Budapest gambit

Budapest Gambit OTTO BORIK Translated by Les Blackstock B.T.Batsford Ltd, London F i rst published i n German Budape...

Author: Otto Borik

538 downloads 5384 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Budapest Gambit OTTO BORIK Translated by Les Blackstock

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

F i rst published i n German Budapester Gambit 1 985 © Edition Madler im Walter Rau Verlag, Dusseldorf 1 985 First English edition 1 986 English translation © B.T. Batsford Ltd 1 986 as

ISBN 0 7 1 34 5297 8 (1imp)

Photoset by Andek Printing, London and pri nted in G reat Britain by Billing & Son Ltd, Worcester, for the publishers B. T.Batsford L td, 4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W I H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK Adviser: R . D. Keene GM, O B E Technical Editor: P.A. Lamford

Contents VI

Foreword

VIII

Symbols

IX

Acknowledgments

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de li::lg4 1

The Knight System 4 li::lf3

2

The Bishop System 4 i.f4

21

3

The Alek hine System 4 e4

32

4

Rare Systems

55

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 3 de li::le4 5

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction

6

Fajarowicz 4

'fl

moves on the d-file

58 62

7

Fajarowicz 4 11fc2

6H

8

Fajarowicz 4 li::lf3 and others

85

1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 eS 9

Declining the Gambit

93

Foreword What should one play with Black? Every chessplayer has asked himself this question. Should one follow the greats and base one's own repe rtoire on, say, t he World Champion? Or should one adopt some aggressive variation to surprise the opponent? The following considerations speak in favour of t he second possibility: Professionals have a lot of time to study countless variations and refine them deep i n to the middlegame. F u rt hermore, chess masters are 'transparent' inasmuch as their games are regularly published. The result of this is that they play o nly established variations which have been examined in detail; the consumption of time for this is considerable. For the 'normal' league and tournament player the problem is quite different. He has not the advantage of ample time available for study, but also not the disadvantage t hat his own games are too well known and can be closely examined by his opponent. So he can play more enter prisingly and employ the element of surprise. A nd so we arrive at t he theme of this book. Every yea r hundreds of master games are published which open, for example, with t he Benoni. If you play t he Benoni it can easil y happen that your opponent has just discovered a novelty in a magazine and uses it against you . Suddenly, instead of your (possibly weaker) opponent, you must struggle against Grand master X, which seldom turns out well. The Budapest Gambit and Fajarowicz Gambit - the subjects of this book - are little played nowadays i nternationally; well i nformed professionals are hard to surprise there. At other levels, roughly up to 2200, one can be successfu l in many games with this surprise weapon , particularly if one i s familiar with the most i mportant ideas and combinations in this book. And if one meets a well-informed opponent (who k nows this variation and perhaps has also read this book) then one

m ust put up with a slight but defendable disadvantage; o ne also has to do that in many other openings with Black. With this in mind: much success, and above all m uch fun with the combinational, fascinating Budapest/ Fajarowicz Gambit! Olio Borik

Symbols + +

=

=

+

± � ±± H 00

!! !? ?! ? ?? corres 01 IZ L Ch l;lf

Check Slight advantage Clear advantage Winning advan tage Level position Unclear position Good move Ou tstandi ng move Interesting move Dubious move Weak move Blunder Correspondence Olympiad I nterzonal League Championship Semi-final

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Les Blackstock who updated the German original and checked t he proofs, and Bob Wade who provided valuable new material.

1

The Knight System 4 ltJf3 1

2 3 4

d4 c4 de lt:JrJ ( I )

tt:Jr6 eS lt:Jg4

I B

occasion ally appear: a) 4 ... d6? is an illogical gambit. The mai n idea of t h e Budapest Gambit consists above all in t he act ive post i n g of Blac k's KN on eS, at t he same t i me regai n i n g t h e sacrificed paw n . The move ... d6 only furt hers Black's development slightly, as t h e bishop is more act ive on c5 or b4 t h an on d6. A fter 5 ed i. xd6 6 lt:Jc3 0-0 7 e3 lt:Jc6 8 i.e2 i. f5 9 0-0 B lack has no compensation for t h e sacri ficed pawn, e.g. 9 ... �f6 10 h3 lt:Jgc5 II li:Jd4 ll:ad8? ( I I . .. i.g6? 12 f4 li:ld 7

Wit h t h is move White simul taneou sly protects the pawn on e5

13 f5; II ... i.d7 12 li:Jdb5 followed by 13 4Jxd6 ±. and finally II ..

and con t in u es h i s development.

li:lxd4 12 cd lt'Jg(l 13 c5 i.e7 14

This quiet con t i n u ation i s most

li:ld5) 12li:ld5 'tWg6 13 ..th S I-Uma

commonly played in t h e middle

simultaneous game.

and lower echelons of chess , but

b) 4 ... i.b4 + . This move has "no

also appears sometimes in i n ter

independent significance as it leads

national tou rn aments.

by transpo sition of moves to a

Black now has two import ant

position considered in t h e next

cont i nuat i ons at his disposal:

few pages.In all practical examples

A 4 ... lt:Jc 6 B 4 . . . ..tcS

... li:lc6 and ... li:lg(c)xe5 are played

In practice t w o other moves

later, rea<.:hin g a basi<.: position of A I (4 ... 4'1<.:6).

2

The Knight System 4 li:Jf3 n ament in Israel.

A

li:Jc6

4

G ame I G utman-Shvidler Beersheva 1982

Black delays a decision on the development of his KB and im mediately attacks the pawn on e5. Some theoretical works regard this

(I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 it:lf3

move as dubious, but some recent

li:Jc6 5 e3 .ib4+ 6 .id2)

analysis by Hungarian and Swedish masters h as proved its viability. White can defend his attacked pawn by 5 \!kd5 or 5 i.f4. These both lead to v ariations considered later: For 5 \!kd5 see Chapter 4: Rare 4th move continu ations by White. After I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 \!kd5, we reach the present position 5 .if4 transposes to positions

Better was 14 li:Jd5 as after 14 ... pressure down the c-file against by 15 ... l:lad8 is safer, t h ough

We now examine:

A I S e3 .ib4+ (and vanatwns with a later ... .ib4)

A2 S e3 li:JgxeS A3 S .igS AI .ib4+

White now has three possibilities:

All 6 .id2 Al2 6 li:Jc3 Al3 6 li:Jbd2 All 6

.ixd2+ 0-0 li:JcxeS li:JxeS d6 .ig4 .ie6 \!kh4

the pawn on c7. 14 . . . c 6 followed

treated in Chapter 2.

e3

\!kxd2 .ie2 li:JxeS 0-0 li:Jc3 f3 b3 f4

.ixd5 15 cd White exerts strong

with 4 ... li:Jc6 5 li:Jf3.

S

6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14

.id2

White still has the more comfort able game.

14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s

.ixg4 li:JbS e4 li:Jc3 l:lael l:le3 \Wd4 life I li:Jxe4 li:Jg3 rs (2J

li:Jg4 \!kxg4 1Hc8 .id7 .ic6 lie S '1Vd7 rs fe lH8 l:lae8

An interesting game with this

25 '1Vxa7? 1:1aM 26'1Vd4l:lxa2 and

continuation was played a few

now 27 1Ie7 fails to 27 ... l:lxg2+

years ago in an international tour-

28 'ii?f l '1Vg4.

The Knighl Sys1em 4 li:Jf3 41 42

�xe4 cd 0- 1

3

dS cd

Al2

25 lh:e3 b6 26 �xe3 �e8 27 �e6 28 �h5 1!rf7 29 't!rg4 The situation seems critical for Black, but only if viewed super ficially. He can easily defend g7 and with his nex t move removes the threat of li'l f6+. 29 'it>f8 30 �f4 �d7 'tt x e8 31 llxe8+ 32 'it>fl? White parries the threat of . . . 't!re I mate but loses a pawn. He had to play 32 li'le6+ �xe6 33 fe with a probable draw. 32 1!rf7 33 h4 1!t'x f5 34 't!rf3 c6 35 g4 't!rc5+ 36 'it>g2 'it>e 7 37 �d3 't!rd4 h5 38 �fl 39 't!re2+ 'it>d8 40 't!re4 1!r xe4+

6 �c3 Here Black can commit a serious error by not capturing the kn ight on c3 im mediately. What can then happen is shown in the following game from the �golden age" of chess. The fact that the critical position is reached by transposition of moves is insignificant. Game 2 Thomas-Reti Baden-Baden 1 925 ( I d4 li'lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de �g4 4 �f3 �c6) li:JgxeS 5 �c3 e3 6 .i.b4 7 �d2 0-0 a3! .i.xc3 8 9 �xc3 d6 �xf3+ 1 0 �e2 II �xf3 �eS �e6 1 2 �e2 13 0-0 't!rd 7 The pawn on c4 is taboo: 13 . .. �xc4? 14 �xc4 �xc4 1 5 't!rd4 �e5 16 f4! wins a piece. c5! 14 The insecure positio n of the knight on e5 makes this advance possible, after which Black labours with a permanent weakness at d6. llfd8 14

4

The Knight System 4 li:Jf3

.-xd6 15 cd 16 'fkxd6 cd llac8 17 lUdl .ic4 lld4 18 1 9 lt>rl ! White centralises his king for the coming endgame. Here one could conclude from the theoretical point of view with the assertion that White stands better and realised his advantage in 73 moves. H ow ever, we will continue, as a very in teresting endgame with unusual points soon arises: f6 19 llc6 20 llad l .ib3 21 .ib4 22 llb l Better than 22 llxd6? lldxd6 23 llxd6 lic l + followed by . .. llb l . d5 22 lldc8 23 lt>e I lLlc4 24 i.c3 The tactical threat . . . lLl xa 3 is easi ly parried by the pressure on the wea k ness at d5. tt:Jb6 25 i.f3 Not 25 ... lLlxa3 26 ba llxc 3 27 lhb3! llxb3 2M ..txd5+ and 29 i.xb3. .ixdl 26 i.dl If Black avoids this exchange with 26 i.c4, there follows 27 a4, 2H a5, 29 i.f3 and 30 b3. The pawn on d5 is then systematically rounded up. lt>f7 27 llbxdl llc4 28 a4 . . .

tt:Ja4 aS 29 30 llxc4 llxc4 30 ... de? 31 lld7+ followed by llxb7 naturally cannot be contem plated. 31 llxd5 lLl xc3 32 be �e6 33 lib5 llc7 34 �d2 lld7+ 35 �c2 lt>d6 36 �c6 f3 37 b6 c4 38 g4 lle7 39 ab ab 40 �d3 (3) J B

In this ending Black put up further heroic resistance but could no longer save the ga me. 40 lia7 41 fg g5 42 llxg5 g6 43 h4 lle7 44 h5 Ilc6 45 f4 'i!id7 46 lt>d4 Ilc6 47 f5 gf

T-he Knight System 4 &iJj] 5 �e6 lilg7+ 48 lld6+ 49 lilxh7 �eS so �c3 lle6 Sl h6 �e4 S2 llh8 lle7 h7 S3 �xe3 S4 �b4 f4 ss �bS S6 �c6! With the neat idea that if 56 . . . f3 57 �d6 f2 (or rook any o n the 7th ran k, 58 lle8+ followed by h8W; rook any on the e-file, 58 llf8 etc) 58 �xe7! f l W 59 lle8 and White will promote on h8. S6 �1'2 f3 S7 �b6 llf7 S8 c;!;>c6 �n cS S9 f2 60 c;t;>b6 c;t;>e2 61 c6 62 lle8+ ..ti'd3 63 h8W nw 64 lld8+ �c2 6S Wh2+ litf2 66 WeS litf4 We i 67 WdS After 67 . . . litb4+ 68 c;t;>c7 Black has no more checks. If 67 ... Wf2+ 68 Wc5+ with a winning rook ending. 68 Wd3+ �cl c;!;>c2 69 WaH c;t;>b2 70 WcS+ 71 litb8 (4) A pleasing point: 7 1 . . . litb4+ 72 Wxb4+! .,xb4+ 73 f/;a7 and the c-pawn decides.

4 8

71 lla4 72 �c7+ �a l 1-0 73 litb3! Black is either mated or cannot avoid an exchange of queens on c3, after which White wins easily with his c-pawn. This example in no way casts doubt on .i.f8-b4. It only serves as a warning. We notice that Black may not give up the bishop pair if he allows White to recapture on c3 with his bishop. Thus we ret urn to the position after I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 5 e3 .i.b4+ 6 lt:lc3 and analyse the correct continuation for Black : 6 .txc3+! We7! 7 be By this means Black prevents c4-c5 and also .i.c l -a3. lt:lgxeS 8 a4 9 ..ia3 d6 10 cS White intends 10 . . . de II 1t'd5,

6

The Knight System 4 �/3

regaining the pawn favourably, as I I . . . b6?? fails to 12 �xe5. H ow ever, Black has a surprise ready: �xf3+ 10 \!reS! 11 gf de 12 t!Yd2 i.d7 13 i.bS 0-0-0 0-0 14 In the game Kamishov-Selyinsky, USSR 1 973, White did not have sufficient compensation for the pawn and Black won an interesting game in 58 moves. A13 6 �bd2 After the bishop check on Black's 5th move, W hite can also play 6 �bd2 as the East German grandmaster Rainer Knaak shows in t he following game: G ame 3 Knaak-Adamski Sandomierz /976 ( I d4 � f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 �f3 �c6 5 e3 .ib4+ 6 llJbd2) �gxeS 6 llJxeS 7 �xeS 8 i.e2 Here Black could have achieved a fully satisfactory game after 8 . . . d 5 !? 9 c d 1!rxd5 10 1fa4+ �c6 I I i.f3 1Wd6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 Jild l 11fe7 and now it is very risky for White to take the pawn on offer: 14 .txc6 be 1 5 11fxc6 Jilb8 with a very dangerous attack after the build-

up . . . Jilb6, . . . i.b7, . . . Jilg6 and . . . i.d6 - Traj kovic. In the game Black continued too hu rriedly: 8 \!rh4? 9 0-0 0-0 lle8 10 llJb3 �c6 11 �d4 1!t'f6 1 2 �rs i.d6?! (5) 1 3 llJg3 Better was the re-grouping 1 3 . . . i.f8 followed b y . . . g 6 a n d . . . i.g7. Such a set-up would firstly leave Black's kingside well secured, secondly would not leave the bishop on b4 cut off after an eventual d7-d6, and finally the pawn on g6 would take the squares h5 and f5 away from the knight on g3. 5 w

14 llJhS \!re7 IS a3 aS 16 .td2?! But now it is White who does not continue accurately. 1 6 f4! was better. The text move once again gives Black the opportunity

The Knight System 4 &oj3 to equalise: 1 6 . . . .i.e5! 1 7 1tc2 (or 1 7 � b l ) 1 7 . . . g6 H! ltJg3 a4! 19 .ic3 d6. The Polish master, how ever, allows hi mself to be tempted by apparently easy booty. 1!¥e5?! 16 17 f4 1!hb2 1!¥xa3 18 �bl 19 lib3 1!¥a4 .i.fB 20 .id3 2 1 .i.c3 I t 1s already too late for development by 2 1 . . . d6: 22 ltJf6+ ! gf 23 .ixh7+ <3;g7 (23 . . . <3Jxh7 24 1!¥h5+ <3;g8 25 .ixf6 etc; 24 ... <3;g7 25 ll D followed by �g3) 24 .i.c2 followed by @h5 and/or l1D-g3 with an irresistible attack. In view of the t h reat ltJf6+ Black must resort to 'indirect' moves. 1le6 21 lle5 22 rs 23 � f4 d6 <3Jh8 24 llg4 ltJb4 25 c5 26 .i.xe5 de 21 ltJxg7! With the threat 27 . . . .ixg7 2H .ib5! followed by 1!¥d8 and mate. 27 1!¥c6 .ixcS 28 ltJh5 29 .ie4 1!¥d6 30 1!¥e l .id7 1!fh6 31 h3 32 1lh4 .ic6 ltJxc6 33 .ixc6 Or 33 . . . 1txc6 34 f6 threatening

7

1tb I with an attack against the tender spot h7. Both players were in time-t rouble here, which affects the logical flow of the ga me, but White's initiative cannot be shaken. .i.d6 34 lixb7 35 libl .ic5 36 <3Jh l 't!t'xe3 36 .ixe3 l oses t he bishop after 37 ltJ f4 'ft'f6 38 ltJd5 or 3 7 . . . 1!¥g5 3H �g4. 37 lL!f6 1!t'xe l + 38 llxel <3;g7 39 ltJh5+ <3Jh6 40 ltJg3+ <3;g7 41 llcl a4 a3 42 llxc5 43 lhc6! Better than 43 llc I a2 44 � a I ltJd4 followed by . . . ltJb3. 43 a2 44 1lg4+ <3;tll 45 llcl a I '8' 46 llxal llxa l + 47 <3Jh2 1 -0 Summary The plan 4 . . . ltJc6 i.lnd 5 . . . .ib4+ is not refuted in spite of the 2- 1 score for White in the sample games just given . After 6 ltJc3 Black must play . . . .ixc3+ i mmediately; after 6 ltJ bd2 an early . . . d 5 promises equality. The most difficult position for Blilck a rises after 6 .i.d 2 Black's tas k is significantly easier after the logical move 5 . . . .

The Knight System 4 fU[3

8

fUgxe5, with which section is concerned.

t he

next

A2 5

e3 (6)

6 B

The bishop check o n b4 and the variations connected with it were dealt with in A I . I n this section we will examine a closely related continuation, namely the captu re on e5. As already mentioned, t he active posting of a black k night on e5 represents t he basic idea of t he Budapest Gambit. For Black t he question now arises: with which k night will he capture on e5? A game of t he Yugoslav Predrag Nikolic gives the answer in t he form of the negative choice . It was played in the Junior World Ch in Mexico in 1 979, whe re Nikolic, now a grand master, finished third be hind Seirawan and Chernin. Already at that t i me Ni kolic was a feared ' k iller' in I d4 openi ngs as he exploited every inaccuracy re morselessly.

Game 4 P. Nikolil:-Barbero Junior World Ch. Mexico 1979 ( I d4 fU f6 2 c4 e5 3 de fUg4 4 {Uf3 fUc6 5 e3) 5 i.c5 Patience please, capturing on e5 follows immediately. 6 fUcJ fUcxe5? Only 6 . . . fUgxe5 is correct, as Nikolic shows at o nce. 7 h3! Forces the exchange on f3 , after which t he White queen enters the game advantageously. The same applies when the moves fUc3 and ... .i.c5 have been omitted. A tip: either do not exchange on f3 at all, or only whe n W hite has played .i.e2 and therefore can no longe r recapture with t he quee n . 7 fUxf3+ lUeS 8 't!hf3 9 ..g3 Here is an ideal post for the queen as it t hreatens the point g7 and therefore prevents the develop ment of Black's kingside. As 8 . . 't!rf6 i s met b y 9 liJ d 5 with the unpleasant t h reats liJxc7 or 1!1xg7, Black must move his k nigh t again. Thus seven of his fi rst nine moves have been knight moves, which cannot be good! 9 liJg6 1 0 i.d2 i.d6 After 10 . . . 0-0 Black was afraid .

The Knight System 4 lLlfJ of I I h4. II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

f4 0-0-0 'itf3 li:ldS i&.d3 h4 hS g4 gS i&.c3 't!hdS 'itd4

i&.e1 i&.f6 d6 0-0 i&.d7 lieS li:lf8 i&.c6 i&.e1 i&.xdS c6 li:le6 (7)

After t he unfortunate opening Black was not at a disadvantage but then completely lost the thread. The following combina tion is a result of Black's series of i naccuracies. �xh7 23 i&.xh7+! 24 'ite4+ �g8 2S h6 Nothing can repulse the threat 26 hg followed by 'ith7+ and mate: 25 . . . g6 26 h7+ and h!l'i!t' mate; the text also doesn't help. li:lxgS 2S

9

26 hg! 1-0 Whoever plays over this game will never recapt ure on e5 with the c6 knigh t will he? After these experiences, th� correct order of moves slowly c rystallises: ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6) e3 li:lgxeS (8) S ,

Now 6 b3, 6 li:lc3 or 6 i&.e2 all lead by transposition to the main variation. Only 6 'i!t'd5 has independent significance. The game Bergstrom Hagen, corres 1 962-63, con ti nued 6 . . . db 7 li:lxe5 ( White does nut want to lose a t empo after . . . i&.e6) 7 . . . de! !l 'i!t'xd!l+ li:l xd8 9 li:lc3 c6 10 i&.e2 i&.f5 I I 0-0 li:le6 12 b3 ( 1 2 e4 1eaves a n ugly hole o n d4 where the black knight could settle) 1 2 . . . i&.b4 1 3 i&.b2 0-0-0 and Black ha� a somewhat more pleasant endgame ( 14 a3 li:d2!; 14 li:fd I i&.c2 ). 6 i&.e2

10

The Knight System 4 fiJ/3

6 . . . ..ic5 transposes to t he main variation of B. g6 6 Black obtains a satisfactory ga me with t his plan of . . . ..ig7, . . . 0- 0 and . . . d6, a s a game between two Dutch grandmasters makes clear. GameS Sosonko-Ree A msterdam 1982 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4 4 ttJ D lLlc6 5 e3 lLlgxe5 6 .i e 2 g6) lLlxf3+ 7 lLle3 ..ig7 8 ..ixf3 d6 9 1!rd2 10 b3 lLleS A refined move. After t he retreat I I ..ie2 Black gets an active ga me with I I . . . 1!rg5 ! 1 2 .ifl ( 1 2 g3 ..ih3; 1 2 0-0?? .ih3) 1 2 . . . .i h 3 ! (9) The bishop is taboo because of . . . lLlf3+; 1 3 lilg l also fails to . . . ttJ D + and 1 3 . . . .ixg2 is threatened.

We now examine: a) 13 f4 1rh4+ 14 �d l ( 1 4 1!rf2? lLld3+ 1 5 .ixd3 ..i xc3+ etc; 1 4 g3 fiJD + 1 5 �d l lLl xd2 16 gh ..ixc3) 14 ... .ig4+ 1 5 �c2 .!Dc6 and after . . . 0-0-0 followed by . . . llhe8 Black is very active. b) 1 3 lLle4 1re7 14 .ib2 ( 1 4 f4? lLlxc4!) 1 4 . . 0-0 1 5 0-0-0 .id7 followed by ... .ic6 or even ... a 5-a4 and Black has no complaints. On account of this interesting tactical possibility, White played II .ib2! and after II lLlxf3+ 12 gf 0-0 1 3 0-0-0 .ih3 the chances were balanced. 14 lilhgl .ie6 I S .!De4 rs .bb2+ 1 6 .!DgS 1 7 1!rxb2 1!rf6 18 f4 1!rxb2+ 19 �xb2 .if7 20 eS! de lilad8! lild7 21 The e nding after 22 lilxc7 lild2+ 23 �a3 b5! is good for Black. llxd7 22 llgd 1 h6 23 lilxd7 :IileS 24 lLl f3 .ie8 2S .!DeS .

26 27 28 29

lile7 lilh7 lle7 llb7 'lrllz

�f8 �8 � �8 (10)

The Knight System 4 li:JfJ

/0 w

Neither side can improve their chances. A fighting draw, which unfortu nately is not always t he case these days between grand masters. Summary Black does his best on his 5th move to recapture on e5 with his ki ng's k night. After that he gets a satisfactory game with the set-up . . . g6 and . . . i.g7. A3 5

i.g5

i.e7 ( I I)

11

If White

in A I (after 5 . . . i.b4+), the way to equality in A2 ( . . . li:Jgxe5/ ... g6) is simple. A last possibility for White is the renunciation of the quiet 5 e3 in favour of the sharper continuation 5 i.g5. Apart from the exchange on e7, 6 i.f4 is possible, which, after 6 . . . i.b4+, leads to a position which is exami ned in detail in Chapter 2. Other moves scarcely come into consideration: a) 6 h4 h6 7 i.xe7 't!rxe7. The inter polation of the moves h7-h6 and h2-h4 is favourable for Black. Both sides have created an 'air hole', but Black can , in addition, use the square g4 for later operations. b) 6 i.d2 0-0 7 i.c3 i.c5 8 e3 't!re7 9 't!rd5 l:le8 followed by . . . li:Jgxe5 and . . . d6 with a comfortable game for Black . i.xe7 6 1!he7 7 lt:lc3 A venomous move. The Swedish masters Schussler and Wedhcrg lt:lcxe5? M lt:ld5 'ticS now give: 7 9 e3 liJxiJ+ I 0 gf lLl eS I I f4 lt:lg6 1 2 b4! 't!rc6 13 't!rd4 with a winning position for White. H owever, with the following prec1se move Black equalises i mmediately. 7 'ticS! lt:lgxe5 ( 12) e3 8 Schussler and Wedberg now analyse: . . .

still had some problems

II

12

The Knight System: 4 (jjfJ (jj c e5. I n any event 1 6 b4 is dangerous for White whose k ing cannot feel secure in the centre after 1 6 . . . b 5 ! 1 7 cb .ib7. Further practical tests must be awaited here. This ends the examination of the first section of the k night's variation . In B we will turn our attention to the sharper variation 4 . . . .ic5.

a) 9 (jj d S 0-0 1 0 'ffd 2 ( not 10 (jj xc7? 'ffa 5+ winning a piece) 1 0 . . . (jj xf3 + I I g f (jj e 7 1 2 't!ld4 ( I f 1 2 b4 'ffd6 and White must still exchange on e7, but after that Black can advance actively with . . . a5) 1 2 . . . 'ff xd4! 1 3 (jj x e7+ �hS 1 4 e d lle8 a n d Black regai ns the piece with a better ending on account of the weak white pawn struct ure. b) 9 'trdS 1t'e7 10 1rd2 d6 I I lL!d5 'ird8 12 0-0-0 0-0 fol lowed by . . . .ie6 w i t h equal ity. Those who don't l i ke this quiet position can fall back on a suggestion of the H ungarian Kaposztas who, instead of 8 . . . (jj gxe5, makes a case for 8 0-0 and gives the following variation : 9 'ffd 5 'irb4! 1 0 1t'b5 liteS I I (jj d4 'ire7, again with equality, but with a full-blooded game for both sides. Worthy of examination are the complications after 1 2 (jj d 5 'ffx e5 1 3 (jj f3 'ird6 1 4 litd I (threat ening c4-c5) 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 1!ra4 ...

8

We now examine: 81 6 1!rd5 82 6 a3 B3 6 .ie2 Other possi bil ities: a) 6 .id2 0-0 7 .ic3 '@'e7 S a3 a5 or S 1!rd5 liteS with equality after the usual set-up . . . (jj g xe5, . . . d6 and . . . .ie6. b) 6 b3 d6! (exceptionally good here as 7 ed?? loses to 7 . . . 'i!t'f6) followed by . . . (jj gxc 5, transposing to variations with .ie2 (B3).

The Knight System 4 liJ.fJ Bl 1fe7 1fdS a3 1 This interpolation excludes the possibility of a check at b4 later. 7 lt:lc3 lt:lgxe5 8 .te2 d6 9 lt:le4 .ie6 10 'trd I .ib4+ I I .td2 0-0-0 1 2 .ixb4 lt:lxb4 1 3 1fb3 li:Jxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 d5, Adler-Maroczy, B uda pest 1 896, was better for Blac k . aS 1 8 lt:lc3 (14) Or 8 .id2 0-0 9 .ic3 lieS 1 0 .te2 lt:lgxe5 I I 0-0 d6 and after 12 . . . .te6 Black stands well. 6

14 8

13

... .tf5) 1 6 g4 ' Black's good counterplay' is nowhere to be seen. b) The following variation seems to give Black good chances : 8 ... �! (the pawn on e5 will not run away; first development is completed) 9 lt:le4 b6 1 0 ll:lxc5 be I I .te2 ( I I b3 llb8 12 llb I .ib7 threatening ... lt:ld4) I I ... .tb7 1 2 0-0 llfb8 (again . . . lt:ld4 is threatened) 1 3 'trd I ll:lcxe5. Black readily ex changes minor pieces and has pressure against the pawn on c4 and along t he b-file . We have seen t hat the sortie 1fd l -d5 often proves to be a loss of tempo with accurate play by Black. B2 6

a3 aS b3 This early development of White's QB is made possible by the interpolation of the moves a3 and . . . a5; otherwise . . . d6! would be played (see earlier note) . Here 7 . .. d6? would make no sense: Xed 1!t'f6 9 Ii:a2 . 7 0-0 Ii:e8 8 .tb2 9 liJc3 It is c lear from com parable examples already analysed that Bl ack gets a good game after 9 1!t'd5 "ii!ic7 followed by . . . liJgxl'5. ... d6 and .. . .tc6. 1

The crit ical position . Now: a) 8 . . . lt:lgxeS 9 lt:le4 d6 I 0 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 I I lt:lxc5 de. So far this is I M M i nev a nalysing the game Popov Tomov, Bulgaria 1 959, in ECO. M i nev believes Black has good counterplay, but unfortunately does not present any examples . There could follow 1 2 .ie2 0-0 1 3 0-0 lldX 1 4 W'e4 1!rf6. S o far, certainly, a natural course of events. After 15 f4 lt:lc6 (threatening

14

The Knight System 4 fiJ/3

fiJgxe5 9 10 fiJxe5 10 .ie2 just t ransposes after 1 0 ... fiJ xf3+ I I .ixf3 fiJe5 1 2 .ie2. fiJxe5 10 II .ie2 d6 (I 5) A natural and good move. The sensa tional defeat of the Swedish I M Akesson after I I ... lit a6?! will be found in game 6.

Now 1 2 fiJa4 is not good because of 1 2 . . . 't!rg5! - remember game 5, Sosonko-Ree. H ere it could be worse: 1 3 0-0? .ih3 winning the exchange; 1 3 g3 .ih3 with advantage to Bla ck; and above all 13 .if!? .ixe3 ! ! 14 fe 1!rxe3+ and wins: a) 1 5 1!re2 fiJd3+ 16 �d 1 .ig4 1 7 1!rxg4 � f2+; b) 15 ..ie2 fiJd3+ with mate or win of the queen. 12 0-0 This is the main variation of this section. IM Minev contin ues in ECO with 12 . .. ..if5 and demo n strates a slight advantage for

White. The A merican Josef Staker, the author of The Budapest Defence (Chess D igest, 1 982) suggests the following improvement : 12 1ie6!? ( 16)

White has some superiority in the centre and on the queenside but lac ks defenders of his ki ng. Thus t he black rook heads for h6 to start a k i ngside attack in con j unction with . . . 1!t'h4. We examine: B21 13 fiJd5 B22 13 g3 B23 13 fiJa4 821 13 fiJd5 1ih6 The following example serves as a demo nstration of the danger of Black's initi ative: 1 4 b4? 't!rh4 (Josef Straker gives 14 ... ab 1 5 ab litxal 1 6 Wxa l ...h4 1 7 h3 ..ixh3 and wins; an oversight in this otherwise excellent work as White mates with 1 8 Wa8) 1 5 h3 .ixh3 1 6

The Knight System: 4 tt:lf3 g3 lii: g6 1 7 tt:lf4 i. xe 3 ! 1 8 'it>h l ( 1 8 tt:lxg6 't!rxg3+; 1 8 fe 't!rxg3+ followed by . . . i.g2+ and mate) 1 8 . . . i.xf4! and B lack mates i n all variations, the prettiest being 1 9 gh .ig2+ 20 'it>g I tt:lf3_± 2 1 i.xf3 · i.xf3 mate. Ttilsc r u:s-h ing victory ca n na turally be traced back to the error 14 b4?; such a mistake could easi ly appear in tournaments not of the highest level . i.h3 14 g3 15

net

c6!?

On 1 5 . . . 'itd7 there can follow: a) 16 i.O? .ig4 17 .ie2 i. xe2 1 8 1Wxe2 't!t'h3 with advantage to Black ( 1 9 f4 tt:ld3 ! ! 20 't!rxd3 't!rxh2+ followed by . . . 1hb2; 20 lii: f l tt:lxb2 2 1 1i'xb2 c6). b) 16 tt:lf4 g5 ! is also good for Black. c) 16 i. xe5 de 17 i.fl (as 17 ... i.x f l ?? naturally loses the queen to 1 8 l0f6+) was played in Gould Hardy, Leicester 1 968, and now Staker gives 1 7 . . . lii: e 8 with equality. 1 7 . . . c6 followed by . . . lid6 and . . . lii: d 8 seems t o give good chances. d) 16 b4! i.a7 ( 1 6 . . . i.g2? is only a shot in the air - 1 7 l[)f4 ! ) 1 7 l[)f4 lie8 1 8 i.d4 is good for White however. 16

tt:lf4

i.f5

16 . .. 't!rd7 1 7 b4! and if 1 7 . . . ab 1 8 ab lii: xa l 1 9 't!rxa l i.xb4 20 tt:lxh3 threatening 't!t'a8 and mate. Perhaps 16 ... 't!t'c8 is playable.

15

After 16 . . . i.f5 the chances are level. White must keep an eye on such Black possibilities as . . . 't!t'c8 , . . . g5 a n d . . . i.e4. B22 13 14

g3 4Je4

llh6

1 4 tt:ld5 transposes to B2 1 . 14

'i¥d7

Oth erwise Black loses a piece after tt:lxc5 and i.xe5. H owever, he now t h reatens . . . 'i¥ h 3 . As Black wins after 1 5 i.xe5 1!¥h3 1 6 g4 d e 1 7 't!rdH i.f8 or 1 5 tt:lxc5 't!t'h3 , there remains . . . 15

h4

i.a7

Bad is 1 5 . . . i.b6? 16 c5! or 1 5 . . . 'f¥h3? 1 6 i.xe5. Black now appears to hold the balance: 16 c5 1!¥c6 1 7 i.xe5 1!¥xe4 or 1 7 cd 1!¥xc4 I X i.xe5 1!¥xe5 1 9 d7 i.xd7 20 't!rxd7 i.xe3 ! . B23 13

tt:la4

b6!?

We will meet this mot i f in B3 Black maintains the balance. Attempts to win the apparently incarcerated bishop by b3-b4 meet with energetic resistance: 14 i.c 3 i.d7 and now: a) 15 b4? i.xa4! 1 6 t!fxa4 ab b) 15 li)b2 llh6 16 g3 i.c6 1 7 b4 '@eX ! with the ucadly th reat . .. 't!rh 3 . 14 15

lL\xc5 f4

be tt:ld7

16

The Knight System 4 &i:Jf3

litbS 16 i.f3 17 1fd3 Still worse would be 1 7 e4 a4. a4! 17 Black stands better. The fact that the moves a2-a3 and a7-aS have been inserted here works clearly in favour of Black who exerts strong pressure on the b-file. After 1 8 i.d I 1fe7 19 lite 1 i.b7 Black has the advantage. B3 &i:JgxeS 6 .i.e2 7 0-0 0-0 S &i:JxeS Or 8 b3 li::l x f3+ 9 .i.xf3 li::le S 1 0 .i.e2 t ransposing. li::lxeS 8 b3 liteS 9 1 0 li::l c 3 ( 17) 17 B

The main variation is 1 0 . . . d6. The alternative I 0 ... aS will be discussed in the following game, about which a few words. In August 1984 a very strong i nternational o pen tournament took place m Berlin. A mong the

many title-holders taking p a rt was the former European Junior Ch, Swedish I M Ralf Akesson. Akesson had finished second behind H ort in 1 983 and was therefore regarded as one of the probable prizewinners. H owever, he lost his chance because of an absolutely unexpected Joss to the little-known French lady player Nicole Tagnon - in the Budapest G ambit. G ame 6 Akesson-Tagnon Berlin Open 1984 ( 1 d4 &i:Jf6 2 c4 eS 3 de l0g4 4 l0f3 .i.cS S e3 li::l c 6) 6 .i.e2 0-0 7 0-0 liteS S l0c3 li::l gxeS b3 9 aS 1 0 .i.b2 &i:Jxf3+ 1 1 .i.xf3 li::le S By one of the many move-orders we have reached the starting position of t h is section with the plan ... aS. lita6 (/� 12 i.e2

The Knight System 4 lLlf3 Black plans to swing the rook to the kings ide to i nstigate an attack there. The th reat of . . . ll h6 followed by . . . \Wh4 requi res energetic measu res and at firs t the Swede shows himself to be fully on top of the sit uation. 1 3 't!fd5! \We7 14 ll:Je4 i.a7 c5 15 Ilg6 16 Ilacl i.b8 f4 ll:Jg4 17 1 8 i.xg4 Ilxg4 With 19 ll:Jf2! White could simply exploit the exposed position of t he rook ( 1 9 . . . \Wxe3?? 20 i.d4 'ihf4 2 1 ll:Jxg4 Wxg4 22 'itxn + ) a n d build up his positional advantage ( 1 9 . . . llg6 20 f5 ). The following pawn sacrifice should only lead to a draw. t!Vxe 3+ 1 9 ll:Jg5? Ihf4 20 'it>hl 21 ll:Jxf7 c6 'it>h8 22 ll:Jh6+ . . . and draw by perpetual check one would t h i n k . But A k esson is not content with this . . . 23 it'h5? . . . and u nderestimates his opponent's clever reply . . . l:lef8! 23 And now its over! 24 llfe l fails to 24 . . . 't!fxe l + a nd 25 . . . lUI+ followed by mate or 24 l:lgl to the game contin uation . t!Vxf4 24 llxf4 d5 25 l:lgl

17

26 cd i. xd 6 The k night on h6 remains trap ped and White runs out of moves. 27 i.cl Or 27 i. a l (27 i.c3) . . . b6 fol lowed by . . . i.c5 with a renewed threat on White's back rank (29 :U c l t!VIl +). 27 \We5 0- 1 Commentary based on notes by Claus-Dieter Meyer i n Schach 64 no 1 9 / 1 984. This ga me caused a great s t i r b u t Wh ite's loss says nothing about the correctness of the plan with . . . a5. Rather it looks very much as if . . . a5 is not completely satisfactory. [The variation was res uscitated in the game 011Romero, Groningen 1 984-85, which went 10 . . . a5 II i.b2 l:la6 12 ll:Je4 i.a7 1 3 \Wd5 llae6 ! ! 1 4 't!txa5 i.b6 1 5 't!tc3 t!Vh4 1 6 f4 l:lh6 1 7 h3 d5! 1 8 cd i.xh3 and Black won in 30 moves tr.] However it i� i mportant to be familiar with th1s idea, for i n practical games i t often happens that White makes some sort of harmless move and then this plan can certainly be employed . It is conceivable, and has actually happened in practice, for example. that White plays lLl bd2 instead of lLlc3; then . . . a5 followed by . . . l:la6-h6 is very strong. However, given that White play� the correct lLld, we ret urn to -

18

The Knight System 4 liJf3

t he mai n variation. 10

d 6 (1 9)

following failure. 12

suggestion

proves a 't!t'd7!? (20)

20 w

I n practice two plans have been tried: B31 I I i.b2, quietly continuing his development B32 I I liJa4 ridding himself of the bishop on c5. ,

B31 lii: e6 II i.b2 Strongly rem iniscent of B2. I t is in fact the same position without the moves a3 and . . . a5. 1 2 liJ a4 leads to B32, and otherwise the game ru ns as in B2. The o nly dif ference lies in 12 g3 Now 1 2 ... llh6 would be bad because of 13 liJe4 as the bishop on c5 cannot, by a nalogy with B2, retreat to a7. What should Black play? Perhaps the retreat 1 2 . . . liteS followed by 1 3 . . . i.h3; perhaps 1 2 . . . b6 followed by 1 3 . . . i.b7. One must return to these variations if the

We already k now the tricks after 1 3 liJe4 l:Ih6 from B2. We will look at a nother 'trap' -a pit into which W hite falls himself: 1 3 f4 i.xe3+ 1 4 'it>h l ( with the intention 14 . . . 't!t'c6+ 1 5liJd5liJd7 16 i.f3 or 1 4 ... liJc6 15 i.g4) 1 4 . . . lii: h 6! a n d wins after . . . lii: x h2+ and/or ... 't!t'h3+. The move 12 ... 1!t'd7 seems at first rather odd, but on closer examination is quite logical as . . . l:lh6 a n d . . . 't!t'h3 i s the ideal build up to which to aspire. Due to lack of practical material, here is a 'constructed' conceivable variation. 1 3 i.f3 liJxf3+ l:Ih6 14 't!t'xf3 1 5 't!t'g2 't¥g4 Black obtains an active game with . . . 'tlfh 5 and . . . i.h3 (on lii: fe l then naturally . . . i.g4). In all practical games White has decided to play liJa4 to

The Knight System 4 lbfJ liquidate the bishop pair and spoil Black's pawn struct ure. B32 11

lLla4 (2 I)

After I I . .ib6 1 2 lLlxb6 ab 1 3 't!fd2 W hite's position is i n fact somewhat more pleasa nt. He has many possibilities such as the plan .ic3 and 't!t'b2 or lilae I, e4 and f4. [A recent example of this line saw Black achieve equality after I I . . i.b6 1 2 lLlxb6 ab 1 3 i.b2 't!t'h4 1 4 'tlrd4 't!t'xd4 1 5 i.xd4 i.g4 1 6 i.xg4 ( 1 6 f3 lLlc6 ! ) 1 6 . . . lLlxg4, Karolyi-Rogers, Tallinn 1 985 -tr.J Black's stock rose again when the following ga me was published in which he introduced a highly original strategic idea. . .

.

Game 7 Osnos-Yermolinsky Leningrad 1977 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e 5 3 de lLlg4 4 lLl f3 .ic5 5 e3 lLlc6 6 i.e2 lLlgxe5 7 lLlxe5 lLl xe5 8 0-0 0-0 9 lL!c3 d6)

10

19

b3 lieS .ib2 aS 12 lLla4 b6!? 1 3 lLlxcS be f4 14 lLld7 IS i.fJ libS The play on the half-open li nes compensates Black fo r the bishop pair. The doubled pawns are no wea k ness at all here. 16 't!fd2 a4 ba? 17 Better was 1 7 't!fc3 f6 1 8 .ic6 ab 19 ab .ib7 with an unclear position. Black has the advantage after the column move. lLl b6 17 IS liae I .ia6 lie4 1 9 .ie2 20 lifJ lLl xc4 .ixc4 21 .ixc4 f6 22 lig3 23 h3 .if7 aS 24 c4 2S 1ic2 dS 26 't!fcJ cS 2 7 't!fx f6 't!fxf6 2S .ixf6 g6 29 lidl liaS lidS 30 .ic3 There is nothing to be done about the brea kthrough . . . d4. White continues to fish in troubled waters. a6 31 liaS h4 32 lixa6 33 hS l:l.a3 34 hg hg II

20

The Knight System 4 li:Jf3 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

.ieS 1Ih3 re e4 llf3 lldfl 1lxf7 0-1

d4 ll xe5 d3 n xa2 1le2 d2 llel

The black king escapes the rook checks on h6. After 42 lld7 c3 followed by c2 the passed pawns prevail. This ends the examination of the K n ight Syste m, the most popular variation of the Budapest Gambit. . . .

2

The Bishop System 4 i£4 1 2 3 4

d4 c4 de .if4 (22)

�f6 eS �g4

22 B

I n the first chapter we saw White's queen's bishop generally developed on the a l -h8 diagonal after b3 and .ib2. In this chapter we are concerned with a system in which White immediately develops this bishop on a different square . Black does best in the Bishop System to follow the main plan of the Budapest Gambit which consists of four stages: I. The king's bishop goes to c5 or b4. It makes roo m for �:astling and allows the later development . . . t!t'e7.

2. The queen's knight moves to c6. The pawn on e5 is eventually regained after . . . 0-0, . . "tre7 and ... lle8. 3. 3 'tlre7 is played and/or castles. The major pieces belong on the e-file. 4. With .. . d6 and a move of the bishop on c8 development i'ii ended. About stage 1: I n the k night's variation t he bishop belonged on c5 or g7; . . . .ib4 was merely play able. In the bishop's variation the bishop always belongs on b4! Please believe this above all; the evidence follows at once. Thus Black's further progress is clear: bishop to b4, k night to c6, queen to e7, castle and . . . play. The material di vides as follo ws: A 4 . . . g5? H ere an inco rrect variation is 'shot down'. B 4 ... li:Jc6 5 lt:Jf3 .ib4+ 6 lLJbd2. White takes care of his pawn structure and does not permit doubled pawns on the �:-file. C 4 ... l'ilc6 5 lilB -'tb4 t 6 li 1c .l Doubled pawns against the bishop pair - which prevails? .

...

22

The Bishop System 4 j.j4 tr. ]

A 4

g5? (23)

This move is repeatedly played, although it not only contradicts general strategic pri nciples, but also the strategy of t he Budapest Gambit, which, simply expressed, runs: sound development with centralisation of a knight on e5. The move 4 . . . g5 creates ir reparable weak nesses in Black's camp and would only be j ustified by tactical circumstances which do not exist here as White has no weaknesses. There are a number of good continuations for White. This book is not only intended for adherents of the Budapest Gambit, but also for 1 d4 players. For the first gr_o up an example will serve as a warning, for the second group a reliable method of combat. 5 .id2! [Also promising is 5 .ig3 .ig7 6 ll:Jf3 ll:\c6 7 ll:\c3 ll:Jgxe5 8 ll:\ xe5 ll:\xe5 9 e3 d6 10 h4! h6 1 1 c5, Schussler-Herrera, H avana 1 985 -

The main threat is f4 winning a piece. I n all k nown ga mes Black now played 7 ... g4, the only exceptio n being Lorenz-Greger, West Germany 1 975: 7 . . . 0-0 8 h4 g4 9 ll:\e2 d6 1 0 ll:\g3 ll:\bc6 I I 'ilc2 f5 (directed against ll:Jf5) 1 2 ll:\h5 .ih8 1 3 li:ld2 .ie6 14 f4 li:lg6 ( 1 4 . . . gf 1 5 gf foil owed by .i.e2, 0-0-0 and lildg 1 looks very risky for Black) 1 5 .i.xh!l lL!xh!l ( 1 5 . . . 'it>xh8?? 1 61itc3+ etc) 1 6 Wc3 We7 1 7 0-0-0 ll:\g6 1 8 .id3 ll ae8 ( 1 8 . . . lL!xh4?? 1 9 ll xh4) 1 9 e 4 ll f7 20 llde 1 ll:\xh4 ( 20 . . . 'ftf8 2 1 ef .i xf5 22 lilxe8+ 1!txe8 23 .i xf5 l:lxf5 24 ll:Jf6+) 2 1 g3 fe ( 2 1 . . . ll:\g6 22 ef as before) 22 lL!xe4 lL!f3 23 ll:Jef6+ 'it>f8 24 lL!d5 1 -0. 7 g4

The Bishop System 4 J/J4 d6 8 ltJe2 h5 9 ltJf4 Preventing ltJh5, which can be very disruptive as we have just seen. 10 1Wc2 (25)

1Wg5 10 In his book The Budapest Defence Josef Staker suggests this i mprovement. Henneberke-Bakonyi, Holland v. H ungary 1 949, continued 10 . . . ltJa6 1 1 lL!d2 ltJc5 12 ltJe4 b6 1 3 ltJxc5 be 1 4 ..td3 ! with advantage to White. B lack cannot castle because of the weakness on h5. White plays ..te4, 0-0-0 and h3. 11 ttJd2 ..tr5 rlflJ 26 w

23

The author now conti nues with 12 e4('!) ..te6 and assesses the position quite correctly as open. However, White can play better. 1 2 t!fb3 b6 l3 c5! 0-0 This is the only reasonable move. 1 3 . . . be?? 14 'tWb7 loses for Black, as does 1 3 . . . de? 1 4 ..t xe5 ..txe5 15 'tid5. 14 cd cd 15 h4 The win of a pawn after 1 5 1Wd5 ltJ bc6 1 6 1Wxd6 llad8 would be very questionable. 15 't!fh6 1 5 . . . gh 1 6 ltJ xh3 cannot be good. 16 g3 ltJbc6 1 7 ..tg2 llac8 18 0-0 White stands clearly better. H is king position is rock solid and all his pieces stand well. There are two permanen t weaknesses in Black's camp to exploit ( h 5 and d6); the latter will soon become a target for the white rooks on the d-file. The k night on d2 will move to e4. The rest of the game will be very pleasant. B 4 ltJc6 5 ltjf3 ..tb4+ 6 ltJbd2 1re7 (27) Here White has two main alter natives:

24

The Bishop System 4 i./4

27 w

Or 1 1 li:lf3 a5 followed by . . . i.c5 with equality. II b6 12 a3 i.c5 With an equal game after 1 3 li:ld4 a5 or 1 3 li:l xc5 be followed by . . . a5, . . . f6, . . . i.e6 and play on t he b-file. We recall that we have seen this motif several times, e.g. in Game 7. �! t:. 5�t 4-mmediately, lf White plays Black m ust reply 14 . . . li:ld7 ! followed by . . . a5 with a good game.

�

81 7 e3 82 7 a3 81 e3 7 SchUssler and Wedberg give a convincing equalising line against this. li:lgxe5 7 8 li:lxe5 Or M a3 liJxfH 9 gf i.xd2+ 1 0 'ifxd2 d 6 I I llg l , van Scheltinga Adema, Holland )938. Black can obtain a fully satisfactory game with I I . . . li:le5 12 i.e2 f6 fol lowed by i.d7-c6. li:lxe5 8 9 ..te2 9 a3 transposes to 82. 0-0 9 d6 ( ? I I 0-0 I0 (Less accurate is 1 0 . . . i.xd2 1 1 't!Vxd2 d6 12 IIfd I b6 1 3 b4 i.b7 1 4 c5 de 1 5 be li:lg6 1 6 'ttd 7 'itxd7 1 7 IIxd7 ± Ga rcia Palermo-Rogers, Reggio E mi lia 1 984-85 - tr.] I I li:lb3

82 7

a3 (28)

28 B

7 li:lgxe5! The famous "K ieninger trap". The late German master Georg K ieninger once used it in an offband game against Godai at Vienna 1 925. There followed 8 ab?? li:ld3 mate. This example was henceforth quoted in m any chess books, though also under other na mes, for later many more

The Bishop SyJtem 4 �4 players

were

to

fall

into

the

"Kieninger t rap".

8

25

positional struggle in 66 moves. -

tr.]

lLlxeS

lLlxeS

13

b4

.ib7 {29)

A n ot her invitation to self-mate after 9 ab?? lLld3.

9

e3

Or 9 .ixe5 .ixd2+ (Black must now exchange as he no longer has a k n ight to give mate on d3!) 10 �xd2 �xeS with equality: a) 1 1 e3 b6 12 .ie2 .ib713 0-0 0-0-0 b) 1 1 g3 0-0 12 .ig2 lleg 13 e3 d6 14 0-0 .ie6 (15 .ixb7? llab8 and 16 lhb2; 15 llac l

9 10 II

� xd2

[Black

could

.ie2

=

)

.

Game S Lukacs-Schiissler Tuzla 1981

.ixd2+ d6 0-0

also

14

consider

.ig3

castling queenside, e.g. II ... b6 12

a) A nother example from a rece n t

e4 .ib7 13 f3 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 f6 15

tournamen t, Carlesson-We dbe rg,

h4 h5 16llhe l ?!llhg8 17 't!Vc3 gS

Sweden 1977, con t in ued 14 liacl

18 hg fg 19 .ih2 g4 20 f4 lLld7 21

�d7 15 't!Vd l a 5 16 .if3 .ie4 17

.id3 h4, Browne-Speelman, Taxco

.ixe4 'fi'xe4 Ig �d5 life8 19 lHd I

IZ 198S (0-1, 41). Browne suggests 16 �b llldg8 17 b4 gSIHhg fg l 9 .ie3 gives White a small edge -tr. J

12

0-0

b6!?

Also playable is 12 ... aS which has

often

been

t ried

by

the

Hungarian Kaposztas. The text move seems more accurate; Black does nothi ng loosening and first completes

his development. [A

recent example is 12 ... aS 13 lic l b6 14 b3 .ib7 IS .ig3 lifeg 16 lid li.Jd7 17 f3!? 't!VgS Jg .id3 'i!*cS 19

h6 20 lld4 'itc7 21 'fi'c6 ah 22 ab

lLlfi!! 23 liddI lLl c6 24 .ig3 �f6 (JO) ./1!

w

:1 � �·�·�&'< 0/.;';, & "Y&;' � t.� r;,;� • ��

� 't!f tA; �it! � � . � �� . �:?,)� � � �,, t.J � �If� � fl"l � fffd � )Q, ,.,Qi, � �

�· �

�-'A'} 'H' � ��

w ,,,

�.

z

Unfortunately IM Tom Wcdbcrg

lib! �hH, Korchnoi-Kaposztas,

docs not quote a ny more of his

Berlin 198S. White won a long

game. He only

maintains that

The Bishop Sys rem 4 i/4

26

16

Black stands better. White cannot become active

with c4-cS and

Black is left i n peace to harry the white qucensidc weaknesses after ... lid!:!, and

o o .

0 0 0

lia2,

0 0 .

lida8,

000

rs

�n

Black could also play 16 ...lla7 immediately, followed by 17

0 0 0

llfa!l.

17 18 19

li8a3

lib2.

b) There is also a noteworthy

f3

lla7 llfa8

'Wd4

.liabl

Not 19 bS? ltJcS followed by .. .

an alysis by SchUssler and Wedberg:

14 cS?! de IS be. Acceptance of the

lH8, ...lla!l-e8. The k night has a

pawn sacrifice would s u it White:

dream square on cS.

IS

0 0 0

'ti'xcS? 16 lifc l 'We7 (or

19 20

0 0 0

'ti'd6) 17 it'd regain ing the pawn advant ageously (17

0 0 .

ltJc6 18

�.1'3!). However, Black consistently follows his dark-squared strategy:

ab

_If w

IS ... lifdH! 16'Wc3lldS! 17cb ab 18 life I lieS 19'Wb2llaaS. B lack stands well an d can w i n quickly if White plays carelessly, e.g. 20llc3 ltJg6 21 �g3 hS 22 h3 h4 23 �h2 ligS 24 �f l 1!¥e4 2S f3 'tixf3 26 �xc7 'tixh3 27 �xb6 :!:tabS! 28 llb3 (28 1!¥xbS

lhg2+!) 28 ...

llxg2+! 29 �xg2

Ii.gS 30 lla2

'tie6! etc.

For

reasons

of

tournament

tactics, the players did not tem p t fate in this equal position.

After the text move, the white

1/z-1/z

bishop an ticipates being jos tled by ltJg6. but above all White wants

So after the quiet continuation

to advance his e- and f-pawns. A

6 ltJbd2 Black has no problems.

possible line is 14

Therefore the sharper 6 ltJc3 is

0 0 0

000

h6 IS life!

life!:! 16 e4! (16 .. . �xe4? 17 �f l !

often tried and has provided much

fS Ill f3 �b7 19 f4) 16 ... ltJd7 17

practical material. This continuation

�d3 followed by f4. Even this

is examined in C.

position is not particularly bad for Black, but the text move avoids all such problems.

14 15

Ii.fel

ltJd7 aS

c 4 5 6

ltJf3 ltJc3

ltJc6 �b4+ �xc3+

The Bishop Sysrem 4 i,[4 7

be

1!t'e7 {32)

27

d6

10 II

c3

I I g3 �e4 12 i.g2 �c5 13 1!t'c2 4:la5 14 li.Jd2 �c6 15 � d5 0-0 16

i.e3 c6 17 i.xe6+ 1!t'xc6 18 i. x c5 de 19 c3 't!t'hJ with beuer chances for Black -Schussler and Wedbcrg.

li'Jc4

II Ou r

0-0 (34)

i.c2

12

illustrat ive game No. 9

continues with 13 tl_)d4. One can If Black regains t he pawn on e5 he

can

endi ng on

wonder why Whit e does not pl ay

for a

favourable

the obvious 13 0-0. The an swe r lies

account

of White's

in

play

the excelle nt analysis of the

pawn weaknesses. Therefore t he

Swedish mast ers in the magazine

continu ation is prac t ically forced.

Schucknyll:

8

't!t'dS

f6

There is no time for 8 .

. .

0-0

because of 9 h3.

9

ef

�xf6

Three retreats come into con sideration:

Cl 10 1!t'd3 C2 I 0 1!t'd2 C3 10 'ftdl Cl 10 U B

.

1!t'd3 (33)

13

0-0

.i.g4!

It f11s in with Black\ plan Ill exchange mmor pieces (m particular theoishop on c2) for he ca n then set Ill work on the doubled pawn� on the c-lilc.

14

li.d4

On a nv neu t r al move, 'uch a' 14 ilftl l. UI
14

. .

{Lla5 and ... 't!t'f7.

liJc5

28

The Bishop System 4 ii.j4 14

Set t i ng t h e trap 15 ll:l xc6? be 16

1Wdl

ll:le5 (35)

1!t'd l �xe2 1 7 1!fxe2 l h f4! .

�xe2 1!t'd l ll:la5 16 1!t'xe2 b6 17 liabl A fter J g ... 1!t'f7 followed by ... 15

ll:lxc4 Black stands better. The final positi on de monstrates impressively how a doubled pawn should be 'gripped'. Some months after the p u bli cation of t h is a nalysis the Yugoslav G M M ilan Vukic and the Australian

14 . . . ll:la5 would be i n accu rate

I M Ian Rogers met in the New

h e re bec a u se of 15

Year tou rnament at Reggio Emilia.

White could exchange one of the

ll:lb3 ! and

Both were acquainted with the

enemy knights.

not

After the tex t move 15 ll:lb3

surprising that White avoided the

would n o longer be so good: 15 . ..

above

analysis,

u npleasa n t

so

it

exchange

is

of

light

ll:le6 16 ..tg3 b6 followed by ... �b7. The k night would have no

squared bishops.

future on b3 and would have to

Game 9 Vukic-Rogers Reggio Emilia 1983-84

' p oison' for the doubled pawns

( I d4 ll:l f6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:l g4 4 �f4

which White can never dissolve.

return. M oreover, the formation of the black pawns on b6 a n d d6 is

ll:lc6 5 ll:l f3 �b4+ 6 ll:lc3 �xc3 + 7

15

1!t'e 7 8 1!t'd5 f6 9 ef ll:lxf6 I 0 't!rd3 d6 I I c3 0-0 1 2 ..te2 �e4)

16

0-0 licl

�h8 �d7

17

1Wc2

1Wf7

be

But not i m mediately 12 ... i. g4

How does White protect t he

because after 13 h3 ..txD 14 �xf3

pawn on c4? A part from t h e text

the �quare e4 is not available for

move

the black k n ight and he therefore

consideration with the i dea 1 8 ...

18

ll:lb3 still comes into

cannot carry out the prom1smg

ll:lxc4? 1 9 ll:l xc5 de 20 �xc4 'i!¥xc4

m a noeuvre ... ll:le4-c5.

21 �xc7, but Black can play better:

13

ll:ld4

1 8 .. �f5 1 9 1!t'd l ( 1 9 't!t'b2 ll:lcd 3 ) .

This way .. . ..tg4 1s radically prevented. 13

ll:lc5

1 9 . . . � cd 7 fo l lowed by ... ..te6.

18

�xe5

19

ll:l f3

de 1!t'e7

The Bishop System 4 J.,f4 J.c6 20 lLld2 e4 J.f3 21 22 J.e2 lH6 llh6 23 lLlb3 \!hcS 24 lLlxcS llcdl •es 25 h3 26 26 g3? _.e6 and . . . \!t'h3. 26 't!lgS llg6 27 J.g4 Threatening . . . h5, so White prevents this with his next move. 28 _.e2 •as 1/z-'lz The players agreed a draw on account of the variation 29 J.d7 _.g5 (29 . . . J.xd7? 30 llxd7 't!lg5 3 1 'it"g4 _.xg4 32 hg llc6 33 llfd I llg8 34 ll l d4 ! ) 30 J.g4 'ft'a5 3 1 .id7 _.g5 with repetition of moves. C2 10 II

..d2 e3 (36)

d6

29

1 3 e4 to Richter at Swinemi.inde 1 930: 1 3 . . . lLlxe4 1 4 fe lLl xd4 1 5 J.e3 ( 1 5 \!t'xd4 llxf4; 1 5 c d _.xe4+ 16 .ie3 llae8) 1 5 . . . lLl e6 followed by . . . J.c6 and . . . llae8. White's position is hopeless. 0-0 II 1 2 lLld4 1 2 .ie2 .ig4 will transpose to Ct. After 1 2 .id3 lLle5 1 3 0-0 lLlxf3+ 1 4 gf .ih3, van den Broeck Traj kovic, Vienna 1 953, Black had a good game, e.g. 1 5 llfd I lLld7 1 6 .ie4? g 5 1 7 \!t'd5+ �h8 I H .ig3 ( I H .ixg5? llg8 and . . . h6) 1 8 . . . lLlc5 with numerous possibilities for Blac k , such as . . . h5, . . . .ie6, . . . llae8 etc . White would have to play 16 J.fl but after 16 . . . .ixfl 1 7 lhfl lLlc5 Black still has an excellent game. 12 lLle5 1 3 .ie2 lLle4 14 'tWc2 14 't!ld I ltJc5 transposes to g a m e 9.

14 lill·5 0-0 15 b6 with a good game for Blac k . e . g . 1 6 lLlb3 lLlcd7 foll owed by . . . 't!fl7 . . . . a5 and . . . .ia6. C3

Stahlberg lost with the slow build-up I I lLld4 0-0 12 f3 J.d7

10 't!fd l White retreats to a sq u a re where he can not be at tacked by a knight, as on d3 or d2.

30

The Bishop System 4 iif4 Game i O Inkiov-Djukic Bor 1 983

( I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:Jg4 4 lLlf3 lt..Jc 6 5 .i.f4 �b4+ 6 li:Jc3 �xc3+ 7 be 1t'c7 8 1t'd5 f6 9 cf li:Jxf6) d6 10 1t'dl II e3 0-0 li:Je4 1 2 �e2 $>h8 13 l:lcl [ 1 3 . . . �g4 14 0-0 $>h8, Campos-Akesson, Valjevo 1 984, may be more accurate - tr. ] 14 0-0 [Rogers gives 1 4 tiJd2! tDc5 1 5 tiJb3 ttJe4 1 6 0-0 as an improvement - tr. ] 14 g5 1 5 J.g3 h5 (37) Jl w

Hardly orthodox! Black threatens to trap the bishop by . . . h4, and the usual procedure in this sort of position, namely h 3 or h4, fails to 16 ... ttJ xg3 1 7 fg 9xe3+. ttJc5 16 J.d3 1 6 . . . h4 is refuted by 1 7 J.e5+!

ttJxe5 1 8 .ixe4. h4 17 [ Rogers gives 17 tDh4 gh 1 8 1t'xh5+ $>g8 1 9 .ixh4 W'g7 as unclear tr. ] 17 l:lxf3! ! (38) -

18 gf Perhaps White should reluctantly accept the following variation: 1 8 1hf3 J.g4! (much better than 1 8 . . . ttJxd3 1 9 1t'xh5+) 1 9 W'd5 .ie6 20 'ftfJ ttJxd3 2 1 'ftxh5+ 1t'h7 22 W'xh7+ $>xh7 23 l:lcd 1 gh 24 .ixh4 .ixc4. Naturally White stands worse here but in the game he succumbs in a few moves to a fu rious attack by the Yugoslav master. 18 gh 19 .ih2 [Rogers queries this and gives as White's only chance 1 9 .if4 J.h3 20 $>h2 J.xfl 2 1 J.xfl ttJe6 22 1td5 ! - tr. ] 19 �h3 20 'it>hl Ilg8! 21 lilgl lilxgl+

The Bishop System 4 �4 [These moves were all repeated in Lanzani-Rogers, N uoro 1 984, a nd at this point White resigned! tr. ] 22 'i!t'xgl 22 �xg l 'irg7+ 23 .ig3 hg is even worse for White. lL\xd3 22 23 lii: d l 1!t'f7 24 .tr4 O r 24 f4 \Wxc4 threatening 'tie4+. li:ld4 24 25 gr \Wxf4 As B lack wins quite sadistically after 26 lii:d 3 li:le5 27 lii:e 3 b6 28 1te I .ie6, W hite prefers the end with horror to the horror without end. 26 1fg6 1t'xf3+ \Wxdl 27 'it>h2 28 1tf6+ �g8 0- 1 The Bulgarian GM could now convi nce hi mself that the black king wanders to d7. Then diagonal checks are prevented by the bishop on h3 and check on the

Jl

seventh ran k can be parried b y . . . li:le7. Summary After the moves I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 iJ4 the Bishop System arises. Black is well advised first of all to leave the bishop on f4 in peace. As we have seen in A, 4 . . . g5? irrevocably wea kens one's own position. Pieces can return after an u nsuccessful excu rsion, but pawns cannot. The best method is 4 ... li:lc6 5 li:lf3 .ib4+. After 6 li:lbd2 the d file is blocked, so the white queen cannot hurry to the help of the pawn on e5. Black then plays 6 . . . 1!t'e7 and regains the sacrificed pawn with a satisfactory game. A fter 6 li:lc3 White can i ndeed hold the pawn on e5 but only at the cost of shattered pa wns on the c-file. Subsequently Black plays . . . f6, accepting to play on a pawn down, but he gets compensation for this in pressure on the e- and f-files.

3

The Alekhine System 1 2 3 4

d4 c4 de e4 (39)

ltJf6 e5 ltJg4

4 e4

some variations dark-square weak nesses can arise in White's camp. It is generally considered a rule in this system t hat exchange of dark squared bishops is favourable for Blac k . Black c a n protect t he attacked k night (4 . . . h5), continue in gambit style (4 . . . d6) or recapture on e5 (4 . . . ltJxe5). The main possibilities are: A 4 h5 8 4 d6 5 ed C 4 d6 5 .ie2 D 4 ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJg6 E 4 ltJxe5 5 f4 ltJec6 Other continuations: a) 4 'it'h4?? 5 g3 1Wh5 6 .ie2 d6 7 h3 winning a piece. ltJ xf2?? 5 'it>xf2 1Wh4+ 6 g3 b) 4 't!fxe4 7 lLlf3 .ic5+ 8 'it>g2 and after ltJc3 followed by ltJd5 White is winn ing. c) U ntes ted here is 4 .ib4+ after which White must find the best of three possible continuations: c I) 5 lLlc3 ltJxe5 6 f4 ltJg6 transposes to D . .•.

...

... ...

In the first chapter White pro tected the accepted gambit pawn by 4 ltJf3 and in the second chapter by another method 4 .if4. In both cases Black regained the gambit pawn. In the Alekhine system White returns the booty im mediately and st n ves for superiority in the cen tre. The White pawn structure e4/c4 assures Wh ite a strong point on d5, but his light-squared bishop is somewhat li mited in mobility. I n

...

...

...

...

The A lek hine System 4 e4

33

c2) 5 i.d2 i.xd2+ 6 tfxd2 lLl xe5 7 tfc3 '*ke7 ( 7 ... lLl bc 6 8 f4 wins the

continued pressure against f2. I t

pawn on g7) with a good game fo r

i s t h t: refort: natural to drive t h e

of the move ... h 5, namely the

Blac k . 8 f4 now gets White into

k n ight o n g 4 away. Late r in t h t:

difficulties (8 ... lLlg6 9 tfxg7?

game ... h5 will prove a weaknt:ss

1!Vxe4+) and aftt:r the plausible

on B lack' s kingside. For exa mplt: ,

continuation 8 lLl d2 0-0 9 i.t:2

short castling is tt:mporarily pre

lLlbc6 10 lbgf3 d6 I I 0-0 f5 Black is

vented. Now:

active. Remember the abow rule

A I 5 h3

referring to t h e exchange of dark

A2 5 i.e2

squared bishops.

c3) 5 lLld2 lLlxe5 6 a3 seems t o be favourable for White. 6 ... i.xd2+

7 i.xd2 followed by 8 i.c3 is obviously advantageous for White and after 6 ... i.e7 (6 ... i.c5 7 lLlb3) 7 lLlb3 or 6 ... i.e7 7 f4 lLlec6 (7 . .. lLlg6) 8 llJdf3 followed by ..id3 and llJe2 White is better developed. A

4

h5? ! (40)

AI

h3

5

Game I I Ahues-H elling

Berlin 1 932-33

�

( I d4 llJ f6 2 c4 e5 3 de llJg4 4 t:4 h 5

h3

llJxe5

6

i.e3

i. b4+

7

llJd2

f5

Later this move was quitt: rightly criticised, t h ough Black also stands

40 w

worse after

other moves. ECO

me nti ons 7 ... b6 but after H 't!fbJ i.e7 9 0-0-0 i.b7 10 f4 li1gt1 I I lLlgiJ lLlc6 12 c5 ! Wh ite st:.trHh bet t er, e.g. 12 .. . 0-0

U

"t!t"d 5 1

followt:d b y "iWxh5 o r 12 . . . II bS 13 tfcJ 0-0 14 g4 ' .

8 9 10

aJ

:ii... e 7

"i!t'b3 0-0-0

[ija6

This move contains some traps.

II

cS!

li' xeS

For exam ple 5 llJ IJ �c5 or 5 f4'!

12

�xeS

i.c5 6 lLlhJ lLl c6 ( 7 i.e2? '*kh4+)

U

li IC�

� gS +

14

�hi

IS

lLl xe5

ti'e7 ifxeS

are good for Blac k.

We see here the only advantage

d6 de

34

The A lekhine Sys1em 4 e4 16

on account of the following move order: 4 e4 d6 5 .i.e2 and only now 5 . . . h5. After 5 ..ie2 Black has two possibilities: A21 5 ... ..ic5 A22 5 d6

li:lf3 (41)

...

A21 5

Black is lost . 16 . 1!t'xe4+ fails to 1 7 �d3 e.g. 17 . . . 1!t'f4 Ill g3 1!t'xf3?? 19 �b5+ foll owed by 20 1!t'xf3. 16 1!t'e7 1 7 ef ..ixf5+ Ill ..id3 ..ixd3 t- 19 1!t'xd3 threatening 1!t'g6+ and il he I + is completely hopeless for Blac k . There o n l y remains 1 6 . . 1!t'f6 1 7 ..id3 (here 1 7 ef ..i xf5+ 1 8 ..i d 3 would n o t be so good because o f 1 8 . . . 0-0-0; t h e queen being on fti rather than e7 protects the bishop on f5) 1 7 . . . f4 1 8 e5 1!t'h6 (other wise ..igti+) 19 ..ie4 ..ieti ( 19 . . . c6 20 lid6; 19 . . . libll 20 'tWa4+ followed by 1!t'xa7) 20 1lrb5 + ! c6 21 't!Vxb7 0-0 22 lid6 liaell 23 t!¥xc6 threatening li:lxg5 fol lowed by llxe6 a nd if 23 . . . ..idll 24 lixe6 followed by .idS . ..

...

.

A2 5 .i.c2 After 4 . . . h5, 5 h3 is good enough but one must also examine 5 .i.e2

..ic5

Game 1 2 Golombek-Tartakower Birmingham 195 1 ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e 5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 h5 5 ..ie2 �c5) 6 li:lh3 6 .i.xg4 1!t'h4! 7 g3 1!t'xg4 ll 1!t'xg4 hg gives Black superb play for the pawn on accou nt of the open h-file and the light-square weak nesses in White's posi tion. 8 f3 't!re6 9 f4 d6 a nd later . . . h4 also gives Black excellent chances. 6 lll x c5 7 .i.g5 ..ie7 On 7 . . . f6 White natu rally plays not ll .i.xh5+ because of ll . . . g6. bu t 8 ..id2 h4 9 ..ic3 and sub sequently li:lf4, as in the game. 8 ..ixe7 1!t'xe7 It is true that the excha nge of the dark-squared bishops is pleasant for Black but here this plus has been bought at some price in view of the perma nent wea k ness at h5 and the loss of te mpo ..ic5-e7 . 9 0-0 d6

The A lekhine Sysum 4 e4 c6 I 0 lLlf4 II ll::J c3 After the risky conti nuat ion I I ll::J x h 5'? ! g6 1 2 ll::J g 3 Wh4 1 3 h3 Black has a strong attack on the h file. If he wants he ca n even force a draw by 1 3 . . . i.xh3 1 4 gh \!t'xh3 1 5 lie I ..Wh2+ 1 6 'i!; fl \!t'h3+ etc II i.g4 r3 i.d7 12 Black has been able to save his pawn on h5 and control the square d5 but these measures have cost him time. White has a great space advantage. b6 13 \!t'b3 14 \!t'a3 Setting his sights on the weakness on d6. lih6 14 \!t'f6 IS b3 16 \!t'cl ll::J a6 0-0-0 (42) 17 lidl

1 8 lLlbS! This kn ight is im mune: 1 8 ... cb 1 9 cb+ tt:\c5 ( 19 . . . liJc7'!? 20 liJd5) 20 lLld5 'i!fe6 21 b4. White regains

35

the pie<.:e, has a magnificent out post on d5 and the possibility of opening up the black king quickly by a4-a5. 18 i.e8 19 liJd4 gS 20 ll::J h 3? A mi!>take in a superior position. 20 li:ld 3 ! would have maintained the advantage , e.g. 20 . . . g4 2 1 lLl f5 lig6 22 f4 with a clear advantage to White. 20 �4! 21 lLl fS lig6 22 lilf4 �f! 23 't!¥a3 fe 24 't!¥x a6+ \.t>b8 25 li:he2 \!t'gS 26 g3 ..W�4 27 cS bS 28 ll::J c3 h4 29 li xd6 lidxd6 30 cd hg 31 li:l xg3 li:lf3+ 32 '-&>f2 li'l xh2 33 tt:\ce2 ..Wf3+ 34 \t>e I 1hg3 35 'ifaS l!lb7 The bla..: k king !lees from the th reat of tic 7+ followed by \!t'c8 mate. 36 �c7+ \t>a6 37 �c8+ was 38 \!t'c 7+ \!tb4?? Time-trouble. 37 . . . �ao leads to a d raw by pe rpetual check . 39 a3+ 'i!;cS If 39 . . . 'i!.>xbJ 40 liJd4+ fo rks

36

The Alekhine System 4 e4

king and quc:en. 40 �xa7+ 'it>xd6 41 li: d l + (43)

A22 5 d6 ..txd6 6 ed lt:\c6 7 lt:\f3 8 lt:\c3 ..te6 9 h3 lt:\ge5 Christofferson-Stahlberg, Sweden 1928. White now con tinued 1 0 lt:\xe5 a n d after I 0 . . . lt:\xe5 I I ..te3 lt:\xc4 ( I I . . . .ixc4?? 1 2 .ixc4 lt:\xc4 1 3 'it'a4+) 1 2 .ixc4 .ixc4 1 3 'it'd4 .ie6 1 4 'irxg7 �d7 1 5 0-0-0 stood clearly better. Summary

Black must now give up his queen as it is lost anyway, but only for a knight, after 41 . . . 'it>e6 42 lt:\d4+, while 41 . . . 'it>e5?? leads to mate after 42 'tlre7+. 41 'tlrd3 li: xd3+ li: xd3 42 43 �b8+ 'it>e7 44 1!Vxh1 li:xb3 45 'it'e5+ 'it>Ill 46 lt:\d4 li:bl+ 47 \t>d1 ..td7 48 't!¥d6+ \t>e8 49 lt:\xc6 ..txc6 50 'it'xc6 + �Ill \t>c1 51 li:e 1 li:xe4 52 't!¥xb5 a4 1 -0 53 This game: "ti pped over" twice as a result of the mistakes on moves 20 and 3M, but from the point of view of opening theory it was convincing enough.

4 . . . h5 is not a good continuation. Both 5 h3 and 5 .ie2 give White the adva ntage. More complicated is 4 . . . d6 which is t he t heme of the next two sections. B 4 5

ed

d6 .ixd6 (44)

44 w

6 .tel With superficial moves White

The Alekhine System 4 e4 ca n get a disadvantage, e.g. 6 lLlf3'! ..ic5 ! 7 'ff x d8+ 'it>xd8, when Black regains the pawn and stands better. rs 6 The alternative is 6 . . . li:lf6. Rishkin-Kazantsev, USSR 1 954, continued 7 lLlc3 0-0 8 lLlf3 ..ib4 9 'it'c2 ..ixc3+ 1 0 be lle8 I I e5 li:lg4 1 2 ..if4 lLlc6 1 3 lld l 't!t'e7 14 lld5 ..ie6 1 5 h3! lLlh6 ( 1 5 . . . ..ixd5?? 1 6 hg threatening 'ffx h7+ and 'ff h 8 mate; 1 5 . . . li:lgxe5 16 Ii: xe5 with great advantage for White) 1 6 0-0! ..ixd5? (a mistake in the worse position) 1 7 cd lLla5 1 8 li:lg5 g6 1 9 lLle4 'it>g7 20 ..ig5 'ffd 7 2 1 't!t'd2 lLlg8 ( 2 1 . . . lLl f5 22 ..if6+ and g4) 22 lLlf6 1 -0. Black has no good defence to the mating attack li:lxg8, ..if6+ and 1!t'h6. 'ffe7 7 er The starting point of two im portant games. Game 1 3 Capablanca-Tartakower Bad Kissingen / 928 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:lg4 4 e4 d6 5 ed ..ixd6 6 ..ie2 f5 7 ef 1!t'e7) Jose Raoul Capablanca, World Champion 1 92 1 -27, was fa mous, above all, for his fa ntastic tech nique in si mple positions. He liked to avoid unclear complications. Here there was the opportunity, adm ittedly at the cost of the op ponent's initiative, to win a piece: 8 c5 ..ixc5 9 'tlra4+ li:lc6 10 'it'xg4.

37

We will see the consequences of this piece sacrifice in the next ga me. I n this game Capablanca continued q uietly: 8 lLlrJ ..ixf5 9 ..igS lLlf6 I 0 li:lc3 lLlc6 II lLldS W'n 12 0-0 0-0-0 lLl xd4 1 3 li:ld4 1 4 'ffx d4 c6? c 5 1 5 't!t'h4 Better was 1 4 li:lxd5 1 6 cd ( 16 ..ixd8? ltJf4 ! ) 1 6 . . . llde8 as given by Euwe i n his book on Capablanca. 1 5 ..ixf6 gf (45) I n the above-ment ioned work Euwe now gives 16 't!t'xa 7 ! cd 1 7 cd with the possibi lities: a) 17 ... 1!t'xd5 18 Ii: fd l 1!t'e5 1 9 llac I + �d7 2 0 'ffx b7+ 'it>e8 2 1 ..ih5+ wins. b ) 17 ... ..ib8 18 Ii:ac l + 'it>d 7 1 9 'it'c3 llc8 2 0 ..ib5+ 'it>d8 2 1 'ffb6+ ..ic7 22 Ii:xc7 and wins ( n . . 1 hc 7 23 d 6 ; 2 2 . . . tt' x c 7 2J 't!t'xf6+ ). c ) 17 . . .
45 w

� %� �·' @% · ?7 :@ & "1C/" '%£% \lUI 1//X � - �� - � · �&'1

-. ..., /

'"

� · � r&t � � ttJ m .t � � fl· B oA �\illi � � • � � a a � � /:!; � - _i � [!; � g,· ·� � � ;a ;" �" a

38

The A lekhine System 4 e4

1 6 1hf6? Now Black could save h imself by 16 . . . 't!rg6! 1 7 't!rxg6 (but not 1 7 ll:Je7+ i.xe7 I !:! 't!t'xe7 llhe8) 1 7 . . . h g 1 8 lt'J e 3 i.xh2+ 1 9 �h I i.f4+ 20 �g l i.h2+ and draws by per petual check - Euwe. To his mis fortune Black missed this possibility. 't!rxf6 16 i.eS 1 7 ll:Jxf6 i.xf6 1 8 i.g4 Better was 1 8 . . . i.xg4 1 9 ll:J xg4 i.xb2 20 llab l i.d4 ( Eu we and Tartakower). White must still lose some tempi (h3, �h2) before he can become active with f4. 1 9 i.xfS+ �c7 i.xb2 20 lii: ad l lii: xd8 21 lii: x d8 If 2 1 . . . �xd8 22 lii: b l and 23 lii: x b7. lld4 22 i.xh7 ll xc4 23 g3 bS 24 h4 The pawn race begins. Naturally, with an extra pawn and a freer run for his passed pawns, White holds the better hand. The endgame artist Capablanca once again plays the rest of the game magnificently. aS 25 �g2 i.g7 26 hS i.h6 27 f4 Clearly directed against g4. lla4 28 llel lld4 29 i.g8 lld7 30 lle7+ �xd7 31 llxd7+

32 �1'3 cS 33 g4 c4 34 gS i.f8 h6 35 a4 If 35 . . . c3 36 i.b3 stops the pawn. 36 rs �c6 Or 36 . . . c3 37 �e2 b4 38 h7 i.g7 39 f6 i.h!:! 40 �d3 . h7 37 i.g7 f6 38 i.h8 39 f7 1 -0 While the end of the game was a clear success for White, the opening was not particularly so if we re member the possible improvements for Black on move 1 5 ( . . . c5). Three years after this game the critical position on the 7th move occurred again in practice. But this time it was not two such famous names as Capablanca and Tartakower at work, but two little known correspondence players. Thus it happened that this game almost remained unnoticed by the chess world; in large reference works such as ECO it is not even mentioned , let alone analysed . The A merican Josef Staker, whose booklet on the Budapest Gambit is often quoted in this book , has dug it up from somewhere. G a me 1 4 Egli-Bauer Correspondence 1 93 1 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c 4 e5 3 d e ltJg4 4 e 4 d6

The Alekhine System 4 e4 5 ed �xd6 6 �e2 f5 7 ef 'tlre7) This time the criti�:al piece sacrifice is put to a severe test. .ixc5 8 c5! 9 'ti'a4+ ll:lc6 10 'ti'xg4 (46)

ll:ld4? 10 This loses quickly, but others are no better: a) 1 0 . . .ixf5 (in ECO t his is i ncorrectly given an exclamation mark, att ributed to Tarta kower) I I 'ti'xf5 ll: f8 . Now a retreat of the white queen gives Black a raging attack after ... �xf2+ and . . . ll:d8+ but 1 2 .ig5 ! (Staker) puts an end to Black's hopes: a l ) 12 . 'tlfd6 1 3 'tlre4+ a l l ) 13 .. 'it'd7 1 4 �g4+ a 1 2) 13 ... 'itfl 1 4 .ic4+ a l 3) 13 ll:le7 1 4 'ti'xe7+ a 1 4) 13 ll:le5 14 ll:lf3 a2) l 2 ... ll: xf5 1 3 .ixe7 .ixf2+ 1 4 'it'f l 'it'xe7 1 5 ll:lf3 and White must win with careful play. a3) 1 2 .ixf2+ 13 'ti'xf2 1i'b4+ ( 1 3 . . . 1lt'xg5 1 4 ll:lf3 'ti'c l + 1 5 �d l .

.

.

.

...

...

...

39

followed by 0-0) 14 �d2 'tlrxb2 1 5 'fre3+ and wins. b) 1 0 ... 0-0! I I 'ti'c4+ 'it'h8 1 2 ll:lf3 1l xf5 1 3 0-0 b5 1 4 'ti'xb5 ll:lb4. So far this is analysis by the H ungarian correspondence master Dr Balogh, who continues i ncorrectly here 1 5 .id3 c6 1 6 1Wc4 1lxf3 1 7 gf .ia6 with adva ntage to Black. Correct is 1 5 ll:lc3 ! Sl,a6 1 6 'ti'xa6 ll:lxa6 1 7 .ixa6 with advantage t o White who has three pieces and a pawn for the queen a nd ca n easily con solidate his position with �b7 followed by �e4. 'it'd7 I I ifh5+! Other possibil ities give no pros pects of success: a) I I g6 1 2 fg! ll:lc2+ 1 3 'it'd ! ll:lxa l l 4 g7+ etc. b) I I ... 'it'd8?? 12 �g5 or 11 'i!t'f7 1 2 'ti'xf7+ 'it'xf7 1 3 .id I is not worth discussing. c) 11 'it'f8 1 2 f6! gf 1 3 .ih6+ �g8 1 4 ll:lc3! ll:lc2+ 15 'it'dI ll:lxa I 1 6 Sl.c4+ Sl.e6 1 7 'ti'xc 5 ! ! ( 1 7 . . . 'frxc5 1 8 SL.xe6 mate) is the prettiest va riation of D r Balogh's give n in Sta ker's booklet. 12 Sl,g5 'ti'e5 ll:lc2+ 13 ll:lc3 14 �n ll:lxal 15 'ti'f7 + 't>c6 Or 1 5 . . . Sl.e7 1 6 ll:lf3 'ifd6 1 7 ll:le4 'ti'b4 1 8 ll:le5+ 'it'd8 1 9 ll:ld 3 and wins. 16 Sl.f3+ 'it>b6 Or 1 6 . . . 'it'd6 1 7 ll:lb5 mate . 1 7 .if4 1-0 ...

...

...

40

The Alekhine System 4 e4

If the black queen moves White mates on c7. 17 . . . �!hf4 (1re7) 18 lLld5+ wins the queen. This is all well and good, but such complicated variations are not to everyone's taste. For this reason White sometimes forgoes taking on d6 and continues his develop ment. This is the theme of c. c

4 S

d6 i.e2 (47)

47 B

Cl 6 lLl ec6 7 lLlf3 i.g4 8 0-0 i.e7 9 lLl c3 lLld7 10 h3 i.xf3 1 1 i.xf3 0-0 1 2 i.e3 lLlb6 1 3 b3 i.f6 1 4 'tfd2 lLle7 1 5 liad l with advantage to White, Ulvestad-Haro, M alaga 1 965 . C2 6 lLlg6 lLlc6 7 lL!f3 8 0-0 i.e7 9 lLlc3 0-0 1 0 .te3 lieS I I 'tfd2 .tf6 1 2 lLld4 .td7 1 3 liae I lL!xd4 1 4 .txd4 i.c6 1 5 i.d I , Katajisto-de G reiff, A msterdam 01 1 954, and after manoeuvring the bishop to c2 White had a permanent plus due to his overwhelming space advantage. Both these e xa mples are given in ECO by IM M inev. C3

In this way W hite avoids all the complicatio�s of B . The game is conducted on quiet, positional lines. Black can play 5 . . . h5 which leads to a position already exam ined in A (see game 1 2) . lLlxeS S f4 6 Black has three knight moves at his disposal: Cl 6 . . . lLlec6 C2 6 . . . lLlg6 C3 6 . . . lLlg4

lL!g4 6 A t ry of the A merican Mayers who has been much involved in the B u dapest Gambit and who publishes his a nalysis in his own occasional bulletins. The k night on g4 is i ndirectly protected: 7 .txg4 'tfh4+ 8 g3 'tfxg4 and Black stands well . White must play differently: 7 l[jf3 Now: C 3 1 7 .. .te7 C32 7 .. lLlc6 .

.

The A lekhine .\'ystem 4 e4

7 $t.e7 Mayers was mainly conc�:rn�:d with the combination 8 0-0 d5!? 9 �:d .ic5+. Even here ev�:ryt hing is not clear, but it remains an academic question as White can get an ad vantage by si mple means . 8 ti:Jc3! 0-0 ti:Jc6 0-0 9 H�:re 9 . . . d5 is completely wrong: 1 0 �xd5 �xd5 I I ti:Jxd5 .ic5+ 1 2 'it>h I a nd . . . ti:Jf2+ i s �:xcludcd because of th�: threat ti:Jxc7. I f Black had played 8 . . . ti:Jc6 inst�:ad of castling, Mayers' idea is still not f�:asible: 8 . . ti:Jc6 9 0-0 d5 I 0 cd .ic5+ I I 'it>h I ti:J�:7 ( I I . . . ti:Jf2+'!? 1 2 l hf2 and dc) 1 2 �e l and White is simply two pawns up. I0 h3 ti:Jf6 I I .ie3 lle8 1 2 li:Jd4 .if8 1 3 .if3 .id7 14 llc l li:Jxd4 1 5 .i xd4 .ic6 16 �d3 g6 1 7 llfd 1 .ig7 1 8 b4 a6 1 9 a4 . White has a big space advantage. .

C32 7 0-0 8 9 li:Jc3 h3 10 II eS 12 fe 1 2 . . . li:Jh5'! 1 3 'it>h2! g4. 13 .ie3 1 4 .id3! (48)

�c6 .id7 .ie7 li:Jf6 de li:Jg8 followed by f6

41

Black has a very p o o r position. Rcshcvsky-Denker, Syracuse 1 934. There is nothing to be done about the simple White plan 'tit'c2 and llae I or llad I. Furthermore, 14 ... liJx�:s·r! fa ils to 15 lt'Jxc5 re l h �h5+ g6 1 7 �xg6 + ! h g I H .lixg6 mate. Equally horrible for Black 1 s 1 4 . . . fe 1 5 liJxeS liJf6 ( 1 5 . . . liJxe5 1 6 �h 5 + g6 1 7 �xeS l2Jf6 I H 1Ixf6) 1 6 ll xf6! .i xf6 1 7 'i!Vh5+ g6 18 .ixg6+ and you can find the rest for you rself. Summary I n the variation 4 . . . d6 a sharp struggle arises after accepting the pawn ( B ). A lthough White has ad vantages, he is running a few ri�b. Declining the gambit with 5 .ie2 (C) assures White a clear space advantage without any problems. It is advisable for Black to play 4 ... liJxeS immediately after 4 e4. In those variations (the theme of the last two sections of this chapter) Black has the best prospects of satisfac tory counterplay.

42

The Alekhine System 4 e4

D 4 5

f4

ll::l xe5 ll::l g6 (49)

The advantage of this move is that the pawn on f4 comes under fire. What can prove a disadvan tage is that White always has f5 at his disposal. This advance cannot be made now (and usually not in the next few moves) as Black would then gladly put his knight on e5, the classic square of operations in the Budapest Gambit. White must therefore first fight to con trol this square. Dl 6 llJO 02 6 ..ie3 First we look at some sidelines: a) 6 ll::l c 3 .tb4 7 ..ie3 transposes to 02. The alternative is 7 .td2 .txc3 8 ..ixc3 ll::l xf4 9 .txg7 JigS 1 0 .tc3 ll::l x g2+ I I .txg2 lixg2 with a sharp position in which White hardly has compensation for the lost pawn. b) 6 a3 and now Black can equalise easily with 6 . a5 followed by . . . ..

lt:\a6 and . . . ..i c 5 - Tartakower. For those who like sharp positions here is the analysis from ECO and Staker: 6 . . . ..ic5 7 lLlf3 (7 b4 .txg I 8 li xg I 0-0 9 't!f'f3 d6 1 0 g4 a5 I I b5 lLld7 1 2 lia2 ll::l c 5 1 3 ..ie3 b6 with positional advantage for Black, Mechkarov-Atanasov, corres 1955) 7 . . . d6 8 b4 ..ib6 9 f5 lLl h4 10 ll::lg 5 't!f'e7 I I c5 de 12 .tc4 cb (50)

Mechkarov mentions 1 3 ..ixl7+ �f8 with better chances for Black. Staker gives 1 3 't!f'h5 ll::l xf5 1 4 't!hl7+ 't!f'xl7 1 5 .txl7+ �e7 1 6 ef h6 1 7 .tg6 as won for W hite ( 1 7 . . . h g 1 8 ..ixg5+ with an attac k ) but overlooks the si mple 1 7 . . . ..id4 ! , e.g. 1 8 lia2 hg 1 9 .t xg5+ ..if6 20 lie2+ �d8 2 1 .txf6+ gf 22 lid2+ lLld7 23 ab c6 and Black, with a strong k night posted on e5 has a satisfactory game (his plan is 24 . . . �c7 a n d 2 5 . . . ll::le 5, to b e followed by . . . a5). Dl 6

lLlf3 (5 1)

The Alekhine System 4 e4

Threatens f5. Black's best con tinuation is 6 . . . i.b4+. With refer ence to 6 . . . i.c5 see the following famous game.

43

10 'tth 5+! g6 Or 1 0 . . . c;t;>f8 I I 'ihh4! (but not I I ll:lxh7+? c;t;>g8 ! ) I I . . . fg 1 2 i.xg5 with enormous advantage to White. 1 1 1!rxh4 fg 1 2 i.xg5 \!t'f7 1 3 i.e2 0-0 14 nn ll:lc6 lLJd4 1 5 ll:lc3 'i!rxg6 16 rg ..txfB 17 .1Ixf8+ 18 ..th5 'trb6 (52) 52 w

Game I S Alekhine-Seitz Baden-Baden 1 925 ( I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:lg4 4 e4 ll:lxe5 5 f4 ll:lg6) i.c5? 6 ll:lf3 ll:lh4? 7 f5! Relatively better was 7 . . . ll:le7 but n ot 7 . . . ll:le5 8 ll:lxe5 't!t'h4+ 9 g3 't!t'xe4+ 1 0 't!t'e2 't!t'xh I I I ll:lg6+ and wins. The text sets a simple trap (8 i.g5?? ll:l xf3+) but after the strong reply 8 ll:lg5! Black's disadvantage is already decisive. The knight on h4 is cut off and 8 . . . h6 is refuted by 9 ll:l xf7 c;i;>xf7 1 0 't!t'd5+ etc. 't!t'e7 8 f6 9 'tlt'g4 Clearly the only move.

Black fights ingeniously in a lost position . After the plausible 19 \!t'f2 (protecting b2 and also threatening mate by 1!t'l7+ and 't!t'xf8 ), Black counters with 1 9 . ll:lc2+ ! ! ( 20 1!t'xc 2 \!t'g l + 2 1 c;i;>e2 1!rxg2+ and . . . 1!t'xg5) and quite unexpectedly survives. 19 0-0-0 ! i.g7 20 lii: fl ll:le6 21 i.f7+ c;i;>h8 22 i.xe6 't!t'xe6 23 i.f6! 1 -0 White wins in every variation, . .

44

The Alekhine System 4 e4

e.g.

23 . . . .W.x.f6 24 l hf6 't!fcll 25 'W'h6 �gil 26 lt:ld5 or 23 . . . d6 24 .W.x.g7+ �x.g7 25 't!VgS+ \i'g6 26 \i'e7+ �h6 27 lH6. As we have just seen so vividly, 6 lt:lf3 threatens f5 i m mediately. Therefore Black m ust not delay (6 . . . ..icS?) but check immediately. 6 .Q.b4+ (53) 53 w

Now t he main continua tion is 7 lt:lc3 (see ga me 1 6). White also has: a) 7 lt:lbd2?? lt:lxf4 with advantage. b) 7 .Q.d2 't!fe7 ( threatening both . . . lt:lxf4 a n d . . . \i'e4+ ) 8 �f2 ..ixd2 ( 8 . . . i. e 5+? 9 �g3 ! ) 9 't!rxd2 \i'xe4 1 0 ..id3 ( 1 0 g 3 0-0) 1 0 . . . 't!fxf4 I I lie I + �d8. This variation is u n tested but the author can see no compensation for the two sacrificed pawns, e.g. 1 2 't!fc3 't!ff6 1 3 't!fc2 d6 14 lt:lc3 ..ie6 etc. c) 7 �f2 ..ic5+ 8 �g3 ( 8 ..ie3 ..txe3+ 9 �xe3 't!ff6 ! ) 8 . . . d6 9 a3 aS with about equal chances. White must still lose two tempi to hide his king by h3 and �h2. The ending after 10 f5 lt:le5 I I lt:lxeS de

1 2 't!fxdll+ �xdll followed by . . . c6 is rather in Black's favour due to the hole on d4. Game 1 6 Chebotayev-lsayev USSR 1 948 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 e4 lt:lxeS 5 f4 lt:lg6 6 ltJf] ..ib4+) 0-0 7 lt:lc3 We will look at the alternatives 7 . . . d6 and 7 . . . 't!rf6 later. d6 8 ..id3 9 0-0 ..ixc3 10 be lt:lc6 b6 I I 'W'c2 lt:laS 1 2 lt:ld4 1 3 ..te3 \i'd7 1 3 ... ..ia6 14 \i'e2 could transpose to the game. 14 lt:lrs ..ta6 IS ..id4 f6 1 6 't!re2 (54)

Black takes aim at the pawn on c4 much too early. He should have played 16 . . . liae8. Aftc:: r 1 7 li D , for example, ( with the idea llh3

The A lekhine System 4 e4 and 11t'h5) an exchange sacrifice comes i nto consideration: 1 7 . . . 'tlt'xf5 1 8 e f ll xe2 1 9 i.xe2 llJh4 20 llf2 lLlxf5 and Black still catches the c4 pawn . After 1 6 . . . llae8 1 7 llae I 'tlrf7 Black's chances would be much better than i n the game. 17 eS! llae8 Or 1 7 . . . .i. xc4 1 8 ef i.xd3 1 9 'lrxd3 winning the ·pawn on g 7 , as 19 ... gf!? loses to 20 lLlh6+. Further more, 1 7 . . . fe? 1 8 fe doesn't help as lt:lh6+ is again threatened and the rook on fl e n ters the fray. 1 8 W'g4 fe W'e6 19 fe 1 9 . . . lLlxe5?? 20 lLlh6+. 20 ed .i.xc4 21 .i.xc4 lLlxc4 White now wins with an energetic attack i n which the pawn on d6 plays a key role. 22 lt:lh6+! gh Black has no choice: 22 . . . 'it'h8 23 W'xe6 llxe6 24 lLlf7+ 'it'g8 25 d 7 ! wins. 'it'xfB 23 llxfB+ 24 : n + 'it'g8 (55) 55 w

45

d7! 25 tie7 26 de1t"+ 'tlhe8 27 'irt1 1 -0 The threats 'ird5 + and 't!t'f6 can not both be pa rried. Black's defeat was not absolutely due to the opening. 7 .. . 0-0 must be examined more closely. On his 7th move Black has other pos sibilities: 7 llJc3 (56) 56 B

a) 7 'tlrf6 8 e5 1fb6 9 f5 llJe7 l O .i.d3 d5!? (but not 1 0 . . . i.xc3+ 1 1 be d6 1 2 f6 with advantage to White - Staker) with an u nclear position after 1 1 f6 d4 or 1 1 ed llJxf5. b) 7 ... d6 8 .id3 i.c5 9 llJa4! and White is a bit better, e.g. 9 . . . .i.b4+ l O �f2! followed b y a 3 , o r 9 . . . llJc6 l O llJxc5 de I I .i.e3 with so me advantage to W hite accord ing to Mech karov. I n stead of 8 . . . .i.c5 the following moves c;an be considered: b I) 8 ... 0-0 transposing to game 16. •..

46

The Alekhine System 4 e4

b2) 8 a6 9 0-0 .ic5+ 1 0 'it>h 1 lLlc6 b3) 8 .ixc3+ 9 be 1!Vf6 1 0 1!fd2 li::Jd 7 followed by . . . lDc5. ...

...

D2 6

.ie3 (57)

White prevents 6 . . . .ic5. .ib4+ 6 7 li::Jc 3 7 li::Jd 2 is not good on account of 7 . . . 1!Ve7 8 11t'c2 (the natural protection 8 .id3 fails here to 8 . . . 'trd6! w i t h a surprising w i n o f a pawn - Steiner) 8 . . . li::J c6 9 liJgfJ b6 with a good game for Black G rtinfeld, e.g. 1 0 a3 .ic5 't; 1 0 .id3 .ic5 1 1 .ixc5 11t'xc5 1 2 g3 1!fe3+ 't; 1 0 g3 .ib7 1 1 .ig2 .ic5 .ixc3+ 7 8 be b6!? A n i nteresting alternative to the possible variation 8 . . . 1!fe7 9 .id3 f5 1 0 'itc2 fe I I .ixe4 li::J xf4 1 2 .ixf4 d5 1 3 cd .if5 winning back the piece in a game Meier-Griinfeld. 9 .id3 =.

9 11t'd5? li::J c 6 and W hite's queen is soon exposed. 9 .ib7 10 li::J f3 d6 li::J d7 0-0 11 with level chances. White can never play f5 because of the square e5. I f White does nothing active, there follows . . . 0-0, . . . JileS and . . . lDc5 with pressure against White's centre. Heim-Schroder, 1 96 7, continued sharply 1 2 e5 de 1 3 .ixg6 ( 1 3 fe? .ixf3 1 4 1fxf3 li::J d xe5) 1 3 . . . hg 1 4 fe 1t'e7 1 5 .ig5 1t'c5+ 1 6 1!Vd4 li::Jf8 1 7 'trxc5 be 1 8 lilab I .ia6 1 9 li::Jd 2 lDe6 20 .if4 ( 20 .ie3 lilh5) 20 . . . 0-� 2 1 lilb2 lild3 and Black wen t on to win. The rest of the game is u nfortunately unavailable, but there is no doubting Black's advantage. This game fragment does not provide enough evidence to make a correct assessment of 8 . . . b6, but this plan certainly deserves fu rther investigation . If it does not hold good, Black still has the example Meier-Griinfeld (see note to Black's 8th) to fall back on. Summary 5 . . . li::J g6 is probably playable. Black has more problems in the variation 6 liJO. In both variations (6 liJO and 6 .ie3) Black must play 6 . . . .ib4+. In the opinion of the Swedish IMs and Budapest experts Harry

The A lekhine Syslem 4 e4 Schiissler and Tom Wedberg, Black has an easier task if he decides o n 5 . . . ll:\ec6. This i s t h e subject of the last section of the Alekh ine system.

47

can settle on a7 if necessary (e.g. after ll:\a4).

E 4 5

f4

ll:\xeS ll:\ec6 (58)

Here the black k n ight is not exposed. Furthermore, black holes have appeared in W hite's camp (particularly d4). I n our first illus trative game the Soviet GM over looked this hole and only narrowly avoided defeat. G ame 1 7 Vaganian-Wedberg Buenos A ires OJ 1978 ( I d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 e5 3 de ll:\g4 4 e4 ll:\xe5 5 f4 ll:\ec6) .icS 6 ll:\f3 d6 7 ll:\c3 aS (59) 8 .id3 A m ulti-purpose move. It con trols b4 (countering an eventual a3 and b4) a nd the bishop on c5

9 h3 White does something about . . . .ig4. I M Minev does not like 9 h 3 and cites the fol lowing variation: 9 1t'e2 .ig4 I0 .ie3 ll:\d4 I I 'tif2 .ixf3 1 2 .ixd4! with advantage to White (Wedberg). However, instead of I I . . . .ixf3?, I I . ll:\e6!? comes strongly into consideration ( 1 2 h 3? ll:\xf4 ! ; 1 2 0-0? ll:\xf4 ! ; 1 2 .ixc5 de!? threatening the bishop on d3 and the pawn on f4). Also after 1 2 g3 ll:\c6 Black has a satisfactory game. It was probably just this variation that White wanted to avoid a nd therefore played 9 h3. 9 ll:\a6 .ie6 10 ll:\dS 11 a3 I I .ie3 .ixd5! 1 2 .ixc5 .ixe4 with advantage to Black - Wedberg. 11 0-0 H o w should White get castled? 1 2 .ie3 is again refuted by 1 2 . . . .ixd5 and the preparatory 1 2 1!re2 . .

48

The Alekhine System 4 e4

(still to play .i.e3) is answered by 1 2 . . . ll:e8 after which White is in danger on the c-fi le ( 1 3 .i.e3 f5 ! 1 4 0 -0 .i.xd5 1 5 c d fe wins). .i.xd5 12 f5 13 cd lDe5 14 lDxe5?! Relatively better was 14 .i.f4 (Wedberg) though Black still stands somewhat better: 1 4 . . . lD xO+ 1 5 'Wxf3 .i.d4 1 6 0-0-0 1ff6 1 7 litd2 g5! with a dark-squared blockade and use of e5 (Plan: ... lDc5-d7). 1fh4+ 14 de 1 5 �d2 1 6 �c2 .td4 c6 1 7 litO d6 18 If 1 8 de litfc8 with an attack. lilc5 18 litfdB f6 19 20 fg (60)

lit xd6? 20 Correct now was 20 . . . lDxd3! 2 1 1fxd3 (2 1 1ff3? lDf2! wins) 2 1 . . . litxd6 with great, if not already decisive, advantage for Black, e.g.

22 .i.d2 (with the trap 22 ... .i.xb2?? 23 1ff3) 22 . . . "f/e7 23 tro f6 followed by . . . 1hg7, . . . �h8 and . .. litg8. Black would then have a healthy extra pawn, a dominating bishop on d4 and pressure on the g- and d-files, while White cannot do much on the f-file. lit d7 21 1ff3 Or 2 1 . . . 'tlfe7 22 .tc4!. B lack should have taken this resuscitated bishop earlier. 1re7 22 g3! But not 22 . . . 1fxh3?? 23 .tc4! (threatening to t ra p the queen by lith 1 ) 23 . . . lite7 24 lith I 1fd7 25 1fh5 and W hite wins. lilxe4! 23 .tc4 24 .td3! The only move. 24 11he4 1fc5 25 11re2 b5 leads to the loss of the attacking bishop and Black is run ning matters again. lOgS 24 Intending to refute the sally 25 1fh5 by 25 . . . e4! (26 .txg5 ed+ 27 Wb l 11re6 etc). 1fxg5 25 .txg5 't!fxg7 26 h4 27 litael �hB litgB 28 lite4 29 1ff5 Now 29 . . . lite7 30 lilg4! 1fh6! was indicated ( Wedberg) and Black could still have played for a win. I n time trouble he committed a grave error. 29 litd6??

The A lekhine Sy.l'tem 4 e4 �xf7 �xf7 l:ig7 l hf7 :iil g8 :iil f8+ :iil f7 1/z-1/z 33 . . . l:ih6 34 l:ixb 7 :iil xg3 35 i.c 4 ( i f 35 . . . l:ih 5?? 36 l:ig4; but on the other hand Whi te threaten� l:ibll+ followed by l:ig!H and l:ixg3) so Wedberg opted to repeat moves. 30 31 32 33

Summary Black stood well out of the opening. 6 ltJf3 al lowing 6 . . . i.c5 is not so good as W h i te has problems with castling. It is natural to prevent 6 . . . i.c5 by 6 i.e3 and this is the main variation of t h is section. First we will look briefly at another apparen tly harmless, but really quite dangerous, move.

El 6

a3!? (61)

A trap. After 6 . . . .ic5?! 7 b4! .ixg l H lbg I 'tth 4+ (relatively

49

b e t t e r is M . . . 0-0 but t he n B l ac k has n o co mpensa tion fo r the los� u f t h e bi s h o p pai r ) 9 g3 'ilt'xh2 1 0 lig2

�h I I I i.b2 Wh ite has po werfu l compensation for the sac r i ficed pawn . 6 aS 7 xd .!Lla6 Black fol l ows t he typical d a r k squa red s t r a t eg y of t he Buda pest G a m bit and wants to exchange the bishop on e3. White can hardly prevent this, e.g. 8 't!t'd 5? b6 9 lil f3 i.b7 1 0 i.d3 ltJc5! and Black stands clearly better ( I I .ic2 li:lb4 1 2 �d2 ltJxc2+ 1 3 �xc2 .ixe4; I I .ixc5 .ixc5). The queen move to d5, as al most always in this gambit, does not work out well. 8 �Jc3 xeS 9 �d2 Worse is 9 i.xc5 ltJxc5 as Black can later fix the hole on b3 by . . . a4. 9 d6 I 0 ltJf3 0-0 II i.d3 lle8 {62)

50

The A lekhine System 4 e4

with a roughly equal game, e.g. 1 2 0-0 .i.xe3+ 1 3 1!he3 lLlc5 1 4 .i.c2 a4 1 5 llae l .i.e6! ( 1 5 . . . f6? ! 1 6 t!Vf2 .i.g4 1 7 lLld4 11fd7 1 8 lLld5 wins - K moch ) 16 lLld5 ( 1 6 t!Ve2 lLla 5 ! ) 1 6 . . . lLla5 with complicated play, e.g. 17 'itc3 f6 1 8 lLld4 .i.f7 followed by 19 . . . c6. The attack 1 9 lLlf5 c 6 2 0 t!Vg3 is easily parried by 20 . . . .i.g6. S umma ry Black's counterplay in this variation is based on the weaknesses b3 and c4 in White's position, brought about by the premature advance a2-a 3 . We now pass on to the main variation which forgoes interpol ating the moves 6 a3 a 5 . E2 6

.i.e3 (63)

possibilities: a) 7 �1'2 lLla6 8 a3 (8 lLlc3 .i. xc3 9 be leads to the main variation with the 'gift' tempo �f2) 8 . . . .i.c5 and now: a I ) 9 b4? t!Vf6! wins material. a2) 9 .i. xcS lLlxc5 10 'ttc 2 'ttf6 is in Black's favour. a3) 9 t!Vd2 'ttf6 1 0 g3 .i.xe3+ I I xe3 lLlc5 1 2 1!rc3 1!re7 1 3 .i.g2 0-0 is good for Black on account of the bad position of the white king. Black plans 14 . . . a5 and if 14 b4 then 14 . . . lLle6 followed by ... a 5 ! . b) 7 lLld2 'ith4+ 8 g 3 t!Ve7 a n d here ECO quotes two practical examples: b I ) 9 .i.g2 a5 10 lLle2 lLla6 I I 0-0 d6 1 2 lLlb3 .i.g4 1 3 h3 .i.xe2 1 4 t!Vxe2 a4 was Pomar-Heidenfeld, Enschede 1 963. b2) 9 trO lLla6 1 0 0-0-0 lLlc5 I I .i.xc5 .i.xc5 1 2 lLlb3 d6 1 3 lLle2 f5 1 4 lLlxc5 de 1 5 e5 0-0 (followed by . . . .i.e6 and ... litad8) Visier O'Kelly, Malaga 1967, with equality in both cases. We now examine the following variations i n examples from tour nament practice: E21 7 ... d6 E22 7 ... 1re7 E23 7 trh4+ •..

White prevents the developmen t o f t h e enemy bishop on c 5 , so another square presents itself. .tb4+ 6 7 lLlc3 White has two other significant

Garne t S Chebotayev-Machkin USSR 1 968 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4 4 e4 lt!xe5 5 f4 lLlec6 6 .te3 .tb4+)

The A lekhine System 4 e4

7 lt:lc3 d6 8 'tlt'c2 lt:la6 9 0-0-0 i.g4 1 0 i.e2 i.xe2 11 lt:lgxe2 't!t'c8 1 2 lt:lg3 i.cS 1 3 i.xcS lt:l xcS 14 eS de I S lt:lfS lt:le6 16 fe lt:lxeS? Too opti mistic. 16 . . 0-0 was i ndica ted , followed by . . . 't!t'e8 and . . . l:ld8. Black certainly has a passive position here. f6 17 l:lhel 1 8 lt:le4 By grabbing the pawn on e5 Black has forfeited the possibility of castling - e7 is n ot protected. 18 �f8 lt:ln 1 9 'tlt'f2 20 lt:lcS lt:lxcS 2 1 't!t'xcS+ ll:ld6 22 Il xd6 ! cd 23 't!t'xd6+ �n 24 1!re7+ �g6 25 1lt'xg7+ �xfS 26 g4+ �f4 27 11t'xf6+ 1-0 The set-up with 7 . . . d6 brought Black quite a passive position, mainly because this move does nothing about White's centre. I n the next game Black immediately exerts pressure against the white pawn on e4.

51

G ame l9 Alekhine-Seitz Hastings 1 925-26 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:lg4 4 e4 lt:l xe5 5 f4 lt:lec6 6 i.e3 i.b4+) 7 lt:lc3 1We7 (64) 64 w

.

In comparison wit h ga me 1 8 , Black reacts much better here , im mediately eyeing the pawn on e4. 8 i.d3? fS? But not like this! A rule of thumb: pressure on the e-pa.-.·n must be conducted with pieces! Better was 8 . . . i.xc3+ 9 be lt:la6 I 0 'tlt'f3 lt:lc5 I I i.c2 b6 followed by . . . i.b7 and . . . 0-0-0. We will see a similar idea in improved form in the next game. 9 't!t'hS+! A far-sighted manoeuvre. The a l -h8 diagonal is weakened by the forced . . . g6 and the bishop on e3 will subsequently do great deeds there (see AJekhine's note to Black's 1 6th move).

52

The A lekhine System 4 e4

g6 9 .ixe3+ 10 't!¥f3 fe? be 11 Somewhat better was I I . . d6 though White still has more of the game after 1 2 lt:\e2 0-0 1 3 lt:\g3 lt:\a6 14 0-0 .id7 15 l:l:ab l . 0-0 1 2 .ixe4 �h8 13 .idS+ 14 lt:\h3 d6 15 0-0 .ixh3 16 't!¥xh3 'ffd 7 Alekhine gives the following variation : 16 . . . lt:ld7 1 7 llae l 1Wg7 1 8 f5 g5 19 llb I llab8 20 f6 lt:lxf6 2 1 .ixc6 be 22 llxb8 l:l:xb8 23 .id4 l:l:f8 24 'i!fe6 and wins. 17 f5! (65) .

65 B

The decisive move. After 1 7 . . . llxf5 1 8 g4! l:l:xfl + 1 9 l:l:xfl White's attack wins, e.g. 19 . . . •g7 2 0 .ih6; 1 9 . . . 1re7 2 0 l:l: f7 ; 1 9 . . . lt:\d8 2 0 .id4+ etc. gf 17 18 l:l:ab l ! White wants t o provoke . . . b6 which weakens the position of the

k night on c6. This idea is made clear i n the following variation given by Kotov: 18 . . . b6 19 ll be I (threatening 20 .ih6 followed by 2 1 l:l:xf5 ) 1 9 . . . lt:\a6 20 .ixc6 'ttx c6 2 1 .id4+ �g8 22 1!t'g3+ etc. I n a very bad position Black tries to relieve the pressure by exchanging queens. 18 f4 1 9 .ixf4 'ti'xh3 20 .i.e5+! 1-0 If 20 . . . lt:\xe5 2 1 l:l:xf8+ �g7 22 l:l:g8+ �h6 23 gh wins. Karl Gilg, a Czechoslovak master of German origin who settled in West Germany after the second World War, tried an interesting improvement in the last game of this sectio n. He was able to equalise convinci ngly. Though G ilg finally lost this game, one should not forget that his oppo nen t, Paul Keres, was one of the greatest chess personalities of the 20th century. G ame 20 Keres-Gilg Prague 1 937 ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:\g4 4 e4 lt:\xe5 5 f4 lt:\ec6 6 .i.e3 .ib4+) 7 lt:\e3 1i'h4+ ! Similar to Alekhine's manoeuvre in the previous game. Here too the queen check is bound to weaken a

The A lekhine System 4 e4 diagonal and thus increase the effectiveness of the queen's bishop. It is obvious that Black will sub sequently develop his bishop on this diagonal at b7. .txc3+ 8 g3 'ti'e7 be 9 1 0 i.d3 After 1 0 ..ig2 Black obtains a satisfactory game with 1 0 . . . b6, e.g. I I lLJe2 i.b7 1 2 0-0 �a6 followed by . 0-0-0 and . . . lbc5. lLJa6 10 1 1 .tc2! �c5 with 1 2 To answer I I .

.

1t'd5. b6 11 �c5 1 2 �f3 13 0-0! The pawn is poisoned: 1 3 . . . li:lxe4? 1 4 .txe4 1t'xe4 1 5 .txb6! followed by Jle I. i.b7 13 14 0-0 e5 -0 15 lLJd4 (66) 66 8

The game is equal. Black should now have played 1 5 . . . g6! which

53

makes the square rs inaccessible to the white k night and prepares something active such as . . . f6, . . . d6 or . . . �a S . The game con tinuation i s risky a nd White assumes the i nitiative . ts r6? 16 �rs 'ttfl 1 7 ..id4 g6 18 �e3 re 19 re 1!Vh6 20 �d5 li:le6 21 1!Vd3 l:thfl 22 l:tr6 According to Vasconsellos i n "Staker" Black could equalise here with 22 . . . �cxd4 23 cd i.xd5 24 l:txf8 l:txf8 25 cd �g5 26 l:tfl �h3+ 27 �g2 l:txfl 28 �xf l . The author cannot agree with this j udgement. This ending is better for White who can continue, for example, with i.b3 and e6. 22 1fh5 23 lite I li:lcxd4 24 cd i.xdS (6 7) 67 w

Apparently 22 . . . 1rh5 has turned

54

The A lekhine System 4 e4

out all right for Black, e.g. 25 cd lhf6 26 ef \!fxd5 or 25 lhf8 l hf8 26 cd ltJg5. However, there now follows a surprise: i.xc4 25 i.d1 ! If Black moves his queen, White plays llxf8 fol lowed by cd. The square f3, in contrast to the previous variation, would then be firmly in White's hands. 26 \!fxc4 'irgS 'it>b8 27 i.f3 28 'irdS c6

'it>b7 29 1rd6+ 30 lhf8 llxf8 Or 30 . lDxf8 3 1 e6! lLlxe6 32 lhe6! w i ns a piece as 32 ... de allows 3 3 1hc6+ 'it>a6 34 'ira4 mate. 31 'ti'xd7+ lLlc7 32 'irxc6+ 1 -0 Despite this loss (to a world class player! ) Karl G ilg's idea , now almost fifty years old, still deserves consideration. .

.

4

Rare Systems

lt:lf6 d4 I eS c4 2 lt:lg4 3 de The rare systems are divided i nto two groups: A White protects the pawn on e5 by various moves apart from 4 lt:lf3 and 4 i.f4, which were examined in the first two chapters. B Other moves. A White's other means of protect i ng the pawn on e5 are: A I 4 f4 A2 4 't!rd4 A3 4 1idS AI 4 6H B

f4? (68)

4 .tcS This creates confusion in White's camp. Now 5 e3 lt:lxe3 6 i.xe3 i.xe3 is clearly better for Black . d6 s lt:lh3 6 ed cd 7 e4 0-0 8 lt:lc3 lle8 Black has splendid play for t he sacrificed pawn , e.g. 9 i.d3 't!t'h4+ 10 �d2 lt:le3 I I 't!t'e2 i.g4 or 9 g3 lt:lc6 I 0 i.d3 't!t'f6 I I lt:ld5 ( I I i.d2 't!Vh6! ) I I . . . 't!t'h6 ! and Black wins, e.g. 1 2 lLlc7 't!rxh 3 1 3 lt:l xe 8 't!t'g2 1 4 l H I lt:lf2 ( 1 5 't!rd2 i.b4 ; 1 5 'ft'c2 lt:lb4; 1 5 'ft'e2 i.g4; 1 5 'ft'b3 lt:la5 1 6 'ft'c3 i.b4 ). The variation 4 f4? is bad. White loses time and weakens t he diagonal g 1-a 7. A2 4 't!t'd4?! (69) With this move White not only defends the pawn on e5 but at t he same time attacks the knight on g4. Therefore 4 't!Vd4 does not lack a cenain logic ; it is in teresting to note that this move is played by many chess computers.

56

Rare Systems game.

69 B

However it has one disadvantage: the queen is exposed on d4 and really invites the win of a tempo with . . . ltJc6. First, though, some thing must be done about saving the k night on g4. G ame 2 1 Laszlo-Abonyi Budapest 1 933 ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLlg4) d6 4 'ird4 ed 5 Or 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 comfortably re gaining the pawn on e5 with the win of a tempo as t he white queen m ust move. -'.xd6 5 Naturally . . . -'.b4+ winning the queen is threatened. Snatching another pawn only increases Black's dangerous i nitiative: 6 1We4+ (6 't!rxg7 .i.e 5 ! ) 6 . . . .i.e6 7 't!rxb7 lLld7 tl e3 0-0 9 lLlf3 ltJc5 1 0 Wb5 l:lb8 1 1 'ira 5 (or 1 1 Wc6 l:lb6) I I . . . lLld3+ followed by . . . .i.b4+ or . .- ltJ xf2 - 0- 1 in a computer

6 ltjf3 0-0 7 h3 Black's lead in development is also practically decisive after 7 lLlc3, e.g. 7 . . . lLlc6 8 'ird I -'.c5 9 e3 Wxd l + ! 10 lLlxd l lLlb4. lLlc6 7 8 't!re4 8 Wd I is immediately refuted by 8 . . . lLlxf2! 9 �xf2 ..ig3+ winning the queen. 8 l:le8 9 Wc2 lLlb4 10 Wc3 (70) 70 B

Black has a crushing advantage and could now decide the ga me with 10 . . . lLld3+! ( 1 0 . . . -'.f5 ! also wins) I I 'tixd3 ( I I �d2 .i.b4; I I �d l lLldxf2+) I I . . . ..ib4+ winning the queen after 1 2 �d I lLl xf2+ or 1 2 .i.d2 Wxd3. I n stead of this he chooses an admittedly effective but less power ful move: lt:le3?! 10 The i ntruder is i nviolable as 1 1

Rare Systems fe?? allows I I . . �g) male and I I �xeJ Iixe3 1 2 \Wd2 ( 1 2 'tixe3 lLlc2+; 1 2 fe ..ig3 mate) 1 2 . . . lt:ld3+ 1 3 'i!;>d l lt:l xf2+ 1 4 'i!;>e l lt:lxh I wins a rook for Black as the rook on e3 is again taboo ( 1 5 'tixe3?'? �g3+ and mates). Furthermore I I .. . lt:lec2+ is threatened. Therefore White overprotects c2. 1 1 lt:la3 lt:lbc2+ 12 lt:lxc2 ..ib4 (71) .

71 w

57

A3 4

'tidS {72)

Rapid mobilisation of the queen side is also the correct method here. lt:lc6 4 5 lt:lf3 5 f4 lLlb4 6 \We4 �c5 7 lt:l h J 0-0 8 lt:lc3 f5 9 ef lLlxf6 1 0 't!fb I d5 I I a3 ltlc6 12 cd lLlxd5 1 3 1!ta2 �e6 with advantage to Black ECO. s d6 White now has two possibilities: A31 6 � gS A32 6 ed -

Nat urally this bishop cannot be taken because of 'ttd I mate or . . . lt:lxc2 mate, but after 1 3 �xeJ �xcJ+ 14 b(.; Wh ite wuld st ill fight. The "great bl u ff' has worked. Clearly demoralised by a series of unexpected moves White resigned. A real curiosity. As far as the variation 4 _.d4 is concerned, the final assessment is that it is not very good as the attacks on the white queen considerably enhance Black's development.

A31 �g5 �e7 �xe7 li'Jxe7 de 'ti'e4 B l a c k s t a n d s well here . 9 lt:J xe S·1 i s the 'Sc hkchter trap' ( na m ed after the A us t r i a n g r a n d masta Carl Schlec h te r ): 9 . ._d I + I I 10 'it>xd I lt:l xf2+ with clear a d v a n t age for Black. 6 7 8

. .

58

Rare Systems

A32

.ie6! 6 ed 7 d7+ (73) Or 7 'fi'd I .ixd6 8 e3 'it'f6 gives Black the advantage ECO; 7 de 'it'xc7 8 'fi'd I .ib4+ 9 .id2 0-0-0 with a strong attack. -

Black gets a good game by attacking the exposed white queen. 8 There are four other moves that occur in practice: 81 4 e3 82 4 lLlc3 83 4 a3 84 4 e6 81 4 e3 lLlxeS 5 lLlf3 lLlbc6 t ra nsposes to Chapter I . 82

.ixd7 7 Black has a big lead in develop ment. Staker gives 8 a3 (with the idea of preventing . . . .ib4+ or . . . lLlb4) as good for White, but this is a completely wrong assessment, e.g. 8 . . . 'it'f6 9 lLlc3 (9 'tlt'g5 'it'xg5 1 0 lLlxg5 lLld4 wins) 9 . . .ie6 a nd now: a) 1 0 'iVe4 .ic5 I I e3 0-0-0 followed by . .. llhe8 wins. b) 10 'it'g5 'it'xg5 I I lLl xg5 lLld4 WinS. c) 10 'it'dl .ixc4 I I .ig5 't!fe6 with advantage to Black. d) 10 'ffd3 lLlce5 I I 't!t'e4 ( I I lLlxe5'!! 'ihf2+; I I 'it'c2 .ixc4) I I . . . .ic5 1 2 e3 0-0-0 with excellent co mpensation for the pa wn . I n the 4 1Wd5 variation, too, .

4 lLlc3 lLlxeS 5 e3 followed by 6 lL!f3 trans poses to Chapter I or 5 .if4 to Chapter 2. 83 lLlxeS 4 a3 5 b3 g6 6 .ib2 .ig7 7 \!tc2 (otherwise . . . lLldH and . . . .ixb2) 7 . . 0-0 8 lLlc3 (8 e3 d5! threate ning ... .if5) 8 . . . lL!bc6 9 e3 d6 1 0 .ie2 lie8 with a n active position for Black: I I lLlf3 .if5 ! 1 2 e4 lLlxfH 1 3 .ixf3 lLld4 1 4 \!td I ll:lxf3+ 1 5 gf ( 1 5 \!txf3? .ixe4) 1 5 . . . 1Wg5 etc. .

84 4 e6 This deserves closer examin ation. According to ECO Black

Rare �"yl·tems

59

eq u a l i se s after 4 . . . de 5 'tixdX+ 'it>xd8 6 .!Llc3 .ic5 7 e3 .id7 8 .ie2 .!Llf6 9 .!Llf3 .!Llc6 10 0-0 a6 1 1 a3 aS 12 b3 'it>e7 This judgement is not in doubt but the resulting position is possibly not to the taste of adherents of the Budapest Gambit. Those who are dissatisfied will lind an interesting suggestion in the following game. =.

G ame 22 Rasin-l vanov USSR 1979 ( 1 d4 .!Llf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!Llg4) 4 e6 .ib4 + 'tif6 !? s .id2 6 ef+ 'it>xn 7 .!Llf3 White cannot capture the bishop on b4: 7 .ixb4'! '@xf2+ 8 '.!td2 4:le3 followed by . . . .!Llxfl +. 7 '@xb2 8 .ixb4 '@xb4+ 9 .!Lld2 lie8 '@e7 10 e3 II h3 (74) Black has reached a good position and should now continue 1 1 ... .!Llf6, e.g. 12 .id3 d6 13 0-0 .!Llbd7 14 4:lb3 (aimed against . . . .!Llc5) 1 4 . . . a 5 1 5 a4 b6 followed by . . . .ib7, . . . 'it>g8 etc. Black sta nds a little better.

I n t h e ga m e he contin ued badl y : 4:leS? II 'tWxeS 1 2 .!Llxe5+ 1 3 .id3 As Black no longer has t h e i m portant defender. t h e k n ig h t on f6, Wh ite h a s some cham:es o n t h t.: kingside. Black's further play also leaves something to be desired. 13 g6 14 li\c6 0-0 �g 7 IS 'o!l h l 16 libl 4:le7 dS 17 :ilbS cd li:hdS 18 ti'd6 f4 19 'itd8 20 lile4 {z_] f6 ti'a l + 21 :ilf8 22 :ildl 23 .id 7 g4 24 :ildS c.!fg8 :ilxf6 25 li!xf6+ ilxd7 26 1-0

5

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction 1

2 3

d4 c4 de

ll:Jf6 eS ll:Je4!? (75)

75 w

The idea of this gambit is said to have arisen in Leipzig chess circles. Its international premiere took place in a tournament in Wiesbaden 1 928, in a game between H .Steiner and Fajarowicz. As we will see in Chapter 7, White fell into an almost lost position <� fter only a few moves. This was the birth of a new opening systt:m. Before we turn to a systematic examination, we consider the starting position of the fajarowicz Gam bit and make a few general observations.

All the white and black pieces are still in t heir 'starting-blocks' except the black knight. Does the horse s tand well or badly? The evaluation of the whole variation depends on the answer to this question. When in general does a piece stand well? According to generally recognised principles of chess strategy, a piece stands well if it a) controls many (i mportant) squares. b) is not easily threatened or driven away. How does the black knight stand now? Condition a) is clearly fulfilled. The central square e4 is probably a dream square for the black knight which among other things impedes the natural development ll:lb l -c3. Also the point f2 is threatened in some variations. As far as condition b) is con cerned, t he case is not so easy to answer. As we will see shortly, the knight on e4 is indeed easy to attack, but resists like an obstinate

Fajarowicz Gambit Introduction donkey kicking out wildly! The radical ejection of the k night by 4 1'3?? ends i n material loss for White after 4 . . . Wh4+ 5 g3 li::l x g3. The blac k k night indeed dies, but has sold its soul dearly! It is possible that your opponent will not be at all familiar with the Fajarowicz Gambit and will not absolutely apply the correct stra tegical considerations. Perhaps his train of thought will run: "I would like to attack the knight on e4 with my f-pawn but this is not possible at once because of 1!rh4+. There fore I'll si mply protect t he square g3 first and then play f3. " This could result in the following varia tion: 4 .if4? ! li::lc 6 5 f3? (indeed 5 . . . 1t'h4+ now loses a piece t o 6 g 3 but . . . ) 5 ... .ib4+ 6 li::l d 2 .ixd2+ 7 ..txd2 Wh4+ and Black wins. Notice the diversion .. . ..tb4+ which is typical of the Fajarowicz Gambit. The decisive mistake was 5 f3?; after 5 li::l f3 t he game transposes into variations with 4 li::l f3 - see

61

Chapter 8. There a ll t h e other u n theoretical continuations will be reviewed. So Wh ite can only attack the knight on e4 with pieces. To this end there are only two pieces available at the momen t: the k night on b I and the queen on d I . The wh ite k night ca n in theory be developed on c 3, but after 4 li::lc3? .ib4 Black i m mediately has the better of it: 5 .id2 .ixcJ 6 be li::l c6 7 li::l f3 't!re7 or 5 'i!t'c2 liJxcJ 6 be .ia5 7 li::l f3 0-0 8 .ig5 t!t'e8 followed by . . . li::lc 6 in both cases regaining the pawn with the better game on account of the weak doubled pawns c3/c4. There remain the following possibilit ies for White to at tack the k nigh t on e4: Chapter 6: Various queen moves on the d-file ( 4 t!t'd3 ; 4 't!rd4; and 4 't!rd5). Chapter 7: The a ttack by 4 't!t'c2 Chapter 8: The system wit� 4 ltJfJ, as we ll as less common systems.

6

Fajarowicz 4 !¥-moves on the d-file

ltlf6 d4 e5 c4 2 3 de ltle4 White can attack the knight o n e4 with various queen moves on the d-file. A 4 1!t'd3 8 4 1!t'd4 c 4 'ird5 A 4

'ird3 (76)

76 B

a tempo in comparison with C ( 4 1!t'd5). b) 5 't!t'c2? loses a tempo (why not immediately 4 'ti'c2 as in Chapter 7?). Demonstration Game I illus t rates how Black can exploit his opponent's hesitation. c) 5 1lt'c3 transposes to a position which will be reviewed in B. It makes no difference if this position is reached by 'ti'd4-c3 or 1!Vd3-c3. 4 't!Vd3 only has significance if the white queen can occupy an active post after 4 . . . lt:lc5. 5 'tlrg3 represents such an attempt and will be examined more closely in Demonstration Game 2. Demonstration Game 1

ltlc5 4 Where should White move the queen? a) 5 1rd5? ltlc6 and White has lost

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4) lt:lc5 4 'ird3 lt:lc6 5 1!t'c2? d6 6 lt:lf3 7 .ig5 1!t'd7! (77) This motif often occurs in the Fajarowicz Gambit. Black avoids the bishop exchange and brings

Fajaro wicz 4 "W/d3/d4/d5

Otherwise . ..ixf3 wins the bishop on h4. IS li:le4 1 6 't!rb3 ..ixg3 17 rg ll::l xg3 18 li:lxe2 llgl 1 9 'it>xe2 ..ixB+ 20 1!fxh2+ gf 2 1 'it>n llad8 0-1 White has no satisfactory defence to the numerous threats: 22 ll xd8 ll xd8 followed by ... lld2 or (after 23 li:lb I ) . . . li:ld3; 22 llg2 t!t'h I + ; 22 lle I lld2; 22 li:lb I li:lc2 etc . .

his queen to f5 where it can control important squares such as d3 and h5. ed ..ixd6 8 9 e3 li:lb4 1 0 't!rc3 't!t'fS! This tactic is also standard: I I 1!hb4?'? naturally fails to . . . li:ld3+ and ... bb4+. Furthermore, Black gets the upper hand after I I 't!rxg7 ltJc2+ 1 2 'it'd I llffi, e.g. 1 3 li:ld4 ltJxd4 followed by . . . li:le6 win ning a piece or 1 3 li:lh4 'ifxf2 with a clear advantage. 11 ltJa3 0-0 Threatening 1 2 . . . li:le4 winning a piece. l:le8 12 ..ih4 13 lldl The plausi ble variation 1 3 ..ie2 li:lbd3+ 14 ..ixd3 li:l xd3+ 1 5 'it>e2 li:lf4+ 1 6 'it>fl ll::l xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 t!t'h 3+ 1 8 'it>g l 't!rxf3 illustrates White's difficulties. 13 1!fhS 14 ..ie2 ..ig4 I S ..ig3

63

.

Demonstration game 2 ( I d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4) 4 t!t'd3?! ltJcS s W"g3 Protects the pawn on e5 and i mpedes the development of the bishop o n f8 as the pawn on g7 hangs. S li:le6 6 lLl f3 ltJc6 7 e3 (7H)

Apart from the text White has

64

Fajarowicz 4 ..d3/d4/d5

two other possibilities: a) 7 lLlc3 lLlb4 and because of the threat 8 . . . lLlc2+ White loses the right to castle and his king remains in the cent re, which can hardly be good. b ) 7 a3 prevents the sortie 7 . . . lLl b4 but does nothing for development. 7 . . . d6 (here, and in similar positions, accepting the pawn is fatal) 8 ed? ..ixd6 9 't!lg4 (even worse is 9 'irh3 lLled4 1 0 'ifh4 lLlc2+; now 9 . . 1Lled4 is met by 1 0 't!le4+) 9 . . . 0-0 10 'tfe4 (what else against 1 0 . . . lLled4) 1 0 . . . lile8 I I 't!lc2 lLled4 1 2 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 3 'ird 1 ..if5 and Black wins. So White may n ot play 8 ed but after 8 lLlc3 de 9 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 I 0 11t'xe5 ..id6 he is again hunted. d6 7 8 ..ie2 de 9 lLlxeS?! Please don't forget that the task of a demonstration game is to answer the constant question " What happens if . . . " in most practical cases. Naturally White must not take the pawn on e5 but then Black stands better without material disadvantage. lLlb4! 9 ..id6! 10 lLla3 Threatening 1 1 . . . f6. Therefore: .ixeS f4 11 lLld3+ 12 fe ..xd3 13 .ixd3 o-o 14 'tlt'fl .

ltlcS I S -.e2 16 1fxd3 1 6 b4? •c3+ etc. 1Llxd3+ 16 1 7 'ite2 lLlxeS h3 18 Or Black continues actively with . . . .ig4+. 18 .trs 19 lld1 lilad8 lilxd8 20 lilxd8 b3 21 ..ie4 22 g3 ..if3+ lild 1 23 'itfl Prevents 24 .ib2 because of . . . lild2+ . 24 1Llc2 24 lLlb5 also doesn't help: 24 . . . .i.h5 (threatening . . . lLld3+) 25 g4 .i.g6 26 'ite2 lilh I 27 lLlxc7 lLld3 winning a piece. 24 .i.e4 2S lLle1 25 lLld4? lLld3+ and .. . lilxc I . Now White hopes t o free himself with 26 'ite2. 2S .id3! (79) 79 w

0-1

Fajarowicz 4 1rd3/d4/d5 White is in zugzwang. His rook cannot move, nor his bishop ( 26 .ib2 still fails to . . . lld2+ ). His k n ight also has no moves : 26 lt:lf3 llfl + and . . . lt:lxf3 ; 26 lt:lg2 llfl mate. Black can sadistically make tem po moves with his king u ntil White runs out of pawn moves .

65

7 . . . g5 8 h3 .ig7 9 e3 d6 and Black regains the pawn with active play. b) 6 'i!Vd5 d6 7 .ig5 'i!Vd 7 8 ed .ixd6 9 lt:lc3 lilb4 10 'i!Vd2 'i!Ve6 ( t hreaten ing . . . lt:lbd 3+ to be followed by . . . lt:l xf2+ ) I I e3 't!fgo (8 1). 81 w

Summary After 4 'ti'd3 Black wins a tempo (4 . . . lt:lc5 ) and assumes the initi ative. After 5 't!rg3 Black secures the point g7 by 5 . . . lt:le6 and then advances in the centre ( . . . d6). B 4 1td4 It is clear that the white queen must soon move again as . . . lt:lc6 is in the air. But first the knight m ust move and again c5 is right. lt:lc5 4 lt:lc6 (80) 5 lt:lf3 80 w

The white queen now has a number of retreats: a) 6 1rc3 (already mentioned in A) 6 . . . lt:le6 7 a3 (otherwise 7 . . . .i.b4)

Black has a clear advan tage. 1 2 . . . lt:lc2+ i s th reatened and i f 1 2 llc l lt:lbd3+ etc. All other queen moves either lose time (6 'i!Vd l ), obst ruct his own pieces (6 't!rd2), or expose the queen to further attack ( 6 't!t'g4 d6; 6 'tlrh4 .i.e?; 6 't!t'f4 lile6). Thus 4 "t!rd4 is u nsatisfactory. c

4

'i!VdS (82)

66 ·Fajarowicz 4 'f/ld3/d4/d5 4 .tb4 +! Others that have occurred in practice: a) 4 lt:lc5? (bad here ! ) 5 lt:lf3 lL!c6 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 't!fxc5 ! .ixg5 8 lt:lc3 b6 9 Wd5 .ib7 1 0 e6! (double attack on the bishop on g5) 10 . . . f6 1 1 lt:lxg5 fg 1 2 Wxd7+ 't!fxd7 1 3 ed+ 'i!txd7 1 4 0-0-0+ and White won, Olsen-Martinsen, corres 1945. An important hint: after 4 't!fd3 and 4 t!t'd4, 4 . . . lt:lc5 is the best move. After 4 Wd5, on the other hand, it is wrong! There are only a few variations where you can go seriously astray - it's in your own interest to make t he effort to remember them! b) 4 f5 5 ef lt:lxf6 6 't!t'e5+? .ie7 7 .ig5 lt:lc6 !l 't!t'e3 0-0 9 lt:lc3'! lt:lg4 1 0 .ixe7 lt:lxe7 1 1 't!tg3 lL!xf2 0- 1 , Camara-Flores, Sao Paolo 1 937. Camara didn't have his best day. After 4 . . . f5 theoreticians regard 5 lt:ld2 c6 6 't!td3 d5 7 ed 't!t'a5 8 a3 .ixd6 as equal. After 4 ... .ib4+ White now has: CI 5 .id2 C2 5 lt:ld2 ...

...

CI 5 6 7 8 9 After 9

.id2 lt:lxd2 lt:lgf3 0-0-0 llxd2 't!txd2 or 9

lL!xd2 lt:lc6 "t!te7 ..txd2+ lL!xd2 Black

equalises comfortably with 9 . . . lt:lxe5. The column game is Blumich Fajarowicz, match 1 930. Black could now have had a good game with 9 . . . lt:lb4 winning the pawn on a2 or, after 10 't!Va5 b6 I I ti'a4 lt:lc6, with good play against the pawn on e5; the white queen stands a little offside. C2 5 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 6 a3 Or 6 lt:lgf3 0-0 7 g3 b6! and if 8 't!Vxa8 then 8 . . . .ib7 9 't!t'xa7 lt:lc6 winning the q ueen . .ixd2+ 6 b6!! (83) 7 .ixd2 83 w

Another standard combinat ion in the Fajarowicz Gambit (suggest ed by J . Staker). The idea is to trap the queen after 8 't!t'xa8 .ib7 9 't!t'xa7 lt:lc6. Notice t hat this com bination is only made possible by the move a3, which takes a retreat square from the white queen. There fore Black delays . . . b6 until a3 is

Fajarowicz 4 'f/d3/d4/d5 played. In t he diagram Black threatens a k n ight fork with 8 . . . i.b7 9 \!rd4 lDb3. i.b 7 8 't!rf3 0-0 9 \!rg3 10 i.h6 Or I 0 llJf3 llJe4 1 1 \!rf4 lDxd2 1 2 \!rxd2 llJc6 1 3 e3 lie8 1 4 \!rc3 \!re7 followed by 1 5 . . . llJxe5 and Black stands well (the bishop on b7 is more active t han its opposite num ber). llJe6 10 lDc6 II llJf3 1 2 i.d2 After 1 2 e3 f6 the bishop on h6 gets into difficulties ( . . . h8). llJcd4 12 1 3 llJ xd4 lDxd4

67

1 4 \!rd3 l.Uc6 15 i.c3 \!re7 Black stands well. He regains the pawn with . . . lD xe5 and has well-placed pieces (bishop on b7, k n ight on e5). The attempt to maintain the extra pawn by 16 f4 or 16 \!rd5 looks very risky, as Black then plays 1 6 . . . I!ad8 and follows with ... d6 gaining a strong initia tive. Summary Excursions of the white q ueen along the d-file bring nothing for White. On d3 it is molested by . . . llJc5, o n d4 by . . . lDc6. d 5 i s also no place for t he lady, for the black bishop soon appears on b7 with an un mistak eable invitation to move.

Fajarowicz 4 'ir'c2

7

2 3 4

d4 c4 de Wc2 (84)

ltJf6 eS ltJe4

A 4

dS (85)

85

84 B

I n Chapter 6 we saw various queen moves on the d-file. Black was able to attack the exposed queen with one of his knights and thus gai n a lead in development and the bette r game. 4 'tlrc2 also attacks the ' Fajarowicz knight' but this t i me from a safer distance. I t is 4 Wc2 that gives Black the most problems to solve . The material is divided up as follows: A 4 dS 5 various 8 4 . dS 5 ed i.fS 6 not ltJc3 C 4 . . dS 5 ed .US 6 ltJc3 D 4 ..ib4+ ...

..

.

...

s ltJf3? This tame move was played in Game 23. The correct 5 ed will be examined in the next sections. Other possibilities are: a) S e3?! ltJc6 6 ltJf3 ..if5 7 'tlrd I de 8 'tlrxd8+ lilxd8 9 ..ixc4 ..ib4+ 1 0 'it>e2 lt:la5 with advantage to Black in Rubinstein-Beeker, Vienna 1932 ( I I .id37 lilxd3 1 2 'it>xd3 ltJxf2+ etc; I I ..ib3 ltJ xb3 1 2 ab ltJcS followed by . . . .id3+; I I ..ib5+ c6 1 2 .ta4 ltJc5 followed by . . . ..id3+). b) S cd 't!rxd5 6 ltJd2 i.b4 7 ltJgf3 ltJc6 8 a3 ..ixd2+ 9 ..ixd2 (9 ltJ xd2? .if5) 9 . . . ltJxd2 10 1hd2 1hd2+ I I lt:lxd2 (or I I 'it>xd2 .ig4 followed

Fajarowicz 4 1fcl by . . . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8) 1 1 . . . lt:lxe5 with equality. Black's best set-up is . . . ..te6, . 0-0-0 and . . . lihe8. .

69

H6 w

.

G ame 23 Mititelu-Seineanu Romania 1 955 (J d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 't!tc2 d5) s lt:lf3? . ..trs As we will see in B, the bishop o n f5 and the queen on c 2 are natural enemies. On account of the threat . . . lt:lg3 the stronger one m ust move away. 6 't!ta4+ lt:lc6 7 ..te3 The natural 7 e3 leads to a very good game for Black after 7 . . . lt:lc5 8 \ltd I (else t h e white queen is lost: M 'irb5?? a6; 8 't!ta3'!! lt:ld3+ ! ) 8 . . . lt:lb4 9 lt:la3 c6! followed b y 1 0 . . 't!ta5 and/or . . . lt:lbd3. Therefore White decides to control the square c5, but also without any luck . 7 ..tb4+ 8 lt:lbd2 d4! 9 ..tf4 Naturally 9 lt:lxd4 fails to 9 . . . ..txd2+. 9 g5 10 a3 If 10 ..tg3 g4 and one of the k n ights is lost. 10 lt:lc5! 11 't!tdl gf 12 ab lt:lxb4 1 3 licl d3 ! (86) .

White's position is a picture of misery . Unfortunately the rest of this game is not extan t . It is on ly k nown that Black won. White will lose at least the exchange with a miserable position . Summary The sortie . . . ..tf5 which t hreatens the whi te queen or creates dis covered threats must be taken seriously. White has no time for slack moves. The knight on e4 must be deprived of protection. B 5

ed

..trs rs 7)

The games in the following

70

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

three sections illustrate the com monly played moves. 6 ltJc3! is in C. B 1 6 de? B2 6 1!t'a4+? B3 6 1!rb3? B1 6

de? Game 24 Rossner-Kipke Berlin 1933

( I d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 tfc2 d5 5 ed .i.f5) 6 ck? White's overlarge appetite will not do him any good. 1txc7 6 ltJc6 7 trb3 0-0-0 8 ltJ f3 liJcS e3 9 White is already lost. If 10 1!rc3 there follo ws 1 0 . . . ltJb4 I I ltJa3 ltJe4 1 2 't!lb3 t!t'a5 1 3 �e2 ( 1 3 .i.d2 ltJ xd 2 14 ltJxd2 ltJc2+) 13 . . . ltJc5 1 4 tfc3 .i.d3+ with deadly dis coveries. So he ma kes a last try: 10 1!t'a3!? (88)

Normally 1!t'a3 would be bad on account of the standard combin ation ... ltJd3+ and . . . .i.xa3. Here, by way of exception, this com bin ation is inadequate: 10 . . . liJd3+ I I .i.xd 3 .i.xa3 1 2 .i.xf5+ lttb8 1 3 ltJxa3 and White would have 'half the board' for the queen. H o wever, Black can realise his advantage i n a different way. ltJb4! 10 Now naturally I I t!t'xb4'n liJd3+ 1 2 .i.xd3 .txb4+ would be com pletely hopeless. I I ltJd4 l hd4 and 1 2 ... ltJc2+ is also won for Black . 1 1 t!t'xa7 ltJc2+ 0-1 There could follow 1 2 ltte 2 .i.d3+ 1 3 lttd l ( 1 3 �d2 lbe4+) 1 3 . . . ltJ x a I etc. A nother horrible example on the same theme: Game 25 Krastev-Donev Bulgaria / 954 ( 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de ltJe4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 ed .i.f5) 6 1!t'xc7 de? 7 1!t'a4+ ltJc6 8 ltJf3 0-0-0 Again threatening . . . lbc5 and . . . ltJb4. White now wants to pro tect b4 . . . 9 .td2 t!t'b6 . . . but comes up against two nasty threats: . . . 11fxb2 winning a rook

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 and . . . 't!rxf2+. He chose: 1!hf1+ 10 't!rb3 ..tb4 11 �1 1 2 �c1 Or 1 2 .!t:lc3 ..t xc3 1 3 be ll xd2+! 14 .!i:l xd2 lld8 etc. .!i:lxd2 12 llxd2! 1 3 .!t:lbxd2 't!rel + 1 4 .!t:lxd2 ..txd2 mate 1 5 1!t'd1 A rare and pretty mate. Summary 6 de? in creases Black's al ready dangerous initiative. Furthermore, it opens the d-file, but only for t he entry of the black roo k ! So: hands off the pawn on c7! B2 6

1!t'a4+

Game 26 H .Steiner-Fajarowicz Wiesbaden 1 928 ( I d4 .!t:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de .!t:le4 4 't!rc2 d5 5 ed ..tf5) 6 1!t'a4+ ( 89) H 'J B

7I

White's queen voluntarily leaves the line of fire of the bishop on f5. 6 .!i:lc6 7 .!i:lf3 7 de leads to positions si milar to those in games 2 and 3. 7 ..txd6 8 a3 Directed against . . . .!t:lc5 followed by . . . .!t:lb4 threatening c2. 8 't!rf6 9 g3 White does not want to weaken the square d3 (for which, as we have just seen, t he black knight sometimes aims) and prepares to build a safe haven for his king (g3, i.g2, 0-0). However, he does not manage to castle. 9 0-0-0 1 0 .!t:lbd2 If immediately 10 ..tg2, then 1 0 . . .!t:lc5 I I 't!rd I ..txg3. Therefore White doses the d-file. 10 .!i:lcS I I 't!rd I llhe8 1 2 ..tg2 ..td3! 13 e3 ..teS 14 .!t:lxeS It is easy to say t h a t W h i t e should have done something else, but what? 14 .!t:lxeS IS f4 i.xc4! (90) As far as t h e opening is �:on cernc d , the world premiere of t h e .

Fajarowi�:z Gambit h a s completely

succeeded. Black has a w i n n ing

72

Fajarowicz: 4 'tiel 26 27 28 29

90 w

posit ion. 1 6 fe?? is out of the question because of 16 . . . ll:ld3+ and 1 7 . . �f2 mate and after 1 6 �fl �ed3+ 1 7 .i.xd3 ll:l xd3+ 1 8 �e2 or 1 8 �fl White loses his queen to 1 8 . . . ll:l xb2+. And so, 0- 1 '! Not at all ! 1 6 �f2 Here Black could have driven home t he coffin nail immediately: 16 . . . ll:led3+ 1 7 �g l (or 1 7 �0 't!tc6+ 1 8 e4 ll xe4 etc) 1 7 ... lhe3 1 8 ll:l f3 lle l + ! ( 1 9 ll:lxe l 1td4+ and mates; 19 't!he I ll:lxe I etc). .te6? 16 ll:lb3 h3! 17 ll:lx a l 1 8 �gl 19 fe �xeS .i.dS 20 �f3 .i.c6 e4 21 ll:lc2 22 �h2 23 'ftxf7 lU8?! Simpler was 23 ... lbe3 followed by 24 . . . ll:lxg2 or, if 24 .tO, 24 . . . lhd 2 ! 2 5 .i x d 2 ttxb2 etc. ll:ld4 24 'i!Vb3 l:tf2 25 �c3

llel lldfl 'tlf6 �· :an ll xfl+ ll:lxn (91)

.

-

Black is still winning, for example after 29 . . . .ixe4 ! , but now, un believably, he played: 29 �xn +?? D id Fajarowicz see some sort of mating net? Unfortunately we can no longer ask him. 30 .i.xn J::t x n+ 3 1 �g2 1 -0? Black was probably completely unnerved by his blunder for he could still fight on with 3 1 . . . ll:le2 32 tte3 J::t x c I 33 'tlxe2 b5! (with the idea ... J::t c 4, followed by . . . �b7) and W hite i s still far from winning. The curious end to this game does not alter the fact that the vari ation in this section is advantageous for Black. The white queen finds no peace on a4 as it is chased by . . . li:lc5. The same applies t o the next game, where she moves to b3.

Fajarowicz 4 'iic2 83 6

1!t'b3 Game 27 Gilfer-Richter Munich OJ 1 936

( I d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lLle4 4 1!t'c2 d5 5 cd �f5) 6 'i!t'b3 �xd6 7 lLld2 7 'ti'xb7? 0-0 8 'ti'xa 8?? ends in disaster: 8 . . . i.b4+ 9 �d2 �xd2+ 10 �d l lLlxf2 mate. 0-0 7 8 1!t'xb7? Relatively better was 8 lLlgf3 though Black still has a very active game after 8 . . . lLlc5 9 irc3 lLlc6 1 0 a3 a 5 I I e3 lieS 1 2 i.e2 i.e7! followed by . . . i.f6 or 9 tt'd I lbc6 10 a3 a5 I I e3 lt:ld3 + . Now, how ever, White's ship goes under very quickly. 8 i.cS! 9 e3 Forced. The k night on e4 is naturally taboo: 9 lt:l xe4 i.xe4 1 0 'ti'xe4?? i.b4+ and mates. 9 irxa 8 i.xf2+ I 0 �d I i.e3 I I lbgf3 lt:lf2+ 1 2 �e I i.e4 results in a very original trapping of the queen. 9 ire7! (92) Eying the point e3, e.g. a ) 10 irxa8 lt:lxd2 ( threatening . . . i.e4) I I f3 irxe3+ etc. b) 10 lt:lgO lt:lxf2! I I �xf2 irxe 3+ 12 �g3 i.d6+ 13 �h4 irh6 mate. Therefore the contorted text

73

move - the point e3 m u s t be protected. White's position is still beyond salvation. He defin itely overstepped the mark with 7 'ti'x b7. The rest is easily compre hensible .

I 0 lt:ldf3 �b4+ II i.d2 lt:lxd 2 1 2 lt:lxd2 �e4 1 3 'ti'bS l:ld8 1 4 0-0-0 1!t'd6 I S lt:lgO i.xf3 1 6 gf i. xd2+ 1 7 �bl lt:lc6 18 cS 1!t'g6+ 19 e4 l:lab8 20 1!t'c4 't!tf6 2 1 b3 lt:laS 0-1 . I f 2 2 1!t'c2 1!t'xf3 2 3 l:lg I lt:lxb3 etc. Summary I f t he white queen moves fro m c2, it goes out of the frying pan into the fire. The " Fajarowicz k night" o n e4 finds a fine square o n c5 with gain of tempo. Is the source of the t rouble to be found i n 4 1!t'c2? As we will see in C, this is not the case. Only the moves 6 trb3 and ira4 are bad . White has a m uch stronger con tinuation at his sixth move.

74

Fajarowicz 4 1i'c2

c

4 5 6

ed lt:Jc3! (93)

d5 .if5

In this way the strength of the k night discovery is considerably reduced. With lt:Jc3 White once again covers t he square e4 so that moves of the black k n ight can be answered by e4. The following illustrative game acquaints us with t he refinements of this variation. G ame 28 Kottnauer-M artin CzechoJ/ovakia v. France 1 946 ( I d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 de lt:Je4 4 1i'c2 d5 5 ed .if5) lt:Jxd6 6 lt:Jc3! Black has no other moves: a) 6 lt:Jg3 7 11ra4+ .i.d7 8 de 'ihc7 9 lt:Jb5! . b) 6 lt:Jxl1? 7 'tlfxf5 lt:Jxh l H .ig5 c) 6 lt:Jxc3 7 11rxf5 ltJa4 8 1lrb5+ 1i'd7 9 1Wxb7 with a winning position for White i n all cases. ...

...

...

7 c4! lLlxc4 (94) Black has scarcely any choice: 7 . . . 1We7 8 i.d3 lt:Jc6 9 lt:lge2 i.g6 (9 . . . lt:Jb4?'! 1 0 't!¥a4+) 1 0 . lt:Jd5 with a clear advantage to White.

Before we look at the actual course of the ga me, we must with out fail become familiar with the important alternative 8 lt:Jxe4. I n this variation Black must play for a long time with a piece less. Admit tedly, he has a powerful initiative for it. In short, it is playing with fire - for both players. However, players of the Fajarowicz Gambit may not avoid risks. Acceptance of the piece sacrifice 8 i.b4+ 9 'it>e2 (9 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ 10 1i'xd2 i.xe4 I I 'ifxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 2 0-0-0+ 'it>c8 with equality) 9 lt:Jc6 1 0 .ie3 1i'e7 II f3 0-0-0 (95) - is, according to analysis by I M Nikola Minev in ECO, better for Black. U p to n ow nobody has shown the desire to doubt this opinion and play the position with the white pieces, so we must forgo -

...

...

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 practical examples.

Some possibilities: a) 12 a3 lld2+ 1 3 .ixd2 liJd4+ 14 lttf2 liJxc2 1 5 .ixb4 liJxb4 16 ab 1!rxb4 is good for Black as Wh ite's ki ngside is still undeveloped . b) 1 2 liJd6+ llxd6 1 3 1!rxf5+ lle6! 14 'it>f2 g6 1 5 1!rh3 ( 1 5 1!rd3 llxe3 followed by ... .ic5) 15 ... f5 1 6 .if4 ll e I wins ( 1 7 llxe I 1!rxe I mate; 1 7 .ic l l hfl + ! 1 8 'it>xfl'!? 1!re l mate). c) 12 'it>fl ll he 8 and now: c l ) 13 liJd6+ ll xd6 14 1!rxf5+ 'it>b!l 1 5 1!rf4 ( 1 5 .if4 't!f"e l + ! ! 1 6 llxe l .ixe l mate) 1 5 . . . l:U6 1 6 1!rg5 h6 a nd wins as c3 can no longer be defended. c2) 13 .id3 .ig6 (t hreatening . . . f5 ) 1 4 g4 ( White can hardly be enthu siastic about 14 a3 f5 1 5 ab liJxb4 16 1!t'a4 liJxd3+ 17 'it>fl fe 18 't!rxa 7 el) 1 4 . . . liJe5 1 5 lld I 1!t'h4+ 1 6 'it>g2 liJ xg4 1 7 fg 1hg4+ I g 'it'll, ( I ll liJg3 lihe3) I ll . . . i.xe4 1 9 .ixe4 1!t'xd I with advantage t o Blac k .

75

/\ n ex ha ustive a na l ysis i s not feasible for the number of possible variations is very great . Black's conduct of the attack is associated in many cases with . . . lie!!, . . . .ig6 and . . . f5. Experience shows that in a practical game the attacker has bet ter chances than the defender. For one thing the art of defence is significantly more difficult to learn than that of attack, for another mistakes a re much more likely to be commi tted by the defender; hc must pay heed to a whole host of threats while the attacker (after ma king his select ion from the pos sible variations) can co ncentrate on only one continuation . Also such factors as use of energy, use of time and nervousness come into play and in all cases the defender is at a disadvantage. This explains the large number of attacking victorics which proved to be not completely correct in analysis, but which succeeded at the board. In short, given a ration of courage and good tactical abality , the vari ation given above offers Black good practical prospects - a verdict with which ECO agrees. After this long diversion we return to our illustrative ga me (sec diagram 94 ), in which Kottnaucr chose a continuation which was significantly more unpleasant for

76

Fajarowicz 4 'tic2

Black: 8 9 10

.id3! .ixf5 ll:if3 (96)

ll:ixf2 ll:ixh1

\IIi 8

This position is of decisive i m portance for the fate of the variation 4 'tic2 d5. Before we devote our selves to its analysis, we will look at the course of our illustrative game: i.c5? 10 'tlt'e7 11 ll:ie4 f6 1 2 i.g5 1 2 . . . .ib4+ 1 3 c;&e2 f6 1 4 i.e3 wins - Reu ben Fine. 13 0-0-0 An ingen ious piece sacrifice that Black can hardly accept: 1 3 . . . fg 1 4 ll:ixc5 1!t'xc5 1 5 11re4+ 'tlt'e7 1 6 'tixb7 0-0 1 7 11rxa8 ll:if2 1 8 'tlt'd5+ c;&h8 19 lie I with great advantage to White. ll:ia6 13 14 1ld7 (97) The board is in flames! White is temporarily the exchange and a pawn down and his bishop on g5 is

hanging, but his entire army is ideally placed for attack. Moreover, the k nigh t on h I is trapped. In the game Black sacrifices his queen. The alternative is 1 4 . . . 'tlt'f8 1 5 11re2! i.e7 1 6 ll:ie5 ! ! and now: a) 1 6 ... fg 1 7 1!t'h5+ g6 18 i. xg6+ hg 1 9 1Wxg6+ 11rt7 20 'tht7 mate. b) 16 ... g6 1 7 ll:i xf6+ i.xf6 1 8 ll:ixg6+ etc. c) 16 ... fe 1 7 li xe7+ 'tixe7 1 8 i.xe7 c;&xe7 1 9 We i ! 1lhf8 20 i.h3 and 21 9xh l . Thus 1 4 . . . trf8 would also not save Black. The rest is understand able without much comment. 'tltxd7 14 15 .txd7+ c;&xd7 ll:i xc5 16 ll:ixc5+ 1 7 'tltf5+ ll:ie6 liae8 1 8 ll:id4 c;&c8 19 1lrd5+ 20 ll:ixe6 fg 21 ll:ic5 lie1 + After 2 1 . . . lih f8 Black gets mated: 22 11rxb7+ c;&d8 23 1td 5+ c;&e7 (23 . . . c;&c8 24 'tlt'a8 mate) 24

Fajaro wicz 4 11rc2 11re6+ �d8 25 1lrd7 mate. � he8 2 2 �d2 23 1fxb7+ �d8 24 Wb8+ �e7 1 -0 25 11rxe8+ If 25 . . . �xe8 26 �xe I followed by �fl -g l xh l etc. An impressive victory by White! Nevertheless, we don't want to forget that Black blundered on his l Oth move, so we return to the critical position . . . ( I d4 tLld6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!fc2 d5 5 ed .if5 6 tLlc3 tLl xc6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 tLlxf2 9 .i x f5 tLlxh I ) 1 0 tLlf3 . . . and confirm that 1 0 . . . .id6? I I tLle4 .ixh2 ( with the idea 1 2 tLlxh2 'irh4+) 1 2 .ig5 ! gives White the advantage. We make some deliberations however: If White wants to castle he must play .td2 and 0-0-0. Then the knight on h i can escape via f2. Naturally White can play .te3 and �e2 followed by �xh I . I n this case the knight o n h I is not saved, but at what price; the wh ite king will hardly find peace in the middle of the board. Black will the refore q uickly put his heavy pieces on the e-file. Wh ite has two minor pieces (after he has won the knight on h I ); B lack has a rook and a pawn. Accordingly Black must try to

77

take cent ral outposts from the enemy pieces, to which purpose he places his el' t ra pawns (see later JO. . . g6, f j . . . . c6, j!.. . . f5 ). The black rooks m ust occupy the two open central files. So we construct a demonstration game, not forgetting that the course of this game is in no way forced. but is only meant to illustrate ideas and plans. Demonstration Game 3 ( I d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 de tLle4 4 'i!t'c2 d5 5 cd i:. f5 6 tLlc3 tLlxd6 7 e4 tLlxe4 8 .id3 lt:Jxf2 9 .ixf5 Coxh I 1 0 �f3 g6) Black begins the plan of reducing outposts in the centre. I I .ie4 (98) I I .ig5? .ie7 1 2 .ixe7 't!txc7+ 1 3 .ic4 f5 wins ; I I 1Wc4+? .ie7 1 2 .ih3 0-0 and 1 3 . . . lle8; I I i:.dJ li:\c6 1 2 a3 'i!fe7+ 1 3 'i!fe 2 0-0-0 1 4 't!rxe7 .ixe7 1 5 �e2 �he!! with an attack.

II

c6

78

Fajarowicz 4 1!t'c2

The important square d5 is made u navailable to t he white pieces. 12 .ie3 Again 1 2 .ig5 .ie7 1 3 .ixe7 'ffx e7 plays i nto Black's hands; he will bring his heavy pieces to the e-file. 12 fS 13 .id3 1!t'e7 14 'ffe2 14 �d2 ll'la6 followed by . . . ��0 with an attack on the d-file. 14 ll'la6 IS 0-0-0 0-0-0 16 l:lxhl 16 .ixa7? .ih6+ 17 �b l ._xe2 1 8 ll'lxe2 c5! 19 .ib6 ll'lfl! and wins. 16 lt:lb4 17 .ibl .ig7 18 .tgS (99) 1 8 a3 .ixc3 1 9 be l0a6 with the threats 20 . . . f4 and 20 . . . Wxa 3+; if 18 ._f2 ll'ld3+ 19 .ixd3 l:lxd3 with the attack; or 18 l:i:e l l:lhe8 and Black has splendid development.

18

._xe2

19 ll'lxe2 l:i:de8 20 lt:led4 cS l:le2 21 ll'lbS 22 .id2 22 li:lc3? .ixc3 23 be ll'lxa2+. lld8 22 23 l0xa7+ 23 l0c3 ll xg2; or 23 g3 llfl. 23 �b8 l hg2 24 ll'lbS 25 .tf4+ �a8 26 .tes Nothing good comes from 26 li:lc7+ �a7 27 li:lb5+. 26 .ixeS 27 ll'lxeS l:i:dd2 28 a3 (100/ Or 28 h4 l:i: xb2 29 h5 li:l xa2+ 30 .txa2 l:i: xa2 3 1 �b l l:i:gb2+ 32 �c l l:i:h2!.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

ll'l xc6 ll'lc3 h4 ll'ld l a4 .tc2

ll'lc6 be l hb2 l:l b3 hS ll b4 li xc4

Fajarowicz 4 We2 35 ll:)e3 36 ll:)xc2 37 Jilel 37 ll:)e3?? lla l + ; 37 37 38 lile6 39 lhc6 40 ll:)e3 40 llxc5 h3 4 1 lic3 lilg I+ etc. 40 41 ll:)xg4 42 lixg6 43 lih6 44 ot>d2 0-1

Jilgxc2+ lixa4 li g l lig4 ! . lixh4 lig4 h4

h3! fg h2 g3 g2

This pretty demonstration game should not disguise the fact that there are problems to be solved in the variation with 6 ll:)c3 . On the other hand Black has many active counterchances in the plan with • . .

101 w

h2 42 Jilh3

Summary

lo

79

a6·

Only tournament practice can give a definitive answer with regard to the playability of this variation. A player who is familiar with the particularities of this variation ca n, however, happily employ it in his games. D �b4+ ( 101) 4 The four previous sections have shown the many attacking possi bilities in the variation 4 1Wc2 d5.

Those who find the resulting sacri ficial dance too hot can put their trust i n an idea of the master Hermann Steiner. After the bishop check 5 �d2 is obviously harmless: 5 . . . ll:)xd2 6 ll:)xd 2 et:lc6 7 et:Jf3 (7 f4? here and in similar positions is not good: 7 . . . d6 ll cd irxd6 9 e 3 0-0 1 0 ll:)f3 lle8 I I '.t>f2 �c5 1 2 lie l 1Wxf41 etc or K et:lf3 de followed by 9 . . . 1We7) 7 . . . 1We7 and Black rega ins his pawn (8 1We4 d6! ) and has the bet ter ga me on account of his bishop pai r. We th erefore consider: Dl 5 lbd2 02 5 lbc3! Dl 5 lbd2 d5 White has three plausible move� : a) 6 cd transposes to A of Chapter 7. We saw there that the situation i� sati�fact ory for B l ack . b) 6 e3 - sec game 29. c) 6 ed - see ga mes 30-32.

80

Fajarowicz 4 Wc2 G ame 29 Timet-Meyer Zagreb 1 953

( I d4 lt:lf6 i.b4+) 5 6 7 8 9

2 c4 e5 3 de lt:le4 4 1ic2 lt:ld2 e3 i.d3 g3 lt:lgf3

d5 .tr5 tig5! lt:ld7 1rg4 (102)

18

'i!lg1 1rg4+ •!z- •/z From the diagram Black could play better and obtain a clear advantage. 9 tih5! 10 0-0 .txd2 1 1 lt:lxd2 ll::! x e5

/02 B

With the threat . . . 't!t'xf3 ! . This threat would be better executed by 9 . . . 't!t'h5 - see analysis at the end of t he game. i.xd2 10 0-0 lt:lxd2 11 lt:lxd2 1 2 i.xf5 Here the black queen is attacked which it would not be after 9 . . . .., 5 . lt:lf3+ 12 't!t'h 5 1 3 'i!lh1 'i!lxd7 1 4 i.xd7+ lt:lh4+ 1 5 'i!lg2 \ig4+ gh 16 1rf3 + 1 7 'i!lh1

There is now the deadl y threat of 13 ... 1rh3 and 1 4 ... lt:lf3+ or 14 . . . lt:lg4. 1 3 lt:l xe4 fails to 1 3 . . . lt:lf3 + followed b y 1 4 . . . .t h 3 + and 1 5 . . . .txfl and a fter 1 3 h 4 0-0-0 Black threatens 14 . . . ll xd2! followed by . . . lt:lf3+ and . . . 't!rg4 with a ma ting attack . 1 3 't!ra4+ c6 only removes the queen from the kingside . 13 f4 ef 14 e4 i.h3 t5 liln o-o-o 16 lt:lfl lt:ld3 and Black wins. 1 7 lild2?? 't!rc5+; 1 7 i.e3 lt:l xf2 with a decisive rna-

Fajarowicz 4 '@c2 terial advantage. The passive 6 e3 brought White no luck. In the following illustrative games several players tried 6 cd. 6 ed i. fS ( /04)

81

C h a n ces a rc l e v e l . T h e game

could con tinue I I g f lLlxc4 1 2 llc l lLldo 13 f6 ( 1 3 1i xc7 llJC6 1 4 i.g2 '.!/dX i� gooJ for 8 b c k ) 13 . . . c6 1 4 fg Il.gK I � d li , d 7 l t. li ic 2 0-0-0 17 � h J li xg 7 I K tL:lgJ and the result i s st i l l o pe n . I n t h e fo l l o w i n g ga mes w e w i l l sec t h a t W h i t e d o c s b e t t e r to p l a y t h e a bo v e t h eo ret ica l vana t i n n

divergences h a v e

not proved

a�

good:

G ame 30 Antainen-� iem inen Finnish Currt'.\ Ch 1 9 73

d4 ttl ft. 2 c4 e5 3 de lLl c4 4 'iWc 2 i.b4+ 5 lLld2 d 5 )

(I

This is the start ing position of tht: following three in tert:sting, if not mistake-free, games. The theo retical cont inuation runs: 7 a3 i.xd2+ 8 i.xd2 1!fxd6 Black has abundan t compen sat ion for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. 9 't!kc l (avoiding the discovery lLlg3) 9 lLlc6 1 0 e 3 (after I 0 i. f4 't!ke7 I I e3 0-0-0 1 2 lLlf3 lLla5 threat l!Jb3 Black sta nds clearly ening better) 10 0-0-0 I I i.e2 g5 with a very active game. To be consi dered is: 9 g4!? With the idea 9 i,g6 1 0 i.g2 ! lLlg3 I I 't!ka4+ etc. 9 't!kxd2+ 9 0 0 . l!Jxd2? 10 •xf5 followed by 't!ke4+. 0 0 0

6 7

8 9 10

II 12 13

ed de 1!fa4+ lLlf3 a3 i.xd2 lLlxd2 �xd2

.IdS 'iWxc7 �c6 0-0-0 ..txdH lLlxd2 llxd2! 'tireS! (105)

0 0 0

o o •

000

000

10

•xd2

lLlxd2

This position had occurred in M i.iss-Reinhardt, corres 1 935. After

82

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2

14 >!;>e 1 �xb2 1 5 lld I i.c2 Black won without trou ble. Also aftc:r 1 4 -;!¥b5 lld8+ 1 5 'it>e l li:ld4! fol lowed by 1 6 . . . li:lc2 ( mate) or I § ..t>� I �14+ 1 7 c3 Wxf2 Black wins in a k w moves. lld8+ 1 4 'i!;'b3 li:la5 IS �c l i.e4 16 't!t'f3 17 'i!Vc3(?) 1 7 �h3+ \t)b8 would have pro longed the suffering a little. �d6 17 0-1

Mate by 18 . . . �d l or 1 8 b4 �d I + 1 9 '
I I a3 'i!t'a5 already wins the k n ight on d2 ( 1 2 �d I g4). 11 li:ld4 llxd4! 12 ed tt:lxd4 1 3 Wd1 tif4! 0- 1

An analysis of the above position is naturally superfluous, but the mates which arise, even after a desperate queen sacrifice, are really not commonplace: 14 f3 �e3+ 1 5 1We2 Otherwise . . . �f2 mate. 15 tt:le2+ 16 c l �e l + ! 2 1 i.xe l Ild l mate. White's position may well approach a chess player's night mare. Game 32 Laghk�a-Contendini Leipzig 0/ 1 960 ( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e5 3 de li:le4 4 't!t'c2 i.b4+ 5 tt:ld2 d5) 6 ed i.f5 7 �a4+ ll:le6 8 a3 ll:le5! 9 de? White also stands very medi ocrely after 9 1!t'd I tt:ld4 I 0 e4 i.xd2+ I I i.xd2 i. xe4 but now follows a short procedure: 9 1!t'e7! A no ther sta ndard trap of t he

Fajarowicz 4 1Wc2 diabolical M r Fajarowicz! 1 0 'tid l lt:ld3 mate

This t rap should i mpress itself on every o ne - and be avoided with White if possible! D2 dS 5 lt:lc3 ed 6 6 cd 'tixd5 7 i.d2 i.xc3 8 i.xc3 lt:lxc3 9 1!t'xc3 lt:lc6 10 lt:lf3 0-0 I I e3 ll e8 etc with equality. .trs (J07J 6

7 i.d2 a) 7 de is, as in previous variations, not adequate: 7 . . . 1!t'xc7 8 i.d2

83

�xd 9 �xd lt:lg�1 10 c4 �xc4 I I �d3 i.xd3 1 2 �xd3 lt:lxh I 1 3 i.xg7 :SgH 1 4 't!¥xh 7 'tie7+ 1 5 lt:le2 II xg7 16 't!¥xg7 lt:ld7 followed by 17 . . . 0-0-0. I n t h is complicated position Black's chances are to be preferred. b) 7 �b3 occurred in Deutgcn Sch m id, Ce lie 1 948: 7 . . . lt:lco H lt:lf3 'tixdo 9 cJ 0-0-0 10 i.e2 't!¥g6 I I lt:lh4 't!¥f6 1 2 lt:lxf5 'tixf5 1 3 0-0 (or 1 3 f3 , 1 3 f4 , 1 3 i.f3 ) 1 3 . . . lt:lc5' 0- 1 , because the queen is t rapped . 7 lt:l xd6 e4 8 An i m portant alternative is !:! 't!¥b3 lt:lc6 9 e3 't!fe7 10 lt:J f3 ( 1 0 a 3'! lt:ld4 ! ) 10 . . . 0-0-0 and now: a) I I lt:ld5 i,xd2+ 12 lt:lxd2 'tie6 1 3 lt:lf4 'tif6 14 i.e2 g5 1 5 lt:ld5 'tie6 1 6 0-0-0 'i!lb!:! 1 7 i.f3 lt:le5 (thn:atening . . . lt:ld3+) with a com plicated game, Ackermann-Meyer, corres 1 958. I f 18 i.e2 :Sd7 19 c5 Black rega i ns t he pawn with 19 . . . lt:le4 20 liJ Xe4 �xe4. b) I I �e2 i. xd 12 �xc3 lt:l e4 1 3 0-0 lihg8 and 1 4 . . . g5 has never occurred in pract ice. Black need hardly fear this variat ion. i.xc3 8 i.xe4 9 i,xc3 10 '@d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 Now the natural I I . . . lt:lc6? is bad: 1 2 c5! lt:lf5 1 3 f3 'tixd 2+ 1 4 ll xd2 lt:le3 1 5 fe lt:lxfl 1 6 lle2 1 -0. de Carbonnei-Starke, Leipzig 1 953.

84

Fajarowicz 4 1t'c2 't!Vb l +. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

. . . the position is roughly equal. It is not possible to sketch out a un iversal plan for further play. An artificial demonstration game which shows a plausible cou rse of events if White attacks on the king side direct ly: 12 f3 �g6 h6 13 h4 ll:lc5 14 ll:le2 1 5 ll:lf4 �h7 ll:le6 1 6 ll:lh5 ll:lf5 17 c5 1We8 1 8 1Wf2 ll:le7 g4 19 20 g5 'tlra4 b3 21 2 1 gh? 1t'xa2 followed by

\!t'a3+ 1Wx b2+ 1t'b2 �g6 'it>xb2 h5 ll:lg3 b4 ll:lf5 ll:lxf5 �xf5 3 �xd3 �d l h d3 lUd8 llhdl 'it>� 'it>c2 'it>e7 1/z- 1/z This is only a single example as illustration; i n a practical game there a re naturally many other possibilities for bot h sides. Summary In t he variation 4 \!t'c2 Black has the choice between the particularly sharp continuation 4 . . d5 and the solid variation 4 . . . �b4+. In all variations Black plays ... d 5 and . . . �f5 - the standard moves o f t his line. For White the set-ups with ed and ll:lc3 are best. With that, general tips are almost exhausted. This variation is a tactical one; k now ledge of concrete move orders is necessary. .

8

Fajarowicz 4 ltJf3 and others

ll::l f6 d4 1 e5 c4 2 ll::l e4 3 de I n Chapter 6 we dealt with various q ueen moves on the d-file, in Chapter 7 the important vari ation 4 'tlrc2. In th is chapter we examine t he main variation 4 ll::l f3 and two other, rarely played, moves: A 4 ll::l d 2 14 a3 8 4 ll::l f3 ll::lc 6 c 4 ll::l f3 .1b4+ A 1 4 ll::l d 2 ll::l c5 A2 4 a3 AI

.

4 /09 w

After 5 ll::l gf3 ll::l c6 the ga me transposes to B. ECO gives 5 b4 ll::l e6 6 a3 a5 ! 7 b5 d6 1l ed .i.xd6 9 ll::l gf3 0-0 1 0 e3 ll::ld 7 with a good game for Black (the square c5 for the knight on e6, while the other comes to f6 or e5 ). 7 . . . b6!? comes into consideration ( instead of 7 ... d6) with the plausible follow-up 8 ll::l gf3 .i.b7 9 e3 g5!? I 0 .1b2 .i.g7 I I 'tlrc2 (protecting the bishop on b2 in order to be able to capture the d-pawn after an eventual . . . d6) I I . . . g4 1 2 ll::l d4 ll::l c 5! (but not 1 2 ... i.xe5?? 13 ll::l xe6) 1 3 ll::l e2 (the idea is protect the pawn on e5 and prepare ll:Jg3-f5 ) 1 3 . . d6 14 ll::lg 3 ( 1 4 ed ..txb2 15 'tlrxb2?? ll::ld 3+) 14 . . . ..txe5 1 5 ..txe5 de and Black's position is preferable (the plan is . . . 'ttf6, . . . ll::l bd7 . . . 0-�0). ' Certamly not everyt hing has been played out in this variation, but on general strategic grou nds Black must have a good ga me. The extra white pawn is weak and doubled and Black has a permanent st rong point for his knight on c5.

ll::l d 2

ll::l c 5 (109)

86

Fajarowicz 4 �f3 and others

A2

a3 4 This prevents the often unplea sant bishop check, but Black has a simple way of equalising. Game 33 O'Kelly-Bisguier San Juan 1 969 ( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4) 4 a3 1Vh4 5 g3 On 5 i.e3 Staker gives the following variation: 5 .. . ..tc5 6 ..txc5 �xc5 7 'i!fc2 (7 e3 �c6 8 �f3 'i!fe7 with equal ity; 9 1td5?! b6 followed by . . . ..tb7 and moving the k n ight from c6 is favourable for Black) 7 . . . �c6 8 li:lf3 1th5 9 e3 ltJxe5 I 0 ..te2 d6 I I lLlbd2 ..tg4 with equality. 5 trh5 6 lLld2 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 7 1!fc2 (7 ..tf4 ..tc5! 8 e3 g5) 7 . . . 1!ff5 ! ( threatening . . . ltJxg3). 7 ltJbd 2 leads t o the text. ltJxd2 6 �c6 7 1!fxd2 8 ltjf3 8 f4?! is risky: 8 . . . d6! 9 ed ..txd6 10 e4 i.g4 I I e5 ..tc5 followed by . . . lild8 with a powerful initiative. ltJxe5 8 d6 9 1!fe3 ..te7 1 0 ..tg2 1Wxe5 II li:l xe5 dt: 12 'irxe5 1/z-1/z

Those who fi nd this too 4uiet can try 7 ... 1!fxe5 instead of 7 . . . ltJc6, e.g. 8 ltJf3 1tf6 9 ..tg2 g6 1 0 0-0 ..tg7. H ere too the bala nce is maintained and there are still many pieces o n the board. The game is quite open . B 4

ltjf3

lLlc6 (I 10)

1 /0 w

The two m ost common moves are: 81 5 lLlbd2 82 5 a3! Others: a) 5 ..tf4? ..tc5 6 e3 ..tb4+ 7 lLl bd2 g5 8 ..ig3 h5 9 h 3 ltJxg3 10 fg 1fe7 with advantage to B lack. b) 5 e3 d6 6 ed ..txd6 7 o.'L!bd 2 lLlc5 8 a3 't!Vf6 9 lLlb3 lt.Jxb3 10 \Wxb3 ..tg4!, Strasdas-Richter, Berlin 1 933. After 1 1 ..te2 0-0-0 12 h3 ..th5 followed by . . . lLle5 the situation was unclear but Black is certainly very active. Snatching the pawn with I I 'i!fxb7 does not turn out well : I I . . .

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others

0-0 1 2 .i.e2 ( 1 2 Wxc6'r! .i.b4+) 1 2 . . . llab8 1 3 Wa6 liJd4 (threatening . . . ..tb4+ winning the queen) and Black stands superbly, e.g. 1 4 't!ra4 lL!xe2 1 5 �xe2 ll xb2+! 1 6 ..txb2 Wxb2+ 1 7 �d3 lld8 1 8 liJd4 .i.c5 threatening both ... ..tf5+ and . . . llxd4+. c) S WdS ..tb4+ 6 ..td2 liJ xd2 7 lL!bxd2 We7 8 0-0-0 ..txd2+ 9 llxd2 and we have transposed into Bli.imich-Fajarowicz, Chapter 6, C 1 . After 9 . . . liJb4 Black has equalised.

87

H l l 6 g3

8 1 2 6 a3 811 d6 6 g3 ..txd6 7 ed 8 ..tgl 0-0 9 0-0 Wf6 1 0 lL!b3 ..te6 I I lt:lxc5 ..txc5 1 2 Wa4 ..tg4 1 3 lL!g5 llae8 14 lL!e4 llxe4 1 5 ..txe4 ..txe2 and Black regains the exchange with a good game, Barcza-H alic, H ungary 1 946. 812

81 s llJbdl Here it should be noticed that this variation can also arise after 4 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 5 llJgf3 . Therefore you should look at this section even if you decide to play the variation 4 . . . ..tb4+ (see C) instead of 4 . . . lL!c6. liJcS (I 1 1) s Ill w

Here, too, the path divides, illustrated by practical examples.

6 a3 We7 and now: a) 7 b4? lL!xe5 8 e3 (8 lL! xe5 Wxe5 with the double threat of . . . liJd3 mate and . .. Wxa I ) 8 . .. liJ cd3+ and Black stands better. b) 7 e3 lL!xe5 8 lL! xe5 'tlfxe5 9 lt:lf3 1ff6 10 .i.e2 ..te7 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 liJd4 lL!e6 1 3 lL!b5, Rejfir-Richter, Prague 1 93 1 , and now 13 . . . d6 14 .if3 lld8 with equality. The follow ing variation, naturally not forced, demonstrates that this position can quickly 'tip over': 1 5 lib I (better is 1 5 lL!c3 im mediately) 1 5 . . . c6 1 6 lL!c3 lL!g5 1 7 ..te2 ..tf5 1 8 .i.d3 liJh3+! 1 9 gh ( 1 9 ct>h l ? .i.xd3 20 Wxd3 lL!xf2+) 19 . . . Wg6+ 20 �h I ..txd3 2 1 llg I ..t xb I 22 llxg6 ..txg6 and Black stands better. B2 S

a3!

88

Fajarowicz 4 �/3 and others 11

Prevents the usual freeing and pinning manoeuvre . . . .i.b4+ and also a later . . . lt:lb4. Black now has

are Black's prospects? Pretty bad. He cannot castle because of .i.g5.

problems.

d6

s

What else? 5 . . . a5 6 b3 d6 7 .i.b2 .i.e7 8 �bd2 �xd2 9 Wxd2 with a healthy extra pawn for White.

6

WdS

The first storm is over and what

So:

11 12

g3

h6 gS

Again castling was not good on account of 13 �h4 Wf6 (or 13 . . .

1fc2 (1 12)

lt:lxg3 1 4 hg 1ff6 1 5 lt:le4) 1 4 Wxh I followed by �d5. Therefore Black prevents �h4.

13 14

.i.g2 hg (1 13)

�xg3

After 6 . . . d5 there follows 7 cd 1fxd5 8 �c3 �xc3 9 -.xc3 .i.g4 10 .i.f4 and Black has scarcely any thing for the pawn. With regard to 6 . . . .i.f5 , see the following illustrative game:

Game 34 Reshevsky-Bisguier New York 1954-5 ( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e5 3 de �e4 4 lt:IO 1fc2 �c3 wxrs e6 Wxe6+

on the h l -aS diagonal. Black can still parry this threat but we see that in this game he can never act, but only react.

14

�c6 5 a3 d6)

6 7 s 9 10

Castling is still denied to Black: 14 ... � 15 �d4 with devastation

.i. f5 �xfl �xbl

fe We7

IS

16

.i.g7 .i.h3 .i.dl!

lt:leS

16 Wxb7 �0 and Black still lives for a time.

16

g4

Fajarowicz 4 lLlf3 and others

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

J. xg 4 .ifS 't!t'e4 lLlgS lLle6+ 0-0...0 .if4 q;,bl

89

hS c6 q;,ds .if6 q;,cs q;,bs b6 1 -0

After, for example, 24 . . . q;,b7 , 25 lLlb5 wins.

Summary

9

0...0?

After 4 ll:lf3, 4 . . . ll:lc6 is not good

The plan with kingside castling

because of 5 a3. After 5 a3, the

does not prove very good. A very

move 6 •c2 gains significantly in

important alternative comes into

strength in comparison with lines

consideration here: 9 .

in Chapter 6 (4 •c2), as neither . . .

.tb7 I I .te2 0-� 1 2 lild l ( 12 �

.i.b4+ nor . . . otlb4 are possible.

..

b6!? 1 0 e3

lilhe8 and . . . lLlxe5) 1 2 . . . lilde8! 13 lild5 g5! . Here Black can become

c

active on the kings ide with . . .

4

.i. b4+

llhg8 o r eventually regain the pawn on e5 by lilgCH:6. There is

We now examine:

Cl S .tell Cl S otlbdl

still no practical experience of this plan.

10 II

Cl s

.i.d2

2 c4 e5 3 de �e4 4
J.dl ltJbxd2 a3 •xd2 1fcJ (1 14)

lile8

Everything turns on regaining

Game 35 Smyslov-Steiner Groningen 1 946 ( I d4 lLlf6 .i.b4+) s 6 7 8 9

lldl lildS

ltJxdl ltJc6 .i.xdl+ 1fe7

or holding the extra white pawn on e5. Now Black cannot attack this pawn again so he prepares to drive away the rook on d5.

11 12 13 14

e3 J.e2 0-0

b6 .tb7 ll ad8 �b8

If the rook on d5 now moves Black achieves his aim: 1 5 litd2 .txf3 16 .txf3 •xe5 with equality

90

Fajarowicz 4 li:JfJ and others

according to Smyslov. The black k night is easily mobilised: . . . d6 followed by . . . li:Jd7 etc. After a notable exchange sacrifice . . . .i.xd5 l:lcl! 15 cd 16 . . . White obtains an overwhelming advantage which he converts to a win by precise play: 16 d6 1 7 .ib 5 llf8 e4 a6 18 1 9 .id 3 de 20 li:Jxe5 lld6 ( 1 1 5)

lle8 e7 1!rd8 1 -0 So it d idn't turn out well for Blac k . H o wever Black could have chosen the plan with cas tling l o ng on the 9th move. He is well advised to do this. 33 34

C2 5

li:Jbd2 (1 16)

1 16 B

1 15 w

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

l0c4 li:Je3 1!rxc7 g3 e5 h4 llc4 l:U4 li:Jg4 .ixg6 e6 �h2

llh6 1!rh4 llf6 1!rh5 llh6 1!rf3 b5 1!rh 5 llg6 'tlt'xg6 't!rb l + f5

I n my opinion the best variation for White. li:Jc6 5 Other moves are less good : a) 5 ... f5 (suggested by Staker) 6 ef 1!rxf6 7 1!rc2 and after the exchange on d2 White continues his developmc:nt without problems and has a healthy extra pawn. b) 5 ... d5 (£CO) 6 ed 1!rxd6 and now 7 a 3 ! .txd2+ 8 li:J xd2 (8 .i.xd2 't!rb6 9 e3 1!rxb2) and Black has almost nothing for the pa wn. 6 li:J xd2 a3 7 li:Jxd2 7 ab?! li:J xc4 is good for Black,

Fajarowicz 4 lt:\fJ and others e.g. !l b5 lt:l6xe5; !l 11t'd5 lt:lb6 9 11t'e4 \i'e7 1 0 .td2 d 5 ! with advantage to Black. The important alternative 7 .txd2 can lead to game 3 5 after 7 . . . .txd2+ 8 11t'xd2 11t'e7 9 11t'c3. You should also remember here the plan with castling long: 9 . . . b6 followed by . . . .tb7 and . . . 0-0-0. .tf8 7 The lesser evil . 7 . . . .txd2+ 8 .txd2 lt:lxe5 9 .tc3 gives White a lasting advan tage in a position that is easy to play, e.g. 9 . . . f6 1 0 e 3 d 6 I I .te2 0-0 1 2 0-0 .te6 1 3 b3 and White can slowly tighten his grip (plan: 'ttc 2, llae l , e4, f4). White's chances may still be somewhat better after t he text continuation but in a complicated position a single inaccurate move is enough to lose the advantage. As there are no examples from play of this attempted improve ment we must be content with some constructed variations: 8 lt:lrJ 'ite7 'ite6 9 .tgS 1 0 't!tdS h6 II .tr4 gS .tg7 12 .tg3 e3 13 Naturally an exchange of queens either here or earlier will simply transpose . b6 13 .tb7 1 4 .te2 0-0-0 ( 1 1 7) 0-0 IS

91

1/7 w

The ga me is unclear. Black now threatens 1 6 . . . lt:lxe5 1 7 'itxe6 lt:lxf3+. If here (or earlier) 1 6 lt:ld4 then . . . 't!txd5 followed by . . . lt:lxe5. After 1 6 't!txe6 de the following variations are plausible: a) 1 7 llrdl g4 18 lt:ld4 lt:lxe5 1 9 .txe5 .txe5 20 .txg4 c 5 2 1 lt:lb5 a l ) 21 . . . lldg8 22 .th 3 .tf3 23 lld2 llxg2+ 24 .txg2 llg!l (with the winning threat 25 . . . l hg2+ followed by . .. llxhl) 25 lt:lxa 7+ 'o&b8 26 lid!!+! lhd8 27 .txf3 'o&xa 7 28 llb I lil:d2 and opposite bishops guarantee a dra w. a2) 21 ... .txb2 with unclear play. b) 17 h3 lt:le7 18 lt:ld4 lt:lg6 1 9 f4 gf 20 .txf4 .txe5 with roughly equal play. Less good would be 20 . . . lLlxe5 2 1 i.xe5 .txe5 22 lhf7 .txd4 23 ed l hd4 24 .tg4 ! . Summary In the Faj a rowicz G a m b i t s h a r p variations arise after queen sort 1es on the 4th move which are certainly

92

Fajarowicz 4 liJfJ and others

p l a y a b l e for Hlack . Here t ac t ics

there are no general plans: whoever is familiar with the most important variations of the material at hand will have excellent chances i n a game. 4 liJf3 is the most u npleasant for rule over strategy;

Blac k . A comp l i cat ed s t rategic struggle arises, though st i l l with tactical elements. Black has practical chances in positions where the pawn on e5 is put under slow siege, as is discussed in detail in the foregoing chapter. ,

9

Declining the Gambit

ll:lf6 1 d4 e5 2 c4 Declining the gambit very rarely occurs in practice. Here is a collec tion of the k nown examples: A 3 e3 B 3 i.g5 C 3 e4 D 3 d5 E 3 ll::!B A

ed 3 e3 4 ed i.b4+ i.xd2+ 5 i.d2 0-0 6 ltJxd2 d5 7 .td3 i.g4 8 li)e2 ll:lc6 9 0-0 f3 10 .i.h 5 + Vistaneckis-Vajda, Prague 193 1 . Black plays . . . lle8 and . . . .i.g6 and exerts pressure on White's centfal pawns, e.g. . . . de followed by . . . li)d5 and doubling on the d-file.

B 3 i.g5 ed 4 Wxd4 i.e7 5 ll:lf3 ll:lc6 6 Wd l �e4 7 .ixe7 Wxe7 a3 8 d6 e3 9 0-0 1 0 i.e2 Wf6 II ltJbd2 .tr5 + Lad mann-Tartakower, Scarborough 1 929. After 1 2 ltJ xe4 i.xe4 1 3 tfd2 llad 8 14 0-0 d5 Black is obviously more active. c e4 3 ltJxe4 (I I 8)

94

Declining the Gambit

de 4 4 tt'e2 .ib4+ 5 lt:ld2 lt:lxd2 6 't!t'xe5+ .ie7! 7 .ixd2 0-0 followed by . . . .if6 and . . . U.e8 +. .ic5 4 Now Schlechter gives: a) 5 lt:lh3 d6 6 't!t'e2 f5 7 ef 0-0! 8 fg U.e8 9 .ie3 .ixe3 10 fe .i.xh 3 1 1 gh 1!rh4+ and wins. b) 5 lt:lh3 d6 6 'tlt'd5 f5 7 ef lt:lx£6 followed by .. . 0-0 and later . . . .i. x h 3 or, if lt:lh 3-f4, . . . lt:lg4. c) 5 't!t'd5 .i.xf2+ 6 �2 f5 7 ef lt:l xf6 8 'tlt'eS+ �n with advantage to Black (9 �xf2?? �g4+; 9 �d 1 U.e8). D .i.c5 3 d5 d6 (1 1 9) 4 lt:lc3 1 /9 w

Now: a) 5 'tlt'c2 c6 6 lt:lf3 0-0 7 .i.g5 ( 7

e4? lt:lg4) 7 . . . lt:lbd7 8 e 3 'tlt'c7 9 .i.d 3 h6 10 .i.h4 .ib4 I I de be 1 2 0-0 .i.b7 i s good for Black (pla n : . . . dS; 1 3 e4 lt:lh5 and . . . lt:lf4). b) 5 e4 c6 6 .i.d3 (6 lt:lf3 lt:lg4) 6 . . . c d 7 c d a 6 8 lt:lf3 lt:lbd7 9 0-0 (9 .i.gS h6 10 .ih4 lt:lf8 followed by . . . lt:lg6 and eventually . . . lt:lh 5-f4 square for the k nigh t ! ) 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i.gS h6 1 1 .i.h4 bS and in I M M inev's opinion Black is better (plan: . . . �b6, . . . .i.b7, . . . U.c8 with play on the queenside). E ed 3 4 lt:lxd4 d5 5 cd On S lt:lc3? Black has S . . . cS followed by . . . d4. 5 'tlt'xd5 6 lt:lc3 .i.b4 7 'tlt'a4+ lt:lc6 8 lt:lxc6 .i.xc3+ 9 .id7! be 1 0 lt:lb4 .ixa4 1 1 �xd 5 lt:lxd5 According to Carl Schlechter, Black has more than enough compensation for the opponent's bishop pair in his better pawn structure and open lines after . . . 0-0-0.

Index of Variations

3 3 3 3 3

lt:lr6 e5

d4 c4 de

I 2 3 e3 93 .tg5 93 e4 93 d5 94 ltJf3 94

Budapest Gambit llJg4 3 llJO 4 4 .tr4 and now: 4 g5 22 4 llJc6 5 llJf3 .tb4+ 6 llJbd2 1We7: 7 e3 24 7 a3 24 4 llJc6 5 llJf3 .ib4+ 6 llJc3 .txc3+ 7 be We7 8 1td 5 f6 9 ef llJxf6: 10 1!t'd3 27 10 t!t"d2 29 1 0 1ld l 29 000

000

0 0 0

4 e4 and now: 4 h5: 5 h 3 33 5 .te2: 5 .tc5 34 5 d6 36 Ooo

000

0 0 0

96

Index of Variations 4 . . . d6: 5 ed 36 5 .te2 �xe5 6 f4: 6 ... �ec6 4"0 6 ... �g6 40 6 ... �g4 1 �n: 7 ... .te7 41 7 ... �c6 41 4 . . . �xe5 5 f4 �g6: 6 �f3 42 6 .teJ 46 4 . . . �xe5 5 f4 �ec6: 6 �f3 47 6 aJ 49 6 .teJ .tb4+ 7 �cJ: 7 . . . d6 5 1 7 . . . 1!re7 5 1 7 ... Wh4+ 52

4 f4 55 4 1fd4 55 4 1fd5 �c6 5 �fJ d6: 6 .tg5 57 6 ed 58 4 e3 58 4 �c3 58 4 a3 58 4 e6 59

4

.•.

4 i.c5 5 eJ �c6: 6 9d5 13

Index of Variatoins

97

6 a 3 a5 7 b3 0-0 8 .i.b2 liteS 9 �c3 li:lgxe5 1 0 li:lxe5 li:l xe 5 I I .i.e2 d6 1 2 0-0 lile6!?: 1 3 �d5 14 1 3 g3 /5 1 3 �a4 15 6 .i.e2 10gxe5 7 0-0 0-0 8 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 9 b3 lilc8 I 0 li:lc3; 10 . . . a5 16 10 . d6: I I ..tb2 18 I I li:la4 19 .

.

e3

S 5 ..tg5 1 1 s

.l.b4+

5 . . . ltlgxe5 8

10bd2 6

6 6 .l.d2 2 6 10c3 J

Fajarowicz Gambit 3 4

•c2

4 .l.f4?! 61

4 ltlc3? 61 4 .dl 62

4 .d4 65 4 .d5 65

4 ltld2 10c5 85 4 a3 86

4 /Of) ltlc6:

5 a3! 87 5 ltlbd2 ltlc5:

6 g3 87 6 a3 87 4 /Of) .l.b4+: 5 ..td2 89

5 ltlbd2 90

98

Index of Variations

4 4 ... .ib4+: 5 l!Jd2 79 5 l!Jc3! 83 ed 5 5 l!Jf3? 69 5 e3?! 68 5 cd 68 5 l!Jc3 6 6 de? 70 6 't!ta4+? 71 6 1tb3? 72 6 6 . . others 74 .

dS

.tr5

l!Jxd6 74

Index of Complete Games Ahues-Helling A lekhine-Seitz Akesson-Tagnon Antainen-Nieminen Bascau-Meewes Capablanca-Tartakower Chebotayev-lsayev Chebotayev-Machkin Egli-Bauer Golombek-Tartakower Gilfer-Richter Gutman-Shvidler I n kiov-Djukic Keres-Gilg Knaak-Adamski Kottnauer-Martin Krastev-Donev Laghkva-Contendini Lanzani-Rogers Laszlo-A bonyi Lukacs-Sch iissler Mititelu-Seineanu P.Nikolic-Barbero O' Kelly-Bisguier Osnos-Yermolinsky

33 43, 5 1 16 MI !!2 37 44 50 38 34 72 2 30 52 6

74 70 82 31 56

25 69

8 86 19

100

Index of Complete Games

Rasin-lvanov Reshevsky-Bisguier Rossner-Kipke Smyslov-Steiner Sosonk o-Ree Steiner- Fajarowicz Thomas-Reti Timet-Meyer Vaganian-Wed berg Vukic-Rogers

59 88 70 89 10 71 3 80 47 28