuzmin, Leni n­
grad 1977.
Less i ncisive is 1S 0-0-0
which al l ows Black the
opportu n i ty to transpose
back to the main l i ne with
1S . . . 0-0-0. However in
Sherzer - Byk hovsky , Man-
 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 �gS
hattan 1990, Black l ooked
for, and found, more after
15 . . . 0-0 16 g4 �xc4 17
4Jxc 4 �c7 18 �xf6 �xf6 19
�xe4 .a,f4+ 20 �b1 �xg4 21
dS �d7 22 d6 �e8 23 �d4 bS
24 �hf1 �ef8�
15 o-o-o
15 �d6
16 0Jf7
Fo l lowing Speelman's ex­
ample, the position after 15
. . . �d6 has been the subject
of a great deal of recent
attention . The material av­
ail ab l e suggests that Black
can face the future with
confidence.
There are several other
possibi l i ties in this critical
position:
a) 16 �xe6+ �xe6 17 4Jc4
�c7 1 8 �b1 h6 19 �xf6 g xf6
20 �hf1 fS 21 0Je3 �hf8 22
4Jg2 �d7 23 c3 �g7 = Bard­
eleben - Spielmann, Berl i n
1909.
127
b) 16 �xf6 g xf6 17 �xe6+
�xe6 18 4Jc4 �c7 19 �b1 fS
20 4Je3 �hf8 21 c4 f4 with
eq ual chances, Lukov
Inkiov, Bu l garia 1 982.
c) 16 g4 is an interesting
attempt to cut the black
q ueen off from the theatre
of acti on. However, the
paw n can become some­
thing of a liabi l ity, e.g. 16 . . .
�xc4 1 7 �xc4 �he8 1 8 4jf7
�d7 1 9 dS �xf7 20 dxc6
�xg4 21 ..Q.e3 �f4 22 �xf7
�xe3+ 23 �b1 bxc6 24 z:Id6
( Malaniuk - Y u ferov , Sok­
ol sky Memorial 1 985) and
now Black should have
p l ayed 24 . . . �g6! with good
play .
Al ternatively 1 7 . . . �xeS
18 dxeS �xd1+ 19 �xd1 �xg4
20 �e3! li:Jd7 21 �f7!? (21 e6
4Jb6!) 21 . . . 4Jxe5 22 �e7
0Jg6 (22 . . . 4Jc4 23 �5!) 23
�xg7 �dB 2 4 �xd8+ �xd8
25 �xb7 li:Je7! mai ntains the
balance Donchev - I nkiov,
B u lgaria 1989.
d) 16 �ft .
As a conseq uence of
Whi te's debacle i n Ti mman
- Speel man, this move was
recommended by various
sources as the way to elim­
inate Bl ack's counterplay
and gu arantee an advantage
for White. However, it is
128 4 .f)c3 fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 '/tgS
not clear i f this assessment
is j u stified. The material
here is very interesting and
worthy of close attention.
16 . . . �he8 ( 1 6 .. . �hf8) 17
�xh3 (White m ust exercise
great caution here. The
care less 17 .Q.xf6? was
s harply deal t with by 17 . . .
�h6+ ! 1 8 !!d2 .Q.b4 1 9 c3
!!xd4! in Blatny - K l i nger,
Bad Worishofen 1990. Black
proceeded to tidy up with
20 �f4 �xf4 21 gxf4 !!xd2
22 .Q.h 4 .Q.xc3 23 bxc3 e3 24
�et !!xh2 25 4::)f3 �g2 26
!!xe3 .Q.f7 27 !!xeS+ .Q.xe8 28
.Q.et bS 29 .Q.g8 .Q.g6 30 .Q.e6+
�c7 31 fS .Q.e8 32 .Q.d2 .Q.d7
33 .Q.f 4+ �dB 34 .Q.d6 hS 35
4:Je5 .Q.xe6 36 fxe6 h4 37
4:Jxc6+ �e8 38 4:jd4 a6 39 e7
!!g6 40 4:jf5 h3 41 a4 bxa4
42 .Q.c7 !!g2 43 .Q.d8 �d7 44
4:jd6 !!e2 0-1 ) 17 . . . .Q.xh3 18
4:jf7 �d7 19 4:Jxd6+ !!xd6 20
.Q.f4 �d7 21 �he1 .Q.g 4 22 �d2
4:Jd5 23 .Q.eS .Q.f3 24 �f2 and
with the plan of c3 and .Q.d3
White had a very pleasant
position, Sax - Inkiov , Rome
1984. This served to put
p l ayers off the bl ack side
of this variation for some
time. It is rather ironic that
Speelman resu rrected a line
that had put out of com­
mission by this game, as
Sax was one of Timman's
seconds in the match!
Practice has witnessed
two deviations from the
above game:
a) 20 �hel .Q.g4 2 1 �d2
4:jd5 (Thi s doesn't work out
too wel l . 21 . . . bS( !) main­
taining tension is an alter­
native w h ich should be
considered) 22 .Q.e2 .Q.xe2 23
!!dxe2 �de6 24 a3 bS 25 �d2
�c7 26 b3 h6 27 .Q.f4+ 4:Jxf4
28 gxf4 �d6 29 c4 bxc4 30
bxc4 !!b8 31 �c3 !!be8 32 fS
!!f6 33 !!xe4 !!xe4 34 !!xe4
!!xfS 35 !!e8 !!f2 36 cS+ �c7
37 �e7+ �b8 38 !!xg7 �xh2
39 �b4 !!d2 40 �d7 hS 4 1
�aS h 4 4 2 �a6 !!a2 43 �b7+
�c8 44 �b3 �g2 45 �xa7
�g3 46 !!b8+ �d7 47 �b7+
�e6 48 �h7 !!xa3+ 49 �b6
�dS SO !!hS+ �xd 4 51
!!xh4+ 1-0 Zilberstein -
Tsarev, Kiev 1989.
b) 23 . . . e3!? was I nk iov's
 4 4)c3 fxe4 S .f)xe4 dS 6 4)xe5 dxe4 7 4)xc6 �gS 1 29

own contribution - 24 nd3 I:le7! a s 2 2 dS would be met

4Jb6 2S .Q.b3 e2 26 ne3 (26 by 22 ... cxdS 23 .Q.xdS �fe8
h3? .Q.xh3 27 nxe2 .Q.f1 ) 26 ... with a reasonable position .
aS 27 a4 cS! 28 c3 (28 �c3 19 ... cS
�xeS ! ! ) 28 . . . c4 29 .Q.c2 4jdS Black now stands very
30 �e4 .Q.f3 31 nh4? gS! 32 well and cond ucts the re­
�xh7 4Je3 33 �xd7 �xd7 34 mainder of the game with
.Q.g6? �e6! 3S .Q.b1 4jg2 36 extreme accuracy.
�xe2 .Q.xe2 37 .Q.fS .Q.d3 38 20 !Ihft �bB
.Q.xe6+ �xe6-+ Ernst - l n­ 21 .Q.f4 �dB
kiov Gausdal 1989 . 22 .Q.gS a61
16 .Q.xf7 23 .Q.xf6 gxf6
17 .Q.xf7 �hfB 24 twxe4 twxh2
1B .Q.c 4 White is very exposed on
18 .Q.b3 �deB 1 9 c4 twg4 20 the dark squares and his
twe3 4jhS 21 ndfl �xf1+ 22 bishop i s severely handi­
�xf1 h6 23 cS .Q.xg3 24 h xg3 capped by the pawn on dS.
twxgS = was Velimirovic - In an attempt to simplify
Klinger, Pal m a de M al lorca the situation he now i n­
1989 augu rates a pawn exchange
1B �deB on the kingside while ad­
19 dS vancing his rook to the
seventh rank . However, this
weakens his own back rank ,
and Speel man swiftly
pou nces.
25 �h1 twxg3
26 nxh7 J:IfeB
27 twfS bSI
Suddenly i ts al l over. 28
.Q.d3 c4 i s no i mprovement
for White.
2B .Q.f1 �e1
19 nhf1 h6 ( 1 9 . . . �bs!?) 29 twhS twf4 +
20 .Q.f4 .Q.xf4+ 21 �xf4 0:1
( Yudovich - Boey , Corres­ Timman - Speelman, Can­
pondence 1 972/76) . Here didates Semi-Final, London
Black equalised with 21 . . . 1989.
130 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 tfjxe4 dS 6 tfjxeS dxe4 7 tfjxc6 (!tgS

In this gambit contin ua­

tion, Black has definite
posi tional compensation,
due to the weaknesses in
the White position. We now
examine two possible res­
ponses:

B1) 11 4Jxa7+
B2) 11 4Je5+

Speel man psyched him­ B1

self u p for the games in 11 4Jxa7+ �d7
this match by looking at 11 . �8 12 4Jxc8 1i:ttx c8 is
oo

book contai ning pictures of worth a look.

wol ves. This plan had 12 �xd7+ �xd7
yielded l ittle success (one An interesting al terna­
loss and five draws) prior tive w hich has not yet been
to this demolition. When seen in practice is 12 ...
asked to explai n this, jon 4Jxd71 ? 13 t(yxe4+ �e7 14
pointed out that this game t(yxb7 0-0 with a dangerous
was p l ayed on a day w hen attack for the sacrificed
there was a ful l moon! pawns.
13 4Jb5
B With the further dicho­
9 �h4+ tomy:
10 g3 �h3
B11) 13 0-0-0
oo.

812) 13 . c6 . .

B11
13 ... o-o-o

see follo wing diagram

14 b3
14 0-0 is dangerous after
14 . . . �cS+ 15 li:tth 1 hS!t
 4 4)c3 fxe4 S 4)xe4 dS 6 tf)xeS dxe4 7 4)xc6 tftgS 131

�xd1 19 nxd1 e3! 20 d 4

nhe8 getting a positional
edge.
16 c6

The conti nuations 14 �c3

c6 and 1 4 �c4 c6 15 �c3 h5
lead to positions examined
in C2ai i .
14 . .
. .a,cs In this position Black has
14 ... c6 is inaccurate, e.g. dangerous threats in return
15 �3! and now: for the two sacrificed
a) 15 . . . .a_b4 16 �c4 'ifjlb8 pawns.
17 .a_b2 and White w i l l con­ 17 �c3
solida te the material ad­ 17 �a3 e3 18 d4 ( 18 0-0-0
vantage. exd2+ 19 ftxd2 .a_e3 20 �xe3
b) 15 . . . b5 16 .a_b2 "fha7 17 �xe3 21 ftxd7 nxd7 22 X!e1
�xb5! cxb5 18 "fhxb5 with X!hd8 23 .Q.xg7 r!d1 + 24 r!xd1
more than sufficient comp­ X!xd1+ 25 'ifjlb2 nht::j: ) 18 . . .
ensation. .a_xa3 1 9 .a_xa3 �xd4 20
c) 15 . . . �d4 - see game �xg4+ 'ifjlb8 21 'ifjle2 �d2+ 22
no. 8, Estrin - Neishtadt. 'ifjlf3 r!he8! 23 c4 nd3! with a
15 .a_b2 �4 decisive attack .
16 nf1 17 e3
Estrin considered that 18 d3 �f21
White s hould p l ay 16 o-o-o 19 "fhf3 .a_b4
�f2 1 7 �c4 and if 1 7 . . . 20 �2 X!he8
�xd1 18 nxd1 �d5 ( 1 8 . . . Black has an active po­
.a_b6 19 .a,eS) 19 tba4 'ifjlb8 20 sition with s trong threats .
.a_es .a_b6 2 1 �c3± Stronger,
however, is 17 . . . .a_b6! 18 B12
fthe1 (18 .Q.eS �xht> 18 ... 13 ... c6
132 4 4)c3 fxe4 5 4)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 4)xc6 ijgS
14 �c3
On 14 �a3 Black can
profitably reply 1 4 . . . bS.
14 o-o-o
15 b3
Others :
a) 15 fhc4 hS 16 h 4 fhg4 17
�e2 �dS 18 fhxe4 (18 a3
was played i n Bikova -
Zvorikina, Moscow 1959,
and now w ith 18 . . . �h6! 19
b4 (19 b3 bS} 19 . . . �hd6 20
.Q.b2 �b6 ! 21 fhc3 �a4) 18 . . .
�h6 19 �f1 rle6 2 0 fhf3 �de8
(20 . . . fhfS 21 d3 4jb4!) 21
fhxg4 hxg4 22 �f2 .Q.cS 23
�g2 4jb4 and Whi te has
diffic u l t problems to solve.
b) 15 a4 .Q.b4 (15 . . . hS! at
once may be better, e.g. 16
h4 .Q.b4 17 aS e3 18 dxe3
�e4=F Durao - Boey, Hague
1966) 16 �d1 hS 1 7 c3 .Q.d6 18
4Je3 h 4 19 4jc4 rt}c7 20 �xd6
fhxd6 21 rlg1 hxg3 22 h xg3
fhcSt Postnikov - Ergle,
1966.
15 ... .Q.b4
16 .Q.b2
16 a3 a llows Black ex­
cel l ent chances after 16 . . .
.Q.xc3 17 dxc3 e3! For ex­
ample: 18 .Q.xe3 18 . . . �he8
19 0-0 �dS 20 �f3 fhg4 w ith
the i nitiative, or 1 8 0-0
�he8 19 .Q.b2 fhg4 ! and it is
not easy for Whi te to
defend himself.
16 ... e3!
17 o-o-o exd2+
18 rt;b1
18 �xd2 fhxd2+ 19 fhxd2
�xd2 20 rt)xd2 �e4+ 21 rt}d3
4jf2+- +
18 ... �he8
19 fhc4
In this position Black's
advantage is not in doubt
as can be seen from the
fol lowing examples.
19 ... t!Je7
19 ... .Q.xc3 20 .Q.xc3 bS 21
Vhf1 �e4 22 .Q.aS fha7 23
.Q.xd8 �c3+ 24 rt}b2 fhd4-+
 4 .f)c3 Fxe4 5 .f)xe4 dS 6 .f)xeS dxe4 7 .f)xc6 �gS 133

Romanov - Bebchuk, Mos­ but has weaknesses i n his

cow 1962. position. Black h as good
20 4:)a4 {Jg4 chances to organise active
21 .Q.d4 �xd4! counterplay .
22 thxd4 �dB Now two contin uations
23 thg1 4je3 come into consideration:
24 4Jb2 �e4
25 4Jd3 �xd3! B21) 13 c3
0:1 B22) 13 d3
Oliyane - Sanches , Corr­
espondence 1975/76. Al ternatives give White
little, e.g. 13 !J.f7+ !ifid8 1 4
B2 d4 .Q.xd4 1 5 thd2 c 5 1 6 c3
11 4:)e5+ c6 e3! =F Chutger - Selivanov­
12 .Q.c4 .Q.cS sky, Moscow 1956, or 13 d4
12 . . . .,Cte6 13 b3 (13 c3 !J.e7 !J.xd4 14 !J.f7+ ( 1 4 !J.e3 !J.xe5!
!:::. 1 4 . . . 0-0) 13 . . . !J.cS 1 4 15 fxe5 .Q.g4!) 14 . . . �e7 ( 1 4
!J.b2 0-0-0?! ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 is . . . lifid8) 15 !J.e3 !J.xe5 1 6 fxe5
worthy of attention, in !ifixf7 17 exf6 nd8! 18 fxg7
order to answer 15 0-0-0 .o,g4 19 thc4+ !ifixg7 20 �xe4
with 15 . . . bS) IS Q-0-0 nhe8 ne8 21 thf4 �ad8 22 thg5+
16 .Q.xe6+ thxe6 17 �he1 ! h5 !ifih8 23 thf6+ with perpetual,
18 thc4 �d5 19 �f1 �fS 20 Radev - Kirov, Sofia 197 4.
d3±
12 . . . hSI? - see game no. B21
9 Ku ntse l ma n - Nesterenko. 13 c3
E uwe's recommendation.

White has an extra paw n,

134 4 fJc3 fxe4 5 fJxe4 dS 6 fJxeS dxe4 7 fJxc6 tl/gS
13 ... .a_f51
13 . . . 4Jg4? 14 d4 4Jxe5 15
fxe5 .a_e7 16 �f1! .a_f5 17 �f2!
�f8 18 .a_e3 0-0-0 19 �f1! ±
Bagirov - S hahtahtinsky,
Correspondence 1966.
14 d4
On 14 b4 Black answers
1 4 . . . .a_bo . The correspond­
ence game Ko larov - Boey,
1971 contin ued 15 b5 (better
looks 15 .a_a3 0-0-0 16 0-0-0
4Jg4 17 b5 as in the game
Bak - Hebe l , Berlin 1975 but
then with 17 . . . cxb5! 18
.a_xb5 4jf2! Black obtains
good cou n terchances) 15 . . .
0-0-0 1 6 bxc6 4Jg4! 17 .a_a3
.a_f2+ 18 \tild1 4Jxe5 19 �xf2
e3! and Black has real
threats.
14 ... exd3
15 4Jxd3+
15 .a_xd3 0-0-0 16 .a_xf5+
(16 .a_e3? .a_xd3 17 4Jxd3
�xd3! 18 �xd3 .a_xe3 19 �ft
�e6 0 : 1 Krasov - Lipsky,
Slyupsk 1977) 16 . . . �xf5 17
.a_e3 �e4 18 \tilf2 �xe3+ 19
�xe3 �d2+ 20 \tilf3 .a_xe3 21
\tilxe3 �xb2 1f.l : 1f.l Leonidov
- Shikirev , Moscow 1977.
15 ... .a_e7
16 4Je5
AI ternatives:
a) 16 4Jf2 �g2 17 �f1 �f3
18 �e2 �g2 led to a draw in
Browne - Kavalek, USA
1973.
b) 16 .a_e3 0-0-0 17 0-0-0
.a,g4 18 �c2 .a_xd1 19 �xd1 b5
20 .a_b3 \tilb7 21 .a,g1 4Jd7 22
�e1 .a_d6 and Black cons­
olidated his extra paw n i n
the correspondence game
Nechesany - Boey, 1976.
c) 16 .a_d2 b5! On Henn­
ings - Westerinen, 1965 the
weak reply 16 . . . 0-0-0? led
to a w hite advantage after
17 0-0-0 4Je4 ( 17 . . . �he8 18
4Jf2} 18 4Jf2 4Jxf2 19 �xf2
\tilb8 20 .a_e3) 17 .a_b3 .a_e4! 18
4Jf2 �g2 19 0-0-0 ( Mele­
geghyi suggests 19 �f1
however after 19 . . . .a_c5 20
�xg2 .a_xg2 21 �g t .a_f3 22
.a_d1 .a_d5 Black has a good
game) 19 . . . .a_c5 20 .a_e3 (20
.a.et? �f3) 20 . . . .a,f3 21 �d3
.a.xd1 22 .a_xc5 ( 22 .a.xd1 �d8
23 �e2 .a.xe3+ 24 �xe3+ \tilf7
25 .a.b3+ 4Jd5 Black's po­
sition is preferable) 22 . . .
.a_xb3 2 3 �et + (23 axb3 �d5
24 �e3+ \tilf7 25 �e7+ \tilg6)
23 . . . \tilf7 24 �e7+ \tilg8 25
axb3 �d5:f
16 .. . o-o-o
17 .a_e3
Others :
17 4Jf7? is a mistake, e.g.
17 . . . .a,g 4! 18 4Jxd8 �xd8!
( Florian).
17 .a_d2 .a_c5 ( 17 ... 4Jg4 18
o-o-o .a_c5!) 18 o-o-o 4Jg4!
 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 (!tgS 13S

( 1 8 . . . nhe8 19 �f1 (19 .Q.f7!

.Q.d3 20 �f3 .Q.e4 2 1 �f1 �fS
22 �c4 .Q.xh 1 23 �xeS �e4
24 �xa7 ne7 2S c4 nxd2 26
nxd2 {)d7 27 .Q.e8!± Sorokin
- Spodny, correspondence
1977 /80) 19 . . . {)e4! 20 t!}xh3
.Q.xh3 21 nhel {)f2+ Cording
Boey, correspondence
196S/66) 19 �f3 {)f2 20 nhel
( Hazai - Sze l l , Budapest
1973) 20 . . . {)xd l ! 21 .Q.a6 net t) 22 . . . nxe3+ 23 �xe3
nds! 22 {)xc6 nd? and ne8 24 �xe8+ twxe8+ 2S iitlf2
White has no compensation twe4 -+
for the sacri ficed material 21 .Q.xe3
( Euwe) . 22 thxe3 �he8
17 ... {)g4 23 fhxa7 .Q.e21
18 {)xg4 24 .Q_xe2 �xe2
18 flxa77 {)xeS 19 fxeS 25 �f2=
.Q.g 4 (a lso good is 19 . . . -'l.,gS Cordi ng - Boey , corres­
20 .Q.e3 .Q.xe3 21 twxe3 twg2) pondence 1974/7S.
20 twe4 �hf8 21 !J.fl -'l.,gS! 22
.Q.d4 twhS 23 .Q.e2 �xd4! 24 B22
cxd4 .Q.xe2 2S fhxe2 �f3 and 13 d3
Black went on to win in This continu ation is re­
Gelensky - Boey, corres­ liable, and for a long time
pondence 1965/66. proved good for White.
18 .Q.xg4
19 thf1 thhS
20 thf2 .Q.cSI

see follo wing diagram

21 o-0!
Capturing with 21 .Q.xc5 is
mistaken, e.g. 21 . . . nhe8+
22 .Q.e3 (22 litlf1 .Q.h3+ 23 litJg1
ndt + 24 nxdl fhxdl + 2S .Q.ft
136 4 fJc3 fxe4 5 fJxe4 dS 6 fJxeS dxe4 7 fJxc6 '/tlgS
13 4Jg4
13 . . . exd31? deserves
attention, e.g. 1 4 4jxd3+
!J.e7 15 4Je5 !J.fS with defin­
ate compensation for the
pawn. In Browne - M inic,
Man n heim 1975, Black play­
ed 13 .. . !J.fS at once and
after 14 !J.e3 exd3 15 !J.xd3
!J.xe3 16 �xe3 4jdS 1 7 !J.xfS
�xfS 18 �d3 0-0 19 �xfS
�xfS 20 4jd3 White had an
extra paw n without any
real compensation for
Black .
14 4Jf71
A strong move. White
gets nothing with 14 d4
!J.xd4 15 �xe4 4Jxe5 16 fxeS.
Karpov - Parma, Ljubliana -
Portoroz 1975 saw 16 . . . �g4
17 �xg4 !J.xg 4 1 8 c3 !J.xeS 19
0-0 0-0-0= Black could
have played more am­
bi tiously, e.g. 16 . . . !J.g4! 17
c3 ( 1 7 �xd4 �d8 18 �e4
�d1+ 19 �f2 �f8+t) 17 . . .
!J.cS 1 8 b4 !J.b6 19 !J.f4 Gudim
- Selivanovsky , Liepaya 1971.
Now with Tal's suggestion
of 19 ... �f8! 20 e6 gS! 2 1 e7
�xf4! 22 gxf4 �xc3+ Black
could have obtai ned a win­
ning position.
Zak has suggested 14
�xe4 as being good for
White, with the fol lowing
analysis - 1 4 . . . 4jf2 15 �e2
(15 !J.f7+ - see game no. 1 0
Heemsoth - Konstantino­
pol sky) 15 . . . 4Jxh 1 16 4Jg6+
�d7! 17 4Jxh8 !J.f2+ (17 . . .
bS!? 1 8 !J.b3 a S l ooks prefer­
ab le) 18 �d2 bS 19 .Q.b3
�xh2 20 �e6+ (20 �c3 aS!)
20 ... �c7 21 �eS+ �b7 (21 . . .
�b6! ? 2 2 'ifjlc3) 2 2 �e7+ �b8!
23 �d6+ and White has
nothing better than repe­
tition , as 23 4Jf7 leads to
better chances for Black
after 23 . .. !J.d4+ 24 �e2
�xe2+ 25 'ifilxe2 !J.g4+.
14 ... !J.f2+
15 'ifjld1 e3
15 . . . 4Je3+ 16 !J.xe3 !J.g4 17
!J.xf2 is unsatisfactory.
White has more than s uff­
icient compensation for the
queen.
16 �f3
16 4Jxh8? is mistaken,
e.g. 16 ... 4jh6! 17 !J.xe3 !J.g4
and Black wins the white
queen in a favourable situa­
tion.
16 ... 4Jf6
Others :
a) 16 ... 4Jxh2 17 �e4+ 'ifjlf8
18 !J.xe3 !J.g4+ 19 �d2 l:!e8 20
4Je5 �xg3 21 !J.xf2 �xf2+ 22
�3 g6 23 �xh2! �xh2 24
�d4 ! + - proved decisive in
Kavalek - Ljubojevic, Am­
sterdam 1975.
b) 16 ... 4Jh61?
 4 4Jc3 fxe4 5 4Jxe4 dS 6 4Jxe5 dxe4 7 4Jxc6 �gS
and White has various
possible responses :
bi ) 1 7 4Jd6+ fiftd7 1 8 .Q.xe3
�g4 and White loses mat­
erial.
bii) 17 4Jxh6 g x h6 1 8 �e4+
fiftf8 19 .Q.xe3 09 c3 bS) 19 . . .
.Q.g 4+ 2 0 fiftd2 ne8 2 1 .Q.xf2
�xe4 22 dxe4 �g2 23 !!hf1
reaches a position w hich
M arie assesses as unclear.
Indeed , after 23 . . . �xe4 24
.Q.c5+ fiftg7 25 .Q.d3 �d5 26
.Q.b4 �e8 27 .Q.c3+ fiftf8 a
situation of dynamic equal­
i ty arises.
biii) 17 4Je5 can l ead to an
i mmediate repetition by 17
... 4Jg4 18 c£jf7, but Black
can try 17 . . . c£jf5, e.g. 18 c3
h5 19 fiftc2 h4, 18 g4 �xf3+ 19
c£jxf3 c£jh4 20 4Je5 4Jg2 or
18 �e4 c£jd6 19 �f3 4Jxc4!?
(19 . . . c£jf5) 20 dxc4 o-o 21
.Q.xe3 .Q.xe3 22 �xe3 �g2
- in all cases with s uffi­
cient compensation for the
137
sacrificed material .
biv) 1 7 �e4+ fiftf8 18 .Q.xe3
.Q.xe3! ( 18 . . . .Q.g4+ 19 fiftd2
ne8 20 4Je5± ) 19 �xe3 c£jxf7
20 �c5+ (20 �e 1 �d7) 20 . . .
fiftg8 21 !!e1 .Q.g 4 + 2 2 fiftd2
�xh2+ 23 fiftc3 ttfh5 24 �eS
�g6 25 lie? �f6+! 26 fiftd2
(26 fiftb3 !!f8 27 �ae1 b5!) 26
. . . nf8 27 !!ae1 h6 28 �xb7
gS!+
17 fS
17 c£jd6+ fiftd7 18 4Jxc8
�e8! led to Black's advan­
tage i n Sunye Neto - Boey,
Nice 1974.
A critical position.
17 ... 4Jd51
17... lif8 18 c£jd6+ (stro­
nger is 18 .Q.xe3! �g4 19
c£jd6+ fiftd7 20 fifte2 �xf3+ 21
�xf3 .Q.xe3 22 4Jxc8 .Q.cS 23
.Q.e6+ fiftc7 24 d 4 .Q.xd4 25 c3
which M arie suggests is
very good for Whi te, but
this assessment shou ld be
chal lenged as after 25 . . .
138 4 f)c3 fxe4 5 f)xe4 dS 6 f)xeS dxe4 7 f)xc6 r!ftgS

4Jd7 26 cxd 4 �axc8 27 .Q.xd7 21 �xdS+ lftxc8

lftxd7 Bl ack preserves 22 lfte2?
chances for a draw) 18 0 0 0 Here it was necessary to
lftd7 1 9 4Jxc8 4Jd5! 2 0 4Je7 beat a retreat and concl ude
(20 .Q.xdS �xfS 21 �e4 the game as a draw with 22
�eS ! ! - + ) 20
0 0 0 �ae8 21 .Q.xdS �eS+ lftd7 23 �d4+ lftc80
cxdS 22 .Q.xe3 .Q.xe3 23 �el White's ambition proves to
�xe 7 24 �xe3 �xe3 25 be immediately fatal .
�xdS+ and this position 22 �g4+
was shortly agreed draw n 23 �f3 �a4
in Nunn - Ru mens, London 24 b3 �d4
19770 25 �b1 �c3
18 .Q.xdS cxdS 0:1
19 4Jd6+ lftd7 Balashov - Hramov, corr­
20 4Jxc8 �e8 espondence 1986/89
11) Illus trative Games

lllustratlve game 1 10 o-o c6

Teichmann - Marshall 11 .Q.c4 f4
Monte Carlo 1903 12 d3 d5!
13 exd6+ rJ;d8!
1 e4 e5
2 4:)f3 4jc6
3 .Q.b5 f5
4 4jc3 4jf6
5 �e2 4jd4
6 4jxd4 exd4
7 e5
In the event of 7 exf5+
B lack must reply 7 . . . .Q.e7 8
4:)e4 0-0 with an initiative
for the sacri ficed paw n. 7
. . . rJ;f?? is a mi stake after This idea of the American
8 �c4+, and 7 . . . �e7 also player Atki ns, was seen for
leads to a White advantage the first time in this game.
after 8 �xe7+ .Q.xe7 9 .£)e2. Black gets an active pos­
7 4jg4 ition for the paw n.
8 h3 4jh6 14 .£)d21
9 .£)b1 Necessary. Bri nging this
9 .£)d t ( Spassky - Bisguier, knight to e4 is an integra l
Goteborg 1955) was ex­ part of the White defence.
am ined in the theoretical 14 ... .Q,xh3
section. 15 �f3 .Q,f5
9 �g5 15 . . . .Q.g4 would obvious-
140 Illustra tive Games

ly be met by 16 c[)e4 .Q.xf3 17 rifices the exchange to

c[)xgS± maintai n the initiative.
16 4je4 .Q.xe4 22 !!xd6! rlixd6
17 dxe4 .Q.xd6 The tempti ng 22 . . . �xd6
18 c3! 23 .Q.xf4 r�icB is refuted by
Black has an extra paw n, 24 .Q.xd6 !!xf3 25 .Q.f4! !..:. 26
bu t his king is held up in .Q.e2.
the centre. White hurries 23 .Q.xf4+ r�ie7
to exploit this by openi ng 24 �e3
the central files. White has a dangerous
18 ... d31 attack as compensation for
Forced. 1 8 . . . dxc3? leads the exchange.
to an i mmediate wi n for 24 ... 4Jg41
White after 19 !!dt rlic7 20 The only defence. Black
!!xd6! commences a counterattack
19 !!d1 r�ic7 agai nst the central point
20 !!xd3 !!hf8 eS.
21 g3 �g6 25 �c5+ r�ie8
26 .Q.g5 �xe4
Again forced.
27 �b41 c[)xf2
Black threatens mate on
h1 and at the same time
defends the queen.
28 rlih2 4Jg4+
29 rlih3 c[)f2+
� =�
It is clear that White
cannot avoid perpetu al
Black now threatens . . . check .
!!ad8 consolidating the
position, fol lowed by the Illustrative game 2
regrou ping of the knight Boleslavsky - Tolush
on h6 to a more relevant Moscow 1957
square.
White must therefore 1 e4 e5
take decisive measures and 2 4Jf3 4Jc6
to this end Teichmann sac- 3 .Q.b5 f5
 Illustrative Games 14 t

4 4Jc3 4Jf6 i tiative.

5 exfS 4Jd4 14 �xeS!
6 .a_a4 .a,cs 15 .a_xeS .Qg 4
Boleslavsky l ater ad­ 16 �d2
mitted that the opening Feeling seriously threat­
employed by Tol u s h came ened by the danger to his
as a complete surprise to k i ng , Boleslavsky returns
hi m. the exchange intending to
7 d3 o-o simplify . The attempt to
Black's seventh i s a flex­ hold on to the extra mat­
ible conti n u atio n . Now if 8 erial wou ld have been mis­
4Je4 there may follow 8 . . . gu ided , e.g. 16 .Q.xd4 .O.xd4
4Jxe4 9 dxe4 dS! with a 17 c3 £.lb6 18 d4 4Je4! 19 �ft
dangero us i ni tiative. (19 f3 .Q.xf3 20 gxf3 �gS+ 21
a o-o ds 4Jg3 c[Jxg3 22 hxg3 �xg3+ - +)
9 4Jxe5 .a_xfS 19 . . . .Q.c7 20 �d3 £,lxh2+ 21
10 �5 �d6 �xh2 �h4+ 22 �gl c[Jxf2 23
As seen earlier, tO c6 �xf2 �xf2+ 24 �h t �f6 25
is more preci se. c[Jgt �h6+ 26 4Jh3 �xh3+ 27
11 �e1 c6 gxh3 .Q.f3+ -+
12 £,lh4 �ae8 16 c[Jxe2+
13 �3 �dB 17 �xe2 £,lxe2
14 4Je2 18 �xe2

The fol low i n g u nexpec­ White seems to have

ted , but wel l-founded ex­ good chances to repulse
change sacrifice, enables the enemy threats and
Black to deve lop the in- retai n an extra paw n, but
142 Illustrative Games

B lack is better developed 8 dS

and i m mediate ly exploits 9 �f3
this. Too late. Now Black can
18 . . . �e41 develop the initiative with­
19 �f11 out hi ndrance. For 9 d3
Thi s is forced, as 19 dxe4 �xfS see the prev ious
�xf2 20 �xf2 �xf2+ 21 fitjlxf2 game.
�b6+ ! 22 fitjlf3 �b4 wins for 9 �xfS
Black and 19 d4 �xf2 20 10 c£)xd4 �xd4
�g4 �e? is also u nattrac­ 11 c£)e2
tive. There is nothing better
19 �xf2 as after 11 c£)bS �4 12 �e1
20 �xf2 �xf2+ �e8 White loses the queen,
21 fitjlf1 �fB I and i f 11 d3 �g 4! with a
Now Whi te must capture tremendous attack. How­
the enemy k night res u l ting ever the move played al so
in an eq ual ending. fai ls to so lve all White's
22 dxe4 �d4+ di fficu I ties .
23 �f3 �xeS 11 �4
1.2 : 1.2 12 �e l c6!
After 24 �xf8+ fitilxf8 25 With the aim of elimin­
exdS cxdS 26 �b3! the draw ating the bis hop's infl uence
is obvious. on e8. If now 13 4Jxd4? then
13 . . . �e8, and on 13 h3? w i l l
Illustrative game 3 fol low 13 . . . �xe2 14 �xe2
Dlaz Salkedo
- c£)e4 threatening . . . c£)g3.
Correspondence 198S 13 c3 !!e8
14 �d1
1 e4 eS
2 4Jf3 �c6
3 �bS fS
4 4Jc3 �f6
S exfS �cs
6 o-o o-o
7 �xeS �d4
8 �a4
As seen earl ier, 8 �f3 at
once is preferable.
 Illustrative Games 1 43

Bad is 1 4 cxd4 because of 20 4Jg41

14 . . . .Q.xe2 and White s uf­ 21 �ae1 4Jxf2!
fers materi al loss. 22 �xe2 4Jh3+
14 ... �e6 23 !iftg2 �xe2+
Thi s i s more exact than 24 !iftxh3 �e6+
1 4 . . . .Q.xe2 1S .Q.xe2 ti!Je7 16 25 g4 h5!
cxd4 tt!Jxe2 17 ti!Jxe2 �xe2 18 26 �g1 ti!Jf7!!
d3. Black fo llows the wel l ­ 0:1
known pri nciple that, w hen
attacking, the q ueen should Illustrative game 4
be placed behind the rook. Chlburdanidze -
15 cxd4 .Q,xe2 Gaprlndashvlll
16 �xe2 ti!Je7 Rostov 1980
17 d3
17 f3 cijhS! 1 e4 e5
17 �xe2 2 4Jf3 4Jc6
18 ti!Jc3 ti!Jd61 3 �b5 f5
An improvement over 1 8 4 4Jc3 4Jd4
. . . �e8 19 .Q.f4! ( Grinberg 5 o-o 4Jxb5
- Szmetan, Argentinian C h . The u sual move here i s S
1973) w hen White wil l fol­ . . . c6. Black decided instead
low up with the usefu l to remove the 'Spani sh'
bl ockading move .Q.eS. bis hop - a deci sion that led
19 g3 to di fficu l ties.
19 .Q.e3 l oses to 19 . . . �e8 6 4Jxb5 fxe4
20 �ae1 (20 h3 �8xe3! 21 6 . . . d6 can be met by 7
fxe3 ti!Jg3) 20 ... 4Jg 4! 21 g3 exfS! �xfS 8 d4 e4 9 4JgS
�8xe3! 22 fxe3 �xh2 23 �f3 and if 9 . . . h6 then 10 4Jxe4
ti!Jh6 with an i nevi table .Q.xe4 1 1 �et ±
mate. 7 4Jxe5
19 �ae8
20 �5? see follo wing diagram
Losing, but after the
comparatively better 20 It is only necessary to
.a,f4 ti!Je6 21 �eS 4Jg 4 22 �ae1 gl ance at this position to
4JxeS! 23 dxeS �xeS 24 real ise that with the White
�xeS tfJxeS Black s tands lead i n devel opment, Black
very wel l . will experience di fficu l ties
144 Illustra tive Games

here. With an extra paw n and

7 0,e7 better position, White has
7 . . . 0,f6 8 c£:)g4! fle7 (8 . .
. a decisive advantage. The
4:Jxg 4 9 �xg4 dS tO �hS+) 9 remai nder is a moppi ng u p
c£:)xf6+ flxf6 tO �hS+ �f8 ( t O operation.
. . . g6 tt �dS) tt �cS+ d6 12 18 �d7
�xc7± Psakhis -
Koz lov, 19 4:Je6 �f7
1980. 20 d4 t!cB
8 �hS+ g6 21 c3 b6
9 �h4 flg7 22 flgS cS
10 �f4 23 flxf6 �xf6
Before capturi ng the 24 �eS 1:0
paw n , White deprives her
opponent of the righ t to Illustrative game 5
castle. Karpov - Mark Tseitlln
10 �f8 Leningrad 1971
11 �xe4 d6
12 c£:)f3 !J.fS 1 e4 eS
13 �c4 c6 2 c£:)f3 4Jc6
14 4Jbd4 dS 3 flbS fS
15 �e2 �d7 4 4jc3 4Jd4
16 4Jxf5 �xfS 5 fla4 4Jf6
17 t!e1 !J.f6 6 4Jxe5 fxe4
18 4Jd4 7 o-o flcS
At the ti me of this game
it was not yet known that
Black can obtain good play
 Illustrative Games 1 45

with the un usual move 7 . . . 'i:ttx h8 18 !!e8+! �xeS 19

.Q.d6! �xf6+ and mate next move)
8 4jxe4 4jxe4 17 !!e3 and Black cannot
9 �h5+ g6 take the knight because of
10 4Jxg6 18 !!aet .Q.d6 19 �e8.
16 �e5!

10 . . . 4Jf6?
This i s already the dec­ Now Black's king is tied
isive mistake. Necessary to the defence of the
was 10 . . . �gS! 11 �xgS bishop at e7 and his
4JxgS 12 �e1 + 4Jge6! (com­ position is hopel ess .
mentators had only con­ 16 ... 4Jg8
sidered 12 . . . 4jde6? here) 13 There i s nothing better,
4Jxh8 bS 1 4 .Q.b3 'i:ttf B and e.g. 16 . . . �b6 17 �h6+ 'i:tte 8
Black w i l l get cou nterplay . 18 �gS.
11 �e5+1 .Q_e7 17 �h5 'i:ttg 7
12 4jxh8 b5 18 4jf7 �e8
13 �xd4 bxa4 19 �h6+ 4Jxh6
14 �e1 'i:ttfB 20 �xh6+ 'i:ttxf7
15 d3 Black at last captures
Now that the knigh t on the enemy knight, but finds
h8 i s i nv u l nerable, White his king exposed to a
has a material and pos­ mating attack.
itional advantage . 21 �xh7+ 'i:ttf8
15 ... �bB 22 !!e3 !!b6
15 . . 'i:ttg 7 would be met
. 23 !!g31 1:0
by 16 .Q.f4! d6 ( 16 . . . �f8 17
�e3! ; 16 . . . .Q.d6 17 .Q_h6+!
1 46 Illustra tive Games

Illustrative game 6 - Gartner, 1980/82, where

Kalegin - Mik. Tseitlin the contin uation 15 �g 1
Ryazan 1986 �ae8 16 t/Jxf8+ �xf8 17 .a_a3
�e8 1 8 �aft t/Jxd2 19 gxh3
1 e4 eS t!Ja5 20 .a_d6 led to a White
2 4:)f3 ci)c6 victory . Obviously hoping
3 �bS fS to em ulate this success, he
4 4Jc3 fxe4 chose to repeat this var­
5 4Jxe4 4:)f6 iation, but was met by an
6 4jxf6+ t!Jxf6 unpleasant surprise.
7 tft1e2 �e7 16 tt1xf8!
8 o-o 4Jd4 Here is the val ue of
9 4Jxd4 exd4 home preparation! This
10 r!e1 c6 significant i m provement
11 �d3 dS was voted one of the best
12 b3 o-o twelve theoretical nove l­
13 t!Jxe7 t!Jxf2+ ties of Informa tor 41. Now
14 C(lth1 .a_h3 White has to solve difficu l t
15 r!g1 �ae 8 problems at t h e board.
16 t/1xf8+ 17 �f1 .a_xg2+
18 C{ltxg2 t!Jd61
Precisely the right
moment. In the as yet un­
published correspondence
game Rabinovich - Sauer­
man 1981/86, Bl ack played
the inferior 18 . . . tt1e7 and
after 19 .a_b2 t/Jg5+ 20 C(lth1 c5
21 �f5 White was better.
19 .a_b2 cS
20 �f2
The psycho logical back­ E xchanging rooks by 20
ground to this game is �ae 1 �xe1 21 �xel t/Jf4 does
interesti ng. On his fi fteen­ not reduce Black's press-
th move, White cou ld have ure .
forced a draw with 15 g xh3, 20 . . . �f8!
but Kalegin knew the corr­ A difficult decision.
espondence game Yavorsky After long thoug ht, Black
 Illustra tive Games 1 47

concluded that i t w as now to a decisive advantage for

neces sary to exchange one B lack.
pair of rooks as after 20 . . . 29 ... �gS+
bS 2 1 .Q.xbS (or 2 1 �aft c4 22 30 lt;f1
.Q.fS g6) 21 . . . t!Yg6+ 22 lt/h 1 30 lt,ilht t/JfS 31 lt/g2 gS!
t!Ye4+ 23 �g2 the position is 30 . . . t!JfS
unclear, and 20 . . . c4 21 31 �f2 t!Jxc2!
bxc4 t!Yb6 22 .Q.a3 t!Ya6 23 32 d3
�e1 ! leads to good p lay for 32 .Q.xdS+ lt/h7 33 .Q.xd4
White. �d3+
21 �aft �xf2+ 32 ... �b1+!
22 �xf2 b5 33 lt;g2 c3!
The bishop is stuck out
of play .
3 4 .Q.a3 lt;g7
35 .Q.xd5 gS
36 X!f1 t!Jxd3
37 .Q.ct t!Je2+!
38 lt;g1 t5Yg4+
39 lt;h1 d3
40 .Q.f3 t!Jf5
41 .Q.e3 t!Je5
42 .(l,c5 c2
23 b4 43 .Q.xh5 d2
23 .Q.xbS? t!Yg6+ 24 lt;ft 0:1
t5Yxc2 . The appearance of a new
23 . . . c4 queen is inevitable.
24 .Q.f5 g6
Not 24 . . . t/JeS? because Illustrative game 7
of 25 .Q.xd4! t/Jxd4 26 .Q.e6+. Fischer - Matulovlc
25 .Q.g4 t!Je5 Herzeg - Novl
26 .Q.f3 h51 (International Blitz
27 �e2 t!Yg5+ Tournament) 1970
28 lt;h1 t!Jf5
29 lt;g2 1 e4 e5
29 .Q.g2 t5Yxc2 30 .Q.xdS+ 2 c£)£3 4Jc6
lt/h7 31 ,t!e7+ �h6 32 .Q.xd4 3 .Q.b5 f5
t!Yd1 + 33 .Q.gt cJ! also leads 4 c[Jc3 fxe4
148 Illustrative Games
5 4Jxe4 dS !!f6+ �g7 20 �gS+
6 4Jxe5 dxe4 18 .Q.xd7 · �xd7
7 4Jxc6 �gS 19 !!f7+ �e8
8 �e2 4Jf6 A better chance appears
9 f4 �xf4 to be 19 . . . .Q.e7 20 0-0-0
10 d4 �h4+ �e8. However, after 21 �fS!
11 g3 �h3 �f8 22 �xeS �f7 (worse is
12 .Q.gSI 22 . . . �h6+ 23 �b 1 �f7 {23 . . .
The strongest contin­ ttJd6 2 4 '/fJxh7} because o f 24
uation. Meeti ng this var­ �e6!) 23 �e1 '/fJh6+ 24 �b1
iation for the first time, '/fJd6 2S '/fJxb7 �dB 26 ttJe4
Fischer demons trates that White has a large advan­
after 12 �S! Bl ack is tage.
struggl i ng to eq uali se. 20 �xc7 .Q.d6
12 a6 21 �xb7 �c8
13 .Q.a4 .Q.d7 22 o-o-o '/fJxh2
14 .Q.xf6 gxf6 2J dxeS .Q.e7
15 �xe4+ �f7
1S . . . '/fJe6 16 �xe6+ .Q.xe6
17 0-0! ±

Wi th three paw ns for the

piece and an enduring
attack, White is winning.
Fischer now sacrifices a The fol l ow i ng exchange
piece for a strong attack sacrifice is the quickest
against the enemy k i ng. way to end the struggle.
16 4Je5+1 fxeS 24 �xe7+1 �xe7
17 �f1+ �e7 25 ttJb7+ �6
17 . . . � g?? lost at once i n 26 �d7+ �xeS
view of 1 8 �xeS+ � h6 19 27 �dS+ �f6
 1//ustrative Games 1 49

28 �f1+ CitiJg6 18 .Q.b2 h4

29 t(1e6+ CitiJg5
30 .r;tf5+ CitiJg4
31 .r;tf4+ Citilxg3
32 t(1g4#

Illustrative game 8
Estrin - Nelshtadt
Correspondence 1963/64

1 e4 e5
2 4Jf3 4Jc6
3 .a,b5 f5
4 4Jc3 fxe4
5 4Jxe4 dS 19 o-o-o
6 4Jxe5 dxe4 Best was 19 g4!±
7 4Jxc6 t(1g5 19 ... hxg3
8 t(1e2 4Jf6 20 hxg3 .r;txh1
9 f4 t(1h4+ 21 .r;txh1 b5
10 g3 t(1h3 Not 21 . . . �xa2 22 !ittc 2 .:.:...
11 4Jxa7+ .Q.d7 X!at.
12 .a,xd7+ t(1xd7 22 4Je5 t(1xa2
13 4JbS o-o-o 23 4Jxc6
Our earl ier analysis 23 !ittc 2 .Q.a3 24 �b 1 �h8!
shows that 13 . . . c6 is not !::,
..• �h 1
worse for Black. 23 ... Citilc71
14 b3 c6?1 A very s trong and un­
A ques tionable move. expected move. 23 . . . .Q.a3
The best here is 14 . . . .Q.cS 15 would have been answered
.Q.b2 4Jg4 2iS by 24 4Ja7+! with a winning
15 4Ja31 t(1d4 position
16 c3 t(1a7 24 4Jxd8 .Q.a3
17 4Jc4 25 4Je6+ �d6
A l though Black has some 26 d3 t(1a1+
play , the two paw n deficit 27 Citild2 �xb2+
means that White is for 28 Citile3 t(1xc3
preference . 29 f5 �e5
17 ... h5 30 �f21
150 Illustra tive Games
3 !,lbS fS
4 4jc3 fxe4
5 4Jxe4 dS
6 {)xeS dxe4
7 4Jxc6 �gS
8 �e2 4Jf6
9 f4 �h4+
10 g3 �h3
11 4Je5+ c6
12 !,lc4 hSI?
The main con tin uation.
White plans to jettison as analysed earl ier, is 12 . . .
some extra material to .Q.c5. With the aggressive
regain the initiative. text, Black i ntends to
30 �xfS+ launch a fierce attack ag­
31 4Jf4 gS ai nst the enemy position,
32 dxe4 �cS+ involving sacrifices if nec­
After 32 . . . 4Jxe4+ 33 �f3 essary
4Jxg3 Whi te can get a 13 4Jf7?1
winning position w ith 34 The novelty already
�d2+ �c6 35 �h6+ �b7 36 begi ns to take effect. This
�xg3 gxf4+ 37 �xf4 move al lows Black to carry
33 �3 gxf4 out a bold and u nexpected
34 gxf4 �c6 rook sacri fice. Later it was
35 �d3+ �e7 discovered that now is the
36 �d4 !,ld6 correct moment to remove
37 �at !,lb8 the king from the danger
38 b4 �e6 zone, e.g. 13 d3! h4 14 !,le3!
39 eS �h3+ hxg3 1 5 0-0-0! gxh2 ( 15 . . .
t.2 : t.2 !.lg 4 16 dxe4 !,lhS 1 7 hxg3
�xh1 18 !!xh1 !,lxe2 19 !,lf7+
Illustrative game 9 �dB 20 �xh8± Slyunt­
Kuntselman - Nesterenko sevsky - Wi l l em , Hol l and
Correspondence 1975/76 1980) 16 dxe4 !,le7 17 �d3±
Liberzon - Wockenfuss, Bad
1 e4 eS Lauterberg 1977.
2 4Jf3 4Jc6 13 ... h41
 Illustrative Games 151

15 4Jxh8 gxh2
16 �h1 .Q.cS
17 �xh2
17 �xh2 would run into 17
. . . t!Jg3+ 18 �f2 .Q.g4 19 �f1
.Q.h3 20 t!Je2 0-0-0 with
decisive threats , e.g. 21 �f7
�g4 22 .Q.e6+ rJ;;c 7 23 .Q.xg 4
.Q.xg4 24 thfl e3! - +

14 �g1
Nesterenko's idea has
received one further prac­
tical test i n Hangl i - Menne,
Oslo 1978: 1 4 �xh8 h xg3 15
�g6 ( 15 �g 1 leads to the
main vari ation) 15 . . . .Q.c5 16
d4 .Q.xd4 17 .Q.e3 .Q.g4 1 8
.Q.xd4 and now w i t h 1 8 . . .
.Q.xe2 19 .Q.xe2 �dB ! Black 17 ... .Q.f2+1 !
cou l d play for the advan­ A bri l l iant move re­
tage gai ning material equal ity
Better than 18 .Q.xd 4 is 1 8 and preserving a dangerous
�d2 when play can con­ initiative.
tinue 18 . . . g2! ( 1 8 . . . .Q.xe3 19 18 t!Jxf2
�xe3 .Q.f3 20 �d2! ( 20 t!Jc5? 18 �xf2 �g4+
0-0-0 2 1 �e5 �g2! 22 .Q.e6+ 18 �d1 -'1g4+ 19 .Q.e2 .Q.xe2+
l:Id7 23 .Q.xd7+ �xd7- + } 20 20 �xe2 thf3+ 21 �f1 -'1g3+ - +
. . . .Q.xh 1 21 �xg3= ) 19 l:Ig1 18 �xh1+
.Q.xe3 20 �xg2 (the temp­ 19 .Q.f1 t!Jxh8
ting 20 �d6? loses imm- 20 d3 .Qg 4
ediately to 20 . . . .Q.f2+ 21 21 .Q.e2 o-o-o
�xf2 t!Jf3+) 20 ... .Q.xg 1 21 Black has succeeded in
t!Jxg1 0-0-0 22 �xa7 �xh2 regaining the sacrificed
23 t!Ja8+ �c7 24 t!JaS+ w ith material and now has a
perpetual check . winning i ni tiative.
14 ... hxg3 22 .Q.d2 �e8
152 Illustra tive Games

23 .a_xg4+ c£)xg4
24 �g1 �h4+
25 \tle2
25 \tldt c£)f2+ 26 \tid e3 27
.a_et �xf4-+
25 ... exd3+
0:1
A splendid game.

Illustrative game 10
Heemsoth ­
Konstantlnopolsky 15 ... \tld8
Vidmar Memorial 15 . . . \tle7 can lead to the
Correspondence fol l ow ing play: to �c4 .a_bo
Tourn81Dent 1976/78 17 �f1 �xh2! 18 �b4+ (18
.a,g 8 �xg3!; 1 8 .a_d2 �xg3!)
1 e4 e5 1 8 . . . cS 19 �d2 c£)g 4 20
2 c£)f3 c£)c6 �xh2 c£)xh2 21 �h1 c£)g 4 22
3 .a_b5 f5 c£)xg4 \tlxf7 23 ciJeS+ \tlf6
4 c£)c3 fxe4 and al though White has an
5 c£)xe4 d5 extra paw n, Black has good
6 c£)xe5 dxe4 chances for the draw .
7 c£)xc6 �g5 16 �c4 .a_b6
8 �e2 c£)f6 17 �f1
9 f4 �h4+
10 g3 �h3
11 c£)e5+ c6
12 .a_c4 .a_c5
13 d3 c£)g4
14 �xe4 c£)f2
15 .a_f7+
For IS �e2 see the theo­
retical section .

see follo wing diagram

B lack c learly has serious
15 ... \tld8 di fficul ties and it is not
15 . . . \tle7 can lead to the easy for him to fi nd a
 Illustrative Games 153

satisfactory defence. 4:)xg 4 .Q.xg 4 25 �del±

17 4:)g4 The text move doesn't
The correspondence game save Black either.
Koni kow ski - Ross, 1977 18 4:)xg4 �xg4
saw 17 . .. �xh2 18 �b4 rJ;c7 19 fSI �xc4
( 1 8 . . . cS would be met by 19 19 . . . .Q.x fS 20 �f4 �h3 21
�d2 4:)g 4 20 �xh2 4:)xh2 21 �h 4 �g2 22 .Q.gS+ rJ)d7 23
�h1 4:)g4 22 4:)g6 ! +-) 19 .Q.e3! 0-0-0 with an easi ly win­
4:)g4 (of course not 19 . . . ning position for White.
.Q.xe3? 2 0 �e7+) 2 0 .Q.xb6+ 20 .Q.gS+ rJ;c7
axb6 21 �e7+ rJ)b8 22 �d6+ ! 21 .Q.xc4
( not 2 2 0-0-0 w hen 2 2 . . . . . . and with two extra
�aS! eq uali ses the chances) paw ns, White won easily.
22 . . . rJ;a7 23 0-0-0 �xg3 24 1:0
Index of Variations

1 e4 eS
2 4Jf3 4Jc6
3 .Q.bS fS
4 4Jc3
4 exf5 9
4 0-0 9
4 �� 9
4 �2 �4 D
4 . . . fxe4 5 .Q.xc6 13
5 ��4 �
4 d3 fxe4 5 dxe4 4Jf6 6 0-0 .Q.c5 20
6 . . . d6 25
4 . . . 4jf6 5 0-0 31
5 exffi �
4 d4 fxe4 5 .Q.xc6 37
5 4Jxe5 others 41
5 4Jxe5 4Jxe5 6 dxe5 c6 7 4Jc3 cxb5
8 4Jxe4 d5 9 exd6 4jf6 10 0-0 44
tO �d4 45
tO .Qg5 46
4 fxe4
4 . . . .Q.c5 50
4 . . . .Q.b4 50
4 . . . 4jf6 5 �e2 4jd4 51
5 . . . .Q.c5 52
5 exf5 e4 54
5 ... .Q.c5 56
5 ... 4jd4 63
 Index of Variations t55

4 . . . 4:)d4 5 exf5 68
5 4:Jxe5 70
5 �4 n
5 0-0 75
5 �4 n
5 4:Jxe4 dS
5 . . . fJ.e7 81
5 . . . 4:)f6 6 4:)xf6+ thxf6 7 0-0 85
7 the2 87
6 the2 the 7 90
6 . . . d5 93
6 4:Jxe5
6 4:Jg3 others 98
6 . . . !J.g4 7 h3 fJ.xf3 8 thxf3 4:Jf6 9 c4 101
9 0-0 102
9 4:)h5 105
6 dxe4
7 4:Jxc6 thgS
7 . . . bxc6 108
7 . . . thd5 8 c4 thd6 9 c5 110
9 thh5 112
9 4:Jxa7+ fJ.d7 tO fJ.xd7+ thxd7:
tt 4:Jb5 114
tt thh5+ 116
8 the2 4:Jf6
9 f4 thh4+
9 . . . thx f4 tO 4:Jxa7+ 122
to d4 123
to 4:Je5+ 125
10 g3 thh3
11 4:Je5+
t t 4:Jxa7+ 130
11 ... c6
12 .Q.c4 .Q.cS
D cl m
13 d3 /35
�¥1� Chess enthusiasts, MAKE A
subscribe to
WINNING MOVE ­
Maxwell Macmillan Chess and
receive 12 issues packed with interesting,
infonnative and entertaining articles. Whatever
your level there will be something for you in .

Maxwell Macmillan Chess.

! Articles by International Grandmasters

eg. KasfHlrov, Speelman and Mednis
! Opening Theory
! Tournament Reports

! How good is your chess?

! Book reviews and much more

As a Subscriber your benefits include:

• A FREE entry into the monthly £50 voucher draw
• S% Discount on all orders for Chess books and
products (.-.,..-;or.,_)
• Exclusive monthly offers

So MAKE YOUR WINNING MOVE and Sla't subscribing IOday. Simply send your
name and address together wilh payment to: MuweU MacmUlan Chess, London
Road, Wheatley, Ox ford, Oxon, OX9 1 YR, Engbnd.
_
SUBSCRIPTION nATES

For 12 i1111e1:
UK .t. Ewupc £21.9S
USA (Air .t. Slllfaa:) $44.9S
Canada (Air .t. Sutfaa:) $64.SO
Rat ol World (Air .t. Slllfaa:) £36.9S
Rat of World (SIIIfaa:) £22.9S
Wc iiCIOOf' chajua, paotalllnancy onion or ACCESS/VISA/AIIIEX. For ....!it urd
paymatla plcuc q"""' canl numbor utd upil)' date.