The Blumenfeld Gambit (Cadogan Chess Books)

THE BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

PERGAMON CHESS OPENINGS Executive Editor: PAUL LAMFORD Technical Editor: JIMMY ADAMS

ADORJAN. A. & HORVATH. T. Sicilian: Sveshnikov Variation ASSIAC & O'CONNELL. K. Opening Preparation BASMAN, M. Play the St. George CAFFERTY. B. & HOOPER. D. A Complete Defence to 1 e4 ESTRIN. Y. B. & GLASKOV. I. B. Play the King·s Gambit Volume 1 -King's Gambit Accepted Volume 2-King's Gambit Declined GLIGORIC. S. Play the Nimzo-lndian Defence KEENE. R. D. The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory KOVACS. L. M. Sicilian: Poisoned Pawn Variation MAROVIC. D. Play the King's Indian Defence NEISHTADT. I. Play the Catalan Volume 1 -Open Variation Volume 2-Ciosed Variation REUBEN. S. Chess Openings-Your Choice! SHAMKOVICH, L. & SCHILLER. E. Play the Tarrasch SUETIN. A. S. Modern Chess Opening Theory TAULBUT. S. Play the Bogo-lndian WATSON. J. L. Play the French

THE BLUMENFELD GAMBIT JAN PRZEWOZNIK International Master and

MALCOLM PEIN International Master

PERGAMON CHESS Member of Maxwell Macmillan Pergamon Publishing Corporation OXFORD

·

NEWYORK

SAO PAULO

·

·

SYDNEY

BEIJING ·

TOKYO

FRANKFURT

·

·

TORONTO

U.K.

Pergamon Press pic. Headington Hill Hall. Oxford OX3 OBW. England

U.S.A.

Pergamon Press Inc .• Maxwell House. Fairview Park. Elmsford. New York 10523. U.S.A.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Pergamon Press, Room 4037, Qianmen Hotel. Beijing, People's Republic of China

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Pergamon Press GmbH. Hammerweg 6, D-6242 Kronberg. Federal Republic of Germany

BRAZIL

Pergamon Editora Ltda. Rua Eca de Queiros, 346, CEP 04011. Paraiso. Sao Paulo. Brazil

AUSTRALIA

Pergamon Press Australia Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 544. Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011. Australia

JAPAN

Pergamon Press, 5th Floor, Matsuoka Central Building, 1-7-1 Nishishinjuku. Shinjuku-ku. Tokyo 160, Japan

CANADA

Pergamon Press Canada Ltd .• Suite No. 271, 253 College Street. Toronto. Ontario, Canada M5T 1R5 Copyright © 1991 Malcolm Pain & Jan Przewoznik

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means: electronic. electrostatic. magnetic tape. mechanical, photocopy­ ing, recording or otherwise. without permission in writing from the publishers.

First edition 1991

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Przewoznik. Jan. The Blumenfeld gambit I Jan Przewoznik and Malcolm Pein. p. em. - {Pergamon chess openings) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Chess-Openings. 2. Chess-Collections of games. I. Pain. Malcolm. II. Title. Ill. Series. GV1450.2.P79 1990 B9-77317 794.1'22-dc20

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Przewoznik, Jan The Blumenfeld gambit.- {Pergamon chess openings) 1. Chess. Openings I. Title II. Pein. Malcolm 794.122 ISBN 0-08-037133-7

Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Wheatons Ltd. Exeter

Dedicated to the Memory of My Parents JAN PRZEWOZNIK

Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................

I.

Historical Sketch .......................................................................

2.

A

Few Ideas

XI

................................................................................

II

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined I . d4 lLJf6 2. c4 e6 3. lLJf3 c5 4. d5 b5 5 . ..t g5 ..................

26

A.

5 . . . 'ilfa5 + ... .. ... .... . . . ........ . . .... . . ...... . ... . ............ . .................. . .. ......

26

I. 2. 3. 4.

6. 6. 6. 6.

'ilfd2 ............................................................................................ lbc3 ............................................................................................ ..td2 lLJ bd2

27 34 35 36

B.

5 . . . exd5 ................... .... .. .. ........ . ...... .... . ......................................

39

I. 2. 3. 5.

6. 6. 6. 6.

h6 ..................................................................................... 'ilfa5 + ..... . .... ................ . ................................................. . d6 . ........ . ............................................ ........... ... ..... ......... ... 'ilf b6 .................................................................................

39 42 45

C.

5 . . . h6 ....................... ........ ... . ... ...... ... . ....................................... ..

46

5 . .. bxc4 .. ............................. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ...................................

50 50 51 52

ANALYSES

3.

··························································································

·························································································

.

cxd5 cxd 5 cxd 5 cxd5

..

44

D. I. 2. 3. 4.

.

5 . . . ..tb7 5 . . . d6

..................... .. .. ... . .. . . ... ....... . .. . ....................... ........ . .... .

.

···························································································

5 . . . 'ilf b6

·······················································································

vii

Contents

viii 4.

A. B. C. D. E. F. 5. A. B. C. D.

The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted I . d4 lll f6 2. c4 e6 3. lt:lf3 c5 4. d5 b5 5. dxe6 fxe6 6. cxb5 d5

53

7. e3

53 57 58 60 61 64

................................................................................................

7. .tf4

.

......................................................................... .................

7 . .tg5

. . ................................................................................................ lt:l c3 ............................................................................................

......... ............................................ ...................................

7. g3 7.

6. . . . .tb7

....................................................................................

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other lines. I . d4 lllf6 2. c4 e6 3. lll f3 c5 4. d5 b5 ................................. 5. a4

. . . . . . . . ..

............................................. . . . ... . . . .

5. .tf4 5. 5.

......

. ... . . . ..

....................................... ..

. .. .. .

.. . .. ... . ... . ... ..

.

.... ........

..

...

. .

.............. ..... ..

.

e4 . . .. ... . ..... . .. . . lt:l c3 ............................................................................................ "ifc2 ............................................................................................ .................................................... .... .............

..

. .

. .

. . .

E.

5.

6.

Modern treatment of the Blumenfeld Gambit: version 3 . . . a6

67 67 69 70 71 72

I . d4 lll f6 2. c4 e6 3. lt:lf3 a6 4. lt:lc3 c5 5. d5 b5 6. .tg5 b4 7. lll e4 d6 ...............................................................................

73

A.

8. .txf6

B. C. D.

8. "ifa4 +

75 75 76 79 82 82 84 85

.

.

8. lll x f6 +

..... .. .. .

....

..

..

....

. .

.

............ .....................................................

............... .. .....

.. .

. . .. . .. ... . ...... ...

.... .

. .

. ..

.

.

.................. ..........

. .. . ... ........ . . ................................................................................................ E. 8. g3 ................................................................................................ F. 8. "it'd3 . . .. G. 8. e3 ................................................................................................ H. 7. .. . .te7 . . . . .. . . ............................................. ..

.... ...

. . .............

8. a3

................................................................................... ..

.. ........................................... ...... . .

EPILOGUE

.

. .... ... .. . ..

...... .

.

.

..

...

.. ..................... .

..

.... . ............................................................

..

88

INDEX OF PLAYERS...........................................................................

1 02

APPENDIX: SELECTED GAMES

LITERATURE

. . .......

... .. .

...........

..

. .. .

. ..

. . ..

.. ........... ... ...

.....

.. . .

87

. . ...........

............................................................

1 06

Acknowledgments I could not have finished this book without the help and support of a few friends. First of all I pay tribute to the Editor, Mr Colin Crouch. Also, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to International Master Malcolm Pein for his scrupulous reading of the manuscript and a number of very useful suggestions and amendments. Thanks also to Malgorzata Jamroz, who translated the Introduction, Chapter I and a part of Chaper II of the book. I would especially like to thank my wife Danuta, whose love, encouragement, patience, and understanding made this book possible.

Introduction I N THE 1 920s, Benjamin Blumen­ feld proposed a very interesting method of counterplay for Black involving the sacrifice of a pawn, after the moves 1 . d4 l2Jf6 2. c4 e6 3. lLlf3 c5 4. d5 b5. For more than sixty years this opening has had varied fortunes in tournament practice; the evaluations of it made in current analyses of openings are disadvantageous for Black, which is why the opening is now played relatively rarely. Some facts may give evidence of its limited popu­ larity. First, it is hardly ever seen in games at the highest level. Second, very little space is devoted to it in books on gambits, or it is not mentioned at all! It is explicitly evaluated in current studies of openings as : worse position for Black after 5 ..ig5 (Encyclopedia . . . , 1 978, Taimanov, 1 980). How­ ever, the games played in recent years seem to lead to the conclu­ sion that it is high time to question such an evaluation. New ideas of counter-attack have appeared, particularly in variations with 5

he aims at outlining the current state of theory in the Blumenfeld Gambit. The theoretical material included here should be of interest to a great number of chess players, from less advanced ones to experi­ enced masters appearing in the international arena. The author of this work has tried to present not only the latest state of theory, but also perspectives on its develop­ ment. Moreover, his intention has been to stress the significance of positions that have not yet been properly analysed. The author hopes that such a way of present­ ing the theory will make it possible for the reader to work further on the creative analytical level. He also hopes to encourage the reader to try out his own innovatory, original conceptions while playing chess. Second, the present writer tried to illustrate a general methodology of work on the opening, with Blu­ menfeld's Gambit as an example; the method draws upon the results of psychological research on chess and on the experiences of num­ erous generations of theoreticians working on the initial phase of the

�g5.

The present writer would like to achieve several aims here. First, xi

xii

The Blumenfeld Gambit

chess game. The method lays stress on a few basic elements that should be taken into account by anyone who studies chess and who wants to get to know a given opening, to get to its core. The main task for him, then, is to know : -the history of the development of the opening, -the most significant ideas, stra­ tegic plans, typical tactical operations, -games that are typical of the opening, presenting the above ideas, plans and operations, -a wide repertoire of games played in the opening. Those who want to develop their skill within the domain of the opening struggle may follow the example of the method of ana­ lysing the opening presented here. Advanced chess players, on the other hand, will have the oppor­ tunity to evaluate their own reper­ toire of openings; the opportunity to make possible comparisons between the material presented here and their own methods of work. Third, the author's aim is to highlight the phenomenon of the so-called incorrectness of the opening; the whole Blumenfeld Gambit was usually regarded in this way; as incorrect. However, the analyses shown further on led to the discovery of new ideas, to the formulation of theoretical problems in a new way. Perhaps

the illustration of the very process of change in the theoretical evalu­ ation of the Blumenfeld Gambit will draw the reader's attention to some other "incorrect" openings and will inspire him to look for entirely new poss�bilities. Such an attitude would be consistent with a well-known recipe of Emanuel Lasker, who claimed that those who aspire to independent think­ ing in chess must avoid everything that is not alive in them. Especially, he continued, they must avoid all theories that are based on a few examples only; the independently thinking chess­ player would not mechanically repeat variations, plans, evalu­ ations, etc., of other players (Lasker, 1 934). The strength of Mikhail Botvinnik's play rested on such independence of thought and analysis. He would spend a lot of time privately analysing his favourite systems before ulti­ mately introducing them into And tournament practice. although, as it was often shown later, many of his conceptions were contradictory, his opponents were not able to find any weak points in his strategic plans for a very long time; they very often underestimated the danger of their positions. The key to the puzzle of Botvinnik's success lies in the fact that he was generally ahead of his time, in relation to his opponents, when playing a given opening, a given scheme of play, etc. (Suetin,

Introduction

1 984). The material is presented in this study according to the assumed objectives. Chapter I is a brief presentation of the history of the opening, from the very beginning to the present day. Chapter II is

xiii

an introduction to certain basic strategic and tactical nuances of the opening. Chapters Ill to VI will acquaint the reader with a set of theoretical analyses. Chapter VII includes model games for independent analysis.

Symbols x-capture. + -check. 0-0-Kingside castling. 0-0-0-Queenside castling. l -0-White won. 0- l -Black won. + - -White has a decisive advantage. - + -Black has a decisive advantage. ± -White has the upper hand. + -Black has the upper hand. ;t -White stands slightly better. + -Black stands slightly better . =-The position is even. !-A very good move. !!-An excellent move. ?-A mistake. '!?-A blunder . !?-A move deser ving attention. ?!-A dubious move . .6.-White is to play in the position diagrammed �-Black is to play in the position diagrammed.

xiv

1

Historical Sketch It is easier to understand the nature of all the current theoretical arguments and disputes when one is aware of the historical develop­ ment of an opening. It very often happens that the application of theoretical novelties is a result of recollecting some games or analyses from many years ago; this phenomenon is reflected in the well-known saying that there is nothing new under the Sun. Apart from the advantages mentioned above, knowledge of the history of an opening enriches the general culture of a chess player. For all these reasons a brief sketch of the development of Blumenfeld's idea seems to be well justified and pur­ poseful here. During the first years of the gambit, its main idea was unusu­ ally brilliantly and didactically presented by the future world champion in the Tarrasch-Aiek­ hine game. It illustrates the birth of the idea of Blumenfeld's Gambit in the international arena.

Tarrasch-Aiekhine

(Pistyan, 1 922)

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5

A characteristic position in the accepted Blumenfeld Gambit. Black has sacrificed a flank pawn in return for which he has built a strong pawn centre; moreover, all his pieces have very good pro­ spects of development.

The Blumenfeld Gambit

2

7 e3 ..td6 8 lbc3 ..tb7 9 ..te2

0-0 1 0 b3 lbbd7 1 1 ..tb2 fle7 1 2 0-0 llad8

oeuvre to defend the weak point h 2 : ll el, lbf3-d2-fl. On the other hand, the f2 point may be defended, in case of emergency, by move lbc3-d 1 . 1 4 . . . e4 1 5 lbd2 lbe5

In the direction of White's king! 1 6 lbd 1 lbfg4 17 ..t xg4 lbxg4 18 lbfl flg5!

White has reinforced the defence of two squares around his king-f2 and h2. Black finds the third one! It is the g2 point-there is the threat of the manoeuvre lbg4-h6-f5-h4. 19 h3 lbh6 20 ..Phi lbf5 21 lbh2 d4! 22 .tel .

Here we have the logical result of the variation. White has set up a defensive formation with no weaknesses, and Black has clearly emphasised his two main trumps : the strong pawn centre and the activity of his pieces. 13

flc2

e5

Black intends to increase his advantage in space. Thus, the dynamic pawn centre makes poss­ ible a heightening of activity of Black's pieces. 14

llfel

The attack 14 e4 would not stop Black's pawns. After 14 . . . d4 1 5 lbd5 lbxd5 1 6 exd5 ..txd5 with e5-e4 to follow, Black would have had an overwhelming position. White prepares a typical man-

After 2 2 exd4 the pair of bishops comes to life : 22 . . . e3! 23 lbxe3 lb xe3 24 fxe3 tt'g3 and Black wms. 22 . . . d3 23 tt'c4+ ..t>h8 24 ..tb2 lbg3+!

25

�gl

..td5 26

tt'a4

27

�h1

ll f7

lbe2+

28

fla6 h5! 29 b6 lbg3+ 30 �gl axb6 3 1 tt'xb6.

The first real achievement by White on the queenside-a passed a-pawn. The superiority estab­ lished on the wing by the move 6 cxb5 is only of symbolic value now. The events on the other wing are decisive. 31 . . . d2 32 ll fl lbxfl 33 lbxfl Be6 34 ¢>hl ..t xh3! 35 gxh3 llf3 36 lbg3 h4 37 ..tf6 flxf6 38 lbxe4 ll xh3+

and White resigns. Let us see how Black realised a similar idea in the same year, in

Historical Sketch

the game Kostic-Maroczy, Lon­ don 1 922. I d4 ltlf6 2 ltlf3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 cxb5 ..tb7 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 ltlc3 d5 8 e3 ..td6 9 ..ie2 0-0 1 0 0-0 "ike7 I I "ikc2 ltlbd7 1 2 ..id3 c4 13 ..te2 ltlc5 14 ltld4 ltlfe4 1 5 ltlxe4 ltlxe4 1 6 f4 e5 1 6 ltlc6 ..txc6 1 8 bxc6 exf4 1 9 ..t f3

(19 exf4 ..t c5+ 20 � h 1 "ikh4 - + ) 1 9 . . . ..ic5 20 b4 ..txb4 2 1 l:tbl

..tc5 22 l:tb7 fxe3 with a decisive advantage. When recollecting the history of Blumenfeld's Gambit, Reti wrote that the game Tarrasch-Aiekhine influenced contemporary chess­ players to such an extent that hardly anyone elected to accept the pawn. According to Reti, though, there was a possibility of defence with the moves: 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 ltlbd2 and then 8 g3, 9 ..ig2 with pressure on the centre. With the benefit of hindsight, we are not surprised that Reti, who was a master of the attack against an opponent's strong pawn centre, should be attracted to this position; the game itself is regarded as a classic. However, in the same year, the new move 5 ..ig5 was suggested instead of 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5. According to Reti, chess theory had not yet spoken its last word about this move. Even so, the move 5 ..tg5 challenged the cor­ rectness of Black's opening for a great many years. The discoverer of 5 ..tg5, a Russian master Dus-

3

Khotimirski, appreciated the strength of the central black pawns and criticised Tarrasch for having a too perfunctory approach to this sharp opening. Dus-Khotimirski's assumptions were simple : what is the sense of wearing oneself out with a tiresome defence, just for the gain of a pawn of doubtful value, when it is possible to attack with equal material! So the refu­ tation (!) of Blumenfeld's Gambit . is possible only after the aggressive 5 ..ig5! ( Dus-Khotimirski, 1 953). Let us see the reaction of Dus­ Khotimirski to the Gambit :

Dus-Khotimirski-Levenfish

Moscow, 1 922 I d4 ltlf6 2 ltlf3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..ig5 bxc4

Dus-Khotimirski recommended 5 . . b4, which limits the mobility of White's knight on b l . .

6 e4 ..ta6 7 ltlc3 "ika5 8 dxe6 dxe6

After 8 . . fxe6 9 ..txf6 gxf6 1 0 ltld2 intending both "ikh5 + and ltlxc4 White would be clearly better. .

9 ltle5 ..ie7

It was not possible to take the pawn : 9 . . . ltlxe4 10 "ikf3 f5 1 1 "ikh5 + g6 1 2 ltlxg6 hxg6 1 3 "ikxg6 + winning for White. 1 0 ..txc4 0-0 I I "ike2 ..tb7 1 2

0-0 "ikc7

The Blumenfeld Gambit

4

White's position is already won! There is the threat of an attack with e4-e5, .=. d 1 -d3-g3, lLlc3-e4-f6. 17 . . . a6 18 .ia4 .lh7

An indirect defence of the bishop on e7, thus : 19 e5 lLld5 20 lLlxd5 .i xd5 2 1 .i xe7 .C.xe7 19 .C.d3 h6 20 .if4 .ic6 21 .C.g3

�h8 22 e5

We can now sum up the results of the opening. Instead of the strong centre, Black has a weak pawn on c5. The only possibility of increasing its value may be sought in the manoeuvre lLlb8-c6d4, occupying the d4 square, but the lLle5 is an obstacle to this. 13

..tf4 Wc8

14

.l:tad l

lLlc6

1 5 lLlxc6 Wxc6 16 ..tb5 Wb6 1 7 .ig5!

As in the previous game, Tar­ rasch-Aiekhine, a pawn advance in the centre, displacing the knight which defends the king, decides the result of the game. It was 1 4 . . . e5-e4 before, whereas now it is 22 e4-e5. 22 . . . lLlh7 23 .ic2 .ig5

Since four long-range white pieces are involved in the attack, Black wants to relieve the pressure by means of exchanges. 24 .ixg5 hxg5 25 .ixh7 � xh7 26 'it'h5 + �g8 27 'iix g5 and Black resigns. In the above game Dus-Khot­ imirski indicated the crucial, prin­ cipal rule of the Blumenfeld Gam­ bit : the struggle for the strong centre is the keynote for domin­ ation in this opening. Two further attempts, by the great Polish grandmaster Akiba Rubinstein, were consistent with this rule. After the moves I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 tLJf3 c5 4 d5 b5, the moves 5 e4 and 5 a4 were introduced by him. Both moves aim towards the struggle for the centre. 5 e4 did not work. Black is able to defend himself against the attack-5 . . .

lLl xe4 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 .id3 lLlf6 8

tLJg5 We7 9 cxb5 d5 1 0 0-0 g6-

Historical Sketch

� r;:::;::;:::::r.;r.;;;;==:;;=;;;=:::=;:;;J

5

Black, on the other hand, has continually tried to crack a hard nut-5 ..tg5. He sought equalis­ ing chances, among others, in the variation 5 . . . exd5. According to Voronkov ( 1 97 1 ), Black can rely on this move only. The basis of such an evaluation is to be found in the pioneer game Kmoch­ Spielmann, Semmering 1 926 : 5

. . .

exd5 6 cxd5 h6 7 ..t xf6

Wxf6 8 *cl d6 9 e4 a6 10 a4 b4 l l ttJbdl ..tg4 1 l .tel ttJd7 1 3

0-0 ..te7 1 4 � h 1 ..t x f3 1 5 ..txf3

and we can see he has taken the central pawn on his way. On the other hand, 5 a4 aims at clarifying the situation on the

queen's wing in order to enable White to undertake appropriate action in the centre. No doubt 5 a4 is better than 5 e4 but it is rare ly played nowadays since when Black reacts properly it does not give any edge for White.

ttJe5 1 6 .tel g5!

Black 's position is better! Note the similarity between the idea of g7-g5, with the arrangement of pawns in the centre d 5-e4-f2 : d6, and current variations of the Benoni Defence with g6-g5! (For example I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 ttJc3 g6 7 e4 ..tg7 8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 ttJbd7

The Blumenfeld Gambit

6

10 tZJd2 J:t e8 I I a4 lZJe5 1 2 'ilt'c2 g5-Ed.) As regards opening theory, White's reaction to Spiel­ mann's plan was not that quick but it was very effective. The attack came from two sides, both in the variation 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS and in 5 i.gS exdS. Not until the 1 940s and 1 950s did the old continuation with the acceptance of the pawn sacrifice­ S dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS regain the favour of chess players. At that time, M. Euwe drew the theoretic­ ians' attention to the possibility of counter-attack on the centre with e3-e4, for instance 5 dxe6 fxe6

Apart from Euwe's idea of e3e4, another idea appeared, in the Kan-Goldenov, USSR 1 946, in which White tried to limit the mobility of Black 's kingside pieces. After 5 dxe6 fxe6 cxbS dS the move 7 i.gS was played!

6 cxbS dS 7 e3 i.d6 8 lZJc3 0-0 9 e4!

On lZJgS,

9

on

. . .

9

dxe4

. . .

White plans

10

lZJxe4 1 0 lZJxe4 dxe4

I I lZJgS, and on 9 d4 he has an ideal reply : 10 eS!, with better play for White in all three cases (Voronkov, 1 97 1 ). . . .

The plan of placing the dark squared bishop on the kingside­ to defend the king and, especially, to counteract the pressure of Black's eventual i.d6, via i.g5h4-g3 -resulted in a number of interesting games in which Black 's attack did not develop easily, thus making the fight more intense. With time, White found the antidote to Spielmann's plan in the variation with 5 exdS. It was found out that the exchange .�c8-g4xf3 is advantageous for Black. In Li pnitsky-Tolush, USSR 1 950, instead of I I lZJbd2 the move I I tZJfd2! was played. . . .

Historical Sketch

Later on, White was able to impose his own plan of play on the centre : 6 cxd5 h6 7 �xf6 'lWxf6 8 'ilfc2 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 tt:lfd2 J..e7 12 tt:lc4 tt:Jd7 1 3 tt:lbd2 0-0 14 �d3 a5 15 0-0 tt:le5 16 tt:lxe5! dxe5 17 tt:lc4! ttd8 18 ttacl 'lWg5 19 .!Hd 1

with a clear advantage. Black received an even more painful blow in a Chemin-Mi les game, played quite recently in Tunis 1985, where White rehabilit­ ated the move 1 1 tt:lbd2! and after 1 1 . . . .tg4, the move 1 2 e5!? was played.

7

to do is to take good care of his strong centre! That is why it is necessary to answer 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 �d6 8 tt:lc3 with 8 . . . �b7 before castling, to antici­ pate 9 e4, and have ready the possibility of neutralising the threat of e4-e5, namely by 9 . . . tt:lbd7. I n case of 1 0 exd5 exd5 1 1 J..e2 0-0 Black keeps the balance due to his strong central pawn structure and actively placed pieces, in particular his bishops. As far as the question of 5 � g5 is concerned, it seems that a new weapon against it has emerged : 5 . . . 'ilfa5 + ! This check was first tried by Rabinovich but his subse­ quent play was not in accordance with the requirements of the pos­ ition. Griinfeld-Rabinovich

Moscow 1 925 5 �g5 'lWa5 +

6 'lWd2 'lWxd2 +

7 tt:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 �xf6 gxf6 9 e4 f5? 10 �xc4 �b7 1 1 0-0 �h6 1 2 ttfe1

12 . . . dxe5 13 tt:le4 -.r4 1 4 tt:Jfd2

�f5

15

tt:Jxe4

tt:Jd7

1 7 g 3 'W'g4

�d3

�xe4

16

1 8 h3

'lWh5 19 d6 'lWg6 20 .!ld 1 b3 21 'lWe2 f5 22 g4!

and White's attack on the king decided the game. In the course of further analysis, however, it was decided that Euwe's plan e3-e4 was not danger­ ous. The only thing that Black has

The Blumenfeld Gambit

8

Black's central activity (f6-f5) was premature and White has gained the advantage; the idea was soon forgotten. It was only in 1 978 that the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings mentioned that the vari­ ation 5 �g5 1t'a5 + 6 1t'd2 W xd2+ 7 tZl bxd2 bxc4 8 � xf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt:Ja6!? followed by tt:Jc7 and �b7 is worth considering. The games Kuligowski-Przewoz­ nik, Warsaw 1 980 and especially Lukov-Przewoznik, NaJ�cz6w the that showed 1 98 1 position contains various possi­ bilities of play for Black. Lukov-Przewoznik

Naf�cz6w 1 98 1 5 �g5 1t'a5 +

6 1t'd2 1t'xd2 +

7 tt:Jfxd2 bxc4 8 �xf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt:Ja6 10 �xc4

:td2 �xg2 2 0 :tgl d5! 2 1 :txg2 dxc4 22 tt:Jxc5 .:hc8

And Black won. The above game includes some extremely significant ideas in the variation under discussion. It stresses the significance of early pressure along the b-file (I 0 . . . .: b8), the strength of counter-attack on the centre ( 1 4 . . . f5) and the possibilities of a dangerous attack by Black upon the white king's position after castling long. Although for a while Black's future in the Blumenfeld Gambit might have been viewed in an optimistic light, new difficulties have quite recently appeared for him, namely in the variations : I d4 tt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:J I"J c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 tt:Jc3 and 7 g3.

to

. .

. .:b8! I I tt:Jc3 .: xb2 1 2

0-0-0 .: b8 1 3 tt:Jb5 �b7 1 4 tt:Jb3 f5! 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 tt:Jd6 +

� xd6

17 .:xd6 tt:Jb4 18 exf5 q;e7 1 9

(see .f(JI/owing diagram)

In the first variation, White's idea is simple : to break up the

Historical Sketch

Black pawn structure by means of e2-e4 (without the loss of tempo : e2-e3-e4), for instance 7 . . . .td6 8 e4 d4 9 eS! ± . It has been generally assumed so far that Black may fight on after: 7 . . . d4 8 ttJb1

variation and evaluations must be revised. In t he Lombardy-For­ manek game, New York 1 986, W hite introduced an important novelty: 7 . . . ..WaS + 8 tt:lc3! d4 9 ..Wa4! 'iit' b6 10 tt:l b 1 .td7 1 1 tt:la3

'WaS + 9 .td2 ..WxbS 1 0 ttJa3 ..Wxb2

a6 12 ttJeS! ..W b7 13 ttJ xd7

1 1 tt:lc4 ..Wb7.

W hite soon won:

And t hat is correct. But t here is a move w hich has not yet been played in any tournament game, and t his move practically refutes t he attack 7 . . . d4. The move in question is 7 tt:lc3 d4 8 tt:la4! As we shall find out in the theoretical chapters, Black is seri­ weakened t he ously by d5-d4 move; he has insufficient compensation for the pawn and, moreover, he is not able to recover the sacrificed material : 8 . . . ..WaS + 9 .td2 ..WxbS 1 0 e3 (the b2 square is defended!) ± . So the move 8 tt:la4!, although it has not appeared in actual play yet, influences the evaluation of the variation 7 tt:lc3 to a significant extent. Also after 7 g3 the previously established

13 . .

.

tt:l xb8 J:[xb8 1 S bxa6 + ttJc4 ttJdS 1 7 ttJeS +

and

'thh l 1 4 �f7 16

1 -0. The aim of t he theoretical part of this work is to try to find improvements for Black, both after 7 ttJc3 and 7 g3. However, the improvements and new sugges­ tions need practical trials and, moreover, they do not guarantee success. There are still more ques­ tions for Black than ready answers. That is why the present writer suggests a new area of study for all advocates of Blumenfeld's Gambit. I nstead of 6 . . . dS t he move 6 . .tb7 will be proposed in the t heoretical chapters. The future will show w hether t he plans bound up with the arrangement . . . . .

10

The Blumenfeld Gambit

..t b7, . . . ..t e7 . . . 0-0, . . sufficiently compensate opportumttes by­ passed with the rejection of the move 7 . . . d5. Now the question is, whether the move 6 . . . d5 should get the sign '?'. It is difficult to answer boldly, and without doubt 'Yes'. For so many years Black moved his d-pawn with great pleasure; can this be doubted? At precisely this juncture, after 6 . . . d7-d5, Black would fully realise the idea of master Blumenfeld, the idea of the strong pawn centre, wouldn't he? A brand new opening set-up, using the ideas of Blumenfeld's Gambit has appeared in recent years. After the sequence I d4 lL! f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5

the move 5 . . . b5!? has been played. Dzindzichashvili Alburt and played like that in the USA Cham­ pionship, 1 984. In every game begun in this way, an interesting and original struggle was in pro­ gress from the very beginning. The following game may serve as an illustration of Black's attacking chances.

Browne-Dzindzichashvili

USA 1 984

I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lL!e4 d6 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e3 f5 10 lL!g3 lL!d7 I I ..td3 lL! f6 12 'iie2 ..tg7 13 0-0 h5 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 lL!h4 lL!g4 1 6 lL!g6 :th6 1 7 lL!f4 ..te5 1 8 h3 'iih4 19 lL!fxh5 :txh5 20 lL!xh5 ..th2+ 21 �hi ..tb7 22 f3 'ii x h5 23 fxg4 'ii x h3 24 :tf3 'ii h 8 25 g3 fxg4 26 'ii x h2 ..t xf3+ 27 �gl 'ii x h2+ 28 � xh2 �e7 0-1

And another question is: how to evaluate the 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5 gambit version? The positions arising after 5 ..tg5 'iia 5+, 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 ..tb7, 3 a6 and 5 . . . b5 have not undergone practical trials by leading chess masters. After all, it is characteristic of the whole of the Blumenfeld Gambit that a great number of areas have still not been fully researched and studied, thus leaving a multitude of opportunities untested in prac­ tice. And so we conclude this his­ torical sketch by stating that the question of the validity of Blumen­ feld's idea has still not been resolved. Certainly the opening invented by him will not fall into oblivion j ust yet. • . .

2

A Few Ideas . . . years and are immed iately associ­ ated w ith appropriate strategic plans, tactical operations, and even w ith characteristic single moves. The abil ity to put almost any concrete position into a frame­ work of schemes and typical solu­ tions makes the process of solving problems at the chessboard con­ siderably easier. It happens very often that a s ingle glance at the position is enough for the master to form a reliable opinion about it. While the amateur laboriously works out the mechanisms behind the posit ion the master knows them almost subconsciously. In the following position, for instance the pawn formation h7-g6-f7 auto­ matically suggests the idea of the pawn march h2-h 4-h5 and later either h5xg6, or h 5 -h6, tak ing the advantage of the weakness of the g7 and f6 squares, especially if Black has no dark squared bishop. S imilarly the central pawn structure in the next diagram auto­ matically draws attention to the

This chapter aims at mak ing pract ical use of the results of psychological studies on the think­ ing of chess players. It appears that a consideration of the d is­ coveries of rule psychologists as B inet ( 1 894), S imon and S imon ( 1 962), Chase and S imon ( 1 962), de Groot ( 1 965), Tikhomirov ( 1 976), and Krogius ( 1 976) can be extremely helpful for the analyt­ ical work of chessplayers. The studies dealing with com­ parisons between amateur and master seem to be of particular value. It is knowing the way that chess masters think that can give d irection to any self-educational work in chess. So, what is the root cause of the superiority of the master over the amateur? To begin with, in the course of solving problems in a concrete position at the chessboard, the master is able to associate it with a certain more general type of position. Such positions have accumulated in h is mind for many II

12

The Blumenfeld Gambit

plan f2-f4-f5xe6 and the Black response b7-b5-b 4xc3.

The master does not have to find all this out over the board since he has it cod ified in his He automat ically memory. manipulates motifs, ideas, plans, etc., j ust like a native speaker uses his grammar when speaking, auto­ matica lly, and without realising it at all. Moreover, another significant observation is that t he master per­ ceives a position as a sensible, integrated whole and not as a sum

total of separate black and wh ite pieces. The experience and know­ ledge of the master enables h im to integrate and form an opinion about the position very quickly. When forming his opinion, he sees the pieces in more complex combi­ nations of a spatial, functional and dynamic nature. The amateur will notice 6 pieces arranged in a row on t he squares : g l , .l:l.fl, .i g2, f2, g3, h2, whereas the master will immediately see the integrated whole: 'the position w it h the fianchettoed bishop'. Naturally, such an overall glance at positions makes it easier to understand them properly. The observations of psycholo­ gists are consistent with the recommendations of Kotov, the author of several excellent books on chess tra in ing. According to h im, the comprehension of the stra­ tegic essence of certain basic pos­ itions is the main task that a chess player, w ishing to learn a certain opening, must cope with. Having understood certain basic positions of pieces and pawns on the chess­ board, a chess player can better understand the derived positions of the same opening. Moreover, when speaking about basic posi­ t ions, Kotov does not mean strictly the opening positions, i.e. the position after 1 0-20 moves. The statement that an analysis of the opening must always be accompanied by an analysis of the middle and endgame positions

A Few Ideas . ..

resulting from it, has become a truism in the setting of chess train­ ing problems. The chess player must know-for the pieces and pawns typical of a given arrange­ ment: -motives, i.e. positional bases of combinations -ideas, i.e. final positions of com ­ binations -means, i.e. the sequence of moves, from the initial position through to the final one. Let us make use of the above mentioned remarks before passing to a theoretical analysis of B lu­ menfeld's Gambit. The basic pos­ itions with typical solutions of the Blumenfeld Gambit are gathered in a later part of the chapter. Exploring all the typical strategic plans, tactical operations, traps. etc., in one place should prepare the mind of the reader to such an extent that he will be able to cope with any analytical inaccuracies in the theoretical part of this work that might have been committed by the author. I would like to make a digres­ sion here; the reader forgive me, but rather a long digression. Namely, the increasing number of 'open' tournaments is a specific feature of modern chess life. One of the particular characteristics of such competitions is that they cre­ ate peculiar situations in which weaker chessplayers have a chance to play with stronger players-­ GM's or 1M 's. In such a situation

13

the problem arises how to pfar against the stronger opponent? Of course, every time this problem occurs, it must be solved primarily on the basis of both good pre­ match preparation and playing like a GM or I M . But both during preparation and during the game, one may consider information taken from psychological sources, in part quoted here also. I wish to call the reader's attention to these sources, and their conclusions. An article published in Chess ( 1 984, author unknown) deals with the problem mentioned. An exper­ iment is described there in which 24 players participated, divided into three groups : I . High, with average rating 2022 ( 1 78 B.C. F.); 2. Medium, with average rating 1 652 (1 32 B.C.F.); 3. Low, with average rating 1 3 1 6 (90 B.C. F.). Every subject had to find mate in one move in two positions. The first position was natural, taken from tournament play; the second one was unnatural, with randomly placed pieces. In both the posi­ tions five moves giving check were possible, but only one was check­ mate. Consider the results in the table below.

Position Natural Unnatural

Group High Medium Low 8.5 1 4.25 1 8. 1 1 36.3 33.4 35.0

14

The Blumerifeld Gambit

This indicates the average time (seconds) for solving the mate in one task. Conclusion: even in tactica lly simple positions (mate in one) the chessplayer's performance depends on the type of position! This conclusion is consistent with the investigations of de Groot ( 1 965), Chase and Simon ( 1 973) and others. The authors men­ tioned above asked players to reconstruct chess positions from memory, after brief exposure to them. They demonstrated middle game positions and endgame pos­ itions, taken from chess books and magazines, and, finally, random positions (pieces placed on the board "without sense'). In natural positions, accuracy, being measured by the number of pieces placed on the correct square, depended on the strength of the player. The stronger the chessplayer, the better the per­ formance of the tasks. Grand­ masters performed these tasks almost fau ltlessly. The pattern changed with random positions­ there was no significant inter­ group difference in performance between GM's, 1M's, experts, and weaker players! I observed such a systematic phenomenon in my own research (Przewoznik, 1 986b). In the exper­ iment, 60 players from Poland solved the choice-of-move prob­ lem in four positions, I -IV. Firstly, in positions I and III, they solved

the choice-of-move problem in time trouble (90 seconds to choose a move), and then all four pos­ itions without time limitations. Players ranged from I st category to I M : The first group consisted of 20 players of 1 st category-Eio rat­ ing around 2000 (BCF 1 75). The second group consisted of 20 players of candidate master category- Elo rating around 2 1 00 (BCF 1 87). The t hird group consisted of 1 4 national masters. The fourth group consisted of 6 international masters. An experimenter put the emphasis strongly on the fact that the task was not simply finding the combination! Conceivable sac­ rifices might be right or wrong. In complex positions all the subjects had the choice between quiet moves or moves leading to risky and very complicated variants. The results showed an interesting interdependence: with increasing strength, players preferred clear, well defined positions and avoided unclear, risky and uncertain ones. One may well ask : are there any practical conclusions? I think that in the light of the results shown above a heuristic recommendation appears; if your opponent is stronger than you are, try to create untypical, unclear complications on the board. Maybe in such a case your opponent's advantage in knowledge and experience (eru-

A Few Ideas . . .

dition on strategical plans, schem­ atic solutions, tactical associations etc.) will be minimised. For this purpose, I think, the Blumenfeld Gamhit is ideal, an opening with which I have done very well in tournaments. The Blumenfeld Gambit, 'refuted' 'bad', forgotten, little played, is better in just such a case than tired and well k nown lines in the Queen's I ndian or Modern Benoni. Of course, in this digression I have only sketched the problem. I am aware that the matter is much more complex. However, in answer to t he question of how to play against a stronger opponent, the most important role is played by chess aspects, the essence of the position. I hope t hat the material given here will be useful for read­ ers. And . . . to the Blumenfeld Gambit's advantage! To begin with, let us make a reconnaissance in t he direction of . . . the Sicilian Defence. Let us have a look at the variation : 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 d6 6 ..tg5 e6 7 'iW d2 h6?! 8 ..txf6 gxr6 9 0-0-0 a6.

Theory is right in claiming that White is better. In the game Sue­ tin- Botvinnik, Moscow 1 952, there followed 10 f4 ..td7 1 1 ..tc4 h5 1 2 r;Pbl Wb6 1 3 .l:!.hfl? the move after which Botvinnik is said to "have sighed with relief"'. The exchange of knights is advanta­ geous for Black. White no longer has any possi-

15

�

bility of gaining the advantage; Black has achieved complete equality, as proved by t he latter course of the game. Let us now compare t he above position to that after t he moves : I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 WaS+ 6 Wd2 'lhd2 + 7 tt:lbxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4.

Some similarities are striking, aren't they? In both positions Black has doubled f-pawns and concedes space to W hite, but on the other hand, Black has a pair of bishops, two half-open lines for the rooks, and a pawn mass which is difficult to break. Two critical questions may be asked. Firstly, why is the position from the Blumenfeld Gambit regarded as worse than that from the Sicilian Defence? And secondly, is it not true that certain analogies in the arrange­ ment in bot h positions are very much consistent with an analog­ ous type of play, with an analog­ ous evaluation?

16

The Blumenfeld Gambit

For the reader who is going to play the Blumenfeld Gambit in the 5 � g5 'llt'a 5 + version it is advisable, here, to study positions of a similar type in the Sicilian Defence.

5.

1.

2.

3.

Here is a very important pos­ ition from t he Blumenfeld Gambit. Such positions may arise in the variation 5 �g5 'llt'a5 +, in other words, where White supposedly refutes the Blumenfeld Gambit. Let us enumerate the main bene­ ts fi of the White p osition: I. U ndeniably, he has a space advantage. 2. White can press hard in the centre, with his J:t e l, J:td l , �c4, !i:lf3, !i:ld2, � e4, d5. 3. He can increase his ad vantage in space with the manoeuvres : !i:ld2-b3-a5; !i:lf3-h4, f2-f4, d5xe6, f4-f5. 4. In the nick of time he can concentrate pressure on the d6 pawn, with the manoeuvre :

4.

5.

J:[ d 1 -d2, !i:ld2-b3-a5-c4, ll e 1 -d t and d5xe6. In the ending White can turn the weaknesses on a7 and h7 to good account (see for exam­ ple the famous game Cohn­ R ubinstein, St. Petersburg 1909.). Here are Black's perspectives. Black has a pair of bishops in an open position; these will be his main trumps. The g- and b-files may be used by the rooks as very important strategical routes, e.g. J:t g8-g4e4 or .l:!.a 8-b8-b4-c4. Black can also successfully use (even by a pawn sacrifice) three important diagonals, i.e. a8h l, h8-al, h6-cl. Black p layers have to keep these diagonals in mind all the time! The potential weaknesses on d6, f7 and f6 may in fact prove to be a source of power! In modern chess strategy only the dynamic evaluation of weak­ nesses is held in esteem. The doubled f-pawns may gradually wear down White's center with f6-f5xe4, and in the case of a preventive f2-f3, t hen once more . . . f7-f5. The d6 pawn after the exchange d5xe6 and f7xe6 can advance effectively. Broadly speaking, pawns are the heart of t he matter in the Blumenfeld Gambit. Adherents of the gambit have to nurture this in their memory constantly. The weak pawns on a7 and h7

A Few Ideas ...

can each be used as a 'desper­ ado': h7-h5-h4 or a7-a5-a4.

In t he above position White introduced a very dangerous stra­ tegical plan with 1 tt:lb3! The t hreat is 2 d6 followed by 3 tt:l xc5. 1 . . . d6 2 tt:la5! i.a6 3 i.xa6 tt:l xa6 4 tt:lc4!. White's k night is splendidly situated on one of the key squares in the Blumenfeld Gambit. It defends t he b2 pawn, and presses on d6. I n addition, W hite has no problems with his centre. 4 . . . �d7 5 J:ld2 �c7 6 lHdl J:ld8. Using his space advantage White increases the pressure exerted by his pieces. The next position results from a premature counterattack . . . f7f5. W hite threatens to break up Black's centre with 2 exf5 or 2 dxe6 fxe6 3 exf5. Black is helpless against White's pressure, even if he builds a pawn centre by I . . . fxe4 2 tt:lxe4 exd5. Typical solution

17

�

follows : 3. tt:ld6 + (also 3 i.xd5 i.xd5 4 tt:lf6 + �f8 5. tt:lxd5 ± is possible) 3 . . . �f8 4 J:le8 + �g7 5 tt:lf5 + �f6 6 J:lxh8 + - . This example gives a distinct warning: in the Blumenfeld Gambit pawn play must be coordinated with piece play. In the next example coordi­ nation was effective . . .

The moves . . . i.c8-b7 and . . . J:lh8-g8 form a whole with: I .. .

18

The Blumenfeld Gambit

f5 !. With the move : h8-g8 Black weakened the position of the knight on f3, and the bishop on b7 has become stronger, e.g. 2 dxe6 fxe6 3 exf5 ..txf3 - + . The arrangement : gS, ..t b7 and . . . f6-f5 works in many positions! It is a classic case, where Black uses the g-file, h l -aB diagonal and the counterattack f6-f5. The pawn on d6 may be a source of power in Black's position, if it can advance d6-d5-d4 etc. But it is a potential weakness also!

After l lLic4! Black has serious problems. The threat is 2 dxe6 fxe6 3 lLixd6 + . If l . . . �d7 then 2 : d3 and 3 : ed I and the threat returns. Both I . . . e5 2 lLif3 -h4f5 and I . . . exd5 2 exd5 + �d7 3 l2:\f3-h4-f5 are a strategical fiasco. A weakness of the c6 square is sometimes only apparent. It seems as though the knight on c6 is a strong piece because it covers the

b4, d4 and b8 squares. In the meantime, this piece has only weak support : l . . . lLic7!. The destruction of the d5 point creates an unexpected threat against lL\c6. 2 b3 : a3 3 : d l : eS! (3 . . . exd5? 4 exd5 lLixd5 5 : xd5 �xc6 6 : h5) 4 �fl exd5 5 exd5 : xe2 6 � xe2 lLixd5! 7 : xd5 � xc6 with won end ing for Black. One of the most important squares on the board-in pos­ itions w ith the pawn structure : White e4-d5, and Black f7 -f6-e6d6-is precisely d5. Very often both players concentrate on the d5 point. There are a few pieces involved in such a struggle : attack­ ing d5, a bishop on b7, knight on c7 and pawn e6; and defending, bishop on c4, rook on d l , pawn on e4. The above-mentioned pieces are the main factors beh ind the central tension. Here are a few variations on the theme of the d5 pawn.

A Few Ideas .. .

I . . . i.b7! 2 lLJxa7 lLJc7 3 lLlb5 lLJxb5 4 ..t xb5 ..txd5! 5 ..t xd7+ �xd7 6 exd5 exd5 + . Another interesting possibility is 3 lLJb3 n a8 4 lL! b5 lLJxb5 5 ..txb5 exd5 6 exd5 n xa2.

19

White k n ight are hanging. 2 exd5 l iquidates the aggressor, but the defender of the b ishop arrives: 2 . . . lL!xd5 3 lLlxf4! lLlxf4 4 lL!xd6+ �f8 5 lLJ xb7 lL!xd3. Black, playing on the edge of a precipice, is now almost lost in the ending. Moral: one has to take care of the dark squared b ishop!

I . . . exd5! 2 exd 5 ..txd5 3 ..txd5 l:txb5 and White has no compensation for the two pawns.

In the next diagram, initially I . . exd 5 ! ? begi ns the fighting in the centre. Now a Black bishop and .

The d5 pawn is inviolable : I . . . exd5 2 exd5 lLl xd5? 3 l2Je4! f5 4 ..hd5 i. xd5 5 t2Jf6 + �e7 6

20

The Blumenfeld Gambit

lZ:l xg8 + or 5 . . . �d8 6 lLl xd5 and White wins. By such means White, in many variations of the Blumenfeld Gambit, indirectly protects his d5 pawn. And another example, where White protects the d5 pawn in a roundabout way :

I : he I ! And now after I . . exd5 2 exd5 with check prevents 2 . . . lL:l xd5. The position of the two rooks is worth noting; both rooks are involved in the defence of the d5 pawn. If Black can force White to exchange the embarrassing d5 pawn, his own pawn mass d6, e6, f6 becomes much stronger. Black from the early opening wants to set in motion this pawn mass and . . . f6-f5 is often the way to achiev­ ing this. In the next diagram I . . . f5! 2 lZ:la5 ..t a8 and now White has three options, but the result is the same : .

a) 3 d xe6 fxe4 4 e xf7 : g7 5 lL!f5 %1 g5 6 lL!e3 d5! Black has crowned his pawn strategy. b) 3 exf5 exd5 4 ..td3 d4. In t he pawn race Black is greatly helped by a strong pair of bish­ ops. c) 3 f3. The principal answer; White wants to keep his pawn centre, leaving the bishop on a8 imprisoned. Black's doubled pawns are very useful; 3 . . . fxe4 4 fxe4 %1 g4 5 lL!g2 f5!. Once again the 'pawn tank' d6-c5d5, with supporting artillery from the two bishops, appears on the board : 6 exf5 exd5. (see following diagram)

The bishop on c4 may be har­ ried not only by the e6 pawn, when the possibility . . . e6xd5 creates continual tension, but also by the rook on h8.

A Few Ideas . . .

• -=====

I . . . J:l g8 2 g3 fxe4 3 fxe4 J:l g4 4 J:l he l .hd5!? 5 exd5 J:l xc4 + . Here is tlte mlue of open lines for tlte rooks. It is worth remembering some positional nuances:

White is able to wall in the knight on c7 : I d6! lLla8 2 a5!. White has in effect one piece more. We have finished our demon­ stration of ideas in the variation 5 �g5 �a5 + 6 �d2 �xd2 + .

21

Now let u s examine some examples from the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted.

Let us note five active Black pieces : � g5, J:l f8, .i. b 7, .i.d6, ltJf5. The queen and one bishop bear down on g2, and also the possibilities �g5 -g3-h2 and .i.d6-h2 focus on another critical square around the White king. In an instructive way Black uses lines, diagonals, and points : I . . . d4! 2 exd4 e3! 3 lLlxe3 (3 fxe3 �g3 4 ltJfl �xe I - + ) 3 . . . lLlxe3 4 fxe3 �g3 5 tUft (5 tLlg4 �xh3 + 6 �gl �xg4 - +) 5 . . . J:l xfl + 6 J:l xfl � h2 mate. In the next diagram Black's strong pawn centre seems reliable, but . . . I e4! d4 2 e5! dxc3 3 exd6! cxb2 4 .i.xb2 0-0 5 ..tc4. Black has lost not only a pawn but his position also. The puslt e2-e4-e5 is like a battering ram and must be carefully watclted by Black in the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted!

The Blumenfeld Gambit

22

6

persistent advantage : 2 lLlcb l ..tf6 3 l2Jc4 �c7 4 l2J bd2 0-0 5 a5 .:. b8 6 f4 ± .

6

White has prepared the the­ matic 1 . e3-e4? But the undefen­ ded position of the bishop on d3 allows a tactical double attack. I . . c4! 2 bxc4 l2Jc5! 3 �e2 dxe4 4 l2Jxe4 lLlfxe4 5 ..txe4 l2Jxe4 6 �xe4 ..t b7 7 �e2 e4 8 l2Jd2 ..t c5 and White's king is in trouble. And finally, a few examples from other variations. Black is not able to maintain his pawn structure on the queenside. After I a4! b4 White takes pos­ session of the c4 square, with a .

Black threatens I . . . exd5 2 cxd5 ..tb7; also the exchange I . . . l2Jxg5 2 l2Jxg5 is favourable for him. But White starts fighting on the queenside: I b4! �xb4 2 .:l. b l 1t'c3 3 .:1. b 3 �a5 4 .:l. xb5 and White controls the b-file. Such a review of the basic pos­ itions could be continued much longer. Similarly, one might con-

A Few Ideas .. .

tinue a review of the typical plans, combinations, manoeuvres. I hope that the reader will complete his own register after studying the theoretical chapters. Doubtless, by

23

this method the reader can improve his strategical and tacti­ cal intuition of positions from the Blumenfeld Gambit.

ANALYSES

3 The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. -5

.t g 5

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5

and directed the reader's attention to those areas where it would be most profitable to seek reinforce­ ments. We shall investigate the following replies : A. 5 . . . W'a5 + B. 5 . . . exd5 c. 5 . . . h6 D. 5 . . . bxc4, 5 . . . ..tb7, 5 d6, 5 . . . W' b6

b5 5 ..ig5)

A. 5 . . . it'a5 +

Of course, there is the unpleasant move 5 ..ig5! White is fighting not for a pawn but for domination in the centre. By pin­ ning Black's knight, he prevents the formation of the pawn mass. For many years this move was considered as the best. Through­ out, when necessary, I have suggested improvements for Black 26

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

It must be borne in mind that the variations considered in this subsection are still relatively unex­ plored. The main possibilities for White are now : I) 6 '1Wd2 2) 6 tll c3 3) 6 .1d2 4) 6 tll bd2

27

Returning to the analysis, we have : 6

'ilfxd2 +

with the further division: 7 tll b xd2 or 7 tll fxd2. 7

tll b xd2

1) 6 '1Wd2

( I d4 tll f6 2 c4 e6 3 tll f3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 .1g5 '1Wa5 + 6 '1Wd2) Before we proceed further, let us note two old games in which Black did not play according to the spirit of the variation : -6 . . . '1W xd2 + 7 tll b xd2 bxc4 8 .1xf6 gxf6 9 e4 f5? 1 0 .1xc4 .1b7 1 1 0-0 .1h6 1 2 .l:tfel with a clear advantage for White, Griinfeld­ Rabinovich, Moscow 1 925. The move . . . f6-f5 was, of course, too early and Black had not prepared it adequately. White had an excellent game using the d- and e-files, and the b3, c4, b5 and e5 squares. In the second game M arshaii­ Hanauer, New York 1 937, the structure of Black's pawns was damaged : -6 . . . 'ilf xd2 + 7 tll b xd2 exd5 8 -t xf6 gxf6 9 cxd5 -tb7 1 0 e4 a6

Let us dismiss the continuation 1 0 . . . f5? I I -t xb5 fxe4 1 2 tll xe4 -txd5?? 1 3 tll f6 + + - . I I tll h4

and White stood better.

After this move White has some advantage in space and develop­ ment, but from the square d2 his knight doesn't control the key d5 square. 7

bxc4

Usually Black plays this move, but he can still play in gambit style: 7 . . . tll a6!? 8 dxe6?! fxe6 9 cxb5

tll b4

J: b8 +

10

�dl

a6

11

b6

Wilder- Aiburt, New York

1 986. As we have already seen in the Marshall-H anauer game, Black should avoid 7 . . . exd5?! 8 e4

Of course, White may also play 8 -txf6, but the difference is sig­ nificant only if after 8 e4 Black

The Blumenfeld Gambit

28

wishes to preserve his pawn struc­ ture. To that end, very interesting is 8 e4 i.e? 9 d6 i.xd6 (9 . . . i.d8 is bad because of the weakness on c5) 1 0 e5 i.xe5 1 1 lL!xe5 d5. We have an unusual position, and one which is in need of further practical tests. 9 i.xc4 is best met by 9 . . . exd5! 1 0 exd5 d6! ; 1 0 . . . i.b7 1 1 0-0-0 lL!xd5 1 2 .ll he 1 ! f6 1 3 lL!e4! is too risky. The sacrificial line 8 . . . i.b7 9 i.xc4 lL!xe4 I 0 lL!xe4 exd5 also leaves Black with problems after l l lL!f6 + ! ( I I 0-0-0?! dxe4 1 2 lL!e5 f6 1 3 lL! f7 fxg5 is unclear) I I . . . gxf6 1 2 i.xf6. Going back to the position after 8 e4, and assuming an eventual exchange on f6, the most promis­ ing plan at Black's disposal is probably . . . lL!b8-a6-c7, i.b7, . . . .ll g8, . . . .ll b8 or . . . 0-0-0, . . . d6. White has two equally playable alternatives, castling long or castling short. Let's look at some practical examples: -8 e4

i.b7 9

i.xf6 gxf6

10

i.xc4 lL!a6 1 1 0-0 lL!c7 1 2 .ll fd 1

Better is lLl b3.

.!l ad ! , then

ll fe 1 ,

12 . . . .ll g8 13 g3 .ll b8 1 4 lL!b3 d6

The basic plan and structural development for Black is as fol­ lows: to attack on the b- and g-files; meanwhile controlling d5 with a knight posted on c7, a bishop posted at b7, and a pawn on e6; and later to play . . . f6-f5 attacking White's centre.

1 5 lL!h4 i.a6

Black must always be careful with this exchange! Which bishop is better is an important question. 16 i.xa6 lL!xa6 17 lL!g2 .ll b4

18

.ll el

lL!a5

�d7

.ll a4 2 1

19

.ll e2 i.h6 20

lL!c6

Or 2 1 lLl b3 .ll b8 and Black's position is superior. 21 . . . lL!c7 22 b3 .ll a3 23 b4 exd5

and Black has a winning posttJOn, Kuligowski-Przewoi:­ nik, Warsaw 1 98 1 . I n fact, the Black counterplay on the queenside is not necessarily so strong, and it is possible for White to neutralise it. Let us note here a very instructive game :

-8

i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4

i.b7

10

i.xc4 lL!a6 1 1 .ll d 1 ! lL!c7 1 2 0-0 .ll g8

Too risky for Black would be 1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 exd5 lL! xd5 14 lL!e4. 13 lL!b3 d6 14 lL!a5 i.a6 1 5 i.xa6

lL!xa6

16

lL!c4

.ll d2 �c7 1 8 .ll fd 1 lL!b4 20 a3 lL!a6

�d7

17

.ll d8 1 9 h3

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined 21

l:l d3

fxe6, or 1 7 fxe4 1 8 exf7 l:l g7, with the idea . . . d6-d5, would lead to better play for Black. 0 0 .

White holds sway over the entire board, and moreover Black without counterplay; is Zivanovic-Ristic, Smederevska Palanka 1 98 1 . For Black, better would have been 1 2 . . . d6, instead of 1 2 l:l g8, to solve some of his problems on the queenside at an early stage, e.g. : 1 2 . . . d6 1 3 ll'lb3 0-0-0! 1 4 ll'la5 .i.a8. Com­ pare 1 2 l:l g8? 1 3 lLl b3 0-0-0 1 4 d6 .i.xe4 1 5 dxc7 .i.xf3 1 6 cxd8• + <jo?xd8 1 7 g3 .i.xd I 1 8 l:l xd 1 + - . Both 0-0 and 0-0-0 are satisfac­ tory alternatives, but after White's 0-0-0, the position is sharper with approximately equal chances in a difficult middlegame. 0 0 .

29 0 0 0

17 . . . exd5 18 .i.ft

.i.g7 1 9

ll'lg5

But not 19 g4 ..tf6 20 h3 h5 and Black stands better. 1 9 . . . .i. xb2 20 ll'l xf7 .i.c3 2 1 ll'lxd8 <jo?xd8 2 2 tt'l b 3 .i. x e 1 23 l:l xe l

d4

0 0 •

-8

.i. xf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt'la6

10

i.xc4 ..t b7 1 1 0-0-0 l:l g8 J 2 g3 ll'lc7

13

l:l he1

13 tt'lb3 is playable too, for example 1 3 0-0-0 1 4 ll'la5 .i.a8 1 5 d6 ll'le8 1 6 .i.a6 + <jo?b8 1 7 l:l d3 ll'l xd6, or 1 3 0-0-0 1 4 tt'la5 ..ta8 1 5 l:l d3 f5 1 6 d6 fxe4 1 7 dxc7 exd3 1 8 cxd8• + <jo? xd8 and Black has a won game. But better is 14 d6! tt'le8 1 5 tt'lxc5 tt'lxd6 16 ll'lxb7 <jo? xb7 1 7 .i.d3 and the position offers equal chances to both White and Black. 0 0 .

0 0 .

l3 . . . d6 14 <jo?b1 0-0-0 15 tt'lb3

A surprising position in which White and Black will soon have three passed pawns each! Gralka­ Przewoznik, Sopot 1 982. A similar idea was tested in the game Mazalon- Przewoznik, Swieradow 1 983, which proceeded as follows : -8

.i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4

tt'la6

10

f5!

.i. xc4 .i.b7 l l 0-0-0 l:l g8 1 2 g3

This is a very important part of Black's strategic plan.

ll'lc7 13 l:l he1 d6 14 ll'lh4

16 ll'la5 .i.a8 17 exf5

Because of the bad position of the ll'lf3, after 1 7 dxe6 either 1 7

Instead of 14 <jo?b l . This inno­ vation looks better. White can play f2-f4, ll'lh4-g2-e3.

14 . . . 0-0-0 15 ll'lb3?! fS! 1 6

The Blumenfeld Gambit

30

tt:laS ..ta8 17 dxe6 fxe4 18 exf7 .l:t g7 19 f3!

White plays against d6-d5; if 1 9 tt:lf5, then 1 9 . . . .l:t g5. 1 9 . . . exf3 20 tt:lfS tt:le7 +

..txe7 22

.l:t g6 21

l:txe7

.l:t f6 23

Black gives up the option of castling long. However, he gains other options such as the possibility of playing . . . a6 followed by . . . tt:lc7-b5-d4. 1 2 Rhe l Rg8 1 3 g3 Bb7 14 Nb1

..tfl f2 24 tt:lc4 ..idS

Ba6

Once again an 'unnatural' position with passed pawns on f7 and f2.

Black may play . . . d6, . . . �d7, . . . ..i.e? also. 15 ..ixa6 tt:l xa6 1 6 taa3 .l:t b4

25

.1:t xc7 +

� xc7

26

l:txdS

.l:t xf7

Black has a won game. The main idea for Black is to achieve the advance . . . f6-f5, after which he can attack White's cen­ tral pawns with the aid of tactics. This plan appears to be Black's strongest. Black can also in some lines continue without f6-f5. We now consider these two continu­ ations : -8

..i x f6 gxf6 9 e4

tt:la6

10

17 b3 tt:lc7 1 8 tt:lc4 t0a8 19 �c2 tt:lb6 20 t0 xb6 .1:t xb6 21 tt:ld2 h5 22 tt:lc4.

White's advantage is not sign­ ificant, Bukic-Inkiov, Banja Luka 1 983. As elaborated before, Black's basic plan is to play . . . f6-f5, but this move may be double-edged. As an illustration of the dangers involved, here is the game Lukov­ Semkov, Bulgaria 1 97 7 :

..t xc4 tt:lc7 1 1 0-0-0 .l:t g 8 1 2 g3

- 8 e4

..tb7 13 .l:t he1 d6 14 tt:lb1

..ixc4 rs 1 1 0-0-0 ..th6 1 2 � b 1

This knight remanoeuvres to control the d5 square.

0-0 1 3 .l:t he1

14 . . . 0-0-0

15

tt:lc3 fS!

16

tt:ld2?!

16 . . . fxe4 1 7 tadxe4 fS! 18 taf6 20 f4 e5

21 tagS ..txg5 22 fxg5 .l:t xg5

with a slight advantage for Black, Kojder-Przewoznik, Chelm 1 982.

-8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 tt:la6 10 ..txc4 tt:lc7 1 1 0-0-0 .1:t b8

..ixf6 gxf6

10

Pressuring the centre! White's pieces are very active. 13 . . . aS 14 tt:lb3 d6 1S exfS a4

I nteresting variations arise after 1 6 exf5, for example : 1 6 . . . .l:t g4 1 7 b3 ..tg7; 1 6 . . . .l:t g4 1 7 ..tb3 c4 1 8 h3 cxb3 1 9 hxg4 bxa2 20 tt:lxa2 ..txd5; 1 6 . . . ..tg7 1 8 fxe6 ..t xc3 1 8 exf7 .l:t g4. .l:t g6 19 tt:lxh7 ..th6 +

..tb7 9

16 dxe6! axb3 17 e7 bxa2 +

18

..t xa2 tileS

.l:t e8

19

.l:t xd6

..tf4

20

..ixeS

21

.1:t xeS

t0c6

22

.l:t xc6!!

White has a won game! Kostic experimented in the next game: -8 e4 ..tb7 9

..i xf6 gxf6

10

..t xc4 �e7 1 1 tt:lb3 rs 1 2 tt:l xcS fxe4 13 tt:l xb7 exf3 14 gxf3 �f6 IS 0-0-0 aS 1 6 dxe6 fxe6 17 tt:ld6 ..txd6 18 .l:t xd6 .l:t c8 1 9 b3 .l:t a6 20 .l:t xa6 tt:l xa6 21 �d2 tt:l b4 22

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined a3 ll:lc6 23 f4. White has the advan­

tage, Sahovic-Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 982. 7 ll:lfxd2

Very passive is 1 3 . . . l:t a8 1 4 d6! with pressure. 14 ll:lb3?!

Black is better after 1 4 ltJxa7 ll:lc7 1 5 lLlb5 ll:lxb5 1 6 .txb5 .txd5 1 7 .txd7+ �xd7 1 8 exd5 exd5, but 1 4 d6!? is playable. f5!

14

This move seems a good altern­ ative. The knight is better placed here than on f3 and White may wish to build up pressure on the queen's wing with lLlc4 and lLlc3. But at this moment the second knight is still at b I , and time is important . . .

-7 . . . bxc4 8 .txf6 gxf6 9 e4

.t xc4 l:t b8 This is the weak point in White's position! How is he to protect the b-pawn? I I .tb3 lLlb4 1 2 0-0 lLld3 1 3 lLlc4 .ta6; I I b3 lLlb4 + . Instead : I I ltJc3!? l:t xb2 1 2 0-0-0 Or 1 2 ll:lb3? lLlb4 1 3 0-0-0 l:t c2 + ; or 1 2 .tb3? ll:lb4 1 3 0-0-0 ll:ld3 mate! ll:la6 I 0

12 . . . l:t b8 13 lLlb5 .tb7!

31

15 dxe6

If 1 5 f3, then 1 5 . . . l:t g8 1 6 g 3 fxe4 1 7 fxe4 l:t g4 1 8 l:t he l .txd5! + 15 . . . fxe6 16 lLld6 +

1 6 exf5 d5 is highly unclear. lLlb4

16 . . . .txd6 17 l:t xd6

18

exf5

Or 1 8 l:t hd l fxe4 1 9 l:t xd7 .td5 with advantage. 18 . . . r:J;e7 1 9 l:t d2

Very interesting would have been 1 5 l:t hd 1 !? .td5 20 .txd5 rJ; xd6 21 .txe6 + �e5 22 l:t xd 7 ll:lxa2 + with an unclear position, probably favouring Black. 19 . . . .t xg2! 20 l:t g l d5!! 21

l:t xg2

dxc4 22 ll:lxc5 l:t hc8!

The Blumenfeld Gambit

32

once the bishop is deflected, giving chances for counterplay. 15 exd5 ..txd5 16 l:. he l + �d8

17

lLlxa7

..txc4

18

lLlxc4

l:. b7!

All White's pieces are attacking! Black must be careful. 1 9 lLla5! l:. b6 20 lLl7c6 + �c7 2 1 lLle7 lLlb4! 22 a3

Lukov-Przewoznik, NaJ�czow 1 980. Black has successfully solved his problems, for example 23 lLl xe6 c3 24 l:. e2 c2 - + ; 23 l:.d7 + �f6 24 lLlxe6 c3 (24 . . . lLld3 + 25 �d I ? c3 26 lLld4 .1:. b2! - + ; 25 �d2! c3 + 26 'iti>xd3 c2 27 l:. gg7 c l "iW 28 l:. gf7 + �e5 29 f4 + ) 25 l:. gg7 tt:Jxa2 + 26 �d I c2 + 27 �e2 l:. f8 - + . Black also stands well after the following continuation : -7 . . . bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 lLla6

10 ..t xc4

If 1 0 lLlxc4 tt:Jb4 with an attack on d5 and c2; but playable is I 0 lLla3 .1:. b8 I I 0-0-0 with the idea of lLlxc4 or .i.xc4.

22 . . . : e6! and Black has a won game, Przybylski-Przewoz­ nik, Bierutowice 1 98 1 . I n the next two games we will see another idea : with lLlc4 White protects the b2 square and attacks the important squares a5 and d6. -7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 lLla6 9 a3 J: b8 1 0 ..t x f6 gxf6 1 1 lLlxc4 lLlc7 1 2 lLlc3

10 . . . l:. b8 1 1 lLlc3 l:. xb2 1 2 0-0-0 : b8 1 3 lLlb5 ..tb7 1 4 f4

A novelty, after which the game is very sharp and original. 14

exd5

The knight on b5 is unprotected

(see following diagram) 12

a6

Probably bad is an early 1 2 . . . d6 because of 0-0-0, f4, .1:. d2, ..te2, : hd I with pressure. So Black prepares with . . . lLlc7-b5-d4.

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

� F=iWiiir.=:::;;-='7==-;.r:===;;;;;il

33

Black must now allow White to damage his pawn structure. Let us consider the following examples if White plays e4 before � xf6 (without �xf6) : -7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9 ll:lc3 ll:lxd5 1 0 ll:l xd5 exd5 1 1

�xe7

rt;xe7 12 exd5 d6 13 0-0-0 �b7?! 14 ll:l xc4 ll:ld7 15 ll:la5 l hb8 1 6 �b5

13

a4

With the idea 14 d6! ll:la8 1 5 a5 and Black's knight will be stult­ ified. 13 . . . d6 14 �d3?!

14 0-0-0!? was worth considermg. 14 . . . �b7 15 0-0-0 �h6 + 1 6 rt; c 2

� f4

This bishop is coming to e5, another idea at Black's disposal. 17 CiJe2 exd5 18 ll:lxf4 dxc4 1 9 �xc4 �xe4 +

20 rt;c3 rt;d7

and Black has excellent attacking threats, Jongsma- Przewoznik, Haarlem 1 980. However, 1 8 exd5, instead of 1 8 ll:l xf4, would have caused some problems to Black. -7

.

. . bxc4 8 e4 ll:la6 9 a3 �e7

10 �xf6 �xf6 1 1 ll:lxc4 0-0 1 2 ll:lc3 �xc3 +

1 3 bxc3

An unusual situation for this opening. 13 . . . exd5 14 exd5 ll:lc7 15 ll:le3 l:[ b8 16 �c4 d6 1 7 0-0 �d7

The position is even, Meduna­ Inkiov, Plovdiv 1 982.

ll:lb6

17

: he1 +

rt;f6

18

ll:lc6 and White has gained the advantage, Meduna- Horvath, Trnava 1 98 1 . But according to my analysis Black could play 1 3 . . . :d8 1 4 �xc4 rt;f8 1 5 : he l ll:ld7 1 6 � b 5 � b7 1 7 ll:le4 ll:lb6 1 8 ll:lc3 a6 with equal chances. -7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 ll:la6 9 a3 CiJc7 1 0 ll:lc3 �b7 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 1 2 �xc4 d5 1 3 exd5 exd5 1 4 �d3 �d6 15 ll:lb5 ll:l xb5 16 �xb5 +

rt;f7 1 7 0-0 a6 1 8 �a4 : ab8 + Redzepagic- Przewoznik, Na1vc­ z6w 1 986. And finally, some sample 'games' from my own analysis : -7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9 �xc4 ll:lxd5 (9 . . . e5!?) 1 0 �xd5 exd5 1 1 �xe7 rt;xe7 12 exd5 d6 1 3 ll:lc3 l:[ d8 14 0-0-0 ll:ld7 1 5 l:[ he I + rt;f8 1 6 ll:lc4 lLl b6 1 7 ll:la5 �f5 1 8 ll:lc6 l:[ d7. The position is balanced. -7 ll:lfxd2 bxc4 8 e4 �e7 9 dxe6 fxe6 1 0 e5 ll:lg4 1 1 �xe7 ( 1 1 �f4 ll:lc6 1 2 ll:lf3 0-0 1 3 �g3 l:[ f5! + ) I I . . . rt;xe7 1 2 ll:lxc4 �a6 1 3 ll:lbd2 ( 1 3 f4? �xc4 1 4 �xc4 ll:le3 1 5 �d3 ll:lxg2 + and ll:lxf4 + ; 1 3 h3 �xc4 1 4 hxg4 �xfl 1 5 l:[ xfl ll:lc6 1 6 f4 g5

The Blumenfeld Gambit

34

1 7 g3 gxf4 1 8 gxf4 l:t ab8 1 9 b3 l:t b4 + ) 1 3 . . . tZ:lc6 1 4 f4 l:t hf8 1 5 h3 tZ:lh6 1 6 g3 tZ:lb4 + . In conclusion we can say that the best plan for Black when White plays 7 tZ:lfxd2 and refrains from capturing on f6 is to play tZ:l b6 and �b7, attacking the d5 pawn and, as is often useful, the a4 square. Summary : After 7 tZ:lfxd2 and 7 tZ:l bxd2 Black equalises without difficulty. There are many attack­ ing possibilities, such as f6-f5, l:t g8, l:t c8 or tZ:lc7. Additionally, Black's tight pawn structure is an asset. Of course, we will have to wait for more practical examples because the positions which arise are sometimes very complicated. 2) 6 tZ:lc3

( 1 d4 tZ:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tZ:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..ig5 WaS + 6 tZ:lc3) I n this variation the play is not so sharp as after 6 'iWd2. Therefore, it is a good move for 'quiet' players.

6 . . . tZ:le4 7 �d2 tZ:l xd2

Let us games:

examine

illustrative

-8 'ihd2 bxc4?!

Black must always be careful with this move. Now White will have very good control of c4 and the better position. 9 e4 d6 10 e5! dxe5 1 1 �xc4!

Development! 1 1 . . . i.a6 1 2 i.xa6 'iW xa6 1 3 0-0-0 f6 14 dxe6 'iW xe6 1 5 'iWd8 + �f7 1 6 �b1 l:t g8 1 7 Wd3 g6 1 8 tZ:ld5 tZ:la6 1 9 l:t he l .

White has a dangerous initiative for the pawn, Akhmilovskaya­ Pihajlic, Tbilisi 1 982. -8 'iW xd2 bxc4?! 9 e4 i.a6?

This was an experiment for only one game. 10 tZ:le5 'iW b4 1 1 a3 W b3? 1 2 i.e2 d6? 1 3 i.d1 ! 'iW b6 14 ..ia4 + + , Gralka- Przewoz­ -

nik, S wieradow 1 983.

-8 'iW xd2 b4! 9 tZ:ldl g6 10 h4 h6 I I g3 ..ig7 1 2 i.g2 i.b7, and

Black has full equality, Langeweg­ Fernandez, M arbella 1 982. -8 'iWxd2 b4 9 tZ:ldl d6?! 10 e4 e5 I I h4 tZ:ld7 1 2 ..id3 tZ:lf6.

Better was 1 2 . . . g6 and 1 3 . . . i.g7, or 1 3 . . . ..ih6, and 1 4 . . 0-0.

.

13 tZ:le3 g6 1 4 a3 � h6 15 0-0 'iW b6 16 axb4 cxb4 1 7 c5!? 'iW xc5 1 8 : ret W b6 1 9 n c4 0-0 20 n xb4 Wd8 21 ..ib5! a5 22 l:t ba4 ± Hartston-Martin, Lon­

don 1 98 1 . -8 'ihd2 b4 9 tZ:ld I d6?! I 0 dxe6! i.xe6 1 1 g3 tZ:ld7 12 i.g2 l:t d8

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

35

1 3 lOgS! .i.xc4 1 4 idS .i.xdS 15 'ihd5 l£Je5 1 6 f4 .i.e7 1 7 fxe5 .i.xg5 18 0-0 0-0 1 9 e6 h6 20 h4 .i.e7 21 exti + + - Jasnikowski­

Przewoznik, Sopot 1 986. -8 W' xd2 b4 9 llle4 .i. b7 10 e3 .i.e7 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 W' b6 1 3 l:l fd1 a 5 1 4 a 4 d6 1 5 lll g3 e5 1 6 lll f5 .i.f6 1 7 e 4 .i.c8 1 8 g 4 h 6 1 9 �h1 W'd8 20 l:l g1 .i.g5 and

Black had equalised in Jasnikow­ ski-Przewoznik, Porabka 1 986. -8 lt:lxd2 b4 9 lllc b1 d6?!

Better is 9 . . . .i. b7 with the idea of . . . g6, . . . .i.g7, . . . lll a6. One possibility is 9 . . . .i. b7 l O e4 W'd8 I I a3 a5, and Black has no problems. 10 g3 e5 1 1 e4 g6 1 2 lll b3 W'd8 13 lll c l.

In this amusmg position chances are equal, Stempin­ Przewoznik, N a1ycz6w 1 983. Summary : After 6 lll c3 White has no advantage if Black plays b5-b4, and then after due prep­ aration, though not immediately, d7-d6. 3) 6 .i.d2 ( I d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 .i.g5 W'a5 + 6 .i.d2)

(see following diagram)

White radically limits the action of Black's queen. But the bishop is not well placed. 6 . . . W' b6 7 lt:lc3

Interesting is 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 d5 when the Black pawn structure is very nice, but a better position for the Black queen is at c7. There-

fore, maybe 6 . . . W'd8!? is a clearer equaliser. Very risky for Black is 8 . . . W' xb5, instead of 8 . . . d5, 9 e4! W' xb2 lO .i.c3 W' b7 I I e5 lll d 5 1 2 lll g 5! 7

b4

Despite Black's eventual success in the game Plachetka- Przewoz­ nik, Polanica Zdroj 1 980, 7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 ia6 is not recommended here. 8

lll a4

W'c7

-9 ig5 ie7 10 W'c2 0-0 1 1 e4 h6 1 2 ih4 d6 1 3 ie2 e5.

We are following Rojek ­ Przewoznik, Olkusz 1 983, in which it was demonstrated that Black has good prospects. -9 l:l c 1 e5 10 W'c2 d6 1 1 a3 a5 1 2 g3 g6 1 3 e4 .i.d7!? 14 id3 .i.g7 15 0-0 0-0 16 lll h4 .i.h3 17 l:l e 1 W'e7 18 ifl ixfl 1 9 �xfl lt:lbd7 20 b3 lll h5, Lahav­

Przewoznik, Netanya 1 987, also with a good game for Black.

The Blumenfeld Gambit

36

Summary : 6 .i.d2 should not trouble Black. 4) 6 ll'lbd2 ( I d4 ll'lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll'lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .i.g5 W'a5 + 6 ll'l bd2)

Some theorists analyse only the variations where Black plays 6 . . . ll'le4. For example : 7 W'c2 ll'l xg5 8 ll'lxg5 J.. e7 9 ll'le4 d6. They evaluate the position as balanced (Encyclopedia 1 979, Taimanov 1 980). They rightly evaluate as bad the move 6 . . . bxc4 : -6 . . . bxc4 7 J.. xf6 gxf6 8 e4 f5 9 dxe6

Or 9 exf5 exd5 with an unclear position. 9 . . . fxe4 10 exf7 + � d8 I I J.. xc4!

J.. b7

If I I . . exf3 1 2 W'xf3 with possibilities of W' xa8 or W'f6 + ; Minev. .

1 2 ll'lg5 h6 1 3 ll'lxe4! J.. xe4 14 W'g4 d5 1 5 0-0 W' xd2 1 6 : ad1

A fantastic position! Black has two pieces more but must lose, Spassov-Manolov, Primorsko 1 975. However, Smagin and Radovsky suggest 8 . . . : g8 10 g3 ll'la6 l l J.. xc4 ll'lc7 l l 0-0 d6 and �e7!? as an improvement. But with queens on the board it is hard to believe in it. Coming back to 6 . . . ll'le4, we have to make a note of the tactical possibility 7 b4!

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

In an earlier article (Przewoznik 1 98S) I recommended 7 . . . cxb4!?. I suggested that Black's pawns may sometimes be strong, for example: 8 lt:lxe4 bxc4 9 dxe6 fxe6 1 0 lLld6 + ..txd6 I I *xd6 b3 + 1 2 ..td2 c3 1 3 ..tgS c2 + 1 4 ..td2 b2 - + . But later I found the cor­ rect line for White; 7 . . . cxb4? 8 lLlxe4 bxc4 9 lLled2! f6 (9 . . . exdS 10 e4 ..tb7 I I exdS ..txdS 1 2 ..txc4 + - ; I I . . . c3 1 2 *e2 + + - ) 1 0 ..t h4 exdS I I e4 ..t b7 1 2 eS ± with the idea exf6, and if 1 2 . . . fxeS, then 1 3 lLlxeS and 14 *hS + + - ; or 1 1 . . . dxe4, instead of I I . . . ..t b7, 1 2 lLlxc4 *hS 1 3 lLld4 *xh4 1 4 lLlbS lLla6 1 6 lLlcd6 + ..txd6 1 7 *dS + - . 18 ..t>f8 lLlxd6 + Instead of 1 4 . . . lLla6 Black can play the heroic 1 4 . . . ..t>d8 or 1 4 . . . e l The position i s then very complicated, but I feel that some­ where there is a refutation of Black's sacrifice. (After I I . . . dxe4 1 2 lLlxc4 *hS, 1 3 lLld6 + ! seems to give White a winning attack, the continuation being 1 3 . . . ..txd6 1 4 *xd6 exf3 I S ..tg3! ..tb7 1 6 00-0! and : e l + . I S . . . lLla6 is a tougher defence, but 1 6 : c I ! rather than snatching the piece, still looks very strong-Editor) 7 . . . -.xb4 was considered as slightly better for White (Przewoz­ nik 1 98S): 8 : b l -.c3 9 : b3 -.as 1 0 : xbS (White has a draw at least) 10 . . . *c3 I I * b l lLlxgS ( I I . . . exdS 1 2 cxdS and White obtains the very good c4 square)

37

1 2 lLlxgS, or alternatively I I ..tf4 lLlxd2 1 2 lLlxd2. After 7 . . . *xb4 8 : b l lLlc3? 9 : xb4 lLlxd l 1 0 : b3 bxc4 I I lLlxc4 Black's knight is trapped. However, the position is still complicated after 7 . . . *xb4 and needs . . . another booklet of analy­ sis. Here are some of my analyses. 7 . . . *xb4 8 : b 1 *c3 9 : b3 •as 1 0 : xbS -.c3 1 1 : b3!? (sometimes this eliminates a pot­ ential * c l mate.) I I . . . -.as 1 2 *bl - 1 2 . . . lLlxd2? 1 3 lLlxd2 * c7 1 4 *e4! ..t b7 I S d6 *c6 1 6 : xb7 + - ; 1 4 . . . fS I S *f3 + - . - 1 2 . . . lLlxgS! 1 3 : xb8 lLlxf3 + 1 4 exf3 : xb8 1 S -. xb8 -.a6 + and . . . ..td6 or . . . ..te7 then . . . 0-0. - 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lLla6 1 4 lLlxh7 ..te7 I S : h 3 : b8 1 6 lLlf6 + ..txf6 1 7 : xh8 + �e7 1 8 *d3 d6 1 9 e4 : b2 with a strong counterattack; I S h4 g6? 1 6 hS : xh7 1 7 hxg6 : xh l 1 8 g7 + - ; I S h4 fS! 1 6 e4 : xh7 1 7 exfS : xh4 1 8 : xh4 ..txh4 1 9 f6 ..txf6 or 1 9 : h3 ..tgS - + . - 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lLla6 1 4 lLlxh7 ..te7 I S : h 3 : b8 1 6 * d 3 (with the idea 1 7 lLlf6 + ..txf6 1 8 : xh8 + �e7 1 9 d6 mate!) 1 6 . . . d6 1 7 lLlgS ( 1 7 lLlf6 + and variations as above) 1 7 . . . : xh3 1 8 lLlxh3 *xa2 + . - 1 2 . . . lLlxgS 1 3 lLlxgS lt:la6 1 4 dxe6 dxe6 I S g3 ..td7! and White's threats disappear while Black's

38

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

remain. There are some wild possibili­ ties after 1 2 . . . lt:lxg5 1 3 lLlxg5 lt:la6 1 4 -.e4 ll b8 1 5 ll xb8 lt:lxb8 1 6 -. f4 -.c3!

- 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 f3 'ir'cl + 1 9 �f2 'ir'xd2 + ; - 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 e3 .i.e7 1 9 lLlge4 'ir' c l + 20 �e2 lH8 2 1 'ir' xg7 .ta6 with the idea 22 . . . .i.xc4 + 23 lLlxc4 'ir'xc4 + 24 � e l 'ir'xd5 with a counterattack; - 1 7 'ir'xf7 + �d8 1 8 e4 .te7 1 9 lt:lf3 .1:[ f8 2 0 'ir' h 5 .ta6 with a counterattack; - 1 7 e3!? .te7! 1 8 'ir'xb8 ( 1 8 'ir'xf7 + �d8 and as above) 1 8 . . . 0-0 1 9 'it'f4 .txg5 20 'ir'xg5 'ir' c l + 2 1 �e2 .ta6 22 'it'f4 exd5 and then . . . dxc4 with a counter­ attack; - 1 7 e4 (d5 point!) 1 7 . . . J.. e 7 1 8 'ir'xb8 .i.xg5! 1 9 'ir'xc8 + �e7 20 'ir'xc5 + d6 2 1 'it'c7 + �f6 - + ; - 1 7 e4 .i.e7 1 8 lt:lxf7 0-0!! 1 9

'ir' xb8 'ir' c l + 2 0 �e2 .ta6! 2 1 lt:lh6 + gxh6 2 2 'ir'g3 + .t g5 - + . Let us take a rest. There are still plenty of possibilities, there is still room for improvements. We should wait for more practical tests. Once I recommended for Black 6 . . . .te7 also, e.g. : -7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 d5; -7 e4 lLlxe4 8 .txe7 lLlxd2! 9 lLlxd2 �xe7; -7 e4 lLlxe4 8 b4 'ir'xb4 9 .l:[ b 1 'ir'c3 1 0 .l:[ b3 'ir'a5 1 1 .l:[ xb5 'it' c3 1 2 .1:[ b3 ( Przewoznik, 1 985). The move was tested in the game Speelman-Aiburt, England 1 986 : -6 . . . .te7 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxb5 a6 9 e4!? lLlxe4? 10 .txe7 �xe7 1 1 'ir'c2! d5 12 .td3 lLlxd2 1 3 'ir'xc5 + �f7 1 4 lt:le5 + ?

After 1 4 lLlxd2 White would be clearly better! The game finished : 1 4 . . . 'it>f6 15 b4 lt:le4! 1 6 lt:lg4 + �f7 1 7 .txe4 'ir'xb5 1 8 lLle5 + �f6 1 9 lLlg4 + �f7 20 lLle5 +

HSpeetman, in his comments in I nformator 4 1 , suggested for Black 8 . . . d5, and on the next move 9 . . . axb5 (instead of 9 . . . lLlxe4?) 1 0 e5 lLld5 1 1 .td3 lLlc6 with only a slight advantage to White. Summary : 6 lLlbd2 is an inter­ esting move but one which is in need of further practical tests. In conclusion, 5 . . . 'ir'a5 + leads to exciting and unconventional play where Black has reasonable prospects!

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined B. 5 . . . exd5 ( I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 .i. g5 exd5)

39

A very interesting idea, but not dangerous for Black : -7 .i.f4 d6 8 e4 a6 (8 . . . ttJxe4 9 .i.xb5 + ± ) 9 a4 b4 10 ttJbd2 .i.e7 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2 h3 .l:!. e8 1 3 0-0 .i.f8 14 •c2 ttJh5 1 5 .i. h2 ttJd7 16 ttJc4 •r6 17 Wd2 g5

with approximate equality, Pre­ ise-Spielmann, Magdeburg 1 927. Black controls the very important e5 and f4 squares and this is sufficient compensation for the c4 square.

According to Voronkov { 1 97 1 ), only this move gives Black equal chances. Its main weakness will appear very soon. Black will not be able to hold his pawn on b5 and White will take over the c4 square. 6

cxd5

Now Black has a wide choice of reasonable moves. I ) 6 . . . h6 2) 6 . . . Wa5 + 3) 6 . . . d6 4) 6 . . . W b6 1 ) 6 . . . h6 ( I d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 .i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 h6) White has three options : a) 7 .i.f4 b) 7 .i.h4 c) 7 .i.xf6 a) 7 .i.f4

-7 .i.f4 .i.b7 8 e4 ttJxe4 9 ttJc3 .i.d6 10 .i.xd6 ttJxd6 1 1 .i.xb5 ttJxb5 12 ttJxb5 We7 + 13 We2 W xe2 + 15 'it>xe2 .i.a6 15 a4 ;;!;; ,

Kozirev- Kozlov, USSR 1 975. b) 7 .i.h4 White intends to play with the bishop pair. The pioneering game, Sakharov-Goldenov, Kiev 1 946, went : -7 .i.h4 .i.b7 8 e4 g5 9 .i.g3 ttJxe4? 10 •e2 •e7 1 1 .i.e5 f6

40

The Blumenfeld Gambit

1 2 'ihe4 fxe5 1 3 i.xb5 i.g7 14 lt:lc3 'ilff6 1 5 h4!. White stood

better. 1 cannot agree with Voronkov's assessment, that after 9 . . . 'ilfe7 (instead of 9 . . . lt:lxe4) 10 'ilfe2 'ilfxe4 1 1 i.e5 'ilfxe2 + 12 .ixe2 i.g7 l 3 lt:lc3 a6 14 h4 White is better. Encyclopedia ( 1 978) and Taimanov ( 1 980) evaluate the pos­ ition as unclear. In may opinion after 14 . . . d6! Black is better, e.g. : - 1 5 ..txd6 lt:lxd5 1 6 lt:l xd5 i.xd5 1 7 .i xc5 i.xb2; - 1 5 .ixf6 i.xf6 1 6 lt:le4 ( 1 6 hxg5 hxg5 1 7 : xh8 + i.xh8 1 8 lt:lxg5 i.xc3 + 1 9 bxc3 i.xd5) 16 . . . i.xb2! 1 7 tt b 1 i.xd5 1 8 lt:l xd6 + ..to>d7 1 9 tt xb2 ..to>xd6 20 hxg5 lt:lc6; - 1 5 hxg5 dxe5 1 6 gxf6 i.xf6 1 7 lt:le4 ..te7 1 8 0-0-0 f5 1 9 lt:l g3 e4. Less promising for Black is 7 . . . g5 immediately : -7 i.h4 a 4 b4 I I 1 3 lt:lc4 0-0 lt:lb6 'ilfd8 1 8

g5 8 i.g3 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 lLifd2 i.g7 1 2 i.d3 0-0 lt:le8 14 lt:lbd2 lt:ld7 1 5 16 lt:l x b6 'ilf x b6 1 7 lt:lc4 f4 g4 19 e5 ± , Geller­

Szabo, Stockholm 1 952. Smagin and Radovsky consider 7 . . . 'iii aS + as the best reply for Black. The reasoning behind this evaluation is simple : in the vari­ ation 6 . . . 'iii aS + 7 lt:lc3 lt:le4 the best answer for White is 8 ..td2. From the h4 square the bishop cannot return to d2 . . . . Conclusion: Considering both the possibility 7 . . . 'iii aS + , and also the improvement 14 . . . d6! to

Voronkov's assessment we should dismiss 7 i.h4. c) 7 i.xf6 This move is known to give White better play. 7 . . . 'ilfxf6 8 'ilfc2

Other moves are worse: -8 lt:lc3?! a6?! 9 'ilfc2 d6 10 e4 lt:ld7 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 lt:ld1 g6 Bukic­

Bogdanovic, Yugoslavia 1 980, and now 1 3 lt:ld2! ..tg7 1 4 aS!, instead of 1 3 lt:le3, would have led to White's advantage; -8 lt:lc3?! b4! 9 lt:le4 'ilf xb2 1 0 d6 lt:la6! with the idea o f i. b 7 + ( Encyclopedia 1 978, Taimanov 1 980); -8 lt:lc3 b4 9 lt:lb5 'ilfb6 1 0 'ilfc2!? ..tb7 ( 10 . . . 'ilf xb5? 1 1 'ilfe4 + �d8 1 2 lLie5!) - + Balayan-Radovsky, Moscow 1 982; -8 lt:lc3 b4 9 lt:lb5 'ilfb6 10 'ilfd3 d6 I I :t e l ..td7 12 e4 a6 - + ,

Gaprindashvili-Greenfeld, Sochi 1 984 (Smagin, Radovsky) -8 e4?! 'ilfxb2 9 lLibd2 c4 1 0 tt b 1 'ilfa3 I I tt xb5 ..tb4 1 2 'iii b I a S 1 3 i. xc4 i.a6 + Grigor­

ian-Arbakov, Moscow 1 982. 8

d6

This time this is the best way for Black. Let us compare: -8 . . . c4 9 e4 i.b4 + 10 lLic3 0-0 1 1 i.e2 lLia6 12 0-0?

Bukic-Lj ubojevic, Yugoslavia 1 972, but after 1 2 e5! 'ilf b6 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 0-0 (Bukic) White stands better;

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

41

-8 . . . �a6?! 9 e4 .:t b8 1 0 �c3 c4 1 1 e5! 'Wf4 1 2 d6 .ib7 1 3 'Wd2 'W xd2 + ( 1 3 . . . g5 1 4 'Wxf4 gxf4 1 5 �d4 ;t Smagin, Radovsky) 14 �xd2 .ic6 15 a4 �b4 16 axb5! �c2 + 17 �d1 �xa1 18 bxc6 dxc6 19 �xc4 ± Legky-Sher,

USSR 1 980; -8 . . . c4 9 e4 .i.b4 + 10 �c3 0-0 1 1 .ie2 �a6 12 a4 �c5 1 3 e5 .ixc3 + 1 4 bxc3 'Wa6 1 5 0-0 �xa4 1 6 �d4 'WaS 1 7 �xb5 'ihb5 18 .:t fb1 'Wc5 1 9 .:t xa4 ±

Hulak-Nurkic, Tuzla 1 983. . g6 9 e4 .ig7 10 e5 ( 1 0 �c3!?; 10 'W xc5 'W xb2 1 1 'W xc8 + 1;e7 + , Smagin, Radovsky) 1 0 . . . 'W b6 1 1 �c3 0-0 1 2 .ixb5? ( 1 2 � xb5 .:t e8 1 3 0-0-0! .i xe5 1 4 � xe5 .:r. xe5 1 5 d 6 and .ic4 ± ; Smagin, Radovsky) 1 2 . . . d6! 1 3 0-0 dxe5 1 4 .:t fe1? ( 1 4 .ic4 ;t ) 14 . . . e4! - +, Kalinin-Radovsky, Moscow 1 983.

-8

.

.

9 e4 10 a4

a6

Or 1 0 h3!? g5 1 1 a4 .ig7? ( 1 1 . . . b4) 1 2 axb5! 'Wxb2 13 'Wxb2

- 1 1 �bd2 �d7?! 1 2 .ie2 g5?! 1 3 �c4 .ig7 14 �fd2! 0-0 1 9 .ig4 ±

Bobotsov-Szily, Biisum 1 969/70; - 1 1 �bd2 �d7 1 2 �c4 g5 1 3 .id3 .ig7 14 0-0 'We7 1 5 e5! ±

Shashin-Bastrikov, USSR 1 967; - 1 1 �bd2 .i.e7? 12 e5! dxe5 1 3

� e4 'Wf4 14 d6 f5 1 5 .id3! ± Czer­ niak-Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1 946; - 1 1 �bd2 g5 1 2 .id3 �d7 1 3 0-0 .ie7 1 4 e5! dxe5 1 5 �e4 'Wb6 16 a5 'Wc7 1 7 .:t fd 1 .id6 1 8 �fd2 ± A lekhine-consultants,

Santiago 1 927;

.ixb2 14 .:t a2 .ig7 15 �bd2 �e7 16 �c4 .ic3 + 17 1;d1 a5 1 8 1;c2 ..tb4 1 9 e5! ± Honlinger­

- 1 1 �bd2 .ig4! 12 .ie2 .ixf3 13 �xf3 �d7 14 a5 g6 15 0-0 .ig7 16 .l:tab1 0-0 17 .ic4 �e5 1 8 �xeS 'Wxe5 Asztalos-Walter,

Spielmann, Vienna 1 929.

Bartfeld 1 926;

10

b4 (see following diagram)

This is the logical result of the variation. Now White will realise a plan with .i d3 and �c4, but he must do it carefully :

= ,

- 1 1 �bd2 .ig4 12 e5!? dxe5 1 3 �e4 Chernin-Miles, Tunis 1 985;

see section C below, p. 47. - 1 1 �bd2 .ig4 12 .ie2 �d7 13 0-0 ( 1 3 �g l! ;t Pachman) 13 . . . .ie7 1 4 �h 1 ? .ixf3 1 5 .ixf3 �e5 16 .ie2 g5! + , Kmoch-Spiel­

mann, Semmering 1 926;

The Blumenfeld Gambit

42

- 1 1 lLlfd2! i.e7 1 2 lLlc4 tLJd7 1 3 lLlbd2 0-0 1 4 i.d3 a S 1 S 0-0 lLleS 16 lLlxeS! dxeS 1 7 lLlc4! .:.d8 1 8 .:. ac t 'it'gS 1 9 .:. fd 1 ± Lipnitsky­

Tolush, USSR 1 950; - 1 1 h3!? lLld7 1 2 i.d3 gS 1 3 lLl bd 2 i.g7 1 4 lLlc4 i.b7 1 S 0-0 'it'e7 1 6 .:. ae 1 lLleS ± Runstrom­

Nettori, Sweden 1 964. - 1 1 lLlfd2 lLld7 1 2 g3!? ( 1 2 lLlc4) 1 2 . . . lLleS 13 i. g2 aS 14 0-0 i.a6 1S f4 i.d3 ( 1 5 . . . i.xfl? 1 6 fxe5;

1 5 . . . lLld3?! 16 e5 dxe5 1 7 lLle4) 16 'it'cl ( Maybe here 1 6 fxe5!? 'it'xfl + 1 7 i.xfl i.xc2 1 8 exd6

i.xb1 19 .:. x b l i.xd6 20 lLlc4; White's unbreakable grip on the light squares is worth more than the exchange) 16 . . . lLlg4 1 7 eS dxeS 1 8 .:.e1 e4 1 9 lLlxe4 'it'd4 + 20 �h 1 0-0-0 2 1 lLlbd2 'it' xdS

! -t

Loffter-Ward, Ramstein­ Miesenbach 1 986-7. ( Editor) On the basis of the material presented above we can form an opinion on the critical position. The conclusion is as follows: if White, playing I I lLlbd2, permits i.c8-g4xf3, then Black can equal­ ise. Therefore, more accurate is I I lLlfd2, or I I h3, fixing White's advantage or the aggressive I I lLlbd2 i.g4 1 2 e5. ( I I i.d3 lLld7 1 2 lLl bd2 has also been tried; Tatai-0. Rodriguez, Skopje 1 972-Editor). 2) 6 . . . 'it'aS +

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 'it'a5 + ) Linking . . . 'it'a5 + with . . . exd5,

Black eliminates the possibility of 7 'it'd2 because the d5 pawn is hanging. In spite of this, Black has all the 'normal' troubles with the b5 pawn. 7

lLlc3

On 7 i.d2 'it' b6 8 e4 c4! 9 'it'c2 i.c5 I 0 i.g5 lLla6 1 1 lLlc3 0-0, Black had active play in M iles­ Ermenkov, Skara 1 980. See sec­ tion B in chapter 5 (Editor). 7

Much better than 7 . . . i.e7?: -7 . . . i.e7? 8 d6 i.d8 9 a4 b4 1 0 lLldS lLle4 1 1 i.xd8 �xd8 1 2 lLld2! b3 1 3 e3 lLlc6 1 4 i.d3 lLlxd2 1S 'it' xd2 'it' xd2 + 16 � xd2 .:. b8 1 7 .:. hc1 ± Razuvaev­

Kozlov, USSR 1 975. 8

i.d2

By such a method White immediately solves problems con­ nected with the pin along the a5e l diagonal. 8 'it'd3 is less accur­ ate : -8 'it'd3 lLlxgS 9 lLlxgS i.e7 1 0 lLlge4 c4 1 1 'it'd4 0-0 1 2 d6 i.d8 13 'it'dS i.a6 14 g4 ( 1 5 'it' xa8 lLlc6) 14 . . . lLlc6 1S i.g2 b4 16 'it' xaS i.xaS 17 lLldS lLld4 18 0-0-0 lLlxe2 + 1 9 �b1 c3 + Haik­

Barlov, Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 ; -8 'it'd3 lLlxgS 9 lLlxgS i.e7 1 0 lLlge4 b4 1 1 'it' bS 'it'd8 1 2 d6 bxc3 13 dxe7 'it' xe7 1 4 lLlxc3 0-0 1 S e3 lLlc6 = , Meduna-Pedersen,

Trnava 1 985 (Bangiev suggests that in this game White still stood

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

slightly better after 1 6 0-0-0 .1: b8 1 7 •d3, and that 10 . . . c4 is to be preferred to I 0 . . . b4- Editor); -8 •d3 li:\xg5 9 li:\xg5 .i.e7 1 0 •e4 d 6 1 1 li:\e6? fxe6 1 2 dxe6 'Wb4! 13 • xa8 • xb2 14 li:\d5

43

li:\e3 ;j;; , Gosin-Kuznetsov, Rostov

1 956. Theory holds that White emerges with a slight edge after the text, but no more. Let us look at a few examples :

( 1 4 .l: d 1 •xc3 + 1 5 .l: d2 .i.f6 1 6 e3 0-0 1 7 •xb8 •ct + 1 8 �e2 .i. xe6 - + ; 1 4 .l: b l • xc3 15 �d1 •d4 + 16 �e l .i.d8! - + ) 1 4 . . . •xal + 15

-9 . . . d6 I 0 e4 a6 1 1 .i.e2 li:ld7 12 0-0 .i.e7 13 a4 b4 14 li:\cbl .i.f6 15 li:\c4 •c7 16 li:\bd2 0-0 1 7 a5 .l: b8 1 8 f4 Kuligowski­

�d2 • xa2 + 1 6 �cl •c4 + 17 �d2 •d4 + 1 8 �cl .i.xe6! 1 9 •xb8 + �f7 20 • xh8 •at + 21 �d2 • b2 + 22 �d3 .i.xd5 0-1 , Grooten-Johansen, Am­

-9 . . . d6 10 e4 12 li:\bl .i.e7 13 .i.f6 1 5 li:\bd2 .i.xb2 1 7 .l: b1 .1: xeS 19 li:\c4

hem/Amsterdam 1 983.

Lju bojevic, Buenos Aires 1 979, Browne gives 1 9 . . . li:\b6 20 li:\xb6 axb6 21 .i.c4! .i.d4 22 �h 1 f5! 23 exf5 �h8 with the idea 24 g4? b5! :t ;

-8 •d3 li:lxg5 9 li:\xg5 .i.e7 10 li:\e4 c4 I I •d2 b4 1 2 li:\dl 0-0 1 3 li:\e3 c3 14 bxc3 bxc3 15 li:\xc3 .i. b4 16 li:\c4 •c5 17 e4 J: e8 +

Ermenkov-Barlov, Banja 1 979.

Vrnjacka

8 . . . li:\xd2 9 li:\xd2

Ermenkov, Nis 1 979; b4 1 1 li:lc4 •dB .i.d3 0-0 14 0-0 li:ld7 16 li:\xd6 .i.c3 1 8 li:\xc8 !-J, Browne­

-9 . . . b4 10 li:\cbl .i.a6 I I e4 g6 1 2 .i.xa6 • xa6 13 •c2 d6 1 4 li:\c4 .i.g7 1 5 li:\ bd2 li:ld7 1 6 0-0 .l: c8 1 7 a3 b3 18 li:\xb3 0-0 1 9 li:\bd2 .i.d4 20 � h i li:lf6 2 1 f3 li:\ h5 22 .l: ad l • b7 23 g3 •e7 24 �g2 f5 T. Petrosian-Sax, =

Niksic 1 983; -9 . . . d6 10 e4 a6 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 li:\cbl .i.e7 13 .i.e2 0-0 1 4 0-0 •c7 15 li:\c4 a5 1 6 li:lbd2 .i.a6 17 li:\e3 .i. xe2 18 • xe2 li:\d7 1 9 li:ldc4 g6 20 .l: fel ! - ! Spassov­

Martinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 984;

Also, 9 •xd2 is playable : -9 •xd2 d6 10 e4 b4 I I li:\dl .i.e7 1 2 .i.e2 0-0 13 0-0 li:\d7 14

-9 . . . b4 1 0 li:\ce4! (Smagin, Radovsky) 10 . . . .i.a6 1 1 • b3! f5 ( 1 1 . . . d6 12 •e3; 1 1 . . . .i.e7 1 2 d6 .i.d8 1 3 •d5 ± Smagin, Radovsky) 12 li:\g3 c4 13 li:\xc4 • xd5 14 e4!? ( 14 e3 ± , Smagin,

The Blumenfeld Gambit

44

Radovsky) 1 4 . . . fxe4 1S .l::t d 1 'it'e6 16
Radovsky- Kapitonov, Moscow 1 985. In conclusion we can state that White can evidently retain a slight edge in the variations shown above. 3) 6 . . . d6

( I d4
e4

This has been the most common reply, though the pioneering game Honlinger-Spielmann, Vienna 1 929 continued : -7
with a slight edge to White. Also worthy of consideration is 7 a4 : -7 a4 b4 8 e4 ..te7 9 ..tbS + ..td7 10 0-0 ..txbS 1 1 axbS 0-0 1 2 .l::t e l
Gurieli-Levi tina, I vano-Fran­ kovsk 1 98 1 ; White's plan to liqui­ date the light squared bishops looks very logical. Here is another example: -7 a4 b4 8 e3 ..te7 9 ..tbS + ..td7 1 0 ..tc4 0-0 I I h3 h6 1 2 ..tf4 ..tfS 13
IS 0-0 ..tf6 1 6 'it' b3 a6 1 7 .l::t a2
Bykanov, U SS R 1 986. In the game White in a very instructive way utilised his strong c4 and e4 squares, and d5 pawn. 7 . . . a6 8 a4

This useful move White must play very quickly, otherwise Black just stands well : -8 lt:lfd2 ..te7 9 ..tf4 (the threat was . . .
Levitina, Nikolaev 1 978 ..te7

8

Of two evils one must choose the lesser. 8 . . . b4 spoils Black's pawn structure too much : -8 . . . b4?! 9 lt:lbd2 ..te7 10 ..tc4! 0-0 1 1 0-0 lt:lbd7 1 2 aS ± , Vor­

onkov-Makarov, Moscow 1 953; -8 . . . b4 9
against 9 . . . ..t g4-one has to remember this idea from Kmoch­ Spielmann, 1 926) 9 . . . ..te7 1 0 ..tf4 0-0 1 1 ..td3
Czechoslovakia 1 979 . 9

..txf6

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

But not 9 axb5? where White exchanges his central e4 pawn for the less important b5 paw n :

45

15 .:t xa8 ..t xa8 16 ..txb5

- 9 axb5? lll xe4! 10 J.. xe7 'ii xe7 1 1 J.. e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 J.. b7 13 lll c3 axb5 14 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 1 5 J.. xb5 lll f6 + , Milev-Portisch, Moscow

1 959; -9 axb5 lll xe4 10 J.. e3 0-0 1 1 J.. d3 lll f6 1 2 lllc3 J.. b7 1 3 0-0 axb5 1 9 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 15 J.. xb5 lll bd7 16 .:t e l lll b6 1 7 J.. c6 J.. xc6 1 8 dxc6 d5 + U hlmann-Cuellar,

Moscow 1 953. 9 . . . ..t xf6 10 axb5

There's no harm in waiting. White can also play 10 'ii c2 : -10 'ii c2 0-0 l l axb5 ..tb7 1 2 lll bd 2 axb5 1 3 .:t xa8 J.. xa8 1 4 ..t xb5 'ii a5 1 5 'ii a4 'ii xa4 1 6 J.. xa4 J.. x b2 1 7 lllc4 ..tc3 + 1 8 ..tr>e2 f5 19 lll xd6 fxe4 20 lll xe4 21 .:t d 1 ± Bobotsov­ ..t b4

We are following Vaganian­ Grigorian, USSR 1 97 1 . The strong c4 square, the cramping of the bishop on a8-these are the main arguments for White's advantage. His plan is simple : lL!c4, lL!fd2, f2-f4, e4-e5 .

Drimer, Leipzig 1 960. 10 . . . ..txb2 l l .:t a2 ..tf6 1 2 lll bd2 0-0 1 3 ..td3 ..tb7 1 4 0-0 axb5

In Cerna- Poloch, Ruse 1 986, Black carelessly played 14 . . . 'ii c 7?!, and after a few blows was destroyed. -14 . . . 'ii c7?! 15 b6! 'ii xb6 16 'ii bl 'ii c7 ( 1 6 . . . 'ii x b1 1 7 .:t xb 1 ..tc8 1 8 lL!c4 ± ) 1 7 e5 ..t e7 ( 1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 ..txh7 + ..tr>h8 1 9 'ii f5 + - ) 1 8 exd6 ..txd6 1 9 .txh7 + ..tr>h8 20 .:t a4 g6 21 .txg6 fxg6 22 'ii xg6 and White

had a decisive attack.

4) 6 . . . 'ii b6

( 1 d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .i.g5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii b6) The moves 5 . . . cxd5 and 6 . . . 'ii b6 fit a common plan-Black's queen can protect both the b5 pawn and the knight on f6. 7

lL!c3

Encyclopedia ( 1 978) and Tai­ manov ( 1 980) recommend also 7 a4!?, whereupon 7 . . . .tb7 should be quite playable for Black . 7

c4

I n this way Black creates a third

The Blumenfeld Gambit

46

function for his queen-together with an imminent ..tc5 it presses on the f2 point. 8 e4 ..tc5 9 ..th4 d6 tO ..te2 l!J bd7 t t 0-0 0-0 t 2 b3!

6

Vorotnikov-Reshko, Leningrad 1 964. This complicated vari­ ation needs more practical tests. In the diagram position, White is better as a result of his aggressive action on the queenside. c. 5 . . . h6

( 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 l!Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 h6) (see following diagram)

The controversial move . . . h6, which many players have advo­ cated, is still in dispute. After . . . h6, and without . . . exd5, White cannot make use of the c4 square for his pieces. This facet is very important for the strategic strug­ gle in the centre.

..txf6

Avoiding 6 ..th4, which trans­ poses into a worse version of the line 5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 h6 7 ..th4, which we have seen before. Let us dismiss the continuation : -5 . . . h6 6 ..th4 bxc4? 7 l!Jc3 d6 8 e4 ..te7 9 dxe6 ..txe6 tO ..txc4! 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . ..txc4 1 1 "it' xa4 + ) l l ..txe6 fxe6 t7 e5 ± Roessei­

Scheipl, A msterdam 1 9 6 1 . I n Povah-Singh, Ramsgate 1 987, Black gained a big advan­ tage : -5 . . . h6 6 ..th4 bxc4 7 l!Jc3 g5 8 ..tg3 exd5 9 l!Jxd5 "it'a5 + t O l!Jc3 ..tg7 t t "it'd2 0-0 t 2 e4 .ct e8 + , but 1 2 ..td6 (instead of 1 2

e4) and next e3 should have been played, with an edge for White. 6 . . . "it' xf6 7 l!Jc3

If White plays 7 "it'c2, it seems that he still manages to secure a small edge :

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

47

-7 'ifc2 b4 8 e4 gS 9 ttJbd2 g4 1 0 lLlg1 ..tg7 1 1 ll b 1 d 6 1 2 ..td3 lLld7 13 ttJe2 ttJeS 14 0-0 hS 1S f4 gxf3 1 6 lLlxf3 'if h6 1 7 lLlxeS ..txeS 18 �h1 h4 1 9 lLlg1 'ifg7 20 lLlf3 ..tf4 21 a3! aS?! (2 1 . . . bxa3 22

'ifa4 + ..t d7 23 'ifxa3 and b4 ;t . 22 axb4 axb4 23 ll a 1 ll xa 1 24 ll xa 1 ± Am. Rodriguez- Martin

Gonzalez, Biel 1 985; -7 'ifc2 b4 8 e4 gS 9 eS!? 'ifg7 1 0 h 3 ..tb7 1 1 lLl bd2! exdS 1 2 cxdS ..txdS 1 3 lLle4 ..te7 1 4 0-0-0,

-7 'it'c2 ttJa6 8 e4?! (8 a3! ;t ) lLl b4 9 'ifd2 bxc4 1 0 ..txc4 'ifg6 1 1 0-0 'if xe4 1 2 lLla3 ..te7 +

Dzindzichashvili USSR 1 972;

Peresypkin,

-7 'ifc2 exdS 8 cxdS d6 9 e4 a6 10 a4 b4 1 1 lLlbd2 ..tg4 12 eS!? dxeS 1 3 ttJe4 'if f4 14 ttJfd2 ..tfS 1 S ..td3 ..txe4 1 6 lLlxe4 ttJd7 1 7 g3 'if g4 1 8 h3 'ifhS 1 9 d 6 'if g6 20 ll d 1 ± , Chernin-Miles, Tunis

1 985; 1 1 lLlfd2 or 1 1 h3 also seem good; see section B( 1 ) above, into which we have transposed. -7 'it'c2 exdS 8 cxdS d6 9 e4 a6 10 a4 b4 1 1 lLl bd2 ttJd7 12 aS g6 13 lLlc4 ..tg7 1 4 ..td3 0-0 1S 0-0 ll e8 16 ttJfd2 gS 1 7 � h 1 ..tb7 18 ll ae 1 ll ad8 19 ..te2 ttJeS 20 lLle3 lLlg6 ;t , McCambridge­

Shirazi, New York 1 982; -7 'ifc2 b4 8 lLlbd2 gS 9 e4 g4 10 ttJg1 ..tg7 1 1 ll b 1 hS 1 2 ..td3 d6 13 lLle2 lLld7 14 f4! gxf3 1 S ttJxf3 ttJeS 1 6 0-0 ;t Nikolic­

Miles, Tunis 1 985;

with White's strong Baikov-Grushevsky, 1 986. 7

pressure, Moscow

b4

Less logical would be 7 . . . bxc4, increasing the scope of White's pieces in the centre : -7 . . . bxc4 8 e4 d6 9 dxe6 ..txe6 1 0 ..txc4! lLld7 1 1 ..txe6 'ifxe6 1 2 0-0 lLl b6 1 3 a4! ..te7 1 4 aS lLlc8 1S lLldS ± Chukaev-Ches­

nauskas, Vilnius 1 96 1 . lLlbS

8

8 lLle4 was refuted in S. Garcia­ Knaak, Tunja 1 984 : -8 lLle4 'if xb2 9 ll b1 'it'a3 10 e3 fS 1 1 lLleS fxe4 1 2 'ifhS + �d8 1 3 lLlf7 + �c7 1 4 lLlxh8 gS IS lLlf7 'it'c3 + 16 �d1 d6 1 7 h4 ..td7 0- 1 . 8

lLla6

White is also better after 8 . . . �d8 -8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 h3 ..tb7?! I I eS 'ifg7 12 'ifa4 aS 13 0-0-0

48

T he Blumenfeld Gambit 'ilt' bS lLla6 1 7 .tg2 ± Malaniuk­

Palatnik, Tallinn 1 985; -8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 1 0 eS! 'ilt'f4 1 1 h3 .tb7 1 2 .td3 g4 1 3 hxg4 exdS 14 g3 'ilt' xg4 1S J:l. h4 'ilt'e6 16 'ilt'c2 dxc4? ( 1 6 . . . a6! 1 7 .tf5

'ilt'e8 1 8 cxd5 axb5 1 9 0-0-0 J:l. xa2 20 � b 1 J:l. a5 + , Smagin, Radov­ sky) 17 .txc4 dS 18 0-0-0 lLld7 19 lLlgS hxgS 20

J:l. xh8

•xeS

J:l. a6 14 .te2 hS 1S lLld6 ± De Boer-Rogers, Wijk aan Zee I I, 1 985; Rogers suggests 1 0 . . . 'ilt' xb2 1 1 e5 a6 1 2 J::t b l 'ilt'xa2 1 3 J:l. a 1 axb5 as a n interesting possibility, but White is still better in this line; -8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 .td3 .tb7 1 1 eS ( 1 1 'ilt'a4 a5 1 2 'ilt'c2 ;t Rogers) 1 1 . . . 'ilt'g7 12 'ilt'a4 aS 1 3 0-0 g 4 14 lLld2 'ilt'xeS 1 S 'ilt'c2 J:l. a6?! ( 1 5 . . . a4 leaves an unclear position) 16 J::t fel 'ilt'g7 1 7 a3! ;t L.

Portisch- Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1 984/85; -8 . . . �d8 9 e4 gS 10 eS! 'ilt'g7 1 1 dxe6? fxe6 1 2 .td3 .tb7 1 3 •e2 a 6 1 4 lLld6 .txd6 1 S exd6 .txf3 16 'ilt'xf3 lLlc6 17 0-0 J::t b8 18 a3 b3 1 9 'ilt'e3 •es 20 'ilt' xeS lLl xeS 21 .te2 J:l. b6 + , Szym­

czak-K naak, Leipzig 1 984; -8 . . . c;t;>d8 9 e4 gS 1 0 I I g4! .tb7 12 'ilt'a4 aS f6?! ( 1 3 . . . l::t a6, 1 3 . . . lLld6! .txd6 I S exd6

eS! 'ilt'g7 13 0-0-0 �c8) 14 �c8 16

Now White brilliantly con­ cludes with an attack on Black's king: 21 .txdS!! + Lagutkin- Kot­ Jiar, Moscow 1 986. If 2 1 . . . .txd5, 22 'ilt'd2 and White wins. -,

-8 . . . �d8 9 a3!? 'ilt' xb2 1 0 e4 a6 I I axb4 exdS 1 2 cxdS .tb7 1 3 J::t bl 'ilt'f6 14 e S 'ilt'f4 I S lLlc3 cxb4 16 g3 'ilt'g4 1 7 .td3 d6 18 e6 fxe6 1 9 h3 'ilt' hS 20 g4 'ilt' ti 21 J:l. xb4 eS 22 0-0 aS 23 J:l. b6 .txdS 24 lLlxeS 1 -0, Naumkin-011,

USSR 1 985.

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

49

-8 . . . �d8 9 'ii a4?! aS 1 0 e4 g5 1 1 i.d3 g4 1 2 tt:ld2 'ii xb2 1 3 .l:t bl 'ii g7 14 0-0 d6 15 a3 tt:ld7 16 f4 gxf3 17 .l:t xf3 .l:t g8 18 .l:t f2,

don 1 922.

Lagutkin-Grushevsky, Moscow 1 986, and now after 1 8 . . . tt:le5! then .l:t a6, Black i s O.K. according to Smagin and Radovsky.

- 1 1 'ii d2 'ii xd2 + 12 �xd2 .tb7 13 a3 �d8 1 4 d6 .tg7 15 .l:t e 1 .tc6, Vukic-Ljubojevic, Yugo-

9

1 0 e5 'ii f4 1 1 i.d3!

The less subtle I I 'ii d 2 leads to unclear play :

slavia 1 972. 1 1 . . . g4 12 'ii d 2 'ii xd2 + 1 3 tt:l xd2 �d8

e4

Not strictly necessary, White can also protect his b2 pawn, for instance -9 'ii c2 g5 10 dxe6 dxe6 1 1 .l:t d 1 i.g7 1 2 'ii e4 .l:t b8 13 'ii c6 + �f8; Popov-Dieks, Wijk aan Zee

1 974; -9 'ii d2 e5 1 0 d6! i.b7 1 1 e4 g6 1 2 0-0-0 i.g7 1 3 i.d3 0-0 1 4 h3 'it'e6 1 5 .l:t he1 ± Popov-Bilek,

Or 1 3 . . . i.g7 1 4 f4 gxf3 1 5 tt:lxf3 0-0 1 6 i.e4 ± . I nstead of 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 i.e4 .1:!. b8 16 tt:lxa7 .tg7, Polugay­ evsky-Ljubojevic, Manila 1 975, 14 .te4 .tb7 1 5 dxe6 .txe4 1 6 tt:l xe4 fxe6 1 7 0-0-0 .tg7 1 8 .1:!. d6 should have been played, accord­ ing to Polugayevsky.

Sinaia 1 964. 9

g5

This counter-offensive used to be thought the most effective. Black is swinging on the edge of a precipice after 9 . . . 'ii x b2 : -9 . . 'ii xb2 10 i.d3 'ii f6 1 1 e5! 'ii d8 1 2 dxe6 dxe6 1 3 i.e4! 'ii xd1 + 14 .1:!. xdl .1:!. b8 15 i.c6 + �e7 16 tt:lxa7 + , .

-

Gri.infeld-Bogolyubov, 1 922;

Vienna

-9 . . . 'ii xb2 1 0 i.d3 d6 1 1 0-0 i.d7 1 2 'ii a4 ± Helling-Leon­

hardt, Berlin 1 928. Also dubious is 9 . . . e5 when Black shuts his own bishop out of play : -9 . . . e5 1 0 g3 g5 1 1 i.h3 i.g7 12 tt:ld2 ± Goldstein-Smith, Lon-

In this position White stands better, and this is the final evalu­ ation of the whole variation. D. 5 . . . bxc4, 5 . . . .tb7, 5 . . . d6, 5 . . . 'ii b6.

( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 i.g5)

The Blumenfeld Gambit

50

When talking about the devel­ opment and current situation of the Blumenfeld Gambit it is indis­ pensable to refer to some of the less well known continuations that have been tested during earlier tournament practice. In such a way we can get a much better and closer picture of the gambit. The material presented here is not vast, and further research is clearly needed in this field. I) 5 . . . bxc4

-6 e4 -.aS + 7 ..-d2 ..- xd2 + 8 lLlbxd2 exd5 9 ..t xf6 dxe4 l O ll:lxe4 gxf6 I I lLl xf6 + o r I 0 . . . ..tb7 I I ..txg7! ..txg7 1 2 lLld6 + in both cases with advantage to White. According to Encyclopedia ( 1 978), after 6 ll:lc3 d6 7 e4 ..te7 8 ..txc4, 8 . . . e5 equalises, but I cannot agree with Encyclopedia's assessment of such type of pos­ ition, since in Moiseev-Przewoz­ nik, NaJ�cz6w 1 979: -6 lLlc3 d6 7 e4 e5 8 lLld2 ..te7 9 lLl xc4 0-0 10 ..te2 White stood

better. Other examples : -6 lLlc3 * b6 7 ..t xf6 gxf6 8 *d2 lLla6 9 e4 ll g8 10 g3 ll b8 I I ll b l * b4 1 2 a3 -. bJ 1 3 *cl * b6 14 ..txc4 lLlc7 15 0-0 ± ,

This exchange has the defect we have talked about many times; Black allows White control and occupation of the c4 square; especially, in the future, by his knight. From the c4 point White's knight has promising perspectives, controlling the a5, b6 and e5 squares, defending the b2 pawn, and increasing its horizons by the manoeuvre tt:lc4-e3-f5.

Lein-Lombardy, Lone Pine 1 98 1 ; - 6 e4 -.as + 7 ..td2! ( 7 lLlc3 lLlxe4 8 ..txc4 ll:lxc3 9 -.d2 -. b4 lO * xc3 *xc3 + I I bxc3 d6 with an unclear position) 7 . . . * b6 8 lLlc3 ..ta6 9 lLle5 ± (Encyclo­ pedia 1 978, Taimanov 1 980). A glance at those games is enough to see that the outcome of the variation is unfavourable for Black. The early 5 . . . bxc4 is premature. 2) 5 . . . ..tb7

The bishop presses on the cen­ tre; Black invites his opponent to accept a gambit. But after 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5 d5 8 e4!? is worthy of consideration. If then 8 . . . dxe4? 9 ..-xd8 +

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined

51

17 "i/ xc4 ± Eslon-De Ia Villa, Linares 1 985. Conclusion: The bishop on b7 cannot achieve anything useful, and White is able to take advan­ tage of this. 3) s

xd8 I 0 tt:le5 and all Black's pawns in the centre are weak, thus Black has not replied in the spirit of the gambit! It would have been better to continue 8 . . . ..te7! 9 e5 tt:le4 10 ..txe7 "i/xe7 I I ..td3 tt:ld7 and Black establishes approximate equality. Therefore, the most promising line for White is connected with building a strong pawn barrier against the bishop on b7. -6 e4 WaS + 7 "ild2 "i/xd2 + 8 tt:lfxd2! b4 9 ..td3 d6 10 0-0 tt:lbd7 I I f4 ..te7 1 2 tt:lf3 exdS 13 exdS 0-0 14 tt:lbd2 l:Ue8 IS : ael ..tf8 16 tt:lb3 aS 17 : xeS tt:lxe8 1 8 : e t f6 1 9 ..th4 tt:lc7 2 0 g4! g6 21 tt:lbd2

fi 22 ..tg3 tt:lb6 23 fS ± Gri.infeld-M ichell, Margate

1 923. -6 e4 "if aS + 7 ..td2 "i/ b6 8 tt:lc3 bxc4 9 ..txc4 tt:lxe4 1 0 tt:lxe4 exdS I I 0-0 dxc4 1 2 .=. e t ..txe4 1 3 .:. xe4 + ..te7 1 4 ..tc3 "i/ b7 IS : e3

f8 16 "i/e2
. . .

d6

In such a way Black relinquishes either a move (d7-d6-d5) or the chance to form a strong pawn centre. But I would like to draw the reader's attention to a third kind of compensation: -6 dxe6 ..txe6 7 cxbS ..te7 8 tt:lc3 h6 9 ..th4 gS 1 0 ..t g3 g4 I t tt:ld2 dS

Here it is. Black's pieces and pawns have become more active. 12 e3 tt:lhS 13 ..td3 tt:lxg3 1 4 hxg3
Pokrovski, corr. 1 967-68.

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

52 4) 5 . . . 'iW b6

gxf6 7 e4 b4 8 .i.e2 d6 9 0-0 .i.h6 1 0 t!Je 1 ! e5 1 1 .i.g4! with a big advantage for White. Editor) Recapitulation of 5 .i.g5

Black allows 6 .i.xf6 gxf6, and this is a really brave decision, because with queens on the Black king can become exposed. We should wait for more practical tests of this position to find out whether Black's structure d7, e6, f6, 17 is strong. As far as I know there was only one game after 5 . . . 'iW b6: - 6 t!Jc3?! bxc4?! 7 e4 d 6 8 .i.xc4 e5 9 0-0 .i.e7 10 'iWc2 0-0 1 1 t!Jd2 h6 1 2 .i.h4 g5 1 3 .i.g3 t!Jh5 1 4 .i.e2 ± Gereben-Balogh, Budap­ est 1 936. Probably 6 . . . b4 7 .i.xf6 gxf6 8 t!Je4 .i.e7 would have mixed things up better. (A game Macht-Spielmann, Kaunas 1 934, continued 6 .i.xf6

Let us briefly summarize the current state of theory and per­ spectives for both sides after 5 .i.g5. Firstly, overall, I cannot agree with the assessment that 5 .i.g5 refutes the Blumenfeld Gambit. The position seems to offer Black fairly good chances not only for defence but also for counterattack. Secondly, I would like to pay special attention to the move 5 . . . 'iWa5 + . How should White fight against the counter-action f6-f5, how should he deal with Black's pawn mass c5, d6, e6, 17, f6? Will the continuation 6 t!Jbd2 remain the most fashionable. Thirdly, in many positions Black must be very careful with the choice : b5-b4 or b5xc4. The question of the c4 square is very important. Fourthly, there are still less investigated areas, for instance in such variations as 5 . . . 'iW b6 or 5 . . . .i.b7. Fifthly, why after all this is the Blumenfeld Gambit not so popu­ lar? Maybe because chess vari­ ations and systems of development are also a matter of fashion . . . .

4 The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted In an earlier chapter I have tried to show that it would be difficult to find a clear-cut winning plan for White in this opening. I have tried to demonstrate all of Black's chances after the most unpleasant-for the time being!­ move, 5 J.. g 5. I think that this opening is genuinely playable. The purpose of this chapter is to sup­ port such an evaluation for the Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted!

does not accept the pawn in this line : -5 dxe6 fxe6 6 b3 d5 7 e3 a6 8 J.. e2 J.. d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 J.. b2 J.. b7 1 1 J.. e5 li:lc6 1 2 J.. xd6 'it' xd6,

Jovanovic-Garda, Santa Fe 1 973. In the diagram position White has five main continuations : A. 7 e3 B. 7 J.. f4 c. 7 J.. g 5 D. 7 g3 E. 7 li:lc3 But in subsection F we absolu­ tely must analyse Black's devi­ ation, 6 . . . J.. b 7!?, on account of our remarks in Chapter 1 .

1 d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5

A. 7 e3

( 1 d4 li:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3) (see following diagram)

The Tarrasch variation; this line creates a very passive configur­ ation for White's pieces without however creating any weaknesses. The simple plan of development for White of e2-e3, J.. e2, 0-0,

Black has no problems if White 53

54

The Blumenfeld Gambit

� rr:=:=:=;;;a;:=;=w;n;zr::::;:==iiiim;;=;;;;m�

-7 . . . ..td6 8 il'lc3 ..tb7 9 e4 d4?

9 . . . lLl bd7! 1 0 exd5 exd5 I I ..te2 0-0 with equality, according to Encyclopedia ( 1 979). 10 eS! .ixfJ 1 1 *xf3 ..txeS 12 il'le4! il'l bd7 13 lLlgS

And White had a considerable advantage in Reti-Rellstab, Brno 1 93 1 . Of course, sometimes i t i s poss­ ible for Black to leave weak points in his ranks, but only if he obtains good play for his pieces.

il'lbd2, b3, .i b2, 'ii c2, and a rook move, is not now to be recom­ mended. A historically important game, Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1 922, has been shown in Chapter I . In the next few games of this section the struggle will be similar. Maybe the most promising plan for White in this line is connected with e3-e4.

-7 . . . ..td6 8 il'lc3 il'lbd7 9 .ie2 0-0 10 0-0 *e7 1 1 e4 d4 1 2 lLla4 il'lxe4 13 b4

This is the move White wants to play; it fights for control of the d4 square and at the same time weakens the e6 pawn. 13 . . . cxb4 14 * xd4 ..tb7 1 S ..te3 .I:US 1 6 ll ad 1 .idS

-7 . . . .id6 8 tt'lc3 ..tb7 9 e4 dxe4?

Of course, 9 . . . il'l bd7, keeping Black's pawns together, is the only move, and Black is O.K . 1 0 il'lgS 12 il'lgxe4 14 il'lxf6 + 0-0 J.. d4?! ll adl il'lb6

.idS 1 1 -.c2 il'lbd7 J.. eS 1 3 il'lxdS exdS -. x£6 1 S .ie2 0-0 16 17 J.. e3 J.. xb2 1 8 1 9 -. xeS with a clear

advantage to White, Browne­ Quinteros, Buenos Aires 1 980. Let us look at another example, in which Black allowed some weaknesses in the centre :

Black has a very dangerous attack, but this does not necess­ arily mean that he is mating White,

The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

Renman- Przewoznik, Ostrava 1 983. The same strategic blow was prepared by White in Ligterink­ van der Wiel, Hilversum 1 985 : -7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .td3 .tb7 10 e4 d4 1 1 lLlb1 lLlxe4 1 2 'ir'e2 lLldf6 1 3 lLlbd2 lLlxd2 1 4 .t xd2

Or 1 4 'ir' xe6 + c;tf8 1 5 .txd2 .idS 1 6 'ir'e2 'ir'c7 with initiative to Black 14

.td5

And now not 15 0-0? 0-0 16 b4 lLlg4!

as in the game, but at once 1 5 b4! 0-0 1 6 bxc5 .txc5 1 7 0-0 and lLle5. White would be better. Therefore, more in the spirit of the Blumenfeld Gambit was 10 . . . 0-0, instead of 1 0 . . . d4. If White still insists on I I 'ir'e2, then 1 1 . . . c4 1 2 .i.c2 and Black is well prepared for fighting in the centre, as in Boersma-Rogers, Amster­ dam 1 984: -7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .td3 .i.b7 10 e4 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 c4! 1 2 .i.c2 lLlxe4!? 1 3 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 4 .i.xe4 .tb4 + 1 5 .td2 .i.xe4 1 6 .i. x b4 .i.d3! 1 7 'ir'xe6 + �h8 1 8 0-0-0

Too risky was 1 8 .i.xf8?! 'ir'xf8 19 'ir' xd7 'ir' b4 + 20 lLld2 'ir'xb2 2 1 l1 b 1 'ir'e5 + 22 �d l 'ir'e2 + 33 � c l c3 - + . 18 . : f6 1 9 'ir'e7 'ir'xe7 20 .i.xe7 : f5 2 1 .tb4 : xb5 with . •

equal chances. Whereas the game below saw

55

Black taking one gamble too many : -7 . . . .td6 8 lLlc3 lLlbd7 9 .i.d3 .tb7 10 e4 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 lLle5 1 2 lLlxe5 .i.xe5 1 3 0-0 c4 1 4 .i.c2 d4!? 15 'ir' xc4 �h8 16 lLld1 l1 c8 1 7 'ir'e2 .i.xh2 + ? 1 8 lt xh2 : xc2 1 9 'ir' xc2 .i.xe4 20 'ir' b3 lLlg4 + 21 �g1 d3 22 'ir' xe6 .i.f5 23 'ir'c4 d2 24 .i.xd2 'ir' xd2 25 'ir'c5 1 -0 Kivlan-Agafonov, Riga

1 980. 1 7 . . . 'ir'c7 looks better: 1 8 f4 'ir'xc2 1 9 'ir'xc2 : xc2 20 fxe5 lLld7 2 1 : xf8 + lLlxf8 with White in difficulties despite two extra pawns. Preparing e3-e4 with .i.d3 can be met in a tactical way : -7 . . . .td6 8 b3 0-0 9 .i.b2 lLlbd7 10 lLlbd2 'ir'e7 1 1 .i.d3 e5 12 e4 c4! 13 bxc4 lLlc5! 14 'ir'e2 dxe4 15 lLlxe4 lLlfxe4 16 .i.xe4 lLlxe4 1 7 'ir' xe4 .tb7 18 'ir'e2 e4 19 lLld2 .tc5 20 : n a6 21 0-0-0 axb5 with a powerful attack, S.

Larsen-Smagar, corr. 1 980-83. -7 . . . .td6 8 lLlbd2 0-0 9 .td3 .tb7 10 0-0 a6 1 1 b3 e5 1 2 e4 c4 1 3 lLlxc4 dxc4 1 4 .i.xc4 + �h8 1 5 lLlg5 axb5 and Black is better,

Moiseev-Vaganian, USSR 1 970. From these illustrative games we can see that when White pre­ pares e3-e4 with b3, .i.d3, and lLl bd2, he has to consider the counter attack c5-c4 and the dou­ ble attack of lLlc5. But when the bishop on d3 is protected, this tactical play is not so dangerous : -7 . . . .td6 8 b3 0-0 9 -'.b2

56

The Blumenfeld Gambit

lll bd7 1 0 lll bd2 fie7 1 1 ..td3 ..t b7 1 2 fic2 l:tac8 13 0-0 lll b6

Or 1 3 . . . e5 14 e4! and now 1 1 . . . c4 is fruitless. 1 4 e4 c4 1 5 bxc4 lll xe4 16 ..txe4 dxe4 1 7 lll e5 fi gS 1 8 lll xe4 fif5 19 lt:lc6

Transposing White's move order (7 lll b d2 and 8 e3) led to very eccentric play in FurmanPanov, Leningrad 1 947 : -7 lll bd2 fia5 8 e3 ..td7!? 9 ..te2

Or 9 a4 a6! 1 0 bxa6 lll x a6 1 1 ..te2 c4 1 2 0-0 lllc 5 with good chances for Black. 9 . . . ..txb5 1 0 0-0 ..txe2 1 1 fi xe2 fia6! 1 2 tiel lt:lc6 1 3 e4 lll b4 1 4 fidl 0-0-0!

and the position was even. Black played according to 'Ale­ khine's pattern of attack' in the following games. Despite a new plan, White was defenceless : -7 . . . ..td6 8 lt:lc3 ..tb7 9 ..te2 0-0 10 0-0 fie7 1 1 b3 lt:lbd7 1 2 ..tb2 l:t ad8 1 3 fic2 e5 14 l:t ael

With a better position for White, Keller-Epstein, Vladimir 1 979. Coming back to the problem of Black's damaged pawn structure in the centre, one of the most important themes of the Blumen­ feld Gambit is piece activity-not j ust pawn power! The next game is very instructive on this point:

A new way. White wants to play f2-f4 and take away any possibility of trouble on the h2b8 diagonal. In this case (f2-f4), the rook on e 1 would protect the pawn on e3. 14 . . . e4 15 lt:ld2 lll e5 16 f4 exf3 17 lt:lxf3 lll fg4 1 8 ..td3 lll xf3 + 19 gxf3 lll xe3 20 ..txh7 + �h8 21 �hl lll xc2 22 l:t xe7 ..txe7 23 ..txc2 d4

with Black having a winning advantage, Sinadinovic-Sahovic, Nis 1 98 1 .

-7 . . . ..td6 8 lll bd2 0-0 9 ..te2 ..tb7 10 0-0 fie7 1 1 fic2 lll bd7 1 2 e4 lt:lxe4 1 3 lll xe4 dxe4 14 lt:lg5 lll f6 1 5 lll h3 lll d5 16 f3 e3 17 ..tc4 l:t ae8 1 8 b3 l:t f6 1 9 ..tb2 l:t h6 20 l:t fe1 fic7 21 �ft l:t f8

-7 . . . ..td6 8 lll c3 0-0 9 b3 ..tb7 10 ..tb2 e5! 1 1 ..te2 e4 12 lll g5 We7 13 ..tg4 d4! 14 ..te6 + �h8 15 exd4 e3! + , Caracci- Maksi­

and the pressure of Black's pieces led him to win, Sahovic-Barlov, Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 .

movic, Caorle 1 986. I would like to draw attention to a very important subtlety. After

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

57

-8 . . . .ib7? 9 lLlgS! jje7

b4 cxb4 1 3 lLla2 ll:Je4 1 4 .ib2 W'e7 1 S g3 .l:t ac8 16 lLld4 lLleS 17 f3 lLlxg3 18 hxg3 W'gS 19 W'e1 W' xe3 + 20 �g2 .l:t f6 2 1 lLlxb4 lLlg6 22 .l:t h1 .ixb4 23 W'xb4 .l:t c2 24 .l:t a3 .l:t xe2 + , Minovic­

If 9 . . . W' b6 then 1 0 .id3 .ie7 1 1 ll:Ja4! W'd6 1 2 .i xh7! lLlxh7 13 W'h5 + �d8 1 4 lLlf7 + wins. (But 10 . . . ll:Je5! would seem to be an important improvement for Black-Editor)

Grave, USSR 1 974. Summary : Tarrasch's idea of building a passive pos1t10n without weaknesses is probably insufficient for equality and thus cannot be recommended!

7 e3 lLlbd7 8 lLlc3 it looks as though Black has at his disposal two equivalent replies : 8 . . . .id6 and 8 . . . .i b7. But only 8 .id6! is the correct move!

10 .id3 eS 1 1 .ifS g6 12 .ih3 e4 13 0-0 W'eS 14 f4 exf3 1S lLlxf3 W' hS 16 lLle2 .id6 17 lLlf4 W'h6,

Zhuravlev-Arkhipkin, Riga 1 980. Now 1 8 lLlxd5! followed by e3-e4 would have been decisive, which White missed in the game. In the position which is the subject of our discussion, White has one pawn more on the q ueen­ side. So, we may ask, is there a chance for White to play for a win? I think t hat the answer will be in the negative, because Black's dynamic counterplay on the king­ side and in the center, based on e6-e5-e4, gives him sufficient chances, e.g. : -7 . . . .id6 8 lLlc3 .ib7 9 .ie2 0-0 1 0 a4 aS 1 1 bxa6 lLlxa6 1 2 lLl bS .ib8 1 3 .id2 ll:Je4 14 .ic3 eS!, Wohner-Soler, Leipzig 1 960; -7 . . . .id6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 lLlbd2 .i b7 10 0-0 W'e7 1 1 lLlb3 aS 1 2 a4 eS 1 3 g3 lLle4 1 4 lLlbd2 lLlxd2 1S .ixd2 e4 16 lLlh4 lLld7,

Ujtelky-Marszalek, Prague 1 956; -7 . . . .id6 8 .ie2 0-0 9 lLlc3 lLlbd7 1 0 0-0 .ib7 1 1 a4 �h8 1 2

B. 7 .if4 ( 1 . d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 .if4)

In the classical attack of the Blumenfeld Gambit, Black plays . . . .id6, . . . W'e7 and after . . . e6-e5-e4 (which elbows a very important defender aside), . . . W'e5 or . . . lLlfg4 makes unpleasant threats on the h2-b8 diagonal. For this reason, White must take control of this important diagonal.

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

58

In practice Blac k generally exchanges bishops with 7 . . . .i.d6. Instead, Zak-Goldenov, Minsk 1 956 went : -7 . . . W'a5 + 8 W'd2 W' xb5 9 tt:lc3 W'b7 1 0 e3 .i. e7 1 1 .i. e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 tt:lc6 1 3 ll fc l .i.d7

1 7 W'xe2 W'd3! with an equal position. It was perhaps in view of this that White chose a different plan in Nikolic-Barlov, Vrsac 1 982: -9 . . . 0-0 1 0 g3 a6! 1 1 bxa6 .i.xa6 1 2 .i.h3 tt:lc6 13 0-0 e5 14 tt:lg5 wh8! 1 5 tt:lde4 tt:l xe4 1 6 tt:lxe4 W'h6 + .

Summary : I t appears that 7 .i.f4 effectively stops Black's attack on the kingside, but Black has equality because of his active piece play and stronger centre. c. 7 .i.g5

(1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 .i.g5)

and the position is even. Probably after 8 tt:l bd2 or 8 tbc3, which both look better than 8 W' d2, Black has practical chances by offering the a-pawn with . . . a7-a6. Because of the variation : -7 . . . .i. d6 8 .i. xd6 W'xd6 9 tt:l bd2 tt:lbd7 1 0 e3 0-0 1 1 .i.e2 a6 1 2 bxa6 .i. xa6 1 3 0-0 W' b6 1 4 b3,

Rossetto-Szabo, Buenos Aires 1 955 theorists claimed that 7 .i.f4 led to better play for White. But Voronkov found 9 . 0-0 with the idea of developing the knight to c6 : 9 . . . 0-0 10 e3 a6 1 1 bxa6 .i.xa6 1 2 .i.e2 tt:lc6 1 3 0-0 lHb8 1 4 b3 e5 1 5 e4 dxe4 1 6 tt:lg5 .i.xe2 .

.

This is White's next dangerous continuation, avoiding the poten­ tial pressure on the h2-b8 diag­ onal. White puts pressure on the tt:lf6, hoping to induce Black to make the passive move .i.e7. The question is, if after 7 . . . .i.d6 Black

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

is in difficulties, e.g. : 7 . . . ..td6 8 e4! 'Ll bd7 (8 . . . dxe4 9 'Llfd2 ..te5 1 0 tt:Jc3 ..tb7 1 1 ..tc4 and •e2 with advantage to White) 9 exd5 exd5 1 0 tt:Jc3 ..tb7 1 1 ..td3.

59

-7 . . . ..te7 8 e3 'Ll bd7 9 'Llc3 ..tb7 10 ..te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 •e8?

At first glance this move seems logical in that Black involves his strongest piece in his attack. How­ ever, this thematic move is, in fact, faulty. 12

•c2

..td6

Black tries to build on 'Alekhine's position'-but the g6 and h5 squares are under White's control! Black's centre is practically immo­ bile, e.g. : 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 ..txf6! ..t xf6 1 4 e4! d4 1 5 ..tc4 + �h8 1 6 tt:Jd5 and White stands better. 13 .ll fe1 .ll c8 14 .ll adl ..tb8 15 ..th4 �h8 16 ..t fl e5 17 e4

This position, previously eval­ uated as better for White (Prze­ woznik, 1 985, 1 986), needs more practical tests, and is probably good for Black! In this context M natsakanian's idea 7 . . . ..tb7!?, is interesting preparing, in spite of everything, . . . ..td6; -7 . . . ..tb7 8 e3 ..td6 9 'Llc3 0-0 1 0 ..te2 'Ll bd7 1 1 0-0 �h8 12 ..th4 •e7 13 ..td3 e5 14 e4 c4 15 ..tb1 d4 16 'Lle2 •e6 1 7 tt:Jg3 tt:Jc5 + Ivanov-M natsak­

anian, Ere van 1 977. In addition, let us note that much worse is 7 . . . •as + 8 'jjf d2 'jjf x b5 9 e4! •b7 1 0 ..txf6 gxf6 1 1 exd5 •xd5 1 2 'ilfe3! ± Kholmov's analysis. Usually Black has played 7 . . . ..te7.

with a better position for White, K holmov- Portisch, Balatonfiired 1 959. -7 . . . ..te7 8 e3 tt:Jbd7 9 tt:Jc3 ..tb7 10 ..te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 •c7 1 2 .ll c l .ll ae8 1 3 ..th4 ..td6 1 9 ..tg3 e5 1 5 b4 c4 1 6 a3 and the

position is satisfactory for Black, Kan-Goldenov, Moscow, 1 946.

The Blumenfeld Gambit

60

-7 . . . j.e7 8 e3 lLlbd7 9 ll:\c3 j.b7 10 j.e2 Wc7 1 1 J:[ c l eS 1 2 ll:\h4 g6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 j.g4 d4 1 S j.e6 + �h8 1 6 exd4 exd4 1 7 J:[ e l ! j.d6 1 8 j.xd7 W xd7 1 9 j.xf6 + J:[ xf6 20 ll:\e4 J:[ f4 2 1 ll:\xd6 W xd6 22 g3 WdS + ,

Junkie- Fatalibekova, Budapest 1 982. Finally, I would like to call the reader's attention to another possibility, in which Black employs a quite different style : -7 . . . j.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 j.e2 a6!?

This move switches play to another subject! 10 bxa6 j.xa6 1 1 0-0 ll:\c6 1 2 ll:\c3 W b6 1 3 j.xa6 W xa6 1 4 h4 d4? 1 S exd4 cxd4 1 6 ll:\ xd4 J:[ fd8 17 ll:\xc6 J:[ xd 1 18 ll:\xe7 + �f7 1 9 J:[ fxd1 �xe7 20 a4 ± Tavad­

ian-Arkhipkin, Erevan 1 98 1 . Quite satisfactory was 1 4 . . . J:[ fb8! with pressure on the a- and b-IHes, in the spirit of the Benko Gambit. Summary : The plan of 7 j.g5 still has some interesting unansw­ ered questions, but seems to be fine for Black. D. 7 g3

( 1 d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:\ f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 g3) (see following diagram)

White initiates threats on the long diagonals; with such a con­ figuration of White pawns, it is more difficult for Black to attack. In the beginning the following

three games were played in this variation : -7 . . . W aS + 8 ll:\bd2 W xbS 9 j_g2 j. e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 e4 lLlc6 1 2 b3 aS 13 J:[ e 1 a4 1 4 exdS exdS 1S j.b2 a3 16 j_cl j_fS 17 lt:lfl J:[ a7 18 ll:\e3 j.e4 1 9 lLlgS j.xg2 20 ll:\xg2 ll:\b4 + , Gulko-Grigor­

ian, U SSR 1 974; -7 . . . WaS + 8 lt:l bd2 W xbS 9 j_g2 j.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 e4 lLlc6 12 J:[ e 1 c4! 13 exdS exdS 14 b3 c3 1S ll:\fl j_fS 1 6 ll:\e3 j.e4 + ,

Zilberman-Kapengut, 1 975;

USSR

-7 . . . j_b7 8 j_g2 WaS + 9 ll:\bd2 W xbS 1 0 0-0 ll:\c6 1 1 e4 dxe4 12 ll:\gS ll:\d4 1 3 lt:ldxe4 0-0-0 14 ll:\c3 Wa6 1S J:[ e 1 llJf3 + 1 6 j.xf3 J:[ xd 1 1 7 j.xd1 h6 1 8 J:[ xe6 Wd3 1 9 ll:\£7 Wd7 20 J:[ xf6 gxf6 2 1 ll:\xh8 with com­

pensation for the queen, Osnos­ Kozlov, USSR 1 975. So, everything looked pleasant

The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

61

for Black but suddenly i n Lom­ bardy-Formanek, New York 1 986, a surprising novelty was un­ corked :

( l d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5

-7 . . . 'lt'aS + 8 lt:lc3! d4 9 11t'a4!

b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 lt:lc3)

has adequate resources. E. 7 lt:lc3

11t' b6 Black follows theoretical rec­ ommendations. This position was evaluated as slightly better for Black . . . 1 0 lt:lbl .td7 1 1 lt:la3 a6 1 2 lt:leS! 11t' b7 1 3 lt:lxd7! 'lt'xhl 1 4 lt:lxb8 : xb8 I S bxa6 + � f7 16 lt:lc4 lt:ld5? 1 7 lt:le5 + 1 -0.

The blunder 1 6 . . . lt:ld5? had no bearing on the result. After 1 6 . . . 11t'd5 1 7 a7, or 1 6 . . . .te7 1 7 lt:le5 + �f8 1 8 lt:lf3! White would have won anyway. Conse­ quently, what can Black do? That's quite a problem! Black may set his hopes on ending: 1 2 . . . .txb5!? 1 3 lt:lxb5 11t'xb5 1 4 11t'b3 11t' xb3 15 axb3 .td6 and then �e7, lt:l bd7, tt hb8, but 1 4 11t'c2 shatters Black's illusions. Smagin and Radovsky ( 1 988) suggest a typical plan : .td6, .tb7, lt:l bd7, 0-0, but without concrete varia­ tions. In view of the remarks intro­ duced in subsection F, I would prefer to accept their second proposal : 6 . . . .tb7!? 7 g3 11t'a5 + 8 lt:lc3 a6! 9 bxa6 : xa6! with compensation for the pawn. ( Pres­ umably Black could also try 6 . . . d5 7 g3 11t'a5 + 8 lt:lc3 a6-Editor) Summary : We conclude that 7 g3, despite its earlier unpopularity, now looks very attractive for White. However, Black probably

This is the best approach to the battle for the central squares. White puts pressure on the centre, threatening e2-e4. Black has to play carefully to meet White's main idea. -7 . . . .tb7 8 e4! dxe4?

Better was, as Rogers suggested, 8 . . . lt:lbd7 9 e5 lt:lg8 which is also to White's advantage. 9 11t' xd8 + �xd8 10 lt:le5! �e8 1 1 .tf4 .td6 1 2 tt d l .td5 1 3 lt:lg6 hxg6 1 4 .txd6 lt:lbd7 1 5 .te2 � f7 16 0-0 : ac8 1 7 b3 tt hd8 18 .tf4 lt:lb6 19 .te3

White stands much better, Ehlvest-Rogers, Tallinn 1 985. -7 . . . .td6 8 e4! d4 9 e5! ± ; -7 . . . .tb7 8 e4! .te7 (8 . . . lt:l bd7 9 e5 lt:lg4 I 0 .tf4 11t'c7 I I

62

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

h3! ± ) 9 e5! ll:lfd7 I 0 ..td3 ± (The analysis thus far is Voronkov's in Shakmatny Bulletin, 1 97 1 ). Even worse is 7 . . . d4?. Black stands moderately well after 8 ll:l b 1 ? - 8 . . . ..td6? 9 e 3 ! e 5 1 0 exd4 exd4 I I ..tc4 ± ; -8 . . . W aS + 9 ll:lbd2 ..td6 1 0 g3 .tb7 1 1 .tg2 + (Voronkov 1 97 1 ) - 8 . . . WaS + 9 ..td2 W'xb5 1 0 ll:la3 (With 1 0 ll:la3, followed by ll:lc4, g3 and ..tg2, White adopts a plan of rapid development to compensate for the loss of the b2 pawn) 1 0 . . . W'xb2 1 1 ll:lc4 W' b7 1 2 g3 ll:lc6 1 3 ..tg2 ll:ld5! (This is a very important position for the variation. The first question for Black is: where is there a place for my Queen? Because of ..tg2 and l:t b 1 , the Queen cannot stay on b7. Probably the best square is a6. Black breaks the potential pin on the h 1 -a8 diagonal and puts pressure on c4 and a2.) 1 4 0-0 ( 1 4 W'a4 i s not dangerous after 1 4 . . . W'a6!) 1 4 . . . ..te7

are difficult to assess; - 1 5 e3 dxe3 1 6 fxe3 0-0 1 7 e4 ll:l b6 1 8 l:t ac l W'a6 1 9 ll:lfe5 and the position is also unclear. In spite of these variations, I have a hitherto unpublished novelty here : 8 ll:la4!!

(see following diagram)

Now White has at his disposal two main plans. The first is the idea of blockading on the c4 and e5 squares. The second is tied in to the e2-e3 break. Let us consider some possible variations : - 1 5 W'c2 0-0 1 6 ll:lg5 ..txg5 1 7 ..t xg5 W'a6 1 8 ..te4 h6 1 9 ..td2; - 1 5 W'c2 ll:lcb4 1 6 W'e4 W' a6 1 7 l:t fc 1 ..tb7 and the complications

Black has problems in the face of White's plan : e2-e3, b2-b3, ..tfl -c4, e.g. : -8 . . . W'a5 + 9 ..td2 W' xb5 1 0 e 3 d 3 1 1 b3 and 1 2 ll:lb2 or 1 2 ll:le5 ± ;

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

-8 . . . 'ii' d 5 9 e3 e5 10 exd4 cxd4 ( 10 . . . e4 I I lllc 3; 1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 'ii' e 2 + ) 1 1 'ii' b3! 'ii' x b3 1 2 axb3 j; . So, how the Black's problem can be solved? 7 . . . .i.b7, instead of 7 . . . d4, didn't help much in Browne-Formanek, Philadelphia 1 986: -7 . . . .i.b7 8 e4! lll xe4?! 9 lll xe4 dxe4 1 0 'ii' xd8 + �xd8 1 1 lll e5 �e8 1 2 .i.e3 .i.d5 13 b6! .i. d6 1 4 .i.b5 + �f8 1 5 lll c4 .i.e7 1 6 bxa7 ll xa7 1 7 a 4 lll c6 1 8 .i. xc6! .i.xc6 1 9 b3 .i.d5 20 �d2! �f7 2 1 .l:[ hc l ± .

63

active play for Black- Editor). Smagin and Radovsky offer two other preventive measures against White's 7 lll c 3 and 8 e4, namely 7 . . . 'ii' c 7 or 7 . . . lll b d7. But without variations! I would like to show my own analysis on this subject. 7

'ii' c7

The game Zaltsman- Barlov, New York 1 986 was a ray of hope : -7 . . . .i.e7 8 e4! .i.b7 9 exd5?! exd5 1 0 .i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 � h8 1 2 .i. g5 lll bd7 1 3 b4! cxb4 1 4 lll a4 lll e4 1 5 .i.e3? lll b6! 1 6 lll d4 'i'd6 1 7 ll c 1 lll c4 1 8 .i.xc4 dxc4 1 9 f3 lll f6 20 ll xc4 lll d 5 21 .i.f2 a6 22 lll c5 axb5!! 23 lll x b7 'ii' b6 24 ll c5 lll c3 25 'ii' d3 .i.xc5 26 lll xc5 'ii' xc5 27 lll e6 'ii' f5 0- 1 .

After 1 5 .i.xe7 'ii' x e7 1 6 'ii' d4 the position is still unclear, pro­ bably with better chances for White. But it looks as though Barlov's suggestion 9 e5 lll fd7 10 lll g 5 .i.xg5 1 1 'ii' h 5 + g6 1 2 'ii' x g5 'ii' x g5 1 3 .i.xg5 0-0 1 4 .i.e7 ll f5 1 5 .i.d6 is more prom­ ising for White. (8 g3, instead of 8 e4, was less successful in Karolyi-Ward, Bergen 1 987; 8 . . . 0-0 9 .i.g2 a6 1 0 bxa6 ll xa6 1 1 0-0 lll c6 1 2 b3 e5 1 3 e4 d4 1 4 lll b 1 .i.g4 with

-8 e4 d4 9 e5 lll g4 10 lll e4 .i. b7 1 1 lll fg5!? lll x e5 1 2 lll xe6 and it is difficult to suggest a good move for Black; 1 1 . . . .i.xe4 1 2 lll xe4 lll x e5 looks dubious to me from the positional point of view. -8 e4 d4 9 e5 lll g4 10 lll e4 lll x e5 1 1 .i.f4!? (simple, avoids complications, and good) 1 1 . . . lll d 3 + 1 2 .i.xd3 'ii' xf4 1 3 0-0! .i.b7 ( 1 3 . . . c4? 1 4 'ii' c 2! ..t b7 1 5 'ii' xc4 .i.xe4 1 6 'ii' x e6 + + - ) 1 4 'ii' c 2!? or 1 4 'ii' d 2 with a light square blockade.

The Blumenfeld Gambit

64

-8 e4 d4 9 eS �g4 10 �e4 �xeS 1 1 �xeS!? 11heS 12 'lfe2 c4 1 3 �gS! .i.b4 + 1 4 � d 1 'lfxbS 1 S �xe6 + -8 e4 d4 9 eS �g4 1 0 �e4 � xeS 1 2 �xeS 'lfxeS 1 3 'lfe2 .i.b7 14 f3 .i.xe4 1 S 'lfxe4 'lfxe4 + 16 fxe4 and the ending looks better for White, e.g.: 1 6 . . . .i.d6 1 7 ..ic4 �e7 1 8 .i.gS + . -8 e4 dxe4? 9 �gS 'lieS

1 0. 'lfd8 + ! �xd8 I I �f7 + e8 1 2 �xeS ± � 7

�bd7

-8 e4 d4 9 eS! �g4 (9 . . . dxc3 10 exf6 cxb2 I I f7 + �xf7 1 2 ..txb2 ± ) I 0 �e4 �gxeS I I �xeS �xeS 1 2 �xcS ( 1 2'1fhS + !- Editor) ..txcS 1 3 'lfhS + g6 14 'If xeS .tb4 + I S �d 1 ! ( I S ..i.d2?! .txd2 + 1 6 �xd2 'If aS + 1 7 �c2 0-0 1 8 f3 .td7 1 9 .tc4 : ac8 with compensation for the pawn) 1 5 . . .

0-0 1 6 .i.h6 lH7 1 7 .i.d3 with

complications, but White's position i s probably better. (Though 1 7 . . . 'lf h4 looks attractive for Black here. White can of course vary earlier-Editor) -8 e4 d4 9 eS! �g4 1 0 �e4 .i.b7! 1 1 .i.d3 ( 1 1 �d6 + .txd6 1 2 exd6 0-0 with a strong initiative) 1 1 . . . c4 ( 1 1 . . . �gxeS 1 2 �xeS �xeS 1 3 'lfhS + �f7 14 b3 ± ) 1 2 �xd4

1 2 . . . �dxeS 1 3 ..tc2 .t b4 + 1 7 �fl 0-0 with initiative. I n con­ clusion, 7 . . . � bd7 looks much better than 7 . . . 'lfc7. But in such a complicated position not only every move by White, but also every reply by Black has to be verified by extremely precise cal­ culations. We should, therefore wait for practical tests . F. 6

. . .

..i.b7

( I d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �f3 cS 4 dS bS S dxe6 fxe6 6 cxbS ..i.b7)

The Blumenfeld Gambit Accepted

In modern tournament practice it is not sufficient merely to keep up to date on opening theory. For successful results it is necessary to keep ahead of theory, and to anticipate what will become popu­ lar. With this line of reasoning I present the following subsection on the Blumenfeld Gambit to the reader. The Blumenfeld Gambit has become modestly popular in the last few years and players of the Black pieces have tried many ideas against 5 ..tg5 especially; success­ fully, I think. Now the shot has been returned and it is up to White to find something now. What will it be? I drew attention to 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 g3!? and 7 ttJc3!? I t is hard to predict developments in the theory of these variations, but maybe these will represent the next dangerous attempt by White to refute the Blumenfeld Gambit.

65

Therefore, just in case, I offer another way for Black : 6 . . . ..tb7!?, instead of 6 . . . d5. If White plays Tarrasch's line: e3, ..te2, 0-0, ttJbd2, b3, ..t b2, Black can answer with the normal 'Aiekhine' development, i.e. : . . . d5, . . . ..td6, . . . 0-0, where, as we have seen before, his chances are better than equal. Of course, White can also play 7 g3, e.g. : -7 g3 ..te7 (7 . . . e5!?-Editor) 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 1 0 bxa6 : xa6! 1 1 ttJc3 t0c6 1 2 e4 1W a8

And if 1 3 e5? ttJ xe5! This type of position, ansmg after 6 . . . ..tb7 7 g3, without . . . d7-d5 will need more practical tests in the future. White may also choose 7 ttJc3, setting up an e2-e4 advance. After 7 . . . ..te7 8 1Wc2 Black can demonstrate the flexibility of his chosen move order by playing 8

66

The Blumenfeld Gambit

. . . d5. In comparison with the 6 . . . d5 7 lll c 3 lines, Black has inserted a useful developing move, while the white queen does not really belong on c2.

In summary : We should wait for more material from tournament practice, but 6 . . . ..t b7 is really worth considering seriously.

5

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other Lines. 5 a4, 5 J..f4 , 5 e4, 5 ltJc3 In this chapter we shall analyse miscellaneous variations where White declines Black's offer. As we have seen before, the acceptance of the gambit fits in with Black's plan. On the other hand, the move 5 ..tg5, so far the main weapon, leads to many complications, for sometimes unfavourable White. Maybe one has to look for an advantage somewhere in less popular variations? A. 5 a4

( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::J O c5 4 d5

b5 5 a4) 1 0 ..txc4 dxc3 1 1 ..txf7 + �xf7 12 -. b3 + c4! 13 tt:le5 + �g8 14 -.xb7 ;;t , Rubinstein-Spielmann, Vienna 1 922.

(see following diagram)

A. Rubinstein's idea. This way White wants to clarify the situ­ ation on the queenside. In the first game with this variation White gained a small edge :

In more recent games Black Euwe's followed recommen­ dation-6 . . . exd5 instead of . . . ..tb7 :

- 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4 c4 ..tb7 5 a4 bxc4 6 tt:lc3 e6 7 e4 tt:lxe4?! 8 tt:lxe4 exd5 9 tt:lc3 d4

-5 . . . bxc4 6 tt:lc3 exd5 7 tt:lxd5 ..tb7 8 e4 ..te7 ( Euwe suggested 67

68

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

8 . . . lll xe4 9 ..txc4 "ii' a5 + 1 0 b4! cxb4 1 1 0-0 with initiative) 9 ..txe4 0-0 10 0-0 lll xdS 1 1 ..txdS ..txdS 12 "ii' xdS lll e6 13 : d 1 "ii' b6 1 4 ..tgS ..txgS 1 S lll xgS h 6 1 6 lll f3 : res 1 7 : ac t : a b8 1 S : xeS "ii' xb2 1 9 h3, Rodriguez- Fernan­

dez, Cienfuegos 1 983. White is a little better, but Black can survive, even so. - 1 2 . . . lll a6 (instead of 1 2 . . . lll c6, in the game above) 1 3 : d t "ii' b6 1 4 ..tr4 : adS 1 S aS "ii' e6 1 6 "ii' b7 lll b4 1 7 "ii' xa7 "ii' xe4 1 S ..td6 ..txd6 1 9 : xd6 llld3 ;;!; ,

Kuznetsov-Kotliar, Moscow 1 986. (Another plan for Black is S . . . bxe4 6 llle3 d6 7 e4 eS, e.g. S ..t xe4 ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 10 lll e l ?! lll eS 1 1 r4 exr4 1 2 ..txr4 lll d7 13 lll f3 ..tr6 14 ..tbS 'jj e7 and

Black is comfortable; Wheeler­ Ward, Birmingham 1 987Editor) According to some theoretical analysis, 5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 is poor for Black, as White obtains the c4 square for his piece. Here are examples : -5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..tg5 h6 8 ..t xf6 "ii' xf6 9 e4! 'ii' x b2 1 0 lll bd2 d6 1 1 ..tb5 + ..td7 1 2 0-0 (see following diagram)

White is clearly better after 1 2 . . . 'ii' f6 1 3 lll c4 ..te7 1 4 e5! or 1 2 . . . ..txb5 1 3 axb5 "ii' f6 14 lll c4 lll d 7 1 5 b6 a6 1 6 : e 1 (Taimanov 1 980; Voronkov 1 97 1 ).

-S . . . exdS 6 exdS ..tb7 7 e4! lll xe4 S ..txbS ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 : e t llld 6 1 1 ..t n lll a6 1 2 lll e3 lll b4 1 3 ..tr4 lll rs 1 4 d6! ..tr6 I S : c t a 6 1 6 lll e4 ..txb2 1 7 : xeS : e8 1 8 • b l ! lll h 4 1 9 lll egS + ­

Ribli-G. Garcia, Leningrad 1 977; -S . . . exdS 6 exdS ..tb7 7 e4 lll xe4 S ..txbS ..te7 9 0-0 0-0 10 : e t rs 1 1 lll e3 lll xe3 1 2 bxe3 ..tr6 1 3 "ii' b3 �hS 14 ..tr4 lll a6 IS ..td6 ± Vorotnikov- Kudinov,

U SSR 1 963. Only the vigorous 9 e4!, after 5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..t g5 h6 8 ..txf6 "ii' xf6, would lead to White's advantage, but not the quiet defence of the b2 pawn : -9 'ii' e2 d6 10 lll bd2 ..te7 1 1 e4 0-0 1 2 ..td3 lll bd7 1 3 0-0 : e8 1 4 : ret ..tf8 1 S ..tbS : e7 1 6 lll e4 a 6 1 7 ..te6 : bS 1 8 a S gS 1 9 h3 "ii' g6 20 : e3 ..t g7 with

good counterplay for Black, Malich-Inkiov, DDR-Bulgaria 1 982.

The Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other Lines

69

-5 . b4 6 lDbd2 d6 7 e4 eS 8 ..td3 g6 9 ll)fl lDh5 10 g3 ..tg7 1 1 ..tg5 flc7 12 lDh4 ..tf6 1 3 ..txf6 lDxf6 1 4 lDe3 fle7 1 S b3 lDbd7 16 aS lDh5 17 l h2 lDdf6 . .

with an even game. Finally, let us have a look at the game Balashov-Platonov, U SSR 1 97 1 . By a different move order they reached the position in ques­ tion : - 1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS bS 4 lDf3 ..tb7 S a4 b4 6 lDbd2 d6 7 e4 eS 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 ..td3 e5! 1 0 fle2 lDc6 1 1 lDfl lDd4 + .

A very attractive option for Black would seem to be normal development with . . . d6, . . . ..te7, . . . lD bd7. White would then have to watch out for the blow lDf6xd5 for as long as the bishop on g5 is hanging. In Kozlovskaya­ Levitina, USSR 1 974 Black even stood better, though only after a blunder by the opponent : -S . . . exdS 6 cxd5 b4 7 ..tgS d6 8 e4 ..te7 9 ..tbS + ..td7 10 e5? ( 1 0 fle2 ± ) 10 . . . dxeS 1 1 i.c4 e4 1 2 lDfd2 0-0 1 3 0-0 ..tfS + . - 1 d4 lDf6 2 lDf3 c5 3 dS bS 4 c4 ..tb7 5 a4 bxc4 6 lDc3 e6 7 e4 exdS 8 exdS d6 9 ..txc4 i.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I l h 1 l: e8 1 2 ..tf4 lDbd7 1 3 aS a6 14 h3 ..tf8 1 S l: xe8 lDxe8 1 6 fld2 h6 1 7 g4!? ;!;

Spraggett-Qi Jingxuan, Taxco 1 985. Voronkov recommends also 5 . . . b4, as a good solution. Black tried this move in M use-Przewoz­ nik, Poznan 1 986:

In summary we should pay special attention on the game Malich-Inkiov. The plan of . . . g5 and . . . ..tg7, instead of taking on b2, is worthy of consideration. Additionally, it seems like the move 5 a4 is more suited to stra­ tegical players than tacticians. B. S ..tf4

( I d4 lDf6 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 c5 4 d5

b5 5 ..tf4)

The Blumenfeld Gambit

70

This move, introduced by Miles, turned out well in Miles- Botterill, England-Wales 1 978 : -5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 e4 a6 8 lLJbd2 j_e7 9 a4 bxa4 10 ·�txa4 + lLlbd7 I I lLJc4 0-0 1 2 lLJaS! .l:t e8 1 3 j_d3 lLlb6 1 4 'it'c2 ± . But had he played 6 . . . 'it' a5 + ,

Black would equality :

have

achieved

-5 . . . exd5 6 cxd5 'it'a5 + 7 j_d2

'it'b6 (The same position can be reached after 5 j_g5 exd5 6 cxd5 'it' a5 + 7 j_d2 'it' b6) 8 e4! c4! (8 . . . d6 9 a4! ± Ermenkov) 9 'it'c2 j_c5 10 j_gS lLJa6 1 1 lLJc3 0-0 1 2 j_h4 ( 1 2 j_xf6 gxf6 and . . . d6, . . . f5, Ermenkov) 1 2 . . . .l:t e8 1 3 j_e2 lLJb4 1 4 'it'bl lLJd3 + 15 j_xd3 cxd3 1 6 0-0 lLJxe4 1 7 lLJxe4 .l:t xe4 1 8 'it' xd3 .l:t e8 1 9 : ac t h6 20 lLld2 j_b7 2 1 W'f5 t-t. Miles­

Ermenkov, Skara 1 980. So, 5 j_f4 leads to an even game if Black replies 6 . . . 'it'a5 + . C. 5 e4

19 'it'el d4 20 lLJe4 axb5 21 lLJgS 'it'd7 + Rubinstein-Tartakover,

Toplitz-Schonau, 1 922; in two places White could have played better : 1 2 lLJc3 0-0 1 3 f4 c4 1 4 j_fl a6! or 1 5 lLJd4! = .

-5 . . . lLJxe4 6 j_d3?! 'it' a5 + ?!

(6 . . . lLJf6! with a good position for Black) 7 lLJbd2 lLlf6 8 0-0 d6 9 dxe6 fxe6 10 .1:1 e I j_e7 1 1 lLJgS lLJc6 1 2 W'f3 'it'c7 13 cxb5 lLJeS 14 .l:t xe5! + , Yakhin-Popov, -

( 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLJf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 e4) This sharp and tactically ori­ ented system has undergone few changes in recent years. Probably the best-known games with this rare move are : -5 . . . lLJxe4 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 j_d3 lLlf6 8 lLlgS 'it'e7! (8 . . . bxc4 9 j_xh7! lLJxh7 1 0 W'h5 + ± ) 9 cxb5 d5 10 0-0 g6 1 1 .�:t e l j_g7 1 2 'it'e2 c4! 1 3 j_c2 0-0 14 lLJxe6 .l:t e8 1 5 lLlf4?! 'it'f7! 1 6 'it' fl a6 1 7 .l:t xe8 + lLJxe8 1 8 lLJc3 j_b7

Frunze 1 965. There is a whole bunch of vari­ ations connected with 5 . . . bxc4 6 lLJc3 exd5 7 e5! d4 8 exf6 d5 9 10 'it' xd4 ± , lLJxd4 cxd4

Vienna Vukovic-Spielmann, 1 922. Smagin and Radovsky analyse the position after 7 . . . lLJe4!? (instead of 7 . . . .d4) 8 'it'xd5 lLJxc3! 9 'it'xa8 (9 bxc3?! j_e7 1 0 j_xc4 0-0 1 1 j_d3 lLJc6 1 2 h4 j_b7 1 3 'it'e4 g6 1 4 'it'f4 d6! + ) 9 . . . lLJc6 1 0 bxc3 j_e7 1 1 j_ xc4 0-0

T he Blumenfeld Gambit Declined. Other Lines

71

that only acceptance of the pawn sacrifice with S . . . lll xe4 can give Black good play. Otherwise White j ust stands better. Instead of 9 . . . dS 1 0 0-0 g6, where White has some pressure along the e-file Black can play 9 . . . .tb7 10 0-0 g6, without d7-dS. In such a position Black has two strong bishops, and the problem of the knight on b8 can be solved by a7-a6. It seems that the move S e4 has disappeared from practice because of S . . . lll xe4. According to Tartakover Black is better here : 1 2 .idS ( 1 2 .ia6 -. c7; 1 2 0-0 -. b6!) 1 2 . . . -.as 1 3 0-0 ( 1 3 .ixc6 •xc3 + 1 4 �d l dxc6!; 1 3 .id2 .ia6 1 4 .ixc6 .llxa 8 1 S .ixa8 -. bs; 1 3 J:t b l -. xc3 + 1 4 .id2 -. d3-and every time Black is better) 1 3 . . . .ia6 1 4 .i xc6 J:t xa8 1 S .i xa8 .ixfl 1 6 �xfl -. xc3 and Black wins. But Smagin and R adovsky have found 12 e6! and White is almost winning! For instance : - 1 2 . . . -. as? 1 3 exf7 + �h8 1 4 .td2 .ta6 I S -.e8 .ixc4 1 6 ll:lgS h6 ( 1 6 . . . ll:leS 1 7 -.xe7 lll d 3 + 1 8 �e2 lll f4 + + 1 9 �f3 + - ) 1 7 h4! ± ; - 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3 .ixe6 + �h8 14 .idS •as I S 0-0 .ta6 1 6 •xf8 + .ixf8 1 7 J:t e l lll e 7 ( 1 7 . . . -.xc3? 1 8 J:te8! -.f6 1 9 .tb2! ± ; 1 1 . . . -.d8 1 8 .tgS ± ; 1 7 . . . g6 1 8 .tgS -. xc3 1 9 J:t ac I ± ) 1 8 .tf7 ± . So, in conclusion, we have seen

D. 5 ll:lc3

( 1 d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 cS 4 dS bS S ll:lc3)

Steiner's move which does not cause problems to Black, provided that he does not open the center, as he did in the game below : -5 . . . b4 6 lll b l exd5?! 7 cxd5 .t b7 8 .i g5 h6 9 .i xf6 • xf6 1 0 e4! (We have seen this s o many

The Blumenfeld Gambit

72

times . . . ) 1 0 . . . W' xb2 1 1 lt::l bd2 g5 1 2 :c1 .i.g7 l3 : c2 W' f6 1 4 .i.d3 0-0 1 5 h4 g4 16 lt::l g 1 d6 1 7 W' xg4 W' a 1 + 1 8 W' d 1 W'xd1 + 19 �xd1 ± Yudovich-Gusev,

Moscow 1 948. M uch worse is 6 lt::l a4?! : -5 . b4 6 lt::l a4?! exd5 7 cxd5 • .

d6 8 .i.g5 .i.e7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 .i.c4 lt::l bd7 1 1 0-0 .i.b7 1 2 h3 lt::l b6 13 lt::l xb6 axb6 Steiner-Siimisch,

Berlin 1 9 30. The same idea was tested in Anikaev-Vaganian, USSR 1 982, with a different move order : - I d4 lDf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lt::l f3

.i.b7 5 l0c3 b4 6 lt::l a4 e6 7 J.g5 d6 8 e4 .i.e7 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe6 W'c7! 1 1 exf7 + �xf7 1 2 .i.e3 : d8 13 W'c2 �g8 14 W' f5 W'd7 15 W' xd7 lt::l bxd7 16 .i.e2 .i.c6 17 b3 lt::le4 18 .i.d3 lt::l x f2 + .

Probably, in the Blumenfeld move order, after 5 . . . b4 6 lO b i , Black should have taken his chance with 6 . . . d6, or 6 . . . a5, e.g. : -6 . . . d6 7 .i.g5 .i.e? 8 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 9 W'c2 0-0 1 0 e4 lt:ld7 1 2 lt:lbd2 e5 with the idea lt:ld7-b6,

a5-a4-a3, and . . . exd5 or . . . e5, . . . g6, . . . .i.g7, . . . f7-f5; -6 . . . d6 7 a3 lt::l b d7 8 axb4 cxb4 9 dxe6 fxe6; -6 . . . a5 7 a3 .i.b7. The analyses mentioned above lead to the conclusion that Black is O.K. in Steiner's variation, 5 lt:lc3. E. 5 W'c2

(section written by editor) ( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 W'c2) This quite simply seems to be weak; White loses his grip on the light squares. -5 W'c2? bxc4 6 e4 exd5 7 e5 (7 exd5 lt:lxd5 8 W'e4 + W'e7 - + ) 7 . . . lt::l g8?! (Ward notes that 7 . . . lt::le4 is probably better; Black is simply two pawns up, and if 8 .i.xc4 W'a5 + ) 8 lt:lc3 .i.b7 9 .i.g5 and now instead of 9 • • •

W'a5? 1 0 0-0-0! lt:le7 1 1 .i.xe7 .i.xe7 1 2 lt::l xd5 ;;!;; F. Braga­

Ward, London ('Chess for Peace') 1 987, 9 . . . .i.e? I 0 h4 l0a6 + (Ward).

6 M odern Treatment of the Blumenfeld Gambit : 3

.

.

.

a6

There has been an apparent evolution over recent years from the classical approach to the modern treatment of the Blumen­ feld Gambit. Nowadays some ideas of the Blumenfeld Gambit are linked with ideas of the Benko Gambit. This new conception was born in 1 984, during the USA Championship. The characteristic position arises after 1 d4 tt:l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 a6 4 tt:\c3 c5 5 d5 b5 (see following diagram)

There are some difficulties with the classification of this variation. Sometimes this system used to be classed with the Benko Gambit­ AS?, more frequently as the Blu­ menfeld Gambit-E 1 0. The struc­ t ure of Black's pawns, arising here, is similar to both the Benko Gambit and the Blumenfeld Gambit; therefore it looks sensible to investigate the variation in q uestion.

The position arising after 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 e6 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e3 i.. e 7 8 tt:\c3 0-0 9 tt:lf3 d5 1 0 i..e2 tt:\xa6 1 1 0-0 i.. b 7 i s evaluated by theoreticians (Encyclopedia 1 978, Taimanov 1 980) as compli­ cated. This is exactly the position which can be reached by another 73

74

The Blumenfeld Gambit

move order, i.e. : l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5 ..tb7 8 bxa6 lt:lxa6 9 e3 i.e7 1 0 i.e2 0-0 I I 0-0 d5. Black can also deviate by 7 . . . axb5, instead of 7 . . . i. b7 but this is still the same kind of position. In either case the charac­ teristic pawn structure gives Black excellent prospects, in the Blumen­ feld line : d7-d5, i.d6, lt:l bd7, ..tb7, 0-0, 1t'e7, and the Benko line: d7-d5, ..te7, i. b7, 1t'a5, lt:la6, 0-0, l:t fb8 alike. Sometimes Black can refrain from playing . . . d7-d5, arranging his pieces suitably: i.e7, l!Jc6, i. b7, 0-0, 1t'a5(b6, c7). I n this latter case Black leaves an open diagonal for his bishop on b7, on the one hand, and deprives White of the possi­ bility e2-e4, on the other. If Black has played . . . d5, there is a very dangerous possibility that e2-e4 may effectively burst the chain of Black's pawns e6, d5, c5, and

therefore this must be carefully guarded against by Black. These positions, in my opinion are enough to justify 3 . . . a6 by mak­ ing the playing of the variation mentioned above possible. Curi­ ously enough, in precisely such a fundamental branch I have not seen games in tournament practice before. So, let us come back to the games which have been played. Most often the positions after l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 i. g5 b4 7 lt:le4 d6 have occurred. The pawn race doesn't lead to White's advantage; Christiansen-Alburt, USA (ch) 1 985 went : 6 e4 b4 7 e5 bxc3 8 exf6 1t'a5 9 bxc3 gxf6 10 i.d2 f5 1 1 i.d3 i. g7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 l:t e 1 0-0 and now 14 lt:l g 5 e5 1 5 1t'h5

h6 1 6 lt:lh3 e4 17 J:le3! exd3 1 8 l:t g3 �h7 1 9 l:t xg7 + �xg7 20 i.xh6 + would have been decis­ ive. But the correct continuation for Black is 8 . . . cxb2 9 i. xb2 gxf6 and it is hard to believe that right now the attack is more important than a pawn . (see following diagram)

An interesting psychological phenomenon : this is the position most frequently reached by White players. Is it an effect of deep analysis or maybe an effect of reminiscence and thinking by analogy? If for a very long period 5 i.g5 was considered as best in the Blumenfeld Gambit after I d4

Modern Treatment of T he Blumenfeld Gambit:

l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 c5 4 d5 b5, is this why everybody is inclined towards 6 ..ig5 in the 3 . . . a6 system? In the diagram position there are plenty of possibilities for White : A. 8 ..ixf6 B. 8 'ilt"a4 + C. 8 l2lxf6 + D. 8 a3 E. 8 g3 F. 8 'ilt"d3 G. 8 e3 A. 8 ..ixf6

( I d4 l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 a6 4 l2lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..ig5 b4 7 l2le4 d6 8 ..ixf6) (see following diagram)

If White takes on f6 with the bishop here he doesn't lose time by retreating ..tg5-h4 (in comparison with 8 l2lxf6 + gxf6). White keeps his strong (for the

75

time being) knight in the centre also. But as we have seen in our historical chapter, in the game Browne-Dzindzi­ chashvili, U SA (ch) 1 984, Black took over and exploited his bishop pa1r. B 8

'ilt"a4 +

( I d4 l2lf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2lf3 a6 4 l2lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 l2le4 d6 8 'ilt"a4 + )

The Blumenfeld Gambit

76

This move doesn't cause prob­ lems for Black. 8 . . . Wd7 9 Wc2

Exchanging the queens looks more consequent, but 9 Wxd7 + tt:J bxd7 10 lt:lxf6 + gxf6 or I I . . . lLlxf6 would give Black an excellent game. 9 . . . lt:lxe4 10 "ii xe4 f6

After the quiet I 0 . . . : a 7 Black has some troubles with his devel­ opment, for example : 1 1 e3 e5? 1 2 lt:lxe5! o r 1 1 . . . J.. e7 1 2 J.. d 3 and Black needs f7-f6 anyway. Playing 10 . . . f6 Black prepares to advance e6-e5 and f6-f5. The immediate I 0 . . . e5 would be practically refuted by 1 1 lt:lxe5! dxe5 1 2 W xe5 + J.. e7 1 3 Wxg7 : rs 1 4 J.. x e7 Wxe7 1 5 Wxh7 We5 1 6 "ii c2 J.. f5 1 7 Wd2 lt:ld7 1 8 e3. II

dxe6

And this is the main conclusion from the variation 8 Wa4 + . C. 8 lLlxf6 +

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4 tt:Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 J.. g5 b4 7 lt:le4 d6 8 tt:Jxf6 + )

Eliminating the plan e6-e5 and f6-f5. II Wc6 1 2 W f5? fxg5 1 3 lt:lxg5 : a7! 1 4 tt:Jti : xti! 1 5 W xti + �d8 1 6 e3 "ilc7 1 7 W f5 We7 18 0-0-0 �c7 and Black . . .

repulsed an attack, Blocker­ Dzindzichashvili, New York 1 984. 1 6 e7 + was no improvement, e.g. : 1 6 . . . J.. xe7 1 7 W xg7 We8 1 8 e3 J.. f5 and then . . . : g8, . . . J.. f6, with strong pressure. Also after 1 4 lLlxh7 : xh7! 1 5 Wxh7 J.. xe6 Black's pieces would be very strong. But, of course, White could have equalised with 1 2 Wxc6 + lt:lxc6 1 3 ..tf4 ..txe6 1 4 e4 ..te7 1 5 : d I ( 1 5 0-0-0) lt:le5.

This is the principal reaction against Black's slightly provoc­ ative play. Now the whole game

Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:

will rest on the question of whether Black's pawn structure f7, f6, e6, d6 will be a weakness or a power. 8 . . . gxf6 9 .t h4 (for 9 .td2, see end of section): -9 . lbd7?! Black doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The essence of the position is that Black m ust answer e2-e4 with f6f5! Now, after 1 0 e4! .t e7 1 1 .td3 the programmed counterattack fails : 1 1 . . . f5? 1 2 .tg3! fxe4 1 3 .txe4 lbf6 1 4 .tc2 with harmony among White's pieces in the cen­ tre. White is clearly better. I nstead, after 9 .te7! 10 e4 f5! 1 1 .tg3 is impossible because of the simple 1 1 . . . fxe4 + , and, as we will see later, 1 1 .t xe7 is not so dangerous for Black. 11 lbf8 12 0-0 lbg6 13 .tg3 .td7 On 1 3 0 0 . e5 or 1 3 h5, 1 4 lb h4 ± is strong enough. 14 lbd2 h5 15 h3 �f8 16 f4 h4 17 .t h2 By natural play White has gained a big advantage in space. Now he threatens to increase it with 1 8 f5 exf5 19 exf5 lbe5 20 .te4 or 20 lbe4, and Black pro­ bably loses because of the weak­ ness on h4. Seeing his position deteriorate, Black makes a double­ edged move attempting to neutral­ ise the opponent's initiative on the kingside.

77

.l:!. ae1

White's pressure is decisive, van der Sterren-Sosonko, Nether­ lands 1 985/86.

. .

0 0 •

• • .

0 0 .

17

f5

But after 18 *c2 .l:!. h5 1 9 lbf3 � g7 20

-9 . . . .t e7 !

The correct move order, as men­ tioned above. If now 1 0 e4 then 10 0 0 . f5! 1 1 .t xe7 • xe7 1 2 *e2 ( 1 2 exf5? exd5 + + ; 1 2 e5? dxe5 1 3 lb xe5 exd5 1 4 * xd5 .tb7 - + ) 12 e5 1 3 g3 fxe4 1 4 • xe4 f5 1 5 *c2 0-0 with sharp play. This position needs more tests in the future! In H uss-Lau, Beer Sheva 1 985 Zonal White tried 10 e4 f5! 1 1 .t xe7 -. xe7 1 2 0 0 .

dxe6

Avoiding the possibility e6xd5. The struggle has grown sharper. 12 fxe4 1 3 exfi + �f8 13 �xf7 is also possible: 1 4 -.d5 + �g7 1 5 • xa8 exf3 + 1 6 �d2 .tb7 1 7 -.a7 lbc6 ( 1 7 fxg2 20 .txg2!) 1 8 -.b6 .l:!. e8! with . . .

0 0 .

0 0 .

The Blumenfeld Gambit

78 excellent play.

14 tt:ld2 i.b7 IS 'iit' hS tt:ld7 1 6 'iit' h6 + �xf7 1 7 i.e2

If 1 7 'iit' h5 + then 1 7 . . . �g7 1 8 'ilt'g4 + �17 1 9 'iit' h5 + with perpetual check, or 1 7 . . . �g8 1 8 *'g4 + �f8 1 9 'ilt'f4 + tt:lf6 with an unclear position.

the way, check on g6 is not so dangerous. 16 i.h3 tt:lg6 17 e4 i.b7 1 8 .:. re t i.c6 1 9 'ilt'e2 'ilt'c7 2 0 .l:l d3 .:. bg8 21 �fl aS

17 . . . •r6 18 'ilt' xf6 +

The strong queen must be exchanged because of the weak­ ness of b2. 18 . . . �xf6 1 9 tt:lfl lUeS 20 0-0-0 �e6 21 tt:le3 .l:l af8 with a

very good game for Black. -9 . . . i.e7 10 g3

In such a way White protects his king against all sorts of danger along the g-file. 10 . . . tt:ld7 1 1 i.g2 .l:l b8

A big threat was 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 tt:ld4 + 1 2 *'d2 hS 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 .l:ldl �f7 I S 0-0 lU I'S

A signal for a n attack o n the kingside. The manoeuvre tt:l b8d7-f8-g6 emphasises a weakness of White's plan. Namely, the knight on f3 has to look after the bishop on h4, and this fact prevents the thematic plan e2-e4, tt:lfd2, f2-f4-f5. A question arises : is White is able to win a race with Black's knight? The answer is negative : 1 2 tt:ld2 tt:lf8 1 3 f4 tt:lg6 14 tt:lf3 tt:lxh4 1 5 tt:lxh4 f5 1 6 tt:lf3 i.f6 and Black is O.K. Another question is: whether 1 3 dxe6 is premature? But after 1 3 'iit' c 2, with the idea 14 dxe6 fxe6 1 5 'iit' g6 + , Black has time for 1 3 . . . tt:lf8. By

Black has a strong and dynamic position, Tarjan-Aiburt, USA (ch) 1 984. Editor's note.-Since the main text of this book was written, attention has been drawn to the possibility 8 tt:lxf6 + gxf6 9 i.d2!?

Modern Treatment of T he Blumenfeld Gambit:

This is in fact a very logical move. Earlier experience has shown that the White bishop is not doing very much on h4, so White simply retreats the bishop to d2, leaving no targets on the kingside, and preparing to under­ mine Black's queenside pawns with a3. Chernin-Alburt, Subotica 1 987, continued : -9 ..tg7 "ilt' b6 : b3 exd5

f5?! 10 a3 bxa3 1 1 : xa3 1 2 ..tc3 ..txc3 + 1 3 : xc3 1 4 "ilt'cl lL!d7 15 lL!d2 : b8 1 6 "ilt'c7 1 7 : xb8 "ilt'xb8 1 8 g3 1 9 cxd5 0-0 20 ..th3!

. . .

79

22 "ilt'c3 f4 23 ..tg2, but White's

positional advantage was eventu­ ally sufficient to win the game. I would expect several practical tests of 9 ..td2 in the future. 9 . f5 looks too slow. Maybe Black should either try to stabilise his pawn structure on the queenside and play 9 . . . aS, and if 1 0 a3 lL!a6, or play 9 . . . e5, taking advantage of the knight's loss of a retreat square on d2. Maybe one should try to link the plan g2-g3 with the bursting of Black's chain by a2-a3. In this case the struggle would be more complicated, over the whole board. Then, let us go on to inves­ tigate the possibility a2-a3 in the next subsections D and E. .

.

D. 8 a3

( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lL!e4 d6 8 a3)

White has successfully neutral­ ised both Black's queenside spatial advantage and also any kingside pressure by Black, while the Black centre and kingside look very ragged. For example, 20 . . . : e8 2 1 0-0! : xe2 22 lLlc4 with a big attack. Black kept his pieces active with 20 . . . lL!e5 21 0-0 "ilt' b4

8 . . . bxa3 9 : xa3

The Blumenfeld Gambit

80

White settles Black's pawn structure. He can play 9 ..ixf6, but after 9 . . . gxf6 I 0 l:l xa3 f5 Black is slightly better. After the text Black has two main answers : 9 . . . ..ie7 and 9 . . . e5. -9 . . . ..ie7 10 lLlxf6 + ..ixf6 1 1 ... d2

Or I I dxe6 (with the idea I I . . . fxe6 I 2 ..txf6 •xf6 I 3 • xd6 • xb2 I4 l:l d3 ± ; I 2 . . . gxf6!?) I I . . . ..txe6 I 2 ..txf6 • xf6 1 3 • xd6 • xb2 I 4 l:l d 3 lLld7 with equal chances. 11

. . .

0-0 1 2 g3

Better was I 2 e4, e.g. I 2 . . . l:l e8 I 3 .i. xf6 •xf6 14 l:l e3 exd5 1 5 exd5! l:l xe3 + I 6 •xe3 ..id7 I 7 •d2 .i.a4 1 8 ..ie2 lLld7 1 9 0-0 with an even game. The text gives Black excellent play on the queen­ side. 1 2 . . . exd5 13 cxd5 lLld7 14 ..ig2 l:l b8 1 5 0-0

And now I 5 . . . l:l e8! would have preserved Black's advantage, because of the pressure along the b- and e-files, White's difficulties with the e2-e4 advance, and his d5 pawn. Instead, Black played 1 5 . . . l:l xb2 with equal chances : 15 . . . l:l xb2 17 ..ixd8 ..ixa3 ..ixd6 .i.b7 20 lLld4 lLlf6 2 2 lLlxb4 cxb4 24

l O . . . ..t xf6 could become quite sharp after I t dxe6 ..t xe6 t 2 lLlxd6 + �e7 t 3 l:ld3 •a5 + and if t4 •d2 then t 4 . . . •a t + t 5 • d i •a5 + , or I 4 l:l d2 .i.xb2, threatening ..ic3. 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 l:l d3 •as + Only move. I f t 3 •d2 then t 3 . . . • a t + t 4 • d t •a5 + , White has to block the d-file and thus his pressure on the d6 pawn is greatly reduced. 1 3 lLl fd2 ... b6 14 g4! Too risky would have been I 4 lLl b3, e.g. : t 4 . . . d5! t 5 cxd5 c4 t6 d6 cxd3 t 7 dxe7 �xe7 =t , or t 5 lLled2 0-0!? t 6 cxd5 exd5 t 7 l:l xd5 ..ie6 with a strong initia­ tive for Black. 14 . . . lLld7 15 ..i g2 l:lb8 16 f4

•c7 1 7 0-0

If immediately t 7 f5, with the idea of playing on the white squares, then t 7 . . . exf5 ( t 7 . . . e5? t8 b3 and lLle4-c3-d5 is hopeless for Black) t 8 gxf5 lLle5 and ..ixf5 with sharp play and probably better chances for Black. 17 . . . l:l g8 18 g5!?

t 8 h3 h5 I 9 e3 would also have led to a very interesting game. 18

fxg5

1 6 •xb2 ..ixb2 18 ..ie7 l:l e8 1 9 l:l a 1 ..ib4 2 1 lLlc6 l:l xe2 23 ..ixb4 .i.xd5 1-

After 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 lLlg3 .i.b7 20 e4 fxe4 2 1 lLldxe4 the domination of White's pieces in the centre would be decisive.

! , Christiansen-Alburt, USA (ch) 1 984.

On 20 . . . lLle5 2 1 l:l b3 pre­ serves the attack, but not the line given in lnformator: 2 I l:l xd6?

-9 . . . ..ie7 10 .i.xf6 gxf6

19 fxg5 ..ib7 20 e3 l:l g6

Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:

.txd6 22 ttJf6 + when Black can simply play 22 . . . �e7. 21 W'h5 lt:)f8 22 W'f3 l:t g7 The threat was : 23 -.n + �d8 24 ltJ xd6 .txd6 25 W' xf8 + + - . 23 ttJf6 + .txf6 24 W'xf6 l:[ f7 25 W'xf7 + W'xf7 26 l:[ xf7 �xf7 27 l:t b3 .txg2 28 l:t xb8 ltJd7 29 l:t c8 1 -0, Agzamov-Inkiov,

Calcutta 1 986. One has to admit that White's play in the game above is very instructive. So, our conclusion looks like Black should have taken his chance with : I 0 . . . .txf6, with active prospects. -9 . . . e5

81

W' c6 l:t b8 Black doesn't lose the pawn on d6: 1 2 ltJxd6 + .txd6 1 3 W' xd6 l:t b6. Maybe I I l:t e3, with the threat 1 2 ltJxc5 dxc5 1 3 l:t xe5 + .te7 14 d6, but then I I . . . .te7 1 2 W' c6 l:t b8 1 3 ltJxd6 + .bd6 1 4 W'xd6 l:t b6 1 5 l:t xe5 + ltJxe5 1 6 W' xe5 + W'e7 and it is hard to believe that White is better. Probably better still for Black is 1 2 . . . W'a5 + 1 3 � d l l:t b8! and White has t o play 1 4 l:t a3. So, we see the failure o f the tactical motif of an attack against the d6 pawn. More sinister is the positional I I ..txf6! gxf6 1 2 ltJg3. If White has time for castling and for blocking the f5 square ( ttJf5, ltJ3h4, e4, .te2, 0-0), everything will be clear for him. The only chance for Black is quick counter­ attack along the b-file : 12 . . . l:t b8 1 3 l:t b3 l:t xb3 1 4 W'xb3 W'a5 + . This position needs more practical tests. II

Wc2

a5

Black controls the b5 square with pieces, and by advancing the a-pawn organises active play on the queenside. 12 e3 a4 13 ttJfd2 ltJa6 14 .tel Another interesting possibility. Black rids himself of trouble along the d-file, and there is no danger of a blockade on the f5 square, but on the other hand a bishop on b7 would be ineffective. 10

W'a4 +

.td7

Why not 1 0 . . . ttJbd7? After I I

ttJ b4 15 W'bl l:t a6

Now White has to decide: to double Black's pawns or not? Later it will be impossible, for example: 1 6 0-0 .te7 1 7 .txf6 .txf6 (the pawn on d6 is protec­ ted) 1 8 ttJxf6 + W'xf6. In view of the surprise which follows, White would have done better to play 1 6

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

82

..txf6 gxf6 1 7 lt:lg3 with an edge. 16 f4 ..te7 17 lt:lxc5? dxc5 1 8 fxe5 lt:lfxd5! 1 9 cxd5 ..txg5 20 ..txa6 lt:lxil6 2 1 lt:le4 0-0.

Black is better, van der Sterren­ Rogers, Wijk aan Zee II 1 985. However, this is not the final evaluation of the subvariation as can be seen from the prevwus note. E 8 g3 ( l d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6

4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lt:le4 d6 8 g3)

8 . . . l:t a7 9 ..tg2 e5?

This move will be refuted very quickly. In view of the surprise breakthrough which follows, Black would have done better to play 9 . . . ..te7. 10

a3!

bxa3

(see followirlg diagram)

11

b4!

14 "it'xb4 f5 1 5 lt:lxd6 + ..txd6 16 "it' xd6 "it'a5 + 17 q;n l:t b7 1 8 ..th3 with a winning position for

White, Portisch-Miles, Tilburg 1 986. F. 8 "it'd3

( I d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 a6 4 lt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5 b4 7 lt:le4 d6 8 "it'd3) (see following diagram)

Just here! White throws into disarray Black's pawns. 11

1 1 . . . lt:l bd7 1 2 bxc5 dxc5 1 3 "it'a4 looks hopeless. 1 2 ..txf6! gxf6 13 "it'a4 + lt:ld7 The king's adventures lead to mate after 1 3 . . . q;e7 1 4 c5 dxc5 1 5 d6 + q;e6 16 ..th 3 + f5 1 7 lt:lfg5 + q;d5 1 8 l:t d 1 + q;c4 1 9 lt:ld2 + q;d5 20 lt:l b 1 + q;c4 2 1 lt:lxa3 + q;c3 22 "it'c2 mate. If 1 3 . . . ..td7, then 1 4 "it'xb4 ..tf5 1 5 lt:lxf6 + "it'xf6 1 6 "it'xb8 + + - . Only 1 3 . . . l:t d7 1 4 "it'xb4 ..tb7 lt:lh4 ± survives for a while.

cxb4

The text gives White the oppor­ tunity for pressure along the d­ file, threatening to win a pawn :

Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:

� rr=:=:::=;-r.:=;;;;;.;�=;;;=;,

83

ation is j ustified tactically since ..ixb2 is impossible (the queen is hanging), and after 1 2 . . . 1hd3 1 3 exd3, the c4 pawn is much more secure, e.g. 1 3 . . . ..txb2 1 4 l:t b 1 ..if6 1 5 tt:lxc5 ± . After the text Black played 1 2 . . . 1fa5

l:t d I , dxe6, tt:lxd6 + . Let us see an example where Black sacrifices his d6 pawn. ..ie7

8

On 8 . . . exd5 White has the typical answer 9 ..ixf6! and after 9 . . . gxf6 10 cxd5 tt:ld7 1 1 e3 retains the edge with his strong c4 square for bishop or k night. The damaged Black's pawns are also an important factor. 9

..ixf6

Otherwise Black plays 9 . . . e5 without any difficulties. 9

Or 9 . . . gxf6 1 0 dxe6 fxe6 I I l:t d l and 1 2 tt:lxd6 + ± . 1 0 dxe6 ..ixe6 1 1 tt:lxd6 + But not I I 1fxd6 'ilfxd6 1 2 tt:lxd6 +
and gained a strong initiative, Lukacs-Toshkov, Albena 1 985. Well, it seems that because of the improvement 12 tt:le4! Black's pawn sacrifice is doubtful. Thus, let us look at another idea connec­ ted with defending the pawn. 8 ..

.

l:t a7!

I nstead of 8 . . . ..ie7. Now on 9 ..ixf6 gxf6 10 dxe6 fxe6 I I l:td 1 , I I . . . l:t d7! is sufficient. 9 0-0-0 exd5!

Possibly the only move. After 9 . . . ..ie7 1 0 ..t xf6 ..ixf6 1 1 dxe6 ..ixe6 1 2 tt:lxf6 + 1f xf6 1 3 1f xd6 tt:ld7 1 5 e3 Black has difficulties with castling. However, there is still unclear play after 1 5 . . . a5! and a5-a4-a3. 10 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 1 cxd5

But not 1 1 1fxd5?! ..ie6! 1 2 1i'd3 l:t d7 1 3 e 3 d5! 1 4 cxd5 l:t xd5 1 5 1fc2 l:t x d 1 + 1 6 1f xd 1 1fxd1 + 1 7
And now not 13 . . . ..ig7?! as was played in Naumkin-Kozlov, USSR 1 986 where after 14 Wc2 h5 15 ..id3 f4 16 tt:le4 1f h6 1 7

The Blumenfeld Gambit

84

exf4 W'xf4 + 18 W'd2 ..ih6 1 9 � b t ..ig4 2 0 .l:l. de t ! .l:l. e7 2 1 W'xf4 ..ixf4 2 2 tt:lh4! White had

gained a winning position. Black could complicate by 1 3 . . . h5 immediately. To obtain chances Black must keep the queens on the board. Then the position is still unclear, and this is our conclu­ sion from the 8 . . . .l:l. a7! analyses. G. 8 e3

( I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 a6 4 tt:lc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..ig5 b4 7 tt:le4 d6 8 e3) (see following diagram)

Perhaps a little too slow, although it does of course help White's development. 8 . . . ..ie7 is a reasonable move here, but Black waits until White has committed his bishop on fl . 8 . . . .l:l. a7 9 ..ie2 exd5?!

A tactical miscalculation. 9 . . . J.. e7 should have been played,

with the main line running 1 0 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 I I dxe6 ( I I tt:lxf6 + W'xf6 1 2 dxe6 W' xb2!) I I . . . ..ixe6, and if now 1 2 W' xd6 W' xd6 1 3 tt:lxd6 + �e7 14 tt:le4 ..i xb2 1 5 .l:l. b l ..tf5! with good chances for Black. This theme is repeated on 1 2 W'a4 + .l:l.d7 1 3 tt:lxd6 + �f8 14 tt:le4 ..ixb2 1 5 .l:l. b l J.. f5. t O ..ixf6 gxf6 t t W' xd5!

For now the natural move I I . . . f5 is answered by 1 2 tt:lxc5! Black is therefore forced on the defensive. t t . . . ..ie6 1 2 W' h5! .l:l.d7 1 3 ..ie7 t 4 tt:lg3?!

.1:1. d t

After this the game gets extremely double-edged. 14 0-0, meeting 14 . . . W'a5 with 1 5 W' h6, would have been more accurate. After 1 4 . . . tt:lc6 1 5 tt:lg3 White has a positional edge because of his light square control. 14 . . . W'a5! 15 0-0 W' xa2 1 6 W' h6 W' xb2 1 7 W' g7 .l:l. f8 1 8 tt:lg5

Modern Treatment of The Blumenfeld Gambit:

� ========"�

85

lDc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 j_g5 b4 7 lDe4 j_e7) To end this chapter, and in counterpoint to the material analysed here, I would like to draw the reader's attention to another interesting idea. Namely, instead of 7 . . . d6, in Lerner-Gurgenidze, Riga 1 985. Black tried 7 . . . j_e7

18 . . . 'ihe2!

Black must simplify; passive defence is of little help, for example 1 8 . . . �d8?! 1 9 lDxh7 .l:t e8 20 f4 1 8 . . . ..We5 is interesting, meeting 1 9 lDxh7 with 1 9 . . . f5 20 ..W xe5 dxe5 21 lDxf8 j_xf8, and Black's queenside pawns will be dang­ erous. White can improve with 1 9. lDxe6! fxe6 20 f4! with a vicious attack. 19 lDxe2 fxg5 20 :t e l f5 with the two extra bishops and two passed pawns providing excellent compensation for the queen in Pritchett-Crouch, Glenrothes 1 989. White won after 21 ..Wal �f7 22 ..Wa4 .l:t a7? 23 f4! g4 24 e4, but 22 . . . .l:t b7! would have been perfectly playable. Summary : 8 e3 does not threaten the viability of Black's play. H. 7 . . . j_e7 ( I d4 lD f6 2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 a6 4

This continuation is tactically acceptable, because if 8 d6, then 8 . . . lDxe4 8 j_xe7 ..W b6 1 0 ..Wd3 j_b7 I I e3 f5 12 lDe5 with an unclear position, or I I . . . lDc6!? 12 ..Wxe4 lDxe7 1 3 ..Wf4 lDf5 1 4 .l:t d l j_xf3 1 5 ..Wxf3 0-0 1 6 ..Wf4 WaS! and Black has a good game. After 8 ..Wd3 lDxe4 9 ..W xe4 j_b7! 10 j_xe7 'iWxe7 I I .l:t d l d6 1 2 g3 e5 Black again stands very well. 8 j_xf6 j_xf6! 9 ..Wd2

Of course, after 9 lDxc5 j_xb2 I 0 .1:t b I j_c3 + White has some troubles. But 9 ..Wd3!? 9 . . . d6!

The Blumenfeld Gambit

86

Very well done! Black solves all his problems connected with the d-file. If now 1 0 dxe6, then 10 . . . ..txe6 1 1 lLlxd6 + �e7 1 2 0-0-0 ( 1 2 lLle4 -.xd2 + 1 3 lLlfxd2 ..txb2 1 4 %1 b 1 ..tc3 1 5 lLlxc5 ..txc4 = ) 1 2 . . . n a7!, here both 1 3 -.e3 nd7 1 4 lLlf5 + �e8 1 5 n xd7 lLlxd7 and 1 3 lLle4 %1 d7 1 4 -.c2 n xd 1 + 1 5 •xd 1 •xd 1 + 1 6 �xd 1 ..txc4 give Black good prospects. 10 a3 bxa3 1 1 n xa3 0-0 1 2 e3 e5 13 h3 ..te7 14 g4 f5 15 gxf5 ..txf5

with even chances. Conclusion: it looks like 7 . . . ..te7 is worth considering in the future! *

*

*

From the analyses mentioned above one may draw a few conclu­ sions. Firstly, White players obstin­ ately pursue the variation 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lZ:Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 ..tg5, while many impenetrable possibilities are concealed in the variation 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 cxb5. I would like to draw the readers' attention to this area.

Secondly, in the variation 6 ..t g5, the continuation 6 . . . b4 7 lLle4 ..te7!? looks very attractive for Black, as it reduces many poten­ tial possibilities for White. Chiefly I mean these variations in which White organises pressure along the d-file. Thirdly, it is worth considering that after the exchange ..txf6 or lLlxf6 and g7xf6 Black's position is very dynamic and flexible. The games Browne-Dzindzichasftvili (see Historical Sketch), Tarjan­ Alburt (see Chapter 6, section C) are very instructive in this respect. On the other hand, games such as van der Sterren-Sosonko (Chap­ ter 6, section C), Agzamov-Inkiov (Chapter 6, section D) show how the mobilisation of White's pieces in the centre can muffle Black's search for counterplay. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that throughout the variation analysed in this chapter there is still room for improve­ ments both for White and Black. Therefore, the move 3 . . . a6 may be a strong alternative to the classical lines of the Blumenfeld Gambit.

EPI LOGUE alternative to the tired variations of the Queen's Indian or Modern Benoni. I hope that this discussion has cleared up many of the dark sides of the Blumenfeld Gambit and, additionally, that adherents of the opening will bring in some cor­ rections to my analysis, some improvements and innovations. Only in such a way will the theory of this interesting opening develop.

I n this book I have tried to review developments and the pre­ sent state of affairs in the area of the Blumenfeld Gambit. I have shown almost all the most important con­ tinuations arising after l d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 and l d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 a6 4 lL!c3 c5 5 d5 b5. On the basis of this discussion it seems that the Blumenfeld Gambit is still playable, and may be an excellent

87

APPENDIX : SE LECTED GAMES Zivanovic-R istic,

The material gathered here* may be used in different ways, depend­ ing on the reader's need. First of all, it may be treated as an easily accessible 'card index' of the most important games in the Blumenfeld Gambit. Second, as repetitio est mater studiorum, it may be useful for a general revision after reading this book. Third, such a review may be a good occasion for independent analysis, without any author's suggestions. Fourth, quoting many im­ portant games in extenso seems very sensible. After all, a game must be seen as an inseparable unit formed by an opening, a middle game, and an ending. A study of complete games with the Blumen­ feld Gambit will enrich one's intuitive feel for the special charac­ teristics and processes of this opening.

Smederanska Palanka 1 98 1

1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .i.g5 'ifa5 + 6 'ifd2 W xd2 + 7 lt:l bxd2 bxc4 8 .i.xf6 gxf6 9 e4 .i.b7 1 0 .i.xc4 lt:la6 1 1 .l:t d 1 lt:lc7 12 0-0 .l:t g8 1 3 lt:lb3 d6 14 lt:la5 .i.a6 1 5 .i.xa6 lt:lxa6 1 6 lt:lc4 ..t>d7 1 7 .l:t d2 'it>c7 1 8 .l:t fd l .l:td8 1 9 h3 lt:l b4 2 0 a3 lt:la6 21 .l:td3 .i.e7 2 2 'it>fl .l:t d7 23 lt:lgl .l:t g5 24 lt:le2 e5 25 lt:lg3 .l:t g8 26 .l:t b3 .l:t b8 27 .l:t dd3 .l:t dd8 28 lt:lf5 .i.f8 29 .l:t xb8 .l:t xb8

• There have been omitted only those few games, which the reader can find in the historical

chapter.

88

Appendix

89

�

30 :t g3 ..t>d7 3 1 :t g8 h5 32 :t h8 h4 33 :t h7 ..t>e8 34 :t xh4 t:i:Jc7 35 :t h8 t:i:Jb5 36 t?Jfxd6 + t:i:Jxd6 37 t:i:Jxd6 + ..t>d7 38 t:i:Jc4 ..t>e7 39 :t g8 :t b7 40 d6 + ..t>e8 41 h4 :t b8 42 h 5 1 -0 Bukic-Inkiov,

Banja Luka 1 983

I d4 t?Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t?Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d 2 'jj' x d2 + 7 t:i:J bxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 t:i:Ja6 1 2 ..txc4 t:i:Jc7 I I 0-0-0 :t b8 1 2 :t he ! :t g8 1 3 g3 ..tb7 1 4 t:i:J b l ..ta6 1 5 ..txa6 t:i:Jxa6 1 6 t:i:Ja3 :t b4 1 7 b3 t:i:Jc7 1 8 t:i:Jc4 t:i:Ja8 1 9 ..t>c2 t:i:Jb6 20 t:i:Jxb6 :t xb6 2 1 t:i:Jd2 h 5 22 t:i:Jc4 : b7 2 3 :td3 ..t> d 8 29 f4 h 4 2 5 f5 hxg3 2 6 hxg3 �c7 27 :t h l :t b8 28 :t h7 :t g7 29 ll h8 exf5 30 exf5 :te8 3 1 :t f3 :t g4 32 �c3 :t d4 33 :t d3 :t g4 34 :t f3 :t d4 3 5 :td 3 :t g4 36 a3 :t g5 37 :t f3 :t g4 38 a4 :t d4 39 :t d 3 :tg4 40 a5 a6 41 :t f3 :t d4 42 :t d3 :t g4 H. Gralka- Przewoznik,

Sopot 1 982

I d4 t?Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t:i:Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..t g5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d 2 'jj' x d2 + 7 t:i:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 t:i:Ja6 1 0 ..txc4 ..tb7 I I 0-0-0 :t g8 1 2 g3 t:i:Jc7 1 3 :t he ! d6 1 4 � b l 0-0-0 1 5 t:i:J b 3 f5 1 6 t:i:Ja5 ..ta8 1 7 exf5 exd5 1 8 .i.fl .i.g7 1 9 t:i:Jg5 ..txb2 20 t:i:Jxf7 (see following diagram)

20 . . . .i.c3 2 1 t:i:Jxd8 �xd8 22 t:i:J b3 .i.xe I 23 :t xe I d4 24 .i.c4

:t e8 25 :t xe8 + �xe8 26 �cl �e7 27 .i.d3 �f6 28 f4 ..td5 29 t:i:Jd2 ..txa2 30 t:i:Je4 + �e7 3 1 f6 + �d7 3 2 t:i:Jg5 h6 3 3 ..tf5 + �e8 34 t:i:Je4 �f7 35 ..tg4 t:i:Jb5 36 ..td7 ..td5 3 7 t:i:Jxc5 dxc5 38 ..txb5 � xf6 39 �d2 c4 40 g4 c3 + 4 1 �d3 .i.e4 + 42 �e2 a5 43 .i.a4 h5 44 gxh5 ..t>f5 45 .i.e8 � xf4 0- 1 . Kuligowski- Przewoznik,

Poland 1 980

I d4 t:i:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t?Jf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'jj' a 5 + 6 'jj' d2 'jj' xd2 + 7 t:i:Jbxd2 bxc4 8 e4 .i. b7 9 .i. xf6 gxf6 I 0 ..txc4 t:i:Ja6 I I 0-0 t:i:Jc7 1 2 :t fd l ll g8 1 3 g3 :t b8 1 4 t:i:Jb3 d6 1 5 t:i:Jh4 .i.a6 1 6 .i.xa6 t:i:Jxa6 1 7 t:i:Jg2 :t b4 1 8 :t e l �d7 1 9 :t e2 .i.h6 20 t:i:Ja5 :t a4 2 1 t:i:Jc6 t:i:Jc7 22 b3 :t a3 23 b4 exd5 24 exd5 t:i:Jxd5 25 b5 a6 26 :t ae l axb5 27 t:i:Je7 t:i:Jxe7 28 :t xe7 + �c6 29 :txf7 :t xa2 30 f4 b4 3 1 :t ee7 b3 32 t:i:Je3 :t c8 3 3 ll b7 b2 34 t:i:Jfl .i.xf4 0- 1 .

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

90

Lukov-Semkov,

Bulgaria 1 977

I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 'jfd2 'jfxd2 + 7 lL!bxd2 bxc4 8 e4 ..tb7 9 ..txf6 gxf6 1 0 ..txc4 f5 I I 0-0-0 ..th6 1 2 q;, b l 0-0 1 3 ll he l a5 1 4 lL!b3 d6 1 5 exf5 a4 1 6 dxe6 axb3 1 7 e7 bxa2 + 18 ..txa2 ll e8 19 ll xd6 ..tf4 20 lL!e5 ..txe5 21 ll xe5 lL!c6

22 l:txc6 ..txc6 23 f6 h6 24 ll e3 c4 25 ..txc4 ll ec8 26 b3 ll a5 27 g4 ..te8 28 f4 ll ca8 29 ll d3 q;, h 7 30 ll d6 ll c8 3 1 h4 l:ta7 32 q;,b2 ll d7 33 ll xd7 ..txd7 34 ..txf7 ll b8 35 g5 hxg5 36 fxg5 ..te8 37 g6 + 1 -0. Lukov-Przewoznik,

Nal�czow 1 980

I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 'jfd2 'jf xd2 + 7 lL!fxd2 bxc4 8 ..txf6 gxf6 9 e4 lL!a6 I 0 ..txc4 ll b8 I I lL!c3 l:Xb2 1 2

0-0-0 ll b8 1 3 lL!b5 ..t b7 1 4 lL!b3 f5 15 dxe6 fxe6 1 6 lL!d6 + ..txd6 1 7 ll xd6 lL!b4 18 exf5 q;,e7 1 3 lld2 ..txg2 20 ll g l

20 . . . d 5 2 1 ll xg2 dxc4 2 2 lL!xc5 ll hc8 23 f6 + �f7 24 lL!e4 lL!d3 + 25 q;,d I ll b I + 26 �e2 lL!f4 + 27 �f3 lL!xg2 28 ll d7 + q;,g6 29 ll g7 + �h6 30 ll xg2 c3 31 f7 c2 32 lL!f6 c l 'jt' 33 lL!g8 + �h5 34 lL!f6 + � h4 35 ll g4 + q;,h3 36 ll g3 + �xh2 37 lL!g4 + q;, h l 38 ll h3 + q;,gt 39 lL!e3 'jfc6 + 0- l . Langeweg-Fernandez,

Marbella 1 982 I d4 lL!f6 2 lL!f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5 5 ..tg5 'jfa5 + 6 lL!c3 lL!e4 7 ..td2 lL!xd2 8 'jf xd2 b4 9 lL!d I g6 10 h4 h6 I I g3 ..tg7 12 ..tg2 ..tb7 1 3 e4 lL!a6 1 4 lL!e3 0-0-0 1 5 h5 �b8 1 6 ..tfl ll hf8 1 7 ..te2 f5 1 8 hxg6 fxe4 1 9 lL!h4 lL!c7 20 lL!hg2 ..td4 2 1

Appendix

ll xh6 exd5 22 cxd5 lLlxd5 23 ll h5 ll:Jxe3 24 fxe3 'Wc7 25 lLlf4 ..te5 26 0-0-0 ll g8 27 ..tc4 d5 28 ll:Je6 'We7 29 ll:Jxd8 ll xd8 30 'Wf2 'Wg7 3 1 ll h7 'W xg6 32 ll xb7 + ..txb7 33 ll xd5 ll xd5 34 ..ixd5 + ..tb6 35

"Wf7 !-! .

Hartston-Martin,

London 1 9 8 1

1 d 4 lLlf6 2 lLlf3 e6 3 c4 c 5 4 d 5 b5 5 ..tg5 'it'a5 + 6 lLlc3 lLle4 7 ..td2 lLlxd2 8 'W xd2 b4 9 ll:Jd I d6 10 e4 e5 1 1 h4 lLld7 1 2 ..td3 lLlf6 1 3 lLle3 g6 1 4 a3 ..th6 1 5 0-0 'Wb6 1 6 axb4 cxb4

91 Plachetka-Przewoznik,

Polanica Zdroj 1 980

I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'Wa5 + 6 ..td2 'W b6 7 lLlc3 bxc4 8 e4 ..ta6 9 'Wc2 exd5 10 e5 'W e6 1 1 0-0-0 lLle4 1 2 lLl xe4 dxe4 1 3 'it' xe4 d5 1 4 ..tg5 h6 1 5 ll xd5 hxg5 1 6 lLlxg5 'Wg6 1 7 'Wg4 ..te7 1 8 f4 ..ixg5 1 9 fxg5 0-0 20 lld6 ..ic 8 2 1 'W h4 'W h 7 22 'W xc4 .if5 23 'W f4 lLld7 24 ..tb5 lLlb6 25 ll fl .ie6 26 ..id3 'W h5 27 'We4 c4 28 ..ic2 'Wxg5 + 29 ..t b 1 g6 30 h4 'Wh5 3 1 'Wd4 'We2 32 ll f6 'We1 + 33 ..t d l ..tf5 + 34 >Pc1 c3 35 bxc3 ll ac8 36 ll c6 ll cd8 39 ll cd6 ll xd6 38 ll xd6 ll c8 39 ll d8 + ll xd8 40 'it'xd8 + ..th7 41 'it'd4 'We4 0- 1 . Spassov-Manolov,

Primorsko 1 975

I lLlf3 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 d4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 'Wa5 + 6 lLl bd2 bxc4 7 ..txf6 gxf6 8 e4 f5 9 dxe6 fxe4 1 0 exf7 +

1 7 c5 'W xc5 1 8 ll fc l 'W b6 1 9 ll c4 0-0 20 ll xb4 'Wd8 2 1 ..tb5 a5 22 ll ba4 ll:Jg4 23 ll xa5 ll xa5 24 'W xa5 'W xa5 25 ll xa5 ll:Jxe3 26 fxe3 ..txe3 + 27 >Pfl f5 28 ..td3 .id7 29 ..t>e2 .ib6 30 ll a6 ll b8 3 1 lLld2 .ic5 32 b3 ll f8 33 ..tc4 h6 34 ..id3 f4 35 lLlc4 ..tg4 + 36 ..td2 f3 37 gxf3 ll xf3 38 lLlxe5 ll f2 + 39 ..t>c3 ..t h5 40 lL:ld7 1 -0.

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

92

�d8 I I .ixc4 .ib7 1 2 tt:lgS h6 1 3 tt:lxe4 . be4 1 4 *'g4 dS I S 0-0 'iWxd2 (see diagram on previous page)

1 6 J: ad l hS 1 7 'iWe6 'iW h6 1 8 'iW xe4 �c7 1 9 'iW xdS tt:lc6 20 'iWd7 + �b6 2 1 J: d3 tt:l b4 22 'iWbS + 1 -0. Chernin-Miles,

Tunis 1 98S

I d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 c4 cS 4 dS bS S .igS h6 6 .i xf6 'iWxf6 7 *' c2 exdS 8 cxd S d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lLl bd2 .ig4 1 2 eS dxeS 1 3 tt:le4 *' f4 14 tt:lfd2 .ifS 1 S .id3 .ixe4 1 6 tt:l xe4 tt:ld7 1 7 g3 'iWg4 1 8 h3 'iWhS 1 9 d6 *'g6 20 J: d 1 b3 21 *'e2 fS 22 g4 c4 23 .i b 1 fxg4 24 • xc4 *' f7 2S *'c6 J:d8 26 hxg4 g6 27 tt:lcS : g8 28 .ie4 .ig7 29 tt:lxa6 *'f4 30 tt:lc7 + �f7 3 1 *' c4 + �f6 3 2 tt:ldS + 1 -0.

33 'iWe4 + J: g6 34 h4 *' xeS 3S *' xeS .i xeS 36 tt:lc4 .ic3 37 J: e3 J: g4 38 .ibS .id4 39 J: e2 b3 40 a6 b2 4 1 tt:lxb2 .ixb2 42 J: xb2 J: d4 43 �fl �g7 44 J: a2 J: xdS 4S .ic6 J: d4 H . Shashin-Bastrikov,

USSR 1 967 I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lf3 cS 4 dS exdS S cxdS bS 6 .ig5 h6 7 .ixf6 'iWxf6 8 'iWc2 d6 9 e4 a6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 tt:lbd2 tt:ld7 1 2 tt:lc4 g5 1 3 .id3 .ig7 1 4 0-0 'iWe7 1 5 e 5 dxeS 1 6 d 6 *'d8 1 7 J: fe l 0-0 1 8 J: ad 1 J: e8 1 9 aS b3 20 *'xb3 J: b8 2 1 *'c2 J: b4 22 tt:lfd2 .i b7 23 .ie4 *'b8 24 b3 tt:lf8 2S .ixb7 *' xb7 26 *'f5 *'d7 27 'ilf f3 'iW b7 28 tt:le4 tt:ld7

Malich-lnkiov,

DDR-Bulgaria 1 982

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 c4 cS 4 dS bS S a4 exdS 6 cxdS b4 7 .i gS h6 8 .i xf6 •xf6 9 *'c2 d6 1 0 tt:lbd2 .ie7 1 1 e4 0-0 1 2 .id3 tt:ld7 1 3 0-0 J: e8 1 4 J: fe 1 .if8 1 5 .ib5 J: e7 1 5 tt:lc4 a6 1 7 .ic6 J: b8 1 8 aS gS 1 9 h 3 *'g6 20 J: e3 .ig7 2 1 J: ae l tt:le5 2 2 tt:lb6 h S 2 3 *'e2 �h7 24 tt:l xc8 J: xc8 2S *' xa6 J: g8 26 *'e2 g4 27 tt:lh4 *'gS 28 tt:lfS tt:lf3 + 29 J: xf3 gxf3 30 *' xf3 J: a7 3 1 tt:l xd6 .ixb2 32 eS .ic3

29 tt:l b6 J: b8 30 tt:l xd7 *'xd7 3 1 tt:l xcS *'bS 32 J: dS *' xaS 3 3 J: ed 1 J: d4 3 4 d7 *'b6 3S tt:lb7 .if6 36 J: 1 xd4 exd4 37 J: d6 *'c7 3 8 g3 .ieS 39 d8*' + 1 -0.

Appendix Haik-Barlov,

Vrnjacka Banja 1 9 8 1

I d 4 �f6 2 c4 c 5 3 d5 b 5 4 �0 e6 5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a 5 + 7 �c3 �e4 8 'ii' d 3 �xg5 9 � xg5 ..te7 10 �ge4 c4 I I 'ii' d 4 0-0 1 2 d6 ..td8 1 3 'ii' d 5

93

�e4 8 ..td2 � xd2 9 � xd2 d6 1 0 e4 a6 I I ..te2 l0d7 1 2 0-0 ..te7 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 �cb l ..tf6 1 5 �c4 'ii' c7 1 6 �bd2 0-0 1 7 a5 ll b8 1 8 f4 ll e8 1 9 � h i ..td4 20 ..tg4 �f6 2 1 ..txc8 ll bxc8 22 'ii' O ll cd8 23 ll ae l 'ii' d 7 24 h3 h6 25 �h2 �h7 26 �b3 'ii' b 5 27 'ii' d 3 ..txb2 28 �xb2 'ii' xd3 29 �xd3 c4 30 �xb4 cxb3 3 1 e5 dxe5 32 fxe5 b2 33 �xa6 b l 'ii' 34 ll x b l ll xe5 35 �c7 lle7 36 ll b7 ll c8 37 d6 ll d7 38 a6 ll xd6 39 a7 ll dd8 40 ll a l �g5 4 1 a8'ii' ll xa8 42 ll xa8 1 -0. T. Petrosian-Sax,

NiHic t 983

13 . . . ..ta6 14 g4 �c6 15 ..tg2 b4 1 6 'ii' x a5 ..txa5 1 7 �d5 �d4 1 8 0-0-0 � xe2 + 1 9 � b I c 3 20 b3 ll fc8 21 �e7 + �f8 22 � xc8 ll xc8 23 �c2 ..t b6 24 ll he I ll e8 25 0 �d4 + 26 �cl ll e5 27 ..tfl ..tb7 28 ll xd4 ..txd4 29 ..tc4 g6 30 ll d I ..te3 + 3 1 �c2 ..t xe4 + 32 fxe4 ll xe4 33 ll e l ll e5 34 ll fl f5 35 gxf5 gxf5 36 ..td3 f4 37 ..txh7 ll h5 38 ..td3 ll xh2 + 39 � b l ll b2 + 40 � a t ll d2 0- 1 . Kuligowski- Ermenkov,

Nis t 979

I d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �0 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a5 + 7 �c3

I d4 �f6 2 �0 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 exd5 6 cxd5 'ii' a 5 + 7 �c3 �e4 8 ..td2 �xd2 9 � xd2 b4 1 0 �cb 1 ..ta6 I I e 4 g 6 1 2 ..t xa6 'ii' x a6 1 3 'ii' c2 d6 14 �c4 ..tg7 1 5 � bd2 �d7 1 6 0-0 ll b8 1 7 a3

The Blumenfeld Gambit

94

I 7 . . . b3 I 8 tt::l x b3 0-0 1 9 tt::l bd2 .id4 20 �h I tt::l f6 2 I f3 tt::l h 5 22 l:l ad 1 'it'b7 23 g3 'it'd7 24 �g2 f5 25 b3 tt::l f6 26 h3 f4 27 g4 'it'e7 28 'it'd3 tt::l d 7 29 'it'e2 h5 30 l:l h 1 tt::l f6 3 1 'it'd3 hxg4 32 fxg4 f3 + 33 tt::l xf3 W' xe4 34 W'xe4 tt::l xe4 35 b4 l:l be8 36 l:l he 1 .ic3 H . Kozlov-Bykanov,

USSR 1986

5 ..tg5 h6 6 ..txf6 'it'xf6 7 'it'c2 b4 8 tt::l b d2 g5 9 e4 g4 10 tt::l g 1 ..t g7 1 1 l:l b 1 h5 1 2 .id3 d6 1 3 tt::le2 tt::l d 7 1 4 f4 gxf3 1 5 tt::l xf3 tt::le 5 1 6 0-0 'it'h6 1 7 tt::l x e5 ..t xe5 1 8 � h i .id7 1 9 tt::l g 1 h4 20 tt::l f3 .i g3 2 1 e5 dxe5 22 dxe6 .i xe6 2 3 ..tf5 ..txf5 29 'it' xf5 'it'f4 25 'it'h3 �e7 26 l:l bd 1 l:l ad8 27 l:l xd8 l:l xd8 28 hxg3 hxg3

1 d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .ig5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 a4 b4 8 e3 .ie7 9 .i b5 + .id7 10 .ic4 0-0 1 I h3 h6 I 2 .if4 .if5 1 3 tt::l bd2 tt::l bd7 14 a5 tt::l e8 I S 0-0 .if6 1 6 'it'b3 a6 I 7 l:l a2 tt::l e 5 1 8 .ixe5 dxe5 19 .id3 .i xd3 20 "ii xd3 tt::l c 7 2 1 d6 tt::l b 5 22 tt::l e4 l:l c8 23 tt::l fd2 g6 24 tt::l c4 .ig7 25 l:l d I �h7 26 'it'd5 b3 27 l:l aa 1 'it'h4 1 -0. Cerna- Poloch,

Ruse 1 986

I d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .ig5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 7 e4 a6 8 a4 .te7 9 .txf6 .txf6 1 0 axb5 ..txb2 1 1 l:l a2 ..tf6 1 2 tt::l b d2 0-0 1 3 ..td3 ..tb7 14 0-0 'it'c7 15 b6 'it'xb6 1 6 'it' b 1 'it'c7 1 7 e5 ..te7 1 8 exd6 ..txd6 1 9 ..txh7 + �h8 20 l:l a4 g6 2 1 ..txg6 fxg6 22 'it'xg6 ..tf4 2 3 l:l e 1 'it' f7 24 tt::le 5 'it' xd5 2 5 tt::l df3 tt::lc6 26 'it'h5 + �g7 27 'it'g4 + �h7 28 tt::l g5 + 1 -0. Nikolic-Miles,

Tunis 1 985

I d4 tt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5

29 'it'h7 l:l d6 0- l . Am. Rodriguez-M. Gonzales,

Biel l 985

I d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .ig5 h6 6 .i xf6 'it' xf6 7 'it'c2 b4 8 e4 g5 9 tt::l bd2 g4 10 tt::l g 1 ..tg7 1 1 l:l b 1 d6 1 2 ..td3 tt::l d 7 1 3 tt::le2 tt::l e5 I4 0-0 h5 1 5 f4 gxf3 1 6 tt::l xf3 'it'h6 1 7 tt::l xe5 ..t xe5 1 8 �h 1 h4 19 tt::l g 1 'it'g7 20 tt::l f3 ..tf4 21 a3 aS 22 axb4 axb4 23 l:l a l l:l xa 1 24 l:l xa i l:l g8 25 l:l a8 b3 26 'it' f2 �d7 2 7 tt::l x h4 'it' h 6 2 8 g 3 l:l h8 29 e5 �e7 30 'it'xf4 'it'xf4 3 1 gxf4

Appendix l:txh4 32 .l:l xc8 .l:l xf4 33 .l:l c7 + �d8 34 exd6 .l:l d4 35 .tfl .:. d I 36 �g l exd5 37 .l:l xc5 dxc4 38 .l:l xc4 .l:l d2 39 .l:l c3 .l:l xb2 40 .th3 1 -0.

95

ll:ld6 .txd6 1 5 exd6 �c8 1 6 Wb5 ll:la6 17 .tg2 exd5 18 .l:l he l Wf8 I9 .l:le7 .tc6 20 Wxa5 Wd8 2 1 Wxd8 + �xd8 22 cxd5 .tb5 23 .l:lf7 ll:lb8 24 � b l .te2 25 .l:l d 2 .l:l e8 2 6 .l:l xf6 c4

Portisch-Rogers,

Reggio Emilia 1 985 1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .tg5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4 8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 e4 g5 10 .td3 .tb7 I I e5 Wg7 1 2 Wa4 a5 I 3 0-0 g4 1 4 ll:ld2 Wxe5 1 5 Wc2 .l:l a6 1 6 .l:l fe i Wg7 1 7 a 3 h5 I 8 axb4 cxb4 I 9 dxe6 fxe6 20 .te4 ll:lc6 2 I .l:l ad l h4 22 ll:lb3 a4 23 ll:l3d4 ll:lxd4 24 ll:lxd4 .txe4 25 Wxe4 �c8 26 �h i .tc5 27 .l:l e2 .l:l f8 28 ll:lb5 g3 29 �g3 hxg3 30 h3 a3 3 1 bxa3 bxa3 32 W b 1 .l:l f2 33 .l:l a2 .l:l xa2 34 Wxa2 Wb2 0- l . Naumkin-011,

USSR 1 985 1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .tg5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4 8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 a3 Wxb2 1 0 e4 a6 1 1 axb4 exd5 1 2 cxd5 .tb7 1 3 .:. b I Wf6 1 4 e5 Wf4 1 5 ll:lc3 cxb4 1 6 g3 Wg4 1 7 .td3 d6 1 8 e6 fxe6 1 9 h3 Wh5 20 g4 Wf7 2 1 .l:l xb4 e5 22 0-0 a5 23 .l:l b6 .t xd5 24 ll:lxe5 1 -0. Malaniuk-Palatnik,

Tallinn 1 985 1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 ll:lf3 e6 5 .t g5 h6 6 .txf6 Wxf6 7 ll:lc3 b4 8 ll:lb5 �d8 9 e4 g5 1 0 e5 Wg7 I I g4 .tb7 1 2 Wa4 a5 1 3 0-0-0 f6 1 4

27 ll:le5 .l:l xe5 28 .l:l f8 + .l:l e8 29 .l:l xe8 + �xe8 30 .l:l xe2 + �d8 31 .l:l e4 c3 32 .l:l xb4 cxb2 33 f4 �c8 34 fxg5 hxg5 35 .l:l e4 .l:l a6 36 .l:l e8 + �b7 37 .l:le5 .l:l b6 38 .tfl .l:l b4 39 .l:l xg5 .l:l f4 40 .tb5 .l:lf2 4 1 h4 �b6 42 a4 .l:l h2 43 .l:l g8 1 -0. Lein-Lombardy,

Lone Pine I 98 1

I d4 ll:lf6 2 ll:lf3 c5 3 d 5 b5 4 c4 e6 5 .tg5 bxc4 6 ll:lc3 W b6 7 .txf6 gxf6 8 Wd2 ll:la6 9 e4 .l:l g8 1 0 g3 .l:l b8 1 1 .l:l b 1 W b4 1 2 a3 Wb3 1 3 Wet W b6 1 4 .txc4 ll:lc7 1 5 0-0 .l:l g6 1 6 .l:l d l .ta6 1 7 b3 .tc8 1 8 Wd2 Wa5 1 9 dxe6 fxe6

The Blumenfeld Gambit

96

20 lL!d5 'ihd2 21 lbxc7 + �d8 22 lL!xe6 + dxe6 23 .l:txd2 + �c7 24 .ll bd l i.e7 25 lL!h4 .ll g7 26 lL!g2 .1:1 b6 27 lL!f4 i.d6 28 lL!xe6 + i.xe6 29 i.xe6 i.xg3 30 .l:rd7 + .l:r xd7 3 1 .l:r xd7 + �b8 32 ..tc4 .l:r d 6 33 .ll xh7 .l:r d l + 34 �g2 ..te5 35 h4 ..td4 36 .l:r h5 .l:r d2 37 .l:r f5 1 -0. Griinfeld-Michell,

Margate 1 923 I d4 lL!f6 2 lL!f3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 ..tg5 ..tb7 6 e4 'liaS + 7 'ii d2 'iW xd2 + 8 lL!fxd2 b4 9 ..td3 d6 1 0 0-0 lL!bd7 I I f4 ..te7 1 2 lL!f3 exd5 1 3 exd5 0-0 14 lL!bd2 .l:r fe8 1 5 .l:r ae l ..tf8 1 6 lL!b3 a5 1 7 .l:r xe8 lbxe8 18 .l:r e l f6 19 ..th4 lbc7 (see following diagram)

20 g4 g6 2 1 lL!bd2 �f7 22 .ig3 lbb6 23 f5 g5 24 lbe4 lL!e8 25 h4 h6 26 hxg5 hxg5 27 lL!fxg5 + fxg5 28 lbxg5 +
lL!xg7 lL!xg7 33 .l:r xd6 ..tc8 34 .l:r c6 lL!f6 35 g5 lL!fh5 36 .l:r c7 + �g8 37 f6 .if5 38 f7 + �h8 39 .ixf5 lL!xg3 40 .l:r c8 + 1 -0 Eslon- De Ia Villa,

Linares 1 985 I d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lL!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 .ig5 ..tb7 6 e4 'liaS + 7 ..td2 Wb6 8 lL!c3 bxc4 9 ..txc4 lll xe4 1 0 !Llxe4 exd5 I I 0-0 dxc4 1 2 .l:r e I ..txe4 1 3 .l:r xe4 + ..te7 1 4 ..tc3 'ii b7 1 5 .ll e3 �f8 16 'ii e2 lll c6 1 7 'ii xc4 h5 1 8 .l:r ae l d6 19 'ii d 5 .l:r b8 20 lll g 5 ..txg5 21 'ii xg5 .l:r h7 22 .l:r g3 g6 23 'ii f6 'Otg8 24 'ii xd6 lll b4 25 .l:r ge3 1 -0. Sahovic-Barlov,

Vrnjacka Banja 1 98 1 I d4 e6 2 c4 lll f6 3 lll f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 .id6 8 !Llbd2 0-0 9 ..te2 .ib7 10 0-0 'ii e7 I t 'ii c2 lll bd7 1 2 e4 lll xe4 1 3 ttJxe4 dxe4 1 4 lbg5 ttJf6 1 5 ttJh3 l2ld5 16 f3 e3 17 ..tc4 .l:r ae8 18 b3

Appendix l:H6 1 9 ..tb2 l:t h6 20 l:t fe l 'flc7 21 �fl l:tf8 22 ..txd5 exd5 23' : xe3 d4 24 ..txd4 : xh3 25 gxh3 cxd4 26 'fi xc7 ..txc7 27 l:te7 : xf3 + 28 �gl l:t c3 29 : fl h5 30 l:tfl7 l:t c l + 31 �f2 l:t c2 + 32 'it>fl ..tg2 + 33 �g I ..txh2 + 34 'it>xh2 ..td5 + 35 �g3 ..t xf7 36 l:t xa7 d3 37 b6 d2 38 l:td7 l:t c8 39 l:t xd2 l:t b8 40 l:t d6 �f8 41 a4 'it>e7 42 l:t c6 ..txb3 43 a5 ..ta4 44 l:t c7 + ..td7 45 l:t c5 g6 46 h4 'it>d6 47 l:t c2 ..tc6 48 : b2 ..tb7 49 l:t b5 l:t f8 50 l:t g5 l:t f6 5 1 : b5 :t f3 + 52 �h2 : r5 o- t . Moisee\'-Vaganian,

USSR 1 970 I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8 ll:lbd2 0-0 9 ..td3 ..tb7 1 0 0-0 a6 I I b3 e5 1 2 e4 c4 1 3 ll:lxc4 dxc4 1 4 ..txc4 + �h8 1 5 ll:lg5 axb5 1 6 ll:lf7 + : xf7 1 7 ..t xf7 ll:lxe4 1 8 ..tb2 ll:lc6 1 9 ..td5 ll:lf6 20 ..tf3 e4 2 1 ..te2 b4 22 'fic2 'flc7 23 ..txf6 gxf6 24 'fi xe4 ..t xh2 + 25 �h I ..te5 26 l:t ac l 'flg7 27 'flg4 ll:ld4 28 'fi xg7 + � xg7 29 ..td3 l:t xa2 30 : a t l:t a3 3 1 ..tc4 ..te4 32 l:t ae l ..tc2 33 f4 ..td6 3 4 l:t e 8 ..txb3 3 5 l:t g8 + � h 6 3 6 ..t xb3 l:t xb3 37 � h2 ll:lf5 38 g3 ll:le7 39 l:t g4 l:t b2 + 40 �h3 l:td2 0- 1 .

97

I I ..td3 e5 1 2 e4

1 2 . . . c4 1 3 bxc4 ll:lc5 1 4 'fi e2 dxe4 1 5 ll:l xe4 lLlfxe4 1 6 ..t xe4 ll:lxe4 1 7 'flxe4 ..tb7 1 8 'fie2 e4 1 9 ll:ld2 ..tc5 20 l:t fl a6 2 1 0-0-0 axb5 22 ll:lb3 ..ta3 23 cxb5 e3 24 f3 l:t fc8 + 25 � b 1 ..txb2 26 �xb2 'fle5 + 27 'it> b l ..td5 28 l:t xd5 'fl xd5 29 'fi xe3 l:t e8 30 'fid2 'fi xd2 3 1 lLl xd2 l:te2 3 2 l:t d 1 l:t a5 3 3 ll:lb3 l:t xb5 34 g3 l:t xh2 35 l:t d3 l:t b4 36 a3 l:t b8 37 a4 h5 0- 1 . Ligterink-Van der Wiel,

Hilversum 1 985

S. Larsen-Smagar,

I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8 ll:lc3 ll:lbd7 9 ..td3 ..tb7 1 0 e4 d4 I I ll:l b l ll:lxe4 1 2 'fie2 lLldf6 1 3 ll:lbd2 ll:l xd2 1 4 ..t xd2 ..td5 1 5 0-0 0-0 1 6 b4

corr. 1 980-83

(see following diagram)

I d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:lf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 b3 ..td6 8 e3 0-0 9 ..tb2 ll:lbd7 10 ll:lbd2 'fle7

1 6 . . . lLlg4 1 7 ll:lg5 ..txh2 + l 8 � h I ..tf4 1 9 'fi xg4 ..txd2 20 ..t xh7 + �h8 2 1 f4 'flf6 22 ..te4

98

The Blumerifeld Gambit

T rr::====:;;iiii==;;;;:::::===o;;m;;�=aiiil

..th6 g5 4 1 Wg8 + �d7 42 : d8 + <3;e 7 43 'iW e8 + 1 -0. Nikolic-Barlov,

Yugoslavia 1 982

'i' h6 + 23 'i'h3 'i'xh3 + 24 gxh3 ..txb4 25 ..txd5 exd5 26 lt:!e6 J:[ f6 27 f5 J:l e8 28 J:l ad l <3;h7 29 lt:!c7 J:l e5 30 lt:!a6 ..ta3 3 1 J:l f3 J:l e3 32 J:l d3 J:l xd3 33 J:l xd3 J:l xa6 34 bxa6 c4 0- 1 . Browne-Quinteros,

Buenos Aires 1980

I d4 lt:!f6 2 lt:!f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 e3 ..td6 8 lt:!c3 ..tb7 9 e4 dxe4 I 0 lt:!g5 ..td5 I I 'i' c2 lt:! bd7 12 lt:!gxe4 ..te5 1 3 lt:!xd5 exd5 1 4 lt:!xf6 + 'i' xf6 1 5 ..te2 0-0 1 6 0-0 ..td4 1 7 ..te3 ..t xb2 1 8 J:l ad l lt:!b6 1 9 'ilf xc5 J:l ac8 20 'ilf b4 ..tc3 2 1 'ilfg4 'ilt'e5 22 ..tf3 J:l c4 23 'ilfh3 d4 24 .te l J:l a4 25 a3 'ilfxb5 26 ..te4 g6 27 'ilfe6 + J: f7 28 ..tc6 'ilfc4 29 'iWd6 J:l a6 30 J:l de l ..txe l 3 1 J:l xe l lt:!c8 32 J:le8 + <3;g7 3 3 'ilfe5 + J:[ f6 34 'i'g5 J:[ f5 35 'i' h6 + <3;f6 36 'ilt' f8 + 'ilff7 37 'ilfh8 + 'ilt'g7 38 J:[ f8 + <3;e6 39 'ilt' xg7 : xc6 40

I d4 lt:!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 ..tf4 ..td6 8 ..txd6 'i' xd6 9 lt:!bd2 0-0 10 g3 a6 1 1 bxa6 ..txa6 1 2 ..th3 lt:!c6 1 3 0-0 e5 1 4 lt:!g5 <3;h8 1 5 lt:!de4 lt:!xe4 1 6 lt:! xe4 'ilf h6 1 7 'ilfxd5 'i'xh3 18 'i' xc6 ..t xe2 19 lt:!g5 'ilff5 20 J:[ fe 1 'ilf xf2 + 2 1 <3;h 1 ..th5 22 'i'e4 ..tg6 23 'i'g2 'ilf f5 24 lt:!e4 ..t h5 25 <3;g 1 ..tf3 26 'i'c2 h6 27 J:l e3 ..t xe4 28 J:l xe4 J:l xa2 29 J:l ae l · : b8 30 J:l 4e2 'i' xc2 3 1 J:l xc2 ·: bxb2 32 J:l xb2 l:t x b2 33 : xeS J:l c2 34 h4 �g8 35 J:l e7 <:;f8 36 J:l c7 <:;g8 37 <:;fl �h7 38 h5 <:;g8 39 J:l c6 <:;f7 40 g4 J:l c4 4 1 J:l c 7 + <:;f6 42 J:l c6 + <:;g5 0- 1 . Ehlvest-Rogers,

Tallinn 1 985

I d4 lt:!f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:!f3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5 7 lt:!c3 ..t b7 8 e4 dxe4 9 'ilfxd8 + <3;xd8 1 0 lt:!e5 <3;e8 1 1 ..tf4 ..td6 12 J:l d 1 ..t d5 1 3 lt:!g6 hxg6 14 ..txd6 lt:! bd7 1 5 ..te2 <3;f7 1 6 0-0 J:[ ac8 1 7 b3 J:l hd8 1 8 ..tf4 lt:!b6 19 ..te3 lt:!fd7 20 J:l d2 lt:!e5 2 1 J:l fd 1 J:l h8 22 ..tf4 <3;f6 23 ..tfl <3;f5 24 ..t xe5 <3;xe5 25 J:[ e I J:[ hd8 26 lt:!xe4 ..txe4 27 J:l de2 J:l d4 28 f3 J:l cd8 29 J:l xe4 + J:l xe4 30 J:l xe4 + �f6 3 1 a4 J:l d l 32 �f2 J:l a l 3 3

Appendix i. c4 lll d 5 34 l:l. e2 g5 35 g3 l:l. h l 36 �g2 l:l. c l 37 �1'2 l:l. h l 38 � g2 l:l. c l 39 a5 l:l. a l 40 a6 l:l. a5 41 �h3 lll c7 42 �g4 e5 43 l:l. d2 � e7 44 �xg5 lll x b5 45 b4 lll d4 46 l:l. xd4 1 -0.

Miles-Alburt

World Open 1 989 1 d4 lll f6 2 lll f3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 lll c3 i.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 i.d3 d5 1 0 0-0 1fd6 I I l:l. e l lll b d7 1 2 b3 lll g4 1 3 h3 lll x f2 1 4 �xf2 i.h4 + 1 5 � g l l:l. xf3 1 6 1fxf3 i.xe l 1 7 i.b2 l:l.f8 1 8 i.xh7 + �xh7 1 9 1fh5 + �g8 20 l:l. xe l 1fg3 2 1 l:l. e2 d4 22 exd4 i.f3 23 lll e4 i. xe4 24 l:l. xe4 l:l. f2 25 1fe8 + lll f8 0- 1 Browne-Aiburt

US Open 1 989 1 d4 lll f6 2 lll f3 e6 3 c4 c5 4 d5 b5 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 lll bd2 i.e7 8 g3 1fa5 9 i. g2 1fxb5 t O 0-0 0-0 t t a4 1fa6 1 2 b 3 llle4 1 3 i.b2 lll x d2 1 4 1f xd2 i.e4 1 5 1fe3 1f b7 1 6 l:l. ad t a5 1 7 i.a3 l:l. c8 t 8 lll e t i.xg2 t 9 lll xg2 l:l. a6 20 lll f4 l:l. b6 2 1 l:l. d 3 lllc6 22 i.xc5 i.xc5 23 1fxc5 lll b4 24 1fxa5 lll x d3 25 lll x d3 l:l. a6 26 lll c 5 l:l. xa5 27 lll xb7 l:l. a7 28 lll d 6 l:l. c2 29 e4 l:l. a6 30 e5 l:l. b2 3 t lll e4 l:l. a5 32 lll d 6 l:l. xb3 33 l:l. c t h5 34 l:l. c7 l:l. xe5 35 l:l. xd7 l:l.d3 36 l:l.d8 + �h7 37 lll l7 l:l. ed5 38 l:l.e8 l:l. f5 39 l:l. e7 �g8 0- 1 .

99 Muse-Przewoznik,

Poznan 1 986 t d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 c5 4 d 5 b5 5 a4 b4 6 lll bd2 d6 7 e4 e5 8 i.d3 g6 9 lllf t lll h 5 t o g3 i.g7 1 t i.g5 1fc7 12 lll h 4 i.f6 1 3 i.xf6 lll x f6 1 4 llle 3 1fe7 1 5 b3 lll b d7 1 6 a5 lll h 5 1 7 l:l. a2 lll d f6 1 8 f3 i.d7 1 9 0-0 0-0 20 lll hg2 l:l. ae8 2 1 l:l. af2 i.h3 22 l:l. e l i.c8 23 1f c l 1fd8 24 1fa t l:l. e7 25 lll f t i.h3 26 lll fe3 lll d 7 27 lll h4 lll df6 28 i.ft i.c8 28 i.d3 l:l. 7e8 30 lll h g2 lll d 7 3 t f4 exf4 32 gxf4 lll h f6 33 lll f t l:l.e7 34 e5 dxe5 35 fxe5 lll g4 36 l:l. fe2 l:l. fe8 37 e6 fxe6 38 h3 lll h 6 38 1fcl lll f5 40 dxe6 lll e 5 41 l:l. xe5 1fxd3 42 lll f4 1f d4 + 43 �h2 1f f2 + 44 � h l l:l. xe6 45 l:l. xe6 l:l. xe6 46 l:l. xe6 i.xe6 47 lll xe6 lll h4 48 llle 3 1ff3 + 49 � h2 1ff2 + 50 � h t 1ff3 + 5 1 � h2 1ff2 + t-t.

Blocker-Dzindzichashvili,

New York 1 984 t d4 lll f6 2 c4 e6 3 lll f3 a6 4 lll c 3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 lll e4 d6 8 1fa4 + 1fd7 9 1fc2 lll xe4 1 0 1fxe4 f6 t t dxe6 1fc6 1 2 1ff5 fxg5 13 lll x g5 l:l. a7 14 lll l7 l:l. xl7 1 5 1fxl7 + �d8 1 6 e3 1fc7 1 7 1ff5 1fe7 1 8 0-0-0 �c7 1 9 i.e2 1fxe6 20 1fc2 i.b7 2 1 i.f3 i.xf3 22 gxf3 lll d 7 23 1fe4 1fxe4 24 fxe4 lll e 5 25 b3 lllc6 26 l:l. d5 i.e7 27 l:l. f5 lll e 5 0- 1 .

T he Blumenfeld Gambit

1 00 Huss-Lau,

Beersheva 1 985 l d4 lLlf6 2 lLlO e6 3 c4 a6 4 lLlc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 � g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8 lLlxf6 + gxf6 9 � h4 �e7 1 0 e4 f5 I I �xe7 -.xe7 1 2 dxe6 fxe4 1 3 exf7 + �f8 1 4 lLld2 �b7 1 5 -.hs lLld7 16 -. h6 + �xf7 17 �e2 -.r6 1 8 -. xf6 + �xf6 1 9 lLlfl lLle5 20 0-0-0 �e6 21 lLle3 .C. af8 22 .C. hfl .C. f6 23 lLlg4 lLlxg4 24 �xg4 + �e5 25 g3 d5 26 f4 + �d6 27 cxd5 �xd5 28 �e2 �c6 29 b3 a5 30 �b5 + �xb5 3 1 .C. xd5 .C.e8 3 2 .C. e l .C. fe6 3 3 �d2 �c6 34 .C. h5 .C. d 6 + 35 �e2 .C.d3 36 .C. d l .C. 8d8 37 .C. xd3 .C. xd3 38 .C.e5 .C. c3 39 �d2 a4 40 bxa4 .C. a3 4 1 .C. xe4 .C. xa4 42 f5 .C. xa2 + 43 �e3 �d5 44 .C. f4 b3 45 �d3 .C. c2 46 f6 c4 + 47 �e3 b2 48 .C. f5 + �e6 49 f7 .C. c3 + 50 �d4 .C. d 3 + 51 �xc4 b l -. 52 .c. r6 + �d7 53 rs-. -.b3 + 54 �c5 .C. d 5 mate 0- l . Van der Sterren-Sosonko,

Netherlands 1 985/86 l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lLlc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 �g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8 lLlxf6 + gxf6 9 � h4 lLld7 l O e4 �e7 1 1 �d3 lLlf8 1 2 0-0 lLlg6 1 3 �g3 �d7 1 4 lLld2 h 5 1 5 h 3 �f8 16 f4 h4 17 �h2 f5 1 8 -.c2 .C. h5 1 9 lLlf3 �g7 20 .C. ae l .C. a7 2 1 exf5 exf5 (see following diagram)

22 lLlg5 �xg5 23 fxg5 .C. xg5 24 �xd6 -.b6 25 -.d2 .C. h5 26

�h2 .C. a8 27 d6 -.ds 28 �e2 .C. h8 29 �f3 .C. c8 30 �b7 .C. b8 3 1 �d5 -. r6 32 -.f2 .C. bc8 33 �b7 .C. b8 34 �d5 .C. bc8 35 .C. e2 .C. hf8 36 �b7 .C. b8 37 �d5 .C. bc8 38 b3 a5 39 �b7 .C. b8 40 �d5 .C. bc8 4 1 �e4 .C. fe8 42 �xf5 .C. xe2 43 • xe2 �xf5 44 -.f2 lLlf8 45 -.xrs -.xrs 46 .C. xf5 lLld7 47 .C. f4 .C. e8 48 �f2 lLlf6 49 .C. xh4 a4 50 .C. f4 �g6 5 1 .C. f3 lLle4 + 52 � g l lLlc3 53 d7 .C. d8 54 .C. d 3 lLlxa2 55 �c7 .C. xd7 56 .C. xd7 axb3 57 .C. d2 �f5 58 �d6 lLlc3 59 .C. b2 lLle4 60 g4 + �g5 6 1 �e7 + �f4 62 .C. xb3 lLld2 63 .C. d 3 l -0.

Agzamov-lnkiov,

Calcutta 1 986 l d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 a6 4 lLlc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 � g5 b4 7 lLle4 d6 8 a3 bxa3 9 .C. xa3 �e7 l O �xf6 gxf6 I I dxe6 fxe6 1 2 .C. d 3 -.as + 1 3 lLlfd2 .. b6

Appendix

101 Naumkin-Kozlov,

USSR 1 986 I d4 t2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t2Jf3 a6 4 t2Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 t2Je4 d6 8 'fkd3 l:. a7 9 0-0-0 exd5 1 0 ..txf6 gxf6 1 1 cxd5 f5 1 2 t2Jg3 'fkf6 1 3 e3 ..t g7 14 'fkc2 h5 1 5 ..td3 f4 1 6 t2Je4 'fkh6 1 7 exf4 'fk xf4 + 1 8 'fkd2 ..t h6 19 �bl i. g4

1 4 g4 t2Jd7 1 5 i.g2 l:. b8 1 6 f4 'fkc7 1 7 0-0 l:. g8 1 8 g5 fxg5 1 9 fxg5 i.b7 20 e3 l:. g6 21 'fkh5 t2Jf8 22 'fkf3 l:. g7 23 t2Jf6 + i.xf6 24 'fkxf6 l:. f7 25 'fk xf7 + 'fk xf7 26 .1:. xf7 �xf7 27 .1:. b3 i.xg2 28 l:. xb8 t2Jd7 29 l:. c8 1 -0. Van der Sterren-Rogers,

Wijk aan Zee II 1 985 I d4 t2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t2Jf3 a6 4 t2Jc3 c5 5 d5 b5 6 i.g5 b4 7 t2Je4 d6 8 a3 bxa3 9 n xa3 e5 10 'fka4 + i.d7 1 1 'fkc2 a5 1 2 e3 a4 13 t2Jfd2 t2Ja6 1 4 i.e2 t2Jb4 15 'fkbl l:. a6 16 f4 i.e7 1 7 t2Jxc5 dxc5 1 8 fxe5 t2Jfxd5 19 cxd5 i.xg5 20 i.xa6 t2Jxa6 2 1 t2Je4 0-0 2 2 0-0 .1:. e 8 2 3 t2Jd6 l:. xe5 24 t2Jxf7 'fke8 25 t2Jxe5 'fkxe5 26 e4 t2Jb4 27 � h l i.e7 28 'fk e l i.b5 29 l:. f5 'fkxb2 30 l:. af3 h6 3 1 h3 a3 32 .1:. f2 t2Jc2 33 'fka5 a2 34 l:. xc2 0- 1 .

20 .!:. d e l l:. e7 2 1 "ihf4 i.xf4 22 t2J h4 .1:. h6 23 g3 ..te5 24 f4 ..td4 25 f5 t2Jd7 26 h3 t2Je5 27 f6 l:. d 7 2 8 ..txa6 ..tf3 2 9 t2Jxf3 t2Jxf3 30 t2Jxd6 + �d8 3 1 l:. e8 + �c7 32 t2Jc4 t2Jd2 + 33 t2Jxd2 .1:. xf6 34 l:. c8 + �b6 35 t2Je4 l:. g6 36 i.c4 f5 37 t2Jd2 l:. xg3 38 l:. c6 + �b7 39 t2Jb3 f4 40 t2Jxd4 cxd4 4 1 l:. f6 f3 4 2 l:. fl l:. xh3 4 3 l:. l xf3 1 -0.

Index of Players

Page numbers printed in bold type indicate the player with White. Caracci 56 Cerna 45, 94 Chernin 7, 47, 79, 92 Chesnauskas 47 Christiansen 74, 80 Chukaev 47 Consultants 4 1 Crouch 8 5 Cuellar 45 Czerniak 41

Agafonov 55 Agzamov 81, 1 00 Akhmilovskaya 34 Alburt 27, 38, 74, 78, 79, 80, 99, 99

Alekhine l , 41 Anikaev 72 Arbakov 40 Arkhipkin 57, 59 Asztalos 41

De Boer 48 De Ia Villa 5 1 , 96 Dieks 49 Drimer 45 Dus-Khotimirski 3 Dzindzichashvili 1 0, 47, 76, 99

Baikov 47 Balashov 69 Balayan 40 Balogh 52 Barlov 42, 43, 56, 58, 63, 93, 96, 98

Bastrikov 4 1 , 92 Bilek 49 Blocker 76, 99 Bobotsov 41, 45 Boersma 55 Bogdanovic 40 Bogolyubov 49 Botterill 70 Braga 72 Browne 10, 43, 54, 63, 98, 99 Bukic 30, 40, 40, 89 Bykanov 44, 94

Ehlvest 61, 98 Epstein 56 Ermenkov 43, 43, 70, 93 Eslon 5 1 , 96 Fatalibekova 59 Fernandez 34, 68, 90 Formanek 9, 60, 63 Furman 56 Gaprindashvili 40 102

Index

Garcia G 68 Garcia R. 53 Garcia S. 47 Geller 40 Gereben 52 Goldenov 39, 58, 59 Goldstein 49 Gonzalez 47, 94 Gosin 43 Gralka 29, 34, 89 Grave 57 Greenfeld 40 Grigorian 40, 45, 60 Grooten 43 Griinfeld 7, 27, 49, 5 1 , 96 Grushevsky 47, 49 Gulko 60 Gurgenidze 85 Gurieli 44 Gusev 72 Haik 42, 93 Hanauer 27 Hartston 34, 91 Helling 49 Horvath 33 Honlinger 41, 44 H ulak 4 1 Huss 77, 100 Inkiov 30, 33, 68, 81, 89, 92, 1 00 Ivanov 59 Jasnikowski 35, 35 Johansen 43 Jongsma 33 Jovanovic 53 Junkie 59 Kalinin 41 Kan 59

1 03

Kapengut 60 Kapitonov 44 Karolyi 63 Keller 56 Kholmov 59 Kivlan 55 Kmoch 5, 4 1 Knaak 47, 48 Kojder 30 Kostic, B. 3 Kostic, 3 1 Kotliar 48, 68 Kozlov 39, 42, 44, 60, 83, 94, 1 0 1 Kozlovskaya 69 Kozirev 39 Kudinov 68 Kuligowski 28, 43, 89, 93 Kuznetov 43, 68 Lagutkin 48, 49 Lahav 35 Langeweg 34, 90 Larsen S. 55, 97 Lau 77, 1 00 Legky 4 1 Lein SO, 95 Leonhardt 49 Lerner 85 Levenfish 3 Levitina 44, 44, 69 Ligterink 55, 97 Lipnitsky 6, 42 Ljubojevic 40, 43, 49, 49 Loffier 42 Lombardy 9, 50, 60, 95 Lukacs 83 Lukov 8, 30, 32, 90, 90 M acht 52 Makarov 44 M aksimovic 56

1 04

The Blumenfeld Gambit

Malaniuk 48, 95 Malich 68, 92 Manolov J. 36, 9 1 Maroczy 3 Marshall 27 Marszalek 57 Martin 34, 9 1 Martinovic 43 Mazalon 29 McCambridge 47 Meduna 33, 33, 42 Michell 5 1 , 96 Miles 7, 47, 47, 70, 70, 82, 92, 94,

Popov 49, 49, 70 Portisch 45, 48, 59, 82, 95 Povah 46 Preise 39 Pritchett 85 Przewoznik 8, 28, 29, 29, 30, 32, 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 50, 55, 69, 89, 89, 90, 9 1 , 99 Przybylski 32

Qi Jingxuan 69 Quinteros 54, 98

99

Milev 45 Minovic 57 Mnatsakanian 44, 59 Moiseev 50, 55, 97 M use 69, 99 Naumkin 48, 83, 95, 101 Nettori 42 Nikolic P. 47, 58, 94, 98 Nurkic 4 1 Oll, 48, 95 Osnos 60 Palatnik 48, 95 Panov 56 Pedersen 42 Pelikan 4 1 Peresypkin 47 Petrosian T. 43, 93 Pihajlic 34 Plachetka 35, 44, 91 Platonov 69 Pokrovski 5 1 Polnareva 44 Poloch 45, 94 Polugayevsky 49

Rabinovich 7, 27 Radovsky 40, 4 1 , 44 Razuvaev 42 Redzepagic 33 Rellstab 54 Renman 55 Reshko 46 Reti 54 Ribli 68 Ristic 29, 88 Rodriguez A., 47, 68, 94 Rodriguez, 0. 42 Roessel 46 Rogers 48, 48, 55, 6 1 , 82, 95, 98, 101

Rojek 35 Rossetto 58 Rubinstein 67, 70 Runstrom 42 Sahovic 31, 56, 56, 96 Sakharov 39 Samisch 72 Sax 43, 93 Scheipl 46 Semkov 30, 90 Shashin 41, 92

Index

Sher 4 1 Shirazi 47 Sinadinovic 56 Singh 46 Smagar 55, 97 Smith 49 Soler 57 Sosonko 77, 000 Spassov 36, 43, 9 1 Speelman 38 Spielmann 5, 39, 4 1 , 4 1 , 44, 52, 67, 70

Spraggett 69 Steiner 72 Stempin 35 Szabo 40, 58 Szily 41 Szymczak 48 Tarjan 78 Tarrasch 1 Tartakover 70 Tatai 42 Tavadian 59 Tolush 6, 42 Toshkov 83

1 05

Uhlmann 45 Ujtelky 57 Vaganian 45, 55, 72, 97 Van der Wiel 55, 97 Van der Sterren 77, 82, 100, 101 Voronkov 44 V orotnikov 46, 68 Vukic 49, 73 Vukovic V. 70 Walter 4 1 Ward 42, 63, 68, 72 Wheeler 68 Wilder 27 Wohner 57 Yakhin 70 Yudovich 72 Zagorovsky 51 Zak 58 Zaltsman 63 Zhuravlev 57 Zilbennan 60 Zivanovic 29, 88

Literature

Binet A.-Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'echecs. Paris 1 894. Chase W. G., Simon H. A.-'Perception in Chess'. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 4, No. I , Jan. 1 973, pp. 55-8 1 . 'Chinks in their armour. A research from Northern I reland'. Chess, Vol. 48, Nos. 9 1 9-920, April 1 984, pp. 289-290. Dus-Khotimirski-Selected Games, Moscow 1 953. Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.-Vol. 4, Belgrade 1 978. de Groot A. D.- Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague 1 965. Kotov A.- Think Like a Grandmaster, London 1 970. Kotov A.-Play Like a Grandmaster, London 1 978. Krogius N.-Psychology in Chess, New York 1 976 Lasker E.-Lasker's Chess Primer, London 1 934. Pachman L.- Moderne Schachtheorie, Geschlossene Spiele Berlin 1 967. Przewoi:nik J.-'The Blumenfeld Gambit'. Players Chess News, No. 3, Jan. 1 985, pp. 8-9; No. 32, April 1 985, pp. 4-6. Przewoi:nik J.-Gambit Blumenfelda. Warsaw 1 986a. Przewoi:nik J.-'0 podejmowainu decyzji w szachach' (On decision making in chess). Szachy, 1 986b, No. 6, pp. 56-58. Reti R.-Masters of the Chess Board, London 1 933. Simon H. A., Simon P. A.-Trial and error search in solving difficult problems : evidence from the game of chess'. Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 1 962, pp. 425-429. Smagin S., Radovski-'The Blumenfeld Gambit' Shakmaty v USSR 1 988. Suetin A. S.-Outstanding Soviet Chess Players, Minsk 1 984. Taimanov M ., et al.-Damengambit bis Holliindisch. Berlin 1 980. Tikhomirov 0.-Structura czynnosci myslenia czowieka. Warsaw 1976. Voronkov V.-'The Modern Treatment of the Blumenfeld Gambit', Shakmatny Bulleten, No. I , 1 973, pp. 1 -3. 1 06

Literature

1 07

The author of this book also used : Ceskoslovensky Sach, Magyar Sakkelet, New in Chess, Sakkelet, Szachy, Shakhmatny Byulleten, Shakhmaty v USSR, Shakhmaty, Sahovski lnformator, Tournament Chess.