Budapest Fajarowitz

The Budapest Fajarowicz The Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit in Action

Lev Gutman

BATS FORD

First published in 2004 Lev Gutman 2004

©

ISBN 0 7 1 34 8708 9 British Library Cataloguing -in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Great Britain by Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale for the publishers, B.T. Batsford Ltd, The Chrysalis Building Bramley Road, London, W 10 6SP

Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co., 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 1 0016, USA

For my daughters Dana and Tali

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Contents

Introduction

4

Part l Less Popular Variations

8

Part 2 Steiner Variation 4.�c2

30

Part 3 4.�d2

76

Part 4 4.�f3

1 52

Part 5 4.a3

210

Index of Variations

285

Bibliography

287

Introduction l .d4 players are used to being treated with respect. After the game Levin Gulman, German Ch 2001, in which I played the Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit, my opponent, a solid GM and well known theoretician, was sufficiently affected by the enormous tension he had to face from the very start that some months later, in the German League 2002, he preferred to play l .ltJO against me! "The study of Chess Openings has taught us that Black, being a single-move behind, cannot achieve complete equality. He has a choice: to be content with a passive but sound position, or try early freeing moves. l.d4 �f6 :Z.«: 4 eS!? This variation was invented in 1917 by Istvan Abonyi, Zsigmo nd BartiSZ and Gyulll Breyer. Such an aggressive action seems premature; on the other hand the black squares in the centre are a bit weak due to c2-c4", Richard Reti, Die Meister des Schachbretts, 1 930.

3.dxe5 �e4!?

"The Fajarowicz-knight creates latent threats along the a5-e I diagonal and, in con­ junction with the consequent gambit continuation d7-d6 or d7-d5, may well make White's development more difficult", Mtu: Euwe, Theorie der Schach-Eroeffoun­ gen, 1965.

"The Budapest is really a counter-attack rather then a def ence and it appeals to players who like to challenge White for the initiative from early in the game. This particularly applies to the Fajarowicz Variation, in which (by contrast with the 3 ...�g4, the main line of t he Budapest) Black puts more emphasis on fighting for key squares than on seeking the early recapture of the pawn he has given up", Tim Harding, The Fighting Fajarowicz, 1996. Ev ery «:hess openi ng has its ow n hi story, its ow n destiny

Soler - Marcoff, Steinitz Chess Club, November 1 927, seems to be the very first published game with 3 ... �e4, while the British Chess Magazine, 1 9 1 9, mentions the game Mlotkowski - Barrett, already played in Philadelphia 1904/1905. However, investigations and examinations began only with the game Steiner­ Fajarowicz, Wiesbaden 1928, where Black got a completely winning position, and this was actually the birth of a new Gambit, Stefan Buecker/A ifred Diel, Kais­ siber 112001.

"In the pantheon of opening theoreticians, one of the most obscure surely has to be S.Fajarowicz. The creator of 3 ... �e4 in the Budapest Gambit, he is almost unknown outside his variation. The major recent works h ave little to say about him other than that he was from Leipzig and that he was active during the period 1920- 1 938 ", John Donaldson, Inside Chess, 1990. Thanks to Diel we now know a bit more: "on June 5, 1908, Sammi Fajarowicz was born in Mockem near Leipzig. He was one of those comet-like players of chess history, whose active period (1 927- 1 933) was too short owing to perse­ cution of the Jews and fatal illness", Kaissiber 112001. 4

"The Leipzig Variation was employed in master tournaments since 1 927 by its inventor Fajarowicz", MllX Bluemich, Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1932; "This variation should in any case be associated with Leipzig, where it was developed and practised many years before it appeared in public at Wiesbaden 1 928", Bluemich, Deutsche Sch achzeitung, 1941. "Unfortunately Fajarowicz lacked the technique to bring some ofthese early games, against masters, to a successful finish, but his imaginative idea was soon adopted by other players, notably grandmaster Savielly Tartakower, a player al­ ways attracted to unusual and ingenious paths, and the brilliant combinational art­ ist Kurt Richter", Harding. "3...�e4 has found in Richter a loyal supporter", Deutsche Schachblaetter, 1 932; it was Richter who published the very first survey of the practical development of the opening and some analysis of its principal variations in Wiener Schach­ zeitung, 1933, and it was first and foremost his advocacy which led to the great popularity of this gambit. "This variety of Budapest Gambit should promise a fighter of stature better pros­ pects then the usual 3 ... �g4. The knight is definitely more effectively placed in the centre but in most cases Black will have to give up the sacrificed pawn", Richter, Chess Olympiad Munich 1 936.

"Black has obviously some problems to solve", Richter, Die Moderne Schach­ partie, 1948.

Tartllkower seemed to have had a more optimistic view of this development and offered some new ideas in L 'echequier de Paris, 194 7. "It is in any case admirable to see how this paradoxical-looking move, despite all attempts at refutation, com­ binational and positional, holds its own over and over again". The n ew p rot agonist s

"S ince 1945 chess theory has expanded, both in depth and breadth, like never before. New surprising moves have been found and new strategic plans have been developed in every opening", Eu we, Theorie der Schach-Eroeffnungen, 1965. Euwe s contribution to the Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit was of enormous impor­ tance. After the game Alekhine -Tartakower, London 1932, 4.�d2 was very pop­ ular; it is intriguing that fifteen years later Alexander Alekhine still favoured this move in his comments to the game van Scheltinga - Tartakower, Buenos Aires 1939, 107 Gre at Chess Battles 1939-1945. Euwe has commented that White's success was only a result of wrong black strategy; he should play in gambit style instead of trying to recover his pawn and in this case the chances should be equal. However, despite his conclusion that a new method of fighting, exploiting the insecure position of the knight on e4, may cause serious problems for Black, the basis for a new beginning was created. ·

s

Two impressive works were published in 1966: Teoria e Practica do Gambito Budapeste, by Fernando Vasconcellos, and Budapest-Gambiten, by Alexander Hildebrand. Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, 1 979, by Nicola Minev, was another im­ portant step for the further development of the Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit. Not least, there is something to be said for Budapest Defence, by JosefStllker, Alan Glasscoe and Gregory Stllyart, Thinkers Press, Davenport / 980. Budapest Gambit, by Otto Borik, came out in 1985 (the English edition in 1986). With some new ideas and instructive examples, he influenced many players to change their negative opinion about this variation; unfOrtunately the second German edition, 1 988, was less optimistic: ''the Fajarowicz-Gambit is indeed not I 00% correct". "The Fajarowicz is one of many lines which have been mishandled by theory. Even an excellent manual like BCO has it wrong", Joel Benjamin/Eric Schiller, Unorthodox Openings, / 98 7.

Czech correspondence chess expert Frantisek Nepustil managed to attract at­ tention with an ambitious article in Schach-Archiv, /987: "the analysis is quite interesting; however, the fmal conclusion that 3 �e4 could be a refutation of c2-c4 looks very subjective to me", Ludek Pachman. "While Fajarowicz may be a dark shadow, his variation of the Budapest has occasionally seen the light of day. In the past, Tartakower, Richter and Steiner all employed it fairly often. Arthur Bisguier has used it for nearly forty years, and for a while NM Richard Kelson of Clayton, California, was playing it every chance he got. It is sound? All the theoretical works suggest that Black does not quite get enough for the pawn against best play. But theory is one thing and practice another'', ...

John Donaldson, Inside Chess, / 990.

"This, it seems to me, is an extremely ambitious way for Black to play - to sacrifice a pawn and make no attempt to win it back! White has a number of ways to get a clear edge if (and it is a big if) he does not get carried away by the cheek of Black's opening", Julian Hodgson, Budapest Defence, Trends /99/. "Many players take a sceptical view of this move, hence from a practical stand­ point it is perhaps more dangerous for White then the usual 3 .. �g4", Mikhail .

Tseitlinllgor GIDskov, The Budapest/or the Tournament Player, Batsford /992. Fajarowicz-Gambit, by Niels Jiirgen Jensen, came out in 1 995 in Danish and

was the f1rst book exclusively about this opening. The author quoted many sources, found some new ideas in principal variations and published many unknown games from Danish players. The Fighting Fajarowicz, by Tim H6rding, Chess Digest, Dallas / 996, fol­ lowed: "The variation is far more dangerous for White than its current reputation. This is the first full-length book to be devoted to the Fajarowicz Gambit, although a 48-page booklet in Danish by Niels Jiirgen Jensen, was published shortly be­ fore I completed this monograph ", Harding.

6

"To write a useful and reasonably authoritative book about the Fajarowicz Gam­ bit is not an easy job; for a long time there was a negative view of 3 ... �e4. Authors Jensen and Harding were forced to replace their previous conclusions with new arguments; so, both books are a long way from being a convincing rehabilitation ", Stefan Buecker, Kaissiber 211997.

"If I had to define the main concept of the Budapest Gambit, it would have to be rapid development. Black is prepared to sacrifice a pawn in order to seek the initiative", Bogdan Lillie, The Budapest Gambit, 1 998. The Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit goes round the World Sammi Fajarowicz. Kurt Richter and Ludwig Engels, StJVieUy Tartakower, Bora Kostic, Herman Steiner and Arthur Bisguier, Philip Stuart Milner-Barry, Mosh e Czerniak and Raaphy Persitz; in recent years grandmasters Juan Bellon and Alfonso Romero, Jan Rogers, Artur Kogan, Dimitri Reindermann, Alonso Zapata, Stuart Conquest and Glenn Flear played this Gambit.

However, it is not only grandmasters who have to decide the future of this at­ tractive variation: Jorgen Hvenekilde, Froede Soby, Niels Jen sen and Roger Thomsen from Denmark, Gerard WeUing from Holland, Mario Lllnzani from Italy, Georg Mohr and An drej Vospernik from Slovenia, Pierre Toulzac from France, Kjell Krantz and Tor:sten Oskar:sson from Sweden, John Gibson and Tim Harding from Ireland, Philip Corbin from Barbados, Bernd Voekler, Helmut Reeftchllleger, Peter Schaffarth, Helmut Wiltelsberger, Peter Leisebein, Reiner Klueting, Gerhardt Kratochwil, Christo/Herbrechameier, Hans Baum, Rene Dausch from Germany; and many others - they are all evidence that this Gambit

is still alive.

"Chess has always been a subject of fashion. The styles, openings, variations have often changed without any apparent reason. One day the adorable truth can adorable truth can tum out to be a mistake; finally time refutes everything and produces new original thoughts. For me this is a main attraction of our royal game", Rudolf Spielmann, Wiener Schachzeitung, /933. Why the Fajarowicz-Richter Gambit?

I like to write about openings which are inferior according to modem theory; to show how primitive and insufficient the common knowledge is. In most va­ riations I have drawn new conclusions; I am sure that this Gambit is fully viable and much better than its current reputation. I hope that my endeavour for high quality and understanding will find an ap­ preciative public. The material included is topical up to November 2003.

7

Part One: Less Popular Variations (l .d4 �f6 l.c:4 eS 3. dxeS �e4)

4...lLlc6 (4.. .ic5 ! ? 5.e3 - 5.ig3? .ib4+ 6.lLlc3 lLlxc3 7.ti'b3 lLlxa2+ 8.�dl lLlc6, Camon Bn:ssel - Zuazua Iglesias, Asturia The material divides as follows: 200 I -, 5 .ib4+ 6.�e2 m4 7.g3 ti'hS+ 8.lLJ13and now instead of 8 ...b6 9.ti'd5 Chapter I - 4 . .ie3 lLlc5 I O.ti'xa8 .ib7 l l .ti'xb8+ 'it>e7 1 2 . (4. 13, 4.e3, 4..if4, 4 ..id2) ti'xb7 lLlxb7 13.a3, Muttoni - Gonsalves Chapter 2 - 4.g3 e-mail 1999, 8 ... g5 9.ti'd4 gxf4 is better: Chapter 3 - 4.ltk3 e.g. IO.e6 0-0 l l .gxf4 lLlg5 12.fxg5 dxe6 Chapter 4 - 4.ti'd4 13.ti'M ti'g6 or IO.ti'xe4 fxg3 1 l.fxg3 gg8 Chapter 5 - 4.ti'd3 12.ti'M ti'g6. The irunediate 4...g5 � met Chapter 6 - 4.ti'd5. by 5..ld2 lLlc6 6.lLlc3lLlxd2 7.ti'xd2 lLlxe5 8.lLJ13, while 5.ti'c2? is wrong due to 5 ... Chapter I lLlxf2! , Duby - Loeffler, Cadap 1 982. 4.. .J.b4+ 5.lLld2 'Ml4 6.g3 lLlxd2 7 .ixd2 4 .le3 ti'xc4 8.lLJ13 lLlc6 9.ig2!? - improving There are four alternatives: on 9.b3 ixd2+ IO .ti'xd2 ti'e6 l l .ti'c3 0 4.13? m4+ 5 .g3 lLlxg3, Otto Borik; 0-0 12.ig2 ge8 13.0-0 b6 14.lLld4 ti'xe5 II) 4.e3 .ib4+ (for 4 ... lLlc6 5.lLJ13 d6! see 4.lLJ13 d6 5 .e3 lLlc6 - Part 4, Chap­ 1 5.e3 ib7, Doyle - Storgaard, e-mail ter I) 5..id2 (5.lLld2 lLlc6 6.lLJ13ti'e7 will 1 998 -, 9 ... 0-0 1 0.0-0 ixd2 l l .ti'xd2 transpose into 4.lLld2 ib4 5.lLJ13 lLJc6 ge8 J2 .gfcJ ti'e6 1 3 .gc3 leaves White 6.e3 ti'e7 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, slightly better) � an interesting position. Sequel I) 5 ...lLlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 7.lLl13 5.lLJf3 (5.13? ib4+ 6.lLld2 ixd2+ 7.ixd2 (7.a3 ixd2+ 8.ti'xd2 lLlxe5 9.0-0-0 0-0 'Ml4+ 8.g3 lLlxg3, Borik, while 5.a3 may I O.f4 lLlc6 l l .lLle2 ge8 with advantage transpose to 4.a3 lLlc6 5 ..if4 - Part 5, for Black, de Ia Rocha - Ramiro, Spain Chapter 3) 5...ic� (5...J.b4+ 6.lLlbd2 ti'e7 1997) 7 ...ti'e7 reaches a position after 7.a3 lLlxd2 8.lLlxd2 lLlxe5 is also pos­ 4.lLJ13ib4+ 5.id2 lLlxd2 6.lLlbxd2 lLlc6 sible. 9.ixe5 ixd2+ IO.ti'xd2 ti'xe5 is 7 .e3 ti'e7 - Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 1; covered under 4.ti'c2 ib4+ 5..id2 lLlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 7.lLlg13 ti'e7 8.a3 ixd2+ Ill) 4..if4 seems to give Black more pos­ 9.ti'xd2 lLlxe5 I O.lLlxe5 ti'xe5 - Part 2, sibilities. •

•

8

Chapter 3, Section 1 , and 9.e3 .ixd2+ 10.�xd2 d6 1 1 �e2 0-0 - l l ...gS? 12..ig3 �g6 13.�d4 b6 14.Af3 l::tb8 1 S .h4! f6 16.hxgS fxgS 1 7.0-0-0 was devastating, Hrtko - Gutdeutsch, Tatry 1997 - 12 .0-0 b6 is quite comfortable for Black) 6�g3 (after 6.e3 .ib4+ 7.ltlbd2 gS 8..lg3 hS 9.h3 �xg3 10.fxg3 �e7 1 1 .�3 .ixd2+ 12.�d2 Black can play on with 12 ..l!g8 13.g4 hxg4 14.hxg4 d6 1 S .exd6 �xd6+, while 12 ... ltlxeS, Panagoupoulos - Stei­ ner, Dubrovnik Olympiad 19SO, is less promising in view of 13.lt:lxeS!? �xeS 14.�c3) 6 ....ib4+ (6 ... �xeS? 7.�xeS ib4+ 8.ltlc3 lt:lxc3 9.\!lYb3 ltlxa2+ IO.'i!i>d l) 7.�bd2 �e7 8.�c2 (8.a3 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 ltlxg3 10.hxg3 �xeS) 8 .. .Axd2+!? (8 ... �xd2 9.�xd2 �xeS 1 O.e3 0-0 l l .Ae2 d6 1 2.0-0 a5 is not bad either) 9.�xd2 �xg3 10.hxg3 �xeS l l .e3 d6 12�d3 Ad7 with equal chances, Gutman. IV) 4.Ad2 was suggested by Frantisek

14.e6 �xe6 1S .gxf3 0-0-0) S.�xd2 (if S.�xd2 �c6 6.f4 d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.e3 �e7, PeterSchaJ/fll'lh) 5...�c6 6.�c3 ib4 (6 ... d6 is another option, e.g.7.exd6.ixd6 8.�f3 Ae6 9.e3 �e7 or 7.�f3. when in­ stead of 7 .. .dxeS 8.�xd8+ �d8 9.� Ad7 lO.�gS, Balling - Pedersen, Hor­ sens 19S6, 7 ...�xeS S.�xeS dxeS 9.�xd8+ 'i!i>xd8 1 0.0-0-0+ .id7 might be the right answer. Nepustil analyses 6_.,lcS 7.�f3 0-0 8.e3 l::te 8 9..id3 �xeS lO.lt:lxeSl:ixeS, yet White can do better with 8.a3 l::te8 9.�f4 d6 10. �1 a5 l l .exd6.ixd6 12.�cl) 7.�f3 �e7 8.a3 Axc3 9.�xc3 transposes to 4.�f3ib4+S.Jd2 �d2 6.�bxd2 lt:lc6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.�c3 - Part 4, Chapter 3, Sections 3/4, Gutm an.

Nepustil.

4 .lb4+ 4 ... �e7 S.�f3 �+ (Zilberstein - Sad­ riev, Podolsk 1 993, went 5...�c6 6.�c2 f5 7.exf6 gxf6 8.�c3 �xc3 9.�xc3 d6 10.g3 .ig7 l l ..ig2 .ig4 12.0-0 f5 13.�c2) 6.�bd2 �xd2 7.�xd2 �xc4 8.a3 �c6 9.l::tc l �e6 I O ..if4 favours W hite. •.

4...�xd2 (4-..lcS !? S.e3 �c6 6.�f3 �e7 7.�c3 �d2 8.�xd2 �xeS 9.�xeS �xeS IO.ie2, Ihche - Foerster,Germany 2001, 1 0...0-0 1 1 .0-0 l::te8 is level, while 6.�g4 d5 7.�xg7 l::tfl! 8.�f3 At3 9.�c3 �b4, Nepustil, is to Black's !icing, e.g. 10 ..& 1 �xd2 l l .ltlxd2 d4 12.�dS dxe3 13.fxe3 �xdS 14.cxdS Axe3 or 1 o.�xe4 �c2+ l l .'i!i>d l dxe4 12.�c2 exf3+ 13.'i!i>cl �d7

s.�dl �c6 S ...eM 6.�f3 �xd2 7 ..ixd2 �xc4 8 .e3

.ixd2+ 9.�xd2 �e6 IOJ!cl �c6 l l.Ac4 �e7 12 ..idS 0-0 13 .0-0, Gutman . 6.�0

6.f4 dS !? (this is more consequent than 6_�d4 7.�f3 �xf3+ 8.exf3 .ixd2+ 9bd2 �+ 10.'i!i>e2 �g3+ l l.hxg3 �xhl 12.� 9

Bh6 13.1e3 b6 14 ..id3) 7.li:\f3 (7.cxdS Chapt er l Bxd5 8.lllf3 .its 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO.lt:\xd2 ( l.d4 � f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4) ().()..{) l l.lt:\xe4 �xe4 12.�c l gS) 7 ....lts!? 4.g3 (I prefer this move to 7...d4 8 ..ig I .ig4 9.a3 ix.O I O.axb4 hg2 l l ..ixg2 'lflt4+ 12.�f l �xf4+ 13.lt:\f3 0-0 14.�c l �ts I S.bS lt:\xeS 16..ixd4lt:\g6 J 7,gg)ll!:fd8, MacReamoinn - Armstrong, Dublin 1991 , 18..ie3!) 8.a3 ixd2+ 9.lt:\xd2 dxc4 1 0.lt:\xe4 (I O.lt:\xc4 �+ l l .g3 lt:\xg3 12 .if2 �xf4) IO .. ..ixe4 with a plus for Black, Gutman.

·

4 ...i cS!

Gutman.

Alternatives are: I) 4 ... d6 S.ig2 (for S .lt:\0 see 4.lt:\f3 d6 S .g3 - Part 4, Chapter I) 5...�cS (if S ... .its, Pfeifer - Niestrath, Germany 1994, then is 6.�d3 strong) 6.lt:\f3 lt:\c6 7 ..lgS ie7 8 . .ixe7 �xe7 9.exd6 cxd6 I O.lt:\c3 ie6 l l .lt:\d4 lt:\xd4 1 2.�xd4 I :0 Toel ­ Klueting,Dortmund 2001 ; II) 4 ... lt:\c6 S .ig2 ib4+ 6 .lt:\d2 (6.�f l 5!) 6. . .lt:\xd2 transposes t o 4.lt:\d2 .ib4 S .g3 lt:\c6 6.ig2 lt:\xd2 - Part 3 , Chap­ ter 2, Section 2 ; Ill) 4 ... .ib4+ S ..id2 (S.lt:\d2 reaches a position after 4.lt:\d2 .ib4 S.g3 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 2) S ...lt:\xd2 6.lt:\xd2 lt:\c6 7.lt:\gf3 (7.f4 d6 leaves White very exposed) 7 ...�e7 8 ..ig2 lt:\xeS (8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 aS is also worth of try) 9.0-0 0-0 IO.lt:\xeS �xeS l l .a3 .ixd2 (l l ....ie7!? 12.1l!:blll!:e8) 12.�xd2 d6 is approxima­ tely equal, Gutman.

7... �xeS 8.�xeS BxeS 9.Bcl 0-0

S.eJ Yre7

6 ...Be7

6. ..0.0 7.a3 lt:\xd2 8.lt:\xd2 hd2 + 9..ixd2 (9.�xd2 lt:\xeS IO.�c3 �e7 l l ..if4 ll!:e8 1 2 .e3 b6 13 ..ie2 ib7) 9 ... lt:\xeS IO..ic3 (if l O.e3 d6 l l ..ie2, then l l ...�gS 12.g3 �g6, Lahn - Suhr, Germany 1989) 10 ... �e7 l l .�d4 f6 12.e3 d6 13 ..ie2 .ie6 is also reasonable, Gutman. 7.g3

7.a3 lt:\xd2 8.lt:\xd2 (or 8 ..ixd2 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 lt:\xeS IO.lt:\xeS �xeS) 8 ....icS 9 ..ixcS �xeS I O.e3 �xeS l l .�c2 0-0 12 ..id3 �hS!? 13 .ie2 Bh6 14.0-0 d6,

S ...lt:\c6 6.lt:\f3 (Schandorff- Conquest, Torshavn 1997, continued 6..lg2 ib4+ 7.lt:\d2 lt:\cS 8.lt:\gf3 lt:\d3+ 9.�2 lt:\xc l+ IO.Il!:xc I 0-0 l l .a3 .ie7, when instead of 12.�c2 �e8 13 .lt:\e4 id8 14.lt:\egS g6 IS.h4 lt:\xeS 16.lt:\xeS �xeS 17.f4 �g7

9 ...lt:\xd2 IO..ixd2 ixd2+ l l .�xd2 aS!? 12..lg2 0-0 (Jirka - Cech, Pra�e 2000, went 1 2 ...1l!:a6 13.0-0 hS 14.h4) 1 2.0-0 ll!:e8 with equality. 10..lglll!:e811 .0-0 .lxdl ll.i xdl d6

Black is definitely not worse, Gutman. 10

9.�dl d6 I O..ig2.!0e4 l l.a3 a5 12.0-0 .ig4 1 3 .�c2 0-0 14 ..!0d4.!0g5 15 .!0xc6 . bxc6 16..ixc6 .!00+ (stronger than 16 ... goo s J 7..ig2.!0h3+ IS.<�h ll:W I9.!0c3 . �f7 20.!0dl . &8 2 l.b3 &6, when instead of 22.&2 Ml5 23.e4 g5, Vasicek - Stu­ lilc, Zlin 1 943, White could play 22..ib2, viz. 22 ..ixe3 23.!0xe3 . .!Oxf2+ 24.Wxf2 lhf2 25 .!0xg4) . I 7.'�g2 �e5 with good attacking chances for Black, Gutm an; II) 7.a3.!0xe5 8 ..!0xe5 �xe5 9..ig2 a5 10.�0 (IO.�d5 �xd5 l l .cxd5.!0d6 12.b3 b6) IO ...d6 l l .�d5 �xd5 1 2.cxd5 .if5 13.b3 0-0 is also fine for Black, Senft ­ Kull, Wangs Pizol 1 996.

1 8 .'�f2 d6, 12 .!0e4! . �e8 1 3 .�d5 .idS 14.h4 might be good for White, yet in my opinion Black can do better with 9 ... .!Odxe5 I o.ti�xe5.!0xe5) 6...d6 (6 ...'9e7 goes back into the main line) is maybe more effective, 7.exd6 (7 ..ig2 .ib4+ 8..!0bd2 .ig4 9.h3 Jh5 IO.exd6 �xd6 or 7.a3 .ig4 8..ig2?! .!Oxe5 9.h3 .ih5 IO.g4 .!OxO+ I I ..ixO .ig6 1 2 .b4 .ib6 13..ib2 .ix e3, Vojta - Vavra, Czech Republic 1 999, are both unpleasant for White) 7.. ..ib4+ 8 .!0bd2 . (if 8 ..id2 "ef6!) 8 ...'9xd6 9.a3 (9..ie2 �f6 10.0-0 .!Oxd2 l l ..!Oxd2 .ih3) 9 .. ..ixd2+ I O..!Oxd2 .if5 l l ..ie2 ( I I ..ig2 0-0-0 12..ixe4 .ixe4 13.�g4+ f5 14.!0xe4 . �e5 1 5.!0d6+ . lhd6 16.'9e2.!0a5 1 7.�c2 &6) 1 1 ...0-0-0 12.!0xe4 . �xdl+ 13.ixdl .ixe4 14.0.0 .id3 is at least even, GutmJJn.

•

7...�xeS

7 ....ib4+ 8.�fl !? (there is nothing for White in 8.ltlbd2 ltlxe5 9.0-0, viz. 9 ... ltlxd2 I O..ixd2 .ixd2 l l .�xd2 ltlx0+ 12..ix0 d6 1 3J�fdl 0-0, Olsen - Yabra, Siegen Olympiad 1970) 8...ltlxe5 9.'9d4 ltlxO IO.�xg7!? �e5 l l .�xe5+ ltlxe5 12 ..ixe4 ltlxc4 1 3 .b3 ltlb6 1 4 ..ib2 0-0 15.ltlc3 c6 16.h3 d5 17..ic2 .ie6 18.�g2 mds 19.ltle2 appears to be slightly awk­ ward for Black, Gutman. 8.�xeS 1fxeS 9.0-0 0-0 10.1fcl Ke8

IO ....!Of6 I l..id2 ( l l..!Od2 a5 12 .!0b3 . is less impressive due to 12 .. ..ie7 I 3..id2 a4 14..ic3 �e6 1 5.!0d2 . d6) I l ...a5 (after l l...d6 12 ..ic3 �e7 13.b4 .ib6 1 4.�b2 Black has more problems ) 1 2 ..ic3 �e7 13.�f5 (13.ltld2 d6 14.ltle4 ltlxe4 1 5.ixe4 h6 16.gfd l ges 1 7 ..if5 .ixfS 18.�xf5, Rietra - de Laat, corr 1990, 18 ...�e4!) 13 ....!0e8 (or 13 ...ga6 14.ltld2) 14.!0d2 . .ib4 15.ltle4 keeping a very small edge for White, Gutman.

6.�0

6.� d5 f5 ( 6.. J.b4+ 7.!0 . d2.!0xd2 8..ixd2 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 �xe5 seems playable, e.g. 10.!00 . �e7 l l ..ig2 0-0 12.0-0 d6 13.!0d4.!0d7) . 7.exffi .!Oxf6 8.�dl (8.�d3 .!Oc6 9 .!00 . .!Ob4 I O.�dl �e4 l l ..!Oa3 0-0 12 ..ie2 d5, Waleschkowski - Fer­ nandez Egea, Rhein Main 2001 ) 8 ... 0-0 ensures Black the initiative, Gutm an.

tt.�dl �r6 1 l.�b3 .ie7 1 3 . .idl d6

The position is balanced, Gutman .

6 ... �c6 7.Agl

Others: I) 7.�d5 fS (7 .. ..ib4+ is another option: 8.!0bd2 . .!Oxd2 9 ..ixd2 .ixd2+ I O.�xd2 .!Oxe5 and if 8.'�e2 .!Og5) 8.exf6 .!Oxf6 II

Alternatives: I) 5 ...g6 6.liJf3 h6 7.g3 (John Gibson gives 7 .i.f4 ig7 8.lThl liJc6 as level, viz. 9.�d2 �e7 I O.!!b5 a6 l l .�d5 b6) 7 ... liJc6 8..ig2 �e7 9.0-0 ig7 IO.�b l liJxe5 l l .liJxe5 ixe5 12..ie3 !? c6 13.�d2 d6 14.!!fdl if 5 1 5 .�b3 , Gutman; further II) 5 ... b6, Tseitlin/GIIIskov, 6.liJf3 ib7 7.if4!? (7.g3 liJc6 8.ih3 h6 9.0-0 .ic5 IO.�d3 �e7 l l.!!dl 0-0-0 leaves Black in control) 7 ... liJc6 8.e3 ic5 (if 8 ...h6, then 9..id3, while Lopez - Rodriguez, Zaragoza 1999, continued 9.liJd4 �e7 IO.a4 liJxe5 l l.a5 g5 12..ig3 ig7, when 13.liJf5 �f6 14.liJxg7+ �xg7 15.�d4 f6 might be tried) 9..id3 �e7 IO.i.e4 0-0-0 I IJ.d5 h6 12.0-0 g5 13.i.g3 h5 14.h4 g4 15 .liJg5, Gutman ; similarly III) 5 ...ic5 6.liJf3 liJc6 7 .ig5 !? (7.if4 �e7 8.e3 b6 9.id3 ib7 will transpose into /I, while 7 ... 0-0?! 8.e3 b6 9..id3 h6 I O.h4 f6 l l .i.c2 gave White a massive attack, Jonathan - Wurch, France 1946) 7 ... ffi (7...i.e7 8J.f4) 8.exffi gxf6 9..ih4! (less consequent is 9..if4 �e7 I O.e3 d6 I I J.d3 ig4 12.�c2 hf3 13 .gxf3 0-0-0 14.!!bl liJe5 1 5 .if5+ 'it>b8 16.i.e4 b6!? 17.�a4, when instead of 17 ...d5 18.cxd5 f5 1 9..hf5 liJxf3+ 20.'it>e2 liJd2 2 l .!!bdl �xd5 22.id3 �xd3 23.'it>xd3 and White won, Post!Pemeder - Richter/Jacoby, consultation game Berlin 1 933, 17 ...f5! 18.ixe5 �xe5 1 9.ic6 �xc3+ 20.'it>e2 f4 2 l .�hcl �a3 could be better) 9...d6 I O.liJd2 (IO.e3 �e7 l l.i.e2 id7 12 .0-0 0-0-0 1 3.liJd4 liJe5 14.!!bl !!dg8 1 5.a4 �g7 16.if3 c6 1 7 .ig3 liJxf3+ 1 8.�xf3 ig4 19.�f4 with White having the ad­ vantage, lgel - Donegan, Vienna 1 936, but 17 ... h5 ! 18.!.e4 h4 1 9.ixe5 fxe5 is more to the point) I O ... �e7 l l .e3 �e5 12.�f3 with a plus for White, Gutman.

Chapt er 3 (l .d4 �f6 2.c:4 eS 3.dxeS �e4) 4.�c:3

4 �xc: 3 •••

4 .. ..ib4 keeps more tension, but gener­ ally has no independent significance: I) 5.�d4 will transpose into 4.�d4 .ib4+ 5 .liJc3 - Chapter 4 ; D) 5.�d3 reaches a position after4.�d3 .ib4+ 5 .liJc3 - Chapter 5; 01) For 5 .�c2 see 4.�c2 .ib4+ 5.liJc3 Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 3; IV) Only 5.id2 seems to be an excep­ tion, 5 .. ..ixc3 6..ixc3 (6.bxc3 liJc6 7.liJf3 �e7 8..ie3 �a3 ! 9 �b3 �a5 while 8 ... liJxe5, Frantisek Nepustil, is worse due to 9.�d4 liJxf3+ I O.gxf3 liJf6 l l .�g l ) 6 ...liJxc3 7.bxc3 liJc6 8.liJf3 0-0 9.!!bl (Magrin - Contedini, Milan 1 968, went 9.e3 �e7 IO.i.e2 liJxe5 l l .liJxe5 �xe5) 9 ... �e8 I O.�b5 �e7 ( I O ...b6 l l .e3 !!e7 12 .id3 h6 1 3 .0-0 �e8 14.if5 liJxe5 !? 15 .�xe5 !!xe5 16.liJxe5 �xe5 1 7 .i.xd7 .ib7 was seen in Baguero - Alderton, Winnipeg 1 997) l l.�d3 h6 12 .e3 �e8 1 3 .i.e2 liJxe5 and I pref er the black pos ition, Gutman. S.bxc: 3 Black has no problems reckoning that Wh ite's extra pawn is worthless when doubled and isolated, Tim Harding.

6.�13

6.f4 (may well be critical, Gibson) 6 ... ic5 !? (6 ...d6 is playable, for example,

s... �c: 6

12

7.�f3 dxeS 8.Yhd8+ 'it>xd8 9.fxeS .icS lO..igS+ 'it>e8 or 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.�f3 0-0 9.e4 l::te8) 7.�f3 d6 8.exd6 0-0 9.e3 l::te8 IO ..ie2 cxd6 secure good prospects for Black, Gutman.

bxcS 17.�e2 �a4, Harding, 1 8 ..ixeS .ixeS 19.�f3 .ixc3 20.l::tc 1.if6 2l.�e1 l::tdS 22.hS gS 23.l::t f3 , while 16.c6 �xh3 17.gxh3, Harding, 1 7 ... �f3+ 1 8 .�xf3 l::txd2 1 9.'it>xd2 l::td8+ 20.�d4 .ixh3 fa­ vours Black) I S .cS .ixfl 1 6.'it>xfl gS! ( 1 6...bxcS 17 .�e2 cxd4 1 8.�a6+iL!b7 19.l::t b 1 �dS 20.c4 �e4 2 l itb3 d3 22.f3 d2 23.fxe4 dl�+ 24.'it>f2 l::td2+ 2S.'it>g3 fug2+ 26.'it>xg2 �e2+ is perpetual, Har­ ding) 1 7 . .ig3 g4 1 8 .l::th 1 bxcS 1 9 .�e2 cxd4 20.�a6+�b7 2 1 itbl �dS 22.cxd4 hS! (22...tve4 23.l:b:t Sl::txd4 24.exd4 .ixd4 2S.'it>gl f5 ? ! 26.tvg6 l::tfll 27.'it>h2 �d8 28.l::t c l lL!e6 29.tvxe6+ I :0 Taksrud ­ Gibson, corr 1990) 23.l::tc1 l::td7 24.tvxa7 �aS 2S .tvxaS �xaS 26.'it>e2 �b7 when Black is close to win, Gutm an ; B) 7.l::tb l ! ? �e7 8.tvdS g6 9.l::tb3 .ig7 10.ia3 �e6 l l .e3 �xeS 12.�d4 looks slightly better for White, Gutman.

6...d6!

All other moves are weaker. I) 6 ... g6 7 ..igS .ie7 8 ..ih6, Harding; II) 6 .. .f6 7.�dS (7.exf6?! �xf6 8.�c2 ib4 9..id2 0-0 IO.�gS g6 l l.f4d6 12.e4, Schweinchen - Richter, Munich 1940, and now 12 ... .icS should be tried) ? ... �e7 (7.. .fxeS 8..igS .ie7 9.�xeS) 8.exf6 �xf6 9.�d4 �eS (9 �xd4 IO.�xd4 .ie7 l l .g3 0-0 1 2 . .ig2) I O.e3, Gutman; III) 6 ... �e7 7.�dS (7 ..igS �cS 8.�dS d6) 7...g6 8.a3.ig7 9..igS �e6 IO.�xe6+ fxe6 l l ..if4 l::tffi 12.e3 d6 13..ig3 ! (13.h4 �xeS 14 ..ixeS dxeS 1 S.hS e4 16.�d4 cS 1 7.�e2 .id7 was played in Mayer ­ Kuenstl, corr 1946) 1 3...�xeS 14.�xeS .ixeS 1S..ixeS dxeS 1 6..id3 .id7 1 7 ..ie4 0-0-0 1 8.h4 .ie8 1 9.hS, Gutman; IV) 6 ... h6, after: A) 7..if4 �e7 (7 ... gS 8..ig3 �e7 9.�d4 �xeS 10.�15 �cS, Gibson, l l .�d5 �xd5 12 .cxdS d6 13.�d4 .id7 with equality) 8.h4 (8.�d4 � xeS) 8 ... g6 9.�d2 .ig7 I O.l::th3 b6 1 l .�d4 ( l l .l::td1 �aS 12 .e3 �b7!?) l l ....ia6 12.e6 0-0-0 13.exd7+ �xd7 14.e3 �aS (if 14 ...�eS IS.cS .ixfl , then White obtains a plus b y 16.'it>xfl !

7.Af4

7. .igS �d7 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.e3 f6 (9 ...0-0 1 0..id3 �eS ll.�xeS .ixeS I 2.�c2 h6 13 ..ih4 �g4 14..ig3 .ixg3 1S .hxg3 .ie6 is also not bad) IO..ih4 �f7 l l .�c2 .ie6 1 2.l::tb l 0-0 13 ..id3 g6 14.�d4?! .ixc4 IS ..ixc4 �xc4 1 6.�b3 �xb3 1 7.l::t xb3 �aS 18.l::tb l cS was excellent for Black in Hamburger - Richter, Berlin 1948.

.•

7 .ie6 ...

Less challenging are: I) 7 .. ..ie7 8.e3 0-0 9. .ie2 .ig4 1 O.exd6 .ixd6 l l..ixd6 tvxd6 12.�xd6 (12.�d4?! .ixe2 13.tvxe2 �eS 14.�0 �cS 1S.l::tab1 b6 1 6itbS tve7 17 .�hS �g6 1 8.'Wh3 cS, Franz Penndorf, corr 1989) 12 ... cxd6 13itdl l::tfd8 14.�d4 .ixe2 IS.'it>xe2 �eS 16.�fS �xc4 1 7 .l::td4, Gutman; further D) 7 ....if5 8.tva4!? (8.exd6 .ixd6 9..ixd6 �xd6 I O.tvxd6 cxd6 l l .�d4 .ie6 12.e3 l::tc8 is OK for Black) 8 ...dxeS (8 ... .id7 9.tvc2) 9.�xeS (9.l::td l? .id7 10 ..igS f6 was seen in Oestreich - Reefschlaeger, Germany 1970) 9 ...�f6 I O.l::t d1 .ie4 (if -

13

IO . .ld6 l l.�xc6 .lxf4, then 12.tt:lb4+ c6 13.�d5 �eS 14.tt:lxf4 �xf4 lS.�) l l .e3 .ld6 12.cS !? .ixeS 1 3.�xe4 0-0 14.1xeS would maintain some edge for White, Gutman. ..

Chapt er 4 (l .d4 �f6 l. c4 eS 3. dxeS �e4) 4.6'd4

Wh itefinds the only way to get a bad position, Julian Hodgson.

8. exd6

4...�cS

Some examples of other moves: I) 8.e3?! dxeS 9.�xd8+ gxd8 l O..lxeS ( I O.tt:lxeS tt:laS l l.gb 1 .ld6) lO ... tt:lxeS l l .tt:lxeS .le7 (I prefer l l...g6!?) 12 .tt:lf3 .if6 13.gc} cS 14.ie2 0-0 1 S .tt:\d2 gd7 16.f4 gfd8 17.tt:lf3 �6 1 8.e4 � 19.eS .le7 20.'�f2 �2 with a better ending for Black in Wade - Milner Barry, British Ch 19S3; II) 8.�a4 dxeS 9 ..lxeS (9.lOxeS? �f6) 9 ... �e7!? I O.id4 �a3 l l .�xa3 .lxa3 1 2.gbl 0-0, Gutman.

Th is is the right move, Otto Borik.

Practice has seen three more options: I) 4 ... dS?! S.cxdS (S.�xdS �xd5 6.cxdS tt:\d7 7 .tt:lf3 is also not bad) S ....if5 6.e3 (Sabolik - Deak, Bratislava 1 996, con­ tinued 6.l0c3 .lcS 7.�a4+ bS 8.�xbS+ c6 9.'�c4hf2+ I O.Wdl, when lO...cxdS l l.tt:lxdS tt:ld7 should be decisive) 6 ... .icS 7.�c4 c6 8.d6 �a5+ 9.id2 tt:lxd2 IO.tt:lxd2 .lb4 l l .tt:lf3 .lxd2+ (I I ... tt:ld7 1 2.�d4) 1 2.tt:lxd2 �xeS 1 3 .�b4 tt:ld7 14.tt:\ c4 with advantage, Gutman; ll)4 ...f5 S.exffi tt:lxffi 6..igS (6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.�h4 can be met by 7 .. .i.e?!? 8.a3 0-0 9.tt:lc3 d6 I O..igS h6 l l ..lxffi .lxffi, im­ proving on 7...ib4+ 8.l0bd2 0-0 9.e3 d6 IO.id3 tOeS ll..ic2 .lg4? 12 .tt:lxeS dxeS 13..ixh7+ tt:lxh7 14.�xg4, Czucharski ­ Rygie�corr 1962 ) 6 ...tt:lc6 (6.. ..ie7 7.tt:lc3 tt:lc6 8.�d2 0-Q 9.tt:lf3) 7 .ixf6 (is more precise than 7.�d2 h6, 7.�e3+ Wf7 or 7.�h4 tt:lb4 8 ..lxf6 �xf6 9.�xf6 gxf6 10.tt:la3 b6 ll.tt:lf3 .ib7) 7 ...tt:lxd4 8.ixd8 tt:lc2+ 9.Wdl tt:\xal IO..ixc7! (IO..igS dS

8.. ..lxd6 9..lxd6 1hd6 IO.thd6 cxd6 l l. e3 We7 ll.�d4

Horstmann - Hartmann , corr 199S, went 1 2 .gdl tOeS 1 3 .tt:ld2 ghc8 1 4.gb 1 b6 1 S.m.4&7 16.h3 �c8 17.Wdl tt:\xc4. l l .. J�ac8 13. lll b l b6 14. a4

If 14.tt:lbS, then 14 ...!:Dld8 I S.f4 gd7 16. .ld3 tt:laS , Gutman. 14.. .�xd4 1S. cxd4 .lxc4 16. Wdl .lxfl 1 7 .�d l lllc4

It is White who has to wony about main­ taining the balance, Gutman.

14

Bwjassot 1996, loses immediately to 9... .hd2+ 10.'it>xd2 dxe5+. Also 7.Y9f4 0-0 8.lt:lf3 d6! ? might give Black a strong initiative, e.g. 9.0.0.0 dxe5 IO.lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 I I .Y9xe5 Y9h4,Vandersluys - Maidana Guena, e-mai1 200 I, or 9.exd6 .ixd6 I 0. 'Wh4 Y9e8, when neither 1 1 .0-0-0 lt:lb4 12.a3 lt:la2+ 13.'it>bl .ha3 14.bxa3 lt:lc3+ 15.'it>c2 lt:lxdl 16.'it>xdl Y9a4+, nor l l.e3 lt:lb4 12.lt:ld4, Woemdle - Karrer, Wat­ tens 1994, 12...c5 13.a3 cxd4 14.axb4 dxe3 are enjoyable for White) 7...0-0 (7 ...Y9e7 8.a3 .b:dl+ 9.Y9xd2 lt:lxe5 IO.e3 b6II.Y9d5 lt:lc6 12 .Jd3 ib7 13.lt:lf3 0-0-0 14.0-0 f6 15 ..ie2 lt:le5 turned out well foc Black, Knechtel - Plank, Passau 1997, but II . lt:le2 ib7 12.lt:lf4 is less clear to me) 8.a3 (8.lt:lf3 ge8 !?) 8 .. ..txd2+ 9.Y9xd2 lt:lxe5 IO.e3 d6 1 I ..te2 .ie6 1 2.gc1 Y9g5 ( 1 2 ... Y9d7 13.lt:lf3 �8 14.� lt:lxf3+ 15.ixf3 b6 16.gfd1 .ig4 1 7.ixg4 Y9xg4 is equal, Seeliger - Lindner, Wuerzburg 1997) 13.'it>fl ( 1 3 .g3 Y9e7 14.lt:lf3 .ih3) 13 ... Y9ffi with difficulties for White, Gutman; C) 5 .lt:ld2! lt:lxd2 (Svela - Gundersen, Norway 1 992, went 5 ...Y9h4 6.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 7.Y9e3 lt:lxd2 8.ixd2 Y9xc4 9.a3 .b:d2+, when instead of 1 0.lt:lxd2? Y9e6 1 l.f4 d6 12.Y9g3 0-0 13.exd6 cxd6 14.e4 d5 15.e5 ffi 1 6.lt:lf3 fxe5 1 7.fxe5 lt:lxe5 1 8.lt:lxe5 g5, I O.Y9xd2 0-0 l l .e3 Y9e6 12.Y9c3 has to be tried. However, after 6.g3 lt:lxd2 7.Y9xh4 lt:lf3+ 8.'it>d1 lt:lxh4 9.gxh4 lt:lc6 IO.lt:lf3 0-0, Class 58 - Badaknna, inter­ net 2002, l l .ggl ges 12..tf4 d6 13.exd6 �8 14.a3 .b:d6 15.ixd6 �d6+ 1 6.'it>el the ending is clearly better for White) 6.ixd2 lt:lc6 7.Y9d5 .b:d2+ 8.Y9xd2 lt:lxe5 9.Y9c3 Y9ffi IO.g3 0-0 ll.ig2 ges 12.lt:lh3 (12.gc l Y9g6 13.gdl d6 14.lt:lf3 lt:l xf3+ I5..txf3 .ig4 16.ixg4 Y9xg4 17.� ges 1 8.0-0 �8 19.Y9f3 Y9xf3 20.exf3 ge2 favoured Black in Garcia - hpata, Cali 2000) 12 ...c6 13.0-0 d6 14.lt:lf4 .ig4 and the chances are level, Gutman.

l l.cxd5 .if5 12.lt:lc3 .ib4 favours Black: 1 3 .lt:lb5? ! 0-0 14.f3 c6 1 5 .dxc6 Wd8+ 16.'it>cl ic2 17 .ixd8 �hd8 1 8.lt:lc3 .hc3 1 9.bxc3 gd ) + 20.'it>b2, Sed - Gedult, Paris 1971, 20...gbI+ 2I .'it>a3 Ae4! with mate in few moves, or 13.f3 � 14.e3 h6 I5..tf4 �e8 I6..tc4 g5 17.ixc7 lt:lc2 1 8.d6+'it>g7 I9..tb5 lt:lxe3+ 20.'it>cl gc8) IO ...d6 I I..ia5 .iB l2.lt:ld2 !?,Anatoli Mat�ulu!vich, viz. 12 _.J.c2+ 13.'it>c I d5 14.lt:lgf3 dxc4 15 .lt:ld4 .ig6 16.e4 gcs 17.'it>bl and the knight is gone, Gutman; III) 4 .. ..tb4+!? is more popular.

The play may continue: A) 5.lt:lc3 lt:lxc3 6.bxc3 lt:lc6 7.Y9e3 ia5 (Svela - Reefschlaeger, Gausdal 1990, proceeded 7 .. ..te7 8.Y9g3 �fB 9..if4 b6 I O.lt:lf3 h6 l l .h4 .ia6 12.e4 .ic5 1 3.h5 Y9e7 14.lt:lh4 Y9e6 1 5 ..ie2 ges 16 ..ig4 Y9xc4 17.Y9f3 'it>g8 18.e6 dxe6 19 .e5 lt:lb4 0:1, yet after I I Ed I Y9e8 1 2.lt:ld4 White keeps the pressure) 8.lt:lf3 (8 ..ia3?! is worse in view of 8 ... Y9h4 9.Y9d2 Y9xc4 J O.gc) Y9e6 l l .g3 lt:lxe5, Mohd Yusof­ Halim Shuhaimi, Malaysia 1996) 8 ... Y9e7 9Ebl Y9e6 10Eb3 Y9xc4 I I..ta3 b6 12.g3 ib7 13..tg2 lt:ld4 14.lt:lxd4 .b:g2 ISJ!gl .idS 16.lt:lb5 a6 17.Y9g5 f6 seems rather good for Black, Gutman; B) 5.id2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lxd2 lt:lc6 7.Y9e3 (This is the best retreat. 7.Y9g4 0-0 8.f4 d6 9. Y9g3, Goves Tomas- Folch hragoza, 15

to I O ... ll:lxa2+! l l .ll:lxa2 ll:lb3+ 12.bl ll:lxd2+, viz. 13 Jhd2 �f5+ 14.e4 �xe4+ IS.J.d3 �g4 16.h3 ms, Karl Gilg) I 0... hd7 1 1 .0-0-0 .i.f5 (l l ...f6 12ie3 0-0-0 13 ..lxcS hcS 14.a3 ll:lc6 IS.e3) 12.b3 ltle4 are all better for Black, Gutm an. 6... d6!?

s.�o

Others tend to run into trouble: I) S .b4? l0c6 6.'lfh2 ll:lxb4 7 . .i.d2 ltlc6 8.ll:lf3 d6 9.exd6 �xd6 I O.ll:lc3 .i.fS(an­ other possibility is IO ...�e6 l l.e3 .i.d6) l l .ll:ldS ( l l lki l ? �e6 12.ll:ld5? li:ld3 mate Freudenberg - Defosse, Brussels 193S) 1 1 ...0-0-0 12..lf4 ll:la4, Gutman; II) S . .i.f4 ?! ll:lc6 6.�d I d6 7 .exd6 �f6! 8.�d2 ll:le4 9.�c I (if 9.�e3 , Happala­ Sommer, Austria 1997, then 9 ...�xb2 I O.�xe4+ .i.e6) 9 ... .i.xd6 I O.ll:lc3 �xf4 l l .�xf4 .i.xf4 12.ll:lxe4 ll:lb4, Gutman.

There are three more plans: I) 6 ...ll:le4 reaches a position after 4 .ll:l f3 ll:lc6 - Part 4, Chapter I; 1.5' S' r U)6 ...h6 is a waste of time, 7.ll:lc3 (7 ..if4 ll:le6 8..lg3 .tb4+ 9.ll:lbd2 0-0 IO.a3 .i.e7 l l .e3 d6 1 2 .exd6 hd6 13 . .i.xd6 �xd6 14.ll:le4 �e7 IS.ll:lc3 .!:ld8 1 6.ll:ldS, Ros ­ Markus, corr 1 99S) 7...d6 8.exd6 i.xd6 9.ll:lbS 0-0 I O.ll:lxd6, Gutman; Ill) 6 ... �e7!? is more intriguing, 7.g3 (7..lgS �e6 8.�dS, Klerks - Jobski, Ger­ many 1998, 8...�g6!?, and if7.�dS ll:lb4 8.�d2. then not 8...�e6 9.e3 'lff5 IO.li:ld4 �xeS l l .ll:lc3, Vann - Griggs, Eng­ land 1 989, but 8 ...d5, e.g. 9.cxdS ll:le4 IO.d6 ll:lxd2 or 9.ll:la3 dxc4 I O.ll:lxc4 ll:le4) 7 ...ll:lxeS 8.ll:lxeS �xeS 9..ig2ll:le6 10.�0 .i.cS l l .ll:lc3 hS seems equal, Gutman.

s . .�t6 6.8'dt .

We mention here: I) 6.�e3 ll:lb4 (instead of6 ...ltle6 7.ll:lc3 .i.cS 8.�d3 d6 9.exd6 hd6 I O.e4 ll:lcS I I.� I 0-0 12ie3 .i.g4 1 3ie2 f5 14.0-0, Schroeter - Faber, e-mail 2001) 7.�d2 dS 8.cxd5 (8.exd6 .i.xd6 9.ltlc3 0-0) 8 ... .tf3 9.ll:la3 (9.ll:ld4i.xbl IO.�b l �xdS) 9 ... ll:lxdS IO.�d l ll:le4, Gutman; II) 6.�c3 dS (6 ... ltle6 7.a3 gS 8.h3 .i.g7 9 .e3 d6, Borilc, though LaS is also good, viz. 8.e4?,Lengert - Stankovic, Chely 2003, 8 .. J.b4) 7.exd6 (7 . .i.gS d4 8.�d2 �d7) 7 ... �xd6 8.ll:lbd2 .i.fS, Gutm an; III) 6.�dS d6 7 J.gS �d7 8.ll:lc3 (8.exd6 hd69.ll:lc3 ll:lb4 IO.�d2 �e6 l l.e3 �g6 and Black has a clear advantage, Borik) Lll:lb4 9.� dxeS I O.�xd7+ (1 0.().().0, Gilg- Fajarowicz, Bautzen 1929, fails

7..if4

Alternatively: I) 7 .J.gS �d7 8.exd6 .i.xd6 9 .ll:lc3 0-0 I O.ll:lbS ( IO.e3 �f5 l lie2 ll:leS) I O...�f5 l l .li:lxd6 cxd6 12.J.e3 (12.a3 ll:leS) 1 2 ... .i.e6 I Hie I ( 1 3 .�xd6 li:le4) 1 3 .. JUd8, Gutman; further 16

m 7.exd6 .ixd6 (7...�xd6!? 8.�xd6 .ixd6

deserves attention, viz. 9.i.d2 .if5 I O.g3 0-0-0 l l .i.g2 �e8, Che - TtBsi, e-mai I 2001 ) 8.lik3 .ig4 9.o!Llb5(9.e3 0-0 I O.i.e2 �ffi l l.o!Lld5 �6 12.lLld4 .ixe2 13.�xe2 o!Lle5) 9 ... 0-0 I O.o!Llxd6 cxd6 l l.e3 �f6 12.i.e2 lLle5 1 3 .lLlxe5 .ixe2 14.�xe2 (or 14.o!Lld7 o!Llxd7 1 5.�xe2 lLlb6) 14 ... dxe5 1 5 .0-0 ( 1 5 .e4 �4 1 6.b4 o!Lle6) 1 5 ... e4, Gutman; similarly Ill) 7.o!Llc3 .ig4! (After 7 ... o!Llxe5 8.o!Llxe5 dxe5 9.�xd8+'it>xd8 10.i.g5+ ffi I I .Q-0.0+ .id7 the game simplifies. 7 .. .i.f5 is more attractive, e.g. 8.a3, Geier - Schratzens­ taller, Germany 1999, 8 ... dxe5, or 8.o!Lld4 o!Llxd4 9.�xd4 o!Lle6 10.�e3 ie7 l l .g3 dxe5 12 .i.g2 c6 1 3 .�xe5 .ig6 14.0-0 .id6 15. �e3 .ic5, Partys - Osipov,Tomsk 2002) 8.h3 (for 8.exd6 .ixd6 see 7 .exd6 -/f) 8.. J.xf3 9.gxf3 � IO.e4 ()..()..(), Le Ga\ 1 Tripoteau, Fr.mce 200 1, gives Black fiily adequate counterplay, Gutman.

D) 7 .. .i.f5!? 8.exd6 (8.o!Llc3 dxe5 9.o!Llxe5?

o!Llb4) 8 ... �f6 9.o!Llc3 0-0-0, when: A) IO.o!Lld5 �xb2 l l.dxc7 §xd5 12.cxd5

lLlb4 13.&1 lLlc2+ 14.§x.c2 .ixc2 15.�c l o!Lld3+ 16.exd3tb4+ 17.'i!;le2 ge8 18.o!Lle5 §xeS+ 19.� �xcl 20.i.xcl .id l+ is at least quite good for Black, Graham Bur­ gess, The Mammoth Book of Chess ; B) I O.i.g5 �e6 l l ..ixd8 lLld3+ 1 2.'it>d2

( 1 2.�xd3 .ixd3 13.i.xc7 gives White a fair amount of material for the queen, Burgess; however, not enough in view of l 3 ...i.xc4 14.0-0-0 .ie7 15.o!Lld4 o!Llxd4 16.gxd4 .id8 17.e3 .ixtl 1 8.gxfl .ixc7 1 9.dxc7 'it>xc7 20.gfdl gc8) 1 2 ...lLlxf2 13.�a4 .ixd6 14.i.g5.gd8 (14 ... o!Llxhl !? 1 5 .lLld5 lLlf2) 1 5 .o!Lld5 f6 16.Ae3 .ib4+ t 7.<;!;lct o!Llxhl (Sarmiento - Aristizabal, Bogota 1 996, went 1 7 ... gxd5 1 8 ..ixf2 gcs 19.e4 �xe4 20 ..ixc5 .ixc5 21 .lLld2 ie3 22.�3 o!Lld4 23.�c3lLlc2, and now 24.i.d3 �xd3 25.�xd3 .ixd3 26,ID, J o!Llb4 27.a3 should win for White) 18.i.g I �e4 1 9.�b3 .id6 favours Black, Gutman; C) I O.�d2 .ixd6 l l.i.xd6 §xd6 12 .o!Lld5 �e6 13.e3 looks tougher, Gutman. 8.exd6 Yrf6

8.. .i.xd6? 9. .ixd6 �xd6 IO.�xd6 cxd6 l l .o!Llc3 (not l l .lLlfd2 o!Llb4 1 2 .lLla3 0-0 13.0 gfe8, Andre - Hickl, corr 1 987) 1 1 ...0-0-0 12.0-0-0 mte8 1 3.o!Lld4 o!Llxd4 1 4.gxd4 is Ros - Back, corr 1 995 . 9.Yfdl

9.�c l .ixd6 10bd6 �xd6 l l.�e3+ o!Lle6 12.lLlbd2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 ghe8, Gutm an.

7 .. .Ag4

9....Axd6 10 ..Axd6 0-0-0 ll .Yrf4

Some examples of other moves, with Black employing differing strategies: I) 7 ...i.e6 8.exd6 (8.e3? dxe5 9 .�xd8+ §xd8 IO.lLlxe5 lLlb4 l l .o!Lla3 .id6 12.'�e2 f6 13.o!LJO .ixf4 14.exf4 0-0, Horvath ­ Rabovszky, Czech Republic 1995) 8 ... �f6 9.�cl ixd6 IO.i.xd6 cxd6 l l.�c3 �xc3 12.lLlxc3 .ixc4 I H�d I gd8 14.e3 yie Ids some edge for White, Gutman;

l l .i.xc5 gxd2 1 2 .o!Llbxd2 �xb2 J 3.gb I �xa2 14.lLld4 lLlxd4 15.i.xd4 �8 16.&1 �c2 17 ..ie3 .if5, Gutman. 11 ... fh d6 12. 1 bf6

12 .�xg4+?�6 13.lLlc3 lLld3+, Gutman. ll ...gxffi 1 3.�a3 �b4

Black dominates, Gutman.

17

.ixd2+ 7.�xd2 - Part 2, Chapter 3 , Sec­ tion 2; however, note that relatively un­ explored is 6...�e7! ?, e.g. 7 ..!00 lt!c6 8 ..ic3 0-0 9.0-0-0 ixc3 1 0.ti'xc3 l!e8 l l.e3 ltlxe5, Tousersnake - Peze, inter­ net 2002, or 7.f4 a5 8..!00 &6 9.g3 d6) 6.�e3 b6! (6 ... lt!c6 can be met by 7.a3 ixd2+ 8 ..ixd2 �e7 9.b4 ltle6 10 . .!00. 7..!00 seems less accurate on account of 7 ... lt!e6 8.g3 0-0 9 ..ig2 l!e8 10.0-0 ltlfB, while 7 ...d5 8.exd6+ .ie6 is quite spec­ ulative as instead of 9.a3 �xd6 1 0.axb4 ll'lxb4 l l.�c30-0� 12 .g3, Mopati - Cor­ bin, Elista Olympiad 1 998, when 1 2 ... lt!e4 l3.ti'b3 ltlc5 could lead to a draw, 9.dxc7 �xc7 10.a3 .ixd2+ l l..ixd2 might be critical) 7.a3 (or 7 . .!00 .ib7 8.g3 0-0 9.ig2 l!e8 I 0.0-0 d6) 7 .. .ixd2+ 8.ixd2 .ib7 (8 ... a5 is ruled out by 9.�g3 0� 10. .ig5 lt!e4 l l ..ixd8 ltlxg3 1 2.hxg3 :!!xd8 l3.f4) 9.�g3 (9.b4 ltle4 1 0..!00 0-0 l l .g3, Lohaus Timm , Berlin 1 950, l l ...ltlxd2 l 2.�xd2 ltlc6) 9 ... ltle6 I O.f4 ( lO.b4 0-0) lO ... f5 l l .exf6 ( 1 1 ..!00 0-0 1 2 .0-0� a5 l3.h4 ltla6) l l...�xffi 12 .0-0� ltla6( l 2 ... lt!c6 l 3 .e3 0-0-0 14 . .ic3 �n 1 5 . .!00) 1 3 ..!00 lt!ac5 1 4 ..ic3 �f5 1 5 .ltld2 0-0 appears fine for Black, Gutman; Ill) 5.ltlc3 ltlc5 (5 ...d5 6.cxd5 it3 7.ti'b5+ lt!c6 8.dxc6? lt!xc3 0: l was an obscure game Brix - Engelhardt, Copenhagen 1 954, but 8 .id2 is stronger, e .g. 8... 0-0 9.ltlxe4 .ixd2+ l O.lthd2 ltld4 l l .�c4 ltlc2+ 12.� l ltlxall 3 .e4 .ig6 14.ltlg0 c6 1 5.d6 �a5 1 6.id3 b5 17.�c3 �xa2 l8.'it>e2 or 8 ...lt!xd2 9.dxc6 .ixc3 lO.bxc3 bxc6 l l.�xc6+. 5 .. .ixc3+ 6.bxc3 ltlc5 appears insufficient due to 7 .�d5 �e7 8 ..!00, for example 8 ... lt!e6 9.a4 or 8 ... lt!c6 9 . .ig5 ! ? �f8 10.g3 h6 l l ..ie3 b6 1 2 ih3 �e7 13 .0-0, while 7.�g3 0-0 !? leads after 8.ig5 �e8 9.iffi ltle6 l O.e3 'it>h8 l l �3l!g8 1 2.ixh7�7 l 3 .ti'h4+ �g6 1 4.�e4+ to a draw by repetition) is a nonnal starting position.

Chapt er S ( l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS 3.dxeS � e4) 4.ft' d3

This move certainly deserves more ex­ amination than was previously thought, Tim Harding, 2000.

4 ... �cS Black wins a tempo and assumes the initiative, Otto Borik .

-

Neverthe less, it is worth noting that also 4 ... .ib4+ is a significant alternative, which leads to some striking variations. White has three possibilities: I) 5.id2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.f4 0-0 (7... d6 8.exd6 �f6 is met by 9.�e3+ .ie6 lO.d7+) 8 .0-0-0 d6! 9.exd6 (if9.ltld0 �e7 ! , tho ugh 9 ...dxe5 l O.�xd8 �d8 l Uhd8+ lt!xd8 l 2.ltlxe5 ic5 l3 .g3 it3 14.ig2 .ie3+ 1 5.'it>d l c6 1 6.ltlg0 lt!e6 1 7.ltld3 l!d8 18.'it>c2 ie4 19.ltlfe l ltld4+ 20.'it>dl .if5 2l .ltlc2 ltlxe2 was equal in Bringer - lnmiChess, computer game 2000) 9 .. .ixd6 10.�0 (1 0.g3 �e8, viz. l l .ig2ltlb4 12.�3 Ad7) lO ..:t?ffi l l .g3 .ib4, Gutman ; further U) 5.ltld2ltlc5 (Black can hardly be satis­ fied with 5 ...� 6.g3 ltlxd2 7.gxh4ltle4+ 8 . .id2 ixd2+ 9.�xd2 ltlxd2 lO.'�xd2. 5 ... lt!xd2 6 ..ixd2 ixd2+ 7.�xd2 goes into 4.�c2 .ib4+ 5 .ltld2 ltlxd2 6 . .ixd2 18

�xd6 8.a3 .bc3+ 9.�xc3 0-0 I O.i.e3 � I I.o!OO .!Oc6, nor 7.cxd5 �xd5 8 . .!00 o!Oc6 9.id2.bc3 I O.i.xc3 ig4 are better) 7.. .i.xc3+ 8.�xc3 o!Oe4 (8 ...d4 9.�g3 0-0 IO .i.g5 �d7 l l .i.f6 o!Oe6 12 ..!00 'i!;lh8 13.i.h4 ) 9 .�d3 c6 10 ..!00 0-0 provide sufficient compensation, Gutman; C) 6 .�g3 0-0, then : Cl) 7.a3 o!Oe4 8.�d3 (8 .�e3 forces 8 ... .bc3+ 9.bxc3 fS) 8 .. .i.xc3+ 9.bxc3 o!Oc5 (9 ... f5!? IO.o!OO .!Oc6 l l .g3 �e7) IO.�g3 ( IO.�d5 b6 I l .�xa8 i.b7 12.�xa7 o!Oc6) IO ... f5 I I .i.f4 o!Oc6, Gutman ; further Cl) 7.i.h6 o!Oe6 (7 .. .i.xc3+!? 8.bxc3 o!Oe6) 8.o!Of3 o!Oc6 9.i.d2 (9.o!Og5 .bc3+ IO.bxc3 �e7 I l . f4 f5 ! ) 9 ...i.xc3 I O.i.xc3 o!Oc5 I U&c I ( l l .�f4 o!Oa4) l l .. .o!Oe4 1 2 .�f4 o!Oxc3 J 3 .gxc3 �e7 1 4.a3 a5 1 5 .g3 ge8 J6,ge3 (16.i.g2 d6!) 16 .. .a4 17.i.g2�. Gutman; similarly C3) 7.i.d2 i.xc3 (is more precise than 7...16 8.0-0-0! .bc3 9.i.xc3 o!Oe4 I O.�e3 o!Oxc3 I l .�xc3 fxe5 1 2.�xe5 o!Oc6 due to 1 3 .�d5+ Wh8 14.o!Of3 �e7 1 5.a3 d6 1 6.e3 i.g4 17 .i.d3) 8.i.xc3 (8.�xc3 o!Oe4 9 .�d4 o!Oxd2 I O.�xd2 �h4 I l .�c3 o!Oc6 12 . .!00 �e7 1 3 . � 1 ge8) 8 .. J&e8 9.b3 o!Oe4 10.�e3 o!Oxc3 l l .�xc3 �h4 12.g3 �e4 1 3.o!OO .!Oc6 with chances for both sides, Gutman .

Three retreats come into consideration: A) 6.�e3 mt4! (6...o!Oc6 7.a3 o!Ob3 8 J��b l o!Obd4 9.�d3 .bc3+ I O.�xc3 mt4 l l .b4 �e4 12.�d3) 7 .a3 (7.o!Of3 �xc4 8.i.d2 lt:lc6 9lki .!Oe6) 7 ...lt:lb3 8,gb J ia5 9.�f4 (9.�d3 o!Oc6 10 ..!00 is met by IO ... mt5 I I .i.f4 o!Oc5, e.g. 12.�c2 .bc3+ 13.�xc3 �fS 14.�c l o!Ob3 15.�d l �xf4 16.�xb3 o!Oxe5 or 12.�d5 .bc3+ 1 3.bxc3 ti'f5 ! I4 J:�dl �xf4 1 5.�xc5 �fS) 9...�xf4!? I O.i.xf4 o!Oc6 1 1 ..!0 0 0-0 1 2.e3 ( 12 .!:Jd I ge8 13 .!:Jd5 .bc3+ 14.bxc3 b6) 12..�e8 13 .i.e2 .bc3+ 1 4.bxc3 o!Oc5 1 5 .0-0 b6 looks OK for Black, Gutman; B) 6.�c2 d5! (The interpol ation of the moves 6 ... o!Oc6 7 ..!00 is favourable for White: 7...d5 8.i.g5 ffi 9.exffigxffi IO.cxd5 �xd5 I I .i.d2 ixc3 12 ..bc3 i.fS 13 .�d2 �e6 I4.e3 gd8 1 5 .o!Od4 o!Oxd4 16 ..ixd4 o!Oe4 I 7. �b4 o!Od6 1 8 .i.e2 gg8 19.�b3 as in Dankert - Voigt, Germany 1 998; 7...li::J:6, when 8.a3.bc3+ 9.�xc3 b6 10.g3 i.b7 I I .i.g2 g5, Petersen - Witte lsberger, Germany 1998, 12.b4, or 8.g3 b6 9.i.g2; 7...�e7, and now 8.a3 .bc3+ 9.�xc3 a5 IO.i.f4 0-0 l l .e3 ge8 I 2.i.e2 b6 1 3.0-0 a4 1 4.gad l i.b7 1 5.�c2 h6 1 6.i.g3 or 8.id2!? o!Oxe5 9 .o!Oxe5 �xe5 IO.a3 .bc3 I I .i.xc3 �g5 1 2.h4 �g4 1Hlli 3 �xc4, Chemyshov - Kahn, Budapest 2002, 14.b3! �g4 15,gg3 �xh4 1 6.i.xg7 o!Oe4 17 .�c4 d5 1 8.�d4) 7.a3 (neither 7.exd6

Back to the main line

19

s.Bg3 Other options: I) 5.�d l lt:lc6 6.f4 d6 7 .exd6.hd6 8.1t:l0 �f6 9.e3 .i5 I O.a3 0-0-0 l l .lt:lbd2 ghe8 1 2 .g3 gxe3+ and White's position is in ruins, Dulovic - Gold, Major 1 996; II) For 5.�c3 1t:lc6 6.1t:lf3 see 4.�d4 1t:lc5 5 .1t:lf3 lt:lc6 6.�c3 - Chapter 4; Ill) 5 .�e3 1t:lc6 6.a3 (6.1t:lf3 will trans­ pose to 4 .�d4 1t:lc5 5.1t:lf3 1t:lc6 6.�e3
Edwards, England NWC 1 992, went 7... .ie7 8..ixe7 �xe7 9.exd6 1t:lb4 I O.�d l ­ I O.�c3 1t:lbd3+ l l .�d2 1t:le4+ 12 .�xd3 �xd6+ 13.�xe4 5+ 14.�3 f4+ 15.�4 .if3+ 1 6.'i!lx5 0-0+ 1 7. �g4 �e6+ leads to a draw-, IO ...cxd6 l l.e3 .if3 12 .1t:ld4 lt:lbd3+ 13 ..hd3 1t:lxd3+ 14.�tl.ig6!? 1 5 .�a4+ �ts 1 6.1t:lc3 �f6 - 1 6...1t:lxb2! 1 7.m3 1t:ld3 1 8 .gd l lt:lc5 looks viable to me -, 1 7.0&8 1 8.�xa7 �e3 1 9.1t:ld5 m-4 20.�b8+ ges 2 1 .�xd6+ �g8 with an unclear position) 8.exd6 .hd6 9.a3 (neither 9.1t:lc3 lt:lb4 1 o.�d2 �e6 l l .e3 �g6 Borik, nor 9.e3 lt:lb4 1 0.�c3 �f5 l l .lt:la3 0-0 12.JM lt:le4 -more accurate than 1 2...ge8 1 3..ie2 1t:lbd3+, Borik, due

to 1 4.�fl lt:le5 1 5 .1t:lb5 1t:lxf3 1 6 ..ixf3 .ie5 17.1t:ld4 -, 13 .�3 �a5 14.�e2.id7 are enjoyable for White) 9 ... 0-0 I O.It:lc3 (IO.b4 1t:le6 l l .c5 1t:lcd4 1 2 .1t:lxd4 1t:lxd4 l3.�d3 .ie5 14J:hl �g4 15.f4 .ixf4 gave Black a clear advantage, Jakab - Kahn, Budapest 2 002 ) 10 ...�g4 l l .lt:lb5 .if5 12.�dl lt:le6 13.1t:lxd6 cxd6 14.�cl gcs 1 5 .h3 �h5 16 ..ie3 d5 1 7 .c5 d4 leaves Wh ite frustrated, Gutman. s...�e4!? Black is ready for repetition.

We consider therefore : I) 5 ...h6 6.1t:lc3 1t:lc6 7..ie3!(an improve­ ment on 7 ..id2 d6 8.1t:l f3 g5, when in­ stead of 9.h3 .i5, AIUltoli Matsukevich, 1 0.0-0-0�d7 1 1.ie3 1t:le4 1 2.1t:lxe4 .lxe4 l 3 ..id4 1t:lxd4 14.gxd4 .lg6 1 5.e4 .lg7, White could try 9.0-0-0 g4 l O..ie3 1t:la6 l l.c5 gxf3 12.exf3, e.g. 12 ... .15 l3..ixa6 bxa6 14.exd6 cxd6 1 5 Jihel .ie6 16 ..if4 or 12 ...1t:lxc5 l3..ixa6 bxa6 14.J.d4 �g5+ 15.f4 �xg3 1 6.hxg3 lt:lg6 17 .1t:ld5 �d8 1 8 ..if6+ �d7 1 9.f5 ggs 20.fxg6 gxg6 2 l.ic3 with an edge) 7 ...1t:le6 8.0-0-0 d6 (8 ... a6 9.f4 b5 1 0.5) 9.1t:lf3 .id7 I O.It:ld5 dxe5 l l .lt:lxe5 1t:lxe5 1 2.�xe5 .*d6 l3.�c3 is clearly in White 's favour, Gutman; II) 5 ... 1t:lc6 6.1t:lc3 (Black should meet 6..lg5 1t:le4 7..ixd8 with 7 ...1t:lxg3 8.hxg3 �xd8 9.1t:lf3 g6 ! - Matsuk evich gives 9 ....ib4+?! IO.It:lbd2 h6 I I .a3 hd2+?! 12 .�xd2 ge8 1 3 .�5 as being better for White -, IO.It:lbd2 .lg7 1 1 .0-0-0 �e7! 1 2 .e4 b6! l3 . .ie2 .ib7, and not by 7 ... .ib4+ 8 .1t:lc3 1t:lxg3 9.hxg3 �xd8 1 0.f4 lt:ld4 1 1.0-0-0 lt:l5 12 ,gd3 d6 1 3.e4 1t:le7 14.1t:lf3, Conquest - Postny, Budapest 2 000) 6 . . . 1t:le6 (6 . . .1t:ld4 fails t o 7 ..lg5, and if 6 ... d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8 ..if4 .ixf4 9.�xf4 1t:lb4 I O.�e3+ .ie6 l l .gc l �e7 12.a3 1t:lb3 l 3.axb4 1t:lxc l 14.�xcl �xb4 15.e3) 7 J.d2 d6 8 .1t:lf3 dxe5 9.1t:lxe5 1t:lxe5 1 0.�xe5 .id6 l l .�h5 0-0 12 .0-0-0 and I prefer White, Gutman ; 20

III) S ...ll:l e6 is the invention of Borik . Three moves were tried : A) 6.h4 d6 (White was on top after 6... h6?! 7.id2 ll:lc6 8.ll:lc3 d6 9.ll:l0 dxeS I 0.0-0-0 id7 l l .ll:le4 'fle7 1 2.ic3 0-0-0 1 3 .ll:lxeS ll:lxeS 14.'flxeS f6 I S.'fla5 r;!;>b8 1 6 .e3, Lanzani - Conquest, Budapest 2000) 7.-lgS 'fld7 8.ll:lc3 (8.ll:l0 dxeS 9.ll:lxeS 'fld4) 8...dxeS 9.�1 id6 I O.ll:le4 'flc6 l l .ll:lxd6 cxd6, Gutman; further B) 6.ll:l0 ll:lc6 7 .e3 (7 .ll:lc3 ll:lb4 forces the king to move, and after 7 .a3 is 7 ...d6 strong: 8.exd6 ixd6 9.'flg4 0-0 I O.'fle4 &8 l l .'flc2 ll:led4 12.ll:lxd4 ll:lxd4 13 .'fldl if5 or 8.ll:lc3 dxeS 9.ll:lxeS ll:lxeS IO.'flxeS id6, Borik ) 7 ... d6 8.ie2 dxeS 9.ll:lxeS ll:lb4 10.ll:la3 id6(IO... ffi l l .ll:\0? ll:ld3+ 1 2 .hd3 'flxd3 13.id2 ha3 was men­ tioned by Mllls ukevich, but l l..ihS+ g6 1 2.hg6+ hxg6 13 .'flxg6t r;!;le7 14.'flf7+ r;!;>d6 I S .ll:lg6 gh6 1 6.0-0 is the correct reply) l l .f4heS 1 2.fxeS ll:ld3+ 13..lxd3 'flxd3 1 4.'flf2 0-0 IS.'fle2 ll:lcS 16.'flxd3 ll:lxd3+ 1 7.r;!;le2 ll:lxeS 1 8.b3 (1 8.h3 if5 19.gd) gad8 20 .gxd8 gxd8 2 1 .b3 ie4 22.g3 1f3+ 23 .r;!;>f2 �I ,Borik) 18 ....ig4+ 1 9 . r;t>t2 gfd8 20. r;!;lg3 ih5 !? , Piege ler Shoup, corr 1 99S, with a clear plus for Black, Gutman; C) 6.ll:lc3 !? d6 7 .ll:\0 (7.1d2 can be met by 7 ... ll:ld7 8.exd6 hd6) 7 ... dxeS (7 ... ll:ld7 8.if4 dxeS 9..ixeS ll:lxeS IO.'flxeS id6 l l .'fldS 0-0 1 2.0-0-0) 8.'flxeS !? (if 8.ll:lxeS id6, while Cafolla - O'C, Ire­ land 1 993, went 8 ... ll:ld4?! 9.'fld3 ll:la6 I O .ll:ldS ll:lb4 l l .ll:l xb4 ixb4+ 1 2 .id2 ifS 1 3 .e4 ixd2+ 14 .r;!;lxd2? - 14.'flxd2 should be played, e. g. l4.. ..ixe4 IS.0-0-0 ll:le6 1 6.'fle3 'flh4 17.0 if5 1 8.g3 'flf6 19.ig2 or 14 ...f6 I S .ll:ld3 'fle7 1 6.0-0-0 ig4 1 1.ge1 0-0-0 1 8 .'flb4 -, 14 ...'fle7 I S.exf5 0-0-0 1 6.�1 'flb4+ and Black won) 8 ... ll:lc6 9.'fldS id6 I O.ie3 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 looks like the more healthy ap­ proach, Gutman .

6.1Je3 6.'flf4 ib4+ 7.ll:ld2 ll:lxd2 (not 7 ... dS?! 8.exd6 ll:lxd2 9..ixd2 'flxd6 1 0 .0-0-0 0-0 l l .e4 ixd2+ 12.'flxd2 'fle7 13 .id3 ll:la6 14.ll:le2 ie6 IS.ll:l f4 gad8 1 7 .'flc3 'figS 1 8.g3, An Mon - Gambit Tiger, com­ puter game 2001 ) 8.ixd2 'fle7 9.0-0-0 ixd2+ JO.gxd2 ll:lc6 1 1 .ll:l0 0-0 1 2 .g3 (1 2.a3 ge8 13.gd5 b6 14 .g3 ib7 1 S..ih3 d6 1 6.exd6 cxd6 1 7.&d6 ll:laS) 12 .. _gb8 13�h3 bS 14.'flb4 'flcS IS.ifS h6 seems to give Black good chances, Gutman. 6 ..1b4+ 6...ll:lcS 7..id2(7.g3 ll:lc6 8..id2 ie7 9J.g2 0-0 I O.ll:\0 d6 l l .ic3 ges 1 2 .0-0 ll:la4 J3.gd) iffi!?, while Harding - Conquest, Budapest 2000 , went 13 .. ..if51 4.b3 ll:lxc3 IS.ll:lxc3 'flc8, when 16.exd6hd6 17.'flcl could be played) 7 ...ll:lc6 8.ll:lc3 favours White, Gutman. 7.�d2 7.ll:lc3 dS 8.exd6 if5, Gutman. 7...d5!? 7 ... ll:lxd2 8.ixd2 'fle7 is also possible, viz. 9.0-0-0 ixd2+ JO.gxd2 ll:lc6 l l .ll:\0 0-0 1 2.lod4 ( 1 2.g3 'fle6 !? 1 3 .'flc3 ges 14.�S ll:le7) 1 2 . . .ll:lxd4 1 3 .'flxd4 aS!? 1 4 .f4 ga6 I S .e3 d6, Gutman. 8.ex.d6 115 9.1!ff4!? Vx.d6 The ending after I O .'flxd6 ll:lxd6 l l .e3 ie6 1 2.a3 hd2+ 1 3 ..ixd2ixc4 14..ixc4 ll:lxc4 I S .ic3 is even, Gutm an. .

21

Chapt er 6 ( l.d4 �f6 2.c:4 eS 3.dxeS �e4) 4.'trdS

This move was introduced by Max 81111! ­ mich, Deutsche Schachzeitung, / 929.

Now there is a division: Section I - 4 ... f5 Section 2 - 4 ....ib4+ Section 3 - 4 ... itk5. Sec:t ion 1 4 fS ...

There are probably m lines where iJ is goodfor Black to play this move early on, Tim Harding.

S.ed6 The critical test is surely to capture en passant, Harding.

Other possibilities: I) 5 .it)d2 .ib4 (5 ... it)c6 fails to 6.it)xe4 it)b4 7.�dl fxe4 8.a3 it)c6 9.�d5 �e7 I O.�xe4 �xe5 l l .�xe5+ it)xe5 1 2 .e3. 5 ... c6 6.�d3 d5 7.exd6 �a5 8.a3 .ixd6 was given by Fernando Vasconcellos, yet White can do better with 8 .g3 it)a6 9..ig2 it)b4 I O.'Ml3 hd6 I I .it)gf3 it)f6

12.0-0 f4 1 3 .e4 fxg3 14.hxg3 .ie7 1 5 .e5) 6.it)f3 (6.a3 is met by 6 ...c6 7.�d3 Wb6 8.e3 hd2+ 9.hd2 �xb2) 6._it)c6 (6...c6 7.�d3 did not give Black enough coun­ terplay: 7 ...Wb6 on account of 8.e3 it)a6 9.a3 hd2+ I O.it)xd2 �a5 I U!bl �xe5 1 2.b4 and 7...�a5 because of 8.g3, e. g. 8 ...hd2+ 9.it)xd2 �xe5 I O.it)xe4 fxe4 l l .�c2 or 8...it)a6 9 ..ig2 it)ac5 I O.�c2 �d2 I I .hd2 it)e4 1 2.a3 �d2 J3.it)xd2 0-0 14-l:!dl hd2+ 15l!xd2 �xe5 1 6.0-0) 7.a3 �e7 Ieads to equality, for example 8.e3 hd2+ 9 ..ixd2 it)xd2 I O .'�xd2 g6 I I ..ie2 b6 IU!hdl .ib7 1 3 .'�el 0-0-0 14.c5 IDleS 1 5 .cxb6 axb6 1 6.&cl it)xe5 1 7 ..ia6 it)xf3+ 1 8 .gxf3 c6, Gutman; m 5 .lt)f3 it)c6 (5 ....ib4+, Vasconcellos, is also good, e.g. 6..id2 c6 7 .�d3 �b6 8.e3 .ixd2+ 9.it)bxd2 �xb2, Mrchess ­ EmK, internet 2003, or 6.it)bd2 it)c6, see 4 ... f5 5 .it)d2 .ib4 6.it)f3 it)c6 -f), and now: A) 6.a3 d6 7.exd6 (7.it)bd2 it)xd2 8.hd2 dxe5 9.�xd8+ �xd8 IO..ic3 e4 I I .Q..()...()+ .id7 12.it)e5 it)xe5 1 3..ixe5 �e8 with a level ending, while after 7.b4 �e7 White has problems, e. g. 8 ..ib2 .ie6 9.exd6 it)xd6, Dyckhoff - Starke, corr 1930, or 8.exd6 �f6!? 9.l:!a2 .ixd6 IO ..ib2 �e7 l l .�dl .ie6 12.it)bd2 0-0-0 1 3 .e3 IDlfll 14..ie2 it)xd2 1 5 .it)xd2 f4 1 6 .e4 f3) 7 ... .ixd6 8.e3 (no better are: 8.it)bd2 it)c5 9.it)d4 it)xd4 IO.�xd4 �e7 l l .�d5 .ie6 12.�f3 0-0 13.b4.ie5 14,m, 1 it)e4 1 5.it)xe4 fxe4 1 6.�xe4 .i£5, Kuchta - Nepustil, Prague 1 986, or 8.it)c3 it)xc3 9.bxc3 �f6 IO.�d3 it)e5 I I .it)xe5 he5 1 2..ib2 0-0 13.e3 .ie6 I4..ie2 &d8 1 5.�c2 f4 1 6.e4 �g6 1 7.�fl f3! 1 8 .h f31:!xf3 1 9 .gxf3 .ixc4+, Stanitz - D'Adamo, corr 1 993) 8 ...�f6 (8 ...�e7 9.�dl .ie6 I O ..ie2 g5 l l .b4 it)e5 12 .c5 it)xf3+ 14.gxf3 .ie5 and Black won, Gerke - Gegner, Dortmund 2000) 9.�dl .ie6 I O. .ie2 0-0-0 l l .�c2 l:!he8 is no fun for White, Gutman; 22

B) 6.lik3 ib4 (6 ...l[Jxc3 7.bxc3 Y!Je7 8 .a4 d6 9�g5 Y!Je6 1 0.exd6 hd6 1 1 .m,1 m,8 12.e3 with some edge for White) 7 ..id2 (if 7.Y!Jd3 Y!Je7 8.J.f4 g5 9�g3 .ixc3+ I O.bxc3 g�) 7 ...hc3 (7 ...lLlxd2 8.Y!Jxd2 Y!Je7 9.a3 .ixc3 I O.Y!Jxc3 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 brings Black nowhere, and on 7 ... lLlc5 White plays 8.0-0-0 lLle7 9.Y!Jd4 b6 IO.g3 .ib7 l l ..ig2 0-0 12.lLld5, instead of 8.a3 lLle7 9..ig5, Nepustil, 9 ... lLlxd5 I O.axb4 lLlxb4 I J .().().()Y!Jxg5+ 1 2.lLlxg5 b6 13.lLlb5 lLlba6 1 4 .e3 .ib7) 8..ixc3 lLlxc3 9.bxc3 Y!Je7 appears equal, Gutman. s...�xf6

JO.Y!Jd2 Y!Je7 l l.lLlc3 d6, when 12.a3 lLlc6 13.e3 .ig4 14�2 might be tried) 8.lLla3 d5 9.cxd5 Y!Jxd5 , Gutman ; similarly Ill) 6.Y!Jd3 lLlc6 (6 ....ib4+ 7 ..id2 lLla6 8..ixb4 lLlxb4 9.Y!Je3+! Y!Je7 I O.Y!Jxe7+ rJ:/xe7 l l .lLla3 d5 1 2.cxd5 lLlbxd5 13 _gc) was seen in Adamczyk - Owens, e-mail 1999) 7.lLlf3 d5 ! (7 ....ib4+ 8.lLlc3 with advantage, TseilDn!Gfllskov) 8.cxd5 lLlb4, Nepustil, 9.Y!Jc4 Y!Jxd5 I O.Y!Jxd5 lLlfxd5 l l .lLla3 lLJffi is fme for Black, Gutman. 6....lb4+ 6 ....ic5 7.lLlf3 0-0 (with sufficient com­ pensationfor thepawn, Tseidin/Gfllskov) 8.lLlc3 d6 9.e3 lLlc6 IO�e2 (or I O.h3 .its l l �e2 Y!Je7 12.0-0 �d8 1 3 .a3 a6 14.b4 .ia7, Chatzisotirou - Jouanny, e-mail 1998, 15..tb2!?) IO ....tts (IO ..�g4 l l .h3 .id7 1 2 .a3 a5 1 3 .b3 Y!Je8 1 4 ..ib2 Y!Jg6 1 5.lLld5 lLle4 1 6.g4!? �e8 17.�2 Y!Jh6 1 8.Y!Jc2 'i!.f7 19.lLlxc7, Altennan - Kogan, rapid Tel-Aviv 1 996) 1 1 .0-0 (l l .a3 a5 12 .0-0 lLle7 1 3 .lLld4 'itoh8 14..if3 is also good, Kilian - Pekrul, corr 1 990) I I ... Y!Jd7 1 2.lLla4 .ib6 13 ..id2 .ia5 14 ..ixa5 lLlxa5 1 5.c5 d5 1 6.b4 lLlc4 17 .lLlc3 .ie6 18.Y!Jd4 1eaves Black frustrated, Crafty ­ Hiarcs, computer game 1999. 7..ldl 7.lLld2 can be answered by 7 ... 0-0 8 .a3 .ixd2+ 9 . .ixd2 b6, Gutman. 7 ... as 7 ...Y!Je7 8.lLlf3 (8.lLlc3 is inaccurate due to 8 ...lLlc6 9.lLlf3 .ixc3 1 O..ixc3 lLle4) 8 ... lLlc6 (8 ...b6 9.e3 .ib7 I 0�2 lLle4 1 1 .0-0 lLlxd2 12 .lLlbxd2 lLlc6 1 3 .Y!Jc2) 9.e3 0-0 I O ..ie2 (Tritschler - Maidana Guerra, internet 2002, continued I O.lLlc3 .ixc3 l l ..bc3 lLle4) IO ...lLle4 1 1 .0-0, Gutman. 8.�0 0-0 9.e3 � a6 IO..lel �cS IO...b6 1 1 .0-0 .ib7 is another plan. 11.� d6 ll.�d4 Y6e7 Black has some, but possibly not enough compensation, Gutman.

6.1fdl Alternatives: I) 6.Y!Je5+ i.e? 7 ..ig5 (7..if4 d6 8 .Y!Je3 lLlg4 9.Y!Je4 Yz-Yz Fortress - GLChess, computer game 2000) 7 ...lLlc6 8.Y!Je3 0-0 9.lLlc3? lLlg4 IO�xe7 lLlxe7 I I .Y!Jg3 lLlxf2 0: I Camara - Flores, Sao Paulo 1 937; II) 6.Y!Jg5 lLlc6 ( 6...ib4 + 7.id2 Y!Je7 gave White a clear plus after 8.lLlf3 0-0 9.lLlc3 lLlc6 IO.a3 .ixc3 l l ..ixc3 d6 1 2.e3 .id7 1 3 .i.d3 �e8 14.0-0 lLle5 15 .lLlxe5 dxe5 1 6.�d l , Pinho - Morais, e-mail l 997) 7.lLlf3 (if 7.lLlc3 lLlb4 8.Y!Jd2, then 8 ...d5 9.a3 d4 I O.axb4 .ixb4 I I .� a5 12 Exb4 axb4 1 3 .lLlb5 0-0 14.lLlf3 c5 1 5 .e3 � I ) 7. . .lLl b4 (Pereira - Jursik, e-mail 1 995, went 7 ... .ib4+ 8..id2 0-0 9..ixb4 lLlxb4

23

Section 2 (l.d4 �f6 2.c4 eS 3.dxe5 �e4 4.'ff d5) 4 .. .lb4+

The main line - White prefers to keep his bishop, but also 5 ..id2, Max Biue­ mich, should be treated with respect. 5...lLlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 (6 ...Y:nl 4!? 7 .lLlf3 V9e7 is also possible, after 8.a3 .ixd2+ 9.V9xd2 lLlc6 we reach a position with 4.ltlf3 .ib4+ 5.td2 ltlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 f"7.a3 hd2+ 8.V9xd2 Y!Je7 - Part 4, Chapter 3, Sections 2/4. Less flexible is 6... c6 7.V9d3 V9a5 8.·�:m lLla6 9.a3 0-0 1 0.gdl lLlc5 l l .V9c2 hd2+ 1 2fud2 V!lb6, when instead of l 3.lLlg5 g6 14.b4 lLle6 1 5.lLle4 a5, Han:stad - Stangeland, Norwai 1 992, 1 3 .g3 ! ? a5 14 ..ig2 a4 1 5 .0-0 might be more simple) 7.lLlf3 (7.f4 is answered by 7.. .d6 8.exd6 .ie6 9.d7+hd7 10.� V!lffi l l .V9e4+ .ie6 12.e3 0-0-0. If 7.0-0-0, then 7 ...V9e7 8.ltlgf3 returns to the text as 8.f4 d6 9.exd6bd6 10.e4? is convinc­ ingly refUted by 1 0... lLlb4 l l .V!Ib5+ .id7, Tim Harding; however, Black has an excellent rejoinder in 7 ...0-0 8.lLlgf3 d6, e.g. 9.a3 .ie6 1 O.V9e4 hd2+ l l .J�xd2 lLla5 12J�dl lLlxc4 l3.e3 d5 14.V9c2 V9e7 1 5 .lxc4 dxc4, Arregui - Uboldi, Villa Balester 1 992, or 9.exd6 .ixd6 l O.lLle4 .ie6 l l .V!Ib5 a6 12.V9a4 b5) 7 ...V9e7 (also

here 7 ...0-0!? appears quite promising to me, for instance 8.a3 hd2+ 9.lLlxd2 ges l O.f4 d6 l l .exd6 .ie6 1 2.V9d3 V!lffi l 3 .g3 .if5 14.e4 gadS!? 1 5 .0-0-0 gxd6 1 6.e5 V9g6 17.V9c3 gd7) 8.0-0-0 (after 8.e4 .ixd2+ 9.lLlxd2 lLlxe5 1 O.td3? d6 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2 ..ic2 .ie6 the white queen was gone, Marake - Rost, corr 1986) 8 ....ixd2+ (8 ...b6 9.e3 .ib7 l O.h4 0-0-0 l l .V!Ib5 a6 12.V9a4 ltlxe5 l3.lLlxe5 .ixd2+ 14Exd2 V9xe5 turned out well for Black, Hartmann - Lochmann, Germany 1993, but 9.lLld4 .ib7 1 O.lLlf5 V!lfll l l .f4 0-0-0 12.V9d3 looks better) 9.gxd2 (9 .V9xd2 lLlxe5 l O.lLlxe5 V9xe5 sets no problems. l l .g3 0-0 1 2 ..ig2, and now instead of 1 2 ...d6 1 3 .f4 V9e8 14.V9c2 V9e3 1 5.V9d2 V9e8 Vz-Vz Heimbrodt - Kampfhenkel, corr 1 980, 12 ... gbs 1 3 .f4 V9e7 1 4.V9d4 d6 1 51llie 1 b5 could be tried. If l l .e3 d6 12.f4 V9e7 l3.id3 0-0 14J:�del a6 15.V9c2 h6 with b7-b5 to follow; less ambitious is 12 ... V9c5 l 3 .V9d4 V9xd4 14.exd4 .if5 15 ..id3, while after l4.fud4 .ie6 1 5 .g3 ()..(){) 16M mte8 17.\trd2 c5 181W hc4 Black won a pawn, Nedess - Augustin, corr 1988) is a critical position needing further clarification.

We survey Black's defences: I) 9 ...b6?! lO.lLld4 .ib7 l l .lLlf5 ( l l .lLlxc6 .ixc6 1 2.V9d4 0-0-0 l3.e3 ghe8 14 ..ie2 V9xe5 was even, Bluemich - Fajarowicz, 24

5th match game, Leipzig 1930) l l ...'t¥xe5 1 2.'t¥xd7+ (12.'t¥xe5 !? lL!xe5 1 3.lL!xg7+ rJ:";e7 14.e3 l"!ag8 1 5 .lL!f5+ rJ:";f6 1 6.lL!g3 h5, Bluemich, Neue Leipziger Zeitung 1930, 1 7 .h4) 1 2 ... rt;t8 1 3 .e3 ( 1 3 .lL! d6, Bluemich, 13 ...cxd6 14.'t¥xb7 't¥e8 1 5 .e3 gds 16.'t¥c7) 1 3 ... lL!b4 14.'t¥d8+ gxd8 15.fud8+ 't¥e8 1 6he8+ rJ:";xe8 17.lL!xg7+ rJ:";f8 1 8.a3 with decisive advantage for White, Gutman ; II) lf 9 ... lL!b4 I O.'t¥a5 keeping the pawn, Bluemich, IO ...b6 I l .'t¥a4 lL!c6 (with play against the pawn on e5; the white queen stands a little offside, Otto Borik) 1 2.g3 !

(on 1 2.e3 lL!xe5 13 .lL!xe5 't¥xe5 14..le2, Vinke - Fox, corr 1 989, Black can play 1 4 ... 0-0! 1 5 ..if3 c6 1 6 .h4 a5) 1 2 ....ib7 (12 ...lL!xe5 13.lL!xe5 't¥xe5 14..ig2) 13.J.h3 gds 1 4.�dl .ic8 15.lL!d4 lL!xd4 16.fud4 0-0 1 7 .f4 d6 1 8 ..bc8 gxc8 19.gd5 se­ cures a plus for White, Gutman; III) 9 ...a6 would have given Black every chance of equalising, Tseidin/GIIlskov, IO.c5 ( IO.a3 m,g l l .g3 b5) 10 0-0 l l .g3 ges 12.J.h3 lL!xe5 13.lL!xe5 't¥xe5 14bd7 't¥xd5 15hd5 fue2 16lhll ®18 17 i Hd2 fud2 18.rJ:";xd2 .ixd7 19hd7 &8 20.'it>c3 and the ending is quite unpleasant for Black, Gutman; IV) 9...0-0 IO.g3 a5 l l .a3 a4 12.J.g2 &5 13 .'t¥d3 b6 14.ghdl gcs appears to hold the balance, Gutman . ·-

s... �xd2! 5 ... lL!c5 leads to interesting complications, though a drawback of this idea is the loss of time. White has two possibilities: I) 6.lL!f3 b6 (Staker/Giasscoe/Stayart; however, 6...lL!c6 is very good, e.g. 7.a3? lL!e7 8.'t¥d4 lL!b3 or 7 .lL!d4 lL!xd4 8.'t¥xd4 b6 9.'t¥g4 0-0 IO.a3 d6 I I .'t¥13 .ib7, and if7 .e3, then not 7 ...d6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.J.e2 .ie6 IO .'t¥g5 't¥xg5 I I .lL!xg5 .if5 12.0-0 0-0 13.lL!gf3 gfe8 14.a3 .ixd2, Puleston ­ Loonstra, e-mail 2002, 15bd2, but 7... 't¥e7 8 ..ie2 b6 9.0-0 .ib7 I O.lL!bl 0-0 !? I I .'t¥d l lL!xe5, improving on 1 0 ... 0-0-0 I l .'t¥dl d6 12.a3 dxe5 1 3 .'t¥c2 e4 14.lL!d4, Candan - Izquierdo, Montevideo 1 988) 7.e3 (7.g3 .ib7 8.'t¥d4 lL!c6 9.'t¥e3 is met by 9 ...0-0 IO..ig2 ge8) 7 ....ib7 8.'t¥d4.ie4 (Fuhrmann - Hiegl, Germany 1996, went 8 ...0-0 9 ..ie2 .ie4 I O.b3 lL!c6 I l .'t¥b2, when instead of I I ....ixf3 12.gxf3 't¥g5 1 3 .f4 't¥g2 1 4.gfl lL!e4 15 ..id3 !? gadS 16 ..ixe4 't¥xe4 17 .a3, I I . ..'t¥e7 !? 12.0-0 .id3 1 3 ..ixd3 lL!xd3 14 .'t¥c2 lL!dxe5 is better) 9.b3 (9.e6?! 0-0 IO.exf7+ �hf7 I I .lL!e5 lL!c6 1 2 .lL!xc6 dxc6 1 3 .'t¥xd8+ fud8, Ledfuss - Fischer, Germany 1 996) 9 ...lL!c6 IO.'M>2 't¥e7 I I .ie2 .ixf3 12.gxf3 lL!xe5 should be fine for Black, Gutman; D) 6.a3 ! .ixd2+ 7 .J.xd2 b6, after. A) 8 .'t¥xa8? .ib7 9.'t¥xa7 lL!c6 IO ..ig5 ( I O.'t¥xb7 lL!xb7 I I .lL!f3 0-0) IO ... 't¥c8 I I .'t¥xb7 't¥xb7 1 2.lL!f3 0-0 1 3 .e3 lL!xe5 (13 ...h6 14..lf4 't¥a8 1 5.l:M I 't¥a4 1 6..ie2 't¥c2 17 .b4 't¥c3+ 1 8.rJ:";fl lL!e6, Mueller ­ Piotraschke, Germany 2000) 14.lL!xe5 f6 favours Black; B) 8 ..ic3 .ib7 9.'t¥dl lL!e4; C) 8.e6 dxe6 (8 ...fxe6 9.'t¥h5+ g6 IO.'t¥e5 gf8 l l ..ig5 lL!c6 12.'t¥g3 ltle7 1 3 .'t¥h4) 9.'t¥xd8+ rJ:";xd8 J O.gd) Y2-Y2 Beikert Brauening, Germany 1 993; D) 8.'t¥f3 (Staker!GIIlsscoe/Stayart) 8 ... .ib7 (8 ...0-0 9.b4 .ib7 I O.'t¥g4 f5 I I .'t¥g5 25

White has a range of moves: Fl) 1 0.�f3 �xb2 l l .�e3+ WfB! ( 1 1 ... 'it>d8 1 2 .�gS+ 'it>e8 1 3.�e3+ is perpet­ ual) 1 2.l:!dl .ia6 1 3 .�cl �a2 14.e3 tt::lc6 1S.tt::l f3 tt::laS 1 6.tt::ld2 tLla4, Borik, 1 7.tt::le4 tt::lb3 18.�1 �xa3 19hd7�+ 20.'it>dl .ib7 2 l .l:!xc7 fS 22.l:!xb7 fxe4 23 .�c2 tt::lc3+ 24.'it>el tt::la l 2S.�cl tt::la2 + 26.�d2 tt::lc2+ and Black wins, Gutman ; F2) 1 O.�xb8 0-0 l l .tt::lf3 ( 1 1 .0-0-0? .ib7 is hopeless, e.g. l 2 .�xa7 .ie4 or 1 2.tt::l f3 �e4, Borik) l l . . .�xb2 1 2 .l:!dl �c3+ (or 1 2 ...J.b7 13.�xc7 .ixf3 14.gill �c3+ 1Sl!d2 �c l+ with a draw, while 1 4.�f4 �c3+ 1 S.�d2 loses to lS ... tt::ld3+ 1 6.exd3 l:!e8+) 1 3 .tt::l d2 l:!e8 ( 1 3 ... tt::lb 3?, Borik, 14.f3) 1 4.e3 tt::le 4! 1 S .g3 d6! 1 6 .�xc7 tt::lxd2 1 7.l:!xd2 �cl + 1 8.l:!dl �c3+ \12-\12 Papakosmas - W ilders, corr 1 994; F3) 1 0.tt::lf3 �xb2 l l iW l O-O ( l l . ..�c3+ 1 2. tt::l d2 tt::l c 6 1 3.�xc8+ 'it>e7 1 4.�xh8 tt::ld4 is met by 1 S.�xh7 tt::lc2+ 1 6.�xc2 �xc2 1 7.h4) 1 2.�xb8 transposes to F2; F4) l O.l:!dl 0-0 ( 1 0 ... �xb2 l l .f3 tt::lca6 12.�e4+ WfB 1 3 .�e3 tt::l cS 14.tt::lh3 tt::lb3 1S.�f4 d6 1 6hd6 cxd6 1 7.�xd6+ 'it>e8 18.�xb8 �c3+ 19.'i!;lt2 �xc4 20.e3 �c2+ 2 l .J.e2, Santos Trullenque, corr 1 999, or 10 ... tt::lc6? l l .�xc8+ 'it>e7 1 2 .�xh8 �xb2 13.f3 �c3+ 1 4.'it>f2, Stummerer ­ Stejskal, corr 1 994, are both of dubious value) l l .tt::l f3 �xb2 1 2 .�xb8, see F2; FS) 1 0.0-0-0! 0-0 l l .�f3 (less advisable is 1 1 .�dS �f4+ 1 2 .e3 �xf2, and 1 1 .ttJ f3 could be answered by l l ...�fS 12.tt::l d4 �gS+ 13.e3 .ib7 1 4.�xa7 tt::lb a6 l S .b4 &8 1 6.�xa8+ .ixa8 1 7 .bxcS �xeS, Bo­ rik) l l ...J.b7 12.�e3 �xe3+ 1 3.fxe3 tt::le4 14.tt::l h3 d6 l S .l:!gl tt::ld7 1 6.g3 tt::le S, Bo­ rik, 1 7.J.g2 and Black must strive to jus­ tify his material deficiency, Gutman. 6 .ixd2ft' e7! This excellent move was already sug­ gested by Savielly Ttutllkower and looks to me like the most logical reply.

tt::lb3 12.\!:hd8 l:!xd8 1 3 .l:!d l ) 9.�g3(if 9.�g4 0-0 1 0.tt::l f3 , then not 1 o ... tt::l c 6?! l l.b4 f5 12.exffi �xffi 1 3.l:!c 1 tt::la4 14.�gS �xgS l S ..bgS l:!ae8, Raikovic - Sion, Leon 1 988, 16.J.d2, but 1 O ... fS l l .exf6 �xf6 1 2.J.c3 �e7) 9 ... 0-0 10.J.h6 (more precise than 1 0 .tt::l f3 tt::le4 l l .�f4 tt::lxd2 1 2 .�xd2 tt::lc6 1 3 .e3 l:!e8 1 4 .�c3 �e7, Borik) 10 ...tt::le6 l l .tt::lf3 tt::lc6 12.e3 (after 1 2 .J.d2 tt::l cd4 1 3 .tt::lx d4 tt::lxd4 14.�d3 tt::lc6 1S.J.c3 �e7 1 6.f4 &d8 threatening 1 7 ... d6 Black gains a strong initiative, Borik) 1 2 ... 'it>h8!? ( 1 2 .. .f6 can be met by 13.tt::ld4 tt::lcxd4 14.exd4 fxeS lS .dxeS �e7 16.J.e3) 13 .J.f4 tt::l xf4 14.�xf4 �e7 1 S .�f5 l:!ae8 16.l:!dl tt::lb8 1 7 .tt::lgS g6 1 8. �f4 h6 19.tt::lf3 'it>g7 20.J.e2 ixfl 21 J.x£3 �xeS leads to equality, Gutman; E) 81Jdl ib7 9.�d4 �e7 10.�g4 ffi l l .b4 ( l l .exf6? tt::ld3 mate) l l ...tt::l e4 1 2 .exf6 �xf6 1 3 .tt::l f3 0-0 14.e3 tt::lxd2 1 S.l:!xd2 �al+ 1 6.'it>e2 �xa3 1 7 .h4 �xb4 1 8.l:!h3 .ia6 19.'it>el �1+ 20.l:!dl �+ 2 l iW2 � 1+ (Meublers gives 2 1 .. .J.b7 22 .l:!g3 �e7 23.tt::ld4 ru7 24.tt::lf5 �ffi 2S.J.d3 tt::la6 26.�S g6 27.tt::lh6+ WfB, when 28.bg6 hxg6 29.l:!xg6 is strong) 22.l:!dl �b4+ \12-\12 Karpow - Hajenus, simultaneous Antwerp 1997; F) 8..igS ! �xgS 9.�xa8 �xeS was ana­ lysed by Borik in Schach Magazine 64,

-

1 988.

.

26

Alternatives are less challenging:

I) For 6...1xd2+ 7.'9xd2 see 4.'tlic2 J.M+

S.lt:ld2 lt:lxd2 6.hd2 .ixd2+ 7.'tlixd2 Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 2 ; II) 6 ... aS 7.lt:lf3 (7.f4?! 0-0 8.0-0-0 d6! 9.exd6 cxd6 IO.lt:lf3 lt:ld7, e. g. l l .�b l lt:lb6 12.'9d3 h6 13.1xb4 axb4 14.cS lt:la4 or l l .a3 hd2+ 12fu.d2 lt:lcS Il.§dl �) 7 ... lt:lc6 8.e3 '9e7 9.J.e2 0-0 I 0.0-0 .ixd2 (IO...ges I I ..hb4!? axb4 12.lt:ld4 lt:lxeS 1 3 .cS &5 14.lt:lb3) I I .'tlixd2 lt:lxeS will transpose into 4.'tlic2 .ih4+ S..id2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lxd2 lt:lc6 7.lt:lf3 'tlie7 8.e3 lt:lxeS 9..ie2 0-0 10.0-0 .ixd2 l l .'tlixd2 aS, covered in Part 2, Chapter 3, Section I, Gutman.

Section 3 (l.d4 �f6 l.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.1fd5) 4 ...�c:5

This move is bad, Ono Borik.

5.�0

Other possibilities: I) S.b4 lt:le6 6.a3 aS 7.bS d6 8 ..ib2 lt:ld7 9.e3 c6 I O.'tlidl (I O.bxc6 bxc6 1 I .'tlixc6 l::tb8 12 ..ic3 .ib7 13.'tlia4 lt:lecS 1 4.'tlidl dxeS I S.lt:lf3 'tlic7) IO ...dxeS I I .lt:lf3 'tlic7 (Ullrich - Richter, Bad Elster 1 937, con­ tinued I I e4 12.lt:ld4 lt:ldcS 13.lt:lc3 k7, when instead of 14.lt:lf5 'tlic7 1 S.lt:lg3 0-0 16.lt:lcxe4 lt:lxe4 1 7.lt:lxe4 fS ! 1 8.lt:ld2 f4 19.e4 .icS 20..id3 gds 2 I .lt:lf3 'tlid6 22 ..ic2 .ixf2+, 1 4.bxc6 bxc6 I S .lt:lxc6 'tllb6 16.lt:lxe7 'tlixb2 17 .lt:ledS might be better) 1 2lt:l c3 .ie7, Gutman; further 0) S .g3 b6!? (S ...d6 6..ig2 lt:lc6 is more typical, viz. 7.exd6.ixd6 S..igS ffi 9..if4 lt:lb4 IO.'tlid2 .if'S I I .lt:la3 .ixf4 12.'tlixb4 'tlie7) 6.'tlixa8 .ib7 7.'tlixa7 .ixhl 8.'tlia3 (if S..igS 'tlic8!, e.g. 9.lt:lf3 hf3 I O.exf3 lt:lc6 I I .'tlia3 lt:le6 or 9.e6 fxe6 I O.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 I I .'tlia3 hf3 12.'tlixf3 lt:ld4 13.'tlic3 lt:lcb3 14.axb3 .ib4, while after 8 ...'tlixgS 9.'tlixb8+ �e7 I O.f4 'tlih6 I I ..ih3 'tlic6 12.lt:lc3 g6 13.lt:ld5+ hdS 1 4.cxdS 'tlixdS IS.'tlixc7 'tlid4 16.lt:lf3 'tlixb2 I7..§dl White won in Boross - Douthwaite, Toronto 199S) 8 ... lt:lc6 9.'tlie3 lt:le6 I O.lt:lf3 .icS I I .'tlie4 0-0, Gutman ; similarly •.

7.f4 �c:6 8.�0 0-0

8 ... b6 9.g3 (better than 9.e3 .ib7 IO..ie2 1 1 .1xb4'tlixb4+ 12.'tlid2 d6 13.exd6 &d6 14.'tlixb4 l0xb4 IS.'tt12 .ixf3 16.'it>xt3 geS) 9....ib7 I O..ig2 0-0-0 I I ..ixb4 (if I I .� hd2+ 12.'tlixd2 d6) I l...'tlixb4+ 12 .'tlid2 'tlixc4 (or 1 2 ... d6 13 .exd6 l::txd6 14 .'tlixb4 lt:lxb4 I S .�f2 .ixf3 1 6 ..ixf3 l::thd8 1 7 .a3 lt:lc2 1 8J:!a2) 1 3 .lt:lgS lt:le7 14.b3 'tlia6 IS ..ixb7+ 'tlixb7 16.0-0 fa­ vours White, Gutman.

0.0..0

9.0-0-0 Kd8

Black is ready to play 10 ... d6 and has compensation for his pawn, Gutm an.

27

.ib7 1 6.�d3 g6 1 7./J.g2 ll:la6 1 8.ll:lg5, Gambit Tiger - Little Goliath, compu­ ter game 200 1 , with a plus for White; III) 5 ... ll:lc6 is more popular, then: A) For 6.ll:lc3 see 5 .ll:lc3 ll:lc6 6.ll:lf.3; B) 6..id2 a5 (if 6 ...d6 7.ig5 �d7, then not 8.ll:lc3, Wallach - Sukcharoenphon, corr 1 994, due to 8 ...ll:lb4 9.�d2 dxe5, but 8.exd6 .hd6 9.ll:lc3 ll:lb4 IO.�d2 �e6 l l ..ie3 �xc4 12..ixc5 �xc5 1 3.a3 �a5 14.e3 0-0 1 5.l:!dl ll:lc6 16.ll:lb5 with some edge) 7.ll:ld4 ll:lb4 8.�f.3 (after 8./J.xb4 Black has: 8 ...c6 9.�xc5 axb4 10.ll:lxc6 .hc5 l l .ll:lxd8 id4 12.ll:lxf7 Wxf7 l3.ll:ld2 .he5 14.g3 !l.xb2 1 5.l:!dl !l.c3, Abbon­ darmt - Senechaud, Parthenay 1991 , or 8 ...axb4 9.e3 c6 1 O.�f.3 g6 l l .ll:ld2 !l.g7) 8 ... ll:le6 9.ll:lxe6 dxe6 l O.ll:la3 !l.d7 is fine for Black, Gutman ; C)6.ig; jj;? 7.�xc5 (7..ixe7�xe7 8.ll:lc3 is still relatively unexplored. Timar Sinka, Gala Kupa 1 99 1 , continued 8 ... b 6 9.�d2 .ib7 lO.ll:ld5 �d8 l l .b4 ll:le6 12.e3 0-0 1 3..ie2 d6 14.exd6 �xd6, when instead of 15 .�c3 a5 1 6.b5 ll:lb4 17.e4 ll:lc5 18.e5 ll:lxd5 19.cxd5 �xd5 20.0-0 l:!ad8 2 l ..ic4?! �d7 22.ll:lg5? �g4 0 : 1 , 15.0-0 a5 1 6.a3 l:!fd8 1 7 .�b2 might be better. 8 ... 0-0 9.ll:lb5 ll:la6!? 1 0.e3 l:!e8 l l ..ie2 �+ 12.�d2 �xd2+ l3.�xd2 ll:lxe5 appears sounder, improving on 9 ... ll:lb4 IO.�dl d6 l l .a3 ll:lba6 12.exd6, Voss - Walther, corr 1 972) 7 .. ..ixc 5!? (Most sources give 7 .. ..ixg5 as dubious because of 8.ll:lc3 b6? 9.�d5 !l.b7 1 0.e6 s d6! ffi l l.ll:lxg5 fXg5 12.�xd7+�xd7 13.exd7+ Alternatives are: 'i!nc.d7 14.()..0...()+, Olsen - Martinsen, corr I) 5 ...c6 6.�dl d6 7.ll:lc3 ll:le6 8.g3 (in­ stead of 8.exd6 .hd6 9.ll:le4.ib4+ 1 0 .§J.d2 1945, however, Black can improve with .ie7, Tritschler - Vandersluys, internet 8....ie7 9.�e3 0-0 1 0.0-0-0 d6 l l .exd6 2001) 8 ...�c7 9.exd6 .hd6 1 0./J.g2 0-0 cxd6 1 2.c5 .if6 1 3 .cxd6 !l.e6. It seems that 8.e6 ! ? .if6 9.exf7+ 'i!ixf7 is more 1 1 .0-0, Gutman; or testing, and now not 1 O.ll:lc3 d6 1 1 .�5. II) 5 .. ..ie7 6.ll:lc3 0-0 7 ..if4 a5 8.g3 (I prefer 8.e3 b6 9..ie2 !l.b7 IO.�d l) 8 .. b6 when instead of l l ...a6?! l2 .�3 ll:la5 9.ib3 .ib7 IO.�d2 ll:le6 l l .O-O i.a6 12.b3 l3.�c2 ll:lxc4 14.ll:ld5 ll:lxb2 1 5 .l:!bl l:!e8 .ib4 l3.a3 ll:lxf4 14.gxf4 .hc3 15.�xc3 16.ll:lxf6 �xf6 1 7 .�xb2 g6 1 8.e3 !l.f5

ID) 5.ll:lc3 ll:lc6 6.ll:lf.3 (6.it'4 should be met by 6 ... d6! 7.exd6 .hd6 8 ..bd6 cxd6 9.e3 0-0 1 O.�f.3 �a5, and not by 6...ll:lb4 7.�d2 c6 8.ll:lf.3 �a5 9.ll:ld4 ll:le6 l O.ll:lxe6 dxe6 l l .l:!dl !I.e? 1 2.a3 ll:la6 1 3 .e3 0-0 14.id3 ll:lc5 15ic2, Niemann - Mikulka, Vienna 1 936) 6 ... ll:lb4 (6 ...d6 7..ig5 �d7 goes back into the main line, but 6... ll:le6 7.e3 b6 is quite interesting, for example 8..ie2 ib7 9.0-0 l:!b8 1 O.�d3 g6 l l .ll:ld5 !l.g7 12.�e4 0-0 l3..id2 ll:lxe5! 14.ll:lxe5 f5 15.�c2 .he5) 7.�d2 d6 8.ll:lb5 (8.ll:ld5 a5 9.exd6 .hd6 1 O.a3 ll:lxd5 l l .cxd5 0-0) 8 ...a6 9.�xb4 axb5 l O..ig5 �d7 l l .exd6 .hd6 12.�c3 0-0 ( l 2 ...ll:le4!?) 1 3.cxb5 �xb5 14.e3 �a4 1 5 .�c4 ll:lb3 ( l5...�c6 1 6.ll:ld4�e4 17.f.3 �g6 1 8.f4 b5 l9 .�c3 b4 20.�c4 i.a6 is not bad either, Zippy ­ Mozart, computer game 1994) 16.�xa4 fua4 1 7 .l:!bl l:!xa2 1 8./J.c4 .ie6! looks rather comfortable for Black, Gutm an.

...

.

28

1 9 ..ic4+ 1 :0 Matthews - Elieff, Lon­ don 1995, l l ....ixc3+ 1 2.bxc3 YMf6 could be played, but lO.YMd5+! 'it>f8 l l .YMd2 d6 12.lik3) S ..ixdS 'it>xdS 9.lik3 ges 10.e3 ( 10.0-0-0?, Piegeler - Wendland, corr 1 994, l O ....ixf2 1 U�d5 .ie3+) 10 ... li:lxe5 l l .li:lxe5 �be5 12.J.e2 d6 13 .0-0 a6 and Black is not worse, Gutman ; D) 6.g3! is more impressive, we see: Dl) 6...d6 7.ig5(7.exd6 hd6 S.J.g2 .ie6 9.�d 1 .ixc4, Perez - Lopez de Turizo, Madrid 2003) 7 ...�d7 (7 .. f6 S.exffi gxf6 9J.h4 Ae6 1 o.�d2 .i.g7 l l .li:la3 - instead of l l .li:ld4 hc4 12.li:lf5 0-0 l3.ig2 �eS 1 4.li:lc3 �e5, Fuester - Honfi, Budapest 1 950 -, 1 1 ...0-0 12.J.g2 a5 1 3 .0-0) S.exd6 ixd6 9. .ig2 li:lb4 1 0.�d2 �e6 1 1 .0-0 li:le4 12.YMcl 0-0 l3.J.e3, Gutman; further D1) 6...li:le6 7.J.g2 .ib4+ S.id2 (S.li:lbd2 b6 9.a3 .ie7 1 0.0-0 .ib7 l l .li:le4!? 0-0 1 2 ..ie3 is possible) S ....ixd2+ 9.YMxd2 0-0 l O.li:lc3 ges 1 1 .0-0 h6 (if l l ...li:lf8 12.YMg5! li:lxe5 13.YMxdS li:lxf3+ 14.hf3 gxdS 1 5.gfdl) l 2.gfd l li:lf8 l3.c5 li:lg6 14.li:ld5, Gutman; similarly D3) 6 ... h6, Tseitlin/Glask ov, 7 ..ig2 d6 S.exd6 .ixd6 9.J.e3 !? .ie6 1 O.ftd 1 �f6 l l .li:lc3 hc4 12.li:ld2 .ie6 l3.J.xc6+ bxc6 1 4 ..ixc5 .ixc5 1 5.li:lde4 YMd4 1 6.li:lxc5 �xc5 17 .0-0 0-0 l S.gc 1 securing a bet­ ter position for White, Gutman.

attack was dead in Brause - Y ggdrasi, computer game 1 995) S ...cxd6 9.e3 .ie6 l O.YMdl li:lc6 l l .li:lc3 g5 1 2.J.e2 h5 13.0-0 h4 14.li:ld5 with advantage, Szuveges ­ Van Leent, Vlissingen 2000. 7.�c:3 �c:6 8.exd6 1xd6 9.�b5

Others: I) 9.e3? li:lb4 lO.YMd2 YMfS l l .e4 li:lxe4 12.�e2 0-0 13.li:lxe4 ges 14.li:lf6+ gx f6 15.�xeS+ �g7 1 6.J.xf6+ YMxf6 1 7.0-0-0 li:lxa2+ 1 S.'it>d2 �xb2+ l S.'it>el .ib4+, Tchimino - Bielefeldt, corr 1 992; m 9.li:le4 li:lxe4 1 0.�xe4+ �e6 l l .�xe6 ixe6 l 2.gcl li:le5 l3.c5 li:lxf3+ 1 4.exf3 .ie5 1 5 .b3 f5 is level, Gutman. 9...�b4!

9...0-0 I O.li:lxd6 cxd6 l l .a3 ges 12.gdl ( l2.g3?! li:le5 l3 ..ig2 YMfS 1 4 .J.e3 .ie6 1 5.YMxd6 li:lcd3+ 16.exd3 li:lxf3+ 1 7.�e2 gadS l S.YMf4, Madhy - Jensen, Copen­ hagen 199S, 1S ...li:ld4+ 19.J.xd4 hc4+ 20.�fl YMxd3+ 2 l .�gl fud4) 1 2 ... li:le4 l 3 .e3 favours White, Gutman. I O.�xd6+ c:xd6 l l .tfdltfe6!

l l ...YMa4 1 2.li:ld4 0-0 1 3 .b3 YMa5 1 4.0 ges 15. 'it>t2! ( 15.e3? should be meet by 1 5 ... li:le6 16.li:lxe6 gxe6 1 7 ..if4 li:lc2+ 1S.'it>e2 �xd2+ 1 9.'it>xd2 li:lxa l , and not by 1 Lli:lcd3+ 16.J.xd3 li:lxd3+ 1 7.�e2 �xg5 1S.'it>xd3 .id7 1 9.e4 �g6 20.g4 gacS 2 l .YMf4 d5 22.cxd5 YMa6+ 23.�e3 �3+ 24.�f2. Finegold - Rogers, Pr.lgue 1990) 1 5 ...li:le6 1 6.J.e3 YMe5 l 7.gdl and Black is in trouble, Gutman.

6.1g5

6.exd6 .ixd6 7.YMg5 (7.li:lc3 ie6 S.�d4 0-0 9.e3 li:lc6 l O.�dl YMf6 l l .a3 gadS, Koebele - Brehmer, Hassloch 1997) 7 ... 0-0 S.�xdS gxdS 9.li:lc3 li:lc6, Gutman.

l l.e3 aS

The chances are about equal, e.g. l3..if4 (l3.li:ld4 YMg6 14 . .if4 0-0 15.a3 li:lbd3+ 16 ..ixd3 li:lxd3+ 1 7.�fl .ie6 1 S.li:lxe6 fxe6 1 9.J.g3 e5) l3 ...li:le4 14.YMc l li:lc5 1 5.YMc3 ( 1 5.YMb 1 YMf6 1 6.li:ld4 0-0 17 .a3 li:lc6) 1 5 ...YMg6 1 6.gdl 0-0 ( 1 6...li:le4?! 17.YMcl li:lxa2 lS.YMbl li:lb4 1 9.li:lh4 YMe6 20.gd4) 1 7.a3 ( 1 7.J.xd6?! li:le4 lS.YMe5 li:lxd6 1 9.YMxd6 .ie6) 17 ...li:lc2+ 1 S.�e2 li:la4 19.YMb3 li:lc5 with a draw, Gutm an.

6...tfd7

6..�7 7.J.xe7 YMxe7 S.exd6 (S.b4 should be met by S ...li:lcd7 9.exd6 cxd6 I O.�g5 f6, e.g. l l .YMh5+ g6 1 2 .YMb5 a6 l 3.�a4 0-0 1 4.li:lc3 li:le5 or l l .YMd2 li:le5, while after S ... 1e6 9.exd6 cxd6 lO.YMd4 li:lc6 l l .YMxg7 li:lxb4 12.YMxhS+ �d7 l3.�xaS YMf6 14.li:lfd2 YMxal 1 5 .YMxa7 YMh2 1 6.e4 �c l+ 17 .'it>e2 .ixc4+?! 1S.'it>f3 Black's 29

Chapter I

Part Two: The Steiner Variation ( l.d4 �f6 2.c4 eS 3.dxe5 �e4) 4.Vc2

• - ... \Wl . .'f� . ,. ... � �

?' ' '

f.

". ;·� ', � � ---:.. 7:tf i�J�···w �/. �

••r.• •i{rf?• •• -

-

iQ:.

-

' -�· . . � . . . � �\WI,., i!� ,., �_ f.Q!. W � O Q; O � �tD- W.t� .: s.�o

Other possibilities: I) 5 .b4 �e6 6.a3 d6 reaches a position after 4.a3 d6 5.�c2 �c5 6.b4 �e6, co­ vered in Part 5, Chapter 4, Section I ; U) 5 .a3 is best answered by 5 ... d6, trcms­ posing to 4.a3 d6 5 .�c2 �c5 - Part 5, Chapter 4, Section I, while 5...a5 6.� f3 �c6 transposes into 4.a3 �c6 5.�f3 a5 6.�c2 �c5 - Part 5, Chapter 3; Ill) 5.�c3 �c6 (for 5 ... d6!? 6.exd6 .ixd6 7.�f3 �c6 8.a3 see 4.a3 d6 5 .�c2 �c5 6.�f3 �c6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.�c3 - Part 5, Chapter 4, Section I ) 6.�f3 (6.f4?! d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.e4 �b4 9.�dl 0-0 I O.c;bf2 �f6 l l .g3 is strongly met by I I .. .ie5 ! 12..ie3 .ixc3, while Holm - BJorn, Co­ penhagen 1 963, went l l ...�d8 1 2.�f3 �cd3+ 1 3 .ixd3 .ic5+?! 14.c;bg2 �xd3 1 5.�ge2? �f2 1 6.�h5 .ih3+ 0:1 ) goes back into the main line, Gutman.

"As Borik says, this is the hardest move to meet. The strength of 4.�c2 depends on whether Black can support the knight for the one move by d7-d5 as a prepa­ ration for .. .i.f5 , or whether the knight will have to retreat. Indeed, this move is somewhat old-fashioned and I would always be happy to see White play it, but some of the lines are still considered critical", Tim Harding. "Another idea is 4.�c2, strategically very healthy, since it supports the develop­ ment ofthe knight to c3 and forces Black to take a decision. However, it does not enjoy a good reputation", Alfonso Ro­ mero .

"4.�c2, trying to evict the knight from e4 straight away, is also seen occasion­ ally", Bogdan Lillie.

s... �c6

The material divides as follows:

5 ... d6 is premature due to 6..ig5 �d7 (if 6....ie7 7.exd6 �xd6, Nett - Zimmermann, e-mail 2000, 8..ixe7 �xe7 9.�c3) 7.�c3 �c6 (or 7...�e6 8.ih4 �c6 9.�d5 �d7 IO.exd6 .ixd6 1 1 .0-0-0) 8Edl �b4 9.� I aS IO.a3 �c6 l l .e3, Gutman.

Chapter I - 4 ...lik5 Chapter 2 - 4 ... d5 Chapter 3 - 4....ib4+.

6.�c3!

30

Chapter 1 ( l .d4 �f6 1.c4 eS 3.dxe5 �e4 4.1fcl) 4 d5

Less effective are: I) 6.g3 d6! (6...ti'e7 7 .J.g2 lilxe5 8.lilxe5

ti'xe5 9 .J.d2 - 9 .J.f4 ti'f6 1 O ..bc7 lile6 l l ..ia5 is also good -, 9 ...d6 1 0.0-0 J.e7 l l .J.c3 t:Yh5 1 2 .J.xg7 �g8 1 3 .J.d4 �g6 14.J.f3 J.g4 1 5.J.xg4 ti'xg4 16bc5 dxc5 1 7 lld 1 J.d6, Warren - Szpisjak, Chi­ cago 1992, 1 8.lild2 ().()..0 l9.ti'e4) 7.exd6 (7 .J.g5 J.e7 8.J.xe7 !Nxe7 9.exd6 should be met by 9-cxd6 I O.a3 J.g4 l l.lilbd2 0-0, and not by 9 ...lilb4 I O.!Nc3 lilbd3+ l l .�d2 lile4+ 1 2.�xd3 lilxf2+ 13.�c2 !Ne4+ 14.'ilib3 lilxhl 15.lilg5 'eNg6 16.!Ne3+ J.e6 1 7 .J.g2) 7 ...J.xd6 (better than 7 ... !Nxd6 8.J.g2 lilb4 9.!Nc3 lile4 l O .!Nb3 lilc5 I I .!Ne3+ J.e6 1 2.lila3 0-0-0 1 3.0-0 a6 14..Ad2 lild7 151lfd l lilffi l 6.!Na7 and White won easily, Gutters - Olafsson, Akun:yri 1983) 8.a3 (8.J.g2 lilb4 9.�c3 lile4 1 0.�3 lilc5 l l .ti'e3+ J.e6 12.lila3 0-0 1 3 .0-0 �e8) 8 ... J.g4 9.lilbd2 (9.J.g2 J.xf3 1 O.J.xf3 lild4) 9 ... aS 1 O.J.g2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 a4 with counterplay, Gutman; D) 6.a3 d6! (6...a5 transposing to 4.a3 lilc6 5.lilt3 a5 6.ti'c2 lilc5, and 6_ti'e7, see 4.a3 lilc6 5.lilf3 ti'e7 6.ti'c2 lilc5, are covered in Part 5, Chapter 3. 6... lile6 7.lilc3 fa­ vours White, e.g. 7 ... b6 8..Ad2 .ib7 9.e3 g5 IO.lild5 J.g7 l l ..ic3 g4 1 2.lild4 lilxe5 l 3.lilf5 .tR; 14.0-0-0 or 7 ...gS 8.lild5 J.g7 9.ti'f5 h6 1 0.h4; less accurate is 7.e3 g5 8.h3 J.g7 9.J.e2, when instead of9 . . b6 I O.J.d2 J.b7 l l .J.c3 ti'e7 12 .lilbd2 0-0? 1 3 .h4, Rasmussen - Simonsen, Faroe 1 999, 9...lilxe5 1 O.lilxe5 J.xe5 l l .J.d2 d6 12 .lilc3 c6 could be played) reaches aposition after4.a3 d6 5.ti'c2 lilc5 6.lilf3 lilc6 - Part 5, Chapter 4, Section 1 .

..•

4... d5 gives up all hope ofrecovering the pawn; indeed Black may throw one or two more into the pot if White is greedy. This move is in the spirit of the Fighting Faj, but may not be fu lly correct, Tim Harding. 5.exd6! White has no timefor slack moves. The knight on e4 must be deprived ofpro­ tection, Otto Borik.

Alternatives: I) 5.lild2 J.fS (5 .. .J.b4 will transpose into 4.ti'c2 J.b4+ 5.lild2 d5 - Chapter 3, Sec­ tion 2) 6.ti'a4+ (6.lilxe4 dxe4 7.e3 J.b4+ 8.J.d2 .bd2+ 9.ti'xd2, Seeger - Fischer, Germany 1 997, 9...ti'e7 is excellent for Black. In case of 6.ti'b3 hoping for 6 ... lilc6 7.cxd5 lild4 8.ti'a4+ b5 9.ti'xd4 J.cS l O.ti'xe4 .be4 l l .lilxe4, 6...lilc5!? 7.ti'f3 J.e4 8.lilxe4 dxe4 9.ti'c3 lilc6 would be the right answer) 6 ... lilc6 7.lilgf3 (7.cxd5 is shown to be careless by 7 ... ti'xd5 8. lilgf3 � 9.a3 J.c5 1 O.e3 lilxe5 l l .lilxe4 .be4 12.lilxe5 ti'xe5 l 3 .J.e2 �d6 14.0-0 �g6 1 5 .13 J.d6 1 6.g3 �xg3+, Gerard ­ . Orlandi, France 1998. 7 .lilxe4 dxe4 IS also unpleasant for White, e.g. 8.a3 !Nd4

.

6 ...h6 7.a3 aS

This position, first reached in Ander­ sen - Junker, corr 1 942 (Skakbladet, 1 948). is treated under 4.a3 lilc6 5.lilf3 a5 6.ti'c2 lilc5 7.lilc3 h6 - Part 5, Chapter 3.

Jl

9.e3 "t!fxe5 l O.ltle2 0-0-0 l l .ltlc3 h5 or 8.id2 "t!fd4 9.ic3 ib4 1 0."t!fxb4 ltlxb4 l lbd4 ltlc2+ 12.� ltlxd4 1 3.� Q.O.O 14.f4, NussbaKher - Klinger, Germany 1 996, 14 ...e3 15.ltlf3 c5) 7 ...ltlc5 (7 ..ib4 8.a3 hd2+ 9.ixd2 transposes to 4."t!fc2 ib4+ 5.ltld2 d5 6.a3 hd2+ 7..ixd2 its 8."t!fa4+ ltlc6 9.ltlf3 - Chapter 3, Section 2) 8."t!fdl dxc4 9.ltlxc4"t!fxdl+ 10.Wxdl ltle4 l l .Wel ib4+ 1 2 .id2 ltlxd2 l 3 .ltlcxd2 0-0-0 1 4 .a3, Tabemig - Schlindwein, Germany 2001 , 14 ... ixd2+! ? 1 5 .ltlxd2 ltlxe5 1 6.e4 l=ihe8 leads to advantage for Black, Gutman ; II) 5.a3 if5 6.ltlc3 (White can expect only trouble from 6."t!fa4+ ltlc6, for in­ stance 7.ltlf3 ltlc5 8."t!fdl dxc4 or 7.e3 ltlc5 8."t!fdl dxc4 9."t!fxd8+ gxd8, Asensio Granados, Cordoba 1 995. Likewise 6. "t!fb3 and now not 6...ltlc5 7."t!fdl dxc4 8."t!fxd8+ 'i!;lxd8 9.ig5+ ie7 l O.ixe7+ Wxe7 l l .ltlc3 gds 12 .e4 ie6, Eshuis Peters, Gocb 1992, but 6...ltlc6, viz. 7.cxd5 ltld4! 8."t!fa4+ b5 9."t!fxd4 ic5 10."t!fd3 ixf2+ l l .'i!;ldl !xg l ) 6 ... ic5 (6 ... ltlg3? 7.e4 ltlxe4 8.td3) 7.ltlxe4 he4 (7 ...dxe4 8.e3 ltlc6 9.b4) 8."t!fb3 ltlc6 9.ltlf3 (9.e3 d4 !?) 9 ... ltld4 1 0 .ltlxd4 ixd4 l l ."t!fxb7 0-0 1 2.0 gbs 1 3 ."t!fc6 gb6 14."t!fa4 ig6 with good attacking chances, Gutman; Ill) 5.cxd5 is more intriguing. •

Black has two possibilities:

A) 5 .. ..ifS, and now: Al) 6."t!fa4+ c6 7.d6 (7.dxc6 ltlxc6 8.ltlf3 "t!fb6 9.e3 0-0-0 1 O.ie2 ib4+ l l .ltlbd2

g5 - l l ...ltlxd2 12bd2 hd2+ l 3.ltlxd2 �d2 14.Wxd2 "t!fxb2+ is simpler, Bogdlm Lillie -, 12."t!lh5 g4 l3."t!fxb6 axb6 14.ltlh4 ie6 and White is lost, Molina - Gomez, Argentina 1993) 7 .. ."t!fb6 8.e3 (8.ltlh3?! ltld7 9.f3 ltlec5 IO."t!ff4hh3 l l .gxh3 ltle6 12."t!fe4 "t!fa5+ 1 3 .ltlc3 "t!fxe5) 8 ..."t!fc5 ! (if 8...ltld7, Ltzlic, then 9.f3 ltlec5 IO."t!fd4) 9.ltld2 ltlxd2 l O.hd2 "t!fxe5 l l ."t!fb4 b5 12.ic3 hd6 l3.'Wh4 "t!fe6 14.ixg7 ggs 1 5 .J.c3 b4 16.J.d2 gg4 appears to hold a balance, Gutman; A2) 6.ltlc3 tb4 7 .td2 (Absurd is 7."t!fa4+ ltlc6, for example 8."t!ib3? ltld4 9."t!fa4+ b5 1 O."t!fdl ltlxc3 l l ."t!fxd4 c5 0:1 Turkka ­ Haenninen, Helsinki 1 952, or S .Jdl hc3 9.ixc3 "t!fxdS l O.ltlf3 0-0-0 l l .e3 ltlxc3 1 2.bxc3 .ie4. 7."t!fb3 is a more critical test: 7 ..."t!fe7 8.ltlf3 ltld7 9.g3, e.g. 9...0-0 l O.ig2 ltlxe5 l l .ltlxe5 !xc3+ 12.bxc3 "t!fxe5 13M4 or 9...ltlxe5 1 O.ltlxe5 hc3+ l l .bxc3 "t!fxe5 1 2 f3 holding a plus for White, while 7 ... c5? 8.a3 "t!fb6, Busch ­ Richter, Hagen 1 978, loses to 9.axb4! c4 1 0."t!fa4+ td7 l l .ie3) 7 .. .ixc3 8.ixc3 "t!fxd5 9.gdl ! (Oieg Neikirch analyses 9.ltlf3 ltlg3 1 0.e4 "t!fxe4+ l l ."t!fxe4 ltlxe4, viz. 12.id4 ltlc6 l 3 . .ib5 .id7 1 4.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 5.J.e3 ltlxe5 16.ltlxe5 hb5 with equality, yet 9 ... ltlc6 is more flexible, e.g. 1 O.e3? ltlg3, DlDlkel - Liberto, Wild bad 1 993, or 1 O."t!fb3 ltlxc3 l l ."t!fxc3 .ig4) 9 ..."t!fc5 (9 ...ltlxc3 1 O.fudS hc2 l l .bxc3 ltlc6 1 2.f4 We7, Coudere - Gedult, Paris 1 97 1 , 13.gd2!? ie4 14.e3 �8 1 5.ltlf3) IO.e3 ltlxc3 (IO ...ltlg3? l l ."t!fd2) l l ."t!fxc3 "t!fxc3+ 1 2.bxc3 ltld7 1 3 .f4! (l3.ltlf3 ie6 14.a3 0-0-0, instead of 13 ...ig4?! 14.&14 thS 15.J.b5 0-0-0 1 6.g4, Hernando Rod­ rigo - Vasquez Gamero , Barrelona 1 996) l3 ...ie6 1 4.a3 0-0-0 1 5.ltlf3 did not give Black full compensation, Gutman. 32

B) L't!fxdS ! (gets the queen into action with tempo, Harding) 6.ltlc3 (6.ltlt3 ltlc6

ltlxeS 1 2 .ie2 ie6 leaves Black with a slight edge; however, less precise is 6 ... 't!fxdS, when instead of7.ltlf3 .if5 8.'t!fc4 't!faS+ 9.id2 ltlxd2 IO.ltlbxd2 ib4 l l.'t!fbS ().()..() 12.'t!fxa5 txa5 l3.a3 ixd2+ 14.ltlxd2 ltlxeS, Turon Gimeno - Tomas Batet, Gent 1996, 7 ..ic4 ib4+ 8.�fl !? 't!fxeS 9.ltlf3 't!fe7 10.ad5 f5 l l.a3 td6 12.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 l3.ixd2 td7 14.e4 might be tried) 6_.tf5 (6_.J.b4+ 7.ltlc3 see 4.'t!fc2 aM+ S.ltlc3 dS 6.ltlf3 ltlc6 7.e3 - Chapter 3, Section 3, yet 6...ltlb4 7.'t!fa4+td7 8.'t!fdl dxc4 9.a3 lDd3+ 1 O.i.xd3 cxd3 l l .O-O ltlcS 1 2.ltld4 aS 1 3 .ltlc3 l::!a6 is interesting) 7.ltlc3 (7.'t!fdl is best met by 7 .. ..ib4+!? 8.ltlbd2 d4 9.exd4 ltlxd4 IO.ltlxd4 ixd2+ l l ..ixd2 't!fxd4 1 2 . .ie3 't!fxb2 l3.'t!fd4 't!fb4+, Vasquez - Liascovich, Buenos Aires 200 1 . On 7 ... dxc4 8.'t!fxd8+ l::!xd8 9. .ixc4 .ib4+ 1 O.�e2 ltlaS White may play l l .a3 ! ? ie7 12..ia2 ltlcS 1 3.ltld4, instead of l l ..ibS+ c6 1 2.b4 ltlcS 1 3.a3 .id3+ 14.�d l , S. Rubinstein - Becker, Vienna 1 932, 14 ...ixb l+! I S .ltld4 .ic3 16.bxc3 ltlxa4) 7 ...ltlb4 (7 ...ltlg3? 8.'t!fa4 ltJxh 1 9.cxdS td7 IO.dxc6 ixc6 l l ..ibS hardly inspires sympathy, Issakainen Heikkinen, Finland 1 999) 8 .'t!fa4+ c6 9.ltld4 ltlcS I O.'t!fdl (I O.'t!fxb4?! ltld3+ l l .ixd3 ixb4 1 2.ixf5 cS l3.ltldbS 't!fgS) 1 O ...ig6 and Black is fine, Gutman; V) S .lDO is a solid response.

7.ltlbd2 ifS 8.ltlxe4 ixe4 9.'t!fdl txf3 IO.exf3 ib4+ was a disaster for White in Tyson - Chaplin, Bristol 1 993. 6.ltld2 .ib4 goes into 4.'t!fc2 ib4+ S.ltld2 dS 6. cxdS 't!fxdS, a line regarded as good for Black - Chapter 3, Section 2, while 6 ... .if5 7.'t!fd3 't!fxeS 8.ltlf3 't!faS 9.ltlh4 ltlxd2 IO..ixd2 ixd3 l l ..ixaS ltJc6 12.ic3 ie4 l 3 .a3 ie7 14.ltlf3 0-0 is even) 6 ...ltlxc3 (6.. � transposes to 4.'t!fc2ab4+ S.ltlc3 dS 6.cxdS 't!fxdS - Chapter 3, Section 3) 7.'t!fxc3 aS 8..id2 (8.a3? ib4 9.axb4 axb4 I OJ�xa8 bxc3 1 U :!xb8 c2 12 ..id2 't!faS, Roger Thomsen) 8 .. ..ib4 9.'t!fe3 ixd2+ 1 O.'t!fxd2 't!fxeS l l .ltlf3 't!fe7 with a pleas­ ant position for Black, Gutman. IV) S .e3 looks a bit passive.

S ...ltlc6 (S ...i.f5 6.'t!fdl aM+ 7.id2 ltlxd2 8.ltlxd2 ltlc6 9.a3 .ixd2+ I O.'t!fxd2 dxc4 l l .ltlf3 't!fxd2+ 12.�xd2 ig4 l3 ..ixc4 ix f3 14.gxf3 ltlxeS is hannless, while 6..id3? ltlc6 gives White a plenty of pro� terns, e.g. 7.a3 ltlxeS 8.'t!fa4+ bS 9.'t!fxb5+ c6 IO.'t!fb3 ltlcS, Kargaard - Thomsen, Copenhagen 1994, or 7.'t!fdl ib4+8.'i!i>e2, Ros - Thomsen, Denmark 1 994, when 8_,Y:!ih4 9.g3 't!ihS+ IO.f3 ltlxg3+ l l .hxg3 't!fxhl 12..ixf5 't!fg2+ was decisive) 6.ltlf3 (6.cxdS ib4+ 7.ltld2 't!fxdS 8.i.c4 ixd2+ 9..b.d2 't!fxd2+ IO.'t!fxd2 ltlxd2 l l .�xd2 33

S...�fS ! (5.)tlc6 6..id2? .15 7.�3 ltlc5 8."t!re3 d4 9."t!ff4 "t!rd7 I O.g4.ixg4 I I ..ig2 0-0-0 12.0-0 h5 13.h4 f6 14.b4 lLle6 gave Black advantage in Mueller - Schebler, Bad Mergentheim 1 988, yet 6.a3!? .if5 7.ltlc3 seems reasonable, e.g. 7 ...ltlg3 8. "t!ra4 ltlxhl 9.cxd5 .id7 I O.dxc6 .ixc6 I I ."t!rc4or 7.. ..tc5 8.e3 ltlg3 9."t!ra4 ltlxhl IO.cxd5 Ad? l l .dxc6 .ixc6 12..ib5) 6.�3 (6.ltlc3?! is strongly met by 6 ..ic5, and also 6."t!ra4+?! l0c6 is hardly viable for White, for instance 7..ie3ib4+8.ltlbd2 d4 9..if4 g5 IO.a3 ltlc5 I I ."t!rdl gxf4 12.axb4 ltlxb4 1 3 .�kl d3, Mititelu - Seimeanu, Romania 1 955, or 7.e3 ltlc5 8."t!rdl ltlb4 9.ltla3, Borik, 9..clobd3+ IO..ixd3 lLlxd3+ I I .'i!;le2 .txa3 12."t!ra4+ "t!rd7) 6...ltlc5 (on 6 ... ltlc6 7.cxd5 ltlb4 White has 8.ltld4! ltlc5 9."t!rdl .ig4 10.0 "t!rxd5 l l .e3 .id7 1 2 .a3 ltlc6 13.b4 ltle6 1 4.ltlxc6, while 8.d6 is wrong due to 8 ... a5 9.ltld4 cxd6 IO.ltlx5"t!rc8 I I ."t!ra4+ �8 12.ltlc3 "t!rxfS) 7."t!rdl ltlc6 8.cxd5 (other defences fail miserably, e.g. 8.a3 dxc4 9."t!rxd8+ �d8, Linn - Brauening, Trier 1992, 8.e3ltlb4 9.lLla3lLlbd3+ I O..ixd3 ltlxd3+ I I .'i!;le2 .txa3 12."t!ra4+ c6 13."t!rxa3 dxc4, Roque ­ Cumillon, corr 1 997, or 8..ig5 ffi 9.exf6 gxf6 I O ..if4 "t!re7 l l .e3 0-0-0) 8 ... ltlb4 9.ltla3 ltlxd5 (9..."t!rxd5 I O."t!rxd5 ltlxd5 I I .ltlb5 ltle4 12.a3) I O.ltlb5 c6 (IO... ltle6 l l .e4.ixe4 12."t!ra4 ltlc5 1 3.ltlxc7+ 'i!;le? 14.ltlxd5+ "t!rxd5 1 5 ."t!ra3) I I .ltlbd4 .ig6 1 2 .a3 .ie7 13.e3 0-0 1 4 ..ie2 a5 1 5 .0-0 a4 with counterplay, Gutman.

8..ie2 .ic6 9..ie3 ltld7 I O.ltld2 "t!re7 l l .b4 5, when 12 .lLlgO might have been tried) 7.ltlc3 ltlc6 8..ie3 ltlxe4 (8 ..."t!re7 9.ltld5 "t!ff1 1 0.0) 9.ltlxe4 fxe4 IO."t!rxe4+ "t!re7 I I ..id3 "t!rxe4 1 2 ..txe4 appears inade­ quate, Feistenauer - Philipps, corr 1 990.

•

Black i� intent on commencing a central battle and hopes to prove that the white queen u misplaced on c2. A lthough ob­ jectively not entirely sound, this sharp continuation has brought him many re­ sounding victories, Lillie. 6.�d!

According to Max Euwe this move was found by Apking, a Dutch player, in 1 944, yet Niels Jensen traces it back to Skakbladet, / 94/.

Other continuations are: I) 6.0? "t!lh4+ (not 6 ... ltlg3 7.e4, Nicola Min ev) 7.g3 ltlxg3, Tseitlin/Giaskov; II) 6."t!rdl .ixd6 7.ltld2 ltlc6 (7 ...ltlc5 is probably not weaker, 8 .lLlgO ltlc6 9.a3 "t!re7 I O.e3 0-0-0 l l .b4 ltld3+ 12 ..ixd3 .ixd3 13.�3 .if4 14..ib2 .ixe3 1 5.fxe3 "t!rxe3+ 16.�1 ie2+ 1 7.rtJc2 l::!d3 18.i£:3, Arlandi - Lanzani, Milan Zonal l 985, 18....ixf3 1 9.ltlxt3 "t!re2+ winning) 8.ltlgf3 (8.a3 ltld4) 8 ... ltlb4 9.ltlxe4 (9.a3 ltlc3 IO.bxc3 ltlc2+) 9. ..ixe4 I O.ltld4 "t!fffi l l.e3 c5 1 2."t!ra4+ 'i!;le7 1 3 .a3 (13 ..id2 aS) 1 3 ... cxd4 14.axb4 dxe3 with attack, Gutman;

Back to the main line

s.. .trs

5 ... ltlxd6 6.e4 (6.ltlc3 ie6 7.e4 ltld7 8.b3 .ie7 9..ib2 0-0 I O.lLlO c6 I I ..ie2 .if6 12.0-0 "t!rc7 13J:!adl l:Ud8 1 4.l:Uel ltle5 1 5 .ltld4, Markus - Tuchtenhagen, corr 1 987) 6 ... f5 (Sjeng - GLChess, com­ puter game 2000, went 6.. ..id7 7.c5 ltlc8 34

III) 6.g4 is a rather artificial try, 6 ...

game, Borik, e.g. 9.Y!Jc3 /Oc6 IO.a3 �e8

.ig6 7 .J.g2 (7.dxc7 Y!Jxc7 8..ig2 .ib4+!? 9 ..id2 /Oxd2 I 0.Y!Ia4+ /Oc6 l l ..ixc6+ bxc6 12.10xd2 m>s 131ldl 0-0 14.a3 .id6 IS.b4 hh2 16./0gf3 .if4 1 7./0h4 �be8 18./0xg6 fxg6 19./00 Y!Je7 20.Y!Jc2 .id2+ 2 1 1lxd2 �0 was fine for Black, Jaeger ­ Schneider, corr 199S) 7 ...IOcS (7...10xd6 8.Y!Ib3 /0d7 9.J.e3 c6 I O./Oc3 Y!JaS is not bad either) 8.dxc7 Y!Jxc7 9.Y!Ic3 10c6 I O.a3 � I I �3 (on 1 1 .100 Black can play I I ..J.e7 12.0-0 tf6 13 .Y!Ie3 .id4 14.Y!If4 Y!Je7, while l l ... hS was seen in Mullon ­ Coursaget, Saint Lo 2001 ) 1 1 .../0eS !? (I I .. .J.d6 12./00 /Oe4 13.Y!Jcl hS 1 4.gS h4 I S ..ih3+ �b8 16.cS .ieS 17./0xeS ltlxeS looks after 18./0c3 /OxcS 19.0-0 /Ob3 20.J.xa7+ �a8 21 .Y!Jf4 /0xal 22.J.e3 quite promising for White, improving on 1 8.0?! /Og3 19.hxg3 /0d3+ 20.exd3 Y!Jxg3+, Gervais - Coursaget, Montlu­ con 1 997) 1 2.h3 (or 1 2.b4 /0e4 13./0xe4 .ixe4 14.0 .ig6 I S ./Od2 .ie7 16 .�fl IDleS) 12...l'ile4 13.Y!Icl .icS 14./0c3 /0xc3 I S .Y!Jxc3 �e8 with pressure, Gutman; IV) 6.Y!Ib3 .ixd6 (6.../0xd6 is best an­ swered by 7./0d2 /0c6 8.e3 Y!ld7 9./0gO 0-0-0 I O.J.d.J, while 7 .J.f4?! /Oc6 8./00 l'ile4 9.Y!Jxb7 .!M+ 10./0bd2 /0d4 1 1.10xd4 Y!Jxd4 12.Y!Jxb4 Y!lxf2+ 13.�1 Y!Jxf4 left White with a terrible position, Bolker ­ Rother, corr 1 938) 7./0d2 (7.Y!Jxb7 0-0 8./00 /0d7 9./0bd2 /0df6 10./0xe4 /0xe4 l l .e3 �b8 12.Y!JdS .ib4+ 13 .<;!;>e2 /0d6 and I cannot see White's king surviving too long. 7./00 /Oc6 8./0c3 also hardly makes sense in view of 8....ib4 - less convincing is 8 ... /0b4, when instead of 9.a3? /OcS IO.Y!Jxb4 aS, Lorbek - Vos­ pemik, Slovenia 199 1 , 9./0d4 itS I O.e3 .ixd4 1 1 ./0xe4 Y!Je7 12.id2 Y!Jxe4 13bb4 0-0-0 14.cS could be played -, 9.e3 /0cS IO.Y!Jdl Y!Jxdl+ l l .'i!?xdl 0-0-0+) 7 ... 0-0 8.Y!Ixb7 (relatively better was 8./0gf3 !? /OcS, though Black still has a very active

l l .e3 .ie7 or 9.Y!Jdl /Oc6 I O.a3 aS l l .e3 �e8 12.J.e2 .ie7 13.0-0 a4) 8 .. .J.cS 9.e3 (neither 9./0xe4 .ixe4 I O.Y!Jxe4 .ib4+, nor 9.Y!Jxa8 .ixf2+ IO.�d l .ie3 1 1 ./00 /Of2+ 1 2.�e i, Borik, 12 ...c6! 13.g4 .ic2 14.�gl l0e4 IS.!ig2 Y!Jd7 16.gS /Oa6 are enjoyable for White) 9 ... Y!Je7 10./0dO (10./0g0 /0xf2! l l .�xf2 Y!lxe3+) 10 ... .!M+ I I.Jd2 /0xd2 12.10xd2 � 13.tvbS �8 14.0-0-0 Y!Jd6 IS./Ogf3 .ixO 16.gx0 .ixd2+ 1 7.<;!;>b i /Oc6 1 8.cS Y!Jg6+ 19.e4 Uab8 20.Y!Jc4 Y!lffi 2 1 .b3 10a5 0:1 Gilfer ­ Richter, Olympiad Munich 1 936; V) 6.Y!Ja4+ /Oc6 7./0f3 (7.a3 Y!Jxd6 8.J.e3 Y!lf6 9.Y!Jb3 0-0-0 10./00 .icS, while 9 ... ltlaS, Nystrom - Nieminen, Tampere 1 989, is less clear due to I O.Y!JbS+ .id7 I I .Y!JxaS Y!Jxb2 1 2 .Y!JdS 0-0-0 13.Y!Jxe4 J.a4 14.Y!If5+ <;t>b8 1 S.f4 Y!Jxal l 6.\tlf2 �1 17 ./Od2. A I so 7 .J.f4 hd6 8.J.xd6 Y!Jxd6 did not help White, e.g. 9.0 /0g3 I O.hxg3 Y!Jxg3+ l l .�d2 � 12.�3 Y!Je l+ 13. �b3 .ic2+ 0: I M icholiksova - Pallova, Budapest 1 987, or 9.e3 1).0.{) 10�2 /0cS I I.Y!Ia3 /0b4, Anatoli Matsukevkh) 1 ... hd6 reaches one critical position.

There are a number of continuations: A) 8.e3 10cS 9.Y!Jd I /Ob4, Erich Eli.flulses; B) 8./0bd2 10cS 9.Y!Jdi /Ob4 IO.e4 /0xe4 1 1 ./0d4 .icS 1 2./02b3 .ixd4 1 3./0xd4 Y!Jxd4 0: I Ungar - Kostic, Sarajevo 1 948; 3S

C) s .aJ ef6 9.g3 (9.lt:l bd2 lt:lc5 w.edl

0-0-0 l l .e3 maes 1 2.J.e2 lt:ld3+ l3.J.xd3 .lxd3 14.eb3 .ic5 15.lt:lfl eg6 16.lt:lg3 .lc2 17.ec3 �l+ 18.�e2 Jd4 0: 1 Ness ­ Rigenstrup, Drammen 1 947) 9 ... 0-0-0 (9 ....lc5!? l O ..lg2 .lxf2+ l l .�fl lt:lc5 1 2 .ed 1 gds 1 3 .lt:lbd2 .le3 looks even stronger, Jensen) IO.lt:lbd2 ( lO.J.g2 lt:lc5 l l .edl .ixg3, Borik) IO ... lt:lc5 l l .edl ghe8 12..tg2 .ld3 l3.e3 .le5 (l3 ...eg6! threatening 14 .. ,gxe3+ 1 5.fxe3 exg3+, Stefan Buecker, Kaissiber, 1 612001) 14.lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 1 5.f4 .lxc4 1 6.'it>f2 .le6

We examine: A) 7.ea4+ lLlc6 8.lt:lf3 � 9.J.e3 (others are not better: 9.lt:lbd2 lt:lc5 IO.edl lt:lb4 or 9.id2 eb6 IO.eb3 exf2+ l l .'it>d 1 ib4 1 2 .'it>cl lt:lxd2 l3 .lt:lbxd2 gxd2 1 4.lt:lxd2 eel+ 1 5.edl .ixd2 mate Klastev - Do­ nev, Bulgaria 1 954) 9 ... lt:lc5 (9 ... lt:lb4?! l O.lt:la3 lt:la6 l l .c5 .lxc5 12.J.xc5 lt:lexc5 l3.ec4 was seen in Mira - Graf, Vienna 1999) IO..hc5 .lxc5 l l .e3 m6 1 2.eb3 ( 1 2.eb5 lt:lb4 1 3.a3 ed6 14.ea4 ef6) 1 2 .. .J.b4+ 13 .lt:lc3 lt:la5 0: 1 Andre - We­ ber, corr 1 995; B) 7.m3 lt:lc6 8.lt:lf3 0-0-0 9.J.d2 (9.e3 ? lt:lc5 , e.g. 1 o.ea3 lt:lb4 l l .exa7 lt:lc2+, Roessner - Kipke, Berlin 1933, or I O.ec3 00+ l l.J.xd3�d3. while 9.J.e3 is pun­ ished by 9...lt:lb4 1 O.a3 ea5 l l.lt:lbd2 lt:lc5) 9 ...lt:la5 (9.. ..ic5 1 0.e3 is less precise, e.g. IO .. .lt:lb4? l l .J.xb4 ed6 1 2.a3, Davey Richter, corr 1 985, or 1 O ... ee7 l l ..ie2 g5 1 2.lt:lc3 g4 13.lt:ld5 ee6 14.lt:lh4 lt:lxd2 1 5.'it>xd2 .le4 16.'it>e l ) IO.ea4 (I O.eb5 .ic5 l l .lt:ld4 lt:lxd2 12.lt:lxd2 a6 1 3 .ea4 .lxd4 0: 1 Froemmel - Rost, corr 1 987) 1 O...lt:lxc4 l l .exa7 (after l l.e3 lt:lexd2 1 2.lt:lbxd2 lt:lxb2 1 3.m3 00+ 14.J.xd3 .ixd3, Harding, White has no valid de­ fence, e.g. l 5.lt:ld4 gxd4 1 6 .exd4 ee7+ l 7 .'it>dl ee2+ 1 8 .'it>c l 'it>b8 or 1 5 .eb2 'it>b8 16..lkl ea5 17.ee5+ exe5 18.lt:lxe5 ib4 19.lt:lxf7 �8 20.11d 1 ges) l l ...ed7!

( The world premiere could have been perfect after 16 ... lt:led3+ 1 7 .'it>gl gxe3

1 8 .lt:lf3 ge l+! 1 9.lt:lxel ed4+, Borik) 17.h3 lt:lb3 1 8.'it>gl lt:lxal 19.fxe5 exe5 2o.en .id5 2 l .e4 .lc6 22.'it>h2 lt:lc 2!? 23 .exf7 gf8 (23...lt:le3!, Borik) 24.eb3 lt:ld4 25 �c3 ga 26.ge l gdtB 27.�h l ef6 28.gfl gxfl+ 29.lt:lxfl exfl +?? (29 .. .J.xe4) 30..lxfl gxfl + 3 l .'it>g2 1 :0 Steiner - Fajarowicr., WiesiNulen 1918; D) s.g3 .lc5 (8 ... lt:lc5 9.edl lt:lb4 IO.lt:la3 ee7 l l .J.g2 lt:lbd3+ 1 2.�fl ) 9.J.e3 effi 1 O..lxc5 exb2 (The famous game van Doesburgh - Richter, Olympiad Munich 1 936, continued 1 o ... lt:lxc5 l l .ea3 �e7 12.e3? .lxb 1 l3.gxbl ee4 14.lt:ld2 exh l 1 5.exc5 exh2 1 6.lt:lf3 \Wh6 1 7..!!d l �f6 1 8.ih3 gds 19Jhd8+ exd8 20.lt:lg5 h6 2 l .lt:le4 ee7 22.ed5 0.0 23.lt:lc5 lt:lb4 0:1 , but White can do better with 12.J.g2, e.g. 12 ...00 + l3.'it>fl exaJ 14.lt:lxa3 lt:lxb2 1 5 .lt:lh4 .le6 16m> l lt:lxc4 1 7.lt:lxc4 .lxc4 1 8 .gxb7 'it>d7 19 .gb2 gadS 20.lt:lf5 or 12 ...lt:lb4 l 3 .lt:ld4 0-0-0 14.0-0) l l ..id4 ee l + 1 2 .ed l exd l+ 1 3.'it>xd l 0-0-0! ( l 3 ...lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 0-0-0 1 5.e3 c5 16.0 lt:lffi 1 7.lt:ld2 cxd4 18.o4, EI.Ukases) 14.�1 (14.e3 lt:lxt2+ 1 5 .� l lt:lxhl 1 6.J.g2 maes 1 7.� lt:lxd4 1 8 .exd4 �d4) 14 ... lt:lxd4 maintains a plus for Black, Gutman. VI) 6.dxc7 exc7 only increases Black's already dangerous initiative, Borik. 36

( l l . . ..ic5 12.Yh8+ �d7 I H�a4+ �c8 1 4.e3 ltlexd2 1 5 .ltlbxd2 ltlxb2 1 6.Wb3 ltld3+ 1 7 .i.xd3 .ixd3 , Harding, 18 .& I b6 1 9.ltlc4!? favours White) 12.e3 .ic5 1 3 .Wa8+ �c7 14.Wxd8+ lhd8 1 5..ixc4 .ig4 1 6..ia5+ b6 1 7 .ltlc3 .bf3 18.ltld5+ �b7 19.gxf3 ltlg5 20 ..ic3 l0xf3+ with decisive advantage for Black, Gutman ; C) 7.ltlc3 .ib4 (7... ltlg3? loses to 8.Wa4+ .id7 9.ltlb5, while 7... ltlxf2 8.Wxf5 l0xhl is strongly met by 9.ltld5!, for example 9...Wxc4 IO.We5+ �d7 l l .e4 Wc2 12.Wf5+ �d8 I3.i.g5+ ffi 14..&1 or 9 ...Wd7, Man­ ninen - Vahtera, Finland 1999, IO.We4+ .ie7 l l .g3 ltlxg3 12.hxg3 ltlc6 13 ..ih3 Wd8 14 ..ig5), when White has: Cl) 8.Wb3 ltlc6 9.ltlf3 (9.ie3 a5 !? I O.a3 a4 l l .axb4 axb3 12fu.a8+ �d7 13 .lhh8 ltlxc3 I4.id2 ltld4 I 5.ixc3 ltlc2+ 16.'it>dl Wd6+ I7..id2 Wd4 18.e4 Wxe4 19.c5 ltld4 20.ltle2 Wbl+, Pretto - Mairal, corr 1998) 9 ...0-0-0 I O ..ie3 Wa5 ! (instead of 10 ... mte8 l l .a3 .ic5 1 2.ltlxe4 .be3 13.Wxe3 .be4 I4.Wc3 .bn I 5.Wxf3 ltld4 16.Wc3 Wa5 17 ..& I , Schmidt - Lauer, Eppingen 1 988) l i ..&I ltlxc3 12.bxc3 .ia3 1 3 J�d l ( 13 J:�al ltlb4 1 4.ltld4 �bd4 1 5 ..ixd4, Lilley - Rivlin, Yorkshire 1948, 15 .. .ic2, HillkbrtuUVBerke/1) 1 3 ..fu.d l+ 14.�xdl gd8+ 1 5 ..id2 ( 1 5 . .id4 ltlxd4 1 6.l0xd4 gxd4+ 1 7.cxd4 .id7 and 1 5 .�el fails to 1 5 ... ltlb4 1 6.ltld4 gxd4 1 7 ..ixd4 ic2) 15 ....ie4 16.�e l (1 6.e3 .ixf3+ 1 7 .gxf3 Wf5 1 8J.g2 ltle5) 16 ....ixf3 1 7.exf3 We5+ 1 8 ..ie2 ge8 1 9.Wdl .ib2 20.f4 We4 is awkward for White, Gutman; Cl) 8.id2 ltlxd2! (Black cannot be satis­ fied with 8 .. .ixc3 9.ixc3 ltlg3 IO.e4 .ixe4 I I .id3 .ixd3 12.Wxd3 ltlxh I 13.ixg7 gg8 14.Wxh7. After 1 4 ...We7+ 1 5 .ltle2 gxg7 16.Wxg7 ltld7, so far Borik, 17.Wh8+ ltlffi 1 8_gd1 gd8 I9fu.d8+ �xd8 20.�fl 'it>e8 2t.Wd4 l0e6 23.We3 Y:!lb4 23.b3 Wd6 24.g3 White wins; this is more accurate than 20.Wd4+?! �c8 2 l .�fl 'Wb4 22.Wxa7

ltle6 23.We3 Wxb2 24.�g l , Harding, 24._lf:ld4!. Also 1 4...lhg7 1 5.Wh8+ �e7 16.Wxg7 is quite unpleasant as 16 ...Wxc4 17.We5+ � 1 8.Wh8+ We7 19.gdl We4+ 20.ltle2 or 1 6 ...Wc5 17.ltlh3 Wd6 1 8.gdJ 'WM+ 19.�fl . Schilling - Purschwitz, corr 1 988, shows) 9.Wxf5 .bc3 IO.bxc3 ltlxc4 I I.ltlf3 0-0 seem s level, Gutman. VD) 6.e3 ltlg3 (6_J.xd6 7.We2? ltlc6 8.a3 ltlc5 9.Wdl We7 IO.ltld2 ltld4 was a dis­ aster, A.Jensen - JJensen, Copenhagen 1998, yet 7..id3 ! .ib4+ 8.ltlc3 has more point, e.g. 8 ... We7 9.ltlge2 ltla6 10.0-0 .ixc3 I I .ltlxc3 ltlb4 12.Wa4+ id7 13.Wb3 ltlxc3 14.Wxc3 lbxd3 15.Wxd3 or 8._ltlxc3 9..ixf5 ltlxa2+ I O..id2 .ixd2+ I I .Wxd2 Wxd2+ 12.�xd2 ltlb4 13..ic8) 7 .id3 .ixd3 8.Wxd3 ltlxhl 9.We4+ 'tt;ld7 IO.Wf5+ �xd6 I I .Wd5+ �e7 1 2 .Wxb7 ltld7 1 3 .We4+ �d6 (13...�16?! 14.J.d2) 1 4.Wd5+ leads to a draw, Gutman. Back to the main line

6...�xd6

Others: I) 6 ... ltlxc3? 7.Wxf5 ltla4 8.Wb5+ Wd7 9.Wxb7 Wc6 I O.Wc8 mate, St�t�idly Tartllkower; II) 6...l0xf2? 7.Wxf5 ltlxhl 8.i.g5, Euwe; III) 6 ...l0g3?, frequently played, is also of dubious value, introducing the fol­ lowing complications: 37

A) HYb3 ll::J xh l 8.�xb7 ll::ld7 9.g4! (on 9.dxc7 �c8 I O.�f3. Bjelobrk - Spiller, Melbourne 2002, Black can play 10 .. . ic5 l l .e3 .ie6 with good chances) 9 .. . hg4 10.dxc7 �c8 1 1� �xb7 12bb7 ll::lb 6 l3 ..ixhl :!:!.c8 14 ..if4, Gutman; B) 7.e4 ll::l x hl 8 .exf5 (after 8.dxc7 �xc7 9.exf5, Kanko - Hamalainen, Finland 1 999, 9...ll::Jc6 would have kept matters unclear) 8 ....ixd6 9..ie3 (9 .�e4+ �e7 I O.�xe7+ .ixe7 l l .lLld5 .id6 1 2 .g3 c6 l 3 ..if4 Wd7 14..ixd6 Wxd6 1 5 .ll::Je3 :!:!.e8 1 6..ig2 ll::Jxf2 1 7.Wxf2, Grubling - Suhr, Germany 1989) 9.. ..txh2 (9 ...ll::Jc6 IO.ll::Jf3 0-0 l l .:!:!.dl �e8 1 2 . .ie2, Ernst - Isler, Biel 2002) l O . ll::J f3 .id6 1 1 .0-0-0 �c8 1 2.�e4+ .ie7 1 3 .ll::Jd 5 ll::Jc6 1 4.f6 gxf6 1 5 .ll::Jxf6+ Wf8 16 ..ih6 mate Likavsky ­ Guttdeutsch, Tatry 1 998; C) 7 .�a4+ .id7 8.ll::Jb 5 ! (8.dxc7 is also reasonable, e.g. 8 ...�xc7 9.ll::l b 5 .ixb5 1 0.�xb5+ ll::Jc6 l l .hxg3 0-0-0 1 2.�f5+ Wb8 13.ll::J f3, Mertens - Selke, Minden 1 959, or 8...�c8 9.cxb8� �xb8 I O.�c2 ll::Jx hl l l .�e4+ .h6 1 2.g3 ll::Jxf2 l3.Wxf2, Sanchez - Velasco, lrapuato 1985) 8 ... .ixd6 9.hxg3 .ic5 I O.�c2 and wins, De Haan - Sarink, Utrecht 1989. IV) 6 ....ixd6 7. ll::J xe4 (7.a3 �e7 !, while 7 ... ll::Jg3? 8.e4 ll::l x hl 9.exf5 0-0 l O ..ie3 turned out well for White in Fernandez Prieto - Beltran Sequer, corr 1985) 7 ... ib4+ (if 7...0-0 8.e3 .ib4+ 9.We2 ! ? :!:!.e8 IO.f3, while 8.13, Minev, is less clear be­ cause of 8...�4+ 9.g3 .ixg3+ 1 0.hxg3 �xh 1 l l ..ie3 :!:!.e8 1 2 .0-0-0 ll::Jc6) 8 ..id2 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 .ixe4 1 0.�xd8+ Wxd8 l l .f3 leaves White a sound pawn ahead, Gutman. 7.e4!

7.�dl is an insipid alternative in view of 7 ... ll::Jc6 8 .e3 ll::Je4 9..td2 ll::lxd2 IO.�xd2 �xd2+ l l .Wxd2 0-0-0+ 1 2 .Wel ll::lb4 13 .. :!:!.dl .ie7 1 4.ll::J f3 .if6, Zoeschling ­ Mansfield, corr 1 99 5 . 38

7...�xe4

Most legal moves have been tried here: I) 7 ...�e7 8..id3 .ie6 (8 ...ll::Jc6? is absurd

due to 9.ll::Jd5 �d7 I O.exf5 0-0-0 l l .ll::J f3 l"!e8+ 12..ie3 ll::Je5 l 3.ll::Jxe5 :!:!.xe5 14.0.0.0, Allison - Shaw, Southend 2000 . 9.ll::Jge2 .h6 I O.c5 ll::Jc8 l l ..ie3 looks like a less­ er evil, although Borik gives 9 .. ..tg6 10. lLld5 and Sorensen - Anderr.m, Copenha­ gen 1 943, continued 9 ... ll::lb4 1 0.�a4+ ll::lb5 1 1 .0.0 - l l..ib l ! id7 12.cxb5 wins, Jensen -, l l ....td7 12.lLlxb5 lLlxd3 13�1 .ixb5 14.�xb5+ c6 1 5.�f5 g6 1 6.�g5 \!:Yb4, when 17.ll::J f4 ! ll::lxf4 1 8.�e5+ ll::Je6 1 9.�xh8 is decisive) 9.c5 ll::lc8 l O ..ie3 c6 l l .ll::Jge2 ll::Jd7 12.ll::Ja4 ll::Je5 1 3 .0-0 f6 14.ll::J f4 .if7 1 5 .f3 g5 1 6 .ll::Je 2, Kragh ­ Pedersen, Copenhagen 1997; further II) 7 ....ie6 8 .b3 (8.c5 ? ! ll::J c8 9. .ie3 c6 IO.ll::Jf3 �a5 l l .�a4 �xa4 12.ll::Jxa4 ll::Jd7 l3.ll::Jd4 ll::J xc5 1 4 .ll::Jx c5 .ixc5 1 5 .ll::J x e6 .ib4+ 1 6..td2 hd2+ 17.Wxd2 fxe6 was OK foc Black, Schmidt - Wittelsberger, Germany 1993) 8 ... ll:x:6 9.ll::Jf3 .ie7 (9 ... �ffi I O ..ib2 �g6? ! , Sebban - Orlandi, France 1 998, l l .c5! ll::Jc8 12.ll::lb5) IO.Jb2 ( IO.a3 0.0 l l ..id3 .if6 1 2..ib2 .ig4 1 3.e5 ll::Jxe5 14.ll::Jxe5 .ixe5 1 5.h3 :!:!.e8 1 6.0-0, Melchor - Schwertel , corr 1 992, 16 ... hh3 1 7.gxh3 �g5+ 1 8.Whl �5 with perpetual) 10 ... 0-0 l l ..ie2 .if6 1 2 .:!:!.dl Black has no compensation, Gutman;

III) 7 ...ig6 also has its drawback s.

Then: A) 8.ie3 �xe4 9.�xe4 ib4+ 10 .�e2 'ffe7, given by Hans Haberditz, a theo­ retician from Vienna, l l .'ffa4+ ( 1 1 .0 f5 12 .a3 fxe4 13.'ffa4+ �c6 14.axb4 exO+ 1 5 .�xf3 0-0 16.�f2 �e5 17 .ic5 'ffb4+ 1 8.�gl lh0 1 9 .gx0 ?! �xO+) l l ...b5 1 2.'ffxb5+ c6 1 3.'ffa4 ixe4 14.c5 �a6 15 .a3 ( 1 5 .'ffxa6 'ffe5 1 6.l:�b l gd8) 15 ... 'ffe5 16.axb4 'ffxb2+ 1 7.id2 gd8 18.�0 0-0 19.'ffa3 (or 19 .. lb2 ixO+ 20.�x0 'fff6+ 2l .�g3 'ffg6+ 22.�h4 �4+ 23.f4 h5 24.h3 �xc5) 19 ...J.xfl+ 20.'i!nd3 'ffxd2 2 1 .ixa6 'f/d5+ 22.'i!i>g3 'ff g5+ 23.�0 'ffb5 + 24.�g3 'ff g6+ 25.� 0 gd4 and White's gamne is hopeless, Gutman; B) 8.c5 �xe4! ( 8...�c8 9.ie3 c6 hardly inspires confidence: 1 O.f4 V!Je7 1 1 .0-0-0 f6 1 2 .ic4 if7 1 3 .'ffb 3 ixc4 14.V!Jxc4 �d7 1 5.�a4 b5 16.cxb6 axb6 1 7.V!Jxc6 m,8 1 8.�0 �a7 19.'ffd5 �c5 20.ixc5 bxc5 2 l .�c3 'ff b7 22.'ffxb7, Mariotti ­ Vecemik, Italy 1974, or I O.gd l !? 'ffc7 1 1 .�0 �d7 1 2.b4 a5 1 3 .a3 axb4 14.axb4 b6 1 5 .b5 ixc5 1 6.bxc6 �b8 1 7.�d5 V!Ja7 1 8.c7, F. Portisch - Brandicz, Hungary 1 990) 9.�xe4 'ffe7 1 O.id3 ixe4 ( 10 ... f5 ? l l .ig5 'ffe 6 1 2 .0-0-0) l l .ixe4 f5 1 2.ie3 ( 1 2.ig5 'ffxe4+ 13 .V!Jxe4 fxe4 1 4.gdl ?! , Mueller - Fischer, Germany 199 1 , 14 ... �c6) 1 2 ...'ffxe4 ( 1 2 ... fxe4?!

13 .0-0-0 yields White a pleasant posi­ tion, e.g. 1 3 ...V!Je6 14.�bl �c6 1 5 .�e2, Tseitlin/Giaskov, or 1 3 ... �a6 1 4.�e2 �xc5 1 5 .J.xc5 'ff xc5 16.�c3, Gutman) 13.'ffxe4+ fxe4 14.0-0-0 ( 14.a3 �d7 1 5.b4 b6 1 6.cxb6 axb6 17.id2 id6) 14 ...�d7 (14 ...�a6 1 5 .gd5) 1 5 .c6 ( 15 .b4 a5 1 6.a3 axb4 1 7.axb4 &4 1 8.id2 b6) 15 ... bxc6 16Jid4 �f6 17 .J.g5 �d5 1 8_gxe4+ �d7 1 9.�0 id6 with equality, Tartllkower, C) 8 .J.d3 �a6 (8 ...�c6, Hans Mueller, is met by 9.c5 �c8 I O.J.e3 V!Jd7 l l .a3 �8e7 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3 .�0. while after 8...�d7 White has 9.�ge2 �c5 I O.�f4 or 9.J.e3 ie7 1 0.�0 0-0 1 1 .0-0, Cam­ pos - Holtz, corr 1978) 9.J.e3 c6 IO.'ffa4 (I O.a3 'ffa5 1 1 .().0-0 ltlc5 12.ltle2 ffi holds a balance) 10 ...�c8 1 1 ru1 �c5 12.ixc5 ixc5 13 .�e2 0.{) 14.0-0, Gutman; further D) 8.�0 �c6 9.ie3 (9.a3 ie7 1 O.J.e3 0-0 l l .c5 �e8 12.J.c4 'ffc8 1 3.h3 .tffi 14.�d5, Krueger - Schydlo, Gladenbach 1 999) 9...'ffe7 (9... f5 10.exf5 �xf5 l l .id3 �b4 12.'ffa4+ c6 1 3 .ixf5 AxiS 14.0-0) 10.�d5 'ffd7 1 1 �3 0-0-0 1 2.0-0..Q ge8 13 .�e l, Gutman; similarly E) 8.0 !?, Mueller, 8 ... �d7 9.ie3 ie7 I O.�h3 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 secure a plus for White, Gutman. IV) 7 ... ixe4 8.�xe4 'ffe7 is a more en­ terprising choice, yet it seems to have a forced refutation.

39

White has two ways of meeting: A) 9-td3 ltlxe4 (Schlicht - Poetschmann, corr 1 978, went 9 ... f5 1 O.f3 fxe4 l l .fxe4 ltlc6 1 2.ltlf3 ltlf7 l 3 .i.d2 0-0-0 1 4.0-0-0 g5, when 1 5.e5g4 16.AB+ �b8 17 .i.xg4 might be strong, although I would prefer lO.i.g5 !? �e6 l l .�fl fxe4 1 2.liel �f7 l3.i.xe4 ltlxe4 141he4) IO.i.xe4 f5 l l .td2 ( l l .i.g5 �xe4+ 12.�xe4+ fxe4 13.0-0-0 ltlc6? 141le 1 is given by Tseitlin/GID6kov, yet l3 ... ltld7 leaves Black in control, e.g. 14.1lel ltlc5 15.'ik2 h6 16� g5 17 .i.g3 O.O.O,Harrlilg l , and if l4l!d4 ltlc5 15.c;bc2, then 1 5 ... �f7 1 6..if4 1e7 1 7.ltle2 .tf6 1 8.M5 ltld3 19.�7+ �e6 20.lixc7 rutc8 2 l .b3 b5, Andreakis - Glasewald, corr 1 988, or 15 ..1d6 1 6.ltle2 0.0) l l ...�xe4+ ( l l ...ltld7 12.0-0-0 fxe4 Bile l ltlffi 14.f3 0-0-0 1 5.fxe4 ltlg4, Harding, is insuffi­ cient due to 16.ltl0 �e6 17 ..mttl., Gutmlln. l l ...ltlc6 1 2.0-0-0 fxe4 l 3 . .!:ie l?! 0-0-0 14.�xe4, Tartlllwwer, allows Black def­ inite counterplay after 1 4 ...�c5 ! , Tseil­ lin/Gioskov, but White can improve with l3.1c3, e.g. l3.-�e6 141lel (}.{)..() 15.�xe4 or 1L�g5+ 14.�bl �xg2 1 5 .ltle2 .id6 1 6.c5, Gutman) 12.�xe4+ fxe4 l 3 .i.c3 1c5 14.i.xg7 .!:ig8 1 5.1e5 .!:ixg2 16 ..ig3 e3 1 7.�fl ext2 1 8 .ltlh3 .!:ig l + appears to be about equal, Tseitlin/Giaskov; B) 9. f3! f5 10 .1g5 ( l O.c5 llJ f7 l l ..ie3 isn't so forcing, l l ...fxe4 12 .�xe4 �xe4 l 3 .fxe4 ltld7 14Jkl 0-0-0 1 5 .ltlf3 ltlf6 1 6.1c4, Piscicelli - Fernandez, Buenos Aires 1994) 10 ...�e5 (lO ...�e6 l l .O-O-O fxe4 1 2.c5 �g6 l 3.�d2 ltlf7 can be met by 14.i.c4, Jensen, but also 14.�d8+!? ltlxd8 15 ...!:ixd8+ �f7 1 6.1c4+ is deci­ sive, Christensen - Pedersen, Aarhus 1 946) l l .�c3! (improving on 1 1 .0-0-0 fxe4 1 2J�d5 �e6 l 3 .fxe4 ltlc6 14.ltlf3 1e7 1 5 .c5 ltlf7, Lehman - Glasewald, corr 1 990, 1 6.i.d2!? 0-0 17 .1c4) l l ...�e6 1 2 .c5 saving thepinned piece with a win­ ning advantage, Harding.

Back to the main line

8..ld3!

Werner Biellermann, a German theore­ tician with some original ideas, found this neat solution in 1 941. Tartakower (Le Monde des Echecs, 1 946) and Sergiu Samarilln (Revista Romana de Sah, 1 947) agreed with his conclusions, Stefan Buecker, Kaissiber 1612001. 8.ltlxe4 1b4+ leaves Black satisfied: 1)9-td2 1xd2+ 10.�xd2 1xe4 l l .�xd8+ �xd8 1 2.0-0-0+ ltld 7! (better than 1 2... 11c8, Borik, when instead of 1 3.ltle2 lid8 14.�d8+ �xd8 1 5.ltlc3 1g6 16.g3 ltla6 17.f4 ltlc5 1 8.i.e2 c6 19.lidl + �c7 20.b4 ltle4, Alber - Trapl, Litomerice 1990, 13.ltlf3!? might be good for White, e.g. l3 ... f6 14.ltld4 ltlc6 15.ltle6 gg8 1 6.ltlc5 or l 3 ...1xf3 14.gxf3 g6 1 5 .h4 a5 16.h5 b6 1 7.hxg6 fxg6 1 8 .1d3 c5 19 .1xg6, Nielsen - Berg, Copenhagen 2000) 1 3.f3 (l 3.ltlf3 1xf3 14.gxf3 g6 1 5 .h4 c6 1 6.h5 �c7) l3 .. .i.f5 1 4.ltle2 ge8 15 .ltld4 1g6 16.g3 c6 1 7..ih3 lie7 1 8.f4 �7 (not 1 8 ... 1e4? 19 ..!:ihe l �c7 20.i.xd7, Raber ­ Hoftnann, Muehlv 2000) 19.f5 1h5 20.g4 �3 2 l .gxh5 lhh3 22.mtel gd8 23.ge7 �c8 24..!:ixf7 ltle5, Gutman ; II) 9.�e2 ltlc6 1 0 .1e3 is a more dan­ gerous defence, which leaves White·s king in the centre. 40

B) 1 O...lLld4+! l l ..ixd4 �xd4 1 2.0 (Her­

zog - Meizinger, Sulzfeld 1 99 1 , went 12 .�a4+? c6 13.�xb4 �xe4+ 1 4.�d2 0-0-0+ 1 5 ..id3 �xd3+ 0: 1 ) 12 ...0-0-0 13� 1 �e5 14.a3 ( 14.gd5 �d5 1 5.cxd5 gds 1 6.a3 Aa5!? 1 7 .b4 .ib6 1 8.g4 .ig6 1 9.
There are two replies: A) IO ...�e7 l l .f3 0-0-0 is, according to Minev. excellentfor Black. Up to now no­ body has shown the desire to doubt this opinion, Borik. However, it is difficult

8 �xtl ...

to find compensation after the natural 12J:!d l ! (Staker/Giasscoe/Stayart; less clear is 1 2 .�f2 - while 1 2.l0d6+? gxd6 1 3 .�xf3+ ge6 1 4.�f2 g6 1 5.�h3 J.c5 16 ..ixc5 �xc5+ 1 7.�g3 h 5 ! or 12.a3? gd2+ l3 ..ixd2 lLld4+ 14.�f2 l0xc2 are both losing Borik - 1 2 .. .mte8 1 3..id3 13.lLld6+ gxd6 14.�xf5+ �b8 1 5 .ti'f4 gd4! -, 1 3 ....ig6 14.a3 ! ? - 14.g4? l0e5 1 5 .gd l gxd3 ! 16.gxd3 .ixe4 17.fxe4
There is nothing better.

,

.

9..lxfS

According to Volker Hergert, 9.�e2+!? .ie7 (9. . .�e7 IO.�f2) 10 ..ixf3 may well be more potent, lO lLlxh l l l .igS (l l .o!MS c6 1 2.lLlxe7 �xe7 13.�xe7+ �e7 14J.e3 � 1 5 .�d2 lLla6 1 6.lLlh3 &d8+ 1 7J.d3 b6 1 8 .a3 lLlg3 1 9 .hxg3 comes into con­ sideration) l l . . . �d6 ( l l ...c6? 1 2 .gdl �c7 n .gd7 or l l ...f6? 1 2 .gdl �xd l + 13.�xdl fxg5 1 4 ..ic8, Hergert. l l . . .h6 is also hopeless, 121ldl - not 12..ixe7?! �xe7 1 3 .�xe7+ �xe7 14.l0d5+ �d6 1 5 .gdl , Janosi - Hunerfauth, corr 1990, •.

Gutman ;

41

due to 1 5 ... c6! 1 6.ltlb6+ �e5 17.ltlxa8 �xf5 1 8.ltlf3 ltla6 -, 12 .. .hxg5 13 1bld8+ �xd8, and now instead of 14.ltld5 E:e8 1 5 .�fl .ib4 16.'lbe8+ �xe8 17.ltlxc7+ �d8 18.ltlxa8 id6 19.g3 ltlxg3+, Mont­ roig - Tinture, corr 1 997, 14.'�'d3+!? �e8 15.ltld5 should be played) is crucial.

D) 1 O�d2 ic5 (there is nothing in 10 ... Y!Jh4+ l l .g3 Y!Jxc4 - l l ...ltlxg3 1 2 .hxg3 Y!Jxg3+ 13.� ltlc6 14l!e 1 + ie7 15.ltld5 E:d8 16..lf4 Y!Jh4 1 7.ltlf3 Y!/h5 18.�g2 -, 12.0-0-0, for example 1 2...ltlf2 131ie 1+ ie7 14..lf4 g6 15�g5 ltlc6 16.Y!Jxf2 gxf5 1 7.Y!Jxf5 or 12 ...ltlc6 13l!el+ie7 14.ltlh3 g6 1 5 �d3 Y!Jg4 1 6.ltld5 Y!Jxh3 and now 17.ltlxe7 ltlxe7 1 8.E:xe7+ �xe7 19.Y!/c5+ �d7 20.Y!Jd4+ improving on 1 7 ..ib5 0-0 18..ixc6id8 19.ltlf4 Y!/xh2, Pantaltoni ­ David, Lugano 1 988) 1 1 .0-0-0 ltlc6 ! ? 12liel + �Ill with COIDlterplay, Gutman; III) l O .Y!Je2+ .ie7 ( I O ...Y!Je7 is met by I I �c8 Y!Jxe2+ 12 .ltlgxe2 ltld7 13 ..ixb7 E:b8 14� ffi>6 1 5.hd7+ �d7 16�3) returning to the position after 9.Y!/e2+ ie7 I O.ixf5 ltlxh l . I O... �c:6!?

12.ltld5 ( 12�1 Y!Jc5? l3.Y!Jxe7+ Y!Jxe7+ 14..ixe7 �xe7 1 5.ltld5+, Hergert, but IL ltlg3 ! l3 .Y!Jxe7+ Y!Jxe7+ 14 ..ixe7 ltlxf5 1 5.E:d8+ �xe7 1 6.!Wt8 c6 might be OK for Black) 1 2...ltlc6 l3�f4 Y!Jc5 14.040 0-0 1 5 ..ie3 ( l 5 .ltlh3 E:ad8 1 6.b4 ltlxb4 17.ltlxe7+ �h8 1 8.E:xhl E:fe8) 15 ...Y!Jd6 16.ltlf3 E:fe8 17 .a3 (if 17M 1, then 17 ... ltlb4 18.ltl xb4 Y!Jxb4) 17 ... g6 18 ..id7 !? Y!Jxd7 1 9.ltlf6+ .ixf6 20J�xd7 E:e6 with some plus for White, Gutman. 9... �xh l 9 .. �5 1 0.ltlf3 ltlxhl ( I O... ltlc6? 1 1 .0-0, Tartllkower) - see 9_. ltlxhl 10.ltlf3 ic5.

This is definitely the lesser evil. Other moves tend to run into trouble: I) 1 O ...ic5 was tried first.

10.�13

White has a choice of shots: A) 1 1 �xh7 ltld7 ( l l ... ltlf2 is premature due to 12J.gs Y!Jd6 1 3.ltle4, e.g. J3_ltJxe4 14.Y!Jxe4+ Y!/e6 1 5 .0-0-0 ltlc6 1 6.Y!Jxe6+ fxe6 17.ig6+ � 1 8�7 &8 19h4 ie7 20.h5 or 13 ...Y!Jb6 14.ltlxc5 Y!Jxc5, Tum­ bev - Filippov, Teteven 1 99 1 , 1 5 .b4! Y!Jxb4+ 16.�xf2 ltlc6 1 7.E:el+) 1 2 .�fl ltlf6 1 3 �g5 c6 1 4.E:e l + �Ill looks fme for Black, Gutman;

A ltematively: I) 1 O�f4 .ic5 ( IO .. �b4?! l l .�fl hc3 12.bxc3 ltlc6 13 .ltlf3) l l .ltlh3 ( l l .Y!Je2+ �fll l 2.ltlh3 ltlc6) 1 1 .. .0-0! ? ( l l ...ltlc6 1 2 .E:dl Y!Je7+ l 3.'�fl ltld4 14.Y!/a4+ b5 1 5.cxb5 ltlxf5 1 6.ltld5 Y!Jh4 1 7.Y!/e4+ Will 1 8 .Y!/xf5 ltlf2 1 9 .ltlg5 was winning for White, Kulejewski - Dubal, corr 1 992) 12�xh7+ �h8 13� ltlc6 14lidl ltld4, Harding; further '4 2

B) I I.J.g5 !? f6 1 2 .� 1 Y!le7+ ( 1 2 . . .�d6 1 3.�e3 g6 14.c5) 13.Wfl � ( 1 3 ... Wf8 14.�d5 Y!lf7 1 5 .�xf6) 14 .�xh7+ 'i!?h8 1 5 .�d5 and Black gets blasted off the board, Ernst - Winkler, Bad Ragaz 1 994; C) I l .�e4!? Y!le7 (it is hard to suggest anything better, we see: I I .. id4 12 if4 c5 13.0-0-0 Y!la5 14.�xd4 cxd4 1 5.�f6+ I :0 Walter - Lidl, corr 1958; I I ...�b6 should be met by 1 2.J.d2 ! �6 13.0-0-0 �hile 12.J.g5 f6 1 3.�xf6+ gxf6 14� 1s wrong, not due to 1 4 ... wm 1 5.J.h6+ Wg8 16.Y!Ie4 Y!ld7 1 7.�f5. Ludek Pllch­ mlln, but in view of l 4 ...hxg6 1 5 .Y!Ixg6+ Will 1 6.J.xf6 Y!le8+, Gutm11n; I I .J.b4+ 1 2.We2 !? h6 1 3 .�e3 � 14J:txh l l::t e8 1 5 .Wf2 Y!le7 1 6.a3! - an improvement on 1 6.�d2 hd2 1 7.Y!Jxd2 �c6 1 8.l::te l � 8 19.Y!Ie3 �e5 20.�g3 �c6 2 I .Y!Ixe7 l::txe7 22.l::tx e7 �xe7 23 .J.e4 g6 24.b3 c6 25 .We2 f5 26.�c2 Wg7 Yl-Yl MoJo ­ Angulo, corr 1 992 -, 1 6 ...�d6 1 7.l::td I �c6 18.c5 �e5 19.�7, LIIIic) 1 2.J.g5 f6 (after 1 2 ...�b4+ White has 13 .We2 f6 14 ie3, Reuben Fine, or 1 3.W f6 14.a3 fxg5 1 5.axb4 �c6 1 6Ee l ) 1 3 .0-0-0 �a6 ( 1 3 ... fxg5 14.�xc5 Y!Jxc5 1 5 .Y!Ie4+ Y!le7 16.Y!Ixb7 � 17 .Y!Ixa8 �f2 18.Y!Id5+ 'i!?h8 1 9.l::te l with advantage to White, Borik, but 15.l::te I+! is even stronger, e.g. l 5 ... 'i!?d8 16.Y!Id3+ Y!Jd6 17.�xg5 or I5 ...'i!?m 1 6.�xg5 Y!lf2 1 7.�e6+ ..tf7 18.Y!Ic3 Y!Jxg2 1 9 .J.h3 ! , HUdebrllnd/Berkell) 14.l::td7 - White is temporarily the exchange and

II) I 0 ... g6 was suggested by Borik.

White has a wide range of options: A) I I .Y!Je4+? �e7 1 2 .�h3 0-0, Borik; B) I I .itn? �6 12.a3 Y!Je7+ 13 .Y!Ie2 ()..0.0 14.Y!Ixe7 �xe7 1 5 .�e2 l::th e8, Borik; C) I I .J.e4 c6 12 .J.g5 (better than 12 .J.e3 f5 1 3 .J.d3 Y!le7, e.g. 14.Wfl �a6 15.J.d4 �b4 1 6.Y!Id2 0-0-0 0:1 Cano - Larsen corr 1990, or 14.Y!Ie2 �a6 1 5 .0-0-0 0-0-0 161Wl I �b4 17.J.bl �g7 18.J.g5 Y!Jxe2 19.�xe2 l::tde8 20.�ed4 c5 2 l .�b5 l::te2 22.J.d2 � 23.�xa7+ Wb8 24.�b5 lhg2 25.J.f4+ WaS, Borik) 1 2 .J.e7 1 3 ixe7 Y!lxe7 14.0..Q..O � 15.fuhl f5 16.J.d3 �a6 17.&1 Y!ld6 1 8.Y!Jd2 �8 19.J.bl Y!Jxd2+ (19...Y!Ic5?! 20.Y!Ih6 Y!Jxc4? 2 1 .�e5 Y!le6 22.J.d3 b5 23.J.c2 �b4 24.�b3, Dyer ­ Gibson, corr 1988) 20.�xd2 l::tfe8 and Black maintains the balance Gutman· D) I I .Y!Ie2+!? (J. Erb, a read�r ofBorik's book) I I . ..Y!Je7 ( I I ...J.e7 12 .�d5 gxf5 13.�ffi+'i!nR 14.ih6 mate) 12.ic8 Y!Jxe2+ 13 .Wxe2 �d7 14.J.xb7 l::tb8 (with coun­ terp/ay, H��rding) 1 5 ic6 �d6 1 6.b3 Wd8 1 7 .J.xd7 Wxd7 1 8.J.e3, Gutman; further E) 1 1 .�3 !? �c5 ( l l . . .�c6 1 2 ..�g5 f6 13Edl Y!le7+, H��rding, can be answered by 1 4.Wfl fxg5 1 5 .l::te l Y!lxel+ 1 6.Wxel �e7 17.wfl � I S.'i!?gl) I 2.ig5! (1 2.�e4 � 13ig5 �e7 14.l::td l , Winkler - Burk corr 19 87, 14 ...Y!Ie8 ! 1 5.�h6 f5) 12 ...£6 13.Y!Ie4+ Y!le7 (or 13 ...'t!lt7 14.�e5+ Wg7

•

•

apawn down and his bishop is hanging, but his entire army is ideally placed for attack, Borik - , 14 ...Y!Im (Kottnauer ­

Martin, Zurich 1 946, continued 14 ...Y!Jxd7 15ixd7+ �d7 1 6.�xc5+ �xc5 17.Y!If5+ li"dJ 18.� !lae8 19.Y!Id5+ Wc8 20.�xe6 fxg5 21 .�c5 l3el+ 22.� mte8 23.Y!Ixb7+ Wd8 24.Y!Ib8+
1 5.ih6+) 14.i.xffi t'/xe4+ 1 5 .il:lxe4 with a clear advantage for White, Gutman; F) I l lLg5! �7 ( l l ...f6 1 2..ixg6+ hxg6 13.t'/xg6+ �d7 I4..ixffi) 12.M I (but not 12 .i.xe7? t'/xe7, Borik) and Black is to­ tally lost, e.g. 12 ... gxf5 1 3.!!xd8+ �xd8 14.he7+ �xe7 15.t'/xf5 il:lc6 1 6.il:ld5+ �fB 17.'itm &8 1 8.l0g5 il:le5 1 9.t'/f6 I :0 Debailleul - Tinture, corr 1 99 1 ; 12 ...l0c6 1 3 J!xd8+ !!xd8 14..ie4 l0d4 1 5 .l0xd4 .ixg5 16.l0f3 .ie3 17.l0d5 .if2+ I S .�fl 0-0 19.il:lf6+ �h8 20.t'/c3 I :0 Hug - Ca­ sale, corr 1 995; or 12 ...t'/xdl + 13.l0xdl gxf5 14.t'/xf5 l0c6 1 5.l0e5 l0xe5 16.t'/xe5 0-0-0 17.i.xe7 IDleS I S.M !!d7 19.il:lf5 and wins, Gonda - Holms, corr 1 99 1 . The idea of 1 O... g6 was surely not the best one, Borik, 1 98 7. III) I O ... .id6 also has its drawbacks.

8) I I ..ig5 !? f6 1 2.0-0-0 (is more pro­ mising than 12..ie3 g6 1 3 .ie4 c6 14.0-0-0 �e7 1 5 .!!xh l ) 12 ...fxg5 1 3 ..ixh 7! (on 13.�e4+ �e7 1 4.t'/xb7 Black can play 14 ...0-0 1 5 .�xa8 g4 1 6..ixg4 il:lf2) 1 3 ... liJd7 14.lL!d5 gives White a thumping attack, Gutman; C) I I .lL!e4 !? .ixh2 ( l l ... h6 would be a waste oftime due to 12.id2 0-0 13.0-0-0, although 12.lL!xd6+t'/xd6 1 3..ie3 is good enough, e.g. 13 ... lL!g3 1 4.hxg3 �xg3+, Hansen - Lo Conte, corr 1992, 15.�f1 0-0 16 ..ih7+ �h8 17.�f5. or 1 3 ...0-0 !? 14ikll �e7 15.�2 !:le8 16.�c3 g6 1 7.ic2 f5 1 8 .g3, Lo Conte) with a further split: Cl) 12.lL!xh2 �4+ 1 3 .g3 il:lxg3 looks quite cheeky.

Now: Cia) 14.il:lxg3 �xg3+ 1 5.�fl il:lc6 1 6.a4

For convenience the variations are pre­ sented by: A) l l .�e4+ �e7 12 ..ie3 (1 2..ic8 lL!d7 I3..ixd7+ 'i!?xd7 I4.�xe7+.ixe7 15.<Ml .id6 1 6.�gl il:lg3 I7.hxg3 .ixg3 18 .il:le4 .id6 I9.c5, Tseitlin/Giaskov, I9 ... !!he8 20.cxd6 !!xe4 2 l .dxc7 f6 pose no prob­ lems for Black) 1 2...�xe4 I 3 ..ixe4 lL!d7 ( 1 3 ... lL!c6 I 4 ..ixc6+ bxc6 1 5 .�e2 0-0 I 6 .. !!xhl !!fe8 1 7.�. Markus - Back, corr 1995) I4.0-0-0 .ic5 1 5.hc5 lL!xc5 16.!!xhl l0xe4 I 7.lL!xe4 favours White,

(Ventilescu - Fontana, corr 1948/49, went 16.�e4+ �e5 17 ..if4 �xe4 1 8.i.xe4 liJd4 19 ..ixc7 �k8 20..ie5 lL!e6 2 I ..ixb7 !!xc4 22 . .id5 !!c5 23.!!d l il:lc7 24.!!e l , but Black can improve with 1 8 ...0-0-0! 19.lL!f3 !!he8, Arduini - Lotti, corr 1986) 16 . . . �fB ! ? (Less advisable is 1 6 ... lL!e7 17i!a.3 �d6, when instead of l 8.!!d3 �ffi 19lU3 lL!xfS 20.!!xf5 � e6 2I ..if4 0-0-0, H��rding, I 8.!!e3 ! 'i!lfB I 9.ie4 c6 20.lL!f3 �g8 2 I .!!d3 �c7 22.�dl !!e8 23.!!d7 �c8 24.�d6 might be more effective. 16 ...g6 17.&3 �4 1 8.!!e3+ is also quite

Gutman; 44

promising for White, for example 1 8 ... li:Je7 1 9.�c3 �g8 20.IDI3 li:JxfS 2 1 ltxh4, Lotti - Nicolosi, corr 1 986, or 1 8 .. . 'it?tB 1 9h4 �ffi 20..ih6+ 'it?g8 21 .li:Jg4 �xfS+ 22.�f4) 1 7.�a3 �4 1 8 .�h3 �d8 19 .b3 li:Jb4 20ia3 aS 2 1 .�d3, Lotti - Biraghi, corr 1986, 21 ...�ffi holds together nicely for Black, Gutman; C1b) 1 4.i.gS ! offers more chances, 14 ... �S I S .�d3 ( I S .li:Jg4 ! ? �I+ 1 6.'it?f2 may well be even stronger, viz. 16...�xal 17.li:Jxg3 li:Jc6 1 8.li:JhS h6 1 9.li:Jxg7+ 'it?tB 20.�c3! hxgS 2 1 .li:Je6+ or 1 6 ... li:Jxe4+ 17be4 �xal 1 8.�e2 0-0 1 9.li:Jffi+ 'it?h8 20.�S �xb2+ 2 1 . 'it7f3 h6 22 ..bh6 I :0 Hergert - von Leoprechting, Germany 1 99 1 ) I S ... O-O ( I S .. .f6 1 6.li:Jxf6+ gxffi 1 7.�e3+) 1 6.�xg3 and White is on the road to victory, Hergert. Cl) 1 2..igS is thematic, 1 2 .. .f6 13..ie3! (13.li:Jxffi+ gxffi 14..ig6+ hxg6 IS.�xg6+ r;!;>tB 16J.h6+ 'it?e7 1 7.�g7+ c;!;te6 1 8.�g4+ is only a perpetual. 1 3 . .ih4 .if4 1 4 .g3 gave White a winning position after 14 ... .ih6?! I S .g4 �e7 1 6.'it?fl li:Jc6 1 7.�e l , Stringa - Hucks, corr 1998, but 1 4... li:Jxg3 I S ..ixg3 .ixg3+ 1 6 .li:Jxg3 �d6 is less clear) 13 ...li:Jg3 14_gdl �e7 I SicS �f7 1 6.�d3 I :0 Gonzales Valdes - Layola Gayobart, corr 1 99S.

1 Ufel+!? l l.li:JdS � (I L.te7 12.if4 li:Jb4 13.�a4+ bS 14.�xbS+ c6 1 S .�a4 li:JxdS 1 6.�xc6+ 'it?f8, Matula - Riessbeck, corr 1 990, is hopeless for Black after 1 7.cxdS) 12..igS (1 2.�e4+ can be met by 12 ... li:Je7 1 3 ..igS c6 1 4 .li:Jxe7 .ixe7 I S .'it?e2 g6 1 6.�xe7+ �xe7 17..he7'it?xe7 18.id3 li:Jg3+ 1 9.hxg3 hS) 1 2 .. f6 1 3 ..ie3 li:Je7 1 4.0-0-0 li:JxfS ! ? IS.�xfS �d7 1 6.�xd7+ (or 1 6.�e4+ 'it?f7 17 ..fuhl c6 1 8.li:Jc3 !b4 1 9_gdl �e6) 16 ... 'it?xd7 1 7.�xh l c6 1 8.li:Jc3 1eaves White with a small plus, Gutman. l l .. .i.e7 If l l ...�e7, then l 2.li:JbS �xe2+ 13.m.e2 � 1 4.li:Jxd6+ cxd6 IS..ie3 is very prom­ ising, Gutman. 12-'.dl g6 13-'.hJ!? After 13..ic2 �d7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 I S.�xh I �he8 1 6.�dl White keeps an edge since two minor pieces should outweigh rook and pawn; nevertheless Black has managed to occupy two central files with his rooks and can live with it, Gutman. 13 ... ltl b4 1 4.i.h6 1fd3 14 ... li:Jd3+ I S .'it?fl li:Jhf2 loses to 1 6.�dS. 1SJ!d1 t!h:el+ 16.Wxel t5 If 16 .. ..if6, then 1 7 .�xh I . 17.a3 ltlc6 1Uh:h1 0�0 19./()dS

Back to the main line

White has the better chances, Gutman.

4S

Chapter 3 (l.d4 �f6 2.c 4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.8'c2) 4....ib4+!

7 ...Y!Ie7 Other possibilities: I) 7 ...0-0 8.e3 ge8 9 ..id3 g6 10.0-0-0! (10.0-0 lLlxeS ll.lLlxeS �eS 12.lLlf3 �8 l3.gfdl ifB 14.&cl d6 1S.h3 .ig7 16.b4 b6 17.cS bxcS 18.bxcS �8 19.cxd6 cxd6, van den Berg - Schuit, Accom 1986) lO ...lLlxeS l l.lLlxeS gxeS l2.lLlf3 ge8 l3.h4 favours W hite, Gutman; II) 7 ...ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7, then: A) 9.0-0-0 reaches a position after 4.� dS .ib4+ S.id2 lLlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 7.lLlf3 �e7 8.0-0-0 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2, treated in Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 2; 8)9.e3 lLlxeS lO.lLlxeS (10b2 � 11.0-0 transposes to 4.�c2 .ib4+ S..id2 lLlxd2 6.lLlxd2 lLlc6 7.lLlgf3 �e7 8.e3 lLlxeS 9. ie2 0-0 10.0-0 ixd2 ll.�xd2) lO...�xeS ll.td3 d6 (ll ...b6 12.0-0 .ib7 is worth consideration. Also 11...0-0 12.0-0 d6 13.f4 �e7 is playable, e.g. 14.�el id7 lS. !ID ic6 16.e4 gfe8 or l4.f5 ffi lS.gf4 id7 16.ie4 ic6 1 7 ..idS+ �h8 18.ge4 � d8 19.& 1 �8. Blatt - Popp, corr 2000. Less appealingis ll ...aS 12.0-0 �6 13.f4 �cS 14.�f2 gd6 lS.�dl b6 16.e4 gd4 17.eS �f4 18.�xc5 �fl+ 19.ixfl bxcS 20� with advantage, Bielicki - Euler, Germany 2001) 12.0-0 Af5 l3.e4 ( l3.f4 �ffi 14.e4 �d4+ 1Sm2id7 16.&1 0-0-0) l3.. b614.b3 0-0 lS.�hl f5 16.f4 �d4, Weiz- Au� oorr 1991; further

This move guarantees Black a sufficient initiative, Bogdan Lalic. All authorities agree that Black's pros­ pects of an equal game are quite good,

Tim Harding.

The material divides as follows: Section 1 - S.id2 Section 2 - S.lLld2 Section 3 - S. lLlc3. Section 1 S..id2 �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.�0 Alternatives: I) 7.f4 d6! 8.exd6 �xd6 9.g3 (9.e3? if5 10.e4 � 11.0-� �xf4) 9.. ..115 1 O.�xf5 �xd2+,NielsJensen, ll.'it>t20-0 12-'!bl �d4+ l3.e3 (l3.�g2 �xc4) 13... �d2+ 14.ie2 �Ue8 1S.�d3 gadS with a clear plus for Black, Gutman; ll) 7.a3ixd2+ (if 7 ...icS, then not 8.b4? tx.f2+, Vuorikoski- Kalteinen, Helsinki 1988, but 8.lLlgf3 �e7 9.�c3 aS 1 O.e3 0-0 l l.lLlb3 ge8 12.lLlxcS �xeS l3.gdl lLlxeS 14_gd5li)xf3+ lS.gxfl �e7 16.h4) 8.�xd2 lLlxeS leads to equality, Gutman. 46

C) 9.g3 ltlxe5 (9 ...b6 I O..lg2 ib7 1 1 .0-0 gives White the upper hand, e.g. l l ...ltlxe5 12.ltlxe5 ixg2 13 .ltlxf7 ixfl 14.ltlxhS ixe2 I S.l;!el 0-0-0 1 61!.xe2 \!!!ffB 1 7.\!!!fdS c6 1 S.\!!!ff7 "t!fxhS 19J!e7 g6 20. \!!!fg7, 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.l:Udl �d8 13.\!!!fc3 l:UeS 14.� itS ISi!c l ltlxe5 16.ltlxe5 "t!fxe5 17 .c5 or I I ...0-0-0, when both 12J!ac I ltlxe5 13.ltlxe5ixg2 14.�g2 "t!fxeS 1 5.c5 IDleS, Erkay - Zimmermann, Germany 1996, 16.e3 l;!e6 17 .b4, and 12.a4!? ltlxe5 13.ltlxe5 ixg2 14.xg2\!!!fxe5 15.a5 'itb7 1 6.axb6 axb6 1 7 J!a4 are awkward for Black) I O.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 l l .ig2 ().() 12.0.0 (12.0-0-0 reaches a position after 4.\!!!fdS ib4+ 5..ld2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.ltl0 \!!!fe7 S.().().() txd2+ 9.\!!!fxd2 ltlxe5 I O.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 l l .g3 0-0 12..lg2 - Part I , Chap­ ter 6, Section 2) 12 ... d6 13.e3 l::!eS ( 1 3 ... l::!bS 1 4.b3 id7 1 5 ."t!fd4 "t!fxd4 16.exd4 l::!feS 17.l::! fel b6 is not bad either, Ong ­ Chow, Pert 1997) 14.b3 aS (another pos­ sibility is 14...l::!bS IS _gacl !5 16.l::!fe l ie4 1 7."t!fd4 .ixg2 I S.'itxg2, Martin ­ Gensbauer, Bad Wiessee 1 997, I S ...b6) I S .�cl "t!icS is fully adequate, Gutman; D) 9.\!!!f c 3, and now: Dl) 9...b6 1 0.e3 ib7 l l ..le2 (Stuhler ­ Schaffranietz, Germany 1 996, contin­ ued l l ..ld3 0-0-0 1 2.0-0-0 l::! heS 13 ..le4 g6 14.l::!h el 5 I S.idS, when 1 5 ...ltlxe5 could have been played) I I ...().().() 1 2.0.0 (12.0-0-0 �e8 1 3.�gl li:lxe5 14.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 1 5 .\!!!fxeS fu.e5, Warisch - Schaf­ franietz, Germany 200 1 ) 12...mte8 (12 ... gS?! 13.a4 aS 14.c5 \!!!fxc5 15.\!!!fxcS bxc5 1 6.&£1 g4 17.ltld2) 13.l::!fcl ( 13.a4 ltlxe5 14.ltlel aS 15.&1 d6) 13 ...ltlxe5 14.ltlxe5 ( 14.lUel c5) 14 ...\!!!fxeS 1 5 .\!!!fxeS l::! xe5 1 6.b4 5 turned out quite well for Black in Paakkonen - Peltomaa, Finland 1997; 02) 9 ...0-0 IO.e3 (other moves: I O.l::! d l l::! e S l l .l::!d5 ltlb4 1 2.l::! b5 c5 1 3.a3 ltlc6 14.e3 ltlxe5 15.ltlxe5 "t!fxeS 16.\!!!fxeS fu.e5, Prosch - Kurth, Hamburg 1997; I 0.0-0-0

l::!eS, and now instead of II ru5 b6 1 2.e3 ltlb4 13.'itbl ltlxd5 14.cxd5 d6 1 5 .exd6 !5+ 1 6..ld3 !xd3+ 1 7.\!!!fxd3 "t!fxd6!?, Jasincyuk - Tamplin, Hunstville 1 993, l l .e3 ltlxe5 12.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 13.\!!!fxeS fu.e5 14.l::!d5 d6 would have been more solid; IO.g3 l::!eS l l ..lg2 ltlxe5 12.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 13.\!!!fxeS l::! xe5 1 4.e3 d6 1 5 .0-0-0 l::!a 5!? 16.a3 l::!bS 17.l;d5 �4 I S.l::!d 4.ie6 with equal chances, Ariela - Brause, compu­ ter game 1 997) I O...l::!eS l l ..le2 (l l ..ld3 ltlxe5 12.ltlxe5 "t!fxeS 1 3 .\!!!fxeS fu.e5 gave Black a clear advantage after 14.0-0-0 d6 15•1 a5 16.f4 l;c5 17.M2 b5 1S.l::!c2 b4 1 9.e4 ffi 20.5 ib7 21 .g4 l::!e8, Pomar ­ De Augustin, Madrid 1943) I I ...ltlxe5 12.c5 (or 12.ltlxe5 \!!!fxe5 13.\!!!fxeS l::! xe5 14.!0 d6 15.b3 l::!bS, Horvath - Graf, Vienna 1 999) 1 2 ...d5!? 13.cxd6 "t!fxd6 14.l::! dl ltlx0+ I S ..lxO 'Wb6 1 6.0-0 ie6 and Black is not worse, W issemann Jaeck, Germany 1999.

8.e3

There are three more replies: I) S.g3 ltlxe5 9.ltlxe5 (9.ig2 lUxO+!? IO..lxO 0-0 1 1 .0-0 aS) 9...\!!!fxeS I O..lg2 ( 1 0.0-0-0 0-0 I I .ltlO \!!!ff6, improving on 1 1 ...\!!!faS?! 1 2.'itb I b5 13 .cxb5 l::! bS 14.e3 .ib7 15.ltlg5!? g6 16.e4 a6, Joro­ nen - Nieminen, corr 1 97 1 , 1 7 ..ic4!?) I 0...0-0 I l .e3 d6 12.0-0 !5 13 .e4 ig6 is fine for Black, Gutman; 47

II) 8.0-0-0 ll:\xeS 9.ll:\xeS ixd2+ (less precise is 9. ..\!!fxeS IO.ll:\f3 \!!fffi l l.e3 0-0, Pitule - Holl, corr 1 99 1 , due to 12.id3 h6 l3.h4 d6 14.ll:\gS) IO.l!!fxd2 (IOJ�xd2 \!!!xeS l l.e3 d6 12.id3 ie6 13.ie4 0-0-0) 1 0 ...\!!lxeS reaches a position after 4.\!!ldS .ib4+ S.id2 ll:lxd2 6.foxd2 !Oc6 7.!0gf3 l!!fe7 8.0-0-0 ixd2+ 9.\!!fxd2 \!!! xeS, co­ vered in Part 1 , Chapter 6, Section 2; Ill) After 8.a3 ixd2+ 9.\!!fxd2 White has a tempo less, compared to variations with 4.ll:\f3 ib4+ S.id2 ll:lxd2 6.ll:lxd2 !Oc6 7.a3 ixd2+ 8.\!!f x1d2 l!!f e7, treated "l. in Part 4, Chapter 3. ! T { rr There are two good answers: A) 9 ... b6 IO.l!!fc3 (if 1 O.e3, then not im­ mediately lO ... ll:\xeS in view of 1 1 .\!!fdS ll:\xf3+ I2.gxf3 gbs n.ggl .ib7 14.\!!fd4 f6 1 S _gg3 0-0 1 6.0-0-0 d6 1 7 .id3 but I O...ib7 l l.ie2 ll:\xeS 12.ll:\xeS \!!! xeS 13.0.0 and now 13 ...\!!lgS 14.f3 d6 IS.nfdl fS 16.\!!fc3 0-0, while 13...0-0-0 14.gfdl mte8 IS.l!!fd4 l!!lgS 16.\!!lg4 l!!lxg4 17 .ixg4 � 1 8 .ie2 fS 19 .nac 1 ges was equal in Henrichsen - Burgess, Lungby 1 99 1 ) I O. ..ib7 l l .e3 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 (l2.ie2 gS 13 .0-0 g4 14.!0d4 ll:\xeS gives Black the initiative, for example IS.a4 ghg8 16.aS \!!lh4 1 7.axb6 \!!lh3 18.e4 l!!lxc3 19.bxc3 axb6 or 1 S.b4 ghg8 16.cS 'it>b8 17 _gac 1 gcs I S.bS gg6 19.a4 ll:\f3+ 20.ixf3 gxf3 2 l .g3 .ie4!? 22.'it>hl gh6 23 .gfdl l!!f gS 24.\!!le l l!!l xg3 2S.l!!lg l \!!lh4 0: 1 Berend­ sen - Wittelsberger, Porz 1989) 12 ..Jide8 (Black could also consider 1 2...gS 1 3 .h3, when instead of l 3 ...hS?! 14 .ie2 gh6 I S .nd2 ge6 16.ggl 'it>b8 1 7 .ll:\d4 gxeS IS.ixhS fS 19_ggd 1 d6 20.if3 !OaS 2 l .b4 .ixf3 22.ll:\xf3 ll:\xc4 23.\!!lxc4, Becker ­ W ittelsberger, Kettig 1 994, 1 3 ... ghe8 141ld5 ll:lb8 1 S .� ll:\c6mightbe even) 1 3 .\!!fd3 ( l3.gds ll:\d8!) 1 3 ...\!!fe6 14.ie2 (l4.ll:\gS ll:\xeS IS.ll:\xe6 ll:\xd3+ 16.ixd3 gxe6 1 7 ..ifS ge7) 14 ... &7 appears to be satisfactory for Black, Gutman; •.

8)9 ...ll:lxeS lO.ll:\xeS \!!IxeS l l .e3 (l l .g3 0-0 12.ig2 ges 1 3 .e3 d6 14.0-0 ifS IS. gfdl ie4 16.he4 l!!lxe4, though l 3..1lb8 14.0.0 bS 1 S.cxbS fubS 16.b4, Rzeszoto ­ Gutdeutsch, Stary Smokovec 1996, 16 ... c6 17kl aS is also OK for Black) I I... d6 ( ll ...aS is seen quite often, e.g. l l\!!!d4 d6 1 3 .id3 id7 14.f4 l!!fe7 I S.'it>d2 0-0 16.\!!le4 \!!lh4 1 7.\!!f f3 ic6 18.\!!lg3 \!!f f6 19.gab 1 dS, Stumberger - Vospemik, Nova Gorica 1 996, or 1 2.ie2 0-0 13.0-0 a4 14.\!!ld4 ge8, although n_.na6 14.\!!ld4 l!!lxd4 1 S .exd4 gb6 1 6.&b 1 ges 1 7.id3 'itlfll l S.cS gft) was perfectly playable for Black, Stauch - Polzer, Germany 1 998) 12.\!!ld4 (12.id3 0-0 13.\!!lc2 fS 14.0-0-0 id7 IS .h3 gabS 1 6.g4 bS l7.ghg l 'it>h8 18.gxf5 bxc4 19.ie4 .h4 was a disaster for White, Bellm - Sauer, Leimen 2001 . After 12.ie2 0-0 1 3 .0-0 Black can play l 3 ...if5, e.g. l 4.gfd l ie4 I S .l!!fd4 gae8 16.gacl l!!lgS! ? 1 7.ifl b6 18.b4 ge6 or 14.&dl .b4 IS.l!!fd4 gae8 16.\!!lxeS gxeS 17.0 ic6 1 8.e4 fS, Sipka - Eberth, Fel­ sotarkany 1988; but l 3 ...aS 14.!0 ie6 is also reasonable, for example I S.ixb7 gabS 1 6.f4 \!!ff6 17 .idS gxb2 18.\!!lxaS cS 19.&dl gfbs or IS.&c l gabS 16.b4 axb4 1 7.axb4 b6 1 8 .gc3 gfd8 1 9.\!!fd4 cS 20.\!!lxeS dxeS, Wagner - Dujardin, Nuenen 2002) 1 2 ...b6 (more ambitious than 12 ....if5 1 3 .\!!l xeS+ dxeS 14.0-0-0 'i!;>e7 ISJ.d3 ixd3 16�d3 mx!S, Angel ­ Computer, computer game 1996) l3.id3 ( l 3 .ie2 ib7 14.0-0 cS l S .l!!fxeS+ dxeS 161Wil 1le7 or l 3.f3 .ib7 14.\!!lxeS+dxeS IS.0-0-0 1le7 16-'e2 fS, van der Velde ­ Elieff, London 1 993, are both preferable for Black) l 3 ....ib7 14.0-0 cS (14... 0-0 lS.l!!lxeS dxeS 1 6.gfdl cS l7.gd2 gfd8, Alsina - Sanchez Guerrero, Ideal Clave 200 1 ) lS.'theS+ dxeS 1 6.0 'it>e7 gives Black some edge, Gutman. 48

corr l 994, is met by l3 ... e4!? l 4.�xe4 �xb2) l l ...aS ( l l .. ..Ag4 l2.lt:lxeS .Axe2 l3.lt:lc6 bxc6 14.�xe2) l2.a3.AcS l3.lt:lxcS dxcS l 4.&dl is fme for White, Gutman; II) lO ....Axd2 l l.�xd2 d6 (l l ...aS is worth clarification. l 2.lt:lxeS �xeS l 3 .�fdl �e8 l4..Af3 &6 lS.�d4 isn't inspiring as in­ stead of lS ...�g5 16.�c3 m.6 17M � l8.h3 d6 19..§d4 �ffi 20.�xa5ixh3 , Ruf­ Reuter, Germany 1 997, 2 l .�xc7!, Black might try lS ..,m,6 l6.b3 d6 l7.�xe5 &eS. However, l2.lt:ld4!? d6 seems to be crit­ ical, and now not l 3.�ac l .Ad7 l4.�c3 �fe8 1 S.�a3 b6 1 6.�el cS l 7.lt:lf3 .Ac6, Rodriguez Rodriguez - Fabre Massana, Canovelles 1999, but l3.lt:lbS, e.g. l 3 ...a4 l4.f4 lt:lc6 lS.lt:lc3 f5 l6..Af3 .Ae6 l 7.lt:ldS �n l8.e4 or l3 ...�e8 l 4.f4 lt:lc6 lS..Af3 .Ae6 l 6.�ac l ) l 2.�fd l lt:ld7!? ( l 2 ... .Ae6 l3.cS lt:lxf3+ l4.J.xfl d5 lS.�d4 c6 l6.b4 .Af5, Bock - Schaffarth, Germany 1997) l 3 .�c l lt:lf6 should be level, Gutman.

9 .Ael •

After 9.lt:lxeS �xeS there is: I) l O.�dl b6 (10 ...0-0 l l.idJ h6 1 2.0-0 .Axd2 l 3.�xd2 d6 l4.h3 �e8 lS,gfdl b6 is not bad, Dietrich - Golzow, Germany 1 987) l l .a3 .Axd2+ l 2.�xd2 d6 l3.�d5 �b8 l4.�c6+ �d8, Gutman; further II) l O..Ad3 b6 (Letic - Majstorovic, corr l 9S4, went 1 O...�a5 1 1 � 1 �xa2 1 2.0-0 �aS l3.lt:lf3 ms l 4..AfS 0-0 l S.�dS c6 l6.g4 m6 1 1.gs ms 1 8�4 d6 1 9,gh4 .AxfS 20.�xf5 �g6 with advantage for Black, but l l .a3 .Axd2+ l2.�xd2 �xd2+ l3.�d2 is advisable. lO ...c6 l l .O-O .Ad6, Fey - Gutdeutsch, Leutersdorf2000, can be met by l 2.f4! �e7 l 3.e4) 1 1 .0-0 .Ab7 with equal chances, Gutman ; III) l O..Ae2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 aS see the text.

1 1 .�xe5 'f!heS ll.�fJ

If l 2.a3 .Axd2 l 3.�xd2 see 4.�c2 .Ab4+ S ..Ad2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lxd2 lt:lc6 7.lt:l0 �e7 8.a3 .Axd2+ 9.�xd2 lt:lxeS IO.lt:lxeS �xeS l l .e3 aS 1 2 ..Ae2 0-0 1 3 .0-0. l l ...tff6

l 2...�e7 13 ,g.dl &6 is playable as well, l4,gds d6 1s.�fdl t5 l 6..Ad3 g6 1 1,gd4 .Ad7 1 8 .�h4 .Ac6 1 9 .�h3 �aa8 20.�g3 .Axf3 2 l .gxf3 �h8 22.f4 �f6, Bjordal Gundersen, corr l 99 1 .

9 0-0 .•.

9...lt:lxf3+ lO..Axfl 0-0 l l .O-O�e5 l2,gfdl ( l2.�adl .Ad6 1 3 .g3 c6 l 4..Ag2 .Ac7 lS. lt:lf3 �cS Yl-Yl Musielak - Riessbeck, corr 1 986) l2 ....Ad6 l3.g3 c6 l4.lt:le4 .Ac7 lS.c5 b6 1 6llac l favours White, Gutman.

13 .a3

l31t1dl d6 14,gdS g6 lS.a3.AcS l6.lt:ld2 .Ae6 1 7.lt:le4 m4 l8.g3 �e7 19.�2 .Af5 20..Ad3, Costa - Gomes, Lisbon l 99S, 20....Axe4 2 l ..Axe4 c6 22.�fdl a4 23..Ag2 f5 gives Black more control, Gutman.

1 0.0-0 a S!?

Black has two more options: I) lO ...d6 l l .lt:lb3 ( l l .lt:ld4 .Ag4 l 2.lt:l2f3 itS l3.lt:lxeS .Axe2 l4.�xe2 dxeS l S.lt:lf5 �g5 l6.e4 �d8 l7.�adl Yz-Yz Andrea­ sen - Jensen, corr 1992, while l l .h3 �ffi 1 2.lt:lxeS dxeS l 3.lt:lf3, Simonet - Bert,

13 ..Ac5 14.�dl d6 ••

l4 ...�eS l S.lt:le4 h7 l 6.&dl f5 l7.lt:lc3 c6 is another way, Gutman . 15.�e4 tfg6 16-*.dJ .Aa7 17.�c3 fS 18. �dS tff7

Black has a sound position, Gutman. 49

Section 2 ( l .d4 � f6 2.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.'frc2 .ib4+) s.�d2

�e7 can be met by IO.f4 0-0 I I ..ig2 &8 IH!dl d6 13.exd6 cxd6 14ik12, Gutnuzn) with another branch: Al) 9.lt:lf3 �e7 I O.b4 (I O.�dl lt:lc6 l l .a3 see 4.lt:lf3 �+ 5.id2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lbxd2 lt:lc6 7.a3.ixd2+ 8.�xd2 lt:lc6 9.�c3 0-0 1 0. M I - Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 4) I O ... b6 (IO.. ,ges I l .b5 a6 12.a4 axb5 13.cxb5 c6 14.e3 cxb5 1 5 ..ixb5 lt:lc6 16.0-0 lt:lxe5 17.lt:lxe5 �xeS 1 8 .�xe5 �xeS 19.�fdl d5 20_gac l or I O.. .a6 1 1 .e3 lt:lc6 12.b5!? axb5 13.cxb5 &3 14.m2 "tn>4+ 15.�d2 �xd2+ 1 6.�xd2 are both hardly viable for Black, Gutman) l l .e3 .ib7 12..ie2 �e8 1 3 .�d l aS 14.b5 �a7 1 5 .0-0 .ixf3 16 ..bf3 �xeS 1 7.�xe5 �xeS and it is very diffkultfor White to make progress, Bueclu!r, Kaissiber 1 712001;

s...ds

A2) 9.g3 �e7 I O ..ig2 (this is more ac­ curate than I O.lt:lh3 �8 l l .f4 d6 12.exd6 cxd6 1 3.ltlf2 ltlc6, for instance 14.�d2 .ie6 15 .e4f5 16.0-0-0 �f7 1 7.�c3 a5 18. fud6 fxe4 19.lt:lxe4 lt:lb4 20.�d2 hc4, Gutman, or 1 4.0-0-0 .if5!? 1 5.e4 he4 16.�el d5 1 7.cxd5 .ixh l J 8_gxe7 lt:lxe7 19.lt:lxhl �ac8, Buecker) IO ...�e8 l l .f4 d6 ( I I ...lt:lc6 12.�dl �b8 13.�d2 b5 was mentioned by Buecker, yet 1 2.�f2 has more point: 1 2 ... d6 1 3 .exd6 cxd6 14 .e4 or 12 ...m,s 13.e3 b5 14.cxb5 l)cb5 15.ltle2, Gutnuzn) 12.exd6 (J2_gd) dxe5 13.fxe5 c6 14.lt:lf3 .ig4 1 5.�d4 hO I6..ixf3 lt:la6 17.0-0 �xeS IS.�xeS �xeS J 9_gd7 lt:lc5 20.&7 a5 is fine for Black) 12 ...cxd6 13ikll (Buecker analyses 13.�d3 ltld7! J4_gd) lt:lffi 15.�xd6 �e3 16.�d4 �e7 17.�d6 �e3 with a draw by repetition; less convincing is 1 3 ... lt:lc6 14.�dl .ie6, when instead of 15 .b3 �adS 1 6.�d2 d5 17.cxd5 lt:lb4 1 8.�c4 �d6 19.e4 .ixd5 , Peter SchDffarth, 1 5.�xd6 �f6 1 6..ixc6 bxc6 17.�d4 �e7 1 8.�c3 .if5 19.h3 �e4 20.�h2 &d8 2 1 .�xd8 �xd8 22.�f2 c5 23.lt:lf3 seems critica� Gutman) 13 .. � (13 ...lt:la6 14.�d2 .if5 1 5.lt:lf3) 14ikl2!?

This is a principal continuation. Alternatively: I) 5 ...�? 6.g3 lt:lxd2 7.gxh4 l004+ 8.id2 lt:lxd2 9.a3 ltlb3+ IO.axb4 was hopeless for Black in Brachtel - Esch, corr 1 994; II) 5 ... lt:lxd2 6.i.xd2 hd2+ (6 ... �e7 7.f4, e.g. 7 ... lt:lc6 8.lt:lf3 b6 9.e3 .ib7 I O ..ie2 .ixd2+ l l .�xd2 � 12.0.0.0, Wegmuel­ ler - Mani, Bern 1999, or 7...0-0 8.g3!? lt:lc6 9..ig2 d6 I O.i.xc6 hd2+ I I .�xd2 bxc6 1 2.lt:lf3 .ig4 1 3.exd6 cxd6 1 4.0-0 �fe8 15.&e l ! ? ih3 1 6.�f2 .if5, Baer ­ Malmstrom, corr 200 1, 17.�dl &d8 1 8. lt:ld4 Ae4 19 .f5) 7.�xd2 is less common, but not entirely unplayable. Black has tried three ways to resist: A) 7...�h4 (a very new idea, suggested

.

by Stefan Bueclu!r in Kaissiber 1612001)

8.�c3 (8.&I lt:lc6 9.lt:lf3 �e7 and 8.e3!? lt:lc6 9.lt:lf3 �e7 are treated under 4.lt:lf3 .ib4+ 5 ..id2 .ixd2+ 6.ltlbxd2 lt:lxd2 7. �xd2 lt:lc6 - Part 4, Chapter 3, Section I) 8 ...0-0 (if 8 ... lt:lc6 9.g3 �e4 I O.lt:lf3 0-0 I I ..ig2&8 12.0.0, e.g. 12 ...lt:lxe5 13.lt:ld4 �g6 14.lt:lb5 �b6 15.�e3 or 12 a6 1 3 . �adl lt:lxe5 14.�d5 lt:lx 0+ 1 5.i.xf3 �e7 I 61Udl d6 17.c5 dxc5 1 8.�e5, while 9 ... __

50

(14.�d2 �c6, e.g. 15.�xd6 �e3 16.�d2 -eb6 1 7.�c3 �b4 1 8.c5 ms, Buecker, or 1 5 .�0 �ad8 1 6.0-0 �xe2 1 7.�xe2 �e2 18.nfl fun 19.'i!?xf2 J.e6, GUI'mGII) 14 ... �6 15.�0 (1 5.b4 llac8 1 6.�0 b5) 15 ...lOC5 1 6.�h4 ie4 (16.. .ig4 17.0.0 �o4 18.ixo4 �xo4 19Exd6 .be2 20JM4 �c6 2 1 .�e l ) 17 .�d4 .bg2 ( 1 7... b5 18.cxb5 .bg2 19.�xg2 m7 20.0-0 �xb5 2lltel) 18.�xg2 �o4 ( 1 8...�o4 19.nc2) 19.�xe4 �xe4 20.�c2!? (20.�d4 �ac8 21 .0-0 b5 22.cxb5 �2) 20 .&c8 21 .0-0 b5 22.�fc 1 b4 23.�el following by �3 with a plw; for White, Buecker, Kaissiber 1 71200 1. B) 7 ...0-0 8.f4 (8.�0 �c6 9.�c3 �e7 transposes to 5 id2 �xd2 6.�xd2 llJc6 7.�0 ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.�c3 0-0 Section 1) 8...�c6 (8...b6, TseidiniGIDskov, 9.�0 ib7 1 0.g3 ffi l l .exffi �xffi 12ig2 �6 13.0-0 �e8 14.e3 d6 15.�el �c5 1 6.�g5) 9.�0 (9.g3 d6! 1 0.exd6 cxd6 1 1 .�0 -eb6 yet 9.e3!? is intriguing, e.g. 9 ... ffi IO.exffi �xf6 l l .�e2 � e8 12.0-0-0 d6 13.lOC3 or 9...�e7 10.�e2 �d8 l l .�c3 d6 12.�d5 �d7 1 3.exd6 �xd6 14.o4 �8 1 5 .�c3 �d4, Blitzmich - EtcChess, in­ ternet 2002, 16.e5) 9...ffi (in my opinion Black should prefer 9 �e7, treated in q 1 O.exf6 ( 10.0-0-0 !? is worth trying: on 10 ... fxe5 l l .�d5+ 'i!?h8 12.�xe5 �xeS 13.�xe5 d6 14.�d4 id7, Hartmann ­ Schaefer, Leipzig 1994, 15.g3 ic6 1 6.o4, and if 1 o ...�e7 l l .exffi, instead of l l .e3 fXe5 12.1Xe5, Hartmann - Lindner, Wies­ baden 1993, 12 ...�xe5) IO ...�xf6 1 1 .e3 ( l l .g3 d6 1 2ig2 ie6 13.�g5 ig4 1 4.h3 .its 1 5.g4 h6 16.�d5+ 'i!?h8 17.�xf5 �xf5 1 8.gxf5 hxgS 19.fxg5 �xf5 20.h4 is also good, Tolw;h - Naftalin, Leningrad 1962) l l ...d6 12id3 (12.0-0-0 aS!?, improving on 12.if5 13id3 �e8 14.�hel ixd3 1 5 .�xd3 �b4 1 6.m3 a5 1 7.a3 �6 1 8. �xb7 lOC5 19.�d5+, Lo Conte - Mahns­ trom, corr 200 I ) 1 2 ... a5 1 3.0-0 favours White, Lokvenc - Patalas, Vienna 1943;

C) 7 ...�c6 8.f4 (8.�0 �e7 goes into 5id2 �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.�0 .bd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 - Section 1, while 8.e3 �xeS 9.�e2 d6 1 O.�c3 J.e6 l l .b3 �ffi 12ie2 0-0-0 13.0 d5 14.c5 d4 was clearly awk­ ward for White in Gomez Deltell - Sion Castro, Alicante 1 988) 8...�e7 (8 Y9h4 9.g3 �g4 I 0.�0 0-0 I Oig2 b6 l l .�dl �d8 1 2 .�d4, Maribau - Marc, Acede 2001 , or 8...ffi 9.exffi �xffi 10.�0 d6 1 1 .e3 id7 12.ie2 0.{)..() 13.0.0 h6 14.�4 !:ideS IS iO g5 16.�xc6 ixc6 17ixc6 bxc6 18.�ae l , Warfield - Chisam, Boylston 1998, with a winning position for White) 9.�00-0 ([n reply to 9 ...b6 White has two good possibilities. I O.g3.ib7 1 l.ig2 is the fiiSt one, e.g. l l...�cS 12.�c3 ().()..() 13.a3 or 1 1 ...0-0-0 12.0-0 �c5+ 13.'i!?hl �xc4 14Ncl m4 15.�c2. IO.O-O-O ib7 l l .e3 0-0-0 12.id3 is the second, for in­ stance 12 ...d6 13.exd6 �d6 14..if5+ 'itb8 15.�c3 �b4 1 6ibl or 1 2...�b4 13ibl ffi 14.exffi gxf6 15.e4 mte8 16.�hel, im­ proving on 13.'i!?bl �xd3 14.�xd3, when instead of l4_h6 IS.mtel g5 1 6.�e2 g4 17.�4 h5 18.�b5 a6 19.�c3 d6 20.exd6 �d6 21 Exd6 �xd6, Gnmwald - Koron­ owski, corr 1986, 22.nd I , 14 ffi 15 .exffi gxffi 16.'i!?al mtg8 would be much better. However, Black · s task is simpler after I O.e4 ib7, e.g. l l .a3 0-0-0 12.�c2 f6 13.exffi �xffi 14 �d2 �he8 15id3 �aS 16.�c2 �xf4, Lopez Ramirez - Garcia del Castello, Malaga 2003, or 1 1 .0-0-0, and now not 1 1...0-0-0 12J.d3 d6 13.exd6 �d6 1 4.e5 �dd8 15.�c3 h6 16.a3 'i!?b8 171Diei , Silman - Kiplinger, USA 1987, but l l ...�b4!? 12.a3 �a6 1 3 id3 �c5 14.�e3 a5 15.�d4 0-0 1 6ic2 a4) 1 0.e3 (I 0.0-0-0 �d8 l l .e4 d6 12.exd6 �xd6 13id3 ig4 14.e5 �d7 15 .�e3 �d8 16. ic2 �b4) IO ... �d8 l l .ie2 d6 1 2.exd6 �xd6 13.Y:fc3 .ig4 14.'i!?f2 �e8 15.�hel leaves Black with some but possibly not full compensation, Gutman. .•

•

,

•.

•.

51

6.fHJ

Here are four more answers: I) 6.cxd5 'I!Mxd5 (Koch - Brauner, Ham­ burg 197 1 , went 6 .. ..if5 7.\!Ma4+?! lL!c6 8.dxc6? .ixd2+ 9.<�dl lL!xf2 mate, but 7.\!Mb3 looks critical: 7 ...� 8.g3 lL!xd2 9.J.xd2 .ixd2+ 1 0.<�xd2 'I!Md4+ l l .
erful initiative, e.g. 9.\!MxdS lL!d4 1 OJ:k 1 lL!xd2 l l .c3 lL!xcl 16.lL!f3 0-0, Lukic - Hribovsek, corr 1 959, or 9Jtdl lL!xe5 10.\!MxdS 'I!Mf6 l l .lL!f3 ltJg4 12.J.c3 lL!xc3 l 3.bxc3 0-0 14J::td4 l::tad8 15.\!McS c6 16.e4 .ixe4, Matrai - Eberth, Czech Republic 1 988) , when Black has to make the right decision: A) 8 ...lL!g3 9.e4.ixe4 (9 ...lL!xe4 IO.cxd5, e.g. lO ... lL!g3 l l .'I!Ma4+ .id7 12.\!Mb4 lL!xhl 13.'1!Mxb7 or 1 0...'\!MxdS l l .l::td 1 !? lL!xd2 12.\!MxfS lL!xf3+ 1 3 .gxf3 'I!Me6 14 ..ib5+ c6 1 5 .\!Mxe6+ fxe6 1 6..ic4
Black won easily, Kiene - Kruger, Ger­ many 1 990) IO ... Itlxd2 (Maurer - Der­ bellau, Switzerland 1 986, went I O...dxc4 l l .i.e3 fie? 12.i.g2 1tlxe5 1 3.0-0, when 1 3 ...c3!?, Anatoli Matsukevich, 14.1tlh4 ltld6 1 5.bxc3 id7 1 6.'Wd4 ic6 is worth consideration. Also IO ... d4 l l .i.g2 �e8 may well be tried as after 1 2.�dl Black has a choice between 1 2 ... 1tlc5 1 3.'Wb5 ltlxe5 14.0-0 b6 1 5.1tlxe5 fu.e5, Hankel ­ Feicht, Giessen 1 997, and simply 1 2 ... ltlxe5) l l .ltlxd2 1tlxe5 12.i.g2 dxc4 and I like Black, Gutman . 01) 6.exd6 it3 is also a dangerous line.

but White can try for more) 9.a3 ixd2+ (9.-i.cS 1 0.1tlxe4 'Wxdl+ l l .Wxdl ixe4 12.e3 0-0-0+ 1 3.<;!iel parrying Black's threats) 1 O.i.xd2 0-0-0 l l .i.e3 ( l l .'Wc 1 mte8 12.b4 1tld4 13.1tlxd4 'Wxd4 14.i.e3 f!eS 15.tf4 :sdl+ 1 6.'Wxdl f/c3+ 1 7.id2 ltlxd2 1 8.fixd2 flxal + 19.fidl flxa3 0:1 Ziewitz - Hagen, Germany 1 963) l l ...'Wf6 ( l l ...'We6 12.'Wa4 �he8 is not bad either, viz. 1 3 .�dl �xdl+ 14.'i!;lxdl ltld6, Barlow - Dreyer, Wanganui 1 994) 1 2.'Wb3 ( 1 2.flc l ltla5) 1 2 ...g5 1 3 .h3 h5 looks fairly grim for White, Gutman; C) 7.dxc7 fixe? 8.'Wa4+ (8.a3 !xd2+ 9.ixd2 is met by 9 ... 1tlc6 1 0.'Wcl ltld4 l l .if4 'Wd7; however, note that 9. . 0-0 l O.fic l :sd8 l l .ltlf3 1tlc6 12.c5 1tld4?! 13.1tlxd4 �xd4 1 4.i.f4 allows White to beat back the attack, Schnur - van Hove, Oldenburg 2000, and 9 ...ltlg3 is prema­ ture due to 10.'Wc3 1tlxhl l l .'Wxg7 �fB 12.ib4 1tld7 13.f/g5 f/e5 14.g4!? ie4 15.f/xe5+ ltlxe5 1 6.ixfB 'i!;JxfB 1 7 .f3. If 8 .'Wb3 1tlc6 9.1tlf3 0-0-0 1 O.e3, then 10 ...'Wd7 l l .'Wdl ig4 0:1 Figeac - Toul­ zac, Creon 1 997, improving on 1 O ... gS?, when instead of l l .ltld4? �xd4 12 .exd4 ltlxd4 13.'Wdl f!f4 0:1 Bascau - Meewes, corr 1 97 1 , l l .id3 'WaS 1 2.ixe4 ixe4 13 .0-0 would be better, e.g. 1 3 ...ixd2 14.1tlxd2 �xd2 1 5.hd2 'Wxd2 16.�adl or 1 3 ...id3 14.1tld4 l0xd4 15.exd4 ixfl 1 6.1tlxfl �xd4 1 7.hg5 f/xg5 18 .'Wxb4, Nkls Jensen) 8 ... 1tlc6 9.1tlf3 0-0-0 (the most popular continuation, but not the only one: 9..1kl8 10.e3 1tlc5 l l .fidl ig4 12.a3 !xd2+ 13 .!xd2 ltle5, Baer - Lo Conte, corr 200 1 , or 9 ... 0-0 1 O.e3 �adS l l .a3 .ixd2+ 12.i.xd2 1tlc5 13.'Wdl �d7) yields Black a strong attack. Examples: A) 1 O.a3 ixd2+ l l .ixd2 1tlxd2 12.1tlxd2 fu.d2 13.Wxd2 'We5 ! ( 1 3 ... �d8+ 1 4.'i!;le l f!eS 1 5.f3 'Wxb2 1 6_gd l f/c3+ 1 7.'i!;Jf2, Tartllkower) 14.'Wb5 (after 14.f!b3 �d8+ .

We survey White's defences: A) 7.'Wb3 ltlc6 8.1tlf3 (8.dxc7? !xd2+)

8 ...'Wxd6 9.a3 (9.e3? 0-0-0 1 O.'Wdl ig4, Tartakower) 9 ...ia5 (9 ... 1tld4?, Zuck­ mann - Seehase, corr 1967, is a horrible move due to 1 O.ltlxd4 !xd2+ l l .ixd2 f/xd4 12.ie3. 9 ... ix.d2+ lO.hd2 1tlxd2 l l .ltlxd2 1tld4 1 2.'We3+ 'it1B 13.0-0-0 &8 14.'Wg3 �xe2 1 5.'Wxd6 cxd6 1 6.g4 ig6 17 .f4 !e4 is sounder keeping a plus for Black) lO.'WbS f/f6 leaves White nearly lost, Gutman; B) 7.1tlf3 f/xd6 (7 ... ltlxd2 8.'Wa4+ ltlc6 9.!xd2) 8.'Wdl (8 .'Wb3 1tlc6 goes back into A, and for 8.'Wa4+ ltlc6 see D) 8 ... ltlc6 (Hoffmann - de Smet, corr 1 992, continued 8 ...0-0 9.a3 .i£5 1 O.ltlxe4 he4 l l .'Wxd6 ixd6 12.id2 1tld7 13.1tld4 'l:r-'h ,

53

1 5.'�cl o!Lla5 16.Yf/f3, Ahtianen - Nie­ minen, corr 1972, is 16 ...Yf/f4+! decisive, and 14.'�e l Yf/xb2 1 5J:�d l .ic2 0: 1 was seen in Muess - Reinhardt, corr 1 935) 14..,g&:J8+ 15.�1 (1 5.�e l o!Lld4 16.Yf/xe5 o!Llc2 mate, Tartakower) 15 ... o!Lld4 ( 1 5 ... Yf/f4+ 16.e3 Yf/xf2 0:1 Laske - Vauclair, Pernik 1 98 1 ) 1 6.Yf/xe5 o!Llb3 mate; B) 10.e3, and now: B 1) I O.. J�he8 I l .a3 lLlcS ( l l ....ixd2+ I 2..ixd2 o!Llxd2 13.o!Llxd2 �xd2 14.�xd2 Yf/e5, Spanier - Lorenz, Hannover 1965, fails to 15.-ebS �8+ 16.�1) 12.Yf/dl 'tYb6 (After 12 ...o!Lld3+ 13..ixd3 .ixd3 14.Yf/a4? 'tYb6 15.axb4 fue3+ 16.'�dl .ie2+ 17.�2 o!Llxb4+ Black won, Plesse - Wolff, Ger­ many 1 966, but 14.axb4 o!Llxb4 15.Yf/a4 seems critical. However 1 2 .. ..ixd2+! ? 13 ..ixd2 is perfectly playable, since in­ stead of 1 3 ....id3 14.b4 .ixfl IS.�xfl lLle4 16.Yf/c2 o!Llxd2+ 17.o!Llxd2 Yf/e5 18.&1, Pappier - Palmiero, Buenos Aires 1 996, Black has 13 ... ..ig4 1 4.b4 o!Lle4 1 5 J�a2 o!Llc3, Ebisch-Felder, e-mail 2002) 13 .o!Llh4 ( 1 3 ..ie2 o!Lld3+ 14.�fl lLlxf2) ILlLld3+ (13 ...hd2+ I4..ixd2Yfixb2 15.lLlxt5 fud2 16.Yf/xd2 Yf/xal+ 17.Yf/dl Yf/c3+ drawing, Harding) I4..ixd3 .ixd3 15.Yf/g4+ �7 16.o!LJ5 ( 16.axb4 gxe3+ 17.fxe3 Yf/xe3+ 18.�I o!Llxb4) 16 ...o!Lle5, Gutman; further 82) 10 ... o!Llc5 I I .Yf/dl o!Lle5 (if l l ...Yf/a5 12 .a3 o!Lle4 I3..ie2 �d7, then not 14 .0-0? .ixd2 15 .o!Llxd2 o!Llxd2 1 6.b4 Yf/d8, Behi­ tah - Aubert, Orange 1993, but 14.axb4 Yf/xa1 15.0.0 o!Llxd2 16.lLlxd2 lLlxb4 17.-eb3 Yf/a5 18.Yf/c3) 12.a3 .ixd2+ 13.o!Llxd2 (or 13..ixd2.ig4) 13 ...lLlcd3+ 14..ixd3 o!Llxd3+ I S .�fl �d7, Gutman; similarly 83) IO ...Yf/d6 1 1 .a3 ( l l .Yf/dl .ig4 12..ie2 .ixf3 1 3 ..ixf3 o!Llxd2 14 ..ixd2 Yf/xd2+) l l ...o!Llxd2 (Gerd Schippel analyses I I ... .ixd2+ 12 ..ixd2 o!Llxd2 1 3.0-0-0 o!Llb3+ 14.Yf/xb3 o!Lla5, and now not 15.Yf/a4 '!Wb6 16.b4 Yf/ffi 17 .lLld4 lLlc6, but 1 5.Yf/c2 .ixc2 1 6.�xd6 �xd6 17.�xc2 ghd8 1 8 ..ie2)

12.axb4 o!Llxf1 13.b5'tYb4+ 14.Yf/xb4 o!Llxb4 15.l0d4 fud4 16.exd4 �e8+ J7,je3 lLJc2+ 1 8.�e2 o!Llxa l , Gutman; finally 84) IO ...Yf/d7 I I .a3 .ixd2+ (l l ... o!Llxd2!? 12.axb4 o!Llxfl 1 3 .b5 o!Llb4 14.o!Lld4 ghe8 1 5.o!Llxf5 Yf/d3) I2..ixd2 o!Llxd2 13.0-0-0 lL!aS (13 ... lLlb3+? 14.Yfixb3 lLla5 15.Yf/c2 .ixc2 1 6.gxd7 �xd7, Froemrnel - Ries­ sbeck, corr 1987, 1 7.�xc2) 1 4.Yf/xd7+ fud 7 15.o!Llxd2 �d8 are all winning for Black, GuJman. D) 7.Yf/a4+ o!Llc6 is a bit sounder.

Two moves were tried: Dl) 8.o!Llf3 Yf/xd6 (8 ... 0-0!? may well be played, for example 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO..ixd2 o!Llxd2 l l.o!Llxd2 Yf/xd6 1 2.e3 �d8 13.�1 Yf/g6 1 4.�c l �he8 or 9 .e3 �e8 I O ..ie2 Yf/xd6 l l.a3 o!Llc5 12.Yf/d l o!Lld3+ 13.�fl .ic5 14.b4 .id4 1 5.c5 Yf/f6 1 6.�a2 �d8 17.b5 o!Llxf2 18.�f2 fue3 19.o!Llxd4 Yf/xd4 20.o!Llf3 �xe2+, Henriksen - Hvenekilde, Denmark 1 965) 9.a3, then: AI) 9..Jas IO.b4 Yf/ffi l l lla2 l0c3 12.-eb3 o!Llxa2 13.Yf/xa2 Yf/c3 14.Yflb2 !? (14 ..ib2 o!Llxb4 15 .axb4 Yf/xb4 1 6 .ia3 Yf/a4) 14 ... Yf/xb2 1 5 ..ixb2 o!Llxb4 1 6.axb4 .ixb4 17. �d I (17 ..ixg7 �g8 18 ..iffi �g6 1 9..ig5 �6 20.e4 .ixe4 2 l .�e2 .ig6 22.g4 f6 23 ..ie3 0-0-0, Danos - Rapoport, corr 1967) 17 ...0-0-0 1 8.�cl keeps a balance; Al) 9 ... .ixd2+ I O..ixd2 (I O.o!Llxd2 o!Llc5 I I .Yf/d l 0-0-0 12.f3 �e8, Rodriguez .

54

Alonso, Pruca Gijon 1 994) 1 0 ... 0-0-0 (another possibility is 1 o...l0xd2 l l .li)xd2 0-0-0 1 2.li)f3, when instead of 12.. .li)d4 13 .li)xd4 'lt/xd4 14.'ltlb4, Cuevas - Zait­ seva, Odessa 1 990, 1 2 ....ie4! might be better) l l ..ie3 'ltff6 1 2.'ltfb3 g5 13 J:k 1 ( 13 .g3 g4 14.li)h4 li)d4, Wallinger - Tie­ fenbach, Germany 1988) 13 ...g4 14.li)d2 li)xd2 15.ixd2 ll)d4 16.'ltfc3 'lt/g6; likewise A3) 9 ...li)c5 !? l O.'ltfdl 0-0-0 l l .e3 ( l l .g3 illie8 12..ig2 00+ 13.'-t;>fl li)xcl 14.axb4 li)xe2 1 5 .'lt/b3 Wb8 1 6.b5 .id3 17 .'lt/a3 li)xg3+ 1 8.Wgl li)e2+ 1 9 .Wfl li)f4+ 20. Wgl 'lt/g6 2 I .li)h4 li)h3 mate Krasenni­ kov - Lerner, UdSSR 1967) l l ...l:�he8 12..ie2 .ixd2+ ( l 2...li)d3+ 13.i.xd3 .ixd3 14.axb4 li)xb4 1 5.'lt/a4) 1 3.ixd2 li)e5 and the pressure molmts, Gutman. 02) 8.a3 .ixd2+ (Laghkva - Contedini, Leipzig Olympiad 1 960, continued 8 ... li)c5 9.dxc7? 'lt/e7 1 0 .'ltfdl li)d3 mate, but 9.'lt/d 1 poses more problems, since 9 ... li)d4 IO.e4? .ixd2+ l l ..ixd2 .ixe4, Borik, can be improved with 1 0.axb4, e.g.l O....ic2 l l .bxc5 .ixdl 1 2.Wxdl cxd6 13 .e3 or lO_lilc2+ l l .'ltfxc2 .ixc2 12.bxc5, Asger Paaske) 9..ixd2 li)xd2 1 0.Wxd2 'lt/xd6+ 1 1 .� 1 ().().() 12.li) f3 li)e5 13 .'ltfb4 li)xf3+ 1 4.gxf3 'ltff4 with a pleasant po­ sition for Black, Jensen . E) 7.a3.ixd2+ 8 . .ixd2 appears to be a more serious attempt.

8...'lt/xd6 ( 8. ..li)xd6 9.'ltlb3 .ie6 1 0.e3 was fine for White, Stoltz - Meyer, corr 1954. 8...li)c6 is more appealing as White must play 9J�dl 'lt/xd6 IO.'lt/cl Q.O.O l l.li)f3 'lt/ffi 12 .g3 struggling for equality in variations like 1 L . ig4 13..ig2 li)e5 14..if4 li)xf3+ 15J.xi3 lhdl+ 16 'lt/xdl .ixf3 17 .exf3 li)c5 18.'lt/e2 'lt/xb2 1 9.'lt/xb2 li)d3+ 20.'it>d2, 12 ... li)xd2 l 3J:�xd2 gxd2 14.'lt/xd2 gd8 15.'lt/cl .ie4 16..ig2 li)d4 17.li)xd4..ixg2 1 8.ggl gxd4 1 9 .gxg2 'lt/c6 20.'lt/c3, or 12 ... �7 13..ig2 �8 14.0-0 .ig4 15..ic3 li)xc3 1 6.bxc3 gxdl l 7 .gxdl � dl+ 1 8. 'lt/xd 1 'lt/xc3 19.'lt/d3 'lt/c l + 20 ..ifl .ih3 2 I .li)d2 g6 22.f4 'lt/el 23.e3 h5 24.'lt/e2. 9.li)f3 'lt/xd6 1 O.'lt/cl can be met by either 1 0...().().() 1 1 �3 mte8 1 2.e3 li)c5 or even 10 ...0-0 l l .g3 &d8 12..ig2, Solis - Rodriguez, Spain 1 998, 12 ... li)xd2 13.'lt/xd2 'ltfffi 14.'lt/cl gfe8; however, note that 9 ... li)g3 is premature due to 1 0.'lt/c3 li)xhl l l .'lt/xg7 gf8 1 2.ih6 'lt/xd6 13 ltd 1 'ltle7 14.g4 .ie4 15..ig2, while 9 ... 0-0 IO.dxc7 'lt/xc7 l l .'ltfcl li)c5 1 2.'lt/c3 li)e4 13.'lt/e3 gfe8 14.'lt/f4 'ltfb6 1 5 ..ie3 'lt/xb2, Oleg Neikirch, leads to a draw after 1 3.'lt/c l ) 9.'lt/c 1 (9.g4 'lt/xd2+ IO.'lt/xd2 l0xd2 l l .gxtS li)xc4 1 2lk l li)d6 13.ffi gxffi, Borik, yet I like 9 .. ..ig6: IO..ig2 .!l)xf2 or IOJ.e3 li)c6. 9.gdl is best met by 9 ... li)c6 as 9 ...Wb6, Slllk er/Giasscoe/Stayart, allows 1 0.c5, e.g. 1 O...'lt/xc5 l l .'lt/xc5 li)xc5 12.f3 li)c6 13.e4 or 1 0 ...'lt/c6 l l ..ie3 0-0 1 2 .'ltfc l ) 9 ...li)c6 l O ..i£4 'lt/e7 l l .b4 ( l l .e3 0-0-0 12.li)f3 g5 13� h5 14.h3 li)a5 15..ie5 ffi 16..ic3 li)b3 1 7.'lt/bl li)g3, Naidorf- Bo Detthow, simultaneous San Paulo 1 950, though 12 ... li)a5, Borik, is also not bad) l l ...Q.O.O ( l l ...g5 1 2..ie3 ffi 13.c5 g4 14.f3 ¢3 15 .exf3 li)g5 1 6.g4 .ig6 17. 'i!n2 ()..()...() 1 8.h4 li)e6 19.b5, Jankowicz - Vujadin­ ovic, e-mail l998, 19 ... li)cd4, yet 14.h3!? gxh3 15.g3 Q.O.O 16.i.xh3 has more point) 1 2.li)f3 l:llie8 1 3 .c5 .ig4 1 4..ie3 'i!1b8 is quite comfy for Black, Gutman. 55

IV) 6.e3 .if'S reaches a position which is more complicated than evaluated.

Black should welcome this line as of­ fering him excellent practical winning chances and, objectively, at least equal­ ity, Tim Harding.

We examine: A) 7 ..id3, the less precise course, then: Al) 7...ll:\a6 was suggested by Frllllelis k Nepustil, 8.cxd5 (8.ll:\ O ll:lac5 9 ..ixe4 .he4 lO.�dl chc4 1 1 .0-0 .idJ, Forsberg ­ Gundersen, corr 1 993, or 8 .a3 .ixd2+ 9.ixd2 /0a:5 lO.ll:\O ll:\xd3+ l l.�xd3 ll:lg3 12.�xd5 �xd5 1 3 .cxd5 ll:\xhl 14.�e2 ll:lxf2 l5 .'�xf2 0-0-0, GerdSchippel, are both hopeless for White) 8 ... ll:\ac5 !? (is more consequent than 8 ... �xd5 9 .i.xa6 ixd2+ 1 O.J.xd2 bxa6 l l .�a4+ ! ? �b5, Bethmann - Burk, corr 1 989) 9.i.b5+ c6 1 O.dxc6 0-0 l l .cxb7 ( l l .�d l �aS 1 2 ..ic4 ll:\xd2 13 ..ixd2 lhd8) l l ..J�b8 1 2 .�d l gxb7 1 3 ..ie2 gd7 1 4.ll:\O .ig4 l 5 .ll:\d4 ll:\d3+ 1 6.i.xd3 .ixd 1 1 7 ..ixe4 .ia4 with advantage for Black, Gutman; Al) 7...�g5 8.g3 (after 8.'itfl ixd2 9.ll:\O �g6 lO.ixe4.he4 l l .�xd2 dxc4 12.ll:lel ll:\c6 13.0 gd8 14.�c3 id3+ l5.'�f2 0-0 1 6 .b3 gfe8 1 7 .J.b2 gxe5 1 8.gdl ged5 19.e4ixe4 Black won easily, Lundin ­ Berkell, Stockholm 1 983) 8 ._ll:\d7!? (8 ... ll:\xd2 9..ixd2 .ixd3 1 o.�xd3 is less cri-

tical, for example 1 0 .. .J.xd2+ l l .�xd2 dxc4 12.�4 ll:\d7 1 3 .f4 �g6 14.�xc4 ll:lb6 l5.'ml5+ c6 1 6.�e2 ().()...(), Sieglen ­ Freuendorfer, Germany 1 980, l7.ll:\0 !? gd7 1 8 .o-o ghd8 19.gfd l , or l O ...dxc4 l l .�e4 .hd2+ 1 2.�d2 ll:\c6 13.ll:\O �e7 14.�xc4 0-0-0+ 1 5 .�e2 ll:lxe5) 9.ll:\ O �h5 (improving on 9 ...�g4 1 0.0-0 .ixd2 l l .ll:lxd2 ll:lxd2 1 2 .ixf5 ll:\O+ 1 3 .�h l �h5 14.ixd7+ �xd7 l 5 .'�g2 ll:lh4+ !? 16.gxh4 �g4+ l 7.'�hl �0+ 'lz-'lz Ti­ met - Meyer, Zagreb 1 953) 1 0.0-0 .ixd2 l l .ll:\xd2 ll:\xe5 ! ( l l ...ll:\xd2 12 .�xd2 e.g. 12 ...ih3 l3.J.e2 �xeS, Tseillin/GIAskov, 14.gdl dxc4 15ixc4 or 12 ... ll:\xe5 13.J.e2 ll:\0+ 14.i.x0 �xO l 5 .�dl �xdl 1 6. fud l dxc4 17.0 id3 1 8.�f2. However, less appealing is 12 ..ixf5 , not because of 12...ll:\0+ l 3 .'�g2 ll:ldxe5, Tseitlin! Glllskov, 14.h3 g6 15.ig4 ll:\xg4 16.hxg4 �xg4 l 7.�d 1 , but due to 1 2 ...ll:lxfl , e.g. 13.ixd7+ 'it>xd7 14.�fl �xh2 l 5.�f5+
Play might continue: 56

81) 7...lt)xd2 8.ti'a4+ lt)c6 9�d2 .ixd2+ IO.lt)xd2 0.0 l l .f4 dxc4 1 2�c4; further 82) 7 ...0-0 8.ti'b3 (fer 8 ..id3 lt)c6 see 7... lt)c6 8..id3 0-0 - BJ, but 8 ...lt)d7!? 9.0-0 lt)dc5 I O..ixe4 dxe4 J J .lt)d4 .ig6 1 2 .a3 .ixd2 1 3 ..ixd2 ti'e7 14 ..ib4 ti'xe5 may prove to be a more critical test) 8 . . .lt)a6 9.cxd5 lt)ec5 I O.ti'c4 .ie4 I I .ti'd4 .ixd5 1 2�a6 lt)xa6 1 3 .0-0 leaves Black with not enough compensation, Gutman; 83) 7 ... lt)c6 8..id3 (if 8 .ti'd l , then 8 ... 0-0! 9.a3 .ixd2+ I O..ixd2 l::t e8 looks to me like the most logical reply; 8 ....ig4 9.ti'c2 .i5 is only a repetition, since 9 ... .ixf3 10 gxf3 .ixd2+ I I ..ixd2 lt)xd2 12 ti'xd2 lt)xe5 1 3 .0-0-0 dxc4 14.ti'b4 ti'f6 1 5.l::tgl was OK for White in Canfora ­ Bradley, e-mail l 996, and 8 ...ti'e7 9.cxd5 lt)xe5 I O .lt)xe5 .ixd2+ I I . .ixd2 ti' xe5 12.f3 lt)xd2 13.ti'xd2 0-0-0 14.0-0-0 gave White advantage in Gross - Hoennann , Germany 1989) is a more popular contin­ uation, to which Black has three options: 83a) 8 ..ig6 9.0-0 lt)xd2 IO..ixd2 .ixd2 ( I O .. ..ixd3 I I .ti'xd3 dxc4 12.ti'xc4 .ixd2 13 .l::tfd I) I I �g6 hxg6 I U!ad I! (instead of 1 2 .ti'xd2 dxc4 1 3 .ti'c3 ti'd3 14.l::ta cl ti'xc3 15.&c3 b5 1 6.lt)d4 lt)xd4 17.exd4 0-0-0, Ladanyi - Vospemik, Budapest 200 1 ) 1Ldxc4 1 3 .ti'xc4 ti'e7 14Exd2 with a clear plus for White, Gutman; 83b) 8...lt)xd2 9�d2 .ixd3 IO.ti'xd3 dxc4 ( I O ....ixd2+ J I .lt)xd2 lt)xe5 1 2 .ti'd4!?) l l .ti'xc4 ( l l .ti'e4? ti'd3) I I . ...ixd2+ 12. lt)xd2ti'e7 13.lt)f3 0-0 14.ti'c3 W 15.&1 l::tac8 16.We2 lt)xe5 1 7.lt)xe5 ti'xe5 1 8 . ti'xe5 l::txe5 1 9.l::th dl l::te7 20.b4 and the endgame is a bit better for White, Kubi­ kova - Pavlanin, Czech Republic 1 996; 83c) 8...0-0 9.0-0 (9.We2 hd2 I O..ixd2 �8 I I ..ic3 lt)xc3+ 12 .ti'xc3 .ixd3+ 1 3 . ti'xd3 lt)xe5 14.ti'xd5 ti' f6 1 5 .lt)xe5 &e5 1 6 .ti'd4 l::td8 1 7 .ti'c3 l::tde8 occurred in Rodriguez - Needleman, corr 1988, yet I prefer 13 ...dxc4 14.ti'xc4 lt)xe5 15.lt)xe5 •

l::txe5 1 6.l::th dl ti'e7) 9 ... lt)xd2 (not 9 ... .ixd2 IO..ixd2 lt)xd2 I I .ti'xd2 .ig4 12. cxd5 txf3 1 3.gxf3 lt)xe5 14.i.e2 ti'M, e.g. 15.ti'c3 et\5 16.e4l:iad8 17i'!ael E'.d6 1 8.f4 ti'g6+ 19.ti'g3 lt)d7 20.i.f3 ti'h6 2 1 .5 I :0 Timar - Einax, corr 1988, or 15 .Whl ti'h3 1 6.ti'd4 !, when neither 1 6...l::tfe8 1 7.l::tgl g6 1 8.l::tg3 ti'd7 19 .f4 lt)c6 20.dxc6 ti'xd4 2 I .exd4 �e2 22cxb7 l::tb8 23.l::tb3, Sham­ kovich - Elbekov, Russia 1955, nor 1 6 ... lt)xf3 1 7.ti'f4 lt)h4 18.ti'g3 ti'xg3 19.fitg3 lt)g6 20.&cl are enjoyable for Black) IO..ixd2 .ixd3 I I .ti'xd3 dxc4 ( I I .. ..ixd2 1 2.lt)xd2 dxc4 1 3 .ti'c3 lt)xe5 14.ti'xe5 ti'xd2 1 5 .l::t a dl ti'e2 1 6.ti'xc7 b5 17.ti'a5, Harding, 1 7 ...ti'xb2 1 8Eb l ti'e2, yet we can improve earlier with 1 3 .ti'xd8 l::t fitd8 14.lt)xc4) 12 .ti'xc4 .ixd2 1 3.l::t adl ti'e7 14.l::txd2 lt)xe5 1 5 .lt)xe5 ti'xe5 1 6.l::t fd l &e8 17.ti'b3 b 6 1 8 .g3 l::te6 1 9 .ti'c2 c5 20.l::td5 ti'f6 is equal, Milic - Moehring, Yugoslavia - Holland 1 949 ; 84) 7 ....ixd2+! ? 8 ..ixd2 (8.lt) xd2 lt)g3 9.e4 lt)xe4 IO.J.d3 lt)xd2 I I ..ixd2 .ixd3 12.ti'xd3 dxc4 1 3 .ti'xc4 lt)c6 1 4..ic3 0-0 15.0-0 ti'e7 is even, yet Black can try for more with 8 ... lt)c6 9.ti'b3 lt)xe5 IO.ti'xb7 c6 J J .lt)xe4he4, e.g. 1 2.f4 l::tb8 13 .ti'xa7 eM+ 14.'ite2 lt)d7 or 12.cxd5 0-0) 8 _lt)g3 9.e4 he4 (9_be4 10� bd2 I I .ti'xd2 hd3 1 2.ti'xd3 dxc4 1 3 .ti'xc4 0-0 14.0-0 lt)c6 15Efe l is fme for White) IO .ti'a4+ b5 I I .ti'xb5+ c6 1 2.ti'b7 lt)xhl 1 3 .ti'xa8 .ixf3 ( 1 3 . . .ti'b6 14 ..ie3 ti'b4+ 1 5 .lt)d2 ti'xb2 I6rui!?O-O 17.be4 dxe4 1 8.ti'xa7 ti'c3+ 19.id2 ti'xe5 20.ti'e3 ti'xh2 2I .ti'f4) 14.gxf3 ti'b6 1 5.0-0-0 lt)xfl 1 6.l::tel 0-0 17.cxd5 ( 1 7..ie3? d4 1 8 ..ixfl lt)d7) 1 7 ... ti'c5+ 1 8.Wbl ti'xd5 19.J.b4 (19.i.e3 lt)d3 20..ixd3 ti'xd3+ 2 1 .Wa I lt)d7 22.ti'xc6 lt)xe5) 19 .. .E'.d8 ( 19 ...lt)d3 20.hd3 ti'xd3+ 2 1 .Wal E'.d8 22..id6) 20..id6 ti'd2 2 1 .�1 lt)d3 22�d3 ti'xd3+ 23.Wal ti'e3 24Eb I ti'b6 25 ..ie7 l::te8 26..id6 E'.d8 leads to a draw , Gutman. 57

II) 7 ...ie6 was recommended by Fran­ tisek Nepustil.

Back to the main line

Possibly best and leading to some cri­ tical lines, Harding.

White has tried a range of moves: A) 8.b3 ig4 (after 8...�xd2 9..lx.d2 dxc4 IO.ixc4ixd2+, Nepuslil, l l .�xd2 10xe5 12.i.xe6 fxe6 13 .0-0 0-0 1 4.gadl White keeps a plus) 9.i.e2 ic3 IO.cxd5 ( IO.ib2 is refuted by I O ... ll:lb4 1 1 .'9'cl ixd2+ 12.�xd2 he2 1 3 .'.t>xe2 �xf2) 10 ...'9'xd5 I I .ic4 '9'a5 12.'9'xe4 txf3 13.'9'xf3 � is fine for Black, Gutman; B) 8.cxd5 '9'xd5 9.a3 ixd2+ I O.ll:lxd2 if'S (Franzen - Vonhof, corr 1990, con­ tinued I O ...ll:lxd2 l l .i.xd2 gds 1 2 .ic3 0-0 13.� 1 . when 13 ...'9'a2 14.gcl '9'd5 might be played) I I .ic4 (not I I .id3? �xd2 12.i.xf5 '9'xg2) 1 1 ...'9'xe5 I2..id3 �d6 1 3 .ll:lf3 '9'e6 (better than 1 3 .. .i.xd3 1 4.'9'xc6+ bxc6 1 5 .�xe5 ie4 1 6.f3 f6 17.�g4if5 1 8.�f2. Schmidt - Augus­ tin, corr 1979) 14..ixf5 �x15 15.0-0 0-0, Gutman; further C) 8.ll:ld4 ixd2+ (8 ... ll:\xe5?! 9.'9'a4+, e.g. 9 ...'9'd7 1 0.'9'xb4 c5 1 1 .'9'b5 cxd4 12.ll:lxe4,Ham Baum, or 9....!Llc6 IO.�xc6 ixd2+ I I .ixd2 '9'd7 1 2..ia5 0-0 1 3.cxd5 ixd5 14,gd) '9'xc6 15 .'9'xc6 bxc6 16.b3 gac8 1 7.f3) 9bd2 �xd4 (if9 ... �xe5 IO.ic3 /0g4 l l .cxd5 ixd5 1 2.ic4 �gxf2 1 3 .ixd5 '9'xd5 1 4.0-0 �xc3 1 5 .gxf2) I O.exd4 ll:lxd2 1 1 .'9'xd2 dxc4, Baum, I2..ie2 0-0 13.0-0 c5, Gutman; similarly

6 .lfS! . .•

Tseidin and Gllzskov consider this move to be morepromising but itrjustification depends on afantasy variation which may be flawed, Harding This is only a sideline, and not critical to the ultimate value ofthe Faj because Black has a playable alternative ... , Har­ ding, Kibitzer 1 9. .

6 ... ll:\c6 7.e3 (7.a3 ixd2+ 8.i.xd2 if'S!? 9.'9'a4 transposes to 6.a3 ixd2+ 7.i.xd2 �f5 8.'9'a4+ �c6 9.� f3 ; however, 8 ... � xd2 is less ambitious but possible, e.g. 9.'9'xd2 .if6 I O.ll:lg5 ll:\xe5 I I .ll:\xe6 fxe6 12.'9'e3 '9'16 13.cxd5 O-O,Aifonso Romoo, and if9.�xd2, then not 9 ..J.e6 IO.f4 llJd4 1 1 .'9'c3 dxc4 1 2.�xc4 '9'd5 1 3 .e3 ll:\f5 1 4.ll:ld2 ll:le7 1 5 .e4 with advantage for White, Degiorgis - Berthelsen, e-mail 1 998, but 9 ... ll:\xe5 IO.cxd5 '9'xd5 l l .e4 '9'c6 1 2 .'9'c6+ ll:lxc6 1 3 .ib5 id7) is another sub-variation. The logical responses are the following: I) 7 .. .i.f5 ! seems the best opportunity to me, reaching a position after 6.e3 if'S 7.ll:\f3 �c6; 58

D) 8.ie2 YNe7 (8 ...0-0 9.0-0 ltJxd2 brings

Keprt, Moravian League 1998, should lose at once to l5.gxf3 !) 9.ixd2 ixd2+ IO.ltJxd2 ( IO .YNxd2 dxc4 l l .YNc3 YNe7) IO.. .J.xe2 l l .�xe2 ltJxe5 ( l l ...d4 l2.ltJf3 dxe3 l3.fxe3 YNe7 14 .YNc3 040 I S �dl gde8 l 6.E:d5 g5 1 7 _gfl E:hg8 may well be played, Meduna - Nepustil, Prague 1985) l2.YNc3 YNd6 13.YNd4 dxc4 14.YNxd6 cxd6 l 5 .f4 c3 l6.bxc3 ltJc6 with a level ending, Gutman. B) 8.cxd5 ixf3 appears critical, after: 81) 9.gxf3 ltJxd2 IO.J.xd2 (I O.dxc6 ltJb3+ l l .�e2 ltJxal l 2 .YNa4 0-0 13 .cxb7 E:b8 l4.YNxb4 YN d5, Jindrich TIYipl) 10 ...YNxdS l l .J.xb4 ltJxb4 l2.YNa4+ ltJc6 l 3 .J.g2 (if l 3 .ib5, then not 13 ... YNxf3 because of l4.E:gl 0-0 l 5.J.xc6 bxc6 l 6.YNg4, but 13 ...0-0 l4.J.xc6 bxc6 15 .YNe4 YNbS) 13 ... 0-0 14.0-0 (so far Trapi/Piacltetka, New in Chess, 1987; Beck - Gibson, internet game 1 997, went l 4.E:dl YNxeS 1 5 .0-0 YNxb2? l6.E:bl YNf6 1 7.E:xb7, but Black might play better 15 ... ltJd8! l 6.E:d2 c6) l4 ... ltJxe5 (after 14 ...YNxe5?! 1 5 .f4 YNe6 l6.gfc l E:fd8 l7 .YNb3 White exerts strong pressure on the c�file) l 5.f4 ltJf3+ l6.�hl YNhS 17.h3 ltJh4! (this seems to be quite OKfor Black, John Donaldson, Inside Chess, 1 990, while 1 7 ... E:fd8 is inaccurate due to l 8.YNb4 &b8 l9�d l ) l8.hb7 E:ab8 l 9.YNxa7 YNbS ( l 9 . . .ltJ f3 20.�g2 ltJh4+ 2 l .�h2 ltJf3+ i s not good in view of 22.ixf3 YNxf3 23 .YNd4 gb6 24.ggl ) 20.J.e4 gfe8 (20 ...YNc4 2 l .YNd4 YNxd4 22.exd4 E:fd8 23.a4 E:xd4 24.E:fe I E:xb2 25.a5 and the a-pawn appears to be too dangerous) 2 l .a4 YNd7 (2 l ...YNc4 22.J.g2 ltJxg2 23.�g2 E:xb2 is possible) 22.�h2 gxb2 23.Ah I YN d3 24.E:ac I h6 25lkel E:e2 26he2 YNxe2 27.�gl llJf3+ 28.ixf3 YNxf3 29.YNxc7 YNxh3 30.E:b I (30.E:c I? ge6 3 l.f5 E:e4, Harding) 30 ... &6 3 l .YNd8+ �h7 32.E:b6 YNg4+ 33.�fl E:xb6 34.YNxb6 YNdl + 35.�g2 YNxa4 is totally equal, Gutman ;

Black no success due to I O.ixd2 ixd2 l l .cxd5 .hd5 12_gfdl ib4 l3.e4, and also 8 ... ltJxd2 9.ixd2 ixd2+ IO.YNxd2 dxc4 l l .YNc3 YNe7 l2.J.xc4 .hc4 l3.YNxc4 Q.O.O, Mueller - Scheef, Germany 1 992, 14� I E:d7 l5 .YNc5 &8 16.0-0 favours White) 9.0-0ltJxd2 I O.J.xd2 ixd2 l l .cxd5 ixd5 l 2.ltJxd2 (12 .E:fd l ltJxe5 13.ltJxe5 YNxeS l4.E:xd2 ic6) 12 .. .YNxe5 !? l 3 .ltJf3 YNe7 l4.E:fd l E:d8 appears to hold a balance, Gutman;

E) 8.a3 ! ixd2+ 9.ltJxd2 (9.J.xd2 ltJxd2 IO.YNxd2 dxc4 I I .YNc3 YNdS l 2.E:cl 040 l 3 .J.xc4 YNxc4 l 4.YNxc4 ixc4 l 5.E:xc4 E:d5 l 6.E:f4 E:hd8 17 .'�e2 E:c5 l 8_gb I is worth trying) 9...ltJxd2 I O.J.xd2 d4 ( 1 0... dxc4 l l ..lxc4 hc4 12.YNxc4 0-0 l3 .i.c3) I I .f4 (an improvement on l l _gdl YNh4 1 2.ie2 0-0 13 .0-0 dxe3 14.J.xe3 ltJxe5 l 5 .E:d4 YNf6 l6.E:f4 YNg6 l 7.YNxg6 ltJxg6 )8_gd4 'l:z- 'lz Grosshans - Augustin, corr 1 989) l l ...YNe7 12 .J.d3 and Black has no compensation for the pawn, Gutman. III) 7 .J.g4 is more enterprising. •

Two replies come into consideration : A) 8�2 ltJxd2 (SIJUI"lder than 8...0.0 9.cxd5 ltJxd2 I O.ixd2 YNxdS l l .ic3 !? ixc3+ 12 .YNxc3 �8 13.0-0 ltJxeS l4.E:fdl, e.g. 14 ...YNe4 l5 .E:xd8 E:xd8 l 6.YNxc7!? gc8 17 �I h6 t 8ru8+ gxd8 l9.YNxd8+ �h7 20 YNdl , while l 4...ltJxf3+ ?, Rachunek 59

82) 9.dxc6! Y:!lh4 I O.g3 (I O.gxf3? �xf2+ l l .�dl lt:lxd2 12 ..b.d2 O-Q.O, Trap{) 10... lt:lxg3 l l .fxg3 ( l l .hxg3 �xh I 1 2.cxb7 .ixd2+ 13..bd2�8 14.ib4Jg2 15.�a4+ c6 16.�a6 .ixfl 17.�xfl �xfl + 1 8.� m,s 19.&1 Ib.b7 201bl.c6 �d7 2 U�d6+ �c8 22..ic3, yet 13 .. J:�b8 is the correct answer, e.g. 14.�a4+.ic6 15.�xa7 0-0 or 14.ib4 �bb7 1 5.�f5 �d8) I I ...�h6

16.�xf3 � 17.�c3 goo8 18 ..ie3 �xc6 19.�xc6 bxc6 20.gc1 gfe8 2 1 .gcs and White won, Finegold - Voekler, Gronin­ gen 1990) 14.� hd2 15..b.d2 gxd2+ 16.� �xh2 17 ..ig2 Y:!lhS+ 1 8.g4 �xeS 19.�c3 �d5+ 20.e4 �d6 2I ..ifl leaves Black insufficient for the piece, Gutman; 82a4) 12 ....b.d2+! 1 3..ixd2 Axhl l4.cxb7 gb8 ( is given by Tseitlbr/GIIlskov) 1 5.e4 (on I5..ib5+ c6! I6..ic4 0..0 17.0-0-0 Ad5 18.e4 hc4 19.�xc4 �e6 20.�xe6 fxe6 2I .Ab4 gn 22.gd6 gfxb7 23 .Ac3 �f7 24_gxc6gd7, while 1 5 .. .ic6?, HartUng, is rerut.d by 1 6.e6) 15...�g6 1 6.�a4+ c6 I7 .Aa6 0-0 18.Ae3 �h5 19..ixa7 gbd8 (19 �xh2?!, Harding, 20.0-0-0 Af3 2 1 . hb8 ixdl 22�xdl Ib.b8 23.�d6 �gl+ 24.�d2 � f2+ 25.�c3 !? �e3+ 26.�c4 �a7 27.�xc6 �8 28.e6) 20.b8� gxb8 2 I .hb8 gxb8 22.�d4 h6!? 23 .e6 fxe6 24.i.c4 �xh2 25..b.e6+ �h8 26.�12 Y:!lh5 27.�f5 �h2 with equality, Gutman. 82b) 12�.b5! �xe3+ 13.� 0-0 14.ggl ! (1 4.lt:lxf3 �xf3+ 1 5 .�gl �d5 1 6.�e2 Ac5+ 17..ie3 he3+ 18 .�xe3 �xb5 19. �c3 �xc6 20.�xc6 bxc6 gives Black a superior ending, Tl'llpl, yet 1 5 ... Aa5 !? is even more effective, for instance 16.h3 �xg3+ 17.�g2 �e l+ 1 8 .�fl �g3+ 19. �g2 �xeS 20.�e2 Ab6+ 2 1 .�g2 �d5+ 22�h2 gae8 23.�c4 �e5+ 24.�g2 ge6 25.gd) gg6+ 26.�hl �5 27.�d3 gd6 0: 1 Stohl - Trap !, Namestovo 1 987, or 16.h4 �xg3+ 17.�g2 �xe5 1 8 .ie2 Ab6+ 19.�fl gae8 !? 20.cxb7 ge6, Gutman) looks to me like a decisive improvement, 14...Ac5 (there is only a choice of evils: 14.. &d8 15.t¥b3, 14 ...bxc6 15.�d3 hd2 I6..ixd2 �xe5 1 7.�xf3 �xb5+ 18.�g2 �xb2 19.�c3, 14 ...gae8 15 .�d3 �xd3+ I6..ixd3 hc6 17 .lt:lb3 gxe5 1 8..if4 ge7 19.�f2) J 5 _gg2 Axg2+ 1 6.�xg2 �f2+ 17.�h3 gae8 1 8 .�e4! bxc6 1 9..id3 f5 20.�f4 1eaves White with a winning po­ sition, Gutman. .•

The complexities ofthis extremely risky continuation were neverfolly resolved; there are still many uncharted branches. What a picturesque position! So many pieces are hanging, Bogdan Lillie.

There are two interesting ideas: 82a) 1 2.�b3 introducing the following complications: 82al) 12 ..bxc6 1H�gl AdS (13 .. ..b.d2+ 1 4.Axd2 �xh2 15 .e4) 14.�xb4 �xe3+ I5.ie2 �xg l+ I 6.lt:lfl , Harding; further 82a2) 12 ..b.hl 13.�xb4 �xe3+ 14 ..ie2 .ixc6 ( 1 4 ...�gl + 15.lt:lfl Axc6 16.Ag5 or 14 ...�xe5 15 .cxb7 gb8 1 6.lt:lc4 �e4 17..ie3 Ib.b7 18.�a4+ are both devasta­ ting) I H10 �e4 16.�xe4 he4 1 7..if4 and White dominates, Harding; 82a3) ILO..O J 3_ggJ &d8 (wi� compen­ sation for the material deficit, Lalic; this is an unsuccessful attempt to improve on 13 ..b.d2+ 14..ixd2 �xh2 15.e4 �xgl •

.

•

60

Ill) 7...ltla6 8.cxd5 0-0 9.e3 't!le7 I O..ie2

Back to the main line

1 1 .0� ltlxd2 12..ixd2.ixd2 13.ltlxd2 't!lxe5 14..if3 ltlc5 15 .'t!lc4 b6 1 6.e4 .ic8 17.b4 ia6 18.b5 .ic8 19.ltlb3 f5 20.ltlxc5 bxc5 21 _gfe1 f4 22J�ac1 and White won, Matamoros - Quadrio, Loures 1 998; IV) 7....ixd2+ 8.ltlxd2 ltld7 (on 8...ltlc5 9. 't!lb5+ ltlbd7 1 0.cxd5 c6 1 l .dxc6 bxc6 1 2 .'t!lc4 't!le7 1 3 .ltl 0 0-0 14 . .ig5 't!le8, Matamoros - Quadrio, Orense 1 996, I suggest 1 5J.e3!? ltle4 1 6.g4 .ig6 17 ..ig2 ltlxe5 1 8.ltlxe5 't!lxe5 1 9.0-0) 9.cxd5 0-0 (9 ... ltlxe5? IO.ltlxe4 .ixe4 1 l .'t!la4+, and also 9 ...ltlxd2 IO ..ixd2 is hopeless, e.g. 10 ...0-0 1 1 .0 ltlxe5 12 .e4 or IO ... ltlxe5 l l .e4!, GeraldHertneck) I O.ltlxe4 .ixe4 1 1 .0 ig6 12J.f4 't!le7 1 3 .'t!lc3 ltlb6 14.e4 c6 1 5.d6 't!le6 16.'t!lb3 't!lc8 1 7.h4 h5 1 8.g3 'it>h8 19ih3 't!le8 20.0-0 f5 2 l .&e1 fxe4 22.fxe4 tf7 23.e6 ig8 24..ig5 1 :0 Hert­ neck - Trap!, German Bundesliga 1 99 1 ; V) 7 ...ltlc6 8.cxd5 ltlc5 9.'t!lc4 b5 10.'t!ff4 (maintains a clearplusfor White, Trt�pl; however, this move is forced as IO.'tYxbS 't!lxd5 turns the tables, e.g. 1 1 .e4 Axe4 12..ic4 't!ld7 13.ltlg5 l::!.b8 14..ixf7+ 'it>e7 or 1 l .ltld4 ()..()..() 12.'t!lxc6 't!lxd4) 1 O...'tYxdS 1 l .'t!lxf5 ltle4, when Black's threats are difficult to meet, Tseitlin/Giaskov. !h18

7.Vb3 Others: I) 7.ll:l d4 ?! ltlxd2 8.'t!la4+ ltlc6 9..ixd2 (9.ltlxc6 ltl0+ 10.'it>d 1 bxc6 1 l .'t!lxb4 dxc4+ 1 2..id2 �8) 9 .. ..ixd2+ IO.'it>xd2 dxc4 1 1 .e3 0-0, Gutman; II) 7.a3 ltlxd2 (7 .. ..ixd2+ 8 ..ixd2 ltlc6 -9.'t!la4 transposes to 6.a3 .ixd2+ 7..ixd2 .if5 8.ltl0 ltlc6 9.'t!la4) 8.'t!la4+ ltlc6 9. ltlxd2 (9..ixd2 .ixd2+ 10.ltlxd2 see 6.a3 Axd2 + 7.ixd2tf5 8.ltl0ltlc6 9.'t!la4 ltlxd2 IO.ltlxd2) 9 .ixd2+ (9...d4!?) 10bd2 Q.O 1 l .cxd5 ( l l ..if4 d4) 1 l ...'t!lxd5 12 ..ic3 ltlxe5 13J�d1 't!le6 14.'t!lb5 l::!.fe8 15..ixe5 c6! and Black is not worse, Gutman; III) 7.e3 goes into 6.e3 .irS 7.ltl 0 . •

7.. .�xdl! Less challenging are: I) 7 ... c5 8.cxd5 'tVaS ( 8 ... 't!lb6 9.a3 iaS 1 O.'t!lxb6 axb6 1 l .e3 0-0, Schendel - Sae­ bele, corr 1988, 1 2.ltlh4 ltlxd2 1 3 ..ixd2 .ixd2+ 14.'it>xd2 .ie4 1 5 .d6 ltlc6 1 6 .f4) 9.a3 ltld7 IO.l::!.a2 .ixd2+ 1 1 ..ixd2 ltlxd2 12.ltlxd2 0-0 1 3 .'t!lc3, Gutman; m 7....ic5 8.e3 d4 9.exd4 .ixd4 1 0.'t!lxb7 (Tabemig - Cigan, Austria 1995, went 1 0.ltlxe4 .ixe4 1 1 .ltlxd4 't!lxd4 1 2 .�e3 ltlc6 1 3 .0 .itS 14.'it>f2 't!lxe5 Yz-Yz) 10 ... ltlxf2 1 I .ltlxd4 't!lxd4 1 2 .ltl0 't!le4+ 1 3 . 't!lxe4 ltlxe4 14.ltld4, Gutman;

In my opinion Black cannot take the po­ sition by violent attack because he is not sufficiently developed.

61

We see: A) 1 2 .a3 gd8, when: AI) 1 3.axb4 ttlxb4 14.ttld4 (This despe­

13 ... g5 (an attempt to resuscitate this va­ riation for Black, given by Max Bou­ araba, while Buecker analyses 13 0-0� 14.�xb5 ttlxd2 1 5 .h6+ cit>b8 1 6.�xd2 �xd2+ 17.cit>e2) 14.ti'f5 ttle7 1 5 .ti'h3 !? ( 1 5 .�xb5+ c 6 16.ti'h3 i s less clear due to 16 ...cxb5 17.0-0 .bd2 t 8rut h5 19.g4 ttlg6 20.ixd2 ti'e6) 15 .. .h5 16.ttld4 (1 6.a3 g4 17.ti'h4 ttlg6 1 8 .axb4 ttlxh4 1 9.ttlxh4 0-0-0 20.ttlf5 ti'xeS , Bouaraba, or 1 6.g4 gd8 1 7.ttld4 ttlxd2 1 8.ixd2 �xd2+ 19. cit>xd2 c5 20.�xb5+ cit> � 2 l .�d3 cxd4 22.ghdl ?! ti'xe5 , Gerard - Toulzac, St. Quentin 2002, are both hardly viable for White) 1 6 ...c5 ( 1 6 . . . g4 1 7 .ti'h4 has its drawbacks, e.g. 1 7 ... ttlg6 1 8ixb5+ cit>fB 19.�c6 or 1 7 ... c6 1 8.�d3 ttlg6 1 9�xe4 ti'xe4 20.ti'f6) 1 7 .�xb5+ cit>� 1 8 .�d3 !? ( 1 8 .0-0 g4 19.ti'h4 �xd2 20ixd2 ttlg6 21 ic6 is probably not weaker, e.g. 2 1 ... ti'c4 22.ixe4 ttlxh4 23�fcl ti'a6 24.ha8 or 2 1 ...ti'xe5 22.f4) 18 ...cxd4 1 9 ixe4 ti'xe4 20.0-0 ti'xe5 2 1 . ttlf3 with advan­ tage for White, Gutman. .•

rado counter-sacrifice, gaining a tempo, seems to be critical, Htuding. 1 4.gxa7

ti'c4, TS�?itlin/Giaskov; 14.gb) ttlc2+!? 15 .'it>dl ti'b3, Harding; 14. ttlg5 ttlc2+ I S.'it>dl ttlxal are all winning fer Black) 14 ...ti'xd4 15 .e3 ttlc2+ 1 6.'it>dl (1 6.'i!ie2? ti'd3+ 17.cit>dl ttlc3+ 1 8.bxc3 ti'xfS) 16 ... ti'b4 17.cit>xc2 (or 17J.d3 �d3 18.cit>xc2 gxd2+ 1 9.ixd2 ti'xd2+ 20.cit>bl ti'd3+) 17 ..Axd2+ 18.ixd2 ti'xd2+ 19.'i!;t3 ti'd5+ (not 19 ...ttlc5+? 20.cit>a2 ti'a5+ 2 1 .cit>bl ti'e l + 22.cit>c2 ti'b4 23 .ti'c8+, Crafty ­ Martin, computer game 1 998) 20. cit>a3 ti'c5+ 2 1 .cit>a2 ti'd5+ 22.cit>a3 ti'c5+ w ith a draw by perpetual check, Harding; Al) 13.ti'f4! g5 14.ti'e3 .bd2+ (14...ti'c4 1 5 .b3 !? ti'c2 1 6.axb4 ttlxb4 1 7.ttld4 c5 1 8.ttlxc2 ttlxc2+ 19.cit>dl ttlxe3+ 20.fxe3 ttlf2+ 2l .cit>c2 ttlxh I 22.ttle4, Estremera ­ Milia, Orense 1 997) 1 5 .ixd2 g4 16.gd) ( 16.ti'd3 gxf3 17.ti'xd5 �d5 18.if4, Ste fan Buecker) 1 6 ... gxf3 17 .exf3 ttlxd2 1 8Axd2 ti'xd2+ 19 .ti'xd2 gxd2 20.cit>xd2 leaves Black with nothing of value for the material deficit, Gutman. B) 1 2.e3 g6 1 3 .ti'f4 was suggested by Buecker in Kaissiber 211 997. ­

8 b:d2 Black has no reason to be worried about: I) 8 .ti'xb4 ttlxf3+ 9.exf3 ttlc6 I O.ti'xb7 ttld4 l l .�g5 gb8 ( l l ...ti'xg5 12 .ti'xa8+ rtle7 13.ti'xh8 ttlc2+ 14.cit>dl ttlxal IS.'trbS tc2+ 16.cit>el ti'cl+ 17.cit>e2 idl+ 1 8.cit>d3 ti'xc4+ 19.cit>d2 ti'c2+ 20.cit>e3 ti'cl+ for­ ces a dmw, 2 1 .cit>d4 ttlc2+ 22. cit>xd5 ti'd2+ ..

He seems to have found the flaw, Harding, The Kibitzer 1 9.

62

23 .'it>e4 ti'el+ 24.'it>d3 ti'xe5 25 .ti'xa7 ti'd6+ 26.'it>c4 ti'h4+) 12 .ti'xa7 (1 2.i.xd8 ltlc2+ 13 .'it>dH txb7 1 4Jkl 'it>xd8) 12 ... ltlc2+ 1 3 .'it>e2 f6 1 4.exf6 'it>f7 ! 1 5 J:td l gxb2 1 6.'it>d2 ti' d6 I 7. We i ti'e5 leads to a quick mate, Gutman; II) 8.ltlxd2 ltlc6 9.e3 d4 (9...dxc4 IO.ixc4 seems less flexible, e.g. 10 ... 0-0 I I .e6 fxe6 12.ixe6+ i.xe6 13 .ti'xe6+ 'it>h8 14.a3 .hd2+ 15.ixd2 ti'd3 16.ic3 �8 17.ti'g4 or I O...ti'e7 l l .a3 .ixd2+ 1 2 .ixd2 0-0-0 13 .f4) I O.a3 i.xd2+ l l .ixd2 0-0 1 2.gdJ ( 1 2.f4 can be met by 1 2 .. .f6) 1 2 . . .ti'h4 13 .ti'xb7 ltlxe5 14.ti'xc7 gfe8 and Black has an enduring initiative, Gutman. 8 . Axdl+ 9.�xdl dxc4

Bellon, Oviedo 1 9 9 1 , but 14 ... ltlxc4!? 15.Axc4 c6 appears more logical) 1 3 ... &b8 14.0-0 b5 1 5.ltld2 gfd8 1 6.ltlf3 did not give Black enough for the missing pawn, Gutman. l l .Y!hb7 J J .gdJ ti'e7 12.ti'xb7 (12 .e3 ltld7 13..ie2 ltlxe5 14.ltlxe5 ti'xe5 15.ti'xb7 � 16.ti'h5 ti'xb5 17..1xb5 &b8) 12 ... ltld7 13.ti'xc7 ( 1 3 .ltle3 ltlb6!? 1 4.ltlxf5 ti'b4+ 15 ,gd2 gfd8) 13 ...ti'h4+ 14.ltld2 gac8 1 5 .ti'd6 ( 15.ti'xa7 ti'xb2 1 6.e4 is strongly met by 16 ... ltlxe5 ! 17.exf5 gfe8 1 8.Ae2 ltld3+ 1 9.'it>fl ti'xd2) 1 5 ...ti'xb2 16.e4 ltlxe5 17.exf5 We8 18..1e2 gcd8 19.ti'a6 ltld3+ 20.'it>fl ti'c2 2 I .g3 ltlb2 shows the pow­ er of Black 's position, Gutman. l l ... �d7

..

10.�xc4 I O.ti'xb7 ltld7 l l .e4 ( l l .ltlxc4 0-0 goes back into the text) l l ...c3 1 2.bxc3 Ae6 1 3 ..1c4 0-0 14..1xe6 ltlc5 15 .ti'd5 ltld3+ 1 6.'it>fl fxe6 1 7.ti'xd8 ( 1 7.ti'xe6+ 'it>h8 1 8 .ltlf3 fails to 1 8 ... gxf3 1 9.gxf3 ti'h4) 1 7 ...�d8 1 8.ltlf3 ( 1 8.f3 ltlcl 19.gxc l gxd2) 1 8 ...gf4 ! ? 1 9.gd J gxe4 20.ltlel �el+ 20Jhel ltlxel 2 1 .'it>xel gds with a presumably even ending, Gutman. 1 0...0-0 IO ...ltlc6 l l .e3 ( l l .ti'xb7!? .id7 12.ti'b3 ti'e7 13.ti'c3 is also reasonable) I J ._Q..O 12..1e2 ti'e7 13 .f4 (13.0-0 ltlxe5 14.&cl l::tab8 15.ti'b5 ltlxc4 16.ti'xf5 ltle5 17 l:tfdl gave White an edge in Comas Fabrego -

ll.bJ 121:tcl gb8 13.ti'xa7 &8 14.ti'd4 gxa2, Gutman.

ll ...aS!? 12 ...ti'e7 1 3 .gc l ltlxe5 14.ltlxe5 ti'xe5 15.ti'xc7 ti'b2 1 6.ti'c3 ti'xa2 17.&1 ti'c2 should be equal, Gutman. IJ.!cl a4 In spite of being two pawns down, Black maintains the balance, Gutman.

63

Stcllon l ( l ,d4 tift 2.c4 tS l.dxe5 tle4 4.Vc:l &b4+) S.tlcl

White carefully avoids the temporary congestion ofhis pieces, Bogdtm Ltdic.

5.-dS! We have to consider two more moves: I) 5...l0xc3 6.bxc3, when the lost tempo could become significant: A) 6.. � H:lf3 h6 8.g3 l0c6 9.J.g2 Y!Je7 IQ,g})l �8 (l0...g6 l l .l0d4 Y!Jxe5 1 2.J.f4 or 10 ...g5 l l .J.e3 .ig7 1 2.h4 g4 13.l0d4) l l .O-O l0xe5 1 2.l0xe5 Y!Jxe5 l3..if4 Y!Jc5 14 . .id5, Gutman; further B) 6.. .J.a5 7.l0f3 (7 � l0c6 leads White nowhere, e.g. 8.f4 ffi 9.l0f3 fxe5 1 0.fxe5 l0xe5 l l .l0xe5 Y!Jf6 or 8.l0f3 f6 9 .exffi Y!Jxf6) 7 ... ffi (Otto Borik gives 7... 0-0 8 . .ig5 Y!Je8 followed by... l0c6 with the bet­ ter game for Black, but we can improve with 8.l0g5 g6 9.l0e4) 8.J.d2 ().() 9.exffi Y!Jxf6 1 0.e3 l0c6 l l ..id3 h6 1 2 .0-0 d6 l3.l:�abl , Gutman; sim ilarly C) 6...J.c5 7.l0f3 l0c6 (7 ...d5 8.cxd5 Y!Jxd5 9.e4 Y!Jd8 lO.Y!Jb3 ie7 l l .J.c4 0-0 1 2.0-0 b6 131M 1 Y!Je8, Schneider - Nwmi, corr 1 989, 14.e6 secure a clear plus for White, though 8.J.g5 ffi 9.exf6 gxffi l O..ih4 is also good) 8.J.f4 (8.J.g5 .ie 7 9.J.f4 seems reasonable, e.g. 9 ...g5 1 O.J.g3 g4 l l .l0d2

h5 1 2.e3 d6 1 3 .exd6 .ixd6 1 4.�bl h4 15 .hd6, Danner - Schaffarth, Wolfs­ berg 1986, or 9 ... .ic5 l O.�dl a6 l l .e3 Y!Je7, Bekemann - Leisebein,e-mail l999, 12.J.e2 ().() l3.Q.O) 8 ...h6 9.e3 Y!Je7 lO.J.d3 ( l O.J.e2 !? b6 brought Black no success in the praxis, we see l l .O-Oi.b7 12.a4 a5 l3.Y!Jf3 0-0-0 14.l0d4 IDleS 15 ..if3 l0xe5 16..ixb7+ 'i!n!.b7 17 ..ixe5 Y!Jxe5 18.Y!Jxt7, Krumm - Wittelsberger, Kettig 1 994, or l l .l0d4 ib7 12 ..if3 0-0-0 l3.l0xc6 hc6 14..id5 hd5 15.cxd5 d6 16.exd6 .ixd6 1 7.ixd6 �xd6 1 8 .c4 �e8 19 .0-0 Y!Je4 20.�c 1 , Verat - Herbrechtsmeier, French League 2002) 1 O...b6 (l0 ...g5?! 1 1 �3 0-0 12..ie4 d6 13..id5 �g7 14.h4, Carbonell - Popp, corr 1 953) 1 1 .0-0 !? .ib7 ( l l ...g5 1 2.J.g3 h5 1 3 .h4 g4 14.l0g5 .ib7 1 5 .J.g6!, e.g. 1 5 . . .fxg6 1 6.Y!Jxg6+ �tB 1 7.f3 Y!Jg7 1 8.l0e6+ dxe6 19 .fxg4+ or 1 5 ... l0d8 16.J.e4 l0c6 17 .J.d5, Garcia Suarez - Angel Gomez, Asturia 1 998) 12..ie4 ()..()-0 l3.J.d5 g5 14.J.g3 h5 1 5 .h4 leaves Black with insufficient counter­ play, Gutman. II) 5 .. .J.xc3+ 6.bxc3 deserves attention.

After: A) If 6 ... d5 we have two independent lines (7.e3, 7.cxd5, 7.l0f3 and 7.exd6 all transpose to the main line with 5 _.d5) : AI) 7 .J.f4 .if3 8.Y!Jb2 (8.Y!Jb3 can be met by 8 ... l0c5 9.Y!Jb5+ l0bd7 lO.cxd5 c6!? 64

l l .dxc6 bxc6 1 2.\!1/xc6 0-0) S ...dxc4 (S ... g5 9.ie3 ltld7 1 O.cxd5 ltlxe5 l l .ltlO ltlg6 12.\!1/b5+!? .id7 13.\!1/b4 f5 14.\!1/xb7 g4 1 5 .ltld2 ltld6 16.\!1/b3 !? f4 1 1 ..id4 gbs l S .\!1/d l 0-0 19 ..ixa7 gas 20 ..ic5 l0e5 2 l .e3 .ia4 22.ltlb3 \!1ff6 23.\!1/c2 fxe3?! 24..ixe3 .ixb3 25.\!1/xb3 gaeS 26.0-0-0 and White won, Apfelhnofer - Meyer, corr 1 9S9) 9.\!1/xb7 ltld7 IO.lLJO ( 1 0.e6 fxe6 1 1 .\!1/c6 0-0 1 2J''td 1 \!1ff6) 1 0 ... 0-0 l l .l0d4 .ig6 is fine for B lack, Gutman; A2) 7..ia3! .if5 (7 ...c5 S.cxd5 \!1/xd5 9.0 ltlg5 1 0.c4 \!1/xe5 l l ..ib2 \!1/e3 12 ..ixg7 ggs 1 3 .\!1/c3) s.gd l ! (S.\!1/a4+ ltlc6 9.e3 seems dubious in view of9 ..\!1/h4; less convincing is 9 ... ltlxc3 1 0.\!1/b3 d4, not because of 1 1 .\!1/xb7? .ie4 1 2 .\!1/b2 gbs, Frantisek NepustU, but due to l l .ltlf3, e.g.l l..ln>S 12.exd4 ltlxd4 13.\!1/xc3 l0c2+ 14.�2 ltlxal 15.ltld4 or l l ....ig4 12.l0xd4 ltlxd4 1 3 .\!1/xc3) S ... c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 (9 .. \!1lb6 is refuted by 10.ltlh3 ltlg3 1 1 .\!1/c 1 ltlxhl 12.\!1/g5 c5 1 3 .\!1/xf5) 1 O.e3 \!1/c7 (10...ltlg3 l l .e4 ltlxe4 1 2.Jd3 l0d7 13 .ltlf3 &S 14.0-0 !lxc3 15.\!1/b2) l l .ltle2 l0d7 12.\!1/b2 and the white bishop on a3 becomes too strong, Gutman. B) 6 ... ltlc5 (Black is intending to follow up with ltlc6, b7-b6, .ib7, \!1/e7 and ()..().() , Jindrich Tmpl) 7 .lLJO , and now: 81) 7 ...\!1/e7 S..ig5 (Elburg - Krantz, corr 1990/92, continued S ..if4 lOc6 9.e3 b6 1 0..ie2 .ib7 1 1 .0-0 h6 12.h4 0-0-0 1 3.a4 a5 14.\!1/f5 gdgS 15.ltld4 ltldS 16..ig3 Ae4 17.1ru lM:tl l S.O ib7 19.\!1/f5 g6 20.\!1/c2 ltlg7 2 l .f4 ltlf5 with a plus for Black) S ...\!1/e6 (S ...\!1/fS 9.g3 !? ltlc6 1 O..ig2) 9.e3 h6 IO..if4 b6 l l .ltld4, Gutman; further 82) 7 ...h6 S..ia3! (more consequent than S...if4 ltlc6 9.e3 \!1/e7 1 O.ie2 b6 l l .ltld4, Wagenaar - Woudsma, Soest 199S, 1 1 ... ltlxe5) S ...\!1/e7 9.g3 b6 1 O..ig2 .ib7 1 1 . 0-0 ltlc6 12.gadl ltlxe5 1 3 ..ixc5 bxc5 14.ltlxe5 .ixg2 15.<;!;>xg2 \!1/xe5 16 .gd5 \!1/e7 17.gxc5, Gutman; similarly .

.

83) 7 ...ltle6 S ..ia3 (S.e4?! ltla6 9 . .ie2 ltlac5 1 0.0-0 b6 l l ..ie3 .ib7 1 2.ltld2 g5 1 3.0 \!1/e7 14.ltlb3 0-0-0 1 5.gfd l gdgS 16l!d5 gg6 17 ..ifl h5, Capit - Lopez de Turizo, Zaragoza 1 995) S ...c5 (S ... ltla6 9.ltld4 ltlac5 1 0.ltlxe6 ltlxe6 l l .e3 b6 12..id3 or S ... b6 9.e3 .ib7 10 ..id3 .ixO l l .gxO \!1/h4 12..ie4 ltlc6 13.f4 are both no better) 9.e3 0-0 (9 ... l0c6 10..id3 \!1/c7 l l ..ie4 ltlxe5 12.ltlxe5 \!1/xe5 1 3.f4 \!11c7 14.0-0) 1 0..id3 g6 1 1 .0-0 ( l l .h4!? <;!;>g7 12 .g4 ghs 1 3 .0-0-0 is also reasonable, 13 . . . \!1/a5 1 4.\!1/b3 a6 1 5 .ltld2 b5 1 6.f4 ltlc6 1 7 ..ie4 gbs 1S . .ixc6 dxc6 1 9.f5 , Papp - Graf, Balatonbereny 1 993) 1 1 ... l0c6 12� \!1/c7 13lladl ltlxe5 14.ltlxe5 \!1/xe5 1 5 .f4, Gutman; finally 84) 7 ... 0-0 S.ia3 (S.ltlg5 g6 9.h4 d6 Duessel - Jonitz, Germany 1 993, went 9 ...d5? lO.iaJ ltlba6 l l .!ld 1 \!1/e7 12.cxd5 \!1/xe5 13.e4 ltlxe4, when 14.ltlxe4 ges 15.gd4 f5 1 6..ic4 is decisive -, I O..ie3 ltlc6 l l .exd6 cxd6 12.h5 .if5 13.\!1/cl geS 14.g4 .ixg4 yields an unclear position, e.g. 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.IDtS+ Wg7 17.mt7+ <;!;>gS lSl!hS+ drawing by perpetual, or 15..ixc5?! dxc5 16.hxg6 hxg6 1 7 .!lhS+ <;!;>xhS 1 S.ltlxf7+ Wg7 1 9.ltlxdS gaxdS 20.\!1/g5 ltle5, Schwarz - Dausch, Ger­ many 1 99 5) S ...\!1/e7 9.g3 (9..ixc5 \!1/xc5 1 0.e3 is too passive, viz. 10 ltlc6 l l ..ie2 ltlxe5 1 2.ltlxe5 \!1/xe5 1 3 .0-0 d6, Knies ­ Riessbeck, corr 1 9S7. Also 9.gdl b6!? 1 0.g3 .ib7 l l ..ig2 ltlba6 1 2.h4 .ixO !? 13..ix0 !ladS 14..ie4 h 6 1 5.f4 d 6 gives Black a fully satisfactory game, imp ­ roving on 13 ...c6? 14 ..ie4 h6 1 5.f4 f6 1 6..ih7+ �hS 17.exffi gxffi 1 S..i.f5 \!1/e3, Lj ubomir - Dausch, Crailsheim 1 995, when 19.icl \!1/xg3+ 20.Wfl lid5 2 1 .\!1/xfS \!1/xc3 22100 \!1/xc4 23�2 ltle6 24.!lxd7 would have been critical) 9...b6 I O..ig2 ltlc6 ( I O ....ib7? l l ..ixc5 bxc5 12 .ltlg5 \!1/xg5 1 3 ..ixb7) 1 1 .0-0 and Black does not have enough for the pawn, Gutman. .•

65

mann - Steinberg, corr 1995) 7 ...Y!Vxd2+ (7.. .1xc3 8.Axc3 favours White: 8...lilxc3 9.Y!Vxc3 lilc6 10.lilf3 0-0 l l .e3 ge8, Borik, is doubtful on account of 1 2.Ac4 Y!Va5 1 3 .Y!Vxa5 lilxa5 1 4..Ae2 ig4 1 5.gc l , and 8 ....Af5 goes into 4.Y!Vc2 d5 5.cxd5 if5 6.lilc3 ib4 7.Ad2 Axc3 8 .Axc3 Y!Vxd5Chapter 2) 8.Y!Vxd2 lilxd2 9.'it>xd2 lilc6 (if 9 ...0-0, then 1 0.f4, instead of 1 0.e4?! lilc6 l l .f4 �8+ 1 2.�el � 1 3.g3 �e4+ 14.lilge2 ig4 15.�f2 Ac5+ 1 6.�el ge3 1 7.lildl lilb4 0: 1 Iversen - Soby, Aarhus 1 973) 10.f4 ( 1 0.lilf3 ig4!? l l .e3 0-0-0+ 12.�c2 its+ 1 3 .e4 Axc3 1 4.exf5 AxeS 1 5 .Ac4 lild4+ 1 6 .lilxd4 gxd4 1 7..Axn ghd8 1 8.Ae6+ �b8 19 ,gadl gxdl 20. �dl �dl 2l .�dl hb2, Cruz Lopez ­ Bellon, Spanish Ch 1 99 1 , and also 1 0.a3 Ac5 l l .e3 lilxe5 12 .lile4 Ae7 1 3.f4 lilg4 14.h3 lilf6, Gerusel - Schuppert, Gennan Bundesliga 1 980, are in Black's favour) l O _ .J.f5 l l .lilf3 ( l l .gdl 0-0-0+ 12.�cl Ac5 13.�d8+ gxd8 14.e4 Ae3+ 1 5.�c2 �+ 1 6.�b 1 Axe4+ 0: 1 Shoup - Henke, corr 1 995) 1 1 ...()..()..()+ 1 2.�el ffi 13.exf6 gxffi with compensation for the pawn, Anatoli Matsukevich ; C) 6 .. ..Axc3+! 7.bxc3 Y!Vxd5 8.f3 (8.lilf3 lilc6 9..Af4 Y!Vc5) 8 ...lilc5 9.Af4 lile6 (9 ... lilc6 1 0.e4 Y!Ve6 l l .lile2 lilxe5 1 2.lild4 Y!Vffi 13..Ae3 0-0 1 4..Ae2 Y!Vg6 1 5.0-0 se­ cures some edge for White) 1 0.e3 Y!Vc5 (after 10 ... g5 l l ..Ag3 Y!Vc5 12.Y!Vd2 lild7 13.f4 lilb6 14.f5 lild8 1 5.e4 lilc6 1 6.gdl .td7 1 7.e6 0-0-0 1 8...tf'2 'l'e7 19.exd7+ �d7 20.Y!Vc2 �dl + 2 l .�xdl gd8+ 22. �1 lilb4 23.Y!Vb 1 White won, Pracejus ­ Sasse, corr 1 992) l l .lile2 ( l l .Y!Vd2 0-0 12ig3 lilc6) l l ...lilc6 (or l l ...g5 1 2..Ag3 Y!Vxe3 1 3Bdl and now not 13 ...0-0 14.h4 h6 1 5Bd5 Y!Vb6 1 6.hxg5 lilxg5 17.e6 1 :0 Schiller - Riessbeck,corr 1989, but 1 3 ... lilc6 14Bd5 g4 1 5 .fxg4 lilc5 1 6..Af4 Y!Ve4) 12.Y!Ve4 0-0 13 ..Ag3 b6 looks highly reli­ able for Black, Gutman.

6.exd6 Alternatives: I) 6.a3 Axc3+ 7.bxc3 Af5 UVb2 (after 8.Y!Va4+ lilc6 9.Ab2 dxc4 l OJ:M l Y!Ve7 l l .lilf3 0-0 1 2.lild4?! lilxd4 1 3 .cxd4 c3 14..Aal c5 Black won in Lee-Gossell, Las Vegas 2002) 8 ...0-0 9 ..if4 dxc4 (9... lila6?! l OJ�dl c6 l l .f3 lilec5 1 2 .e4 Ae6 13 .cxd5 cxd5, Sirens - Touzane, French League 1 995, 1 4 .exd5) 1 O.Y!Vxb7 lild7 l l .f3 ( l l .lilf3 lildc5) l l . ..lilec5 1 2 .Y!Vc6 Y!Vb8 looks fairly grim for White, Gutnwn ; II) 6.Ad2 lilxd2 7.Y!Vxd2 d4 8.0-0-0 c5 (Beckett - Fraser, Isle of Man 1 993, con­ tinued 8 ... lilc6 9.a3 dxc3 1 0.Y!Vxd8+ lilxd8 l l .axb4 cxb2+ 1 2.�b2 lilc6 13.b5 lilxe5 1 4.e3 Ae6 1 5J�d4, when 15 ...a6! might be tried) 9.e3 lilc6 10.exd4 cxd4 l l .Y!Vf4 ( l l .a3 Aa5 1 2.Y!Vf4 Axc3 1 3 .bxc3 Y!Va5 1 4.cxd4 Y!Vc3+) l l ...Axc3 1 2.bxc3 Y!Va5 1 3.cxd4 Y!Vxa2 1 4..Ad3 lila5 winning for Black, Retamar - Blanco, corr 1 982; 01) 6.cxd5, when we have to consider: A) 6....At5 reaches a position after 4.Y!Vc2 d5 5.cxd5 if5 6.lilc3 ib4 - Chapter 2; 8 ) 6...Y!Vxd5 7..Ad2 (there is no reason for 7.f3 because of7._li\xc3 8.bxc3 Y!Vxe5 9.Ab2 AaS , while 7.Y!Va4+ lilc6 8.Y!Vxb4 lilxb4 9.lilxd5 lt:lxd5 1 O.a3 lilc5 l l .ig5 c6 1 2 J�dl Ae6 13.lilf3 0-0 14.e3 h6 1 5 ..Ah4 ig4 16.Ae2 �Ue8 1 7 .Ag3 lile4 1 8 .0-0 lilxg3 19.hxg3 �e5 was equal in Horst66

IV) 6.e3 is calm and sensible, Harding.

D) Also the exchange 6 ...ixc3+ 7.bxc3 seems premature to me, introducing the following complications: Dl) 7 ... ltJc6?! S.ltJO (S .f4!? if5 9.id3 'Wb4+ is according to Harding good for Black due to IO.g3? ltJxg3, but in fact JO.'i!lfl ltJg3+ l l .hxg3 ixd3+ 1 2 ."tYxd3 "tYxhl 1 3 .cxd5 ltJdS 14.ia3 appears to be just the opposite) S . . .if5 9.id3 ig6 I O.ia3 with a plus for White, Gutman; 02) 7 ...0-0 can be met by S.id3 f5 (S ... i f5 9.cxd5 "tYxd5 1 0. 0 ! ltJf2 l l .ixf5) 9.ia3 ! ? ges IO.ltJO ltJc6 1 1 .0-0 ltJxe5 12.ltJxe5 :IDeeS 1 3 .gfdl c6 1 4.cxd5 cxd5 1 5 .c4, Gutman; 03) 7 ...ltJa6 S�3 if5 9.'Wb2 c5 (9...icS J O.gd) c5 l l .cxd5 "tWaS I Utcl 0-0 1 3.0 ltJg5 1 4.h4 I :0 Laubis - Melchor, corr 199 1 ) 1 0.0 ( I O."tYxb7 ltJc7 I I .'Wb3 0-0 1 2.ltJO gbs is unclear) IO ..."t!M+ l l .g3 'Wb6 ( l l ...ltJxg3 1 2."tYf2 "tYh6 1 3 ."tYxg3 "tYxe3+ 14.ltJe2) 12 .fxe4 ixe4 1 3 .'Wb5+ "tYc6 (or 1 3...'it>f8 1 4."tYxb7 ges 1 5 .cxd5 "tYxe3+ 1 6.ltJe2 ixh l 1 7."tYxa6) 14.cxd5 ixd5 1 5."tYxc6+ ixc6 16.ixa6!? bxa6 17 .o!tJO ixO I S.0-0 with a much better ending for White, Gutman; 04) 7 ... if5 keeps more options open: D4a) S.id3 ltJd7 9.cxd5 ltJdc5 I O.ib5+ c6 l l .dxc6 0-0 1 2.ia3 ( 1 2 .cxb7? gbS) 12 ..."tYa5 1 3 .'Wb2 bxc6 14.ie2 gabS 1 5 . ib4 "tYa4 1 6.0 ( 1 6."tYa3? "tYc2 1 7 .ixc5 gbl+ I S.:i:Dcbl "tYxbl+ 1 9.idl ltJxc5 20. ltJo gdS) 16 ... a5 1 7.fxe4 ixe4 1 S.ltJO axb4 1 9.0-0 "tYa3 20."tYxa3 bxa3 should be about equal, Gutman; D4b) S.'Wb2 0-0 (S ... ltJd7 9.cxd5 ltJxe5 I O.c4 "tYf6 l l .ltJ O ltJg4 1 2 ."tYxf6 gxf6 1 3 .h3 ! ltJgxf2 1 4.gh2) 9.ltJO (9."tYxb7 ltJd7 might offer Black good attacking chances, e.g. I O."tYxd5 c6 l l ."tYxc6 "tWaS or I O.cxd5 ltJec5 l l ."tYc6 gbs 1 2.d6 cxd6 13.exd6 "tYf6) 9 ... ltJc5 I O."tYd2 dxc4 I I . ixc4 "tYxd2+ ( l l ..."tYe7 1 2�3) 12 ..bd2 ltJbd7, Gutman; similarly

We survey Black's defences: A) 6.. .d4 7.a3 (7.exd4 "tYxd4 S.ltJO .ixc3+

9.bxc3 "tYxc3+ IO."tYxc3 ltJxc3 l l .id3 ltJa4) 7 . . .ixc3+ S.bxc3 ltJxc3 9.ltJO c5 I O.id2 ltJc6 l l .exd4 cxd4 1 2 .ltJxd4! ? ( 1 2 .id3 ig4 1 3 .ltJxd4 ltJxd4 1 4."tYxc3) 12 ..."tYxd4 13.J.xc3 "tYf4 14..td3 W l5.0.0, Jaeger - Ros, corr 1 995 ; further B) 6...0.0 7.id3 .if5 S.ltJO ltJd7 (Zinner ­ Pitschak, Bmo 1 934, went S ... ltJc6 9.0-0 ixc3 IO.bxc3 &8 l l .cxd5 ltJxe5 12.ltJxe5 :IDce5 1 3 .0 ltJd6 1 4.e4 ig6 1 5.if4 ges 1 6.c4 "tYf6 1 7 .ig3 and White won, but 1 3 .f4 ges 1 4.g4 could be even stronger) 9.0-0 ixc3 (9... ltJdc5 fails to I O.ltJxd5 ltJxd3 l l ."tYxd3 ltJg3 12 ."tYb3) I O.bxc3 ltJdc5 l l .ia3, Gutman; similarly C) 6 ... ltJc6 7.ltJO .b5 (7 .. .ig4 Sie2 0-0 9.0-0 ixc3 l l .bxc3 ixO 1 2.gx0 ltJc5 13�3 and for 7 ...if5 S.id3 seeB) S.id2 (S.ie2 if5 9."tYb3 d4 ! ? I O.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 l l .exd4 "tYxd4 1 2.0-0 ltJxc3 1 3.bxc3 "tVxeS 14.10 0-0 1 5.ie3 ixc3 1 6.gadl gadS 1 7 .:IDcdS :i:DcdS IS."tYxb7 a5 with equality, An Mon - Fritz 6, computer game 200 1 ) S. . .ltJxd2 ( S.. .if5 9.cxd5ixc3 is refuted by I O.dxc6 ixd2+ l l .ltJxd2 ltJg3 1 2.e4) 9."tYxd2Ae6 (9...tg4 10.cxd5 ixt3 l l .dxc6 "tYxd2+ 12.'i!i'Xd2 ixc6 13.'i!lc2 ()..() 14�1) IO.c5 1b4 l l ib5 are all better for White, Gutman; 67

Black has a couple of possibilities: A) 6 ...d4 7 .a3 (7 .�xe4 dxc3 8.b3, Mat­ sulu!vich, is doubtful in view of 8.../l)c6 9.a3 c2+ 1 O..id2 .ixd2+ l l ./l)xd2 �e7 12.�xc2 �xeS) 7...dxc3 (7 .. J.xc3+ 8.bxc3 .fu.c3 9.e3 see 6.e3 d4 7.a3 .ixc3+ 8.bxc3 /l)xc3 9./l)f3 - I VA) 8 .axb4 cxb2 (8 ... .iB 9.�b3) 9.J.xb2 .its l O.m3 0-0 1 1 . g3 with advantage for White, Gutman; B) 6 ...0-0 7.e3 (7 ..id2 /l)xd2 8./l)xd2 is best answered by 8 ...dxc4 9./l)xc4 /l)c6; 8 ...d4 9./l)dS .ixd2+ 1 O.�xd2 �e8 is less precise, since instead of l l .g3 c6 12./l)f4 �xeS 1 3 ..ig2 �e7 1 4.0-0-0 cS 1S .il)dS �d8 16.e4 /l)c6 1 7.f4 �e8 1 8.mrll .ig4, Lemke - Steinberg, carr 1 99S, 1 1 .0-0-0 cS 12.f4 /l)c6 1 3.e4 might be a better try) 7.../l)a6 (7 .. .if3 8.i.d3 transposes to 6.e3 0-0 7 .1d3 .if5 8./l)f3- WC) 8�13 (8.cxdS deserves attention, for example 8 .../l)acS 9.id2 .AB 1 0./l)xe4 .ixe4 l l .�c4 .ixd2+ 12./l)xd2 �xdS 13./l)xe4 �xc4 14.i.xc4 /l)xe4 1 S.f3 /l)cS 16.�c l or L.ixc3 +!? 9.bxc3 �xdS l O ..ixa6 bxa6 1 1 .0-0) 8 ... /l)acS 9.0-0 .ixc3 IO.bxc3 �e8 l l .h3 keeping an edge for White, Gutman; C) 6...la:6 7.e3 (7..ad2 .fu.d2 8./l)xd2 dxc4, e.g. 9.0-0-0 .ie6 1 0./l)xc4 m4 l l ./l)e4 0-0 12.g3 �e7 1 3 .a3 �fd8 or 9./l)xc4 0-0 IO.e3 .ie6 l l .a3 �h4) goes back into 6.e3 /l)c6 7./l)f3 - IVC, Gutman; D) So, 6.. .if3! 7.�b3 is again the critical sequence, when: Dl) 7 ... cS?! 8.cxdS �aS 9.J.d2 /l)xd2 10. /l)xd2 bS l l .e4 c4 1 2.�c2 .ig6 l 3 .J.e2 /l)d7 14.f4 h6 I S.0-0 with advantage, Thygesen - Heiberg, Copenhagen 198 1 ; D2) 7. ..hc3+ 8.bxc3 /l)cS ( 8...0-0 9.cxd5 c6 1 O ..ia3 �e8 l l .d6 /l)d7 12.e3 /l)ecS 13 ..ixcS /l)xcS 14.�c4 �aS?! lS.�. Shoup - Weinland, carr 199S, or 8...dxc4 9.�xb7 /l)d7 10./l)d4 /l)dcS l i .'BbS+ IJA1 12 .�xc4, are both insufficient) 9.�bS+ /l)bd7 1 O.cxdS c6 (if I 0 ... 0-0 l l ./l)d4!) l l.dxc6 bxc6 1 2 .�xc6 0-0 13 ..Aa3 ge8

D4c) 8 �bl /l)c5 (8 .../l)bd7 9.cxd5 �xeS I O, it)f3 and also 8...0·0 does not work well due 1o 9.cxd5 �bd7 IO.�rJ!'l �e8 l l .ie2 /l)xeS 12./l)xeS&eS ll.o4) 9.'Bb5+ it)bd? IO.cxd5 c6 l l.dxc6 bxc6 12.�xc6 �8 (more exact than 12 ...0-0 l3..ia3 �c8 14 .•dS !e8 I S .�f3 .ie4 16.�d4 .ixf3 17 .gxf3 /l)xeS 1 8.�xd8 gexd8 1 9-i.xcS gxcS 20.f4 /l)d3+ 2 l .hd3 �xd3 22.'�e2) l 3 .�d6 �aS 14..id2 /l)e4 lS.� �xb4 1 6 .cxb4 /l)xd2 17.'�xd2 �c2+ 1 8 .'�e l /l)xeS 19./l)f3 ( 19-i.bS+ r!le7 20./l)e2 .ad3 2 l ./l)d4 gb2 22_gdl gc8) 19 ... /l)xf3+ 20. gld3 r!le7 seems OK for Black, Gutman; D4d) 8.f3! /l)g3 9.e4 /l)xh 1 IO.ex5 Wlh4+ l l.g3 .fu.g3 12.hxg3 �xg3+ 13.�t2 �xe5+ 14.�e3 �xe3+ 1 S ..be3 dxc4 1 6..hc4 0-0 17 .()..()...0 and I like White, Gutman. E) 6 � .i.f5 ! at once is preferable:7.'t!�b3 (7.f3? /l)xc3 8.�xf5 /l)xa2+ and after 7 .i.d3 /l)d7 8./l)f3 /l)dcS 9.i.d2 .ixc3 10. .ixc3, then lO ... ig6!, as after 10 .../l)xd3+ l l.�xd3 /l)g3 12.�d4 /l)xhl l 3.cxd5 �xt2 14.r!lxt2 �d7 1S.e4Jg6 16.a4 ()..() 17 .h3 cS 1 8.�e3 White had value fa the exchange, Basant - Blaskova, M oravian League 1998) 7...ixc3+ (7...�e7 8.cxd5 ().() 9.ll:\f3 lbd7 IO..h2 lOdcS l l.�xb4 /l)d3+ 12.hd3 �xb4 l 3 .a3, but not l l .�c4 bS 12.�d4 /Oe6 13 .dxe6 �fd8) 8.bxc3 see 6 .i.xc3+ 7.bxc3 .AB 8.'Bb3 - D4c, Gutman. V) 6./l)f3 is a natural reply. •

68

(after 13 ... lk8 1 4."tYd5 l::!e8 White has a choice: 1 5 ."tYd4 "tYc7 1 6.e3 ltle6 17 ."tYd2 ll:\xe5 1 8.ltld4 or 1 5 .e3, reaching a posi­ tion after 6.e3 .ixc3+ 7 .bxc3 .if5 8."tYb3 ll:\c5 9."tYb5+ ll:lbd7 I O.cxd5 c6 l l .dxc6 bxc6 12."tYxc6 0-0 1 3 ..ia3 l::! c8 14."tYd5 l::!e8 15.ltlf3 -IVD4c) 14.e3 (l4."tYd5 ll:le4 15..&l lk8 is quite dangerous for White, e.g. 1 6."tYd4 "tYa5 1 7.'Wb4 "tYc7 1 8.ltlh4 "tYxe5 19.ll:lxf5 "tYxf5 20."tYd4 "tYe6 or 16 . .ib4 ll:\g5 !? 17.ll:\xg5 "tYxg5 1 8.e3 ll:\xe5 1 9 .f4 "tYh4+ 20.g3 "tYh6 2 l ..ie2 l::! c d8) 14 ...ll:\e4 15.e6 l::!xe6 16."tYd5 .ig6 17 ...ib5, Gutman ; further D3) 7 ..."tYe7 8.cxd5 ll:\a6 (8 ..."tYc5 9...ie3 .ixc3+ I O.bxc3 "tYxc3+ l l ."tYxc3 ll:\xc3 1 2.ltld4.id7 l 3 .e6 fxe6 14.dxe6 .ic8 1 5 . & l ltld5 1 6...ig5 c 6 1 7.e4 ll:\c7 1 8...ic4 and White won, Petersen - Jensen, corr 1990, while 8...ll:\d7 is met by 9.d6 .ixc3+ lO."tYxc3) 9.e3 ltlac5 1 O."tYc4 (lO."tYxb4!? t0d3+ l l ..ixd3 "tYxb4 12.a3)10..0.0 l l A!2 ( 1 1 J/!2? reaches a position after 6.e3 .itS 7."tYb3 "tYe7 8.cxd5 0.0 9.ltlf3 ltld7 IO...ie2 ll:\dc5 l l ."tYc4 - lYE) l l ...ll:lxd2 12.ltlxd2 a5 1 3 .a3 .ixc3 1 4."tYxc3 l::!fd8 1 5 ."tYd4 parrying B lack ' s threats, Gutman; D4) The normal moves does not help, but we can improve with 7 ...ll:\a6! 8.cxd5 c6 9.dxc6 (9.e3 .ixc3+ I O.bxc3 ltlac5) 9 ..."tYa5 ! retaining enough counterplay for the missing pawns. In my opinion, this may well be Black 's best and perhaps the only correct course ofaction.

However, IO.ltlg5 ! ? ( l O.cxb7 l::!d8 l l J.d2 ll:\ac5 12."tYc4 ll:\xd2 l 3 .ll:lxd2 .!t6 14."tYf4 0-0) lO..J/!6 l l .cxb7 l::!b8 12.ll:\xe6 ll:\xc3 l3 ...id2 ltle4 14...ixb4 ll:lxb4 forces after 1 5 .0-0-0 ltlxa2+ 16.bl ltlac3+ 1 7 .bxc3 ll:\xc3+ 1 8.'it>c2 ltlxdl 19.'it>xdl fxe6 20. "tYxe6+ 'it>tB 2 l ."tYd6+ rM7 a draw by per­ petual, Gutman. Back to the main line

6 .i.xc3+! Alternatives are weaker: I) 6...ll:lxc3 7.a3 (instead of7.bxc3 .ixd6 8.ltlf3 ll:lc6 9.e3 tvffi IO.i!b l ltle5 l l .ltlxe5 "tYxe5 1 2 ..id3 c6, Dunn - Mann, e-mail 1 999) 7 .. ..ixd6 (7 ...ll:\xe2+ 8.axb4 ll:lxgl fails to 9."tYe4+ 'it>tB IO.dxc7 "tYxc7 l l.if4) 8."tYxc3 0.0 9.ll:lf3 l::!e8 IO.g3 "tYe7 (IO. .J.g4 l l ...ig2 ll:ld7 1 2 ..ie3 .ic5 1 3 .ltld4 ll:lb6 14.l::! d l "tYc8 15.0-0 .ixd4 16.l::!xd4 .ixe2 17.l::!e l) l l ...ie3 ltla6 1 2...ig2 ll:\c5 13.0-0 ll:\e4 14."tYc2 favours White, Gutman ; II) 6 ... .if5 , and now: A) 7.dxc7 "tYxc7 goes back into 4."tYc2 d5 5.exd6 .if5 6.dxc7 "tYxc7 7.ll:\c3 .ib4, covered in Chapter 2; B) 7."tYa4+ ll:lc6 8...id2 (8.dxc7 "tYd4 9.e3 .ixc3+ l O.'it>e2 "tYd7) 8 . . .ll:\xd2 9.'it>xd2 "tYxd6+ and Black wins, Gutman; C) 7."tYb3 ll:\c6 S.ll:\0 (8.a3 ll:\d4 9."tY a4+ .id7 lO."tYdl ll:\xc3; however, note that 9 ... b5 allows White to struggle on with IO."tYd l .ic5 l l .ltld5 ll:\xd6 12.ltle3 .ig6 1 3 .ltl f3, instead of 10.dxc7?? "tYd7 0: 1 Garcia - Witte, Guanabara 1 968) 8 ... "tYxd6 9.e3 (9.a3 ltlc5 lO."tYa2 Q-0.0 1 1 Jd2 IDleS with depressing prospects fCI" White , e.g. 12.0-0-0 .ixc3 l3.bxc3 ll:\e4 14.l::!e l ll:lxf2 15.l::!g l ltle5 1 6.ll:\xe5 l::!xe5 17.g4 .ig6 1 8...ig2 &5 1 9."tYb2 "tYa6 20...ie3 c6 2 l ...ixf2 fu.a3, Larsen - Nielsen, Copen­ hagen 194 l , or l 2.e3 .ig4 13.l0<15 .ixd2+ ..

69

14.l0xd2 l0d4 I SJ�cl �h6 ! ?) 9 ...0-0-0 IO..lc2 (I O.a3, Michel - Kostic, Warsaw Olympiad 1935, IO...ixc3+ l l.bxc3 l0c5) IO ...'Bg6 I I .l0h4 (I l id2 l0xd2 12.l0xd2 .ic2) l l ...�ffi 1 2.l0xf5 �xf5 13.� l0c5 0: I Deutgen - Schmid, Celie 1948; D) 7 .J.d2! ought t o be the only move.

Black has two ideas in his disposal: Dl) 7..bc3 8..ixc3 with a further split: D l a) 8 . . . l0xd6 9.�d2! (less promising is 9.�3 0-0 I O.e3, not because of 10 ... l0c6 I I .lOO �c8 1 2..1e2 aS 1 3 .0-0 l0 e4 14JUdl b 6 15.l0d4 l0xc3 1 6.�xc3 .i.e4 1 7 .0, Lim - Richter, Bad Woerishofen 1 99 1 , but due to IO...l0d7, e.g. l l ..id4 c5 12 ..i.c3 �e8 1 3 .�dl �e7 14.l00 l0 e4!? 15 ..i.d2 l0b6 16 ..1e2 .i.d7 1 7.�c2 J.£5 I 8.J.d3 �8 19..tc3 l0xf2, Haack - Prie­ demann, Pinnenberg 1992, or l l .�d I ! ? �e7 1 2.l00 l0c5 13 .�a3 l0de4 14 ..i.d4 �fd8 1 5 ..i.e2 �d6 1 6.b4 l0e6 1 7.0-0 c5 1 8 .bxc5 �6) 9 ... � IO.�d4 �gS I I .lOO �h6 12.c5 l0b5 (if 12 ...l0e4, then 1 3 .g4) 13 .�xg7+! ( 1 3 .�e5 l0xc3 1 4.bxc3 .i.e6 15.�xc7 l0d7 16.�xb7 &b8, Thalmann ­ Walther, corr 1 972) 1 3...�xg7 14 ..ixg7 'i!lxg7 1 5 .a4 and White wins, Gutman; D lb) 8 . . . l0g3 9.e4 .ixe4 I O ..id3 ! (for _ I O.dxc7 �xc7 see 4.�c2 d5 5.exd6 .if5 6.dxc7 �xc7 7.l0c3 .ib4!? 8..1d2 .ixc3 9 ..ixc3 l0g3 I O.e4 .ixe4 - Chapter 2) IO....ixd3 (IO....ixg2 l l .hxg3 ixhl I2.!e4

ixe4 13.�xe4+ 'i!ld7 14.�xb7) l l .�xd3 lOxh l 1 2..1xg7 �g8 ( 1 2 ... cxd6 13.�e4+ �e7 14.�xe7+ �e7 15.ixh 8 l0c6 !6..1c3 �c8 17.l00 l0d8 18.'i!le2 1 :0 Krogius ­ Nilsson, Helsinki 1949) 13.�e4+ 'i!ld7 14.�xb7 ! (less effective are: 14.�d l ? �e8 15 .dxc7+ 'i!lxc7 1 6..ie5+ 'i!lc8 with advantage for Black, Tseitlin/GIIIskov; 14.0-0-0, suggested by LotharSchmid, in view of 1 4 ... �g5+, e.g. 1 5 .�d2 l0c6 or 1 5 .f4 l0 f2, so far Tseitlin/Giaskov, 16.dxc7+ 'i!lxc7 17 ..ie5+ 'i!lc8 1 8.�c2 �g4 19.�xf2 �xg2 20.� l0c6 2I .�xh7 �g6 22�h3+ �g4 23.� e3 �e6. Gutmlln; 14.�f5+ tt>e8 15.�e5+ 'it\17 16.0.0.0 'i!lc8 17.dxc7 �xc7 1 8.�f5 + l0d7 19 .�xn �8 20.l0h3 �xh2 2 1 &d7 �d7 22�e8+ �d8 23 .�e6+ with perpetual, Harding, improving on 16..c5? 17 .�f5+ 'i!lc6, H ve­ nekilde - Petersen, Copenhagen 1 962, 1 8.�0+) 14 ...�c8 (14 ...�h4 1 5 .0-0-0) 1 5 .�xa8 �xg7 1 6.dxc7 l0c6 1 7.�d l + 'i!lxc7 1 8 .�xc8+ 'i!lxc8 19 .'i!lfl i s hope­ less for Black, Hildebrand/Berkell. 02) 7 ...l0xd6 seems to be forced.

White has three continuations: D2a) 8.�a4+ l0c6 9.e3 �e7 (9 ...0-0 may well be tried, viz. I O.lOO .ixc3 I I .i.xc3 l0e4 12.�b5 �c8, Marches - Vazquez, Badalona 2000) IO.lOO 0-0-0 ( IO ..ixc3 I I ..ixc3 0-0-0 1 2.l0d4 l0xd4 13 ..ixd4 lOe4 14.c5) I I .l0d5 (l l .a3 .ixc3 12..ixc3 •

70

lL!e4 I H �b5 .id7 1 4."M,3 f5 1 5 .g3 rutg8 1 6_gdl g5 17.ie2 f4 1 8.J.b4 fxe3 19.fxe3 "f!Vf6 was fme for Black in Saga - Gun­ dersen, corr 199 1 ) I I ...J.xd2+ 12.lL!xd2 t!Ve5 13.0-0-0 lL!e4 14.lL!xo4 !xo4 1 5."M,3 �he8 looks unclear, Gutman; Dlb) 8."M,3 lL!c6 9.e3, when: Dlbl) 9 ...0-0 I O.lL!f3 .ie6 (Wendland ­ Henke, corr 1994, went 10 "f!Ve7 I I .lL!d5 ixd2+ 12 .lL!xd2 "f!Vd7 1 3.c5 lL!o4 14.lL!xo4 ixe4 1 5 .MI ixd5 1 6."f!Vxd5 t!Vxd5 17. �xd5 �adS 1 8 .J.c4 with a clear advan­ tage for White, and I 0 _ges l l .ie2 .k6 12_gdl a6 1 3 .a3 icS 1 4."f!Va4 .ig4 1 5.0-0 ixf3 1 6.J.xf3 l0e5 17 .J.e2 t!Vh4 1 8.b4 b5 1 9 .cxb5 axb5 20."f!Vb3 ia7 2I .lL!d5 is no better, Iversen - Jacobsen, corr 1 965) I I .ie2 �b8 1 2 .a3 (if 1 2 .lL!d4, then not 1 2 ...lL!xd4 1 3.exd4 c5 14.d5 !5 1 5 .0-0 �e8, Berdichevsky - Retamar, corr 1 989, 16.J.e3, but 12 ...t!Vg5!?) 12 .. .J.as 13 ."f!Va4 .bc3 1 4 ..ixc3 lL!e4 1 5 .�c I ; further D2b2) 9 ..."f!Ve7 IO.lL!f3 0-0-0 I I .J.e2 (also I I .lL!d5 ixd2+ 1 2.lL!xd2 "f!Ve6 1 3 .lL!f4 "f!Vffi 14.J.e2 g5 15.lL!d5 "f!Ve6 16.0-0
1 4.lL!xe4 ixe4 appears more dynamic) 12 .J.xc3 lL!e4 13.0-0 �g8 (this variation was given by Stllker/GIIIsscoe!SIIIyllrt) 14lhl l g5 (14...lL!c5 1 5."f!Va3 �d7 1 6.lL!d4 maintains a plus for White, Schjonning ­ Jorgenssen, corr 1 987) 1 5 .lL!d4 (in case of l 5 .�xd8+ is 1 5...�xd8 !? 1 6.�dl �e8 the right answer since 1 5 ... lL!xd8 16_gdl lL!e6 17 _gd5 lL!xc3 18."f!Vxc3 !e4 19.�e5 favours White, Gahtmann - Hoftnann, corr 1 995) 1 5 ... lL!xd4 ( 1 5 • .J.d7 1 6.lL!xc6 .bc6 1 7.ig4+
•.

_

Black has tried: Old) 8 ... lL!xe4 9."f!Va4+! (there is little to like in White's game after 9.J.d3 "f!Ve7 IO.lL!xe4 ixd2+ l l .
corr 199 1 , 19 ... g5) 9 ...b5 (9 ... �c6 is met by IO.�xe4 Y9e7 I I .ixb4, for example I I . ..Y9xe4+ 1 2 .ic2 0..().() IJ.�n or I I ... Y9xb4+ 12.Y9xb4�xb4 13.fJ �c2+ 14.'&bd2 �xa l IS .idJ 0.0-0 16.�e2) IO.YBxbS+ c6 I I .YBe5+ Y9e7 12.exe7+ .ixe7 13.�xe4 ixe4 14.Ac3, Gutman ; further D2c2) 8 ....ig6 9.0-0-0 (Less impressive is 9 ..id3 0-0 IO.�ge2 �c6, e.g. 1 1 .0-0-0 f5 12 .exf5 �xf5 or l l .f4?! ges 12.0-0, Walther - Kirwald, corr 1972, 12 ....ic5+ I J .<;!i>hl �b4. 9.�f3. hoping for 9 .. ..ixc3 I O..ixcJ .ixe4 I I .Y9d2 0-0 1 2.0-0-0, is best answered by 9 ... �d7, e.g. I O.aJ?! .ixc3 l l ..ixcJ .ixe4 12.Y9dl Y9e7 1 3 ..ie2 .ixO 1 4.gx0 0-0-0, Engler - Bauem­ distel, corr 1 984, or I O..id3 �cS I 1 .0-0 0-0 12 ..!;adl �8) 9_.0-Q 10.0 �d7 (to ... �c6 l l .�dS aS 12.�h3 !? .icS 13.�hf4 �b4 14.�xb4 axb4 I S .Y9b3) l l .�dS ! (more consequent than l l .a3 .icS 1 2..if4 aS IJ.h4 ffi 14.g4 �eS IS.hS ..if7 16.lLlbS Y9e7 17 ..ixeS .!LlxbS 18..if4 .!Lld4 IH�c3 gfd8, Marotz - Bemardt, corr 1986) I I ... .ixd2+ ( ll ....icS 12.lof4) 1 2.gxd2 lLJcS 1 3 ..id3 did not offer Black compensa­ tion for the pawn, Gutman; D2c:3) 8 ... .ixc3 9 ..ixc3 (9.Y9xc3 .!Llxe4 I O.Y9e5+ Y9e7 1eads to .quality) 9 ....ixe4 (9 ... .!Llxe4? t o.idJ , e.g. I O...Y9e7 l t .<;!i>ft .ig6 1 2.gel f5 1 3 .g4 or 10 ...0-0 l l .lLJO .!Llc6 12.0-0) I O .Y9d2! ( I O..id3?! .ixg2 1 1 .0-0-0 l0d7 12.l;e I+ c.t>tB 13 ..!Lle2 .ixhl 1 4 .gxh l lLlcS I S .ggl looks too expensive after IS ....!Llxd3+!? 1 6.Y9xd3 .!Lle8, although IS ....!Lle6 16.f4 lLle8 17 .<;!i>bl cS 1 8.i.e4 Y9b6 19.Y9a4 a5 20.f5 .!Lld4 21 .lLlf4 lLlf6 22.lLldS Y9d6 23.lLlxf6 gxf6 24.gd I VBeS was also good, Erhardt - Schmitt, corr 19S6. IO.Y9e2 0-0 is playable, since instead of I I .Y9g4?! .ig6 12 .0-0-0 �c8 I J .h3 Y9xg4 14.hxg4 .!Lle4 I S ..id-4 cS 16 . .ie3 .!Llc6 17 .lLle2 lLlb4 1 8.b3 gfd8 and Black won, Bruun - Schjonning, corr 1 987, White has 1 1 .0-0-0 VBgS+!? - not

I J ...ges 1 2 .Y9g4 f6 I J.cS Y9c8 14.Y9xc8 �xc8 1 S ..ic4+ c;!ttB 16.0 .ic6 17 . .!Lle2 .!Lld7 1 8 .b4 lLleS 19 ..ib3 .!Ll x0 20.lLlf4 lLlgS , Andriessen - Boone, corr 199 1 , in view of 2 1 .h4 .!Lle4 2 2..ie I - 1 2.Y9d2 Y9xd2+ 13 _gxd2 .!Lla6 with chances for both sides) I 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 is critical

•

All choices fail to equalise: D2c:3a) l l ...lLlc6 1 2 .cS .!Llc4 ( 1 2 ... lLl fS IJ.f3 Y9xd2+ 14.l;xd2 lLle3 IS.fxe4 lLlxfl l6.ge2 1 :0 De Carbone ll - Starke, Leip­ zig 19S3) 1 3 .Y9f4 Y9e7 14 ..ixc4 .ixg2 IS.Y9g3 was a disaster for Black in van der Lijn - Michel, Amsterdam 1962; D2c:3b) I I ...Y9h4 1 2.0 .ig6 13.g3 Y9e7 14.h4 �f5? I S .h5 .!Llxg3 1 6.hxg6 lLlxhl 17.gxh7+ <;t>xh 7 1 8.%'1h2+ and White won, Aiello - Nunez Bibaz, Brazil 197 1 ; D2c:Jc:) l t ...Y9e8 12.cS (1 2.0 .ig6 13 .g4, Helwig - Walther, corr 1 972, is rather too provocative on account of 13 ...lLle4! 14.fxe4 Y9xe4) 1 2 ....!Llf5 (12 ....!Llc8 1H�d4 ffi 14.l;el) 1 3.Y9f4 Y9a4 14..id3, Gutman; D2c:3d) I I ...Y9e7 12 .ge1 (1 2.cS!? might be more consistent 12 ....!Llf5 I J .gel lLlc6 14.lLJO �8 I S.Y9f4 or 12 ....!Lle8 I J .gel Y9h4 1 4.g3) 12 ... Y9h4 1 3 .cS (instead of I J . .!LJO?! .ixO 1 4.gx0 .!Llc6 I S .ggl g6 16.l;g4 Y9h5 17 .id3 rues 1 8.l;xe8+ �e8, Garcia - Gunther, corr 1980) IJ ... .!Llc4 14 ..ixc4 .ixg2 I S ..idS .ixhl 1 6 ..ixh l , Gutman; 72

Dlc:Je) l l ...f5 12.cS (if l2..ieS, then 12 ... �8 13.ixd6 cxd6 14.'f!hd6 �aS, while Meyer - Nonnan, corr 1 968, went 1 2 ... �c8 13.f3 ic6 14.�gS �e8 I SJ�d8 I :0) 1 2 ... �17 1 3 .f3 ! ? �xd2+ 14 J�xd2 .lc6 IS..icA �d7 16.�h3 h6 17 .�f4, Gutman; DlcJf) l l ...�a6 1 2.� f3 ! ? ( 1 2.�f4 �e8 13.b3 .lg6 14..ld3 �cS I S .�d4 �xd3+ 1 6�d3 fO 17.�dS+ �t7 1 8.�xf7+ Y:r-Yz Vaiser - Voekler, Groningen 1991) 1 2 ... �e8 1 3 .�d4 (after 1 3 .�gS �a4 1 4.b3 Black might play 14 ... �c6!? IS.f3 .lg6, improving on 14 -�a3+ IS.�b2 �xb2+ 1 6.�b2 i.g6, Gonzales Manchon - Car­ pintero, Caseres 199S, 17.b4 �8 1 8.cS) 1 3 ...�a4 ( 1 3 .. J�d8 14.f3 .lg6 1 S .h4 f6 1 6.hS) 14.b3 �a3+ I S .�b2 �cS 1 6.f3 .lg6 17 .h4 &1:8 1 8.g4 fO 19.hS .tt7 20.h6 and White holds the initiative, Gutman; DlcJg) l l ...�d7, suggested by Euwe, must be judged as the lesser evil

We examine: DlcJgl) 1 2 .�f4 �e8 1 3 .h4 �e7 1 4.�el ( 14.�h3 �fB IS .�g3 f6) 14 ...�f8 IS .hS h6 J 6_gh3 .lh7 1 7 .�e3 �xe3 1 8 .�xe3 �e8 19.�g3 f6 20.ge3 �t7 2 1 ..le2 a6 22.b3 �e4 23�e4 �xe4 turned out well for Black, Szilagyi - Krantz, corr 1 986; DlcJgl) 12.J.b4 aS 1 3 .ixd6 cxd6 14.f3 .lt5 (14 ....lc6! ? I S .�xd6 �b6 is worth trying) I S.�xd6 � 16.�d4 �c7 17.�h3 �c6 (not 1 7...�eS?! 1 8 .�f4 �c6 1 9.�dS

�8 20.�d2 b5 2 l .cxbS �c8 22 ..lc4 WfB 23.bxa6, Hatton - Adrian, corr 1 9 9 1 ) 1 8.�f4 �b6 1 9.b3 a4 with active.piece­ play for the pawn, Gutman; DlcJgJ) 1 2.�f3 �e8 1 3 .h4 �e7 ( 1 3 ... �cS? 14.�d4 �e6 1S .�e3 b f3 1 6.gxf3 b6 17 _ggJ fO 18.�6, Kran� - Melchor, corr 1 986) 14.�f4 &d8 leaves Black in control, Gutman; Dlc3g4) However, after 1 2. f3 ! it is not easy to find a safe place for Black's white­ squared bishop. 12 ....lc6 (1f l2 ....lg6, then 13 .h4 forces ugly looking 13 ...h6. Now 14.�e2 is the logical reply since 14 ...llX:S? IS.�f4 ih7, given by Borik, loses to 1 6.�d4, while 14 .. _ge8 IS .�f4 �fB 1 6.g4 isn't inspiring for Black; nevertheless 14.�d4 is good as well, for instance 14 ... fO IS .cS, Shoup ­ Piegeler, corr 1 99S, or 1 4...�f6 I S .g4) 13.�e2 (1 3.h4 �8 14.hS h6 1 S.�t2 �g5+ 1 6.Wbl �f5 1 7.J.d3 �e3 brought White in difficulties, Walther - Thalmann, corr 1972. Also 1 3 .�d4 f6 gives Black coun­ ter-chances: 1 4.�h4 �e7 IS.i.d3 g6 1 6. �h3 �ae8 1 7 .� f2 �eS 1 8 .�g4 �xg4 19.�xg4.ld7 20.�4 �e3+ 2l .Wb l .lt5, Genser - Ahlin, corr 1 976, or 1 4..lb4 �e7 1S�I �t7 1 6.ixd6 cxd6 1 7.�xd6 �eS) 1 3...�8 ( 1 3 ...�xc4? 14.�d4 �deS fails to IS.b3 �xd4 1 6.ixd4 �fe8 17.bxc4 �xc4 1 8.�g3, improving on I S.f4 �xd4 16�d4 �xb2 17 .J.xb2 �g4 J 8_g(J2 �fe8, Kuhlmann - Spoel, corr 1 99 1 . 1 3 ...b6 is a bit better, yet 1 4.�d4 .lb7 1 S.�bS �xbS 1 6.cxbS �cS 1 7.�f4 keeps a plus for White) 14.�d4 � (14-�eS IS.cS, e.g. 1 5 ...�dc4 1 6.�xc6 �xd2+ 1 7 �d2 bxc6 18�2 or 1S -�c8 16.�xc6) IS.�xc6 bxc6 16.�d4 �xd4 1 7.ixd4 with a pro­ mising position for White, Gutman. The conclusion is that Black must play more energetically. Back to the main line 73

7.bxcl

7 ..�fS! This is an intriguing attempt to resus­ citate the wrialion for Black, suggested by Bo Malmsroem, Jensen. 7 ...lt:lxd6 does not promise equal chan­ ces, but White must react precisely: I) 8.e3 .if5 (8 ... b6 9..ia3 cS is playable as well, according to A lfonso Romero) 9..id3 �gS 1 0.ltle2 .ixd3 l l .�xd3 ltld7 1 2.�dS ( 12.0-0 �cS 1 3 Jibl 0-0-0) 1 2 ... �xdS 13 .cxd5 ltlb6 and Black retains his pawn, Gutman; II) 8.cS .if5 9.�a4+ (9.�b2 ltle4 1 O.�xb7 �f6! l l ..id2 lt:lxd2 1 2 .�xd2 0-0 1 3 .e4 lld8+ 14.<;t>c2 ltlc6) 9 ....id7 1 0.�f4 ltlf5 l l .�eS+ ( l l .�e4+ .ie6 1 2 .�xb7 .idS 1 3 .'Wbl �f6 secures Black a dangerous initiative, e.g. 1 4.�d3 0-0 1 S.lt:lf3 .ie4 16 .�xe4 �xc3+ 17.�d l gd8+ 1 8 .ltld2 gxd2+ 19 ..ixd2 �xa 1 + 20..ic 1 lt:lc6 or 14.c4 .ic6 1 S.ltlf3 lt:ld7 1 6�2 �e6 17.e3 gbs 1 8..id3 lt:lxe3 1 9 .fxe3 lt:lxcS) 1 1 ... te6 1 2..if4 lt:ld7 13.�xc7 �xc7 14.hc7 gc8 1S ..if4 (this is sounder than 1 S ..id6 lt:lxcS 1 6..ixcS �bcS 1 7.e4 lt:ld6 1 8..id3 �c3 1 9.<;t>d2 lla3 20.ltle2 �e7 2 1 .ltlc3 gds 22.ltldS+ �fB 23.ghcl lt:lxe4+ 24. .ixe4 .ixdS , Tiemann - Augustin, corr 1 988) l S ... lt:lxcS 1 6.f3 lt:le7 ! ? 1 7.e4 a6 1 8 ..id6 lt:la4 is OK for Black, Gutman;

Ill) 8.o4! 0-0 (after 8 ... 5 9.eS �e7 1 0.f4 .id7 l l ..ia3 �e6 1 2 .'Wb3 .ic6 1 3 .ltle2 lt:le4 14.lt:ld4 'l:nt 6 1 S.'Wb4 �h4+ 16.g3 �d8 1 7..ig2 <;t>f7 1 8J:idl �e8 1 9.lt:lxfS White won, Leisebein - Augustin, corr 1 988) 9..id3 lt:lc6 l O.cS! ( I O.lt:lf3 f5, e.g. l l .eS lt:lf/ 12.0-0 Y:r:-Yz Leisebein - Bwk, Corr 1 987, 12 ...ltlcxeS, or l l .exf5 .ixf5 12.cS .ixd3 13 .�xd3 �e7+. Also I O.ltle2 fS is comfortable for Black, e.g. 1 1 .0-0 fxe4 12 ..ixe4 lt:lxe4 1 3 .�xe4 lle8, Pet­ zold - Leisebein, corr 1 988, or l l .exfS lt:leS 1 2.0-0 �ffi 1 3 .ltlg3 lt:lxd3 14.�xd3 ixf5 1 S.lt:lx5 �xf5 16.�d4 ru"e8) 10 ...lt:le8 l l .ltlf3 .ig4 12..igS ffi 1 3M4 ( 13..ie3 ! ?) 13 .. ..ixf3 1 4.gxf3 �e7 1 S..ie3 (I S.'Wh3+? �h8 16.�xb7 �xeS 17.�b3 gbs 1 8.�c4 ltleS 19�eS �xeS 20..§bl �bl+2l�bl lt:ld6 22.�xc7? l:k8 occurred in Lenz ­ Leisebein, corr l991) lS ...lt:leS 16�2 �8 17.llbl with a plus for White, Gutman. 8.Vb3 Other opportunities: I) After 8.dxc7 �xc7 Black dominates: A) 9.f3 lt:lg3 10.e4 lt:lxhl l l .ex5 ()..() 12.g3 �+ (12 ...ltlxg3 13.hxg3 �xg3+ 14.�12 �eS+ 1S.ltle2 ge8, HIUIS Baum, 1 6..ib2 �xf5 17.0-0-0) 1 3..ie2 �cS ( 1 3 ...ltlxg3 14.hxg3 �xg3+ IS.<Ml hS, &um, 16.�d2) 14.lt:lh3 lt:lc6 I S .�fl g e7, Gutman; B) 9.�a4+ lt:lc6 1 O.lt:lf3 (others are even worse: IO.ib2 � I I .().()..() lt:lxt2, Rues­ set - Matthigack, corr 1 970; 10.f3 loses to IO ...ltlg3, e.g. l l .hxg3 �xg3+ 12.�dl ()..()...()+ 13Jd2�t2 or 1 l .o4 ltlxhl 1 2.exf5 �xh2 0:1 Petzold - Leisebein, corr 1989; 10.�b5 te6 l l .f3 a6 12.�b3 lt:lg3 13.hxg3 �xg3+ 14.�dl 0-0-0+ l S ..id2 ltleS !?) 10...()..()...() 1 1 .� IDleS 1 2..ie3 ( 1 2.e3 lt:lcS 13.'WbS lt:leS 14.lt:lxeS �eS 1S.'Wb4 �d6 16�2 lt:ld3+ 17�d3 �xd3 1 8.'Wb3 .ig4 19.f3 llxe3+, de Vries - Bo nkenburg, Holland 1 96S) 12...�a5 1 3.&1 .h6 14.lt:ld2 lt:lxd2 1 S..ixd2 ltleS 1 6.e3 �c7 1 7.gb l lt:lxc4, Gutman; 74

C) 9.m3 lt:lc6 (9 ... li:lc5 !? w.m5+ lt:lbd7 l l .ltlO 0-0) l O.lt:lO (after I O..b3 0-0-0 l l .e3 g5 1 2.ltlO g4 13.lt:ld4 �d4 14.m5 .id7 1 5.cxd4 lt:lxd4 White lost quickly in Cardelli - Baurn,corr 1 99 1 ) 10 ... 0-0!? (10 ... 0-0-0 l l ..ie3) l l .e3 lt:lc5 1 2 .�d l .ie4, Gutman; D) 9.g4 .ig6 IO .f4 f5 l l .J.g2 �e7 1 2 .g5 (12be4 �4+ 1 3.<;t>dl fxe4 14.f5 �xg4 1 5.fxg6 0-0 16.gxh7+ <;t>hs 17 .m3 lt:lc6) 1 2 ...ltlc6 13.ltl0 0-0-0 (an improvement on 1 3 ... �c5 1 4.e3 0-0 1 5 .lt:ld4!? �xc4 1 6 .�b3 lt:la5 1 7 ..ifl , Rochel - Smith, corr 1967) 14.0-0 �c5+ 15.e3 �xc4 1 6. lt:lh4 (1 6.lt:ld4? fails to 16 ..hd4 17.exd4 lt:lxd4 1 8 .�b2 ltle2+ 1 9 .<;t>h l h6) 1 6... l:Dle8 1 7.lt:lxg6 hxg6 1 8 .m3 ltl a5 19.m4 b6 20..ib2 lt:lc5 are all better for Black, Gutman. II) s .m2 lt:lxd6 appears more serious. 9.c5 (in case of9.J.f4 0-0 I O.e3 I am in­ trigued by 10 ... lt:le4 1 1 .ltl0 c5 !? 1 2.�xb7 �a5 13..ie5 lt:ld7 14.m5 �d8, while the schematic 10 ...ltlc6 l l .ltl0 :Eib8 1 2 ..ie2 b6 13.lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 4.cxd4 brought White success in Shoup - Stroeher, corr 1 995) 9 ... lt:le4 I O ..ie3 (the benefit of playing 1 0 .�xb7 is shown by 1 0 ... �f6 l l ..ib2 0-0 12.�xa8 lt:lc6 13.�xm+ 'it>xm 14.lt:l0 .ie6 1 5.e3 lt:le5 16.J.e2 .ic4) 10 ... .ic8!? 1 1 .0 lt:lg5 12.�1 �e7 and Black has no complaints, Gutman.

8...� xd6 Less impressive are: I) 8...�xd6 9.�xb7 0-0 1 0.0 ( 1 0.�xa8? lt:lc6 1 1 .m1 :Eib8 12.�a6 lt:lb4 1 3 .�xd6 lt:lc2+ 14.<;t>dl lt:lxf2+ 1 5.<;t>d2 cxd6, Hildebrand/Berkell) 1 0 ... ltlc5 l l .�d5 �f6 1 2 ..ie3 �xc3+ 1 3 .<;t>f2, Gutman; II) 8 ... lt:lc6 9.�xb7 �xd6 (after 9 ...0-0 I O.dxc7 �f6 1 I .m2 &c8 12.J.f4 g5 1 3 . .ig3 lt:lxg3 14.hxg3 :Eixc7 1 5 .lt:l0 :Eib8 1 6.�d2 h6 1 7.lt:ld4 :Eicb7 1 8.f4!? lt:lxd4 19.�xd4 �xd4 20.cxd4 White won in Baldomero Garcia - Miguel Tomas, corr 1 996) IO.�xa8+ <;t>d7 1 1 .m1 ( l l .�xh8? lt:lb4 12.e3 ltlc2+ 13.<;t>e2 ltlxc3+ 14.<;t>O lt:le 1 mate NN Berkell, simultaneous Sweden 1 983) l l ...:Eib8 12.�a6 �f6 1 3 . �a3, Hildebrand/Berkell; III) 8 ...�f6 9.dxc7 (if 9.ltl0, Meyer ­ Mohring, Obemlorf 2002, then 9 ...cxd6) 9 ... lt:lc6 I O.lt:lO 0-0 l l .J.e3 :Eiac8 1 2..id4 �d6 1 3 .g3 :Eixc7 14 ..ig2, Gutman. 9.cS �e4 9 .. .J.e6 10.�a4+ ( I O.m2 ltle4 l l .�xb7 .id5) I O .. ..id7 l l .�f4 lt:lf5 reaches a po­ sition after 7 ...ltl xd6 8 .c5 .if5 9.�a4+ .id7 I O.�f4 lt:lf5 . 10.Ae3 For 10.�xb7 see s.m2 lt:lxd6 9.c5 lt:le4 1 0.�xb7. 10...�c6 10 ...lt:ld7 is a daring reply in view of 1 1 .0 �4+ 1 2 .g3 �e7 1 3 .Wfxb7 0-0 1 4.J.d4 lt:lexc5 1 5 .�xc7 lt:ld3+ 1 6.<;t>d l ltlb2+ 1 7 .<;t>d2 :Eifc8 1 8 .�f4, Gutman. 1 1 .0 �f6 l l.Rdl 12.�xb7 .id7 1 3 ..ig5 :Eib8 1 4 .�a6 can be met by 14 ...h6 15.J.h4 0-0 16.e4 �e7 1 7.:Eidl �xc5, Gutman . 1 2 ... .id7 13.AgS ffe7 1 4.e4 Rb8 White 's position is not easy to defend, Gutman. -

75

Chapter 1

Third Part ( l .d4 �f6 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS � e4) 4.�d2

This is the only way to avoid simplifi­ cation, Anatoli Matsukevich. The big question is whether the knight on c5 is well placed or not? Harding. White has displaced the li)e4, but, after all, is his knight well placed?, Alfonso Romero. Although is normally disastrous to play the same piece three times in the fim four moves, in this unusual position it can be justified by the fact that White has con­ gested his own pieces with 4.li)d2, Lalic.

This move is usually played in conjun­ ction with an early a2-a3 to secure the bishop pair. Because its significance is mostly in restricting Black's choice, the second player needs to be aware of the various transpositional possibilities, Tim Harding. It is not easy for White to prove an ad­ vantage after 4.l0d2 because the knight on d2 hinders his queenside develop­ ment, Bogdan Lalic . However, the text move is designed to prevent the establishment of the Black 's knight en e4 and may well be the most simple way to relieve congestion in the centre.

The material divides as follows: Section 1 - 5.a3 (5.e4, 5.l0df3, 5 .b3, 5 .g3) Section 2 - 5.l0gf3 l0c6 (5 . . .d6) 6.b3 Section 3 - 5.�gf3 l0c6 6.li)b3 Section 4 - 5.l0gf3 �c6 6.e3 Section 5 - 5.l0gf3 l0c6 6.a3 Section 6 - 5.l0gf3 l0c6 6.g3 Section 7 - 5 .b4 !?.

We divide the materilll into two Chapters: Chapter 1 - 4 . . . �c5 Chapter 2 - 4 ...�b4!?.

76

more point: 8 ...'f/cS 9.e3 'f/aS+ 1 O.l0d2 'f/xd2+ l l .'flxd2 l0xd2 12.\!/xd2 or 8...a5 9.'f/c2) 8.a3 aS 9.e6 ffi 1 0.exd7+ Axd7 l l .e3 0.0.0 12.l0d4ig7 13.l0gf3 f5 looks quite promising for Black, Gutman; IV) S.g3 l0c6 (S ...hS is dubious, since both 6.Ag2 h4 7 .l0df3 Ae7 8.l0h3 l0c6 9.Ae3 l0e6 1 0.0-0 gS l l .l0d4, Hurme ­ Maki, Uusikaupunki 1990, and 6.h4 l0c6 7 .l0df3 are in White's favour) 6.l0gf3 transposes to S.l0gf3 l0c6 6.g3, covered in Section 6.

Section 1 5.a3

There are four more possibilities: I) S.e4 l0c6 6.f4 (After 6.l0gf3 Black has two options. The first is 6 ... 'f/e7 7 ie2 lOxeS, e.g. 8.-!0xeS 'fixeS 9.'flc2 b6 10.0.0 ib7or 8.0.0 l0xf3+9.ixfl g6, improving on 8...d6 9.l0d4 g6 10.f4 l0c6 l l .l0xc6 bxc6 1 2�. HIITding. The second is 6... d 6 7.exd6 ixd6 8.a3 with another branch: 8...a5 9 .'f/c2 0-0 1 0 ie2 f5 1 1 .0-0 fxe4 12.l0xe4 1f5 13.l0fd2 lild4 14.'fldl l0xe4 0:1 Cavalcanti - Engels, Recife 1 947, or 8...'f/e7 9.'flc2it5 10.id3 0.0.0 1 1 .0-0 ig6 1 2.Ae2 l0xe4, Martinez Bejar.mo ­ McDonald, e-mail 200 1 ) 6 ...d6 (6 ... f6 7.a3 is interesting, and now not 7 ...fxeS 8.b4 l0e6 9.f5 lOgS 1 O.'flh5+ lOfl l l .lOdO, but 7 ... a5, e.g. 8.:!!b l fxeS 9.b4 axb4 1 0. axb4 l0a4 l l .bS lOc3 12.'f/f3 l0xbl with decisive advantage for Black, Kludacz ­ Bircher, Lyngby 1 996, or 8.exf6 'f/xf6 9.g3 d6 10.l0gf3 .lg4) 7.exd6 V9xd6 8.eS 'f/d4 (8 lOxeS 9.fxeS 'fixeS+ is doubtful due to 1 Oie2, instead Flingou - Senec­ haud, N iort 1 987, went 10.'fle2 l0d3+ 1 1 .\!/d l V9xe2+ 1 2.\!/xe2 .ifS 1 3 .l0gf3 0-0-0 14.l0b3 Ab4 1S.ie3 mte8) 9.l0df3 'f/xd l + 1 0.\!/xdl .ifS leaves White in grave difficulties, Gutman ; II) S.l0df3 l0c6 6..igS Ae7 7.'f/dS b6!? (7...ixgS 8.-!0xgS 'f/xgS 9.'f/xcS 'fixeS is possible) 8.Axe7 'f/xe7 9.b4 (after 9.e4 ib7 1 O..ie2, Hossain - Timman, inter­ net 1 998, 1 0 ... l0b4 would be annoying) 9 ...l0xb4!? 10.'f/xa8 0-0 l l .�dl .ib7 is tine for Black, Gutman; Ill) S.b3 l0c6 6.Ab2 'f/e7 7.l0df3 (for 7.l0gf3 d6 see S.l0gf3 l0c6 6.b3 'f/e7 7. .lb2 d6 - Section 2) 7 ...g6 (Brunner ­ Toubac, Selestat 2000, continued 7...l0e4 8.'f/c2 'flh4+ 9.l0d2 l0xd2 10.'f/xd2 � l l .Ac3 aS!? 12.l0h3 Ab4 13.l0f4 hc3 14.'f/xc3 V9b4 l S.lOdS Y�Yz, but 8.a3 has

5 ... a5! 6.b3

Less challenging are: I) 6.l0gf3 a4 ! ?, Tseitlin/Giaskov, e.g. 7 .g3 d6 8.exd6 Axd6 9.Ag2 0-0 1 0.0-0 l0c6, Gutman; further U) 6.l0b3 b6 (6 ... l0c6 7.l0f3 see S.l0gf3 l0c6 6.a3 aS 7.l0b3 - Section S, Sequel l ) 7.l0f3 l0xb3(instead of7 ...Ab7 8 ..igS 'f/c8 9.e3 ltx:6 IO.l0bd4 a4 l l .ie2, Lauer ­ Grantz, e-mail 2000) 8.'f/xb3 l0a6 9.igS Ae7, Gutman.

•.

6 ...d6!?

Other possibilities: I) 6 ... g6 7 ib2 .lg7, TSI!itlin/Giaskov, 8.b4 (8.l0gf3 l0c6 9.'f/c2 0-0 1 0.e3 'f/e7 1 1 ie2 lOxeS 12 .lOxeS AxeS 13 .l0f3 is about equa� e.g. 13 ...ig7 14.ixg7 '.!lxg7 1 S.O-O b6 16.l0d4 .ib7 17if3 Axf3 18. l0xf3 l0e6 19_gfdl d6, Jordan - Willsch, Germany 1990, or 1 3 .. .ixb2 14.'f/xb2 77

7 ..ib2 o!Llc6 8.o!Llgf3 dxe5 (8 ....if5 9.e4 o!Llxe4 IO.o!Llxe4 .ixe4 is less promising, e.g. 1 1 �. when instead of l l ...d5 12.0.0 .ixd3 13.�xd3, An:hangelsky - Vidal del Rio, Mondariz 2000, l l .. bd3 12.�xd3 dxe5 might be played, or 1 1 .exd6 .ixd6 12-'.e2 0-0 13.0-0 &8 14.&1 ge6 15.�cl gg6 16.c5 .ie7 17.�e3,Braun - Weitzer, Germany 1997, 1 7 .. ..id5 1 8.�dl �d7) 9.e4 (9.o!Llxe5 o!Llxe5 lO,j,xe5 �e7 l l .o!Llf3 .ig4 12,j,d4 0-0-0) 9 .. ,j,d6 1 O,j,e2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 B 12.�c2 fxe4 1 3.o!Llxe4 .i£5 14. o!Llfd2 o!Lld4 1 5bd4 exd4 1 6..if3 .if4 and Black won, Hunger - Schmitt, corr 1957.

b6 15.0-0.ib7. However, White should avoid 9J:�a2? 0-0 10.g3 d6 l l .exd6 Jle8 1 2.o!Llbl? .ixb2 1 3J�xb2 �f6, Knorr ­ Svendsen, corr 1989) ll ... o!Lle6 9.�b 1 !? (both 9.lLlc4 lLlc6 1 O.o!LJ f6+ 'i!lm l l .o!LJO d6 and 9.lLlgf3 d6 10.� 1 dxe5 l l .lLlxe5 0-0 12.e3 �e7 1 3 .b5 f5 14 ..ie2 f4 are weaker) 9 ... 0-0 (9 ... o!Llc6 lO.lLlgf3 axb4 l l.axb4 g,;al 12..ixal 0-0 13.b5) lO.o!Llgf3 ges l l .e3 is fine for White, Gutman; II) 6...�e7 7.o!Llgf3 (if7.o!Lldf3 o!Llc6 8,j,b2, then not 8...�6. Tseitlin/GIIIskov, due to 9.o!Llh3 � l O.o!Llf4 gxb3 l l .lLld5 �d8 1 2.�c2 b5 1 3.o!Lld2 bxc4 14.o!Llxb3 cxb3 1 5.�c3, but 8 ...a4 9.b4 o!Llb3, viz. lO.l'l'.al? o!Llxb4, Alonso - Vidal Del Rio, Orense 2002) 7 ...o!Llc6 8,j,b2 d6, when: A) 9.exd6? o!Lld3 mate; B) 9.e3 dxe5 lO,j,e2 .iB 1 1 .0-0 gds 12 . .ic3 g6 13.�cl .ig7 l4,gdl 0-0 15.b4?!, Diehm - Klueting, Weilburg 1995, 15 ... .id3 !, Gutman; C) 9.e4 dxe5 IQ,j,e2 f6 l l .�c2 �f7 12. 0-0 o!Lle6 13,j,c3 lLJf4 14_gfel ih3 1 5,j,fl .ixg2 16.ixg2 �g6 17.o!Llh4 �g4 18.o!Lldf3 o!Llxg2 19.o!Llxg2 �xf3 with advantage for Black, Barlov - Lanzan i, Catania 1 993; D) 9.e6 �xe6 (9....ixe6 IO.�c2 f6 l l .e3 g6 12,j,e2 .ig7 is not bad either, Kiss ­ Godard, Agneaux 1998) 10.e3 �g6 1 1 . o!Llh4 %nt6 12.lLlhf3 .ie7, Gutman; further E) 9.b4 axb4 IO.axb4 Uxal l l.�xa l o!Llxb4 1 2.�a8, Abrahams - Lenton, London 1938, 1 2 ... 'i!ld8!? (better than 1 2 ...�d8 13.exd6, e.g. 13 ...cxd6 14,j,c] o!Llc6 15.g3 f6 1 6,j,g2 .ie7 17.o!Lld4 or 13 .. ,j,xd6 14. .ixg7 ggs 15,j,c3 o!Llc6 1 6.g3) 13.g3 o!Lld7 14 ,j,g2 dxe5 15.0-0 lLlb6 16.�a 1 ffi leads to a balanced position, Gutman; F) 9.g3 ! ? dxe5 IQ,j,g2 .ig4 l l .O-O gds ( l l ...f6 12ook3 �8 13.�c2 e4 14.b4 exf3 1 5.exf3) 12.�c2 e4 13.o!Llh4 .ixe2 1 5..§el .id3 16.�dl �e6 17 ..ic3 may hold out more chances for White, Gutman.

7... .Axd6

7...�xd6 8.�c2 o!Llc6 9..ib2 .ig4 IO.l0gf3 ih5 l l .e4 .ig6 12,j,e2 �e7 1 3 .0-0 .ixe4 14.o!Llxe4 �xe4 1 5.�xe4+ o!Llxe4, Donk ­ Tan, Holland 1992, 16. gfel 0-0-0 17.idl with a clear plus for White, Gutman. 8..Abl 'ffe7

8...0-0 9.�c2�e7 (9 ...o!Llc6 l O.o!Llgf3 .ig4 l l .e3 �d7 12-'.e2 f6 13.0-0 gfe8 14.gfel .i£5 1 5 .�d l �f7. Smit - Hawley, corr 1993, 1 6.o!Lld4) is just a transposition. 9.'ffc l 0-0

9...o!Llc6 10.o!Llgf3 0-0 (IO ...o!Lle5 l l .e3 is to White's liking: l l...g6 12,j,e2 .iB 13.e4 .id7 14.b4 axb4 1 5 .axb4 �al+ 1 6,j,xal o!Lla6 1 7.c5 o!Llxb4 1 8.�b3 1 :0 Kogan ­ Starke, corr 1 979; l l ..,j,g4, Lazarev Stankovic, Marseille 2003, 1 2.b4 axb4 13.axb4 Uxal+ 1 4bal o!Lla6 1 5.c5 .ixf3 16.cxd6 �xd6 17 .�f5 ; 1 1 0-0 12,j,e2 ges 13.0-0 o!Llg4 14.h3 o!Llxe3 1 5 .fxe3 �xe3+ 1 6.'i!lhl �f4 1 7 .gael .iB 1 8.�c3 �g3, Esquiviel - Velasco, Mexico 1 984, 1 9. �d4 .ixh3 20.�xg7+) l l .e3 .ig4 12,j,e2 (12�3 o!Llxd3+ 13.�xd3 �8 14.�c3 f6 15.0-0, McGowan - Will, Grangemouth 1995, 1 5 ...gfe8!?) 12 ..§fe8 1 3.0-0 gadS 14.gfel .ih5 seems playable, Gutman. .•

•

lO.�gfJ b6 l l.eJ .Ab7 l l..Ael�ba6!? 13.0-0 f5 14.�d4 �e4 Black maintains the balance, Gutman.

7.exd6

78

lt:lxb3 10.\!!!/xb3 .ib4+ l l .�fl lt:lc6 1 2 .h3 .ixD 13..ixfl lt:ld4 14.\!!!/d3 lt:lxf3 15.\!!!/xf3 0-o.o are worth attention) 9.lt:lxc5 .ixc5 10ig2 lt:lc6 1 1 .0.0 0.0 (Koming - Peder­ sen, Aarhus 1 943, went 1 1 .._gd8 1 2.\!!!/a4 0.0 13 .J.f4 \!!!/xe2 1 4.\!!!lb5 \!!!/e7 1 5 .\!!!/xb7 .ie4 16.�Ue l f5 17 .lt:lg5? .ixf2+ 1 8 .�xf2 \!!!lc5+ 19.J.e3 §d2 + 20Jk2 l:txe2+ 2l .�e2 lt:ld4+ 22.J.xd4 YHxc4+ 0 : 1 , yet 1 7.J.g5 \!!!/d6 1 8 ..ixd8 might be critical) 12.\!!!/a4 \!!!/xe2 13.YHb5 1o4 14.\!!!/xc5 .ixf3 15.\!!!/e3 \!!!/xe3 1 6.J.xe3 .ixg2 17.�g2 lt:le5 gives Black enough counterplay, Gutman; D) 6.lt:lb3!? lt:lxb3 (neither 6 ...lt:le4 7.g3 Ae6 8ig2 d5 9.0-0, nor 6 ...lt:le6 7.g3 lt:lc6 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.J.g2 are better) 7.\!!!/ xb3 lt:lc6 (7 ...dxe5 8.lt:lxe5 \!!!f f6 9.lt:ld3 lt:lc6 10.e3.ie7 l l .J.e2) transposes to 5.lt:lgf3 lt:lc6 6.lt:lb3 lt:lxb3 7.\!!!/xb3 d6 - Section 3. 6.b3

Section 2 (l.d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�dl �cS) s.�go

s ...�c6 5 ... d6 appears premature, when: I) 6.a3 dxe5 7.YHc2 ffi (more accurate than 7 ... lt:lc6 8.b4 lt:le6 9.e3 g5 lO.J.b2 .ig7, Morales Cano - Tomas Batet, Seville 200 1 , l l .b5) 8. b4 lt:le6 9.e3 g6 1 O ..id3 .ig7 l l . .ib2 a5, Gutman; further m 6.b4 lt:lcd7 (6 ... lt:le6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.c5 YHf6 9.l::t b 1 .ie7 1 O ..ib2 YHh6 l l .g3 a5 1 2.a3 lt:la6 13.J.c3 0.0 1 4ig2 l:M8 15.\!!!/c2 c6 16.0-0 lt:lec7 1 7.lt:lc4 gave White ad­ vantage, Blaho - Berg, Bratislava 1 993. Also 6...lt:lca6 7.exd6 lt:lxb4 8.dxc7 \!!!/xc7 9.a3 lt:l4a6 10.Ab2 lt:lc6, Mobuty - Maxxx, internet 2002, l l .g3 ft) 1 2ig2 /i£7 1 3.0.0 0-0 1 4.lt:lb3 favours White) 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.c5 .ie7 9.J.b2 .i.ffi (9 ...lt:lc6 1 O.b5 lt:lb4 l l .a3 lt:ld5 12 ..ixg7 �g8 1 3 ..id4 .ixc5 14.\!!!/c2 .ixd4 1 5.lt:lxd4 YHffi 16.\!!!/01+ 1 lt:le7, Passerotti - Lochte, Porto San Giorgio 1 996, 1 U:tc 1) 1 O ..ixf6 \!!!fxf6 l l .a3 a5, Gutman; similarly III) 6.exd6 .ixd6 7.g3 \!!!/e7 !? (7 ... lt:lc6 reaches a position after 5.lt:lgf3 lt:lc6 6.g3 d6 7 .exd6 .ixd6, covered in Section 6, Sequel 2) 8.lt:lb3 .its (also 8 ... 0-0 9.J.g2 �8 10.lt:lxc5 .ixc5 l l .YHb3 ib4+ 12�2 .ixd2+ 1 3.lt:lxd2 lt:ld7 or 8 ...J.g4 9 ..ig2

6 Yre7 Alternatives: I) 6 ... g5 7 ..ib2 .ig7 8.\!!!/c2 (8.e3 d6 is innocuous, e.g. 9 ..ie2 dxe5 1 0.0-0 .if5 l l .b4 lt:lxb4 1 2.J.xe5 .ixe5 13 .lt:lxe5 \!!!/d6 14.e4 YHxe5 1 5 .exf5 0-0-0 1 6 . .if3 \!!!/c3 and Black won, Demirei - Kogan, Vlis­ singen 1 996, or 9.lt:ld4 lt:lb4!? 10.lt:l2f3 dxe5 l l .a3 lt:lba6 12.b4 exd4 1 3.bxc5 g4 14.lt:lxd4 lt:lxc5!? - an improvement on 14 ...0.0, when instead of l 5.g3 c6 1 6.\!!!/c2 lt:lxc5 17.0-0-0 \!!!/a5 18.h3 \!!!/a4 19.hxg4 •••

79

�xc2+ 20.�xc2 hg4 2 l .f3 .id7 22..m.5 �a4 23..ial We8 with equality, Ulko ­ Gorbatov, Moscow 1 997, 1 5.c6!? bxc6 16 ..id3 �c5 17 ..ic2 could be played-, l 5 .�c6 �xdl+ lH!xd l f6 1 8.�b4 .ie6) 8...�e7 9.e3 �e5 lO.�xe5 (1 o.�d4!? d6 1 1 ,je2 .id7 12.0-0) 1 0 �..ixe5 1 1 ,je2 d6 1 2.0�0 with an edge for White, Gutman; D) 6 ... g6 7.e3 .ig7 8..ia3 !? � 9.�c2 (more logical than 9.gcl �xe5 l O.�xe5 he5 l l ..id3 d6 l2.�f3 .ig7 1 3 .c 5 c6, Back - Schneider, corr 1995) 9 ... �xe5 1 0 .�xe5 he5 l l .gdl d6 1 2.g3 0-0 13 . .ig2 and I prefer White, Gutman; Dl) 6 ... d6!? is a better interpretation of Black's possibilities, 7.exd6 (7..ib2 dxe5 8.e4 .td6 9.a3 a5 see Section 1 . 8.�xe5?! can be punished by 8...�xe5 9..ixe5 �e7 lO.�f3 .ig4, Bruene - Van Hove, Ger� many 200 1 , l l .�d4 .ixf3 1 2.gxf3 f6 1 3 . .if4 �e6 14.�e4 �xf4 1 5 .�xf4 �b4+ 16.�dl .id6, although 8-�ffi 9.�df3 is also none too impressive for White, e.g. 9 ....id6 I O.�xc6 �xb2 l l .�d4 �a3 12. �xg7 g f8 or 9.. ..if5 10.�c l �b4 I I .ll:ld3 �cxd3+ 12.exd3 �e6+ l3.�d2 0-0-0 as in Gogollok - Schork, Hassloch 1 997) 7 .. ..ixd6 (if7...� ffi 8Ja3 hd6, then not 9 ..ixc5?! hc5 I O.e3, Vincze - Libich, Jihlava 1 99 1 , due to l O ... �b4, but 9.b4 �e6 I O.l0e4 hb4+ I l ..ixb4 �g6 1 2 . lLld6+ cxd6 13..ixd6 ll:led4 14.�xd4 �xd6 1 5.e3 0-0 1 6..ie2) 8..ib2 �e7 9.e3 .ig4!? (9...0-0 l O..ie2 .ig4 1 1 .0-0 &d8 is pos­ sible as well. Less appealing is 9 ... .if5 l O..ie2 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 etJe4 12 .�d4, while I O..ixg7 gg8 is quite risky for White, e.g. l l ..Ac3 0-0-0 12.ll:ld4 �d4 13..ixd4 l004 or I l .t0d4 jd7 12.�xc6hc6 13� 0-0-0 14.�h5 �e4) l O..ie2 ( l 0.a3 .ie5 l l .�c2 hb2 12.�xb2 0-0 1 3 ..ie2 &d8 or IO..ixg7 gg8 l l ..ic3 .ie5 1 2.�cl hc3 13.�xc3 0-0-0 14. ie2.ixf3 15.ixfl �e5) 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 ( l l..ixg7 gg8 1 2 ..ic3 is met by 12 .. ..ixf3 13 ..ixf3 .ie5 14..ixe5

�xe5, and if l l .�c2 �b4 l 2.�c3 ht3, e.g. 13..ixf3? .ie5, Tosunogly - Huebner, Germany 1 997, or 1 3.�xf3 �bd3+ 14. hd3 �xd3+ 15.�fl �xb2 16.�xb2 f5) l l ...f5 keeping contro� Gutman. 7 ..ibl d6 8.e3 Most legal moves have been tried here: I) 8.exd6? �d3 mate Klebe1 - Brauening, Germany 1 990; H) 8.b4 �b4 9.�1 dxe5 (9....Ae6 lO..ic3 �c6 l l .e3 0-0-0 12.exd6 �xd6 is not bad either, Eeckhout - Tinture, corr 1 996) I O.�xe5 .ie6 l l ..ic3 �a4, Gutman; m) 8.a3 dxe5 !? (8...�xe5 9.�xe5 dxe5 1 0.b4 �d7 l l .c5 g6 12 .g3 .ig7 13 ..ig2 0-0 14.0-0) 9.e4 (9.b4 e4 1 0.�d4 �d3+ l l .exd3 exd3+) 9 .. .f5, Gutman; IV) 8.�c2 dxe5 (8...�xe5 9.�xe5 dxe5 1 0.e4 a5 l l ..ie2 g6 12.0-0.ig7 13.f4 0-0 14.�c3 M8 15.fxe5 he5 1 6.�xe5 �xe5 17..ixe5 gxd2 1 8 .&dl �xe4? 1 9_gxd2 �xd2 20.gd I , Struylaart - Bruyntjes, HoUand 1938)9.e4 (9.a3 e4 10.� �d3+ 0: I Moor - Lanzani, S ilvaplana 1 993) 9 ....ig4 I O ..ie2 0-0-0, Gutman; V) 8.g3 dxe5 9..ig2 .ig4 (9 ....if5 l O.�h4 .ig4 is met by 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 12 ..ixc6 bxc6 13.�e I , instead of l l .�e4? �xe4 12 ..ixe4 �b4+ 1 3.�fl gd8 1 4..ixc6+ bxc6 15.�cl ihl+ 1 6.ll:lg2 ffi, Doncea ­ David, Bucharest 200 1 ) 1 0.0-0 0-0-0 1 1 . h3 .ih5!? (l l ....ixf3 1 2 .exf3 f5 1 3 ..ic3 g5 14.b4 �d3 1 5 .b5 �d4 1 6..ixd4 �d4 17.�b3 gd7 18.�c2 .ig7, Lanchava ­ Pallova, Policka 1 996, 19.c5) 1 2 .�h4 �f6 13 .�e 1 �d4 14 ..ixd4 exd4 is fine for Black in each case, Gutman. 8... dxe5 8.. ..if5?! 9.exd6 �xd6 l O.�d4 �xd4 1 1 . hd4 0-0-0 12..ie2 �d3+ 1 3..ixd3 bd3 14.c5 (14.lOf3? �g6 15_ggJ .ib4+ 16.�d2 �d4, Drobusch - Schuttrich, corr 1 982) 14 ...�d5 1 5 .� f3 . Gutman. 9.le2 .ifS l0.0-0 ��0 1 1.a3 �d3 Black 's game is much freer, Gutman. 80

Section 3 (l.d4 �f6 2.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�d2 �cS S.�gfJ �c6) 6.�b3

Galyas - Harding, Budapest 2000) 7... li)xe5 8.li)xe5 �xe5 9..ic3 �e4 to.li)xc5 .ixc5 l l .e3 0-0 1 2 .�d2 d6 13..id3 �xg2 (I L�g4 1 4.h3 �5 15.g4 .ixg4 l 6.�gl �xh3 17 ..if5 h5 1 8..ixg4 hxg4 19.�d5) 14.0�0 and White obtains the initiative, Gutman; III) 6 ... b6, then: A) 7 ..ig5 .ie7 8.li)xc5 .ixg5 (instead of 8...bxc5 9..if4 0-0 IO.g3 �b8 l l.�d2 m>4 1 2.�cl �e8 1 3..ig2 g5 1 4.li)xg5 li)xe5 1 5 .0-0 �b6 1 6.li)e4 li)xc4 17 .�xc4 d5 1 8.�xc5 .ixc5 1 9 .li)xc5 1 :0 Bricard ­ Toulzac, Toulon 1 998) 9.li)d3 (or 9.li)e4 .if4 I O.e3 .ixe5 l l .li)xe5 li)xe5 1 2 .�d5 li)c6) 9 .. ..ih6 IO.g3 (I O.e3 0-0 l l ..ie2 �e7 12.0-0 g6) 1 0 ... 0-0 l l ..ig2 �e7 1 2 . �O �b8 13 .e3 g6 14.�a4 a6 15.�c2 .ig7 seems playable for Black, Gutman ; B) 7 ..id2! ? li)e4 8.e3 .ib7 9..id3 li)xd2 I O.li)bxd2 .ib4 1 1 .0-0 ! ? ( l l .a3 .ixd2+ 1 2.�xd2 �e7 transposes to 4.li)f3 .ib
6... �xb3 Other possibilities: I) 6 ...li)e6 7 ..id2 (7.e4 d6 8.exd6 .ixd6 9..ie2 .ib4+ I O.�fl �xdl+ l l ..ixdl b6 1 2..ie2 .ib7 13..ie3 �0 14.e5 aS 15J:tdl a4 1 6.li)cl a3 1 7.b3 .ic3 1 8.li)d3 f6 was OK for Black in Nimzo 1 998 - Hiarcs 6, computer game 1 998) 7. ..aS ( Cr:ha - Ple­ tanek, Czech Republic 1 99 1 , continued 7 ...b6 8.e3 .ib7 9..ie2 �e7 1 0.0-0 0-0-0, when l l ..ic3 g5 1 2.li)fd4 might be tried) 8.e3 ib4 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO.�xd2 �0 I I J.d3 b6 (if l l ... li)g5 1 2 .li)xg5 �xg5 1 3 .f4) 1 2.0-0 with a plus for White, Gutman; II) 6 ...�e7 7..id2 (7 ..if4 li)e6 8..id2 g6 9..ic3 .ig7 causes less problems. I O.e3 0-0 l l..ie2 is met by l l ..lk8 12.0-0 li)c5 13 .li)xc5 �xc5 14.�d5 �e7 15.c5 li)xe5 1 6.li)xe5 .ixe5 1 7.&cl c6 18.�xe5 �xe5 l9.he5 �e5 20lH"dl b6. After IO.g3 0-0 l l ..ig2 Black has a choice between 1 1 ... �e8 12.0-0 li)c5 l 3 .li)xc5 �xc5 14.�d5 �e7 15.e3 li)xe5 1 6.li)xe5 .ixe5 and I I ... li)c5 12.li)xc5 �xc5 1 3 .�d5 �e7 14.� lk8 15.th3 l:M8 16.e3 d6 1 7.hc8 �axeS, improving on 13. . .d6 14.�xc5 dxc5 151Fdl .ie6 1 6.b3 li)b4?! 1 7 ..ixb4 cxb4 1 8.tai4 .ixe5 l9.li)xe6 -*c3+ 20.� txe6 2l..hb7, 81

1 996, and 8.g3 is hannless on account of 8 ...dxe5 9 .'tYxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 O..ig2 i.d6 l l.ltJxe5 ltJxe5 12..ixe4 ltJxc4 13..id5 .ie6) 8 . � 9.exd6 ltJxd6 appears to be more complicated than evaluated in theory. Now: A) 1 0.ltJc5 'tYffi l l .e4 0-0-0 1 2.exf5 ltJe8 13.ltJe4 'tYe7 14.ffi (14..ig5 ltJffi 15..ixffi gxffi 1 6.'tYb5 'tYxe4+ with a massive attack against the white king, Bogdan Lillie) 14 ... ltJxf6 1 5 .'tYf5+ a:d7 1 6.i.d3 ( 1 6..ie3?! 'tYxe4 17.'tYxe4 ltJxe4 1 8.g3 f5 1 9.a:dl a:xd l + 20.'it>xdl i.c5 2 1 .i.xc5 ltJxc5 was seen in Kozul - Mohr, Ljub­ ljana 1 989) 16 ... ltJxe4 1 7 .0-0 ( 1 7i.xe4 fails to 1 7 ... g6 followed by 1 8 ... f5, La­ lic) 1 7...�c5 1 8.a:e l 'tYd8 19.i.c2 g6 20. 'tYh3 f5 ! (Fritz 6 - Gambit Tiger, com­ puter game 200 1, went 20 ..ig7 2 l ..ie3 ltJe6 22.i.a4 f5 23.l:i:ab 1 l:i:d3 24.i.xc6 bxc6 25..ih6 A.xh6 26.'tYxh6 'tYf6 27.ltJe5 wilh advantage for White) 2 l .b4 (2l .J.g5 i.e? 22 . .he7 fue7 23 .b4 ltJe6 24.a:ad 1 ltJed4 gave Black a plus, Little Goliath ­ Fritz 6, computer game 200 1 ) 2 l ...i.g7 22..ig5 'tYg8 23.a:adl (23.bxc5 hal 24. a:xal 'tYxc4) 23..fudl (23 ...'tYxc4 24fud7 ltJxd7 25.'tYxh7! tvn 26.i.b3) 24.a:xd l h6 (24 ...'tYxc4? 25..ixf5+ gxf5 26.'tYxf5+ ltJe6 27.a:e l ) 2 5 ..ie3 'tYxc4! 26.i.xf5+ gxf5 27.i.xc5 'tYg4 is equal, Gutman; B) IO..ig5 !? i.e? (if 10 .. .f6 l l ..if4 ltJe7 1 2.'tYd4) l l .ltJc5 ( l l .i.xe7 ltJxe7) 1 1 ... 'tYc8 ( l l ....ixg5 can be met by 12.ltJ xb7! ltJe7 1 3.ltJxd8 ltJxd5 14.ltJxg5 ltJe7 15 .c5 a:xd8 16.cxd6 a:xd6 1 7.a:c l ) 12.e4 i.g4 ( 1 2 ..ie6 13.ltJxe6 fxe6 1 4.'tYd3) 1 3 .ltJd4 0-0 ( 1 3 ... .hg5 14.ltJxc6 .if4 15 .'tYd4 f6 1 6.ltJd3 i.h6 1 7.ltJxa7) 1 4. ltJxc6 bxc6 1 5 .'tYd2 ltJxc4 16..ixc4 .hc5 17 . ..a:cl se­ cures an edge for White, Gutman. V) Perhaps it is just a question of taste, but to me the ancient 6 ... ffi!? looks fully viable, immediately exerting strong pres­ sure on e5.

We examine: A) 7.g3 fxe5 8.ig2 ltJxb3 (8 ...'tYffi?! 9.0-0 h6 I O..ie3 ltJe6 l l .ltJfd2 g5 12.ltJe4, Szir­ may - Pusztay, Budapest 1 998) 9.'tYxb3 (9.axb3 i.b4+ 1 O..id2 �e7 1 1 .0-0 i.xd2 1 2.'tYxd2 0-0) 9 ...i.b4+ I O.i.d2 i.xd2+ l l .ltJxd2 0-0, Gutman ; B) 7.ltJxc5 .hc5 8.exf6 (8.e6 is dubious as 8 ...dxe6 9.'tYxd8+ 'it>xd8 or 8 ...'tYe7 !? 9.e3 dxe6 1 O..id2 e5, Thomsen - Simon­ sen, Oy1dbakki 2000, shows. 8.'tYd5 Jb4+ 9.'it>d l , Frantisek Nepustil, is best an­ swered by 9 ...b6 1 0 .a3 i.fB l l .b4 i.b7 1 2..ib2 l:i:b8 as 9 ...d6 does not work well due to I O.exfti 'tYx.fti l l .fth5+ g6 12.�g5 'tYf7 1 3 .'tYe3+ 'it>d8 14.'tYf4) 8 ...'tYxffi 9.a3 d6 1 O.e3 0-0 l l .i.e2 i.f5, Gutman; C) 7.exf6 'tYxffi 8.g3 (8.a3 ltJe6 9.g3 a5 1 O..ig2 a4 l l .ltJbd2 ltJc5 12.0-0 �7) 8 ... ltJe4 !? (8 ... ltJxb3 9.'tYxb3 i.b4+ I O.i.d2 makes White's task easier. 1 0 ...i.xd2+ l l .ltJxd2 0.0 is met by 12.ltJe4 'tYf7 13..a:cl b6 14.i.g2 ib7 15 .0-0 a:ae8 16.'tYdl, while after 10 ...ic5 he has two options: l l .'tYc3 'tYe7 1 2.a3 d6 1 3 .i.g5 �n 1 4.i.e3 0-0 1 5..ixc5 dxc5 16.� ltJd4 17.ltJxd4 cxd4 1 8 .'tYxd4 c5 19.'tYxc5 i.e6 20.i.g2 a:ac8 21.'tYe3 .ho4 22.'ttbl a:ce8 23.'tYxa7, Little Goliath - Gambit Tiger, computer game 200 1 , or l l .i.g2 !? ltJd4 1 2.ltJxd4 i.xd4 1 3 .e3 i.xb2 1 4.a:b l i.e 5 1 5 .c5) 9.'tYc2 (9.a3 ltJe5 I O.tg2 ltJxc4 1 1 .().() c6 12.ltJfd4

_

•

82

d5 13.�c2 /t)ed6 14.J.f4 j,e7 15.e4 dxe4 16./t)xc6 bxc6 17 .hd6 �xd6 1 8.�xc4 ie6 19.�c2 0-0 20.&dl �e5 2 1 ./t)d4 e3 22. /t)xc6 exf2+ 231W2 �c7 24./t)xe7+ �xe7 25 . .haS gxa8 26.�c6 1 :0 Stahlberg ­ Reinhardt, Niendorf 1 934, yet we can improve with 13 ... /t)b6!? 14 .J.xe4 dxe4 15.�xe4+ j,e7 1 6.J.f4 0-0) 9...J.b4+ (9 ... d5 10.cxd5 j,b4+ l l .j,d2 j,fS 12.Axb4 /t)xb4 13.�c4 �b6 14./t)fd4 0-0-0, HlllrS Baum, 1 5.a3 /t)xd5 1 6J.g2 liihe8 1 7.0-0 leaves Black with difficult problems to solve; however, insufficient is 12 .ti'dl 0-0-0 1 3 .dxc6 /t)xd2 1 4.cxb7+ �b8 1 5 . /t)fxd2 gxd2 1 6 ./t)xd2, Baum, not be­ cause of 16 ...ti'xb2 1 7 .J.g2 hd2+ 1 8 . ti'xd2 ti'xal+ 19.�dl ti'c3+ 20.�1 , but due to 16 .. _gd8 1 7.J.g2 �d2 18.0-0 �dl 1 9.&xdl j,d6 20.� ti'e7 2 l _gfdl j,e4) IO..id2 (more precise than 10./t)bd2 ti'f5 l l.Jh3 /t)d4 12.�d3 /t)xf3+ 1 3.�xf3 ti'e5 1 4.�f4 �xf4 1 5 .gxf4 gm 1 6.e3 g5) 1 0 ... hd2+ l l ./t)bxd2 /t)c5 12.a3 ( 12./t)b3 /t)b4 1 3 .�d2 /t)cd3+ 14 .exd3 �xf3 15.�e2+ �xe2+ 1 6.�xe2 d5) 1 2 ...d6 are all OK for Black, Gutman .

Bawnann - Gikas, Germany 1 988, or 9_b6 10.g3 j,b7 l l .J.g2 /t)xe5 - instead of 1 1 ...0-0-0 12.0-0 h5 1 3 .ti'd2 h4, Ka­ man - Pusztay, Hungary 2000, 14..ixb4 /t)xb4 1 5 .gxa7 - 1 2 .0-0 hc3 1 3 .bxc3 0-0 14./t)xe5 hg2 15 .�g2 �xe5 16.�d4 me8 with equality) 9...0-0 1 0.J.e2 /t)xe5 l l ./t)xe5 hd2+ 12.�xd2 �xe5 13.0-0 d6 14.j,f3 a6 (Crafty - Brause, computer game 1 997, went 1 4 ...ges 1 5 J�a5 �f6 1 6_gdl a6 17.�c3 �g6 1 8.�d4 m,8 19.c5, when 1 9...b6 20.cxb6 gxb6 2 l .b4 j,e6 might be tried) 1 5 .b4 gb8 16.mc l gds 11.ga3 Ae6 and Black is defmitely not worse, Moskalenko - Mohr, Bled 1 99 1 . 7 ..Ab4+ 7...d6 8.Ag5 �d7 (there is little promise in 8 j,e7 9.he7 �xe7 1 0.exd6 �xd6 l l .gdl , Musso - Zimmermann, e-mail 200 1 , l l ...�e7 12 .e3 0-0 13.Ae2, or 8 ...ffi 9.exffi gx.ffi 10..id2 a5 l l .a4 j,d7 12.e3 b6 1 3 .j,e2 �e7 1 4./t)d4 0-0-0 1 5 ./t)b5 h5 1 6./t)c3 �g7 1 7.ggl /t)e5 1 8./t)d5, Kris­ tensen - Olsen, Copenhagen 2000) 9.exd6 (9_gdl �g4 1 0.h3 �e6 l l .�c3 dxe5 1 2 . /t)xe5 f6 1 3 ./t)xc6 �xc6 1 4.Af4 j,e7 or 9.0-0-0 �g4, Roger Thomsen, are both less clear) 9 .. ..hd6 10.�e3+ �e6 l l .a3 0-0 1 2.�xe6 j,xe6 n .gc l did not give Black full compensation, Gutman. 8..Adl ..

• .

Back into the main line

7.1hb3 7.axb3 Ab4+ 8.Ad2 �e79.e3 (after 9..ic3 Black can play 9 ... /t)xe5 10./t)xe5 hc3+ l l .bxc3 �xe5 1 2.�d4 d6 13.�xe5+ dxe5,

8 aS! ...

83

8 .. .ixd2+ 9.�xd2(9.�xd2 0-0 l OJ:idl l:le8 l l .tvc3 �xeS 12.�xeS tvgS+ l3 .e3 tv xeS, Moriana Garcia - Heesen, e-mail 200 1 ) 9..�xeS (9 ...tve7 1 O.f4 d6 l l .exd6 tvxd6 1 2 .e3 iB 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 4 .ie2 l:lhe8 1S.�e4 tve7 16.�g3) looks less inspiring to me, when: I) 10.�f3 tve7 l l .�xeS tvxeS, Pompoes ­ Reinicke, Germany 1 992; further m 10.g3 0-0 (l O ...tve7 l l .ig2 d6 1 2.<�0 �c6 l3.e4 0-0 14.f4.l:le8, Rosner - Baer, corr 200 1 ) l l .ig2 aS (or l l ...d6 1 2.0-0 aS l3.tvc3 tve7 Yl-Yl Nicoara - Lanzani, French League 1 999) 1 2.tvc3 tve7 13.0-0 d6 (13 &6 is less sound due to 14.�b3 a4 1 S .�d4, while Nicoara - Herbrechts­ meier, French League 200 1 , continued 14.�0 �xf3+ 1 S.ixf3 � 1 6.tvc2 l:ld6 1 7 .l:lfdl l:lxdl+ 1 8 .l:lxdl d6 1 9.a3 \Wb6 20.tvc3 ie6 2 l .idS c6 Yz-Yl) 14.�b3 a4 1 S .�d4 c6 seems harmless, Gutman; Ill) IO.tvg3 ! tve7 (if 10 ...�g6 l l .h4 0-0 1 2 .hS �e7 l3.h6 �B 14.tvg4 g6 1 S .e4 �d4 1 6.0-0-0) l l .f4!? ( l l .tvxg7 �d3+ 12.�dl �xt2+ 1 3 .�e l �d3+ with per­ petual) l l...�g6 12.13 (an improvement on 12.e4 ffi 13�2 0-0 14.0-0 b6 1S�? tvcS+ 16.l:lt2 tvxhS, Grosse Frintrop ­ Renn, Germany 1999) 12 ...�eS l3.tvxg7 �d3+ 14.�dl �t2+ 1S.�c2 l:lfl! 16.l:lgl dS ( 1 6...tve3 1 7 .g4 �e4 1 8.tveS+ �d8 1 9.�0) 17.g4 hS 1 8.cxdS �xg4 ( 1 8 ... hxg4 19.e4! �xe4 20.l:lel .ixB 2 l .tvd4) 19.e4 �e3+ 20.�d3 �xfl 2 l .�xfl .id7 22.tvd4 with advantage, Gutman. 9.a3 a4 1 0.tfe3 .Axdl+ l l .tfxdl l l .�xd2 0-0 1 2.f4 can be met by 12 ... ffi. ll ...tfe7 ll.tfcl 0-0 13.!dl !e8 14.l:ld5 b6 15.e3 .Ab7 16 ..Ae2 �d8!? 16 ...�b8 17 .l:ld4 &5 is another way to play, viz. 1 8.0-0 .AxO 19 ..ix0 l:lxeS 20.tvc2 &S 2 l .idS �a6!? 22.l:le4 tv f8 23.l:lf4 l:le7 24.l:ld l �cS , Gutman. 1 7,gd2 �e6 18.0-0 �c:S 19.gd4 gadS Black is quite comfortable, Gutman.

Section 4 (l.d4 �f6 2.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�d2 �c:S S.�gO �c:6) 6.e3

.•

6...d6!? Less effective are: I) 6 ... gS 7..Ae2 (7.h3 .Ag7 has its draw­ backs, for example 8..ie2 tve7 9.a3 �xeS l O.�xeS .AxeS 1 1 .�0 .Af6 1 2.tvc2 d6 l3.lt)d4 .Ad7 14.b3 �e4 1Sb2 cS 16.�f3 .if5 17.id3 �xt2 1 8.� .Axd3 19.ixffi .ixc2 20.ixe7 �xe7, Johansson - Moe Nielsen, R.wlaberg 198S, or 8.�d4 �xeS 9.�2f3 d6 lO.tvc2 tvffi l l .ie2 hS 12.l:lbl g4 1 3llxg4 hxg4 14_gm8+ .Axh8 1S.�d2, Zoumatsidis - Kogan, Athens 1999, lS ... tvh4) 7.. .ig7 (7...g4 8.�d4 �xeS 9.�b 1 hS 1 0.�c3 d6 l l .b3 .Ag7 12.ib2) 8.�bl �xeS 9.�d4 d6 1 0.�c3 yields an edge for White, Gutman ; m 6 ...g6 7.b3 !? (if 7.�b3 �xb3 8.tvxb3 .ig7 9..Ad2 tve7 1 O.ic3, then not 1 0 ... 0-0 l l .ie2 b6 12.0-0 .ib7 1 3.l:lfd l &d8 14. &c l �xeS l S .�xeS .ixeS 1 6.cS tvgS 17 ..ifl .ixc3 1 8 .tvxc3 1c6 1 9 .b4 with a slight plus for White, Psakhis - Zapata, Fide Wch, Las Vegas 1999, but l O...�xeS l l .�xeS 1xeS 1 2 . .Ae2 aS !? 1 3 ..AO a4 14.tvc2 d6 l S .0-0, Leonard - Gibson, Dublin 1993, l S...O-O) reaches a position after s.�gO �c6 6.b3 g6 7.e3, treated in Section 2; 84

IU) 6..'fle7 is the most natural reply, 8.a3 though White is still a bit better after Alternatively: I) 8.lLlb3 lLlxb3 9.'flxb3(9.axb3 'flf6 1 0. 7.J.e2 (for 7.a3 see 6.a3 'fle7 7.e3 - Sec­ tion S , Sequel 2 ) 7 ... lLlxeS 8 .0-0 lLlxO+ �d4 0-0 l l .li.d3 ltlxd4 1 2.exd4 ges+, Damjanovic - Bosnic, Belgrade 2003) (8...g6 9.lLlxeS 'fixeS I O.lLJO 'flf6 1 1 � 1 li.g7 l2.b4!? ltle4 l 3 .i.b2 ltlc3 14 .1i.xc3 9...'flffi 1 O.J.e2 1i.f5 l l .'flxb7 0-0; further 'flxc3 lS.lLld4 li.xd4 16.exd4 'fla3 17.'fld2) D) 8 .ltld4 0-0 (in Muster - Behling, corr 1 987, Black was unsuccessful with 8... 9.ltlx0, Gutman. lLlb49.lLl2f3 1i.g4 1 O.a3 1xt3 l l .gxf3 ltlc6 7.exd6 1 2.b4 ltle6 l3.ltlxc6 bxc6 14..ib2 0-0 l S . 7.ltlb3 dxeS 8.'flxd8+ l!ixd8 9.lLlxcS hcS 1 O.J.d2 �e7 l l .J.c3 f6 12 .a3 a5 1 3.0-0-0 cS �7 16J.c4 a5 1 7-ilg l , while 8 ...ltlxd4 9.exd4 'fle7+ 10 �2 ltld3+ l l .�fl ltlxcl li.f5 14.id3 i.xd3 1 S.fu.d3 mtd8 16.fu.d8 gxd8 1 7Jldl gxdl+ 1 8 .�xd l �e6 1 9. 12 .gxc 1 0-0 1 3.gc3 did not promise him ltld2 �7 20.�c2 a4 2 l .lLlbl lLlb8 22.Ad2 enough for the pawn) 9.ltlxc6 (if9.lLlbS ltld 7 gave Black a fine ending, Pomar - li.fS) 9 ...bxc6 10.ltlf3 ( I O ..ie2 is met by 10 ... 'flgS, e.g. 1 1 .0-0? li.h3 12./i.O 'fleS, Bisguier, Hollywood 1 9S4. 7.. .lxd6 l l .lLJO 'flxg2 12.ggl 'flh3 1 3.b4 ltle6 or 7 ...'flxd6 8.J.e2 (8.ltlb3? 'flxdl+ 9.�xdl l l .g3 1i.h3 12.b4 ltle6 1 3 .cS ii.e7 14.lLJO 'flf6) lO ...lLle4 l l .li.d3 ( l l .a3? li.g3 or ltle4 l O.�e l lLlb4, Goldberg - Feicht, Braunfels 1998, or 8.a3 a5 9.b3 'flg6 10. l l .li.e2 1i.b4+ 12.�fl 'fle7 1 3.'flc2.ges 14.a3 id6 lS .J.d3 f5 are even worse) 1 1 ... li.b2 1i.e7 are less impressive for White) 8 .../i.fS 9.0-0 0-0-0 1 O.ltlb3 ( 10.a3 'flf6 .tb4+ 12.c;t>e2 f5 1 3.'flc2 'fle7 give White a plenty of problems, Gutman; 1 1 .� .tbl 12.gal li.fS leads to a draw by repetition, while Finegold - Sprague, Ill) 8 .1i.e2, and now: USA 198 1, ended abruptly with l l .e4?! A) 8 ...0-0 9.0-0 (9.ltld4 'figS !, improving ltlxe4 12.ltlxe4 1i.xe4 13.'flel h6 14.&2 on 9 ...1i.d7 1 0.0-0 ltlb4, Jaeger - Back, corr 1 99S, l l .ltl20 'flf6 12..id2) 9 ...'flffi li.d6 lS .J.e3 ghe8 16.cS li.xcS 1 7 .J.xcS (9.. _ges 1 O.ltlb3 ltle4 l l .lLlbd4 lLleS 12. li.xO 18 .J.e3 li.dS 19 .ga 1 'flg6 0: 1 ) 10 ... 'flf6 l l.ltlbd4 .io4 12.ge1 .ht3 ( 12 ...Ad6 lLlbS lLlxO+ 13 ..ixf3, Wohlers - Kava­ sjukova, Prague 1989) 1 O.ltlb3 ( 1 O.a3 li.f5 1 3 .ltld2) 1 3 .li.xO ltlxd4 14 .exd4 'fl xd4 l S .'flxd4 gxd4 1 6.1i.dS with some pres­ 1 1 .ga2 �d8!? 1 2 .b4 ltld3; this is more sure for White, Gutman . accurate than l l ...aS 1 2.b3 gadS 13 .g3, e.g. 13 ...gS 14.ib2 'f/g6 lS.'flcl h5 1 6.'flc3 f6 1 7.ltld4, Wild - Schratzenstaller, Bad Woerishofen 2002, or l 3 ... gfe8 1 4.1i.b2 'fle7 l S .ge l ) 10 .../i.fS ( I O ... gds gives Black sufficient activity to compensate for his material deficit, Bogdan Lillie; yet in my opinion l l .lLJ bd4 - instead of l l .lLlxcS ii.xcS 1 2.'flb3 aS !? 1 3 .1i.d2 a4 14.'flc3 'flg6 l S.gfd l li.h3 1 6./i.fl li.g4 Y:z-Yz Lputian - Eolian, Yerevan 1 977 -, l l .. .J.g4 1 2 .b3 1i.x0 1 3 .J.xf3 is OK for White, e.g. l 3 .. ..ixh2+? 14.�xh2 ltlxd4 1S.exd4fud4 16.'fle2 g),4+ 17.�gl 'flxal 8S

lS,j,gS or l3 .. ieS 14.hc6 bxc6 1S.�e2 .hd4 16.exd4 lLle6 1HVe5 lLlxd4 1 S.�xffi gl(ffi 19�h6) l l .lLlbd4 !? ( l l .lLlxcS AxeS 12.�3 lLlaS l 3 .�a4 b6 14J:tdl gadS is less convincing) 1 1 .. _gadS 1 2,j,d2 i.e4 (l2 ... lLlxd4 13.exd4 lLle4 14ie3 cS 1S.i.d3 cxd4 16.ixd4 Yflb6 17 .i.e3 brings Black no success either, as 17 ...YfihS lS.g3 lLlc3 19.bxc3 .bd3 20.�xd3 �xt3 2 l .�d5 or 17 ...if4 1S ..bf4 �xf4 1 9 .�c2 shows) 1 3.�3 �g6 ( 13...� 14.g3 lLleS lS.lLld2) 14.g3 lLleS l S.lLlh4 (Gref- Brause, com­ puter game 1997, went l S.lLlxeS? AxeS 16l!cl lLld3 17gc2 .hd4 1 8.exd4 lLlf4 0:1) 1S ...Yflh6 1 6.f4 and White is able to de­ fend himself, Gutman; B) S...�ffi 9.0-0 (9.lLlb3 lLlxb3 !? IO.�xb3 see I; 9 ...0-0 1 O.lLlxcS i.xcS 1 1 .0-0 gds goes into IliA , while 9 ...i.d7 l O.lLlxcS i.xcS 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 1 2 .�c2 gS l 3 .i.d2 is in White 's favour, e.g. 13 ...g4 14,j,c3 Yflb6 l S .lLleS, Nilsson - Evertsson, Ha­ ninge 1 997, or 1 3 ... gheS 1 4.i.c3 �h6 l S .gad l i.d6 1 6.g3) is a critical test.

Black has three options: 81) 9 ...i.e6 I O.a3 aS ( 1 0 ...0-0-0 1 1 .�2 threatening 12.b4) l l .lLlb3 0-0 12 .lLlxcS .hcS 13.�3 b6 14.i.d2 ig4 1H�c3 �e7 16.gfe l &dS 1 7 .�c2 �7 1 S .ic3 gfdS 19.lLld4.hd4 20.exd4 .he2 2 l �e2 �d6 22.�el 'lk7 23.dS gxe2 24.�xe2 lLlbS 2SieS 1 :0 Levine - Welling, corr 1 9SO;

82) 9 .. .ig4 l O.lLld4 .he2 l l .�xe2 �eS ( l l ....txh2+? 1 2.� � eS+ 1 3.f4 lLlxd4 14.�d l) 1 2.f4! ( l 2.lLl4t3 was tested in two games. Motta - Urquiza, corr 1 9SS, went 12 ...�hS 1 3 .g3 lLleS, when instead of 14.&l lLlg4 l S.�fl 0-0-0 l6.�g2 lLld3 11.ge2 f5, 14.lLld4 �xe2 l S.lLlxe2 0-0-0 16.lLld4 would be more consistent; how­ ever, 12...�f0 is a better try, viz. l3.gbl a5 14.b3 and now not 14 ...0-0-0 1S,j,b2 �g6 16.lLld4 lLlxd4 1 7.exd4 mteS lS.�f3 lLld3 1 9.cS i.f4 2 0.lLlc4 lLlxb2 2 l .gxb2 liltd4 22.lLlxa5, Burgess - Pfeiffer, Vienna 1990, but 14 ... 0-0 1SJ.b2 Yfih6 16goo l 15) 12 ... lLlxd4 l3 .�f2 �f5 1 4.exd4 0-0-0 lS. lLlb3 lLle4 1 6.�0 mteS 1 7.ie 3 with Black gets nowhere, Gutman; B3) 9 ...if5! I O.lLlb3 (I O.a3 O-O!? see A ; 1 0. . .0-0-0 seems too optimistic, not be­ cause of l l .'it>h l gS 12 .e4 i.g6 1 3.ga2, Helms - Krempner, Germany 199S, 13 ... g4 ! ? 14.eS lLlxeS l S .lLlxeS �xeS 1 6.f4 gd3 17 .lLlxfl mts, but in view of 1 1 �2 mteS 12.b4, e.g. 12 ...lLle4 13.lLlxe4 .he4 14gd2 or 12 ...00 l3.cS i.fB 14.bS lLlceS 1S.c6) 1 0...0-0-0 ( 1 0...0-0 transposing to A is now favourable for White. Also lO ...lLle4 l l .lLlbd4 �S is less advisable: 12.b3 i.b4 l3.�c2 i.g6 1 4.id3 i.c3 l S . .he4 .hal 1 6.lLlxc6 bxc6 1 7 .i.a3 gd7 l S.ic5 1eS 1 9.ixg6 hxg6 20.�e4. Mar­ tinez Martin - Vidal del Rio, Mondariz 2000, or 1 2.a3 0-0 l3.id3 i.g6 l 4.�c2 rues l S.b4 lLleS 16.lLlxeS �xeS 17.f4 YfihS l S.cS i.fB 1 9.f5 �d4 20.fxg6 1 :0 Cama­ rena - Milia, Madrid 2000 ) l l .lLlfd4lLlxb3 (if l l ...hS, then 1 2. 'it>h l lLlxb3 1 3 .�xb3 lLlxd4 14.exd4 �xd4 l S .ie3 Yfih4 1 6.f4 �eS 1 7.cS .hcS 1 S.i.f3, instead of 1 2 . lLlxc6? .ixh2+ l3.'it>xh2 �dl 14.lLlxa7+ 'it>b8 lS�dl, Rohde - Splane, San Mateo 19S9, l S ... lLle4) 12.�xb3 (l2.axb3 i.cS l3.b4 lLlxd4 14.exd4 .bd4 1S.�3 �eS) 12 ... lLlxd4 l 3 .exd4 �xd4 14 .i.e3 �h4 1 S.f4 gheS keeps the balance, Gutman. 86

Cl) IO.J.e2 ti'f6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.llJbd4 l:ld8 13.ti'c2 ( 1 3.J.d3 llJcxd4 14.llJxd4 llJxd4 1 5.exd4 ti'xd4 16..ixh7+ Wxh7 1 7.ti'xd4 1xh2+ 18.®xla l:lxd4 19.b3 a4, Schmid ­ Bircher, Switzerland 1 994) 1 3 ... llJcxd4 14.exd4 llJxd4 1 5.llJxd4 ti'xd4 1 6.1e3 ti'e5 1 7.g3 1f5 with an edge for Black, Dittmar - Klueting, Weilburg 1996; C2) I O.llJbd4 ti'f6 (Black lost quickly after IO ...llJcxd4 l l .exd4 0-0 12.J.d3!? l:le8 1 3 .0-0 l:le7 14.c5 1f4 15 .d5 Axe I 16.dxe6 1xb2 1 7.1xh7+ I :0 Henke ­ Wendland, corr 1 994, while I O...llJexd4 l l .exd4 1g4 12.J.e3 ti'f6 13.J.e2 h6 14.d5 ixO 1 5.1x0 llJe5 1 6.1e2 llJd7 1 7.0-0 0-0 18ltbl l:lfe8 1 9.g3 l:lxe3 20.fxe3 ti'g5 2 1 .�g2 gave White a clear advantage in Romanov - Karatsioras, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2002) l l .llJxc6 (J I .llJxe6 1xe6 1 2.J.e2 0-0 13.0-0 .if5 14.J.d3 �d8 1 5.e4 1g4 1 6.J.g5 ti'xb2 1 7.1xd8 l:lxd8) I I ... bxc6 12.J.e2 a4 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14 .ti'c2 llJc5 15� .if5 16.ti'c3 ti'h6 and Black dom­ inates, Gutman; CJ) I O.J.d2 !? 0-0 l l .ie2 a4 1 2 .llJbd4 llJc5 13.ti'c2!? id7 14.0-0 l:le8 1 5.l:lfdl llJxd4 16.llJxd4 l:la6 ( 1 6 ...llJe4 1 7.1e l ti'h4 1 8.g3 ti'h6 1 9.10 f5 20.c5 llJxc5 2 l .llJxf5 was seen in O rr - Santacruz, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990 - Orr's hand­ ling ofthe opening casts a shadow over Black's system, he keeps his extra pawn and stays ahead in development, Julian Hodgson) 17.g3 (17..ic3 1xh2+ 1 8.� ti'h4+ 19.�gl l:lh6 20.0 ti'hl + 2 l .'t!1f2 ti'M+ is a perpetual) 17 .. .J.h3 1 8.J.c3 se­ cures White a plus, Gutman . 9.�b3 �xbJ Best in view of: I) 9 ...0-0 I O.llJxc5!? 1xc5 l l .id3 1g4 1 2 .ti'c2, Gutman; ll) 9 ... llJe6 IO .J.d3 a5 ( I O .. ..id7 l l .ti'c2 0-0-0 12.c5 1e7 13 .0-0) 1 1 .0-0 0-0 ( I I ... a4 12.llJbd4 llJcxd4 13.exd4 llJxd4 14lte l+) 1 2.ti' c2 h6 ( 1 2.. .a4 is innocuous owing

8. .Yff6 Other possibilities: I) 8 ...J.f5 is premature due to 9.b4 llJd3+ IO .ixd3 1xd3 l l .ti'b3, Gutman; II) 8 ...a5 with a further split: A) 9.J.e2 ti'ffi I O.ti'c2 (Hrbolka - Inne­ man, Czech League 1 994, went I 0.0-0 a4 l l .llJd4 llJxd4 12.exd4 ti'xd4 13.ti'c2, when 13 ...hh2+ 14.Wxh2 ti'e5+ might be strong) 10 ... 0-0 (I 0 ... 1f5 l l .e4 1g4 may well be played, viz. 12ltbl a4 13.b4 axb3 14.llJxb3 1xO 1 5 ..ix0 llJxb3 16. ti'xb3, Findlay - Will, Glasgow 1 995, 16...llJd4 17.ti'd3 1xa3) I I .0-0 115 1 2.e4 lffi:8 13.id3 llJxd3 14.ti'xd3 �d8 15.ti'c2 1g6 16J�el llJe5 1 7.llJxe5 ti'xe5 1 8.g3 mt5 19.b3 1c5 20.J.b2 1xf2+ 2l .Wxf2 ti'xh2+ 22.We3 l:lxd2 0: I Lundgren ­ Bang Christiansen, Copenhagen 1 943; B) 9.ti'c2 0-0 (9 ...ti'ffi can be met by 10. llJe4 llJxe4 l l .ti'xe4+ 1e6 and now not 1 2.id2 ti'xb2 1 3ltbl ti'xa3 1 4.J.e2 J.b4 1 5 .J.xb4 axb4 1 6.0-0 ti'c3 17 .llJd4 llJxd4 1 8 .exd4 0-0 1 9.l:lfc l ti'a3 20.d5 1d7 2 1 . id3 g6 22.ti'd4, Robledo - P.Romero, Buenos Aires 2 000, 22 ...c5!? 23 .dxc6 hc6, but 12.c5 1xc5 13�5 0-0 14.J.xc6 bxc6 1 5.ti'xc6 1d6 16.llJd4) IO.J.e2 ti'f6 reaches a position after 8...a5 9.J.e2 ti'f6 I O.ti'c2 0-0 - A ; C) 9.llJb3 !? llJ e6 (9 ...ti'ffi I O.llJxc5 1xc5 l l .ti'c2 1g4 12.J.e2 0-0 13 .J.d2), when: .

87

to 1 3 .ltlbd4 ltJexd4 14.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 l S .

ll..Ae2 There seems to be nothing better: I) l l .cS AxeS 12.ti'c4 AxO 1 3 .gx0 (if 1 3.ti'xcS 0-0-0 14.gx0 ti'xO) 13 ...0-0-0 14.Ag2 ltleS 1 S.ti'b3 ltld3+ 16.'it>e2 ti'a6 17.'it>d2 .ixe3+ 1 8.'it>c2 ltlb4+ 0:1 Straz­ das - Richter, Berlin 1 933; II) l l .ti'xb7 0-0 1 2 .Ae2 (not 1 2 .ti'xc6? Ah4+) 12 ... &b8 1 3.ti'a6 Ad7 (13 ...ltld4?, Otto Borik, 14.exd4) 14.cS (1 4.0-0 ltld4) 14 ... .ixcS l S .0-0 ( 1 S .ti'c4 Ad6 1 6.0-0 ltlaS 17.ti'c2 ltlb3 1 8.gb l Aa4 19.gel gfd8) 1S .. .id6 1 61ldl gfe8 17.ti'c4 ltlaS 1 8 .ti'c2 ltlb3 1 9.gb l Aa4 20.ge l ltlcS 2l .ti'c4 AbS puts White under pressure, Gutman. 11 .0-0-0 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.Ad2 gfe8 1 3 .Ac3 ti'h6 14.h3 �e3 lS .fxe3 ti'xe3 1 6hxg4 Ag3+ 1 7.'it>d 1 �8+ 1 8.id3! (instead of 18.ltld2 gxd2+ 19bd2 ti'xb3+, Stluka - Netusil, Czech Republic 2000) 1 8 .. hd3+ 1 9.'it>c2 ti'e2+ 20.'it>bl ti'xg2 2 1 .ge l ! ? .bel 22.ltlxe l leaves Black frustrated, Gutman. 12..Ad2 1 2.h3 AhS 1 3 .Ad2 ltleS (the situation appears unclear, but Black is certainly very active, Borik) 14.ltlxeS (if 14.Ac3 .ixf3 lS ..beS AxeS 1 6 ..ix.O c6 1 7.gbl hS 1 8 .0-0 gS) 14 ... Axe2 1 S .ltlc6 Ag3 ! 16.ltlxa7+ ( 16.fxg3 ti'xc6) 16 ... 'it>b8 17. fxg3 ti'd6 1 8.'it>xe2 ti'xd2+, Gutman. ll �eS 12 ... hS 13.h3 Ae6 1 4.0-0-0 ti'g6 lSilhgl ltlb8 1 6.Ad3 fS 17.ti'c2 h4 1 8 .e4 fxe4 19 ..be4 turned out very well for White in Vorackova - Pallova, Czech Repub­ lic 1 994. lJ..AcJ 13.ltlxeS Axe2 14 .ltlc6 bxc6 1 S .'it>xe2 Axh2 1 6.gadl AeS, Gutman . 13....Axf3 14..Axe5 .AxeS!? 1 5..Axf3 c6 16.!bl .Ac7 17.0-0 'treS 1 8.g3 hS Black has obviously enough play for the pawn, Gutman.

exd4) 13.cS Ae7 14.id2 a4 1 S.Ac3 axb3 1 6. ti' dl ltled4 17 .ltlxd4, Gutman; lll) 9 ...Ag4 lO.ltlxcS AxeS l l .Ae2 Ad7 1 U�a2! (more precise than 12.ti'c2 0-0-0 13.id2 at5 14.ti'c3 ti'e6 1S.b4 Ae7, when instead of 1 6.ltld4? ltlxd4 1 7 .exd4 af6 1 8 .ie3 ti' lt4, Derieux - Coursaget, Saint Lo 2001 , 16.ti'cl .i16 17Jc3 .id3 18bd3 l:bd3 19.Axf6 ti'xf6 20.0-0 would have been better) 12...0-0-0 13.id2 Ag4 14.b4, Gutman. 1 0.1hb3

..

1 0....Ag4! We consider therefore: I) 10 ...0-0 l l .Ad2 ge8 12.Ac3 ti'g6 1 3 . 0-0-0 (13.ie2 deserves attention) 1 3 ...a5 14 .ti'bS !? Ag4 1 S .id3 eh6 1 6.cS axo 1 7 .gxO AeS 18 .AxeS gxeS 1 9 .f4 ghs 20.Ae2 gf5 2 l .ig4 gxf4 22.exf4 ti'xf4+ 23.bl ti'xg4 24.ti'xb7 and White won, Kelecevic - Boichetti, Ticino 1 992; D) 10 .. .id7 l l .Ad2 ( l l .ti'xb7 is a risky venture in view of l l ...gb8 1 2 .ti'a6 gb6 1 3.ti'a4 ltld4 14.ti'd l ltlb3 l S .gb l 0-0 16.id3 gfb8 1 1.0-0 Ag4) 1 1 ...0-o-o (1 1 ... ltleS 1 2.ltlxeS AxeS 1 3 .f4) 1 2.Ae2 ghe8 13Jc3 ti'f5 14.0-M (1 4.0.0 ltla5 lS ..lxaS ti'xaS 1 6.cS ti'xcS 1 7 .ti'xf7 is also not bad) 14 ...ti'g6 ( 14 ...ltlaS lS ..ixaS ti'xaS 1 6.gds ti'a6 1 7 .ti'c3) 1 S .g3 and Black has insufficient oompensation, Gutman.

...

88

Section S (l.d4 �f6 2.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�d2 �cS S.�gfJ � c6) 6.a3

A positional threat is to expand on the Q-side by b2-b4 and drive the c5-knight to an inferior post, Tim Harding. This move makes a lot of sense as White prevents a potential _..ib4+ and prepares a later b2-b4. He also keeps his options open of whether to develop with e2-e3 or g2-g3, Bogdan Lalic.

The material divides as follows: Sequel I - 6... a5 (6 . . . f6, 6 ... d6) Sequel 2 - 6 ...�e7. Sequel I 6... as Less accurate are: I) 6 ... ffi 7.b4 ltle6 8.exf6 �xf6 9J�bl /JJ:.7 I O ..ib2 �g6 l l .g3 .if6 1 2 . .ixf6 �xf6 1 3 ..ig2 0-0 1 4.0-0, Tornado - Lostpawn, internet 2002; D) 6...d6 7.b4 ltle6 (7 ...ltld7 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.ltle4 .ie5 IO.lLlxe5 lLldxe5 l l .�xd8+ ltlxd8 12 ..ib2, Lind - Zimmermann, e­ mail 2000) 8.exd6 reaching a position after 5.b4 ltle6 6.a3 ltlc6 7 .ltlgf3 d6 8. exd6 - Section 7.

7.�b3 Alternatives: I) 7 _m,) d6 8.b4 axb4 9.axb4 ltla4 )O_gb3 ltlxe5 l l .e3 .id7 (better than I I ....ig4 1 Uia3 ltlb6 1 3 ..ie2 .ie6 14.�b3 .ie7 1 5.ltld4 .id7 1 6.0-0, Schilly - Larsson, e-mail 1 999) 1 2Jia3 .ie7 is harmless; II) 7.b3 g6 !? 8..ib2 .ig7 transposing to 5.a3 a5 6.b3 g6 7 ..ib2 .ig7 8.lLlgf3 lLlc6 Section I ; III) 7.�c2 �e7 (7 ...d6 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.ltle4 see 4.a3 d6 5.�c2 ltlc5 6.exd6 .ixd6 7. ltlf3 a5 8.ltlc3 ltlc6 9.ltle4 - Part 5, � ter 4, Section I ) 8.�c3 (8.e3 a4!? 9.�c3 �e6 I O..ie2 g6 I I .0-0 .ig7, while 8 ... ltlxe5 goes into Sequel 2) 8...g 6 (8...�e6 9.e3 g6 I O ..ie2 .ig7 may be tried) 9.e6 (9.b3 .ig7 IO..ib2 d6) 9 ... f6 I O.exd7+ .ixd7 I l .e3 .ig7 12 ..ie2 5 1 3 .�c2 f4 1 4.e4 g5 appears promising for Black, Gutman; IV) 7.e3 �e7 (if 7 ... d6, then not 8.ltlb3 .!iJxb3 9.�xb3 dxe5 I O.�b5 ffi I I..id2 id7 12.�xb7 gb8 0: I Rasmussen - Jensen, corr 1 991 , but 8.exd6 .ixd6 transposing to 5.lLlgf3 lLlc6 6.e3 d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.a3 a5, covered in Section 4) 8.ltlb3 (8 ..ie2 ltlxe5 9.0-0 d6 I O.lLlb3lLled7 I I ..id2 a4 12.lLlxc5 lLlxc5 13.ic3, Sharden - Grantz, e-mail 2000, 13 ... c6) 8 ...ltlxb3 (8 ...ltlxe5 9.ltlxc5 �xc5 is possible, e.g. I O..id2 id6 I I ..ic3 ltlxf3+ 1 2.�xf3 0-0 1 3..id3 ge8 or I O.ltlxe5 �xe5 I I ..id3 .ic5 12.0-0 &6 J3.gb I gh6, Knol - Gibson, corr 200 I ) 9.�xb3 g6 leads to equality, Gutman; V) 7.g3 with another branch: A) 7 ... b6 8..ig2 (8.ltlb3 .ib7 9.gg I ltle6, instead An Mon - Little Goliath, com­ puter game 200 I , continued 9 . . .ltlxb3 I O.�xb3 a4 l l .�d3 ltla5 1 2 ..ie3 .ic5 13 ..ixc5 ltlb3 14..if8 �xfB 1 5 .gdJ lLlc5 1 6.�5 �e7 1 7.ltld4) 8 ... .ib7 9.0-0 a4 (9...�e7 I O.ltlb3) IO.�c2 (I o.geJ !? �e7 I I .lLlfl lLlxe5 1 2.ltle3) I O -.�e7 l l .�c3, Gutman; further 89

B) 7...Vfie7 8.i.g2 ll:lxe5 9.ll:lxe5 (on 9.0-0 Black should play 9 ... d6 l O.ll:lxe5 dxe5, since 9 ... ll:lx0+?! fails to l O.exO Vfid8, Kuhn - Schwichtenberg, Gladenbach 1999, l l .�el+ .le7 l 2 .Vfie2 &6 1 3 .i.h3 ll:le6 l4.f4) 9 ...Vfixe5 10 .0-0 .le7 ( l O ... g6 l l .ll:\0 Vfie7 l2 ..lg5 ffi l 3 ..le3) l l .ll:\0 Vfif6 l 2.ll:ld4 0-0 l 3.e4 d6 14 .i.e3, Gut­ man; similarly C) 7 ... g6 8.ll:lb l ! (8..lg2 .lg7 9.0-0 0-0 lO.ll:lb3 ll:lxb3 l l .Vfixb3 a4 l2.Vfic2 ll:lxe5 l3 ..id2 d6 l 4.ll:lxe5 .lxe5 was equal in Tuchenhagen - Zill, Gennany 2000) 8 ... h6 9.ll:lc3 .lg7 l O..te3 ll:le6 l 2.Vfid2 ll:lxe5 l3 .ll:lxe5 .lxe5 l4..lg2 .lg7 1 5.ll:ld5 with a plus for White, Gutman; D) 7 ...d6 . 8 .exd6 is critical, when: Dl) 8 ...Vfixd6 9 ..lg2 .lf5 was indicated by Ludwig Engels.

l 0.0-0 ( l O.b3 0-0-0 l l ..lb2 h5 ! makes life a bit too easy for Black, l2 ..lc3 1 2 .0-0 h4 l3.b4 hxg3 , e.g.l 4.fxg3 Vfih6 l 5 .bxc5 .lxc5+ l 6.�h l .le3 17 �3 .lg4 or l4 .bxc5 gxf2+ l 5 .�xf2 VfJh6 l 6 .�fl .lxc5+ l 7.�hl .lg4 l 8.Vfic2 .le3-, 1 2 ... ll:ld3+ l 3 .�fl h4 1 4.ll:lg5 Vfig6 l 5 .ll:lh3 hxg3 l 6.hxg3 and now I like 16 ... ll:lc5, for example 17 .ll:lf4 � l + l 8..txh l Vfih6 or 1 7 .Vfie l .lc2 l 8.�gl .id6, instead of l 6 ...Vfie6 1 7 .exd3 .lxh3 l 8.VfJO .lxg2+ l9.�xg2 �xhl 20.�xhl .lxa3 2 l ..lxg7 Vfig6 22..ih6 �xd3 23..le3 !12-Yl Luckis ­ Engels, Montevideo 1 94 1 ), and n ow:

Dla) 10 ...0-0-0? l l .b4 axb4 ( l l ...ll:le4 l2.b5 Vfiffi l 3 .&2 ll:lc3 l4.i.b2 ll:ld4 1 5 . .lxc3 ll:lx0+ l 6..lx0 Vfixc3 l 7.Vfib3 ! ?) l2 .axb4 ll:lxb4 l 3 .ll:lg5 (another possi­ bility is 13 .�aS+ �d7 l 4.�xd8+ �xd8, when instead of l 5 ..lb2 ffi l6.ll:ld4 .id7 l7 .ll:le4 ll:lxe4 1 8 ..lxe4 W l 9.�el c5 20.ll:lf5?! Vfixdl 2 l .�xd l + �c7 22-i.c l ll:lc6 23..lf4+ ll:le5 24.�bl .lxf5 25.i.xf5 .id6 with only a small edge for White, Golombek - Bisguier, Southsea 1 950, l5..la3 ! ll:lba6 16..lxc5 ll:lxc5 l7.Vfial ffi l8.e4 might be tried, e.g. l 8 ....lc8 19 .e5 Vfia6 20.Vfid4+ <;t>es 2 1 .& l l :0 Muller ­ Bemad, corr 1978, or l8 ....ie6 l9.e5 fxe5 20.ll:lxe5 <;t>es 2 Uidl Vfia6 22 .�2 .le7 23.& l) 13 .. ..tg6 ( l 3 ...�b8 l4.ll:lxJ7 Vfif6 l5.ll:lxd8 .lc2 16..lb2 Vfixb2 1 7.Vficl Vfixc l l 8.�fxcl .le7 1 9 .ltln �f8 20.ll:le5 was seen in Troianescu - Stulik, Karlsbad 1 948) l4.ll:lde4!? ll:lxe4 l 5 .ll:lxe4 .lxe4 l6 ..lxe4 �b8 1 7 .�3 and White's ad­ vantage is overwhelming, Gutman; Dlb) lO..M8!?, Fernando VasconceUos, l l .ll:lh4 ( l l .Vfie l .le7 l 2 .h3 0-0, Vas­ concellos) l l ...i.e6 ( l l . .J.e4?! l2..lxe4 ll:lxe4 l3.ltllif3 ) 12-ID>l a4 (l2 ....lxc4 l3.b4 axb4 l4.axb4 ll:le6 l 5 .b5 ll:lb4 l 6.Vfia4 he2 l 7.�el .ld3 l 8.ll:le4) l 3 .Vfiel .le7 l4.b4 axb3 l 5 .ll:lxb3 .lxh4 1 6.gxh4 b6 l 7.Vfic3 0-0 is fully adequate, Gutman. D2) 8 ..bd6 9..lg2 SKillS more typical.

90

We examine: D2a) 9...ie6 10.�0 �ffi (lO...�e7 l l .�c2, e.g. 1 1 .. .0-0 1 2 .b3 or l l ...�f6 l z..!l1b3 i.f5 13.e4 he4 14J:�e 1 ) l l ..!Db3 ( l l .�c2 .i5 1 2.e4 .ig4 1 3 .IDll a4 1 4J:�el �0 1 5 . e5? .ixe5 1 6 . .!Dxe5 .!Dxe5 1 7 . .!De4 �f5 1 S.f4 .!Df3+ 1 9:;!;>12 .!Dxel 20.'i!;>xel �feS 0 : 1 Koming - Pedersen, Aarhus 1 944) l l...a4 (l l .. ..bc4 12 ..!Dxc5 hc5 13.�c2) 1 2..!Dxc5 .bcS 13 ..!Dg5 � 14..!Dxe6 �xe6 1 5 ..id5 �f6 1 6 .e3, Gutman; further Dlb) 9 .. ..ig4 1 0.0-0 �e7 (10...a4 l l .b4 axb3 12 ..!Dxb3, e.g. 12...�0 13 ..!Dxc5 .bcS 14.�xd8 m'xd8 1 5..if4 or 12...�16 13 ..ig5 �e6 - 1 3 ...�c3 1 4..!Dxc5 hc5 1 5 .�d5 &5?, Luckis - Schroeder, Mar del Plata 1 9 5 1 , loses to 1 6.i.d2 -, 14.i.e3 .!Dxb3 15 .�xb3) l l .�c2 (Akesson - Eliet, Ant­ werp 1 996, went l l .b3 � 1 2 .1b2 5 ! ? 1 3 .e3!? .!Dd3 14 .i.c3 �adS 1 5 .�c2 1c5 16 ..!Dd4 .!Dxf2 17.fuf2 �xe3 l S..!Dfl .!Dxd4 19 ..!Dxe3 .!Dxc2 20 ..!Dxc2 f4 2 l .gxf4 �xf4 22.&fl Y2-Y2, while 13.&1 �dS 14.�c2 f4 might well be unpleasant for White, e.g. 1 5 .e3 fxe3 1 6 .�xe3 .!De6 1 7 .�ae l .ic5 l SIDe2 �f7 or 1 5 J.c3 .!DeS 16.ixa5 1f5 1 7 .�c3 fxg3 1S .hxg3 .!lJg4 19..ib4 �f7 20.�fl �5 2 l .�adl .ie5 22.�c l .id4 23.i.c3 1e4 24.�fe 1 hf2+ 25 .'i!;>fl .ie3 0 : 1 Durao - Carpintero, Portugal 1 996) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.e3 �ffi (12 ...5 13 ..!Dd4) 13 ..!Dh4 (not 13 ..!Dd4 .!Dxd4 14.exd4 �xd4 1 5 ..!D f3 �d3 1 6 .�xd3 .!Dxd3, Christen­ sen - Jonsson, Frederikshavn 193S) 13 ... �feS (13 .. .i.e2 14 ..!De4 .!Dxe4 l 5 .�xe2) 14 ..!De4 .!Dxe4 l 5 .1xe4 h6 16 ..id2 and White is on top, Gutman; Ole) 9...� 10.� (lO..!lJb3 .!Dxb3 l l .�xb3 h6 12.0-0 �ffi 1 3 .i.e3 a4 !? 14.�c2 .if5 l 5 .�cl .!Da5 and after l O .b3 Black has l O ...�ffi 1 1 � .ig4 1 2..ib2 �6 1 3 .�0 �adS, Frantisek Nepustil, or 1 0... 5 1 1 . .ib2 �e7 12.0-0 f4) 1 o ..a4 l l .�c2 �f6 l2 ..!lJe4 .!lJxe4 1 3.�xe4 15 14.� �xh4 l 5 ..!Dxh4 � 6 OK for Black, Gutman.

Back to the main line

7 �e6! Other possibilities: 1)7 .. .i.e7 S ..!Dxc5 ixcS 9.i.g5 �7 IO..if4 (lO.Ad2 �0 l l .e3 d6 12..lc3 � l 3.exd6 1xd6 14.1e2 may be played) 1 0 ... 0-0 l l .e3 ffi l 2.exffi (Nicolll Minev mentions 12..id3 or l2 ..ie2) l 2 .. ..ixf6 1 3 .�c2 d6 14.i.d3, Kottnauer - Seidl, Prague 1937; further II) 7 ... f6 S . .!Dxc5 .ixc5 9.e3 a4 (neither 9 ...fxe5 lO . .!lJxe5 .!Dxe5 1 1 .�5+ .!D f7 12.�xc5 nor 9....ie 7 10.exffi hffi l l..id3 �e7 12 .�0 d6 13 .�c2 are better) lO..idJ fxe5 l l ..!Dxe5 �g5 l2 . .!D f3 ! ?, Gutman; similarly ID) 7...�e7 S..!Dxc5 (S ..ig5 �e6 9. .!Dxc5 1xc5 l0..1f4 �xc4 l l .e3 �e6 l2.�cl .ie7 13 .i.c4 is worth trying) 8...�xc5 9.�d5 b6 l O..id2 (this is more consequent than IO.i.e3 �e7 l l .i.gS �e6 l 2.e3 h6 13 ..if4 g5 l 4..ig3 .ib7 1 5.�xe6+ dxe6 l 6..!Dd4 0-0-0 17 ..!Dxc6 hc6 1 S.h4 g4 l9.h5 �7 20.1h4 .ixh4 2 l .�xh4 �hgS, Tunik Heinzel, Pardubice 1 996) 10 ..�7 l l .J.c3 a4 1 2.e3 �e7 1 3 .�dl leaves Black with no compensation for the pawn, Gutman; IV) After 7 ...a4 White has a choice of: A) S . .!Dxc5 .ixc5 9.1g5 (if 9 ..if4, then not 9...�0 lO.e3 .ib6, Hofmann - Vos­ pemik, Budapest 2002, due to l l ..id3 .ia5+ 12.'i!;>e2 ffi l 3.�c2, but 9...ib6 l O.e3 ...

.

91

ia5+ l l .'it'e2 J.b6 12.igS ffi 1 3.exffi gxft'i 1 4.if4 d6) 9 ...i.e7 IO.if4 ffi (Banusz ­ Vospernik, Budapest 200 1, went 10 ...0.0 l l .e3 ffi 1 2.exf6 hffi I HYc2 d6 14.td3 g6 1 S .h4 fie7 1 6.0-0-0 i.d7, when 1 7 .cS could be strong) l l .e3 �S 1 2.exffi .b:ffi 13.ltld4 (13 .fic2 d6 14.id3 gS) 13 ...ltlxd4 1 4.exd4 0-0 I S .i.eH !e8 1 6.fid2 b6 17. i.e3 dS 1 8 .0-0 .b6 1 9J:!acl cS 20.dxcS d4 2 1 .if4 bxc5 22.af3 gave White a plus in Jedlicka - Innernan, Czech Repub­ lic 1 997; B) 8.i.gS f6 (8 . . .i.e7 9.ltlxcS hgS was refuted by I O.ltl xa4 fie? l l .ltlc3 ltlxeS 1 2.ltlxgS fixgS 13.ltlbS fid8 14.fid4 d6 I S .f4, Crafty - Bronto, computer game 1 997) 9.exffi gxffi I O.ltlxcS ixcS l l .ih4 ( l l .th6, TseiiJin/G/Iko IS v, l l ...fie7 1 2 .e3 d6 1 3 .id3 l::!g8) I I ... fie? 12 .fidS d6 13. flh5+ �8 14.e3 �S I S.flb6 l::!f8 1 6.id3 ltld4 1 7.ltlxd4 bd4 1 8.0-0 i.b6 1 9.fif4 with advantage for White, Cerny - In­ neman, Czech Republic 1 9 97. V) 7 ... ltlxb3 8.fixb3 , M ax Bluemich, with a further split: A) 8 .. .i.cS 9.if4 (White lost in Cerny ­ Pletanek, Czech Republic 200 1 , with 9.fibS? b6 IO..igS ffi l l .exffi gxft'i 1 2..ie3 a4 ! 1 3..ixcS �S) 9... 0-0 IO.e3 b6 l l .td3 i.b7 12.fic2 h6 13.0-0 l::!e8 14.ih7+ �h8 I S .if'S fie? J 6_gfd I �d8 17 .i.g3 ltlb8, Esch - Brachtel, corr 1 994, 1 8 .i.e4 !?; B) 8 .. ..ie7 9.g3 (also good is 9.i.f4 0-0 I O.e3 l::!e8 l l .i.d3 d6 12.l::!dl a4 1 3 .fic2 g6, Lacosta - Alozy, corr 1 993, 14 .ie4, or 9 .e3 d6 I O.exd6 fixd6, when instead of l l ..id2 0-0 1 2 .g3 i.f5 1 3 ..ig2 a4 14. fidl W IS.& I ru-d8 16.ltlgl ltleS, Reh­ bein - G iesemann, corr 1 970, l l .fic2! i.g4 12..id3 l::!d8 13.ie4 should be tried) 9 ... d6 I O.exd6 fixd6 l l .i.g2 0-0 1 2.0-0 a4 1 3 .fic2 i.g4 1 4.i.f4, Gutman; C) 8 ...h6 9.id2 (9.fic3?, Tseit6n/GIIIskov, loses to 9 ...i.b4, and i f 9..if4, then not 9 ...g6 I O.l::!dl i.g7 l l .l::!dS, Tseil/in/G/IIS-

kov, I I ...fie? 1 2.e3 b6 1 3.id3 i.b7 14.ie4 ltld8 I S � .b:e4 1 6.l::!xe4 ltle6 1 7.fic2 0-0 1 8.i.g3 a4 19.0-0, but 9 ... gS IO..ig3 i.g7 l l .e3 fie? 1 2 ..ie2 b6 1 3 .fic2 i.b7 14.fif5 fie6 IS .fixe6+ fxe6 1 6.h3 ltld8 17.0-0.0 ltlf7) 9...icS (9 ...g6 I O.ic3 i.g7 can be met by l l .e6!? 0-0 1 2.exf7+ !W'7 13 .e3 a4 14.9c2 i.xc3+ I S .fixc3 d6 1 6. i.e2) I O.i.c3 fie? l l .e3 a4 1 2 .fic2 b6 1 3 .id3 i.b7 1 4.l::! dl 0-0 I S .O-O are all in White 's favour, Gutman. VI) 7 ... h6, introduced by Kun Richter.

We survey White's defences: A) 8.ltlbd4 ltlxd4 9.ltlxd4 b6 IO..if4 (IO.f4 a4 l l ..ie3 i.b7) I O ...a4 ( I O ... gS l l .i.g3 ltle4, Nepustil, 1 2 .e3 hS 1 3 .fif3 ! i.b7 14.l::! d l ltlcS I S.fifS i.e4 1 6.fif6 fixf6 1 7 .exf6 0-0-0 1 8.f3) I l .e3 i.b7 is fine for Black, Gutman; B) 8.g3 ltlxb3 (8 ... a4!?, e.g. 9.ltlxcS i.xcS IO..ig2 fie?, Nepustil, or 9.ltlbd4 ltlxd4 IO.ltlxd4 d6 l l .exd6 i.xd6 1 2.i.g2 0-0 13 .0-0 fif6 14..ie3 l::!d 8) 9.fixb3 g6 10. i.g2 i.g7 1 1 .0-0 fie?, Gutman; C) 8..id2 ltle4 (for 8 ... a4 9.ltlxcS i.xcS see 8.ltlxcS i.xcS 9.i.d2 a4 - VIE, and 8 ...fie7 isn't inspiring in view of9.ltlxcS fixeS I O.e3 ltlxeS l l .lLlxeS fixeS 12.ic3 figS 1 3 .fidS) 9.i.e3 (9.fic2 ltlxd2 1 0 . ltlbxd2 g 6 l l .g3 i.g7 1 2.i.g2 fie?, Ne­ pustil) 9 . . . fie7 I O.fidS ltlgS l l .ltlbd4 ltlxf3+ 1 2.ltlxf3 g6 13M4 i.g7, Gutman; 92

D) 8..if4 lLle6 (8 ... lLlxb3 9.Wxb3 trans­ poses to 7 ... lLlxb3 8.Wxb3 h6 9..if4 g5 VC) 9..ig3 a4! (Bogoljubow - Richter, Swinemuende 1 93 1 , went 9 .ic5 1 O.e3 d6 l l .exd6 Wf6 1 2.lLlxc5 lLlxc5 13.dxc7 Wxb2 14 ..ie5 Wb3 15..bg7 gg8 16..if6 Wxdl+ 17l!xdl lLle6 18.lLle5 lLle7 19..Ae2 lLlxc7 20.Jh5 if6 2 l ..txf7+ .bf7 22.l;d7 lLlc6 23.gxt7 lLJe6 24.gxb7 lLlc5 25.l:3b5 lLlxe5 26..ixe5 1 :0) lO.lLlbd4 lLlcxd4 1 1 . lLlxd4 lLlc5 12.e3 g6 1 3..ie2 .ig7 1 4.0-0 0-0 15.lLlf3 b6 1 6.Wc2 .ib7 1 7� 1 We7 gives equality in all instances, Gutman; E) 8.lLlxc5 hc5 9id2 (9..if4 'fle7 1 O.e3 b6 l l .Wc2 .ib7 12 .te2 g5 !? l 3.tg3 h5 14.h4 g4 15.lLlg5 lLlxe5 1 5.Wf5 d6 1 7.0-0 lLld7 1 8l!abl a4; however, note that 9 ... g5 IOjg3 g4 l l .Wd5 d6 12.exd6 cxd6 l3.lLld2 lLld4 14.We4+ �f8 15.0-0-0 .it5 16.Wd5 Wb6 17.e3? Wb3 ! 1 8.Wxf5 Wxdl+, Ac­ hilles - Augustin, corr 1 989, is less clear due to 17.lLle4 lLlb3+ 1 8.�l .ig6 1 9.�) 9 ...a4 (on 9 ...lLld4 1 O.ic3 lLlxf3+ l l .exf3, Nepustil) IO..ic3 0-0 l l .Wc2 ( l l .e3 i.b6 1 2..ie2 .ia5 l3.Wc2 ge8 14.0-0.ixc3 1 5. 'flxc3 'fle7, Nepastil) l l ..k8 12.gdl b6 ( l 2 ...'fle7 l3.e3 .ib6 14..ie2 ia5 1H :!d5 hc3+ l 6.'flxc3 b6 1 7.0-0 i.b7 1 8.gfd 1 ) l 3 .e3 i.b7 1 4..ie2 maintains a pleasant game for White, Gutman.

8..ld2 8.e3 g6!? (White gained the advantage after 8 b6 9 .td3 i.b 7 1 0.0-0 d6 l l ..ie4 dxe5 12.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 l3 ..ixb7 Wxdl 14. �dl �8 1 5l!xd8+ lLlxd8 16.ia6, Peek ­ van den Berg, Tilburg 2003, while 8 ... d6 9.exd6 .ixd6 transposes to 5.lLlgf3 lLlc6 6.e3 d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.a3 a5 9.lLlb3 lLle6 - Section 4) 9..id2 (if 9.lLlbd4 We7 l O.lLlxc6 dxc6 l l ..id2 .ig7 12 ..ic3 0-0, since 9 ....ig7 10.lLlxc6 bxc6 l l .td2 lLlg5 1 2.lLlxg5 'flxg5 1 3 .f4 'fle7 14 ..id3 0-0 1 5.0-0 d6 1 6..ie4 !? gb8 1 7..ixa5 dxe5, Fernandez Urrutia - M arquez, Spain 1997, 18 ..ic3 "§ c5 19 .'fle2 appears pro­ mising for White) 9 ... .ig7 l O . .ic3 0-0 ( I O ...a4 is best answered by l l .lLlbd4 !? lLlxe5 1 2.lLlxe6 lLlxf3+ l 3.�e2 fxe6 1 4. hg7 gg8 15.ic3 lLlh4 1 6.g3 lLlt5 1 1.tg2 'fle7 1 8.gc 1 gf8 19.ge 1 "§f7 20.f4, in­ stead of l l .lLlcl lLlc5 12 .'fld5 d6 l3.exd6 .ixc3+ 14.bxc3 if6 15.dxc7 1rxc7 1 6.Wdl gd8 1 7 .ti'c2 lLla5 1 8.lLld4 .ixc4 19 .txc4 lLlxc4 20.lLld3? lLlb3 2 l .lLlb2 lLlxb2 22. 'flxb2 lLlxa 1 and Black won material in Dias - Stinis, Calicut 1 998) l l .'fld5 We7 1 2.lLlbd4 ( 12..ie2 gd8 13.0-0 a4 14.lLlbd4 lLlexd4 1 5.exd4 d6) 12 ...lLlexd4 1 3.exd4 d6 1 4..Ae2 dxe5 1 5.dxe5 gd8 1 6.We4 J.f5 l 7.'fle3 ge8 18.0-0 lLlxe5 19.lLlxe5 .ixe5 20.he5 'flxe5 is equal, Kaabi - Ham­ douchi, Manila Olympiad 1 992. 8 a4 Other moves bring Black no joy: I) 8 ... g6 9.lLlcl .ig7 IO .lLld3 0-0 l l .g3 'fle7 12 ..ig2 lLlc5 1 3.0-0 lLlxd3 14.exd3 lLlxe5 1 5 .ge l , Gutman ; II) 8 ... g5 9.i.c3 i.g7 1 0.e3 h5 ( l O...a4 l l .lLlbd4 lLlxe5 12.lLlxe6 lLlxf3+ 1 3 .�e2) l l .Wc2 g4 12.lLlfd4 lLlxe5 l3.lLlf5 (Jack­ land - Hvenekilde, Denmark 1 988, con­ tinued l 3.lLlxe6 fxe6 14.0-0-0 a4 1 5.lLlc5 d6 1 6.lLld3 lLlxd3+ 1 7..ixd3 We7 1 8.h3 e5 1 9.hxg4 hg4 20.tg6+ �d7 2 l .tf5+ .ixfS 22.'flxf5+ 'fle6 23 .'fle4 ga6, when •.

.•

Returning to the main line

...

93

24.c 5!? might be strong) l3 ...if6 ( 1 3 ... 'i!!lfti l4.ll:lxg7+ 'i!!lxg7 15 .ll:lxa5 b6 l6.ll:lb3 i.b7 l7.'i!!l f5 d6 l 8 J�dl h4 1 9.c5) l 4.c5 a4 l 5 .ll:ld2, Gutman . 9.�cl

but because of 13 .g3 0-0 l4.i.g2 ll:la5 l 5..ixa5 B:xa5 16.0-0 b6 1 7.'i!!ld2 ic6 1 8. B:adl 'i!!lc8 l9.ll:lb4 i.e4 20.ll:ld5 i.c5 2 1 . ll:lc3 B:d8 22.'i!!l cl i.c6 23 .B:xd8+ 'i!!lxd8 24.Ml 'i!!le8 25.e3, Crafty -Brause, com­ puter game 1 997) 12 ...0-0 l3 ..ig2 ll:la5 l4.exd6 cxd6 1 5.ll:ld2ift> l6..ixa5 'i!!lxaS 17 .0-0 ll:lg5 l 8.h4 ll:le6 1 9 .ll:le4 ( 19.i.xb7 B:ab8 20.i.g2 i.xb2 2 l .lbxb2 �xb2 22 . ll:le4 i.c6?! 23.ll:l ffi+ gxfti 24.i.xc6 was used in Crafty - Brause, computer game 1997) l 9 ...i.e7 20.ll:lb4 with advantage for White, Gutman. IO.'ff cl lO.ll:ld3 ll:lb3 l l ..ig5 (l l .� l d6 1 2.exd6 hd6 l3�3 0-0) l l ..ie7 l2..ixe7 ll:lxe7 (l prefer this move to l 2 ...'i!!lxe7 1 3 .�bl b6 l4.e3 i.b7, suggested by Alfonso Romero) l3Ebl c6 l4.o!Od2 'i!!laS l 5 .e4 lbg6 l6.f4 0-0 1 7 ..ie2 �d8 puts White under pressure, Gutman. 10 d6 l l ..AcJ After l l .exd6 i.xd6 1 2 .e3 0-0 1 3 .i.e2 'i!!le7 14.0-0 i.g4 l5 .h3 i.h5 Black holds the initiative, Gutman. l l ....Ag4 l l.exd6 1fxd6 lJ.eJ 1re6 l3 ... .b:f3?! l4.gxf3 'i!!lh6 l 5.ll:ld3 ll:lb3 l6.l:Ml �7 l 7.ll:l f4 0-0 l 8_ggl tuJn4M1 out very well for White in Pielar - Pletanek, Czech Republic 1 993. 14-i.el l 4.ll:ld4 ll:l xd4 l 5 .i.xd4 i.f5 l 6 .'i!!ld l is met by l 6 ...'i!!lc6! 1 7.0 �d8 1 8..ie2 ll:le6 19 .ll:la2 ll:lxd4 20.exd4 i.c5 2 l .ll:lb4 'i!!ff6 22 .ll:ld5 'i!!l h4+ 2 3.g3 'i!!l xd4, Gutman. 14 ..lf5 IS.'ftdl !d8 Black is at least not worse, for example l6.ll:ld4 'i!!lg6 1 7.0-0 i.h3 l8.in ll:le5 19. rtlhl ll:lxf3 20.'i!!lxf3 (better than 20.gxh3 'i!!le4 2 l .'i!!lxf3_gxd4 22.'i!!lxe4+ �xe4 23 . id4 ll:le6 24_gdl c5 25..ic3 B:xc4 26.ll:le2 �g8 ! 27.ll:lg3 g6) 20 ... i.g4 2 l .'i!!lg3 i.d6 22.'Mt4 i.e? with a draw by repetition, Gutman. •

9... �cS! More direct methods fail to equalize: I) 9 ... g5 l O..ic3 (l O.e3 g4 l l .ll:ld4 ll:lxe5 l2..ic3 d6 l 3.ll:lce2 i.g7 l 4.ll:lg3 is also reasonable) lO ...g4 l l .ll:ld2 i.g7 12 .ll:ld3 d6 l3.exd6!? (an improvement on l 3 .e4 ll:led4 l4.exd6 'i!!lxd6 15 ..ie2 Ymt6 l 6..ixd4 ll:lxd4 1 7.0-0 0-0 1 8.& 1 � l 9..ifl &6 20.B:e3 'i!!l g 5!? 2 l .ll:lb4 B:h6, Rivas Ro­ mero - Alzola Tovar, corr 1 996) 1 3 ... hc3 l 4.bxc3 'i!!l xd6 l 5 .g3 0-0 l 6 .i.g2 gives White too much control Gutman m 9 ...d6 l O..ic3 i.d7 l l .ll:ld3 i.e? ( l l ... lba5 l2.ll:ld2 ll:lc6 has been discarded on account of l 3 .e3 dxe5 l 4.ll:lxe5 ll:l xe5 l 5 ..ixe5 i.c6 l6.ll:lf3 'i!!le7 l7.ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 l 8 .i.xd4 B:d8 l 9 .'i!!lg4 i.e4 20.0-0-0 f5 2 l .'i!!le2 c5 22..ic3 B:xdl+ 23.'i!!l xdl 'i!!lg5 24.'i!!lxa4+ rtlfl 25.h4 'i!!lh6 26.i.d3 i.c6 27.'i!!lc2 l :0 Huebner - Pedersen, Athens Zonal 1 969) 1 2 .g3 (on l 2.exd6 Black should play l2 ...cxd6 l3 .g3 i.ffi l4..ixffi 'i!!lxfti l5..ig2 0-0 16.0-0 a:t'd8 l 7.e3 ll:lc5; 12 .. .i.xd6 has less point, not because of l 3 .ll:lde5 i.xe5 l4..ixe5 'i!!le7 l 5.e3 ll:lc5 l 6 .hg7 B:g8 l 7 .i.c3 if5 l 8 .'i!!ld5 i.e6 1 9.'i!!lhS �, Floter - Meyer, corr 1990,

.•.

.•

94

Sequel l (l.d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�dl �cS S.�gf3 �c6 6.a3) 6...'Be7

j,e?) J 3. .. j,e7 (less accurate is 1 3 ...g5 1 4..ig3 h5 1 5.f3 ltlxg3 16.hxg3 j,g? 17. j,d3 j,d?, Baerentsen - Thomsen, Co­ penhagen 1 994, 1 8 .0-0-0) 1 4 ..ie2 0-0 seems comfortable for Black, Gutman; m 7.b4 ltlxe5 8.e3 (8.bxc5? ltld3 mate) 8...ltlcd3+ 9bd3 ltlxd3+ I 0.�2 reaches a remarkable position.

The correct move; Black makes sure of regaining his pawn, Tim Harding. 7.e3 Other possibilities: I) 7.'i!Jc2 ltlxe5 8.ltlxe5 "t!fxe5 9.ltlf3 "t!fe4 (9 ..."t!fh5!? is perhaps a more attractive way to play : l O .ltld4 j,e? J J .j,e3 d6 12.g3 Q.O 13.ig2 a5 14.h3 - White overes­ timates his position, the normal course of action would have been 14.b3 and 1 5 . 0-0. However, Black should b e satisfied with whichever direction the game takes as his pieces are well poisedf or action, Bogdlln LIJJk - 14 ... a4 1 5.�1 j,£6 1 6. � c6 17.g4 "t!fe5 1 8.ltlf3 "t!fe7 1 9.g5 .ie5 20.h4 5 2 t .gxft'i Lffi 22.ltlg5 g6 23..th3 ltlb3 24_gdl hh3 25.� �8 26.ltlf3 "t!fe4 2U!.d3 Wh8 28.Wdl d5 29.h5 g5 30.bg5 Lg5 3 I .ltlxg5 "t!fg2 32 ."t!fc3+ d4 33�d4 'Bfl+ 34.Wc2 ltlal+ 0:1 Ad­ ler - Reinderrnan, Antwerp 1 994) 1 0. "t!fxe4+ ltlxe4 I J .j,f4 (Knuth - Hoch­ graefe, Germany 200 I, continued I I . ltld4 j,e? 1 2.j,f4 d6 1 3.g3 j,f6 1 4J::! d l b6!? I 5.ltlb5 wd8 I 6.j,g2 j,b7) I I ...d6 1 2 .e3 (if 12.ltld2, then 1 2 ... ltlc5) 1La5 1 3 .ltld4 ( 13..id3 ltlc5 1 4.j,e2 a4 1 5 .0-0

Black has tried: A) IO ...d5? I I .Wxd3 "t!ff6 12 .ltld4 dxc4+ 13.ltlxc4 j,5+ 14.�2 ()..()..() 15�2 "t!fg6 16."t!fb3 "t!fg4+ 1 7 .Wfl with decisive ad­ vantage, Holm - Erhard, Lyngby 1 986; B) I O ... ltlxc I+ (Black is virtuaUy unde­ veloped but has two bishops versus two knights and no weaknesses, Harding) I U !.xcl ( l l ."t!fxcl g6 12."t!fc3 f6 1 3 ."t!fd4 j,g? 1 4."t!ff4 d6 1 5 .l::!ac l Q.O left White in difficulties, Guichard - Mourot, Pau 2000 ) l l ...d6 (after l l ...g6 White should play 12 ."t!fc2 j,g? I H !.hdl 0-0 1 4.c5 a5 l 5.ltlc4, while Stoinic - Navinsek, Ljub­ ljana 1 99 5 , went 1 2 .ltlb l j,g? 1 3 .ltlc3 c6 14."t!fd3 a5 1 5 .ltle4 0-0 1 6.ltld6 axb4 17.axb4 l::!.a2+ 1 8.ltld2 j,e5 1 9.c5 b6!?) 1 2.ltlbl ( 1 2 .ltld4 is also good) 1 2 ... j,f5 1 3 .ltlc3 c6 14."t!fd4 a5 J 5 _ghd I yields a plus for White, Gutman; C) IO ... ltl f4+! I I .Wfl ltle6 12.ltlb3 b6 13..ib2 j,b? 14.ltlbd4 ltlxd4 ( 14 ...0-0-0 is probably not weaker, e.g. l 5.ltl5 "t!fe8 or 1 5.ltlb5 Wb8 16.ltlc3 'Bffi 1 7."t!fe2 'ifg6

,

95

I S.lt)dS ffi 19rul id6) IS.exd4 (IS.�xd4 16.'it>e2 ffi 17..mtdl �e6 18.cS 'it>b8) IS ...0-0-0 16.�3 ges 11_ge 1 �d8 1 8. d5 ( 1 8.gxe8 �xeS 19.�e3 .id6 20.fild2 f5 2 1 .�xe8+ gxe8 22.h4 .if4 23..ic3 dS 24.gh3 dxc4 2S.filf3 .ie4 26.fileS .idS and Black won, Rabar - Richter, Mu­ nich 1 94 1 ) 18 ...hel+ 19.'it>xel ft) gives Black the better chances, Gutman. III) 7 .g3 has more point.

�ffi 12..ig2 or IO ...�xb3 l l .�xb3 �xeS 12 ..if4 �cS 13.�c3 ggs 14 ..ieS ! ? �c6 IS..if6 d6, McDaid - Gibson, Dublin League 1 987/88, 16_ggl .ie6 17 .ig2 �a6 1 8.0-0-0 .ie7 1 9 .J.xe7 'it>xe7 20 ..idS! ) IO.ie3 .ig7 l l,jg2 Q.O 1 2.Q.O a4 13.�bd4 �xd4 14.�xd4 �xeS (14...�xd4 IS.hd4 .ixeS 16.e3) ISNdl d6 is equal, Gutman; Cl) 8..ig2 .ig7 9.0-0 �xeS (9...0-0 I O.b4 �xeS l l .�xeS .ixeS 1 2.�1 �e6 13.cS .ig7 14.�c4 or 9 ... aS I O.�b3!? �xb3 l l .�xb3 �xeS 1 2.J.e3 0-0 1 3 .&c l d6 14.cS are both none too impressive for Black) I O.�xeS .ixeS l l .�f3 !? (Zagor­ ovsky - Gibson, corr 1 983, went l l .�b I 0-0 1 2..ih6 ges 13 .�c2 �ffi 14..icl d6 IS� 1f3 1 6.e4 .id7 1 7.b3 a5 Yz-Yz, yet Black could play on with IS ...aS 16.b3 a4 17.b4 �b3, Gibson) 1 1 .. �7 1 2..igS ffi!? (12...�e4 13..ie3 d6 14.�4 �e7 IS.�c6! gives Black problems, e.g. IS ...�e6 16.J.xcS 0-0 1 7..id4 bxc6 1 8..ixc6 gbs 19-tdS or IS ...�d7 1 6� .ixd4 17.�xd4 ().() 1 8.�b4 f5 - 1 8...�b3 1 9.�c3 �xal 20.�dS �d8 2 1 .�f6+ 'it>h8 22.gxa I -, 19.�dS �d8 20.&dl �e6 2 1 .�d2 .id7 22.e3 aS and now instead of 23 .b4 axb4 24.axb4 ga4 2S.&I gxal 26.gxal bS? 27�8 �xa8 28.�e7+ 'it>f7 29.J.xa8 'it>xe7 30..lg2?! bxc4, Beecham - Gibson, corr 198S, 23.�f4!? �xf4 24.exf4) 1 3 ..ie3 0-0 gives Black adequate counterplay,

(}..().()

There are four options: A) 7 ... aS will transpose into 6.a3 a5 7.g3 �e7 - Sequel I ; B) 7 ...d6 8..ig2 �xeS (if 8...dxeS 9.b4, e.g. 9...e4 IO.lt:lgl e3 l l .fxe3 �7 I H::lh3 �xe3 13.�f4 fildeS 14.�b3 �c3+ IS.J.d2 �xc4 l6.gc 1 �a6 17.�dS .id6 1 8 .�cS or 9 ... �d7 1 0.0-0) 9.0-0 .id7 IO.�xeS �xeS I I .�f3 �ft) 12.�d4 c6 13.e4 .ie7 14..ie3 with an edge for White, Gutman; C) 7 ...g6 !?, John Gibson, and now: Cl) 8.�c2 aS (8 ...�xeS 9.�xeS �xeS I O.�f3 �e4 l l .�xe4+ �xe4 12.ie3 .ig7 13 ..id4 or 8 ... .ig7 9.b4 �xeS IO.�xeS .ixeS J J .gb J �e6 12..ig2 0-0 13.0-0 d6 14 . .ib2 are both less ambitious) 9.�b3 (9..ig2 .ig7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .ge1 �xeS 12. �xeS .ixeS 1 3.�f3 .if6 14..id2?! �e4 I S ..ie3 d6 16.�d4 ges 1 7.gadl a4 was seen in McDaid - Gibson, Dublin League 1988/89) 9 ... l0e6 (better than 9 ... �xeS IO.�xeS, for example IO ...�xeS l l ..if4

Gutman; D) 7 ... �xeS !? 8.�xeS �xeS (if 8 ...d6,

then not 9.b4? �xeS, but 9..ig2 ! dxeS IO.b4 �e6 l l ..ib2 f6 1 2.cS g6 1 3 .�c4 .ig7 14.�3 0-0 I S_gdl 'it>h8 1 6.0-0 with a spatial advantage for White, Koch Richter, Swinemuende 1933) 9.�f3 �e4 (after 9 ...�f6 I O ..ig2 .ie7 1 1 .0-0 �e6 12.e4 d6 1 3.�c2 0-0 14..ie3 .id7 IS.Imdl .i.c6 16.�4 �xd4 17 .hd4 White keeps some pressure, yet 9 ... �e7 I O ..ig2 g6 l l ..igS ffi 12.J.e3 .ig7 1 3.0-0 0-0 is pos­ sible transposing to C2) IO..ie3 (IO.b4 96

ltJe6 l l .�d5 �c2 12.�d3 �xd3 13.exd3 a5 is harmless) I O...�xo4 (I O...ie7 I 1.& I ()..{) 12.ig2 aS 13.().{)) 1 1 .&1 �S I2.�d5 d6 13..ixcS (13.b4 c6 14J:bcS is refuted by 14 ... dxcS IS.�e4+ .ie6 16..ih3 �c4) 13 ...dxcS (13 ..ie6 14.�e4 dxcS IS..ih3 0-0-0 1 6 ..ixe6+ fxe6 17 .ltJgS) 14.lOgS ( 14.�e5+ ie6 IS.ih3 .id6 16.�xg7 ()..()...() 1 7.he6 fxe6) 14 ... �d7 I S ..ig2 h6 1 6. �eS+ �e7 1 7 .�xe7 .ixe7 1 8.ltJe4 0-0 19 .ltJxcS c6 is OK for Black, Gutman.

IO...�g6 and IO...d6 1 1.ltJd4ie7 12..ic3 �gS 13.b4 ltJe6 14.ltJf5 .iffi IS..ixfti, Hil­ denbrandt - Storgaard, e-mail 1997, IS ... �xf6) 9...aS I O.b3 goes into 8 ...aS 9.b3 ltJxf3+ I O.gxf3- ///; Ill) 8...aS 9.b3 ltJxf3+ I O.gxf3 (I O.ltJxf3 is best answered by 10 ... b6 l l ..ib2 .ib7 12..ie2 �e4 or IO ...�f6 l l ..ib2 �g6 12. �xg6 hxg6. IO.. .a4 l l .b4 ltJb3 1 2J�bl ltJxc l 1 3Jbcl g6 is a waste oftime as 14.�c3 ffi IS.cS ig7 1 6..ic4 d6 17.cxd6 �xd6 1 8.0-0 .id7 1 9.�fdl �e7, Voigt ­ Pfeiffer, Wuerzburg 1 987, 20.idS!? c6 21.J.a2 f5 22.�c2 shows while IO ...d6 l l..ib2�e4, Windfuhr- Schaffarth, Ger­ many 1987, 12.�xe4+ ltJxe4 13..td3 ltJcS 14.lc2 with an edge for White) IO ...b6! ( I O . . .�f6!? l l ..ib2 �g6 simplifies the game. Haring - Spoel, corr 1 989, went J O_d6 l l .ib2 .id7 12..ie2 �4!? 1 3.f4 � 14..if3 .if5 I S.�c3, when instead of IS ...Wd7 16.e4 M 17.Wdl ig4 1 8.hg4+ �xg4+ 1 9.f3 �xf4 20.�xaS �g8 2 1 .b4 �xd2+ 22.Wxd2 ltJb3+ 23.Wd3 ltJxaS 24. bxaS .ie7, I S ...hS 1 6.e4 .ig4 could have been tried, yet we can improve earlier with 12.h4!?) l l ..ib2 .ib7 12 ..ie2 (after 1 2.�gl �4!? 1 3 .h3 �g8 )4_gg4 �6 is the flexible reply, improving on 12 ft'i 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 &a!+ IS..ixal ltJa6 16.bS , Quinn - Gibson, Dublin 1989, 16...ltJcS) 12...ffi 1 3.h4 (in reply to 13_gg1 I recommend 1 3 ...�e6 14.f4 � . while Gillam - Gibson, corr 1 990, continued 13...�f7 14.f4 id6 1S.O-O-O O-O-O 16.'kt>bl �deS 17.if3 g6 18 ..ixb7+ 'kt>xb7 19.h4 mtg8 20.ltJf3 �e7 2 l .lOd4 ltJe4 22f3 ltJcS 23.�gel f5 24.h5 c6 Y�Yz) 13...�e6 ( 13 ... �f7!? might well be more potent, e.g. 14.�gl �S or 1 4.hS .id6 I S.�gl ieS) 14.hS .id6 I S.�gl �e7 16.0-0-0?! (16.f4 was better as 16 ...ltJe4? fails to 17 ..if3, Kurt Richter) 16 ...ieS 17 ,gg4 .ixb2+ 1 8.�xb2 ltJe6 1 9.ltJbl ( 1 9.f4 ! ?) 19 ... f5 20.�gg I f4 2 l .ltJc3 (neither 2 1 .e4 �4

•

7 �xeS ...

7 ... aS may well be played, transposing to 6.a3 aS 7.e3 �e7 - Sequel I .

8.�xeS Ludwig Engels preferrtd 8.�c2, when

_

Black has three opportunities: I) 8 ... g6 9.b4! .ig7 IO.ltJxeS .ixeS ( 1 0... �xeS l l .�b I ltJe6 1 2 ..ib2) l l ..ib2 �f6 12.ltJe4 �g7 1 3.ltJc3 ltJe6 1 4.f4 .if6 IS. 0-0-0 (IS..ie2 0-0 1 6.0-0, NkoiD Minev) IS...aS 16.g4 axb4 17.axb4 0-0 18.gS ie7 19.ltJdS with the advantage, Engels Richter, Swinemuende 193 3 ; D) 8 ...ltJxf3+ 9.gxf3 (In case of9.ltJxf3 Black should avoid 9 ...�e4 because of IO.�xe4 ltJxe4 l l ..td3 ltJcS 12..ic2, im­ proving on IO.�c3 aS l l ..td2 a4 12i:tdl d6 13.ltJd4 .id7 14.ltJbS �k8 IS.f3 �e7 1 6.Wf2, Vanderstricht - van de Fliert, Ghent 2002, 1 6 ...c6 I 7.ltJd4 �f6. After 9 ...�fti I O..id2 he has a choice between 97

nor 21 .h6 fxe3 22.fxe3 0-0-0! 23.fxg7 l3hg8 are sufficient, Richter) 2 1 ...fxe3 22.fxe3 �c5 23.e4 � xh5 24.�d2 �f7 25 .c;!;lb2 0-0-0 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 �f6 28 .c;!;lb) �e5 and Black won, Engels ­ Richler, Bad Oeynhausen 1937, Gutman.

Alternatives: I) I O.l':Ibl �g6 ( IO ... a5 l l .b3 �c3+ is

not bad either, viz. 12.�d2 c!Lle4 13.�xc3 c!Llxc3 14.l3al c!Lle4 1 5..id3 c!Llc5 1 6..ic2 .ie7 17 ..ib2 0-0, van der Himst - Pover, Alkmaar 1 995) l l . .id2 .ie7, Gutman; further ll) I O.�c2 a5 (IO ...�g6 is more simple, Tseitlin/G/Qskov, for example l l .�xg6 hxg6 12.c!Lld4 a5 or l l .�c3 .ie7, while IO ...g6 1 1 �2 �e7 1 2..ic3 ffi 13.b4 c!Lle4 14..ib2 b6 15h4ib7 16..id3 ih6 17.c!Llg5 fXg5 18..ixh8 gxh4 19 ..ixe4 1xe4 20.�c3 .ixg2 2 1 .iffi .ig7 22..ixg7 ixh I 23..if6 �e6 24..ixh4 c;!(f7 25.0-0-0 .ic6 26.b5 .ib7 27.l3d4 d6 28..ig5 c;!;lg8 29.l3f4 �e5 was unclear, Johansson - Bisguier, Hel­ sinki Olympiad 1 952) l l ..id2 ( l l .c!Lld4 c6) l l ...a4 12..ic3 �g6 poses no prob­ lems for Black, Gutman.

8. . . �xeS

9.fHJ

9.l3b I a5 (9...�f5 IO.b4 c!Lld3+ l l ..ixd3 �xd3 1 2.l3b3 �g6 13.0-0 favours White, e.g. 13 ...d6 14.e4 .ig4 1 5.�c2 .ie7 16.h3 .id7 17lig3 �e6 18. l3xg7, A32ll31ldius ­ Robinhood, intemet 2002, or 1 3 ....ie7 14.e4 0-0 15..ib2 .i£6 1 61ig3 �h6 1 7.e5 .ig5 1 8.c!Lle4 ih4 19lig4 d6 20..icl .ixg4 2 l .�xg4, Gomez - Cubas, Spain 1 992) IO.b4 (IO.b3 �f5 l l ..ib2 d6 12..ie2 .ie7) I O ...axb4 l l .axb4 c!Lla4 (instead of I I ... c!Lle4 12.�c2 c!Llxd2 1 3..ixd2 &I 14.i.d3 l':Ixbl + 1 5.�xbl .ie7 16.0-0, Gual - Vaz­ quez, Cugat 1 996) 1 2.c5 .ie7 13 ..id3 (13 ..ib5 c!Llc3 1 4..ib2 � 1 5 .\Wb3 l3xb2 1 6.�xb2 �f6) 1 3 ... c!Llc3 14 ..ib2 �d5 !? 15..ixc3 �xd3 16..ixg7 l3g8 17..ie5 l3xg2 with a balanced position, Gutman.

IO .. ..le7

Less effective are: I) I O ... b6, suggested by Minev, 1 1 .0-0 (l l ..l332 a5 12.b3 ib7 13..ib2 �g6 14.0-0 .ie7 15..id4 d6 1 6.c!Llel 0-0 is harmless, Vujanovic - Storgaard, e-mail 2000. On l l .�d4 Black should play l l ... .ie7, in­ stead of I L ..ib7?! 1 2.�xf6 gxf6 1 3 .b4 c!Lle4 14..ib2 l3g8 1 5 .c!Llh4 .ie7 1 6.f3 c!Lld6 17.c5 f5 18.cxd6 .txh4+ 19.g3, Schmid ­ Petzenhauser, Germany 1999) I I ...ib 7 12.c!Lld4 .ie7 (12 ....id6 1 3 .c!Llb5 .ie5 14.f4

9...1tf6

9 ...�f5 I O..ie2!? (IO.b4 �ffi l l ..l332 c!Lle6 12..ib2 �d8 13..id3 a5 14.b5 d6 1 5.0-0 .ie7 1 6.�c2 h6, Kulczycki - Newton, e­ mail 2000) IO .. ..ie7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12 .c!Lld4 �f6 1 3 .b4 c!Lle6 14 ..ib2, Gutman. IO..lel

98

id6 is an intriguing attempt, and now not 1 5.l0xd6+ cxd6 16if3 0-0 1 7ixb7 l0xb7 1 8 .&2 l0c5 19.b3 Wc3, Fabris ­ Storgard, corr 1 998, but 15.Jd2 0-0 16. 1c3) 13.b4 l0e6 (13 ... l0e4 I4if3 c5 is doubtful in view of IH�c2 We5 16.l0b5 0-0 17.1b2 Wf5 1 8.l0c7 E!ac8 19.l0d5) 14ib2 Wg6 15.1f3 1xf3 16.l0xf3 .tf6 17 ixffi Wxffi, Vujadinovic - Storgaard, e-mail 2000, 1 8 .Wa4 !?, Gutman; m IO ...a5 I I .l0d4 c6(if I I ..ie7 12.l0b5, e.g. 12 ... l0e6 1 3 id2 ! ? c6 1 4.1c3 Wg6 1 5 .l0d6+ 1xd6 1 6.Wxd6 Wxg2 1 7.E!fl WgS 18.f4 or 12.id 8 1 3..id2 l0e4 14.1f3 l0xd2 1 5.Wxd2 0-0 16.0-0 d6 17�fd I &8 18i!acl) 12.0-0 (1 2.b3 is premature due to 12 ...a4 1 3 .b4 l0b3 14.l0xb3 axb3 1 5. .E!b l Wg6 I 6.E!xb3 Wxg2 17.10 Wg6) 12 ..ie7 (12 ... Sd6 1 3.b3 0-0 14ib2 E!e8 1 5 .b4) 1 3 .b3 0-0 I4ib2 Wg6 (14 ...E!e8 1 5 .b4 l0e6 1 6.f4) 1 5 .b4 axb4 16.axb4 E!xal 1 7 .1xal l0a6 1 8.1d3, Gutman.

1 5.l0d5 1d8 1 6.e4 or 1 4 ...c6 1 5 .e4 1g5 1 6..bg5 Wxg5 1 7.Wd6, while Rejfir ­ Richter, Prague Olympiad 1 93 1 , went 14.e4 .ig5 15.g3 a6 16.l0c3 hcl i7.Wxcl Wxcl 1 8.E!axcl l0d4 19.E!cdl l0xe2+ 20. l0xe2 d6 Y2-Yz) 14.1d2 (Otto Borik has commen ted that I4if3 E!d8 I S.E!bl?! c6 16.l0c3 l0g5 1 7ie2 1f5 I8id3 l0h3+! 19.gxh3 Wg6+ 20.�hl ixd3 is good for Black) 14 ...1d7 1 5 .l0c3 c6 1 6.f4 and I prefer White, Gutman. 1 2.0-0 aS

12 ...d6 13.b4 l0e6 I4ib2 l0xd4 1 5ixd4 Wg6 I 6i f3!? (1 6ih5 Wg5 1 7.f4 'Ml6 1 8 ..if3 Wg6 Yz-Yz Agostini - Bologni, Italy 1996) 16 ... c6 1 7.b5, Gutman. 13.b3

13.l0b5 c6 14.l0c3 d6 and White gets nowhere, Gutman.

1 1 .�d4

13...b6

13 ...d6 14ib2 Wg6 1 5.�hl id7 I 6,jh5 Wh6 1 7.1f3 1ffi is also OK for Black, Mollenschott - Keller, Berlin 1 98 7. 14. 1 b2

11 ...0-0

14.E!a2 ib7 1 5 .1g4 1e4 1 6.1b2 Wg6 1 7if3 c6 I8ixe4 l0xe4 19.l0e2 E!fd8 20.l0f4 Wg5 2 I id4-*':5 22Wf3 E!e8 was seen in EX Chess - huni Chess, compu­ ter game Cologne 2000. 14...1b7 Black has the greater mobility, Gutman.

Some examples of other moves: I) I I ...d6 12.0-0 ie6 13.b4 l0d7 14ib2 0-0 1 5.Wc2 'Ml6 1 6.f4 l0b6 1 7.r!f3 1g4 1 8.E!g3 gave White the advantage, Feuer - Def osse, Liege 1 934; m l l ...l0e6 1 2.l0b5 0-0 1 3.0-0 d6 ( 13 ... 1!/h6 could be met by 1 4.l0c3, e.g. 14...d6

99

Section 6 Th e Alekhine Variation (l .d4 'tlf6 l.c4 e5 3.dxe5 'tle4 4.'tldl 'ticS 5.'tlgf3 'tlc6) 6.g3

This plan is a little slow and does not­ hing to show up the disadvantages of the knight's placement on c5, Tim Htu­ ding.

White reinforces the kingside by fian­ chettoing his bishop, leaving Black to justify his pawn sacrifice. The move is very natural and was given its first stamp of approval by the great Alatltukr Akkhine, Bogdan Lalic.

U) 6 ... g5 7.J.g2 g4 8.ltlh4 .ig7 (is more stubborn than 8 ...'f!e7 9.0-0 ltlxe5 I O.b4 ltla6 l l .a3 d6 12.'flc2 ltlg6 13.J.bH lg8 14.ltlf5 'f!g5, when instead of 15.e4 ltlb8 16.c5 dxc5 17.bxc5 ltlc6 1 8.f4 'f!h5 19. l::!ad 1, Eliskases - Pitschak, Moravska Osllava 1 933, 15.ltle4! would have been decisive, e.g. 1 5 ... 'f!xf5 1 6.ltlf6+ �d8 17 .ie4 or 1 5 ...ixf5 16.'f!a4+ .id7 17.'f!b3 'f!f5 1 8.ltlf6+) 9J�b I!? a5 10.0-0 .ixe5 l l .ltle4 ltlxe4 12 ..ixe4 d6 1 3 .J.e3 .le6 14.b3 'f!d7 1 5.'f!d2 f5 1 6.J.hl 'f!g7 1 7 .a3 h5 1 8.l'Ud 1 .if6 1 9.J.d5 .lc8 20.c5 dxc5 2 U�bcl ltle5 22.lhc5 c6 23 ..ig2 .le6 24.'f!d6'f!d7 25.ltlxf5 0-0-0 26_gxa5 and White won, Kasimdzhanov - Schlind­ wein, German Bundesliga 200 1 ; III) 6 ....ie7 7 .J.g2 0-0 8.0-0 f6 9.ltlb3 (in place of9.ex.f6 .ixf6 1 O.l:ibl a5, Gon­ zales - Alonso, Castellar 1 995) 9 ...l!:\xb3 I O.axb3!? fxe5 l l .'f!d5+ �h8 12.ltlxe5 ltlxe5 13.'f!xe5 d6 14.'f!d5 .if6 1 5.'f!d3 leaves Black with no compensation for the pawn, Gutman; IV) 6...b6 7..ig2 .ib7 8.0-0 'f!e7 9.gbJ (9.ltlbl ?!, de Andres Gonalons - Krug, Dortmund 2003, is well met by 9 ltlxe5. Gambit Tiger - Fritz 6, computer game 200 1 , proceeded 9.ltlb3 ltlxb3 IO.axb3 l!:lxe5 l l .ltlxe5 .ixg2 1 2.�xg2 'f!xe5 13. .if4 'f!e4+ 14.f3 'f!c6 15.&6 .ib4 16.'f!d5 'f!xd5 1 7.cxd5 �e7 1 8.gfal .id6 19.J.d2, yet 1 5 ....lc5!? 16.'f!d5 'f!xd5 17.cxd5 �d8 18.gfal ge8 19. e4 b5 20.b4.id4 should hold for Black) 9 ...a5 IO.b3 ltlxe5 I I J.b2 f6 1 2.ltlxe5 .ixg2 13.�xg2 fxe5 14.ltlf3 d6 15.'f!d5 l::!d8 1 6..mdl g6 17.'f!c6+ gd7, Mueller - Klein, Eisenberg 1999, 18..ia3 .lg7 19.J.xc5 bxc5 20.ltld2 0-0 2 1 .ltle4 yields an advantage for White, Gutman; V) 6 ... d5 7.cxd5!? (7.exd6 will transpose into 6.g3 d6 7.exd6 - Sequel 2) 7...'f!xd5 8.J.g2 �xe5 9.0-0 .ie7 (9 ...a5 IO.�xe5 'f!xe5 l l .ltlc4 'f!f6 1 2 ..if4 .ie6 13.'f!cl 'f!d4 14.b3 .ixc4 1 5 .gd J 'f!f6 16.'f!xc4 .•

The materilll divUies tiS follows:

Sequel I - 6...'f!e7 (6.. .h5, 6...g5, 6.. �7. 6...b6, 6...d5, 6...g6) Sequel 2 - 6... d6. Sequel 1 6...1re7

Some examples of other moves: I) 6...h5 7.a3 'f!e7 (7.. .aS 8.'f!c2 'f!e7 9.ltle4 ltlxe5 I O.ltlxe5 'f!xe5 I I .J.g2, Gutman) 8.b4 ltlxe5 9 ..ig2!? (9.bxc5? ltld3 mate Koppe - Hain, Siegen 194 1 ) 9 ... l!:\cd3+ IO.exd3 ltlxf3+ I I .<Ml ltlxd2+ 12.'f!xd2 with a plus for White, TseitHn/GIIISkov;

1 00

c6 1 7 .ie3, Keres - Mikulka, corr 1 938; 9.. .J.d7, Harding, lO.�g5 "t!fd4 l l .�de4 "t!fxd l 12Jhdl ffi 13.ie3 �xe4 14.�xe4, or 9 ... �xf3+ lO ..ixf3 "t!fd4 l l ."t!fc2 .ih3 , Cordoba - Molinari, corr 1 977, 1 2.ixb7! �xb7 1 3 ."t!fc6+ "t!fd7 1 4."t!fxb7 �d8 1 5 . �e l are all awkward for Black) 1 0.�g5 (I O.b4 �e6 1 1 ib2 �xf3+ 1 2..ixf3, giv­ en by Jacques de Monnier, is useless due to 12 ..."t!ib5) lO ..."t!f d6 l l .�ge4 �xe4 1 2 .�xe4 "t!fxdl 1 3 .�xdl 0-0 1 4.J.f4 f6 1 5..ixe5 fxe5 16.�d5 iffi 1 7.�xf6t gxffi 1 8�dl and Black is still worse, Gutman; VI) 6 ... g6 deserves attention.

White has three options: A) 7.�b l , suggested by Nicolll Minev,

7...�e6 (7 ... ig7 8.�c3 0-0 9.J.g2 �xe5 IO.�xe5 ixe5 l i .J.h6 �e8 1 2.0-0 is an analysis by Tseitlin/GIIlskov, on which we can improve with 8.ig5, e.g. 8 . . .f6 9.exf6 ixf6 I O .ixf6 "t!fxf6 l l .�c3 or 8 ...�e7 9.�c3 h6 I O.J.e3 b6 1 1 J.g2 ib7 1 2.0-0) 8.�c3 ig7 9.ig2 (if 9."t!fd5 b6 to .J.g2 ib7) 9 ... b6 (9 ... 0-0 10.0-0 �xe5 l l .�xe5 ixe5 1 2 .ih6 �e8 1 3 ."t!fd2 is better for White) 1 0.0-0 tb7 l l ."t!fd2 (on l l ."t!fd5 0-0 1 2ru1 Black plays 12 ..."t!fb8 13 ."t!fd2 �xe5 14.�xe5 ixe5) 1 1 ...0-0 12_gdl �c5 1 3�1 �xe5 14.�xe5 .ixe5 15 .hb7 �xb7 1 6."t!fxd7 "t!fxd7 17 .�xd7 �c5 1 8.�d5 .ixc3 19.bxc3 �fe8 20.J.e3 �e4 appears good for Black, Gutman;

B) 7 .J.g2 ig7 8.�b3 �e6 (8 ... �xb3?! 9.ig5) 9.0-0 0-0 (9 ... a5 1 0."t!fd5 !?, e.g. 10...a4 l l.�c5 &5 12.�xe6 fxe6, Nedo­ bora - Granados, Zaragoza 199 5, 13."t!fxa5 �xa5 14.J.g5; 1 0 ...b6 l l .�bd4 ib7 1 2 . �xe6 fxe6 13."t!fe4 0-0 14J.f4 o r I O ..."t!fe7 l l .J.d2 b6 1 2 .J.c3 ib7 1 3 .�ad 1 ) I O.e4 ( IO."t!fd5 "t!fe7 is fine for Black, for in­ stance l i .J.e3 a5 1 2 .�c5 �b4 1 3 .�xe6 �d5 14�5 "t!fxe6 15.cxd5 "t!fxd5, Perez ­ Zapata, Havana 200 1 ; l l .h4 a5 12.J.d2 a4 13.�cl ru8 14.i.c3 a3 15."t!fe4 �c5 16. "t!fc2, Gual - Ballesteros, Foment 1 994, 16...�a4; or l i .J.d2 b6 1 2 .�bd4 �exd4 13.�xd4ib7) 10 ..."t!fe7 l l..ie3 a5 ( l l ...b6 12."t!fd2 a5 1 3 .�adl ia6 14."t!fc l ixe5 15.�xe5 �xe5 1 6."t!fc3 ffi 17 .�d2 b5!? 1 8 .b3 bxc4 19.�xc4 "t!lb4 20.�cl �ab8 2l .�xe5 .ixfl 22.�xd7 .ixg2 23 ."t!fxb4 �xb4 with sufficient counterplay, Gior­ gadze - Buckley, Andorra 1 997, while l l ...�xe5 1 2 .�xe5 ixe5 1 3 ."t!fd2 d6?! 14.f4 ig7, Paavilainen - Rantaleinen, corr 1 988, is doubtful in view of 1 5 .fS �d8 1 6.c5) 12."t!fd2 a4 1 3.�bd4 �exd4 14.�xd4 �xe5 should be even, Gutman; C) 7.�b3 ! ? �e6 (7 ... �xb3 8."t!fxb3 h6, Tseillin/GIIlskov, 9.ig2 ig7 1 0.0-0 "t!fe7 l l .�d l , e.g. 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 .�d5 b6 1 3 .ie3 ib7 14.�2 md8 15_gad l or l l ...�xe5 1 2.�xe5 .ixe5 13 J.e3) 8.i.d2 ig7 9.ic3 a5 (9 ...0-0 10..ig2 �e8 1 1 .0-0 with some pressure for White, for example 1 1 .�b8, Fragnaud - Bert, corr 1 995, 12 ."t!fc2 "t!l e7 13:�d l , or l l ...a5 12."t!fc2 a4 1 3 .�bd2 �c5 14.b4 axb3 1 5 .axb3 �xal 16_gxa l) I O.J.g2 (I O."t!fc2 0-0 l l .�dl a4 12.�bd2 �c5 brings White nowhere: 1 3 .b4 axb3 14.axb3 "t!fe7, 13.�e4 �xe4 14."t!fxe4 �e8 or 1 3 .J.g2 "t!fe7 14.0-0 �xe5) IO ...a4 I I . �bd4 (Taimanov - Mukhitdinov, USSR 1 95 5, went l l .�bd2 d6 1 2 .exd6 !xc3 1 3.bxc3 "t!fxd6 14.�e4 "t!fe7 1 5 ."t!fd2 fS?! 1 6.�eg5 �a5 1 7 .�xe6 .ixe6 1 8.�e5 0-0 19.0-0 c6 20."t!ff4 �ae8 2 1 .�fel "t!fc5 _

101

22J�ab l .ic8 23 .�d3 with some edge for White, but l S ...0-0 16.Y:!Ih6 ffi 1 7.0-0 �g7 1 8 .�d4 �eS looks more logical) l l ...�exd4 ( l l ... �xeS 12.�xe6 �xO+ l3 .cJ?fl fxe6 14 ..ixg7 ggs 1S ..ic3 �gS 1 6.h4 �17 17.hS) 1 2.�xd4 �xeS ( 1 2... .ixeS l3.�bS 0-0 14.0-0 d6 1S.f4) l3.�bS 0-0 14.0-0 d6 1 S .f4 �c6 16..hg7 cJ?xg7 17.e4 is preferable for White, Gutman. Back to the main line

7..lg2 g6 Is it Black s best to delay the immediate recapture of the pawn?. According to StJVieUy Tartll kower, 7 ... �xeS 8.0-0!? (After S.�xeS �xeS 9.0-0 g6 lOl!bl �e7 l l .b4 �e6 1 2 ..ib2 ffi 13. � .ig7 14.cS 0-0 1 S .�c3 Black faces some problems, yet 9 ... d6!? is the right answer. If now lOl!bl , so lO ....ie7 l l .b4 l£k:6 12..ib2 Y:!lhS since lO ....ig4 1 1.�0 is to White's liking, e.g. l l ...�e4 12.J.e3 �xc4 1 3 .J.xcS �xeS 14.�a4+ .id7 lS. �e4+ .ie7 1 6.�xb7, l l ...Y:!IhS 12.b4 �e6 l 3 ..ie3 Ae7 14.�a4+ c6 1S.bS or l l ...ti'f5 1 2 .J.e3.ie7 l3.b4 �d7 14.�d4 Y:!lhS l S . .ixb7 gbs, San Pedro - Tomay Gomez, Guipuzcoa Mondragon 2002, 1 6 ..10. Black is also in good shape after 1 0.�0 tru l l.b4 llk:6 12..ib2 Ae7 l3 .�d5 �g6) fa vours White 's development, then:

I) 8 ... �x0+ 9.ex0 (9.�xf3 is harmless, e.g. 9 ... g6 1 0.�d4 ffi l l .b3 �e6 1 2 .�d2 .ig7 l 3 .J.b2 0-0 14.gad l d6, Pesonen ­ Auvinen, Finland 1998, or 9 ... �e6 IO.b3 �f6 l l .gb l .ib4 12 ..ib2 .ic3 1 3 ..ixc3 �xc3 14.e3 0-0 l S .& l �2 l 6_gc2 �ffi 1 7.�4 d6, Bailen - Humme ling, e-mail 1998) 9...�d8 l01!e l + .ie7 l l .�e2 �e6 1 2.f4 can only benefit White, Gutman; II) 8 ... �c6 (would have offered Black betterchancesfor his development, Ald­ hine) 9.�b 1 �e4 I O.�fd2 �xd2 l l .J.xd2 �d8 1 2.�c3 .ie7 1 3 .�dS, Gutman; m) 8 ...�g6 9.�b3(instead of9.�c2 d6 IO.b4 �e6 l l ..ib2 c6 1 2.e4 �c7 l3.gfel f6 14 .�fl .ie7 l S .� l �eS l 6.�h4 g6 17.�3 �g7 18.h3 0-0, Seppings - Taba­ kiemik, Oxford 1967) 9 ...�e6 1 0.�c2 �d8 l l ..ie3 .ie7 1 2 .gad l , Gutman; IV) S...aS 9.�xeS!? �xeS 1 0.�0 �f6 ( l O...Y:!IhS l l .�d4 .ie7 1 2 .�bS .idS 1 3 . .ie3 ga6 is strongly met by 14 ..if3 �f5 lS.�d4 �e6 1 6.�dS �ffi 17.�a7, while 14.gc 1 d6 1 S .J.d4 0-0 1 6.e4 �xd 1 led to equality, Sieglen - Lanzan i, Lugano 198S) l l .li:ld4 (l l .�c2ti'g6 12.�xg6 hxg6 is innocuous, Jorgensen - Pedersen, Co­ penhagen 1997) l l ...c6 ( ll ....ie7 l2.�bS) 1 2.e4 d6 13..ie3 Ae7 14.�c2 0-0 lS�l are all better for White, Gutman; V) 8 ... d6 9.b4 will demonstrate itself to be hardly satisfactory either, Alekhine.

1 02

We examine: A) 9 ...li)xO+ lOoexO ! ? (Noden - Stor­

gaard, e-mail l 997, went l O o.lxO lt)e6 l l ..lb2 �g5 l2..lg2 .le7 13oe4 0-0 l 4.f4 �6 l5o�e2 .iffi l6oli)b3 .lxb2 l 7o�xb2, when 17 oooli)d8 l 8J:!ael .lh3 might be played) l 0oooli)e6 l l .f4 �f6 l 2 ol:!bl 1e7 l 3 o1b2 �h6 l 4 ol:!e l , Gutman; further B) 9oo oli)a6 l 0oa3 c5 l l .b5 li)c7 l2 ..lb2 ffi l3oli)xe5 dxe5 l4oe3 g6 l 5 of4 .th6 l 6o li)e4 0-0 l 7o�d6 �xd6 l 8oli)xd6, Tadzik ­ Grzegorzewski, corr 1 992; similarly C) 9 00 oli)e6 l Oo.lb2 (l Ooli)xe5 dxe5 l l . 1b2 f6 l 2oa3 c6 l 3 oe3 .id7 l 4ob5 cxb5 l 5 ..lxb7 l:!b8 l 6o.ld5 li)c7 left Black in control, Arasan - Inmi Chess, computer game 2000 ) l 0oo.f6 (10ooolt)d8 is best met by l l .c5! , while Milligan - Rasmussen, Copenhagen 1 997, continued l l .�c2 g6 l 2 o&dl 1g7 l3 oc5 dxc5 l4oli)xe5 1xe5 l 5 ..lxe5 �xeS l 6oli)e4 0-0 l 7ol:!d5 �g7 l 8 ol:!fdl .ifS) 1 1 .m3 ( l l .l:!c l !? g6 l2oc5 1g7 l3oc:r..d6 �xd6 l4oli)xe5 fxe5 l5 oli)c4 is also good, Kaiser - Stulik, Aschach 1 994) l l ...�n l2 oli)h4 li)g6 (if l2 oo.J.e7 l3oli)f5 .idS l4.f4 li)d7 l5 oc5) l3oli)f5 lt)e7 l4oli)e3 g6 1 5 oli)e4 .lg7 l 6oli)d5 li)xd5 l 7 ocxd5 li)d8 l 8 o&cl .its (after 1 8 0000-0 l 9 o�c2 fS 20oli)g5 �e7 2 1 .1xg7 �xg7 22.�xc7 White won easily in Vidmar ­ Kostic, Yugoslavia 1 947) l91k4 0-0 200 l:!fc l 1xe4 21 .1xe4 and White's advan­ tage is overwhelming, Gutman; D) 9oooli)cd7 lO..lb2 g6 ( l 0oooli)c6 l l .a3 li)de5 l 2 o�c2 g6 l 3 .b5 li)d8 l 4oli)xe5 dxe5 l 5oa4 c5 l 6obxc6 li)xc6 occurred in Trailovic - Bosnic, Yugoslav League 2003, when l 7o.lxc6+ bxc6 1 8o�e4 was crying to be played) l l oli)xe5 ( l l oli)d4 .lg7 l 2of4 li)g4 13om3 �e3+ l4o�xe3+ li)xe3 l S oli)bS .lxb2 came to a bad end for White in Kaufmann - Storgaard, e­ mail l 997) l l ...dxe5 l2oc5 1g7 l 3 oli)c4 0-0 was TIUtlllwwer's choice of evils, with a further split:

01) l4o�d5 l:!b8 (not l4ooM l 5 oc6 bxc6 l6o�xc6 l:!b8 l 7o�xc7 .h6 l8oli)d6, Lan­ naiolui - Storgaard, e-mail 1 997) l 5..§ad l l:!e8 makes Black's task easier, Gutman; 02) l 4oc6 bxc6 l 5 o.lxc6 ( l S oli)aS li)b8 or l 5oa3 e4 1 6..bg7 �xg7 17o�d4+ lt)ffi are less promising, Alekhine) l 5 oool:!b8 l 6ob5 l:!d8 17 Jb3 �e6 (if l 7...�f6, then l 8oli)d2 �e6 l9oli)e4, while l8o�a4 li)b6 l 9o�xa7 li)xc4 20o�xb8 li)xa3 2 l o�xc7, Alekhine, fails to 2 1 00..1� 22ol:!fd l .id6) l 8oli)a5 �f6 l9o�c2 ( l 9o.lg2 is rather better here, but the te:ct is good enough, Alekhine) l 9oool£)� 20ol:!fdl (the co"ect way of maintain ing the positional ad­ vantage was 2001g2,for example 20 000 l:!xb5 2 1 .�xc7 �b6 22 o�xb6 l:!xb6 230 li)c6 or 20oooli)e6, so far Ale/chine, 2 l ..h7 �xe7 22oli)c6) 20 .1fS 2 l o�c5 li)e6 220 �e7 (after 22�xa7 li)d4 23.�xc7 lt)xe2+ White should play 24o�g2 e4 25 1!xd8+ l:!xd8 26.k7 ih3+ 27.�h3 �fS+ 28o�g2 �0+ 29o�fl � l+ 30o�e2 �f3+ with a draw byperpetual, since 24o�h l? loses to 24oooe4 25 o.le7 .lg4 ! 26ol:!xd8+ .t�. Alekhine) 22 oooe4 (Hans Kmoch gives 22oo oli)d4) 23 oli)b3 �xe7!? (improving on 23 oooe3 24o�xffi ixffi 251!acl fud l+ 26ol:!xdl .lc2 271!d7 .lxb3 28oaxb3 exf2+ 29o�xf2 l:!d8 30ol:!xd8+ li)xd8 3 l ..id5, van Scheltinga - Tartakower, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1 939) 2401xe7 1xa l 25ol:!xal li)d4 26o.lxd8 li)xc6 with equal chances, Gutman; 03) l 4oli)a5!? c6 l 5 oli)c4 l:!d8 l 6o�c2 lt)� 17 oli)d6 li)e6 l 8oe3 leaves Black in desperate straits, Alekhine; 04) l 4o§c2 !? l:!b8 l 5 ol:!adl l:!e8 l 6.1c3 lt)� 17 o�b2 f6 l 8oli)a5 g5 19 ol:!d2 li)g6 20Mdl h5 2 l .�c2 f5 22oc6 b623.�7�ffi (23-..lxd7 24oexd7 bxa5 25odxe8�+ l:!xe8 26o�xf5 �ffi 27.\!MI3) 24-.idS+ �h7 25M7 and White won in Szp otanski - Kam­ kowski, Czestochowa 19560 _

1 03

Back to the main line

8.� b l ! "This move, though astonishing a tfirst sight, is in fact perfectly logical. Once Black has clearly revealed his intention to develop his bishop on g7, White no longer needs to reckon with any action on the e 1 -a5 diagonal. Therefore he has no reason to refrain from bringing his knight to the dominating square d5", Alekhine. Profound as well as original. The knight is bound for d5. The effect of this fine retrograde manoeuvre is most remar­ kable, Tartakower. Other possibilities are: I) 8.li:lb3 lL\xb3 !? (8 ... lL\xeS 9.0-0 .ig7 IO.lL\xeS .ixeS l l .lL\xcS �xeS 12..ih6 c6 1 3 .'lfb3 �b6 1 4.�a4!? d6 1 S J:Ud l .id7 1 6.gd3 a6 1 7.� I 0-0-0 1 8 .gb3 turned out well for White, Palenius - Seppala, corr 1 979) 9.�xb3 .ig7 10.0-0 0-0 with a level game, Gutman ; ll) 8.0-0 .ig7 9.IDII (9.lL\bl lL\xeS I O.lL\c3 goes back into the main line) 9 ... a5 I O.b3 0-0 (Krause - Klueting, Dortmund 200 1, went I O...lL\xeS l l .ia3 d6 1 2.lL\xeS .ixeS 13 ,gc I 0-0 1 4.lL\b I and now instead of 14 ...gd8 IS.lL\c3 c6 1 6.�d2 .ie6 1 7.�e3 .ixc3 1 8 .gxc3, Black could play 14 ...c6 I S .lLlc3 hS!? 1 6.�d2 h4) l l ..ib2 ge8!?

(l l . . .lL\xeS 12 .lL\d4 d6 1 3 .�c2 f5 1 4.a3 c6 I S .b4 axb4 16.axb4 lL\e6 1 7 .e3 .id7 is also playable, Kohlweyer - Dohmes, Baden-Baden 1987, though I prefer 13 ... .id7 !?) 1 2 .ge l lL\xeS 1 3 .lL\d4 ( 1 3 .lL\xeS .ixeS 14..ixe5 �xeS IS .ll:lf3 �ffi 16.�d4 �xd4 1 7.lL\xd4 d6 1 8.e4 .id7 1 9.ge3 ge7 20.gbe l &e8 2 1 .a3 b6 22.f4 f6 23.h3 rt1g7 24.'it12? f5 2S.eS dxeS 26.lL\c6.ixc6 27..ixc6 gd8 with advantage to B lack in Gemzoe - Koming, Copenhagen 1 94 1 ) 1 3 ...d6 1 4.�c2 .id7 I S.a3 lL\c6 1 6.lL\xc6 .ixc6 17..ixc6 bxc6 1 8..ixg7 rt1xg7 1eads to equality, Gutman; III) 8.b4 lL\xb4, and now: A) 9.0-0 .ig7 IO..ib2 lL\c6 (also 1 0 ... 0-0 l l .lL\b3 lL\c6 12.lL\xcS�xcS 13.�cl lL\xeS 14.lL\xeS .ixeS IS..ia3 �d4 1 6.gbJ ge8 is reasonable) I I IDJI 0-0 12.lL\b3 (12.h3 d6 1 3.exd6 cxd6 1 4.lL\b3 .if'S) 12 ...aS !? ( 1 2...lL\xb3 13 .�xb3 lL\xeS 14.lL\xeS .ixeS IS..ixb7 Ml8 16.�e3 seems even) 13..ia3 (13 .lL\xcS �xeS 14 .�dS is best answered by 1 4...�e7) 13 ... lL\b4 14.lL\xcS (1 4.�d2 lL\xb3 t s .gxb3 ge8) 1 4 ... �xcS I S .�d2 ( I S .�a4 ga6) I L.ge8 appears fme for Black, Truelock - Gibson, Dublin 1 992; B) 9.lL\b3 lL\xb3 (less impressive is 9 ... �e6 10.0-0, e.g. IO...lL\c6 l l .lL\bd4 �xc4 12..ig5 lL\xd4 13 .lL\xd4 .ig7 14.gc l 'Ml4 IS,gbJ �c4 1 6.lL\bS lL\e6 17..idS or 10 ... lL\xb3 l l .axb3 .ig7 12.&S !? 0-0 1 3.ia3 �e7 14.�d2 cS t s.gxcS �xeS 16..ixb4, Raffalt - Suhr, Graz 1 993) I O.axb3 lL\c6 (better than I O .. ..ig7 l l ..igS �e6 1 2.h4 h6 13..th3 �c6 1 4..if4 d6 IS..ixc8 gxc8 16.0-0 dxeS 1 7..ixeS .ixeS 18 .lL\xeS �d6 19.lL\d3, while Black lost in Beliavsky ­ Toulzac, Bastian 1 998, with I S ... dxeS 16..id2 gxc8 1 7 ..lxb4 gd8 1 8.�ci i :O) l l ..igS ( I I .O-O .ig7) l l ...'lfh4+ 12 ..id2 �e7 1 3 ..igS is a repetition, Gutman. s... �xes 9.0-0 9.lL\xeS �xeS 10.0-0 (I O.lL\c3 lL\e6, while IO d6? l l ..if4 �g7 1 2 .lLldS f6 1 3..id2

1 04

.•

.15 1 4.J.c3 was a disaster for Black in Zlotnik - Lopez de Turido, Oviedo 2002) 1 o .. .J.g7 l l .ltlc3 ltle6 1 2.ti'd5 ti'f6 ( 1 2 ... c6 13.ti'xe5 .he5 14.J.d2 b6 1 5 .f4 .ig7 16.15 gxf5 171WS .ia6 18.b3 ltld4 191U2 0-0 20.ge 1 gae8 2 l .ltle4 d5!? 22.cxd5 ltlxe2+ 23.&xe2 .he2 24.!he2 cxd5 25. ltlc3 occurred in Crafty - Brause, com­ puter game 1997, when 25 _.J.xc3 could lead to equality) 1 3.ti'e4 0..0 14.ltld5 �d8 and chances are balanced, Gutman.

9 .lg7 Alternatives: I) 9 ...aS 1 O.ltlc3 c6 l l .ltlxe5 ti'xe5 1 2.J.f4 ti'e7 13.ti'd4 ft) 14.ti'd2 ti'e6 15.&cl .ie7 1 6.ltld5 cxd5 1 7 .cxd5 ti'f5 1 8.d6 .idS 19 .g4 ti'xg4 20J::!xc5 0-0 2 l .h3 ti'h4 22. gfc 1 ib6 23 .J.g3 ti'b4 24 ..id5+ 1 :0 Bo­ risenko - Mukhitdinov, U SSR 1 953; II) 9 ...ltlxf3+ (Black allows his adver­ sary to obtain a powerful base ofaction on the kingside, Tartakower) 1 0.exf3! .ig7 1 1 .gel ltle6 12.ltlc3 0-0 ( 1 2 .. .J.xc3 is the lesser evil, Tartakower, though 1 3 .bxc3 0-0 14 ..ih6 ge8 1 5.f4 secures White good attacking prospects) 1 3 .ltld5 ti'd8 (not 1 3 ...ti'c5 14.J.e3 ti'xc4 1 5.J.fl , Tartllkower) 14 .f4 c6 (Black'sposition is already dijjicult, but it would be wiser to avoid the weakness byplaying at once 14 ...d6, Tartakower. "However the im­ mediate 14 ._d6 was quite risky in view .•

ofthe temporary pawn sacrifice 1 5 .5 !" Alekhine, for example 1 5 ...gx5 1 6.J.h3 c6 1 7 .J.xf5 cxd5 1 8.� h6 19.J.xh6 ti'ffi 20.J.h7+ �h8 2l .J.d2 and Black is lost, Gutman) 1 5.ltlc3 d6 16.J.e3 ti'c7 17 �1 .id7 1 8.ti'd2 &d8 1 9JW 1 .ic8 20.ltle4 ltlc5 (If 20... 5, then 2 l .ltlxd6 .hb2 22. ti'xb2 gxd6 23.gxd6 ti'xd6 24.J.xa7 and White wins a valuable pawn, Tartako­ wer. "Black's position was very dijjic:ult in any case, e.g. 20 ... d5 2 l .cxd5 gxd5 22.ltlf6+ winning the exchange, 20 ...c5 2 l .f5 ! gx5 22.ltlc3 ltld4 23.ltld5 ti'b8 24.J.g5 with advantage, and after the rel­ atively best 20 ...b6 White could increase his space advantage with 2l .b4", Alek­ hine) 2 1 . ltlxd6 ltla4 22.c5 ltlx b2 23.ge 1 b5 24.cxb6! ti'xd6 25 .ti'xd6 gxd6 26. bxa7 .ib7 27.J.c5 gdd8 28 ..ixfll �xfl! 29.J.xc6.hc6 30_gxc6 l::!a8 31 _gb6 gxa7 32.gbs mate, Alekhine-Tartakower, London 1 932. IO.�c:3 0-0 Black has nothing better: I) 1 O ... d6 l l .ltld5 ti'd8, Albert Becker, 12.ltlxe5 dxe5 (Burdge - Nash, Wash­ ington 1945, went 12 .. .J.xe5 13.J.g5 ! f6 14.ic l ) 13.J.g5 f6 14.J.e3 ltle6 15.ti'a4+ .id7 1 6.ti'b4 c6 1 7 .ltlc3 .ic8 1 8.ltle4 .ifll 1 9.c5 , Gutman; II) 10 ...h6 l l .ltld5 ti'd8 (after l l ...ti'd6 1 2.ltlxe5 .he5 1 3.f4 .ig7 14.e4 ltla6 1 5 . e5 ti'f8 1 6.ti'e2 c6 17.ltlfO+ �d8 1 8.ltle4 ti'e7 1 9.ltld6 White won in Siegmund ­ Poetschmann, corr 1 984) 12.ltlxe5 .he5 13.J.e3 ltle6 14.ti'd2 c6 15 .ltlc3 does not look too appetizing for Black, Gutman. ll.�dS 'lt'd8 ll.�xeS .lxeS 13 .lh6!? fle8 1 4.9d:Z White has a spatial advantage and can try to exploit his control of the d5-square, Ludek Pachman. •

1 05

Sequel l (l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS 3.dxeS �e4 4.�dl �c5 S.�gO �c6 6.g3) 6 .d6! 7.exd6 Nothing else merits attention: I) 7.b4 ltlxb4 (better than 7 ... ltle6 8.exd6 ixd6 9.b5!? ltle5 l O.J.g2, while 9.c5, Schmitz - Jensen, Copenhagen 1 998, is less clear in view of 9...i/!7 10.tg2 0-0) 8.ltlb3 (8 ..ia3 a5) 8 ... .ie6 favours Black, Gutman; II) 7 .ltlb3 dxe5 (7 ... ltlxb3 8 .axb3 dxe5 9.�xd8+ �xd8, Cardon - LanzaJli, Sas van Ghent 1 982,1 0.J.g2 .ib4+ l l .J.d2 ffi 12 .0-0 �e7 is also reasonable) 8.�xd8+ �xd8 reaching a level ending, Gutman. ..

7 ...tfxd6 There are two other plans: I) 7 ....if5 , Kurt Richter, and now: A) 8 .J.g2 �xd6 (8 ... .ixd6 see 7 ... .ixd6 8 . .ig2 .if5 - II) returns to the text; B) 8.ltlh4 .ie6 (8 .. .J.g4 9.ltlb3 1xd6 10 . .ig2 �f6 I I .J.xc6+ bxc6 1 2.�d4 't!fe6 1 3 .0 ltlxb3 14.axb3 was OK for White, Federau - Jaeger, Germany 1 990) 9.ltlb3 't!fxd6 (Schutt - Spoel, corr 1986, went 9 .. .J.xd6 lO.ltld4? ltlxd4 l l .'t!fxd4 ltlb3 12.axb3 ib4+and Black won yet 10� has more point: 10...J.xc4 l l .ltld4 or 10 ... 't!ff6 1 1 .0-0) I O.'t!fxd6 (if I O.i/!3 't!fxdl+ l l .�xdl ltla4) I O..bd6 I I .ltlxc5 .A.xc5 1 2 .J.g2 0-0-0 is fme for Black, Gutman;

C) 8.dxc7 't!fxc7 9 ..ig2 0-0-0 I 0.0-0 .ie7 l l .a3 .if6 1 2 _ga2 .ib I ( 1 2 ...�he8 1 3 .b4 ltle4 1 4..ib2, e.g. 14 ..ic3 1 5.ltlxe4 fu.dl 1 6.�xd I .ixe4 1 7 ..ixc3 f5 1 8.�ad2 or 14.. .J.xb2 15.�xb2 ltlc3 16.'t!fal ltlxe2+ 1 7.�hl ltle5 18.ltlxe5 't!fxe5 1 9.ltlf3 't!fc3 20.c5) 13.&1 .if5 with a draw, Gutman; D) 8.ltlb3 ltlxb3 9.'t!fxb3 1xd6 (9 ...'t!fxd6 I O..ig2 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0) I O.a3 ( l O.'t!fe3+, Tim Harding, is only a waste of time due to lO . . ..ie7 l l .a3 0-0 12 ..ig2 �e8 13 .0-0 .if6) 10 ...0-0 l l.i/!3 (l l ..ig2 �e8 12..ie3 't!fe7 13.0-0 .ie4 14.�acl is not bad either) l l ...ltla5 1 2.'t!fc3 ( l 2.m5 c5 13 ..ixc5? loses to 13 ....id7 14.m4 ltlc6 15.m5 ltld4, Torsten Oskarsson. Also 1 2 .�a4 c5 is enjoyable for White, e.g. 13.0-0-0 � 14.ltld2 .ie5 15.m5 ltlxc4 16.'t!fxb6 ltlxb6 1 7 ..if4, Hansson - Os­ carsson, corr 1950, 17 ... �fe8, or 1 3.�dl b6!? 1 4.J.f4 .id7 1 5 .'t!fc2 .ixf4 1 6.gxf4 't!fe8) 1 2 ...b6 13 ..ig2 secure an advan­ tage for White, Gutman. D) 7 ..bd6 8..ig2 (less precise is 8.ltlb3 't!fffi 9.i/!3 l034 10.c5 ltlxb2 l l .'t!fcl ltld3+ 1 2.exd3 't!fx13 13.�gl .ie5 14.d4 .if6 1 5 . .ig2 'Mt5 1 6.h3 0-0 17.g4 'Mt4 1 8.'t!fd2 �d8 1 9.0-0-0 .ie6 20.f4 .ixb3 2 I ..if2, Zwikker - Spoel, corr 1 993, when 21 ... 'Mt6 might be decisive) is more natural. The possibilities are presented by: A) 8 ...'t!fe7 9.ltlfl 0-0 lO.ltle3 �d8 1 1 .0-0 with 1 2 .ltld5 to follow, Frantisek Ne­ pustil; further B) 8 ... h5 9.ltlfl !? (White lost quickly in Jose Abril - Granados Gomez, Barce­ lona 1 996, after 9.h4?! .ig4 I 0.0-0 't!le7 l l .a3 a5 1 2.b3 0-0-0 1 3 ..ib2 f6 1 4..ic3 1xg3) 9 .. ..ie6 lO.ltle3 't!fd7 l l .ltld5, Gutman, similarly; C) 8 .. ..ig4, Nicolo Minev, 9.ltlb3 (9.ltlfl 't!fd7 I O.ltle3 .ih3) 9 ...�e7 I O..ie3 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 (I I .ltlbd2 h5 1 2.'t!fc l h4 13.ltlxh4 ltld4 14.ltldf3 ixJ3 15.ltlxf3 't!fe4, Johan­ sen - Olsson, Carlstad 1 999, may well •

1 06

be met by 16.•;�;'(1 lt:lc2 1 7.lt:ld4 lt:lxe3+ D2) l l .lt:lbd4 lt:lxd4 1 2 .lt:lxd4 .lxc4 13. 1 8.'t¥xe3, but 1 2 .. .f6 1 3.0-0 gS is better) ll.e3, Nepustil, l 3 ... lt:le6 14.'t¥c2 .ia6 l S. l l ...hS 12.lt:lbd4 are all hardly viable for �fd l �fe8 1 6.lt:lf5,Poupinel - Campant, corr 1 998, 16 .. .ll. f8; likewise Black, Gutman; D) 8 .. Jl.e6 9 .0-0 'tYRi (9 ...'t¥e7 1 0.a3 !? DJ) 1 1Ji.e3 lt:la4 ( l l _lt:lxb3 12.axb3 laad8? aS transposes to 4.lt:ld2 lt:lcS S.lt:lgf3 lt:lc6 l3.lJ.gS, Levitt - Helman, Chicago 199S) 12.lt:lbd4 ( 12 .ll.d4 lt:lxd4 13.'tYxd4 'tYxd4 6.a3 aS 7.g3 d6 8.exd6 ll.xd6 9.ll.g2 ll.e6 1 0.0-0 't¥e7, a line regarded as awkward 14.lt:lbxd4 lt:lxb2 1S.lt:lxe6 fxe6 1 6.lt:ld4 � 17Ji.xb7 � or 12.cS lJ.xb3 l3.'t¥xb3 fCI' Black - Section S, Sequel l. However, White can play the simpler 1 0.e3 as 1 0... lt:lxcS l4.'t!lc4, John Nunn, 14...lt:le6, are hS l l .lt:ld4 gd8 12bc6+ bxc6 1 H::Jxc6 even) 12 ... lt:lxb2 1 3 .'tYc2 lt:lxc4 1 4.lt:lgS 't¥d7 14.lt:lxd8JJ.h3 lS.'tYf3 't¥xd8 16 .lt:le4 't¥g6 l S .'tYxg6 hxg6 16 .lt:lgxe6 fxe6 1 7 . lt:lxe6 lt:lxe3 1 8 .fxe3 gf6 19 ..AdS 'i!;lh7 ll.xfl 17.'i!;lxfl , Forgacs - Pusztay, Hungary 1998, or IO ....tg4 l l .'t¥c2 0.0 12.lt:ld4 20l!ab l lt:ld8 2 1 Ji.xb7 !::fu8 22.lt:lxd8 �d8 lt:lb4 13.'t¥bl i.eS 14.a3 lt:lbd3 1S.b4 lt:lxcl and Black is close to equality, Gutman; 16.gxcl lt:le6 1 7.'t¥e4 are both none too D4) l l .lt:lxcS lJ.xcS 1 2 .'t¥b3 ! ? (Absurd impressive for Black) 1 0.lt:lb3 ( I O.a3 aS is 1 2 .lJ..gS 't¥xb2 1 3 .'tYd3 't¥a3 1 4.gfd l see 4.lt:ld2 lt:lcS S.lt:lgf3 lt:lc6 6.a3 a5 7.g3 't¥a6 1S.ll.f4 ll.xc4 1 6.'t¥f5, Scherer - Gegd6 8.exd6 ll.xd6 9Ji.g2 ll.e6 1 0.0-0 'tYRi _, l 1'ner, Germany 1987, 1 6...'tYbS 17.e3 ll.b6 . Section S, Sequel 1) 1 0. . .0-0 (1 O .. h6 1 1 . If 12.'tYc2 h6 l3..tf4 �fe8; this is sounder ll.e3 (}.0..0 12.lt:lfd4 lt:lxb3 l3.lt:lxe6 lt:lxal than 12 ...lt:lb4 1 3 .'t¥b3 bS 14.'t¥c3 't¥xc3 1S.bxc3 lt:lc2 1 6,gbl ll.xc4 17.lt:leS �d8 1 4 .lt:lxd8 lt:lxd8 l S .'tYxa 1 ) seems to be more threatening. 18.lt:lxc4 lt:lxc4 19.ffi>S ll.b6 20.E!:d.S while 14.lJ.gS 't¥f5 l S.lJ..f4 lJ..xc4 16.lt:lh4 'tY e6 17.'tYc3 lt:ldS 18.lJ.xd5 'tYxd5 19,gfdl � 20.'t¥f3 'tYxf3 2 l .exf3, Camp - van der Waal, corr 1990, could have been par­ ried by 2l .. .i.b6 22.b3 .Ae6 23-k 1 ID'd8. Barcza - Halic, Budapest 1937, went 12. 't¥a4 .Ag4 13.lt:lgS gae8 14.lt:le4 gxe4!? lS..be4 lJ.xe2 16..tf4 't¥xb2 17..txc6 bxc6 when instead of 1 8.'t¥xc6? ixf2+ 19.lhf2 'tYxal+ 20.c;!;>gl lJ.d3 2 l .'t¥xc7 't¥d4 22't¥e5 �+ 23.'i!;lgl 't¥xc4, 18.mbl 't¥f6 19.�el ge8 20,gadl would be critical; never­ theless Black can do better with 1 6.. ..txfl We survey White's defences: 17� 't¥xb2) 12 ... lt:laS (12 ...i.b6 l3.lJ.gS Dl) l l .lt:lgS lJ..fS (if l l ...�d8, then not 'tYg6 14!!acl h6 1S..tf4 &d8 16.'tYa4 'tYhS, 1 2 .lt:lxcS lJ.xcS 13.'t¥c2 .Af5 14.ll.e4 lt:ld4 Carneiro - Morais, Lisbon 1 997, 1 7.b4) l S.'tYd3 �fe8 16.'i!;lg2 h6 1 7.g4 ll.xg4 0:1 l3.'tYc2 h6 14..tf4 lt:lxc4 l S.b3 gS l 6Jl.xgS Rossi - Boschetti, Ticino 199 1 , but 12. (16.id2? lt:lxd2 17.'t¥xd2 g4 18.lt:lh4 laad 8, de Lange - Spoel, corr 1 99 1 ) 16 ...hxgS lt:lxe6 lt:lxe6 1 3 .ll.xc6 !? bxc6 14.'t¥c2 cS 17.bxc4 &!:8 1 8 .&dl c6 19.'tYcl g4 20. 1 S JI.e3) 12.lt:lxcS lJ.xcS 1 3.lt:le4 ll.xe4!? lt:ld2 .Af5 2 l .lt:lb3 keeps a clear plus for 14be4 &118 l S.'tYc2 lt:ld4 16.'t¥d3 gfe8 White, Gutman . with a balanced position, Gutman; 107

E) 8 .. .i.f5 9.0-0 is a traditional way to treat this position.

Black has three options: El) 9 ... 0-0 I O.llJb3 (in case of I O.llJel "t!/ft) I I.liJb3 llJa4!? 12.llJd3 &d8 13 .llJa5 Black has a good answer in 1 3 ...llJc3 ! ? 14 .bxc3 llJxa5 1 5 ."t!/a4 b 6 1 6.c5 ie7 17. cxb6 cxb6 18 ..ie3 "t!/xc3 1 9 .l:�acl "t!/a3 20."t!/xa3ixa3 2 Uk7 gd7, while 1 3 ... llJxa5 1 4 ."t!/a4 b6 1 5 .c5ie7, Mathot ­ Defosse, corr 1 936/37, 1 6.cxb6!? cxb6 17 ..id2 is a bit better for White) IO ... ge8 ( I O ...llJxb3 I I ."t!/xb3 "t!/d7 1 2.gd1 "t!/e6, Treasurer - Will, Glasgow l 995, seems dubious due to 13 "t!/xb7 "t!/xc4 14.i.e3) I I .ie3(1ess flexible is I I .llJfd4 llJxb3 1 2 .axb3 llJxd4 1 3 ."t!/xd4 gxe2 14..ixb7, Jones - Edwards, England NWC 1987, due to I I ...llJxd4 12."t!/xd4 "t!l e7 13.llJxc5 .ixc5 14 "t!/d5 ig4 I5.j,g5 "t!/f& 1 6.e3 c6) I I ...llJxb3(I I ..."t!/e7? 12 .i.xc5 ixc5 13. "t!/d5) 1 2 ."t!/xb3 ie4 1 3 .c5 ie7 1 4 .llJe5 llJxe5 (14..bg2 fails to 1 5 Mdl) 15 be4, Gutman; further E2) 9 ..."t!/e7 IO.llJb3 (I O.llJh4 ig4 I I ..if3 .ih3 1 2.ge 1 0-0, Minev, improving on I I ....ixf3 1 2 .llJdxf3 "t!/e6 13 ."t!/d5 0-0-0 14."t!/xe6+ fxe6 15� llJe4 1 6.llJg5 llJxg5 17 bg5, Koomen - de Jong, Amsterdam 1 937) 1 0 ...0-0-0 (IO...gd8 I I .llJxc5 .ixc5 12."t!/a4 goes into 5.llJgf3 d6 6.exd6 .ixd6 7.g3 "t!/e7 8.llJb3 .if'S 9.llJxc5 .ixc5 IO.i.g2

llJc6 1 1 .0-0 gd8 1 2."t!/a4, see Section 2. 10 ... 0-0 I I.llJxc5 .ixc5 reaches a position after 5.llJgf3 d6 6.exd6 .ixd6 7.g3 "t!/e7 8.llJb3 if5 9.llJxc5 ixc5 I O ..ig2 llJc6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 - Section 2, yet White has an extra resource in the form of I I .ie3 goo8 1 2.llJfd4 llJxd4 1 3 .llJxd4 ie4 1 4 .i.xe4 "t!/xe4 1 5 ."t!lb l "t!/e5 1 6."t!/c2) I I .i.e3 h5 (l l . .b4 1 2.llJxc5 .ixc5 1 3..Axc5 "t!/xc5 14."t!lb3 llJa5? 1 5 ."t!/c3 f6 1 6 .gac l llJc6 17 .gcdl .ix f3 18 .i.xf3 llJd4 1 9 .ig4+ fS 20.e3 llJe6 2 1 .b4 , Gasiorowski - Ilczuk, Lubniwiece 1995) 1 2 .llJfd4 (sharper than 12.llJxc5 .ixc5 13bc5 "t!/xc5 14."t!lb3 f6 1 5.a3 ghe8 1 6 .gfel g5 17 ."t!/c3 "t!/e7 18.b4 h4 1 9.b5 llJe5) 1 2 . . .i.e4 1 3 .llJxc6 .ixc6 14bc6 (14.ih3+'i!>b8 1 5.llJd4 io4 16.b4 h4 17.g4 llJe6 1 8.llJfS ixfS 1 9.gxf5 .ixh2+ 20.'i!>xhl �dl favoured Black in Cosma - Stefanova, Niksic 1992) 14 ...bxc6 1 5.llJxc5 .ixc5 I 6.j,xc5 "t!/xc5 17."t!/a4 and White is on top, Gutman; EJ) 9 ... "t!/f6 is a most popular choice.

Play might continue: Ela) I O.a3 0-0 (I 0 ... 0-0-0?! 1 1 .&2 h5 12.h4 "t!!g6 13.b4 llJe6 1 4.'i!>hl f6 1 5.c5 .ie5 1 6.llJxe5 llJxe5 1 7."t!/a4, Hrubant ­ Chapu, Prague 1 996) I I .llJb3 gfe8 ( I I ... llJe6, Galje - van der Vecht, Haarlem 2000, 12.llJfd2) 1 2.llJbd4 ( 12.llJxc5 .ixc5 13."t!/d5 .ib6 I4.j,g5 "t!/g6) ILllJxd4 13. llJxd4 .ie4, Gutman;

108

E3b) I O.l0b l l0e5 ( 1 0 ... 0-0-0 l l .l0c3 hg3 12.l0d5 .bh2+ 1 3.� 't!ld6+ did not provide Black any real attack, 14M4 't!lg6 1 5JThl mte8 16..ixc7 .ic2 1 7.'t!ld2 l:!d7 1 8..ig3 .if5 1 9.l0h4 't!le6 20.l0xf5 't!lxf5 2l .'t!ff4, Wijdeveld - Boers, Hol­ land 1 940) l l .lLic3 lLixO+ 12 ..ixn (if 12 .exn 0-0-0 1 3 .l0d5 't!lg6 14.'t!ld4 mte8 1 5.l0f4 't!ih6) 1 2 ... 0-0 ( 1 2 ... c6 1 3 ..ig5) 1 3 .l0d5 't!le6 14..ie3 �adS, Gutman; E3c) I O.l0b3!? l0e6 (I O ...h6 can be met by l l ..ie3 0-0-0 12.l0fd2) l l .l0h4 (On l l ..id2 Black should grab the pawn with l l ...'t!lxb2; however, note that after I I ... 0-0-0 1 2.l0h4!? is even stronger, while there is no real problems in 12 ..ic3 't!lb6 13.'t!lcl 't!lb5 14.�el ih3 15J.hl 't!lg4 16. l0bd2 �he8, Dlouhy - Chapu, Prague 1996. l l ..ie3 is best answered by I I ... 0-0-0 1 2 .'t!lcl h 6 t3ru t io4; this keeps more tension than l l ... �d8 12.'t!lcl 0-0 1 3 .�d l .ie7 14.'t!lc3 't!lg6 1 5 .l0bd4 .if6 t 6.l0xc6 bxc6 1 7 .l0e5 't!th5 1 8 -.iO as in Vallin-Hoffinann, Bischwille 1 998) 1 1 ..�4 (t t ..rus 12.l0xf5 't!lxf5 13 .'t!id5 't!if6 14.'t!lh5 ().() 1 5.ixc6 bxc6 1 6.'t!lxc6 .ie5 17 .�bl h5 1 8 .'t!!O 't!lg6 19..ie3 h4 20.l0c5 left White two pawns ahead in Havasi - Defosse, Stockholm Olympiad 1937) 1 2 .h3 ( 1 2.ixc6+ bxc6 13.0 .ih3 14.l0g2 h5 1 5 .'t!tc2 h4 1 6.c5 .ie5 1 7.f4 hxg3 18.hxg3 hg2 19.�g2't!lb6 20.fxe5 't!ih2+ 2 1 .<M3 mt3 saw Black triumph in Rossi - Lanzan i, Bratto 1 994) 12 ... 1h 5 1 3 .'t!td5 g5 (13 .. .ig6? 1 4 .'t!tb5 0-0 1 5 .l0xg6 't!lxg6 1 6.'t!lxb7 l0cd4 1 7.e3) 14.'t!lh5 gxh4 15.'t!txb7 0-0 16.'t!lxc6 .be2 17 _gel 1d3 18.�e3 ( 1 8.gxh4 't!lxh4) 1 8 ... hxg3 19.hxg3 ic2 20.c5 ie5 21 .'t!id5 �8 (2l .. .ixb2 22.ixb2 't!lxb2 23.'t!ld2 �d8 24.'t!it2) 22.'t!txe5 !:kit+ 23.c;tb2 't!lt2 24.h4 .if5 25.g4 .ixg4 26.id2 �xal 27.lOxal 't!lxd2 28�3 h5 29.'t!ixh5 f5 30.'t!lg6+ lOg? 3 1 .b4 l"ie8 32l0b3 't!lt2 with enough play in each case, Gutman.

F) 8 ... 0-0 ! ? 9.0-0 is more tempting:

Fl) 9 ...'t!fffi IO.l0b3 (lO.�bl ?! a5 l l .lLiel �e8 12.e4 't!lg6 1 3 .b3 f5 14..ia3 fxe4 1 5 . .hc5 .bc5 16.ltlxe4 �e4 17.'t!id5+ �. Comas - Vega, Antwerp 1992) IO...ltlxb3 (IO . . ..ie6 transposes to 8 ..ie6 9.0-0 't!fffi IO.ltlb3 0-0 - D) l l.'t!lxb3 .ic5 12..id2 .if5 13.ic3 't!le7 14.e4he4 1 5�1 f5 1 6.ltld2 ltld4 17.ixd4hd4 1 8.ltlxe4 fxe4 1 9�e4 't!lc5 20.'t!lc2 &e8 2 1 .b4 't!lf5 22.�xe8 I :0 Pokorny - Weil, Munich Olympiad 1936; Fl) 9 ....ie6 10.b3 (I O.ltlb3 't!ff6 see F1) IO ...'t!ff6 l l ..ia3 ( l l .�b l .if5 12 ..ib2, Becker - Manthey, Germany 1 995, 12 ... 't!lh6) l l . . .'t!lh6 ( l l .. .a5 12 ..ixc5 .ixc5 1 3 .ltle4) 12.b4 ltld7 13.b5 .ixa3 14.bxc6 bxc6 1 5 .'t!ta4 favours White, Gutman; F3) 9..Ee8! IO.ltlb3 (IO.ltlbl ltle4 l l .ltlfd2 ltlxd2 1 2.ixd2 .ig4) IO ... ltlxb3 (lO...'t!fffi l l ..ie3 ltla4 12.ltlbd4, Nepustil) l l .'t!lxb3 .ic5 (both I I .Ae6, Casas - Benko, Mer­ cedes 1 975, 12.'t!txb7 ltla5 13.'t!le4 .ixc4 14.'t!lf5 c6 15.id2, and l l ..�e2 12.l0g5 �e7 13.'t!lc2 g6 1 4.l0e4 �e8 15 .ig5 .ie7 1 6.�dl l0d4 17 ..ixe7.�xe7 1 8.'t!ld3 �d7 19.l0c5 are worse) 1 2 ..ig5 f6 1 3 .�adl 't!le7 14.if4 (1 4..id2 a5 1 5 .�fe I a4) 14 ... a5!? (14 ...g5 15.J.e3 .be3 16.'t!lxe3 't!lxe3 17.fxe3 �g7 1 8.�f2 a5 19.b3 a4 20.l0d4 l0e5 2 1 .h3 c6 22.l00 \12-\12 Esposito ­ Flores, Mar dei Piata Zonal l95 1 ) J5 _gfel a4 1ooks fully adequate to me, Gutman.

1 09

•

•

Back to the main line

8..lgl 8 .'t!lc2 l0b4 9.'t!lbl 't!ff6 (JoanSegura mentions 9 ...g6? IO.a3 i5 l l .axb4 ixbl 1 2 .bxc5 't!txc5 1 3 .Hxb l .tg7 1 4.b4 't!ff5 1 5 .e4 't!le6 1 6..tb2 hb2 17.fub2) IO.e4 ( I O.a3 .tf5) 1 O .. ..ig4 and Black holds the initiative, Gutman. s ....lrs 8...J.e6 9.(}.0 (9.l0g5 ().()..() IO.l0xe6 't!lxe6 1 1 .0-0 h5) 9 ... 0-0-0 IO.b4 l0xb4 l l ..ia3 't!lb6 (l l ...l0c6 12..m,t 't!ld7 13..ixc5 ixc5 14.'t!la4!?) 1 2.Hb l ltle4 1 3 ..txb4 .txb4 1 4 .'t!la4 l0 xd2 1 5 .Hxb4 't!la6 16.l0xd2 't!lxa4 1 7..ixb7+ <;t>b8 1 8.fua4 <;t>xb7 19. l0b3 with advantage for White, Segura. 9.0-0 Alternatives: I) 9.a3 't!ff6 (for 9 ... a5 see 5.l0g0 l0c6 6.a3 a5 7.g3 d6 8.exd6 't!lxd6 9..ig2 .i.f5 Section 5, Sequel I ) 1 0 .0-0 0-0-0 goes into the main line; II) 9.l0h4 .te6 1 O..txc6+ 't!lxc6 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 ( l l ....ie7 12 .ltlhf3 .tf6 1 3 .'t!lc2 g6 14.Hel 0-0 15.e4 Had8 16.Hb l a5 1 7.b3 l0d3 1 8.He3 l0 b4 1 9.'t!ldl l0xa2 is also good, Har1mann - Hoo1rnann., corr 1 995) 12.'t!lc2 .th3 13l!el .te7 (13_g5!? 14.l0hf3 g4 1 5.'t!tf5+ <;t>b8 16.b4ig7 17..m,) l(}e6 18. b5 't!le8 19..m,3 h5 20l!d3 Y2-Y2 Schmidt ­ Kampfhenkel, corr 1979, but Black can play on with 20 .. . gxf3 2 1 .'t!lxh3 l0d4!?)

14.l0df3 (1 4.l0hf3 .tf6 1 5 .Hb l l0e6 1 6. e4 h5 17.b4 h4) 14 .. .ixh4 15.l0xh4 l0e6 16 ..te3 l0d4 ( 1 6 ... f5? 1 7.f3 HhfB 1 8 . b4 l0d4 19 .'t!lc3 g5 20..ixg5 I : 0 d e Lange van der Weyer, corr 1989) 17 .'t!lc3 l0f5 1 8.l0f3 Hhe8 1 9.Hedl Hxd l + 20.Hxdl l0xe3 2 1 .fxe3 f6 seems equal, Gutman. 9... 0-0-0 9....ie7!? is probably not weaker, we see : I) I O.a3 .tffi I I .Ha2 (}.0-0 1 2.b4 l0e4 and White is overwhebned, Gutman; II) I O.e4 .tg4 ( 1 0 ... l0xe4 l l .l0h4 hh4 12.l0xe4 't!lxdl 1 3 .Hxdl gives White an edge) l l .l0b3 ( l l .h3 .te6 1 2 .a3 0-0-0 1 3 .'t!lc2 l0d4) l l ...'t!lxdl 1 2 .Hxdl l0xb3 1 3 .axb3 l0e5 14.l0xe5 .i.xdl 1 5 ..th6 .tffi (15 .. ..ixb3 16..ixg7 Hg8 17 .J.h6 a5 looks worth trying) 1 6 .l0d7 <;t>xd7 17.Hxdl + <;t>e7 1 8..if4 :!:llid8 19.Hel .i.xb2 20..ixc7 Hd7 2 1 .J.a5 <;t>tB 22.e5 He8 23..ib4+ <;t>g8 24.f4 Hd3 25 ..txb7 .td4+ 26.<;t>g2 fub3 27 ..tc6 Hb2+ 28.<;t>f3 Hc8! (instead of 28 _goo 29.id6 f5? 30.&2 fue2 3 I .<;t>xe2 Hh6 32..id5+ <;t>h8 33.h4 a5 34.e6 .tf6 35.c5 .td8 36.c6 Hf6 3 7 .e7 1 :0 Reti ­ Richter, Munich 1 94 1 ) 29.e6 (29 ..td7 Hxc4 30 ..td6 .tc5) 29 .. .f5 30 .g4 Hf2+ 3 l .<;t>g3 Hc2 32.Hdl Hxc4 33 ..td7 Hb8 leaves White in trouble, Gutman; III) IO.ltlbl 't!le6 (not 10 ...0-0-0? l l .'t!lxd6 fud6 1 2.l0c3 h5 1 3 .l0d5, Najdorf- Ros­ setto, Buenos Aires 1 94 1 ) l l .ltld4 (on l l .'t!td5 Black plays I I ...Hd8 1 2 .'t!lxe6 ixe6 13.l0bd2 .tffi 14.Hbl a5 1 5 .b3 .tc3 1 6..ia3 l0b4) l l ...l0xd4 1 2.'t!ixd4 0-0 1 3 . l0c3 c6 1 4 ..tf4 Hfe8 15 .Had l l0a6 with active play for the pawn, Gutman. lO.aJ Practice has seen three more moves: I) I O.l0g5 't!tffi l l ..ixc6 bxc6 1 2.l0gf3 g5 13 .e4 .th3 1 4.e5 't!lt5 1 5.He l l0d3 and Black won, Hildago - Hohns, corr 1990; U) I O.b4 l0xb4 ( I O ... 't!ff6 l l ..ta3 't!lc3 12.'t!lcl 't!lxcl 13llfxcl �6 14�2 �b4 1 5.a3 ltla6 1 6.ltlb3 ffi 1 7.ltlfd4 l0xd4 1 8.

1 10

_

.ixd4 with equal chances; however, note that l l .bxc5 't!/xal l2 .'t!/a4, Minev, 1 2 ... 't!ff6 l 3.l0b3 h6 can only benefit Black) l l ..ib2 't!lb6 ( l l ...l0c6!? l 2 .l0b3 't!/xdl l 3 �fxdl �dl+ l4.�dl l0xb3 l5.axb3 f6) l 2.l0d4 .ih3 l 3..ixh3+ 't!/xh3 l4.a3 l0ba6 1 5 .'t!/c2 h5 1 6.1020 f6 I U�ad l .id6 l 8.l0f5 l0e6 l 9.l:�d5 .ic5 (instead of 19 ... l0ac5? 20.lUd l 't!l g4 2 1 .g ld4 l0xd4 22.gxd4 l0e4 23.'t!/xe4 't!/xe4 24.gxe4, Gereben - Moehring, Hungary - Hol­ land, Budapest 1 947) 20 .. gfdl 't!/g4 is OK fer Black, Gutman; ID) IO.b3 is a solid continuation which can be met in four ways: A) IO ....ie7 l l ..ia3 g5 ( l l ...9h6 l2.'t!/cl a5 l 3 ..ixc5 .ixc5 l 4.a3, e.g. l4 ... ghe8 l 5 .e3 with b3-b4 to follow or l 4. . . l0d4 l 5 .l0xd4 hd4 1 6.&2) l 2.b4 l0e6 1 3 .c5 't!/d7 l4.b5 (Most theoretical works state that l4.'t!/a4 'it?b8 l5.b5 l0cd4 l6.l0e5 is decisive, e.g. l 6... l0xe2+ l 7.'it?hl 't!/xd2 l 8.l0c6+ bxc6 1 9.b6 or l 6...'t!/e8 l 71tacl l0xe2+ l 8.�h l , when both l 8 ... l0 6d4 l9..ixb7 c;!nc.b7 20.'t!/a6+ 'it?a8 2 l .b6 cxb6 22.cxb6 l:ld7 23.l0xd7't!/xd724J:k7 't!/d5+ 25.f3 l0b5 26..ixe7 g4 27�6 l :0 Faure ­ Meyer, corr l96 l , and l 8 ... l0xcl l9..ic6 't!/f8 20.hb7 l0d4 2 l .b6 cxb6 22.cxb6 axb6 23.'t!/a8+ rt1c7 24fucl + .ic5 25.'t!/a6 ltx:2 26.te4 are losing. Nevertheless, we can improve with l 6...'t!/xb5, e.g. l7.l0c6+ bxc6 l 8,gfb l hbl l 9.�bl l0xe2+ 20. �hl 't!/xb l+ 2 l .l0xbl l02d4 22.'t!/c4 g4 or l7.'t!/xb5 l0xb5 l 8..ib4 .b.c5 l 9..ixc5 �d2 20.l0xf7 ge8) l4 ... l0b8 l 5 .c6 bxc6 l 6.bxc6 l0xc6 17 .'t!/a4 l0b8 l 8.'t!/xa7 and White wins, Gutman; B) 10 't!/ffi l l ..ia3 l0e4 l2.l0xe4!? (this is more consistent than l 2 . .b.f8 ghxf8, given by Minev, l 3.10xe4 .ixe4 l4.'t!/cl gfe8) l2 ....ixe4 (12 ..fudl l3.10xffi �al l4fual .ixa3 l 5.l0h4) l3.'t!/c l .ha3 14. 't!/xa3 g5 l 5 .&d l with good prospects for White, Gutman;

C) IO ...l0e4 l l .l0h4 l0xd2 l2..ixd2 .ig4 l3..ic3 (l3..if3 .ih3 l4..if4 't!ff6 l 5 .'t!/cl .ie7 l 6.l0g2 g5 is Faures analysis but l4 ...'t!/e7!? l 5 .'t!/c l .ixfl l 6.'it?xfl l0d4 looks more logical) l3 ...'t!/e6 ( l3 ...'t!/xdl l4�fxdl �dl+ 1 5fudl .ixe2? l6..ih3+ 'itb8 17..§el) l4..idS 't!/xe2 15.'t!/xe2 he2 l 6.gfe l .ih5 17 ..ixc6 bxc6 1 8 �e5 .ig6 19 .l0xg6 hxg6 20.gae I gives White the better endgame, Max Euwe; D) IO ...h5! l l .a3 ( l l ..ia3 't!lb6 l 2.'t!/cl h4 l 3.gxh4 l0e6 l4.e3 �d2 l5 .l0xd2 't!/xh4 l 6.l0f3 't!/h5 1 7 .h4 .ie4 1 8.l0el 't!/xh4 l 9.f3 l0cd4 20.exd4 .b.a3 2 l .'t!le3 .ic6 22.f4 l0xd4 0: I Sanchez - Starke, corr 1998) l l ...h4 l 2.b4 (l2.l0xh4 .ig4) 12 ... hxg3 13 .hxg3 l0e4 14.'t!lb3 't!/g6 1 5 .10xe4 .b.e4 l6..ie3 .id6 l 7.b5 l0e5 and Black dominates, Gutman.

•.

Ill

10 15'f6 Less challenging are: I) IO ...a5 l l .b4 goes into 5.l0gf3 l0c6 6.a3 a5 7.g3 d6 8 .exd6 't!/xd6 9..ig2 .if5 1 0.0-0 0-0-0 l l .b4, treated in Section 5, Sequel I ; II) IO .. ..ie7 l l .b4 l0e4 l 2 .'t!lb3, when: A) l2 ...l0c3 l3,gel l0d4 l 4.'t!/xc3 ! (Saj­ tar - Moehring, Czechoslovakia -Hol­ land 1 949, went l4.l0xd4 't!/xd4 l 5 ..ib2 't!/xd2 l6 ..ixc3 't!lh6 l 7 .'t!/a4 a6 l 8 .b5) l4 ....if6 (if l4 ...l0c2 l 5 ..ih3 !) l 5 .l0xd4 hd4 1 6.'t!/f3, Gutman ; ••.

B) 12 ...�xd2 13 .i.xd2 .te4 14.ic3 .tf6 l Htad l 't!/e6 16 .b5 .hf3 17.ixf3 �d4 1 8.i.xd4 �d4 1 9fud4 hd4 20�1 �8 2 l ..td5, Maas - Richter, Berlin 1 950; C) 12 ....tf6 13 .�xe4 .txe4 14 .if4 't!/e7 15J:Iad l , Simonovic - Scherbakov, Par­ is 1 953; D) 12 .. h5 13.�e4 he4 14..tb2 (14..te3 h4 15 J:ladl 't!/g6 16Jhd8+ hd8 1 7 .b5 .txn 18.exf3 �e5 19.'t!/a4 hxg3 20.fxg3 't!/d3 2l .'t!/xa7 �xc4 22..if2 �d2 23.'t!/a8+ �d7, Scheltinga - van Geet, Amsterdam 1977, 24Jidl ! ?) 14 ...h4 15.c5 't!lb6 16. �Ud l hxg3 17.hxg3 ID\7 18fud8+ �xd8 1 9.'t!/a4 f5 20�1 c6 2 l .'t!/xa7, Ceteras ­ Reindennan, Sas van Ghent 1 992, are all better for White, Gutman.

l l.Ral Others: I) l l .�h4 .te6 ( l l ....te4? 12.�xe4 �xe4 l3 .'t!/c2 �g5 14.hg5 't!/xg5 15J:Ifd 1 left Black lost, Elliot - Le Clair, e-mail l996. However, I I ....tg4!? 12.&2 't!/e6 1 3 � .tx n 14.�hxf3 �e4 1 5 Jiel h 5 16.'t!/c2 �d2 17 .ixd2 h4 18 ..tf4 .te7 19.b4 ID\5 20.b5 �d4 2 l .'t!tc3 .tf6 22.�xd4 hd4 23.'t!/f3 hxg3 24.hg3 �k5 appears more logical, Gambit Tiger - Fritz 6, comput­ er game 2001) 12 ..txc6 bxc6 l3.'t!tc2 g5 1 4.�g2 ( 1 4.b4 gxh4 1 5.ib2 't!th6 offers Black good chances, e.g. 16.i.xh8 �d2 17.'t!lb l hxg3 18 .hxg3 't!/h3 1 9.bxc5 .tf5

20. e4 .txc5 2 l ..te5 .tg4 22.'t!tb3 't!/h5 23..tf4 .tn or 16.�f3 gg8 17 J:ladl hxg3 1 8.hxg3 �d7 19 .'t!/a4 .txc4!? 20.gxd7 �d7 2 l .'t!/xa7 �8 22.�d4 �8 23.'t!/b8+ gd8 24.'t!/xc7 't!/d6 25 .'t!/xc6+ 't!/xc6 26. �xc6 .txe2 21.ge 1 �1 0:1 List - Rich­ ter, Swinemuende 1932) l4_,.tf5 (After 14 .. ..tg7 White has a choice. Pracejus Koronowski, corr 1989, saw 15J:Ia2 't!/g6 16.b4 't!/xc2 17 fuc2 .tf5, when instead of 18.e4 �xe4 1 9.�xe4 .txe4, 1 8 Jta2 �4 19.�b3 �3 20J:Ib2 h6 2 l .�a5 might be tried; however, Black can do better with l5 _.i.fS 16.e4 .th3 17.0 't!/d4+ 18.�hl g4. I prefer 15.�e3! .th3 l6,gel h5 and now not 17 .�e4 �xe4 1 8.'t!/xe4 gd4 19.'t!/f3 't!/e6 20.gbl h4 2 1 .b4 hxg3 22.hxg3 � 23.�fl .tg4 24.'t!/g2 gxe2, Sonntag ­ Prevot, Bourbon-Laney 1998,but 17llbl h4 18.g4 ghe8 19 .�f3) 1 5 .e4 .th3 1 6.f3 ( 1 6.b4 �3 17J:Ia2 ig7 1 8.'t!/a4 �b8 19. &2 g4 20.b5 c5) 16 ...'t!/d4+ 17.�hl g4!? 18.fxg4 .txg4 with initiative, Gutman; m l l .'t!/el ge8 ( l l . ...td6 l2.ga2 ghe8 13.'t!/dl 't!/e7 14.b4 �e4 l 5 .�xe4 .txe4 16.'t!/a4 �b8 17..te3 and White won in Scholtz - Kratochwil, German Bundes­ liga 1 998/99. l l . ...tc2 1 2 .ga2 also fa­ vours White, e.g. 12...�b3 l3.�xb3 hb3 14.ih3+ �b8 1 5..tg5 't!/g6 16.�1 ffi 17. 't!/c3 or 12 ... &8 1 3.b4 �d3 14..th3+ �8 15.�e4 �xel 16.�xffi �xf3+ 17 .exf3 ge2 18.�e4 .td3 19fue2 he2 20..ge 1 �d4 2 l .�g5 �xf3+ 22.�xf3 .txf3 23,ge3) 12.'t!tdl gd8 is a repetition, Gutman. ll .. ..Abl l l ..� 12.�xe4 ( 12't!lb3?! ie7 13.�e4 .be4 14.ig5 't!/e6 1 5 .he7 't!/xe7 16.&81 �4 17.�xd4 hg2 18.�g2 �d4, Ha­ restad - Simonsen, Gausdal 2003) 12 ... .be4 13.'t!/a4 ie7 (13 ...h6 14.b4 't!/e6 15.b5, Ribas - Melchor, corr 1 994) 14.b4 't!/c3 15.b5 �a5 1 6..tf4 and Black is lost. ll.!at .tfs A draw is quite difficult to avoid. .

1 12

Section 7 (l.d4 �f6 :Z.c4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�d2 � cS) 5.b4!? �e6 6.a3

"The attack must lose no time, the defence no space", Emanuel Lasker. 6 b6 Alternatives: I) 6 .. J.e7 7 .i.b2 0-0 8.lt:\gf3 aS 9..lc3 ! ? axb4 I O.axb4 fbal I I .tyxal b 6 1 2 .e3 f:!e8 ( 12 ...lt:\a6 1 3.tyb2 f:!e8 14ie2 .lb7 1 5.0-0 tyaS 16.& 1 , Gref- Brause, com­ puter game 1997) 1 3 ..le2 !? .lb7 14.0-0 lt:\c6 15.�2 tyaS 1 6.&1 tycS 17.td3 h6 1 8 ..le4 with advantage, Gref- Brause, computer game 1 997; m6.. .d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.lt:\e4J.e5 9.tyxd8+ ft»ld8 10.&2 .15 l l .lt:lf.3 lt:lbc6 1 2.lt:\xe5 lt:\xeS 13.lt:ld2 lt:ldc6 14.e4 .ie6 1 5.f4 lt:\g4 16.lt:\f.3 0-0-0 1 7 .ru2 f:!de8 1 8 ..id3 lt:le3 19.c5 ft) ( 19 ..J.c4 20.e5 ffi? 2 l ..bc4 lt:\xc4 22.f:!c2 is mentioned by Stefan Buecker, Kaissiber I 61200/) 20.f:!e2 lt:\g4 2 l .h3 lt:\h6 22.';f;lf2 f:!d8 231id2 gave Black no compensation for the pawn, Hemnann Fajarowicz, Frankfurt 1 930; ID) 6...lt:\c6 7.lt:\gf.3 d6 8.exd6 .ixd6 (8... tyxd6 9J.b2 tye7 IO.e3 lt:lf4 l l .tyc2 .lg4 1 2 .0-0-0 lt:\g6 1 3 .h3 .le6 14.lt:lb3 b6 1 5 . lt:\bd4, Jacobsen - H eldarskard, Faroe 1 999) 9./.0e4 (also 9.i.b2 0-0 IO.e3 is not .••

easy to meet: I 0... tye7 l l .cS .if4, Josef­ Sjohan, internet 2002, 12.i.d3 .ih6 1 3 . tyc2 g 6 14.0-0, while I O. . .aS l l .b5 lt:lb8 1 2 .lt:\ e4 .le7 gives White a choice be­ tween 1 J .tyc2 fS 1 4.lt:\c3 .id6 1 5 ..le2 lt:\d7 1 6.0-0 lt:\gS 17.lt:\xg5 tyxgS 1 8 .f4 �6 19.lt:\a4 lt:\c5 20..id4 lt:\e6 2 l ..ib2 lt:\c5 22.lt:\xc5 hcS 23Jd4, Solozhenkin van de Fliert, Berga 199 3, and I J.ty xd8 f:!xd8 14J.e2 5 1 5 .lt:\c3 .if6 1 6.0-0 lt:lcS 1 7.goo I) 9 .. J.e7 (9 ...0-0 I O.lt:\xd6 cxd6 l l .e3 tye7 12ie2 lt:\c7 13.h3 .le6 14.0-0 f:!ad8 I SJ.b2 d5 1 6.c5, Back - Markus, corr 1 995) I O.tyxd8+ .lxd8 l l ..ib2 b6 12.e3 .lb7 1 3.lt:\c3 .i16 14.0.0.0 ().() I S.lt:\dS is in White's favour, Wabschke - Lenz, Germany 1995; IV) 6...c5 7.b5 d 6 8.exd6 tyaS (8 ...lt:\d7 9.lt:\e4 lt:\f6 IO.ft»lffi+ tyxf6 1 1 .�2 tyc3+ 121id2 .ixd6 13.i.b2 tya5 14.e3) 9..lb2 .lxd6 I O.e3 0-0 was recommended by Buecker, Kaissiber 161200/, but l l .tyc2 f:!d8 12.td3 lt:lt8 1 3 .lt:\gf.3 keeps an edge for White, Gutman ; V) 6 ...a57.b5 , when: A) 7 ...d6 8.exd6 .lxd6 is a typical reply.

We examine: AI) 9.lt:\gf.3 lt:lcS (9 ... 0-0 is met by the annoying l O.lt:\e4 ! ? .le7 ( l .tyxd8 f:!xd8 12J.b2 b6 13.e3 .ib7 14.lt:\c3 lt:\c5 15ie2. More appealing is 9 ..,tyf6 1 0.&2 lt:\c5 l l .e4 tyg6!?, while O'Connor - Gibson, 1 13

Dublin 1 994, proceeded l l ...�bd7 1 2 . .le2 �eS 1 3 .�xeS .lxeS 1 4 .0-0, when instead of 14 .. ..le6 I S.\!Mc2 0-0-0 1 6.a4 mte8 17.�f3 h6 18..le3, 14 ...0-0 I S.\!Mc2 ges could have been tried) I O.e3 ( I O.g3 \!Me7) I 0 ...0-0 1 1 .1b2 \!Me7 (if l l ....ifS 1 2 .�b3 �a4 13 .1xg7! �xg7 14.�d4) 12 ..le2 1f5 13.0-0 �bd7 14 .�b3 gfd8 (14 .. .a4 I S.�xcS �xeS is not bad either, e.g. 1 6.\!MdS .le4 17.\!MhS .ig6 18.ti'h4 ffi, Ruckschloss - Vlasin, Czech Republic 1992) IS.�xcS �xeS 16.Jd4 �7 1 7lla2 gadS with a balanced position, Gutman; Al) 9. .ib2 �d7 (9 ...0-0 I O.�e4 \!Me7 I I . �xd6 gds 12.\!Mc2 �d6 13.e3 �d7 is no better, for instance 14.�f3 �ecS IS..ie2 �f6 1 6.0:0 or 14..ld3 h6 I S .E!dl �ecS 16.�f3 �ffi 17..le2, Sanders - Storgaard, e-mail l 998) I O.�gf3 �deS (if 1 0 ...0-0 l l .g3) l l .e3 ( l l .g3 !? \!Me7 12..lg2) I I ... 0-0 (Black is OK: the e6-knight har the c5 square while the other comes to f6 or e5, Otto Borik) 1 2..le2 b6 ( 1 2... f5 1 3 .0-0 �e4 is innocuous due to 14.�xe4 fxe4 I S.�d2 �cS 16.�xe4) 13.0-0 .lb7 goes back into the main line, Gutman; AJ) 9.�e41e7 (9.. ..teS I O.\!Mxd8+ �xd8 l l .gu .if'S, AnatoU MIIISukevich, is met by 1 2.�f3! �d7 13.�xeS �xeS 14.�d2. 9 ... 0-0 IO .�xd6 is even worse, we see 10 ...\!Mxd6 1 1 .\!Mxd6 cxd6, Wittal - Blankenberg, corr 200 1 , 1 2..le3 �d7 13.�f3 �deS 14.gdl or IO ...cxd6 1 1 .e3 \!Me7 1 2. .lb2 �d7 1 3 .�e2 !? �ecS 1 4.�f4 �f6 I S ..le2 &8 1 6.0-0 .if5 17.\!Md4 �b3 1 8. �dS �xd4 19.�xe7+, Blitzmich - Peze, internet 2002) IO .\!Mxd8+ .lxd8 l l ..ib2 b6 1 2 .�f3 .lb7 1 3 .�c3 .itO 14.e3 �d7 I S ..ie2 clearly favours White, Gutman. B) 7 ...b6 (a modem way to play given by Borik) 8.�gf3 (in case of 8.�df3 .lb7 9.�h3 is 9._g6 IO.�f4.lg7 1 1 .�xe6 dxe6 1 2.\!Mxd8+ �xd8 13 ..lb2 �d7 14.0-0-0 �e7 IS.�e I mtd8 16.�d3 c6 the correct answer, while Hubert - Voekler, Ger-

many 1 990, went 9 ... d6 I O.�f4 �xf4 l l .i.xf4 1xf3 12.gxf3 �d7 13..th3 �xeS 14.\!MdS .le7 I S ..ixeS dxeS 16.\!Mc6+ �f8 17 ,gdl .ld6 1 8.cS!? bxcS 19.b6 \!Me8 20. .id7 ti'h8 2 1 .b7) 8 ...1b7 9.e3 transposing into the main line, Gutman. 7.�gt3 J.b7

8.e3 Other possibilities: I) 8.e4 a5 9 .bS d6! (9 ... gS I O.h3 .lg7 I I . .lb2 �cS 12.\!Mc2) I O..ib2 �d7 I I .exd6 1xd6 1 2.\!Mc2 (1 2.eS .le7 1 3 .\!Mc2 �deS) 12 ... 0-0 and I like Black, Gutman; m 8.g3 a5 (8...�c69..lb2 a5 I O.bS �d4 fails to l l .�xd4, e.g. I I ....ixh l 12.�xe6 dxe6 1 3.f3 .lcS 14.�e4 .le3 1 S .�f2 or l l ...�xd4 12..lxd4 1xhl 1 3.f3) 9.bS d6 I O..ib2 �d7 l l .exd6 .lxd6 1 2 ..lg2 0-0 13.0-0 �ecS (13 ...�dcS 14.\!Mc2 geS can be rnet by IS .gfe l \!Me7 1 6.e4!?) 1 4.\!Mc2 \!Me7 (less precise is 1 4 ... ge8 I S.e3, e.g . IS...�ffi 16.�gS, I S ...l0e4 1 6.�gS \!MxgS 17.l0xe4 \!Mg6 18.�ffi+ or I S ...h6 1 6.�d4 .lxg2 1 7.�xg2 �eS 1 8 .�2f3 �xf3 1 9. �f3 \!Me7 20..md l ) ISJ!fel �eS 16.lOxeS .lxg2 1 7.�xg2 .lxeS 1 8 ..lxeS \!MxeS is double edged, Gutman; Ul) 8..lb2 g6 (8 ...d6 9.exd6 .ixd6 I O.e3 returns to the main line, while 8 ...aS 9.bS g5 IO.\!Mc2 g4 1 I .� �xd4 1 2..lxd4 .lg7 1 3.cS ! was a disaster for Black in Badkarma Maxxx, internet 2002) 9.e3 -

1 14

(9.g3 !? .tg7 l O ..tg2 is also promising, e.g. 10 ...� e7 1 1 .0-0 ll:lc6 12 .ll:le4 0-0-0 13.�c2 h6 1 4.c5 g5 1 5 .b5 ll:la5 1 6.cxb6 axb6 17.ll:ld6+, Coret Frasquet - Albert Garrote, Valencia 1998, or 10 ...0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e7 12.�c2 ges 13.ll:le4 .txe4 14.�xe4 ll:lc6 15_gfd l ll:ltB 16.�c2) 9 .il.g7 lO.il.e2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e7 1 2.�c2 &8 13.ll:le4 he4 14.�xe4 ll:lc6 1 5�1 ( l 5 .c5 bxc5 1 6.b5 ll:lxe5 17.ll:lxe5 ll:lg5 18.�d3 he5 19.il.xe5 �xe5 20.�xd7 gadS 2 l .�g4 ll:le4, im­ proving on 15 ...a5 1 6.cxb6 cxb6 17 .il.c3 &c8 18.gfdl ll:lf8 19.bxa5 bxa5 20.gd5 ll:le6 2 l .h3 ll:lc7 22.gd2 d5 23.�a4, Ca­ posciutti - Toulzac, Montecatini Terme 1 998) 1 5 ... ll:ltB 1 6.gd5 f6 1 7.c5 ll:l xe5 18 .ll:lxe5 fxe5 19.lUdl maintains an edge for White, Gutman. s...as Some examples of other moves: I) 8 ... g6 9 ..tb2 see 8 . .tb2g6 9.e3 ; II) 8 ...g5 9..tb2 a5 (9 ... ll:lc6 is ruled out by l O.ll:le4 .tg7 l l .ll:lf6+ .txffi 1 2 .exf6 d6 1 3 .�c2 g4 14.ll:lh4 �d7 15 ..te2 h5 1 6 .0-0, Hauser - Krug, Germany 2002. After 9.. .il.g7 White has a choice between l O.ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 l l .exd4 �e7 1 2 .�e2 ll:lc6 13 .h4 h6 14 .hxg5 hxg5 1 5 _gxh8+ .txh8 1 6.g3 0-0-0 1 7.0-0-0, Saksgard - Gun­ dersen, Namses 1995, and lO..id3 !? g4 l l .ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 2.exd4 .txg2 13 .ggl .th3 14..ie4 c6 15..if5 h5 1 6.ll:le4) 1 0.b5 .tg7 l l .�c2 ( l l .h3 �e7 1 2 .�c2 ll:lc5 1 3 .J.e2 is not bad either, Fownarakos - Papas­ tavropoulos, Athens 200 1 ) l l ...g4 12. ll:ld4 ll:lc5 1 3 .ll:l f5 ( l 3 . ll:le2 d6 14.ll:lg3 .txe5 1 5 . .txe5 dxe5 and Black's pos­ ition is preferable,Borik) 13...�g5 14.h4 �g6 1 5 .h5 with pressure, Gutman; lli) Lll:lc6 9.ib2 a5 (9 ...d6 10.exd6 hd6 l l .il.e2 0-0 12.ll:le4 .te7 1 3.�c2 �e8 14. O-O ll:lcd8 15.ll:lg3 a5 16.il.c3 axb4 17.axb4 ll:lc6 1 8l!abl � 19..id3 h6 20.ll:lf5 �8 2 l .ll:lxh6+ led to a crushing defeat for Black, Lemke - Horstmann, corr 1 995. •

Also 9 ...�e7 is hardly viable for Black, e.g. lO.il.e2 Q-0...0 l l .c5 g5, Behm - Kmg, Germany 2002, 1 2.cxb6 axb6 13.0-0, or lO.Jd3 a6 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 12.c5 bxc5 13.�a4 ll:lb8 14.b5 axb5 15.il.xb5, Malmstrom ­ Wittal, corr 2001) lO.b5 ll:le7 l l ..id3 (in­ stead of l l .g3 h5 12 ..tg2 g5 13.ggl �c8 14.ll:ld4 ll:lc5, Brechten - Roeberg, Ger­ many 1989) l l ...ll:lc5 1 2 .il.c2 ll:l g6 13 .0-0 .te7 14..if5 0-0 1 5 .�c2 gives White the advantage, Gutman; IV) 8...d6 9.exd6 hd6 1 O.J.b2 0-0 l l .il.e2 a5 12.b5 ( 1 2..tc3 is less clear due to 12 ... axb4 13.axb4 ml l4.�xal �e7 15.�1 ll:la6 1 6.b5 ll:lac5) 12 ...ll:ld7 goes back to the main line. 9.bS d6 9 ... ll:lc5 lO.J.e2 .te7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12.J.b2 f6 1 3 .exf6 .txffi 14.J.xffi gxf6 1 5 . ll:ld4 d6 1 6 ..tf3 .txO 1 7 .ll:l2xf3 occurred in Caissa - Blitzmich, internet 2002. 10.exd6 lO..ib2 ll:ld7 l l ie2 dxe5 (on l l ...ll:lxe5 12 .ll:lxe5 dxe5 White plays 13..if3 .txO 14.�xf3 f6 15_gd l ) 12 .ll:lxe5 ll:lxe5 1 3 . .txe5 .txg2 14.ggl .tb7 1 5 ..tf3 .txO !? 1 6.�xf3 ffi 1 7 .il.c3 .te7 leaves Black in control, Gutman. 10....txd6 ll.i.bl 0-0 l l.i.el �d7 13. 0-0 �deS 14.1fcl 14.ll:ld4 �h4 15.g3 ll:lg5 !? 16.ll:lc6 �h6 17.ll:lf3 .txc6 18.bxc6 &d8 1 9 .�c2 and White is only marginally better, while Engels - Keller, Wien 1 939, went 1 5 ... mu 1 6..if3 .txn 1 7.ll:l2xf3 &d8 18.�c2 f5 1 9�dl gde8 20.ll:lxe6 ll:lxe6 2 l .�h l f4 22.ll:lgl �h6 23.gxf4 g5 24.ll:lf3 �h3 25.ll:lgl � 26.0 gxf4 27.e4 ll:lc5 28.ll:le2 &6 29.ggl + gg6 30.�d2 �3 31 .� d5+ �e6 32_gxg6+ hxg6 33.�d4 �f7 34.e5 g5 35 .exd6 �xe2 36.�g7+ 1 :0. 14-Be7 1Sllfel !ad8 16Jiadl Black will be hard pressed to justify his material deficit, Gutman.

1 15

Chapter 1 (l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS 3.dx.eS �e4 4.�dl) 4 .J.b4!? ••

S � 6.g3 .ixd2+ (6....icS? 7.e3 ltlxf2 8.'i!;lxf2 �6 9.ltldf3 occurred in Guag­ liana Giuseppe - Canelli, Asti 1997, and if6 ltlxd2?, then not 7.gxh4? ltlf3 mate Mueller - Benzinger, M1mich 1 933, but 7.axb4 �e4 8.0, An11toli M11tsukevich) 7 ..ixd2 �e7 (7...�S 8.ltlf3 ltlc6 9 ..if4 g5 I O ..ie3 g4 l l .ltld2 ltlxd2 1 2 .�xd2 �xeS 1 3 ..ig2 with advantage for White, while Schmidt - Kruger, G ermany 1 99 1 , continued 9..ig2 ltlxd2 I O .�xd2 ltlxeS l l .ltlxeS �xeS) 8.ltlf3 !? ltlc6 (after 8 ... ltlxd2 9.�xd2 ltlc6 Black has a tempo less, comparing to variations with 4.ltlf3 .ib4+ S ..id2 ltlxd2 6.ltlbxd2 ltlc6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 � e7 9.g3- Part 4, Chap­ ter 3, Section 2) 9..if4 �cS I O.Ae3 �xc4 l l .�d3 d5 12..ig2 �a4 13.0-0 .ie6 14.b3 �aS I S .b4 �a4 16.bS ltle7 17.ltld4 isn 't inspiring for Black, Gutman. 6.Ax.dl ••.

.•

lf4 ...ib4, then S.liH3 followed by a2-a3 secures the bishop pair for White, Ala:­ ander Akkhine. The problem with the latter move if that the simplification if not always favour­ able, even when it involves recapturing the pawn, if White obtoins the bifhop pair after exchanges on d2, Tim H11rding.

We divide the m11terilll into three sections: Section I - S .a3 Section 2 - S.g3 Section 3 - S.ltlf3. S .�c2 will transpose into 4.�c2 .ib4+ S.ltld2, treated in Part 2, Chapter 3, Sec­ tion 2. Section 1 S.a3 The immediate challenge to the bishop if the main independent possibility. Nevertheless it seems that Black need notfear this move, H��rding. s ...Ax.dl+

6...�c6 Alternatives: I) 6...�e7 7.ltlf3 (Mucklow - Taylor, corr 1 998, went 7.e3 �xeS 8..id3 d6 9.ltlf3 �e7 I O.h4 .ig4 l l .�c2, when l l ....if3 1 2 .gxf3 ltlxd2 1 3 .�xd2 ltld7 is good) 7 ... ltlc6 goes back into the main line; II) 6 ... 0-0 with a further split: A) 7.ltlf3 ltlxd2 (7 ... b6 can be met by 8 ..ib4 ! ? cS 9.�dS ltlc6 I O .�xe4 cxb4 l l .e3 .ib7 12..id3 g6 13.0-0) 8.�xd2 ( if 1 16

8 .l0xd2 l0c6 9.f4 d6 ! ) 8 ... l0c6 reaches a position after 4 ..!00 .ib4+ S..id2 l0xd2 6.l0bxd2 l0c6 7.a3 .lxd2+ 8.�xd2 0-0 Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 2 ; B) 7.J.e3 d6 (7 ... f5 8.l0h3 �e7 9.0 lOcS IO ..lxcS 'i!rxcS l l .�dS+) 8.0!? (8 .�dS .if'S 9.�xb7 is a daring reply in view of 9 ...l0d7 I O.exd6 l0xd6) 8 ...lOcS 9.exd6 cxd6 10..ixc5 dxcS I I .�xd8 lhd8 12�1. Gutman; similarly C) 7 .i.f4 b6 8..!00 (8.�dS .!OcS 9.'Wxa8? .ib7 I O.�xa7 l0c6) 8 .. .1b7 9.e3 aS 1 0 . .id3 l0a6 1 1 .0-0 lOac S 12.1c2 a4 13.l0d4 yields White a clear plus, Gutman. Ill) 6 .. .f6, indicated by Herman Stei­ ner, and now: A) 7..!00 fxeS 8 .g3 (8 .lOxeS is unsound due to 8 ... l0xf2 9.
IV) 6 ... l0xd2 7.�xd2 l0c6 (7. . .�e7 8.f4 g5 9 ..!00 g4 IO.lOgS b6 l l .l0e4, Brachtei ­ Notheisen, corr 1 994) 8.f4 (a similar position was treated wtder4.�c2 .ib4+ S.l0d2 l0xd2 6..ixd2 .lxd2+ 7.�xd2 l0c6 8.f4 Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 2; the only difference is that the white pawn stands on a3 now), to which Black has: A) 8 ...0-0 9..!00 (9.g3 d6 IO.exd6 cxd6 1 1 . .!00 \1:n)6 12.0-0-0 .if'S or 9.e3 ges IO.l0e2 d6 l l .exd6 cxd6) 9 ...d6 (Esnault ­ Zouaoui, corr 1 996, went 9 aS IO.e4 f6 l l .�d5+�8 12.� fXeS 13 .lOxeS .!OxeS 14.�xeS d6 I S.�gS �xg5 1 6.fxgS ges, but IO.e3 a4 1 1 ..Ad3 is critical) IO.exd6 cxd6 l l .e3 �b6 12.�f2 .ifS 1 3.b4 gfe8 14..id3 .ig4 1 S .lOgS !? h6 1 6.l0e4 gadS 1 7.l0c3 aS 18.lOdS �a7 1 9 .bS 1 :0 Arlandi - Isonso, Mantova 1 996; B) 8 ...�e7 9 . .!00 b6 IO.g3 .ib7 1 1 .ig2 0-0-0 12 .0-0 (12 .b4 d6 1 3 .exd6 gxd6) 1 2 . . .�cS+ 1 3 .�h l �xc4 14.gacl and White obtains the initiative, Gutman; C) 8 ...Ri 9.exRi �xffi I 0..!00 ( I O.g3!? is also reasonable, viz. I O ...d6 1 1 .1g2 .if5 12.gd l 0-0 1 3.l0h3 gae8 14.l0f2 �g6 IS.0-0 �h8 16 ..10 ge7 17 ,gc I gfe8 1 8. e4 .id7 1 9 .cS dxcS 20.gxcS h6 2 1 ..ihS �d6 22.gds I :0 Bastrakov - Beldugov, Russia 199S, while IO.e3d6 1 1 .l0e2 0-0 1 2.l0g3 geS 1 3 .0-0-0, ltter - Laure1es, e-mail 1 999, 13 ...aS 14 ..ie2 a4 I S .�b1 lOaS leaves White with no safe place for his king) 10 ... d6 (I 0 ... 0-0 l l .g3 d6 is a transposition, yet White has additionally l l .e3 ges 12.1e2 d6 13.gc1 .ig4 14.0-0 ge7 IS.h3 .if'S 1 6.cS dxcS 11.gxcS gae8 18.J.bS lhe3 19.lOeS :i:kl4, Silva Marcelo ­ Richard Andy, e-mail 1 999, 20.�dS+!? 1k6 2 1 ..ixc6 winning) l l .g3 0-0 (II..Jdi 1 2.gc1 0-0-0 13 ..ig2 dS 14.cS d4 IS .0-0 .idS 16.b4 l0e7 17 .bS c6 1 8.b6 a6 19.J.h3+ .ie6 20.f5, Czerwonski - Chrz, Litomysl 1 996) 12.1g2 .if5 13.o-o gae8 1 4.gfe l appears good for White, Gutman. -

.•

1 17

V) 6 ... d6 7.exd6 (7.lt:lf3 dxe5 is harmless. If 8.lt:lxe5, then not 8 .. :t!ld4 9.lt:ld3 .ie6 IO.e3"t!/ffi ll ikl lt:lc6 1 2."t!/f3 "t!/g6 13.lt:lf4 lt:lxd2 14."t!/xc6+ bxc6 15 .lt:lxg6 hxg6 16. �d2, Lieb - De Liberto, Bad Liebenzell 1996, but 8 ... lt:lxf2 9.�xt2 "t!/d4+ IO.e3 "t!/xe5 t t .ic3 "t!if5+ 12."t!/f3 0-0 13..ie2 ie6 14.Hadl lt:ld7. In case of 8 ..ie3 Black should avoid 8 ... "t!/e7?!, Harding, 9."t!/d5 lt:ld6 IO."t!/xe5 "t!/xe5 l l .lt:lxe5 ffi 12.c5 lt:lf5 13.lt:lc4 .k6 14.Hcl, and play 8 ..."t!/xdl+ 9.Hx dl f6 or 8 ... lt:ld7!? 9."t!/c2 fS IO.Hdl "t!/e7 1 1 .g3 0-0 12..ig2 lt:ldffi 1 3 .0-0, Ve­ sely - Melmuk, Bmo 1 987, 13 .. ..id7 14. lt:ld2 .ic6) 7 ..."t!/xd6 is more intriguing.

There are two possibilities: A) 8.lt:lf3 keeps more options open: At) 8 "t!lb6? 9..ie3 (instead of 9.e3 "t!/xb2, Otto Borik), Gutman; Al) 8 ... lt:lxd2 9."t!/xd2 "t!/xd2+ IO.lt:lxd2 (IO.�d2!? lt:lc6 l l .e3.ig4 12..ie2 � 13 .c;t>c3) IO ...o!Oc6 l l .g3 (l l.e3 .its 12�2 lt:le5 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.00 lt:lxf3+ 15..ixf3 Hd2 16.b4 ie6 112--'lz Knudsen - Galberg, corr 1 993) l l .. ..ie6 1 2 ..ig2 lt:ld4 13.& I 0-0-0 14.e3 lt:lf5 1 5 .lt:le4, Gutman; A3) 8 ... 0-0 9..ie3! (9..ib4 "t!ib6 or 9.e3 lt:lc6 to."t!/c2 �8 t t.id 3 .its, improving on 9 ... Hd8 to."t!/c2 .its l l .lt:lh4 "t!/xd2+ 12."t!/xd2 Hxd2 1 3.lt:lxf5 g6, Frantisek Nepustil, 14.lt:le7+ �tB 15.lt:ld5 lt:la6 16. f3) 9 ..."t!/e7 IO.g3 lt:lc6 l l ..ig2, Gutman; .•

A4) 8 ... lt:lc6 9.lt:lg5 (There is no argu­ ment for 9.b4?!, Savage - Hall, e-mail 2002, 9 ...0-0. Also 9�3 is less effective due to 9 ..."t!/ffi I O.lt:ld4 0-0, while after 9... .ie6 White has a fine rejoinder in to."t!/d3 fS I I .Hc I 0-0-0 12."t!/xd6 lt:lxd6 1 3.lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 14..ixd4) 9 ...lt:lxd2 (9 .. ..its I O.lt:lxe4 .ixe4, Battaglini - Cornette, France 1 9 99, l l ..ic3 "t!/g6 1 2 ."t!/d2 0-0 13.f3) to."t!/xd2 "t!/xd2+ ( I O..."t!/e7 t l .lt:lf3 0-0 1 2 .e3 .ig4 13 ..ie2 Had8 1 4 ."t!/c3 fS 1 5.0-0 f4 16 .Hae l or I O. . ."t!ff6 t t .lt:le4 "t!/e5 12.lt:lc3 0-0 13.lt:ld5 J.f5 14.Hdl Had8 1 5 ."t!/c3 "t!ie6 1 6.e3 h4 17 ..ie2 .ixd5 1 8. cxd5 Hxd5 1 9.Hxd5 "t!/xd5 20.0-0) 1 0... "t!/xd2+ l ! .�d2 h6 12.lt:lf3 (12.lt:le4 .ig4 13.f3 0-0-0+ 14.�3 mte8 15 .e3 fS 16.lt:lf2 Hxe3+ 17 ..id3? .ixf3 and Black won in Jensen - Nicolaisen, corr 1 988) 1 2 .. ..ig4 (Merlicek - Hrubos, corr 1988, went 1 2... .ie6 13.e3 0-0-0+ 1 4.�c3 Hhe8 1 5 ..ie2 g5 1 6.Had I f5 17 .Hxd8+ Hxd8 1 8.Hd I Hxdl 1 9..ixd l ) 13 .e3 0-0-0+ 1 4.�c3 are all awkward for Black, Gutman; AS) 8 ..."t!/f6! 9."t!/cl (9..ie3 lt:lc6 I O."t!/d5 lt:ld6 1 1 .0-0-0 .k6 12."t!/g5 "t!/xg5 1 3.lt:lxg5 .ixc4 1 4..ic5 0-0-0 1 5..ixd6 cxd6 16.e3 .ixfl t7 .Hhxfl Hd7 1 8 .Hd5 h6 1 9.lt:le4 �7 20.Hfdl l:llid 8 2 l .lt:lc3 was played in Legky - ToulZllc, Quentin 1999, yet 16 ... .ie6 equalises) 9 ...lt:lc6 (9 ... 0-0!? I O..if4 He8 l l .e3 lt:la6 12 ..ie2 g5 13.ig3 h5 is possible, while 9 ... lt:lxd2 to."t!/xd2 lt:lc6 l l .e3 0-0 1 2.Hcl Hd8 1 3 ."t!/c3 1eads no­ where) IO ..if4 ( 1 0..ic3 lt:lxc3 l l ."t!/xc3 "t!/xc3+ 1 2.bxc3 .ie6 13 .e3 lt:la5 1 4.Hbl 0-0-0 15.lt:lg5 mte8 16.lt:lxe6 Hxe6 17�2. Fernandez Torre - Boo Martin, Asturia 1 997, 17 ...g6) to .ie6 (instead of i O....ig4 t t ."t!/e3 0-0-0 12."t!/xe4: 12 .. ..ixf3 13."t!/xf3 "t!/xb2 14.Hc l Hd4 1 5.g3 Hxf4 16."t!/xf4 lt:ld4 17."t!/d2 "t!/xa3 1 8..ih3+ I :0 Mayer ­ Dausch, Germany 1 995, or 12 ...l:llie8 13. .ig5 Hxe4 14..ixffi gxf6 1 5.e3) l l .g3 0-0 12 ..ig2 lt:lc5 and Black is fme, Gutman. •

1 18

B) 8.ie3 !? 't!/e7 (if 8...ltlc6 9.f3 't!/xdl+

D) 7..i£4 't!/e7 (7...g5?! 8..ie3 't!/e7 9.'t!/d5 't!/xe5 IO.'t!/xe5 lt:lxe5 l l .f3!? lt:ld6 12.c5 lt:ldc4 13..ixg5 ggs 14..if4 ffi 15.b3 lt:la5, Tepi - EtcChess, internet 2002, 1 6.gb I ) 8.'t!/d5 lt:lc5 9.lt:lf3 lt:le6 10.Ad2 b6 l l ..ib4 lt:lc5 with enough counterplay, Gutman.

I OJ�xdl lt:ld6 l l .c5 lt:lc4 1 2..ic l ) 9.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 I O.g3 0-0 l l ..ig2 lt:ld6 ( I I . . .ie6 1 2.Wfc2 lt:ld6 1 3 .ic5 b6 14.hd6 cxd6 15.0-0 !:!ac8 16.'t!/d3 l:Ud8 17.b3 d5, Dau­ tov - Gutman, internet 2003 but 13..if4! lt:lxc4 14.lt:lg5 has more point) 1 2 ..ic5 gfd8 13.0.0 .ie6 14.lt:ld4!? lt:lxd4 15.Wfxd4 maintains an edge for White, Gutman.

7 ...'f!/e7

Others: I) 7 ... lt:lxe5? 8.lt:lxe5 lt:lxf2 9.�1'2 't!lh4+

Back to the main line

I O.g3 't!/d4+ l l .e3 't!/xe5 12.ic3 , Blaz­ quez - Rodriguez, Las Palm as 199 5; D) 7 ...d5 8.cxd5 (8.exd6 goes back into 6...d6 7.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 8.exd6) 8 't!/xd5 9..if4 (9.e3 lt:lxe5 I O.lt:lxe5 't!/xe5 l l .'t!/c2 lt:lxd2 12.'t!/xd2 0-0 is level, Porter - Moore, Alburquerque 1 997, but Black can try for more with 9 . ..ig4, e.g. I O..ie2 0-0-0 l l .lt:ld4? ixe2 1 2.'t!/xe2 lt:lxd4 13.exd4 lt:lxd2, Howard - Metge, Auckland 1996, or I O.ib4 't!/xd l+ J J .gxd l a5 1 2 .ic3 lt:lxc3 13.bxc3 hf3 14.gxf3 lt:lxe5 1 5.f4 lt:ld7) 9...'t!/c5 (9 ...ie6 IO.'t!/xd5 ixd5 l l.e3, Scholten - Frommherz, Germany 200 I ) IO.e3 0.0 l l.ie2 seems preferable for White, Gutman; III) 7 ...0-0 !? 8.if4 d6 (8 ...b6 9.'t!/c2 f5 I O.exf6 lt:lxf6 l l .e3 ib7 12.id3) 9.e3 (9.'t!/d5 dxe5 I O.lt:lxe5, Weber - Andre, corr 1 995, could be met by I O ...'t!/xd5 l l .cxd5 lt:le7 1 2 _gd I lt:l f6 1 3 .d6 cxd6 14.gxd6 ie6) 9 ...dxe5 (9 .. ..ig4 1 0.exd6 't!/f6 1 1 .'t!/c2 ht3 13.gxf3 lt:lxd6 14.0-0-0) I O.lt:lxe5 't!/ft) (IO ... lt:lxe5 l l .'t!/xd8 gxd8 1 2 ..be5 c6 13.f3 f6 14 .ig3) l l .lt:lxc6 't!/xb2 12.ltle7+ Wh8 1 3 ..ie2 ltlc3 ( 1 3 ... ig4 14.f3 lt:lc3 1 5.ie5 gfe8 fails to 16. gb) 't!/xb l 1 7 .ixc3 't!/xd l+ I S .Wxd l ) 14..ie5 lt:lxdl 15..ixb2 lt:lxb2 16.gbJ lt:la4 17.lt:lxc8&xc8 1 8.�b7 gbs 19� �8 20.0-0 lt:lc3 2 l .if3 c5 22.gxb8 gxb8 is close to equalising, Gutman; IV) 7 ... lt:lxd2 !? 8.'t!/xd2 't!/e7 see 4.lt:lf3 ib4+ 5.id2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lbxd2 lt:lc6 7 .a3 hd2+ 8.'t!/xd2 't!/e7 - Part4, Chapter 3, Sections 2/4. •.

7.�0

There are two more plans: I) 7..ie3 't!/e7 8.f3 lt:lc5 (Zoltai - Karker, corr 1989, went 8 ... lt:ld6 9.exd6 't!/xe3 I O.dxc7 0-0 1 1 .& 1 d6 1 2_gc3 't!lb6 1 3 .b3 't!/xc7 14.g3 Ae6 15.lt:lh3 't!/a5 16.b4 't!/e5 17 .'t!/d2 gadS 1 8.ltlf4 gfe8 1 9..ig2 with a plus for White, though I prefer l l .'t!/d2 't!/b6 12.lt:lh3 't!/xc7 1 3 .lt:lf4 lt:le5 1 4.e3 �8 15.lt:ld5) 9.f4 (against 9.b4 lt:le6 IO.f4 both I O ...d6 l l .exd6 cxd6 12 .ltlf3 0-0 13 .'t!/d2 lt:lc7!? 14.gdl ges 1 5 .if2 ie6 16.b5 lt:lb8 17.'t!/d3 d5 and IO ... ffi l l .lt:lf3 fxe5 12.fxe5 0-0 13.g3 b6 14.ig2 ib7 1 5.0-0 a5 16.b5 lt:lcd8 1 7.'t!/c2 lt:lt7 keeps control) 9...d6 I O..ixc5 (I O.b4 lt:ld7) IO ...dxc5 l l .e3 id7!? (1 1...0-0 1Hfb3 f6 13.exf6 gxf6 14..ie2 if5 1 5 .wf2 ges 16..if3 ie4, Little Goliath - Gambit Ti­ ger, computer game 200 I ) 12.lt:lf3 0-0-0, Gutman; further

1 19

Baumgartner, St. Wendel l 992) 1 2 .ic3 i.b7 1 3.�xe5 dxe5 1 4.f3 !ladS 1 5 .�c2 �xc3 1 6.�xc3 c5 with a slight edge for Black, Plattner - Fileman, internet 2002. 8...g5!

8..lf4

After S.e3 Black has little to fear: A) S ...0-0 9.id3 (9.�c2 �xd2 I O.�xd2

�xe5 l l .�xe5 �xe5 12.id3 d6 1 3.�c2 f5 14.0-0-0 .ld7 1 5 .h3 !labS 1 6.g4 b5 171ihg l 'it>hS I S.gx5 bxc4 19 .ie4 .h4 gave Black a winning position, Bellm ­ Sauer, Leimen 2001 ) 9...�xd2 I O.�xd2 �xe5 l l .�xe5 �xe5 see 4.�f3 .lb4+ "�..id2 �xd2 6.�bxd2 �c6 7.a3 .lxd2+ S.�xd2 �e7 9.e3 �xe5 I O.�xe5 �xe5 II Jd3 ()..() - Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 2; B) S ... b6 9..le2 (9.�c2 �xd2 IO.�xd2 .lb7 see 4.�c2ib4+ 5.id2 �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.�f3 �e7 S.a3 .bd2+ 9.�xd2 b6 I O.e3 .lb7 - Part 2, Chapter 3, Section I ) 9. ..ib7 10.0-0 �xd2 l l .�xd2 �xe5 with a transposition into 4.�f3 .lb4+ 5.i.d2 �xd2 6.�bxd2 �c6 7.a3 .bd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.e3 b6 IO.ie2 i.b7 1 1 .0-0 �xe5 Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 2 ; C ) S. . .�xe5 9.ie2 d6 10.0-0 0-0 ( 1 0 ... �xd2 l l .�xd2 0-0 reaches a position after 4.�f3 .ib4+ 5.id2 �xd2 6.�bxd2 �c6 7.a3 .bd2+ S.�xd2 �e7 9.e3 �xe5 10�2 ()..() 1 1 .0.0 d6 - Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 2) I I .& I ( l l .�c2 it3 1 2.�xe5 �xe5, as 12 ... �g3?, Voracek - Baum­ ruk, Klatovy 1995, is a blunder due to 1 3.Jd3 .bd3 14.�xd3) l l ... b6 ( 1 1 .. .15 12�1 a5 13.�4id7 14.�c2 5 is worth trying, but not 13 .. .ig6? 14.f4, Graeser -

Normal moves don't help: I) S ...0-0? 9.�d5 (more effective than 9.e3 g5 I O.ig3 �xg3 l l .hxg3 �xe5 12. �xe5 �xe5 13.�5 �g7 14.id3 5 1 5.f4 d6, Aldrich - Kitts, Germany 1999) 9... g5 IO.ie3 g4 l l .�xe4 gxf3 1 2.ih6 and Black has no defence, Gutman; II) 8...�c5 9.e3 brings Black no success either, e.g. 9 ... g5 (9...�a5+ I O.b4 �xb4 l l .axb4 �xb4+ 12.�2 a5 1 3 .�c2, Sieg­ mund - Moehring, Baden 2001 ) I O.ig3 h5 l l .�d5 �xd5 12.cxd5 �7 1 3.d6 �6 14.h3 cxd6 1 5 .exd6 !ih6 1 6.!id l , Sieg­ mund - Gutdeutsch, Leutersdorf 2000; ID) S ...d6 9.exd6 (9.�d5 !? may well be more potent 9 ... 5 IO.exd6 cxd6 1 1 .�4 �ffi 1 2.�xc6 �xd5 1 3 .�xe7 �xf4 14. �xeS !ixcS 1 5.e3 and if9 ...dxe5, then not I O.ixe5, Bujisho - Le Dref, Nantes 1 993, 1 0 ...5 ! l l .!idl i.e6 1 2 .�b5 0-0, but I O.�xe5 �xe5 l l .�xe5) 9... cxd6 I O.g3 ( I O.�d5 !?) I O ...i.e6 l l .!ic l 0-0 12.ig2 !ladS 13.0.0 g5 14.ie3 5 1 5.�d4 i.cS 1 6.�b5 (instead of 1 6.�xc6 bxc6 17.�a4 c5 IS.�dl i.b7 19.id2 f4 20.ia5 !id7, Weinberg - Schmidt, Caorle 19SS) 16 ... a6 1 7.�c3 �xc3 1Siixc3 f4 1 9.ib6 is clearly awkward for Black, Gutman; IV) S ... 5 9.h4 b6 IO.e3 i.b7 l l .id3 (also l l .�c2 0-0-0 1 2.0-0-0 h6 1 3 .h5 looks quite promising) 1 1 ...0-0-0 1 2 .�c2 h6 1 3.0-0-0 (1 3.h5!?) 1 3 ... !id� 1 4.h5 �c5 1 5.ix5 !ix5 1 6.�x5 �b4 17 .axb4 ie4 I S.!ixd7 �b3+ 19.\t>dl �xb4 20.�xe4 �5 2 1 .!ixc7+ and White won quickly, Olafsson - Olaffson, Reykjavik 1994; V) S ...h6 9.h4!? (9.�d5 is only a waste oftime since both 9...�g5 IO.�xg5 hxg5 l l .i.g3 a5 1 2 .b3 b6 1 3 .e3 i.b7, Tait ­ Corbin, Barbados 200 1 , and 9.-�c5 10. 1 20

e3 a5 I I �e2 b6 J2_gd I .ib7 1 3.0-0 0-0 14 ..ig3 a4!? are fme foc Black) 9 ...lt:lc5 IO.'�c2 ( IO.b4 is premature due to I 0... lt:le6 l l �g3 b6 1 2.e3 a5!? 1 3 .b5 lt:lcd8 14.lt:ld4 lt:lc5 15 ..ie2 lt:le4 1 6.lt:lf5 �f8 17 ..if4 .ib7 18�f3 lt:le6 19.'�c2 lt:l6c5, Dempsey - Forman, Bruege 1999) 10 ... lt:le6 l l ..ig3 b6 12.e3 .ib7 13..ie2 0-0-0 ( 1 3 .. J�g8 14.h5) 14.b4 g5 1 5 Jk l with advantage for White, Gutman .

1 6�xe7 .ixc4 17 �xc4 �xe7 was level in Gambit Tiger - An Mon, computer game 200 1 ) 16.�d3 gg8 17.0-0 (1 7.g3 gg7!? t 8.o-o b6 t9 ..ib4 gd7) 1 1 ...gd8 1 8.�b3 b6 19.�a4 .id7 20�b4 lt:ld4 2 1 . � dl .ic6 and Black is o n top, Gutman; D) 9.�c2 gxf4 (9 ... o!Oxf2? I O.hg5, e.g. I O...�c5 l l .b4 lt:ld4 1 2.'M>2 or I O...lt:ld4, when both l l .�d2 lt:le4 12be7 lt:lxf3+ 13.exf3 lt:lxd2 14.if6, Raff- Meyer, Ger­ many 1 997, and l l .lt:lxd4 �xg5 12.�xf2 �4+ 13.�e3 are winning) IO.�xe4 re­ turns to the main line. 9...gxf4

9 .. .f5 I O.exffi lt:lxf6 l l .�xg5 d6 1 2 .e3 ( 12.'�'h4 .if5 1 3.e3 0-0-0 14�g5, O'Con­ nell - Kill iane, Dublin 1 99 1 ) 1 2 ....id7 13.c5 0-0-0 14.cxd6 cxd6 1 5.gd) d5 1 6 . .ig3 gdf8 17 kl leavesBlack in trouble, Pichler - Schweiger, corr 1 990. 1 0.ti'xe4 d6 9.ti'dS

Two more moves are worth mentioning: I) 9�3 g4 IO.�d5 gxf3 (IO...lt:lxf2? loses to l l ..ig5 �e6 12.�xf2 gxf3 13.exf3) l l .�xe4 d6 ( l l ... fxg2 12 ..ixg2 �xe5 1 3 .�xe5+ o!Oxe5 14 ..id4 d6 1 5 .f4 gg8, Nepustil, 16.gg) gg4 17.fxe5 gxd4 18. exd6 cxd6 19 ..id5 �e7 20.gg8 gg4 is OK for Black, but as Hans Baum points out, 13�f4!? �xe4 14�xe4 d6 15 ..ig5 gg8 1 6�ffi h6 17.0-0-0 might be a good answer, viz. 17 .. ..ie6 1 8.m.g t �d7 1 9.b3 &e8 20�7 �gl 21fugl) 1 2.exf3 dxe5 1 3 . .ie2 f5 (Duemer - Kasperett, Ger­ many 1 99 1 , continued 1 3 .. �e6 1 4.f4! exf4 1 5.�xf4 0-0-0 1 6.0-0 gdg8, when instead of l 7.b4.ih3 1 8�f3 gxg2+ 19. �hi gg6 20_ggl IDtg8 Y:t-%., 17 _gfe I .ih3 1 8 ..ifl gxg2+ 19�xg2 gg8 20..ha7!? gxg2+ 2 1 .�hl would be decisive) 14. �d5 .ie6 15�5 ( 1 5 .�b5 0-0-0 1 6.0-0 f4 17 ..ic5 �g7) 1 5 ...�f6!? ( 1 5 ....ixd5

l l .ti'xf4

l l .g3 fxg3 (l l ...f5 1 2.�xf4 dxe5 13.�e3 J47 14Jg2 0-0-0 15.0-0 e4 16.lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 17.�xd4 �b8 1 8 .e3 h5 19.h4 mtf8 20.b4 .ia4 2 1 .'M>2 � turned out well for Black in Baur - Augustin, corr 1988) 12.hxg3 lt:lxe5 13.lt:lxe5 �xe5 14�g2 �f8 (better than 14...h6 1 5.0-0-0 �xe4 16be4 m,8 J 7.gh4 �f8 1 8.c5 dxc5 1 9 .gd8+ �g7 20.fuh8 �xh8 2 1 _gxh6+ �g7 22_gh7+ �g8 23.gh5 b6 24.g4, Janos Balogh) 121

11.1l'g5

e-mail 2002, went 13.b4 e4 14.ltJd4 ltJxd4 15.�xd4 � 1 6.�e3 �e5 J 7.gc) a5 1S.b5 .ie6 19.f4 �b2 20.g4 �a2 2 1 .�c3 e3 22. �xe3 hc4 23.�c5 id5 24,gg l , yet 14 ... �!? 15.ltJxc6 hc6 1 6.�xa7 b6 17.g3 �d7 would make this way quite risky) 13 ... e4 (13 ...0-0-0 14.g3 �e6 is also rea­ sonable, viz. 1 5.�c3 mt6+ 1 6.gd2 .lg4 1 7 ..lg2 e4 I S.ltJh4 lLld4 19.�bl ltJxe2 20,gxdS+ gxdS 2 1 .�e5 m6 22.1xe4 m3) 14.Ci:Jd4 Q..O..O 1 5.g3 (15.ltJxc6 hc6 16.gxdS+ gxdS 17 .�xa7 is suicidal due to 1Lb6 1 S.g3 �d7) 1 5 �c5 1 6.ig2 f5 1 7 .�bl �xc4 1 S.Ci:Jxc6 �xc6 19.�xa7 .id5 20.gd2 �a2+ 2 1 . �c I b6 22 ..ih3 � 231Dldl ga; 24.gd4 �a I+ 25.�c2 ti'a2, Gutman; further V) 1 2.mt4 .if5 ( 1 2...�e6?! J 3.gdl id7 14.b4 h5 1 5.b5 ltJa5 1 6.e3 f6 1 7 .c5 e4 IS.ltJd4) 13 .0-0-0 ggs 14.�xe7+ �xe7 looks fully viable to me, Gutman.

White has a choice of retreats: I) 12.�e4 .id7 1 3.e3 0-0-0 1 4.b4 f5 1 5. �c2 e4 1 6.ltJd2 mrlB 17.g3 ltJe5 IS..ie2 f4 1 9.gxf4 ltJd3+ 20..ixd3 exd3 2l .�c3 gxf4 22.gg l gf7 left White frustrated in Lupes - Badkarna, internet 2002; II) 12.�d2 e4 13.ltJd4 ltJe5 14.�c3 .lg4 1 5.h3 .ih5 16.ltJf5 �ffi 17.ltJg3 .lg6 IS. 0-0-0 0-0 1 9.h4 h6 20.e3 gfeS 2 1 .gd2 gadS is fine for Black, Weyerstrass ­ Beukmann, Interne Laren 1 973; ffi) 12.mt6 e4 (Riedmiller - Fitzinger, Vienna 1 942, went 12 ..J.d7 13.�g5 ti'e6 14.e3 h6 15.mt4 ggs 16.h3 Ci:Je7, when White could repeat moves with 1 7.�e4 l0::6 IS.mt4) 1 3.ltJd2 .id7 14.�f4 0-0-0 1 5.ti'xe4 ti'f6 16.�c2 Ci:Jd4 17.ti'c3 gheS I S.e3 (I S.e4 .la4 19.J.d3 ltJO+) IS .ic6 19 .Ci:Jb3 .lxg2 20.1xg2 gxe3+ 22.fxe3 mt4+ 23.�fl �f6+ 24.�el mt4+ with a draw by perpetual check, Gutman; IV) 12.�e3 .id7 13.().().0 (For 13.g3 ().().0 14.1g2 f5 see l l .g3 f5 12.�xf4 dxe5 13. �e3 lur1 14.ig2 ().().0, Bilsel - Kerekes,

Other defences fail to equalise: I) 1 2 ...�e6?! 13.�g7 grs I 4.ltJg5 �g6 1 5 .�xg6 hxg6 1 6.e3, Gutman; m 12 ...e4 13.�xe7+ (13.�g7 ruB 14.ltJg5 .if5 1 5 .ltJxh7 hh7 16.�xh7 0-0-0 1 7.g3 lLld4 I S.0-0-0 was played in Vasquez ­ Yabm, Siegen Olympiad 1970, but 17 ... ti'e5!? IS.1g2 f5 19.mt 6 ti'xb2 20.�c l �e5 is critical) 13...�xe7 14.ltJd2 f5 15.e3 (15.g3 Ae6 16_gcl &dS 1 7 J.g2, Crafty ­ Timm an, internet 199S, 17 ...ltJe5) 15 ..Je6 1 6.f4, Gutman; ffi) 12 ... .le6 1 3.ti'xe7+ (13.e3?! is less consequent in view of 1 3 .. .f6 14.mt5+ iJ.f7 15.mt4 0-0-0 16.J.e2 �bS!? 17.ltJd2 .lg6, improving on 1 6...e4 1 7 .Ci:Jd2 .lg6 IS.ltJb3 a5 19.0-0 a4 20.Ci:Jcl ltJe5 2 1.ltJa2 �g7 22.gad l , Burkart - Guffart, Ger­ many 1995) 1 3 ... �xe7 1 4.e3 gadS (if 14..1DlgS, then not 15.b4, Kekki - Haa­ piniemi, Kiljava 19S6, 15 ... f6!? 1 6.ltJd2 a5 1 7 .b5 ltJbS, but 1 5.ltJd2 f5 16.g3 e4 17.f4) 1 5.ltJd2 (15_gdl a5 1 6.b3 f5 17.J.e2

1 5.0-0-0 �g7 1 6.mt4 (1 6.\!�he5+ dxe5 17.l:�d5 ges t s.ghdl c6!? 1 9.gds .le6, Balogh) 1 6 .. .h6 1 7 _gd5 �f6 I S.�xf6+ �xfti 19.ilh4 gbs 201b.S a6 2 l .c5 dxc5 22ilxc5 c6 23.a4 1d7 24.�h5 �g7 was even, Lundquist - Balogh, corr 194S-50. l l ...dxeS

.•

•.

l l...'ffxgS

·

1 22

lhdl+ 18.�xdl �d8+ 1 9.�c2 f4 20..id3 h6 2 1 .�3 �g8 22,gg1 �f6 23.i.e4, Ber­ tok - Persitz, Ljubljana 1955) 15 ... f5 16. g3 e4 1 7.f4, Gutman.

Section l (1.d4 �f6 l.c:4 eS 3.dxeS �e4 4.�dl Ab4) S.g3

13 .�xgS �d4

13 ... f5 14.e3 (after 14.g3 h6 15 ..!tJh3?! Ae6 16.�c I 0-0-0 1 7.e3 a 5 18 .i.g2 �d3 19.0-0 �d8 Black got an active position, Opocensky - Schmidt, Kladno 1 936) 14 ...h6 1 5 . .!tJf3 aS 16.b3 Ae6 1 7.0-0-0 �e7 1 8.i.eH !hg8 19.gH !ad8 20.�xd8 �xd8 2 1 .�dl left White a sound pawn ahead, Galavics - Hausler, corr 1 980.

This neglectedpossibility (suggested by S�n�ieUy Tartakower) must be taken se­ riously, Tim Harding.

s... �c:6

14.Jllc :l

14.0-0-0 .tf5 1 5.e4 .lg6 !? (better than 1 5 .. .i.g4 16.f3 .ld7 1 7.f4 .lg4 18 .�d3 f6 19.fxe5 fxe5 20J:!g3 .ld7 2 l ..!tJx h7! 0-0-0 22..!tJffi Aa4 23.i.d3, Crafty - Ta­ mar, computer game 1 998) 16 . .!tJf3 (on 1 6.f4 0-0-0) 1 6 ....lh5 1 7 J!d3 Axf3 1 8. gxf3 0-0-0 1 9.�d2 (1 9J!gl l::!g8 20Eg3 c5) 1 9 ... .!tJxf3+ 20.�e3 l::!xd3+ 21 .i.xd3 ltJh4 22,ggJ .!tJg6 23.c5 �d7 24..ic4 �e7, Norgaard - Paaske, Denmark 1 999. 14 -AfS 15.�13 .•

1 5.e3?! .!tJb3, e.g. 16.&3 .!tJc5 17.b4 .!tJa4 1 81k: I ffi or J6,gdl l::!g8 17 ..!tJf3 ffi 18 ..!tJd2 ltJc5, Gutman. 1S...�xf3+ 16.exf3 Jlld8 17.Ael �7 18. Jlld 1 aS Black is close to equalising, Gutman.

Alternatives: I) 5 ...b6 6.Ag2 .lb7 7.f3!? (7 . .!tJf3 will transpose into 4 . .!tJf3 b6 5 ..!tJbd2 .lb7 6. g3, covered in Part 4, Chapter 2 ) 7...ltJxd2 8.Axd2 't!Je7 9..!tJh3 (9.e4 ltJc6 I O ..!tJe2 ltJxe5 1 1.0-0 ltJxc4 12.i.xb4 't!Jxb4 13.'t!Jd4 c5 14.'t!Jxg7 't!Jxb2 1 5.'t!Jxb2 .!tJxb2 gave Black the advantage, Epishin - Bellon, Malaga 2000) 9.. ..ic6 (9 0-0 IO ..!tJt2) 10.0-0 Axd2 l l.'t!lxd2 't!Jxe5 12.&cl 0-0 13 ..!tJf4, Gutman; further m 5 ...'t!Je1, Harding, 6.Ag2 (6..!tJf3 't!Jc5 7.e3 .!tJc6 8.a3 Axd2+ 9 .Axd2 .!tJxd2 I 0. 't!Jxd2 .!tJxe5 or 6.a3 bd2+ 7.Axd2 't!Jxe5 8.i.g2 .!tJxd2 9.'t!Jxd2 d6! ? I O . .!tJf3 't!Je7 l l .ltJd4 .!tJd7 1 2.0-0 0-0 are innocuous) 6...'t!Jxe5 (6...ltJxd2 7.i.xd2 hd2+ 8.'t!Jxd2 't!Jxe5 9. .!tJf3 't!Je7 I O . .!tJd4 d6 l l ..!tJb5!? 0-0 1 2.0-0 maintains an edge for White) 7..!tJf3 .lxd2+ (7 't!Jf6 8.0-0 .!tJxd2 9..!tJxd2 Ae7 I O..!tJe4 't!Je6 l l .b3 d6 1 2 . .!tJc3 c6 13.i.b2 was played in Lupez - Maxxx, .•

.•

1 23

internet 2002, while 7 ...�c5 8.0-0 ltlxd2 9.ltlxd2 .ixd2 I O.hd2 �xc4 ) J .gc) !?, Harding, l l...�xa2 1 2..ic3 f6 13...id 5 �a6 14.m,3 is worse) 8.�xd2! (8.ltlxd2 ltlxd2 9.�xd2 0-0, Harding) 8...�e7 9. �e3 ltlc6 IO.ltld4, Gutman; similarly III) 5 ... d5 6.ltg2 (for 6.exd6 see 5 ...d6 6.exd6 - IV) 6 ... 0-0 7 .ltlf3 (7 .a3 .ixd2+ 8..ixd2 ltlxd2 9.�xd2 dxc4 IO.�xd8 �d8 1 1 ..&1 c6 121b.c4 .ie6 13ikl ltld7 14.f4 ltlb6 1 5.ltlf3 h6 1 6.'�t2 ltla4 1 7.b4 ltlb2 1 8.ltlh4 a5 19.f5 .ib3 20.b5 ltldl+ 2 1 .'i!?el cxb5 looks OK for Black) 7 ...dxc4 8.0-0 ltlxd2 9bd2 .ixd2 IO.ltlxd2!? (I O.�xd2 �e7 l l .&cl ltl'c6 12.�f4 ltla5 1 3.gfdl gb8) I O ...�d4 l l .e6!? ( J J .gc) �xe5 12. ltlxc4 �e7 13.m,3 c6 14lUdl is less pro­ mising in view of J4_ltld7 151Y:12 ltlb6· however, Black should avoid 14 ...�xe2 15 .ge) �g4 16.ltld6 �d7 J7.gcdl �c7 1 8.ltle8 �a5 1 9 lk7 ltla6 20.ltld6 ltlc5 2 l .�e3 � d8 22_ge5 ltle6 23...ih 3 as well as 14�..ie6 15.�e3 ltla6 1 6.a3 h6 1 7.b4 gfe8 18.ltla5 ltlc7 19.ltlxb7 ltld5 20.hd5 .ixd5 2 1 .�xe7 �e7 22.ltla5 gxe2 23.b5 .if3 24.bxc6 ge5 25 .gd3, Thorstein ­ Olafsson, Iceland Ch 1988) l l ... fxe6 1 2.�c2 c3 13.bxc3 �ffi 14JMbl appears good for White, Gutman; IV) 5 ...d6!? is more potent, 6..ig2 (6.exd6 �xd6 gives Black unexpected resources: 7 ..ig2 �d4 8.e3 �xc4 and if7.ltlf3, then not 7 ...0-0 8..ig2 gd8 9.a3, when both 9... � IO.�O .ixd2 l l .ltlxd2 ltlxd2 12.hd2 �x b2? 1 3 ..ic3 and 9 .. ..ic5 I 0.0-0 .ig4, Frunliuk NqNSiil, l l.m,3 /()xd2 12..ixd2 favours White, but 7 ...m,6!? 8.e3 �f6 9..ig2 .ixd2+ I O..ixd2 �xb2) 6 .. .bd2+ (6�..if5 7.ltlf3 dxe5 is met by 8.ltlh4, e.g. 8...ltlxd2? 9.�a4+ or S...�ffi 9.ltlxf5 �xf5 IO.�O .ixd2 l l .�c2! .ixcl 1 2.he4 �c8 13.&xcl ) 7..ixd2 ltlxd2 8.exd6 (8.�xd2 dxe5 9.�xd8+ 'i!?xd8 IO.ltlf3 ffi) 8 ... ltlxc4 9.�a4+ c6 I O.�xc4 �xd6 with equality, Gutman.

6.�13

White has two more possibilities: I) 6.f4 d6! ( 6...d5 7.a3 .ixd2+ S..ixd2 dxc4 9..ie3 .ie6 IO.�c2 f5 I I Edt �e7 12..ig2 ltlc5 13.ltlh3 with advantage for White, while 13...id 5?, Wiedemann - Leisebein, corr 1989, runs into 13 ...ltld3+) 7.exd6 �xd6 8 ..ig2 �d4 9..ixe4 �xe4 I O.ltlf3 �e3 l l .�c2 ( l l .a3 .ic5 12 _gf) .ih3 13. ltlb3 �e7, TartJikower) l l ....ig4 12.gfl 0-0-0 13.a3 ghe8 gave Black a winning attack, Pemeder - Post, Berlin 1934; ll) 6..ig2 with a further split: A) 6 ... ltlc5 7.ltlf3 �e7 8.a3 (8.0-0 0-0 9.a3 .ixd2 IO..ixd2 ltlxe5 l l .ltlxe5 �xe5 12..if4 �xb2 1 3 .hc7 ge8 1 4.e3 is not bad either) 8 .. .hd2+ 9 ..ixd2 ltlxe5 (9. . ltle4 IO..ie3 ltlxe5 l l .ltlxe5 �xe5 12.i.d4) IO.ltlxe5 �xe5 l l ..ic3 �g5 1 2.h4 �g4 (12 ...�6 1 3.b4 ltle6 14.�d2, Nepustil) 13.�d5 (instead of 13...ih 3 �xc4 14..ixg7 gg8 1 5 .gcl �e4 16.f3 �e7, Nepustil) 13 ...ltle6 ( 1 3 ...d6 1 4 ..if3 �g6 1 5 ..ih5) 14.h5 c6 15� cxd5 16.hg4 d4 17..id2 h6 J 8_gd) with a plus for White, Gutman; B) 6 ...ltlxd2 7bd2 .ixd2+ (7 ...�e7 goes after 8.ltlf3 ltlxe5 9.ltlxe5 .ixd2+ I O.�xd2 �xe5 into the main line, yet White has an extra resource in the form of8.f4!?. Larsen - Romero, Mesa 1992, went 8 ... g5 9.bb4 �xb4+ IO.�d2 �xc4 l l .gc) �xa2 12.10f3 g4 13.ltlg5 �a5 14.�xa5 .

1 24

lflxa5 1 5id5 f6 1 6.exffi c6 17 ie4 d5 1 8.J.xh7 gxh7 19 . .!flxh7 � 20.e4 dxe4 2 1 .gc5 o!flb3 22.gg5 .lB 23 .gxf5 'it>g6 24_gg5+ �7 25.h3 I :0, and also 8 .. .J.c5 9.e3 0.0 I O.a3 a5 l l .o!fle2 d6 1 2.exd6 cxd6 13 .�3 is hardly viable for Black, e.g. 13 ...ge8 14.0-0 .lxe3+ 1Hhe3 �xe3+ 16.J.xe3 fue3 17.o!flc3 .le6 18.gfdl hc4 19.&d6 or 1 3..�4 14.�d3 gfe8 15.o!flc3 .lxe3 1 6.he3 �xe3+ 17 .�xe3 gxe3+ 1 8.'it>d2 gae8 19 .ghe I ) 8.�xd2 lflxe5

1 0.gc1 �e7 l l ..lg2 0-0-0 1 2.�a4 'it>b8 13.0-0 .ld7 14.�3 .le6 15.J.e3 .lc8 16. .lc5 b6 17 .J.xd6 gxd6 1 8.c5 gffj 19.cxb6 cxb6 20.�a4 .lb7 21 .e3, Carneiro - Cary, Portugal 1 994) IO.J.e3 �ffi I I � (this is safer than 1 1 .�3 0-0-0 1 2ig2 g5 13.0-0 h5 14.&dl h4 1 5.lfld2 lflxd2 J6_gxd2 fud2 17..ixd2 &8) l l ...o!flxd4 (if l l ...�h6 1 2.lflh4) 1 2.�xd4 and l prefer White, Gutman; m 7 ...�xd6 8.a3 (8..lg2 .lg4!, e.g. 9.0-0 0-0-0 I O.c 5, Schmitz - Goy, Cologne 1 993, IO ... �e6! winn ing, or 9.a3 .lxf3 I OJ.xf3 �d4 l l .e3 hd2+ 12..ixd2 �xc4 J3_gcJ �d5 14.�c2 f5 1 5..ic3 0.0 16.0-0 �e6. But, 8 ..if5, treated in I, and 8 ... .le6 9.a3 .ixd2+ I O.lflxd2 lflxd2 I I . �xd2 o!fld4 12.�c3 0-0-0 13 ..le3 .lg4 14.h3, Waltz) - Kunerth, corr 1942, are less impressive) 8 ... �c5 9.e3 .ixd2+ I O.lflxd2 represents a critical position.

(R recapturing the pawn but conceding an edge in space and development, H111'­ ding) 9.gcl (if 9.�c3, then not 9 ... �e7?

1 O.f4 .!flg6 t t .�xg7 �b4+ t 2.'it>fl grs 13.lflf3 I :0 Nikolac - Boehmfeldt, Dort­ mund 1 979, but 9 ...�f6 I O ..!flh3 .!flg4!? l l .�d2 0-0 12.0-0 d6 1 3.lflf4, Burma­ kin - Gutdeutsch, Velden 1 995, 13 ..�h6 1 4.h3 lflf6 t 5 .gadl ge8) 9 ... 0-0 I O.f4 (IO.c5 �e7 l l .o!flf3 gd8 12.0-0 d6) 1 0... o!flc6 l l .e4 d6 12.lfle2 f5!? (Petl!rSchilf­ farth ; IL�ffi 13.o!flc3 i.e6 14.lfld5 �d8 t5.0-0 a5 t 6.h4 ffi t7.'it>h2 gn 18.gfdt �f8 1 9.b3 ge8 20.a3 gd7 2 1.�c3 �f7 22_gd2 &8 23.gcdl gdd8 24.J.f3 gave White some pressure, Epishin- Schaf­ farth, Bad Woerishofen 1998, though one could also play 16.f5 hd5 1 7.exd5 .!fle5 1 8.f6 &8 19.fxg7 �xg7 20..ie4) 13.exf5 ( 1 3 .0-0 fxe4 14..ixe4 �ffi) 1 3 .. .hf5 14. 0-0 (1 4.c5 dxc5 1 5 .�xd8 o!flxd8 16.�c5 c6) 1 4 ...�f6 appears even, Gutman.

•

6 Yfe7 •••

6 ... d6!? 7.exd6, popular a number of years ago, is less fashionable nowadays. There are two major variations: I) 7 .. if5 8.a3 (less appealing is 8.J.g2 �xd6, e.g. 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO.hd2 lflxd2 l l.�xd2 �xd2+ 12.�d2 Q..().()+ 13.1t>c3 mJe8 14.lflh4id7 or 9.o!flh4 lflxd2 IO..bd2 ()..().() l l.lflxf5 .lxd2+ 12.'it>fl �e6 13.J.xc6 �xf5 14if3 h5) 8 ....ixd2+ (8 ..ixd6 9. lflxe4 .lxe4 IO..lg5!? �d7 I I ig2 �e6 12.0-0 0.0 13.Eci)9.J.xd2 �xd6 (9...lflxd6

We have to consider two continuations: A) IO ...lflxd2 l l ..ixd2 .le6 ( l l ...lfle5 is

doubtful owing to 12ib4 �c6 13.�d5 .!flO+ 14.';t.e2 �xd5 1 5.cxd5 .lg4 16.J.g2, but also 12ic3 is not easy to meet, e.g. 12....ig4 t3.J.e2.lxe2 14.�xe2 �c6 1 5.e4 lflxc4 16..ixg7 gg8 17ic3 0-0-0 18 .0-0, Kort - Hoogendoom, Holland 1 995, or 12 ....le6 1 3.lxe5 �xe5 14.�d4 �xd4 1 5.exd4 � 16.0-0-0 .lg4 17 _gd2 l:nle8 1 8 ..lg2), then:

1 25

At) 1 2..ic3 gds! (for 12 . ..ltJeS see I I ... tOeS 12 ..ic3 .ie6, and 12 ...0-0 allows 1 3 .b4 'tYf5 1 4..id3 'Ma3 I S .Wn) 13.'t¥b3 0.0 14.'t¥bS Wd6 IS�2 (IS.Wxb7 .ig4 or I S.'tYhS g6! 16.Wf3 tOeS 17 .Wf6 .ig4) I S ... .th3 16.gd 1 We6, Gutman; further Al) 12.'tYc2 � ( l 2.. .id5? l 3.b4 l0d4 14.Wc3! LOn+ IS.'it>dl 'tYd6 1 6.cxdS and White wins, while 14.Wa4+ bS l S.cxdS WxdS 16 .J.xbS+ lOxbS 17.0-0, given by Alexantkr Alekhine, is refuted by 1 4 ... Wc6!? I S.Wxc6+ .ixc6 1 6.exd4 .ixh l . 1 2 ...J.f5 is too flashy since 1 3J.d3 .ixd3 14.'tYxd3 lOeS I S.'tYe4 � 16.ib4 l0d3+ 17 .Wxd3 Wxb4+ I S.axb4 gxd3 19.gxa7 is excellent for White: 19 ... 'it>bS 20.&3 flli dS 2 l .�d3 gxd3 22.'it>e2 gb3 231tb 1 gxb4 24.b3, Anatoli Matsukevich, or 1 9.. .IDtdS 20.&S+'it>d7 2l l:txdS+ 'it>xdS 22.'it>e2 1Th3 23.gdl+ 'it>e7 24.gd2 gxb4 2S.'it>d3 � 26.'it>d4, N ajdorf- Czerniak, Buenos Aires 1 939) 1 3 ..ie2 ( l 3.b4 'MIS 14.J.e2 'Ma3) 1 3 ...lOeS 1 4..ic3 (14.0-0-0 l0xc4 IS..ixc4 .ixc4 16.ic3 f6 17 l:txdS+ gxdS I S.gdl gxd l+ 1 9.Wxdl 'tYf5 20.n 'Ma3, Mandelbaum - Bisguier, Helsinki Olympiad 19S2) J4 _f6 I S.J.xeS ( I S.O-O Wc6) lS ...'tYxeS 16.0-0 .its 1 7.Wc l ih3 yields Black the initiative, Gutman; AJ) 12.'tYa4!? 0-0-0 13..ic3 mteS 14 ..ie2 (White does best to delay 14..ixg7 .ig4 l S .'tYc2 ge6!, e.g. 1 6.Wc3 .in or 16..ig2 f6 1 7 .ih6 li:Jd4. 14.'t¥bS may be met by 14 ...'tYd6, for example IS�2 !h3 1 6..§dl We6 or I S ..ig2 'tYd3 !? 1 6..ixc6 bxc6 17. Wxc6 .ixc4 I S.WaS+ 'it>d7 1 9.Wn .idS 20.Wg4+ f5 2 1 .gdl fxg4 22.gxd3 'it>e6 23 .0-0 .in 24.gxdS fudS 2 S.J.xg7 gdl 26.gxd·J .ixdl 27.'it>fl 'it>dS 2S.'it>ei .in 29.'it>d2 'it>c4 with a draw) 1 4. . .J.h3 I S . 'tYbS (I S..ixg7? 'tYf5 16.'t¥bS We4 1 7.ggl .ig4 I S ..ixg4 Wxg4 1 9 ..ic3 gd7 2 0.cS gedS 2 1 .'tYe2 WfS) IS ...We7 ( I S ...'tYxbS 16.cxbS lOeS,MIItSUkevich, 17 .J.xe5 fue5 I S .g4 f5 1 9.gxf5 .ixf5 20,gc J ) l 6 ..in

(l6.gd 1 We4, Kurt Richter) 1 6...We6!? (Richler gave this move as improvement. Stahlberg - Richter, Sweden - Gennan y, Zoppot 1 93S, continued J 6_gd) 17.'MIS 'it>bS - 17... 't¥e6, Richto, 18. .iel g6 1 9. 't¥j3 gd6 lO.g4- , IS ..ie2 - 18. 't¥xh3? loses to 18... fue3+ 19.fxe3 ti'xe3+, but 18.hc6 could have been decisive, e.g. 18... 'ihe3+ 19fte3 't¥:xe3+ lO. 'it>dl 't¥d3+ ll. 'it>cl gel ll.Wxel Wxel lJ.gel and if 18 ... bxc6 I 9. 'tY xh3 gxe3+ , then not iO.J:xe3 Wxe3+ l I. 'it>dl ? 't¥d3+ ll. 'it>cJ gel, Richter, but 10. 'it>fl ! 't¥e4 ll. 'it>gl gel 22.gjJ -, t s ... gxe3 - 18 ... .igl 19 . .i:af3 hhl l0.040or I 8... !itc3 19.bxc3 't¥e4 10. 't¥d5, Richter; similarly I 8... 't¥e4 19.'t¥j3 't¥xj3 20.hj3 ltld4 21.ixd4 'Sxd4 ll.i.el are enjoyablefor Black -, 19 .fxe3 Wxe3 20.gfl l0d4 - if 10... .igl ll. gp g6 ll. 't¥h4 ge4 l3.g4 .ij3 14. 't¥g3, Richter -, 2 1 .J.xd4 Wxd4 221tdl Wxb2 23.Wn .hfl 24.'it>xfl a6 2S.'tYd3 hS 26. gbl !? Wf6+ 27.Wn Wxn+ 2S ..ixn b6 291tel fuel+ 30.'it>xel cS 3 l ..ixhS I :0) 17 .ids Wg4 I S.f3 (l 8.J.xc6 bxc6 19.Wxc6 'it>b8 20.c5 'tYc4 2 1 � &7 22.a4 a6 1eads nowhere) JS _.Wg6 19.� fue3 201td2 .id7 2 l .mtdl geeS 22.cS keeping some pressure for White, Gutman. B) IO ....if5 !? I I J.g2 ( l i .Wn 'tYeS I 2..ig2 l0xd2 13..ixd2 Wxb2 14.0-0 id3 1 Sl:tfdl 0.0 16.Wf4 .ie2 1 7J:!abl 'tY a2 1 S.&l 't¥b2 is a draw, but Black can play for more with l3 _.li:Jd4!?. 1f 14.'tYxb7 lLlc2+ IS.'it>fl 0-0 1 6.gd I gadS 17 ..in c6, while Op­ ocensky - Richter, Bad Nauheim 1 93S, went 14.'tYd5 lOc2+ I S.�2. when instead of I S .. .J.g4+ 16.n 'tYxdS 17 .cxdS lOx aI I SJ::txal .id7 19.e4 f6 20.f4 c6 2 l .d6 i.e6 22. .ic3 'it>d7 23.eS, l S ...'tYxdS! 1 6.cxd5 lOxal 1 7.gxal 0-0-0 I S.gcl IDleS could be tried) l l ...l0xd2 1 2 . .ixd2 Wxc4 ( 1 2... 0-0-0 1 3. 0-0 tOeS 14 ..ib4 Wxc4 I S.Wa4 'it>b8 1 6.gac l We6 1 7 . .icS a6 I S ..id4) J3.gc J We6 seems playable, Gutman. 1 26

Back to the main line

7..ig2 7.'i!lc2 lt»cd2 Uxd2 (8.l0xd2 'i!lxe5 9.ig2 0-0 1 O.e3 aS 1 1 .0-0 .*.e7 1 2.l0f3 'i!lh5 13. e4?! .lc5 14.if4 d6 1 5.�Uel .ig4 16.'i!ld3 l!ad8 1 7.l0d2 l0e5 turned out very well for Black, H irsch - Steinen, corr 1 99 1 , though I prefer l l ...d6 1 2.l0f3 'm5 ) 8 ... l0xe5 9.l0xe5 hd2+ IO.'i!Jxd2 'i!lxe5 will transpose into 4.'i!lc2 .ib4+ 5..id2 l0xd2 6.l0xd2 l0c6 7.l0f3 .ixd2+ 8.'i!lxd2 'i!le7 9.g3 lt»ce5 1 O.l0xe5 'i!Jxe5 - Part 2, Chap­ ter 3, Section l . 7 .1(�xe5 Others: I) 7 ...l0c5 goes into 4.l0d2J.b4 5.g3 l0c6 6..ig2 l0c5 7.l0gf3 'i!le7; D) 7...l0xd2 8 ..ixd2 hd2+(or 8 ...l0xe5 9.l0xe5 hd2+ 1 O.'i!Jxd2 'i!lxe5 1 1 .0-0) 9.'i!Jxd2 l0xe5 (for 9 ... b6 1 0.0-0 .ib7 see 4.l0d2 .ib4 5.g3 b6 6..ig2 .ib7 7.l0f3 l0c6 8.0-0 l0xd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2 IO.'i!Jxd2 'i!le7) 1 O.l0xe5 'i!lxe5 1 1 .0-0 returns to the main line. 8.0-0 8.l0xe5 'i!lxe5 9.0.0 (9.a3 .ixd2+ IO..ixd2 .ixd2+ l l .'i!lxd2 see 4.l0f3 .ib4+ 5 ..id2 l0xd2 6.l0xd2 l0c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.'i!lxd2 'i!Je7 9.g3 l0xe5 IO.l0xe5 'i!lxe5, treated in Part4, Chapter 3, Section 2) 9_l0xd2 (9... 15? IO.lt»ce4 fxe4 l l ..if4 'i!le7 12.'i!ld5 d6 l 3 .'i!/b5+ 1 :0 Opocensky - Gries, Nice ..

1 93 8 , while 9 ...l0ffi IO.l0f3 also favours White, e.g. 1 0 ...'i!le6 l l .'i!lb3 or 10 ...'i!Jb5 l l ..if4 0-0 1 2..ixc7 d5, Ferreira - Cary, Feijo 1 994, l3..ie5) lO ..ixd2, and now: I) 1 O ...'i!lxb2 l l ..ixb4 'i!lxb4 1 2.'i!ld4!? (12.'i!lc2 'i!le7 l3.c5 ()..() 14.f4 d6 15.cxd6 'i!Jxd6 16f5 c6!? 1 7 .l!ad 1 'i!Jffi 1 8.e4 b6 19.'i!le2 'i!Je5 20.1!f4 aS 2 l .ffi gxffi 22'i!lf2 c5 23.1!xffi .ie6 left White badly placed in Fajer - Kostic, Novi Sad 1 945) 1 2... 0-0 ( 1 2 ...ffi l3.1!abl 'i!/d6 14.'i!/xd6 cxd6 1 5.1!fd l �e7 16 .1!d3 l!b8 1 7.1!e3+ �d8 1 8.!h3 a6 19.1!xa6 l!e8 20.e3 bxa6 2 1 . l!xb8 �c7 22.1!b2 aS 23.J.d5, An Mon Little Goliath, computer game 200 1) 13. &b l 'i!la4 (13 ...'i!la3 14..hb7 1!b8 1 5..ixc8 m,xc8 16.'i!ld3 ! 'i!la6 1 7.1!b3 'i!lc6 1 8.1!a3 1!aB 19.1!bl l!fe8 20.e3, Fritz 6 - An Mon, computer game 2001 ) 14..hb7 .ixb7 (af­ ter 14 ... 1!b8 1 5 ..ic6 'i!Jxc6 16.1!xb8 .ib7 17.1!xm+ �xm 1 8.3 White won easily, Lamas - Yabra, Havana 1 970) 1 5.1!xb7 l!fc8 ( 1 5 ... 'i!Jxa2 16.e3 l!fc8 1 7.&1 'i!lc2 1 8.'i!lxd7 'i!lxc4 1 9.&xa7) 16.e3 d6 17. 'i!Jd5 with an edge for White, Gutman; II) 1 O ....ixd2 is the text. 8 .� xd2 9 .ixd2 This is the usual reply, yet 9.l0xd2 also has its supporters. ..

•

The play may continue: I) 9 ....ixd2 IO.'i!Jxd2 ! ( 1 O..ixd2 l0xc4 l l .J.c3 ffi 12.1!cl c6) 10 ...0-0 l l .b3 d6

1 27

1 2 . .ib2 f5 ( 1 2 ...a5 13 J!acl ll:lc6 14.e3 .id7 1 5.a3 b6 1 6 .gfd l gadS 17.h3 ltlb8 18.�h2-*':6? 19.'t¥d4 'tYe5 20.'tYxe5 dxe5 2 1 ..i.xe5 was grim for Black in Farago Blauert, Oberwart 1997) 13.e3 a5 14.'tYc3 ll:ld7 15J:�adl appears to be quite com­ fortable for White, Lescovar - Cristobal, Mar del Plata 1 980; D) 9...0-0, when White has two options: A) I O.a3 .ixd2 (I 0 .. ..1c5 l l .b4 .id4 1 2. g b I d6 13 .'tYc2 ll:lc6 is doubtful since in­ stead of 1 4.ll:lb3 .if6 1 5..1e3 g6 16 .'tYd2 ll:le5 1 7.gocl c6 1 8.ll:la5 .ie6 19.b5 'tYc7, Reinfeld - Woliston, New York 1 940, 14.e3 .if6 15.ll:le4!? iB 16.ll:lxffi+ 'tYxf6 17.e4 .ie6 18 ..1b2 'tYe7 19.'tYc3 f6 20.f4 �8 21.mx: I would be more unpleasant, Reshevsky - Alberto, Tel Aviv 1 987) l l .'tYxd2 d6 ( l l ...ll:lxc4 1 2 .'tYc3 eases the tension, e.g. 12 ...'tYe6 1 3 .b3 'tYe5 14 . .ib2 'tYxc3 15..i.xc3 ll:lb6 1 6.a4 d6 17.a5 ll:ld7 18.a6 gbs 19.axb7 .ixb7 20.gxa7 .ixg2 2 1 .�xg2 �b3 or 12 ...d5 13 ..1xd5 ltlb6 14.J.f3 ih3 15� 1 c6 16..1e3 gfd8) 1 2 .'tYc3 gbs is fully adequate, Gutman; B) I O.'tYc 2!? has more point, we see: Bl) IO ...a5 I I .ll:le4 a4 1 2.a3 .icS 13..1g5 f6 14.ll:lxc5 'tYxc5 1 5..1e3 'tYe7 1 6.c5 ges 1 7 _gad I ga6 1 8 .�4 d6 19 .cxd6 �hd6 20.gh4 g6 21 ..ic5 I :0 lnkov - Simon, Avoine 1 995; 82) I O...ll:lc6 1 I .e3 b6 1 2.ll:le4 .ib7 1 3 .a3 .id6 14.ll:lxd6 'tYxd6 1 5 .b4, Bagirov ­ Kalashyan, Baku 1 978; further Bl) IO ... d6 l l .a3 (l l .ll:lb3 a5 12.a3 a4) 1 1 . ...1c5 12.e3 c6 13.b4 .ib6 14..1b2 .ig4 1 5.h3 .ih5 1 6.c5 (better than 1 6.'tYc3 f6 1 7.� We8 1 8.f4 ll:ld7 19.e4a5, Neven ­ Neumann, e-mail 1 999) 16 .. ..1c7 ( 1 6... dxc5 1 7.'tYf5) 17 !4 ll:ld7 1 8.cxd6 .ixd6 1 9 .ll:le4, Gutman; sim ilarly 84) IO .. ..i.xd2 l l bd2 d6 ( l l ...'tYc5 12. &cl ll:lc6 13..1e3 'tYaS 14J!fd l d6 1 5 .c5 .ie6 16.cxd6 cxd6 17 .a3 d5, Naumkin ­ Vospemik, lschia 1998, 1 8.'tYc5) 12kl

(12..1e4 h6 1 3 .We l a5 14..1g2 ges 15 .b3 ll:ld7 1 6J:�adl ll:lc5 1 7..ic3 tt:le4 1 8..id4 .id7 is too tame, Harwood - Graham, corr 1 9 89) 12 ...c6 (if 12 ...ll:ld7 1 3 ..1e3) 13..1b4 .ie6 14.b3 a5 1 5 ..ta3 a4 1 6..1b4 with the upper hand, Gutman; 85) IO ...'tYe6!? l l .b3 ( l l .c5 d6 12.ll:lb3 c6, e.g. J3 .gdl 't¥c4 14.'t¥xc4 ll:lxc4 15. cxd6 gds or 1 3.a3 .ixc5 14.ll:lxc5 dxc5 1 5.'tYxc5 &8) 1 1 ...&8 1 2.a3 .it& 1 3..1b2 d6 should be level, Gutman.

9.. ..txdl Nothing else wiii do for Black: I) 9 ...ll:lxc4 I O..ixb4 'tYxb4 l l .'t¥d4 c5 12.'tYxg7 'tYxb2 1 3.'tYh6 d5 1 3 .ll:lg5 'tYe5 14.e4, Gutman; D) 9 ... ll:lxf3+ I O.exf3 ! (instead I 0..1xf3 .ixd2 l l .'tYxd2 0-0 is harmless: 1 2.&c I d6 1 3 .'tYa5 c6 1 4.Wdl .ie6 1 5 .b3 gfd8 16J!c3 a6 17 J!cd3 _gd7 1 8 .h4 .&d8 1 9. 'tYb4 .if5 20.g3d2 'tYe5, Dreev - Kahn, internet 2003, or 12.'tYc3 d6 J 3 .gfdl c6 14J!d3 .ie6 15.&dl gfd8, improving on 12 ...a5 13J!fdl a4 14J!d5 a3 1 5.b3 f5 1 6. &dl 'tYf6, Desphande - Szpisjak, USA 1996, 171!5d4!?) I O....i.xd2 I I .'tYxd2 0-0 12Mel 'tYffi 13.f4 d6 14J!e3 .ie6 15.&cl and White dominates, Gutman. l0.1hdl I O.ll:lxd2 0-0 I I.'t¥b3 ges ( I I ...ll:lc6 12 . tt:le4 d6 1 3.ll:lc3 ll:ld4 14.'t¥dl 'tYe5 1 5 .e3 ll:le6, Ponferrade Luque - Tomas Batet, 1 28

Seville 200 1 , 16.�d2) 12.�c3 d6 13..Wel m>8 (13 .. .a5 !?) 14.f4 ltld7 (14 ...ltlc6 1 5.e4 ffi 1 6.ltlfl !? .ie6 1 7.ltle3 gave White too much control, Gambit Tiger - Little Go­ liath, computer game 200 1 ) 1 5 .e4 �f6 might be OK for Black, Gutman. 1 0...0-0 10 ... a5 I l k I (if l l .�c3 d6 12.c5, then 12 ... 0-0 1 3 .cxd6 ltlxf3+ 14 ..ixf3 �xd6 J 5_gfdl Wb6 16kl c6) 1 1 ...0-0 12.ltld4 d6 13 .f4 ltlg4 ( 1 3....!Lld7 can be answered by 14.&3 l::!e8 1 5.rut3) 14.e4 and White's position is preferable, Gutman .

l l .�xeS W bite has tried two more plans: I) l l .�c3 d6 ( J J .._ge8 1 2_gfe1 a5 13.ltld4 �c5 14.ltlb5 d6 1 5 1lad l .td7 1 61Y:i5 Wb6 17 .�d4 or l l ...ltlxf3+ 1 2 .exf3 are both less impressive) 1 2.lUe l (1 2.c5 ltJxf3+, e.g. 13.exf3 dxc5 14.f4 �d6 J 5_gfdl Wb6 or 1 3 ..ixf3 dxc5 14J�ac l c6) 1 2 .. J:�e8 (Gustafsson - Voekler, Dresden 1 995, went 12 ...ltJxf3+ 13.exf3 �d8 14.f4 :IDJ8 1 5 .c5 d5 1 6.�e5 .id7 1 7 .�xd5 .ic6 18. �xd8 lUxd8 'lz-'12, but White can try for more with 19�dl 'it1B 20Jbd8+ l:bd8 2 l ..ixc6 bxc6 22_ge4) 1 3.ltld4 gb8 14. gad I a6, Gutman ; further ll) I I k I d6 1 2.ltld4 a6!? ( 12 .. �8 was tested in some games: after J 3 .gfd l f5 1 4.e3 a6 1 5 .b3 gf6 1 6 .�c3 c6 J 7 .gd2, Barvin - Vozka, Decin 1997, 17 ....!Lld7!?

18 .gcdl ltlc5 19.�c2 .td7 Black is fme, yet 1 3.f4 ltJg4 14.e4 ffi 1 5.ltlb5 a6 16.ltlc3 c6 1 7 1Udl is more effective, improving on 1 5 .h3 ltlh6 1 6.gfe l ltln 1 7 _gc3 gd8 1 8 .gce3 .id7 1 9.b3 a6 20.�a5 c5, Ro­ mani - Contedini, Reggio Emilia 1 96 1 ) 13 .f4 ltld7 14.e4 ge8 1 5.gfe l �f6 with counterplay, Gutman. 1 1 ... 1!h:e5 ll.b4

ll ...d6 Some examples of other moves: I) 1 2 ... a5 1 3 .b5 d6 14.gac l ge8 15 .e3 �c5 1 6.gfdl ge5 1 7.�d4 gives White a spatial advantage, Gutman; II) 12 ...gb8 1 3 .f4 �e7 1 4.f5 ge8 1 5 .ffi �e3+ 16.�xe3 �e3 J 7.gad l d6 1 8 .c5 .ie6 19 .cxd6 cxd6 20.gxd6 gxe2 2 l .a4 b6 22.fxg7 gc8 23..ic6 YJ-'12 Kasparov ­ Arts, simultaneous, Brussels 1 987. 13.ll�acl lll e 8 14.e3 lll b 8 lS.cS 15.a4ie6 J 6_gfd l .ig4 17.0 .td7 J8_ge) ixa4 1 9.&1 b5! (I L1c6 20�a7 &8, Tella - Oettinger, Bad Wiessee 1 999, 2 1 .gxa8 ! ? gxa8 22.b5 1d7 23.f4 �c5 24..txb7 &3 25..td5) 20.cxb5 1xb5 2 1 . gxa7 c6, Gutman. lS ... dxcS 16.lllx c5 1re7 Black is not worse, Gutman.

129

Section 3 ( l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�dl j,b4) s �o .

The best variation for White, Otto Borik. The strugglefor central supremacy re­ quires careful handling by both players,

Tim Harding. We diville the material into three Sequels: Sequel I - 5 ... �c6 6.e3 (6.'t!ic2, 6.g3) Sequel 2 - 5 ... �c6 6.a3 Sequel 3 - 5 ...d6!? (5...c5, 5 ...f6, 5 ...'t!te7, 5 ...0-0, 5 ...b6, 5 ...d5) Sequel I s...�c6 6.e3 White wants to save the tempo spent on aJ, A lfonso Romero. Alternatives: I) 6.'t!ic2 �xd2! (6...d5 see 4.'t!ic2 .tb4+ ·5.�d2 d5 6.�f3 �c6, covered in Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 2) 7..hd2 .txd2+ 8. 't!ixd2 't!ie7 reaches a position after 4.'t!ic2 .tb4+ 5 ..td2 �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.�f3 .txd2+ 8.'t!ixd2 't!ie7 - Part 2 , Chapter 3, Section I ; II) 6.g3 't!ie7 will transpose into 4.�d2 · .i.b4 5.g3 �c6 6.�f3 't!ie7 - Section 2.

6...tfe7 Other possibilities: I) 6...d6 7.exd6 (7.'t!ic2 .tf5 8.id3 �xd2 9.ixd2 .h.d3 IO.'t!ixd3 dxe5, Hagedom­ Madeya, corr 2000) 7 ...'t!ixd6 transposes to 4.�d2 .tb4 5.�f3 d6 6.exd6 't!ixd6 7.e3 �c6 - Sequel 3 ; II) 6 . . .0-0 seems less accurate to me. White has two options: A) 7..td3 �xd2 (7...�c5 8..tc2&8, Cher­ ner - Thayer, e-mail 1996, 9.0-0 is awk­ ward for Black, and 8...'t!ie7 9.0-0 �xe5 I O.�xe5 is no better: IO ...'t!txe5 l l .�f3 't!ff6 1 2.a3 J.a5 1 3.'t!id4 or IO ....h.d2 I I . .h.d2 't!txe5 12.ic3 't!tg5 1 3 .b4 �e6 14.f4. Another unsound attempt is 7 ...d5 8.exd6, e.g.8 ... �xd2 9..h.d2 't!ixd6 I O ..te4 .te6 l l .l:k I :sad8 12.a3 .h.d2 1 3 .'t!ixd2 or 8 ... �c5 9..tc2 't!ixd6 I O.a3 .h.d2+ l l .'t!ixd2 Y:Yh6 - l l ...'t!iffi, Kurt Richter, 1 2.'t!id5 �e6 13 .0-0 -, 12.b4 �e6 13.0-0 gd8 14. 't!ic3 �g5 1 5 .�xg5 't!lxg5 1 6.f4 !? Y:Yh6 17 .ib2 f5 1 8�f3 I :0 Karlin - Reinhardt, Hamburg 1 935) 8bd2 .h.d2+ 9.'t!ixd2 't!ie7 (9 ge8 10.0-0 �xe5 l l.�xe5 �e5 12.'t!ic2 't!lh4 13.g3 \Mt6 14 .ie4 d6 15l!ad I gb8 1 6.c5) 1 0.0-0 �xe5 l l .�xe5 't!txe5 12.f4 ( 12..te2 d6 1 3 ..tf3 a5 14.�cl ge8 1 5.gfdl a4 16.'t!td4 &5 17.b4 axb3 1 8 . axb3't!ixd4 19hd4 ga], Kastner - Lein, New York 1 980. 1 2 .'t!ic2 is best met by 12 .. .'�h8 1 3 .�e l a5 1 4.f4 't!lc5 15 .gf3 •.

130

&6!? 16.i.xh7 'Wb4 17 J�efl g6 18.gh3 �719.a3 V!Je7 20.f5 run 2l.V!Jc3 d6 22g4 V!JeS 23.V!Jd2 ixf S 24.gxf5 ghs, wh ile 12... g6, Joan Roldan-Alonso Gonzales, Asturia1996, l3k1 d6 14.f4 V!Jffi IS.f5 g516.c5 d5 17.e4 favours White) 12...V!Jc5 (12 ... V!Jf6, Schneider-Gensbauer, B ad Woerishofen 2002, l3.&el d6 14.V!Jc2 'it>h8 ISM .id716.V!Jf2 gfe8 17.e4. Also 12 ... V!Je7 13.&el b6 14.V!Jc2 is less flexible: 14...'it>h8 ISM d6 16.e4Ab7 17lnl3 or14...g6 IS.ie4 �8 16.f5 Ab7 17 .i.xb7 gxb7 18.f6 V!JeS 19.V!Jd2 bS 20.e4 �h8 21M ggs 22.V!Jxd7 V!JcS+ 23.�hl V!Jxc4 24.eS, Bar1h - Lindner, Wuerzburg1994) l3.go (l3.�hl b6 I4.f5 f6 Is.gf4.ib7 16.e4 &e817.rut4 V!Jd418.V!Je2 gf7 19. gdl Me7 20..lb1 V!JeS 2l.a3? V!Jxf5, Ca­ marasa- Franch, Mataro1996) l3 ... a5 14.V!Jc2 f5 keeps the control, Gutman; 8)7 .ie2V!Je7 (7..l!e8 8.0-0 lillc.d2 9.i.xd2 hd2 lO.V!Jxd2 lilxeS ll.cS! V!Je712.Jkl gd813_gfdl) 8.0-Q lillc.d2 9..lxd2 (9.lilxd2 lilx eS see 4.lild2 .ib4 S .lilf3 lilc6 6.e3 V!Je7 7 .ie2 lilxeS 8.0-Q lilxd2 9.lilxd2 �) 9-...bd2 (9.._ge8 IO.lild4 hd2 ll.V!Jxd2, e.g. l l...V!JxeS 12 ..id3 g6 13.lilbS lil d8 14.&el a61S.f4 V!JcS 16.b4 V!Jc6 17.lilc3 V!Jd6 18.cS, Zedek- Vavra, Czech Re­ public 1999, or l l...lilxeS 12.f4 lilc6 13. lilbS d614.i.f3 a6 IS.lilc3) IO.V!Jxd2 lilxeS appears to be critical.

Most leg almoves have been tried here: 81) l l.gfd1 d6 12.lilxe5 ( l2.lild4 a6!? 13.f4 lild7)12...dxe5 l3.V!Jc3 .if5 14_gd2 gfd8 IH!adl f616.if3 c617.V!Ja5 gxd2 18.gxd2 .ie6 19.c5 f5 20..idl V!Jf7 21. gd8+ gxd8 22.V!Jxd8+ V!JfB Yz-Yz Petro­ sian- Krutikhin, Moscow 19S9; 82)ll.lilxeS V!JxeS12..tf3 (12.f4 V!Je7, for example l3..tf3 d6 14.e4.id7 IS.e5 dxeS 16..lxb7 &b8 17 .i.dS c6 18 .i.f3 e4 19. .ie2 gfd8, Vodep-Leent, e-mail 2000, or l3.f5 ge814_gf3 V!Jf61S.g4 b616_gg3 .ib7 11.gn h6 18 ..if3 .i xf3 19.gfxf3, Kitze- Schaefer, Germany199 S , 19.... &4) 12...d6 l3.b4(if l3kl, hoping for l3 ....if5 14.gfdl.ie4?! IS.i.xe4 V!Jxe4 16.V!JdS gfe8 l7.gd4! ? V!JxdS 18.cxd5, Happel-van der Weijer, Dutch League 1994, then 13....ie6 !? 14.b3 c6 IS.gfd1 WdJ 16.V!Jd4 V!Jxd411.gxd4 �fB18.�fl '/:z-'12 Schmidt-Heinze� German y1988. Also after13.V!Jd4 �814.�1 a515� V!Jxd4 16_gxd4 a4 11.gc1 a3 18.b3 �fB Black is well in play, Little Goliath -An Mon, computer game 2001) 13 ...gb8!? (l3 ...a5 14.b5.ie6IS.&cl) 14.Wdl.ie6 IS�cl gfd8 (IS... b6 16..idS V!Jf6 17.bS is less accurate, Brumm-Sandien, Ger­ many1991) 16.V!Jd4 V!Jxd4; further 83) l l.V!Jc3 d6 12.c5 lilxf3+ (l2....lg4 ? ! 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.lild4 :!lacS, Early-Paul, Virginia 1999, IS.V!Jd21xe2 16.V!Jxe2) l3..ixf3 dxcS14.gfcl c6 lS.V!JxcS V!JxcS 16_gxcS ie6!? (l6...a5 17.�1 ie6 18.a3, Litinskaya - Kozel, Lvov 1997) 17.a3 gfd 8 , Gutman; similarly 84) ll.&c 1 d6 ( ll...lilxf3+ 12..lxf3 a5 l3�3a414�3 &615�1 �616Au4 V!Jh4 17.h3 d6 18.V!Jd4 V!Jg519.V!Jf4 V!Je7 20.&5 c5 2l.i.e2 f5 turned out well for Black, Savva- Corbin, Yerevan Olym­ piad 1996, but l3.c5 &6 14.gfdl looks a more healthy approach) 12.lild4 (l2.gfdl.ig4 l3.lilxe51xe2 14.lilc6 is harmless, e.g. 14 ...V!Je4 IS.V!Jxe2 V!Jxc6

131

J6_g(j4 �Ue8 17 .�c2, Graeser - Blasius, St. Wendel l 992, 17 ...ges, or 14 ...bxc6 1 5.�xe2 c5) 12 ...a6!? (12 ..id7 13.f4 li:lc6 14.lt:\b5 �d8 1 5 ..if3 �c8 1 6J�fdl lt:le7 1 7.lt:\c3 .lg4 18 .�e2 Axf3 19.�xf3 ges 20.e4 a6 2 1 .f5 f6 22.lt:le2 lt:lc6 23.lt:lf4 with advantage, Hoffman - Tempone, Buenos Aires 1999) 131H'dl Jd7 14.�c3 We8 15.lt:lc2 a5!? (1 S...�fti 1 6.lt:lb4 �g6 17 .lt:ld5 &c8 18.�d4 gave White a plus, Ullrich - Staken, Hastings 1936) 16.'�d4 b6 with a balanced position, Gutman; BS) I I.li:ld4! d6 (I I ...fS is met by 1 2 .f4 lt:lc6 1 3 .lt:lbS d6 1 4.Af3 Ae6 I S .b3 a6 16.lt:lc3; this is more precise than 12.&el as instead of 12...a5 13.f4 lt:lc6 14.lt:lbS d6 I S ..if3 Ae6 1 6.b3 a4 1 7 .e4 �d7 1 8.eS dxeS 19.�xd7 Axd7 20.fxeS, Lodhi ­ Corbin, Novi Sad Olympiad 1 990, Black can play 1 2 ... d6 13.f4 li:ld7) 1 2 .f4 li:ld7 ( 1 2 ...lt:lg4 13..ixg4Axg4 14.5 or 12 ... lt:lc6 1 3 .lt:lbS ges 14 .Af3 a6 I S .lt:lc3 are no better) 13..if3 lt:lffi (IL5? 14.li:le6) 14.e4 .lg4 ( 1 4 ...lt:lxe4 I S.Axe4 �xe4 fails to 16.&el �g6 17.5 �f6 18.lt:lbS dS 19.�f4 .id7 20.lt:lxc7) I S ..ixg4 lt:lxg4 16.gae l &d8 17.lt:\5 �f6 18.h3 lt:lh6 1 9.li:ld4!? (Baikov - Pavlenko, USSR 1972, went 19.lt:le3 c6 20.g4 c,!lh8 2 1 .gS �g6 22.h4 lt:\g8 23.5 �hS 24.lt:lg2 gfe8 2S .�e3 f6 26.�g3 �f7) 1 9 ...c;l?h8 20.g4 and White assumes the initiative, Gutman.

7.le2 Some examples of other moves: I) 7 .�c2 lt:lxd2 8 .lt:lxd2 (8 .Axd2 lt:lxeS 9.lt:lxeS ix.d2+ I O.�xd2 �xeS see 4.�c2 Ab4+ S ..id2 lt:lxd2 6.lt:lxd2 lt:lc6 7.lt:lf3 .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.e3 lt:\xeS IO .lt:lxeS �xeS - Part 2, Chapter 3, Section I ) 8 ... lt:lxeS (8 ...�xeS !? 9..id3 b6 1 0.0-0 .ib7 I I.lt:l f3 ms looks playable) 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO..ixd2 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 ( I I ..ie2 d6 12.0-0 Ag4 is probably safer) l l ...d6 I2..ic3 5 1 3.h3 �f7 ( 1 3 .. ..ie6! ? 1 4.b3 aS) 14.gd4 Ae6 IS.b3 bS (IS ...aS I 6 .Ab2 bS 17.cxbS .ixb3 1 8.�c3 a4 19.f4 occurred in Chum­ noa - Corbin, Moscow Olympiad 1 994) 1 6.cxbS Axb3 is fine for Black, Gutman; II) 7..id3 li:lxd2 (7 ... lt:lcS hardly makes sence: 8.Ae2 lt:lxeS 9.lt:lxeS �xeS 1 0.0-0 Axd2 l l .�xd2 d6 12.�d4 aS , Gonzales Esteban-Zancas Vidal, Barcelona 199S, 1 3.f4 �xd4 1 4.exd4, or 8..ic2 lt:lxeS 9. lt:lxeS �xeS I 0.0-0 Axd2 I I .�xd2 lt:le4, Mosler - M ittelstadt, Ingelstadt 199 1 , 12.�d4 �xd4 13 .exd4) 8..ixd2 Axd2+ 9.�xd2 lt:lxeS (9...b6 I O..ie4 .ib7 1 1 .0-0 gS 12.�c3 04{) 13id5 g4 14.lt:ld4 lt:lxeS I S.li:lfS �f6 1 6.lt:lg3 hS was unclear in Kuhn - Wittelsberger, Germany 1 999, but White can do better with 1 3 .cS!?, e.g. l 3 ...g4 14.lt:ld4 lt:lxeS I S.cxb6 axb6 I6.gac1 cS 1 7 ..ixb7+ c;l?xb7 1 8.lt:lbS or 13 ... bxcS 14 .gfc I g4 I S.Axc6 !? Axc6 1 6.lt:lel ) I O.lt:lxeS �xeS 1 1 .0-0 0-0 ( 1 1 ... 5 12.f4 �f6 1 3.e4 fxe4 14 ..ixe4 0-0 I S. �d3 h6 1 6.b3 d6 17-&e l A5 1 8.�dS+ �MIS 19.�xb7, Johansson - Ketola, Lahti I999, and I I ...b6 12ki- I2.mdi .ib7 13..ifl, Remmler - Roes, Germany 1 992, 1Ld6 -, 12 ...ib7 1 3.f4 �e7 14.�c3 04{) IS.e4 gde8 1 6.b4 �g8 1 7 .eS, Ahner ­ Knoth, Germany 1 996, are in White's favour) reaches a position after 4.li:ld2 Ab4 S .lt:lf3 lt:lc6 6.e3 0-0 7 ..id3 lt:lxd2 8..ixd2 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 � e7 I 0.0-0 lt:lxeS I I .li:leS �xeS, Gutman; 132

III) 7.a3, and now: A) 7 ...lt:lxd2 8.lt:lxd2 ! ? (8.Axd2 .txd2+ 9.\�hd2 will transpose into 4.lt:lf3 .tb4+ 5 ..td2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7 .a3 .txd2+ 8.\�hd2 "t!/e7 9.e3 - Part 4, Chapter 3 , Section 2 ) 8. . ..txd2+ ( 8 . . ..tc5 is feeble in view of9.b4 "t!/xe5 1 0.&2 id4 l l ..id3 "t!/e7 1 2.0-0 .te5 l 3 .b5 lt:ld8 1 4.f4 .txf4 1 5.exf4 "t!/e3+ 1 6lU2 "t!/xd3 17."t!/el+ � 1 8 .f5) 9 ..txd2 ltlxe5 l O ..tc3 leads to a position after 4.ltld2 .tb4 5.lt:lf3 ltlc6 6. a3 lt:lxd2 7.lt:lxd2 hd2+ 8 ..txd2 lt:lxe5 9..tc3, which is examined in Sequel 2; B) 7 .. .hd2+ 8.lt:lxd2 (8.hd2 ltlxe5 see 4.lt:ld2 .tb4 5 .a3 .txd2+ 6.Axd2 ltlc6 7. lt:lf3 "t!/e7 8.e3 lt:lxe5, treated in Section 1) 8 ..."t!/xe5 9.f4 (if9."t!/c2 ltlc5 lO.lt:lf3, then IO ..."t!/ffi l l ..id2 d6 12..ic3 lt:le5 13 be5 dxe5 14."t!/c3 lt:la4 15 ."t!/a5 e4 1 6."t!/xa4+ .td7 , Gutman) 9 ... "t!/e7 I O.lt:lxe4 "t!/xe4 l l ."t9d3 "t!/xd3 ( l l ..."t9e7 1 2.g3 a5 l 3 .b3 b6 1 4.Ag2 .tb7 1�.0-0 0-0 1 6.Ab2 gae8 1 7 .e4 d6 1 8 ."t!/c3 f6 1 9 .gfel ltld8 20.b4 axb4 2 l .axb4 lt:l f7 22.E!a 7 afforded White a clear plus, Panzer - Weitzer, Gennany 1 992) 1 2 ..txd3 lt:la5 should equalise by eliminating the bishop pair, Harding. 7 �xeS 7 ... b6 8.0-0 should present Black with few difficulties: I) 8 ...lt:lxd2 9..txd2 (9.lt:lxd2 ltlxe5 I O.a3 hd2 is less challenging, e.g. l l .hd2 .tb7 1 2 ."t!/c2, Taivanen - Haamlainen, Kankaapa 1 996, 12 ... 0-0 1 3 ."t!/f5 gae8, or l l ."t9xd2 J.b7 12.b4 0-0 1 3 ..tb2 d6 14. "t!/c3 "t!/g5 1 5 .0, Schaufelberger - Nobs, Mendrisio 1989, 1 5 ... gae8 1 6.e4 "t!/g6 1 7 .c5 dxc5 18.bxc5 f5) 9.bd2 I O."t!/xd2 .tb7 (lO...lt:lxe5 l l .ltld4 .tb7 12.ltlb5 d6 l 3 .lt:lc3) l l ."t9c3 (l l .gfdl 0-0-0 12.&c 1 seems even stronger to me, for example 12 . .h5 1 3 ."t!/c3 g5 14.c5 g4 1 5.lt:ld4 �e8 1 6.ltlxc6 hc6 1 7.cxb6 axb6 1 8.i.b5 gh6 1 9 ,gxd7 "t!/xd7 20..txc6 gxc6 21 ."t!/xc6 "t!/xc6 22gxc6, Pol Valveny - Pique Sa...

.

font, Mollerussa 1 997, or 12...�b8 13.c5 g5 14."t!/c3 &8 1 5 ."t!/a3 g4 16.lt:ld4 ltlxd4 J 7.gxd4 "t!/xe5, Rylander - Evertsson, Skara 2002, 1 8.gxd7 "t!/e4 19 ..tfl ) I I ... 0-0-0 ( 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 .gfdl gfe8 is perhaps the lesser evil, transposing after l 3 .a3 into 4.lt:lf3 .tb4+ 5.i.d2 lt:lxd2 6.ltlbxd2 ltlc6 7.a3 hd2+ 8."t!/xd2 "t!/e7 9."t!/c3 0-0 IO.e3 &8 l l .ie2 b6 12.0-0.tb7 J3.gfdl ­ Part 4, Charter 3, Section 4) 1 2.gacl (I prefer this move, although 1 2.c5 "t!/xc5 l 3."t!/xc5 bxc5 14 .gacl d6 1 5.exd6 cxd6 16.ltlg5 gdf8 17 _gfdl �c7 1 8 .gd2 h6 19.lt:le4 ru8 20.lt:lc3 a6 2l .ltld5+ brought White success in Roemer - Steffens, Ger­ many 1988) 12...IDie8 l 3 .c5 �b8 141Udl g5 1 5.lt:ld4 &8 16..if3 (also 16.ltlxc6+ is not easy to meet, for instance 1 6...hc6 1 7.Aa6 gcd8 18.cxb6 axb6 19.b4 or 1 6... dxc6 1 7 ..tg4 gcd8 1 8 .gd4) 1 6 ... ltlxe5 17bb7 �xb7 1 8 ."t9b3 "t!/ffi 19.cxb6 axb6 20.lt:lb5 "t!/d8 2 l .f4! (instead of2l ."t!/d5+ �b8 22.&3 c6 23 ."t!/d6+ �b7 24.gdc I &6 25."t!/a3? &8 26.ltld6+ �c7 27.lt:lb5+ m 28."t9b3 cxb5, Campos - Vega, San­ tiago 1 995) 2 l ...ltlg4 22 ."t!/a4 and White wins, Gutman; II) 8 .. bd2 9.lt:lxd2 ltlxd2 (9..."t!/xe5 1 0. lt:lxe4 "t!/xe4 deserves some attention as, after l l ."t9d5 Black has no problems, e.g. l l ..."t9xd5 1 2.cxd5 lt:lb4 1 3 .e4 .ia6 14ba6 lt:lxa6 or l l ..."t9e7 12 ..td2 .tb7 1 3 ..tc3, Eisterrer - Weinzettl, Austria 1987, 13 ... 0-0 14 .&dl d6. Nevertheless, White has a good answer in l l .b3 .tb7 1 2 ..tf3 "t9 e7 13 . .tb2 0-0 1 4..td5) 1 0 ixd2 ltlxe5 I I . .tc3 .tb7 1 2.f4 ltlc6 l 3."t!/d2 0-0-0 14..tf3 (14..txg7 ghg8 1 5 ."t!/c3 f5 1 6..tffi lt:ld4 1 71U2 ltlxe2+ 1 8.fue2 "t!/e4 19."t!/c2 g,je8 20."t!/xe4 .txe4 2 J .gd2 ge6 22.i.d4 h5) 14 .. .f5 15 .gfe l ! ? ( l 5 .gael gde8 1 6.e4 "t!/c5+ 17.�hl ltld8 gives Black enough play. l8_gdJ fxe4 1 9."t!/xd7+ �b8 20.b4 "t!/xc4 21 .Ah5, Stefan Buecker, is met by 2 I ....tc6 22."t!/xg7 e3 23 ..txe8 gxe8. 133

Szymczak - Trap!, litomerice 1990, con­ tinued 1 8 .exf5 .ixf3 1 9.gxf3 �xc4 20. .ixg7 gxe I+ 21 .%Yxe I ge8 22.�fl �xa2 23..ic3 c5 24.f6 d5? 25..ie5 liJf7, when 26.ga3 ! ? �c4 27.�xc4 dxc4 28.gxa7 would be decisive, yet 20 ...�c2 2 I ..ic3 &e I+ 22.�xel gg8 is obviously better) 1 5 ... gde8 16.a4 a5 17 . .id5 with a clear plus for White, Gutman. 8.0-0

8 �xf3+!? Black has two more ideas: I) 8 ... liJxf2?! 9.gxf2 ltJg4 I O.liJb3 ltJxf2 I I .� 0-0 12.a3 id6 1 3.liJbd4, Gutman; D) 8 ...liJxd2, the old continuation, looks more logical, with a further split: A) 9..ixd2 .ixd2 (9...a5 IO.liJd4 d6 is less consequent as, instead of l l.b3 0-0 1 2.a3 .ic5 13..ic3 .id7 14.�d2 .ib6 15.'i!?hl f5 16�el liJg4 17.ifl c6 1 8.g3 ltJffi 19.ib2 liJe4 with an excellent game for Black, Rastianis - Khalikian, Moscow 1 979, l l ..ixb4 axb4 1 2 .�d2 0-0 1 3 .liJb5 liJc6 14.f4 .if5 I5..if3 �6 1 61Ue l WaS 17 .b3 might be lUlpleasant) IO.�xd2 d6 (10 ... 0-0 goes back into 6.e3 0-0 7..ie2 �e7 8.0-0 liJxd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2 IO.�xd2 liJxe5, and if IO".a5, then not l l .�c3 d6 12.c5 0-0 1 3 .cxd6 liJxf3+ 14..ixf3 �xd6 1 5.gfd l � 1 6lld4 .ie6 17.a 3 gfd8 1 8-&d I c6, Rios - Fernandez, Villa Balester 1 992, but I I .liJd4 d6 12.liJb5) I I .liJd4a6 ( 1 1 ... ...

0-0 will transpose into 6.e3 0-0 7 ..ie2 �e7 8.0-0 liJxd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2 IO.�xd2 liJxe5 I I .liJd4 d6, while I I ....id7 1 2 .f4 liJc6 13..if3 0-0 I4llfel �ffi 1 5-&d I gfe8 16.b4�8 17.liJb5 mx:8 1 8.c5 a6 19.liJc3 ged8 20.cxd6 �xd6 2 l .�xd6 cxd6 22. liJe4 liJxb4 23.ltlxd6 left Black frustrated, Reuss - Roeder, Gennany 1997) 12..§acl .id7 13 _gfd I 0-0 reaches a position after 6.e3 0-0 7 ..ie2 �e7 8.0-0 liJxd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2 IO.�xd2 liJxe5 l l .�cl d6 1 2.liJd4 a6 1 3 llfdl .id7, Gutman; B) 9.liJxd2, when: Bl) 9 ... h5 I O.a3 .ixd2 l l ..ixd2 a5 12..ic3 � 13.�d5 &6 14..ixa5 c6 1 5.�d2 gg6 1 6.f4 liJg4 17� and White won, Nav­ rotescu - Rabovszky, Budapest 1 996; Bl) 9 ...d6 IO.�a4+ liJc6 I I ..if3 0-0 12 . .ixc6 .ixd2 13..ixb7 .ixb7 14..ixd2, Ra­ docaj - Vospemik, Pula 1 999; further 83) 9 ...�e6, Tseillin/Gloskov, IO.liJb3 !? (IO.�c2 0-0 I I .liJb3 b6 1 2.a3 .id 6 1 3.ltld4 �g6 14.e4 .ib7 1 5.liJf5 gae8 , Fauth ­ Tinture, corr 1 994) 10 ... 0-0 I I .liJd4 �g6 12.a3 .ie7 ( 1 2 ....id6 1 3 .liJb5) 1 3.f4 ltJc6 14 ..id3, Gutman; similarly B4) 9 ...a5 I O.a3 ( I O.f4?, Maurel - Senec­ haud, Poitiers 1 990, I O ...liJd3) I O ... .ic5 I I .liJe4 ( I I .liJb3 .ib6 12.�c2 d6 13.liJd4 0-0 14.b3 f5 15 ..ib2 .id7, Fr��ntisek Ne­ pusti[) I I ....ib6 ( l l ...d6 12.liJxc5 dxc5 13 ..id2 0-0 14 ..ic3) 1 2.liJc3 c6 13.liJa4 puts Black under pressure, Gutman; BS) 9.. ..ixd2 I O..ixd2 d6 I l ..ic3 ( l l .e4 .id7? 12 .f4 ! liJc6 13 ..id3 0-0 14..ic3 a5 15.a3 f5 16.�f3 fxe4 1 7 ..ixe4 occurred in Hort - Mittelstaedt, Abensberg 1987, yet 1 1 ...0-0 12..ic3 a5 13.�d4 ffi has obvi­ ous more point) 1 1 ...0-0 (l l ... f5 12.Jh5+ liJg6 1 3 .�d5 �f7 14.�b5+ c6 1 5 .� �c7 16llad I c5 17 .�b3 .ie6 1 8 .�a4+ .id7 1 9.�c2 0-0-0 20..i f3 liJe5 2 I ..id5 ghf8 22.b4!? got Black in trouble, Podgayets - Krutikhin, Moscow 1 972) 1 2.�d4 f6 and Black is OK, Gutman; 134

B6) 9 ... 0-0!? 10.'t!fc2 (If 1 0. a3 !d6, e.g. l l .b4?! ltlg4 12.g3 !e5 or l l .ltle4 ltlxc4 12 .'t!fc2 ltlb6 1 3 ..id2, Caissa - Maxxx, internet 2002, 1 3 .. J:�e8 14.ltlxd6 't!fxd6 1 5 .� 1 c6 1 6..ic3 't!fe6. l O.ltlb3 is best answered by 1 O...b6 1 l .a3 .ic5 1 2.ltlxc5 bxc5 as, 10 ...'t!ff6 l l .ltl d4 a6 1 2 .a3 !e7 1 3 ..id2 ltlc6 14..ic3 ltlxd4 15..ixd4 'i:hl6 1 6.'t!fb3 d6 1 H�ad l .if6 1 8 ..if3 .ixd4 1 9.exd4 );!e8 201Ue 1, N emnann - Ptacek, Bohemia 2000, or 1 0 ...d6 l l .a3 .ic5 12. ltlxc5dxc5 l3.'t!fc2 �8 1 4.b3 Jd7 1 5..ib2 .ic6 16.'t!fc3 f6 1 7-l:�adl 't!ff7 1 8.0 "g6 1 9.e4, Ciaffone - Pray, Michigan 1 999, proved to be insufficient) 10 .. .a5 (lO ... fS? l l .ltlb3 a5 12.a3 a4 l3.ltld4 .ic5 14.ltlxfS 't!ff7 1 5.ltlg3 d6 1 6J.d2 ltlg4 1 7 .!c3 h5 1 8.h3 ltlxf2 19J.xh5 't!fxc4 20.'t!fg6 1 :0 Kraidman - Lindgren, Gausdal l 99 1 ) l l .a3 .ic5 12.ltle4 b6 !? and Black has nothing to worry about, Gut man. 9.�xf3 9..ixf3 ltlg5 1 O ..ie2 0-0 l l .ltlb3 b6. 9 ..0-0 9 ... a5 is possible as well: I) 10.ltld4 0-0 l l .f3 ltl ffi 12.®hl ( l 2.e4 c6) 1 2 ... d5 ( l 2 ...c6 1 3 ..id3 d5 14.cxd5 ltlxd5 1 5.e4 ltlc7 16.'t!fe2, Romero, 1 6... �8) l3.cxd5 ltlxd5 14.e4 ltlffi 15..ie3 �8 (Comas - Bellon, Terrassa 1 994, went 1 5 ...ltld5 1 6.ltlfS .ixfS 1 7.'t!fxd5 't!fd7 1 8. gfd 1 't!fxd5 1 9.fud5 te6 20.,m,5 b6 2 l .a3 !d6 22.gc1 gfe8 and with original tac­ .

tical procedures Black has obtained an equal game, Romero) 1 6.'t!fcl (if 1 6.a3 !d6) 1 6 ...a4, Gutman; m IO.'t!fc2 0-0 (Also IO ...b6!? l l .ltld4 i.b7 is a solUld option. 1 0...&6 seems murky since instead of l l .a3 .ic5 12..id3 ltlg5 1 3 .ltlxg5 't!fxg5 1 4.e4 "h4 1 5 ..id2 0-0 16J.c3 �6 17 ..ie5 b6 18J.g3 't!fe7 1 9.e5 i.b7, Duprez - Senechaud, Condom 1995, White has l l .ltld4 0-0 1 2 J.d3, e.g. 12 ... ges l3.c5 or 12 ...ltlffi 1 3.ltlfS 't!fd8 1 4.b3) 1 1 J.d3 fS ( l l ...ges is not bad, 1 2.lLid4

d6 1 3 .a3 .ic5 14.b3 .id7 1 5 ..ib2 c6 1 6. mel d5 17 .f3 ltlffi 1 8.cxd5 cxd5) 12.ltld4 g6 1 3.f3 ltlffi (l3_ltlg5 14.ltlb5 d6 15.ltlc3 !e6 1 6.a3 .ic5 1 7.®h l &e8 1 8..id2 c6 19.ltla4 h7 201Uel with an edge, Delalleau - Winsemius, corr 1999) 14.a3 .ic5 1 5 ..id2 a4 1 6.gfe 1 d6 w ith equal chances, Gutman. l O.aJ Other tries in this position: I) lO.ltld4 .ic5 l l .'t!fc2 c6 ( l l ...d6 1 2 .b3 -*'!7 13.tb2 fS 14J.d3 &e8 15.&e 1 , Ro­ mero, 1 5 ...'t!fg5 16.f3 ltlffi is reasonable) 1 2.b3 d5 1 3.tb2 !d7 ( 1 3 .. .dxc4 1 4..ixc4 ges 15J.d3 .ib6 16.a4 .ic7 1 7 J.a3 't!fe5 1 8.ltlf3 't!fd5 1 9.h3 ltlg5 20.ltlxg5 't!fxg5 seems adequate, Little Goliath - Fritz 6, computer game 2001) 14..id3 gfe8 1 5.0 ( l 5 .gael dxc4 1 6.bxc4 gadS) 15 ... ltl f6 16.&el dxc4 17.bxc4 �8 18..ifS !xd4 19..ixd4.ixfS 20."xfS ltld7 2 l .'t!fa5 c5 22 ..ial ltJ b6 23.e4 gd3 and B lack was comfortable in Topalov - Romero, Las Palmas 1 992; II) 10.'t!fc2 b6 ( 1 O...c6 l l .a3 !d6 1 2 .b3 );!e8 l3.tb2) l l .ltld4!b7 12.f3 ltlffi l 3.a3 !d6 14.ltlfS 't!fe5 1 5 .ltlxd6 't!fxd6 1 6 .b4 't!fe7 1 7.e4 d6 1 8 .!d3 (or 1 8 J.b2 ltld7 1 9.'t!fc3 ffi) 18 ...ltld7 (l8 ...a5 1 9J.d2, im­ proving en 19.b5 h6 20.tb2 ltld7 2l .'t!fc3 ffi 22.'t!fd2 ltJc5 23..ic2 't!ff7 24.'t!fe2 gfe8 0: 1 Jurkait - Schleiswies, corr 1 993) 19. !b2 ltle5 20.!e2 f6 is level, Gutman. 10.. ..ld6 IO ... !c5 l l .b4 ltl c3 (l l ...'t!ff6 is met by 12.'t!fc2) 1 2.'t!fc2 ltlxe2+ 1 3.'t!fxe2 !d6 14.c5! (l 4J.b2 b6 1 5 .ltld4 !e5) 14 ..J.e5 1 5 .ltlxe5 't!fxe5 1 6.!b2 yields White a slight plus, Romero. l l .�d4 l l .'t!fc2 b6 12.b3 tb7 l3.tb2 fS, Gutman. t t .. .tes l l ...f5 1 2 .ltlb5 ! , Romero. 12.13 �cS Black has no complaints, Romero. 135

Sequel l (l .d4 �f6 l.c4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�dl .lb4 s.�gfJ �c6) 6.a3

ges lO.O-O .lfl! l l ..ic3 g6 1 2 .V!fd5.ig7 l3.�dl V!fe7 14l!d3, as 8.e3 0-0 9..id3, Unclcarle - Lostpawn, internet 2000, 9 .. _ge8 lO.V!fc2 g6 l l ..ie4 .ifl! 12 ..ic3 .ig7 may hold out more chances for Black) 8.V!fxd2 V!fe7 will transpose into 4.lt:\f3 .ib4+ 5 ..ld2 lt:\xd2 6.ltl bxd2 lt:\c6 7 .a3 .ixd2+ 8.V!fxd2 V!fe7 - Part 4, Chapter 3; II) 7 .axb4, when: A) 7 ... lt:\xfl , Harding, 8.b5 (8 ..ig5 ! ? is Lillie 's suggestion, e.g. S ffi 9.exffi gxf6 l O ..if4 lt:\xh2 l l .gxh2 lt:\xb4 12.lt:\d4) 8 ... lt:\e7 (8 ... lt:\xh2 9.&h2 lt:\e7 l O ..igS) 9.Wxfl b6 10.b3 .ib7 l l ..ib2 0-0 12.V!fd4, Gutman; further B) 7 ... lt:\xc4 8 ..ig5 (8.V!fd5 lt:\b6 9.V!fe4 V!fe7 I O..id2 d5 favours Black, Otto Bo­ rik) 8 .. .f6 9.exffi gxf6 1 0.e3 ( l O..lh4!?, Constantin Popescu, 1 O ...V!fe7 l l .V!fb3 d5 1 2.b5 lt:\6e5 1 3 .lt:\xe5 lt:\xe5 1 4.e3 is not bad either, e.g. 14 ... d4 1 5 ..le2 .ie6 16.V!fa4 dxe3 1 7 .0-0 exf2+ 1 8 .gxf2 0-0 19.V!fe4 lt:\g6 20..ig3 or 14 ...ggs 1 5 ..lg3 V!fc5 16.ie2 .ig4, Fritz 6 - An Mon, com­ puter game 2001 , 17 .f3 .ie6 1 8.0-0 lt:\c4 19l!fc l gg7 20..lf4) 10 ...V!fe7 ( lO ...lt:\xb2 l l .V!fb3 fxg5 12 .V!fxb2 ggs 1 3 .b5 lt:\e7 14..ld3) l l ..hc4 fxg5 12.b5 g4 13.bxc6 gxf3 14.V!fd4 gfl! 1 5.gxf3 bxc6 1 6.ggl d5 17 ..ie2 gives a clear plus for White, Gutman; C) 7 . . . lt:\xf3+ appears to be forced. ...

This move uyuaUy comesfairly early on in those lines which are capable of trou­ bling the Fajarowiczplayer. Ideally he does not want to get into this variation,

Tim Harding. 6... �xdl Black should be aware that it does mat­ ter how he captures on dl. To cut out the option 6.. . li:Jxdl 7.tUb4, he should stick to the safer 6. .. 1Lxdl+, Bogdlln Lolic. Lixd2+ 7.lt:\xd2 (7.ixd2 see 4.lt:\d2 ib4 · 5.a3 .hd2+ 6..ixd2 lt:\c6 7.lt:\f3, covered in Section 1) 7 ...lt:\xd2 (7 ... lt:\c5 is met by 8.b4 lt:\e6 9 ..ib2 0-0 l O .e3) 8 ..ixd2 goes back into the main line. 7.�xdl Alternatives: I) 7.ixd2 .hd2+ (7....ifl! 8..ic3 V!fe7 9.g3 g6 is doubtful since both l O.V!fdS !? .ig7 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 1 2 .h4 ges 1 3l!d3 and 1 O.e6 f6 l l .exd7+ .lxd7 12 ..ig2 0-0-0 1 3 .0-0 'it>b8 14.V!fb3 .ic8 15.&dl .ig7 1 6.e3 h5 1 7.lt:\h4 V!fe8 1 8.lt:\xg6 V!fxg6 19..ixc6 h4, Bringsken - Notheisen, corr 1 997, 20. gxd8 gxd8 2 1 .c5, are in White's favour. 7 ....le7 is best met by 8.g3 ! ? 0-0 9 ..ig2

136

White has a choice of two recaptures: Cl) 8.exf3 Y!Je7 (8...0.0 9.f4 lt:lxb4 IO..ie3 d6 l l ..ie2 .if5 1 2.0.0 lt:lc2 13J�xa7 lt:lxe3 J 4,gxa8 Y!Jxa8 1 5.fxe3 dxe5 1 6.Y!Jd5 E:e8 1 7 .fxe5 brought Black in difficulties, An Mon - Gambit Tiger, computer game 200 I ) 9.f4 (with a very big advantage, Alexander Mikhalevski), and now: Cla) 9...ltlxb4 I O.Ae2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 f6 1 2 . .id2 (12.c5 Y!Jxc5 13.i.e3 Y!Jc2) 1 2. . .fxe5 (Mikhalevski - Arnold, Budapest 1997, went 12 ...ltlc6 13.i.c3 fxe5 14.Y!Jd5+ �8 1 5.fxe5 d6 16.exd6 Y!Jxe2 17 .d7 Y!Jg4 1 8. E:ad l E:d8, when 1 9 .Y!Jf7! .ixd7 2 0.0 was decisive: 20 ... Y!Jg5 21 .E:xd7 E:xd7 22.Y!Jxd7 Y!Jc5+ 23.�1 lt:le5 24.Y!Jf5 Y!Jxc4 25.&1 �e8 26.E:el or 20 .. .i.e6 2 l .�d8+ �d8 22fxg4 .ixf7 231W7) 1 3.fxe5 lt:lc6 14.Ac3 (1 4.f4 d6 1 5.exd6 Y!Jxd6 is equal) J 4 _ .it:lxe5 1 5 .Y!Jd5+ lt:lf7 16.E:ae l Y!Jg5 1 7 .Y!Jd4 looks promising fer White, Mikhalevski; Clb) 9...Y!Jxb4+ IO.Y!Jd2 (IO.id2 Y!Jxb2, e.g. l l ,gb I Y!Jd4 or l l ..id3 lt:lb4 1 2.i.f5 g6 1 3 .�bl Y!Jd4) 1 0 _.0-0 (if IO ... a5, then not I I .Y!Jxb4 lt:lxb4 1 2 .'it>e2 ltlc2 1 3 .E:a4 b6 14 ..id2 lt:ld4+ 1 5 . 'it>d3 lt:lc6 1 6 ..ie2 .ib7, Fritz 6 - Little Goliath, computer game 200 I , but l l ..ie2) I I .Y!Jxb4 (l l ..ie2 E:d8) l l ...ltlxb4 1 2 .&4 c5 1 3 ..id2 ltlc6 14.i.e2 E:d8 1 5.i.O ( 1 5 .i.e3 d6 1 6.exd6 b6) 1 5 . . . lt:ld4 keeps control, Gutman. C2) 8.gx0 lt:lxe5 (less impressive is 8 ... Y!Je7 9.Y!Jb3 Y!Jxb4+ IO.Y!Jxb4 lt:lxb4 I I .� c5 1 2.E:gl d6, since instead of 1 3 ..id2 �7 14J!ltb4 cxb4 1 5.i.xb4 dxe5 16fug7 .ie6 17 .e3 0-0-0, Kertesz - Schaffarth, Cologne 1 989, 1 3 .exd6! .id7 14 .E:xb4 cxb4 1 5.E:xg7 a5 16.i.d2 &6 17.c5 E:c6 1 8.ie3 a4 19..id4 a3 20.bxa3 bxa3 2 1 .e4 might be strong) 9.�gl Y!Jf6 (9 ...Y!Je7? I o,gv yields White a decisive pressure, e.g. 10 ... Y!Jxb4+ l l .i.d2 Y!Jc5 1 2.E:e3 'it>f8 13 .�xe5 Y!Jxe5 14 .i.c3 Y!Jxh2 1 5 .i.xg7+ 'it>g8 1 6.�g5 h6 1 7..ixh6+ 'it>h7 1 8 ..ig7,

10 ... 0-0 l l .f4 lt:lg6 1 2 .f3 ltlh4 1 3 .i.h3 �8 14...t11 , I O ... lt:lxc4 l l .�c3 b5 1 2 .b3 Y!Jffi 13.Y!Jc2 lt:le5 1 4.f4 lt:lc6 J5,ge3+ 'it>d8 16.i.b2 or IO ... d6 I I ,gxg7 lt:lxc4 J 2 ,gc3 lt:lb6 1 3 .i.g5 Y!Jf8 1 4.�xc7 .id7 1 5 .Y!Jd4 &8 1 6.Y!Jffi �b8 1 7.ih3 I :0 Kullamaa ­ Starke, corr 1 99 1 ) I O.Y!Jc2 (I O.E:a3 0-0 I I .Y!Jc2 d6 12.f4 lt:lg6 1 3 .i.h3 lt:lh4) 10 ... d6 l l .f4 lt:lg6 12.Y!Je4+ ( 1 2 .Y!Jc3 Y!Jxc3+ 13.bxc3 .ie6 14.e3 0-0) 12 ...'it>d8 13 .Y!Jd5 h6!? ( 1 3 ...c6 14.Y!Jg5 !? Y!Jxg5 1 5 .E:xg5) 1 4.b5 E:e8 and Black has enough coun­ terplay, Gutman.

7 ..1�:dl+ Three retreats have been tried: I) 7....ie7 8.lt:lf3 d6 (8...a5 9.i.f4 0.0 I O.e3 E:e8 l l ..id3 d6 1 2.0-0!? dxe5 1 3.lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 14.ixe5 .iffi 15..ixf6 Y!Jxffi 16.Y!Jc2 h5 1 7.E:fd I , Acebal - Alonso Gonzalez, Asturia 1 997) 9M4 .if5 I O.e3 g5 l l .i.g3 Y!Jd7 12.exd6 cxd6 13.ltld4 lt:lxd4 14.Y!Jxd4 0-0 15..ie2 Y!Je6 1 6.0-0 �fd8 17.�fd l .iffi 1 8.Y!Jd2 &c8 19k I left Black with no compensation, Foltys - Potucek, Tren­ cianske Teplice 1 94 1 ; II) 7 ... .ic5 8.lt:IO (White can reply more forcefolly by 8.lt:le4!? .ie7 9.f4, Harding, fer example 9... d6 I O.exd6 cxd6 l l .ltlc3 0-0 12.g3 .irS 1 3 .i.g2 Y!Ja5 14.i.e3 .if6 15.E:cl E:fe8 1 6.Y!Jd2) 8 ...a6 9.b4 h7 1 0 . .ig5 lt:le7 l l .e3 h6 12 ..ih4 g5 13 ..ig3 lt:lf5 14.id3 (14.lt:ld4 lt:lxg3 15.hxg3 Y!Je7, ..

1 37

Weis - Mittelbach, Vienna 1990, 16.l0f3) 14 ...l0xg3 1 5.hxg3 V!/e7 J 6.i.f5 with ad­ vantage for White, Gutman ; Ill) 7 .. .i.f8 (the lesser evil, Borik) ought to be too slow, H11rding. After 8.l0 f3 (8.f4 d6!? 9.exd6 V!/xd6 is unsound for White, e.g. JO.l0e4 V!/xdl + J l .�dl .if5 12.l0d2 0-0-0 1 3 .b4 aS 14. bxa5 l0xa5 JS .�e l .ic5, W iik - Gun­ dersen, corr 1 992; likewise J O .g3 h 5 !? J J ..ig2 h4 or I O.e3 V!/g6) we have: A) 8 ...b69�2 (9..ig5 .ie7 JO..ixe7V!/xe7 l l .e3 l0xe5 12..ie2 .ib7 seems harmless, Gebhardt - Golziow, corr 1 998. 9 ..if4 ib7 JO.e3 h6 l l.h4 g6 1 2� V!/e7 13 .V!/c2 .ig7 14..ie4 is more consistent: if 14 ... 0.0.0 JS.(l.()-0 mte8 J 6.c;bb I, while after 14 ...0-0 1 5..id5 l0d8 White has a choice between J6.ruJ �e8 1 7.0-0 �b8 1 8.�d2 l0e6 19.�fdl and J 6..ixb7 l0xb7 17.0-0, e.g.l7 ...d6 1 8.exd6 lOxd6 J 9_goo J or 17 ... a5 1 8.b3 l0c5 19l!fdl l0e6 20.i.g3 �d8 as in Bemal - Garcia Castro, Spain 1997, 2 J l!d5) 9....ib7 JO.ic3 �g8 l l .e3 ( J I .V!/c2 g6 12.b4 V!/e7 1 3.e3 .ig7 14 .V!/b2 0-0-0 15 .b5 l0b8 J 6..ie2 �deS, Kujala - Nie­ minen, corr 1986, 17.V!Ib4!? .ixO 18...ixf3 .ixe5 19..ixe5 V!/xe5 20.0-0 also gives some edge for White) J J ...g6 12� .ig7 13..ie4 V!/e7 1 4 . .ib4, Gutman; further B) 8 ... h6 9.b4 (9..if4 V!/e7 will transpose into 8 ...V!/e7 9 ..if4 h6, covered in CJ) 9...V!/e7 I O..ib2 b6 (IO .. l!g8 J J .e3 g5 12. h3 .ig7 1 3 .V!/d5 h5 14 .g4 b6 1 5 .b5, Spu­ rou - Koch, Germany 1 988) J J .e3 .ib7 1 2..ie2 �g8 ( 12 ... g5 13 .e6 �g8 14.exf7+ V!/xf7 1 5 .b5 l0a5 1 6.l0e5 1 :0 Dragoma­ rezky - Rytkonen, Avoin 1 99 1 ) 13 .0-0 g6 14.b5l0d8 1 5.a4 is clearly awkward for Black, Gutman; C) 8 ... V!/e7 with another branch: Cl) 9..ig5 V!/e6 J O.V!/d5 ( I O ..if4 V!/xc4 1 J .e3 could be answered by I J ...V!/c5!? 12..ie2 d6 13.exd6 .ixd6 J4.i.xd6 V!/xd6) 10 .. .h6 ( I O...d6 I I J.f4 dxe5 1 2.l0xe5 .id6

13.l0xc6 V!/xd5 14.cxd5 .bf4 1 5.l0d4 .ie5 1 6.().().0, Pascual - Laureles, e-mail 200 I ) J J ..if4 (on1 J .V!/xe6+ dxe6 1 2 ..id2 g 5 13.ic3 .ig7 14.g4 td7 J 5 ..ig2 0-0-0, im­ proving on 14 ... b6 1 5 ..ig2 .ib7 1 6.l0d4 l0xd4 17 ..ixb7 �d8, Einarsson - Bergs­ son, Reykjavik 1993, J8.ie4 l0b3 19l!bl) J J ...g5 12..ig3 .ig7 1 3.e3 b6 14..ie2 .ib7 15.0-0 ()..().() 16.V!/xe6 dxe6 (Kaser - Ries­ sbeck, corr 1 980, went 1 6 ... fxe6 1 7 .h3 l0e7 18.a4 a5 1 9.k l .ixt3 20..ixf3 l0g6 2 l .c5 �b8 22.b4 axb4 23 .cxb6 cxb6 24. �c4 .be5 25.�b4 c;ba7 26.�fbl .ixg3 27l!xb6 �b8 28..ib7 I :0) 1 7.�fd I (1 7.h3 l0e7 1 8.l0d4 l0g6 1 9.f4 gxf4 20..ixf4 .ixe5, Borik) 1 7 ...g4 ( 1 7 ... l0e7 1 8.l0d4 l0g6 is possible, viz. 19.f4 h5 20.fxg5 h4 2 J .i.f4 l0xe5 22.l0b5 a6 23.l0c3 l0g6) 18.l0d4 l0xe5 1 9..ixe5 .ixe5 20..ixg4 c5 2 J .l0b5 �b8 ! ? (2 l ...�dg8 22 ..ih3 .if3 23.�d2 �xg2+ 24..ixg2 �g8 25.l0xa7+ c;bb8, Borik, 26.l0c6+ .ixc6 27.f4) 22. l0c3 �dg8 looks OK for Black, Gutman; C2) 9.V!/d5 h6 (9 ... b6 I O ..ig5 V!/e6 I I . V!/xe6+ dxe6 12.i.d2 h6 1 3 .ic3 g5 14.g4 transposes to Cl, while Soyer - KuntE, Angers 1 990, went 14.h3 .ib7 IS .�d I .ig7 1 6.e3 �d8 1 7.�d8+ �xd8 1 8.�d2 We.7 19.id3 M8 20.c;bc2 l0b8 2 1 .b4 l0d7 22..ie2 hf3 23...ixf3 .ixeS Y�Yz) J O..id2 g6 (JO ...g5!? J J .ic3 .ig7 12.e3 g4 13.l0d4 .ixe5, but not 1 2 ... b6? 1 3 .l0d4, Aguiar Garcia - Montenegro Garcia, Malaga 1998) J J .ic3 .ig7 12.e3 b6 1 3.l0d4 .ib7 leads to a balanced position, Gutman; C3) 9 ..if4 !? h6 I O.h4 g6 l l .e3 ( J J .V!/d2 .ig7 12.e3 l0xe5 is even, Sorsa - Sali­ maki, Finland 1 999) J J ....ig7 1 2.V!/d5 b6 13.c5 (13.id3 .ib7 J4.ie4 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 �e8 J 6 ..ig3 f5 ! 1 7 .exf6 V!/xf6 1 8 . .ie5 fue5 19.l0xe5 l0a5 winning, Schlenga ­ Zimmermann, Germany 1 990) 13 ....ib7 14.cxb6 axb6 1 5 .�k l l0d8 J 6.V!/di l0e6 17..ig3 0-0 1 8 ..ie2 l:la5 19.0-0 and White keeps the better chances, Gutman.

138

8-i.xdl 8.'thd2 �xe5 9.�c3 (9.b3 �e7 IO.e3 b6 l l .i.b2 .lb7 1 2 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3 .�c3 f6 1 4.0 d5 1 5 .cxd5 gxd5 1 6.gxd5 .lxd5 1 7 ..ta6+ .lb7 1 8 ..lxb7+ �xb7 19 _gd) gd8 was level in Haugli - Fossan, Nor­ wegen 1993, though I prefer 1 3...�e8) 9...ffi (9...� ffi I O.g3 d6 l l .i.g2 0-0 1 2.0-0 ge8 is good as well) I O ..l£4 ( IO.f4 �f7! l l .g3 �e7 1 2.i.g2 0-0 1 3 .0-0 ge8 1 4.e4 gb8 intending b7-b6 and .lc8-b7, while IO ...�g6 l l .g3 d5 12.i.e3 0-0 J 3 .gdJ c6 14.i.g2 ie6, Meiser - Schaefer, Passau 1997, 1oses to 1 5.f5 .lxd5 16 .cxd5) 10 ... �e7 l l .e3 0-0 1 2.i.e2 b6 ( 12 ...d6 1 3 .0-0 .le6, Doeserich - Wittelsberger, Wies­ baden 1 996, 14.c5!?) 1 3 .0-0 .lb7 causes no problems for Black, Gutman.

White returns the pawn but obtains the bishop pair and a space advantage,

Harding. s ... �xes

Some examples of other moves: I) 8...�4 9.e3 (9ic3 �xc4 I O.e3 �e6 l l .ti'h5 b6 1 2.�h4 .lb7 1 3ic4 �e7 14. �xe7+ �xe7 1 5 .0-0-0 c5 16.0 � 17.e4 b5 1 8.Ad5 .lxd5 19.exd5 a5 20.i.el �g6 21 ig3 h5 22.h4 &6 23.�e I 0-0 24.d6 gc8 25.f4 �fB 26.{5 proved successful in Yermolinsky - Khmelnitsky, USA Ch Seattle 2002; however, it is worth no-

ting that I O.e6 �xe6 l l .hg7 gg8 1 2 . .lc3, Harding, i s best met by 1 2 ...b6!?) 9...0-0 I O.i.c3 ge8 l l .�d5 d6 (l l ...�e7 12ie2 �xe5 13 .c5) 1 2.g3 �h6 1 3 .exd6 .lg4 ( 13 ..1kl8 can be answered by 14.h4!? fud6 15.�g5 �xg5 1 6.hxg5 .lf5 1 7_gd ) , while Gambit Tiger - Fritz 6 , compu­ ter game 200 I, proceeded 14.�e4 �xd6 15.i.g2 ie6 16.0-0 �c5 17.b3 a5 1 8.a4 gd7 19.ti'h4 &d8 20.i.e4 h6 2 l .g4 gd6) 14.i.e2 (Gostica - Berkovich, Bled 1989, went 14 ..lg2 gxe3+ 1 5 .�fl .le6, when instead of 1 6.fxe3 .lxd5 1 7.cxd5 �b8 1 8.dxc7 �d7 19.d6 �xd6 20..lxb7 ge8 21.c8tlf �d3+ 22.� �e2+ 23.'tthl mD+ \12-Y., 1 6.�5 !? fuc3 1 7.bxc3 wins, yet we can improve with 1 5 ...gee8 1 6.dxc7 &c8 17.h3 .le6 1 8.�c5 fuc7) 14 .. be2 15.�xe2 &d8 16.h4 fud6 1 7.�g5 yields an advantage for White, Gutman; D) 8 ...0.09.i.c3 �e7 (9.. M IO.�d5 �e7 is just a transposition; however, White has an extra resource in the fcnn of I O.e3 �xe5, Kadner - Lenz, corr 1990, l l ..le2 d6 1 2.c5, while I O.f4?! d6 l l .exd6 .lf5 is to Black 's liking) I O.�d5 (For I O.e3 see 8...�xe5 9.i.c3 �e7 I O.e3. If I O.f4 U; this is more convincing than IO ...b6 l l .g3 .lb7 1 2.i.g2 gfd8, Dreschler - Au­ gustin, corr 1987, 13 ..ld5 ! ? d6 14.�d3 dxe5 15.�e4) IO ...ge8 ( I O...b6 is well met by 1 1 .�1 gd8 1 2.e3 .lb7 1 3 .�e4.ge8 14.id3 g6 15.ic2, while IO..M l l.e3 d6 1 2.exd6 gxd6 1 3 .�0 b6 14 ..le2 .lb7 1 5 .�f4 �d8 1 6.0-0 gives Black insuf­ ficient compensation) l l .f4 gd8 1 2.f5 ( 12.�f3 d6 13.exd6 fud6 14.e4 �d4 15. hd4 fud4 1 6.e5 f6 17 .i.e2 fxe5 1 8.fxe5 .lg4 19 .�e3 &d8 20bg4 ti'h4+ 2 l .g3 �xg4 22.0-0 gxc4 23 .gael �d4 \/z- \12 Fronda - Augustin, corr 1 987) 12 .. ,ge8 (12 ...� 13.g3 �g4 14.�0 �xc4 151kll ge8 16.e4, e.g. 16 ...�c5 1 7 J!d5 �fB 18. ib5or 16...�3 17.�f4) 13.ffi�e6 14.txg7 �xe5 1 5 .e4 with some edge, Gutman. 1 39

9..lc3 Less challenging are: I) 9.e4 �4!? (9 ...0-0 IO.J.e2 d6 1 1 .0-0 .ie6 12J:lc l �4 1 3 .f4 �g4 1 4.h3 �f6 1 5.15 .id7 1 6.W4 I :0 Grotars - Bert, corr 1 995) I O.�c2 0-0 l l..ie2 f5, Gutman; D) 9.�c2 d6 I O.g3 .ie6 l l.J.g2 �d7 (or l l ...�c8 1 2.b3 0-0 13 .0-0 .ih3 14 ..ic3 l::te8, Skrzypczak - Bonneau, Me udon 1 992) 1 2.b3 i5 13.�c3 0-0 14.0-0 .ih3 1 5 .hb7 ixfl 1 6.l::t xfl l::tae8, Heron ­ McDonald, Oban 1 995; Ul) 9.e3 d 6 10.J.e2 0-0 (IO...�g5 1 1 .0-0 .ih3 1 2.J.f3 0-0-0, Kmoch - Block, Rot­ terdam 1 940) 1 1 .0-0 .ie6 1 2 .b3 �4!? 1 3 .f3 f5 1 4.�e I, Middendorf - Roeder, Germany 1 969, 14 ...�e7 1 5 .J.c3 �g6, Gutman. White has a lasting advantage and the position is much easierfor him to play,

Harding. 9...1fe7 Apart from this move there are two others that deserve detailed attention: I) 9 ..!6 is a passive one.

White has four replies: A) I O.f4 �xc4 l l .e4 �e3 1 2.�5+ g6 1 3 .�e2 �xfl 14.15 d5 15.fxg6 hxg6 16. l::txfl , Ksieski - Herrmann, Greifswald 2003, is absurd due to 16._d4 17 .Q.O..O c5;

8) I O.c5 � e7 l l .�d5 ( l l .b4 is prema­ ture in view of I I ...b6 12.�d5 l::tb8 13.cxb6 axb6, while 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.e3 d6 1 3 .cxd6 cxd6 14..1e2 .k6 15.0-0 was quite comfy for White, Roos - Schaffarth, Germany 1993) l l ...l::tb8 (Peze - Maxxx, internet 2002, went l l ...�f7?! 1 2.e3 l::tb8 13J;d l b6 14.c6 d6 15..id3 0-0 16.0-0.k6 17.m5 �h6 1 8 .b4 d5 1 9.�4 .ig4?! 20.f3 .if5 2 1 .e4) 1 2.f4 ( 1 2.e3 b6) 1 2...�f7 (better than 12 ... �g6 1 3 .�c4 �e6 1 4 .�xe6+ dxe6 15.e3 .id7 1 6.J.c4 �e7 1 7 .h4, Del Rey - Vidal del Rio, Orense 2000) 13 .e4 b6 looks fine for Black, Gutman; C) I O.e3 �e7 (IO ...d6 see 9...d6 10.e3 fti. 10 ...0-0 is doubtful in view of l l ..ixe5 fxe5 12 .�d5+ �h8 13.Y:he5, though I I . f4 �g6 12 .�d2 l::te8 1 3 .0-0-0 d6 14.l::t g l ig4 1 5.&1 �d7 1 6.�d5+ Wh8 17.�xb7 a5 1 8.g3 �b8 1 9.�g2 a4 20.h3 .k6 2 1 .g4 was also promising for White, Vainio ­ Joseph, corr 1 992) I I ..ie2 ( l l .f4 �f7 1 2.�f3 0-0 13.J.d3 &8 14.e4 b6 15.0-0-0 .ib7 16J;he l �d6?! 1 7 .�h3 �e6 1 8 .f5 �f7 1 9.e5 fxe5 20.J.xe5 �xc4 2 1 .icl d5 22.fti led to a crushing defeat, Schuster ­ Becker, Germany 1947, yet 14 ... d5! 15. cxd5 .its turns the tables) l l. ..b6 (l l ...d6 1 2.0-0 - 12.Jh5+ g6 13.J.e2 1e6 14.0-0 0-0 1 5 .�d4, Reis - Figueiredo, Ho ura Giuasio 200 1 , fails to 15 ...c5 16.�e4 f5 -, 12 . . .0-0 is worth clarification. 1 3 .�d5+ 'ith8 14� I l::!b8? 15.c5 .k6 16.cxd6 cxd6 17.�d4 l0c6 18.� .ig8 1 9.l::tfd l l::tfd8 20.J.d3 d5 2 1 .itS h6 22J;d2 ih7 23.J.h3 �e4 24.J.xfti M6 25.�xe4 he4 26.J.h4 left Black frustrated, Dominguez - Bel­ lon, Barcelona 2000 but 14 ... c6 1 5 .�d4 .ie6 should equalize. After 1 3 .b3 Black has two options: 1 3 .. .J.f5, for instance 14.�d5+ �f7 or 14.f3 l::tad8 1 5 .e4 .ie6 16.f4 �7. improving on 16...�c6 17 .td3 f5 1 8.�13 l::tde8 1 9 .l::tae l �f7 20.�g3, given by Peter Schaflarth; 13 ...J.e6 14. �d2, when instead of 14 ...�d7 15.�c2 1 40

'it>h8 16.�Uel c!lJe5 17 .f4 c!LJc6 18.in �8 19.&d l , Saric - Vospemik, Pula 2000, 14 ...&d8 15.e4 �fe8 might be adequate) 12.0-0 (1 2..i.h5+ g6 13.J.f3 c6) 1 L�.b7 1 3 .�d4 (if 1 3.�c2 0-0 1 41Udl d6; this is more natural than 13 ... 0-0-0 14.b4 g5 1 5 .�fc 1 c5 1 6.�f5 �g8 17 .bxc5 bxc5 1 8-&b 1 g4 1 9..ia5 �d�. Salvermoser ­ Hauke, Germany 1 988, when 20.�b5! J.c6 2 l .�b3 would be decisive, e.g. 2 1 ... c!LJO+ 22.bfl gill 2311cbl �g2+ 24.<Ml �d6 25 .�f4 or 2 l ...�e6 2211cb l ) 1 3 ... 0-0!? (13 ...a5 1 4.J.h5+ c!LJf7 1 5 .b4 axb4 1 6 .axb4 0-0 1 7 .c5 bxc5 1 8.bxc5 �xal 1 9 .�xal �a8!? 20.�xa8+ .ba8 2 1 .� J.c6 22.�b8+ �� 23.�a7 c!LJg5 24.�xc7 �xeS 25.�d8+ ��. Ward - Tozer, Co­ penhagen 2000) 14.mdl &d8 15ru2 d5 1 6 .�adl c5 keeps control, Gutman;

II) 9. . .d6 i s probably better, Harding.

White shouldforce back the black knight by playing e4 andf4 and this seems the only effective plan. D) l O.e4!? �e7 ( 1 0...b6 l l .f4 c!LJf7 12.�d5 �8 1 3.0-0-0 c6 14.�h5 d6 1 5id3 �d7 1 6.h3 'it>d8 17.e5, Grubling - Bockel­ mann, Germany 1 988) l l .f4 ( l l .J.e2 d6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.f4 c!LJc6 1 4.�c2 5 1 5 .J.d3 fxe4 1 6.J.xe4 got Black into trouble, Riveiro - Gonsalves, B uenos Aires 1 993, but l l ...b6!? 12.f4 c!LJf7 13.0-0 J.b7 1411el 0-0 15J.f3 �fe8 seems viable) l l ...c!LJc6 (Pomar - Steiner, M adrid 1 95 1 , went l l ... c!LJg6 1 2 .�0 0-0 1 3 .J.d3 b6 1 4 .h4 J.b7 1 5.h5 c!LJh8 1 6.h6 g6 1 7 .0-0-0 c!lJf7 1 8.�g4 c!LJd6 1 9rue l �f7 20.5 'it>h8 2 1 . e5 c!LJx5 22.exf6 �fe8 23 .�e7. Also 1 1 ... c!LJf7 1 2.J.d3 is lUI pleasant for Black, e.g. 12 ...b6 1 3 .�g4 0-0 14.0-0 ib7 1511fel or 12 ...d6 1 3 .0-0 - already seen in Pollak Mueller, corr 1929-, 13 ...id7 14.b4 0.0.0 15.b5 m.g8 16.�a4 'ttt8 17� b6 18.� � 19.a4 g5 20.a5, Leskewie� - Chow, Perth 1997) 12�f3 ()..() 13J.d3 b6 14.0.0.0 1b7 1 5.i.c2 favours White, Gutman.

141

We examine: A) I O.he5 dxe5 l l .�xd8+ 'i!?xd8 1 2 .g3 c6 is harmless, Crafty - Bronto, com­ puter game 1 997; B) I O.f4 c!LJc6 1 1 .1xg7 �g8 12.J.d4 i£5 13 .�d2 (13.J.f2 �f6 14 .�d2 0-0-0) 13 ... �e7 14.i12 0.0.0 15.b4 d5 1 6.b5 (1 6.cxd5 ie4 17.b5 �xd5 1 8.'Wb2 c!LJd8) 1 6 ...dxc4 17.�c3 �3 1 8.�xc4 �a3. when White has to take care, Gutman; C) I O.�d5 c6 (10...J.e6 l l .�xb7 0-0 1 2. he5 dxe5 l 3.ladl , Harding, can be par­ ried by l 3 ...�b8!?, but the move which would worry me is 1 2.c5 c!lJc4 l 3 .cxd6 c!LJxd6 14.�c6. 1n reply to I O...f6 White may consider l l .c5, for instance l l ... c!LJf7 12.e3 c6 1 3 .'Ml5 d5 14.id3 or l l ...dxc5 12.�xc5 b6 1 3.�e3 �e7 14.f4 c!LJf7 1 5 . �xe7+ 'it>xe7 1 6.e4 J.b7 1 7 .J.d3 �he8 1 8.0-0) l l .�e4 0-0 (l l ...�e7?, Harding, 12.c5) 1 2.c5 ffi 13 .cxd6 �xd6 14.J.b4 c5 15rul � 16.�d5+1e6 17.�xc5 �xc5 1 8.J.xc5 �fc8 1 9.b4 c!LJc4 and Black is at least not worse, Gutman; D) 1 0.e3 is a solid continuation, after: Dl) I 0 ... 0-0 l l .c5 ( l l .�d4 c5 1 2 .Wf4, Nicolll Minev, 12...�e7) l l ...J.e6 12.cxd6 �xd6 13.�xd6 cxd6 1411dl md8 15.1e2 (15f4? c!LJg4 16.'it>e2, Ziegler - Hollnack, Germany 1 994, 1L�8 17.'it>f3 h5) 1 5... �ac8 16.0-0, Gutman; further

Dl) I O... f6 l l .cS!? ( l l ..ie2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 Ae6 1 3 .b3, Borik, is too slow as 13 ... d5 14Jkl dxc4 IS.ixeS fxeS 1 6..ixc4 .bc4 17 ..!hc4 c6 shows. If l l .WihS+ g6 12. � Y!fe7 13..ie2 .Ae6, while l l ...'it>e7 1 2..ie2 Y!fe8 1 3 .Wih4 lt:lg6 14.Y!fd4 is a bit arti­ ficiaL Braun - Schaefer. Passau 1 997) l l ....ie6 ( l l ...dxcS 1 2.Axe5 Y!fxd l+ 13 . ..!hdl fxeS J4,gds. After l l ...a6 12.cxd6 Y!fxd6 White has 1 3 .Y!fxd6 cxd6 14.�dl rlie7 J S..ib4 or 1 3..ib4 Y!fxdl+ J4_gxd I .id7 J S ..ie2 0-0-0 1 6 .f4! ? lt:lc6 1 7.Ac3 �he8 1 8 .rlif2, Schneider - Back, corr 1 995) 12.cxd6 Y!fxd6 13.Y!fxd6 cxd6 14.f4 lt:ld7 (14 ... lt:lg4 I S ..id4) I S .�dl rlie7 1 6. Ae2 &c8 1 7 ..ib4 lt:lcS 1 8 .0-0 gives a pleasant game for White, Gutman; D3) I O...Y!fe7 l l ..ie2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 (Oieg Neikirch mentions 12.Y!fc2 .Ae6 13.b3 aS), when four moves are worth exploring: D3a) 12...if5 13.c5 dxcS (13 ..lU'd8 14.Y!fd4 f6 15.Y!/d5+) 14.Y!fd5 We8 1 5.Y!fxb7, Spiel­ mann - Weil, Vienna 1 937; D3b) 12 ...Ad7 1 3.c5 Ac6 14 .cxd6 cxd6 IS.Y!fd4 f6 1 6.b4!? ( 16.&dl �fd8 17.ru2 rlih8 J 8_gfd l b6 19.Y!ff4 lt:lf7 20�5 �8 2l ..ixf7 Y!fxf7 22.�xd6 �xd6 23 .Y!fxd6 with Black struggling for a draw, Izeta ­ Sion Castro, Salamanca 1 988) 1 6 ...a6 ( 1 6 ... �fd8 1 7.b5 Ae8 1 8..ib4) 1 7.a4; D3c) 12 .. � 13.c5 Wd8 1 4.Y!/c2 f6 (with a sound position, Tseillin/Giilskov) I S . cxd6 cxd6 (or I S . . .Y!fxd6 1 6.�fd l Y!/c6 17�1) 1 6.l:!acl �8 1 7.Y!fa4 are all better for White, Gutman; D3d) 12 ... f6!? goes into 9 .. .f6 IO.e3 Y!fe7 l l ..ie2 d6 1 2.0-0 0-0 - IC. E) I O.cS! f6 (IO .. .ie6 l l .cxd6, e.g. I I ... cxd6 12.f4 lt:l c6 13..ixg7 �g8 14.Ad4 or l l ...f6 12.dxc7 Y!fxc7 13.e3 � 14�2 md8 IS.Y!fc2) l l .cxd6 ( l l .e3 see 9...d6 I O.e3 f6 l l .cS - D2) I I ...Y!fxd6 12.Y!fxd6 cxd6 13.�1 'it>e7 14.e4.Ae6 15�2 �8 1 6.f4 lt:lc6 17.� isnot easy for Black,Gutman

1 0.f4!? Here are three more opportunities: I) I O.e3 f6 enters 9 ... f6 1 0.e3 Y!/e7; II) I O .Y!fdS with a further split: A) IO ...d6 l l .cS f6 (all other defences fail miserably, e.g. l l .. ..ie6? 1 2.Y!fxb7 0-0 13.cxd6 Y!/xd6 14.�dl Y!fc6 I S .Y!fxc6 lt:lxc6 1 6.e3 Ab3 17 iid2, Ortega - Tie­ fenbach, Cattolica 1 993; l i ...J.fS 12.e4 ().().0 13 .cxd6 cxd6 14.exf5 lt:ld3+ I S.'i!ld2 lt:lxf2 16.f6 lt:le4+ 1 7.rlic2 lt:lxf6 1 8.Y!ff5+ 11 b8 1 9 ..id3 dS 20.Y!leS+ I :0 Roeder Vospemik, Lido 2002; l l...aS 1 2.e3 0-0 and now not 1 3.0-0-0 lt:lg4 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.�d2 .ie6 1 6.Y!/d4 f6 17.Ae2 lt:le5 1 8 . Y!fxd6 Y!ff7 1 9.e7 15.e4 .Ae6 16�2 �ac8 1 7 .f4 lt:lc6 1 8.0-0 brings Black little profit, Gutman; B) IO...f6 11 �I ( l l .cS see 9...f6 1 0.c5 Y!fe7 l i .Y!fdS. If l l .f4 lt:lt7 12.e4 � 13�2 M, improving on l l ...c6 12.Y!fd4 cS 1 3.Y!fd5 lt:lf7 14.e4 d6 I S ..ie2 Ae6 1 6.Y!/d3 .id7 1 7.0-0, Del Rey - Fontana Sotomayour, Zaragoza 200 I ) I I ...d6 1 2.e3 ( 1 2.e4 lt:lc6 1 3 ..id3 Ae6 14.Y!fb5 �b8 ! ? 1 5 .0-0 0-0) 1 2 ...Y!ff7 ( 1 2 ...lt:lc6 1 3 ..ie2 Ae6 1 4.Y!Ib5 �b8 I S ..ihS+ !? Af7 1 6-iO Y!fd7 1 7.c5) 13 ..ie2 0-0 14.Y!/xf7+
142

ffi) IO.Wfd4 appears to be more testing.

ic6 might be strong. 1 2.f4 lild7 1 3 .e4 lilcS 14.WfdS ie6 J S .WthS+ if7 16.Wff3 0-0 17 .Ikl c6 1 8.15 bS 1 9.cxbS cxbS 20. ixbS �b 8 2 1 .ic6 gfc8 brought Black success in Baginskaite - GosseII, Rotary 2002) 1 2...ie6 ( 1 2 ...lilc6 1 3 .Wff4 id7 14.ig2 0-0-0) J 3 .ig2 gbs 14.gS fxgS IS.cs gd8 1 6.cxd6 cxd6 1 7. f4 gxf4 1 8. Wfxf4 ib3 was fine for Black, Medina Galderin, Manzanillo 1 99 1 ; Bl) l l .e4 d6 ( l l ... b6 1 2.ie2 ib7 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14.gadl d6 J S.f4 lild7 is also good) 12.ie2 ie6 13.b3 a5 14.f4 lild7 (14 lilc6? I S.Wfd3 0-0 1 6.0-0 gae8 17 .ihS if7 1 8. it3 �8 1 9J.b2ie6 20life l Wff7 2 1 & 1 15 22.Vc3 'iJ,e 7 23.ex15 Wfx15 24.ge3 gfe8 2S.gcel Wff7 26.ixc6 bxc6 27.fS ! I :0 Mohr - Schebler, Schoeneck 1 988) I S . �I (IS.b4 axb4 1 6.axb4 �1+ 17.ixa l 0-0 1 8 .0-0 if7 1 9.gdJ ges) I S ...lilcS !? 16.b4 axb4 17 .axb4 lila4 1 8.Aal 0-0 1 9. 0-0 if7 20.if3 gfe8, Gutman; further BJ) l l .e3 d6 (l l...b6!? 12.ie2ib7 13 .0-0 transposes to 9 ... ffi IO.e3 Wfe7 J J .ie2 b6 1 2.0-0 ib7 1 3.Wfd4) 12.ie2 ( 12.b4 0-0 13.Wth4 ie6 14.gc I Wft7 IS.ixeS fxeS 16.i.e2, Philipps - Lindner, Wuerzburg 1996, 16...a5!?) 1 2.. .ie6 ( 1 2 .id7 1 3.0-0 ic6 14.b4 b6 IS.a4 0-0 1 6.a5 gave White a slight advantage, Zilbennan-Krutik­ hin, USSR 1 97S) 1 3 .b3 0-0 14 .0-0 gfdS ( 1 4 ... aS I S .gac l b6 1 6 .f4 lild7 1 7.if3 �d8 should be equal, Davor - Hoiberg, Skanderborg 2001 , while 14 Wff7 IS.eM a5 16.f4 lilg6 17.Wfel 15 1 8.ixaS dS I 9.cS gfe8 20.ic3 was a disaster for Black in Kruel - Parreiras, Campinas 1 962) I S .e4 (I S.Wfh4 lilg6 1 6.WthS dS) IS ... aS 1 6.f4 lild7 and White gets nowhere, Gutman. .•

Black has tried two ways to resist: A) IO d6 l l .cS ( l l .e3 ffi!?; less effective is l l ...cS 1 2 .Wfd2, e.g. 1 2 ... id7 13 .i.e2 ().M 14.0-0 ic6 I S .f4 lilg6 1 6..lf3 15 17. .hc6 bxc6 1 8.b4, Holemar - Blaskova, Znojmo Rotunda 2002, or 12 ...0-0 1 3.ie2 ie6 1 4.b3 15 I S.0-0 gadS 16.f4) l l ...f6 ( 1 1 ...!15 1 2.cxd6 cxd6 J 3 .gdJ 0-0-0 14. Wfxa7 lild3+ I S .gxd3 ixd3 1 6.iaS Aa6 17 .e3 Wfe4 1 8.ixa6 and White won in Smistik - Keprt, Moravian League 1 999) 12.cxd6Wixd6 ( 1 2...cxd6 13.M i lilf7 14.e3 0-0 IS.id3 ie6 1 6.ic2 gfd8 17.0-0 b6 1 8.Wth4 lilh6 19 .Wfe4 15 20.Wff4, Stein­ berg - Lemke, corr 1 994) 1 3 .Wfxd6 cxd6 transposes to 9 _d6 1 0. Wfd5 Wfe7 l l .cS ffi 12.cxd6 Wfxd6 1 3.Wfxd6 cxd6 - 1/A ; B) I O ... f6 ! ? retains flexibility, we see: Bl) 1 1 .0-0-0 d6!? ( I I ...Wfe6 1 2 .e4 b6 with the idea ... .l.a6 to eliminate White s bishop pair, Harding -, 1 3.WfdS WfxdS 14.cxdS aS, Moynihan - Harding, Dublin 1 99S, is useless, viz. I S.f4 lilg4 1 6 .gd2 lile3 J7,jd) b6 , Harding, 1 8.i.xa6 fua6 1 9.b3 !? lilg4 20.h3 lilh6 2 1 .eS) 1 2.g4 (Others are not better. Paunovic - Pieper Emden, Germany 1 98 1 , went 12 .e4 ie6 1 3 .ie2 0-0 14.f4 lild7 I S.g4 aS 1 6J:llig l lilcS 17.�l , and now instead of17 ..� 1 8..tf3 lila4 19.ie I Wfe6 20Jkl lilcS 21. gcJ bS 22.15 Wfd7 23.gS, 17 ...id7 18.J.t3 .•

•

.•

A knight occupying afinn square in the centre isusually a matchfor a bishop, but once it gets driven away towards the edge ofthe board, the bishop is usually far supericr,John Nunn, Move by MlM!

1 43

Sequei J (l.d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dx.eS �e4 4.�dl .ib4 s.�o)

1 0...�c6 Others are clearly weaker: I) I O . ..li.:lxc4 l l .�d3 (less convincing is l l .�d4 li.:le3 1 2 .�xg7 l:!fB 1 3licl d6 14. .iffi, Reneau - Stillwell, corr 2000, due to J 4_ .'�e4 I S .l:!xc7 li.:ldS 1 6.l:!c l .tiS ) I I .. .li.:le3 12 ..ixg7 l:!g8 1 3 ..id4 �xg2+ 1 4..ixg2 l:!xg2 I S.0-0-0 l:!xe2 1 6lihg I d6 17 .l:!g8+ 'i!i>d7 1 8.ieS fu.h2 1 9."M>S+ c6 20.�b4 l:!h6 2 I . .ixd6 l:!xd6 22.l:!xd6+ �xd6 23�8+ �d8 24.�xd6+ was dev­ astating, Vossehnan - Massy, corr 1 999; II) I O ... li.:lg4 I I ..ixg7 l:!g8 I 2 J.d4 b6 (if 12 ...�e3 1 3 .�d3 �xg2+ 14 ..bg2 l:!xg2 I S.0-0-0 d6 1 6lihgl) 1 3.�d3 .ib7 14.h3 .ie4 1 S .�c3 li.:lh6 1 6.l:!gl li.:l fS 17 ..if2, Gutman ; similarly 04) IO ... �g6 I I ..ixg7 l:!g8 1 2.�d4 cS I3. �c3 �xf4 14..iffi �e6 IS.0-0-0 l:!g4 (on I S ... d6 White plays 1 6.g3 �hS 1 7..ih4 �g7 1 8.e4) 1 6.e3 li.:lxg2 17 ..ie2 l:!g6 1 8. .ieS f6 1 9 ..id6 �xe3+ 20.�xe3 li.:lxe3 2 I .l:!d3 �xc4 22J.hS �xd6 23.l:!el + c;t}f7 24.l:!xd6 aS 2S ..ixg6+ hxg6 26.l:!fl fS 27.l:!gl gives a plus for White, Gutman. l l .Ax.g7 !g8 l l .AcJ 1 2..id4 gg4 1 3 .�d2 is met by 13 ...�e4 14.e3 �d4 I S.�xd4 �xd4 16.exd4 l:!xf4. ll tfh4+ lJ.gJ !x.gJ 14.hx.g3 tfx.hl lS.tfdJ d6 16.1)-0-0 .id7 17.tfe3+ Wf8 18..if6 !e8 19.tfc3 tfe4 The outcome is unclear, Gutman. .••

s...d6!? Alternatives: I) S ... cS 6.e3 �c6 7 J.e2 �aS 8.0-0 li.:lxd2 9.�xd2 �xeS IO.li.:le4 �c7 l l .�d6+ 'i!i>e7 1 2.lt'lf"5+ f8 1 3 .�dS �c6?! 1 4.a3 I :0 Lemke - Hartmann, corr 199S; II) S .. .f6, indicated by Herm11n S�iner, then : A) 6.a3 .ixd2+ 7 .li.:lxd2 (7 ..ixd2 trans­ poses to 4.li.:ld2 .ib4 S.a3 .bd2+ 6.i,xd2 f6 7.�f3 - Section I ) 7 ... �xd2 8.hd2 (after 8.�xd2 fxeS 9.�gS �f6 I O.�xf6 gxf6 l l .g3 �c6 I 2..ie3 d6 13 ..ig2 li.:le7 14.0-0 hS I S.gfd I �f"5 1 6 ..id2 �d4 1 7 . fl �b3 1 8 .&b l .if'S 19.e4 .ie6 Black had an advantage in Katz - Steiner, Pit­ tsburgh 1 946) 8 ... fxeS 9.e4 0-0 I O..ie2 �c6 I I .ie3 d6 1 2.0-0 .ie6 1 3 .�d3 \Ml4 14.f3 gftj I S J.f2 �h6 1 6.�1 b6 1 7.�d2 �g6 I 8..ih4 W4 I 9..ig3 gn 20.b4 �d4 with some edge for Black, D .Byme ­ Steiner, Pittsburgh 1 946; B)6.exffi �xffi 7.�c2 li.:lxd2 (7 ...li.:lcS 8.a3 .bd2+ 9..ixd2 d6 I O ..ic3) 8 . .bd2 and White keeps an extra pawn, Otto Borik. III) S ...O-O 6.a3 (6.�c2 is met by 6...�xd2 7..ixd2 .ixd2, e.g. 8.li.:lxd2 li.:lc6 9.f4 d6 or 8.�xd2 �c6 9 .�c3 �e7 J O.gd I l:!e8) 6 ... li.:lxd2 7 .li.:lxd2 .ixd2+ (after 7 ... .ie7 1 44

8.lt:lf3 b6 9.g3 ib7 IO .ig2 f5 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2.if4 1t:ld7 13.exd6 cxd6 14.ixd6 .bd6 I S .ti'xd6 White won in Ucar - Domin­ guez, Zaragoza 1 99S) 8.ixd2 1t:lc6 will transpose into S.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 6.a3 lt:lxd2 7. lt:lxd2 .bd2+ 8 ..bd2 0-0 - Sequel 2 ; IV) S ...ti'e7 also seems inaccurate.

6.a3 !? (6.ti'c2 1t:lgS? 7 .lt:lxgS ti'xgS 8.a3 ixd2+ 9.ixd2 ti'xeS I O .ic3 ti'gS I I . ti'e4+ occured r in Grafty - Deep Trouble, computer game 1 998. 6... 1t:lxd2 7 .ixd2 is more natural, when 7 .ixd2+ 8.ti'xd2 lt:lc6 transposes to 4.ti'c2 ib4+ S .id2 lt:lxd2 6.1t:lxd2 1t:lc6 7.1t:lf3 ixd2+ 8.ti'xd2 ti'e7, covered in Part 2, Chapter 3, Sec­ tion I , but 7 ... 1t:lc6 is also possible, e.g. 8..k3 .bc3+ 9.ti'c3 0-0 or 8.ixb4 ti'xb4+ 9.ti'c3 ti'xc3+ I O.bxc3 as in Blitzrnich ­ JebStuart, internet 2002, 10 ...0-0 l l .E:dl E:e8 1 2.E:dS lt:le7) 6...ixd2+ (if 6...ti'cS 7.e3 .bd2+, then not 8..bd2 1t:lc6 9.b4 ti'e7 J O.id3 1t:lxd2 I l .ti'xd2 1t:lxeS, Mal­ mstrom - Baer, corr 200 1 , but 8.1t:lxd2 ti'xeS 9.ti'c2) 7.�xd2 (7 .ixd2 1t:lxd2 Black should avoid 7...lt:lc6 due to 8.ie3 lt:lxeS 9.ti'd4 1t:lxf3+ I O.gxf3 1t:lffi J J.E:gl, Monteleone - Venascina, Vitinia 1998 -, 8.ti'xd2 1t:lc6 see 4.1t:lf3 ib4+ SJ.d2 1t:lxd2 6.1t:l xd2 1t:lc6 7 .a3 .bd2+ 8.ti'xd2 ti'e7 Part 4, Chapter 3, Sections 2/4) 7 ...ti'xeS 8.ti'c2 (8.g3 0-0 9.ig2 1t:lxd2 IO.ti'xd2 d6 1 1 .0-0 lt:lc6, as 8 ... /t:lcS 9.1t:lf3 ti'hS I O.b4 •

lt:le6 I l .ig2 1t:lc6 12 .0-0 aS 1 3 .ib2 0-0 14.ic3 gave White a plus in Herraiz ­ Torres, Torrelavega 2002) 8 ... 1t:lxd2 9. ixd2 0-0 I O.e3 1t:lc6 I I .id3 secure the better chances for White, Gutman; V) S ...b6 is not very combative, since ...

White has some good possibilities: A) 6.ti'c2 ib7 7.a3 ixd2+ (on 7 ... 1t:lxd2 White plays 8.1t:lxd2 ie7 9.1t:le4 1t:lc6 10. i£4) 8.1t:lxd2 (8..txd2 1t:lxd2 9.ti'xd2 1t:lc6 I O.ti'c3 ti'e7 transposes to 4.ti'c2 ib4+ S.id2 1tlxd2 6.1t:lxd2 1t:lc6 7.1t:lf3 ti'e7 8.a3 ixd2+ 9.ti'xd2 b6 J O.ti'c3 ib7 - Part 3, Chapter 3 , Section I. However, 9...ti'e7 is Jess precise on account of IO.ti'gS !? ti'xgS J J .It:lxgS h 6 1 2 .1t:lh3 lt:lc6 1 3 .f4 lt:ld4 14.'i!i12, while Camarena Gimenes ­ Hueso, Lliria 199S, went 10.0-0-0 aS ! ? l l .ti'gS ti'xgS 1 2 ./t:lxgS h 6 13 .1t:lh3 1t:lc6 14.f4, and now 14 ...a4 I S .e3 1t:laS could be tried) 8 ...1t:lxd2 9 .ixd2 ti'e7 I O.ic3 lt:lc6 J J .f4 ( I J .ti'f5 0-0-0 1 2.0-0-0 gde8 J3J;dS it:laS 14.e3 deserves attention, e.g. 14 . . .ti'e6 J S .ti'xe6 fxe 6 1 6.gd) lt:lb3+ 17.'it>c2 1t:lcS 1 8.f3, Wicht - l.auche, Ger­ many 200 1 , or 1 4 ...1t:lb3+ I S .'it>c2 .bdS 16.cxd5 1t:lcS 17.b4 1t:lb7 1 8.ibS) 1 1 ...0-0 12.0-0-0 leaves Black with no compen­ sation for his pawn, Gutman ; B) 6.g3 ib7 (6. . .ti'e7 7 .ig2 lt:lc6 8 .0-0 .bd2 9.1t:lxd2 1t:l xd2 I O J..xd2 ti'xeS I I . ic3 ti'gS 12.ti'dS ti'g6 1 3.f4) 7 .ig2 1t:lc6 14S

(7.. bd2+ 8.li)xd2, fer example 8 ... li)c3? 9bb7 li)xdJ J O.J.xa8 or 8 ...li)cS 9bb7 li)xb7 JO.b3 li)c6 I J ..ib2. Also 7 ... li)cS 8.0.0 .ixd2 9.ixd2 a5 I O.igS �c8 J J ..ie3 li)e6 12 .�d2 0-0 13 J�adl .ic6 1 4 ..ih3 li)a6 JS.li)d4 li)xd4 16 ..ixd4 'Wb7 17 .f4 li)cS 1 8 .f5 li)e4 1 9.�f4 ffi 20.exf6 li)xf6 2 J ..ixffi �xf6 22.e4, Schneider - Kho­ menko, Ukraine 1 998, appears hardly viable for Black) 8.0-0 li)xd2 9..ixd2 (if 9.li)xd2 �e7 JO.a3 .ics) 9...ixd2 JO.�xd2 �e7 I J .�fdl ( I J .�c3 is not bad either, e.g. 1 1 .. .0-0 1 2 .�acl �fe8 1 3 .cS li)xeS 14.li)xeS .ixg2 J S .�xg2 �xeS 1 6.�xeS �xeS 17 .cxb6 axb6 18.lhc7 �e2 1 9l!d I �xb2 20.�dxd7 � � 2 l .a4 o r I 1 ...0-0-0 J2J;acl �e8 1 3.cS) I J ...O-O-O (I I ...�d8 1 2.�f4 0-0 1 3 .�d2 �fe8 1 4 .�adl .ic8 J S ..ih3) 1 2 .�f4 ( 1 2 .�c3 �he8 1 3 .�dS li)b4 141Jdl li)c6 ISiWJ J li)xeS 16.li)xeS �xeS 1 7 ..ixb7+ �xb7 1 8.�xeS �xeS 19 .�xd7 �xd7 20.�xd7 �xe2 is level, while 12 ...gS 1 3 .&cl hS 14.cS �b8 IS. cxb6 cxb6 1 6.li)d4 �c8, Snoeck - van Leent, Apeldoom rapid 200 I , looks du­ bious in view of 1 7.li)f5 �xeS 1 8.li)d6) 1 2 ...�he8 13 .�d2 li)xeS 1 4.li)xeS �xeS I S ..ixb7+ �xb7 1 6.�xt7 with advan­ tage, Gutman; C) 6.e3 .ib7, when White has a choice: C l ) 7..id3 �e7 8.�c2 li)cS (8 ... li)xd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2+ JO.�xd2 .ixf3 J J .gxf3 �xeS 1 2.0-0-0 li)a6 1 3 .f4 �e7, Volek ­ Vlasin, Czech Republic 1991) 9..ie2 (if 9.0-0, then 9 ....ixd2 JO.li)xd2 li)xd3) 9 ... .ie4 10.�d I li)d3+ I I ..ixd3 .ixd3 12 .a3 .ixd2+ 1 3 ..ixd2 li)c6 14 ..�cl 0-0 is OK for Black, Gutman; Cl) 7..ie2 �e7 ! ? (7 ... 0-0 8.0-0 li)xd2 9.ixd2 �e7 J O..ixb4 �xb4 I J .�c2 li)c6 1 2 .li)g5 g6 1 3.f4 f5 1 4.exf6 �xf6 J S ..if3 occ urred in Kuhn - Leisebein, corr 1 990, and for 7 ... 0£6 8.0.0.ixd2 9.li)xd2 li)xd2 I O..ixd2 li)xeS I J .f4 li)c6 1 2 ..ic3 �e7 see 4.li)d2 .ib4 S.ll)f3 li)c6 6.e3 �e7 7.

.i.e2 b6 8.0.0 .ixd2 9.li)xd2 li)xd2 I O..ixd2 li)xeS I I..ic3 .ib7 1 2.f4 li)c6 - Sequel ) ) 8.0-0 .ixd2 ( 8...0-0? 9.li)xe4 .ixe4 JO.a3) 9.li) xd2 (9..ixd2 li)c6 1 O.�cl li)xeS, van Beers - Reinke, Germany 2000) 9...�xe5 I O.�xe4 ( I O.li)f3 �f6 I J .li)d4 0-0 1 2.f3 li)cS 1 3 .e4 li)c6 1 4 ..ie3 li)e6) J O ....ixe4 I J .�d4 li)c6 1 2.�xeS+ li)xeS 1 3 .�dl d6 14.f3 .ic6 I S .e4 0-0 16..ie3 �fe8 17..id4 a5 was equal in Dzevlan - Thoemros, Sweden 1 998; C3) 7.a3!? .ixd2+ 8.li)xd2 (8bd2 �e7; however, note that 8 ... f5 9.exffi �xffi 10. �c2 li)a6 is doubtful in view of I I ..ie2 not I I ..ic3 li)xc3 1 2 .�xc3, Telsi - Hor­ vath, Hallstahammar 1 993, 12 ...�xc3+ 13 .bxc3 lOcS-, 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 .0-0 �ae8 1 3 . �ad I ) 8. . .li)xd2 (8 . . .�e7 9.li)xe4 .ixe4 10�) 9.ixd2 li)c6 JO..ic3 �e7 I J.�g4 0-0 12 .�g3 �e6 ( 12...�fe8 fails to 13 .e6 fxe6 14.�xc7) 1 3..ie2 with a clear plus for White, Gutman. D) 6.a3!? .ixd2+ 7.li)xd2 .ib7 (7...li)xd2 8bd2 li)c6 9.ic3 0-0 I O.g3 .ib7 I I ..ig2 �e8 1 2.0-0 �b8 1 3.f4 hS 1 4.�d3 h4 I S. �ad ) li)e7 1 6.�xd7, Andersson - NN , simultaneous exhibition, Slim 1 982) 8 . li)xe4 .ix e4 9.�d4 .ib7 I O.�g4 g6 J J .1g5 �c8 12..iffi left Black lost in Ksieski ­ Wiesgicki, Wuerzburg 1 996. VI) S ... dS is more intriguing.

We examine: 1 46

A) 6.exd6 goes into the main line; B) 6.�b3 lL!c6 (6 ... .ixd2+ 7 ..ixd2 dxc4 does n't work well, 8.�xc4 lL!xd2 9.lL!xd2 0-0 l O.e3 lL!c6 l l .�c3 �d5 l2.f4 .ie6 13 .e4 �d4 1 4.�xd4 lL!xd4 1 5 .'i!lf2 �adS, Battista - Retamar, e-mail 2000, 16.lL!f3 lL!xf3 1 7.<;t>xf3 �d2 18 .b3) 7 .cxd5 lL!c5 8.�c4 b5! 9.�c2 (9.�xb5 �xd5 IO .�d4 �xd4 l l .�xc6+ <;t>e7 1 2 .e3 lL!d3+ 1 3 . .ixd3 �xd3 14.�xc7+ .id7 gives Black excellent compensation) 9 ...�xd5 1 0.e3 ( l O.a3 lL!b3 l l .ID> l lL!bd4 12.lL!xd4 lL!xd4 13 .�xc7 its 1 5 .axb4 �c8) 1 0 ...�b8 1 1 . .ie2 (l l .a3 lL!b3 1 2�b l .ia5 1 3 .e4 �e6 14 ..id3 lL! cd4 1 5 .lL!xd4 lL!xd4 1 6 .�dl �xe5) l l ...lL!xe5 1 2.lL!xe5 �xe5 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14.a3 .ixd2 1 5 ..ixd2 lL!e4 1 6..ia5 c5 17 ..id3 .ib7 18.f4 �e7 19.&el a6 20..ie2 �fe8 is not very impressive for White, M iralles - Olaberri, Spain 1 996; C) 6.e3 lL!c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8 ..ixd2 .ig4 (Lagendijk - Veel, Alkmaar 1989, con­ tinued 8 ...dxc4 9 ..ixc4 lL!xd2 l O.�xd2 �xd2+ l l .lL!xd2 lL!xe5 12 ..ie2, when 12 .. ..id7 l 3 .�c l �c8 1 4.0-0 0-0 might be tried) 9..ie2 dxc4 lO ..ixc4 (lO.�c2 lL!xd2 l l .�xd2, Johansen - Mikalsen, Kalattumeringen 1999, l l...hfl 12.gxf3 lL!xe5 13.�c3 �d6!? 141!dl �ffi) IO.. .hf3 l l .gxf3 �xd2+ 12.�xd2 llJxd2 l 3.<;t>xd2 o..o-0+ 14 .<;t>e2 lL!xe5 15�ac 1 �d6 1 6.f4 lL!xc4 17 .�xc4 �hd8 1 8.�c2 c6 should be even, Bury - Gutdeutsch, Dopras­ tav 1 998; D) 6.cxd5 !? �xd5 7.a3 .ixd2+ (Fran­ tisek Nepustil mentions 7...ia5 8.b4 .ib6 9.lL!xe4 �xe4 1 O..ib2) 8..ixd2 lL!c6 (8 ... lL!xd2 9.�xd2 �xd2+ can be answered by lO.lL!xd2 lL!c6 l l .f4, though l O.<;t>xd2 lL!c6 l l .e4 .ig4 1 2 ..ib5 0-0-0+ l 3 .<;t>e3 .ixf3 1 4 ..ixc6 .ixg2 1 5 .�hgl bxc6 16. �xg2 �g8 17 i!c 1 is also good, Weber Paul, e-mail 2000) 9 ..if4 transposes to 4.lL!d2 .ib4 5.a3 .ixd2+ 6..ixd2 lL!c6 7. lLIO d5 8.cxd5 �xd5 9..if4 - Section 1 ;

E ) 6.a3 !? .ixd2+ 7.lL!xd2, and now: El) 7 ... lL!c5 8.b4 lL!e6 9.cxd5 �xd5 10 . .ib2 ( I O.�b3 �xe5 l l ..ib2 eb5 l 2 .e3 0-0 1 3..ie2 �g6 14.0-0 lL!c6 1 5.f4 lL!e7 16.e4 was seen in Henrichsen - Ferrant, Capelle 1995) 10 ... 0-0 l l .lL!f3 is clearly awkward for Black, Gutman; El) 7 ... lL!xd2 with another branch: Ela) 8..ixd2 dxc4 (8 ...lL!c6 9.cxd5 �xd5 l O . .ic3 �e4 l l .�d3 �a4 1 2 .e3, M ar­ tinovsky - Schulz, Hamburg 1 997) 9. �a4+ lL!c6 lO.e3 .id7!? (10 ...0-0 l l ..ic3 �e7 12.�xc4 lL!xe5 l3 .�e4 �e8 14.�dl lL!g6 1 5 .�xe7 lL! xe7 16 ..ic4) l l .�xc4 ( l l ..ixc4 lL!xe5 1 2.hf7+ <;t>xt7 13 ,m,3+ .ie6 14.�c3 �d6 1 5.0-0-0 �. Frilund ­ Kaunulainen, corr 1 979) l l ....ie6 12.�c5 �g5 1 3.f4 �g6 14..ib5 �xg2 1 5 .0-0-0 o..o-o 16..ixc6 �xc6 (l6 ... bxc6, Pietila ­ Nieminen, corr 1 974, 1 7 .�xa7 !? �e4 18..ib4 �c4+ 19..ic3 .id5 20.�gl) 17. �xc6 bxc6 looks playable, Gutman; Elb) 8.�xd2!? dxc4 9.�xd8+ <;t>xd8 10. ig5+ <;t>es l l .e4 (if 1 1 .0-0-0 .id7 12.e3 h6 13 ..ih4 g5 l4 ..ig3 .ie6 1 5 .h4, then not 15 ... g4 16.h5 lL!c6 1 7..ih4, Zimgibl ­ Barwich, Zittau 1 955, but 15 ...�g8, viz. 1 6.hxg5 hxg5 1 7 ..ie2 lL!a6 1 8 .�d4 b5 19.1!3 �8 20.ic6+ <;t>e7) l l ...h6 1 2.J.e3 .ie6 l 3.f4 g6 14.5 gxf5 1 5 .exf5 .bB 1 6. .ixc4 lLd7 17.0-0 .ie6 18.&cl c6 1 9..ixe6 fxe6 20.�c4 <;t>e7 2 l .�h4 lL!xe5 22 ..id4 lL!g6 23 . .ixh8 �xh8 24.�g4 and White won, Semkov - Montoja, L'Hospitalet 1 993. EJ) 7...0-0, introduced by Rene DtiiiSch , with a further split: EJa) 8.lL!xe4 dxe4 9.�xd8 (9..if4 lL!c6 10.e3 �xd l+ l l .�xdl .ie6 1 2 ..ie2 lL!a5 is no better, e.g. l 3 .0-0 md8 14ig5 �xdl 1 5fudl .ixc4 16..ixc4lL!xc4 17 i!cl lL!xb2 18�xc7 b5, Hoegerl - Dausch, Germa­ ny 1 997, or l 3.�cl lL!b3 !? 1 4.�c3 lL!c5 1 5.b4 lL!a4 1 6�c2 a5 1 7.c5 axb4 1 8.axb4 .ib3 l 9.�c 1 lL!c3 20..ig4 .ie6 2 l ..ixe6 1 47

fxe6) 9.. J�xd8 I O.J.g5 ( I O.f4 tt:lc6 l l .e3 llJa5 1 2.b4 tt:lb3 !3.�bl .ig4, improving on I O ...exf3?! l l .exf3 tt:lc6 1 2.J.f4 .if5 1Ht�f2 �e8 14.g4 .ig6 1 5 .�dl tt:lxe5 1 6. .ixe5 �e5 1 7.f4 .ie4 1 8.fxe5, Schnepp ­ Daubsch, Germany 1 997) I O ... �e8 I I . W-0 tt:lc6 12.f4 exf3 (12 h6 13.ih4 tt:la5 14 .e3 .ie6 1 5 .b4 tt:lxc4 1 6.f5) 1 3 .exf3 tt:lxe5 14..ie2 .ie6 !5.b3 b5 1 6.cxb5 .ixb3 1 71Jd4 c5 18.bxc6 tt:lxc6 19 � tt:ld4 Y2-Y2 Djuguesnoi - Toulzac, France 1 998; Elb) 8.g3 ! tt:lxd2 9..ixd2 dxc4 IO ..ig2 �e7 l l ..ic3 c6 ( l l ... �d8 1 2 .�a4 tt:ld7 1 3 .�xc4 tt:lxe5 14.�e4, and l l ...tt:lc6 is strongly met by 1 2 .�d5 �e8 13 .f4 .ie6 14.�b5, for example 14 ...&b8 i 5 .J.xc6 bxc6 16.�xc6 �ed8 17 .�0 or 14 ...tt:ld8 1 5 .0-0 c6 16.�a4) 1 2.�d6! (1 2�d4 .ie6 1 3 .�dl tt:la6 14 .0-0 �fd8 ! 5 .�e3 .id5 , Kazhgaleyev - Toulzac, French League 2000) 1 2 ...�e8 ! 3 .�dl maintains some pressure for White, Gutman. •.

Back to the main line

6.exd6 Three more moves are worth exploring: I) 6.�c2 tf5 7.e3 tt:la6 (7 .. .J.xd2+ 8.tt:lxd2 tt:lg3 9.e4 ! , but 7 . . . tt:lxd2 8.�a4+ ll:lc6 9bd2 .ixd2+ IO.tt:lxd2 dxe5 is possible) 8.�a4+ c6 9.a3 (9exd6 �ffi!) 9 ....ixd2+ I O.J.xd2 tt:lac5 l l .�dl tt:lxd2 1 2.tt:lxd2 dxe5 favours 8 lack, Gutman;

II) 6.a3 .ixd2+ 7 ..ixd2 (7.tt:lxd2 tt:lxd2 8.J.xd2 dxe5 9.�c2 tt:lc6 I O.e3, Nelson ­ Barron, London 2001 , 10 ...�g5) reaches a position after 4.tt:ld2 .ib4 5.a3 .ixd2+ 6. .ixd2 d6 7 .tt:l f3 - Section I ; m) 6.e3 tt:lc6 (6 ... 0-0 7.�c2 .if5 8 ..id3, Nepustil) 7.exd6 (7.�c2 .if5 8..id3 tt:lxd2 9.J.xd2 .ixd3 I O.�xd3 dxe5) 7 ... �xd6 leads into the main line. 6 ..."Bxd6 Best in view of: I) 6...tt:lxd6 7.a3 !? (7.e3 �f6 8 . .ie2 .ie6 9.0-0 0-0, AshenSugar - JebStuart, in­ ternet 2003) 7 .. .J.xd2+ 8.J.xd2 tt:lc6 9.J.f4; D) 6....if5 7.e3 (7.dxc7 is a bit risky as 7... �xc7 8.e3 tt:lc6 9.a3 .ixd2+ I Obd2 W-0 I I .� c) �d7 12.ic3 tt:lc5 shows) 7 tt:lc6 8 ..ie2 �xd6 (8...�f6 9.dxc7 .ixd2+ I 0. .ixd2 �xb2 1 1 .0-0 �b6 1 2 ..ie I �xc7 13.tt:ld4; this is more principal than 9.d7+ .ixd7 10.0-0 .if5 l l .a3 .ixd2 12 .tt:lxd2 �g6, improving on 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 ..ig4 �b8 14 ..ixf5 tt:lxd2 1 5 ..ixd2 �xf5 1 6. �cl �6 1 7.J.c3, Paramos Dominguez ­ Garcia Castro, Nigran 1 996) is a trans­ position, Gutman. .•

7.a3 7.e3 is another way of playing, when: I) 7...0-0 8.ie2 (8.a3 .ixd2+ 9.ixd2 see 4.tt:ld2 aM 5.a3 .ixd2+ 6.ixd2 d6 7.exd6 �xd6 8.tt:lf3 0-0 9.e3 - Section I ) 8 ... �d8 9.a3 .ixd2+ I O.tt:lxd2 !? (IO ..ixd2 1 48

'i:!fg6, while Nepustil analyses I O .. .ig4 l l .ic3 'i:!fxdl+ l 2.�dl �dl+ l 3 .ixd l �xc3 l 4.bxc3 �d7) l O ...'i:!fg6 ( IO ... �c5 1 1.0-0 �c6 l2.b4 �d3, Nepustil, is awk­ wardly met by l3.�f3 .if5 l4.id2. Also l O.. .if5 l l .�xe4 .ixe4 l2.'i:!fxd6 gxd6 l 3.f3 .id3 l4.�f2 �c6 1 5 .�1 gadS 1 6. hd3 gxd3 l7.�d3 gxd3 I S.�e2 gd6, Smith - Campbell, Edmonton 2000, l 9 ..id2! ? looks fairly grim for Black) l l .O-O �c6 1 2.�hl ( l 2 .ih5 'i:!fh6 1 3 ..if3 �xd2 I4.ix.d2 lbe5 l 5.h2 'i:!fg6) l2...J.e6 l 3 .f3 �xd2 l4 ..ixd2 �a5 ! ? l 5 .gc l b5 l 6 .cxb5 �b3 l 7.gc2 gd7 I S .gf2 gadS l 9 ..ifl �al 20.gc3 �b3 Yz-Yz Hurme ­ Kauppala, Finland 200 l ; II) 7 ...�c6!? S..ie2 (Turunen - Haapa­ niemi, Kuopio 1 995, went S.a3 hd2+ 9.�xd2 .if5 I O.�xe4 'i:!fxd l + l l .�xdl he4 l 2.f3 0-0-0+ l3 .�e l and now in­ stead of 13 .. .ic2 l4 ..id2 gd7 l 5 ..ic3, l3 .. ..id3 !? I4..id2 �e5 l5.b3 .ic2 l 6.b4 .id3 l7.c5 gheS might be better) S ..if5 (if S ...ig4 9.0-0 �xd2, then not IO.ix.d2? .ixf3 0: l Gattegno - Toulzac, Issy 2003, but IO.�d2 h5 l l .a3 .ixd2 l2..ixd2 ().().() l3..ic3 'i:!fg6 l4.'i:!fel gheS l5.�h l) 9.0-0 (9.a3hd2+ IO.�xd2 �c5 1 1 .0-0 reaches a position after 7.a3 .ixd2+ S.�xd2 �c5 9.e3 �c6 I O..ie2 .if5 1 1 .0-0, see the text, but Black has an extra resource in l 0 ... 'i:!fg6!? l l .0-0 0-0-0) appears critical. •

Black has three options:

A) 9 ...'i:!fh6 I O.�xe4 ( I O.�d4? �xd4 I I . exd4 hd2, Rosell - Soby, Arhus l9S l ) I O. ..ixe4 l l .�d4!? ( l l .'i:!fa4 0-0-0 l 2 .a3 .id6 l3.h3 f5 l4.�d2 :mte8 l 5.�xe4 fxe4 - with sufficient compensation, Tseillinl Glllskov -, l 6.c5! hc5 17.b4 .ib6 I S.b5 �a5 l 9.ib2 gd2 20.ig4+ �bS 2l ..ic3 gxf2 22.gxf2 'i:!fxe3 23 ..ixa5 'i:!fxf2+ 24. �h l e3 25 ..ixb6 axb6 26.'i:!fd4 turned out very well for White, Ivkov - Persitz, Copenhagen 1953) l l ...id6 ( 1 1 ...0-0-0 l2.f3 .id6 l3 .g3) l2.g3 'i:!fh3 l 3 ..if3 par­ rying B lack 's threats, Nepustil; B) 9 ... 'i:11Ri I O.�xe4 .ixe4 l l .�d2 (l l .a3 .id6 l 2 .'i:!fa4 0-0 l 3.c5 ! ? .ixf3 l4 ..ixf3 hc5 1 5 ..ixc6 bxc6 1 6.'i:!fc2 .id6 1 7 ..id2 is also reasonable) I I ..ig6 ( l l .. .ixd2 l2.'i:!fxd2 gds l3.'i:!fel 0-0 l4.f3 .id3 1 5 . .ixd3 �d3 l 6.gbl gfdS l 7.b3, Porth ­ Hertweck, Germany l9SS) l2.�b3 (after l2.'i:!lb3 � l3.�l .id6 1 4.a3 h5 l 5 .h3 �e5 l 6.�f3 .ie4 l 7 .�d4 c5 I S.f3 cxd4 l9.fxe4 d3 ! 20..ixd3 �xd3 21 Jhd3 .ig3 White had serious problems, Little Go­ liath - Gambit Tiger, computer game 200 1 ) 12...0-0 IJ.ltjd4 WdS l4.'i:!fa4 �xd4 l5.exd4 a5 l6.a3 .ie7 l 7 ..ie3 !? (an im­ provement on 17 .if3 'i:!fxd4 l S ile l .ih4 l9.g3 .if6 20..ixb7 gabS 2 l ..id5 'i:!fb6 22.�g2 .id4 23.ge2 .id3!? 24.gd2 'i:!ff6 25113 c5, An Mon - Gambit Tiger, com­ puter game 2001 ) 1 7 ...c5 I S.dxc5 Yfxb2 l9 ..if3 .id3 20.gfe l .if6 2 1 .gadl with White keeping an extra pawn, Gutman; C) 9 .. J.xd2! IO.�xd2 'i:!fg6 ( I O ... �c5 I I . �b3 �d3 l2.�d4 �xd4 l3.exd4 'i:!fxd4, Gual - Vazquez, St Gudat 1995, l4bd3 'i:!fxd3 l5.&l+ �fB l 6.'l!ra4 'i:!fd6 l7ie3) l l .� xe4 .ixe4 1 2 ..if3 ( l 2.f3 .ic2, for example l 3 .'i:!fd5 0-0 l4.c5 &dS l5.'i:!fc4 gfeS l 6.e4 .ixe4; l 3 .'i:!fd2 gds l4.'i:!fc3 0-0 l 5 .b4 gfeS l6.ib2, Boyens - Kru­ ger, Germany 1 99 1 , l 6 ...id3 !?; l3.'i:!fel 0-0-0 l4.b4, Walkenhorst - Schwartz­ mann, e-mail 2002, 14 ...:mteS, e.g. l 5.b5 •

1 49

�ffi 1 6.i.d2 0.d4 or 1 5.c5 id3 161tf2 5) 1 2 ....td3 1 3 .:Sel (13.�b3 .txfl 14.�xb7 0-0 1 5 .�xc6 �d3) 13 ...0-0-0 ( 1 3...x.l c4 14.�a4 .ld3 1 5 ..ld2 0-0 1 6.:Secl :SfdS is less ambitious, e.g. 17.:Sc5 :Sd6 I S.h4 h6 1 91tacl a6 or 17..lxc6 bxc6 1 S.:Sxc6 �e4 19.b4 .tc4 20.b5 �e5 2 1 ..lc3 �xc3 22.:Sfl .txb5 23 .�xb5 �a3 24.�c4 :Sd2 25.:Sxc7 :!:!fl!) 14 .�b3 :SheS !? (14 ....te4 1 5..lxe4 �xe4 16.�c3 ffi 17.f3 �g6 1 S.e4) 15..td2 (15.id5 :!:!xd5 1 6.cxd5 tlJd4) 1 5 ... .lc2 1 6.�c3 tlJe5 1 7..lh5 �xh5 I S.�xc2 �g4 affords Black the initiative, Gutmm1 .

9."1fcl Others: I) 9.b4? �e5 ; further D) 9.e4 0-0!? (9 tlJc6 1 0.b4 tlJe6 l l ..lb2 0-0 leaves White underdeveloped and overextended,jor instance 1 2.0 :SdS 13. tiJb3 �e7 14.�c2 a5 , Harding) lO ..te2 (lO.b4 �d4 l l i!a2 tlJxe4) IO tlJc6 1 1 .0-0 :SdS, Gutman; similarly ID) 9.tlJf3 �xdl+ IO.�xdl tiJb3 1 1 .&2 ( White 's rook is awkwardly placed, but he is a pawn up and Black needs tofind something that works before White can unravel, Harding) l l ... .le6 (/ can see nothing for Black after 1 1 .. ..15 12.tiJd2, Harding) 12.e4 a5 (After 12 ... tlJa5 13.tlJd2 b5 14.b4!? tlJxc4 1 5 .tlJxc4 bxc4 1 6 ..lf4 0.c6 17.00 a5 1 S.b5 tlJa7 19.a4 c3 201td4 .lb3+ 2 l .�cl c5 22.bxc6 0-0 23..lb5 5 24..ld6 White went on to win, Weyns Joseph, corr 19S6. 1 2 ... tlJc6 ! ? 1 3 .\t>c2 tlJca5 14..tf4 should be more logica� e.g. 14 ... ttJxc4 1 5 .tlJg5 tlJd4+ 1 6.�c3 tiJb6 17.tlJxe6 tlJxe6 1S..le3 0-0-0 19..le2 :sheS or 1 4 .f6 1 5.�c3 0-0-0 with an interest­ ingjight, Harding) 13 ..lf4 ( 1 3.tiJd2 a4 14.tlJxb3 axb3 1 5.&1 tlJc6 16.�d2 0-0-0+ 17.�c3 gd l ) 13 ... tlJa6 1 4.�e l ( 1 4.tlJg5 .td7 15 ..te2 f6 1 6.tlJf3 0-0-0) 1 4 ... f6!? 1 5 .tiJd2 tlJac5 1 5 .ttJxb3 tlJxb3 16 ..lxc7 gcs are all not very impressive for White, Gutman; IV) 9.e3 a5 (9....tf5 1 O.�f3 and the advan­ tage passes to White, Tseitlin/Giaskov. If9 . . . tlJc6, then 1 0.b4! tlJd3+ l l ..lxd3 �xd3 12.�e2 .t5 13.e4 �xe2+ 14.\t>xe2 .te6 1 5 ..lb2 is annoying. 1 O..le2 can be met by 10 _tiJd3+ l l ..lxd3 �xd3 1 2.�e2 .t5 13.e4 �xe2+ 14.
.•

•

7. .1xdl+ 8.�xdl S ..lxd2 will transpose into 4.tlJd2 .lb4 5.a3 .txd2+ 6 . .hd2 d6 7.exd6 �xd6 S. ttJ f3 - Section I . 8 ... �c5 S ... .tf5 9 .ttJxe4 �xd 1 + 10. �xdl .txe4 l l .f3 .lc6 1 2.b3 ( 1 2.e4!? .la4+ 13 .�d2 tlJc6 14..;t.c3 tlJe5 15�3, Starace - Znak, e-mail 2000 ) 12 ...0.d7 13.e4 tlJc5 14.�c2 tlJe6 15..le3 0.0.0 16..le2 0.d4+ 17 ..lxd4 :!:!xd4 lSlthdl mxlS 19fud4 :1:!xd4 201tdl :Sxdl 2 l ..lxdl �d7 22.�c3 with advan­ tage for White, Kaarlonen - Kainulai­ nen, corr 1 9S4. .

This is a position for homework. Black

has almost nothingfor the pawn, Borik,

but Tseitlin/Giaskov disagree, Tim Har­

ding.

1 50

1 2 ..ig4 't¥e6 1 3 ..ixf5 't¥xf5 1 4.b4 llJd3 1 5.'tYc2 llJce5 16�2 't¥g6 17 .he5 llJxe5 1 8.'t¥xg6, Trapeaux Zouaoui, corr 1 996, are both clearly in White's favour, yet l l ... a5! seems perfectly playable to me, e.g. l2.b3 �8 13� 0.0 or 1 2.llJb3 'tYxd l l3..ixdl lLixb3 14.hb3 a4 1 5..ia2 id3 ) 1 O.'t¥c2 g oes into the main line, Gutman. -

9. .a5! Less challenging are: I) 9 ...llJc6 1 O.b4 llJd4 ( 10 ...'tYe5 l l ..ib2 llJd3+ 12 .Y:Vxd3 't¥xb2 1 3_gbl 'tYe5 14.b5 llJd4 15.e3 c5 16.'t¥e4 't¥xe4 17 .llJxe4 llJe6, Nicolaisen - Galberg, corr 1 993, 1 8 .g3 1le7 19.i.g2) l l .Y:Vbl ( l l .'tYdl 't¥g6 1 2�2 if5 13.e4 fails to D .he4 14.llJxe4 't¥xe4 1 5 ..ie3 0-0-0 16_gd2 l0cb3 1 7.00 llJal, while Battaglini - Toulzac, Paris 2003, went 13 ...llJe4 14.llJxe4 0-0-0, when in­ stead of 1 5 .�? !The8 16.13 .ixe4 1 7.fxe4 't¥xe4+ 1 8..ie2 't¥xg2, 1 5.0 .ixe4 16.fxe4 't¥xe4+ 1 7.rt/fl. ghe8 1 8.o;!?gl is critical) l l ...lLia4 12.llJe4 't¥g6 l3 .e3 .if5 14.exd4 .ixe4 1 5 .'t¥b3 llJb6 1 6.'t¥g3, Gutman; II) 9 ...'t¥e5 IO.llJO .if5 l l .'tYdl (Siegel ­ Toulzac, French League 1998, went 1 1 . llJxe5 .ixc2 12.b4 llJb3 13�2 .ifS 14.if4 aS 15.b5 f6 16.llJO 'i!lf7 17.llJd2 a4 1 8.0 llJd7 19.e4 ghe8 20.o;!?fl. .ie6 2 l .Ae2 c6 22.bxc6 bxc6 23.gdl llJbc5 24.gb2 f5, when 25.J.d6!? fxe4 26.Axc5 llJxc5 27. llJxe4 llJxe4 28.fxe4 might be tried) 1 1 ...

't¥e7 12..ie3 llJc6 l3.Axc5 't¥xc5 14.'t¥d5 'tYxd5 1 5 .cxd5 llJe7 1 6.lLid2 .ig6 1 7 .e4, Gutman; ffi) 9...'t¥f6 I O.e4 llJc6 l l .lLib3 ( l l .llJ 0 .ig4 1 2.Ae3 is met by 1 2 ...h 0 13.Axc5 .ixg2 14.hg2 't¥g5 15.Ae3 't¥xg2 16.0-0-0 �8) l l ...l0xb3 ( l l ...IUJ4 12.l0xd4 'tYxd4 13.0 .ie6 14.Af4 0-0-0 1 5 .gd l �f6 16. gxd8+ !? gxd8 1 7 ..ie3) 12.�xb3 llJd4 13.�c3 ()..() ( 13 ...c5 14..ie3 .ie6 1 5.0-0-0 gds 16 .f4!? .ig4 11.gd2 o-o 1 8 .h3 .ie6 19 .rs .icS 20.g4 gfe8 2 l .Ag2 b5 22�d 1 bxc4 23 ..ixd4 cxd4 24.gxd4 gxd4 25. �xd4, Veiva - Maxxx, internet 2002) 14 ..ie3 gds 1 5 .0-0-0 (this is the best since 1 5.gd 1? is ruled out by 15 ... llJf3+ and 15..ie2 c5 16rul ie6 17..ixd4 cxd4 1 8.� 't¥g5 19.0-0 d3 ! ? looks fme for Black) 1 5 . . .c5 1 6.f4, Gutman.

.

•

IO.e3 IO.b3 ()..() ( lO ...�e5 1 1�2 llJd3+ 12.�xd3 't¥xb2 13.'t¥e4+ � 14 'tYb l ) l l ..ib2 lL!c6 12.e3 .ig4 13.0 ih5 14.Ae2 §IdS 15.�1 Y:Vh6, Gutman. 1 o. . �c:6 l l .Ael l l .llJe4 't¥g6 12.l0xc5 'tYxc2 13.Ad3 't¥xd3 14.llJxd3 .ie6 1 5 .c5 .ic4 1 6.llJf4 g5 17. llJh3 llJe5, Gutman. l l ...a4 ll.0-0 0-0 13.�0 1rf6 14 .idl Ar5 1 5.ffc:3 1re7 16.!adl !ad8 Black maintains the balance, Gutman. .

•

151

Fourth Part ( l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4) 4.� 13

This is White's most natural move, Kurt Ric'*r, Deut�che Schachblaetter, 1935. 4.lt::!O is the most unpleasant for Black, Otto Borik. This, the most usual continuation, is con­ sidered strongest and asse ssed by theory as favouring White though in our view the truth is different, Tseitlin/Giaskov. 4.lDf3 gives a superior game to W hite though the draw is the nonnal result, Alfonso Romero.

Now there is a division : Chapter I - 4. . .d 6 (4 . . ..lcS , 4 ... lDc6) Chapter 2 - 4 ...b6, Bonsdorff Variation Chapter 3 - 4 ....tb4+ S . .td2, Smyslov Variation. Chapter 1 4 d6 This is a trappy gambit line, Tim Harding. ••.

There are two alternatives: I) 4 .. ,j,cS S.e3 is rather artificial attempt

Black 's position appears to be inferior after any move: A) S ... f5 6.a3 (6.exffi is possible as well, e.g. 6.. .'�xffi 7.�c2 .lb4+ 8.lDbd2 lDxd2 9,j,xd2 lDc6 IQ,j,dJ or 6...lt::lxf6 7.a3 aS 8,j,dJ 0-0 9.lDc3 d6 I O.�c2 lDc6 l l .lDdS, Hoffinann - Starke, corr 1987) 6...a5 7. lDbd2 �e7 8 .�c2, Gutman; B) S ... d6 6.a3 (better than 6.lD bd2 .its 7.lDxe4 he4 8 ..ld3 .txd3 9.�xd3 0-0 10.0-0 lDc6 l l .exd6 .lxd6 12.b3? .ixh2+, Ferens - Wall, Dayton 198 1 , though 12. �b3 gb8 l3,j,d2 still keeps a plus for White) 6... lDc6 (6 ... 5 7.b4 .lb6 8.exd6 �xd6 9.�xd6 cxd6 IQ ,j,b2 0-0 l l ..ld3 lDc6 12.0-0 .le6 l3.lDc3 lDxc3 1 4 ..lxc3 and White won, Brachtel - Bringsken, corr 1 994) 7.b4 (7.exd6 .txd6 8.�c2 is also good, e.g. 8.. -tB? 9,j,d3 �e7 lO.lDc3 ib4 l l .axb4 lDxb4 1 2.�a4+ id7 13.�d 1 , Kolbe - Biselli, Gennany 1 9 99, or 8 ... �e7 9,j,dJ !? lt:lcS 1 o ..te2 '1Mf6 l l .lDc3) 7...ib6 Ub2 (8.exd6 cxd6, while 8...�ffi. Fernando Vasconcellos, is met by 9.�c2 .tf5 IO.d7+) 8 ...0-0 9.�dS lDgS lO.lDxgS (lO.exd6 lDxf3+ l l .�xf3 cxd6 12 .�g3 ffi l 3 .lDc3 .le6 1 4.gdl iDeS l S .cS .lc7 16.lDbS, Bricker - Penoyer, California 1 99 1 ) lO ... 'IMxgS l l .exd6, Gutman; C) 5...�e7 6.a3 (6,j,e2 lDc6 7.0-0 lDxeS 8.lDbd2, Florentin - Averalo, St. Quentin 1999, 8 ...lDxf3+ 9.lDxf3 0-0 is hannless) 1S2

6 ... ll:lgS (6...a5 7 .1d3 ll:lgS 8.ll:ld4!? 0-0 9.ll:lf5, JebStuart - Redmike, internet 2003) 7.ll:lbd2 a5 8.ll:lxgS (8.i.e2 ltlc6 9. ll:lxgS 'tYxgS 1 O.ll:lf3, Schwara: - Schwarz, Altenbeken 1948, lO ...'tYe7!? l l .'tYdS 0-0) 8 ...'tYxgS 9.ll:lf3 'tYe7 10id2 ltlc6 l l ..ic3 0-0 12.Ae2 d6 13.exd6 hd6 14.0-0, Gutman; D) S ...ll:lc6 6.a3! (6.'tYc2 is only a waste of time in view of 6... ll:lgS, and 6 ..id3 may also be answered by 6 ... ll:lgS, e.g. 7.ll:lc3?! ll:lxf3+ 8.'tYxf3 ll:lxeS 9.'tYe4 d6 l O..ic2 f5 l l .'tYf4 0-0, Boylan - Shellen­ berg, Mansfield 1 979, or 7.ll:lbd2 'tYe7 8. ll:lxgS 'tYxgS 9.ll:lf3 'tYe7 l O.id2 ll:lxeS. 6.ll:lbd2 is less effective due to 6 ...ll:lxd2 7..ixd2 'tYe7, e.g. 8.ic3 .ib4 9.'tYd2 hc3 I O.'tYxc3 0-0 1 U!dl ge8 or 8.a3 ll:lxeS 9.ll:lxeS 'tYxeS IO..ic3 'tYgS, while 6.. ..ib4 7..ie2 0-0 8.0-0 hd2 9.ll:lxd2 ll:lxd2 10. 'tYxd2 ll:lxeS l l.b3 d6 1 2..ib2 gave White an edge, Carvalho - Power, corr 1 996) with another branch: Dl) 6 .. aS? 7.'tYdS 1 :0 Pepelea - Penoyer, California 1 992; Dl) 6...0-0? 7.'tYdS 'tYe7 8.'tYxe4 is sim­ ilar, Liew - Kluge, e-mail 1 998; D3) 6 ....ie7 7.ll:lbd2 (7 ..id3 ll:lcS 8 ..ic2 h6 9.b4 ll:le6 10.0-0 0-0 l l .'tYd3 g6 1 2.bS ll:lcS 13.'tYc3, LG2000 - GLChess, com­ puter game 2000, and 7 .b4 fS 8 ..ib2 d6 9.ll:lbd2 ll:lxd2 1 0.'tYxd2 dxe5 l l.'tYxd8+ hd8 12.ll:lxeS .lffi 13.ll:ld3 hb2 14.ll:lxb2 .ie6 l S.0-0-0, Engel - Kirschner, corr 1 992, are both up with White) 7 ... ll:lcS (neither 7 ... f5 8 .'tYc2 ll:lxd2 9 ..ixd2 0-0 10.Ae2, nor 7 ... ll:lgS 8.Ae2 ll:lxf3+ 9.ll:lxf3 0-0 1 0.0-0 are sufficient for Black) 8.b4 ll:le6 9..ib2 0-0 IO�e2 ffi l l .exffi .ixf6 1 2�xffi'tYxffi 1 3.0-0 d6 14.ll:le4'tYe7 1 S. ll:lc3, Steinke - Fritsche, Bochum 1 99 1 ; D4) 6...ll:lgS 7.b4 (7.ll:lbd2 a S 8�e2 0-0 9.0-0 ll:lxf3+ IO.ll:lxf3 'tYe7 l l ..id2 ll:lxeS 1 2 .ll:lxeS 'tYxeS 1 3 ..ic3 'tYe6 14.'tYd2 a4 led to equality, Stimpel - Kaiser, Ger-

many 2000) 7 ... ll:lxf3+ (7 .. .i.e7 8.ll:lxgS .ixgS 9.i.b2 .ih6 1 O.cS 0-0 l l .bS ll:le7 12.h4!? ll:lf5 13� ll:lxh4 14.'tYhS ll:lg6 1S.e6 'tYgS 16.'tYxgShgS 17.exn+ left Black in disarray, Markus - Martinez Bejarano, e-mail 200 l . 7 .. �m 8.ll:lbd2 is also quite unpleasant, e.g. 8 ... d6 9.exd6 'tYf6 l0Ea2 hd6 l l .ll:lxgS 'tYxgS 12.ll:le4 'tYg6 l3.ll:lxd6+ cxd6 14� <Jle7 1S�b2, lnoncencio - Paul, Vernon 1 997, or 8 ... 'tYe7 9..ib2 b6 IO.i.e2 .ib7 1 1 .0-0 0-0-0 12.'tYa4 ll:lxf3+ l 3 .ll:lxf3 f6 14.exffi gxffi l S .cS, Candela Perez - Vidal del Rio, Burgos 200 1) 8.'tYxf3 Ae 7 (8.. �m 9�b2 'tYe7 1 O.'tYdS g6 l l .bS ll:ld8 1 2.ll:ld2 c6 and now instead of l3.'tYf3 .ig7 1 4.'tYg3 f5 1 S.h4 ltlf7 1 6.f4 d6 1 7.ll:lf3 dxeS 1 8. fxeS Ae6, Ditrich - Vospemik, Ljubljana 1993, 13.'tYd3 ig7 14.ll:lf3 might be tried) 9�b2 0-0 IO.id3 d6 l l .exd6 hd6 ( 1 1 ... cxd6 12 �e4 'tYc7 1 3 .ll:lc3 ll:leS 1 4.'tYhS g6, Mueller- Riessbeck, corr 1 987, l S. ll:ldS 'tYdS 1 6.'tYe2, and l l...'tYxd6 1 2�c2 .ie6 13.0-0 .igS 14J3dl 'tYe7 l S.ll:ld2 f5 16.cS if6 17 ..ixf6 'tYxf6 1 8 ..ib3, Pons Morro - Garcia Abrante, Mallorca 1 999, are both hardly viable for Black) 12..ie4 'tYgS l3bc6 ( l3 .h4 'tYe7 14.hS, Walken­ horst - Stellmacher, e-mail 2002, 1 4 ... aS!? 1 S .h6 g6) 13 ... bxc6 1 4.ll:lc3 with advantage for White, Gutman . II) 4. . . ll:lc6 is more flexible.

1 S3

White has a wide range of moves:

A) 5.�d5 .ib4+6.ltlbd2 (6.id2ltlxd2 7. ltlbxd2 goes to 4.�d5 .ib4+5� ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.ltlf3-Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 2) 6 ...ltlxd2 7ixd2 �e7!? (7 ... .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 reaches a position after 4.�c2 .tb4+ 5.J.d2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.ltlf3.b.d2+ 8.�xd2 �e7-Part 2, Chapter 3, Section l) with counterplay; B) 5.e3 .tb4+(5 ...g6 6.�c2 d5 7.a3 .tg7 8.c xd5 �xd5 9.J.c4 �a5+, C astellote­ Folch Zaragoza, Valencia 2002, fails to 10.b4! ltlxb4 l l.axb4 �xal 12.J.b2. Ho­ wever, 5 ... d6!? has more point here, see 4.ltlf3 d6 5.e3ltlc6)6.ltlbd2 (6.id2 ltlxd2 7.ltlbxd2 �e7 transposes to 4.ltlf3 .tb4+ 5..ld2lLlJSd2 6.ltlbxd2 ltlc6 7.e3 �e7Part 4, Chapter 3, Section l ) 6 ... �e7 re­ turns into 4.ltld21b4 5.ltlf3 ltlc6 6.e3 �e7 -Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Sequel 1; C) 5.ltlbd2 .ib4 (5 ...ltlc5 goes into 4.ltld2 ltlc5 5.ltlgf3ltlc6-Part 3, Chapter 1, but Black should avoid 5 ...d5 6.exd6 ltlxd6 7.e31f5 8..te2 �ffi 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.�a4 �b8, Travnicek- Keprt, Moravia 2000, l l .c5 ltlc8 12.ltlb3) transposes to 4.ltld2 .tb4 5.ltlf3 ltlc6-Part 3, Chapter 2, Sec­ tion 3; D) 5.a3(is p robably White's most dan­ gerous reply, Harding; when the move 6. � c2 gains significantly in strength in comparison with 4.�c2, Borik) reaches a position after 4.a3 lLlc6 5.ltlf3, treated in Part 5 , Chapter 3; E) 5.�c2!? seems critical t o me. And now: El) 5...d5 6.exd6 .i.f5 (6...ltlxd6 7.e4 �e7 8.ltlc31e6 9.ltld5 �d7 I0.1e2 ()...()..() 11. 0-0, though lO..tf4 0-0-0 11.0-0-0 .bd5 12.exd5 ltlb4 l3.�b l is playable, im­ proving on l3.�3ltle4 14.1e3 a5 15.a4, Swemers- Manthey, Germany 1996, 15...ltlc5) 7.ltlc3 (7.�d1?! .bd6 with good chances, e.g. 8.e31b4+ 9.ltlbd2 �f 6 10.

1e2 0-0-0 11.0-0 ltlxd2 12..txd21xd2 13.ltlxd2 �xb2, Frayssinet- Jonas, Nan­ tes 1993,or 8.ltlbd2 transposing to 4.�c2 d5 5.exd61f5 6.�dl .ixd6 7.ltld2 ltlc6 8.ltlgf3-Part 2, Chapter 2) 7 ...ltlxd6 (if 7...ltlg3 8.e4 ltlxhl 9.exf5.b.d6 10.1e3) 8.e4 ltlxe4 (8....tg6 see 4.�c2 d5 5.exd6 1f5 6.ltlc3 ltlxd6 7.e41g6 8.ltlf3 ltlc6Part 2, Chapter 2) 9.ltlxe41b4+ 1Oid2 (lO.ltlfd2 �e7 11.0 0-0-0 12.1d31g6 is less clear) 10...�e7 ll..td3 0-0-0 (11... 1xe4 12.1xe4 f5 13.0-0 fxe4 14�f e l 0-0-0 15_gxe4 �f7 16..lg51e7 1 7..txe7 ltlxe7 18J�ae1, Manne - Asmah, Copen­ hagen 1982) 12.0-0-0 (instead of 12.0-0 .ixd2 13.ltlfxd2 ltlb4 14.ltld6+�xd615. .ixf5+ 'i!7b8 16.�c3 �xd2 17.�xg7 �f4 18.a3, Gregor- Subrt, Czech Republic 2000, 18...00 19.J.xd3 �g8) 12...J.xd2+ l3.fud21hd3 14.�xd3 .be4 15.�c3 ltlb4 16.b3 wins for White, Gutman; E2) 5...1b4+ 6.ltlc3 d5 7.exd6 (7.e3!? goes into 4.�c2 1b4+ 5.ltlc3 d 5 6.ltlf3 ltlc6 7.e3-Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 3) 7.. .1fi (Dunn- Mann, e-mail 1999, went 7 ... ltlxc3 8.bxc31xd6 9.e3 �f6 lOJ�bl ltle5 l l .ltlxe5 �xe5 12.id3 c6 13.f4 'Ma5 14.0-0 0-0, but 9.g3!? �ffi 1O..tg2 0-0 11. 0-0 ge8 12ie3 keeps a plus for White) 8..td2 (8.dxc7 �xc7, while 8 ... �ffi?! is speculative due to 9..td2 -not 9.g41g6 10.�3. Berger- Stichlberger, Finkes­ tein 1997, lO_.ltld4 l l.ltlxd4 �xfl+win­ ning-,e.g. 9...ltlxf2 10.e4 or 9_.ltlxc3 10. �3) 8...ltlxd69.�3(9.4.b.c3 10.�xc3 �e7 11.0-0-0 ltlxe4 12.�xg7 0-0-0) 9 ... 0-0 (9....b.c3 lO..txc3 0-0 l l .e3 is cov­ ered under 4.�c2 .ib4+5.ltlc3 d5 6.exd6 .i.f5 7 .id2 .bc3 8.J.xc3 ltlxd6 9.�3 0-0 1O.e3 ltlc6 l l .ltlf3 -Part 2, Chapter 3, Section3) 10.e3 will transpose into 4.�c2 .ib4+ 5.ltlc3 d5 6.exd61f5 7..td2 ltlxd6 8.�b3 ltlc6 9.e3 0-0 l l .ltlf3, a line re­ garded as insufficient for Black-Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 3, Gutman.

154

Back to the main line

s. �bdl Other possibilities: I) 5 .�d5 c!Oc5 goes into 4.�d5 c!Oc5 5.c!Of3 d6 - Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 3; m 5.�d4 .if5 (5 ...f5 6.exf6 tt:lxf6 7 ..ig5 .ie7 8.tt:lc3) 6.exd6 c!Oc6 7.d 7+ (7 .ft'd5 tt:lxd6 8.c5 tt:lb4 9.ft'e5 + ft'e7) 7...ft'xd7 8.ft'xd7+.ixd7 9.a3 ().0.() IO.c!Obd2 (10.e3 g5 1 Li.d3 tt:lc5 12 ..ic2 g4 13.tt:ld4 was seen in Speckert- Strubreiter, Vienna 1996, when instead of 13 ... c!Oe5 14.tt:ld2 h5 15.b4 tt:le6 16 ..ib2, 13 ..ig7 14.lllxc6 .ixc6 15.0.0.ie4 might be strong) 10 ..� ll.tt:lxe4.ix e4 12.id2 .ixf3 13.gxf3 llle5 14 . .&l.ic515.ic3.mte8,Gutman; fur1her ill) 5.g3 tt:lc6 6.exd6 (6..ig2 is best met by 6...dxe5 7.ft'xd8+ 'iYxd8 8.ltixe5 tt:lxe5 9..ixe4 tt:lxc4 1 0.0-0 c6 11 Jtd I+ 'it>e8 12 .tt:ld2 tt:lxd2 13..ixd2 .ie7 14 ..ic3 f6. However, all tries to keep the tension do not work well: 6.. .if5? 7.c!Oh4 ft'd7 8.�d5; 6....ie6, Legrix- Leygue, Creon 2002, 7.tt:ld4!? ltixd4 8.�xd4 tt:lc5 9.0-0; 6 ...ft'e7 7.�c2!? c!Oc5 8.exd6 �xd6 9.0-0 �ffi 10.tt:lc3 tt:lb4 ll.�dl, though 7.exd6 tt:lxd6 8.tt:lbd2 .if5 9.ltih4 .id7 I O.e3 g5 ll.tt:lhf3 .ig712.0-0 h5 13.ltid4 h414.c5 hxg3 15.hxg3 ltif5 16.lllxc6 is also good, improving on 13.�e2 Q..O...O 14.ltie l .ig4 15 ..if3 fS 16J.xg4 hxg4, Paulovic- Ve­ res, Sala 1991) 6....ixd6 7..ig2 (7.ltibd2 •

.if5 8.a3 transposes to 4.a3 d6 5 .exd6 .ixd6 6.tt:ld2 .if5 7.g3 tt:lc6 8.tt:lgf3, cov­ ered in Part 5, Chapter 4, Section I) 7... .ie6!? (7 ... .if5 8.0-0 �f6 9.tt:lh4 0-0-0 1 O.tt:lxf5 �xf5, Elser-Schultz, corr 1988, loses to ll.�d5!, and also 7...�e7 8.0-0 .id7 9.a3 0-0 IO..ie3 gadS l l .tt:lfd2 is to White's liking,e.g. ll...tt:lg512.tt:lc3ie6 13.ltid5.ixd5 14.cxd5 ltie5 15..ixg5 �xg5 16.f4, Deker-Fernandez Egea. Fechen­ heim 2001, or 11....irs 12.�a4) 8. tt:lbd2 (8.tt:lc3 is well met by 8 ...tt:lxc3 9.bxc3 .ixc4 10.c!Od4 0.0 ll.c!Oxc6 bxc6 12 ..ixc6 .ie5, while 8...tt:lc5 9.0-0 �d7, Zeeman­ Veel, Accom 1988, is doubtful owing to10.tt:ld4) 8 ...tt:lxd2 (8...tt:lc5 see 4.tt:lbd2 c!Oc5 5.c!Ogf3 c!Oc6 6.g3 d6 7 .exd6 .ixd6 8..ig2ie6- Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 6, Sequel 2) 9 .tt:lxd2 .ib4 1 0.0-0 0-0 l l .b3 (more safe than ll ..ixc6 bxc6: 12.�c2 �d413.e3 �c5 14.b3 ih3 or 12.�a4 �e7) ll...�ffi lU�bl &118 ,Gutman; similarly IV) 5 ..if4 tt:lc6!? (More direct methods tend to run unto trouble. 5 ...d5? 6.�xd5 �xd5 7.cxd5 .ic5 8.e3 0-0 9..id3 .ib4+ IO.lll bd2 occurred in Brueggemann Fischer, Germany 2001. 5 ... g5 6.�d5! gxf4 1.�xe4,AIUltoli MIIISukerich, while 6.tt:lbd2 tt:lxf2 7..ixg5�xg5 8.ltixg5ltixdl 9.gxdl dxe5 JO.tt:lgf3 tt:lc6 ll.e4 ggs, Muller -Braun, Germany 1971, and 6. .ig3 tt:lxg3 -not 6...g4 7.ih4.ie7 8..ixe7 �xe7 9.exd6 �f6, Edwards - Cosner, Missouri 1992, 10.�d4!? -, 7.hxg3 g4 8.c!Oh4 .ig7 are both much less inspiring. 5 .. ..if 5 leaves B lack with no compen­ sation after 6.exd6!? .ixd6 7..ixd6, e.g. 7...cxd6 8.tt:ld4, 7 ...�xd6 8.�xd6 ltixd6 9.tt:lbd2 or 7 ...tt:lxd6 8.c5 tt:le4 9.ft'xd8 + l!i>xd8 10.tt:ld4; h owever, note that 6.a3 transposes to 4.a3 d6 5.tt:lf3 .if5 6..if4Part 5, Chapter 4, Section 2, and in case of 6.g3 Black has a choice between 6 ... tt:lc6 7.exd6.ixd6 8bd6 tt:lxd6 9.ltibd2 �f6 and 6 ... g5 7..ie3 lllc6 8 ..ig2 dxe5 15 5

9.0-0 �xd l l OJbdl f6, improving on 8...ll:lxe5 9.0-0 ltlc6, Joan Romero - Zua­ zua, Asturia 1998, IO.ltld4) 6.exd6 (6.a3 see 4.a3 d6 5.ltlf3 ltlc6 6..if4 - Part 5, Chapter 4 , Section 2; 6.�d5 ltlc5 7.exd6 .ixd6 8..ixd6 cxd6 9.ltlc3 .ie6 I O.�d2 .ixc4 l U�dl 0-0, and 6.e3 is met by 6... dxe5 7.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 8.ltlxe5 ltlxe5 9.ixe5 11>4+ l O.ltlc3 .ixc3+, e.g. l l .ixc3 ltlxc3 l 2.bxc3 'it>e7 l 3 ..id3 gds 1 4.0-0-0 .ie6 or l l .bxc3 f6 12 ru l + .id7 1 3 ..id3 ltlc5 l4..Ag3 ltlxd3 l 5Jhd3 �8 l 6.'it>e2 'it>e7 l 7.�dl .ie6) 6 ..Axd6 7..ixd6 cxd6 8. ltlbd2 ltlc5 9.ltlb3 �ffi should have been OK for Black, Gutman; V) 5 .exd6 .ixd6 is the principal line. •

6.e3 (6.g3? loses to 6...ltlxf2!, e.g. 7.'it>xf2 ixg)+or 7.�c2 ltlxhl 8� ltlxg3 9hxg3 .ixg3+ l O.'it>fl �e7 l l ..ig5 �c5 l2.e3 .i15 13 .�3 0-0, Bauer -Toth, Budapest 1937. After 6.�c2 VasconceUos gives 6.. ..if5 7.ltlc3 .ib4 8..Ad2 .ixc3 9. .ixc3 0-0!?, avoiding 9... ltlg3 I O.�a4+ .id7 l l .�c2 .itS with a repetition; 7.g4 .ib4+ 8 .ltlc3 is not better due to 8 .. ..Ag6 9 ..id2 .ixc3 I O ..ixc3 0-0 l l .�b3 ges 1 2 .gd l �c8 l3..id4 ll:lc6 l4ie3 a5, while Kietlinski ­ Szelag, corr 1999, went 8 ... ltlxc3 9.g:xfS ltle4+ l0�2 ltlxd2 l l .ltlxd2 ltlc6, when 1 2 .0-0-0 might be played. 6.�d5 can be answered by 6...�e7 7.ltlbd2 ltlffi 8.�5+ ltlc6 9.ltld4 0-0 I O.ltlxc6 bxc6 l l .�xc6

gbs, though 6 ... 5 7.ltlbd2 ltlf6 8.�b5+ .id7 9.�xb7 ltlc6 10.�3 .ic5 is possible as well, e.g. l l .a3 0-0 l2.�c2 ltlg4 13 .e3 f4 l4.ltlb3 .itS l5.�c3 fxe3 l6.fxe3 .ixe3 17 ..ixe3 ltlxe3, Hettler - Juhnke, Ger­ many 2002, or l l .e3 0-0 l 2..id3 f4!? 1 3 . exf4 �e7+ l4.'it>fl &e8) 6 ... li:lc6, when: A) 7.�c2? .itS 8 ..id3 ltlb4 (better than 8 ..ib4+ 9.'it>e2, Nicolas - Melchor, corr 1 993, 9...�e7 IQ.gdl ()..0.() l l .ltlc3 .ixc3 l2.bxc3 �d3 l3..!hd3 ll:lc5 14�8+ �d8 l5 .�xfS+ 'it>b8 l6 ..ia3 �e4) 9.�a4+ b5 IO.�xb5+ .id7 l l .ixe4 .ixb5 and White is unlikely to escape, Gutman; B) 7..id2 .itS 8.ltlc3 0-0 (8 ...ltlc5 9.ltld4!, e.g. 9...ltlxd4 I O.exd4 �e7+ l l .iLe3 ltle4 l2.�f3 or 9.. .�d7 lO.ltlxfS �xfS l l ..Ae2 ltld3+ l2 .ixd3 �xd3 13 .�e2 ltle5 l4.b3; however, 9..ie2 ltlb4 10.0-0 .ic2 l l .�cl ll:lcd3 I2.ixd3 .ixd3 1 3 .gdl .ic2 141m J.d3 is only a repetition, while Heinrich Koronowski, corr 1 989, went 9 ...ltld3+ IO.ixd3 .ixd3 l l .�a4 0-0 l 2 .ltld5 ltle5 l3 .ltlxe5 .ixe5 14.�3 Ae4 l 5.f3 �4+ l6.'it>e2 c6, when l7.fxe4!? cxd5 l 8.exd5 should be tried) 9.ltlxe4 .ixe4 I O . .ie2 �f6 l l ..ic3 .ib4 12.�3 (l 2.gcl ixc3+ 1 3 .gxc3 &d8 l4.m3 �g6 1 5 .0-0 gd2 l6..idl ltle5) l2 ...a5 13.0-0 �g6 l 4kc l a4 l 5.�dl a3 l6.b3 .ixc3 l 7.�c3 ltlb4, Gutman; further q 7.ltlbd2 .itS (7 ...ltlc5 see 4.ltld2 ltlc5 5.ltlgf3 ltlc6 6.e3 d6 7.exd6 .ixd6, cov­ ered in Part 3, Chapter l, Section 4) 8..ie2 �f6 (8 ...�e7, suggested by Max Euwe, transposes after 9.0-0 0-0-0 l O.a3 to 4.a3 d6 5 .exd6 .ixd6 6.e3 ltlc6 7.ltlf3 .if5 8 . .ie2 �e7 9.0-0 0-0-0 IO.ltlbd2 - Part 5, Chapter 4, Section l, but White has an extra resource in 9.ltlxe4!? .ixe4 l 0.0-0 0-0-0 l l .�a4 ghe8 1 2.gdl g5 l 3 .ltld2) 9.0-0 ()..0.() (9_0-0 IO.ltlxe4 .ixe4 1 1 .�3 greg l 2..Ad2 �6 l 3.h3 seems playable for Black: 1 3 ...ge6 14..ic3 gg6 1 5 .'it>hl �g2 l 6.'it>xg2 �g5+ forcing a draw, or •

1 56

13...�e5 14.�xe5 �e5 1 5 .f4 �g6 16.Jfl 17..he4 �xe4 18�f3 gd8, Jensen Hvenekilde, Aarhus 1954) 1 O.�xe4 .b.e4 l l .�a4 �g6!? ( l l ...ghe8 !? 1 2 .a3 goes into 4.a3 d6 5 .exd6 .b.d6 6.�d2 .tf5 7. �xe4 .b.e4 8.�f3 �c6 9.e3 �f6 10..ie2 ().0.0 l l .�a4 l!he8 12.()..() - Part 5, Chap­ ter 4, Section 1 , while 12 . .td2?! �xb2 13 .�b3, Slajs - Korostenski, Ceske Bu­ dejovice 2000, 13 .. .ia3!, or 12�dl �g6 1 3 .�el .tb4 14..ifl gxdl 1 5 .�xdl gd8 16.�e2 .b.el l7.�xel �e5 1 8.'i!;>hl �f3 19.�e2 �h5 20.h3 gd6 0:1 Gonsales ­ Carpintero, Grand Canaria 1 992, are no better. l l ...�h6 seems less ambitious, e.g. 12.g3 ghe8 13.�d2 f5 14.�xe4 fxe4 1 5 .c5 !? .b.c5 16..ig4+ Wb8 17 ..if5 �b4 18 .a3 �d3 19..he4�xcl 20�cl he3 2 1 .gcdl .tb6 or 1 2 .h3 _ghe8, when in­ stead of 13 .J.d2 g5 14.�d4 'i!;>b8 1 5.�b5 g4 !? 16..ixg4 f5 17 .�xd6 gxd6, Stein­ macher - Staub, Germany 1 993, 1 3.b4!? hb4 14..ib2 �g6 1 5 .�h4 �h6 1 6.�f3 could be more safe) 12.g3 ( 1 2.�h4 eM 1 3 .g3 ghe8 14..if3 is hopeless owing to 14...�xh4 1 5.gxh4 i.xt3 16.�c2 &4 17.h3 gde8 1 8.gel h5 1 9.'i!;>fl g8e6) 1 2 ... h5 13 .�h4 (13.c5 hc5 14.�h4 �e6 15 .�c4 �xc4 16..ixc4 �e5 17 ..ie2 g5 18.f3 gxh4, Moeldner - Enzmann, Germany 1999) 13 ...�e6 with pressure, Gutman ; D) 7..te2 is surely more advisable. !Th5

7...�f6!? (7...�e7 8.0-0 .td7 9.�bd2 f5 IO.�c2 0-0 l l .a3 a5 1 2.b3 gf6 1 3 ..tb2 gh6 looks less clear: An Mon - Little Goliath, computer game 200 I , continued 14.h3 gf& 1 5 �fd l gg6 16..id3 �c5, but 14.g3 b6 1 5 .�bl !? gd8 1 6.�c3 has per­ haps more point, improving on 1 5 ..id3 &8 16�fe l .tc8 17.�d4 �xd2 1 8.�xd2 �e5, Mertanen - Ailaskari, Kuopio 1997. 7 ... .tg4 8.0-0 0-0 should give equality, e.g. 9.�d4 � I O.g3 �xg3 1 l .fxg3 .ixg3 1 2.hxg3 �xg3+ with a draw, or 9.�bd2 �d2 IO..ixd2.ix0 l l ..ixf3 and now not l l ...�e5 1 2..ic3 �xc4, Kashnitsky - Li, Russia 1999, 13 .�d4 �e5 14..ixb7, but 1 1 ...� 12.g3 �xc4. 7.. .J.f5 8..id3? �b4 9..ixe4 .b.e4 was a disaster for White in Man:in - Banic, Dubnica 1 998, yet 8.0-0 �f6 is just a transposition) 8.0-0 .tf5 !? (8. ...ig4 was tried i n two games. Bjoms­ son - Knutsson, Reykj avik rapid 2003 , went 9.�d5, and now instead of9 �c5 I O.�c3 0-0-0 l l .�g5 �xg5 12 .�xg5 he2 1 3.�xe2 gd7 14.�d4 �e5 1 5 .b3, 9...�e7!? I O.h3 .td7 1 l .�bd2 �c5 1 2.b3 f5 1 3 .�d4 �b4 14.�f3 �e5 1 5 .g3 0-0 16.a3 �c6 17 ..ib2 �4 should be played. Black is also in good shape after 9.�bd2 �xd2 I O.�xd2 .ixe2 l l .�xe2 0-0-0 as 12.�e4?, Koster - Krwe , Germarly 1996, fails to 12 .. ..hh2+ 13.� 'fiM+. Ne­ vertheless, 9.�d4! he2 IO.�xe2 �xd4 l l.exd4 �xd4 12lOC3 f5 l3.�b5 is critical) 9.�d4 (for 9.�bd2 see C) 9...gd8 (after 9...0-0-0 is 10.�c3!? quite unpleasant, e.g. 1 0 ... �xc3 l l .bxc3 �h6 1 2.g3 .td7 l3Ebl, 10 -�d4 l l .exd4 �xc3 12.bxc3 �e8 l3 ..te3 or l O • ..ixhl+?! l l .'i!;>xh2 �xd4 1 2.exd4 �d4 13.�el ge8 14.�d5 �4+ 15.'i!;>gl �c5 16..ie3 �e6 1 7.f3 I :0 Campos Moreno - Carpintero, Oropesa del Mar 1 996) I O.Jfl ( l O.�c3 �xc3 1 1 . bxc3 0-0) 1 0...0-0 l l ..ixe4 he4 1 2.�c3 �g6 1 3 .�xe4 �xe4 1 4.�f3 �e5 1 5 .g3 �xd4 1 6.exd4 �xd4 is level, Gutman. .•

1 57

VI) 5.e3 lLlc6 appears more solid.

We survey White's possibilities: A) 6.exd6 .hd6 (6..�4 7..k2 .hd6 goes rmto 5 .exd6 .hd6 6.e3 lLlc6 7 .J.e2 ig4 WD, while Nielsen - Hage, Ronne 1 942, went 7.d7+?! ixd7 8 .ie2 �f6 9.�c2? its l O.�dl .ib4+ l l .lLlbd2 0-0-0 1 2.a3 ixd2+ 1 3 .lLlxd2 lLlxf2 0 : 1 ) transposes to 5 .exd6 .ixd6 6.e3 lLlc6 - IV; B) 6.lLlbd2 .its!? (6 ...lLlxd2 7.J.xd2 dxe5 8.ic3 �xd l+ 9.lhdl to is even; less ap­ pealing is 8...�to.not because of9.�c2 if5 1 O.id3 lLlb4, Vacovska - Pallova, Czech Republic 1991 , but due to 9.J.d3, e.g. 9..J15 IO.ixJS �xf.) l l .�d5 ft) 1 2.0-0 or Lid? 10..ie4 id6 1 1 .0-0. However, note that 7 .. .J.g4 8.J.e2 dxe5 brings little profit as 9.�3 �f6 1 0.0-0 ID18 l l .J.c3 .ic5 1 2.�5 �e7 13 .lLlxe5 a6 14.lLlxc6 axb5 1 5.lLlxe7 .ixe2 1 6JUe l e2 .h7 12�l lhdl 1 3 .�dl 0-0 left White slightly worse in Lang - Korostenski, Ceske Budejovice 2000) 8 ...dxe5 9.J.e2 �to 1 O.J.c3 g5 1 1 .

�3 0-0-0 12.lLld2 .hg2 (Meier - Klue­ ting, Germany 1996, continued 12 .. .J.fS 13 .0-0-0 �g6 14.g4 id3 1 5 .J.xd3 lhd3 1 6.lLlf3 ft) 17.�c2 lhdl + with equality) 1 3 .�gl ( 1 3 .J.g4+
I I .ltXJ4 V9d7, Baroullet - Lelong, France 200 1 , 1 2 .J.g4!?; 7 ..id2 l0xe5 8.l0c3 g6 9.l0xe4 .ixe4 I O ..ic3 .ig7 l l .�cl 0-0 12.b3 V9e7, Akdeniz - Brehmer, Landau 1 996; 7 .l0d4 l0xd4 8.V9xd4 'figS 9.0-0 V9g6 I O..if3 c5 I I .'f/dl dxe5 1 2.V9d5 .id6 13 .V9xb7 0-0, are good for Black) 7... dxe5 8.0-0 (8.l0xe5? .ib4+ 9.�fl V9h4, e.g. I O.g3 'flh3+ l l .�gl l0c5 12.'flb5 a6 or I O .l0d3 0-0-0 I I .V9b5 .ig6) 8 ... l0c5 (8 ....id6 is met by 9.b4 hb4 IO.l0xe5 'f/ffi I I.l0xc6bxc6 1 2.V9xb4 'f/xal 13.ib2) 9.V9di .id6 IO.l0c3 (Mygh - Hvenekilde, Denmark 1961, went IO.lOel V9f6 I I.l0c3 o4 12.f4 ()..().() 13J.d2 h5 14.a3 .ie7 1 5.V9c2 V9g6 1 6.�hl .ig4 17.b4 �xd2 1 8.V9xd2 l0b3 19.'flb2 l0xai 20.V9xal .if6 2 1 .V9cl .ixc3 22 .J.xg4+ hxg4 23.V9xc3, when 23 ...'flh5 24.h3 gxh3 25.g4 V9xg4 26l!gl V9e2 might be decisive) I O...a6 (I O ...g5 seems premature, I I .l0b5 g4 12.l0xd6+ cxd6 13.l0el o4 14.J.xg4hg4 1 5.V9xg4 lOe5 1 6.'f/f4 �g8 and now instead of 1 7.f3 'f/aS 18.fxe4 0-0-0 19.l0c2 �g4 20.V9f5+ 1006 21.b4 V9a4 22.'f/f2 � 23.l0el l0g5, Staldi - Richter, Stuttgart 1 939, 1 7 .b4 �g4 18.V9f5 l0e6 19.f4 would be strong) I I .b3 0-0 all favours Black, Gutman; E) 6.id3 l0c5 (6.. ..if5 deserves attention, e.g. 7.V9c2 l0b4 8.V9a4+ l0c6 9.V9c2 l0b4 with a draw by repetition or 7.a3 l0xe5 8.l0xe5 dxe5 9.V9c2 l0xf2 I O .J.xfS lOxh l I I .V9e4 V9f6 1 2.V9xb7 �d8 1 3 .V90 g6 14. .ie4 V9h4+ 1 5 .g3 'flxh2 1 6.V9xhl V9xg3+ 17.�e2 .ie7) 7 .ie2 (7.lt�d4?, Brugman ­ Veel, Alkmaar 1985, 7 ...dxe5. Samb ­ Monteiro, Las Palmas 1997, proceeded 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.J.c2 0-0 9.0-0 .ig4 I O.a3 'f/f6 I I .'f/dS &d8 1 2.V9g5 V9e6 1 3 .l0d4 l0xd4 14.exd4 .ie7, when 1 5.V9e3 could be promising, yet Black can do better w ith I I ...J.e6 1 2.'flh5 g6 13.'flh6 .ixc4. 7 .J.c2 .ig4 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.h3 is well met by 9.. �5. e.g. I O.l0c3 l0b4 I I ..ib l 'fif6 or I 0.0-0 'f/f6 I I .l0bd2 0-0-0, while 9 ...

.ixO I O.V9xf3 l0e5 I I .V9e2 l0cd3+ 12. .ixd3 l0xd3+? 1 3 .V9xd3 .ib4+ 1 4.�e2 was a blunder in Brito - Barros, Tijuca 1 978) 7 ... l0xe5 (7 .. .J.g4 8.exd6 .ixd6 9. lLld4 he2 IO.V9xe2 V9d7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2l!dl or 7....if5 8.l0d4 V9d7, Brack - Krempner, Germany 1 999, 9.exd6 .ixd6 10.0-0 0-0 l l .l0c3 are worse) 8.0-0 (8.l0xe5 dxe5 9.V9xd8+ �xd8 1 0.0-0 c6 l l .l0c3 .if5) 8 ...l0x0+ 9.J.x0 .ie7 I O.l0c3 0-0 leads to equality, Gutman. VII) 5.V9c2 is the best answer, according to Tseitlin/Giaskov.

Three moves are worth exploring: A) 5 ...l0c5 will transpose into 4.V9c2 l0c5 5 .l0 0 d6 - Part 2, Chapter I ; B) 5 .. ..ifS 6.l0c3 d 5 7.cxd5 .ib4 (7 ...l0a6 8.l0xo4 � 9.l0d6+ V9xd6 IO.'f/xfS 'f/xdS I I .J.d2 �d8 1 2.a3, Kluge - Gegner, Dort­ mund 2000) 8.V9a4+ (8 .V9b3 ! ? - White retains a decisive material advantage, Tseidin/Giaskov -, 8... l0a6 9..td2 hc3 IO.J.xc3 l0ac5 I I .V9c4 is also very strong. Ud2 hc3 9.J.xc3 'f/xdS, Nicolll Minev, is better to avoid in view of IOJ:!dl l0xc3 I I .V9xc3 V9xa2 1 2 .V9xc7 l0c6 1 3.V9xb7 V9a5+ 14.l0d2 �c8 1 5 .e4 .id7) 8 ... l0c6 9.dxc6 l0xc3 I O.bxc3 hc3+ I I .J.d2 b5 1 2.V9f4 .ixal 1 3 .'f/xf5 V9d5 14.V9c2 a6 15.g3 he5 16.ig2 .iffi 17.0-0'f/e6 18.J.f4 and White won quickly, Uhle - Glase­ wald, corr 1 990; 1 59

C) S . d5 6.ltlc3 (6.cxd5�xd57.ltlc3 aUows 7 .ltlxc3 8.t!hc3 a5 ! 9.a3 .ib4 10.axb4 axb4 l l .�xc7 �al 1 2 .�xc8+ �e7 1 3 . �c7+ ltld7 14.ltld2 �xe5 l5.�xe5+ ltlxe5 l 6.ltlb3 gc8 ! . Also 6.ltlbd2 .itS 7.cxd5 �xd5 is fine for Black, e.g. 8.�xc7 .ib4 9.e3 ltlc6 I O.�xb7 �8 l l .�a6 ltlxe5 or 8.�d3 �xd3 9.exd3 ltlc5 IO.d4 ltld3+ 1 1 . .ixd3 .ixd3 12.ltlb3 ltlc6 13.a3 - 13�d2 0-0-0 l4,gcl .ie4 -, 13-�2 14.ltlc5 b6 1 5.� .*15 16.ltlb3 a5 17.�3a4 18.ltlbd2 ltla7!?, Edman - Nieminen, corr 1 982. _6.a3 goes into 4.a3 d6 5.�c2 d5 6.ltlf3, treated in P art 5 , Chapter 4, Section 1 ) 6.. .ib4 (6 ... ltlxc3 7.�xc3 a5 8..ig5 Wd7 9.a3 h6 lO..if4 dxc4 l l.�xc4) 7.e3 (7.cxd5 .ixc3+ 8.bxc3 �xd5, and 7.�3 is par­ ried by 7 ... ltla6 8cxd5 c6! 9.d6 �a5 1 0. id2 �ac5 l l .�c2 .itS l2.�cl f6 13.exffi 0-0-0, while 7 ... .ixc3+ 8.bxc3 c6 9.h3 �6 IO.e3 or 7 _.J.c5 8.e3 ltlxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 IO..ixc4 �e7 l l .ltld4 0-0 12.e6 are both in White's favour) 7 ... .if5 8.Wb3 (8..id3 ltld7 9.cxd5 ltldc5) 8 ...a5 9 .cxd5 ltld7 l O ..ib5 0-0 1 1 .0-0 ltldc5 l 2 .Wdl .ixc3 l 3.bxc3 c6 14�c4 cxd5 1 5 .�xd5 �c7 16.�d4 (if 1 6.�dl b5 !?) 1 6 .. JUd8 1 7 .td5 ltle6 1 8.�c4 �xc4 19 ..ixc4 �c8 20..ixe6 .ixe6 keeps control, Gutman. ..

..

Back to the main line

s... .if5

5 ... ltlc5 transposes to 4.ltld2 ltlc5 5.ltlgf3 d6 - Part 3, Chapter 1 , Section 2. 6.fhl:e4 6.�3 ltlc5 7.�e3 ltlc6 (Hansen - So by, Aarhus 1 976, saw instead 7 ...ltle6 8.ltlb3 ltlc6 9.!.d2 dxe5 IO.ltlxe5 ltlb4 l l ..ixb4 .ixb4+ 12.ltld2 0-0 l3.ltld3 .ixd3 1 4.�xd3 ltlc5 15.�xd8 &xd8 1 6.().()..() � 1 7.ltlb3 l:bd l+ 18.�xdl ltle4 1 9.�c2 ltlxf2, yet we can improve with 9.ltlbd4!? ltlcxd4 IO.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 l l .�xd4 c6 12..id2 dxe5 13 .�xe5+ .ie6 14..ic3 �e7 1 5.e3 0-0-0 16..ie2) 8.exd6+ ltle6 9.dxc7 �xc7 w ith a nice lead in development, Gutman. 6....be4 7.�gS 7..if4 ltlc6 8.exd6.ixd6 (8...�f6? 9..ig5 �xb2 10.d7 mate Planell - Oliveras, Bar­ celona rapid '96) 9..ixd6 cxd6 IO.�d2 0-0 l l .e3 .ixf3 12.gxf3 �ffi l3 ..ie2 �c8 14.&1 rues gave Black enough counter­ play in Rosell - Soby, Aarhus 1 977. 7....lg6 8.e6 fxe6 9.�xe6 'f!Ie7 9...�d7 l O.ltlf4 .in l l .e3 ltlc6 l 2 ..ie2 ltle5 1 3 .b3 g6 14 ..ib2 .ig7 1 5 .0-0 0-0 16.�d2 gae8 l 7.�adl �f5 1 8 .ltld3 .ie6 19.ltlxe5 dxe5 20.i.d3 �h5 2 l ..ie4, Sta­ niszewski - Ipekuilmaz, Groningen 1982. 10.�f4 IO.ltlxf8 &18, VasconceUos, 1 1.�3 ltlc6 12 ..ie3 0-0-0 l3 .g3 .ie4 14 ..ih3+ �b8 15 .0-0 h5 l6.�a4 g5 l7.c5 d5 l 8.�dl h4 left White in trouble, Diedam - Scharff, Germany 1 986. lO...J.fS l l .eJ c6 1l..lel �d7 13.0.0 g6 13 ...0-0-0 14.�d4 ( 1 4.0 g5 1 5 .ltld3 h5 16.e4 � 1 7.�a4 a6 18..ie3 .ig7 1 9.ltlb4 ltlc5 20.�a5 g4 2 l .f4, Nolte - Scharff, Germany 1 986, 2 l ...ltlxe4!?) l 4 ... �b8 l 5 .b4 g5 l 6.ltlh5, Gutman. 14..ld3 14.f3 g5 l 5 .e4 ( l 5 .ltlh5 .ig6 l 6.f4 �g8) 1 5 ....ig6 keeps more tension, Gutman. 14 ...1xd3 1S.�xd3 1g7 16..ldl Black will be hard pressed to justify his material deficiency, Gutman. 1 60

IV) 5..lf4 .lb4+ ( 5....lb7 6.lLlbd2 .lb4

Chapter 2 The Bonsd orff Variation (l.d4 �f6 l.c4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�fJ) 4...b6

7.a3 .lxd2+ 8.l0xd2 promises White the better chances, e.g. 8...ll:lxd2 9.'flxd2 'f/e7 10.'f/c3l0c6 l l .'fig3!? 0-0 12.�dl �fe8 13.e3 or 8...l0c5 9.e3 0.0 10..!00 aS ll..le2 a4 12.0-0, improving on 9.b4?! lLle6 10..lg3 0-0 ll.e4 l0c6 12.f4 �e8 13..!00, Dimilropoulos- Lakakis, Patras 2001, D .. d6!) 6.l0bd2 'fle7 7.a3 .lxd2+ 8.l0xd2l0xd2 9.'flxd2 l0c6 1O.'fic3 0-0 11 ,gd l (11.0-0-0 �e8 12.M5 'f/e6 13.e3 ll:le7 141W ll:lg6)11...�8 12.M5 (12.'f/t3 'f/e6 13.'fld5 'fits 14.e3 'f/c2) 12...l0d8!? (12...'fle6 13.e3 ll:le7 14.�d l lLl g 6 can be met by 15.c5!? ll:lxe5 16.cxb6) 13.e3 ll:le6 14..ig3 ll:lf8 and Black has no com­ plaints, Gutman; V) 5.e3 ib7 (5...d6? loses to 6.'fld5 ll:lc5 7.'f/xa8 .lb7 8.'f/xa7 l0c6 9.'fla3, Kjell Krantz, Kaissibe r 1612001) 6..le2 d6!? (This sharp line was indicated by TotSten Oskarsson. 6.. ..ib4+ 7.lLlbd2 goes into 4.l0d2 .lb4 5.ll:lo b6 6.e3 .lb7 7 ..ie2Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Sequel 3, but 6 ...g6!? may well be the most logical reply, for example 7.lLlbd2 .lg7 8.'flc2 ll:lxd2 9..lxd2 ll:lc6 10..lc3 'fle7 11.0-0 ll:lxe5 12l0 . xe5.lxe513,gfdl d6 14.'f/a4+ Wf8 15.�1 Wg7 16.b4.lxc3 17�c3 aS 18.b5 &e8, Rivas - Lezcano, La Coruna 1996) 7.0-0 (7.exd6 .lxd6 8.lLl bd2 ts !? 9.l0xe4 fxe4 lO.lLld4 'f/f6 ll ..id2l0d7 12..ic3l0e5,Kulcsar- Oskarsson, Swe­ den 1996) 7...ll:ld7 8.exd6 (8.lLlbd2 dxe5 9.l0xe4 .lxe4 1O.ll:ld2 .ib7 l l ..iO .lxO 12.lLlxO .ld6, Boyde - Schydlo, Dres­ den 2001) L.lxd6 9.'flc2 ts 10.l0 bd2 (1O.b3 'f/e7 ll. .lb2 0-0 12.lLlc3 li:ldf6 13.goolllJxc3 14..ixc3 ll:le4 1 5.g3 &e8 16.lLld2?! ll:lg5, Paelsson- Oskarsson, Sweden 199 1) 10 ...0-0 l l.l0b3 (l l .a3 'fiffi; this i s more convincing than ll .-g5, when instead of 12.g3 g4 13.l0h4l0g5 14.�dl ll:le5, Thykesson- Oskarsson, Sweden 1992,12.l0xe4.lxe413.'fic3 g4 .

This is quite a logiaJI move; unfortunate­ ly, it seems to have a dire ct tactical re­ futation, Tim Harding. 5.�bdl Alternatives: I) 5.a3 goes into 4.a3 b6 5..!00 -Part 5, Chapter 5; D) 5.'flc2 .lb7 6.li)c3 (6.a3 see 4.a3 b6 5 ..!00 .lb7 6.'flc2- Part 5, Chapter 5) 6 .. ..ib4 7 ..id2 l0xd2 8.'flxd2 'f/e7 9.a3 .lxc3 10.'fixc3l0c6 (10...0.0 ll .e3 .lxO 12gxf3 . l0c613.f4ffi 14.exffi� 15.1)..()..() gave White a plus, Goldstem - Kinnu­ nen, Davos 2002) transposes to 4.'fic2 .lb4+ 5 ..id2l0xd2 6.l0xd2 ll:lc6 7 .tOO 'f/e7 8.a3.lxd2+ 9.'flxd2 b6 10.'fic31lb7Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1 ; ffi) 5.b3?! .lb4+! (5 ... .lb7 6..ib2 .lb4+ 7l0 . bd2l0c6 8.'flc2.lxd2+ 9.ll:lxd2l0xd2 1O. 'fixd2 'f/e7 l l.'flc3 0-0 12J�dl �fe8 13.a3 &d8 14,gd5 'fle6 is also playable, while 9 ... ll:lb4 lO.'flcl 'fih4 ll.g3 'Bh5 12..ig2 ll:lxfl 13 ..lxb7 lLlf d3+ 14.exd3 ll:lxd3+ 1 5.Wfl ll:lxcl 16�c1 M8 17 .to 'fi ts, Lubbe- Krug, German y 2002, 1 8. Wg2 0-0 19J:�hfl isless clear) 6..id2 (if 6.ll:lbd2? .lc3 7Al d6)6...l0xd2 7.ll:lbxd2 ll:lc6 8.e3 'fle7 favours Black, Gutman;

161

14.cS might be critical) I Lee8 1H)bd4 (1 2.lt)el'!! eg6 13.Af3 ltX:S 14.ee2 �6, Petersson - Oskarsson, Sweden 1 992) 12 ... ltJeS with counterplay, Gutman; VI) S.g3 is worth attention.

Sequel I , but Black has additionally 7 ... ltJxd2 8.ltJxd2 ec8!? 9.0-0 ltJxeS I O.ltJe4 .ie7, improving on LhS 9..idS h4 I O.g4 egs l l .h3 exeS 12.ltJf3 .ib4+ 1 3.Wfl ee7 14..igS ffi IS..hM gS 16..ig3 0-0-0 17.�g2, Lutsko - Panchenko, Aluschta 1999) 1 ...ee1 s.eds lLlds (S...lLlaS 9.ed3 (}.().() IO.b3) 9.'f!d3 g6 10lkll .ig7 l l.h3 lLle6 12.lLlbd2 fS !? ( 12 ... lLlxd2 J3_gxd2 gds 14.'f!c3 0-0 IS.�d I) 1 3.exf6 lLlxf6 14.lLlh4 .ixg2 IS.ltJxg2 0-0 and Black is still alive, Gutman. VD) S.'f!dS (Only this move can trouble Black's scheme of development, Har­

ding) is obvious a more risky line.

Then: A) S ....ah4+ 6.ltJbd2 see 4.lLld2ib4 S.ltJf3 b6 6.g3 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Sequel 3; B) S...ics 6.edS! (6.e3 .tb7 7 .J.g2 is less effective. 7... ltJgS 8.0-0 ltJxf3+ 9..ixf3 jxf3 IO.exf3 lilc6 I I.ee4 ee7 12.f4 Q.O.O 13 .a3 aS?!, Harsanyi - Toth, Budapest 200 1, is awkwardly met by 14.ltJc3 �e6 I S.b4, but 7_ ..ib4+ 8.lLlbd2 'f!e7 9.0-0 ixd2 has more point Now IO.lLlxd2 'fixeS l l.lLlxe4 he4 12 .'f!d4!? 'fixd4 13.exd4 .ixg2 1 4.ge l+ �d8 I S .�xg2 keeps a small edge for White, while after I O..ixd2 ltJc6 l l .'fic2 ltJxd2 12.ltJxd2 exeS 1 3.ltJf3 'f!e7 14.gadl both 14 ... 0-0 1 s .ers d6 1 6.ltJgS g6 17.'fif4 ltJd8 1 8 ..idS lLle6!? 19 -� 'fixgS 20.'fixgS ltJxgS, Berglund Thomros, corr 1 996, and 14 ...ltJd8 IS.'f/15 ltJe6 16.ltJeS .ixg2 17.�g2 gds 1 8,gd2 f6 are OK for Black) 6 .. ..ixf2+ 7.�dl .ib7 s.exb7 lLlc6 9.'fia6icS IO..ig2 lLlt2+ l l .�el lLlxhl 12..ixhl 0-0 13.ltJc3 with advantage, Gut man; C) S ....ib7 6..ig2 lLlc6 7.0-0 (7.lLlbd2 lLlcS see 4.ltJd2 ltJcS S.lLlgf3 lLlc6 6.g3 b6 7. · ,ig2 .ib7 - Part 3, Chapter I, Section 6,

There are two continuations: A) S .. ..ib7 6.'f!xb7 lLlc6 (threatening to trap the queen in two ways : 7 ... lLlcS or 1._a6followedby �7), when White has tried a number of responses: AI) 7.'f!a6 .ib4+ 8..id2 (8.lLlbd2 ltJcS 9.'fibS a6) 8...ltJcS 9.'f!bS ixd2+ IO.ltJbxd2 a6 0: I Najmes - Balogh, Budapest 1 943; Al) 7.'f!xa8 'fixa8 8..id2 lLlxd2 9.lLlbxd2 .ib4 w.o-o-0 0-0 l t .lLlb3 gds 12 .lLlbd4 lLlxd4 J3.gxd4 .icS and Black won in Plath - Svendsen, corr 1 990; AJ) 7.e6, Orjan Hammarberg, 7 .. fxe6 (7...ltJcS? 8.exf7+ �xf7 9.ltJeS+ ltJxeS IO.edS+) with another branch: A3a) 8.ltJgS ltJcS (Hildebrand/Berke/1 analyses 8 ....ib4+ 9.lLlc3 ,gb8 IO.exb8 .

1 62

'tYxb8 l l .�gxe4 d5 l2.cxd5 exd5 l3.�d2 �d4 l4J:�bl c6 l 5 .e3 �e6 l6..ie2, but Black can do better with 9...�xc3 lO.a3 �a2+ l l.Wdl �xcl l2.axb4 i'n>S l3.'tYa6 'tYxg5, Gutman) 9.�xe6 �xe6 lO..ie3 a6 is a massac re, Krantz; Alb)8..ig5 �xg5 9.�xg5 gbs (instead of9 .. ..ib4+ lO.�c3 i'n>S l l .�xe6 .bc3+ l2.bxc3 gxb7 l 3 .�xd8 Wxd8, Michael Jensen, Kairsiber 1 712001) lO.'tYa6 (if lO.�xe6 'tYffi l l .�xc7+ Wd8) lO...'tYxg5 l l .�d2 'tYf6, Gutman ; further Ale) 8..if4 .ib4+ 9.�bd2 0-0 (9 ... gcs lO..ie3) lO.'tYxc7 'tYffi! (better than 1 0... �xd2 l l .�xd2 .ixd2+ l2.Wxd2 'tYf6 13. Wel &c8 l4.'tYd6 'tYxf4 l5.'tYxf4, Jmsen) l l .'tYxd7 ( l l ..ie3 'tYxb2 1 2 .gdl �c3) ll ...'tYxf4 l2.e3 'tYffi 13.0-0-0 .ixd2+ 14. �xd2 �x f2, McDonald - Bejarano, e­ mail 200 l; similarly Ald) 8.�e5 .ib4+ 9.�c3 0-0!? l O..id2 (lO.�xc6 dxc6 is hopeless, e.g. l l .'tYxc6 'tYd4 or l l..h3 �xc3 l2.a3 �d5+ l3.axb4 �xe3 l4.fxe3 'tYh4+ l5 .Wd2 'tYxc4, while Krantz mentions lO.�d3 .ixc3+ l l .bxc3 a6 l2..if4 &7 with the same outcome) lO ... �xd2 l l .�xc6 dxc6 12.0-0-0 'tYffi l3.Wxd2 .ixc3+ l4.bxc3 &d8+ l5.Wc2 �dl l6.'it>xdl U+ l7.c;!;cl"tYf5+ l8.'it>b3 b5 !, Gutman; finally Ale) 8..ie3 .ib4+ 9.�bd2 (9.Wdl a5 10. �g5 �c5 l l..ixc5 .ixc5 l2.�d2 'it>e7!? l 3 .�ge4 ga7 l4.�xc5 gxb7 l 5.�xb7 'tWaS) 9...a5 10.�5 ()..() (lO ...�xd2 l l.�xc6 �f3+ l2.Wdl dxc6+ l3.Wc2 �e5 l4.gdl 'tYc8 l5.'tYxc8+ �c8 l6..id4 �xc4 l7.e3) l l .0-0-0 .ixd2+ l2Jhd2 �xd2 l3.�xc6 dxc6 l4.'tYxc6 �xfl l 5.'tYxe6+ Wh8 16. �fl 'tYh4 looks grim for White, Gutman. A4) 7. .ie3 .ib4+ (if7 ...a6 8.�d4 .ib4+, then not 9.Wd l ? ga7 lO.�xc6 dxc6+ Heroiu - Otto, Hamburg l9CJ7, but 9.�c3 0-0 10.0-0-0 .ixc3 l l .�xc6 l :0 So by ­ Pedersen, Aarhus 1967) is more inter­ esting.

And now: A4a) S.'it>dl a6 9.�g5 (9.�d4?&7) 9... �g5 lO.hg5 it: 7 l l.he7 'it>xe7 l2.�c3 &7 l3.'tYxa7 �xa7 l4.Wc2 (l4.Wel ges l5.f4 'it1B l6l!dl g5 l7.�e4 gxf4 18.�ffi ge7 19.�h7+ 'it>g7 20.�g5 �e5 2l.�f3 ge4, Montyne - Os�. corr 1990191) l4 ... �c6 (l4 ...ge8 !? l 5.f4 Wf8) l 5 .f4 �4+ l6.Wc l &8 l7.e3 �e6!? (17 �f5 l 8.�d5+ 'it>fd l9 ..id3 �h4 20.g3 �g6 2 l .gdl c6 22.�c3 f6 23..if5, Lemos ­ Monster Mash, computer game 200 l ) l 8 ..ie2 Wf8, Gutman; likewise A4b) 8.�bd2 �xd2 (There is little prom­ ise for Black in 8 ...a6 9.0-0-0!, for in­ stance 9 ... &7 lO.'tYxa7 �xa7 l l .�xe4, 9 ....ixd2+ l O.�xd2 �xd2 l l .gxd2 ga7 l2.'tYxc6 or 9...�xd2 lO.J.g5 &7 l l.'tYxc6 'tYxg5 l2.'tYxd7+ Wxd7 l3.�xg5 l :0 Phil­ ippe - Andra, Budapest 1988. However, note that 9.�d4 �xd2 lO..ixd2? .ixd2+ l l .Wxd2 ga7 as in Ahlsen - Eriksson, Uppsala 1967, can be improved with 10. �xc6 �f3+ l l .Wd l dxc6+ l2.Wc2 �xe5 n.gd l , Krantz, and now not l3 ...'tYb8 l4.'tYxb8+ �b8 l5..if4 f6 l6.e3 but 13 ... .id6 l4.c5 i'n>8 15.'tYxa6 &8 16.\Wb7 i'n>S with a draw) 9.�xd2 (if 9..ixd2 .ixd2+ 10.�xd2 Black has to choose between lO ...a6 l l .�e4 &7 12.'tYxa7 �xa7 13.f4 'tYe7 14.0-0-0 f6 l 5 .g3 fxe5 l 6 ..ih3 d6 l7.fxe5 'tYxe5, Gerardo - Sigrist, com•.

1 63

puter game 1 99S, and I O ... aS 1 1 .0-0-0 !ta7 12.tyxa7 �xa7 13.g3 tye7 14.f4 0-0 IS..lh3 gds, improving on 14 ...tycs IS. Ah3 bS 16..lxd7+
.

tyf6 1 7.e4 tyf4+ 1 8.gd2 (18.�d2? �d4 19.�bl tyxf2, Krantz) 18...1flf8 ( I L�aS 19.�d4 �fB 20.�dl tyxe4 2l .�c2 �b3 22.�xb4 tybJ+ 23.�e2 tye4+ leads to a draw) 1 9.b3 �aS 20.�b2 tyxe4 2l .ie2 cS 22.&1 tye6 23.h4 h6 should be about equal, Gutman. AS) 7.�d4! ib4+ is critical.

8.�c3 (8.�d2 see 4 ... b6 S.tydS ib4+!? 6.�d2 ib7 7.tyxb7 �c6 8.�d4 - BZ. 8..id2 �xd2 9.�xd2 ixd2+ IO.�xd2 transposes to 4 ... b6 S.tydS ib4+ 6.�d2 ib7 7.tyxb7 �c6 8.�d4 �xd2 9.ixd2 ixd2+ IO.�xd2 - BZ, while Black can except only trouble from 9..,g})8 I O.�xc6 ixd2+ l l .�dl ! dxc6 1 2.tyxc6+, Krantz) 8...0-0 (8 ... �c3 9.�c6 dxc6 IO.tyxc6+ leaves Black's king caught in the centre. Gillberg - Dlebrand, Upsala Nya Tidning 1 98S/86, went I O ... �e7 l l ..id2 �xa2 )2,gd) tyxd2+ 1 3 l&xd2 mws 14.tyxc7+ �fB I S.f4 gxd2 1 6.�1'2 icS+ 1 7 .�1'3 �b4 1 8.g3 with a plus for White; never­ theless there is more danger for Black in l l .igS+ f6 1 2.exf6+ �f7. and now not 13..id2, HiJJJdNrwJ/erlu!/1 B , 13 ...�xa2 14.tydS+ tyxdS I S.cxdS ixd2+ 16.�xd2 � 17.fxg7 m,es 18.0 �dS. but 13.a3!, Krwrlz. l 3...�+ 14.axb4 �xgS IS.fxg7. I O ltlfll I I Jd2 �xa2 seems a lesser evil since 12..lxb4+ �xb4 J3.tye4 tyeS 14.g3 gds IS.gxa7 tyxeS 16.ig2 f5 17.tybt •.

1 64

ll:ld3+ 1 8.� ll:lxb2 19.f4,Sbfrrn B•edu!r, can be answered by 1 9 ...�f6 20.id5 c6 2 U�f7+ �xf7 22 ..ixf7 gdl + 23.�xd l ll:lxdl; however, White can do better with 1 2.gdl!, e.g. 1 2 ...�xd2+ 13 .gxd2 gd8 14.0 �d2 I S.'�?f2 .icS+ 16.'i!?g3 or 12 ... �e8 1 3.�xc7 g6 14.hb4+ ll:lxb4 I S.f4 'it>g7 1 6.�d6 ll:lc2+ 17 .'it>f2 gd8 18.�f6+ 'it>h6 19.h4 gxd l 20.hS crushing, Ko­ ziak - Sefeld, Kedzierzum Kozle 1 997) is forced, when White has four moves: ASa) 9.e3 m,s (9...�e8 1 O.a3 ll:lcS l l.�xc7 ll:la6 12.�7 ll:lcS leads to a draw, Eero Bonsdorff, likewise IO.ll:lxc6 dxc6 1 1..id2 ll:lcS 12.�xc7 ll:la6, while White should avoid l l .a3 .bc3+ 1 2.bxc3 �d7 13 .J.e2 .!OCS 14J.g4 �xg4 I S.�xc6 �xc4 16.�13 �xc3+ 0: I Visa - Bonsdorff, Finland 19S4, or l l .�xc7 gd8 12.'it>e2 .bc3 13. bxc3 ll:lxc3+ 14.'it>O �e6) I O.ll:lxc6 (not I O.�a6? ll:lcS I I .�S ll:lxeS 12.'it>d I a5 intending 1 3 ...c6!) I O ... dxc6 l l .�xc6 ll:lxc3 12 ..id2 ll:lxa2 is the analysis by Bonsdorff, on which Krant:. tried to im­ prove with 13.hb4 (1 3.gdl �e7) 1 3 ... ll:lxb4 14.�e4, but in fact 14 ...f5 IS.�I f4 16.&3 (1 6.exf4 gxf4 17 .g3 � 18 .&3 l::!d2 1 9.Ik3 �d4 20.J.e2 �8 21 .f4 ll:lc2+ 22.gxc2 �e3) 1 6 ... �gS 1 7 .J.d3 ll:lxd3+ 1 8.�xd3 �8 1 9.�e4 fxe3 20.gxe3 gf4 leaves White in difficulties, Gutman; ASb) 9.ll:lxc6 dxc6 IO.a3 (Sapierzynski ­ Berg, corr 1 992, went I O.�xc6 �d4!? l l.e3 �xeS 12.id2 ll:lxd2 13.'it>xd2 �8+ 14.'it>c2 .bc3 IS.bxc3 �f5+ 1 6.'it>b3 l::!d2 17.e4 �xf2 18.�xc7 a5 1 9.cS bS 20.�xaS gb2+ 2 1 .'it>a3 �c2 22 . .bbS gxbS 0 : 1 , though I O...ll:lxc3 I I .J.d2 ll:lxa2 12.hb4 ll:lxb4 1 3.�e4 fS 14.� I �d4 is a good simple line) I O...ll:lxc3 ( I O .. .J.aS is not bad either, viz. l l .ie3 ll:lxc3 12.b4 .bb4 13 .axb4 �e7 14.cS �xeS I S.�a6 gfd8 1 6.gcl gd5 17.�al &d8 1 8.cxb6 cxb6 19.J.f4 �ffi 20.e3 �I+ 2 1 lixdl �d l+) l l ..id2 (nothing else merits attention:

l l.ie3 ll:la2+ 12.axb4 ll:lxb4 13.Ikl �e7; 1 1 .0 �d l + 12.'it>f2 .icS+ 1 3 .e3 �c2+ 14.'it>g3 lUdl; and if l l.f4, then l l ...�dl+ 12.'it>fl .lc:S+ 13.'it>O ll:lxe2 14.he2 �xhl I S.b4 �el or 1 1...15 12.axb4 �dl+ 13.'it>t2 ll:le4+ 14. 'it>f3 �e I I S .J.e3 �xa I, Bons­ dorff) l l ...ll:le4 12.hb4 �d4 1 3.0 (more stubborn than 13.Ik I �xb2 14_gdi !WI8, Bonsdorff) with a further split: ASbl) 13...�f2+?! 14.'it>dl �d4+ IS.'ik2 �xc4+ 1 6..ic3 ll:lxc3 1 7.bxc3 �a4+ 1 8. 'it>d2 (1 8.'it>d3?gfc8 0: 1 Severin - Kho­ menko, corr 199S) 1 8...�3 (18 ...gfc8 19.e4 �8+ 20.'it>e3 �c2 21 .'it>f4) 19.gel &d8+ (19 ...�d5+ 20.'it>e3 �cS+ 2 1 .'it>f4 �f2 22.gdl f6 23.�xc6 fxeS+ 24.'it>e4 m4+ 2S.'it>d3) 20.'it>e3 �xc3+ 2 1 .'it>f2 gd2 22.g3 gfd8 23.Jh3, Harding; ASbl) 13 ...ll:l f2 14 . .ixf8 ( 1 4 . .ic3 �e3 IS.id2 ll:ld3+ 16.'it>d l ll:lf2+ forces a rep­ etition) 14 ...gxf8 I S .ggl �e3 1 6.�xc6 (16.�xc7? ll:ld3+ 17.'it>dl ll:lxb2+ 18.'ik2 ll:lxc4) 16 .. 1WS (16 ...ll:ld3+ 17.'it>dl �xgl 18.'ik2 ll:lxe5 19.�xc7 �xh2 20.e3 ll:lx0 21 .�xa7) 1 7.�xc7 ll:ld3+ 18.'it>dl ll:lxb2+ 19.'it>c2 l::!d2+ 20.'it>bl g6 (20 .h6 21 .�c8+ 'it>h7 22.�f5+) 2 1 .e6 �xe6 22.e4 �f6 23.&2 �c3 24.J.e2 gxe2 2Sf4 ll:ld3 26. gxe2 �b3+ leads to a draw, Gutman; ASb3) 13...�xb2 14�1 (14.fxe4? �xal+ I S.'it>f2 cS) 14...&d8 I S.fxe4 ( I S.gxd8 �d8 16.fxe4 �cl + 18.'it>t2 �f4+, Jaros ­ Sctunidt, e-mail 2001) IS ..ibcdl+ 16.'it>xdl �+ 17,jd6 (17.'it>el �cl+ 18.'it>t2 �f4+) 17 ...�xeS 1 8.'it>e l �c3+ 1 9.'it>f2 �f6+ 20.'it>e3 �c3+ 2 J .'it>f4 �f6+ is a perpet­ ual since 22.'it>g4? loses to 22 ... h5+ 23. 'iflxhs gxd6, Krant:.; ASb4) 13 ... aS! 1 4.�xc6 ( 1 4.fxe4 axb4 I S.gbl bxa3 16.bxa3 f5 !) 14 ...�xb2 (an improvement on 14 .. .axb4 IS.�xe4 �xb2 16.� I bxa3 17.'it>f2 �xeS 1 8.e3 gfe8 19.�c I, Bischoff- Svendsen, corr 1991) ts.gd) axb4 16.�xe4 bxa3 17.�1 gfd8 and Black wins, Gutman. •

1 6S

ASc) 9.a3 !? (The soundness ofBlack's concept is now much more questionable,

ASd) 9..td2!, suggested by Krantz, pu� the line with 5 ....lb7 out of business.

Harding) 9JiJx.c3 (9.-*aS IO.Itlxc6 dxc6 goes into 9.1tlxc6 dxc6 IO.a3 ia5 - A5b) IO.axb4 ( IO.Itlxc6 dxc6 see 9.1tlxc6 dxc6 10.a3 ltlxc3 - A 5b. 1 0.e3 may well be answered by 10 ... 1tla2+ l l.axb4 ltlaxb4 12.&4 lTh8 l3.ltlxc6 dxc6 14.tYxa7 10c2+ 15.'�e2 �d7 16.g4 l:ibd8, e.g. 1 7 .�3 �d3+ l8.'�0 l0d4+ l9.'�g3 f5 20.f4 g5, 1 7.'�0 �d l+ l 8.'�g3 1tlel 19 .ig2 f5 20.c5 - 20.exf6 !hffi 0:1 Richard - Gus­ tafsson, e-mail 1 999 -, 20...fxg4 2 l .l:if4 M4 22.exf4�d3+ 23J.e3 1tlxg2 24.�a2+ 'i!;Jf8 25.�b l �d5 26.'i!;lxg4 h5+; how­ ever, Black should avoid IO .. ..h5 l l .b4 o!Oxb4 1 2 .axb4 ixb4 1 3.td2 a5 14..ld3 c5 15 .1tlf5, Bendig - Fuemlaanz , e-mail 2002) I O ... ltlxd4 l l .l:ixa7 !? (The only reasonable answer since l l .bxc3 ltlc2+ 1 2. 'i!;ldl ltlxal leaves White in trouble. After l3.�a6,both l3 ...1tlb3 14..le3 d5 15.Wc2 dxc4 16.�xc4 1tlal+ 17.'�2 tyd), Bonsdorff, and l3 ...d5 14.thal dxc4+ 15.'i!;le) a5, given by Krantz, are difficult to meet. 13.tb2 a5 14..bal axb4 15..tb2 &2 is not better, for example 1 6.'i!;lc t �g5+ 1 7.'i!;lb) l:ixb2+ 18.'i!;lxb2 �d2+ 19.'i!;lb3 �xc3+, Bonsdorff, or 16.'i!;lc2 �g5 17.�e4 !Ua8 1 8 .e3 d5 19.f4 tye7 20.�xd5 bxc3 2 l .'i!;lxc3 g8a3+ 22ba3 �xa3+ 23.'i!;ld4 00+ 24.'i!re4 l:ixd5 win­ ning) l l ...l:ixa7 1 2 .�xa7 1tle4 1 3 .�a4 d6 14.exd6 (l4.e3? tyh4) 14 ...�xd6 15.0 (l 5.e3? �ffi) 1 5 ...b5!? 1 6.cxb5 1tlg3 17. hxg3 �xg3+ 1 8 .'i!;ldt l:id8 1 9.id2 �d6 20.'i!;le) (20.Wcl ?ltlb3+ 2 l.�xb3 �xd2+ 22.'i!;lb) �e l+ 23.'i!;la2 l:ia8+) 20 ... 1tlf5 (20 ...�g3+ 2 I .'i!;ldl �d6 is a repetition) 2 l .�a7 ( 2 l .�a3 �xd2+ 22.'i!;Jf2 �d4+ 23.e3 �d l) 2l �xd2+ 22.'i!;lt2 �8 23.g4 ltld4 (23 ... ltle3 24.�xc7 1tlxfl 25.gxf1 �xe2+ 26.'i!;lg) �xb5 27.�c5) 24.�xc7 l:ixe2+ 25..lxe2 �xe2+ 26.'i!;lg3 �xO+ 27.'i!;lh2 �f2+ forcing a draw, Gutman;

9... 1tlxd2 (9 ...l:ib8 1 0.�xb8, when 1 0... ltlxb8 l l .o!Oxe4 gives White too many pieces for his queen, Krant:, and after IO .. ..lxc3 l l .�xd8 hd2+ 1 2.'i!;ldl gxd8 l3.e3 tb4 14.'i!;le2 Black has simply the exchange less) IO.Itlxc6 (I O.'i!;lxd2 1tlxd4) JO_dxc6 l l .�O (Safer is l l rul, when l l...�d4 1 2.e3 1tl0+ 13.'i!;le2�g4 14.h3!, Kranlz, or l l ...�e7 J2,gxd2 hc3 l3.bxc3 �a3, Krant:, 14.e3 l:iad8 15..ld3 �cl+ 16.l:idl �xc3+ 1 7.'i!;le2, are both without hope for Black. l l ltlxc4 12lhd8 &xd8 l3.a3 ia5 is a more healthy approach as 14.�xc6 1tlxb2 1 5 .e3 o!Od I , Krant:., 16.'i!;le2 hc3 1 7.� he5 18.�e4 l:ife8 19 .id3 1tlc3 20.�xh7+ 'i!;Jf8 2 1 .�h8+ 'i!;le7 offers Black enough counterplay, e.g. 22.� 'i!;ltB 23..ic4 g6 24.� ig7 25.�f4 l:le7 26.g3 b5 or 22.�h4+ 'i!;lf8 23.�c4 gd5; nevertheless 14.b4! o!Oxa3, Krantz, 1 5.e3 hb4 16.�xc6 1tlbl l7J.a6 ltlxc3 18.0-0 � 1 9.�xc7 b5 20.g3 l:ife8 2 l .�xa7 l:idxe5 22.�d7 would retain a plus for White) l l .. ..txc3 12.bxc3 �e7 l3.'i!;lxd2! (1 3.�d2 �a3+ leads after 14. 'i!;lb t �xc3 1 5.l:id3 tyb4+ 16.l:ib3 �xc4 17.�xc7 �e4+ 1 8 ..00 tyb4+ to a draw, while 14.'i!;ldt �xc3 15.�a6 goo 8 16ru3 is too risky due to 16 ... l:ife8! - 16 ... b5 1 7.cxb5 c5, Krant:., 1 8.e6, or 16 ... l:id4

.•

•.

1 66

17.h4ID'd8 18.g4b519. cxb5 �al+ 20.� �b2+ 2 l.�e3 �xd3+ 2 2. exd3 �xe5+ drawing by perpetual check, Buecker, Kaissiber/712001, are less impressive-, 17. f4 fti 18.g4 fxe519.fxe5 �d3+20.exd3 ruB and Black wins) 13...�d8+14.�c2 (14.�el �a3 15.�xd8 �cl+ is a draw) 14...�a3(14.. Jhdl15.�xdl,e.g.J5_.�a3 16.�xc7 �xa217.f3 �xc418.�1�xc3+ 19.'iin2 or 15...�d8+ 16.�el �xe5 1 7. f3 �xc3+18.W�xc4 19.g3 �d4+ 20.�g2) 15.�d4 �xa2+ 16.'�d3 �I+17 .�e3 �cl+18.00 �xc3+ 19.M �xe5 20.g3 with advantage for White, Gutman. B) 5....ib4+!, suggested by Buecker in Kairsiber 211997, is a brave attempt to resuscitate this variation.

Buecker comes to Bla ck's rescue for a change and proposes a new method. This

is a fascinating l ine for home analysis,

Harding, The K ibitzer 19. White has three replies: 81) 6.l!k3? ltlxc3 7.�xa8 ltle4+ 8..i d2 ltlxd2 9.ltlxd2 .ixd2+(9 ... ltlc6 10.0-0-0! .ixd2+ l l.�xd2 0-0 12.g3 �e7 13..ig2 ia6 I4..ixc6 �15 .i.x.a8 .ixc4 16.&2 ia6 17..ig2 �xe5 J8_gdJ) IO.�xd2 ltlc6 I l.g3 0-0 12..ig2 �e7 I2..ixc6 �b4+, so far Buecker, 14.�e3 (14.�d3 .ia6 15.b3 �xa8 16 . .ixa8 c6 17 .�hdl �ffi) 14 ... �c5+ 15.�f3 dxc6 (more effective

than 15 ....ia6 16.�adl �xa8 17 . .ixa8 �xe518.�g2 ..t1R 19..if3)16.�xa7 .ih3 17.�xc7(171Dlel ffi 18.e6 �f5+ 19.�e3 �e5+ 20.�d3 .if 5+ 2 l. e4 �d8+) 1 7 ... �d4 18.�xc6 g 51eaves White with no defence, Gutman; 82) 6.ltlbd2 .ib7 (for 6...ltlc5 see 4.� d5 .ib4+ 5.ltlbd2 ltlc5 6.ltlf3 b6- Part I, Chapter 6, Section 2) 7.�xb7 ltlc6 Mld4 0-0! (8 ... ltlxd2 is playable as well, e.g. 9.ltlxc6? dxc6 10.\!¥xc6+ �ffi, Anatoli Matsukevich, while 9 ..ixd2 .ixd2+ 10. �d2 can be parried by either IO...ltlxd4 l l.�e4 ltlc6,Matsukevich, or IO...�b8 l l.�a6 ltlxd4 12. e3 ltle6 13.�d l f6!?, Krantr.) 9. e3 (9.ltlb5? �c8 IO.ltlxa7 �b8 ll.�a6ltlc5, and 9.a3 .ixd2+ IO .ixd2l::!b8 l l.�a6 ltlxd4 12.\!¥a4 d6 is also good for Black) 9 ... a6 IO.�e2!? (instead of IO. a3?.ixd2+ II.ixd2 &7 12.ltlxc6 dxc6, Krantz) I O ....ixd2 II.ltl xc6 (II..ixd2 'f!a7 12.ltlxc6 dxc6 13.�xa7 �d2+ 14.00 �xt2+ 15.�xe4 f5+) l l... dxc6 12.�xc6 Wh4! (12-..ixcl 13.�xe4 �d2+14.<M3 hb2 15..i d3 g6 16.&bl &e8 17J:llidl �c3 is equal) 13.g3 'l!¥h5+ 14. f3 (14.g4? �xg4+15.f3 Wh4 ) 14... .ixcl 15.�xe4 .ixb2 16.ID>I.ixe5 gives Black the upper hand, Gut man; BJ) 6.Jd2 ltlxd2 7.ltlbxd2 ltlc6 (7.. .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 ltlc6 9.g3 .ib 7!? IO.ih3 �e7, e.g. 11.0-0 0-0-0J2_gfdl h5 or l l.�c3 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 �c5, since 9... �e7 IO..ig2 .ib7 11.0-0 transposes to 4.�c2 .ib4+ 5..id2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.ltlf3 .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.g3 b6 IO..ig2 .ib7 11.0-0-Part 2 , Chapter 3, Section 1 ) 8. a3 (8.0-0-0 .ib7 9.ltle4 �e7 IO.g3 0-0-0, while 8_.i.x.d2+ 9fud2 �e7 IO.g3 .ib7 II..ih3 0-0-0 12 . IDtdl �b8 13.�e4 �b4 14.�f4 favours White) 8 ... .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 �e7 IO.�c3 .ib7 see 4.�c2J.b4+5. .id2 ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.ltlf3 �e7 8.a3 .ixd2+ 9.�xd2 b6 IO.�c3 .ib7 , treated inPart 2 , Chapter 3, Section I, Gutman. 167

Back to the main line

s .. .t.b7 We have to consider two more moves: I) 5 ...ib4 goes into4.lLJd2ib4 5.t?lf3 b6 P art 3 , Chapter 2 , Section 3 , Sequel 3 ; II) 5 . . .lLl c5, after: A) 6.e3 lLlc6 (Schanna - Sukcharoenp­ hon, USA 1 994, continued 6 .. ..ib7 7 .i.e2, and now instead ofLfie7 8.b4 lLle6 9.a3 g6 I O .ib2 ig7 I I .fic2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 �e8 1 3 .&dl lLlc6 1 4.lLle4, LlLlc6 might be tried; however, note that 7.b4! lLle6 8.a3 transposes to 4.lLld2 lLlc5 5.b4 lLle6 6.a3 b6 7.lLJgf3 ib7 8.e3 - Part 3 , Chapter I , � tion 7) 7.ie2 (for 7.a3 a5 8.b3 ib7 see 4.a3 b6 5.lLlbd2 ib7 6.lLJgf3 a5 7.e3 lLlc5 8.b3 lLlc6 - Part 5, Chapter 5, but B lack has two more options. 8 ...d6 9.exd6 fif6 is the first one, e.g. 10 lnJ I hd6 I I ..ib2 fih6 12.fic2 0-0 13.ie2 ib7 14.0-0 f5 or IO� ixd6 1 l ..ib2 't!lh6 1 2.fic2 .ib7, when both 13.ie2 0-0 14.0-0 f5 1 5 .ic3 &e8 and 13.fi5 0.0 14.i.e2 �8 1 5.fig5 fixg5 1 6.lLlxg5 �fe8 1 7 .lLJgf3 f5 1 8.'i!1fl f4, Goldstem - Staub, Lugano 2000, are quite promising for Black. 8 ... g5 9.ib2 ig7 IO.fic2 g4 l l .e6 ixb2 1 2.fixb2 0-0 1 3 .exd7 ixd7 is the second) 7 ...ib7 8. 0.0 fie? 9.fic2 lLlxe5 IO.b4lLlxf3+ l l.ixt3 ixf3 1 2.lLlxf3 fie4 1 3 .fid2 lLle6 14.fid5 f5 appears good for Black, Gutman; B) 6.g3 ! ? a5 (6 .. .ib7 7.ig2 lLlc6 goes

into to 4.lLld2 lLlc5 5. lLJgf3 lLlc6 6.g3 b6 7.ig2 ib7 - Part 3, Chapter I , Section 6, Sequel I) 7 .ig2 (Melchor - Svendsen, corr 199 1 , went 7.lLlb3?! lLlxb3 8.fixb3 lLla6 9.ig2 lLlc5 I O.fic2 ib7 1 1 .0-0 ie7 12�1 0.0 1 3.h4 h6, when 14.lLlh2 .ixg2 15.'i!1xg2 �e8 16.ie3 might be good, but we can improve with 8 ... ib4+!? 9..id2 ixd2+ IO.lLlxd2 ib7 l l .lLJO lLlc6) 7 ... ib7 8.0-0 and I prefer White, Gutman; C) 6.b4!? lLle6 7.a3 is another solution transposing to 4.lLld2 lLlc5 5.b4 lLle6 6.a3 b6 7.lLJgf3 - Part 3, Chapter I, Section 7.

6.g3 Other methods are less flexible: I) 6.fic2 lLlc5 !? (6...ib4 see 4.lLld2 ib4 5.lLJf3 b6 6.fic2 .ib7 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Seque1 3) 7.b3 d6 (7 ... f!J 8..ib2 ig7 9.b4!? lLle6 I O.e3 0-0 l l .ie2, while after 7...lLlc6 Ub2 1ri White can try 9.a3 dxe5 IO.b4 lLle6 l l .e3 f6 1 2 .id3 fid7 13 .ixh7 0-0-0 14.ie4 !? g5 1 5 .lLlb3 g4 1 6.lLlfd2, improving on 1 4.0-0-0 ixb4 1 5 .lLlb3 .id6 1 6.c5 bxc5 1 7 .if5 fie? 1 8. fic4, Zubarev - Kirnos, Aluschta 2000, or 9.exd6 fixd6 I O .a3) 8 .exd6 (8.ib2 dxe5 9.ixe5 lLlbd7 I O.ic3 fie? l l .e3 l004 ) 8...ix d6 9..ib2 0.0, Gutman; II) 6.lLlxe4 ixe4 7.fid4 (7.id2 lLlc6 8.a3 ixf3 9.gxf3 lLlxe5 I O.e3 fiffi l l .f4 fic6 12.fxe5 fixhi 13.fig4 fixh2 14.ic3, Kel­ ler - Nalepa, Germany 2000, 14 ... h5!? 1 68

1 5 .�f3 M8 16.0� 'ml4) 7..�7 (Black retains good chances ofwinning back the pawn and equalising, Tseillin/GIIlskov. 7 .i,g6 suggested by Krt111t:, is doubtful due to 8.a3 ltlc6 9.�c3 ie7 10..if4 0-0 l l .e3 ffi 12.Jd3. On 7 _.ixf) 8.exf3 ib4+ White plays not 9.'i!ldl ltlc6 10.�d5 0-0 l l..ie3 ges 12.f4 if8 13.a3 ltle7 14.�e4 d5 1 5.cxd5 ltlxd5 1 6.J.d3 g6 17 ..id2 �d7 1 8 ..ic4 ltlffi 1 9.�e2 �d8 20.'i!lel ltle4 2 l .ie3, Klugstedt - Pettmson, corr 1 990, 2 1...ic 5 !, but 9..id2 ltlc6 10.�e3 hd2+ l l .�xd2 - l l .'i!lxd2? �e7 1 2.f4 0-0-0 13..id3 f6 14.exf6 �xf6, Wachsmuth ­ Leisebein, corr 1 980 -, l l _.ltlxe5 12.()..0..0 0-0 1 3.f4 ltlg4 14.f3 ltlffi 15.g4 d6 16.h4!? �d7 1 7.h5 �a4 1 8.b3 �c6 19.g5, while 16.J.d3 �8 17.h4 �d7 18.�c2 g6 19.�c3 �d8 20.h5, Thiel - Leisebein, corr 1990, is less effective on account of 1 7 ...d5 ! 1 8 .cxd5 �d6) 8.a3 ie7 9..if4 0-0 1 0.e3 f6 l l ..ie2 fxe5 1 2 .ixe5 gn 13 .0-0 d6 1 4Ead l ltld7 1 5 ..if4 ltlc5 1 6.�c3 if6, Gutman; I II) 6.e3 a5 (6 .. .ib4 will transpose into 4.ltld2 ib4 5.ltlf3 b6 6.e3 ib7, covered in Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Sequel 3. Castany - Kogan, Manresa 1 997, went 6,_g5 7.ltlxe4 ixe4 8.�d4 ixf3 9.e6ib4+ 10..id2 ixd2+ l l .�d2 dxe6 12 .�xd8+ �d8 13 .gxf3 ltld7 14.h4 gxh4 1 5_gxh4 'i!le7 16..ie2 goos, yet 9.gxf3 l0c6 IO.�d5 might be tried: 10 ...�e7 1 1 �3 M8 1 2.f4 �f4 1 3.exf4 ltlb4 14.�e4 'Ml4 15..if5 ic5 16.�f3 gg8 17 .id2 or 10 .. �+ l l .Wdl. After 6...g6 7.ltl xe4 ixe4 8.�d4?! ib7 Black has nothing wony about, e.g. 9.e6 ffi 10.exd7+ ltlxd7 or 9..id2 ltlc6 10.�f4 ig7 l l ..ic3 �e7 1 2.a3 0-0 13.Ml gfe8, yet8.id2ig7 9.ic3 �e7 IO.Jd3 is better. lO ....ixtJ l l .�xf3 ltlc6 l l .ie4 ()..() 13 .�g3 � 14bc6dxc6 15.0-0 �e6 16.f4 �xc4 1 7 .f5 or l O ...ib7 1 1 .0-0 ltlc6 12 .ie4) 7..ie2 (7.ltlxe4ixe4 8.J.d3 ib4+) 7,_ltlxd2 8.ixd2 ib4 (8 ... ltlc6 9.0-0 ib4 10.a3 _

,

ixd2 l l .�xd2 �e7 12.gfdl gds 13.�c3 0-0 14 .id3 gfe8 1 5 ..ie4, while 14.gd2 meS 15�1 ic8 16.�c2 ltlxe5 17.ltlxe5 �xe5 1 8.gds �e7 1 9.�d2, Fahland ­ Mook, Bad Wiessee 1997, 19 ...d6 is even) 9.0..0 �e7 10.a3ixd2 l l .�xd2 0..0 121lfill ge8 1 3 .�c3ltla6 and Black's resources are adequate, Gutman.

6...�xd2 There are two more opportunities: I) 6 .. ..ib4 see 4.ltld2 ib4 5.ltlf3 b6 6.g3 ib7 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Se­ quel 3 ; II) 6 .. ..ic5 7.ltlxe4 ixe4 8.ih3 ! (Wh ite presses on d7, making it very hardfor Black to organi�e development and com­ pensation, Harding) 8 ...�e7 (8 ...0-0 9. 0..0 h6 IO..id2 a5 l l .ic3 � 12.�d2 ib4 13bb4 axb4 14.�xb4 ixf3 15 .exf3 �e5 16.�c3 ge7 1 7.f4, Irzhanov - Harding, e-mail 2000) 9.0..0 h6 10� ltlc6 l l .ic3 gd8 12.a3 a5 1 3.ltld2 ih7 14.ltlb3 ltlxe5 15.ltlxc5 �xc5 1 6.b4 secures an advant­ age for White, Gutman. 7.Axd2 �c6 8.Ah3 ib4 9.Axb4 �xb4 10.0-0 1h7 l l .'lfd2 f!:d8 1 1 ...�0 12 1lfdl ltlc6 131lacl, Gutman. l l.f!:fdl 0-0 13.1rc3 !fe8 14.a3 14_gd2 is premature as 14 ...ltla6 15.&dl ltlc5 shows, Gutman. 14... �c6 1 S.f!:d2 White has the better chances, Gutman. 1 69

Chapter 3 Tht Smyslov Varilltion ( l .d4 tlf6 2.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�0) 4.. .lb4+ .

The simplest and most reliable course,

Tseitlin/Giaskov. S..ldl 5.l0bd2 returns to 4.l0d2 .ib4 5.100 Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3 .

Section 1 (l.d4 �f6 2.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.�0 Jb4+ 5.ld2) s .. �xdl Alternatives: I) 5 ...Ac5 6.e3 0-0 (6...l0c6 7.Ad3 l0xd2 8.l0bxd2 �e7 9.�c2 l0xe5 IO.l0xe5 �xe5 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2.b4 ib6 was unclear in Base­ ballfan - Paard, internet 200 1 , but 7.l0c3 l0xd2 8.�xd2 0-0 is just a transposition) 7.l0c3 (SavieUy Tarlllkower mentions 7.Jd3 d5? 8.cxd5 �xd5 9.�c2 .lf5 IO.l0c3 ltlxc3 I I .Axf5 g6, when 1 2 ..id3 ltlxa2 13.e4 wins. 7...lbxd2 is best met by 8.�xd2 ltlc6 9.ltlc3, though 8.ltlbxd2 ge8?! 8 .l0c6 9.0-0 �e7 -, 9.().() l0c6 1 O.l0e4 .lfll l l .l0eg5 g6 1 2 .Ae4 is worth attention, e.g. 1 2 ....ih6 13 .Axc6 bxc6 14.h4 .ixg5 1 5 .hxg5 Ab7 16.c5 h6 17_ge i , Nimzo ­ Mint, computer game 2000 , or 12 ...l0xe5 13.l0xe5 fue5 14.f4 �7 15 .f5, when nei­ ther 1 5 ... c6 1 6.l0xh7 gxe4 1 7 .fxg6 f5 1 8.�h5, nor 1 5 .. .Ah6 1 6.fxg6 hxg6 1 7. ltlxt7 are inspiring) 7 ,_l0xd2 8.�xd2 l0c6 9.l0d5 (9.�d5 Ab4 IO.J.d3 hc3+ l l.bxc3 �e7 12.�e4 g6 13.h4 ge8 14.h5 ltlxe5, Simpson - Parsonage, Australia Ch 1 987) 9 ...a5 (if 9 ...ge8 I O.'§c3 a5 l l .a3, while I O.b4?! Affi I I .Yfh2 d6 12.exd6 �xd6 13.a3 a5 14lY;II axb4 15.l0xb4 �c5 16.l:kl5 �a7 was fme for Black, Milano - Cham­ pion, computer game 1 992) I 0 .a3 (Opoc­ ensky - Zita, Karlovy Vary 1 948, went to.Ae2 ge8 l l .�c3 .ib4 12.ltlxb4 axb4 13.�d2 �e7 14.0.0, when instead of 14 ... �c5 15.�d5 �xd5 16.cxd5 lbxe5 17 1ifcl c6 1 8.l0xe5 gxe5 19.AO gaS 20.gc4 c5 2 1 .� I d6 22.fu b4 b5 23.a3 f5 24.gb3, 14 ... gaj 1 51ifdl l0xe5 might be played) J O_M l l .�c3 d6 12.exd6 hd6 13M I l0e5 14 .Ae2 .ig4 1 5 .c5 lOxO+ 1 6.gx0 Ae5 1 7 .�c2 .id7 ( 1 7 . . ..ih3 1 8 .f4 .ig2 19.fxe5 ixh1 20.lOffi+ gKffi 21lbd8, Mon­ tecatine - Killane, corr 1 99 1 ) 1 8.f4 tf6 1 9.ggl w ith advantage, Gutman; .

..

White loses the chance of obtaining the bishop pair and so it ti rightly less pop­ ular than the knight interposition, Tim Harding. More forcing and accurate than 5 .lO bd2, John Donaldson.

The material divides as follows: Section I - 5 ...l0xd2 (5 .. .1Lc:5, 5 .. .ixd2+, 5 ...a5, 5 .. .'�e7) 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.a3 (7.g3, 7 .e3) 7 . . .Affi (7 . . .Ae7) Section 2 - 5 ... ltlxd2 6.ltlxd2 ltlc6 7.a3 hd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 (8...0.0) 9.�f4 (9.�g5. 9.�e3, 9.�d5, 9.g3, 9.e3) Section 3 - 5 ...ltlxd2 6.l0xd2 l0c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8 .�xd2 �e7 9.�c3 b6 Section 4 - 5 ...l0xd2 6.l0xd2 l0c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.�xd2 �e7 9.�c3 0-0.

1 70

m S .. .i.xd2+ 6.l0bxd2 l0xd2 (after 6 ... f5 7.exf6 l0xf6 8.e3 d6 White is able to de­ fend himself comfortably, e.g. 9.J.e2 l0c6 I O.O-O ie6, Frcnzel - Sieber, corr 1989, l l .l0b3!? 0-0 1 2.l0bd4, or 9 ..id3 l0c6 10.0-0 0-0 t t .m3 'f/e7 12.cS+ ®h8 13. cxd6 'f/xd6 14J�ac I, Chopin - Robie, corr 1 997) 7 .'f/xd2 l0c6 8.e3 (8.1kl 'f/e7 causes less problems: Steflln Buecker gives 9J�c3 0-0 10Jk3 ge8, e.g. I Lg3 � or I I a3 b6 12.g3 .ia6; 9.cS lOxeS I O.lOxeS 'fixeS I l .e3 0-0 1 2..ie2 gd8 !? 1 3 .0-0 d6 seems innocuous, and if9.'flc3 0-0 I O.e3, then not I O ...b6 I l .cS !? .ib7 12..ib5 f6 13.e6 dxe6 14.cxb6 cxb6 I S . .ixc6 gac8 16.l0d4 ®h8 1 7 .'fla3 'f/xa3 1 8.bxa3 .ixc6 19.l0xc6 gc7 20.<;!;>e2 gfc8 2 J .ghdl g6 22.gd6, Lyrberg - Meier, Sw itzerland 1 996, but to ... ge8 l l .cS lOxeS 12.lOxeS 'fixeS 13.'f/xeS gxeS 14. .ie2 c6 I S .0-0 b6) 8 ...'f/e7 9..ie2 (9.'f/c3 0-0 I O..le2 ge8 1 1 .0-0 lOxeS 12.'f/xeS 'fixeS 1 3.lOxeS gxeS is even, Bartels ­ Kiefer, Gerrnany 1 996) 9 ...lOxeS 1 0.0-0 0-0 transposes to 4.l0d2 .lb4 S.l0f3 l0c6 6.e3 0-0 7 ..ie2 'f/e7 8.0-0 l0xd2 9..ixd2 hd2 IO.'f/xd2 lOxeS - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 3, Sequel 1 ; m) S...aS 6.a3 .ixd2+ (6 ...l0xd2 7.l0bxd2 111!7 8.e3 l0a6 9.l0e4 b6 10..id3 Jb7 1 1.0.0 tOeS 12.lOxcS bxcS 1 3 .'flc2 �6 14.l0d2 gh6 1 S .f4 0-0 16 ..le4 'fla8 occurred in Pamplona - Redolfi, Cordoba 1966, and now 17 .i.xb7 'f/xb7 1 8.'f/e4'f/xb2 19.'fld3 m7 20.'f/xd7 gg6 2 l .l0f3 would have been strong) 7.l0bxd2 l0xd2 8.'flxd2 l0c6 9.e3 'f/e7 IO.'f/c3 !? ( 1 0..le2 0-0 I 1 .0-0 lOxeS goes into 4.l0f3 .Ab4+ S� l0xd2 6.l0bxd2 l0c6 7 .a3 hd2+ 8.'flxd2 'f/e7 9e3 lOxeS I O..ie2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 aS - Sec­ tion 2) I o...0-0 l l .gdl ge8 1 2.gds b6 13�2 .tb7 14.0.0 see 4.l0f3.Ab4+ S.id2 l0xd2 6.l0bxd2 l0c6 7 .a3 .ixd2+ 8.'f/xd2 'f/e7 9.'f/c3 0-0 J O_gdJ ge8 I ) .gds b6 1 2 .e3 .lb7 13..ie2 a5 14.0-0 - Section 4;

IV) S ...'f/e7 6.a3 (6.e3 l0c6 7..id3 l0xd2 8.lObxd2 lOxeS 9.lOxeS 'fixeS, and now: I O.'f/c2 reaches a position after 4.'flc2 .ib4+ S..id2 l0xd2 6.l0xd2 l0c6 7.l00 'f/e7 8.e3 tO xeS 9 .lOxeS 'fixeS IO ..id3, covered in Part 2, Chapter 3, Section I ; I O.a3 .ixd2+ l l .'flxd2 goes into 4.l0f3 .lb4+ S ..id2 l0xd2 6.l0bxd2 l0c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.'f/xd2 'f/e7 9.e3 lOxeS I O.lOxeS 'fixeS l l ..id3 - Section 2, yet I O ... .le7 l l .'flc2 .tffi J2,gt,), Majewsky - Pirrung, Kassel l 989, 1 2 ...g6, keeping the bishop pair, is my favourite) 6 ..ixd2+ (6 ..icS 7.e3 a5 8..id3 l0xd2 9.l0bxd2 l0c6 IO.'flc2 lOxeS l l .lOxeS 'fixeS 1 2 .l0f3 'fibS was OK in lgnacz - Szollosi, Savaria 2002, but 8.l0c3 has more point, e.g.8 ...l0xd2 9.'f/xd2 0.0 IO.lOdS 'f/d8 I I Jd3 c6 12.l0c3 l0a6 13 .l0e4 1l1!7 14.ic2 f5 IS .exf6 .bRi 16.'f/d3 g6 17.cS, Silva Na:z:zari - Esttada, Montevideo 1 96 1 , or 8 ...l0xc3 9..ixc3 0-0 I O..id3 ! ? l0c6 1 1 .0-0 d6 12.exd6 hd6 13.'f/c2 g6 14.h3 b6 I S..ie4 .lb7 16�. Velamazan - Miro, Spain 1993) 7.l0bxd2 l0xd2 8.'f/xd2 l0c6 transposes to 4.l00 .lb4+ S ..id2 l0xd2 6.l0bxd2 l0c6 7 .a3 hd2+ 8 .'f/xd2 'f/e7 - Sections 2/4. 6.�bxdl �t6 6 ... dS 7 .exd6 (bener than 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8 .'f/xd2 dxc4 9.'f/xd8+ �xd8 I O.lOgS ®e7, lan371 - Topper, internet 2003) 7.. ..ixd6 (7...cS 8.e3, Keller - Barda, Co­ penhagen 1 9S3, or 7 ...'flxd6 8.a3 .ixd2+ 9.'f/xd2) 8.e3 0-0 9.'f/c2 l0c6 I O.a3 and I prefer White, Gutman. 7.a3 There are two more moves: I) 7.g3 'f/e7 (7 ...0.0 8..ig2 ge8 9.0-0 lOxeS I O.lOxeS gxeS l l .a3 .icS I Vt:\ 0 ge6 13.b4 .ie7 14.e3 .if6 I S.l0d4 ge8 turned out well for Black, de Santos - Timmer­ mann, Utrecht 200 I , but 8.a3 is critical, for example 8 .. ..ie7 9.l0e4 ge8 I O.'fld3 h6 I L.ig2 .ifB 1 2.0-0 lOxeS 1 3 .lOxeS �eS I4J4 &8 1S.fS o r 8.. ..ixd2+ 9.'f/xd2 •

171

•

Y!/e7 transposing lo 4.�f3 ib4+ 5 ..id2 bdl 6.tt:lbxd2 tt:lc6 7.a3 .lxd2+ 8.Y!/xd2 Y!/e7 9.g3 0.0 - Section 2) 8 ..ig2 tt:lxe5 9.0-0 0-0 (for 9 .. J.xd2 see 4.tt:ld2 .ib4 S .g3 tt:lc6 6.tt:lf3 Y!/e7 7..ig2 tt:lxe5 8.0-0 tt:lxd2 9..ixd2 .ixd2 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 2) 10.a3 ( 10.& 1 d6 l l .tt:lb3 .lg4 1 2.tt:lfd4 goo8 13.h3 ic8 14.Y!/c2 f5 1 5.e3 'i!i>h8 16llcd 1 Y!l 11 11 .c5 dxc5 1 8.tt:lxc5 b6 1 9.tt:ld3 tt:lxd3 20.Y!/xd3 c5, Bach ­ Meyer, Germany 1987) 10 ...ixd2 1 1 . tt:lxd2 d6, Gutman; further D) 7.e3 Y!/e7 8 ..ie2 tt:lxe5 (After 8 ...b6 9.0-0 Black has two options. 9 .. ..ixd2 1 0.Y!/xd2 .ib7 l l .Y!/c3 will transpose into 4.tt:ld2 .ib4 5.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 6.e3 Y!/e7 7. .ie2 b6 8.0-0 tt:lxd2 9.ixd2 .ixd2 I O.Y!/xd2 .ib7 l l .Y!/c3 - Part 3, Chapter 2, Sec­ tion 3, Sequel I . For 9....ib7 10.a3 .ixd2 l l .Y!/xd2 see 4.tt:lf3 .ib4+ 5 ..id2 tt:lxd2 6.tt:lbxd2 tt:lc6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.Y!/xd2 V!fe7 9.e3 b6 1 O..ie2 .ib7 1 1 .0-0 - Section 2) 9.a3 (if9 .0-0, then 9 .. b6 10.a3 .ix.d2 1 1 . tt:lxe5 Y!/xe5 12..if3 ,gb8 13.Y!/xd2 0-0 or 9.. ..ixd2 transposing to 4.l0d2 ib4 5 .tt:lf3 tt:lc6 6.e3 Y!/e7 7 ..ie2 tt:lxe5 8.0-0 tt:lxd2 9 ..ixd2 .ixd2 - Pan 3 , Chapter 2, Sec­ tion 3, Sequel 1 ) 9 ... tt:lxf3+ (9 ... .ixd2+ 1 O.Y!/xd2 transposes to 4.tt:lf3 .ib4+ 5 . .id2 tt:lxd2 6.tt:lbxd2 tt:lc6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.Y!/xd2 Y!/e7 9.e3 tt:lxe5 10 ..ie2 - Sec­ tion 2) 1 O..ixf3 .id6 l l .Y!/c2 .ie5 1 2.0.{) 0.{) 13.c5 c6 1 4.gfd l d5 1 5.cxd6 Y!/xd6 1 6.tt:lfl Y!lf6 17.&bl .if5 (instead of 17 ... a5 1 8 .tt:lg3 a4 1 9.tt:le4 Y!/h6 20.g3 .if5 2 l .Y!/c5 gae8?! 22.tt:ld6 .ixb 1 23.tt:lxe8 gxe8?? 24.Y!/xe5 1 :0 Zuger - Romero, Manila 1992) 18�.lx.e4 19.Y!/xe4 goog is quite comfy for Black, Gutman. 7 .£11 7 ....ie7 8 .Y!/c2 0-0 9.e3 ge8 lO ..id3 h6 l l .g4 !? .if& 1 2.h4 tt:lxe5 13 .tt:lxe5 gxe5 14.tt:lf3 ge8 15.0-0-0 Y!/Rl 1 6.tt:ld4 d5 17. g 5 gave White a dangerous initiative in Remman - Romsda� Tromsoe 1998. .

..

This surprising move was introduced in 1960 by Joan Segura. Retaining the bishop pair gives Black good long-term prospects, albeit al a loss oftime, Harding. 8.l0e4 Here are a couple of examples with White employing differing strategies: I) 8 .Y!/c2 g6 (8...Y!/e7 9.Y!/c3 b6 10.b4 a5 l l.b5 tt:ld8, Tseillin/G/Dskov, is doubtful due to 12.g3 .ib7 1 3 ..ig2 tt:le6 14.tt:lh4 hg2 1 5.tt:lxg2 g6 16.tt:le3) 9.e3 (White is in a bad way after 9.Y!/c3 .lg7 10.g3 Y!/e7 l l ..ig2 tt:lxe5 1 2 .Y!/c2 0-0, Tseit­ Un/Giaskov, while IO.tt:le4 is met by 10... tt:lxe5 l l .tt:lxe5 Y!/e7, e.g. 1 2.f4 d6 as in Vol - Glaskov, Moscow 1 990, or 1 2 . � .ixe5 13.Y!/f3 0-0 1 4.e3 m,8 1 5 .g4 b5, Segura, D'Escac.s 1 996. There is also little promise in 9.e6 dxe6 1 O.Y!/c3 gg8 l l .gdl .lg7 1 2.Y!/c2 Y!/ffi, Colnot - Tin­ ture, corr 1 997, or 9.tt:le4 .ig7 10.tt:lf6+ .ix.f6 l l .exffi Y!/xffi 12.e3 d6 13..id3 .lg4 14.h4 0.{) 15.h3, HalmeeMlaki - Guerra Bastida, Coruhna 2000, 15..bn 16.txf3 l0e5) 9...ig7 10.ie2 (1 0..id3 Y!/e7 1 1 ..m,1 a5 1 2.h4 h5 13.l0e4 tt:lxe5 Y2"Y2 Hartweg ­ TouW!c, French League 200 1 ) 10 ...Y!/e7 (10 ... 0-0 1 1 .0-0 tt:lxe5 1 2.tt:lxe5 .ix.e5 13. tt:lf3 .lg7 14.goo l i s playable, e.g. 14.. .d6 1 5.c5 d5 16.b4 .its 17 .Y!/d2 c6, Knab 1 72

Link, corr 1 998, or 14 ...�f6 1Sl:W2, Be­ nedde - Klinger, Germany 1 999, I S ... aS 1 6.lild4 c6) 1 1 .0-0 lilxeS 12.lilxeS �xeS 131Ylbl d6 14.lilf3 �e7, Gutman; D) 8.e3 � e7 (8 ...g6 is another possibility: 9.i.e2 .ig7 10.0-0 0-0 I U�b l a5 12 .b4 �e7 13.c6 dxc6 14.bS lileS I S .lilxeS .ixeS 16.lilf3 .id6 17.a4 e5, Grotars - Zouaoui, corr 1 99S, 9.lilb3 .ig7 IO.�d5 �e7 I I . .ie2 lilxeS, Bertoletti - Mangiovini, corr 1 999, or 9 .lile4 .ig7 IO.lilffi+ ixRi l l .exffi �xf6, Taylor - Ramsey, Nashville 2000 ) 9 ..id3 lilxeS (9 ... g6 ! ?) I O.lilxeS �xeS l l .�c2 g6 12.lilf3 �f6 13 .0-0 .ig7 14.b4 0-0, Gomez Millan - Pinto Fernandez, Alameda de Osuna 2000; III) 8.g3 g6 9.ig2 (9M.ig7 I O.�c2 lilxeS l l .lilxeS .ixeS 12.e4 �e7 13.f4 .ig7 14. 0-0-0 d6 I S.i.e2 h5 16.i.O .id7 I U�he I 0-0-0 18.lilbl �e6 19.�d3 rute8 20.lilc3 .ic6, Rylander - Sunehag, Lidkoping 1 996) 9 .. .i.g7 (9 ...�e7 1 0.0-0 .ig7 is a transposition, while IO.lile4 lilxe5 1 1 .�3 .ig7 1 2.0-0-0 0-0 1 3 .lilxeS �xeS 1 4.f4 �e7 I S.cS, Holwell - Weegenaar, corr 1994, can be punished by t s...m,s 1 6.M b6) 10.0-0 �e7 ( I O ...lilxeS I I.lilxeS .ixeS, e.g. 12.�c2 0-0 1 3 .f4 .id4+ 14.'it>hl d6 I S .e4 .id7 1 6.lilf3 .ig7, Pancras - Pau­ wels, Haarlem 1997, or 12.�3 0-0 13. lilf3 .ig7 14.e4 d6 I S _goo I �e7 16.lild4 c6 IU�d2, Crafty - Agro, computer game 1 997, 17 ...�c7!?) l l .lile4 ( l l .�c2 lilxeS 12.&11 0-0 llcS a5 14.e3 lilxf3+ IS.lilxf3 a4 16.lild4 � 1 7.l:kl �8 1 8_gfdl .itB, O'Donell - Szpisjak, USA 1 996) I I ... lilxeS 1 2.lilxeS �xeS 13 .lilc3 0-0, Del­ rieu - Tinture, Languedoc Rouss 1 996; IV) 8.�3 g6 9.�e3 .ig7 IO.cS �e7 I I . lilc4 0-0 1 2 .g3 ( 1 2 .0-0-0?! bS 1 3 .cxb6 axb6 14_gds ia6 I S.�f4 .ixc4 1 6.�xc4 lilxeS 1 7 .ttl xeS .ixeS, Segura) 1 2 ... bS 1 3 .cxb6 axb6 14 ..ig2 .ia6 I H�cl ga7 1 6.0-0 .ixc4 17 _gxc4 lilxeS with equal chances in each case, Gutman.

8 ...1fe7 8 ... fS?! 9.exf6 gxf6 I O.e3 ( I O.�dS �e7 l l .e3 d6, Nizar - Pedersen, e-mail 2000, 12'tht5+ 'it>d8 13.i.d3) I O ...�e7 l l .id3. 9.1JdS 9.g3 lilxeS I O.lilxeS �xeS I I .lilc3 c6 ( I I . . ..ic5 1 2 ..ig2 0-0 13 .0-0 ges 1 4 .e3 d6 I S .b4 .ib6 1 6.lildS, Law - Tinture, corr 1 997, 16 ... c6 17.lilxb6 axb6) 12.i.g2 .id6 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14.�d2 .ic7 I S .&dl d6 and Black is at least not worse, Gutman. 9. .b6 .

IO.IIc l ! Less challenging are: I) IO.lilc3 .ib7 l l .�e4 0-0-0 12.lildS �e8 1 3 .�f4 d6 1 4 .exd6 .ixd6, Segura; II) I O.e3 .ib7 I I ..ie2 0-0-0 ( l l .. ,gb8?! 12.0-0-0 lilb4 13 .�d4 lilc6, Lourenco ­ Gomes, Portugal l996, 14.�c3 d6 1S.�c2 dxeS 16.lilc3) 12 .lilc3 ges 1 3 .0-0 lilxeS 14.�xeS �xeS I S .lilxeS �eS 16..§'dl g6 17 _gd3 .ig7, Jensen - From, corr 1 992; III) I O.g3 .ib7 I l .lh3 0-0-0 12.0-0 lilxeS (Spyridon Skembris mentions ILhS!? 13 .gfdl h4 ) 1 3 .�xeS .ixe4 1 4.�f4 (if 14.�xe7 .ixe7 I S .lileS mu& 16.&dl .id6, Skembris) 14 ... f6 I SlWil g5 1 6.�e3 hS 17 .lild4 g4 1 8.i.g2 .ixg2 19 .�xe7 .ixe7 20.'it>xg2 IDleS 2 l .e3 .icS 22.h3 (22.lilb3, Skembris) 22 .._ge4 23.hxg4 hxg4 24.mtl .ixd4 2Shd4 �d4 26.exd4, Skembris ­ Toulzac, Cap D'Agde 1 998, 26 ...dS !?; 1 73

IV) l0.0-0-0 .ib7 with another branch: A) l l .e3 0-0-0 ( I I ...lLla5 1 2.Y!!id3 0-0-0, given by Sl!gura, is also not bad: 13 .J.e2 lOc6 14.lLlc3 lLlxe5 15.lLlxe5 Y!!lxe5; 13 .lLlc3 .txo I4.gxf3 Y!!lxe5 I 5 .J.h3 'it>b8 I6.Y!!id5 Y!!if6; 13.g3 lLlc6 14.J.g2 lLlxe5 1 5 .lLlxe5 Y!!lxe5 16.l::lligl g6, improving on 13 ...d5?! 14.cxd5 .ixd5 1 5 .lLld6+ cxd6 1 6.Y!!i xd5, Zippy - Dave, e-mail 1994) 12 .Jd3 lLlb4 ( I L.§e8 13.lLleg5 lLld8 14.Y!!Ib5 h6 15.lLle4 lLlc6 16.lLlc3) 1 3 .Y!!id4 lLlc6 14.Y!!Ic3 �e8 1 5 .lLleg5 h6 16.J.f5 hxg5 1 7.�xd7 Y!!ixd7 18 ..bd7+ Wxd7 19.Y!!id3+ Wc8 20.Y!!if5+ Wb8 2l.Y!!ixf7 .ie7 22.Y!!if5 lLla5 and Black won, Ortega - Tinture, corr 1994; B) l l .g3 0-0-0 12 .J.h3 lLlxe5 1 3.Y!!I xe5 .ixe4 14.Y!!Ic3 (l4.mtel f5 l 5 .Y!!Ixe7 .ixe7 16.lLle5 � 1 7.0 .ig5+ 1 8.e3 .ib7 1 9.f4 .if6, Benitah - Toulzac, Mulhouse 2000) 14 ... B (instead of 14...g6? 15l!xd7 ih6+ 16.e3 fud7 17.Y!!ixh8+ 'ttb7 18...ixd7 Y!!ixd7 191!dl Y!!la4 20.lLlel, Engqvist - Nyberg, Sweden 1 998) 1 5 .�d2 g6; further C) I l .lLlc3 0-0-0 (I I ...lLla5 12.Y!!id3 0-0-0 1 3 .lLld5 Y!!le8 14.e3 d6 1 5 .Y!!if5+ Wb8 1 6. exd6 .ixd6 17 .J.d3 i.xa3 1 8.bxa3 Y!!la4 19. Y!!ixf7 §d7 20.Y!!If4 Y!!lxa3+ 2 l .Wd2 lLlxc4+ 22.Y!!Ixc4 fud5, Cherta - Segura, Berga 1 960, 23.e4 �d7 24.We3 �hd8 25 .�d2 leaves Black with insufficient compen­ sation) 12.Y!!Ie4 lLla5 1 3.lLld5 Y!!le8 14.e3 lLlb3+ 1 5 .Wc2 lLlc5 16.Y!!if5 Wb8 17.lLlg5 .ie7 1 8 .J.d3 g6 19 .Y!!I f4 .ixg5 20.Y!!I x g5 d6, Segura; similarly D) I I .Wb I 0-0-0 ( l l ... lLla5 1 2.Y!!id3 0-0-0 13 .lLlc3 Y!!le6 14.lLlg5 Y!!le8 1 5 .f4 .ie7 16. lLJ � d6 17.exd6 .ixd6 1 8.e3 .ie7 19.lLld5 Wb8, Segura, leads nowhere after the calm 20.Y!!Ic2) 12.lLlc3 g6 appears prom­ ising for Black, Gutman. V) 101!dl .ib7 1 1 .e3 (Sebagh - Tinture, corr 1 996, went I I .lLlc3 0-0-0 1 2 .Y!!Ie4 �e8 1 3.Y!!Ig4 h5 14.Y!!If5 g6 1 5 .Y!!I ffi .ih6 16.Y!!Ixe7 fue7 17.lLld5 �e6 1 8.e3 lLlxe5 19.lLld4 �ee8 20.lLlb5 .ixd5 2 1 .cxd5 a6

22.lLlc3 Wb7 with equality. In answer to l l .c5 Y!!le6 12.Y!!ixe6+ fxe6 13.cxb6 axb6 14.lLled2 g6 1 5 .e3 .ig7 1 6 . .ib5, Bauer ­ Tinture, corr 1 997, 1 1ike 1 6...� 1 7 .a4 We7 1 8.lLlc4 �aa8 1 9.0-0 �hd8 20.�cl lLla7) 1 1 ...0-0-0 ( I I ...lLla5 1 2.Y!!id3 0-0-0, Tornado - JebStuart, internet 2002, 1 3 . lLlc3, e.g. 1 3 . .i.xf3 14.gxf3 Y!!l xe5 1 5 .f4 Y!!le6 16.b4or 13 ...l0c6 14.Y!!IB) 12.c5 lLlxe5 ( 1 2 ...bxc5 13 .lLleg5 lLld4 fails to 14..b6! c6 1 5 .Y!!Ic4. 12 ... Wb8 is met by 1 3 .J.b5, e.g. 13 ..hxc5 14.Y!!Ib3 WaS 15.lLleg5 lLlxe5 1 6.lLlxe5 Y!!l xg5 17 .lLlxf7 Y!!lxg2 I S.�fl .id6 19.lLlxh8fuh8 20...ixd7 .ixh2 2 I ..ie6, Lorin - Tinture, corr 1997, or 13 ...lLlxe5 14.Y!!I xe5 .ixe4 1 5 .cxb6 axb6 1 6 .Y!!I xe7 .ixe7 l7.lLle5 c6 l 8 .J.c4) l3.Y!!I xe5 .ixe4 14.cxb6 ( 1 4 .Y!!Ixe7 .ixe7 1 5 .lLle5 �hf8 16� .ib7 17 . .ixb7+ Wxb7 1 8 .lLlxd7 �fe8 19.We2 ffi 20.�d3 .ixc5 2 I .lLlxc5+ bxc5 22J:'fudl fud3 llz-Vz Oortwijn - Mas­ sy, corr 1998) 14 ... axb6 1 5lkl Y!!lxe5 1 6. lLlxe5 .id5 17 .J.c4 f6 is even, Gutman. 1 0....lb7 l l .cS .

l l ... �d8 I I ...lLla5 12.Y!!id3 lLlc6 1 3 .cxb6 axb6 14. Y!!lc3 d6 15 .e3 � 1 6.b4 �d5 17 ..b6 .ia8 18.ic4 lLlxe5 19.Y!!Ib3 §d3 20...ixd3 lLlxd3+ 2 I .Y!!ixd3 .ixe4 22.Y!!ib5+ was a disaster for Black, Hirsh - Dalley, e-mail 1 994. 12.6'd3 �e6 13.cxb6 axb6 14.e3 Black has difficulties, Gutman . 1 74

Section 2 (l.d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�0 .lb4+ S..ldl �xdl 6.�bxdl �c6 7.aJ) 7M ..lxdl+ 8.1hdl

8 ...tre7 8 ... 0-0 9.ti'f4!? (Boniek - EtcChess, intemet 2002, went 9.ti'c3 Ee8 I OJ�dl ge6 l l .g3 ti'e8 J 2.gd5 1t:le7 13Ed2 1t:lc6, and now l 4 ..Ah3 &7 1 5.0-0 lt:lxe5 1 6.1t:lxe5 �e5 17 .hd7 .lxd7 1 8.gxd7 ti'xd7 19. ti'xe5.ge8 20.ti'd5 ti'xd5 2 l .cxd5 gxe2 22.&1 is annoying; if9 ... f6 I O.exffi �ffi l l .g3 d6 1 2..ig2, improving on I O.gd J , Stroeher - Piegeler, corr 1 994, I O...fxe5 l l .lt:lxe5 ti' ffi, yet 9...ti'e7 !? transposes to 8...ti'e7 9.ti'c3 0-0 IOlkll !k8 - Section 4. After 9.e3 Black has in addition to the 9 ...ti'e7 an extra resource in the form of 9 .. 1!e8 I O..id3 1t:lxe5 l l .lt:lxe5 �e5, e.g. 1 2.0-0 d6 13.ti'c2, when instead of 13 ..h6 14.b3 .ie6 1 5 ..ih7+ <;!;lh8 1 6..le4 c6 1 7 . gfdl ti'f8 18Jd3 g e8 19.ti'c3 ti'e7 20..ic2 .lg4 2 1 Ed4 , Faile - SseChess, comput­ er game 2000, 1 3 'Ml4 14.g3 ti'h3 1 5 ..a.:4 .if5 might be better, or 1 2.f4 ge6 1 3.0-0 b6 14.tf5, Luruena - Marc, Acede 200 1 , 14 ...�6!? 1 5..ie4 gb8) 9...ti'e7 (9...ge8 1 0.0-0-0 b6 l l .e3 a6 1 2..ld3 ti'e7 1 3 .h4 &7 14.if5 1t:lxe5 1 5.1t:lxe5 ti'xe5 16.hd7 ti'xf4 1 7.exf4 .lxd7 1 8.�d7 gave White a winning ending, Nimzo - lnmiChess, computer game 2000) is the text. _

9.1ff4 We consider therefore: I) 9.ti'g5 ti'xgS IO.It:lxg5 1t:lxe5 l l .o4 (l l .e3 b6 1 2 . .ie2 .ib7 1 3 .f3 h6 1 4.1t:lh3 0-0-0 1 5 .0-0 f5, Schade - Schumacher, Ger­ many 1 989) l l ...h6 ( l l ... d6!? 12..le2 0-0) 12.1t:lh3 d6 1 3.1t:lf4 .id7 14..le2 0-0-0 1 5 . lt:lh5 .ic6, Boikov - Neumann , corr 1999; II) 9.ti'e3 0-0 (9 ...b6 I O,gdl .ib7 l l .g3 0-0-0 1 2..ih3 �e8 looks worth trying) JO,gd) &8 l l lUJS b6 12 .g3 (Belliboni ­ Kover, corr 1984, continued 1 2.1t:ld4 .la6 13.1t:lxc6 dxc6 1 4_gd4 ti'c5 1 5.ti'f4 lf:z-'h, but we can improve w ith 1 2 . ..1t:lxe 5 ! ? 13.1t:lf5 ti'ffi) 12. ..ib7 13..lh3 &d8 14.().0 lt:la5 l 5,gd4 c5 ( 1 5 ...d6 1 6.exd6 ti'xe3 1 7.fxe3 �d6 is possible as well) 16.�4 .lxf3 17.exf3 ti'xe5 1 8,ge4 ti'b8 1 9.ge) gm 20. ti'd31t:lc6 2 l .ti'd5 ti'c7, Gutman; Ill) 9.ti'd5 b6 (9-.0-0 I O.e3 ge8 is a solid option: l l ..ld3 1t:lxe5 1 2 .1t:lxe5 ti'xe5 1 3 . ti'xe5 gxe5 goes into 9.ti'c3 0-0 I O.e3 �8 l l.id3 1t:lxe5 12.1t:lxe5 ti'xe5 13.ti'xe5 gxe5, treated in Section 4, while after l l ..le2 Black has a choice between I I ... lt:lxe5 12.1t:lxe5 ti'xe5 1 3 .ti'xe5 gxe5 see 9.ti'c3 0-0 I O.e3 �8 l l..le2 1t:lxe5 1 2.1t:lxe5 ti'xe5 1 3 .ti'xe5 gxe5 - Section 4, and l l ...aS 12.b3 1t:lxe5 1 3.c5 1t:lxf3+ 14.hf3 &6 1 5.0-0 gg6 16.ti'd4 d6 lf:z-'12 Peredy ­ Harding, Budapest 2000) I O.e3 (I O.lt:ld4 .Ab7 l l .lt:lxc6.ixc6 1 2.ti'd4 0-0-0 1 3 .c5 1 75

bxc5 14.'t!fc3 mteS 15.&1 't!/xe5 1 6.'t!fxc5 't!!xb2 1 7 .e3 't!lb6 1 S.'t!fc3 ge6 1 9 .Ad3 hg2 20Egl � 2 l.'t!fd2 �c l+ 22.'t!fxcl 't!fa5+ 23 .'t!fd2 't!fd5 24.Aa6+ i>bS 25. 't!fxd5 Axd5 26.gxg7 ghs left White a pawn minus, Conceicao - Santos, Lis­ bon 1 999) l O.. .J.b7 l l ..ie2 (1 1 Edl ().()..() 1 2.c5 is met by 12 ....mteS 1 3.cxb6 axb6 14.Ae2 1Dxe5 1 5 .h6 IOxO+ 1 6.'t!fx0 't!/e4, while 12 ...�eS? l 3 .cxb6 axb6 1 4. Ae2 10xe5 1 5..b6 10c6 16.Axb7+ i>xb7 1 7 .'t!fxd7 't!/xd7 1 S.�d7 gave White ad­ vantage in Porth - Roes, German y 1 992) 1 1 ...� (it is too late for 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.0.0 gfeS due to l 3.gfd l gad8 1 4Eacl , e.g. 14 ...Aas 1 5 .c5 or 14 ...Aa6 1 5.b4 10xe5 1 6.10xe5 't!fxe5 17 .b5 AcS l S .cS) 1 2 .0-0 (1 2Ecl IDleS l3.c5 10xe5 14.h6 10xf3+ 1 5 .'t!fxf3 't!/e4 1 6.'t!fxe4 gxe4) 12 ... gheS l 3 Efdl l0xe5 1 4.'t!/xe5 't!/xe5 1 5 .10xe5 �e5 1 6Ed4 ( 1 6.b4 gdeS 17 ..tg4 gse7 lSEd4 f5 19.Ae2 c5 20.bxc5 bxc5 2l .m.4 g5, Leij - Spoel, corr 1 99 1 ) 1 6 ...c5 1 7. gd6 ge6 l S Ed2, Marcussen - Nilsson, Copenhagen 1 993 , 1 S .. .'�c7 with equal chances in each �. Gutman; IV) 9.g3 seems more testing.

Black has three possibilities: · A) 9 ...b6 lO.J.g2 ( lO.'t!fc3 ! is critical, see 9.'t!fc3 b6 1 O.g3 - Section 3, Sequel 2) l O .. .ib7 1 1 .0-0 (Menendez Solar - Diez del Corral, Spanish League 200 1 , went

l l .l0h4 't!/xe5 1 2.0-0-0 0-0-0 l 3 .f4 't!fe7 14.e4 l0a5 1 5 .'t!fc3 g5 1 6.10f5 't!fe6, when instead of 17 Ed4 gx f4 lS .gxf4 l0c6 1 9 . M IO aS 20.b3 Axe4 2 l .l0g7 't!fg6 22.f5 't!/g4 23.h3 � . 1 7.fxg5 !? 't!fxc4 1S.'t!fxc4 l0xc4 19.mtfl l0e5 20.l0h6 IDlfB 2 l .gf4 l::!de8 22.10g4 yields some edge for White; however, both 1 2...d6 1 3.f4 't!fffi 14.'t!fe3+ 't!fe6 and 1 2 ...0-0 l3.'t!fxd7 't!fxe2 1 4.gd2 �dS 1 5Exe2 gxd7 looks more clean to me) 1 1 ...0-0-0 ( 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.gfd 1 gadS appears insufficient in view of l 3 .'t!fc3 mes 14.IW,e.g. 14...10xe5 15.'t!/xe5 't!/xe5 16.10xe5hg2 1 7.10xf7 or l4_.ics 15.&1 10xe5 16.10xe5 't!/xe5 1 7 .c5!?. l l ...l0xe5 12.10xe5 Axg2 1 3.'�xg2 't!fxe5 1 4.'t!fd5 't!fxdS+ 1 5.cxd5 c5 16.dxc6 dxc6 17.&c l &S l SJ�fd 1 i>e7 was level in Meister ­ Orlinski, Gennany 1 995, but White can do better with l 3 .10xf7 ! Axfl 14.10xhS Axe2 1 5Eel 0-0-0 1 6.�e2, for example 16 ...'t!fffi 1 7.'t!fdS c6 1 S.'t!ff7 gms 1 9.'t!fxffi gxffi 201ie7 or 16 ...'t!ff8 17.'t!fd5 c6 1 S.'t!ff7 't!!xhS 19Ee7 rfJ 20.'t!fg7) 12kl (1 2.'t!ff4 !'Dle8 1 3.b4 10xe5 1 4.10xe5 .bg2 l 5!�xg2 't!fxe5 16.'t!fxf7 c6 17.'t!ff3 't!fxe2) 1 2...1Dxe5 l 3 .10xe5 't!/xe5 1 4.hb7+ i>xb7 1 5 .c5 gheS 16.cxb6 axb6 11 .gc2 ge7 lS .gfcl gcs, Gutman; further B) 9 ...00 1 0.'t!fc3 (l O.'t!fdS �S l l .e3 m,s 1 2.gdl b5 1 3.Ag2 bxc4 l4.'t!/xc4 �b2 15.'t!fc3 &2 16.� 1 �al+ 17.'t!/xa1 Aa6 and Black won, Slater - Davey, corr 1 956. 10.Ag2 10xe5 l l .l0xe5 't!/xe5 goes into 9.g3 10xe5 1 O.l0xe5 't!fxe5 l l .ig2 0-0 - C, while l O. ..ges 1 1 .0-0 't!fc5 1 2.gacl aS , Mosny - Gutdeutsch, Czech Republic 1 997, looks very suspicious on account of ngfd 1 ' e.g. l 3 ...a4 l 4.'t!ff4 10xe5 1 5 . � 10xf3+ 16..txf3 or 1 3 ...10xe5 14.1Dd4 a4 1 5.1Db5) l o. . .ges l l .Ag2 d6 1 2 .0-0 (12.e6he6 13.0-0ig4 14.h3 .tf5 15.10h4 ie4 1 6.100 a5 1 7.b4 b6 1 S .e3 h6 1 9.10d2 hg2 20.�g2 't!le5 2l .'t!fxe5 10xe5 22.b5, Popov - Pavlenko, Riga 1 975, 22 ...a4!?) 1 76

1 2...dxeS ( I L�xeS 1 3.�xeS 't!/xe5 1eads

to equality, while 1 3.l:Ue l gb8 14.�d4 cS I S .�c2 1e6 1 6.�e3 bS 1 7.b3, Oez­ men - van Sonderen, Soest 2000, might be met by 17 bxc4 18.bxc4 �g4) 13..Wdl f6 14.b4 (1 4.� .ig4 IS.h3 .le6 1 6.�el gm8 17� �d4 1 8.e3 .lxdS 19.cxdS �bS 20.'t!lb3 �d6 gave Black a plus in Roblek - Vospemik, Kranj 1 999) 14 ... � 6 I S..§dl l::!ad 8 1 6-&d I �d2 1 7.�d2 gd8, Gutman; similarly C) 9...�xeS I O.�xeS 't!/xeS l l ..ig2 0-0 (the immediate l l ...aS is also possible, e.g. l 2.&cl d6 1 3 .gc3 0-0 1 4.'t!fdS 't!ff6 I S .0-0 a4 1 6.gdl &6 ! ? 1 7.'t!fd4 't!/xd4 1 8.gxd4 gb6 1 9.gd2 .ie6; 1 2.gd1 0-0 1 3 .'t!fd4 ge8 14 .'t!fxeS gxeS I S .gds d6 16.ct>d2 ie6 17Jhe5 dxe5 18.mc3 c6 Y:r-Yz Fieandt - Salimaki, Finnish League 1999; and if 12.().{) ().{), since 12 .. .a4 13.�hl ().{) 14.e4 &8 I S.f4 't!fa5 1 6.'t!fd4 &6 17.eS d6 18.rui:l ml6 19lle3 id7 20.& 1 c5 21 .'t!fd3, Gadman - Szpisjak, Illinois 1996, 2 1 ... gb3 ! ? 22.gc3 gxb2, can be improved with 13.'t!lb4!?) 12.0-0 d6 13 .&cl (there are some more ideas: 13..Wdl a5 14.J.f3 a4 I S .'t!fc2 .if5 16.e4 1e6 17J3d3 f5 18 .ge3 f4 19 .&3 b6 20..ig2 gf6 2 1 .gdl hS 22. gxf4 !!xf4 231Y;Jd3 h4 24lU3 gg4 2S.�hl ft'gS 0: I Halkias - Pandavos, Katerini 1 992; 1 3 _gfe I aS, while Babula - Gon­ salves, Buenos Aires 2000, went 13 linl8 14.b4 ge8 I S .'t!fdS bS?! 16.'t!fxeS gxeS 17J:iacl .tb7 1 8.cxbS .txg2 19.�g2 m,7, when instead of20.&6 � 2 1 .e3 &xbS 22Eecl a5 23Jhc7 axb4, 20.a4 l"1.e4 2 1 .a5 would be decisive; 1 3.b4 a5 ! ?, although 1 3 . _gb8 14kl is playable as well, and now not 14...cS? I S.gfdl ge8 16.'t!fxd6, Garcia - Augusto, Carris 2002, but 14 ... .if'S) 13 ... ge8 ( 1 3 .. ..tf5 14.gc3 &b8 I S . Wei c6 1 6_ge3 't!ff6, Thyrring - Erhard, Gladsaxe 198S, is playable; likewise 1 3 ... aS ! ? 14.b4 axb4 1S.axb4 gd8 16_gfd l h6 17 ..tf3 &4 18.cS 't!fe8 1 9.'t!fd4 ie6, when •.

instead of 20.&1 gxal 2 1 .'t!fxal dxcS 22.bxcS �d I+ 23 .'t!fxdl bS 24.'t!fd4 't!lb8 2S.'t!lb4 .ic4 26.�g2 't!ffB 27 ..i.c6 .ixe2 28..ixbS 't!fb8 0:1 Medina - Bellon, Se­ ville 1 992, 20.cxd6! ? gxd6 2 1 .'t!fcS 't!fd7 22.gxd6 't!/xd6 23 .'t!fxd6 cxd6 24..ixb7 �b4 might be tried) 13 ...ge8 1 4.e3 aS (l4_..tf5 I S_gc3 1e4 16..ixe4 't!/xe4 was even after 17.'t!fdS ges 1 8 .'t!fxe4 gxe4 1 9.cS dxcS 20.gxcS c6 2 1 .gd1 ge7, Nen­ dick - Chaplin, Bristol 1 99S. 14 ...'t!fhS I S .gfe l gb8 is unsound due to 1 6.cS! dxcS 17 .'t!faS b6 1 8.'t!fxa7, improving on 1 6.'t!fd4 b6 17.b4, Planas - Milner-Barry, Helsinki Olympiad 1 9S2) I S .gc3 a4!? (after IS ...gb8 1 6.b4 b6 17 _gfc I axb4 1 8 .axb4 .le6, Csoli - Fabri, Hungarian League 1999, is 1 9.&3 quite unpleasan t) 1 6.gfc l � with equality, Gutman. V) 9.e3 is the more simple way to play.

•.

White retains the pawn lwping to keep a small edge owing to his extra space, or at least to be solid enough after to reach an easy draw.

Black has tried two ways to reply : A) 9 ...b6 I O..ie2 ( IO.'t!fc3! is the principal answer, see 9.'t!fc3 b6 I O.e3 - Section 3. IO.�d4 �xeS I I �bS is innocuous due to l l ...d6 12 .'t!fdS gb8 1 3 .�xa7 .ie6 14. 't!lbS+ 't!fd7 I S.'t!fxd7+ �xd7 1 6.f4 �g4 17.e4 fS 1 8.cS c6. If I O ..id3 �xeS, as 1 77

lO.�b7 l l .i.e4 ().0.() is less convincing owing to l2.l:k l �xe5 l3.ixb7+ �b7 l 4 .�xe5 �xe5 l 5 .c5 ; however, Black has nothing be worry about l2.b4 d 6!? l3.b5 � l4.ixb7+ �b7 l5.�c3 dxe5, and l 2 .o!t) d4 �xe5 l3 .�xc6 can be met by either l3 _.ixc6 14.ixc6 dxc6 15.�c2 h5 1 6.().() h4 or l 3 ...dxc6 l4.�c2 g6 1 5.0-0 f5 l 6 ..if3, Jung - Meyer, S witzerland 1 994, l 6 ... c5) l O ....ib7 l l .0-0 (l Uldl 0-0-0 1 2.0-0 g 5 l3 .�d4 �xe5 l4.b4 g4 l 5 .c5 mtg8 1 6.cxb6 �f3+ l7.hf3 gxf3 l8 .g3 axb6 l9.hl �e5 20Jlgl l:lg5 2 1 . �d3 mt5 22.h4 �g5 0 : 1 Ptaschinski ­ Sinka, Eger 1 99 1 ) l l ... �xe5 (Jimenez Villena - Torres, Valencia 2003, went l l...0-0-0 J2.c5 g5 l 3.cxb6 axb6 l4.l:lfcl l:lhg8 l 5.�c3 l:lde8 l6 ..ic4 g4 1 7.�d4 l:lg6, when l 8.�f5 �fB l 9.id5 is strong. l l ...g5 l2.b4 g4 l3.b5? gx13 l4.bxc6 fxe2 occurred in Wetzel - Rabovszky, Bala­ tonbereny 1996, yet l2Mdl ()..()..() l3kl g4 l 4.�d4 �xe5 l 5 .c5 favours White, e.g. 15 ...bxc5 l6.�a5 d6 l 7.�b5 or 15 ... ct>b8 1 6.�b5 l:lc8 1 7.cxb6 axb6 1 8.�c2 .ic6 l 9.�a4) 1 2 .�d4 ( 1 2 .�xe5 �xe5 offers Black good chances, for instance l3 .l:lfdl l:ld8 l4.�d4 �g5 1 5 .J.fl 0-0 1 6. b4 d6 1 7 .�c3 l:lfe8 l8 .l:ld2 l:le6, Hand­ schuh - Belka, Regensburg 1 998, or 13. �d4 d6 14.&cl c5 15 .�xe5+ dxe5 1 6.b4 l:lc8 l 7.l:lfd l ct>e7 l8 ..ig4 l:lcd8, Martin Vazquez - Vega, Moncane 1993) 1 2 ... d6!? (12 ... 0-0 is less precise in view of l 3 .f4! �c6 1 4.�b5 d6 1 5 .b4 ru'e8 1 6..it3 �d8 1 7.e4 f6 1 8.�c3) l3.&cl (if l 3 .f4 �7) 13...0-0 l4.�b5 (1 4Mel �g5 l 5.J.fl � 16.f3 f5, Velasquez - Corbin, Thes­ saloniki Olympiad 1 988) l 4...f5 ( 1 4 ... l:lfe8 1 5.�c3 f5 1 6.�d5 � f7 1 7.l:lfe l l:le6 1 8.f4 �g6 19.g3 &e8 20.J.f3 c6 2l .�b4. David - Prevot, France 2002, but 1 7 ... &c8 l8.f4 �d7 might be better) 1 5 .�c3 ( 15 .f4 �g4) 1 5...�f7 leads to a balanced position, Gutman;

B) 9 ... �xe5, then: 81) lO.J.e2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 d6 ( l l . ..�xf3+ l2.hf3 a5 is reasonable, e.g. l 3 .l:lac l d6 1 4.l:lfdl a4 1 5 .� .ie6 or l3.g3 l:la6 1 4.l:lfe l , Escher - Wulf, Bad Woeris­ hofen 2000, 14 ...�e5 l 5 .�d4 l:lfe8. Also the immediate l l ... a5 is possible, for in­ stance 12.�d4 a4 l 3.�b5 d6 1 4.f4 �c6 l5.�c3 f5 or l2.b4 &6 l3.c5 �6 14Mcl axb4 15.axb4 d6, improving on l3 .. .l:lg6, Hubel - K\Dlkel, Bad Woerishofen 2002, l4.�xe5 �xe5 l 5.�d4 �g5 l6.g3 d6 l7Mcl) l2kl (l2.�c3 �xf3+ l3.ixf3 �e5 14.� a5 1 5 .�d2, Wagner - Du­ jardin, Nuenen 2002, is met by 1 5 ...l:la6. Lindinger - Lampe, Gennany 1994, saw l 2.b4 b6 1 3 .l:lfd l .ib7 l 4 .�xe5 �xe5 15.&cl �g5 l6.f3, when instead of 16 ... l:lfe8 17.e4 �xd2 1 8.l:lxd2 l:le7 19.c5, l6...!ae8 17..-t �xd2 1 8 .l:lxd2 f5 l9.exf5 l:lxf5 might be good for Black) l2 ...l:le8 (12.. .&J5l3.c5 dxc5 14.�d5 �+ 15.J.xf3 .ic8 1 6.l:lfd l c6 1 7 .�xc5 �xc5 1 8.l:lxc5 ie6, Valifuoco - Montecchi, Rome 1 997, but after the correct l 3 .�d4 .id7 1 4.f4 the lost tempo could become significant, for example 14...�c6 1 5 .�b5 and on 14... �g4 1 5.ixg4 hg4 16 ..-t l:lfe8 17 .!:lee I . 1 2 �g4 appears more natural, as l3.�d4 .ixe2 14.ltJxe2 c6 15Mdl md8or l3.ltJxe5 he2 14.�xe2 dxe5 1 5 Mdl !:ladS l6.l:lc2 l:lxd I+ Y:z- Yz Ciurezu - Klueting, Dort­ mund 1 989, shows. 1 2 ... b6 is given by Anatoli Matsukevich, when l 3 .�xe5 �xe5 I4..it3 l:lb8 l5Mdl .id7 would be hannless and l3.�d4 .ib7 goes into 9.e3 b6 l O.J.e2 .ib7 l l .0-0 �xe5 l 2.�d4 d6 l3.l:lacl 0-0 - A) l 3.l:lfd l ( l3 .�d4 .ig4 l4.f3 .id7 1 5 .l:lfel �c6 1 6..id3 �xd4 17. exd4 �f6 18 ..ie4 c6 1 9.l:le3, Brown Ruigrok, Guernsey 2002, 1 9 ...l:le7 in­ tending ...l:lae8) l 3 ... �d7 l4 .�c2 � f6 l5.�d4 g6 1 6.�b5 a6 l 7.�c3 c6 l8.l:ld4 .ie6 is even, Mira - Sommer, Mureck 200 1 , Gutman; 1 78

81) l O.lOxeS �xeS has its supporters.

Play may continue: Bla) l l .f4 is premature in view of 1 1 ... �e7 12J.d3 b6 1 3.0-0 ib7, Gutman; Blb) l l .�d4 d6 (l l ...�xd4 1 2 .exd4 d6 1 3 ..td3 0-0 14.�d2 ie6 lS_ghel �Ue8 1 6.ge3 c6 1 7.gael �fB, Alvarez Car­ bajales - Olea Perez, Villaviciosa 1 996, 18.f4) 12.�xe5+ dxe5 13.().0.0 ie6 14J.e2 �e7, Gal - Eberth, Gyonguos 1 988; Blc:) 1 1 �3 O-O (l l...b6!? 12.0-0 ib7 or l l ...d6!? 1 2.0-0if5 13.e4ie6, while 1 1 ... f5 12.0-0 d6 13 ..te2 ie6, Kretschmer ­ Spriewal, corr 1 989, is less clear due to 14.f4 Y:ft'6 1 5..if3 .gb8 16.�a5) 12.0-0 f5 (also 12 ...d6 13.f4 was tested: if 13...�6 14.�c2 �h8 1 5.ru3 ge8 16.ge l id7 17. �f2 ic6 1 8.e4 ge7 19.e5 White obtains some pressure, but Black can do better with 13...�e7 14�1 id7 1 5 .ru3 ic6 instead of 1 5 ... f5, Rehfeld - Gerloff, corr 1987, 1 6 .e4 gae8 1 7.gfe3 �fi 18 .e5-, 1 6.e4 gfe8) 1 3 .gfe l ( 1 3 .f4 �f6 14.�f2 d6 l S .&el id7 !? 1 6.e4 gae8) 13 ... d6 14.&dl ie6 l S ..!fl gfd8!? ( 1 5 ...gae8 1 6.�d4 �xd4 1 7.�d4 b6 18.g3 id7 19. ig2 g ffi 20.b4, Carless - Tissir, Yerevan Olympiad 1 996) 1 6.�d4 cS, Gutman; Bld) l lie2 0-0 12.0-0 d6 (12 ...a5 13M3 &6 14.�d4 &8 15.m"dl :b6 16.b4 axb4 17.c5 �xd4 1 8 .exd4 gbs 19.a4 �5 20. gdbl c6 21 .gxb4 �fB looks fully viable

to me, though 14.-�gS 1 5.c5 �g6 16.�hl d6 1 7.cxd6, Blumenstingl - Roeder, Ger­ many 1 997, 1 7...�xd6 is not bad either)

13.if3 (on 1 3 .b4 we have some options: 13 ...ie6 14l!fcl md8 15.�c3 �gS 1 6.J.f3 c6 1 7 .bS ig4 1 8 .ixg4 �xg4 occurred in Kelleher - Gibson, Dublin 1 99 1 , yet 14�cl gfd8 15.f4 �ffi 1 6..lf3 c6 17.e4 maintains an edge for White; 13 ... a5, when 14.!3adl axb4 15.axb4 if'S 1 6.13 ga3 1 7.e4 ie6 1 8.gc l gfa8 favoured Black, Portenschlager - Loibl, Vienna 1 989, but 14.�d4 ge8 1 5 .if3 �xd4 16 .exd4, EtcChess - JebStuart, internet 2002, 1 6 ... axb4 17 .axb4 ie6 1 8.ixb7 gxal 1 9.gxal ixc4 is level; 13 ...b6 14.ifl m.8 lSkl irs 16.�ds gfe8 J7_gfdl ie4 18..b.e4 �xe4 19.�4 �e6 seems the sin1plest solution to me) 13 .. ..te6 ( 13 .. ..!f5 is playable: 1 4_gad 1 md8 15.b4 c6 16.�d4, Gastanares - Es­ turo, Spain 1 996, 16 .. ..le6, or 14.gfdl md8 15.b4 c6 16.�d4 ie6 17.&cl �f8. improving on 14 ...ie4 1 5.ixe4 �xe4 16.�d5 me8 J 7_gd4 �xdS 1 8.cxd5 &c8 1 9.gc l , Novoselski - Pfeiffer, Wuerz­ burg 1987) 14kl gfd8 (instead of 14 ... �e8 lS.gfdl ic8 1 6.� a5 1 7.�3 c6 18J;d4 f5 1 9kdl gft) 20.g3, Schaeffier ­ Balogh, corr 1 934) l S .gfdl c6 1 6.�d4 �xd4 1 7_gxd4 �. Wegener - Heinzel, Germany 1 989, with equality, Gutman. 1 79

Back to the main line

9...b6!? IfBlack gets too flashy, he would end up in' trouble; retaining the tension is the motto.

9 ...0-0 is a less flexible course, we see: I) 1 OJ�dl �e8 l l .�d5 b6 (After l l ...'�Mfl! 1 2.e3 liJe7 is 1 3 ..id3 liJxd5 1 4 ..ixh7+ �h7 15.�+ g8 16.liJg5 yt/c5 17.� very strong, e.g. l7 .. .&6? 1 8.yt/xf7+ h8 19.�+ g8 20.0.0 liJb6 2 l .b4 1 :0 Sold­ ner - Nieminen, corr 1 987, or 17 _lbe5 1 8 .yt/xt7+ h8 19.'1Mh5+ g8 20.'1Mh7+ fl! 2 l .yt/h8+ e7 22.yt/xg7+ d6 23. liJ t7 + c6 24.liJxe5+ b6 2 5.d2 yt/e7 26.yt/xe7 liJxe7 27.h4. l l ...yt/e6 !? 1 2.e3 liJe7 looks like a better interpretation of Black· s possibilities: 13 .liJg5? is refuted by 1 LliJxd5 14.liJxe6�f4 1 5.liJxc7 �e5 16.liJxa8 liJe6 17.� b6 18.f4 &5 19.ie2 .ib7 20..if3 .ixf3 2 l .gxf3 �c5; 1 3 .�b5 liJg6 14.yt/g5 c6 was seen in Rosner ­ Betts, corr 2002, and now in place of 1 5. &5 h6 1 6.m5 b6 1 7 .liJd4 yt/e7 1 8�a4 liJxe5, 1 5.liJd4 yt/e7 16.yt/xe7 �xe7 1 7 .m>3 liJxe5 1 8.c5 might be tried, yet we can im­ prove with 14 .. .a6 15.liJd4 yt/e7 16.yt/xe7 �xe7 1 7.�b3 liJxe5) 1 2.e3 .ib7 1 3 . .ie2 ( 1 3 .id3 should have been met by 1 3 ... liJd8 14.yt/f5 g6 15 .yt/xd7 .ixd5 16.yt/xe7 �e7 17 .cxd5 a5! 18.0.0 a4 since 1 3 ...liJa5 14.yt/f5 g6 15.yt/xd7 .ixd5 16.yt/xe7 �xe7

1 7.cxd5 �d8 18.e2! favours White, for example 1 8 ...g7 1 9.b4 liJb7 20..ib5 or 18 _fiJb3 19-*c4 liJc5 20.liJd4 �dd7 2l .f4) 13 ...liJd8!? ( 1 3 ..k8 14.0-0 liJb8 15�d4 liJa6 1 6.�fdl liJc5 17.yt/g4 �cd8 1 8 .b4 liJe6 19.�4d2 liJfl! 20.yt/f5 a5 2 l .bxa5 bxa5 22.e6 dxe6 23.yt/xa5 &8 24.'1Mb4 c5 25.yt/b3 �a7 was unclear, Rebel - Fri�. computer game 1 996, but 1 6 ..id3 liJc5 17 ..if5 might be more logical. 13 ...&d8 14.0-0 liJb8 - 14 . . . liJa5 is no use due to 1 5�d3 .ixf3 16 ..ixf3 yt/xe5 17 ,yt/xe5 �xe5 1 8.�c 1 �c5 1 9.b4 �xc4 20.�dc3 �xc3 2 l �xc3 liJc6 22.b5 -, 1 5�d2 .ixf3 16..ixf3 yt/xe5 is a solid option: 1 7.m4 d6 1 8.�fd l , Trani - Castellano, e-mail 1999, 18...yt/e7 19.yt/f4 yt/e5, and for 17. yt/xe5�xe5 see 8 ...yt/e7 9.yt/c3 0.0 lO.�dl �e8 l l .�d5 b6 1 2 .e3 .ib7 13 ..ie2 �adS 14.0-0 liJb8 1 5.�d2 .ixf3 1 6..ixf3 yt/xe5 1 7.yt/xe5 �xe5 - Section 4) 1 4.�d2 liJe6 1 5.yt/f5 (1 5.� liJt8 16.yt/xe7 �e7 17 .0.0 .ixf3 18..t.d3 �d8) 15 ... liJfl! 1 6.0-0 &dS 17 �fdl .ixf3 18..ixf3 yt/xe5 gives Black a satisfactory position, Gutman; m 10.0-0-0!? �e8 (10...b5 l l.cxb5 yt/c5+ 1 2.bl yt/xb5 1 3 .e3 yt/b6 is a new idea: Rouse - Malmstrom, corr 1 997, went 14..ie2 �b8 1 5 .�d2 .ia6 16.�hdl liJd8 and now 17 ..ixa6 yt/xa6 18.al liJe6 19. yt/g4 liJc5 20�c2 should have been tried, although, I am more intrigued by 14..id3 �b8 1 5.ru2 ia6, when instead of 16.yt/e4 .ixd3+ 17 _yt/xd3 �fe8 1 8.IDldl liJxe5 1 9. liJxe5 �e5 20.yt/xd7 h6 2 l .yt/d4, Lupes Roland, intemet 2002, 1 6.ixh7+! xh7 17.liJg5+ g6 18.h4 .id3+ 1 9.al wins) 1 1 M b6 (After l l ...h6 1 2.e3 yt/e6 13Jd3 liJe7 14.�dl liJxd5 1 5.cxd5 yt/b6 16.yt/e4 g6 1 7 .h4!? White obtains the initiative; less impressive is 12.e4 b6 13..id3 .ib7, while 1Ld6 1 3.exd6cxd6, Boyle - Wall, Marysville 197 1 , seems unsound due to 14.�xd6 yt/xe4 1 5 ,yt/xe4 �xe4 1 6 ..id3. l l ...yt/e6 1 2 .liJg5 yt/g6 1 3 .e3 h6 1 4.liJf3 1 80

ltJe7 I SJ�dl tve6 1 6..id3 ltJg6 17 .ixg6 tvxg6 I S.mtgl was also clearly awkward for Black in Exchess - Inmi, computer game 2000) 12.e3 ( 1 2.e4?! .ib7 1 3 .tvf5 IWIS 14.ltJgS g6 IS .tvf4 ltJaS 1 6J�dl h6 1 7.ltJO tve6 1S.tvxh6.ixe4 19.fixl4 tvxe5 20.0 d5 2 1 .tve3 cS 22.cxdS tvxdS 23.fxe4 �xe4 24.tv0 �d4 and Black won, Mep­ histo - The King, computer game 1 99 1 ) 1 2. ...ib7 1 3..id3 (13..ie2 ltJdS !? J4_gddl ttJe6 IS.� ltJf8) ILltJaS 14.tvf5 (Orso ­ Berta, Hungary 1 99S, went 1 4 ..ixh7+ ltixh7 I S .ltJgS+ �g6 16.h4 hdS 17 .cxdS ffi? I S.hS+ �h6 19.tvf5 I :0, but 17...�h6 I S .b4 ffi 19 .� is the critical reply: 1 9... ltJb3+ 20.�c2 ltJcS 2 1 .d6 fxeS 22.ltJt7+ �h7 23 .ltJgS+ leads to a draw, though Black can play on by 19 ... fxeS 20.ltJf7+ �h7 21 .tve4+ �gS 22.ltJgS g6) 14 ... g6 I S.tvxd7 .ixdS 1 6.tvxe7 �xe7 17 .cxdS �dS I S.�c2 ltJb7 1 9.b4 �xdS 20 ..ie4 �ed7 2 1 ..ixdS �xdS 22.e4 �d7 23 .�c3 with advantage for White, Gutman. lO.eJ .lb7 l l ..AdJ t t .ie2 � (I t ...().{) t 2.()..{) me8 13_gfdt &tiS J4,gds ltJbS IS.�d2 .ixO t6..ixO tvxeS 1 7 .tvxeS �xeS will transpose into 9.tvc3 0-0 I O.�dl �eS I I ,gds b6 1 2 .e3 .ib7 13 ..ie2 �adS 1 4 .0-0 ltJbS I S .�d2 .txf3 16..ixf3 tvxeS 17 .tvxeS �xeS - Sec­ tion4, while 12...�S? B.mdl ffi 14.exffi � I S.tvxc7 is dubious, Ruf- Fehlings, St. Petersburg 1 992) 1 2 .0-0 ( 1 2.0-0-0 �heS 1 3 .�dS ltJaS 14.�hdl can be well met by 14 ...ltJb3+ IS.c;!;b I ltJcS 16.b4ltJe6; however, it is better to avoid l4 .. ..lxdS I S.cxdS ffi 1 6.tva4 �bS 17.b4 ltJb7 I S.e6 cS 1 9.exd7 rul! 20.AbS ltJd6 2 1 ..Ac6 tve4 22.ltJd2 tvd3 23.bxc5 tvc3+ 24.�bl tvxcS 2S_gc) tvaS, Heiling - Tiefenbach, Ger­ many 19S7, 26.tvf4! winning) 1 2...�deS 1 3 .b4 (1 3.�fdl ltJxeS 14.ltJxeS tvxeS I S. .ig4 .ic6 1 6.tvxf7 �e7 1 7.tvfS tvxb2) 13 ..1DlfB 14.cS ltJxe5 1 S.cxb6 axb6 16..§acl f5 keeps Black good in game, Gutman.

1 1 ...0-0-0 1 1 ...0� 12.g()J �feS 13.ie4 I'bdS 14.tvf5 g6 I S.tvf4 tvfll 1 6.0-0 tv e7 1 7 .tvh6 fS I S ..idS+ with a massive attack, Crafty Brause, computer game 1 997. ll ..Ae4 f!! he8 12 ...�deS is less accurate, 13 .0-0 (Biro Rabovczky, Budapest 1 99S, continued 13 _gd1 gS 14.tvxgS tvxgS I S.ltJxgS ltJxeS 16..ixb7+ �xb7 17 .b3 �gS IS.ltJO �g2 19.ltJxeS �e5 20.�xd7 �f5 2 1 _gd2 �hS 22.0 �gS 23_gf2 �gl+ 24.�xgl �xgl+, and now 2S.�d2 �at 26.�c3 �xa3 27. �g2 would be good for White) 1 3 ... h6 t4.md t �hfll t s ..tds gs t 6.tvts !? �bs 17 .b4 .icS I S .tvc2 ltJxeS 1 9.cS ltJxO+ 20..txf3 f5 2 1 .cxb6 axb6 22.tva4 c6 23.bS left Black in difficulties, del Gobbo ­ Adrian, corr 1 99 1 . 13.0-0-0 13.0-0 ltJxeS 14.ltJxeS tvxeS I S ..ixb7+ �xb7 1 6.tvxf7 tvxb2 17 .cS tveS I S.�fcl �fll l 9.tvc4 �ffi 20.tvc3 �S 2 1 .tvd2 �7 was even in Kerr - Spiller, corr 1 99 1 . 13 ... h6 13 ...ltJxeS I4.J.xb7+ �b7 IS.tve4+ �b8 (IS ...c6 1 6.tvxh7 ltJxO 1 7 .gx0 tvffi I S.f4 g6 1 9 .ti'h3) 1 6.tvxh7 ltJxO (this is more logical than 16 ... ltJxc4 1 7.tvxg7 �gS I S . tvc3 �g6 1 9.� ltJd620.ltJel ltJe4 2 1 kS �e6 22_gxe6 dxe6 23.tvc2 f5 24.ltJO, del Cobbo - Tinture, corr 1 990) 17 .gxO tvffi (17 ...g6 1 S.tvg7 tvh4 1 9 .tvxt7 tvxf2 20. �d7 tvxe3+ 2 1 .�bl �d7 22.tvxd7 �fS 23.tvc6 tvxO 24.tvx0 �xO, Newton­ Noonstra, e-mail 2002) I S .tvhS �eS !? 19.tvg4 �f5 20.f4 g6 2 1 �4 tvc6 22.mxt I d6 23.h3 �S is also playable, Giancotti ­ Carosi, e-mail 1 999. 14.tfg3 �xe5 15.lxb7+ �xb7 16.�xe5 16.tvxg7 is met by 16...ltJxO 1 7.f¢3 ti'h4 I S.tvxt7 tvxf2, Gutman. 16...tfxe5 Black has no problems, Gutman.

lSI

Section 3 The Borik Method (l.d4 tlffi 2.c:4 eS J.dxeS tle4 4.tlf3 .tb4+ S..idl tlxdl 6.tlbxdl tlc6 7.a3 .ixdl+ 8.'f!hdl 1fe7) 9.'ffc 3 Whiteaimsfor a central lock,protecting the extra pawn on e5, Tim Harding. 9... b6

'This move, recommended by Otto Borik in his book, has been much played in re­ cent y�. Opinions are divided on its value but the main advantage is that Black retains the option of queenside castling. Also the tactical complexity of the line means that Black can have good practical chan-ces, but I do not trust it, Harding. However, there are some positive indi­ cations that 9 ...b6 followed by ...ib7 and 0-0-0 may offer Black sufficient chances, Bogdan Lalic.

The material divides as follows: Sequel ! - I O.e3 (IO.h4, IO.e4, IO.b4, 10.&1) IO .. ..ib7 l l ..ie2 ( l l .b4, l l .cS, ! I lk I , l l .id3, l l .gd I) 1 1 ...0-0-0 (l l ..J:�g8, 1 1 ...0-0) 12.l'!c I !? ( 1 2 .b4, 1 2 .cS , 1 2.0-0, 1 2.0-0-0) Sequel 2 - I O.g3.

Sequel I IO.e3 Alternatives: I) I O.h4 0-0 (I O...ib7 I I .l'!d I 0-0-0 1 2.hS lThe8 13�S h6 14.IDI3 �e6 1 S .lTh4 �e7 1 6.e4 fS gave White a poor position in Abregu - Palmiero, Buenos Aires 1 993, but 1 1 .0-0-0 has more point, e.g. I 1 ...0-0 12.hS h6 13.l'!d3 l'!fe8 14.l'!e3 a6 IS.g4 bS 16.gS b4 17.�d3 bxa3 18.bxa3 hxgS 19.h6 or I 1 ...0-0-0 12.l'!d3 l'!he8 1 3 .l'!e3 d6 1 4. exd6 �xd6 IS.l'!d3 �cS 1 6.l'!xd8+ l'!xd8 17.e3 f6 1 8 ..ie2 aS 1 9.l'!dl , Lazarev ­ Schaffarth, Bischwiller 1 997) 1 1 .0-0-0 l'!e8 12.e3 ( 12�S .ib7 1 3 .hS h6 14.e3 d6 I S.exd6 cxd6 16.l'!d2 l'!ac8 1 7 .*bl �eS I S.�xeS dxe5 19 .f3 l'!ed8 20.l'!xd8+ l'!xd8 2 l .ie2 l'!c8 22�1 ic6 left Black in con­ troL An Mon - Fritz 6, computer game 200 I , though I prefer 1 7 ... �aS 1 8.l'!d4 d5) 12...�xeS 1 3 .�xeS �xeS 14.�xeS !'!xeS I S.ie2 d6 16 ..if3 l'!b8 1 7 .l'!d4 bS 18.b4 bxc4 19l:!xc4 cS 20.l'!dl .ie6 21 .l'!f4 !nl6 with equal chances, Little Goliath Fritz 6, computer game 200 I ; II) I O.e4 .ib7 ( 1 0...0-0 ! ? 1 1 .0-0-0 l'! eS 12.l'!dS .ib7 13.�d3 l'!ad8 14 .�e3 �aS I S� I �e6 1 6.b3 ffi 1 7.'i!?c2 fxeS 1 8.'i!?b2 l'!f8 19M d6 20.h5 l'!f4 was successful in An Mon - Fritz 6, computer game 200 I ) l l .b4 ( l l .id3 i s well answered by I I ... 0-0-0. If 1 2.0-0, then 1 2 ...l'!he8, while 12 ...ffi?!, Bierbach - Plank, Passau 1 998, looks quite speculative on account of 13.exffi ¢6 14.b4. 12.().0.0 �e8 13.l'!he1 gives Black a choice between 13 ...�xeS 14.�xeS �xeS and 13 ... gS 1 4 ..ic2 g4 1 S.�d4 �xeS 1 6.�xc6 .ixc6 1 7.'�xeS !'!xeS 1 8.f4 gxf3 1 9.gxf3 l'!g8 20.f4 l'!cS, Hube1 - Jurlina, Kehl 1989) 1 1 ...0-0 (Af­ ter 1 l ...d6 12.exd6 �xe4+ 1 3 ..ie2 cxd6 14.0-0 0-0-0 1S.l'!fe l �eS 1 6.cS �c6 17. l'!ec 1 bxcS 1 8.bxcS l'!he8 1 9.l'!ab 1 White won in Weber - Hofinann, corr 199S. 1 82

Verdunes - Tinture, corr 1990, saw 1 1 ... ().()..() 12.b5 - 12.cS fti 13.& 1 � 14.cxb6 cxb6 1 S.exfti �xe4+ 1 6ie2 �S -, 1 2 ... lObS 13.id3 gdeS 14.0-0 gS l S .l::tac l g4 1 6.cS bxcS 1 7.lOd2 �xeS lS.�xcS �xcS 19 _gxcS d6 20.gc3 l0d7, yet 141:tc 1 gS lS .cS can only benefit White) 1 2.bS lOdS 1 3 .id3 l0e6 14 .0-0 gfeS l S .�dl lOft! 16.ic2 l0g6 1 7.gd2 �dS l S.gfdl J.c8 19.� lOxeS 20.lOxeS �xeS 2 l .�a4 d6 22.�xa7 ig4 yields Black a pleasant game, Gutman; Ill) 10.b4 aS!? ( 10.. .Ab7 l l.e3 transposes to 10.e3 J.b7 l l .b4. Van Hoek - Ruing­ rok, Quemsey 2002, went l l .bS lOdS 12.e3 ixf3 13.gxf3 lOe6 14.ie2 lOcS 1S.a4 0-0 16.0-0, when instead of 16 ...fti 17.ex16 gxft) IS.hl �6 19l:tg l , 16 ...�eS 17.f4 � IS ..if3 fti 19 .exffi �f6 20.Jg2 gg6 2 1 .ctbl �g2 22.xg2 �g4+ 23.hl � is hopeless for White) l l .bS lOdS 1 2.e3 J.b7 1 3..ie2 (Black has nothing to fear from 13.id3 l0e6 14.gdl 0-0-0; never­ theless 13 ...0-0 14.0-0 is playable as well, e.g. 14 ... ges I S .J.e2 l0e6 16.md l lOcS 17 JW4, Pollina - Neumann , e-rnail l 999, 17 .. _goos, or 14...l0e6 IS.�c2ixf3 16.gxf3 mt4 17.J.e4 gaeS I S .f4 hS 1 9.h l , when in place of 1 9...gS 20.fxgS lOxgS 2 l ..ig2 ge6 22.f4 l0h3 23l:tf3 I :0 Wie­ denkeller - Bator, Stockholm 19S7, 19 ... fti might be strong) 13 ...l0e6 14.0-0 tOeS (better than 1 4 ...0-0 I S.l0d2 f6 1 6.exf6 gxf6 17.if3, de Leeuw - Blazques, e­ mai1 1999) IS.l0d2 (IS.Wdl � 16.l0el gheS) I S ... 0-0-0 1 6.if3 gheS (instead 16 .. .J.xf3 17 .l0xf3 g5 I SJ:tfd l g4 19.l0el gdeS 20.l0d3 c6 2 1 .�bl c7 22.�d4 l0e6 23.'M>2 gbs 24.l0f4 left Black frus­ trated, Stickler - Degenhardt, Schoneck 1 9SS) 17 ..ixb7+ xb7 IS.tOO (IS .f4 d6 1 9.l0f3 dxeS 20.lOxeS gd6 2 l .�el f6 22.l0c6 �e4) I S ... gS 19.h3 h5 20.�d4 bS and Black 's position is preferable, Gutman;

IV) I OJ:tcl J.b7 l l .cS 0-0 ( 1 L.bS? 12.e3 a6 is a wrong plan, e.g. l 3.b4 0-0 14..id3 f6 1 S ..ie4 fxeS 16 .lOxeS �xeS 17.�xeS lOxeS 1 S..ixb7 l0d3+ 1 9.d2 l0xcl 20. idS+ hS 2 1 ..ixaS �aS 22.xc I, De­ labie - Be yen, corr 1 99 1 , or 13 .J.d3 !? lOdS 14.J.e2 0-0 I S .o-o ges 16.gfd l ) 12.e3 rues 13.id3 (I J..ibS lOxeS 14.lOxeS �xeS I S .0-0 �dS 1 6.c6 dxc6 1 7 .J.xc6 ixc6 I S.�xc6 �xc6 191:txc6 & 7 20l:tdl fll 2 l .g4 es 22.gdcl gcS was equal, Boensch - Voekler, German Bundesliga 1 993) 13 ... lOxeS 1 4.lOxeS �xeS I S.�xeS gxeS 1 6.cxb6 cxb6 1 7.0-0 ic6 l S.gfd I fll ( I S ...&eS 19.b4 g6 20.bS ixbS 2 1 . ixbS �bS 221:txd7 � 23_gc3 occurred in Tepper - Uylenbroeck, corr 199S, and now 23 ...a6 could be played) 19.b4 a6 (19 ...e7 is less precise in view of20.bS ixbS 2 l .f4 gds 22.J.xbS gxbS 23.gc7 !kl8 24fua7) 20.ifl
ll .Ael There are some other plans: I) l l .b4 0-0-0 ( l l . . .aS !? 12.bS lOdS or 1 1 .. .0-0!? 1 2.J.d3 aS 1 3 .bSlOdS looks more consistent to me, see I O.b4 a5 l l .bS lOdS 1 2.e3 J.b7) with another split: A) 12.bS lOaS I 3 ie2 ruteS I4.0-0 J.xf3 IS..ixD �xeS I6.�d3 f5 17J�adl d6 was even in Weber - Gathmann, corr 1 99S; I S3

B) 1 2.cS �b8 (after 12 ...gS 1 3 .cxb6 axb6 14.bS IOaS lSlkl c5 16.bxc6 dxc6 17.'MI4 mte8 1 8.ie2 White won easily, Scholz ­ Wittelsberger, Porz 1 990) 13 .lk 1 ( 13 .a4 mte8 1 4..le2 ttl xeS l S .ltlxeS �xeS 1 6. �xeS �beS is innocuous, Lejnarova ­ Cejkova, Frenstat 1 989) 13 .. i�he8 ( 13 ... gcs enables White to play 14.bS ltlaS 1 S .ltld4 �xeS 1 6.c6 dxc6 1 7.bxc6 .laS 18.ie2 !:!008 19.0.0 ru6 20..i0 hS 2 1 i!bl a6 22.gfc 1 gS 23 .�d3 �a7 24.1e2 or 14�S gS lS.O.O, when neither lS ...mt€:8 16 .gfdl g4 17.e6! �xe6 18 .ltld4 ltlxd4 19.�xd4 ic6 20.ie2, nor 1 S g4 16.ixc6 hc6 1 7.ltld4.Jb7 1 8,gfd 1 are sufficient) 14.cxb6 cxb6 lS.ie2 ltlxeS l 6.�c7+ ..t>as 17.gdl ltlx0+ 18.1x0 1xO 1 9.gx0 dS 20.�xe7 gxe7 2 l .�e2 gc7 (2l ...d4?!, Diehm - Zimmermann, Germany 2002, 22.gdJ gc7 23.mtdl) 22.f4 �b7 simpli­ fies the game too much, Gutman; C) 12.ie2 �8 ( 12...gS 13.0-0 trcmsposes to l l .ie2 0-0-0 12.0-0 gS 13.b4, but also l 3 .cS g4 14.ltld4 �xeS 1 S .cxb6 axb6 l6.gc1 ghe8 17.0-0 is diffic ult to meet: 1 7 ... ltlxd4 1 8.exd4 �d6 19 ..lxg4 ge4 20.if3 gxd4 2 l ,gfdl or 17 ...hS 18.gfdl. 1 2 ...!:nle8 1 3.cS ltlxeS 14.cxb6 axb6 l S.& 1 ltlxO+ l 6..lx0 �eS 1 7.1xb7+ �xb7 is the more solid way to play, for instance 1 8 .�c4, when instead of 18...�6 1 9.0-0 c6 20.a4 � 21 Ndl d5 22.m3, Blanco ­ Rauber, Moscow Olympiad 1994, 1 8 ...d5 19 .�c6+ �b8 20.0-0 d4 might be better, or 18.�c2 &6 1 9.0-0 with a slight plus; however, note that 14.ltld4 should be an­ swered by 14... ltlc6 1 S .cxb6 axb6 1 6.0-0 �eS as 1 4... bxcS? lS .bxcS �gS 1 6.�d2 �xg2 l 7.ghb l ltlc6 1 8.�b2 ltlxd4 1 9. �xd4 �xf2 20.gb3 .lO 2 1 .ge1 d6, Ver­ donk - Spoel, corr 1 99 1 , is decidedly improved by 1 6.ggl �fti l 7.gbl) l 3 .cS (1 3.0-0 ltlxeS 1 4.ltlxeS �xeS, Schmitt ­ Masendorf, Polch 1 990) 13 ... ltlxeS ( 13 ... bxcS 14.bxcS ltlb8 1 S .gbl ltlc6 16.m2, .•

Six - Larsen, corr 1 990) 1 4.cxb6 axb6 lSlkl (IS.ltld4 ltlc6!? 16.&1 �eS 1 7.0.0 ltlxd4 1 8.exd4 �f4 1 9.g3 �d6 20..i0 !e7 2 1 .gc2 .lxO 22.�x0 'it>b8 23Nc l lk8, while lS ...ixg2 16i!gl 1e4 17 .a4 is dan­ gerous for Black) l S ... ltlxO+ 1 6..lx0 �eS 17.hb7+ (1 7.a4 .bfl l8.gxf3 �xc3+ 19.gxc3, Wilde - Kratochwil, Germany 1 989, 1 9...c6 20.�e2 �c7) 1 7 ... �xb7 18.�d3 ge7 19.0-0 �e4 keeps the bal­ ance, Gutman. II) l l .cS 0-0 ( l l ... �xcS 1 2.�xcS bxcS 13.gcl d6 gives White some edge, e.g. 14.b4 a5 l S.bS ltle7 1 6.exd6 cxd6 1 7.ltld2 0-0 1 8 .f3 or 14.exd6 cxd6 1 S .b4 cxb4 1 6..lbS �d7 1 7 .ltld4 ghc8 1 8.axb4 a6 1 9.ia4 aS 20.bxaS gxaS 2 1 .1bS �d8 22.hc6 1xc6 23 .0-0, Ludden - Spoel, corr 1993) 1 2 .1bS (if 1 2 .1d3, then not 12 ... fti l3 .exf6 gxf6 1 4.ltlgS h6 1 S .ltle4 gn 16.0-0 ltleS 1 7..lc2, but 12 ... gfe8, for example 13.1e4 �xeS 14.�xcS bxcS or 13lkl 1Jansp0Sing to 10.&1 ib7 l l .cS 0.0 l2.e3 gfe8 13 ..ld3) 1 2... f6 ( l 2 ...gfe8 13.0-0 �xeS 14.�xc5 bxcS l S.�cl ltlxeS 16.ltlxeS �eS 1 7.hd7 gd8 1 8,gfdl �m 19 ..lbS appears to be less enterprising) 13.e6 (13.exfti � 14.cxb6 axb6 1S.ic4+ c.t'h8 16.0-0 �0 1 7.gxf3 ltleS 18.e4 gfB 19..ie2 1a6) 13 ...dxe6 14.cxb6 cxb6 lS. 1xc6 �c8 1 6.ltld4 gf7 ! ? 1 7 .0-0 .lxc6 18.ltlxc6 �e8 1 9.§Jcl gfc7 is quite com­ fortable for Black, Gutman; m) l l .lkl 0-0 (1 1 ...0-0-0 12.cS goes after 12...�b8 13.1e2 intothe main line, while Echeguren - Fernandez, Buenos A ires 1 993, continued 12 ... gS 1 3.cxb6 axb6 14.1bS �hg8 1 S .b4 �b8 16 ..lxc6 dxc6 l7.o-o gg6 1 8.ltld4 g4 1 9.e6 15, and now instead of 20.gfd 1 gds 2 l .ltlxc6+ .lxc6 22.�xc6 gxdl+ 23,gxd l gxe6 24.�d7, 20.a4 M 2 l .a5 looks a better try to me. l l ...a6 does not seem adequate in view of 1 2.1d3, though also 1 2..ie2 0-0 13.0.0 gfe8 l 4.gfd l gadS l S .cS bS 1 6.b4 1c8 1 84

l 7 .a4 bxa4 1 SJ!.al .ib7 l 9J!.xa4 gave White a clear advantage, Goonnachtig Schuennans, Antwerp 1 999) l 2 ..id3 !? (l2 ..ie2 �feS 1 3 .�dl �adS l 4.�dS ltJbS l S �2 ltJc6 sets no problems , and l 2.cS �feS returns into l O.�cl .ib7 l l .cS 0-0 l2.e3 �feS) ILltJdS!? (lL�feS l3 ..ie4 �b8 l4.�dl leaves Black in difficulties, e.g. l 4 ...�bdS, Schaefer - Knoth, Ger­ many 1 996, I S .0-0, or l4 ....icS IS .e6! ltJdS l6.exd7 .ixd7 17..ixh7+ �S IS...ic2 .ic6 19.�d4.txf3 20.gxf3 ltJe6 2 l .�g4 g6 22.h4 wg7 23.hS rots 24.�gl cS 2S.�d5. Gaprindashvili - Thiede, Berlin l 9SS. Wolfrum - Schwertel, corr 1992, went l 2 ... ffi 1 3 .exf6 �xf6 14.e4? �afB I S .0-0 �xf.3 l 6.gxf.3 �xf.3 l7 .�d2 ltJeS I S.i.e2 eM 0: l , yet 13 ..ie4 fxeS l4.ltJxeS ltJxeS I S ..ixb7 �aeS l 6 ..idS+ whS 17.0-0 is critical, e.g. 17 ...eM IS.f3 �ffi l9.�d2 or 1 7 ... c6 I S ..ie4 ltJxc4 ?! l 9 ..ixh7 ltJxe3 20..ib l) l 3�2 ltJe6 14.0-0 �fe8 I S .Rfdl ( I S .ltJd4 ltJxd4 l 6.exd4 cS 17 .f4 cxd4 I S .�xd4 d6 19.�12 dxeS 20.fxeS �cS) I S ... ltJfB 1 6.cS �acS ( l 6 ... ltJg6 l7.cxb6 cxb6 1S.�d2 .ic6 l9 .ltJd4) l 7 .cxb6 axb6 I S.�c2 .ixf.3 19 ..ixf.3 �xeS with coun­ terplay, Gutman; IV) l l ..id3 0-0-0, then: A) l2..ie4 �heS ( l2 ...�deS?! 13.0-0-0, but surely not 1 3 ..ixc6? .ixc6 1 4.�gl gS I S .h3 hS, Wendland - Shoup, corr l 99S) 1 3 .0-0 ( 1 3 .0-0-0 ltJxeS l4..ixb7+ wxb7 I S .ltJxeS �xeS l 6.�xeS �xeS , Schatz­ man - Hein, Bagneux l9 SS) l3 ...ltJxeS l4.hb7+ Wxb7 lS .ltJxeS ( l S .ltJd4 �cS l6.�cl dS, while I S ...g6 l 6.b4 d6 l7.a4 c5 l S.ltJb3 �e6 19.ltJd2 cxb4 20.�xb4 d5 2 l .ltJb3 ltJd3 2H�IbS dxc4 23.ltJaS+ was 24.ltJxc4 gave White a plus, Szymczak ­ Vlasin, Czech Republic 1992) l S ...�xeS l 6.�xeS ( l6.k l �xc3 l 7.�xc3 dS I S. cxdS �xdS, Schnelzer - Wach, Gerrnany 200 l ) l 6 ...�xeS l 7.�fd l d6, Lacroix Sauvetre, France 1990;

B) l2.cS mteS (Others are clearly worse: l2...�xc5 l3.�xc5 bxcS l4ll.cl d6 IS.exd6 cxd6 16.b4! cxb4 1 7.JbS 'it>d7 I S.ltJd4, im­ proving on l6 .We2 Wd7 17.mtdl We7 I S. .ie4 aS, Mukherjee - Bortolin, corr 1993; l2 ...gS 1 3.cxb6 axb6 14.h3 hS IS.e6 fxe6 l6l!.cl eS I 7.if5 WbS ISM g4 l9.ltJgS dS turned out well for Black in Motyka Probola, corr 1 996, yet l4.if5 is the right answer, e.g. l4 ... WbS lSl!.cl �heS l6.b4 �c8 17.0-0 hS I S .�fdl or l4 hS IS.�cl mt6 1 6.0-0 g4 1 7.ltJd4 WbS I S..ie4 �gS l9.b4 &S 20.ltJxc6+ .ixc6 2 l ..ixc6 �xc6 22.�d4. Fitzpatrick - Spiller, corr 199 1 ; l 2..l!.de8 l3ll.cl wb8 and now not 14.0-0 ltJxeS l S .ltJxeS �xeS l 6.cxb6 axb6 as in Wahl - Janhoff, corr l99S, but l4.cxb6 cxb6 lS.O-O ltJxeS l 6.�c7+ WaS l7.ltJxeS �xeS IS.�xd7 �7 19.ms �dS 20.�xeS �xeS 2 l ..ic4, Torre - Laureles, e-mail 1 999) 1 3 .cxb6 cxb6 ( l 3 . . . axb6 l 4.�c l WbS IS..ibS � l 6.0-0ltJa7 17..ie2 .txf3 I S..ixf.3 �xeS l9.�c2 allows White to keep the better chances) 14.0-0 WbS I S . �fdl ltJxeS l 6.ltJxeS �xeS l 7 .'M>4 �cS should be level, Gutman. V) l l .�dl 0-0-0 ( l l ...0-0 see 9.�c3 0-0 I O.�dl b6 l l .e3 .ib7 - Section 4) is a more popular away to handle it. •.

White is intending to protect the pawn, yet a drawback to tlis idea is a loss oftime.

I SS

Piay might continue: A) l 2.b4 lh:S l3M g5 (l3 ...h6 14-*d3 g5 l 5 .h3 h5 l 6if5 o!ObS l7.'it>e2, while l4.h4 g6 1 5�2 'it>bS l 6100 'i!Ye6 17.'i!Yd2 'i!Ye7 looks a bit mwky, Stelting - Fehrig, Germany l9SS) l4hl (l4.e6dxe6 l51!xg5 l0xb4!) l4 ...h5 (after l4 ...liJbS l5-*d3 h5 l6.J.f5 �gS l 7.g4 �hS I S.�gl �deS 1 9. 'it>e2 hxg4 20.hxg4 .ixd5 2 l .cxd5 'i!YdS 22.�cl 'it>b7 23.a4 �6 24.a5 c6 25.axb6 axb6 26.&1 Black is lost) l 5 .e6 ( l 5.g4 d6 l6.exd6 �d6 17 .J.g2 �6 I S.�O hxg4 l 9.hxg4 liJdS) l 5 ...dxe6 l6.�xg5 o!Oxb4 17 .�xh5 .ixf3 I S.gxf3 l0a6 and there is little to like in White's game, Gutman; B) l 2 .�d5, when Black has: Bl) l2 ... lilheS with another branch: B 1 a) 13 .J.e2 g5 (The retrogressive 13 ... lObS is not my favourite, but playable. l41!.d4 llk6 15_gf4 mB 16.�0 � 17.&1 o!Oxe5 I S.o!Oxe5 'i!Yxe5 is harmless, Sim� son - Wynarczyk, North Shields 1 999. l 4.�d2 l0c6 1 5 .0-0 o!Oxe5 l 6.l0d4 Y!Yg5 17 .g3 'i!Yh6 I S.�c I 'i!Yh3 19 ifl Y!Yh5 as l4_g5?! 15.0..0 lOc6 l6lkl l0xe5, Moec­ kel - Schaffarth, Germany l 99S, l7.l0d4 o!Oc6 I S.b4 l0xd4 1 91!xd4 favours White. 14.0-0 is a most logical reply, e.g. l4 ... g5 l 5lkl g4 16.l0d4 .ixd5 1 7.cxd5 'i!Yxe5 I S. l0b5 'i!Yxc3 191!xc3 or l4...J.xd5!? l5.cxd5 Wb7 16lk l &8 17-*dJ 'i!Yf8 I S.b4 f5, im­ proving on 17 ...h6 I S .b4 c6 19 .'i!Yc4 g6 20.h3 f5 2 l .exffi 'i!Yxffi 22.ie4 a6 23.dxc6+ dxc6 24.'i!Yc2 g5?! 25 .l0d4, Rzepecki ­ Probola, corr 1 996) l4.h3 (If l4.e6 dxe6 l51!xg5 lOd4! l 6.exd4 .ixf3 17 _gg3 .ixe2 I S .'it>xe2 Y!Yh4 l 9.M 'i!Yg4+ 20.'it>fl c5. 14.�0 g4!, e.g. l5 .l0d4 o!Oxe5 l6lkl Y!Yffi l 7.'i!Yc2 c5 or l 5 .l0d2 l0xe5 I6ru4 �gS l7 .�f4 �g6 I S.c5 'i!Yxc5 l9 .'i!Yxc5 bxc5 20lk l ia6) l4 ...o!ObS (l4 ...h5 l5.e6 dxe6 l6fug5 l0d4 1 7_gxh5) 1 5 _gd2 h5 l 6.c5 g4 17.cxb6axb6 1 Slk2 l0c6 19.l0d4 Y!Yxe5 20.l0xc6 .ixc6 2 l .hxg4 hxg4 22 ..ixg4 .ixg2 should hold for Black, Gutman;

Bib) l3-*d3!? g5 (l3 ...liJbS 14.0..0 hd5 l5.cxd5 d6 l6.J.b5 dxe5 l7 ..ixeS �xeS I S.e4 'i!Yd6 19lkl ft'j 20.b4 l0d7 2 l .l0d2, Halkias - Stinis, internet 2000) l4 ..if5 (l4.e6 dxe6 l 5 _gxg5 l0b4! , e.g. l6.axb4 .ixfl t7_gg7 �d3 IS.'i!Yxd3 H l9.'i!YxdS+ 'it>xdS or l6.'i!Yxb4 c5 l7.'i!Yc3 .ixf3 I S_gg7 �xd3 1 9.'i!Yxd3 �s 20_ggs �gS 2 l .gxf3 f5) l4 ...h5 l 5 .h3 'it>bS l 6.'i!Yd3 (Halltias ­ Fernandez Romero, Ubeda 2000, went l 6.We2 l0a5 l7.b4 .ixd5 I S.cxd5 l0b7 l 9.�cl &S 20.'i!Yd3 �f8 2 l .liJd4 liJdS 22. 'i!Ya6 c6 23.l0b5 I :0, but Black can do bet­ ter with l 6 ... l0xe5, for example 17 .o!Oxe5 .ixd5 I S.o!Oxd7+ �xd7 l9.J.xd7 .ixg2 20.J.xeS .ixhl or l7.'i!Yxe5 'i!Yxe5 1 S.o!Oxe5 .ixd5 l9.o!Oxd7+ �xd7 20. .ixd7 .ixc4+, Pavel Blatny) l 6 ... l0a5 1 7 .�xd7 �xd7 IS .'i!Yxd7 .ixf3 l 9.'i!Yxe7 �xe7 20.gxf3 o!Oxc4 21 _gg l l0xe5 22.'it>e2 ffi 23 .h4 gxb4 24.�l l0c4 25fuh4 �e5 26Jhh5 l0xb2 27.mtS+ 'it>b7 2S.J.cS+ 'it>c6 29.�f8 gives White the better ending, Gutman. Bl) l2 ...g5!? l3.J.e2 (l3.e6 liJbS l4.exd7+ l0xd7 1 5.l0d4 'i!Ye4 16fug5 'i!Ybl+ l7.'it>e2 l0c5 is quite risky for White, likewise l3.c5 �S l4.cxb6 axb6 15.e6 g4 l6.exd7+ �xd7, e.g. 17 .J.a6 �xd5 I S.Y!Yxc6 'it>dS l9ixb7 �c5 20.'i!Ya4 gxf3 2 l ..ic6 'i!Ye6 22'i!Ydl+ 'it>cS23.J.xeSfxg2 24_ggl Y!YxeS or l 7.�xd7 'i!Yxd7 I S .l0d2 l0e5 l 9.l0c4 o!Oxc4 20.'i!Yxc4 �dS) l3 ...g4(13...�heS ­ Bla, while l3 ...mtgS 14.�0 is less advis­ able, e.g. l4 .. _gdeS see BJc, or l4 ...liJbS l5lkl g4 I M�d4 c6 17.l0f5 'i!Ye6 I S.� 'it>c7 l 9_ga5 a6 20.c5 b5 2 1 .&4 I :0 Po­ lak - Schaffarth, Bad Wildbad 2000) 1 4. o!Od4 (14.l0d2 �eS!? l 5 f4 gxf3 l6.l0xf3 �f8 17.�0 ffi I S.exf6 �xffi, though 14 ... � l 5.f4 gxf3 l 6.l0xf3, Womaah - Zim­ mermann , Gennany 2000, l6 _gf8 17.0..0 ffi I S.exf6 �xffi is playable) l4 ... o!Oxd4 l51!xd4 (l5.exd4 ffi l6.J.xg4.ixd5 l7.cxd5 fxe5 I S.dxe5 'i!Yg5) l5 ...h5 16.0-0 'i!Yxe5 is close to equalising, Gutman; _

1 86

BJ) 12...gde8!? 1 3 ..ie2 ( 1 3 ..id3 can be answered by 13...llld 8! 14.b4 llle6 l S.0-0 �b8) reaching an important position.

Black can become active on the kingside with 1 3 ...gSfollowed by... ghg8 !?, Otto

Borilc.

Black keeps the other rookfreefor ac­ tion along the g-jile, while the weakened d7-square can always be defended by ... liJbS, Bogdlln LDiic .

We examine: BJa) 13 ...llla S 14.b4! (14..ru4 lllc6 1SlU4 ghffi 16_gg4 g6 17 .h4 lllxeS leads now­ here, Halbich - Hapke, Germany 1 998) 14 ....ixd5 lS.cxdS lllb7 16.0-0 (after 1 6.d6 �d8 17.lllgS !kfB White lacks a convinc­ ing follow-up, e.g. 18.�c4 bS, 18.ia6 c6 1 9.bS �b8 20.bxc6 bxc6 2 l .llle4 �d7 or 1 8 J.h5 g6 19..if3 ffi 20.lllt7 � 2 l .�c4 c6 22.�xf7 fxeS) 1 6... �b8 1 1 _gc 1 gc8 I 8 .llld4 g6 1 9 . .ibS, Gutman; further 83b) l3 ... llld8 14.0-0 ( 14_gd2 g5 l S.0-0 g4 16.llle 1 hS 1 7 .llld3 lllc6 1 8.cS lllxeS 1 9.cxb6 axb6 20.gc1 d6 2 l .lll xeS dxeS 22.gdc2 c6 23. b4 was clearly awkward for Black in Schneider - Ros, corr 1 99S, but 14 ... lllc6 1 S .�d3 gS 1 6 .�fS.ghg8 1 7 .0-0 g4 is the correct reply) 14 .. ..bdS 1 S.cxd5 �b8 (1S ...d6 16�S &g8 1 7.llld4 cS 1 8.dxc6 1 :0 Kruse - Sarre , corr 1 987) l 6 .gc 1 c6 1 7.b4, Gutman; similarly

Ilk) l3 ...ID!g8 14.0-0 (14.h4 leaves White with no safe place for his king, 14 ... ffi! -

The culmination ofBlack's strategy. His rook on g8 and bishop on b7 now spring to life, LDiic -, l S .exffi gxffi 1 6.gf5 fug2 1 7.�xffi �e4 1 8.ggs, and now.instead of 1 8 ...'!Yb l+ 19..idl gxgS 20.hxgS lll eS 2 1.llld2 llld3+ 22.�2 lllc l + 23.�l llld3+ 'h-Yz Spacek - Wach, Prague 1 989, 18 ... �gS 19.hxgS llle S would have been de­ cisive, e.g. 20.lllxeS �xh l + 2 1 .� �1 22.lll xd7 .ie4 or 20.gh3 � I+ 2 l ..id l llld3+) 1 4 ...gS l S.cS g4 1 6.lll d4 lll xeS ( l 6 ... lll b4 17.�d7 �xd7 1 8.axb4, while 16 ... lllxd4 17 _gxd4 �xeS 1 8.cxb6 axb6 19..§:1 5 20..ibs ge7 2 l .�d3 Ae4 22�c4 gg6 23 .�a4 d6 24,gxe4 �xe4 2S.�a7 was seen in Bensberg - Kluszka, corr 1 993) 1 7.cxb6 axb6 1 8.gc l �d8 1 9.m,s (l9_gd6 �b8 201Dl6 lllf3 + 2l .�fl lllxd4 22.�xd4 .ie4 23.gf6 .ig6 24.gf4 hS 2S. �d5 !k6 26Nc4 c6 27.�d4&4 28.�d6+ �c7 allows Black to consolidate, Blair ­ Tinture, corr 1997) 19...�b8 20.a4 lll f3+ 2 l ..bf3 gxO 22.g3 gg6 (22 ... cS 23.lll5 .ic6 24.�xc5 AxbS 2S.�d6+ �b7 26. axbS) 23 .aS are all better for White, Gut man; 83d) 13 ...gS is invariably the right res­ ponse to create more complexity; how­ ever, I havefoilfaith in Black's prospects. 14.e6 (White has no time for 1 4.0-0 due to 14 ... g4, we see: I S.llld4 lllxeS 1 6.lll5 �f6 17 .e4 ffilg8 1 8.�hl d6 1 9.f4 llld7 20.�c2�e6 2 1 .llld4 �xe4 22.J.d3 �e7 23.lll 5 �e6 came to a bad end, Schwer­ tel - Reinhold, corr 199 1 , and if lS.lll gS llld8 - 1 4lllb4 is strongly answered by 1 6.axb4 .ixdS 1 7 .cxdS �xgS 1 8 .d6 c6 19.�a3 -, 1 6.f4 gxf3 1 7 .lll x f3, then not the relatively tame 1 7 ... m&fB 1 8_gd2 f6 in view of 1 9 .gfd l Ac6 20.lll d4 �xeS 2 l .cS, but 17 ....ix.d5 1 8.cxd5 �b8 19.&1 c6 20.b4 m&g8 2 l .a4 gg4 22.d6 �fB 23.a5 �g7 producing quite unpleasant threats.

1 87

14.ll:lxg5 is a big flaw in the Black's idea . C) 12.J.e2 g5 (12 ...md 13M see 12M according toHtuding, when HtliiS Baum "fihe8 13ie2 - Bla, and 1 2...,gde8 13..M5 goes into 1 2.gd5 .gde8 13 .J.e2- BJ) is mentions 14 .. .'�xg5 1 5 .e6 or 14 ...ll:lxe5 1 5Jbe5 �xe5 1 6 .�xe5 �be5 1 7.ll:lxf7; worth attention. nevertheless 14... ll:lb4! looks fully satis­ factory to me, e.g. 1 5.�xb4 �xg5 1 6.g3 .bd5 17.cxd5 �xe5, improving on 16 ...c6 1 7 J�d6 c5 1 8.�a4 J.xh 1 1 9.�xa7 J.c6 20.�bd7 ixd7 2 l .�a8+ ®c7 22.�a7+ with a draw analysed by Niels Jenssen, or 1 5 .axb4, and now not 1 5 ...�xg5 due to 16.e6!? J.xd5 17.exd7+ 'i!?xd7 1 8.cxd5 �xd5 19.0.0, but 15 ...i.xd5 16.cxd5 �xg5 1 7.d6 c6 1 8.�a3 �xe5 19 .�xa7 �xd6 20.�xb6 �c7 2 l .�a6+ ®d8 22.0-0 ®e7) 1 4... fxe6 ( 1 4 ... dxe6 1 5 Jbg5 e5 1 6J�g7 leaves Black with insufficient compen­ Now: sation, for instance 1 6 ... ll:ld4? 1 7 .exd4 Cl) 13 .ru5 see 1 2 .gd5 g5 1 3 .!e2 - B2; exd4 1 8 .ll:lxd4 c5 1 9.0-0 cxd4, Baum, C2) 1 3 .h3 h5 14.c5 (1 4.0-0 g4 1 5 .ll:ld4 20.J.g4+ ®b8 2 l .�xd4, or 16 .. 1nlg8 17. �bg8 �bg8 18 .0-0 �e6 19.g3 h5 20.c5 ll:lxe5 16.ll:lf5 �ffi 17.�c2 gxh3 1 8.g3 h4, Genius - Dufek, computer game 1 995, h4 2 l .cxb6 hxg3 22.fxg3 axb6 23 J�c 1 f5 24.J.c4 1 :0 Hutchings - Hughes, corr and 14.gd5 g4 1 5 .hxg4 hxg4 1 6.gxh8 1987) 15_gxg5 ghg8!? (Salcedo - Perez, gxh8 1 7.ll:ld2 ghl+ 1 8.J.fl ll:ld8 19.gd4 corr 1 994, proceeded 1 5 ... e5 16.0-0 d6 g3 20.ll:le4 gxf2+ 2 l .ll:lxf2 mt5 22.ll:ld3 17_gg3 mtg8 1 8 fug8 gxg8 1 9.ll:lel � ll:le6 23 _gg4 gg5 24.gxg5 �xg5 25.�d2 ic4 26.b4 .bd3 27.�xd3 �xe5, Hiarcs ­ 20.f4 e4 2l .b4 ®b8 22.idl ll:le7 23.g3 ll:lf5 Dufek, computer game 1995, are no bet­ 24.ll:lg2 t:nu, when 25.c5! h5 26.J.b3 d5 ter) 14 ...g4 1 5 .ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 16.exd4 hg2 27.�e5 ll:lxg3 28.hxg3 �g3 29.ru2 �+ 30.gxg2 �xe3+ 3 l .�h2 �xb3 32 .gg7 ( 1 6...bxc5?! 17 _gc 1 gde8 1 8.hxg4 hxg4 wins, SDkedo/Perez.) l 6_gg3 h5 17.0..0 d6 19.ggl g3 20.�xc5 gxf2+ 2 l .�xf2 �xc5 ( 1 7 ... h4 18l!h3 gg4 19.g3 hxg3 20.hxg3 22.gxc5 was played in Chess Genius Huesmann, Aachen 1994) 1 7.cxb6 axb6 Yz-Yl Liarakopis - Six, e-mail l998, yet l8.gc1 c6 proves that White's position 1 9.ll:lel ! ? ggg8 20.b4 would have been logical) 18Jkl (1 8.b4 h4 19l!h3 ll:le5 20. isn't that easy to defend, Gutman; ll:lxh4 fails to 20 ... ixg2 2 1 .ll:lxg2 �g7) C3) 13.b4 g4 14.b5 ll:la5 (is more precise 1 8 ...h4 1 9.mt3 ( 19.gxg8 gxg8 20.e4 e5) than 14 ...gxf3 15.bxc6fxe2 17.cxb7+ 'i!?xb7 1 8.®xe2 mte8 19.�d3) 1 5 .ll:ld2 h5 ( 1 5 ... 19 ... ll:le5 20.ll:lxh4 (20 .ll:lel gef8 2 l .c5 J.xg2 1 6.ggl .ia8 1 7.gxg4 ghg8, San bxc5 22.f3 ll:lt7) 20.._gh8 (20...�7 2 l .f3 Sebastian - Vidal del Rio, Orense 2000, J.xf3 22fuf3? �xh4 23 _gcfl ll:lxf3+ 24. 1 8_gg3 !) 1 6.0.0 l::!de 8 17 .c5 �xe5 l 8.gc1 gxf3 gg5 , Pink - Faber, e-mail 2002, f5 19.cxb6 axb620.J.d3 ®b8 2 l .a4 ghf8 can be easily improved with 22.J.xf3 !? ll:lxf3+ 23 _gxf3 �xh4 24_gcf1 ) 2 l .g3 (or 22�xe5 fue5 23.ll:lc4 ll:lxc4 24fuc4 .id5 2 l .c5 bxc5) 21 ..hg8 22.®fl �d7 gives 25_gd4 c5 26.bxc6 dxc6 27 EM ®c7 was Black enough counterplay, Gutman. equal in Radulov - Beyen, corr 1 987; 1 88

C4) l3.0.0 g4 14.itJd4 �xe5 1 5 .b4 (1 5.f4?! gxf3 l6..ixf3 �0+ 17 .�f3 lThg8 l 8.ru2 gde8, Seelman - Jaeck, Gennany 2000) l 5 ...ghg8 ( l 5 ...h5 l6.c5 �b8 l 7.cxb6 axb6 1 8.gcl gc8 19.a4!? h4 20.a5 g3 20. fxg3 hxg3 2 l hl parrying Black's threats) l6.c5 �f3+ (on l6_ .�f6 l 7.cxb6 �xb6 l 8.�f5 �ffi 19.& l; this is more effective than l 7.�b5 .tc6 1 8.�xa7+ �7 19.�xc6 �f3+ 20.i.xf3 �xc3 2 l .�xd8+ �c8 22. J.e4 �xd8 23.J.f5 �e7, Vershuuren ­ van der W aal, corr 1 994) 17 .J.xf3 gxf3 l 8.g3 � l9.cxb6 axb6 20.&1 &8 2 l .a4 ie4 and Black is fine, Gutman.

llJicl We have to consider four more moves: I) l2.b4 will transpose into l 0 .e3 J.b7 l l .b4 0-0-0 l2.J.e2; II) l 2.c5 �b8 (l 2...�xc5 l 3 .�xc5 bxc5 is unsound in view of l4.&l d6 15.exd6 cxd6 I 6.b4 cxb4 1 7 .J.b5 �d7 1 8 .�d4) l 3 .gc l goes into the main line; W) For a long time 1 2 .0-0 was thought to be While 's naturaland quite promising reply. But the sharper continuations have stolen a lot of the limelight recent/ y.

Back to the main line

1 1 . . . 0-0-0 Others: I) 1 1 ..,gg8 l2.id3 h6 1 3 �7 mt8 l4.4o4 0-0-0 1 5 .& 1 ( l 5id5 mte8 1 6.c5 �xc5 1 7 .�xc5 bxc5 l 8ixf7 ge7 l9.e6, Lof­ tier - Pfleger, Lauda 1 986, l9 ... dxe6 20. J.g6 �a5) l 5 ...ghe8 l 6.c5 �b8 1 7 .0-0 &8 l81nldl favours White , Gutman; D) 1 1 .�0.0 12.0-0 gfe8 1 3.�1 (l3_gfdl �8 l4.gd5 �b8 l5_gd2 is similar, but it is to avoid 14...�5 1 5 .b4, Szabo - Ma­ celle, Budapest 1946) l 3 ...&d8 l4.gd5 (l4.gd3 �xe5 l 5 .�xe5 �xe5, Sotter ­ M ittelstaedt, Germany 1987) goes into 9 ...0-0 l O.�l l::!e 8 l l .gd5 b6 l 2.e3 .ib7 l 3 ie2 &d8 1 4.0-0 - Section 4.

Black has to make the right choice: A) l2 ... g5 l 3 .b4!? (after l 3.�d4 �xe5 14.f4?! gx.f4 1 5 .exf4 mtg8 1 6if3 �xf3+ l7.�xf3 �c5+ l 8 .gf2 gde8 Black had a plus, Hoegerl - Klein, Eisenberg 1 993, yet 1 3 .gfd I g4 l4.�el �xe5 1 5.�1 h5 1 6.c5 �xc5 1 7 .�xc5 bxc5 1 8 .gxc5 d6 19�5 �b8 20.�d3, de Casteja - Bon­ neau, Meudon 1 992, and 1 3.gfc I g4 1 4. �d4 �xe5 1 5 .c5 �xc5 1 6 .�xc5 bxc5 l7 ,gxc5 d6 1 8.gc3 �b8 19.b4, Gaule Mouron, Lausanne 2000, are both a bit better for White) 1 3 ...g4 (on 1 3 ...gde8 14.c5 - not 14.b5 �xe5 1 5 .�xe5 �xe5 16.�xe5 �e5, Lomakina - Rabovczky, Zalakaros 1 995 -, 1 4...g4 1 5 .�d4, e.g. 15 ...mtg8 16.&cl �xe5 l 7.gfd l �xd4 18.gxd4 or 1 5...�xe5 l 6.cxb6 axb6 1 7 . gfc l d 6 1 8.a4 c 5 l 9.a5 ghg8 20.axb6, Jan37 1 - Bannanaman, internet 2002) 14.�d4 (14.b5 gxf3 1 5.bxc6Axc6 16.Axf3 ixf3 l7.gxf3 gde8 l 8.�hl ghg8 1 9.f4 �h4 20.�d4 occurred in Hannoteaux Bonneau, Meudon 1 992, and now 20 ... �xh2+! 2 l .�xh2 ge6 would lead to a mate) 14 ... �xe5 1 5 .c5 �b8 1 6.a4 mtg8 17.cxb6 (also 1 7 .�hl �h4 1 8 .e4 seems rather good for White: 1 8 .�g3 1 9.fxg3 �xe4 20.Jf3 �d3 2 I .lOC6+ Axc6 22�xe5 ht3 23.gxf3 �c4 24.cxb6 axb6 25 .a5 gge8 26.�f5 �xb4 27.axb6cxb6 28.gfl1, and if l8..�e4 19.a5 b5, then not 20.�g3

1 89

'tYxg3 2 l .fxg3 a6, de Lagontrie - We­ IV) 12.0-0-0 is an ambitious line of play, ernaes, Le Touquet 1 996, but 20.'tYe3 f5 recommended by Tseitlin/Giaskov. 2l.ll:lxf5 ixf5 22.'tYxe5 l::!ge8 23.'tYxf5 l::!xe2 24.'tYd3) 1 7...cxb6 18.a5 � 19.'tYd2 ll:lf3+ 20.ixf3 gxf3 2l.g3 ggt; (2 1 ...'1Ml4 22axb6 �3 23.ll:lxf3) 22JUc 1 appears clearly awkward for Black, Gutman; B) 12 .. J�de8 13J:Uc l !? (13J:Udl ll:lxe5 14.ll:lxe5 'tYxe5 15..ig4 f5 16.'tYxe5 �xe5 17.f4 l::!xe3 18..ixf5 &7 191W2 g6 20.i.h3 �� 2 l.g3 �fe8 22.'it>f2 1c6 23.b4 a5 !? 24.b5 ib7 was equal in Gref- Brause, computer game 1997) 13 ...ll:lxe5 14.ll:lel f5 15.b4 with an edge for White, Gutman; C) 12 ...mte8!? has been established as a natural counter, 1 3 .c5 (White has tried a We survey Black 's defences: range of moves: 1 3.�fc l ll:lxe5 14.ll:le l A) 12 ...�e8 13 .�d5 (l3 .'tYd3 g5 14.'tYf5 is innocuous here owing to 1 4 ... d5, viz. could be met by 14 ...�hg8, for instance 1 5.c5 'tYxc5 1 6.'tYxc5 bxc5 1 7.�xc5 d4; 15.'tYxh7 g4 1 6.ll:ld4 ll:lxe5 or 1 5 .h3 h5 1 3 .�fd 1 ll:lxe5 1 4.ll:lxe5 'tYxe5 15.'tYxe5 16.g4 hxg4 17.hxg4 ll:lxe5 1 8 .rut7 ixf3 l::!xe5 16.b4 �deS 17 .1g4 �8e7 1 8�d4 f5 19..ixf3 �g6 20.ig2 c6, while Dangel­ 19..ie2 c5 20.bxc5 bxc5 21 Eh4 g5 22l!h3 owski - Priedemann, Pinneberg 1 992, f4 23 .1d3 fxe3 gave Black a clear plus in went 14...g4 15.'tYxg4 !nlg8 16.� ll:lxe5, van der Ley - van der Spoel, corr 1 99 1 ; when 1 7.ll:lxe5! might be strong, fc7 1 8.�dl d5 ixhl 20.ll:lftior 1 7...'tYxe5 18.'tYxd7+ wb8 19Aill &4 20.1f3 l::!xc4 and Black won 20.1f3) 1 3 ... ll:ld8 ( 1 3 ... g5 is the usual a pawn, Riviere - Andrian, corr 1 99 1 ; answer, see 1 2 ... g5 13.�d5 �deS - C5b. 13.a4a5 14.c5 'tYxc5 15.'tYxc5 bxc5 16lt1cl After l3 ...mtg8 14.IDidl ll:lb8 15�5d4 g5 d6 1 7.exd6 cxd6 18�fdl �7 is hann less, 16.c5 bxc5 1 7.�c4 d6 1 8.exd6 cxd6 1 9. Kronenberg - Koronowski, corr 1986; ll:ld4 White obtains decisive pressure. 13.e6 fxe6 14.b4 is best answered by 14 ... 13 ... ll:la5 is also quite dangerous, not be­ 'tYf6, while 14 ... e5 1 5 .c5 wb8 1 6.cxb6 cause of 14�d2 1xf3 1 5..ixf3 'tYxe5 16. axb6 l 7.�fc l d5 18..ib5 �d6, Calschi ­ 'tYc2 c6, improving on 14 ... ll:lc6 1 5-l:�hdl Tinture, corr 1989, 19.a4 d4 20.exd4 exd4 h5 1 6fud7 'tYxd7 l7.�xd7 'i!ixd7 1 8.e6+, 2l .'tYa3 � 22.a5 is less clear) 13 ...'tYxc5 Chris - Houtduwer, internet 200 1 , but (13 ... ll:lxe5 14.cxb6 axb6 15�acl ll:lxf3+ due to 14.b4! 1xd5 1 5.cxd5 ll:lb7 16.'it>b2 1 6.ixf3 'tYe5 1 7.ixb7+ 'it>xb7 1 8.�fdl 'it>b8 17�l, e.g. l 7.. �c8 1 8.ll:ld4 or 1 7... 'tYxc3 Y�Yz Henke - Shoup, corr 1995, but 'tY d8 1 8.ia6; however, note that 1 6.d6 White can try for more with 18.'tYc2!?) 'tYd8 1 7 .ll:lg5 �e� is less promising as 14.'tYxc5 bxc5 1 5�fc l ll:lxe5 16fuc5 d6 18.'tYc4?! b5 1 9.'tYxc7+ 'tYxc7+ 20.dxc7 17 �5 ll:lxf3+ 1 8..ixf3 .ixf3 19 .gxf3 wb7 f6 2 l .exf6 �xf6 22.ll:le4 �c6+ 23.'it>d2 20�dl 'it>b6 2l.mt5 h6 22.�4 c5 23 �g4 a6 24.if3 �xc7, Bringsken - Esch, corr �g8 and the chances were balanced, 1 997, or 1 8.1f3 fti 19.ll:lf7 l::!xf7 20.'tYc4 Federau - Lagunow, Berlin 1 999. c6 2 l .'tYxf7 'tY� 22.'tYx� �x� shows. 1 90

13...liJb8 is safer as 14.mtdl ixd5 1 5.cxd5 't!/c5 and 14.�bl ixd5 1 5.cxd5 �b7 16. & I l:k8 are both unclear; nevertheless, 14.� keeps a plus for White: 14.. .hf3 1 5.ixf3 't!/xe5 16.'t!fc2 c6 1 7.�bl l::te7 1 8.b4 or 14 ...it)a6 1 5.b4 ixf3 1 6.ixf3 't!fxe5 1 7.�c2 't!fxc3+ 18.�xc3 d6 1 9.a4 it)b8 20J�al and the black knight is rath­ er misplaced) 14.�bl (14.l::td2 it)e6, e.g. 1 5.b4 it)g5 16.it)xg5 't!/xg5 1 7.f4 't!/xg2 1 8.l::thdl l::te7 1 9.c5 't!fc6 or 1 5..i£13 it)c5 16.b4, Nylander - Soberano, e-mail l 997, 16 it)xd3+ 17.'t!fxd3 l::td8 18 .'t!fd4 l::the8) 14 .. .ixd5 (14 ... it)e6 1 5.l::tc l , for instance I S...it)g5 16.it)xg5 't!/xg5 17.e6 ixd5 18. cxd5 c6 1 9.exd7+ �xd7 20.'t!fxc6+ �e7 2 1 .d6+ �f8 22.'t!fd7 or IS ..it)c5 16.l::td4 it)e4 17.'t!fc2 it)xf2 18.c5 bxc5 19�4 f5 20J.a6) 1 5.cxd5 c6 ( 1 5...�b8 16.&1 c5 17.d6 't!fe6 1 8.ic4 't!fg6+ 19.id3 't!/xg2 20..ie4f5 21�5't!fg4 22't!fb3 lt)c623.B:gl 't!!h3 24.l::t xg7 it)xe5 25.Wi'b5 I :0 Thom­ sen - Jensen, corr 1 990) 1 6.ia6+ �b8 1 7.B:c l ffi 18.e6 c5 19.'t!fd3 't!fd6 (19...dxe6 20.d6 't!fd7 2 1 .ib5 it)c6 22.b4) 20.ib5 l::te fB 2 I .ixd7 it)b7 22.l::td l (instead of 22.'t!fa6 l::td8 23.B:c4 �d7 24.exd7 't!/xd7 25.l::tf4 it)d8 26.e4 l::te8 27.h4 't!ft7 28.g4 't!fe7 29.'t!fa4 <;!;b7 30.00 a6 \/z-\12 Heijer ­ Weijer, corr 1990) 22 ...l::td8 23.e4 and W hite is on top, Gutman; B) 1 2...B:he8 13.B:d5 offers more chances. •.

However, I would think the more exposed position of White 's king on the queen­ side should help Blackfind counterp/ay,

Harding.

Five moves are worth mentioning: 81) 13 ...'t!fe6 14.B:hdl it)e7 1 5.l::t5d2 it)g6

(15 .. h6 16.c5 bxc5 17.'t!fxc5 't!fc6 1 8.'t!fxc6 ixc6 1 9.e6 fx.e6 20.it)e5, Altenburg Bross, corr 1987) 16.c5 bxc5 ( 16 ... it)xe5 17.cxb6axb6 1 8.B:d6 't!ff5 19.l::txb6 it)xf3 20.gxf3 l::te5 2 1 .b4 �b8 22.f4) 1 7.it)g5 (17.'t!fxc5 Wib6 18.'t!fc3 ixf3 19.ixt3 �e5 20.&2 is also good) 17 't!ff5 1 8.f4 it)xe5 1 9.g4 't!fg6 20.'t!fxc5, Gutman; further 82) 13 ...h6 14.mtdl (14.�bl 't!fe6 151llid I it)e7 1 6.l::t5d2 it)g6 17.c5 it)xe5 18.cxb6 axb6 19.B:c2 c5, while there are no decent prospects for Black after 14 ... g5 1 5 .h3 it)b8 1 6.l::tc l ixd5 1 7.cxd5, e.g. l 7 ... d6 1 8.it)d4 �b7 19.it)c6, Brachtel - Thom­ zik, corr 1 994, or 1 7 ...c5 18.d6 Wits 1 9.b4 �7 20.Ad3 ltk6 2 1 ..ie4) 14 't!fe6 (14 ...g5 15.h3 h5 1 6,it)xg5 it)b4 1 7.'t!fxb4 W/xg5 leaves Black in trouble, e.g. 1 8.e6 ixd5 19.l::t xd5 't!ff6 20.exd7+ l::txd7 2 1 .l::t xd7 �d7 22.'t!fd2+ �7 23.ixh5 �8 24..!f3 l::td8 25.'t!fc2, Bringsken - Thomzik, corr 1 997, or 1 8.l::t5d2 't!/xg2 1 9ixh5 't!/xh3 20.ixf7 �e5 21.id.S) 15 h3 (15 .'t!fc2 it)e7 16.l::t5d2 \12-\12 Deschamps -Adrian, corr 199 1 ) 15 .. ,it)e7 1 6.l::t5d2 it)g6 17.c5 bxc5 (17...it)xe5 1 8.cxb6 axb6 1 9.B:d6) 1 8.ic4 't!fe7 19.'t!fa5 �b8 20.Ad5!? (201!d3 it)xe5 2 J .it)xe5 't!fxe5 22.l::txd7 l::txd7 23 .l::txd7 f5 24.�b5 �c8 25 .id5 ixd5 26.l::txd5 't!fxdS 27.'t!fxe8+ �b7 \/z-\12 Marlanann Heinzel, Germany 1 992) 20 ... c6 21 .ic4, Gutman; similarly 83) 13 it)a5 14.b4 (14.B:d4 it)c6 i s treated under 13...it)b8 14� it)c6 - B4b; how­ ever, note that 14 ...ixf3 1 5.ixf3 W/xe5 is doubtful due to 16.'t!fd3!? g6 1 7.l::thdl d6 1 8.� 't!!xh2 19 .c5, while Boogard ­ Boone, corr 1992, went 16.'t!fc2 g6 17.'t!fa4 .•

.•

-

.•

191

�b8 J 8,gds �e6 19 .IDKII , when instead of 19 ... d6? 20,gxaS I :0, 19 ... c6 20J�Sd4 f5 2I .b4 lilb7 could have been played) 1 4...lilc6 (14.. .hd5? I S.cxdS lilb7 1 6.d6 lilxd6 17.exd6 �xd6 I 8rui �c6 19.�xc6 dxc6 20�d8+ lhd8 2I .lileS I :0 Zsinka ­ Kamp, Dortmund 1 986) I SJ�hd l lilb8 16JIId2!? h6 ( 16.. .hdS I 7.cxdS seems suicide to me, e.g. l 7 ... d6 1 8 ..ibS gg8 1 9.lild4 �xeS 20Jk2 cS 2 1 .dxc6 �c7 22..ic4 or 1 7 ... c6 1 8.bS cS 1 9.d6 �e6 20.a4 to 21.aS fxeS 22.axb6axb6 23.�a3 �b7 24.�a4) 17.l:k2 and White domi­ nates, Gutman; 84) 13 ... lilb8 is a solid conception, so: 84a) 14.�bl .ixd5 (14...gS IS.h3 see 12... rg5 13M !ahe8 14.h3 lilb8 IS.�bl- C5d) I S.cxdS can be met in two ways: B4al) IS ...�b7 1 6J�dl (de Boer - van Zanten, corr 1 99S, continued J6,gc) &8 17.�d3 g6 1 8.�e4 d6 19 ..ibS f5 20.�a4 dxeS 2 I ..ixe8 gxe8 22.e4 gd8 23 .�c2 fXe4 24.�xe4 �d6 2S.�xeS �xeS 26.lilxeS &d5 27.lilg4 cS 28.&I lilc6 29.�2 Y:r-Yz, though 18 ...c6!? looks a better try to me) 16 ..,gc8 17.�d.3 ( 17 ..ru4 to 1 8.exto �xffi I9.�d.3 h6 20.h4 gS 2 1 ,gg4 gg8 22.hxgS hxgS 23.e4 occurred in McHoull - Bow­ ers, corr 1988, and now instead of23 ... gcf8 24.�c4 c6 2S.eS cxdS 26.exffi dxc4 27J.xc4 mt8 28.f7 lilc6 29�g5 1 :0, 23 ... d6!? would have been a sober response) 1 7 ...g6 18.�e4 �f8!? (18 ...f5 19.�f4 a6 20.h4 with Black falling into a passive position, while 1 8 ... d6 1 9 ..ibS is even worse: 1 9 ... f5 20.�a4 ged8 2 I .lild4 or 19 ...&d8 20� alJ 2 I..ic6+ <J;;a7 22.�) 1 9.�f4 �g7, Gutman; 84al) IS ...d6 1 6.lild4 (1 6.e6 fXe6 1 7.lild4 exd5 18.lilc6 lilxc6 1 9.�xc6 �e4+ 20.'�al d4 and Black won, Jardi Talam - Boone, corr 1 990. 16 ..ibS is best answered by 16 ...dxeS 1 7..ixe8 lhe8 1 8.gcJ�b7 1 9. �c4 �d7 as 16 ... gf8 17.lild4 puts Biack under pressure, e.g. 17 ...cS 18.dxc6 dxeS

1 9.lilf5 �cS 20.�3 �c7 2 1 .gc1 �dS 22.'trb4 �e6 23 .e4 or 1 7 ... dxeS 1 8.lilc6 �cS, when 19.�xcS bxcS 20.lilxd8 lhd8 2I.e4 c6 22dxc6 �7 23,gc1 � 24�c5 &f2 2S�eS lilxc6 26lkS � 27 �c6+ �xbS should be a draw, but White can try form ore with I9.�xe5 lilxc6 20J.xc6 �d6 2I .�c3 �g6+ 22.�a2 �xg2 23.&1 �b8 24.�c4 � 2S.ggl � c8 26.gxg7) 16...�xe5 (16...dxe5 17.lilc6�d6 18.lilxd8 gxd8 19 _gc I �b7 20.e4 c6 2 I ..ic4 is in White's favour) J7.gc) gd7 (17 ... ge7? 1 8.lilc6) 1 8..ibS cS ! ? 19.dxc6.gc7 and White has enough compensation for the exchange but not more, Gutman. 84b) I4ru4 lilc6 I S.gf4 (ISJ:(h4 h6 1 6. l::thS �ffl 1 7.l::t d l g6 1 8.l::th4 �h8 1 9.cS lilxeS 20.cxb6 axb6 was seen in Zajack­ owski - Probola, corr 1996. Solozhen­ lcin - W eemaes, Bethune 1992, went I S . gg4 g6 J 6,gh4 hS J 7.gf4 g S 1 8.gf5 g4 19.lild2 lilxeS 201Wt5ffi 21.e4 �f7 22M �g6 23..id3 lilxd3+ 24.�xd3 ges, when 2S�eS! fXeS 26.�g3 d6 27.h3 might be very strong, yet we can improve earlier with 19 ...�e6!? 20.e4 lilxeS 2 1 � f5) I S ...gS (not I S ... lilxeS? 1 6.lilxeS �xeS 17.�xeS lheS 1 8JW7 l::tgS J9,gg l , Vet­ tel - Knoth, Germany 1992) 16.gg4 (on J6,gf5 g4 17.lilgS lilxeS 18.�xeS �xeS 19 .l::txeS l::txeS 20.lilx f7 l::tfS should lead to equality, while after 16 ...h6 17 .h3 l::tg8 1 8 .g4 l::tde8, Rychlik - Jobski, Dresden 200 1 , 19.l::tdl l::tg6 20 ..id3 l::te6 2I ..ie4 might be unpleasant) 1 6...hS (l6...h6 17. h4 lilxeS 1 8.lilxeS �xeS 1 9.�xeS l::txeS 20.hxg5 hxg5 21.m.7 is comfy for White, e.g. 21 ...ffi 22,gf7 &6 23.!::!d4 or 2 J .. ,gf8 22.�d2) 17�g5 lild4 18.�xd4 (1 8.exd4 .ixf3 I9J.xf3 �xgS+ 20.�c2 �b8) 18 ... .ixf3 I9..bf3 �xgS 20.�dS c6 2 1 .�xf7 lhe5 22.b4 �g8keeps a balance, Gillman ; 84c) I4ru2 lilc6 IS.�c2 lilxeS!? (IS ...g6 16.�a4 aS 17.l::thdl was tested in some games. Pihlayasalo - Salimaki, Helsinki 192

2000, continued 1 7...iLlbS I S .cS �xeS+ 1 9.lk2 �e7 20.�3 iLlc6 2 I ..ic4gfB 22. id5 'it>bS 23.�c3 gcs 24.h3 'lz-�. but I would prefer White after I S .b4!? .lxO 1 9ix.O �xeS 20.'it>b I. However, 1 7 ... iLlxeS IS.iLlxeS �xeS 19_gxd7 �fS 20. �+ gxdS 2 1 .gxdS+ 'it>xdS 22.�d l+ 'it>e7 is more natural, improving on 19 ... �xh2 20.cS c6 2 l .�d4 I :0 de Groot Fiorito, corr 1990) 16.�xh7 itJxO 17 .hf3 .ixO I S.gxD g6 19.�g7 d6 20.�d4 'it>bS 2 l .'it>bl rutS with sufficient compensa­ tion for the pawn, Gutman. BS) 13 ...gS!? will transpose into 1 2 ...gS I 3 .gds gheS - C5d. C) Black 's ambitions lie on the king­ side, and the immediate 1 2 ...gS !? is per­ haps even more potent. · ·

Black is ready for action: Cl) 1 3.g4? hS 1 4.gxhS g4 I S .e6 gxO

( I S .. .dxe6 1 6.itJd2, Sheers - laureles, e­ mail 1 999) 1 6.exd7+ 'it>bS 1 7 .hO lLJb4 winning, Gutman; Cl) 13.cS g4 14.iLld2 iLlxeS I S.cxb6 axb6 1 6.rutgl ghgS 1 7.iLlc4 iLlxc4 I S ..ixc4 ggs I9.'it>bl? .ixg2 0:1 Steedman - Gun­ dersen, Fister 1 992; CJ) 1 3 .b4 g4 1 4.bS gxO I S .bxc6 fxe2 16.cxb7+ 'it>xb7 1 7.gd2 gheS I S.gxe2 �xeS 1 9.�xeS �eS 20.'it>b2 'it>c6 2 l .g3 ge4 gave Black a slightly better ending, Talavera - Sion, Barcelona 1 9SS;

C4) 13.h3, after. C4a) 13 ... ruteS 1 4J:'!dS goes into 1 2 ...g5 1 3 .gds gheS I4.h3- C5d; C4b) 1 3 ... hS I 4.gds (S umm errnatter ­

Bellon, Bern 1 99S, proceeded 14..i.d3 IDleS IS..ie4 iLlxeS 1 6.hb7+ 'it>xb7 1 7. iLlxeS �xeS I S.�xeS gxeS 1 9.gd4 d6 20.rutdl grs 2 1 .g Id2 ges 22.gds geeS 23,gxeS �eS 24l'!dS 'lz-'lz, yet note that 14 ... g4 IS.hxg4 hxg4 is premature due to 1 6.gxhS gxhS 17.e6!, Aifonso Romero. 14.'it>bl IDleS I S.'it>a2 g4 1 6.hxg4 hxg4 1 7.iLld4 iLlxeS I S .f4 gxO 1 9.gx0 dS 20. cxdS gxdS 2 l .rut7 gcs was about even in Wileman - Nieminen, corr 1 993; this is more natural than 14 ...gh6 and now not I S.'it>al ges 16 .ltJd4 �xeS 1 7 ..10 iLlxd4 I S..ixb7+ 'it>xb7 19 .�xd4 �xd4 20.gxd4 gf6, Pietarinen - Maki, Tam­ pere 1990, but I S .gds, for example I S ... l:'ie6 1 6.cS or IS...itJbS 16�1 g4 17.hxg4 hxg4 IS.itJd4 .ixd5 19.cxd5 �xeS 20..bg4. Hernandez Montalvo - Garcia Castro, Virxe Peregrina 2002, went 14.b4 gdeS IS .gd2 iLlxeS 1 6.rutdl d6, when instead of 1 7.'it>b2 �f6 I S.iLlxeS �xeS 1 9.!0 .lxO 20.gx0 �fS 2 l .cS dxcS 22.bxcS gJ]6 23� cxd6 24.cxd6+ 'it>b72S.�c7+ 'it>a6 26.d7 gd8 27.�xdS gc6, 1 7 .cS ! is quite strong, but we can easily improve with 1 6... iLlxO 17..txf3 .bf3 I S.gxO d6 1 9.cS dxcS 20.bxcS gh6 2 1 .gd6 ge6) 14.. J'!deS! (14 ...IDle8 transposes to 12 ...g5 13.i'!d5 mteS 14.h3 hS, a line regarded as good for White - C5d. Also after 14 ... g4 IS.iLld2!? ltibS 1 6.hxg4 .ixdS 1 7.cxd5d6 IS.iLlc4 Black's position seems not easy, while Klausen - Gundersen, corr 1 992, continued I S .hxg4 hxg4 1 6.gxhS �hS 17.iLlel , when instead of 17 ... ggs I S.g3 ggS I9.itJd3 itJdS 20..§d4 �e6 2 l .cS, 1 7 ... �e6 I S.itJd3 �I+ could have been tried) I S .'it>bl ( I S .iLlxgS iLlb4 1 6.�xb4 �xgS J7.gd2 �xg2 I S,ghdl �xh3!? 1 9.�a4 �eS 20.�xd7+ �xd7 2 l .�d7 grs 22.f4 1 93

ic623�7 �8) l5_.g4 (15 ...� 161k:l g4 17.hxg4hxg4 18./t)d4.ixd5 1 9.cxd5 �xeS 20.ixg4 'it>b7 2 1 .hd7 �xd7 22.�c6+ Wb8 23.�xd7 �d6 24.�a4 a5 25.�c4. 1 5 .. Jlli6 is well answered by 16.c5 ge6 1 7 .cxb6 axb6 1 8Jkl g4 19.hxg4 hxg4 20.�d4 �he5 2 l .�xc6 �xc6 22.J.xg4; however, White should avoid 16.�xg5 due to 16-�xg5 17.e6 �g6+ 18�3 �xe6 19.if5 �e7 20bd7+ 'itt8 2 l be8 �xeS 22.�d3 h4, while 16 ... gg6 17 .f4 �hg5 18.fxg5 �xe5, Vandervoort - Beyen, corr 1 993, fails to 1 9Jhe5 ! �xe5 20.�xe5 �be5 2 l .�xh5 �xg2 2H�g l ) 1 6.hxg4 hxg4 17lW18 g,m8 1 8.�el �e6 19.�d3 �1+ 20.Wa2 �g6 looks OK for Black, Gutman; _ C4c) l3. Aje8 141kl5 (after 14J:kl2 �xe5

l H�hd l d6 1 6.�e l h5 17.g3 g4 1 8.h4 �6 19.Wbl gft) White was awkwardly placed, Marlrus - Ros, corr 1995) 14 ...h5 ! (The other moves leave the initiative in White's hands. 14 ...�g8 1 5 1Dldl �b8 16.g5d4 h5 is met by 1 7.c5 g4 1 8.cxb6 axb6 19.hxg4 hxg4 20.�el g3 2 l.f4, while Saari - Tinture, corr 1 992, saw instead 1 7 .�e 1 gh8 1 8.f4 gxf4 1 9.gxf4 �xe5 20.�xe5 gxe5 2 1 Exf7 ghe8 22.�7 h4 23ig4 �e3 24.�0 �c6 25 Exh4 �a6. Against 14...�b8 is 15Ed2 Axf3 16..bf3 �xeS 17.�c2 c6, Sommer - Polzer, Ger­ many 1999, 18..ig4 h5 19 ..if5 mt6 20.mxi 1 ge7 2 1 Ed4 possible, though 1 5 1Dld 1!? appears more thematic, for instance 1 5 ... h5 16.A5d2 g4 17 .hxg4 hxg4 18./t)d4 hg2 1 9.�xg4 �xe5 20.f4 �e4 2 l .�f5 �b7 22.�c2 �c6 23.�b4. 1 L . hd5 1 6.cxd5 Wb7 17.d6 cxd6 1 8.cxd6 �d8 1 9.�xg5 or 15 ...h6 16.Wbl .ixd5 17.cxd5 d6 18.exd6 �xd6 19.�d4 �c5 20.�d3 gd8 2 l .�b5 c6 22.�f5+ Wb7 23.�xf7+�7 24.dxc6+ �xc6 25fud7+�xd7 26.if3+, S2llletan ­ Szpisjak, Illinois 1 990) will transpose into 13 ... h5 14Ed5 gde8 treated in C4b, Gutman.

CS) 13 _gd5, when: CSa) 1 3 ... g4 14.�d2 h5 is feeble due to 1 5.Wbl �b8 1 6.gc l , Gutman; CSb) 13 ..�8 14.�xg5 (14.h3 h5 see C4b.

14.e6 dxe6 15Dqp is parried by 1 5.../t)d4, e.g. 16.exd4 i.xf3 17 �5 .ixg2 or 16.�xd4 Axf3 17 .J.xf3 �xg5 18.�e4 'it>d8 19.�c6 'it>e7 20.�xc7+ 'iPffi 2 l.�xa7 � c5, while 15 ...ffi 16Eg3 �8 17./t)d4e5 18.�f5 �e6 19.�c2 Wb8 20.�h6 turned out well for White, Herlin - Finkelstein, corr 1 99 1 . 14.g4 h5 1 5 .e6 dxf6 16fug5 �d4 1 7.�xd4 .ixf3 1 8..hf3 �xg5 19.�e4 Wd8 20.h4 �ffi 2 l .g5 �f5 22.�c6 'it>e7 23 .�xc7+ Wfil 24.�c6 �c5 25.b4 �xc4+ 26.'it>b2 �e2+ 27.'it>c3 �xf2 28.�e5 f6 29.�d6+ rMl 30be8+ �e8 3 l .�d3 f5 32 .'i!i>b3 keeps an edge for White, yet 14 ... �g8 15.�dl �b8 16.b4 is more consistent, and now not 16..bd5 1 7.cxd5 d6 1 8�3 h6 1 9.�c2 gd8 20.�d4 'it>b7 2 1 .�c6, Grosso - Verducci, corr 1993, but 16...h5 17.h3 hxg4 1 8.hxg4 ggfl! 1 9.g5d2 f6 20.exffi � 2 l.�xg5 � 22.�h3 gg2) 14.-�b4 (14 ...�d8 15.f4 hd5 16.cxd5, e.g 16 ... �c5 17.�xc5 bxc5 1 8.�e4 d6 19.J.b5 or 16 ...'i!i>b8 17.�e4 �b7 1 8.�ffi) 1 5 .�xb4 �xg5 1 6.gd2 �xg2 17 .ghdl J.c6 (17 --�e5? 1 8Exd7 �xf2 19Exc7+ 'it>b8 20.gdd7) 1 8 .ih5 mtffl l 9.c5 �xh2 20.cxb6 axb6 2lig4 �xe5 22..ixd7+ se­ cure White a pleasant game, Gutman; CSc) 1 3 ...�b8 14.�dl ( 1 4.'i!i>bl is met by 14 ..ixd5 14.cxd5 'i!i>b7 1 5 .gcl gc8) 14..1!he8 (14..bd5 15.cxd5 �c5 1 6.�xc5 bxc5 17.�xg5 m,g8 18!4) 1 5l!Sd2 (15.h3 transposes to 12 ...g5 13 .gd5 �e8 1 4.h3 �b8 15.mtdl - C5d) 1 5...�c6 1 6.c5 (after 16.g4 �xe5 17.�d4 �ffi 1 8.�f5 h5 1 9.h3 is 19 _.hxg4 20.hxg4 � the com:ct reply, instead of 19 �g6 20.f4 �f3 2 1� ie4, van Parreren - Cejkova, Prague 1 99 1 , 2 l ixe4 gxe4 22.gd6! �g8 23.c5) 1 6... bxc5 171k:2 �xe5 1 8.�xe5 �xe5 19.�xc5 �xc5 20.gxc5 with an edge, Gutman; _

1 94

CSd) 1 3 ...�he8! should be played.

Back to the main line

14.h3 (14.e6dxe6 IS.lhd8+ l:txd8+ 16.lbd2

1 2 1i11b8

f5 17 lid I eS 1 8.cS Wb8, Chemyaeva -

Less challenging are: I) 12 .. J�de8 13.cS gS ( 1 3 ...hS 14.cxb6 axb6 IS.b4 �d8, Stroeher - Shoup, corr. 1 99S, is hopeless after 1 6.a4. I f 13...Wb8 14.0-0 lLlxeS IS.cxb6 cxb6 16.�c7+ Wa8 17.lLlxeS �xeS, then not 1 8.YMxeS �xeS, Endean - Laureles, e-mail 1999, but 1 8. �xd7 �e7, and now 19.�d2 �gS 20.g3 hS 2 1 .�fd I , Laurenta - Laureles, corr 2000, or 1 9.�bS) 14.cxb6 cxb6 IS .h4 (IS.0-0 �b8 16.�fdl is also good) I S ... gxh4 16.�xh4 (16.�d4 �b8 1 7.'1Md6+!? � 181Wt4 lLlxeS 19.'1Mxe7 l:txe7 201!hS, Galow - Rogowski, corr 1987) 16...�b8 17.IDJ.S �c8 18.'1Md2 with advantage for White, Gutman; D) 12 ...gS 13.cS (13.h3 h5 14.cS g4 I S.lbd4 YMxeS 16.cxb6 axb6 17.lLlxc6 YMxc3+ 18. l:txc3 -'xc6 gave Black adequate counterplay, Sikora - Huber, Germany 1 992) 13 ...g4 (13 ... hS 1 4.cxb6 axb6 I S .0-0 g4 16.lLld4 is even worse, e.g. I6 ...YMxeS? 17.lLlxc6 �xc3 18.lLle7+ I :0 Fiebig - Engel, corr I986, or I6 ...�de8 17 � mtffl 18.e6 fxe6 I9..ixe6. 1 3 ...�he8 14.cxb6 axb6 IS.b4 g4 16.bS gxf3 I7.hf3 �xeS J8.bxc6 YMxc3+ I 9.�xc3 dxc6 20.Axc6 hc6 21Jhc6Ieaves White a pawn ahead, for example 21..AJ3 22.�2 g)JJ 231ihcl '&7 24iilc3, Engelhart - Schaffarth, St.

Timmennann, corr 1 988) 14 . ..lt�b8 (14... h5 IS.g4!? hxg4 16.hxg4 lLlb8 17.�ddl) IS.b(IS.Wbl .ixd5 16.cxd5 'ttb7 17.&1 lk8, while 16 ...d6 17.lLld4 favours W hite: 17 ... dxeS 1 8.lLlc6 '1Md6 1 9.lLlxd8 �xd8 20.e4 or 17 ...YMxeS? 18lk:l 'ttb7 19.'1Mxc7+ Wa8 20..ig4 �e7 2I .�a2 �xc7 2l .fuc7 winning, Avant - Laureles, e-mail 2000. After I S.�hdl Black has two options. IS _.,ixdS 16.cxdS d6 17.e6 fxe6 18.lLld4 �f6 19.lLlxe6 �xe6 20.dxe6 '1Mxf2, Hilmer - Schott, Troisdorf 2000, loses to 2 1 J.bS, yet 18...exd5 19.lLlc6 YMf7 20.ig4+ �b7 2I.lLlxd8+ fud8 22.�xdS �xf2 23. if) c6 Iooks viable. I would prefer I S... hS 16.g4 hg4 17 .hxg4 AxdS 1 8.cxdS d6, e.g. 19.e6 fxe6 20.lbd4 exd5 2I .lLlc6 '1Mf7 or I9J.bS �g8 20.Wbl cS - not 20...dxeS 2 I .lLlxeS f6 22.lLlc6 �e4+ 23.Wal �6 24.lLlxa7+ 'ttb7 2Sru4 -, 2 1 .dxc6 dxeS) I S ... lLlc6 ( 1 S ... hS I 6.g4 hxg4 1 7.hxg4 lLlc6 18.�dS lLlb8 19.�dd I) 161ig4 hS ! (16...lLlxeS I7.YMxeS �xe5 1 8.lLlxeS fueS I9h4 h6 see 12 ..1ihe8 13� lLlb8 I4..§d4 lLlc6 IS.�f4 gS 1 6.�g4 h6 1 7.h4 lLlxeS 18 .�xeS YMxeS 1 9.lLlxeS �xeS - B4b) 17 JhgS lLld4 1 8.exd4 hf3 19 iig3 he2 201ie3 �g5 2 1 1ie I hc4 22.�xc4 YMxg2 23.�c3 c6 seems level, Gutman.

...

'

1 9S

Ingebert 1997, or 2 1 ...�d7, Liefveld ­ Winsemius, corr 1997, 22.�e2) 14.tal4 �xe5 1 5.cxb6 axb6 16.00 ltJxd4 17.exd4 �d6 IS.ixg4 IDJ.gS 19MJ .Axt3 20.�xf3 �bS 21 _gcdl resulted in a win for White, Tukmakov - Svendsen, Bern 1993; .m) 12...mteS I 3 .c5 �bS (13 ...g5 see //, while 1 3 ...lt:'lxe5? 14.cxb6 lt:'lc6 1 5 .bxc7 was a disaster in Spiegel - Hickl, corr 1 9S6) is surely simpler and offers stiffer resistance. The possibilities are presented by: A) 14.b4 lt:'lxe5 1 5.cxb6 cxb6 goes back into I 0 b4 .ib7 l l .e3 0-0-0 1 2 .c5 �bS 13� I IDleS 14.cxb6 cxb6 1 5..ie2 li'lxe5; B) 1 4.cxb6 cxb6 (in reply to 14 ... axb6 1 5.0-0 �cS 1 6.�fd I g5 both 17 ..ib5 g4 I S .e6 fxe6 19..ixc6 .ixc6 20.lt:'le5 and 1 7.�c2 g4 I S.lt:'ld4 �xe5 19.ixg4, Rami­ rez - Tinture, corr 1 997, are quite pro­ mising; less consequent is 17.h3 h5 IS. li'lel li'lxe5 19.li'ld3 lt:'lxd3 20.�xd3 g4 21.hxg4 hxg4 22.�xd7 �e4 23.�xg4 �7. Larsen - Gundersen, corr 1991, 24.Jd3 .ie4 25 . .ixe4 �xe4 26.�f3 �hS 27.g3) 1 5.0-0 ( 1 5 .�gl �cS 1 6.�dl �c7 17 ..ib5 lt:'l xe5!? I S.�xe5 �xe5 1 9.lt:'lxe5 �xe5 20.ixd7 &2, while 15 ...a6 16.�3 b5 17. � l lt:'lxe5 I S.li'lxe5 �xe5 19.h3 f5 20.g3 is a bitmurlcy, Grafty - Brause, computer game 1 997) 1 5 ...lt:'lxe5 ( 1 5 ...&8 16.�d2 lt:'lxe5 17.lt:'lxe5 �xe5 1 S.�xd7 �g5 19.g3 �g6 20.�a4, Markus - McDonald, e­ mail 2001 ) 1 6.lt:'ld4 �g5 17.g3 &S (bet­ ter than 17 ... lt:'lg4 I S.lt:'lb5 .ic6 19 .Wb4 hb5 20..ixb5 �5 2 1 .h4 lt:'le5 22.�d6+ �aS 23 .�d5+ �bS 24.�g2, Legarda ­ Miralles, corr 1 991) I S.�d2 �ffi!? and Black is still alive, Gutman; q 14.0-0!? ltJxe5 15.lt:'ld4 �xc5 (15 ... &S 16.�fdl �g5 1 7.g3 �f6 is met by I S.f4 li'lc6 19 .cxb6 exb6 20.lt:'lb5) 16.�xc5 bxc5 17.fu.c5 d6 1 S�3 g6 (IS ...c5 19.lt:'lf5 g6 20.lt:'lh6 �e7 2 1 .�d l ) 1 9.b4 f5 20.�fc I secure White a comfy ending, Gutman.

lJ.cS J:!:c8

13 ...g5 14.0-0 h5 (Ivanov - Die bert, Ohio 19SS, continued 14 ... g4 1 5.lt:'ld4 lt:'lxe5 16.cxb6 cxb6 17.lt:'lf5 �ffi I S.�c7+ �aS 19.lt:'ld6 �bS 20_gfdl l::nlgS 21 .li'lxb7 fub7, when 22.�c2 �g6 23.1.a6 �bbS 24.�a4 should be decisive) 15.lt:'ld4 (15.cxb6 cxb6 16.�fdl &S) 1 5 ...g4 1 6.f4 gxf3 17 ..ixf3 lt:'lxd4 I S.exd4 c6 19.t9'b3 b5 20.a4 a6 2l.axb5 cxb5 22.ixb7 �xb7 23.c6+ �a7 24.l:W7 I :0 Spraggett - Colino, Dos Her­ manas 2000 . 14.0-0 14.b4 :IDleS (14 ...a6 15 .0-0 �eS J6_gfdl, while 15 .a4 �heS 16.0-0 lt:'lxe5 1 7 .li'lxe5 �xe5 I S.�xe5 �xe5 was level in Back ­ Ros, corr 1995) 1 5 .b5 lt:'lxe5 1 6.c6 dxc6 17.lt:'lxe5 �xe5 I S.bxc6 is given by Alfonso Romero as winning, but I am sceptical about it on account of I S ... �xc3+ 1 9.�xc3 .laS 20..if3 (20..ig4 &dS 2 1 ..id7 &5 22.�2 .ib7 23.�dl .ic8 24ru2 �e7) 20 ... &d8 2 l .�e2 a6 22.�dl fudl 23 .�xdl �a7, Gutman . 14... gS

lS.JUd l

Best i n view of: I) 1 5.b4 g4 16.li'ld4 lt:'lxe5 1 7.�c2 h5 I S.

�a4 h4, Mutz - Roland, internet 2002; II) 15..ib5 g4 16.ixc6 hc6 1 7.lt:'ld4 .ib7 (17 ...mteS is doubtful owing to I S.�c4! .ib7 19.�a4 �xe5 20.�xd7 .id5 2 1 .cxb6 1 96

axb6 22.�c6+ ixc6 23.fu.c6. However, note that 1 8.�xc6+ dxc6 19 -l:Udl Y!Vxe5 keeps Black in control, for instance 20. Y!VxeS fu.e5 21l!d7 lm 22.� h5 23.'i!le2 'i!?b7 24.e4 ges, Romero, or 20Ed4 f5 2l.Y!Vd3 'i!?b7 22� b5 23� h5 24.a4 a6 25.b4 h4, improving on 23 .. .!fe6 24.a4 a6 25.b4 gh6 26.g3 f4 27.gxf4 Y!Vh5 28.h4 gxh3 29.'i!?h2 Y!VeS 30.Y!Vd4 Y!Ve7 Y2-Y2 San Segundo - Ramo, lbercaja 1992, 3 1 .axb5 axb5 32.gd I) I S.gfd I ( 1 8.b4 h5 19 .a4 mte8 20.a5 Y!Vxe5 2 1 .c6 Axc6 22.�xc6+ dxc6 23 .Y!Vxc6 h4 24.gc4 Y2 -Y2 Ballo ­ Janhoff, corr 1 995) 1 8 ... ghe8 19.�c2 (19.�e2 .lc6 20.�d4 .ib7, Weemaes ­ Beyen, corr 199 1 ) 19 .. ..lc6 (this is more precise than 19 ...bxc5 20.� I d6 2 1 .exd6 cxd6 22. 'tV d3 gcd8 23.b4) 20Ed4 'tVxeS 21 .�b4 f5 22.'f!Vd3 .le4 23.'f!Va6 .lb7 24. Y!Va4 ged8 with counterplay, Gutman. 1S J!!h e8 .•

15 ...g4 1 6.llld4 �xe5 17.Y!Vb4Y!Vg5 18 .�b5 �f3+ 1 9.'i!?hl �h4 20.cxb6 (instead of 20.J.fl? Y!Vffi 2 1 .cxb6 cxb6 22.�d6 gxc I 23Excl Jcli, Bulthaupt - Svensso n, Arco 1999) 20_.J.xg2+ 2 l .'i!?gl cxd6 22.'f!Vd6+ leads to a quick mate, Gutman.

I) 1 7.J.b5 g4 1 8 ..lxc6 dxc6 19.�d4 c5 20.�e2 h5 2 1 .b4 cxb4 22.Y!Vxb4 Y!Vxe5 23.'f!Vf4 .la6 (Buzhaker - Ross, Canada 1990, went 23 ...Y!Vb2 24.�d4 &4 25.Y!Vffi 'i!?a8 26.Y!Vxf7 fu.e3 27.gbl gd3 28.�e6 'i!?b8 29.Y!Vf5 fu.d I+ 30,gxdl when 30... Y!Ve2 wins) 24.Y!Vxe5 gxe5, Gutman ; II) 17.Y!Vc2 g4 1 8 .�d4 Y!Vxe5 19.b4 (if 19.ixg4 ggs 20.th3 �xd4 21 Exd4 fu.g2+ 22.ixg2 ggs 23.'f!Vxh7 fu.g2+ 24.<Ml fuh2 25.Y!Vg8+ic8 26.'i!lel , then 26...c5 27.'f!Vd8 'i!?b7 2s.gb4 ghl + 29.'i!?e2 gh6 30.Y!Vm gd6 or 26...Y!Va5+ 271n>4 Y!Vd5 28.1b.b6+ 'i!?a7 29Eg6 'tVaS+ 30.&3 fxg6 3 1 .Y!Vxc8 rot I + 32.'i!?d2 Y!VdS+ 3Hid3 gdl +) 19 ... �xd4 20.fu.d4 f5 21 �3 ge6 22,gf4 (or 22J�xd7 l':lli.6 23.g3 f4!) 22 .. Jk6 23.'M'b I fuel+ 24.Y!Vxcl i.xg2!? (24...Y!Vd5 25.Y!Vfl c5 26.bxc5 bxcS 27..lxf5 h5 28.J.e4, Mo­ sonyi - Beyen, corr 1987/1 99 1) 25.gxf5 (25..ixf5 .lc6) 25 ...Y!Vd6 26..la6 .lb7 27. .ixb7 'i!?xb7 28.ggs gas 29.gxg4gxa3 with an edge for Black, Gutman . 17 ... g4 18.�d4 fixeS 19.1xg4

16.cxb6 axb6

If 1 6 ...cxb6 17 .Y!Vd3, Gutman.

19... �xd4

17.a4!

19 ...Y!Vg5 is met by 20 ..lh3 (20.�xc6+ Axc6 2 l .fu.d7 .ixg2 22.gxc7 leads after 22 ...Y!Vxg4 23.gxc8+ 'i!?a7 24.gc7+ .lb7+ 25.'iWI Y!Vg2+ to a draw) 20 ... �7 2 1.a5 since 2 1 .. .J.xg2 fails to 22.f4, Gutman.

The following shows the danger if White gets too flashy:

20Jhd4 f!! g8 l l .gJ I prefer White, Gutman.

1 97

Sequel l (l.d4 �� l.o4 eS3.dxeS �e4 4.�t3 Ab4+ S..ldl �xdl 6.�bxdl � 7.a3 .Axdl+ 8.1fxdl Yfe7 9.1fc3 b6) 1 0.g3

m) l l ..Ag2 .ib7 12.0-0! (Romero men­ tions 12.gdl gfe8 l 3.gds d6! as a real drawback ofplaying g3 instead of e3.

If 12.0-0-0 gfe8 1 3 .�S lt:laS 1 4.gd3 d6, while l2...lt:lxeS I3.�xeS �xeS 14.lt:lxeS .Axg2 l S.ghgl d6, so far Romero, is less impressive due to 16.lt:ld7 gfd8 17 .lt:lffi+ gxf6 18.gxg2) 12 ... gfe8 J 3 .gfd l lt:lxeS (13 ...&d8 14ild2 lt:lxeS lS.�xeS �xeS 1 6.lt:lxeS .Axg2 1 7 .lt:lxf7) 14.lt:lxeS .ixg2, Romero, 1 S.<;!Ixg2 �xeS 1 6.�xeS gxeS 17Jhd7 lhe2 18llad l a5 19b3 cS 20_gld6 favours White, Gutman. l l.i h3! The bishop is ideallypiaced here, since it hits d7 and stops the subsequent advance ofthe black g-pawn, Romero.

Fine for Black are: White should not be too eager toforce the iYsue, but should concentrate on nat­ ural developing moves as Black will be forced to molu! some concessions due to the pressure on d7. 10....Ab7

1 0 ... 0-0 was suggested by Alfonso Ro­ mero (it is possible to change the initial idea and to press as soon as possible on e5), and now:

I) 1 1 .0-0-0 d6 (Fodor - Vospemik, Bu­ dapest 2002, went l l ....Ab7 12_gdS lt:laS 13 .M3 d6 14.exd6 cxd6 1 SJ.h3, when in­ stead of 1S ...lt:lxc4 16.�xc4 !:'!'.ac8 17 ..AxeS lhc8 18.�xc8+ .bc8 19Jllid l, 1 S ..Ac8 1 6.i.g2 .ie6 might be tried; however, I worry more about 1 2J.h3 d6 13.exd6 cxd6 14Bhel lt:laS 1S.lt:ld4) 1 2.exd6 cxd6 1 3 ..ig2 .ie6, Gutman ; further II) l l ..Ah3 ges 12.0-0-0 (l 2.gdl d6, Ro­ mero) 12 ...d6 ( l2 ...lt:lxeS 13.lt:lxeS Y:!fxeS 14.�xeS gxeS 1 S ..Axd7 .Axd7 1 6.gxd7 gxe2, Romero, 17 .ghd 1 c;!;Jffl 18.gxc7 lhf2 19� secure White the better end­ ing) 13 .exd6 cxd6 14 ..Ag2 .Ae6 l S .lt:lgS gac8 is OK for Black, Gutman; •

I) l l .e6 fXe6 12J.g2 0-0 1 3.0-0 d6 14.�e3

�b8 1S.lt:lgS lt:ld8 1 6..Axb7 lhb7 17.h4 h6 1 8.lt:lf3 c5 1 9.gadl lt:lc6, Pircher ­ Lach, Graz 1996; D) I I J.g2 lt:lxeS ( 1 1 ...0-0-0 12.0-0-0 gJ]e8 13_gdS lt:lb8 14.IkD!, e.g. 14 ...lt:lc6 1Sh3 or 14....Axf3 lSilxfl �xeS 16.�xeS !heS 17ilxf7 lhe2 18.it3, while 14.mtdl .AxdS lS.cxdS �cS 16.�xcS bxcS 17.lt:lgS !heS 18.lt:lxf7lhe2 19.lt:lxd8 lhf2 20.lt:le6 lhg2 2 l.lt:lxcS d6 22.lt:le6 lhh2 is equal, Peter Schlll/llrlh) 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2.�xeS �xeS 1 3 . lt:lxeS .ixg2 1 4.ggl .ie4, Windhofer ­ Bauer, Werfen 1992) 1 2 ...d6(12 ...lt:lxf.3+? 1 3 ..ixf3 .ixf3 l 4.�xg7 0-0-0 1 S.exf3 �e6 16.�d4 YM\3 17 .me 1, Kovacs - Rab­ ovsky, Cseppko 199S) 1 3.lt:ld4 (Marino ­ Cubero, Spain 1 993, went 1 3.cS bxcS 14.lt:lxeS hg2 1 S.c;!;lxg2 �xeS 16.�xeS+ dxeS 17 .gfc 1 0-0-0 1 8.gxcS ghe8, but 13 ... 0-0 14.cxd6 cxd6 deserves attention) 1 3 ....ixg2 14.\!lxg2 0-0 1 S .e4 gfe8 (instead of l S ...g6 1 6�e l �d7 1 7.f4 lt:lc6 18.lt:lc2 �e6 1 9.b4:E!ae8 20.�d3 aS 2 l .bS lt:ld8 22.lt:ld4 �d7 23.f5 f6, Steedman ­ Gundersen, Fister 1 99 1 , 24.fxg6 hxg6 2S.eS) 1 6.lt:lfS �ffl. Gutman. 1 98

Schllf/Dith) 16.&3 Y!!lcS (l6...ltla6 17 �)

1 7.Y!!Id4 Y!!ixd4 (after 17 ...Y!!If8 18.Y!!If4 .ia6 19.l:td4 bS 20..if5 g6 2 l .cxbS .ixbS 22 . .ic2 h6 23 .h4 cS 24.l:td6 l:te6 2S .l:txe6 fxe6 26.Y!!Ig4 White won in Zviaginsev Schaffarth, Berlin 1993) 1 8.l:txd4 l:te7 19.e6 fxe6 20..ixe6+ l:txe6 2l .l:txe6 ltlc6 22.l:txc6 .ixc6 23 .ltleS leaves Black in trouble, Gutman; AZ) l3 ... d6!? 14.exd6 cxd6 (suggested by Stefan Buecker, Kaissiber 1 612001) 1S.l:td2 (lS.mtdl lLlaS 16IDd3 is best an­ swered by 16 ..ic8!? 1 7 .&3 Y!!lffl l8..ig2 .ie6, BueclcLr, Kaissiber 1 712001, while both 1 6...Y!!I xe2 17.ltld4 Y!!leS 18.f4 Y!!lf6 19.ltlbS Y!!lxc3+ 20.l:txc3 &2 2 l .b4 !Wt2 22.if5 lLlc6 23.ltlxd6 and 16 ...Y!!Ic7 17.ltld4 ie4 lS.lLlbS Y!!lc6 19.l:txd6 Y!!lxc4 20.Y!!Ixc4 ltlxc4 21 .l:t6d4 ltlaS 22m>4 appears good for White) lS ... ltleS (lS ...ltlaS 16.b4 ltlxc4 17.Y!!Ixc4 l:tac8 18..ixc8 l:txc8 19.Y!!Ixc8+ !xeS 20.ltld4) 16.l:thdl ltlxf3 17.exf3 l:tad8 (l7 ...d5 l S.'i!lbl dxc4 19.l:td7 Y!!l e2, Buecker, 20..ifl Y!!lxf3 2 l ..ixc4 l:tffl 22. Y!!lxf3 .ixf3 23.l:t ld4 aS 24.l:tx f7!? l:txf7 2S ..ixf7+ 'i!1xf7 26.l:tf4+ 'i!1e6 27.l:txf3) 18.Wbl(l8.f4 dS 19.i.f5 h6 20.l:td4 dxc4 2 l .l:txd8 l:txd8 22.l:txd8+ Y!!lxd8 23.Y!!Ixc4 Y!!le7 24.'i!1d2 Y!!id6+ 2S�3 Yz-'h Ramos ­ Krebs, internet 2000) 1 8 ... .ic6 19.l:td3 .h4 20.l:t ld2 keeping a plus for White, •

1 1 . . .0-0-0

Other possibilities: I) l l ...ltlxeS 12.Y!!Ixe5! (12.0-0-0, Bogdlln Lolic, 1 2 . .. d6 l 3 .IDle l 0-0 or 12.0-0 d6 l H �adl 0-0 14.ltlxeS dxeS 1 SJ:td7 Y!!lcS 16.e4, Kulczycki - Laureles, e-mail 1999, 16 .. JUe8 17 ..tg2 .ic6 poseno problems. Also 12.ltlxeS .ixhl l3 .i.xd7+ lt>t8 14.f3 ffi 1 S..ic6 l:td8 1 6.ltld7+ l:txd7 17 .i.xd7 Y!!ixd7 l8.'i!lf2 .ixf3 1 9.exf3 seems even; however, note that 16.ltld3 Y!!l e3 17.'i!lfl, given by Romero, might be dangerous in view of 1 6...l:td6 1 7 ..ie4 fS 18.i.xf5 .ixf3 ) 12 ...Y!!IxeS l3.ltlxeS .ixhl l4.f3 ffi 1 S.ltld3 0-0-0 1 6.'i!lf2 maintains an advantage for White, Gutman; II) 1 1 ...0-0 with a further split: A) 12 .0-0-0 l:tfe8 l 3.l:tdS, when: A1) 1 3 ...l:tad8 14.l:thdl ltlb8 l S .l:tSd3 ! ( lS.l:tSd4 .ic6 as 1S ..bf3 16.Y!!Ixf3 Y!!lxeS 1 7 .hd7 &7 l S.l:tdS Y!!l xe2, Raicevic ­ Ravinsek, Bled 1989, loses to 19 ..ibS! l:txdS 20 ..l:txdS !. l S .l:tSd2 should have been parried by 1 S .. ..ie4!? 16.Y!!Ie3 .ic6 17 .irS .h4 since 1S-..ic6 1 6.ltld4 .h4 17.b3 Y!!lxa3+ 1 8.Y!!Ib2 Y!!lxb2+ l9.'i!lxb2 cS 20.bxa4 cxd4 2 l .f4 ltlc6 22 ..ig2 or l S ...Y!!IcS 1 6.hd7 li:lxd7 17.l:txd7 l:txd7 18.l:txd7 Y!!l xt2 1 9.e6 ffi 20.l:txc7, Simik ­ Vospemik, West 200 1 , are insufficient) l S ...aS ( I S .. .i.xf3 16.exf3 Y!!lxeS 17.Y!!IxeS l:txeS 1 8..ixd7 &2 19.i.bS l:tffl 20.IDd2,

Gutman. B) 1 2 .0-0 !? l:tfe8 ( l 2 ... f6 l3.exf6 l:txf6

14.l:tael � 1S..ig2) l3.l:tfe I ( l 3.l:tadl ltlxeS 14.ltlxeS Y!!l xeS l S.Y!!IxeS l:txeS 1 6. l:txd7 l:txe2 1 7.l:tfd l .if3 1 8 ..ig2 .ixg2 19.'i!1xg2 aS 20.b3 is reasonable as well, Gutman) 1 3 ... l:tad8 14.l:tadl and Black lacks compensation, Romero. tz.0-0-0

12.l:tdl hS ( l 2 ... l:the8 1 3.l:td5 f6 14.e6 dxe6 lS.0-0 'i!1b8 is also good) l3.l:tdS gS 14� mte8 1S.g4 hxg4 16.i.xg4 ffi 17.0-0 ltlxeS lS.ltlxeS .ixdS ! ( l S ... fxeS 19.l:td2 m-.s 2o.md 1 fuh2 2 1.'i!1xh2 m-.s+ 22.mu 1 99

�+ 23..bh3 �fti 24.'it>gl g4 2S..ixg4 �gS 26.0 Ac6, Curran - Lemieux, corr 199 1 ) 1 9.�xd7 Ae6 20..Axe6 �xe6 2 1 . �xf6 g m with a desperate position for White, Gutman.

14.:!l!:d3

141ld2 ixf3 1S.�xf3 �xeS 16l!hdl �e4! (l6_Ee7 17.�a8�a5 18..ig2 �a6 19.'it>bl gde8 20.e3 c6?! 2l .gxd7 gxd7 22.Ah3 ged8 231lxd7 gxd7 24..Axd7+ 'it>xd7 2S. �xb8 �xc4 26.�xa7+ came to a bad end, Garcia Palermo - Anquix, lbercaja 1993) 17.�xf7 gm 18.�xg7 gxf2 l 9.Axd7+ �xd7 20.gxd7 �xc4+ 2 l .Wbl gxd7 !? 22.�xd7+ Wb8 23.�1 �e4+ 24.'it>al cS leads to equality, Gutman. 14....i.xt3 1S.:!l!:x t3 tfc:S

lS ...�xeS 16.�xeS gxeS 17.gxf7 gxe2 is met by 1 8.gd 1, Romero. 16.:!l!:e3

l l ...:!l!:he8

Others fail miserably: I) 12 ...hS 1 3 ruS g5 is almost ridiculous as Black 's weaknesses created on the kingside act against him after 1 4..AfS

�b8 (14 ... g4 1S.�h4) lS.ghdl AxdS 16.cxdS, Romero ; II) lLgS l31lxd7 �d7 14..bd7+ 'it>b8 (l4 ...�xd7 1S.e6 �d8 16rul �m 17.exf7 h6 18.�f6) IS,gd) gd8 l6.Axc6 gxd l+ 1 7.�dl Axc6 18.�4 Ab7 19.f4 g4 20. 'it> e) a6 21.cS bS 22.c6 Ac8 23.b4 fti 24.e6 �e8 2S.�e3 1 :0 Browne - Kutshenko, Philadelphia 1 988; III) 12 ...ghm l 3 .gds fS 1 4 .exf6 gxf6 1 s .ghd l �b8 1 6.ges �m 1 1 .ge3 .gh6 1 8.Ag2 gf6 1 9.h4, Gutman. 1 3.:!l!:dS

l3 .ghgl �xeS 14.�xeS �xeS 1 S .�d3 �xe2 16..bd7+ 'it>b8 17.�xe2 �e2 was level in Ludwig - Jaeck, Germany 2000. 13 ... �b8 l3 ...l0a5 is only a waste of time as 14.b4

�c6 lS .ghdl ( l S .bS �aS 1 6.gd4 'it>b8 1 7Ee 1, Grafty - Ber9'son, internet 1997, looks suspect to me on account of 17 ... fti) 1 S ...�b8 16 .gSd3 shows, Gutman.

Alternatively: I) 16l!xf7?�c6 171ldl Wlh6+ 1 8.f4 �xh3 1 9.gxg7 �xh2 20.�d3 gxeS 2 l .gxh7 ghs 22.gg7 gcs 23.'it>b 1 �h8 brought Black success, lonescu - Bellon, Bern 1 992; m 1 6.gel �c6 ( 1 6.. ,gxeS l 7,gxf7 ge4 1 8.'it>b l �hS 1 9.gf4 or 1 6 ... �c6 17.g4 � 18.�e3 �xe3+ 1 9.�e3 �c6 20.f4 fti 2 l..ig2 fxeS 22.f5 aS 23.gS ttxl4 24.i!fl , Crafty - Brause, computer game 1 997, are hardly viable for Black) 17.lh17 �xeS 18.i!xg7 �xf2with a balanced po­ sition, Gutman; III) 16.e3 !? �c6 1 7,gxn �xeS 18 .gf4 ( l 8.gxg7? �c6) 18 ... bS 1 9..Afl gS ( l 9 ... �c6 20.gg) gS 2 ) .gf5 �e4, Romero, 22.g4, e.g. 22 ...bxc4 23.�aS or 22...�0 23.gg3) 20.gf5 (20.gd4 �c6 2 l .e4 bxc4 22.i.xc4 gm with enough compensation, Romero) 20 ... bxc4 2 l .Ae2 d6 22.'it>bl and White's pressure mounts, Gutman. 16 tfc:6 ••

1 6 . . .�c6 1 7 .b4 �m 1 8 .cS, Gutman. 17.:!l!:dl tfh6 1 8.Ag4 tfxhl lO.f4 �a6 ll.b4

It is not easy for Black to keep things under control, Gutman.

200

Section 4 The Steiner Method (l.d4 �fti 2.o4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.�0 tb4+ Sidl �xdl 6.�bxdl �c6 7 .aJ .Axdl+ Uhdl tt'e7 9.tt'c3) 9.. 0-0 .

The plan with kingside castling does not prove very good, Otto Borik. This allows White to carry out his plan relatively unhindered and seems a lost cause, Tim Harding. lO.J:�dl White intends to make life as difficult as LAging on opponent bY nUII to the e-pawn with gds, Bogdan Lalic.

possl'blefior his

Alternatives: I) IO.g3 �8 l l .Ag2 transposes to 9.g3 0-0 I O.Yfl c3 ge8 I I . .Ag2 - Section 2; II) I O.e3 ge8, then: A) l l .id3 �xeS 12.�xeS Y!!lxeS 13.YftxeS (13.Yftc2 gives Blackmore chances, e.g. 1 3 ... YfthS 14.cS b6 I S.Ae4 gb8 16.cxb6 gxb6 1 7.0-0, Nybaeck - Vahtera, Finland 1999, 17 ... YfteS 18.Axh7+ �f8 19. id3 �b2, or 13 .. h6 14.0-0-0 d6 IS.Bdgl .id7 16.h4 bS!? - more aggressive than 16....lc6 1 7.ml3 io4 18.g4.hd3 19.Y!!Ixd3 Y!!le4 20.Yftc3, Krklec - Schaffarth, Bad Woerishofen 200 1, 20._ges -, 17.g4 bxc4 18..hc4 l:'!ab8) 13 .. .&eS I4.'iW2 (14.().().() ·

.

d6 IS.ie2 ie6 161M4 aS 17.b3 g6 18lnld I b6 was even in Santa Cruz - Detthow, San Paulo 19S4. After 14.0-0 Black has a range ofmoves: 14 ... d6 IS.b4 .id7, e.g. 16J�acl �e8 17.e4 b6 1 8.f3 h6 19.'�f2 mas 20.h3 IDleS 2 l .a4 a6 22.�1 aS 23.f4 �e6 24.b5 .Ac8 2S.g4 .Ab7 26.�el .he4 0:1 Rasmussen - Maassen, corr 1994, or 16J�fdl �e8, Zelba - Schaffarth, Lip­ pstadt 2000; 14 ...b6 ISJUe l .Ab7 1 6.f4 ge7 17.�d l 1A·lfz Pape - Schwichten­ berg, Germany 200 I ; 14 ... dS !? IS.cxdS �dS 16.gfdl .Ae6, for instance 17-&c l � 18.ie2 mJ2 19.b4 � 20.i.O �dl+ 21.&dl �dl+ 22..hdl �7, Josefi 901 Kmonte, internet 2003, or 17 .i.e4 �dl+ 18. .&dl�f8. Cccmember - Kmonte, in­ temet 2003) 14 ...b6 1 S.m.et ( I S.f4 ge7 16.g4 Ab7 17lDlgl �8 J8_gg3, Buehler ­ Kaiser, Germany 2000, 1 8 ... dS) IS .. .Ab7 16.f3 �e8 17 .b4, Pl902 - Antiridge, in­ ternet 2002, 17 ... �f8 is harmless; B) I I .Ae2 �xeS (Ferrara - Liascovich, Buenos Aires 200 1 , went l l ...b6 12.0-0 ib7 J3_gfd I &d8 141M2 �xeS I S.�xeS YflxeS 16.YftxeS gxeS 1 7.gcJ �f8 with equality, but 14.gds �b8 I S.gd2 might be principal. l l ...aS !? 12.b3 "' 'LlXeS seems more intriguing, for example 1 3.0-0 d6 or 1 3.�xeS YflxeS 14.YflxeS �eS IS.�d2 d6, Leiva - Rubinstein, Buenos Aires 19S2, however, it is worth noting that · .after 12.0-0 �xeS J 3.gfdl Black should play 13 ... d6 since 13 ...�xf3+ 14..hf3 a4 appears to be premature in view of I S.cS c6 1 6.§d4 �8 17.&dl, Gantzert - Weijs, Winnipeg 1998) 12.�xeS (1 2.0-0 d6 was tested in some games: 13.�d4 cS 14.�f3 Ag4 1S.h3? �xf3+ 16.Axf3 .hf3 17.gxf3 Yflb4 18.�g2 !k6 winning, Grapsa -Pandavos, Nikea 2002; J3_gfdl .Ag4 14.�d4 .Axe2 IS.�xe2 Y!!lh4 1 6.h3 b6 J 7 .gacl �d7 1 8.b4 �f6 is level, Fuhrmeister Lindner, Giessen 1992; J3,gac l , when both 13...ig4 14.�d4 .he2 1S.�xe2 �g4

201

16.h3 tt:lf6 and 13 .. ..id7 14.cS dxcS IS. tvxcS tvxcS 16.�cS tt:lxf3+ 17..ix f3 c6 18.MI &118 19.c;t>fl ie6, Taborov - Ko­ sikov, Daugavpils 1978, are playable) 12...tvxe5 13.tvxe5 �eS (Yz-Y2 Goglidze ­ Lilienthal, USSR Chl937) 14.0-0 (Some examples of other moves: 14.Af3 d6 IS.O-O-O gbs, e.g. 16.b4 Ae6 17..idS bS! 18 ..ixe6 fxe6, Roehl - Krempner, Ger­ many 199S, or 16.�2 bS I7.cxbs gexbS, improving on 16 ...At5+ 17.'�c3 fti 18M �f7 19Jllidl Ae6 20.gbs gf5, Aesop ­ Computer, internet 1 996; 14.gdl d6 IS. gdS, when IS..� 16�eS dxe5 17.�d2 gd8+ 18.�c3 b6, Barbosa - Sales, Ma­ mba 2001, or IS .. llxd5 16.cxd5, Neurohr ­ Roos, P�u 1998, 16 ...cS, are adequate) 14 ...d6 (14 ...f5!? I S.Af3 c6 16J�fdl �f7 17.,g,j4 bS 18.cxbS �bS 19.m>4 l':'!ab8 Yz-Y2 Debbage - Duggan, Widey 1998) IS.ifl (Others: IS.gfdl Ae6 1 6Ed4 aS 1 7 .b3 was played in Maly - Hagen, Germany 1997, and now 17...�ffi!? 1 8..if3 �e7 19..idS cS could have been tried; Braune Wegelin, corr 1 989, continued IS.&dl b6 16.At3 l3b8 17 .M4 5 18M ie6 Yz-Y2, though I prefer IS...aS!?, e.g. 1 6Ed4 a4 17Efdl � (I' 16.b3 Af5) IS . � ( I S ... aS 16.b3 Af5 is another option) 16.&cl a5 1 7Efdl (1 7.b3 �S l8.a4 �f8 19.gfdl m,s 20.ru4 bS 21 .axbS gbxbS 22J.dl dS 23.cxbS �cl 24.�fl �e7 2S.�e2 gcs 26.�4 gxbS favoured Black in Stolfa ­ Vospemik, Nova Gorica 1996) 17...�ffi ( 17 .J:lb8 18.�fl �ffi 19 .idS b6 20.gd4 cS 2 l .M2 AxdS 22.gxdS �dS 23.cxdS, Marschall - Schaffarth, Wildbad 1 991, 2 3 ...a4) 18.�fl �e7 simplifies the game, -

Gutman. m) 1 0.0-0-0 ges ( 1 0...a6 1 1 .e3 gbs 12. M5 tt:la7 13..id3 c6 14Ed6 bS, Puleston ­

Leent, e-mail 2000, seems dubious due to 1S.tvd4 gb7 16.cS b4 17.a4) l l .gds is given by John Nunn in NCO as being favourable for White.

An effective plan whereby White intends to pressurise d7 with a combination of his rooks and light-squared bishop. He has co"ectly judged that his king will be safest on the queens ide, Lalic.

Black has to decide between:

A) l l ...d6! (not mentioned but may well

be the most flexible move) 12.exd6 cxd6 13.e3 Ae6 1 4Ed2 gac8 makes this line quite risky for White, Gutm an; B) l l...b6, the usual continuation, when: Bl) 12.h4 Ab7 (12 ...d6!? 13.exd6 cxd6 is my favourite) 13.tvc2 tt:laS 14.gdl �8 (instead of 14 ...�c8 1S.e3 .hf3 16.gxf3 tvxeS 1 7..ih3, Loiodice - Cassimon, corr 1999) 1S.e3 Axf3 16.gxf3 tvxeS; further 82) 12.g3 aS! (For 12-..ib7 1 3..ih3 see 9...b6 1 0.g3 Ab7 l l .Ah3 0-0 1 2 .0-0-0 gfe8 13 .gds- Section 3, Sequel 2. 12 ... tt:ld8 13J.h3 ttle6 14l'Dldl a5 1S.tt:ld4 tt:lcS 16.ttlfS tvgS+ 1 7.f4 tvg6 18 .g4?! Ab7 brought Black success, Sofos - Dana, internet 2002, but 1 8.b3 Ab7 19.�d7!? tt:lxd7 20.gxd7 �ffi 2 l ,gxc7 should be a correct treatment) 13..ig2 (the idea be­ hind 12 ...a5 is revealed after 13.ih3 tt:lb4) 13 ...a4 14l'Dldl (14.tt:ld4 Ab7, e.g. 1S.tt:lf5 tve6 16.tt:le3 l3b8 or I S.tt:lbS tt:laS 16.tt:lxc7 geeS) 14 ...ttla5 lS.�bl d6 16.exd6 cxd6 17.e3 Ae6 1 8.gSd4 gac8 yields Black a pleasant game, Gutman;

202

83) 1 2 .e3 .ib7 1 3 ..id3 (The benefit of White playing 13 ..ie2 is shown by 1 3 ... ll:ld8 141ld2 ltJe6 l S.mtd l ll:lcS 16i:!d4 a5 17."9c2 a4 18.c;t>bl .ixf3 19.gxf3 "$xeS, Sarakauskas - Gutman, internet 2002. Nevertheless, Black has some more set­ ups: 13 ...&c8 14Jllid l ll:lb8 1S.l:�Sd2 aS 1 6.h3 l:kd8 17."9d4 ll:la6 1 8 ..id3 ll:lcS 19 ..ic2 a4 20."tH4 .ixfJ 2 l .gxf3 "$xeS 22.'tYh4 h6 23itgl "9e6_24.oo c6 2s .rots c;t>ta 26J�dS c;t>g8 �-Y2 Aesop - Com­ puter, 1996, improving on 1 S .. ..ie4 1 6 . � .hf) 1 7 bn "$xeS 18.h3 c6 1 9."9c2 l:Ua 20.gd6, Aesop - Computer, 1 996; 13 ... aS 14 .ghdl ll:lb4? 1S.axb4 is spec­ ulative, e.g. 1 S ...axb4 16."9c2 �I+ 1 7. c;t>d2 gxd l+ 1 8.c;t>xdl .ixdS 19.cxdS d6 20.id3, Wu -Rauber, Moscow 1994, or l S .. ..ixdS 16itxdS axb4 17."9d4 b3 1 8. _gxd7 "9b4 19 ..id3 gas 20.gd8 gaxeS 2 1 ."9d7, Rogozenko - Kahn, Budapest 199S, yet 14 ... gad8! ? lS .gSd2 ll:lb8 is correct with equal chances) looks like a more serious try. Now: Bla) 13 ... gad8 14.c;t>bl ll:laS ( 1 4 ... ll:lb8 l S .h4!? .ixdS 1 6.cxdS d6 17.e6 fxe6 1 8. ll:lgS exdS 19 . .ixh7+ c;t>h8 20 ..ig6 gm 2 1 ."9c2 ll:ld7 22..if7 ll:lf6 23."9g6, Gut­ man) 1S.b4 ll:lc6 16.h4 !? a5 17.bS ll:lb8 18..ic2 .ixd5 19.cxd5 d6 (19 ..."9c5 20."9d3 g6 2 l .hS c6 22.hxg6 hxg6 23."9e4 "9xa3 24.e6 dxe6 2S."9eS, GullrUln) 20.e6 fxe6 2 1.ll:lgS (21 ."9d3 is perhaps even stronger since 2l...g6 22.hS e5 23.hxg6 e4 24."9d4 exfJ 2S.gxh7+ �. given by Jeroen Pi­ ket, loses to 26."9f4+ "9ffi 27 ..ig6+ c;t>g7 28..ixe8 �e8 29."9xffi+ c;t>xffi 30.h8�+. Gutman) 2 l ... exdS(2 1 ..."9f6 22."9xf6 gxf6 23.ll:lxe6 gd7 24..if5 gde7 2S.gc 1, Piket) 22.hh7+ c;t>h8 23."9d3 "9ffi (23 ... 00 24..ig8 ll:lf6 2S ..ixdS) 24..ig6 ge7 2S.�3 ll:ld7 26.gf3 ll:leS 27.gxffi ll:lxd3 28itf7 wins, Piket - Kamberovic, Bosna i Hercegovina 1 998;

Blb) 13 ... as 14."9c2 h6 1S ..ih7+ c;t>f8

16..it5 ll:lb8 1711d4 g6 18.ie4 ll:lc6 19..§d2 a4 20.ghdl ged8 2 l .ll:ld4 ll:laS 22 ..ixb7 ll:lxb7 23.f4 with advantage for White, Oort - Keogh, internet 1998; Blc) 13 ...ll:ld8! 14.hh7+ (14.c;t>bl .ixdS 1 S.cxd5 d6 16..ibS gfB 17itcl , Pilu!t, can be improved with 1 4... ll:le6) 14 ... c;t>xh7 1 S."9d3+ g6 16itxd7 "9cS 17.ll:lgS+ c;t>g7 1 8.f4, Piket, 1 8 ....ia6 1 9.ll:le4 (or 1 9.b4 "9xc4+ 20."9xc4 .ixc4 2 1 itxc7 .ie6) 19 ... "9xc4+ 20."9xc4 .ixc4 2 l .�c7 .ib3 and Black is OK, Gutman. Back to the main line

10 �e8 ..•

10 ...b6 l l .e3 ( l l .g3 !? see 9."9c3 b6 1 O.g3 0-0, covered in Section 3, Sequel 2) 1 1 ... .ib7 12..id3 ! (12..ie2 gfe8 13 .gds goes into the main line, but not 12 ... �e8?! 13.gds when Black gets nowhere: 13 ...ll:ld8 14.l:M2 ll:lc6 l S.0-0, Piket, or 13 .�ll:lb8 14.l:M2 .ie4 1S.�4 .ixfJ 16. .ixfJ "$xeS 17.0-0 d6 1 8 ."9c2) 1 2 ... ll:ld8 (no better are 12 .. itfe8 13.Ao4 d6 14."9c2 g6 1 S."9a4 or 1 2 ... f5 1 3 .0-0 gae8 14.cS �8 1S.cxb6 axb6 16.ic4 h6, Dirtytrick ­ Maxxx, internet 2002, 17.gd2) 1 3 ."9c2 (13..ifS ll:le6 14 ."9c2 h6 1 S ..ie4 .ixe4 16."9xe4 gfe8 1 7.0-0 aS 1 8."9fS gad8 19.gds a4 20.gfd l ll:lcS was played in Esch - Bringsken, corr 1997) 13 ...h6 (if

203

13 .. .ix0 14.ixh7+ �hS lS.gxO g6 16. ix.g6 fxg6 17.\!!!lxg6 gn 1 S .\!!!Ih6+ gh7 1 9.gxd7!) 14.ie4 ixe4 1S.\!!!Ixe4 lile6 1 6 .ltld4 favours White, Gutman. l l .�dS The pawn on e5 becomes the object ofa lively struggle, in which White has the initiative, Vasily Smyslov. l l .. b6 .

Less challenging are: I) 1 L\!!!le6 12.e3 ltle7 13_g,j2 lilg6 14 ..id3 b6 (14 ... lilxeS? 1S .ixh7+) 1 S.ie4 gbs 1 6 .0-0 h6 1 7.ixg6 \!!!lxg6 1 S.lild4 ib7 19 .f4, Lacrosse - Wortel, Ghent 2000; D) l l ...d6 12 .exd6 cxd6 13.e3 b6 (after 13 .ie6 both 14.M2 &c8 1 S.ie2 ig4 16.0-0 lileS 17.lilxeS ix.e2 lS .�e2 dxeS 19.b4, Debamot - Vasta, Buenos Aires 1969, and 14.l:Ml �S lS.ie2 .i.g4 16.h3 i.x.O 17.ix.O lileS, Jobe - Laureles, e­ mail, lS.idS bS 19.b3 bxc4 20.bxc4 \!!!f6f 2 1 .\!!!ld4 appears promising for White) 14.ltld4 ltlxd4 1 S.�d4 ib7 16.ie2 (less impressive is 16_gg4 because of 1 6 ...f5 171!d4 gooS lS�3 \!!!lg5, while Jensen ­ Schneider, corr 19S6, continued 16 ... f6 17 .id3 hS 1S,gg6 &cS 19.0-0 dS 20.b3 �7 2 1 .\!!!ld4 \!!!le6, when 22.\!!!lh4 \!!!le S 23. gg3 might be tried) 16 ...&c8 1 7.0-0 bS lS .gfdl dS 19.\!!!/aS bxc4 20.\!!!lxa7 gas 2 1 .\!!!lb6 ga6 22.\!!!lb S , Gutman.

rovokan 19S3, isn't inspiring in view of 1S.ie2 d6 16.\!c2 !!l ie6 17_g,j2 if5 lS.\!d!!I l) 13.g3 (1 3.e3 ltldS 14.ie2 lile6 l S.O-O lilcS 16.\!!!lc2 ib7 11.gd3 a4) 1 3 ...a4 14.ig2 (14.ih3 &5 l S.fuaS lilxaS 16.\!!!lc2_\!!!fc5 17.if5 lilxc4 1S.e6 dxe6 19..ixh7+ �f8 20.id3 ltld6) 14 .. .&.5 l S�aS lilxaS 16. \!!!lc2 \!!!le6 1 7 .lilgS \!!!lg6 1 S.\!!!Ixg6 hxg6 19.f4 ( 19.idS �eS) 19 ... f6 seems quite comfortable for Black, Gutman. ll .. .ib7 1 3.1el

•

ll .eJ

Others: I) 12.g3 ib7 1 3 .ig2 d6 14 .0-0 ( 1 4.e6 \!!!lx e6 l S.e3 lbeS 16.ltld4 \!!!ld7 17.f4 c6 1S.�d6 \!!!lxd6 19.fxeS �eS gave Black a winning position, Froemmel - Ries­ sbeck, corr 19S7) 14 ...lilxeS l S.lilxeS dxeS, Gutman ; further D) 12.\!!!ld2 aS! (12 ... lilbS 13 .g3 ib7 14. gd3 aS 1 S.ig2 ic6 1 6.0-0 ltla6 17 _ge3 &dS 1S.\!!!Ic3 \!!!lcS 19.�1 a4 20_gdl �7 2 l .lilh4 is too slow, Ousatchi - Wulf, Bad Wiessee 2003, while 1 2 ...h6 1 3.e3 f6 14.exf6 \!!!fxfO, Sturua - Pavlenko, Ki-

13 ... �d8!?

Black has two more possibilities, em­ ploying differing strategies: I) 13 ...aS 1 4.0-0 lObS I S.I!d4 lila6 ( I S ... a4 - a dual purpose move that blocks White 's queenside pawns and prepares . . ga5, Lillie -, 16_gfdl &5 is premature to me on account of 17 .\!!!lc2 ic6 1S_g4d2

ltla6 19.ltld4 \!!!/xeS 20.ltlxc6 dxc6 21.10. After 1 7.e4? ic6 IS .id3 ltla6 1 9.ic2 ltlcS- Black has achieved everything that he set out to do. The huge knight on c5 keeps an eye on the d7-pawn, while the whitepawn structure is static and lifeless, Lillie -, White lacks a good regrouping

plane, for instance 20.\!!!le3 lile6 2 1 _g4d2 lilt& 22.lbd4 \!!!/xeS 23.ltlxc6 dxc6 24.f4, van Laar - Corbacho, e-mail 2002, 24... \!!!lcS, or 201re I tLie6 2 1 .ru dl ltl f& 22.� \!!!lcS \12"\12 Hoeksma -Vahneste, Gronin­ gen 19SS - Given thai Black has the ma-

204

noeuvre ... liJg6 and then ... fue5 in mind,

19 ...liJc6 20.cxb6 cxb6 2 1 _gcd l ) J S_gxc3 liJc6 I9.idl � 22.ia4, Gutman; fiuther AJ) IS.b4 liJc6 (IS .ixdS? 16.cxdS liJb7 is virtual suicide in view of 1 7�6 gbs I S.\!!!Ixc7 geeS 1 9 .d6 \!!!leS 20.gc1 gxc7 2 l .dxc7 \!!!lcS 22.cxbS\!!!I \!!!lx bS 23.liJd4 g6 24.f4, though 17 .\!!!lxc7 is not bad ei­ ther, e.g. 17 ...gbs? I S.d6 1 :0 Schwertel ­ Sandeck, corr 1 992, or 17 ... d6 I S.\!!!Ixe7 gxe7 1 9.liJd4, Anton - Breustedt, Halle 1 9S l ) 16.gfc l ( l 6.gfdl liJbS also keeps some edge for White: 17 _gsd2 .ixf3 and now not I S.gxf3 \!!!lgS+ 1 9.'i!;lhl \!!!/xeS 20.\!!!/xeS gxeS, Velvart - Pandavos, Ba­ latonbereny 1992, but I S.ixf3 \!!!/xeS 19. \!!!lc2, or J 7.gSd4 !? ixf3 I S .ixf3 \!!!/xeS 19.\!!!ld3 g6 20.cS ge6, when instead of 21.h4 bxcS 22.� \!!!lb2 23.bS? ges, Por­ tenschlaeger - Mindt, Dortmund 19S7, 2li!c I c6 22.a4 might be better) 16...liJbS 17 _gsd2 ixf3 IS.J.xfl \!!!lxeS I 9.cS yields a plus for White, Gutman. B) 14 ...liJbS is surely sounder.

I think that White should be very satis­

fied here, Ltzlic) 16.ru'dl �S 17 .h4 liJcS

•

( 1 7 ...a4 J S_gf4 h6 1 9.-*.d3 .ixf3 20.gxf3, Ciovin - Vozka, Czech Republic 1 99S, 20...liJcS looks fully viable, but White can do better with I S.\!!!Ic2 liJcS 1 9.liJgS g6 20..if3 .ixf3 2 I .liJxf3) IS.\!!!Ic2 .bf3 19. .ixf3 \!!!/xeS (19 a4 20.ig4) 20.b4 axb4 2 l .axb4 liJa6 22\!!!la4 and White's posi­ tion is preferable, Gutman; ll) 1 3...gms 14.0-0 is the classical way, when two moves are worth mentioning: A) 14 ... liJaS does not seem adequate. .•

We examine: AI) IS.& I cS ( I S...ixdS 16.cxd5 c5 17.b4

liJb7 I S.ibS cxb4 1 9.axb4 gcs 20.\!!!/xcS gxcS 2 1 .gxcS+ liJdS 22.d6 \!!!leS 2 3 .e6 fxe6 24.liJeS was hopeless for Black in Vondracek - Hejda, corr 1 9SS) 1 6.gd2 (1 61!d6 ft5 17i!cdl fxeS I S.b4 liJc6) 16 ... ie4!? (16 ...ixf3 17.ixf3 \!!!/xeS IS.\!!!IxeS �eS 1 9 _gc3 geeS 20.id I liJc6 2 I .ia4 'i!;lf8 22.f4) l 7.gcdl liJc6 I S,gd6 .ix f3 I9.ixf3 liJxeS 20�2 f5 iseven, Grilman ; Al) I S_gd2 .ixf3 (IS . ..i-4 1 6.�4 .bf3 1 7.ixf3 \!!!/xeS I S.gfd l ) 1 6.ixf3 \!!!/xeS 17.&1 (17.\!!!lc2 \!!!le6 IS.ID'dl liJc6 I9.id5 \!!!lh 6 20.cS liJeS 2 l .cxb6 c6!) 17 ...\!!!lxc3 ( 1 7...\!!!le6 IS-'dS \!!!Ih6 1 9.cS, e.g. 1 9 ...c6 20.h2 \!!!lh4 2 l lhl l \!!!/e7, Ovchinikova Keprt, Frydek-Mistek 1 997, 22.\!!!lb4, or

Four moves were tried: 81) ISl!d4 liJc6 (IS .. .ixfl I6.i.xf3 \!!!/xeS l 7.gfd l d6 IS.\!!!Ic2 liJd7 l 9,ge4 gets Black in trouble, e.g. 1 9...\!!!fffi 20.gxeS+ gxeS 2 I .ic6 &7 22.ixd7 �d7 23 .\!!!la4 or 1 9...\!!!/aS 20.gxeS+ gxe8 2 I .ic6 gds 22.ixd7 �d7 23.\!!!le4 � 24.\!!!lxh7, � botsov - Pavlov, Student Olympiad, Bul­ garia 1 9S3) 16.gdS liJbS, Gutman ;

20S

Bl) l511d3 .bfl 16.ixf3 't!fxe5 17.'t!fd2 d6 I S.b4 ltld7 (Cherepkov - Chudiakov, Odessa 196S, went I S ...'t!fffi 1 9.& 1 't!fg6 20.c5 ltld7 2l .cxd6? ltJe5 22dxc7 ltlxf3+ 23.Whl ltlh4 24.g3 gxd3 25 .cS't!f 't!fe4+ 26.0, when 26 ...'t!fxf3+ 27.Wgl WfB is decisive, but 21 �4!? ltJe5 22..ie4 Iooks more natural) 1 9 ..ic6 ge7 leaves Black in control, Gutman; 83) 15lkl is a real blow, Lalic. Bold but logical! Not shrinking from an exchange sacr�(ice, White keeps hold of the key to the position - the pawn on e5, Smyslov.

farth, Cologne 19S9, are fully sufficient) 20.bxc5 bxc5 2 I .idl ! ? ge7 22.f4 and I like White, Gutman; BJb) 15 ...a5 1 6.b4 (1 6.gd2 ltla6 17.'t!fc2 ixO I S .J.xO 't!fxe5) 1 6 ...axb4 1 7.axb4 ltla6!? (17 ..ixd5 I S.cxd5 d6 1 9.J.b5 gfB 20.'t!fxc7 't!fxc7 2 l .gxc7 dxe5 22.e4 f6 23.gb7) I S .gbl c5 ( I S ... ixd5 1 9.cxd5 gas 20.h4 c5 is more ambitious) 19 _gd6 (19.b5 ixd5 20.bxa6 iaS 2 1 .gxb6 d6) 19 ... ltlxb4 20.gxb6 ixO 2 I .ixf3 't!fxe5 22't!fxe5 fue5 looks level to me, Gutman; B."k) 15 ...J.xd5 16.cxd5 is for players who do not like to procrastinate.

There are three continuations: BJa) 1 5 ...c5, Kurt Richter, 1 6.gd2 (after 1 6.b4 ixd5 1 7 .cxd5 cxb4 I S .axb4 d6 I9.ib5 gts 20.e4 dxe5 2 l.ltlxe5 a6 22.J.d3 gfeS 23.ltlf3 ltld7 24.ltld4 't!fg5 25.ltlc6 �S White has no compensation for the exchange, and if 1 6.gd6, then not 1 6 ... .hO 17...lx0 't!fxe5, Richter, on account of I S.'t!fd2 ge6 1 9.gds 't!fc7 20.�1 . Rai­ cevic - Schaffarth, Oberwart 1 9S6, but 1 6 ...ffi 11.gcdl fxc5) 1 6....ixf3 (16.. ..ie4 17-'d3 .bfl I S.gxf3 't!fg5+ 1 9.�1. Wor­ nath - Knoth, Germany 1 99S, 19...'t!fxe5 20.'t!fxe5 fue5 21 � Wf8 should be even, but White can try for more with 1 7 .ltle I 't!fxe5 I S .'t!fxe5 gxe5 19.ltld3 ixd3 20. gxd3 WfB 2 l .f4 geeS 22.idl intending 23 .J.a4) 1 7.ixf3 't!fxe5 IS.b4 (I S.'t!fxe5 gxe5 19.gcdl WfB 20.Wfl 'it>e7 2 l .We2 f5 22.g3 Yz-Yz Schirmer - Augustin, corr 1 990. Also IS.�3 has its drawbacks as l S_ltJc6 shows, e.g. 19..&dl 't!fc7 20.'t!fc2 ltle5 or 1 9 _gxd7 ltld4 20.'t!fa4 ltlxf3+ 2 1 . gx O 't!fxb2 22_gcdl gxd7 23.'t!fxd7 WfB; however, Vogt - Schaffarth, Germany 1990, went I S ...ge6 19.gcdl 't!fc7 20.h3 Wf8 2l.'t!fc2 g6 with depressingprospects for Black, Lalic) I S ...'t!fxc3 1 9fuc3 ltlc6 (neither l 9_cxb4 20.axb4 a5 2l .bxa5 bxa5 22�3 ltlc6 23. Wfl, nor 19. � 20E'.cd3 WfB 2 l .b5!? g6 22.a4, Schoen - Schaf-

Black faces a tricky choice: BJcl) 16 ...c6 1 7.d6 't!fe6 I S.b4 ( I S.id3 't!fh6 19 .�3 b5 20..ibl ltla6 2 l .gdl ltlc5 22.'t!fc2 ltle6 turned out well for Black, Schendel - Keuter, corr 1 9S7) I S ...b5 19.'t!fd4 a6 20.J.d3 h6 2 l .'t!fe4 g6 22.gcs 'it>g7 23.ltld4 't!fa2 24.h4!? 't!fxa3 25.h5, Fochtler - Kaspar, Schwaebisch Gmuend 1 996; further BJcl) 16...'t!ffB 17.'t!fd3 (better than 17 -'d3 h6 I S.'t!fd4 c5 19.'t!fe4 g6 20..ic4 't!fg7 2 1 . b4 d6, Herraiz Herrnini - Garcia Castro, Murcia 1997) 1 7 ...c5 I S .ltlg5 g6 1 9.'t!fc3 't!fg7 20.f4, Gutman; similarly BJcJ) 1 6 ... c5 (leads to complexplay, Smyslov) 17 ..ib5 (17 .d6 't!fe6 I S..ic4 't!ff5 19.e4 't!fh5 20..id5 g5? 2 l .h3 h6 22.ltlh2 't!fg6 23.ltlg4 gfB 24.b4 occurred in Ho-

•

206

dos - Krutikhin, USSR 1 962, but 20 ... ltlc6 2 l .ixc6 dxc6 22.b4, Hans Kmoch, 22...cxb4 23.ax.b4 \!!!lg424.ltld4 cS 2S.bxcS &eS 26.cxb6 axb6 27.\!!!fc7 l::!ee8 might be critical) 17 _.a6 1 8.d6 \!!!le6 19-":4 \!!!ff5 20.id3 (after 20.idS ltlc6 2 l .ix.c6 dxc6 22.h3, Smyslov, 22 ...\!!!fe6 is good, Stefan Buecker Kaissiberl6/2001) 20 ...\!!!/h S 2 l .ie4 (2 1 .\!!!lb3 ltlc6 22.\!!!lxb6 gb8 23. \!!!/xeS &b2 24.ixa6 g6 2S.a4 ltlxeS) 21 ... ltlc6 22.ix.c6 dxc6 23.\!!!lc4 (23.\!!!lb3 bS 24.\!!!lc3 f6 2S.\!!!fxcS fx.eS 26.\!!!lxc6 ge6) 23 ...&8 24.b4 \!!!lg6 2S.bxcS bS 26.\!!!lb 3 all favour White, Gutman; BX4) 16...d6! 17 ..ibS gf8 1 8.e4 (l8.\!!!lxc7 \!!!lxc7 19.l:!:xc7 dxeS 20.e4 a6) 18 ...a6 (if 18 ...dxeS, then 1 9.\!!!/xeS \!!!/xeS 20.ltlxeS a6 2 l ia4 f6 22.ltl0 gf7 23.ltld4, while Buecker analyses instead 1 9.ltlxeS f6 20.ltlc6 ltlxc6 2 l .ix.c6 'it>h8 22.l::!e l \!!!feS) 19.id3 l:!:fe8! (Smyslov - Steiner, Gro­ ningen 1946, continued 19 ...che5 20.ltlxeS .a:d6 - Black's knight is out ofplay, and thepawn on c7 is weal A more stubborn move was 20 ... ffi ! ?, although even then White maintains the advantage with 2 1. ltlg4, aiming to manoeuvre the knight on f5, Smyslov -, 2 l .ltlc4 gh6 22.ltle3

\!!!lh 4 23.\!!!lxc7 m6 24.g3 \!!!lhS 2S.eS a:h6 26.h4 \!!!10 27 ..&4 bS 281ll"4 \!!!lhs 29.ltlg4 gg6 30.ix.g6 \!!!lxg6 3 l .e6 \!!!lb 1+ 32.'it>h2 f5 33.e7 ge8 34.\!!!ld8 1 :0) 20.e6 (20.exd6 cxd6 2 l .ltld4 \!!!leS 22.ltlc6 ltlxc6 23.dxc6 a:a8 24.\!!!/xeS dxeS 2S.a4 'it>f8, improving on 2 1 -g6?! 22.g3 \!!!lb7 23.\!!!lb4 a5 24.\!!!/bS gc8 2S.ltlc6 gc7 26.gc3 gf8 27.f4 ltld7 28.eS lLlcS 29.exd6 a:d7 30.ltleS 1 :0 Lau ­ Schupert, German Btmdesliga 1 981) 20 ... fx.e6 2l .dxe6 bS !? (after 2 l ...cS 22.ic4 White would still have a complex task ahead of him, Smyslov, while Buecker

recommends 2 l ...dS 22.exdS gxdS 23. ic4 a:d6 24.ltles cS 2S.ltln IM4) 22.ltld4

(22.\!!!lxc7 \!!!lxe6 23.\!!!lb 7 \!!!In) 22...\!!!ff6 and Black is fine, Gutman.

84) 1 S J�d2 creates more problems.

We survey Blac k's defences: B4a) 1 S.. .ie4 1 61i:d4 i.xf3 1 7.ix.O wi ll transpose into 1 S.E:d4i.xf3 16.ixf3- Bl; B4b) l S ... aS with a further split: B4bl) 16.b4 axb4 (16 ...ixf3 17.ixfl \!!!/xeS 18.\!!!/xeS gxeS 19 .& 1 secure White the

better ending, e.g. 19 ... axb4 20.axb4 ltla6 2 l .& l ltlxb4 22.&d7 or 19...'it>f8 20.cS axb4 2 l.cxb6 cxb6 22.axb4 'it>e7 23itd4) 17.axb4 ie4! (this is more accurate than 1 7 ... ltlc6 1 8.bS ltlxeS Yz-Yz Allkarlos ­ Maitreya, e-mail 2002, as 18.m> 1 lLlxeS 19.ltlxeS \!!!/xeS 20.\!!!/xeS gxeS 2 1 .&1 d6 22.ga7 gb8 23.cS accelerates Black's position into a very difficult one) 18.E:d4 (l 8.bS .hf3 19.ix.O \!!!/xeS 20.\!!!/xeS !:!:xeS 2 l .idS � 2�b 1 'it>f8, Buecker) 1 8 ... .hf3 19.ix.f3 \!!!/xeS 20.bS d6 2 l .&l ltld7 22.ic6 ge7, Gutman; further B4bl) 16itfdl ltla6 (Averkin - Pavlenko, USSR 1 972, went 16 ... h6 17.b4 .ixO, when instead of 1 8.gx0 axb4 19.axb4 lLlc6 20.f4 ltlxb4 21 .it3 ltla6 22 ...tit 1 ltlcS 23.ggl gf8, 1 8.ix.O axb4 19.axb4 \!!!/xeS 20.\!!!lb 3 looks a little better for White, John Dollllold6 n. 16 .ixfl 17.ix.f3 \!!!/xeS 1 8.\!!!fc2 is similar, while 17.gx.O \!!!/xeS 18.\!!!/xeS�eS 19.f4, Neymann - Roeder, Germany 2000, 1 9 ....ge6 is equalising) 1 7.\!!!fc2 ltlcS 1 8.b4 axb4 1 9.axb4 ltle6 (l9 ...ltle4 20.l:!:d4 ltlgS 2 l .ltlxgS \!!!lxgS

207

..

�d7 22bxa5 bxaS) 1 8 ...gde8 ( 1 8...�c6 J9,g(dJ �7 20.�fl �e5 2 1 J.e2 d6 22.b4 &8 23.c5 dxc5 24.bxc5 h6, Aesop - Com­ puter, computer game 1 996, 2 5.f4! �g6 26.�f2 leaves Black struggling) 1 9.gfd I d6 20.g3 (20.gxe5 gxe5 2 1 ,gd5 �d7!? 22.�fl � 23.�e2 �e7 24.h3 15, Jedr­ zejowshi - Matyszkiewicz, Poland 1 995) 20...f0d7 21 �e5 lhe5 (21 ...�xe5 22J.e2 �fB 23.�fl �e7 24.f4 �d7 25-i.n �c5 26.b4 liJe6 27 J.c6 gfB, Keller - Glase­ wald, corr 1 989) 22�4 � 23.ic6 �ffi 24.e4 a5 25.b4 axb4 26.axb4 g5 is even, Fite I - Lashkevich, Podolsk 1 993 ; B4c:3) 1 7.Y!rc2 keeps the tension.

22-i.fl) 20.Y!rc3 �Ill ! ? 2 1 .gu (2 l .�el Y!rxeS 22Y!rxe5 lhe5 231!a2.&8 24,gxa8 .lxa8 25.ga I gea 26.ga7 �e6 27 .i.g4 gc8, Abril - Osuna, Matalascanas 1 995) 2 J ...ga8 22.gxa8 i.xa8 (not 22 ... gxa8 23.�el �g6 24if3)23.&1 � 24bn �g6 251!a7 Y!rd8 26.&8 Y!re7 appears to hold the balance, Gutman. B4c:) 15 .. .J.xf3 16.J.xf3 Y!rxeS is the prin­ cipal reply.

We now have: B4c:l) 1 7,gc 1 Y!rxc3 ( 1 7 ... c5 see 1 5 .gcl c5 1 6.gd2 ixn 1 7.ixn Y!rxe5- BJ11) 18�c3 d6 19.b4 (19.'itfl Yt-Yz Guilman Gulko, Quebec 2001) 1 9 ...�18 (19...�d7 20J.c6 ge7 2 1 .�1 �e5 22.c5 bxc5 23. gxc5 gb8 !? 24,gc3 liJxc6 2 5 .gxc6 f5 ) 20.h4 �7 21 � �7 22.c5 bxcS 23.bxc5 �f6 24.0 &5 25.g4 h6 26.�g2 �7 27. cxd6+lhd628�2 &5 29.e4 00 30.h5 �e5 3 1 .� �xc6 32�c6lhc6 33.BI!.c6, Garcia Palermo - Schaffarth, Luxem­ burg 1 989, 33 ...�d7 with equality; B4c:2) 1 7.Y!rxe5 lhe5 1 8�5 (1 8,gfdl d6 19.b4 �d7 20.ic6 �-� Tokkeg - Mon� srer Mash, computer game 200 I , but 1 9... aS !? is worth attention: 20,gd5 �d7, im­ proving on 20-�dS 2 l .cxd5 axb4 22axb4 �6 23,gb ) b5 24.�fl. Beckett - Dug­ gan, Witley 1 998, and if20.�fl . then not 20 axb4 2 1 .axb4 �a6 22.&1 �xb4 231!a4 c5 24.gxd6 but 20 ...�f8 21 ,gd5 .•

Black should proceed safely: B4c:3a) 17 ...c6 1 8,gfdl Y!rc7 1 9.b4 (in­

stead of 19 ,gd4 d6 20 ..ig4 c 5 2 1 .gd5 ge5 22.Y!rd3 gxd5 23.Y!rxd5 liJc6, Ger­ lach - Mittelstaedt, Germany 1 986) 19 ... d6 20.Y!rf5, Gutman; further B4c:3b) 1 7 ...ge6 J 8.gd5 ( 1 8.gfdl is met by 1 8 ... rut6 19.h3 Y!re7 20.b4 liJc6) 1 8 ... 'l'f6 1 9.gfdl Y!re7 20.gh5 ! (an improve­ ment on 20.ig4 rut6 2I .Y!ra4 c6 22,g5d4 d6 23J.n Y!rc7 24.b4 ge8 25.b5 cxb5 26. cxb5 ge5 27..id5 �d7, Paulus - Aroun­ opoulos, corr 1988) 20 ...h6 2 1.rutd5 d6 22.Y!ra4 secure a plus for White, Gutman; B4c3b) 17 d6 is the more precise course, 1 8.b4 �7 (18...Y!rffi J9,g(d) �d7 20.ic6 ge7 2 l .c5 �5 22J.e4 g6 23.h3 b5 24.

208

.•

cxd6 cxd6 2S�S a6 26_gd4 §eeS 27.'fic7 occurred in Silman - Wolski, Anaheim 1 9S9) I9 ..tc6 l::!e7 20.lUd l �f6!? (after 20 ...g6 2 I .l::! d4 'figS 22.'fia4 a5 23 ,gds � 24bd7 l::!cixd7 25.bxa5 bxaS 26_g,w White won, Mercadal - Miguel Tomas, corr 1 997) 2 J .gd4 gbs (better than 2 1 ... gfB?! 22 .'fia4 aS 23 bxaS bxa5 24.l::!b l ) 22'fia4 (22.b5 �d7 23.'fia4 �cS 24.'fixa7 l::! fB 2S.a4 fS and white queen is rather misplaced) 22 ...a5 23,gb ) 'fits looks fully viable to me, Gutman.

lS ...aS Other moves are clearly weaker: I) I S ...�gS 16.�xgS 'fixgS 1 7 .g3 !::!adS IS.f4 'fits 19.'fid3 ie4 20.'fid4 d6 2 l .g4 'fig6 22.fS I :0 Aesop - Yaacov, com­ puter game 1 996; II) IS...�cS 16.'fic2 a5 (16 .. .ie4 is awk­ wardly met by 1 7.'fid l a5 I S .b4 axb4 19.axb4 �e6 20.cS) 17.b4 axb4 I S.axb4 �e6 19.'fib3 �fB 20.l::!fd l .h0 2 I ..txo gadS 22 . .ig4, Gutman. 16.Kfdl 1 6.b4 axb4 17.axb4 &4 1 S.gfdl .ixO 19.gx0 �fB 20.f4 'fixb4 2 I .'fixb4 l:bb4 22.ga 1 , Rivera - Guzman, corr 1 99S, runs into 22 ...gS! 23.&7 gxf4 24.exf4 �e6, Gutman. 16... �c:S 16 ...l:W!S 17.b4 axb4 1 S .axb4 will transpose into 13 ...l::!adS 14 .0-0 �bS IS.l::!d2 a5 1 6.gfdl �a6 17.'fic2 �cS I S.b4 axb4 19.axb4 �e6 20.'fic3. 17.Kd4 a4

Back to the main line

14.Kd2 J4_gdJ �e6 IS.0-0 �ftl (IS ...aS 16.�d2! �cS 1 7-.tO 'fixeS I S.'fixeS gxeS 19.b4 or I S...�cS 16.b4 �e4 17.'fic2 a5 I S.gd4 �gS 19.�xgS 'fixgS 20.g3 are both less convincing) 16.b4 �g6 1eads to equality, Gutman. 14 ... �e6 Zistl - Roos, Germany 1 99S, went 14 ... �c6?! IS.O-O l:W!S I 6.l::!fdl �bS I7.'fic2 i.x.O I S ..ixO 'fixeS 1 9.l::!dS 'fie? 20.cS �c6 2 l .cxb6 cxb6 22'fia4 �eS 23.'fixa7 �xO+ 24.¢3 'fift5 2S�d7 l::!cS 26.'fib7 gc 2, when 27.'fie4 might be strong. IS.0-0 After I S .b4 gadS I 6.0-0 �gS 17.�xgS 'fixgS Black stood very well in Hustert ­ Schuler, Germany 1 99S.

Black is quite comfortable since all his pieces have been developed on active squares, Gutman.

209

Chapter 1 (l.d4 �f6 2.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4 4.a3) 4...a5

Fifth Part ( l .d4 �f6 2.c:4 e5 3.dxe5 �e4) 4.a3

This answer enjoyed a certain amount ofpopularity in the past, but nowadays it is generally felt that Black does not have timefor such a move here, Bogdan Lolic.

4.a3, prc:Venting .. .J.b4+ and threatening ec2, deserves attention, MIIX Euwe. My gut feeling is that 4.a3! is actually the most accurate shot to obtain a max­ imum advantage, Arthur Bisguier. 4.a3 is a move which we fmd very hard to meet, Benjamin/Schiller. Black has never found a convincing answer to 4.a3 ! ?, preventing the bishop check, Graham Burgess. White avoids the exchanges produced in case of .. .J.b4+ and threatens to play ec2. Can Black take advantage o f the loss of tempo with a3?, Alfonso Romero. Nowadays this move is reckoned to be the most critical since it cuts out the op­ tion of a bishop check or pin from b4, Tim Harding, 2000.

The material divides as follows: Chapter I - 4 . . . a5 (4 ....i.c5, 4....i.e7, 4... ee7) Chapter 2 - 4 ... eh4 Chapter 3 - 4 ... lLJc6 Chapter 4 - 4 ...d6 Chapter 5 - 4 ...b6.

Some examples of other moves: I) 4 ....i.c5 5 .e3, when Black faces prob­ lems everywhere: A) 5 ... a5? 6.ed5 ; B) 5 ...0-0? 6.ed5 (instead of 6.b4 .i.e7 7..id3 d5 8,jb2 .if5 9.ec2 .i.g6 1 O.lLJf3 c6 l l .h4 ed7 12.h5 i13 13.lLJbd2, Melchor ­ Bek, corr 1 992) 6 ...eb4 7.g3 c6 s.ed3, Gutman; C) 5 ...lLJc6? 6.ed5 (6.lLJO transposes to 4.lLJO .i.c5 5.e3 lLJc6 6.a3 - Part 4, Chap­ ter 1 ) 6...lLJa5 7.exe4 lLJb3 8.lLJd2 lLJxal 9.b4 .i.e7 10.J.b2 c5 I I ..hal cxb4 12.e6 0-0 ! 3 .exf7+ gxf7 14.c5, Gutman; D) 5 ...d6 6..i.d3 (6.ed5 f5 7.b4 c6 8.edl .i.b6 9.ehS+g6 10.eb6 dxe5 l l .c5 Ac7 1 2.eg1 gm 1 3 .exh7 is not bad either, Crafty - Zarkov, computer game 1996, while Ricardo Aguilera mentions only 6.b4 .ib6 7.exd6 cxd6) 6...f5(6....tf5 7.ec2, Tucci - Vandmluys, e-mail 2001 ) 7.b4 .i.b6 8.lLJO, Gutman; E) 5 .. f5 6.lLJd2 (for 6.lLJf3 see 4.lLJf3 .i.c5 5.e3 f5 6.a3 - Part4, Chapter I , while af­ ter 6..i.d3 eb4 7.ec2 lLJc6 8.g3 eh5 9. .i.xe4 fxe4 I O.exe4 exe5 l l .lLJd2 exe4 1 2.lLJxe4 .i.e7 Black had compensation for his pawn, Kalender - Roesch, Ger­ many 1 998) 6 ... a5 7.lLJxe4 fxe4 s.ed5 ee7 9.exe4 d6 10.lLJO ltld7 l l..idJ, Che ­ Maidana Guerra, e-mail 200 1 ; F) 5 ...c6 6.b4 .i.e7 7 .J.d3 d5 s.ec2 f5 9. .i.b2 Ae6 1 o.n lLJg5 I l .lL!e2 o-o I2.lL!d2 dxc4 1 3 .lLJxc4 g6 14.0-0 lLJd7 1 5 J!adl ec7 16.lLJf4, Arnold - Leist, Zurich 1994;

2 10

.

G) 5...Y!!Ih4 6.g3 (6.�c2 - and Black will be booten back into his cave, Benjamin/ SchiUer -, 6...ltJg5 7.b4 i.e? 8ltJc3 ltJc6 9.ltJd5 idS I O.ib2 0-0 l l .g3 Y!!ih6 l 2.f4 occurred in Boniek - Trousersnake, internet 2002) 6...�g5 (6 ...�e7 is refuted by 7.13!, e.g. 7...ltlxg3 8.hxg3 �xe5 9.f4, Linklater - Vande1'5luys, e-mail 2001 , or 7...ltJg5 8.f4 ltJe4 9.b4; however, 7.�d5 f5 and 7.ltlf3 d6 are less clear, Aguilera) 7.�d5 f5 8.b4 (Crafty - Brause, computer game 1 998, went 8.ltJd2 ltJxd2 9..ixd2 ltJa6 IO.ig2 c6 l l .�d3 0-0 1 2.ltlf3 �g6 H) 5 ... �g5 6.�d5 (6.ltJf3 �g6 7.ltlbd2 ltJxd2 8.�xd2 0-0 9.b4 i.e? IO ..ib2 a5 l l .b5 b6 1 2 .�d3 was played in Back ­ Jager, corr 1995, and also 6.�c2 is in­ teresting, e.g. 6 ... f5 7 .ltJc3, Aguikra, or 6...�xe5 7 .b4! �xa 1 8.ib2 � a2 9.�xe4+ i.e? IO ..bg7 �g8 l l .if6 ltlc6 1 2.ltJe2) 6 ... f5 7.ltJd2 ltJxd2 8 .i.xd2, Gutman. m 4 ...i.e7 5.ltJf3 (5.ltJd2 ltJxd2 6.i.xd2 is met by 6 ... ffi! 7 .ic3 fxe5 8.ixe5 i.£6; 6 ... d6 7.if4 is in White's favour, e.g. 7 ... dxe5 8.ixe5 0-0, Malmstrom - Tucci, e-mail 200 1 , 9.�xd8, or 7 ... ltlc6 8.ltlf3 0-0 9.exd6 ixd6 1O..ixd6 cxd6 l l .e3 �ffi. Blitzmich - Tepi, internet 2002, 1 2.�d2) 5 ... ltJc6 (5 ...0-0 6.�c2 d5 7.cxd5 �xd5 8.ltJbd2 i.f5 9.�xc7 ltJc6 1 0.e3 b5 l l .e6 i.d6 led to a crushing defeat, Martinez Bejarano - Che, email 2001 , but 7.exd6 ltlxd6 8.e4 is more logical, e.g. 8 . . .i.f6 9�3 Jg4 10.c5 or 8 ...f5 9.e5 ltJe4 IO.ltJc3) 6.�c2! ? (If 6.e3 0-0 7 .id3, then not 7 ... ltJg5 8.ltJc3 ltJxf3+ 9.�xf3 ltJxe5 IO.ixh7+ ltixh7 1 1 .�5+ 'i!;>g8 1 2.�xe5 .iff; l3.�a5 b6 14.�. Meskaneen - Auvinen, Espoo 1 998, but 7 ... ltJc5 8.i.c2 a5 9.b3 �e8 ! ? 1 O.ib2 i. f8 1 1 .0-0 g6 12.ic3 i.g7; also 7.b4 offers Black after 7 ... d6! ? enough counter chances, e.g. 8.�d5 ltJg5 9.ltJxg5 .ixg5 1 0.exd6, JebStuart - Tepi, internet 2002, 1 O .. .iffi l l .l'hl i.e6 1 2.�d2 ltle5. After 6.�d5 ltlc5 7.ltJc3 ltlb3 Slnll ltlxcl

9.fucl 0-0 1 0.e3 �e8 l l .id3 h6 12.�e4 g6 l 3 .�d5 White won quickly in Pires ­ Gonsalves, e-mail 2000, but 7 ...a5 leads to a balanced position: S..ie-3 b6 9.ltlb5, when instead of9...ltle6 10.g3 Jb7 l l .ig2 0-0 12.0-0 ltlc5 1 3.ixc5 .ixc5 1 4.�fd 1 , Wilde - Schleiwies, corr 1 995, 9 ...i.b7 1 0.g3 �b8 is better; similarly 8.if4 b6 9.e3 .ib7 1 O.ie2 g5 l l .i.g3, Flockert Schaffarth, Germany 1 988, l l ... g4!?, e.g. 1 2 .ltld2 h5 1 3 .0-0 ltlb4 1 4.axb4 i.xd5 15.ltJxd5 ltJe6 or 1 2.e6 gxfl l 3.exf7+ �f8 14.if4 h5 15.gxf3 i.f6) 6 ... ltJc5 (6 ... ltJg5 7.ixg5hg5 8.ltJc3 0-0 9.e3 .ih6 1 0.J.d3 g6 l l.h4 i.g7 1 2.h5 ltJxe5 l3.ltJxe5 .ixe5 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.ixg6 hxg6 16.�xg6+ i.g7 1 7.Y!!Ih7+ rtlt7, Addison - Rattray, Witley 1 998, 1 8 .�h5+ �g8 1 9 .�h4 winning) 7.ltJc3 a5 goes into 4... ltJc6 5 .ltJf3 a5 6. �c2 ltlc57.M �7 - Chapter 3, Gulman; 01) 4 ...�e7 5.ltJf3 ltJc6 6.�c2 (6.�d5 is possible. JebStuart - Boniek, internet 2002, went 6 ...15 7.exffi ltlxffi 8.�d3 ltJe5 9.ltlxe5 �xe5 l O.ltJc3 i.c5 l l .g3 0-0 12. i.£4 � l3.b4. In case of6... ltJc5 7.ltlbd2 a5 s.m,l is instead of 8 ...d6 9.exd6 cxd6 IO.b4 .hli l l .�g5 ffi 12.�e3 axb4 13.axb4 ltJd7 14.g3 ltJce5 15.ltJxe5 ltJxe5, Becker ­ Colpe, Griesheim 1 998, 1 6.i.g2, 8 ...a4 the correct answer; nevertheless we can improve with 7.ltJc3 ltJb3 8.i.g5, since both 8 ..�e69.ltlb5 and S ...ffi 9.exffi gxffi l O.�d l ltJxal l l .ltld5 �d6 12 -ixffi �g8 l3.e4 �g4 14.e5 �+ 15.ie2 tend to run into trouble) 6...ltJc5 (if 6 ... f5 7.exffi gxffi , then not 8.ltlc3 ltJxc3 9 .�xc3 d6 1 O.b3 /4!,7 l l .ib2 !eli 12.e3 ()..0.() , Sumnann ­ John, e-mail 200 1 , but 8 .ltlbd2 f5 9.g3 i.g7 IO .ig2 d6 1 1 .0-0 i.d7 12.e3 0-0-0 l3.ltJxe4 fxe4 14.ltJd2) 7.b4 (7.ltJc3 ltJxe5 8.ltJxe5 �xe5 9.ltJd5 ltJe6 IO.id2 c6 1 1 . ic3 Y!!lh 5 12.ltJe3 i.c5 l 3 .�f5 �g6 was even, Boehm - Richter, Germany 1 978. 7.i.g5 has more point:? ... f6 8.exf6 gxffi 9.ih4 or 7 ...ltJd4 8.ltlxd4 �xg5 9.ltlf3

2ll

�g6 1 0.�xg6hxg6 l l .�c3 ie7 12.g3 b6 1 3 .i.g2 .ib7, Borsuk - Khomenko, Uk­ raine 1998, 14.�d5 idS 1 5J::td l) 7...�e6 8.i.b2 �g5 (8...a6 9.b5 �cd8 I O.�c3 c6? 1 1 ..!004, Riessbeck - Musielak, corr 1 986, or 8 ...b6 9.e3 .ib7 I O.�c3 0-0-0 l l .�d5 �e8 12�2 �e7, Reilly--Gibson, Dublin 1 993, 1 3 J::td l , are awkward for Black) 9.�bd2 �xf3+ I O.�xf3 b6 I I .e3 .ib7 I2.i.e2 a5 ( 1 2...0-0-0 1 3 .0-0 ges 14Efdl 'i!?b8 1 5 .c5 bxc5 1 6.bxc5 , Mrkvicka ­ Gonsalves, e-mail l 999) 13 .b5 �d8 14. 0-0 �e6 15 .�d2 secure an advantage for White, Gutman.

S.'ffcl Practice has also seen: I) 5.�d2 �c5 ! ? goes into 4.�d2 �c5 5.a3 a5 - Part 3 , Chapter I , Section I ; D) 5.g3 .ic5 (5...�c6 6.i.g2 �c5 7.�f3 appears good for White, for instance 7 ... �e6 8.�c3 g6 9.0-0 .ig7 I O.�d5 �xeS l l.�e5 .ixe5 12.f4.i.d4+ 13.e3 jg7 14.f5 �c5 1 5 .ti'f3 gfli J 6.e4, van Laatum ­ Lovergne, Ghent 1 992, or 7 ...d6 8 ..ig5 ti'd7 9.exd6 .ixd6 10 .�c3 0-0 1 1 .0-0) 6.e3 �e7 7.�f3 .ib6!? (aga inst 7...�c6 White keeps a plus by 8.�c2f5 9.exf6 �xf6 I O ..ig2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 d6 1 2 .b3 .ig4 13 .�c3; this seems to be more solid than 8.�d5 f5 e.g. 9.exf6 �xf6 I O.�dl 0-0 I I .i.g2 d6 1 2.0-0 �e5 1 3.�xe5 dxe5 1 4. �c3 c6 or 9 .i.g2 a4 - the game Ploehn -

Zill, Germany 1 999, saw instead 9 ...d6 I O.exd6 .ixd6 1 1 .0-0 .ie6 1 2 .�b5 0-0 13.�xb7 �c5 14.�xc6 &6 15.�d4 fuc6, allowing 1 6.�xc6 �n 1 7.�xa5 .ixc4 1 8 .�xc4 �xc4 1 9 .�c3 -, 1 0.0-0 .ib6 l l .�h4 g6) 8..ig2 (8.b3 f6 9.i.b2 fxe5) 8 ...a4 9.0-0 �c6 IO.�d5 o!Lic5 l l .�c3 0-0 with sufficient counterplay, Gutman; C) 5.�f3 d6 (5 ...�c6 will transpose into 4 ...�c6 5.�f3 a5 - Chapter 3, while 5 ... .ic5 6.e3 f5 7.exf6 �x f6 reaches a po­ sition after 4.�f3 .ic5 5.e3 f5 6.exffi �xffi 7.a3 a5 - Part 4, Chapter I ) 6 .�c2 (for 6.i.f4 �c6 see 4 ...�c6 5.�f3 a5 6.i.f4 d6, treated in Chapter 3; 6...ie7 7 .�d5 �c5 8.exd6 cxd6 9.�d4 0-0 I O.e3 �c6 l l .�d2 ie6 1 2.�xe6 fxe6 1 3 .�h5 �b6 1 4.gb ) a4 1 5 .ie2 g5 1 6.�g4 �a5 1 7.i.h6 .if6 1 8.e4 �e5 worked excellently in Rou­ megous - Stranjakovitch, Paris 1993, yet I am a bit sceptical about l l .�c3 !? .ie6 12.�xe6 fxe6 1 3 .�d l ) 6 ... �c5 (6 .. .i.5 7. �c3) returns to the text, Gutman. S ... �cS Others are less challenging: I) 5 ... f5 6.�d2 (6.exf6 �xf6 7 ..ig5 .ic5 8.e3 0-09.�3 1ilc6 IO.�f3 ie7 l l .c5 �e8 I2.ic4+ 'i!?h8 13..ixe7 �xe7 14.�d5 �xeS 1 5.�g5 g6 1 6.�c3+ �g7 1 7 .�e4 �a7 1 8.�xc7 b5 19.�xb5, Timman - van Dij­ ken, Haag 1 965) 6 . . .�xd2 7 ..ixd2 ; m 5 ...d5 6.exd6 (6.�d2 .i5 7.�xe4.txe4 8.�a4+ �c6 is not too impressive for White, e.g. 9.i.e3 d4 IOEd I .ic5 I I .i.xd4 .bd4 12.e3 0-0 13 .exd4 �xd4 14Ed2 �g5 or 9 ..if4 d4 - 9 ... g5 I O . .ig3 Yz-Yz was seen in Drasko - Forgacs, Caorle 1 989, but I am worried about IO.i.e3 d4 I I Ed I .ic5 12 .i.xd4 .ixd4 13 .e3 .ic3+ 1 4.bxc3 �e7 15.e6 �xe6 16.ti'b5 �ffi 1 7.f3 �xc3+ 1 8.� �ffi 19 h4 gxh4 20.�h3 -, JO.gd) .ic5 l l .�b5 .ib6 1 2 .c5 �d5 1 3 .f3 .ig6 14,gc) 0-0) 6...i.f5 7.dxc7 (7.�c3 �xd6 8.e4 is a less risky line, when in com­ parison with 4.�c2 d5 5 .exd6 .its 6.�c3

212

d5 5.exd6 if'S 6.l0c3 l0xd6 7.e4 - Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 2, Sequel 2, White's pawn is here on a3, fer example 8. Ag6 9.Ad3 l0d7 I O.l0ge2 lOtS and now not II Ae3 l0xd3+ 12.\!!!lxd3, Stewart - Will, Oban 1 995, because of 1 2 ... l0xe4 ! , but I I .l0f4 Ae7 1 2 .0-0 0-0 1 3 .Ae3 l0xd3 14.\!!!lxd3) 7 ...\!!!lxc7 8.l0c3! (After 8.\!!!lb 3 Ac5 9.e3 is 9 ...a4 1 0.\!!!/dl l'Or:i> I I .l0t3 0-0 12J.e2 l:lfd8 13.l0bd2 l0e5 1 4 .0-0 l0g4 very unpleasant, while 9 ... l0xf2? I O.'it>xf2 \!!!ff4+ I I .l0f3 l0c6 12. \!!!lxb7 :!k8 13.l0c3 left Black frustrated, Albarran - Romero, Buenos Aires 1 999. Nikolaje v - Lanzani, Budapest 1 989, went 8.g4?! - playing with fire, John Don111d.,on , 8 ...Ag6 9.f3 \!!!lc6 - a real killer, JuliJJn Hodgson -, 10.\!!!/d l?- Here I O.\!!!lb3 offered better resistance although IO ... l0c5 I I .\!!!Ie3+ l0e6 is very nice for Black, Don11ldson -, I 0 .. .Ae7 l l .fxe4 ih-4+ 12.� \!!!ld7+ 0: I, a good example ofhow not to play again.rt the Fajarowicz, Hodgson) 8 ...\!!!lxc4 ( 8 ... l0g3? loses to 9.\!!!la4+ id7 IO.l0b5, and also 8... l0xf2 9.\!!!fxfS lOxh I, Leka - Kovacs, Debrecen 1 997, I O.l0d5 is hardly viable for Black) 9.l0t3 (9.e3 \!!!fxfl + IO.'it>xfl l0g3+ l l .hxg3 Axc2 1 2.e4 l0d7 should be level) 9... 1tlc6 I O.e3 l0xc3 I I .\!!!Ixf5 \!!!lb3 1 2.\!!!ld3 gd8 1 3 .l0d4 l0xd4 14.exd4 \!!!le6+ 15.\!!!le3 and Black is overwhelmed, Gutman. 6.1013 d6!? 6 ...l0c6 see 4...l0c6 5.l0f3 a5 6.\!!!lc2 l0c5, covered in O!apter 3. 7.AgS .le7 8.Axe7 Y!he7 9.exd6 Y!hd6 9_cxd6?! IO.l0c3 .if6 l l .e3 l0bd7 12.l0d5 bd5 1 3 .cxd5 l0b6 1 4.Ab5+ l0cd7 1 5 . hd7+ \!!!lxd7 1 6.\!!!le4+ \!!!le7 1 7.\!!!ld4, Pra­ mateflakis - Zahariou, Heraklio 200 1 . 10.l0c3 c6 l l .eJ 0-0 l l.Ael a4 It is not easy for White to make prog­ ress, e.g.J3.().() l0bd7 14�1 \!!!le7 1 5.l0d4 l0ft5 I6.l0f5 ixf5 17.\!!!fxfS gre8, Gutman.

Chapter 2 The Vasconcellos Variation (l.d4 l0f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS l0e4 4.a3) 4 ...Bh4

-

Whether or not the Fajarowicz can be rehabilitated because of some new inner resource may depend on Fer1111ndo de Almeillll Vasconcellos stopgap 4 . . .� Butthis move is so much out of the usual context of the opening that even stal­ warts Bisguierand Milner- Btury have bowed out, at least for now, to 4.a3, SIIIUrl Glllsscoe/SIIlytut. I have gambled with this move. Despite the game with 0 'KeUy, I have little faith in it, A rthur Bisguier. At first glance, it is the move that pun­ ishes a3, but in practice a mistake that loses tempi and eventually misplaces the queen, Alfonso Romero. Although 4 ... \!!!lb4 is most often recom­ mended for Black, I do not trust it. It is in the sick bay at p-esent, Harding. Dissatisfied with the positions reached in the main line, Black has recently been turning his attention to new ideas such as 4 ...� Aided by the primitive threat ofmate on f2, Black transfers his queen to h5 hoping to regain the sacrificed e­ pawn. The obvious drawback of such a strategy is that he will fall seriously behind in development, Bogd1111 Lillie.

213

.

.

S.gJ This is the simple repy that reaDy makes 4... Y!Jh4 dubious, Harding. 5.ie3 looks rather artificial, Lalic.

Black 's ambitious fourth move may just about equalise if White simply defends fl in this way, impeding his own K-side development, Harding. There are three options: I) 5 ...tt:lc6 6.tt:lf3 Y!Jh5 7.Y!Jd5 (7.Y!Jc2 tt:lc5 8.b4 tt:le6 9.Y!Jc3 d6 I O.exd6 ix.d6 I I.tt:lbd2, Niels Jensen, I I ...a5 1 2 .b5 tt:le5 1 3 .c5 tt:lxf3+ 1 4.tt:lxf3 ie7) 7 ...Y!Jg6 (7 . . 15 8. exffi tt:lxffi 9.Y!Jxh5+, Estrernera - Alonso, Sant Cugat 1 997) 8.tt:lh4 Y!Jg4 9.g3 tt:lg5 I 0 .h3 Y!Jh5 I I ..ig2 tt:le6 1 2.f4 g6 1 3.tt:lc3 ie7 14.tt:lf3 Y!Jh6 15.tt:le4 with advantage for White, Gutman ; II) 5 ... tt:lc5 6.tt:ld2 ! ? (6.Y!Jc2 tt:lc6 7.tt:lf3 Y!Jh5 see I) 6 ... tt:lc6 (if6 ... tt:le6 7.tt:lgf3 Y!Jh5 , then not 8.h3 .ie 7 9.tt:le4 tt:lc6 IO.g4 Y!Jg6 I I .tt:lc3 h5, Watson/Schiller, but 8.tt:le4 tt:lc6 9.tt:lg3) 7.g3 !? (7.tt:lgf3 Y!Jh5 8..if4 tt:le6 9..ig3 g5, Watson/Schiller) 7 ...'t11h5 8.f4 ie7 9..ig2 0-0 IO.tt:lgf3 and Black has no compensation, Gutman; lli) 5 ....ic5 ! 6..ixc5 ( VasconceUos gives 6.tt:lf3? Y!Jxf2+ 7..ixf2 .txf2 mate or 6.g3? ixe3 7.fxe3 tt:lxg3, while 6.Y!Jd3?tt:lxf2 0:1 occurred in Whiteley - Dunn , London 1 9 88) 6 ... tt:lxc5, and now: .

A) 7.Y!Jc2 tt:lc6 8.tt:lf3 Y!Jh5 9.b4 (9.e3 tt:lxe5 I O..ie2 d6 I I .tilbd2, Washington - Bren­ hildo, Juiz de Fora 1 968, I I _ .ig4, Slll­ ker/GIIIsscoel Stayart) 9 ...tt:le6 I O.Y!Jc3 (IO.Y!Je4 a5 l l .b5 tt:le7 12.tt:lc3 tt:lc5 13.Y!Je3 b6 14.ttld5 tt:lxd5 1 5.cxd5 ib7 16J�dl 0-0) 10 ... tt:lg5 I I.tt:lbd2 0-0 1 2 .b5 tt:lxf3+ 1 3 . tt:lxf3 tt:le7 14.e3 tt:l g6 1 5.id3 �8 1 6..ixg6 hxg6 1 7.0-0 b6 1 8 .c5 ib7 should be OK for B lack, Gutman ; B) 7.tt:ld2 tt:lc6 8.tt:lgf3 Y!Je7 (8 ...Y!Jh5 is worth trying, e.g. 9.b4 tt:le6 I O.e3 tt:lxe5 I I . ie2 0-0, Bullerkotte - Faber, email 200 1 , or 9.g4 Y!Jh6 I O.b4 ltle6 l l .e3 Y!Jg6 IU!gl f6 1 3 .exf6 Y!Jxf6 14.tt:le4 Y!Je7) 9.b4tt:le6 IO.c5 b6 l l .cxb6 axb6 12.e3 O..Q 13.ib5 tt:led8 1 4.Y!Jcl �a7 1 5 .Y!Jc3 �e8 16.0..0 tt:lxe5 17ltfcl tt:lxf3+ 1 8.tt:lxf3 tt:le6 is even, Siegel - Bellon, Havana 1 998; C) 7 .tt:lf3, Benjamin/Schiller, 7 ...Y!Jh 5 (7 ...Y!Je7 is too passive in view of 8.tt:lc3, and 7 ...Y!Jxc4 8.tt:lc3 gives a magnificent gamefor White, who usually has to give up a pawn to get such a position, Benj• min/Schilkr, e.g. 8 ...0-0 9.e3 Y!Je6 IO.b4 tt:la6 I I .b5 tt:lc5 12.tt:ld5 winning or 8 ... Y!Jb3 9.Y!Jxb3 tt:lxb3 IOl?.dl tt:lc5 I I .e3 tt:lc6 1 2 .ic4 a6 1 3 .tt:ld5 , Boersma - Hoek­ sema, Groningen 1 990) 8.tt:lc3 tt:lc6 9. Y!Jd5 (9.g4 Y!Jxg4 I O.�gl Y!Jxc4 l l .�xg7 tt:le6) 9 ...tt:le6 IO.e3 b6 ( IO ... tt:le7 I I .Y!Jd2 tt:lg6 12..ie2 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lxe5 Y!Jxe5 14.0-0 g5 1 5 .&d l d6 1 6.tt:ld5 Y!Jg7 1 7.f4 f5 1 8 . fxg5 tt:lxg5 19.Y!Jd4 Y!Jxd4 20.exd4 'it>d8 2 I .id3 ruB 22.h4 c6 23.tt:lc3 ttl e6 24bfS came to a bad end, Vaassen - Spoel, corr 1 99 1 ) I I ..ie2 ib7 1 2.0-0 �b8 1 3 .�adl 0-0 14.tt:le4 Y!Jh6 1 5 .Y!Jd3 �fe8 1 6.tt:lg3 tt:lfB 1 7.tt:lf5 Y!Je6 1eads to a balanced � sition, Gutman; D) 7.e3 tt:lc6 (7 ... a5 8.tt:lf3 Y!Je7 9.tt:lc3 0-0 I O .tt:ld5 Y!Jd8 l l .h4 tt:lc6 1 2 .Y!Jc2 g6 13.h5 d6 14.tt:lffi+ 'it>g7 1 5.hxg6 was dev­ astating, Castillo - Cubas, Linares 1 993) 8.lilf3 with another branch:

214

Dl) 8...�e7, Vasconcellos, 9.b4 (less im­ pressive is 9.ltlc3 ltlxeS I O.ltldS ltlxf3+ l l .gxf3 �d8 12.'i!.gi, BenjamWSchilkr, 1 2... c6) 9 ... ltle4 (9...ltle6 IO.ltlc3 0-0 I I . ltldS �d8 12 .J.d3 ltlgS 1 3 .h4 !? ltlxf3+ 14.�xf3 d6 I S.exd6 �xd6 1 6.cS �d8 17 .'i!.d l !le8 1 8 .�g3 ltleS 19.ib l id7 20.0-0 c6 2 1 .ltlf4 a5 22.ltlhS gave White a decisive attack, Clough - Gonsalves, corr 1 994) IO.�dS (with White well on top, Benjamin/Schiller) I O...ltlgS (I 0 ...5 l l .exto ltlxto 1 2 .�gS ltld8 1 3 .J.d3 �e6 1 4.m4 d6 1 S.ltlc3 c6 1 6.0-0 Ad7, Muel­ ler - Aufinwasser, Seefeld 1996, 17,gfd l ) l l .ltlbd2 0-0 1 2 .bS ltlaS 1 3.ltlxgS �xgS 14.J.d3 !le8 (14 ...b6?, Elmquist - Wrinn, corr 1987, IS.exa8 ib7 16J.xh7+) I S .f4 (IS .ltlf3 �e7 16.0-0 b6) I S ... 'Mt4+ 1 6.g3 �e7 1 7 .0-0 favours White, Gutman; Dl) 8 ...ms 9.b4 (9.ltlc3 ltlxeS I O.ie2 I O. ltlxeS �xeS l l .�d4 d6 12.�xe5+ dxeS 13 .ltldS ltle6 is harmless, Florea - Roes, Germany 1994-, should be answered by I O ... ltlxf3+ l l .ixf3 �eS since I O ...d6 l l .ltldS ltla6 1 2.b4 maintains an edge for White, for instance 12 ...c6 13 .�f4 ltlxf3+ 14 ..bf3 �eS IS.0-0 0-0 16.�d2 or 12 .. .J.e6? 13 .ltlxc7+ ltlxc7 14.�xd6 ltlxc4 IS .�xc7 0-0 16.ltld4 �gS, Gold­ jaev - Guliyev, Baku 2000, 1 7.ltlxe6 �xg2 1 8 .ltlxfB �xh l + 19.ifl ) 9 ...�e6, then: Dla) I O.�dS aS l l .bS ltle7 (with excel­ lent compensation for the pawn, Lillie) 1 2.�d2 (neither 12.ee4 ltlcS 1 3.� �5 1 4.ltlbd2 ltlg6 I S .ed4 b6 1 6.ie2 ib7 1 7 .0-0 0-0 1 8.ltlh4 ltlxh4 19.�xh4 �xeS 20.if3 'lz-'lz Silman - Kelson, Portland 1987, nor 12.�d3 b6 13.�e4 m,s 14.ltlbd2 ib7 I S.�c2 ltlg6 1 6.�c3 ltlcS 17.0-0-0 0-0 1 8.h3 �5 1 9.g4 �e6 20.ltld4 �xeS 2 1 .f4 �4. Verdier - Sauvetre, France 1990, are promising for White) 12 ... �cS 13.�2 b6 14.J.e2 jb7 IS.O-O 0-0 (Ward ­ Flear, Oakham 1 994, went I S ... ltlg6?!

16.�3 1).0..0 17.�s .ixdS 18.cxd5 mte8, when instead of 1 9�c l ltlxeS 20.'i!.xcS bxcS 2 1 .b6 ltlxf3+ 22.ixf3 �g6 23.b7+ mb8, 1 9.d6! ltlxeS 20.dxc7 mxc7 21�c l might be better) 16.ltlbd2 ( 16.ltlc3 'i!.ad8 17.'i!.adl ixf3 1 8.J.xf3 �xeS) 16 ...'i!.ae8 17�dl ltlg6, Gutman ; similarly Dlb) IO.J.e2 0-0 (IO ...ltlxeS l l .ltld4 �g6 12.0-0 d6 gives White a choice between 13.ltlc3 c6 1 4.J.hS �d3 I S.�xd3 ltlxd3 16.ltl5, Franz - Reuter, corr 1 99 1 , and 1 3 .f4 ltlxd4 14.exd4 ltlc6 IS .ltlc3 ef6 1 6.ltldS �d8 1 7.fS. Also I O ...aS l l .bS ltlxeS 12.ltld4 �g6 1 3.0-0 d 6 1 4.f4 ltlxd4 I S.exd4 ltlg4 16.!1f3 is quite unpleasant for Black, e.g.16 ...�e6 1 7.5 �e7 1 8.ltlc3 0-0 1 9.ltldS ed8 20.f6 ltlxto 2 1 .ltlxf6+ gxf6 22.�d2 mh8 23 .!1afl fS 24.id3, Reinhold - Henk, corr 1 992, or l 6...m6 1 7.h3 ltlf6 1 8.!1e3+ mfB 1 9.�d2 ! ? 'i!.g8 20.ltlc3 gS 2 1 .5 m4 22.J.g4) 1 1 .0-0 b6 1 2.bS (12.�d5 jb7 1 3.ltlbd2 'i!.ab8 14.bS �4! IS.ltlxd4 �g6) 12 ...ltlxeS 13.ltld4 (13.�dS ltlxf3+ 14.J.xf3 �xdS IS.cxdS ltlgS I 6,gc l ib7 17.J.e2 'i!.ac8) 13 ...m4 14.f4 ltlxd4 I S.exd4 ltlg6 with approx­ imately equal chances, Gutman . S ... BhS S icS? 6.ltlh3 (6.e3 � e7 7.0 is not bad either, Linklater - Vandersluys, e-mail 200 1 ) 6 ...�e7 7.0 �xeS 8.fxe4 �xe4 9.�dS and White wins, Gutman .

21S

.•

6. fHJ Alternatives: 1) 6.�d4 ltJc5 7.�e3 (7.�c3 ltJc6 8.ltJf3 �e7 9 .�g2 0-0 10.0-0 f6, improving on 8 ... a5 9..ig2 a4 I O.ltJbd2 ltJa5 I I .e4 ltJab3 1 2.ltJxb3 ltJxb3 1 3 J�b I , Aicher - Schaf­ franietz, Germany 2000) 7...a5 8.ltJf3 ltJOO 9.ltJc3 ltJe6 I O.ig2 (I O.�e4 a4 l l .g4 �g6 1 2.�d2 b6 1 3.h4 �b7?! 14.�xg6 hxg6 1 5.e4�5 1 6.ltJd5 0-0-0 1 7..ie2 ltJcd4 1 8. � I ltJxf3+ 19.1xf3 �d4 20..ic3 �xc3+ 2 I .ltJxc3 ltJd4 22..idl gde8 23.f4 f5 24. ha4 turned out well for White, Fernan­ dez Russo - Sadauskas, corr 1 99 1 /92, but 1 3...�xe4 1 4.ltJxe4 �b7 15.ig2 ltJa5 looks better to me) I O ... a4 1 1 .0-0 �c5 1 2.�e4 0-0 1 3 .ltJd5 d6 14.exd6 ixd6 affords Black compensation, Gutman; D) 6.�d5 ltJc5 (6 ...�g6 7..ig2 ltJg5 8.ltJc3 �e7 9 .ltJf3, while White is in a bad away after 8..ixg5? �xg5 9.ltJf3 �c l+ IO.�dl �xb2 I I .ltJbd2, Jessen - Jensen, Copen­ hagen 1 998, I I ...'@b6 1 2.0-0 ie7) 7.ltJd2 (7.ltJc3 is well met by 7 ...c6 8.�dl Y!!!xe5 9.ltJf3 �5 I O..ig2 ie7 1 1 .0-0 0-0; in­ stead 7...d6?! 8.exd6 Y!!ixd5 9.ltJxd5 ixd6, Hurd - Laureles, e-mail 200 1 , is unsatis­ factory due to I O.ie3), when Black has: A) 7 ... c6 8.Y!!id4 ltJe6 9 .Y!!Ie4 (also 9.Y!!Ic3 d6 I O.exd6 ixd6 1 1 ltJgf3 ltJd7 1 2 .ig2 has its supporters: 1 2 ... ltJf6 13.e4 ic7 14.b4 ().0 15.ib2 1k8 1 6.0.0 ltJg5 17.ltJxg5 Y!!!xg5 1 8.f4, Fuchs - Faber, e-rnail 200 1 , or 1 2 ...0-0 1 3 .b4 ie7 14.�b2 f5 1 5 .e3 c5 1 6.0-0 a5 17 .b5 if6 1 8.�c2 hb2 19. Y!!lxb2, Labahn - Laureles, e-mai1 200 1 ) 9...ltJc5 10.Y!!Ie3 ie7 I I .ltJh3 0-0 1 2 .ltJf4 Y!!i h 6 1 3 .ig2 d6 1 4.0-0 ltJbd7 1 5.exd6 hd6 1 6.ltJf3 �f6 l7,gd1 ic7 1 8_gb1 a5 1 9.Jd2 b6 20.ic3, Crafty - Brause, com­ puter game 1 998; further B) 7 ...ie7 8.ltJe4 (White was in diffi­ culties after 8 ..ig2 0-0 9 .b4 c6 IO.Y!!Id4 ltJe6 I I .Y!!i c3 d6 1 2.ltJgf3 ltJd7 1 3 .ib2 dxe5 14.0..0 � 15i!ad1 c5 16.ltJe4 ltJd4,

Crafty - Brause, computer game 1 997) 8 ...ltJb3 9.gb1 0-0 (9 ... ltJxcl 1 0_gxc 1 0-0 1 l .ltJ f3 �h6 1 2.gc2 Y!!lc6 1 3 .ig2 Y!!l a4 14_gd2, Grafty - Brause, computer game 1 997) 1 O..if4 Y!!lg6 1 1 ..ig2 ltJc5 12.gd1 (on 1 2 .e3? !, Grafty - Brause, computer game 1 997, Black has the excellent re­ joinder 1 2 ...b5! 1 3 .Y!!Ixa8 �b7) 1 2 ...ltJe6 ( 1 2 ...c6 13.Y!!id4 ltJe6 14.Y!!Ie3 b6 1 5 .ltJf3) 1 3 ..id2 f5 1 4.ltJc3, Gutman; similarly C) 7 ... ltJe6 8.ltJgf3 ltJc6 9.ig2 (weaker is 9.ltJe4 b6 10.h3 ie7 1 I ..ie3 ib7, e.g. 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 3 .ltJd6+? cxd6 1 4.exd6 ig5 1 5 ..ixg5 ltJa5 1 6..ixd8 hd5, Bou­ ton - Chiraldini, Parthenay 1991, or 12. ig2 l:ib8 1 3.g4 Y!!/ g6 1 4.Y!!id3 ltJb4 1 5.axb4 he4 1 6.�d2 h5) 9 ....ic5 (9 ... a5 1 0.ltJe4 a4 1 I.Jd2 ie7 12.0-0 0-0 13..ic3) IO.ltJb3 ie7 l l .e3 0-0 1 2.0-0 ID>8 1 3.ltJbd4 (this is more precise than 1 3 .ltJbd2 b6 14.b4 ib7 15.b5 ltJcd4 1 6.Y!!ixd7 ltJxf3+ 1 7.ltJx13 .bfl 1 8.txf3 Y!!!xf3 19.Y!!Ixe7 Y!!le4 20.� Y!!!xe5, Crafty - Brause, computer game 1997) 1 3 _ b6 (13 ...h6 14.ltJe2 Y!!!f5 1 5 .b4 a6 1 6.ltJed4 Y!!Ih5 1 7..ib2 ge8 1 8 _gad 1 , Sieber - Knorr, corr 1989) 14.Y!!Ie4 ib7 15.Y!!If5 all favour White, Gutman; D) 7 ... a5 8.ltJgf3 (8.b3 ltJc6 9.ib2 Y!!lg6! 10.gc1 b6 gives Black counter chances, Tseitlin/Giaskov. 8 ..ig2 a4 9.f4 brings White little profit due to 9 ...ltJc6 1 0.Y!!if3 Y!!lg6 1 I .Y!!ic3 ie7 12.ltJgf3 0-0 1 3 .0-0 d6 14.exd6 cxd6; Behrhorst - Stein, Ham­ burg 1 986, saw instead 9 ... ga5 I O.Y!!if3 �g6 l l.�c3 goo 1 2ltJgf3 ltJc6 1 3.0-0 ie7, when 14.ltJd4!? was cried to be played) 8...ltJc6 (8 ...Y!!Ig6 9..ih3 ltJc6 IO.ltJh4 �5 1 I .ltJdf3 d6 12..ixc8 ltJe7 1 3.Y!!id4 ltJxc8 14.g4 dxe5 1 5 .Y!!i xc5 ixc5 1 6.gxh5 re­ sulted in a quick win for White, Khen­ kin - Olaffson, Reykjavik 1 994. Also 8...a4 has its drawbacks, as 9.ltJe4 ltJb3 J O_gb) ga5 1 l .Y!!i dl ltJxc1 1 2 .�c l ltJc6 13..ig2 shows, e.g. 13...Y!!Ig4 14.lOd4 ltJxe5 15.f4 ltJc6 1 6.ltJb5 or 13 ...ltJxe5 14.ltJxe5

216

Y!!lxeS l S .lDc3 Y!!id6 16.Y!!Ic2 Y!!lg6 17 ..ie4 Y!!la6 1 8.lDdS &S 19.0-0; however, note that Black's task is simpler after 9..ig2 �S 10.Y!!Id4 lDc6 l l .Y!!ic3 .ie7 12.0-0 0-0, improving on l l ...lDe6 12.b4 axb3 1 3 . lDxb3 &6 14.0-0 .ie7 1 S..ib2 0.{) 16.Y!!Ie3, Manninen - Salimaki, Helsinki 1 998) 9.lDe4 (9.e6?! is a daring reply owing to 9 ... fS, e.g. 10.exd7+ .ixd7 l l .lDeS 0-0-0 1 2.Y!!If3 Y!!le8 13.lDxd7 �xd7 1 4..ih3 lDd4 0:1 Andriuzzi - Liascovich, Buenos Ai­ res 200 1 , 10.g4 Y!!lxg4 l l .exd7+ .ixd7 12.lDeS lDxeS 13.Y!!IxeS+ ..tf7 14.Y!!Ig3 &8 1 S .e3 f4 1 6.Y!!Ixg4 .ixg4, Roos - Hues­ mann , Aachen 1 993, 10.e7 .ixe7 1 1 .lDd4 lDxd4 12.Y!!ixd4 0-0 13.ig2 h8 14.h4 �6, Haggren Stig - Salimaki, Finland 1998. Also 9..ig2 a4 10.0-0 isn 't inspiring for White in view of 1 O ...�aS l l .�b 1 ie7 1 2.�dl 0-0) 9...lDb3 l O.�bl a4 l l .lDc3 (l l .id2 lDxd2 12.lDexd2 �S 13.Y!!Ie4 ie7 14..ig2 lDxeS l S.0-0 0-0 16.lDxeS Y!!lxeS 1 7.Y!!IxeS �xeS occurred in Melkeraaen ­ Gundersen, Fister 1992) l l ..iLe7 1 2 iLg2 �aS 1 3 .lDbS 0-0 is playable, Gutman; E) 7 ...lDc6 8.lDgf3 (8.f4 d6 9.exd6 Y!!lxdS 1 O.cxdS lDd4 leaves White in trouble. In answer to 8.b4, Tseitlin/GIIlskov sug­ gests 8_lDe6 9..ib2 aS 10.bS lDe7 l l .Y!!if3 Y!!l xf3 1 2.lDgxf3 b6, when 1 3 ..ig2 .ib7 14.0.{) g6 l S.�dl .ig7 16.lDd4 gives White a plus; 8 ...lDa4 9.lDgf3 aS! lO.bS lDe7 l l .Y!!Ie4 lDcS 12.Y!!ic2 b6 13..ig2 .ib7 14..ib2 a4 lS.0-0 lDg6 keeps more ten­ sion, while in Naumkin - Mohr, Vos­ kresensk 1990, Black was unsuccessful w ith 9 ...Y!!Ig6?! 10..ig2 d6 l l .exd6 Y!!lf6 12 .lDb3 Y!!lc3+ 13.lDfd2 cxd6 14.0-0 .ie7 l S .Y!!ibS lDb6 1 6.cS dxcS 1 7 .bxcS lDd7 1 8.lDe4 Y!!I c2 19..if4) 8 ... aS (8 ...lDaS 9.b4 c6 lO.Y!!Id4 lDab3 l l .Y!!ic3 lDxd2 12 ..ixd2 lDe4 13.Y!!Id4 lDxd2 14.Y!!Ixd2 .ie7 1 S..ig2 0-0 16.0-0 &8 1 7.e3 .idS gives equality, but 12 .lDxd2 is critical) reaches a posi. tion after 7...a5 8.lDgf3 llX:6 - D, Gutman.

III) 6.lDd2 lDxd2 (6 ...Y!!IxeS 7.lDgf3 .icS is refuted by 8.Y!!Ic2! .bn+ 9.dl, while after6 ... lDcS 7.lDgf3 lDc6 8.b4 lDe6 9..ib2 d6 10.exd6 .hd6 l l .ig20-0 12.0-0 Black hasn't enough fer the pawn, Huerga Tira­ dos - Ampudia, Pamplona 2001) 7.Y!!ixd2 (7iLxd2 Y!!lxeS 8..ic3 Y!!le4 9.Y!!id5 Y!!le 7!? 10..ig2lDc6 l l.lDf3 d6) 7 ...Y!!IxeS (7...lDc6 is not bad either as 8.f4 d6 9.exd6 .ixd6 10..ig2 - 1 O.e4 .ig4 l l .eS .icS followed by ..Ed8 -, 10 ...0-0 affords Black a pow­ erful initiative, Otto Borik, e.g. l l .lDf3 .ih3 or l l .b4 ru8 12.Y!!I c3, when instead of 1 2 ...lDd4 13..ib2 cS 14.e3 �e8 1S.�2 lDfS 1 6.e4 lDd4 17.eS .if8 18.lDf3, Ketti ­ Bohne, corr 1989, 1 2 ... .ie7 1 3 ..ib2 .if6 14.Y!!I c l lDd4 might be better. O'Kelly ­ Bisguier, San Juan 1969, continued 8.lDf3 lDxeS 9.Y!!I e3 d6 1 0 ..ig2 .ie7 l l .lDxeS Y!!lxeS 12.Y!!IxeS dxeS �-�. and also 8.b3 lDxeS 9..ib2 f6 1 O.lDh3 c6 l l .lDf4 Y!!lfl 12..ig2 .ie7 1 3 .0-0 0-0 should be level) 8.lDf3 Y!!lf6 (White gained the advantage after 8 ...Y!!Ih S 9..ig2 lDc6 lO.Y!!idS Y!!l xdS l l .cxdS lDd8 12.lDd4 c6 1 3 M4 f6 1 4.0-0 a6 1 S .b4 g6 1 6.�fdl cxdS 1 7iLxdS, Tis­ dall - Stein, Oslo 1 98S) 9..ig2 (9.Y!!If4?! Y!!lxf4 10.i.xf4 d6 1 1 ..ig2 .ie7 12.0-0 .iffi 13.&bl 0-0 14.cS dxcS 1S..ixc7 �e8 was ftne for Black, Hofmann - Weber, corr 199S) 9... g6 (9 ... lDc6 1 0.0-0 g6 l l .�b 1 .ig7 12.b4 0-0 13JLb2 Y!!l e7 14..hg7 <1Jxg7 l S.cSd6?! 16.cxd6 Y!!ixd6 17 .Y!!Ib2+ Y!!lf6 1 8. Y!!lxffi+ xf6 19 Ebc 1 brought White success, Pauwels - Pavoordt, corr 1993) 1 0.0-0 (if 1 0 .Y!!I e3+, then not 10 ... .ie7 l l ..id2 0-0 12..ic3 Y!!le6 13.Y!!Ih6 but 10... Y!!le 7!? l l .Y!!ic3 f6 12.0-0 ig7) 10 ....ig7 (The balance is maintained and there are still manypieces on the board. The game is quite open, Borik) l l .�b 1 0-0 12.b4 Y!!le7 13..ib2 .ixb2 14.Y!!Ixb2 d6 (on 14 ...llX:6 White plays l S.cS lDd8 16. l"«'dl keeping some pressure) l S.�fdl lDd7!? with a tense struggle ahead, Gutman;

2 17

IV) 6..lg2 \!!!/xeS (The dubious 6 ...\!!!f fS? is well answered by 7.�0 �c6 8.0-0 or 7..if4 .icS, Lovering - Laureles, e-mail 2000 , 8.\!!!fd3 .ixf2+ 9...ml ; however, note that 7 ..le3 is less effective since instead of 7 ... �c6? 8.\!!!fd3, Ciamana - Laureles, e-mail l 999, 7 \!!!/xeS 8.�0 \!!!fa5+ 9.�bd2 �xd2 IO..lxd2 \!!!lh5 I I .ic3 d6 might be a lesser evil. 6 ... �cS 7.�c3 �c6 8.f4!? d6 9.�bS �e6 1 0 ..10 \!!!lg6 l l .e4 f5 I 2. .ihS ended with I :0 in Gyimesi - Kahn, Budapest I 99S, while the timid S.�dS �e6 9.�0 �xeS I O.�xeS \!!!/xeS I I Ju:J2 c6 I2 ..ic3, Agaard - Kuntz, Budapest 1 99 I , leads after 12 ...\!!!/gS 1 3 .�e3 .icS nowhere for White) is considered to be more prOI!Iising. .•

bS 13..lb2 l::!e8 14.�d4 White had a plus, Duessel - Roes, Germany 1 993) I O.b3 .ig7 I I _g,a d6 12 ..lb2 .ixb2 (better than I 2...0-0 13 ..lxg7 'i!;lxg7 I4.b4 �cd7 I S. �gO a5 I6.bS �b6 17 .�c2, Jacobsen ­ Sorensen , Copenhagen 1 996) I 3�b2 a5 and Black is at least not worse, Gutman; C) 7.\!!!fc2 �ffi (7 ... f5 is doubtful due to S..lf4 \!!!laS+ 9.�d2 �xd2 I O ..ixd2, and also 7 ...�d6 8.�0 is hardly viable for Black, e.g. 8 ...\!!!fe6 9.�bd2 .ie7 IO.cS �f5 I l .O-O 0-0 I2.e4 �h6 13.�b3 �c6 I4..1f4 d6 1 S.�fd4 �xd4 16.�xd4 \!!!fg6 17.�bS, Crafty - Brause, computer game 1997, or 8 ...\!!!ffS 9.\!!!fxfS �xf5 10.0-0 .icS l l .�c3 d6 I 2.� �a6 l3.b4ib6 I41Jd.I, Crafty ­ Brause, computer game 1 997) 8.lik3!? (is more exact than either S ..i£4 \!!!laS+ 9.�c3 .ie7 10.�0 d6 1 1 .0-0 \!!!lhS ! ? or 8.�0 presenting Black with additional possibility of 8 ...\!!!le4 9 .\!!!lxe4+ �xe4) 8 ...d6 9.�0 \!!!lh5 (9...\!!!fe7 10..igS c6 I I . � I �bd7 I2.0-0 h6 1 3 ..if4 �eS 14.cS �xO+ IS ..ixO looks grim for Black, e.g. IS ...dxcS I6..ld6 \!!!le6 I7 ..lxf8 �xf8 1 8.l004 b6 191Jd3 or IS dS I6..ld6 \!!!IdS I7 ..lxf8 'i!;lxf8 I S .e4.ie6 I9.exdS, Thor­ finnsson - Olafsson, Reykjavik 200 1 ) 1 O.h3 (after 10JI.gS.ie7 I 1 .h4 0-0 I2.0-0-0 �e8 1 3.�d4 c6 I4.'i!;lb l �a6 1 S.e4 �g4 I6.0 �eS I 7.g4 \!!!lg6 IS..ixe7 &e7 I9.�f5 .ixf5 20.exfS \!!!lh 6 2 l .gS \!!!lh S 22.�e4 Black was lost in Babula - Ramik, Mo­ ravian Leaque I 998, but 1 1 . . .\!!!fg6 1 2 . \!!!lxg6 hxg6 13.()..0.() lt:lc6 h as more point) IO ..le7 l l .e4 c6 (Diesen - Gundersen, Norway I 990, went I I ...h6 1 2.g4 \!!!fcS l3.b3 lt:la6 14 ..ie3 \!!!laS 1 S .O-O c6 1 6.b4 \!!!fc7 I 7 ..lf4 gS I S ..ih2 hS I 9 .eS hxg4, when 20.�fe i ! .ie6 2I .lt:lxgS would be decisive) I 2.b4 (with a space advantage, Harding) I 2 ...lt:lfd7 13 .lt:le2 ( White has graduaOy been restricting the scope of the black queen on h5 and now threatens the deadly 14.lt:lf4, Lolic) 1 3 ...ffi 14.lt:lfd4 .•

This is the best m:zy to deal with the early queen sortie. The problem for Black is that once the potential attack is snuffed out then the queen becomes a target, Gary Lane.

•

We examine: A) 7.�d2 �xd2 8.\!!!lxd2 g6 9.�0 \!!!ff6 transposes to 6.�d2 �xd2 7.\!!!lxd2 \!!!/xeS 8.�0 \!!!ff6 9 ..ig2 - III; B) 7.\!!!/dS \!!!lxd5 8.cxd5 �cS 9.00 (9.�c3 �b3 I O.�bi aS I l .�bS �a6 I2 ..if4 d6 13.e4id7 I4..tfl .ie7 I S.h4a4, Beltnm ­ Vazquez, Barbera del Valles I99S) 9 ...g6 (after 9...a5 10.b3 id6 ! !.�gO 0-0 I2.0-0

218

li)b6 15.li)f5 .lxf5 1 6.exf5 �f7 1 7.c5 dxc5 1 S .bxc5 �c4! (an improvement on l S ... li)6d 7 1 9.i.e3 li)a6 20.li)f4 li)axc5 2 1 .0-0 0-0 22JUd 1 lUeS 23.li)e6 b6 24.a4 g6 25.li)d4 �hS 26.li)xc6 .if8 27 .i.d5 �g7 2S.�2 gxf5 29.li)d4 �ab8 30 ..if4 li)e5 3 I .li)xf5 �c7 32..ig2 �eS 33.li)e3 li)cd3 34.�d4 .ic5 3 5 .�xd3 1 :0 van Wely ­ Alburt, New York 1994) 19.�xc4 li)xc4 20.li)f4 (20.ID>l .ixc5 2 1 fub7 0-0 220-0 �eS) 20_ ..ixc5 2 l .li)e6 .ib6 22.li)xg7+ �f7 23.li)e6 li)d7!? 24.0-0 li)c5 25.�dl �eS leaves Black in control, Gutman; D) 7.li)f3, when Black has five responses: Dl) 7 ... �a5+ S .li)bd2 .ic5 9.0-0 (also 9.b4!? .ixb4 1 0.axb4 �xal l l .li)xe4 is worth trying, Liew - Kravitz, corr 1 99S) 9...li)xt2 10fut2 0-0 l l .b4 .ixt2+ 12.1!nd2 �f5 l 3.li)fl li)c6 14.i.b2 d6 l 5,li)e3 Y:!lh5 1 6 .�d5 li)e5 1 7 .li)xe5 .ie6 l S.�O 1 :0 Pelletier - Flunkert, Orange 1 994; 02) 7...�fti 8.�c2 li)c5 9.li)c3 li)e6 1 0.0-0 li)c6 l l .li)d5 �dS 1 2.b4 .ie7 l 3 ..ib2 0-0 14.&dl a5 1 5 .b5 li)a7 1 6.li)d4 li)xd4 1 7. .ixd4 .ixa3 1 S .i.e4 d6 19 ..ixh7+ �hS 20.i.f5 .ib4 2 I .li)f6 gxf6 22..ixcS �xeS 23 .i.xfti+ 'it>gS 24.�4 winning, VIjola ­ F ossan, Gausdal 1 9S S; DJ) 7...�c5 S.li)d4 li)fti ( S...li)d6 9.b3 J/!7 I O.i.e3 �e5 l l .li)c3 li)f5 12 .li)xf5 �xf5 1 3 .0-0 0-0, Effert - Brandies, Kecskemet 1990, 14.li)b5! li)a6 1 5 .li)xa7) 9.0-0 (less appealing is 9.�d3 li)c6 IO.li)xc6 dxc6 1 1 .0-0 .ieli, Roldan - Perez, e-mail 1 999) 9...�xc4 10�5 li)c6 (1 0._c5 l l .J.xffi gxffi 1 2 .li)b3 �e6 l 3 ,li)c3 li)a6 14 ..id5 �e5 15 .li)a5 li)c7 16.�d3 li)xd5 17 ,li)xd5 'it>dS l S .�fd l �b8 1 9 .li)c4 �e6 20.li)f4 �eS 2 l .�c3, Lewis - Smith, e-mail l99S) 1 1 . .ixf6 gxf6 1 2.e3 �c5 l 3.li)c3 and White obtains powerful play, Gutman; 04)7 ...�h5 S.0-0 (S.�c2 li)f6 goes into 7.�c2 li)f6 S.lt)O Y:!lh5 - C, while S ...f5 , Harding, is unsound due to 9.li)c3 li)xc3 10.�xc3) S._d6 (8...a5 9.li)d4 li)fti IO.li)b5

li)a6 l l ..if4 d6 1 2.�d2 .ie7 13 .�xa5?! 0-0 14.�d2 .ih3 1 5 .J.xh3 �xh3 1 6.0 d5 1 7.cxd5 .ic5+ 1 S .e3 �adS 1 9 .li) l c3 c6 20.b4 li)xd5 2 l .bxc5 li)xf4 22.li)d6 li)e6 gave Black a good game in Scholseth ­ Gundersen, Bronnysund 1990, but 1 O.e4 �xd l l l .�xd l .ic5 1 2.li)b5 li)a6 l 3 ..if4 d6 14.li) lc3 is clearly to White 's liking) 9.li)d4 li)f6 IO.li)c3 .ie7 l l .e4 �xdl 12. �xdl 0-0 13..if4 a5( 13 ...c6 14.li)f5 .ixf5 15.exf5 M is given by Hfll'ding as some­ what better, but 1 4.li)b3 looks more con­ sistent to me, e.g. 14 ... �dS 1 5 .li)a5 b6 1 6.e5 bxa5 1 7 .ex f6 or 14 .. .i.e6 1 5 .i.xd6 .ixd6 1 6_gxd6 .ixc4 17.li)a5 ia6 1S_g,wl) 1 4.li)db5 li)a6 15.c5 dxc5 1 6.li)xc7 li)xc7 1 7bc7 ie6 18.e5 li)eS 19.ibti a4 20.li)d5 .ixd5 2 1_gxd5 � 22bc5 .ixc5 23fuc5 �b6 24.�d l g6 2 5 .�d2 was unsatisfac­ tory for Black in Flear - Bellon, Bern 1 99 1 , Gutman; DS) 7...�e7 !? S.O-O g6 (after S.. d6 9.li)d4 c6 1 0 .b4 g6 l l ..ib2 li)f6 1 2 .li)c3 .ig7 l3.b5 c5 14.li)c2 0-0 15.li)e3 .ie6 1 6.li)cd5 li)xd5 1 7.li)xd5 �dS l S ..ixg7 'it>xg7 1 9 . �d2 li)d7 20.�fd 1 Black falls into a pas­ sive position, Kutirov - Kurajica, Stru­ mica 1 995) 9.�d4 f6! ? (9 ...li)f6 l O..if4 d6 l l .li)c3 li)c6 12.�d2 .ig7 1 3 .li)d5 ! ? li)xd5 14.cxd5 li)e5 15� 1 yields a plus for White) IO.li)h4 ( IO.li)bd2 li)c5 l l .b4 li)e6 12 .�d5 .ig7 l 3 ..ib2 0-0 1 4.c5 li)c6 1 5 .�fdl �bS 1 6.li)c4 b6 1 7 .b5 li)cdS l S. cxb6 axb6 19 .�acl lt)f7 holds together nicely for Black) 1 O... li)c5 l l .li)c3 li)e6 (l l ...li)c6 12.�dl d6 l 3 .li)d5 �f7 14.b4 li)e6 1 5 .f4 f5 1 6.e4 .ig7 1 7.�a2 li)cd4 1S.�d2 fxe4 19.i.xe4 li)f5 20.i.xf5 gxf5 2 l .g4 fxg4 22.f5 left Black in disarray, Yndesdal - Gtmdersen, corr 1 993, while l l ...li)b3? 1 2 .�d3 li)xal is suicide due to 1 3 .li)d5 �dS 14.li)xg6) 1 2 .�d3 .ig7 l3 .li)d5 �f7 14.e4 li)c6 1 5.f4 d6 and Black may well have unexpected resources, Gutman .

219

Back to the main line

The natural way to keep up thepre.rsure 6... tlc6 There are some other plans: I) 6 ... aS 7 ..ie3 ! (instead of1.V!Jc2 �cS seeking Q-side counterplay with a5-a4 and/or . . �c6, Borik) 7 ...�a6 (7 ....icS 8.V!Jd3) 8..ig2 �acS 9.� a4 I 0.�4 �gS ( J O_V!JxeS? l l ..if4 V!Jffi l2.�bS) l l .�c3, Gutman; further D) 6 ...d6 7.exd6 (7 .V!Jd4 fS) 7 ...hd6 (or 7 -- �xd6 8 .�c3 .ie6 9.b3 �c6 IO ..ig2 �-0 I l .V!Jc2 to 1 2 .0-0 gS I Hld l .ifS l4.V!Jb2 .ig7 I S ..ie3 V!Jg6 16.�4 �xd4 1 7 .hd4, Schwertel - Bek, corr 1 992) 8.J.g2 0-0 9.V!JdS, Gutman; similarly Ill) 6...J.cs, Vasconallo.r, 7.e3 � (7 _d6 8.b4 � 9.id3 f5 IO.�bd2 �gS l l .�xgS V!JxgS 1 2.�0. Torroba Alende - Segura Vila, Ghent 1996, or 7 _,b6 8.b4 �7 9.tg2 .ib7 10.0-0 �c6 I I ..ib2 �d8 1 2.c�jfd2 V!Jxdl l 3.!hdl �xd2 14.�xd2 hg2 I S . �g2a5 1 6.J.c3 �c6 l7.bS �d8 1 8.�e4 �e6 1 9.f4, Pedersen - From, Aalborg 1 993, with advantage for White in both instances) Ue2 (8.b4 �xeS 9.�e5 V!JxeS I OJ:la2 .ie7 I l ..ib2 V!JgS 1 2 . .ig2 �f6, Vasconcellos, proved successful after 13.c5 ()..() 14.0-0 �81 S .V!Jc2 c6 16.f4 �6 l 7 ..ixf6 V!Jxf6 1 8 .e4 d6 19.cxd6 V!Jxd6 20.eS V!Jd4+ 2 I .<;!;lhl ie6, Mierse - Wit.

telsberger, Wiesbaden 1 997. Another line that isn 't inspiring for White is 8 ..ig2 �xeS 9.�xe5 V!JxeS IO.V!JdS V!JxdS I l .cxdS �f6 1 2 .�c3 0-0 I 3 ..id2 d6 l 4J:lcl .id7 I S .0-0 aS, Meijer - van der Klashorst, ACCOM 1992) 8 .. .J.e7 (8...�xeS? loses immediately to 9.�h4, while 8 ...V!Jf5 is strongly met by 9.V!JdS �e7 I O.V!Jd3 aS I l.�bd2 �xd2 12.V!Jxf5 �xfS 13.hd2) 9.V!JdS �cS I 0 .b4 �e6 I I .().() and there is little to like in Black's game , Gutman. 7.1Jc2 Less challenging are: I) 7 ..if4 .icS 8.e3 gS, Borik; D) 7.V!Jd5 �cS (in case of7 ...V!Jf5 8.�bd2 �xd2 9.hd2 d6 IO.exd6 .ixd6 I I ..ic3 0-0 l 2 .e3 Black will face an awkward choice between 1 2 .i.e6 13.V!Jxf5 hB 14.0-0-0 goo8 IS.J.g2 and 1 2...aS 13..id3 V!JxdS 14.cxdS �e7 I S.e4, Allen - Ma­ quinay, e-mai1 2002; however, note that 9_.J.e7 IO.J.g2 ()..() I I .().() d6 12.exd6 .ixd6 13.V!Jxf5 i.xf5 l4.b4 is even worse, Klie­ we - Schmidt, corr 1998) , w ith three continuations to be considered: A) 8 .�bd2 goes into S .g3 V!JhS 6.V!JdS �cs 7 .�bd2 �c6 8.�g0 ; B) 8 ..ig2 �b3 9.�c3 �xal 1 0.0-0 .ie7 (after I O...�b3 l l .�bS �xc l I Uixc l V!Jh6 13Edl m,8 14.�c7+ <;!;ld8 I S.�bS a6 1 6.�d6 .ixd6 1 7.exd6 to 1 8 .b4 �e8 1 9.V!Je4+ �f7 20.b5 axbS 2 l .cxbS �eS . 22.�xeS+ fxeS 23.V!Ja4 b6 24.V!Ja7 .ib7 2S.ixb7 Black was lost, Crafty - Brause, computer game 1997) l l .�bS 0-0 12.if4 �b3 (in reply to 1 2 ...d6 1 3 .�xc7 dxeS White can play 1 4.�xeS V!Jxe2 I S.�xa8 V!Jxb2 1 6.�xc6 bxc6 17 .V!Jxc6 V!JxaJ 1 8. �c7, while 14.�xa8, Musieliak - Hick), corr 1 987, is less accurate due to 14 ..,gd8 I S.V!JbS a6 1 6.V!Ja4 exf4 17 .Rxal fxg3 18.hxg3 V!JcS) 1 3 .�xc7 :Eib8 l4.e6 V!Jg6 I S.exd7 .ixd7 I6.V!Jxd7 :sbd8 17 .V!Jh3 V!Jc2 l 8.�gS hgS l 9 ..ixgS :Eid l appears to be hopeless for White, Gutman;

220

•

C) 8.lt:lc3 lt:le6 !? (Ward - From, Copen­ hagen 1 993, went S...ie7 9..ie3 lt:le6 1 0. .ig2 b6 1 U �d 1 0-0 1 H�·e4 �e8 1 3 .0-0 .ib7 14.g4 �g6 1 5 .�xg6 hxg6 16.�xd7 lt:la5 17.lt:ld2 hg2 18.�g2 �8 19.fu.d8 fud8 20.b4 lt:lc6 2 1 .lt:lf3 and White won. There is also little promise fCI' Black in 8...lt:lb3 9.�b l, e.g. 9 ..ic5 10..ig2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 b6 12..if4 .ib7 13.e6, Bertok Schlueter, internet 200 1 , or 9 ... lt:lxcl 1 0 .�xc l �h6 l l .�dl ie7 1 2 ..ig2 0-0 1 3.0-0 id8 14. �d3, though 9.lt:lb5 ! ? �b8 1 0.�bl �f5 l l .�d3 looks even more intriguing to me) 9..ig2 (9.ie3 b6 10lkll .ic5 l l ..ixc5 bxc5 12.J.g2 �b8 1 3.�d2 0-0 14.0-0 .ib7 1 5 .�d3 �fd8) 9 ...b6 1 0.0-0 ( 1 0.b4 .ib7 l l .h3ie7 12 .J.d2, Goofy - Robinhood, internet 2002, is too optimistic as 1 2 ... �b8 1 3.g4 �g6 1 4.�e4 �xe4 1 5.lt:lxe4 lt:la5 demonstrates) 1 O ....ib7 l l .�d3 (or l l .�e4 0-0-0 1 2.lt:ld5 d6 13 .exd6 hd6 14.ie3 �8 15.�c2 f5) 1 1...0-0-0 12.�dl d6 ( 1 2... lilxe5 13.lt:lxe5 �xe5 is met by 14.hb7+ �xb7 15.�0+ c6 1 6.�xfl) 13.exd6 hd6 14.lt:ld5 �d7 15.J.e3 �hd8 appears fully adequate to me, Gutman.

ulative as instead of9 ... lt:lxf2? 1 0.�xf2 .ic5+ l l .e3 (}.{) 12.�e4, Estremera Panos ­ Tomas Batet, Sevilla 2002, 9...lt:lxc3 10 . �xc3 �e6 l l .�gl b6 would have been stronger) 8 ...lt:ld4 (8 lt:lxg3 9.e4 1 :0 Wie­ gel - Fiebig, corr 1 984) 9.lt:lxd4 �xf2+ 1 0.�dl lt:lxg3 l l .hxg3 �xd4 12 Jhh7 �xh7 13.�xh7 �xe5 14.�e4, Niels Jen.wn. 8.b4 �e6 9..ib2 d6 Other moves fail miserably: 1) 9 ...a5 10.b5 lt:le7 l l .J.g2 g5 1 2 .lt:lbd2 .ig7 1 3.lt:le4 g4 14.lt:lh4 lt:lg6 1 5.lt:lf5 0-0 16.h3, Meulders - Schuermans, Belgium Ch 1 99 1 ; D) 9...b6 I O.i.g2 .ib7 1 1 .0-0 ie7 12.lt:lbd2 g5 1 3.e3 g4 14.lt:ld4 lt:lcxd4 1 5.exd4 hg2 16.�xg2 �h3+ 1 7.�gl lt:lg5 1 8.f4 lt:l e6 19.�e4, Ewald - Richter, Germany 1 992; m) 9...g5 l O.lt:lbd2 ( l O..ig2 J.g7 l l .h3 b6 1 2.b5 lt:la5 13.lt:lxg5 1ih7 14.hb7 lt:lxb7 1 5 .lt:l f3 0-0-0 1 6 .g4 was good enough in Watzlawek - Simon, Germany 1 998) 10 ...g4 l l .lilh4 lilxe5 12.lile4 J.e7 13.lilf5 d6 14..ig2 �fl! 1 5 .lt:lxe7 �xe7 16.�d l .id7 1 7.c5 dxc5 18.lt:lxc5 ic6 1 9..ixc6 bxc6 20.lt:lxe6, Stuhler - Schaffranietz, Germany 2000. 10.exd6 Axd6 1 1 ..ig2 0-0 12.0-0 IileS 1 2 ...a5 1 3 .c5 ( 1 3 .b5 lt:lb8 14.lt:lc3 lt:lc5 15.t004 lt:lxe4 16.�xe4 lt:ld7 17.&dl lt:lc5 1 8.�e3 is also better for White) 13 .J.e7 ( 1 3 ..if4, Horvath - Loib� Vienna 1 990, 14.�c4 .!h6 15.lilbd2) 14.�c4 and Black will (md difficulty in creating enough counterplay, Gutman. 13.�bd2 1 3.c5 .ie7 1 4.lt:lbd2 is answered by 14... lt:lf8 1 5 .�ad l lt:lg6, Gutman. 13 ...�f11 1 4.Bfe1 �g6 1 5.tfc3 J.ftl Although White keeps the pawn, Black, with his central control and quite active pieces, is still in the game, Gutman. •.

•

•

•

7 �c5 7...�1'5? Bisgukr, cour1s disaster owing to 8.lt:lbd2 ( 8.g4?! �xg4 9.lt:lc3 is spec...

221

Chapter 3 (l .d4 � f6 2.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.a3) 4... �c6

This is Jensen 's preference and I agree that objectively it is the soundest move, Tim H11rding. 5.�0 White has a range of continuations: I) S..if4 .icS (S ... gS is premature due to 6..ie3 V!Je7 7.V!ic2 V!JxeS 8.ll:l0 V!Je7 9.ll:lc3 ll:lxc3 I O..ixgS f6 I I .V!ixc3 .ig7 12..ih4, Kribben - Knoth, Gennany 1 998, while 6.V!idS? is met by 6 ...ll:lxf2) 6.e3 g5 7 .tg3 V!Je7 8.ll:l0 aS 9.V!idS ll:lxg3 IO.hxg3 g4 with equal chances, Gutman; D) S.g3 d6!? (5...a5 6..ig2 - 6.ll:l0 is best answered by 6.. ..icS 7.e3 .ib6 8..ig2 a4 9.0-0 0-0, as 6 . . . d6, Nikbel - lorna, in­ ternet 2002, 7.exd6 .ixd6 8..ig2 affords Black insufficient compensation -, 6... ll:lcS transposes to 4...aS S.g3 ll:lc6 6..ig2 ltJcS, treated in Chapter I) 6..ig2 .ifS!? (6...ll:lcS 7.b4 ll:le6 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.ll:l0 a5 I O.bS ll:le7 l l .tb2 0-0 12.ll:lbd2 ll:lcS 13. 0-0 ll:lg6 14.V!ic2 �e8 I S .e3 .ig4 16.ll:ld4 liJeS I7.ll:l2b3 ll:lxb3 1 8.V!ixb3 �b8 19.V!ic3 .i� 20.h3 .ihS 2 1 .f4 ll:ld7 22.g4 I :0 Nik­ cevic - Fauvet, Toulon 1 996) 7.exd6 (if 7.ll:ld2, then7 ... ll:lxd2 8..ixd2 dxeS 9..ic3 f6 equalizes, while Hergott - Garel, To­ ronto 1 996, went 7 ... ll:lcS 8.b4 ll:ld4 9M

ll:ld7 I O.exd6 hd6 1 1 .ll:lg0 ll:lxO+ 12. ll:lxO �b8 13.cS IJ.e7 14.ll:ld4 .ig6 I S.c6 I :0) 7 ....ixd6 (7 ...V!if6 8.d7+ 'i!?d8 9.ll:lf3 left Black in disarray, Campos Hernan­ dez Antonio - Olea Perez Mario, Murcia 1 997) 8.ll:ld2 (8.ll:l0 may hold out more chances for Black, e.g. 8 ....ic5 9.V!/xd8+ �xd8 I O.e3 .ie7 l l .ll:lbd2 M6 12 .0-0 0-0 or 8 ...hS, when neither 9.0-0 h4 IO.ll:lxh4 �xh4 l l .gxh4 V!ixh4 1 2 .f4 0-0-0 13.V!iel V!ih6, nor 9.lilli4 -*h7 IO.ll:ld2 V!Je7 1 1.ll:lxe4 he4 1 2..ixe4V!/xe4 13.V!Jd5 V!ixd5 14.cxd5 ll:ld4 IS.'i!?d l 0-0-0 1 6.e4 mte8 1 7.& 1 c6 are impressive for White. Also 8...V!if6 is worth attention: 9.ll:lbd2 ll:lcS 1 0.0-0 will transpose into 4.ll:ld2 ll:lcS S .ll:l gO ll:lc6 6.g3 d6 7.exd6 hd6 8..ig2 i5 9.0-0 V!iffi I O.a3, covered in Part 3, Chapter I , Section 6 , Sequel 2 ; after 9.0-0 0-0-0 I 0. ll:lbd2 is IO ... ll:lxd2 the correct answer, for instance l l ..ixd2 V!Jxb2 12.V!iel �he8 13..ie3 �7 14.ll:lgS .ixgS IS ..ixc6 .ixe3 16.fxe3 bxc6 1 7 .�xfS �xe3 and Black won in Igner - Augustin, corr 1 986, or l l .ll:lxd2 .ic5 12..§a2ibl 13..§!11 i5 with a draw by repetition, while I O.. .h6 I I �2 gS looks after 1 2.b4 like a waste of time, e.g. 12 ...ll:lc3 13 ..ib2 .ieS I4.hc3 hc3 I S.V!Jcl �8 16.ll:lb3 or IL�he8 13.tb2 V!ig6 14.ll:lxe4 ll:lxe4 I S.V!icl f5 1 6.cS IJ.eS 17.ll:lxe5 ll:lxe5 18..ixe4 fxe4 19 .txeS fue5 20.�d2, Diebig - Klueting, Reckling­ hausen 2001 . However, note that 8...V!Je7 is less precise in view o f9..ie3, e.g. 9 ... aS I O.V!idS ig6 1 1 .ll:lh4 ll:lcS 1 2.ll:lc3 �d8 13ltdl .ic2 14.ll:lf5 V!/ft) I S.ll:lxd6+ fud6 16..ixcS fudS 17 .ll:lxdS V!id8 1 8ltd2 .irs 19.ll:le7 .id7 20.ll:lxc6 bxc6 2 1 .0-0 V!JgS 22..ie3 I :0 Danailov - Carpintero, Mesa 1992, or L0-0-0 IO.V!Jc l ll:laS l l .ll:lbd2) 8 ...V!Je7 9.ll:lg0 hS 10.0-0 0-0-0 l l .ll:lxe4 ( l l .ll:lh4 .ih7 1 2 .ll:lxe4 .ixe4 1 3 ..ixe4 V!Jxe4, e.g. 14.V!id3 V!ixd3 I S .exd3 1J.e7 or 1 4.V!idS V!Jxe2 I S .IJ.e3 ll:leS 1 6.cS c6 17.V!Je4 .ic7 1 8 .�fe l , Hubert - Dohler,

222

Porz 1 99 1 , 1 8.. .'f!�'g4!?) l l ....ixe4 12.'MI3 Sinka, Hungary 1 99 1 , 14.ltlxb3 !? cxd5 15.ltlxa5 �xa5+ 1 6�2 'Ml6 1 7.exd5 .ic5 h4 1 3 ..ie3 hxg3 1 4.hxg3 ghs 1 5 .ltld2 1 8.0-0 f6, Istvan Sinka, 19.exf6 �xf6 ( 1 5_gfd l �8 1 6..&c l f5) 1 5 .. .ixg2 1 6. 20.ltlc3might be tried) 7.ltlc3 (7.ltlf3 ib7 'it>xg2 f5 (an improvement on 1 6.. ..ixg3 8.�dl f6) 7 .. ..ib7 8.�dl (8.ltl0 ltle6 9. 1 7 .fxg3 gxd2 1 8 ..ixd2 �xe2+ 1 9 .gf2 IDa+ 20.Wxh2 �xf2+ 2 1 .Wh3 �xd2 22. .ig3 ltlcd4 10.�xb7 ltlc2+ l l .�l ltlxal) 8...g5 9.tg3 .ig7 1 O.ltlO g4 l l .ltld4 ltlxe5 � 1, Terron Elena - Osuna Vega, Ma12.ltlf5 .i£6 13.ltld5 d6 14.e3 ltlg6 leads laga 2000) 17.�1 gxhl 1 8 .gxhl g5 !? to a balanced position, Gutman; 1 9.ltl0 f4 20.c5 .ie5 and Black dominates, Gutman; IV) 5.�c2 d5!?(5 ...� 6..ie3 ltlc5 7.ltlf3 Ill) 5.�d5 ltlc5 (5 5 6.ltl0 d6 goes into ti'h5 transposes to 4.a3 �4 5..ie3 ltlc6 4.�d5 f5 5.ltl0 ltlc6 6.a3 d6 - Part 1 ,7 -ti.ltlO �5 7.�c2 ltlc5 - Chapter 2, but Chapter 6, Section 1 , but 6.exf6 ltl xf6 White can do much better with 6.g3 ltld4 7.�dl ltlxg3 8.fxg3 �e4 9.ltlc3 ltlc2+ 7.�dl .ic5 8.ltl0 0-0 9.ltlc3 d6 1 O.e3 seems critical) 6..if4 (6..ie3ltlb3 7.ga2 1 0.Wf2 .ic5+ l l .e3, we see l l ....ixe3+ is a minor inconvenience, Eric Schiller, 12..ixe3 �xe3+ 1 3 .Wg2 ltlxal 14.�xal or l l ...�xhl 1 2.�xc2 �xh2+ 13 ..ig2. Unorthodox Chess Openings, 1998, yet my instincts are that after 7 ...d6 White is 5 ...ltlc5 is more logical, when White has in difficulties, e.g. 8. �5 ltlc5 9.exd6 a choice: 6.ltl0 aS returns into the text, while 6.b4 ltle6 7.ltl0 d6 8.exd6 .ixd6 .ixd6 1 0 ..ixc5 a6, 8.�d3 ltlca5 9.exd6 .ie6 or 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.ltl0 .ie6 1 O.�d3 9..ib2 reaches a position after 4.a3 d6 5. ltlca5 l l .�c3 .ie7 12.ltlbd2 .if6 1 3 .�c2 ltlO ltlc6 6.�c2 ltlc5 7.b4 ltle6 8.exd6 ltlxd2 1 4.ltlxd2 0-0. Also 6.ltlc3 brings .bd6 9.ib2 - Chapter 4, Section 1) 6.exd6 White little profit on account of 6... ltlb3 (Asger Paaske mentions 6.ltlc3 ltlxc3 7.,g)) l ltJxcl 81ixcl �g5 9.e3 �xe5 10.ltl0 7.�xc3 dxc4 8.ltl0 �d5 with equality) �e7 l l ..ie2 d6 12.0-0 .ie6 13.�d3 �0 is a more standard approach. 14.ltld5 �e8 1 5.gfdl 'it>b8) 6 ... b6 (6 ... g5 7 ..ig3 ltl b3 8.ga2 ltlc 1 9 -� 1 ltlb3 is a repetition, but White may well play on with 7..ie3 �e7 8.ltlc3 - instead of8.f4?, Dubrawski - Grzgorzewski, corr 1 992, 8 ...ltlb3 9.&2ih6 -, 8 ...ltlxe5 9.ltl0, e.g. 9 ...ltlx0+ lO.�xO ltle6 l l .ltld5 �d6 12. ltlf6+ Wd8 13.ltlxd7 or 9 ...d6 10.ltlxe5 dxe5 l l .ltlb5 c6 12 ..ixc5 cxd5 13 ..ixe7 1lx.e7 14.ltlc7 gb8 1 5.ltlxd5+. In case of 6 ... a5 7.ltlc3 a4 8.ltl0 gv White has a simple rejoinder 9.�dl !? .ie7 10.e3 0-0 l l ..ie2 f6 12.0-0 ltlb3 1 3.,g)) l fxe5 14..ig3 "He who hesitates is lost". d6 1 5 .ltlxa4; this is defmitely more con­ vincing than 9.ltlb5 �7 10.e4 0-0 l l ..ie2 There are two options: ltlb3 1 2.gdl ltlcd4 1 3 .ltlfxd4 c6, when A) 6 ... ltlxd6 (with enough counterplay, Tseitlin/GIIIskov) 7.e4 (After 7.ltld2 .if5 instead of 14.ltlxc6? bxc6 1 5.�d3 cxb5 8.e4 �e7 9.0 .ig6 10.b4 0-0-0 l l.ltle2 f5 16.cxb5 ltlc5 17.�c2 �b5 18 ..ixb5 �a5+ 12.c5 ltln 13..ib2 fxe4 14.fxe4 ltlfe5 1 5 . 1 9.We2 �xb5+ 20.Wn .ib7, Szylagyi •.

·

·

223

10g3 �g5 1 6�e2, Peze - JebStuart, in­ ternet 2002, 16 ... �e3 !? White has to be careful. 7.10c3 10xc4?! 8.100 �7 9.e4 l04e5 1 0.10xe5 10xe5 II �2 0-0 12.0-0 is slightly awkward foc Black, but 7 .. �5 8.e4 10d4 looks more appealing to me, e.g. 9.�a4+ �d7 IO.�xd7 <;!;>xd7 I I � 10b3 1 2..ffi) I IOc5 or 9.�d3 10b3 IOJ:�b I �e7 l l .f3 10xc l 12 .l:lxc l .ie6 13 .10d5 .ixd5 14 .cxd5 f5 1 5.10e2 fxe4 16.fxe4 0-M 17.li:lc3 �8 1 8i!c2 g6) 7 ..f5 (7...li:ld4 8.�d3 c5 9.10e2 10c6 1 0.tf4.ig4 1 1.10ec3 10d4 1 2.10d5 b6 1 3.10bc3 10b3 14.10c7+ �xc7 1 5.10d5 �d7 16.�xb3 0-0-0 17 � .ie7 1 8.0-0 left Black in desperate straits, Grantz - Stwnmer, corr 1 99 1 ) 8.10c3!? (8..id3 fxe4 9J.xe4 �e7 I 0.0 .if5 1 1 .10c3 10xe4 12.fxe4 0-M 13.10ge2 li:ld4 14.10xd4 lhd4 1 5.0-0 .he4 and the advantage pas­ ses to Black, while 8.10d2 fxe4 9.c5 10f3 I O.�xe4+ �e7 1 1 .10e2 10fd4 12 .10xd4 10xd4 1 3 ..id3 �xe4+ 1 4.10xe4 10b3 is even J011n Segur11) 8 ...10xe4 9�e3 (this appears safer than 9.10xe4 �e7 - 9 ... 10d4?! I O.�a4+ �d7 1 1 .10f6+ gxf6 1 2 .�dl �e6+ 1 3 �e3 f4 14.'�xd4 fxe3 1 5 .�xe3 gave White a plus in little Go­ liath - An Mon, computer game 200 1-, 1 0.0 fxe4, e.g. l l .fxe4 .if3 12..id3 liJd4 13.�dl .he4 14.ig5 �xg5 15J.xe4 t!lh4+ 1 6.<;!;>fl �xe4 1 7.�el �xe l + 18J:�xe l + .ie7, Hotting - Spoel, corr 1 985, o r I I . �xe4 .if3 1 2.�xe7+ .he7 1 3 M4 0-0-0 14_gd) lhdl+ 1 5 .<;!;>xdl .if6 1 6.b4 l!d8+ 1 7.<;!;>el .ib2 1 8 .b5 10d4 leaving White too far behind in development H��r­ ding) 9...10xc3 (9 ...�f6 I O.IOd5 �fl l l �d3 10f6 1 2 .100 10xd5 1 3 .cxd5 �xd5 14.0-0 .ie6 1 5�dl �3 16.l!fel is even worse) I O.�xc3 �d6 l l .l!d l ( l l ..ie2 �g6 12.J.f3 id7 13.li:le2 id6 14. 0-0 0-0-0 was less promising in Gambit Tiger An Mon, 2001) I L.�g6 12.10h3 .ie7 13.10f4 seems rather good for White, Gutman; .

B) 6 ....if5 ! 7.10c3 (7 .�a4 �xd6 8.10 0 10c5 0:1 Wittke - Brauening, Germany 1 990, or 7.dxc7 �xc7 8 .�a4 0-0-0 are quite depressing. 7 .g4 .ig6 8�g2 10xf2 9.�3 was suggested by HtiTding, and now instead of9 ...'Mt4?! I O.IOO IOd3+ l t .<;!;>d2 �6+ 12.g5 10c5 13.�e3+ 10e4+ 14.�xe4+ .ixe4 1 5 .d7+ <;!;>xd7 1 6.gxh6 gxh6 1 7.l!d l , 9 ...10xg4! is devastating, e.g. IO.�xb7 t!lh4+ I I .<;!;>dl l0f2+ 12.<;!;>d2 �g5+ 1 3 .<;!;>e l �xg2 o r IO .�g3 �xd6 l l .�xg4 10d4. Finally, 7.�dl .hd6 8.100 10xf2 9.<;!;>xf2 brought White no success in two computer games: 9..J.c5+ IO.'t>el i.t2+ I I . � �xdl 12.10c3 �c2 13.10el �3 14.e4�, Little Goliath - An Mon, 200 1 , or 9..�g3+ I O.<;!;>xg3 �xdl 1 1.10c3 �c2 12.e3 0-0-0, Fritz 6 - Gambit Tiger, 200 1 ) 7 ... 10d4 8.�dl (both 8.�d3 10b3 9.10xe4 10xal IO.b4 � l l .d7+ <;!;>d8 12. .ig5 �xg5 13.10xg5 .hd3 14.l0xf7+ cJ7xd7 15.cxd3 l!g8 1 6.<;!;>dl a5 and 8.�a4+ �d7 9.10b5 hd6 1 0.100 10xb5 I l .cxb5 0-0 are hardly viable for White) 8 c5 9.10d5 10xd6 (9 .bd6 1 0.10 0 10c3, Niels Jen­ sen, is refuted by l l .bxc3 10c2+ 125�d2 IOxal 1 3 ..ib2 10c2 1 4 .e3 0-0 1 5 ..id3) I O.l0e3 � l l .IOO IOxc4 12.10xd4 cxd4 13.�a4+ �d7 14 .�xd7+ <;!;>xd7 1 5.10xc4 .ixc4 with a level ending, Gutman.

-

224

.•

Back to the main line

s ... as Others: I) 5 .ic5 6.e3 transposes to 4.lilf3 .ic5 5 .e3 lilc6 6.a3 - Part 4, Chapter I ; II) 5 ....ie7 see 4.a3 .ie7 5.lilf3 lilc6; III) 5 .. ."i!/e7 see 4.a3 "i!/e7 5 .lil f3 lilc6; IV) Lb6 6."i!fd5 lilc5 7..ig5 (7.b4? lilb3 8.&2 lilxcl 9.�2. Maleky - Moizard, Chery 2002, 9...lilb3) 7 ..�7 8.txe7 "i!/xe7 9.b4 lilb7 IO.lilc3 ft5 I I .lilb5 <;Ws 12�1. Topper - Marceli, internet 2003; V) 5 ...g6 6."i!fc2(6.b4 !? �7 7.Ah6 d6, Kel­ leher - Mack, corr 1985, 8."i!fd5 !) 6 ...d5 7.exd6 (if7.e3 .if5 8..id3 .ig7 as 7 ...tg7 8.cxd5 "i!/xd5 9J.c4 "i!/a5+, Gastelotte Gar­ cia - Folch Zaragoza, Cullera 2002, is refuted by I O .b4 lilxb4 l l .axb4 "i!/xal 1 2 ..ib2) 7 ... lilxd6 8 .lilc3, Gutman; VI) 5 ...h6 6."i!fc2 (6.lilbd2 lilxd2 7.ixd2 g5 8.ic3 .ig7 9."i!fc2 "i!/e7, improving on 6 ... lilg5 7.b4 a6 8..ib2 d5 9.cxd5 "i!/xd5 10. lilxg5 hxg5 l l.e4 "i!fe6 1 2J.c4 "i!/e7 13."i!fb3, Reinemer - Scharff, Leverlrusen 2 00 1 ) 6_d5 7.e3 (7.exd6 !?) 7 .tg4 S.lild4 (8.lilc3 is reasonable, e.g. 8...lilxc3 9."i!/xc3 .bf3 I O.gxf3 d4 I I ."i!fb3 m>8 12.f4 or 8 .. .Axf3 9.gxf3 lilg5 IO.ig2 d4 I I .lild5 �7 1 2.f4 � 13..id2 0.0 14.0.0, Schaedler - Kas­ pereit, Germany 1 992) 8 ... lilxe5 9 .cxd5 are all better for White, Gutman ; Vll ) For 5 ... d6!? see 4 ... d6 - Chapter 4. 6."ffc2 Alternatives, less challenging, are: I) 6.lilbd2 lilc5 goes into 4.lilbd2 lilc5 5.lilgf3 lilc6 6.a3 a5 - Part 3, Chapter I , Section 5, Sequel I ; D) 6.lilc3 lilxc3 7.bxc3 h6 (clearer than 7.. .a4 8.Ag5 �7 9..1f4 - 9�3 b6 1 0-*'i4 .ib7 I I ."i!fc2 0-0, Frantlsek Nepustil -, 9...0.0 IO.e3,e.g. I O b6 1 1�2.tb7 120.0 or I O ...d6 l l .exd6 .ixd6 12 ..ixd6 cxd6 13 .ie2) 8.tf4 (8."i!fd5 g6 9.a4 .ig7 I O.h3 d6) 8 ..."i!fe7 9.b4 (9."i!fd5 g5 I O.ie3 g4 I I . lild4 lilxe5 12.lilb5 �d8 13 J!d I & 6!?) 9 ... g6 I O ."i!fd5 .ig7 l l .e3 a4, Gutman; •

•

.•

Ill) 6..ie3 d6 7.exd6 (7."i!fd5 .if5 8.exd6 lilxd6 9.lild4, Diallo - Naimanye, Manila Olympiad 1 992, 9...lile7 I O."i!/0 ie4 I I . -eh5 lilef5) 7...txd6 (7 ...lilxd6 8.lilbd2 �7 9.if4 0.0 IO.e3 .ift5 l l .c5 ffi is also in­ teresting) 8.g3 0 -0 9..ig2 .ic5 ! ? (after 9..."i!/e7 I 0.0.0 a4 I I .lilbd2 lilc5 12."i!fc2 f5 13 .ixc5 .ixc5 14.e3 �a6 1 5.�adl lild8 16.lilbl f4 17.exf4 .if5 1 8."i!fcl "i!fe8 1 9.lilc3 White went to win in Vegh - Navarro , Cordoba 1 994) IO."i!fxd8 �xd8 I l .ixc5 .ixc5 12.lilc3 (if 1 2 .lild2 �e8) 12 .. .ie6 13 .�dl ( 1 3 .lild2 lild4 1 4.0-0-0 c6) 13 ... �xd l + 1 4 .�xd l �d8+, Gutman; IV) 6."i!fd5 lilc5 (6...f5 7.exffi lilxffi 8."i!/g5 d6 9.lilc3 ie6 IO.e4 h6, Petters - Alzola Tovar, corr 1 996, l l ."i!fd2 �7 1 2�2 0.0 13.0-0 is to White 's liking) 7 .ig5 ( for 7.lilc3 �7 see 4 .ie7 5.lilf3 lilc6 6."i!fd5 lilc5 7.lilc3 aS) 7 .. ..ie7 8.ixe7 (8.tf4 d6! 9.exd6 cxd6, e.g. IO.lilbd2 .ie6 I I ."i!lh 5 h6 1 2.g4 g6 13.'i!lh3 h5, Mueller - Alber, Schoeneck 1 99 1 , or I O."i!fdl .iffi I l ."i!fc2 'M>6 12.lilc3 .if5 13.lild5 .ixc2 14.lilxb6 &6 1 5 .lild5 lilb3) 8 ... "i!/xe7 9.lilc3 b6!? (9...0-0 I O.lilb5 lila6 l l .e3 �e8 1 2.ie2 lilxe5 13."i!/xe5 "i!/xe5 14.lilxe5 �xeS 1 5 . � d6 1 6.b4 .id7 17.lilc3 .if5 1 8.g4 .id7 19.f4 �ee8 was level, Bauer - Szabolcsi, Paris 2001) 10.lilb5 "i!fd8 1 1 .e3 .tb7 12�2 0-0 1 3 .0-0 �e8, Gutman; V) 6.e3 is quite popular, and now: A) 6...lilg5 7.lild4ic5 8.lilxc6 bxc6 9..id3 lile6 I O."i!lh5!? "i!/g5 I I ."i!/xg5, Crafty ­ Brause, computer game 1 997; further B) 6 ... lilc5 7.lilc3 (7..ie2 g6 8 .id2 .ig7 9.ic3 "i!/e7; less impressive is 7...a4, not because o f 8 .b4? axb3 9..ib2, Cecii ­ Baumruk, Klatovy 1 998, 9 ... d6, but due to 8.ltlc3 d6 9.exd6.ixd6 10.e4 ().() I I �3 �e8 12 .0-0 lilxe4 1 3 .lilxa4 "i!/e7 14.�e I . In case of7.b3 Black seizes the initiative with 7...d6 8.exd6 "i!/16 9.&2 .ixd6 I 0�2 "i!/g6, while 7 .. .te7 8.tb2 0.0 9.lilc3 b6 I O.lild5 .ib7 l l .ie2 d6 1 2 .lilxe7+ "i!/xe7

225

•

1 3 .exd6 cxd6 14.0-0 lOeS IS.b4 l0e4 1 6. �d4 was excellent for White in Karapa­ nos - Papastauvropoulos, Halkida 2001) 7 ....1i.e7 (7 ...a4 8 .e4 1i.e7 9.1i.e3) 8.1i.e2 (8.b3 fails to 8 ...lOxeS! 9.lOxeS ii.ffi) 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 b6 I O.b3 (IO.e4 ge8 l l .b3 1i.a6 1 2 .ge1 gcs 13 .�c2 l0e6 1 4 .�d2 1i.b7 I S .Ii.b2 lOcS 1 6.�c2 l0e6 J7.gadl lOgS 18.lOxgS ii.xgS 19.g3 1i.e7 20.lObS li.cS 2l .li.g4 �7 22.�d3 was seen in Crafty ­ Brause, computer game 1 997) I 0 ... ges l l .li.b2 1i.fB 12.lOdS, Gutman; similarly C) 6 .. .1i.e7 7.li.e2 (7 .li.d3 lOcS 8.1i.c2 0-0 will transpose into 4...1i.e7 S .l0f3 l0c6 6.e3 0.0 7 .id3 lOcS S.li.c 2 aS - Chapter I ) 7...0-0 8.0-0 (White got a nice game after 8.�c2 l0c;;S 9.b3 �8 I O.li.b2 b6 l l .l0c3 a4 12l0xa4 l0xa4 13.bxa4 1i.cS 14.1i.d3 h6 I S .O-Oii.b7 1 6.gfd l l0b8 1 7 .l0d4 m4 18� d6 1 9.exd6 1i.xd6 20h3 �g5 2 1 .f4, Crafty - Brause, computer game 1 997, though I 2.b4 looks more natural to me; however, note that 9.l0c3 �8 I O.b3 1i.f8 l l.li.b2 lOxeS is harmless) 8..M (8...b6 9. b3Jb7 IO.Ii.b2 �8 l l.l0c3 l0xc3 12.1i.xc3 li.ts 13 .�d2 �e7 14.gfd l gadS 1 5.'l�b2 ti'e6 16.b4 1i.a8 17 .l0d4 �xeS? 1 8.l0xc6 �gS 19ru5 1 :0 Heinig - Frantisek, Bmo 1976) 9.�c2 lOcS IO.b3 1i.ts l l .li.b2 g6 12.l0c3ig7 I J.lljdS lLJxeS 14.lOxeS ii.xeS I S .Ii.xeS gxeS 1 6.f4, Gutman; finally D) 6...�e7 7.id3 (7.�c2 lOcS 8.lOc3 lOxeS 9.1i.e2 c6 1 0.0-0 g6, while 8.l0bd2 goes into 4.lOd2 lOcS S.l0gf3 l0c6 6.a3 aS 7.e3 �e7 8.�c2 - Part 3, Chapter I , Section S, Sequel I. After 7.1i.e2 Black has a choice between 7 . . .g6 8.�dS lOcS 9.l0c3 1i.g7 I O.lObS lOa6and 7...lOxeS 8.0-0 d69.l0d4 g6, improving on 8...b6 9.l0d4 1i.b7 IO.f3 lOcS l l.l0c3 �d8 1 2.e41i.a6 1 3 .b3 l0e6 14.l0c2 a4 J 5./tjxa4 1i.xc4 1 6.1i.xc4 l0xc4 17 .lOc3 llJaS 1 8_gb l li.e7 1 9.f4 c6 20.f5 l0c7 2 1 .eS, Levitt - Olaffson, Reykjavik 1 990) 7 ... lOcS (7 ... lOgS 8.llJxgS �xgS 9.0-0 �xeS I O.f4) 8.1i.c2 lOxeS 9.llJxeS

�xeS 10.0-0 (in case of I O.l0d2 both 10 ... d6 1 1.l0f3 �ffi 1 2 .l0d4 1i.d7 1 3 � li.e7 14.1i.c3, Jones - Gibson, Wales v Ireland 1992, 14 trh-4 t s.o-o 0-0, and 1 o ...b 6!? l l .l0f3 ms 12.1i.d2 1i.b7 1 3 .1i.c3 1i.d6 are playable) I O...b6 ( 1 0 ... &6 l l .f4 �e7 1 2. l0c3 gh6 1 3 .lOdS ti'h4 14 .h3) l l .l0c3 li.b7 1 2.f4 ( 12.e4 l0e6 1 3 .lOdS ii.d6 14.f4 �d4+ IS.�xd4 l0xd4 16.1i.dl �8 17 .li.e3 li.cS 1 81!e I �8 is quite comfy for Black, while Sidlo - Marsalek, Podebrady 19S6, went 1 3 .. .1i.cS?! 1 4.gbl 0-0 I S.b4 ax b4 16.axb4 1i.d4 17.'i!?hl gS, when 1 8.f4 gxf4 1 9.1i.xf4 l0xf4 20.gxf4 'i!?h8 2 1 _gt5 �g7 22.l0xc7 might be good) 12 ...�e6 13 .lOdS li.d6 14.e4 with a plus for White, GuJman ; E ) 6 ...d6!? 7.�c2 (7 .exd6 1i.xd6 8.l0bd2 lOcS � ses to 4.lOd2 lOcS S.l0gf3 tOc6 6.e3 d6 7.exd6 1i.xd6 8 .a3 aS - Part 3, Chapter I , Section 4) 7...lOcS 8.exd61i.xd6 9.l0c3 (9.b3 1i.g4 I O.l0bd2 �d7 l l .li.b2 ffi 1 2.1i.e2 0-0 13.0-0 gfus, Smith - Hawley, corr 1 993, although 9 ... �ffi IO.Ii.b2 1i.f5 is more effective to me) 9 ... 0-0 I O.Ii.e2 li.g4 1 1 .0-0 ( l l .lOdS a4 12.0-0 �d7 1 3 . l0M l0b3 14.gt,J l0bd4) l l ...li.xf3 12.Axf3 (12.gxf3? loses to 12 ...1i.xh2+ 1 3 .'i!?xh2 t:n.4+ 14.'i!?gl �gS+ IS.�I l0b4 16..axb4 ga6) 1 2 ...�h4 1 3 .h3 � xc4; likewise F) 6 ...g6!? 7.�dS (7 .li.d3 lOcS 8.e4 1i.g7 9.1i.gS l0xd3+ I O .�xd3 lOxeS l l .�dS l0xf3+ 12.gxf3 1i.ffi 13 .li.xffi �xffi 14 .l0c3 d6 I S.0-0-0 0-0 16.�d4 �xd4 1 7 _gxd4 f5 I S.lObS gn turned out well fa Black, Gonsales - Bellon, Terrasa 1 994) 7 lOcS 8.l0c3 b6 9.1i.e2 1i.b7 I O.e4 (a less com­ plicated game results from I 0.0-0 li.g7 l l .� dl lOxeS 1 2.lOdS 0-0 13.�c2, e.g. 13 ...c6 14.l0f4 l0e6 1S.l0d3 l0xf3+ 16.bfl lOgS 17 .li.e2 dS, Grahl - Willsch, Ger­ many 1 993, or 13 ... a4!? 14.lOxeS ii.xeS I S.Ii.d2 l0b3 16lradl l0xd2 17�d2 �8) IO...Ii.g7 l l .li.gS �c8 12 .li.ffi 0-0 1 3.li.xg7 'i!?xg7 14.gdt ge8 and Black keeps control, Gutman.

226

_

·

.•

VI) 6.b3 , when Black has tried: A) 6 .. .J.cS 7.e3 'i!Je7 (7 ...dS? is dubious, e.g. 8.'i!JxdS .ifS 9.'i!Jxd8+ lhd8 1 0.k2 �0 l l ..ib2, Hudecek - Gutdeutsch, Li­ tomysl 1996, or 8.cxdS fOe? 9�4) 8..ib2 b6 9.�bd2 �xd2 10.'i!Jxd2 0-0 l l ..ie2 ib7 12.().()&d8 13.'i!Jc3 rue8 14Ndl 'i!Jf8, Pehlgrim - Schaffar1h , Binz 1 994, 1S ..id3 leaves Black in trouble; B) 6.. .�cS 7.�c3 a4 8.b4 (8..igS ffi 9.exffi gxffi l O.J.h4 �xb3 l l .�dS, Henryk Do­ bosz, l l...J.g7 1 2Jibl d6) 8�.�b3 9JTh l (9..igS ffi 10.exffi gxffi l l .J.h4 �xal 12. 'i!Jxal , Dobosz, 12 ...J.g7 13 .�dS 0.0) 9... �xcl (9...d6 l O..igS) 1 O.lhcl d6 l l .exd6 .ixd6 12.cS with advantage, Jensen; C) 6... g6, Nepustil, with another branch: Cl) 7.�bd2 �cS 8..ib2 .ig7 goes into 4.�d2 �cS S.a3 aS 6.b3 g6 7..ib2 .ig7 8.�gf3 �c6 - Part 3, Chapter 1 , Section 1; C2) 7.'i!JdS �cS 8..igS (8.�bd2 'i!Je7 9..§bl .ig7 10..ib2 b6 l l .b4 axb4 12.axb4 �4 13 .bS &5 1 4.�b3 �xb2 1S.�xa5 'i!lb4+ 1 6.� �xa5 resulted in a quick win for Black, Finegold - Weemaes, corr 1 992) 8 .. .J.e7 9.'i!JxcS (9. .ixe7 'i!Jxe7 1 O.�bd2 0-0 l l .e3 ge8) 9 .. .J.xcS 1 0..ixd8 'i!i>xd8 l l .e3 (instead of l l .�c3 �4 12.�xd4 .ixd4 1 3.&1 -'xeS 14.e4 ge8, Roscher ­ Augustin, corr 1 989) 1 1 ...ge8 1 2 ..ie2 �xeS, Gutman; further C3) 7h4 d6! (Surely not 7...h6? 8.hS g5 9..ib2, e.g. 9 .. ..ig7 1 0.'i!Jd5 or 9...gg8 10. 'i!Jd3 �cS l l .'i!lb7, Dobosz. 7 .. .J.g7 8.'i!Jd5 f5 9.hS is more intriguing, when Black has to make a correct decision: 9 ... d6? 10.hxg6 'i!Je7 l l .gxh7 dxeS 1 2.J.h6 .ie6 1 3 ..ixg7 .ixdS 14 .gxh8+ Wd7 l S.cxdS, e.g. lS ....!hh8 16.dxc6+ 'i!i>c8 1 7.J.xh8 'i!Jc5 1 8.�bd2 'i!Jxf2+ l9.'i!i>d l , Dobosz, or I S ... �d4 1 6.�xeS+ Wd6 1 7 .�c4+ 'i!i>xdS 1 8. .ixd4 lhh8 19 ..ixh8 'i!lh4 20.�c3+ 'i!i>c6 2 1 ..id4 �g3 22.�eS+ 'i!i>d6 23.�f3 I :0 Dobosz - Blauert, Naestved 1988; 9 'i!Je7 I O.hxg6 �xeS i l.�xeS - if l liW\7, then •.

not l l ...�g4 1 2.�d4 c6 1 3 �g7 'i!Jxg7 14.�xf5 cxdS IS.�xg7+ 'tt1ll l6.�f5.Do­ bosz, but I L�3+ 12.exd3 �ffi+ 13.'i!JeS 'i!Jxe5+ 14.�xeS �h7 1 S.&2 �fB 16.&2 fiJe6 1 7 .�f3 Wffl, Jensen -, l l ....ixeS 121Wl7 'i!Je6 1 3.'i!Jxe6+ dxe6 14ltxh8+ .ixh8 1Slta2 .id7 1 6..ib2; it is 9 ... �e7!?, as l O.'i!Jdl d6 l l .h6 .ixeS 12.�xeS dxeS 1 3.'i!Jxd8+ Wxd8 1 4.�d2, Jensen, 14 ... �xd2 IS..ixd2 We8 16.k3 ttk6 17.g3 <M7 1 8..ig2 &8 appears equal to me) 8.exd6 (8.'i!Jd5 �S 9..igS fOe? l O.'i!Jd l �7, e.g. l l ..if6 .ixffi 12.exf6 �g8 o r l l .�c3 h6 12..ixe7 'i!Jxe7 13.�S 'i!Jd8 14.exd6 'i!Jxd6 IS.&2 0-0 16.e3 .ig4) 8 ..ig7 9.&2 .iB 10.J.b2 .ixb2 l l ltxb2 'i!Jffi 12.'i!Jcl 'i!Jxd6 13.e3 ().() 14..ie2 'i!Jf6 l S.�O �8, Gut­ man; similarly C4) 7.tb2 �7 8.'i!Jc2 (8.�3 �xc3 9..ixc3 od6 is harmless, Nepustil. 8.'i!ldS �gS 9. �bd2 is well met by 9...�xf3+ 1 0.�xf3 d6 I I .� I 0-0 1 2.gd2 .ie6 13.'i!lhS 'i!Jd7 14.exd6 .ixb2 lSJhb2 'i!Jxd6, while 9 ...d6 I O.�xgS 'i!Jxg5, Willby - Augustin, corr 1988, looks suspicious in view of l l .�e4 'i!Jd8 1 2.�ffi+) 8 ...�cS (8 ...�gS 9.� xgS 'i!JxgS I O.g3 �0 l l .f4) 9.�c3 (9.e3 0-0 IO.k2 d6 1 l .�bd2 dxeS, Nepustil) 9...0.0 (9 ... �xeS IO.�xeS .ixeS was a disaster for White after l l .�e4 'i!Je7 1 2.f4 �xe4 13 ..ixeS ().() 14.g3 d6 I S� .if5 16.'i!lh2 �S 17.� a4 18..ixcS dxcS I9.e4 'i!Jxe4 20..id3 'i!Je3+ 2 l .'i!Jd2 gfe8 in Waiser ­ Polzer, corr 1 980, yet l l .�dS f6, Ne­ pustU, 1 2 ..ixeS fxeS 1 3 .g3 d6 1 4..ig2 a4 1 S.b4 �b3 16ltdl O.O should be even) 10ru1 ( 10.�dS d6 l l .�ffi+ 'i!i>h8 1 2itdl �xeS 1 3..ixeS ixffi ) 10 ...d6 l l .exd6 .if5 1 2.'i!Jd2 cxd6 1 3 .'i!Jf4 (or 1 3.'i!Jxd6 .ic2) 1 3 ...ge8, Gutman; finally CS) 7.g3 .ig7 8.'i!ldS, Hans Bau,., 8 f5 9.exffi (9.�bd2 �xd2 I O..ixd2 d6 l l ..igS 'i!Jd7 12ltdl �xeS 13.�xeS .ixeS 14..ig2 c6 l S .'i!Jd3 ().() 1 6.0-0 ge8) 9 ... �xffi I 0. .'i!Jd3 dS! ( 10...0-0 l l .J.b2 d6 12..ig2 .if5

227

•

.•

I H� d I � d7 1 4 .0-0 gae8 1 5 .ltJc3 ltJe4 16.&1) I Ub2 ( 1 l .cxdS ltJxd5 12�2 0.0, e.g. 13.�c4 �3! or 13.e4 ltJc3 14.�c4+ �h8 1 5.ltJxc3 fuf3 1 6.ltJd5 a4 17 .b4..!Th3 18.J.g2 ltJe5 19.�xc7 ltJd3+) I 1 ...0-0 12. cxd5 .if'S 13.�c4 ltJxd5 14..lxg7 �xg7 1 5 .ltJbd2 �f6 1 6_gc l �2 17 .J.g2 gae8 18.�0 ltJb6 are all fme fcr Black, Gutman; C6) 7.�c2! ltJc5 8.ltJc3 (8.J.g5 ltJd4 , e.g. 9.�c l k7 I O..b.e7 ltJxf3+ l l .exf3 �xe7 12.�e3 d6 13.f4 dxe5 14.fxe5 0-0 15 .ltJc3 c6 or 9.ltJxd4 �xgS I O.ltJf3 �d8 I I .ltJc3 .lg7 121M I 0-0 13.e3 &8) 8 .J.g7 9.J.g5 lOd4 I O.�cl (after I O.ltJxd4 �xg5 1 I .ltJf3 �d8 1 2.g3 0-0 1 3.J.g2 d6 14.0-0 dxe5 15. Jhl l .ld7 1 6.�d2 .k6 17.�e3 ltJd7 it is White who has to be wony about main­ taining the balance, Boemelburg - Stef­ ens, corr 1 988) IO ... ltJxf3+ l l .exO f6 1 2 .exf6 .lxf6 1 3...lx.f6 (Wilms - Muller, corr 1 988, went 1 3.�e3+ �f7 14.�f4 &8+ 15.ltJe4 ltJxe4 16.fxe4, when instead of 16..ltlle4+ 17.�xe4 .ic3+ 1 8� ixal 19 ..le2, 1 6...d5 !? 1 7 ,gd I .if'S 1 8.gxd5 �e4+ 19.�xe4 .lxe4 20lb.d8 �d8 could have been tried) 1 3...�xffi 14 .ltJd5 �e6+ 1 5.�e3 � 1 6.gbl a4 (16 &8 17.�d2 �xe3+ 18.fxe3) 17 .b4 &a 18 .�xe6 ltJxe6 1 9 .�d2 keeping the pawn, Gutman. D) 6 ...d6! 7..lb2 .lf5 (7 .. .J.e7 deserves some attention: if 8.exd6, then 8 .. ..b.d6 9..b.g7 gg8 IOJd4 �e7 1 1.e3 .Af5 l lib2 0-0-0, or 8 .J.fti, TsdiJin/Gittskov; 8.ltJbd2 ltJxd2 9.�xd2 dxeS IO.ltJxe5, Gmclunan Czaniak, Buenos Aires 1940, IO ...�xd2+ l l .�xd2 .iffi 1 2.ltJd3 ltJd4 13bd4 .lxd4 and I like Black; 8 .�c2! .if'S 9.ltJc3 is more serious, for instance 9...ltJg3 I O.e4 ltJxhl l l .exf5 dxe5 12_gdl �c8 13 .g3 or 9...ltJxf2 I O.�xf5 ltJxhl l l .g3 dxe5 1 2�1) pose White fewer problems: Dl) 8.ltJbd2 ltJxd2 (8...ltx:S see 4.ltJd2 ltJc5 5.a3 aS 6.b3 d6 7 .J.b2 ltJc6 8.ltJgO .if'S ­ Part 3, Chapter I, Section I) 9.�xd2 dxe5 10.0-0-0 ( IO.�xd8+ �d8 I I.ltJxe5? ltJb4!, •

•.

•

-

Nurminen - Stolt, Finland 1 993) IO ....ld6 l l.e4 (l l .e3 �e7 1 2.J.e2 0-0-0 1 3.�c3 Ab4 14.axb4 ltJxb4 1 5.gxd8+ �d8 1 6.h3 ltJa2+ 1 7.'i!;>b2 �xa3+, Gebhardt - Bawn, corr 1 992) I L..b.e4 12.�e3 .lxf3 13.gxf3 �e7 14il.h3 .lxa3 15.J.d7+ �f8. Baum; D2) 8.exd6 .lxd6 9.J.xg7 ltJxt2 (Baum prefers 9 ...gg8 I O.J.d4 �e7, e.g. l l .e3 0-0-0 or I I .J.e3 0-0-0 12.�cl .lg4 13�2 f5 14.g3 f4 1 5 .gxf4 ltJxt2 16.�xf2 .lxf3 1 7.exf3 eM+ 18.�e2 .lxf4 191M2 .lxe3 20.�d8+ �d8 2 1 .�xe3 ltJd4+ 0: I Dal­ laglio - Vospemik, Portoroz 1995) IO.�cl (10.� .lg3+ I I .'i!;>xg3 �xd l 12.ltJbd2 �c2 13..hh8 'i!;le7) I O...ltJxh I l l ..lxh 8 .ixh2 12.�e3+ .le6 1 3 .ltJxh2 m4+ 1 4. 'i!;>d l 0-0-0+, Jensen; DJ) 8.e3 dxeS (8...ltJc5 9.exd6.lxd6 1 O,jd4 �e7 I I .ltJc3 0-0 1 2 .ltJd5 �e4 1 3 .J.xc5 .lxc5 14.J.e2 &d8 1 5.0-0 gd6 1 6.�cl mt6 brought Black success, Figeas - Vin­ sot, France 1998, yet we can improve with IO..b.g7!? gg8 l l ..ld4 � e7 12.ltJc3 0.0.0 13.ltJd5 �e6 14.b4) 9.�xd8+ gxd8 10. ltJxe5 ltJxe5 ( I O...ltJc5, Baum, l l .ltJxc6 bxc6 1 2.ltJd2 �d2 1 3.�xd2 ltJxb3+ 14. �I ltJxal 15..lxal ffi 16..ib2.ld6 17.J.e2 �e7 1 8.�cl � 1 9_ge l ) I I .J.xe5 ltJc5 12.ltJc3 ltJxb3 1 3.ga2 c6, Gutman; D4) 8.ltJc3 dxe5 9.�xd8+ (after 9.ltJ xe4 .lxe4 IO.ltJxe5 is I O ...�xd l + l l .�xdl U+ 12. 'ikl ltJd4 13..b.d4 � a simple line, but I O ... ltJxe5 !? seems even more promising, e.g. l l .�xd8+ �d8 12..b.e5 .ic2 13.J.xc7 .lxa3 ! or l l be5 �xdl + 12.�xdl 0-0-0+ 1 3.�c l .lc5 1 4.e3 f5 ! 15.J.c3 f4 16..b.g7, Svendsen - Melchor, corr 1 99 1 , 16...�g8 17.J.fti �f8 18..ld4 .lxd4 19.exd4 .lxg2) 9 ...gxd8 I O.ltJb5 (I O.ltJxe4 .lxe4 I I .ltJxe5? ltJb4) IO...J.c5 (IO... ltJb4?! I I .ltJxc7+ �d7, Baum, 1 2 . O-O-O+ Wx.c7 1 3 .J.xe5+ �c8 14.gxd8+ �xd8 1 5.axb4 .lxb4 16 .J.xg7 .la3+ 17. �dl ltJxf2+ 1 8.�1 ltJxhl 19..lxh8 ib4+ 20. �d I ) l l .e3 .lb6 12 ..le2 f6, Gutman.

228

VII) 6.J.f4 is a more purposeful move (when it is hard tofind an improvement for Black, Harding).

We examine: A) 6 ...f6 H�c2 (7.'t!idS is not bad either, e.g. 7...fS 8.ltk3 lt:lxc3 9.bxc3 't!ie7 I O.e4 or 7 _lt:lcs 8.lt:lc3 lt:le6 9.exf6 't!ixf6 I O.J.g3 d6 l l .e3 g5 12.h4 g4 1 3.ll:ld2 h5 14.lt:lde4 't!lfT I S .cS dxcS 1 6.0-0-0 .ig7 1 7 ..ic4, Matveeva - Stefanova, Belgrade 1 994) 7...lt:lcS 8.exf6 't!ixf6 9..ixc7 (more con­ sequent than 9� Y!lf1 IO.e3 d6 1 1 .lt:lbd2 h6 12 ..ih4 gS 1 3 ..ig3 .ifS 14.'t!idl .ig7 I S .ga2, Penalver - Hultin, Stockholm 1 994, I S ... a4!?) 9...d6 I O.lt:lc3 .its l l .e4 leaves Black disorganised, Gutman; B) 6... b6 7.'t!!c2 lt:lcS (after 7 ...dS 8.e3 ie6 9.cxdS 't!!xdS White � strong JnS­ sure with I O.lt:lc3 lt:lxc3 I I .'t!ixc3, while I O ..id3 lt:lcS I I ..ibS 0-0-0 1 2.lt:lc3 lt:ld3+ 1 3 ..ixd3 't!ixd3 14.'t!ixd3 gxd3 I S.gd I �dl+ 16.'�xdl ib3+ 17.'ib:l �7 1 8.lM4 lt:lxd4 1 9 .exd4 c6 20 . .ie3 bS 2 1 .dS b4 22.d6 .ixd6 23 .exd6 bxc3 24.bxc3 'i!>d7 led to a draw, Drasko - Heinzel, Skopje 1 993) 8.lt:lc3 .ib7 9,gdl a4 IO.e3 gas l l ..ie2 .ie7 1 2.h4 't!iaS 13 .lt:ldS .idS 14. lt:lgS lt:le6 I S .'t!ifS .ixgS 1 6 ..ixgS lt:lbS 17.lt:lf6+! 'i!>ftl (if 17 ...gxf6 1 8.'t!ixf6 0-0 19 .J.h6 lt:lc6 20.ghJ lt:lxeS 2 I ,gg3+) 1 8. lt:lxd7+lt:lxd7 191!xd7 lt:lxgS 20.'t!ixg5 I :0 Drasko - Schaffarth, Porz 1 99 1 ;

C) 6 ...a4 7.'t!ic2 (Black's task is simpler in the line 7.e3 gS 8.'t!ic2 gxf4 9.'t!ixe4 fite3 IO.'elxe3 ig7, e.g. I I Jd3 &5 12.lt:lc3 lt:lxeS 1 3.lt:ldS d6 or l l .lt:lc3 0-0 1 2.J.d3 lt:lxeS 13.lt:lxeS .ixeS) 7 ... lt:lcS 8.lt:lc3 h6 (S ... lt:la.S 91Jdl - 9.e3 !Oab3, TseiiJin/GIJ­Js kov, IQ,gd l .ie7 I I .lt:ldS 0-0 1 2.lt:ld4 is also in White's favour, Jensen -, brings Black nowhere, e.g. 9 ... � 10�3 lt:lxo4 I I .lt:ldS bS 1 2..ih4 gS 1 3 .lt:lf6+ I :0 Eb­ besen - Jensen, corr 1 99 1 , 9... lt:lxc4 1 0 . .igS f6 l l .exf6 gxf6 1 2 .J.h4 or 9 ... lt:lab3 I O.g3 !? .ie7 l l ..ig2 0-0 1 2 .0-0) 9 ..ie3 (9.gdl b6 I O..ie3 is just a transposition since 9 ... gS? I O.J.e3 g4 fails to I I .lt:ldS) 9 ...b6 I O.gdl .ib7 I I ..ixcS .ixcS 1 2 .e3 (instead of 12.lt:lxa4 't!le7 13.lt:lxcS 't!!xcS 14.'t!ic3 0-0-0 IS.b4 't!ie7 16.e3 mteS 1 7 . �2 lt:lxeS 1 8.'t!ixe5 'l':z-Yz Gelpke - Rein­ derman, Dutch Ch 1 993) 12...0-0 13.J.d3 ges 14.i.h7+ 'i!>hS IS..ie4 and White is on top, Gutman; D) 6 ...d6! 7.'t!ic2(7.lt:lbd2 dxeS S.lt:lxeS lt:lxf2 9.'i!>xt2 't!if6 I O .lt:ld3 gS I I .lt:le4 't!id4+ 1 2.e3 't!ixe4 13..ixgS .ig4 1 4.'t!ic2 ggs IS.J.£4 Q.O.O is not reconmendable. There is also little promise in 7.exd6 't!ff6 UVc l .ixd6 9..ixd6 cxd6, e.g. I O.lt:lc3 lt:lxc3 I I .'t!ixc3 't!ixc3+ 12 .bxc3 lt:leS or I O.e3 .ig4 l l ..ie2 lt:leS 1 2 .lt:lbd2 lt:lxd2 13.lt:lxd2 .ixe2 14.'i!>xe2 't!ig6 1 S.'t!ic3 0-0. 7.'t!id5 lt:lcS 8.exd6 .ixd6 9bd6cxd6 has its drawbacks, for example I O.lt:lc3 .ie6 l l .'t!lhS 0-0 12.e4 a4 1 3..ie2 &5, IO.lt:lbd2 0-0 l l .e3 ie6 12.'t!ihS a4 or I O.'t!idl eb6 1 1 .&2 .ie6 12.e3 lt:leS 1 3 .lt:lxeS dxeS 14.lt:lc3 a4 IS..ie2 0-0 16.0-0 gfdS 17.'t!ic2 't!ib3) 7 ..lf5 ! (7 ...lt:lcS will transpose into 4...lt:lc6 S.lt:lf3 aS 6.'t!!c 2lt:lcS 7 .J.£4 d6) 8.lt:lc3 dxeS (not 8 ... lt:lg3 9.e4) 9.lt:lxe4 (9.lt:lxeS lt:ld4 IO.'t!ia4+ c6 l l .lt:lxe4 .ixe4) 9 ... exf4 I o.gdl (I O.lt:ld6+ 't!ixd6 l l .'t!ixfS gdS) 10 ... 't!icS I I .lt:lh4 .ie6 1 2.g3 .ie7 1 3 ..ig2 0-0 14.lt:IO fxg3 I S .hxg3 .irS can only benefit Black, Gutman.

229

•

Back to the main line 6 � c5 ...

The other sub-variation is 6 ... d5.

13 .gxa8+ 'it>d7 14.fuh8 f6 IS .exf6 �aS 16.gd8+ �xd8 17 .f7+ �d7 1 8.f8Y:V b3+ 19.�1 �al+ 20..icl Ac2+ 2l.'it>d2 �aS+ 22.�e3 came to a bad end, Ackennann ­ Koronowski, corr 1988 -, l l .gdl Black has problems, e. g. l l...�cS 12.id2 Q.O.O 13.e3 or l l ...�e4 12.Ah4 .ig4 13 .l0d4 �xeS 14.Ag3) 8.. .Ats 9.l0c3 � cS (in case of9 l0xc3 White has a pleasant choice between I O.�xc3 liJb4 l l .axb4 Axb4 12. �xb4 axb4 131:txa8+ 'it>d7 141:txh8 Y:Va2 1S.e4 �I+ 16.'it>d2 Y:Vxb2+ 17.'it>e3 �cl+ 18.00 �e l+ 19.�d3 and lO.Y:VxfS �b3, Nepustil, l llkl lila4 12.Y:Vc2) I O.Ae3 Y:Vc4 l l .g4 (l l.Y:Vd3 liJd6 12.�dS Ae6 13.�d2 l.l)e4 14.ltJxe4 Y:Vxe4 I S.Y:Vd3 Y:Va4) l l....ig6 12.�d3 l0d6 13.�d5 liJe7 14.�cS (14.�d4 ltJc6 1S.Y:Vf4 is met by 1 S ...Y:Vh3! 16.exd6 .bd6 17.�g5 �xb2 1 8lkl h6, e.g. 19.�S Axa3 20.liJdS 0-0-0 or 1 9.Y:Vh4 Axa3 20. lOd5 0-0 2 l .Ag2 gfd8) 14...�xcS IS.AxcS l.l)e4 16be7 (16.ltJxe4Axe4 17 .ig2 liJc6) 16...Axe7 17.lOdS .ld8 1 8.liJf4 c6 19.Ag2 liJgS 20.liJd4 Ac7 2 l .liJxc6 &6 22.l0xg6 hxg6 23.liJd4 AxeS, Gutman; further m 7.e3 (looks sensible, Harding) 7.. .Ae6 (7 ....its 8.Ad3 Ag6 9.ltJc3 ltJxc3 10.Axg6 hxg6 l l .�xc3 Ae7 1 2.�b3 a4 1 3.�xb7 lOaS 14.�5+ 1 :0 Melchor - Seifert, corr 1992) 8 l0bd2 (8.cxd5 �xd5 is innocuous as 9.b3 ltJxeS IO.lOxeS Y:VxeS l l .Ab2 Y:VfS 12.lOc3 lOcS 13.�xfS AxiS, Langheld ­ Augustin, corr 1980, or 9.l0c3 /Oxc3 10. �xc3 �7 l l.Ae2 0-0 12.0-0 Wd8 shows. 8.liJc3 liJxc3 9.Y:Vxc3 dxc4 IO.Axc4 Axc4 l l .�xc4 Ae7 12 .Ad2 0-0 1 3 .gdl �c8 14.0-0 �8 IS..ic3 brought White a plus, Geisler - Deberthauser, Gennany 1987, yet 9.. .Ac5 has more point, e.g. 1 0.Ae2 d4 l l .exd4 liJxd4 12 .liJxd4 �xd4 or 1 O.cxdS �xdS l l .id2 ib6 12lkl U 13� Y:Ve4. 8.Ae2 is best answered by 8 ... lOcS 9.0-0 dxc4, for example 10.gd 1 �e7 l l .Axc4 Axc4 12.�xc4 lOxeS 13.lOxeS �xeS 14. gds �e7 l S .ltJc3 c6 or 10.Axc4 Axc4 .•

There are three possibilities: I) 7.cxdS �xdS 8 ..if4 (8 .liJc3 ?! ltJxc3 9.�xc3 - after 9.bxc3 l0xe5 1 O.liJxeS Y:VxeS l l .e4 fS 12 .Ad3 fxe4 13 .Axe4 .its 14.f3 AcS 1S.Af4 .be4 16.Y:Vxe4 Y:Vxe4+ 17.fxe4 0-0-0 White · s position falls apart, San­ dek - Leisebein, corr 1989 -, helps Black to co-ordinate his forces, Htuding. Mori Baum, corr 1992, went 9 .. ..ib4! 10.axb4 axb4 l lAxaS bxc3 12hc8+�7 13 ..!hh8 �aS 14.bxc3�xc3+ 1S.'tttd l l0b4 16.l0el � 17.liJd3 �3+ 1 8.'tttd2 �c3+ 19.�3 ltJxc 1 20.f4 gS 2 l .g3 l0xd3 22.exd3 gxf4+ 23.gxf4 Y:Vcl + V:t-Vz but Black can play for more with 12 ...l0d8 13.bxc3 �aS. e.g. 14.e3 Y:Vxc3+ lS.�l �3+ 16.� Y:Va2+ 17 .'i!tc3 'it>d7 1 8.!Th8 �a7 19.AbS+ c6 20. �bd8+ �xd8 2 1 � 1 + �e7 22.Ae2 �8 or 14..igS �xc3+ lS.�l f6 16.exf6 gxf6 17.Ae3 �3+ 18.�cl Y:Va3+ 19.'i!tc2 'it>d7 20J:tb8 ge8, when neither 2 l .Ad4 ge6, nor 2 l .g3 �a2+ 22.�c3 ge4 23.Ah3+ �e8 24.l0d4 cS 2S .l0b3 gc4+ 26.�xc4 �c2+ 27.�S Y:Vxb3+ 28.�xcS �c3+ 29. �dS �c6+ 30.�d4 �xh l are sufficient for White, Peter Schaffarth. However, it is worth noting thatafter 9. ..if5 I O..igS h6 - lO...liJb4 l l .axb4Axb4 12.�xb4 axb4 ,

.

230

l l.�xc4 �d3 12 ..!Dbd2 a4; however, note

that Black is obviously in a bad way after 8 ... ffi - it is hard to suggest anything bet­ ter, Harding -, 9.exffi �xffi 10.0-0 .!DeS

l l.cxdS .bdS 12 ..!Dbd2 �o. e.g. 13..Ac4 a4 1 4J::tb i .!DaS I S ..ixdS gxdS 16 ..!Dc4 lDab3 17.id2 .!Dxd2 18 ..!Dcxd2 .id6 19.b4 axb3 20..!Dxb3 gds 2 I ..!DxcS .bcS 22.e4, VIjola - Bellon, Helsinki 1991, or 13.e4 Jfl t4.&I .ig6 ts,m,t .!De6 I6.ibs lDed4 17 .�a4. Peze - Tornado, internet 2002) 8 ... .!DcS 9.cxdS �xdS (in case of9.. .hdS IO..AbS it is more difficult to keep things Wlder contro� for instance JO_..h7 I l .b3 .ixf3 12 ..!Dx0 �d5 13..Ac4 �e4 14.�xe4 .!Dxe4 I S.J.b2 0-0 16.\t>e2, Grabarczyk ­ Vospemik, Pula 1 998, or JO ._a4 J I .O-O h7 12.e4 h6 13.l!dl 0-0 14 .hc6 bxc6 I S ..!Dc4 � 16..Ag5 hg5 1 7 ..!DxgS .!Db3 1 8.&bl) IO..ic4 (IO.J.bS h7 1 1 .0-0 0-0) I O ...�d8 I I .J.bS .id7 1 2 . .!Db3 ( 1 2.�c4 .ie7 13.0-0 0-0 14.gdJ �e8) 1 2 ... �e7 1 3 ..!DxcS �xeS 14.�xcS .ixcS I S .i.c4 .ig4 16..Ad5 .!Dd8!? (instead of 16 .. ..Ax0 17 .J.xfl .!DxeS 1 8.hb7 �8 19..ie4, Bad­ kama - Peze, internet 2002) 1 7 ..Ad2 c6 I 8.J.e4 0-0 and Black is alive, Gutman; Ill) 7.exd6 .!Dxd6 (7 .. ..AfS was tested in some games. White shouldavoid 8.dxc7 �xc7 9..!Dh4 lDxf2 IO.�xJ5 .!Dxhl I I ..!DO .id6 12.g3 gds 13 ..!Dbd2 0-0 or 8.g4 .ig6 9.dxc7 �xc7 - 9...�e7 10.�3 �xc7 I I . .!Dc3 a4 is a daring reply since instead of 1 2.�a2 .icS 13.e3 .!Dxc3 14.bxc3 h4 IS. .ig2 lDeS 16.�e2 � , Zopenali - Balzert, corr 1 994, 12 ..!Dxa4 �aS+ 13 ..!Dc3 i.b4 1 4 ..id2 .!Dxd2 I S .It>xd2 0-0-0+ 1 6.\t>cl .ixc3 1 7.�xc3 �xc3+ 1 8.bxc3 .!DaS 19. .!Dd4 could be played -, IO ..!Dh4 .!Dd4 I I. �d3 .!Dxf2 12.�xd4 .icS 1 3.�xf2 hf2+. 8 . .!Dc3! .!Dxd6 9.e4 is the correct reply, e.g.9....ig6 IO.J.d3 h7 l l .cS .!Dc8 12.ll:ld5 0-0 1 3 ..if4 as in Gebhardt - Rissmann, Schwaebisch Gmuend 1 993, or 9 .. ..Ag4 IO..Ae3 .bO I I .gxO .!DeS 12.�0 �h4

13.cS .!Dxf3 14.cxd6, Geffroy - Barielle, Montpellier 1 99 1 ) is a principal conti­ nuation.

Practice has seen: A) 8 . .!Dc3 (this move is marvellousfor White say Benjt��t�in/Schi/kr, and I think they are right, Harding) 8...i.e6 (Jensen -

Augustin, corr 1 988, proceeded 8 ... .!Dxc4 9.J.f4 .id6 IOJ!dl i.e6 l l .e3 �e7, when instead of 12 ..!DdS .bdS 1 3.�d5 .!Dxa3!, Jensen - Augustin, corr 1 988, 1 2 ..Axc4 .bc4 13.hd6 cxd6 14.ltldS .bd5 l S.�dS 0-0 16.0-0 gfe8 1 7.gfd l gadS I 8 . .!Dd4 .!Dxd4 19.gSxd4 would have been really excellent fer White; less promising is 9. �e4+, Harding, 9 ....ie6 I O . .!DgS �d7 I I .ltlxe6 �xe6) 9.cS (9.b3 is strongly answered by 9 ...a4! IO.ltlxa4 .if5, e.g. I I . �a2 ltlxc4 12 .e4 .ie6 1 3 ..!DgS ltlxa3 or l l .�dl lDxc4 12.�xd8+ �d8 13.e4 -'e6 14.hc4 hc4 I S ..!Db6 axb6 16.bxc4 �) 9...lDfS I O . .!DbS .!Dfd4 I I ..!Dfxd4 .!Dxd4 12..!Dxd4 �xd4 13 .J.e3 �o4 14.�xc4 .ixc4 I s .gcJ (IS.O f5) I S .. .J.dS I6.J.f4 0-0-0 1 7.0 fS 1 8.e3 .ie7, Gutman ; likewise B) 8.e4 f5 (8....ig4 9.c5 .!Dc8 IO..Ae3, while 8...�e7 9 ..!Dc3 f5 ended with IO ..!DdS �d8 I I ..AgS i.e? 12 ..!Dxe7 ltlxe7 1 3.eS I :0 in Knorr - Lenz, corr 1993) 9.exfS (Zol­ lner - Sabele, corr 1991, went 9..!Dc3 fXe4 IO..!Dxe4 �e7 l l ..id3 .ig4?! 12..AgS �e6 13.0-0-0 .ixO 14.ltlxd6+ �xd6 1S.�e l+

231

� 16.cS I :0, yet I I...l0xe4 12.i.xe4 J.f5

1 3 .lOgS lOd4 1 4.�d3 0-0-0 I S.O-O .ig4 16.�e3 h6 17.l0f3 .ixf3 1 8 ..ixf3 �xe3 19.fxe3 l0b3 could be awkward for White. However, it is worth noting that IO l0xe4 l l .�xe4+ �e7 I2..id3 �xe4+ 13..ixe4 .*e6 is dubious due to 14.0-0.ixc4 I SlJel 0-0-0 16 ..igS, improving on I S..ixc6+ bxc6 161Jel+ Wd8 17 ..tg5+ 'i!ic8 181Je8+ 'tt>b7 19.fba8 'tt>xa8 20..id2 a4, Grott ­ Augustin,corr 1990, although 14..if4 is also hardly viable for Black, e.g. 14 ... .ixc4 IS .O-O-O .id6 16..ixc6+ bxc6 1 7 . IDle l+ 'tt>f7 1 8.lOeS+ .ixeS 19Ed7+ 'i!i>g6 20..ixeS, Mielke - Augustin, corr 1992, or 14 ... 0-0-0 I S ..ixc6 bxc6 1 6lkl .lg4 17 .tOeS .id6 18 .0-0 l:llie8 19 ,gfe I, Ries­ sbeck - Augustin, corr 1 988) 9 ... lOxfS (9...�e7+ IO.�e2 l0e4 I I.l0c3 l0xc3 12. bxc3 .ixf3 1 3 .l0d4 l0xd4, EtcChess ­ Peze, internet 2002, IO.cxd4 keeps a plus for White, yet 9 ..ixf3 IO..id3 �e7+ I I . .ie3 .ixd3 1 2.�xd3 �f7 1 3 .l0bd2 .le7 1 4.0-0 0-0 is possible) IO.l0c3 (IO..igS h7 I I..ixe7 �xe7+ 12.�e2 .*e6, Reich­ geld - Augustin, corr 1987, whereas Ne­ pustil mentions I O..ie3 l0xe3 l l.fxe3 jcs 12.�e4+ l0e7, e.g. 13.�eS �d6 14.�xg7 gfB or 13 .l0d4 .ixd4 14.�xd4 �xd4 IS. exd4 l0f3) IO ... l0fd4 I I .l0xd4 l0xd4 12. �e4+ �e7 13..id3 .if3 14.�xe7+ .ixe7 I S ..ixf3 l0xf3 16.lOdS .id6 1 7 .0-0 0-0 18.M4.ixf4 19.l0xf4 l0d4 20.lOdS (20.g3 l0f3+ 2I.c;tg2 l0d2 22l!fd I l0xc4 23.gocl bS 24.l0e6 gn 2S.b3l0d2 26.�c7 l0xb3, Haarer - Stefens, corr 1 989) 20...c6 2 1 . l0c3 b S with counterplay, Gutman ; C) 8.e3 .*e6 (8 ..if3 9.id3 .ixd3 IO.�xd3 a4 I I .l0bd2 ie7 12.cS tOeS IHJbS JM7 14.e4 �d7 IS .0-0 0-0 16.lOc4 lOeS 1 7 . �xd7 l0xd7 18 .c6 bxc6, Chess - Peze, internet 2002, 19 ..ie3 favours White, al­ though I prefer I l .l0c3 lOaS 12.l0xa4 l0axc4 13.l0c3)9.b3 (9.l0d4 l0xd4 IO.exd4 eb4 was the only line given by Nepwtjl. .•

lf 9 ..ie2, then Black has in addition to the 9....ie7 10.0-0 0-0 - I O.. .J.ffi I I .l0bd2 0-0 1 2.cS lOf3 13.l0e4 a4 14.l0xf6+ �xffi IS..id2 .ib3 1 6.�c3 �e6 J7.gfc l ru'd8 18..lc4 .lxc4 19.�xc4 �xc4 20.�c4 1eft Black struggling, Ruzele - Schaffarth, Berlin 1 994-, I I .l0bd2 a4 12.cS lOf3, an extra option 9 ...g6 1 0.0-0 .lg7 I I.cS lO f3 12.gdl �f6 13..ibS l0fe7) 9...a4 IO.b4 .le7 l l ..ib2 0-0 ( l l ....if6 12.l0 bd2 .l 5, Kogelnik - Hausler, corr 1989, 1 3.e4!? �e7 14..ixfti �xf6 I S .gd) �e7 16..id3) 12..id3 f3 1 3 .0-0 .lRi 14.cS l0e4 gives Black some but possibly not enough com­ pensation for his pawn, Gutman. Now back to the text

•

..

7.�cJ

Black has nothing to fear from: I) 7.g3 l0e6 (7...�e7 8.lOc3 lOxeS 9.lOxeS

�xeS is unsound on account of 10..if4 �e6 l l .lOdS .id6 12Jh3 �xh3 13..ixd6 l0e6 14.�e4) 8..ig2 .icS 9.0-0 0-0 I O.e3 ges I I .l0c3 lOfB, Gutman; II) 7.e3 d6!? (7 ... �e7 8.l0c3 - 8.l0bd2 goes into 4.lOd2 lOcS S.l0gf) l0c6 6.a3 a5 7.e3 �e7 8.�c2, treated in Part 3, Chap­ ter I , Section S, Sequel I -, S ... lOxeS 9. .ie2 c6 10.0-0 g6 is another idea) 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.l0c3 (9.b3 �f6!? I O ..ib2 .if3, though 9 .. ..ig4 I O.l0bd2 �d7 I J ..ib2 Ri I2..ie2 0-0 13.0-0 gfe8 also gave Black

2 32

sufficient piece-play in Smith - Hawley, corr 1 993) 9...0-0 IO.ie2 ig4!? 1 1 .0-0 ( 1 1 .10d5 a4 12.0-0 �d7 13.10h4 10b3 14. gbl l0bd4) I I ...hf3 12ix.f3 (1 2.gxf3? txh2+ 1 3 .�xh2 �h4+ 14.�g l �g5+ 15.�hl l0b4 16.axb4 &6) 12 ...fih4 13.h3 �xc4, Gutman ; lli) 7.b3 d6 (7...g6 goes back into 4 ...10c6 5.100 aS 6.b3 g6 7.�c2 10c5. Nikolaidis ­ Kordis, Halkida 2000, continued 7.. .1J.e7 8.ib2 0-0 9.e3 f6 IO.exf6 hf6 I I .IOc3 d6 12.l0d5 Y:z-Y:, but 9.g3 ffi 10. tg2 fxe5 1 1 .10xe5 10xe5 1 2.ixe5 if6 13.ic3d6 14.0-0 has more point. 7 ...a4 8.b4 10b3 9� is a Isoto White's liking, e.g. 9 ... d6 IO� �d7 1 I .exd6bd6 12.c5 .ie7 13.e3 or 9...ixb4+ IO.axb4 10xb4 I I .Y!Vxb3 axb3 12lixa8 10c2+ 13.�dl d6 14 e6 fxe6 15. 10bd2) 8.exd6 bd6 9.ib2 0-0 IO.g3 (in­ stead I 0.10bd2 �e7 reaches a position after 4.10d2 10c5 5.a3 aS 6.b3 d6 7.exd6 bd6 8Jb2 Y!Ve7 9.�c2 l0c6 IO.IOgf3 0-0Part 3, Chapter I, Section I) 10 .. �8 I I . ig2 Y!Ve7 12.e3 10e5 (more precise than 12...ig4 13.10bd2 l::!adll 14.0-0 M 15.10d4 10e5, Lossnitzer - White, Bad Duerk­ heim 1 996, 16.Ac3) 13.10xe5ixe5 14.0-0 ixb2 1 5.�xb2 if'S 16.10c3 c6, Gutman; IV) 7.if4 (probably the strongest move, Harding) 7 ... d6! (after 7 _.te7 8.e3 0-0 9.l0c3 ffi IO.exffi .ixffi I I .ie2 d6 12.0-0 �e8 13.10d5, Hansen - Junker, Copen­ hagen 1 948, or 7 ...10e6 8.ig3 ic5 9.e3 b6 10.10c3 ib7 I I .id3 10g5 12.10xg5 Y!VxgS 13.0-0 ().().() 14.l0d5 l0e7 I 5.b4 axb4 16.axb4 10xd5 1 7.cxd5 .ixb4 18.ia6 'V!Vg6 19.Y!Vc4 taS 20.e6 d6 21 .�c6 1 :0 Wein­ stein - Scher, New York 1957, it is hard to find an improvementfor Black, Har­ ding; while 7 ... f6, 7 ... b6 or 7 ...a4 trans­

poses to the lines regarded as awkward for Black, see 4 ... l0c6 5.100 aS 6.iJ.f4) ' 8.10c3 (8.exd6 �ffi 9.d7+ hd7 IO..txc7 tf5 l l .�c3 Y!Ve7 12.ib6 10d3+ 13 .�dl IOcS 14.ixc5 �xeS I S.�el leads to un-

clear complications, but 8 ..ix.d6 9ix.d6 cxd6 looks fully viable to me, e.g. I O.e3 �ffi I I .l0c3 tf5 1 2.e4 ig4 13.10d5 �d8 14.te2 0-0 1 5.0-0 geS or 1 0.10c3 ig4 I I.� I 0-0) 8 ...10e6 (neither L!g4 9.�1 hf3 IO.gxf3 10e6 l l.ig3, nor 8 .. .dxe5 91tdl id6 IO.IOxe5 are sufficient) 9.ig3 dxeS IO.IOxe5 l0cd4 1 I.�a4+(l l .�dl can be met by l l ... h5!) l l ... c6 1 2.e3 �b6 13.gbl (13.10d3 10c5 1 4.'V!Vdl l0db3 15. 10xc5 10xc5 16.�c2 ie7!? 1 1.gdl 0-0 18.ie2 ge8 19.0-0 g6 20.te5 if5) 1 3 ... 1015 14.Y!Vc2 10xg3 15.hxg3 Y!Vc7 16.100 g6 1 7 .!e2 ig7 1 8 .0-0 0-0, Gutman.

7 ... h6

Others do not inspire confidence: I) 7 ...d6 8.ig5! f6 (8...'V!Vd7 9.gdl or 8 ... lOd4 9.l0xd4 Y!VxgS 10.10db5 Y!Vd8 l l ltd I) 9.exffi gd6 10...ih4 ie6 1 I .e3 jg7 12.l0d4 J..f7 13..ie2 10e5 14.10d5 10g6 I 5.ig3 c6 16.1015 tf8 17.l0c3 10e5 18.b3 (1 81tdl a4 19.0-0 .ixc4 20.ixc4 l0xc4 21.'V!Ve2 is also good) 18 ...tg6 19.0-0 Y!Vd7 20.e4 10e6 (if20...l0xe4 2I.�xe4 Y!Vx15, then 22�e3) 2 11tfd 1 and White won, Hennesmann Roes, Dortmund 1 987; D) 7 ....ie7 8.10d5 (Kuuksmaa - Kirwald, corr 1 978, saw 8.h4 a4 9.ie3 &5 I O.gdl b6 I I .ixc5 bxc5 1 2.e3 h5 13 .id3 gh6 14.ie4 �� IS ..idS Y!Ve8 16 .�e4 10a7 17.10g5 txg5 1 8.hxg5 gh8 19.g6 fx g6 20.�f4+ I :O, yet 8...10e69..ie3 b6 IO.gdl

233

h6 l l .ltld5 .lc5 l2.J.xc5 ltlxc5 l3.e3 a4 l4.rut3 0-0 l 5J:�g3 �hS 6 natural, im­ proving on 1 1 ...0-0 l 2JTh3 ges n.gg3 �hs I4.ets gm I5 ..hh6 gxh6 I6.YM15 �7 17.e3 l :0 Sielaff - Etmans, corr 1996. S.e3 0-0 9.J.e2 reaches a position after 6.e3 .le7 7 ..le2 0-0 s.ec2ltlc5 9.ltlc3, and S.e4 0-0 9.J.e2 could be parried by 9.. _ges I O.J.e3 .lfB, in place of9...ltle6 IO.J.e3 b6 1 1 .0-0 .l b7 l2�d l .lc5 13. .lxc5 ltlxc5, Fuchs - Stellmacher, e-mail 2002, l4.b3 � 1 5. � ltle7 16M ltlg6 17 _gfd l ) S.h6 (S ... O-O 9Jf4 ltle6 IO.J.g3 ltlcd4 l l .ltlxd4 ltlxd4 l 2.ed3 ltle6 l 3.e3 f6 l 4 ..le2 fxe5 l 5 . .lxe5 d6 l 6..lc3 c6 l7.ltlxe7+ exe7 lSlkll � l9.ee4 gave White a �isive advantage in Ramirez ­ Zapata, Colombia Ch 1 999) 9.J.e3 (this is more solid than 9 .h4 d6 l O.J.f4 .lg4 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0, e.g. l2.ltlxc7exc7 13.exd6 eb6 l 4.dxe7 rues or l 2.e3 .lxf3 l3.gx0 dxe5 l4.J.g3 .ld6, Hutters - Stinis, in­ ternet 2000) 9 ... ltle6 I O.gd l , Gutman; ID) 7...ltle6 S.ltld5�5 (S...d69.exd6.lxd6 I O.e3 0-0 l l.J.d3 h6 l 2.J.d2 ltlc5 l3.J.c3 ltlxd3+ l4.exd3 .lg4 15.0-0-0 .lh5 l 6.c5 .lxc5 I7.J.xg7 �g7 IS.ec3+ ffi I9.exc5 .lf7 20.ltlh4, Neverov - Pletanek, Par­ dubice 1992) 9.e3 0-0 (9 ...h6 I O.J.d2 0-0 l l .J.c3 a4 1 2 .gd I ges l 3.ee4, for in­ stance l LltlfB l4.ti'g4 or 1 Ld6 14.J.d3 ltJfB I H�h4) IO..ld3 h6 l l .J.d2 ges 12. .lc3 ltlg5 l 3.ltld2 are all better for White, Gutman. 8..le3

Some exam pies of another moves: I) S.ltld5 a4 (less advisable is S ...d6 9.exd6 .lxd6, e.g. IO.J.e3 0-0 l l .gdl or l O.g3 .lg4 l l ..lg2 ed7, when in place of l2.e3 a4 13.Jd2 � t4rut if5 I5.ecJ OO+, Andersen - Junker, Copenhagen 1 942, l 2.J.e3 0-0 l31kll might be strong) 9.J.e3 ltlb3 l01kll .lc5, Gutman ; similarly m S.id2 a4 (Edzgveradze - Stefanova, Kishinev zonal 1995, went S ...d6 9.exd6

.lxd6 IO.ltle4, and now instead of l 0 ... ee7 l l .ltlxc5.lxc5 l2.e3 ig4 l3.J.e2 � l4.lc3 0-0 l 5 .0-0 f5 1 6.gad l gxdl l 7. exdi f4 I S.exf4 M4 19.ed2 gm 20.J.dl .ld6 2 I .& I edn2.ed5+ �h7 23.J.c2+ .lB 24ixB+ti'xf5 25.exf5 � 26.ltld2 a4 27.ltle4, I O ... ltlxe4!? I I.exe4+ .le6 l2ic3 0-0 might be better) 9.ltld5 ltlb3 l O. lkll �5. keeping contro� Gutlnan. 8...0e6

S ...J.e7 9.gdl 0-0 IO.g4!?b6 l l _ggl eeS l 2.ltld5 .ids l 3.g5 ltlxe5 l4.ltlxe5 exe5 l 5.gxh6 ltle6 l6Jf4 YMl5 l7 ..lxc7 exh6 I S.J.xdS �dS 19 �3 resulted in a quick win for White, Bakalarz - Thormann, Germany 1 99 1 .

�0d5 1c5 10..lxc5 0xc5

White has a fairlyfirm position with the knight on d5 and the pawn plus; nevertheless he is stillfar from having an advantage. ll.e3

l l.b3 0-0 12_gdl gea l3.b4 axb4 l4.axb4 ltle6, for example l 5.e3 ltlfS or l 5.b5 ltle7 l 6.e3 ltlc5, Gutman. 11 ...0-0 llJ!dl a4 13 1d3

After the meek l 3.ltlc3 &S l4� Black plays l4...b6. 13...!e8 14.'ffc3 0xd3+ ts.gxd3 gas 16.c5 b6 1 7.cxb6 cxb6 The position seems double-edged to me, Gutman.

234

Chapter 4 ( l .d4 �f6 2.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.a3) 4 ...d6

�xd6 9.�c3 ().0..() l O.ltlgD ie7 l l .�c2 if6 1 2.�2 �d7 13.e4 IDleS 1 4.ie2 g5 15.h3 h5 1 6.b4 ltJd3+17 .J.xd3 - in case of 17.� ? g4 1 8hxg4 hxg4 1 9.ltlel Black has a pleasant choice between 19 ...ltlxc 1 20.�xc 1 jgS 2 l .ltld3 ltld4 22.ltlc5 ltlxe2 23 . c;t>xe2 �d4 24.�c2 g3 0:1 Krockert ­ Lei.sebein, corr 1987, and 19 ...mt8 20_gg1 ltlxf2 -, 1 7...�xd3 18.�xd3 �d3 19.ib2 ixb2 20.�xb2 �xa3, while 8.�e3 dxe5 9.b4 ltld4 10.� ltld7 l l .ltlgf3, Wolff­ Sieber, corr 1989, l l...a5! is even worse) 6 ..Axd6 7.ltld2 (7 .J.g5 f6 8.ie3 ie6 9. � + it7 l O.�g4 ltlb3 n _ga2 0-{)) 7 ... ltlc6 (7 ...J.e6 8.�d4 0-{) 9.ltlgf3 ltlc6 1 0. �c3 a5 l l .e3 �e8 1 2..Ae2 ig4 l3.h3 .its 14.0-0 &6 l S.�dl �g6 1 6.c;t>hl �e7 is not bad either, Horstman - Lemke, corr 1995) 8.ltlgf3 (both 8.e3 ic6 9.� ltle5 IO.ltlgf3 ltlb3 l l .ltlxb3 ig4, Nothelsen ­ Brachte� corr 1994, and 8.b4 ie6 9.� g6 10.�6 �ffi 1 1 �1 if4 1 2.ltle4 ltlxe4 l 3.�xf4 �c3+ are quite depressing) 8 ... ie6 9.� 5 h6 (9...�f6 1 0.�g5 ie7 l l . �xf6 ixffi 12.�2) 1 0.b4 ie7 l l .g4 g6 1 2.�h3 ltla4, Gutman; similarly 01) 5.J.f4 ie6! (There is no sense in 5 ... g5 6.�d4 gxf4 - after 6...ltlxf2 7.exd6 gxf4 8.�e5+ie6 9.dxc7 �c8 10.cxb8� �b8 l l.'t!tx12 �g8 12.�xf4 �g4, Zanetti­ Naef, Silvaplana 2003, l3.�d2 �c4 14. ltlc3ig7 l S .�cl should be winning -, 7.�xe4 �e7 8.ltlf3 ltlc6 9.ltlc3 dxe5 trans­ posing to 4_d6 5.ltlf3 ltlc6 6.J.f4 g5 7.�d5 gxf4 8.�xe4 dxe5 9.ltlc3 �e7 - Section 2. Also 5 ...ltlc6 6.ltlf3 is less promising, see 4 ... d6 5.ltlf3 ltlc6 6..Af4- Section 2) 6.e3 (6.ltld2 dxe5 7.ltlxe4 �xdl+ 8. �dl exf4 9.ltlh3 .ixh3 IO.gxh3 ltld7 l l .�gl g6 12. J.g2 jg7 13.ltlg5 U 14.b4 h6 turned out well for Black, Betli - Rosner, corr 2001 , while 6.exd6 i s met b y 6. . .�ffi!, for in­ stance 7.�c l ixd6, Rasmus Pape, or 7.dxc7 ltlc6 8.�cl ic5 9.e3 � 10.� �xf4+ l l .ltlf3 ltle5) 6 ... ltlc6 7.ltlf3 dxe5 •

This gambit move is excellent in a blitz game, but in a proper game it looks sus­ pect, Julilln Hodgson. We consider two lines here:

Section 1 - 5.�c2 (5.�d4, 5.�d5. 5.J.f4, 5.exd6) Section 2 - 5.ltlf3 .its (5 ...ltlc6). Section 1 s.trc2

Alternatives: I) 5.�d4 ltlc5 6.exd6 ltle6 7.�dl ixd6 8.ltlf3 ltlc6 9.ltlc3 0-0 10.e3 aS l l .ie2 ltlc5 12.b3 �ffi l3..Ab2 l!W8 14�2 �g6 15.ltld5 ie6 16.0-0 .ih3 17.ltlh4 (17.ltlel if5 1 8 �l ltle7 19J.d4 c6) 17 �g5 1 8.f4 �xh4 1 9.gxh3 ltle7 20..Ag4 fS ! (instead of20 ... c6?! 2 l .ltlb6 �ab8 22.�d4 �h6 23 .b4 axb4 24.axb4 ltla6 2 5.ltld7 ixb4 26.�b6. Khenkin - Kloster, Germany 1 996) 2 l .if3 c6, Gutman; further D) 5.�d5 ltlc5 (5 ... f5 6.exffi ltlxffi 7.�dl ltlc6 8.ltlc3, while 6.ltlf3 ltlc6 goes into 4.�d5 f5 5.ltlf3 ltlc6 6.a3 d6 - Part 1 , Chapter 6, Section 1 ) 6.exd6 (6.ltld2 ie6 7.�f3 ltlc6 is another option, e.g. 8.exd6 .•

235

(Faihurst - Seitz, Hastings 1 9S2/S3, went 7 ...gS 8.J.g3 �xg3 9.hxg3 �xeS 1 0.�c3 llg7 1 I.ec2 �xf3+ 12.gd3 ed7 13.� ().().() 14.�e4 ee7 1 S.g4 d5 with equality, but l O.�xeS dxeS 1 I .ec2 ed7 1 2.�c3 has more point: 12 . .h5 13.ee4 0-0-0 14. gdl ee8 1SJ;xd8+ exd8 1 6.exeS ILe7 17 .ed4if6 18.exa7, K veinys - Cejkova, Tmava 1990, or 12 ...f5 13i!dl et7 14.g4 fxg4 1 S.ee4 Ag7 16.J.e2) s.exd8+ �d8 9.�xeS lOa5 10.b4�b3 l l .,!;a2 g5 1 2.J.g3 Ag7 are all better for Black, Gutman; IV) S .exd6 Axd6 is more intriguing.

B) 6.�f3? �xf2 7.ed4 (7.�xf2 Ag3+)

.

It cannot be best to accelerate Black's development in this manner, Bogdlln /Alic. Th is is an inaccuracy because Black is given a helping hand to extend lis lead in development, Gary Lane. After onlyfive moves White is already in danger ofplaying afotile game ofcatch­ up , and with Black 's forces so active, alarm bells should be ringing, Agnus Dunnington, Gambit Play.

We examine: A) 6.g3? �xJ2! 0:1 on account of7.�

llg3+, Warren - Selman, corr 1930 (this disaster also took place in Phipps - Da­ vies, Hastings 1 9S I , Nicoleanu - Gheor­ gescu, Bucharest 1 960, and Sasonov Jefimov, USSR 1 960);

7...�xh 1 8.exg7 gm 9�6 (9.exh7 Acs 10.e3 ee7 1 I .ed3 1Lg4 1 2�2 �d7 13.b4 1Ld6 1 4.g3 �. Thomzik - Bringsken, corr 1 997) 9 ... ffi (9.. .J.f5!? 1 0.�c3 �d7 1 1.� c6 12.�3 1lg6 13i!dl ec7 14.b4 J.xh2 1 S.,!;xd7 /Lg3+ 0: I Piernak - Miec­ howicz, Polanica Zdroj 1960) IO.exh7 gn 1 1 .eg6 �c6 12.eg8+ �e7 13.eg6 �eS (13_.�g3 14.hxg3? .if5 0: 1 Sabjan ­ Szabo, corr 1986, yet 14.cS AxcS might be a lesser evil: 1 S.exg3 �d4 16.�xd4 exd4 or 1 S.hxg3 Ae6) 14.�xeS (1 4.ee4 eh8 1 S.J.f4 eh7 16.ee3 �m) l4_J.xeS IS.�c3 Ae6 is hopeless, Niels Jensen; C) 6.�c3 �xc3 7.bxc3 ef6 8.ec2 0-0 (8...�c6 9.�f3 h6 IO.e4 0-0 I I .J.e2 ge8 12.0-0 Ag4 was seen in Schmitz - van Hove, Dortmund 1 999) 9.�f3 (or 9.e4 ge8) 9 ... Af5 favours Black, Gutman; D) 6.ec2 .if5 (6...ee7 7.�c3 .if5 is just a transposition) 7.�c3 ee7 (7...�g3?! fails to 8.e4 �hI 9.exf5 0-0 IO.J.e3, e.g. 1 0... lieS l l .�f3 �c6 12.J.d3 �d4 13.�xd4 ixd4 14.0-0-0, Fernandez Prietto - Belt­ ran Seguer, corr 1 98S, or 1 0...ixh2 1 1 . �f3 ge8 1 2.ed2. 7 ...�4 8.�xe4 Axe4 9.ec3 0-0 was given by Anatoli Matsu­ lu!vich, but as Asger PIUISke points out, 8.e3 is a good answer, e.g. 8 ...0-0 9.�f3 eg4 10.h3 �xc3 l l .exc3 ee4 12�2 or 8..J.g6 9.�0 ee7 10.�xe4 ixe4 1 Ud3) 8.�xe4 (8.�dS ee6) 8...J.xe4 9.ec3 �c6 I O.�f3 0-0-0 with a pleasant position for Black, Gutman; E)6�3 (This move is suggested by Van der Tak, New In Chess. White 's devel­ opment may appear awkward, but it is hardfor Black to find points of contact to launch a compensating attack, Tim Hanling) 6...ee1 (Weak is 6...effi 7.id4 ies 8.�f3 ixd4 9.exd4, Hturling. 6.. �s 7.exd8+ �xd8 8.ic 1 retaining the extra pawn, Harding, yet to me 8_.,!;e8 9.�f3 if6 1 O.e3 .tf5 l l.�bd2 �cS 12�2 �+

236

1 3 .Axd3 Axd3 14.ga2 1tlc6 IS.b3 rtJe7 I 6.Ab2 gadS 17 .Axfo+ rtJxf6 is viable. 6 ... 1tlc6 7.g3 Af5 S.ltl13 is the usual away to play, with the following complications. S ...�d7 9.1tlbd2 0-0-0 IO.Itlxe4 Axe4 l l.cS .*eS 12.�xd7+ �d7 13./tlxeS itlxeS 14.13 Ac2 IS.Ah3 f5 1 6.gc) and White won in Visser - Schuil, Haarlem 1 99S. 8...�e7 9.Ag2 - 9.1tlbd2? ltlxg3 I O.hxg3 �xe3 occum:d in Lupor - Reinke, Dues­ seldorf 2001-, reaches a position after 4... 1tlc6 S.g3 d6 6.Ag2 Af5 7 .exd6 hd6 S.ltl13 �e7 9.Ae3, treated in Chapter 3. S...� 9.Ag2 �ffi IO.Itlh4 - I o.m3?! it:S I I .AxcS itlxcS 1 2.�c3 �e7 -, 10 ... �S I I .�cl AeS 12.§82 gfeS 13.0-0 ltld4 14. hd4 Axd4 IS.e3, in place of I I .m3 1tlcS 12.AxcS AxeS 13.1tlxf5 �xf5 14.0-0 lOd4 IS.�d3�xd3 16.exd3 ltle2+ 17.'i:tbl �d3 I S.b4 .id4 1 9.ga2 ltlc3 20.1tlxc3 gxc3 2Ilidl v�vz lac:zay - Krebs, e-mail 2001; however, the immediate S ...�ffi appears more precise to me, for example 9.m3 0-0-0 I O.Ag2 AcS or 9.�cl 0-0, when both IO..ig2 WeS 1 1.0-0 it:S 12.1tlh4 Jd4 13� aS 14.ltlxf5 �xf5 IS.b3 �S and IO.cS .ieS 1 1 ./tlxeS �xeS 1 2.Ag2 ltld4 I3.Axd4 �xd4 14.Axe4 Axe4 IS.0-0 ic6 secure Black enough play for his pawn) 7.1tl13 (7.g3 AcS!? S..ixcS �xeS 9.e3 0-0) 7 ... 1tlc6 S.ltlbd2 Af5 9.1tlxe4 (9.g3? ltlxg3 IO.hxg3 �xe3) 9 .. .Axe4 (with some dy­ namic compensation, Harding) I o.m3 (I O.�a4 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 AcS ! 12 lixdS+ �dS I3.AxcS �xcS I 4.e3 hi3 1S.gxl3 � . while I I ...a6 12.ltld2 I:DleS 13.ltlxe4 �xe4 14.�c2 �e6, Pedersen - Rasmus­ sen, Copenhagen 1997, I S.g3 !? is less clear) I 0 ... 0-0 ( I 0... 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 l!heS 1 2.g3 AcS deserves attention) 1 1.0-0-0 (l l .g3 � 12.exf3 1tld4 13.�dl .ib4+ 0:1 Bjerring - Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 199S, and also 1 1 .00 jg6 12�xb7 �d7 leaves White's king caught in the centre) l l... aS looks promising for Black, Gutman;

F) 6.1tld2(spoils Black 's party and chal­ lenges the knight, Dunnington) 6 .. ..lf5

(6...�e7 7.1tlgf3 1tlc6 S.ltlxe4 Yhe4 9.�d3. for example 9 �xd3 I O.exd3 Af5 I I .Ae3 � 12.ie2 md, Oort - Keogh, internet 199S, 13.d4, or 9 ...�..:7 IO.igS ffi I I ..ie3 Ae6 1 2.�c2. 9.e3 .irS could lead after IO.�dS �c2 l l .�d2 �e4 1 2.�dS to a draw by rqJetition as 12.Ae2 fails to 12 ... Axa3; however, note that the benefit of White trying IO.Ae2 is shown by 10 ... � l l � md,e.g. 1 2.0-0g5 13.ltlxgS Axh2+ I4.rtJxh2 �4+ IS.Itlh3 ggs 1 6. .in ltleS or 12.m3 gS 13.Ac3 g4 14.1tlh4 .id7 I S.Af6 Ae7 16.Ad3 �e6 17.Axe7 ltlxe7, while I O ... gds I I .Ad2 0-0 12.0-0 h6 J 3 .gcJ gfeS 1 4.cS At! is too flashy, since inSTL31 of iS.&4�dS I6.b4 Ae4 17. bS hf3 I S .gxl3 �xd2, Overes - Spoel, corr 1 9S6, I S .�3 !? AcS 16.gfdl �g6 17.rtJhl might be good for White) is an important position. .•

There are three continuations: Fl) 7.g3.icS (7 ...1tlc6!? S.Ag2 �e7 goes into 4.a3 lOc6 S.g3 d6 6.Ag2 .tf3 7.exd6 hd6 S.ltld2 �e7 - Chapter 3) S.e3 �e7 9.�13 �eS IO.�f4 (I O..ig2 ltlxd2 I I .Axd2 ltlc6 12.Ac3 .id4 13.ltle2 Axc3+ 14.1tlxc3 lOd4 IS.�xb7 �2+ 16.��fl �) IO �xf4 l l.gxf4 he3 12.fxe3 1tlxd2 13.Axd2 Ae4 14.1tl13 � ISligl � is approximately equal, Gutman;

237

.•

Fl) 7.�g0 �c6 8.g3 (8.e3 �cS?! 9.b4 �d3+ IObd3 .hd3 l l ..ib2 0-0 12.ti'b3 Ag6 13.b5 �aS? 14.�c3 1eft Black frus­ trated, Leskewiecz - Kurth, Hamburg 1 999, yet 8 ... 0-0, 8...�ffi or 8...�e7 will transpose after 9.�xe4 Axe4 into FJe) 8.-Acs 9.e3 �ffi (Also 9 ...�e7 is not easy to meet, as IO.�e4 .he4 J l .ig2 �eS or IOi82? � demollSitatcs . Grdbarczyk ­ Euler, Gemwty 2000, went 1 O.�e2 0.0.0 l l .�h4 �xd2 1 2 ..ixd2 Ae4 13.ig2 Ad3 14.�g4+ fS l S�xfS �d7 16 .Ah3 wb8 17Jc3 mttB, when 18.� �f7 19.�c6+ bxc6 20.�f4 Y!nt5 2l .�g4 �f7 could lead to a draw by repetition, yet 13 ...!The8!? 14..he4 �xe4 IS.� �xc4 1 6.�f5+ Wb8 l Uic 1 �dS 1 8 .�xdS JbdS is a better idea; in reply to I O ... h6 l l ..ig2 �xd2 1 2.�d2 �eS White can play 13.�e4 .ig4 14.0 ie6 1S.b3 .lf5 16.�xcS �xeS 17.e4 �d4 t s,m,t �d3+ 19.c;f;>fl , improving on 13.e4 Ag4 14.0 Ae6 IS.f4 Ag4 16.�0 �xO+ 17 ..ixO .hO 1 8.�x0, Colett Marder, Stockholm 2000, 1 8...0-0-0!?) J O..ig2 0-0-0 1 1.0-0 hS!? (Whilst White is engaged in trying to solve the problem of the pin on the d-file, Black initiates a potentkingside attack, intending to open h-file and exploit the weakness created by 8.g3, IAJic. Nevertheless, it is worth

noting that the more simple l i ..J::the8 12.�xe4 .he4 13.lZxi2 id3 14.�g4+ Wb8 I SJ:rel �eS 16.�f4 �xf4 17.gxf4 �xc4 also led to a clear advantage for Black, Sabel -Feicht, Wiesbaden 1997) 12.lt�d4 �xd2 1 3 .�xc6 (13..ixd2 �xd4 14.exd4 .hd4 IS.�O c6 16..ie3 .hb2 17 .&2 J.d4 1 8M .he3 19lkd8+ �d8 20.fxe3 Ag6 with a winning ending for Black, Olsen Conquest, Reykjavik 1 996) 1 3 ... �xfl 14.�xd8 Jbd8 I S .�O (IS.�xfl ? Ac2 16.�e2 g,jJ+ 17.i.fl Ab3) IS ...c6 16..hfl �g6 17.�e2 h4 18.b4 hxg3 19.hxg3 Ae7 20..ib2 Ag4 secures Black good attacking chances, Gutman; -

F3) 7 .�xe4 Axe4 8.�0 �c6, and now: F3a) 9.ti'b3 �e7 1 O.�xb7? �b4 is dev­

astating, Lostpawn - Peze, internet 2002; F3b) 9.g3 AxO (9 ... �e7 I O.Ag2 0-0-0 l l.�a4 � is possible, for example 12. O-O? �xe2+ 13.Whl �ffi 14.�h4 Axg3 1 S ..igS �xgS 1 6.fxg3 �xg3+ 17 .hxg3 �xg3 1 8.�0 gd2 0: 1 Hofmann- Gaht­ mann, corr 1 99S, or 1 2.�xd4 Axg2 13. ggJ Acs 14.gxg2 Axd4 1 s.�c2 ghe8) IO.exf3 �e7+ IO.ie3 0-0-0 l l .Ah3+ wb8 12.�e2 AcS offers Black considerable pressure, Gutman; F3c:) 9.Ae3 �e7 see 6.Ae3 �e7 7.�0 �c6 8.�bd2 AfS 9.�xe4 Axe4 - E; F3d) 9..igS ffi (9 ... �d7 is another way to treat this position, when 1 O.cS AxeS l l .�xd7+ wxd7 1 2.0-0-0+ Ad6 13.�d2 Ag6 14.�4 we6 1 S.g3 ffi t6.Ah3+ we7 1 7.�xd6 cxd6 1 8.Af4 ghd8 1 9.b3 At7 20.Wb2 ie6 2l.ig2 g,j7 221kt3, Gretars­ son - Kratochwill, Velden 1 996, 22 ... �eS 23.gd2 a S is obviously harmless, and if 1 O.�d2. then not I O.. ..if5 l l .e4 h6 12.ie3 Ag6 13.ie2 �e7, Vodep - Evans, e-mai11997, 14.0-0 0-0 I S.ti'b3 gm,s 16. � 1. but IO ..Ag6 l l.e4 0-0) J O..ie3 (In practice White scored badly with IO..ih4 �e7: l l ..ig3 0-0-0 1 2.ti'b3 Ab4+ 13.axb4 �b4 14Jkl .hf3 1S.e3 �d7 0:1 Potter ­ Russe ll, e-mail l999, or l i .'M>J g5 12jg3 .hg3 13.hxg3 0.0.0 14.e3 g4 1S.ie2 gxO, Boisios - Kotronias, Athens 1 984) 1 0... �e7 l l .�a4 (l l.ti'b3 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 !The8 13 .g3 AcS or l l �d2 Ag6, improving on I J ...gdS?!, Rozmersky - Korostenski, Czech League 1 999, 1 2.ti'b3 Ag6 13.g3) 1 1 ...0.0.0 ( 1 1 ...0.0 1 2.l0d2 .ig6 1 3.g3, Ne­ dobora - Lezcano, La Conma 1996, 13 ... gfe8!? 14.cS AeS IS..ig2 �d4 16..ixd4 Axd4 1 7 .e3 AxeS 1 8.Axb7 gabS does not seem worse for Black) 1 2.�d2 Ag6 13.g3 AcS 14..ih3+ wb8 I S..ixcS �xeS and White can be seen to have difficul­ ties, Mueller - Keller, Vienna 1939;

238

F3e) 9.e3 is the traditional reply.

There are three options: F3el) 9 ... 0-0 with a further split: FJela) I O..ie2 �f6 1 1 .0-0 (others suit Black: I I.ltXi2 hg2 12ligl .ih3 IJ.lt)e4 �e7 14.lt:lxd6 goo 8 1 5..id2 lhd6; l l ..id3 can be answered by I I ....ixO 12.�x0 �h6, rather than l l _life8 12..ixe4 .lhe4 13.�e2 a5 14.0-0, Podkriznik - Osman­ begovic, Gostovanja 2002; l l .m3 goo8 12..id2, when instead of 12..Ne8 13..ic3 �g6 14.0-0-0 a5 15.h4 lt:lb4? 16.axb4 a4 1 7.�a2 �xg2 1 8.mtg l, Karason - Ru­ narsson, Reykjavik 1 994, 12 ... lt:le5 13. 0-0-0 lt:lxO 14.gx0 ixO 1 5.ic3 �f5 16.hf3 �xO could have been played) l l ...&d8 12.lt:ld2 ( 1 2.�a4 lt:le5!?, for in­ stance 1 3 .lt:lxe5 ixe5 1 4.0 �h4 1 5 .f4 ixb2 1 6..ixb2 !3d2 17 ..if3 ixf3 18 ..lhO !3xb2 or 13.lt:ld2 ic6 1 4.�c2 ti'h-4 1 5 .h3 �g5 16.e4 �g6 17.c5ie7 18.f4 and now not 18 ... !3xd2 19.�xd2 ixe4, Weber ­ Simons, Germany 1 993, due to 20.g4, but 18...�g3 19.lt:l0 lt:lx0+ 20lix0 ti'h-4 2 1 .!3f2 !3d4 22..10 !3fd8) 12 .. ..if5 (12 ... �g6 13.g3 ic2 14..ih5 �f5 15..ig4 �g6 leads to a draw per repetition) 13.�b3 b6, Gutman; similarly F3elb) IO..id3 �e7!? (IO...ib4+ l l .�e2 ixD+ 12.gxf3 id6 13.c5? hc5 14..ixh7+ �7 15.�c2+Wg8 16.�xc5 �ffi 17.td2? lt:le5 18.f4 �a6+ 19.Wd l lt:ld3 proved sue-

cessful in Svendsen - Bischof, corr 1 991, yet I am worry about 1 3 .h4 �f6 1 4..ie4 � 15.�c2 Also IO ...ixd3 l l .�xd3 �ffi 12.�c2 !3fe8 13..id2 lt:le5 14.lt:lxe5 ixe5 1 5.!3bl !3ad8 16.h3 ti'h4 17.0-0 !3d6 18. mxi l !3g6 1 9.f4 keeps a plus fCI' White, while 17.b3 M6 1 8.�2 !3g6 1 9.g3 hg3 20.fxg3 lhg3 21libg I 'l!nl5+ 22.�e I, Po­ pov - De Silveira, Sao Caetano 1 999, is unsound in view of 22 ..ligxe3+ 23..ixe3 lhe3+ 24.� �f3+ 25.�f2 �e4) l l .�e2 (I I .�c2 .ib4+ 12i.d2 .ixf3 13.gd3 hd2+ 14.�xd2 lt:le5 1 5.ie4 c6) I I ...!3ad8 (Sai­ tek - Tasc, computer game Munich 1 993, continued l l ...k8 12..ixe4 �xe4 13.0-0 lt:la5, when instead of 14..id2 lt:lxc4 15. ib4 c5 16J!:fcl b5 17.b3 cxb4 18.bxc4 !3c8 19.axb4 bxc420.!3xa7 hb4 2 1 lia4 c3, 14.lt:ld2 �c2 1 5.b4 lt:lb3 16libl lt:lxd2 1 7 .ixd2 ie5 1 8 .!::tfd I could be better) 12..ixe4 �xe4 13 .0-0 lt:la5 14.lt:ld2 �c2 15.�dl �f5 keeps the balance, Gutman. F3e2) 9...�e7 is more sensible according to TseiiUn/GIIIskov and Harding. sim­ plest; e7 seems the correct square for Black 's queen in thir line. IO..ie2 (IO..id2 ().{).(I I I .�a4 f5 12.b4 � 13licl g5 14.c5 g4 15.cxd6 �xd6 16llxc6? ixc6 17 .�c2 gxD was a massacre in de Jong - Selman, Holland 193 1 , although I prefer 1 3 .. ..ix0 14.gxD hh2! causing a dual embarrassment to White 's h2 and d2-squares. After I O.J.d3 0-0-0 l l ..ixe4 �xe4 1 2.�e2, 1 2 ...lt:la5 is very strong, e.g. 13.0-0 lt:lb3 14.&2 �bl 0: I Hara ­ Ontake, e-mail l999, or 13..id2 lt:lb3 14. !::tdl ic5 1 5.0-0 �c2; this is surely more convincing than 1 2-g5 13.0-0 g4 14.lt:ld2 �e5 1 5.�xg4+ f5 16.�h3 mtg8 17.!3b l !3g6 1 8.f4 �e6 19.b4, van Dusen - Stor­ gaard, e-mail 1998. In reply to I O.lt:ld2 Black may also consider I 0 ...0-0-0, e.g. I I.�a4? lt:ld4 12.lt:lxe4 �xe4 13.'illd l lt:lc2 14.�xc2 ib4+, Bekker Jensen - Simon­ sen, Copenhagen 2000, or l l.lt:lxe4 �xe4

239

12id2 f5 l3.Bb 1 �e6 14ie2 �7 15.�c2 mxi8 16J.c3 f4) 10 ... ().0.0 l l .�a4 (l l id2 g5 12.h3 h5 l3.ic3 Ag8 14.�a4 g4 15. hxg4 hxg4 is hardly viable for White, as 1 6.lt:lh4 .ie5 17 ..ixe5 �xe5 or 16.lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 17 ..ixd4 c5 18� g3 dernoMr4teS. 1 1 .�3 is more intriguing, forcing Black to find a right solution. If l l ... IDte8 1 2. id2! g5 13.()..6.0, while after 12.0-{) Black has a choice between 12 ... g5 13.lt:ld2 .if5 13.1.f3 �e5 14.g3 lt:la5 1 5 .�a4 .id7 16. �c2 .ifS with a repetition, and 12...�f6 transposingto 6.e3 ltlc6 7.lt:lf3 �e7 8ie2 Af5 9.0-0 0-0-0 l O.lt:lbd2 ghe8 1 1 .�3 �f6 12.lt:lxe4 Axe4, covered in G2c2. l l ...h5 12.J.d2 g5 isn't very impressive as instead of 1 3.1.c3 ghg8 1 4.0-0-0 g4 15.lt:lel h4 l 6.h3 g3 1 7.f3 .ig6 18.lt:lc2 Axc2 0: 1 Moscoso - Storgaard, e-mail 2000, 13.0-0-0 g4 14.lt:lel could be tried. l l ...g5 1 2.h3 - 12.0-0 g4 l3.lt:ld2 .bh2+ 14.�xh2 mt4+ 1 5.�gl hg2 1 6.�xg2 tnu+ 17.�gl g3 18..ig4+ �xg4 19.loe4 gxf2+ 20.�12 �xe4 2 l .�el mtg8 0: 1 took place in Crompton - Taylor, corr 1 996; a splendid attacking encounter, L4lic -, 1 2 h5 appears to me the best an­ swer, e.g. l3id2 g4 14.hxg4hxg4 15.Ach8 &h 8 16.lt:l g 1 f5 1 7 ..Ad3 IDt2 improving on 1 6 ..1Dt l l 7.0-0-0 m4, aarke - Car­ leton, Birmingham 1972, 18.c5, or 13 .�c3 lt:lb4 14.�fl lt:lc6 1 5 .1.d3 .ixf3 1 6.gxf3 .ie5 17 .�c2 �f6 1 8.�e2 IDleS, Peters ­ K1ueting, Baunatal l 996, though 1 3 ... l:llg8 14.� g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 16.li::ld2 .if5 is to my mind a more natural way to play) l l ...g5! ( l l ...IDte8 12.0-0 makes the de­ fence easier. If 1 2...g5 13.ltld2 �e5, then not 14.f4 gxf4 15.lt:lxe4 �xe4 16.Af3 �e5 17 .exf4 .Ac5+ 18.Wh 1 �e 1 , but 14.g3 .tf5 1 5.1.f3 .id7 16.1.g2 On 12 ...�f6 13.gdl g5 White has l 4.c5!? Axc5 1 5 .gxd8+ �xd8 16.b4 �f6 17.&2 .ib6 18�2 g4 1 9.lt:ld4 h5 20 ..ib2, while 14.lt:ld2? is refuted by 14...J.xh2+ 15.� �xf2 16. •.

.ig4+ f5 1 7.lt:lxe4 �e4 1 8Jhd8+ �d8. 12 ...�b8 l 3 .gdl - not 1 3.lt:ld2? .ixh2+ 14.�xh2 mt4+ 1 5.�gl .ixg2 1 6.�xg2 � -. when 13 ...lt:le5 14.lt:lxe5 �xe5 1 5.g3 .ic5 16Jhd8+ �d8 17.& 2 .ic6 or 1 3 ... �f6 14.c5 Axc5 1 5 .gxd8+ �xd8 16.b4 are leve� and l3 ...g5 14.lt:ld2 lt:ld4 15.exd4 .ic6 1 6.�3 �xe2 1 7.lt:lfl .ie4 1 8 ..id2 � 19.&1 �g6 20-kl favours White. l l ...�b8 12.0-0 - 12.b4 Axh2!, e.g. 1 3.b5 .ie5 14�.ht3 1 5.ixt3 .Ac3+or 13M2 .ixf3 14.1.xf3 �e5-, is after 12 ...IDte8!? a transposition, as others are less adequate. l2 ...lt:le5 13.lt:lxe5?! Axe5 14.f4.iffi 15.Af3 .ixf3 1 6.�f3 gd3 17.&2 rutd8 l S .gfl , WoUhangel - Mourot, Mulhouse 200 1, 18...�e4. yet we can improve with 13.c5! lt:lxf3+ 14..ixf3 .ixf3 1 5.cxd6 �g5 1 6. dxc7+ �xc7 1 7.�f4+!? �xf4 18 .exf4. Onl2 ... g5 13.lt:ld2 �e5 14.f4!? gxf4 1 5. lt:lxe4 �xe4 16 ..if3 �e5 1 7.exf4 �c5+ 18.�h l , as 14.g3 Af5 1 5 .Af3, Petersen ­ Kragh, Copenhagen 1997, 15 ...id7 gives Black enough counterplay) 12.0-{) ( 12.b4 g4 13.lt:ld2 .ixg2 14.ggl �e5 could have placed White in a desperate situation, instead Bischoff - Mindt, Dortmund 1987, went 1 3 ... h5? 14.b5 Axg2 1 5.ggl �e5 , when 1 6Jixg2 �xal 1 7.lt:lb3 might be tried) 12 ...g4 ( 1 2 ...h5 was tested in two computer games: 13Jidl g4 14.lt:ld2 �e5 15.lt:ltl .Ac5 16.lt:lg3 .lg6 1 7.!:1a2, Crafty - Brause, 1997, 17 .. .1.bl l S .ga 1 .ig6 is a repetition, but 13.c5 Axc5 14.b4 g4 15.li::ld2 .id6 16..lb2 ie5 17.Axe5 �xe5 18.lt:lxe4 �xe4 19.tb5 'ttb8 20.Axc6 �xc6 2l.�xc6 bxc6 22.gfdl gd5 23.h3 gave White a distinct plus, Crafty - Computer, 1 996) 13.lt:le l ( l 3 .lt:ld2 .ixh2+ 0:1 Oksanen ­ Aulaskari, corr 1 998, if 14.� m4+ 15.�gl .ixg2 16.�g2 tnu+ l7.�gl g3) 13 ...mtg8 14.g3 (14.c5 Axh2+ l5.�xh2 tnl4+ 16.�gl f5 17.Js:4 gg6, Ki1jeshak/a) 14.. .h5 and Black dominates, Gutman;

240

FleJ) 9...t:!fffi, preferred by Kurt Rkhter.

Practice has seen three moves: FJeJa) IO.ltld2 Af5 (the less active 1 0 ... Ag6 1 1 J.e2 � 1 2.�0 IDleS is met by 1 3.l::t a2 'it>b8 14.b4; this is surely better than 1 3 .t:!fa4 'it>b8 14.&2 ltld4 l S .Ad l i.c2 16..hc2 .hh2+ 1 7.'it>hl Ag3 18.Af5 t:!fxf5 1 9.t:!fdl Axf2 20.g4 t:!ff6 2 l .'it>g2 �e3 22llxf2 "elh4 23.'it>gl t:!fg3+ 0:1 Neu­ man - N etushil, Czech Republic 1 997) l l .Ae2 0-0-0 1 2.0-0 hS 13.&2 t:!fg6 and Black keeps the initiative, Gutman; FJe..l b) 10�2 � l l .t:!fa4 mte8 12.0-0 ge6 ( 1 2 ... t:!fg6 looks promising to me. 12 ...gS is less convincing due to 13.ltld2, Alfred Brinckmann, for example 1 3 ... eb6 14.g3 .if3 1 S.b4or 13 t:!feS 14.g3 i15 1S.Ji3Ad7 16.ltle4 Ae7 17.ltlc3 �8 18. lLldS; however, Regedzinski - Richter, Bad Oeynhausen 1940, went l3.ltlel?! <;!;bs 14.£3 - also 14.Af3 tx13 1S.ltlxf3 g4 gives Black too much control e.g.l6.ltld2 A.xh2+ 1 7.'it>xh2 'Mt4+ 18.'it>gl ge6 or 1 6.ltlel eM 17.g3 \Wh3 - l4 _t:!fe5 1S .g3 Af5 1 6.gf2 AcS 1 7 .ltlg2 ttld4! 1 8.exd4 t:!fxd4 1 9.Ae3 gxe3 20.lLlxe3 t:!fxe3 0: 1 ) l3 .h3 ( l 3.ltlel eh4 14.f4 gh6 1 S.h3 f5 1 6.Af3 t:!fg3) 13 ... gS 1 4.ltld2 Af5 l S .cS ixcS 16ila2 Ab6 17.b4 t:!fg6 18.ltlo4 ( 1 8.e4 ltld4 19.Adl Axe4, Panic - Reza, Deizi­ sau 2000) 18 ...g4 puts White under pres­ sure, Gutman; •.

.

F3e3c) 1 0.Ad3, when Black has tried: FJeJcl) 1 O .. .Axd3 l l .t:!fxd3 0-0-0 ( 1 1 ...

lLleS is premature in view of 1 2 .lLlxeS AxeS l3.f4 Axb2 14.t:!fe4+ 'it>fR 1S .t:!fxb7 Ac3+ 16.'it>t2 ges l7.ga2) 1 2 .t:!fc2 (not 1 2.lLld4?AeS l3.t:!ff5+ t:!fxf5 14.ltlxf5 g6 lS.lLlg3 lLla5, MGLtukevich) 1 2 ... ltle5 (A large number of different responses are crying for clarification and explanation. 1 2 ...AeS 1 3 .0-0 hS 14.gbl h4 1 S .h3 gS 16.lLlxeS lLlxeS 1 7.f4 gxf4 18.b4 f3 was fme for Black in Bars - Jaeschke, corr 1993, but 14J.d2 Axb2 lS.&bl AeS 16. t:!fb3 b6 17.cS h4 1 8.cxb6 axb6 19.h3 �6 20�fcl gg6 2l .'it>fl seems to be critical. 12 ... hS 13.0-0 g5 is met by 14J.d2! lLJeS lS.lLld4; 14.cS g4 lS.lLld4 AeS - instead of l S ...lLlxd4?! 1 6.exd4 Af4, Sheehan Gibson, Dublin 1997, 1 7.c6! -, 16.ltlxc6 t:!fxc6 17.t:!ff5+ t:!fe6 looks OK for Black. After 12 ...gS White has two good possi­ bilities: 13 .Ad2 is a frrst one, when nei­ ther 13 ...ghg8 14 .cS g4 l S .cxd6 gxf3 16. dxc7 'it>xc7 17.g3 m l s.o.o.m:�cs l9.Ac3 t:!fe6 20.t:!fxh7 t:!fa2 2 l .trhl , Lorscheid ­ Pallova, Dresden 1992, nor 13 ...lLleS 14. ltld4 t:!fg6 1S .t:!fxg6 hxg6 16.Ac3 ltlxc4 17.ltlf3 are inspiring for Black; l3.cS !? Ae7 14.0-0 is a second, e.g.l4.. .g4 1S.l0d4 � 16.b4 m.d8 1 7J.b2 �S l 8.t:!fe4 lLleS 19.lLlbS lLlf3+ 20.gxf3 � 2l .t:!fxg4+ 1 :0 Kjaerbue - Soby, Vejle 1974, or 14 ...t:!fg6 1S.t:!fxg6 hxg6 16.h3 g4 17 hxg4 mt7 1 8.b4 gdh8 19.g3 Af6 20.gb 1 lLJeS 2 1 .'it>g2. In case of 12 ...ghe8 is 1 3.0-0!? - White should avoid l3J.d2, not because of 13 ... ltld4?! 14.ltlxd4 t:!fxd4 l S .0-0-0, for in­ stance 1 S ...eh4 1 6.g3 t:!fe7 1 7.t:!fxh7 g6 1 8.Ac3, Gittens - Gibson, corr 1988, or 1 S ...t:!fe4 16.Ac3 ffi 17.t:!fxe4 �e4 1 Sru4 gde8 19.mld 1 AcS 20�e4 �e4 2l .id4, Schreiber - Svendsen, corr 1 990, but on account of 13 ... ltle5 14.lLlxeS AxeS, Tseil­ lin/Giaskov, 1S.gb 1 t:!fc6 16.0-0 t:!fd6 -, l 3 ... lLleS 14.lLlxeS the right answer, e.g.

241

14 .. .heS I S.f4 Ad6 1 6.cS its 1 7-l::lb l �e6 1 8.b4 or 1 4. JheS IS.f4 ma5 16..!d2 g5 17..kl tnl6 18h3 g4 19hxg4 mtl+20. � �+ 2 1.00 mt]+ 22.gxh3 �xh3+ 23.�2 �xg4+ 24.ru3 �g2+ 2S.ru2 �g4+ 26.�fl , Polak - Cech, Czech Ch 1 999. The idea behind 12 ..lkl7 is revealed after 13..id2 �eS 14.�xeS !xeS, for instance I S.m,J mtd8or I S.f4 Axb2 16lla2 mtd8 1 7.�xb2 �c6 1 8.�c3 �xg2 19M �. Pine - Subrt, Czech Republic 2000; yet 1 3 .cS! is the correct antidote to Black's plan, e.g. l3 ...ieS 14.0.0 m.d8 ts,m,t or 13 ...ie7 14..id2 � IS.J.c3 l::!xcS 16.0.0) 13.�xeS !xeS 14.f4! (if 1 4.0-0, then not 14 ...�d6 IS.f4 tffi 1 6.e4 �d4+ 17.�hl �7 1 8Jlel · mtd8 1 9.eS /Ji!7 20.ie3 �d3 2 l .�xd3 gxd3 22.g3 aS 23.�g2, Kra­ tochvil - Netusil, Czech Republic 1999, but 14 ... gS!? 1 Slla2 h5 16.b4 h4, for in­ stance 17-'h2h3 1 8..heS �xeS I9.g3 M7 20J!aal ghd8 or 17 .h3 �e6 1 8.0 gd7 19.bS mtd8 20.cS � 2 l .c6 bxc6 22.bxc6 gc3 23.m t l::!xc6, Schmid - Brauening, Germany 1 991) 1 4 .J.d6 (14 .. .J.xf4? is speculative as both IS.exf4 ihe8+ 16 ...t12 �d4+ 17.� � 18h3 f3 19.�xf5 'Wxc4 20.�g3 :!k2 2 1 Jlg I g6 22.�f6 gd3+ 23. �h2, Sellos - Peltmult, Bensanso n 1 999, and ISJlfl !? �+ 16.g3 Axg3+ 17hxg3 �xg3+ 1 8.�t2 �d6 19 .J.d2 g6 20.0-0-0, Decosse - Cannes, St Lo 200 I , are win­ ning for White) IS.Q.Oihe8 1 � (more precise than 16.gb) �g6 17.�xg6 hxg6 1 8.gd) !cS 19.gxd8+ l::!xd8 20.b4 gd)+ 2 l .� !e7 22.�2 ggl) 16 ...J.cS 17Jlf3 �d6 (17 mxi 18 ...t12) 18.b4�dl+ l9. ..t12 with a pawn more, Gutman; FJe3cl) IO .. .J.g6!? l l .J.xg6 (Wachtel ­ Sukcharoenphon, Chicago 1 994, went l l .e4 0-0-0!? 1 2.0-0 - if 1 2.J.gS �xb2 13..hd8 �c3+ 14.�2 l::!xd8 1S.�c2 �ffi 1 6h3 .icS I7. mut h5 18.Jlabl h4 -, 12 ... �eS 13 .�xeS �xeS 14.g3 hS IS.�e2 h4 16.J.f4 �e6 17..hd6 lhd6 18Jladl, when •

.•

1 8..hxg3 19.fxg3 th5 should be decisive. However, 1 1 .. -thS 12.0.0 Q.O 1 3.ie2 ig6 is also viable) l l ...hxg6 12.�c2 0-0-0 13.J.d2 (13h3 �S 14.�xeS!xeS I S.f4 'lh4+ 16.� tf6 17 ..id2 g5 18.ie l 'Wh6, Blitzmich- Tornado, internet 2002) 1 3 ... �eS 14.�xe5 !xeS I S.f4 (I S.0-0-0 'Wx12 16.mdl �xg2 J 7.gxf7 gxh2 and wins)

IS ....hb2! ( IS ....id6, Otto Borik, 16.0-Q.0; IS ... l::!xd2 16.�xd2 hb2 17Jlab l gd8+ 18.�e2 !c3 19.ghdl ge8 20.�d3 �c6 2 l .�d5 I :0 Dlugy - Aristizabal, Mont­ pellier 198S; 1 5...�+ 16.g3 �xg3+ 17. hxg3 l::!x hl +, Gerd Schippel, 1 8.� and now 18 ... gxd2+ 1 9.'Wxd2 lD12+ 20.�el or 18 ...ml2+ 19.� �d2 20.�a4 hb2 21 Jld I are enjoyable for Black) 1 6J!a2 ( 16.gb J ? ha3 1 7.�b3 �c6) 1 6 ...�c6 (16 �+ is perhaps even more potent 17.� i16 or 17.g3, when instead of 17 ... �xg3+ 1 8.hxg3 gxh)+ 19.� gJ]2+ 20. �I mtl+with a draw, Sdrippd, 17 ...� 18.�t2 Affi should be preferred) 17 .J.c3 (17.�xb2? �xg2 18Jlfl l::!xh2; 17.(}.Q tffi is only a bit better, e.g. l 8.a4 mtS 19 .h3 gcs 20.� 1 aS 2 1 Jla3 ge8 22.gd3 ge4 23.§d5 �xdS 24.cxd5 l::!xc2 25.&c2 �. Schandorff- Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 1988, or 1 8.J.el � 1 9.J.g3 :!k8 20.� gcs 2 1 .gc1 ge4, Beier - Thomsen, Co­ penhagen 1 994) 17 ...hc3 1 8.�xc3 �e4 19.0-0 ffi is to Black's liking, Gutman.

242

.•

G)6.e3 ttx:6 (6.. .1e6?! 7.'Bc2, while 7.'Bd4 ltlffi S.cS lLlc6 9-ibS �7 IO..hc6+ bxc6 II.'BxdS+ :XdS 12.b4, Kirwald - Walt­ her, corr 1972, 12... aS !? favours Black. Also 6 ... .lf5 has its drawbacks, for in­ stance 7.-BdS 'BcS S..ld3 c6 9.'Bd4 'Be6 IO.lLlf3.le7 II.'BeS 'BxeS 12.lLlxeS � 13.ltlf3 or 7.ltlf3 'B e7 S..idJ lLlc6 9.0-0 0-0-0 IO.lLlc3!? .lg61I.lLldS, impro ving on I O.'Bc2 J.g6 II.b4lLleS12.lLlxeS heS 1311a2 gxd3 14.'Bxd3 ixh2+ IS.�xh2 ltlg3 16.'Bd4lLlxfl+ 17.�gl .bbl IS.&I :!:ldS I9.'Bxa7 id3 20.-BaS+�d7 2I.'Bxb7 .lxc4, Rossem - Kruyf , corr1932)seems to be safer.

ltlxd6 cxd6 19.b3 g4 20.hxg4 'Bh4 21.0 lLleS 22..lb2 :!:laeS 23.:!:ladl ge6 24.'Bf2 'Be7 2S.'Bg3, Ornstein-Reefschlaeger, Hannover 1976, brings Black much joy) 9.'Bc2 (in case of 9..lxe4 .lxe4 I O.ltlc3 .lxf3it is White who shouldfightfor a draw after II.'Bxf3 'BxO 12.gxf3lLleS 13.lLlbS lLlxc414.b3lLla5 IS.:!:lbl ffi,Lalk, since l l .gxO 0-0-0 12.f4:!:lheS 13.'Bg4+ �b8 14.lLldS 'Bd4IS.'Be2 'Be416.f3'Bg6 17.�t2ltld4 IS.'Bd l ltlf5 gave Black a strong attack, Juarez- Fernandez, Bue­ nos Aires 1993)9...'Be7(9 lLlxf210.� .lxd3 II.'Bxd3 ()..Q-012.'Bc2lLleS13.ltlbd2 :!:lhe8 14.lLle4lLlg4+ lS.�2 'Be6 16.lLlfgS, Kapuscik - Dubal, corr 1992) I O.ltlc3 .i.b4 l l.axb4ltlxb412.'Ba4+bS 13.-BxbS+ .ld7 14.'Bxb4 'Bxb4 IS..lxe4 and White is well on the road to victory, Gutman; Glb) 7 .l f5, when White has to make a com:ct decision: Glbl) S..le2 'M6 (S ... 'Be7 goes into 7... 'Be7 S..le2 .itS- Gt4) 9.0-0 (for 9.ltlbd2 0-0 I O.ltlxe4.lxe4 see 6.ltlbd2 .l15 7.ltlxe4 he4 S.ltlf3ltlc6 9.e3 0-0 IO..le2 'BRi­ FJela, while 9. .. 0-0-0 10.0-0 is the text) 9 ...0-0-0 (Again 9 ... 0-0 IO.ltlbd2 :!:ladS II.lLlxe4 .lxe4 will transpose into FJela. The absurd looking IO.tra4lLlcS II.'Bdl :!:ladS 12.ltlbd2 may well be pWtished by 12 ... aS13.:!:la2 a4; this is more convinc­ ing than 12...Yfh613.g3 lLleS 14.e4 .le6 IS.b4!?lLlcd316.cS.le7 17.lLlxeS lLlxeS IS.'Bc2 .lRi 19.lLlc4 'Bg6 20.lLlxeS AxeS 2Iiibl, improving on IS.'Bc2 lLlg416.b4 �s 17.ltlb3 Bh3 IS.bxcS f5 19iiel fxe4 20.'Bxe4 :Xf32I.'Bxf3 'Bxh2+ 22.�f l ltle3+0:1 NN- Richter, simultaneous Berlin 1931) I O.ltlbd2 (IO.'Ba4? lLlcS II. 'Bdl ended with l l ....lxh2+ 12.lLlxh2 :Xdl , Andersen -Thomsen, Copenha­ gen 1994. Fronczek - Hoffinann, Alsace 1996, proceeded I0 .trb3 gS I I.lLlc3 g4 12.ltlxe4-12.lLld4 lLlxd4 13.exd4 'Bh4 14.g3 ltlxg3 IS.fxg3 .lxg3 16.hxg3 'Bxg3+ •.

•.

White has two ideas in his disposal: Gl) 7.ltlf3 can be met in four ways: Gla) 7... 'Bf6?! (is also playable, Lalk) S� (Black has no reason to be worried about 8.'Bc2lLlc5 9.ltlc3 .itS I O.'Bdl lLleS, while S lLlgS?! 9.lLlxgS 'BxgS IO. .!OC3 .itS II.e4 'Be712..le3 .lg6 l 3.cS AxeS 14.lLldS .lxe4 IS.ltlxe7 .lxc2, Huss- Knoth, Ger­ many 1996, is doubtful due to 16.ltlxc6 .lxe3 17.lLlb4J.d4IS.lLlxc2 .lxb219iidl .lc3+ 20.�e2 0-0 21.�) S.. JJS (neither S_liJgS 9.ltlbd2 ig4 IO.h3 ltlx.t3+ l l.gxf3 i.f5 12.ltle4 .lxe4 13..lxe4 0-0 14.'Bc2, McNabb- Beesley, Auckland 2000, nor S...lLlcS 9.lLlc3 ig4 IO.lLle4lLlxe4 II..he4 0-012h3 .lhS 13.'Bc2.lg614..hg6 fxg6 l S .0-0 'Be6 16.lLlgS 'Be7 17.ltle4 gS IS. •.

243

l7.�hl �3+ l8 .�gl g3 -, l2 ... .ixe4 l3.l0d2 i.xhl+ l4.�xh2 �4+ IS.�gl gxd2 What a pity that Black did not {111d the ruthless IS ..bg2 16.o;t.xg2-mu+ l7.�gl g3 l8.l00 ghg8 with a quick mate, Lillie -, l6..ixd2 l0e5 - l6 ..ixg2! l7 .�xg2 �3+ l8.�gl l0e5 1 9.�c3 ffi 20.�xe5 fxeS 2 l ..ie l ggs -, l7.�c3 ffi l 8.�d4, when l8 ... l00+! 19-bO gxO is still winning) 10 ... �6 l l .g3 ( l l .'tte I l:D:Ie8 l2.l0b3 .ig4 l3.g3 .ih3 l4.l0h4 &6 15.0 is met by IL�xh4 16.fxe4 �xe4, while IL�g3 l6.hxg3 �xh4 17 .gKh4 instead of l7.f4 gg6 l 8.�h2 �6 l9..mt I ges 20.�f2 .ixf4, Soos - Morel, Bern 1 974 -, l 7 ... gg6+ l8.�l .ig2+ l9.�gl .ih3+ 20.�hl .ig2+ is only a perpetual as l 9 ..ix0+ 20.�f2 .ie4, Harding, is an illusion due to 2l .ggl m6+ 22..i0 lOeS 23 .l0d2 l0d3+ 24.�e2) l l ...ghe8 ( 1 1 ...\!:YtU, TsdlliNGlaskov, l2.li)d4 l0xd4 13 .exd4 h5 l4..i0!? seems innocuous. There is also no argument for l l ...g5 in view of l2 .l0d4 l0xd4 l3.exd4; this is more consistent than l2.l0xe4 .ixe4 13. l0d2 .if5 l4.b4, not on account of 14 ... �g7 15.&2i.e5 16.�a4 �b8 17..iO .id7 l8.b5 li::x:7 l9.c5 a6 20.�e4. Baekgaard ­ Thomsen, Copenhagen 1 999, but owing to l 4 ._.ih3 l 5 ..ig4+ f5 16 ..ixh3 �xh3 l 7 ..ib2 ghe8) l2 .l0h4 .id7 l 3 ..ig4 g6 14.l0xe4 gxe4 15 ..ixd7+ gxd7 l6.'ttc2 f5 (l6 .. _gxh4 l 7.gxh4 .ixh2+ l8.�xh2 �xh4+ l 9.�g2 �g4+ leads to a draw) l7.l00 �5 l8.l0d2 ge8 l9.b4 f4 20.exf4 (20.c5 fxe3 2 l .fxe3 gxe3 22.cxd6 ge2) 20 .. ..ixf4 2 l .l0b3 (2l .gxf4? l0d4 22.'tta4 �3) 2 l ....ixc I 22.gaxc l l0e5 is quite dangerous for White, Gutman; Glbl) 8.id3!? 0-0 (8...�e7 9.�c2 trans­ poses to 6.e3 l0c6 7.�c2�e7 8.l00 .ifS 9.J.d3 - G1) 9.�c2 ge8 10.0-0 (IO.l0c3 .ib4!, e.g. l l..id2 l0xd2 l2..ixf5 l0x0+ 13.gx0 .hc3+ l4.�xc3 l0e5 l5..ie4 c6 16� I � or 1 1 .0-0 .ixc3 l2.bxc3 .ig6 -

•

•

13.l0d4 l0a5 14.0 lOcS) IO .. ..ig6 l l.l0c3 l0d2 l2..ixg6 l0x0+ 13 .gx0 �g5+ 14. �hl 'ttxg6 1 5.�xg6 hxg6 l6.l0b5 l0a5 l7.l0xd6 cxd6 1 8 ..id2 l0xc4 l9..ic3 ffi with equality, Gutman. Glc:) On 7 .. ..ig4, again two replies: Glc:l) 8..ie2 �ffi (8...�e7 9.h3, e.g. 9 ... .if5 IO.l0d4 l0xd4 l l .exd4 c6 12.0-0 0-0 13 ..id3 or 9 .. ..ih5 IO.l0d4 �f6 1 1 .0-0 .ixe2 l2.'txt e2 l0xd4 13.exd4 �xd4 14.c5 .ie7 15.�5+ c6 16.�xb7) 9.�c2 (9.h3 is here only a wealmess due to 9 ..�!? IO.l0bd2 l0c5 1 1 .0-0 0-0. However, note that other replies are awkward fer Black. 9...0-0-0 IO.hxg4 Ag3 is best answered by l l .�c2!, for instance l l ...l0xf2 12.0-0 l0xg4 13.l0c3 l0ce5 14.l0e4 �g6 1 5.�1 l0xf3+ l6_gxo ih2+ 1 7.�fl .ieS t s.mu f5 1 9.l0d2 or l l .. . .ixf2+ l 2 .�fl �g6 13.l0el l0g3+ l 4.�xf2 l0xhl + I S.�gl �xc2 l6.l0xc2 l0g3 17..iO, while l l.fxg3 �dl+ l2..ixdl l0e5 13.0-0 l0xg3 l4.g5, Schlage - Richter, Berlin 1930, l4...�e7! l 5.l0xe5 l0xfl l 6 ..ig4+ �d8 l7�xfl �xeS l8 ..i0 h5 !? is in Black 's favour. 9 ... .ih5 I O.l0bd2 l0c5 l l .l0b3?! 0-0-0 l2.l0xc5 AxeS l3.�a4 l0e5 l4.l0xe5 .ixe2 l5.l0g4 ixg4 l6.hxg4 �e6 l7.ghs, Bus­ tamante Casas - Montanez, Merida 2001, 17 ....id4 seems good for Black, e.g. 18. �c2 g6 19_gd5 .ig7 or l8.gd5 .lb6, yet we can improve with 1 1 .0-0, as both I I ... 0-0 l l .gbl .ifS l 2 .b4 l0e4 13 ..ib2 �e7 l4.l0xe4 .ixe4 15.�l &d8 1 6.�3 and 10 ... 0-0-0 l l l&al keeps a plus for White. 9.l0bd2 l0c5 has also been examined. If 10� a5 I l.b3 0-0 I2..ib2 �6 13.0-0 gadS; after I 0.0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .ga2 Black lacks a convincing follow-up, e.g. I I ... ghe8 I 2.b4 l0e4 1 3 .l0xe4 gxe4 I4.gd2 .ixO I S..ixfl �c4 16.g3 gxc l l7..ig4+ �b8 I8.�xcl l0e5 I9..ie2, Olsen - An­ dersen, Vaiby 2000, or I 1 ...�6 l2 .g3 ih3 13.gel f5 l4.b4 l0e4 15.�3 ghe8 l6.c5 i.e7 17i!c2, yet 10...0-0 l llnii .if5

244

1 2.b4 ltle4 1 3.i.b2 'Mt6 is a sober reply; finally I O.ltlb3, when Black has a choice between IQ_ltJxb3 l l .'tMxb3 0-0-0 trans­ posing to 4.ltld2 ltlc5 5.ltlgf3 ltlc6 6.e3 d6 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.a3 'tMf6 9.ltlb3 ltlxb3 I 0. 'tMxb3 ig4 l l .ie2 � treated in Part 3, Chapter I , Section 4, and I 0 ... 0-0-0!? l l .ltlxc5 .ixc5 12.ltld2 .if5 1 3.0-0 h5) 9...ltlc5 (9 ...'tMe7?! IO.ltlbd2 .if5 I I ..id3 ltlxd2 12.J.xd2 ig6 13.ic3 � 14.J.xg6 fxg6 1 5.0-0-0 and White was on top in Guthrie - Fabri, Iceland 1996) I O.ltlc3 (IO.ltld4.ixe2 l l .'tMxe2, Sajka - Reinoehl, Germany 1 992, 1 1 ...0-0 12.'tMdl ltlxd4 13 .exd4 l::!.fe8+ 14 ..ie3 tiM) 10 ...0-0-0 1 1 �2 mt.e8 ( l l ...g5 12.ltld5 'Mt6 13.ic3 .bf3 14..bfl ltle5 15..ie2 mte8 16.0-0-0, while 1 2.b4, Prasse - Siedentopf, Leu­ tersdorf2001, is met by1Lif5) 12.ltld5 'tMe6 13.0-0'Mt6 14.g3 'Mt5 15.'tMdl ltle4 16.i.c3 ltlxc3 (an improvement on 1 6... ltlg5 17.ltld4 f5 1 8.0 'Mt3 19.'tMel ltlxd4 20..ixd4 Jh5 2l .'tMf2 ltle6 22.ic3 c6 23. ltlf4 ltlxf4 24.exf4 .ic5 25.'tMxc5 l::!.xe2 26.l::!.f2, Belke - Voekler, Ilmenau 1 98 1 ) 17.bxc3 ltle5 18.ltlf4 ltlx0+ 19..bfl .ixf3 20.ltlxh5 .ixdl 2 1 .l::!.fx dl .ie5 with a pleasant ending for Black, Gutman; G l cl) 8.'tMc2 'tMe7 goes into 7.'tMc2 'tMe7 8.ltl0 .ig4 - G2. G 1 d) 7 ...'tMe7 is perhaps more accurate. .

We see:

Gldl) 8.i.e2.if5 9.ltlbd2(9.ltld4 ltlxd4

IO.exd4 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 is unsound in view of I L�. e.g. 12.g3 ltlxg3 1 3.hxg3 .ixg3 14.fxg3 'tMxg3+ 15.�I .ie4+ 16.if3 l::!.xd4 17.'tMxd4 .ixO+ 1 8.l::!.xf3 'tMxf3+ 19.�h2 'tMe2+ 20.�g3 'tMel + 2 l .�g2 'tMxc I , 12.h3 h5 13.'tMb3 c5 14.d5 g5 or 12.f4.ic5 13..ie3 'tMf6. Less effective is l l ...l::!.he8 12 ..10 .ie5 1 3 ..ie3 c5 14.d5 .ixb2 1 5 .l::!.al .ie5 with equality, while 1 2.i.g4 hh2+! 13.
245

·

1 6.'i!n!.g2 �6 1 7.e4 �g6+ 1 8.�g3 f5 1 9. mtl !b.g3+ 20.fxg3 �f6 2 l .�xh7 l0d4 22� ru! 23.e5 �xeS 24. idl gS 25.l0f3 l0xf3 26.ixf3 g4 is hopeless for White. Farago - Kallai, Budapest 2000, went l 3 .J.d2 .ixf3 I4.J.xf3 .ixh2+ 1 5.'i!n!.h2 !b.d2 when Black has restored material equality and a small initiative, Ltlne; ne­ vertheless, 1 3...�h6 14.g3 is interesting as 14...� 15.&c3 get; 16.ruii I gS- Black has

managed to construct afantastic at­

fllck with his pieces ready to reinforce the

onslaught. While has the terrible scenario ofnot being able to create any counter­ piay while the defence looks very weak, Lane -, 17 _gd2 g4 1 8.l0h4? �h6 1 9.f4

gxf3 20..lfl �g4, Buckley - Wall, Bris­ tol l998, and 14 .. .hg3 15.fxg3 .ixf3 16. �dl .ixe2 17.�xe2 �e6 are unpleasant) l 3 ... g5!? with good chances, Gutman; Gldl) 8.�c2 see 7.�c2 �e7 8.l0f3 - G2. Gl) 7 .�c2 deserve detailed attention

7 ...�e7 (best; 7 _ .J.f5 8 .l0c3 l0g3 9.e4 lOxhl I O.exf5 0-0 l l .lO f3 �e8+ 12 .ie3 .hh2 l3.§dl &e3+ 14.fx.e3 ig3+ 15.�2 �f! 1 6.l0e4 �e8 would be excellent for Black, but 8.J.d3 �e7 9.l0f3 goes into the text) 8.l0f3 (8.l0bd2 .if5 9.Jd3 l0d4 I O.ebl l0xd2 I I.J.xd2 .ig6 12..ic3 l0b3 l 3..ixg6 hxg6 14.&2 aS 1 5.l0f3 a4 1 6. .ixg7 mas 17.�c2 ()..().() is uncomfortable for White. After 8.l0c3 Black can play

8...tf5 9.Jd3 l0d4, for example IO.�a4+ c6 l l.lOdS �e6 l2.�dl l0c5 B..ixB l0xf5 or I O.exd4 l0c5+ I I ..ie4 l0xe4 12.�e2 l0xc3 l 3.bxc3 c5 I4-*e3 ()..() 15.l0f3 meS 16.0-0 .ig4, though 8 ...l0xc3 9.�xc3 0-0 IO.lOO .ig4 is reasonable), and here: Gla) 8...if5 9.Jd3 � (9...tg6 IO.l0bd2 with a pi� for White: 10 ... l0xd2 I l .ixd2 hd3 l2.�xd3 o.o-o l3..ic3 or IO...l0g5 l l.lOxgS �xg5 l2.0.0.ixd3 l 3.�xd3 0-0-0 14.�c2 �h5 15.l0f3) IO.l0bd2 ( I O.l0c3 .ib4 I I .*d2 &d3 12.�xd3 .ixc3 1 3.ixc3 l0g3 14.�d5 .ie4, when: l5.hxg3 .ixd5 1 6.cxd5 l0b8 17 ..ixg7 �d8 !? 1 8.�dl f6 19 ..ih6 l0d7 a 1 5 .�g5 lOxhl 1 6.�xe7 l0xe7 17.�2 l0xf2 1 8.'i!nd2 ffi) IO .. ..ib4 1 1 .0-0 .ixd2 12.ixd2 (l 2.l0xd2 �xd3 l3.�xd3 �8 14.�e2 l0xd2 15.ixd2 .id3 16.�el .ixfl 17.<;f;>xfl �d6 I8..ic3 �xh2 brought White in trouble, Sharivazda­ nov - Beltugov, Perm 1 993) 1 2 ... �xd3 ( 1 2....ig6 l 3..ib4) 13.�xd3 l0g3 14.�b3 lOxfl 1 5Jhfl ie4 16.l0el �8 17 ..ic3 f6 18.�a4 �e6, Gutman; Glb) 8 ...J.g4 9.l0bd2 (Shine - Nizetic, Kensington 1998, went 9.h2 0-0-0 1 0. l0bd2 .if5 I I .J.d3 mte8 when instead of 12.l0xe4 .ixe4 l3 ..ixe4 �xe4 14 .�xe4 !b.e4 1 5.l0g5 �7 16.0-0 l0a5, 12.c5 .if4 13.0-0 �xd3 14.�xd3 l0g3 1 5 .�c4 .ie6 16.�c2 l0xfl 17 .exf4 l0xd2 18..ixd2 might be tried; yet we can improve with 1 0 ... l0xd2 I I ..ixd2.ixf3 I2J.xf3 l0d4 13.ig4+ 'itJb8 14.�dl f5 1 5 ..ie2 l0xe2 16.�xe2 .ie5 17.!:ibl �d7) 9 ... l0xd2 (not 9 ... l0f6?! IO.b4 0-0 I I .ib2 tes 12 .l0xe5 l0xe5 1 3 . �c3 l0g6 14.0, e.g. 14...if5 I 5..ie2 �fe8 16.'it'f2 l0f4 17.�hel l0xe2 1 8.�xe2 or 14 .. _gfe8, Sloth - Hvenekilde, Copenha­ gen 1 965, 15.fx.g4 �xe3+ 16.�xe3 &e3+ 17.'i!;ldt l0xg4 18.id4) IO.l0xd2 l0d4 l l . �bl ()..()-0 12.Jd3 l0e6 13.h3 .ih5 14.0-0 l0c5 I 5..ic2 �e5 1 6.g3 ig6 and Black has no complaints, Gutman.

246

Back to the main line

14.1e3 0-0-0 I S .gd l �xe6 1 6.gxd8+ �xd8 17.eS a6 18.�d3 �dS 19.exffi when 19...�xe3 20.�xe3 �xffi 2 l .�eS hS 22.1c4 gS 23 .0-0 id6 should be even, yet I I � Jd6 12.�0 � 13.ie2 �e7 14.0.0 ges I S.hb6 axb6 1 6.1c4 is the more precise course at this juncture) 9...�d7 (9...ie7 IO.e4) IO.�e4 (IO.�c2 is met by IO...te7 l l be7 �xe7 12.�0 c6 13.e3 �d7; however, IO h6 I I .aM gS 12.1g3 �b4 13.�c4 �8c6 14.e6 fxe6 looks too expensive after I S .gdl �4 16.e3 bS 17. !hd4 bxc4 1 8�d7 �d7 19.axb4 1xb4+ 20.'it1dl c3 2 l .b3 ghd8 22.�0. Rewitz ­ Hoiberg, Aarhus 1 98S, though 17.�c3 �bc2+ 18. � b4 19.�d3 bxa3 20.exd4 �xd4 2l .bxa3 1g7 22.�g6+ � 23.�el �a4 24.1d3 wins as well) IO...c6 l l .�f3 1e7 12.e3 1xgS 13.�xgS �e7 14.�fS �d7 IS.e6 fxe6 16.�xe6 with a clear ad­ vantage for White, Gutman; D) S ...dS is the most lively continuation. .•

This is perhaps the most critical line of the whole Fajarowicz, Harding. Although this line can be great fun for players of the black pieces, H�c2 is cur­ rently leaving Black flolDldering, Lalic. s tlC:S ...

This is generally regarded as the best way ofkeeping Black in the game.

There are two other plans: I) S ... if5 6.�c3 (6.g4? ti'h4 7.e3 1g6 8.h3 dxeS leaves White very exposed, while 7 ...�xg4? 8.ih3 �g6 9bf5 �xf5 10.�3 �g3, Ott - Barg, Winnipeg 1998, loses to l l .�a4+ bS 12.�xbS c6 13.hxg3) 6...d5 (6...�g3? 7.e4 or6...eM? 7.g3 fug3 8.hxg3 �xhl 9.�xf5, Schoenig - Walt­ her, corr 1 972, are depressing) 7.cxdS! (if 7.�f 3, then not 7 ...�g3 8.e4 �xe4 9.1d3, but 7...1c5! 8.�xe4 dxe4 9.e3 0-0, for example IO.�d2 �d7 l l .�xe4 ges 12.1d3 �xeS 13 .�fti+ �xfti 14bf5 g6 IS.ie4 c6 16.�0 !ladS or IO.b4 1e7 I I . 00 aS 12.bS �7 13.�xe4 1g6) 7...�xc3 8.�xfS �xdS (surely better than 8 ...g6 9.�d3 �xdS w.ms+ �c6 1 1 .�0 gbs 1 2.1gS �de7 13.1fti, Augustin - Wilby, corr 1 988) 9.1gS (Roeder - Stefanova, Groningen 1 997, went 9.e6 ffi IO.e4 �b6 l l .ie2 g6 1 2.�bS+ �c6 1 3.�0 �d6

Despite the apparent loss oftempo in­ volved in moving the d-pawn twice, this move is better than its reputation, Harding.

White has four ways of replying:

A) 6.e3 .if5 7.cxd5 (7.�f3 �g3 8.e41xe4 9.�a4+ bS IO.�xbS+ c6 l l .�b7 �xh l

12.�xa81cS and 7.1d3 �7 8.cxd5 �cS 9.1bS+ c6 IO.dxc6 �aS+ l l .�c3 �xc3 12.bxc3 �xbS 1 3.�xfS �d3+ 14.ci!?d2 �xeS are hardly viable for White) 7 ... �g3 8.�a4+ (8.e4 �xe4, e.g. 9.ibS+ c6 IO.dxc6 �a5+ or 9.�a4+ c6 10.d6 ffi 1 1 .0 �s 12.m4 �bd7) 8...1d7 9.�b3 �xhl IO.�xb7 m-4 l l .�h3 1e7! ( 1 1 .. .1xh3 12.g3) 12.e6 (12.�xa8 �0 13.g3 'tn!S 14. ig2 1xh3 IS.ixhl �7 16.�xa7 �xeS) 1Lfxe6 13.g3 �ffi 14.�xa8 �0 IS.dxe6 1c6 16.�xa7 �xf2 17.�f4 �4 1 8.�d4 'tnl6 and White will have problems find­ ing a safe haven for his king, Gutman;

247

8) 6.�c3 �xc3 Hhc3 d4 8.�g3 (8.�c2 �c6 9.�0 ig4 as 8 ...cS 9.e3 �c6 I O.�f3 .ie6 l l ...id3 g6 Fuchs - Schwar1mann, e-mail 2002, is shown to be careless by 1 2...ie4 � c7 13 .0-0 .ig7 14.exd4 cxd4 I S ..if4 0-0 1 6.l:Ue I) 8 ....ie6 9.e4 �c6 I O...id 2d3 l l ..ixd3 �xeS 12...ic2 �xc4 13...ic3 .i.d6 (13...�d6 14.�f3 was tested in some computer games: 14 ...0-0-0 I S. O-O �xg3 16.hxg3 �d6 1 7.b4 ffi 181Uel �bS 19J.b2 a6 20.eS fxeS 2l .�xeS gave White a slight edge in Gambit Tiger ­ Little Goliath, 2001, while 14 ...h5 ISlldl �xg3 16.hxg3 appears to be even worse, e.g. 16...bS 17.id3 lUJS 18.�gSig4 19.0 IJsJ7 20...ixc4 bxo4 2l.�h3 .ixh3 22lhd8+ 'i!i>xd8 23J:bth3, Fritz 6 - Little Goliath, 200 1, or J 6_...ig4 17J�d4 �d6 1 8...ia4+ bS 19 ..ib3 cS 20J�dS &8 2 l .�gS gc7 22 ..ieS, Fritz 6 - Little Goliath, 200 I ) 14.�xg7 ( 14.eS .ixe5 I S.ia4+ c6 16...ixeS �aS+) 14 -...ieS IS.�6 .ixc3+ 1 6.bxc3 �d6 17.�e2 0-0-0 18.0-0 �xa3 1 9...ia4 �a6 20.lild4 �xa4 21.�xe6 txe6 22�xe6+ 'i!i>b8!? (22 ...gd7 23.�a2 �xe4 24.�xa3 a6 2S.�c5 b6 26.0 �e6 21.�f2 a5 281H'el '11-'12 Atalik - Fette, Groningen 1 999) 23.�a2 �xe4 24.�xa3 a6 and Black is at least not worse, Gutman; C)6.cxd5 �xd5 7.�c3 (After 7.�d2.itS 7...�xd2 8...ixd2 �xeS 9�c l �c6 IO.�f3 is quite comfy for White - 8.�xe4 .ixe4 9.�xc7 �c6! Black obtains a thumping attack, e.g.IO.O .ig6 l l.�xbH!b8 12.�c7 ics 13.e4 .ixe4 14.txe4 �xe4+ or 10.�0 icS l l.�xb7 0.0. Sprague - Parr, Wash­ ington 1 979, continued 9 ... �a6 IO.�c3 �d8 I l ...igS f6 12 ..ih4 gS 1 3 ...ig3 .icS 14.e3 .ixg2 IS...ic4 �e4 16.exffi .id4 17. .ibS+ 'i!ln 1 8.�3+ 'i!i>xf6 1 9.�e2 �cs 20.'MI4 aS 2l.�xd4+ �d4 22.exd4 .in winning for Black, but we can improve with l l ...id2 �cS 12.f3 �xd2+ 13.�xd2 l'hd2 14.�d2 �b3+, Lilrry Parr, I S.�3 �xal 16.fxe4 .ie7 17.g3 aS 1 8.� 0 a4

19.e3 or 1 1 .0 �dl+ 12.'i!i>f2 .icS+ 13.e3 Jd3 I4...ixd3 �d3 IS.�e2 �xhl 16.�xd3 0-0 17.�g3 �xh2 1 8 ..id2 1eaving him dead lost in each case) 7 ... �xc3 8.�xc3 reaches a position, which is much more complicated than evaluated in theory.

Here are two answers: Cl) 8 .. ...ic S!? is a completely new idea, 9.�0 (9 �g3�c6 IO.�xg7 gm 1 1 .�0 .itS 12.�ffi gd8 13 ...igs .le4 I4.�f4 gd7 IS.�cl gg8 seems to provide excellent compensation for the material) 9 ....ig4 IO...if4 (IOie3 .ixe3 l l.�xe3�d7 12lldl �e6, e.g. 13.�4? �a2! 14.l'hg4 � I + IS.'i!i>dl �xb2+ I 6.'i!i>dl 0-0-0 or 1 3.�d4 �b6 14.gd2 0-0-0) IO ... .ixO l l .�xO (l l .gxf3 i.d4, for instance 12.�d2? �c6 13.e3 ().0.() 14.exd4 �xd4 or 12.()..0.() � 13.e4 �d8 14.�3 0-0 I S...ie 3 �aS 16. �d3 cS) l l ...�d4 12�cl �d7 13.b4 .ib6 14.gd) �2 IS.�xb7 0-0 1 6Axd7 �c3+ 17 ,gd2 �8 1 8.e4 �c I + 1 9.'i!i>e2 �c4+ 20.'i!i>f3 �c3+ 2 l .'i!i>e2 �c4+ with a draw by repetition, Gutman ; Cl) 8 ... � 9.�0 is the usual sequence, when Black has the following moves: Cla) 9....if3 IO...if4 (IO...igS .icS l l .e3 .ib6 1 2...ic4 �e4 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14 ..if4 h6 IS.�d2 �c2 16.�xc2 .ixc2 1 7.e6 fxe6 I8...ixe6+ 'i!i>h7 I91H'cl .id3 20...ig3 &d8 21.�4 gfu8 22.�xb6 l'he6 23..ixc7 � 24.�dS .ie4 2S.�c3 gave White good

248

chances ofmaking his two extra pawns count, Goldstem - Joller, Switzerland Ch 1999) 10�.e"e4 l l.e3 it)b4 12Jkl c6 l 3 .it)d2 it)d3+ 1 4 ..ixd3 Uxd3 1 5 .it)c4 Uxc3+ 1 6.lhc3 � 17.'it>e2 does not fully reveal Black's intentions, Gutman; C2b) 9....ig4 l O..i£4 (Others are clearly weaker: 1 O.e6 0..()..() l l ..id2 Uxe6 l2.g3 .ixf3 13.Uxf3 it)e5 14.Ue3 &d2 15.'it>xd2 it)c4+ 0: 1 Bek - Schwertel, corr 1 992; 10.b4 ().().() l l..Ab2g6 1 2.b5 .ixf3 13.bxc6 .ih6 14.cxb7+'it>b8 1 5.Ud4id2+ 16.'it>xd2 Uxe5 17.e3 c5 0:1 Lukacs - Becker, Ger­ many 1 998; 10.g3 .ixf3 l l .Uxf3 Uxf3 12.exf3 it)xe5 13 ..ie2 � 14.�0, Byr­ ne - Gibson, Dublin 1 995, 14 ....ic5 1 5. b4 .ib6 1 6l!a2 it)c6) 10 ... � (lO.. ..ie7 1 1�1 Ue4 l2.e3 and Black gets now­ here, for example 12 ... it)b4 1 3 ..ie2 �0 14.� it)d5 1 5.Ud4 or l2 _..ixf3 13.gxf3 Uxf3 14,ggl .ih4 15�. lO ...Ue4 l l .e3 is similar, e.g. l l ... it)b4 12.it)g5 it)c2+ 13.'it>d2 �d8+ 14 ..id3 �xd3+ 1 5.Uxd3 Uxd3+ 1 6.'it>xd3 it)xal l 7.�xal or 1 1 ... .ixf3 l2.gxf3 Uxf3 13,ggl � 14.�g3 Uh l 1 5 .�cl 'it>b8 1 6.'it>e2 Ud5 17 ..ig2 e"b5+ 1 8.'it>el �d3 19.Uc2) was recom­ mended by Fernando Vasconcellos. The logical responses are the following: C2bl) l l .h3 Ue4 (left White facing the nasty threat of 12 ...it)b4, Lalic) 12..ig5 (on 12.hxg4 it)b4 - 12 _.Uxf4 13.e3 Uxg4 14.mt4 Ug6 15,gcl with the upper hand -, 13.axb4 .ixb4 14.id2 Black plays 1 4 ...�xd2!? 1 5 .Uxd2 .ixd2+ 1 6.it)xd2 Uxe5, improving on 14 .. ..ixc3 15..ixc3 'it>b8, Harding, 16.g5 �d5 17.e3 l!hd8 18. ie2 Uc2 19.�h4 !?) l2 ...�d7 (l2 ....ixf3 l 3 .gxf3 Ua4 14.b3 Ud4 15.Uxd4 it)xd4 16 ..ixd8 it)c2+ 1 7.'it>dl it)xal could be drawish, Harding, yet 14.&1 ru5 1 5..ie3 &e5 1 6.f4 &6 1 7..ig2 has more point) 13 .hxg4 (Gallagher-Gibson, corr 1985 went 13.it)d2 Ug6 14.hxg4 Uxg5 1 5 .e3 Uxe5 16.Uxe5 it)xe5 1 7 ..ie2 it)d3+ 18.

.ixd3 �xd3 1 9.'it>e2 �d5 20.�h5 �xh5 2 l .gxh5 .ie7 'h-Yz) 1 3 .. ,it)b4 ( l3 .. ..ib4? 14.axb4it)xb4 15fua7 'it>b8 16.M lt)c2+ 17.'it>dl 'it>xa7 18.Uxc2, Harding) 14.axb4 (l4.it)d4 Uxd4 1 5 .l!h3 Uxg4, while 1 5 ... Ue4 16� l it)a2 17 .Uc4 Uxe5, Harding, seems feasible due to 18.&3 Ua5+ 19.b4 .ixb4+ 20.axb4 it)xb4 2 l .Uc3) 14 .. ..ixb4 1 5 ..id2 �xd2 !? (clearer than 15 ...1xc3 16 ..ixc3 �hd8 1 7.e3) 1 6.Uxd2 .ixd2+ 17.it)xd2 Uxe5 is OK for Black, Gutman; C2b2) l l .�cl ! (looks critical, Harding) l l ....ie7 1 2.h3 ( l 2,it)d2 .if5 1 3 .f3 Ud7 14.e4 .ie6 15..ib5 occurred in Gehret ­ Alozy, corr 1 990, yet 12 ...Ud4 reduces Black's disadvantage to a minimum, e.g. 13.e3 Uxc3 14,gxc3 ffior 13.Uxd4 it)xd4 14.e4 �d7 15.f3 .ie6 1 6..ic4 �hd8) 1 2 ... .ih5 1 3 .e3 .ixf3 14.gxf3 Uxf3 1 5.�gl .ih4 16..ig3 .ixg3 17 fug3 should be su­ perior to White, Gutman. C2c) 9 ...a5!? IO..if4 (lO..ig5 .ie6) 1 0... ie6 see 9.. ..ie6 - Cld; Cld) Lie6!? IO..ig5 ( lO..if4 a5 1 1� 1 Uc5 l2.Uxc5 .ixc5 13.�cl .ib6 14..id2 is the text, while 1 0. .. 0-0-0 l l .e3 ie7 12..ie2 Ue4 13.� �7 14.b4 mtd8 15.b5 it)b8 16_gfcl h6 17.lt)xd8 15.it)d2 e"d4 1 6.Uxd4+ it)xd4 17.h4 g4 1 8.e3 or 1 1 ... Uc5 l2.Uxc5 .ixc5 13..id2 lt)d4 14..ic3) l l .�dl Uc5 12.Uxc5( 12.�c l Uxc3+ 13. &c3 a4 14.e3 &5 15.it)d4 it)xd4 16.exd4 c5 1 7 ..ie3 cxd4 18 ..ixd4 �d5 19 ild3 .ic5 20..ic3 'it>e7 or l 2.e"d2 a4!?) l 2 _ ..ixc5 13.�cl .ib6 14 ..id2 it)d4 ( l4 ...'it>e7 1 5 . .ig5+ f6 1 6.exf6+ gxffi 1 7 ..if4 a4 1 8 .g3 &5 19 .e3 �d8 20 ..ie2 1h3 2 l ..ifl .ig4 22..ie2 1h3 'h-'h Rudolph - Staub, Ger­ many 1999, yet 15.e3 .id5 16..ic3 seem to be testing) 1 5.it)xd4 .ixd4 1 6fuc7 (if 1 6..ic30-0-0) 16 ....ixb2 l7.�xb7 .ixa3 1 7.e4 �0 keeping control, Gutman.

249

D) 6.ltlf3 ltlc6 (Harding now suggests 6....lc5 7 .e3 .lf5, but this is a doubtful assessment in view of 8..id3.lg6 9.0-0. 6....le6 7.e3 ltlc6 goes into 6.ltlf3 ltlc6 7.e3 .le6 D4c; however, White can try 7.cxd5, and after 7...ti'xd5 not 8.ltlc3 lillc.c3 9.ti'xc3 ltlc6 see 6.cxd5 ti'xd5 7.ltlc3 ltlxc3 8.ti'xc3 ltlc6 9.ltlf3 .if6 - Cld, but 8.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 9...lxd2 ti'c5 IO.&l ltld7 l l .e4 c6 l 2.ti'xc5 .lxc5 13..lc4 .lg4 l 4..lc3 0-0 l5.b4 .le7 l6.h3 .lxO l7.gxf3 ltlb6 1 8. ib3 .lg5 I91MI � 20.<;f;le2with advan­ tage, Peze - Blitzmich, internet 2002. In case of6....lf5 7.cxd5 - 7.ltlc3 was co­ vered under 5.ti'c2 .lf5 6.ltlc3 d5 7.ltlf3 7 ...ti'xd5 8.ltlc3 Black has two options: the first i� Ll0xc3 9.ti'xc3 ltlc6 trans­ posing to 6.cxd5 ti'xd5 7 .ltlc3 ltlxc3 8. ti'xc3 l0c6 9.ltlf3 .lf5- Cla, a line re­ garded as good for White; the second is 8 ...ti'a5 hoping for 9..ld2 ltlxd2 IO.ti'xf5 ltlxf3+ l l .exf3 ltlc6 12.ib5 .lb4 13..lxc6+ bxc6 14.&1 .lxc3+ 15Jhc3 'ftb5 1 6.Yfe4 0.0 with some counterplay, when 9.ltld4 is annoying as 9 ....lg6 IO.ti'a4+ and 9 ... ltlxc3 IO.ti'xc3 ti'xc3+ l l .bxc3 .ld7 12.e4 ltlc6 l 3.f4 are both leading to exchange of queens) with a crucial position. -

We survey White's defences: Dl) 7.cxd5 ti'xd5 8.ltlc3 ltlxc3 9.ti'xc3 see

6.cxd5 ti'xd5 7.ltlc3 ltlxc3 8.ti'xc3 ltlc6 9.ltlf3- Cl;

02) 7.g3 .le7!?(a draw results from 7 ... .lf5 8.ltlh4.le6 9..lg2 ltlc5 IO.ltld2 ltld4

l l.ti'c3 dxc4 12.ltlxc4 ltlb5 13.ti'c2 ltld4, while 8.ti'd3 ltlxg3 9.ti'xd5 ltlxhl IO.ltlc3 .le6 l l .ti'e4 .lc5 12..le3 .lxe3 l 3.ti'xe3 ltla5 14J:�dl ti'e7 1 5.ltld5 ltlxc4 16.ti'd4 .lxd5 17 .ti'xd5 ltlb6 led to win for Black, Voets - Wundt, corr 1986) 8.cxd5 ti'xd5 9.ltlc3 ltlxc3 IO.ti'xc3 .lf5 l l ..lg2 0-0.0 12.0-0 .le4 13..lf4 �b8 reaching a po­ sition of dynamic equality, Gutman; 03) 7.ltlc3 ltlxc3 8.ti'xc3 (was suggested by Stllker/Giasscoe!SIIlyart) 8 ...d4!? (8 ... .lg4 9.cxd5 ti'xd5 or 8....le7 9.cxd5 ti'xd5 I O..lf4 .lg4 will transpose into the line 6.cxd5 ti'xd5 7.ltlc3 ltlxc3 8.ti'xc3 ltlc6 9.ltlf3 .lg4 - Clb) 9.ti'd3 (9.ti'b3 .le7 I 0. .lf4 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 .lf5 1 2.e3 ltla5 13 .ti'a4 c5 l4..ld3 b5 1 5 .cxb5 .le6 1 6.b4 ltlb3+ 17.�b2 a6 gives Black a dangerous ini­ tiative, for example 18..b4 ti'b6 19.exd4 cxb4 20.axb4 axb5 21 .ti'xa8 � 22..lxa8 .lxb4 23.d5 ti'a5 24.dxe6 ti'a3+ 25.�c2 ti'a2+ 26.� ltlc5+27.<;f;le3 '9b3+ 28.�d4 ltlxe6+ 29.�e4 ti'c2+ 0:1 Chrucz - Str­ zemkowski, corr 1983, or 18.bxa6 g5 !? 19 ..lg3 g4 20.ltl e l cxb4 2 l .axb4 ti'c7 22exd4 ru"c8 23..lf4 ti'c3+24.�bl .lxb4 25.ltlc2 .la3. l l .lild l was more circum­ spect, TSI!itlin/GIIlskov, though l l....lg4 12.ti'xb7 ti'd7 13.ti'b3 �b8 l4.ti'c2 .if5 15 .ti'c I a5 keeps enough pressure, e.g. l6.e3 d3 or 16.g3 gb3) 9 .. ..lg4 (9 .. ..le7 IO..lf4 g5 l l ..lg3 g4 12.ltld2 .le6 13 .f4 ti'd7 14 ..lf2 0-0-0 1 5 .0.0-0 a5 16.g3 a4 17 ..lg2 ltla5 18..le4 f5 1 9.exf6 .lxf6 20. ti'c2 c5 2 l .�bl �b8 22..ld3 favoured White, Romsdal - Thoemros, corr 1 997) IO.g3 (IO..lg5 .le7 I I J.xe7 ti'xe7 12.ltlxd4 ltlxe5 13.ti'e4 is less accurate as instead of 1 3 ...0.0 14.f4 liJc6 1 5.ti'xe7 lillc.e7 1 6h3 .lf5 1 7.0-0-0, Schroeder - Siggelkow, corr 1 972, 1 3 ...0-0-0!? might be tried, e.g. 14.f4 ltlf3+ or 1 4.e3 ghe8 15.h3 f5 16.ti'c2 fud4 17 hxg4 f4) 10 . .%¥d7 (after

2 50

.

I O... a5 l l ..ig2 .ic5 1 2.0-0 h6 1 3.ltld2 ltlxe5 14.'tMe4 'tMe7 15.ltlb3 0-0 16.ltlxc5 'tMxc5 1 7.b4 'tMe7 1 8..ib2 �d8 19..ixd4 ltlf3+ 20.ixfl 'tMxe4 21..ixe4 lhd4 22.i.d3 Black's compensation is suspect, while 13.h3 .ie6 14.g4 'tMd7 1 5..if4 h5 16.ltlg5 hxg4 17.ltlxe6 'tMxe6 1 8.J.d5 'tMd7 19.b4, Meister - Cech, Germany 2000, looks a bit murky to me) l l ..ig2 iB 12.'tMd2 a5 13.0-0 (or 13.b3 .ic5 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5..ib2 �8) 13 .J.c5 J4,gd) 0.0 15.'tMf4 1ti with a fully satisfactory game, Gutman; 04) 7.e3 !? is to be preferred.

email 2001, are awkward for Black) 9.ltlc3 (Tokaji - Kelemen, Epitok 1 982, proceeded 9.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 I O..ixd2 hd3 l l .'tMxd3 dxc4 1 2.'tMxc4 'tMe7 13 ..i.c3 .ig7 14.e6 hc3+ 1 5.'tMxc3 when instead of 15_0.0 16.exf7+ lhf7 17.0.0 � 18lladl lhf3 19.gill ltle5 20.f4 ltlf3+ 2 1 .'ifig2 I :0, 1 5 ... ffi 16.b4 0-0 17.'tMc4 �e8 1 8.:!:tcl a6 19.ltld4 ltlxd4 20.'tMxd4 c6 could be even; although, note that after 14.0-0-0!? 0-0 15.:!:td5 :!:tfd8 16.:!:thdl Black's problems are still not solved) 9�.ltlxc3 IO.J.xf5 (if I O.'tMxc3 .ig7 l l .cxd5, then I l ...'tMxdS !? 12 ..ic4 'tMd7 1 3 .0-0 0-0-0 14 ..ib5 .ie4 1 5.ltld4 he5 16.ltlxc6 .ixc3 17.ltlxa7+ 'itib8 18.J.xd7 lhd7 19.bxc3 'itlxa7, while l l ....ixd3 gives White a upper hand, e.g. 12.'tMxd3 ltlxe5 1 3.ltlxe5 .ixe5 14.'tMh5+ 'tMd7 1 5.'tMxb7 0-0 16.'tMc6 or 12.dxc6 .le4 13.cxb7 hb7 14.e4 he4 1 5.0-0 0-0 16 . .i£4 :!:te8 17 Net idS 1 8l!adl, Stroeher ­ Henke,corr 1995) IO.�gKi3 l l.'tMxc3 ig7 (I L:!:tg8 12.0.0 dxc4 1 3.'tMxc4 'tMd7 14.b4 :!:tg4 1 5.'tMc2 0-0-0 16..ib2 'tMe6 17.�cl) 12.b4 'tMe7 13..ib2 dxc4 14.b5 ltld8 15. 'tMxc4 0-0 16.0-0 leaves Black in trouble, ["dil(),

•

Black has tried four ways to resist: D4a) 7 ....ie7 8.b4 (White has no reason to avoid 8.cxd5 'tMxdS 9.J.c4 'tMa5+ IO.b4 ltlxb4 l l .axb4 'tMxal 1 3.'tMxe4) 8 ....if5 9.J.d3 0-0 10.0-0 .ig6 l l .ltlc3 ltlxc3 12. hg6 hxg6 13.'tMxc3 dxc4 14.'tMxc4 'tMd7 15..ib2 :!:tfd8 16.k l :!:tac8 17.b5, Crafty ­ Imni Chess , computer game 2000; further D4b) 7 .. .J.f5 8..id3 g6 (8 ....ig6 9.ltlc3 ltlxc3 IO.'tMxc3 hd3 l l .'tMxd3 dxc4 12. 'tMxc4 'tMe7 13.J.d2 g6 14.J.c3 .ig7 t 5mt 0-0 16.:!:td5 :!:tfd8 17 .0-0, although White may well consider 9.0-0 or even 9.h4!?, when both 9..h6 I O.ltlc3 ltlxc3 I I .J.xg6 dxc4 12.e6, Seifert - Melchor, corr 1 992, and 9 ... ltlc5 IO.hg6 hxg6 l l .b4 ltle6 12.cxd5 'tMxdS 13.ltlc3 'tMc4 14..ib2 0-0-0 1 5.'tMe4 'tMxe4 1 6.ltlxe4 .ie7 17.�2 !idS 1 8 .!tad I , McDonald - Martinez Beja-

Gutman; D4c) 7 ... .ie6 is too passive, so: D4cl) 8.b3 'tMd7 (8 ... g5 9.J.b2.ig7 I O.h3 h5 l l.cxd5 hd5 12.e6 0-0 13.exf7+ :!:txf7 14 ..ixg7 'itixg7 1 5 .'tMh2+) 9 ..ib2 0-0-0 I O.ltlc3 ltlxc3 l l .'tMxc3 dxc4 ( l l .. ..ig4 12.J.e2 .ie7 Bmt 'tMe6 14.0-0 ffi 1 5.cxd5 lhd5 16.J.c4, Schwertel - Melchor, corr 1 992) 12.J.xc4hc4 13.'tMxc4 ltlas 14.'tMc3 'tMd5 1 5 .b4, Gutman; D4c2) 8.ltlc3 ltlxc3 9.'tMxc3 a 5 ( 9....ie7 IO.b4 0-0 t i .J.b2) IO.b3 (IO..ld2 g6 I I . ltld4 .ig7 1 2.ltlxe6 fxe6 13.f4 d4 14.exd4 ltlxd4 1 5.J.e3 lLJB 16..ic5 b6 1 7� was seen in van Ketel - Petter, Haar\em 2001) IO ....ie7 ( I O...ltlb4 l l .c5 ltlc6 1 2 ..ib5 .ie7 13.0.0 0.0 14.J.xc6 bxc6 15.ltld4 'tMd7 16.f4 ffi? 1 7.13 fxe5 18.ltlxe6, van Lear ­ Kurucz, Virginia 1999) I I.J.e2 0.0 12.0.0;

251

D4c3) 8..le2 fle7 (8 ...fld7 9.0-0 0-0-0

D4d) 7 ...ig4 is more fortluight

I OJ::t dl f5 l l .lt:lc3 lt:lxc3 12 .bxc3 fle7 13.cxdS .txdS 1 4.flxf5+, Perez - Lars­ son, e-mail 2000, or S ...gS 9.cxdS .txdS 10.0-0 g4 l l .lt:lfd2 ltlxd2 1 2 ..lxd2 .lg7 13 .ixg4 .beS 14.lt:lc3 gg8 IS.lt:lxdS �g4 16.lt:lf4 are no better) 9.0-0 0-0-0 (J0t111 Segura mentions 9 ... .tf5 I O.cxdS .!i:lxeS l l .li:ld4 .lg6 12.f4 ltlffi 13.flb3) IO.gdl f5 l l.b4 dxc4 (l l gS 12.bS .!i:laS 13.lt:lbd2 dxc4 14.lt:lxe4 gxdl+ IS.flxdl lt:lb3 16. m,1 fXo4 17.lt:ld4 lt:lxcl 181ixcl � 19.e6 flcS 20.flc2 .ld6 2 1 .a4 .lxe6 22.flxe4 .td.5 23.flc2) 12.ltlbd2 (12.gxd8+ flxd8 1 3 .ib2 a6 14.lt:lc3 lLlgS I S.gdl lt:lxf3+ 1 6.ixf3 fle8 1 7.lt:ldS gS I 8.flxc4 g4 19. .le2 flf7 20.bS was excellent in MChess Pro - Genius, computer game 1996) 12 ... � 13.ltlxc4 gS 14.bS .bc4 I S.bxc6 � 1 6.cxb7+ .lxb7 17itxd8+ flxd8 1 8.J.b2 .tg7 19�1 fle7 20.lt:ld4 gm 21 .f3 heS 22.ltlc6 bc6 23.flxc6 lt:ld6 24.ixe5 fixeS 2S.fla8+ winning, VIjola - Hamdouch� Manila Olympiad 1 992; D4c4) 8.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 (S ...fS 9.exffi lt:lxf6 I O.lt:lgS ! ?, e.g. IO ...fle7 l l .lt:lxe6 flxe6 12.cxd5 flxdS 13.ie2 ltleS 14.flxc7 .ld6 IS.flxg7 ruB 16.0-0, Clery - Bedoin, Pau 2000, or 10 .ig8 l l .ie2 fle7 12.().{) � 13 .b4) 9.bd2 dxc4 (Here is a choice of evils: 9 ...d4 I o.gdl dxe3 l l ..lxe3 fle7 12.ie2 h6 1 3.0-0 g6 14.b4 .lg7 I S.i.cS .tf5 16.fla4 fle6 17 .lt:ld4 I :0 Michenka ­ Korostenski, Ceske Budejovice 1 996; 9 ...fle7 I O.lt:ld4!? lt:lxeS l l .lt:lxe6 flxe6 1 2.cxdS flxdS 13.flxc7 gds 14.ic3 .td6 I S .fla5 flxa5 1 6.ixas gc8 1 7.ic3 rJ;;e7, Dragon - Nejmet, computer game 2000, 1 8 ..le2; 9 ....te7 10itd l dxc4 1 1 ..lxc4 flc8 12..id3 .lg4 13.ie4 .txO 14.gxf3 lt:lxeS I S ..lc3 f6 16 ..lxeS fxeS 1 7 .J.fS flb8 1 8 . .lxh7, Peze - Boniek, internet 2002) IO.hc4 .txc4 l l .flxc4 fle7 12. ic3 0-0-0 1 3.b4 ggs 1 4.bS lt:lbs I S .ib4, Fokin - Beltugov, Orsk 2000.

The possibilities are presented by: D4dl) S.cxdS flxdS 9..lc4 flaS+ is the most popular way, but that doesn t mean it is the best, as the following shows: D4d l a) IO.ltlbd2 (suggested by Stefan Buecker in Kaissiber 211997) I O .. .ixf3 (10 .. .115 I I .O-O e.g.l l ...li:lxd2 1 2.ixf7+ or l l ...lt:lg3 1 2.e4 lt:lxfl 1 3.exfS lt:lxd2 14.ixd2 flcS I S .J.e3 fle7 16.ibS � 17.ixc6 bxc6 18.flxc6, though l l .i.ill+, Buecker, I I...� 12.flb3+.it:6 13.flxb7 .td5 14.flxa8 ltld4 I S.flxdS+ flxdS 1 6. exd4 lt:lxd2 17 ..lxd2 cS I S .dxcS .txcS 19.0-0 is not bad either) l l .gxf3 lt:lxd2 12.ixd2 fixeS ( 1 2 ...ib4 1 3.ixf7+ <Jle7 14.e6 hd2+ IS.flxd2 flxd2+ 16.<Jlxd2 lt:ld8 1 7.<Jle2 ltlxe6 1 8.ixe6 <Jlxe6 19.f4 with the better ending for White) 13.h6 (Seiling - Vujadinovic, e-mail 1999, con­ tinued 13.Jc3 fld6 14.fle4+ fle7 IS.flf5 l:kl8 16itgl I :0, yet 13 fle7 14.ibS � I S ..txc6 bxc6 1 6.fla4 <Jlb7 is critical) 13 ...� (13 ...lt:ld4 14.fla4+ c6 1 S.ixb7) 14.flxc6, Buecker, 14 ...bxa6 I S.flxa6+ ( I :0 Gyuricza - Smet, corr 2000) I S ... <Jlb8 1 6.0-0-0 flcS+ 1 7.<Jlbl .ld6 (not 17...flf5+ 1 8.e4 flxf3 1 9 ..le3 gxdl+ 20. <Jla2flxe3 21 .gxdl figS 22.gds, Gabor Gyuricza) 18.ic3 flf5+ (instead of 18 ... .leS? 1 9.ixeS fixeS 20.gd3 flfS 2 1 .e4 fle6 22.flbS+, McDonald - Che, e-mail

•.

•

2S2

·

•.

200 1) 19.e4�xf3 20.\Wb5+ 'i!r.!8 2l.�dS+ 'i:tbS 22.hg7 .hS! 23.\Wt>S+� 24-ixeS fudl+ 2SJudl �xd l + 26.�a2 ggs 27. �c6 �dS equalising, Gutman; D4dlb) 10.b4.hb4+(10...ifub4? l l.�xe4 l0c2+ 12.�e2) l l .axb4 �xal 12.�xe4 (With an extremely hairy position, Lillie.

12.J.bS .hf3 13.gxf3 leads after 13 ...lOgS 14.J.xc6+ bxc6 1 S.�xc6+ �7 16.�cS+ � 17.�c6+c;!;te7 to a draw; this is more safe than 13...0-0 14.�xe4 .fueS 1S.f4 a6 16.Ae2 l0c6, e.g. 17.Ad2 gfe8 1 S .�c2 �ffi 19.Ac3 � 20.�cl goos 2 1 .gg1 g6 22.gg2 or 17 .J.d3 g6 1 S.Ad2 �ffi 19.J.c3 �d6 20.l0d2 gres, Rabbitt - Shaw, corr 1 99S, 2l .�c4!? bS 22.�cS �xcS 23.bxcS) introducing the following complications: D4dlbl) 12 .. .ixf3? 13.gxf3 (13.�xf3 0-0 14.�e4 �xeS l S.�xeS lOxeS 1 6.J.e2 a5 1 7. bxaS gxaS l S .Ab2 gds 1 9 .Ac3 gcs 20.0-0 l0c6 2ll!d 1 fud 1 + 22-ixd 1, Leib­ son - Russell, e-mail 1997, allows 22 ... bS 23.�fl b4, viz. 24.Ad2 gas 2S.Ac2 &2 26.Ae4 lObS 27.�e2 l0a6) 1 3...�xeS (Black may be able to reviflllise this line, IAiic) 1 4.bS (White has two more good

possibilities. 14.J.b2 �xe4 1S.fxe4 l0xb4 16.ixg7 - 16ligl ggs 17.ttld2 c6 1s.®e2 bS is harmless, Barron - Gibson, corr 1991-, 16 ...ggS 17.J.c3! is the first one, for example 17 ...l0c6 1S.c;!;te2 l:MS 19.l0d2 gd7 20.m,l gg5 2l�S lOdS 22.l00 mts 23.ggl l0e6 24.J.xb7 gcs 2S .ggs+ lOts 26llx18+ 1 :0 Pedmen - Simonsen, Tors­ havn 2000, or 1 7...a5 1 S.'it>e2 c6 19.ltld2 bS 20. .h b4 axb4 2l .Ad3 �e7 2 2 .gb 1 &4 23.eS hS 24.gcl &6 2S.J.e4. How­ ever, less appealing is 17 .J.ffi c6 lS .l0c3 bS 19.lOxbS cxbS 20-ixbS+ �fS 2 l .�e2 gg6, Paredes Prats - Gibson, corr 1 9SS; similarly 17ligl c6 1S.l0c3 bS 19.Ae2 aS, viz. 20.eS a4 21 .lOe4 lOdS 22.l0d6+ �d7 23.J.hs a3 24. .hn a2 2s.�d2 IIxg7 26. fug7 al � 27.J.xd5+ �dS 2S.l0b7+ with a draw, improving on 17 ...l0c6 1 S .l0c3

lOeS 19.Ae2 �. John Gibson, 20.lOdS. 14.J.bS -probably best, Gibson -, 14 ... �xe4 1S.fxe4 �0 16.J.xc6 bxc6 17 .Ad2 &b8 l S. �e2 gfeS is the second when instead of 19.13 cS 20.bxcS &S, Htuding, 19llcl � 20.13 ges 2 l .h4 mtS 22.J.el cS 22.bxcS reaches a winning ending) 14 ...�xe4 (14 ... 5, Damon- Maxxx, in­ ternet 2002, could have been met by lS. �xeS lOxeS 1 6.Ae2 0-0-0 1 7.Ab2 gheS 1 S.f4 ltld3+ 19 .J.xd3 fud3 20.J.xg7 �3 21 .l0c3) l S.fxe4 lOeS ( l S ... lOaS 16.Ae2 ltlb3 17 .J.b2 lOcS 1s.gg1 ggs 19.l0d2 a5 20.ia3 l0d7 2l .f4 l0b6 22.l0c4, Perez Wagner, e-mai11 999) 1 6.J.e2 ()..0.0 ( 16 ... 0-0 17 .Ab2 gfeS 1 S.f4 l0d7 1 9.ggl f6 20.l0c3 c6 2l.e5 fxeS 22.l0e4 &7 23.l0d6, Vareille - Adrian, Saint Lo 2000) 17 ligl (17.0-0 cS 1 S.f4 l0d3 19-AaJ b6 20.ltlc3 IDleS 2 l .�g2 �b7 22.�13 ge6 23.lLldS c4 24.gdl gh6 2S.Axd3 cxd3 26.gxd3 gxh2 27.eS g6 2S.J.e7 gcs 29.l0c3 aS 30.l0e4 proved successful in Gustafs­ son - Gibson, corr 199 1 / 1 993) 17 ...g6 1 S.Ab2 gbeS 19�4 �bS 20.f4 l0d7 2 1 . l0c3 l0b6 22.�f2 & 6 23.h4 gees 24.h5 winning, Ejermo - Russell, e-mail 1997; D4dlbl) 12 ...AhS ! is a better choice.

Black is able to keep the balance: D4dlbla) 13.e6 (this move is quoted as a refutation - a crushing blow, LGlk -; however, Black has a simple rejoinder)

2S3

l L0-0-0! (13 ...0.0 fails to 14.exf7+ �h8 1 S.sd3 .ig6 16.�c4 .hd3 17.�xd3 l:W:18 1 8.�e4 �a4 19.0-0 �xb4 20.�f5 �aS 21.�xa5 lOW 22.�S �c6 23.f4 a5 24.e4. l3_.J.g6 14.exf7+ �IS - this sequence was a reasonfor the bad reputation -,

•.

leaves Black with no safe place for his king, e.g. 1S.�f4 �xb l l6.0.0�e4 17.bS �xf4 18.exf4 .ixf7 - 18 ...�e7 19.�gS .if5 20..ia3 gd8 2 1 .ge1 gd7 22.�e6+ Ax e6 23.J.xe6, Htuding , 19 .J.xf7 rllxf7 20.bxc6 bxc6 - 20... bS, Matsukevich, 2 l .�gS+ �g6 22.�e6 -, 2 l .�gS+ �g6 22.g4 hS 23 .h3 a5 24.ia3 - one could also play 24.f5+ �6 2S,ge 1 �e8 26. lLle6 -, 24...a4 2S..!:kl � 26.&1 cS27.&7 gb8 28.gxc7 gb3 29..hcS gc3 30.f5+ �h6 3 1 .�f7+ �h7 32.gc8 lkl+ 33.�g2 g6 34.�gS+ �h6 3S.�e6 1 :0 Bisguier ­ Ljubojevic, Malaga 197 1 ; nevertheless, l S.�dS !? is perhaps more forcing, viz. 1S ...�xbl l6.�c5+ �e7 17.0.0 b6 18.�d4 �e4 19.�c3 1 :0 Kristinsson - Meyer, corr 1990, due to 19 ... �dS 20.�3 c6 2 l .bS �8 22bxc6) 14.exf7 ig6 1S.J.e6+ Wb8 16.J.f5 Axf7 17.0-0 (or 17 ..id2 g6 18.J.g4 �e8 19.�c2 .lc4 20.J.c3 �xb4 21Jxb4id3 22�cl �xbl 23.�xbl .ixbl 24.0-0 .id3 2S..Ml ie2) 17 ...g6 1 8.J.g4 hS 1 9.!113 �e8 20.�f4 (20.�c2 �xb4 21 .�2 �xb2 2Uxb2 Ac4 23,gcl �d3 24�c4 �xb2 2s.gc1 �d3) 20 ...gm 2 1 . .id2 .idS 22.�g3 .lc4 23.gc1 (23.J.c3? loses to 23 .. .J.xfl 24.J.xal � 1) 23 .. 1W3 24.�xf3 gxd2, Gutman; D4dlb:Zb) 13.0-0!? .lg6 14.�f4 �xbl l S.bS �d8 16.J.a3 �f5 17.�4 f6 1 8 .e6 cS 19.bxc6 �xc6 20.�d4 � eS (Flear ­ Leygue, St.Afii que 2002, went 20...�aS 2 l .�bS 0-0-0 and now instead of22.e7 gd2 23.�3+ �b8 24.�e6 a6 2S.J.d6+ � 26.�c7+�7 27.ifua6 &d6 28.�xd6 �eS a_�a3 �Wr Vt, 22.�f4 �eS 23.' .lb2 might be better, for instance 23 ... id3 24.J.xd3 �xd3 2S.�c4+ �b8 26.&1 -

or 23 �xc4 24.�xc4+ �b8 2S.J.c3 � 26� &8 27.�xc8+ lhc8 28.J.xb6 axb6 291Ml .lc2 30�1) 2l.J.bS (2l .�bS 0-0-0 22.e7 gd2 23.�3+ �b8 24.f4 �e4 2S. .id6+ �d6 26.�xd6 �xe7) 2l ...a6 (the accuracy is regarded, if 2 l ...gc8 22.gc1 a6 23.J.a4 bS 24.�xc6 �xe6 2S.J.c2 .hc2 26.�d4 �a2 27.�g4 gc7 28.�e6 ga7 29.�xg7+ q,.n 30.�hS .lg6 3l .�d4 �8 32.�xf6+ �g8 33 .J.b2 .ixhS 34.�8+ �f7 3 S.�xh7+ �e8 36.�xhS+ White dominates the field) 22.J.a4 bS 23.�xc6 �e4 24.�xe4 .he4 2S.�aS bxa4 26.�c4 �8 27.�d6+ �d6 28.ixd6 .id.S 29.�1 .lb3 30.gb2 gg8 3l .e7 �f7. Gutman. White should lookfor stability and not be too eager toforce the issue.. .

D4dl) 8.�bd2 �d2 9.J.xd2ixf3 lO.gxfl d4 ( lO ... �xeS 1 1 .0-0-0 �xf3 is ruled out by 12.J.c3 � 13�dS .ie7 14.J.g2 �g4 1S ..hf3 �xf3 1 6.ggl c6 1 7 gf5 !? �3 18�g7 0-0.0 19.b4; in Byrne - Gibson, Dublin 200 1, White departed from this with 17 ..&S ftj 18. rus � 19. �e4. when instead of 19 ...�f7? 20�g7+ 1 :0, 19 ... 0-0-0 20.�e6+ gd7 2 1 .gdl ghd8 might be a lesser evil) 1 1 .0-0-0 �4 12. exd4 �xd4 1 3.�e4,Gutman; further D4d3) 8 ..le2 �gS (8 ... .le7 9.0-0 .ixf3 lO.J.xO �xeS l l .J.xe4 dxe4 12.�xe4 /t:x;6 13.�c3 0.0 14.� 1 �c8 1S.�dS .id6 16 . .id2 geS 1 7.�c2 �g4 1 8.h3 �S 1 9.J.c3 !k6 20.cS .les 2l .J.xe5 �eS 22.�3 �aS 23.�a2 );gS 24.�f4, Pine - Vavra, Czech Republic 2000) 9.�d4!? �d4 1 0.exd4 .lxe2 l l .�xe2 �e6 12.J.e3 cS 1 3.cxdS �xdS 14.�S+ �c6 1 S.�xc6+ bxc6 16. dxcS AxeS 17.'t>e 2 �8 18�. Gutman; similarly D4d4) 8.�d4 �xeS (8 .. ..ie7 9.�d2 �xd2 IO.�xc6 bxc6 l l .J.xd2 0.0 12,Sd3) 9.cxd5 � (9 ...�xdS? 10.f3) 10.�c3 �7 l l..ie2 . .ixe2 1 2.�xe20-0 13.0-0 and I doubt that Black has enough compensation for _his pawn, Gutman.

2S4

Back to the main line

Y!!la5 121lcl l0d7 1 3.e3 l0b6 14.J.d3 Ae6 15.exd4 cxd4 16.l0e2 dxc3 17 .J.xc3 .ixc3+ 18.l0xc3 Y!!lxa3 19.0-0 0-0 or 10.Y!!Ie4+ ll.e7 l l .l0d5 At'S 12.Y!!I xe7+ Y!!lxe7 13.l0xe7 <;!;>xe7 14.gu lUIS) 8 ... l0c6 (8 ... a5 9.b5 0-0 10.ib2, VUiads Junker, may hold out more chances for White, e.g. 1 O ...b6 l l.g3 1Jb7 12.ig2 l0d7 13.0-0 or 10 l0c5 1 1.g3 � 12.ig2 �e7 13.lu:3.!f6 14.l0d2 l0bd7 15.0.0 l0b6 16.lilce4 l0ba4 17.l0xc5. 8 ...0-0 9.ib2 l0c6 goes into 6.l0f3 l0c6 7.b4 l0e6 8.exd6 Axd6 9.Ab2 0-0; less clear is 9 ... c5 1 0.b5 l:te8 l l .l0bd2 l0d7 12.e3 l0ef8, not because of 13.0-0-0 �e7 14.�c3 ffi 1 5.td3 a6 16.l0e4 Ac7 17.�c2, F1orea - Buth, Untergrombach 1 999, 1 7... l0b6 1 8.l0c3 Ae6, but owing to 1 3.Ae2 Y!!le7 14.0-0) transposes to 6.l0f3 l0c6 7.b4 l0e6 8.exd6 .ixd6. .•

6.1Ut3

Alternatively: I) 6.exd6 .ixd6 7.�0 �c6 (7 _a5 8.�c3 0-0 9.ie3 l0ba6 1 0.g3 f5 was played in Reinartz - Skolarski, Germany 1990, and now 1 U �dl Y!!le8 12.l0d5 mightbe good. In reply to 7 .J.g4 8.b4 l0e6 White could consider 9.l0bd2 0-0 1 0.c5 Ae7 l l .e3, since 9.Y!!I e4 .ixf3 10.exf3 l0d7 l l .ib2 0-0 12..Ad3 g6 1 3 .0-0 l0f4 gives Black too much control) could transpose into 6.l0f3 l0c6 7 .exd6 Axd6; II) 6.b4 l0e6 7.exd6 (7.l0f3 a5 8.b5 dxe5 9.l0xe5 lild4 10.Y!!id 3!f5 l l .e4Jd6 12.l0f3 l0xf3+ 1 3.gxf3 Ae6 - an improvement on 1 3 ...Y!!ie7 14.Ab2 l0d7 1 5 .Y!!ie 3 Ag6 16bg7 l:tg8 1 7.J.d4 0-0-0 1 8.l0c3 � 1 9.l0d5 l:tge8, when instead of20.J.d3 13 2 l .l0c3 Af4 22.Y!!ie2 l0e5, Roesner ­ Richter, Berlin 1 95 1 , 20.0-0-0 13 2 l .c5 should be tmpleasant-, 14.f4 0-0 15.ie2 l0d7 16.e5 Ac5 allows Black an initi­ ative, e.g. 1 7.13 �h4!? or 1 7.0-0 l0b6. 7.J.b2 dxe5 8.e3 is innocuous in view of 8...a5 9.b5 l0d7 1 0.l0f3 Ad6; however, to avoid is 8 ...c5 9.b5 l0d7 1 O.lOO Ad6 l l .l0c3 0-0, Berry - Will, Perth 1 999, 1 2.1:tdl Ab8 1 3.Ad3 g6 14.ie4 with a clear plus for White) 7 ..bd6 8.l0f3 (in case of8.l0c3 is 8 ... c5 9.b5 l0 d4 prom­ ising, for example lO.Y!!id l .ie5 l l .ib2 •

6...1Uc:6

The idea behind 6 ...dxe5!? is revealed after 7.l0xe5 Ad6 (7 ...Y!!If6 8 .l0d3 Af5 9.l0c3 Ad6 10.ie3 0-0 l l bc5 .ixd3 1 2. Y!!ixd3 .ixc5 13.e3) 8.l0f3 (if 8.l0d3 Al3 9.l0c3 0-0 1 0.Ae3 l0bd7); this move order allows Black to avoid the main line 6.l0f3 .!£X:6 7.b4 l0e6 8.ib2 and to return into 6.exd6 Axd6 7 .tOO. 7.b4 The principal move but not the only one: I) 7.exd6 .ixd6 (7 ...Y!!ixd6 8.b4 l0e6 9.e3 b6 10.ib21Jb7 l l .liX:3 Q.O.O 12.ie2 �e7, Minzer - Milla, Orense 1 995, 13.0-0!?) 8.l0c3 (For 8.b4 l0e6 see the main line. 8.l0bd2 can be met by 8 ...Y!!If6!? 9.l0e4 l0xe4 1 0.�xe4+ Ae6, while 8 .. .Ag4 is less appealing since instead of 9.e4 �ffi 1 0.J.e2 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 I:theS 1 2_g e 1 <;!;>b8, Tomasevic - Steriev, e-mail l999, White ought to play 9.b4 l0d7 1 0.c5Ae7 l l .e3) 8 ...Y!!I ffi!? (8 .. .ig4 leads Black anywhere as 9.J.e3 0-0 10bc5 .ixc5 l l .e3 .ixf3 12.gxf3 �8 13.l0e4 Ats 14.f4 g6 15.J.g2 shows. After 8...a5 White has in addi­ tion to 9.ie3 00 lO..fidl an extra resource

255

in the fcnn of9.lLle4!?, for instance 9 ... lLlxe4 lO.'lbe4+ .ie6 l l .J.gS 'i!/01 12ru1 f5 1 3 .'i!Jc2 'i!Jf7 14.e3 0-0 1S ..id3 YMhS 16.cS lLleS 17.cxd6 lLlxf3+ 1 8.gxf3 'i!JxgS 19 .dxc7 'i!lg2 20JUI 'i!Jxh2 2 l ..ic4, Sal­ ters - Beljars, Hengelo 1 994, or 9...0-0 lO.lLJxd6 - lO.lLlxcS .ixcS l l ..if4 .ig4?! 1 2.e3 h6 13 ..id3 'i!Je7 14..ie4 brought White success in Koerner - Eckhardt, Germany 2002, but we can improve with l l ...'i!Jffi 1 2.e3 .if5 l3.'i!Jcl lLlb4! 14.axb4 .ixb4+ 1S.�2 �8 -, lO ...'i!Jxd6 l l ..ie3 f5 lUtdl 'i!Je7 13.g3 lLle6 14.'i!Jcl f4 l S . gxf4, Torossian - Modestino, corr 1 996) 9..ig5 (9.lLJdS 'i!lf5 1 O.'i!Jxf5 .ixf5 l l ..if4 .ixf4 12.lLJxf4 0-0-0) 9 ...lLld4 lO.lLJxd4 'i!JxgS l l .b4 (l l.lLle4 lLlxe4 12.'i!Jxe4+ 'i!Je5 1 3 .'i!JxeS+ .ixeS 1 4.e3 cS) l l ...lLle6 12. lLlxe6 .ixe6 13.lLle4 'i!JeS 14.lLlxd6+ cxd6 l S J:tdl aS, Gutman; further II) 7 .J.gS lLld4 (7 ...'i!Jd7 is also playable, e.g.8.lLlc3 dxeS 9J:tdl 'i!Jg4 10.h3 YMhS or 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.lLlc3 'i!Jg4 10.h3 'i!Jxc4 l l.e3 'i!lh3 12.'i!Jxb3 lLlxb3 l31?.dl, Luyks ­ Garcia Castro, Batalha dos Mestres2002, 13 a6 14.lLle4 k7) 8.lLlxd4 'i!JxgS 9.lLlc3 (9.lLJf3 'i!lf5 IO.'i!Jxf5 .ixf5 l l .lLlbd2 dxeS 12.lLlxeS k7) 9...'i!JxeS 10.0-0-0 c6 l l .e4 g6 12.g3 �7 l3.f4 'i!Je7 14.J.e2 .id7 (14 ... aS l S .ct>b l 0-0 16.h4 ges 1 7 ..if3 .ie6 1 8.'i!Je2 a4 1 9.hS lLlb3 20.lLlxb3 axb3 2 1 . 'i!Jd3 d5 was quite murky in Kaspersen Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 1 990) l S .ct>bl 0-0-0 16 ..if3 ghe8 brings White little profit, Gutman. .•

7 �e6 ...

7...lLld7 8..ig5(8.exd6 .ixd6 9.'i!Je4+, Tseillin/GIIIskov, is beating the air in view of 9...J.e7 10..igS 0-0 l l.J.xe7 lLlxe7 1 2 .lLlc3 cS l3.gd l lLlc6 14.bS 'i!JaS l S.gd) lLld8 16.a4 lLle6) 8...J.e7 (8 ...lLld4 9.lLlxd4 'i!JxgS 10 .lLlbS 'i!JeS l l .lLlxc7+ <;tds 12.lLlxa8 'i!lxal l3.g3, e.g. 13 .. .h5 14..ig2 h4 1S.O-O hxg3 16 ..hxg3 'i!JeS 1 7.'i!Ja4 YMhS l 8.ge1 or 13. .d5 14� 'i!Je5 1 S.'i!Ja4 dxc4 1 6.0-0 .

a6 1 7 .gel) 9..ixe7 'i!Jxe7 10.exd6 'i!Jxd6 l l .e3 0-0 1 2..ie2 leaves Black struggling for compensation, Gutman.

8.lbl

8.exd6 .ixd6 9..ib2 must also be critical, Harding, after: I) 9...a5 l O.bS lLle7 l l .lLJc3 (this is more accurate than l l .lLlbd2 f5 12.e4 0-0 1 3 . � 1 'i!Je8 1 4.eS.icS l S .lLlb3 b 6 16 ..ie2 .ib7) 1 1 ...0-0 ( l l ...f5 1 2.gdl 0-0 1 3 .b6! and l l ...lLlcS 12.lLle4 .if5 l3.lLlxd6+ cxd6 14.'i!Jdl 0-0 1S.e3 a4 16.'i!Jd4 ffi 1 7.lLld2 are both awkward fer Black) 1 2.lLle4 .if4 (l2...lLlcS ended abruptly with 1 3.lLlxcS .ixcS 14Edl 'i!Je8 1S.e3 .if5 16...id3 .ixd3 1 7.'i!Jxd3 lLlg6 1 8.0-0 'i!Je7 1 9 .'i!Jc3 1 :0 Vareille - Sermier, Accession 1 999. In case of 1 2 ... lLlg6, JebStuart - Peze, in­ ternet 2002, I am intrigued by l3.cS .ie7 14Edl 'i!Je8 1Sh4 f5 16.lLlegS 'i!JxbS 1 7.e3 'i!JxcS 18.'i!JxcS .ixcS 19 .hS lLJh8 20..ic4 ge8 2 l .h6) 1 3.e3 .ih6 14..ie2 f5 l S.gdl 'i!Je8 16.lLlc3 lLlcS 17.lLldS lLlxdS 1 8.cxdS b6 1 9..id4 f4 20 ..ixcS bxcS 2 l .e4 .id7 22.a4'i!Jg623.c;!;>fi �424.h3 ihS, Voets ­ Waal, corr 1991 , 2S .'i!JxcS and Black is overwhelmed, Gutman; II) 9...0-0 1 O.e3 (lO.lLlbd2 f5 l l l?.dl 'i!Je8) , when the play may continue: A) 1 o ...b6 l l ..id3 h6 1 2.0-0 ( l 2..ie4 !? .ib7 l3.lLlc3 looks a good option to me) 12 ...tb7 l3.lLlbd2 lLlg5 14.lLlxgS (l4.'i!Jc3!?

2S6

lS.cS.AeS 16.ec4+ Wit8 17.it)xeS it)xeS 1 8 .AxeS fxeS, Schroeder - Bozzo, corr 1 969, when 19.it)e4! might be strong) 14 ...exgS IS.it)e4 ee7 16.f4 fS 1 7.it)xd6 cxd6 1 8J�ael g6 1 9.e4 �e8 20.cS dxcS 2 I ..lc4+ �h7 22.exfS I :0 Anderton Gibson, corr 200 1 ; B) IO...it)gS J I .fi)bd2.lg4 1 2.cS .Ae7 (12 ... .lxt3 1 3.cxd6 .ihS 1 4.bS it)aS IS.ec3, Spragett - Milia de Man:o, Madrid 2000) 1 3 i.d3 hS l4.bS it)b8 I S.it)xgS .lxgS 16.h3 .le6 17 ..th7+ �h8 1 8...le4 .idS 1 9. rut c6 20.l004 .ih6 2I bd5 cxdS 22:efS I :0 Barr - Storgaard, e-mail 1 998; C) I O.. J�e8 I I ...id3 it)gS ( Il ...h6 12.0-0 fi)gS J 3.ft)bd2, e.g. 13 ... it)xf3+ 14.it)xf3 .lg4 IS..th7+ �h8 16...le4 .lxf3 1 7bf3 it)eS 1 8 bb7 eh4 19.g3 ehS 20...lxa8 lha8 21 .AxeS, Wicklund - Schulze, corr 1987, or 1 3"...lg4 14.it)xgS hxgS, Poup­ inel - Zouaou� corr 1999, IS .ih7+ �h8 I6...ie4 ) 1 2.it)bd2 (1 2.it)xgS !? exgS 13. Jxh7+�8 14b4 .lxb4+ I S.axb4 it)xb4 16.ec3 lhe4 1 7.it)d2 exg2 1 8J�fl ge8 I9.exb4.lg4 20.ecs) I2.bb4 13.0-0-0 ifB (13 ...h6 14.h4 it)xf3 I S.it)xf3) 14.h4!? (Andersen - Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 2000 , went 14.it)xgS exgS ISJ.xh7+ c;th8 1 6.it)f3 eh6 1 7 ...le4 .le7, when instead of 18.g4 .lffi 19.gS .lxb2+ 20.�xb2 tnt5 2 I .g6 .lg4 22_gds fS 23.it)d2 it)eS, I 8.h4 �g8 19.it)gS might be a better choice) 14 ... it)xf3 I S.hh 7+ �h8 16.it)xf3 and Black is nearly lost, Gutman; D) IO ...a5! l l .bS (I U.d3 axb4 12bh7+ �h8 13...le4 .id7 14.0-0 it)gS I S.it)xgS exgS 1 6,gd) gfd8) J I ...fi)e7 1 2...ld3 (if 12.it)c3 fS J3.gdJ b6 14...le2 .lb7 I S.O.O ee8) 1 2 ... fS (12...h6 1 3.it)c3 fi)cS J4_gdJ f5 I S .0-0 ee8 16.gfe l it)xd3 J7.gxd3 eg6 18.it)e2 b6 19...leS rug 20lkdl .lb7 2 J .ft)f4 en 22bd6 lhd6 23�d6 cxd6 24.gxd6 I :0 Dalso - Storgaard, e-mail 1998) 1 3 .0-0 (1 3.it)c3 ee8 14.0-0 ehS) 1 3".ee8 (instead of ILit)cS 14.ec3 gf6 f6

IS...ic2 eeS I6.ft)bd2 c6 I7.e4M4 I8.Wel, JebStuart - Peze, internet 2002) 14.it)bd2 (14.e4 ehS lS.eS.lcS 1 6.it)bd2 b6) 14 ... b6 I Slife I (IS.e4 ehS) JS ...fi)cS keeps Black alive, Gutman. 8..l�xeS!

After 8...dxeS 9.e3 (9.it)xeS fi)xeS IO...ixeS goes into the main line. However, note that 9... fi)ed4, Tseillin/Gloskov, IO.ed2 is less advisable for Black, for example: IO...fi)xeS I IJ.xd4 it)xc4 l2.ec3, Jensen; IO ... it)b3, Goofy - Badkarma, internet 2002, I I.ee3! it)xes I 2.exb3; ID_Yfh4 J I .fi)xc6 it)xc6 12.it)c3 .le6 J3.gdJ, e.g. 13 ...exc4 I4.e4 eb3 1 sibs .ld6 I6.it)e2 or 13 .. ..ld6 l4.cS .Aes IS.g3 ee7 16.J.g2 �0 1 7.0-0) 9...f6 Black falls into a very passive position.

Two continuations are merits attention: I) I 0 .fi)c3(Buecker, Kaissiber 21/9 97) lO...�n (others are even worse: IO.....le7 J J .gdJ .id7 1 2 ..id3 g6 1 3 .h4; I O ... g6 I I .idl, e.g. t t ...ee7? I2.bS ttx:d8 13.l0ds en 14.it)xf6+ or I I ....id7 1 2 .cS !? .lg7 1 3 ..lc4 ee7 - if 1 3 ...ec8 14.0-0 ft)ffl, V'lltorio Lo Con�, I S _gd2 .le6 16 be6 fi)xe6 17.ft)dS a6 1 8.ec4 with a strong ini­ tiative -, 14.it)d5, when neither 14 ...'l:fd8 I S.0-0 0-0? 16.it)f4, nor 14 ...em I S.0-0 ().0..0 16i!d2 followed by doubling rooks are inspiring forBiack,Buerker, IO ed7, Harding, I J .gdJ en 1 2 ..id3 g6 1 3 .h4

2S7

•.

ig7 14.hS; IO .. .id7 1 1 .�1 fie7 12.llJdS fif7 1 3.bS l0e7 14..beS llJxdS I S.cxdS l0d8 16.Ab2, Sebban - Stankovic, Mar­ seille 2003) l l .l::!d l fle8 (l l ...id7 12.i.d3 �g8 13..tf5 fle8 14.llJdS) 1 2..id3 l0e7 1 3 ..te4 a5 14.0.0 axb4 IS.axb4 �8 16.cS yields a plus for White, Gutman; m I O..td3 g6 l l .l0c3 (The sacrifice I I . .ixg6+ hxg6 1 2.flxg6+ �e7 1 3 .l0c3 is unsound due to 13 ..1Dt6 14.llJdS+ fixd5 IS.fixh6fid3 followed by ...fic2, Tseit­ Un/Giaskov. Jan Rogers pointed out in Kaissiber 31/9 97 that l l .h4 .ig7 1 2.hS f5 13.hxg6 hxg6 1 4Jhh8+ .ixh8 I S .bS wins a pawn forfree, but after l l ... aS ! 1 2.bS lLlcS 1 3 ..ixg6+ hxg6 14.fixg6+ �e7 IS.b;��.c6 rut6 16.fic2 fid3 17.fie2 gg6!? 1 8 .g3 .ig4 Black is dominating) l l ....ig7 J2.gdJ (According to Rogers is 1 2.h4 also very strong. Now 1 2 ...fS 13.0-0-0 may be troublesome for Black, for instance 13 ..td7 14.Ae2 e4 I S .lOgS llJxg5 16hxg5fixg5 17.llJxe4fle7 18.llJcS 0-0-0 1 9..tf3 .ie8, Antonsen - Rossen, Copenhagen 2000, 20.l0xb7 �d I+ 2 1 . �dl �b7 22.b5 winning; likewise 1 3 ... fle7 14.l0d5 fif1 IS..te2 e4 16.llJgS llJxg5 1 7 .hxgS llJeS 1 8 ..id4 0.0 1 9 .flc3 ge8 20Jlh4 c6 2 1 .l0f6+ .ixf6 22.gxf6 l0d7 23 .gdh I lOtS 24..tcS .ie6 2S..te7 �e7 26.fxe7 flxe7 27.g4 a5 28.� .bf5 29.cS axb4 30..tc4+ .ie6 3l .fieS &8 32.Axe6+ flxe6 33.fixe6+ �e6 34.axb4 hS 3S.gd) �-� Nieves Garcia - Rogers, Las Pal­ mas 199S, with good chances for White, Rogers. However, Black has a far superior defence in 1 2 ...l0f8!? 1 3 _gd) fle7 14.l0d5 fif7, e.g. IShS gxh5 1 6.if5 .ie6 1 7..txe6 l0xe6 1 8.fif5 l0cd8 or IS. O.Oig4 16..te2hS I7.bS llJd8 18.cS llJfi:6) 1 2 ...fle7 13 .llJdS (Nagley - Kerekes, e­ mai1 2002, went 13..ie4 .id7 14.00 fif1 I S .h4 0-0-0 1 6 .h5 gxhS 1 7 ..ixh7 l0f8 18 ..if5 l0e7?! 19 .l0xe7+ flxe7 20.l0h4 �b8 2 1 ..bd7 �d7 22.cS, yet 18 ... �b8 _

19.l0h4 .bf5 20.l0xf5 l0g6 1ooks better to me) 13 ...fif7 1 4.cS (on 14.h4 l0f8!?, while 14 ...0-0 IS.hS f5 1 6.h6 .ih8 17.bS e4 1 8bh8 �8 1 9.bxc6 exd3 20.flh2+ �g8 2 1 .llJeS and 14 ... f5 IS.bS e4 16.bxc6 exd3 1 7.�d3 bxc6 1 8.llJeS leaves Black in desperate straits, Jonalluln Rogers, Kairsiber 31/997) 14 ... 0-0 IS..tc4 l0cd8 (IS ... �h8?! 1 6.h4 h6 1 7.bS e4 1 8.bxc6 bxc6 19.l0f4 exf3 20.llJxg6+ �g8 21 .l0xf8 fixfS 22.fle4 1 :0 Neumann - Schmitz, corr 1 979) 16beS (I6.h4 c6 17.llJc3 fle7 18.l0e4 llJf7 graduaUy neutralising the pressure, Tseillin/Giilskov) 1 6 ...fxeS 17. lOgS ! (an excellent reply, suggested by Watson/SchiUer) 1 7...llJxgS ( 1 7 ...fle8 18.l0xc7 fic6 19Jlxd8, Watson/Schiller . 1 1 ... fid1, Buecker's choice of evils, is met by 18.fla2 &8 1 9.l0c3 fle7 20.�d8 �d8 2 1 ..be6+ .ixe6 22.l0xe6) 1 8.l0e7+ �h8 19 ..txf7 llJdxfl, Jensen, 20M l0e6 21.fic4 &8 22.l0xc8 �c8 23.�e2 with advantage for White, Gutman. 9.�xeS

9 . .ixeS dxeS IO.llJxeS g6!? is fme for Black, TseilliN'Gimkov. 9...dxeS l O beS ..

IO.e3 aS!? (IO...ffi l l ..td3, e.g. l l ...fie7 12bh7 �7 13.fixh7 fif7 14.l0d2 .id7 IS .l0f3 0-0-0 1 6.0-0, I. Rogers - C.Ro­ gers,Gold Coast 1 999, or l l ...g6 1 2.h4 aS 1 3.cS followed by h4-hS, Buecker) l l .l0d2 (l l .cS b6 12.fie4 .id7 13.c6 .ic8 14..beS llJgS I S.fif4 axb4 16..bc7 fidS 17 ..ixb6 .id6 1 8.fic4 ie6) l l ...fid7!? (clearer than l l ...c6 12 .cS ax b4 13 .ax b4 �al+ 14..bal, e.g. 14 ... ffi? I S..td3 b6 16bh7bxcS 17� �d7 1 8.� cxb4 19 .AxeS and Black will suffer due to his exposed king or 14 ...b6 IS.llJc4 bxcS 16. llJxeS fJb6 17.bxcS .ixc5 18.i.d3 ffi 19.llJo4 ib4+ 20..ic3.ixc3+ 21 .fixc3 flcS 22.0-0 ()..() 23.fic2 with a slight edge, Buecker) 12.cS axb4 1 3.axb4 �at + 14 ..ixal b6 IS .AxeS (IS.llJc4 ffi 16.i.d3 bxcS) IS .. bxc5

2S8

16.bxcS �dS 17.�0 (17.�e4 �xe4 18. �xe4 f6 1 9 ..id4 f5 20.�g3.ixcS) 17 ... �xeS 1 8.�xcS .ixcS 1 9...ic4 f6 should be level, Gutman. l O... aS

20.� r!1e7 filvours Black, yet 14.e3 bxc5 lS.bxcS is a better try, e.g. 1 S ...c6 16..id3 .ixcS 17.0�or 1L�d5 16..ibS+ c6 17.e4 �d7 18..ic4 .ixcS 19.0-0 .ia7 20.�d2 0.0 2 l .�O. improving on 16.�c4 �xcS 17. �xeS .ixcS Yz-Y2 Schmied - Paaske, Co­ JEnhagm 2000, Gutman) 12..ib2 (I2.'fn>2 axb4 13.axb4 lhal 14.�xal b6) 1Laxb4 13.axb4 lha 1 14...ix al b6 1S.cxb6 .ixb4+ 16...ic3 �c6 17.bxc7 0-0, Thomsen/Jen­ sen, are all quite promising for Black. ll ...ft'gS!

l l .bS

Black has nothing to fear ftom: I) l l .bxaS g,w 12..ic3 �!? (instead of 12 ..1188 13.g3 Jd6 14.Jg2 0.0 lS.O.O .!DeS, Thomsen/Jensen, Kaissiber 311997, 1 6. a4 .id7 1 7.aS) 13.g3 .icS 14 ..ig2 �d4 l S .�dl .ig4 16.!�aH�d6 17J�d2 0-0 1 8. .ixd4 lhd4 1 9.l:bd4 (1 9.0-0 ge8) 1 9... .ixd4 20...ix b7 ge8 2 1 .0 .ih3, Gutman; ll) l l .�d2 .id6 (stronger than l l ...axb4 12.axb4lhal+ 13...ixal c5 14.bS, Buecker) 1 2...ixd6 �xd6 13.b5 (13.cS �eS 14.�1 axb4 1S.axb4 �d4 1 6.�d3 �3 1 7.�b3 �e6 1 8.e3 0-0) 1 3 ...b6, Gutman; Ill) l l .cS �dS! (l l ...b6 12.�a4+ �d7 13. �xd7+ .ixd7 14.cxb6 axb4 1 S.bxc7 bxa3 was OK, Bekker Jensen - Nielsen, Copenhagen 1 999, but I worry about 12.�e4 �7 1 3 .�c3 bxcS 1 4.�bS, e.g. 14 ...fS lS.�O m,7 16.�1 �e7 17.�c6+ rM7 18.bxa5 or 14 . ...ib7 1S.�e3 �6 16. �xc7+ �xc7 17 ...ixc7+ �e7 1 8.�xe7+ .ixe7 19 .e3 gg6 20...ixaS cxb4 2 l .axb4 with an advantage for White, Gutman. l l ...axb4 12.axb4 lhal 13...ixal b6 is a bit safer: 14.�a4+ �d7 1S.c6 �d6 16..ic3 �f4 17.�a8 1iW8 1 8.e3 �g6 19.'ittd:Z .id6

Other replies do not inspire confidence: I) l l .....icS 12.e3 �gS 1 3.�c3 ffi 14...ig3 b6 1 S...ie2 .ib7 1 6.0-0 hS 17 .h4 �6 1 8. �c2, Olsson - Nyberg, Sweden 1 999; ll) l l .....id7, Buecker, 12.e3 ( 1 2.�d2 c6 13.e3 cxbS 14.cxbS gc8 1S.�b2 is also good, Bent Larsen, Kaissiber 1 812002) 12...c6 13.'fn>2 ffi 14Jg3 cxbS lS.cxbS �8 16...ie2 .ie7 17.0-0 0-0 18lldl, Gutman. ll.Abl

1 2.�c3? f6 1 3...i g 3 .ib4 14.axb4 axb4 1 S .ftb2 gxal 1 6.f4 gxbl+, Gutman. l l...b6 13.Ve4

1 3 .�d2 .ib7 14.e3 .ie7 (improving on 14...kS lS.�f3 'i!n15 1 6J.e2 � 17.�S �gS 1 8.�xf7 �xg2 1 9 .gf1 , Buecker) 1S.�f3 �6 16J.e2 0� 17.0-0 .id6 1 8.h3 gae8 1 9.�d l fS , Gutman. 13...!b8 14.h4 Vh6 15.�c:3 .ld6 16.g4 .ib7 17.�d5 0-0

Black should be able to keep control. There is no danger in 1 8.gS, Larsen, 1 8 ... �S 1 9.ig2 (if 19.e3 �cS 20.�d4 �g6 2 l .hS �xgS 22.h6 ffi 23.hxg7 �xg7) 19... �cS 20...i0 �xe4 2 l ...ixh S c6! 22.bxc6 (22.�xb6 cxbS, e.g. 23.0-0 .ic6 24...id4 �d2or 23.�d7 �g3) 22 ....ixc6 23 . .10 meS 24...id4 (24.�1 .icS 2S.e3 .ia4 26. llcl .ib3 27.gg1 .id6) 24...bS 2S.�e3 b4 26...ixg7 .icS 27..ib2 �xfl 28.'t!ru2 lhe3 29...ix c6 � 30.cMl lhc6 3 l .axb4 lhb4 32 ..if6 .ib6, Gutman.

2S9

m 6.V:!fd3 li)c5 (6....if5 ? 7.li)c3 li)g3 8.e4)

Section 2 (l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS J.dxeS �e4 4.a3 d6) 5.�0

This move represents a standard way, when Black has two possibilities. s.. .Ars!?

An interesting continuation (certainly comes into serious consideration, Tim Hlllfling) indicated by J01111 Segu"' / 960; Black prefers to avoid lines with V:!ic2, and according to Alfonso Romero thereby obtains good chances.

The ancient 5 ...li)c6 sometimes contrasts with the melees that can arise in the main line, but still looks fully viable to me.

7.V:!fe3 li)e6 (better than 7 ...d5 8.cxd5 V:!lxd5 9.o!LJc3 �3 IO.g3 .lf5 l l.tg2 � 12.li)d2 �. Ferreira - Santos, Portugal 1 998, 1 3.li)d5) transposes to 4.V:!ld3 li)c5 5.V:!ie3 li)c6 6.a3 �e6 7.lf)f3 d6 - Part I , Chap­ ter 5 ; Ill) 6.b3 .lf5 7.i.b2 V:!id7!? (also 7...dxe5 8.V:!ixd8+ !!xd8 is reasonable, fer instance 9.li)xe5? li)b4 or 9.li)bd2 li)xd2 I O.li)xd2 li)d4) 8.e3 (8.exd6.ixd6 9bg7 l::tg8 10. .id4 0-0-0) 8 ...0-0-0 9.Ae2 V:!fe6 I O.li)d4 li)xd4 l l .exd4 dxe5 1 2.d5 'M>6 1 3 .0-0 .ic5 1 4.V:!le l V:!lxb3 1 5 ..ixe5 l::tde8 was hopeless for White, Henrichsen - Chapu, Capelle 1 995; IV) 6.b4 .if5 (6 .. .Ae6 is playable, e.g. 7.V:!fc2 d5 8.e3 a5 or 7.i.b2 Axc4 8.V:!ic2 d5 9.li)c3 li)xc3 IO.V:!ixc3, Gipp - Krempner, Germany 1999, IO aS!?. 6...a5 7.li)bd2 7.t?d5 .lf5 8.exd6 t?ffi -, 7...li)xd2 8bd2 li)xe5!? 9.li)xe5 dxe5 I O.bxaS .ic5 is an­ other sound option, while 8 ... dxe5 9.b5 l{)d.4 JO.li)xe5 .lf5 1 1 ..§32 .ixa3 12.e3 ic5 looks like a more risky choice, and now not 1 3.exd4 't?xd4 14.'t?e2 0-0-0 1 5 .f4 l::the8 16. lha5 'il;lb8 17.b6 ffi but 13.ic3 li)e6 14.t?f3 .ig6 1 5 ..id3 0-0 16 ..ixg6 hxg6 1 7.0-0 .ib4 1 8 ..Axb4 axb4 1 9.l::tb2 li)c5 20.l::txb4 t?e7, Kadliscko - Kele­ men, Epitok 1982) 7.A b2 (7.exd6 .Axd6 8.Ab2? li)xf2, Roger Thomsen) 7 ...dxe5 8.li)c3 (8.'t?xd8+ l::txd8 9.li)xe5? li)xb4!, Thomsen) 8 ...li)xc3 9..Axc3 't?xdl + 1 0. !!xdl ffi l l .g3 a5 12.b5 li)d8 13.Ab2 li)e6 14.li)h4 .ie4 1 5.f3 .ic2 16.l::td2 .ib3 17.f4 e4 18.ig2 li)c5 1 9.*d4 � 20.lf)f5 li)e6 gave Black a clear plus, Chatalbashev ­ Reyhan, Izmir 2002; V) 6.e3 li)xe5 (This is a very solid line. 6.. .lf5 transposes to 5.lf)f3 .lf5 6.e3 l0c6. 6.. .Ag4!? 7.exd6 .Axd6 goes into 4 ... d6 5.exd6 .Axd6 6.e3 l0c6 7.lf)f3 .ig4, treated in Section I ; however, note that 7 .Ae2 can be answered by 7 ,_dxe5 8.0-0 V:!lxd I •.

White has a wide range of moves: I) 6.exd6 (plays into Black 's hands, as usual, Harding) 6 .. .ixd6 (6 ... .if5 5.li)f3 .lf5 6.exd6 li)c6) 7.e3 (7.li)bd2 .if'S see 4.a3 d6 5.exd6 .Axd6 6.li)bd2 .lf5 7 .li)gf3 li)c6 - Section I , while others bring White no joy: 7.b4? li)xf2 8.� .ig3+ 0: I NN Kipke, Germany 1 93 1 ; 7.g3? li)xf2, e.g. 8.� .Axg3+ 0 : 1 Ma­ rinelli - Osmanbegovic, Cannes 1 995, likewise 8.V:!fc2 li)xhl 9.Ag2 li)xg3 1 0. hxg3.Axg3+ l l .cMt .if5, Gruenewald ­ Kratochwill, G ennan y 1997; 7.V:!fc2 .if'S 8.e3 li)g3 9-"D .Axd3 IO.V:!ixd3 Ab4+ 0:1 Laios - Manninen. corr 1991) see 4.a3 d6 5.exd6 .hd6 6.e3 o!Oc6 7.li)gf3 - Section I ; =

-

260

9Jbdl �aS!, rather than 7...�xeS, Sua­ rez - Baumgartner, USA 1996, 7.�xeS .be2 8.'�xe2 dxeS 9.0-0) 7.�xeS dxeS UYxd8+ �xd8 9.�d2 (instead of9�3 �cS 10 ..lc2 aS l l .�e2 c6 12 .�d2 a4 1 3 J�d l �c7 14.�e4 .le6 lS.�cS AxeS 16.�3 f5 17.�c3 e4 1 8.b4 .le7, Johans­ son - Hamalainen, Helsinki 1997) 9 ... � xd2 1 O ..ixd2 c6 1 1 .0-0-0 �c7 leads to equality, Gutman; VI) 6.�bd2 �d2 (6..J.f5 is less effective see S.�f3 .its 6.�bd2 �c6. 6 .. � 7.b4 �e6 will transpose into 4.�bd2 �S S.b4 �e6 6.a3 �c6 7 .�0 d6, a line regarded as good for White - Part 3, Chapter 1 , Section 7 , while 6...�gS 7.�xgS �xgS 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.�e4 �g6 10.�d6+ cxd6 is insufficient due to l l .b3 .ifS 1 U�a2 0-0 1 3J�d2, improving on l l .g3? �e4 12 .�dS �xdS 13 .cxd5 �d4, Pokorny ­ Vavra, Czech Republic 1 998) 7..ixd2 (after 7 .�xd2 Black has three replies: 7...dxeS 8.�xd8+ �xd8 9.e3 .le7 10� e4 l l.�d4, Perk - Jolovicz, Oberstdorf 2002, l l...�xd4 !? 12.exd4 .lffi ; 7...�xeS 8.�xeS dxe5 9.�c2, Hursch - Storgard, e-mail l 998, 9 ..lc5!? 10.e3 aS l l.b3 0-0 12.i.b2 �gS; 7 .. .ig4!?, and now 8.�e3 .le7 9..id2 .lxO IO.exd6 �xd6 l l .�xO �).{)..() 12.ic3 Aft; or 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.�e3+, when instead of9".ie6 IO.b3 0-0 l l ..lb2 J:te8 12.�c3 ifB 1 3.e3 .lg4 14..le2 �d7 l S .0"0, Klose - Schwichtenberg, Ger­ many 1998, 9 .ie7 1 0..id2 �d7 l l ..lc3 0"0"0 1 2 .b4 .if6 1 3 ..lxf6 gxf6 14.�c3 J:the8 could be better) 7...dxeS (7 ... �xeS 8.�xeS dxeS 9..lc3 �xd l+ IO.J:txdl ffi l l .e3 ie6 12.ie 2 '12-'12 Jonsson - Johans­ son, Gotland 1997, yet Black can play on as 12 "..le7 13.b4 0..0 14ltfl a5 I S.bxaS .lxa3 16.1:tbl l:tfb8 shows, Fritz 6 - An Mon, computer game 2001) 8..lc3 �xdl+ 9.J:txd l ffi I O.e3 aS ( I O.. .J.e6 l lltgl hS 12..ld3 O..Q-0 1 3.�h4 gS 14..lf5 J:txdl+ lS .�xdl �d7 16.he6+ �xe6 17.�g6 .

•

•

J:tg8 18.�x�+ J:tx�. Lamprecht - Hoch­ graefe, Germany 1999) I I � (if l l .ie2 .le6 1 2 .0-0, then 12 ... .le7 13 .�d2 0-0 14..l0 J:tfd8, while Deues - Stucke, Pas­ sau 1 999, continued 1 2 ....id6 1 3 .�d2 f5? 14.�0 h6 1S.cS .ixcS 16.�xeS) 1 1... .le6 1 2.�d2 .lb4! (an improvement on 12...ie7 13.Je4 �d8 14.f4 exf4 1S.exf4 c6 16.f5, Klein - List, Nottingham B 1936) 13.�e4 ( 1 3.�bl .le7 1 4.b3 0..0 lS.0-0 J:tfd8) 13 ...ie7 14.�g3 0-0, Gutman; sim­ ilarly VD) 6.g3 .le6!? (6.. ..lt5 goes into S.�O .ifS 6.g3 �c6. 6 ... �xeS gives Black a nice ending after 7.�xeS dxeS 8.�xd8+ �xd8, e.g. 9..le3 .lcS 1 O.ixcS �xeS 1 1 . �d2 a5 1 2.0-0-0 �e7 1 3 .0 .le6 14.e3 J:thd8 1S.�c2 a4 16..le2 .lf5+ 17.e4 .lg6 18iDiel �e6 19.�bl �+ 20.\ttc i , Tot ­ Kostic, Ljubljana 1938, 20 ... ffi 2 1 .�c3 c6, or 9.ig2 �cS IO.lod2 a5 l l.b3 c6 12.i.b2 ffi 1 3.0-0-0 �c7, Sa Griese - Nasralla, Brazil Ch 1980; so White should prefer 7..lg2 �c6 8.0..0 .le7 9.�d4 �xd4 10. �xd4 �ffi l l .b4 0-0 1 2.J.b2 J:te8 13.�d2 J.f8 14.e3 c6 1S.�O d5 with about equal chances, Kunak - Sith, Slovak League 199S) 7.exd6 (7.�bd2 �xd2 8ixd2 dxeS 9.�c2 .le7!? IO.I:tdl �c8 l l ..ig2 .ifS 12.'Wb3 0..0 13.ic3 ffi 14.0-0 .lc5 l S.MS b6 16.�h4 was seen in Magrin - Gay, Ferrara 19S2, and now 16 .. ..ih3 might be played. There is also no argument for 7.�a4 dxe S, for instance 8.�xeS �d4 or 8..le3 .AcS - instead of 8 �cS 9..lxcS AxeS I O.�c3 0-0 l l ..lg2 ffi 1 2.1:tdl �e7 13 .b4 e4 1 4.�xe4 .lxc4, Antonoff- De­ marre , Meudon 1 99 1 , I S .�c2 - 9.�xeS .lxe3 I O.fxe3 �ffi) 7 ..lxc4!? (after 7 ... .ixd6 8.�bd2 �d2 9.�xd2 �d7 IO.�e4 .lxc4 l l .�xd6+ cxd6 12..ig2 0..0 13.0-0 J:tfe8 14..le3 yields some edge for White; 8 ... �S may well be too optimistic due to 9.b4!? �d7 I O.Ab2 0..0 l l ..ig2, while Kuczewska - Bednarska, Nadole 1 99S,

261

•.

•

saw 9.�c2, when instead of 9 ...a5 IO.b3 �d7 l l .Ag2 0-0 12.0-0 gfeS 13lkl .ifll 14.J.b2 �S ISJZadl if5 16.�c3, 9 ...�ffi I O.Ag2 ()..() 1 1.0-0 ru-es would have been obviously more vivid) 8.�bd2 (8.d7+ �xd7 9.�xd7+ c;t>xd7 I O.Ag2 ge8) 8 ... l0xd6 9.l0xc4 l0xc4 IO.�xd8+ (IO.�c2 �dS l l .Ag2 l0d4 1 2.�c3 Acs 1 3 .�h4 �e6 14.Ae3 ().(}..()) IO ...lhd8 l l.Ag2 �7 12.0-0 0-0 is comfy for Black, Gutman; VIII ) 6.�dS appears to be more though.

7 .. .Ae7!? 8.Axe7 �xe7 9.exd6 cxd6 al­ lows the creation of a weak pawn on d6; nevertheless, this line may well be better than its reputation.IO.�bd2 looks already suspect to me, not because of I O ...Ae6 l l .�gS f6 12.�e3 a5 13.g3 0-0 14.Ag2 �f7 IS.�c3 a4 16.0-0 l0a5 17 .&c I tnl.S 1 8.�d4, Pihljamaki - Hoiberg, Eksjo 198S, but due to IO ...f5!. Gugliemi - Lat­ tarulo, La Spezia 1972, went IO.�dl !? Ag4 l l .�c3 Axf3 12.gxf3 �eS, when in place of 13.e4 0-0 14.�S m.4 I S.Ae2 f5 16.b4 �e6 1 7.exf5 gxf5, 13 .e3 0-0 1 4.f4 �g6 I S.Ae2 would secure a plus for White; however, Black should be able to put up more stubborn resistance with I 0 .. if5 l l.e3 �eS, e.g. 12.lOxeS dxeS 13.l0c3 0-0 14.Ae2 &d8 IS.�dS �gS or 12.�c3 �ed3+ 13 .Axd3 �xd3+ 14.c;t>fl l0xb2 IS.�d4 Ad3+ 16.c;t>gl �ffi 17.�xffi gxffi IS.�dS &8 19.�xfti+c;t>d8 20.�d4 �xc4 21.� �s 22�f4.if5 23hlr;t.e7 24.c;t>h2 �c8, improving on 14 ...0-0 IS.�d4 Ag6 16.b3 � 17.� t!lh4, Wendt - Mach, Germany 1 999, 1 8.&2!?) 8.exf6 gxf6 9..ih4 (in response to 9 .Af4 Ae6 I 0.�d I Axc4 l l.�bd2 Black may avoid I L�6 1 2.b4 �e6 13.Ag3 �e7 14.�a4 Ad3 as instead of IS.c;t>dl Ag6 16.e3 Ag7 17.&1 0-0, Titenko - Rosha� USSR 1962, I S.e3 Axfl 16.�xfl , Tseitlin/Giaskov, 1 6 ... �d7 1 7 .� I d2 Ag7 1 8 .0-0 would keep some pressure for White; l l ... Af7!? is more natural, e.g. 12.b4 �e6 13.Ag3 aS 14.bS �eS I S .e3 �cS or 1 2.e3 �eS 1 3 . AxeS fxeS 14.b4 �d7 I S .Ad3 dS 1 6.Af5 e4 17.�d4 �eS 1 8.h4 �7 1 9.�e6 Axe6 20.Axe6 hS 2 l .�b3, Khedkar - Barg, Canada 1997, when 2 l ...�d3+ 22.c;t>e2 �d6 should have been decisive) 9.. .Ae6 IO.�S+!? (IO.�dl Axc4 l l .�bd2 Af7 12.b4 �7) IO...!f7 l l.�f5 Ag7 (l l ...Ae7 1 2.�c3 Axc4 1 3.b4 Ae6 14.�c2 �d7 IS.lObS lOdeS 16.�fd4 �xd4 17.l0xd4) 12.�c3 (12.�bd2 .ig6 1 3.�f4 �e7 14.e3 .

Black has three ways of meeting: A) 6...f5 7.exffi (7.exd6 or 7.b4 may hold

out more chances for Black, see 4.�dS f5 S.�f3 � 6.a3 d6 - Part I, Chapter 6, Section I) 7 ...l0xf6 8 .�d3 (Frantisek Nqu.m/ mentions S.AgS? �xdS 9.hd8 �3 10.fxe3 �d8) 8.�7 9.g3 ()..() IO..ig2 leaves White a pawn ahead, Gutman; B) 6...�cS 7.AgS ffi (In case ofL�d7 is 8.�c3 dxeS 9.�xeS critical, e.g. 9... �xeS IO.�xeS+ �e6 l l .�bS c6 12.gdl ffi 1 3.�xe6+ �xe6 14.�c7+ or 9... �xdS I O.�xdS �e6 1 1 .�0 Ad6 1 2.e3 �eS 13.�xeS AxeS 14..M4 ix1"4 1 S.�xf4 �xf4 1 6.exf4; this is surely more convincing than 8.exd6?! �b3 9.&2 Axd6 IO.�bd2 �xd2 l l .Axd2 �e7 12.e3 Ae6 13 .�gS f6 14.ti'hS+ Af7 I S .�bS 0-0 16.�xb7 �e4 1 7.&1 &b8 1 8.�a6 gxb2 19.Ae2 �eS 20.0-0? l0xf3+ 2 l .Ax f3 �eS and Black won, Papp - Fabri, Hungary 1999.

262

0-0-0 1S�e2 .id3 16.b4 ltle6 1H!Vg4 hS 1 8.�h3 Axe2 1 9.';txe2 �b8 20J�he 1 ? ltlf4+ 0 : 1 de Leroy - Kleine, W eilburg 1 99S, or 1 2.b4 ltle7 13.�c2 .ig6 ld!Vdl ltle6 1S.e3, Maidana Guerra - Martinez Bejarano, e-mai1 200 1 , 1 S ... f5 1 6.ltld4 ed7 are both less challenging) 1 2...ltle7 13.ec2hc4 14.b4 ltld7 1S.e4 .ixfl (IS ... J.f7 16.ltlbS ltlc6 17 �c4 Axc4 18.exc4 a6 19.ltlbd4) 16�xfl ltleS (16 ... ltlfl! 17. ltld4 ed7 1 8.ltldS ltlxdS 19.exdS 0-0-0 20.0-0-0) 17.ltlxeS (17 .ltld4 ed7 18.ltldS ltlxdS 19.exd5 0-0) 17 ...dxe5 18�dl ec8 1 9 .0 0-0 with counterplay, Gutman; C) 6 ....ifS ! ? is more intriguing.

dxc6 b6) 9.. �d8 10.e3 ltlxeS l l.ltlxeS jr.7 12.ltld3 Af6 13.0 ltlg3 14hxg3 .ixd3 1S.ltlc3 Axt1 1 6. �xfl Axc3+ 17.bxc3 �d3, Gutman; C2) 7.exd6 ltlxd6 8�gS (a more compli­ cated game results from 8.ltlbd2 �Ri!?: 9.e4 0-0-0 I O.exf5 ltlxf5 affords Black a strong attack, for instance l l .ltle4 eg6 12.ltleS ltlxeS B.exeS ltld4 14�4 ltlc2+ 1S.<.tle2.id6 16.ltlxd6+ �d6 0: 1 Kusku­ lic - Durica, Slovakia 2000, or l t .ee4 Axa3 12�e2 �e8 13.eb l .ib4 14.�fl ltlfd4 1 S.id3 �b8; 9.cS ltlc8 might be a bit safer and now IO.eb3 AxeS t t .exb7 ltlb6 12.e4id7 13.exc7 id6 14.eb7 ltleS ts.ea6 0-0 or 1 O.e3 ltl8e7 l t .ec4 ltlg6 12..ie2 ltlgeS 13.ltlxeS exeS 14.ltlb3 jr.6 ts.ea4 ids 16.0-o o-o-o) 8 ed7 (8 ... ffi 9M4 ltle7 10.ed1 ltlc6 1 1 .e3 gS 12bd6 .ixd6 13.ltlc3 ee7 14.ltldS en 1 S.eb3 �b8 16.�d1 �fl! 17.ec3 ltleS 18.ltlxgS fxgS 19.cS &8 20�e2 hS 2 l.f4 ltlg6 22. cxd6 brought White success, Ramirez Guzzardo, corr 1996) 9.ltlbd2 Ri IO�f4 0-0-0 t l .cS ( l l .l0d4 ltlxd4 t2.exd4 �b8 13�e3 ltlc8 14.exd7 .ixd7 1 S.g3 ltld6 16.o ltlf5 11m g6 18.e4 .th6!) t t..ltle4 12.exd7+ �d7 13.ltlxe4 Axe4 14.b4 gS 1S�e3 .lg7 16.ltld2 AdS, Gutman; CJ) 7.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 8�xd2 (8.exd2 dxeS 9.e3 ef6 1 o.ec3 Ae7 1 1 �2 0-0 12.0-0 m'd8 13�1 �d 1+ 14bd1 �8 1S..ic2, Sieber - Glasewa1d, corr 1986, t s_eg6!) 8 ... dxeS 9.e4 (9.ebS ed6, for example lO.ltlxeS?, Capablankanot - Badkanna, internet 200 1 , 1 o ...exeS 1 1 .exb7 �d7 12.exa8 .lb4 1 3 .exc6+ �xc6 14.axb4 exb2 or I O�b4 ee6 1 1 �xfl! Wxfl! 12. exb7 �b8 1 3 .exc7 �xb2 14.e3 g6) 9... Ae6 (after 9 .. �g4 1 0�e2 AxO 1 1 bO exdS 12.cxdS ltld4 the game simplifies) t o.ebs ( l O.exd8+ �xd8 t l .Ae2 Ae7 12.Ae3 0-0 13.0-0, Andre - Musielak, corr 1987, 13 ..ltld4) 10...Uc8 ll..ie2 a6 12. eb3 .hS are all fine for Black, Gutman. .•

C l) 7 �f4 dxeS (7 ... gS 8.ltlxgS? ltlxgS

9.exd6 effi I O.dxc7 exb2 l t .exf5 ltle6 1 2 .Ub5 exal 1 Hbb7 .ib4+ 14.axb4 exbl+ 1 S.�d2 0-0 0 : 1 was the game Mazza - Fontana, corr 1949, but after 8.exd6 the advantage passes to White, e.g. 8...gxf4 9.'�xf5 ltlxd6 I o.exf4 .ig7 l l.cS ltJc8 12.ltlc3 ().0 1 3lldl ee7 14.ef5 &8 lS.ltlgS ltJeS 16.ltldS exeS 17.exh7+ 1 :0 Keller - Schmitz, corr 1 99S, or 8 ... effi 9.d7+ c.t>d8 IO.exe4, Hager - Woer­ ner, Germany 2000) 8.AxeS (8.ltlxeS? UxdS 9.cxdS ltld4, Valles Moreno - Ba­ ron, Spain 199S) 8.�cS 9."f:bd8+ (9.e3 ee7!, e.g. 10bg7 l0xt2 1 1.� exe3+ 12.�g3 .id6+ or IO.ltlc3 ltlxc3 l l .bxc3 � 12bg7 �xdS 13.cxd5 �g8 14.

263

.

IX) 6,j,f4 is underesti111llted in the books and needs careful attention, Harding.

14.lilxe4�xe4 JS,j,e2 h5 16.0-0 h4 1 7.h3 idS 1 8.gfd l �b8 19.�1 lileS, Ronne­

W e examine: A) 6.. ,j,g4 7.�d5 lilcS 8.exd6 cxd6 9.lilc3 ie6 1 o.�dt .hc4 t t .lild2 ie6 t2.e3 g.;8 13.b4 lild7 14.lilde4 lildeS I S .lildS (with advantagefor White thanks to his domi­ nation over the d5-square, lA/ic) I S .. .h6

J6,j,e2 f5 17.lilec3 g6 1 8.0-0 !g7 19.&1 0-0 20.lilbS �h8 2 1 ,j,g3 ge8 22.lilf4 dS 23.lilxe6 �e6 241!cS �e7 2Sl!xdS gfB 26.f4 a6 27.fxeS axbS 28.gd7!? (instead of 28.gxbS lilxeS 29.�dS b6, Barsov ­ Reindennann , Pwmerend 1993) 28 ...�e8 29.gxb7 lilxeS 30.�dS is clearly awk­ ward for Black, Gutman; 8)6.. J.e6 7.exd6 (7.e3 transposes to 4.a3 '116 S,j,f4 !e6 6.e3, treated in Section I. 7.�c2 if5? 8.lilc3 lilg3 9.e4lilxhl IO.exf5 dxeS J J ,j,e3 �d7 12.�1 td6 13.cS was a disaster for Black in Plant - de Kruif, Guernsey 2002, but 7 ...dxeS is the right answer, e.g. 8.lilxeS? lild4 9.�xe4 !5 IO.lilc6+ !xe4 l l .lilxd8 lilc2+ 1 2.�d2 gxd8+ 1 3 .�cl lilxa l , Fraser - Clarke, Blackpoo l l988, or 8.�xe4 exf4 9.�xf4 !d6 1 0.�e4 �ffi l l .lilc3 0-0-.Q 12.e3 tf5 13.eb4 !eS 14.�xffi !xf6 IS .gc) lilaS J6,j,e2 lilb3 1 7.gdJ !c2) 7 ...�f6 8.�cl !xd6 (if 8 ... lilaS 9.d7+ !xd7 I O.�e3) 9,j,xd6 lilxd6 I O.e3 0-0-0, Thomsen, I I. lilbd2 gS ( I I ...�g6 1 2.�c3 f6 1 3.cS lile4

land - Svenn, Sweden 1 998, 201!d4 �15 2 1 .gcd l ) 1 2.�c3 ( 1 2.b4 g4 1 3 .cS lilfS 14.lile4 �e7 IS.lilfd2 lilh4 1 6.bS lileS 17.�c3 idS favours Black) 12 ...�xc3 (the benefit of playing 1 2...�e7 is shown by 1 3 .cS lilf5 14.!bS!? lilcd4 I S .lilxd4 lilxd4 16.a4 tf5 1 7.0-0) 1 3 .bxc3 g4 14. lild4 lileS I S .cS with the better ending for White, Gutman; C) 6 .. ,j,f5 !? 7.exd6 (H!ldS returns into S ... &6 6.�dS !fS7.!f4, see VIIICJ. 7.lilbd2 can be met by 7 ...lilxd2 8.�xd2 dxeS, e.g. 9.�xd8+ �d8 IO.lilxeS? lilb4 or9.lilxeS �xd2+ IO.�d2 td6 l l .lilxc6 .hf4+ 12.e3 !gS 13.lild4 0-0-0 14.�el ie4 JS,j,e2 tffi ) 7...�ffi! (7 ...gS? 8.�dS transposes to S ...lilc6 6.�dS !f5 7.!f4 gS 8.exd6 - VJIICJ. Less appealing is also 7....hd6 8bd6, e.g. 8...�xd6 9.�xd6 lilxd6 IO.e3 0-0-.Q l l .lilbd2 h6 J2,j,e2 gS 13.h3 !g6, Notheisen - Bringsken, corr 1997, 14.cS lile4 I S.lilxe4 .he4 1 6.b4, or 8 ...cxd6 9.e3 0-0 I O,j,e2 �ffi 1 1 .�3 lilcS 12.�c3 �xc3+ 13 .lilxc3 lild3+ 14. .hd3 .hd3 IS.b3 lileS 16.�2. Voigt ­ Petzenhauser, Germany 2000) 8.�cl !? (best in view of: 8.dxc7? !c5 9.e3 �xb2 IO.�bd2 &3 I I .� cl .ha3, 8.lilbd2 .hd6 9.lilxe4 .he4 J O,j,xd6 0-0-0, 8.�3 .hd6 9,j,xd6 �xd6 IO.lilc3 0-0-0 ) J .gd) �cS 121!xd8+ �d8 13.e3 �a5 14,j,e2 !g4or 8.lilc3 �xc3 9.�3 .hd6 JO,j,xd6 cxd6 l l .�xc3 �xc3+ 12.bxc3 g c8 13.e3 �e7 14.lild4 ie6) 8_bd6 9bd6 �xd6 1 0.e3 (on IO.lilc3 0-0-.Q l l .b4 mte8 12.e3 lileS 13.lilxeS �xeS 14.lilxe4 �xe4) Y2-Y2 Jor­ gensen - Dausch, Copenhagen 1 99S, yet Black can play for more with 10 ...0-0-0 l l.lilbd2 mae8 12.�e4 (J2,j,e2 ltlxd2 1 3. �xd2 �ffi 14.�c3 �xc3+ IS.bxc3 lileS) 1 2 .. .J.xe4 J 3,j,e2 .hf3 !? 14 . .hf3 �eS IS .!e2 lild3+ 1 6.!xd3 �xd3 1 7 .�dl �xc4 1 8.�e2 �d3 1 9.gc) f5, Gutman;

264

D) 6 ...g5 !? seems more forcing, when: Dl) 7.�bd2 �xf2 8.Axg5 �xdl 9.Axd8

�e3 IO..iffi ggs I I .& I �g4 ( l l ...�xg2+ 12.Axg2 gxg2 13.�e4 gg4 1 4.�f2 ggs 15 .�d3 j.f5, Fernandez - Unutia, lber­ caja 1 997) 1 2.h3 �gxe5, Gutman; 02) 7.ig3 ig7 8.e3 h5 !? (8 �xg3 9.hxg3 �xe5 IO.�xe5 he5 l l .�c3 ixc3+ 1 2. bxc3 effi 13.ed4, Bad Wiking - Com­ puter, computer game 1997) 9 .exd6 cxd6 I O.ed5 ee7 1 1 .&2 h4 12.Ae5 dxe5 13. exe4 f5 14.ec2 e4 1 5.�fd2ie6, Gutman; 03) 7 ..icl g4 8.�fd2 �xd2 9.�xd2 �xe5 I O.g3 ee7 I I.ec2 1d7 ( I I...ih6 12.Ag2 bd2+ 13.ixd2 �f3+ 14.Axf3 exf3, Reilly - Kenn.dy, Dublin 1998, 15.J.e3 fxe2 I6.exe2 ggs is level) 12.ig2 04{1 1 3.0-0 h5, Gu/mmr; 04) 7.ed5 gxf4 (7 ... if5?! goes into 5 ... �c6 6.ed5 af5 7.if4 g5 - VIIICI) 8. exe4 dxe5 9.�c3 (If 9.g4, then 9...ed6 1 0.g5 eg6 I I.�c3 if5 I2.ed5 1d6 1 3.h4 0-0-0; this is more consistent than 9 ...h5 I O.g5 f5 l l .gxffi exffi 1 2 .�c3, and now not J 2_ .Af5 13 .�d5 Ab4+ I4.axb4 etB 1 5 .�xc7+ �d8 16.�e6+ �e7 17.exc6 bxc6 1 8.�xf8, Hubert - Kramps, Ger­ many 1 997' but 12 ... ef5 13 _gg) exe4 14.�xe4 h7 1 5.�c3 ig4 1 6.�d5 gcs. In case of9.g3 f5 I O.ed5 Black has no reason to avoid 10 ...e4 I I .exd8+ �xd8 12.�h4 ig7 13.�c3 bc3+ 14.bxc3 fxg3 1 5.hxg3 0-0 1 6.�g2 ie6 17.e3 �6 18. g}J6, Poulsen - Soby, Aarhus 198 1 , 18 ... if7 1 9.gbJ �e5 20.ie2 gabS 2 U :lb5 �g7 22lnll rues , though IO...eft> l l .gxf4 e4 1 2.�e5 ig7! 13.�xc6 bxc6 14.ee5+ exe5 15.fxe5he5 16.�c3 bc3+ 17.bxc3 gb8 is reasonable) 9 ... f5 (9 .. .f6 I Olidl ee7 l l.�d5 en 12.�xf4 1d7 13.ed5?! ee7 14.�h5 0-0-0 15 .�g3 f5 16.e3 f4 17.�2if5 18.eb5 �dl+ 19.�dl fxe3 20.fxe3 ih6 took place in Soderstrom Lopez de Turiso, Moratalaz 200 I , yet B.� 0-0-0 t4.g3 f5 t 5.ee3 Ag7 t6.ih3 •.

turns the tables. Lemaire - de Wolf, Bel­ gium 1 950, continued 9 .J!Ie7 I O.�d5 f5 l l .�xe7 fxe4 12.�xc6 bxc6 1 3 .�2 e3 14.fxe3 fxe3 15.�e4 if5 I6.�c3, when J6...gJ,S J7.g3 gxb2 18.Ag2 �d7 19.0-0 ig4 might be good for Black, yet White equalizes with I I .ed3 eg7 1 2.e4 fxe3 13.exe3 .ic6 I4.eg5 !?hd5 I 5.cxd5 �d4 I6.eb5+ eg6 1 7.exg6+ hxg6 I8 .�xd4 exd4 19.()..0-0 , improving on 14.ie2 ()..0-0 15.().0-0 Y:!lh6 16.�bl exe3 17.�xe3 ggs 1 8.gxd8+ �d8 1 9.g3 �c8 20.gdl id6 2 1 .�h4 gf8 22.�hxf5, Schober - Schut­ trich, corr 1973, 22..� 23..fuf5 h5+) I o.ed5 (I o.ec2? e4, e.g. I l .�xe4 fxe4 12.exc4+ ee7 13.exf4ig7 14.().0-0 ruB, Medghoul - Chaderon, Marseilles 200 I , or I J .gdJ id7 1 2.�d4 �xd4 J 3_gxd4 ig7 I4JU1I eh4 I5.ed2 0-0-0 I6.e3 J.a4 0: 1 Baker - Bisguier, New York 1 954) 1 o...ee7 ( 1 o...eft> I I .�b5 1d6 I2.c5 .ie6 13.�xd6+cxd6 14.exd6? MI I5.ec7 M7 left White lost in Diehm - Rabovszky, Passau 1 997, yet 1 1 .0-0-0 a6 - l l ...e4 is premature due to 12.�b5 id6 13.�xd6+ cxd6 14.�d4 -, 1 2.ed2 keeps the bal­ ance, for instance 12 ...Ae6 13.�d5 Axd5 14.cxd5 0-0-0 15.ec3 ed6 J 6_gd2 �e7 17.exe5 or 12 .. .Ac5 1 3.�d5 eg7 1 4.g3 fxg3 1 5.hxg3 ixf2 1 6.eb6) 1 1 .0-0-0 e4 (Hajek - Vlasin, Czech League 1 990, went I I ...Ag7 12.g3 e4 13.�h4 bc3 14. bxc3 .ie6 15.eb5 exa3+ 16.eb2 exb2+ 17.�xb2 �e5, but we can improve with 1 2.�5!? a6 13.ea4 1d7 I4.�d5 �d4 I5.eM exb4 I6.axb4 �e6 I7.g3) 12.� �e5 13.�5+ c6 14.ea4 id7, Gutman; D5) 7.ie3 g4 8.�fd2 (8.� dxe5 9.�xc6 exdl + IO.�dl bxc6) 8...�xd2 9.exd2 �xe5 10.ec2 ig7 (I o._j,d7 I l .b3 ig7 12.�c3 ic6 13.gd) ef6 14.�d5 ixd5 15.cxd5 0-0 16.g3 gave White a plus, Do­ bosz - Voekler, Cuxhaven 1993) l l .�c3 ( l l .g3 d5 !?) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.b3 id7 and I would prefer Black, Gutman.

265

X) 6.tvc2 is highly annoying as the knight on e4 is forced to declare itselj; Lalic.

There are three options: A) 6...d5 (in fact a best practical chance, Harding) reaches a position after 4 ...d6 S .tvc2 dS 6.ltlf.3 ltlc6 - Section 1 ; B) 6_ltlc5 (according to Tseit/in/Giilskov this is the only line enabling Black to organise resistance, yet not a pleasant one, Harding) will transpose into 4 ...d6

1 6.gfdl l!Ud 8 1 7.tve4 aS 1 8.J.h3 axb4 19.be6 fxe6 20.tvxe6+ �h8 2 1 .rus bxa3 22.ltlg5 1 :0 Smejkal - Popovic, Novi Sad 1976) 1 O.exd6 (l O.ie3 g6 l l .tvf6 tvxf6 12.exf6 ltld7 l3.ig2 ltlxf6 14.ltld4 ltld8 15.ltlb5 �d7 16.0-0-0 a6 17.ltlc3 ltlc6 led to a draw, Pons - Bellon, Palma de Mal­ lorca 1 992) lO .bd6 l l .ie3 tve7 12.ig2 is clearly in White 's favour, Gutman; CJ) 7...ltlg3 8.e4 with another branch: CJa) 8. .ixe4 9.ltlxe4 ltlxhl 10.exd6 (Af­ ter I O.g4 tvd7 l l .ig2 tvxg4 12.ixhl dxeS 13 .ltlg3 0-0-0 14.ltlg5 ltld4 1 5 .tvc3 fS 16.l0n f4 15.h3 tvxh3 Black was doing fine in JebStuart - Caissa, internet 2002. IO.igS is a much better try, for instance 10... tvc8 l l.exd6 cxd6 12.0-0-0 ffi l 3..Ae3 f5 1 4.ltlc3 g6 1 5 .id3 ltlxf2 1 6.ixf2 as in Fuchs - Schroeter, e-mail 200 1 ; or lO ...J.e7 l l .ixe7 - in reply to l l .cxd6 Black plays not l l ...cxd6 12 .().().() J.xgS+ 1 3 .ltlfxg5 �18 14.ltlf.3, Blankerberg ­ Malmstrom, corr 2001, but l l .. .bgS 12. ltlfXg5 h6 l3.ltlf.3 f5 14.ltlc3 tvxd6 15.tvxf5 gf8 16.tve4+ tve7 1 7.tvxe7+ �xe7 1 8. 00+ �7 19.J.d3, Mischenka - Stein, Passau 1 998, 19 ...gae8+ 20.ltle3 �c8 2l.�fl ltle5 -, l l...tvxe7 1 2.exd6 cxd6 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.id3 ltlxf2 15.ixf2, van Bommel - Boisgard, e-mail 200l) lO ...fS (IO.. .bd6 l l.g3 tve7 12..Ae3 ().().() l3.ig2 ltlxg3 14.ltlxd6+ �d6 1 5.hxg3, Peze ­ JobStuart, internet 2002, or 1 O cxd6 1 1 . g4d5 12.cxd5 tvxdS l3Jg2 l0xf2 14.� ie7 15.if4gd8 16.&10-0 17.ltleg5 tvd3 18 .tvxd3 gxd3 1 9.ifl !?, Ottenweller ­ Heesen, e-mail 2001, are both unenvia­ ble for Black) l l .J.e3 ( l l .igS tvd7 is worth attention: 12.0-0-0 fxe4 l3.tvxe4+ fails to l 3 .. .ie7 14.dxe7 tvxdl+, yet 12. gdl !? looks promising, e.g. 1 2 ...fxe4 l 3.tvxe4+ �n 14.c5 g6 1 5.J.c4+ �g7 16.tvh4, Mason - Mack, corr 1 980, or 12 ...cxd6 1 3.ltlc3 h6 14.ie3 J.e7 15.id3 ().() 16.�) 1 Lad6 ( l l .bd6 12.ltlxd6+ •

S.tvc2 lOcS 6.ltlf.3 ltlc6 - Section 1 ; C) 6 .. .i.f5 7.ltlc3 (7.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 8.tvxd2

goes into 4 ...d6 5.ltlf.3 ltlc6 6.tvd5 .if'S ·7.ltlbd2 ltlxd2 8.tvxd2 - V/1/CJ, while 7 ... ltlg3? 8.e4 ltlxhl 9.exf5 dxeS 10.ltle4 J.e 7 l l .ie3 0-0, Hennesmann - Biga1ke, Hamburg 2001 , is well met by 12.id3. After 7.tvb3 Black has a choice between 7...tvd7 8.exd6 ixd6 and 7... ltlc5 8.tve3 J.e7 9.exd6 tvxd6 1 0.ltlc3 0-0-0 l l .b4 ltlb3 12..&2 ltlbd4 13.l0d5 ltlxf3+ 14.tvxf.3, Schwertel - Seifert, corr 1 992, 14 ... l0d4) is quoted as hopeless for Black. We see: Cl) 7 ... d5 8.cxd5 ltlxc3 9.tvxf5 ltlxd5 is ruled out by IO.igS tvd7 l l .tvxd7+ �xd7 12.0-0-0 ( l 2.g3 h6 l3.J.h3+ �e8 14 .e4, Maugg - Gneuss, Dresden 200 1 ) 1 2 ... �e6 l3 .e4 ltlb6 1 4.g3, Gutman; C2) 7...ltlxc3 8.tvxf5 ltla4 9.g3 (9.tvc2 is probably not weaker, viz. 9 ...lOcS I O.b4 ltle6 l l .exd6 J.xd6 12.tb2 0-0 l3.e3 tve8 14.ie2 ltlb8 1 5.h4c5 16.().().0 J.e7 17.ltlg5 ltlxgS 1 8.hxg5 g6 1 9.EW17 1 :0 Davies ­ Gatland, Trondheim 1 997. Less clear is 9.e6 f6 10.e3 because of 10 ...g6 l l .tvbS lOcS 1 2.ltld4 a6 13.ltlxc6 tvc8 14.ltla7+ axbS 1 5.ltlxc8 b4; however, Bondick ­ Powchmann, corr 1991, went lO ...tve7, when instead of l l .eb5 ltlc5 1 2.l0d4 a6 l 3 .ltlxc6 axbS 14.ltlxe7 ixe7 15.cxb5 dS 16.ie2 f5 17 .J.d2 J.f6 18.ic3 ixc3+ 19. bxc3 �e7, l l .ltld4 ltlc5 12.ltlxc6 bxc6 l3.tvf.3 could have been strong) 9...ltlc5 (9.. .J.e7 1 o.tvc2 ltlc5 l l .b4 ltle6 12.exd6 cxd6 l3.ig2 0-0 14.0-0 gcS 15.ib2 eb6

266

•.

exd6 13.g3 ee6 14.0-0-0 ee4 I S.J.g2, Lo Conte - Bar, internet 200 I ) 12.1Dc3 ed7 1 3 .0-0-0, Gutman; similarly CJb) B-.IDxh l 9.ext5dxeS (In case of9... IDxeS White has some good possibilities. IO.lDxeS dxeS, e.g. ll.g3 ii:S 12�3 .he3 t3JXe3 egS I4.ee4 o.o ts.�De2 c6 I6.!g2 1Dxg3 17.hxg3 ee7 18J).Q.O, Schneider ­ Jaeger, corr 199S, or I I .J.e3, Harding, I I ...� 12.0-0-0 J.e7 13.1DdS - not 13. ee4?, Hamrakulova - Mourut, Oropesa del Mar 2000, 13 ...1Dxf2-, ILJ.d8 14.g3 ex112 IS.ee4 0-0 16.eg2 exg2 17 .ixg2. Jerzy Konikowski gives I O.J.e3 1Dxf3+ l l .gill � 12.ee4+ exe4 13.fxe4, fur­ ther IO.ee4, when neither IO ... c6 l i .J.e3 �7 12.1DxeS dxeS 13.g3 1 :0 Simchen ­ Beutel, corr 1987, nor IO ...ee7 I I .tO are enjoyable, e.g. l l ... exf6 1 2.1DdS eds 13.1DxeSdxeS 14.exe5+ 'it>d? Is.Ags ees 16.1De7 or l l ...gKffi 12�3 � 13.exe7+ Jxe7 14.g3 1DeS IS.lDxeS - IS.IDh4!? c6 16.J.e2 �d7 1 7.0-0-0, Gutman -, I S ... fx.eS 16.ig2 1Dxf2 17 .�xf2 c6 18.J.e4) I O.ie3 (GerdSchqJpd prefers IO..igS!? J.e7 l l.:d I ecs 12.ie3 0-0 1 3 .g4 gds 14.1DdSJ.d6 1S.ig2 1Dxf2 16.�. The immediate I O.g3 !? is not bad either, e.g. IO...IDd4 1 1 .1Dxd4 exd4 12.1De4 ed7 13 . .ig2 1Dxg3 14.txg3 ().0.{J IS.J.f4 d3 16.eb3 c6 17.0-0-0 f6 1 8.1Df2, Luciano - Bad­ kann a, internet 2002, or IO .. .J.cS l l .IDe4 ltld4 12.1Dxd4.hd4 13.Jg2 1Dxf2 14.1Dxf2 c6 I S.lDe4 0-0 16.J.d2, JebStuart - EmK, internet 2003) IO ...ie7 (10 ...1Dd4 can be met by I I.ee4 1Dxf3+ 12.exo c6 13.g3, although 1 1 .1Dxd4 exd4 1 2.ee4+ J.e7 13 ..ixd4 0-0 14.0-0-0 J.f6 I S.g3 is pos­ sible, e.g. IS ...J.xd4 16.&d4 effi 17 .Bd2 ru-eS t s.exhl &I+ 19�1 �s 2o.eo, Rewitz - Soby, Denmark 1990, or IS ... ges 1 6.J.e3 exdl + 1 7.�xdl gxe4 18. 1Dxe4 .h b2 19.a4 J.d4!? 20.J.g2 J.xe3 2 1 .fxe3 gtd8+ 2 2.�e2 1Dxg3+ 23.h xg3. Others are even worse: IO .. f6 l l.cS 1De7 .

.

12.J.c4 g6 13.l::td l ebs 14.1DxeS! , Lin­ demann - Stroppa, Leinfeld 2000 ; IO...h6 l l .g4 1Dd4 12.1Dxd4 exd4 1 3.ee4+ ee7 14.ixd4 c6 IS.Jgl exe4+ 16.1Dxe4 1Dxf2 17.�. Wendland - Stroeher, oorr 199S; IO...J.d6 1 1 .0-0-0 ecs 12.cS J.e7 13.J.bS 1Dxf2 14.J.xf2 ().0 IS.ixc6 bxc6 16.1DxeS, Schippel) I I _gdl ( l l .id3 1Dd4 12.J.xd4 exd4 13.1De4, Choudry - Tay, Selangor 198 1, is unclear on account of 13 ...g6!?. I I .ee4 0-0 - l l ...g6 1 2.1DxeS IDxeS 13 .exes o.o I4.J.d4 ffi 1s.ee6+ �m I6.fxg6 hxg6 17.0-0-0 ed6 ts.exd6 .hd6 19�2 and White won, Maxxx - Blitzmich, in­ ternet 2002-, 12.J.d3 appears to be more effective as 12 ... f6 13.0-0-0 lDxf2 14.J.xf2 ec8 1S .g4 gd8 1 6.gH �d7 17 .1DdS e� 1 8.1Df4 ees 19.1De6 �h8 20J�gl J.fB 21 .gxf6 gxf6 22.eh4, Montag - Heyer, corr 199S, or 1 2 .J.f6 13.0-0-0 IDd4 1 4. .fuht lDxfl ts.!¢3 c6 I6J�gi ed7 t7.J.c2 ru-d8 18.eg4 �h8 19.1De4, Konikowski, demonstrates) l l ...eb8 ( 11...ec8 12.1DdS ffi 13.J.d3 0.0, Ford - Penoyer, Califor­ nia 1992, 14.�2 1Dxf2 IS.�) 12.J.d3 ( 12.1DdS 0-0 13.1DxeS IDxeS 14.1Dxe7+ �h8 IS.ffi gds I6.J.gS gxdl+ 17 .exdl IDg6 1 8.1Xg7+ �g7 19.ed4+, Meister ­ Roth, Germany 1 996) 1 2 ...0-0 13.�e2 1Dd4+ 14..ixd4 exd4 1 S .IDe4and Black lacks a respectable defence, Gutman. C4) 7...1Dxt2!? s.ext5 (8.e4 1Dxhl 9.ext5, Wendland - Piegeler, corr 1994, 9...1DxeS I O.ee4 J.e7 brings White little profit, e.g. l l .IDdS c6 1 2.1Dxe7 exe7 13.1DxeS exeS 14.exeS+dxeS I S.g3 hS 16.Jg2 h4 17 .g4 1Dg3 1 8.hxg3 h3 or l i .IDxeS dxeS 12�3 JM+ 13.g3 1Dxg3 14.exe5+ ee7 I S.exe7+ �e7 1 6.hxg3 .hg3+) 8 1Dxhl (8...g6 9.ec2 1Dxhl I O.J.gS J.e7 I I.J.xe7 1Dxe7 12.1De4 1Dc8 13.ec3 0-0 14.1Df6+ �g7 I S .gdl lDb6 16.1De4 dS 17 .1Df6 c6 1 8.b3 ! ee7 19.cS IDeS 20.g4 b6 2 l .b4 brought White success in Teichmann ­ Resoy, corr 1992, though 9.ef6 exf6

267

•

.•

IO.exffi ltlxhl l l .b4 h5 12.g3 h4 13.gxh4 l0e5 14.l0e5 dxeS 15.Ag2 is my favourite) reaches the critical position.

0-0-0 13.Ag2 l0xg3 14.hxg3 l0a5 15.l0d5 J.ffi 16.Ag5, Bergen - Kleinsasser, Fin­

kestein 1992, or ILhS, Donner - Persitz, Cheltenham 1953, 13..lg2, when neither 13 •.h4 14.lOdS idS 15.gdl4 W 16.Axhl l0xc4 17.b3 l0e5 JS.l0xe5 dxe5 19 ..ig5, nor 13 ...l0xg3 14.hxg3 l0a5 15.l0d5 .idS 16.Ag5 are sufficient) l l...h6 (Black has nothing better: l l ...�f7 12.g3 je7 13.Ag2 l0xg3 14.hxg3 �g6 1 5.l0g5 gfll 16.Ae4 �ffi 17 ..if4 �d4 IS.�xc6+!, Wimmer ­ Heer, corr 19SS; l l ...g6 and now 1 2.Ag5 �f7 1 3.g3 .ig7 14.Ah3 .ixc3+ I 5.bxc3 h6, Melchor- Bischof, corr 1991, J6,jd2, or 1 2.g3 .ig7 13.Ag2 l0xg3 1 4.hxg3 h6 15.�d3 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 �ffi 171ful 0-0-0 9.e6 (Apart ftom this move there are at JS.l0d4, Tomukus - Antiridge, internet least two oChers that deserve examination 2003; l l ...�d7 12.g3 .ie7 13.Ag2 l0xg3 9.g3 dxeS? I O.l0xe5 l0xe5 l l .�xeS+ Y!ie7 14.hxg3 �g4 1 5 ..if4 gfli J6.lO� .ixgS 17.�xg5, Gill - Dyce, Isle of Man 1 994) J Hbe7+ .ixe7 13.Ag2 l0xg3 14.Axb7 gbs 1 5 .Ac6+ 'i!;lfll t6.hxg3 left Black in 12.g3 gS (1 2...0-0-0 1 3.l0h4 �ffi 14.�xhl disarray, Harding - A .Vajda, Budapest g5 t 5.Ah3+ 'i!;lbS J6.l0f5, e.g. 1 6 ...ggs 2000, yet 9.. .ie7!? I 0-2 l0xg3 l l.hxg3 17.�d5 l0e7 IS.l0xe7 .ixe7 1 9.ie3 �e5 0-0 12M4 dxeS 13.l0xe5 l0xe5 14..ixe5 20.Ad4, de Groot - Schilperood, corr c6 I H�'g4 g6 looks more logical to me. 19S7, or 1 6...�e5 17.�d5 geS I S.e4 .ie7 9.Ag5 Y!icS IO.�xcS+ �c8 l l.g3 is best 19.l0xe7 Y!ixe7 20 . .ie3 ghfll 2 l .c5 W6 answered by l l ...h6 12-*cl lOaS 13.00 220-0-0, Schneider - Markus, corr 199 5) h5 !? 14.Ag2 h4 1 5.gxh4 dxe5 16 ..ixh l 13 ..ig2 l0xg3 J4 .hxg3 .ig7 ( 1 4 ... 0-0-0 gxh4 1 7 .b4 gxh2 IS ..if3l0c6) 9... fxe6 l5.l0d4, Borilc) 15.Ah3 lOe5!? ( 1 5 ... lOdS (less appealing are 9...ffi IO.g3 g6 l l .Y!ib5 J6.Jd2 c6 17.�f5 l0f7 1S.040 'i!fdS 19.c5 a6 12.�xb7 lOaS 13.� c6 14..ig2 l0xg3 �7 20.cxd6+ l0xd6 2l .�c5 .ixc3 22J.xc3 15 .hxg3 dS 16.�a4 dxc4 1 7.Af4 gcs I S. b6 23.�eS :sheS 24.�xe7+ �e7 25.Ae5, Udl I :0 EtcChess - JebStuart, internet Ros - Schneider, corr 1995, or 15 ...Axc3+ 2002, and 9...�ffi I O.exf7+ �xf7 l l.Y!ixf7+ 1 6.bxc3 �f6 17 . .ib2 gds, EtcChess ­ JebStuart, internet 2003, I S.0-0-0 l0e5 eM llg3 � 13.igl l0b3 14l!bl l0xcl 1 5 .gxcl l0xg3 16.hxg3 .ie7 17.l0d4 c6 19.c5, are both worse) 16.id2 (1 6.�xb7 J S .l0e4, Bellmann - Jaeger, corr 1 997) 0-0) 1 6 ...c6 (instead of 16 ...g4? 1 7 .Axg4 I O.Y!ixe6+ �e7 l l .�dS ( l l .�xe7+ .ixe7 h5 J S.Af5 c6 19.�e4 'i!;ldS 20.l0g5 .i£6 12.g3 l0a5 1 3 ..ig2 l0xg3 14.hxg3 c6!? 21 .l0e6+ 'i!;lcS 22.0-0-0 'i!;lbS 23..if4 b6 15 .l0d2 .iffi 1 6.l0ce4 .ie5 J 7.gb) dS I S. 24.'i!;lbt I :0 Reshevsky - Bisguier, New cxdS cxd5 1 9.l0c3 .ixg3+ 20.'i!;ldt 0-0-0, York 1954/5 5) 1 7.�e4 l0xf3+ I S.exf3 improving on 14 ... l0xc4 1 5.l0d4! gbs (IS.�xt3 ruB 19.fth5+ 'i!fdS 20.040 Wc7) 16.l0e6 .iffi 17.l0xc7+ ®d7 IS.l07dS .ie5, 18...�xe4+ 19.l0xe4 0-0 20. .ie6+ Wh7 Wittal - Malmstrom. corr 200 I ,19.Af4; 2 1.0-0-0 �o 22.Ag4 gm 23.l0xd6 .ie5 however, Black is in a bad way after 12 ... 24.l0e4 �S and Black is alive, Gutman. 26S

Back to the main line

This line has a commendable tendency to replace a well-known continuation with one that is less explored. 6.g3

Alternatively: I) 6.�c2? loses to 6 ...lLig3; D) 6.lLid4 dxe5 7.lLixf5 �xd l+ 8.'i!;lxdl lL!xf2+ 9.'i!;lel lLixhl I O.g3lLic6 IJ.j,g2 g612.liJe.JlL!d4 l3.lLic3lLib3 14lnll lLixcl 151h.cl.ih616.lL!cdl �17.lk2lLixg3 18.hxg3 fS favours Black, Gutman; III) 6.exd6 lL!c6 (6 ...�xd6 7.�xd6 hd6 8.lL!d4 j,d7 9.lLid2 lLixd2 1 0 .hd2 j,eS l l .J.c3 did not give enough compensa­ tion for the pawn, while Crafty -Brause, computer game 1997, went 9.0?! lL!cS l0.�c3 0-0 l l.lL!dS &8 12.e4, when 12 ... f5 was the correct answer. 6 .. .hd6 7.e3 will transpose into 4 ... d6 5.exd6 J.xd6 6.e3 lLic6 7.�g0 J.f5 - Section 1; how­ ever,note that White may consider the more risky way 7.�dS J.g6, e.g. 8.�xb7 ltld7 9.lLibd2 m lO.�dS �e7 l l.lLixe4 he4 or 8.lL!bd2lL!xd2 9.hd2lL!d7 IO.ic3 0-0) 7.lL!bd2 (7.�d5 goes into s ...ltlc6 6.�d5 .if5 7.exd6,and 7M4 into s ...lL!c6 6.i.f4.if5 7.exd6)7 ...ti'xd6(for 7 .. .lxd6 see 4_d6 5.exd6hd6 6.lL!d2 .if5 7.lLigf3 lL!c6 - Section I) 8.e3 (8.lLixe4 �xd1 + 9.'i!;lxd1 he4 1O.i.f4 �aS l l.lLid2 0-0-0

12.'i!;le 1 J.g6 13.g3 J.d6 14.J.h3+ 'i!;lb8 15.hd6&d616.c5Dd5 17�§17 18.b4 mtd8 gave Black a plus, Stummer- Kel­ ler,corr 1995,though 10 ...� II. Wei J.e 7 is also possible) 8... 0-0-0 9 .i.e2 �h6 10.0-0 J.d6 reaches a position after 4...d6 5.exd6 hd6 6.e3 �6 7.�gf3 .if5 8.i.e2 �ffi 9.0..0 ().0.{) lO.lL!bd2 �- Section 1; IV) 6.e3 �6 7.J.e2(Others suit Black: 7.exd6 J.xd6 returns into 4... d6 5. exd6 J.xd6 6.e3 �c6 7.lLIO J.f5- Section 1; 7.l0d4J.g6,e.g.8.�a4 dxe5 9.lLixc6 �d7, Niels Jensen,1O.ti'bS bxc6 ll.�xe5+ J.e7 12.i.e2lL!c5 l3.�xg7 � 14.lLid2 mtg8 15 . �c3l0d.3+ 16.i.xd3 J.xd3 or 8.lLixc6 bxc6 9.exd6 J.xd6 1 O.lLid2 0-0 ll .J.e2 Y9e7 12.�xe4 J.xe4 13.0-0 gfd8 14.Y9el J.xh2+! 15.'i!;lxh2 ti'h4+ 16 .'i!;lg l J.xg2 17 . 'i!;lx g2�6 18.f4gg6+19.� Y9h3+; 7.b3dxe5 8.Y9xd8+ &d8 9.J.b2 J.d6 IO.b4 lLixb41 l.axb4hb4+ 12.'i!;le2 lLic5 1 3. lLixeS ffi, Windfiickson- Kennedy,Drog­ heda 1999,although 9 ...lL!aS!? IO.lLih4 J.e6 ll.i.xe5 lL!xb3 seems more simple; 7.J.d3 is met by either 7...ctlxe5 8.lLixe5 dxe5 9.Y9c2 �xf2 lO.J.xf5 �xhl l l.g3 lL!xg3 12.hxg3 �g5 l3.�f2 g6or 7...dxe5 8.ti' c2 lLixf2 9.i.xf5 lLixh1 , when both IO.lLic3 g6 l l.J.d3 g5 12.i.d2 g4, Jensen, and lO.Y9e2 g6ll b4 Y9d7 12.Y9fl 0-0-0 13.lLic3 f5 are hardly viable for White) 7...dxe5 (7 ...g5 8.e6 fxe6 9.�d4 Y9f6 10. lL!xf5 exf5 II�+ 'i!;ld712.0 lL!cS was fme for Black,Fischdik - Hoiberg, Oslo 1983, yet 8.�bd2!? dxe5 9.lLlxe4 J.xe4 lO.Y9a4Y9ffi 11.0..0 ().0.{) 12.b4 'i!;lb8 l3.b5 turns the tables. 7 ...aS is a waste of time owing to 8.lL!d4 J.g6 9.lLixc6 bxc610.J.f3, while Roger Thomsen gives 8.0-0 dxe5 9.lL!fd2 lLic5 lO.lL!c3 e4 l l.Y9c2 J.d6 12. lL!dxe4 lLixe4 l3.lL!xe4 J.xh2+ 14.� ti'h4+IS.'i!;lgl h e4and now 16.ti'b3 a4 17 .�b5 Ji:aS 18.�xb7 0-0 or 16.�a4 0-0 17.f3 J.g6 18.e4 f5) 8.�xd8+ gxd8 with a bit better ending f or Black, Gutman;

269

V) 6..if4 liJc6! see 5 ...ltJc6 6..if4 .if5 . 6 ...g 5 7..ie3, proved in two games, ap­ pears less advisable to me. 7 ..ig7 is awk­ wardly met by 8.liJbd2 g4 9.liJd4 .ig6 IO.ltJxe4.ixe4 l l .exd6 exd6 12.liJb5 ee7 1 3 ..id4; this is more solid than 8.liJd4 .ig6 9.e6 ee7 10.13 �5 I I.ed2 liJxe6?! 12.liJxe6 exe6 13bg5 exc4 14.e4 ed4 1 5 .ltJc3 exd2+ 16.�xd2 liJc6 17.ltJd5 liJd4, lgner - Schafer, Germany 1 996, 18.ltJxc7+ �d7 19.ltJxa8 liJb3+ 20.�e3 ltJxal 21 ..ib5+ winning, since Black can do better with l l .. ..ixd4!, for instance 12bd4 liJb3 13.exf7+ � 14.ec3 liJxal 15bh8.ixbl l 6.ecl liJc2+ 17.<M2 ltJc6 18 ..ic3 g4 or 1 2.exd4 f6 1 3.lLld2 liJc6. 7 ...ltJc6 8.liJbd2 is perhaps playable when Black is fighting only for a draw after 8 ... ltJxd2 9.exd2 dxe5 IO.exd8+ gxd8 I I . .ixg5 .ie7 12..ixe7 �xe7 1 3 .e3 gd7 or Lh6 9.liJd4 liJxd4 - 9 .. ..ig6? was cun­ ningly refuted by I O.ltJxc6 bxc6 l l .ea4 ed7 12.liJxe4 .ixe4 1 3 .exd6 .ig7 14.c5 .id5 1 5..id4 eg4 16.o-0-o o..o 11.0 ee6 18 ..ixg7 �g7 1 9.ed4+ f6 20.dxc7 W7 2 1 .e4 .ib3 22.ed6 ee8 23 ..ia6 I :0 in Raetsky - Dausch, Bad ZW7.1ch 1 995 -, 10bd4 dxe5 l l ..ixe5 f6 12.ltJxe4 fxe5 13 .liJg3 exdl+ 14.gxdl .ig6 15.e4 .ic5 1 6.ltJf5 .ixf5 1 7 .exf5 gm 1 8 ..ld3 0-0-0 1 9 .�e2 gd4, Gutman; VI) 6.liJbd2 is worth more attention. •

There are wo continuations: A) 6 ... ltJc6 7 .ltJxe4 .ixe4, introducing the following complications: At) 8..ig5 ed7 (better than 8 ...f6 9.exf6 gKf6 IO.M4 ed7 I I.liJd4 0-0-0 1 2.13 .ig6 ned2 liJe5 14.e4 h5 15.0-0-0, Almond ­ Fraser, Isle of Man 1 993) 9.e3 (9.exd6 .ixd6 goes into 4...d6 5.exd6 .ixd6 6.liJd2 .lt5 7.lLlxe4 .ixe4 8.ltJo ltJc6 9� ed7 Section 1) 9 ...ef5 IO.e6 (after IOJ.f4 dxe5 l t ..ig3 M8 1 2.lLld2 .ic2 B .eo ed7 14.ed5 ee7 15.eo ed6 16.ed5 eg6 17.eO?! e4 18.ee2? liJb4! White was blasted off the board in N - Thomsen, simultaneous Copenhagm 1994) 10 ...fxe6 l l ..ih4 .ixf3 12.gx.O g5 13..ig3 .ig7 14. m,1 ea5+ 15.ed2 ef5 16.edi, Buckley ­ Gibson, Wexford 1 989, I L0-0-0 with good chances for Black; Al) 8.e6 fxe6 9.ltJg5 .if5 (9.. .*g6 IO.ltJxe6 eb4 is speculative: Pilnik - Schroeder, Santiago 1 965, went l l .e3 �d7 1 2 .g3 ef6 1 3 ..ih3 .if5 14..ixf5 exf5 1 5.liJd4 ltJxd4 16.exd4 .ie7 17.0-0 .if6 1 8.ed5 exd5 1 9.cxd5 c6 20.dxc6+ bxc6 2 1 .g bl �b8 22.b4 a5 23 ..id2 axb4 24.axb4 � 25,gfd I c5 26..ie I , when 26...c4!? might be tried, yet the critical reply should be l l .ltJxc7+! �d7 12.liJxa8 liJd4 1 3.g3 ee4 14..ih3+'it>e7 15.0. IO...ed7 l l .liJf4 .if7 is more natW"al, though 12.e3 g5 13.liJd5 .ig7 14..ie2 h5 15.ec2 0-0-0 16..id2 Me8 1 7 . .ic3 does not seem fully adequate, Holsteyn - Pover, Corus 2001) IO.e4 .ig6 l l .liJxe6 ee7 1 2.liJf4 .ixe4 1 3 .ie2 �0-0 14.0-0 �b8 1 5.gel en 16..ie3 .ie7 17. liJd5 .if6, Gutman; similarly AJ) 8.ltJg5 .if5 (8 .. ..ig6 9.e6) 9.ed5 (if 9.e4, then 9 ... .ig6 IO.e6 fxe6 l l .ltJxe6 ee7 12eg4 ltJe5 13.8h3 .ixe4 14.f3 .ig6 15..ig5 ed7 16.f4 .in 17.f5 gg8 18.0-0-0 �7 19.J.f4 Af6 20be5 .ixe5 2 1 ..id3 g6 221Dle I , Goofy - Maxxx, internet 2002, 22 ..be6 23.fxe6 eg7 24.ge2 gm 25.c5 ee7, while 9.. ..ie6 IO.ltJxe6 fxe6 1 1 .exd6

270

ixd6, Menk - Potratz, Lippstadt 1 999, is doubtful due to 12.c5 ie5 1 3 .exd8+ �d8 14.ib5 id4 15..hc6+ bxc6 16.'ttte2 0-0 17.0) 9 ...ed7 (9... ltlxe5 l O.ltJxf7 c6 l l .exe5+ dxe5 12.ltlxd8) IO.exd6 ixd6 l l .e4 ig6 12.c5 ie7 1 3.exd7+ (13..ie3 �8 14.exd7+ �bd7 1 5.0 ltld4 1 6Jkl 0-0) 13 ...�d7 14..ie3 h6 15.� e8 with a defensible game, Gutman. B) 6._dxe5! 7.ltlxe4 (It is understandable that White avoids continuations like 1.

ltlxe5 ltlxf2!, for example 8.<;t>xf2 ed4+, Segura, D'Escacs 1997, or 8.ea4+ c6 9.l0xf7, when both 9_.Wxf7 10.� -*'::5+ l l .el ge8 and 9 ... ee7 I O.<;t>xf2 exf7 l l .ltJO ltJd7 are unpleasant, Harding, The Kibitzer 1 9. Against 7 .ec2 Black keeps an edge by 7._ltJxd2 8.ex15 ltlx0+ 9.exf3 ltk6 1 OJ.e3 g6 1 1.ec2 .ig7 12.Yrb3 ec8 1 3..id3 I:Ml, Paluzie - Mataro, Spain 1 960; this is more convincing than 7 ... ltlg3 8.e4 ltlxhl 9.exf5 ltlc6, e.g. 1 O.g3 ed? l l ..ig2 ltlxf2 12.xf2 ic5+ 13 .<Mi 0-0 14.b4 id4 1 5 .gb l or l O.id3 ed? l l .J.e4 ic5 12..ixc6 exc6 13.ltle4 id4 1 4.e2 0-0-0 1 5 .ig5 f6 16.ie3 ltlxf2, Bravo - Segura, Spain 1 960, 1 7.ltlxf2 .he3 1 8.<;t>xe3) 7 ...exdl+ 8.<;t>xdl ixe4 9.ltlxe5 appears more enterprising.

This line should not give Black enough compensation, although the position is tricky, Burgess/Pedersen, Beating the Indian Defences.

The logical responses are the following: 81) 9 ...id6 lO.ltJd3 ltlc6 with a further split: Bla) l l .e3 Q.O.O 1 2.0 ig6 13.c2 l::leli 8 14.b4 ixb4 (should serve as a warning example, Burgess/Pedersen) 1 5 .axb4 ltlxb4+ 16.c3 ltlxd3 1 7.id2 a6 1 8 .e4 ltle5 gave Black an advantage, Ward ­ Dausch, Copenhagen 1995; Blb) l l.b4 0..().() (l l ...a5 12.b5 ltle5 1 3.c5 ltlxd3 14.exd3, Burgus!Petkrsen, 14 ... ie5 1 5 .gb l 0-0-0 1 6.c2 if5 1 7 .ie3 �e8 is also possible, Gutman) 12.&2 (l'heflexibility of White 'sposition should see him through, Burgess!Pedersen) 1 2...

a5 13.c5 (13.b5 ltle5 14.0 ig6 1 5.ltlxe5? ixe5+ 161?&-*'::3 or 13.ib2 axb4 14JIXb4 ltlxb4 1 5.&8+ d7 16.gxd8+ gxd8 17. ixg7 gg8 are even worse) 13. .J.e5 14.b5 (14.ib2id5) 14....hd3 1 5.exd3 ltxJ4 16.a4 gd5 secure Black a very pleasant game, Peter Schaffarth ; Blc) 1 1 .0 ig6 (l l ...ixd3 12.cxd3 0-0-0

13.g3 ie7 14.f4 f5 15..id2 ltld4 1 6..ic3 ift:i 17 ..txd4 � was played in Goofy -

Sisterofinercy, internet 2002) 1 2.b4 (12.e4

0-0-0 13.h4 h6 14.h5 ih7 15.c2 f5 16. exf5 ixf5 17J.e3 ltle5 brought White in

difficulties, Goofy - Houtduwer, internet 200 1 ) 12 ..0.0.0 (instead of 12...a5 13.ib2 axb4 14.axb4 0-0 15.c5 ie7 1 6.e4 &d8 17 .&4 ltld4, Hubert - Skolarski, Ger­ many 1 988, 18.cl b6 19.h4) 1 3.c5 ie7 14.ib2 ltld4, Gutman; further Bld) l l..id2 0-0-0 12..ic3 ie5 1 3.d2 m.:8 14..he5 �e5 15.'it>c3ixd3 16.exd3 lLxJ4 17.b4 b6 18.g3 c5 19.ih3+ f5 20lnlel gde8 2 l .gxe5 gxe5 22.ifl g5 23 .h3 f4 and Black is at least equal, Gleizerov ­ Dausch, Copenhagen 1 995. .

Black has compensation for the pawn, despite the simplification, Harding, The Kibitzer 1 9.

271

B) Nevertheless, 9 ...�c6 I O .�xc6 (on

1 0.�0 0-0-0+) I O.. .ixc6, suggested by Segura, is the more lively continuation. I I .J.dl ( I I .J.gS ffi 1 2if4 .b4+ 13 .�el (}.()..{) , e.g. 14�2 acs 1 5.e3 IDleS 16�2 .ib3 17.&1 �6 1 8.&3 &<:18, 14J::!cl J.cS 15.e3 g5 16.J.g3 mte8 1 7�2 f5 or 14.b4 �d4 15 .e3 �d7 1 6ie2 gS 17 .J.g3 J.g7 1 s.m,1 fS) 1 1 ...0-0-0 ( l l ...ia4+ 1 2 .�el Ad6 13.J.c3 0-0 14.e3 f5 15.b4, Segura) 12.�1 f5 13.e3 J.d6 14.ic3 f4 15.ixg7 .mtg8 16.J.d4 fxe3!? 1 7J.xe3 J.eS and I like Black's position, Gutman. Back to the main line

This is to my mind the optimal develop­ ment as White should look for safety. 6 tu:6 .••

Others do not inspire confidence: I) 6 ...aS 7 � �c6 8.�h4 �d79.0-0 �cS I O.�xfS �xfS l l .exd6 .ixd6 12.�c3 0-0 1 3.Ae3 (more accurate than 1 3 .e4 �e6 14.�d5 �e5 1 5.�xe6 fxe6 1 6.if4 �xc4 as in Henle - N owik, Germany 1 997) 13 ... �adS 1 4.�d5, Gutman; further m 6...h5 7.ig2 l0c6 8.lQ44!? (8.exd6J.xd6 see 4_l0c6 5.g3 d6 6jg2J.f5 7.exd6 J.xd6 ·8.�0 h5, treated in Chapter 3. 8.�d5 !? dxeS 9.�h4 has more point, for example 9 ... �d6 I O.�xfS �xfS l l .�bS �fd4 12. Axc6+ �xc6 1 3 .�xb7 �d4 1 4.�e4 or

9...ih7 IO.J.xe4 �xdS I I .J.xdS o!l)d4 12.0.0 c6 13.�c3 cxdS 14.cxd5 �b3 1 5.&2 �c8 16�3 a6 17.�f3) 8...tUxd4 (8...dxe5 1ooks too expensive owing to 9.�xf5 �xdl + IO.�dl �xf2+ l l .�el �xhl 12.Axhl 0-0-0 13.ixc6 bxc6 14.�c3 g6 15 .�h4 Ae7 16.�0) 9.�xd4 �cS I O.�e3 dxeS l l .�xe5+! (l l .b4 �e6 keeps Black in game. 12.�xe5 �d4 13.�xf5 can be an­ swered by 1 3...�d8 14.0-0 �xal , for in­ stance 1 5.ixb7 Ae7 16�+� 17.J.d5 �f6 or 15 .�b5+ �d7 1 6.ixb7 �d4 17 . �eS+ Ae7 18.if4 ().() 19 .e3 �2+ 20.�hl �a2. 1 2.J.b2 ffi 1 3ixb7 �b8 is another option and now 14.�xa7 cJn1 15.0-0 h4, 14.�0 ih3 IS.J.c6+ � 16.J.ds a5 17.b5 .id6 or 14J.e4 .tc s 1 5.�0. Levin - Gut­ man, German Ch 2001 , when 1 5 .. .ixe4 16.�xe4 aS 1 7.b5 �n would have lead to a balanced position) I I .. � 12.ixb7 (12.b4 �7 13.�e3 �ffi 14i!a2 c6 15.0-0 h4) 12 ... ffi (12...�xb7 13.�b5+) 13.�e3 �n (or 1 3 ...�b8 14.J.c6+ �n 15.b4) 14.ixa8 �xa8 1 5 .0, Gutman; similarly Dl) 6.. .h6 7 .ig2 �c6 8.�d4 (after 8.�d5 dxeS 9.�h4 Black has an unexpected re­ source in the form of 9 .. ih7! IO.ixe4 �xdS I I .J.xdS �d4 12.0-0 �b3 13 .J.xb7 m,s 14.ic6+ �7) 8 ...�xd4 9.�xd4 �cS 10. � e3 (Horvath - Dawch, Hohenlohe 1995, continued 10.� �d7 1 1 .b4 �e6 1 2 .�e3 dxeS 1 3 .0-0 Ae7 14.�b3 �d4 15.J.xb7 �c2 16.�0 J.g4 1 7.�e4 .trs 18.�hl 0-0 19.ixa8 �a4 20.�bl �xb4 21J.e4 I :0, yet I O...�e6 1 1 .�e3 c6 12.0.0 dxeS 13.�xe5 J.g6 seems the lesser evil) IO...dxeS l l .�xe5+ Ae6 12.J.xb7 1eaves Black in desperate straits, Gutman. 7.�h4

Practice has seen two more moves: I) 7 .exd6 Axd6 8 .ie3 ( 8.ig2 goes into 4...�c6 5.g3 d6 6.J.g2 J.f5 7.exd6 .ixd6 8.�0 - Chapter 3) reaches a position after 4 ...d6 5.exd6.ixd6 6�3 �c6 7.g3 J.fS 8.�0 - Section I ;

272

II) 7 .ig2 dxeS (7 ...lL!xeS?! 8.lL!h4 "tYf6 9.lL!xf5 "tYxf5 1 0.0.0 c6 l l."tYc2 d5 12.cxd5 cxdS 13.lL!cH !c8 14."tYa4+ lL!c6 1 5.lL!xo4 dxe4 1 6 ..lxe4 has accelerated Black's position into a lost one, Roeder - Lopez Jimenez, San Sebastian 1995) 8.0-0 (if 8.ltlbd2 .le7 9.0-0 0-0, while 8."tYxd8+ lhd8 9.lL!h4 lL!d4 10.0-0 lL!xe2+ l l .'i!ihl lL!xc l 12.ltlxf5 �dl 1 3 .�xd l ltlxf2+ 14. 'i!igl lL!xd 1 1 5.lL!d2 lL!e2+ 1 6.
13.ie3 "tYe7 14."tYa4 tvffi 1 5 .ixa7 "tYc3+ 16.� "tYxc4 17l!bcl "tYa6 1 8."tYxa6 bxa6 1 9.�xc6 'i!ib7 20.�xd6, Wellenreiter ­ Schultz, corr 1998. 8..lgl f5!

Less challenging are: I) 8 ...d5 9.0-0 .lcS 1 O.cxdS .lxdS l l .e3 "tYd7 12."tYc2 g5 13.f3 ltlxg3 14.hxg3 gxh4 15."tYxc5 h3 16..ihl b6 17."tYb5 1 :0 Henk ­ Lemke, corr 1 994; ll) 8 ...ltlc5 9.b4 (9.exd6 .lxd6 10.ie3 0-0 l l ."tYc2 f5 was OK for Black, Vaillan­ court - Badkanna, internet 2002) 9_.lL!d7 10.exd6 tvffi 1 1.&2 .lxd6 (Wellenreiter­ Starke, corr 1998, proceeded l l ...ixc4? 12.�c2 .lb3 13.dxc7 .lxc2 14."tYxc2 �c8 15.ltlf5 � 16.b5 lL!a5 17..ih3 .lc5 1 8..tb2 tnt6 19.lL!xg7+ 'i!;>tB 20.ixd7 lhc7 2l."tYo4 1 :0) 12.ltld2 0-0 1 3.0-0 �d8 1 4.lL!e4!? (14."tYc2 lL!d4 1 5 ."tYd3 c5 1 6.ltJe4 tve7 17.lL!g5 f!J 1 8.lL!xe6 lL!e5 19.Ag5 ffi 20."tYbl lL!xe6 2 l ..lh6 �fe8 22 ..ld5 is also not bad, Damon - Badkanna, internet 2002) 14 ..."tYe7 1 5 .�d2, Gutman. 9.exf6 �xf6

10.�dl 1fd7 11.0.0 0.0.0 ll.�hf3 .thJ

7....le6

7 ..."tYd7 8.0 lL!cS 9.b4 .lxb 1 is less ad­ visable, viz. 1 O.lhbl ( 1 O.bxcS .lg6 1 1 . cxd6 0-0-0 1 2.if4 cxd6 1 3 .exd6 .lxd6 14.ixd6 "tYxd6 1 5."tYxd6 lhd6 16.o4 lL!d4 17 .&2, Crafty - Brause, computer game 1997) lO_lLJe6 l l .exd6 ().0.() 12� .lxd6

In my opinion Black has enough play for the pawn, Gutman.

273

Chapter S

s.�dl

The Modern Defence

Alternatives: I) 5.l0h3 aS 6.l0d2 l0c5 7.l0f3 Ab7 8.l0f4 a49.l0d5 � l O.igS .h7 l l .Jxe7 l0xe7 12.e3 &5 l Hibl 0-0 14..ie2 l0g6 ( 1 4... l0xd5!? 1 S.cxdS d6 1 6.exd6 '9xd6, Gut­ man) 1 5.0-0 geS 1 6.'9d4 l0b3 1 7 .'9c3 .hdS (not 17 ...c6? 18.l0f4 l0xe5 19.�1 ffi 20.l0d4 l0c5 2 l .l0 f5 as in Narziso ­ Buecker, Barselona 2001 ) 18.cxd5 �dS appears fme for Black, Stefan Buecko,

(l .d4 �f6 l.c4 eS 3.dxeS �e4 4.a3) 4...b6

Kaissiber 1 7/200/; m 5 .g3 .lb7 (S ...fS is interesting: White

A rare alternative worth serious consid­ eration is 4...b6!? since 5.'9d5 does not work because of White's backward de­ velopment, Tim Harding. I therefore recommend 4 ..b6 as the best way to meet 4.a3. The crazy variation that can occur after 5.'9d5 seems to offer dangerous opportunities for Black and White· s quieter lines are not very terri­ fying, Bogdan Lillie. This is quite probably Black's best move, sending the game into uncharted waters, .

Burgess/Pedersen, Beating the Indian Defences. It may solve Black's problems, Graham Burgess, 101 Chess Opening Surprises.

This reply certainly comes into consid­ eration as White has made a non- devel­ oping 4th move. The queen· s bishop can be a problem piece for Black in the Fa­ jarowicz, and 4 ... b6 aims to get it work­ ing early, Harding, 2000. 4...b6 has been established as Black 's most popular move in recent years, al­ though this line, certainly sound and substantial, erases some of the fascinating variations that make this Gambit attractive.

can except only difficulties from 6.exf6 '9xffi 7 .J.e3 '9xb2 as 8Jd4 .kS or 8.'9d4 '9xd4 9..lxd4 l0c6, Timmermann - Os­ karsson, corr 1 99 1 , demonstrates, and after 6..lg2.lb7 7.l0f3 '9e7 8 .0-0 l0c6 Black is also in good shape) 6.l0f3 (if 6..lg2? l0c3 7..hb7 lOxd 1 8 ..haS c6) 6 ....lc5! (1 doubt that 6...aS 7 ..lg2 l0a6 8.0-0 lOacS 9.l0fd2 l0xd2 l O.lOxd2 .hg2 l l .�xg2 a4 1 2.l0f3 l0b3 1 3.gbl gives Black compensation for his pawn. Also 6...'9 e7 7..ig2 l0c6 is insufficient on ac­ count of 8.'9c2 l0xe5 9.l0xe5 '9xe5 10 . .lf4 '9e7 1 1.�3 f5 12.� ixdS l3.cxdS; however, note tha1 8..if4 '9cS 9.0-0 '9xc4 l O.lObd2 lOxd2 l l .'9xd2 with active play for White, Burgess!Peilersen, allows 8 ... h6 9.'9c2 l0g5 keeping the balance) 7.e3 0-0 8..ig2 ges (better than 8 ...l0g5 9.0-0 l0xf3+ lO.ixO .bf3 l l .'9xf3 � 1 2.'9dS E!e8 13.f4 aS 14.�3 � l S!fd l , Martinez Alfonso-Catarineu Navines, Barcelona 200 1 ) 9.0-0 .ifB!? l O.lOfd2 (l0.l0bd2 g6) l O... lOcS l l .ixb7 l0xb7 12.l0f3 � 13. '9dS lOcS 14.�3 l0b3 1 5Jlbl g6 1 6Jldl .lg7 17 .'9xd7 '9xd7 18 Jlxd7 l0xe5 and I prefer Black, Gutman; ill) 5.'9d5(Thi.r tempting move does not win material, and in fact gives Black a pleasant choice between the solid S ... lOcS or the totally wild 5 .. ..ib7, Llllk),

introducing the following complications:

274

A) S...�cS

6.�c3! (There is no argwnent for 6.e6 fxe6, e.g. HMhS+ g6 8."tMeS ggs;9.i.gS �c6 or 7."tMxa8? .ib7 S.i.gS "tMc8 9."tMxa7 � I O."tMxb7 "tMxb7 l l.�d2 lbd4 12.(}.0.0, Firefly - Jat, internet 1 993, 12 ... �e4!?. Also 6."tMxa8 .ib7 isn't terribly inspired, for example 7."tMxa7 �c6 8."tMxb7 �b7 9. �f3 � and now IO.�bd2"tMe7 l l.e3 g6 or 10.�3 �b3 t t .m, t �xcl 12..lhcl g6, likewise 7 .J.gs .ie7 8..ixe7 r!lx.e7 9."tMxa7 � IO."tMxb7 �xb7 l l .�f3 &8!? 12.� �. improving on l l...gS 12h3 h5 13.�3 "tMfB 14.�dS+ �d8 IS.�xgS �xeS 16.e3 �S 1 1.gd1 "tMg7 1 8.h4 �g4 19.i.e2 f6 20.�h3 c6 Yz-Y1 Saint Dennis - Toulzac, France 2002) 6 .. .i.b7 (6...a5 7 .igS .ie7 8.i.xe7 �xe7 91MI) 7."tMdl was given by Bent Larsen as clearly favourable for White, Kaissiber 1 71200/. After 7 ...g6 (in case of 7 ..."tMe7 8.�0!? .ixO 9.ex0 "tMxeS+ IO.i.e2 �e6 1 1 .0-0 it is hard for Black to get an equal tenns in view of White's spatial advantage and the bishop pair; however, note that 8.i.f4 is less ap­ pealing due to 8_g5, e.g. 9.ie3 ig7 10.h4 g4 l l .f4 gxO or 9 ..ig3 .ig7 1 0.�0 hS l l .h4 g4, and 8.f4 is well met by 8 ...d6 9.exd6 "tMxd6 IO."tMxd6 .ixd6 l l .ie3 0-0 12.�bS geS, GIIIINiniBU«ker) we have reached the crucial position, when White can try two ways to resist:

Al) 8 ..if4 .ig7 9.e3 0-0 (9 ...aS I O.h4!? h6 l l .hS gS 12..ig3 0-0 1 3.f4, Buecker) IO.�dS (White has no time for IO.h4 on account of 10... �c6 1 1 .�0 &8 12.i.g5 "tMc8 13.00 �xeS, and also IO.�f3 .ixf3 l l ."tMxf3 �6 seems harmless, GutiiUUI) IO ... aS 1 1 .�0 h6 12 ..ie2 a4 1 3 .0-0 ges 14."tMc2 � IS� I (if IS.�ffi+ Axffi 16. exf6, then not 16 ...gS 17."tMf5 �e4 1 8 .h4 &5 1 9."tMh3, but 16...�h7 with excellent chances for Black: 17..ig3 d6 1 8.ih4 �g8 19�1 g5 20."tMf5 ic8, 17 .�Wi t d6 1 8.g4 � 19.g5 �xf4 20.exf4 "tMd7, while after 17.g4 he even has a choice between 17 ... �e6 1 8 .gS &S 1 9.h4 �xf4 20.exf4 d6 2 1.i.d3 "tMd7 22.f5 �7 23.fxe7 .ixO 24. ficg6+ 'i!.tt8 and 17...d6 18.g5 hxg5 19J/.xgS lLle4 20.i.d3 "tMd7, GutnumiBuecker) IS ... &S ( IS ... �xeS 1 6.�xeS .ixeS 1 7 .i.xeS �eS 1 8..it3) 16.i.d3 (there is little prom­ ise for White in 1 6.�f6+ .ixf6 17.exf6 g5 1 8 .i.g3 d6 19.:!:ldS "tMxf6 20.h4 �S) 16...�xd3 17..lhd3 �xeS 18.�xeS .ixeS 19 .i.xh6 .ixdS 20.cxdS "tMh4 2 1 .f4 .if6 22.i.gS .ixgS 23.fxgS lkS 24 "tMdl "tMxgS 2S."tMxa4 gxdS, Gutman; A2) 8.�0 �e6 9.�dS (9.e3 .ig7 IO.i.d3 allows IO ...i.xO l l ."tMxf3 �c6) 9.. .ig7 I O ..id2 ( I O.�f6+ .ixf6 l l .exf6 "tMxf6) IO ... d6! ( 1 0 ...0-0 l l .ic3 �cS 1 2."tMc2 a5 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 �I+ IS.i.xal �ca6 16.�f6+, Volker Hergert) l l .exd6 c6 12.�c7+ ( 1 2 .�c3 "tMxd6 1 3 .�e4 "tMe7, fer instance 14.J.b4 cS I S .�d6+ � 1 6. ic3 .ixc3+ 17.bxc3 �g7 18.�xb7 "tMxb7 19."tMd5 � or 14.ic3 .ixc3+ IS.�c3 0.0 16."tMc2 M8 171tdl �dl+ 18."tMxdl �7 1 9.e3 :!'IdS 20.i.e2 �eS 2 l ."tMc2 �xO+ 22.ixfl �d4 23."tMe4 �xf3+ 24."tMxf3 .iali, Gutnuln) 1 2...�xc7 1 3.dxc7 "tMxc7 14."tMc2 0-0 IS.ic3 (looves White a pawn ahead, Hergert) I S ....ixc3+ 1 6."tMxc3 cS 1 7.e3 �7 1 8.ie2 �8 19.0-0 f5 20.:!'ladl �f6 with enough counterplay in each case,

21S

Gutman.

B) 5 ...J.b7 6.exb7 ltlc6 is more forceful.

We survey White's possibilities: 81) 7.ltlf3? �b8 8.ea6 ltlc5 9.ebs a6; Bl) 7.J.e3 a6 8.ltld2 (8.ltlf3 �7 9.exa7 ltlxa7 10.g3 .tcs I I .ltlbd2, Wolfgangei ­ Uguen, France 2002, I I ea8) 8...ltlxd2 9.J.xd2 �7 IO.J.gS j,e7 (IO .f6 l l .exf6 gxffi 12.exa7 ltlxa7 13.J.f4 ltlc6 14.ltlf3 j,g7 1 5.e3 ltle5 16.j,e2 ee7 1 7.0-0 0-0 1 8 .�dl d6 was seen in Crafty - Jotun, computer game 1 997) I I .J.xe7 �e7 1 2. exa7 ltlxa7 13.ltlf3 ea8 and White has no compensation for the queen, Gu!man; 83) 7.b4 g},8 (7 ... a6 8.0! - instead 8.b5 axbS 9.cxb5 j,b4+ is in Black's favour, e.g. I O..Ad2 ltlxd2 I I .ltlxd2 �7 1 2.bxc6 �d2+, l.Gnen, or 10.ltld2 ltlxd2 I I bd2 �+ 12.�1 �7 13.bxc6 �b7 14.cxb7 JaS, Hildebrand/Berkdl -, 8 .&7 9.exa7 ltlxa7 is less accurate, not because of 10. ltlh3? eh4+ I I .g3 ltlxg3 1 2.hxg3 ed4, but due to I O.fxe4 eh4+ I I .c;!;>di exe4 1 2.ltld2 exeS 1 3.�b I , Larsen) 8.ea6 ltlxf2 9.ltlf3 (on 9.�xf2 eh4+, Markus Schmuecker, Kaissiber 1 712001, for in­ stance IO.g3ed4+ I I.Je3exal or IO.o;!;fl ltlxe5+ l l .�e3 egs+ 1 2.�f2 exc l 13. ltlf3 ltlg4+ 14.�g3 ltlffi) 9... ltlxhl IO.g3 (Barlow - Barron, Coulsdson 2002, went IO.ib2 gS I I.e6 g4 12.exti+ 'i!M7 13.eb5 .tcs 14.bxc5 exf3 15.cxb6, when I L�g6 might be good, yet White can do much .•

•

•

better with 12.ebs ! j,cS 1 3.bxc5 bxcS I4.exc5 �b2 I 5.exd7+! c;!;>xd7 I6.ef5+ c;!;>e7 17.ltle5. Nevertheless, this is not the end of the story, as we could have im­ proved earlier with l l ...�g8 1 2 .exfl+ � 13.eb 5 j,cS 14.bxc5 bxcS IS.excS �b2 I6.ed5+ 'i!;>g6 I7.g4 l:le8) IO ... ltlxe5 J J .j,g2 ( I I .ltlxeS?! ef6 12.exa7 �d8 13.exc7 e12+ 14.c;!;>d2 ed4+ I S.';!;tc2 �) I I ...ltlxf3+ 12.J.xf3 ltlxg3 1 3.hxg3 j,d6 I4.if4 W4 1 5.gxf4 m.4+ I6.c;!;>di exf4 I7.ltld2 0-0 1 8.�2 c6 I9.exa7 ed4 with advantage for Black, Gutman; 84) 7.ltlc3! (Buecker, Kaissiber 211997) 7 ltlc5 (7 ...ltlxc3 8.bxc3 - after 8.igs? ffi 9.exffi gxffi Black is on top, e.g. 10.J.xffi exf6 1 1 .exa8+ c;!;>e7 12.ltlf3 ih6 13.eb7 ltlo4 14.ID>1 ltlc5 1 S.exc7 j,f4 or IO.J.f4 ltla4 1 1 .J.xc7 ec8 12.exc8+ �c8 13.J.f4 ltlxb2 -, 8 ... 1ti 9.j,gS seems rather good for White, e.g. 9 ...j,e7 1 0,j,xe7 �xe7 1 1 .0-0-0 �7 12.exc6 winning or 9 .. .f6 IO.exffi gx ffi and now not 1 1 .J.xffi exr6 12exa8+ � 13k1 � 14.exa6ixci 1 s.ea1 owing to 15 ...ltlb4! 16.excl �8 17.ltlf3 �1 , but 1 1.J.f4 �7 12.J.xc7exc7 13.exc7 �c7 1 4.�b1 �a3 1 5�xb6 aS 16.ltlh3, Gutman/Buecker) 8.J.g5 f6 9. exffi gxffi 1 O.J.xf6 exffi 1 1 .exa8+ �f7 12.g3 (1 2.ltlf3 j,e7 13.exh8 exh8 may hold more chances for Black: 14.ID>1 .i.ffi 1 5.ltld1 ltlb3 16.ltld2 ltlca5 17.ltlxb3 ltlxb3 1 8.e3 eg7, and if 1 4.e3 j,ffi 15_gc1, then 1 5 ... ltlb3 1 6.�c2 ltla1 1 7.�c1 ltlb3 with a draw by repetition, MIIX Bouaraba, or 15 ...J.xc3+ 1 61btc3 ltla4 17.�c2 ltlxb2 I8.�d2 &4) 1 2 ...J.g7 (12 ..Je7 1 3.exh8 exh8 14.j,h3 j,f6 makes White 's task easier, for example 15.�c1 ltlb3 1 6.�dl ixc3+ 17.bxc3 exc3+ 1 8.�I. BolllliYiba, or 1 5 .ltld5 !? hb2 16.�1 � 17.ltlf3) 13.exh8 j,xh8 14.J.g2 ltla5 1 5 .�c l eg6 16.J.d5+ �fB 1 7 .ltlh3 c6 1 8.ltlf4 j,xc3+ 19 .bxc3 effi 20� ltlxc4 2 1 .0-0 aS leads to a balanced position, Gutman.

276

•.

IV) S .ti'c2 (This is hardy the most effi­ cient place for the queen, Lillie) S .. �b7 is a more popular way to handle it.

B) 6.�c3(Stl1Ur!Gissscoe/Sillyart) 6 ...

�c3 (6 ...�cS7.�f3 d6 8.if4 �bd7 9.exd6

Here are three replies: A)6.�f.3 aS (6...ti'e7 7.g3 �cS 8.�c3 .bf3 9.ex0 ti'xeS+ I O.ie2 id6 l l .b4 �b7 1 2.f4 ti'e6 1 3.f5 ti'ffi 14.J.b2 0-0 I S .�e4 'tnt6 1 6.h4 resulted in a win for White, Blankenberg - Wittal, corr 200 1 . 6 ...d6 is met by 7.�c3, whlle 7.exd6 ixd6 8.g3?, Macher - Schydlo, Dresden 200 I , is al­ ready doubtful due to 8 ...icS) 7.�bd2 (Guizar - Kran�. corr 1986/89, contin­ ued 7 .�c3 �xc3 S.igS avoiding the trap 8.ti'xc3 ib4! -, 8....ie7 9..ixe7 ti'xe7 IO.ti'xc3 0.0 l l.e3 �6 12..ie2 �cS 13.0..0 a4 14� I &e8 IS.�el ti'xeS Yz-Yz, and also 7.b3 �6 8.J.b2 �cS 9.b4 axb4 10. axb4 !:ixa l l l ..ixal ti'a8!? is comfy for Black, KjeU KrantT., Kaissiber I 61200/) 7 ...�cS!? (7...�xd2 8 �xd2 transposes to 6.�d2 �xd2 7.ixd2 aS 8.�0- C1) 8.b3 g6 9.ib2 ig7 IO.h4 (if IO.e3 �c6 I I .J.c3 ti'e7 1 2.ti'b2, then not 12...0-0-0 13.J.e2 �b8 14.0..0 gS? IS.�d4, Canellas Magide - Ribes Oliveras, Mataro 1 996, but 12 ...0-0 1 3.J.e2 &e8) IO ...�c6 l l .hS ti'e7 (1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.hxg6 hxg6 1 3.e3 ti'e7 14.J.e2 �xeS, Naumkin - Toullac, Mon­ tecatini Tenne 1998) 1 2.e6 ixb2 13.ti'xb2 � 14.exd7+�b8 1S.e3 g5 16.b4 �xd7 1 7 .cS g4 favours Black, Gutman; -

ixd6 IO..ixd6 cxd6 l l .!:idl is more at­ tractive for White, improving on 8.exd6 ixd6 9.J.e3 �bd7 - if 9 ...0.0 IO.�gS g6 I Wd I -, 10.().{).() 0.0 I l..ixcS �xeS 12.e3 aS 1 3 .J.d3 �xd3+ 14.ti'xd3 ti'e8 I S.�bS !:idS, Pedersen - Jensen, Aarhus 1 997. However, 7.e4 d6 8.exd6 ixd6 9.ie3 �bd7 looks reasonable for Black, con­ trary to 7 _ \!:Yh4 8.g3 ehS 9.J.f4 gS IO..ie3 g4 1 1 .0-0-0 ig7 1 2.lildS lilba6 1 3.ie2 ti'xeS 14.hg4 0-0-0 I S.O, Maubach Feng, e-mail 200 I ) 7.ti'xc3 �a6!? (After 7...a5 White should avoid 8.�f.3? ib4 0:1 Schmied - Schlindwein, Untergrombach 2003, or 8.b3 �7 9.�f.3 0.0 I O.J.f4 �a6 l l .e3 ffi 12.J.e2 gS 13.exffi gxf4 14.fxe7 ti'xe7 IS.exf4 !:ixf4 1 6.ti'eS, Kierzek ­ Bouaraba, Germany 200 1 , 16 ...ti'xeS!? 1 7.�xeS ges. The correct reply is 8.J.f4 .!006 9.�0 �cS I O.e3, e.g. I O...h6 l l ..ie2 �e4 12.ti'c2 g5 13�g3 ll.g7 1 4 �d3 !?; I O...a4 l l �e2 �e6 1 2�g3 ie7 J3.gd ) , Wimmer - Welti, e-mai1 1 999; I O...�e6 I I �e2 ie7 and now 1 2�g3, instead of 12.0-0-0 0-0 13 .�e I, Bondesnacker ­ Tarrega, e-mail 2001 , 13 _.f6 14.1f3 .ixf3 IS.�xO fxeS 1 6.ixeS d6) 8.lil0 � cS 9.J.f4 (9.Ag5 ie7)9....ie 7 (9...�e4 10.ti'c2 gS I I .J.e3 ti'e7 12.g4!?) IO.e3 0.0 I I .J.e2 f5 12.exffiixffi 13..AeS ti'e8 14.J.xffi� I S.0-0 ti'g6 with counterplay, Gutman; C) 6.�d2 �xd2 (6 ... �cS must be con­ sidered; as 7.�g0 aS transposes to A , White has no better than the uncom­ promising 7.b4!? �e6 8.�g0) 7.ixd2 causes more problems than evaluated: Cl) 7 .. �cS 8.�0 0-0 9.�gS g6 I O.h4 � l l .hS �xeS 12.�xh7 c;!;>xh7 13hxg6+ �g7 14..ih6+ �g8 1 S.g7 ixf2+ 16.�dl !:ie8 17.1J.gS �g6 1 8..ixd8 &xd8 19.ti'c3 ges 20.gh8+ I :0 Delamarre - Kratoch­ wil, Gennany 2001- White was happy to hoistthe opponent with his own petard;

277

Cl) La5 (It is often usefUl to take con­ trol ofthe b4- square in order to enable a piece to settle on c5 and now we see that Black's activity fully compensates for the pawn, Lalk) 8.ltl0 (After 8.0 ltlc6!

White is under unpleasant pressure, e.g. 9.Ac3 �+ I O.g3 exc4 or 9.if4 i.c5 I O.e4 ee7; this is obviously more effective than 8 .AcS 9.e4, for instance 9.-ixgi IOJhg l fiM+ l l .g3 exh2 I2. .flg2 -mo l3.ec3 0-0 I4.0-0-0 given by Gerard WeUing, or 9 ... ltlc6 IO.Ac3 ee7, when in place of I I .ltle2 ltlxe5 I2.ltld4 f6 1 3 .ltlf5 en I4.ed2 a4 I 5 .id4 ltlc6 I6.i.xc5 bxc5 I7.i.d3 g6 I 8.ltle3 ltld4 I9.ec3 0-0 20.0-0 �fe8 2 I .ltlc2 ltlxc2 22.Axc2 i.c6, Timoshenko - Welling, Ostend I 99 I , l l .f4! ltld4 12bd4 i.xd4 13.ltl0 could have been critical, Krant:) 8 ... ltla6 (This move was suggested by Wdling. Black scored badly with 8 ..•7 9.e3 0-0 1 0� h6 I I .ih7+ �h8 1 2.t.4 .be4 l 3.exe4 ltlc6 I 4.�di �e8 1 5.Ac3 .if8 I 6.h4 ffi I7.ets fxe5 I8.ltlg5, Top­ per - Krnonte, internet 2003, likewise after 8...tc5 9.§11 - 9.g3!?0-0 IO.ig2 d6 I I .ltlg5 I :0 BemdS - Sleipnir, internet 200I - , 9 ...ee7 IO.tc3 0-0 I I .e3, so far Asger PIIIIS/u!., I l ...h6 I2.i.d3 ee6 l 3 .b4 axb4 I4.axb4�7 I 5.1tld4 eg4 I6.o .aM+ I 7.� -mo 1 8.o4 ltlc6 I9.ltlf5 i.e7 20.b5 ltlxe5 2I.Axe5 i.c5 22.Axg7 �fe8 23.ib2 �a2 24.ec3 I :0 Ruzele - Jaeck, Boeb­ Iingen I 997) 9.g3! (9.e4 ltlc5 I O.i.d3 d6 I IJgs �7 I2.Axe7 exe7 13.exd6 exd6 I4.0.0.0 0-0-0 is to Black's liking,KI'IIIIIl. A more restrained 9.e3 ltlc5 - a dream positionfor Black, LaJk -, might be bet­ ter, and now not 10.� .ie4 I I .ec3 a4 I2.ltld4 d6 l3.exd6 i.xd6, Peter Schaf­ farth , or IO.i.d3 g6 I I .ic3 ig7 I2.o4 ee7 l 3.0-0 a4 I4.ltld4 .be5 I 5.f4 i.g7 I6.ltlb5 .bc3 I7 .exc3 0-0-0 , Arnold - Kratoch­ wil, Austria 200 I , but I O.i.e2 i.e4 I I . edt - I I .ec3 g6 I2.e6 ffi l3.exd7+ exd7 •

I4.0-0 ig7 -, I l ...a4 I2.0-0 ltlb3 1 3.� i.c5 I4.Ac3 0-0, Schaffarth, with another branch: I 5 .ltld2 ltlxd2 I6.exd2 egS I7 .g3 rui:lS, I5.i.d3 i.b7 I 6.ic2 d6, I 5.ltld4!? d6 when either I6.AO .bO I7.ltlx0 dxe5 I8.ltlxe5 exdi i9.�dl &d8 or I6.ltlxb3 eg5 1 7.g3 axb3 I 8.exb3 dxe5 are all OK for Black) 9... ltlc5 IO.Ag2 a4 I I .0-0 .ie4 I2.ec3 i.e7 l3�I 0-0 I4.Ae3 se­ cure a clear plus for White, Gutman; C3) 7 ... d6!? could well be the only way forward for Black.

8.i.c3 (8.exd6 i.xd6 9.ltl0 ee7 I O.e3 ltld7 I I .Ae2 0-0 I2.0-0 f5 keeps Black in game, and also the ending after 8.ef5 ed7 9 .exd7+ ltlxd7 I O.exd6 .bd6 seem fully adequate) 8 ... dxe5 9..be5 ltld7!'! (9...ee7 is less convincing on account of I O.i.g3 ltla6 I l .�di ltlc5 I 2.ltl0 g6 l3.b4 ltle4 I 4.Ae5 ffi I 5 .Ab2; however, note that I O.if4 g5 I I .ec3 �g8 might give Black some initiative, e.g. I2J.e5 �g6 or I2.eg3 ltla6 l3.�dl �g6 I 4.Ae5 �e6 I 5 .Ac3 ltlc5 I6.Ab4 �d8 I 7.�xd8+ exd8) IO.�I eg5 I I .ixc7 �c8 I 2.ig3 ea5+ l 3 .ed2 ( l 3 .�d2 is a quite risky line as 1 3 ...i.e7 1 4.e4 0-0 I 5 .b4 exa3 I6..§xd7 .bb4+ I7.�2 i.a6 I 8.Ac7 i.c3 I9.ed3 ea4 shows) l 3 ...exd2+ I4Jhd2 �c4 I5.e3 �I+ I6_gdJ �di+ I7.�xdl i.e7 I 8.ltle2 i.f6 I9.ltld4 �e7 20.0 �d8 should hold for Black, Gutman .

278

V) H�f3 ib7 (5...�c5 is a strange plan due to 6.g3 ib7 7 .Jg2 or 6.�3 ib7 7 .if4.

6.b4 �e6 7.�bd2 may transpose into 4. �bd2 �c5 5.b4 �e6 6.a3 b6, covered in Part 3, Chapter 1 , Section 7; however, note that there is less sense in 7.ed5 c6 s.eo4ib7 9.�3 ec7 IO.Ad2 a5 1 U:Th l axb4 1 2.axb4 �6 13.b5, e.g. 1 3...l00c5 14.ec2 .ie7 1 5.bxc6 dxc6 16.g3 0-0, Gel­ zenleichter - Bee, Dortmund 1987, or 1 3...�b4 14.e3?! ebs 1s.ets g6 16.ee4 cxb5 17.� � 1 8.�ffi+ �d8, Gambit Tiger - An Mon, computer game 2001) represents the most usual continuation.

White has tried five moves: A) 6.�bd2 goes into the main line; B) 6.ec2 see s.ec2 .lb7 6.�f3 - IVA ; C ) 6.b3 d6!? (6. . .f5 7.exf6 exf6 8J��a2 ic5 9.e3 0-0 10..ib2 eh6 l l .Ad4 eg6 is another option, while 8...a5 9.Ab2 ets looks less effective as instead of 1 O.e3 �a6 l l .�bd2 �ac5 1 2.id4 �xd2 1 3 . �xd2 id6 14.f3 0-0 15.ec2 eh5 16..ie2 ll)e6 17.lt�o4 �xd4 18.exd4 .ho4 19.exo4 \!:9b6, Uhle- P� corr 1990, 1M�c3 �a6 l l .�xe4 .he4 1 2.�d4 eg6 1 3.0 ib7 14.e4 might be better) 7.ib2 �d7 8.exd6 .hd6 9..ixg7 �g8 1 O..ib2 ee7 1 1 .ec2 0-0-0 1 2.b4 �e5 leaves White in danger, Gutman; D) 6.if4 ic5 !? (others fail to equalize: 6...aS 7.e3 �6 8.�bd2 .ie7 9.�xe4 .he4

10..id3 .hd3 1 I .exd3 �c5 12 .ec2 0-0 13.0-0a4 14Jhil ffi 15.tt:ld4 fxe5 16.ixe5 �c8 1 7 .�c6 1 :0 Kerssemakers - Ver­ beek, corr 1 999, and if 6 ... g5, then not 7.Ag3 h5 8.h3 �xg3 9.fxg3 d6 10.�3 �7 1 1 .ec2 �xe5, van Tuinen - van Son­ deren, Soest 2001 , but 7..ie3 ig7 8.�bd2 �xd2 9.ixd2 h6 IO..ic3 ee7 l l .e3 �c6 1 2..ie2 �xe5 1 3 .�cl 0-0-0 14.0-0, im­ proving on 9.exd2 h6 10.Jd4 ee7 1 1 �3 �c6 1 2.h4 g4 13.�4ixe5, Alf- Lang, corr 1 995) 7.e3 g5 (7 ...a5 is dubious on account of 8..id3 0-0 9.0-0; this is more consequent than 8.h4 ie7 9.id3 �a6, while after 8 ...a4 9.id3 h6?! 10.ec2 f5 l l .exffi �xffi 12.ig6+ �e7 13.�c3 �c6 14.0-0-0 White won in Bueno Marin ­ Gisbert Porta, Sant Boi 1 998) 8.ig3 h5 9.id3 (9.e6 dxe6 to.exd8+ �xd8 l l .ie5 �g8 12.�bd2 �7 13.�xo4 .ho4 14.().{).{) �c8 15.ic3 g4) 9 ...h4 1 0.ec2 hxg3 1 1 . .ho4¢2+ 12.'i!ld2 � 13.b4g4 14.bxc5 gxf3 1 5..ixf3 ee7 16.cxb6 axb6 1 7.ec3 0-0-0 1 8.c5 exc5 19 .exc5 bxc5 20..ixc6 .hc6 2 l .�d2 �deS is even, Gutman; E) 6.e3 and now: El) 6...ffi 7.exffi exf6 s.ed4 et? 9..ie2 a5 10.�bd2 �c5 1 t .ee5+ 'it>d8 12.b3 �c6 13.ec3 ie7 14.ib2 if6 1 5 .ec2 ixb2 16.exb2 eg6 1 7.0-0 �e8 l S .ebi eb6 19.ef5 with advantage, van Kooten - de Jong, Dutch League 1 998; El) 6...� 7.�bd2 (7.b3 ee7 8.ib2 ()..{).{) 9.ec2 �g5 IO.ie2 �xf3+ l l .ixf3 �xe5 12.ixb7+ 'it>xb7 13.�c3 ee6 14.eo4+ c6 1 H�e2 �g6 16.ec2 �4 17.0-0eg6 18. exg6 hxg6 1ed to equality, Sarmiento ­ Romero Holmes, Mesa 1 992, although 7...d6 8.ib2 �xe5 9.�xe5 dxe5 to.exd8+ fud8 I l .ixe5 �c5 looks interesting. In response to 7 .id3 Black should play 7..�g5 8.�bd2ee7 9.0-0 �xf3+ to.�xf3 �xe5, avoiding 8...�xf3+ 9.�xf3 ee7 10�, Meckel - Jaeck, lngelheim 1998. However, it is worth noting that after 7 ...

279

lflc5 8 ..ic2 Black has some difficulties: 8 ...g6 9.b4 lLle6 I O..ib2 .ig7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 12 ..ie4, Marceli - Peakbagger, internet 2003; 8 ...fle7 9.b4 lfle6 10.0-0 g5 I I .ib2 g4, Strathoff- Papaioaunou, Germany 2002, 1 2 .lflfd2!?; finally 8...a5 9.b3 g6 IO..ib2 .ig7 I I .fid2 fle7 1 2.b4 axb4 13. ax b4 �at 14..ixal lflxb4, Krant:, can be improved with 9..id2 g6 I O..ic3 .ig7 1 1 .0-0 fle7 1 2.lfld4!? .ixe5 1 3 .f4 .if6 14.lLlb5 �c8 15..ixffi flxf6 1 7.lfl l c3 0-0 18.lLld5) 7 ...lflxd2 (7... lfla5 8.lflxe4 .ixe4 9.J.d3 .ib7 10.0-0 d5 I I.exd6 flxd6 12.b4 �d8 1 3.lLld4 c5 1 4.bxa5 cxd4 1 5.exd4 looks fairly grim for Black, Malrm1ram Lo Conte, corr 200 1 ) 8..ixd2 g6 (8 ...g5 9..ic3 J.g7 IO.flc2 g4 I I .lLld4 lLlxe5 12. lflf5 .iffi 13.0-0-0 d6 14.h3 leaves Black weakened and lacking a regrouping plan. In answer to 8 ...fle7 9..ic3 0-0-0 White must force the issue with I O.b4 g5 l l .b5 lfla5 12..ib4, viz. 12 ...fle6 1 3.�1 g4 14. lfld2 h5 1 5.c5.ig7 16.cxb6 axb6 17..ixa5 bxaS 1 8.lLlc4 winning as in EtcChess ­ Lorsch, internet 2003. I O..ie2 seems too flashy due to I O ... �g8 l l .flc2 g5; how­ ever, note that the immediate IO ...g5 is pn:ma!We as instead of 1 1 .0-0 �g8 1 2.b4 g4 1 3 .lLld4 lLlxe5 14.a4 lflxc4 1 5 ..id3 lflxe3 16.fxe3 flxe3+ 17.�hl mu, Krei­ ling - Jaeck, Wiesbaden 1 998, I I .e6! might be quite powerful, e.g. l l ...�g8 12 .exfl flxf7 13 .fldS flxd5 1 4.cxd5 lfle7 15 .d6 or l l ...ffi 12.exd7+ �d7 13.flc2) 9..ic3 J.g7 IO.J.d3! (IO.fid2 fle7 I I .lfld4 heS 12..ie2 0-0-0 13.lflf3 hc3 14.flxc3 f5 1 5 .0-0-0 �hf8 1 6.mte I d6 was excel­ lent for Black, Gregoir - Schrevens, Bel­ gium Leaque 2000) IO ...fle7 ( 1 0 ...0-0 I I b4 lfla5 12.fld3 he4 1 3.flxe4 lLlb3 14�1. Malmstrom - Multhauf, e-mail 2001) l l ..ie4 0-0-0 (1 1 ...0-0 12.0-0 !labS 1 3 1lcl �fe8 14.fla4) 1 2.0-0 �he8 1 3.a4 lflxe5 14bb7+ �xb7 15.a5 is preferable for White, Gutman;

EJ) 6...a5 7.b3 g6 8..ib2 .ig7 9..ie2 0-0

10.0-0 � I l .flc2 lflc5 (I L.lLJgS 12.lflbd2 lflxf3+ 13.hf3 .ixf3 14.lLlxf3 lLlc6 15.c5 lflxe5 16.lflxe5he5 17.J.xe5 l!xe5 1 8.cxb6 cxb6 1 9.�fd l ) 1 2 .lLlc3 lLlc6 1 3 .�ad l !? (13.lLld5 lLlxe5 14.lLld4 c6 1 5 .lLlf4 lLle6 16.�adl fle7 17.flb l , Seres - Renault, Agneaux 1 997, 1 7... lflc5 1 8.b4 axb4 19. axb4 lfla6 20..k3 lflc7) 13 ...lflxe5 14.lflxe5 .ixe5 1 5.f4 .ig7 1 6if3 keeping a small edge for White, Gutman; E4) 6 ... g6!? 7.lflbd2 .ig7 8.lLlxe4 (8.b4 d6 9 .lflxe4 .ixe4 I 0Jh2 .ixe5 I I .lflxe5 dxeS 12flxd8+�d8 131UJ2+ �e7 14.0 ib7 1 5 ..ib2 ffi, Damon - Maxxx, inter­ net 2002, yet Black has nothing to fear from 8 ...lflxd2 9..ixd2 lflc6 IO..ic3 fle7) 8 ....ixe4 9..td3 hf3 IO.flxf3 lflc6 gives equality, Gutman ; ES) 6 ...d6!? is more ambitious.

7..ie2 (7.lflbd2 lfld7 8.lLlxe4 he4 9.exd6 hd6 IO..id3 .ib7) 7 ... lfld7 8.exd6 .ixd6 9.0-0 flffi (Aifredsson - Oskarsson, Swe­ den 1 996, continued 9 ...f5!? I O.lLlbd2 flffi I I .flc2 0-0 12.h3 g5 13.lLlxe4, when 13 ..ixe4 14.fldl lflc5 was crying to be played) I O.lLlbd2 0-0-0 I I .lflxe4 .ixe4 12.ed4 flg6 1 3 .lflh4 fle6 14.lflf3 .ie7 (not 1 4...g5 1 5 .lflxg5 .ixh2+ 16.�xh2 'i!Jh6+ 1 7.lflh3, Kelecevic - Guensberg, Lenk 1 995) 1 5 .flc3 flg6 and White's position is full of danger, Gutman.

2 80

•

Back to the main line

S ..lb7 Altemati vely: I) S ...lOcS 6.b4 l0e6 see 4.!ild2 lOcS S.b4 ll)e6 6.a3 b6- Part 3, Chapter I, Section 7; II) S...l0xd2 6.i.xd2 (6.1bd2 .ib7 H!lc3 transposes to s .tvc2 .ib7 6.l0c3 l0xc3 7.tvxc3) 6 .. .i.b7 7.l0f3 is the text. ..

6.l0gf3

There are two other plans: I) 6.tvc2 enters S .tvc2 .ib7 6.l0d2; II) 6.l0xe4 he4, when White has tried four ways of replying: A) 7.h4 l0c6 (Vajda - Harding, Buda­ pest 2000 , went 7..J/:7 8.ti'd4 ib7 9.tvg4 � I O.hS lOc6, when instead of I I .l0f3 d6 1 2.exd6 tvxd6 13.tvf5 � 14..if4 tvfti IS.tvx16.lx.ft5 16.,m,I l0d4 17.l0xd4 !i1cd4 1 8.eH �d7, I I ..if4!? l0d4 1 2_gdl l0e6 1 3 ie3 Iands Black in trouble) Sif4 (if 8.f3 .tf5 9.e4 .ie6, Dimitri Reilukrman) 8 ... fti!? 9.tvd2 (9.exfti ti'xfti IO.tvd2 l0d4 I I ..igS tveS) 9 ... lOxeS IO.tve3 .ic6 I I . .lx.eS fxeS 12.tvxeS+ .ie7 1 3 .tvhS+ g6 14.eh6 .ifti IS.tve3+ cM7 1 6.0-0-0 Ue8 offers Black good chances, Gutman; B) 7.l0f3 l0c6 (7 ....icS see 6.l0f3 .icS, 7 ...g6 - 6.l0f3 g6, 7 ...d6 - 6.l0f3 d6, 7 .. aS 6.l0f3 aS) 8.if41cS (8. .hf3 9.ex0 tve7 IO.i.e2 0-0-0 1 1 .0-0 lOxeS fails to 12.tvd5 l0c6 1 3 _gfel h6 14.Jd3 tvf6 I S . .ieS ti'e6 16.i.g3) 9.e3(9.b4 .lxf3 IO.bxcS .

-

.

2 81

.ig4 I I .tvd3 0-0 12.tvg3 .ifS is worse) 9 ... f6 I O.b4 .lx.f3 I I .tvxf3 fxeS 1 2.bxcS exf4 13.tvxflJ tvfti 14.tvxfti gKffi IS.g3 bxcS 16.i.g2 m,s with an approximately equal ending, Gutman; C) 7.tvd4.ib7 8.i.f4 l0c6 9.tvc3 tve7 10. l0f3 h6 l l .e3 0-0-0 12.h4 Ue8 ( 1 2 ... Ug8 13.0-0-0 gS 14.hxgS hxgS IS ..ig3 .ig7 J 6.jd3 ggcS I7lD'I7 AxeS IS.lOxeS lOxeS 1 9 . .ixeS tvxeS 20.tvxeS UxeS 2 1 .Uxfl hg2 22..ifS .ic6 23.Ugl Ug8 24.�d2 favours White) 1 3.0-0-0 l0d8 and Black has nicely coordinated pieces, Gutman; D) 7 ..if4 tve7 (7 ...l0c6 8.e3 tve7 is less accurate, not because of9.f3 .if5 I O .e4 .ie6 I I.tvd2 h6 12.h4 g6 13.tg3 .ig7 14.f4 0-0-0, but due to 9.l0e2! lOxeS I O.l0c3, though 9.l0f3 .ixf3 IO.tvxf3 gS I I .i.g3 .ig7 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.h4 is also good) 8.e3 .ib7 (on 8 ... h6 9.l0e2.ib7 I O.l0c3) 9.l0f3 (9.l0e2 seems innocuous here on account of9...l0c6 I O.l0c3 0-0-0 I I.lOdS tve6, while 9.tvc2 allows 9 ... g6 I O.l0f3 .ig7 II Ji:2 l0c6 I 2.igS tve6 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.h4 hS I Sif4 AxeS 1 6.lOxeS lOxeS 1 7 ..lxeS tvxeS I 8.Uxd7 Uad8 1 9.Uhdl !i1cd 7 20.!i1cd7 .lx.g2 2 I .Jd3 .ic6 22.Ud4 rt1g7 23 .tvc3 Ue8 �-� Miralles - Toul­ zac, Mulhouse 1998) 9 ...h6 I O.tvd4 l0c6 (IO.ixO I l .gxf3 l0c6 12.tve4) I I .tvc3 0-0-0 returns into C, Gutman. 6. l0xd2! ..

This is to my mind the critical reply. Practice has seen seven more moves: I) 6 ... lOcS 7.b4 (7.g3 aS 8.b3 g6 9 ..ib2 .ig7 I O.i.g2 d6 I I .tvc2 dxeS was level, Goofy - Maxxx, internet 2002) 7 ... l0e6 � to 4.00 lOcS S.b4 l0e6 6.a3 b6 7.l0gf3 ib7 - Part 3, Chapter I, Section 7; 11) 6..�S 7.l0xe4 (7.e3 aS see 6 ... a5 7.e3 icS - JIIA2) 7. .he4 8.b4 1JJ:7 9.tvd4 ib7 I O.ti' g4 �tB l l .e3 hS 12 .tvf5 (instead of 12.ti'h3?! aS 13.b5 d6 14..tb2 Uh6 IS�I .ic8, Giacomini - Ravagnani, Padova 1999) 12 ...Uh6 13ie2, Gutman;

01) 6 ...g6 7.lLlxo4 .bo4 8..igS �7 9..ih6 (9..ixe7 flxe7 I O.e3 � l l .J.d3, Kniest ­ Moehring, Bad Woerishofen 200 1 , I I ... ixO 12.flxO lLlc6 is harmless) 9...if8 (9 . . . ixO IO.gxO igS l l .ixgS flxgS 1 2.fldS lLlc6 1 3.e6) IO.fld4ix0 l l .e6 ffi 12..ixf8 !W8 (12...�xf8 13.gx0 fle7 14.fle4 c6 I S.exd7) 1 3.exd7+ lLlxd7 14. fle3+ fle7 IS.exf 3, Gutman; IV) 6 ...d6 7.lLlxo4 (7.exd6 .bd6 8.e3 fle7 9..ie2, Sarakauskas - Gutman, internet 2002, 9...f5!? 10.0-0 0-0) 7 _.J.xe4 8..igS (Bouaraba prefers 8 .if4, viz. 8 ... lLlc6 9.exd6 .bd6 I O..ixd6 cxd6 l l .lLld4 flffi 1 2.e3 0-0 13.0. Also 8.fld4 should be considered: 8_.J.x0 9.ex0 fle7 I O..if4 liJd7 l l.�e4 8 .. ..ib7 9..if4 ltx:6 10.fle3 dxeS I I .� I or 8_.ds 9..igS cS IO.fld2 ffi l l .exffi gxf6 1 2..ih4 .lg7 13.e3 lLlc6 14. cxdS flxdS IS.flxdS ixdS 1 6..ia6!? f5 1 7.0-0-0 � 18.lLlgS, Genov - Leygue, Marseille 2003) 8...ie7 (if 8 ...fld7 9.fld4 .bO 10.gx0 fle6 l l .fle4, while Schie­ feBtein - Bouaraba, e-mai1 2001 , went 9.exd6 .bd6 10.fld4 f5 l l .ld I h6 12 .J.h4 0-0 13..ig3 lLlc6 14.fld2 ru"6 IS .e3 fle7 16..Ae2 f4 17 .J.h4, when 17 ...gS 18.lLlxgS hxgS 19 ..bgS fxe3 20.flxe3 ge8 might be strong) 9.ixe7 flxe7 I O.exd6 cxd6 l l.e3 0-0 12.J.d3 ib7 13.� liJd7 14..ie2 flffi IS.b3 lLlcS 16.lLld4 ru"e8 17 ..iO lLle4 18.lLlbS �8 19.fld4 (more logical than 19 _gc I dS 20.lLlc7 �S 2 I ..ixe4, Grass Guensberg, Luzem 1994, 2 1 ... dxo4) 1 9... � S 20..ixo4 .bo4 2 1.0, GuJmmr ; V) 6 .._.f5 7.exf6 lLlxffi (7 ... flxffi 8.lLlxe4 .be4 9.fld4 flxd4 IO.liJxd4 id6 I I .id2 0-0 12..Ac3, Gilbert - Barron, Coulsdon 2002, improving on 8.flc2 lLlcS 9.o4 lLlc6 IO.id3 lLld4 I I.liJxd4 flxd4 1 2..ie2 lLlxo4, Villeneuve - Jovian, Shebrooke 1 984) 8.g3 !? (8.e3 aS, e.g. 9..ie2 id6 10.0-0 � l l .b3 fle7 1 2..ib2 lLla6 13.'Bc2 lLlcS or 9.J.d3 id6 IO.b3 fle7 l l.ib2 lLlc6 1 2.� � 13.J.xfti, Corbat - Nater, e-mail 2001, •.

13 ... gxf6 14.lLle4 gh6 I S .lLlxd6 gxd6 16.flc2 gh6) 8 ...icS 9.ig2 fle7 1 0.0-0 aS 1 1 .b3 � 12.ib2 lLlc6 13.lLlgS (13.flc2 �e8 14.lLlgS g6? 1 S ..ixffi �ffi 16..id5+ rtlg7 17 .lLlgo4 lLld4 1 8.fld3 .bdS 1 9.cxd5 fleS 20.lLlxf6 lLlxe2+ 2 1 .�g2 flxffi 22. �e1 brought White success in Flear ­ Spinelli, Asti 1997, yet 14...lLld4 1S..ixd4 .bd4 16.ixb7 hal 1 7 .idS+ �h8 1 8. lLlf7+ �f7 19..ixf7 flxf7 20.�a1 gxe2 is better) 1 3 ...gae8 14.lLlde4, Gutman; VI) 6 ...fle7 7.lLlxo4 (7.flc2 lLlxd2 8..ixd2 see the text) 7 ....be4 8..if4!? .bO (8 ... h6 9.lLld4) 9.exf3 gS 10..ig3 ig7 1 l .fld5 lLlc6 12.0-0-0 � 13.h4 h6 14.J.d3 � IS.J.e4 are awkward for Black, Gutman; Vll) 6...a5, when White has two options: A) 7 .e3 and here: At) 7 ...d6 is refuted by 8.lLlxe4 ixe4 9. fid4 ib7 (9.. .J.xf3 I O.gxO lLlc6 l l .flo4) I O.exd6, Gutman; A2) 7 ...icS 8..ie2 fle7 (8 ... lLlgS 9.0-0 lLlxO+ 10..ixO .bO I Lflx0) 9.flc2 f5 10.exffi gxffi l l.lLlxe4ixo4 12..id3 ib7, Esquivel Revilla - Tavison Garcia, Mex­ ico 2002, 1 3 .lLlh4!? lLlc6 14.0-0 0-0-0 IS..ie4 with advantage, Gutman; A3) 7 ... lLla6 8.lLl xe4 ixe4 9.id3 ib7 10.0-0 lLlcS (IO._g6 l l .o4 h6 1 2.gel ig7 13.id2 fle7 14..Ac3) I I ..Ac2 a4 12.e4! (if 12.�1 fle7 13.e4, then 1 3. ..fle6 14.fld4 ia6 I S .lLld2 hS improving on 1 3 ...h6, Gonzales - Fuemkranz, e-mail 2001 , 14. �3) 12 .. ..ixe4 (or 12 ... lLlxe4 1 3 ..ixa4) 13..ixo4 lLlxo4 14.fld5 lLlcS IS .lLlgS lLle6 16.fJO lLlxg5 17..bgs flc8 18l!ad I gives White sizeable pressure, Gutman; A4) 7 ...fle7 8.lLlxe4 ixo4 9.id2 (9.J.d3 .bO IO.flxO lLlc6 I I ..id2 gd8 1 2.ic3 lLlxeS 1 3 .fle2 lLlxd3 14.flxd3 ffi I S.0-0 flf7) 9...g6 10..Ac3 /J.g7 I I..ie2 lLlc6 12.0-0 .bO 13.bl3 AxeS 14..ixc6 dxc6 IS.fJO 0-0 16..ixeS fixeS 1 7 .flxc6 flxb2 1 8.cS �c8 1 9.a4 fJb4 20.gfc I retains a slight edge for White, Gutman;

282

AS) 7...�cS!? 8.b3 d6 (8 ...g6 9.ib2 /i.g7

I O.b4, e.g. IO... �e6 l l .ti'bl 0-0 12.ie2 Y!le7 13./i.c3 or I O...axb4 l l .axb4 �e4, Schnulch - Maxxx, internet 2002, 12. �xa8 haS 13.Y!Ial �xd2 14.�xd2 /i.b7 IS.e6!? hb2 1 6.exf7+ �xf7 17 .Y!Ixb2. 8 ... �c6 appears to be more challenging: 9Jb2 ie7 IOJ.e2 0-0 1 1.0-0 &8 12.Y!Ic2 li.�. e.g. 1 3.Y!Ic3 Y!le7 14.b4 �a4, Mol­ ler - Pedersen, Skandenborg 2002, or 13.ic3 g6 14.b4 1004 IS.lC.e4 1i..g7 16.�16+ ixffi 17.exffi �xc3 18.Y!Ixc3 lOeS 19.�xeS Y!lxf6. After 9.ie2 Black has a choice: 9...g6 IO.Ii..b2 /i.g7 l l .Y!Ic2 Y!le7 12.0-0 0-0 1 3 .ic3 �xeS 14.b4 axb4 I S.axb4 �xf3+ 16..hf3 hc3 1 7.Y!Ixc3 �e4 with equality, Dubinka - Kirnos, Alushta 2000 ; the sharp 9...g5 10Jb2 /i.g7 l l .Y!Ic2 g4 12.e6 hb2 13.\!bb2 0-0 14.�4 Y!lf6 I S.0-0 �xe6 1 6 .ixg4 �cxd4 1 7.exd4 Y!lg7 1 8.0 13 19..ih3, Kluss - Pape, Ger­ many 1 994, 1 9 ... �f4 20.�hl �ae8; or 9 ...d6!? IO.exd6hd6 1 1Jb2, Teychene ­ Kinnunen, Val Thorens 2002, 1 1 ...0-0 12.0-0 Y!le7 13.Y!Ic2 13 !? 14.�adl �e4) 9.ib2 (in case of9.exd6 Black has in ad­ dition to the natural 9 .ixd6 IO.ib2 0-0 I I J.e2 �bd7 12.0-0 13, an extra resource in the form of 9 ...Y!If6 10.&2 hd6 I I . li.b2 Y!lh6 12.Y!Ic2 0-0 1 3.ie2 �bd7 14.0-0 13) 9 dxeS I O.ixeS f6 (more exact than IO ...llX:6 1 1Jb2 Y!le7 12.Y!Ic2 h5 13.�. e.g. 1 3 ... 0-0-0 1 4.ie2 �6 IS.�bl mtd6 16.�c3 or 13 . .h4 14_ggl h3 I S .gxh3 a4 16.b4 �b3+ 1 7.�xb3 axb3 1 8.\!!fxb3 �xb4, Ebner - Schlindwein, Austrian League 200 1 , 19.�d4) l l .ib2 �ba6!? ( l l ...id6 12.b4 axb4 1 3.axb4 �xal 14.\!!txal , e.g. 14 ...�e4 1 S.\!!fa4+ �d7 1 6.�xe4 he4 17.cS or 14 ...ltka6 1S.b5 �b4 16.ic3 �7 17 .ie2) 12.\!!fc2 1i.d6 1 3 .ie2 0-0 1 4.0-0 13 I S .&dl Y!le7 secure enough play for the pawn, viz. 16.�d4 hh2+ 17.� Y!lh4+ 18.�gl li..xg2 19.�xg2 \!!fgS+ 20. �I Y!lh4+ with a draw, Gutman; •

•.

B) 7.�xe4! he4 looks like the crunch variation:

81) 8.e3 is best met by 8 ...Y!Ie7 - A4; B:Z) 8.g3 �a6 (8.. .ic5 9.igS \!!fc8 10.ig2

�c6 1 1 .0-0 h6 1 2.id2 0-0 1 3 .ic3 Y!le8 14.Y!Id2 Y!le7 lS� 1 �8 16.Y!If4, while 9.ih3 h6 1 0.0-0Y!Ie7 l l .if4 0-0 1 2.ig4, Romulus 73 - BerndS, internet 200 I , 1 2...gS 13.id2 �c6 14.ic3 &d8 lS.�el d6 1 6.exd6 �d6 seems viable for Black. 8...�c6 9.ig2 with the upper hand: as 9...�xeS is premature due to 1 0.Y!Id4 �xfJ+ l l .exf3 1i..c6 1 2.0-0, for instance 1 2 ...Y!Ie7 1 3 ./i.h6 0-0-0 14.1i..xg7 li..xg7 1S.Y!Ixg7 hS 16.h4 Y!lcS 1 7.Y!Ic3 dS 1 8.b4 Y!lxc4 19 .Y!If6 �b7 20_gfc 1 I :0 Ricardi ­ Perez, Olivos 1 993, or 1 2 .. .f6 1 3 .�el + �f7. Onei - TheKnife, internet 200 1 , 14.f4 hg2 1S.�g2 c6 16..Ae3; so Black has nothing better than 9 ...h6 10.0-0 Y!le7 l l .ie3 �xeS 12.�cl �c6 1 3 .cS) 9.ig2 (9.ih3, Harding, has its drawbacks, viz. 9 ...a4 lO.ie3 �cS 1 1 .0-0 �b3 1 2.�a2 li.cS 13..igS ii..e7 14.ixe7 Y!lxe7 I S.�d2 �xd2 16.Y!Ixd2 1i.c6) 9.. a4 1 0.0-0 (lO.ie3 �S l l .ixcS bxc5) lO ... �cS l l .�d4 hg2 1 2.�xg2 g6 1 3 .�bS /i.g7 14./i.gS Y!lc8 1S.if60-0 16..hg7 �g7 17 .Y!Ic2 Wb7+ 1 8.�gl &e8 with counterplay, Gutman; BJ) 8.Y!Id4 1i.b7 9.if4 (lf9.h4 �c6 1 0.Y!Ie4 Y!le7, but not lO .icS l l.Y!Ig4 �� 1 2.hS h6 13M4 Y!le7 14.e3 a4 1S.id3, Pezek -

283

.

•

Fuemkranz, e-mail 200 1 . Also 9.t:!lg4 t:!le7 I O ..ig5 t:!le6 l l .t:!lxe6+ dxe6 1 2.h4 ot)d7 1 3.Af4 serves to activate Black's pieces, e.g. 13 ...h6 14.h5 0-0-0 1 5 .e3 fti 1 6.exf6 gxf6 1 7.0-0-0 Ag7 1 8 ..ie2 a4, Eliet - Herbrechtsmeier, Mulhouse 2001 , or 13 .. .h5!? 14.e3 g6 1 5.� .i87 16.Ae2 ()..6..()) 9...t:!le7 (9...ot)a6 is met by IO..igS! t:!lc8 I U :tdl ot)cS 12.Ae3 ot)e6 1 3 .t:!lc3 Ac5 14.g3 0-0 15..ig2 J:te8 1 6.0-0, while 9 .J.c5 I O.t:!ic3 ot)c6 I U :tdl t:!le7 1 2 .e3 h6 1 3J.e2 0-0 1 4.0-0 &d8 1 5.ot)d4 t:!le8 16,ot)b5 &8 17 .J.g4 left Black frustrated, Liama - Tarrega, internet 200 1) I OJ::tdl ot)a6 l l .g3 ot)cS 1 2.J.h3 ot)e6 1 3 .t:!lc3 g6 14.0-0 .ig7 15.t:!id2 0-0 16..ih6, Gutman; similarly B4) 8..if4 !? ot)a6 (8..J.c5 9.e3 ot)c6 I O.id3 Ag6 l l ..ig6 hxg6 12.t:!lc2 ot)e7 13.0-0-0 fti? 14.h4 c6 1 5 .t:!lc3 winning, Noack ­ Heiden, corr 200 I. Also after 8 ...t:!le7 9.e3 h6 IO.ie2 .i.b7- IO ...ot)a6 1 1 .0-0 Ab7 12. ot)d4 g5 1 3.!!3 0-0-0 14..ig3 h5 15.ixh5 ot)cS 16.b4 �4 17 .J.f3 ot)xg3 1 8.ixb7+ �xb7 19.t:!IO+ 'tt>b8 20.t:!lxg3, Berdic­ hesky - Chan, corr 1 994 -, l l ,ot)d4 g5 12..ig3 Black's position remains uncom­ fortable, for example 12 ...Axg2 1 3 J:tgl .i.b7 14.e6 dxe6 IS .An or 12...tbc6 13.ot)b5 � 14.c5) 9.e3 (9.t:!id2 ot)cS IO,ot)d4 /JJ:7 1 1 .0 .ib7 12J�dl 0-0 1 3.e4 gave White a plus, Dietrich - Schmid, e-mail 200 1, yet Black can do better with I O...a4 1 1 .0 Ab7 12 e4 ot)e6 13..ie3 ic5 14Edl ot)xd4 1 5..ixd4 t:!le7 1 6..ie2 0-0-0) 9 ... ot)c5 10. Ae2 a4 I 1.0-0 .ie7 ( l l ...ot)b3 12.� .ie7 1 3 .ot)d4) 12.ot)d4 l::ta5 1 3.0 (instead of 13.&1 ih4 14.h3 0-0 IS.J.O f5, Fakler ­ Zanolin, e-mail 200 I ) 13 .. .J.g6 14.t:!ld2 0-0 I S .l::t adl t:!lc8 1 6.ot)b5! ? (Luehrig ­ Choroba, e-mai1 200 I , went 16.e4 ot)e6 17.ot)xe6 dxe6 1 8.t:!id7 ic5+ 19.�hl t:!la8, when 20.J.d2! ? &7 2 l ..ib4 could have been quite unpleasant) 16 ...l::td8 17.c;t>hl and White dominates the field. Gulmmr.

7..bdl

_

7...fle7

Other moves are less effective: I) 7...tbc6 8Jc3 (8..if4 t:!ie7 9.e3 h6 I OJd3 g5 l l .ig] Ag7 12.h40-0-0 13.t:!ic2 h8 14.().0..() ot)xe5 is even) 8...t:!le7 9.t:!lc2 (9.e3 see S.ot)O .ib7 6.e3 ot)c6 7.ot)bd2 ot)xd2 8.Axd2 t:!le7 9.Ac3) 9 ...0-0-0 10.0-0-0 l::tg8 l l .t:!lxh7 g6 12.t:!lh4 t:!lxh4 13.ot)xh4 l::te8 14.ot)O Ag7 1 5 .e3 ot)xe5 16.ot)xe5 AxeS 17.J.xe5 l::txe5 1 8.h4, Hillarp Pers­ son- Romero, Benidom 2003; m 7 ...d6 8..if'4 (8..ic3 ot)d7, e.g. 9.e3 dxe5 I O.ot)xe5 and now not IO ... id6 l l .'t!la4, but IO ...ot)cS l l.'t!lxd8+ l::txd8 1 2-!d I IJJ:7, or 9.exd6hd6 10.e3, Gomboc - Camp­ bell, Edmonton 2000, I O...t:!le7 I I J.xg7 l::tg8) 8 ...� (8...ot)d7 9.exd6 t:!tffi IO.t:!id4) 9.e3 (9.exd6 Axd6 IO..ixd6 cxd6 l l .e3 0-0 12 ..ie2 t:!if6 ! ?) 9... dxe5 I O.t:!ixd8+ l::txd8 l l .ot)xe5, Gutman. 8.ic3

8.t:!ic2 .ixO 9.ex0 t:!lxe5+ l l .'t!le4 t:!lxe4+ 1 2.fxe4 ot)c6 If ..ic3 f6, Gutman. 8... g6! 9.e3

If9.e6 fti IO.exd7+ ot)xd7 l l .e3 0-0-0 with a lead in development, Gutman. 9...ig7 10..ld3 0.0 ll.f!:cl aS

l l ...J.xO 12.t:!ix0 ot)c6 1 3.J.e4, Gutman. 12.0-0 f!:e8 lJ.f!:cl .AxfJ 14.flxfJ €la6 1S..le4 f!:ad8

Black keeps control, Gutman.

284

Index of variations l .d4 � f6 2.c4 eS 3.dxe5 �e4!? Part One: Less popular variations Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 C h apter 6

Section 1 Section 2 Section J

8

4.ie3 (4.0, 4.e3, 4.J.f4, 4.J.d2) 4.g3 4.�c3 4.Wd4 4.Wd3 4.Wd5 4 ... f5 4 ...J.b4+ 4 ...�c5

8 10 12 14 18 22 22 24 27

Part Two: 4.1rc2, Steiner Variation

30

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3

30 31 46 46 50 64

Section 1 Section 2 Section J

4 ... �c5 4 ... d5 4 ... J.b4+! 5.J.d2 5 .�d2 5.�c3

Part Three: 4.�d2

76

Chapter 1 4 ... �c5

76 77 79 81 84 89 89 95 1 00 1 00 1 06 1 13 1 16 1 16 123 1 30 1 30 136 144

5 .a3 (5 .e4, 5.�d0, 5.b3, 5 .g3) 5 .�g0 �c6 (5 ...d6) 6.b3 5 .�g0 �c6 6.�b3 5.�g0 �c6 6.e3 5.�g0 �c6 6.a3 6 ...a5 (6 .. .f6, 6 ...d6) Sequel I Sequel 2 6 ... We7 Section 6 5 .�g0 �c6 6.g3, Alekhine Variation Sequel I 6 ...We7 (6... h5, 6 ... g5, 6 ...J.e7, 6 ... b6, 6... d5, 6 ...g6) Sequel 2 6 ...d6 Section 7 5.b4!? �e6 6.a3 Chapter 2 4 ...J.b4!? Section 1 5.a3 Section 2 5 .g3 Section J 5 .�g0 5 ... �c6 6.e3 (6.Wc2, 6.g3) Sequel I Sequel 2 5 ... �c6 6.a3 5 ...d6 !? (5 ... c5, 5 ... f6, 5 ... b6, 5 ... d5, 5 ...0-0, 5 ...We7) Sequel 3

Section 1 Section 2 SectionJ Section 4 Section 5

285

Part Four: 4.�f3

1 52

C hapter I 4 ...d6 (4 ....ic5, 4...•�k6) Chapter 2 4 ...b6, Bonsdorf/ VIITilltion Ch arter 3 4. . ..ib4+ 5 ..id2, Smyslov Variation

1 52 161 1 70

Section 1 Section 2 Section J

5 ... �xd2 (5 ....ic5, 5 ... .ixd2+, 5 ...a5, 5 ...\!!Ve7) 6.�xd2 �c6 7 .a3 (7 .g3, 7 .e3) 7 ....if8 (7 ....ie7) 5 ... �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.\!!V xd2 \!!V e7 (8 ... 0-0) 9.\!!Vf4 (9.\!!V g 5, 9.\!!V e 3, 9.\!!V d5, 9 .g3, 9.e3) 5 ... �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8.\!!V xd2 \!!V e7 9.\!!V c3b6,

Borik

1 O.e3 ( 1 O.h4, 1 O.e4, 1 O.b4, 1 OJk 1 ) 10 ....ib7 1 1 .Ae2 ( 1 l .b4, 1 l .c5, 1 Uk 1 , 1 l ..id3 , 1 U �dl ) 1 1 ...0-0-0 ( l l ..llg8, 1 1 ...0-0) 1 2�c 1 ( 1 2.b4, 1 2.c5, 1 2 .0-0, 1 2.0-0-0) Seque1 2 1 0.g3 Section 4 5 . . . �xd2 6.�xd2 �c6 7.a3 .ixd2+ 8 .\!!V xd2 \!!V e7 9.\!!V c3 0-0,

1 70 175 1 82

Sequel 1

Steiner Method

1 82 198 20 1

Part Five: 4.a3

210

4 ...a5 (4 ....ic5, 4 ... .ie7, 4...\!!Ve7) 4 .. ."tfb4, Vasconcellos Variation 4 ... �c6 4 ...d6 Section 1 5 .\!!Vc2 (5.\!!Vd4, 5 .\!!V d 5, 5 ..if4, 5.exd6) Section 2 5 .�0 .if5 (5 ... �c6) Chapter 5 4 ... b6, Modern Defence

210 213 222 235 235 260 274

Chapter I Chapter 2 C hapter 3 Chapter 4

286

Bibliography V4UI

der T11A, Fajarowicz-Variante, Schach­ Archiv 1 993

Kun Ri&ll�r. Wiener Schachzeitung, 1 933 RDIM11 FIM, Modem Chess Openings, 1939 Slw/6Uy T111111kDwer, L'Echequier de Paris•

A1111toli M11LJuAevich, Angreiffen mit Bu­ dapesterGambit, 1993

Kurt Richter, Die modeme Schachpartie'

I�

Jo/111 WIILJofi!Eric Scldller, The Big Book of Busts, 1 995

Kun Ri&ll�r. Schach Eroeffnungen, 1 953

Niels Joerge11 Jet1set1, Fajarowicz-gambit,

1 947

Victor K11h11, La Varianta Fajarowicz, 1 954 J11cques Le Mot1t1ier, Le Gambit de Bu­

dapest, 1 964 lsrul Horuwlt:.. Chess Openings: Theorie and Practice, I 964 Max Euwe, Theorie der Schach-E roef­

filungm, 1 965 Victor CiocUteiiiSergiu S11m11ri1111, Teoria Modema a

Deschidererilor in Sah,

1 965

Fet7111Ni ode AJmeidtl VtJScot�eeUos, Gam­

bito Budapesto, 1 966 A/aiullk r HiJJJibr11flll, Budapest-Gambill:n,

1 966 Ke11 Smith, T h e Budapest Defence' Chess

Digest 1 972 Titll H11rdi11g, Counter Gambits, 1974

Nblil MIMv, Encyclopaedia of chess open­ ings, 1979 JosefSIIWr, Alrm Gllmoe, GregOJy Slllytut, Budapest Defence, 198 0 Otto BoriA, Budapest Gambit, 1986 Frt���tlsd Nepustll, das Fajarowicz-System.

Schach-Archiv 1987 AIDuJNier Hildebr11tld/Peder BerAell' Budapest-Gambitcn, 1987 Joel Be11)11miti/Eric Schiller, Unorthodox

Openings, 1 987 AtllltoU MfiiSuk.evlch, Seltene Gambits, 1988 Otto BoriA, Budapester Gambit, 1988 Jollfl Do1111ldsot1, Fajarowicz-Variation' In­

side Chess 1 990 Chess B11se, Budapester Gambit, 1 990 Juli1111 Hogso11, Budapest Defence, Trends

1 995 Tim Hlll'lg lin , The Fighting Fajarowicz, 1996 v1111 der Td, The Budapest Gambit, 1 996 Encyclopaedia of chess openings, 1 996 J011 11 Segur11, Variant Fajarowicz, D'Escacs

1 996/1 997 AlfotiSo Romero Hol•es, The best Ideas of

1 996, 1997 Ste/1111 Bueder, Kaissiber 2/3 1 997 Roger Thomset1/Niels Je11Set1, Kaissiber

3/1997 Gmllllm Burgess/SUJ/etl Petkrse11, Beating

the Indian Defences, 1997 Lev Gll/lflllll, das Fajarowicz System, Schach­ Archiv 1 997 Bogdllt1 1Aiic, The Budapest Gam bit, 1 998 Eric Scldlkr, Unorthodox Chess Openings ,

1 998

Jollfl Nu1111, Gruhtlm Burgess, Jo11t1 EmlfiS, Joe Gllllilgller- Nunn's Chess Openings, 1999 NicA tk Firmill 11, Batsford's Modem Chess

Openings, 2000 Chess B11se: Corr Datebase 2000

Encyclopaedia of chess openings, 200 I

Kjell Km111t, Fajarowitz-Gambit (Bonsdorff­ Variante), Kaissiber 1 6/200 1 S�/1111 Bwcur and Alfred Diel, Kaissiber

16/200 I Be11t L11rsu, Kai ssiber 1 71 1 8 , 2001 Ste/1111 BuecAer, Kaissiber 1 71 1 8, 2001 Tim H11rdi11g, Mega Corr 3 Chess BtJSe: Mega Datebase 2003 including

ChessBASE Magazines up to CBM 96 The Wed 111 Chess up to 475

1991 MlkJrall Tseltlllgor l/l Gillskm , The Budapest

for the Tournament Player, 1 992

Extra information from books and period­ icals are noted in the text.

287