S. Bücker & C. Galofre - Chess Cafe - Over The Horizons - 1-74

Over the Horizons
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Stefan Bcker, born 1959, won the

Championship of North Rhine &
Westphalia in 1983 and 1988, and
participated in three German
Championships (1984 fifth place,
1987 eleventh place, 1991
eleventh place). He is best known for
his analysis of unusual chess
openings. It started in the early
1980s with privately published
booklets on 2...Qf6 in the Kings
Gambit, on the Vulture, Hawk and
Woozle, the Closed Sicilian and a
mixture of White gambits. The
publishing house Franckh-Kosmos
produced improved versions of the
first two (1985, 1986) and two new works: Das neue Knigsgambit
(1986) and Groteske Schacherffnungen (1990). The latter also has a
chapter on another of Bckers specialties: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4, the
Mokele Mbembe. Englund Gambit (1988) was written for publisher
Manfred Mdler. From 1991 to 1996, Bcker worked in the editorial
staff of the chess monthly Schach-Report/Deutsche Schachzeitung. In
1996 he started his own chess magazine Kaissiber.
Vulture's Wing Play

(Part 1)
In one of the chapters of Dynamic Black Defenses (1989) Tim Harding
presented my repertoire against 1 d4 the Vulture, Hawk and Woozle. I
liked his well-written account, but in the first paragraph the Irish author
issued a warning: His system is logical but is the game of chess itself
logical enough to reward the pioneer? Bckers system is not easy to
play well ... [4].
My book Der Geier (1986) had included only a few practical examples
for the Vulture, today more than 400 games are available. According to
a recent database, White scored 58 percent, but in reality the system is
much better. This article has all the logic that you need to play it well.
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (1 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]
Over the Horizons
Z. Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
1 d4 is considered to be safer than 1 e4, because the e4-pawn can be

attacked immediately, say, by means of 1...Nf6 (Alekhines Defense) or
1...d5 (Scandinavian Defense). In case of 1 d4, a promising method of
instantly undermining Whites center doesnt exist. Or does it? My
recommendation is an aggressive version of the Benoni:
1 d4 c5
Luring the d-pawn into Blacks camp.
2 d5 Nf6 3 c4
For now, well concentrate on this main line. Just if you are wondering:
3 Nf3 c4!? is the Hawk, and 3 Nc3 Qa5!? the Woozle.
3...Ne4!?
Over the Horizons
The starting point of the Vulture.

Black intends 4...Qa5+, to force a
radical change in Whites set-up.
Instead of the usual Nb1-c3, Black
wants to see this knight pinned on
d2, where for a while it hampers
Whites development. If everything
goes as planned, the Ne4 retreats to
d6 and a later b5 and f5 will
destroy the white pawn center.
However, this concept may not be
possible against Whites best play,
as well see in part two next month.
In the diagrammed position, the majority of players prefer 4 Qc2 Qa5+
5 Nd2, which has been my own main line since 1977. Part 2 of this
article will give a detailed analysis of the critical lines to prove that
Blacks position is sound. Part 1 covers everything else. A selection of
instructive games may be the best way to introduce the reader to the
world of the Vulture. Instead of the natural 4 Qc2, other continuations
have been tried. The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO)
recommends 4 f3 (+/-). In my opinion this move isnt stronger than
the alternatives, but since other authors have repeated ECOs
assessment, it has to be considered.
M. Sorokin (2515) H. Kadhi (2305)
Bratislava Open, 1993 [8]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 f3 Qa5+
This in-between check deflects the Nb1 from its best square (c3), and
this lack of control over b5 might invite a later counter b7-b5. A
knight on d2 is also in the way of the Bc1.
5 Nd2
Parting with the bishop would justify Blacks play. After 5 Bd2?!
Nxd2 6 Qxd2 Qxd2+ 7 Nxd2 g6 8 e4 Bg7 9 0-0-0 d6 we prefer the
Black position slightly, Raetsky/Chetverik [7].
5...Nd6!
This maneuver favors the advance b7-b5, which is so typical for
Benoni structures. Often the black knight reaches the d4-square via f5
or b5. These circuitous flights inspired my brother Peter to name the
system Vulture: the knight hovers above the white position.
6 e4
Over the Horizons
6 b3? is refuted tactically: 6...Nf5! 7 Bb2 (7 e4? Ne3 +; 7 Kf2? Qc3 8

Rb1 Qd4+ 9 Ke1 Qh4+) 7...Ne3 8 Qc1 Na6 9 Kf2 Nxf1 =.
6...g6! 7 Bd3
7 e5 Nf5 8 Bd3 (1-0, 35 in V. Shishkin A. Nadanian, Kiev 1997)
8...Bg7! =.
7...Bg7
Perhaps 7...b5!? is more precise, avoiding the exchange on c4. White
now cannot castle, as in the next diagram. Then 8 cxb5 Nxb5 or 8...a6 is
similar to the next game.
8 Ne2 b5
The knight moves took some time,
but the result often isnt as strange
as we would expect. In the Benk
Gambit Nf6-e8-c7-b5 is a wellknown maneuver, to exchange off
the Nc3 and to increase the power of
Bg7. In the Vulture the knights may
be exchanged on c4, with a similar
effect. But there remains a
difference: Black hasnt sacrificed
his a-pawn.
9 0-0
9 Kf2 bxc4 10 Nxc4 Nxc4 11 Bxc4 Qb6 12 Rb1 d6 13 Be3 a5! 14 Qd2
Qb4 15 Rhc1 f5 =+ (0-1, 31) Feiler Bcker, Bundesliga II 1997.
Or 9 cxb5 Nxb5 (9...a6!?) 10 0-0 0-0 11 Kh1 d6 12 Nc4 Qd8 13 Rb1
Na6 14 a3 Rb8 15 Bd2 (draw, 44, in Paasikangas K. Heinola,
Rampere 1990) 15...Qd7! 16 Qe1 e6 17 dxe6 fxe6 =.
9...bxc4
For 9...0-0, see the next game.
10 Nxc4 Nxc4 11 Bxc4
Black has a Benoni structure but with some lost tempi, Raetsky/
Chetverik [7]. In the diagram position below, White doesnt have a
significant lead in development, so how can you then speak about lost
Over the Horizons
tempi?
11...Ba6 12 Bd2 Qb6 13 Bxa6 Nxa6 14 Bc3
It is obvious that White has a slight advantage out of the opening,
Raetsky/Chetverik [7]. I cant see an advantage.
14...0-0
Chances are equal, but this didnt
stop Sorokin from disposing of his
opponent in short order: 15 e5 f6
(15...e6) 16 d6 exd6?? (16...e6 =)
17 Qd5+ Kh8 18 exf6 + Bh6 19
Qg5! c4+ 20 Kh1 Black resigns
L. Esposito (2155) M. Popchev (2419)

Porto San Giorgio Open, 2002 [8]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6 6 e4 g6
Preparing b7-b5. In the Vulture this advance is only playable if White
cannot react with b3, because in the long run the knight might be
stranded on d6 and become a serious problem.
In the oldest 3...Ne4 game, Lattarulo Canal, La Spezia 1974, the
Peruvian GM continued 6...e5 and won (Kaissiber #20, p. 4). Being
unaware of this game, I invented the Vulture three years later. From
the beginning I preferred 6...g6, but Canals 6...e5 might deserve
another look.
7 Bd3 Bg7 8 Ne2 0-0 9 0-0 b5 10 cxb5 a6!? 11 bxa6 Bxa6
Or 11...c4 12 Bc2 Nxa6.
12 Bxa6 Nxa6 13 f4 c4
Blacks sacrifice (a7-a6) in the style of a Benk Gambit has lead to
sharp play.
14 e5 Nf5 15 Ne4 d6 16 exd6
Over the Horizons
Or 16 g4 Nh6 17 N2c3.
16...exd6 17 N2c3 Nb4
The active black pieces compensate
for the loss of a pawn.
18 g4 Qb6+
By means of 18...Ne7 19 f5 Nexd5
Black could have regained his pawn.
19 Kh1 Ne3 20 Bxe3 Qxe3 21
Nxd6 Nd3 22 Qf3 Qxf3+ 23 Rxf3
Nxb2 24 Rb1 Na4 25 Ndb5 Rfd8
26 Rc1
The ending offers equal chances to both sides, i.e. 26 Ne4 Ra5 =.
26...Nc5 27 Rc2 Nd3 28 Rf1 Ra5 29 a4 Nc5 30 Na3 Bxc3 31 Rxc3
Nxa4 32 Nxc4 Nxc3 33 Nxa5 Rxd5 34 Nc6 Rd2 35 Ne5 Ne4 36 Kg1
f6 37 Nf3 Ra2 38 Nh4?
38 g5 Kf7 =. Black didnt have much. At this stage of the game, White
even manages to lose.
38...Kg7 39 Ng2 Nd2 40 Rd1 Nf3+ 41 Kh1 Rf2
The terrible placement of the white knight on g2 cannot be repaired.
42 h3 h5 43 Ra1 hxg4 44 hxg4 Kh6 45 g5+ fxg5 46 fxg5+ Kxg5 47
Rb1 Kg4 White resigns
Over the Horizons
Esteban Canal
Tournament book Venice 1948
G. Timoshenko (2510) H. Suradiradia (2240)

Jakarta Open, 1997 [8]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6 6 e4 g6 7 b4
When Nf6 is missing, Blacks kingside seems more vulnerable. This
pawn sacrifice is a regular guest in the Vulture.
7...Qxb4
7...cxb4 8 Nb3 Qa4 9 Bb2 Rg8 10 c5 Nb5 11 Bd3 b6 had been my
recommendation in the first version of this article [8]. But
Raetsky/Chetverik in their latest book [7] suggested 11 Qd3.
It is obvious that White has great
control, Raetsky/Chetverik [7].
However, I am skeptical. Now
11...Na3 seems forced, with the
possible continuation of b6 and
Ba6. If 12 d6 Nc6, or 12 Qd2 d6.
White has some compensation for
the pawn, but an advantage? I admit
that, as always, White has various
opportunities. (In [7] the authors
said: 3...Ne4 does not contain
fruitful ideas; it is not ambitious and
insufficient to equalize since White has various opportunities.)
8 Rb1 Qa5 9 Bb2 Rg8 10 g4 f6
Over the Horizons
White threatened 11 e5, winning the

knight. However, 10...f5 (not
mentioned by Raetsky/Chetverik
[7]) comes into question, about
equal.
11 h4 Bh6 12 g5! (12 Nh3 Be3)
fxg5 13 hxg5 Bxg5 14 Rxh7 a6?
Too slow. Correct was 14...Nf7 =,
intending 15...e5 (again, this
possibility was overlooked by
Raetsky/Chetverik [7]).
15 Nh3 Be3 16 Ke2! Bxd2
Or 16...Bd4 17 Nb3, and White gets a dangerous attack.
17 Qxd2 Qxd2+ 18 Kxd2 b5 19 Ng5 Kd8 20 Bc3 b4 21 Be5 a5 22
Bd3 a4 23 Rbh1 Ba6 24 Rh8 Rxh8 25 Rxh8+ Kc7 26 Nf7 Bb7 27
Rh6 Black resigns
Improved Old Benoni
After 4 f3, White doesnt have an advantage, if Black plays carefully.
The main line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 was contested in 154 games (scoring
60% for White), so apparently it is putting serious problems on the
defender. Next month well return to this sequence. But there is an
important alternative for White on the 5th move, 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2,
which is even more successful in practice: 68 percent in 53 games.
Maybe the second players here are feeling uncomfortable, because the
closed position requires more patience than other lines of the Vulture.
The line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 Bxc3 Qc7 leads to a kind
of Improved Old Benoni, because in comparison with the normal Old
Benoni a pair of knights has already left the board. In theory any
exchange should help Black in a cramped position. Three examples will
demonstrate that 5 Nc3 is by no means a killer variation. My own score
with Black is two draws and three wins against Danner, Tatai and
Schnthier.
Schnthier (2265) Bcker (2405)
Krefeld, 1983 (Int. juniors tournament of the federation of North Rhine
& Westphalia) [2]
1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 dxe6
dxe6 8 Bxc3 Qc7 9 e3 Nc6 10 Nf3 e5 11 Bd3 g6 12 Be4 Bg7 13 h4
Over the Horizons
13...Be6 14 Bd5 Bf5 15 e4 Be6 16

Bxe6 fxe6 17 0-0-0 h6 18 Ne1 0-0
19 Kb1 a6 20 Nd3 Qe7 21 g3 b5 22
f4 b4 23 Be1 Rad8 24 Bf2 Rxd3 25
Qxd3 exf4 26 gxf4 Rxf4 27 Rh2
Nd4 28 Bxd4 Bxd4 29 Rf1 Qf6 30
Rxf4 Qxf4 31 Qe2 h5 32 Rh1 Kg7
33 Qg2 Qg4 34 Qc2 a5 35 Rf1
Qxh4 36 e5 Qh3 37 Qe2 Qe3 38
Qg2 Qd3+ 39 Ka1 a4 40 Qb7+
Kh6 41 Qf7 Bxe5 42 Rh1 Qf5 43
Qe7 a3 44 Rxh5+ Qxh5 White
resigns
Birens (2122) S. Collas (2381)
Metz Open, 2005
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 Bxc3
Qc7 8 e4 d6 9 f4 exf4 10 Nf3 Bg4 11 e5? (11 Qd2 =) 11Bxf3 12
exd6 Bxd6 13 gxf3 Qe7+ 14 Be2 f6 -/+
15 0-0-0 Nd7 16 Rde1 Ne5 17 Kb1
0-0-0 18 h4 Kb8 19 h5 Qc7 20 Qa4
g5 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 Ba5 b6 23 Bd2
g5 24 Qc2 Qd7 25 b3 Rh3 26 a4
Rdh8 27 Rhf1 Rh2 28 a5 Rg2 29
axb6 axb6 30 Bc3 White resigns
Sylvia Collas has played the Vulture
at least since 1997. Three of her
earlier games can be found in the
databases under her maiden name
Sylvia Aleksieva.
Foisor (2495) Ungureanu (2380)
Romania 1987 [3]
1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 Bxc3
Qc7 8 e3
Raetsky/Chetverik [7] give 8 f4 d6 9 Nf3 Nd7 10 e3 Be7 11 Bd3 and
White has the initiative. They forget 9...exf4 10 Qe4+ Qe7 =, and their
10...Be7 should be replaced by 10...g6. This was in all four editions of
my book (1981, 1983, 1986, two pages in The Vulture, 1989 [3]. It
happened in six games: +2, =3, -1, one of them was Tatai Bcker,
Biel 1984 (0-1, 49).
Its great to see that the Vulture is getting more attention, even when
Over the Horizons
Raetsky & Chetverik [7] dont know my work.

8...d6 9 Bd3 g6 10 h4 Bg7
Or 10...Nd7 11 h5 Rg8 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 Nf3 Be7 14 0-0-0 Nf6 15 Ng5
(Blbaum Bcker, Detmold 1983) 15...Ng4! 16 Nh7 Bd7 17 Qe2 0-00 18 f3 Nf6 19 Nxf6+ Bxf6 20 Rh7 Rdf8 followed by ...Rh8, which is
roughly equal.
11 h5
A critical situation....
11...f5?
Too optimistic. 11...Na6 12 a3 Qe7
13 Ne2 Bd7 14 0-0-0 (14 b4 cxb4
15 axb4 Nxb4!) 14...Nc7 +=.
12 hxg6 hxg6 13 Rxh8+ Bxh8 14
g4 Qh7 15 0-0-0 Na6 16 Ne2
Whites threat is 17 Ng3,
conquering f5. Simple, but effective. Blacks position quickly collapses.
16...e4 17 Bxe4! Bxc3 18 Nxc3 fxe4 19 Qxe4+ Kd8 20 Rh1 Qg7
The case is hopeless.
21 Qf4 Kc7 22 Nb5+ Kb6 23 Qxd6+ Ka5 24 Qd8+ b6 25 Qh8 Qxh8
26 Rxh8 Nb4 27 Nd6 Nd3+ 28 Kc2 Nxf2 29 Rxc8 Rxc8 30 Nxc8
Nxg4 31 Kd3 a6 32 Ke4 b5 33 Kf4 Nf6 34 Ke5 Nd7+ 35 Kd6 g5 36
Kxd7 Black resigns
In the overwhelming majority of the 445 games, White immediately
attacks the black knight on e4. Is it really so important to get rid of the
knight, or have we all begun to play like computers? First is 4 Qc2 (233
games), then comes 4 f3 (59 games), 4 Nd2 (41 games), 4 Qd3 (23
games) and even 4 Nc3?! (14 games). And 4 Nf3 (which often
transposes), 45 games.
There are rarer moves. Maybe they share the fate of 3...Ne4, which at
first sight didnt look logical or too logical, as Harding put it. One day
their hidden value might be discovered:
(a) 4 Qa4 Preventing Qa5+. In a review of [2], page 11, Gerald
Hertneck found it strange that my analysis began with 4 Qa4. But when
Over the Horizons
ECO starts with sidelines, why cant I? The move does deserve
attention: 4...g6 5 f3 Nd6 6 e4 Bg7 7 Bd3 0-0 8 Ne2 f5 9 Nbc3 Na6 10
a3 e5 (10e6) 11 Be3 f4 (11Bh6) 12 Bf2 Nf7 13 b4 d6 14 Qb3 b6
15 Kd2 Bd7 16 b5 Nc7 17 Rag1 = (draw, 80) Schwartzman Fahrner,
Werfen 1991.
(b) 4 a3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 threatens an immediate 6 b4. Hermesmann
Bcker, Bundesliga II, 1986, transposed to the Improved Old Benoni
explained above: 5...Nxd2 (5f5) 6 Bxd2 Qc7 7 Bc3 e5 8 dxe6 dxe6 9
Nf3 Nc6 10 e3 e5 11 Qc2 g6 12 0-0-0 Bg7 = (but 1-0, 45).
(c) 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Nd6 6 Bd2!?. White sacrifices a pawn, for a lead in
development. 6...Nxc4 7 Bc3 Rg8 8 Qd3 Nd6 9 Nh3 b6 10 0-0 Ba6 11
Qf3 h6 12 Re1 Bb7 13 e4 Nb5 14 e5 (0-1, 66). White has some
compensation for the pawn, Mercier Bcker, Krefeld 1983 (Int.
juniors tournament of North Rhine & Westphalia).
(d) 4 g4!?. Why should White treat Blacks opening with respect, when
his opponent apparently tramples upon tradition? To advance on the
kingside, when Nf6 has left its post, is as logical as anything else.
None of these four moves give White an advantage, but Part 2 will
make it clear that 4 Qc2 is no refutation, either.
Sources
[1] Stoljar/Kondratjew: Alt-Benoni-Verteidigung, Heidelberg 1985
[2] S. Bcker: Der Geier, Stuttgart 1986
[3] S. Bcker: The Vulture & Associated Opening Systems, Wiltshire 1989
[4] T. Harding: Dynamic Black Defenses, Dallas 1989
[5] S. Bcker: Der Geier. Bauer d5 als Schwche, in Groteske
Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990.
[6] S. Bcker: Neu vermeldeter Hhenflug, in Kaissiber 3 (1997).
[7] RAETSKY/CHETVERIK: Starting out: Benoni Systems, London 2005
[8] S. Bcker: Geiers flottes Flgelspiel, in Kaissiber 21 (2005)
Send your games or comments to redaktion@kaissiber.de
Over the Horizons
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2005 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
/html>
Over the Horizons
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Stefan Bcker, born 1959, won the

Championship of North Rhine &
Westphalia in 1983 and 1988, and
participated in three German
Championships (1984 fifth place,
1987 eleventh place, 1991
eleventh place). He is best known for
his analysis of unusual chess
openings. It started in the early
1980s with privately published
booklets on 2...Qf6 in the Kings
Gambit, on the Vulture, Hawk and
Woozle, the Closed Sicilian and a
mixture of White gambits. The
publishing house Franckh-Kosmos
produced improved versions of the
first two (1985, 1986) and two new works: Das neue Knigsgambit
(1986) and Groteske Schacherffnungen (1990). The latter also has a
chapter on another of Bckers specialties: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4, the
Mokele Mbembe. Englund Gambit (1988) was written for publisher
Manfred Mdler. From 1991 to 1996, Bcker worked in the editorial
staff of the chess monthly Schach-Report/Deutsche Schachzeitung. In
1996 he started his own chess magazine Kaissiber.
Vulture's Wing Play

(Part 2)
Last month we studied several white continuations after 1 d4 c5 2 d5
Nf6 3 c4 Ne4!? (the Vulture). Some lead to a difficult struggle, but
none looked like a clear refutation of Blacks strategy. Now we come to
the main line: 4 Qc2! Qa5+ 5 Nd2!, which is clearly the most popular
way to attack Blacks Ne4. Here we stand at a crossroads. During the
1980s I almost exclusively favored 5...Nd6, to advance with the bpawn at the next appropriate moment. An unusual move, but if you
have read the first part of this article, you might remember that the
strange maneuver worked well for Black against 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2.
However, this is a different situation, and during the last decade it
became increasingly obvious that with Whites queen on c2, the retreat
5...Nd6 is strongly met by 6 b3!. Fortunately, the second player has an
effective alternative at his disposal in his fifth move.
Over the Horizons
Lets begin with two games,

summing up my experiences with
the old 5...Nd6?. Afterwards, we
will learn why the other retreat
5....Nf6! is so much better. Just for
completeness, there exists a third
possibility: 5...f5, tested only in a
few games [6]. It is better than the
traditional version, but clearly worse
than 5...Nf6. To avoid confusion,
this article ignores the pawn move.
You wont lose much, and I am
keeping a little surprise for my blitz practice.
Al. Sidorov (1650) H. Geaman (1805)
Eforie Nord 1999 (Centrocoop Open) [8]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6?
It is hard to have to put a question mark behind your favorite move.
However, the modern 5...Nf6 is the correct solution, see below.
6 e4? g6 7 Bd3
As after 4 f3, Blacks knight on d6 prepares advances on both wings,
either b5 or f5, according to circumstances. In my book I
recommended to strive for b5, if White plays Bd3, and to prefer the
attack f7-f5 against Be2.
The gambit 7 b4 leads to heavy complications after the best reply
7...cxb4! 8 c5 Nb5 9 Nb3 Qa4 10 Bb2 Rg8 11 Nf3 Na6, followed by
12...b6. Raetsky and Chetverik [7] only consider 7...Qxb4 saying that
White definitely has good play for the pawn, which certainly is true.
7...Bg7 8 f4
Or 8 Ngf3, as in Naumkin Dorfman, Mnster 1989 (1-0, 32),
discussed on more than a page by Raetsky and Chetverik [7].
Interesting stuff, but in this article I decided to focus on the critical
5...Nf6! (see below), which unfortunately [7] doesnt mention at all.
8...0-0 9 Ngf3
9 e5 Nf5! 10 Bxf5 gxf5 11 Qxf5 e6 12 Qd3 exd5 13 cxd5 Na6. Blacks
piece play on the white squares compensates for the sacrificed pawn.
Over the Horizons
9...b5 10 cxb5
If White had foreseen his opponents move, he might have chosen the
cautious 10 0-0 bxc4 11 Nxc4 Nxc4 12 Bxc4 Ba6. The pawn structure
vaguely resembles a Benko gambit, but the defender still owns his
precious pawn on a7.
10...c4!
Excellent! Later there even follows
a blow on the opposite wing, by
means of f7-f5. Almost a model
game for the art of destroying
Whites pawn center in the Vulture.
11 Bxc4 Bb7 12 0-0 Rc8 13 Qb3 a6
14 bxa6 Nxa6 15 Be2
15 e5 Nc5 16 Qc2 Nxc4 17 Nxc4
Qa6 18 Rd1 Na4, with unclear
results.
15...Qc5+?
He had to play 15...Nb4!, for example 16 a3 Nc2 17 Rb1 Nd4 18 Nxd4
Bxd4+ 19 Kh1 Rxc1! =.
16 Kh1 f5 17 Ne5 Rc7 18 Bf3? drawn. The conclusion of peace now
seems justified (18...Nb4 =), but White overlooked 18 Ndc4! Nxe4 19
Be3 Qxd5 20 Nb6 +, when the black queen on d5 is pinned.
Old Main Line in Crisis
Although 6 e4, like in the last game, is seen
in the large majority of the games, it isnt
the critical continuation. After 6 b3!,
Blacks plan to attack with ...b5 clearly fails.
In my book I suggested 6...f5, followed by
...e6, to undermine Whites pawn center.
One of my main lines went 7 Bb2 e6 8 f3
Qd8! 9 e4 fxe4 10 fxe4 Qh4+ 11 g3 Qh6!
=. Unfortunately, this hidden trick only
works against the cozy 8 f3. More dangerous
are both 8 Bc3 followed by e4, or 8 g3!
(Udo Hobuss). By the way, 8 g3 was the
move which deterred Tony Miles from the
Vulture. White quickly develops his forces,
while Black faces serious problems finding a
good plan. In later publications (for example
Over the Horizons
in [5]) I preferred 6...g6, but this isnt fully

sufficient either. Because of the strength of 6
b3! the old main line fell in a crisis.
H. Gnther Lensch
Saarland 1994 [8]
1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5
Nd2 Nd6 6 b3! g6
The strong bishop on b2 cannot be
blockaded: 6...e5 7 Bb2 f6 8 e3 Nf7 9 Bd3
g6 10 h4 f5 11 h5 Rg8 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 g4!
+/- [3].
7 Bb2 Rg8 8 Bc3
More precise than 8 e4 Bg7 9 Bxg7 Rxg7,
since 10 Qb2? fails to Nxe4!.
Or 8 h4 Bg7 9 Bxg7 Rxg7 10 h5 Rg8 11

Ngf3 Na6 12 a3 f6, followed by ...Nf7.
8...Qc7
By means of Bg7 Black wants to
exchange off the nasty bishop on c3,
and then continue f6, Nf7, d6
and castle long. However this is
only a beautiful dream.
9 e4 Bg7 10 Bxg7 Rxg7 11 Qc3!
11 Bd3? e5 12 Qc3 f6 lead to a draw
in Rossmanith Wippich,
Regionalliga 2001.
11...Kf8 12 Bd3 f6 13 Ne2?
White allows the blockade. Better was 13 e5 fxe5 14 Qxe5 Na6 15
Ngf3 Nf7 16 Qe3 e5 17 dxe6 dxe6 18 a3 Bd7 19 0-0 +/-.
13...Nf7 14 f4 d6 15 Nf3
15 0-0 would have avoided the simplifying exchange of Bc8.
15...Bg4 16 0-0 Nd7 17 h3 Bxf3 18 Rxf3 g5 19 Raf1 h6 20 Bb1 Re8
Over the Horizons
21 Rg3 Kg8 22 h4 e5 23 hxg5?

23 dxe6 Rxe6 24 Qf3! still gives White an advantage.
23...hxg5 24 f5 Kf8 25 Kf2 Ke7 26 Rh1 Qd8 27 Rgh3 Rh8 28 a3
Rxh3 29 Rxh3 b6 30 Qe1 Qg8 31 Qh1 Nf8 32 Ng3 Rh7 33 Nh5 Nd7
34 Bd3 Qc8 35 Qc1 Qa6 drawn.
5...Nf6 A Courageous Loss of Time

In general my analyses in the book Der Geier (1986, [2]) proved to be
useful, but there was a grave exception. As the last game clearly
demonstrated, after 1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2! Qa5+ 5 Nd2!
my recommended 5...Nd6? 6 b3! results in a big advantage for White.
In the majority of games White didnt find this refutation, but from a
theoretical point of view today the old main line has become
unplayable.
In 1986 Manfred Zitzman, an American correspondence player and
retired professor of chemistry, suggested 5...Nf6!. He preferred this
retreat not only in the main line, but also against 4 f3. Later his idea
advanced to a secret weapon and now it is the main line.
Where does Black find his courage
for such a loss of time? Didnt the
knights aimless traveling cost
him exactly two tempi? Now it is
White on the move, the second lost
tempo is the move Nb1-d2. The
latter development, however, is
more a handicap than a real gift.
White may want to rearrange his
pieces. For example, he can play
Ng1-e2-c3, or he may castle short
and continue Nd2-b1-c3. In a
Benoni position, it is an understandable desire to get a knight to the c3square. From here it protects his own pawns on d5 and e4 and stops the
opponents plans in connection with b7-b5.
I do not claim that Black had an advantage in time. In any case the
white set-up is suffering from the uncomfortable position of his Nd2.
When Black avoids serious mistakes (as to invite, for example, the Nd2
to the c4-square), I cannot see a significant advantage in time for either
color. 5...Nf6! has much in common with the normal Benoni, but there
are differences. It is not even completely clear, whether Black chooses
e7-e5 (as in my main line), or tries something else. 5...Nf6! opens a
new field for exploration, but it is still a Benoni defense, and the Benoni
expert will like the position, no matter whether he plays it with white or
black.
Over the Horizons
M. Loemker (2096) St. Bcker (2349)

Herford 2005 (rapid chess, 2 x 30 minutes) [8]
1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Nf3
Before this tournament I had prepared the new idea 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2
Nf6 6 e4 d6 7 Ne2 g5?!, which explains the adventurous beginning.
4...Qa5+ 5 Nfd2 Nf6 (5...d6! 6 Qc2 Nf6) 6 Nc3 Qc7 7 e4 g5?
With the knight already on c3, this advance was unplayable: 8 Nb5!,
followed by 9 e5 +-.
8 Bd3? d6 9 0-0 Nbd7 10 Bc2 Bg7 11 Ne2 Ne5 12 Rb1 h5 13 b4 h4!
14 Bb2 Nh5 15 f4 gxf4 16 Nxf4 Bg4 17 Ba4+ Kd8 18 Qb3 cxb4 19
Nxh5 Qc5+ 20 Kh1 Rxh5 21 Bxe5 Bxe5 22 Rxf7?
22 h3 Be2 23 Rxf7 Rh8 =
22...h3 23 g3 Bc3! + 24 Rbf1
The rook is taboo: 24 Rf8+ Kc7 25
Rxa8 Qf2, and White gets mated.
24...Qe3 25 Nf3 Qe2 26 Ne1 Qxe4+
27 Nf3 Qe2 28 Ne1 Bxe1 29 Qc2
Bc3 30 Kg1 Bd4+ 31 Kh1 Re5 32
c5 Bxc5? (32...Qxf1+!) 33 R7f4
Qxf1+ 34 Rxf1 Bf3+ White resigns.
5...Nf6: The Analysis

1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nf6! 6 e4
6 f4 can lead to attractive gambits:
a) 6...Qc7 7 g3 (7 Ndf3 d6 8 e4 e5 9 fxe5 Ng4 bzw 9 f5 g6 =) 7...e5!? 8
fxe5 Ng4 9 Ndf3 d6 10 exd6 Bxd6 11 Bh3 (11 Qe4+ Kd8 12 Nh3 g6)
h5 12 Qe4+ Kf8 13 Bf4 Nd7 14 Nd2 Ndf6 15 Qf3 Bxf4 16 gxf4 Bf5,
and Black is better.
b) 6...d6 7 e4 g5!?
Over the Horizons
8 e5 (8 fxg5 Ng4 9 Qb3 Rg8 10

Ngf3 Nd7 11 Bd3 h6) Ng4 9 exd6
(9 Qe4 f5) gxf4 10 dxe7 Bg7 11
Ne2 Ne3 12 Qb3 Qb6 13 Qd3 Na6
14 a3 Bf5 15 Ne4 Bxe4 16 Qxe4
Qg6 =.
6...d6
Or 6...e5. The text move keeps the
option of alternatives, but none of
them is preferable to the Old Benoni
(cf. the comment after 7...e5, below).
7 Ne2
Perhaps 7 Ngf3 e5! is only a transposition of moves: 8 Be2 (8 dxe6
Bxe6 9 Be2 Nc6) Be7 etc. In our main line White plays Ne2-c3 and
Nf3, after 7 Ngf3 there might follow Nd2-b1-c3.
7...g6?! (instead of 7...e5) 8 Be2 Bg7 9 0-0 0-0 10 Nb1! (10 h3 Na6 11
a3 Bd7 12 Nb1 Nb4 13 Qd1 Nxe4 14 Nbd2 Ba4! with compensation)
10...b5 11 cxb5 a6 12 Bd2 Qb6 13 Nc3 axb5 14 Bxb5 leads to a kind of
Benko Gambit. 14...Na6 15 a3 Bd7 16 Bc4 Rfb8 17 Rfb1 Nc7, White is
slightly better.
7 a3 Na6 8 Rb1? g6 9 Bd3 Bg7 10 Ne2 0-0 11 0-0 e6 12 b4 cxb4 13
Nb3 Qd8 14 Ned4 exd5 15 cxd5 Bd7 =+ (0-1, 66) Vaisser Todorov,
Cappelle la Grande 1994.
7...e5
a) The bold 7...g5?! fights for possession of the e5-square: 8 Nc3 Rg8 9
Be2 h5 (9...Nbd7 10 Nb3 Qc7 11 g4!) 10 Nb3 Qb6 11 Bd2 Nbd7 12 0-00! Ne5 13 f3 Bd7 14 g3 a5 15 a4 h4 16 gxh4 gxh4 17 f4 Ng6 18 e5!
dxe5 19 fxe5 Nxe5 20 Be3 +/-.
b) 7...g6!? 8 Nc3 Bg7 9 Be2 0-0 10 0-0 e6
Over the Horizons
In the style of a Modern Benoni.

Black refrains from taking on d5,
until the Nd2 has moved. 11 a3 Na6
12 Rb1! (12 Nb3 Qb6 13 Bg5 Nc7
14 Rad1 exd5 15 cxd5 Bd7 16 Nd2
Nb5 [=, 53] Shipov Todorov,
Cappelle la Grande 1994) 12...e5
+=.
8 Nc3 Be7 9 Be2
A plausible sequence would be: 9...00 10 0-0 Ne8 (to exchange the Be7
via g5) 11 Nf3 g6 12 Bh6 Ng7 13 a3
Qd8 14 Qd2 Nd7. In comparison
with the Old Benoni, Black is one
tempo behind. Were he allowed to
move again, we would enter known
theory: 15...Nf6 16 Ne1 Kh8 17 Nd3
Ng8 18 Be3 f5 19 f4 etc.
That White has gained a tempo,
doesnt necessarily lead to a disaster: 15 Ne1 f5! (Nd7 isnt in the way
on f6) or 15 b4 a5! (Nd7 can take back on c5). Instead of 9...0-0, our
recommended main line will take another course anyway (see below).
My hint was just meant as a general warning for the reader: even in this
opening, which resembles an Old Benoni, we are not too far away from
inhabited territory; some critical lines of the Old Benoni are wellknown. Sources like [1] can provide useful information.
When you are studying books on the Old Benoni, you will learn that the
longer route through the territory of the Vulture has avoided some
uncomfortable lines for Black. For example, in the Old Benoni White
likes to fianchetto his f1-bishop, but in our case the position of Qa5 and
Nd2 invites an early b7-b5. Another set-up full of poison is h3, Bd3,
g4, followed by castling queenside. This aggression, too, is hardly
probable in the present position.
9...Nbd7!
In an Old Benoni the usual procedure would be 9...0-0, followed by
Ne8, which doesnt seem quite appropriate with the queen on a5.
Black prefers a different solution and plays Nd7-f8-g6. There could
follow h5-h4, Nh5 and Ngf4. Or the direct Nh5-f4, when the
h7-pawn stays at home. Besides f7-f5 remains an option, and even
sacrifices like Qc8, Bxh3 belong in the quiet arsenal.
Over the Horizons
10 a3 Qd8
10...Nf8? 11 b4 Qd8 12 bxc5 +=.
11 Nf3 Nf8 12 0-0
Black concentrates his pieces on the kings wing, so that White
probably has nothing better than to play b2-b4. It would be wrong, for
example, to try 12 Bd2 and prepare to castle long. Black simply replies
a6, Bd7 and waits for the best moment for b7-b5. Even when he
plays h2-h4-h5, White doesnt achieve much on the kings wing. With
his strong defensive forces, Black will always be able to repel the
attack.
12...Ng6 13 b4 b6 14 bxc5 bxc5 15 Rb1
Surely White has other possibilities. Any maneuvering, however, costs
time, and if meanwhile Black advances h7-h5-h4, White is quickly
getting under pressure.
15...0-0 16 Bd2 Nh5!
To provoke 17 g3, for example
17...Bh3 18 Rfc1 Bg4 (intending
19...f5) 19 Ne1 Bxe2 20 Nxe2 Bg5
21 f3 Bxd2 22 Qxd2 Rb8, about
equal.
Timid and perhaps too passive
alternatives to the sharper text move
are: 16...a6 17 Na4 Ra7 or 16...Bd7
17 Rb7 Qc8 18 Rfb1 Bd8
(threatening Bb6) 19 R7b2 Ba5.
17 Nxe5
17 Rfc1 Ngf4 18 Bf1 f5 19 Be3 fxe4 20 Nxe4 Qe8 = or 17 Rfe1 Nhf4
18 Bf1 Bg4 19 Re3 Rb8 =.
17...Nxe5 18 Bxh5 f5!
If 18...Nxc4 19 Bc1 Bf6 20 Be2, White stands somewhat better.
19 Be2
The second player gets nice wing play for the sacrificed pawn.
Alternatives:
Over the Horizons
a) 19 Nd1 (19 exf5 Nxc4) fxe4 20 Ne3 Bg5 21 Qxe4 Bxe3 22

fxe3 g6!.
b) 19 Qb3 f4 20 Ne2 Bg5 21 Bf3 a5 22 a4 Ba6 23 Rfc1 Qe7 etc.
c) 19 Bc1 Nxc4 20 Nd1 Nb6 21 Bf3 Bg5 22 Ne3 Bxe3 23 Bxe3
Qf6 =.
d) 19 Ne2 fxe4 20 Ng3 Bg5 =.
19...f4 20 f3
20 Qd1 f3 and equality. Probably 20...a6!? =+ is even better.
20...Bh4 21 Bd3
21 Be1 Bxe1 22 Rfxe1 Qh4 23 Bf1 Rf6 24 Qf2 Qh5 25 Kh1 Rh6 26 h3
Bxh3 27 gxh3 Nxf3 28 e5 Qg4!!.
21...Qg5
21...Bg3 fails to 22 hxg3 fxg3 23
Ne2 Qh4 24 Nxg3. The text move
avoids Ne2, followed by Kh1, h3
and Ng1.
22 Rbd1
To be able to parry 22...Bh3 with 23
Bc1. On 22 Ne2 Bh3 23 g3 Black
disposes of 23...Bxg3! 24 hxg3 Qg6
25 Bxf4 Rxf4 26 Nxf4 Qxg3+ 27
Ng2 Rf8! 28 Rb3 Rxf3.
22...Qh5 23 Ne2 g5 24 Rb1
24 Bc3 g4 =+.
24...Rf6 25 Rb3 Rh6 26 Nxf4
Or 26 Qd1 Be1! 27 Qxe1 Qxh2+ 28 Kf2 Rh3 -/+.
26...gxf4 27 Bxf4 Rg6 28 Kh1 Rg7 29 Qb1 Kh8 30 Be2 Qg6 31 g3
Bh3 32 Rf2 Rag8 -/+. Black keeps the situation under control.
After the publication of Der Geier, Tim Harding* made a prophecy in
1989 [4]: However, now that his system has been fully exposed to the
public gaze and the fire of tournament and postal play, many of his overoptimistic analyses and assessments are being overturned and total
Over the Horizons
refutation may not be far over the horizon.

The old main line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6 was dubious. But Zitzmans
emergency measure 5...Nf6! later turned out to be a direct hit. The
Vulture is logical, and it remains unrefuted.
* My last column referred to Tim Harding an Irish author.
According to Paul Dunne, although Tim Harding has lived in
Ireland for many years, he is in fact English. Other readers sent
analyses, mainly concerning the line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 from
part 1. Thanks for all your reactions. The analytical questions
will be covered next month, together with all your ideas against
5...Nf6!.
Sources
[1] Stoljar/Kondratjew: Alt-Benoni-Verteidigung, Heidelberg 1985
[2] S. Bcker: Der Geier, Stuttgart 1986
[3] S. Bcker: The Vulture & Associated Opening Systems, Wiltshire 1989
[4] T. Harding: Dynamic Black Defenses, Dallas 1989
[5] S. Bcker: Der Geier. Bauer d5 als Schwche, in Groteske
Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990.
[6] S. Bcker: Neu vermeldeter Hhenflug, in Kaissiber 3 (1997).
[7] A.RAETSKY/M.CHETVERIK: Starting out: Benoni Systems, London 2005
[8] S. Bcker: Geiers flottes Flgelspiel, in Kaissiber 21 (2005)

Over the Horizons
Vulture's Wing Play

(Part 3)
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
My first two columns on 1 d4 c5 2 d5 Nf6 3 c3 Ne4!? (the Vulture)

presented several games, but also a lot of pure analysis, since
practical examples of the main line 4 Qc2! Qa5+ 5 Nd2! Nf6! were
rare. Such an analysis can never be perfect. Even when you study a
position for many hours, there will always be an important point that
you have missed. Opinions from other players are needed, who
contribute fresh ideas. Fortu-nately, several readers sent their
comments. And I played the Vulture in two new games.
Lets begin where the last article ended, in the main line: 1 d4 c5 2 d5
Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nf6 6 e4 d6 7 Ne2 e5 8 Nc3 Be7 9
Be2 Nbd7 10 a3 Qd8 11 b4 b6.
James Vigus (Great Britain)
suggests an improvement for White:
I like such positions for Black in
principle and have happily played
the manoeuvre ...Nf8-g6 in similar
Old Benoni scenarios. But here I
feel Black has conceded too many
tempi, as the white knight on d2 is
already half-way to the square it
wants to be: e3. The sequence could
be: 12 Nf1! (much more
constructive than Nf3) Nf8 13 Ne3
Ng6 14 h4!?. I havent analysed 14 Nf5 or 14 g3 Bh3, but 14 h4
appears a safe way to deprive Black of all the counterplay (with ...Nh5,
...f5) he gets in your analysis. After playing g3, White has the potential
lever with f4, and the possibility of opening lines on the queenside,
while Black is just waiting passively not much fun. The knight on e3
covers f5 and c4 and makes way for f4 in due course.
This insider idea was more than welcome, because my own experience
with traditional Old Benoni positions is rather limited. It is a healthy
warning to see how a little change in Whites set-up (Nf1-e3 instead of
Nf3) stifles Blacks counterplay. This is the sunny side of the new idea,
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (1 of 7) [11/20/2005 12:42:53 AM]
Over the Horizons
but avoiding 12 Nf3 also means that White

loses his control over g5. In my main line the
knight f3 had played an important role,
preventing Blacks standard manoeuvre
Ne8, h6, Bg5 to exchange the bad
bishop.
After 12 Nf1 Black therefore should return to
the traditional scheme of play: 12...0-0
followed by Ne8 and Bg5, g6, Ng7.
It might also be advantageous to keep the
knight on d7 against the early b4. In certain
situations the knight could take back on c5.
Even cxb4 axb4 a5 might come into
question. Altogether, I dont believe that the
immediate 12 Nf1 is a refutation.
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski,
Ldenscheid
However, perhaps White can find a more

precise way to execute his plan. It would be interesting to see what
happens, when White delays his decision of 12 Nf1. Then White could
make his choice: against 0-0, he would react by Nf3!, and if Black
plays Nf8, his response is Nf1!. Black doesnt have many useful
waiting moves, but Whites choice also isnt easy. For example, against
12 Rb1 Black might have 12...cxb4 13 axb4 a5!?. More food for
thought.
J. van den Bersselaar (2211) St. Bcker (2349)
Bad Wiessee 2005 (Open)
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nf6 6 e4 Qc7
Instead of 6...d6 or 6...e5, which I
recommended in this column only
weeks ago. Didnt I trust my own
analysis? In practice things often
look a bit different. For the
theoretician it is logical to keep the
queen as long as possible on a5, to
reduce Whites possibilities. At the
board I suddenly liked the simpler
text move. In fact, Black doesnt
lose much by retreating immediately
to c7, while on the other side the
Qc7 prevents the immediate f2-f4, Whites most aggressive set-up.
There is nothing wrong with 6...d6 or 6...e5, but 6...Qc7 is also quiet
and strong.
7 Ngf3
Over the Horizons
7 Qa4 pins the d7-pawn, but it takes Black only a few moves (g6,
Bg7, 0-0) to solve the problem. Sooner or later the white queen has
to retreat.
7...e5 8 Be2 d6 9 0-0
Or 9 Nf1 g6!?.
9...Nbd7 10 Ne1 Be7 11 Nd3 g5
Claiming that White has castled prematurely. The alternative was 11...00 12 f4 exf4 13 Rxf4 Ne8 14. Nf1!, which seems about equal.
12 Re1 Nf8 13 Bd1
He could play 13 Nf1! at once (13...Nxe4? 14 Nxe5!), attacking pawn
g5. For example 13...h6 (or 13...Ng6!? 14 Bxg5 Nxd5) 14 Ng3 Ng6 =.
13...Ng6 14 Nf1 Nf4
15 Kh1! h5 16 Nxf4 gxf4 17 g3
fxg3 18 Nxg3 Bh3 19 Nf5 0-0-0 20
b4 Rdg8 21 Bf3 cxb4
21...Bxf5 22 exf5 Ng4 was better,
for example 23 Rb1 cxb4 24 Rxb4
Qc5 25 Rb2 Bd8! =+.
22 Rb1 Bg4 23 Bg2 h4 24 h3?
Routine and a serious mistake.
White overlooks the following
sacrifice. Otherwise he wouldnt have hesitated to give his strong
knight for my bad bishop: 24 Nxe7+! Qxe7 25 h3 Bd7 26 Rg1 Rg6 27
Be3 b6 28 Rxb4 Rhg8 =.
Over the Horizons
24...Bxf5 25 exf5 Rxg2! 26 Kxg2

Nxd5 27 Qd3 Nf6!
In time trouble I didnt spend much
time on the alternative 27...Nc3 28
Rxb4 Qc6+ 29 f3 Nxa2. After the
text move White has no defense
against the simple threat Qc6.
28 Bd2 Rg8+ 29 Kf1 Qc6 30 Rxb4
Bd8?
30...Qg2+ 31 Ke2 Rg3 32 Rg1 Qxg1 33 fxg3 hxg3 -+.
31 Reb1 Qg2+ 32 Ke1 Bb6
Or 32...Ne4 33 Rxb7 Qxf2+ 34 Kd1 Rg1+ 35 Kc2 Nc5 36 Qxd6 Qxf5+
+.
33 Be3 Qf3 34 Rxb6 axb6 35 Qb3 Ne4, White resigns.
If the new line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6! is as reliable as it looks, then
the treatment from my first column deserves more attention. The
following reactions can give you valuable hints.
Christian Kpke (Germany) questions my analysis after (1 d4 c5 2 d5
Nf6 3 c4 Ne4) 4 f3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6 6 e4 g6 7 e5!? Nf5 8 Bd3
He is right to say that 8...Bg7? (my
move) doesnt lead to equality.
After 9 Bxf5 gxf5 10 f4 (Kpke)
Black has serious difficulties in
completing his development. So
instead 8...d6 should be the correct
continuation.
Klaus Gawehns (Germany) draws
my attention to the game Gawehns Gallinnis, NRW-Liga 1990: 1 d4 c5
2 d5 Nf6 3 c4 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5
Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 Bxc3 Qc7 8 f4 d6 9 Nf3 Nd7 10 e3 g6 (so far the
line was given in the notes to the game Foisor Ungureanu, which was
in part 1 of this article) 11 h4 Bg7 12 h5 Nb6
Over the Horizons
13 fxe5! (instead of 13...hxg6 in an

older game Tatai - Bcker)
13...dxe5 14 0-0-0 Bg4 15 Rh4 (or
15 d6!?, for example 15...Qc6 16
Bxe5!? Bxe5 17 Nxe5 Bxd1 18
Qd3!? Qa4 19 hxg6, analysis by
Gawehns) 15...gxh5 16 Bd3 Qd6 17
Bf5 f6 18 Bxg4 +/- (=, 63).
Yes, this was an important game. I
had to defend similar positions in
my own practice and admit that it
certainly is a critical line. In my first column I wanted to avoid too
many details and therefore recommended the short 9...exf4 10 Qe4+
Qe7 =. However, White can play 9 e3 first, and then we could easily
reach the game above by a transposition of moves. So the game
Gawehns Gallinnis deserves our attention. As a possible improvement
I suggest 16...Qe7 (instead of 16...Qd6) 17 Rdh1 Bf6, about equal.
Klaus Gawehns replied that 18 Rxh5 Bxh5 19 Rxh5 e4! could be tried.
This seems rather unclear. In any case 16...Qe7 offers Black better
chances than in the original game.
Its unclear, by the way, whether the transposition of moves really leads
to the critical variation. After 9 e3 (which doesnt threaten pawn e5)
Black might himself postpone the move Nd7. In case of 9...g6 10 Nf3
Bg7 11 0-0-0 the continuation 11...Bf5!? seems playable, for example
12 e4 Bg4 13 Be2 Bxf3 14 Bxf3 Nd7 15 g3 0-0-0 16 Rhf1 Kb8 17 Be2
h5, intending h4, and Black can be satisfied with the situation.
If this variation works, my recommendation (in the first column) 9 f4
exf4 10 Qe4+ Qe7 11 Qxf4 Nd7 gains importance. Klaus Gawehns
writes: In this line White really has a tough nut to crack. But it is still
debatable, whether Black has reached equality. I believe that White at
first should play 12 0-0-0. Has Black anything better than 12...f6? This
last move looks reliable, and I wouldnt hesitate to use it in practice. On
the other hand, I cannot exclude that White may have a small
advantage, when he plays like a super-hero. For now, all we can say
that there is still plenty to explore in the line 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3!?. Who
knows? One day it may well become the new main line, when nobody
trusts 5 Nd2 anymore.
The last game also demonstrates the dangers of the 5 Nc3 line. Hardly
ever have I stood worse in my favorite opening.
Dr. G. Fahnenschmidt (2198) St. Bcker (2349)
Bad Wiessee 2005 (Open)
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 4 Qc2 Qa5+ 5 Nc3 Nxc3 6 Bd2 e5 7 Bxc3
Over the Horizons
Qc7 8 g3 d6
After 8...g6 9 f4 Bg7 10 Bh3 00
11 Qd2 Re8!? (11...d6) 12 Nf3 e4
13 d6 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Qc6 15 Ne5 e3
16 Qd5 Qxd5 17 cxd5 f6 18 Nd3 d6
White seems to be slightly better.
9 Bh3
A strong move, which my opponent
found over the board. Can Black
allow the exchange of his strong
bishop?
9...Bxh3
A younger Dr. Gerhard
Fahnenschmidt (now aged 65)
In I. Veneteanu (2245) A.
Berescu (2392), Bucharest 1999,
Black preferred to keep the bishops on the board: 9...Nd7 10 e4 Be7 11
Ne2 0-0 12 0-0 Rb8 13 a4 b6 14 Kh1 Re8 15 Ng1 Bf6 16 b3 a6 17 Qd3
Qd8 18 Ra2 g6 draw. The attack 10 f4 seems more dangerous. White
intends either f4-f5 or 11 fxe5, to establish a protected passed pawn at
d5. There are no immediate threats, but Blacks position is rather
passive.
10 Nxh3 Qd7
10...Be7 11 f4 Nd7 could be an alternative, if Black is willing to accept
a passed pawn at d5. Another option is 10...Qc8, which is similar to the
text, but keeps the d7-square for the knight.
11 Ng5
11...h6?
A mistake, which gives White a
useful additional tempo. The critical
line was 11...Be7! 12 h4 (12 f4
Bxg5, or 12 Ne4 f5) 12...h6
(12...Qg4? 13 Ne4 f5 14 f3! Qh5 15
Nf2 followed by g4) 13 Ne4 f5 14
Nd2 0-0 15 f4 e4, for example 16 g4
e3 17 Nf1 fxg4 or 16 e3 h5 with
complications.
12 Ne4 f5 13 Nd2 Qf7 14 f4 e4 15 g4 e3 16 Nf1
Over the Horizons
During the game I also feared 16 Nf3 fxg4 17 Nh4. In both cases Black
seems almost lost.
16...fxg4 17 Nxe3 h5? (17...Qxf4) 18 Qe4+ Kd8 19 0-0-0 Nd7 20 Nf5
Kc7 21 Qe6! Qe8 22 Bxg7 Rh7
23 Qg8??
Both 23 Bc3 and 23 Bxf8 Qxf8 24
e4 Re8 25 Qg6 should have won
easily for White, who has an extra
pawn and the better position.
23...Qg6 24 e4 Rxg7 (24...Re8! was
even stronger) 25 Nxg7 Qxg7 26
Qe6 Nb6 27 e5 Nxc4 28 Rhe1 Rd8
29 Re4 Nb6 30 f5 dxe5 31 f6 Qg5+
32 Kc2 Bd6 33 f7 g3 34 h4 Qg7 35
Rg1 Qh7 36 Kd3 c4+ 37 Ke3 Rf8 38 Rxg3 Bc5+ 39 Kd2 Qxe4 40
Rg6 Bb4+ 41 Kd1 Qe1+ 42 Kc2 Qd2+, White resigns.
Next month: something completely different.

Over the Horizons
The Mousetrap Gambit

Owens Defense is a rare guest in tournament play, so few players find
it necessary to prepare for it and I was no exception. However, in 1979 I
lost a club game against 1...b6. I swore that in my next encounter with
1...b6 my opponent would face a hard fight from the first moves. My
analysis produced a strange looking gambit. Four years later, in a small
German round robin tournament, the opportunity came to test the new
idea.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
St. Bcker A. Muellen

Wittlich 1983
Owens Defense [B00]
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bg5
Sacrificing a center pawn. This cant be correct or can it?
3...Bxe4
White has given up an important
asset at e4, and is not even ahead in
development. This gambit is entirely
lacking in motivation or
justification. It seems to be one of
those situations where someone
made up a gambit just for the fun of
it, but I doubt White is finding the
experience enjoyable! (Eric
Schiller, Unorthodox Chess
Openings [2]). Just for the fun of it?
Today I know of eleven games
played with 3 Bg5. White scored nine out of eleven, 82 percent. Not too
bad for a gambit entirely lacking in motivation or justification. In his
first sentence, the American author shows a typical reaction: he thinks
that Whites sacrifice is merely an attempt to get a lead in development.
This is exactly where I started see the comment to the next move
before I found a refinement:
Over the Horizons
4 d5!
4 Nd2 Bb7 5 Bc4 had been my first idea to justify the sacrifice:
5...Bxg2 6 Ngf3 Bxh1??
Now White has a substantial lead in
development, sufficient for a
decisive blow: 7 Bxf7+! Kxf7 8
Ne5+ Ke6 (8...Ke8 9 Qh5+ g6 10
Nxg6 and wins. Note that the whole
combination doesnt work, when
White has played 4 Nc3 instead of 4
Nd2, because then Black has
10...Bf3!, which turns the tables) 9
Qg4+ Kd6 10 Nf7+ Kc6 11 Nxd8+
Kb5 12 Qe2+ Ka5 13 Nb3+ Kb4 14
Bd2+ Ka4 15 Qc4 mate. Obviously,
Blacks sixth move is a serious mistake. After 6...d5 7 Rg1 dxc4 (better
than 7...Bh3 8 Bd3 Nc6 9 Ne5) 8 Rxg2 b5 9 a4 c6 10 Ne4 Blacks
position is preferable. Not to take on g2 immediately seems even better:
5...f6 6 Bd3 e6 (or 6...g6 7 Be3 Bxg2 8 Qg4 Bd5 -/+) 7 Bf4 Bxg2 8
Qh5+ Ke7 -+. And of course Black has the cautious alternative 5...d5,
when White also doesnt have enough for his pawn.
I also didnt trust the quiet continuation 4 Nc3 Bb7. One game went:
5 d5 c6 (5...Nf6) 6 Bc4 cxd5 7 Bxd5 Bxd5 (7...Nc6 followed by Nf6
and e6 seems preferable) 8 Nxd5 Na6 9 Qe2 Nc7 10 0-0-0 Nxd5 11
Rxd5 Qc7 12 Nf3 Nf6 13 Rd3 h6 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 Rhd1 Rd8 16 Nd4 e6
17 g3 Be7 18 f4 f5 19 Nb5 Qb8 20 Nd6+ Bxd6 21 Rxd6 Ke7 22 Qd2
Qc7 23 Qb4 Ke8 24 g4 fxg4 25 f5 Rg8 26 Qa4 Ke7 27 Qf4 += Qc5? 28
f6+ Ke8 29 Rxd7! +- and White won, Kettner Villing,
Donaueschingen 1985 (Baden Championship).
Schillers continuation is too slow: 4 c4?! Bb7 5 Nc3 h6 6 Bh4. He
states, White tries to keep Black from advancing the e-pawn. Here,
however, Black can afford to adopt an unorthodox double fianchetto.
6...g5 7 Bg3 Bg7 8 Nf3 c5 9 d5 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Nf6, and Black will
finally play ...e6. So when Eric Schiller condemned my gambit, he
didnt even know the fourth move of my analysis, which I had
published in 1983 (second edition 1984 [1]).
The text move is the key to the whole Mousetrap concept. The black b7bishop (the mouse) has left its mouse-hole to eat the white cheese
e4. Now the trap closes with a snap (4 d5!). Obviously the mouse is not
dead, but it seems the trap has hit her tail, as she cannot return to b7.
Back to chess here it also makes sense to separate the bishop from its
hole. Without the bishop, the pawn structure a7-b6-c7 is weakened.
And there is more the whole black position is in some disorder. The
Over the Horizons
Latin phrase divide et

impera (divide and conquer)
characterizes Whites
intentions. The game
continuation will show what
is meant.
4...f6 5 Nc3
White chases the bishop to
g6, followed by fast
development (Qd4, 0-0-0)
with threats on both wings
(h4, Nf3-e5 or Nf3-d4, Bb5
or Bd3). To find good squares
for Blacks pieces is more
difficult especially for his
king and b8-knight. The
Zygmunt St. Nasiolkowski,
natural solution d7-d6
Ldenscheid
(Muellens choice, three
moves later) is risky, because
it intensifies Blacks weaknesses on the white squares and Whites
advantage in space.
5...Bg6
5...Bxc2? 6 Qxc2 fxg5 7 Bd3 +/- [1].
5...Bxg2 6 Bxg2 fxg5 7 Nh3 Nf6 8 Nxg5 g6 9 Nb5 Bh6 10 h4, and
Black is under pressure.
5...Bxd5 6 Nxd5 fxg5 7 Bd3 offers White attacking chances: 7...g6 8 h4
gxh4 (8...e6 9 hxg5 exd5 10 Rxh7 Rxh7 11 Bxg6+ Rf7 12 Bxf7+ Kxf7
13 Qxd5+ Kg7 14 Qxa8 Qe7+ 15 Kf1 Nc6 16 Qc8 +=) 9 Rxh4 Bh6 10
Be4 Nc6 11 Nf3 +=. More precise is 7...Nh6! 8 h4 g4 9 Ne3 g3 10 fxg3
Nc6 11 Qe2 e6 12 0-0-0, but also in this case White has good
compensation for the pawn.
6 Be3
6 Bf4 e5 (or 6...c6 7 Qe2) 7 dxe6 dxe6 8 Qf3 c6 (8...Nd7? [1] is met by
9 Bxc7! +-) 9 Bb5 (9 Bxb8 +/=) 9...e5? (9...Ne7 10 Bd3 e5 11 0-0-0) 10
Bxc6+ Nxc6 11 Qxc6+ Kf7 12 Qc4+ Ke8 13 Rd1 Qc8 14 Qb5+ Kf7 +/.
Over the Horizons
15 Bxe5!? fxe5 (15...Qe6 16 f4 Bh5

17 Nge2) 16 Nf3 Nf6 17 Nxe5+ Ke7
18 0-0 Bf5 19 Rfe1 Be6 20 Nf3 Kf7
21 Rxe6 Bc5 22 Qb3 Kf8 23 Ne5
Qc7 24 Nb5 Qb7 25 Nd6 Qc7 26
Nb5 Qb7 27 Rxf6+ 1:0, J. Tait J.
Derby, Sheffield 1995 [3].
6...Bf7 7 Qf3 a6
The correct continuation was 8...c6,
with chances for both sides. As a
rule, when Black avoids this typical move in the Mousetrap Gambit, to
question Whites center, he will stand worse.
8 0-0-0 d6
Black finally plays the risky d7-d6, to develop his queens knight. He
took some precaution (Bf7, a6), but nevertheless the weaknesses on the
white squares will count.
9 Nge2 g6 10 Nd4 Nh6 11 g4 Nd7 12 Qh3 Ng8 13 Be2 Qc8
An attractive position for White. f2f4 now would have been best.
14 Qf1?! Bg7?
His best chance for counterplay was
14...b5.
15 Rg1 Nc5 16 b4 Nd7
Or 16...e5 17 dxe6 Nxe6 18 Bf3 Ra7
19 Nc6 Ra8 20 Qe2 with a clear
advantage for White.
17 f4 Nb8 18 Rg3? (18 Bf3! +/-) 18Ra7 (18...c5! =) 19 Bg1 c5 20
dxc6 Nxc6 21 Nxc6 Qxc6
Over the Horizons
22 Nb5! Rd7 23 Rc3 Qb7 24

Nxd6+ exd6 25 Bxa6 Qa7 26 Rc8+
Ke7 27 Re1+ Be6 28 Rxe6+? (28
Qe2 is mate in 3) 28...Kf7 29 Rxd6
Rxd6 30 Qc4+ Re6 31 Rc7+ Qxc7
32 Qxc7+ Ne7 33 Bc4 f5 34 Qd7,
Black resigns.
In the next game, 4...h6 is an
improvement upon 4...f6 from the
first example. But without an early
c7-c6, Whites piece play still
becomes menacing.
M. Ltt M. Ziabari
Siegburg 2005
Owens Defense [B00]
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7
With hindsight 2...e6 seems wiser, to avoid 3 Bg5. By the way, after 1
d4 b6 White can himself choose another move-order and play 2 Bg5!
first. Then 2...Bb7 3 e4 reaches the Mousetrap Gambit by transposition.
So the new gambit can have an influence even on the choice of your
very first move. Against someone who likes to play Owens Defense,
beginning with 1 d4 might be best. Black then has to find the precise
move-order 1...e6.
3 Bg5 Bxe4 4 d5 h6
4...c6 can lead to positions very similar to the analysis at the end of this
article (4...h6 5 Bh4 c6), in most cases a later h6 and Bh4 will lead to a
transposition of moves. By playing h6 before c6, Black reduces Whites
options. For example, when h6 is played at a later stage, it might have
become clearer where Whites bishop stands better, on f4 or h4. And
also after 4...c6 White has some additional possibilities like 5 c4 [1] or
5 d6?!.
5 Bh4
The alternative 5 Bf4 has not yet been tested in practice (see analysis
below). At first sight it seems less logical, because it allows 5...e6.
Conversely, if 5 Bh4 then 5c6 is critical (see below), the alternative
at least should be considered.
5...g5
5...Nf6 seems rather passive: 6 Nc3 Bg6 (6...d6?? 7 Bxf6 +- Kohlhage
Over the Horizons
Gehrke, Germany, corr. email 2002) 7 Nf3 c6 8 Ne5 Bh5 9 g4 Qc7 10

Qe2 Bg6 11 Bg2 +/11...Be4 (11...Nxd5 12 Nxd5 cxd5
13 Bg3 +/-) 12 Nxe4 Qxe5 13 Bg3
Qxb2 14 Nd6+ Kd8 15 Nxf7+ Ke8
16 Be5 Qxa1+ 17 Bxa1 Kf7 +-. The
material is roughly balanced (Black
has rook, knight and pawn for the
queen), but Whites position is
overwhelming. With the help of his
opponent, Black managed to draw
the game: 18 dxc6? (18 0-0! wins,
Black has no reasonable moves)
18...Nxc6 19 Bxc6 dxc6 20 Qc4+ e6
21 Qxc6 Rc8 22 Qa4 a5 23 Ke2 Bb4 24 a3 Bc3 25 Bxc3 Rxc3 26 h4
Rhc8 27 Rd1 Rxc2+ 28 Rd2 R2c4 29 Qb5 R8c6 30 Rd4 R4c5 31 Qb3
Rc3 32 Qb5 Nd5 33 Kf1 g6 34 g5 h5 35 Re4 R3c5 36 Qb2 Rc1+ 37
Kg2 R1c3, draw, Thoma Mehlhorn, corr. 1995.
5...c6 is probably best: 6 Nc3 (6 c4? g5 7 Bg3 Bg7 8 Nc3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3
d6 10 Nf3 Qc8 -/+) 6...cxd5 (6...Bxd5 7 Nxd5 cxd5 8 Qxd5 Nc6 9 0-00, White has enough compensation for the pawn) 7 f3 (or 7 Nxd5 Nc6 8
Ne2 Bxd5 9 Qxd5 Qc8, followed by e6) 7...Bh7 8 Nxd5. It is unclear
whether Whites greater piece activity fully compensates for the pawn.
This is a kind of gambit, which Id like to play with White, but I admit
this might be a matter of taste.
6 Nc3
6...Bg6
6...Bxc2 7 Qxc2 gxh4 8 Nf3 +=,
says Michael Ltt [5]. In my booklet
[1] I wrote that White has
compensation, indicating that Nf3e5-g6! was one of his threats, and
that Blacks king would have
difficulties in finding a safe harbor.
For example 8...c6 9 0-0-0 Nf6 10
d6! e6 11 Nxh4, with a strong
attack.
6...Bxg2 7 Bxg2 gxh4 isnt better. White can develop quickly, while
Black has to find a place for his king. It is no question that such a
gambit must be correct.
7 Bg3 Bg7 8 Nf3 d6
Over the Horizons
As in the first game, Black decides to weaken the white squares. Here
this move has an additional motivation: to prevent Ne5. But still ... the
alternatives dont look too promising either:
(a) 8...Bh5 9 Be2 f5?! (9...Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Nf6 11 Be5 +=) 10 h3 f4 11
Bh2 c6 12 Qd3, and White won in 22 moves, Knorr Kirste, corr.
1989. 10 Qd3 f4? 11 Ne5 +- seems even stronger
(b) 8...Nf6 occurred in four games:
9 Qd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 c6 11 h4 g4 12
Ne5 Bf5 13 Bf4 Kh7 14 Bd3 Bg6 15
Nxg6 fxg6 16 h5 Nxd5 17 hxg6+
Kg8 18 Nxd5 cxd5 19 Bxh6 Be5 20
g7 Rf7 21 Bh7+! and mate in a few
moves, 1-0, Erben Frenzel, corr
1990 (ICCF).
9 Qd2 Ne4 10 Nxe4 Bxe4 11 Be5
Bxe5 12 Nxe5 c6 13 Qd4 cxd5 14
Nc6 dxc6 15 Qxh8+ +-, and Blacks
position was hopeless, 1-0, 27,
Erben Antoszkiewicz, corr 1990 (ICCF).
9 Ne5 Bh7 10 Bc4 (stronger is 10 h4!) d6 11 Bb5+ Nfd7 12 Nxd7 Nxd7
13 Bc6 0-0 14 Bxa8 Qxa8 15 0-0 e5 16 f3 f5 17 a4 a6 18 Be1 Nf6 19
Qd2 Re8 20 Bf2 draw, Knorr Reichel, corr. 1989.
9 Ne5 Be4 10 f3? Bh7 11 Qe2 d6 12 Nc4 0-0 13 0-0-0 c6 14 dxc6 Nxc6
15 Ne3 Rc8 16 Qe1 a5 17 h4 Nb4 18 a3 Rxc3 19 bxc3 Na2+ 20 Kb2
Nxc3 21 Kxc3 Nd5+ 0-1 Knorr Bangiev, corr. 1993. The only
Mousetrap Gambit game that I know which was won by Black. It
wasnt convincing, though, because White has 10 Nxe4 Nxe4 11 Qf3 +/, when both 11...Nd6 12 h4 and 11...Nf6 12 0-0-0 give him a powerful
attack.
9 Bb5+ Nd7?
9...c6 10 dxc6 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Qc7 had to be tried, according to Michael
Ltt [5].
10 Nd4 Bxd4 11 Qxd4 Ngf6 12 0-0-0
Over the Horizons
White has full compensation for the

sacrificed pawn. Like the game
before, Blacks main mistake has
been not to play a well-timed c7-c6.
12...a6?
Gives White the one tempo that he
needed to start his king-side attack,
Michael Ltt [5].
13 Bc6 Ra7 14 h4! g4 15 h5 Bf5 16
Qf4 e6 17 Rde1 Kf8 18 Bh4 Kg7 19 f3 Ne5
20 dxe6 fxe6 21 Rxe5! dxe5 22
Qxe5
Black is helpless against the transfer
of the white rook to the seventh
rank, which finally costs him the
knight f6.
22...Rf8 23 Rd1 Qc8 24 Rd7+
Qxd7 25 Bxd7 c5 26 Bc6 Raf7 27
fxg4 Bxg4 28 Ne4 Rd8 29 Bxf6+,
Black resigns.
Analysis: A Critical Line
What can we learn from these practical disasters? One thing emerged
quite clearly: Black has to play an early c7-c6, to eliminate Whites
basis for his divide et impera strategy, his d5-pawn. The following
analysis isnt very detailed, but will give you some hints concerning
more critical lines.
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bg5 h6
In most cases this will only lead to a transposition of moves. To delay
taking on e4, however, might in fact be a slight improvement upon
3...Bxe4. On the other hand, it isnt surprising that only 3...Bxe4
happened in practice. Seeing that White has squandered a full center
pawn, it is difficult to keep calm and watch out for subtle nuances in the
move-order.
It also makes a difference (in comparison to the first game) whether
Black plays 3...f6 at once. Now in [1] my analysis continued: 4 Bf4
Bxe4 (4...e6 5 Nc3 Bb4 [1] 6 Qh5+ g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qg3! +=) 5 Nc3 Bb7
(or 5...Bg6 6 Qe2 e6 7 0-0-0 Ne7 8 h4 Bf7 9 g4 etc.). Here the old
Over the Horizons
analysis 6 Nb5 Na6 7 Qe2 (threatening 8 Bxc7!! Nxc7 9 Nd6 mate)

7...e6 8 0-0-0 Be7 [1] gives White some advantage after 9 Qg4,
intending Qg3 and Bc4. But 6...d6 7 d5 c6 [1] seems playable for Black.
Fortunately, White has the better move-order 6 Qe2! e6 7 Nb5 Na6
(now d6 isnt possible) 8 0-0-0 +=.
4 Bh4
4 Bf4!? is an interesting alternative. Its true that my booklet [1] put a
question mark behind the move, because it allowed 4...Bxe4 5 d5 e6
(the pawn is no longer pinned), but after 6 Nc3 the situation isnt clear.
6...Qf6 (6...Bb4 7 Qd4) 7 dxe6!?
7...dxe6 (after 7...Qxf4?! 8 exf7+
Kxf7 9 Bc4+ Ke8 10. Nge2 Qe5 11
Nxe4 Qxe4 12 Bd5 White wins back
more than he has invested) 8 Qg4!?
followed by 0-0-0 or Qg3, unclear.
So when 5...e6 isnt the move, we
should consider 5...c6 6 Nc3 once
again: 6...Bxd5 (6...cxd5 7 f3!? Bh7
8 Nxd5 d6 9 Bb5+) 7 Nxd5 cxd5 8
Qxd5 Nc6 9 0-0-0. White has
sufficient compensation for his
pawn. The pair of bishops in an
open position, plus play against Blacks center pawns. We cannot prove
a clear advantage for White, but Blacks position is rather
uncomfortable, which justifies the sacrifice of a pawn. He suffers from
weaknesses on both wings. Ba6-b7 might be a possibility, and if the d7pawn advances, this weakens the c6-square (Bb5!). And the h6-pawn
invites an attack g2-g4-g5. Altogether from a practical perspective,
Whites position even seems preferable.
4...Bxe4
Or 4...g5 5 Bg3 Bxe4 6 Be5! Rh7 (6...Nf6? 7 Qe2 d5 8 f3 strangely
loses a piece) 7 Nc3 (my old analysis [1] offered the faulty 7 Bd3?
Bxg2 8 Qe2, which is refuted by 8...Rg7) 7...Bg6 8 Bd3 e6 9 Bxg6 fxg6
10 Qd3 Ne7 11 Ne4 Nd5 12 c4 Nb4 13 Qf3 +/= [4].
5 d5 c6!?
Instead of 5...g5 6 Nc3, as discussed in the second game (Ltt
Ziabari).
6 Nc3 Bxd5
Over the Horizons
It is interesting to note the differences between this variation and the

analogous position after 4 Bf4, above. For example, after 6...cxd5!? 7 f3
Bh7 8 Nxd5 there is no immediate threat of Nc7+, so Black has time for
8...Nf6. Perhaps 6...cxd5 7 Qe2!? comes into consideration: 7...Nf6
(7...g5 8 Bg3 Bg7 9 Nxe4 dxe4 10 Qxe4 Nc6 11 0-0-0, and Blacks
extended pawn chain gives White attacking chances with a later h2-h4.
In this line, 8...Nf6? would be too risky because of 9 Nb5) 8 Bxf6 gxf6
9 Nxe4 dxe4 10 Qxe4 Nc6 11 Nf3 e6 12 Bb5, for example 12...f5 13
Qa4 Rc8 (13...Qc7 14 0-0-0 Bg7 15 g4, or 14...a6 15 Bxc6 Qxc6 16
Qd4, or 14...Rc8 15 Ba6 Rd8 16 Rhe1) 14 0-0-0 Qc7 15 c3 Bg7 16 Kb1
(16 g4 Bxc3!?) 0-0?! 17 g4!, and Black is in trouble.
7 Nxd5 cxd5 8 Qxd5 Nc6 9 0-0-0
Blacks straightforward 5...c6 has
led to some simplifications, but
White still has plenty of pressure
along the central files. Whether
Black plays g7-g5 or Nf6 Bxf6 gxf6,
in both cases White will have targets
for his attack. I wouldnt hesitate to
play White in the diagrammed
position.
For example: 9...Rc8 (9...e6 10
Bxd8 exd5 11 Bh4 +=) 10 Nf3 Nf6
11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Bb5 e6 13 Qh5! Qe7 (13...Bg7 14 Nd4! Nxd4 15 Rxd4
Rc5 16 Qe2 +=) 14 Rhe1 Qc5 15 Rd5 Qxf2 16 Re2 Qxe2 17 Bxe2 exd5
18 Qxd5 +/-.
Sources:
[1] Stefan Bcker: Das Naselwaus, in: Gambit 59, Nuremberg 1984
[2] Eric Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998
[3] Stefan Bcker: (two games) in Kaissiber 7 (1998), p 73.
[4] Stefan Bcker: (reply to letter by Rolf Spoerri) in Kaissiber 8
(1998), p 4f.
[5] Michael Ltt: (game commentary) in Kaissiber 21 (2005), p 5.
Over the Horizons

Over the Horizons
The Impoliteness of Ice Age

Openings
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Perhaps the least respected openings are those involving an early ...g5,
while 1 d4 g5? or 1 e4 g5?! might deserve their bad reputation, the case
isnt so clear for other White first moves. Yet Myers Defense 1 c4 g5 is
hardly more popular. For most players it is just one of these ice age
openings. So if you dare to play 1 c4 g5, there is a danger to be
misunderstood. Your opponent might believe that you are only a
Neanderthal man at the chessboard, without sense for the subtleties of
the game. Or, if he knows that your rating is higher than his own, your
choice will seem impolite at least. Still, who cares, as long as the real
merits of the opening are good enough to score with it.
In September 1996, Joel
Benjamins column
Unorthodox Chess
Openings in Chess Life had
the title Lunatic Fringe [8].
It covered Myers Defense 1
c4 g5, discussing a game
Benjamin - Heinola.
Benjamin presents an antidote
against unorthodox opening
play: It takes some cold,
rational thinking to prevent a
dubious opening from
working. Sounds like an
excellent idea against any
opening.
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
Supplementary to Benjamins cold and rational thoughts, I have used a

report that his opponent Kari Heinola has sent me. Born in Finland, this
original player now lives in the United States. In round one of the 1996
Hawaii Open he had played 1 c4 g5 and beat Leslie Au (Elo 2290). In
the evening some of the players including Heinola, Benjamin and Eric
Schiller went to dinner. Games were discussed, and Joel Benjamin
asked: Didnt he and Schiller refute 1 c4 g5 in Unorthodox Openings?
[5] Kari Heinola replied that he wasnt afraid of these lines. Then in
Over the Horizons
round three Benjamin had White against Heinola, an ideal opportunity

for a theoretical dispute.
Joel Benjamin (2570) Kari Heinola (2200)
Hawaii 1996 (Open)
Myers Defense [A10]
1 c4 g5
?! The main quality in this move
is its sheer audacity. It seems so
horrible that White wants to refute it
completely, Benjamin [8].
2 d4
In MOB 27 I analyzed 2 Qb3?! Nc6
3 Qg3, but Myers replied 3...Nf6!
(or 3...Nd4 4 Kd1 [4] d6 5 Qxg5
Nf5!) 4 Qxg5 d5 5 Qh4 Rg8 6 h3
[4], when Blacks has more than
enough for the pawn.
2...Bg7
The immediate Bg7 followed by c5 is characteristic for Myers
interpretation of the opening. Michael Basman preferred the slower
2...h6, for example 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 c5 5 Nge2 Nc6 6 Be3 b6 7 d5 Ne5 8
Ng3 Ng6
9 Nh5 Be5 10 g3 Nf6 11 f4 gxf4 12
gxf4 Bxc3+ 13 bxc3 Nxe4 14 Bd3
Nd6 15 Qg4 Qc7? (15...e6 16 Bxd3
Rg8+=) 16 f5 Ne5 17 Qg7 Nxd3+
18 Ke2 Rf8 19 Bxh6 Kd8 20 Qxf8+
Ne8 21 Ng7 Qe5+ 22 Kxd3 1-0,
James Basman, British
Championship 1982.
3 Nc3
Probably best, says Hugh Myers in
Exploring the Chess Openings [1].
Joel Benjamin: In Unorthodox Openings (1987) [5], Eric Schiller and I
recommended 3 Bxg5 c5 4 Nf3. While this may be good for White, it
certainly entails some risk, e.g. 4...cxd4 5 Nxd4 Qb6 6 Nb5 sacrificing
an Exchange for the initiative. Black might attempt to improve with
4...Qb6?. On principle, its impractical to plunge into complications on
Over the Horizons
your opponents personal turf. Since Blacks opening is strategically

suspect, this rule of thumb seems especially sensible. [8]
Kari Heinola has a third explanation: After the game I asked Benjamin
why he did not play the bust 3 Bxg5 from the book, and he replied that
he didnt remember what the bust was.
In fact 3 Bxg5 c5 4 Nf3 (4 e3 Qa5+) is a critical continuation:
(a) 4...Qb6 5 Nc3 (Jim Henri)
5...Na6 (suggested by Myers [4],
5...Qxb2 6 Nb5 is too risky) 6 Qd2
cxd4 7 Nd5 Qg6 8 Nxd4 e6 9 Nc3!,
e.g. 9...Bxd4 10 Qxd4 f6 11 Be3
Nb4 12 Rc1 Nc2+ 13 Rxc2 Qxc2 14
Nb5 Kf7 15 f3 (15 Nc7 Rb8 16 f3
Ne7) +/-, now 15...Ne7 is refuted by
16 Nd6+ Kg7 17 Bh6+! and mate in
a few moves.
(b) 4...cxd4 5 Nxd4 Qb6 6 Nb5! (M.
van Raay [3]) 6...Bxb2 [4] 7 N1c3!
(more convincing than Eric Schillers 7 Nd2 Bxa1 8 Qxa1 f6 9 e4 [4],
[5]). Now 7...Bxa1? 8 Qxa1 f6 9 Nd5 is hopeless, so Black has to try
something like 7...Qg6 8 h4 Bxa1 9 Qxa1 Kd8 10 Nd5 f6 11 Nbc7 e6
12 Nf4 Qf5 13 Nxa8 h6 14 Nxe6+ dxe6 15 g4 Qg6
Black stands worse, but the position
is weird enough to offer practical
chances.
(c) After 4...Nc6 there are two
options:
(c1) 5 e3 is the quieter treatment.
5...cxd4 (5...Qa5+! 6 Qd2 Qxd2+ 7
Nbxd2 cxd4 8 exd4 Nxd4 is simpler,
e.g. 9 0-0-0 Ne6 10 Be3 Nh6 or 10
Bh4 d6 11 Ne4 Bd7=, or 9 Nxd4
Bxd4 10 0-0-0 Bxf2 11 Ne4 Bb6 12
c5 Bc7 13 Bc4 f6 14 Bh4 b6,
unclear) 6 exd4 Qb6 7 Qd2 Nxd4 8 Nxd4 Qxd4 9 Nc3+= (=, 32)
Friedgood Myers, Lugano 1968 [1], [10]. Instead of the continuation
9...d6, the alternative 9...b6 10 Bd3 Bb7 comes into consideration (11 00? Bxg2! 12 Kxg2 Qg4+, giving perpetual check).
(c2) 5 d5! is critical. White sacrifices the exchange: 5...Bxb2 (what
else?) 6 Nbd2 Bxa1 7 Qxa1 Nd4 8 Nxd4 cxd4 9 Qxd4 f6 10 g3? e5!-/+,
Kohler Myers, Puerto Rico Open 1969. However, 10 Bf4! (Eric
Schiller [5]) is a strong improvement. Black has serious difficulties in
bringing out his Ng8 and Rh8.
Over the Horizons
10...Qa5 11 Qb2 (or 11 e3 d6 12

Bd3 Qxa2 13 0-0 Qa3 14 Ne4 b6 15
Ra1 Qb4 16 f3 Bd7. Obviously
White can force a draw. I dont see
how he can get more, but maybe I
am overlooking something) 11...Kf7
12 e4 e5 13 dxe6+ dxe6 14 e5+=.
For the exchange, White has a pawn
and a lasting attack.
For a correspondence game,
variations (a) and (b) seem too risky,
but accepting the exchange sacrifice
in main line (c2) doesnt guarantee full equality either. I havent found a
win for White and it rarely occurs in practice, but 3 Bxg5 certainly
remains a dangerous line.
3...c5
Criticized by Benjamin. Again Black can choose Michael Basmans setup 3...h6, and 3...g4 is also considered as playable. The text move
follows the original plan as developed by Hugh Myers. Fans of Grobs
Opening 1 g4 will know that protecting his center by c7-c6 is Blacks
most solid defense, instead of the complicated dxc4. The concept with
colors reversed, created by Hugh Myers in 1968, follows the bold idea
to play an improved version of Grobs Attack with one tempo less:
after c2-c4, White has lost his option of c2-c3.
Apparently the earliest game with 1 c4 g5 was Barcza van Geet,
Amsterdam 1964. I wouldnt call it a stem game for our topic, since the
applied strategy was strange and has not been repeated: 3...Nc6!? 4 d5
Ne5 5 Bxg5 Nxc4 (1-0, 20). According to Barcza, now 6 e4! is an
improvement (in the game 6 Rc1 c6 occurred). Black could reply 6...h6
intending 7 Bh4 Ne5 or 7 Bf4 Nb6 8 e5 d6!? or 7 Bxc4 hxg5 8 Qd2 e6.
4 dxc5
! by Benjamin [8], who explains:
This is actually a novelty in this
position. White normally pushes
past, but it struck me that Black
cannot routinely recapture this pawn
with his g-pawn en prise. The pawn
must be defended because 4...Qa5 5
Bxg5 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Qxc3+ 7 Bd2
Qxc4 8 e3 is clearly better for
White. Unconsciously he repeats
an analysis by John Watson (MOB
23 [3], p.10). In the same source
Hugh Myers had offered 6...Qxc3+ (or Nc6) 7 Bd2 Qe5!?, unclear, as
Over the Horizons
an improvement. Besides 7...Qa3 comes into question, which plans

Na6xc5. Blacks position seems playable, although in both cases White
has the superior piece play (7...Qe5 8 Nf3 Qxc5 9 Bc3 f6 or 7...Qa3 8
Qb3 Qxc5 9 Bc3 f6) and Black merely fights for equality.
4...h6
Recommended by Maurits Wind (MOB 27 [4]), to postpone taking on
c3 for a better moment (after 5 e4, see below). He believed 4...Bxc3+ 5
bxc3 h6 was refuted by 6 Be3!. But Hugh Myers suggested 6...Qa5,
intending Na6, or 7 Qd4 Nf6 followed by Nc6, or finally 7 Bd4 f6 and
8...e5. Another interesting possibility: 5...Qa5 6 Qb3 Nf6 7 g3 Nc6!?,
Holous Welling, corr. 1980/81 (MOB 15, p.14), to save the move h7h6. If 8 Bxg5, Black has 8...Ne4+=.
5 Be3
! Benjamin. 5 e4 Bxc3 or 5 Bd2 Na6 are variations by Maurits Wind
[4].
5...Nc6?
An obvious move, already given in
MOB 27 [4]. However, the knight
on b8 had an advantage: he could go
to a6, and this threat tied Whites
bishop to the uncomfortable square
e3. Now White can regroup, starting
with 6 Bd2. Then Black is getting
into serious trouble: 6...Nd4 (6...d6
7 cxd6 Qxd6 8 Nb5; 6...Nf6 7 h4 g4
8 e3) 7 Rb1 Ne6 8 b4 a5 9 Qa4 axb4
10 Qxa8 bxc3 11 Be3, with advantage for White.
5...Qa5? is no improvement: 6 Qd2 Na6 7 a3+/- (7...Nxc5? 8 b4 Ne4 9
bxa5 Bxc3 10 Qxc3 Nxc3 11 Bd4).
5...Bxc3+ is the thematic and probably best continuation (cf.
4...Bxc3+).
Rather strange, perhaps even strong, is 5...Nf6!? 6 h3 (6 Bd4 Nc6)
6...Qa5 7 Qd2 (7 Qc2 Ne4) 7...Qb4 (7...Na6 8 a3 Qc7 9 Nb5 Qc6 10
Nd4 is less logical) 8 Nb5 (8 Bd4 Nc6! 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 e3 Bg7)
8...Qxd2+ 9 Bxd2 Na6 with some play for the pawn, e.g. 10 Bc3 0-0 11
b4 b6 12 cxb6 axb6 13 e3 Bb7 14 a3 Rfc8 15 Nf3 d5 16 Nd2 Nc7 17
Nxc7 (17 Nd4 Nd7) 17...Rxc7 18 Be5 Nd7 with compensation.
6 Nf3
A logical choice was 6 Bd2, cf. the last note, which gives White an
advantage without much trouble. But considering Blacks problems
after 6...Bxc3+ (next note), the text move seems also strong. After 6
Over the Horizons
Qd2 Ne5 7 b3 Ng4 8 Bd4 e5 9 Be3 Ne7 Black could be satisfied with
the position.
6...Qa5?
Once again. Under these circumstances (i.e. after 5...Nc6) exchanging
on c3 appears less logical, but the maneuver still represents Blacks best
chance: 6...Bxc3+! 7 bxc3 Qa5 (7...Nf6 8 Bd4)
(a) 8 Qb3 Nf6 9 h4 Ng4 10 hxg5 Nxe3, and Black is okay.
(b) 8 Qd3 d6! 9 cxd6 Bf5 10 Qd2 0-0-0 11 c5 exd6 12 cxd6 Rxd6 13
Qb2 Nge7!, Black attacks.
(c) 8 Qc2 Nf6 9 h4 (9 h3 Ne4) 9...Ng4! (9...g4 10 Nd2 b6) 10 Qd2 (10
hxg5 Nxe3) 10...Nxe3 11 Qxe3 g4 12 Nd2 (12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Qxe5 f6 14
Qd4 Rb8 followed by b6) 12...b6!?, for example 13 Nb3 (13 cxb6 Qxb6
14 Qxb6 axb6=) 13...Qa4! 14 Qf4 bxc5 15 Qxg4 Rb8 16 Qg7 Rf8 17
Nxc5 Qc2 18 Nb3 Qb2 19 Rd1 Nb4! 20 Na1 Nxa2 21 Rh3 d6 22 Re3
e5 23 Qg3 Be6=
(d) 8 Bd4!
8...f6 9 Qc2! e5 (9...Nxd4 10 Nxd4
Qxc5? 11 Qg6+ Kf8 12 Nf5+) 10
Be3 f5 11 Rb1 Nge7 12 Rb5 Qc7.
So far analysis by Kari Heinola.
During the game, he says, he had
forgotten the plan suggested in MOB
27 [4], 6...Bxc3+ combined with
8...f6 (as a reaction to Bd4). But
even the final position after 12...Qc7
didnt look too promising to
Heinola. He is certainly right.
In the diagram 8...Rh7!? deserves attention. This allows Black some
direct attacks (plans are 9...g4 or 9...b6 10 cxb6 e5). For example 9 Qc2
f5!, unclear: 10 h4 (10 Qxf5? Nxd4) 10...g4 11 Nd2 e5 12 Qxf5 Rf7 13
Qe4 Nf6 14 Qe3 g3! 15 f3 Re7 16 Qxh6 exd4 17 Qxf6 Qxc3 18 Rb1
Nb4=. It seems 9 e3! is best: 9d6 (9...b6? 10 Bd3+-) 10 exd6 e5 11
Nxe5 Nxe5 12 c5+/- (three strong pawns for the piece, plus serious
attacking chances).
7 Qd2 Nf6
Blacks in misery. 7...Bxc3+ 8 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 9 bxc3+/- is no alternative
either. A clear extra pawn for White, since Bc8 cannot be activated
without exchanging the pawn c5.
The simplest refutation of the nebulous idea 7...Kf8!? 8 Nd4 Ne5 9 b3
Ng4 seems to be 8 h4!+/-.
7...Qb4 fails to 8 Nd5 or 8 Rc1 (Qxc4? 9 Nd5). The text move at least
threatens Qb4 or Ng4, a last attempt by Black.
Over the Horizons
8 Nd5?
Without his usual play against
Whites tripled pawns Black is in a
fatal situation. White only has to
eliminate the few remaining threats
of his opponent, to achieve a clear
advantage.
Therefore the correct decision
would have been 8 h4!+/- g4
(8...gxh4 9 Rxh4 h5 10 Nd5 etc.;
8...Ng4 9 hxg5 Nxe3 10 Qxe3+/-) 9 Nd4. This maneuver clearly
improves Whites piece acti-vity, and Blacks knight f6 loses the square
g4.
Benjamin [8] likes the text move (8 Nd5?): Black is actually
generating some threats, namely 8...Ng4 and 8...Qb4. Thus I grabbed
the opportunity to seize the initiative by returning the pawn.
8...Nxd5?
The other knight move 8...Ne4? 9 Qxa5 Nxa5 10 Nc7+ Kd8 11 Nxa8
Bxb2 12 Rd1 Bc3+ 13 Nd2 Nxc4 is refuted by 14 Bd4! (analysis by
Kari Heinola).
But both players may have overlooked 8...Qxd2+! 9 Bxd2 (9 Kxd2
Nxd5 10 cxd5 Nb4) 9...0-0. Black gets some concrete counter play. It
may not lead to full equality, but in any case Blacks chances are better
than in the game: 10 Bc3 (10 Rd1 Ne4 11 b4 e6 12 Nc7 Rb8 13 Nb5 g4
14 Nh4 Nxd2, at least =; 10 Nxf6+ Bxf6 11 Rb1 d6! unclear, or 11 0-00 b6!+=) 10...Ne4 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 Rd1 (worse is 12 b4? e6 13 Nc7
Nxb4 14 Nxa8 Nc2+ 15 Kd1 Nxa1, because the knight cannot escape
from a8: 16 Kc1 Nxc5 17 Nc7 a6 18 Na8 b6! 19 Nxb6 Bb7) 12...Nxc5
(12...e6 13 Nc7 Rb8 14 Nb5) 13 b4 Ne4 14 b5 e6 15 Nc7 (after 15 bxc6
exd5 16 cxd7 Bxd7 17 cxd5 Rfe8 Black has sufficient compensation for
the pawn: 18 e3 Rac8 19 Be2 f5 20 Nd4 Nc3 21 Rd2 f4=) 15...Nb4 16
Nd4 Rb8 17 a3 Na2, unclear.
Over the Horizons
Remarkably all four knights are

placed on unfavorable squares. It is
difficult to tell who may have an
advantage.
9 Qxa5 Nxa5 10 cxd5 Bxb2
10...g4 11 Bd4 gxf3 12 Bxg7 fxg2
13 Bxg2 Rg8 14 Bc3+/- results in an
uncomfortable ending.
11 Rb1 Nc4?+
A hallucination (Heinola), which practically means the end of the
game. Besides Black was already very short of time.
Upon 11...Bc3+ 12 Bd2 Bxd2+ 13 Nxd2, Benjamin [8] comments: The
position resembles a Grnfeld gone bad for Black. The a5 knight is so
poorly placed that Black may have to cough up a pawn to extricate it.
His assessment seems somewhat exaggerated. After 11...Rb8 followed
by b6+= White has an advantage, but it may still be a draw, if defended
accurately.
12 Rxb2! Nxb2 13 Bd4 Na4
Black tries to catch the bishop h8.
14 Bxh8 f6 15 d6 Nxc5 16 h4 g4 17 Nd2
Benjamin concentrates on freeing his bishop, the simplest route to the
full point.
17...b6 18 Bg7 h5 19 f3 Bb7 20 e4 Kf7 21 Bh6 e6 22 Be2 f5 23 Be3
Rc8
24 0-0
Late castling is cool, Joel
Benjamin. The game is over.
24...Na4 25 fxg4 Nc3 26 Bd3 hxg4
27 exf5 e5 28 Nc4 e4 29 Ne5+ Ke8
30 f6 Bd5 31 Ba6, Black resigned.
Benjamin probably experienced the
whole game after 1...g5 ?! and
especially after the sharp 3...c5 as a
clear cut case for White. He attributes two of his moves with an
exclamation mark, on Blacks side he is similarly one-sided. With the
Over the Horizons
exception of 11...Nc4?, the mistakes committed by his opponent are

ignored. 1 c4 g5 simply must be bad, no serious analysis was intended.
The articles title Lunatic Fringe speaks for itself.
How did the loser take his defeat? In round seven he was paired against
IM Eugene Martinovsky (Elo 2285), and when asked by his opponent
whether he would like to repeat 1 c4 g5, Kari Heinola replied: Sure!
So it happened that in his third 1 c4 g5 encounter in just one
tournament, Heinola won for the second time (1 c4 g5 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3
c5 4 d5 h6 5 e4 Bxc3+), using the typical strategy of this unusual
defense.
In the first edition of Batsford Chess Openings (1982), with regards to 1
c4 g5, Gary Kasparov wrote: Chess is not skittles. Checking the
database, we find 167 games with this defense. Whites score of 57
percent is a few points higher than what one can expect from standard
openings. I hear you saying: Quite what I expected. But in another ice
age opening: 1 Nf3 h6 followed by g5, White can hardly be satisfied
with his 39 percent out of 42 games! More about that topic in another
column.
Sources:
[1] H. Myers: Exploring the Chess Openings, Davenport 1978, pp.

34-37.
[2] H. Myers / M. Wind: 1. c4 g5 English Opening, 1. ... g5
Defense, in: The Myers Openings Bulletin (= MOB) No. 16
(1981), pp. 7f.
[3] P. J. Szeligowski: 1. c4 g5, The Myers Defense, in: MOB
No. 23 (1982), pp. 2-15.
[4] P. J. Szeligowski: 1. c4 g5, The Myers Defense Revisited,
in: MOB No. 27 (1983), pp. 2-10.
[5] J. Benjamin / E. Schiller: Unorthodox Openings, London 1987,
pp. 106f..
[6] H. Myers (review of [5]), in: MOB 39 (1988), pp. 22f..
[7] T. Harding: Dynamic Black Defenses, Dallas 1989, pp. 29-42.
[8] J. Benjamin: Lunatic Fringe, in: Chess Life, September
1996, p. 24.
[9] G. Burgess: 101 Chess Opening Surprises, London 1998, pp.
81-83.
[10] H. Myers: A Chess Explorer, Davenport 2002, pp. 101-103.
Over the Horizons

Over the Horizons
A Queen on Wheels
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Every chess player likes to surprise his opponent. But when your new
move only comes at move twelve, how can you be sure to reach this
precise position? Of course, you could prepare thousands of novelties,
in any possible line. This is an excellent solution for a happy few
whose names often begin with a K. Unfortunately, most of us are
better at forgetting new ideas than in preparing them. The radical
alternative is a repertoire where the surprises come at a very early stage,
perhaps on move two or three. This column has already presented
several examples. But to play 1 e4 c5 2 Qh5 or 2 Na3 isnt quite the
same as a winning novelty on move 18 in a Najdorf Variation. Late
surprises can gain impressive victories without much fight; however,
there is a third alternative. You can prepare novelties for a later stage of
the game, when they are (perhaps) more effective, and still you dont
have to spend all your time on opening theory. The solution is to
concentrate your efforts: find surprises in key positions of standard
openings. Take, for example, the Scandinavian Defense:
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3
When you are Black against a 1 e4
player, you can expect to reach this
position in 50 percent of your
games. The next move (5...Bg4) was
preferred by Jacques Mieses at the
beginning of the 20th century, later
it lost much of its popularity
because of a line found by World
Champion Lasker. This shouldnt
deter you, because the move has a
significant advantage over the
modern alternatives 5...c6 or 5...Bf5
it leads to a well-known main line:
5...Bg4! 6 h3 Bh5 7 g4 Bg6 8 Ne5
Over the Horizons
The last few moves have become routine

since Emanuel Lasker recommended the
line for White. In the tournament book of
St. Petersburg 1909, he continued his
analysis: 8...c6 9 h4 Nbd7 10 Nc4 Qc7 11
h5 Be4 12 Nxe4 Nxe4 13 Qf3 Nd6 14 Bf4,
Whites position is preferable (Lasker).
Black can expect to reach this position
(after 8 Ne5) in at least 30 percent of his 1
e4 games. Or rather 40 percent against
stronger players, because these guys know
their statistics: none of the alternatives for
White give him more than equality (more
details in Kaissiber 6 [5]). After the text
move, however, Whites results are
impressive. What is the point of going into a poorly-regarded line, no
matter how forced it might be? It is time for our surprise.
Remember that 8...c6 9 h4 Nbd7 was the original line by Emanuel
Lasker (1909). Later Savielly Tartakower recommended 9...Ne4 10 Bd2
Qb6! (and Black has counterplay, [1]) as an improvement. This is still
a good weapon, although C. J. S. Purdy claimed that his 10 Bd2 was a
refutation (wrongly assuming that both Tartakower and Reinfeld [2] had
overlooked the simple 10 Bd2). Purdys analysis continued 11 Nxg6
Nxc3 12 Bxc3 hxg6 13 Qd2 e6 14 0-0-0 (more details in [3], [4]).
Purdy sees an overwhelming
advan-tage in development for
White, because the threat 15 Ba5
will cost Black more time. Yet, I
only get the overwhelming
impression of equality, for example
14...Qc7 15 Ba5 b6 16 Bc3 Nd7 17
Ba6 Rd8, followed by Nf6. Or even
14...Na6 15 Bc4 (15 Ba5 Bb4! or 15
a3 Bd6 16 Ba5 Bf4!) 15...Bb4 16
Bxb4 Qxb4 17 Bxa6 Qxd2+, with
sufficient counterplay against pawn
h4.
The modern alternative 8...e6 was created at the end of the 1970s. The
Australian GM Ian Rogers explored the set-up and often used it in
practice. An important article by Rogers appeared in New in Chess
Yearbook 18. Today most sources assess 8...e6 as +=. So there are two
playable lines for Black, but we are looking for something special, for a
real surprise. When Whites attack against bishop g6, Ne5 combined
with h4-h5, is so critical for the whole variation, why not attack the
Over the Horizons
strong knight e5 immediately?

8...Nbd7?!!
The surprise. An almost absurdly
provocative move, Watson [7].
Black ignores the threat of Nc4.
When the move was introduced into
practice it lead to a disaster. On
January 19, 1924, Alexander
Alekhine gave a blindfold simul in
New York at the Man-hattan Chess
Club, winning eight games and
drawing two. His shortest win:
8...Nbd7 9 Nc4 Qa6 10 Bd3 Qe6+?
(10...0-0-0 11 Be3 e6 =+) 11 Ne3 00-0 12 d5 Qb6 13 Nc4 Qb4?? 14 a3 Qc5 15 Be3 1-0. The blind
Alekhine had caught the queen of his sighted opponent M. Schroeder.
Of course 13...Qa6 was forced, then 14 b4 looks difficult for Black.
But Black replies 14...Ne4!, e.g. 15
Bxe4 Qxc4 /+.
Alekhines game is quoted in many
sources as the chief witness against
8...Nbd7, in spite of Blacks obvious
mistakes. Prominent masters have
tried to revitalize the move, Esteban
Canal in 1929 and the Spanish IM
(now GM) Juan Ma-nuel Bellon in
1978. That it never became popular,
largely depends from the forcing
answer:
9 Nc4
Had Black played 8...e6, this move would be less dangerous: 8...e6 9
Nc4 Qa6 10 h4 Qc6 (without e6, now 11 d5! was a refutation) 11 Rh3
Bb4 ... unclear, ECO B, 1984. Later editions of ECO (1997) ignore
8...e6 9 Nc4. After the text move, the queen a5 is in trouble. But when
the king is a strong piece, which can defend himself (Steinitz), the same
rule will apply to the fastest piece on the chess board.
9 Nxg6 hxg6 10 Bg2 is no refutation:
(a) 10...c6
(a1) 11 Qd3 Nd5 12 a3 e6 13 0-0 Nxc3 14 Bd2 Bd6 15 Qxc3 Qc7 16 f4
Over the Horizons
0-0-0 17 Qa5 Qb6 18 Qxb6 Nxb6 19 Ba5 Bc7 20 c3 Nc4 21 Bxc7 Kxc7
22 Rf2 Ne3 23 Rd2 c5 24 Re1 Nxg2 25 Kxg2 Rd5 26 Re5 = (draw, 37),
Stoica (2420) Bellon Lopez (2350), Buka-rest 1978.
(a2) 11 Bd2 e6 (11...Qb6 12 g5! Nd5 13 Nxd5 cxd5 14 Bxd5 e6 15 Bg2
+/ Labahn [6]) 12 g5 Nh5 13 d5 cxd5 14 Nxd5 Qc5 15 Qe2 +=.
(a3) 11 g5! Nd5 12 Bd2 Nxc3 13 bxc3 e5 14 Qb1 0-0-0 15 Qb3, at least
+= because of Whites pressure against b7 and f7.
(b) 10...0-0-0! 11 Qf3 (11 g5 Ne8 12 Qf3 Nd6 13 b4 Qf5!) 11...c6 12 g5
(12 0-0 e5 13 Be3 cxd4 14 Bxd4 Bc5) 12...Nd5 13 Qxf7 Nxc3 14 Bd2.
Whites set-up was recommended by Wolfgang Labahn (Hamburg) in
Kaissiber [6], but Black seems to get sufficient play for the pawn:
14...e5 15 Bxc3 (or 15 bxc3 exd4 16 cxd4 Bb4) 15...Bb4, for example:
16 Qc4 Bxc3+ 17 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 18 bxc3 Rh5 19 h4 Rdh8 20 Kf1 exd4
21 cxd4 Rxh4 22 Rxh4 Rxh4 23 Re1 Rxd4 24 Re7 Kb8 25 Rxg7 Ne5 =.
9...Qa6
Not a difficult decision (9...Qb4?? 10 a3 +).
10 Bf4
The most logical move, threatening Nd6+ with tempo and hitting c7,
John Watson [7]. There are several alternatives:
(a) 10 Bd3, Alekhine M. Schroe-der, New York 1924. See the note to
8...Nbd7, above.
(b) Against 10 f4 or 10 Qe2 Black replies 10...e6.
(c) 10 Ne3 Qa5 can lead to a draw by a repetition of moves, but Id
prefer 10...Qd6 11 h4 (11 g5 [5] Ne4!) 11...0-0-0 12 g5 Bh5 13 Be2
Bxe2 14 Qxe2 [5] Qc6 15 d5 Nxd5 16 Nexd5 e6 =.
(d) 10 d5 Ne4! (10...0-0-0? 11 Be3 etc.; 10...e6? 11 Bf4 Kd8 12 Ne3
Qb6 13 dxe6 Qxe6 14 Bc4 Qc6 15 00 Bd6 16 Bxd6 Qxd6 17 Qf3 c6
18 g5 Ne5 19 Qd1 Qxd1 20 Rfxd1+ Nfd7 21 Be2! f5 22 gxf6 Be8 23 f4
Ng6 24 fxg7 +, Marinkovic Sta. Nikolic, Kladovo 1991) 11 Nb5
Over the Horizons
11...Qf6? (Black should be happy to

get three minor pieces for his queen:
11...Qxb5! 12 Nd6+ Nxd6 13 Bxb5
Nxb5 =+) 12 Be3 Kd8 13 Qe2 a6 14
Nd4 h5 15 Bg2 +/ (1-0, 31),
Kosmac Hrelja, Krsko 1993.
(e) 10 Be3 e6 11 d5 Bc5 12 Bxc5
Nxc5 13 Qd4 Ncd7 (13...Nce4) 14
Nb5 0-0? (14...0-0-0! 15 Nd2 Kb8
16 Nxc7 Qb6 /+) 15 Nxc7 e5 16
Qe3 + (1-0, 41) Canal
Blagojevic, Rogaska Slatina 1929.
(f) 10 h4 Qe6+ (10...Ne4!? 11 Ne5 Qa5) 11 Ne3 h5 (11...Nb6? 12 d5
+/), for example:
(f1) 12 Nb5 0-0-0 (12...Qc6) 13 g5 Ng4 (13...a6) 14 Nxa7+ Kb8 15
Nb5 Nxe3 16 fxe3 (1-0, 75) Aflalo Gupta, Mureck 2004; 16...Be4 =+.
(f2) 12 g5 Ng4 13 Bg2 (13 Nb5 0-0-0 see above) 13...0-0-0 (13...Qa6?
14 Ned5 0-0-0 15 f3 +/ [1-0, 45] Auer Bcker, Bundesliga II 1999)
14 Qe2 Qb6 =.
(g) 10 Qf3 e6 happened in the Tie Break blitz game of the press
tour-nament held during the World Championship at Lausanne 1998
(Karpov vs. Anand): 11 Bf4 (11 g5 Nh5) Qc6 12 Qxc6 bxc6 13 0-0-0
(13 Bxc7 Nd5 14 Nd6+ Bxd6 15 Bxd6) 13Nd5 14 Bd2 Bb4 15 Nxd5
Bxd2+ 16 Rxd2 cxd5 17 Bg2 Rb8 18 Na5 0-0 19 Nc6 Rb6 20 Ne7+
Kh8 21 Re1 Nf6 22 Nxg6+ hxg6 23 c3 Rc8
24 b4 a5 25 a3 axb4 26 axb4 Ra8 27
Rb2 Rba6 28 Kd2 Nd7 29 Bf1 Ra3
30 Bd3 Nb6 31 Rc2 Kg8 32 h4 Ra1
33 Rcc1 R8a2+ 34 Ke3 Rxc1 35
Rxc1 Kf8 36 h5 gxh5 37 gxh5 Nd7
38 Rh1 Nf6 39 f3 Ke7 40 h6 gxh6
41 Rxh6 Ra3 42 Kd2 Ra2+ 43 Bc2
Nd7 44 Kd3 Nb6 45 Rh2 Nc4 46
Re2 Na3 47 Rh2 Rxc2 48 Rxc2
Nxc2 49 Kxc2, Gik (2350) Bouton
(2210). Both players had
overstepped the time limit, so the
game was declared drawn and Black received the first prize of $9,000. I
wont argue with Blacks lucrative tenth move. Still 10...Qe6+ can be a
reasonable alternative: 11 Be2 c6 12 0-0 Nd5 13 Bd2 0-0-0 14 Rfe1 h5
15 g5 Qf5 16 Qxf5 Bxf5 17 h4 Nxc3 18 bxc3 Bxc2 19 Bf4 f6 20 Bf1
Bf5 with rough equality.
Over the Horizons
10...Qe6+!
After 10...Kd8? (10...Qc6? 11 d5 +) 11 Qf3 + Black is lost.
11 Ne3
The database contains 68 games with 8...Nbd7 (score: 68 percent for
White), 29 of these reached the position after 10...Qe6+ (74 percent for
White). Here 11 Ne3 clearly dominated: in 21 games White scored 81
percent, while the important alternative 11 Ne5 (below) occured only
once. Nevertheless it is difficult to say whether 11 Ne3 is objectively
best, considering the coming blow on move twelve. None of the
alternatives is harmless:
(a) 11 Be2 Nd5 (11...Nb6 12 Ne5 0-0-0 13 0-0 Nfd5 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15
Bg3 f6!?) 12 Qd2 (12 Nxd5 Qxd5 13 0-0 0-0-0 14 Qd2 e5 15 dxe5
Qxd2 16 Nxd2 Nxe5 =) 12...0-0-0 13 0-0-0 (1-0, 62) Villing
Niebaum, Bad Wrishofen 2002; 13...N7b6 =.
(b) 11 Qe2 Qxe2+ 12 Bxe2 0-0-0! is a critical position (12...c6? 13
Na5! +/ 0-0-0? 14 Nxc6!; 12...e6? 13 Bxc7 Bb4 14 f3 Nd5 15 Ba5 b5
16 Bxb4 Nxb4 [0-1, 24] Caldi Blanos, Buenos Aires 1992; 17 Ne3!
+/), for example:
(b1) 13 0-0-0 e6 14 Bf3 c6 15 Rhe1 h5 16 g5 Nd5 17 Nd6+ Bxd6 18
Bxd6 Nxc3 19 bxc3 Bf5 20 h4 Nb6 21 Be5 Rh7 22 Be4 Bxe4 23 Rxe4
Nd5 24 Rd3 =+
This time good knight against bad
bishop isnt sufficient for a win:
24...b5 25 Bg3 (threatens 26 g6)
Kd7 26 c4! bxc4 27 Ra3 Ra8 28 g6
fxg6 29 Re5 a5 30 Rg5 a4 31 Rxg6
c3 (or 31...Ne7 32 Rg5 Nf5 33 Rc3)
32 Be5 Ke7 (32...Kc8!? 33 Rxe6
Kb7) 33 Kd1 Kf7 34 Rg3 Ra7 35
Ke2 Kg8 36 Kd3 Ra5 37 Rg1 Kf7
38 Kc4 Rb5 39 Kd3 Ra5 40 Rg3
Kg8 41 Ke4 Kf7 draw, Sapi
Bellon Bopez, Mon-tilla Moriles
1978 [5].
(b2) 13 g5. The queens have left the board, but Whites lead in
development still counts. Black has to play carefully: 13...Nh5 14 Bg2
h6! (after 14...c6? 15 0-0-0 e6 16 Bd3! +/, pawn f7 is too weak) 15
gxh6 (15 Nb5 hxg5 16 Na5 Be4 17 f3 e5 18 0-0-0 Bb4!, or 16 Bg4
Nhf6 17 0-0-0 Nxg4 18 hxg4 a6 19 Na7+ Kb8 20 Bxc7+ Kxc7 21 Rxh8
Kb8 +) 15...Rxh6 16 Nb5 (16 0-0-0 a6 17 a3 Nhf6!; 16 Bf3 c6 17 d5
Over the Horizons
cxd5 18 Bxd5 Nhf6 19 Bg2 Rh5 +=) 16...a6 17 Nxc7 Nhf6

The extra pawn is meaningless,
White has problems finding an
escape route for his knight c7. For
example 18 Bf1 (18 0-0-0 Ne4 19
Na8 b5 =+; 18 a4 Rxh3 19 Na8 b6
=; 18 Bf4 Rh4 19 Bg3 Rxd4 20 c3
Re4 21 f3 Rxe2+ 22 Kxe2 e5 23
Na8 b5 =+) 18...Bf5 (Be4) 19 Bg2
Be4 20 f3 Bf5 21 Kf2 Bxh3 =.
(c) 11 Ne5 may be the strongest
continuation. Black can choose:
(c1) 11...Qb6 12 Nxg6 hxg6 13 Qf3 e6 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 +=. White has an
advantage. But Black plans Bb4, and the direct blow 15 g5 Ne8 16 Be3
Bb4 17 Qxf7 Rf8 18 Qxg6 Bxc3 19 bxc3 Qc6 gives Black sufficient
counterplay (20 Bd3 Nb6 21 c4 Nxc4). Delaying g4-g5 could be an
improvement: 15 Kb1 (or 15 Bg3!? a6 16 g5 Nh5 17 Bh2 Be7) 15...Bd6
16 Bxd6 Qxd6 17 Nb5 Qb6 18 g5 Nh5 19 Be2 (19 Qxf7 Ne5) 19...f6,
with a complicated situation. Id prefer White, but Black is not without
chances.
(c2) 11...Nd5 12 Bc4 N7b6 13 Nxd5 Nxd5 14 Qf3 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 f6 16
Rhe1 (1-0, 34, Buchicchio Manzardo, Limone Piemonte 2001)
16...Bxc2! 17 Kxc2 fxe5 18 Bxd5 (18 Rxe5 Qc6) 18...Qxd5 19 Qxd5
Rxd5 20 Rxe5 Rxe5 21 Bxe5 Rg8 22 Rd3 g5, and although this ending
is better for White, Black seems to hold: 23 Rc3 c6 24 d5 Rg6 25 dxc6
Rxc6.
11...Qb6!
Almost ridiculing White by
continuing to make queen moves,
Watson [7].
(a) 11... 0-0-0? 12 d5 Nxd5 13 Qxd5
+ or 12...Qb6 13 Nc4 Qa6 (Qb4 14
a3) 14 Nd6+ +.
(b) 11...a6? 12 d5 Qb6 13 Nc4 Qa7
14 Be3 etc.
12 g5
In Topalovic (2395) Oresh-kovic, Porec 1994 (Championship of
Croatia), White first repeated moves by means of 12 Nc4 Qe6+ 13 Ne3
Over the Horizons
Qb6, apparently to win time on the clock. Then he chose the text move.
We ignore the two additional moves in the game.
After 12 Nb5 further complex variations
arise:
(a) 12...e5? is incorrect: 13 dxe5 Qc5
(13...0-0-0 14 exf6 Nxf6 15 Qxd8+ Kxd8
16 Bxc7+ +; 13...a6 14 exf6 axb5 15
Nd5 etc.) 14 Qd4! (14 exf6 Qb4+) Qxd4
15 Nxd4 Be4 16 Bg2 (better than 16 f3
Nd5) 16...Bxg2 17 Nxg2 Nd5 18 0-0-0
Nxf4 19 Nxf4 + [5].
(b) 12...Rc8. The correct answer. 13 g5
(13 Nc4 Qe6+ 14 Qe2 Qxe2+ is equal,
while 14 Be2? Qe4 attacks Bf4 and Rh1),
for example:
(b1) 13...Nh5? 14 Bxc7! Qc6 (After 14...Rxc7 15 Nd5 Qe6+ 16 Be2 the
black rook cannot move because of Nc7+, winning the queen. If
16...Qe4 17 Nbxc7+ Kd8 18 Rg1 e6 19 Ne3) 15 d5 Qc5 16 Ba5!,
followed by 17 b4 + [5].
(b2) 13...e5 14 dxe5! Ne4 15 Qg4 Qc6 16 Rd1 Bc5 17 f3 a6 [5] 18 a4!
+.
(b3) 13...Be4 14 f3 Nd5! 15 fxe4 Nxf4 16 Qg4 e5 [5] 17 Nc4 Qe6 18
Ncxe5 +/.
(b4) 13...Qc6!
14 Rg1 (14 f3 Nh5 15 Bh2 a6 16

Na7 Qe6 17 Nxc8 Qxe3+ 18 Qe2
Qxd4 19 c3 Qh4+ 20 Qf2 Qxf2+ 21
Kxf2 e5 22 b4 Kd8 23 Na7 Bd6 =+)
14...e5 15 dxe5 Ne4 16 c3 Bc5 17
h4 Rd8 18 Nd4 Bxd4 19 cxd4 Qb6
20 Nc4 Qb4+ 21 Bd2 Nxd2 22
Qxd2 Qe7 23 Be2 +=. Black has lost
a pawn, but his opponents king has
no safe haven.
12...e5!
Over the Horizons
Blacks play in this variation

depends upon pure dynamism!
Watson [7]. The text move is an
improvement. Without this idea,
Black would simply be lost. In
Topalovic (2395) Oresh-ko-vic,
Porec 1994 (Championship of
Croatia) Black immediately
snatched the pawn: 12...Qxb2? 13
Nb5 e5 14 Nc4 (14 gxf6 exf4 15
Nc4!, for example 15...Qb4+? 16 c3
+, winning the queen. Or 15...Qxc2
16 Qxc2 Bxc2 17 Kd2! +/) 14...Bb4+ 15 Ke2 exf4? (slightly better:
15...Nd5 16 Nxc7+ Nxc7 17 Nxb2 Nb5 18 Bd2! +/) 16 Nxb2 + f3+
17 Kxf3 Bh5+ 18 Kg2 Bxd1 19 Nxc7+ Kd8 20 Nxa8 Bh5 21 gxf6 gxf6
22 Bd3 Rg8+ 23 Kf1 Bf3 24 Rg1 Rxg1+ 25 Kxg1 Bc3 26 Rb1 b6 27
Nxb6 axb6 28 Na4 Bxd4 29 c3 Be5 30 Nxb6 Nc5 31 Bxh7 Bxc3 32
Rc1 Bd4 33 Rc4 Ne6 34 Na4 Bd5 35 Rc2 Ng5 36 Bf5 Nf3+ 37 Kf1
Nh4 38 Bd3 Bg2+ 39 Ke1 Bxh3 40 Be4 Ke7 41 Nc3 f5 42 Bb7 Kf6 43
a4 f4 44 Nb5 Nf5 45 a5 Ne3 46 Nxd4 Nxc2+ 47 Nxc2, and Black
resigned [5].
13 dxe5
Other moves are not promising either:
(a) 13 gxf6 exf4 14 Ned5 Qe6+ 15 Qe2 0-0-0 16 Qxe6 fxe6 17 Nxf4
gxf6 =+, Black has a comfortable position.
(b) 13 Bxe5 Nxe5 14 Bb5+ (14 dxe5 Qxb2 15 Nb5 Bb4+ 16 Ke2 Bh5+
17 f3 Ne4) 14...c6 15 gxf6 Qxd4! /+
(c) 13 Nc4 Qc6 (13...Qxd4 [5] 14 Be3 Qxd1+ 15 Rxd1 Nh5 16 Nb5 0-00 =+) 14 d5 Nxd5 15 Qxd5 Qxd5 16 Nxd5 0-0-0 =+.
13...Qxb2 14 Nb5
If 14 Ned5? Nxd5 15 Nxd5, the clearest road to victory is 15...Bb4+ 16
Nxb4 (16 Ke2 Nxe5 threatens Bd3+) 16...Qxb4+, followed by Qe4+,
and wins rook h1.
14...Bb4+
Over the Horizons
In Kaissiber 6 my main line was 14...Qb4+ 15 Qd2 Ne4! 16 Qxb4

Bxb4+ 17 c3 Ba5! /+, for example 18 Nd5 c6! 19 Nbc7+ Kd8 20 Nxa8
cxd5 21 0-0-0 Nxc3 22 Bd2 d4, followed by Kc8-b8 + [5]. However,
in my sideline 15 c3 Qxf4 16 Nxc7+ Kd8 17 gxf6 [5] Qxe5 (17...Rc8
18 Ncd5) 18 Nb5 Rc8 White may hope to survive: 19 Qd2 Bh5 20 a4 a6
21 Nd4 Rc7 22 Bg2 Kc8 23 0-0 Nxf6 =+.
15 Ke2
Not 15 c3? Ne4! +, threatening Qxf2 mate.
15...Ne4 16 Nxc7+
(a) 16 Nd5 Bh5+ 17 f3 Nxe5 18 Bg2
18...Ng6 19 Bh2 0-0-0 20 Rb1 Qxa2
21 Nxb4 [5] Nc3+! 22 Nxc3 Qe6+
23 Kf2 Qb6+ 24 Kg3 Rxd1 25
Rhxd1 Qc5 26 Nbd5 Qd6+ 27 f4
Bxd1 28 Rxd1 h6 +. In this
variation, the black queen did most
of the work alone. A queen on
wheels!
(b) 16 Rb1 Nc3+ 17 Nxc3 Qxc3 18 Rb3 [5] Qc6 19 Qd5 Qa4 20 Qxb7
Rb8 21 Qxc7 0-0 /+, Black has a strong attack.
Over the Horizons
16...Kd8 17 Nb5
17 Ncd5 Bc3 18 Rb1 Qxa2 19 Bg2 (19 Rb5 Rc8) 19...Qa6+ 20 Kf3 Qc6
21 Ke2 Re8 /+.
17...Bc5 18 Rb1 Qxa2
19 Rb3
(a) 19 h4 Qa6 20 Qe1 Bh5+ 21 f3
Re8 +.
(b) 19 Bg2 Rc8 20 Ra1 Qe6 21 Ke1
Qb6 with excellent winning
chances, for example 22 Nxa7 Qb4+
23 c3 Nxc3 24 Qd2 Qxf4 25 Nxc8
Bb4! 26 Ra8 Kc7 27 Kf1 Qxe5 28
Bc6!? Nc5 29 Qb2 Nd3 30 Qa1 Qf4
+.
19...Qa6 20 f3 Qxb5+ 21 Rxb5 Nc3+ 22 Kd2 Nxd1 /+.
In Chess Strategy in Action John Watson wrote about 8...Nbd7!? [7]:
Blacks little-played idea and Stefan Bckers analysis ... may yet
prove to be unsound and I could have chosen something more
established, but I thought that the friskiness of Blacks queen would
provide a counter-example to the rules we established above.
We are still far away from proving the lines correctness. When I
checked my old analyses ([5], [6]), I found several refinements for both
sides. But the present state of affairs is already a success for the
Scandinavian Defense. Laskers line is not as convincing as the books
say. If only 8...Nbd7 leads to lively play with mutual chances (which
seems to be the case), Mieses sharp Scandinavian repertoire based on
Bg4 and Nc6 could become as popular as it was before 1920.
Sources:
[1]
S. Tartakower: Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, 2nd ed. Vienna 1925.
[2]
F. Reinfeld: Addenda to Griffith and White, in: The Chess Review,

September 1937, p. 198f .
[3]
C. J. S. Purdy: Centre Counter, in: The Australasian Chess Review,

November 18, 1937, p. 303f.
[4]
C. J. S. Purdy: Correspondence Play, in: The Australasian Chess Review,

April 8, 1942, p 71.
[5] St. Bcker: Gromeister Jacques Mieses war mit c6 nicht

zufrieden, in: Kaissiber 6 (1998), pp. 24-63. The Scandinavian
Over the Horizons
with Nc6 and/or Bg4, intending an early e7-e5.

[6] St. Bcker: Skandinavisch la Mieses: Alte Quellen und neue
Ideen, in: Kaissiber 7 (1998), pp. 26-32. The same topic,
readers reactions and new ideas.
[7] J. Watson: Chess Strategy in Action, London 2003 (pp. 204206).

Over the Horizons
Visiting Planet Englund
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Some openings have a special charm. There are moments when I cannot
believe in the correctness of the Kings Gambit or the Englund Gambit,
but months later I find myself again sitting at the board, or in front of
the screen, analyzing the critical positions. Like the Kings Gambit, the
Englund Gambit rarely transposes to other openings. A typical Englund
position also looks strange, as though it came from another world. This
column will not suffice even to get an overview of the many forms of
the Englund Gambit (Soller Gambit, Felbecker Gambit, Charlick
Gambit, Zilbermints Gambit), so well visit just the most important
continent: 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7.
The opening was invented by the
same man who established the
Latvian Gambit: Karlis Betin
(1867-1943; in German sources:
Karl Behting). He published his
analysis Knigsbauer gegen
Damenbauer in Deutsche
Schachzeitung 1930, pp. 171-174.
Two years later Fritz Englund
(1871-1933), the leading chess
figure in Sweden, sponsored a
thematic tournament, held at
Stockholm in late 1932 and early 1933. Every game had to begin with
Betin main line 4 Qd5. Dont ask me why the new planet wasnt
named after Karlis Betin probably because his article had already
been forgotten, or more probable because Englund died shortly
afterwards. When chess magazines reported his death, they rarely failed
to mention Englunds Gambit Tournament. So the name stuck.
Over the Horizons
Karlis Betin
It has got a name (though the wrong one), but does it really deserve our
attention? In his book Dynamic Black Defenses (1989) [4], Tim
Harding wrote on the Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5: Stefan Bcker is
writing a book on the gambit, to be published [...] towards the end of
1988 (after my deadline for this edition). No doubt he has some original
ideas about how Black may complicate matters, but I find it hard to
believe that he can find ways to make the gambit playable in
competitions above 2000 Elo standard.
Years later the same author wrote in his magazine Chess Mail 5/1998
[8]: There are so many different ways for Black to continue after 2
dxe5 Nc6 (or 2...f6!?) 3 Nf3 that it is really four gambits in one [...] Yet
all the gambit books and monographs in the world should not save
Black if his opponent is a sound 2300 player. This statement doesnt
sound as negative as the first, but a third quote from Harding (The
Kibitzer column No. 4, 1996) even puts the Englund Gambit in the
category of truly eccentric and almost certainly unsound gambits
which however may have their place in pub games, five-minute
tournaments and other forms of casual play.
Over the Horizons
Fritz Englund
However, in my six tournament games with the Englund Gambit, my

average opponent could well be regarded as a sound 2300 player.
Instead of a 6-0 for White, as suggested by Harding, the result was a
meager 1-5, including two draws. This doesnt prove much, true. None
of the games followed the difficult main lines and I admit that these
lines are more difficult for Black than for White. Maybe they knew
about my book, but this doesnt really explain why five of them played
the cautious 4 g3. The only exception was Valery Lukov (Bulgaria,
2440), who tried 4 Qd5 f6 5 Nc3? fxe5 6 Bg5 Nf6 7 Bxf6 gxf6, which
was already slightly better for Black (=, 62). These six players all made
the same mistake: to believe that you can refute the Englund Gambit
over the board, without knowledge. It did not even work without time
pressure: Henry Grob (1904-1974), the Swiss master, was the first to
test the Englund Gambit on a regular basis, in dozens of correspondence
games. He won the great majority and published them in an excellent
book [1], recommending to play the gambit in correspondence games
rather than over the board.
These games are hardly relevant for the theory of the opening, and my
play wasnt faultless. But look at some positions, and decide for
yourself. My point is that blowing Black off the board isnt so easy.
Even passive positions have their resources, and provoking White to
begin a pawn storm can often be a good idea to increase your own
winning chances. Who hasnt got the feeling: Nowadays everybody
plays so cautious. Against my Alekhines Defense nobody dares to play
the Four Pawns Attack anymore. Yes, thats a problem. But against the
Englund Gambit, experienced players are often throwing caution into
the wind:
V. Trichkov (2290) Bcker (2345)
Prague 1991 (Bohemians)
Over the Horizons
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 g3 Nxe5 5 Nxe5 Qxe5 6 Bg2 Bb4+ 7

c3 Ba5 8 Nd2 Qe6 9 0-0 Ne7 10 b4 Bb6 11 c4 d6 12 Bb2 0-0 13 Qc2
c6 14 e4 Qh6 15 Rad1 Bg4 16 Nf3 Rad8 17 Qc3 f6 18 a4 Qh5 19 a5
Bc7 20 Rd2 a6 21 Ne1 Qf7 22 Nc2 Be6 23 Ne3 Bb8 24 Rfd1 Kh8 25
Kh1 Qg8 26 f4 Rd7 27 Ba3 Rfd8
28 f5 Bf7 29 Bb2 Qe8 30 g4 Ng8 31

g5 Bh5 32 Rf1 Rf7 33 h4 Qe7 34
b5 Rdf8 35 Rdf2 Qd8 36 bxc6
bxc6 37 e5 dxe5 38 Bxc6 fxg5 39
hxg5 Qxg5 40 Rg1 Qh6 41 Rh2
Qxc6+ 42 Nd5 Rxf5 01
H. Schuh (2375) - Bcker (2345)

Bad Neuenahr 1991, German Championship
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 g3 Nxe5 5 Bg2 Nxf3+ 6 Bxf3 Nf6 7
c4 d6 8 Nc3 c6 9 Qd4 Qe6 10 Bf4 Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Rfd1 Rd8 13
Rd3 Qf5 14 Rad1 Be6 15 b3 h6 16 Qe3 Ne8 17 Qd2 Rd7 18 Bg2 Bf8
19 h4 Rad8
20 Qe3 Qa5 21 Qd2 f6 22 Ne4 Qh5
23 Be3 Bf5 24 Rd4 d5 25 cxd5
Rxd5 26 Bf3 Rxd4 27 Bxd4 Qg6
28 h5 Qf7 29 Qc3 Bxe4 30 Bxe4 c5
31 Bg6 Qd5 32 e4 cxd4 01
Over the Horizons
R. Mecklenburg Bcker (2355)

Bad Godesberg 1991, Championship of North Rhine & Westphalia
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 g3 Nxe5 5 Bg2 Nxf3+ 6 Bxf3 Qe6 7 00 Bc5 8 Qd5 Qxd5 9 Bxd5 Ne7 10 Bg2 d5 11 Nc3 Be6 12 e4 d4 13
Na4 Bb6 14 Nxb6 cxb6 15 f4 f5 16 Re1 Rc8 17 b3 Kf7 18 Ba3 Rhe8
19 Re2 Nc6 20 Rae1
20...d3 21 Re3 Nd4 22 exf5? (22
cxd3) Bxf5 23 Bd5+ Kg6 24 Rxe8
Rxe8 25 Rf1 dxc2 26 Bb2 Bd3 27
Ra1 c1Q+ 28 Bxc1 Nc2 01
Critical Variations
In the following part, Ill look only
at the two most critical variations.
There are dozens of other options
for White. Here I can only give a
few additional hints:
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 e4 Nxe5 5 Nxe5 Qxe5 6 Bd3.

Although my book [3] analyzed this posi-tion twice (p. 80 and p. 136),
neither of the two different lines was con-vincing. 6...d5!? (Holger
Riedel) may be better, for example:
7 0-0 dxe4 8 Nc3!? (8 Bxe4 Bd6 9
g3 Nf6 10 Bc6+?! bxc6 11 Re1 Ne4,
Riedel) 8...Bd6 9 g3 f5 10 Bb5+
Bd7 11 Bxd7+ Kxd7, about =.
(b) 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4
Nc3 Nxe5 5 e4! (better than 5 Nd5
Nxf3+ 6 gxf3 Qd8 7 Qd4 d6 8 Bg5
f6 9. Bd2 c6 10 Nf4 Qb6) 5...Nf6
(suggested by Joachim SchmidtBrauns) 6 Bg5 (or 6 Nxe5 Qxe5 7 f4
Qe6, J. Schmidt-Brauns, 8 Qd4 b6 9
Bc4 Bc5) 6...c6 7 Nxe5 Qxe5 8 f4 Qe6 9 Qd4 b6 10 Bc4 Bc5 +=.
(c) 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Bf4. Recommended by Pablo Viaggio
(Buenos Aires) in The Myers Openings Bulletin 20 (1981), p. 16f. My
response in [3] was 3...Qe7 4 Nc3 Nxe5 5 Nd5 Qd6 6 Nf3 f6,
overlooking 7 e4 Ne7 8 Nxe5 fxe5 9 Qh5+ +. James Hickey
(Australia) preferred 3...g5 4 Bg3 Bg7, and maybe he is right, but the
other retreat 4 Bd2 is equally critical, and White certainly stands better.
Perhaps Black should rather play 3...f6 4 Nf3 fxe5 5 Nxe5 Qf6 6 Nd3
Over the Horizons
d6, in the style of a Soller Gambit. The computer doesnt see enough
compensation for the pawn, but Black can develop quickly, he has the eand the f-file, and he can strive for d5 or g5. In practice Black will have
reasonable chances.
Terrifying Main Lines I: Stockholm Variation
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Qd5!
Analyzed on 24 pages in my book, plus many more in a later series of
articles published in Gambit Revue. Some books call it the Spielmann
Variation, after a game Spielmann - Lundin, but Rudolf Spielmann
didnt have a choice, since 4 Qd5 was the prescribed move in the
thematic tournament 1932/33 and had to be played in any of the 30
games.
4...f6 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 Qb3
There is nothing wrong with 6 Qd1.
Most theoreticians preferred the text
move; however, because the queen
b3 attacks b7 and hampers Blacks
development (at least it seems so).
6...d5
The point of Blacks set-up now is 7
Nc3 Bd7! (Bertazzo 1981).
Unimpressed by Whites Qb3, Black
calmly continues his development.
Sharp variations arise, like 8 Nxd5 Nxd5 9 Qxd5 Nb4 10 Qb3 Qe4!, or
8 Nb5 0-0-0 9 Bf4 a6 10 Nxc7 Qb4+, or 8 Bg5 Na5!?, or finally 8 Qxb7
Rb8 9 Qxc7 Qc5. But then Joachim Schmidt-Brauns (Jena/Germany)
found another plan, which seemed terribly strong:
7 Bg5! Bd7
To escape this variation, I even studied the wild experiment 7...a5?!, to
pose the opponent unusual problems. Black gains space at the
queenside, in some lines a piece can occupy the b4-square:
(a) 8 Nc3 a4! 9 Qb5 (9 Nxa4? Qb4+ 10 Nc3 d4 /+) Ra5 10 Qd3 Nb4
11 Qd2 d4 12 Nb1 Qe4 13 Na3 Rd5 or Nc6, about =.
(b) 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9 Nc3 a4 10 Nxa4 (10 Qxd5 Bb4 =) Rxa4 11 Qxa4
Bb4+ 12 Nd2 Qxb2 =+.
(c) 8 a4 is a logical response: White wants to keep the queen on b3.
8...Nb4! 9 e3 (9 Na3 Bf5 also seems playable) 9...Qe4 10 Bd3 Nxd3+
Over the Horizons
11 cxd3 (or 11 Qxd3 Bb4+ 12 Nc3 0-0) 11...Bb4+ 12 Nbd2 Qe6 13 0-0
0-0 =. Although White has an extra pawn, Black can be satisfied. In
fact, Id prefer to play the position with Black.
(d) 8 a3 a4
(d1) 9 Qc3 Ra5! 10 e3 (10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 e3 Bg7, followed by f5, =)
10...d4!, with some attractive variations:
(d1a) 11 Qd2 Rxg5!! 12 Nxg5 Ng4
13 e4 Qc5 14 Nf3 Bd6 15 c3 Bf4!
16. Qc2 Be6 17 Bd3 Bb3 18 Qe2 00 = 19 0-0 Nge5! 20 Ne1 Be6 21 h3
dxc3 etc. A dangerous position for
White.
(d1b) 11 Bxf6! dxc3 12 Bxe7 cxb2
13 Ra2 Bxe7 14 Rxb2 0-0!. Black
should be able to defend, because it
is difficult for White to coordinate
his pieces. For example, 15 Bc4+
Kh8 16 Rb5 Rf5! 17 Rxf5 Bxf5 18 Bd3 Bxd3 19 cxd3 Rb5 [Oder] 15
h3 b6 16 Bb5 Na7 17 Bc4+ Kh8 18 Ke2 Bb7 19 Rd1 h6 (or g6).
Blacks pieces are rather active, and there are threats of Rc5 or Raf5. In
the coming ending, White always has to keep an eye on the
breakthrough b5-b4.
(d2) 9 Qd3! is best and more or less refutes Blacks idea. 9...Ne5
(9...Be6 10 Nc3 h6 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 0-0-0 +/; 9....Qc5 10 Bxf6 gxf6
11 Nc3 d4 12 Nb5! Ne5 13 Nxe5 fxe5 14 e3 +/) 10 Qd4 Nxf3+ 11
gxf3 Qc5 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Qxf6 Rg8 14 Qe5+ Kf7 15 Nc3 Bg7 16
Qh5+ Kf8 17 0-0-0 Bxc3 18 Rxd5 Qe7 19 bxc3 Qxa3+ 20 Kd2 Qe7 21
e3 Be6 22 Rd4 Rg5 23 Qh6+ +/, White is clearly better. Blacks
remaining hope rests on promoting the a-pawn.
8 e3!
The point of the new concept by Joachim Schmidt-Brauns, Black isnt
troubling himself with the unclear consequences of 8 Nc3 Na5.
8...0-0-0 9 Nc3 Be6
Not 9...Na5? 10 Bxf6 Nxb3 because of 11 Bxe7, attacking the Rd8 an
important difference to the line 8 Nc3 Na5.
10 Nd4 Nxd4 11 exd4
Over the Horizons
More than once I wrote in Kaissiber

that this line might be a refutation of
the Englund Gambit. Some years
ago the position has been tested in a
series of 21 computer games,
arranged by Hans-Christian Lykke
the modern equivalent of the
Stockholm tournament of 1932/33.
White scored 78 percent.
Nevertheless, the stranded white
queen gives Black some
compensation for the gambit pawn.
A possible continuation is: 11...Rd6 12 0-0-0 Rb6 13 Qa4 Kb8 14 f3
Qf7 15 Bf4?! (to prevent 15...Bd6 +=) 15...Ne4! 16 Bxc7+ Qxc7 17
fxe4 (17 Qe8+? Bc8 18 Nxd5 Nf6! 19 Nxc7 Nxe8 20 Nxe8 g6 =,
winning the knight) 17...Be7 18 Nxd5 Bxd5 19 exd5 Rb4 20 Qa3 Rc8
21 Qg3 Bd6 22 Qd3 Rxd4 23 Qe2 Rb4 24 c4 b5 25 Kb1 bxc4 =+.
So the diagram position seems playable, but some of the old gambit
spirit connected with 7...Bd7 has gone. For example, White can choose
the solid 14 a3 Qf7 15 Bxf6 gxf6 +=, and still has a slight advantage.
Terrifying Main Lines II: The Grob Variation

1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4!
In the majority of his games with the Englund Gambit Henry Grob had
to defend against this line, so it seems fair to name it after him. The
following sequence of moves was also strongly favoured by the
Over the Horizons
theoretician Ludek Pachman, and in the last eight years Eric Schiller
claimed in his works [2], [5] and [9] that 4 Bf4 were a refutation of
Blacks strategy.
4...Qb4+
The alternatives are not attractive, but when the main line practically
leads to a loss by force, they are looking a bit better:
(a) 4...f6?! 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 Nc3 d5 7 e3! +/. The position reminds me on
6 Qd1 in the Stockholm Variation above, but with two extra moves for
White.
(b) 4...d6!? 5 exd6 Qf6. A kind of Charlick (or Hartlaub) Variation of
the Englund, which involves the somewhat dubious exchange of the dpawn for Whites e5-pawn. But what else can Black do?
(b1) 6 e3 Qxb2 7 Nbd2 Bxd6 8 Bxd6 cxd6 9 Rb1 looks risky, but
apparently Black can survive: 9...Qc3 10 Rb3 Qa5 11 Rb5 Qc3 12 Bd3
Nf6 13 0-0 a6 (13...d5 14 Nb1 Qa1 15 c4!) 14 Rb3 Qc5 15 Ne4 Nxe4
16 Bxe4 0-0, and Black may be able to hold, e. g. 17 Qd3 Be6!.
(b2) 6 Qc1 Bxd6 7 Bxd6 Qxd6 8 Qd2 Qe7 9 e3 Nf6, for example 10
Bb5 Bg4. For his sacrificed pawn, Black hasnt much. But there are
open files for his rooks and no immediate problems with the
exception of a missing pawn.
5 Bd2
After 5 Nc3!?, White has a difficult choice to make: 5...Qxb2 6 Bd2
transposes to the main line, while 5...Qxf4 apparently isnt much better:
6 Nd5 Qe4 7 Nxc7+ Kd8 8 Nxa8 Nb4 (8...b6 9 Qd3 Qxd3 10 exd3 Bb7
11 Nxb6 axb6 12 d4 etc., with a rook and three pawns for only two
pieces) 9 Rc1 Nxa2 10 Rb1 Nb4 (so far my analysis in [3]) 11 c3 b6 12
cxb4 Bxb4+ 13 Nd2 Qxa8 14 e3 Qd5 15 Rc1 Ne7 16 Rc4 Nc6 17 f4
Bb7 18 e4 Qa5 +/.
5...Qxb2
5...Qe7 6 Bc3 b6 7 e3 Bb7 8 Bd3 f6 9 exf6 Nxf6 +/ isnt impressive,
but considering the consequences of the main line, this version of the
Soller Gambit might still be the best escape route that Black has. But
this isnt yet the whole truth, since White could reply 6 Bf4!? Qb4+ 7
Nc3, to reach the last note (5 Nc3!?, above) and force his opponent into
the main line.
6 Nc3 Bb4
Over the Horizons
6...Nb4? 7 Nd4 c6 8 a4 + is incorrect.

7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Nd5!
Even stronger than the traditional
line 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 e4 Nge7 10 Bb5
(Eric Schiller [5]) a6 11 Bxc6! dxc6
12 00, which is also good for
White.
8...Bxd2+
The books (including mine)
recommended 8...Ba5, to lure
Whites rook to b5: 9 Rb5 Bxd2+
(or 9...Kd8 10 Rxa5 Nxa5 11 Bb4
Qxa2 12 Ng5, and now either 12...Nh6 13 e6 d6 14 Nxc7 + or
12...Nc6 13 Nxf7+ Ke8 14 Nxh8 Nxb4 15 Nxb4 Qa3 16 Nd3 Nh6 17 e3
Kf8 18 e6 +) 10 Qxd2 Kd8 11 e4 h6 12 h4 b6 13 Bc4 Qf8. So far
analysis by Grob [1], but this line is hopeless, as Joel Benjamin
demonstrated in [5]: 14 Nf4 Nge7? 15 0-0 Ba6 16 e6 Kc8 17 exd7+
Kb7 18 Rc5!, and White wins.
9 Qxd2 Qxa2 10 Rd1 Kd8 11 Ng5!
With the white rook still on b1, now the standard treatment 11 Qg5+
Nge7 12 Qxg7? Qa5+ 13 c3 Nxd5 14 Qxh8+ Ke7 15 Rxd5 Qxd5 16
Qxh7 Qa5 only leads to a draw. In this sequence, another 12th move
may be slightly more precise, but this doesnt matter anymore, since the
text move 11 Ng5! is so much stronger.
11...Nh6 12 e6!
12...d6 13 e7+ Kd7
Or 13...Nxe7 14 Nxc7! Kxc7? 15
Qxd6 mate.
14 Nxh7! (14 g3) 14Nf5
If Black accepts the sacrifice,
14...Rxh7?, there follows a forced
mate: 15 e8Q+! Kxe8 16 Nxc7+ Kf8
17 Qxd6+ Kg8 18 Qd8+ Nxd8 19
Rxd8 mate.
15 Nf8+ Ke8 16 Nxc7+ Kxe7 17 Nxa8 Kxf8 +/.
Over the Horizons
Did I overlook any improvements for Black? If not, then 4 Bf4 d6 is

going to become the new main line of the Englund Gambit. Not my
problem, fortunately, since my opponents will surely continue to play 4
g3.
Thank you very much for several concrete reactions to last months
topic, the Scandinavian Defence. Next month Ill return to this
battlefield.
Sources:
[1] H. Grob: Englund Gambit, Zurich 1968
[2] J. Benjamin, E. Schiller: Unorthodox Openings, London 1987
[3] S. Bcker: Englund-Gambit. Drei Gambits in einem, Dsseldorf
1988
[4] T. Harding: Dynamic Black Defenses, Dallas 1989, p. 117
[5] J. Watson, E. Schiller: The Big Book of Busts, San Francisco 1995
[6] T. Harding: The Kibitzer, www.chesscafe.com, column No. 4, 1996
[7] S. Bcker: Kampf ums Remis im Englund-Gambit in Kaissiber 1
(1996), p. 4; p. 64
[8] T. Harding: Eat My Pawns!, in Chess Mail 5/1998, p. 10
[9] E. Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998
[10] S. Bcker: Niederes Leben auf Planet Englund in Kaissiber 10
(1999), p. 24
[11]
S. Bcker: Zurechtgerckt in Kaissiber 11 (1999), p. 5

Over the Horizons
Something Old, Something New

Which is the oldest chess opening? Some will say the Italian Game,
Giuoco Piano in the old Italian sources. But it isnt. What will be
your next guess? The Damiano Defense, perhaps, or the Kings
Gambit?
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The probable answer can be found in El regreso de Francesch Vicent,

published in November 2005, by the Spanish chess historian Jos
Antonio Garzn. The book mainly tries to reconstruct the first printed
chess book, Libre dels jochs partitis dels schachs en nombre de 100
(Valencia 1495) by Francesch Vicent. The last known copy of Vicents
work went lost in 1811, when French troops occupied the Benedictine
monastery of Mont-serrat. But one chapter of Garzns new book also
discusses the old Catalan manuscript containing the poem Schachs
d'amor, which describes the following chess game:
Castellv Vinoles
Scandinavian Defense
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7
Qxf3 e6 8 Qxb7 Nbd7 9 Nb5
9...Rc8 10 Nxa7 Nb6 11 Nxc8 Nxc8
12 d4 Nd6 13 Bb5+ Nxb5 14
Qxb5+ Nd7 15 d5 exd5 16 Be3
Bd6 17 Rd1 Qf6 18 Rxd5 Qg6 19
Bf4 Bxf4 20 Qxd7+ Kf8 21 Qd8
mate.
Most authors considered the
Gttingen Manuscript to be older,
but now Jos Antonio Garzn
examined the water-mark of the
Catalan manuscript and discovered
that Schachs damor must be dated between 1474 and 1478. This
practically means that Castellv Vinoles is the oldest game of modern
chess (we are speaking of the version with our queen and bishop
moves, not Arabian chess). There merely remains a small chance for the
Gttingen Manuscript to keep its record. It is generally believed that it
Over the Horizons
originated about 1500-1505, only Fritz Clemens Grschen in SchachEcho (1975) boldly goes back to 1471-75.
During the nineteenth century, the Queens Pawn vs. Kings Pawn
Opening or Centre Counter Gambit, as Jaenisch called it, wasnt
regarded as a standard opening, but now and then even prominent
players used 1...d5. Anderssen lost with it against Morphy. William
Norwood Potter wrote that the defence is at least playable between
strong players; and perhaps, were it more often adopted, its claim as a
regular opening might become recognized. Before the Scandinavians
took over, Joseph Henry Blackburne had already played it in more than
20 games, with a positive result. Some sources say that the merit of the
Scandinavians was to move the queen to a5 instead of d8, but, while
you can find Qa5 in earlier games by Anderssen and Blackburne (just
one example: Weiss Blackburne, New York 1889: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6
3 d4 Qxd5 4 Nc3 Qa5 5 Nf3 c6), Ludvig and Gustaf Collijn from
Sweden still used the old-fashioned 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 in their eight
games of the Nordic Congress 1897, scoring 2-6.
Years later, however, we see Gustaf Collijn playing the modern move
order 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 d4 c6 against
Hallgarten (Ostende B tournament, 1906), and, after 1...d5, Carl
Schlechter comments in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1906, p. 306: This
defense could be named Nordic Defense or Scandinavian Defense,
because the Nordic players [did so much] for the exploration of this
opening. This was probably the earliest mention of the name
Scandinavian Defense (as pointed out in Kaissiber 7 by Peter
Anderberg, Harmstorf).
John Lutes in his Scandinavian Defense (1992) says: The entire
defense, in all its ramifications, was repeatedly played and analyzed by
Gustaf Nyholm, Gustaf Collijn, Ludvig Collijn, Fritz Englund, Karl
Berndtsson and Erhard Bjrklund, as well as many others. These
Scandinavian masters completely reshaped the defense into an exciting
and interesting asymmetrical opening. Apparently the Finnish player
Erhard Bjrklund was the reason to choose the name Scandinavian
Defense, instead of Swedish Defense.
Over the Horizons
The February column, A Queen on Wheels, recommended the littleknown line 8...Nbd7!? for Black. Here Ill mainly look at the readers
reactions. However, Ill take the opportunity to make the picture more
complete, by discussing early alternatives ignored in the first article.
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5
2...Nf6 3 c4 e6 became popular at the end of the 1980s. However, this
so-called Icelandic Gambit has a history. I prefer the name Palme
Gambit, after the Austrian Rudolf Palme, who pioneered the typical
motifs of the gambit in the 1950s (cf. Kaissiber 1). There are even older
examples, although less convincing than Palmes games: Hruby
Auspitzer, Vienna 1889, was in Deutsches Wochenschach 1889, p. 391.
So when the Icelandic Gambit finally got its name in 1989, it was
already 100 years old. And, in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1913, we find a
short comment by Carl Schlechter: 3...e6 also comes into
consideration.
3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4
Against 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 d3 c6 6 Bd2 Bg4 7 f3 Bf5 8 Nd5 Qd8 9 Nxf6 gxf6
[5] Bjrn Holzhauer warns that Black could end in a situation
considered as unfavorable by Matthias Wahls [4]: 10 Ne2; for example,
10...Qb6 11 Ng3 Bg6 12 f4 f5 (Holzhauer). I admit that my article [5]
somewhat underestimated the strategy of delaying Nf3. Wahls even
formulates a rule that Black should postpone the development Nf6, until
White has himself played Nf3. Never-theless, I am inclined to share
Mieses old point of view, that Black doesnt have to fear a set-up
involving d2-d3. In the line above, Black could vary with 9...exf6!?.
Over the Horizons
After 10 Ne2 Bc5 11 Ng3 Be6!,

Black has a solid position.
4...Nf6
Playing the defense in the style of
Jacques Mieses. Other
interpretations are possible. Even
Anderssens 4...e5 has never met a
convincing refutation: 5 Nf3 (or 5
dxe5 Bb4 6 Bd2 Qxe5+ [2] 7 Be2
Bg4 +=) 5...Bb4 6 Bd2 Bg4 7 Be2
exd4 8 Nxd4 Qe5 9 Ncb5 Bxe2 10 Qxe2 Bxd2+ 11 Kxd2 Qxe2+ 12
Kxe2 (Tarrasch Mieses, Gteborg 1920) 12...Kd8, and Mieses [1]
wrote, perhaps a bit optimistic, that he didnt see an advantageous
continuation for White.
Matthias Wahls [4] prefers the modern continuation 4...c6. One of his
main lines: 5 Bc4 Bf5 6 Bd2 e6 7 d5 cxd5 8 Nxd5 Qd8 9 Qe2 Nf6 10
Nxf6+ Qxf6 11 0-0-0 Nc6 12 g4 Bg6 (see p. 111 in [4], by another
move order)
(a) 13 f4 0-0-0 14 Nf3 Bd6!! 15 f5?! exf5 16 Bg5 Bf4+! 17. Bxf4
Rxd1+ 18 Rxd1 fxg4 19 Qd2 Rd8 20 Bd3 gxf3 21 Bg5 Rxd3! 22 cxd3
Qe6 23 a3 Ne5 /+, a splendid piece of analysis by Wahls [4].
(b) However, Black seems to face serious problems after 13 Bc3 Qf4+
14 Kb1, as Bjrn Holzhauer (Switzerland) indicated in his e-mail:
(b1) 14...Qe4? 15 Qxe4 Bxe4 16 f3
Bg6 17 Ne2 e5 18 f4 f6 19 f5 Bf7
20 Bxf7+ Kxf7 21 Rd7+ Ke8 22
Rxb7 h5 23 g5 Ne7 24 gxf6 gxf6 25
Ng3 Nd5 26 Ne4 Be7 27 Rd1 Rg8
28 a4 Nxc3+ 29 Nxc3 a5 30 Rdd7
Bd8 31 Rh7 Ra6 32 Ne4 Kf8 33
Rbd7 Rg1+ 34 Ka2 Kg8 35 Rxh5
Ra8 36 Rd3 Be7 37 Rhh3 Rc8 38
Rhg3+ Rxg3 39 Rxg3+ Kf7 40 Rc3
Rh8 41 h3 Rh4 42 Rc4 Rxh3 43 c3
Rf3 44 b4 axb4 45 cxb4 Rxf5 46 a5
Rh5 47 b5 f5 48 Nc3 f4 49 a6 f3 50 Ne4 Rh8 51 b6 Ra8 52 a7 Bd8 53
Rc8 1-0, Schinkowski Holzhauer, Verbandsliga Mitte SchleswigHolstein, 2004.
(b2) 14...h5 15 g5! (instead of 15 gxh5 Rxh5 unclear, Wahls [4])
15...Be4 16 f3 Bf5 17 g6 Bxg6 18 Nh3 Qc7 19 Ng5 Bf5 20 Rd5 Bxc2+
21 Kxc2 Be7 22 Nxe6 fxe6 23 Qxe6 Nb4+ 24 Bxb4 Qxc4+ 25 Kb1
Over the Horizons
Qxb4 1-0, Holzhauer N. N., corr. 2004.

Bjrn Holzhauer: In this line John Emms [3] recommends 14...h5 15
g5 h4, but 16 Bb5, instead of his suggestion 16 Bd5, seems to refute
this line. 14...a6 may be playable. I didnt find a refutation but I am
not convinced.
5 Nf3
On 5 Bc4 (Duras), the reply 5...Nc6 is attributed an ! by Mieses [1],
but Ludger Keitlinghaus (Prague) regards the move as slightly
dubious. In one of his games he achieved a strong attack after 6 Nge2
Bg4 7 f3 Be6 8 Bb5 Bd5 9 b4!. However, according to Keitlinghaus,
Black should have played 8...0-0-0 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 Bd2 Bf5! (else 11
b3 followed by Na4), with about equal chances.
Another set-up analyzed in Kaissiber #6 [5] was 5 Bd2, a move
introduced by Leonhardt: 5...Bg4 6 f3 Bf5 7 g4 Bg6 8 f4 e6 9 Qe2 Be7
(Leonhardt Mieses, Karlsbad 1907). Here Bjrn Holzhauer
comments that 10 f5! is rather dangerous for Black (instead of the often
played, but harmless 10 Bg2): I analyzed this after a correspondence
game with Kevin White (England). Perhaps the wild 9...Nc6 is worth a
try, although 10 Nb5!? Bb4 11 f5 a6 12 c3!? doesnt look too reliable.
A fascinating variation. After
12...Qxb5 13 fxg6 hxg6 14 g5, the
immediate 14...Nxd4 fails: 15
Qxb5+ axb5 16 cxd4 Bxd2+ 17
Kxd2 Ne4+ 18 Ke3 Ng3 19 Bxb5+
c6 20 Bc4 Nxh1 21 Nf3 Ng3 22
hxg3 +/. But 14...Nd5!? 15 cxb4
Nxd4 comes into question, e.g. 16
Qxb5+ (or 16 Qe4 Qb6 17 Nf3
Nxf3+ 18 Qxf3 Nxb4 19 Qc3 Rh4!
resp. 19 Qe4 a5 +=) 16...axb5 17
Bd3 Nb3 18 Rb1 Nxd2 19 Kxd2
Rxa2 20 Bxb5+ c6 21 Bc4 Ra4. White still has an advantage;
nevertheless, a draw seems to be the most probable result, since Whites
remaining pawns are not impressive.
Bjrn Holzhauer continues: Faced with this idea (9....Be7 10 f5!),
GM Eric Pri hinted at 6...Bd7 or 7...Bd7, which he has already played
in practice. Another alternative, 5...Qb6 6 Nf3 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3 e6
9 0-0-0 Nbd7 10 d5 e5 11 g4 h6 12 h4 0-0-0 13 Bh3 Kb8 14 g5 hxg5 15
hxg5 Ne8 happened in one of my correspondence games, again with an
uncom-fortable situation for Black.
5...Bg4 6 h3 Bh5 7 g4 Bg6 8 Ne5
Over the Horizons
8...Nbd7!?
This knight move, instead of the
more common 8...e6, was discussed
in detail in A Queen on Wheels.
Now a new move by Ludger
Keitlinghaus makes life a bit harder
for Black, as we will see below.
Tartakowers line 8...c6 9 h4 Ne4,
given as playable in the February
article, can no longer be trusted.
After 10 Qf3 Nxc3 11 bxc3 Nd7 12 Nxd7 Kxd7 13 Rb1 Kc8 14 Bg2
Qxa2 15 Rb2 Qe6+ (so far my analysis in [5]) Bjrn Holzhauer found
a clear refutation: 16 Be3 (why should White exchange queens by
means of 16 Qe3?) 16...Qc4 (16...f6 17 d5) 17 Kd2 h5 18 g5 e5 19
Rhb1 b6 20 Qxc6+ Qxc6 21 Bxc6 Rb8 22 d5 + (Holzhauer).
9 Nc4 Qa6 10 Bf4 Qe6+! 11 Ne3
For the two important alternatives: 11 Qe2 and 11 Ne5 see A Queen on
Wheels.
11...Qb6 12 Nb5!
Here Khalifman had recommended 12 Bg2 in his recent book [7], as
two readers, Bjrn Holzhauer (Switzerland) and John Anderson
(Great Britain) kindly informed me. The work Opening for White
according to Anand, 1 e4 (Sofia 2004), presents Khalifman as its author
on the front page, but inside it reads: Copyright (c) 2004 by Alexander
Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov.
Khalifman/Soloviov write:
12...Qxb2. Blacks queen is finally
in action, but it is too late. After 13
Ncd5 Nxd5 14 Nxd5, Blacks
position is very difficult; for
example, 14...0-0-0 15 Rb1 +/, and
if 15...Qxc2, then 16 Nxe7+! Bxe7
17 Bxb7+ Kb8 18 Be4+, and White
wins.
Instead of the serious mistake
12...Qxb2?, Black should continue
12...e6 13 Nc4 Qa6 14 Qe2 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 Bb4, which is roughly equal.
The computer found a more original alternative: 12...c6 13 Qd2 e6 14
Over the Horizons
Nc4 Qb4!? 15 a3 Qxc4 16 Bf1 Bd3!; for example, 17 Qxd3 Qxd3 18

Bxd3 h6 19 0-0-0 Be7 20 Kb1 Nd5.
12...Rc8 13 g5
13...Be4
13...e5 14 dxe5 Ne4 is hardly
correct: 15 Qg4 Qc6 16 Rd1 Bc5 17
f3 a6 18 a4! 0-0 19 Qxd7 Qb6 20
a5! Qxa5+ 21 Nc3 etc. (+)
My February column recommended
13...Qc6?, with the following
continuation: 14 Rg1 e5 15 dxe5
Ne4 16 c3 Bc5 17 h4 Rd8 18 Nd4
Bxd4 19 cxd4 Qb6 20 Nc4 Qb4+ 21
Bd2 Nxd2 22 Qxd2 Qe7 23 Be2 +=. But Ludger Keitlinghaus
(Prague) detected a hidden refutation of Blacks queen move: 14 Nxa7!
Qxh1 15 gxf6!, intending 16 Qe2 and 0-0-0. Whites threats are terribly
strong:
(a) 15...Rb8 16 Qe2 Be4 17 Qc4
exf6 18 0-0-0 Qf3 19 Bxc7 Ra8 20
Bg3 +.
(b) 15...Rd8 16 Nb5 Nxf6 17 Nxc7+
Kd7 18 c3 Rc8 19 Qa4+ Kd8 20
Qa5 etc.
(c) 15...Ra8 16 Nb5 Rc8 17 Qe2
Nxf6 18 f3 Bh5 19 Nxc7+ Rxc7 20
Bxc7 Qxf3 21 Qxf3 Bxf3 22 Bb5+
Bc6 23 Bxc6+ bxc6 24 a4 +
(analysis).
(d) 15...e5 16 dxe5 Rd8, but again 17 Qd5! + (Keitlinghaus) wins
easily.
In Kaissiber 23, I recommended 13...Bh5 14 Be2! Qxb5 15 Bxb5 Bxd1
16 Rxd1 c6 17 Bc4 (the ending 17 gxf6 cxb5 appears less dangerous for
Black) 17...Nh5 18 Bh2 e6 19 c3 g6. With his pair of bishops, White
certainly has the better chances. Although this last line seems playable
for Black, the aggressive text move could be an improvement. The
position remains complex and poses more practical problems for White.
14 f3 Nd5 15 fxe4 Nxf4 16 Qf3
Over the Horizons
Equally critical is 16 Qg4 a6 17 Qxf4 (now after 17 Nc4, Black has

17...Qe6 18 Qxf4 axb5 19 Ne3 h6 with counterplay) 17...axb5 18 e5 (18
Be2 e5 19 dxe5 Bc5 20 Nd5 Qa5+ 21 c3 c6 22 Rf1 0-0, unclear) 18...e6
19 Bd3 c5 20 0-0 cxd4 21 Ng4 Kd8 22 Qxf7 Rc7:
At first sight, White has an
overwhelming position, but Blacks
resources should not be
underestimated. For example, 23 a4
Nf6 24 Nh6!? Rxf7 (or Nd5) 25
Nxf7+ Kc7 26 gxf6 Rg8 27 Bxh7
gxf6+ 28 Bxg8 bxa4 29 exf6 d3+ 30
Kg2 Qxb2, unclear.
16...Ne6 17 0-0-0
Or 17 Nc4?! Nxd4 =.
17...c6 18 Nc4 Qxb5 19 Nd6+ exd6 20 Bxb5 cxb5 21 Rhf1 Nd8 +=
21...Nxg5? 22 Qf5 f6 23 e5 g6 24 Qg4 h5 25 Qg2 fxe5 26 h4! +.
We have reached a critical situation
(after 21...Nd8). Three pieces are
substantial com-pensation for the
queen, but here Blacks minor
pieces lack coordination.
Nevertheless, Id prefer the present
line to the passive variation arising
after 13...Bh5, above. It isnt easy
for White to keep his grip on the
position; for example, 22 h4 Be7 23
Qg4 Rc7, and Black should be able
to achieve further improvements
(Nb6, Nc4).
Sources:
[1] J. Mieses: Die skandinavische Partie, Berlin 1920.
[2] R. Harman, S. Taulbut: Winning with the Scandinavian, London
1993
[3] J. Emms: The Scandinavian, Brighton 1997
[4] M. Wahls: Modernes Skandinavisch, Nettetal 1997
[5] St. Bcker: Gromeister Jacques Mieses war mit c6 nicht
zufrieden, in Kaissiber 6 (1998), pp. 24-63. The Scandinavian with
Nc6 and/or Bg4, intending an early e7-e5.
[6] St. Bcker: Skandinavisch la Mieses: Alte Quellen und neue
Ideen, in Kaissiber 7 (1998), pp. 26-32. The same topic, readers
reactions and new ideas.
Over the Horizons
[7] A. Khalifman: Opening for White according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 3,

Sofia 2004.

Over the Horizons
A Knight on the Edge: Part One

In some lines of the Closed Sicilian, Nb1-a3 has become a standard
move; for instance, after 1 e4 c5 2 g3 or 2 d3, White often avoids Nc3
and prefers Na3-c2. When Lawrence Day published his The Big Clamp
An Anti-Sicilian System (1984), this idea gained some popularity. But
we had to wait until 2005 to see the more radical 1 e4 c5 2 Na3 scoring
points, even against top grandmasters. Here Ill mainly discuss the four
games by Vadim Zviagintsev that have made 2 Na3 the Anti-Sicilian
fashion of the day.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Vadim Zviagintsev
Photo: Dagobert Kohlmeyer, Berlin
Not everyone has greeted the novelty with applause. Lubomir Kavalek
wrote the biting comment in the Washington Post [10]: Zviagintsevs
bizarre knight move to the edge against the Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Na3?!)
was an act of desperation against the well-known theoretician
Alexander Khalifman. Somehow it worked out and Zviagintsev won.
Quite the opposite could be true. During his preparation, Zviagintsev
might have spotted a real weakness of his opponent. In his books, [4]
and [5] Alexander Khalifman suggested his negative opinion about a
Over the Horizons
line involving an early Nb8-a6. Blacks setup may be dubious, but

Khalifmans refutation (Bxa6, d4-d5) doesnt look too convincing
either:
1 e4 c6 2 d4 Na6 (De Bruycker Defense) 3 Nc3
(a) 3...Nc7 4 d5! Nf6 (4...d6 5 Nf3 e5, S.B.) 5 Nf3 d6 6 dxc6 bxc6 7 e5
Nfd5 8 Ne4 Bf5 9 Ng3 Bg6 10 Bd3 e6 11 0-0 Be7 12 exd6 Qxd6 13
Bxg6 hxg6 14 Qe2 Nf4 15 Qe5+/ Khalifman [4].
(b) 3...g6 4 Bxa6! bxa6 5 d5! Bg7 6 dxc6 Qa5 7 Bd2! (7 cxd7+, S.B.)
dxc6 8 Nd5 Qd8 9 Bc3
9...e5 (9...Kf8 10 Bxg7+ Kxg7 11
Nc3 Qb6, S.B.) 10 Ne3 Qe7 11 Nc4
Be6 12 Qd6! Qxd6 13 Nxd6 Ke7 14
Nb7!+/, Khalifman [4]. And [5]
follows a similar strategy: 1 e4 Na6
2 Nc3 c6 3 Bxa6 bxa6 4 Nf3 g6 5 0
0 Bg7 6 d4 Nf6 (6d6, S.B.) 7 e5
Nd5 8 Ne4 00 9 c4 Nb6 10 b3 d5
11 exd6 exd6 12 Ba3+/, Khalifman
[5]. In such a position, most players
will probably follow Siegbert
Tarrasch and avoid taking the knight
on a6, and give Black the two bishops and an open b-file. Doesnt this
wild treatment of Na6 indicate that Khalifman is prejudiced against
knights on the edge? If so, then Zviagintsev was well advised to try 2
Na3.
Vadim Zviagintsev (2659) Alexander Khalifman (2653)
Moscow 2005, Russian Superfinal (2)
Sicilian Defense [B20]
1 e4 c5 2 Na3!
Lawrence Day [9]: Freakers. Ive
played eleven different moves in
this position, but never thought once
of 2 Na3. Khalifman laughed,
when his opponent played 2 Na3.
But, as several commentators wrote
after the game, the move isnt as
silly as it looks. Against 2e6,
White can continue with 3 c3, and if
2d5 3 exd5, the knight on a3 is
clearly more useful than a
weakening pawn move (2 f4 d5! or
2 g3 d5!). We will return to these alternatives. Blacks next move is a
Over the Horizons
natural continuation, although it gets a ?! from Sakaev.

2Nc6 3 Bb5
A kind of Rossolimo Variation (2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5). With his knight still
on g1, however, White keeps the additional idea of f2-f4, gaining
valuable space on the kingside. This will be the appropriate reaction,
when Black plays 3g6 (next game).
Regular visitors of Tim Krabbs website will already know the Nemeth
Gambit, a useful weapon, even against the strongest PC programs: 3 d4
cxd4 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 h3 Nxe4 6 Bxf7+ Kxf7 7 Qh5+ Ke6 8 Qg4+ Kd5 9
c4+ dxc3 10 Be3, with excellent chances for White. The concept was
developed by Eduard Nemeth from Germany. It works at least against
those creatures that are suffering from the horizon effect. For more on
the gambit see [3].
3Qc7
Prevents f2-f4 and allows recapturing with the queen after a later Bxc6.
Since Bb5 is already protected, 3Nd4 is harmless: 4 Nf3 Nxb5 5
Nxb5 Nf6 6 e5 trans-poses to a complicated variation (normally arising
after 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd4 5 e5 Nxb5 6 Nxb5) 6Nd5 7
Ng5! f6 8 Qf3. White has the better chances. White can also play 4
Ne2+=, which is equally fine and avoids a theoretical dispute. Because
the knight is on a3 (and not on c3), there even is a third choice: 4 Ba4
g6 5 c3 Nc6 6 Nf3 Bg7 7 d4 (1-0, 32), Svidler Korotylev, Moscow
2006 (Superblitz tournament), although in this case 4Qa5 5 c3 b5
seems more critical.
4 Nf3
4 d3 e6 5 f4 d5 6 Nf3 is a bit slow: 6c4! 7 exd5 Bxa3 8 dxc6 Qa5+ 9
Qd2 Qxb5 10 bxa3 Ne7=. The text move is more straightforward,
heading for a quick d2-d4.
4g6
Over the Horizons
Jeroen Bosch [13] suggests 4a6 5

Bxc6 Qxc6 (risky, but perhaps
more in keeping with his third
move). After 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 Bg4
(not 7cxd4 8 Nxd4 Qxe4? 9
Nc4+/) 8 d5+=, White has a
comfortable position. In Bissieres
(2206) Sighirdjian (2182),
Asnieres sur Neine, May 2006
(French Team Championship),
White preferred 6 d3 d6 7 h3 g6 8
00 Bg7 9 Re1 e5 10 Bg5 f6 11 Be3
Nh6 12 c3 00 13 d4 Nf7 14 dxc5 dxc5 (14...Be6?!) 15 Qd5 Qxd5 16
exd5 Rd8? (16...b6=) 17 Nc4 Bf8 18 Nb6 Rb8 19 Nd2 Bf5 20 c4 Nd6
21 a4 Nc8 22 Nxc8 Rbxc8 23 a5 Bd7 24 f4 Re8 25 fxe5 Rxe5 26 Bf4
Rxe1+ 27 Rxe1 Kf7 28 Re3 Rd8 (28...g5!? 29 Bg3 Re8) 29 Rb3 Bc8 30
Rb6 Rd7? (30...g5 31 Be3 Rd6) 31 Ne4+ g5? 10.
5 c3
! Sergej Shipov [11]. Nevertheless, Sakaevs mention [12] of 5 00
Bg7 6 Re1 seems more precise; for example, 6a6 7 Bf1+=. (7 Bxc6
dxc6 8 d3 also comes into consideration, hoping to exploit the weakness
on c5).
5...a6 6 Bxc6 Qxc6 7 00! Bg7
Finally transposing to a theoretical situation: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5
g6 4 00 Bg7 5 c3 Qb6 6 Na3 a6 7 Bxc6 Qxc6. In this move order,
White has a strong alternative in 7 Ba4! (Blacks Qb6 is in the way of
b7-b5). But, as we will see, in the game Khalifman still has to overcome
some opening problems. Instead of the last move, taking the sacrificed
e4-pawn would run into serious difficulties after 7...Qxe4 8 d4! (8 Re1
Qd5 9 d4, Sakaev [12]) 8...cxd4 9 Nc4, Shakhmatny Nedelya.
8 d4 d6?
Because of Shipovs strong idea at move ten, 8...cxd4! 9 cxd4=
deserves attention:
(a) 9Qxe4 10 Nc4 (10 Re1 Qd5 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 d6 13 Rc1 b5 14
Rc7 g5 15 Bg3 Bf6 16 Nb1! Kf8 17 Nc3 Qf5 18 d5 Qg6 19 Nd4 h5 20
Ne4 Kargin Bogomolov, Novokuznetsk 2001 [11]) 10...Qc6 11 Nfe5!,
Shakhmatny Nedelya. However, I fail to see an advantage for White
after 11Bxe5 12 Nxe5 Qd5.
(b) 9d5 (or perhaps 9b5) leads to balanced positions. In two games,
Boudre Apicella, Strasbourg 1992, and Van Riesen Bokelbrink,
Over the Horizons
Pinneberg 1997, Black scored two points.

9 d5
9 Re1 b5 10 Bf4 Bg4 11 d5 Qc8 12 h3 Bxf3 13 Qxf3 f6 14 Qe3 g5 15
Bg3 h5 16 b4 g4 17 h4 Nh6 18 Rac1 Nf7 19 c4 Bh6 20 Bf4 Bxf4 21
Qxf4 Ne5 22 Qe3 cxb4 23 cxb5 Qd7 24 Nc4 Nxc4 25 Rxc4 Qxb5 26
Rec1 Kf7 Heiduczek Wild, Deutschland 1998 (0-1, 44).
9...Qc7
10 h3?
10 Bf4! is an improvement by
Shipov [11] to prevent the
development of Blacks knight:
10Nf6 11 e5 Nh5 12 exd6 exd6
13 Re1+ Kf8 14 Bg5!, and Black is
in serious trouble. Other
possibilities: 10Bg4 11 Re1,
Shipov [11]; 10b5 11 Re1 f6 12
c4 or 10f5 11 exf5 Bxf5 12 Nh4
are also advantageous for White.
10...Nf6 11 Bf4 00 12 Re1 b5! 13 Qd2
Sakaev [12] analyzes the complicated 13 e5 dxe5 (or 13Nh5 14 Bh2
Bh6, S.B.) 14 Nxe5 Qb7 (14...Qb6 15 Nc6 e6 16 Ne7+ Kh8 17 Nxc8
Raxc8 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 Be5+= [12]):
(a) 15 Nc6 e6 16 Bd6 Nxd5 17 Bxf8 Kxf8 18 Ne5 Qc7 with
compensation, Sakaev [12].
(b) 15 c4! bxc4 16 Naxc4 Nxd5! 17 Na5 Qb4 18 Nac6 Qxf4 19 Qxd5
Be6 20 Nxe7+ Kh8 21 Qxc5. White has won a pawn, but Blacks
bishops are strong.
13...Bb7 14 Rad1 Rfe8 15 c4
15 Nc2 e6 16 e5 Nxd5 17 exd6 Qd7 18 Bg3 f6 unclear, Sakaev [12].
15...Qb6! 16 Bh6 Bh8! 17 b3 e6 18 Ng5
18 Rc1 exd5 19 exd5 Ne4 20 Qd3 f5 21 Re2 Qa5 22 Nb1 comes into
consideration.
18exd5 19 cxd5
Over the Horizons
19 exd5 bxc4 20 Nxc4 Qc7 21 Qf4 Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 Rd8, Shipov [11],
23 Ne4 Nxd5 24 Qg3=.
19...Re7! 20 Re3 Rae8 21 Rde1 a5 22 Nb1 b4 23 Qc2! Nd7 24 Nd2
Ba6! 25 Ngf3!
25Ne5?
Here Khalifman spoils his best
chance in the whole game: 25...Bc3
followed by f6=+, Sakaev [12], and
25Bd4 26 Nxd4 cxd4=+ was
equally advantageous for Black.
26 Bg5 Nxf3+
26...Rc7!=, Shipov [11].
27 Nxf3 Rd7?
The text move shows the strength of Whites breakthrough e4-e5, as
does Malcolm Peins line 27...Rc7 28 e5 c4? 29 exd6! Rxe3 30 Rxe3
Qxd6 31 Re8+ Kg7 32 Qd2+ [6]. The correct defense was 27...f6 28
Bf4 Bb5=.
28 e5! dxe5 29 Nxe5 Rxd5
30 Nxf7!
The splendid justification of Whites
28th move.
30...Rxe3 31 Rxe3?
At first sight, 31 Nh6+! Kf8 32
Bxe3 Bb7 seems okay for Black (33
Qe4 Rd4; 33 Qc4 Qd6), but White
wins almost by force: 33 Qe2! Bc3
(33Re5 34 Qc4) 34 Bxc5+ Qxc5
35 Qe8+ Kg7 36 Re7+ Kxh6 37 Qf8+ Bg7 38 Qxg7+ Kg5 39 Re3 Bc8
40 h4+ Kg4 41 Qxh7 Qd6 42 Rg3+ Kf4 43 Rxg6 Qc5 44 Rg3+ .
31...Kxf7 32 Re7+ Kf8 (32Kg8) 33 Qe4
Over the Horizons
33Rd1+?
Overlooking Whites 37th move,
perhaps in time trouble. Correct was
33...Qd6 34 Bh6+ Bg7 35 Bxg7+
Kg8 36 f4 Bb5 37 Bh6 Bc6, and
White has only a repetition of
moves (38 Rg7+ Kh8 39 Re7 Kg8).
34 Kh2 Qd6+ 35 f4 Bf6 36 Bh6+
Kg8 37 Qa8+! Black resigned
(37Qd8 38 Re8+)
Vadim Zviagintsev (2670) Ruslan Ponomariov (2738)
Sochi, April 20th, 2006 (Russian Premier League)
1 e4 c5 2 Na3! Nc6 3 Bb5 g6
The game above demonstrated that 3Qc7 4 Nf3 g6 5 c3 is slightly
better for White. Here Blacks queen remains on d8, White could now
transpose to familiar lines of the Rossolimo Variation: 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
Bb5. But Zviagintsev follows his own plans, trying to profit from the
fact that his knight is still on g1. His setup resembles a Grand Prix
Attack, but with Whites bishop on b5 instead of c4.
4 c3
In the earlier game Vadim Zviagintsev (2659) A. Motylev (2632),
Moscow 2005, Russian Superfinal (9), White chose the weaker 4 Bxc6
bxc6 5 d3 Bg7 6 f4 d5 7 e5 f6 8 Qe2 fxe5=+ 9 fxe5 Nh6 10 Nf3 Bg4 11
00 00 12 c3 Qc7 13 Nc2 Nf5 14 Bf4 Nd4 (even stronger: 14...Nh4!
/+) 15 Ncxd4 (15 cxd4) Rxf4 16 h3 cxd4 17 hxg4 dxc3 18 bxc3 Rxg4
19 Nd2 Rg3 20 Rae1 e6 21 Nb3 c5 (21...Bh6! 22 d4 Rxc3, when the
counter 23 Qg4 Re8 24 Rf6 is strongly met by 24Be3+ 25. Kh1 Qg7
resp. 25 Kf1 c5!+) 22 Qf2 Rxd3 23 Nxc5 Rxc3 24 Nxe6 Qb6 25 Qxb6
axb6 26 Nxg7 Kxg7 27 Rf2 Re8 28 e6 Re7 29 Rd2 Rc5 30 a4 h5 31
Kh2 Kf6 32 Rf2+ Kg7 33 Rd2 Ra5 34 Rd4 Rc5? (34...g5! 35 Rb4 Kf6
36 Rf1+ Kg6) 35 Rd2 Kf6 .
4Bg7 5 d3 Nf6 6 f4 00 7 Nf3 d6
In Savchenko (2568) Belov (2599), Sochi 2006, Black varied with
7Na5 8 00 a6 9 Ba4 b5 10 Bc2 d6 11 Qe1 Rb8 12 Qh4 b4 13 Nc4?
(13 Nb1 Qc7 14. f5!+=) 13...bxc3 14 bxc3 Nxc4 15 dxc4 Qa5 16 Qe1
Nd7 (16...Be6 17 e5 Nd7 18 Bd3 /+) 17 e5 (Bd2) Nb6 18 Rb1 Bg4
(18...Be6 19 Rb3 Bxc4 20 Ra3 /+) 19 Ng5 (19 f5!) h6
Over the Horizons
20 Nxf7 Rxf7? (20...Kxf7 21 f5

Bxf5 22 g4 Bxe5 23 gxf5 g5/+) 21
Bxg6 Qxa2 22 exd6 exd6 23 f5? (23
Qh4 Be2 24 Rb2 Qxc4 25 Re1+=)
23...Rf6?? (23...Qxc4 24 Bxf7+
Kxf7=+) 24 Rb2+ Qa5 (24...Qa4
25 Qe4) 25 h3 Rbf8? 26 hxg4 Nxc4
27 Rb7 Ne5 28 g5 hxg5 29 Bxg5
Nxg6 (29...Qa4 30 Bxf6+) 30 Bxf6
Rxf6 31 fxg6 Rxg6 32 Qh4 Bh6 33
Rf8+!, Black resigned.
8 00 Bd7 9 Qe1 e6 10 Qh4
A familiar attacking scheme. White
intends to proceed with his g-pawn.
There is no imme-diate threat, but
Black cautiously prefers to nip the
attack in the bud.
10Nh5 11 g4 Qxh4 12 Nxh4 Bf6
Or 12...Nf6 13 g5 Ne8 14 f5 gxf5 15
exf5 f6 16 g6+=.
13 Nxg6 hxg6 14 gxh5 gxh5 15
Ba4 d5?
15...Kh7 16 Be3 Rg8+ 17 Kh1 Be7= was necessary. After Whites
reply, the h5-pawn becomes a lasting problem.
16 Bd1!+= c4 17 e5 Be7 18 dxc4 d4 19 Nc2
19 Rf3 dxc3 20 Rxc3+= is also fine; for example, 20h4 (20f6?!) 21
Be3 f6 22 Rd3 Rad8 23 Bg4 Bc8 24 Rxd8 Rxd8 25 exf6 Bxf6 and
White has an extra pawn.
19...dxc3 20 bxc3 Na5 (20...f6) 21 Ba3! Bxa3 22 Nxa3 Rac8 23 Be2
f6 24 Rad1 Be8 25 f5 fxe5 26 fxe6 Rxf1+ 27 Rxf1 Kg7 28 Bf3 b5
Over the Horizons
29 cxb5?
Vadim Zviagintsev overlooks a
spectacular combination: 29 Nxb5!!
Nxc4 30 Bb7 Rc5 (30Rb8 31
Nc7! Rxb7 32 Nxe8+ Kg6 33 h4! or
31Bg6 32 Ba6 Nd2 33 Rf2 Ne4
34 Rg2 Rb1+ 35 Bf1 Kf6 36 e7 Nd6
37 Nd5+ etc.) 31 a4 a6 32 Bxa6 Rc6
33 Rf3!. This strange position is
probably won for White.
29...Rxc3 30 Nb1 Rc5 31 Be2
31 Be4!? is an interesting alternative, although Black may be able to
hold: 31Rxb5 32 Nc3 Rb6 33 e7 Rf6 34 Rb1 Rb6 35 Rd1 Re6 36
Rd8 Txe7 37 Nd5 Nb7 38 Rb8 Rd7 39 Rxe8 Nd6 40 Rxe5 Nxe4 41
Rxh5 Rb7 and the ending should be a draw.
31...e4 32 Kf2 e3+?
The following line was more or less forced and would have secured the
draw: 32...Rc2 33 a4 Nc4 34 Rd1 h4 35 Rd4 e3+ 36 Kf1 Rc1+ 37 Kg2
(37 Rd1? Rxb1) Rc2 38 Nc3 Nb2 39 Rg4+ Kf6 40 Nd5+ Kxe6 41 Nf4+
Kd6=.
33 Kxe3 Re5+ 34 Kf3 Bxb5 35 Bxb5 Rxb5 36 Re1 Rf5+ 37 Kg3 Kf8
38 Nd2
38Ke7
38Rg5+? 39 Kf4 Rg2 40 Ne4 Ke7
41 Nd6 Nc6 42 Nf5+ Kf8 43 Rd1
with strong threats.
39 Nf3 Rd5 40 Kh4 Nc4 41 Ng5
Rd2 42 Rc1 Nd6 43 h3 Ne8 44
Kxh5 Rxa2 45 Kg6 Ra4 46 Rb1
Nd6 47 Rb8 Rf4
Another solution: 47...Rh4 48 Ra8
Nb5 49 Rc8 Nd4 50 Rc7+ Ke8 51 Rxa7 Nxe6!=.
48 Ra8 Rf6+ 49 Kh5 Nb5 50 h4 Rf4 51 Rh8 Nd6?
51...Nd4 was an easy draw: 52 Rh7+ Ke8 53 Rxa7 Nxe6.
Over the Horizons
52 Rh7+ Ke8 53 Rxa7

53Nf5?
His last chance was 53...Rf6! 54
Kg4 Nf5 55 Ra3 (55 h5 Nd4
followed by 56Nxe6=) 55Nd4
56 Re3 Nf5, and it isnt clear
whether White can win.
54 Nh7 Nd4 55 Kg6 Nxe6
55...Rg4+ 56 Kf6 Nxe6 57 h5! and
wins, e. g. 57Nc5 58 Ra8+ Kd7
59 h6 Rf4+ 60 Kg6 Ke7 61 Ra7+ Nd7 62 Kg5 Rf1 63 Rxd7+!+ .
56 Nf6+ Kd8 57 Ra8+ Kc7 58 Nd5+ Black resigned
Vadim Zviagintsev (2659) Alexei Dreev (2694)
Moscow 2005, Russian Superfinal (7)
1 e4 c5 2 Na3!
Some annotators liked the flexibility of the move 2 Na3. By the way,
there is an even more flexible move: 2 a4, which was invented and
played by the American theoretician Hugh E. Myers. His latest book, A
Chess Explorer (Davenport 2002) gives two games: Myers Kooi,
Decatur 1972 (1-0, 31) and Myers Mehrdad Pedram, Coralville 1995
(1-0, 43). One of the points is 2Nc6 3 Bb5, and White keeps the
option of playing Ne2 instead of Nf3. And if 2d5, you could even try
Myers sharp idea 3 d4, the Albin Counter Gambit with an extra move
for White (a4).
2e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bd7
The game has transposed into a
French structure, identical to one
reached by Ljubojevic via a
different move order: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3
e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 Nc6 5 Na3 Bd7. In
the Advanced French, the maneuver
Na3-c2 is not unusual, so it is clear
that Dreev hasnt found a refutation
of 2 Na3 either. On the other side,
what does White have?
6 g3?!
Over the Horizons
White can delay d2-d4, and Zviagintsev uses this moment for an
original development. But this is perhaps the wrong time for originality
(see next note). Therefore, Id recommend following Ljubojevic: 6 Nc2
f6 7 d4 fxe5 8 dxe5 Qc7 9 Bf4 Nge7 10 Ne3 Ng6 (10h6) 11 Bg3 0-00 (Qb6) 12 Ng5 Qb6 (12Ncxe5 13 Nf7) 13 Nf7 Qxb2 14 Qc1 Qxc1+
15 Rxc1 c4 (Ljubojevic Ribli, Belfort 1988) 16 Be2! Bc5 17 Bh5 b5
18 Nc2 a5 19 a3+/.
6a6
Jeroen Boschs 6f6! [13] is the critical reply. I dont think that White
can get an advantage, but he should be able to equalize: 7 Qe2 fxe5 8
Nxe5 Qb6! 9 Bg2 Nxe5 10 Qxe5 Nf6 11 0-0 c4 12 Nc2 Bc5 13 b3 cxb3
14 Rb1 0-0 15 Rxb3 Qa6 16 Nb4=.
7 Nc2 Rc8 8 Bg2 Qc7 9 Qe2 c4 10 00 Bc5 11 Nce1! Na5 (11...Nge7=)
12 d4 cxd3 13 Nxd3 Bb6 14 Nd4 Ne7 15 Bg5 Ng6 16 h4 h6 17 Bc1
Ne7 18 Rd1 Bxd4 19 cxd4 Nf5 20 Ne1 Bb5
20...Qc4 21 Qg4 Nc6 22 Bf1 (22 Nf3 Qe2 23 Re1 Qc2) 22...Qb4 23
Nf3 00, about =, Shakhmatny Nedelya.
21 Qg4 Nc6 22 Rd2 Qa5 23 Nc2 Nb4? (23...00!=+, Shakhmatny
Nedelya) 24 Nxb4 Qxb4 25 Qd1 00 26 b3 Qa5 27 a4 Bd7 28 Ba3
Rfe8 29 Bc5 Qd8 30 a5 Bb5 31 b4
For the rest of the game, White
obviously holds the advantage, but
Black manages to hold the draw,
mainly thanks to the oppositecolored bishops. It is difficult to find
clear improvements. Perhaps 31 Rc2
Rc6 32 Qd2+= comes into
consideration.
31...f6 32 Qe1 Qd7 33 Bh3 Qf7! 34
Ra3 h5 35 Rf3 Qg6 36 Qb1
Maybe 36 Bxf5 exf5 37 e6 was more dangerous. But in any case
Blacks blockade is very hard to break.
36fxe5 37 Bxf5 exf5 38 Qxf5 Qxf5 39 Rxf5 exd4 40 Rxd4 g6 41
Rg5 Re6 42 g4 hxg4 43 Rdxg4 Kh7 44 h5 Be8 45 hxg6+ Rxg6 46
Rh5+ Kg8 47 Rxg6+ Bxg6 48 Rxd5 Be4 49 Re5 Bc6 50 f4 Re8 51
Rg5+ Kf7 52 Kf2 Re4 53 Rf5+ Kg6 54 Rg5+ Kf7 55 Rf5+ -
When we heard about Zviagintsevs first success against Khalifman, we
Over the Horizons
all had our doubts whether he would dare to repeat 2 Na3 against
another super-GM. But he did it again, and again His games inspire
the creativity of many chess players, so it seems justified to name the
variation after him. And after Sven-ke Kronberg, who invented 2 Na3
in 1985 (cf. my next column). The Kronberg-Zviagintsev Variation has
specific goals: in some lines the knight protects a bishop on b5,
sometimes it goes to c4 or c2. Yet there is more at the same time 2
Na3 is a high-class waiting move. The situations on the board look
familiar but no, suddenly appears this strange knight on a3. Only a
little detail, but it changes everything. Chess is a young game.
Sources:
[1] R. T. Durkin: Knightmare-1. A New Chess Opening, n. d., (USA
1960?)
[2] G. Welling: Ein kleiner Seitensprung, in: Kaissiber #5 (1998), pp.
17-26.
[3] T. Krabb: Defending Humanitys Honor.
Sofia 2004.
Sofia 2005.
[6] M. Pein: column in: Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2005; Internet
source.
[7] Z. Franco: Internet source.
[8] J. Rowson: commented games on: www.chesspublishing.com,
December 2005.
[9] L. Day: commented game in Toronto Star, December 2005.
[10] L. Kavalek: Chess, column in: Washington Post, December 26,
2005.
[11] S. Shipov: two articles on www.chesspro.ru (2005, 2006)
[12] K. Sakaev: analysis.
[13] J. Bosch: SOS: Zviagintsevs Sicilian Surprise, in New in Chess
Magazine 3/2006, pp. 82-85.
[14] G. Sosonko: Zviagintsevs Knight, in New in Chess Yearbook
#78, Alkmaar 2006.
My thanks to Gerard Welling (Netherlands) who put together most of

the sources for this article.
Over the Horizons

Over the Horizons
A Knight on the Edge: Part Two

In Part One, we discussed Vadim Zviagintsevs games with 1 e4 c5 2
Na3. This article collects the experiences of other grandmasters who
have adopted the unusual knight move in his footsteps. Plus, well meet
the true pioneer of the opening: Sven-ke Kronberg from Sweden,
who introduced 2 Na3 many years before Zviagintsev and his GM
colleagues.
Over the
Horizons
Recently, in a readers letter to Kaissiber, Hydras programmer, Chrilly

Donninger, wrote that Hydras opening book only considers games of
humans with 2600 Elo or above. Well, in the nine 2 Na3 games meeting
these requirements, White has scored an impressive 64 percent.
Stefan Bcker
Over the Horizons
A Knight on the Edge by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
Vladimir Malakhov (2691) Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu (2695)

Sarajevo, May 2006 (XXXVI Bosnia GM tournament)
1 e4 c5 2 Na3!
While talking about Nb1-a3, we
should not forget the American
master Robert T. Durkin, who
pioneered 1 Na3!? in the second half
of the 1950s. Unfortunately, there is
no example for 1 Na3 c5 in his
highly entertaining pamphlet
Knightmare -1. A New Chess
Opening [1], but he does inform us
that 1c5 was the fourth best reply
to 1 Na3 (after e5, d5 and Nf6). We
can only speculate about his reaction
to 1 Na3 c5. Either 2 e4 or 2 e3, Id guess.
Over the Horizons
2d6
Last month we looked at 2Nc6 3 Bb5!; for example, 3g6 4 c3 Bg7.
Here Zviagintsev preferred to postpone the development of his kings
knight: 5 d3 Nf6 6 f4 0-0 7 Nf3 (1-0, 58) Zviagintsev Ponomariov,
Sotchi 2006 (see Part One). This set-up seems preferable to the more
static 5 Nf3 e5 6 0-0, reaching the game (by transposition of moves)
Kupreichik (2437) Trifonov (2347), Minsk 2005 (Byelorussian
Championship): 6Nge7 7 Nc4 d5 8 Ncxe5 dxe4 9 Nxf7?! (9 Re1! f6
10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 Ba4 exf3 12 Bxc6+ Bd7 13 Bxf3 Rc8 14 d4, unclear)
9Kxf7 10 Ng5+ Kf8 11 d3 Ne5? (11exd3 12 Qb3 c4! 13 Qxc4 Qd5
/+) 12 f4 Nf7? (12Nxd3 13 f5 gxf5 14 Qh5 Ng6 15 Nxe4 unclear)
13 Bc4 Nh6 14 Nxe4 Bf5 15 Nxc5 Qd6 16 d4? (16 Be3 +/) 16b6 17
Nd3 Bxd4+! (=, 95).
Another important game was 3Qc7 4 Nf3 g6 (1-0, 37) Zviagintsev
Khalifman, Moscow 2005. While this dynamic treatment may be
objectively better, the following example can be useful if only as a
warning: 4e5 5 0-0 a6? (5Be7! is more precise, to counter 6 c3 a6 7
Bxc6 dxc6 8 Nc4 with the tactical trick 8Be6! 9 Ncxe5? f6 10 Nd3
Bc4 /+ etc.) 6 Bxc6 dxc6. By a transposition of moves, this is
McShane Mic. Richter, German Bundesliga 2005: 7 Nc4 Bd6
(perhaps 7b5 8 Ncxe5 f6 9 Nd3, although the sacrifice isnt quite as
good as the similar idea in the last note) 8 b4!
8cxb4 9 d4 exd4 10 Qxd4 Be7 11
e5 (he could win the exchange: 11
Bb2 Nf6 12 Nb6 Rb8 13 Qe5!)
11c5 12 Qf4 Be6 13 Rd1 Bxc4 14
Qxc4 Qc6 15 Qg4 Nh6 16 Bxh6
gxh6 and now, instead of 17 Qg7?
(=, 79), the direct attack 17 Nh4!
Bxh4 18 Rd6 + wins.
3 c3 Nf6 4 g3 g6
4Nxe4? 5 Qa4+ loses on the spot.
4Nc6 5 Bg2 d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 Nf3 Bg4 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Bxf3 e6 10 d3
Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Qe2 Qd7 13 Bd2 Rad8 14 Rad1 Rfe8 15 Bg2 a6 16
Nc2 b5 17 a3 Bf6 18 h4 Qc7 19 Be4 a5 20 Ne3 b4 21 Rc1 bxc3 22
bxc3 a4 23 Rc2? (23 Qh5! g6 24 Qd1 +/) 23Be7 24 Nc4 Bf8?
(24Rb8 =) 25 Rb1 +/ (1-0, 88) Sasikiran (2692) Cheparinov
(2635), Turin 2006 (Olympiad).
5 Bg2 Bg7 6 Ne2 00 7 00 e5 8 d4 exd4
This is not a new position; however, the earlier examples all began with
Over the Horizons
1 d4 Nf6 2 g3 g6:
(a) 8...Qe7 9 dxc5 dxc5 10 Bg5 h6 11 Bd2 Rd8 12 Qc1 Kh7 13 Nc4 b5
14 Ne3 Bb7 15 f3 Nc6 16 Rd1 a6 17 Qc2 Rd6 18 Be1 (, 47)
Minich Kolman, Slovakia 2000.
(b) 8...Nc6 9 Nc2 b6 (9...Qe7 10 dxc5 dxc5 11 Ne3 Rd8 12 Nd5 (01,
35) Schuettig Hein, Germany 1999; 9...Nd7 10 f4 cxd4 11 cxd4 exd4
12 Nexd4 Nxd4 13 Nxd4 Qb6 14 Be3 (01, 39) Pancras Pannekoek,
Vlissingen 1999) 10 f4 Bb7 11 d5 Ne7 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 Bg5 Ne8 14 g4
f6 15 Bh4 Nd6 =+ (01, 48) Macura Ryc, Brno 1974.
9 cxd4 Nc6 10 d5 Nb4 11 Nc2 Nxc2 12 Qxc2 Re8 13 Nc3 a6 14 a4
A position known from the
Modernen Benoni; although the
outcome is the same, the line looks
completely different. The knights
exchange on e5, instead of c2, and it
is Whites kings knight that has to
leave the board: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3
Nf3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 Nc3
g6 7 g3 Bg7 8 Bg2 00 9 00 Re8 10
Nd2 a6 11 a4 Nbd7 12 Nc4 Ne5 13
Nxe5 Rxe5 14 Qc2 Re8 15 e4 (see
diagram above):
(a) 15Rb8 16 Rb1 Nd7 17 Bd2 c4 18 Ne2 Nc5 19 Qxc4 (10, 41),
Goldin Pavlovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1998.
(b) 15...b6 16 f4 Ra7 17 Bd2 Ng4 18 h3 Bd4+ 19 Kh1 Nf2+ 20 Kh2 (1
0, 39) Suarez Navas Minaya, Havana 1966.
14...Bd7 15 a5 Ng4 16 Bd2 b5 17 axb6 Qxb6 18 Nd1 Bb5 19 Re1
Bd4 20 Bc3 Ra7 21 h3 Nf6 22 Ne3 h5 23 Kh2 Rae7 24 f3 Nd7 25 g4
(25 b3 f5) 25...hxg4 26 Nxg4 Kg7 27 Rad1 Ne5? (27...Rh8 28 f4 f6 =)
Over the Horizons
28 Rxd4! Nxg4+
28...cxd4 29 Qf2 Qd8 30 Bxd4 f6 31
Qh4 Rf8 32 f4 Nxg4+ 33 Qxg4 +/.
29 hxg4 cxd4 30 Qf2 f6 31 Bxd4
Qc7 32 g5 Kg8 33 gxf6 Rh7+ 34
Kg1 g5 35 Be3 Bd7 36 Qg3?
36 Bxg5! Kf7 37 Rc1 with excellent
winning chances.
36...Kf7 37 Bxg5 (37 Qxg5? Rg8) 37Reh8 38 f4 Qb6+ 39 Qe3
39 Qf2? Rh1+! etc.
39Qxb2 40 Re2 Qb1+ 41 Re1 Qc2 42 Qe2 Qc5+ 43 Qe3 Qc2 44
Qe2
In the next game, we will look at several second move alternatives for
Black.
Vladimir Malakhov (2691) Krishnan Sasikiran (2692) Sarajevo,
May 2006
1 e4 c5 2 Na3 a6
Black prepares Nc6, but first avoids Whites intended Bb5. Further
alternatives:
(a) 2...b6 was suggested by Sakaev in his online annotation [12] and
was later called the most challenging response by Rowson [8]. The
bishop b7 will attack Whites pawn on e4, but I fail to see the challenge.
The main line is: 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2
Over the Horizons
(a1) 4g6 5 Ne2 Bg7 6 c3 Nf6 7 d3

0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 e5 Bxg2 10 exf6 Bxf1
11 fxg7 Kxg7 12 Qxf1 Nc6 13 Qh3
Re8 14 Qh6+ Kg8 15 Nc4 Ne5 16
Nxe5 dxe5 17 Qe3 Qd6 18 d4 exd4
19 cxd4 cxd4 20 Qxd4 Qxd4 21
Nxd4 Red8 22 Be3 Rac8 23 f4 Rc4
24 Rd1 f6 25 Rd2 Kf7 26 Kf1 a6 27
Ke2 b5 28 b3 Rcc8 29 Bf2 Rd5 30
a3 e5 31 fxe5 Rxe5+ 32 Kd1 Rc3 33
Rc2 Rxc2 34 Kxc2 h5 35 Kd3 g5 36
Nc6 Rd5+ 37 Ke2 f5 38 Be3 Kf6 39
Nb4 Rd6 40 Nd3 h4 41 b4 Rc6 42 Nc5 Rd6 43 Bf4 Rd4 44 Be3 Rd6 45
Bf4 Rd4 46 Ke3 Rc4 47 Nxa6 Rc3+ 48 Kd4 Rxa3 49 Nc7 Rb3 50 Bd6
h3 51 Nd5+ Ke6 52 Bc7 f4 53 Bb8 f3 54 Ba7 f2 , Malakhov
Shipov, Moscow 2006 (Superblitz tournament).
(a2) 4f5 5 d3 Nf6 (unclear, Rowson [8]) 6 Qe2 (6 Nh3! fxe4 7 0-0
e5 8 Ng5 +=) 6e6 7 Nh3 g6 (7...Be7 Shipov [11]) 8 00 Bg7 9 Nc4
00 10 Bg5 h6? (10...fxe4 11 dxe4 Qc7 12 Bf4 Qc6 Shipov [11]) 11
Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Nf4 Kh7 13 Nxg6! Rg8 14 Nd6 Bxb2 15 Nxb7 Qf6 16
Rab1 Rxg6 17 exf5 exf5 18 Nxc5 Nc6 19 Nxd7 Qg7 20 Bxc6 Rxc6 21
Qf3 Rac8 22 Qxf5+ Kh8 23 Rxb2 Qxb2 24 Ne5 R6c7 25 Re1! Qc3 26
Re4 Rg8 27 Rh4 Rh7 28 Qf6+ 10, Morozevich Savchenko, Moscow
Blitz Championship 2005.
(a3) 4d5!? 5 d3 (better 5 exd5 e6 6 Nf3 exd5 7 d4) 5dxe4 6 Bxe4
Bxe4 7 dxe4 Qxd1+ 8 Kxd1 Nc6 9 c3 Nf6 10 f3 0-0-0+ 11 Kc2 e6 12
Ne2 Ne5 13 Rf1 Be7 14 Bf4 Nfd7 15 Rad1 a6 16 h3 h5 17 Bxe5 Nxe5
18 f4 Nc6 19 Nc4 Kc7 20 Ne3 Rxd1 21 Rxd1 h4 22 g4 g5 23 f5 Ne5 (01, 40), Malakhov Grachev, Moscow 2006 (Superblitz Tournament)
If 3 g3 is too simple for you, try 3 Ne2 Bb7 4 Ng3 h5 5 Nxh5 Bxe4 (so
far Rowson [8]) 6 d4! += or 3 Qg4 Nf6 4 Qh4 (the improved 2 Qh5
Sicilian); or the slightly unusual 3 Nc4 Bb7 4 Nh3 Bxe4 5 Qe2
5d5 6 Ne5 Nd7 7 d3 Bf5 8 Nxf7
Kxf7 9 g4 Bg6 10 Ng5+ Ke8 11 Ne6
Qc8 12 Bg2 +=.
(b) 2Nf6, a kind of Alekhines
Defense. 3 e5 Nd5 4 Nf3 (4 d4 cxd4
5 Qxd4 e6 [13]) 4Nc6 5 Bb5,
Jeroen Bosch [13]. Or perhaps White
might play 5 b3, where the
maneuver Na3-c4 is a typical motif.
If 3 d3 Nc6 (d5) 4 c3 d6 5 Be2 g6 6
f4, we have reached the old game S.
Over the Horizons
R. Wolf Von Dry, Vienna 1928. Of course, none of these lines is a

refutation of 2Nf6, but there is enough play for both sides.
3 c3
There is nothing wrong with this move, or with 3 Nf3 d6 4 d4 cxd4 5
Nxd4 Nf6 6 Bd3 g6 7 0-0 Bg7 8 Re1 0-0, as analyzed by Shipov [11].
But my personal favorite would be 3 g3, to direct the game into the
channels of a Closed Sicilian.
3Nc6 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Qe2 d6 6 g3 Bg4 7 h3 Bh5 8 Bg2 e6 9 00 Be7 10
d3 Nd7 11 Nc2 Rc8 12 g4 Bg6 13 Nd2 e5
Almost forced, as White threatened f2-f4.
14 Ne3 Nf8 15 Nd5 b5 16 f4 exf4 17 Nxf4 Ne6 18 Nf3 b4!?
After the quieter 18...Nxf4 19 Bxf4 00 20 Rfd1, the position is about
equal.
19 Nd5 h5 20 Nxe7 Qxe7 21 g5 h4!
Thanks to Blacks courageous play, he soon gets the upper hand.
22 Qf2 bxc3 23 bxc3 Ne5 24 Nxh4 Nxd3 25 Nxg6 fxg6 26 Qe2 c4 27
Be3 Rh4 28 Qc2 Nef4
29 Bxf4?
The wrong way, Black now keeps
his rook h4. To exchange a pair of
rooks, White had to play 29 Rxf4!
Rxf4 (if 29Nxf4? 30 Rf1! Nxg2
31 Qa4+ Qd7? 32 Rf8+, or 30Ne6
31 e5!, or finally 30Qxg5 31
Rxf4! Rxf4 32 Qd2 etc.) 30 Bxf4
Nxf4 31 Qa4+ Kf8 32 Qxa6 =.
29...Nxf4 30 Qa4+ Qd7 31 Qxd7+
Kxd7 32 Rab1 Rc5+ 33 Kf2
The ending is clearly lost for White: 33 Rb7+ Ke6 34 Rf2 Rxg5 35 Kf1
Nxh3 36 Bxh3+ Rxh3 37 Rff7 d5 +.
The game continued: 33...Nxg2 34 Kxg2 Rxg5+ 35 Kh2 Rxe4 36 Rf2
Re3 37 Rb6 a5 38 Rb7+ Kc6 39 Rfb2 Re2+ 40 Rxe2 Kxb7 41 Re7+
Kc6 42 Rxg7 Kd5 43 h4 Rg4 44 Kh3 Rg1 45 Kh2 Rc1 46 Rxg6 Rxc3
Over the Horizons
47 Rg5+ Kd4 48 Rg4+ Kc5 49 h5 Rf3 50 h6 Rf8 51 h7 Rh8 52 Rg7

c3 53 Kg2 Kd4 54 Rc7 d5 55 Kf2 Kd3 0-1
Sven-ke Kronberg (Sweden) invented 1 e4 c5 2 Na3.
2 Na3 was played two decades prior to Vadim Zviagintsevs use of it.
This first game with 2 Na3, as far as I know, was won by the strong
correspondence player Sven-ke Kronberg (ICCF 2475), who lives in
Helsingborg, Sweden.
Sven-ke Kronberg (Sweden) Santiago Bonay Toscas (Spain)
16th Correspondence World Championship 1985 (Semi Final 3)
1 e4 c5 2 Na3 d5
Over the Horizons
This is hardly a refutation of Whites

second move, since the knight will
get a nice square on c4.
Nevertheless, the direct 2d5 could
become popular, as an attempt to
avoid all these positional subtleties
that we have seen.
Last months column discussed
2e6 3 c3 (Zviagintsev Dreev).
Here 3 Qe2 seems worse, but for
historical reasons it deserves a look:
(a) 3d6 4 Nc4 Nc6 5 c3 Nf6 6 a4 Be7 7 f4 d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 Ne5 0-0
10 Ngf3 Bg4 (Black had strong alternatives in 10Na5 and 10Ng4)
11 Qf2 Qc7 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 g3 Bd6 14 h3 Rae8+ 15 Be2 Bxf3 16
Qxf3 c4 17 0-0 Ne4 18 Kg2 f5 19 d3 cxd3 20 Qxd3 /+. Later White
won on time, Kronberg Jos Garcia, 11th Corr. Olympiad 1987,
Sweden Nicaragua. This was Sven-ke Kronbergs second game with
his variation.
(b) 3Nc6 4 Nf3 g6 5 c3 Nge7 transposes to another attractive game
by Vadim Zviagintsev: 6 d4 cxd4 7 Nb5 d6 8 Nbxd4 Bg7 9 Be3 Nxd4
10 cxd4 d5 11 e5 Nf5 12 Bg5 Qb6 13 Qd2 Bd7 14 Rc1 h6 15 Bf6 Bxf6
16 exf6 Qd8 17 Ne5 Bc6 18 Bd3 Qxf6 19 Bxf5 gxf5 20 0-0 0-0 21 Rc3!
21Kh7 22 Rh3 Qg7 23 Kh1 Rg8
24 g4 Raf8 25 Rg1 f6 26 Nf3 f4 27
Qxf4 e5 (=, 46) Zviagintsev (2664)
Rublevsky (2665), Poikovsky 2006.
28 Qc1! + Bd7 29 Rh4 followed by
Rg3, or 28Be8 29 g5 h5 30 Rhg3
+.
3 exd5
3 Nf3!? comes into consideration,
3dxe4 4 Ne5 or 4 Ng5 either the
Fajarowicz or the Budapest Gambit with an extra tempo (Na3).
3Qxd5 4 Nc4
Malcolm Pein [6] continues 4 Nb5 Qd7 5 Nf3 Nc6. He states that 2d5
would justify Na3 to an extent but looks well playable.
Jeroen Bosch [13] favors 4 Nf3, and with Nb5 and Bc4 in the air as
tempo-gainers White has a decent future ahead of him. After 4 Nf3,
Black could reply Bg4. Kronbergs flexible text move avoids the pin. I
Over the Horizons
cant say which of these three alternatives is best.

4...Nf6 5 Ne3 Qd8 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Bb5 Bd7 8 c3 e6 9 00 Qb6 10 Qe2
Be7 11 Nc4 Qc7 12 a4 a6 13 Bxc6 Bxc6 14 Nfe5 Bd5 15 a5 Bxc4 16
Nxc4
White has established a firm grip on the square b6, but more is needed
to win the game.
16Nd5 17 d3 00 18 f4 Rad8 19 Bd2 Bd6 20 Qf2 Nf6 21 Rae1
21Be7?
A serious error. After 21...Rfe8,
Blacks position has no weaknesses.
22 f5! += Bd6? (22...Qd7) 23 Qh4
+/ Rde8
23...exf5 24 Bg5 Be7 25 Re3 Rfe8
26 Rh3! with a strong attack; for
example, 26h6 27 Bxh6 Ng4 28
Bf4 +.
24 Re3 exf5 25 Rh3 Re2
25...Re6 26 Rxf5 Rfe8 27 Rxf6 gxf6 28 Nb6 Qc6 29 c4 +.
26 Bg5 Qc6 27 Rff3 Rfe8 28 Bxf6 Re1+
28...h6 29 Nxd6 Qxd6 30 Rhg3 +.
29 Rf1 Rxf1+ 30 Kxf1 gxf6 31 Qxh7+ Kf8 32 Nxd6 1-0
Correction
In Part One, in my analysis of Zviagintsev Ponomariov, Sotchi 2006,
I liked 29 Nxb5! (instead of 29 cxb5) Nxc4 30 Bb7 Rc5 31 a4 a6 32
Bxa6 Rc6 33 Rf3!, saying this was probably a win for White, but
Alexander Motylev [15] gave a drawing line: 31e4 32 Bxe4 a6 33
Nd4 Nd2 34 Rf4 Nxe4 35 Rxe4 Rxc3 =.
Sources:
[1] R. T. Durkin: Knightmare-1. A New Chess Opening, n. d., (USA
1960?)
[2] G. Welling: Ein kleiner Seitensprung, in: Kaissiber 5 (1998), pp. 1726.
[3] T. Krabb: Defending Humanitys Honor.
Over the Horizons

Sofia 2004.
Sofia 2005.
[6] M. Pein: column in: Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2005; Internet
source.
[7] Z. Franco: Internet source.
[8] J. Rowson: commented games, December 2005.
[9] L. Day: commented game in Toronto Star, December 2005.
[10] L. Kavalek: Washington Post, December 26, 2005.
[11] S. Shipov: Internet source (2005, 2006)
[12] K. Sakaev: Internet source.
[13] J. Bosch: SOS: Zviagintsevs Sicilian Surprise, in New in Chess
Magazine 3/2006, pp. 82-85.
[14] G. Sosonko: Zviagintsevs Knight, in New in Chess Yearbook 78,
Alkmaar 2006.
[15] A. Motylev: commented game in Europe Echecs 6/2006, p. 22f.

Over the Horizons
Only a Storm in a Teacup?

In recent works on the Marshall Attack, the main line 9Nxd5 fills
about ten times as many pages as the alternative 9e4, which fairly
reflects the popularity of the two moves. Apparently, sacrificing one
pawn is enough for modern players. In comparison, old sources
reserved more space for 9e4. For example, Leonard Bardens book
[2] from 1963 covers 9Nxd5 in five columns, while 9e4 gets 2
columns. And yes, Barden claims that the latter were clearly refuted.
We will soon return to the critical position.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Peter Langer from Germany likes Blacks chances after 9e4. He

sent me five correspondence games, all won by him. The most
impressive example is our main game and his other experiences are
given in the notes. Experts of the Marshall Attack wont be surprised to
see Tim Harding referred to more than once, for no one has written
more books on the Marshall Attack. In writing this article, clearly the
most useful source was the Total Marshall CD (by Tim Harding, Janis
Vitomskis and Martin Bennedik), published in 2002. The author of the
9e4 section was the Latvian theoretician Vitomskis.
Over the Horizons
The Gambit Pawn by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
U. Vetter P. Langer
Correspondence, April 1999
Ruy Lopez [C89]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 Re1 00
8 c3 d5
The Marshall Attack was first played in 1893 in Havana by four Cubans
in consultation against Walbrodt. Another game, Sittenfeld
Soldatenkow, appeared in 1901 in La Stratgie. It was seven-teen years
later when Frank Marshall introduced the move to grandmaster play.
9 exd5 e4
Black sacrifices a second pawn. The
text move characterizes the Herman
Steiner Variation, yet Frank
Marshall had the idea years before
his American colleague. When
Stoltz H. Steiner, Hamburg 1930,
was played, the move was
considered a theoretical novelty (cf.
[1], also Wiener Schachzeitung
1930, p. 276: neu!). More popular
is 9Nxd5, where Black seems to
have enough compensation for the
Over the Horizons
pawn.
9e4 has a somewhat dubious image:
A good line for those who like to sacrifice their material while
setting nasty traps. Of course, the problem is that if White
sidesteps the tactics the reward is a better game. G. Lane [9].
This extravagant variation is not nowadays in fashion. Indeed,
the waves of interest in it over the years have not generally
amounted to more than a storm in a teacup, although in practice
it does contain some venom. A. Suetin [8].
Tim Harding [5] wasnt so negative: Unsound or not, there has
been a lot of experience with it in correspondence chess and
internal Soviet events, with Black scoring his share of wins.
10 dxc6
According to Jeroen van den Bersselaar from The Netherlands, 10
Ng5 is best answered by 10...Na5, with approximate equality; for
example, 11 Nxe4 Nxe4 12 Rxe4 Bb7 13 d4 Nxb3 14 axb3 Qxd5 15
Nd2.
Krogius & Matsukevich [7]
continue: Now White is ready to
counter 15f5 with 16 c4. How
strong Blacks initiative remains in
this case, wasnt yet determined in
practice. This is translated in [13]
to 15f5 16 c4 +/ Krogius,
Matsukevic. In fact, the position
seems balanced after 16Qf7. And
15Bf6! 16 Qg4 Rfe8 may be even
better.
Note that instead of 10Na5, the old variation 10Bg4? 11 f3! exf3
12 gxf3 Nxd5 13 Nxh7 Bd6 14 fxg4 Bxh2 15 Kxh2 ... + (Keres) is
unplayable, because of 15 Kf1! Kxh7 16 Qf3 + (Van den Bersselaar).
In M. Fetzer P. Langer, White chose the weaker 11 Qc2 Ne5 12 Nxe4
Nxe4 13 Qxe4 Bd6 14 f4 (or 14 d4 f5 15 Qxe5!?, but surely Black isnt
worse) 14Ng6! (a strong novelty) 15 d4 (15 g3 Qd7 16 Qc2 Rfe8 17
Re3 Nxf4! etc.) 15Qd7 16 Rf1 (16 Qc2 Rfe8!; i.e., 17 Re5 Nxe5 18
fxe5 Bxe5 /+) 16Rae8 17 Qc2 Re2 18 Qd3 Nh4 19 g3 Rg2+ 20 Kh1
Be2 0-1.
10...exf3 11 Qxf3
Over the Horizons
Herman Steiner (USA)
The main line in Total Marshall [13]. Tim Harding: Theory has swung
back to the view that this move, rather than 11 d4, is the most accurate
attempt to refute the Herman Steiner Variation. In the history of this
opening, more books have recommended 11 d4. Well look at this
important alternative at the end of the article.
11...Bg4 12 Qg3
In two of Peter Langers games White fell into an old trap: 12 Qe3?!
Re8 13 d4? (13 Qg5) Bd6 14 Qd2 Bf4! + Tislenko Pakulis, Liepaja
1981.
12Re8
12Bd6 13 Qh4 Re8 14 f3 Rxe1+ 15 Qxe1 Qe8 16 Qxe8+ Rxe8 17
Kf2 Bf5 18 d4 Bd3 19 Bd1 Bxh2 20 Nd2?? (20 Na3 = was necessary)
20...Re1 21 Bc2 Re2+ 22 Kf1 Bg3 23 Kg1 Re1+ and White resigned,
H. Bussjaeger P. Langer, 1998.
13 f3
Other continuations are less critical:
(a) 13 d4 Bd6 14 Rxe8+ Qxe8 15 Qe3 Qxc6 16 f3 Re8 17 Qf2 Bf5
(17Re7!? Radchenko 1963, is also interesting) 18 Bg5, and instead of
the unclear complications after 18Bd3, Black can choose the simpler
Over the Horizons
18Nd5 =.
(b) 13 f4 Bd6 14 Rxe8+ Qxe8 15 d4 Qxc6 is another situation where
Black has full com-pensation for his sacrificed pawn.
13Qd3!
Blacks position is menacing.
14 fxg4 Bc5+ 15 Re3
Forced because of 15 Kh1 Rxe1+ 16
Qxe1 Re8 17 Qd1 Nxg4, etc.
15Rad8 16 g5?
Total Marshall [13] recommended
16 Na3! Ne4 17 Qf3 Nxd2 18 Bxd2
Qxd2 19 Bxf7+ Kh8 20 Bxe8 Rxe8
etc., (+/). But this analysis also contains a side line, where Black
seems to survive: 20...Bxe3+ 21 Kh1 Rxe8 22 Qf7 Rg8 23 Qb3 (so far
Total Marshall [13])
Instead of Vitomskis 23...Bf4?,
Black plays 23...Bc5! and equalizes.
16...Nd5 17 Qf3 Nxe3 + 18 dxe3
Re5 19 g4! Bxe3+ 20 Bxe3 Rxe3 21
Qxf7+ Kh8 22 Na3 Rf3! 23 Qe6
Rdf8 24 Qe1 R3f4 0-1
The Second Main Line 11 d4

8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10 dxc6 exf3 11 d4
Over the Horizons
This is preferred by most sources. In

ECO, the line 9e4 has dwindled
from six lines in the first edition to
just two lines in the third. The latter
edition considers 11 Qf3 as the
weaker option (where Black has
compensation), but claims a clear
advantage (+/) after 11 d4.
11fxg2 12 Qf3
(a) 12 Bg5 (Barden [1]: This
development is the most advantageous move for White [] Whites
plan is simple and direct: Qf3xg2, Nd2 and doubling his rooks on the efile. Black doesnt have an adequate answer.) 12Bg4 is ECOs main
line [11]. Here 12a5 comes into consideration, when 13 Qf3 a4 would
transpose to our main line.
(b) 12 Bf4 Bg4! 13 Qd3 Nh5 14 Be5 Bd6; for example, 15 Nd2 Kh8 16
Bc2 f5 17 Nf3 Nf4 18 Qe3 Nh3+ 19 Kg2 (so far Gufeld Chikovani,
Tbilisi 1976) 19Bxe5! 20 Qxe5 Rf6 21 d5 Rg6 22 Re3 Qxd5! =.
(c) 12 Nd2 a5!? 13 a4 bxa4 14 Rxa4 Bg4 15 Nf3 Bd6 16 d5 Re8 17
Kxg2 Rxe1 18 Qxe1 Qc8 (or 18Bxf3+ 19 Kxf3 Nxd5 20 Bxd5?
Qf6+) 19 Nh4 Rb8 with fine compensation.
The text move is given an ! by Ludek Pachman (1980). It is also the
(+/) main line for John Nunn in [12], while 12 Bg5 only gets a +=.
12a5!
From Hardings MegaCor3 CD:
Probably Blacks best try. This idea
to revive the Herman Steiner
Variation was analysed by Tim
Harding and George Botterill back
in 1971. Instead of trying to play
only on the kingside, Black creates
complications on a wider front by
threatening to drive back the bishop
b3. Without this clever idea, Black
really would be in difficulties. It is
astonishing to see that most sources
(for example Nunn [12]) completely ignore Hardings improvement.
13 Bg5
A critical reaction. 13 a3 Be6! 14 Bxe6 fxe6 15 Rxe6 Nd5 16 Qe4 (16
Qxg2 Bh4 17 f3 Rf6 18 Re4 Rxc6 19 Nd2 Ne3! Lukyanchenko)
Over the Horizons
16Bh4 (16Bd6 followed by Nf4 = seems better) 17 f4? Bf2+?

18 Kxf2? (18 Kxg2) Qh4+ 19 Kg1
Nxf4 20 Bxf4 Rxf4 21 Re8+ Rxe8
22 Qxe8+ Rf8 23 Qe2 Rf1+ 24
Kxg2 Re1 25 Qf3 Qg5+ 26 Qg3
Qd5+ 27 Kf2 Qe4 28 Qf3 Rf1+ 0-1
Melnikov A. Lukyanchenko, corr.
1975 (source: MegaCorr3 CD).
13a4 14 Bc2 b4!
After 14Be6 15 Nd2 Bd5 16 Qd3
g6, there are two continuations:
(a) 17 Rxe7 Qxe7 18 Qxb5 (so far analysis by Gutman and Vitomskis)
18...Rfb8! 19 Qxd5 Nxd5 20 Bxe7 Rxb2 /+ Vitomskis (Total Marshall
[13]).
(b) But 17 Qxb5! is stronger, as the Dutch correspondence player Kees
van Oirschot has kindly informed me. I tried to improve upon this
analysis by means of 15...Nd5! (instead of 15...Bd5), to win back the
pawn c6; for example, 16 Qe4 g6 17 Bxe7 Nxe7 18 a3! Rb8 19 Qxg2
Nxc6 20 Qg3 Bd5 21 Be4 Bxe4 22 Nxe4.
White has a small, but lasting
advantage.
The text move is new and apparently
a significant improvement for Black.
15 Qxg2
(a) 15 cxb4 Bxb4 16 Re5 Bd6 17
Qxg2 Rb8 18 b3 Kh8 19 Nc3 Bxe5
20 dxe5 Qd4 21 exf6 Qxc3 22 Rc1
Re8 =+.
(b) 15 a3!? b3 16 Bd3 Ra5 (or 16Be6 17 Qxg2 Bd5 18 f3 Bxc6 19
Nd2 Re8) 17 Qxg2 Bd6 18 Nd2 leads to an unusual line-up on the hfile:
Over the Horizons
18Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 Bh3 (19Bd6!?

20 d5 h6! 21 Bh4 Bf4!) 20 Bxh7+
Kh8 21 Qxh3 Rxg5! 22 Re4 Rh5 23
Rh4 Rxh7 24 Qxh2 Qd5+ 25 f3
Qxc6 is about equal.
15Ra5!
Creating obvious threats like Bh3 or

Bxh2+. It also prepares to attack the
irritating bishop on g5 by means of
h7-h6 (Bxh6 Ng4!).
16 a3 b3 17 Bd3 Bd6
Other options: 17Rxg5 18 Qxg5
Nd5 19 Rxe7 h6 20 Qh4 Nxe7 += or
17Bh3!? 18 Bxh7+ Nxh7 19 Bxe7
Re8 (or 19Qc8 =) 20 Qxh3 Rxe7
21 Rxe7 Qxe7 22 Qe3 Qh4 23 Nd2
Rf5 24 Kg2 Nf6 25 f3 Nd5 26 Qe8+ Kh7 27 Qe4 Nf4+ 28 Kh1 g6 is
about equal.
18 Nd2
It is difficult to find a better solution: 18 d5 h6 19 Bxh6? Ng4! /+, and
18 h4 Rxg5! 19 Qxg5 h6 20 Qg2 Bf4! (preventing the natural
development Nd2) is anything else than a comfortable situation for
White.
18Bxh2+ 19 Kh1
19 Kxh2? Rxg5 20 Qxg5 Ng4+, etc.
19Bd6
Black has regained his sacrificed pawn and can be satisfied with his
position. None of the following variations seems to offer an advantage
for White: 20 Nc4? Bh3! 21 Bxh7+ Kh8, or 20 d5 h6 21 Bh4 Bf4, or 20
Ne4 Be7 21 Qf3 Ng4, or 20 f4 Be6.
Statistical Nonsense
Magns Teitsson from Iceland writes: Thank you for your
entertaining and informative articles on ChessCafe. However, I
Over the Horizons
think I have spotted an error in the most recent one. You wrote
that White has scored an impressive 64 percent out of nine
games. I dont quite understand how a score of 64% can be
achieved from nine games, at least not until quarter point scores
are introduced. Can this be corrected?
Thank you very much for spotting my statistical nonsense. In these nine
games, White scored six points, so I should have been able to find the
correct result of approximately 67 percent. Perhaps when I had
completed my studies of mathematics
Sources:
[1] F. Chalupetzky, L. Tth (Ed.): Die Schacholympiade von Hamburg,
1931.
[2] L. Barden: Die Spanische Partie, Berlin 1963.
[3] R.G. Wade, T. D. Harding: The Marshall Attack, London 1974.
[4] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 1st ed.,
Belgrade 1974.
[5] T.D. Harding: Spanish (Ruy Lopez): Marshall, London 1977.
[6] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 2nd ed.,
Belgrade 1981.
[7] N. Krogius, A. Mazukewitsch: Marshall-Angriff, Berlin 1989.
[8] A. Suetin: The Complete Spanish, London 1991.
[9] G. Lane: The Ruy Lopez for the Tournament Player, London 1991.
[10] V. Anand: C89, Belgrade 1993.
[11] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 3rd ed.,
Belgrade 1997.
[12] J. Nunn, etc.: Nunns Chess Openings, London 1999.
[13] T.D. Harding, J. Vitomskis, M. Bennedik: Total Marshall (CD),
Dublin 2002.

Over the Horizons
Repairing the Steiner Variation

A continuation of last months article Only a Storm in a Teacup? was
not intended, but ChessCafe columnist Karsten Mller (Hamburg)
found a significant improvement for White that changes the assessment
of a critical variation. So I returned to the laboratory to brew an
antidote. After some hours it became clear that Mller was right, and
that his suggestion 16 Qf3 was stronger than both alternatives
considered in my article. Even worse, the resulting ending was not only
difficult for Black, it was probably lost.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The Bishop Sacrifice
by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
Apparently the Herman Steiner Variation had a problem. Because of the

forcing nature of most of its lines, there wasnt an abundance of
alternatives. The loss of one of its main lines would have been a serious
blow for this already dubious gambit. Fortunately I can offer a solution
that leads to a strange situation, not untypical for the Steiner Variation.
By sacrificing both bishops, Black gets a lasting attack that should
suffice for at least a draw.
Over the Horizons
8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4
This last move defines the Steiner Variation of the Marshall Attack.
10 dxc6 exf3 11 Qxf3 Bg4 12 Qg3 Re8 13 f3
A critical situation for this opening. The next queen move was
attributed an ! in my last article, but after Mllers analysis it rather
deserves another sign. Ill explain why, before we return to this
situation and continue with the stronger alternative 13Bd6.
13Qd3? 14 fxg4 Bc5+ 15 Re3 Rad8 16 Qf3!
My article had only considered 16
g5 and the move recommended in
the books (or rather on the CD [5])
16 Na3. Mller was right to suggest
the text move as a refinement, to
play 16 Qf3 first and only after
16...Nxg4 to play 17 Na3, e. g.
17...Re5 18 Bc2 Nxe3 19 dxe3
Bxe3+ 20 Bxe3 Qxe3+ 21 Qxe3
Rxe3 22 Bb3 Rd2 23 Rf1 and White
is clearly on top. The text move 16
Qf3 has been played before, but
without recognizing its merits.
16Nxg4
The main line in [5] was 16Re5 17 h3 Ne4, Sevkeira Iten, Tyrol
1977, a game that ended drastically (18 Qf4?? Nxd2 19 Bxd2 Rxe3).
But a clear refutation exists: 18 Qxf7+ Kh8 19 Qf1 Nxd2 20 Qxd3
Rxd3 21 Bxd2 Rxd2 22 Nxd2 Bxe3+ 23 Kf1 Bxd2 24 Rd1 Bg5 25 Rd7
and wins.
I tried alternatives; however, neither 16Re7 17 h3 Ne4 18 Kh2 Qd6+
19 Kh1, nor 16Re4 17 Na3 Bxe3+ 18 dxe3 Nxg4 19 Qxf7+ Kh8 20
h3 look promising.
17 Na3!
Mllers new move, instead of 17 Bxf7+ Kh8 18 Qxg4 Rf8!, when
Black was already better in Gonzalos Santos, correspondence 1993
(Spain) [5].
Whites move order is much more precise than 16 Na3? Ne4!. Only
after the additional moves 16 Qf3 Nxg4, when it is no longer important
Over the Horizons
to keep the d2-square protected, White puts his knight to a3.

17Re5
For a while my best bet for an escape route was 17Nxe3 18 dxe3
Bxa3, when Black gets reasonable drawing chances after 19 Bxf7+?!
Kh8 20 Bxe8 Rxe8 21 bxa3 Qxc3 22 Qf7 Rd8 or 21 e4 Bc5+ 22 Kh1
Rxe4 23 Bd2 Qd5 24 Bf4 Qe6 25 Rf1 Re1, or finally 21 Qf1 Qc2 22
bxa3 Rd8. But after the calm and strong reply 19 bxa3! Qxc3 20 Rb1 or
19Kh8 20 e4 Blacks position is hardly tenable.
18 Bc2 Nxe3 19 dxe3 Bxe3+ 20 Bxe3 Qxe3+ 21 Qxe3 Rxe3 22 Bb3
Rd2
Infiltration with the other rook doesnt make a big difference: 22Re2
23 Rf1 Rxb2 24 Nc2 Rd2 25 Ne3 g5 26 Bxf7+ Kf8 27 a4 +/.
23 Rf1
In this final position of Mllers
analysis, White has excellent
winning chances:
(a) 23Rxb2 24 Bxf7+ Kf8 25 Nc2
Rxc3 26 Bb3+ Ke7 27 Nb4 Kd6 28
Rd1+ Kc5 29 Nd3+ Rxd3 30 Rxd3
Kxc6 31 Bg8 h6.
(b) 23Re7 24 Nc2 h5 25 h4 a5 26
Nd4 a4 27 Bc2 b4 28 Rc1 a3 29
bxa3 bxc3 30 Nf3 Rd5 31 a4 g6 32
Bb3 Rc5 33 Nd4 Re3 34 Nc2 Re4 35 Rf1 Re7 36 Nb4.
Neither line is forced, but there can be no doubt that Black is in serious
difficulties.
A New Proposal
Now let us return to move 13. The first moves were: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 Re1 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4 10
dxc6 exf3 11 Qxf3 Bg4 12 Qg3 Re8 13 f3. Instead of the move
13Qd3?, which can no longer be trusted, I now recommend the
following sharp treatment:
13Bd6
Over the Horizons
14 Qf2
14 Qh4 Rxe1+ leads to the same
position.
14Rxe1+ 15 Qxe1 Bxf3!
Apparently a novelty. The usual path
permitted by theory was 15Qe8,
and then:
(a) 16 Qf2! was considered the
main line: 16Bf5 17 d4 Qc6 18 Be3 Nd5 19 Nd2! (Keres). The
assessment of this position varies, from += (ECO) to +/ (Keres).
However after 19Re8 20 Bxd5 (other moves return the pawn: 20 Re1
or 20 Nf1 Bxh2+! 21 Kxh2 Qh6+. Or 20 Ne4 Bxe4 21 fxe4 Rxe4 22
Rf1 Nf4, but again I dont see much of an advantage) 20Qxd5, and
Black seems to have sufficient compensation for the pawn.
(b) 16 Qxe8+ Rxe8 17 Na3 Bf5 18 Nc2 Bd3 19 Ne3 +/ is analysis
from the Total Marshall CD [5]. Id prefer 18Bxc2 19 Bxc2 Re1+ 20
Kf2 Rh1; for example, 21 a4 bxa4 22 Bxa4 Nh5 23 Bc2 Bxh2 24 d4
Bg3+ 25 Ke2 g6 26 b4 and Whites chances on the queenside seem
more concrete than Blacks play on the other side.
16 gxf3 Bxh2+! 17 Kxh2 Qd3
After this sequence of more or less
forced moves, what does Black have
for his sacrifice of two (!) bishops?
The obvious result is that Whites
king has lost his pawn shelter.
Therefore, Black will be able to give
perpetual check in many lines. Then
there are immediate threats against
the white queen: Re8, often followed
by Re6-h6. And finally Black gets
long-term chances because of his
free h-pawn, which may advance at
an appropriate moment. On the other side, White only has to get all
his pieces into play to win the game. But this goal is not easy to
achieve.
Before we continue the analysis, lets look at an older line with a
similar sacrifice: 12Bd6 is an important alternative (instead of
12Re8). Then if 13 Qh4 Re8 14 f3 Bxh2+!? 15 Kxh2 Qd6+ 16 Kg1
Rxe1+ 17 Qxe1 Re8
Over the Horizons
(a) 18 Qf2 Bxf3! 18 gxf3 Qd3 20

Bd1 Nh5 (stronger is 20Nd5!; for
example, 21 Qh4 Ne3!) 21 Na3 (the
correct move was 21 Qh4!? [5])
21Re6 (21Nf4!) 22 Qd4? Re1+
23 Kh2 Re2+! draw, Petursson
Johansson, corr. 1963. However,
Vitomskis [5] has found 22 Qh4!
Rg6+ 23 Kf2 +. While this
theoretical line looks okay for Black
in fact 14Bxh2+!? is considered
an interesting alternative to the main
line 14Bf5 I remain sceptical because of the following
continuation:
(b) 18 Qh4!. Not mentioned in my sources. The best line that I can find
is 18Qf4, and then:
(b1) 19 Qf2 Bf5 (19Bxf3 20 Qxf3 Qxf3+ 21 gxf3 Re1+ 22 Kf2 Rxc1
23 a4) 20 Na3 (20 c4? Nh5 21 Nc3 Ng3 followed by Qh4; another
attractive line is 20 g3 Qh6 21 Na3 Qg6 22 d4 Re2! =) 20Bd3 21 Bd3
(21 g3 Qg5 22 Bd1 Nh5 23 f4 Qg6!) 21Nh5 (or 21Qf5 22 g4 Qg6
=) 22 Nc2 Qg5 23 g4 Nf4 24 Qg3 Re2 =.
(b2) 19 Bd1! seems to refute Blacks play; for example, 19Qe5 20
fxg4 Qe1+ 21 Qxe1 Rxe1+ 22 Kf2 Rxd1 23 Na3 Nxg4+ 24 Ke2 Rg1 25
Nc2 Rxg2+ 26 Kf3 Rg1 27 d4 +. So the old version of the double
sacrifice is dubious.
18 Qe3
The natural reaction, to get rid of the nasty queen on d3. 18 Na3? Re8
19 Qf2 Re2.
More reasonable is 18 Bd1 (to protect the e2-square) Re8 19 Qf2 (19
Qh4? Qf1 +) 19Re6 20 c4 Ne8 21 cxb5 Rh6+ 22 Kg1 Rg6+ 23 Qg2
axb5 24 Nc3 Rxg2+ 25 Kxg2 h5 with chances for both sides; for
example, 26 Ne4 h4 27 Nf2 Qg6+ 28 Kf1 Nd6 29 a4 bxa4 30 d3 Nf5 31
Rxa4 Ng3+ 32 Kg2 Ne4+ 33 Ng4 Nc5 34 Ra8+ Kh7 35 Bc2 Qxc6 36
d4+ g6 37 Rf8 h3+ 38 Kf2 h2 =.
18Qf5 19 d4
Two alternatives are worth mentioning:
(a) 19 Bd1 Re8 20 Qg1 Qh5+ 21 Kg2 Qg5+ 22 Kf2 Qh4+ 23 Qg3 Qh1
=.
Over the Horizons
(b) 19 Be6!?. Closing the e-file at the cost of a bishop. But Black still
has enough activity to compensate for the material deficit: 19fxe6 20
d4 (20 a4 Rf8, or 20 d3 Rd8) 20e5 21 Nd2 (21 dxe5 Re8 22 Qf4
Qh5+ 23 Kg1 Rxe5 24 Qg3 Rd5 25 Bd2 Rd6 26 Kf2 Qf5 27 Kg2 Re6
28 Kg1 Re2 /+) 21exd4 22 Qxd4 Re8 23 Kg3 Qg6+ 24 Kf2 Qc2! 25
a4 Qd1 26 Nf1 Ne4+ 27 Qxe4 Rxe4 28 fxe4 Qc2+ 29 Kf3. The chances
are even.
19Re8
20 Kg2
Since 20 Qf2? Ng4+ and 20 Qd2?
Qxf3 lose on the spot, White has to
give the queen for the rook. 20
Qxe8+ Nxe8 21 Kg2 can lead to the
same position, but offers Black an
additional option in 21Nd6 instead
of returning to f6.
20Rxe3 21 Bxe3 Qg6+ 22 Kf1
a5!
Energetic and necessary. Black disrupts the opponents plans. Else
Whites rook could get into play too quickly, and then Blacks
resignation would be only a question of time.
23 a4
23 Na3 looks logical, but Black has active resources: 23a4 24 Bd1
b4!
25 cxb4? (25 Nc4 Nd5 =) 25Qd3+
26 Kf2 Nd5 27 Nc2 f5! /+ (28 f4
g5!)
23bxa4
Much better than the short-sighted
23b4? 24 Nd2 Qd3+ 25 Kf2 bxc3
26 bxc3 Qxc3 27 Rb1 Qxc6. For the
cheap price of two pawns White has
regained the long-desired activity of
his rook. For example, 28 Bc4 h5 29
Rb8+ Kh7 30 Rb5 h4 31 Rxa5 Kg8 32 Rc5 Qd6 33 Nf1 h3 34 a5 h2 35
Kg2 +.
It is less clear whether 23Ne4 is good or bad. After 24 fxe4 Qxe4 25
Over the Horizons
Ke2 Qg2+ 26 Bf2 Qg4+ 27 Ke1 Qe4+ 28 Kd2 Qg2 29 axb5 Qxf2+ 30
Kc1 Qg1+ 31 Bd1 Qg5+ 32 Nd2 Qxb5, White certainly has an
advantage, but Blacks kingside pawns should not be underestimated.
24 Bc4
24 Bxa4 allows 24Nd5 25 Bc1 (what else?) h5 26 Bb3 Nf6 27 Kf2 h4
28 Bf4 h3 29 Nd2 (29 Bg3 Qh6) 29Qg2+ 30 Ke3 h2 31 Bxh2 (or 31
Bxc7 h1Q 32 Rxh1 Qxh1 33 Bxa5 Ne8 34 d5 Qg1+ with equality)
31Qxh2 32 Rxa5 Qh6+ 33 Kd3 Qg6+ 34 Ke2 Nh5 =.
24h5! 25 Nd2 h4 26 Bf4
26 Ke2 Nh5 27 Rg1 Ng3+ 28 Kf2 Qxc6 with approximate equality; for
example, 29 Bd3 a3! or 29 Bg5 Qd6 30 Bxh4 Qf4! or 29 Re1 Qd6 30
Bd3 g6 or 29 Bf4 Qf6 30 Bxg3 hxg3+ 31 Rxg3 Qb6!.
26Nh5 27 Bxc7 Qxc6 28 Be5 Qh6 29 Ke2
Or 29 Ne4 Ng3+!.
What follows is far from being
forced, but the line gives an
impression of how Black might use
his menacing h-pawn to stay in the
game. The diagrammed position is
difficult to assess. There is a good
chance, I believe, that the advanced
h-pawn will cost White a piece. In
the resulting position, Blacks queen
will have more space for her
maneuvers. It shouldnt be too difficult to exchange the a-pawns for
Whites b- and c-pawn, and then the draw cannot be far away.
29Qg5 30 Re1
If he finds the time for regrouping his pieces (Kd1, Bd3, Kc2), Black
would be in trouble.
30h3 31 Ne4 Nf4+ 32 Bxf4 Qxf4 33 d5 Qh2+ 34 Kd3 Kf8
Not 34Qxb2? 35 d6 Qb7 36 Nc5 Qxf3+ 37 Kc2 Qg2+ 38 Re2 Qg6+
39 Bd3 Qxd6 40 Re8+ +.
35 d6
There is no time to wait, since Blacks h-pawn is an enormous threat.
Over the Horizons
35Qe5 36 d7!? Ke7 37 Bxf7 h2!

Better than the exchange 37Kxd7 38 Be6+! Kc7 39 Bxh3 Qh2 40
Be6 Qxb2 41 Nd2 Qb6 42 Re4, where White has all the fun for the
foreseeable future.
38 Be8 Kd8 39 Ke3 g5 40 Rh1 Kc7 41 d8Q+ Kxd8 42 Bxa4 Qb8 43
Kf2 g4 44 Bd1 a4 45 Bxa4 Qa7+ 46 Kg2 Qxa4 47 Rxh2 Qd1 48 fxg4
Qxg4+ 49 Ng3 Qf4 -
After the hard fight the dust has
settled, and the result is a draw.
Sources:
[1] R. G. Wade, T. D. Harding: The Marshall Attack, London 1974.
[2] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 1st ed.,
Belgrade 1974.
[3] T. D. Harding: Spanish (Ruy Lopez): Marshall, London 1977.
[4] N. Krogius, A. Mazukewitsch: Marshall-Angriff, Berlin 1989.
[5] T. D. Harding, J. Vitomskis, M. Bennedik: Total Marshall (CD),
Dublin 2002.

Over the Horizons
Symmetry and Chaos: Balogh's

Defense
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Symmetry on the chessboard inspires comparisons. For example, the

Danish theoretician Orla Herman Krause (1867-1935) once claimed that
the Kings Gambit should be treated like a mirrored Queens Gambit.
According to Krause, in a 1908 article published in Tidskrift fr Schack,
1 e4 e5 2 f4 d6! 3 Nf3 f5! was the solution of the Kings Gambit
problem. Maybe he is right, in his main line 4 exf5 Bxf5 5 Nc3 Nc6 6
Bb5 e4 7 Nd4 Qd7, Black apparently isnt worse (for more analysis see
Kaissiber #25, pp. 6-7).
The symmetry isnt so obvious for another pair of openings.
Sveshnikovs Variation of the Sicilian Defense (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5) is a well-respected line, in spite of Blacks
backward d-pawn. On the other hand, the Balogh Defense (1 e4 d6 2 d4
f5) has never received similar attention. Here Blacks backward e-pawn
is said to be almost fatal. In any overview of established lines against 1
e4, Baloghs move will be listed last a black sheep between dozens of
more reliable systems.
What makes Sveshnikovs Variation
so much superior to Baloghs
Variation to justify the bad image of
the latter? In the first case, Black
exchanges his c-pawn for Whites dpawn. In this respect Baloghs
situation is practically a mirror
image, because in the great majority
of games the f5- and e4-pawns will
be exchanged. The placement of the
remaining pawns, however, isnt
exactly the same. In a typical
Sveshnikov situation, the black pawns are on d6 and e5, and the
standard continuation a6 and b5 (invited by Whites tempo-losing
knight!) helps a great deal against Whites ambitions to use the
weakness d5 for his maneuvers.
In Baloghs Defense, you will rarely meet an analogous scheme of
Over the Horizons
development. To achieve the formation d5-e6 and h6-g5 at least

requires some assistance from the opponent (perhaps a provoking Bc4),
and g5 is only possible in connection with queenside castling.
Apparently the analogy between Sveshnikov and Balogh comes to an
abrupt end here. However, the differences are not all in Whites favor.
Many variations of the Balogh include an early e7-e5, which may lead
to an isolated pawn on e5. Other lines with fxe4 followed by g6 result in
positions with similarities to a Leningrad Dutch. And there are
variations where the e6-weakness is compensated by means of active
piece play. Altogether, I wouldnt deny that the Balogh structure
involves more risks for Black than the Sveshnikov, but to claim that
Blacks backward pawn at e7 loses the game by force would be rather
nave.
Instead of the weakness of the backwards pawn, Id rather direct your
attention to another, less obvious danger for Black. After 1 e4 d6 2 d4
f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 Nc6 5 Nf3, Black can no longer maintain the
tension in the center and has to take, losing valuable time: 5fxe4 6
Nxe4 Bg4 7 h3 Bh5 8 Ng3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3. This tactical sequence may be
more critical for the opening than a general discussion of the pawn
structure. For Simon Alapin concrete variations always triumphed over
strategic assessments. I had the opportunity to test this main line in a
correspondence game. Instead of neat symmetry, the outcome of the
opening was sheer chaos.
Dr. Jnos Balogh

Source: Das Grosse Fernturnier 1932
Roland del Rio Stefan Bcker
Over the Horizons
German Correspondence Bundesliga, Board 4

November 2005-May 2006
Baloghs Defense [A82]
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5
At the end of the 1920s, Dr. Jnos Balogh began to use 2f5 in his
correspondence practice. The move had been played before, but without
convincing results. For the next decades, Baloghs attractive games and
analyses in [1], [2], [4] became the most relevant source for this
opening. According to Balogh [2], the pawn e4 sooner or later will be
exchanged against pawn f5. Thus Black will be left with an advantage
in the middlegame: an extra pawn in the center. He mentioned the
possible drawback of a backwards or isolated e-pawn, but claimed that
this danger could be avoided by following his variations [2].
3 Nc3
Most books recommend 3 exf5 Bxf5. Euwe considered this position as
difficult for Black:
(a) 4 Qf3 Qc8 5 Bd3 (Euwe Weenink, Amsterdam 1923) 5Bg4!
(suggested by Byrne & Mednis in ECO A, Belgrade 1979) 6 Qg3 g6,
and Black can be satisfied with his position.
(b) 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bc4 was the line that Erich Dyckhoff regarded as
unplayable for Black in an article in Wiener Schachzeitung 1930 [3].
5Nc6! 6 Bf4? e5! 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Qxd8+ Rxd8 9 Bxe5 Bxc2 10 Nc3
Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bb4 12 Nf7 Rd4 /+ Folkmann Balogh, corr. 1937. A
critical continuation was 6 d5 Nb4 7 Nd4 Bg4! (better than Baloghs
7Be4, which runs into difficulties after 8 Nc3!) 8 f3 Bd7 9 Nc3 c6 10.
dxc6 Nxc6! =; for example, 11 Be3 Rc8 12 Qe2 d5 13 Bd3 e6.
(c) 4 Bd3 Qd7! (Baloghs move. 4Bxd3? happened in some old
games: Jaenisch Kolisch, St. Petersburg 1863, or Walbrodt
Makovetz, Dresden 1892, but it loses time) 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 00 Nf6
Over the Horizons
7 Bb5 a6 8 Ba4 b5 9 Bb3 Na5 10

Re1 Nxb3 11 axb3 g6 (perhaps
better: 11e6 12 Nh4 Bg4 13 f3
Bh5 14 Qe2 Be7!) 12 Bg5 Bg7 13
Nc3 00 14 b4 e6 15 h3 Qc6 16
Bxf6 Rxf6 17 Ng5 d5 18 Nf3 Qc4
19 Qd2 Rff8 20 Ne5 Qxb4 21 g4
Bxc2 22 Qxc2 Qxd4 23 Nxb5 axb5
24 Rxa8 Rxa8 25 Qc6 Bxe5 26
Qxa8+ Kf7 27 Qd8 Qf4 28 Qd7+
Kf8 , Zapf Bcker, German
Corr. Bundesliga 2005-06.
In the diagrammed position, instead of 7 Bb5 the quiet 7 c4 seems
equally critical. Possible continuations then would be 7Bxd3 8 Qxd3
e6 or 7d5!? 8 c5 g6. These characteristic positions after 3 exf5 should
not be underestimated. Nevertheless, I believe that 3 Nc3 is the real test,
which forces matters and was chosen in two of my three Balogh games
in the Bundesliga (Corr.) tournament.
3Nf6 4 Bd3
A harmless alternative is 4 e5 dxe5 5
dxe5 Qxd1+; for example, 6 Nxd1
Nd5 7 Ne3 c6 (e6!) 8 Bc4 (Nf3) e6
9. Ne2 Bc5 10 Nxd5 cxd5 11 Bb5+
Nc6 12 f4 Bd7 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 c3
Bb6 15 Nd4 c5 16 Nc2 (Selg
Bcker, Bad Wiessee 2005), now the
best solution was 16d4! 17 00 d3
18 Ne3 c4 19 b3 Bb5 20 bxc4 Bc6
21 Kf2 g5 /+.
4Nc6
The sharpest continuation, advocated by Balogh. Solid and fully
playable is 4fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nxe4! (not 5g6? 6 Nxf6+ exf6 7 Ne2
Bg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nf4, with the dangerous threat 10 Nxg6!) 6 Bxe4 g6,
the treatment recommended by Correspondence-IM Keith Hayward in
his valuable series of Balogh articles, which are available online [7].
For example: 7 Qf3 c6 8 Bg5 Nd7 9 Qe3 Bg7 10 0-0-0 Nf6 11 Bf3 Bf5
12 Ne2 h6 13 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 h4 Qa5 15 Kb1 0-0-0 16 g4 Bd7 17 Nf4 g5
18 Ne6 Bxe6 19 Qxe6+ Kb8 20 hxg5 hxg5 21 c3 d5 22 Rh5 Qc7 23
Rdh1 Rhf8 24 Rh7 Qd6 25 Qe3 e5 26 dxe5 Bxe5 27 R1h6 Bf6 28 Rh3
d4 29 cxd4 Bxd4 30 Qb3 Bb6 31 a3 Qe5 32 Qc2 Rd6 33 Be4 Bxf2 34
Bf5 Bb6 35 Qh2 Qxh2 36 Rxh2 Bd4 37 b4 a6 38 Kc2 Bf6 39 R2h3 Re8
40 Bd3 Re7 41 Rxe7 Bxe7 42 Rh7 Re6 43 Bf5 Re5 44 Kc3 Ka7 45 Kd4
Bf6 46 Kd3 a5 47 Rf7 Be7 48 Kd4 Re1 49 bxa5 Ka6 50 Bc8 Kxa5 51
Over the Horizons
Bxb7 Kb6 52 Bc8 Bxa3 53 Rb7+ Ka5 54 Ra7+ Kb4 , P. Rimlinger

K. Hayward, EMN-A-15 APCT, 2000 [7].
5 Nf3
5 d5 Ne5 offers the following possibilities:
(a) 6 exf5 Nxd3+ 7 Qxd3 Qd7! 8 Nb5 Nxd5! 9 Qxd5 c6 10 Nxd6+ exd6
11 Qe4+ Qe7 12 Qxe7+ Bxe7 13 Bf4 Bxf5 14 0-0-0 d5 15 Re1 Kd7 16
Nf3 Raf8! =+ S. Macht Balogh, corr. 1928 [2].
(b) 6 Nf3 fxe4 7 Nxe5 (7 Nxe4 Bg4 8 Nxf6+ exf6 9 Be2! Nxf3+ 10
Bxf3 Bd7! = F. Kunert Dr. Balogh, corr. 1927 [2]) 7exd3 8 Nxd3
e5 9 0-0 Be7 A. Winkler Dr. Balogh, 1927, and Balogh says that on
10 f4 the pawn sacrifice 100-0! would be very strong [2].
5 Nge2 fxe4 6 Nxe4 (6 Bxe4 d5! 7 Bd3 e5 8 Bb5 e4 de Veer Dr.
Balogh, corr. 1927 [2]) 6e5 7 c3 (Balogh [2] considers 7 Nxf6+ Qxf6
8 d5 Ne7 and 7 0-0 Be7 =) 7Nxe4 8 Bxe4 d5 9 Bc2 g6? 10 0-0 Bg7
11 dxe5 Nxe5 12 f4! Nf7 13 f5 gxf5 14 Nf4! with a strong attack, Palda
H. Keller, Vienna 1948 (Wiener Schachzeitung 1948, p. 23). Correct
was 9Bd6! 10 0-0 0-0 11 dxe5 Bxe5 12 f4 Bf6 =. In comparison to
the game, now there is no weakness at g6 and Black has nothing to fear.
5 exf5 is called an annoyingly strong move by Keith Hayward [7],
although Blacks chances in the resulting mess after 5Nxd4 6 g4
dont seem worse. Now Black has to choose between these alternatives:
(a) 6h5 led to an attractive win in one of Baloghs earliest attempts
with the system: 7 f3 hxg4 8 fxg4 Qd7! 9 h3 Qc6 10 Rh2 Qc5 11 Bf4
e5! 12 Bg5 Ne6! 0-1, Dhrssen Balogh, corr. 1928. However, in a
later source [4] Balogh writes that 7 f3 was a mistake, and that line a
was good for White. Probably he had the following sequence in mind: 7
g5! Ng8 (7Ng4? 8 f4) 8 f6! e5 (or 8Nf5 9 Qf3 e6 10 Qe2) 9 Bg6+
Kd7 10 Nf3 c5 11 Nd5 gxf6 12 c3 Nxf3+ 13 Qxf3 += with a lasting
advantage for White.
(b) 6Qd7!? (Bcker) comes into consideration: 7 g5 Ng8! 8 Qh5+
Kd8
Over the Horizons
9 Bf4 Nxf5 10 0-0-0 c6 11 Bc4 e6

12 Ne4 Kc7 13 Rd2 g6 14 Qd1 e5
15 Bxe5 Qe8 16 Bxh8 Qxe4 17
Bxg8 Qxh1, unclear. However, in
the diagrammed position 9 Nge2!
seems stronger: 9Nxf5 10 Qf7
Qe8 11 Qb3 Nh4 12 Be4 c6 13 Be3
Kc7 14 0-0-0, and Whites activity
more than compensates the
sacrificed pawn.
(c) 6Nd7! was Baloghs
improvement (over 6h5, above), and in fact this should be preferred
to the alternatives above. In Olland Balogh, corr. 1932 [4], White
replied 7 Nce2 (7 Bc4 c5 8 Nf3 h5! Balogh [2]; or 7 g5 Ne5 8 Qh5+ g6!
9 fxg6 Bg7 10 gxh7+ Kf8 = 11 Be4? d5! /+ Balogh [4]) 7Nxe2 8
Nxe2 Ne5 (later Balogh recommended 8e5 9 fxe6 Ne5, but after 10
Nd4 Qe7 11 0-0 Bxe6 12 Nxe6 Qxe6 the move 13 Bf5! +/ is a nasty
surprise) 9 Nd4 g6 10 f4 Nxd3+ 11 Qxd3 gxf5? 12 gxf5 Olland
Balogh, corr. 1932 [4] and Black got into trouble because of the threat
Qd3-e2-h5+ (1-0, 38). Perhaps Balogh overlooked 11c5 12 Ne6 Bxe6
13 dxe6 Qb6, when Black has a safe and at least equal position.
5fxe4
5...e5? 6 dxe5 fxe4 (6...dxe5 7 exf5) 7 exf6 exd3 8 00 +/. But the
fianchetto 5g6!? at least deserves a second look: 6 exf5 gxf5 7 Qe2
Bg7 8 Bc4 d5 9 Bb5 0-0 10 0-0 (Flohr Hasenfuss, Kemeri 1939), and
now instead of the time-wasting 10Kh8 11 Bf4, the alternative
10Qd6 += seems playable.
6 Nxe4 Bg4
6...Nxe4 7 Bxe4 d5 (as suggested by Keith Hayward in [7]) is refuted
by 8 Bxh7!! Rxh7 9 Qd3 Rh6 (9Rh8 10 Qg6+ Kd7 11 Qf7 a5 12 c4
+) 10 Bxh6 gxh6 11 Qg6+ Kd7 12 Qf7! Kd6 13 0-0 Be6 14 Qf4+ Kd7
15 Rfe1 Qe8 16 Rxe6 Kxe6 17 c4 Nb4 18 cxd5+ Kd7 19 Ne5+ Kc8 20
Re1 +/.
Against 6...d5 (Ebert Diemer, Karlsruhe 1934, Wiener Schachzeitung
1934, p. 294), Diemers proposal 7 Neg5! would have been strong.
7 h3
Over the Horizons
On 7 c3, the reply 7Nxe4 8 Bxe4

d5 9 Bc2 e5 seems best and is about
equal, while Baloghs 7e5 is met
by 8 Qb3!.
7...Bh5
The immediate exchange 7...Bxf3? 8
Qxf3 Nxd4 9 Nxf6+ exf6 10 Qxb7
Qc8 (Baulig Czech, Giessen 1991)
results in a clearly worse ending
after 11 Qxc8+.
8 Ng3
Years ago Keith Hayward and I discussed the alternative 8 g4 Bg6 in
detail. While he remained skeptical, I liked Blacks counter chances
and I still do. The text move, which I faced twice in my correspondence
games, forces Blacks bishop h5 to take on f3. Retreating to f7 would be
too passive. With his little maneuver, Black at least has lured the Ne4 to
the less active square g3.
8...Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Nxd4
None of the alternatives is playable:
(a) 9...d5 10 c3 g6 11 Bg5 Bg7 12 0-0-0 Qd7 13 h4 etc.;
(b) 9...Qd7 10 c3! e6 11 0-0 Be7 12 Re1 0-0 13 Qe2; or finally
(c) 9...g6 10 Bb5 d5 11 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 h4 etc.
10 Qxb7 e5!?
A critical moment. Actually I had intended to play 10...Qc8 11 Qxc8+
Rxc8, but now I began to study the following natural reply and got a bit
worried: 12 c3 Ne6 13 Be3 c5 14 0-0-0 Nc7 15 Rhe1 e6 16 Bf4 Nfd5
17 Bg5 Be7 18 Bxe7 Kxe7 19 Nf5+
Over the Horizons
Only later I recognized that the

ending 19Kd7 20 Nxg7 Nf4 21 g3
Rcg8! 22 gxf4 Rxg7 23 f5 Rf8 24
fxe6+ Ke7 25 Rg1 Rxg1 26 Rxg1
Nxe6 27 Bxh7 Rxf2 28 Rh1 Nf4 29
h4 Kf6 is hardly dangerous for
Black. So when the same situation
appeared in my next game against
Dr. Thal, I confidently played the
solid 10Qc8. This game is still in
progress.
11 c3
White could include 11 f4 Be7 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 c3 +=, or he could try
11 0-0 Qc8 12 Qb4 d5 13 Qa5 Bd6 14 Ba6. The situation is so
complicated that it is impossible to give a detailed analysis of all
possibilities. But the line that really tortured me was 11 Ne4!?
(threatens Nxf6+ and c3, when Whites queen and bishops rule the
board) 11Nd7 12 Ng5 Nc5
13 Bb5+! Nxb5 14 Qc6+ Ke7
(14Nd7? 15 Qd5!! +) 15 Qxb5
h6 16 Nf3 (16 Qc4 Qd7! 17 Nf3 is
another difficult line) 16Kf7 (not
16Qd7 17 Qc4 Qa4? 18 Nxe5!) 17
Be3 Ne6 18 0-0 and White has the
better prospects (+=).
11...Rb8 12 Qa6
12 Qxa7? Ra8 leads to a draw by
repetition of moves.
12...Ne6 13 b4
Again, there are plenty of alternatives:
(a) 13 0-0!? (13 Qa4+ Kf7) 13Nc5 14 Bb5+ Kf7 15 Qa5 a6 16 Bc6
d5 17 c4 dxc4 18 Be3 Qd6 19 Bf3 Nd3.
(b) There are several variations where White can win the a-pawn, and
Black gets sufficient compensation. Here is one of them: 13 Ne4 Be7 14
Bc4 Rb6 15 Qa4+ Qd7 16 Qxa7 00 17 Bxe6+ Qxe6 18 Qxc7 Nd7 19
b4 d5 20 Ng5 Bxg5 21 Bxg5 Rc6 22 Qa7 Ra6. White cannot escape the
draw: 23 Qe3? h6 24 Bh4 Rf4! /+.
13...Be7 14 Nf5
Over the Horizons
I cannot exclude that one of Whites

many possibilities would have won.
But getting a passed a-pawn doesnt
automatically win, when Black has a
strong center: 14 Be3 (14 Bb5+ Kf7
15 Bc6 Rb6 16 Qa4 d5 =) 14Qc8
15 Qxc8+ Rxc8 16 Bxa7 Nd5, for
example 17 Ba6 Ra8 18 Bb7 Rxa7
19 Bxd5 Kd7 20 a4 c6 21 Bxe6+
Kxe6 22 a5 d5 23 Ke2 Rb8 24 Rhb1
Rb5 25 Kd3 c5, and Black seems to
have sufficient counterplay.
White could even take the pawn at once: 14 Qxa7 0-0 15 0-0 Qd7, with
complications.
14...Qd7
Black cannot castle: 14...0-0 15 Bc4 Qd7 16 Qc6! (hoping for
16Qxc6 17 Nxe7+) 16Kf7 17 Qxd7 Nxd7 18 Nxg7 Kxg7 19 Bxe6
Nf6 20 Be3 +/ with a clear advantage in the ending. Blacks position
isnt yet bad enough for the desperate 14...Rb6 15 Qxa7 e4 16 Be2 0-0.
15 Be3
15 Bc4 d5 16 Bb3 Nc5! offers excellent counter chances; for example,
17 Nxg7+ Kf8 18 bxc5 Kxg7 19 c6 Qe6 20 0-0 Rhg8 21 Qxa7 Kh8 22
Qe3 Bc5 23 Qf3 Rg6 24 Kh1 e4 25 Qf4 Rbg8 +.
15 a4 c6 16 Nxe7 Qxe7 17 Qxc6+ Kf7 18 0-0 e4! 19 Bb5 Rhc8 20 Qa6
Nc7 21 Qa5 Nxb5 22 axb5 Rxc3 23 Qxa7 Rxb5 is about equal.
15...Kf7!
If 150-0, he could again try 16 Qc6!? Kf7 (there is nothing better) 17
Qxd7 Nxd7 18 Bxa7 Ra8 19 Be3 Ra3 20 Bc1 Rxc3 21 Kd2 Bf6!?.
Black seems to hold. However, the text move is more ambitious.
16 a4
Over the Horizons
After 16 0-0 d5?! 17 f4! the open ffile would be a problem, so Black
should have searched for something
else (16g6, 16c6).
A position full of tension. Black has
achieved what he could expect from
the Balogh Defense: a pawn
majority in the center. Yet, in the
near future, Whites threat of
establishing a passed pawn on the afile seems more important. Can
Black find a way to push his center pawns?
16...Rhc8! 17 Nxe7
(a) If 17 Rd1 Nd5 18 Bb5, Black sacrifices the exchange: 18 Rxb5!
19 axb5 Nxc3 =.
(b) 17 Qxa7 Qc6 18 00 Ra8 19 Bb5 Qxc3 20 Qb7 d5 = isnt much
better.
(c) 17 Bb5 c6 18 Nxe7 Qxe7 19 Bxc6 d5 20 Qxa7 d4! is an important
resource.
(d) 17 0-0 c5; or (e) 17 b5 e4 18 Nxe7 Kxe7 19 Bc4 c5. Black has
nothing to fear.
17...Qxe7 18 Qc6
18 Qxa7 (or 18 Bf5!?) d5 19 Bd2 Nf4 20 Bxf4 (or 20 Bf1 Ne4 21 Qe3
Re8!) 20...exf4+ 21 Kf1 Qe5 22 Qc5 Re8 23 Kg1 f3! 24 g3 Nd7 with
attacking chances.
18...a5!
The only reasonable alternative was 18...Nd8 19 Bc4+ Kf8 20 Qf3 c5
21 bxc5 Nb7, but then White has 22 g4! h6 23 h4 e4 24 Qf5 Nxc5 25 g5
Qd7 26 Qf4 Qc7 27 gxf6 Nd3+ 28 Bxd3 Qxc3+ 29 Kf1 Qxa1+ 30 Kg2
Qxf6 31 Qxf6+ gxf6 32 Bxe4 +.
19 bxa5 d5 20 0-0
The last moves were almost forced. At this stage I feared another
continuation: 20 a6! Nf4 21 Bf1 Ra8 22 a7 Rd8 23 Rd1 Re8 24 Rb1
Qa3 25 g3!, which looked very difficult for Black. However, 20d4!
21 Bd2 Qd6 (del Rio) seems to hold.
Over the Horizons
20...Nd8 21 Qc5 Qxc5 22 Bxc5 Nb7 23 Be3

The ending 23 Ba7 Ra8 24 a6 Rxa7 25 axb7 Rb8 isnt better.
23...Nxa5 24 Rfb1
Because he has a passed pawn, it is only natural that White exchanges
the rooks.
24...Rxb1+ 25 Rxb1 Ra8
26 g4
White has to avoid situations where
Blacks pieces are controlling the
center. For example, after 26 f4 e4
27 Be2 Ke6 28 g4 g6 29 Kf2 Ne8 30
Bd4 Nd6 31 h4 Nac4 32 Ra1 Ra5 33
Ra2 c5, Black could start to play for
a win.
26...g6 27 Rb5
The passive 27 Ra1? Ke6 28 Ra2 Ne4 Bxe4 dxe4 30 Kf1 Nc4 31 Bc5
Kd5 obviously favors Black; for example, 32 Be7 Ra5 33 Bb4 Ra6 34
Be7 e3 35 f3 e4!.
27...Ke6
It isnt the safest strategy to allow the exchange of the remaining rooks
by 27...c6 28 Rb6 Nd7 29 Ra6 Rxa6 30 Bxa6. Nevertheless, Black
holds the game: 30Ke7 31 Be2 c5 32 Bb5 d4 33 Bd2 Nb3 34 Be1
Kd6 35 cxd4 Nxd4 36 Ba6 Kd5 37 Bb7+ Kc4 =.
28 f4
To my disappointment, White strives for simplifications. A wise
decision, otherwise Blacks center could have become a problem: 28 g5
Nd7 29 f3 c6 30 Rb4 Kd6 31 h4 c5 32 Rb1 c4 33 Bc2 Nb3 34 h5 gxh5
35 Bxh7 d4 36 Rd1 d3 37 Re1 Nbc5 with advantage for Black.
28...exf4
Returning the favor. The more ambitious 28...c6?! 29 f5+! Ke7 30 Rb1
would be too risky, because Whites passed pawn can easily become the
decisive factor. For example, 30e4 31 Be2 Nd7 32 h4 gxf5 33 gxf5
Ne5 34 Bg5+ Kd7 35 Rb6 Rg8 36 Kf2 Rf8 37 Ra6 Rxf5+ 38 Kg3 h6 39
Over the Horizons
Bxh6 Nac4 40 Ra7+ Ke6 41 a5 c5 42 Ra8 Rf6 43 Bg5 Rf7 44 a6 Nc6

45 Bg4+ Kd6 46 Bf4+ N4e5 47 Rg8 Re7 48 Rg6+ Kc7 49 h5 +.
29 Bxf4 Nc4
29...c6 30 Rb6 Nd7 31 Ra6 Rxa6 32 Bxa6 Nb6 may still be a draw, but
why should I take unnecessary risks? The text move forces the draw.
30 Bxc7 Rxa4 31 Bxc4 Rxc4 32 Rb6+ Ke7 -
Sources:
[1] J. Balogh: Wiener Schachzeitung 1928, p. 208.
[2] J. Balogh: Wiener Schachzeitung 1930, p. 98-100.
[3] E. Dyckhoff: Wiener Schachzeitung 1930, p. 188-189.
[4] F. Chalupetzky: Das Grosse Fernturnier 1932, Kecskemt 1936.
[5] W. Kbel: Balogh-Verteidigung, Cologne 1974. Reprint of [2].
[6] R. Schlenker: (same as [5], adding one supplementary page),
Tbingen 1985
[7] Analyses by FM and Correspondence IM Keith Hayward
(Texas/USA), published on the Internet.

Over the Horizons
The Magic of Move Orders

When theoreticians list moves as transposing to another variation, they
often fall into a professional routine. In quiet positions such an
exhaustive approach can be boring for the reader. Many transpositions
are in fact nothing special. It hardly seems to make a difference whether
you choose the left or the right path in both cases the outcome will be
identical. At least this is what many books suggest. And after reaching
the critical/main/often-played situation, the helpful author always
puts a diagram, as though he wanted to say: Awake, my dear reader,
now we are coming to the interesting part of the whole affair.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Instead of starting your analysis at move 17 or 23, it sometimes pays off

to study the differences between the left and the right path. At first sight
all these move orders may look too similar to result in a noticeable gain.
But you will quickly find the first nuances, and suddenly the various
alternatives are beginning to develop a character of their own. This
doesnt necessarily lead to clear theoretical improvements, but even a
playable new move can become a surprise weapon in your personal
repertoire.
Take, for example, the various articles on 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5
4 0-0 published in Kaissiber 22-25 by Lev Gutman. They are full of
new ideas here Ill repeat some of them with Gutmans kind
permission. Sometimes Lev finds a tactical blow that changes the
assessment of a long-established variation. But in effect many of these
drastic solutions could also be described as mere final points, justifying
a variation which modestly began as a slight difference in move order.
It has been claimed that chess is 99 percent tactics. Id rather say that in
a perfect game of chess 90 percent of the moves can also or even
more easily be found by a computer. Of the remaining 10 percent,
however, much represents the magic of move orders.
Over the Horizons
Dr. Max Lange (1832-1899)
1. The Max Lange Attack

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0
Castling has never been as popular as 4 c3. But when the Mller Attack
fails (as Tim Hardings articles seem to indicate), perhaps the German
master Max Lange was right in preferring 4 0-0?
4Nf6 5 d4 exd4
The following tactical solution, starting with 6 e5, is the so-called Max
Lange Attack. It can also be reached via the Two Knights Defense
(3Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5) or, in rarer cases, via the Scotch Gambit,
the Bishops Opening or the Center Game.
In recent months Lev Gutman has also discussed 5Bxd4 6 Nxd4
Nxd4 7 f4 d6, the Max Lange Gambit, in two articles: [3], [5]. In his
main line 8 fxe5 dxe5 9 Bg5 Qe7, White exerts plenty of pressure on
Blacks position and apparently gets enough compensation for his
sacrificed pawn. This is another rich source for move order subtleties,
but for now it may suffice to say that you can easily spend hours on the
question whether 5 d4 Bxd4 or 4 d4 Bxd4 (4exd4 would be a version
of the Scotch Gambit) 5 Nxd4 Nxd4 offers White better prospects.
Over the Horizons
(a) 6 f4? d5! 7 exd5 Qh4+ 8 g3 Qh3

9 Bf1 Qf5 10 Bd3 e4 was
advantageous for Black in Fahrni
Spielmann, Baden-Baden 1914
(b) 6 0-0 d6 7 f4 Be6 (7Nf6
transposes to the Max Lange
Gambit) 8 Na3! Nf6 9 fxe5, and
again we return to the territory of the
Max Lange Gambit. But Black can
try the independent continuation
8Qe7!, envisaging to castle long.
So the question remains open it wouldnt be easy to decide whether 4
d4 or 5 d4 is the more precise course for White.
6 e5 d5 7 exf6 dxc4
8 fxg7!
The overwhelming majority of
authors consider 8 Re1+? Be6? 9
Ng5? as the main line of the Max
Lange Attack, which leads to great
complications and some advantage
for Black. But according to Gutman
these three main moves are just
three consecutive mistakes. Instead
of 9 Ng5?, White has to play 9 fxg7,
transposing to our main line, which
is good for White. Blacks reaction 8Be6 is also wrong, because
8Kf8! 9 Ng5! equalizes (cf. the analyses by Gutman in [1]).
Nowadays the strength of the traditional reply 8Kf8! is greatly
underestimated. And the books do not even consider the correct
answer 9 Ng5!.
It is another astonishing fact that Max Langes original analysis (1854)
came nearer to the truth than practically any modern source. His main
line had been 8 Re1+ Kf8. Commenting on 8 Re1+, he wrote: Even
stronger perhaps is the continuation 8 fxg7 Rg8 9 Bg5 Be7 (best) 10
Bxe7 Nxe7
8Rg8 9 Re1+!
Even Gutman sometimes misses the precise move order. In [1] he didnt
see a difference and presented the sequence 9 Bg5 Be7 10 Bxe7 Kxe7
11 Re1+ Be6 as his main line. The last move transposes to the main line
of the present article. But as Klaus Kgler (Dorfen/ Germany) points
out in [2], Black has an interesting option in 11Kf6! 12 Na3 Kxg7 13
Over the Horizons
Nxc4 Kh8 14 Nce5 Nxe5 15 Nxe5 Qd5 16 Qf3 Qxf3 17 Nxf3 c5 (=, 52)
Lvholt Kgler, Correspondence 2004. White may nevertheless be
able to demonstrate an advantage: 12 c3! Kg7 (12dxc3 13 Qc1!) 13.
Nxd4 Nxd4 14 cxd4 Kh8 15 Nc3! Qf6 16 Ne4 Qg7 17 Ng3 Be6 18 Re5
Rad8 19 f4 += Gutman. White has no weaknesses and can play for a
win without risk.
However, Black has another, even more convincing reply at his
disposal: 9 Bg5 f6! 10 Re1+ Kf7 11 Bh6 Kg6 12 Qc1 (so far analysis
by Gutman in [1])
12Qd5! (a significant
improvement by Volker Hergert,
Switzerland) 13 c3 d3 (13Bg4 14
Nh4+ Kf7, Hergert) 14 Nh4+ Kf7,
unclear (Hergert) [2].
9Be6
9Be7 10 Bg5 Rxg7 11 Bxe7 Nxe7
[1] 12 Qe2! (Bcker) appears to be
good for White, e.g. 12Bh3 13 g3
Qd6 14 Na3 d3 15 Qe3! +=, analysis
by Jrg Simons (France) and Bcker [2].
10 Bg5 Be7! 11 Bxe7 Kxe7
Returning to the line found by Tassilo von der Lasa in his Handbuch,
1858 (9 Bg5 Be7 10 Bxe7 Kxe7! 11 Re1+ Be6).
12 Re4!
Carl Schlechters move in the 8th edition of the Handbuch. 12 Nbd2
(Jacques Mieses) can also lead to fascinating positions, e.g. 12Qd5
(12Kf6!? +=) 13 b3! cxb3 14 axb3 (better than 14 Nxb3 in Mieses
Teichmann, St. Petersburg 1909, but 14 cxb3 [1] comes into
consideration) 14Rxg7 15 Ne4 Kf8 16 Qc1 Qf5 (16Rc8!?) 17 Ng3
Qd5
Over the Horizons
18 h3! Kg8 19 Qf4 Kh8 20 Rad1

Rag8 21 Nxd4 Nxd4 22 Rxd4 Qc5
23 c4 +/, analysis by
Gutman/Bcker [1].
12d3 13 Nbd2!
Mentioned by Al Horowitz in Chess
Review 1957. He preferred 13 Ng5,
but after 13Qd5 14 h4 Rad8 15
Nc3 Qf5 White is in difficulties [1].
13Qd5 14 Rxc4!
Another move recommended by Horowitz (1957). In 2005, Michael
Goeller (USA) suggested 14 Rf4, but Black can solve his problems by
means of 14Qd6! 15 Re4 (15 Rxc4?! Bxc4 16 Nxc4 Qb4! 17 Qxd3
Rxg7 18 a3 Qc5 19 Re1+ Kf8 =) 15Rad8! 16 Nxc4 dxc2 17 Qxc2
Qd3 18 Qxd3 Rxd3 19 Ne3 Kf6 = [1].
14Rxg7
15 cxd3
15 Rc3?! (Horowitz) was
convincingly refuted by
15Rxg2+!! 16 Kxg2 Rg8+ 17 Kh1
Bh3 18 Rxd3 Bg2+ 19 Kg1 Bxf3+
=+, analysis by Goeller.
15Qxd3
The d-pawn isnt too important, so
15Rd8 comes to mind. But White
has an adequate reply: 16 Qb3! Qxd3 17 Qxb7 Bxc4 18 Qxc6 +/,
Bcker.
16 Rc3 Qd5
Over the Horizons
At first sight the position seems

harmless, but the fact that Blacks
kingside is weaker than Whites has
two unpleasant consequences for the
defender: his king doesnt find a
secure shelter. And, the lack of
weaknesses in the white camp makes
it very difficult for Black to achieve
any counterplay. But such
counterplay would be essential, to
deflect Whites attention from
building up threats against Blacks
king. It sounds a bit premature, but very probably Blacks position is
simply lost.
17 Qe1 Rag8 18 g3 Rg4
What else can Black do against the threat of Ne4?
19 Qe3! Qf5 20 Re1
Combining various threats, like 21 Ne4, 21 Nb3 and 21 Nc4 (intending
further attacks: Nc5, Rc5 or Ne3), which Black can no longer parry.
20...Kd8
There is nothing better. Black wants to play Kc8, to protect b7 with his
king. But
21 Rxc6! bxc6 22 Ne5 Ra4
22R4g7? 23 Qd4+ etc.
23 Qc5 Ra6 24 Nxc6+ Kd7 25 Re5
Qg4
None of the alternatives works:
25Rxc6 26 Qd4+ Rd6 27 Qa4+;
25Qf6 26 Ne4; 25Qf4 26 Nb8+;
26Qd3 27 Rxe6.
26 Rd5+ Kc8 27 Ne7+ Kb8 28 Rd4 +. Analysis by Gutman/Bcker
[1].
In the Max Lange Attack the dominant overtone is tactics, and you
cannot find the precise move order without extensively checking
variations. The following example is the opposite. Here you can only
Over the Horizons
detect the move order subtleties, when you overcome the tactical
temptations either by intuition or (like Lev Gutman) by concrete
analysis.
2. Italian Game 4d6 5 c3 Bg4
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 d6
Another critical variation, considered by many authors as the best
reaction on 4 0-0. After castling too early, they believe, White will have
difficulties to get rid of the pinning Bg4. But as Gutman has
demonstrated in [6], this is just another common prejudice.
5 c3 Bg4
6 b4!
The complications arising from 6 d4
or 6 Qb3 fascinated the theoreticians
of the past, from Staunton to Keres.
But the positional approach seems
more appropriate. The following
main line is based on analyses by
Gutman in [6]. However, once again
we are tempted to vary the move
order a bit and find our own
interpretation.
Lev Gutmans preferred line 6 h3 Bh5 7 b4 Bb6 8 a4 (Gutman [6]) may
in fact be less precise because of 8a5 9 b5 Nce7. With his bishop
already on the square h5, Black no longer has to fear the tactical blow
Bxf7+ (f7 is now protected by Bh5).
6Bb6 7 a4 a6
An important point of Whites move order was suggested to me by
Martin Bennedik (Germany): 7a5 8 b5 Nce7? is punished by means
of 9 Bxf7+. Therefore in move eight Blacks Nc6 would have to retreat
to b8, which at least gives White a slight plus.
8 h3
Stronger than 8 d3? (Levitzky Alekhine, St. Petersburg 1913)
8Qf6! (Bennedik) 9 Nbd2 Nge7 10 h3?! h5!. Obviously Whites
concept has failed and he has to be careful to avoid getting into serious
trouble. After the text move the analogous 8h5? 9 d3 Qf6? would be
too risky: 10 hxg4 hxg4 11 Ng5! g3 (what else?) 12 Ra2 +/. So it
Over the Horizons
seems probable that Blacks bishop has to move. The square h5 looks
like the most logical choice.
8Bh5 9 d3 Nf6
By a different order of moves, we
have reached the game Levitzky
Alekhine, St. Petersburg 1913.
Instead of developing the knight to
f6, Bennedik suggests 9Nge7, but
White should have an advantage
after 10 Nbd2 (10 Qb3? Bxf3! 11
Bxf7+ Kf8 12 gxf3 Ng6! =) 10...0-0
11 Qb3, e.g.:
(a) 11...Kh8 12 Bb2 Qe8 13 Rae1 f6
14 d4 Ng6 15 g3. Playing in
Steinitz style doesnt lose by
force, nevertheless the assessment += seems fully justified.
(b) 11...Qd7 12 Nh4 Rad8 13 Ndf3, and I prefer White.
10 Re1 h6 11 Nbd2 g5
Criticized by Alekhine, who claimed that Black would have had a good
game after 110-0 12 Nf1 d5. But Gutman proved that he was wrong:
12 a5! Ba7 13 Nf1 d5 14 exd5 Nxd5 15 Bd2 Re8 16 Ng3 Bg6 17 Qb3
Nf4 (17Nf6? 18 Nh4) 18 Bxf4 exf4 19 Ne4 +/, e.g. 19Ne5 20
Nxe5 Rxe5 21 Nd2. White threatens to push the Ba7 offside by means
of d3-d4. 21Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 b5 is no solution either because of 23
axb6 Bxb6 24 Nf3 +/[6].
Alekhine is correct in saying that Blacks plan of opening the g-file
leads to serious weaknesses in his own camp. But significant
improvements should better be searched at an earlier stage of the game.
Here the situation was already clearly superior for White.
12 Nf1
Or 12 a5 Ba7 13 b5! axb5 14 Bxb5 0-0 15 Bxc6 bxc6 16 Nf1 +/
Gutman/Bcker.
12g4 13 hxg4 Nxg4
Over the Horizons
14 Ra2! +/, Gutman [6].

A more precise solution than 14
Be3? Nxe3 15 Nxe3 Bxe3? 16 fxe3
(1:0, 54) in Levitzky Alekhine, St.
Petersburg 1913 (7th match game).
In spite of the open g-file White isnt
forced to simplify matters. After the
text move, 14Qd7 15 Ng3 Bg6 16
Nh4 could follow, and White
dominates the position [6].
To see that the venerable Max Lange Attack can be revived was a major
surprise. Few gambits are favorable for the attacker. The second line is
less spectacular, but if practice confirms the assessments above, it could
be of similar importance for the theory of 4 0-0.
Sources:
[1] L. Gutman: Eine alte Rubergeschichte (Max Lange Attack), in
Kaissiber 22 (2006).
[2] S. Bcker: Der Max-Lange-Angriff (readers reactions), in
[3] L. Gutman: Italienisch in freiem Stil (Max Lange Gambit I, in
[4] N. Leisner: Das Gambit 4 d4 ist eine Alternative (readers reaction),
in Kaissiber 24 (2006).
[5] L. Gutman: Italienische Spezialsysteme (Max Lange Gambit II), in
[6] L. Gutman: Mit Lewitzki aus der Sackgasse (Italian Game 4d6),
in Kaissiber 25 (2006).

Over the Horizons
Finding Your Own Approach in the

Second Ice Age
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
In his book Exploring the Chess Openings (1978), the American

theoretician Hugh E. Myers expressed his opinion that under certain
circumstances an early g7-g5 should be fully playable. My article
Impoliteness of Ice Age Openings (January 2006) had already
discussed an example for the Myers Defense 1 c4 g5, which is slightly
more popular, but not necessarily stronger than the related lines. Here
well look at another member of the Ice Age family: 1 Nf3 h6,
followed by g5.
Myers wasnt sure about the playability of 1 d4 h6 or 1 e4 g5 (which
were later happily adopted by the British IM Mike Basman), but for 1
c4, 1 Nf3 and 1 g3, Myers claimed that Blacks reaction g7-g5 (or h6
and g5, if 1 Nf3) was justified for concrete positional reasons:
1 c4 g5, because 1 c4 weakens square d4, and c7-c5 has become

more effective.
1 g3 g5, because 1 g3 reduces Whites active possibilities (e.g. to
play Bc4 or Ne2-g3).
1 Nf3 h6, followed by g5, because Nf3 can become a target.
For the last situation h6/g5 vs. an early Nf3 the database knows only
49 examples (either in the move order 1 Nf3 h6, or by transposition),
which could be a warning. But the picture gains some charm when you
consider that Black has scored an impressive 64 percent.
Over the Horizons
Ice Age Chess (c) by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
These defenses have a few things in common e.g. Black doesnt have
to fear the direct Bc4, Ne2-g3 and often they will even transpose to
each other. After 1 g3, Whites knight usually goes to f3, so the reply
1g5 borrows some motivation from 1 Nf3 h6. In most games with an
Ice Age strategy (g5), Black attacks the center by means of c7-c5,
which already belonged to Myers concept after 1 c4 g5. However, in
some cases the c5 setup doesnt work too well, e.g. against the
formation e4, d4, c3, and I have begun to prefer another interpretation.
As so often, if you have found something new, it leads to other ideas.
Thus, Myers created several openings with a delayed g2-g4, such as 1
Nc3 c5 2 g4!? (inspired by the weakening move c5). By the way, Myers
later developed an analogous philosophy for the other side of the board:
against 1 f4, 1 b3 or 1 Nc3, the American says, Black can safely reply
1b5 (or 1 Nc3 a6 followed by b5). This might be the topic of another
article.
The following two games will not supply you with a complete
repertoire against 1 Nf3. My main goal is to demonstrate that there are
still some relatively unexplored openings where you can find your own
approach.
Hans Hornung (2211) Stefan Bcker (2349)
Bad Wiessee, November 2005
1 Nf3 h6 2 d4
Blacks plan could have been avoided by 2 h4, but many will find the
cure more dangerous than the disease. In some games 2 b3 has been
played, when the London formation 2...d5 3 Bb2 Bf5 would be a solid
Over the Horizons
reply. The move h6 fits well into Blacks plans. Moreover, there is an
entertaining alternative in 2...g5 3 Bb2, when both 3...Rh7 and 3...Nf6,
in spite of their strange appearance, seem okay for Black.
2...g5 3 e4 Bg7 4 c3
The immediate 4 h4 comes into
question: 4...g4 5 Ne5 d6 (5...h5 6
Bc4 was better for White in Gireada
Taga, Tusnad 2000, but 5...Nf6!? 6
Nc3 d6 7 Nd3 Nc6 8 d5 Nd4 is
interesting) 6 Nxg4 Bxg4 7 Qxg4
Bxd4, White has the two bishops.
Nevertheless it seems that Black can
castle long and get enough play on
the g-file, e.g. 8 Bc4 (8 Qd1 Bc5,
about =) 8...e6 9 c3 Nf6 10 Qe2 Bb6
11 Bf4 Rg8!? 12 Bxh6 Rxg2 or 12
Nd2 Ng4 13 f3 Qf6.
4...d6
Whites last move was directed against the thematic advance c7-c5. In
similar situations, Basmans book The Killer Grob (Oxford 1991)
recommends a different continuation, d7-d5. True, I dont find this
concrete position, with a knight on f3, in the book. Anyway, over the
board, I didnt like the analogous 4...d5 at all: 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Nbd2
must be better for White, and the aggressive 6...g4 7 Bc4 Qf5 8 Ng1
b5 9 Bb3 Bb7 10 Nf1 Bxg2? 11 Ne3 Qe4 12 Bd5 + even loses on the
spot. The modest 4...d6 looks like an auxiliary solution at first sight, but
I think it is more. Blacks setup is rather sound, even without immediate
central action. Moves like c5 or d5 can be useful; at least they deflect
Whites attention from Blacks weaknesses on the kingside. But they
are also committal, and altogether I see more disadvantages than
advantages for Black in such maneuvers. The position is opened, and
White can find active squares for his pieces. I am not sure that the text
move acquires full equality, but very probably it is Blacks best
continuation.
5 Bd3
In the post-mortem, Dr. Hornung agreed that he had missed the right
moment to attack Blacks pawn chain. According to him, the right
moment came on move 7. Of course h2-h4 is a critical option at any
moment, after Black has played g7-g5. At this stage there could follow:
5 h4 g4 6 Nh2 Nf6 7 Bd3 c5 8 d5 h5 (8...g3?!) 9 Nf1 Nbd7 10 Ng3 Ne5
=.
White achieved a small advantage after 5 Bc4!? g4 6 Ng1 (6 Nh4!?)
Nf6 7 Qc2 d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 Ne2 c6 10 Nf4 h5 += Astl Kroell,
Over the Horizons
Austrian Team Cheampionship 2003 (0-1, 45). Instead of 5...g4, Id

prefer 5...Nc6 6 0-0 e6!?; for example, 7 d5 exd5 8 exd5 Nce7 9 Qe2
Nf6 10 Re1 Kf8!
The situation is difficult to assess.
White could sacrifice his pawn d5
for rapid development. Another
plausible alternative is 11 Qd3 Kg8.
5...Nc6
5...c5 is dubious because of 6 Be3!
(6 0-0 g4 7 Nh4 cxd4 8 cxd4 Nc6 9
d5 Ne5 10 Bb5+ Kf8 11 Bf4 Bf6 12
Bg3 Qb6 13 Na3 a6 14 Be2 Qxb2 15
Nc2 Bd7 16 Ne3 Rb8 =) 6...Qc7 7
Na3 a6 8 0-0 Nf6 9 Re1 0-0 10 e5 +=.
6 0-0
6 h4 is hardly more dangerous than one move ago: 6...g4 7 Nh2 (7 Ng1)
7...Nf6 8 Nf1 e5 9 d5 Ne7 and Black can be satisfied with his position;
for example, 10 h5 c6 11 c4 b5 12 b3 bxc4 13 bxc4 cxd5 14 cxd5
Nfxd5! =+, intending 15 exd5 e4.
6...e6
7 a4
Perhaps more drastic measures were
required. In the post-mortem, my
opponent suggested the original 7
Kh1! Nge7 8 Ng1 Ng6 9 Ne2 (not 9
f4? gxf4 10 Bxf4 Nxf4 11 Rxf4 e5
=+). After careful preparation, White
now threatens f2-f4, and this
advance must not be taken lightly.
Nevertheless, I believe Black can
equalize: 9...e5 10 d5 Nce7 11 Ng3
Nf4 12 Nh5 0-0! =. The main alternative is to play 7 d5 or to prepare
this move, say, by means of 7 Re1. At this stage, White underestimates
his opponents plan and shrinks away from immediate aggression.
7...Nge7
To combine the aggressive g5 with the passive setup e6 and Nge7
looks a bit strange. But the idea follows its own radical logic. Black
feels that g6 would be the best square for his knight, to control the
important squares h4, f4 and e5. Moreover, the knight isnt in the way
of his other pieces (Bg7, Rf8 and Qd8). To achieve his aim, Black is
Over the Horizons
willing to invest three tempi: e6, Nge7 and Ng6. The obvious drawback:
it costs plenty of time. That said it still requires a sharp eye to find a
refutation!
8 Na3 Ng6 9 Re1 0-0 10 Nc4 f5
Black hastens to demonstrate that
White has played too slowly. With a
pawn on g5, it looks attractive to
push your f-pawn, but at the same
time the advance creates weaknesses
on the e-file and gives White
concrete targets. In hindsight, I am
no longer sure that 10...f5 was the
correct decision. My solid
kingside formation may even allow
the calm 10...b6!? 11 g3 Bb7 12 a5
b5 13 a6 Bc8 14 Ne3 Rb8. Food for
thought.
11 exf5 exf5 12 b4?
12 Ne3! keeps Blacks queen away from f6, with unclear consequences:
12...g4 (12...Nce7 13 h3; 12...d5 13 b4 g4 14 b5 Nce7 15 Ne5 Nxe5 16
dxe5 c5 17 bxc6 Nxc6 18 e6! +/) 13 Nd2 Nce7 (or 13...Nf4 14 Bc2
Ne7 15 Ndf1 Nfg6 16 g3 b6!?) 14 g3 (14 Bc4+ d5) Qd7 15 Qb3+ Kh8
16 a5 f4 17 Nd5 Nf5 with complications.
12...Qf6 13 Ra2
13 Ne3 Nce7 14 Bc4+ Kh8 comes into consideration. After the text
move, White lacks effective counterplay, and Black begins to control
the position.
13...g4 14 Nfd2 Be6 15 Rb2 Nf4 16 Bf1 Nd5 17 Nb1 f4 18 b5 Nce7 19
Ncd2 Ng6 20 Ne4 Qf7 21 a5 b6 22 a6 Rae8 23 c4 Nde7 24 d5 Bd7 25
Rb3 Ne5 26 Nbc3 Qg6 27 Kh1 Qh5 28 Kg1 N7g6 29 Na2 Nh4 30
Kh1
Over the Horizons
30...Rf5?
Missing both the elegant execution
30...Nhf3! 31 gxf3 gxf3!
(threatening Ng4), and the simpler
30...f3! 31 Ng3 (31 g3 Ng2 +)
31...Qg6 +.
31 Nb4 Kh8 32 Nc6 Bxc6 33 bxc6
Rg8 34 Ba3 Nhf3?
I had spoiled my fine attacking
position and now the time trouble
began. The text move tries to force matters.
35 gxf3 Nxf3 36 h3?
Fortunately, White was too short of time to find 36 Rxf3! gxf3 37 Nd2
Bc3 38 Qxf3 Qxf3+ 39 Nxf3. The situation still seems unclear, but after
39....Bxe1 the zwischenzug 40 Bb2+! simply wins for White. The rest of
the game doesnt deserve any comments.
36...Be5? 37 Nxd6? cxd6 38 Rxe5 dxe5 39 d6 Qg5 40 d7 gxh3 0-1
Sascha Grimm (2359) Stefan Bcker (2351)
Oberliga North Rhine and Westphalia, October 2006
1 Nf3 d6 2 g3 h6
According to Myers thesis both Nf3 and g3 invites an early g7-g5. So I
couldnt resist. My opponent had probably expected a Leningrad Dutch.
3 Bg2 g5 4 e4 Bg7 5 d4 Nc6!?
After White has combined the moves g3 and e4, it is a natural reaction
to provoke the advance d4-d5 and to conquer the weak square e5. For
this purpose 5...c5 has been played: 6 dxc5 Qa5+ 7 Bd2 Qxc5 8 Bc3
Bxc3+ 9 Nxc3 Nf6 10 Qd4 Nc6 and a draw was agreed in Vogel
Welling, Dieren 1987. The text move is a lively alternative.
6 d5 g4!
Over the Horizons
A typical Ice Age motif. If

Whites knight moves to h4, g1 or
d2, the reply 7...Ne5 will freeze
Whites pawn structure. Instead, my
opponent prefers to exchange the
knights. The resulting position is
roughly equal.
7 dxc6 gxf3 8 Qxf3 bxc6 9 Nc3 e6?
9...Rb8 was the correct continuation.
10 0-0?
Both players overlooked the horrible combination 10 e5! Ne7 11 Bf4
Bxe5? (the lesser evil would have been 11...d5 +=) 12 Bxe5 dxe5 13
Qh5! +/, followed by Rd1 and Ne4. Blacks king is in serious trouble.
10...Qf6 11 Qh5 Qe5 12 Qe2 Ne7 13 Be3
13 Rb1 was slightly more promising.
13...Qa5 14 Qd2 Ba6 15 Rfd1 Qh5 16 e5!??
An astonishing idea, for which
White only spent too much time.
16...Bxe5
(a) 16...dxe5?? 17 Qd7+ Kf8 18
Qd8+ Rxd8 19 Rxd8 mate.
(b) 16...Qxe5! is probably best. But
when I calculated this line, I foresaw
a nasty surprise: 17 Ne4! Nf5
(17...Bc4!? is also good) 18 Bc5 (not
18 Nc5 Nxe3 19 Bxc6+ Ke7 20
Nxa6 Nxd1 21 Bxa8? Nxb2!, nor 18 Bf4 Qd4 19 Qe1 Qxb2 20 Rab1
Qa3 21 g4 Nd4) 18...0-0 19 Rab1 dxc5 20 Qa5!. Out of the blue, White
suddenly threatens to win my queen by 21 f4!. At this point I stopped
my calculations, but home analysis showed that Black still has an
advantage after 20...Nd6.
17 Ne4 d5
(a) More entertaining complications: 17...f5 18 f4 Bxb2 19 Rab1 Bg7
20 Qa5 Be2 21 Qxc7 0-0 22 Qxe7 Bxd1 23 Qxe6+ Kh8 24 Nxd6 Bxc2
25 Rf1 Bd3 26 Bf3 Rf6, about =.
(b) 17...00 18 Bxh6 Rfb8 19 Rab1 Rxb2 20 Rxb2 Bxb2 21 c3 Nd5 22
Bf3! Qg6 23 h4 Ba3 24 h5 Qf5 25 g4 Qe5 26 Re1 +/.
Over the Horizons
18 Nc5 Bc8
I had intended 18...Be2 19 Re1 Bf3,
but here I saw 20 Bd4 Bxd4 21
Qxd4 Rg8 22 Na6! +=.
19 Bd4?!
For his creative play, White now
should have earned an advantage: 19
Nd3! Bd6 20 c4! +=. But he was
already suffering from zeitnot.
19...Bxd4 20 Qxd4 e5?!
20...0-0 =.
21 Qa4 e4
21...0-0 22 Qa5 Bg4 23 Re1 Rfc8 24 Qc3 d4 25 Qa5 f6 26 c3 dxc3 27
Qxc3 +=.
22 Qd4?
Time trouble. 22 Qa5! Bg4 (22...Qe5 23 Nxe4) 23 Re1 0-0 24 h3! with
an advantage for White.
22...0-0 23 Qf6? Qg5 24 Qc3 Rb8 25 Nb3 f5 26 Qe5?!
26...f4! 27 Qxc7 Rb7 28 Qd6 Bg4
Or 28...e3! 29 Qc5 f3 30 Bh1 exf2+
31 Qxf2 Ng6 /+. But the text move
is also sufficient. In spite of a few
inaccurate moves, from this point the
result was hardly in doubt.
29 Re1 Rd7 30 Qc5 e3 31 gxf4
exf2+ 32 Qxf2 Rxf4 /+ 33 Qe3?
Bf3 34 Qe6+ Kh7
34...Kf8! 35 Re2 Rg4 +.
35 Re2 Bg4 36 Qe5 Bxe2 37 Qxe2 Nf5 38 Nc5 Re7 39 Ne6 Qg8 40
Nxf4
40 Qd2 Nh4!.
40...Rxe2 41 Nxe2 Ne3 42 Ng3 Nxc2 43 Rf1 Ne3 44 Rf6 Nxg2 45
Kxg2 d4 46 Kf3 Qd5+ 47 Ne4 Kg7 48 Kf4 Qxa2 49 Rxc6 Qxb2 50
Rc7+ Kf8 51 Rd7? Qxh2+ 52 Kg4 Qe5 0-1
Over the Horizons
I shouldnt hesitate to repeat 1 Nf3 h6. The opening in the second game,
1 Nf3 d6!? 2 g3 h6, is an interesting waiting concept. With his bishop
on g2, Whites prospects of refuting Blacks setup are even smaller than
in the first case. There is still plenty to explore. With a little patience,
everybody can find his own approach.

Over the Horizons
Velvet Revolution in the French

Defense
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Certain opening moves dont seem to fit together; for instance,

combining e6 and g6 can lead to drastic consequences. The game
Anderssen Staunton, London 1851, is often quoted to scare beginners
away from this practice: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 g6 3 Bd3 Bg7 4 Be3 c5 5 c3 cxd4
6 cxd4 Qb6 7 Ne2 Qxb2 8 Nbc3 Qb6 9 Rc1 Na6 10 Nb5 Bf8 11 0-0 d6
12 d5 (1-0, 44). An excellent illustration for the disadvantages of such a
risky pawn formation: weak black squares and a delayed development
of the c8-bishop.
In some cases you can safely play an early e6 and g6, e.g. when you are
Black against a Closed Sicilian. Here it seems wise to keep f7-f5 as an
option against Whites long-term plans on the kingside, and Black has
enough time for all these pawn moves: c5, g6, d6, e6, b6. Yet in more
aggressive openings, especially when Whites e-pawn already threatens
to proceed to e5, you will usually avoid weakening the f6-square.
The following lines greatly differ in popularity. The number of games
found in BigDatabase 2005 is in parenthesis:
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 (2561), the Gurgenidze Variation of

the Caro-Kann Defense.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 g6 (654), a rarer Caro-Kann line.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 g6 (43).
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 (13).
As you could expect, the two Caro-Kann lines are more popular than
the French versions the move g6 harmonizes better with c6 than with
e6. The second line (b) with Nd2 is said to be worse than the
Gurgenidze Variation (as indicated by the number of games), since
White will be able to protect his center by means of c2-c3 and start a
forceful attack (h2-h4-h5). Analogously, the fourth line should be better
than the third: after an eventual e4-e5 the usual counter c7-c5 profits
from the position of the Nc3. Nevertheless, in practice line four is even
rarer than the third a small surprise.
Over the Horizons
Dr. Maximilian Ujtelky
This article will discuss three games to discover whether the French line
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 really deserves its bad image. The first was
already presented in [4], in a chapter entitled Mild Provocation: g6
plus e6. For some of the readers this may sound like an
understatement. But I am still convinced that the risk that Black takes is
not much bigger than in other lines of the French Defense. To adopt
Ujtelkys ideas to the French Defense is rather a velvet than a bloody
revolution. Maximilian Ujtelky (1915-1979) usually began his games
with the fianchetto, but instead of the standard continuation d6 and Nf6,
which often leads to the Pirc Defense, he had his own ideas.
N. Gaprindashvili M. Ujtelky
Wijk aan Zee 1969 (tournament B)
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3
Apparently a normal Modern Defense [B06], but it soon transposes to
our strange kind of French Defense. The game Spassky Ujtelky,
Sotchi 1967 [2], continued 3 Nf3 d6 4 Bc4 e6 5 Bb3 d5 6 Nbd2 Ne7 7 00 0-0 8 Re1 Nd7 9 c3 c5 10 e5 b5 11 Nf1 a5 12 Bc2 b4 13 h4 (1-0, 45).
However, the French move order (seen in the two games below)
excludes such an irregular beginning with a delayed development of
Whites queens knight.
3e6 4 Be3!
White recognizes that Black intends something unusual, instead of a
Pirc Defense, and decides to castle long, intending a pawn storm against
Over the Horizons
Blacks weak kingside. Alternatives:

(a) 4 Be2 d5 5 Be3 Ne7 6 Qd2 h6 7 h4 b6 8 h5 g5 9 g4 c5 10 exd5 exd5
11 0-0-0 Nbc6 12 Nf3 Bxg4 13 dxc5 Bxf3 14 Bxf3 d4 15 Bxc6+ Nxc6
16 Qe2 0-0 17 Ne4 Qe7 18 Bd2 bxc5 19 f4 Rab8 (19...Bxb2+) 20 fxg5?
d3! 21 cxd3 Bxb2+ (0-1, 30), de Rooi Ujtelky, Amsterdam 1969 [3].
(b) 4 f4 Ne7 5 Be3 a6 6 Nf3 b5 7 Bd3 f5 8 e5 Bb7 9 0-0 Scholl
Ujtelky, Wijk aan Zee II 1969, now instead of 9...Nc6? 10 a4! b4 (1-0,
31) Kurajica recommends 9...0-0 [1].
4...d5
Finally reaching the French Defense.
5 e5?!
In general, White pushes his e-pawn
immediately, although this gives
Black a clear counter plan. It seems
stronger to play the flexible 5 Qd2!
h6 6 0-0-0 Ne7 7 f3 a6 8 h4 b5 9
Nge2. A critical situation for this
opening:
(a) 9...Bb7 10 exd5! exd5 11 h5 g5
(Kurajica Ujtelky, Wijk aan Zee II
1969). Here Kurajica recommends
12 g4! [1] and ECO later agreed,
calling it +/. This evaluation may
be correct, and the alternatives on
Blacks tenth move dont equalize
either. If 10...b4, White can sacrifice
a piece: 11 dxe6!? bxc3 12 exf7+
Kxf7 13 Nxc3, and 10...Bxd5!? (my
recommendation in [4]) 11 Nf4 is
also slightly better for White.
(b) 9...Nd7 could be more precise: 10 exd5 (or 10 h5 g5 11 Ng3 Nb6 12
a3 Bb7 13 Kb1 Qd7 14 e5 0-0-0) 10...exd5 11 Re1 Nb6 12 Ng3 h5!? 13
Bg5 Be6 14 Bd3 Qd6. Black has solved his problems and chances are
about even.
5...Ne7 6 Qd2 h6 7 g4 Nd7 8 0-0-0 a6
Over the Horizons
Black equalizes by moving his cpawn immediately: 8...c5! 9 f4 (9

dxc5 Nxe5 10 Nb5 Nxg4 11 Nd6+
Kf8; or 9 Nb5 cxd4) 9...cxd4!
(avoiding the trap 9...a6? 10 dxc5
Qc7 11 Be2, when Black cannot
regain his pawn: 11...Nxc5 12 Bxc5
Qxc5 13 Ne4! +/) 10 Bxd4 Nc6 11
Nf3 Nxd4 12 Qxd4 Qb6, or 12.
Nxd4 g5!?, in both cases Black has
no problems.
9 f4 h5
9...b5 comes into question.
10 f5
At first sight, the less complicated 10 gxh5 Rxh5 11 Be2 Rh8 12 h4 b5
13 h5 seems to give White an advantage, but with precise play Black
holds his position: 13...Nb6 14 Nf3 Rxh5 15 Rxh5 gxh5; for example,
16 Rh1 Nc4 17 Bxc4 dxc4 18 Rxh5 Nf5 19 Ne4 (19 Qf2 Bb7 20 Nh4
Nxe3 21 Qxe3 b4 22 Na4 Bf8!) 19...Bb7 20 Nfg5 Bxe4 21 Nxe4 Qd5 =.
10...gxf5 11 gxh5
Or 11 gxf5 Nxf5 12 Bf4 c5 with sufficient counterplay.
11...Rxh5 12 Nh3!
Direct protection of the e5-pawn wouldnt help against Blacks threats:
12 Be2 Rh8 13 Nf3 c5 14 dxc5 Qa5 15 a3 Nc6 16 Rhg1 Bf8; for
instance, 17 Nd4 Nxd4 18 Bxd4 Bh6 19 Be3 Bxe3 20 Qxe3 Qxc5 21
Rd4 Rh4 22 Rgd1 Rxh2 23 Qg3 Rh6 24 Kb1 Rg6 25 Qh4 Qe7 =+.
12...c5 13 Rg1 Bf8!
13...cxd4 14 Rxg7 dxe3 15 Qxe3 Qc7 was equally reasonable, surely
Black isnt worse.
14 Qe2
White avoids the aggressive 14 dxc5 Nxe5 15 Nf4 Rh7 16 Be2 N7c6 17
Nh5, and perhaps she was right to do so, as Black is not without
resources: 17...Ng4 18 Bg5 f6 19 Bxg4 fxg5 20 Bxf5 exf5 21 Nxd5 Kf7
22 Nhf6 Rh3 23 Kb1 Bh6 =+.
14...Rh8 15 dxc5 Qc7 16 Nf4
Over the Horizons
16...Qxe5
A difficult decision in a messy
position:
(a) 16...Nxc5 17 Nh5 Nd7 18 Nf6+
Kd8 [4] 19 Bg2 +=.
(b) 16...Nxe5?! 17 Nh5 Ng4 18
Rxg4 [4] fxg4 19 Nf6+ Kd8 20 Bg5
Qxh2 21 Qe3 Bh6 leads to an
exchange of the queens: 22 Nfxd5
Bxg5 23 Nxe7+ Kc7 24 Qxg5 Qh6
25 Qxh6 Rxh6 26 c6 bxc6 27 Nxc6,
but the resulting ending is still unclear.
(c) 16...Bh6! [4] is probably best, e.g. 17 Kb1 Bxf4 18 Bxf4 Qxc5 19
Be3 Qc7 20 Bg5 b5 21 a3 Rb8 =+.
17 Qf2 Rxh2
(a) 17...Nc6 [4] 18 Nd3 Qxh2 19 Bg2 Rg8 20 Bf4 Bh6 21 Nxd5 exd5
22 Qe3+ +=.
(b) 17...Bh6 was recommended in [4]. 18 Nfxd5 Bxe3+ (18...exd5? 19
Bxh6 Rxh6 20 Re1 wins for White) 19 Nxe3 Rxh2 20 Bg2 Qxc5 21
Qf4 =.
18 Qxh2 Qxe3+ 19 Kb1 Qxc5
19...Nxc5? 20 Bg2 Ne4 21 Bxe4 fxe4 22 Rge1, followed by Nh5,
invites a dangerous attack.
20 Be2 d4?
20...Qd6 = came into question. Now
White finds an elegant attack:
21 Bh5! Nf6
21...dxc3? 22 Bxf7+! wins.
22 Nce2 Nc6 23 Qh4 Be7
He should have tried 23...Qe7 24
Nxd4 Nxd4 25 Rxd4 Nxh5 26 Qxh5
Bd7 to get his king out of the fire.
Over the Horizons
24 Qg5?
Overlooking 24 Rg7 e5 25 Bxf7+
Kd8 26 Ng6 +, with excellent
winning chances.
24...Nd8?
24...Nxh5 25 Qxh5 e5 +=.
25 Nxd4 e5 26 Nde6?
Returning the favor. After 26 Rge1! exd4 (or 26...e4 27 Qg7) 27 Qxf6,
Black is helpless against Whites threats.
26...Bxe6
26...Nxe6? 27 Bxf7+ Kxf7 28 Qg6+ Kf8 [4] 29 Rh1! +.
27 Nxe6 Nxe6 28 Bxf7+ Kxf7 29 Qg6+ Kf8 30 Rh1 Ng7
The alternative 30...Bd8 31 Rh8+ Ke7 32 Rh6 Nd4 33 Qxf6+ Kd7 34
Qf7+ Kc8 35 c3 Nc6 36 Rxc6+ Qxc6 37 Qxf5+ Kc7 38 Qxe5+ also
leads to a draw.
31 Rh8+ Ng8 32 Rh7 Bf6 33 Rd7 Qc4
34 b3??
After 34 a3, Black has nothing better
than perpetual check. The text move
is more ambitious and
Gaprindashvili deserves praise for
her courage, but here she wants too
much.
34...Qf1+ 35 Kb2 e4+ 36 Ka3 Qc1+
37 Ka4 b5+ 38 Ka5 Bc3+
Or 38...Qa3+ 39 Kb6 Bd4+! 40 Rxd4 Rb8+ 41 Kc7 Qc5+ +.
39 b4
39 Kb6 Qe3+ 40 Kc6 Ne7+! 41 Rxe7 Rc8+ 42 Kb7 Kxe7, etc.
39...Bxb4+ 40 Kxb4
Over the Horizons
40...Qb2+?
40...a5+ wins easily: 41 Kc5 Qxc2+
42 Kd4 (42 Kb6 Qf2+) Qd2+ 43
Ke5 Qxd7+.
41 Kc5 Qxc2+?
The last mistake in a fascinating
battle. After 41...Qe5+ 42 Kb6 Qe6+
43 Qxe6 Nxe6 44 Rdf7+ Ke8 45
Kd8 Rxf5 46 Rd8 Re5 47 Rd6+ Ka5
48 Nf6, Black can still play for a win.
42 Kb6 -
A French Revolution
(c) by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
The other two games also arose from the French move order.
P. Acs (2529) Z. Varga (2495)
Balatonlelle 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3
4 Be3 Bg7 could transpose to the position of the first game. White
doesnt play 4 e5 at once, which would only give Black the welcome
Over the Horizons
opportunity to leave the bishop at f8 (where it prepares the coming c7c5).

4...Bg7
5 e5?!
In contrast to the first game, White
has already played Nf3.
Nevertheless, he should follow a
similar plan as in Kurajica Ujtelky
(cf. the note to Whites 5th move in
Gaprindashvili - Ujtelky) and
postpone his decision about the epawn. There are two main
possibilities:
(a) 5 Bf4
(a1) 5...a6 6 Qd2 h6 7 h4 Ne7 8 0-0-0 c6? 9 Kb1 h5 10 Bd3 Nd7 11
Rhe1 Nf8 12 e5 b5 13 Bg5 Qc7 14 Qf4 Ng8 15 g4 (1-0, 35), P.
Andersson O. Appelquist, Swedish Corr. Championship 1971.
(a2) 5...dxe4! 6 Nxe4 Nc6 7 Qd2 Nge7 (and not 7...Nxd4? 8 0-0-0 Nc6
9 Qxd8+ Nxd8 10 Bxc7 +/) 8 0-0-0 (8 Bg5 f5!? 9 Nf6+ Kf7!) 8...0-0
and Black can be satisfied with his position, e.g. 9 Bc4 b6 10 Bg5 f6 11
Bf4 g5 12 Be3 g4 13 Ng1 Na5 14 Bd3 f5 15 Nc3 Qd6 Nge2 Bb7 17
Nf4 Ng6 =.
(b) 5 Be3 Ne7 6 h4 h6 7 Qd2 b6 offers this choice:
(b1) 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 0-0-0 Bb7 10
Bc4 Nxc3 11 Qxc3 Nd7 12 h5 g5 13
Ne5 Qe7 14 Bb5 Bxe5 15 dxe5 0-00 16 f3 Kb8 +=.
(b2) 8 0-0-0 dxe4 9 Nxe4 Bb7 10
Bb5+ Nd7 11 Ne5 Bxe4 12 Bxd7+
Kf8 13 f3 Bb7 14 Qb4 Kg8 15 Ba4
Qd6 16 Qe1 Bxe5 17 dxe5 Qxe5 18
Bd4 Qxe1 19 Rhxe1 Rh7 20 c4 +=.
In both lines (b1) and (b2) Black has
lasting difficulties. Perhaps instead
of the passive move 7...b6, the more
ambitious 7...a6!? (intending b5 and Nd7-b6) deserves a look. Blacks
practical chances should not be underestimated.
5...a6
The immediate 5...c5 is interesting, but 6 Nb5 cxd4 7 Qxd4 Nc6 8 Qf4
Nh6 9 Nd6+ Kf8 10 Bb5 Kg8 11 Bxc6 bxc6 12 Be3 += seems slightly
better for White.
Over the Horizons
6 b4
Stops any plans connected with c7c5, at least for a few moves.
6...Ne7
Id be tempted to play 6....f6. Of
course, this move involves some
risk, in respect to Blacks obvious
weaknesses. But hasnt White
weakened his queenside as well?
7 Rb1 Nd7 8 Bd3 b6 9 Ne2 c5 10 c3
cxd4 11 cxd4 b5 12 h4 h6 13 Bf4
13 a4 comes into question.
13...Nb6 14 Nc1 Nc6 15 0-0 Bf8 16 Bd2 Nc4 17 g3 Be7 18 Kg2?! Kf8
After 18...g5! =+, Whites d4-pawn suddenly would be in some danger
of getting lost.
19 Be2 a5 20 bxa5 b4 21 Nb3 Ba6 22 Be1 Kg7 23 Bd3 Rb8 24 Qe2
N6xa5 25 Nfd2 Rc8 26 Nxa5 Qxa5 27 Nb3 Qb6? (27...Qa4) 28 Nc5
Bxc5 29 dxc5 Qxc5 30 Bxb4 Qa7 31 Rfe1 Rhe8 32 h5 +/
32...gxh5? 33 Qf3 (simpler is 33
Qxh5) 33...Qd4 34 Qf6+ Kg8 35
Rbd1 (35 Bg6!) Qg4 36 Qxh6 Qg7
37 Qxh5 Bb7 38 Re2 d4+ 39 f3
Ne3+ 40 Rxe3! dxe3 41 Rh1 Rc7
42 Rh4 Rd8 43 Bh7+ Kh8 44 Bb1+
Kg8 45 Rg4 f5 46 exf6 1-0
The last game doesnt add much.
Once again, White immediately
advances his e-pawn instead of the
stronger strategies discussed above.
T. Huesmann (2315) St. Bcker (2350)
Aachen - SK 32, Br 4, 17-12-2006
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 e5?! a6 6 Ne2 c5 7 c3 Nc6 8 g3
Qa5
Intending to gain a tempo (9 Bd2 Qb6). There was nothing wrong with
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 =.
Over the Horizons
9 dxc5
Or 9 Bg2 cxd4 10 b4 Qb6 11 cxd4 f6, about equal.
9...Nxe5
Avoiding the complications after
9...Qxc5:
(a) 10 Be3 Qa5 (Qb5!? Huesmann)
11 Bg2 Nge7 12 0-0 0-0 13 Bf4 Qc7
=.
(b) 10 Nf4!? Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12
Nd3 Qc7 (12...Qc4? 13 Be3 Qe4 14
Rg1 Bd6 15 Bg2 Qf5 16 g4 Qf6 17
Bd4 +/) 13 Nxe5 Qxe5+ 14 Be2
Qd6 15 0-0 Ne7 16 Bh6 Nf5. White
has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but Black has a solid
position.
10 Nxe5 Bxe5 11 b4 Qd8 12 Be3 Bg7 13 Bg2 Ne7 14 f4 0-0 15 0-0
a5?! 16 b5 Nf5?! (loses time) 17 Bf2 a4 18 Nd4 Ne7 19 Rb1 Qa5 20
Qd3 (20 Rb4) Bd7 21 g4 Rac8 22 Rfe1 Rxc5 23 Nc6
23...Rxc6
During the post-mortem I tried to
prove that 23...Rxc3 would have
given Black good prospects for a
draw. In reality, he is simply lost
after 24 Nxe7+ Kh8 25 Qd2 Qd8 26
Bh4! Qb6+ 27 Kh1 Rc4 28 Rec1!
+; for example, 28...Rd4 29 Qe2
Qd6 30 Bf2 Rb4 31 Rxb4 Qxb4 32
Bc5 Qxf4 33 Rf1 Qb8 34 Nxd5.
24 bxc6 Bxc6 25 Bd4 Rc8?
25...Qa6! offered good chances for a draw.
26 Bxg7 Kxg7 27 Qd4+ Kg8 28 h4 b5 29 h5 gxh5? (29...Bd7 30 hxg6
Qxc3) 30 f5! Bd7
Over the Horizons
31 f6? (31 Qf6 +/) 31...Rc4??

(31...Nc6 32 Qe3 Kh8 =) 32 Qe3 +
Rxg4 33 fxe7 Qc7 34 Rb4 Rg3 35
Qe5 Qa7+ 36 Kh2 Rg6 37 Rd4
Qa8 38 Bxd5! exd5 39 e8Q+ 1-0
The outcome of the three games was
clear, but certainly clearer than the
actual events over the board.
Conversely, I admit that some
critical lines have to be studied in
more detail. One day we may be able
to prove that 5 Qd2 (first game) or 5 Be3 / Bf4 (games 2 and 3)
completely refutes the whole idea 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be3/Nf3
Bg7. But for now, those with an interest in applied psychology should
perhaps note the fact that too many players cannot resist the temptation
to play the thundering, but harmless move 5 e5?!.
Sources:
[1] B. Kurajica, in Chess Informant 7/115.
[2] Damjanovic/Maric, in Chess Informant 4/146.
[3] Deutsche Schachzeitung 10 (1969), p. 325.
[4] St. Bcker: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990.

Over the Horizons
The Roulade Game
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
We return to a topic discussed in the September 2006 column. After

two draws with Baloghs Defense in the German Correspondence
Bundesliga, my third Balogh game in the same event was a tough test.
In the post-mortem, my opponent Dr. Ortwin Thal (SV Hellern) kindly
sent me his analyses, which even tackled critical lines of my earlier
article. In the comments given below, Ill gladly quote with
permission many of these variations. Often they look unusual, as they
include information about Thals sources: computer programs or his
team mates. But my opponents careful documentation could well be
an improvement over the general practice to pass the computers moves
off as your own achievements. Respecting his approach, I will quote
these sources in brackets. In correspondence chess nowadays almost
everybody uses computer programs. I am no exception. But I found the
human aspect of our game, as revealed in Thals notes, especially
encouraging: the decisive move was found during a dinner that Thal
was hosting for his team.
Ortwin Thal
Ortwin Thal Stefan Bcker

German Correspondence Bundesliga
Over the Horizons
November 2005-January 2007

1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3
Black seemed to have sufficient play after 3 exf5, so Thal decides to
follow the main path. After studying my article, he now prefers White:
3Bxf5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bc4 (5 Nc3 Nc6 6 d5 Nb4 7 Nd4 Bg4 can lead to
the same position after 8 f3 Bd7 9 Bc4) 5Nc6 6 d5 Nb4 7 Nd4 Bg4 8
f3 Bd7 9 Nc3 c6 10 dxc6 Nxc6 (so far analysis in [1]) 11 0-0! (Thal)
Thal continues:
(a) 11Nxd4 12 Qxd4 e6 13 Re1
+/ (Thal). White exerts pressure on
the two hanging backwards
pawns e6 and d6. This may not be
Blacks best treatment, but
nevertheless I hesitate to accept the
+/. Hanging pawns can advance,
and center pawns can advance with
greater effect than other pawns.
Certainly White has an advantage,
but Black is not without resources, e.g. 13Kf7 14 Qf4 h6 15 Be3 d5
16 Bd3 Rc8 17 a4!? g5 18 Qg3 (18 Qe5 Bg7 19 Qg3 Qc7!? 20 Qxc7
Rxc7 21 Bxa7 Nh5) 18a6 19 Bd4 Bc5 +=.
(b) 11...Qb6 12 Be3 e5 13 Nf5, and White attacks, Thal. An important
line, apparently more logical than line (a). But whether White really
has an attack, could be disputed. After 13 Nf5 (by the way, 13 Re1 is
met by 13Qb4 14 Qe2 Nxd4! 15 Bxd4 Rc8 16 b3 Kd8), Id suggest
13Qb4 14 Bd3 d5 15 a3 Qa5 16 b4 Qd8 17 Bg5 Be6 18 Qe1 Kf7,
unclear. The hanging pawns often involve some risk, but here Black
might get his rooks to e8 and d8, which completely changes the picture.
3...Nf6 4 Bd3
4Nc6
My opponent agrees that this is
Blacks sharpest move. Keith
Haywards line 4...fxe4 5 Nxe4
Nxe4 6 Bxe4 g6 (cf. [1]) seems
risky, writes Thal, because of the
immediate 7 h4!, e.g. 7d5 8 Bd3
Bg7 9 h5 Qd6 10 hxg6 hxg6 11
Rxh8+ Bxh8 12 Bg5 +=. For me,
this position looks equal. Black
Over the Horizons
controls e5 and White can hardly

avoid a later e7-e5. Black can also play Bf6 or Bf5 to exchange the
bishops.
Keith Hayward [2] admits that 7 h4 is Whites most aggressive
attempt to refute Blacks play. But he regards the following game as a
convincing proof that g6 is a viable idea for Black: 10 Nf3 Nc6 11
hxg6 hxg6 12 Rxh8+ Bxh8 13 Be3 Bg4 14 c3 0-0-0 15 Qa4 Bxf3 16
gxf3 e5 17 dxe5 Nxe5 18 Be2 a6 19 0-0-0 Qe6 20 f4 Ng4 21 Kd2 Nxe3
22 fxe3 Kb8 23 Rg1 Bf6 24 Bd3 Rh8 25 Qb4 Rh2+ 26 Be2 Bg7 27
Rg3 Ka8 28 Qc5 c6 29 a4 Qe4 30 a5 Qb1 0-1, K. Hayward J. Owens,
Casual game, E-mail 1998 [2].
5 Nf3
The sharp 5 exf5 Nxd4 6 g4 Nd7! was discussed in [1], based on
Baloghs games.
5 d5!? Ne5 is a quieter approach that deserves attention (it hardly
matters whether Black plays 5Nb4, since after 6 exf5 Qd7 7 Nge2!,
he is practically forced to take on d3, which leads to the identical
position. If 5fxe4 6 Bb5 a6 7 Ba4 b5 8 Nxb5, White wins a pawn):
(a) 6 Nf3!? fxe4 7 Nxe5 (7 Nxe4 Bg4, Kunert Balogh, corr. 1927,
was also mentioned in [1]. Thal suggests 8 Bb5+ [Shredder] 8...c6 9
dxc6 with the nice trap 9...bxc6 10 Nxe5 +, but Black has the stronger
9Qa5+, about =) 7exd3 8 Nxd3 e5 [1]. Here 9 dxe6! (Thal) is an
improvement; for example, 9Bxe6 10 0-0 Qd7 11 Nf4 0-0-0 12 Nxe6
Qxe6 13 Qd4 Kb8 14 Be3 +=, and Black has to weaken his pawn
structure. Apparently Black should continue in Leningrad style: 8
g6! 9 0-0 Bg7 10 Re1 0-0 11 Nf4 c6 =.
(b) 6 exf5 Nxd3+ 7 Qxd3 Qd7
Black will regain the sacrificed pawn. But Thal seems correct in saying
that White has better replies than 8 Nb5 from Macht Balogh, corr.
1928, as given in [1]:
(b1) 8 Nf3? Qxf5 9 Qb5+ Qd7 10 Nd4 c6 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 Qc4 e5 =+,
Thal.
(b2) [Shredder 10] 8 Be3 Qxf5 9 Qc4 Qg4 10 Qb5+ (so far Thal) 10
Qd7! 11 Qb3 e6.
(b3) 8 Nge2! (Thal) 8Qxf5 9 Qc4
9e6 10 dxe6! c6 11 Nd4 Qg4 (or
Over the Horizons
11Qe5+ 12 Be3 d5 13 Qa4 Ne4

14 Nxe4! Qxe4 15 0-0 Bc5 16 Rae1
0-0 17 c3 +/, Bcker) 12 0-0 d5 13
Qa4 Bc5 14 Nxc6. This analysis by
Thal leads to a significant advantage
for White, e.g. 140-0 15 Qxg4 (or
15 Qb5) 15Nxg4 16 e7 Re8 17
Na5 Bb4 18 Nb3 Bxc3 19 bxc3
Rxe7 20 f3 += Thal.
Improvements for Black are needed.
Upon 9e6 10 dxe6 (Thal), 10Kd8!? comes into question (instead
of 10c6), e.g. 11 Nb5 c5 12 0-0 Qxe6 13 Qd3 a6 14 Nc3 Qf5 15 Qd2
Bd7 16 Nf4 Bc6 =, but after the stronger 11 Nf4! g5 12 Qd3 Qxd3 13
Nxd3 Rg8 14 f4 +=, Blacks position must be worse.
In the diagram position, I also studied 9Qg4 10 Nf4! (10 Bf4 c6!)
10g5 11 h3 (or f3) 11Qf5 12 Nfe2 Bg7 13 Nd4 Qg6 14 Be3 0-0 15
Qxc7 Ne4 16 0-0-0 (16 0-0 g4) 16Nxc3 with some compensation,
but perhaps not enough.
5...fxe4 6 Nxe4 Bg4 7 h3
Thal remarks that while [Fritz 9] likes 7 Nxf6+ exf6 8 0-0!, he wasnt
impressed. If there is an advantage, it cannot be too significant.
7...Bh5 8 Ng3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 Nxd4 10 Qxb7
10...Qc8
Because of temporary problems in
this main line, I used the risky 10
e5!? in Del Rio Bcker, German
Correspondence Bundesliga 2005/6
(cf. [1]):
(a) 11 c3 Rb8 12 Qa6 Ne6. Instead
of Del Rios choice 13 b4, Thal
studies two other moves:
(a1) 13 Bf5 [Shredder 9; 1.07/15] 13...Nc5 14 Qc6+ Kf7 15 Be3 Rb6
16 Qf3 Rxb2 17 Bxc5 dxc5 18 00 g6 19 Bd3 Bd6 20 Bc4+ Kg7 21
Rfb1 (Thal). The final position is equal (Rb6), and, more important,
Black has the stronger 15g6! 16 Bxc5 gxf5 17 Bxa7 Ra8 18 Qb7 f4 =
+, when Whites Ba7 is in an awkward situation.
(a2) 13 Be3 [Junior 9]. Here I would gladly take on b2, e.g. 13Rxb2
14 0-0 Kf7 15 Rfb1 Rxb1+ 16 Rxb1 Be7 17 Bf5 Qd7 18 Rb7 d5 19
Over the Horizons
Bxe6+ Qxe6 20 Qxa7 Ne8! (intending Nd6) 21 Bc5 Qc6 22 Bxe7

Kxe7 23 Ne2 Rf8 24 a4 Rf6 =.
(b) 11 Be3 (probably best, Thal) 11Rb8 12 Qa6 c5 13 c3 Ne6 14
Bf5 (14 0-0 Rxb2 15 Qxa7 Be7 16 Bc1, Thal, 16Rb8 =) 14...Qd7 15
0-0-0 Rb6 16 Qa5. So far analysis by Thal. Instead of his shaky 16
d5, Black can play 16Qb7 (threatening Ra6) with equal chances.
11 Qxc8+
A reasonable decision: (a) Whites advantage in development is still
obvious, (b) with his bishop-pair, White will put Blacks center pawns
under lasting pressure, and (c) without queens Black has fewer chances
for tactical tricks. Nevertheless, Thal also liked the idea to keep the
queens on the board: 11 Qb4 c5 12 Qa3 +/ Thal. Id rather call it +=, e.
g. 12Rb8 13 Be3 Nc6 14 0-0 e6 15 c4 Be7 etc. In my opinion,
whether White exchanges or keeps his queen doesnt alter the general
assessment. In both cases, Blacks practical chances are good enough,
if he only keeps in mind that his pawn structure is weaker than his
opponents. So he has to play carefully and avoid having Whites
bishops become too strong. But Blacks strategy is not without
ambitions. Active pieces can be exchanged, and, at the proper moment,
Blacks center pawns, which are so typical for Baloghs Defense, may
advance.
11...Rxc8 12 0-0
(a) I still regard 12 c3 as a natural and critical reaction. The line given
in [1] to explain why I preferred 10e5 in my game against Del Rio
went: 12 c3 Ne6 13 Be3 c5 14 0-0-0! Nc7 15 Rhe1 e6 16 Bf4 Nfd5
17 Bg5 Be7 18 Bxe7 Kxe7 19 Nf5+ Kd7 20 Nxg7 Nf4 21 g3 Rcg8 22
gxf4 Rxg7 23 f5 Rf8 24 fxe6+ Ke7 25 Rg1 Rxg1 26 Rxg1 Nxe6 27
Bxh7 Rxf2 28 Rh1 Nf4 29 h4 Kf6, which I called hardly dangerous
for Black [1].
When he was pondering over his
twelfth move, Thal did not know
my article. Afterwards, he shared
my view that the 12 c3 line in [1]
looked attractive. But he questioned
my assessment in the final position:
30 c4 [Shredder 10] 30...Kg7 31
Bc2. According to Thal, White has
good chances for a win. I remain
skeptical, because it is difficult to
activate Whites pieces: 31Ne2+
32 Kb1 Nd4 33 Bd1 Nc6 34 a3 Ne5
35 b3 Kh6 36 Rh3 a5.
Over the Horizons
(b) 12 Be3 was another relevant line: 12...c5 13 0-0-0 Kf7 14 Rhe1 g6
15 c3. So far Thal, who continues 15Nc6. Id prefer 15d5 16 c3
Ne6, to reduce the influence of the Bd3.
12...g6 13 c3 Ne6 14 Re1 Kf7 15 Be3
In his notes, Thal explains his strategy: to lure Blacks center pawns
forward, thereby creating weaknesses. Curiously my own plans were
similar. I felt that Whites bishops were too strong; therefore, I had to
do something to restrict their scope. The only way to achieve this was
to advance my pawns. This is nothing unusual if your opponent has
the bishop-pair, it is common practice to relegate one of them to a
bad bishop.
15...c5 16 Rad1 c4
A surprise for my opponent, who
expected 16...d5. But the reply 17
c4! d4 18 Bc1, followed by
doubling the rooks on the e-file and
combined with an eventual Ne4,
would be extremely dangerous for
Black. Fixing the pawns on c5 and
d4 creates an eternal weakness on
c5, perhaps Black cannot even
afford to develop his bishop to g7.
Therefore, the text move must be
the correct continuation. Black
heeds Capablancas advice and builds a pawn chain on the white
squares, to avoid a conflict with his dark-squared bishop. In a formal
sense, the pawns g6 and h7 do not belong to this pawn chain. But in
reality they are clearly part of the structure, which is meant to restrict
Whites bishop d3 and the knight on g3. The latter will soon escape
from his exile. But the white bishop leads a frustrating life, until its
undeserved reprieve (35 g4!!).
17 Be2
The other retreat 17 Bc2 intends a fast f4-f5, but Thal convincingly
demonstrates that Black gets sufficient counterplay: [Shredder 9] 17
Bc2 Rb8! 18 b3 Bg7 19 f4 (19 bxc4!? Rhc8 20 Bxa7 Ra8, Thal) 19...
Nd7, e.g. 20 Ne4 Ndc5 21 Nxc5 Nxc5 22 b4 Ne6 23 Bxa7 (23 Bd2
Nc7, Thal) 23...Bxc3 24 Re3 Bxb4 =.
17...a6
17...Rc7? is refuted by 18 Bxa7! Rxa7 19 Bxc4 d5 20 Rxd5!. The
Over the Horizons
next move brings the knight back into play, a maneuver clearly favored
by both humans. Instead, 18 h4 [Shredder; Hiarcs] 18...d5, followed by
Nc7, cannot be the critical line.
18 Nf1 d5
The normal 18...Bg7 is a bit too
slow: 19 g4 h5 (or 19Rhd8 20 f4
d5 21 f5; or 19g5 20 Nd2 d5 21
Nf3) 20 g5 Ne4 21 Bf3! N4xg5 22
Bd5! +.
19 Bf3 Nc7 20 Bf4
Thal analyzed 20 b3 [Hiarcs] in
detail, coming to the conclusion that
20...cxb3 21 axb3 e6! (21...Nb5? 22
Rxd5, Thal) would allow Black
sufficient activity, e.g. 22 Ra1 e5 23 c4 Bb4 24 Bd2 Bxd2 25 Nxd2 e4
26 Bg4 Rcd8, Thal. My own approach here was pure fatalism. Two
moves ago I had invested a lot of time to make sure that d5, Nc7 and e6
was the only reliable set-up for Black. Then I simply left it to White as
to which attack he would choose: g2-g4 or f2-f4-f5 or b3. None of
these lines would be easy to refute, but fortunately White had to make a
decision and could only play one of them.
20...e6 21 Ne3 Nb5
An insidious move. 21...Bc5 22 b4 was the alternative. Although the
players analyzed differently (22Bb6 Thal; 22cxb3 Bcker),
curiously both main lines led to the same drawish rook ending (in 34
resp. 37 moves) with black pawns h7 and g6 and white pawns on h3,
g2 and f2.
22 Ng4 Nxg4 23 Bxg4 Re8 24 a4?
I was relieved to see that White had overlooked my next move. In the
critical line 24 Be5 Rg8 25 h4 h5 26 Bh3 Nd6 27 b3, White still holds
a small advantage.
24...Bd6!
This sacrifice is difficult to foresee,
but once put on the board, it is
obvious that it must be correct.
After 25 axb5 Bxf4 26 bxa6, White
cannot profit from his gain, since
Blacks pawn chain separates the
Over the Horizons
white bishop from his passed pawn.

White has to retreat the bishop,
although in the resulting position
Black has almost solved his
problems.
25 Be3 Nc7 26 Bd4 Rhf8 27 h4 h5 28 Bh3 Rb8!
At this moment, White wasnt optimistic about his chances of winning.
And I was hundred percent sure to get a draw. But only a few moves
later the picture changed abruptly.
29 Rd2 Rfe8 30 f4 Be7 31 g3 Bf6 32 Bc5 Be7 33 Bf2 Rb3 34 Rde2
Bf8?
Here I had a choice:
(a) 34...Bf6 35 a5 d4 36 cxd4 Bxh4
37 Re3 Rxe3 38 Rxe3 Bd8 39 Bf1
Nd5 40 Ra3 Be7 41 Ra4 c3 42 bxc3
Nxc3 43 Rc4 Nd1 44 Rc7 Nxf2 45
Kxf2 Kf6 46 Rc6 Rd8 47 Bxa6
Rxd4 48 Bb7 Rd6 49 Rc2 Rd3 50
a6 Ra3 +=.
(b) Probably 34...Reb8 was the
clearest draw: 35 Bxe6+ Nxe6 36
Rxe6 Bf6:
(b1) 37 Rd6 Rxb2 (37Rd8!?, Thal, is equally good) 38 Rd7+ Kf8! 39
Re6 Rd2 40 Be1 Rb1 41 Kf1 Rdd1 42 Rxf6+ Ke8 43 Rh7 Rxe1+ 44
Kf1 Rbd1 45 f4 Rf1+ 46 Ke3 gxf5.
(b2) 37 f5 gxf5 38 Rd6 Rd8 39 Rxd8 Bxd8 40 Re5 Rxb2 41 Rxd5 Bb6
42 Bxb6 Ke6 43 Rc5 Rxb6 44 Kf2 Rb2+ 45 Ke3 Rg2 46 Kf3 Ra2 47
Rc6+ Ke5 48 Rc5+ Ke6 49 a5 Ra3 50 Rxc4 Rxa5 51 Kf4 Rd5 52 Rc6+
Rd6 53 Rc5 Rd5 54 Rc4 a5 55 Rc6+ Rd6 56 Rc5 Rd5 =.
I was wavering between these two drawing sequences. Both seemed
good enough, but they still looked complicated. Suddenly it seemed to
be an excellent idea to avoid all tactical problems and play the solid
text move.
Over the Horizons
Eureka: The Unexpected Move
(c) by Z. Nasiolkowski, Germany
35 g4!!
A splendid sacrifice decides the day. None of the engines are able to
find it. As Thal told me after the game, the idea was inspired by one of
his team mates. While serving a roulade meal and drinking red wine,
the members of his team SV Hellern discussed their ongoing games.
Thal was convinced his position would be only a draw, but the others
persuaded him to have a fresh attitude. Reinhold Happe made the
remark: Something has to happen on the white squares. And this
proved to be very true.
35...Bg7
According to my opponent, 35...Be7 [Fruit 2.2.1] offered some
chances: 36 gxh5 gxh5 37 Bg2 Bd6 38 f5 e5. Unfortunately, now 39
Bf3 is very strong, e.g. 39Kf6 40 Bxh5 Reb8 41 Be3 Rxb2 42 Bg5+
Kg7 43 f6+ Kh8 44 Rxb2 Rxb2 45 f7 +.
36 gxh5 gxh5 37 Bg2!
Preparing the advance of the f-pawn is stronger than the immediate 37
f5 e5 38 Bg3 d4, Thal.
37...Reb8 38 f5! e5 39 Bf3
39 Bc5? [Fruit; Rybka] 39e4 40 Bd6 Rxb2! 41 Bxc7 Rxe2 42 Rxe2
Rb1+ 43 Kh2 Bxc3, Thal, and Black has plenty of pawns for the
sacrificed knight.
39...Rxb2
Over the Horizons
(a) The consequences of 39...Rh8 are not too encouraging either: 40

Rd1 Kf6 41 Bg3 Kxf5 42 Bxd5 Nxd5 43 Rxd5 Re8 44 Rc5 Rbb8 45
Rxc4 Rec8 46 Rxc8 Rxc8 47 Be1 e4 48 Rf2+ Ke6 49 Kf1 Bf6 50 Rg2
Rc5 51 b4 Rf5+ 52 Ke2 Kd5 53 Rg8 Rf3 54 Rc8 +.
(b) 39...e4 40 Bxh5+ Ke7 41 Rf1! [Rybka 2.1c; Fritz] 41Bf6 42 Rd1
Rxb2 43 Rxe4+ Kd7 44 Rxc4 Rb1 45 Rxc7+ Kxc7 46 Bg3+ Kc8 47
Bxb8 Rxd1+ 48 Bxd1 Kxb8 49 h5 +/, Thal. Probably 41 Bg3 is even
stronger.
40 Bxh5+
40Kg8
40...Ke7 41 Rxe5+!
(a) 41...Bxe5 42 Rxe5+ Kd7 43 f6
Rg8+ (so far analysis by Jrg Stock)
44 Kf1 Rf8 45 f7 Kd6 46 Bg3 Kd7
47 Bg4+ Kd8 48 Rf5 Rb6 49 h5 +.
(b) 41Kd8 42 Bd4! [Shredder 10]
42Bf6 (42Bxe5 43 Bxe5 is
hopeless) 43 R5e2 Bxd4+ 44 cxd4
Rxe2 45 Rxe2 Kd7 46 f6 +, Thal.
41 Rxe5!
As recommended by Stock.
41...Bf6
Black declines the exchange, hoping for a materialistic reply (42
R5e2?).
41...Bxe5 42 Rxe5 Ra2! [Shredder 10] 43 f6 d4 44 f7+ (Stock) Kh7 45
cxd4 (Thal prefers 45 Re7) 45Rf8 46 Bg3 Ra1+ 47 Kg2 Ra2+ 48
Kh3 +.
42 Bg3!
To my disappointment, White once again finds the strongest move. The
natural reaction 42 R5e2 [Fritz 9; Rybka] would have fallen into a
subtle trap:
42...d4!! 43 Bxd4 Bxd4 44 cxd4
Nd5 Blacks knight returns into play
Over the Horizons
and holds the game! One of the

main lines: 45 Re5 Rd8 46 Bf3 Nf4
47 Re8+ Rxe8 48 Rxe8+ Kg7 49 f6
+ Kf7 50 Rc8 Nh3+ 51 Kh1 Kxf6
52 Rxc4 Kf5 53 d5 Nf2+ 54 Kh2
Ne4+ 55 Bg2 Nf6 56 d6 Rd2 57
Kg3 Nh5+ 58 Kf3 Rxd6 with
excellent drawing chances
(analysis).
42...R8b7 43 Re7! (Stock)
After 43 R5e2, Black would still have some drawing chances.
43...Bxe7 44 Rxe7 Rc2
45 Re1!
A silent retreat concludes the series
of devastating rook moves. The fpawn now becomes terribly strong.
The direct 45 f6 probably wins, too,
but after 45Rb1+ 46 Be1 Rcc1 47
Kf2 Rb6! [Rybka 2.1c] 48 Re8+
Kh7 49 f7 Rf6+ 50 Ke2 Ne6 51
Kd2! Rxe1 52 Kxe1 Kg7, Black can
still continue the fight.
45...Rxc3 46 Bd6! Rc2 47 Bg6! d4 48 f6 1-0
In an eventful game with a nice finish, Black finally had to resign.
Afterwards, White expressed his opinion that Baloghs Defense can be
a good weapon for OTB games, while in correspondence chess Black
could find himself in trouble now and then. For my part, I still like the
opening, but I have to admit that Black has to find a substantial
improvement in the line 5 d5 or he has to play Keith Haywards
specialty 4fxe4.
The most encouraging message of this game, of course, is the
observation that sometimes a roulade and a glass of red wine can be
more useful than any chess playing engine.
Sources:
[1] S. Bcker: Symmetry and Chaos: Baloghs Defense, ChessCafe
September 2006.
[2] Analyses by FM and Correspondence IM Keith Hayward (Texas/
USA), published on the Internet.
Over the Horizons

"ChessCafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
The Cheeky Mokele Mbembe
Over the
Horizons
For much of the last 25 years, one of my favorite lines has been 1 e4
Nf6 2 e5 Ne4!?. Blacks last move goes back to Allgaier (1763-1823),
but the first serious analysis was published in 1922, when the real
Alekhine Defense had just entered the stage. Swiss master Hans Fahrni
(1874-1939) wrote a booklet [1] on the new fashion 1 e4 Nf6, spending
10 of the 28 pages on 2Ne4. His introduction said that he regarded
both knight moves as interesting, especially 2Ne4!, although 2.
Nd5 seems better. In the early 1980s, I adopted 2Ne4, refined some
of its variations and began to play it in tournaments.
Stefan Bcker
Hans Fahrni
Source: Barmen 1905 (tournament book)
My own results have been good enough, but in the next two decades
the defense was rarely used by others. The exception was Kari Heinola,
from Finland, who now lives in the USA. Some sporadic mentions in
books did not convince many that the idea deserved to be played. Tim
Harding wrote in Dynamic Black Defenses (1989): Perhaps Bckers
most outrageous idea of all is the variation of the Alekhines Defense
which he calls the Mokele Mbembe, the name of a legendary African
beast, of which the only trace is its tracks: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4?! 3 d3
Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 d5 Nc5 6 b4 Na4 (6Na6!?) 7 c4 b5.
An earlier book [4] was less
diplomatic and informed its readers

that 2Ne4 is on the zany side
even for Bcker. It is such rubbish
that it is relegated to our waste-bin
section. The authors probably
considered their warning still too
reluctant, so they later rounded it
up: We pity the fool with Blacks
position and Blacks position is a
disgusting mess.
Here and in the next column Ill give an overview of the most
important lines. White can chase the knight until it almost falls off the
board (3 d3), or he can aim to trap the knight on mid-board [11] by
means of 3 d4. The first variation is illustrated by the game below. In
March, Ill discuss the second variation 3 d4, which lately has been
recommended as Whites strongest reply to the cheeky
move (Emms) 2Ne4.
Claus Dieter Meyer Stefan Bcker
Hamburg 1983 (Open) [7]
Alekhines Defense [B02]
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3
Against 3 b4, Fahrni [1] recommended 3e6 4 c3 f6!. From the two
modern authors that really analyze 2Ne4, Khalifman [12] prefers the
text move, while Emms [11] likes 3 d4.
3Nc5 4 d4 Ne6
Hans Fahrni preferred 4Na6,
which certainly comes into
consideration. This situation is
almost identical with the normal
line 2Nd5 3 d4 Nb6!? (Tal
Lutikov, Moscow 1969). The only
difference is that Black now has his
knight on a6, instead of b6. Whether
this is an advantage or a handicap,
isnt too obvious. After 4Na6,
Fahrni continued his analysis: 5 f4
d6 6 Bd3 dxe5 7 fxe5, when White
stands better [1].
5 Be3
Apparently C. D. Meyers prepared improvement for our battle in the
last round. In an earlier game of the same tournament White tried the
natural 5 f4 (Whites space advantage is overwhelming, Khalifman

[12]) 5g6 6 d5 (6 Nf3 d6 7 Nc3 dxe5 8 fxe5 Nd7 9 Be3 c6,
Beckemeyer Bcker, 1982. White had a slight advantage, but lost in
53 moves, [7]) 6Ng7 7 Nf3 d6 8 Be2 e6 9 Nc3 Be7 10 0-0 c6 (0-1,
38) Rostalski Bcker, Hamburg 1983. Instead of 7 Nf3, Khalifman
suggests 7 Nc3 d6 8 Nf3 Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 [12], but here 8e6 9
Bc4 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 with a later c7-c6 must be better, +=.
A critical line is 5 d5 Nc5 6 b4 (if 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3, as in Pinkas Bcker,
Katowice 1985 [=, 41], 7d6! is the correct answer, [7]) 6Na6 (for
the wild 6Na4?! 7 c4 b5 see my detailed analyses in [13], [14]) 7 a3,
and White has good play, according to Fahrni [1]. But my analysis in
[14] shows that Black can confidently reply 7g6! 8 Be3 c6, for
example:
(a) if 9 dxc6, Black gambits a pawn
by 9Bg7! 10 cxb7 Bxb7 11 f4 0-0
12 Nf3 d6 13 Nc3 Nd7 with
compensation.
(b) 9 c4 Bg7 10 f4 d6 11 Nf3 Bg4
12 dxc6 Nxc6! 13 b5 dxe5 14 Nbd2
exf4 15 Bxf4 0-0 =.
(c) 9 Nf3 cxd5 10 Nc3 Nc7 11
Nxd5 Bg7 12 Bg5 Nc6 13 b5 h6.
(d) 9 d6!? exd6 10 exd6 Qf6 11 Bd4
(11 Qd4 Bg7 12 Ne2 c5!) 11Qe6
+ 12 Be2 f6 13 Nf3 Bxd6 14 0-0 0-0
15 Re1 Qf7 unclear.
5d6 6 exd6
White is satisfied with keeping a small initiative. More ambitious was
either:
(a) 6 d5 Nc5 7 Nc3 (7 Bxc5!?) 7e6 8 Nf3 Be7. I dont think that
Black has much to fear, but maybe I am overlooking something?
(b) 6 Nf3 g6 7 d5 Ng7 8 exd6 Qxd6
9 Nc3 Nf5 10 Bd4 (10 Nb5) 10...
Bg7 11 Nb5 Qd8 12 Bxg7 Nxg7 13
Qd4 0-0 14 0-0-0 Nd7 15 Qf4 c6 16
Nc3 Qa5 17 g4? (critical is 17 Bc4
Nb6 18 dxc6 Nxc4 19 Qxc4 bxc6
20 Qxc6 Be6 21 Qb5 Qc7, when the
open b- and c-file give Black some
compensation for the sacrificed
pawn) 17...Nf6 18 d6 Nd5?! (18...
Ne6 19 Qe5 Qxe5 20 Nxe5 exd6 =)
19 Nxd5 (19 Rxd5!? +=) 19...cxd5
20 dxe7 Re8 21 Qh6 f6 = with chances for both sides in Domont

Bcker, Biel II, 1984 (but 0-1, 56). In this round robin tournament, I
didnt have a successful start, while before our game Domont was
leading the field. Considering the situation, it was evident that I had to
choose my most reliable system.
6...cxd6 7 c4
Whites plan is easy to anticipate. While the pawn structure is the same
as in the exchange variation of the Alekhines Defense, Blacks knight
is on a very strange place: on e6 instead of b6. White simply hopes that
the knight sooner or later will become a handicap for the black forces.
7Nd7
The knight belongs on f6, to avoid any harassment of the fianchettoed
bishop. After the immediate 7g6, the reply 8 d5 followed by Bd4
would be too strong.
8 Nc3
If 8 Qa4 g6 9 d5 Nc5, Black wins an important tempo by attacking the
queen.
8Nf6 9 h3 g6 10 Nf3
White undoubtedly has a sound
position, but it soon becomes clear
that Black doesnt have serious
problems either.
10Bg7 11 Be2 0-0 12 0-0 d5 13
Rc1
Here White had some alternatives:
13 b3 dxc4 14 bxc4 b6, about =.
Maybe 13 c5! was best, to profit
from Blacks unusual formation, but
after 13Ne4 14 Qb3 Nxc3 15 bxc3 b6, Black seems to keep
sufficient counterplay.
13dxc4 14 Bxc4 Ne8
To blockade the isolated pawn, Black brings his knight to d6.
Obviously, Whites pieces are more active, and an assessment of +=
probably would be justified. But Black has no significant weaknesses,
which makes it difficult for White to develop a promising plan.
15 Qb3 Nd6
Praeceptor Germaniae Siegbert

Tarrasch once warned about putting
a knight on d6. What would he have
thought about this situation?
However, the d6- and e6-knights
control many important squares.
16 d5 Nc7 17 Rfd1 Nxc4 =
It is a pity that Black has to part
with his blockading knight. But I
feared the consequences of 17Nf5
18 Bf4 Ne8 19 d6! Nfxd6 20 Ng5 Qb6 21 Nd5, when the white bishops
are becoming dangerous.
18 Qxc4 Ne8 19 Qb4 Nd6 20 Nd4
Increasing the pressure on the queenside.
20...a5 21 Qb3
21Ra6?
Too artificial. The correct defense is
21...Bd7, to fight for the light
squares; for example, 22 a4 Rc8 or
22 Na4 Bxa4 23 Qxa4 Qe8 =.
22 a4 Be5
Prophylaxis: Black foresees
problems with his c7-square, so he
decides to protect it. At the same
time he provokes the weakness 23 f4. Nevertheless, White could
have accepted the invitation. After 23 f4 Bxd4 24 Bxd4 Nf5 25 Bf2, he
certainly has an advantage (+=), although I called it unclear in [7].
23 Nf3 Bg7 24 Nb5 Nxb5 25 Qxb5 Rf6?!
At least creating a concrete threat:
Bxh3. Note that the immediate 25
Rd6? 26 Bf4 Rb6? is refuted by 27
Bc7 +.
26 Bd4?
The move that I had hoped for;
during the game I feared the
alternative attack 26 Bg5 Rf5 27 d6!

Rxb5 28 dxe7 Qxd1+ 29 Rxd1 Re8
[7] 30 Rd8 Bd7 31 axb5 Bxb5 32
Nd4 Bxd4 33 Rxd4 Kg7 34 Rd6 f5 +=. But in reality 26 Nd2! +/ was
Whites best option, which prevents Bxh3 and prepares an eventual
Nc4 or Ne4-c5. Blacks play in the last five moves would have been
completely refuted.
26...Rd6 27 Bxg7 Kxg7 28 Rd2 Re8
Black has solved his problems. During the coming play, White does
not find the best moves and slowly drifts into difficulties.
29 Qc5 f6 30 Rd4 Bd7
Regrouping for an attack against the isolated pawn. Now if 31 Qc7,
Black replies 31Be6!.
31 Nd2 Be6 32 Nc4 Rxd5 33 Rxd5 Qxd5
34 Ne3?
White still had 15 minutes on his
clock, which should have been
enough to find 34 Nxa5 Qxc5 35
Rxc5 =. But in this last round there
was also some prize money at stake,
and the nervous tension decided the
outcome of the game.
34...Qd2 35 Rc2 Qe1+ 36 Kh2 Kf7
Black has won a pawn.
37 Qb6 Qb4 38 Qxb4 axb4 39 Rc5?! Rd8 40 Rb5 b3 41 Rxb7 Rd2
42 a5 Rxb2 43 a6 Rxf2 44 a7 Ra2 45 Kg3 b2 46 Rxb2 Rxa7 47 Kf4
h5 48 h4 Ra4+ 49 Kg3 Re4 50 Re2 f5 0-1
Next month Ill discuss the dangerous 3 d4. White traps the knight, and
Black strikes back.
Sources:
[1] H. Fahrni: Die Aljechin-Verteidigung, Bern 1922 (pp. 19-28)
[2] S. Bcker: article in Europa-Rochade 9/1984, p. 24
[3] E. Siebenhaar, A. Delnef, R. Ottstadt: Aljechin-Verteidigung I,
Mannheim 1986 (pp. 147-152)
[4] J. Benjamin, E. Schiller: Unorthodox Openings, London 1987, p.
87f.
[5] S. Bcker: game in Myers Openings Bulletin 39 (1988), p. 11
[6] S. Bcker: game in New in Chess Yearbook 17 (1990), p. 52

[7] S. Bcker: Das Mokele, in: Groteske Schacherffnungen,
Stuttgart 1990, pp. 83-93
[8] J. Watson, E. Schiller: The Big Book of Busts, San Francisco 1995,
p. 120f.
[9] S. Bcker: (review of [8]), in: Kaissiber 1 (1996), p. 62f.
[10] E. Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998, pp. 4042.
[11] J. Emms: Attacking with 1 e4, London 2001, p. 151.
[12] A. Khalifman: Opening for White according to Anand 1.e4, vol. 5,
Sofia 2005, p. 118.
[13] S. Bcker: Auf der Fhrte: Bewegungsfreudiger Dinosaurier, in:
Kaissiber 25 (2006), p. 50f.
[14] S. Bcker: Auf der Fhrte: Scherz oder tiefere Bedeutung?, in:
Kaissiber 26 (2007), p. 40f.

"ChessCafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
High-Flying Maneuvers
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
My February article on the Mokele Mbembe 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4!?

concentrated on chasing the knight by means of 3 d3. The line had
exotic charm, according to a reader from Vienna. Almost all of
my games took this course. My opponents may have regarded this
as the best possibility, or they wanted to be clever, believing that I
knew more on 3 d4. In effect, I had to face the most dangerous
move only twice. Anyway, 3 d4 must be the critical move. This
view is shared by Ludger Keitlinghaus from Prague, who stated
in an e-mail: 3 d4 seems to be the refutation, while I was always
glad to see my opponents play 3 d3. White intends to trap the
knight, and in one of the main lines this natural plan even
succeeds. Nevertheless, Black gets enough compensation at least
this is my opinion in some of the strange situations that can arise,
as well see at the end of the article.
High-Flying Maneuvers
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
The best continuation for Black after 3 d4 is tough to identify. In

1922, Hans Fahrni recommended 3e6 [1], overlooking 4 Nh3
h6 5 Qg4 [4] h5 6 Qf4 g5 7 Nxg5 Nxg5 8 Qxg5 [7] when Black
has problems. In Fahrnis booklet [1] 3f6 was merely a sideline,

but, about 1983, I noticed how interesting 3f6 is (without
knowledge of Fahrnis analyses). Some of Whites most tempting
replies can lead to messy situations where the attacker will lose
the thread in most cases.
Since Black cannot flee to the
queenside, he secures another
escape route for his knight. Now
White can choose between
several promising alternatives.
While pondering the question
about where to begin, I received
the following reaction to my last
column from Bruno Luyckx in
Belgium:
Here are four games that I played twenty years ago in
Spain. The second and third games were very fun to play,
but I lost the fourth game without a fight and consequently
abandoned the Mokele Mbembe at that time. I soon stopped
competing altogether, only to enter a tournament in
November 2005 (Beuven, Belgium). Maybe next time I
make a comeback, I will put the Mokele Mbembe in my
black repertoire again!
It is unusual to have four games from the same opening in one
tournament. The first game transposed to a standard Alekhine, but
the others are fascinating. To indicate possible improvements for
Black, Ill insert some comments in games three and four.
Serrate (2170) Luyckx (1900)
Badalona, August 3, 1987
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 Bf5 5 Bd3 e6 6 Nge2 Bb4 7 00
00 8 Be3 Nxc3 9 bxc3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 Be7 11 f4 f5 12 exf6 Bxf6
13 Rf3 Qe7 14 Rh3 g6 15 Rf1 Nd7 16 Rff3 Rae8 17 Rfg3 Rf7
18 Rg4 e5 19 Ng3 e4 20 Qd2 Bg7 21 Rg5 Qe6 22 f5 Qa6 23 fxg6
hxg6 24 Ne2 Qxa2 25 Rxg6 Qb1+ 26 Nc1 Ref8 27 Rxg7+ Rxg7
28 Bh6 Qb5 29 Ne2 Qb1+ 30 Nc1 Qb5 -
Keller (2150) Luyckx (1900)
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5 5 f3 Ng5 6 Bxg5 fxg5 7 f4 c5

8 Qh5+ g6 9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qxh8 Nc6 11 Qg8 Bf5 12 Na3 Qa5
+ 13 c3 cxd4
14 000 000 15 Ne2 e6 16
Nxd4 Bxa3 17 Qf7 Qxc3+ 0-1
Vera (2075) Luyckx (1900)
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3
d5 5 f3 Ng5 6 Bxg5 fxg5 7 f4 c5
8 Qh5+ g6!?
An enterprising novelty that
sacrifices the exchange. The solid 8Kd7 was seen in Lehtonen
Heinola, Finnland 1988: 9 Qxg5 Qb6 10 Nd2 c4 11 Be2 Qxb2
12 Rb1 Qxd4 13 Nxc4 e6 14 Nf3 Qc5 15 Nd6 Qxc2 16 Bb5+ Nc6
17 0-0 Qg6 18 Qh4 Be7 19 Qf2 Bd8 20 Qd2 Bb6+ 21 Kh1 Ke7 22
Qc3 Rb8 -.
9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qxh8 Nc6 11 Qg8 Bf5 12 e6
For 12 Na3, see the game above.
12Qa5+
13 b4 Qxb4+ 14 c3 Qb2 15 Qf7
+ Kd8 16 Qxf8+ Kc7 17 Qxa8
Qxa1 18 Kf2 Qxb1 19 Qe8 Qxa2
+? (19...Bd3! Luyckx) 20 Ne2
cxd4 21 cxd4 Bd3 22 Re1 gxf4
23 g3?? f3 24 Qd7+ Kb6 25
Kxf3 Bxe2+ 26 Rxe2 Nxd4+ 27
Ke3 Qxe2+ 28 Kxd4 Qc4+ 29
Ke3 Qc5+ 30 Kd3 Qb5+ 31
Qxb5+ Kxb5 32 h4 Kc6 0-1
Pazo (2010) Luyckx (1900)
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Qh4 d5 6 f3 Ng5 7 Bxg5
fxg5 8 Qxg5 c5 9 dxc5
Luyckxs assessment +/ is
premature, as Ill try to
demonstrate.
9Nc6
Black could also play 9...Qa5+ 10
Qd2 (10 Nc3? d4; or 10 Nd2
Nc6) 10Qxc5 11 Nc3 d4 12
Nb5 Qxe5+ 13 Be2 Bg7!,
unclear.
10 c3
After this passive move, White can no longer expect an advantage.
Critical is 10 Nc3, but even then Black gets sufficient
compensation: 10...Qa5! 11 0-0-0 e6! (11...d4? 12 Nb5 Bg7 13 f4
Qxa2 14 Nc7+ Kf7 15 Nxa8 Bf5 16 Qg3 Bxc2? 17 Kxc2? Nb4+,
but 17 e6+! Kxe6? 18 Qe1+, followed by Kxc2, is a clear
refutation, since White now has b4 under control) 12 Qf6 Rg8 13
Bb5 a6 14 Bxc6+ bxc6. Black regains the pawn c5. The bishoppair and the mobile pawns give Black sufficient compensation for
the remaining pawn deficit.
10Bf5?
Too complicated. Instead, Black should have castled kingside: 10...
Bg7! 11 Na3 Qa5 12 Bb5 0-0 13 000 Rf5 unclear, or 11 f4 0-0
12 Nd2 (Computer Bcker, training game 1987 [7]) 12...Qa5 13
Nb3 Qa4 =.
11 Bb5 Qa5 12 a4
Now Black is in trouble.
12...000 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 b4
Qa6 15 Qe3 h5 16 Ne2 Bh6 17
f4 Bd3 18 Nd4 Rdf8 19 g3 Be4
20 Rg1 g5 21 fxg5 Bg7 22 Nd2
Bxe5 23 Nxe4 Bxd4 24 cxd4
dxe4 25 Qxe4 Rd8 26 Qe2 Qb7
27 Qc4 Rd5 28 h4 e5 29 000
Re8 30 dxe5 Rdxe5 31 Rgf1 Re4
32 Rd4 Re3 33 Rf7 Rc3+ 34
Qxc3 Qxf7 35 Rd2 Qf1+ 36 Rd1
Qe2 37 Qd3 Qe5 38 Kc2 Qe6 39 Kb2 Qg4 40 Ka3 Qe6 41 Rf1
Qe5 42 Qf5+ Qxf5 43 Rxf5 Re3+ 44 Kb2 Rxg3 45 Rf4 a5 1-0
An impressive series of games. I dont know whether Luyckxs
opponents were able to prepare for his opening in some
tournaments the pairings are announced just a few minutes before

the round begins. But the result of 2 points out of four games
against stronger opponents speaks for itself. Apparently, 2Ne4
is difficult to refute.
The opening from the last game brings us to another important
variation:
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Qe2
The text move was suggested by Kari Heinola from the USA,
which I recommended in [7]. It attacks the knight, just as 5 Qh4
(from Pazo Luyckx) does, but has an additional effect: two
moves later Blacks e-pawn will be pinned.
5d5 6 f3 Ng5 7 exf6 Ne6 8 fxe7 Bxe7
Although Black has lost a pawn,
the situation is far from clear. In
the last few moves, the defender
has gained valuable time for his
development, and the open e- and
f-files can play a future role.
9 Be3 c5
He could also consider 9...Nc6 10
Qd2 0-0 11 Nc3 Bf6 12 Nge2 b5.
10 dxc5 d4 11 Bh6
11 Bf2 comes into consideration, while 11 Qb5+? Bd7 appears too
risky.
11...Nc6 12 Nd2 Nxc5 13 0-0-0
13d3 14 cxd3 Be6 15 Nc4 b5
16 d4 Bxc4 17 dxc5 Bxe2 18
Rxd8+ Kxd8 19 Nxe2 Bxc5 20
Nf4 Nd4 21 Bg7 Re8 22 Bf6+
Kc7 23 Bd3 =+
There are more variations where
Black ends up much better than
you probably would have
expected. But I guess that by now
you have seen enough happy
endings. So for the rest of this article, let us look at the worst case
scenario.
The Hlderlin Variation: 4 Bd3 d5 5 Nc3!
Only a few months ago I would have hesitated to write an article
on 2Ne4, since Blacks problems in this main line, where White
aims to trap the knight on mid-board (Emms) [11], seemed
impossible to overcome.
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6!? 4 Bd3 d5 5 Nc3!
Even stronger than Fahrnis [1]
5 f3 (h4?) Ng5 6 Bxg5 fxg5 7 f4
(if 7gxf4, then 8 Qh5+), and
Black is worse. In fact, this
variation is quite playable for
Black. After the text move, Black
faces more serious problems:
(a) 5...Nxc3? 6 Qh5+ g6 (6...Kd7
7 bxc3 +/) 7 Bxg6+ hxg6 8
Qxh8 +/ Ne4 9 Bh6 Nd7? 10 e6
+ .
(b) 5...Bf5 6 Qf3 e6 was my original idea: 7 Nxe4? dxe4 8 Bxe4
Qxd4! 9 Bxf5 (9 Bxb7? Bg4!) 9...Qxe5+ 10 Ne2 Qxf5 += (draw,
64) Rausis Bcker, Dortmund 1990. But in [6] I gave 7 g4!, a
zwischenzug that wins a pawn. Black has no compensation at all.
Emms [11] copies my idea without giving a source.
(c) In 1985, Gerard Welling suggested 5...c5 6 dxc5 Qa5; for
example, 7 Bxe4 dxe4 8 Be3 f5 9 a3 Nc6 10 f4 Be6 11 b4 Qc7 12
Qe2 g6 13 0-0-0 Bg7 14 Nh3 h6 15 Nd5 Bxd5 16 Rxd5 00 17 g4
+/. This is hardly forced, of course maybe someone can find an
improvement?
(d) My attempt 5...Nc6 also failed: 6 Nxe4 dxe4 7 Bxe4 Nxd4 (not
7...Qxd4?? 8 Bxc6+) 8 Qh5+! g6 9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qxg6+ Kd7 11
c3 +/; for example, 11...c6 12 cxd4 Qa5+ 13 Bd2 Qd5 14 Qf5+
Kc7 15 Qf3 Be6 16 Qxd5 Bxd5 17 f3, and White has a clear
advantage in the ending.
The situation seemed desperate, but any Mokele Mbembe
theoretician knows the axiom from that old master Friedrich
Hlderlin: Where there is danger, rescue will arise.
5...f5! 6 Nce2
After the Ne4 has lost its escape square g5, it is a natural reaction
to try and win the knight. Nevertheless, it could be stronger and
much simpler to play for a positional advantage: 6 Nh3! Nxc3
(6...e6 7 Nf4 g6 8 Nce2 c5 9 f3 Ng5 is hardly better: 10 c4!) 7
bxc3 e6 8 Nf4 g6. Blacks position is suspicious, but perhaps
playable.
6...e6
My move order 6...c5 in
Kaissiber #27 was incorrect.
Maurits Wind from The
Netherlands found a strong
reply: 7 f3! Nd6 (or 7c4 8
Bxe4 dxe4 9 fxe4 fxe4 10 Ng3,
and White wins a pawn) 8
dxc5 Nc4 (8Nf7 is too passive)
9 Bxc4 dxc4 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11
Nh3! Na6 12 Be3 e6 13 0-0-0+
Ke8 14 Rhg1! Bxc5 15 Bxc5
Nxc5 16 g4 g6 17 Nef4 +/. White is better developed and enjoys
a strong initiative (Wind).
7 h4
It is hard to resist the temptation to win the knight. Again, White
could play for a positional edge with 7 Nf4, when the verdict must
be the same as after 6 Nh3!.
7c5 8 c3 Nc6 9 f3
Without the maneuver Kf1-g2 (to protect pawn g3) the knight will
be difficult to catch; therefore, 9 a3 (to avoid the later Bb4+) could
be a loss of time: 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 Be7 11 g3 0-0 12 f3 Qa5+ 13
Kf1 Nxd4! 14 Nxd4 Nxg3+, followed by Nxh1.
9...cxd4
After the possible reply 10 fxe4!? fxe4 11 Bb5 dxc3 12 Nxc3 Bc5,
the passed pawns fully compensate the sacrificed piece.
10 cxd4 Bb4+
The modest looking 10...Be7 may be even better: 11 g3?! (White should play 11
fxe4 fxe4 12 Bb5!) 11...Qb6 12 fxe4 fxe4 13 Bc2 0-0 with attractive attacking
chances; for example, 14 a3 Bd7 15 Nh3 Rf3! 16 Rf1 Raf8 17 Nhf4
17...Rxg3! 18 Nxg3 Nxd4 19 Bb1 Bxh4

20 Kf2 Nf5+ 21 Kg2 Nxg3 22 Rg1 Bb5
23 Qg4 Nf5 24.Kh1 Bf2 25 a4 Bc4 26 a5
Qc6 27 Rg2 Bd4 28 Bc2 Bxe5 29 Bd2
Bxb2 30 Ba4 Qc8 31 Rag1 Rf7 32 Rh2
Bd4 33 Qh3 h6 34 Rg6 b5 35 Bc2 Be5 36
Qg4 b4 37 Bxb4 Bb5 38 Rxe6 Bxf4 39
Qxf4 Qxe6 +.
11 Kf1 Qb6
Prevents 12 Bb5. In view of the

coming pawn structure, it can
only be good for White to get rid
of that bishop. Here, however,
11...0-0 is playable, since 12
Bb5? fails to 12Nxd4! 13 Qxd4
Qa5 14 Bd3?? Bc5 +.
12 Bf4
White has to be patient. If he
captures on e4 too soon, he can easily find himself in trouble:
(a) 12 Be3? 0-0 13 Nh3 Nxe5 /+.
(b) 12 Bc2? Nxd4!.
(c) 12 Nh3 0-0 13 Bc2? (13 a3 Be7 14 Bc2 (14 g3? Nxd4) 13
Bxh4 15 fxe4 fxe4+ 16 Nhf4 Be7 17 Ke1 Bd7 18 Ba4 Rac8
unclear) invites a combination: 13...Nxd4! 14 Be3
14...Nxe2 15 Bxb6 N4g3+ 16
Kf2 axb6 17 Rh2 Bc5+ 18 Ke1
Bd4 19 Bd3 (or 19 Nf4 Bxe5)
Bxe5, and Black isnt worse.
(d) 12 a3 Be7 13 g3 g5 14 Bc2
gxh4 15 gxh4 Nxd4 16 Be3 Bc5
17 Bxd4 Ng3+ 18 Nxg3 Bxd4 19
f4 Bd7 with active play: 20 N1e2

Be3 21 Nh5 0-0-0 22 Rh3 d4 23
Nf6 Bc6 24 Bd3 Kb8 25 b4
Rhg8! 26 Nxg8 Rxg8 27 Rg3 Rxg3 28 Nxg3 Qd8 29 Qh5 Bxf4 =.
(e) 12 g3!? 0-0 13 Kg2 (13 a3 Nxd4! 14 Bxe4 fxe4 15 axb4 Nxf3)
13...Nxd4 14 Be3 Bc5 15 b4!
15...Qxb4 16 Rb1 Nc3 17 Rxb4
Nxd1 18 Bxd4 Bxb4 19 Nh3 +=.
White regains the Nd1. His slight
material deficit is more than
compensated by his excellent
piece play.
12...0-0 13 Bc2 Na5
13...Bd7 is worse, but, as so often
is the case, White has to remain
patient:
(a) 14 fxe4? fxe4 15 g3 Be8 16 h5 Rf5! 17 g4 Rxf4+ 18 Nxf4
Nxd4 with compensation.
(b) 14 g3! Na5 15 Kg2 Rac8 16 Ba4 +/.
14 fxe4
14 Nh3 Bd7 15 fxe4 (15 Kg1 Bb5!) fxe4 16 Kg1 Be8 17 a3 Be7 =,
intending Bh5.
14...fxe4 15 Bb3
(a) 15 b3 Ba3 16 g3 Nc6 17 Kg2 Nb4 18 Bc1 Bxc1 19 Qxc1 Bd7
20 a3 Nc6 21 Qb2 Be8 with compensation.
(b) 15 Nh3 Nc4 16 Kg1 Nxb2 17 Qb1 Nc4 18 Ba4 Qa5 19 Bb3 b5
20 Kh2 Bd7 21 a4 Qb6 22 Qa2 a5 23 Rhc1 h6 24 Nf2 Rxf4 25
Nxf4 Qxd4 unclear.
15...Bd7 16 g3 Be8
Threatening 17...Bh5.
17 h5 Rf5 18 g4 Rf7 19 Kg2 Bb5 20 g5
(a) 20 a3 Be7 21 Ba2 Raf8 22 Qd2 Qa6 with compensation (23

g5? Bxg5!).
(b) 20 h6 Be7 21 Rc1 g6 22 Ba4 Bd3 Black has nothing to fear, e.
g. 23 Rh3 Qxb2 24 Qd2 Qxd2 25 Bxd2 Nc4 26 Bd7 Nxd2 27
Bxe6 Bc4 with compensation.
20...Raf8 21 Rh4 Rf5
Despite his extra piece, White
finds it difficult to extricate
himself from Blacks
stranglehold. As long as Whites
forces are imprisoned on the first
ranks, the pawn e4 will be almost
as strong as a piece. It assists any
invasion by means of Bd3 and
Nc4. For example: 22 h6 g6 23
Rc1 Qa6, and all Blacks pieces
are well-placed.
Sources:
[1] H. Fahrni: Die Aljechin-Verteidigung, Bern 1922 (pp.19-28)
[2] S. Bcker: article in Europa-Rochade 9/1984, p.24
[3] E. Siebenhaar, A. Delnef, R. Ottstadt: Aljechin-Verteidigung I, Mannheim 1986
(pp.147-152)
[4] J. Benjamin, E. Schiller: Unorthodox Openings, London 1987, p.87f.
[5] S. Bcker: game in Myers Openings Bulletin 39 (1988), p.11
[6] S. Bcker: game in New in Chess Yearbook 17 (1990), p.52
[7] S. Bcker: Das Mokele, in: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990,
pp.83-93
[8] J. Watson, E. Schiller: The Big Book of Busts, San Francisco 1995, p.120f.
[9] S. Bcker: (review of [8]), in: Kaissiber 1 (1996), p.62f.
[10] E. Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998, pp.40-42.
[11] J. Emms: Attacking with 1 e4, London 2001, p.151.
[12] A. Khalifman: Opening for White according to Anand 1.e4, vol. 5, Sofia 2005,
p.118.
[13] S. Bcker: Auf der Fhrte: Bewegungsfreudiger Dinosaurier, in: Kaissiber
#25 (2006), p.50f.
[14] S. Bcker: Auf der Fhrte: Scherz oder tiefere Bedeutung?, in: Kaissiber
#26 (2007), p.40f.

"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Building a Fortress
My March column on the Mokele Mbembe: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4!? 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5
5 Nc3! f5, culminated in an entertaining knight sacrifice. Certainly it was important
to know whether the knight on e4 can be trapped by means of 6 Nce2. Apparently,
Black cannot avoid losing the knight, but achieves sufficient compensation
nevertheless. Still, I noted at the beginning of the article that a positional approach
(6 Nh3!) might be the real test of the opening. In this third and final installment of
my Mokele series, this critical line will be discussed in more detail. While no one
tried to refute my sacrifice, some readers confirmed that they considered 6 Nh3! as
best, or they suggested sensible alternatives.
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
The Fortress
by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
Todd Rowland from the United States wrote:

The article was really encouraging, especially the playability of 8...g6 in
the line 4 Bd3 d5 5 f3 Ng5 6 Bxg5 fxg5 7 f4 c5 8 Qh5+. Ive always
enjoyed the Mokele, and have always feared 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5 5 f3. On the
downside, I hadnt realized that 5 Nc3 was such a problem, and 5...f5 is
hardly satisfactory, as White will just take the easy positional plus.
Here are my games, from around 1993, motivated by the articles in Myers
Opening Bulletin. They contain errors typical of amateur games.
Hoyos-Millan (2200) Todd Rowland (2100)
Chicago, 1993
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 b4?! Nca6 5 Ba3?!
In the previous round, White had gotten into a heated argument with his
opponent and the organizer, and was upset, explaining his rash opening.
5c6 6 Nf3 d6 7 d4 Bg4
Its hard to suggest moves for
White, but probably now he should
have played 8 b5 to maintain a
roughly equal position.
8 Bc4 e6 9 exd6 Bxd6 10 c3 0-0
(perhaps an inefficient move) 11 00 Nc7 12 Nbd2 a5 13 Rb1 Bf5 14
Rc1 Qe7 15 Qb3 Nba6 16 Bxa6
Nxa6
By the time Black got a clear
advantage, he had calmed down,
switching from extremes,
explaining why he played the
eventual attack methodically rather than decisively.
17 Nc4 axb4 18 Nxd6 Qxd6 19 cxb4 b5?
The obvious 19...Nc7 would have led to a simple advantage for Black.
20 Ne5 Be4 21 Qg3 Rfd8 22 Qf4 f5?! 23 Rfd1 Bd5 24 Rc3 Nb8 25 Rg3
Ra7 26 Bc1 Bxa2 27 Qh4 Bc4 28 Bf4 Qf8 29 Rh3 h6 30 Qh5? (30 Bxh6!)
30Qf6? (30Qe8) 31 Rg3 Kh7 32 h4 Rc8 33 Rg6 Qf8 34 Nxc4 bxc4 35
Rxe6 Nd7 36 Bd6 Qg8 37 Qxf5+ Kh8 38 Rde1 Nf6 39 Be5 Rf8 40 Rxc6
Qd6 41 Rd6 Qb5 42 g4 Raf7 43 g5 hxg5 44 hxg5 Nh7 45 Bxg7+ Rxg7 46
Qxb5 Rxg5+ 47 Qxg5 Nxg5 48 Re7 1-0
Josh Manion (2400) Todd Rowland (2100)
Chicago, 1993
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 Be3 d6 6 d5 Nc5 7 Bxc5 dxc5 8 c4
8e6
Perhaps 8...g6 is better, not fearing
the kingside assault, since White
has no dark-squared bishop, e.g. 8...
g6 9 Nc3 Bg7 10 f4 (10 Qa4+ c6
11 0-0-0 Qc7 12 d6 carries no bite)
100-0 11 Nf3 Bg4 12 h3 Bxf3 13
Qxf3 Nd7. Whites center is
terrifying, but hard to advance.
9 Nc3 Be7 10 Bd3 Nd7 11 Nf3
exd5 12 cxd5 f6? 13 Qc2?! (13 e6
wins a piece) 13Nxe5 14 Nxe5
fxe5 15 Bxh7 Bf6 16 0-0-0 Bg5+ 17 Kb1 Qf6 18 Ne4 Qh6 19 Nxg5 Qxg5
20 Bg6+ Kh8 21 Qxc5+ Kg8 22 Be4?!
Cleaner is 22 Qc2. Black now gets a fair chance to save the game in a rook
ending, with his h8-rook developed. White is plainly better, but this chance
is more than Blacks opening treatment deserved. White outplays Black for
the remainder.
22...Bf5 23 Bxf5 Qxf5+ 24 Qc2 Qxc2+ 25 Kxc2 Rd8 26 h3 Kf7?! 27 Rhe1
Kf6 28 Rd3 Rhe8 29 Re4 Kf5 30 Rb4 e4 31 Rc3 Rxd5 32 Rxb7 Red8 33
Rcxc7 Rd2+ 34 Kb3 Ke5 35 Re7+ Kf4 36 Rf7+ Ke5 37 Rbe7+ Kd6 38
Rxe4 a5 39 Ka3 Rb8 40 b3 Rc8 41 Ree7 Rdc2 42 Ra7 R8c5 43 g4 Rc1 44
Ra6+ Ke5 45 Rf5+ Ke4 46 Rxa5 R5c2 47 f3+ Ke3 48 h4 g6 49 Rf6 Rh1
50 h5 gh 51 gh Rhh2 52 Kb4 Rh4+ 53 f4 Rf2 54 Re5+ 1-0
Sorry to say that my score with the Mokele was negative, unlike my score
with other unusual openings back then. Maybe due to irrational fears of
kingside attacks, which wasnt an issue in the Elephant. Nowadays, I am not
playing actively, and tend to be more conservative as Black. Perhaps with
my fears behind me, I can take up the Mokele again.
In the diagrammed position above, I suggest 8...g6 9 Nc3 c6:
(a) 10 Bd3 cxd5 11 cxd5 e6 12 Qa4+ (12 Nf3 exd5 13 Bb5+ Nc6 14. Qxd5 Qxd5
15 Nxd5 Rb8 16 Rc1 Be6 +=) 12Bd7 13 Bb5 exd5 14 Nxd5 Bg7 15 Nf3 0-0 16
0-0-0 Nc6 with interesting complications; for example, 17 Nf6+ (17 h4 Nxe5 18
Bxd7 Nxd7 19 Nc3 Bxc3 20 Rxd7 Qa5 =; 17 Rhe1 Re8 18 g4 a6 19 Bxc6 Bxc6 20
Qc4 b5 unclear) 17Bxf6 18 exf6
18c4! 19 Qa3 (19 Qxc4? Rc8 is too
dangerous) 19c3 20 Qxc3 (or 20 bxc3
Qc7 21 Rd6 Rfe8 22 Rhd1 Bg4 = 23 h3
Bxf3 24 gxf3 Qc8 25 Qa4 Qxh3 26 Rxc6
bxc6 27 Bxc6 Qc8!) 20Rc8 21 Kb1 a6
22 Bd3 Qb6 23 Qd2 Nb4 24 Bxg6 hxg6
25 Qxd7 Rfd8 26 Qa4 Qxf2 =.
(b) 10 f4 Bh6 11 g3 Qb6 (11g5? 12
Qh5) 12 Qe2 (12 Qb3 g5! =) 12cxd5 13
Nxd5 Qa5+ 14 Qd2 Qxd2+ 15 Kxd2 Na6
16 Bg2 Be6 17 Kc3 0-0-0!? (17Rd8 18
Rd1 Rd7 19 Nf3 0-0 20 Rd2 Nc7 21 Nxc7
Rxc7 +=) 18 Nxe7+ Kb8 19 Nd5 Nb4
with approximate equality.
Concerning the move order in this variation, the following game is of interest:
H. Kauschmann (2220) R. Junge (2365)
Germany, Bundesliga II 1993
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 d5
Manions move order 5 Be3 avoids the defense e7-e6. However, then Black has the
additional possibility 5c6, followed by g6 and Bg7, delaying d7-d6.
5Nc5 6 Be3 e6!?
6d6 transposes to the game Manion Rowland above.
7 Nc3 exd5 8 Qxd5 c6 9 Qc4 b5 10 Qf4 d5 11 Rd1 Ne6
Black has solved his opening problems.
12 Qg3 Qa5 13 a3 b4 14 axb4 Bxb4 15

Bd2 0-0 16 Bd3 Ba6 17 Bxa6 Qxa6 18
Nge2 Bxc3 19 Bxc3 Nd7 20 Qg4 Rae8 21
0-0 f5 22 Qf3 Ndc5 23 Nf4 Nxf4 24 Qxf4
Ne6
A Final Visit to the Main Line
Lets return to the main line that we
discussed in March. Two readers
submitted new analyses, and I spent
several further hours with these critical
(and often strange) positions.
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5 5 Nc3
In a letter, Dirk Spohn from Germany, doesnt show much respect for 3f6
(scrap, Spohn) and recommends the unusual 5 Nd2!?, which I had hitherto seen
only in some of my blitz games. The knight move to c3 looks more natural, but
Nd2 has some hidden advantages and is difficult to refute. 5f5 (Not 5Nxd2? 6
Qh5+. Spohns main line is 5Ng5 6 Ngf3 Bg4 7 h3 Bh5 8 g4 Bf7 9 Nxg5 fxg5
10 Nf3 h6 11 h4 gxh4 12 Rxh4 and Whites superior development should be
sufficient to win the game, Spohn) 6 Nh3! (Spohns move improves upon the
alternatives 6 f3 Nxd2 7 Bxd2, 6 Ngf3 and 6 Ne2, which I had faced in blitz in
each case I played e6 and c5 and won. Of course, 6 Ne2 e6 could have transposed
to the text after 7 Nf4!)
An important decision:
(a) 6c5, in analogy to our preferred
treatment against the main line: 7 Nf4 g6
8 Bb5+! (the immediate 8 c4 is less
successful after 8dxc4 9 Bxe4 fxe4 10
d5 Bg7 11 Nxc4 0-0 12 Qb3 Qe8, unclear)
8Nc6 (8Bd7 9 a4! cxd4 10 Nb3 a6 11
Bxd7+ Nxd7 12 f3 Nec5 13 Nxd4 Nxe5
14 b4 g5 15 Nh3 Ncd7 16 Nxg5 +/, or
9a6? 10 Nxe4 dxe4 11 Ne6, followed
by 12 Bxd7+ and 13 d5, when Black has
difficulties developing his Bf8 or
anything else) 9 c4! Bh6 (9dxc4 10 d5
a6 11 Ba4 b5 12 dxc6 bxa4 13 0-0 Nxd2 14 Bxd2 +/, Black has lasting problems
with his Bc8) 10 cxd5 Bxf4 11 dxc6 and now:
(a1) 11Bxd2+ 12 Bxd2 Kf7 13 Bc4+! (13 dxc5 Qd4 14 Qb3+ Be6 15 Be3 Qxe5
16 f4 Qf6 17 Qa3 Qh4+ 18 g3 Nxg3 19 Bf2 Qxf4 20 Bxg3 Qe4+ 21 Kf2 f4 +=)
13e6 (13Kg7 14 dxc5 Qc7 15 Be3 Rd8 16 Qe2 Qa5+ 17 Kf1 bxc6 18 h4 h5 19
Kg1 +/) 14 0-0! (14 Bf4 hopes for 14cxd4 15 f3 Nc5 16 b4 Na6 17 Bxa6 +
etc., but 14Qa5+ 15 Kf1 Rd8 16 d5 exd5 17 Be2 c4! 18 f3 Nc5 19 Bg5 Re8 20
Qxd5+ Be6 21 Qd4 bxc6 22 Bxc4 Rab8 23 b3 Bxc4+ 24 Qxc4+ Ne6 25 Bf6 Qd2
26 Qc1 Qd4 = equalizes)
14cxd4 (14Qxd4? 15 Be3 loses a
piece, and 14Nxd2?! isnt convincing
either) 15 Bh6 bxc6 (15Qh4 16 Qc1 g5
17 f3 +/) 16 f3 Nc5 17 Rc1 Qb6 18 Qxd4
Nd7 +/. Black has managed to exchange
the queens, but in the ensuing ending
Whites better placed pieces are at least

worth a pawn. Black may try 19 Rfd1 (19
Be3) 19Nxe5 20 Bf1 Qxd4+ 21 Rxd4
g5 22 Bxg5 Rg8 23 h4 h6 24 f4 to
simplify, but even then the draw will be
difficult to achieve.
(a2) 110-0 looks like a mistake, but is
quite playable. 12 Nb3 Qb6 13 Bc4+ Kh8 14 Bxf4 Qb4+. Regaining the piece. 15
Nd2 Nxd2 16 Qxd2 Qxc4 17 c7 Be6 18 Rc1 Qxd4 19 Qxd4 cxd4 20 Bg5 Rfe8 21
Ke2 Kg7 22 Kd3 Kf7 23 Kxd4 Bxa2 +=.
Whites position is much better, based on
the advanced pawn at c7, but perhaps
Black can blockade (24 Rc3 a5).
(b) 6e6
(b1) 7 0-0 is Spohns continuation,
although this leaves Black time to recover:
7Be7 (7c5? 8 Nf4 g6 9 c4 +/) 8 Nb3
0-0 9 f3 Ng5 10 Nf4 (10 Nxg5!? Bxg5 11
Bxg5 Qxg5 12 c4 +=) 10b6 (10c5?
11 Nxc5 Bxc5 12 dxc5 Nf7 13 b4 Nc6 14
Qe1 Ncxe5 15 Bb2 Nxd3 16 cxd3 Bd7 17
Qc3 +/; 10a5 11 a4 b6 12 c3 c5 13
Bb5 c4 14 Nd2 Na6 15 b3 +=) 11 Be3 Nc6 12 Bb5 Qd7 13 c4 a6 14 Bxc6 Qxc6 15
h4 Nf7 16 cxd5 exd5 17 Rc1 Qb7 18 Qc2 Ra7 19 Qc6 Qxc6 20 Rxc6 Nd8 21 Rc2
Be6
Black is worse, but should be able to hold
the position. For example, 22 Rfc1 (22 g3
Bf7 23 Rfc1 c6) 22Bxh4 23 Rxc7 Rxc7
24 Rxc7 Bg5 25 Ra7 Bxf4 26 Bxf4 Bc8
27 Bg5 Ne6 28 Be7 Rf7 29 Ra8 Rxe7 30
Rxc8+ Kf7 31 Rc6 Rc7 32 Rxb6 Rc2 33
Rxa6 Nf4 34 Ra7+ Kg6 35 g3 Ne2+ 36
Kf2 f4 37 gxf4 Nxf4+ 38 Kg3 Ne2+ 39
Kh4 Rxb2 40 Ra6+ Kf5 41 Ra8 Rb1 42
Rf8+ Ke6 =.
(b2) 7 Nf4 poses difficult problems. 7
Kf7!? (the only reasonable alternative 7
g6 8 0-0 leaves Black helpless against the
coming c2-c4; for example, 8c5 9 c4 Nc6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Bb5 cxd4 12 Nb3 a6
13 Bxc6+ bxc6 14 Nxd4 +/) 8 0-0 c5 9 g4 (after 9 c4 Nc6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Qh5+
Kg8, Black has some counterplay, e.g. 12 e6 Ng5 13 dxc5 Nxe6 14 Nb3 g6 15
Nxe6 Bxe6 16 Qe2 Qd7 17 Re1 Kf7 18 Be3 Bg7 +=)
After the typical breakthrough g2-g4 in a misplayed French, Blacks defeat
seems near (for example 9cxd4 10 gxf5 exf5 11 c4! dxc3 12 Nxe4 fxe4 13 Bxe4
+). But there remains a last chance: 9Nxd2 10 Bxd2 c4 11 Be2 g5 12 Nh5 f4.
Closing the door of the fortress. I am not
sure how to evaluate this structure.
Calling Blacks position sound comes
close to a sacrilege. But what can his

opponent do? The obvious solution would
be to sacrifice a piece on f4 and White
would get some compensation for it. But
this is hardly a refutation of Blacks play,
since the consequences would rather favor
Black. If White instead continues quietly,
say, 13 c3 Nc6 14 h4 h6 15 b3 b5 16 Qc2
Be7 17 Rfb1 Bd7 18 bxc4 bxc4, the
position still looks rather strange.
We return to the main line 5 Nc3.
5f5
As I explained in my last column, this reply is almost forced. The following
considerations are mainly based on analyses by Maurits Wind from The
Netherlands.
6 Nce2
After 6 Nh3, Black can transpose to the
main line (6...e6 7.Nf4 g6 8.Nce2), but
Wind suggests a more enterprising
alternative: 6...Nxc3 7 bxc3 c5!? 8 Nf4
(perhaps one of the following is more
promising: 8 Bb5+ Nc6 9 0-0 e6 10 Bg5
Qd7, or 8 Qf3 g6 9 0-0 Nc6, or 8 0-0 c4 9
Be2 Nc6 10 Nf4 e6) 8g6 9 Qf3 c4!
(instead of 9e6 10 g4! (Wind) 10fxg4
11 Qxg4 Qd7 12 h4! Be7 13 h5 g5 14 Nh3
cxd4 15 cxd4 h6 16 f4 +/) 10 Be2 e6 11
g4 Nc6 (better than 11Qd7 12 gxf5
gxf5 13 Qh5+ Qf7 14 Qxf7+ Kxf7 15 Rg1 Ke8 16 Bh5+, starting a strong attack)
12 Qh3 Qa5 13 Bd2 Ne7 14 gxf5 exf5 15 Bf3 Bd7 16 Qg2 Bc6
Another kind of fortress. Blacks
defensive formation is hard to crack, e. g.
17 Ne6 h6 18 0-0 Kd7 19 Nc5+ Kc7.
6...e6
6...c5? hopes for 7 c3 e6 etc., transposing
to the main line, but may be inaccurate
because of 7 f3! Nd6 8 dxc5 Nc4 (8...Nf7
9 f4 +/) 9.Bxc4 dxc4 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.
Nh3! Na6 12 Be3 e6 13 0-0-0+ Ke8 14
Rhg1! with advantage for White (Wind).
7 Nf4
7 h4 traps the knight, but as I explained last month, Black obtains sufficient
compensation after 7...c5 8 c3 Nc6 9 f3 cxd4 10 cxd4 Bb4+ 11 Kf1 Qb6.
7...g6
Looks ugly, but Black will obtain counterplay with c5; after 7...Be7?! 8 Qh5+ Kd7,
White can simply play 9 Qf7 Qg8 10 Qxg8 Rxg8 11 f3 Ng5 12 c4 c6 13 Nge2 with
advantage (analysis by Wind).
8 Nge2!
Apparently more precise than 8 Ngh3, when, according to Wind, Black obtains fine
play with the characteristic sacrifice 8...c5 9 f3 Qa5+ 10 Kf1 cxd4 11 fxe4 fxe4 12
Be2 Bc5. The text move reduces Whites chances to trap the Ne4, but has other
advantages: d4 is now well protected, so that White can think about playing 9 f3
Ng5 10 c4.
8...c5?!
Evidently the text move is too risky. Wind offers an escape route: 8...Nc6 9 a3 (to
stop Nb4) 9...a6 10 0-0 Bd7 11 Be3 Qe7 12 f3 Ng5 13 b3.
A critical position for the Mokele. Black
can choose between castling long (1300-0) or short (13...Bg7 14 Qd2 Nf7
followed by 0-0). In each case White
is better, but the position resembles a
complex French. Black is not without
chances. (Wind)
9 f3 Ng5 10 c4
My last column expressed the opinion that
6 Nh3 Nxc3! were better than 6e6 7
Nf4 g6 8 Nce2 c5 9 f3 Ng5 10 c4!. But I
had to recognize that the text move (10
c4) arrives at the identical position. Therefore, the move order 6 Nce2!, avoiding
the exchange on c3, must be more to the point than 6 Nh3.
10...dxc4 11 Bxc4 Nc6 12 h4 Nf7 13 Nxe6 Qb6
Proposed by Wind. My analysis ran 13Bxe6 14 Bxe6 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Qxd4 with
interesting complications after 16 Qb3 Nxe5 17 Bg5 Bg7 18 Bxf5 c4. However,
White can simply go into an ending where Black can hardly survive: 16 Qxd4 cxd4
17 f4 +/. No fortress in sight.
14 dxc5 Bxc5 15 Qd5 Ncxe5 16 Nxc5 Qb4+ 17 Kf2 Qxc4
So far analysis by Wind. After 18 Qxc4
(or 18 Nf4) Nxc4 19 Nf4 b6 (190-0 20

b3 Nce5 21 Bb2 b6 22. Rhe1 is also
dangerous) 20 Re1+ Kd8 21 Ncd3 Re8 22
Rxe8+ Kxe8 23 Nd5 Kf8 24 Nc7 Rb8 25
Bf4 Rb7 26 Rc1 Ncd6 27 Nb4 h6 28
Nbd5 g5 29 Bd2 f4, Whites pieces
remain more active, but Blacks drawing
chances seem to be intact.
This is the kind of endgame advantage
that White can achieve against the Mokele
Mbembe after finding seventeen strong
moves in a row. In reality, after 2Ne4,
at least ninety-five percent of your opponents do not have the faintest notion of
whats going on. In effect, you can play dozens of Mokele games before
encountering the dangers described above. In your good old French you may never
lose, but every second game just repeats seventeen theoretical moves and then ends
in an uneventful draw. Quite a difference

Don't Name the Gambit after Me

In one of the most popular lines of the Closed Sicilian, White sacrifices a pawn by
10 e5 to open the position. This variation is presented by modern-day authors with
a great deal of enthusiasm:
Currently, the most important line is 10 e5 which is such a new and
complicated idea that it fails to get even a mention in most reference
books (Lane [6])
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
Currently the most important variation was recently introduced into

Master level such a new idea that it is not considered in most of the
opening monographs highly enterprising approach (Ravikumar [7])
The most exciting development in the Closed Sicilian in recent years has
been the introduction of the e4-e5 pawn sacrifice (King [9])
this is an excellent way for White to exploit his lead in
development (Palliser [11])
IM Martin Christoffel
Tournament Book Zrich 1961
Yet, if the line is so important, then why doesnt have it a name? Palliser [11] tells
of its history: 10 e5!? didnt catch on when it was initially essayed by
Christoffel in 1961. However that was largely due to a poor follow-up in the shape
of 10Nef5 11 Bf2 Nxf3+ 12 Bxf3?. By the late eighties White had realized that
12 Qxf3 was far better and 10 e5 became quite trendy for a few years.
Christoffel - Matulovic
Zurich 1961 [3]
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Be3
Nd4 10 e5
In fact, at the time, Grob [3] wrote: A
mistake which the Jugoslav utilizes in
splendid way. White did not even reach
move twenty: 10Nef5 11 Bf2 Nxf3+ 12
Bxf3 dxe5 13 Bxc5 exf4! 14 Bxf8 Qxf8
15 Qe1 fxe3 16 hxg3? Bd4+ 17 Kh2 Qh6
+ 0-1
It is likely that IM Christoffel would
rather forget this episode than be honored
for inventing 10 e5.
About twenty years later I played the
gambit and mentioned it in two of my publications [4] and [5]. But dont name the
gambit after me! There are at least three worthier candidates.
First, the great David Bronstein introduced the idea eight years before Christoffel
in Zurich no less which makes it highly likely that Christoffel knew of
Bronsteins brilliancy when he adopted a similar approach.
Bronstein Keres
Candidates Tournament Zurich, 1953
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 d3 Nc6 5 Bg2 Rb8 6 f4 d6 7 Nf3 e6 8 0-0 Nge7 9 e5
Considering the recent popularity of the
excellent idea e4-e5, it is odd that
modern authors seem to have forgotten
Bronsteins game. Equally curious is
Bronsteins modest comment [1]:
General considerations impelled White to
push his e-pawn to e5, without worrying
about its loss, since this opens at least
three lines: Whites half of the e-file, the
c1-h6 diagonal, and the g2-c6 diagonal. In
addition, the excellent post at e4 is cleared
for Whites queens knight.
The only difference between Bronsteins
version and the modern main line is that here Black has played Rb8 instead of
castling. In his popular tournament book [1] Bronstein criticized 5Rb8 mildly as
maybe a little bit too straightforward, while Roman Toran [2] put a question
mark behind the premature and faulty move. I am not sure that White can
capitalize on Blacks inaccurate rook move. For example, Black could reply 9
0-0, and I dont see a refutation. So Torans assessment seems too harsh. Both lines
can lead to similar or even identical positions.

9...dxe5 10 fxe5 Nxe5 11 Bf4 Nxf3+ 12 Qxf3 Ra8 13 Be3 0-0 14 Bxc5 Bd4+ 15
Bxd4 Qxd4+ 16 Kh1
16...Rb8
Bronstein [1] recommends 16Nc6 or
16e5. In my article [4], I also
mentioned 16f5. Another reliable reply
is 16Nf5, followed by h5.
17 Ne4 f5 18 Qf4 Bd7?
According to Bronstein [1], the only
chance to continue fighting lay in 18
Ra8, strange as this may sound. Eliskases
shares his view that 18Bd7? was the
losing move, but he demonstrates on two and a half pages that after both 18e5
and 18Qe5!, White has difficulties proving an advantage. I can only agree with
him. And if White doesnt have an advantage after 18 Qf4, perhaps Blacks former
play wasnt so bad after all?
19 c3 Qb6 20 Nf6+ Rxf6 21 Qxb8+ Bc8 22 d4 Rf8 23 Rf2 Nc6 24 Qf4 Bd7 25
Re1 Nd8 26 d5 Nf7 27 dxe6 Bxe6 28 b3 Bd7 29 Qd4 Bc6 30 Qxb6 axb6 31 Bxc6
bxc6 32 Re6 Rc8 33 Rfe2 Kf8 34 h4 b5 35 a4 bxa4 36 bxa4 Ra8 37 Rxc6 Rxa4
38 Rc7 Ra6 39 Rb2 h6 40 c4 f4 41 c5 f3 42 Kg1 Ra8 43 Rcb7 Ra1+ 44 Rb1 Ra6
45 Rd7 Ra8 46 Re1 Ra2 47 Re3 Ra1+ 48 Kf2 Ra2+ 49 Kxf3 Rc2 50 Rc7 h5 51
Ke4 Nh6 52 Ra3 Re2+ 53 Kf4 Re8 54 Rh7 Kg8 55 Rxh6 Kg7 56 c6 Kxh6 57
Rc3 g5+ 58 hxg5+ 10
Obviously, Bronstein wasnt the first to play 10 e5, but he introduced the motif e4e5 which I stated in my article [5]. The second reason why my name should not
be connected with 10 e5 is that I criticized it as dubious. Even after 1,055 games
with 10 e5, I am unconvinced that the move is so strong. Perhaps I should explain
the context my article was meant to encourage adopting Bronsteins e4-e5 motif
in the Closed Sicilian. I liked the general concept behind it, but I didnt believe it
would give White an advantage in Bronsteins original version, or after 10 e5.
Therefore, instead of the immediate 10 e5 my favorite line was 10 Qd2 Rb8 11
Rae1, hoping for 11b5 12 e5!.
My analysis after 10 e5?! went as follows: 10Nxf3+ 11 Qxf3 dxe5 12 fxe5
Bxe5 13 Bxc5 Bd4+ 14 Bxd4 Qxd4+ 15 Kh1
15f5 with an even game.
Was my analysis incorrect? When you
compare this diagram with the last, youll
recognize that both positions are identical.
And if Bronstein didnt have an advantage
(according to Eliskases and Bcker), I
cannot see why the modern 10 e5
should give White anything. You can find
some games in the database where the
position above was reached, and White

scored heavily (ninety percent). But these
examples are hardly convincing.
If you do not wish to attribute 10 e5 to Bronstein, because he introduced the motif
e4-e5 in a different position, I recommend the name the Bastian Variation.
Trainer Sergiu Samarian sent my article [5] as study material to Herbert and
Martin Bastian from Germany. The Bastian brothers liked 10 e5 more than my
main lines and employed it successfully. A few years later they published their
findings in the Swiss Schachwoche (I cant find the issue, but it was in 1989 or
1990, as far as I remember). This attractive article lead to the lines worldwide
popularity (its no exaggeration look at the database).
After reading only vague hints in sources [6] to [11] that White invented this
important opening idea in the late eighties, perhaps this overview will help set
the record straight.
Closed Sicilian
The rest of the article presents concrete ideas for your analytical teeth.
Food for Thought I: White defers Castling
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 Be3!?
Whites king remains in the center.
Another reason why the importance of
the gambit 10 e5 has become doubtful: I
do not trust the traditional 8 0-0 0-0 9 Be3
anymore, because of the modern
approach 9...b6, intending d6-d5. Here
White has problems proving an
advantage: (a) 10 Qd2 d5.
(a1) 11 exd5 exd5 12 Bf2 (neither 12 d4

Nf5 13 Bf2 cxd4 14 Nxd5 Be6 nor 12 Ne5
d4 13 Nxc6 Nxc6 14 Bxc6 dxe3 15 Qg2
Rb8 =+ are better) 12d4 13 Nb5
(Rogozenkos [9] 13 Na4 seems weaker)
13Rb8 14 Rae1 a6 15 Na3 b5 16 Re2 Be6 (16Nd5; 16Bf5) 17 c4?! Lobron
Bastian, German championship, Bad Neuenahr 1980; and now 17dxc3 18 bxc3
Qa5 19 Nb1 b4 would have been best (=+).
(a2) 11 Bf2 dxe4! (Rogozenko [9] prefers 11...d4 12 Ne2 f5, but then White has the
promising 13 e5 Ba6 14 b4 Nd5 15 bxc5 bxc5 16 Ng5 Qd7 17 c4) 12 Nxe4?! (it is
true that after 12 dxe4 Qxd2 13 Nxd2 Ba6, White only fights for equality, e.g. 14
Rfc1 Rad8 15 Nf3 Nd4 16 e5 Nef5 17 Nxd4 Nxd4 18 Be4 f6 19 exf6 Bxf6 20 Re1
Bc4 21 Rad1, nevertheless the text move seems too risky) 12Bxb2 13 Ne5 Nxe5
14 Nf6+ Kh8 15 fxe5 Bxe5 16 Nxh7 Kxh7 17 Rae1
In Shirov Anastasian, Tbilisi 1989,
White survived after 17Bg7 18 Bxa8
Nd5 19 Re4 (=, 72), but 17...Rb8! 18
Rxe5 Bb7 19 Be4 Nf5 seems more critical
(/+).
(b) 10 d4 is logical, but 10Ba6 attacks
Whites rook and gains an important
tempo: 11 Rf2 (11 Re1 is no better) 11
d5! (improves upon the usual 11...Qc7 12 a4
Rad8 13 Nb5 Bxb5 14 axb5 Nxd4 15 Nxd4
cxd4 16 Bxd4 e5 17 Be3 exf4 18 Bxf4
Bxb2, when, instead of Rogozenkos [9]
passive 19 Ra2? Bc3, White should play
19 Ra4!, e.g. 19Qd7 20 Qb1 Be5 21 Bh6 Re8 22 Qf1 f6? 23 Bh3 or 19Bg7 20
Bh3 Qc5 21 Qd3 +=, both lines give White an advantage):
Now White has to choose between 12

exd5 Nf5!; 12 Rd2 Na5; or 12 Ne5. None
of these replies look too reliable.
Back to the main line with 8 Be3. White
gains additional options to counter
Blacks intended advance in the center:
80-0 9 Qd2 b6
With 9Nd4 10 0-0, the players could

return to familiar ground (cf. [5] and
elsewhere).
Another interesting option is 9...Qb6 10 0
0 Qxb2?! (Instead, Black should choose
10...d5 11 Bf2 d4 or 10...Nd4) 11 e5, with
attractive attacking chances for White; for
example, 11Nd5 12 Nxd5 exd5 13
Rab1 Qa3 14 exd6 d4 15 Bf2 Rd8 16
Rfe1! Rxd6 17 Re8+ Bf8 18 f5 Rd8 19
Rxf8+ Kxf8 20 Qh6+ Ke8 21 Re1+ Kd7
22 Qxh7 Qxa2 23 fxg6 Kc7 24 gxf7 Rf8 25 Ng5 Bd7 26 Qg7 a5 27 c4 dxc3 28
Bxc5 +.
The moment of truth. Black is ready to play d6-d5. Does White have anything
better than castling, which only transposes to lines that we wished to avoid?
(a) 10 Rd1 Nd4 (or 10...d5 11 Bf2 d4) 11 0-0 (11 e5 Ba6 12 Nxd4 cxd4 13 Bxd4
dxe5 14 Bxe5?? f6 +; 11 Bxd4 cxd4 12 Nb5 e5 13 Qb4 Bd7 14 Nxd6 Nc6 15 Qa3
exf4 16 gxf4 Bh6 =+) 11...Bb7 12 Qf2 (again, 12 Bxd4 cxd4 13 Nb5 Nc6 14 e5
dxe5 doesnt promise much: 15 fxe5 Qe7 16 Qe2 Rad8 17 c3 Rd5 18 Nbxd4 Nxe5
etc.) 12...e5 13 Ng5 exf4 14 gxf4 h6 15 Nh3? (15 Nf3 =) f5 16 Rd2 Qd7 17 Qh4
Rae8 18 Nd1 d5 (overlooking 18...Qe6! /+) 19 e5 Ne6 20 d4 cxd4 21 Bxd4 Qa4
22 Nc3 Qc4 23 Rfd1 Rf7 24 Kh1 Nc6 25 b3 Qa6 26 Bg1 d4 27 Nd5 Ref8 28 c4
dxc3 29 Nxc3 Nb4 30 Be3? (30 a4 +/) Rc8 31 Ne2 Bxg2+ 32 Kxg2 Qb7+ 33 Kg1
Qe4 34 Qg3 Nc2 35 Bf2 g5 36 Nc3 gxf4 37 Qg6 Rxc3 38 Qxe6 (38 Rd7 Rxd7 39
Qxe6+ Kh7 40 Rxd7 Ne3 41 Rxg7+ =) 38...Rc6 39 Rd8+ Bf8 40 Qd5?? (40 Rxf8+
Kxf8 41 Rd8+ Kg7 42 Qe8 Rg6+ 43 Kf1 Ne3+ 44 Bxe3 Qb1+ 45 Ke2 Qc2+ 46
Kf1 =) 40...Rg6+ 41 Kf1 f3 42 Ng1 Ne3+ 43 Bxe3 Rxg1+ 01, Bcker (2349)
Rotstein (2528), Bad Wiessee 2005.
(b) 10 d4 Na5 11 b3 may be slightly better for White.
(c) A wilder option is 10 0-0-0!? Ba6 11 Kb1 Nd4 12 h4 h5 13 Ng5, e.g. 13f6?!
14 Nf3.
(d) If the last line were too risky, White can use the quieter 10 h4, which still offers
good prospects for an attack without unreasonable risk; for example, 10d5 11
Bf2 dxe4 12 dxe4 Qxd2+ 13 Nxd2 Nd4 14 e5 (14 0-0-0 Bb7 15 h5) 14...Nxc2+ 15
Kd1 Nxa1 16 Bxa8 +=, and Black will have some problems with his Na1.
Food for Thought II: The Al Hadhrani Attack
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 a6
An increasingly popular option: Black postpones the decision about his kings wing
and the arrangement of his center pawns and advances immediately with the bpawn.
3 Bc4 b5
There are many alternatives, of course. It is a matter of taste, but I like to play
Anderssens move 2 Bc4 against the Sicilian. The text move provokes a sharp
reply.
4 Bxf7+!? Kxf7 5 Qh5+ g6 6 Qd5+ e6 7 Qxa8
Will Black be able to trap the greedy queen? Even in the worst position my
optimistic father used to say: There is always an escape.
7Nc6
The only available example for this tactical onslaught is Al Hadhrani J. Klinger
(2520), Novi Sad 1990: 7Qc7 8 d3 Bb7? (better is 8Nc6! 9 Nf3 h6) 9 Bf4 d6
10 Qa7 b4 11 Na4 e5
12 Be3? Nd7 13 Nf3 Ne7 etc. (01, 25).
Instead, 12 Bg5! would have been a nasty
surprise for the young Austrian, e.g. 12
Nd7 13 Bd8! Qc8 14 Nb6 Nxb6 15 Qxb6
+/.
Despite this relative success, 7...Qc7
seems harmless, since White achieves a
comfortable position by 8 d4 cxd4 (8...
Bb7? allows the typical rescue 9 Bf4 d6
10 Qa7 Nc6 11 Qxc5!) 9 Nd5 exd5 10
Qxd5+ Kg7 11 Qxd4+ Nf6 12 e5 Ne8
(12...Nh5 13 e6+ Kg8 14 Bh6 Be7 (or 14...
Bxh6 15 e7) 15 exd7 Qxd7) 13 e6+ Kg8
14 exd7 Qxd7 15 Qxd7 Nxd7 unclear.
8 Nf3
It is necessary to prepare a2-a4, because
after the immediate 8 a4? b4 9 Nb5 axb5
10 axb5, Black has the strong continuation
10Nd4. Another, more obvious idea
behind the text move is to play 9 Ng5+.
8 d3? Qc7 9 Nf3 (9 Bf4 d6 /+) 9...h6 (9...
Bb7? 10 Bf4 e5 11 Bxe5 etc.; here 10...
d6?? 11 Ng5+ Ke7 12 Qxf8+ is even

worse) 10 Bf4 d6 11 Nxb5 axb5 /+.
8...Qc7
Black continues to threaten the opponents queen. Alternatives cannot be
recommended: 8...Be7? 9 e5 Qc7 10 Ne4 Nxe5 11 Nxe5+ Qxe5 12 0-0 +/. And
8h6 is too slow, because of 9 a4 Qc7 10 Nxb5! axb5 11 axb5 Bb7 (11...Nd4 12
b6) 12 Qa4 Nb4 13 d3 Nf6 14 0-0 Bd6 15 Bd2 +=.
9 Ng5+
9 d4? cxd4 10 Ng5+ Kg7 (10...Ke7? 11
Nd5+ exd5 12 exd5 Ne5 (12...Bb7?? 13 d6
+) 13 Bf4 =) 11 Ne2 h6 +.
9 d3? hopes for either 9...Bb7? 10 Bf4 +
or 9...Bd6? 10 e5 Nxe5 11 Ng5+ Kg7 12
Nge4 Bb7? 13 Nxd6 Bxa8 14 Ne8+ +.
But the quiet 9h6! forces White to give
back a piece: 10 Bf4 d6 11 Nxb5 axb5 12
0-0 Nge7 /+.
9...Kg7
The principal alternative is 9...Ke7 10 d4!
10...Bb7 (10...cxd4 11 Nd5+ exd5 12 exd5
Ne5 13 0-0 (13 Bf4 d6 14 a4 b4 =) 13...
Qb7 14 Qxb7 Bxb7 15 Re1 Kf6 16 Bf4
(16 f4 Nf7 17 b3 Kg7 18 Bb2 Bc5) 16...
Nf7 17 Rad1 Kg7 18 Ne6+ dxe6 19 dxe6
= g5 20 exf7 gxf4 21 fxg8Q+ Rxg8 22
Rxd4 Kh8 23 Re8 Rxg2+ 24 Kf1 Rg8 =)
11 Bf4 Qxf4 (11...d6?? 12 Qxf8+; 11...
Qb6?? 12 Bd6+) 12 Qxb7 cxd4 (12...
Qxg5? 13 d5! is good for White: 13...
Qxg2 14 0-0-0 Nd8 15 Qxa6 b4 16 dxe6
Nxe6 17 Qd6+ Kf7 18 Qxd7+ Ne7 19
Nd5 Nd4 20 Kb1 h5 (20...Qxe4? 21 Rhe1
+) 21 Nxb4 +=) 13 Nh3! (after 13
Nxe6?! Kxe6 14 Ne2 Qxe4 (14...Qe5 =+; 14...Bb4+) 15 0-0-0 Kf7 16 Qxd7+ Nge7
17 Rhe1 Bh6+ 18 Kb1 Rd8 19 Qh3 Kg7 20 Nc3 Qf4 21 Ne4 Rd5 Whites
compensation remains dubious) 13...Qg4
14 Nd5+ exd5 15 0-0 dxe4 16 f3!; for
example:
(a) 16...Qh4 17 fxe4 Bh6 18 Qc8 Kd6 19
e5+ Nxe5 20 Qb8+ (or 20 c3 unclear) 20...
Kd5 21 Qb7+ Nc6 22 Qxd7+ Kc5 23 b4+
Kb6 (23...Nxb4 24 Rae1 Be3+ 25 Rxe3
dxe3 26 Qc7+ Nc6 27 Nf4) 24 a4 bxa4 25
Rxa4 Nge7 26 Rfa1 Nb8 27 Rxa6+ Nxa6
28 Qd6+ Nc6 29 Rxa6+ with perpetual
check.
(b) 16Qf5 17 fxe4 Qc5
(17...Qe5 18 Nf4 Nf6 19 Nd5+ Nxd5 20
exd5 Qxd5 21 Rae1+ Kd6 22 c4 bxc4 23
Rf6+ Kc5 24 b4+) 18 Rxf8 Kxf8 19 Rf1+
(19 Qxd7 Nge7 20 Nf4 d3+ 21 Kh1 Qf2
22 Qxd3 Qxf4 23 Rf1 Qxf1+ 24 Qxf1+
Kg7 =) 19...Kg7 (19...Ke7 20 Qc8 d3+ 21
Kh1 Kd6 22 Qf8+ Nge7 23 Qxh8 dxc2 24
Qc3 =) 20 Qxd7+ Nge7 21 Nf4 d3+ (21...
Qxc2 22 Qg4 Re8 23 Nh5+ Kh8 24 Qh4
Ng8 25 Nf6 Re7 26 Nxg8 Kxg8 27 Qf6
h5 28 Qxg6+ =) 22 Kh1 Qe5 (22...Qe3 23
cxd3 h5 24 Ne6+ Kh6 25 Qd6 h4 26 g3 =)
23 Ne6+ Kh6 24 cxd3 (24 Rf3 g5):
With precise play Black seems to secure a
draw: 24...Rg8 (24...g5 25 d4 Qxe4 26 d5;
24...a5 25 Rf3 g5 26 d4; 24...Qh5 25 h3)
25 g4 g5 26 b4 Ra8 27 Kg1 Rg8 28 Kh1
Ra8 29 Kg1 Rg8 30 Kh1 Ra8 31 Kg1 =.
10 a4!
Neither 10 e5? Be7 + 11 d4 Bd8 12 d5
Bb7 nor 10 d3 Nf6 /+ (10...h6 11 Bf4
Qxf4 12 Nxe6+!) 11 e5 Nxe5 12 Bf4 Bb7
13 Qa7 Bd6 14 Nge4 Ra8 15 Bxe5 Rxa7
16 Nxd6 Kg8 17 f4 Ng4 + is playable for
White.
10...Nf6!
Black has to avoid the time-wasting 10...b4 11 Nb5 axb5 (11...Qb7 12 Qxb7
Bxb7 13 d3) 12 axb5 Nd4 13 b6 Qxb6 14 Qxc8 Nxc2+ 15 Kd1 Nxa1 16 b3 Nxb3
17 Qxd7+ Be7 18 Bb2+ Nd4 19 Nxe6+ Kf7 20 Nxd4 Nf6 21 Qc6 Rb8 22 Nf3
Qxc6 23 Ne5+ Ke6 24 Nxc6 Ra8 25 Kc2 c4 26 Nxe7 Kxe7 27 Rc1 +/.
11 Nxb5
11 axb5? Bb7 12 Qxb7 Qxb7 13 bxc6
Qxc6 14 d3 c4 15 Nf3 cxd3 16 cxd3 =+.
11...axb5 12 axb5 Bb7
12...Nb4?? 13 Nxe6+ dxe6 14 Ra7+; 12...
Nd4 13 Qa4 (unclear) 13Qf4 14 d3 Qg4
15 0-0 Ne2+ 16 Kh1 Nxc1 17 Nh3 Ne2 18
e5 Qxa4 19 exf6+ Kxf6 20 Rxa4 +=.
13 Qa4 Nb4 14 d3 h6 15 Nf3 Be7 16
Qb3 c4 17 Qc3 Rc8 18 Qd2 g5 19 0-0
The position is unclear. Although Black

objectively does not have to fear 4 Bxf7+,
it seems wiser to play something else on
move three. White has an astonishing
arsenal of possibilities to free his queen
from incarceration.
Sources:
[1] D. Bronstein: Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, New York 1979
[2] R. Toran: David Bronstein. Schpfergeist der neuesten Schachrichtung,
Amsterdam 1962
[3] H. Grob: Internationales Schachturnier Zrich 1961
[4] S. Bcker: Geschlossener Sizilianer Teil 1, Nordwalde 1983
[5] S. Bcker: Closed Sicilian, in New in Chess Magazine 7/1985, pp. 52-56
[6] G. Lane: Winning with the Closed Sicilian, London 1992
[7] V. Ravikumar: The Closed Sicilian, Brighton 1993
[8] J. Gallagher: Beating the Anti-Sicilians, London 1994
[9] D. King: The Closed Sicilian, London 1997
[10] D. Rogozenko: Anti-Sicilians. A Guide for Black, London 2003
[11] R. Palliser: Starting out: Closed Sicilian, London 2006

2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Comeback of the ...e5 Sicilians

The old Lwenthal Variation presently seems to have made a comeback, and even
the Haberditz Variation was covered in a short article by Reinderman [7]. These
Sicilian lines could be useful alternatives to the fashionable Sveshnikov Variation,
which can arise via the same move order; so lets have a look at some of the critical
positions:
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
The Lwenthal (5a6) and Haberditz

line (5Nf6 6 N1c3 h6!?) both invite Nd6
+, which leads to an exchange of Blacks
Bf8 against the knight. Even the queens
are often exchanged, either on f6 or e7.
The Sveshnikov Variation 5Nf6 6 N1c3
d6 with its deeply analyzed theory is more
popular, but this doesnt necessarily mean
that the alternatives are worse. When you
play the Sveshnikov, you are trying to win
with Black, and the complexity of the
position is an essential part of your
attempt. This isnt the place to study main
lines of the Sveshnikov, but the first part
of the column presents a good weapon for White if only to get a comparison for
what comes later.
1. The Sveshnikov Variation
In most books the Sveshnikov Variation begins as followings:
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6
However, Sveshnikov players often prefer different move orders; e.g., 5e6 6
Ndb5 d6 7 Bf4 e5 8 Bg5, which excludes the following possibility of 7 Nd5. I
never feared variations of the type 7 Nd5 or 7 a4, writes Evgeny Sveshnikov in his
book [4]. But many repertoire considerations influence your plans in a game.
Sveshnikov varied his move order himself; for example, by playing 2e6, because
he simply did not always fancy countering 3 Bb5 [4]. In the older work Sicilian:
Lasker-Pelikan [2] (1978) you can find a brief discussion of the move order 5e6,
but this is an exception.
7 Nd5 Nxd5 8 exd5 Nb8
According to theory, 8Ne7 9 c3 is less precise and gives White a slight plus.
9 Qf3!?
The highly original manoeuvre Qf3-a3,
combined with Bd2-b4, was introduced in
1986 by Lazar Markovic. It gained some
popularity after an article by Jeroen Bosch
in New in Chess 5/2003. An edited version
of his article later appeared in the first
volume of the SOS series [6]. The
following sequence may be critical, it
stems from my longer article in [12].
9a6 10 Qa3 Be7 11 Bg5
It is important to force the opponent to
play f7-f6. The immediate 11 Bd2? 0-0 12
Bb4 axb5! 13 Qxa8 Na6 14 Bd2 from the stem game Markovic Joksic, Bela
Crkva 1986 (Open), could have backfired after 14...Bg5! /+.
11f6 12 Bd2 0-0 13 Bb4 Qd7 14 Bd3
My proposal, instead of 14 c4 b6 15 Nc3 f5 16 Be2 Bb7 17 Qb3 Qc7 18 0-0 Nd7,
Solleveld Alekseev, Santo Domingo 2003, and Blacks chances are by no means
worse, Rogozenko in his excellent book [8].
14b6 15 0-0 e4
Perhaps this is too risky. After 15f5 16 c4 g6 17 Bd2 Bb7 18 Nc3 Qc7 19 f3 Nd7
20 Be3, Whites position seems slightly preferable.
16 Be2 Bb7 17 Nd4 Bxd5 18 Rfd1
18a5
18Bf7!? 19 h3 g6 20 f3 is unclear.
19 Bd2 Bf7 20 Bb5 d5 21 Qg3 +=.
Whites pawn sacrifice offers him good
chances.
2. The Lwenthal Variation
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5
Nb5 a6 6 Nd6+ Bxd6 7 Qxd6 Qf6
8 Qxf6
Recommended by Alexander Khalifman
in his new book [11].
(a) 8 Qa3 Nge7 9 Nc3 Rb8 10. Nd5 Nxd5
11 exd5 Ne7 12 Be3 b5 = doesnt offer

White much, more analyses in [1].
(b) More complicated is 8 Qc7 Qe7!?
(instead of the usual, but dubious 8
Nge7) 9 Nc3 Nb4 10 Kd1 Nf6 11 Bg5
Nc6 12 f4 d6 13 Qxe7+ Nxe7 14 Ke1 b5
15 Rd1 b4 16 fxe5 dxe5 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Na4 f5 19 Bd3 fxe4 20 Bxe4 Ra7 and
Black has almost equalized.
(c) 8 Qd2 Nge7 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Bd3 Nb4 11 0-0 d6 12 a3 (12 Be2!? Nbc6 13 Qg5)
12Nxd3 13 Qxd3 Qg6 14 f4 f5 15 fxe5, drawn in M. Schfer Bcker, Oberliga
North Rhine and Westphalia 2007.
(d) Youll find a thorough discussion of the traditional alternative 8 Qd1 in
Dangerous Weapons: The Sicilian [9]. Pallisers analysis runs 8Qg6 9 Nc3 d5
(the famous Graz Variation; in Kaissiber No. 1 Rudolf Palme reported that he
found the move in 1960) 10 Nxd5 Qxe4+ 11 Be3 Nd4 12 Nc7+ Ke7 13 Rc1 Bg4
14 Qd3 Qxd3 15 Bxd3 Rd8 (so far already in [3]) 16 h3 Bh5 17 f4
17Kd6! (according to Palliser [9], even
17exf4 may be better than the old move
17f6, but the kings move seems best)
18 Nxa6 bxa6 19 g4 Bg6 20 f5 Bxf5 21
gxf5 Ne7 22 Rd1. So far analysis by
Palliser [9], but instead of his 22Nd5,
Black has a stronger continuation in 22
Kc7 23 0-0 Rd6 24 Bxd4 exd4 25 Rf4
Nc6 =, intending 26 Bxa6 Rb8!.
8Nxf6 9 Nc3 Nb4 10 Kd2 d6 11 a3
Nc6 12 Ke1 Be6
Palliser [9] prefers 12h6!? since 12Be6 13 Bg5! was a little awkward in S.
Smetankin G. Kochetkov, Minsk 2000, and White retained an edge after 13
Rc8 14 Rd1 Nd4 15 Bd3 0-0 16 f3 Rfe8 17 Kd2! Nd7 18 Be3.
13 f3
Against 13 Bg5 (! [9]) Black can simply
play 13h6; for example, 14 Bxf6 gxf6
15 Bd3 Rg8 16 g3 0-0-0 with possibilities
like Nd4 and f5, about =.
Khalifman [11] believes that this move
(13 f3) is more flexible than 13 Be3. The
point is that Black can free his position
with the move d6-d5 either immediately,
or after the preliminary Nc6-e7. In the
latter case, White might not need at all to
occupy the e3-square with his bishop.
From the diagram Khalifmans analysis continues: 13d5 14 exd5 Nxd5 15 Nxd5
Bxd5 16 Be3 0-0-0 17 Kf2 Be6 18 Bd3 Nd4 19 Rhe1 Rhe8 (Korneev Tomczak,
Tegel 2006) 20 Rad1 h6 21 Be4 += [11].
Black could have prepared the advance: 130-0-0 14 Kf2 d5 15 exd5 Nxd5 16
Nxd5 Rxd5 17 Be3 Rhd8 18 Bd3 g6. Even more convincing seems:
13Rc8! 14 Be3 Na5 15 Rd1 Bc4
Black enjoys clear plans like Bxf1,
followed by Nc4, or perhaps 16 Bd3 Ke7,
followed by doubling his rooks on the cfile. It is difficult to develop a promising
plan for White.
Hans Haberditz
Source: Neues Wiener Tagblatt,
January 19, 1941.
3. The Haberditz Variation

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 Nf6 6 N1c3 h6!?
An original idea by the Austrian
theoretician Hans Haberditz. Why
should Black spend the move a7-a6 to
chase the knight to a square where it
wants to go anyway? Of course the value
of the move h7-h6 can be disputed, but in
several lines it is in fact useful. The rarely
mentioned line had its recent reappearance
in two new books. In both cases the final
verdict is negative, but when I have to
take sides, I always bet on Hans
Haberditz.
7 Nd6+ Bxd6 8 Qxd6 Qe7 9 Qxe7+
The critical line according to both Reinderman [7] and Khalifman [11].
White can also try 9 Nb5:
(a) 9Qxd6 (or 9Nb4) 10 Nxd6+ Ke7 11 Nf5+ Kd8! (instead of Kf8) deserves
attention: 12 Be3 Kc7 13 0-0-0 d5 +=.
(b) 9Rb8! and now:
(b1) 10 b3 Nxe4 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 Ba3+ d6 13 f3 a6 14 fxe4 axb5 15 Bxb5 Ra8 =
(=, 49) Saastamoinen Salonen, Tampere 1998 [7].
(b2) 10 Be3 Nxe4 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 f3 a6 13 fxe4 axb5 14 Bxb5 d6 15 0-0 Be6,
and Black seems to hold: 16 Rf2 Rhc8 17 a4 Ra8 18 Rd1 Nb4! 19 c3 Na6 =.
9Kxe7 10 Be3 d6 11 f3 Be6 12 0-0-0
Khalifman: Whites plan remains practically the same irrelevant of Blacks
response he starts a pawn-offensive on the kingside.
12Rhc8
Both sources give 12Rhd8, then they
recommend different moves for White:
(a) White obtains an advantage with 13
Kb1 followed by 14 Nd5+. Alas, I dont
see a good way to avoid this as Black,
Reinderman [7]. Id suggest the reply 13
Kf8 (the immediate 13d5? 14 Bc5+ Ke8
15 Nb5 is wrong); for example, 14 Nd5
Bxd5 15 exd5 Ne7 16 c4 Nf5, or 14 b3
Ne7 15 Bd3 d5 =.
(b) 13 h4 d5 14 Bc5+ Ke8 15 Nb5 b6 16
Nc7+ Kd7 17 Nxd5 and White remains with an extra pawn, Khalifman [11].
Obviously 13...d5? was premature. After the correct 13Kf8! 14 b3 b6 (d5) 15
Kb2 Ne7, White keeps a small advantage: 16 Bf2 (16 Nb5 d5 17 Nc7 dxe4 18 Bc4
Bxc4 19 Nxa8 Rxa8 20 bxc4 exf3 21 gxf3 Nf5 22 Bd2 Rc8 23 Bb4+ Ke8 24 Rhe1
Nd7 25 Re4 g6, about =) 16d5 17 Bb5 dxe4 18 Nxe4 Nxe4 19 fxe4 Bg4 20 Rxd8
+ Rxd8 21 Rf1 +=.
13 g4
(a) 13 Kb1 Na5 14 Bf2 (14 Nb5 b6! 15 b3 d5) 14a6 15 Na4 Nd7 16 b3 b5 17
Nb6 Nxb6 18 Bxb6 Nb7, and Black has a solid position.
(b) 13 Bf2! might be an improvement: 13a6 (13Nb4 14 Kb1!, now Black
cannot play d5) 14 b3 Nb8 15 Kb2 Nbd7 +=.
13Nb4
13Na5 comes into consideration.

14 a3 Na2+ 15 Nxa2 Bxa2 16 h4
+/ Gaprindashvili Dzindzichashvili,
Gori 1968, writes Khalifman [11]. This
game was short enough to be quoted in
full: 16Bc4 17 g5 hxg5 18 hxg5 Ne8,
drawn. It is true that the final position is
better for White (19 Bg2 Nc7 20 b3 Ba6
21 f4), but instead of his unfortunate
sixteenth move, Dzindzichashvili could
have played the prophylactic 16Nd7! 17
Rh2 Rc6 18 g5 (or 18 h5 f6) 18h5, and
here Black has a sound position, rather =
than +=.
The superiority of the Sveshnikov does
not rest alone on the theoretical symbols +=, =, =+ (in which respect it may even be
worse!), but on the complex situations that allow Black to play for a win.
Nevertheless, I find the sharp contrast in popularity astonishing. Against the
Sveshnikov (25,000 games in the database), White scores fifty-three percent, the
same result as against the Haberditz (173 games). His sixty percent against the
Lwenthal (2,400 games) can be misleading if Black knows his theory, he should
get his fair share of the points, at least as many as in the Haberditz.
Sources:
[1] T. Harding, P. Markland: Sicilian: e5, London 1976
[2] R. Wade, J. Speelman, N. Povah, L. Blackstock: Sicilian: Lasker-Pelikan,
London 1978
[3] G. Welling, R. Olthof: A New Idea in an Old Variation, in: The Myers
Openings Bulletin, No. 11 (1980)
[4] E. Sveshnikov: The Sicilian Pelikan, London 1989
[5] M. Gurevich e. a.: Sveshnikov and Sicilian with 4...e5, Brussels 1995
[6] J. Bosch: A Tactical Weapon, in: Secrets of Opening Surprises, vol. 1,
Alkmaar 2004
[7] D. Reinderman: The Haberditz Variation, in: Secrets of Opening Surprises,
vol. 2, Alkmaar 2004
[8] D. Rogozenko: The Sveshnikov Reloaded, Gothenburg 2005
[9] J. Emms, R. Palliser: Vallejos Viable Lwenthal, in: Dangerous Weapons:
The Sicilian, London 2006
[10] R. Palliser: Has Vallejo Rehabilitated the De La Bourdonnais?, in: NIC
Yearbook 82 (2007)
[11] A. Khalifman: Opening for White According to Anand 1. e4, vol. 9, Sofia 2007
[12] S. Bcker: Der strkste Zug, in: Kaissiber 28 (2007)
Corrections
Building a Fortress (April 2007): 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5 Against
Spohns proposal 5 Nd2 the article had recommended 5f5 6 Nh3 e6 7 Nf4 Kf7 8
0-0 c5 9 g4 Nxd2 10 Bxd2 c4 11 Be2 g5 12 Nh5 f4
wrote: Closing the door of the fortress. Calling Blacks position sound comes
close to a sacrilege. But what can his opponent do? A convincing answer came
from Walter Braun from Austria. He plays 13 c3 Nc6 14 h4 h6 15 Qc2, adding
that Whites plan of Kg2, Rh1, hxg5 and Bxf4! should lead to an almost forced win
for White. He seems to be absolutely right. Before opening the h-file, White can
even prepare the final blow, by means of Rh1-h3 and Ra1-h1. Black can hardly
survive. With hindsight, Id now prefer 5Ng5 (instead of 5f5) 6 Ngf3 Nxf3+ 7
Qxf3 (Nxf3) g6, although White must have an advantage.
Dont Name the Gambit after Me (May 2007): In the section Food for Thought
I, following the second diagram, a move was missing. Instead of improves upon
the usual 12 a4, the text should read improves upon the usual 11Qc7 12 a4.
Thanks to Pierre F. from Canada for pointing this out.

Seven Ways to Refute the Traxler

The counter attack 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5!? goes back to the
nineteenth century (Reinisch Traxler, Prague 1890), but for decades many
theoreticians ignored the idea, with Reuben Fine ([1], [2]) being a rare exception.
Frank Marshall, wrongly believing that he was the first to analyze 4Bc5, later
named it Wilkes-Barre Variation, after a town in Pennsylvania. In the early
1950s, Paul Keres published an excellent analysis and credited the move with an
exclamation mark. From that moment the Traxler Gambit gained deserved attention
and also found more supporters: Rohlicek, Pachman, Brinckmann, Estrin and many
others helped to develop its theory.
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
In the last decades White used to play 5

Bxf7+ Ke7, followed by either 6 Bd5 or 6
Bb3. White may have a slight advantage,
but Black keeps substantial compensation
for his sacrificed pawn. Lev Gutman
concentrated on 6 Bd5 [4], published in
1996, which he analyzed on dozens of
pages. At that time the theoreticians still
preferred 5 Bxf7+ over the alternatives.
Only four years later Christophe and Moll
claimed in [5] that the real refutation of
the Traxler was 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kxf2
Nxe4+ 7 Ke3!, a courageous winning
attempt that had been underestimated by
theory. In the same year, Dan Heismans CD [7] appeared with plenty of
interesting computer analyses on the Traxler. And then Maarten De Zeeuw
presented six new refutations of the Traxler in a series of provoking articles [10].
According to him, the strongest line begins with 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1.
Karel Traxler (1866-1936)

Source: Ceskoslovensky Sach 1936
The new winning attempts brought a fresh breeze to this opening. Adherents of the
gambit have already found valuable improvements for Black [6], [12], but some
questions remain. Let us see whether one of the seven propagated lines is a real
refutation. The following lines all start from the diagram above.
Refutation 1
5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7 Ke3!?
The alternative 7 Kg1 is known to lead to
a draw.
7Qh4
But not 7Qe7? 8 Nxh8 d5 (8Qg5+ is
also hopeless) 9 Qh5+ (! Cramer) g6 10
Nxg6 Qc5+ 11 Ke2 Nf6 12 Qg5 Ne4 13
Qe3 [7] +/.
8 g3 Nxg3 9 hxg3 Qd4+ 10 Kf3 d5 11
Rh4 e4 12 Kg2 0-0
Here Christophe/Moll detected the novelty
13 Nc3! dxc4 14 Qh5 [5], but their
claimed refutation of the Traxler met the
strong reply 14Ne7! = (Bennedik [6]);
for example, 15 b3 Rxf7 16 Qxh7+ Kf8
17 Nxe4 Ke8 18 c3 Qe5 =. However, the
position is interesting enough to look at
some other possibilities.
13 Bb3
Against 13 Rf4 dxc4 14 Qf1 (Oleksenko

Malktsirtis, 1984), Gregor Cramer nicely
saved Black by means of 14Be6! 15
Ng5 Bd5! 16 Nc3 e3+ [3].
13Rxf7 14 Qg1
Heisman [7] doesnt mention 14 Rf4!?, when Black has to play precisely: 14
Rxf4 15 gxf4 Be6 16 d3 Rf8 17 c3 (17 Qg1 Qf6 18 Nc3 exd3 19 Qe3?! dxc2 20
Nxd5 Qg6+, followed by Bf7 =+) 17Qf6! 18 dxe4 Qg6+ 19 Kf2 Qh6 20 Bxd5
Qh2+ 21 Kf1 Qh1+ 22 Ke2 Qg2+ 23 Kd3 Bxd5 =.
14Qe5 15 d3
(a) 15 Nc3 (Heyken/Fette) 15g5! 16 Rh6 Qf5 = [5]. More promising seems 16 d4
Nxd4 17 Rh5, but this doesnt change the assessment: 17h6! 18 Bxd5 Bg4 19
Bxf7+ Kxf7 20 Qf2+ Kg6! (20Kg7? 21 Bf4 +) 21 Rh2 Kg7, threatening Rf8,
with equal chances.
(b) The books forget to mention 15 d4!? Nxd4 16 Bxf4 Rxf4! 17 gxf4 (or 17 Rxf4
g5 18 Rf1 e3) 17Qf6 18 Bxd5+ Be6 19 Bxe6+ (19 Nc3 Qxh4) 19Nxe6 20 Rh2
Nxf4+ 21 Kh1 e3 22 Qxe3 Qc6+ 23 Kg1 Qg6+ 24 Kf1 Rf8 25 Rf2 Qh6 26 Qf3 Re8
Hoping for 27 Nc3? Re3!! +. After 27

Rd2 Rf8, the result is a draw.
15g5! 16 Rh5 h6 17 Rxh6 Bg4
Thanks to his superior development,

Black has nothing to fear; e.g., 18 Rg6+
Rg7 19 Rxg7+ Kxg7 20 Qe3 Bf3+ 21.
Kf2 Kg6 22 dxe4 dxe4 23 Nd2 Rf8 =.
Refutations 2-5
5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7 Nxh8 d5
In NIC Yearbook 68, Maarten De Zeeuw
gives a summary of his series on the
Traxler Gambit. He lists six refutations;
four of these begin with the moves above. He attributes both 5 Nxf7 and 6 Kf1 with
exclamation marks, thus downgrading his other refutations (6 and 7, below).
8 exd5
Another asserted refutation by De Zeeuw is 8 d3, giving White the exchange for a
pawn [10]. But in [12] Pietro Pastore showed that both 8Bg4 9 Qd2 Bh4 and
8dxc4 9 Kxf2 Bg4 10 Qe1 cxd3 11 h3 dxc2 (11Be2 Montcaubeig [12] is also
strong) 12 hxg4 cxb1Q 13 Rxb1 (so far De Zeeuw, [10]) 130-0-0! are good for
Black.
8Nxd4
9 d6!
Seems best. Other so-called refutations by
De Zeeuw:
(a) 9 h3 Bh4 (or 9Bg3 10 a4 [!! 10] Qc5
11 b3 Nxb3 12 Bb5+ c6 Moncaubeig [12]
13 d4 unclear; 10Ne4!? Pastore [12],
about =) 10 d6 cxd6 (10Qxd6 11 Nf7
Qc5 12 Na3 + De Zeeuw [12],
overlooking the attractive response 12
e4 =; e.g., 13 g3 Qf5+ 14 Kg2 e3! 15 dxe3
Bxg3 Moncaubeig, as pointed out in [12])
11 g3 + De Zeeuw [10].
Here Black has many choices, believes
Pietro Pastore and analyzes one line in
detail: 11b5 12 Bxb5+ Nxb5 13 gxh4
Ne4 14 Qe1 Qf6+ 15 Kg1 Bb7 16 Nc3
Ng5! 17 Qf2 Nf3+ 18 Kf1 0-0-0 19 d3
Nxc3 20 bxc3 Rf8 21 Be3 (so far Pastore
[12]) 21Qe6 /+.
(b) 9 Be2 Bh4 10 c3 Nxe2 11 Qxe2 Bg4
12 Qb5+ Nd7 13 Kg1 and White ends up
an exchange to the good, De Zeeuw [10];
130-0-0 (or 13Qf6 14 Qf1 Qb6+ 15
d4 0-0-0 16 g3 Rf8) 14 h3 (so far De
Zeeuw [10]) 14Bh5 15 d3 Rf8 16 Qb4
Qf6 17 Be3 Bg3 18 Nd2 (18 Na3 Be2! Pastore) 18Bf2+, with advantage for
Black.
9Qxd6
9cxd6 10 Kxf2! (Bennedik [6]) 10d5 (Bruno Montcaubeig tries to rescue 10
Bg4 11 Qf1 0-0-0 12 Nf7 d5 13 Nc3 Rf8 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15 Bxd5 [10] by means of
15Rxf7! = [12], but 13 Kg1! Rf8 14 c3 Nc2 15 Na3 Nxa1 16 Bxd5 Nxd5 17 Qc4
+ +/ looks more critical). For example:
(a) 11 Be2 Ne4+ 12 Kg1 Qc5 13 Kf1 +
De Zeeuw [10], but 13Qf8+ 14 Bf3 Bg4
15 d3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 Bxf3 17 Qe1 Bxh1+
18 Kg1 (Pastore [12]) is better for Black.
(b) 11 c3!? Ng4+ 12 Ke1 Qf6 13 Rf1 Qh4

+ 14 g3 Qxh2 15 Bb5+ Ke7 16 Rf7+ Kd6
17 cxd4 Qxg3+ 18 Ke2 Nf6 19 Bd7 Bxd7
20 Rxd7+ Nxd7 21 Nf7+ Ke7! = Pastore
[12].
(c) 11 h3 dxc4 12 d3 deserves attention; e.
g., 12cxd3 13 cxd3 Be6 14 Be3 +=.
10 Nf7
Another variation leading to + by De Zeeuw was 10 Be2, but Da Costa Junior
[12] suggests 10Bh4 11 Nc3 Qf8 12 Kg1 Bf2+ 13 Kf1 Bh4 =, with a draw by
repetition.
10Qc5 11 d3 Bh4
Gambit Play
Heismans main line, which De Zeeuw mentions only in passing. The line is
extremely complicated, and Heisman believes that Black gets sufficient chances. 6
Kf1 may be strong, but until now the solution has not been demonstrated. The
following line is just an example.
12 b4 Qe7 13 Nd2
A new idea, not mentioned by Heisman [7].
13Bg4 14 Nf3 Bxf3 15 gxf3 b5 16 c3 bxc4 17 Ng5 Nb5 18 dxc4 Nxc3 19 Qd3
Or 19 Qb3 h6 20 Qxc3 hxg5 21 Kg2 0-0-0 22 Rf1 Qe6 23 Qc2 e4!.
19h6 20 Nh3
20Qe6! 21 Nf2 (21 Kg2 Nfe4!) 21

Bxf2 22 Kxf2 Qh3 23 Qg6+ (23 Qxc3?
Ne4+) Kf8 24 Bd2 e4 25 Qg2 (25 Qg3 e3
+) 25e3+ 26 Bxe3 Qh4+ 27 Kg1 Qxc4
+=.
Refutation 6
5 Bxf7+ Ke7 6 Bb3
There is enough theory on this line to fill a
book. Here Ill only look at a single
variation recommended by De Zeeuw.
6Rf8 7 d3 d6 8 Be3 Qe8 9 Bxc5 dxc5 10 Nc3
Maarten De Zeeuw continues with 10

Nd4 11 f4! +/. Instead, Id suggest 10
Qg6; for example, 11 Nf3 Bg4 12 Ba4
Bh5 13 Rg1 (13 Bxc6? Qxg2 14 Rg1 Qxg1
+) 13Bxf3 14 Qxf3 Nd4 15 Qg3 Qxg3
16 hxg3 c6 =.
Refutation 7
5 d4!
If there is a refutation of the Traxler, it

may well start with 5 d4. Reuben Fine
recommended the move, as some sources
state correctly, but in 1939 he criticized it!
In [1] his idea only appeared as a
sideline (to 5 Bxf7+): If 5 d4? d5!! 6
exd5 Nxd4 7 d6 0-0 =+. Nine years later
[2] he recognized that 6 Bxd5 was an
improvement, and so 5 d4! became his
main line. Not many authors have
followed him, but De Zeeuw [10]
considers the move at least as good as 5
Bxf7+.
5d5! 6 Bxd5 Nxd4 7 Bxf7+ Ke7
7Kf8 is new, but interesting. In some lines Black profits from the position of his
king:
(a) 8 c3 (since Qd8 is now unprotected), but after 8h6 9 cxd4 hxg5 10 dxc5 Qxd1
+ 11 Kxd1 Kxf7 12 Nc3 g4, Black has no problems. Or 8 Bb3 Qe8 9 Qd3 Bg4 10
Qc4 b6 =.
(b) 8 Bc4 b5
(b1) 9 Bd3 (9 Bxb5 Bg4 10 f3 Nxb5 11 fxg4 Qxd1+ 12 Kxd1 Ke7 =) 9Bg4 10 f3
(10 Nf3 Bxf3 11 gxf3 Nh5 =) 10Bc8 11 c3 h6 12 cxd4 Qxd4 13 Qc2 hxg5 14
Bxg5 c6
15 Nc3 (15 Nd2 Qf2+ 16 Kd1 Be6 17
Nb3 Rxh2! 18 Qxf2 Rxh1+ 19 Ke2 Bxf2
20 Rxh1 Bb6 =) 15Rh5 16 h4 (perhaps
16 Bxf6 Qe3+ 17 Qe2 gxf6, but here
Whites extra pawn isnt too important)
16Nh7! (with the king on e7 this knight
would be pinned) 17 0-0-0 Nxg5 18 hxg5
Rxh1 19 Rxh1 Qe3+ 20 Kb1 Be6, and the
position is about equal.
(b2) 9 Be2! h6 10 Nf3 Nxe4 11 0-0 Bf5
(or 11Bb7 12 Nbd2) 12 Nxd4 (12
Nbd2? Nxf2!; the text move is also
stronger than 12 Be3 Qf6 13 c3 Rd8!
unclear, or 13 Bd3 Rd8 14 Nbd2 Nxd2 15 Nxd2 Bb6, almost =) 12Qxd4 13 Qe1
Rd8 14 Nc3 (14 c3 Qd6 15 Bxb5 Qg6) 14Nxc3 15 bxc3 Qa4 16 Rb1! +/,
intending 16a6 17 Bxb5! axb5 18 Qxe5, with a double attack on the black
bishops.
8 Bc4 b5
9 Bd3
De Zeeuw favors 9 Be2 (!, with a sound
extra pawn, De Zeeuw). However, his
observation that the f3 square is in
greater need of overprotection than the e4
pawn is quite strange. 9h6 10 Nf3
Nxe4 11 Be3!. Heisman [7] now gives
11Qd5 12 Bxd4, which is repeated by
De Zeeuw [10]. But Black should choose
11Bb7!? 12 Nxe5 (12 0-0 Nxf3+ 13
Bxf3 Qxd1) 12Qd6
13 Nf3 (or 13 Nd3 Bb6 14 Nd2 Rad8 15 Nxe4 Bxe4 16 0-0 Rhe8, Black has
compensation) 13Nxe2+ (or 13Nxf3+ 14 gxf3 Ng5 15 Qxd6+ Bxd6 16 Nd2

a6 17 h4 Ne6 18 0-0-0 Rhf8 19 Rhe1 Rad8 +=. Whites extra pawn is doubled) 14
Qxe2 Rhe8 15 0-0 Kf7 with compensation; for example, 16 a4 b4 17 Nbd2 Nxd2
18 Nxd2 Qd5 19 Nf3 Kg8 20 Rad1 Qf7.
9h6
(a) 9Qe8 10 h3 Qg6 11 0-0 Rd8 12 Kh2, Black is in trouble.
(b) 9Bg4 10 f3 Bc8 11 c3 h6 12 cxd4 Qxd4 13 Qc2 hxg5 14 Bxg5 +/ pins the
knight, an important difference to the same variation with 7Kf8.
(c) Unfortunately, 9Rf8 10 c3 Ng4 11 Rf1 Nxf2 does not work, because of 12
Rxf2 Rxf2 13 Kxf2 Nc2+ 14 Kf1! Nxa1 15 Ne6! +/.
10 Nf3! Ng4
The main alternative is 10Bg4 11 Nbd2 Qd6 (Plkvi [8]; 11Qe8 12 h3? Qh5
13 0-0 Rad8!, but 12 Nb3! Nxb3 13 axb3 Qh5 14 Be3 etc.) 12 0-0 [10]
White can liberate himself by 12 0-0
intending 13 Nxd4, De Zeeuw [10] in
2002. In the meantime Jan Pinski [11] has
continued the discussion: 12Rhf8 13
Nxd4 Bxd4 14 Be2 Bd7 15 Nf3 Bc5 16
Qxd6+ cxd6! Black has good
compensation because of the c-file and a
lead in development, Pinski [11]. This is
optimistic. White should play 14 Qe1! c6
15 h3 Bh5 16 Nb3 Bb6 17 Be3 +/.
11 Be3! +=.
Heismans [7] main line is 11 Rf1, but De Zeeuw [10] is right to prefer the direct
development of the bishop. White has an advantage. When De Zeeuw compares 5
Bxf7+ and 5 d4, he writes: Both moves yield White an extra pawn and leave
Blacks king stranded in the centre (e7), but 5 d4 also results in an open d-file.
The last observation may seem a bit far-fetched at first, as long as Black holds the
initiative. However, the situation may quickly change; for example, 11Rf8 [7] 12
Bxd4! Bxd4 13 0-0 Bxb2 14 Nbd2, and with every exchange Blacks king loses
some shelter.
None of the seven lines proposed in [5] and [10] comes close to being a theoretical
refutation. But those who want to practice Traxlers Counterattack with success
have to do some homework concerning 5 d4!.
Sources:
[1] R. Fine (editor): Modern Chess Openings, sixth ed. 1939
[2] R. Fine: Practical Chess Openings, New York 1948
[3] G. Cramer: Traxler-Gegenangriff, Fritz-Variante, Ulvestad-Variante. Hollfeld
1993
[4] L. Gutman: (analysis in:) Schach-Archiv, Hamburg 1996
[5] N. Christophe, A. Moll: Finally Refuted!, in New in Chess Yearbook 55
(2000)
[6] M. Bennedik: Really a Refutation?, readers letter in New in Chess Yearbook
56 (2000)
[7] D. Heisman: The Traxler Counterattack CD-Rom, Wylie 2000
[8] J. Plkvi: Two Knights Defence and Traxler Counter-Gambit, Kecskemt
2001
[9] T. Harding: Turmoil in the Traxler Two Knights, in: Chess Mail 1 and
2/2001.
[10] M. De Zeeuw: Another Look at the Traxler Gambit, in: NiC Yearbook 63,
65, 66, 67, 68 (2002-2003)
[11] J. Pinski: The Two Knights Defence, London 2004
[12] P. Pastore, B. Montcaubeig, L. R. da Costa Junior: Its Hard to Kill the
Traxler Gambit, in NiC Yearbook 70 (2004)
Corrections
Otti Keller from Switzerland sends valuable comments on Dont Name the
Gambit after Me, the article on the Closed Sicilian published in May:
In Bronstein Keres, my remark on Blacks 18th move contains a mistake,
because 18Qe5 loses a queen. The reader is right. The moves that Erich
Eliskases had analyzed on two an a half pages were not 18e5 and 18Qe5!,
but 18e5 and 18Nc6. Only after 18Nc6 19 c3 follows 19Qe5!, according
to Eliskases. My apologies.
Halfway through the article, in the section Food for Thought I, I gave the
following line: 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8
0-0 0-0 9 Be3 b6 10 d4 Ba6 11 Rf2 Qc7 12 a4 Rad8 13 Nb5 Bxb5 14 axb5 Nxd4
15 Nxd4 cxd4 16 Bxd4 e5 17 Be3 exf4 18 Bxf4 Bxb2 19 Ra4! Qd7 20 Qb1 Be5 21
Bh6. Here Mr. Keller writes: My computer finds 21 Bxe5 + (instead of 21 Bh6).
What is the idea behind 21 Bh6?
The sequence 21 Bh6 Rfe8 22 Qf1 seemed logical, to create a weakness (pawn f7).
White then has a slight advantage. But any stronger suggestion is certainly
welcome! The immediate 21 Bxe5 dxe5 is interesting; perhaps White can in fact
find a way to bring his bishop to d5, beginning with 22 Qb3 or 22 Qb2. From d5
the bishop would exert plenty of pressure on Blacks position. But I fail to see a
concrete win; for example, 22 Qb2 Qc7 23 Bf1 Nc8 24 Bc4 Rd4. Perhaps the
solution is beyond the horizon of my computer.

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
Ahead of his Time: Ladislaus Baron Dry

The Dry Defense 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4 is a rare, but underestimated opening. The
latest article on the system in SOS vol. 6 [9] attributes Blacks second knight
move with a ?!, although there isnt a variation neither in [9] nor elsewhere
that proves an advantage for White. Author Mikhalchishin portrays the inventor of
the line, Ladislaus Baron Dry von Jobahza, as a strong amateur from Vienna who
sponsored several chess events.
Over the Horizons
More on the Dry family is available in the January 1915 issue of Wiener
Schachzeitung. It gives a nice win by Nicolaus Baron Dry over Georg Marco.
Marco reports that his opponent founded a private miniature chess club
Nicolaus three sons and three daughters all played the game and also commends
the two oldest sons of the Baron, Andor and Ladislaus (a very talented and
enthusiastic chess friend), for their chess abilities. In 1912, Andor had been
successful in a tournament of the Akademisches Gymnasium, scoring 10 points
out of 11. Only in the tie-break did he lose to Kolisch.
Stefan Bcker
Nicolaus Baron Dry von Jobahza

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung 1915
A webpage of the Dokumentationsarchiv des sterreichischen Widerstandes [10]

has photographs of Ladislaus Dry and affirms that he was executed during the
Second World War: In 1940, pianist and composer Ladislaus Dry von Jobbahaza
[sic] (* 1897) stated in a circle of acquaintances that the economical and cultural
life of Austria were in decline and Hitler only a despot greedy for power.
Denounced by the married-couple Graf Seilern, he was sentenced to death for
sedition and executed (authors translation).
However, the entry on Dry Defence in The Oxford Companion to Chess (page
112 of the 1992 edition) states: ... pioneered by Ladislaus Dry, an Austrian
Baron, in 1923 In 1943 [on October 7, SB] Dry was sentenced to death by the
Nazis for sedition, but was released from prison by Allied troops in 1945.
The contradiction did he survive WWII or not? was solved thanks to the help of
Edward Winter and Peter Anderberg: The magazine Schachspiegel, 1947, page
124, had published a moving small story Der Schachspieler in der Todeszelle.
Here we see Dry alone in the death cell, his hands bound. Nevertheless, he has
found a way to play chess against himself, lying on the floor, with the help of some
soap-constructed pieces. A fellow sufferer is brought in, also a chessplayer. After a
hard-fought game, which ends in a draw, Drys opponent (whose name is given as
Petzold) is executed the next morning. Ladislaus Dry had his hands bound for
125 days. Without abrogation of his sentence of death, Dry was brought to other
prisons (Brandenburg, Straubing). On May 1, 1945 he was released from prison by
American troops.
More evidence that Baron Dry survived the war:
Riedmiller Baron Dry
Bavarian Championship, 1949
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 b6 5 Nge2 Bb7 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 Nxc3 00 8 d5 d6
9 Be2 e5 10 00 Nbd7 11 f4 Qe7 12 f5 e4 13 Nb5 Ne5 14 b3 a6 15 Nc3 c6 16
dxc6 Bxc6 17 Bb2
17d5! 18 Nxd5 Bxd5 19 cxd5 Rfd8 20
Qd4 Rxd5 21 Qxb6 Rd2 22 Bxe5 Qxe5
23 Qc6 Re8 24 Qxa6 Qc5 25 Bc4 Qxe3+
26 Kh1 Ng4 27 b4 Nf2+ 28 Rxf2 Qxf2
29 Bf1 h5 30 h3 Red8 31 Qa4 e3 32 b5
e2 33 Bxe2 Qxe2 34 Rg1 Rd1 35 Rxd1
Rxd1+ 36 Kh2 Qe5+ 37 g3 Qe2 mate
(Source: Schach-Echo 1953, p. 358
found by Peter Anderberg)
The Dry Defence in Practice
Paul Keres Albert Becker
Thematic Tournament, Vienna 1937
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4
In Neue Wiener Schachzeitung 1937, p. 360, Dry mentions a game H. Mller
Dry, Klosterneuburg 1924. Apparently this was the first game with the new move
2Ne4. According to Dry [4], the disadvantage of moving the knight twice is
fully compensated by the greater flexibility regarding pawn moves: Black may
choose various structures to support his knight, involving either f5 or d5, the
development Bb4 or Bb7. It may be added that under certain circumstances e7-e5,
g7-g5 (against a Bf4), c5 or even the retreat Ne4-f6 belong to Blacks arsenal.
3 Nfd2
The fight for the e4-square begins. In the
thematic tournament sponsored by Dry
and held in Vienna 1937, the text move
was Whites most popular continuation.
Tournament winner Paul Keres played it

twice and won both games. As a result,
Reuben Fine and Henry Grob
recommended 3 Nfd2 in their works.
Later Bruno Parma in ECO (1979)
preferred other moves (3 Bf4, 3 Nbd2, 3
c4). Objectively, 3 Nfd2 is neither better
nor worse than the alternatives.
3d5
(a) In WSZ 1937, p. 293, Immo Fu recommended 3Nxd2 (White cannot
achieve any advantage, Fu), an interesting idea that remained untested.
(b) My personal refutation of 3 Nfd2 is the surprising retreat 3Nf6! 4 e4 d6 5
Nf3 e5 with a Philidor Defence, or 5 f4(!) e5 (or perhaps g6) 6 Nf3 with an
original, but fully playable Pirc Variation. Blacks concept seems strange at first:
but try to find an improvement for White! Whites knight d2 has no better square
than to return to f3.
4 Nxe4 dxe4 5 Nc3 Bf5 6 g4
6 g3 (Dr. Weil) is a quiet alternative.
6Bxg4 7 Nxe4
More promising than 7 Bg2, for example:
(a) 7e6 8 Nxe4 Nc6 9 c3 Bh5 (9...Qd7 [Grob] 10 Ng3 +=; perhaps 9...Bf5
[Keres] 10 Qa4 Qd7 is Blacks best try for equality) 10 Qb3 Rb8 11 Bg5! Qc8 (11...
Be7 12 Bxe7, when Black has to take back with his king) 12 Rd1 Bg6 13 c4 (Weil
recommended 13 d5! +/) 13...Bxe4? (13...Bb4+ 14 Kf1 f6) 14 Bxe4 Be7 15 Rg1
Bxg5 16 Rxg5 g6 (160-0 17 Bxh7+! [9]) Keres Weil, Vienna 1937; 17 d5! +/
[9].
(b) 7...f5! 8 Bf4 (Becker Podhorzer, Vienna 1937) 8g5!? 9 Be5 (9 Bxg5 Rg8)
9...Rg8, with active play for Black. Perhaps 8 h3 Bh5 9 Bf4 = is more precise.
7e5!
The exchange of his g-pawn for a center
pawn has brought White a majority in the
center. However, Black obtains a
dangerous attack with the text move.
8 dxe5 Qxd1+ 9 Kxd1 Nc6 10 f4 0-0-0+
Given as =+ by Parma (ECO 1979), but
White is not without resources.
11 Bd2 Nd4 (11...Rd7) 12 Nf2?
More critical is 12 Rg1 Bf5 13 Bg2 g5!?
(13Bg4 14 Re1) 14 fxg5 h6 15 Rf1
hxg5 16 c3; for example, 16Bxe4 (16Rxh2 17 cxd4 Rxg2 18 Rxf5 Rg1+ 19
Kc2 Rxa1 20 Rxf7 +/) 17 Bxe4 Nxe2 18. Rxf7 Rxh2 19 Bf5+ Kb8 20 Bd7, when
Black is in difficulties.
12...h5 13 Bh3 Bxh3 14 Nxh3 Bc5 15 Ng5 Nf5 16 Ke1 Rd7 17 e6?! (17 Rd1)
fxe6 18 Nxe6 Bf2+?
The attempt to regain the pawn is a serious mistake that leads to a bad ending.
Black should have continued the attack by means of 18...Bb6! 19 e4 Nd4 =+ [8] 20
Nxd4 Rxd4 21 Ke2 Rhd8 22 Rad1 Rxe4+ 23 Kf3 Red4 24 Ke2 c6, etc.
19 Kxf2 Rxd2 20 Rhd1 Rxc2 21 Rac1!
Becker must have underestimated this
possibility.
21Rxb2
21Rxc1 22 Rxc1 Kd7 23 Nc5+ Kc8 24
e4 Nd6 25 Kf3, etc. (analysis by Becker).
22 Rxc7+ Kb8 23 Rcd7 a6 24 Nxg7
Nxg7 25 Rxg7 Re8 26 Re1 Rxa2 27 Kf3
Rb2?!
Black might already be lost. Whites eand f-pawns, assisted by the king, are
stronger than the opponents.
28 e4 a5 29 f5 Rf8 30 Re2 Rb1 31 Rg5 a4 32 e5 Rf1+ 33 Ke4 a3 34 f6 b5 35 Rf5
Rc1 36 e6 Kc7 37 e7 Re8 38 Kd3 Rd1+ 39 Rd2 Rxd2+ 40 Kxd2 a2 41 Rf1 1-0
Alekhine Marshall
New York 1927
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4 3 c4 e6
The real course of the game was 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Ne4, a variation that Janos Balogh
had introduced in 1922, two years before Baron Dry started to experiment with
2Ne4. Instead of transposing to Baloghs line by means of 3e6, the German
player Berthold Bartsch has used the enterprising 3d5!? in several games:
(a) 4 Nc3 Nxc3 5 bxc3 e6 (Mikhalchishin [9] suggests 5c5) 6 g3 c5 7 cxd5
(Aseev Bartsch, Neu Isenburg 1992) 7...exd5 [9], and Black has no problems
(Mikhalchishin).
(b) 4 Bf4 e6 (4...e5?! 5 Nxe5 Nc6 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Qa4 Bd7 8 Nc3 Qf6 is risky) 5 e3
5g5! (5...c6? 6 Bd3 Qa5+ 7 Nfd2 Nxd2
8 Nxd2 dxc4 9 Bxc4 Bb4 10 e4 was
advantageous for White in Klinger
Bartsch, Zurich 1990) 6 Be5 (6 Bg3? h5 7
Qc2 Nc6 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 Ne5 h4 10 Nxc6
bxc6 11 Be5 f6 12 0-0-0 Bxc3 13 f3 Bb4
14 fxe4 fxe5 15 exd5 Rh6 16 dxe5 Bc5 =
+) 6...f6 7 Bg3 h5 8 h3 Nxg3 9 fxg3 Qd6
10 Kf2 h4 =+.
(c) 4 cxd5 Qxd5 5 e3 Bg4 6 Be2 e6 7 00
Nd7 8 Qc2 Bd6 (but not 8...c6? 9 Bc4 Qf5
10 Nh4! Qh5 11 Qxe4 Qxh4 12 f3 +
Armbruster Bartsch, Bundesliga II,
2003) 9 Nc3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 Bf5 11 Qb2 Be4 12 c4 Qf5 13 Nd2 Bc6 14 e4 Qg6 15
Bf3 0-0 +=.
4 Nfd2
4 g3 d5 (4Bb4+ 5 Nbd2 f5 6 Bg2 0-0 7 0-0 Qf6?! 8 Nxe4 fxe4 9 Ng5 d5 10 c5 10, 48, Weil Podhorzer, Vienna 1937) 5 Bg2 Bb4+ 6 Nbd2 c5 7 0-0 Bxd2 8 Nxd2
cxd4 9 cxd5 exd5 10 Nb3 0-0 11 Nxd4 Nc6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Qa4 Qe8 14 Bxe4
Qxe4 15 Qxe4 dxe4 16 Be3 -, Weil Keres, Vienna 1937.
4Bb4 5 Qc2 (5 a3?? Qf6 +) d5 6 Nc3 f5 7 Ndxe4 fxe4
Here Mikhalchishin [9] prefers 7.dxe4.
8 Bf4 0-0 9 e3 c6 10 Be2 Nd7 11 a3 Be7
This kind of Nimzo-Indian leads to a passive defense.
12 0-0 Bg5 13 f3 Bxf4 14 exf4 Rxf4 15 fxe4 Rxf1+ 16 Rxf1
16e5?
16...dxc4 17 Bxc4 Nb6 18 Qf2 Qe7
offered Black better chances to survive.
17 Qd2!
Striving for a brilliancy, instead of the
simple 17 cxd5 exd4 18 dxc6 with a sound
extra pawn; for example, 18bxc6 19
Na4 Ne5 20 Qc5! +/.
17...c5 18 dxe5 d4 19 Qf4! dxc3 20 Qf7+
Kh8 21 bxc3 Qg8 22 Qe7 h6 23 Bh5 a5
24 e6 g6 25 exd7 Bxd7 26 Rf7 1-0
Move Three Alternatives for White
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4, and now:
(a) 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 c5? (4e6 =) 5 c4 Qa5+ 6 Nfd2 cxd4 7 cxd5 Nd6 8 0-0 Nf5 9 a3
g6 10 b4 Qb6 11 Nc4 Qa6 12 Qd3 Bg7 13 Bb2 += 0-0? 14 a4 Nd7 15 d6 Nxd6 16
b5 (1-0, 33) Granados Gomez Bcker, Martinenc 2001.
(b) 3 Bf4 d5 (or 3c5 4 d5 Qb6 5 Qc1 e6 6 c4 Be7 7 Nbd2 Nxd2 8 Qxd2 d6 9 e4
e5 10 Be3 f5 = Podhorzer Weil, Vienna 1937) 4 e3 Bg4 5 c4? (5 h3! Becker [5],
but 5Bh5 6 c4 e5! still produces attractive complications. Parma in ECO gives 5
Be2 e6 =) 5e5!
6 Bxe5 (6 dxe5 g5 7 cxd5 c6!) 6Bb4+ 7
Nc3 Nxc3 8 Qb3 Nxa2+ 9 Kd1 dxc4 =+
(but 1-0, 51) Becker Keres, WSZ 1937
[5].
(c) 3 Nbd2 (more logical than 3 Nfd2,
Mikhalchishin [9]) 3d5 4 Nxe4 (4 e3 e6
5 Bd3 f5 6 Ne5 Qh4! Palme Fu, WSZ
1937, p. 82 [5]; after 4 g3 c5 5 dxc5 Nxc5
Podhorzer Keres, Vienna 1937, 6 b4!?

Ncd7 7 c4 comes into question) 4dxe4
5 Ng5 f5 (5Bf5 6 g4 Bxg4? 7 Bg2! is a
favorable version of Keres Becker,
above, since with the knight on g5 instead
of c3, Black now can hardly afford to play f7-f5. But the retreat 6Bg6! 7 Bg2
Qd5 8 c3 h6 9. Nh3 e5 gives Black a solid position) 6 e3 e6 7 h4
7Be7? 8 Bc4! with an advantage for
White (and 1-0, 35) in Keres Podhorzer,
Vienna 1937. Therefore, Black should
play 7Bd6 [9] or the immediate 7Qf6
8 Bd2 h6 9 Bc3 Bd6 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 d5
e5, which is almost equal.
According to modern authors, being one
tempo behind as Black is partly
compensated by the fact that Black, when
on move, has more information
available about his opponents plans. With
his view, expressed in 1936 [4], that a loss
in time (2Nf6-e4) can be compensated
by a gain in flexibility, Baron Dry was far ahead of his time.
Sources:
[1] G. Marco: Erinnerungen, in: Wiener Schachzeitung 1915, pp. 2-12
[2] S. Tartakower: Das neuromantische Schach, Berlin 1927
[3] I. Fu: Die Dry-Verteidigung, in: Neue Wiener Schachzeitung 1936,pp. 293295
[4] L. Baron Dry: Zur Verteidigung 1. d4 Sf6 2. Sf3 Se4!!, in: Neue Wiener
Schachzeitung 1936, pp. 359-360
[5] (Commented games), in: Neue Wiener Schachzeitung 1937, p. 82ff., 173f.,
215ff.; 1938, p. 21f.
[6] Der Schachmeister in der Todeszelle, in: Schachspiegel 1947, p. 124.
[7] H. Mller: Schachgenie Aljechin, Berlin 1974
[8] S. Bcker: Die Dry-Verteidigung, in: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart
1990
[9] A. Michaltschischin: Die Dry-Verteidigung, in: Schach ohne Scheuklappen
vol. 6, Alkmaar 2007 (Secrets of Opening Surprises, vol. 6, German ed.).
[10] (Website for documentation of the Austrian Resistance: DOW Dokumentationsarchiv des sterreichischen Widerstandes)
Corrections
One of the main lines covered in last months column on the Traxler Gambit went
as follows: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7
Nxh8 d5 8 exd5 Nd4 9 d6 Qxd6 10 Nf7, and here I just added the hint that
Heismans main line 10Qc5 11 d3 Bh4 was extremely complicated. But John
L. Jerz from the USA had already found a strong alternative; namely: 10Qe7!
11 c3 (11 Kxf2 Ng4+ =, Jerz) 11Bg4 12

Qa4+ Nd7 13 cxd4 (13 Kxf2 Qh4+) 13...
Bxd4 (13...Qf6 = Jerz) 14 Ke1 Qf6 15
Rf1 Qh4+ 16 g3 Qxh2 17 Qa3 Qg2 18
Ng5 0-0-0 19 Nf3 and Black is clearly
better Jerz. For example: 19Qxg3+ 20
Kd1 e4 21 Be6 Bxf3+ 22 Kc2 Qg2 23 Re1
Qf2 24 Re3 Qf1 25 Rxf3 exf3, etc. More
details of his impressive analysis can be
seen here.

Grob's Attack: Not for Beginners

A more debatable issue would be Mike Basmans advocacy of 1 g4 and
related moves. Is this creative? I would say that Mikes whole treatment of
the opening is definitely original. To my knowledge, no master strength
player has ever played quite like him before. In this case, the second
criterion is the tricky one. Does the killer Grob work? My opinion is, I
am afraid, that 1 g4 wastes Whites advantage and an early ...g5 by Black
could very well be a losing move. In other words, it does not work and I
would not call it creative. Original and interesting, yes, but not creative.
Jonathan Levitt: Genius in Chess, London 1997
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
Few people claim that 1 e4 or 1 d4 are winning, but GM Jonathan Levitt and many
others believe that against 1 g4 Black can equalize, while 1 e4 or 1 d4 are better
and sometimes can even give you a +=. For an omniscient player this += would
still make no difference to other drawish positions, but fortunately there are
thousands of titled geniuses who have developed a sense for subtleties that the
omniscient player will never have. Here I should perhaps modestly insert that I
dont play 1 g4 myself (only 1 g4 Nh6, but thats serious). So in this article I am
just a neutral observer. The next game illustrates the equalizing tendency of 1 g4
criticized by Levitt:
M. Basman J. Levitt
Lloyds Bank Open, London 1982
1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3 Bg2 c6 4 d4 e4 5 c4 f5 6 Nc3 dxc4 7 gxf5 Bxf5 8 Nxe4 Nf6 9
Ng3 Bg6 10 e4 Bd6 11 N1e2 0-0 12 0-0 Nh5 13 f4 Qh4 14 Nxh5 Bxh5 15 e5 Bc7
16 Qc2 Nd7 17 Qxc4+ Kh8
18 Nc3 g5 -
It was 18 Nc3 rather than 1 g4 that wasted
the advantage. 18 Bd2! avoids Blacks
pawn break (18g5?? 19 Be1 +), then
White has an extra pawn and a clear plus
(at least +=). In his book [1] on 1 g4,
Henry Grob doesnt say that 1 g4
guarantees White an advantage, but he
claims that Black has to follow a
consistent defensive plan to avoid a
disadvantage. At first sight this seems to
be a more relaxed attitude as compared to
Levitts idea that you should strive for the
maximum from the first move. But Grob also writes [1]:
My score in these [1 g4] correspondence games is close to 90 percent.
Which Michael Basman counters [4] in Killer Grob style:
The Grob was first played regularly by Swiss master Henri [sic] Grob, but
not too successfully
In Michael Basmans book elementary questions like Has White an advantage
after 1 g4? or whether there are better moves are not touched. For Basman the
move has a logic of its own, and on the first introductory page the reader only
learns that White ignores the firmly held dogma that one should open the game
with a move by a centre pawn [4]. The book [4] is excellent, but demanding.
Many years ago Henry Grob had written about his own book [1]: This work is not
meant for beginners, and perhaps the same warning should appear in Basmans
Killer Grob.
Henry Grob
Source: Grobs Angriff 1. g2-g4, Zurich 1969
Lets continue our seminar for advanced 1 g4 players with a discussion of a key
position:
1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3 Bg2 c6 4 d4
Grob preferred the dubious 4 g5. The text move at least follows a straightforward
plan.
4e4 5 c4 Bd6 6 Nc3 Ne7
Since Basman had serious problems with
this position at Manchester 1981, the
setup is often recommended for Black: cf.
[5], [6] and [7]. White has done his best to
attack d5, but Blacks flexible knight on
e7 is not only defending that pawn, the
knight e7 might also attack via Ne7-g6-h4
or support a later f7-f5.
7 Qb3
There are several examples where White
forgets to fight for the d5-square: 7 g5?
Be6 8 h4 Nf5 9 Bh3 0-0 10 cxd5 cxd5 11
Nxd5 Ng3! (0-1, 20) Basman Keene, Manchester 1981. Other illogical moves are
7 Qc2?! or 7 Bd2.
But 7 Bg5 deserves attention:
(a) 7...0-0 8 Qb3 transposes to the main line, 70-0 8 Bg5.
(b) 7...Be6 8 Qb3 b6 (8f6 9 Bd2 Qb6 10 cxd5 cxd5? 11 Nxe4 or 10Qxb3 11
axb3 cxd5 12 Nb5 =) 9 Bxe7 Bxe7 10 e3 0-0 11 Nge2. This position isnt bad for
White: 11Na6 (or 11Bd6 12 a3, or 11dxc4 12 Qd1!?) 12 Nf4 Nc7, e.g. 13
cxd5 cxd5 14 0-0 Qd7 15 f3, about =.
(c) 7f6 8 Bd2 0-0 (but neither Adorjns oversight 8Ng6 [7] nor 8h5?? 9
Qb3 Bc7 10 0-0-0, J. Johansen M. Reichardt, e-mail 1998 where does Black put
his king? Other options: 8...b6 9 Qb3 transposes to 7 Qb3 b6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2, and
8Na6 9 Qb3 = leads to the main line) 9 Qb3 (9 e3 Kh8! 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 f4 exf3
12 Qxf3 or 12 Nxf3 dont look reliable either) 9Kh8
A critical position:
(c1) 10 Rc1 Na6 (10f5!) 11 e3 f5 12
Nge2 Nb4? (12Ng6! 13 cxd5 Nh4 /+)
13 Nxe4 Nxa2 14 Nxd6? (14 Qxa2 dxe4
15 Qb1 unclear) 14Nxc1 15 Nxc1 Qxd6
16 Bb4 Qc7 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 Nd3 Be6
and Black won in Basman Kudrin,
Manchester 1981.
(c2) 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Nxd5 Be6 (11
Nbc6 12 Nxe7 Qxe7 13 d5 Nb4 unclear)
12 Bxe4 Nbc6! (12Bc7? 13 Qxb7 Bxd5
14 Bxd5 Qxd5 15 Qxd5 Nxd5 16 Rc1 Na6
17 e4! Rfe8 18 f3 Rac8 19 a3 Bg3+ 20 Kd1 Nb6 21 Ne2 Bd6 22 Rxc8 Rxc8 23
Bc3 unclear) 13 Nf3 Rc8! 14 Nxe7 Bxb3 15 Nxc8 T. Sawyer T. Just, corr. APCT
1996, 15Bf7 /+.
(c3) 10 0-0-0 (10 e3 a5!; 10 a3 f5 11 0-0-0 b5!) 10a5 11 c5 (or 11 a3 b5) 11
Bc7, followed by f5, and White is in trouble. While I dont trust the main line 7
Qb3, this line c may still contain a hidden improvement.
70-0
There are numerous alternatives:
(a) 7...dxc4? 8 Qxc4 Be6 9 Qa4 and pawn e4 falls: (1-0, 33) in De Jong Aaldijk,
corr. 1994.
(b) 7...h6 loses time: 8 Bd2 0-0 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 Nxd5 is slightly better for White,
and 7h5 8 Bd2 is even worse, because it ruins Blacks option to castle.
(c) 7Bc7 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2, and again Black has difficulties with the safety of his
king.
(d) 7...a6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2 Bc7 10 0-0-0? b5! and Black stood well in G. Welling
R. Biedekoepper, Garmisch Partenkirchen 1991. 10 Rc1! += prevents b7-b5 and
refutes the idea.
(e) 7...b6 8 Bg5!
(e1) 8...f6 9 Bd2 Be6
10 c5! bxc5 (10Bc7 11 Nxe4) 11 Nxe4
cxd4 12 Rc1 Kf7 13 Nxd6+ Qxd6 14 Nf3
and White is slightly better.
(e2) 8...Be6 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 Qa4+! Qd7
(10Kf8 11f3; 10Bd7 11 Qb3) 11
Qxd7+ Kxd7 12 Bxe7 Kxe7 13 f3 =.
(f) 7...Na6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2 Qb6 (Narciso
Dublan P. Cramling, Linares 1991) 10
Qxb6! axb6 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 f3 f5 13 Rc1
unclear.
(g) 7...Qb6(!) is solid: 8 Qxb6 axb6 9 Bg5
f6 10 Bd2 f5 11 gxf5 0-0 12 a3, about equal.
8 Bg5
Better than 8 Bd2 Na6 9 Rc1? in Basman Singh, London 1989, when 9dxc4!
Adorjn [7] 10 Qxc4 Nb4 would have been strong.
8f6
8...dxc4!? 9 Qxc4 Be6 10 Qa4
(a) 10Qb6 11 0-0-0 f5 12 gxf5 Rxf5 (G. Stuber L. van Damme, corr. 1997) 13
Bxe7 Bxe7 14 Bxe4 unclear.
(b) 10f6! 11 Bc1 f5 12 gxf5 Nxf5 13 Bxe4 b5 14 Qc2 is extremely dangerous for
White, e.g. 14b4 (14Nxd4) 15 Nb5 cxb5 16 Bxa8 b3! 17 axb3 Na6, and Black
has a strong attack.
9 cxd5 cxd5
Another plausible continuation is 9Kh8
(but not 9Qb6? 10 Qxb6 axb6 11 Nxe4
Bb4+ 12 Bd2 +/ Simmelink Engbersen,
corr. 1991) 10 dxc6 Nbxc6 11 Be3 f5, and
Black has sufficient compensation for his
sacrificed pawn.
10 Nxd5
Basmans new proposal in ECO A (1996)
[5]. Because of this different move order,
White is now able to avoid the
disadvantageous 10 Bd2 Kh8 (see 7 Bg5
f6 8 Bd2 0-0 9 Qb3 Kh8 10 cxd5 cxd5) 11
Nxd5 Be6 12 Bxe4 Nbc6! 13 Nf3 Rc8! 14 Nxe7 Bxb3 15 Nxc8 T. Sawyer T.
Just, corr. APCT 1996, 15Bf7 /+. Unfortunately, his new attempt is also
unplayable.
10Be6 11 Nxe7+ Qxe7 12 d5 Bf7! /+

After the strong text move, Whites extra
pawn hardly counts, while Blacks pawn
e4 locks Whites kings wing, e.g. 13 Be3
Nc6 14 Kf1 Rfe8 /+.
Michael Basmans original intention was
12fxg5 (instead of 12Bf7!) 13 dxe6,
when his assessment unclear in [5]
seems correct: 13Na6 (13...Bb4+?! 14
Kf1 Nc6 15 Bxe4 Nd4 E. Dumalo S.
Hansson, corr. 1993, 16 Qc4!) 14 Bxe4
Nc5 15 Qc2 Nxe4 16 Qxe4 Rf4 17 Qd5
Rd8 18 Qb3 Rb4 19 Qc2 Be5 20 Rb1
Qxe6 21 Nf3 Qxa2 22 Nxe5 Qa5 23 00
Qxe5 24 Rfd1 Rf8 25 e3 a5 26 Rd7 Qf6 27 Qd2 Qf3 28 Rd8 Rxg4+ -, C.
Bologni E. Loschi, corr. 1993.
Sources:
[1] H. Grob: Grobs Angriff, 2nd ed. Zurich 1969.
[2] H. Grob: Die Erffnungen in der Schachpartie, 11th ed. Zurich 1979.
[3] St. Bcker: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990.
[4] M. Basman: The Killer Grob, Oxford 1991.
[5] A. Matanovic (ed.): Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings A, 2nd ed. Belgrade
1996.
[6] E. Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998.
[7] A. Adorjn: Schwarz ist super in Seltene Erffnungen, Kecskemt 1998.
Corrections
Last months article on the Dry Defense, after 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4 3 Nfd2,
recommended 3Nf6! 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 e5 with a Philidor Defence, or 5 f4(!) e5 (or
perhaps g6) 6 Nf3 with an original, but fully playable Pirc Variation. In this line
Whites pawn e4 was hanging. What I meant to say was: 3Nf6! 4 e4 d6 5 Nc3
e5 6 Nf3 with a Philidor Defence, or 5 f4(!) e5 6 Nf3 Nbd7 7 Nc3 with an original,
but fully playable Pirc Variation.

The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor?

Part One
There are several move orders to reach the Philidor Defence. One of the most
aggressive begins like a Pirc Defence: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7. In about fifty
percent of the games White now allows a transposition into a normal Philidor
Defence (4 Nf3 e5), but the sharp 4 f4 e5 5 Nf3 is considered more critical. Though
the line already appeared in Marshall Alapin, Ostend 1905, it only became
popular in the 1980s, thanks to the new idea 5exd4 6 Qxd4 (6 Nxd4 g6=) 6
c6!?.
Black intends to play 7d5, followed by
8Bc5 and 0-0, sacrificing a pawn for
quick development. The ambitious setup
has been called a hybrid system [4],
Hodgson System [3], Bcker
System [3] or Neo-Philidor [5], but Id
propose The French Attack as a more
appropriate name, since it seems that the
d6-d5 motif originated in France. These
are the oldest games in the database:
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
Kirsch Thierry Manouck (France),

French Championships Epinal 1986
Marciano Loheac Amoun (Lebanon), Belfort 1988
Santo Roman Emmanuel Bricard (France), Chanac 1989
Schuh Gilbert Grimberg, Dortmund 1989, etc.
This article concentrates on the most popular 7 Be3 (! in [2] and [3]). Beliavsky [4]
wrote: Black was fairly quickly crushed after 7 Be3, but as well see, Black has
an improvement (which was already given in the same article [4], by Ren Olthof).
Earlier alternatives for moves 4-6 (including 4 g4!?, lately recommended by
Khalifman), plus alternatives for White at move 7 will follow in part two in
November. Both articles will ignore 4 Nf3 e5, so youll need another source to
study the standard Philidor.
7 Be3 d5!
Play through and download the games
from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game
Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
(a) Against the passive 7...Be7, White has

a choice: 8 0-0-0 Qb6 9 e5! dxe5 10 fxe5
Ng4 11 e6 fxe6 12 Qxg7 Qxe3+ 13 Kb1
Rf8 14 Qxg4 +/, or 8 g4!? d5 9 g5 Bc5
10 Qd3 dxe4 11 Nxe4 Nxe4 12 Qxe4+
Qe7 13 Qxe7+ Kxe7 14 Bd4 Bxd4 15
Nxd4 Nc5 16 0-0-0 Rd8 17 f5 h6 18 h4
+/ (1-0, 41) Shirov Ftacnik, Senec
1998.
(b) 7...Qc7 8 0-0-0 b6 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5
Bc5 11 Qd2 Bxe3 12 Qxe3 Ng4
(Knutsson Harren, Rodeby 1998) 13
Qg5 +.
(c) 7...Ng4 8 Bg1 Qf6 9 Qd2 Be7 10 h3 +/ Mostertman Van Egdom, corr. 1998.
(d) 7Qb6 8 0-0-0 Qxd4 (8Be7? 9 e5! transposes to line a) 9 Bxd4 Be7 10 e5
dxe5 11 fxe5 Nh5 (11...Nd5 12 Nxd5 cxd5 13 Be3) 12 Ne4 (12 Be3) 12...0-0 13
Nd6 += Meszaros Belkhodja, Agneaux 1999.
The French Attack

(c) by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski,
Ldenscheid
White has three main continuations:

8 0-0-0 (A), 8 e5 (B) and 8 exd5 (C)
Variation A: 8 0-0-0
8 0-0-0
Offering simplifications. In the ensuing ending White hopes to keep a slight edge.
8Bc5
8c5? 9 Qa4 d4 (Olthof [4]) is too risky, because of 10 Nxd4 cxd4 11 Bxd4 Be7
12 e5 Nh5 13 Be3 +/.
9 Qd3!
More precise than 9 Qd2 Bb4!, when
Black has nothing to fear: 10 exd5 Nxd5!
11 Bc4 (11 Bd4 0-0 [1] seems playable)
11Nxc3 (after 110-0? 12 Bxd5 cxd5
[4] Sveshnikov Boric, Pula 2000, White
should play 13 Qxd5 +/) with
complications.
9Bxe3+
Not forced, but also after 9Qb6 10 Bd2
(10 Nd4) 10...dxe4 11 Nxe4 0-0 12 Nxc5
+= or 9Qe7 10 e5 Ng4 11 Bxc5 (11
Bd4 Nf2 12 Bxf2 Bxf2 = Kr. Georgiev Bricard, Sofia 1990) 11Nxc5 12 Qd4
+= White has some advantage.
10 Qxe3 dxe4
Or 10Qe7 11 Re1 dxe4 12 Nxe4 0-013 Bd3 Nxe4 14 Bxe4 Qc5 (Zelcic
Jurkovic, Bosnjaci 2003) 15 Bd3 a5 16 Qe7 +=.
11 Nxe4 0-0 12 Nxf6+
12 Bc4 Qb6 13 Qxb6 (13 Rhe1 Nxe4 14 Qxe4 Nf6 15 Qd4 Bg4 =) 13...axb6 14
Nxf6+ Nxf6 15 Rhe1 b5 16 Bb3 c5 with sufficient counterplay, Pieri Manouck,
Forli 1993.
12Qxf6 13 g4!?
Less dangerous is 13 Bd3 Nb6 14 Qe4 g6
or 13 Ng5 Nb6 14 Bd3 Bf5, about =.
13Nb6
Not 13Qe6?! 14 Qxe6 fxe6 15 Ne5!
Nb6 16 Bg2 Rxf4 17 g5! g6 18 Rd8+ +/.
14 f5 Bd7 15 Qe5 Qh6+ 16 Kb1 Rae8,
and Black should be able to hold the
ending; for example, 17 Qg3 (17 Qc7 c5!)
17Re3 18 Bd3 Rfe8 19 Rhe1 c5 20
Rxe3 Rxe3 21 Re1 Rxe1+ 22 Nxe1 Qc6 23 Be2 c4.
Variation B: 8 e5
8 e5
Recommended in most sources, but the pawn advance is overestimated by theory.
8Ng4! 9 Bg1
Neither 9 f5? Qb6! 10 Qxb6 Nxb6 =+ nor
9 Qd2?! Nxe3 10 Qxe3 Qb6! = give White
any advantage.
9Qb6!
Ren Olthof [4] is right to prefer this
move over the alternatives. Palatnik/Ishee
[5] only analyze 9...Bc5 10 Qd2 Bxg1 11
Rxg1 Qb6 12 0-0-0 Nxh2! (soon /+), but
their own alternative 12 Na4 Qe3+ 13
Qxe3 Nxe3 14 Bd3 is in fact much
stronger and rather +/ than += [5].
For example 14b5 15 Nc3 Nc5 (15...
Nb6 16 a3 00 17 b3 Rd8 18 Nd4 Bb7 19
Kf2 Nec4 20 Nce2 g6 21 a4 Nb2 22 a5
Nxd3+ 23 cxd3 Nd7 24 a6 Bc8 25 Nxc6
Re8 26 Nc3 10, Dreev Kveinys,
Vienna 1996) 16 Kd2 Nf5 17 b4 Nxd3 18
cxd3 a5 19 a3 Bd7 20 Ne2 h5 21 Ned4
Nxd4 22 Nxd4 and White has a clear
advantage.
10 Qxb6
Not 10 h3?! Bc5 11 Qd2 Bxg1 12 Rxg1
Nh2 =.
10...axb6 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4 b5!
12Bb4 [4] (Wells Oratovsky,
Budapest 1999) looks less reliable,
because of 13 Kd2! (to take back on c3
with the king, thereby keeping his pawn
structure intact) 13Nc5 14 Bd3 0-0 15
a3 +=, when Blacks minor pieces occupy
awkward squares. The rest of line B is
merely analysis, but my impression is that
Black has few problems:
13 Be3 b4 14 Ne2
14 Nb1 Nc5 15 Nbd2 f6.
14...Nc5! 15 Ned4 f6 with full equality, e.g. 16 Bg2 Nf7 17 0-0 Ne4 18 Rfe1 h5!,
and it is White who has to be careful.
Variation C: 8 exd5
8 exd5
The sharpest continuation and probably
best. Black has to find some precise
moves to demonstrate compensation for

his pawn. On the other hand, any gambit
player will like the following
complications.
8Bc5
A critical situation for the whole variation.
Well look at the following three lines:
C1 9 Qd2
C2 9 Qd3 Qe7 10 Kd2

C3 9 Qd3 Qe7 10 Nd4
Variation C1: 9 Qd2

9 Qd2 Qe7
Both 9...cxd5?! 10 Bxc5 Nxc5 11 Bb5+
Bd7 12 Bxd7+ Qxd7 13 0-0-0 +/ and
9...0-0 10 0-0-0 cxd5 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12
Bxc5 Nxc5 13 Bc4 Bf5 14 Qxd5 Qa5 15
Kb1 Be6 16 Qd2 are good for White.
10 Nd4 Ng4 11 0-0-0
11 Nd1? is a serious error: 11Ndf6 12
Bc4 Ne4 13 Qd3 (13 Qe2 Qh4+) 13...Nef2
14 Nxf2 Qxe3+ 15 Qxe3+ Nxe3 16 Nb3
Bb6 17 Bd3 Nxg2+ /+.
11...Qxe3!?
11...Nxe3 12 Re1 0-0 13 Rxe3 Qf6 14 Re4 Nb6 15 Nb3 +/ Chernyshov
Jovanovic, Szombathely 2003, Black lacks compensation for the pawn. The text
move complicates matters.
12 Re1 Bxd4 13 Nd1 Qxe1 14 Qxe1+ Kd8
The position is unclear. A sample line: 15
dxc6 bxc6 16 Qa5+ Bb6 17 Qg5+ Ngf6 18
Qxg7 Rg8 19 Qxf7 Bb7 20 Qb3 Kc7 21
g3 Rae8 22 Bg2 (22 Bh3) 22...Re7 23 Qc4
Rd8 24 b4 Ng4 25 b5 Ne3 26 Nxe3 Bxe3
+ 27 Kb1 Nc5 28 Qb4 (28 Qc3!?) 28...
Red7 29 a4 cxb5 30 Bxb7 Kxb7 31 Qa3
Bd4 32 axb5 Kb6, Black can be satisfied
with his position.
Variation C2: 9 Qd3 Qe7 10 Kd2
9 Qd3 Qe7
9...0-0? 10 dxc6! bxc6 (10Bxe3 11 cxd7) 11 0-0-0 Qa5 12 Bxc5 Nxc5 13 Qd6
Be6 14 Nd4 Rfd8 15 Nxc6 etc., Dossis Schalkwijk, IECG Email 2000.
10 Kd2
100-0!?
Other options:
(a) 10...cxd5?! 11 Re1 0-0 12 Bxc5 Qxc5
13 Qd4 b6, Ortega Shirazi, Paris 1998,
or perhaps 13Qd6, followed by Nc5-e6,
but in both cases White has an advantage
(+=).
(b) 10Nxd5 11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Re1 0-0
13 Qxd5! (quiet continuations are
harmless: 13 Bd4 Qd6 14 g3 Bxd4 15
Qxd4 Nc5 = Bensdorp Biemans, Netherlands 2002, or 13 Kc1 Qd6 14 g3 Bxe3+
15 Qxe3 Nc5, about =) 13...Bxe3+ 14 Rxe3 Qb4+ 15 Kc1 Qxf4 16 Qd4 +=.
White stands better, but it isnt easy for

him to convert his advantage into a full
point: 16Qh6 17 Kb1 Nb6 18 Bd3 Be6
19 Rhe1 Rad8 20 Qe5 g6 21 Qg3 (21
R3e2) 21Bf5 22 Ne5 Bxd3 23 Nxd3
Nc4 24 Re7 Qd2 25 Rxb7 Rde8 26 Rc1 a5
27 a3 Re2 28 Qc7 Ne3 29 Nf4 Nd5 30
Nxd5 Qxd5 31 g4 Qg2 32 a4 Re4 33
Qxa5 Rxg4 34 Re7 Qxh2 35 Qa7 h5 =.
(c) 10Bb4!? 11 dxc6 (11 Bd4 comes
into consideration) 11Bxc3+ 12 bxc3
bxc6 unclear, Timoshenko Oratovsky,
Cappelle la Grande 1999 [4].
11 Re1 Bxe3+!
Offers better chances than the passive 11...cxd5 +=.
12 Rxe3 Qb4
13 dxc6
The cautious 13 Kc1 seems wiser: 13
Qxf4 14 dxc6 bxc6 15 Qd4 Qh6 16 Kb1
c5 17 Qd2 Bb7 18 Bb5 Rad8 19 Rd1 Nb6
20 Qxd8 Qxe3 21 Qd2 Qxd2 22 Rxd2 g6
and White has a slight advantage.
13bxc6 14 Qc4 Qxb2 15 Qxc6?
Too greedy. Correct is 15 Qb3 Rb8 16
Qxb2 Rxb2 17 Re7 Rd8 =.
15...Nb6 16 Qc5 (16 Qb5 Qa3)
16Be6! +
This refutation of Whites play was
difficult to see. In Ady Kacheishvili,
New York 1981, Black lost after 16...Rd8
+? 17 Bd3 Ba6 18 Ne5 Bxd3 19 Rxd3
Rdc8? (19Qxa2 Olthof [4]; 19Nbd5
=; 19Rd5! 20 Qc7 Qb4 =+) 20 Qe7 Ne4
+ 21 Nxe4 Qxc2+ 22 Ke3 Qxa2 23 Rhd1
Rf8 24 R1d2 Qb1 25 Kf2 g6 26 Nf6+ Kg7
27 Nh5+ gxh5 28 Rg3+ 10.
After the text move White is lost. An
attractive line: 17 Bd3? Rfc8 18 Rb1 (or 18 Qd4 Nc4+ 19 Bxc4 Rxc4 20 Qd3
Rac8 21 Rb1 Qxc3+ 22 Qxc3 Rxc3 23 Rxc3 Ne4+ +) 18...Rxc5 19 Rxb2 Rxc3,
and White has to resign.
Variation C3: 9 Qd3 Qe7 10 Nd4!
9 Qd3 Qe7 10 Nd4!
For 10 Kd2, see C2. The diagram shows a
critical position of the French Attack.
Here it is rather White than Black who
attacks.
10Nxd5
The alternatives are less promissing: (a)
10..Bxd4? 11 Qxd4 Ng4 12 0-0-0 0-0 13
Bg1 Nb6 14 d6 Qh4 (Holzke Urban,
Hamburg 1992) 15 g3 Qh5 16 Qc5 etc.
(b) 10...Nb6?! 11 dxc6 bxc6 (11...0-0 12 00-0 bxc6 13 Bg1 +/ J. Polgar Rivas Pastor, Dos Hermanas 1993) 12 0-0-0! Ba6
(Olthof [4])
13 Qd2 Bxf1 14 Bf2!! Nc4 15 Qe1 Bxd4 16 Qxe7+ Kxe7 17 Rxd4 c5 18 Rd1 Bxg2
19 Bxc5+ Ke6 20 Rhe1+ Kf5 21 Rd4 +/ Nxb2 22 Rg1, etc.
(c) 10...Ng4!? is not entirely clear: 11 Nf5 Nde5 12 Nxe7 Nxd3+ 13 Bxd3 Nxe3 14
Nxc8 Rxc8 15 dxc6 Rxc6 (15...Nxg2+ 16 Kf1 Nxf4 17 cxb7 Rb8 18 Be4) 16 g3 00 17 Ke2 Bd4. Whether Black has sufficient compensation for his pawn is difficult
to decide; for example, 18 Rab1 g6 19 Nb5 Bc5 20 Kf3 a6 21 Nc3 (21 Na3 b5) 21...
Bd4 22 h3 Rd8 23 Rh2 Bxc3 24 Kxe3 Rb6 25 b3 Re6+ 26 Kf3 Kg7 27 Re2 Rxe2
28 Kxe2 Re8+ 29 Kf2 Bd4+ 30 Kg2 Bc3 31 Kf3 f5 32 Be2 Rd8 33 g4 Kf6 34 Bd3
Rd4, and Black can hope to survive.
11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Nf5
A tempting attack, but 12 0-0-0 also deserves attention: 110-0 (12...Nf6) 13 g3
Nf6 14 Bg2 (Galissot Verheyen, Artek 2000) 14...Re8 =.
12...Qf6 13 Bxc5
13 0-0-0 0-0 14 g3 (or 14 g4 Re8! 15 Bxc5 Nxc5 16 Qxd5 Bxf5 = Miras Garcia
Ross, Email 2001) 14...Re8 15 Bg2
15Qg6! 16 Bd4 (16 Bxd5 Nf6 or 16
Rde1 Nf6 are safer) 16...Ne5 17 Ne7+
Bxe7 18 Bxe5 Bf5 19 Qb3 Bf6! 20 Bxf6
Re2 21 Rd2 Rxd2 22 Kxd2 Qxf6 23 Bxd5
Re8 24 Bc4 a6 25 a4 b5 26 axb5 axb5 27
Re1 Qd4+ 28 Bd3 Rxe1 29 Kxe1 Qg1+ 30
Kd2 Qxh2+ 31 Be2 g6 32 Qxb5 Qxg3 =.
13...Nxc5 14 Qb5+
Another entertaining line: 14 Qe3+ Ne4
15 Bb5+ Bd7 16 Bxd7+ Kxd7 17 Nd4
White plans to profit from Blacks
exposed king position. But if nothing else
works, Black still has the attractive
tactical escape: 17Ng3!? 18 0-0-0 Nxh1
19 Nb5:
(a) 19Kc6 20 Rxd5 Kxd5 21 Nc3+ Kc6
22 Qf3+ Kd7 23 Qxb7+ Ke8 24 Qxa8+
Qd8 25 Qxa7 Kf8 26 Qg1 Qd6 27 Qxh1
Qxf4+ 28 Kb1 g6 29 g3 Qd4 30 a4 Kg7
31 Qd5 =.
(b) 19Qc6 20 Qe5 Qe6 21 Qc7+ Ke8 22
Qxb7 Qe3+ 23 Kb1 Rd8 24 Rxh1 Kf8 25
Qxa7 Qxa7 26 Nxa7 Re8 = with roughly equal chances.
14...Nd7 15 Ne3
A new attempt. In the game Soriano Ascaso Ramo Frontinan, Aragon 2003,
White played 15 Bd3 00 16 Qxd5 Re8+ 17 Kd2 and finally won after 17...Qxb2
18 Rab1 Qf6 19 Rhe1 Re6 20 g4 h6 21 h4 g5 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 Rh1 gxf4 24 Rh6
Qe5 25 Rbh1 Qb2 26 Rxe6 Qb4+ 27 c3 Qb2+ 28 Bc2 10. However, 17g6
practically forces a draw: 18 Nh6+ Kg7 19 Qg5 Qxb2 (19...Qxg5 20 fxg5 Nc5) 20
Nf5+ Kg8 =.
15...Qxf4!
Better than 15a6 16 Qb4 d4 17 Nc4 Qxf4 18 Be2 a5 19 Nd6+! (stronger than 19
Qa3 = or 19 Qd6 +=) 19Kd8 20 Qa3 Kc7 21 Nb5+ Kb8 22 Rf1 Qxh2 23 0-0-0
Ra6 24 Nxd4 Rg6 25 Qxa5 with heavy complications:
(a) 25...Rxg2 26 Kb1 Qe5 27 Nb5 Qc5 28
Bc4! Ne5 29 b3 Rg6 30 Rd5 Nxc4 31
bxc4 Qb6 32 Qe1 Ka8 33 Kb2 (33 Qd2
Re8 34 Rf3) 33...Rd8 34 Rxd8 Qxd8 35
Rxf7 Rf6 36 Qg1 Qa5 37 Qc5 Rc6 38 Nc7
+ and wins.
(b) 25Qe5 26 Qd2 Rxg2 (26...Nf6!? 27
Qb4 Nd5 28 Qa5 Be6 29 Bf3 Rc8 30 Rfe1
Qc7 31 Qd2 +=) 27 Rf5 Qh2 28 Qb4 Rg6
29 Qe7! (29 Ra5 Nb6 with a solid
position, for example 30 Bf3 Bd7 31 b3
Rc8 32 Kb2 Rf6 33 Rd2 Qf4 34 c4 Rxc4!
35 bxc4 Nxc4+ 36 Kc3 Qxd2+ -) 29
h5 30 Bf3 Rg1 31 Qe3! Rxd1+ 32 Bxd1 Nf6 33 Ra5 Re8 34 Nc6+! +/.
16 Nxd5 Qd6!
16Qe5+ 17 Be2 0-0 18 0-0-0 a6 19 Qc4 Nb6 20 Qc7! favors White.
17 0-0-0 0-0 18 Be2 (18 Bc4 a6) 18Nc5 +=
Because of his superior development
White stands better, but Black has good
chances to consolidate his position; for
example, 19 Bf3 (19 Qb4 Bd7 20 Rhf1
Qh6+ 21 Kb1 b6) 19Kh8 20 Nc3 Qc7
21 Rd5 Ne6 22 Kb1 a6 23 Qa4 h6 24 h4
Rb8 25 Rhd1 b5.
Sources:
[1] St. Bcker: Fr Ihre Erffnungskartei Nr. 1, in: Schach-Report 1991/7.
[2] T. Harding: Invitation to a Philidor, in: New in Chess Yearbook 22 (1991), p.
37.
[3] H. Warzecha: Die Ufimzew-Verteidigung. Moderne Systeme, Ludwigshafen
1995.
[4] A. Beliavsky: A Risky Strategy by Black, in: New in Chess Yearbook 56
(2000), p. 58.
[5] S. Palatnik, M. Ishee: The Tarrasch Formula, USA 2004. [6] A. Khalifman:
Opening for White according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 4, Sofia 2005.


Part Two
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker

Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
By playing the Philidor Defense 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6, you can avoid the Ruy Lopez
and many other openings after 2Nc6 that involve a mass of theory. For at least
150 years the Philidor Defense had the image of being slightly passive. The books
presented short lines that usually ended with a +=, saving space for more
interesting topics. Nevertheless, creative players such as Nimzovitch, Larsen or
Barendregt used the defense with success. Only in the last decades have authors
begun to work out a detailed theory of the Philidor Defense, which makes it more
difficult to claim an advantage for White. In 1998, Jerry van Rekom and Leo
Jansen published an influential book that recommended 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3
Nbd7, calling it The Lion (De leeuw) [4].
This move order at least avoids the
pedestrian lines 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6
(which allows 4 dxe5 Nxe4 5 Qd5) and 1
e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 (when White can
exchange queens). Whether an old line
already used by Alapin and Nimzovitch
needs a new name is another question.
The Pirc approach also involves new
risks. Part One of my article discussed the
main line 4 f4 e5 5 Nf3 exd4 6 Qxd4 c6!?
7 Be3 d5, but during my analysis I had
ignored two important sources (many
thanks to Steve Giddins from England for
pointing out my omission). The first was
Van Rekom/Jansen: De leeuw, ht zwarte wapen [4], and the second Christian
Bauers The Philidor Files (London 2006). So lets return to last months 7 Be3 d5
to check my results:
After 8 0-0-0 Bc5 (8c5 [4] is wrong, as
seen in [9]) 9 Qd3, Bauer recommends 9
Qe7 10 e5 Ng4 saying that the position
remains balanced. My line went 11 Bxc5
Nxc5 12 Qd4 += [9]. A possible
continuation: 12h5 13 Qg1 Be6 (1300? 14 h3 Nh6 15 Rxd5 Ne6 16 Ra5 Nxf4
17 Rxa7) 14 h3 Nh6 15 g4 g6 16 Be2 0-00 17 Nd4 Kb8 18 Kb1 Bd7 19 a3 Ne6 20
Qf2 Rdf8, and Black isnt much worse. So
Bauers 9Qe7 may in fact be a good
alternative to my 9Bxe3 [9].
After 8 e5 Ng4 9 Bg1, Bauers favorite is
9Nh6. I ignored the move because of 10 0-0-0 Qa5 11 Kb1 Nb6 (11Nf5
unclear, Bauer 12 Qf2 Bb4 13 Ne2! and Black is in trouble). So far W. Watson
Bauer, German League 1996. But 12 Nd2! Bg4 (12c5 13 Qd3!) 13 Re1 c5 (else
14 Nb3) 14 Qd3! +/ gives White a clear advantage. So the stronger alternative
should be 9Qb6! (not in [4]) 10 Qxb6 axb6 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4, Wells
Oratovsky, European Club Cup 1999. End of analysis in [8]. According to Bauer,
this gives White a clear advantage, but my 12b5! [9], followed by 13Nc5,
then b4 or f6, gives Black reasonable counterplay. I dont think that White has a
significant advantage.
In main line C1 in [9], I unknowingly followed Bauers analysis: 8 exd5 Bc5 9
Qd2 Qe7 10 Nd4 Ng4 11 0-0-0 Qxe3 12 Re1 Bxd4 13 Nd1 Qxe1 14 Qxe1+ Kd8
(Bauer also considers 14Kf8) 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 Qa5+ Bb6 17 Qg5+ Ngf6 18
Qxg7.
Bauer [8] stops here, saying Black has
rook, bishop and knight versus queen and
two pawns, but he experiences difficulties
coordinating his forces. My analysis
continued 18Rg8 19 Qxf7 Bb7 20 Qb3
Kc7 21 g3 Rae8 [9] and, after eleven
further moves, White had no advantage at
all. Of course, this is a long and hardly

forced line. Probably Bauer would agree
with my assessment 14Kd8 as
unclear [9].
Line C3 [9] 8 exd5 Bc5 9 Qd3 Qe7
(Van Rekom/Jansen [4] prefer the weaker move 90-0) 10 Nd4 was Bauers main
line, too. I didnt trust his favorite 10Nb6 11 dxc6 bxc6 because of 12 0-0-0! Ba6
13 Qd2 Bxf1 14 Bf2!! Nc4 15 Qe1 Bxd4 16 Qxe7+ Kxe7 17 Rxd4 c5 18 Rd1 Bxg2
19 Bxc5+ Ke6
This tricky variation had already been
detected by Christian Bauer [8] who
concludes: 20 Rhg1 (or 20 Rhe1+) and
Black is walking on a tightrope here, but I
believe he should hold. My analysis in
[9] is a refutation: 20 Rhe1+ Kf5 21 Rd4
+ (21Nxb2 22 Rg1 etc.). Therefore,
10Nxd5 11 Nxd5 cxd5 should be
preferred, an alternative also given by
Bauer, with the verdict: White stood a bit
better, but not more [8]. He doesnt
consider the dangerous 12 Nf5 += (more
details in [9]), but altogether I tend to
agree with his assessment.
French Attack
As announced last month [9], Ill now check the relevant sidelines in moves four
through seven. Mainly alternatives for White, but youll also get hints why Black is
well-advised not to leave the main path. However, well have to postpone the
fashionable 4 g4!? until next month, because I underestimated the amount of
material. Moreover, 4 g4!? leads to positions of a different character, so it should
get a separate article anyway.
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 f4
After 4 Nf3, the response 4e5 reaches a main position of Philidors Defence.
4e5
5 Nf3
(a) 5 fxe5 dxe5 6 dxe5 Nxe5 7 Qxd8+
Kxd8 is discussed by Van Rekom/Jansen
[4] on six pages. With his firm grip on the
e5-square, Black has no serious problems.
(b) 5 Be3 (Wim Hokken [4]) is
interesting, to take back on d4 with the
bishop. Bauer recommends two moves:
5g6 [8], although 6 fxe5 dxe5 7 dxe5
Nxe5 8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 9 Nf3! gives White
an advantage. His second idea 5c6
(intending b5 and Qa5, [8]) was already
given by Van Rekom/Jansen [4] and seems quite reliable. There is a third line, not
mentioned in [4] or [8]: 5Be7!? 6 Nf3 (6 fxe5 dxe5 = Simon Eberth,
Fuzesabony 2002) 6Ng4 7 Qd2 Nxe3 8 Qxe3 0-0 9 0-0-0 exf4!? 10 Qxf4; for
example, 10c6 11 Bd3 b5 12 e5 Qc7 13 Kb1 dxe5 14 dxe5 Nc5 15 Ne4 Nxd3 16
Rxd3 f6 =.
5exd4
(a) 5...Qe7? 6 Be2! c6 (6...exf4 7 0-0 Nxe4 8 Nxe4 Qxe4 9 Bd3 Qd5 10 Bxf4 Be7
11 Re1 with a lasting attack) 7 0-0 b5 8 Bd3 Bb7 9 Be3 b4 10 Ne2 exd4 11 Nexd4
+/.
(b) 5...Be7? 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 Ng4 8 Bf4! Bc5 9 Qd2! (much stronger than 9
Bg5, as in Conquest Hodgson, London 1991, quoted by Bauer [8]) 9...Nf2 10
Rg1 Ng4 11 0-0-0! +/ 0-0 12 Be2 Bxg1? 13 Nxg1+; for example, 13Nh6 14
Nd5, etc.
(c) 5...c6?, analyzed in great detail by Van Rekom/Jansen [4], but there is a
refutation: 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 Ng4 8 e6 fxe6 9 Ng5 Nde5 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 h3
Nh6 (or 11...Nf6 12 Bf4 Ng6 13 Bh2 +/)
Here 12 Bf4 and 12 Be3 have been
played, but I prefer the flexible and strong
12 Be2!. Two examples:
(c1) 12Nhf7 13 Nxf7+ Nxf7 14 Rf1
Ke8 15 Be3 Be7 16 0-0-0 b6 17 e5 Nxe5
18 Bd4 Bd6 (18...Bf6 19 Bh5+) 19 Ne4
Bc7 20 Ng5 Rf8 21 Nxh7 Rxf1 22 Rxf1
c5 23 Bh5+ Ke7 24 Bxe5 Bxe5 25 Rf7+
Kd6 26 Bf3 Rb8 27 Rxa7 +/.
(c2) 12Be7 13 Rf1 Bf6 14 Be3 b6 15 a4
Nhf7 16 Nxf7+ Nxf7 17 a5 b5 18 0-0-0+
Kc7 19 e5! Nxe5 20 Ne4 Nd7 21 Ng5 e5
22 Ne6+ Kb8 23 Rd6 +/.
(d) 5...exf4?! 6 Bxf4 Be7 7 Bd3 Nf8 8 Qd2 Ng6 9 Be3 += c6 10 0-0-0 b5
(Alexandria Blagojevic, Belgrade 1969) 11 h4 +/.
6 Qxd4!
Against 6 Nxd4, Black has at least two reliable replies:
(a) 6...c6 7 Be2 [4] g6 8 0-0 Bg7 9 Nb3 +=.
(b) According to Christian Bauer, 6...Be7 is a bit passive and gives White an
edge [8]. I agree: 7 Be2! (7 Bc4 0-0 8 0-0 K. Betins Nimzowitsch, Riga 1910)
70-0 8 0-0 Re8 9 Bf3 c6 10 Re1 Qb6 11 Kh1 Bf8 12 Nb3 +=.
(c) After 6...Nc5!? (! Beliavsky [5]) 7 Bd3, Van Rekom/Jansen [4] give 7Bg4
(!) 8 Nf3 h5, which Bauer [8] criticizes because of 8 Qd2!, followed by h3, and
Black loses valuable time. Instead, the solid continuation 7Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 c6
may be best, about =.
(d) 6g6 7 Bc4 (Bauer only has 7 Bd3 [8]) 7Bg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nf3 (9 Re1 Nc5!
=) is a critical situation:
(d1) 9...Nb6?! 10 Bb3 c5 is risky because
of 11 a4 c4 12 Ba2 d5 13 e5 Ne4 14 Nxe4
dxe4 15 Ng5 Bf5 16 a5 h6 17 Nxf7 Kxf7
18 Qe2 +/.
(d2) 9...Nc5 10 e5 dxe5 11 Qxd8 Rxd8 12
fxe5 Nfd7! (12Ng4 13 h3! Nxe5 14
Nxe5 Bxe5 15 Bg5 Bd4+ 16 Kh1 Rd7 17
Rae1 Ne6 18 Bxe6! +/) 13 Bg5 Re8 14
Nb5 Na6 15 Rad1 Nb6 16 Bb3 Be6 17
Rfe1 +=.
(d3) 9...Qe7! 10 Re1 c6 11 Bb3 (11 Qe2
b5 =; 11 a4 d5 12 exd5 Qc5+ =+) 11...Nc5
12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 Ng4 14 Qd6 Re8 and Black has sufficient counterplay; for
example, 15 Bf4 Qxd6 16 exd6 Nf6 17 h3 Bd7 18 Be5 a5 19 Ng5 Nxb3 20 axb3
Bf5 21 Rac1 h5 =.
6...c6
The only move according to Van Rekom/
Jansen [4]. They seem to be right:
(a) 6...c5? 7 Qg1! Be7 8 Be3 0-0 (8...Ng4
9 Bd2) 9 0-0-0 Qa5 (9Re8 10 g4) 10
Kb1 b5 11 e5 +/.
(b) 6...g6? 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Bc5 9 Qa4
Nh5 10 Bh6 followed by 11 0-0-0 and
Blacks position is vulnerable, Bauer [8].
For example: 10Bf8 11 Bg5 Be7 12
Bxe7 Qxe7 13 g4 Ng7 14 Nd5 Qc5 (Kulicov Novitzkij, St. Petersburg 1999) 15 00-0! Kf8 16 b4 Qf2 (16...Nb6 17 Qa3) 17 Qb3 a6 18 Rd2 Qa7 19 Ng5 +.
(c) 6...Be7? 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Bc5 9 Qc4! Qe7 10 Qe2 Ng4 11 Nd5 Bf2+ 12 Qxf2
Nxf2 13 Nxe7 Nxh1 14 Nd5 + Martin Gonzalez Ortega Ruiz, Linares 1998 [8].
(d) 6...Nc5? (!? by Beliavsky in [5]) 7 Be3! (7 Bc4 is also strong)
(d1) 7...g6 8 0-0-0! (8 e5 Ne6 Ponomariov Beliavsky, Bled 1999, and now
Beliavsky [5] gives 9 Qc4!?, which is +/, in spite of Bauers belief that the
position remains balanced) 8...Bg7 9 Bb5+! (even better than 9 e5 Ng4 10 Bg1
Yakovich J. Johansson, Stockholm 1996, 10...0-0! [5] 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4 [8] and
White attacks)
9...Ncd7 (9...c6 10 Qxd6; 9Bd7 10 Qc4)
10 Bf2 (or 10 e5) 10a6 11 Ba4 b5 12
Bb3 0-0 13 e5 dxe5 (13...Ng4 14 Bh4 Qe8
15 h3 +/) 14 Nxe5 Qe8 15 Rhe1 Nxe5 16
fxe5 Ng4 17 Nd5 Bxe5 18 Qc5 Bd6 19
Qc3 (19 Ne7+) Be6 20 Bd4 Qd8 21 Bh8
+ and White wins.
(d2) 7...Be7 8 0-0-0 0-0 is not sufficient
either. The direct 9 e5 Ng4 10 Bg1 +/
may be best, which is also recommended
by Bauer [8]. 9 h3 to prepare g2-g4 is
equally strong, e.g. 9Bd7 10 e5 (else
Bc6 comes into question) 10Nh5 11
Bc4 Ng3 12 Rhe1 Nf5 13 Qd2 +/. Finally 9 Bc4 Nfd7!? 10 Kb1! (avoids the trick
10 e5 Nb6 11 Be2 Bf5 12 h3 Nd3+! 13 Bxd3 c5 =) 10Nb6 11 Be2 +/, and again
White is clearly better.
7 Bd2
The main line 7 Be3! d5! was already
analyzed above and in the October
column. Instead, 7Qb6 8 0-0-0 would
not be advisable, as 8...Qxd4 9 Bxd4 gives
White a positional edge, and 8Be7 9 e5
dxe5?! 10 fxe5 Ng4 11 e6 fxe6 12 Qxg7
Qxe3+ 13 Kb1 Rf8 14 Qxg4 Nf6 15 Qh4
+/ is even worse. But the text move isnt
Whites only option. These are his
alternatives:
(a) 7 Qa4? Qb6! 8 Bd2 Nc5 9 Qc4 Nfxe4
/+.
(b) 7 Bd3?! d5 8 e5 Bc5 9 Qa4 Qe7 =+.
(c) 7 b4 a5 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 Nd5 10 Nxd5 cxd5 11 b5 Qc7 =+.
(d) 7 a4 d5, and now:
(d1) 8 exd5? Bc5 9 Qc4 0-0 /+
In Kronsfoth Bcker, Mnster 1989 [1],
my opponent already resigned! In another
game there followed: 10 Be2 Qe7 (threat:
Nb6) 11 a5 Hummel Ondersteijn,
Leiden 2000; 11cxd5 /+.
(d2) 8 e5 Bc5 9 Qd3 Ng4 10 Nd1 0-0! =+

(01, 30) Reschun E. Moser, Austria
2003.
(e) 7 h3 d5 8 exd5?! (very risky; 8 e5!
Bc5 9 Qd3 Nh5 10 Ng5? h6! /+ Palatnik/
Ishee [6]; better is 10 g4 Ng3 11 Rh2 Qb6
12 Ng5 Nxf1 13 Kxf1 Be7 14 e6 fxe6 15
Nxe6 Nc5 =) 8...Bc5, followed by 90-0, and Black is better. For example: 9 Qc4
(9 Qd3 0-0 10 Bd2 Re8+ 11 Be2 cxd5 D. Mann O. Rost van Tonningen, RhedaWiedenbrueck 2001) 9...0-0 10 Ne5 cxd5 11 Qd3 Re8 12 Be2 Qb6 13 Rf1 d4 14
Ne4 Nxe4 15 Qxe4 Bb4+ /+ (01, 27) Kesseler Bauer, Germany 2001.
(f) 7 Qd2!? is a cunning idea of Hectors: 7Be7? (Black should play 7Nc5 8
e5 Nfe4 9 Qe3 d5 10 Be2 Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Nd4 f6 13 Bf3 fxe5 =) 8 e5 dxe5 9
fxe5 Ng4 10 Qf4 Nf8 (10...Nc5 11 b4 Na6 12 Bxa6 +=) 11 Bc4 Nh6 12 0-0 Bf5
(12Ng6 13 Qe4 Bf5 14 Qe2 Qb6+ 15 Kh1 000 16 Rb1 Qc7) 13 Qg3 Bg6 14
Bxh6 gxh6 15 Rad1 Qb6+ 16 Kh1 +/ Hector Bergstrom, Roskilde 1998.
(g) 7 f5 (rather dubious, Bauer [8]) 7Qb6! (here 7...d5 is less convincing
because of 8 e5 Bc5 9 Qf4! (one of the points behind Whites seventh move) 900 10 exf6 Re8+ 11 Kd1 Nxf6 12 Bd3 Ne4 13 Rf1 Nf2+ 14 Rxf2 Bxf2 15 Bd2 +=)
8 Be2 Be7 (= [8]) 9 a4!? (9 0-0 d5 10 Qxb6 Nxb6 11 Bd3 dxe4 12 Nxe4 0-0 13
Bg5 Bxf5 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 Rae1 Bg6 16 Nh4 Smirin Altounian, Los Angeles
2000; 16Nd7 17 Nf5 Bc5+ 18 Kh1 Rfe8 =) 9...0-0 10 a5 Qxd4 11 Nxd4 Re8 =.
(h) 7 Be2 d5 (7...Qb6?! [8] 8 a4! Be7 9 a5 Qxd4 10 Nxd4 Nc5 11 Bf3 +=; 7...Be7 8
e5! dxe5 9 fxe5 Bc5 10 Qf4 Nd5 11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Qg3) 8 exd5 (8 e5 Bc5 9 Qd3
Ng4 10 Nd1 [10 Rf1 Nxh2] 10...Qe7 11 h3 Nh6 12 Be3 Bxe3 13 Nxe3 Qb4+ 14
Kf2 Qxf4 15 g3 Qb4 16 c4 Nc5 17 Qd4 Ne6 18 a3 Nxd4 19 axb4 Nxf3 20 Kxf3
dxc4 =+; 8 Bd2 Bc5 9 Qd3 dxe4 10 Nxe4 =) 8...Bc5 9 Qd3 Nxd5! (more precise
than Bauers favorite 9cxd5 [8], because of 10 Be3 0-0 11 0-0-0 Re8 Spraggett
Calvo Sanchez, Seville 2002, 12 Bd4! Qc7 13 Be5 Nxe5 14 fxe5 Ng4 15 Nxd5
Qc6 16 Ng5 Qh6 17 h4 Be6 18 Qc3 Rac8 19 Bxg4 Bxg4 20 Rd2 +/) 10 Nxd5
cxd5 11 Bd2 0-0 12 0-0-0 Nf6 13 Rhe1 g6 14 Ne5 Bf5 15 Qb3 Qc7 16 Bf3 a5 =.
(i) 7 Bc4 d5! 8 exd5 Bc5 9 Qd3 is another critical moment for the whole variation:
(i1) 9...0-0 is the usual continuation. 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Bd2 Re8+ (11Qe7+!?) 12
Ne2 (the books dont mention 12 Kd1, but Black is fine: 12Ng4 13 Kc1 Nf2 14
Bxf7+ Kh8 15 Qc4 Nxh1 16 Bxe8 Qxe8 17 Na4 Be3 18 Ng5 Nb6 = or 17 Ng5 h6
18 Nge4 Qe7 19 Qf1 Nb6 20 Qxh1 Nc4 with compensation) 12Ne4! (12Qb6
13 0-0-0 Rb8 resp. 13 Ng5 Bf2+ 14 Kf1 Re7 15 Rd1 Bh4, unclear) 13 0-0-0 Nf2 14
Bxf7+ Kh8 15 Qc4 Re4 16 Ned4
Here Palatnik/Ishee [6] prefer 16Nxh1
17 Rxh1 Bxd4 18 Qxc6 Bxb2+ 19 Kb1
Bb7 20 Qxb7 Re7 21 Bb3 Nb6 22 Qa6
Bf6 + [6], but after 23 g4 = White is
still on his feet. So in the diagram
position, the attack 16Bxd4! seems
more precise: 17 Nxd4 Nb6 (K. Zuse
Brix, Hockenheim 1994) 18 Nxc6 Nxc4
19 Nxd8 Bg4 20 Bxc4 Rxd8 /+.
(i2) Instead, I recommend 9Qe7+! 10
Kd1 (the point is 10 Qe2 Nb6!; or 10 Kf1
cxd5 11 Bxd5 Nb6 unclear) 10Ng4 11
Rf1 0-0 12 h3 Nf2+ 13 Rxf2 Bxf2 14 d6
Qd8 15 b4 Nf6, and in this messy situation Id slightly prefer Black.
(k) 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Bc5. The immediate pawn push is hardly dangerous:
(k1) 9 Qc4!? Qe7 10 Qe2 Ng4 11 Bg5 Qe6 12 Ne4 Bb6 13 Nd6+ Kf8 14 Bf4 f6
unclear.
(k2) 9 Qf4 Qe7 10 Be2 Nd5 11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Be3 Bxe3 13 Qxe3 Qb4+. The
chances are equal; for example, 14 c3 Qxb2 (or 14...Qe4 15 Kf2 0-0 16 Bd3 Qxe3+
17 Kxe3 Nc5 18 Bc2 Seul Bcker, Germany 1996 18...Bd7 19 h4 Rae8 =) 15 0-0
0-0 16 Rab1 Qa3 17 Rb4 (Maximov Drozdovskij, Kiev 2001) 17 Nb6 18 Bd3
h6 =.
(k3) 9 Qh4 Qe7! 10 Bf4
10Ng4 (10...Nd5 11 Nxd5 Qxh4+ 12
Nxh4 cxd5 13 Nf5 0-0 14 0-0-0! +=; 10...

Bb4!? 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 12 exf6 Bxf6 13
Qg3 0-0 = Kuijf Seret, Lyon 1990) 11
Qxe7+ (taking the sacrificed knight
would lose: 11 Qxg4? Nxe5 [4] 12 Qg3
Nxf3++ 13 Kd1 g5) 11Kxe7 with an
equal position; for example, 12 Ne4 Be3
13 Bg3 f6 14 exf6+ Ndxf6 15 Nxf6 [4]
(V. Zaitsev Yanvarjov, Moscow 1997)
15Kxf6! 16 h3 Re8 17 hxg4 Bf4+ 18
Kf2 Be3+ and Black gives perpetual
check.
I considered giving these alternatives (a-k) in separate chapters, but this would
have been misleading. It is well deserved that 7 Bd2 is the main line of this article.
This little developing move looks harmless, but takes the sting out of Blacks key
move d6-d5. In the stem game Korchnoi Bastrikov, Minsk 1952, which is still of
theoretical importance, Black chose a solid continuation:
7Qb6!
7d5 is more popular, but here the advance is dubious. Thanks to his preparatory
Bc1-d2, White will simply castle long and bring his king into safety.
(a) 8 e5 Bc5 9 Qd3 Ng4 10 Nd1 Be7 =+ 11 Ne3? Nc5 12 Qe2 Qb6 /+ Andolo El
Taher, Cairo 2000.
(b) 8 exd5 Bc5 9 Qd3. After 90-0 10 0-0-0, Bauer writes: Blacks compensation
for the pawn is rather meagre. However, 9Qe7+ comes into consideration: 10
Be2 (10 Qe2 Qxe2+ 11 Bxe2 cxd5 +=) 10...cxd5 11 0-0-0! (11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12
Qxd5 00 13 Ne5 Nb6 14 Qf3 Be6! 15 0-0-0 Bxa2 = Stiri Milliet, Istanbul 2003)
11...0-0
(b1) 12 g4 Bb6! is chaotic, but ends
peacefully: 13 g5 Nc5 14 Qb5 Bd7 15
gxf6 Qd6 16 Nxd5 Bxb5 17 Ne7+ Qxe7
18 fxe7 Bxe2 19 exf8Q+ Rxf8 =.
(b2) 12 Kb1 Re8 13 Nd4 Bb4 14 Ndb5
Bxc3 15 Nxc3 Nc5 16 Qd4 Nce4 (16
Ne6 17 Qe5 d4 18 Ne4 Nxe4 19 Qxe4
Bd7 20 Bd3 g6 21 f5 +=) and Black
should be able to defend, e.g. 17 Bb5 (17
Rhe1 Bf5 18 Bb5 Rec8) 17...Rd8 18 h3 a6
19 Bd3 b5 20 Be1 Bb7 21 Bh4 Nxc3+ 22
Qxc3 (22 bxc3 +=) 22d4 23 Qe1 Re8
+=.
(c) 8 0-0-0!, not mentioned in my sources, is both simpler and stronger than the last
line: 8Bc5 9 Qd3 dxe4 (9Nb6 10 exd5 Nbxd5 11 Re1+ Ne7 12 Qxd8+ Kxd8
13 Ng5 +/; 9...0-0 10 exd5 cxd5 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12 Qxd5 Qb6 13 Bc4 Nf6 14 Qd3
and Black has no real compensation for the pawn) 10 Nxe4 0-0 11 Nxc5 Nxc5 12
Qa3 (12 Qc4 b6 13 Bb4 Qe7) 12...b6 13 Bb4 Qc7 14 Ne5 +/.
8 0-0-0
8 Qxb6 axb6, followed by 9b5 =.
8...Be7!
Ignored by Bauer, who prefers the premature 8...Qxd4? (The dominant white
queen is annoying for Black [8]) 9 Nxd4. But then White is clearly better: 9...g6
(9Nc5 10 Re1 Ne6 11 Nf3!; for example, 11Be7 12 e5 dxe5 13 Nxe5 0-0 14
Bc4 Re8 15 f5, etc.) 10 Nb3! (better than 10 Nf3 [8]) 10Be7 (or 10Bh6 11
Be2 Nb6 12 Na5) 11 Be2 Nb6 12 Be3 0-0 13 Rhe1 Re8 14 Bd4 d5?! (14Be6 15
Na5) 15 Bxb6 axb6 16 exd5 +/.
9 h3
White may have a slight advantage in the
diagrammed position, but after Korchnois
next move Black finds a good solution. Is
there anything better?
(a) 9 Re1 0-0 10 e5 (10 Bc4 Qxd4 11
Bxd4 Nb6 12 Bd3 g6 13 h3 Nfd7) 10

Qxd4 11 Nxd4 dxe5 12 fxe5 Ng4 13 e6
Nb6 14 Be2 (Steflitsch Hautot,
Chalkidiki 2002) 14Bf6! 15 Nxc6 Nf2
16 Rhf1 bxc6 =.
(b) 9 Be3 0-0 10 Kb1 Re8, about =.
9...Qxd4 10 Nxd4 Nc5 11 Re1
11 e5 doesnt achieve much: 11dxe5 12 fxe5 Nce4 13 Nxe4 Nxe4 14 Bc4 b5 15
Bb3 Nxd2 16 Kxd2 Bd7 =.
11Nh5
11h5 was recommended by Van Rekom/Jansen [4], but after 12 b4 Ne6 13 Nf5
Bf8 14 e5 dxe5 15 fxe5 Nd5 16 Nxd5 cxd5 17 Rd1, White has an edge.
12 g4
Or 12 Nde2 Nf6 13 Ng3 a5.
12...Ng3 13 Rh2 Nxf1 14 Rxf1 h5 15 g5 g6
15...a5 comes into consideration.
16 f5 0-0 17 Bf4
17Rd8? +/
A serious oversight. The rook should go to
the neighboring square: 17...Re8! 18 Re2
(18 b4 Nd7) 18...Nd7 =.
18 b4 Na6
Blacks last move was wrong, now Black
cannot play 18...Nd7? because of 19 fxg6
fxg6 20 Ne6, which attacks the rook on
d8. If he only had the rook on e8, Black
would have nothing to fear.
19 b5 Nb8 20 Rd2 Bd7 21 h4
21d5?!
Desperation, but Black was probably lost
anyway. He could have tried 21Bc8 22
Bg3 a6; for example, 23 bxc6 bxc6 24
Rfd1 Re8 25 Na4 Ra7 26 Nb6 Rb7 27
Nxc8 Rxc8 28 fxg6 fxg6 29 Nb3 d5 30
exd5 Ba3+ 31 Kb1 a5!?, when he can still
continue the fight.
Ne7+ and Black resigned, Korchnoi

Bastrikov, Minsk 1952.
22 exd5 Ba3+ 23 Kd1 c5 24 Ne6 fxe6 25

dxe6 Bb4 26 Rf3 Nc6 27 exd7 Nd4 28
Rxd4 cxd4 29 Nd5 Ba5 30 fxg6 Rf8 31
Sources:
[1] St. Bcker: Fr Ihre Erffnungskartei Nr. 1 in: Schach-Report 1991/7.
[2] T. Harding: Invitation to a Philidor, in: New in Chess Yearbook 22 (1991), p.
37.
[3] H. Warzecha: Die Ufimzew-Verteidigung. Moderne Systeme, Ludwigshafen
1995.
[4] J. van Rekom, L. B. Jansen: De leeuw, ht zwarte wapen, Netherlands 1998.
[5] A. Beliavsky: A Risky Strategy by Black, in: New in Chess Yearbook 56
(2000), p. 58.
[6] S. Palatnik, M. Ishee: The Tarrasch Formula, USA 2004.
[7] A. Khalifman: Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4, vol. 4, Sofia 2005.
[8] Chr. Bauer: The Philidor Files, London 2007.
[9] St. Bcker: The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? Part One, 2007.


Part Three
As I explained in part one of this series, I called the set-up 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3
Nbd7 4 f4 e5 5 Nf3 exd4 6 Qxd4 c6!? the French Attack, because the thematic
sacrifice d6-d5 seems to have originated in France. There have been other names
for Blacks defense, Neo Philidor, The Lion, Philidor Hybrid and others. My
own view is that the aggressive motif of d6-d5 has raised the interest in the line 3
Nbd7 enormously (part one gave the most fascinating lines) and that there are only
few alternatives for both sides to escape the battle (as I tried to demonstrate in part
two).
Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker
One of these alternatives is 4 g4, covered in the present article. 4 g4 hasnt much in
common with 4 f4, nor with my proposed name French Attack, but now it is a bit
late for finding a better title. And the question Pirc or Philidor? is still relevant,
as we will see. The early advance of the g-pawn is a dangerous alternative, by no
means weaker than 4 f4, so studying this supplement is a must for those who wish
to play 3...Nbd7.
4h6
4...e5 5 g5 exd4 6 Qxd4 cannot be recommended; for example, 6...Ng4 7 Be2 Nge5
8 Be3, followed by 0-0-0, and White attacks on the kingside Khalifman [1].

Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Christian Bauer (France)

Photo: Harald Fietz, Berlin
Now there are three main and a few minor continuations. Ill follow Christian
Bauer [2], presenting them in the order: 5 Nf3 (Variation A), 5 Be3 and various
moves (Variation B), 5 h3! (Variation C). If a Philidor Defense is strictly defined
by the move Nf3, White again has the choice: Pirc or Philidor.
Variation A: 5 Nf3 (Shirov Gambit)
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6 5 Nf3
By a transposition of moves, we have
reached one of the most fashionable lines
in Philidors Defense. In the move order
preferred in this article: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6
3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 Nf3 e5 (= Philidor Defense)
5. g4!?. The last move, introduced by
Alexei Shirov in 2003 and later repeated
in other games, leads to very unclear
situations. Black can accept the sacrifice
(5Nxg4), allow the threatened advance
(5g6 6 g5 Nh5) or play the calmer 5
h6.
Blacks choice of 3Nbd7 (instead of 3
e5) and Whites reply 4 g4 (which more or less forces 4h6) together now lead to
a situation that in theory should favor White (if there were any justice in chess):
Black has reduced his options: he can only play h7-h6 (and not take on g4
or play g6, as in the original version of Shirovs Gambit).
White now can play Nf3, but has strong alternatives, which was already
indicated by the fact that 5 Nf3 here appears only as Variation A, with two
more to come.
The first point seems less important to me, because in the usual Shirov Gambit I
regard the reply 5h6 as Blacks best continuation anyway. However, Variations
B and C should be taken seriously. There is still plenty of room for developing new
attacking ideas for White.
5e5! 6 g5 hxg5 7 Nxg5
Or 7 Bxg5 c6 8 Qd2 b5 =; for example, 9 Bd3 Rh3 or 9 a3 Qa5.
7...exd4!
For my taste there are by far too many losses for Black in the database, so here and
in the next moves Ill concentrate on the main path and ignore many corpses beside
the road.
8 Qxd4 Ne5
Nijboer [5] recommends 8...c6 (this
flexible move is best), but after 9 Bf4
Ng4 (Vaisser Bauer, Besancon 1999) 10
f3 Nge5 11 0-0-0 Qb6 12 Qd2 Be7 13 Be2
slightly prefers White [5]. Here 11Qe7!

is a clear improvement, preparing 12f6
(=). The gambit 10 0-0-0 Qb6 (so far
mentioned by Bauer [2]) 11 Qd2!? Qxf2
12 Be2 Nge5 13 Ne6 only leads to an
equal ending after 13Nc4.
Instead of 9Ng4, Black can also direct
the other knight to the e5-square: 9Nh5
10 Be3 Ne5 11 Be2 f6! (11Qf6? lost in Bykhovsky Strikovic, Calvia 2007) 12
Nf3 (or 12 Qd1 =) 12Qb6! 13 Qxb6 axb6 14 Bxb6 Nf4 with compensation, e.g.
15 Nxe5 dxe5 16 Kd2 Nxe2 17 Kxe2 Rh3! =.
9 Be2
9 f4 Nh7! 10 Be2 Nxg5 11 fxg5 c6! (11Be7?! 12 h4 [1-0, 33] Bosiocic
Kasparova, Venice 2007) 12 Bf4 (12 Be3 Bh3) 12Be6 = (when White should
avoid the trap 13 Bxe5? dxe5 14 Qxe5?? Bd6 15 Qxg7 Bg3+ 16 Kf1 Bh3+, mate in
two moves).
9...Be7 10 f4 Nc6
Nijboer [5] only gives 10Nfg4?! 11 h3 (1-0, 27) Nepomniachtchi Hautot,
Fgen 2006 (and therefore pleads for 8c6). But there is nothing wrong with
Blacks position.
11 Qc4
11 Qd1 d5! or 11 Qd2 0-0 12 Nd5 Nxd5 13 exd5 Bxg5 14 fxg5 Ne5 are no better.
11Be6!
But not 110-0? 12 Bd2 Nd7 13 h4! Nb6
14 Qd3! Nb4 15 Qf3! +/.
After the text move the position is equal:
12 Nxe6 (12 Qb5 Bd7; 12 Nd5 Nd7) 12
fxe6 13 Bf3 (13 Qxe6? Nd4) 13e5 14
Be3 exf4 15 Bxf4 Nd7, followed by Nde5
=.
Variation B: 5 Be3
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6 5
Be3
Bauer [2] writes: A clever move order if
White intends to continue aggressively
with the f3, Qd2, 0-0-0 set-up. Indeed,
White has provoked h6, which will help
him open files on the kingside.
Khalifman prefers 5 h3 (Variation C),
because he believes that else Blacks
early h6-h6 move turns out to be useful
after all, because it has parried Whites

threat g5 [1].
Playing f3, instead of h3 (Variation C),
may have the advantage that pawn e4 is
safely protected, so Blacks standard
counter of c6 and b5-b4 loses some of its momentum. But the intended f2-f4 in
Variation C obviously also has some merits. More ideas for White:
(a) 5 g5 hxg5 6 Bxg5 e5 7 Nf3 c6! = transposes to Variation A, 7 Bxg5.
(b) 5 h4 e5 6 d5 c6! (probably best) 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Qf3 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 g5 (10
Nxd5? Qa5+ 11 Nc3 Rb8 /+) 10...Ne4 (10...hxg5 11 hxg5 e4 12 Qg2 Rxh1 13
Qxh1 Ng4 14 Be2 Nde5 15 f3 Nxf3+ 16 Nxf3 Qb6 is dubious: 17 Bb5+ Kd8 18
Qh8 Qf2+ 19 Kd1 Qxf3+ 20 Be2 Qh1+ 21 Qxh1 Nf2+ 22 Ke1 Nxh1 23 Bf4 +/)
11 Nxe4 dxe4 12 Qxe4 Rb8
Black has sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn: 13 Bh3 (13 g6 Bb7 14
Qf5 Qf6) 13...Bd6 14 Nf3 Bb7 15 Qe2 e4
16 gxh6 gxh6 17 Nd2 Qa5 18 Kf1 Qd5,
etc.
5e5 6 f3
6 d5 c6! =.
6c6 7 Qd2
7 Qe2?! Be7 8 0-0-0 Qa5 9 Kb1 b5 10
Qe1 (Katalymov Sergievsky, Sochi 1969) 10exd4 11 Bxd4 b4 12 Nce2 c5 13
Be3 Ne5 =+.
7...Be7 8 Nge2
8 a4?! prevents b7-b5, but is hardly thematic (White intends to castle long) and
may also invite an immediate 8d5.
8b5!
In two games this natural advance was
prepared: 8Qc7?! 9 0-0-0 (or 9 Ng3
exd4 Korbut Chernova, Sochi 2004,
when 10 Qxd4 += is good for White) 9...
b5. Bauer [2]: The position was tense and
offered chances for both sides. In
Hamdouchi Campora, Santo Antonio
1999, White continued with 10 Re1? (=,
46), but 10 Ng3 looks more logical, when
White is slightly better.
9 d5 Bb7 10 dxc6 Bxc6 =
Black has equalized. For example 11 0-0-0? b4 12 Nd5 Bxd5 13 exd5 Qa5 14 a3
Rb8, etc.
Variation C: 5 h3
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6 5 h3
Khalifman [1] claims that with 5 h3 (which he analyzes on nearly eight pages)
White maintains his opening advantage. Bauer [2] tries to defend Blacks case on
about six pages.
5e5 6 Nge2
Khalifman [1]: Blacks task in the next
few moves is to organize some
counterplay on the queenside (that is to
prepare b7-b5) and to develop his
kingside. With the text move, White
keeps the option to play a different setup
without Bg2, perhaps with Be3.
(a) 6 Be3 has often been played. Perhaps
the following is a good plan for Black: 6...
Be7 7 Qd2 (7 Nge2 b5!?) 7a6 8 a4 exd4
9 Bxd4 c5 10 Be3 b5 (a nice pawn
sacrifice) 11 axb5 Bb7 12 f3 axb5 13
Rxa8 Qxa8 14 Bxb5 (14 Nxb5 0-0 15
Nxd6 Bxd6 16 Qxd6 Bxe4) 140-0 15 Nge2 d5 16 Bxd7? (16 Bxh6 or 16 0-0 d4
17 Bxh6 =) 16dxe4 17 Ng3 Rd8 18 Ncxe4 Bxe4 19 Nxe4 Nxe4 20 fxe4 Bh4+ 21
Ke2 Qxe4 22 Rg1 Qb7 23 Qd6 Rxd7 24 Qxc5 Rc7 25 Qf5 Qxb2 26 Rd1 g6 27
Qd3 Qe5 0-1, N. Borge J. Trapl, corr. 1998.
(b) 6 Bg2 can easily transpose to our main line: 6c6 7 Nge2 b5 8 a3.
6b5!? Bg2 b5
After 6c6, White may have more possibilities; for example, 7 a4. Both Bauer
(6b5!? [2]) and Khalifman (It is wise for Black to try 6b5 [1]) recommend
the text move, but give 6c6 as their main continuation. Often the result is only a
transposition of moves.
7 Bg2
Khalifman [1]: White should not exchange his central e-pawn for Blacks b-pawn
with: 7 Nxb5 Nxe4 8 Bg2 Bb7, but after 9 0-0 a6 10 Ng3! += White is better. The
correct solution seems to be (after 7 Nxb5) 7h5! with two tactical lines:
(a) 8 gxh5 Bb7 9 Bg2 (after 9 f3 Nxh5 10
Be3 Be7, Black has sufficient
compensation for the pawn) 9Bxe4 10
Bxe4 Nxe4 11 dxe5 Rb8 12 Qd5 (12 Ned4
Qh4!) 12Rxh5 13 Bf4 dxe5 14 Qxe4
Rxb5 15 0-0-0 Rb4 16 Rd4 Rxd4 17 Nxd4
Rh4 18 Re1 Bb4 19 Nc6 Qf6 20 Nxb4
Qxf4+ 21 Qxf4 Rxf4 22 Nd3 =.

(b) 8 g5 Nxe4 9 f3 Rb8 10 Nxc7+ Qxc7
11 fxe4 Be7 is also promising for Black:
12 Nc3 (12 Bg2 Ba6) 12Qa5 13 h4 0-0
14 Be2 Rb4!.
7...c6
7b4? 8 Nd5 +=. After the text move, we are back (using the small transposition
6b5) in main lines of Khalifman [1] and Bauer [2].
8 a3
This is a useful move, which secures the c3-square for the knight, Khalifman [1].
But other moves also deserve attention:
(a) 8 Ng3 g6 9 0-0 Bg7 10 Be3 Bb7 11 Qd2 Qe7 12 a3 Nb6 13 b3 Rd8 14 Rad1
exd4 15 Bxd4 0-0 16 Rfe1 Rfe8 17 Be3 Qf8 18 Bd4 Kh7 19 Qf4 Re6 20 Qd2 Ree8
21 Qf4 Re6 22 Qd2 -, Kurmann Manouck, Montpellier 2007.
(b) 8 0-0 Bb7 9 Ng3 g6 10 Nce2 (10 d5 cxd5 11 Nxd5 Rc8 12 Nxf6+ Nxf6 13 Qe2
Qd7 14 Be3 a6 15 c3 Be7 +=) 10Bg7 11 c3 0-0 = (-, 43) Acher Bauer,
Clichy 2007.
(c) 8 d5 cxd5 9 Nxd5 Bb7 10 Nxf6+ Nxf6 11 Ng3 a6 12 0-0 g6 13 Be3 h5 14 g5
Nd7 15 a4 b4 16 h4 a5 =.
8Qc7!
Both Khalifman [1] and Bauer [2] give 8
Bb7. However, after the more precise text
move, Whites standard maneuver of Ng3f5 looks less menacing (the bishop c8 may
take that knight) and Black quickly
advances on the queenside. After 8...Bb7
9 0-0, Black has two alternatives,
apparently both difficult to defend:
(a) 9...a5 10 Ng3 g6
(a1) 11 f4 Bg7 (Bauers [2] attempt to
improve upon Khalifmans 11exd4 12
Qxd4 d5 13 Be3 += [1]) 12 Be3 exd4 13
Bxd4 0-0 with a complex game, Bauer [2].
(a2) 11 Be3! h5 12 g5 Nh7 13 h4 f6 14 dxe5 dxe5
15 Nxh5 fxg5 (Fontaine Mensch, French
League 2001) is quoted by Christian
Bauer [2]. However, instead of 15 Nxh5
fxg5 16 Bh3, as played in the game, the
immediate 15 Bh3! +/ is more critical (or
15 Nf5!?).
(b) 9g6 10 f4 (the alternative 10 Be3 [1]
is also strong) 10Bg7 11 Be3 a6 and
now Khalifman only gives 12 Ng3 that
doesnt achieve much after 12exd4 13
Bxd4 0-0 =. Instead, 12 dxe5! dxe5 13
Qd6 += is advantageous for White.
9 Be3 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ng3 Nb6 12 b3 a5
Thanks to his active play on the
queenside, Black isnt worse. There might
follow 13 f4 (13 Qd2 a4 14 Rfc1 Bd7 =)
13exf4 14 Bxf4 Re8 15 Qf3 Be6 16 Nf5
Bxf5 17 gxf5 Qd7 =.
Sources:
[1] A. Khalifman:Opening for White
according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 4, Sofia
2005.
[2] Chr. Bauer:The Philidor Files, London
2007.
[3] St. Bcker:The French Attack: Pirc or
Philidor? Part One, 2007.
[4] St. Bcker:The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? Part Two, 2007.
[5] F. Nijboer: Das Schirow-Gambit gegen Philidor, in: Schach ohne
Scheuklappen, vol. 7, Alkmaar 2007 (Secrets of Opening Surprises Vol. 7, edited
by Jeroen Bosch, in English).

Readers' Reactions
It is time to look at some reader feedback about earlier columns. Four of these
reactions are collected in this article.
1. Nameless Variation: 3Nbd7 4 g4
Over the Horizons
The December 2007 column, The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? (III), studied
the various alternatives after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6. White can
play 5 Nf3, going into Shirovs Gambit against the Philidor (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4
Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 g4, and now 5h6). There were also dangerous alternatives in
5 Be3 and 5 h3, favored by Bauer, respectively by Khalifman. In an e-mail Ludger
Keitlinghaus from Germany compared the difficult position after 4h6 with the
Keres Attack of the Sicilian Defense 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3
e6 6 g4.
Stefan Bcker

Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Drawing: (c) by
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski,
Ldenscheid
In the main line 6...h6 of the Keres Attack, many players nowadays have doubts
regarding the safety of Blacks king. So they prefer 5...a6 to keep the square g4
under control. Similarly, after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4! h6 in your
December column positions often arise where Black has problems to secure his
king. For example, if White only succeeds to castle long, Blacks king practically
has to flee to the queens wing to get into safety. In the presented lines, it may be
possible to detect a narrow escape in the privacy of your study, but over the board
Blacks position could be hard to defend. It is difficult to remain calm when your
king is in danger. To illustrate his opinion, Keitlinghaus then added another
proposal for White, not covered in the last article: 5 f4!? e5.
Keitlinghaus: Here White could either
play 6 g5, 6 h3!?, intending 7 Nf3, or the
immediate 6 Nf3!?. White is in a
comfortable situation, since he has various
set-ups at his disposal, while Black faces
considerable problems. It is just one
detail, but I dont like that pawn at h6.
SB: I have to admit that after 4 g4 h6,
White has a wide choice of attacking
plans, while Black in almost every case
has to react carefully. But altogether I still
believe that Blacks position is sound, and
I am not even sure whether the modern
4 g4 should be preferred over the old main line 4 f4 seen in the 1990s. Against your
new suggestion Black should probably play as follows:
5 f4!? e5 6 h3
Or 6 Nf3 (6 g5 seems less critical) 6exd4 7 Qxd4 d5! (7c6 8 h3 Qb6 9 Bg2
+=) 8 Nxd5 Bc5 9 Nxf6+ Qxf6 10 Qd3 0-0! (10Bb6 11 e5 Qc6 12 Qe2! Nc5 13
Rg1 0-0 14 Be3 Qa4 15 f5 Bd7 16 Qc4 Rae8 17 0-0-0 is at least +=) 11 e5 Qb6 12
Be2 Bf2+ (12Rd8 13 h3 a6 14 Kf1 Qc6 15 Be3 or 15 Rh2, +/) 13 Kf1 Nc5
14 Qb5 Ne4, Black seems to hold (15 f5
h5).
6Be7
6c6 7 Nf3 exf4 8 Bxf4 Qb6 9 a3!
Qxb2?? 10 Na4 +.
7 Nf3 d5 8 exd5
8 fxe5 Nxe4 9 Nxd5 Bh4+ 10 Nxh4 Qxh4
+ 11 Ke2 Nb6 12 Nxc7+ Kd8 13 Nxa8
Bxg4+ only leads to a draw.
8exf4
8exd4 9 Nxd4 (9 Qxd4 0-0 10 Bd2 Bc5 11 Qd3 Re8+, unclear) 90-0 10 Bg2
Nb6 11 Nb3 a5 12 a4 Bb4 13 0-0 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Nfxd5 15 Qd4, and White is
clearly better.
9 Bxf4 0-0 10 Qd3 Nb6 11 0-0-0 Nfxd5 12 Nxd5 Qxd5!
After 12Nxd5? 13 Bd2, Whites attack is very strong: 13a5 (13Re8 14 Rg1
Bd6?! 15 g5 Nf4 16 Qc3! or 14Qd6 15 Re1 +=) 14 a3

(a) 14Re8. Now after 15 Rg1 Bd6 16
g5? Nf4 17 Qc3 Bb4!, Black profits from
including a5 and a3, but 15 c4! is a
refutation: 15Nb6 16 Rg1 Be6 17 d5
Bc8 18 g5 Bc5 19 Rg2! +/.
(b) 14Bd6 15 g5 Nf4 16 Qe4 Re8 17
Ne5 hxg5 18 h4! Bxe5 19 dxe5 Qd5 20
Qxd5 Nxd5 21 hxg5 Rxe5 22 c4 Bg4 23
cxd5 Bxd1 24 Kxd1 Rxd5 25 g6 is almost
hopeless, so the lesser evil would be 21
Bf5. Obviously White stands better.
13 Kb1 Bd6
Black has sufficient counterplay; for
example, 14 Bxd6 cxd6 15 Bg2 Be6 16 b3
Rac8 17 Nh4 Qa5 with equal chances
(note that 18 Bxb7? fails to 18Rc7 19
Be4 Bd5! /+).
2. Czech Defense: 4d6-d5

Patrick Joller from Switzerland sent a
message regarding the Czech Defense:
I would like to know your opinion on the following line: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3
c6 4 f4 d5!?
As per Khalifman in his book Opening
for White According to Anand (short:
OFWAA) Vol. 4: this move is a bit
strange. Black loses a tempo for d7-d6-d5.
His justification is that first of all the loss
of a tempo is not so essential in that
closed position and secondly Whites f4pawn restricts his own bishop in that
pawn-structure. Blacks plan is to block
the kingside on the light squares and then,
depending on Whites actions to seek
counterplay.
5 e5 Ng8
Khalifman also discusses 5...Ng4 6 Bd3 Nh6 7 Nf3, when 7e6 is merely a sideline: 8 Be3!? Nf5 9 Bf2 10 0-0, and after some time White can think about
repelling the knight with g2-g3, h2-h3, and g3-g4. This position is like a
Gurgenidze variation without ...g6. Khalifmans earlier book OFWAA, Vol. 3
dissuaded me from playing the Gurgenidze...
6 Bd3 e6 7 Nf3
In OFWAA vol. 4 Khalifman also gives 7 Nce2 h5 8 Nf3 Ne7 9 Be3 Nf5 10 Bf2
Na6 11 c3 Nc7, Spiekermann Kappler, Lausanne 2000, 12 0-0 with the idea g3,
h3, g4 as better for White. But he seems to like the text move: White does not
need to retreat his knight yet and he can play instead 7 Nf3, or 7 Be3.
In this position, couldnt Black play 7...
b6 ? It reminds me of a line in the French
Defense, 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5
b6!? 5 a3 Bf8 6 f4. The difference is that
White is not able to continue with Bb5+ ...
c6, Ba4 as in the French, as Black has
already played ...c6. It seems that the
best way for White to keep his bishop is
in fact 7 Nce2 b6 8 c3 Ba6 9 Bc2. But the
maneuver takes time and Black can think
about counterplay with ...c5 (or perhaps
Nh6 is more precise). What do you think
about this idea?
SB: However, as a little compensation for the additional move c6, White has got
three useful moves: Nf3 and Bd3 and a3, and now it is even his turn to move:
8 Qe2!
White develops and also prevents your
intended 8Ba6. For example:
8a5
It may be time to choose a different plan.
The position is still closed and the loss of
a few tempi does not necessarily mean a
loss of the game. However, 8c5? is
tactically refuted by means of 9 Bb5+ Bd7
10 f5! exf5 11 0-0 a6 12 e6 Bxb5 13 exf7
+, and 8h5 9 Be3 must also be excellent
for White.
9 0-0 Nh6
9Ba6 is still premature because of 10 f5.
10 Bd2 Ba6 11 Nd1 Bxd3 12 Qxd3 Be7 13 Ne3 +/. Black has exchanged his
weak bishop, but in any other respect Whites position is superior.
Since you mentioned your earlier foible for the Gurgenidze Variation, after 1 e4 d6
2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 c6 4 f4 d5!? 5 e5 Ng8 6 Bd3 the natural 6g6! (instead of 6
e6?) 7 Nf3 h5 should be more to your taste, as a near relative of the Gurgenidze
Variation. Khalifman believes that White has an advantage, but perhaps for the
wrong reason:
8 0-0
OFWAA vol. 4 doesnt mention 8 Ng5!,

threatening 8Nh6 9 e6!. Both
alternatives 8e6 and 8Bg4 9 Qd2 e6
involve serious risks. I dont see a reliable
solution for Black.
8Nh6 9 Be3 Bf5 10 Be2 Bg4 11 h3
Bxf3 12 Bxf3 e6 13 Bf2 Nf5 14 Qe1 Nd7
15 Ne2 Be7 16 b3 b5 17 g4 hxg4 18 hxg4
Nh4 19 Bxh4 Rxh4 20 Kg2
20Nb6 21 Rh1 Rxh1 22 Qxh1 Kd7 23
Qh7 Qg8 24 Rh1 += Yakovich
Vorotnikov, Vladivostok 1990 (source:
Khalifman, OFWAA).
In the diagrammed position, 20Qc7
comes into consideration, keeping the
queens on the board. For example, 21 Rh1
Rxh1 22 Qxh1 0-0-0 23 Qh7 Rf8 and
Black can be satisfied with his position
(24 f5? gxf5 25 gxf5? Nxe5 26 dxe5 Qxe5
27 Rh1 Bc5! 28 fxe6 Qe3 =+).
3. Lwenthal Variation
The second part of my June 2007 article, The Comeback of the e5 Sicilians,
had covered the Lwenthal Variation. I mainly concentrated on 8 Qxf6, the move
preferred by Khalifman. However, my shortcut solution against 8 Qc7 was just a
blunder. During a correspondence game, Klaus Kgler from Germany found out
that the idea loses on the spot:
Milos Drugda (East Slovakia Chess) Klaus Kgler (The Good Knights GER)
Correspondence (Champions League 2007 B Group 4)
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 a6 6 Nd6+ Bxd6 7 Qxd6 Qf6 8
Qc7
8Nge7!
Kgler wisely returns to the traditional
line, noticing that my suggestion 8...Qe7?
9 Nc3 Nb4 loses because of 10 Bd2! (I
had only considered the computers 10
Kd1 Nf6 11 Bg5 Nc6 12 f4 d6) 10...Nxc2
+ (or 10d5 11 Nb5 etc.) 11 Kd1 Nxa1
12 Nd5 Qe6 13 Ba5 b6 14 Bxb6 +.
9 Nc3 Nb4 10 Bd3 d5 11 exd5 Nexd5 12
Nxd5 Nxd5 13 Qa5
It is difficult to say whether the alternative 13 Qc5 offers more: 13Be6 14 0-0
Rc8 15 Qa3 Qe7 16 Qa4+ Rc6 (the solid continuation; or perhaps 16Qd7!? 17
Qe4 f6, Kgler) 17 Qe4 Nb4 18 Qxe5 f6 19 Qe4 (19 Qe2 Nxd3 20 cxd3 0-0 21 Bf4
Qd7 =)19...Nxd3 20 cxd3 0-0 21 Bd2 Rd8 22 Bc3 Qd7 23 Qb4 (so far analysis by
Kgler) 23...Qc8 24 Rfd1 Rcd6 25 d4 Bd5 26 f3 Re6 27 Re1 Rde8 28 Rxe6 Rxe6
29 Qa5 b5 30 Re1 Kf7 31 a3 Rxe1+ 32 Bxe1 Qc1 =.
13Be6 14 Bb5+ Kf8 15 Bd3 Qd8 16 Qd2 Qc7 17 b3 Rd8 18 0-0 f6 19 Qe2 Kf7
20 c4 White offered a draw, and Black accepted. Black has a sound position, but on
the other hand it is difficult to see how White could lose.
4. Grobs Attack
My September 2007 article, Grobs Attack: Not for Beginners, ran into
opposition from Lev Zilbermints from the USA:
I read your article about the Grob and I must say that I cannot agree with you. In
my opinion, the Grob is a perfectly decent opening, but you must know what you
are doing. In order to play the Grob, you must be a good tactician, a good
positional player, knowing how to play unorthodoxly and originally. You must
know how to fill in the weaknesses with new defenses, how to play fianchettoes
properly. That is one thing.
It is another thing that not everyone can combine all these different skills at the
same time. This is the reason why many players misplay the Grob. Thus, when the
stronger player beats the weaker Grob player, people think the Grob is a bad
opening. Nothing of the sort! What is bad are the skills of the Grob player.
This is why Henry Grob said that the Grob was not an opening for beginners.
Additionally, I think that the way many people play the Grob, 1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3
Bg2 c6 4 d4 is not the way to play it! I prefer the Zilbermints Grob Gambit, 1 g4
d5 2 e4! dxe4 3 Nc3
This leads to Englund Gambit-type
positions with a pawn on g4. Of course,
neither Grob nor Basman address these
lines in their books.
Another approach I like, not commonly
found in both books, is 1 g4, Bg2, and
White plays e4, closing the diagonal, and
grabbing the key f5-square for the pawn
or knight. White can either play 0-0 or 0-00, depending on the position. The Bg2 can
be redirected elsewhere. These are the
kind of plans that are not covered in Grob
books.
SB: It is true that there are other ways to play the Grob, and some may be better
than 4 d4. As I believe that 1g5 can be playable for Black (see my earlier
ChessCafe.com columns), I wont claim that 1 g4 loses by force. If White
continues cautiously with moves like d3, Nc3, he should be fine. Nevertheless,
Basmans ambitious treatment with d4 was logical, is often quoted in opening

works and was worth study. It was not at all obvious that it doesnt work in fact I
had hoped to be able to repair 7 Bg5.
Henry Grob had analyzed an alternative treatment with d3 & e4 and successfully
played it in his longest correspondence game. Your idea 1 g4 d5 2 e4 is a bit
strange, even for my taste. Instead of the natural reaction 2dxe4, you also have to
reckon with 2Nc6!, followed by 3Nf6. For example: 2Nc6! 3 h3 Nf6 4 d3
dxe4 5 g5 exd3! 6 gxf6 Qd5!
7 Qf3
7 f3? Qe5+ 8 Kf2 Qc5+ or 8 Kd2 gxf6!
+. Or 7 Nf3? Qe4+ 8 Be3 dxc2 +.
7Qe6+ 8 Qe3 dxc2
For the sacrificed piece, Black has three
pawns and a strong attack.
The best way to play Grobs Attack must
be a delayed version. For example 1 d3
Nf6 2 h3!, followed by 3 g4. If such a
setup can be still called an attack, is another question.
Correction:
Regarding my column of August 2007, Ahead of his Time: Ladislaus Baron
Dry, I received this message from Taylor Kingston from the USA: I suppose
there could be more than one person named Ignatz Kolisch, but the Ignatz Kolisch
died in 1889.
My source was Wiener Schachzeitung 1915, which only had Kolisch. Being a
man of fast decisions, I added the Ignatz Sorry.

Check out these

bestselling titles from
USCFSales.com:
Switching Colors
Part One
In 1947, Heinz Wilhelm Dnhaupt published a 24-page booklet Mit
vertauschten Farben (i.e. With Reversed Colors), which recommended
playing established defenses with the white pieces. For example, he liked the
Queens Indian Defense for White: 1 Nf3, 2 b3. For Dnhaupt, the extra move
was of the greatest importance. Without its optimal use, White might even get
the worse of it. The author demonstrates how an additional move (like a3) may
improve Whites position enormously, on the other side there are also defenses,
he admits, where it is difficult to profit from the gained tempo.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Sometimes the extra move even vanishes completely. A chess scientist like
Dnhaupt then would close his files: mission failed. In this article we are more
stubborn and will look at a strange gambit once introduced by Bent Larsen. In
spite of its famous inventor, it didnt earn many points, but as you will see,
switching colors and a bit of psychology will help a lot!
To be fair to Dnhaupt, there is some psychology in his booklet. You have to
train yourself, he says, to get used to the specific differences connected with
reversed positions: your strong queens bishop is now operating on black
instead of white squares, and the opponents king appears not on the left, but
on the right side of the board.
Positions regularly occurring with colors reversed (and from now on we are
speaking of identical positions, not the kind of lines that Dnhaupt had looked
at) are usually close affairs. In the Queens Gambit we have; for example, the
symmetrical set-up known from Rotlewi Rubinstein, Lodz 1907: 1 d4 d5 2
c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 c5 5 e3 Nc6. Now a common continuation is: 6 a3 a6 7
dxc5 Bxc5.
Play through and download

the games from ChessCafe.
com in the DGT Game
Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Instead of 7 dxc5, an important alternative

is 7 Bd3 dxc4 8 Bxc4. In effect this loses a
tempo; suddenly White assumes Blacks
role in the diagrammed position. From the
diagram, Black has scored 43 percent,
while White in the reversed version is
slightly more successful (46 percent). Dont
ask me why.
Rudolf Swiderski didnt mind wasting a
full tempo in his game against Frank
Marshall at Ostend 1906 [D04]: 1 d4 d5 2
Nf3 c5 3 e3 Nf6 4 Nbd2 Nc6 5 Be2 Bf5 6 dxc5 e5
7 Bb5!? Qc7 8 b4. White has invested time
(Bf1-e2-b5) to reach a position from
another Queens Gambit line: 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3
Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 Bf4 dxc4 6 e4
Bb4 7 Qc2 b5 [D37]. The resulting position
is roughly balanced, and it may be a matter
of taste whether you prefer to play it with
white or black. Swiderski lost, but in the
1907 Ostend competition Janowski
repeated Swiderskis experiment against
Marshall and won.
The next example is probably more relevant for your own practice. 1 c4 e5 2
Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 e3 f5 7 Nge2 Nf6 8 0-0 0-0
9 d4. White is satisfied with playing the
Chess on the Edge The Collected Games of Canadian

Grandmaster Duncan Suttles
(pre-publication sale)
black side of a Closed Sicilian (where

Black has managed to play d7-d5 in only
one move). Obviously, both versions are
identical. But, in the first, White scores a
meager 45 percent (79 games), while Black
is much more successful with his d7-d5 in a
Closed Sicilian (53 percent, 208 games).
In this context, John Watsons discussion
of reversed openings in his best-selling
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (p. 233)
is helpful. True, what he has in mind are not strictly identical positions, but
rather the difference between having to attack against 1 e4 c5 (a difficult task)
or defending 1 c4 e5 (much easier). He writes: The Dutch Defence looks
particularly sterile when White achieves the reversed positions a tempo up (it
turns out that he has nothing useful to do!) Watson then lists reasons for
Whites disappointment, e.g. an extra move is not always an unqualified
blessing. What follows is more relevant for our twin case described below:
A third reason is simple, but also important: because he feels the
obligation of playing for a win, White will often not be satisfied with a
move which clearly equalizes, but allows a type of drawish
simplification. Black in the same position may feel no compunction about
entering into that simplification, since a draw with Black is considered
an acceptable result. (Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy)
At Buenos Aires 1954 (from left): Oscar Panno,

Bent Larsen and Fridrik Olafsson.
Source: Ich spiele auf Sieg, Zurich 1971
Bent Larsen Fridrik Olafsson

Beverwijk, (1) 1959, Hoogovens Tournament
Kings Fianchetto [A00]
1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4!?
Wonderful! said Karel van den Berg.
The first example of Dadaism in
chess! (quoted from Larsens great article
[1]).
3Bxb4
Larsen: Probably not best. Donner
recommends 3c6 4 Bb2 f6. Could
Larsen believe that this were advantageous
for Black? Certainly not, as he has played
similar structures involving g6 and b5 with
Black. A game Lotzien Speer, Championship of North Rhine and Westphalia
1988, continued 5 a3 Bd6 6 Nf3 Ne7 7 0-0 a5 8 c3 Be6 9 d3 0-0 10 Nbd2 Nd7
=.
4 c4 Be6 5 Bb2??
Larsen: With 5 Qb3! Nc6 6 a3! (vacating the a2-square for the white queen
after 7 cxd5 Nd4) White would regain the pawn, and winning a center pawn for
my b2-pawn would have been just what I wanted.
This is what I later found myself over the board! Weak players have their
moments Play might continue: 6Nd4 7 Qa2 Bc5 8 cxd5 Bf5 9 d3 Nf6 10
Nc3 0-0 11 Nf3 c6 12 Nxe5 cxd5 13 0-0 Re8 14 Bf4 Bd6 (14...g5 15 Nxf7!?)
15 e3 Nc6, about =.
5Nc6 6 f4 Nge7 7 Nf3 d4 8 Nxe5 Nxe5 9 fxe5 0-0 10 Qc2 Ng6 11 Bxb7
Rb8 12 Be4 f5 13 Bd3 Nxe5 14 0-0 Bc5 15 Ba3 Qd6 16 Bxc5 Qxc5 17 Qc1
f4 18 gxf4 Nxd3 19 exd3 Bh3 20 Rf3 Qh5 21 Rg3 Rxf4 22 Na3 Rbf8 23 Nc2
Qf5 0-1
Larsens conclusion [1]: I think the fact that this was not a clear refutation of
3 b4 shows the wide scope there still is for experiments in the opening. [] I
played this once in a simultaneous exhibition in Switzerland; it is probably my
only qualification as a dada artist. (Bent Larsen: A Personal Approach to the
Openings, published in the fine anthology How to Open a Chess Game, 1974.)
Now to a personal approach from a 17-year-old Stefan Bcker:
Dr. Hermann Pusch (Bochumer SV 02) Stefan Bcker (SKK Nordwalde)
Nordwalde (2), December 17, 1976 (team, board 5)
Modern Defense [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5!
Found over the board. Blacks third move
immediately struck me as very logical, but I
thought for a long time before I played it. It
was only in May 1980 that I bought How to
Open a Chess Game [1]. To learn about
Larsens earlier game was disappointing, of
course.
4 Bxb5 c5 5 Bc4 cxd4
Like Larsen, I have always enjoyed playing
with a majority of center pawns.
6 Ne2 Nc6 7 0-0 Qb6 8 c3 Nf6 9 Nxd4 Nxe4 10 Nxc6 dxc6 11 Qe2 Nd6 12
Bg5 0-0 13 Bb3 Ba6 14 Qf3 Bxf1 15 Bxe7
15Rae8! 16 Bxd6 Re1 17 Nd2 Rxa1 18
Nxf1 Qa6 19 c4 Re8 20 Bb4 c5 21 Bd2
Qd6 22 Be3 Qd3 0-1
Is declining the gambit a real alternative?
Lets look at Larsens version: In the 28
available games (total score: 50 percent),
the gambit players chances remain
unchanged after Black declines the pawn
(by means of Nf6, Nc6 or c6): 50 percent in
7 games. In Bckers version declining
the gambit (4 Bb3) is also a serious option,
as again the gambiteer only scores 50 percent (9 games). Of course, for a
black gambiteer this should be more good news than bad.
However, a comparison of the Larsen Gambit Accepted and the Bcker
Gambit Accepted is more interesting. White did not lose a tempo in the
Larsen, it was rather Black gaining one in the Bcker (Bf1-c4xb5). Of
course, the resulting situations are absolutely identical! In reality, they are not.
Users of Larsens version harvest a modest 50 percent (in 21 games), while
my version is more successful when accepted, scoring 68 percent in 14
games.
The standard comment would be sorry, the number of games is still too small
to draw far-reaching conclusions. But what could a larger number actually
demonstrate? We already know that the LGA is as good as the BGA. Perhaps
we should better start believing in John Watsons observation above, that the
psychological factor can make a big difference. When we gambit that pawn
with white, we are full of doubts: can this wild gambit really be correct?
Shouldnt we better have done some analysis, before stumbling into such a
mess? On the other side, when we offer the gambit with black, we are rather
inclined to enjoy the complications, thinking everything thats unclear must
be good for Black. If there are any main lines with a repetition of moves, we
dont care
By coincidence, in Gambit 59 [2], I published the following main line:
1 g3 d5 2 Bg2 e5 3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 Ne7!
More precise than 4Nf6. Now White
cant follow his original plan 5 Qb3? Nbc6
6 a3??, because of 6dxc4! with the point
of 7 Bxc6+ Nxc6, and Blacks bishop
remains protected.
5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 Qb3 Be6 7 a3 Bc5
Not 7Nf4? 8 Qa4+! (8 Qxb4 Nxg2+ 9
Kf1 [2] is also good) 8Bd7 9 Qxb4, etc.
8 Qxb7
8Nd7
8Bd4!? comes into consideration: 9 Bb2
Bxb2 10 Qxb2 Nc6 11 Nf3 0-0 12 Qc2 Nd4
13 Nxd4 exd4 14 0-0 Qf6 15 d3 Rb8, about
=.
9 Bxd5 Rb8 10 Qc6 Rb6 11 Qa8 Rb8 -
Drawn by repetition of moves. My analysis
appeared in 1984 [2]. The whole sequence,
till the final draw agreement, was
reproduced in A. Ganesan W. Gross, corr.
1995.
Lets assume that this line were the absolute main line of the gambit, what
would be your conclusion? The old masters had the joke: It is wise to decline
the Kings Bishop Gambit, but you should accept the Kings Knights
Gambit! Similarly, we could now say: Larsens Gambit doesnt promise
much, while Bckers Gambit is an excellent choice!
Sources:
[1] B. Hochberg (ed.): How to Open a Chess Game, New York 1974.
[2] St. Bcker: Gambit 59, Nuremberg 1984.
[3] ChessBase MegaBase 2008, Hamburg 2007.

Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Switching Colors
Part Two
This column presents additional material on the twin gambits 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5
3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 (Larsen) and 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5 4 Bxb5 c5 (Bcker).
Last month, I tried to convince you that the color makes a difference, for
psychological reasons. White seems to feel uncomfortable when he has to
defend against this gambit, no matter whether it is objectively sound or not.
Nevertheless, Ill start with an attractive game played in the 3...b5 version. To
focus only on the theoretical main lines might let us forget how difficult it is
for the defender to find the correct moves over-the-board. This example gives a
more realistic impression.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
T. Wilson (2175) D. Hergott (2510)

Calgary 1996, Open Canadian Championship
Chess on the Edge, Vol. 1
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5
As in part one, I will not look at lines that decline the gambit. There is nothing
terribly wrong with declining it, but here I am more interested in checking the
theoretical soundness of the gambit, rather than in discussing the equal
positions that could also arrive via standard channels of the Modern Defense.
4 Bxb5 c5
5 Bc4?
A serious mistake. In general c4 is a good

square for the bishop, if it has to retreat.
But the bishop wasnt under attack, and
other moves such as 5 c3 or 5 Nf3 are
obviously more critical, as they fight for the
extra pawn. On the positive side of the
retreat, after omitting the threat of Qa5+
and Qxb5, White now could play 6 dxc5 or
6 d5. But this chance wont come. Blacks
next move is the only consistent

the games from ChessCafe.
com in the DGT Game
Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
continuation.
5...cxd4 6 Nf3 Nc6
Note that without the influential Bb5, this knight has now become a reliable
defender for the strong pawn on d4.
7 0-0
After Whites unforced retreat, Black has a solid position, as compared to other
positions in this opening. For example, after 7 c3, he can choose between the
counterattack 7...Nf6 8 e5 Ne4 (which is likely best, about =), or protect his
pawn d4 by 7...Qb6 8 0-0 Bb7 (8...Ba6?! 9 Bxa6 dxc3 10 Nxc3 Qxa6 11 e5!) 9
cxd4 Nxd4 10 Be3 Nxf3+ 11 Qxf3 Qf6.
7...e6
7...Qb6 or 7...Nf6 came into consideration. Apparently Blacks intention is 8 c3
Nge7 9 cxd4 d5 10 exd5 exd5 =.
8 Re1 Nge7 9 c3 Qb6 10 cxd4 Nxd4
11 Nc3 0-0 12 Rb1 Bb7

Black gradually develops and hopes for a
middlegame where his pawn majority in the
center might pay off. At this moment, of
course, his structural advantage is still too
faint to deserve a =+.
13 Be3 Nxf3+ 14 Qxf3 Qc7 15 Qe2 f5
The greedy computer likes 15...Bxc3 16
bxc3 Bxe4.
16 Nb5 Qc6 17 Bg5 Rf7 18 Rbd1 Nc8 19 f3 fxe4 20 fxe4 Nb6 21 b3?! Nxc4
22 Qxc4 Qxc4 23 bxc4 Be5
Also fine was 23...Bc6, keeping the bishop-pair. Black aims at another simple
ending, where his stronger pieces will have all the fun.
24 Nd6 Bxd6 25 Rxd6 Rc8 26 Red1 Bc6 27 e5 Rf5
White is getting outmaneuvered.
28 Bf6 Rb8 29 h3 Rf4 30 c5 Rc4
Black finally wins a pawn. Probably a
better chance for a draw would now have
been to sacrifice the exchange at d7.
31 R1d2 Rxc5 32 Kh2 Rb7 33 Kg3 Rd5
34 R2xd5 Bxd5 35 Ra6 Kf7 36 a3?! h6 37
h4 Bc6 38 Kh3 Bb5 39 Rd6 Bc6 40 Rd3
Rb2 41 g4 a5 42 g5 h5 43 Bd8 a4 44
Bc7??
Overlooks the threat. 44 Rc3 was
necessary.
44...Bg2+ 45 Kg3 Rb3 0-1
Switching Colors
The Critical Main Line

1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 Nf6
The alternative 4...c6 5 cxd5 leads to the
same position after 5...Nf6!. Or 5 Qb3 Bc5
6 cxd5 Nf6 7 Nc3 0-0 8 e4 Qb6!
(recommended by Ludger Keitlinghaus),
which is certainly good for Black. In the
last line, White should try 7 Bb2, which is
less clear.
5 cxd5 c6!
5...Nxd5 only transposes to the line 4...Ne7

5 cxd5 Bxd5, covered last month. Blacks
set-up here is more ambitious. He attacks pawn d5 and places his pieces in the
most aggressive way, so that after dxc6 Nxc6, he will possess an ideal Morra
Gambit formation, without having to sacrifice a pawn. The bishop remains at
b4, and White has problems getting rid of it. He doesnt really want to play
Qb3, where the queen would later be exposed to Blacks attacks.
6 Qb3 Qd6
The bishop on b4 is one of Whites best pieces; it is well worth the use of the
queen for protecting it. This position may be reached via various move orders.
It is difficult for White to equalize:
7 Nc3
In my booklet Gambit 59, written in the pre-computer era, the recommended
solution for White was 7 dxc6 Nxc6 8 Nf3, with the intention of 8...e4 9 Ng5.
However, 9...Qc5 attacks two pieces, Ng5
and Bc1. 10 Ba3 Bxa3 11 Qxf7+ Kd8 12
Nxa3 Qxg5 /+.
7...0-0 8 Bb2
Neither 8 Rb1 a5 nor 8 Nf3 e4 9 Nd4 Bc5
(or perhaps 9...cxd5 10 Rb1 Na6 11 0-0
Bd7 12 Ndb5 Qe5 13 d4 Qh5) 10 Nc2?!
cxd5 11 0-0 Bf5 /+ seems to work.
8...Re8!
Much stronger than 8...Bd7 9 Nf3 e4 10 Nd4 cxd5 11 Ncb5 Bxb5 12 Nxb5 Qc5
13 a4 Nc6 14 0-0! Bxd2 15 Ba3 with sufficient counterplay. The rook protects
pawn e5, and now 9 Nf3 would simply be countered by 9...Bxc3 10 Qxc3
Nxd5 /+, when Whites bishop-pair still counts, but is insufficient
compensation for a pawn.
9 Rd1
To be able to reply (Bxc3) dxc3, defending
pawn d5. But when the two sides were
fighting for d5, White has made a few
strange moves (Rd1, Qb3), while nothing
similar could be said about Black. His setup
(Re8, Qd6, Bb4, Nf6) looks classical and
strong. After 9...Na6 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Qc2
Nc5 12 Nh3 h6, Blacks position is clearly
preferable.
In 1982, Dutch IM Gerard Welling
suggested another line, to combine Whites
fianchetto with b2-b4, but without sacrificing a pawn: 1 g3 d5 2 b4 e5 3
Bb2!?.
This is still a bit strange, but certainly more

respectable than the gambit discussed
above (if nobody can find a hidden resource
for White!).
One of the few games played with
Wellings variation was the following:
St. Bcker G. Franzoni (2255)
Sdlohn (6) 1981

Kings Fianchetto, Welling Variation [A00]
1 g3 d5 2 b4 e5 3 Bb2 Nf6 4 Bg2 Bd6 5 a3 0-0 6 d3 c5 7 Nd2 cxb4 8 axb4
Re8 9 c3 e4 10 e3 Bg4 11 Qb1 Qe7 12 Ne2 Nc6 13 h3 Bxe2 14 Kxe2 a6 15
dxe4 Nxe4
16 Nxe4 dxe4 17 b5 Nb8? 18 Ra4
f5 19 Rd1 Be5 20 Qa2+ Qf7 21 f4
Qxa2 22 Rxa2 Bc7 23 g4 g6 24
gxf5 gxf5 25 Rd5 Rf8 26 h4 Rf7 27
Bh3 Nd7 28 Bxf5 Nf8 29 c4 Rd8 30
Bxe4 1-0
Sources:
[2] St. Bcker: Gambit 59, Nuremberg 1984.
[3] ChessBase MegaBase 2008, Hamburg 2007.
Correction
Ren Olthof (Netherlands; New in Chess) wrote: In your latest ChessCafe.
com contribution from February 27, you mention Karel van den Berg. This
Dutch master is always referred to in the Netherlands as Carel (or C. B.) van
den Berg.

Poisoned Pawn for Tarriers

Before we come to a simpler topic, we have to return to the difficult line 1
g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4, Larsens Dadaistic pawn sacrifice, which
I had cherished in February and refuted in March. The latter was an
accident and happened unintentionally. After 4Nf6 5 cxd5 c6! 6 Qb3
Qd6 7 Nc3 0-0 8 Bb2, I suddenly saw the strong 8Re8!.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The move threw me completely off the

concept. The rest of the article wasnt
my best effort. Gerard Wellings 1 g3 d5
2 b4 (mentioned in the article) is
interesting, but, after 1e5, White
needs something else. This line would
have better deserved a separate article,
because its similarity with the gambit 3
b4 does not go very deep. Finally, in the
game Bcker Franzoni (introduced as
one of the games played with Wellings
variation in fact the game was played
the year before Wellings article, via a different move order) the original
move order was 1 g3 d5 2 b4 e5 3 Bg2 (not 3 Bb2, as given in the last
column) 3Nf6 4 Bb2 (with the bishop already on b2, here 4 Bxe5 was
possible) etc. So in fact it was a Larsen Gambit Declined. Fruitless
attempts to mask Whites failure with 3 b4, it seems...
Fortunately, there are few openings that can be refuted beyond any doubt.
Now, after 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 Nf6 5 cxd5 c6!, I would
recommend 6 Bb2!.
This offers better chances than 6 Qb3
from my last column. I had also warned
that 6 dxc6 Nxc6 was an ideal Morra
formation, which remains true. An
illustration: 7 Bb2 0-0 8 Nf3 (or 8 Nh3
h6 9 0-0 Be6 /+) 8e4 9 Ne5 Nxe5 10
Bxe5 Re8 11 Bc3 Bc5 12 0-0 Bf5 13
Qb3 Rc8!? 14 Qxb7 Nd5 15 Qb3 Qd7
with plenty of play for the sacrificed
pawn.

the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
How to Play the

Najdorf Vol. 1 (DVD)
by Garry Kasparov
6Qb6
6cxd5 7 Bxe5 Nc6 8 Bb2 and White stands only slightly worse. For
example 8Bc5 (80-0) 9 Qc1 Be7 (9Qb6 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Nc3 Bxf2
+ 12 Kf1 is okay for White; and 9Bb6 10 Nf3 0-0 11 0-0 Re8 12 Nc3
Bg4 13 Qd1 also looks solid enough) 10 Nf3 Bg4 11 Nc3 (if 11 h3?! Be6
12 Bd4 Rc8 13 Nc3 Qd7, White cannot castle) 110-0 12 0-0 Rc8 13 d3
(relatively best) 13Re8 14 Qf4 a6 15 Rfc1 Bd6 16 Qa4 Qd7 17 Rab1,
White has a sound position.
7 Nc3 0-0
Not 7Bc5? 8 Na4.
8 dxc6
How to Play the

Najdorf Vol. 2 (DVD)
by Garry Kasparov
Alternatives:
(a) 8 Na4 Qc7 9 Qc2 Qe7!? (9Bd6 10 dxc6 Nxc6 11 Nf3) 10 a3 (10
dxc6? Rd8!; 10 Nf3 e4!) 10Bd6 (after 10Ba5 11 Nf3 e4, White has
the counter 12 d6! Qxd6 13 Nd4) 11 dxc6 (what else?) 11Nxc6 12 Nf3
(or 12 Bxc6 bxc6 13 Nf3 Bh3, at least =+) 12Bg4! 13 h3 Bd7 14 0-0
Rac8 15 Qd1 e4 16 Ng5 (16 Nd4 Na5!) 16Ne5 17 Nc3 Nc4 18 Bc1 Bf5
/+.
(b) 8 a3 Bd6! (8Bxc3 9 Bxc3 cxd5 10 Bxe5 Ng4 11 d4 Qa5+ 12 Kf1
looks impressive, but White may be able to hold: 12Nxe5 13 dxe5 Rd8
14 f4 Nc6 15 Qb1) 9 Qc2 (9 Rb1 cxd5 10 10 Nxd5 Nxd5 11 Bxd5 Bc5 or
9Bf5 /+) 9.Bg4 10 Nf3 cxd5 11 Ng5 Qa6 /+.
8Nxc6
Or 8Rd8!? 9 c7! Qxc7 10 Nf3 Nc6 11 0-0 with a similar situation as in
the main line.
9 Nf3 Bg4
There are many alternatives such as 9Bf5 or 9Rd8. One of them may
be more accurate and could well give Black a slight advantage.
10 0-0 Rfd8 11 Rb1 Qa5 12 a3 Be7 13 Ba1
This position is unclear; for example,
13e4 (13Rab8 14 Nb5 Rd5 15 Bc3
Qd8 16 Nxa7 Nxa7 17 Nxe5) 14 Nh4
Rac8 15 Nxe4 Nxe4 16 Bxe4 Bxh4 17
gxh4 Rxd2 18 Qb3 Rxe2 19 Bf3 Bxf3
20 Qxf3=. Altogether, the variation is
still easier for Black, and it may be
possible to demonstrate a =+. Thus the
gambit 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4?! cannot
be your ideal choice in correspondence
chess, but at least the gambit has made
the small step forward from the status of
refuted to just playable. And in the Bcker version of the gambit, 1
e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5, taking over the psychological initiative helps to
reduce the objective risks.
Bobby Fischer. Drawing: Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
After this uphill struggle, lets choose a simpler topic and relax. One of
the best known lines in the Najdorf Sicilian is the Poisoned Pawn
Variation, associated for many with Bobby Fischer, who even used it in
the 1972 world title match. It is one of the openings where thinking starts
only at move twenty. There is another big advantage that makes studying
the opening a pure pleasure. For the Poisoned Pawn Variation you rarely
have to compare more than two sources, because any book older than ten
years will be hopelessly dated. The Sharpest Sicilian [1] by Kiril

Georgiev and Atanas Kolev is new. The two authors did their best to
keep pace with a breakneck opening, in August of 2007 they even
published a free update of their work on the Internet [3]. It is this pdf file
which will now be our main source. Georg Windhausen from Germany,
was so kind to inform us about this unusual update and about the recent
difficulties for Black.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8
Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 e5
In his The Complete Najdorf: 6 Bg5,
London 1996, John Nunn wrote: The
10 e5 variation has slumped from being
the main line of the Poisoned Pawn to a
theoretical backwater. A revival is not
imminent. Eleven years passed by, and
now it is Viswanathan Anand (and
others) who are playing the variation
again. What follows is a more or less
forced variation, given as critical in [3]:
10h6 11 Bh4 dxe5 12 fxe5 Nfd7 13 Ne4 Qxa2 14 Rd1
Introduced in 2005 by the French GM Igor-Alexandre Nataf. The old
move 14 Rb3 had led to an advantage for Black.
14Qd5 15 Qe3 Qxe5 16 Be2 Bc5 17 Bg3 Bxd4 18 Rxd4 Qa5+ 19
Rd2 0-0 20 Bd6 Nc6 21 0-0!
Instead of 21 Bxf8 Nxf8 22 0-0 (Anand
Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2007). The
text move is the latest surprise in a
controversial variation, presented by
Alexei Shirov in a rapid game that he
won quickly (Shirov Guliyev, Canada
de Calatrava 2007). In [3], Georgiev is
pessimistic about Blacks chances ([my
pet line] recently suffered a strong blow
at this moment I have no antidote).
We will check the four best replies to
see whether Black can solve his problems.
Variation A
21...Rd8 22 Qf4
According to [3], this gives White a fantastic initiative.
22...Qf5
22...Qb6+ 23 Rf2 Qb1+ 24 Rd1 Qxc2 25 Bg4 Qb3 26 Qxf7+ Kh8 27 Qg6
(threat Rf7) +.
23 Qh4 g5
23...Qa5 24 Rd3 Nf8 (24f5 25 Rg3 +
[3]) 25 c4 Ng6 26 Qf2 Rd7 27 Nc5. So
far analysis by Georgiev [3] who adds
the nice finish: 27Rxd6? 28 Qxf7+ [3]
Kh8 29 Qxg6 +. There is a more
stubborn continuation: 27...f5 28 Nxd7
Bxd7 29 Rfd1 Qa2 30 R3d2 Qa5 31 Qg3
Kh7 32 Bh5 Be8 33 Qb3 +=.
24 Qh5
Much stronger than 24 Qxh6? Qxe4 25 Bh5 f6 =.
24...Qg6 25 Qxg6+!
A new proposal. The line 25 Bc7 Re8 26 Qxg6+ fxg6 27 Rxd7 Bxd7 28
Nf6+ Kh8 29 Nxd7 Re7 30 Nb6 Rae8 31 Bd6 was called +/ in [3], but,
after 31Rh7, I wasnt able to demonstrate an advantage, e.g. 32 Bd3
Rd8 33 Ba3 Rc7.
25...fxg6 26 Ba3
Even after exchanging queens, and being
three pawns up, Black is in trouble.
26...Kh7
Or 26...Kg7 27 Bb2+ e5 28 Bg4,
followed by 29 Be6.
27 Rfd1 Kg7 28 Bg4 h5 29 Be2!
Avoiding 29 Bxe6? Nb6 =. After the
retreat, Black has to make major concessions:
29...Nf6 30 Rxd8 Nxe4 31 Rf8!
The threat 32 Rdf1 now forces the issue.
31Nc3 32 Re1 Nd4 33 Bc4 Ncb5 (33...b5 34 Bxe6!) 34 Be7. White has
a clear advantage, Black can only fight for a draw: 34...Nf5 35 Bxe6
Nxe7 26 Rf7+ Kh6 27 Rxe7 Nd4.
Variation B
21...f5
The only sensible response, in order to avoid being mated, Georgiev
[3]. However, there are at least two serious alternatives.
22 Bxf8 Nxf8 23 Nd6 Kh7
(a) 23...b5? 24 Bf3 Bd7 25 Nxf5 exf5 26 Rxd7 Nxd7 27 Bxc6 Rd8 28
Bxd7 10, Shirov Guliyev, Calatrava 2007
(b) 23...Qe5 24 Qxe5 (24 Qf2 Bd7 25 Nxb7 Nb4 26 Bf3 Rc8 -,
Kristjansson Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 2007) 24Nxe5 25 Rb1 Nfd7
was analyzed in some detail by Georgiev [3], introduced by the remark: I
have the feeling that Black could hold this endgame, but he has to
overcome some obstacles on his way to consolidation. 26 Nxc8 Rxc8 27
Rxb7 Nc5 28 Ra7 Rb8. So far [3], who now considers 29 Rc7 and 29
Bf3!. Id prefer 29 Rd1 += Rb2?! 30 Rc7 Rxc2 31 Bxa6 +/. However,
this ending certainly holds more secrets yet to be discovered.
24 g4!
Probably best. The text move gave
White a lasting advantage in Christoph
Kamp Thorsten Winkler,
Correspondence Bundesliga 2007-2008.
I dont know the further course of the
game as it is still unfinished. So Ill just
give a few ideas:
24...Ng6 25 Nc4
(a) After 25 Bd3 Nce7 26 c4, Black has
an amusing resource: 26fxg4! 27 Rf8 (apparently winning a piece,
but) 27Nf5 28 Bxf5 exf5 29 Rxc8 Rxc8 30 Nxc8 Nh4! 31 Kf2 Qa1!
and White cannot avoid the draw by perpetual check.
(b) 25 gxf5 exf5 26 Bh5 Nge7 27 Rg2 g5 28 Rd1 f4! 29 Qe4+ Bf5 =.
25...Qb4
25...Qc7? 26 Nb6 Rb8 27 Nxc8 Qxc8 28 Bd3, intending 29 Re2, +/.
26 c3 Qf8 27 Bd3 Nge7! 28 Nb6 Rb8 29 Re2 Kh8 +=.
Variation C
21Qb6
?! [3]. Georgiev regards this ending as worse for Black than the ending
after 21f5 22 Bxf8 Nxf8 23 Nd6 Qe5. This isnt obvious, though. In
both cases White has a comfortable position, but Blacks chances for a
draw seem intact.
22 Qxb6 Nxb6 23 Bxf8 Kxf8 24 Nd6 f6!
(a) 24...Ne5? 25 Nxf7 Nxf7 26 Bh5 +
P. Carlsson F. Fernandez Fuentes,
Tarragona 2007.
(b) 24f5? 25 Rb1 Na4 26 Bf3 +/ [3].
25 Rb1 Na4 26 Bf3 Ne5
This sequence, starting from 24f6!,
has also been pointed out by
nicholaswin [2], as leading to equality.
26...Nc5? 27 Nc4 Ke8 28 Rd6! +/.
27 Bxb7
After 27 Nxb7 Bd7 28 Rxd7 Nxd7 29 Nc5 Naxc5 30 Bxa8 Ke7, the
ending must be a draw.
27...Bxb7 28 Rxb7
28 Nxb7 is a reasonable alternative: 28Nc3 29 Rb3 Ne4 30 Rd4 f5 31
Nd6 Nc6 32 Rd1 Rd8 (32...Nf6 33 Re3 Nd8 34 Rc3) 33 Rbd3 +=.
28...Nc3 29 Rb3 Nd5 30 c4 Ne7 += 31 Rb7 N7c6
In Blank Kamp, Correspondence Bundesliga 2007-2008, there followed
32 Ra2 a5 33 Ra3 and the game soon ended in a draw. 32 c5 += would
have been slightly better.
Variation D
21...Nce5
An interesting defense that was analyzed by visitors of the
Chesspublishing.com website [2].
22 Bxf8
22 Rdd1 was suggested by

gewgaw [2], whose analysis went 22
f5 (22Re8? 23 Bh5 Ng6 24 Qf2! Qf5
25 Qe2 Qa5 26 Rxf7! Kxf7 27 Qg4 +
gewgaw [2]) 23 Bxf8 Kxf8 24 Nd6
Nf6 and Black equalizes, gewgaw.
22Kxf8 23 Nd6 f6
23Ke7? 24 Kh1 Qc5?? 25 Nf5+ 10, Corrales Jimenez Aranda
Flores, Sitges 2007.
24 Kh1 Qd8!
24Rb8? 25 Bh5 Qb4 26 Rd4 Qc5 27 Bg4 f5 28 Bxf5 exf5 29 Rxf5+
Kg8 30 Nc4 +/.
25 Qh3 Qe7 26 Qc3 Qd8 +=
26Nc6? 27 Qd3 heading for h7.
In the diagrammed position White has a
small advantage. The direct 27 Nxb7
Bxb7 28 Qb4+ Kf7 29 Qxb7 Qc8
doesnt achieve much; for example, after
exchanging queens Blacks position
seems too firm to break through. Perhaps
White can find a better way to increase
the pressure.
Altogether Shirovs 21 0-0! is an inspiring way to continue Whites
attack. We have seen, however, that it would be premature to write Black
off. The three variations 21f5, 21Qb6 and 21...Nce5 offer sufficient
counterplay.
After 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4 a full game of chess awaits us, with many
moves to make. Tarriers prefer established systems, such as Shirovs new
move in the Poisoned Pawn Variation, where you only have to make
twenty decisions in two hours. One has to admit, though, that their
amputated games are often more entertaining than the average 1 g3 game.
Sources:
[1] K. Georgiev, A. Kolev: The Sharpest Sicilian, Sofia 2007.
[2] The Sharpest Sicilian Updated, discussion thread on www.chesspub.
com.
[3] Update of [1]. The link for a pdf file that was included in the first
message in [2] by semko (Semko Semkov?).
Send your games or comments to redaktion@kaissiber.de.

The North Sea Defense

Stefan Birken (Germany) suggests: How about an article on 1 e4 g6 2
d4 Nf6 3 e5 (3 Nc3 d5) 3Nh5 I know a few people who are
fervently playing this.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Many thanks for an excellent idea. Last

year U.S. author Jim Bickford
published the first monograph on 2
Nf6: The North Sea Variation of the
Modern Defense (Boulder/Colorado
2007) [9]. The booklet of 94 pages
mainly collects material from rarer
European sources, which is useful for
anyone who does not have direct access
to these entertaining articles. On the
negative side, the work should have left
out weak games for deeper information in critical lines. Illustrative games
usually follow the end of a variation, which is fine, but assessments of
key positions or hints for further analysis would have been more
important and are generally missing.
This strange opening was independently invented in the 1980s by Gerard
Welling (Netherlands), who called it the Horseshoe Variation, and
Rolf Martens (Sweden), who called it the Norwegian Defense. These
names were later replaced by Martens proposal North Sea Defense,
which shared the honor. By the way, I can add a small detail to the history
of the opening. In 1985, Gerard Welling sent me a postcard. He wrote that
yesterday he had studied some modern ideas of Nimzovitch:

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Nimzovitch Alekhine, New York 1927: 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 b3 d6 3 g3 e5 4

c4 e4 [This move weakens the black squared points and sows the seeds
of all future difficulties, Nimzovitch] 5 Nh4. [So the square at KKt2
was not meant for a bishop but for a bizarre knight, Nimzovitch]
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
SScorebook
The Hippopotamus Rises

by Andrew Martin
Welling continues: From this strategy I

have deduced some ideas:
The Complete
DGT Product Line
1 g3 e5 2 Nf3 e4 3 Nh4!? (aiming at

Ng2-f4/e3) d5 4 c4 d4?! 5 d3 (plan: e3
?!) or 4 d4.
1 e4 g6 f4 Nf6 3 d3 d5 4 e5 Nh5! etc.
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 e5 Nh5!?, for
example 4 Be2 Ng7 5 Bh6 c5 (5d5) 6
c3 d6 unclear.
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 d5!? (3c6!?) 4 e5 Nh5
1 d4 g6 2 c4 c6 3 e4 Nf6 (plan: d5) 4 e5 Nh5 followed by d6.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 3 d4/c3 3Nf6 4 e5 Nh5.
Why should Nf6-h5 with options on f5 or e6 be worse than Nf6-d5-b6 or
Nf6-e4-c5-a6 ?! [1] (Translated from German; the bold moves were
The Pirc
in Black and White
by James Vigus
underlined by Welling.)
Only a postcard, but one full of original thoughts. It shows how it is
possible to find new ideas: by studying old books. Fifty years after his
death Aron Nimzovitch is still inspiring opening innovators. Nimzovitch
died on March 16, 1935. Welling wrote his postcard one day after his
invention, but perhaps he didnt mail immediately it was postmarked on
March 20, 1985.
Gerard Welling in
Schwbisch Gmnd 2006
We are still waiting for a game illustrating the strength of 1 g3 e5 2 Nf3

e4 3 Nh4; few players dare to risk 2e4. But the reversed version has
become quite popular, with 325 games in the database. In the following
stem game, Welling introduced the idea into practice.
Manuel Bosboom (2365) Gerard Welling (2360)
The Netherlands, First League (team match) 1987
North Sea Defense [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 d5 4 e5 Nh5 5 Be2 Ng7 6 Bh6
Sooner or later White will exchange his
bad bishop against the more valuable
Bf8. However, the text move allows
Black to achieve active play in the center
by means of c5. To protect the square
d4, 6 Nf3 comes into consideration,
when the motif c7-c5, dxc5, d5-d4 isnt
playable.
6c5 7 dxc5 d4 8 Nb5 Nc6 9 Nf3 Ne6
10 Bxf8 Kxf8 11 Qd2
Both 11 c3, returning the pawn, or 11 Bc4 a6 12 Bxe6 axb5 13 Bb3
would have given White a slight advantage.
11a6 12 Na3 Nxc5 13 0-0-0 Be6
Again Black sacrifices a pawn and
strives for an attack. 13Ne6 also leads
to complications: 14 Qh6+ Ke8 (14
Kg8? 15 h4) 15 Bc4 b5 16 Bb3 Qb6
unclear.
14 Kb1 Kg7 15 Nxd4 Nxd4 16 Qxd4
Qc7 17 Qe3 b5 18 Rd4 Rab8 19 Rhd1
Rhc8
Both armies are ready for action. Here

White misses the chance: 20 Rh4 Kg8 21 c3 Bf5+ 22 Ka1 Nd7 (22f6
23 Qh6) 23 g4 Be6 24 f4 Qc5 25 Nc2 +/.
20 g4? Na4 21 f4? Qa5 22 f5
22b4?
22Nc3+!! wins: 23 bxc3 (after 23 Ka1
Nxd1 24 Rxd1 b4, Black will convert his
material advantage) 23Qxa3 24 fxe6
b4! 25 Rxb4 Rxb4+ 26 cxb4 Qxe3 +.
23 Nc4 Nc3+ 24 bxc3 bxc3+ 25 Ka1
Bxc4 26 Bxc4 Qa3 27 Qc1! + and
White won (1-0, 49).
While Welling was testing the opening in several games at the end of the
1980s, Martens analyzed the variations in great detail. To a great extent,
the present theory of the North Sea Defense consists of the ideas from the
well-known Swedish theoretician, who also invented the Snake Benoni
and many other original systems.
The Main Line
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6
Putting the knight at the edge looks so provocative that Alexander
Khalifman ignored the move in Vol. 4 of his series Opening for White
according to Anand 1.e4. On page 267, he considers four alternatives to
2Bg7, namely 2d6, 2c6, 2Nc6?! and 2d5, but 2Nf6 is
missing. Even Unorthodox Chess Openings (Eric Schiller, New York
1998), stops after 2Nf6 with the skimpy comment (p. 285): is
awkward because the g7-square must be reserved for the knight which
goes to h5. Therefore the bishop cannot occupy that square. The result is
difficulty in developing the kingside. Apparently he hasnt read
Nimzovitch.
3 e5
If Schiller were correct, this critical move would be played almost
automatically. But in practice you will often face 3 Nc3. Then Black has a
choice: 3d6 and return to standard lines or throw his gauntlet for a
second time by 3d5 4 e5 Nh5 (Michiel Wind recommends 4Ne4! =)
This form of the North Sea Defense has
the theoretical disadvantage that Black is
lacking counterplay in the center with d7d6, directed against pawn e5.
Nevertheless, the line may be sound.
Here Ill mention only a few examples: 5
Be2 and now:
(a) 5Nc6! 6 Nf3 (6 Bxh5 gxh5, and
Black is fine!) 6a6! is the treatment
recommended by Martens. But after 7 00 Ng7 (what else?) 8 Na4!, White threatens 9 c4 dxc4 10 d5 with a
dangerous attack, and both variations 8e6 9 Bh6 Nf5 10 Bxf8 or 8
Bg4 9 h3 seem to be good for White (+=). /p>
((b) Therefore, Wellings 5Ng7 comes into consideration. 6 Nf3 (for 6
Bh6 see the game Bosboom Welling above) 6Nc6!? 7 Be3 when
White has a very flexible position. The best defense for Black may be 7
Bg4 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Bxf3 e6 10 g4 f6! 11 exf6 Qxf6 += and White stands
only slightly better.
3Nh5
4 Be2
Alternatively, White can ignore the
knight on h5, hoping that it wont be too
useful on that square. And if Black is
careless and puts his bishop to g7, a later
h3 and g4 may still win that knight. The
quieter treatment with 4 Nf3 can even
be considered as the main line: 4 Nf3 d6
and now:
(a) 5 Bc4 Nc6 (5Bg7? 6 Ng5! 0-0 7 g4 d5 8 Bf1! f6 9 Nh3 fxe5 10
dxe5 + Martens).
(a1) 6 Ng5 e6 7 g4 Be7? 8 Nf3 Ng7 9 Bh6 Rg8?! 10 Nbd2 (1:0, 30) as in
the correspondence game Stern (2575) Hjorth (2450), 1993-94 (SSKK
Bulletinen 40 years). According to Hjorth, the correct continuation was
7Ng7 8 Qf3 Qe7! 9 Ne4 dxe5! [7]. Apparently 9d5 is another
reliable reply.
(a2) 6 Qe2 has been analyzed in great detail by Martens and Hjorth, 6
Bg4 (Hjorth) and 6a6 (Martens) being their main continuations. There
is also the minor alternative 6d5 +=, which should be playable, since
for the loss of a tempo (d6-d5) White has to move the Bc4 for a second
time, and the position of the Qe2 is not necessarily an improvement over
her original square d1. However, 6Bg7 may be even better: 7 h3!
(intending g2-g4) 7f5 (7dxe5? 8 dxe5 Nd4 9 Qd3! Nxf3+ 10 Qxf3 00 11 g4 Qd4 12 Be2 +/), for example 8 exf6 Nxf6 9 Nc3 d5 10 Bb3 0-0
11 Bg5 e6 +=. White stands slightly better, but the weakness of the square
e5 should not be overestimated.
((b) 5 Nc3 dxe5! (5c6?! 6 Bc4 d5, followed by Ng7 seems weaker).
Here Martens analysis went 6 Nxe5 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0, intending c5.
However, Michiel Wind (Malaysia) found a subtle pawn sacrifice for
White that poses Black serious problems: 6 Be3! exd4 7 Bxd4 f6 8 Qe2
Bh6 (probably best) 9 Rd1 Nd7 10 Bc5 +=
So far analysis by Wind. In the
diagrammed position, Black can try 10
c6 11 g3 e5 12 Bh3! (on 12 Bd6 or 12
Ne4, follows 12Bf8) 12Qa5 13 Bd6
Bf8 14 Nd2 Qa6 (not attractive, but
forced) 15 Qxa6 bxa6 16 Nb3 Nb6 17
Bg2 Bd7 18 Bxf8 Rxf8 +=. White will
win back his pawn, either on a6 or c6. In
the resulting ending, his better pieces
give him an edge.
4d6!?
Martens interesting pawn sacrifice leads to attractive complications.
Nowadays the alternative 4Ng7 is less popular, after 5 Nf3 d5 6 c4 c6 7
Nc3, White immediately attacks the pawn d5 (a big difference to the line
3 Nc3 d5 4 e5). Nevertheless, in Burmakin (2552) Morozevich (2717),
Sochi 2005, Black drew the game in 52 moves. In Schach 8 (2006), p.
38f., we learn that Morozevich himself had considered 4d6 to be the
theoretical move, but on the spur of the moment changed his mind,
because one should not sacrifice a pawn in a team event. According to
Vladimir Barsky, the author of that article in Schach, Levon Aronian had
used his specialty 3Nh5 4 Be2 d6 in blitz games against Morozevich.
5 Bxh5
Instead of chasing a pawn, it might be wiser to build a strong center.
However, the logical continuation 5 f4! was played in only eleven games:
(a) 5dxe5 6 fxe5 Nc6 7 c3 Qd5 8 Nf3 Bg4 9 c4 Qd8 10 e6 fxe6 11 d5
+/.
(b) 5Ng7 6 Nf3 Bg4 (Bickford) isnt convincing: in general Black isnt
eager to exchange his bishop on f3, without any concessions of his
opponent. My analysis went 6h5 7 0-0 Nf5 8 c3, followed by Na3-c4e3. White has a significant advantage.
(c) 5c5 6 d5 e6 7 Bxh5 Qh4+! is Martens analysis. Unfortunately, after
7 Nc3! (instead of 7 Bxh5), Black is in trouble:
(c1) 7Qh4+ 8 Kf1 Ng3+ 9 hxg3 Qxh1
10 Ne4 +/.
(c2) 7exd5 8 Nxd5 Bg7!? 9 g4 dxe5
10 gxh5 Be6 11 c4 Qh4+ 12 Kf1 0-0 13
h6 +/./p>
(c3) 7Ng7 8 Nf3 Be7 9 exd6 Bxd6 10
Bb5+ Kf8 11 0-0 +/.
((c4) 7dxe5 8 fxe5 Bg7 9 Nf3! exd5
10 Qxd5 0-0 11 Be3 +/.
(d) 5e6 6 Nf3 Ng7! += seems more reliable, e.g. 7 Be3 Nf5 8 Bf2 h5 9
Bd3 Nc6 (9Bh6 10 Qd2 Nc6 11 0-0 dxe5 12 dxe5 b6 13 Nc3 Bb7 14
Ne4 Nxe5! looks fine, but the precise reply must be 10 g3!) 10 a3 b6
(10Bh6 11 g3 f6 12 exd6 Qxd6 13 Nc3) 11 Nc3 d5 (11Bb7 12 d5!)
12 Qd2 Bb7 13 0-0-0 Na5 14 Kb1 Be7 15 Qe2 Qd7 16 h3 (16 g3 Nc4 17
Ng5 Qc6) 16h4 17 Qe1 (threatens to win h4) 17Qd8! 18 Rf1 Rh5,
about =.
5gxh5 6 Qxh5 dxe5 7 Qxe5
After 7 dxe5 Qd5! (Martens), Black has nothing to fear.
7Rg8
A critical situation does the open g-file
and the initiative guarantee sufficient
compensation for Blacks investment of
a pawn?
8 Ne2!
8 Qe4 is an attempt to hold the extra
pawn on g2 and can transpose back to
variations of the main line after, say, 8
Nd7 9 Ne2 (9 Qxh7? Rg6!! Martens) 9
Nf6 10 Qf3, but Black has another option: 8Rg4! 9 Bf4 (or 9 f4 f5) 9
f5! 10 Qe3 Bg7 11 c3 c5 12 dxc5 e5 13 Nh3 Kf8 14 Bg5 Qd5 15 Nd2 f4
wins a piece for several pawns, with unclear consequences.
8Nc6!
There are two alternatives, but none of them guarantees equality:
(a) 8Rxg2 9 Ng3. For the moment Blacks imprisoned rook seems
secure, but it is a continuing source of problems. 9Bh3 (perhaps 9
Qd7 is the lesser evil: 10 Nc3 Qc6 11 Qh5 Na6 12 a3 Bg4 13 Qxg4 Rxg3
14 hxg3 Qxh1+ 15 Ke2 Rd8 16 Rb1 Qc6 17 Be3 Qg6 18 Qxg6 hxg6 19
Ne4 += and White has the better ending) 10 Be3 and then:/p>
(a1) 10Nc6 11 Qe4 Qd6 12 Nc3 Rd8!? 13 d5 (13 Qxh7? Bg4 14 Qe4
Qe6 15 Qxg2? Nxd4 /+ or 15 Nb5 Qxe4 16 Nxe4 Nb4 17 Kd2 c6 18

Nbc3 c5 19 Nxc5 e5 =+) 13Ne5 14 0-0-0 a6 (14Ng4? 15 Nb5 Qd7
16 d6! +/) 15 Qxh7 Bg4 16 Nge4 +/.
(a2) 10Qd7 11 Nc3 Nc6 12 Qe4 Qe6 13 Qxh7 (or 13 Nd5) 13Nxd4
14 0-0-0 c5 15 Nce4 (15 Nd5? 0-0-0 16 Nf4 Qxa2!! 17 Qxh3+ e6 18 Nd3
c4 19 Ne4 Bb4! +) 15Rc8 16 Nf6+! Qxf6 17 Qxh3 Qc6 18 Rhe1 +/.
(a3) 10Qc8 11 Qh5 Qg4 (11Bg4 12 Qd5 Bh3 13 Nc3 Nd7 14 Nce2
Nf6 15 Qb3 +/) 12 Qxg4 Bxg4 13 Nd2 Nc6 14 h3 Be6 15 c4 Nb4 16
Ke2 +=, since after the coming Kf3, Black will lose the exchange.
((b) 8Nd7 9 Qe4 Nf6 10 Qf3
The open g-file and the bishop-pair
should give Black some compensation,
but it is not easy to create an attack: 10
c6 (or 10Qd5 11 Qxd5 Nxd5 12 0-0
Bf5 13 c3 e6 14 Re1 Be7 15 Nd2 Bd3
16 Nf1 +=) 11 h3 Be6 (11Qa5+ 12
Nbc3 Qf5 13 Nf4! Qxc2 14 0-0; material
is equal, but White has an edge) 12 Nbc3
Nd5 13 0-0 Nxc3 14 Qxc3 Qd7 15 Kh1!
0-0-0 16 Bf4 Qd5 17 f3 Bg7 18 Rfd1
Qb5 19 Qe3 Qh5 20 Bh2 Bh6 21 Nf4
Qf5 22 Qe4 +/.
9 Qe4 f5
Better than 9Rg4 10 Bf4 Nb4 (not
10Bg7? 11 h3! f5 12 Qe3 +/) 11 Na3
(11 c3? f5 Schuler Hermannsdrfer,
Oberliga Ost 2000) 11Qd5 12 Qxd5
Nxd5 13 g3 Rg8 14 f3 Bd7 15 Kf2 +=.
10 Qh4 Be6
10Rxg2? 11 Qh5+ Rg6 12 Qxh7 is
good for White.
11 Nbc3
Puts Black under some pressure, while the alternatives are harmless: 11
Be3 (11 Qh5+ Bf7 12 Qxf5 Qd5 13 Qxd5 Bxd5 14 Rg1 Rxg2 15 Rxg2
Bxg2 16 Be3 e5!, or 11 0-0 Qd7 12 Nbc3 Nb4) 11Nb4 12 Qh5+ Bf7 13
Qxf5 c6 14 Nf4 Bh6 15 a3 Bxf4 16 axb4 Bxe3 17 fxe3 Rxg2 with full
compensation for the pawn.
11Nb4 12 Qh5+ Rg6! 13 0-0 Nxc2 14 Rb1 Bf7 15 Qxf5 Nxd4 16
Nxd4 Qxd4 17 Be3
17Qg4
Less reliable are:
(a) 17Qf6? 18 Qxf6 exf6 19 Nb5 0-00 20 Nxa7+ Kb8 21 Nb5 Bxa2 22 Rfd1
Be7 23 Rbc1 Rxd1+ 24 Rxd1 Rg8 25
Bf4 +/ and White wins a pawn. /p>
((b) 17Qd7 18 Qxd7+ Kxd7 19 Rbd1+
Kc6 (19Kc8 20 f4) 20 Bf4 Re8! 21
Be5 Bg7 22 Bxg7 Rxg7 23 Rfe1 Rg6 24 f4 b6 25 Re5 a6 26 Rde1 Kd7 27
f5 Rd6 28 g4 Rd4 29 h3 Rd2 +=. Blacks activity may suffice for a draw,
but it is much more fun to play such a position with White, whose
kingside pawns are well supported by their king.
18 Qxg4 Rxg4 19 Nb5 0-0-0!

19Rc8 20 Nxa7 Rd8 21 Nb5 (after 21 b3? c6, the Na7 is trapped, about
=) 21Bxa2 += leaves White more to hope for.
20 Nxa7+ Kb8 21 Rfd1
21 Nb5 Bxa2 = or 21 b3 c6 =.
21Bd5 22 f3 Rb4 23 b3 c6
Since the knight is trapped on a7, Black
has excellent drawing chances.
24 a3 Rh4 25 b4
In order to free the knight. 25 Rd3 Rd7
26 Bb6 e6 27 g3 Rh5 28 a4 Rf5 29 Rbd1
Bb4 =. However, the following
combination leads to a drawn ending.
25Bh6 26 Bf2 Rh5! 27 b5 Bf4 28 g3
28 g4 Rg8 29 bxc6 Bxf3 30 Bg3 Bxg3 31 hxg3 Rh1+ 32 Kf2 Bxd1 33
Rxb7+ Ka8 34 Nb5 Rf8+ with level chances.
28c5 29 Bxc5
29 Nc6+ bxc6 30 gxf4 Rg8+ 31 Bg3 Kb7 =.
29Rg8 30 b6
30Bxg3! 31 hxg3 Rxg3+ 32 Kf1 Rxf3
+ 33 Bf2 Rf8 34 Rxd5 Rxd5 35 Rb2 h5
36 Kg2
Only two white pawns remain on the
board. It isnt difficult to sacrifice and
get a draw.
36Rg8+ 37 Bg3+ (or 37 Kh2 e5 38
Re2 Ra5 =) 37e5 38 Kf2 Rg6 39 Bh2
Rxb6! =, and the resulting ending is a
clear draw.
So the tempting 4 Be2 d6 5 Bxh5 wins a pawn, but not the game.
Therefore, Whites alternatives at moves four and five offer better ways
to wring out a moderate opening advantage against the provocative North
Sea Defense.
Sources:
[1] G. Welling: (private correspondence), 1985[2] G. Welling: Schaaknieuws #s 89 and 97, 1988
[3] R. Martens: SSKK Bulletinen 1 (1988) p. 20
[4] R. Martens: SSKK Bulletinen 3 (1988) p. 9-15
[5] Vrillestad: SSKK Bulletinen 4 (1988) p. 18ff.
[6] G. Welling, R. Schlenker: various articles in Randspringer issues 44,
46, 51, 52, 54, 58, 62, 66, Villingen-Schwenningen 1989-1995
[7] G. Hjorth: Norwegisch, in: Randspringer 71/72 VillingenSchwenningen 1995 (a theoretical article of 15 pages). Hjorths article in
Correspondence Chess Informator Vol. 7 (1995) was unavailable, but
probably the contents is similar.
[8] St. Bcker: Schach-Report 10 (1991) p. 31
[9] J. Bickford: The North Sea Variation of the Modern Defense, Boulder/
Colorado 2007, 94 pages.

Fashionable or Ailing?
Do we still regard a white opening as correct if it only leads to a draw?
A fashionable line against the Kieseritzky Gambit that gives hardly more
than equality could have been the culprit for putting Alexei Fedorov off
the Kings Gambit. In his excellent series of articles on the Kings Gambit
[4], Michael Agermose Jensen from Denmark wrote in 2001: 5...d6
presently hangs like a Damocles sword over anyone foolhardy enough to
venture 2 f4.
Over the
Horizons
The new trend to analyze tactical variations in great detail can become a
danger for some openings. However, for the great majority of 2 f4
adherents it seems premature to dismiss their favorite attacking line. It
cannot be denied that 5...d6 leads to simplifications, but there is still
plenty of room for Whites winning attempts.
Stefan Bcker
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Michael Agermose Jensen, whose articles helped to establish the

present main line of 5...d6, at the Barbera Open 2005.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5
Critics of the Kings Gambit often refer to Rudolf Spielmanns article
Vom Krankenlager des Knigsgambits [From the Sickbed of the Kings
Gambit] (Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten 1924). But the move
Spielmann feared was 3...d5. To quote from his text: I have to admit that
Id like to take on a Kieseritzky or Muzio Gambit, which always offer
significant practical chances to White.
4 h4
In Das neue Knigsgambit (1986), I advocated 4 Bc4, since in my
opinion both the Hanstein and the Muzio Gambit are underestimated. In
the meantime Thomas Stock has discussed the Muzio Gambit in
Kaissiber 13, on 31 pages. Another option for courageous players is the
Rosentreter Gambit 4 d4.
4...g4 5 Ne5
The Kieseritzky Gambit. During most of
the last two centuries, Allgaiers Gambit
5 Ng5 hasnt had the best reputation.
The King's Gambit

by Alexander Bangiev
Nevertheless, I dont know a refutation

of 5 Ng5 (cf. Kaissiber 11).
5...d6
For more than 150 years, the Hungarian
Defense has been well-established as a
safe continuation. It has the advantage
to require only slim book knowledge (Carl Schlechter). According to
Bilguer [1] the variation leads to equality. Those who are eager for more
have to study the complicated 5...Nf6! (Berlin Defense), though even here
White has many resources.
6 Nxg4 Nf6
After sporadic appearances in 1873 (Gossip Rev. G. A. MacDonnell)
and 1900 (Pillsbury Edwards), this move had its real start in
correspondence games in 1967. It soon replaced the older lines 6...Be7,
6f5, and 6h5. Black intends to take back on f6 with his queen, taking
over the initiative. Fedorov had the misfortune to face this fashionable
line eight times in his practice. The most probable explanation for such a
strange accumulation is that Fedorovs preference for the dubious reply 7
Nf2? attracted his opponents like magic.
7 Nxf6+
It was only after Shirov practically refuted 7 Nf2?, by scoring a quick win
in their game in Polanica Zdroj 2000, that Fedorov switched to the best
reply 7 Nxf6+.
7...Qxf6
As Jensen showed in his articles [4] and
[5], there are several ways for White to
achieve equality. Unfortunately, many of
these lines result in a dead draw.
Variations that lead to a situation with
mutual chances or even a slight
advantage for White are more difficult to
find.
8 Nc3
8 d3 Nc6 9 Qf3 Nd4 10 Qf2 Bg4 =+.
8...Nc6
Now we will look at two moves: 9 Bb5 (main line; A) and a quiet move
introduced by Jonny Hector, 9 d4 (B).
A 9 Bb5
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 d6 6 Nxg4 Nf6 7 Nxf6+ Qxf6 8
Nc3 Nc6 9 Bb5
9 Nd5 Qg6 10 d3 Qg3+ 11 Kd2 Ne7 12
Qe1 += (=, 23) Fedorov Anand, Wijk
aan Zee 2001. However, much stronger
is 11...Nb4! (Jens Kristiansen 1995),
when both 12 Qe1?? and 12 Nxb4? are
unplayable [5]. Instead, White can take
the immediate draw (12 Nxc7+), or try
12 Qf3 =, which isnt very adventurous
either.
9...Kd8!
Found in 1999 by Jensen, when he was preparing new ideas for a
correspondence tournament. The old 9...a6 offers more options to White:
(a) 10 Nd5!? Qg6 11 0-0 (August Jensen, corr. 2000/2001) resp. 11
Qf3!? (Jensen), with heavy complications.
(b) 10 Bxc6+ bxc6 11 Qf3 Rg8 12 d3 Bh6 13 Qf2 Rb8 14 Ne2 Rxb2?
(14...f3! 15 Qxf3 Qxf3 16 gxf3 Bxc1 17 Rxc1 Rxb2 = van der Rak [4]) 15
Bxb2 Qxb2 16 0-0 Qxc2. Instead of 17 Rac1? (Short Shirov, Las Vegas
1999) 17...Qd2! =, White should have played 17 Rab1! Qxa2 (17...Qxd3
18 Nxf4) 18 Nd4 +=.
10 Bxc6
(a) 10 Nd5? fails because of 10...Qg7! 11 0-0 Rg8 12 Rf2 (12 Nxf4 Nd4
13 Bd3 Bg4 14 Qe1 Nf3+ /+) 13...Nd4 13 Bc4 c6 14 Nxf4 Be7 /+.
(b) 10 d3?! Nd4 11 Qd2 is another idea by Jensen [5], but after 11...Bh6
12 Nd5 Qg7 (12...Qe5 13 Ba4 f5) 13 Ba4 Rg8 14 Rf1 Qxg2 15 Qxg2
Rxg2 White is getting into trouble: 16 Bxf4 (16 Rf2 Rg1+ 17 Rf1 Nf3+)
16...Re2+ 17 Kd1 Bxf4 18 Rxf4 Rh2 19 Ne3 (19 Rxf7 b5!) 19Be6 20
c3 Nc6 21 d4 Ne7; for example, 22 d5 Ng6 23 Rf1 Bc8! 24 Bb5 Rxb2 /+.
10...bxc6 11 Qf3
(a) 11 0-0? Rg8 12 d3 Bh3 13 Rf2 Bh6 14 Ne2 f3 /+ is too risky.
(b) 11 d4 Rb8 12 0-0 (12 e5 =+) 12...Bh6 13 Rf2 Rg8 14 Ne2 Qxh4 15
Bxf4 Rg6 =+.
11...Rg8 12 d3 Bh6
12...Rg4 13 g3! Rb8 14 Rb1 Be7 15 Bxf4 Rxb2 16 Kd2 +=.
13 Qf2
A measure of precaution: 13 Ne2 (13 Bd2 Rg3 14 Qf2 Bg4) 13...Bg4 14
Qf2 Bxe2 15 Kxe2 Rg3 /+.
13...Rb8!
Other continuations hand the initiative to White:
(a) 13...Rg4 14 Ne2 Rb8 15 Rb1 Be6 16 g3; for example, 16...Qg7 17
Nxf4 Bxf4 18 Bxf4 Rxb2 19 Kd2 +=.
(b) 13...Bg4 14 g3 f3 15 Bxh6 Qxh6 16 Qd2 Qf6 (16...Qxd2+ +=) 17
000 (17 Qf2 Qh6!) and now:
17...Qd4 (17...Rb8 18 d4 Kc8 19 Qf2
Qh6+ 20 Kb1 f6 21 Rhe1 Qg7 22 Rd3
Re8 23 Ree3 h5 24 Rxf3 Bxf3 25 Rxf3
with compensation) 18 Rde1 Rb8 19 e5!
d5 (19...dxe5? 20 Re4 Qb6 21 Na4 +/)
20 Nd1 (or 20 Qh6 f2 21 Ref1 Qxe5 22
Rxf2 Be6 23 Rf3 Kd7 24 d4 unclear).
White can be satisfied with the situation;
for example, 20...h5 21 Rhf1 Kc8 22 a3
c5 23 Nc3 Kd7 24 Qf2! c6 25 Qxd4
cxd4 26 Na4 Rb5 27 b4 a5 28 Nc5+ Ke7
29 Nb3 axb4 30 a4! +=.
14 Ne2 Rxb2
Jensen [4] recommended 14...f3, but the position after 15 Qxf3 Qxf3 16
gxf3 Bxc1 17 Rxc1 Rxb2 18 a3 Ra2 19 Kd2 Rxa3 20 Rhg1! Rh8 21 Rb1
would be much to Whites taste.
15 Bxb2 Qxb2 16 0-0
16 Qd4? (Westerinen Bae, Oslo 2002) 16...Qxd4 17 Nxd4 c5 18 Nc6+
Kd7 19 Nxa7 Ba6 /+.
16...Qxc2
17 Nd4!
17 Nxf4? Qxf2+ 18 Rxf2 Bg7 19 Rc1
Bd4 20 Rxc6 Rg4 21 Nd5 Bb7 22 Rc4
Bxf2+ 23 Kxf2 Rxh4 24 Nxc7 Rh5 =+
-, Fier (2490) Leitao (2601),
Guarulhos 2006 (Brazil
Championships). After 25 Ke3 a6 26
Kd4 Rg5 27 Nd5 (27 Rc2?? Rc5) 27
Rxg2 28 Nf6 Rxa2 29 Nxh7 Ra5 30
Rb4, the most probable result would be a
draw, in spite of Blacks extra pawn.
The text move is more precise, it has already been mentioned by Jensen
[5].
17...Qxf2+
Not 17...Qxd3? 18 Nxc6+ Ke8 (18...Kd7? 19 Ne5+!) 19 Rab1 += Jensen
[5].
18 Rxf2
18 Kxf2? Bg7! 19 Nxc6+ Kd7 20 Rac1 Bb7 21 Nb4 Bd4+ 22 Ke1 f5 23
Rc4 Be3 24 Nc2 Bb6 25 Nb4 Re8 26 Rxf4 d5 =+.
18...c5 19 Nf3
An important alternative is 19 Nf5 Bxf5 20 exf5 Rg4 21 Rb1, and now:
(a) 21...Rxh4 22 Rf3 Bg7 23 g3!? (23
Rh3? Rxh3 +) 23...fxg3 (or 23...Rg4 24
Rxf4 Rxg3+ 25 Kf2 Rxd3 26 f6 Bh6 27
Re4 Bg5 =) 24 f6 Bh6 25 Rxg3 c4 26
Re1 c3 27 Rg8+ Kd7 28 Re7+ Kc6 29
Rc8 Be3+ 30 Rxe3 c2 31 Re1 Rb4 32
Kf2 Rb1 33 Re7 Rf1+ =, draw by triplerepetition.
(b) 21...Kc8 22 Re1 Rxh4 23 Re8+ Kb7
24 Rf3 Bg5 25 Rf8 f6. Blacks pieces
are almost imprisoned: 26 Re8 Rg4 27 Re4 a6 28 Rc4 Kc6 29 Rc1 h5,
followed by Rg3 =.
19...Bg7
(a) 19...Bg4 20 Rb1 Kd7 21 Ng5!? f6 22 Rxf4 unclear.
(b) 19...Re8 20 Rb1 f5 (Jensen) 21 e5 dxe5 22 Re2 Bg7 23 Rbe1 Bb7 24
Nxe5 Bd5 =.
20 Rb1 c6 21 Rc2 Kc7 22 Rc4 Bf6 23 Kf2 Bg4
24 Ra4
24 e5 Bxe5 25 Nxe5 dxe5 26 Rxc5 Kd6

27 Rbc1 Bd7 28 d4 e4 (or 28...exd4 29
R5c4 Ke5 =) 29 Rg5 Rb8 (29...Rxg5? 30
hxg5 Bg4 31 Rc5) 30 Rh5; for example,
30...Be6 31 Rxh7 Rg8 32 Rh6 Kd5 33
Rf6 Rg4 34 h5 (34 Rh1? Kc4!! 35 h5
Kd3 36 d5! Bxd5 /+) 34...Rh4 (34...
Kxd4 35 Rh1 =) 35 g4 fxg3+ 36 Ke3 g2
37 Rc5+ Kd6 38 Kf2 Ke7 39 Rxe6+
Kxe6 40 Kxg2 f5 41 Rxc6+ Kd7 42 Rh6 f4 43 d5 =.
24...Ra8 25 g3
25 Ng5 is another possibility, 25Bd4+ 26 Kf1 f6 27 Nxh7 a5 28 Rxd4
cxd4 29 Nxf6 Be6 30 Kf2 Bxa2 31 Ra1 Bb3 32 Kf3; for example, 32...
Rh8 (Rf8) 33 Kg4 Bc2 34 h5 Bxd3 35 Kxf4 Rf8 36 e5, about equal.
25...fxg3+ 26 Kxg3 h5 27 Rf1
(a) 27 Re1 Bc3 28 Rc1 Bb2 29 Rb1 Bf6, and White hasnt achieved
anything.
(b) 27 Kf4 a5 28 e5 Be7 29 exd6+ Bxd6+ 30 Ke3 f6.
27...Bc3 28 e5!? dxe5 29 Rc4 Bd4 30 Nxd4 cxd4 31 Rxf7+ Kd6 32 Rf6
+ Be6 33 Ra4
Again White has to accept a draw: 33...
Rg8+ 34 Kf3 Rg4 35 Rxa7 Rxh4 36 Rh6
Rh3+ 37 Kf2 Rxd3 38 Ra8 Kd7 39 Ra7+
Kd6 40 Ra8 =.
B 9 d4
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5
Ne5 d6 6 Nxg4 Nf6 7 Nxf6+ Qxf6 8
Nc3 Nc6 9 d4
Jonny Hectors idea deserves attention. Objectively 9 d4 is on a par with
9 Bb5 (A), it would even be my favorite in practice.
9...Qxd4
9...Nxd4? 10 Nd5 Qg7 (10...Qe5 11 Qd3
Bf5 12 Nxc7+ +/; 11...Ne6 12 Bd2 +/
Westerinen Heimann, Baden 2005) 11
Qd3 Qg3+ 12 Qxg3 fxg3 13 Nxc7+ Kd7
(13...Kd8 14 Nd5! +/ Nxc2+? 15 Kd1
Nxa1 16 Bg5+ Kd7 17 Bb5+ Ke6 18
Rf1 +) 14 Nxa8 Nxc2+ 15 Kd2 Nxa1
16 Bb5+ Kd8 17 Kd3 +/.
10 Bxf4
10 Qf3? Bh6 11 Nd5 Nb4 (11...Ne5) 12 Nxb4 Qxb4+ 13 c3 (Hector
Peter Heine Nielsen, Copenhagen 1995) 13...Qa4 =+.
10...Bg7!
10...Qxd1+? 11 Rxd1 wastes time:
(a) 11...Bg4 12 Be2 Bxe2 13 Kxe2 (White has got rid of his bad bishop)
13...Bg7 (Hector Peter Heine Nielsen, Middelfart 2003), and now
Jensen recommends 14 Nd5! 0-0-0 15 c3 Rhe8 16 Kd3 += [5].
(b) 11...Be6 =+Jensen [5], but after 12 Nd5 0-0-0 13 Bg5 Re8 14 Nf6,
White has the initiative.
11 Qxd4 Nxd4 12 Bd3
Before Black can profit from the empty
square e5, White plays his few
remaining trump cards. His main threat
is Nd5. If Black plays Ne6, White will
castle short and try to attack pawn f7, by
doubling his rooks on the f-file. Maybe
there is a chance for Be2-h5.
12...Ne6
(a) 12...Bg4 13 0-0 h5?! 14 Rf2 Ne6 15
Be3 0-0 16 Raf1 c6 17 Be2! +=.
(b) 12...Be6 13 Nd5 Kd7 comes into question. However, after 14 c3 Rhe8
15 0-0, White has the initiative.
13 Be3 c6!
A cautious treatment that is probably best.
(a) 13...Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Rg8 15 0-0 Rg4 16 Rf5 Rxh4 17 Raf1 Nd8 18
Rg5 +=.
(b) 13...Be5 14 0-0 (14 g4!? deserves attention) 14...Rg8 15 Be2!? (or 15
Rf5 c6 16 Raf1 f6 17 Rxf6, and White gets sufficient compensation for
the exchange.) 15...Rg3 16 Bd2 Nd4 17 Bh5
17...Bh3 (17...Bg4? 18 Bxf7+ Kd7 19
Be1 Re3 20 Bc4! Nxc2 21 Rf7+ Ke8 22
Bd2 +/) 18 Rf2 Kd7 19 Nd5 Rag8 20
Rxf7+ Kc8 21 Ne7+ Kb8 22 Nxg8 Rxg2
+ drawn.
14 0-0
The alternative is 14 g4, followed by
Rg1 and 0-0-0, with mutual chances.
14...0-0
14...Nc5 15 Bc4 Be6 (15...0-0? 16 Bxc5 dxc5 17 Rxf7!) 16 Bxe6 Nxe6 17
Rf5 Be5 18 Ne2 Rg8 19 Raf1 f6 20 Rh5 Rg7 21 c3 =.
15 a4 Nc5 16 Bc4 Be6 17 Bxe6 fxe6 18 Rad1
The position is roughly balanced: 18...
Be5 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Bxc5 dxc5 21
Ne2 c4 (or 21...Bxb2 22 c3 c4 23 Rb1
Ba3 24 Rxb7 Bc5+ 25 Kh2 Rf2 26 Nd4
=) 22 c3 Bc7 23 Rd7 Bb6+ 24 Kh2 Rf2
25 Ng3. If necessary, White will be able
to give perpetual check by means of e5
and Nh5-f6-h7.
In spite of my efforts, 5d6 is a bit
frustrating. But there are drawish lines in
almost any opening. Is it now all too simple, so that every Black player
can master the situation easily over the board? I dont think so; altogether
the variation is still pretty complicated.
At the moment 5d6 is the fashion in the Kings Gambit, a trend mainly
based on a few games by prominent players. In a few years things may

change completely, then 5Nf6 might dominate the scene. That
Anderssen lost twice against 5d6 did that stop him from playing the
Kings Gambit? About thirty years ago I cured myself from the idea that
the Kings Gambit wins by force, by writing a book on 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Qf6.
But I still love the opening.
If you are White against 5d6, and the game is too peaceful for your
taste, just relax and think that the opponent could have chosen the
stronger 5Nf6, when by now you might be in serious trouble. And isnt
a boring Kings Gambit still better than a Caro-Kann? In the postmortem, assure your opponent that you enjoyed the game and compliment
him for his defensive skills that finally earned him half a point. But then,
please, go home and prepare the Allgaier Gambit for the return match.
Sources
[1] P. R. von Bilguer: Handbuch des Schachspiels, Berlin 1891
[2] A. Bangiev: Das angenommene Knigsgambit, Ludwigshafen 1996
[3] T. Johansson: Das Knigsgambit fr den erfindungsreichen
Angriffsspieler, Schwieberdingen 1998
[4] M. Agermose Jensen: The Kings Gambit Lives!, four articles in
Correspondence Chess News 45, 51, 52 und 55 (2001)
[5] M. Agermose Jensen: The Kieseritzky Gambit Part II, in NIC
Yearbook 67 (2003)

Kieseritzky Gambit: A Patient Novelty
Over the
Horizons
Recent works on the Kings Gambit prefer the modern interpretation 6 d4

in the Kieseritzky Gambit (after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5
Nf6). The move stems from Philidor, but was practically ignored in the
heyday of the Kings Gambit; the idea only gained some popularity when
Max Euwe advocated it in 1939. Then Bobby Fischer lost to 6 d4, in his
game against Boris Spassky (Mar del Plata 1960), which motivated him
to write his article A Bust to the Kings Gambit. Even today, almost
fifty years later, many players (who are anything but experts of the Kings
Gambit) are informed that Fischers recommendation 3d6 is meant to
avoid the Kieseritzky Gambit. Since then, the move 6 d4 was something
special the position which Fischer didnt dare to repeat. Later in
dozens of publications, as by automatic reflex, the classical move 6 Bc4
was called weaker than 6 d4.
Stefan Bcker
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Michael Agermose Jensen [5] is a notable exception. In his series of

articles on the Kings Gambit [5] he wrote I presently believe that 6 Bc4
is the better alternative. I fully share his opinion. There can be little
doubt that after 6 Bc4 White has at least an equal game. On the other side
I fail to see full equality for White after 6 d4. And even if 6 d4 were as
good as 6 Bc4, it seems a bit strange to follow the advice of Max Euwe,
when it comes to a Kieseritzky Gambit. This was one of the most popular
openings of the 19th century. Perhaps we should have more faith in the
moves and plans created by Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen?
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4
The King's Gambit

We ignore 6 d4. But there is a third line,

played in several old games, for example
in Morphy Anderssen, Paris 1858: 6
Nxg4 Nxe4 (6d6 transposes to 5d6
6 Nxg4 Nf6, see last months article) 7
d3 Ng3 8 Bxf4 Nxh1 9 Qe2+ Qe7 10 Nf6
+ Kd8 11 Bxc7+ Kxc7 12 Nd5+ Kd8 13
Nxe7 Bxe7
Morphy won the game in 23 moves. The

position has theoretical value. From
eight games in the database, White
scored 3 points. Black stands better,
according to Carl Schlechter in Das
angenommene Knigsgambit, Berlin
1918; other sources give similar
evaluations. Schlechter called 6 Nxg4 a
very interesting continuation. Fischer
exaggerated greatly in My 60
Memorable Games (1969), p. 124,
writing about the position above: and
Black should win. The chances seem roughly even: 14 Qf3 Bxh4+ 15 g3
Nxg3 16 Qf4 Nf5+ 17 Kd1 d6 18 Bh3 Rg8 19 Bxf5 Rg1+ 20 Ke2 Rg2+
21 Kd1 Rg1+ 22 Ke2 =.
6d5 7 exd5 Bd6
Max Langes 7Bg7 (transposing from the Berlin Defense 5Nf6 to the
Paulsen Defense 5Bg7) is less popular, though it is recommended by
some authors as being the safer move. The Bg7 games in the database
often lead to a draw, while the overall score of both moves is the same:
sixty percent for Black. So there is nothing wrong with the aggressive text
move. Probably nobody has studied 5 Ne5 more than Oskar Cordel, who
believed that both moves, 7Bd6 and 7Bg7, were equivalent [2]. After
7Bg7 8 d4 Nh5 9 0-0 Qxh4 (also fine is 9...0-0 10 Nxg4 Qxh4 11 Nh2,
Alapin Tarrasch, Ostend 1905; drawn in 23 moves) both sides cannot
avoid the exchange of queens: 10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1 0-0 (the computer
doesnt see a refutation of the interesting 11...Nd7!?, but examples are
missing) 12 Nc3 Nd7 13 Nb5 Nxe5 14 dxe5 c6 15 Nc7 cxd5 16 Bxd5
Rb8! (16...Rd8?! Jensen [5] 17 Bb3 is good for White) 17 c3 Rd8 18 Bb3!
There isnt much of an advantage. For
example: 18...Kf8 19 Nd5 Bh6 20 Rf1
Be6 (20...Ng3 21 Rf2 b5 22 Nxf4 Kg7
23 Nd3! +=) 21 Nxf4 Bxf4 22 Bxe6 fxe6
23 Bxf4 Kg7 24 Bg5, and Black has
almost equalized.
8 d4 Nh5 (Staunton) 9 Nc3
A move played by Paul Morphy, today

considered inferior to 9 0-0. One of the
refutations stems from Adolf
Anderssen. Well see
(a) The theoretical main line goes 9 0-0
Qxh4 10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1. The
variation is, not surprisingly, fully sound
and playable.
(b) 9 Bb5+? c6! 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Nxc6 Nxc6 12 Bxc6+ Kf8! 13 Bxa8
Ng3 14 Rh2 (after 14 Kf2, best is 14Bf5! 15 Bd5 Nxh1+ 16 Qxh1 Qf6
17 c3 Bd3, followed by g3+. Kasparovs line [My Great Predecessors,
Part 1, p. 30f.] is less clear) 14Bf5 (14Qe7+ 15 Kf2 Ne4+, an idea of
Harrwitz, is refined by 15Ne2! +) 15 Bd5 Kg7 16 Nc3 Re8+ 17 Kf2
Qb6 18 Na4 Qa6 19 Nc3 Be5!! 20 a4 Rosanes Anderssen, Breslau
1863.
Now Anderssen announced a brilliant
mate in four: 20Qf1+ 21 Qxf1 Bxd4+
22 Be3 Rxe3 and mate next move. 9 Bb5
+ had been a popular move, but after this
game the players of the 19th century
wisely preferred other lines To my
surprise, Joe Gallagher in Winning with
the Kings Gambit (London 1992)
claimed that 9 Bb5+ could well be
Whites best [move], because 11 Bc4!
was an improvement. First of all, White
is helpless after 11 Bc4 0-0!. Secondly,
Black could change his order of moves and play 10Nxc6! first.
Altogether, the move 9 Bb5+? is clearly refuted.
(c) Against 9 Bxf4? Nxf4 10 0-0 (Oskar Cordel), Black can choose
between two refutations: either 10Qe7 11 Rxf4 f6, or 10f6!, when 11
Nxg4 is strongly met by 11Rg8 12 Qe2+ Kf8 13 Ne3 Bh3 /+.
However, the line in the Handbuch [1] 100-0 11 Rxf4 f6 12 Rxg4+
Kh8 13 Ng6+ hxg6 14 Rxg6 Rf7 15 Rh6+ Kg7 16 Qh5? Bf5 (Marco)
fails to 16 Qd2 +/.
(d) Against 9 Kf2?, Black should avoid 9Ng3? 10 Bxf4! Nxh1+ 11
Qxh1 with active play. However, 9Nd7 /+ is excellent for Black.
9Qe7
Recommended by Jaenisch, 1860, and still attributed an ! from most
authorities. However, Anderssens favorite 90-0 is a serious alternative.
One year after Anderssens death, his pupil Fritz Riemann claimed in
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1880, p. 161, that 90-0 refuted Whites play.
After 10 Ne2!, Black has many ways to go wrong:
(a) 10Qe7? 11 Nxf4 Nxf4 12 Bxf4 f6
13 0-0 fxe5 14 Bg5!; for example, 14
Qe8 15 Rxf8+ Kxf8 16 Qf1+ Kg8 17
Qf6 b5 18 Bb3 exd4 19 Bh6 Qg6 20 Qd8
+ Kf7 21 Bf8! Nd7 22 Rf1+ Nf6 23
Bxd6 cxd6 24 h5 Qg5 25 Qxd6 +/.
(b) 10Re8? (Riemanns favorite, given
a ! sign) 11 Nxf4 (Blackburnes
improvement [2]; not 11 Bxf4? f6 12 0-0
Nxf4 13 Nxf4 fxe5 14 Nh5 Anderssen
Riemann, Breslau 1877; 14Qxh4! + Riemann) 11Nxf4 12 Bxf4 f6
13 0-0 fxe5 14 Bg5 Qd7
15 Qd2! +/ Von Scheve Richter,
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1883. Instead of
the last move, 15 Rf6!? (proposed by
Marc Narciso in Kaissiber 15) is another
strong alternative.
(c) 10Nd7?! 11 Nxf4 Nxe5 12 dxe5
Qe8 (12Ng3 Zeier Schafranietz,
Untergrombach 2004, 13 Ne6!) 13 e6!
Nxf4 14 Bxf4 fxe6 15 Bxd6 exd5+ 16
Be2 cxd6 17 Qxd5+ Be6 18 Qg5+,
followed by 19 0-0-0 +=.

(d) 10f6?! 11 Nd3 f3 (or 11Re8 12 0-0 f5 13 Bxf4 Qxh4 14 Bxd6
cxd6 15 Ndf4 g3 16 Nh3 +=) 12 gxf3 gxf3 13 Nef4 Bg4 14 Rg1 (better
than 14 Kf2 Anderssen Riemann, Breslau 1877, 14Kh8 =+) 14f5
15 Qxf3 +=.
(e) 10b5 11 Bxb5 c6! isnt mentioned in my sources, but looks highly
interesting. 12 Ba4 Re8 13 dxc6 Bxe5 14 dxe5 Qa5+ 15 c3 Qxe5 16 c7
Nd7 17 0-0 f3 18 Nd4 Ng3 19 Rf2 Ne4 20 Rxf3 (Nxf3), with an unclear
situation.
(f) Riemann preferred 10Re8, but he gave another move as second best:
10Qf6. In fact the queens move is by far Blacks strongest
continuation. His initiative looks dangerous, but White castles into it
and seems able to hold: 11 0-0 Qxh4 (11f3 is also critical: 12 Bg5 Qg7
13 gxf3 gxf3 14 Rxf3 f6 15 Ng3 Nxg3 16 Rxg3 fxe5 17 dxe5 Bxe5 18
Bf4 =) 12 Bxf4 and the position is roughly equal.
Older sources [1], [2], [3] mentioned 9Ng3 10 Bxf4! Nxh1. Id prefer
the less generous 10 Rg1 Qxh4 11 Bxf4 Nh5+ 12 g3 Qh2 13 Rf1 Nxf4 14
gxf4 +=.
10 0-0
(a) 10 Bb5+ (clearly the best move, Jensen [5]) is an excellent
alternative to castling. 10c6 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 Nd5! Qe6 (or 12Qb7
13 Nc4 Bachmann) 13 Nc7+ Bxc7 14 Bc4 (Steinitz Deacon, London
1863) 14Qf5 15 Bxf7+ Kd8 (15Qxf7 16 Nxf7 Kxf7 was regarded as
advantageous for Black by Estrin and Glazkov, but Jensen [5] is right to
utter his doubts; for example, 17 0-0 [5] Rf8 18 Qd3 Kg7 19 Bd2 +/) 16
Bxh5 Qxh5 17 Bxf4
White has sufficient compensation for
the sacrificed piece.
(b) The highly original 10 Kd2 was
suggested by Marc Narciso Dublan in
Kaissiber 15 (p. 78), continuing with
10Kf8! (plan: 11 Nxg4 Rg8!) 11 Qe1
Ng3 12 Rg1 Qxh4 13 Kd1, analysis by
Marc Narciso. Perhaps 100-0 11 Re1
Na6 should be tried, when Black seems
to be slightly better. But it is difficult to
draw a final conclusion.
10Bxe5 11 Nb5! (Ivo Nei 1980?)
11 Re1? was impossible because of 11
Bxd4+. So the text move, which
prepares Rf1-e1 by protecting the pawn
on d4, is extremely logical. And after
11a6 12 Re1, Black has to defend
against losing a queen and cannot take
the knight. Nevertheless it happened not
in the times of Morphy and Anderssen,
but only in 1980 that this fine move
appeared in the opening literature in
the first decades strangely branded as a
mistake! In Estrin/Glazov: Das
angenommene Knigsgambit, Dsseldorf 1982, we find the sentence: 11
Nb5 must not be played because of the reply suggested by Keres 110-0
12 dxe5 a6. However, the credit to Paul Keres was later omitted in the
improved Russian edition of the same work (1988). Henk Smout
(Netherlands) found a possible explanation, locating the same sequence of
moves in the 1980 German edition of a book, which had originally been
written by Paul Keres (but in the earlier Dreispringerspiel bis

Knigsgambit, Berlin 1968, 11 Nb5 was missing). For the 1980 edition
(five years after Keres death), Ivo Nei was responsible. Thus the full
potential of the new move wasnt detected by Nei. The new move needed
patience
Since 11 Nb5! is more interesting, well ignore the main line 11 Bb5+ and
just note that the bishop check isnt as good as at move ten, because Black
replies 11Bd7 =+.
110-0
In his analysis mentioned above Ivo Nei mentioned 11a6 as an
alternative, but this doesnt work either, 12 Re1 and then:
(a) 12Nd7 (Nei) 13 d6! cxd6 14 dxe5 (threatens to win a queen: exd6+,
thereby securing the knight) 140-0 15 e6! + Black is lost.
(b) 12Qxh4 13 Rxe5+ Kd8 14 Nxc7 Kxc7 15 d6+ Kb6 16 d5 + Ka7
17 Qd4+ b6 18 Rxh5! +.
12 dxe5 a6
If 12Qxh4 13 Rxf4 Nxf4 14 Bxf4 g3, White has the nice rescue 15
Qf3! Qh2+ 16 Kf1 +/, when 16Qh1+? 17 Ke2 Qxa1 fails to 18 Bh6!,
followed by a mate in six moves.
Now we have reached the position
which was thought to be
disadvantageous for White by Nei,
Estrin, Glazkov, Gallagher and a few
others (but not Keres). Can White
survive?
13 Nd4! (Flude 2004)
Found by David Flude (Australia), who
published a short note on www.chesspub.
com, hinting at the new possibility in the Kieseritzky Gambit. In a recent
e-mail, he sent me this valuable tactical idea: 13Qxh4 14 Rxf4 Nxf4 15
Bxf4 g3 16 Qf3 Qh2+ 17 Kf1 Qh1+ 18 Ke2 Qxa1 19 Bh6! and mate in
six moves. In the meantime one game has been played with the text move,
but the rest of the article will consist of my own analyses.
13Qxe5
(a) 13f3 14 Qe1 Nd7 15 e6 Qc5 16 Qc3! +/.
(b) After 13b5 14 e6 Qxh4 15 Bb3, White is better: 15c5 (15g3 16
Nf3) 16 dxc6 Bxe6 17 Bxf4 g3 18 Bxg3! Nxg3 19 Nxe6 Nxf1 20 Nxf8
Nxc6 21 Qxf1 +=.
(c) 13Qxh4 14 Rxf4 has already been mentioned in the annotation to 13
Nd4!. By means of 14 e6 b5 15 Bb3, White can also reach line b.
After the natural text move, I look at two possible continuations: the
direct attack 14 Re1 and the patient attack 14 b4!.
David Flude (Australia)
Direct Attack: 14 Re1

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4
Nh5 9 Nc3 Qe7 10 0-0 Bxe5 11 Nb5 0-0 12 dxe5 a6 13 Nd4 Qxe5 14
Re1
14 Ne2 (or 14 a4 c5 15 Ne2 f3 16 gxf3
gxf3 17 Rxf3 Bg4 =+) 14b5 15 Bd3 f3
16 gxf3 gxf3 17 Rxf3 Bg4 is about
equal, perhaps with a slight plus for
Black. Instead of 16gxf3, in the only
existing game with 13 Nd4 there
followed 16c5 17 dxc6 Nxc6 18 Qd2
gxf3 19 Rxf3 Bg4 20 Rf2 f5 21 Qc3 Rf6
22 Bg5 Rd6 23 Raf1 Re8 24 Qb3+ Qe6
25 Qxe6+ Rexe6 26 Nf4 Nxf4 27 Bxf4
Rd5 28 a3 Nd4 29 Kg2 Kf7 30 c4 Rd7
31 c5 Ke8 32 b4 Rg7 33 Kh2 Ra7 34
Bb1 Rae7 35 Ba2 Re2 36 Bd5 Bf3 37 Bxf3 Nxf3+ 38 Kg2 Nxh4+ 39 Kh1
Rxf2 40 Rxf2 Re1+ 41 Kh2 -, B. Baroin J. Wallner, corr. 2006
(ICCF).
14Qf6
14Qd6 15 b3 Nf6 16 Bb2 Nxd5 17 Bxd5! Qxd5 18 Nf5! wins Blacks
queen.
15 Ne6!?
15 Re4 f3 16 Qd2 c5 17 dxc6 Nxc6 18 Nxc6 Qxc6 isnt dangerous for
Black. The text move involves some traps.
15f3!
(a) 15Qxh4 16 Nxf8 g3 17 Ne6 Nc6 18 b3! and Black is in difficulties.
For example 18fxe6 19 dxc6 b5 20 Re5! Qh2+ 21 Kf1 Qh1+ 22 Ke2
Qxg2+ 23 Kd3 +/.
(b) 15fxe6 16 dxe6 Re8 (16Kh8 17 Bd2! is even worse; for example,
17Qd4+ 18 Kh1 Ng7 19 Bc3 Qxd1 20 Raxd1 Nc6 21 Rd5 h6 22 Rh5
etc.) 17 Qd7!!
Forces the Qf6 into a passive position:
17Qe7 (17Ng7? 18 Qf7+! +; 17
Kf8 18 Qxh7) 18 Qd5 Ng7 (18Nf6 19
Qg5+) 19 Bxf4 Kh8 20 Bg5 Qd6 21 Qe4
+=, Whites active pieces and the

advanced e-pawn fully compensate for
the loss of a knight.
16 Bg5 f2+
16Qf5 17 Re3 f2+ 18 Kh2 must be
weak: 18Re8 19 Bd3 f1Q 20 Bxf1 fxe6 21 Bd3 g3+ 22 Kh1 Qf7 23
Qd2 +/.
17 Kh1 fxe1Q 18 Qxe1 Qxb2 19 Nxf8
An explosive situation apparently there
is only one correct reply for Black:
19Bf5!
(a) 19h6 20 Rd1 hxg5 21 Qe8 Nf6 22
Qxc8 Nbd7 23 Qxa8 Nxf8 24 d6 cxd6
25 Bb3 gxh4 26 Qxb7 +/.
(b) 19Ng3+ 20 Kh2 Nf5 21 Ne6 h6 22
Bf4 fxe6 23 c3! b5 24 Bb3 + Ng7 25
Bxh6 Nd7 26 dxe6 etc.
(c) 19Nd7 20 Ne6 Ng3+ 21 Kh2 Ne4 22 Qxe4 Qxa1 23 Nd4! (23 Nxc7
+=) and Blacks king is in deep trouble.
(d) 19Qd4 20 Rd1!! Qxc4 (20Qc5 21 Nxh7! +)
21 Qe8! Kg7 22 Qe7! Bf5 23 Ne6+ Kg6
(or 23Bxe6 24 Bh6+) 24 Nf4+! and
wins.
20 Rc1 Qa3
Black has further options, but my
general impression remains that the
position is balanced:
(a) 20Be4 21 Qd1 (21 Qxe4?? Ng3+
+) and on both 21Qe5 and 21Kxf8, White replies 22 Qxg4. The
simplest solution for both sides now would be 21Bf5 22 Qe1 Be4 with
a repetition of moves.
(b) 20Nd7 21 Nxd7 Bxd7 22 d6 Qd4 23 Bxf7+ Kxf7 24 Qe7+ Kg8 25
Qxd7 =.
21 Be7
After 21 Bd3 Bxd3 22 cxd3 Qxf8 23 Rxc7 a5 24 Be7 Qe8 25 Qc1, White
has sufficient compensation for the piece.
21Qa4 22 Qc3 b5 23 Bd3 Qf4 24 Re1 Nd7
There was nothing better.
25 Nxd7 Bxd7
For the invested pawn, White has the
bishop-pair and can hope for attacking
chances against Blacks king or perhaps
against the knight. Here he can choose
between 26 Re5 Bf5 27 Bg5 and 26 Bc5.
In both cases the chances are roughly
equal.
Patient Attack: 14 b4!

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5
Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4 Nh5 9 Nc3 Qe7 10 0-0 Bxe5 11 Nb5
0-0 12 dxe5 a6 13 Nd4 Qxe5 14 b4!
White recognizes that 14 Re1 (our first
attempt to attack Blacks position
directly) also has had some
disadvantages: the move chases Blacks
queen to the better square f6, and it also
isnt clear that the rook stands better on
e1 than on f1. The patient text move
postpones forcing threats to a later stage,
but then with a bishop at b2 not only the
black queen, but also the life of the
opponents king suddenly is at stake.
Note, by the way, that 14 b4 is more
useful than 14 b3, although the latter protects the bishop, mainly because
Blacks counter 14c5 had to be prevented.
14f3
(a) 14Qf6 15 Bb2! (even stronger than 15 Bxf4 Qxh4 16 Be3 g3 17 Rf5
=) 15Ng3 (15a5 16 Qe1; 15f3 16 Qe1) 16 Qc1!.
White gives the rook for a more valuable
piece. 16Nxf1 (or 16Qxh4 17 Qxf4)
17 Nc6. (now the queen has to prevent
Ne7 mate) 17Qd6 18 Be5 Qd7 19
Qxf4 +, and mate in a few moves.
(b) 14b5 15 Bb3 with similar
intentions as in our main line.
(c) 14a5. Black tries to abolish the
pawn at b4, to enforce the intended c7c5. A logical plan, but it may be too slow: 15 Qd2 axb4 16 Bb2 c5 17
dxc6 Nxc6 18 Rae1 Qc5 19 Rxf4 +/; for example, 19Ne7 20 Kh1!
Ng6 21 Nb3 Qc7 22 Rxf7 Qxc4 23 Rxf8+ Nxf8 24 Qg5+ Ng6 25 Qxh5,
and Black has to resign.
15 Qd2 Ng3
Tempting and at the same time very risky. However, the simplifying 15
b5 16 Re1 Qg3 17 Bf1 fxg2 18 Bxg2 Nf4 isnt necessarily better. For
example, 19 Kf1 Qxg2+ 20 Qxg2 Nxg2 21 Kxg2 Bb7 22 Bh6 Rd8 23 Kf2
Nd7 24 Nf5 +=.
16 Re1! Ne4 17 Rxe4 Qxe4 18 Bb2!
At move twelve White seemed to be
lost. Now it is Black who has enormous
problems.
18Qg6
(a) 18Re8?? 19 Ne6 fxe6 20 Bd3
Qxd5 21 Qc3 f2+ 22 Kxf2 + and wins.
(b) 18Qe5 19 Bc3 Qd6 20 Re1 h6 21
gxf3 Qg3+ 22 Qg2 Qxg2+ 23 Kxg2 gxf3
+ 24 Nxf3 b5 25 Bb3 Bg4 26 Ne5 Bh5 27 Rf1 +/.
(c) 18b5 19 Re1 Qg6 20 Bd3 Qf6 21 h5 or 21 Re4 and White is clearly
better.
(d) 18Nd7 19 Bd3 Qe5 20 Qh6 f5 21 Bxf5 Qg7 22 Qxg7+ Kxg7 23 Ne6
+ +/ etc.
19 Rf1 Nd7 20 Nxf3!? gxf3 21 Rxf3 f6 22 d6+ Kh8 23 dxc7 +/
White has sacrificed a rook and is
rewarded by the total paralysis of
Blacks camp. After 23Qg4 24 Rf4
Qg7 25 Qd6 a5 26 b5 a4 27 Bd4 a3 28
Be6 Ne5 29 Rxf6!, Black has to resign.
A worthy final for Morphys move 9
Nc3.
Sources
[1] P. R. von Bilguer: Handbuch des
Schachspiels, Berlin 1916
[2] O. Cordel: Fhrer durch die Schachtheorie, Berlin 1888
[3] O. Cordel: Theorie und Praxis des Schachspiels, Potsdam 1913
[4] I. Estrin, I. Glazkov: Das angenommene Knigsgambit, Dsseldorf
1982
[5] M. Agermose Jensen: The Kings Gambit Lives!, four articles in
Correspondence Chess News 45, 51, 52 und 55 (2001).

Kieseritzky Gambit: The Discussion

Continues
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Last months column recommended the ancient move 6 Bc4! in the

Kieseritzky Gambit (after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6),
instead of the modern, dubious 6 d4. The latter was the choice in
several repertoire books for White. Thomas Johansson, for example,
wrote in The Kings Gambit for the Creative Aggressor (1998) that 6 d4
was Whites best move. And, Alexander Bangiev in Das Angenommene
Knigsgambit (1996), after calling 6 d4 the strongest and most logical
continuation, claimed that 6 Bc4 was hardly used anymore in the
modern practice. Yet according to the database 6 Bc4 is at least as
popular as 6 d4.
Last month I ignored 6 d4?!, but sometimes it is useful to invest your
energy in a sideline to extinguish any doubts. If 6 Bc4 is fine for White,
maybe 6 d4 was even better? All these theoretical works praised 6 d4, can
they all be wrong? The following analysis explains why I cannot
recommend 6 d4.
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Before we begin, a historical inaccuracy

of mine needs to be corrected. Phil
Adams (England) writes:
You mention that the relative
popularity in the past of 6 d4 compared
to 6 Bc4 in the Kieseritzky is attributable
to Euwe. In fact 6 d4 was mentioned
favourably in Masters of the Chessboard
(English edition 1933), where Rti
indicates that it goes back even further.
the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
In a long note after 5...Nf6 in the game Rosanes Anderssen (Breslau

1863), he writes (I have modernised the notation and capitalization):
Keeping in mind the underlying idea of the opening, the elimination of
the gambit pawn on f4 and the opening of the f-file, 6 d4 would seem to
be of primary importance. This is the move which was favoured by the
oldest of the great masters of position play, Philidor, and which recently
has been demonstrated by Rubinstein to be advantageous for White. It is
true that after 6 d4 d6 7 Nd3 Nxe4 8 Bxf4 Black is a pawn ahead, but his
position is far from enviable, due to the irreparable weakness of the now
open f-file.
This opinion was given a boost by wide publication of the game Stoltz
Smisch, Swinemnde 1932 and was the prevailing wisdom for many
years thereafter, including for instance Keres book(s). I hope this is of
interest.
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald
The King's Gambit

Akiva Rubinstein (right) playing against Emanuel Lasker at

St. Petersburg 1909. Source: Tournament book
The reader is right. Rubinsteins recommendation of 6 d4!, together with

a short analysis, had appeared in the Lrobok i Schack (1921), pp. 242f.,
and again on p. 251 in the illustrative game Rosanes Anderssen
(Starkast r 6 d4).
The Refutation of 6 d4
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 d4?! d6 7 Nd3 Nxe4 8
Qe2
Against 8 Bxf4, the usual answer is 8Qe7, but I cant find a good reply
for White after 8Bg7! 9 c3 (9 Qe2 0-0) 9...0-0 10 Nd2 Re8 11 Nxe4 (11
Be2 Nc6 12 Nxe4 Rxe4 only transposes) 11...Rxe4+, and the practical
experiences favor Black. Apparently not the weak square f4, but the weak
pawn d4 is the decisive factor in this position:
(a) 12 Kf2 c5! Wundt K. Wedemeyer, corr. 1981. Whites negative
score of 4 points out of 21 games speaks volumes.
(b) 12 Be2 Nc6! 13 g3 (13 0-0? Nxd4!; 13 Qd2 Bxd4! 14 cxd4 Nxd4 15
Nc1 Qe7 16 Kf1 Qf6 etc.) 13...Bxd4!
14 Kf1 (in the stem game Ohtake Seto,
Japan e-mail tournament 1999, Black
lost after 14 cxd4 Nxd4 15 Nc1 Qf6?,
but the stronger 15Qe7! 16 Kf2 Qf6
wins: 17 Bxg4 Bxg4 18 Qxg4+ Kh8 19
Nd3 Rg8 +) 14...Be3 15 Bxg4 Bxf4 16
gxf4 Re3 17 Rg1 Kh8 /+.
8...Qe7 9 Bxf4 Bg7 10 c3 Nc6
Philidors analysis went 10h5 11 g3
d5 12 Bg2 f5 13 Nd2 Be6 14 0-0 Nc6 15 Kh2 0-0-0. Rubinstein later
improved upon it: 14 Nc5!, when White has an edge. But Lrobok i
Schach, 1921, mistakenly gives 13 Nc5!, forgetting the two moves Nd2
and f5 (hint by Henk Smout).
11 Nd2 f5!
In the last three moves Black can choose
between various alternative set-ups.
However, the text move, which had
occurred only once in the database,
seems to be more critical than 11Bf5,
11Nxd2, 11d5 or the retreat 11
Nf6. Protecting the knight with the fpawn looks primitive, but it helps
against Whites idea of Nxe4. Then after
fxe4! Blacks control over f5 will be as
useful as Whites over f4. And if White
does not take the knight, Black gains
more freedom for attacks against pawn d4 or on the diagonal a2-f7.
12 0-0-0
(a) After 12 Nxe4 Qxe4 (Schmelz Bueno, corr. ICCF 2000, the stem
game of 11f5), the continuation 13 g3 =+ was relatively best. The
alternative 12fxe4 13 Nf2 0-0 14 g3 h5 was more ambitious. Now 15
Nxe4 seems to win back the pawn. However, this success is only
temporary: 15Re8 16 Ng5 Qxe2+ 17 Bxe2 Bxd4!. Again, Black has
gained a valuable extra pawn, and the strong square f4 is gone (/+).
(b) 12 g3 Bxd4 /+.
(c) 12 Bg5 Nxg5 13 hxg5 h6 14 g6 Bf6! 15 Nf4 Bg5! /+.
After the text move, Alexander Bangiev (1996) believes that White has
the initiative. In reality, it is Black who often develops a dangerous attack
against Whites king.
120-0 13 d5
The threat of Qf7 is difficult to parry:
(a) 13 g3 Qf7 14 a3 Qa2 15 Bg2 Bd7 16 Nxe4? Rae8 17 Rhe1 fxe4 18
Bxe4 d5 +.
(b) 13 h5 Qf7 14 h6 Bf6 15 Kb1 Be6 16 Nxe4 fxe4 17 Nc1 Ne7 /+.
(c) Perhaps 13 Nf2 is the lesser evil, but neither 13Nf6 14 Qb5 a6 nor
13Qf7 14 Nfxe4 fxe4 15 g3 Bf5 /+ look reliable for White.
13Ne5 14 Qe3
14 Nxe5 Bxe5 15 Qe3 Bxf4 16 Qxf4
Bd7 17 Re1 Rae8 18 Bd3 Nc5 /+.
14Bd7
(a) 14Qf7 15 Bxe5 dxe5 16 Nxe4 fxe4
17 Nc5 Qf2 18 Qxf2 Rxf2 19 Nxe4 Bh6
+ 20 Kb1 Bf5 21 Bd3 Rxg2 22 Nf6+
Kf7 23 Bxf5 Kxf6 24 Bxh7. White can
hope for a draw.
(b) 14Nd7!? 15 Nf2 Qf7 16 Nfxe4 fxe4 17 Bg5 Nc5 18 Nb3 Nxb3+ 19
axb3 Qf2 20 Qxe4 Bf5 21 Qe2 g3 /+.
15 h5 Rae8 16 h6 Bh8 17 Nxe4 Nc4 18 Qg3 fxe4 19 Nc5 Be5 /+
Black has a clear edge, because 20 Bxe5
Nxe5 21 Nxe4 fails to 21Bf5!.
The Main Line 6 Bc4!
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5
Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4!
Now that 6 d4 appears to be refuted, the
critical 6 Bc4! deserves another look.
Some readers have commented on last
months column, even submitting interesting games.
6d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4 Nh5 9 Nc3!
Hans-Christian Eberl (Austria) writes:
I always play the Kings Gambit
against 1e5, both in OTB and
Correspondence, and also regard 6 Bc4
& 9 Nc3 as Whites best option.
Michael Agermose Jensen (Denmark)

agrees that the text move is preferable to
9 0-0.
My last column claimed that 9 0-0 Qxh4
10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1 were fully sound
and playable, thereby contradicting Jensens survey in NIC Yearbook 72:
90-0! 10 Nxg4 Qxh4 11 Nh2, when Black was better. Although Alapin
had regarded 10 Nxg4 as forced in Wiener Schachzeitung 1904,
fortunately White has an escape: 10 Rxf4!
Apparently this strong exchange
sacrifice was introduced into practice in
Smout M. van Oyen, Dutch team
competition 1994. Henk Smout
(Netherlands) says that during the game
he remembered von Freymann Rosselli
del Turco, Abazzia 1912, with a similar
motif (8Nh5 9 0-0 Qxh4 10 Rxf4). In
the diagrammed position, his opponent
replied: 10Qxh4 11 Nc3 (in the postmortem, Smout found 11 Rxg4+! Bxg4
12 Qxg4+ Qxg4 13 Nxg4 with sufficient
compensation. His analysis seems to be correct, e.g. 13Kh8 14 Nc3
Nd7 15 Bb5 Rad8 16 Ne4, about =) 11Nxf4 12 Bxf4 Bf5 (12g3 13
Ne2 Qh2+ 14 Kf1 Bh3!) 13 g3 Qe7 14 Qd2 Nd7 15 Rf1 f6 16 Nd3 Bg6
17 Re1 Qf7 18 Nb5 Nb6 19 Nxd6 cxd6 20 Bb3 Rad8 21 Nf2 f5 22 Nd3
Rfe8
23 Be3 (23 Re6! +=, SB) 23Qf6 24
Nf4 Bf7 25 Ne6 Rc8 26 Bg5 Qg6 27
Qf4 Nxd5 28 Bxd5 Bxe6 29 Rxe6 Rxe6
30 Qxd6 Rce8 31 Be7 Kf7 + (0-1, 63).
Smout later discovered that 10 Rxf4
Qxh4 had already been mentioned in
Leachs book on the Kieseritzky
Gambit, 1990. Colin Leach didnt give a
source.
After 10 Rxf4!, there are two main
alternatives:
(a) 10Bxe5 11 Rxg4+ Bg7!? (more entertaining than 11Bxg4 12
Qxg4+ Bg7 13 Qxh5 Qe7 14 Nd2 Bxd4+ 15 Kh1 Qe5 =) 12 Rg5! Nf6 13
Nc3 Nbd7 14 Bd3 Kh8 15 Be3 Nb6 (15h6 16 Rxg7! =) 16 Qf3 Ne8 17
a4 a5 18 Re1 f5 19 Rxg7!
In effect, White has sacrificed a whole
rook. The position is unclear.
(b) 10Nxf4 11 Bxf4 Qxh4 (after 11
Bf5 12 g3, White isnt worse) 12 g3 Qh5
(12Qh3 13 Qd2!) 13 Nc3 Bf5 14 Be2!
Kh8 (after 14Bxe5 15 dxe5, White has
good play) 15 Qf1 (alternatives: Qd2 or
Nb5) 15Na6 16 Nc4 with full
compensation for the exchange.
9Qe7
Hans-Christian Eberl is convinced that 90-0 offers better drawing
chances for Black than the text move. He doesnt trust my analysis of 10
Ne2 Qf6! 11 0-0, when after both 11Qxh4 and 11f3 he doesnt see
full equality for White. However, Eberl had proposed another idea (10
Ne4!?) during the CCLA match against Palciauskas. It took a while until
he had the opportunity to test his own idea in practice:
10 Ne4!? Re8 (perhaps better: 10f5, Eberl) 11 0-0 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Rxe5
13 Ng5 Qd6 14 Qd4 Nc6 15 Qf2 Nb4 16 Bxf4 Nxf4 17 Qxf4 Bf5 18
Rad1 h6
19 Nxf7! Kxf7 20 Qxg4 Kf6 21 h5 Nxc2
22 Qg6+ Ke7 23 Rxf5 Rxf5 24 Qxf5 Qc5
+ 25 Kh1 Qxc4 26 Qe5+ Kf8 27 d6 cxd6
28 Qxd6+ Ke8 29 Qe5+ Kf8 30 Kg1
Re8 31 Qd6+ Kg7 32 Qg6+ Kf8 33 Qxh6
+ Kg8 34 Qg6+ Kf8 35 Rf1+ Ke7 36
Qg7+ Kd6 37 Rd1+ Kc6 38 Qd7+ Kb6
39 Qxe8 Qc5+ 40 Kh1 a6 41 Rc1 Ka7
42 Qe2 Nd4 43 Rxc5 1-0, Eberl (Team
Schlechters Erben) Kayis (Team
Satranc Okulu Sbilyap), ICCF
Champions League 2007 C Group 4.
Michael A. Jensen also prefers 10 Ne4! to 10 Ne2, so in this case I am
outvoted. 10 Ne2 looked solid enough during my analysis, but I cannot
exclude that 10 Ne4 is in fact better.
10 0-0
Both Jensen and Eberl regard 10.Kd2 as correct. We gladly take the
chance to publish two inspiring examples:
(a) 10Bxe5 (Eberl: If 10...Kf8, White plays 11.Re1!. Neither do I
share your assessment about 10...0-0. In both cases Black fights for
equality.) 11 Re1 Nd7 12 Qxg4 Ndf6 13 Qe2 Ng4 14 dxe5 0-0 15 b3
Qxh4 16 Ba3 Ng3 17 Qf3 Re8
18 Qxf4 Nh5 19 Rh1 Nxf4 20 Rxh4
Rxe5 21 Rah1 h6 22 g3 Ng6 23 Rh5
Bd7 24 Be2 Rae8 25 Bc5 Rxe2+ 26
Nxe2 Nf6 27 Nc3 Nxh5 28 Rxh5 Ne5 29
Bxa7 Nf3+ 30 Kc1 Re1+ 31 Kb2 Bg4 32
d6 cxd6 33 Rxh6 Be6 34 Rh5 Re5 35
Rxe5 dxe5 36 Ne4 Nh2 37 Nd6 Bd5 38
c4 Bf3 39 b4 Kg7 40 b5 Kf6 41 c5 Nf1
42 a4 Ke6 43 a5 Ne3 44 a6 bxa6 45 b6
f5 46 b7 Nc4+ 47 Kc3 Bxb7 48 Nxb7
Kd5 49 Bb8 e4 50 Bf4 a5 51 Nd6 1-0,
Eberl (2313) Mergard (2200), corr.
2005 (ICCF tourn. EM/MN/094).
(b) 10Bxe5 11 Re1 0-0! (before the game I had only studied 11...f6 12
dxe5 fxe5 13 Qe2 Nd7 14 Qxg4 (14 Nb5 Qc5) 14...Ndf6 15 Qg5 e4 16
Be2!) 12 dxe5! (12 Rxe5 Qxh4 13 Ne4, and here Black has 13...Nd7 14
Rg5+ Kh8 15 Qxg4 Qxg4 16 Rxg4 f5 =+)
12...Qc5 (not 12...Qxh4? 13 Ne4, e.g.
13...Ng3? 14 Nf6+ Kg7 15 Kc3! +) 13
Bd3 Ng3 14 Ne4 Nxe4+ (14...Qxd5?? 15
Nf6+) 15 Rxe4 Qxd5 16 Qf1! (with
compensation) 16...f5 10, M. A. Jensen
J. Knudsen, Kge 2005 (Danish
Championship). A funny end. My
opponent believed to have lost his queen
(Bc4) and resigned. The move Bc4 is
illegal, but 17 exf6 Nd7! 18 Rxf4 would
have been good for White.
Comments: Michael Agermose Jensen.
10Bxe5 11 Nb5! (Ivo Nei 1980?) 11...a6
For 110-0, see the analysis in my last

article. Then 11a6 had only the status
of a sideline, but I have to correct a
mistake.
12 Re1 Nd7
After 12Qxh4 13 Rxe5+ Kd8 (or 13
Kf8 14 Nxc7 Ra7 15 Rxh5 Qxh5 16
Bxf4 b5 17 Qe2+) 14 Nxc7! Kxc7 15 d6
+, Black could also try the active 15
Kxd6 16 Bxf7 Nc6 17 Rxh5 Qf6 18 Bd5 Rf8 (18Kc7 19 Qd2 Rf8 20
Bxc6 bxc6 21 Qa5+ Kb8 22 Qb6+ Bb7 23 Rxh7 Ra7 24 Bd2 f3 25 Bb4
+) 19 Be4 Re8 20 Bxc6 Kxc6 21 g3!, and Blacks f-pawn cannot
advance because of Rh6.
13 d6!
Improving upon Neis 13 Nxc7+.
13cxd6 14 dxe5 0-0
15 Nxd6 +/
Replacing 15 e6 + from last month,
when Black could reply 15Qh4 with
unclear complications. After the text
move, White has a clear advantage:
(a) 15Qh4 16 Bxf7+ Rxf7 (16Kh8
17 e6!) 17 Nxf7 f3 18 Qd2 Kxf7 19 e6+
Kf8 20 exd7 Bxd7 21 Re5 Nf6 (else 22
Qh6+) 22 Qd6+ Kg8 23 Bg5 f2+ 24 Kf1
Bb5+ 25 Rxb5 Qh1+ 26 Ke2! +.
(b) 15Nxe5 16 b3 (better than 16 Nxf7 +=) 16Qf6 17 Bb2 f3 18 Qd4
f2+ 19 Qxf2 Qxf2+ 20 Kxf2 Nxc4 21 bxc4 +/, and White enjoys an
excellent ending.

The Chinese Dragon Refuted?
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Against the Sicilian Dragon Variation, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4

Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6, the Yugoslav Attack 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2 0-0
9 Bc4 Bd7 10 0-0-0 is clearly Whites most popular weapon. Here the
deep-analyzed 10Rc8 followed by Ne5-c4 was played, almost
automatically, in thousands of games. The alternative 10Rb8!? had
been a much rarer guest on the boards. Only in 2002 the chess public took
notice that the move might deserve more attention. Emil Anka [2]:
Belgian Fide Master Luc Henris, who was living in China with his
Chinese wife, christened the variation Chinese Dragon when he wrote a
ground-breaking article about it for Yearbook 62. At that time there were
few games available, so he had to create most of the analysis himself.
The obvious idea behind 10Rb8 is to
push the b-pawn and attack on the b-file,
whether White dares to take the
sacrificed pawn b5 or not. However, it
would be too simplifying to say that 10
Rb8 plays on the b-file, while 10Rc8
operates on the c-file. True, after 10
Rc8 Blacks most concrete plans have to
do with the c-file: Ne5-c4 and the
eventual sacrifice Rxc3. But in many
regular Yugoslav Attacks with 10Rc8,
Black also uses the advance b7-b5 at an
early stage. And if we study games with 10Rb8, a few moves later very
often Blacks other rook appears on the square c8.
The philosophy behind 10Rb8!? looks familiar to Dragon players,
while at the same time they saw a chance to escape the crowded channels
of theory. No wonder that the line soon became popular. In 2004,
Hungarian GM Emil Anka claimed to have found a refutation of the
Chinese Dragon [3], but his proposal to change the order of moves (10
h4! instead of 10 0-0-0) hasnt been adopted by many players.
Nevertheless some adherents of the Chinese Dragon have returned to the
traditional forms of the Dragon, perhaps under the impression that they
have to know the standard treatment anyway, in case White plays 10 h4.
It is difficult to say whether 10 h4 is really so strong. At the end of the
article Ill look at this theoretical recommendation. Gary Lane is one of
those who still believe in the line: I think the Chinese Dragon will soon
enjoy another spurt of popularity (in his latest column [4).
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Starting Out:
Accelerated Dragon
by Andrew Greet
Play the Sicilian

Dragon
by Edward Dearing
Several weeks ago, Volker Hergert (Switzerland) had sent me several

attractive games, his experiences with the Chinese Dragon. He was so
kind to contribute an example from his practice for ChessCafe.com,
which is both inspiring and theoretically important:
Leroux Hergert
Paris 2008 [B78]
Comments by Volker Hergert
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8
Qd2 0-0 9 Bc4 Bd7 10 0-0-0 Rb8!?
Golubev, one of the outstanding Dragon experts, even played 10...b5 with
success, e.g., 10...b5 11 Bxb5 Nxd4 12 Bxd4 Bxb5 13 Nxb5 Rb8 14 c4?!
(14 Nc3 +=) 14Qc8 15 Qc3 Qc6 16 Kb1 a6 17 Na3 Rfc8 with fine
compensation (0-1, 29) in Vovk Golubev, Illichevsk 2006.
11 Bb3
A flexible alternative to the
characteristic gambit 11 h4 b5!, which
opens files for Blacks attack: 12 Ndxb5
(12 Be2 Nxd4 13 Bxd4 Qa5 14 a3 e5?!
15 Be3 Be6 16 Nd5 Qxd2+ 17 Rxd2
Nxd5 18 exd5 += in Perez Candelario
Argandona Riveiro, San Sebastian 2006;
14Rfc8! =) 12Ne5
a) 13 Na3 Nxc4 14 Nxc4 Qc7 15 b3 (15
Na3? Rxb2! /+; for example, 16 Kxb2
Nxe4! 17 Nab5 Bxb5 18 fxe4 Rb8 or 16 e5 Rfb8! 17 exf6 Bxf6 18 Bd4
Qa5) 15...Be6 16 Nd5 Nxd5 (or 16...Bxd5 17 exd5 Rb5 18 Bd4 Rxd5 19
Ne3 Bh6 =) 17 exd5 Qxc4 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 bxc4 Bb2, leading to
perpetual check in Ninov Argandona Riveiro, San Sebastian 2006.
b) 13 Be2 Qa5 14 Nd4 (White has to interrupt the long diagonal, since
after 14 Na3 or 14 Nxa7 the blow 14...Rxb2 followed by sacrifices of the
knights would be decisive), and now:
b1) Seeing how important it is for White to keep the long diagonal closed.
Anka suggests 14...Be6!? to provoke 15 Nxe6?. Then the typical and
powerful reply would be 15...Rxb2!
e.g., 16 Kxb2 Nxe4! +. In the case that
White declines to take the rook, the
threat 16...Qa3 decides the issue; for
example, 16 Nxf8? Qa3 17 Qe1 Nxe4!
followed by mate. Other possibilities for
White after 15Rxb2! are:
a) 16 Na4 Qxa4 17 Kxb2 Rb8+! (this is

stronger than 17Nxf3 Anka [2]) 18
Ka1 Nxf3 19 Bxf3 Nxe4+ 20 Qd4 Bxd4
+ 21 Bxd4 Nf6 +.
b) 16 a4 Nxe4 17 Nxe4 Nd3+ 18 Qxd3 (18 Bxd3 Rb1+ 19 Kxb1 Rb8+
followed by mate; 18 cxd3 Rc8+ 19 N6c5 Rxd2 20 Rxd2 Qxa4 +) 18
Rfb8 19 Qb3 R8xb3 20 cxb3 Rxe2 21 Bd2 Rxd2 22 Rxd2 fxe6 23 Rc2
Qe5 24 Rd1 h6 /+
c) 16 Qd4 opens an escape route for Whites king: 16...Qa3 17 Qa4 Qxc3
18 Bd4 Bh6+ 19 Ng5 Rb4 20 Bxc3 Rxa4 21 Bxe5 dxe5 22 Kb2 Rb8+ 23
Ka1, about =. However, Black can improve his attack: 16Rfb8 17 Nxg7
Qa3 (only now!) 18 Kd2 Rxc2+! 19 Ke1 Rb4 20 Nb1/Nb5 (20 Qxa7 Qxc3
+ 21 Kf1 Rxe2 22 Kxe2 Rb2+ 23 Bd2 Nc4 +) 20...Qxa2 21 Qxb4 Rxe2+
22 Kf1 Rxe3 +.
Another attempt against 14...Be6, the reply 15 f4 (hoping for the knight
fork 16 Nc6) is similarly refuted by means of 15Rxb2!. Nevertheless
14Be6 seems less accurate (than 14Rfc8), because of 15 Nb3 which
consolidates and gains valuable time (15 a3 Bc4! is not so clear).
b2) 14Rfc8. This position was already mentioned by Markovic, who
believed that Black had acquired good compensation.
In this critical position, White has two
main alternatives (Ankas third option
15 g4 [2] is unplayable because of 15
Bxg4! 16 fxg4 Nxe4 17 Nxe4 Qxa2 +,
St. Bcker):
a) 15 Nb3 allows 15...Rxb3! 16 cxb3 (he
cannot afford to open the a-file: 16 axb3
Nxe4 17 fxe4 Nc4, intending 18...Qa1+
19 Nb1 Qxb2 mate) 16...Qxa2 (in
contrast to the line 14Be6 discussed
above, the Rc8 now pins Nc3). A wild situation which has already
appeared in practice: 17 Qc2 Qa5 18 Kd2 d5 19 Ra1 Qb4 20 exd5 Nxd5
21 Qe4 Qxb3 22 Nxd5 Qxb2+ 23 Ke1 Qxa1+ 24 Kf2 Qa3 25 Ra1 Qd6 26
f4 f5 27 Ra6 fxe4 28 Rxd6 exd6 29 Ne7+ Kf8 30 Nxc8 Bxc8 31 fxe5
Bxe5 32 Bxa7 d5 33 Ke3 Kg8 34 Bd4 Bd6 35 Bb2 h5 36 Kd4 Be6 37
Bc1 Kf7 38 Bg5 Bf8 39 Be3 Kf6 40 Bd1 Kf5 41 g3 Bd6 42 Bf2 Bb8 43
Kc3 Be5+ 0-1, Stanford (2178) Anka (2422) McMinnville, 2004.
Another continuation demonstrates the tactical pitfalls for White: 17 Bd4
Be6! 18 Bxe5 (hoping for 18...dxe5? 19 Qd8+ +; it would have been
slightly better to play 18 Bc4 Nxc4 19 Nxa2 Nxd2+ 20 Kxd2 Nxe4+ 21
fxe4 Bxd4 /+) 18Bxb3 19 Qd3 Bh6+ 20 f4 dxe5 21 Qd8+ Kg7 22
Qxc8 Bxf4+ 23 Rd2 Qa1+ 24 Nb1 Bxd2+ 25 Kxd2 Qxb2+ 26 Ke3 Qd4+
27 Kf3 Nxe4 28 Rf1 Nd2+ 29 Nxd2 Qf4 mate.
b) 15 a3 Nc4 (Anka [1] prefers 15Qb6, with sufficient compensation
for the pawn. But the text move is fine, too) 16 Bxc4 Rxc4 17 Nd5 (Anka
[1] recommends 17 g4 += , overlooking 17Bxg4! 18 fxg4 Nxg4 with at
least equal chances for Black) 17Qd8 18 Nxf6+ Bxf6 19 Kb1 (I had
planned 19 h5 Ba4; so White prepares the defense Rc1) 19Ba4 20 Rc1
(20 b3 would be a weakness after 20...Qc7) 20d5! and Black was better
in Landolt Hergert, Pfffikon 2008.
11...Na5
Accurate. This time 11Ne5 will not do: 12 f4! Neg4 13 h3 Nxe3 14
Qxe3 (M. Russell Kafka, Goa 2002). White has more space and the
threat of e4-e5, which Black has problems coping with. This was real
hassle for Black until 11Na5 was discovered to be playable: 14Nh5
(14...e6 15 g4 Bc6 16 g5 Nh5 17 Ndb5 +/) 15 Rhf1 Nxf4 16 Rxf4 e5 17
Rxf7 +/. Also inadequate is 11b5 12 Nxc6 Bxc6 13 Bxa7 Ra8 14

Bd4 (Silman, 2004).
12 h4
Four years ago, the aggressive 12 Bh6 suffered a serious blow in a
correspondence game: 12...Bxh6 13 Qxh6 b5
a) 14 g4 b4 15 Nd5 Nxb3+ (15e6 16 Nxf6+ Qxf6) 16 Nxb3 Nxd5 17
exd5 e5 18 dxe6 Bxe6 and Black has at least as much queenside play as
White on the other flank was an analysis by Silman (2004). In Sinov
Cabrera Rrujillo, Pamplona 2007, there followed 19 Nc5 Qc7 (19...b3!?)
20 Na6 Qc4?! (20...Qa5! 21 Nxb8 Rxb8 with fine compensation for the
exchange) 21 Nxb8 Rc8 22 Qd2 Qxa2 23 Qxb4 Bb3 24 Kd2 Rxc2+ 25
Ke3 Qxb2 26 Qxd6? (26 Qb5 +/) 26...Re2+ 27 Kf4 Bxd1 (=, 39). In
Kritz (2609) Jianu (2531) Plovdiv 2008, the alternative treatment 17...
Ba4 also lead to a draw, although White retained a small advantage after
18 Nd4 Qa5 19 h4 Rfc8 20 Kb1 Qxd5 21 b3 Bd7 22 h5 Qe5 23 Rhe1 Qg7
24 Qxg7+ Kxg7 25 Rxe7.
b) 14 h4 e5 15 Nde2 b4 16 Nd5 Nxb3+ 17 axb3 Nxd5 18 Rxd5
b1) 18...Be6 is the older continuation, which had a short comeback last
year, but without success: 19 Rd3 Rb6 20 f4 Bg4 21 h5 Qc7 22 Rg3 Rc8
23 c4 bxc3 24 Rxc3 and White won in Bologan Savchenko, 2007.
b2) 18Rb6!. An improvement found in 2004, in a correspondence game
Carvalho da Nilva Qa Costa Junior. Whites best attempt is 19 h5 g5 20
f4! (after 20 Rxd6? f6 Whites queen is imprisoned and only Black retains
winning chances) 20Bg4 21 Nd4!
21gxf4 22 g3 Kh8 23 gxf4 exd4 24
Rg5 Rg8 25 Rxg8+ Kxg8 26 Rg1 Qh4
27 f5 Rc6 28 f6 Rxc2+!! 29 Kxc2 Qf2+
30 Kd3 Qe2+ 31 Kxd4 Qxb2+ 32 Kc4
Qc3+ 33 Kb5 Qc5+ 34 Ka4 Qc6+ 35
Kxb4 a5+ 36 Kxa5 Qc5+ 37 Ka4 Qa7+
38 Kb5 Qc5+ -, Burnoiu Jianu,
Bucharest 2006.
The flexible 12 Kb1 is another, less
popular option: 12b5 13 h4 Nc4 14
Bxc4 bxc4 15 Ka1 h5 16 Rb1 Re8 17 Bh6 Bh8 18 g4 hxg4 19 h5 Qa5
(correct was 19...Nxh5 20 fxg4 Nf6 /+) 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 Rh4 gxf3 22
Nxf3 Nxe4 23 Nxe4 c3 24 Nxc3 Rxb2 25 Kxb2 Bxc3+ 26 Qxc3 Rb8+ 27
Qb3+ Rxb3+ 28 axb3 e5 29 Rd1 Bc6 30 Ng5 d5 31 Rf1 1-0, Efimenko
Charbonneau, Montreal 2005.
12b5 13 h5
13 Kb1 Nc4! 14 Bxc4 bxc4 15 Ka1! Re8
(Anka [2] suggests 15...h5!?) 16 g4 Qa5
17 h5 Rb6 18 Nde2 Ra6 19 h6 Bh8 20
g5 Nh5 21 Bd4 e5 22 Be3 Rb8 23 Qe1
Nf4 24 Bc1 Be6 25 a3 -, Stellwagen
Reinderman, Hilversum 2008 (Dutch
Championship).
13...Nc4 14 Bxc4
14 Qf2 (Fritz) doesnt seem too
dangerous after 14...Nxe3 15 Qxe3 b4 16 Nd5 e6 17 Nxf6+ Qxf6.
14...bxc4 15 Bh6
15 hxg6 fxg6 16 Kb1 Qa5 17 Ka1 Rf7, Mas Jones, New Delhi 2007,
isnt promising.
15...Qb6 16 b3 cxb3
16Bxh6 can transpose to the game after 17 Qxh6 cxb3 18 axb3. Less
precise seems 16...Qa5 17 Bxg7 Kxg7 18 hxg6 Qa3+ 19 Kb1 fxg6 20 Qh6
+ Kg8 21 Nd5 Rf7 22 Nxf6+ exf6, Guo Oliver, Australian Open 2007,
because of 23 Qc1! +=.
17 axb3
17 cxb3 is also met by 17...Bxh6 18
Qxh6 Rfc8.
17...Bxh6
17...Qa5 18 Bxg7 Qa1+ 19 Nb1 Kxg7
20 hxg6 fxg6, Listes Deur, Split 2005;
21 Qg5 unclear.
18 Qxh6 Rfc8
To insert 18Qa5 19 Kb2 didnt convince me, since after 19...Rfc8
White has the first-class defense 20 Rd3 (for example, 20...Rb4 21 Nd5
Nxd5 22 exd5 Bf5 23 Nxf5 gxf5 24 Qg5+ Kf8 25 Rc1 + in Prasenjit
Shiven, New Delhi 2008). After the precise text move, 19 Rd3 fails to
19...Rxc3 20 Rxc3 Qxd4.
19 Nd5
Because the h-file has not been opened yet, Black is able to defend
himself.
19...Nxd5 20 exd5 Bf5! 21 Nxf5 gxf5 22 Kb2
White is well advised to remove the pin
in the c-file. If 22 Qg5+ Kh8 (22Kf8
23 Rhe1 hands over the initiative to the
first player) 23 Qxe7 (23 h6? fails to 23...
Rxc2+! 24 Kxc2 Qxb3+ 25 Kd2 Rg8 26
Qxe7 Rxg2+ 27 Ke1 Qc3+ 28 Kf1 Qxf3
+ 29 Ke1 Qf2 mate) 23...Qxb3 24 Qf6+
Kg8 25 Qg5+ Kf8 26 Qd8+ Rxd8 27
cxb3 Rxb3, and Black has a slight
advantage.
22Rxc2+!?
22Qc5 23 Qd2 leads to equal play and offers no real chance to play for
a win.
23 Kxc2 Qxb3+ 24 Kd2 Qb2+ 25 Ke3
25 Ke1? loses because of 25...Qxg2 +
25Rb3+ 26 Rd3
Of course not 26 Kf4? Qe5+ 27 Kg5 Rb4 followed by mate.
26Qe5+ 27 Kf2!
In my calculations I had only foreseen 27 Kd2 Rb2+ 28 Kc1, when 29...
Ra2! forces mate; for example, 30 Rb3 Qa1+ 31 Rb1 Qc3+ etc.
27Rxd3
27Rb2+ 28 Rd2 Qd4+ 29 Ke2 Qc4+ 30 Kf2 Qd4+ draws immediately,

of course, but I still wanted to win.
28 Rb1
The point of Whites last move.
28...Rxf3+!
28...Qd4+ 29 Ke2 Qe5+ 30 Kxd3 Qxd5+ also leads to a draw, or 30 Kf2
Qd4+ with perpetual check. However, after 30 Kf1 Black would still have
to find the rescue 30...Rb3!, which after 31 Rxb3 Qa1+ 32 Kf2 Qa2+ 33
Kg3 Qxb3 34 Qg5+ Kf8 35 Qh6+ Kg8 (35...Ke8 36 Qxh7 Qxd5 37 Qg8+
Kd7 38 h6 Qe5+ 39 Kh3 f4 40 Kg4 =) 36 Qg5+ Kf8 37 Qh6+ secures the
half point.
29 gxf3 Qh2+ 30 Ke3 Qe5+ 31 Kd2 Qd4+ 32 Ke2 Qc4+ 33 Ke1 Qh4+
34 Kd1 Qa4+ -
Does Ankas 10 h4 refute the Chinese Dragon?
In the New in Chess Yearbook 72 [3], Emil Anka gave the following
move-order as the solution, which is meant to prevent the Rb8 idea of
the Chinese Dragon: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6
Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2 0-0 9 Bc4 Bd7 10 h4!
White delays castling and immediately
starts his attack. Anka: 10 h4! is a
logical and healthy move in a position
with opposite castling. It has no
disadvantages, only advantages. But
does it really prevent the next move, as
Anka believes?
10Rb8?!
This is a bit risky, perhaps Black should
in fact better return to a standard set-up. However, it isnt entirely clear
that Emil Anka was right in Yearbook 72.
11 h5 Nxh5
There is nothing better. Ankas main line
11b5 12 Bb3 Nxh5 13 g4 Nf6 14 0-00 +/ is hopeless for Black. In this line,
b7-b5 is practically losing a tempo.
12 g4 Nxd4!
Improving upon 12Nf6, the move
considered in Ankas analysis [2].
13 Bxd4 Bxd4 14 Qxd4
14 gxh5 isnt better: 14Bg7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 0-0-0 Qa5 17 Rdg1 e6,
etc.
14Nf6
Blacks play, starting from 11Nxh5, looks anti-positional at first, but
after winning the pawn at h5, the massive exchange on d4 at least has
reached one important goal: to deflect Whites queen from the square h6.
Whites remaining bishop here is stronger than usual, because it can no
longer be neutralized by means of Nc6-e5-c4. Blacks natural antidote
should be Be6 (hopefully).
15 0-0-0
A critical position. White develops as
fast as possible and isnt interested in
winning back a pawn (15 Qxa7 b6!). If
15 Qe3 Be6 16 0-0-0, Black cant play
16Bxc4? 17 e5!, but after 16Qb6 he
has a sound position.
15Rc8!
15b5? 16 Bb3 Qb6 17 Qd2 Be6 18
Qh6 Rfc8 19 Bxe6 fxe6 is unplayable
because of the tactical 20 e5! Rxc3 (20dxe5 21 Ne4) 21 bxc3 dxe5 22
g5 Nh5 23 Rxh5 Qe3+ 24 Kb1 gxh5 25 Qxe6+ Kf8 26 g6 hxg6 27 Qxg6
Qb6 28 Qxh5 Qf6 29 Rg1 Rb6 30 Rg5 +.
16 Nd5
a) 16 e5?? dxe5 17 Qe3 Rxc4 18 Qh6 Rxc3! +.
b) 16 Bb3 Qa5 17 Qe3 Be6 18 Nd5 Bxd5 19 exd5 Qc5, about =.
c) 16 Rh2 Rc5 17 Rdh1 e5 18 Qd3 Be6 =.
d) 16 g5 Nh5 17 e5 e6 18 Rxh5 gxh5 19 Ne4 Rxc4 20 Qxc4 d5, about =.
e) 16 Bd5 Qb6! (not 16b5?? 17 e5! dxe5 18 Qe3 with a winning attack)
17 Qxb6 axb6 18 Bxb7 Rc7 19 Bd5 Kg7 =.
16e5 17 Qf2!? Be6 18 Qh4
Or 18 Nxf6+ Qxf6 19 Bxe6 fxe6 20 Rxd6 Qf4+ with sufficient
counterplay: 21 Kb1 Qxg4 22 Qh2 Qh5 23 Qxh5 gxh5 24 Rxh5 Rxf3 25
c3 Rc6 26 Rxc6 bxc6 27 Rxe5 Kf7 28 a4 Kg6 29 Rxe6+ Rf6 and Black
should be able to draw.
18Bxd5 19 Bxd5 h5!
19b5? 20 Qh6 +/.
20 gxh5
Or 20 Bxb7 Rb8 21 Bd5 Kg7 22 Bb3 Rh8 +=.
20Nxd5 21 Rxd5 Qxh4 22 Rxh4 Rc6 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 Rh3 Kf7 +=
White only has a slight advantage in the
ending.
Sources
[1] L. Henris: The Chinese Dragon
Variation, New in Chess Yearbook 62
(2002)
[2] E. Anka: The Chinese Dragon
Revisited, New in Chess Yearbook 71
(2004)
[3] E. Anka: The Chinese Dragon
Refuted!, New in Chess Yearbook 72 (2004)
[4] G. Lane: Enter the Dragon, latest column for ChessCafe.com

Marxism and Shocking Chess Discoveries

Our May column covered the North Sea Defense, which was
independently invented by Gerard Welling and the Swedish theoretician
Rolf Martens. Sadly, I have learned that Rolf Martens (born February 22,
1942 in Oslo) died on April 22, 2008. In spring of this year he had still
defended his ideas on the Internet [7]. In memoriam, we will look at
another of his ingenious openings.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The leading opening theoreticians of the past followed an almost

scientific approach to identify the main lines. Carl Friedrich Jaenisch used
to check even minor alternatives, mainly with the intention to find their
refutation, so that afterwards he could focus on the more important lines
(ironically, many of these sidelines are now named after him). Tassilo von
der Lasa, the editor of the German Handbuch and a strong player, was
even better in singling out the preferable treatment for both sides. At that
time any opening was a wilderness, and the main goal of the authors was
to see order in the chaos.
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Dangerous Weapons:
The Benoni and Benko
by Palliser et al

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Rolf Martens 1999
(c) by Eskil Fagerstrm (Sweden)
Today every opening seems to be charted. A game begins, the knights are
developed to their usual squares, and both players are, more often than
not, well informed about the available alternative main lines. In an
environment where stereotypical play is all too common, a modern
theoretician may set himself a task completely different to his traditional
role: to generate more chaos in the order.
At least this is the impression you get when you see the arsenal of Ultra
Hypermodern Counter Attack (UHCA) Systems [3]. There are seventy
unusual opening ideas, collected and often invented by Rolf Martens;
for example, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Qh4 (Minerva
Variation) or 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Ng4 (Caro-Kann,
Kangaroo Variation). Most ideas are accompanied by short analyses.
There is a lot of chaos on the board. However, in searching for new ways
the authors approach also remains systematic. When he found a strong
idea such as 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 a6 (Kamchatka Defence), he looked
for possible transpositions. And when he began to like Nh6 in certain
French positions, he tested the idea in other French lines or in other
openings.
Starting Out:
Benoni Systems
by Alex Raetsky
& Maxim Chetverik
Another sign for the Swedes originality had been his Cannae Theses in
SSKK Bulletinen no. 205 (1988/3). The only chess magazine I ever saw
with a bust of Hannibal on the cover.
In [6], Martens reported on his personal background: I was born in
Norway in 1942 and have lived in Sweden since 1950. Ive worked as a
welder in relatively big industries for 24 years and also have had jobs in
various other fields. I was brought up as an intellectual and have a
university degree with mathematics and physics as main subjects. On the
web, there are some mentions of me in connection with chess. I was
Swedish champion at that game in 1967 and later, after I had learned
some Marxism, made some shocking discoveries in its opening
theory. (emphasis mine, S. B.)
Martens was so left, politically, that for some years he sympathized with
the ultra-left German KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), a party that followed
the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Apparently, it was the
only party in Europe (at least) that did this. However, at some point or
other in the 1980s, it too started to degenerate [6].
Rolf Martens is the closest you can get to a chess myth in Sweden,
wrote Jesper Hall in his excellent article [4] in New In Chess Magazine,
and continued: [He] impressed everyone with his dynamic and tactical
play, for which he rarely used more than an hour per game. In 1969, he
scored 3-3 against Ulf Andersson in a training match which has become
legendary. [] Gradually, in the early seventies, he retired from both the
academic field and the chess world. Before his comeback in the mideighties, he was more or less silent as far as chess was concerned.
A Refutation of the Snake Benoni?
One of Martens most successful opening ideas is the Snake Benoni:
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3
Richard Palliser contributed the chapter Killing the Snake in Dangerous
Weapons: The Benoni and Benko (London 2008) [8], where he claims
that against an early Nc3, the Snake Benoni appears unplayable. We
will see. By the way: 4 Nf3 exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6 followed by 0-0, Re8 and
Bf8, as played by Yakov Murey in 1979, is called Snail Benoni in
Martens list [3]. And if here 6 Bg5 0-0! 7 Nbd2 (7 Nc3 Re8 =) 7Re8 8
e3, as recommended by Raetsky & Chetverik [5], I dont see what is
wrong with 8h6 9 Bh4 Be7 10 Qb3 d6 =.
4exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6!?
Characteristic for the variation is the snake-like movement of Blacks

bishop: Bf8-d6-c7-a5 or Bf8-d6-e5. The variation was adopted by GM
Miezis and other strong players.
6 e4
This is considered the critical move. However, even after 6 Nf3, Palliser
sees an advantage for White: 6Bc7 7 g4 (Piket Adams, Groningen
1995) 7...Ba5! (the correct reply; 7...0-0? 8 g5, and the knight cannot flee
to h5), and now:
(a) 8 g5 Ne4 9 Qd3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Bf4 d6 12 Nd2 Nd7!
According to Maurits Wind Black is okay: 13 Bg2 (13 Bxd6 Re8 14 Nc4
Nb6 15 Nxa5 Qxd6 16 Bg2 Qf4 with the threats of Qa4 and Qxg5, =) 13...
Re8 14 Nc4 Ne5 15 Bxe5 (15 Nxe5 dxe5 16 Bd2, about =) 15...Rxe5! 16
Nxe5 Qxg5 17 Nc4 Qxg2 18 0-0-0 Qg5+ 19 Kb2 Bc7. In return for the
exchange, Black has a pawn and the bishop-pair (analysis by Wind).
(b) 8 Qd3 Qe7 9 Bd2 0-0 10 d6 and White is better, Blees Miezis,
Antwerp 1996. However, instead of the superficial 8Qe7? there is a
solid alternative overlooked by Richard Palliser: 8...0-0! 9 g5 (9 h3 Na6
=) 9Nh5 (in contrast to the line 70-0? 8 g5 mentioned above, the h5square is now available for the knight); for example, 10 d6 b6 11 Bh3 Ba6
12 Qc2 Nc6 13 0-0 Qe8 =.
6...Be5!?
This interesting idea was found by the Dutch IM Gerard Welling from
Eindhoven. Instead of the long march Bd6-c7-a5 typical for the Snake
Benoni, Black prefers to exchange the bishop without further ado, saving
valuable time. In 2007 Martens had written [7] that for many years I
have considered the reply 60-0 [] as insufficient and instead 6Be5
as both necessary and sufficient for Black. The move was already
recommended in [3] and [4], with both sources calling it the Eindhoven
Variation. How is it possible that both sources [5] and [8] miss it? (Much
worse: why did my own work [2] ignore it, too?)
In [3] Martens had expressed his doubts whether my Vulture was correct;
nevertheless, he continued: Anyway, this systems author has inspired
me to check out surprising solutions to some opening problems
elsewhere. They sometimes succeed and are the best. So he was not only
inspired by Marxism, but also by me.
Instead of the surprising text move, on six pages Richard Palliser mainly
analyzes the old attempt 60-0. After 7 f4 Nxe4 8 Nxe4 Re8 9 Qe2!,
wild complications arise.
But neither 9Bf8 nor 9b5 guarantee sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed piece. Another move was lately recommended on the Internet
[7] by Simplicissimus: 9Bc7 10 g4 Nc6!? (an amusing idea, also
missing in [8]) 11 dxc6 d5 12 Bg2 dxe4 13 Nh3? Qh4+ 14 Nf2 e3 etc. In
his reply Rolf Martens does not seem convinced, and in fact 13 g5
(instead of 13 Nh3?) seems more critical.
In the diagram position, 9Na6! 10 Nf3 (so far Palliser [8]) and now
10c4! is relatively best. Here Black gets fair chances; e.g., 11 Nxd6 (11
Bd2 Nc5) 11Rxe2+ 12 Bxe2 Nb4 13 Kf1 Qc7 14 Nxc4 Nxd5, when
White only has a slight advantage.
7 Nf3
7 Bd3!? d6 8 Nf3 deserves attention:
(a) 8Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 comes into question, but the apparent simplicity
of the position is deceptive: 10 0-0 (10 h3 Re8) 10Bg4 11 h3 Bxf3 12
Qxf3 Nbd7 13 c4 (13 Bf4 Qc7 14 Qg3 Ne5 with a solid position for
Black) 13...Ne5 14 Qe2 Nxd3 15 Qxd3 Qe7 16 Re1 Nd7 +=. Blacks
resulting position is somewhat passive (similar to the important sideline 9
Bb5+ Bd7 10 Bd3 Bg4 11 0-0 below), but it certainly can be defended
(b) In the sources listed below Rolf Martens preferred 8Nbd7. Here he
had stopped in [3]. The next source [4] gave already more details: 9 0-0 00 10 Re1 Re8 11 Bc2 with the threat of 12 Nxe5 Nxe5 13 f4 Ng6 14 e5
dxe5 15 Bxg6 hxg6 16 fxe5. But neither 11Qb6 [4] (Jesper Hall: Rolf
believes in equality whereas I believe that White has a slight edge.) nor
his latest attempt 11Bxc3 12 bxc3 b5 [7] are sufficient to equalize.
7Bxc3+ 8 bxc3
8d6
8Nxe4? 9 Bd3 Nf6 (9...f5? 10 Bxe4 fxe4 11 Bg5 Qa5 12 0-0! gives
White a strong attack) 10 Qe2+ Qe7 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 0-0 d6 (12...
Nxd5? 13 Re1+ Kd8 14 Bc4 +/) 13 Re1+ Kd7
(a) 14 Ng5?! Nxd5 15 Bc4 Nxc3 16 Nxf7 Rf8 17 Bb2 b5 18 Be6+ Kc6 19
Bxc8 looks great for White, but underestimates Blacks resources: 19
Na4! 20 Nxd6 Nxb2! with sufficient counterplay because of his pawn
majority on the queenside.
(b) 14 c4! h6 15 Bb2 Kd8 16 Bxf6+. It is this harmless approach which
may refute Blacks eighth move. After 16gxf6 17 Nd2! there could
follow: 17Na6 18 a3 Nc7 19 Re3 Rb8 20 Rf3 Ne8 21 h3 b6 22 Ne4 +/.
9 Qa4+!?
Or 9 Bb5+ (9 Bd3 Bg4 leads to the same position) 9Bd7 10 Bd3 Bg4
(a) 11 Qa4+ Nbd7 12 Nd2 0-0 13 Qc2 Ne5 14 0-0 Qc7 15 h3 c4! 16 Nxc4
Nxc4 17 hxg4 Nxg4 with an unclear situation; for example, 18 Rb1 (18
e5 h5) 18Nge5 19 Be2 Rac8 20 Rd1 (so far analysis by Maurits Wind),
and now 20Rfe8 equalizes.
(b) Again, the simpler reply 11 0-0 may be the real threat: 110-0 12 h3
Bxf3 13 Qxf3 Nbd7 14 c4! (14 Bf4 Qc7 15 Qg3 Ne5) 14...Ne5 15 Qe2
Nxd3 16 Qxd3 Re8 17 Re1 Nd7 += and once again (as in the similar line
with 7 Bd3 d6 8 Nf3 Bxc3+, above) Blacks passive position can
certainly be defended.
9Nbd7
9...Bd7? 10 Qb3 would be a serious loss of time.
10 Bd3 0-0 11 0-0 Re8
More precise than 11Nb6 12 Qd1 Bg4 13 h3 Bh5 14 Bf4! Qc7 15 Re1.
Black is struggling in this difficult situation: 15...Rfe8 16 c4 Bxf3 (else 17
g4) 17 Qxf3 Nfd7 18 Bf1! Ne5 19 Qb3 Ng6 20 Bh2 f6 21 Rab1 Re7 22
Re3 +/ (Maurits Wind).
12 Qc2
12 Re1 Nb6 13 Qd1 Bg4 14 Bf4 Nh5 15 Bd2 c4 16 Bc2 Qf6, and Black
has nothing to fear.
12c4! 13 Bxc4 Nxe4 14 Re1 Ndf6 15 Bd3 Bf5
Although White has the bishop-pair, the position should be about equal,
considering Blacks coming play on the c-file. A possible continuation is
16 c4 Bg6 17 Be3 Qa5 18 Rab1 Rac8 19 Bd4 a6 20 a4 Nc5 21 Rxe8+
Nxe8 22 Bf5 Rb8 23 Ra1 Nf6 24 h3 (24 Nh4 Qb4; 24 g3 Re8 25 Rb1
Bxf5 26 Qxf5 Qxa4) 24Nfe4 25 Nh4 Re8 26 Kh2 Qd2 27 Qxd2 Nxd2
28 Bxc5 dxc5 29 Nxg6 fxg6 30 Bd3 Ne4 =.
Sources
[1] R. Martens: Den moderna svenska Schackskolans svar pa 1. d4, in
SSKK Bulletinen no. 204 (1988), pp. 11ff.
[2] St. Bcker: Snake-Benoni, in: Groteske Schacherffnungen
(Stuttgart 1990)
[3] R. Martens: List of Ultrahypermodern CounterAttack (UHCA)
Systems, April 1999
[4] J. Hall: Seek, and thou shalt find! The unorthodox explorations of
Rolf Martens, in New In Chess Magazine 1999/8, pp- 58-71
[5] A. Raetsky, M. Chetverik: Starting Out: Benoni Systems, London 2005
[6] R. Martens: On my Background; (Internet, March 2005)
[7] R. Martens: numerous postings on his ideas in opening theory, until
spring of 2008, on the Internet.
[8] R. Palliser, J. Emms, Chr. Ward, G. Jones: Dangerous Weapons: The
Benoni and Benko, London 2008
[9] St. Bcker: Rolf Martens Snake-Benoni widerlegt?, in Kaissiber 33
(2008), p. 72

Olympic Experiments
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The Dresden Chess Olympiad (held November 12-25, 2008) was an

impressive event. For the first time the women battled their matches out
on four boards, and the 146 men and 111 women teams produced more
than 5,400 games. The sheer size of the tournament plus the 13,000
visitors already made an exciting mixture. Besides, the first German team
started convincingly, drawing matches in rounds 5 and 6 against Russia
and Ukraine and beating Romania in round 7. A loss against Israel was
the first setback for the German fans, with more of the same to follow.
The title holders from Armenia finally repeated their success and won the
gold medal, which can still be called a surprise, regarding their Elo rating
(9th in the starting list). The silver medal went to Israel, who thereby
gained their first Olympic medal ever. In a dramatic finish, the USA
captured third place by beating the Ukraine 3-. The U.S. womens
team collected another bronze medal for their country. At the top the fight
was again decided by a hair: gold for Georgia, silver for the Ukrainian
women.
The International Congress Center at Dresden

Photo: Harald Fietz, Berlin.

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
Here isnt the place for a detailed report. What follows is a selection of
some interesting opening ideas.
Hrvoje Stevic (Croatia; 2588) David Howell (England; 2593)
Dresden, 2008 (Round 11)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 dxe5!?
The ending after the usual 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5 offers Black fine drawing
chances (as demonstrated by Vladimir Kramnik during the London 2000
match against Garry Kasparov), and so the Berlin Defense 3Nf6 has
earned the nickname Berlin Wall. To keep the game under control
might be a wise tactic in the worlds elite, but I have never understood
Practical Guide
to Rook Endgames
by Nikolay Minev
why their cautious play is imitated by so many amateurs. The enterprising

text move, invented in the 1880s by Rudolf LHermet from Magdeburg,
can easily lead to promising attacks.
6Nxb5 7 a4 Nbd4
Today few people like to enter the heavy complications after 7d6 8 e6!.
The knight move simplifies the position.
8 Nxd4 Nxd4
According to the database, the text move is twenty times more popular
than 8d5 (125 games vs. 6 games). However, the latter possibility is
probably more precise. For example, 9 exd6 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Qxd6,
transposing to the next note, 10 exd6 Qxd6.
9 Qxd4 d5 10 Nc3
The main alternative 10 exd6 Qxd6 is very drawish. There is a sharper
idea, in which I had invested a lot of time: 10 Qd3, but Black defends his
position by 10g6 (weaker: 10c6 11 a5 or 10a5 11 Nc3 c6 12 Ne2)
11 Rd1 c6 12 Qg3 Bg7; for example, 13 c4 d4 14 Bg5 Qa5 (or 14Qb6
15 Qa3 Bf8) 15 Bf6 0-0 16 Nd2 c5 17 Ne4 Bf5 18 Bxg7 Kxg7 19 Nd6
Bc2 20 Rdc1 d3 21 e6 f6!, about =.
10...c6
11 Qd3?
A similar concept as described in the last note (10 Qd3). Clearly more
popular is 11 a5!, which prepares f4 (the immediate 11 f4? is met by
Qb6). After 11Bf5 12 f4 Qd7 (12Bxc2?! 13 f5!), the often-seen
treatment is 13 Rf2, but I believe that another setup is stronger: 13 Qf2!
(apparently a new idea) 13c5 14 Ne2 Bxc2 15 f5 0-0-0 16 Bg5 Re8
17 Nd4! Bd3 18 Rfd1 Be4 (18Bxf5?? 19 Qxf5 cxd4 20 Rac1+, or 18

Bc4 19 e6 fxe6 20 Nxe6 and White has a strong attack) 19 Bf4 g5 20 Bg3
h5 21 e6 fxe6 22 fxe6 Rxe6 23 Nxe6 Qxe6 24 Rdc1 h4 25 Rxc5+ Bxc5
26 Qxc5+ Qc6 27 Qd4 Re8 28 Bf2 and White gets the upper hand.
11Be7
11...g6 = 12 Qg3?! (Oleksienko Kryvoruchko, Lvov 2006) 12Bg7 13
Bg5 Qb6 =+.

12 Qg3 Kf8
Id still prefer 12...g6 =.
13 Ne2 h5 14 h3 h4 15 Qf3 g6
Or 15...Qc7 16 Nf4! Kg8 17 Re1, and White is slightly better.
16 Nd4
If Black wants to drive that knight away from his active post, he has to
weaken his position by means of c6-c5.
16...Kg7
16Rh5 17 Bf4 Kg8 comes into consideration.
17 e6!?
Simpler and perhaps better: 17 Re1! Be6 18 Nxe6+ fxe6 19 Qg4 Qd7 20
c4 +=.
17...Bf6 18 Re1 c5 19 Nb3 b6
On 19c4, the knight returns to d4 of course.
20 exf7 Bf5 21 c3
Or 21 c4 dxc4 22 Nd2 Qd3 23 Qb7 Rhf8 24 Ra3 Qc2 25 Nf1, followed by
Ne3 =.
21...Be4 22 Qd1 Kxf7 23 Nd2 Bf5 24 Nf3 Be4 25 Nd2 Bf5 26 Nf3 g5?!
Black isnt satisfied with a repetition of moves.
27 Ne5+ (or 27 a5 +=) 27...Kg7
28 Ng4
There is nothing wrong with this move. But White might also choose 28
f4 or even 28 Qf3!? Be4 (28...Be6 29 Qd3 Rh6 30 f4 resp. 29...Qe8 30
Nf3) 29 Qg4 Bxe5 (after 29...Re8 30 Rxe4 dxe4 31 Nd7, neither 31

Be7? 32 Bf4 nor 31Rc8 32 Nxf6 Qxf6 33 Bxg5 Qg6 34 Rd1 Rc7 35
Bf6+ Kf7 36 Qf4 Rb7 37 Rd5 + looks promising for Black) 30 Bxg5
Qc8 31 Bf4+ Qxg4 32 Bxe5+ Kf7 33 hxg4 Rhe8 34 f4 (34 Bf4!? Bc2 35
f3) 34...Rg8 35 g5, and obviously White is better.
28...d4 29 Nxf6 Qxf6 30 cxd4 cxd4 31 b4?!
31 b3 += looks stronger. Then, after 31Rac8 32 Ra2, Black doesnt
have 32Rc4.
31...Rac8 32 Bb2 Rhd8 33 Rc1 Rxc1 34 Qxc1 Kg6 35 Qc7
35 Rd1!? still offered some chances. With his text move, White probably
underestimated Blacks reply.
35...Rc8! 36 Qb7
36 Qxa7 Rc2 37 Ba1 Be4! 38 Rf1 Bd3 and White is in trouble.
36...Rc2 37 Ba1 Bxh3
38 Qe4+ Bf5 39 Qxd4?

39 Qe8+ Qf7 40 Qh8 =.
39...Qxd4 40 Bxd4 Rc4 41 Be3 Rxb4 42 Ra1 g4
It is difficult to say whether White can hold the position with accurate
play. In practice, his task isnt easy.
43 Kh2 Rb3 44 Bf4 Rb2 45 Kg1 Be4 46 a5 g3 47 f3 Bd3 48 axb6 axb6
49 Bd6 Be2 50 Be7 Kh5 51 Rc1 Rd2 52 Bb4 Rd7 53 Re1 Bc4 54 Re5+
Kg6 55 Re7 Rd4 56 Re4 Rd7 57 Re7 Rd3 58 Re1 Kf5 59 Be7 Rd4
60 Kh1 Bd5 61 Kg1 b5 62 Bc5 Rc4 63 Be7 b4 64 Kf1 b3 65 Bd6 b2 66

Ba3 Rc2 67 Rb1 Bc4+ 0-1
Ferenc Berkes, Hungary (foreground)

Photo: Harald Fietz, Berlin.
Ferenc Berkes (Hungary; 2645) Constantin Lupulescu (Romania;

2594)
1 d4 d5 2 Bf4 c6 3 e3 Bf5 4 c4 Bxb1 5 Qxb1 e5?!
A surprising novelty: White loses his right to castle. However, the price
that Black pays seems too high. The alternative idea 5Nf6 6 Nf3 e5
comes to mind, but the compensation for the pawn is questionable in this
case: 7 Bxe5 Bb4+ 8 Kd1 Nbd7 9 Bg3 0-0 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Bd3,
intending Ke2, Rc1 and Kf1.
6 Bxe5 Qa5+ 7 Kd1 Nd7 8 Bg3 c5 9 Nf3
Development first.
9Ngf6 10 a3
Or 10 cxd5 cxd4 11 Nxd4 with the small trap 11Qxd5 12 Qf5! forcing
the exchange of queens.
10cxd4 11 exd4 Be7 12 c5
Closing the center. Whites pieces occupy reasonable squares, and his
king on d1 seems secure. Nevertheless, in a later stage of the game an
adventurous black player may still hope for tactical surprises, made
possible by Whites unusual king position.
12Ne4 13 Bd3
13f5?!
For psychological reasons, Black should have continued his aggression:
130-0. In such a situation, many white players will avoid taking the
second pawn: 14 Bxe4 dxe4 15 Qxe4, fearing unnecessary
complications after 15Bxc5. The pawn sacrifice 5e5?! may be
dubious or worse, but if Black succeeds in opening the position against
Whites king, at least he should get practical chances.
14 b4 Qd8 15 Qb3 f4 16 Bxf4 Nxf2+ 17 Kc2 Nxh1? (170-0) 18 Qxd5
Nf6 19 Bb5+ Kf8 20 Qxd8+ Rxd8 21 Rxh1 Nd5 22 Bg3 h5 23 Re1 h4
24 Be5 Rh6 25 Bc4 Rg6 26 Re2 Rxg2 27 Rxg2 Ne3+ 28 Kd3 Nxg2 29
Ke4 Bf6 30 Bd6+ Be7 31 Bc7 Rc8 32 Be5 Bf6 33 Be6 Rc6 34 Bh3 Bxe5
35 Nxe5 Ra6 36 Bxg2 Rxa3 37 Kf5 Ra2 38 Bxb7 Rxh2 39 c6 Rc2 40
Ke4 1-0
David Howell, England

Photo: Harald Fietz, Berlin
Leif Erlend Johannessen (Norway; 2545) David Howell (England;

2593)
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 Qa4+
Avoiding the Grnfeld territory (5 d4).Whites queen maneuver
nevertheless represents a popular alternative.
5Bd7 6 Qh4 Bc6 7 Qd4
The main line; if now 7Nf6 8 Qxd8+, Black has lost his right to castle.
Two rounds earlier, Lars Schandorff tried 7 Ne5 Bg7 8 Nxc6 Nxc6 9 e3 00 10 Be2 e6 11 Qa4 Nce7 12 d4 c5 13 Nxd5 Nxd5 14 dxc5
14Nc3! Keeps Whites king in the center. 15 Qb4 Nxe2 16 Kxe2 Qg5
17 g3 Rac8 18 Bd2 Rxc5 19 Qxb7?! Qg4+ 20 Qf3 Qc4+ 21 Ke1 Bxb2 22
Rd1 Rd8 23 Qe2 Qxe2+ 24 Kxe2 Rc2 01, Schandorff Howell, Dresden
2008.
7...Rg8!?
An interesting decision and, as far as I know, a new move. The practical

experiences with 7f6 8 e4 Nxc3 9 bxc3 havent been encouraging, with
White scoring 70% in 38 games. However, if Black only finds 9e5 10
Qe3 Qe7, the result goes down to a solid 50% (3 out of 6). Therefore I
have my doubts whether the text move is such an improvement. Its main
value may be to surprise the opponent (who certainly knew of Howells
game two rounds ago), and by complicating things Black also signals that
he is playing for more than a draw.
8 Ne5
Against 8 e4, Black can now reply 8Bg7! 9 Qc4 (9 Ne5 Bxe5 10 Qxe5
Nb4; or 9 Qd3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 Qxd3 11 Bxd3 Nd7 with the double threat
of Nc5 and Nf6) 9Nb6 10 Qb3 Bxc3 11 Ng5 Bd5 12 exd5 Bf6 =.
8e6 9 Nxc6
9 e4! seems more critical: 9Nb4 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 Kd1 Be8 12 d4
Nd7 13 Nd3
(a) 13c5?! 14 Nxc5 Nxc5 15 Bg5+! is very dangerous; for example,
15Kc7 16 dxc5 Bxc5 17 Rc1 Nc6 18 Nb5+ Kb6
19 Rxc5! Kxc5 20 Be3+ Kb4 21 Nd6 Rb8 22 Kc2 b5 23 a3+ and White
wins.
(b) 13Nc6 14 Be3 Bg7 15 e5 Kc8 16 h4 f6 17 f4 Nb6 18 Kc2 Bf7 19 a3

f5 20 Nc5 Rd8 21 Rd1 Ne7, with a slight advantage for White.
9Nxc6 10 Qa4 Qd7
Black can tolerate the inconvenience of Rg8 as he castles queenside,
Malcolm Pein in his round four comments for The Week in Chess.
11 e3 0-0-0 12 Be2
Against 12 Bb5, Pein gives 12Ndb4 13 d4 a6 14 a3 axb5 15 Qa8+ Nb8,
unclear.
12Ndb4 13 0-0
13 d4 Nxd4 isnt bad for Black either.
13Nd3 14 b4
14Kb8?
Avoiding the greedy 14Bxb4 15 Rb1, although it might have worked:
15Bxc3 16 dxc3 Qd5 17 Rd1? Nc5, or 17 Ba3 Qa5.
15 b5 Nce5 16 f4?
Correct was 16 Ne4, which gains valuable time: 16Be7 (16Bg7 17
f4) 17 f4 and Black is in difficulties, because 17Nxc1 18 Raxc1 Nd3, in
analogy to the game, is met by 19 Rc3 +/. And the alternative 17f5 18
fxe5 fxe4 19 Qxe4 is no fun either.
16Nxc1 17 Raxc1 Nd3 18 Bxd3 Qxd3 19 Ne4 f5 20 Ng5 Qxd2
Malcolm Pein: Black is doing well. The next move is a mistake in a

difficult situation.
21 Nf7? (21 e4 =+) 21Rd5! 22 b6 axb6 23 Qe8+ Ka7 24 Nh6 Ba3 25
Nxg8 Qxe3+ 26 Kh1 Bxc1 27 Ne7 Qxf4 28 Rg1 Ba3 29 Nxd5 exd5 30
Qd7 Bd6 31 Qxh7 d4 32 g3 Qe4+ 33 Rg2 d3 0-1
The last three games are included only for entertainment. The idea 4 Qd3
is one of the best replies against the Vulture. Unfortunately, the further
course of the next game didnt follow my theory.

Hermann Grooten (Netherlands Antilles; 2376) Benjamin Omorere
(Nigeria)
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 Ne4 (the Vulture) 4 Qd3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 Nd6? (5
Nf6!) 6 e4 (more critical: 6 b3) 6...b5 (6...g6 should be played) 7 cxb5 a6
8 b6! Qxb6 9 e5 Nb5 10 Nc4 Qa7 11 Nf3 e6 12 a4 Nd4 13 Nxd4 cxd4
14 d6 (14 Qg3! Bb7 15 Nd6+ Bxd6 16 exd6 Kf8 17 Qh4! +) 14...a5 15

Bd2 Nc6 16 Be2 Ba6 17 f4 Rb8 += 18 0-0?? (18.Qd2+/=) 18Bxc4 19
Qxc4 d3+ 20 Rf2 dxe2 21 b4 axb4 22 a5 g6 23 Qxe2 Bg7 24 Be3 Qa8
25 a6 00 26 a7 Rb7 27 Qc4 b3 28 Rb2 f6 29 Rxb3 fxe5 30 Rab1 Rxb3
31 Qxb3 exf4 32 Bc5 Nxa7 33 Qb7 Qxb7 34 Rxb7 Nc6 35 Rxd7 Bd4+
36 Bxd4 Nxd4 37 Kf2 e5 38 g3 fxg3+ 39 Kxg3 e4 40 Kg4 e3 41 Re7
Nf5 42 Re6 Rd8 0-1
Philip Corbin (Barbados; 2176) Brehane Gebre Gebregziabher
(Ethiopia; 2073)
1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 d5 3 e5 c5 4 b4 cxb4 5 a3 Nc6 6 axb4 Bxb4 7 c3 Bc5 8 d4
Bb6 9 Na3 Nge7 10 Bd3 0-0
11 Bxh7+ Kxh7 12 Ng5+ Kg6 13 h4 Qe8 14 Nb5 Nxe5 15 Nd6 Qc6 16

Qc2+ Nd3+ 17 Qxd3+ f5 18 h5+ Kh6 19 Ngf7+ Kh7 20 h6 g6 21 Ng5+
Kh8 22 Ndf7+ Rxf7 23 Nxf7+ Kh7 24 Ng5+ Kh8 25 Bf4 Bc7 26 h7
Bd7 27 Nf7+ Kg7 28 Ne5 Qb5 29 Qh3 1-0
Mario Garay (Honduras) Patrick Lebel (Monaco; 2187)
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Nc3 e6 4 a3 d6 5 Nf3 Nd7 6 Bc4 g6 7 Qe2 Bg7 8
Bg5 Ne7 9 0-0-0 a6 10 h4 h6 11 Bf4 Qb8 12 Rhe1
12Qa7 13 Qd2 0-0-0 14 d5 e5 15 Be3 f5 16 g3 Nf6 17 Nh2 fxe4 18

Qe2 Qa8 19 Qd2 Nf5 20 Bxb6 cxb6 21 Na4 Qa7 22 g4 b5 23 Qa5 bxa4
24 gxf5 gxf5 25 Re3 Rd7 26 Rc3 Rc7 27 Bxa6 Rxc3 28 Bxb7+ Kxb7 29
Qxc3 Qc5 30 Qg3 Rc8 31 Rd2 Rc7 32 Qg6 f4 33 Kb1 h5 34 Qg2 Bh8
35 Qh3 e3 36 fxe3 Qxe3 37 Qxe3 fxe3 38 Re2 Nxd5 39 Nf1 Rc4 40
Nxe3 0-1

Overlooked by the Classics

Fast development was the ideal of the old masters. In the chess books of
the 19th century there are plenty of Kings Gambits or other Open Games
that celebrated this direct style. Wasting time was considered a cardinal
sin. Therefore, it is quite astonishing that the German Handbuch, then a
leading opening manual, gave the strange fourth move for Black as the
main line of Philidors Defence in all of its eight editions, from 1843 to
1916:
Over the
Horizons
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4
The Philidor Files

by Christian Bauer
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Carl Friedrich von Jaenisch regarded 4 Qxd4 as better: The correct

move according to the Italian authors; but those writers have never told us
why we should not retake with N; and consequently the majority of
amateurs prefer the latter move. The reason is indeed curious enough why
4 Nxd4 is in reality a bad move; yet it has escaped all the classics,
however simple. Ex. 4 Nxd4 d5, and he regains the move upon you.
[], Jaenischs Chess Preceptor, 1847.
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
4d5??!
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
Black moves his d-pawn for the second time and will lose further time
with his queen. We are reminded of another ancient line in the
Scandinavian Defence: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 e5?! 5 Nf3,
and White is better. Today we understand, thanks to the work of
Nimzowitsch, that Black can better defend a slightly passive position than
exchange Whites center pawn in such a brutal way. Although the line is
dubious, its refutation is far from obvious.
5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Qe2+!
A novelty found by Louis Paulsen in a game against C. Lepge, 1863
(Schachzeitung 1863, p. 366). Today many opening systems are named
after this inventive player, but surprisingly his brother Wilfried included 6
Qe2+! in a list of the best opening ideas by Louis Paulsen (Schachzeitung
1870, p.5).
The text move improved upon 6 Nc3 Bb4 (Jaenisch):
(a) 7 Bf4 Bxc3+ (7Ne7? 8 Qd2 Bxc3 9 Qxc3 0-0 10 0-0-0 Ng6?! 11
Bxc7 Bd7 12 Bc4 Qxg2 13 h4 Nc6 14 h5 Qg5+ 15 Kb1 Nge5 16 f4! +
Jan Sprenger Bcker, Echternach 2005) 8 bxc3 Ne7 9 Qe2 Nbc6! 10
Nb5 0-0 11 Nxc7 Qa5 and Black has sufficient compensation.
(b) 7 Be3 Nf6 8 Ndb5 0-0 9 Nxc7 Qa5!
10 Nxa8 Bg4 11 Be2 Rd8 12 Qb1 Bxe2 13 Kxe2 Qa6+ 14 Ke1 Ne4 15
Nc7 Qc4 16 N7b5 Qxb5 17 f3 Nxc3 18 bxc3 Bxc3+ 19 Kf2 Qe5 20 Qc1
Bxa1 21 Qxa1 Qd6 =+ (0-1, 33) Grund Chikovani, Tallinn 1997
(European Championship U18).
Another good line is 6 Bf4!? Nf6 7 Nc3 (7 Qe2+ Be7 8 Nb5 Na6 9. N1c3
Qd8 returns to the main line) 7Bb4 (7Qc5 8 Qe2+ Be7 9 0-0-0 0-0
10 Nb3 Qf5 looks risky) 8 Ndb5 Bxc3+ 9 Nxc3 Qxd1+ 10 Rxd1 c6
followed by Be6, Nbd7 and 0-0-0. Of course White has the bishop-pair,
which gives him an advantage.
6...Be7 7 Nb5 Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8
Jaenischs attempt to rescue his line in La Stratgie 1870. Theoretician
von der Lasa also trusted the text move (Deutsche Schachzeitung 1873,
p. 195). In the game mentioned above, C. Lepge continued 8...Qf5 9 Be3
Nf6 10 Nd4 Qg6 11 Qb5+ Nd7 12 Bd3! +/ (but drawn, 53). And 9...
Bf6?!! certainly fails to 10 Nd4!. Altogether Jaenischs move seems best.
A critical position. William Steinitz now liked 9 Bf4 Nf6 10 Qc4 in his
The Modern Chess Instructor, following an earlier analysis of Lipschtz.
Another well-known theoretician, Oskar Cordel, preferred 9 Be3
(Fhrer, 1888). To me a longer bishop move looked more dangerous: 9
Bg5!. To identify the best of these alternatives, I tried to defend the

position in six correspondence games against Kaissibers co-editor
Maurits Wind. Our conclusion, in short, was (a) the books are right to
say that Black is worse; but (b) they are not able to prove this claim.
Variation A. White Plays 9 Bf4 (Lipschtz, Steinitz)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 d5 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Qe2+ Be7 7 Nb5
Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8 9 Bf4 Nf6 10 Rd1
More dangerous than two old continuations: 10 Qe5 0-0 11 Nxc7 (Cordel)
11Ng4! or 10 Qc4 c6 11 Rd1 (Bilguer) 11Qb6! 12 Nd6+ Bxd6 13
Bxd6 Be6 14 Qd4 0-0-0.
10...Bd7 11 Qf3 0-0!
Avoids 11...Qc8? 12 Rxd7!! Nxd7 13 Nd5 +/ with a devastating attack.
12 Qxb7 Nb4 13 Bd3 Bc6
Black gets active play for his sacrificed pawn.

14 Qxc7 Qe8 15 Qe5
15 0-0? Nfd5 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Qe5 Nxf4.
15...Nxd3+ 16 cxd3 Bxg2 17 Rg1 Bf3 18 Rc1 Ng4 19 Qf5 Bb4+
So far Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005. The chances are equal. Since
20 Kf1 Bxc3 21 Nxc3 Qe6 22 Qxe6 fxe6 23 Bg3 Rad8 24 h3 Nf6 25 Na4
Rxd3 26 Nc5 Rd5 =+ is risky, White should rather play it safe: 20 Be3!
Nxe3 21 Rxg7+ -.
Variation B. White Plays 9 Be3 (Cordel)
Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8 9 Be3 Nf6
Improving upon Cordels original analysis 9...c6 10 Rd1 Bd7 11 Nd6+
Bxd6 12 Rxd6 Qe7, when 13 Rd2! would give White an advantage.
10 Bd4!
The bishop blocks the d-file, so that White can castle to the queenside.
10...0-0 11 0-0-0 Bg4 12 f3 Bd7 13 Qe5 Re8 14 Bc4 Bf8 15 Qf4 Be6 16
Be5
16...Nh5 17 Rxd8
After the game Maurits Wind preferred 17 Qe4, to secure some positional
advantage.
17...Nxf4 18 Rxa8 Rxa8 19 Bf1
19 Bxf4 Bxc4 20 Nxc7 came into consideration. White has an extra pawn,
but the bishop-pair gives Black fair chances for a draw.
19...Nd5 20 Nxd5 Bxd5 21 Nc3
21 Bxc7 Bxa2!.
21...Re8
22 Nxd5
The saving trick that White had missed some moves ago was 22 Bg3
Nb4! 23 a3 Na2+ 24 Nxa2 Bxa2 25 Bd3 c6!.
22...Rxe5 23 Bxa6 bxa6 -, Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
Apparently 9 Be3 offers better chances for some advantage than 9 Bf4.
But there is still the third bishop move on our agenda, and as we will see,
it is even stronger:
Variation C. White Plays 9 Bg5!
Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8 9 Bg5!
9h6 10 Rd1 Bd7 11 Bh4!

Clearly better than 11 Bxe7 Nxe7 12 Qe4 0-0 13 Qxb7 Nb4 14 Rd2 Ng6!
with counterplay.
11...Kf8
From a practical perspective it may be tempting to try 11h5?!.
However, Whites advantage is obvious after 12 g3! (12 Qe5 Kf8 13 Bxe7
+ Qxe7 14 Qxe7+ Kxe7 15 Nd5+ Kd8 gives Black the extra move h6-h5,
in comparison with the main line. This could be useful after, say, 16 Bc4
Nh6) 12Rh6 (12f6 13 Bg2 Rb8 14 0-0 c6 15 Rd4! cxb5 16 Rfd1 Nc5
17 Ne4 +) 13 Bg5 Rg6 14 Bf4 Qc8 (14Kf8 15 Qxh5 Bg5 16 Rxd7!
Qxd7 17 Bxg5 +/) 15 Bg2 Bg4 16 f3 Bd7 17 0-0 Kf8 +/. White is in
firm control of the position. Nevertheless 11h5?! deserves attention,
because 12 g3 is difficult to find.
12 Bxe7+!
A subtle idea: With his king on f8, Black can no longer play 12Qxe7 13
Qxe7+ Nxe7, because then Bd7 would not be protected. Less critical is 12
Bg3 h5, when Black develops sufficient activity by bringing his kings
rook to the sixth rank:
(a) 13 Qc4 h4 14 Bxc7 Qe8 15 Qe2 Bxb5 16 Nxb5 Rh6 17 Bf4 Re6 18
Be3 Bc5 19 Nd4 Re4 20 c3 Nf6 21 Qb5 Ng4 22 Kd2 Bxd4, soon drawn,
Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
(b) 13 Nd5 h4 14 Bf4 Bg5! 15 Be5 Rh6 16 f4 Bf6 17 Nxf6 Nxf6 18 Qf3
Qe7 19 Nd4 (or 19 Qxb7 Re8 20 Nc3 Ng4 21 Bxa6 Nxe5 22 fxe5 Bc6 23
Qxa7 h3!) 19...Qb4+ -, Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
(c) 13 Qd2 Nf6 14 h4 Rh6 15 Bc4 Rg6! 16 0-0 Bc5 17 Nd4 Nb4 18 Nb3
Bb6 19 Na4 Bxa4!? 20 Qxb4+ Qe7 21 Qxa4 Rxg3 22 Rfe1
22...Bxf2+ 23 Kxf2 Re3. The rook is taboo because of Ng4+. 24 Kf1

Qe5! (24...Kg8? 25 Qb5! Re8 26 Rxe3 Qxe3 27 Be2 +/) 25 Rxe3 Qxe3
26 Rd3 (26 Qa3+!? +=) 26...Qf4+ 27 Rf3 Qh2 28 Ke1 Qxh4+ 29 Kd1 Rd8
+ 30 Nd2 Qd4 31 Qa3+ Rd6 32 Bd3 Ng4
33 Qb3 Qg1+ 34 Nf1 Ne5 35 Qxb7 Nxf3 36 Qa8+ Ke7 37 Qxf3 g6 38 c3

Rf6 39 Qe3+ Qxe3 40 Nxe3. A sequence of almost forced moves leads to
a situation with asymmetrical material. Black holds with precise play: 40...
Kd6 41 Ke2 h4 42 a4 Rf4 43 a5 f5 44 b4 Ke5 45 c4 h3 46 gxh3 Rh4 47
Nd5 Rxh3 48 Nxc7 Rh2+ 49 Ke1 Kd4 50 Be2 g5 51 b5 g4 52 Kf1 f4 53
Bxg4 Kxc4 54 Be2+ -, Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
Unfortunately, the text move (12 Bxe7+!) hits the nail on the head. In
spite of the following simplifications Black will find it difficult to survive.
12...Qxe7
To keep the queens on the board is even worse: 12...Nxe7 13 Qd2 Nb8 14
Qf4 +/.
13 Qxe7+
13 Nd5? Bxb5! 14 Qxe7+ Nxe7 15 Bxb5 Nxd5 16 Bxa6 Re8+ 17 Kf1
Rd8 18 Bd3 =.
13...Kxe7 14 Nd5+ Kd8 15 Bc4
The quiet 15 Be2 Ne7 16 Nf4 +/ is also advantageous for White.
15...c6!?
Looks like a mistake, but the move contains some poison. Moreover,
there is nothing better: 15...Ne7 16 Ndc3!, White has the upper hand: 16...
Nb4 17 Rd2 a6 18 Bxf7 axb5 19 Be6 +/.
16 Nd6 cxd5 17 Bxa6 Kc7 18 Bxb7!
White doesnt fall into 18 Nxf7 Re8+ 19 Be2 Bb5 20 Rd2 Rh7 21 f4 g5!
22 Ne5 Bxe2 23 Rxe2 Rhe7 24 g3 Nf6 25 0-0 gxf4 26 gxf4 Nh5 =.
18...Rf8
19 Rxd5 Nf6 20 Rd4 Re8+

20...Rb8 21 Bf3 Rxb2 22 Kd2 +/.
21 Kd2! Re6 22 Ne4 Rb8 23 Nxf6 Rxf6 24 Bd5 Rxf2+ 25 Kc1!
25 Kc3 Bf5 26 Rc1 Re8, and Black is not without chances: 27 Rc4+ Kb8
28 Bf3 Rc8! 29 Rxc8+ Kxc8 30 Kb3 Bh3! 31 Rg1 Be6+ 32 c4 g5.
25...Be6
Still hoping for a draw, in spite of the pawn deficit, since there isnt much
left on the board.
26 Bf3 Rd8 27 Rxd8 Kxd8 28 Rd1+ Kc7 29 b3 g5 30 Rd2 Rf1+ 31
Kb2 f5 32 c4 g4 33 Ba8 f4 34 Kc3 h5 35 Kd4 h4 36 Re2
36...Kd6
I had missed 36...Kd7 37 Kc5!. Nevertheless there remained a last chance
for Black, which was pointed out by Maurits Wind after the game: 36...
Bc8! 37 Re7+ Kb8 38 Be4 f3 39 gxf3 gxf3 40 Rf7 Rf2, and it isnt easy
for White to convert his advantage into a point.
37 c5+ Ke7 38 Be4 Kf6 39 c6 Rd1+ 40 Kc3 h3 41 gxh3 f3 42 Rf2 1-0,
Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
With some regret I have to admit that the unusual 4d5??! is a bad idea,
although the clearest refutation 9 Bg5 wasnt in the books, nor was it easy
to find. Undeniably Jaenischs 4d5 has some surprise effect, but
perhaps we should reserve the move for blitz games.
This column is based on my article Eine historische Frage (Kaissiber
21; 2005), expanding on that article by analyses and games at move six
and (in C) 11h5.

An Academic Question
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
When you are discussing the Kings Gambit in an Internet forum or in a

pub, sooner or later one of the guests, or perhaps the pubs owner, will
ask: Why do you analyse the Kings Gambit, when ninety-five percent
of GM games are in the Ruy Lopez? Such a remark suggests that the
Kings Gambit must have a defect. Apparently the inquirer cannot
remember the details, but top players certainly must know why it is bad.
Any hint that the grandmasters are but a small minority, less than one
percent of the playing crowd, wont help. The Kings Gambit had been
branded as a romantic opening, which was never meant as a
compliment. Later they used statistics to demonstrate, not too
successfully, that 2 f4 was a weaker move than 2 Nf3. And now we have
the ninety-five percent argument.
For Bent Larsen, the overwhelming popularity of one single line often
signaled that it was time for a change. Then he adopted something new:
Birds Opening, 1 b3 (Nimzo-Larsen Attack), the Vienna Game, 1 e4
c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ instead of 3 d4, and many other systems. He has been
extremely successful for many years with a broad opening repertoire.
Larsen played the Sicilian Najdorf, but dropped the system when it
became too popular, and later warned amateurs in [1]: Is it the sum total
of their ambition in chess to be two moves ahead of Fischer in the
analysis of the Poisoned Pawn line of the Najdorf? And in Bent Larsens
Good Move Guide (Oxford 1982) we find the following remark (p. 80):
Why always play the Spanish? Many players have read everything in the
book about 3 Bb5, but have skipped lightly across 3 Bc4.
Check out these

USCFSales.com:
Play 1.b3!
by Ilya Odessky
Bird's Opening
by Tim Taylor

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
He played the Kings Gambit in his youth, but later used it only as a rare
surprise weapon. Larsens Personal Approach to the Openings, as his
well-known article in [1] was titled, was everything else than dogmatic.
Can there be a better encouragement for building an opening repertoire
that fits your own style than the following [1]:
When I say an opening is natural for a player I mean that he likes it, and
that he believes in it (which is not necessarily the same thing). I have
never believed, or felt, that the Kings Indian is a correct defense for
Black, but I have often liked playing it. I feel the same about the Dutch
Defense, and in this case more masters will agree with me! Some
openings I consider absolutely correct, but I do not like to play them. Or
take Bent Larsens remark on gambit play [1]: Being a pawn down keeps
many players awake. A gambit never becomes sheer routine as long as
you fear you may lose the King and pawn ending!
Whether the Ruy Lopez is better than the Kings Gambit, remains an
academic question. On a line in the Kings Gambit, Garry Kasparov wrote
(My Great Predecessors, Part 1, p. 30): White cannot build up any
particular momentum. Can White really build up some momentum in the
Ruy Lopez? I asked a grandmaster who had written a book on the Ruy
Lopez, whether there was anything wrong with my analysis on the Steiner
Variation in the Marshall [2]. He didnt reply.
In GM tournaments, the Kings Gambit will remain a surprise weapon.
Not because it were incorrect, but because it takes more time to prepare
dozens of tactical main lines for White than to find an underestimated
side-line for Black for the next game against a 2 f4 player. The Kings
Gambits abundance makes a lot of its charm, but at the same time there
are practical handicaps, at least in the eyes of grandmasters. On any other
level, I see no reason why the Kings Gambit cannot be used on a regular
basis. Both main systems, the Kings Knight Gambit 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3
Nf3 and the Kings Bishop Gambit 3 Bc4, seem to be basically sound and
offer plenty of chances for the attacker.
Asked by readers of Kaissiber whether they should rather learn the
French Defense or the Caro-Kann Defense, Bent Larsen replied: Know
thyself. Chess isnt easy and there is no standard repertoire that applies
to everyone. A typical Kings Gambit game often enters irrational
complications just a few moves beyond your prepared stuff and your
theoretical worries quickly fade away. On the other side a Ruy Lopez
player may spend a lot of time in front of the computer on distilling only a
shade of an endgame advantage against the Berlin Wall. The following
updates of two lines studied in earlier columns illustrate what I mean.
Update 1. The Berlin Wall of the Ruy Lopez, LHermet Variation
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 dxe5!?
In his epic work The Berlin Wall (Glasgow 2008), John Cox analyzes the
sharp text move, invented by Rudolf LHermet from Magdeburg, on five
of the 328(!) pages. I am a bit puzzled by Cox remark: the German
columnist did not invent the move, and perhaps the Anglophone worlds
Mackenzie Variation is more correct. Can a reader help? Obviously
Cox has read The Oxford Companion to Chess, but Hooper/Whyld didnt
give a source for their claim.
6Nxb5 7 a4 Nbd4 8 Nxd4 Nxd4 (8d5!) 9 Qxd4 d5 10 Nc3 c6 11 a5
The December column [8] analyzed 11 Qd3? (Stevic Howell, Dresden

2008). That game sparked the interest of Ludger Keitlinghaus
(Germany). Though he considers 6 dxe5 rather as disadvantageous for
White, he finds it too harsh to label 11 Qd3 with a question mark, since
the move is a relatively new and logical idea that at least tries to build up
some pressure. And yes, he is probably right. It is not carved in stone that
10 Nc3 c6 11 a5 gives White any advantage, so I should be tolerant
against the highly interesting alternatives 10 Qd3 and 10 Nc3 c6 11 Qd3.
Even more so, since only last fall I had studied these Qd3 lines for weeks,
unfortunately to no avail. So the ? expressed mainly my own frustration.
11Bf5
Keitlinghaus: Black has a simple alternative in 11Be7, followed by 00. The missing light-squared bishop and the weakness of the square f5
will hamper Whites chances. Again, the grandmaster is probably right.
11Be7 hasnt been played often and isnt in [9], but the move is sound
and perhaps makes it even more difficult for White to achieve anything,
in comparison with the text move. After 12 f4 Bf5 play could transpose to
the next note, but there cannot be much wrong with 12f6 or 12b6
either.
12 f4 Qd7
The standard reply: White recognizes that the immediate 12Bxc2 13 f5
would be too risky, so he strengthens his control over the white squares
and renews his threat Bxc2. However, in analogy to Keitlinghaus
suggestion above, 12Be7!? deserves attention:
(a) 13 Ne2 (13 b4?!) 13Bxc2 14 f5 f6 15 Nf4 fxe5 16 Qxe5 Qd6 17
Qxg7 Qf6 18 Qg3 Qxf5 19 a6 b6 20 Ne2 Qg6, about equal.
(b) 13 Qf2 0-0 14 Be3 f6 15 exf6 Bxf6 16 Bxa7 Re8 17 Bb6 Qe7 18 Ra4
Qf7 19 Nd1 Bg4 20 Ne3 Bd7 =.
13 Qf2!
Ludger Keitlinghaus remembers a rapid game with this position, in which

he had Black. He couldnt recall his next moves, but queries my 13c5:
Why has Black to dismantle his pawn structure? There goes my
splendid analysis Seriously, my analysis file did consider other lines
than 13c5 14 Ne2 Bxc2 15 f5 0-0-0 16 Bg5 Re8 17 Nd4! [8], but none
of them seemed to give Black full equality, and so I just preferred the line
with the nicest diagram. But well, here are the alternatives:
13Bb4
Or 13Be7 14 Be3 f6 15 Bxa7 fxe5 16 Na4 Qe6 17 Nc5 Qc8 18 fxe5 00 (18Rxa7 19 Nb3) 19 Bb6 Bd3 20 Qxf8+ Bxf8 21 cxd3
For example 21Bxc5+ 22 Bxc5 Qg4 23 d4 h6 24 Rf3 Qe4 25 b4

followed by Raf1, +=.
14 h3 Qd8!?
(a) 140-0 15 g4 Bxc3 16 gxf5! Bb4 17 c3 Be7 18 Qc2, e.g., 18Bc5+
19 Kh2 a6 20 b4 Ba7 21 Qd3 Rad8 22 Ra2 +=.
(b) 14h5 prevents g2-g4, but is also a commitment. Black will castle
short, when the pawn h5 is a potential weakness.
15 Be3 Bxa5 16 Ne2 0-0 17 Ng3 Bd7 18 Rxa5!? Qxa5 19 f5
As I told you, this analysis is a bit boring. Now 19Qc7 20 Nh5 looks
risky.
19f6 20 e6 Be8
20Bc8?! invites 21 Nh5 Qc7 22 Bxa7.
21 Bc5 Qb5 22 b3
White has more than sufficient compensation (at least +=). I still believe
that 13 Qf2! is an excellent novelty in a position that has occurred twelve
times in the database. However, I admit that the modest looking 12Be7,
as recommended by Ludger Keitlinghaus, looks absolutely equal. Not to
forget the reliable alternatives 13Be7 and 8d5!. We conclude that for
this month the Berlin Wall remains intact. Good luck with studying the
remaining 323 pages of Cox endgame work.
Update 2: The Kingss Gambit, Kieseritzky Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6
The present main line of the Kieseritzky Gambit. Another ChessCafe.

com article [3] explored the Hungarian Defense 5d6 6 Nxg4 Nf6,
recommending 7 Nxf6+ Qxf6 8 Nc3 Nc6 and then:
(a) 9 Nd5 Qg6 10 d3 Qg3+ 11 Kd2 Nb4! 12 Kc3!? (a new idea by
Maurits Wind, not mentioned in [3]) 12Nxd5+ 13 exd5 Bg4 14 Be2
Qf2 15 Qe1 Bg7+ 16 Kb3 Qb6+ 17 Qb4 Qxb4+ 18 Kxb4 Bxe2 19 Re1 00 20 Rxe2 Rae8 21 Rxe8 Rxe8 22 Bxf4 Bxb2 23 Rf1 = (analysis by
Maurits Wind). Instead, White may choose my proposal 15 a3!? to stir up
the situation, but after 15Bxe2 16 Re1 0-0-0 17 Qxe2 Qc5+ 18 Kb3
Qxd5+ 19 c4 Qd4 20 Rf1?! (20 Qe4 =) 20Bh6 21 g3 Rde8 22 Qc2 fxg3
23 Bxh6 White is struggling, considering Blacks menacing pawns.
According to my analysis [6], White holds (23Re6 24 Bf4 Rg8 25 Rf3

g2 26 Bh2 Qxh4 27 Bg1), and OTB against a human opponent, the
aggressive 15 a3!? could well score a few points. But the risks should not
be underestimated.
(b) 9 Bb5, the move analysed by Michael Jensen, is still a good
alternative, see: [3].
(c) 9 d4 (Hectors move) 9Qxd4 10 Bxf4 Bg7! 11 Qxd4 Nxd4 12 Bd3.
This was the set-up I recommended for White in [3]. In my extended
analysis in Kaissiber 32 [6], I mainly studied the reply 12Bg4 (while
12Ne6 [1] and 12Rg8 [6] remain solid alternatives), giving the
following main line: 13 0-0 Ne6 14 Nd5 h5 15 Bg3! Bxb2 16 Rab1 Bd4+
17 Kh2 b6 18 Bb5+ Kf8 19 Bc4 Rc8 (perhaps 19Rh7 or 19Kg7 20
Nxc7 Rac8 are more precise). Whites pieces are more mobile than
Blacks, which fully compensates for the invested pawn: 20 c3! Bc5 21
Nf6 Rh6 22 Be1! Ke7 23 Nd5+ Ke8 24 Bd2 Rg6 25 Bd3
25Rd8 (or 25c6 26 Nf6+ Ke7 27 e5 Rg7 28 Bh6 Rgg8 29 Ba6! Rcd8
30 Nxg8+ Rxg8 31 Rf6, and White is better) 26 Rf5! c6 (26Ng7 27
Rbf1) 27 Rbf1 Rd7 28 Nf6+. White is clearly better (+/-). Of course my
analysis doesnt change the general assessment that the Hungarian
Defense is solid and often leads to a draw. However, new ideas in [3] and
[6] make it more difficult for Black to achieve his half point.
6 Bc4!
6 Nxg4!? Nxe4 (6d6 transposes to the Hungarian Defense, above) 7 d3
Ng3 8 Bxf4 Nxh1 9 Qe2+ Qe7 10 Nf6+ Kd8 11 Bxc7+ Kxc7 12 Nd5+
Kd8 13 Nxe7 Bxe7
My earlier ChessCafe.com article [4] had a serious flaw: My

recommendation of 14 Qf3 Bxh4+ 15 g3 isnt roughly even [4], as
suggested, but better for Black: 15Re8+ 16 Kd1 d6! (threatening 17
Bg4 18 Qxg4 Nf2+, so White has no choice) 17 Qxh1 Bg4+ 18 Kd2 Bg5
+ 19 Kc3 Nc6; for example, 20 Na3 Rc8! 21 Rb1 Nd4+ 22 Nc4 b5 23
Qd5 Nf3 24 Qd6+ Bd7 25 Bh3 Rxc4+ 26 dxc4 Re3+ 27 Kb4 Be7, and
with a little luck White may survive. That wasnt exactly what I had
intended. Such things happen in the Kings Gambit.
Thus in the diagram position I ruefully return to the old 14 Qg4 d6 15 Qf4
Rg8 16 Nc3. Apparently White isnt worse after 16Be6 17 0-0-0!?
(improves upon 17 Be2 from Baucher Morphy, Paris 1858) 17Ng3 18
d4 Nd7 19 Bd3 d5 20 Nb5 Rc8 21 Nxa7 Rg4 22 Qd2 Ra8 23 Qa5+!? Ke8
24 Bb5 Bd6 25 Bxd7+ Bxd7 26 Kb1 Be6 27 Qb6 Ne4 28 Nc6! Kf8 29
Qxb7 Re8 30 a4, unclear [7].
6d5 7 exd5 Bd6
Against the less popular treatment 7Bg7 (Max Lange) 8 d4 Nh5, that
Kaissiber article [7] now prefers Oskar Cordels radical 9 Bxf4!?, with
unclear consequences.
8 d4 Nh5 9 Nc3
Or 9 0-0 0-0 (if 9Qxh4 10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1 0-0 12 Nc3 Bf5, Michael
Jensens idea 13 Rf1 comes into consideration; e.g., 13Na6 14 Bxf4
Nb4 with mutual chances [7]) 10 Rxf4!? (Henk Smout), unclear. For
more details, see [5] and [7].
90-0
Jaenischs 9Qe7 had been covered in [4]. That articles title A Patient
Novelty was referring to 10 0-0 Bxe5 11 Nb5! 0-0 12 dxe5 a6, and now
13 Nd4!, the move published in 2004 by the Australian David Flude on
www.chesspub.com, 24 years after 11 Nb5 had been given in print as a
mistake. For the details, see [4]. However, a mistake in that analysis
needs to be corrected: If 11a6 (instead of 110-0) 12 Re1! Nd7 13 d6!
cxd6 14 dxe5 0-0, the continuation 15 e6 (+- in [4], but Black survives:
15Qh4 unclear) should better be replaced by 15 Nxd6 +/, e.g. 15
Qxh4 16 Bxf7+ or 15Nxe5 16 b3 Qf6 17 Bb2 f3 18 Qd4 etc. [7].
10 Ne4!
In [4] I had recommended the traditional continuation 10 Ne2. But later
Hans-Christian Eberl from Austria found the strong 10Qe7! 11 Nxf4
Ng3!, which convincingly refutes Whites idea. For example, 12 Ne6 fxe6
13 Qg4+ Qg7 14 dxe6 Qxg4! 15 Nxg4 Kh8 16 Rg1 b5! 17 Bb3 Nc6 18
Be3 Nf5 -/+ or 15 e7+ Be6 16 exf8Q+ Kxf8 17 Bh6+ Ke8 18 Nxg4 Bxg4
-/+.
10f5
Apparently more critical than 10Re8 11 0-0 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Rxe5 13
Ng5 Qd6 14 Qd4 Nc6 15 Qf2 Nb4 16 Bxf4 Nxf4 17 Qxf4 Bf5 18 Rad1 h6
19 Nxf7! Kxf7 20 Qxg4 Kf6 21 h5 Nxc2 22 Qg6+ Ke7 23 Rxf5 Rxf5 24

Qxf5 Qx5+ 25 Kh1 Qxc4 26 Qe5+ Kf8 27 d6 cxd6 28 Qxd6+ Ke8 29 Qe5
+ Kf8 30 Kg1 Re8 31 Qd6+ Kg7 32 Qg6+ Kf8 33 Qxh6+ Kg8 34 Qg6+
Kf8 35 Rf1+ Ke7 36 Qg7+ Kd6 37 Rd1+ Kc6 38 Qd7+ Kb6 39 Qxe8 Qc5
+ 40 Kh1 a6 41 Rc1 Ka7 42 Qe2 Nd4 43 Rxc5 1-0, Eberl (Team
Schlechters Erben) Kayis (Team Satranc Okulu-Sbilyap), corr. 2007
(ICCF Ch. League 2007, C Group 4).
11 Ng5 Nd7 12 Qd3! Nxe5
Both 12Bxe5 13 d6+ Kh8 14 dxe5 Nxe5 15 Qc3 cxd6 16 Nf7+ Rxf7 17
Bxf7 Nf6 18 Bb3 and 12Ng3 13 Bxf4 Nxh1 14 Ke2 Qf6 15 Rxh1 offer
White attractive chances.
13 dxe5 Bxe5 14 Bd2!
14Ng3
Or 14Bxb2 15 Rb1 Bf6 16 Kd1! Kg7 17 Rxb7 Kg6 18 Rb5, unclear
[7].
15 0-0-0 Nxh1 16 Rxh1 h6 17 Bb4!
In this hair-rising situation, White seems to have sufficient compensation
for the sacrificed material:
17Kg7
(a) 17hxg5 18 Be7! Qd7 19 d6+ Kg7 20 Qd5 Qe6 21 Qd3 Qd7 = [7].
(b) 17f3 18 gxf3 hxg5 19 Be7 [7].
(c) 17Bd6 18 Bc3 hxg5 19 Qd4 Qf6 20 Qxf6 Rxf6 21 Bxf6 with
compensation [7].
(d) 17b5 18 d6+ Kh8 19 Nf7+ Rxf7 20 Bxf7 cxd6 21 Qd5 Rb8 22 Re1
Bb7 23 Qe6 Bg7 24 Bc3 Qxh4 25 Qd7 = [7].
18 Re1 Re8 19 Rxe5 Rxe5 20 Qd4 Qf6 21 Qxf4 Bd7
Another line from my analysis in [7]: 21Kg6 22 h5+ Kxh5 23 Nh7!
Qg7 24 Bc3 Kg6 25 Nf8+ (=).
22 Bc3
The chances are equal; for example, 22hxg5 23 hxg5 Qe7 24 Bxe5+
Kg6 25 Qg3 Qxg5+ 26 Bf4 Qe7 27 Bd3 Kf7 28 Bxc7 = [7].
Sources:
[2] ChessCafe.com, August 2006, Repairing the Steiner Variation
[3] ChessCafe.com, June 2008, Fashionable or Ailing?
[4] ChessCafe.com, July 2008, Kieseritzky Gambit: A Patient Novelty
[5] ChessCafe.com, July 2008, Kieseritzky Gambit: The Discussion
Continues
[6] St. Bcker: Am Triumphlager des Knigsgambits, Kaissiber 32
(2008)
[7] St. Bcker: Der Stand der Dinge, Kaissiber 33 (2008)
[8] ChessCafe.com, December 2008, Olympic Experiments
[9] J. Cox: The Berlin Wall, Glasgow 2008

How to Detect a Novelty
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Emil Joseph Diemer (1908-1990) clearly preferred practice over theory.

When he had worked out a critical variation of his Blackmar-Diemer
Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3; or short: BDG) in joint
analyses with Georg Studier, it was still possible that he would play
something else in his next encounter with the same position. But the times
are changing, and today BDG players want to know precisely how to
react in a dangerous situation. In the last decades many BDG books and
magazines have been published, and while Diemers own Blackmar
Gemeinde (1956) mainly presented games, these recent publications no
longer rate the beauty of a game higher than its theoretical relevance.
Now and then a line suffers a theoretical blow, made known in a new
book, and then the BDG player has to do his best to find a novelty that
repairs the damage. This is true for any opening, but when a BDG player
ignores such a gap, he risks a lot more than a Queens Indian player. A
case study: how to mend a critical BDG variation.
Check out these

ChessCafe.com:
Dealing with d4
Deviations
by John Cox
Fighting the
Anti-Kings Indians
by Yelena Dembo

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
The Belgian GM Albric OKelly,

a Correspondence World Champion
1. Trial and Error

Top TNT, Vol. 2
Geniuses, who can find the right solution on the spot, are rare. To learn by
your mistakes is, in the long run, at least as successful. The model of the
nave club player, who bangs out his first vague idea, only to correct it a
few seconds later, is emulated by the software which analyzes a chess
position: the first suggestion comes instantly, soon to be replaced by
something better. Our opening theory was developed by trial and error.
Armand Edward Blackmar, the inventor of the Blackmar Gambit 1 d4
d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 f3, died in 1888. In the same year Oskar Cordel mentioned
3e5 in Fhrer durch die Schachtheorie as a good reply. Had Blackmar
ever faced 3e5 in a game, he would have recognized the strength of the
move. Certainly he would have chosen the more accurate 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3
in his next game.
One of the critical lines of the BDG is the sequence that Albric OKelly
showed Diemer in June of 1956: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3
4c6!
Black intends 5 fxe4 e5!. To delay taking on f3 has another advantage:

the move order 4exf3 5 Nxf3 c6 gives White additional options, such as
6 Ne5. In his book [1] Diemer recommended the following, adorned with
his usual exclamation marks, as the most forcing line against OKellys
idea: 5 Nxe4! Nxe4! 6 fxe4 e5 7 Nf3! exd4 8 Bc4!!, e.g., 8Bb4+ 9 c3!!
dxc3 10 Bxf7+!! Ke7 11 Qb3 cxb2+ 12 Qxb4+ Kxf7 13 Ne5+ Ke6 14 Qc4
+!! Kxe5 15 Bxb2+ and White wins. Some readers will recognize the
motif; Diemer had borrowed an old trick from a Caro-Kann Defense: 1 e4
c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3!? (von Bardeleben) 3dxe4 4 fxe4 e5 5 Nf3 exd4 6 Bc4
Bb4+? 7 c3! etc. However, in Diemers modified version, where the two
knights b1 and g8 are already exchanged, the move 7Be6! might be
even better than in the Caro-Kann variation. This was the line that I
recommended against the BDG when corresponding with Volker Drke
and Volker Hergert in 1986. A later thematic correspondence tournament
tested the OKelly Defense; in [2] the participants finally agreed that 4
c6 was a good weapon against the BDG, and that White probably had
nothing better than either 5 Nxe4 = or 5 fxe4 e5 6 Nf3 exd4 7 Qxd4 =.
These equal lines (the second case may even be slightly worse) are not
exactly what a BDG player is hoping for.
Of course, 4c6 does not refute the BDG. Its objective value may not be
greater than 4exf3 5 Nxf3 g6 (preferred by Georg Studier) or 4exf3 5
Nxf3 e6 (Joe Gallaghers BDG-antidote in Beating the Anti-Kings
Indians, 1996). However, in the last diagram few players take the safe
road 5 Nxe4, a majority hopes to transpose to standard BDG positions.
While BDG players know that they have to be cautious against 3e5 or
3f5, they often underestimate the OKelly Variation. Several
continuations are inaccurate:
(a) 5 Be3 Bf5 6 fxe4 Nxe4 is a Vienna Defense with a passive Be3 (it
belongs to f4).
(b) 5 Bg5 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bg4! (Volker Hergert) is a Teichmann Defense,
where a Be3 would be more useful, to protect the pawn d4.
(c) 5 Bf4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bg4, and as in line b White would prefer a Be3
instead of the Bf4; for example, 7 Be2 Bxf3 8 Bxf3 e6.
(d) 5 a3 (Lev Zilbermints) 5exf3 6 Nxf3 g6, a Bogoljubow Defense,
where a3 is a bit slow.
And there is, finally, 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5!
Black may claim that he is playing an improved version of 4exf3 5

Nxf3 c6 (6 Bc4?!), the so-called Ziegler Defense (but Id still prefer to
name this situation after OKelly, whose 4c6 is the more precise move
order). The diagrammed position at least offers more chances than
Whites other alternatives listed above (a-d). In 1998, I compared the
various anti-BDG systems a second time, my article [5] again
recommended the OKelly Defense and preferred Black in the
diagrammed position. However, couldnt my analysis have been wrong?
A modern computer still uses the same trial and error approach as I did
in 1986 and 1998, but it does it a bit faster.
2. Check Forcing Variations
Some theory of 1998 [5], just to see why Whites standard attack fails.
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6! 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5! 7 0-0 e6 8
Ne5
White threatens to take on f5 or on f7. The tactical 8Bxc2?!, deflecting

Whites queen from the protection of d4, seems to be strong, but only at
first sight. After 9 Nxf7! Kxf7, I found a strong improvement just by
checking the most forcing variations: 10 Qxc2! Qxd4+ 11 Be3! White is
clearly better. In the first game with this idea, St. Burke Ian Gallagher,
4NCL 2007, after 11Qxc4 12 Rf4! Qxf4 (the queen was trapped: 12
Qa6 13 Ra4) 13 Bxf4 Bc5+ 14 Kh1 Nbd7 15 Ne4 Nxe4 16 Qxe4 Nf6 17
Qe5 Bb6 18 Rf1?! Rhe8 19 Bg5 Bd8, Black was able to consolidate and
even win the game (0-1, 57). However, 18 Bg5! Rhf8 19 Rf1 would have
been stronger (+/). And the alternative 11Qxe3+ 12 Kh1 Bd6 13
Rae1, where I saw good compensation for White back in 1998, has now
become a +/, thanks to some quiet moves from the computer: 13Qh6
14 g4! (instead of the loud 14 Bxe6+?!) resp. 13Qd4 14 Ne4!
(instead of my 14 Re4). Thus it can be fruitful to check forcing variations,
but one has to keep an eye on quiet moves, too!
However, in the diagrammed position Black simply plays 8Bg6!, and
against this solid defense no one has found a promising attack. Whites
practical results are depressing.
3. Rearrange Old Motives
A small modification of a known motif can make a big difference. When I
recently returned to the BDG topic, just to see whether there was
something new, the next idea was a major surprise for me.
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6! 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5! 7 0-0 e6 8

Ng5!?
The so-called Alchemy Variation, whose theory was developed and

published on the Internet by Emanuel Rajmund [7] and members of the
Chesspublishing.com forum (cf. [6] and older threads). The knights jump
to g5 looks fresh and new in contrast to Ne5, White may now be able to
sacrifice on e6 but includes also an old motif. Against 8Bxc2, White
can just play 9 Nxf7, returning to the old tactical line above (while 9 Qe2!
[7] is probably even stronger). 8g6 9 h3 h6 10 Nxf7 may also be
playable for White. Blacks most reliable reply is the same as in the 8 Ne5
line.
8Bg6! 9 Ne2
The immediate sacrifice 9 Bxe6!? fxe6 10 Nxe6 was proposed by
SWJediknight, who correctly stated that after the natural continuation
10Qd7 11 Bg5 Qxe6 12 Re1 White maintains an attack [6]. However,
10...Qd6! settles the situation:
(a) On 11 Qe2, both possible replies 11...Kf7 and 11...Kd7 look reliable.
(b) 11 Bg5 Nbd7! (11...Qxe6 transposes to 10...Qd7, and 11...Kf7 allows
12 Bxf6 Qxe6 13 Be7+! or 12...gxf6 13 Ne4!) and Black seems to be safe,
e.g., 12 Re1 (12 d5 cxd5 [or Kf7] 13 Nxd5 Kf7 etc.) 12...Kf7 13 Bf4 Qb4,
and I dont see a good continuation (14 Qe2 Kg8 15 a3 Qa5).
(c) 11 Re1 is relatively best, but still insufficient: 11...Kf7 12 Bf4 (12 Bg5
is line b) 12...Qd7 13 Nc7 Bd6 (Na6!?, but the text is simple and good) 14
Bxd6 Qxd6 15 Nxa8 Nbd7 followed by Rxa8. Black is better.
Peter Leisebeins text move tries to prepare an assault on the vulnerable
squares f7 or e6. For example, 9c5?! [7] 10 Be3 Nc6 11 Nf4 cxd4 12
Bf2 Bf5 13 Re1 Be7 14 Nxf7! with a lasting attack and sufficient
compensation for the piece. But Black has a sufficient defense.
9Bd6! 10 Nf4 Bxf4 11 Bxf4
110-0! /+
An improvement by OldGrizzly [6]. I had found a flaw in the main
line 11Nd5 12 Bc1 [7], namely 12 h4! when 12h6 13 Nxe6 fxe6 14
Qg4 Bf5 15 Qxg7 Rh7 16 Qg8+ Kd7 17 Qg3 Nxf4 18 Rxf4 Na6 19 Rxf5
exf5 20 Be6+ leads to some chances for White, resembling the endings in
a Muzio Gambit. However, by just changing the move order OldGrizzly
has pushed White back into the cold. There could follow 12 a4 Nd5 13
Bc1 h6 14 Nf3 Nd7 /+, and White has nothing at all to show for his
sacrificed pawn.
4. Call a Grandmaster
When nothing else helps, make a phone call and ask a grandmaster. In
this case it was Lev Gutman, who calmly listened to my latest dubious
attempt to rescue the line, 7 g4??! (more on this below). One hour later he
called back. No, he could not bring himself to believe in my raving tactics
with 7 g4, but he had found a more positional set-up.
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6! 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5! 7 Bg5 e6 8
Nh4!? Bg6 9 Nxg6 hxg6 10 Qd3!
Gutmans key idea is to castle long (in contrast to old games with Ne5xg6 plus 0-0), play h4 and Rh3 (to be able to take back on c3 with the
rook, if necessary) and Rh3-f3, to pin Blacks pieces to the weak pawn on
f7. The text move includes motifs of Bxe6 and Qxg6+, but in the long run
the queen may belong on e2, to exert pressure on the e-file and assist an
advance of the kingside pawns.
10Be7
Or 10Qa5 11 h4!; for example,
(a) 11Qf5 12 Qe3 Qxc2? 13 0-0 +/.
(b) 11Bb4 12 Bxe6 0-0 (12fxe6? 13 Qxg6+ Kf8 14 0-0 +) 13 0-0
fxe6 14 Bxf6 Nd7 15 Bg5 +=.
(c) 11Qxg5 12 hxg5 Rxh1+ 13 Ke2 Rxa1 14 gxf6 Nd7 15 Bxe6 Nxf6
16 Nd5! unclear.
(d) 11Nbd7 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 Qe2! Bb4 14 Rh3. So far analysis by

Gutman. White has sufficient play for the pawn, e.g., 14Nb6 15 Bb3
Rd7 16 a3 Bd6 17 Rf3 Nbd5 18 Na4!.
11 0-0-0 Nbd7
Or 11Nd5 12 Bxe7 Nxe7 13 Ne4, with compensation for White.
12 h4 a5
Or 12b5 13 Bb3 a5 14 a4 b4 15 Ne4, and Black still has to find shelter
for his king.
13 Bb3 Nb6 14 a4
I didnt find an example of the position after 10 Qd3 in various BDG

books or in a database of 7,000 BDG games. The reason for neglecting
the idea may be that it requires the vision of a grandmaster to recognize
the hidden defects in Blacks position. Where will the Ke8 go? He may be
safer on c8, but then the weakness f7 plays an even greater role and will
make it be almost impossible to activate that pawn. Whites pawns on the
kingside with their urge to advance are not a minority in the usual sense,
rather a qualitative majority in the terminology of Nimzowitsch.
14Nbd5 15 Kb1 Qc7 16 Rhf1
The position is roughly balanced. Black has an extra pawn, but his task to
convert the pawn is more than difficult. If he just starts to exchange off
the bishops and knights, he might find himself on the defensive, with the
backward pawn on f7. On the other hand, Whites active pieces and the
pressure on pawn f7 allow him to play on with confidence and ambition.
5. Think for Yourself
Now and then we should develop a new idea by ourselves. Lev Gutman
didnt regard my idea as correct. Nevertheless, it looks interesting.
Nothing for your next correspondence tournament, perhaps, but we
shouldnt underestimate the stress factor in OTB chess, or overestimate
Blacks reflexes in a competition with fast time limits.
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6! 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5! 7 g4!??!
Since we are in the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, sporadic excesses with

the ! and ? marks are permitted. As far as I can tell, the text move is new.
Please let me know, if you ever played it. Now if 7Bxg4?, White
replies 8 Bxf7+ Kxf7 9 Ne5+. And 7Bg6 8 h4 can hardly be critical
either.
7Nxg4 8 Nh4 g6
The most natural reaction:
(a) 8...e6 9 Nxf5 exf5 10 0-0 Nf6 11 Rxf5, and White is better.
(b) 8...Bd7 doesnt impress either. White may continue: 9 Ne4 b5 10 Qe2
e5 11 Bxf7+ Kxf7 12 Qf3+ Nf6 13 0-0 exd4 14 Qb3+ Ke7 15 Re1, etc.
(c) 8...Bc8!? is less natural than the text move, but also critical:
(c1) 9 0-0?! Nf6 10 Nf3
Should it really be worth a second pawn to deny the Bc8 an active role
and gain one tempo? An interesting idea, but unlikely, e.g., 10e6 11
Qe2 Nbd7 12 Bf4 Be7 13 Rae1 Nf8.
(c2) 9 Ne4 Nf6 (9Nd7 10 Qxg4 unclear; 9e5 10 0-0!) 10 Rf1 (10
Nxf6+ SWJediknight [6] 10exf6! 11 0-0 Be7) 10Nbd7 11 Qe2 e6
(11Nb6 12 Nxf6+ gxf6 13 Bxf7+ Kxf7 14 Qh5+ Ke6 =) 12 Bg5 Qa5+
(12Be7 13 Nf5 exf5 14 Nd6+ Kf8 15 Nxf7, about =) 13 Bd2 Qh5 14
Nxf6+ Nxf6 15 Nf3 Bd7 (15Nd5 16 Bxd5 Qxd5 17 Ne5 f6 18 c4 Qxd4
19 Rxf6!? Qh4+ 20 Rf2 Bc5 21 Be3 Bd6 22 Nxc6!? unclear) 16 Rg1 (my
original analysis went 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 Rde1 with compensation, but
SWJediknights 16Nd5! followed by f6 and an eventual Qh5-e8 [6] is
strong) 16h6 17 0-0-0 =+
White seems to have some compensation for the sacrificed pawns, e.g.,
17Nd5 18 Qf2 or 170-0-0 18 Rdf1 Be8 19 a3 Rg8 20 Qe1.
9 Ne4 Nf6 10 Rf1 Nbd7 11 Qe2 e6 12 Bg5 Qa5+ 13 Bd2 Qh5 14 Nxf6+
Nxf6 15 Nf3 Bd7 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 Rde1.
9 Bg5
Apparently more precise than 9 Nxf5 gxf5 10 Bg5 Qd6 or 10Rg8!,
MNb [6]. However, 10 h3 Nf6 (SWJediknight [6]) 11 Bg5 e6 12 d5 may
be worth a look.
9Qd6
There is no lack of alternatives:
(a) 9h6 10 Nxf5 gxf5 (10hxg5 11 Qxg4 gxf5 12 Bxf7+!?) 11 Bh4
Ne3 (11b5 12 Bb3 b4 13 Ne4!?; 11Bg7 12 Qe2) 12 Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.
Qh5+ and then
(a1) 13...Ke6 14 d5+ Kd7 15 Bf2 (15 Rd1 Nxd1 16 Qxf5+ Kc7 17 Qe5+
Kc8 18 Kxd1 Rh7 19 Qf5+ e6 20 Qxh7 Qxh4) 15...Nxc2+ (15...Nxd5 16
Bd4 Rg8 17 Nxd5 cxd5 18 Qf7 Rg5 19 h4 Rg2 20 0-0-0 Kc8 21 Bc5 e6
22 Bxf8 Qd7 23 Be7 Nc6 24 Qf8+), and here either 16 Ke2 Qe8 17 Qxf5
+ e6 or 16 Kd2 Nxa1 17 Qxf5+ Kc7 18 Qe5+ Qd6 19 Qxh8. White has
reasonable chances for a draw, although Black certainly has an advantage.
(a2) 13Kg8 14 Qg6+ Bg7 15 Qe6+ Kh7 16 Rg1 Rg8 17 Qxe3 Qxd4 18
Qxd4 Bxd4 19 Rxg8 Kxg8 20 0-0-0, about =.
(b) 9Bc8 10 Qf3 Nf6 11 Bxf6 exf6 12 0-0-0 Bh6+ 13 Kb1 0-0 14 Qg3
Kh8 15 d5 with sufficient compensation.
(c) 9Bg7 10 h3 h6 11 Bf4 Nf6 12 Nxf5 gxf5 13 Rg1 Rg8 14 Qd3, and
White has a lot of play for the two pawns.
(d) 9Qd7 10 Nxf5 gxf5 (10Qxf5 11 Qd2 f6 12 Bf4 g5 13 Bxb8 Qf3!
14 Rf1 Qe3+ 15 Qe2 Rxb8 16 Be6 Qxe2+ 17 Kxe2 h5 18 Rad1; for
example, 18Bg7 19 h3 Nh6 20 Ne4 Rd8 21 d5 with good chances for a
draw) 11 h3 Bh6 12 Qd2 Bxg5 13 Qxg5 Qxd4 14 hxg4 Qxc4 15 Rxh7
Qd4 16 Rxh8+ Qxh8 17 0-0-0 Nd7 18 gxf5 Qe5 19 Qg8+ Nf8 20 Qg5
Rd8 21 Rf1.
Blacks extra pawn can hardly be converted, e.g., 21a5 22 a3 b5 23
Qg2 with counterplay.

10 Qd2!
10 Nxf5 gxf5 11 Qd3 (11 Qd2? Bh6) 11e6 12 0-0-0!? Nf2 13 Qe3
Nxd1 14 Rxd1. However, this attack fails: 14Rg8! 15 d5 Be7 16 Bxe7
Qxe7 17 dxe6 fxe6 18 Bxe6 Qg5! +.
10b5
Perhaps cautious play is more appropriate: 10Rg8!? 11 0-0-0 Nd7 12
Kb1 e6 13 d5 cxd5 14 Bxd5 Nge5 15 Qe2 Qb4 or 10h5 11 0-0-0 Nd7
12 h3 Ngf6 13 Kb1 Be6 14 Bf4 Bh6 15 Bxh6 Bxc4 16 Bf4 Qb4 come
into consideration. In both cases Black seems to have a slight advantage.
11 Bb3 a5 12 Bf4 e5
(a) 12Qf6 13 Nxf5 gxf5 14 0-0-0 Bh6 15 a4 b4 16 Ne2 Bxf4 17 Nxf4.

(b) 12Qd8 13 a3 Rg8 14 Nxf5 gxf5 15 d5.
(c) 12Qd7 13 Nxf5 gxf5 14 a3 (after 14 a4?! b4 15 Ne2 Na6, Black
will castle long, when his king will find a safe place on b7) with unclear
complications.
13 h3 exf4
Or 13b4 14 hxg4 exf4 15 gxf5 bxc3 16 Qxc3 a4 17 Bxf7+ Kxf7 18
Nxg6 hxg6 19 Rxh8 Bg7 20 Rh7 Kg8 21 fxg6 Qxg6
22 Rxg7+ Kxg7 23 0-0-0 unclear.

14 hxg4 Bxg4
14Bd7!? 15 0-0-0! a4 16 Bxf7+ Kxf7 17 Ne4 Qc7 18 Nf3 Bg7 19 Ne5
+ Kg8 20 Qxf4 Be8 21 g5 Nd7 22 Nf6+ Bxf6 23 gxf6 Bf7 24 Qh6 Nxf6
25 Rdf1 =.
15 Ne4 Qe7
After 15Qc7 16 Nf6+ Kd8 17 Nxg4 a4, comes the surprising 18 Be6!
Bg7 (18fxe6 19 Nxg6 Rg8 20 Nxf4 +=) 19 Bf5 Qe7+ (19gxf5 20
Nxf5 Bf8 21 d5 +=) 20 Ne5 f6 21 0-0-0 fxe5 22 Bxg6 e4 23 Nf5! +=.
16 Qxf4 f5 17 Kf1 fxe4 18 Qxg4 Kd8 19 Ke2! Bh6 20 Raf1 Rf8 21 Ng2
21Rxf1 22 Rxf1 Qg5 23 Qxg5 Bxg5 24 Bg8, about =.

I cant deny that 7 g4 is risky. More analysis will be necessary to decide
whether the move is sound. Fortunately, White has a reliable and more
positional alternative in Lev Gutmans idea 7 Bg5 Be7 8 Nh4 Bg6 9 Nxg6
hxg6 10 Qd3!. And we shouldnt forget the equalizing 5 Nxe4.
Altogether, it seems that I had overestimated the OKelly Defense in my
article [4] and [5].
Sources:
[1] E. J. Diemer: Das moderne Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit, Band 1,
Heidelberg 1976.
[2] V. Hergert: Die OKelly-Verteidigung im Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit,
Dsseldorf 1993
[3] G. Studier: Emil Joseph Diemer, Dresden 1996.
[4] St. Bcker: Rettung aus grauem Elend durch Diemers Gambit, in:
Kaissiber 5 (1998)
[5] St. Bcker: Kritische Varianten im BDG, in: Kaissiber 8 (1998)
[6] Thread Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2009- ) [7]
Analyses by Emanuel Rajmund on the colorful reference site for the
Alchemy Variation.

Paralyzing the Sicilians
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
In an article for Dufresnes Anthologie der Schachaufgaben (1864)

Adolph Anderssen expressed his imperturbable conviction that 2 Bc4
paralyzes the nerve of the Sicilian Defense and undermines its strength at
its root. He had won his three 2 Bc4 games at London 1851, and the
German Handbuch (Bilguer) still recommended the bishop move in
1874. It has been asked whether the old masters would have had a chance
against the elite of today, to which the replies usually dont vary much,
from they couldnt understand the modern openings to Kasparovs
claim that a time-travelling Ljubojevic would have beaten the greats of
the past. Today 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 is not regarded as a strong attacking line
anymore, mainly because 2e6! 3 Nc3 Nf6 is a good antidote (4 e5 d5!
=).
But after one or two frustrating experiences Anderssen, who had used 1
a3 to get a reversed Sicilian, would surely refine his move-order and play
2 Nc3 first. In this perspective, the old master with his knack for 2 Bc4
appears not so distant from modern theory. Nowadays many White
players use the subtler 2 Nc3 to mask their intentions. In case of 2d6,
they can play their 3 Bc4 (say, the Grand Prix Attack or Anderssens
system d3, Nge2, a4) in a less hostile environment. Against 2e6 a
popular continuation is 3 Nge2 (a tricky move-order, Rogozenko [6]),
when after 3d5 or 3Nf6 White opens the position, scoring sixty-three
and sixty-eight percent respectively. It is more surprising that Black isnt
successful with 3d6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 either (sixty-five percent, in this
move-order). It seems that there are still players who build there
repertoire on, say, the Dragon (against 2 Nf3 & 3 d4) and 2e6 plus d5
against the rest. A repertoire with a hole
Palliser [8] writes that 2a6 were especially useful for Najdorf players,
although some Kan, Scheveningen and OKelly players may also wish to
consider it, and studies the move on sixteen pages, especially the main
options 3 g3, 3 f4, 3 Nge2 and 3 Nf3. But again White can avoid
structures that he doesnt like, by means of 3 a4.
Check out the

April $9.95 Sale at
ChessCafe.com:
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
NIC Yearbook 82
Only $9.95!
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
Palliser [8] comments: Should Black have some experience of g6

Closed Sicilian systems this is no problem. After 3Nc6 4 g3 [] g6 5
Bg2 Bg7 6 d3 d6 the inclusion of a6 and a4 is generally considered to
favour Black: he might have to play Tb8 to force through b5, but it is
usually Black who profits more from the resulting opening of the a-file;
White usually aims to attack on the kingside, rather than try and contest
the queenside. I disagree. It is one of the standard reactions to Blacks
b7-b5-b4 to play a2-a3. The opening of the a-file after b4 axb4 axb4 is
often preferable to positions where the pawn a2 becomes weak. There are
systems (for example with Nf6) when opening the a-file is absolutely
normal and even part of their main line. And in the Nge7 systems I have
always liked to face the b7-b5-b4 approach, rather than the solid b6.
Moreover, Richard Palliser doesnt mention another move at all: 1 e4 c5 2
Nc3 a6 3 Bc4. 3b5 4 Bxf7+!? (Al Hadhrani Attack) was analyzed in
my column Dont Name the Gambit after Me [9]. Maybe this would
have been too wild even for Anderssen, but there is a sound alternative: 4
Bd5!? Ra7 5 d3 e6 6 Bb3, and a later a2-a4 will soften up Blacks pawn
chain. It isnt entirely clear whether a bishop on b3 is a strong piece, but
we all have our personal favourites, and sometimes the Anderssen bishop
becomes a monster. The following two examples illustrate what a Bb3
can do in Closed Sicilian structures:
Bcker (2341) - Stone (2340)
Den Bosch 1999 (Toernooi voor de Toekomst)
Closed Sicilian [B23]
1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Nc3 g6 4 d3 Bg7 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 g5 7 Bg3 d6 8 h4
g4 9 h5 a6 10 a4 Rb8 11 Nge2 Nf6 12 Nf4 Ne5 13 Ba2 e6 14 Nce2 Qa5
+ 15 c3 Bd7 16 Qb1 Rc8 17 0-0 Bc6 18 b4 cxb4 19 cxb4 Qb6 20 a5
Qa7
21 Nxe6! fxe6 22 Bxe6 Rc7 23 Qb3 Nxh5 24 d4 Nxg3 25 Qxg3 Nf7 26

Bxf7+ Rxf7 27 Qxd6 Rd7 28 Qg6+ Kd8 29 e5 Bb5 30 Nf4!! Bxf1 31
Rc1 Re8 32 Ne6+ Rxe6 33 Qxe6 Rc7 34 Qg8+ 10
Boris Spassky
A more relevant game, from the big boys: Boris Spassky has been
successful with the Closed Sicilian (his candidates matches of the 1960s
are not forgotten) played other Anti-Sicilians like 3 b3, and he also knows
the Open Sicilian. Being well-versed in many systems can be useful. This
game begins as a Rossolimo Variation (3 Bb5), but the white bishop is
forced back to c4, and there it mutates into one of the strongest pieces on
the board.
Spassky (2560) Kasparov (2760)
Reykjavik 1988 (World Cup)

Sicilian Defense, Rossolimo [B30]
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Bc4 e6 5 Nf3 Ne7 6 0-0 Nec6 7 d3 g6 8
Nxd4 cxd4 9 Ne2 Bg7 10 Bd2 0-0 11 b4
Spassky has a fine position, but hasnt played his best tournament (the
final result was place 16 of 18 players) and offers a draw. Garry
Kasparov, who later won the event, declines.
11...b6 12 b5?
12 a4 was more precise. After the text move Black could even get an
advantage: 12Na5!, e.g., 13 Bxa5 bxa5 14 Qd2 Bb7 15 f3 a4!.
12Ne7? 13 Bb4! +/Kasparovs positional error has led to a position where he hardly can do
anything. He can only watch Spassky leisurely fortifying his position.
13...d6 14 a4 a5 15 Ba3 Bb7 16 Bb3 d5 17 f3 Qc7 18 Qe1 Rad8 19 Qh4
-
Jan Timman reported in NIC Magazine 8/1988: At this point Spassky

repeated his offer. [He] likes to accompany such an offer with a bit of
chat. In Belfort he had spent at least a minute persuading Kasparov that it
was pointless to play for a win; now he was saying something like, Im
giving you a last chance. If you refuse the draw now I will wipe you off
the board. [] Kasparov wisely accepted the offer. And it was true that
his position had become extremely dubious.
Six years before the same opponents had explored a main line of the
Closed Sicilian.
Spassky (2605) Kasparov (2690)
Bugojno 1982
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 e6 3 g3 d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bg2
Richard Palliser [8] calls 5 d4 a more dynamic alternative:
(a) 5Nc6 is Pallisers recommendation: 6 Bg2 Nxd4 (6cxd4 7 Nxd5
Nge7, a good alternative according to Palliser [8] is also slightly better
for White: 8 Nf4) 7 Be3 Be6 8 Bxd4 cxd4 9 Qxd4 Nf6
Palliser: Blacks bishop pair and especially his active dark-squared

bishop after Qa5 and Bc5 or Bb4 compensate for the IQP [8].
However, 10 Nge2 Qa5 11 0-0 Bc5 (11Bb4 12 a3 +=) 12 Qd3 0-0 13
a3 is certainly favorable for White.
(b) 5cxd4 6 Qxd4 Nf6 7 Bg5 Be7 8 Bb5+ Nc6 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 Qc5 is
an interesting motif introduced by Gary Lane [1].
As in the Gring Gambit Declined (the difference, an additional g2-g3,

only slightly weakens Whites pawn structure). 10Bxc3+ (or 10
Qb6!? 11 Qxb6 axb6 12 Nge2 0-0 [1] 13 0-0-0 Bg4 14 Nxd5 Rxa2 15
Nxf6+ gxf6 16 h3 =) 11 bxc3 Qe7+ 12 Qxe7+ Kxe7 13 0-0-0 Be6 14
Nge2 =, Lane Nunn, Stroud 1980, and now 14Kd6?! was too risky (10, 23).
5...Nf6 6 Nge2
The alternative is 6 d3 Be7 7 Nge2:
(a) 7d4 8 Ne4 Nxe4 9 dxe4!? (King [5]: Objectively, this may be no
better than Bxe4, but it is certainly more interesting) 9Nc6 10 0-0 0-0
11 Nf4, and if Black plays inaccurate, White may get some initiative with
a later Nf4-d5. But 11Bd6 12 Re1 Re8 13 c3 Bxf4 14 Bxf4 Be6 15 Qh5
b6 16 e5 Bd5 17 Bg5 Qd7 18 Bf6 Ne7 19 Bxe7 Bxg2 20 Bf6 Bh3 21
Bxg7 Kxg7 22 Qg5+, draw by perpetual check in Larsen Spassky,
Moscow 1959 (Alekhine Memorial).
(b) Interestingly a variation that frustrates White players isnt popular
with Anti-Anti-Sicilian authors either. They want to prove at least some
initiative for Black: 70-0 8 0-0 d4 (There is nothing wrong with 8
Nc6 [8]. Maybe, but instead of the three moves 9 Nf4, 9 d4 and 9 Bg5
analyzed here, Id prefer the flexible 9 Re1!, e.g., 9d4 10 Ne4 Bf5 11
Nf4 Qd7 12 Nxf6+ Bxf6 13 h3 Rae8 14 g4 Be6 15 Bd2 Bd8 16 Qf3, and
White has an edge) 9 Ne4 Nbd7! is a suggestion from Richard Palliser
[8]: 10 c3 (his main line is 10 Nxf6+) 10dxc3 11 bxc3 Ne5!? 12 d4
cxd4 13 Nxd4 Qc7 14 Qb3 Rd8
A complex and roughly even position, [8]. However, after 15 Bf4 +/Black is in trouble.
6...d4 7 Ne4 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 Nd7
Kortchnois move: the knight goes to f6, so that Whites bishop on e4 has
to give up its menacing position.
9 0-0 Nf6 10 Bg2 Bd6 11 c3!?
11 d3 0-0 12 Bf4 Bg4 = Spassky Kortchnoi, USSR 1968. The text move
was new, but Kasparov finds a strong reply.
11...d3 12 Nf4 00 13 Nxd3 Bxg3 14 fxg3 Qxd3 15 Qf3 Qxf3 16 Bxf3
16...Bh3!? 17 Bxb7 Rae8 18 Bg2 Bxg2 19 Kxg2 Re2+ 20 Rf2 Rfe8 21

b3
For Whites extra pawn, Black has the superior piece activity. Altogether
the position seems balanced.
21...Rxf2+! 22 Kxf2 Ng4+ 23 Kg2 f5 24 h3 Ne5 25 d4 cxd4 26 cxd4
Nd3 27 Bg5 h6 28 Rd1 hxg5 29 Rxd3 Re2+ 30 Kf3 Rxa2 31 d5 Kf7 32
d6 Ke8 -
To avoid this solid variation, White players sometimes experiment with
other move-orders. Fortunately, Sicilian players also dislike boring
positions and are often willing to taken even greater risks than their
opponent:
Adams (2716) Topalov (2700)
Dos Hermanas 1999
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 d6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 g6 5 d3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 h3 e5 8 Nge2
0-0 9 0-0 b5?
A typically active and complex Kasparovian novelty, writes Palliser

[8]. It was introduced by Gary Kasparov a month before this game, also
against Adams. To combine Nf6, e5 and b5 violates a few rules for the
Closed Sicilian. At least Blacks pieces are on active squares, but I remain
sceptical whether Black can get away with his weaknesses.
10 Nxb5
In Kaissiber 11 [5] I recommended 10 a3, but after 10Rb8 11 b4 Nd4
12 f4 (or 12 a4 a5!) 12Nh5! 13 f5 gxf5 14 exf5 Nxf5 15 Bf2 (15 Rxf5
Bxf5 16 g4 Bg6) 15Bh6! Black may be able to hold; for example, 16
Kh2 Nf6 17 bxc5 dxc5 18 Bxc5 Ne3 19 Qe1 Nxc2 20 Qf2 Nxa1 21 Bxf8
Kxf8 22 Nd5 Nb3 23 Nxf6 Be6 24 g4 Bg7 25 Nh5 Bh8 26 Qe3 Qd6, and
Black has sufficient counterplay.
10...Rb8 11 Nec3!
Improving upon 11 a4 a6 12 Na3 Rxb2 13 Nc4 Rb8 14 f4 exf4 15 Nxf4
Na5 Adams Kasparov, Linares 1999.
11a6 12 Na3 Rxb2 13 Nc4 Rb8
White has an excellent position and continued with the promising 14 Bg5,
to occupy the empty square d5 with his knight. There followed 14...h6 15
Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Nd5 Bg7 17 Rb1 Rxb1 18 Qxb1 Na5 19 Qb6 Nxc4 20
Qxd8 Rxd8 21 dxc4 Rd7 22 Nb6 Rc7 23 Nxc8 Rxc8 24 Rb1 +=, but (, 56). In [8] Palliser analyzes instead Adams suggestion of 14Be6 15
Nd5 Bxd5 16 exd5 Ne7 (unclear) on more than a page, overlooking 17
Qf3! +/- which is difficult to meet.
There are alternatives in the diagrammed position; for example, 14 Rb1
Rxb1 15 Qxb1 Na5 16 Nb6!? Nc6 17 Bg5 h6 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 Ncd5 Be6
20 c3 Bg7 21 Qc2 Ne7 22 Nc4 Nxd5 23 exd5 Bc8 24 Qa4 +=, and Black
is on the defensive. Altogether, 9b5? just appears too aggressive and
wont find many followers.
Instead of striving too hard for complications, there are players and
variations who fall into the other extreme and simplify too much or too
soon. They apparently underestimate Whites better pawn structure.
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 e6 3 f4 d5 4 d3 dxe4?
4Nc6 should be preferred; e.g., 5 Nf3 Nf6. Now instead of Pallisers 6

e5 [8], closing the centre, 6 Qd2 (intending Qf2) or 6 Be2 come into
consideration. I dont claim that 4 d3 gives White a theoretical advantage,
as in += or +/-. But the position is interesting and worth to be explored.
However the text move, called solid in [8], must be an error. In the
resulting position Black has few pawn breaks left and will be restricted to
the defense.
5 dxe4 Qxd1+ 6 Nxd1 Nf6 7 Nf2
The Sicilian pawn c5 has become an obstacle. The pawn landscape

permits several ambitious actions, but they are all Whites: a2-a4, e4-e5,
g2-g4. Finally, even the exchange of rooks on the d-file wouldnt change
the general assessment of the position as favorable for White.
7Bd7
Pallisers recommendation: Here I quite like the idea of continuing to
attack e4 with 7Bd7!?, intending Bc6 and Nbd7, [8]. He also
mentions 7Nc6 as the move preferred in practice, but then 8 Be3 seems
good for White (8Nb4 9 Kd2 Be7 10 c3).
8 Bd3 Bc6
Or 8b5 9 Nf3! c4 10 Be2, and Blacks structural problems around c5
will soon be felt; e.g., 10Bc5 11.e5 Nd5 12 Ne4 Na6 13 Nxc5 Nxc5 14
Nd4 followed by Bf3.
9 c4 +=
Thanks to his better influence in the center, Whites pieces will occupy
the better squares. For example, 9Nbd7 10 Nf3 h5 (what else?) 11 Bd2
Ng4 12 h3 Nxf2 13 Kxf2. White does not have a direct attack, but in
almost every respect his position is somewhat better.
Sources:
[1] G. Lane: Winning with the Closed Sicilian, London 1992
[2] V. Ravikumar: The Closed Sicilian, Brighton 1993
[3] J. Gallagher: Beating the Anti-Sicilians, London 1994
[4] D. King: The Closed Sicilian, London 1997
[5] St. Bcker: Garri Kasparow und die Anti-Sizilianer, in Kaissiber 11
(1999)
[6] D. Rogozenko: Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black, London 2003
[7] R. Palliser: Starting out: Closed Sicilian, London 2006
[8] R. Palliser: Fighting the Anti-Sicilians, London 2007
[9] St. Bcker: Dont Name the Gambit after Me.

Lower Life
in the
Latvian Gambit
Part 1
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
When Gerhart Gunderams Neue Erffnungswege [2] appeared in 1972,

the booklet inspired my brother Peter to adopt the Latvian Gambit, 1 e4
e5 2 Nf3 f5. To learn more about it, he bought a copy of the old
Handbuch (Bilguer), a volume of more than 1000 pages, only because
seven of these pages covered his new pet line. The improbable mixture of
sources was rounded up by Keres and Schacharchiv (Pachman), and in
some cases Peter added a strong improvement of his own. In the next ten
years he sometimes chose this surprise against an unsuspecting opponent,
who had only prepared for his usual Caro-Kann. In those years the
Latvian Gambit still meant a challenge. Everybody believed that 2...f5
was a mistake, but nobody knew exactly which of the four alternatives 3
Nxe5, 3 Bc4, 3 d4 or 3 exf5 was best. - In a simultaneous exhibition,
Peter beat a grandmaster:
Visit Shop.ChessCafe.com for

the largest selection of chess
books, sets, and clocks in
North America:
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
Hans-Joachim Hecht Peter Bcker

Solingen 1975 (simul)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Bc4
Today most books regard 3 Nxe5 Qf6 as the main line. 3...Nc6 is
sometimes mentioned as an unusual alternative, but there is a clear
refutation: 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Nxg6 Nf6 6 Qh3 hxg6 7 Qxh8 Qe7 8 Nc3! Nb4
(Perez Cruz Acosta, corr. 1994; Massow Memorial) 9 d3 +-.
3fxe4 4 Nxe5 d5
the games from
NIC Yearbook 82
Only $9.95!
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Svedenborgs variation.
5 Qh5+ g6 6 Nxg6 hxg6 7 Qxh8
Many sources regard the safer 7 Qxg6+ as the main line. According to
[9], Svedenborg introduced 7...Kd7 (when White is only slightly better) in
1970 as an improvement upon George Brunton Frasers analysis of 1875,
7...Ke7 8 d4! (if 8 d3 Bh6, unclear). For example: 8...Qd6 9 Bg5+ Kd7 10
Qf5+ [9] etc. However, the surprising 8...e3! (instead of 8...Qd6) seems to
have been overlooked:
At first, the idea looks strange. Didnt the e4-pawn provide valuable
shelter for Blacks king? But the continuation 9 Bxe3 Qd6 10 Bg5+ Kd7
explains why Black sacrificed the pawn: 11 Qf5+ Qe6+ gives check and
forces the exchange of queens: 12 Qxe6+ Kxe6, with an unclear situation:
White has three pawns for a knight.
7...Kf7 8 Be2
Perhaps 8 Qd4 was better.
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
8...Bg7 9 Qh7 Qg5 10 g3 Qe5

More precise: 10...Nf6, Melchor Kozlov, corr. 1985 [9].
11 d4 exd3 12 cxd3 Bg4 13 Nc3
13...Bh5
13...Nc6 14 f4 Qe7 15 f5 gxf5 16. 0-0 Nf6 17 Rxf5 Bxf5 18 Qxf5 Nd4
with sufficient compensation for the pawn.
14 d4?
Still engaged on many boards, GM Hecht overlooks an emergency door
for his queen: 14 f4! Qe7 (14...Qe8 15 f5 Nf6 16 fxg6+) 15 f5 Nf6 16 fxg6
+ Bxg6 (16...Ke8? 17 Bg5) 17 Qh4 +/-.
14Qe6 15 f4 Nf6, White resigns.
Leonhardts Variation
Paul Saladin Leonhardts 1928 article [1] mentions the new ideas and
practical successes with 2f5, achieved by Behting, Mattison and others,
while a clear White concept was missing. The author reasons that the
Latvian Gambit cant be correct, when the Kings Gambit is incorrect. For
him, 2...f5 belongs to the group of unsound systems which are not
revealed by Caissa.
Paul Saladin Leonhardt

(1877-1934)
Only the last quarter of the article gives his recommendation for White:
(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6) 4 Nc4!
Leonhardt [1] attributes two exclamation marks to this novelty (instead of

4 d4) and he continues: In my opinion this is the decisive improvement
[]. Today it is clear that 4 Nc4 is in fact strong. Jeremy Silman [10]
published analyses which usually end with White being a pawn up in a
better position. Alejandro Melchor [11] also expressed his doubts whether
Blacks play can be significantly improved. Tony Kosten, author of the
reference work on the Latvian Gambit [9], writes on www.chesspub.com:
I think [4 Nc4] would be my preference in OTB play nowadays as White
gets a nice lead in development in an open position.
4...fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7

(a) Kaissiber 11 (1999) propagated 5...Qe6 (!), for example 6 Ne3 Nf6
7 Bc4 Qe5 8 d3 exd3 9 0-0 Kd8
My analysis continued 10 Qxd3 c6 11 f4 Qh5 12 Bd2 Bc5 13 Na4 Ng4,

about = (0-1, 34) Borrmann Kozlov, corr. 1986-88 (Atars Memorial)
[8]. However, in the diagrammed position 10 Ned5! is unpleasant for the
defender and clearly better for White (+/-).
(b) Leonhardts main line was 5...Qg6 and now the inaccurate 6 f3 (6...
Be7! Behting) was soon replaced by 6 d3! Bb4 7 Bd2!. In this situation 7...
Bxc3 8 Bxc3 Nf6 9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Ne3! +/- was often played. But now it
seems that 7Nf6!, suggested by TopNotch and discussed in [12], is
Blacks best chance: 8 Nxe4 (8 Nb5!?) Bxd2+ 9 Qxd2 (9 Nexd2 was
given in [5] and [9], but after 9...0-0 Black is not much worse) 9...d5 (so
far Ginzburg Perez Pietronave, Argentina 1995 [12]) 10 Nxf6+
(avoiding the line found by TopNotch [12]: 10 Ne5 Nxe4! 11 Nxg6 Nxd2
12 Nxh8 Nxf1, which is almost equal) 10Qxf6 11 Qe3+.
In the endings after 11...Be6 12 Ne5 0-0 13 d4 Nc6 14 Bd3 Bf5 15 0-0
Bxd3 16 cxd3 or 11...Kd8!? 12 Ne5 Re8 13 d4 (13 f4 g5) 13...c5 14 c3
Nc6 15 f4 cxd4 16 cxd4 g5 17 fxg5 Qg7 18 Bb5 (18 0-0-0 Nxe5) 18...
Nxd4 19 0-0-0 Qc7+ Black has active pieces and reasonable drawing
chances.
The text move (5...Qf7) was Gunderams proposal in [2].
6 Ne3 c6 7 d3!
Budovskis idea is a refinement over Gunderams 7 Nxe4 d5 8 Ng5 which

was extensively studied by Pachman, Nunn and many others (including
my brother).
7...exd3 8 Bxd3 d5 9 0-0 Bc5
The tactical sequence 9...Bd6 10 Re1 Ne7 11 Nexd5 cxd5 12 Nb5 0-0 13
Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14 Kh1 Bg4 15 Qd2 Qh4 is equally bad after Strautins idea
16 b4! (if 16 Nxb7 Nbc6, Black has sufficient compensation), for
example 16...Nbc6 (16Qf6 17 Qg5! Qxa1 18 Qxg4 +- Strautins
Clarke, corr. 1998; 2nd Latvian World Ch.) 17 Bb2 Rf2 18 Qc3 Qg5 19
Rf1 Raf8 20 Rxf2 Rxf2 21 Qe1! Qf4 22 b5 Bh3 23 Bc1! Qf6 24 bxc6
Qxa1 25 cxb7 Nc6 26 gxh3 1-0, Strautins Destrebecq, corr. 1997/98;
2nd Latvian World Ch. [8].
10 b4!
This novelty detected by Magnus Rosenstielke (Sweden) refutes 9Bc5,

as detailed analyses on [10] and [11] show. For example:
10...Bxb4 11 Ncxd5 cxd5 12 Nxd5 Bc5 13 Bf4 Kf8 14 Qf3 Nd7
Or 14...Nc6 15 Nc7 Rb8 16 Bc4 Qf5 17 Rfe1 Nf6 18 Qg3 g5 19 Bxg5
Bxf2+ 20 Kh1! Kg7 (20...Bxg3? 21 Bh6 mate) 21 Bxf6+ Kxf6 22 Nd5+
Qxd5 23 Qxf2+ Qf5 24 Qh4+ Kg7 25 Rf1 1-0 Rosenstielke Melchor,
corr. 2005 (5th Latvian G. World Ch. final).
15 Nc7
Or 15 Bc4 Ne5 16 Bxe5 Qxf3 17 gxf3 Bf5, analysis by Matemax and
MNb [11].
15...g5 16 Rae1 Ndf6 17 Bxg5 Bg4 18 Qf4!
Stronger than 18 Qxb7 (analysis on chesspublishing.com).
18...Rc8 19 Bc4 Qxc7 20 Re5!
20Be7
Or 20...Bxf2+? 21 Rxf2 Qxc4 22 Bh6+ Kf7 23 Qg5 +-.
21 Bxg8 Rxg8 22 Bxf6 Rg6 23 Bxe7+ Kg8 24 h4 +- and White wins.
Melchors Three Suggestions
In his web article Another Look at the Latvian Gambit (2002), Jeremy
Silman wrote: I'm left wondering why people choose to play the Latvian
in the first place. Isn't this kind of gambit all about having fun and
fighting for the initiative? If so, why would anyone wish to play a gambit
that forces them to defend various pawn-down endgames where they can
make a draw at best? It seems clear to me that the Latvian Gambit is
refuted as a practical tournament choice. Though an ardent defender of
the Latvian Gambit, Alejandro Melchor (Spain) was almost inclined to
agree with Silman, considering the strength of the variations arising from
Leonhardts 4 Nc4. But instead he started a thread [11] to discuss the
remaining alternatives for Black. When it became clear that the main line
of the Leonhardt Variation was almost hopeless for Black, Melchor
proposed three possible solutions. Is one of them good enough to replace
the Leonhardt?
(A) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3) 6...d
(B) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3) 5...Na
(C) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5) 3...Nf6
A. The Atars Variation 6d5!?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3 d5!?
Black hurries to castle and to develop his pieces. The move is missing in
the books; only Diepstraten [5] has two games. His oldest example is 7
Nexd5 Bf5 8 Be2 Nc6 9 0-0 0-0-0 (0-1, 35) Jimenez Atars, K. Betins
Memorial 1971/72. But apparently the variation is now coming into
fashion. Melchor writes [11]: Latvian Gambit experts are currently
trying this relatively unexplored line. IMs I. Oren and I. Budovksis in the
past, and French C. Deneuville in our days, have drawn some games in
easy way. Melchors overview based on 22 games looks encouraging. In
any case White has to make some unusual decisions.
7 Ncxd5
7 Nexd5 Be6!? (7...c6 8 Nc3 transposes to the main line) 8 Bc4 Na6 [11]
is also interesting. 9 Bxa6?! bxa6! gives Black attractive play, but after
the flexible 9 b3, it might be difficult for Black to achieve full
compensation.
7...c6
Id prefer 7...Be6! 8 Bc4 Bd6 (8...Na6 9 Bxa6 Bxd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5? 11
c4 [11] or 10bxa6 11 c4 is better for White) 9 0-0 c6!? 10 Nc3 Bxc4 11
Nxe4 Bxh2+ 12 Kxh2 Qc7+ 13 Kg1 Bxf1 14 Kxf1 with compensation,
analysis by Melchor [11]. This position should be playable for Black.
8 Nc3 Nf6 9 f3
White tries to avoid weaknesses on the d-file. This approach seems more
convincing than the examples with 9 d3 presented in [11]. 9 g3 also
comes into consideration. In the diagram situation there could follow:
9...Bc5 (perhaps intending 10 fxe4 Bxe3!?, to blockade Whites two extra
pawns on the square e5) 10 Be2! exf3 11 Bxf3 0-0 12 0-0 +/-, White is
clearly better.
B. The Dreibergs Variation 5Na6
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Na6
Diepstratens work [5] names the variation after Leonied Dreibergs
(1908-1969), who was born in Riga, but immigrated into the USA after
World War II.
6 a3!
Neither mentioned by Diepstraten [5] nor by Melchor [11]. Denying the

knight the b4-square is perhaps the simplest reply. The knight is stranded
on a6. Some alternatives:
(a) 6 Nxe4 Qe6 7 Qh5+ g6 8 Qe5 Qxe5 9 Nxe5 Nb4 Destrebecq

Kozlov, corr. 1981/83, but maybe 9...Bg7 10 d4 d6 slightly improves
Blacks chances.
(b) 6 d3 Bb4 7 Bd2 (Dravnieks Svendsen, corr. 1987/89) 7...Ne7! 8
dxe4 0-0 9 Qe2 c6 10 0-0-0 b5 is anything but clear. However, White
should rather choose 7 dxe4 Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Qxc3+ 9 Bd2 Qf6 10 Bd3
Ne7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Qh5, when Black is in trouble.
6...Qe6
Or 6...d6 7 Ne3 Nc5 8 b4 Ne6 9 Rb1 Qf7 10 Nxe4 +/-.
7 Ne3 c6 8 d3 exd3 9 Bxd3 Nc5 10 0-0 Nxd3 11 cxd3! +/-
To exchange the knight on d3 seemed to be a good idea, but the loss of

time will show. For example: 11...Kd8 12 Re1 Nf6 13 h3 d6 14 Bd2 Qf7
15 Nc4 Be6 16 Qa4 Bxc4 17 dxc4 Kc8 18 Rad1 Be7 19 b4 followed by
20 b5, and there is no defense.
I dont believe in 5...Na6, but the Atars Variation deserves attention. If
you want to know more about it, dont miss Alejandro Melchors valuable
theoretical overview in [11]. We reserve the third of Melchors
suggestions (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5) 3Nf6, the Lwenthal
Variation [5], for our next column.
Sources:
[1] P. S. Leonhardt: Das Knigsgambit in der Rckhand, in: Kagans
Neueste Schachnachrichten, suppl. issue 1928, pp. 50-55.
[2] G. Gunderam: Neue Erffnungswege, Berlin 1972 (2nd ed.)
[3] St. Bcker: Am Krankenlager des Lettischen Gambits, in: Gambit
59, Nuremberg 1984

[4] K. Grivainis: The Latvian Gambit, Davenport 1985
[5] L. C. M. Diepstraten: Lettisch Gambiet. Deel 1, Venlo-Antwerp 1993.
[6] A. Lein, S. Pickard: The Latvian Gambit. A Grandmaster View,
Dallas 1995
[7] St. Bcker: John Nunns lettische Ansichten, in: Kaissiber 10 (1999)
[8] St. Bcker: Von Caissa nicht geoffenbaret, in: Kaissiber 11 (1999)
[9] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit Lives!, London 2001
[10] J. Silman: Splat the Lat and more on the Latvian Gambit, on www.
jeremysilman.com.
[11] Latvian Gambit Refuted; thread on www.chesspub.com.
[12] Latvian Encounter; thread on www.chesspub.com.

Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit

Part Two
Over the
Horizons
For the pawn deficit in the Latvian Gambit after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5
Black may not have compensation, but usually he can hope for
complications. Suppose there is a variation which leads to an early
exchange of queens and the prospect of further simplifications, while
Black still is a pawn behind and has no immediate idea how to regain it
would a Latvian Gambiteer choose it? Probably not, in most cases he
would rather give a second pawn to avoid frustrating simplifications, and
to generate some vague chances.
Stefan Bcker
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
(l-r) Johann Lwenthal, Jules Arnous de Rivire

and Marmaduke Wyvill

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line

North America:
This apparent handicap of the Lwenthal Variation 3Nf6 must be the

reason why the idea never became as popular as 3Qf6 or 3Nc6 and is
usually attributed a ?! by theory. Introduced in B. Horwitz Lwenthal,
London 1851 [3], the move was later used by Blackburne. In 1907 even a
well-known theoretician, Simon Alapin, recommended 3Nf6! in an
article [2].
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
Informant 95 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Kosten [6]: This time there is no need for Black to worry about Qh5+,
but on the other hand, he loses a whole pawn without embroiling White in
complex calculations. This doesnt sound encouraging, and I am sure
that my readers would now prefer a column on something more
aggressive, for example 3Qe7, an entertaining move from the 19th
century which Lodewijk Prins once played against the readers of his
column in the Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool. But after 4 Qh5+ g6 5
Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6 Be2 Nf6 7 Qh3 hxg6 8 Qxh8 Qxg2 9 Rf1 Kf7 the readers
followed the old Bilguer line 10 Qh4 (+/- [2]), running into problems.
Instead, 10 d4! would have been a clear improvement.
The move was called also sensible by Kosten [6]. In fact it might refute
3Qe7, for example 10Nc6 11 c3 Bg7 12Qh4 d6 13 Nd2, threatening
to catch Blacks queen (13 Bf3, resp. 12Qd5 13 Bc4 +-). 13g5 14
Qg3 +/- and Black has to exchange queens. Perhaps the text move (3
Nf6) isnt such a bad idea, if one of the main alternatives results in such a
bad ending
4 exf5
The simplest continuation, writes Carl Schlechter 1916 in the Bilguer/

Handbuch [2]. Simple and good, Tony Kosten in [6]. Which doesnt
mean that the text move is better (if we ignore that Kosten had attributed
a ?! symbol to the alternative 4 Bc4 in his first book on the Latvian
Gambit [4]; in [6] this sign was changed to !?).
After 4 Bc4, Black has to make a difficult choice between the relatively
new Morgado Variation (which became popular in the early 1970s) 4
Qe7 5 d4 Nc6! and 4fxe4 5 Nf7 Qe7 6 Nxh8 d5, an old line introduced
by Blackburne. Both systems usually arise via the 3 Bc4 move-order, and
if we look at their theoretical reputation, they are not a picnic for the
Black player. But for the moment lets concentrate on the text move.
There are three reasons why 4 exf5 is much more popular (in 43 games of
the database White continued 4 exf5, while 4 Bc4 happened only in 11
games in this situation):
4 exf5 is simpler, as our experts already mentioned above. The 3 Bc4
system is really a jungle of variations. Here White has only to learn the
Blackburne and Morgado Variations, but still In comparison to said
jungle trip, 4 exf5 looks like a walk on a sunny beach.
4 exf5 is good (White scores 62%), while 4 Bc4, at least in this moveorder, doesnt impress (41%).
If White prefers the main line 3 Nxe5, why should his repertoire also
include 3 Bxc4 with all those difficult variations which are often quite
problematic for White?
We might want to return to 4 Bc4 in another column, if the text move (4
exf5), which wins a whole pawn, does not guarantee a significant
advantage for White. Which seems highly unlikely However, by a
lucky coincidence Joachim Hunstock from Gttingen contacted me in
April, when I had just looked at early alternatives for Black in the Latvian
Gambit. The Lwenthal Variation 3Nf6 had been his specialty, which
he had played in several correspondence games around 1990. He had
come to the conclusion that the Lwenthal Variation was more than a
desperate attempt to achieve a draw, he found it so promising that he
started to play it even with White: 1 e3 e5 2 e4 Nf6 3 f4 Nxe4 4 Nf3
This fascinating and radical move order appeared in no less that five of
his eight Lwenthal games. For a better overview, the games are here
transformed to the standard version of the Latvian Gambit known to
you and me from our sporadic use of it in our coffeehouse practice. If the
German correspondence player is right to believe that the Lwenthal
Variation gives sufficient compensation for the pawn, while the rest of the
world thinks otherwise, the psychological pressure on White to prove an
advantage must be immense. I am indebted to Joachim Hunstock for the
permission to publish some of the most unusual Latvian Gambit games I
have ever seen. Sometimes he added a hint, which move he regarded as
better. The rest of the theory is mine, but of course it helps, if good
games guide you into the right direction.
4Qe7 5 Qe2
The piece sacrifice 5 d4!? d6 6 Qe2 dxe5 7 dxe5 deserves attention. 7

Nd5 8 Qh5+ Qf7 9 Qxf7+ Kxf7 10 Bc4 c6 (Kroonen Diepstraten,
Amsterdam 1989), and now Tony Kostens 11 e6+ [6] seems to be
advantageous for White. Therefore Black should better decline the piece:
6Bxf5 7 Nd3 Nc6 8 c3 0-0-0, when he has good play for the pawn.
5d6 6 Nf3
Other possibilities:
(a) 6 d4 transposes to the last note.
(b) 6 Nc4 is Kostens main line (6Bxf5 17 Qxe7+ Bxe7 8 Ne3 Be6 9
d4 Nc6 10 c3 with advantage, Tener Denny, corr. 1972 [6]) and also
mentioned by [3] and [5]. The most forcing reply is 6d5!?, but it isnt
clear whether Black can equalize: 7 Ne5 (7 Ne3 d4 8 Nc4 Bxf5 9 d3 Nc6
and Black has no problems) 7Bxf5 8 d4 (8 d3 Na6) 8Nc6! 9 Nxc6
bxc6 10 c3 and now:
(b1) 10Kd7 11 Be3 Ng4 12 Nd2 Re8 [0-1, 51] Svaton Cirulis, corr.
WSTT/1/07/4, 2007, but 11 Nd2 comes into consideration (and seems
stronger under these circumstances).
(b2) 10Kf7 11 Nd2 (else Black has active play for the pawn, e. g., 11
Qxe7+ Bxe7 12 Ba6 Bd6 13 0-0 Rab8 etc.) 11Re8 12 Nf3 Qxe2+ 13
Bxe2 Bd6 14 h3 Rhf8 15 Be3 Ne4 16 Nh4 Be6 17 0-0-0 Kg8 18 Nf3 Bf7
19 Rde1 Ng3 20 fxg3 Rxe3 21 Kd2 Re7, and Black is only slightly worse.
6Bxf5
In this important position White has to choose: 7 Nd4 (Variation A) or 7

d3 (Variation B).
7 Qxe7+ Bxe7 8 d3 Nc6 only transposes to Variation B.
Variation A. 7 Nd4
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 exf5 Qe7 5 Qe2 d6 6 Nf3 Bxf5 7 Nd4 Bd7
Because of this retreat Joachim Hunstock regards Whites seventh move

as inaccurate. However it seems too early to draw a conclusion which of
the two main lines offers more chances.
8 Nc3 c5!
Kostens reference work on the Latvian Gambit only gives 8Nc6 9
Nxc6 Bxc6 10 Qxe7+ Bxe7 11 Bb5 and Black has no real compensation
for the pawn, Mller Diepstraten, corr. 1985 [6]. The text move gains
space and forces the knight back and hopes that it might be so
optimistic to jump to b5.
9 Nf3
Relatively best. After 9 Ndb5 Kd8, Hunstocks experiences in four games
prove that Black has excellent compensation for the pawn:
(a) 10 Qxe7+ Bxe7 11 Be2 a6 12 Na3 b5 13 Bf3 Nc6 14 Ne2 d5 15 Nf4

b4 16 Nb1 Nd4 17 Bd1 Bd6
A funny position, note the knights walking-tour from g1 to b1,

Hunstock. 18 d3 Re8+ 19 Kf1 Ba4 20 b3 Ra7 21 g3 Bd7 22 h4 Bg4 23
Bxg4 Nxg4 24 a3 Bxf4 25 gxf4 Re2 26 Be3 Rxc2 27 Bxd4 cxd4 28 axb4
Rxf2+ 01, Hamann Hunstock, corr. 13. PZ-48, 1991
(b) 10 Qxe7+ Bxe7 11 d3 a6 12 Na3 b5 13 Ne4 d5 14 Ng5 Re8 15 Be2 b4
16 Nf7+ Kc8 17 Nb1 Bf8 18 Bf4 a5 19 Nd2 Bg4 20 f3 Bh5 21 Nd6+
Bxd6 22 Bxd6 Ra6 23 Bxb8 Rae6 24 0-0 Rxe2 25 Bf4. Here Klee
believed he stood better.
25g5!! 26 Bxg5 Rg8 27 Rae1 Rxe1 28 Bxf6 Re2 29 Rf2 Re6 30 Bh4 a4
31 Kf1 Rge8 32 Kg1 Re2 33 Bg5 Re1+ 34 Rf1 R8e2 35 Bf4 Kd7 36 b3
a3 37 Bg5 Kc6 38 Bf4 Kb5 01, Klee Hunstock, Corr. Cup
qualification, 1990. Played with reversed colors (1 e3 e5 2 e4 etc.).
(c) 10 a4!? a6 11 Na3 d5 12 d3 b5? (12Qf7!? Hunstock) 13 Nab1 b4 14
Nd1 Nc6 15 Qxe7+ Bxe7 16 Ne3 Re8 17 Be2 Bf8 18 h3 Ra7!?
I loved the cooperation of Blacks rooks, introduced by this move,

Hunstock. 19 Kf1 g6 20 g3 Nd4 21 Bd1 Bc6 22 c3 Ne6 23 Ng2 d4 24 c4
Bd6 25 h4 Rf7! 26 f4 Nh5 27 Bxh5 gxh5 28 Rg1 Rg7 29 Kf2 Reg8 30
Nd2 Bxf4! 31 Nf1 Bxc1 32 Rxc1 Rf7+ 33 Ke2 Bxg2 34 Rxg2 Nf4+ 01,
tefan (CSSR) Hunstock, corr. WT/M/482. Played with reversed colors.
(d) 10 a4 a6 11 Na3 d5 12 b3!? Nc6 13 Bb2 Qf7! 14 0-0-0 Bd6 15 Qe1
Re8 16 Ne2 Nd4 17 Bxd4 cxd4 18 Nb1 d3
19 cxd3 Ng4 (19b5!) 20 f3 Bc5 21 Qh4+ g5 22 Qxg5+ Be7 23 Qf4

Qxf4 24 Nxf4 Nf2 25 d4 Nxh1 26 Bxa6 Rxa6 27 Rxh1 Bg5 28 Nxd5 Be6
29 Nbc3 Bxd5 30 Nxd5 Rd6 31 Nc3 Rxd4 32 Ne4 Rexe4 33 fxe4 Rxe4 0
1, V. B. Grigorev (Leningrad) Hunstock, World Cup /Gr 92.
9Nc6 10 d4!
More critical than the alternatives:
(a) The stem game (for the aggressive 8c5!?): 10 a3 0-0-0 11 Qxe7
Bxe7 12 Bb5 Bg4 13 Bxc6 bxc6 += (1-0, 44) De Jong Stavast, NBC
Beker 1981, semi-final [3]. A sensible alternative would be 12a6!? 13
Bc4 Bg4, to keep more pieces on the board.
(b) 10 Qxe7+ Bxe7 11 Bc4 Nb4 12 Bb3 c4
13 a3 cxb3 14 axb4 bxc2 15 Nd4 0-0 16 Nxc2 Bf5 17 Ne3 Bd3 18 f3

Rae8 19 Kf2 d5 20 Nexd5 Nxd5 21 Nxd5 Bh4+ 22 g3 Re2+ 23 Kg1 Rxf3
24 Nf4 Rxf4 25 gxf4 Be4 01, Nagel Hunstock, 13. PZ-48, 1991.
Played with reversed colors.
The text move seems to be an improvement. White returns the pawn, but
avoids a passive set-up with d3 and secures some advantage in the
endgame:
10Nxd4 11 Nxd4 cxd4 12 Nb5 Bxb5 13 Qxe7+ Kxe7! 14 Bxb5 Rc8
15 Ba4
Or 15 Bd3 Kf7 16 Bf4 Re8+ 17 Kf1 d5 18 g3 g6 19 Kg2 Bg7, e. g. 20 h4
a6 21 Rhe1 Ne4 22 Kf3 Nc5 +=, because of the doubled black d-pawn
White has a slight advantage, but a draw seems the most probable result.
15d5 16 0-0 Kf7 17 Bf4 Bc5 18 Rfe1 Rhd8 19 Rad1 Ne4 20 Re2 Kf6
21 h4 h6 22 Bb3 g5 21 hxg5+ hxg5 24 Bh2 g4!? =
White can win a pawn, but not the game: 25 Bxd5 Rxd5 26 Rxe4 Bb6 27
c3 (27 Re2 Rb5 28 b3 Rbc5) 27Kf5 28 Re2 d3 29 Red2 Rcd8, and
Blacks passed pawn fully compensates the pawn deficit.
Variation B. 7 d3
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 exf5 Qe7 5 Qe2 d6 6 Nf3 Bxf5 7 d3 Nc6
8 Qxe7+ Bxe7
The natural move 7 d3 is missing in [6]. According to Joachim Hunstock

the diagram position should be considered as the main line, with the
continuation 9 Be2 0-0-0 10 0-0 (so far already given by Diepstraten [3],
but without any further analysis or an evaluation).
9 Be2
Alternatives:
(a) 9 c3?! Ne5 10 Nxe5 dxe5 11 d4? exd4 12 cxd4 Bb4+ 13 Bd2 Bxd2+
14 Nxd2 0-0-0
White has serious problems. 15 f3 Rxd4 16 Nb3 Rd6 17 Be2 Re8 18 Kf2
Bc2 19 Rhe1 Bxb3 20 axb3 Rd2 21 Kf1 Nd5 22 Bb5 Rxe1+ 23 Rxe1 c6
24 Bc4 Rxb2 25 Re2 Rb1+ 26 Kf2 Kd7 27 Rd2 Kd6 28 g4 h6 29 h4 a5 30
Rd3 b5 31 Bxd5 cxd5 32 h5 Rc1 33 Ke3 Rc2 34 Kd4 a4 01, Remus
(USA) Hunstock, corr. WT/M/482. Played with reversed colors.
(b) 9 Nc3 0-0-0 (9d5 10 Bf4 0-0-0 11 0-0-0 Rhf8 12 a3 d4 13 Ne2 Bg4
14 Neg1 Be6 15 Re1 Bd5 16 Bg3 Nh5, and Black has compensation for
the pawn) 10 a3?! (strange, Hunstock; for 10 Be2 see 9 Be2 0-0-0 10
Nc3, below) 10d5 11 Be2 d4 12 Nd1 Rhe8 13 Nd2 Rd5 14 0-0 Bd6 15
Bf3 Rc5 16 Bxc6 Rxc6 17 Nf3 Rxc2 18 Nxd4 Rxc1 19 Rxc1 Bxd3 20
Ne3 Bxf1 21 Rxf1 Be5
22 Nb5 Bxb2 23 Nxa7+ Kb8 24 Nc4 Bd4 25 Nb5 Bc5 26 Nc3 Ne4 27
Nxe4 Rxe4 28 Nd2 Re2 29 Nc4 Ra2 30 Ne5 Bxa3 31 Re1 Bb2 32 Nd7+
Ka7 33 Nf8 Bd4 34 Rf1 c5 01, Seack Hunstock, Corr. Cup
preliminaries, 1990.
90-0-0 10 0-0
10 Nc3 d5 (more logical than 10Nb4 11 Nd4 [or 11 Bd1] 11...Bd7 12
a3 Nbd5 [0-1, 76] Jackson Diepstraten, corr. Atars Memorial 1985/87,
13 Bf3 +/-)
(a) 11 a3?! d4 12 Nb1 Rhe8 13 0-0
13Bxa3 14 Nxa3 Rxe2 15 Bg5! Rd5 16 Bxf6 gxf6 17 Rfe1 Rxe1+ 18

Rxe1 Kd7 19 h3 b5 20 Re2 b4 21 Nc4 b3 22 Ne1 Nb4 23 cxb3 Bxd3 24
Rd2 Bb1 25 Rd1 Bg6 26 f4 Nc2 27 Nxc2 Bxc2 28 Ne3 Bxd1 29 Nxd5
Bxb3 30 Nxf6+ Ke6 31 Nxh7 Kf5 32 Kf2 Kxf4 33 g3+ Kf5 ,
Baranowsky Hunstock, corr. World Cup/Gr 92.
(b) After 11 Bd1 (or 11 0-0 d4 12 Nb1 followed by Nbd2) Black would
still have to prove that he has sufficient compensation. For example: 11
h6 12 0-0 g5 13 Ne2 Bd7 14 Ned4 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 c5 16 Ne2 Rde8 17 f4
g4 18 a4 h5 and Black has almost equalized.
10Rhe8 11 Nc3 d5 12 Bd1
12 Nh4 Bg4! 13 Bxg4+ Nxg4 14 Nf5 Bf6 15 Bd2 h5!? and Black exerts
some pressure for the pawn.
12h6 13 h3 g5 14 a3 a5 15 Re1 Bc5
Black controls more space and his pieces are placed on the classical
squares, while Whites position is somewhat cramped. These factors may
be less important in such a simplified position, where the queens have left
the board. But still it seems possible that there is enough compensation
to hold the balance:
16 Rxe8 Rxe8 17 Bd2 g4!? 18 Nh4 Bd7 19 hxg4 Nxg4 20 Bxg4 Bxg4
21 Ng6 Nd4 22 Nxd5 Re2 +=
The rook on the second rank forces further simplifications. For example,
23 Bxh6 c6 24 Ngf4 Rxc2 25 Ne3 Ne2+ 26 Nxe2 Bxe3 27 Bxe3 Bxe2 28
b4 axb4 29 axb4 Bxd3, and Black should be able to achieve a draw.
Many open questions remain, but Blacks practical chances after 3Nf6
4 exf5 seem far better than the theoretical works suggest.
Sources:
[1] G. H. D. Gossip: Theory of the Chess Openings, 2nd ed. London 1891.
[2] S. Alapin: Falkbeerartige Wendungen, in: Deutsches Wochenschach
1907, p. 325.
[3] C. Schlechter (ed.): Handbuch des Schachspiels, 8th ed. 1916
[5] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit, London 1995.
[6] A. Lein, S. Pickard: The Latvian Gambit. A Grandmaster View, Dallas
1995
[8] J. Silman: Splat the Lat and more on the Latvian Gambit.
[9] Latvian Gambit Refuted; chesspub.com.

Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit

Part Three
Over the
Horizons
The last column on the Latvian Gambits main line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3

Nxe5 studied one of two established refutations of the Lwenthal
Variation 3Nf6, namely 4 exf5. It was called the simplest
continuation by Carl Schlechter [2], and later authors agreed. But
according to our analyses, 4 exf5 was no refutation at all. White should
choose the more complicated alternative: 4 Bc4! which transposes to sidelines in the 3 Bc4 complex. In the standard move-order 3 Bc4, there
usually follows 3...fxe4!, when White can hardly get any advantage. But
after 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 Bc4! this main line has been avoided and the second
players task is much more difficult.
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line

North America:
Chess Informant 85
Only .99 cents!
It is another question whether you will actually face the following

problems, should you try out Lwenthals move 3...Nf6 in your practice.
White played the text move in only twenty percent of the available 3...Nf6
games, though it is objectively stronger than 4 exf5 and leads to a
significant advantage. This article might raise its popularity. On the
positive side for Black we can note that to be prepared against both 3...
Qf6 and Lwenthals 3...Nf6, White will have to learn a lot more theory
than in the past when 3...Nf6 4 exf5 was thought to be +/-. As reported
last month, the change was mainly caused by Joachim Hunstocks
correspondence games, played about 1989-1991, some of them even in
Hunstocks highly provocative move-order 1 e3 e5 2 e4 Nf6 3 Nf3,
wasting a full tempo. In the last column my analysis was guided by eight
Hunstock games featuring 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 exf5, while
only two of his opponents chose 4 Bc4, our present topic.
Informant 92 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Informant 95 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Gambit Play
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 Bc4 Qe7

4...fxe4? 5 Nf7 Qe7 6 Nxh8 d5 7 Be2 (7 Bb5+ Bd7 8 Be2 was
recommended by Lein, here 8 Nc3 is also strong) 7...Nc6 (the usual
continuation; I also tried 7...Be6 8 b3 g6 9 Ba3 Qg7 10 Bxf8 Qxf8 11
Nxg6 hxg6 12 0-0 Qd6 13 d3 +/-) 8 c4
(a new idea; 8 d4 exd3 9 cxd3 Bg4 10 Nc3 +/- Gamman Blackburne,

London 1869, is also excellent, but Blackburne won after some mistakes
from his opponent) 8...d4 9 0-0 Be6 10 d3 000 11 Nd2 Qd7 12 Nxe4
Nxe4 13 dxe4 Bc5 14 Bd3 Rxh8 15 a3 Ne5 16 b4 +-.
5 d4
5 0-0?! was an original and generous continuation in Uwe Scholz
Joachim Hunstock, corr. 13th PZ-48. White wins back the piece, but
should not be able to get an advantage against accurate play: 5...Qxe5 6
d4 Qa5 7 e5 Ne4
8 f3 (8 c3 Be7 9 Qh5+ Bf8 10 Qh6 Bf8 11 Qe3 Qb6, about =) 8...Nc5 9

Qe2 Ne6 10 d5 Bc5+ (10...Nd4! first would have been more precise,
when Whites queen cannot go to d1: 11 Qd1? Qc5 etc.) 11 Kh1 Nd4 12
Qd3? (to allow the retreat Bc4-d3, 12 Qd1 would be better) 12...b5 13
Bb3 0-0 14 Bd2 Qb6 15 c3 Nxb3 16 axb3 b4 17 c4 Na6 (17...f4!
Hunstock) 18 Bg5 Bb7 19 f4 Qg6 20 Rf3 Rae8 21 Nd2 (21 Rg3 d6 22 e6
Bf2! 23 Rf3 Bb6 followed by Nc5) 21...Bb6 and White resigned.
Another game that Joachim Hunstock played with reversed colors, so in
reality it was 1-0, Hunstock Scholz.
5...Nc6!
A key move in the Morgado Defense 3 Bc4 Nf6 which we have entered
via a transposition of moves. Alternatives are worse:
(a) 5...fxe4? 6 Bg5! is hopeless: 6...Nc6 (or 6...d6 7 Nf7 Rg8 8 Nd6+
Qxd6 9 Bxf6; 6...c6 7 Nc3 d5 8 Bxd5! +-) 7 Nf7 Rg8 (7...Qb4+ 8 Nd2 d5
9 c3 Qxb2 10 Bxf6 Kxf7 11 Bxd5+ Kxf6 12 Nxe4+ with a winning
attack) 8 Nc3 Qb4 9 Ne5 Nxe5 10 Bxg8 Nxg8 11 dxe5 Qxb2 12 Bd2 and
wins.
(b) 5...d6? 6 Nf7! (even stronger than 6 Bf7+ Kd8 7 Bb3 dxe5 8 dxe5+
Bd7 9 exf6 Qxe4+ 10 Kf1 gxf6 11 Nc3 +/- Qg4 Pogats Szilagyi,
Hungary 1950; maybe 11...Qh4 instead would have slightly improved
Blacks chances for a draw) and now:
(b1) The move so far preferred in practice was 6...d5 7 Nxh8 dxc4 8 e5
Nd5 Markland Simm, Manchester 1967, when Blacks knight on d5 is
annoying for White and secures some compensation. But 8 Nc3! is a

refutation: 8...fxe4 (or 8...g6 9 Bg5, or 8...Be6 9 0-0) 9 Bg5 Bf5 (9...Be6
10 0-0 Nc6 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 Qh5+ g6 13 Qxh7 Ne7 14 Rae1 +-) 10 Nd5
Qd7 11 Nxf6+ gxf6 12 Qh5+ etc., +-.
(b2) 6...Rg8 is a new attempt which was successful in Srensen Hunstock, Corr. World-Cup, Gr. 92: 7 Nxd6+ cxd6 8 Bxg8 Qxe4+ 9 Qe2
Qxe2+ 10 Kxe2 Nxg8 11 d5 Nf6 12 c4 b5!
13 cxb5 Nxd5 14 Rd1 Be6 15 Nc3 Nxc3+ 16 bxc3 Bc4+ 17 Ke1 d5 18 a4

Nd7 19 Be3 Bc5 20 Bxc5 Nxc5 21 f3 Nd3+ 22 Kd2 Kd7 23 Kc2 Nc5 24
Ra3 Re8 25 Rd2 Kd6 26 Rd4 Re2+ 27 Rd2 Bb3+ 28 Kc1 Re1+ 29 Kb2
Bc4 30 Kc2 g5 31 h3 h5 32 Rd4 Rf1 33 Rd2 g4 34 hxg4 fxg4 35 fxg4
hxg4 36 Rd1 Rf2+ 37 Rd2 Bd3+ 38 Kc1 g3 0-1. However, the knight
move is a refinement also in this case: 7 Nc3! fxe4 8 0-0 Be6 9 Bxe6
Qxe6 10 Ng5 Qf5 11 f3 and Blacks chances to survive are slim, e.g., 11...
e3 12 Re1 Nc6 13 Rxe3+ Kd7 14 d5 Nb4 15 g4 Qxc2 16 Qd4 c5 17 dxc6
+ Nxc6 18 Qc3 d5 19 Qb5 Kc8 20 Re2 +-.
6 0-0!
(a) 6 Nf7 d5 7 Nxh8 dxc4 8 e5 (note that 8 Nc3?! Be6 9 d5 0-0-0 is only
unclear, not nearly as convincing as it was after the time-wasting 5...d6? 6
Nf7 d5 above) 8...Nd5 may be playable for Black:
(a1) 9 h4!? Be6 10 c3 g6 11 Bg5 Qg7 12 h5 Be7 13 Bxe7 Kxe7 14 Nxg6
+ hxg6 15 h6 Rh8 16 Qc1 g5 17 hxg7 Rxh1+ 18 Kd2 Rxc1 19 Kxc1 Nf4
+=
(a2) 9 Qh5+ g6 10 Nxg6 hxg6 11 Qxg6+ Qf7 12 Qxf7+ Kxf7 13 c3 Be6
with sufficient compensation (0-1, 28), Pupols - Morgado, corr. 1970-72
[7].
(b) 6 Nc3 Nxe5 7 dxe5 Qxe5 8 0-0. Here Tony Kosten recommends 8...
Bd6!? 9 g3 fxe4 [7], but White could reply 10 Re1 Kd8 11 Nxe4!. More
precise seems the move-order 8...fxe4 9 Nd5 Nxd5 10 Bxd5 Bd6! (10...c6
11 Bxe4 Bd6 12 f4!?) 11 g3 c6 12 Bxe4 0-0 13 Qd3 h6 when Black can
probably hold, e.g. 14 c3 b6 15 Bf4 Rxf4!.
6...Nxe5
The main line in The Latvian Gambit Lives! [7] goes 6...fxe4 7 Nc3,
which would be quite acceptable for Black (transposing to 6 Nc3 above).
But White has a strong alternative: 7 Ng4! d5 (7...Nxg4 8 Qxg4 Nb4 9 d5
Qe5 10Re1 d6 11 Qd1 +/- or 8...d6 9 Qd1 Bf5 10 f3 0-0-0 11 fxe4 Qxe4
12 Rf4! Qxc2 13 Qf1! +/- g6? 14 Na3 Qa4 15 Bd2 +-) 8 Nxf6+ Qxf6 9
Bxd5 (9 Qh5+ Qg6 10 Qxd5 Bh3 11 Qg5 Nxd4 +=) 9...Bf5 10 Nc3 0-0-0
11 Be3
Black has no compensation for the pawn. But I cannot claim that the text
move is better, so it would be too hard to attribute a question mark to 6...
fxe4.
7 dxe5 Qxe5
The Argentinean correspondence player Juan Sebastian Morgado, after
whom the variation 3 Bc4 Nf6 is named, had preferred 7...Nxe4 to the
text move. But he never encountered the critical reply 8 Nc3! (while 8
Be3 Nc5 9 Nc3 Ne6 Saavedra - Morgado, corr. 1969, and 8 Qe2 d6 9 f3
Nc5 10 b4 Ne6 Maly - Morgado, corr. 1976, gave Black a reasonable
position; in fact Morgado won both games)
8...Nxc3 (8...c6 9 Nxe4 fxe4 10 Bf4, and pawn e4 will soon fall, with a
miserable position) 9 bxc3 c6 10 a4 Qh4 11 Bb3 Bc5 12 a5 f4 13 Ra4 g5
14 Be3! Be7 15 g3 Qh3 16 gxf4 h6 17 Re1 Rf8 18 Bc1 Bc5 19 Qd3 etc.,
+/- (at least). Other continuations are possible, for example 9...Qc5 10
Qd3 Be7 11 Rb1 Rf8 12 Re1 or 9...b5 10 Bxb5 Qe6 11 Qf3 c6 12 Ba4
Ba6 13 Bb3 Bc4 14 Bxc4 Qxc4 15 Qxf5, but there is nothing which Id
like to play for Black.
8 exf5
8 Nc3 allows Black to escape into a less critical line: 8...fxe4 9 Nd5 Nxd5
10 Bxd5 Bd6 11 g3 c6 12 Bxe4 0-0 +=. See 6 Nc3, instead of our main
line 6 0-0!.
8...Qxf5 9 Nc3
9 Re1+!? Kd8 (9...Be7? 10 Qe2 Qc5 11 b4 Qd6 12 Nc3 Qxb4 13 a3 +-)
and then:
(a) 10 Be6?! Qg6 11 Nc3 was successful in a corr. game Grava Grivainis, Betins Memorial 1970. Instead, the exchange of queens 10...
Qh5 11 Qxh5 Nxh5 would have limited Whites advantage (+=).
(b) 10 Nc3 is more straightforward, but there may be a small difference in
comparison with our main line, since now Black could try 10...Bc5 11
Be3 Bxe3 12 Rxe3 Qf4. I may be wrong, but the exchange of bishops
could make Blacks task easier:
13 Qe2 (else 13...Re8) 13...c6 14 g3 Qg4 15 f3

(b1) 15...Qh5 16 Qd2!? (16 Re1 Qc5 17 Na4 Qb4 18 Bb3) 16...Re8 17
Rae1 Rxe3 18 Rxe3 d5, and Black is not without chances, e.g.: 19 Ne2
Qf7 20 Bd3 Qf8 21 Nd4 a5 22 Kg2 Kc7 23 Qe1 Kb6 24 a3 Bd7 25 Re7
c5 26 Re6+ Kc7 27 Qe5+ Kd8 28 Nb5 Rc8 29 Rb6 Bc6 30 Na7 Nd7 31
Qg5+ Kc7 32 Rxc6+ bxc6 33 Nxc8 Kxc8 34 Bxh7 Kb7 35 Bf5 Nb6 36
Bd3 c4 37 Bg6 Qd6 38 Bf5 Qc7 39 h4 Na4 40 b3 cxb3 41 cxb3 Nc5 +=.
(b2) 15...Qd4 16 Rd1 Qc5 17 Na4 Qb4 18 Bb3 b5 19 a3 Qf8 20 Nc3 Qc5
21 Kh1 Re8 22 Rxe8+ Nxe8. White is better, but Black has a reasonable
chance to consolidate his position by means of Nf6 and an eventual d7d5.
9...Kd8
Probably best. 9...Bc5? 10 Bd3 Qg4 11 Re1+ Kd8 12 Qxg4 Nxg4 13 Ne4
(the decisive tempo gained by Blacks inaccurate ninth move) 13...Be7 14
Ng5 Bxg5 15 Bxg5+ Nf6 16 Re3 followed by Rae1 and an attack on
Blacks weak kingside pawns.
10 Bd3!?
In a situation where Black is so much behind in development, White
usually isnt eager to exchange queens. Nevertheless the text move
involves such an exchange. After analyzing more complicated variations,
I got the idea that by taking the queens off the board White might already
have a technical win in an ending where Blacks half army is
slumbering on a8 and c8. While the following variations are not entirely
clear from a theoretical point of view, in practice the text move is quite
unpleasant for Black. He has practically no winning chances, the only
question remains whether Whites advantage is sufficient to win.
There are plenty of alternatives, but Ill mention only two:
(a) 10 Re1 Bc5 transposes to 9 Re1+ Kd8 10 Nc3.
(b) 10 h3 is a useful move which avoids Qg4. White intends to keep the
queens on board and hopes to profit from Blacks exposed king: 10...c6
11 Ne2 d5 12 Bd3 Qd7 13 c4, e.g.,
(b1) 13dxc4?! 14 Bxc4 Qxd1 15 Rxd1+ Bd7 16 Bf4 Bb4 17 Nd4 Kc8
18 a3 Ba5 19 Ne6 Re8 20 Rd6 Re7 21 Nxg7 Ne4 22 Rxd7 Rxd7 23 Be6
Kd8 24 Bxd7 Kxd7 25 Rd1+ Ke7 26 Be3 +/-, White has a sound extra
pawn.
(b2) 13Bd6 14 Qb3 (14 Be3 Re8 15 Qb3 Rxe3! 16 fxe3 Qe7 17 Rf3
dxc4 18 Bxc4 Qe5 and Black has considerable compensation for the
exchange) 14Re8 15 Rd1 (White has many alternatives, this line is just
an example) 15Kc7 16 cxd5 Nxd5 17 Nd4 a5 18 Nb5+ Kb8 19 a4 Qe7
20 Nxd6 Qxd6 21 Bxh7 g6 22 Qa3 Qxa3 23 Rxa3 Bf5 24 Rg3 Re6 25
Bg8 Rd6 26 Bxd5 Rxd5 27 Rxd5 cxd5 28 Rc3 (28 Rg5!? Kc7 29 g4 Be4
30 f3) 28b6 29 Bf4+ Ka7 30 g4 Bb1 31 Rc7+ Ka6 32 Be3 Rd8 33 Bd4
Rd6
As so often in the Latvian Gambit, in the ending Black has merely

drawing chances. In this case he should be able to defend, in spite of
Whites extra pawn: 34 h4 Bd3 35 Kg2 Be2 36 Kg3 Re6 37 f3 Bd1 38 h5
gxh5 39 gxh5 Bxa4 40 Bg7 d4 41 Bxd4 (41 h6 d3 =) 41Be8 42 Kg4
Rh6 43 Re7 Bxh5+ 44 Kg5 Rd6 45 Be5 Rd3 46 Kxh5 Rxf3 47 Kg4 Rb3
=.
10Qh5 11 Qxh5 Nxh5 12 Bg5+
(a) 12 Be3 Nf6 13 Rad1 c6 14 Ne4 Nxe4 15 Bxe4 g6 16 Rfe1 Be7 17 g3

Re8 18 Re2 Bf6 +=.
(b) 12 Re1 Nf6 13 Bg5 Be7 14 Re2 h6 15 Rae1 Bc5 16 Bxf6+ gxf6, e.g.
17 Nd5 c6 18 Nxf6 Bd4 19 Re8+ Rxe8 20 Rxe8+ Kc7 21 Ng8 Bxb2 22
Nxh6 b5 23 h4 Bb7 24 Rxa8 Bxa8 25 g4 a6 26 g5 c5 27 f4 Bd5, and
Blacks chances are not too bad (+=).
(c) 12 Nd5 h6 13 Bd2 Bd6 14 Bc3 b6 15 Rad1 Bb7 16 Ne3 Be7 17 Rfe1
Bf6 18 Bxf6+ Nxf6 19 f3 with lasting pressure, e.g., 19Ne8 20 Bg6
Nd6 21 Ng4 Rf8 22 Rd4 Rb8 23 c3 Ba8 24 Ne5 b5 25 Bh5 Rb6 26 Bg4
Bc6 27 Rd2 Rf6 28 Rde2 Ra6 29 a3 with an advantage for White, but I
am not sure whether it is sufficient to gain a full point.
12Be7
12Nf6 13 Nd5 h6 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 c3 c6 16 Nxf6 with an extra pawn.
13 Bxe7+ Kxe7 14 Rfe1+ Kd8 15 Nd5
15 Re3 Nf4 16 Rae1 comes into consideration.
15g6
The only alternative is 15c6!? (15h6? 16 Re2 is too slow) 16 Be2
cxd5 17 Bxh5 b6 18 Rad1 Bb7 19 Bf7 Rc8 20 Re2 Rc5 21 Red2
The rook endings after 21Ke7 22 Bxd5 Bxd5 23 Rxd5 Rxd5 (or 23
Rxc2) 24 Rxd5 Rc8 or 21Rf8 22 Bxd5 Bxd5 23 Rxd5 Rxc2 (23...Rxd5)
24 Rxd7+ Ke8 25 f3 Rf7 26 Rd8+ Ke7 27 R8d2 Rxd2 28 Rxd2 g5 offer
White good chances to play for a win, but if you are a pawn behind, a
playable rook ending might still be considered as a lesser evil.
16 g4 Ng7 17 Re3 c6 18 Nf6 Ne6
(a) 18Ne8?! must be worse: 19 Nxe8 Rxe8 20 Rae1 Re6 (20Rxe3 21
Rxe3 d6 22 Rh3 h5 23 f3 Rb8 24 Bxg6 hxg4 25 Rh8+ Kc7 26 fxg4 Bxg4
27 Rxb8 Kxb8 28 h4 +-) 21 f4 b5 22 Kf2 Rxe3 (22Kc7 23 Rh3) 23
Rxe3 d6 24 Rh3 h5
25 f5 Ke7 (25a5 26 f6) 26 Re3+ Kf6 27 g5+! Kxg5 28 Rg3+ Kf6 29

Rxg6+ Ke5 30 Rg8 Bb7 31 Rg7 Bc8 32 Re7+ Kf6 33 Re8 d5 34 Kf3 Bb7
35 Re6+ Kf7 36 Rh6 +/-.
(b) 18b5 comes into consideration and can lead to similar variations as
the text move.
19 Rf1
An attempt to strive for f4-f5 and chase the knight away from e6. The
main alternative is 19 h4 (or 19 Rae1 b5 20 h4) 19b5 20 Rae1 Rb8 21
Kg2 c5 22 Kg3 (22 b3) 22c4 23 Be4 Rb6 24 c3 Ng7 25 g5 Rf8!? 26
Kg2 Rf7 27 Rd1 Re7.
19h5 20 g5 Nxg5 21 f4 Nf7
21Ne6? 22 Bxg6, with f4-f5 to follow.
22 Rfe1 Nd6 23 Rg3 h4 24 Rxg6 b5 25 Ng4 Ne8 26 Ne5 Rf8 27 Rh6
Bb7 28 Rxh4 Nf6 29 Ng6 Rg8 30 f5 Kc7
White has an extra pawn, and two of his pawns are passed pawns. Maybe
the simplest continuation is 31 Re7 (31 Kf2 Rg7) 31Raf8 32 Kf2 Kd6
33 Nxf8 Kxe7 34 Ng6+ Kf7 35 Kg3 Kg7 36 Ne5 with an eventual Ng4 to
break Blacks blockade on the black squares, or 35a6 36 Rh8. White
has good winning chances.
The Lwenthal Variation 3Nf6 remains an interesting alternative to 3
Qf6, but the analysis above shows that in the critical position after 8
Qxf5 White has some advantage. While 3Nf6 may not be objectively
better than 3Qf6, the move is still quite unknown and underestimated in
all sources on the Latvian Gambit printed on paper. It could be a useful
surprise weapon against anybody who has only a superficial knowledge
of the Latvian Gambits main line 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4.
Sources:
[1] G. H. D. Gossip: Theory of the Chess Openings, 2nd ed. London 1891.
[2] S. Alapin: Falkbeerartige Wendungen, in: Deutsches Wochenschach
1907, p. 325.
[3] C. Schlechter (ed.): Handbuch des Schachspiels, 8th ed. 1916
[5] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit, London 1995.
[6] A. Lein, S. Pickard: The Latvian Gambit. A Grandmaster View, Dallas
1995
[8] J. Silman: Splat the Lat and more on the Latvian Gambit.
[9] Latvian Gambit Refuted; chesspub.com.
Correction Last month I quoted a game Klar Hunstock. The correct

name of the white player was Ernst Klee, as Mr. Hunstock kindly informs
me.

Leningrad Fashions
If you are waiting for a new opening book that provides a repertoire to
last a lifetime (as some publishers claim), it is a bit disappointing to
discover that a particular author needs more time for completing his work
because the theory keeps evolving. It seems we have to live with
openings that are in a continuous state of flux.
Over the
Horizons
The rapid evolution of the Leningrad Dutch, for example, where Black
fianchettoes his Bf8, makes it almost impossible to write an opening book
that is still useful after a decade. After 1 d4 f5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 g6 4 Nf3
Bg7 5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 Nc3, the last century has already seen several
best moves come and go.
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line

North America:
Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch
by Valeri Beim
In the first edition of ECO A (1979), the Ilyin-Genevsky Variation

appears at the end of the book, formally representing the main line of the
Dutch Defense. Even then it was a bit strange to see the more popular
Leningrad System only in second place. But apparently the Chess
Informants code system was also destined to last a lifetime. The main
line of the Leningrad in these days was still 7Nc6 8 d5, and then
nobody really knew whether 8Na5 or 8Ne5 was the correct
continuation. Later theoreticians found the answer: neither of the two
moves was really correct. The tactical 8Ne5 was tactically dubious,
while the more positional 8Na5 was positionally risky.
Leningrad System
by Stefan Kindermann
Okay, I admit that I am simplifying. Kaissiber 12 (1999) contained an

article of mine about the Leningrad Bird version with Nc3-a4. At least in
this situation, when the Dutch player has a free extra move, the Nc3
system is quite interesting and fully playable. And in 2007 the riskier Nc6e5 version was still used by Hikaru Nakamura.
In the 1970s 7c6 8 d5 e5 had become the undisputed main line. There
have been experiments with other eighth moves as well, sometimes
remembering the piece formations of a Kings Indian Defense, only with
a pawn on f5 instead of f7. But the status of the main line seemed
reserved for all times for 8e5. The resulting positions were solid and
have since remained a respectable, if not very inspiring weapon.
However, in the early 1980s 7Qe8 had its breakthrough, this treatment
is still fashionable today. There are overlaps with the theory of 7c6, as
combining the moves c6, Bd7, Na6 and Qe8 was a logical idea. But an
early c6 has some disadvantages; e.g., White can attack the weak pawn b7
with Qb3, and 7Qe8 is simply more precise.
The move was introduced in 1959 by Jorge Pelikan. His second game
from the diagrammed position went 8 Nd5 Nxd5 9 cxd5 h6 (later drawn)
Pugach Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1959. One of the novelties in the 1980s
that made the rare continuation so popular was 9Qb5! (0-1, 67) in
Uhlmann Espig, Leipzig 1983. Another inspiring maneuver was 8 Re1
Qf7! 9 Ng5 Qxc4 in Huzman Malaniuk, Kiev 1986.
There is nothing wrong with 7Qe8. However, in the last three decades
ABC of the Leningrad Dutch

by Andrew Martin
so much has been written on 7Qe8, by Pedersen, McDonald,

Kindermann and many others, that it has become difficult to be up-todate. Maybe it is time to look for new adventures. The database contains
only about fifty games with 7c6 8 d5 cxd5!?. Blacks results are not
overwhelming, but in my opinion the following overview demonstrates
that the variation is close to respectability. The move fell out of favor
after Botvinnik recommended a good reply in ECO, but between 1998
and 2000 Kevin Spraggett tried the idea in four of his games.
The Dutch Defense

1 d4 f5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 Nc3 c6 8 d5

cxd5
Plausible, Harding [2]. Black begins queenside play at once, opening

the c-file, and playing to exploit the artificially isolated d5 pawn by quick
development. This approach has had good results, and is seriously
underestimated, Roy De Vault [5].
I have often experimented with 8Qa5?! (Liebert Variation) and 8
Qb6. These systems were meant to avoid the strong maneuver Be3-d4. In
the case of 8Qb6, for example, Black still has c6-c5 as a reaction to
Be3. But the propagated loss of time (White has to move the Be3 again)
may well be disputed, since b6 isnt a perfect square for Blacks queen
either.
9 cxd5
9 Nxd5 was the reason why I never played 8cxd5. The database knows
only a single game:
(a) 9Nc6 10 Nxf6+ Bxf6 11 Bh6 Bxb2 (Szekely K. Pytel, Kallithea
1977), with a fast draw after 12 Bxf8 Bxa1. The stronger 12 Ng5! gives
White an edge; e.g., 12Re8 13 c5!. The alternative 11Re8 isnt very
attractive either: 12 Qd5+ e6 13 Qd2 d5, and Black will suffer from an
isolated pawn.
(b) 9Na6 and 9Nxd5 come into consideration.
(c) 9 e5! is a simple and reliable solution: 10 Nxf6+ (10 Bg5 Nc6 11 e4
Be6; 10 Ng5 h6) 10Qxf6 11 Qd5+ Kh8 12 Rd1 (12 e4 f4 or 12 Bg5
Qe6; in both cases Black has active play and nothing to fear, even if he
loses the pawn d6) 12Nc6!
13 Bg5 (13 Qxd6 Be6 14 Bg5 Qf7 15 Bd2 Rad8 16 Qc5 Bxc4 17 Ng5
Qg8 18 Bc3 Nd4 =) 13Qe6 14 Be3 (14 e4 f4) 14e4 (better than 14
f4) 15 Ng5 Qf6 16 h4 (16 Qxd6 Qxd6 17 Rxd6 Bxb2 =) 16h6 17 Nh3
Qxb2 18 Nf4 Qf6 19 Rab1 Rd8 20 f3 exf3 21 Bxf3 Kh7 22 Rb3 Qe7 with
equal chances.
9Na6 10 Be3!
The critical continuation (missing in Hardings pioneer work [2], in other
respects still a highly useful book), the bishop is heading for its ideal
square d4. Nothing else poses Black major problems: 10 Nd4 Nc5 11 b4
Nce4 12 Nxe4 fxe4! (12Nxe4 13 Be3 Nf6 14 h3 a5 15 b5 Nh5 16 Qd2
Be5 17 Bh6 Bg7 18 Be3? Be5 19 Bh6 draw, Comas Fabrego Spraggett,
Spain 1999; 18 Bxg7 +/-) 13 Bb2 Qb6 14 Qb3 a5 = Tolstrup Bjorntoft,
Tastrup 2000. Black has fully equalized and later won the game.
10Bd7!
Black retains the option to move the knight to c7 and later perhaps to b5.
However, 10Nc5 occurred in several games and was even the main line
in ChessBase Magazine No. 65.
(a) 11 b4 (Tyomkin) 11Nce4 12 Nxe4 Nxe4 is analysis by Meulders in

CBM 65, but Black has the stronger 12fxe4 13 Ng5 Ng4, when 14
Bd4? fails to 14Bxd4 15 Qxd4 e5 -/+, and 14 Rc1 Nxe3 15 fxe3 Bh6 is
equal.
(b) 11 Bd4 is critical: 11a5 (11Bd7? Bachmann Ditt, Bundesliga
1980, is refuted by 12 b4 Nce4 13 Nxe4 Nxe4 14 Bxg7 +/-; 11Qa5 12
a3 Qa6 13 b4 Nce4 14 Nxe4 fxe4 15 Ng5 Bf5 16 f3 exf3 17 exf3 +=)
(b1) 12 Ne1 b6 13 Nc2!? Comas Fabrego Gomez Benitez, Barcelona
2000, with a slight advantage for White, who prepared b2-b4 and won
with ease. Black should have preferred 12Bd7! 13 Nd3 (13 Nc2 Rc8)
13b6 =.
(b2) 12 Rc1! += is probably best: 12Bh6 13 e3 b6, or the immediate
12b6 13 Ng5 Bh6.
11 Bd4 Qa5!
Egon Ditts improvement upon 11h6? from Langeweg Pytel,
Dortmund 1975, which was the only move considered by Botvinnik in
ECO, by Ehlveest [6] and by Gurevich [7] in his relatively recent work
(1994).
12 a3!
12 e4 fxe4 13 Ng5 Bg4 (13Nc5! is a good alternative) 14 Qd2 Bh6 (De
Vault recommends 14Nc5 15 Ncxe4 Qxd2 [5] with equal chances; 15
Rab1 Qb4 or 15 h3 Bf5 doesnt make a great difference) 15 Be3 Bxg5 16
Bxg5 Nc5 17 Rab1 Qb4 18 h3 Hovde Ditt, European Corr. Ch. 1989.
Instead of the continuation 18Bf5 19 Rbd1! a5 20 g4 Bd7 21 Rfe1 +=

(1-0, 43), Black should prefer 18Bf3 19 Bxf3 exf3 20 Rfe1 (so far
Hovdes analysis, who attributed 18Bf3 with a ?) 20Rf7 21 Qd1 (the
point of Blacks twentieth move is 21 Re3 Ncd7 22 Rxf3?? Ne4 -+; 22
Bxf6 exf6 23 Rxf3 Ne5 24 Rf4 Qa5 =) 21Raf8 22 Re3 a6 23 Bh6 Rc8
24 Rxf3 Ncd7, and Whites advantage is small.
12Rfc8!?
The plan Qa5, Rfc8 and the following Qd8 is a good defense found by
Kevin Spraggett. The alternative 12Nc7? is hardly convincing: 13 Qd2
Nb5 14 b4 Qa6 15 Nxb5 Qxb5 (15Bxb5 16 a4! +/-) 16 Ng5 Bh6 (16
Rac8 17 Rac1 b6 18 h4! h6 19 Nh3 Ng4 20 Nf4 Bxd4 21 Qxd4 Ne5 22
Qe3 Kf7 23 h5! g5 24 Ng6 Nxg6 25 hxg6+ Kf6 26 g4 +/-) 17 Be3 Bxg5
(17Ng4 18 a4! Qc4 19 Bf4, and again Black is in trouble) 18 Bxg5
Rfc8 19 Qb2 +/-.
13 b4
More dangerous than 13 e3, from a key game of the 7cxd5 variation,
Magai Spraggett, Istanbul 2000 (ol): 13Qd8 (13Nc7?! 14 b4 Qa6
15 a4 b5 16 a5) 14 Rc1 (+= Tyomkin)
(a) 14Qe8 15 Ng5 Nc5 (perhaps 15Nc7) 16 b4 h6 17 Ne6 Nxe6 18
dxe6 Bc6 19 Qb3 Bxg2 20 Kxg2 Qc6+ 21 f3 Qc4 22 Qxc4 Rxc4
23 Bxf6 Bxf6 24 Nd5 Rac8 25 Nxf6+ exf6 26 Rxc4 Rxc4 27 Rd1 Kf8 28
Rxd6 Rc7 29 Rd8+ Ke7 30 Rh8 Kxe6 31 Rxh6 g5 32 g4 Rc2+ 33 Kg3
fxg4 34 fxg4 b5 35 Rh7 a6 36 Ra7 Rc6 37 h4 gxh4+ 38 Kxh4 Kd5 39 Rd7
+ Ke6 40 Ra7 , Magai Spraggett, Istanbul 2000 (ol). In ChessBase
MegaBase 2008 the game is commented by D. Tyomkin.
(b) 14Nc5!? 15 Ng5 (15 b4 Na4 16 Nxa4 Rxc1 17 Qxc1 Bxa4 18 Ng5
+= is an analysis by Tyomkin, but 15Nce4! 16 Nxe4 Nxe4 equalizes)
15h6 16 Ne6 Nxe6 17 dxe6 Bc6 18 Qb3 Qe8
Black stands only slightly worse.

The text move (13 b4) isnt mentioned by Tyomkin.
13Qd8 14 Ng5 Rc4
14Nc7?! avoids the tactical and positional mess in the lines below.
Black might continue with Qf8, Ng4 and exchange the dark-squared
bishops and maybe the queens. The resulting positions are somewhat
better for White, but maybe acceptable for Black.
15 e3
15 Ne6 Bxe6 16 dxe6 Rxd4! leads to an ending which Black should hold:
17 Qxd4 Ne4 18 Qd3 Bxc3 19 Bxe4 Bxa1 20 Bxb7 Nxb4 21 axb4 Rb8 22
Rxa1 Rxb7 23 e4 Qf8.
15Rac8 16 Qb3 Nh5 17 Bxg7 Nxg7 18 Ne2!?
18Bb5
Or 18Qe8 19 Nd4 Ba4 20 Qd3 Nb8 21 e4 (21 Nc6 Rc2) 21Nd7 22
exf5 Ne5 23 Qe3 Ng4 24 Qe4 gxf5 25 Qf4 Ne5 26 Rac1 Qg6 27 Qd2 Qf6
28 f4 Nd3 29 Rxc4 Rxc4 30 Ne2 Nb2, and Black might survive. The
variation is a mess, and I am not sure how forced it really is, or whether it
is worse than our main line. Ground to be explored.
19 Re1 e5 20 dxe6 Qxg5 21 Nd4 Rc3
For the sacrificed piece, White collects quite a few pawns:

22 Qd5
22 Qb2 Bd3 comes into consideration.
22Be8 23 Qxb7 Nb8 24 Qxa7 R3c7 25 Qb6
25 Qa5!? +=.
25Qe7 26 b5 Nxe6 Qxe6 28 Red1 Qe5 29 a4 Kf7 30 Qxd6 Qxd6 31
Rxd6 Ke7 32 Rd4 Rc5
Whites pawns on a4 and b5 look menacing, but I dont believe that

White can win.
The variation 7cxd5 can hardly be called solid. What I like most are
the connections between this unusual system and my old favorite lines in
the Dutch and the Bird Leningrad systems where a broad knowledge of
motifs and ideas will gain many points.
Sources:
[1] R. Schwarz: Hollndisch, Hamburg 1964.
[2] T. Harding: The Leningrad Dutch, London 1976.
[3] Encyclopedia of Chess Openings A, 1st ed. Belgrade 1979 (A 86-89
ed. by Botvinnik)
[4] B. Ivkov and M. Skoko: Leningrad Dutch I, Belgrade 1990
[5] R. De Vault: The Leningrad Dutch, Dallas 1992
[6] J. Ehlveest: The Leningrad Dutch, London 1993
[7] M. Gurevich: A 86-89, Nicosia 1994
[8] Encyclopedia of Chess Openings A, 2nd ed. Belgrade 1996
[9] N. McDonald: The Leningrad Dutch, Brighton 1997

Repairing the Englund Gambit
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
In March 2006 this column discussed critical lines in the Englund

Gambit 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 (there are other third moves, but
3Qe7 is the most popular if popular pertains to only 1,200 games in
the database). One of those lines seemed to come close to a refutation of
3Qe7. Ian Simpson (Norwich, UK) sent a new idea that slightly
improves Blacks chances. It is probably not sufficient to make the
variation attractive, but at least the following analysis shows several
inaccuracies in the earlier article. If you feel the desire to play 1e5, just
do so. The risk to run into this concrete variation is relatively small. In
more than 160 games with 1 d4 e5 played since 2006, the position after
the strong 9 Rb5! didnt occur even once. Does anyone read my articles?
The Englund Gambit is neglected, and so it remains playable. In an
Internet forum someone wrote: You have to wonder why anyone would
suppose that 1 d4 e5? would have the slightest chance of producing a
playable game for Black. [] Chess would be a trivial game [] if 1 d4
e5? worked; also a game not worth playing. The opposite is true:
because chess is such a rich game, even the Englund Gambit is full of
interesting possibilities.

North America:
Unsound Openings and

How to Exploit Them
by Roman Dzindzichashvili
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4
Ideas Behind the Modern

Chess Openings
by Gary Lane

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
The first book on the Englund Gambit was written by Henry Grob. In his
correspondence practice the text move was seen more often than the
alternatives 4 Qd5, 4 Nc3 or 4 Bg5. So I named 4 Bf4 the Grob
Variation. However, our database shows a different picture: the
committal 4 Bf4 is chosen in only eighteen percent of the games. In
modern tournament play apparently safety comes first: 4 Nc3 and 4 Qd5
(ECOs favorite) are the top choices. On fourth place, behind 4 Bf4, there
is 4 g3, followed by 4 e4, 4 Nbd2 and some others. None of these
alternatives is a reason to give up the Englund Gambit.
Understanding the
Sacrifice
by Angus Dunnington
Henry Grob (right; in play against Turiansky at Vienna 1947)

explored the Englund Gambit in numerous correspondence games.
Could this situation allow us to continue playing the Englund Gambit,

hoping for the eighty-two percent of uninformed opponents, while
preparing an emergency line (perhaps 4f6 or 4Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qe7 6
Bc3 f6) for the eighteen percent of opponents who play 4 Bf4? My first
thought was that these numbers must be misleading. In games between
Elo-rated players the percentage of 4 Bf4 games would certainly be much
higher. But to my surprise from 220 rated games (Elo 1800+) with the
Englund Gambit only twenty-one games had that 4 Bf4. The only
explanation that I can offer is that experienced players know about 4 Bf4,
but they also know that it is dangerous for both sides and that Henry Grob
won the majority of his correspondence games against 4 Bf4. Tournament
players avoid unnecessary risks, and so they opt for a safer refutation.
4Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Nd5!
Already mentioned by Henry Grob. Most theoretical works recommended

8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3, and the last move used to be garnered with an
exclamation mark. In the diagrammed position, which could well be
critical for the Englund Gambit 3Qe7, Black has two alternatives. Lets
start with 8Ba5, which I didnt take serious enough.
A. The Bishop Retreats: 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5
Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Nd5 Ba5
9 Rb5
The text move used to be attributed with an !, but 9 e4!? also comes
into consideration: 9Nge7 10 Bc4 Bxd2+ 11 Qxd2 Nxd5 12 exd5 Na5
13 Bd3 b6 14 0-0 Bb7 15 c4 0-0 (150-0-0 16 Rfc1 +/-) 16 Qe3! Qe7
(White threatened 17 Bxh7+, and 16Qc5?? was impossible because of
17 Qxc5 bxc5 18 Rb5 +-) 17 Rfe1 and White is clearly better.
9Bxd2+
Or 9Rb8 10 Bxa5 Nxa5 11 Nxc7+ Kd8 12 Nd5.
10 Qxd2 Kd8 11 e4
11a6!? (Ian Simpson)

Improving upon Grobs old analysis 11...h6 12 h4 b6 13 Bc4 Qf8
unclear, Grob, because 12 Bc4! (Simpson) would then be strong (not to
mention other problems with Grobs analysis). For the moment Black can
ignore the threats against his king: The immediate Qg5+ doesn't seem to
cause too much trouble because of the checks Black has on the first rank,
Ian Simpson.
12 Rb3
We are following a correspondence game given in [3]. The source doesnt
give the names of the players.
12 Rb1 Qxa2 13 Rd1 Qa5 14 c3 (14 Qxa5 Nxa5 15 Ng5 Nh6 +=) 14
Nge7 15 Bc4 Qc5 16 Bb3 (perhaps 16 Be2!?) 16Nxd5 17 Bxd5 (17
exd5? Nxe5) 17Ke8 18 0-0 h6 19 Qf4 Qe7
At first 20 e6! looked devastating, but Black seems to be able to defend:

20fxe6 21 Bxc6 Rf8 22 Qxc7 dxc6 23 Qa5 Rxf3! 24 gxf3 e5
(threatening Bh3) 25 Rfe1 Bd7 26 Rd3 c5 27 Qb6 Bc6, with reasonable
chances for Black (+=).
12Qxa2
Creates a familiar situation for the Bf4 variation: Black has a passed pawn
on the a-file. But before he can convert the pawn, he has to survive
Whites attack.
13 Be2 Qa1+ 14 Bd1 Qa5 15 Qxa5 Nxa5 16 Ng5 Nh6 17 Rh3
Threatening 18 Rxh6 and 19 Nxf7+. Note that 17Re8 wouldnt be a

solution either, because of 18 Rxh6 gxh6 19 Nxf7 mate.
17Rf8
17c6 is an interesting idea: 18 Nb6 Rb8 19 Rxh6 gxh6 (19Kc7 20
Rxh7 Rxh7 21 Nxc8! Rh6 22 Nd6 f6 23 Ngf7 Rh7 24 h4 +/-) 20 Nxf7+
Kc7 21 Nxh8 Kxb6 22 Nf7 Kc5 23 f4 b5. The situation is difficult to
assess, but if I had to bet, Id say that Blacks passed a-pawn is not strong
enough to compensate Whites menacing pawns on the other side of the
board.
18 Nxh7 Re8
In the anonymous correspondence game there followed 18Rg8 19 g4,
and White was better. Attacking the pawn e5 somewhat limits Whites
options.
19 Ng5
Or 19 f4 b5 20 Ng5 (threatening Rxh6 again) 20Bb7. Whites pieces
are much more active than Blacks, but there is still the pawn a6, waiting
for a great future. It must be +=, but in such an ending a lot of things can
go wrong.
19Rf8 20 f4 d6 21 Rd3 Rb8 +=
Blacks position isnt impressive, but what can White do? If 22 0-0 Bd7,
or 22 Be2 dxe5!? 23 fxe5 c6 24 Ne3+ Kc7. In both cases Black should be
able to consolidate.
B. Immediate Exchange: 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5
Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Nd5 Bxd2+
This was my main line in [2], but I am not sure anymore whether it is
better than 8Ba5 (A).
9 Qxd2 Qxa2 10 Rd1 Kd8 11 Ng5 Nh6 12 e6! d6
13 exf7!
There were a few problems with my analysis in [2], which ran: 13 e7+
Kd7 14 Nxh7! (14 g3) 14Nf5 15 Nf8+ Kd8 16 Nxc7+ Kxe7 17 Nxa8
Kxf8 +/. First of all, 14 g3 is not really an alternative, because of 14
Qa5 15 Bh3+ f5. Secondly, the last move in the variation isnt forced.
Instead of 17Kxf8, Black might postpone the decision how to take the
Nf8 for a happier moment: 17Nfd4!
For example, 18 f3 and then:

(a) 18Rxf8 19 Nc7 Kd7 20 e3 Qxc2 21 Nb5 (21 Nd5 Qc5) Qxd2+ 22
Rxd2 Nxb5 23 Bxb5 Rh8. Black has only one pawn for the exchange, but
to create open lines for his rooks, White will have to find a very
intelligent plan (which I fail to see) or he has to exchange a few pawns.
Since there are only four white pawns left, Black has realistic drawing
chances.
(b) 18Qxc2 19 Qg5+ (of course there are alternatives, all leading to
endings where Black still has to work hard for a draw. The text line is a
tactical attempt, but again Black seems to survive) 19Kxf8 20 Rxd4 f6
21 Qd5 Nxd4 22 Qxd4 (22 Qxd6+ Kf7 23 Qxd4 is similar) 22Qc5 23
Qxc5 dxc5 24 Nc7 a6 25 e4 Ke7 26 Nd5+ Kd6 27 Be2 Be6 28 Nf4 Bf7
29 Kd2 Kc6 30 Kc3 b5
I have my doubts whether White can convert his advantage into a full
point: 31 Ra1 Kb6 32 Rd1 Kc6 33 h3 a5 34 Nd5 c4 35 Ne7+ Kc5 36 Rd7.
Finally, the rook breaks into Blacks position. But apparently Black has
enough counter play with 36Ra8 or 36b4+.
The text move (13 exf7!) wasnt even mentioned in my article [2], but it
offers substantial winning chances for White.
13Qa5
13Rf8? 14 Nxc7 Kxc7 15 Qxd6+ Kb6 16 Ne4 (threatening 17 Nc3!)
16Qxc2 17 Nd2! Rxf7 18 Rb1+ Qxb1+ 19 Nxb1 Nf5 20 Qd5. White
has traded R + N for his opponents queen, and should win.
14 c3
More promising than 14 Qxa5.
14Rf8 15 Nxh7 Rxf7 16 Ng5 Rf8 17 g3 Ne5 18 Bg2 Nhf7 19 Nxf7+
Rxf7 20 Qd4 +/-
Black is in serious trouble. White doesnt have an extra pawn, as in

Variation A (8Ba5), but most players will prefer the diagrammed
position, with all kind of attacking chances and the queens still on board.
The computer suggests 20c6 21 Nb4 Ke8, when White can take on d6
and continue the attack, or he can allow the exchange of his queen, but
under very favorable circumstances: 22 f4 c5 23 Qxd6 cxb4 24 cxb4 Qc7
25 fxe5, and again Black is struggling in a difficult ending.
But is that ending lost? If this line were relevant for the correctness of the
Englund Gambit, we should perhaps look closer. There are only a few
pawns left, pawn e5 is weak, Whites Bg2 doesnt control the square h8,
and all rook endings are drawn anyway. After 25Qc3+ 26 Qd2 Qxd2+
27 Rxd2 a5 28 Bf3 Rc7 29 0-0 Ke7, an easy win for White is not in sight
(and perhaps there is no win at all).
Both lines, A and B, are unpleasant for the second player. Objectively, the
situation hasnt changed much since my last article. But the picture has
become more complicated, in comparison with the relatively short
analysis that I published three years ago.
Sources:
[1] S. Bcker: Englund-Gambit. Drei Gambits in einem, Dsseldorf 1988

[2] ChessCafe March 2006. Visiting Planet Englund
[3] www.chesspub.com

2009 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.
Asymmetry and More Chaos

Earlier columns, Symmetry and Chaos [1] and The Roulade Game [2],
had discussed Baloghs Defense, one of my favorite weapons against the
Kings Pawn opening: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5. It comes with an extra bonus for
Dutch experts, by potentially avoiding certain Anti-Dutch specialties.
Provided that you play a Dutch line where d7-d6 is part of Blacks plan, the
sequence 1 d4 d6 is a good way to vary from the immediate 1f5. In case of
2 c4 f5, the risk of an unusual white variation will be greatly reduced, while
after 2 e4 your opponent may expect a lot of things, but hardly 2f5.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
However, in the second of these columns [2] attentive readers noticed a short
sentence, halfway into the article on page four: Improvements for Black are
needed. Although well-hidden in this fine print, I couldnt deny that the
following variation was a major threat for the whole defense: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 Nc6 5 d5! Ne5 6 exf5 Nxd3+ 7 Qxd3 Qd7 8 Nge2! (Ortwin
Thal) 8Qxf5 9 Qc4. Here White is simply much better (+/-); for more
details see [2].
Purchases from our shop help

keep ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:
Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch
by Valeri Beim
Leningrad System
by Stefan Kindermann

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
It took a while until I regained my sympathy for Baloghs Defense. The key
idea, studied in Kaissiber 30 (2008) [4], was to change Blacks move-order 1
e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4! 5 Nxe4 Nc6!
ABC of the Leningrad Dutch

by Andrew Martin
In order to avoid the unpleasant 4Nc6 5 d5! mentioned above, Black is

willing to sacrifice the exchange: 6 Nxf6+ exf6 7 Qh5+ g6 8 Bxg6+ hxg6 9
Qxh8. My article in Kaissiber 30 gave further analyses of the complications
after 9Qe7+ 10 Be3 Nb4! (then a novelty), claiming that Black had
sufficient compensation, but also warned that the quiet 7 c3!? was a
dangerous alternative.
Michael Tcharotschkin
The Kaissiber article didnt cure all of Blacks problems, but at least it had
one positive effect (which also answers my rhetorical question in the last
column, whether there is anybody who reads my articles): it inspired another
German player, Michael Tscharotschkin, to start playing Baloghs Defense.
He is the man behind a website that announces forthcoming tournaments. Not
surprisingly, he is an active tournament player himself, with 103 resp. 82
games rated by FIDE in the last two years. I hasten to mention another detail
from the FIDE data available on the Internet: Tscharotschkins official FIDE
score with the black pieces is 70 wins, 41 losses and only 32 draws.
No doubt, the Balogh Defence was a fitting acquisition for his repertoire. He
has since played the system with success, in more than a dozen games.
Michael Tscharotschkin was so kind not only to share these games with me,
but even submitted detailed analyses in critical positions in short, he did
most of the hard work for the following part of the article. (Note: For the
theoretical part below, MT stands for Michael Tscharotschkin, SB for Stefan
Bcker.)
White Accepts the Sacrifice
J. Hernando Rodrigo (2377) M. Tscharotschkin (2236)
Open Badalona (Spain), August 5, 2008
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6!? 6 Nxf6+
Calmer alternatives 6 c3 and 6 Nf3 are discussed in the second part of this
article.
6exf6 7 Qh5+
7 c3 was analyzed in Kaissiber 30 [4]. I gave the following analysis of the
innocent looking, but dangerous developing move: 7...Be6 8 Ne2 d5 9 Nf4
Bf7 10 0-0 Qd7 11 Re1+ Be7
Blacks position is passive, but solid. There might follow 12 Nh5 0-0 13 Qf3
(intending Bf5) 13...Be6 14 Nf4 Bf7 15 h4 Rfe8 16 h5 Bf8 17 Bd2 Rxe1+ 18

Rxe1 Ne7 19 Re3 Rd8 20 Bc2 b6 21 Re1 Re8 22 a4 c6 23 b4 g6 24 Bd3 Bg7
25 b5 (25 h6 Bf8 26 b5 Nc8 +=) 25...c5 26 dxc5 bxc5 +=.
7g6 8 Bxg6+ hxg6 9 Qxh8 Qe7+
For the sacrificed exchange, Black enjoys a strong and lasting attack against
Whites king, while his own majesty often castles long and watches the battle
from a safe distance.
10 Be3
My Kaissiber article [4] had a laconic 10 Kd1 Bf5, comp. for the
alternatives. Once again this proves how different things can look in practice.
At this point three of Tscharotschkins opponents must have felt that Black
came too prepared for these complications. So they decided to opt out in
time by choosing one of the less probable replies:
(a) 10 Kd1 Bf5 11 Nf3 0-0-0 12 Re1 (12 Qh4 g5 13 Qg3 (13 Nxg5?? Re8!!
+ FM Thomassen Tscharotschkin, Benidorm 2008) 13...Qe4 14 Ne1 Nxd4 =
+ Navarro Lopez-Menchero Tscharotschkin, Benidorm 2008) 12...Qf7 13
Bh6 Qc4 14 Re2 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Qxd4+ 16 Ke1 =, analysis by
Tscharotschkin.
(b) 10 Kf1 and now
(b1) 10...Be6 11 Nf3 Nxd4 12 Bh6 Bc4+ 13 Kg1 Ne2+ 14 Kf1 0-0-0 15 b3
Ba6 16 c4 d5 17 Rd1 Kovermann Tscharotschkin, Schwbisch Gmnd
2009.
Tscharotschkin: Instead of 17Re8, the game continuation, 17Nc3!

would have been much better: 18 Re1 dxc4, intending 19 Rxe7 cxb3+ 20 Kg1
Bxe7 21 Qxd8+ Kxd8 22 axb3 Ne2+ 23 Kf1 Ng3+ 24 Kg1 Nxh1 25 Kxh1 -/
+.
(b2) 10Nxd4 11 Bh6 Bd7 12 Qxf8+ (12 Bxf8?? would be a small
inaccuracy, allowing a nice mate in five: 12...Bb5+ 13 c4 Bxc4+ 14 Ne2 Qxe2
+ 15 Kg1 Qf1+ 16 Rxf1 Ne2 mate! - MT) 12...Qxf8 13 Bxf8 Bb5+ 14 Ke1
Nxc2+ 15 Kd2 Nxa1 16 Bh6 Bf1 (or perhaps 16Kf7 17 Nf3 g5 18 h4 Rh8,
SB) 17 Ne2 Bxe2 18 Re1 Kf7 19 Rxe2 g5 20 h4 Kg6 21 hxg5 fxg5 22 Re6+
Kf7 23 Re1 Kg6 =, Tscharotschkin.
10...Nb4!
10...Nxd4? 11 000! +/- Lundeby - Jansson, Oslo 2007.
11 Kd2
My article focused on this move, preferred by the software, and gave another
idea short shrift: 11 0-0-0 Qe4! 12 Rd2 Qxg2 13 Bh6 Be6! =+ [4]. Michael
Tscharotschkin agrees that Kd2 is the normal move, but as it often happens
with human adversaries, two of them went astray:
(a) 11 0-0-0. MT: Looks good at first sight, but it has a drawback: 11...
Qe4!. The next moves are forced: 12 Rd2 Qxg2 13 Bh6 Be6 14 Qxf8+ Kd7
15 Qg7+ (the rook is taboo: 15 Qxa8?? Nxa2+ 16 Kb1 Qf1+ 17 Rd1 Qxd1+
18 Bc1 Qxc1 mate, MT) 15...Kc6
(a1) 16 b3 Qxh1 17 Qxg6 Rg8 18 Bg7 Qxh2 19 c3 (19 Qxf6?? Qxg1+ 20 Kb2
+ Walton Tscharotschkin, Calvia 2008) 19...Nd5 20 c4 Nf4 21 d5+ Kb6 22
Qg3 Qxg3 23 fxg3 Rxg7 24 dxe6 Nxe6 -/+, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(a2) 16 d5+ is the best move, but hard to find! (MT) 16...Bxd5 17 b3 Qxh1
18 Qxf6. The resulting situation seems critical for the assessment of 11 0-0-0.
A possible continuation is 18...Qxg1+ 19 Kb2 b6 20 Qc3+ Kb7 21 Qxb4 =+,
Tscharotschkin.
(b) 11 c3 Nc2+ 12 Kd2 Nxa1 13 Bh6 Be6 14 Qxf8+ Qxf8 15 Bxf8 Kxf8 16
Nf3 Nb3+ 17 axb3 Bxb3 = Cabello Rodriguez Tscharotschkin, Malaga
2008.
11...Bf5 12 g4!?
So far the players had followed my article [4]. The advance of the g-pawn is
an interesting novelty. After 12 Rc1, there might follow
(a) 12Nxa2 (! in my 2008 Kaissiber article [4]) 13 Re1 Qf7 14 Bg5+ Kd7
15 Qxf6 Qc4 16 Re3 Qxc2+ 17 Ke1 d5 18 f3 Qxg2 (in [4] I gave 18...Bd6 19
Re2 Qb1+ 20 Kf2 Nc1 21 Bxc1 Qxc1 22 g4 Be4 23 Qf7+ Kc6 24 fxe4 Rf8 25
Nf3 Qxh1 26 exd5+ Kb5 27 Qxf8 Bxf8 28 Re1 Qxe1+ 29 Kxe1 Kc4 =) 19
Re7+ Bxe7 20 Qxe7+ Kc6 21 Qc5+ Kd7 =, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b) However, in the diagrammed position, Michael Tscharotschkin isnt
satisfied with mere equality! MT: I prefer 12...0-0-0!?, because here Black
can still fight for a win!
(b1) 13 a3 Na2 14 Rd1 Qe4 15 Ne2 Qxc2+ 16 Ke1 Re8 17 Qxf6 Bg4 18 f3
Bd7 19 Qf4 (19 Kf2 Bh6 20 Bxh6 Rxe2+ 21 Kg3 Rxg2+ 22 Kf4 b6 +, MT)
19...Bb5 20 Rd2 Qb1+ 21 Rd1 Qxb2 22 Rd2 Qb1+ 23 Kf2 Qxh1 24 Rxa2
Qb1 25 Rd2 (25 Qf7 Qd3 +, MT) 25...d5 26 a4 Bd6 27 Qf7 Bxa4 28 Qxd5
(28 Nc3 Qb3 +, MT) 28...Bb5 +, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b2) Maybe 13 Ne2 (which MT also mentions, without analysis) is stronger.
Then 13Nxa2 14 Ng3 Nxc1 15 Nxf5 Nb3+!? can lead to an amusing
voyage of Whites king: 16 Kc3!? (16 cxb3, about =) 16gxf5 17 Kxb3 (the
point: White avoids a weakness in his pawn chain) 17Qe6+ 18 Kc3! (he has
to return: 18 Ka3? Qc4! -/+) with roughly equal chances. There is an even
more aggressive continuation, namely 13Qf7 (instead of 13Nxa2) 14
Ng3 Bd7.
By adding another pawn to his original sacrifice of an exchange, Black

achieves excellent play and full compensation: 15 a3 Bg7 16 Qh4 Rh8 17 Qf4
Nd5 18 Qf3 Bc6 19 Qe2 f5 20 c4 Nb6 (or 20...Nf6) 21 d5 Ba4 22 Qd3 Bxb2
23 Rb1 Bg7, with an unclear situation.
12Be4
Tscharotschkins comment 12...Bxc2? 13 Re1 seemed cryptic, but after
some pondering the software produced an explanation: 12...Bxc2 13 Re1 Be4
14 f3 0-0-0 15 Bh6 d5 16 Bxf8 Rxf8 17 Qh3 Nd3 18 fxe4 Nxe1 19 Ne2!! Qb4
+ 20 Kd1 dxe4 21 Rxe1 Qxb2 22 Nc3 Qa1+ 23 Ke2 Qb2+ 24 Kf1 f5 25 Qh6
+=.
13 f3 0-0-0! 14 Qh3
14 Bh6 Nxc2 15 Bxf8 Rxf8 16 Qh6, Tscharotschkin. Or 14 fxe4 Qxe4 15 Rc1
=+, SB.
14Nxc2?
A serious mistake. Correct was 14...Bxc2! 15 a3 Nd5 16 Kxc2 (16 Re1?! Ba4
17 Bh6 Qd7 18 g5 f5 19 Qf1 Bb5 20 Qf2 Bc4 21 Nh3 Qa4 22 Kc1 Bd3 23
Qd2 Qc6+ 24 Kd1 Qa4+ 25 Kc1 Nb4 26 Qd1 Na2+ 27 Kd2 Qxd4 28 Nf4 Bb5
+ 29 Kc2 Qxf4 +, MT) 16...Nxe3+, Black has a winning position: 17 Kb1
Nc4 18 Ka2 Qe6 19 Rd1 Ne3+ 20 d5 Nxd5 21 Ka1 Ne3 22 Rc1 Qb3 23 Rc3
Qd1+ 24 Ka2 Nd5 25 Rb3 Re8 26 g5+ f5 27 Qh8 a5 +, analysis by
Tscharotschkin.
At this point our main game Hernando Rodrigo Tscharotschkin,
Badalona 2008, loses its theoretical value. We give the rest in short
(comments by SB):
15 fxe4 Nxa1 16 Ne2? (16 g5+! f5 17 exf5? Qe4 -+, but instead 17 Ne2! Nc2
18 exf5 Qd7 19 Kxc2! is strong) 16...Nc2 17 Nc3 Nxe3 18 Qxe3 c6 19 d5 c5
20 h4 Bg7 21 h5 Rh8 22 Kc2 (better 22 Qf3!, to prevent the freeing move f6f5) 22...f5! = 23 gxf5 Bxc3 24 bxc3 gxf5 25 Kd3 Re8? (25...Qe5! 26 h6 b5
with a strong attack) 26 e5 dxe5 27 Kc4 Kb8 (27Qd7!) 28 h6 Qd7! +
29 h7 Qa4+? (29...b5+! 30 Kxc5 Rc8+ 31 Kb4 Qd6+ 32 Kxb5 Qxd5+ wins

the rook on h1) 30 Kd3 e4+ 31 Ke2 Qxa2+ 32 Kf1 (32 Qd2 =) 32...Qa6+?
(32...Qb1+ 33 Kg2 Qc2+ with an equal game) 33 Kg2? (33 Kf2 Qa2+ 34
Kg3!, White has winning chances) 33...Qg6+ 34 Qg3+ Qxg3+ 35 Kxg3 Rh8
36 Kf4 b5 37 Kxf5 e3 38 c4 e2 39 Kg6 bxc4 40 Re1 Kc7 41 Rxe2 Kd6 42
Rd2 -
White Declines the Sacrifice
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6 6 Be3
(a) 6 c3 e5 (here the analysis in [4] ended, SB) 7 Bg5 Be7 8 Bxf6 (8 Nxf6+
Bxf6 9 Qh5+ Kf8 and now either 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 = or 10 Nf3 exd4 11 Bxf6
Qxf6 12 0-0 dxc3 13 bxc3 g6 14 Qh6+ Qg7, and now White gambits a pawn,
but the position is equal) 8...Bxf6 9 d5 (9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Qh5+
g6 12 Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 Qd5 Qe7 14 0-0-0 (or 14 Qxb7 Rb8 15 Qd5 Bxc3+ 16
bxc3 Nf6 17 Qc6+ Kf8 18 f3 Rb6 19 Qa4 d5 20 Nh3 dxe4 21 fxe4 Qxe4+ 22
Qxe4 Nxe4 23 0-0+ Kg7 =) 14...0-0-0 =) 9...Nb8 (better than 9...Ne7 10 Qh5
+ Kf8 11 Nxf6 gxf6 12 Qf3 +=) 10 Nf3 0-0 11 0-0 Nd7 12 Qc2 Qe7 =,
analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b) 6 Ne2 e5 7 c3 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 d5 9 Bc2 Bd6 10 0-0 0-0 11 dxe5 Bxe5 12 f4
Bf6 +=, Tscharotschkin.
6g6
6...Nb4!? came into consideration: 7 Ne2 Nxd3+ 8 Qxd3 Nxe4 9 Qxe4 Qd7
10 d5 Qg4!; e.g., 11 Nf4 g5 12 f3 Qf5 13 Nh5 Qxe4 14 fxe4 Bg4 15 Bd4 Rg8
16 Ng3 Bg7 17 Bxg7 Rxg7 18 Kd2 e5 and Black is only slightly worse.
7 h4
7 Nxf6+ exf6 8 Ne2 d5 9 c3 += (cf. the first game, note 7 c3).
7...Nxe4 8 Bxe4 d5 9 Bf3 Be6 10 Ne2 Bg7 11 Qd2
Maybe 11 Nf4!? was more promising.
11...Qd7 12 b4 a5 (or 12Bg4 =) 13 b5 Nd8 14 Rb1
Both sides suffer from serious weaknesses, so it seems only fair to say that the
chances are balanced. The software suggests 14...Bg4 15 Bxg4 Qxg4 16 Kf1
Nf7, about equal (SB).
One game continued, not worse, but differently: 14...Nf7 15 c4 c6 16 bxc6
bxc6 17 c5 (17 cxd5 Bxd5 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 Qd3 0-0 20 h5 g5 21 0-0 Qg4!,
unclear; SB) 17...Bf5 18 Rb6 e5 19 Nc3 0-0 20 0-0 (1-0, 32) R. Pabalan
M. Tscharotschkin, Dubai Open 2009. Black could have secured a small
advantage by 20Rae8 =+.
Reviving the Old Main Line
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6
Lets assume for a moment that the exchange sacrifice (6 Nxf6+ exf6 7 Qh5+
etc.) is correct, and that the positional 7 c3 isnt a big threat to the soundness
of Blacks move-order either. What else could White try?
6 Nf3
Of course. Even if Blacks move-order-enterprise to avoid 4Nc6 5 d5 is
successful, we should never forget that there still remains the main line, which
the text move reaches by a transposition of moves. True, this was what Black
had intended, but if we look back to my two columns [1] and [2], Black ended
a bit too often in very, to put it mildly, adventurous positions:
6Bg4 7 h3 Bh5 8 Ng3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3
But fortunately Michael Tscharotschkin proposes something different even in
this case:
9d5!?
Tscharotschkin: I like this move more than the dangerous 9Nxd4 10.
Qxb7, when White seems to have a good position. Okay, I am not infallible.
But even if Id admit for a second that the positions after 9Nxd4 are a bit
risky for Black, we still have a small conflict, since I had claimed in [1] that
None of the alternatives is playable: (a) 9...d5 10 c3 g6 11 Bg5 Bg7 12 0-0-0
Qd7 13 h4 etc. Who is right?
10 c3
In an unpublished analysis [3], Dr. Ortwin Thal, my conqueror in the
correspondence game studied in [2], continues 10 Bb5 Qd7 11 Bg5 a6 12
Bxc6 Qxc6 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 14 Rhe1 Qa4 15 Kb1 +/- (O. Thal). Id prefer a
more chaotic approach: 11Qe6+!?
(a) 12 Kd1 Ne4! 13 Nxe4 dxe4 14 Qg4 Qd5 15 Bxc6+ bxc6 16 Re1 Qxd4+ 17
Kc1 Qxf2 18 Qxe4 0-0-0 19 a4 g6 20 Kb1 Qc5 21 h4 h6 22 Be3 Qd5 23 Qg4
+ e6 24 Bxa7 h5! (Black wishes to play Bb4, but the square is still watched by
the queen) 25 Qh3 Kb7 26 Bg1 Bb4! 27 c3 Bd6 with an unclear position.
(b) 12 Kf1 0-0-0 (now 12Ne4? 13 Nxe4 dxe4 14 Qg4 is premature) 13 Re1
Ne4! (or perhaps 13Qd7 14 Qc3 h6! 15 Bf4 e6) 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Qxe4
Nxd4 16 Qxe6+ Nxe6 17 Bc1 (17 Rxe6 Rd1+ 18 Re1 Rd5) 17Rd6 18 g3
g6; for example, 19 Kg2 Bg7 20 Bc4 Kd7 21 Re4 Nc5 22 Re2 Bf6 +=.
10e5
Tscharotschkins improvement upon my analysis in [1]. I checked my old
files to find out what I had missed.
11 Qe2 Qe7 12 Nf5
12 dxe5 Nxe5 13 Bc2 Nc4 14 Qxe7+ Bxe7 15 Nf5 Kf7 +=, Tscharotschkin.
12...Qe6 13 dxe5 Qxe5 14 Be3 g6!
Here my old analysis went 140-0-0, which in fact seems to be weaker.
15 Nh4
He can also try 15 f4 Qe6 16 Nd4 Nxd4 17 Bxd4 Qxe2+ 18 Kxe2 Bg7 19
Rhe1 0-0 +=, SB.
15Bg7 16 Nf3 Qe7 17 0-0-0 0-0-0 +=
So far Michael Tscharotschkins analysis. His assessment seems correct.
Id still say that 9Nxd4 offers attractive chances for Black as well, since
there are many traps waiting for White (for more details see [1] and [2]. But
the alternative 9d5 is more solid, apparently it is in fact objectively the
better move. Almost certainly it is the one line that is easier for Black to learn
and handle in OTB play.
Dont expect a quiet afternoon when you play Baloghs Defense. Your pawn
structures will be asymmetrical, now and then a white knight will land on the
square e6, upon which you better have a good reply at hand. But there are
many lines that will score heavily for Black, first and foremost the exchange
sacrifice. A defense that generates chaos on the board cannot be much worse
for the second player.
Sources:
[1] S. Bcker: Symmetry and Chaos: Baloghs Defense, ChessCafe.com,
September 2006.
[2] S. Bcker: The Roulade Game, ChessCafe.com, January 2007.
[3] O. Thal: Unpublished Analyses, 2005-2007, which I partly used for [2].
[4] S. Bcker: Vertrautes Chaos, in Kaissiber 30 (2008).
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.

Pachman's Verdict
The book The Easiest Sicilian (by Kolev and Nedev) covers a repertoire for
Black mainly based on the Sveshnikov Variation. Certainly the Sveshnikov is
a sound system, and it is relatively easy to understand, because the
characteristic pawn structure with black pawns on e5 and d6 and a hole on d5
limits the possibilities for both sides. But there are other systems in the
Sicilian Defense which are, in my opinion, easier to learn. One of my personal
favorites is 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6.

accessible:
Over the
Horizons
B33 Sicilian Defence
by Chess Informant
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
In spite of the strange appearance of Black's second move the set-up is more
reasonable than it looks. The concept was developed in the 1980s in
cooperation with Gerard Welling (Netherlands), we tested it in several games.
My article of six pages published in NIC Yearbook 18 (1990) called it the
Bcker-Welling Variation. A recent database reveals at least three earlier
games, played in 1967 by Werner Stephan (Germany). A key idea is the
continuation 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6, already played by
W. Stephan, when the move h7-h6 is more useful in respect to the coming
fight for square d5 than Sveshnikov's Nc6.
My Best Games
in the Sveshnikov
by Alexei Shirov
Starting Out:
Sicilian Sveshnikov
by Jon Cox
The pin Bg5 is avoided, and the Nb8 can often go directly to d7 instead of
taking the long way Nb8-c6-b8-d7, as in some lines of the Sveshnikov. Every
white knight that arrives at d5 will be mercilessly exchanged. Altogether
Black seems so much better prepared for the positional fight ahead that I used
to regard 2h6 as an improved version of the Sveshnikov. In a game
Schnthier Bcker, German Championship Bad Neuenahr 1984, White
played:
7 Be3
On the straightforward 7 Nd5 Nxd5 8 Qxd5 my article gave 8Be7! (8a6?
is premature because of 9 Bc4) 9 Be3 a6 10 Nc3 (or 10 Na7 Nd7) Nd7
followed by 11Nf6 (=) [1], but Werner Stephan's solution was by no means
worse: 8Nc6 9 Be3 a6 10 Nc3 Be6 11 Qd2 Rc8 = (0-1, 50) Bernhard
Schneider W. Stephan, Brakel 1967.

7a6 8 Na3 b5 9 Nd5 Nbd7 10 c4
"A defensive move. In view of Black's intended 10Bb7 White reinforces his
central predominance" [1].
10b4!
Black has successfully solved his opening problems. Instead of 11 Nxb4 Qa5
12 Nac2 Nxe4 [1] or 12Bb7 13 Be2 d5, with unclear play, or 11 Nc2 a5
with rough equality, Frank Schnthier now blundered and lost: 11 Qa4? Nxd5
12 cxd5 bx3 13 b4 Be7 -+ (0-1, 23).
Ludek Pachman (1924-2003) during the

German Championship, Bad Neuenahr 1984
Photo: archive St. Bcker
The Critical Reply 3 c3

The theoretician Ludek Pachman participated in the same German
championship at Bad Neuenahr 1984, where the game Schnthier Bcker
took place. In his book Halboffene Spiele, Pachman later commented on 2
h6 "(!?)": "A truly extravagant move with the aim of preparing for the
advance e7-e5. But after 3 Nc3, 3 c3 or 3 c4 this continuation shows itself to
be pointless and a weakening of Black's own position."
The reaction of Graham Burgess in 101 Chess Opening Surprises (1998) was
similar. On the last page of the book he listed "Bcker's 2h6" as one of
three ideas "that didn't quite justify a full page in the book" (Burgess), earning
only a question mark for their soundness or surprise value. Burgess said, "By
playing 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6, Black intends 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5,
when after 6 Ndb5 d6, he gets a Pelikan-type position where White cannot
play Bg5. However, cute though that idea is, if White plays some other third
move (e.g. 3 c3) it is hard to see Black justifying h6." [2]
A third voice in the choir, from Eric Schiller in Unorthodox Chess Openings,
New York 1998: "2h6. This early commitment by Black can be exploited
by White only by very careful strategic planning." [3]. Schiller [3] hovers
between 3 d4 ("the normal Sicilian strategy") and 3 c3 (a sensible

alternative"), but at least these theoreticians all agree that 3 c3 is one of the
hardest tests for Black's strategy.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6 3 c3
In analogy to 2a6, another move that hopes for 3 d4?! cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5
Nc3 e5!, the text move may be critical. Other alternatives were covered in
more detail in [1]. Here I give only some hints:
(a) 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 Nxc3, in Morra Gambit style, was tried in Marxen
Steffens, Schleswig-Holstein 1991 (0-1, 65).The sacrifice can be declined by
4Nf6 5 e5 Nd5, which transposes to our main line.
(b) 3 b3 d6 4 Bb5+ (4 Bb2 e5; or 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Nf6 6 Nc2 Nc6, about =,
Nagy Welling, Budapest 1984 [1]) 4Bd7 and Black has a solid position.
(c) 3 c4 g5 is a position that could also arise via Myers' Defense 1 c4 g5 (an
unusual topic on which Maurits Wind wrote in Kaissiber 34), but the position
of White's knight on f3 improves Black's chances: 4 d4 (4 h3 costs time, but
may be better) 4g4!? (the article [1] discusses 4Bg7 5 d5 d6) 5 Ng1 (both
5 Nh4 e5! or 5 Ne5? cxd4 6 Qxd4 Bg7 must be worse for White) 5cxd4 6
Qxd4 Nf6 7 Nc3 Nc6 8 Qd1 d6 9 Nge2 Bd7
The weaknesses in Black's pawn structure are compensated by his active

pieces. The chances are roughly even.
(d) 3 Nc3 d6! (in [1] I had recommended the hazardous 3g5?! 4 d4 g4?,
when Black is simply lost after 5 Ne5 cxd4 6 Bc4 e6 7 Qxd4) 4 d4 (4 Bb5+!?
Bd7; or 4 Bc4 e5) 4cxd4 5 Nxd4 (5 Qxd4 Bd7 comes into consideration)
5Nf6 transposes to a little-played, but interesting system.
The early h7-h6 restricts White's options, 6 Bc4 e5 7 Bb5+ at least gains a
tempo on a double-edged variation, and 6 a4 g6!? is an improved Dragon. In
the diagrammed position, White probably has nothing better than 6 Be3 a6!
(6e5 7 Bb5+ was good for White in Vuckovic Popovic, Zlatibor 2007,
and Navara Vokac, Pardubice 2002) 7 f3 (if 7 Qd2, the reply 7Ng4 is an
option, because g5 is not available to the bishop):
(d1) 7e6 8 Qd2 Nbd7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 g4 Bb7 11 h4 Rc8 (=, 41) Slter
Werner Stephan, Detmold 1966.
(d2) 7e5! 8 Nb3 Be6 9 Qd2 Nbd7 10 0-0-0, and we are entering a main line
of the Najdorf Variation, where the move h7-h6 is often played as a reaction
to White's g2-g4. It isn't obvious how White could profit from Black's slightly
unusual move-order. To claim that 2h6 were "easier to learn" than other
second moves, and then transpose to a line of the Najdorf Variation may be
considered as a contradiction. But you can't have everything. May it suffice to
say that after 2h6 few White players will be inclined to transpose to regular
main lines without a fight.
3Nf6
A reasonable response, strangely ignored in my article [1].
4 e5 Nd5 5 d4
Against the O'Kelly Variation of the Sicilian Defense, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6!?, the
analogous treatment 3 c3 Nf6 (3d5 is a major alternative) 4 e5 Nd5 5 d4 is
regarded as one of the critical lines. The database contains 150 games with the
latter position, and famous players like Barcza, Prins, Stahlberg, Kholmov,
Kortchnoi, Gurgenidze and Ikonnikov were fighting for Black's cause. Here
isn't the place to discuss this situation, and the practical results have not been
overwhelming. But it isn't obvious (at least to me) that a7-a6 must be more
useful than the move h7-h6 in the diagrammed situation. While the a6-version
has been a regular guest on the boards, there is not a single game in the
database with the analogous h7-h6 position. Instead of the text move, 5 Bc4
Nb6 6 Bb3 d5 7 exd6 Qxd6! (7exd6 8 d4 c4 9 Bc2 Be6 10 d5! is a
promising gambit; e.g., 10Bxd5 11 a4 a5 12 0-0 Be7 13 Nd4 0-0 14 Bxh6)
gives Black an acceptable position again the analogous case with the move
a6 is less attractive (8 d4!).
5cxd4 6 cxd4
(a) In the O'Kelly Variation (a6 instead of h6), 6 Bc4! Nb6 7 Bb3 is a critical
continuation; for example, 6Nb6 7 Bb3 dxc3? 8 Ng5 or 8 Nxc3 followed by
Ne4 and Bg5 with a strong attack. Because of the move h6, in our case the
gambit may be "acceptable" for Black. Another treatment that only works in
the h6-version is 6 Bc4 e6!? 7 Bxd5 exd5 8 Qxd4 Nc6! 9 Qxd5 d6
Both 10 Bf4 Qb6! 11 Qb3 Qa6 (11dxe5!?) 12 exd6 Be6 13 Qa3 Qc4 14
Be3 Qd3 15 Nbd2 Bxd6 16 Qa4 0-0 17 Rd1 Qg6 18 0-0 Rad8 and 10 exd6
Bxd6 11 Qe4+ Be6 give Black excellent compensation for the sacrificed
pawn. Note that in the last case, if Black had the pawn on a6 instead of h6, 12
Ng5 +/- would be a clear refutation.
(b) 6 Qxd4 e6 deserves attention: 7 Be2 (7 Bc4 Nc6 8 Qe4 d6 0-0 dxe5 10
Nxe5 Qc7, or 9 exd6 Nf6 =) 7Nc6 8 Qe4 d6 9 0-0 dxe5 10 Nxe5
10Bd6 (10Qc7 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 c4 Nf6 13 Bf4 Nxe4 14 Bxc7 Bd6 15

Bxd6 Nxd6 16 c5 +=; or perhaps 10Nxe5 11 Qxe5 Qd6) 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12
c4 Ne7 13 Bf4 Bxf4 14 Qxf4 Qa5 and Black has almost equalized. In
comparison to the O'Kelly, the advantages of the move h7-h6 are less visible
in the 6 Qxd4 e6 line, but wait: 7 Nbd2 Nc6 8 Qe4 f5 (or 8d6 9 Nc4 dxe5
10 Ncxe5 Bd6 Kranzl Holzke, Budapest 1991) 9 exf6 Qxf6!, and h7-h6 may
prepare a later g5, or at least it prevents Bg5.
6d6! 7 Nc3
7 Bc4 is a serious alternative that is perhaps more precise than the text move.
In situations with O'Kelly's move a6 it happened in eighteen games, but not a
single example is available for our case, where a6 is replaced by h6. After 7
e6 8 0-0 (8 Bxd5 exd5 is pointless) 8Nc6 9 Qe2 Be7 10 Nc3!? Nxc3 11
bxc3 d5 12 Bd3 Bd7, Black's king will stay in the center (+=). An active
solution such as 11dxe5 12 dxe5 Qc7, even if objectively riskier, would be
more to my taste.
7Be6!
Motivated by the additional h6, which prevents Ng5. The text move seems
flexible enough to guarantee sufficient counterplay, more in the spirit of an
Alekhine's Defense (the combined attack on e5) than of a Sicilian Defense.
8 Bd3 Nc6 9 0-0
There is nothing better: 9 Be4 dxe5, resp. 9 Be3 g5 10 exd6 Qxd6, about =.
9g5 10 Qe2
10 h3 is a bit slow: 10dxe5 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 dxe5 Bg7 13 Bb5+ Kf8 14
Qe2 Nxc3 15 bxc3 Rc8 16 Rb1 Rc5! unclear.
10g4 11 Nh4
The position is completely unclear. For example, 11...dxe5 12 dxe5 Bg7 13

Bf5 Nxc3 14 bxc3 Bxf5 15 Nxf5 Bxe5 16 Qxg4 Qc7 17 Ng7+ Kf8 18 Nf5
Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 Be5. White has some compensation for his sacrificed pawn.
Against 2h6, Ludek Pachman listed the same antidotes that are generally
recommended against O'Kelly's 2a6, namely 3 Nc3, 3 c3 and 3 c4. There is
nothing wrong with advice based on analogy, but when we look closer, both
a6 and h6 include a great number of hidden ideas. In fact, neither 3 Nc3 nor 3
c4 are too impressive. Those who are willing to explore 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6 may
find their own "easiest Sicilian." Pachman's verdict that h6 weakens Black's
position may be true, but to prove such a theoretical belief over the board,
White still has to make many strong moves. And maybe White should avoid
two of Ludek Pachman's own suggestions: 3 Nc3 and 3 c4.
Sources:
[1] S. Bcker: "The Bcker-Welling Variation 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6?!", in: NIC
Yearbook 18 (1990).
[2] G. Burgess: 101 Chess Opening Surprises, London 1998.
[3] E. Schiller: Unorthodox Chess Openings, New York 1998.

In the spirit of the holiday season, we are pleased to offer readers of

ChessBase Cafe the opportunity to purchase the Walnut Magnetic Chess
Set at a discount of $8.00 from suggested retail price. Just add the item
to your shopping cart and enter the coupon code "walnut8" (without the
quotes) to purchase this fine set at the amazingly low price of $16.95.
This offer expires December 31, 2009.

accessible:
Just a Game
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
I knew that it had to end, one day. We are living in a world of fugacity.
However, there are always a happy few which seem bigger than life. Angela
Merkel, for example. The Soviet Union. Or Garry Kasparov, a former World
Champion, remembered till today for the 10.3 gigabytes of analyses that he
had collected when he decided to step down. Data that is now probably
inhabiting a USB stick in a Norwegian laptop.
The Giants of Power Play

by Neil McDonald
Sorry, I digress. But even for the greatest the long stream of victories
suddenly comes to an end. Often caused by their own hubris. Finally it has
happened even to my former pet defence, in the bygone year, 2009. It was
defeated, adequately, at the end of a decade, like 1989, when the Berlin Wall
came down. No, this article does not cover a mere sub-variation of the Ruy
Lopez. But seriously, who could ever think that I might manage to lose a
game with the Mokele Mbembe, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4?
Revolutionize Your Chess

by Viktor Moskalenko

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Okay, I haven't played it very often in tournament games, only about ten
times. And I have already lost with the Mokele before, but that was a rapid
game, it doesn't count. Now let's watch the fateful encounter in the Kieler
Open, Germany, on a sunny day in August of 2009.
Winning Structures (DVD)
by Adrian Mikhalchishin
David Baramidze
David Baramidze (2527) Stefan Bcker (2345)

Kieler Open (7), Kiel 2009
Mokele Mbembe [B02]
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3
In several theoretical articles published on the Mokele, my main line used to
be 3 d4. That was only to confuse future opponents, of course. Unfortunately
David Baramidze hadn't read any of them. It may have saved him.
3Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 f4
When Bent Larsen wrote his article on the Halloween Gambit and the Mokele
Mbembe, he expressed his sympathy for the text move ("Ich habe keine
Ahnung," in: Kaissiber 28, 2007).
5g6 6 d5 Ng7
It is so unfair that Rybka assesses this position as +0.60, about as good for
White as the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez. Here White is not a full pawn
ahead! The placement of the knight on g7, which is slightly unusual, is only
temporary. Not to forget the practical problems which White is facing in the
Mokele, they are much larger than in the Marshall.
7 Nf3 d6 8 c4 e6?!
In home-analysis, a few days after the game, I found the reason for the defeat.
My bishop should have gone to g4: 8Bg4! 9 Be2 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7 11 Ng5
Bxe2 12 Qxe2 dxe5 13 fxe5. White's position is looking more active, but
that's only temporary: 13Be7 14 Nf3 0-0 15 Bf4 Re8 16 0-0 f6. Simplifying
the situation. With every exchange White's pieces advance further to Black's
king, which may look menacing. But these problems can be overcome: 17
Qd2 fxe5 18 Nxe5 Nf6 19 Rae1 exd5 20 Nxd5 Nxd5 21 cxd5 Nf5 22 g4 Nd6
23 Bh6 Bf8. Black is suffering from minor problems regarding his piece
coordination. Nothing serious, however: 24 Bg5 Be7 25 Bxe7 Rxe7 26 Qd3
a6 27 a4 Re8 28 Nxg6 Qd7. Black's remaining problems in the ending are
only temporary.
Oh, now I see that 29 Rf8+!! Rxf8 30 Ne7+ Kg7 31 Qd4+ Kf7 32 Qf4+ Kg7
33 Qg5+ Kf7 34 h3! +- wins by force. So it seems I still have some important
work to do over the holidays. and will keep this article shorter than originally
intended.
9 Nc3 Be7 10 Be2 0-0 11 0-0 c6?
After 11exd5 White's advantage would have been smaller (+/-). After too
many blitz games, my c7-c6 in this set-up almost comes automatic. Similar
situations must have occurred in dozens of my online blitz and bullet games.
None of my opponents found the punishment, which is here demonstrated by
the young German GM. It seems that playing against people with names like
xyHAzard123 doesn't exactly help to deepen your opening knowledge.
12 c5!
Suddenly I recognized that my apparently superior strategy has gone terribly

wrong.
12exd5 13 cxd6 Bxd6 14 exd6 Qxd6 15 Ne4!
An elegant solution. Black's last hope was to advance his pawns and perhaps
harass White's Nc3. This piece now finds a better place on g3. Over the next
moves, Baramidze precisely crushes Black's position (mine!).
15Qe7 16 Ng3 f6
To hold out longer with two pawns against a piece, 16Re8 was the better
choice.
17 Kh1 Be6? 18 Bd3 Bf7 19 f5 Nd7 20 Qc2
20g5 21 Nxg5! fxg5 22 f6 Nxf6 23 Bxg5 Be6 24 Bxh7+ Kh8 25 Bg6 1-0
Thus I lost with the Mokele Mbembe to a GM. But I'll never lose with it
against an International Master.

Back to the Ice Age: Myers' Defense
Over the
Horizons
In 2006, I discussed defenses involving an early g7-g5: Myers' Defense 1 c4

g5 and a related set-up against Rti's Opening, 1 Nf3 h6 followed by g5. The
coarse advance of Black's g-pawn still belongs to the stepchildren of theory,
in spite of the valuable games and analyses by the American theoretician
Hugh Myers (1930-2008). The ironic expression "Ice Age Openings," used
in my two earlier columns [1] and [2], reflects the negative attitude of the
majority. Lately Maurits Wind has studied the concept in two detailed
articles (fifteen resp. ten pages long) in Kaissiber ([3], [4]) and found that
both systems are playable. Instead of the original lines, however, in Wind's
opinion deferred versions are often more flexible and lead to better results.
One of these lines, 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 d6 3 Nf3 g5!?, was introduced by him in
1978.

accessible:
Play the Ponziani

by Dave Taylor
& Keith Hayward
Stefan Bcker
Revolutionize Your Chess


the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Hugh Myers (right) playing against Curt Brasket

Source: Chess Review 1954
The next game allows me to return to the Myers Defence. It is not free of
errors, but who can avoid mistakes in an unfamiliar position. Concerning the
recent flood of repertoire books advocating the Catalan Opening, or other
"closed" openings, often involving an early Nf3, unorthodox systems like
Myers' g7-g5 deserve a revival.
Nicolas Rousset (France) writes: "Your ChessCafe article 'The Impoliteness
of Ice Age Openings' in January 2006, about the Myers' Defense, made a
great impression on me. After a lot of experimental blitz games on the
Internet, I finally tried the thing in a serious game over-the-board. It was
played between two modestly rated players, but I think it may interest you
probably you are not spammed every day with Myers' Defense related emails!"
Jonathan Etrog (2189) Nicolas Rousset (2132)
Puteaux (French Cup), (3) January 2010
Myers' Defense [A10]
Comments: Nicolas Rousset
1 c4 g5
My opponent was confronted with this move for the first time. He
remembered having read something about it, and that "there was a trap after 2
d4." He decided for a quiet approach.
Play the Alekhine

by Valentin Bogdanov
2 g3
An interesting strategy: now Black, who in the present case has no more
experience than White in the Myers' Defense, needs to find a harmonious
development of his pieces. (SB: Myers believed that an early g7-g5 is
justified, if White has played one of these three moves: c4, Nf3, or g3. Wind
prefers g7-g5 in "improved" situations, where White combines at least two of
the three moves, as illustrated by Hodgson's System: 1 c4 c5 2 Nf3 h6 3 d4
g5. While Wind's article [3] looks at lines including c4 and Nf3, after the text
move Black also cannot be worse. Critical was 2 d4 h6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 c5
with sharp complications, see [3].)
2...Bg7 3 Bg2 c5 4 Nc3
Here I recognized the threat Ne4, forking my pawns on c5 and g5!
4...h6
Kari Heinola, the hero of your article, decided to sacrificed a pawn, or maybe
he did not notice the threat: 4...Nc6 (Mazock Heinola, 25th Paul Keres
memorial 2000) 5 Ne4!.
(SB: It's wise to avoid the fork. The motif reminds me of Larsen Raizman,
Munich 1958: 1 f4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 b4, when Black didn't dare to play 3Nd5
either. In Kaissiber 26 (2007) Bent Larsen admitted that he has lost his former
belief in the correctness of the combination 3Nd5 4 Bb2 f6 5 f5, because of
5Nxb4. While Larsen's case is not entirely clear, 5 e3 Nxb4 6 a3 N4c6 7 d4
d5 8 c4 with some pressure, the fork 5 Ne4 in the diagram wins a pawn for no
real compensation.)
5 a3
Apparently new. 5 e4 led to a draw in Gaspariants S. Marder, Copenhagen
2004 (Politiken Cup).
5...Nc6 6 Rb1
6Qa5?
Not exactly preventing the b4-push, but the queen will prove to be wellplaced, making the development of the bishop c1 difficult. (SB: The text
move is a mistake and loses time, since b4 cannot be prevented. There are
solid alternatives: 6d6 [6a5] 7 d3 [or 7 b4 Bxc3 8 dxc3 Bf5] 7Qd7
intending b6 and Bb7; for example, 8 Qa4?! a6 9 Bd2 Rb8 10 h4 b5 11 cxb5
axb5 12 Nxb5 Nd4 =.)
7 Nf3 d6 8 h3
(SB: No mistake, but the advance of the b-pawn was possible and
advantageous: 8 Nd5 Bf5 [8e6 9 b4 Qd8 10 Nc3] 9 b4 +/-, and the queen
has to retreat to d8. The attempt 9cxb4? 10 axb4 Qa2 11 Rb3 Bc2 fails to
12 Rb2! Bxd1 13 Rxa2 Bb3 14 Ra3 Bxc4 15 Nc7+ +-.)
8f5
With the intention of 9Nf6.

(SB: To create the pawn duo f5 & g5 looks natural. In his column in The
Independent on Sunday, September 18, 1994, Michael Basman commented
the first moves of Franklin Basman, Sutton Open 1994, like a logical stepby-step execution of the first player: 1 c4?. "An immediate blunder." [] 1
g5!. "The complete refutation." [] 2 Nc3 h6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 c5 5 e3 Nc6 6
Nge2 d6 7 d3 f5!. "White's unambitious set-up lets me take the initiative." 8
a3 Nf6 9 Qc2 0-0 10 Rb1 e5 11 b4 f4!, etc. Nevertheless, in the present
game White would still have fine chances by means of 9 0-0 Nf6 10 b4! or the
immediate 9 b4 cxb4 10 axb4 Nxb4 11 0-0, when b7 is only one of many
weak spots in Black's camp. The main difference to Basman's game is the
dubious move 6...Qa5?!.)
9 e4? Nf6
(SB: 9Bxc3 10 dxc3 Nf6 came into consideration, to control the center.)
10 exf5
Or 10 Qc2 fxe4 11 Nxe4 0-0 =+.
10...Bxf5 11 d3
I had the feeling that Black was better, but how to continue? There were
several candidate moves, but I didn't have a clear plan. For his weak 9th move
my opponent had spent a lot of time, and now it wasn't easy to concentrate on
the game again. Moreover, a furious tactical phase began on the board next to
us, which added to my difficulties. But suddenly I saw a "not very positional
move":
11...d5!
Simply threatens ...d4 and ...dxc4.
12 Qb3
12 cxd5 Nxd5 13 Nd2 Nxc3 14 bxc3 Ne5 and Black is better. (SB: The
zwischenzug 14 Qh5+ Kf8 15 bxc3 Ne5 16 0-0 Bxd3 is still sufficient for a
draw; e.g., 17 f4 (17 Rxb7; 17 Ne4) 17Bxf1 18 fxe5 Bxg2 19 e6 Kg8 20
Qf7+ Kh7 21 Qf5+ with perpetual check. There is an aggressive alternative:
130-0-0!? 14 Bxd5 (14 Nxd5) Rxd5 15 Nxd5 Bxd3.
White has many ways to go wrong: 16 Ra1? Nd4 17 Ne3 Be2 -/+ or 16 Ne3
Nd4 17 b4 Qb5 with unpleasant threats. The correct reply 16 b4 cxb4 17 Qb3
Bxb1 18 Nxb1 bxa3+ 19 Bd2 leads to an unclear situation with chances for
both sides.)
12...0-0-0! 13 cxd5 Nxd5
White suffers from his weak point d3.
14 0-0 Qb6
The opening and early middlegame took a lot of time, now a mutual zeitnot
begins. I overlooked 14...Bxd3 15 Nxd5 c4 -/+.
15 Qxb6 Nxb6 16 Ne1 c4 17 g4
17Bxd3?
(SB: Gives the strong bishop for a weak knight. 17Bh7! 18 Be3 cxd3 would
have been much stronger, Black should win.)
18 Nxd3 cxd3 19 Rd1 Nc4 20 Bd5 Bxc3?
Better is 20...N4e5 -/+.
21 Bxc4 d2 (or 21...Bd4) 22 bxc3 dxc1Q 23 Rbxc1 Ne5 24 Bd5
24Rhf8
24Ng6! was more precise, with the better ending. After the text move
White holds:
25 c4 Ng6 26 Re1 Kc7 27 Rc3 Rf6 28 Rce3 Rdf8 29 Re6 b6 30 R1e2 Kd7
31 Bc6+ Kc7 32 Bd5 Kd7 33 Kf1 Rxe6 34 Bxe6+ Kd6 35 Bf5 Nf4 36 Rd2+
Kc5 37 Rd7 e6 38 Be4 Nxh3 39 f3 Kxc4 40 Rxa7 Rd8 41 Rc7+ -
Corrections
1. Sicilian Defense 2 Nf3 h6!?
The November 2009 column "Pachman's Verdict" covered 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6,
and here mainly the line 3 c3, which I had regarded as critical since 1990.
About the line 3 Nc3 d6! 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Nf6 my column only said:
"transposes to a little-played, but interesting system."
Missing was the information that there already existed a thread on www.
chesspub.com, where this idea is discussed, called "The Transporter Sicilian"
by TalJechin from Malm. Here you will also find additional material. In the
diagrammed position the continuation 6 Bc4 e5 7 Nf5! may be good for
White. My latest attempt in the said thread: 6a6! (instead of 6...e5). Then
on 7 f3 Black can play 7...Qc7, which wins a tempo on the Bc4 (an advantage
of postponing Nc6), followed by e6. Best may be 7 Be3, when Black has a
choice:
(a) 7...e5
(a1) 8 Nde2 Ng4 transposes to analysis by Mark Nieuweboer.
(a2) 8 Nf5 g6 9 Ng3 Be6 += is playable for Black, because Ng3 is less useful
than a Ne3.
(b) 7...Ng4 8 Qf3!? Ne5 9 Qe2 Nxc4 10 Qxc4 e6 11 0-0 b5 12 Qb3 Nd7
unclear.
(c) 7...Qc7 8 Bb3 e6 with interesting play.
2. Mokele Mbembe
The December 2009 column "Just a Game" had my whining about the loss of
a Mokele. 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 f4 g6 6 d5 Ng7 7 Nf3 d6 8
c4. So far Baramidze Bcker, Kiel 2009. Now I should have preferred 8
Bg4! 9 Be2 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7 11 Ng5 Bxe2 12 Qxe2 dxe5 13 fxe5 Be7 14 Nf3 00 15 Bf4 Re8 16 0-0 f6 17 Qd2 fxe5 18 Nxe5 Nf6 19 Rae1 exd5 20 Nxd5
Nxd5 21 cxd5 Nf5 22 g4 Nd6 23 Bh6 Bf8 24 Bg5 Be7 25 Bxe7 Rxe7 26 Qd3
a6 27 a4 Re8 28 Nxg6
Instead of 28Qd7 29 Rf8+! +-, Jason from the USA recommends "28...
Qg5! 29 Rxe8 Rxe8 30 Nf4 Qxg4+ and now black is okay." Many thanks!
Indeed, after 31 Kh1 Qf5 32 Qxf5 Nxf5 33 Ne6 Ne3 34 Nxc7 Rc8 35 Re1
Rxc7 the rook ending looks drawish. In the meantime I had found another
solution: 27Nf7 also seems to hold. Now we can start to search for a win
for Black.
Sources
[1] St. Bcker: "The Impoliteness of Ice Age Openings," ChessCafe January
2006
[2] St. Bcker: "Finding Your Own Approach in the Second Ice Age,"
ChessCafe November 2006
[3] M. Wind: "Mit g5 gegen Englisch: Myers' Idee und ihre Folgen," in:
Kaissiber 34 (2009)
[4] M. Wind: "Kampf der Systeme: Myers gegen Rti," in: Kaissiber 35
(2009)

Rook with a View, for Two Knights
Over the
Horizons
The adventures in the Max Lange Attack, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4
exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 e5!, are as fascinating today as they were a hundred years
ago. It is still possible to discover new ideas, and, according to analyses by
Lev Gutman, the first player seems to have a small advantage. Even by King's
Gambit standards, the Max Lange Attack has an excellent rate in creating
sharp positions. But the merits of the Max Lange Attack itself are only one
side of the coin. It has become almost impossible to recruit new followers for
this gambit. The reason is the well known Anti-Max-Lange 5Nxe4!, called
"a cautious offshoot of the powerful Max Lange Attack" by Tartakower in
Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, Vienna 1925. 6 Re1 d5 7 Bxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3
Qh5
Two Knights Defence

by Jan Pinski
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.

accessible:
Equally frustrating for White is 8Qa5, recommended 1911 by J. Mller in

Tidskrift fr Schack. In both variations, many attempts to find an advantage,
or a kind of initiative, have failed. The text move adds boredom to equality,
with the possible exchange of the queens after 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Nxd4 Qxd1.
However, fast simplification isn't the exclusive feature of the text variation. In
his book Play the Open Games as Black [4], John Emms stopped his analysis
of 8Qa5 only on move twenty-six, after reaching a king and pawn ending.
His attempt to raise some interest in the position was admirable: "As king and
pawn endings are the most complicated of all, I'll have to sit on the fence here
and say that all three results are still possible!" However, a closer analysis
shows that it is only another draw.
Two Knights Defence (CD)

by Reinhold Ripperger
9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Neg5
Play the Open Games

as Black
by John Emms
Two Knights, by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid/Germany
This liquidation, more common after 8Qa5, seems even less promising
under the present circumstances, with the black queen on h5. Thus, for many
decades the books have preferred 10 Bg5 Bd6 (in the tricky, but weaker line
10h6 11 Bf6 Qg6 12 Nh4 [1], [2] John Emms recommended 12Qg4 [4],
yet 13 Qd3! +/- Sedov Sulskis, Swidnica 1998, is a clear refutation) 11 Nxd6
+ (Chris Baker avoided this simplification and gave 11 c4 [2], but Emms's
reply 11h6 12 Nxd6+ cxd6 13 Bf4 Qc5 [4] made clear that it was no
improvement) 11cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 (Emms: "this is objectively level, even
though Black's practical results have been quite good" [4]) 13 c3 Rc8 [4]. This
is also John Nunn's main line in [3]. It is difficult to dispute his assessment
"=". The chances to win this position are close to zero: 14 b3 0-0 15 Nxd4
Nxd4 16 Qxd4 Qxd4 17 cxd4 d5 18 Rac1 Rxc1 19 Rxc1 Rc8 20 Rxc8+ Bxc8,
and even the most inventive players will agree to a draw.
100-0-0
Not a new position, its first appearance in print was in Neue Berliner
Schachzeitung 1867. Black returns the pawn (no big deal: there wasn't a way
to hold it).
11 Nxe6 fxe6
Now after the common 12 Rxe6 Bd6
"White is struggling to equalize", as John Emms writes [4]. John Nunn [3]
correctly assesses it as =+. Some examples follow:
(a) 13 Qd3 Nb4 14 Qe4 Na6! 15 b4 Nxb4 16 Rb1 Qd5 17 Bg5 Qxe4 18 Rxe4
Na2 and Black is better.
(b) 13 Qe2? d3! 14 cxd3?? Nd4 and wins.
(c) 13 Qe1 Rhf8 14 Qe4 (to avoid Rxf3) 14d3! -/+ Danneck Ptter,
Aachen 1982.
(d) The main line 13 Bd2 Rhe8 is no pleasure either. White has to exchange
his most active piece, thereby conceding the e-file: 14 Rxe8 Rxe8 15 h3 =+.
The last variation looks highly suspicious. If White cannot hold the e-file, it is
obviously a mistake to enter such a forcing liquidation, with White losing all
his active assets, while Black gains a clear superiority, often even a winning
attack on the e- and f-file or tactical threats against h2.
To play the Max Lange Attack, White's pressure on the e-file is a must. It was
the impression that 12 Rxe6 feels wrong (winning back the pawn, but losing
everything else), which led me to consider whether White has a better move.
In fact, we should be magnanimous and let the pawn stay on the board:
12 Bg5!?
The database provides four games in which this idea has been tested, though
not very successfully: White earned a meager half point. If we include two
similar games against 8Qa5 (starting 8Qa5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Neg5 0-0-0
11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 Bg5), we have six examples (+ 1, = 1, - 4). After introducing
the Bg5 move in the 8Qa5 variation, its inventor Dusan Cepon was
rewarded with the only full point (Cepon Potocnik, Slovenian
Championship 1991). In spite of these bad results in a handful of
unconvincing games, I believe that the bishop move is better than 12 Rxe6
and deserves attention.
12Re8
A natural reaction, since it protects the extra pawn. Black is willing to pay the
price: his rook is now in a passive position. There are four alternatives:
(a) 12Be7? 13 Bxe7 Nxe7 14 Rxe6 loses time.
(b) 12Bb4? 13 Rxe6 Rd5 14 Bd2 Bd6 can lead to the same position as in
variation "c", but there are additional options for White, such as 13 Bxd8!
Bxe1 14 Qxe1 Rxd8 15 Qxe6+ Kb8 16 Re1, and White controls the e-file, in
sharp contrast to the position after 12 Rxe6?!.
(c) 12Rd7. Since Black's rooks are no longer connected, White can now
take the pawn, without fearing the loss of the e-file: 13 Rxe6 Bd6 14 h3?! (to
avoid Bxh2+) 14Rf7? (14h6! 15 Bd2 Qf5, when 16 Qe2 Qxc2 fails and
16 Re2 g5! gives Black a significant advantage) 15 Bd2 Rhf8 16 Ng5 Qxd1+
17 Rxd1 Rxf2 18 Ne4 R2f5 19 Rxd6 cxd6 20 Nxd6+ Kc7 21 Nxf5 Rxf5 22 c3
dxc3 23 Bxc3 (=, 50) Sambuev (2498) Barbeau (2357), Montreal 2009. It
would have been better to retreat immediately: 14 Bh4 with an unclear
situation.
For example, 14Bxh2+ 15 Kxh2 g5 16 Nxg5 Qxh4+ 17 Nh3, with chances

for both sides.
(d) 12Rd5 has been played twice, but White erred early:
(d1) 13 Bf4? Bd6 (13...Qf5!) 14 Bxd6 Rxd6 15 Qd2 Rf8 -/+; (0-1, 31)
Guezennec (2152) Schuermans (2251), Charleroi 2006 (Open).
(d2) The second game was more interesting: 13 Qe2 e5 14 Qe4 Qf7 (14Rb5
15 Rab1 Qg6 should be fine for Black after the exchange of queens, a
strategy such as in the text becomes pointless) 15 Rad1 h6 16 Bh4 g5 17 Bg3
Bg7 18 a3 Rhd8 19 b4 a6
20 Rd3 R5d7 21 Rb3 Qd5 22 Qd3 Qb5 and Black slowly converted his
advantage (0-1, 61) Sunzhukhanov Makarkin (2147), Doroshkevich
Memorial 2008. In the diagrammed position, obviously the white rook
belongs on e4, to exert pressure on the pawn e5, and not the queen.
(d3) The correct solution must be the sacrifice 13 Rxe6!, when 13Rxg5?!
14 Nxg5 Qxg5 15 Re8+ Kd7 16 Qe2 offers White more than enough for the
small investment. The absolute control of the e-file after 16Qf6 (16Ne7?
17 Rb8 is too cooperative) 17 Re1, which is unknown after the old 12 Rxe6?!,
deserves another diagram:
17g6 is almost forced (17Qf5 18 Ra8), when White can either force a
draw (18 Re6; 18 Qg4+), or continue his attack (18 Ra8; 18 c3). Considering
the consequences of 13Rxg5?!, Black should certainly prefer 13Bd6! 14
Bh4 g5 (or 14Bxh2+ 15 Kxh2 g5 unclear) 15 Bg3 with roughly equal
chances.
What follows is a new move. I don't believe (after the text move 12Re8) in
13 Bf4? Bc5 (13Qd5!) 14 Be5 Rd8 15 Bxg7?, which led to a disaster in
Krogulski Toczek, Polanica Zdroj 1999: 15Rhg8 16 Be5 Bb4 17 Bg3 (17
Re4 Qg6 -+) 17Bxe1 18 Qxe1 Qf5 19 Qe2 e5 20 Nxe5 Nxe5 0-1.
13 Re4!
A rook with a view: on Black's pawns e6 and d4, and on the square h4 (Qd3
followed by Rh4 is an option). With the text move, White prepares to double
his heavy pieces: Re4, Qe2, maybe even Rae1, to increase the pressure against
Black's e-pawn. Hopefully, the attacked pawn will proceed to e5, nurtured by
Nc6, Bd6 and rooks behind the pawn. White's bishop g5 will often retreat to
g3. Of course, blockading the e5-pawn would only be a first step. If
everything goes according to plan, Black should remain passive, watching his
own center pawns. White's further plan usually involves an attack with b2-b4,
or there may be a chance for c2-c3 or h2-h4, disrupting Black's pawn
formation.
At first sight White's strategy seems illogical why ignore the hanging pawn
e6, but later try to win it, once it has become Black's best protected unit on the
board, or even in the whole tournament? Couldn't Black simply return the
pawn and get a good position? However, there is a big difference between 12
Rxe6?!, when White afterwards is forced onto the defensive, and the new idea
12 Bg5 Re8 13 Re4, to win back the pawn in better circumstances: on move
twelve White wasn't ready to conquer the e-file. After White has caught up in
development, to win the e-pawn with all his pieces active might allow him to
turn his attention to the next target: Black's important pawn on d4.
However, for the time being Black still possesses his extra pawn. It will
require concrete analysis to prove that White is fine. I have studied the
sacrifice since 2006 and believe that it is correct. But it would be pointless to
bury the idea under a hill of variations. A few sample lines will have to
suffice:
(a) 13Bd6 14 Bh4 Qd5 (an active queen, but also a target for an eventual c2c4) 15 Qe2 Rhf8 16 Bg3 Bxg3 17 hxg3 a6 18 a4 (18 c4 dxc3 19 bxc3 seems
premature) 18e5 19 Rd1 Re7 20 b4!, White has excellent play for the pawn.
(b) 13h6 14 Bh4 g5 15 Bg3 Bg7 16 Qe2 Qg6 17 Re1 h5 18 Qc4 and White
is better.
(c) 13Be7 is one of Black's best options. In my opinion, Black should avoid
the formation Bd6 plus pawn e5, which only adds to Black's problems. For
example, White might open the d-file by c2-c3, and in such a case the bishop
d6 would only hamper Black's counterplay along the d-file. 14 Bxe7 Rxe7 15
Qe2 (or 15 Qe1, about equal, while both 15 b4 Nxb4! or 15 Nxd4 Qxd1+ 16
Rxd1 Rd8 17 Rd3 Nb4 are less advisable) 15Qd5 16 b4 a6 (16Nxb4 17
Rxd4 Qc5 18 Rc4 Qa5 19 Rd1 with chances for both sides) 17 h3 Rf8 18 a4!
18Nxb4 19 Nxd4 (or 19 Rxd4), White has sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
The whole concept, controversial as it may be, has an additional advantage. It
can be played, without too many changes, also against the second main line
8Qa5. This fact had already been mentioned in the article, in the notes to 12
Bg5. The two existing games went as follows: 8Qa5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Neg5
0-0-0 11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 Bg5 Re8
(a) 13 c3? Bd6 (13dxc3) 14 cxd4 Rhf8 15 Bh4 e5 16 Qd3? Nxd4 -/+ (but 10, 32) Cepon Potocnik, Slovenian Championship 1991.
(b) 13 Bh4 e5 14 a3 Bd6 15 Re4 (the "rook with a view"!) 15h6 16 Qd3
Qa6 17 Qxa6 bxa6 18 Rae1 Rhf8 19 Bg3 Re7, Marek Kawulok (1567)
Magdalena Miturova (1535), Kuncice pod Onrejnikem 2006 (Open). A good
game, unfortunately White spoiled it with 20 Nxe5? (20 b4! Kb7 21 Nd2 =)
20Rfe8 21 f4 g5!, which cost him the exchange (0-1, 27).
(c) 13 Re4! is more flexible and therefore preferable (to 13 Bh4, above).
Often the play will be similar as in the 8Qh5 version. One difference should
be noted, though. In case of 13Be7, White can reply 14 Bxe7 Rxe7 15
Nxd4, without fearing the exchange Qh5xd1. But again I'd prefer 15 Qe2!, to
exploit the strength of White's rook on e4.
Sources
[1] M. Euwe: Theorie der Schach-Erffnungen, Hamburg 1989 (3rd ed.)
[2] Chr. Baker: A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire, London 1998
[3] J. Nunn et al: Nunn's Chess Openings, London 1999
[4] J. Emms: Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000

The Hippopotamus, a Universal Defense

There are defensive set-ups that can be played against more than one first
move. For example, the King's Indian is just as good against 1 c4 or 1 Nf3, as
it is against 1 d4. But there is still 1 e4, so even the most enthusiastic King's
Indian adherent needs at least a second defense in his repertoire. One of the
few truly universal defenses is the Hippopotamus. When Spassky used it
twice in his first world championship match against Petrosian (earning two
half points), the system was still considered unorthodox.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker

accessible:
To be fair, the dubious image was based on some bad experiences from
master play. One of the model games illustrates the dangers of a wellprepared advance f4-f5:
Steinitz Blackburne
London 1863 (Match)
Hippopotamus Defense [B00]
Hippopotamus Rises
by Andrew Martin
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bd3 e6 4 Nc3 g6 5 Be3 Bg7 6 Qd2 d6 7 Nge2 Nd7 8 0-0

Ne7 9 f4 0-0
The Hippo (DVD)

by Andrew Martin

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
In another Hippo game, Janowsky Delmar, Cambridge Springs 1904,

Tarrasch would later formulate the biting comment: "Black has constructed a
very symmetrical position: on the queenside he stands just as bad as on the
kingside."
10 f5! exf5 11 exf5 Nf6 12 Bh6 Qd7 13 Ng3 Rae8 14 Qg5 Bxh6 15 Qxh6
Kh8 16 Nce2 Nfg8 17 Qh4 Qd8 18 Nf4 Nd5 19 Qxd8 Rxd8 20 Rae1 Nxf4 21
Rxf4 g5 22 Rf2 f6 23 Rfe2 Bd5 24 c4 Bf7 25 d5 Rfe8 26 Kf2 Re5 27 b3 h5
28 Rxe5 dxe5 29 Ne4 Kg7 30 Nc3 c6 31 Be4 cxd5 32 Nxd5 Bxd5 33 cxd5
Ne7 34 Rd1 Nc8 35 Rc1 Nd6 36 Rc7+ Kf8 37 Bd3 e4 38 Bc4 Nxf5 39 Rxa7
e3+ 40 Ke2 Re8 41 Rh7 Nd4+ 42 Kd3 Kg8 43 Re7 Rxe7 44 d6+ Rf7 45
Kxd4 Kf8 46 Kd5 Ke8 47 Kc6 Kd8 48 Kxb6 f5 49 a4 Rf6 50 Kc6 f4 51 a5
Kc8 52 a6 Kb8 53 b4 Rf8 54 d7 Rf6+ 55 Kd5 Kc7 56 d8Q+ Kxd8 57 a7 1-0
Hippopotamus players have to choose their move order carefully, to avoid
such disasters. It depends on their personal repertoire as to whether they begin
with a King's Fianchetto or 1b6 or something else. To delay castling can
help a lot, Bernd Feustel in his Hippos rarely castled before move twelve. Or
Black can prepare the reaction f7-f5 against White's f4.
Tiger's Modern
by Tiger Hillarp Persson
"Hippopotamus Defense"
(c) 1997 by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski
After more than 150 years of Hippopotamus practice, by Mongredien,

Blackburne and many others, the Hippopotamus Defense is more or less
accepted today. In 2005, grandmaster Tiger Hillarp Persson from Sweden
wrote [4]: "The Hippo lies low in the water. It looks almost ridiculously
passive and many theoreticians consider the Hippo to be a peaceful, almost
meek animal. But nothing could be further from the truth. On closer scrutiny
the animal, the position, and the statistics look entirely different. The Hippo is
a fierce animal; ready to crush anyone who gets too close."
The next example is a fine game by Germany's leading expert of this defense,
Bernd Feustel. His book [1] was a milestone for Hippopotamus players.
Unorthodox games, presented in an unusual way (unfortunately it was never
translated from the German language).
Lothar Arnold Bernd Feustel
Homburg/Saar 1980
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Nf3 Nd7 5 Be2 a6 6 a4 e6 7 Be3 Ne7 8 Qd2 h6
9 a5
The example shows that Black has to remain flexible. Not always does the
full Hippo set-up appear on the board. White has prevented the fianchetto of
the bishop c8. For such a case Feustel has prepared a sharp reaction:
9f5!
Consequently, Black focuses his play on the kingside.
10 0-0 Nf6 11 exf5 Nxf5 12 Bc4 0-0
Black is putting his hopes on the f-file.
13 Rfe1 Kh7 14 Bf4 Nh5
Indirectly defending the e-pawn (15 Bxe6? Bxe6 16 Rxe6 Nxf4).
15 Bg3 g5
15Qf6 16 Ne4 Qe7 also came into consideration (but not 16Qf7? 17
Nexg5+ winning the queen). In recent years, g6-g5 has become quite popular
in the Hippopotamus as a regular ingredient in the system. Here the advance
serves a more concrete purpose.
16 Bxe6
Alternatives include 16 Qd3 Qf6 17 d5 e5 18 Ne4 Qg6 and 16 h3 Nfxg3 17
fxg3 d5. The following complications do not clearly favour either side. The
Hippopotamus often begins slowly, but when the forces come into contact, the
tactical battle can even be "sharper" than in standard openings, because none
of the pieces have left the board!
16Bxe6 17 Rxe6 g4 18 Ne1 Bxd4 19 Ne2
Or 19 Re4 c5 20 Nd3 Qd7 21 Nd5 Rae8 with equal chances.
19Ba7 20 Nd3 Qd7 21 Re4
21 Nef4 may have been better: 21Nhg7 22 Re2 Qf7 23 Rae1 Rae8 24 Rxe8,
about =-.
21Nf6 22 Rb4 b5 23 axb6 Bxb6 24 Bf4?
Wastes time, 24 Nc3 was preferable.
24a5 25 Rba4 Rae8
26 Ng3?
Apparently, White feels that the black squares around his king need to be
protected, but the text move makes the situation even worse. 26 Nc3 was
necessary.
26Nxg3 27 hxg3
Or 27 Bxg3 Ne4 28 Qd1 Qf5 and White is in trouble.
27Ne4 28 Qd1 Qg7? 29 Kf1?
Overlooks 29 Be3 =, thereby returning the favor: one move ago Black could
have won by 28Rxf4 29 gxf4 g3!.
29Rf5 30 Qc1? Rh5 -+ 31 Kg1 Nxf2 32 Nxf2 Re2 33 Qf1 Bxf2+ 34 Qxf2
Rxf2 35 Kxf2 Qxb2 0-1
Maurits Wind, member of the editorial staff of Kaissiber and an experienced
1b6 player, kindly contributes a recent attractive tournament game of his
own. The Hippopotamus Defense can lead to all kind of pawn formations.
Here you have an example that includes the advance d4-d5 from White, which
allows his opponent to conquer the black squares by means of 11g5!, with
drastic consequences for the white king.
Frank Schellmann (2141) Maurits Wind
Bad Wrishofen (8), 2010
Comments by Maurits Wind
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bd3 e6 4 Nf3 d6 5 0-0 Nd7 6 c4 g6 7 Nc3 Bg7 8 Be3
Ne7 9 Rc1 h6
The Hippopotamus Defense served me very well in this tournament. I played

it in all four of my games with the black pieces. Invariably I obtained decent
positions in the opening, and managed to utilize the strength and flexibility of
the system to outplay my opponents in the early middlegame.
My opponent is an experienced blind player. He had prepared the opening
together with the FIDE master who accompanied the team of blind/poorsighted players. In a previous round (no. 4) I had reached the same position
against another poor-sighted player, Manfred Pinnow (Elo 1925), and won
easily: 9...a6 10 Qe2 h6 11 a3 0-0 12 Nd2?! Nc6! 13 d5 Nd4 14 Qd1 c5 15
Nb3 e5 16 f4 Nxb3 17 Qxb3 exf4 18 Rxf4 Bc8 (with an ideal Benoni position
for black) 19 Ne2? Rb8 20 Ng3 Ne5 21 Be2 Bd7 22 Qc2 h5! (a strong multipurpose move) 23 Rff1 b5 24 Bxh5 (desperation) 24...gxh5 25 Nxh5 Ng4 26
Nxg7 Nxe3 27 Qc3 Qg5 28 Rf2 b4 29 axb4 cxb4 30 Qd4 Ng4 0-1.
10 a3 0-0 11 b4 g5
A good move. Black intends to follow up with ...Ng6, Qe7 and later ...c5 to
obtain the useful square e5 for his pieces.
12 d5
The response 12 h4 had to be taken into account. Here it is harmless. After
12...g4 13 Ne1 h5 followed by ...Ng6 and ...c5, Black is okay.

12...Ng6 13 Nd4 Qe7 14 Re1 Nde5 15 Bf1 c5
I considered the alternative 15...a5 for some time. If I can provoke b5? or
bxa5?, Black is fine. Also, Qb3? to defend the a-file would allow 16...Ng4!.
However, White can probably ignore Black's play on the a-file. The text move
is more appropriate.
16 dxc6 Nxc6
Black has obtained a perfectly acceptable Marczy position.
17 Ncb5 Rfd8
Black can also defend the weak pawn on d6 with Nce5!? or Be5. But it is
more flexible to do so with in the rook f8, which is currently unemployed.
Sometimes it supports the advance ...f5, but here with the queen on e7 and a
white rook on e1 this is not realistic.
18 f3 Be5
Now this move is appropriate. Black is ready to start an initiative on the

kingside,
19 Nxc6 Bxc6 20 Nd4 Bb7 21 Qb3 Qf6 22 Rcd1 h5!
Okay, there we go!
23 Nb5
With the potential threat Nxa7, Rxa7, Bxb6. This would yield him rook and
two passed pawns for two pieces. On the other hand, with Be3 absent black's
kingside initiative would increase significantly in momentum. Hence, I
decided to ignore White's "threat."
23...g4 24 Bd4
24Bxh2+!
I played the bishop sacrifice after only two minutes of consideration. Was that
foolish? I don't know. It seems to me that 24...Bxh2 is clearly the move.
Furthermore there are no good alternatives. White is threatening to swap

bishops, which would kill black's initiative. And after 24...gxf3 white can
reply 25 Qxf3 with equality. I can also proudly say that Rybka approves of
my move!
25 Kxh2 Qh4+ 26 Kg1 g3 27 Bd3 Nf4 28 Re2
Here I started to ponder the position and to reflect on what I had done. Did I
have a winning attack? Or was I simply a piece down? I didn't know. It
seemed to me that the bishop on d4 is essential to holding White's position
together. Remove it, and I can mate the white king. So...
28...d5
Threatening to win with ...dxe4 and Rxd4, hence forcing White's hand.
Another strong possibility was the direct attack 28...e5 29 Be3 Qh2+ 30 Kf1
Qh1+ 31 Bg1 h4, followed by ...h3. White is then in serious difficulties.
29 cxd5 exd5
As Rybka demonstrates, Black could have played a beautiful second piece
sacrifice here: 29...Bxd5! 30 exd5 Rxd5. Because of the threat ...Rxd4 (or first
Rad8), White must give his queen with 31 Qxd5 exd5. In the final position,
Black's attack continues unrelentingly (-+).
30 e5 Ba6
With the plan ...Ne6 to remove the bishop from d4. For example, 31 a4? fails
to 31...Bxb5 32 Bxb5 a6 33 Bd3 Ne6, regaining the piece with clear
advantage.
31 Kf1!
White wisely vacates square g1 for the bishop on d4.
31...Rac8?!
Bringing in the last reserves, with new threats. However analysis shows that
the option 31...Qh1+ 32 Bg1 h4 would in fact have been stronger. For
example, 33 Qc2 h3 34 gxh3 Qxf3+ 35 Ke1 Rac8 36 Qd2 d4 37 a4 Bb7 and
White has no defense against ...Rc3! (-+).
32 Ke1?
In this highly complex position, a bit short of time, without sight of the board,
White misses the best defense: 32 Bg1! Qh1 33 e6! fxe6 34 Qb2! and White
narrowly escapes with a draw.
32...Rc4!!
A crushing blow. Black threatens to win material in one of many ways. First,
Nb5 is under attack, but if it moves, Bd4 falls and this also happens after 33
a4 Bxb5.
33 Bxc4 dxc4
White is now a rook ahead, but he is bound to lose material after which Black
will still have a decisive attack.
34 Qe3
The key point of Black's combination is that 34 Qxc4? fails to 34...Bxb5! 35
Qxb5 Qh1+ 36 Kd2 Rxd4+ and the rook on d1 also falls to the black pieces.
34...Bxb5
Of course, Black ignores the rook on e2 for the moment. The knight on f4 is
important in the final attack.
35 e6
Desperation. White was facing too many threats like Nxe2, Nd3+, c3, Qh1+
and there is no real defense. Against 35 Bxb6!?, I had prepared the move 35...
Rd3!.
35...Nxe6
Conveniently protecting square g7 against counter-threats on the long
diagonal, as well as defending rook d8 and attacking the bishop on d4.
36 Kd2
Panicking. After 36 Red2, I had planned the fine reply 36...c3!, winning
directly.
36...c3+ 37 Kxc3 Bxe2 0-1
Black remains a piece and pawn up, while maintaining a crushing attack
against the White king. White resigned, with less than one minute remaining
on his clock.
Sources
[1] B. Feustel: Erffnungen abseits aller Theorie, Hollfeld 1982
[2] St. Bcker: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990
[3] N. Kostov: Hippopotamus Defense: 1b6!? approach, (Internet)
[4] T. Hillarp Persson: Tiger's Modern, Gothenburg 2005

Nimzowitsch and the Dutch Defense

Aron Nimzowitsch called the Dutch Defense "very modern" in Wiener
Schachzeitung 1913 [1]. In his harsh and long review of Tarrasch's new Die
moderne Schachpartie (1912), he gladly cherished many lines that his
"chosen arch-enemy" (their conflict had already begun in 1904 [3]) dared to
criticize. Siegbert Tarrasch had claimed that the Dutch Defense gave Black a
weak game right from the start ("Die hollndische Partie gibt dem
Nachziehenden von vornherein ein schwaches Spiel.").
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
But when Simon Alapin asked in WSZ 9-12 (1913) what Nimzowitsch had in
mind against the Staunton Gambit 1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3,
Nimzowitsch avoided a difficult discussion (a decade before O. H. Krause
found 4Nc6!) with the snippy hint (WSZ 15-18, 1913) that the Dutch can
also arise via 1 d4 e6 2 Nf3 f5. In Copenhagen 1922, he would indeed choose
this classical Dutch treatment against E. Jacobsen. It didn't take long,
however, until Nimzowitsch came into contact with another, just as
controversial version of the Dutch Defense. In Copenhagen 1923, he faced the
surprising opening novelty:

accessible:
Dutch A80-A85
by Boris Schipkov
Aaron Nimzowitsch Jrgen Mller

Copenhagen 1923
Dutch Defense [A81]
1 d4 f5 2 c4 Nf6 3 Nc3 d6 4 Nf3 Nc6!
Killer Dutch
by Simon Williams

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/2np1n2/5p2/2PP4/
2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w kq - 0 5"]
The new idea, developed by the Danish player and theoretician Orla Hermann
Krause. "Obviously Black intends to play e7-e5," writes Nimzowitsch, adding
that here a preparation of the advance by means of Qe7 isn't necessary (his
article [2] had started looking at 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2 c5 3 d3, followed by f4, since
in A. N.'s view the Krause Dutch is a kind of "Chigorin Reversed"),
confirmed by the short variation 5 g3 e5! 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 Qxd8+ Kxd8. In the
resulting position, Nimzowitsch doesn't see an advantage for White.
5 Bf4 h6 6 h4 Ng4
Nimzowitsch [2]: "All this according to Dr. Krause. Willy-nilly now I had to
play:"
7 d5
Starting Out:
The Dutch Defense
by Neil McDonald
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1p1/2np3p/3P1p2/2P2BnP/
2N2N2/PP2PPP1/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
The "critical position," says Nimzowitsch [2]. However, after Mller's reply
7Nce5? he could have achieved a significant advantage: 8 e4 fxe4 9 Nxe5
dxe5 10 Bg3, analysis by Nimzowitsch [2]. In the game he lost his advantage
by exchanging the bishop: 8 Bxe5 dxe5 9 e4 e6 10 Nh2, but won nevertheless
(1-0, 49).
Orla Hermann Krause (1867-1935)
Here Nimzowitsch's article [2] abruptly jumps into a correspondence game

Nimzowitsch Krause, also from the position above. He doesn't say so, but
it seems probable that the theoretician Dr. Krause was eager to demonstrate
the correctness of his idea and informed the winner of the debut game about
7e5!. So let's follow the improved course, in another duel:
Aaron Nimzowitsch Orla Hermann Krause
Correspondence 1923
Dutch Defense [A81]
7e5!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np3p/3Ppp2/2P2BnP/
2N2N2/PP2PPP1/R2QKB1R w KQkq e6 0 8"]
A significant improvement upon Mller's move. "Much stronger," admits

Nimzowitsch [2]. He explains why the pawn sacrifice is "playable, even
absolutely correct": 8 dxc6 exf4 9 cxb7 Bxb7 10 Qd4 Qd7!, for example:
(a) 11 Qxf4 Be7 followed by Bf6 and a "formidable set-up," Nimzowitsch [2].
(b) 11 Rd1 (11 0-0-0 "leaves f2 unprotected" [2]) 11a6 12 Rh3 0-0-0,
"already threatening Be7, since Qxg7 would fail to Nxf2 Kxf2 Bh4+ followed
by Qxg7," Nimzowitsch [2].
8 dxe6 Bxe6 9 g3!
According to Nimzowitsch [2] this "extraordinarily interesting pawn
sacrifice" has its point in the strange bishop manoeuvre Bf1-h3-g2 in moves
eleven and twelve. Altogether the chances are roughly balanced, and if we
check the further game with a computer, the next moves are not entirely
forced. But to retain some of the spirit of the old magazine, let's just repeat
Nimzo's exclamation marks:
9Bxc4 10 Nd4 Qd7 11 Bh3!! g6 12 Bg2!!
[FEN "r3kb1r/pppq4/2np2pp/5p2/2bN1BnP/
2N3P1/PP2PPB1/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 12"]
Forcing g7-g6 is essential, says Nimzowitsch, since after

12d5 13 Nxc6 bxc6 14 b3
the continuation 14Bb4 15 Qd4! attacking Rh8 (thanks to the weakening
g7-g6) would lose a piece, says Nimzowitsch. Which for the software
translates to "150-0-0 16 bxc4 c5 17 Qd3 d4 (winning back the piece,
but) 18 0-0 dxc3 19 Qf3! c6 20 a3 Ba5 21 Rab1 with a mating attack.
14Ba6 15 Rac1 Bc5! 16 0-0 g5! 17 Nxd5!
[FEN "r3k2r/p1pq4/b1p4p/2bN1pp1/5BnP/
1P4P1/P3PPB1/2RQ1RK1 b kq - 0 17"]
17gxf4 18 Rxc5 0-0-0!! 19 Rxc6 Bb7 20 Qc2

20 Rc5! secures an advantage.
20Bxc6 21 Qxc6 Qxc6 22 Ne7+ Kb7 23 Nxc6 Rd2 24 gxf4 Kb6 25 a4
Rxe2 26 b4!
So far the source [2]. The rest of the correspondence game is unknown.
Nimzowitsch's evaluation "approximately equal" seems to be correct. A nice

game, but the theoretical value should not be overestimated. In the last
diagram, for example, Black has the stronger 12Nd8! (an observation of
mine in [5]) which consolidates an extra pawn. One move earlier 11g5!
(instead of 11g6) 12 Bxg4 fxg4 13 hxg5 was a strong alternative, though
overlooked in my earlier article [5], due to the in-between move 13Bg7!.
And there are further good options for Black in moves 10-12.
In the Nordic master tournament Copenhagen 1924 the two Danish players
had another opportunity to test the original set-up. Knowing his opponent's
plan, Nimzowitsch moved his bishop even earlier to the square f4, to prevent
the advance e7-e5:
Aron Nimzowitsch Orla Hermann Krause
Copenhagen 1924
Dutch Defense [A81]
1 d4 f5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bf4 d6
"I believe that here Black can well transpose to the usual treatment e6, b6,
Bb7," remarks Nimzowitsch, hitting the nail on the head. In almost every line
of the Dutch Defense a bishop is miserably placed on f4. Only in the Krause
Variation the bishop f4 makes some sense, since Black's set-up greatly
depends from the success or failure of the advance e7-e5.
4 e3 h6 5 h4 Nc6 6 d5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1p1/2np1n1p/3P1p2/5B1P/
4PN2/PPP2PP1/RN1QKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6e5!?
According to [2], under these circumstances the sacrifice "may not be quite
correct." White's move-order is too unusual anyway to have much theoretical
relevance. However, it is interesting to compare the move with other cases of
Krause's e7-e5 motif.
7 dxc6 exf4 8 Bb5 b6
! by [2]. But Nimzowitsch doesn't give the precise refutation of Krause's later
idea 8Kf7. Neither 9 exf4 (Krause) nor 9 0-0 (Nimzowitsch [2]) nor 9 Qd4
(Nimzowitsch in Die Praxis meines Systems) really works. The computer
suggests the convincing 9 Nc3! fxe3 10 Ne5+ Kg8 11 Bc4+ Kh7 12 Nf7 with
the strong threat of 13 Ng5+! (+/-).
9 exf4 d5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/p1p3p1/1pP2n1p/1B1p1p2/5P1P/
5N2/PPP2PP1/RN1QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
Black has no real compensation. Considering White's extra pawn on the

kingside, the best continuation now would have been 10 Qe2+ followed by
Ne5 and 0-0-0. Instead he chose to castle short, when his doubled f-pawn
doesn't seem so useful: 10 0-0? Bc5 11 g3 Ne4 12 Kg2. After the natural 12
0-0 Black would still have a reasonable position. But 12g5? 13 Ne5 0-0 14
hxg5 hxg5 15 Qh5 +- was unnecessarily cooperative (1-0, 28).
This game didn't diminish Nimzowitsch's respect for Krause's system. From
Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten [2]: "We dare to predict that the treatment
of the Dutch Defense launched by Krause (and developed by me) will replace
the common line (f5 and e6) shortly." Which may be a surprise for the
readers. Even the Hort-Antoshin system, a "subtler" way to realize the
immediate advance e7-e5 (by means of c6 and Qc7, instead of Nc6) is more
often seen today. It has become difficult to find information on the Krause
Dutch in recent opening works, while books on the Classical Dutch,
Leningrad or Stonewall abound.
Obviously I am not so optimistic to share Nimzowitsch's conclusion, in the
very last sentence of his article [2], that one day Krause's System might be the
most popular reply against 1 d4. But the other extreme, to ignore it
completely, seems equally ridiculous to me. The Krause Dutch deserves
(some) attention. There is still room for doubt, and for experiments. My
following loss was hardly the last word.
Paul van der Sterren (2535) Stefan Bcker (2341)
Den Bosch 1999 (""Toernooi voor de Toekomst"), round five
Dutch Defense [A04]
1 Nf3 f5 2 g3
In round three of the same tournament, I had already used Krause's system, so
my opponent was warned. To postpone c4 and Nc3 and include the flexible
g3 is probably the most critical line.
2 d4 Nf6 (move orders are important; 2d6 3 Nc3! is well covered by
Richard Palliser in "Don't be Tricked into the Leningrad" [8]) 3 c4 d6.
Reaching an earlier game of mine, by transposition: 4 Nc3 Nc6 5 Bf4 h6 6 d5
e5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np1n1p/3Ppp2/2P2B2/
2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq e6 0 7"]
7 dxe6 Bxe6 8 e3 g5 9 Bg3 Bg7 10 Qd2 0-0 11 0-0-0 a5 12 h4 g4 13 Nd4

Nxd4 14 exd4 d5 15 c5 Ne4 16 Nxe4 dxe4 17 d5 Bf7 18 Bf4 Qf6 19 Be3
Rfd8 20 Bd4 Qxd4 21 Qxd4 Bxd4 22 Rxd4 Rxd5 23 Rxd5 Bxd5 24 Kd2
Bxa2 25 Ke3 Rd8 26 Be2 Bb3 27 Ra1 a4 28 Bb5 Kg7 29 Bxa4 Ra8 30 Ra3
Bxa4 31 b3 f4+ 0-1, Marian Bcker, Detmold 1983.
2Nf6 3 Bg2 d6 4 d4 Nc6 5 Bf4!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/2np1n2/5p2/3P1B2/
5NP1/PPP1PPBP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
There are several alternatives, but the text move must be critical.
In round three of the same tournament I was more successful: 5 d5 Nce5 6 0-0
Nxf3+ 7 exf3 (Black isn't worse; Euwe [3] assessed a similar situation as
advantageous for White) 7g6 8 c4 Bg7 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Re1 c6? (10Re8 11
f4 Bd7 12 Qb3 Rb8, about =) 11 f4 (11 Bg5 +=) 11Bd7 12 Qb3 c5 13 Qxb7
Rb8 14 Qa6 Rb4
[FEN "3q1rk1/p2bp1bp/Q2p1np1/2pP1p2/1rP2P2/
2N3P1/PP3PBP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Qxa7? (underestimates Black's plan; 15 a3! Rb3 16 a4! Ng4 17 Nb5 was a
refutation) 15Ng4 16 h3 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Ra4 (an unusual situation: for the
two sacrificed pawns Black seems to have sufficient compensation) 18 Qb7
Nf6 19 Bd2 Kf7 20 Reb1 Qa5 21 Qb6 Qa8 (21Qxb6 was an option) 22 Rb2
Ra3 23 Bf1 Qa4 24 f3 h5 25 Bd3 (offering a draw) 25Ra8 26 Be1 Ra6 27
Qb8 Qa5?! (risky: Black avoids the draw) 28 Qh8 Ra8 29 Qh6 Rg8 30 Re2
Qd8 31 Bd2 e6 32 dxe6+ Bxe6 33 Rae1 Bc8 34 Bc1 Ra7 35 Qg5 Qd7 36 a3
Rc7 37 Be3? (a serious error; 37 Bc2 Qc6 38 Re3 +/- protects f3 more
efficiently, with good winning chances) 37Qc6 38 Rf1 Re7 39 Bd2 Rxe2
40 Bxe2 Re8 (40Qa4!?) 41 Bd3 d5 42 Rf2 Qe6 43 cxd5 Qxd5 44 Bf1 c4 45
Qh6 Bd7 (45Qc5! =+) 46 a4 Bxa4 47 g4 hxg4 48 hxg4 Bd1 49 gxf5? = (49
g5! Nh5 50 Bc1! would have refuted Black's attack, e.g. 50Re1 51 Ba3 Ng7
52 Qh8 Re8 53 Rd2! +-) 49Rg8 50 Rg2 Bxf3 51 fxg6+ Ke7 52 Rg5 Qxd2
53 Re5+ Kd8 54 Qg5 Qd6 55 Rc5? Rxg6 01, Donaldson (2419) Bcker
(2341), Den Bosch 1999 ("Toernooi voor de Toekomst").
5h6
5Nd5?! appears a bit slow, after 6 c4 Nxf4 7 gxf4 White is better, for
example 7g6 8 h4 or 7e6 8 d5. But at least Black has conquered the
bishop pair, this set-up could be worth a second look. The continuation 5g6
6 d5 Na5 is equally risky. The Krause motif would be sounder than usual after
5Rb8 6 d5?! e5, but almost everybody will prefer 6 0-0! and wait for an
explanation of Black's mysterious rook move.

6 h4
6 d5 is another dangerous possibility: 6Nb8 7 c4 g5 8 Bd2!? Bg7 (after 8
Ne4 White can even play 9 Ba5!? Bg7 10 Nd4 0-0 11 Nc3) 9 Bc3 +=.
6Ng4
Renewing the threat e7-e5.
7 d5 e5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np3p/3Ppp2/5BnP/
5NP1/PPP1PPB1/RN1QK2R w KQkq e6 0 8"]
There is no obvious refutation of 7Nce5, but White has many alternatives,

for example 8 Nc3 c6 9. 0-0 (9 Qd4 Qc7! 10 e4 g6 11 exf5 c5 12 Qd2 gxf5
+=) 9cxd5 10 Bxe5 (10 Qxd5) 10dxe5 11 Qxd5 e4 12 Qxd8 (12 Nd4 e5
+=) 12Kxd8 13 Rad1+ Kc7 14 Nd4 e6 15 Ndb5+ Kb6 16 Rd8 a6 17 Nd6
Kc7 +=.
The text move follows Krause's basic concept, seen in the older games above.
But against the modern set-up with a bishop on g2 and no pawn on c4, the
Krause approach is perhaps too risky. A repertoire which chooses the Krause
Dutch only in the "safer cases" could be a more pragmatic solution.
8 dxc6!
Clearly stronger than 8 dxe6 Bxe6 9 Nd4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 c6 11 e4 Qa5+ 12
Bd2 Qb6 13 Bc3 0-0-0 14 Qxb6 axb6 15 Bd2 fxe4 16 Bxe4 d5 17 Bd3 Bc5 18
Be3 Nxe3 19 fxe3 Bxe3 20 Nd2 Rhf8 21 Rf1 Bh3 22 Rxf8 Rxf8 23 Nf1 Bf2+
24 Kd2 Re8 25 a4 Kc7 26 Be2 Bf5 27 Bf3 Kd6 28 Rc1 g6 29 b3 h5 30 Be2
Re6 01, Calapso Kostic, Merano 1926.
8exf4 9 gxf4
White can also force matters by playing 9 Nd4! fxg3 (9b6 would be similar
to the passive game continuation) 10 cxb7 (not 10 fxg3? Ne3) 10gxf2+ 11
Kd2 Rb8 12 Nc6! (12 bxc8Q Qxc8 offers Black more chances) 12Bb7
(what else?) 13 Nxd8 Bxg2 14 Ne6 Rb4!? (14Rxb2 15 Nc3) 15 c3! Rxb2+
16 Kc1 and White is better.
9Be7?
A mistake; overlooking two reasonable alternatives:
(a) 9Rb8 10 Nd4 Be7 11 cxb7 Bxh4 12 bxc8Q Bxf2+ 13 Kd2 Qxc8 14 c3
[FEN "1rq1k2r/p1p3p1/3p3p/5p2/3N1Pn1/
2P5/PP1KPbB1/RN1Q3R b k - 0 14"]
Black has some active play, and White's king isn't exactly in safety. For a
tournament game this situation may offer sufficient compensation, though it
seems dubious whether it is entirely correct: 14Be3+ 15 Kc2 Bxf416 Rh3,
or 14Bxd4 15 Qa4+ followed by Qxd4, or 14Qa6 15 b3.
(b) In the post-mortem my opponent recommended 9bxc6!, which indeed
was my best chance: 10 Nd4 d5 11 Nxc6 Qd6 12 Ne5 (12 e3 Qxc6 13 Bxd5
Qd6 14 Bxa8 Qxd1+ 15 Kxd1 Nxf2+ leads to an acceptable ending: +=), and
Black can choose between the solid 12c6 13 Qd4 Rb8 += and the sharp
12Nxe5!? 13 fxe5 Qxe5 14 Qxd5 Qxb2 with hair-rising complications.
10 Qd3 (10 Nh2) 10b6 11 Nc3 Bf6 12 Kf1!?
There was nothing wrong with 12 0-0-0 0-0 (12Nxf2? fails to 13 Qe3+) 13
Rdf1 etc.
1200 13 Rd1 Kh8 14 Rh3 a5 15 Nd5!
[FEN "r1bq1r1k/2p3p1/1pPp1b1p/p2N1p2/
5PnP/3Q1N1R/PPP1PPB1/3R1K2 b - - 0 15"]
15Bxb2 16 c3 Ba3 17 Kg1 a4 18 h5 Bc5

Black's defensive task remains difficult; the bishop c5 is out of play.
19 e3 Ra5 20 c4 Rf7 21 Nh4 Qe8?! 22 Rg3 a3 23 Ng6+ Kg8 24 Bf3 Ra4 25
Qc2
A database erroneously gives 25 Qc3 as the game continuation.
25Ra5 26 Bxg4 fxg4
[FEN "2b1q1k1/2p2rp1/1pPp2Np/r1bN3P/
2P2Pp1/p3P1R1/P1Q2P2/3R2K1 w - - 0 27"]
27 e4?!
27 f5! Bxf5 28 Nge7+! Rxe7 29 Nxe7+ Qxe7 30 Qxf5, followed by Rxg4,
would have won immediately.
27Kh7 28 f5 Qxc6 29 Nde7 Qd7? (29Qa4) 30 e5 Rxf5 31 Nf8+ Kh8 32
Nxd7 1-0
This article has concentrated on Krause's counter-motif, directed against the
bishop on f4. In my opinion it is one of the hardest tests for the correctness of
Krause's Variation. However, there are many other set-ups available to the
first player. For example, in Kaissiber 11 (1999), Hans Berliner proposed 1 d4
f5 2 g3 d6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 d5 Ne5 5 e4!? Nf6 6 exf5 Bxf5 7 Nd4 ("Die SystemMethode gegen die Hollndische Verteidigung"), to which Bent Larsen
replied 7Be4! in Kaissiber 12 (1999), p. 18. But White still has 7 Nxe5,
with a small edge. The battle goes on.
Sources
[1] A. Nimzowitsch: "Entspricht Dr. Tarraschs Die moderne Schachpartie
wirklich moderner Auffassung?," in Wiener Schachzeitung 5-8 (1913), pp. 7384
[2] A. Nimzowitsch: "Moderne Phantasie ber ein Tschigorin'sches Thema,"
in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten 1925, pp. 1-12
[3] M. Euwe: Theorie der Schacherffnungen, Teil VI-VII, Berlin 1965 (2nd
ed.)
[4] S. Bcker: "Dutch Defense: Krause's Variation," in Myers Openings
Bulletin 38 (1986), pp. 2-5
[5] S. Bcker: "Aaron Nimzowitsch: Triumphe dank Dr. Krause," in
Kaissiber 10 (1999) pp. 26-59
[6] S. Bcker: (commented game) in Toernooiboek voor de Toekomst, Zeist
2000
[7] P. Anderberg: "Neues zum Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch-Konflikt," in: Kaissiber
26 (2007), pp. 50-55. How the conflict between Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch
began.
[8] R. Palliser, S. Williams, J. Vigus: Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch,
London 2009

Minor Systems to Last a Lifetime

Young players are often warned not to rely on lesser-known openings.
"Sooner or later your opponents will find out what is wrong with it, and you'll
have to study something else. Rather build your repertoire on standard lines."
This sounds reasonable, but standard systems and quiet play are often not to
the taste of a young talent, and there are examples of players who score
heavily with rare openings. Shouldn't it be possible to identify at least a
handful of lines that combine a surprise effect with soundness? For this
purpose let us check the latest cutting-edge theory.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Boris Avrukh's new book Grandmaster Repertoire 2: 1.d4, Vol. 2 (Quality

Chess, Glasgow 2010) belongs to the ambitious "Grandmaster Repertoire"
series that "provides a repertoire to last a lifetime," if we can believe the
book's publisher. Boris Avrukh's earlier 1.d4 Volume One had presented a
Catalan-oriented repertoire for White after 1 d4 d5, the new volume covers
the remaining replies after 1 d4 (without 1d5). In most cases, Avrukh
recommends a reply involving the fianchetto with g3 and Bg2. The analyses
are generally excellent.

accessible:
Grandmaster Repertoire 2:
1.d4, Vol. 2
by Boris Avrukh
Dangerous Weapons:
Benoni and Benko (Ebook)
by Palliser, Emms, Ward & Jones

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Boris Avrukh
While I am less impressed by the research (the oldest book in the bibliography
has the date 1999, and on p. 202 the author admits: "I am not writing about
chess history in this book, so I have decided to deal with the moves rather
than the names"), a major plus of the book is that Avrukh spends a lot of
energy on "minor systems." As can be expected, he mainly discusses the
established systems, such as the Budapest Defense, various Benoni and Indian
Systems, the Modern and the Dutch Defense. However, the 614 pages also
recommend ideas against "Black Knights Tango," English Defense, 1a6
followed by b5 and many other systems. The Vulture (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5
Ne4) is missing, but there is another exotic Benoni:
Snake Benoni 5Bd6
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6
The last move defines the Snake Benoni. It is covered on pp. 102-107 in the
book. Only in a later chapter, p. 127, about 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 a6, there
follows a hint that Black might include an early a6: "I think in reply we
should play naturally. 4 a4. I do not see how Black can profit from the
inclusion of a6 and a4" []. "If 4e6 5 g3 exd5 6 cxd5 Bd6 7 Bg2 we get a
position from the Snake Benoni (see page 102) that Black could also reach
Beating Unusual Chess

Openings (Ebook)
by Richard Palliser
from the normal Benoni move order, so I don't see much point in this 3a6
move order."
6 Nc3 0-0 7 Bg2
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp1p1ppp/3b1n2/2pP4/8//
2N3P1/PP2PPBP/R1BQK1NR b KQ - 0 7"]
7Re8
Alternatives are 7Be5 8 Nf3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 and 7Bc7 8 d6! Ba5 9 Nh3!.
In both cases Avrukh's analysis looks convincing. His conclusion at the end of
the chapter stresses the importance of the motif d5-d6. Perhaps Black should
consider to prepare Bc7 by means of Qe7, or to include the moves a6 and a4,
as mentioned above: 7a6 8 a4 (typically played earlier) 8Qe7 9 Nf3,
transposing to Chuchelov Womacka, Porz 1990. None of these lines is easy
for Black, but to justify the claim at the end of the chapter ("I believe that the
contents of the present chapter represents quite a serious challenge to the
future of the Snake Benoni"), these alternatives should have been
considered.
8 Nf3 Bc7 9 d6 Ba5 10 Nd2 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qa5 12 0-0
Explanations and sidelines to these moves fill almost three pages in the book.
12Nc6
According to Avrukh it is too risky to grab the c-pawn: 12Qxc3 13 Rb1
Qd4 14 Bb2 Qxd6 15 Bxf6 Qxf6 16 Ne4 Rxe4 17 Bxe4 Ibragimov Miezis,
Cappelle le Grande 1998, but objectively this sacrifice of the exchange for a
pawn may not be worse than the text.
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp1p1ppp/2nP1n2/q1p5/8//
2P3P1/P2NPPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
A critical position. Instead of 13 Re1 from Gattea Miezis, Bled 2002,

Avrukh recommends 13 Qb3 "!N" hoping for 13Rxe2 14 Nc4 Qa6 15 Bg5!.
But Black can better ignore the pawn on e2; e.g., 13Rb8 (or 13b5) 14
Nc4 Qa6 15 Be3 b5 (b6) 16 Nd2 Bb7 17 Rfb1 Ba8, unclear. Unfortunately,
White has a stronger continuation:
13 c4! Re6
13Qc3 14 Rb1 Qd4 15 e4 Re6 (or 15Qxd6 16 f4!) 16 Bb2 Qxd6 17 f4
with a strong attack; e.g., 17Ne8 18 e5 Qc7 19 Bd5 +/-.

14 Nb3 Qc3 15 Bg5 b6
15Ne4 16 Rc1 Qb4 fails to 17 Qd3! Nxg5 18 f4.
16 Bd5 Rxd6 17 Bxf7+ Kxf7 18 Qxd6 Qxc4
[FEN "r1b5/p2p1kpp/1pnQ1n2/2p3B1//
2q5/1N4P1/P3PP1P/R4RK1 w - - 0 19"]
White has won the exchange for a pawn. A possible continuation is 19 Bxf6
gxf6 20 Rad1, and Black can only fight for a draw.
Clarendon Court: 1 d4 c5 2 d5 f5
1 d4 c5 2 d5 f5
[FEN ""rnbqkbnr/pp1pp1pp/8/2pP1p2/8/8/
PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq f6 0 3"]
Avrukh: "I do not rate this variation highly, but who knows, maybe I am
wrong." His main line follows a tactical game:
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e4 fxe4 5 g4!? e6
Kaissiber 25 analyzed 5h6, but perhaps Avrukh is right: a slight advantage
for White.
6 dxe6
The alternative 6 Bg2!? (Avrukh) may be better.
6h6 7 g5 hxg5 8 Bxg5 Be7 9 Nge2 Nc6 10 Bg2
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pb1p1/2n1Pn2/2p3B1//
4p3/2N5/PPP1NPBP/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 10"]
An interesting situation:
(a) 10Qb6? 11 Qd2 dxe6 12 0-0-0 Ne5 (threatening 13Nc4) fails to 13
Qf4 +/-.
(b) The book's mainline: 10dxe6 11 Qxd8+ Bxd8 (Buturin Trushnikov,
Lvov 1996) 12 Be3 "!?N" Avrukh, when White is slightly better (+=).
(c) Even 10d5?! comes into consideration: 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qxd5 Qxd5 13
Nxd5 Bxb2 14 Rb1 Be5 15 Bxe4 Bxe6 16 Rxb7 0-0-0 17 Ne7+ Kxb7 18
Nxc6 Bd5 19 Nxd8+ Rxd8 20 Bxd5+ Rxd5 +=.
(d) According to Avrukh, 100-0 is worse: 11 exd7+ Bxd7 12 Bxf6 Rxf6 13
Nxe4 (+/-), but Black hasn't much to fear after, say, 13Rf7 14 Qd2 Bg4 15
0-0-0 Nd4 16 f3 Bxf3 17 Qxd8+ Rxd8 19 Rxd8+ Bxd8 20 Nxc5 Bg5+ 21
Kb1 Be3 22 Ne4 Nxh2 =.
Bogolyubov Defense 1.d4 Nc6

1 d4 Nc6 2 d5
Avrukh: "This is undoubtedly the most principled continuation."
2Ne5 3 e4 e6 4 f4 Ng6 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 Nf3
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/4p1n1/8/4PP2//
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6Bc5 7 Nc3 Nh6 8 f5 Nh4

So far Minasian Teran Alvarez, Ubeda 1999.
9 Ng5
"!N" Avrukh. The threat 10 Qh5+ is very strong; e.g., 9exf5 10 Qh5+ Ng6
11 exf5 Nxf5 12 Bd3. "Black has no defense against White's direct threats,"
Avrukh. The fast collapse of Black's position is surprising. In the last
diagrammed position, Black may not have equalized, but instead of 6Bc5
some alternatives deserve attention, such as 6Bb4+, 6b6, or the direct
counter in the center:

6d5!?
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp3pp/4p1n1/3p4/4PP2//
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 7"]
7 Nc3
The variation was lately discussed on www.chesspub.com. Some of the
alternatives:
(a) 7 Qd3 Bb4+ 8 Bd2 (8 c3 Be7! 9 g3 dxe4) 8Bxd2+ 9 Nbxd2 Nxf4 10
Qe3 dxe4 11 Qxf4 exf3 12 0-0-0 fxg2 13 Bxg2 Qe7 14 Qa4+ Bd7 15 Qa5
Nf6!?.
(b) 7 c4 Bb4+ 8 Nc3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 dxe4 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 Ng5 Ke7 12 Ba3
+ Ke8 13 g3 Nf6 14 Bg2 e5.
(c) 7 e5 Nh6 8 Bd3 Be7 9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qd3 Nf5 11 g4 Nh4 12 0-0 Nxf3+
13 Rxf3 Bc5+ 14 Kg2 Qh4.
(d) 7 g3 Bd7!? 8 Nc3 (to take the pawn is risky: 8 exd5 exd5 9 Qxd5 Qe7+ 10
Kf2 0-0-0) 8Bb4 9 Bd3 Qe7 10 Bd2 0-0-0, unclear.
7Bb4 8 g3 Bxc3+! 9 bxc3 Nf6 10 e5 Ne4
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp3pp/4p1n1/3pP3/4nP2//
2P2NP1/P1P4P/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
Black can be satisfied with his position; e.g., 11 c4 c6 12 Bd3 Qa5+ 13 Kf1 00 14 Kg2 Nc5 15 cxd5 Nxd3 16 Qxd3 exd5 =.
It is still possible to play the Snake Benoni, the Clarendon Court, or 1 d4 Nc6,
even against the strongest opposition. But I have to admit that White keeps a
slight advantage in each of these lines, sometimes more. Avrukh's analyses
are inspiring, and his repertoire suggestions are consistent and reliable. In a
comparison test, I tried to find good lines for Black in the Czech Benoni and
in the Dutch Defense, with mixed results. More in the next column.

Main Lines Never Lead to a Significant

Advantage
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.

accessible:
By definition, a main line of a well-known opening cannot end with a +/-. If it

were bad, nobody would play it, and the opening would be laid to rest in the
next edition of that famous work, Unplayable Openings. But there is a
demand for more promising titles, from White to Play and Win (Weaver
Adams; Philadelphia 1939) to the new Squeezing the Gambits (Kiril
Georgiev, Sofia 2010). The fact that everybody uses a computer hasn't made it
easier for a modern author. For the study of sharp lines PCs are great, but
according to Kiril Georgiev this practice also creates a problem:
"A lot of more or less forced variations and even whole sharp systems will
simply vanish from practice since they will be deeply analysed to finite
evaluations."
The tactician Weaver Adams might have enjoyed to work with a PC (at least
until his readers also got one), like most authors still do today. But Georgiev
sees the signs on the wall and goes one step further. He aims at a positional
advantage, to avoid computer-aided home preparation and to reach positions
where it is possible for a good player to outplay his weaker opponent. An
interesting philosophy, and one of the best recent opening works. It offers
sound repertoires against four gambits: the Benk, Budapest, Albin, and
Blumenfeld.
The May column had studied minor lines from Boris Avrukh's repertoire book
1.d4 Volume Two (Glasgow 2010) in which I was personally interested, here
we'll continue with some more respected openings. Avrukh does not paint an
overly rosy picture of White's chances; for example, in the King's Indian he is
happy to reach a "typically favourable middlegame thanks to [White's] great
control over the center." The "Grandmaster Repertoire" series comes with the
curious claim to provide "a repertoire to last a lifetime," but Avrukh does a
pretty reasonable job to achieve the impossible.
Grandmaster Repertoire 2:
1.d4, Vol. 2
by Boris Avrukh
Squeezing the Gambits

by Kiril Georgiev
Quoted from his introduction: "I want the readers to have a repertoire that will
last, so if there is a choice between two strong lines I choose the one where
the theory is less likely to change on a daily basis." That sounds more
realistic, and goes into the same direction as Georgiev's sound approach.
But openings where sharp variations matter less are not a new invention.
Though I believe that the new books by Avrukh and Georgiev offer good
value for the money, nobody is forced to buy the latest books with over 600
pages. To give a concrete example: In my opinion a player who prepares with
Alt-Benoni-Verteidigung (Stoljar/Kondratjew, Heidelberg 1985), a 104-page
book on the Czech Benoni, would not be seriously handicapped against a
player who attacks him with the brand-new knowledge found in Avrukh's
book.
Czech Benoni
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 Nc3 d6 5 e4 Be7
Chess Openings
Encyclopedia 2010
by Chess Assistant
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp2bppp/3p1n2/2pPp3/2P1P3/
2N5/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]
A closed position with a minimum of pawn breaks a good way to limit the
dangers of computer preparation. In this situation the main line used to be 6
Be2 followed by Nf3, 0-0 and an eventual Ne1-d3, to watch the key squares
b4 and f4 and assist any action with b2-b4 and f2-f4. In Avrukh's repertoire
the bishop belongs to g2, so he has to recommend the fianchetto:
6 g3
"This is considered to be the best set-up for White against the Czech Benoni,"
Avrukh. Well, maybe I have slept over twenty-five years of Czech Benoni
theory. I admit that such laziness would be a bit extreme, even with the Czech
Benoni in your defensive repertoire it must be wiser to update your
knowledge every decade or so. But I am unsure whether I am really wrong.
Maybe Avrukh just prefers to see it this way, some optimism is allowed.
60-0 7 Bg2 Nbd7 8 Nge2 a6 9 a4 b6 10 0-0 Ne8
[FEN "r1bqnrk1/3nbppp/pp1p4/2pPp3/P1P1P3/
2N3P1/1P2NPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]
An important position, reached in Avrukh's book on p. 142. It already

appeared twenty-five years ago in the Stoljar/Kondratjew book (p. 48), based
on three games. Its main line was 11 Qc2 Rb8 12 b3 Nc7 13 Nd1 b5 14
Bd2"!," Furman Kotov, semi finals of the USSR Championship 1950, a
game that's missing in the database and led to some advantage for White. But
the database contains fifty-four later games. I am not sure which information
is more useful, a large number of games can also be confusing. Instead of 13
b5, the characteristic move 13Bg5, offering to exchange Black's bad
bishop, comes into consideration.
11 Kh1
"A generally useful move," Avrukh. The old book regards 11 f4 exf4"?!" 12
gxf4 g6 as a dangerous alternative, when White may try 13 e5 (with the idea
13dxe5? 14 e6 attacking the rook a8) with a slight advantage. The modern
author prefers the prophylactic 12Ra7 from Taras Georgescu, Romania
2008 (instead of 12g6), and then: 13 Be3 Bf6 14 Qd2 g6 15 Nc1 Bg7 16
Nd3 f5! 17 exf5 gxf5 and "Black has decent play" according to Avrukh.
11Ra7
Avrukh: "Actually this move has never been played in tournament praxis, but
it was recommended by Mihail Marin, a great specialist in the Czech Benoni

with Black, in his comments to the Kasimdzhanov Nisipeanu game."
In my opinion 11Rb8 is more accurate. It is true that it is a more traditional
approach, similar to Furman Kotov (in the notes below the last diagram),
hoping for a later b6-b5. But I cannot see why it should be bad. "White can
react in the same way as in our main line with 12 Qd3," is Avrukh's laconic
comment. Maybe, but in this situation 12Nc7 would be a logical
alternative, again in the spirit of that old Kotov game. White may be better,
but only very slightly and not "in the same way" (12g6 13 Bh6). A
plausible continuation: 13 b3 Bf6 (Bg5!?) followed by Re8, g6 and so on.
Black has a reliable position.
12 Qd3 g6 13 Bh6 Ng7 14 f4
[FEN "2bq1rk1/r2nbpnp/pp1p2pB/2pPp3/
P1P1PP2/2NQ2P1/1P2N1BP/R4R1K b - f3 0 14"]
14f5 15 Bh3!
"A very strong idea, which secures White's edge," Avrukh.
15fxe4 16 Nxe4 exf4 17 Bxd7 Bxd7 18 Nxf4 Bf5 19 Bxg7 Kxg7 20 Ne6+
Bxe6 21 dxe6 "+/-," analysis by Avrukh.
Does Avrukh really believe that the main line of the Czech Benoni should
lead to a clear advantage for White? Will many of his readers share his
optimism? After all, the Czech Benoni has a reputation to be a bit passive, but
not easy to overcome. The decisive error in the line above is probably 14f5.
According to Avrukh, "White uses the same idea if Black chooses to
exchange on f4 first": 14exf4 15 gxf4 f5 16 Bh3!. However, instead of the
suicidal 15f5? Black has several better continuations, e.g. 15Re8 (or 15
Nf6 16 Bh3 Ng4) 16 Bh3 Bh4 17 Qf3 Nf6 followed by Rae7 or Nh5.
If this were not sufficient to achieve full equality (I think it is), there remains
11Rb8! and other alternatives along this line. Don't misunderstand me:
even here, where he clearly overshoots the mark, I find Avrukh's analysis
inspiring. But nobody should expect a large opening advantage against the
Czech Benoni.
Dutch Defense: Leningrad Variation

The Leningrad Dutch is one of my main weapons against 1 d4, so here I'll
concentrate on this set-up. Avrukh recommends a solid approach, he
fianchettoes the Bc1. Certainly the variation 6 b3 isn't bad, but I don't think
that White achieves an advantage.
The Dutch Defense

1 d4 f5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b3 d6 7 Bb2 a5

The first of eight alternatives for Black, discussed by Avrukh on thirty-two
pages. Perhaps the text move isn't Black's strongest reply, but it seems good
enough to demonstrate that the fianchetto Bb2 is harmless.
8 c4 Na6 9 Nbd2 Bd7!
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1ppbp1bp/n2p1np1/p4p2/2PP4/
1P3NP1/PB1NPPBP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 10"]
Boris Avrukh only considers 9c6 and follows a game Tratar Rogetzer,
Vienna 2003, with some initiative for White (and a +/- after Black committed
an error in move twelve), but in my opinion the text move is more flexible.
10 Ng5
The knight is looking for weak squares in Black's camp. 10 Re1 c5! is also
critical:
(a) 11 e4 fxe4 12 Nxe4 Nxe4 13 Rxe4 Bf5, about =.
(b) 11 d5 a4 and Black isn't worse.
(c) 11 Ng5 h6 12 Nh3 cxd4 (or 12g5) 13 Bxb7 Ra7 14 Bd5+ (14 Bxa6
Rxa6 15 Nf4 Qe8) 14Nxd5 15 cxd5 Rc7 (15g5); for example, 16 Nc4
Rc5 17 Nf4 g5 18 Nh5 Bh8 and Black can be satisfied with his position.
10c6 11 Qc2
White intends e2-e4. If instead 11 Re1, the response 11Nh5 seems
adequate, and 11 d5 Qb6 must be good for Black.
11f4!?
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1p1bp1bp/n1pp1np1/p5N1/
2PP1p2/1P4P1/PBQNPPBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 12"]
One of the nice dynamic options of the Leningrad Dutch. After the text move
Black has almost equalized:
(a) 12 gxf4 Bf5 13 Qd1 (or 13 e4 Bd7 14 f5 Nh5 with compensation for the
sacrificed pawn) 13Nh5 14 e3 e5 15 d5 exf4 16 Bxg7 Nxg7 17 exf4 Nh5!
18 dxc6 Nxf4 with dangerous attacking chances.
(b) 12 Qc3 fxg3 13 fxg3 Qb6. Black is fully developed and has a solid
position: about =.
The new work studies the Dutch Defense on seventy-five pages, the remark
above only scratches the surface. In the section on the Classical Dutch,
Avrukh discusses the ideas of GM Simon Williams in great detail. Finally,
there is the Stonewall Variation, but the Krause Variation is missing.
Budapest Defense
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 Nf3
In my opinion, Alekhine's 4 e4 is White's best attempt to get an advantage.
4Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Be2 Ngxe5 8 Nxe5 Nxe5 9 0-0
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pppp1ppp/8/2b1n3/2P5/
2N1P3/PP2BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 9"]
Avrukh: "This is the initial position of our variation. In my opinion the whole
line promises White slightly the better chances, due to his control of the
centre."
9Re8 10 b3 d6
10a5, intending Ra6 to create attacking chances, is more popular at this
stage, but I am not convinced that it is better.
11 Bb2
Kiril Georgiev's proposal 11 Na4 also deserves attention. 11Bf5 12 Bb2 (so
far mentioned by Georgiev), and here 12a5 13 Qd5 c6 14 Qd2 Ba7!? 15
Rfd1 Qh4! looks promising.

11Bd7 12 Qc2
According to Avrukh, the alternative 12 Nd5 c6 13 Nf4 is "also interesting,"
but after 13Bf5, Black is fully developed and has nothing to fear. Possibly
he can start an attack in the next moves, with Qg5 or Qh4.
12Qg5!
[FEN "r3r1k1/pppb1ppp/3p4/2b1n1q1/2P5/
1PN1P3/PBQ1BPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 13"]
Instead, Avrukh follows a game that is hardly convincing: 12Bc6 13 Rad1

Ng6?! 14 Nd5 Nh4 (Roeschlau Fohler, Mengen 1990) 15 g3! Qg5 16 b4
Bb6 17 a4 "with a large advantage," Avrukh. The text move is a refutation;
the main threat is Bh3.
13 Kh1 Rad8!
The immediate 13Ng4 14 h3 Qh4 is also possible; for example, 15 Nd5 Bf5
16 Qc3 Be4 17 Qxg7#.
14 Rad1
14 f4 Qg6 15 e4 Nc6 16 Bf3 Nd4 17 Qd2 f5! isn't better.
14Ng4
[FEN "3rr1k1/pppb1ppp/3p4/2b3q1/2P3n1/
1PN1P3/PBQ1BPPP/3R1R1K w - - 0 15"]
15 h3 Qh4 16 Bf3
If 16 Bd3, the calm 16 g6! keeps the position under control, but even 16
Rxe3 17 fxe3 Nxe3 18 Qd2 Bxh3 is possible.
16...Ne5 17 Qe4 Ng4 18 Qc2 Ne5 =
Drawn by a repetition of moves.

Not the Aleppo Gambit

For a chess writer, it is easier to find good lines for Black than for White. An
analysis ending with an equal sign is a success for the second player and an
equal/plus is a triumph. Recent attempts to draft promising repertoires for
White therefore deserve respect. Powerful chess software can help, but to find
an attack or at least some initiative for White is still hard work. And often the
engine ruins our concept in a flash, by seeing an idea for the wrong side. The
collateral damage of Fritz and friends can be frustrating.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The fashionable repertoire books are pretty useful, if you don't expect more
than repertoire proposals. The disadvantage is that background information,
about the origin and further development of key ideas, is generally missing. In
a typical bibliography, the oldest of the twenty-five works listed is from 1999.
It is poor to see a detailed analysis of 1 d4 e5, but no mention of the name
Englund Gambit. Personally, I prefer books that put ideas into a context,
which warn you that an old idea is now considered risky, and that Short's
choice may be superior to Louis Paulsen's. Many of these old variations are
better than their reputation.

accessible:
Starting Out: Scotch Game

by John Emms
The choice of your openings also depends on individual factors. Thus, I have
reservations when asked to suggest a repertoire. Such a thing as "the strongest
opening" simply does not exist. However, a week ago I received this message
from Lex Jaffe, USA:
"I have greatly enjoyed your column over the past several years. I was
curious if it would be possible for you to suggest a fun, offbeat
repertoire based on 1 e4 in the future. I would be interested in reading
your recommendation of which lines the readers should investigate. - P.
S. The Mouse Trap Gambit works every time."
the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
The Scotch Game

by Nigel Davies
It could have been worse, at least it was 1 e4 and not the Aleppo Gambit.
What finally convinced me to break with my convictions and outline a few
ideas for an offbeat 1 e4 repertoire, were the last two sentences. Someone who
is successful with the Mouse Trap Gambit (1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bg5!?) would
not be prejudiced against riskier ideas. Equally important was his willingness
to invest his own work. Someone who merely follows my analyses, but
doesn't develop his own ideas, misses the point in an offbeat repertoire.
There will be a recurring motive, a main reason why I try to cover 1 e4 e5 in
two or three columns, to invite you to study old lines, popular around 1900 or
even older. It will be quite a challenge to find an offbeat idea against 1...c5,
but if I fail, the ongoing 2 b4 series in Kaissiber might be a good replacement.
In fact, I am unsure whether I can deliver in all cases. Look at it as an
experiment with an open end. In any case the surprise element should be a
main factor. Whether it is "fun" mainly depends on your preferences. If you
like to sacrifice pawns for a dubious attack, you'll be happy in every opening.
My description of an ideal 1 e4 e5 opening for White would be similar to the
one in the poem "My Opening":
Ruy Lopez was too slow for me,
And Evans far too frisky;
I sought an opening that should be
Brilliant and yet not risky;
I sought, and found it, I believed;
Analysis laborious
Proved my attack, howe'er received
Was bound to be victorious.
However, in this act of opening creation something must have gone wrong. In
The Scotch Game

by Alexander Beliavsky
& Srdjan Cvetkovic
the club the opening inventor didn't score as planned, and the third verse of
the poem (by C. C. P., in The British Chess Magazine 1903) ends in total
failure:
I taught my office boy the game;
He learnt the moves, and dash it!
Saw at a glance my little aim,
And found a way to smash it.
To me still sound my opening seems,
But since the critic chortles,
I'll cast off all ambitious dreams,
And play like other mortals.
Instead of starting from scratch, the easier way to develop your own opening
fun is to use a standard system and find an unusual twist in a well known
position. This is the approach that I'll use here. Although it begins with
Alapin's Opening, not to be confused with the Aleppo Gambit, my
recommendation is the Scotch Game. Simon Alapin (1856-1923) was aware
of this possibility. After 2...Nc6, he used to continue with 3 f4, but when Max
Lange in Deutsche Schachzeitung harshly questioned the soundness of 2 Ne2
("not better than 2 Ke2") and challenged Alapin to a correspondence game
(1892-93), Alapin suddenly dropped all his eccentricity, continued 3 d4! and
won in a strong, positional way, as his opponent was practically compelled to
avoid the natural 3...exd4 and chose 3...Qh4?!.
Simon Alapin (1856-1923)
Gerard Welling's fifteen-page article on Alapin's Opening [1] shows how

Alapin himself played the system. The continuation 3 d4 appeared only once
in the games of the Vilnius-born master who spent the later decades of his life
in Germany. Although the following treatment largely ignores his work on 2
Ne2, I uphold another Alapin tradition:
Attakinsky Defendarov
Alapin Opening. Sub-section: Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4 e5 2 Ne2
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4P3/8/
PPPPNPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 2"]
The normal path heading for the Scotch is 2 Nf3. But this Autobahn is
available only to those who are well versed in the Russian Defense 2...Nf6,
the Latvian Gambit, and 2...d5. Not to mention the Philidor Defense 2...d6.
The latter move may be just as good in the diagrammed position. But there is
a chance that a Philidor player would modify his set-up, when he sees the
knight appear on e2. You don't have to be an octopus to predict that in the
case of 2...d6 White will castle long, followed by f3 and g4. This systematic
pawn storm against the Philidor structure is in no way handicapped by having
a knight on e2, rather the opposite. From e2 the knight can easily go to g3-f5.
In a standard Philidor, White's knight usually sails to f5 via h4, but g3 is a
more natural square for the knight.
2...Nc6
On the main alternative 2...Nf6, Alapin's continuation was 3 f4 [1], but I much
prefer 3 d4! Nxe4 4 f3 (the more complicated 4 Qd3 d5 5 f3 Ng5 6 dxe5 Ne6
7 f4 may be even better; e.g., 7...Nc6 8 a3!) 4...Ng5 5 dxe5; for example, 5...
Nc6 6 f4 Ne6 7 Nbc3 d6 8 exd6 Bxd6 9 Be3 0-0 10 Qd2 Nc5 11 0-0-0 Re8 12
h3, with heavy complications. It is a nice position particularly if you like
attacks after opposite castling.
Minor continuations like 2...Bc5 3 c3 (or Na4) or Hugo Schting's 2...f5 3
exf5 d5 4 d4, with a reversed version of King's Gambit, are advantageous for
White. More details in [1].
3 d4 exd4
Accepts the invitation to the Scotch Game, perhaps in the belief that a 2 Ne2
player would feel uncomfortable in a standard opening. By the way, the text
move may well be Black's best option in Alapin's Opening, provided he
doesn't like the unclear situation after 2...Nf6. The solid set-up 3...d6 wouldn't
be the Philidor proper, but White's plan would remain similar (cf. my
comment above after 2 Ne2). Another possibility is 3...Nf6 4 d5 Bc5 5 Ng3!
(avoiding the mean trap 5 dxc6? Ng4 6 Be3 Bxe3 7 fxe3 Qf6 -/+) 5...Ne7 6
Nc3 +=.
4 Nxd4
[FEN"r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/3NP3/8/
PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
In the twelve years from 1990 to 2001, Garry Kasparov created new interest
in this ancient opening by playing the Scotch with great success. According to
the database, the sixteen wins and eight draws (no losses) show a
"performance rating" of 2923. Several new books on the Scotch are available,
but generally they lack information on older ideas. The three books by Lev
Gutman, though a bit dated, remain the main source for the serious student of
the Scotch. Two are listed in the bibliography, the third book covered 4...Qh4.
4...Nf6
The next column will discuss the alternative 4...Bc5, focusing on a main line
from the nineteenth century that didn't make it into Kasparov's practice,
probably because he read the wrong (new) books. However, I am not yet sure
whether 4...Qh4 will get a column. What does the database say? 14,000 games
with Nf6, almost 20,000 with Bc5. Only 2,900 games with 4...Qh4. Well,
maybe.
5 Nxc6
Going into the Scotch Four Knights by means of 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Nxc6 bxc6 is
also popular, when 7 Bd3 is now the main continuation, covered in detail by
Abby Marshall in her latest column for ChessCafe.com. In the 1880s, Louis
Paulsen's 7 Qd4 Qe7 8 f3 was regarded as the main continuation.
[FEN"r1b1k2r/p1ppqppp/2p2n2/8/1b1QP3/
2N2P2/PPP3PP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
It offers many complex and interesting variations after both 8...d5?! and 8...c5
(Berger). In Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000, John Emms
recommended 8...Bc5 9 Qd3 a5, as in Tartakower Prins, Venice 1949. In my
opinion, 10 Be3 (instead of Tartakower's 10 Bg5) 10...Ba6 11 Qd2 leads to
equality. In Starting Out: The Scotch Game, London 2005, Emms only says:
"Black can try 8...Bc5" and offers more details on lines where White has an
easier life.
5...bxc6
Black's split pawn formation means that almost every ending will be slightly
better for White. In particular after a further d7-d5 and some pawn exchanges,
Black will often be handicapped with the inferior pawn formation. A threat to
exchange queens may worry White in other forms of the Open Games but
hardly in the Scotch!
6 Qe2!?
[FEN"r1bqkb1r/p1pp1ppp/2p2n2/8/4P3/8/
PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
An interesting alternative, which is surprisingly rare (the database has eleven

human games) in comparison to the "Mieses Variation" 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2
(6,600 games), to which it can transpose (which happened in two of those
eleven games). Preferring the text move in the context of our "repertoire"
doesn't mean that I advise against 6 e5, which is a fascinating topic. What I
like most in 6 e5 is the possibility to adopt old variations that your opponents
will probably never have heard of.
Edward Winter's online article "Kasparov, Karpov and the Scotch" [4] gives
an impression of what you can find in old sources, if you are willing to dig in
sources from the nineteenth century. Many old books and magazines have
become accessible today via "Google Books" and are only a few mouse clicks
away. In his article Edward Winter in particular looks at 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5
8 c4 Ba6 9 b3 0-0-0. The last move is "old," while other options like Anand's
9...g5 used to attract most followers nowadays. Winter's conclusion:
"Although many of the above Scotch Game variations still occur in modern
games, the great labor of these giants from another century seems to have
been virtually forgotten."
The picture may change. In one of the latest books on the Scotch, The Scotch
Game for White, Sofia 2009 [7], Vladimir Barsky often gives a +/- in the
fashionable lines, while in the old 9...0-0-0 line he only claims a slight
advantage (+=). On page 176, Barsky writes on the position after 9...0-0-0 10
Bb2: "It is amazing, but I will have to mention this position was tested in
practice as early as the end of the 19th century!" Perhaps someone should
have informed Mr. Barsky about the rich history of the Scotch. Barsky's
bibliography consists of mere two books (Marin, 2007 and Emms, 2005).
6...Qe7
[FEN"r1b1kb1r/p1ppqppp/2p2n2/8/4P3/8/
PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
Black wants to reach the main line by a transposition of moves. Several

alternatives deserve attention:
(a) 6...Bc5 (6...Bb4+ 7 c3 Bc5 8 e5 Nd5 9 c4 leads to the identical position) 7
e5 Nd5 8 c4 Nb6 (or 8...Ne7) 9 Qg4 g6 (the exchange sacrifice 9...0-0 10 Bh6
g6 may be playable) 10 Bg5 Be7 11 h4 with complications; e.g., 11...d5 12
Qg3 h6 13 Be3, unclear.
(b) 6...d6 prevents the advance e4-e5, but White achieves good play: 7 Nc3
Be7 8 Qc4 d5 9 Qxc6+ Bd7 10 Qb7 dxe4 (10...d4 11 Nd5) 11 Bf4 with an
excellent position; for example, 11...Rb8 (11...0-0 12 0-0-0 c6 13 Bc4 is a bit
better, but still +/-) 12 Qxa7 Rxb2
[FEN"3qk2r/Q1pbbppp/5n2/8/4pB2/
2N5/PrP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQk - 0 13"]
13 Bxc7 Qc8 14 Ba6! +- suddenly traps Black's queen; e.g., 14...Bc5 15 Qxc5
Qxa6 and now the crowning 16 0-0-0! +-.
(c) 6...Rb8 comes into consideration.
7 Nd2
In the correspondence game Van Kempen (2565) Umansky (2700), Pappier

Memorial 1998, White finally accepted the invitation, played 7 e5 and won in
twenty-eight moves. Follow this example, but only after you have done your
homework. Objectively, the text move is probably equal. In a 1 e4 repertoire
it may serve as a good place-holder, until you are not satisfied with the results
and feel ready to study the immediate 7 e5.
There is another alternative for an offbeat, but solid repertoire: 7 Nc3. The
clearest path to equality then seems to be 7...Qe6! 8 a3 (maybe 8 f3) 8...Bc5 9
Be3 Bb6 10 f3 0-0 11 0-0-0 d5! =. However, in a tournament game many
opponents will not be so rational to take this safe course. The open b-file,
together with White's king on c1, is a strong incentive not to exchange
queens, but rather attack White's king. And in this case, White's attack on the
other side of the board may well come first.
7...g6
Black is still hoping for e4-e5. Since g6 is fashionable in the main line, it will
be a common choice under the given circumstances. But there are alternatives:
(a) 7...Qe6 (or maybe 7...Qe5!? 8 g3 a5 9 f4 Qe6) 8 e5 Nd5 9 a3!? Be7 10 Nf3
f6 (10...d6 11 Nd4!? +=) 11 Qe4 fxe5 12 Bd3!? is an interesting gambit, based
on the idea that 12...d6 fails to 13 c4. For example, 12...Bf6 13 Ng5 Bxg5 14
Bxg5 h6 15 Bd2 Nf6 16 Qg6+ Qf7 17 f4!? with compensation.
(b) 7...d6 8 Qc4 Bd7 9 Bd3 d5 10 Qd4 c5 11 Qe3 Bc6 12 0-0 dxe4 13 Bc4 +=
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1p1qppp/2b2n2/2p5/2B1p3/
4Q3/PPPN1PPP/R1B2RK1 b kq - 0 13"]
Black has an extra pawn, but won't be too happy with it.
(c) 7...a5!? is another attempt to lure White into a version of the Mieses
Variation: 8 e5 Nd5 9 c4 and here 9...Nb6 is the usual continuation, for which
you'll need a book (190 games are in the database). But 9...Ba6!? is also
interesting; e.g., 10 b3 g6 11 Nf3 Bg7 12 Bb2 0-0 13 Qd2 Nb6 14 Be2 Bb7 15
0-0 c5, the chances seem roughly balanced. Gutman in his Gewinnen mit
Schottisch had believed (p. 64) that 10 Qe4("!") Nb6 was good for White.
However, the computer boldly sacrifices a knight: 10...Nb4! 11 a3 d5 12 Qb1
Qxe5+
[FEN"r3kb1r/2p2ppp/b1p5/p2pq3/1nP5/
P7/1P1N1PPP/RQB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 13"]
13 Kd1 (or 13 Be2 dxc4!) 13...0-0-0 14 c5 (what else) 14...Bxf1 15 Rxf1 Na6
-/+ with a strong, lasting attack on White's uncastled majesty. Lev Gutman's
three books on the Scotch are important, because he has studied many old
sources and checks them without prejudices. But the occasional computer
surprise happens to the best authors. Instead of 8 e5, White can play 8 Qe3!?,
either followed by calm development after 8...g6 9 Bd3 Bg7 10 0-0 0-0 11
Nf3 Re8 12 Re1 =, or an interesting pawn sacrifice after 8...Qc5 9 Qg3! g6 10
Be2 Qxc2 11 0-0 Qc5 12 Nc4 Nxe4 13 Qxc7 Bd6 14 Nxd6+ Qxd6 15 Qxd6
Nxd6 16 Bf4 Nf5 17 Bd3. White has sufficient compensation for the pawn,
but whether he can hope for more is an open question.
If you don't like one of these additional possibilities for Black, go into the
Mieses Variation without the delaying tactics that I propose here. The
following game continuation would still be of interest for you, since it can be
reached by a transposition.
8 e5!
Finally, White goes into the main line. At least it seems so.
8...Nd5 9 c4 Ba6
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1ppqp1p/b1p3p1/3nP3/2P5/
8/PP1NQPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
The alternative 9...Nb6 is worse. On p. 64 of Gewinnen mit Schottisch [2]

Gutman discusses Mieses' specialty (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4
Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5) 8 Nd2!?, coming to the surprising
conclusion that this knight move was White's best continuation, not the
overwhelmingly more popular 8 c4. The reply 8...g6?!, he writes, is
unsatisfactory for Black because of 9 c4 Nb6 (here we are) 10 Ne4! Bg7 11
Bg5 Qb4+ 12 Kd1 +/- Tatai. Gutman overlooks the text move, which
transposes to an important line in his book on page 94 (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5) 8 c4 Ba6 9 Nd2, and
now 9...g6!, which Gutman calls the "only correct reply". His alternatives to
9...g6! were: 9...f6, 9...Nf4, 9...Nb4, 9...0-0-0 and 9...Nb6 [2]. I am only
mentioning this to show how much we have avoided by our innocuous move
order!
But am I not cheering a bit early? Gutman continues in the diagram with 10
b3 and after two pages of analysis ends with "slightly better prospects for
Black". Is this really what we want? The theory-firm Defendarov is still
enjoying his position. It is time for a surprise.
10 Ne4!?
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1ppqp1p/b1p3p1/3nP3/2P1N3/
8/PP2QPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 10"]
The two games in the database scored an impressive 100 percent. Admittedly,
one of them went 10...f5?? 11 exf6 Nxf6?? 12 Nxf6+ and 1-0. Even worse
would be the direct 10...Qxe5?? 11 Nf6+ and wins.
10...Bg7
(a) In the correspondence game Ulrich Beyer Dr. Peter Schaaf, Bundesliga
II 1997, there followed 10...Qb4+ 11 Kd1 Bg7 12 f4 0-0 13 Qd2 Qxd2+ 14
Bxd2 Nb6 15 b3 d5 16 Nc5 Bc8 17 Rc1 a5 18 cxd5 cxd5 19 Bb5 +=, and
White had a pleasant position (1-0, 46). A tougher nut to crack could be 12...
Rb8!
(a1) 13 Qc2 f5 14 a3 Qb6 15 cxd5 fxe4 16 Bxa6 (or 16 dxc6 Qd4+) 16...Qxa6
17 dxc6 fails to 17...0-0 18 cxd7 Bxe5! 19 fxe5 Rf1+ with a draw by
perpetual check.
(a2) 13 b3 0-0 14 Qd2 Bc8 15 Qxb4, White obtains the better position: 15...
Nxb4 16 a3 Na6 17 b4 d6 18 Nf6+! Bxf6 19 exf6 +=. The knight on a6 is a
problem for Black that will return in the present main game.
(b) The computer found a hidden resource: 10...0-0-0!? 11 Qc2 Qxe5 (or 11...
Nb4 12 Qc3 Qh4 13 Ng3 Qd4 14 Rb1 c5 15 Qxd4 cxd4 16 a3 Nc6 17 f4 =)
12 cxd5 Bxf1 13 Kxf1 Re8, winning back the piece; about equal. Since 14
Qa4?! Qxe4 15 Qa6+ Kb8 (15...Kd8? 16 Bg5+ Be7 17 d6! =) 16 Be3 c5 17
Qb5+ Kc8 is good for Black, White has to exchange queens: 14 dxc6 Qxe4 15
cxd7+ Kxd7 16 Qxe4 Rxe4 17 Be3. The resulting ending is equal and does
not permit either side much of a winning attempt.
11 Bg5! Qxe5
He takes the pawn a natural, but risky decision.
(a) 11...Qb4+ 12 Qd2! Bxe5 13 0-0-0 Qxd2+ 14 Nxd2 +=, when White has
very active pieces, in effect more than compensation for the pawn.
(b) 11...Bxc4!? 12 Qxc4 Qxe5 is the kind of "computer" sacrifice that is rare
in human OTB-play: 13 Be2 0-0 14 Rd1 Rae8 (or 14...Nb6 15 f4 Qxb2 16
Qb3 Qxb3 17 axb3 unclear) 15 f3 Qxb2
[FEN"4rrk1/p1pp1pbp/2p3p1/3n2B1/2Q1N3/
5P2/Pq2B1PP/3RK2R w K - 0 16"]
Black has collected three pawns for the piece, the position is unclear. In a
practical game, not against the computer, White should have fine chances:
when the board is still "full," it is generally easier to play with the piece than
with the three pawns.
12 Nc5 Qxe2+ 13 Bxe2 Nb4 14 0-0-0
14 0-0 can become just as complicated. White seems to have sufficient
compensation for the pawn. I wasn't able to find a win in the jungle after 14...
Bc8 (and don't forget 14...Bxb2) 15 Bg4 f5, but if you like the first thirteen
moves in this article, with a little independent analysis 14. 0-0 could be a
good practical weapon.
14...d6 15 Rhe1
After 15 a3? Na2+ 16 Kb1 Rb8 17 Rd2 Nc3+ 18 Kc2 dxc5 19 bxc3, we have
an unusual case with five pawns on the c-file. Objectively the text move must
be stronger.
[FEN"r3k2r/p1p2pbp/b1pp2p1/2N3B1/
1nP5/8/PP2BPPP/2KRR3 b kq - 0 15"]
15...0-0?
The wrong decision. Not the losing error, perhaps, but Black is getting into
difficulties. The alternative 15...dxc5 16 Bf1+ Kf8 17 a3 Nd5 18 cxd5 Bxf1
19 Be7+ (or 19 Rxf1) 19...Kg8 20 Rxf1 leads to an equal position.
16 Nxa6 Nxa6 17 Bf3 Rab8 18 b3 Be5!
The pawn on c6 is taboo (19 Bxc6? 20 Nb4), and Black hurries to shut the efile.
19 Bd2
19 Kc2 Nb4+ 20 Kb1 a5 21 a3 Na6 22 Kc2 a4 23 b4 at first looks reasonable,
until you see that Black sacrifices the knight with gusto: 23...Nxb4+ 24 axb4
Rxb4 with ber-compensation.
19...c5 20 Ba5!
[FEN"1r3rk1/p1p2p1p/n2p2p1/B1p1b3/
2P5/1P3B2/P4PPP/2KRR3 b - - 0 20"]
Black's knight is stranded on a6, and if the Rb8 moves, there may follow Bb7,
winning the pawn c7. The whole black structure on the queenside is close to
petrifaction. Nevertheless, it is not easy to find a good plan for White. The
key idea may be to play f2-f4 at an appropriate moment, to invade on e7.
Black's answer is prophylaxis: he brings his own f-pawn to f4.
20...f5 21 Kc2
Protects pawn b3 and threatens 22 a3, but in reality it is only a little maneuver
to gain the tempo Kc1-b1.
21...Nb4+ 22 Kb1 Na6 23 Bc6!
Another plan was 23 Bd5+ Kg7 24 f4 Bxf4+ 25 Re7+ Kh6 26 Bc3 Be5 27
Bd2+ f4; for example, 28 Rf1 (other moves like h4 or g3 are possible, but
apparently not better) 28...Nb4 29 Be4 Rbe8 30 Rd7 d5! 31 cxd5 Bd6 32 Re1
Rxe4! 33 Rxe4 Nxd5 34 h4 Nb6 35 Rxd6 cxd6 36 Bxf4+ Kh5 37 Bxd6, this
ending is equal.
23...Nb4 24 Ba4
24 Bb5 c6 25 Ba4 Rbc8 only helps Black to reorganize.
24...Rb7 25 Re3!
25 a3 Na6 26 Kc2 (threat: Bc6) 26...Nb8 27 f4 Bxf4 28 Re7 Rf7 29 Re8+ Rf8
is a draw.
By placing his rook to the third rank, White protects the pawn b3, so that 26
a3 Na6 27 Bc6 becomes a deadly threat.
25...f4 26 Rf3 g5 27 Rh3!
It was tempting to exchange two rooks, when the embarrassing placement of
Black's remaining pieces would be even more obvious: 27 g4 fxg3 28 Rxf8+
Kxf8 29 hxg3 Kg7 30 a3 Na6 31 Kc2 Nb8 32 Bd2 Bd4
[FEN"1n6/prp3kp/3p4/2p3p1/B1Pb4/
PP4P1/2KB1P2/3R4 w - - 0 33"]
In spite of the greater activity of White's pieces, it appears doubtful whether

he can win.
27...f3!?
The only alternative to prevent 28 a3 (with disastrous consequences) is 27...g4
28 Rh4 g3 29 Rg4+ Kh8 30 hxg3 fxg3 31 f3 +/-, but Black's position would
be almost hopeless. The advance of the f-pawn at least includes a devilish trap.
28 gxf3!
Much stronger than 28 Rxf3? Rxf3 29 gxf3 Bxh2 30 a3 Na6 31 Bc6 (31 Kc2
Nb8) 31...Rxb3+ 32 Ka2 Rb8 33 Bb5 Be5 34 Rb1, which only wins a piece:
[FEN"1r4k1/p1p4p/n2p4/BBp1b1p1/
2P5/P4P2/K4P2/1R6 b - - 0 34"]
There goes the knight, but now the whole White armada is misplaced. To
queen his pawn a3, White would need about eleven moves. How fast the
single pawn h7 is in comparison! Black plays: 34...Rf8! 35 Bxa6 Rxf3 36 Be1
Rd3 37 Bb7 h5! 38 Ba5 h4 and holds the draw.
28...Kg7 29 a3 Na6 30 Bd2 h6
In several variations the valuable rook h3 plays the main role, often White can
start a mating attack: 30...Kg6 31 f4! Bxf4 32 Bc6 followed by 33 Be4+, and
Black's defeat is near.
30...Rf5 31 Kc2 Nb8 32 Rh5 Rxf3 33 Rxg5+ Kf6 was more stubborn, but 34
Rh5 Rxf2 35 Rxh7 +/- offers good winning chances. The next move opens a
file for White's rook d1.
[FEN"5r2/prp3k1/n2p3p/2p1b1p1/B1P5/
PP3P1R/3B1P1P/1K1R4 w - - 0 31"]
31 f4! Bxf4 32 Bc3+ Kg6

Or 32...Be5 33 Bxe5+ dxe5 34 Rd7+ Rf7 35 Rxf7+ Kxf7 36 Rxh6 Rb6 37
Rh8 Rb8 38 Rh7+ Kg6 39 Rd7 +/-.
33 Re1 Be5
33...g4 34 Rg1 or 33...Nb8 34 Re6+ Kf5 35 Rexh6 are equally hopeless.
34 Bxe5 dxe5 35 Rxe5 Rb6 36 Be8+!
[FEN"4Br2/p1p5/nr4kp/2p1R1p1/
2P5/PP5R/5P1P/1K6 b - - 0 36"]
This breaks Black's defense.

36...Kg7 37 Re7+ Kg8 38 Rd3 Rxf2 39 Bh5 Rff6 40 Kc2 Rbd6 41 Rde3
Rd8 42 Kc3 Rfd6
For a long time Black was suffering from the tragicomic position of his knight
on a6. The time has come for its execution.
43 b4! cxb4+ 44 axb4 c5 45 b5 Nb4
45...Nb8? fails to 46 Re8+ Kg7 47 R3e7+ Kf6 48 Rf7 mate.
46 Rxa7 Rd3+ 47 Rxd3 Rxd3+ 48 Kb2 Rh3 49 Bf7+ Kf8 50 b6
[FEN"5k2/R4B2/1P5p/2p3p1/
1nP5/7r/1K5P/8 b - - 0 50"]
Black resigns, as the b-pawn will cost him the knight.
Sources
[1] G. Welling: "Simon Alapin's Hippopotamisches Springerspiel," in:
Kaissiber 2 (1997)
[2] L. Gutman: Gewinnen mit Schottisch, Kassel 1992
[3] L. Gutman: 4. d4 im Vierspringerspiel, Kassel 1993
[4] E. Winter: "Kasparov, Karpov and the Scotch," published online (1991).
[5] J. Emms: Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000.
[6] J. Emms: Starting Out: The Scotch Game, London 2005
[7] V. Barsky: The Scotch Game for White, Sofia 2009 (not too bad, but the
bibliography lists only two sources: Marin's Beating the Open Games, and
Emms' Scotch book)
[8] G. Flear: Starting Out: Open Games, London 2010 (Scotch section: poor)

The Paulsen Attack

The little experiment to suggest an offbeat 1 e4 repertoire goes into round
two. You may remember that Alapin's Opening, sub-section: Scotch Game,
was my general advice against 1e5. Now I owe you a fitting suggestion
against another main line of the Scotch Game, sometimes seen as the main
line, the development of the bishop to c5: 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4
Nxd4 Bc5 (the first part covered 4Nf6) 5 Be3 Qf6 6 c3 Nge7
Purchases from our

chess shop help keep
ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Starting Out: Scotch Game

by John Emms
[Find us on Facebook.]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/2b5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
White to play and find the best move for the repertoire. Before I give the
solution, perhaps you should try to find it yourself. How do you prepare a
continuation for your next tournament game? Is there a personal strategy that
you have developed? Let me guess:
First step You look into your database, where you find:

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
7 Bc4 5,200 games, score 54% for White, average rating (White) in
rated games 2160
7 Nc2 540 games, score 46%, average rating: 2090
7 Qd2 280 games, score 49%, average rating: 2090
7 f4 108 games, score 48%, average rating: 1930
7 Be2 640 games, score 42%, average rating: 1810
7 Bb5 210 games, score 50%, average rating: 1760
Second step You look into a recent opening book. It informs you that the
1922 Handbuch had assessed 7 Bc4 Ne5 8 Be2 Qg6 9 0-0 d5 as preferable for
Black (p. 547, fn. 29), but thanks to Garry Kasparov and Sergey Dolmatov,
who found the strong resource 10 Bh5!, the Scotch Game was successfully
reanimated.
Conclusion You decide to play 7 Bc4, like everybody else on this planet.
There are many reasons why your decision is wrong. You'll have to learn
much theory, and for little reward, because your opponents will expect 7 Bc4.
Since the golden days of Garry Kasparov enough resources for Black have
been found. To score heavily with 7 Bc4, you are simply a few decades late.
What you really need is an idea that is unpopular yet strong.
The Scotch Game

by Nigel Davies
The Scotch Game

by Alexander Beliavsky
& Srdjan Cvetkovic
Louis Paulsen
Source: G. A. Macdonnell:
The Knights and Kings of Chess, 1894.
This may seem like an impossible mission. Actually it is easy. Nowadays

nothing is more unpopular than former mainlines that have fallen into
disgrace. These files are closed, the books explain why the line isn't played
any more. Take, for example, the mainline of the 1880s, Louis Paulsen's 7
Bb5. We open the 1922 Bilguer and what do we see? The interesting fact that
7 Bc4 wasn't the main line for Carl Schlechter, but 7 Bb5. Not too bad for a
harmless sideline of today, to stay more than forty years at the top.
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
Perhaps you are beginning to see the advantage of a little historical research,
instead of mindlessly following the crowd. Provided that you can repair 7
Bb5, you'd gain a secret weapon that an opponent can easily underestimate.
Even better: the old sources from the nineteenth century, long forgotten and
unavailable for most opponents, would become your private gold mine.
You are probably sceptical whether analyses from the nineteenth century are
still useful. In my opinion, they are. There are errors, of course, but often just
the kind of errors that can happen to your human opponents. The old articles
often inspire new ideas, which in my opinion counts for more than just
imitating recent successes of other players, no matter how strong they are.
Spotting mistakes overlooked for 150 years, with the help of your computer,
is part of the fun. Regarding the extent of old sources, you may be surprised
how much is available, at least about fashionable lines of the past. Lev
Gutman's reference work [5] on the Scotch has one page on 7 Bb5. The old
analyses [1], [2], [3] used for this article are a total of about twelve pages, and
the authors C. E. Ranken, W. Timbrell Pierce and William Steinitz deserve to
be taken seriously. More can be found in old books and magazines, should 7
Bb5 ever become popular again.
By sheer coincidence, 7 Bb5 was tested in the second match game of the two
experienced players, whose names are already known to the readers of this
column.
Alapin Opening. Sub-section: Scotch Game [C45]

1 e4 e5 2 Ne2 Nc6
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/8/
PPPPNPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 3"]
This move order avoids the Russian Defense. Last month I had studied only
2Nf6 3 d4 Nxe4, but Kaissiber co-editor Maurits Wind (Netherlands) is
right to mention 3exd4 as a good alternative. Probably White cannot prove
much of an advantage, but I propose the response 4 e5 Ne4 5 f3 (the gambit 5
c3?! Dxc3 6 Nbxc3 Bb4 seems too risky) 5Nc5 6 Nxd4 (6 c3 looks
unsound) 6...Nc6 (6d6 7 exd6 Bxd6 8 Nb5!?) 7 Be3!. The last move offers
a lively gambit; for example, 7Qh4+ (7Nxe5 8 f4 followed by Nc3 gives
White sufficient compensation) 8 Bf2 Qg5 9 Nc3 with interesting
complications. If 9Qxe5+ 10 Be2 Nxd4 11 Bxd4 Qg5 12 f4!, White has
sufficient compensation, at least.
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pppp1ppp/8/2n3q1/3B1P2/
2N5/PPP1B1PP/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 12"]
As I said in the first part, I do not claim an advantage for White after Alapin's
2 Ne2, but the play seems unbalanced and offers many opportunities. The 2
Ne2 sequence can be a good decision, if you want to reach the Scotch,
without having to spend a lot of work on the Russian or Philidor's Defense.
You can easily upgrade this basic repertoire at a later moment, when you feel
fit to play 2 Nf3.
3 d4 exd4
Accepting the invitation to the Scotch.
4 Nxd4 Bc5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b5/3NP3/8/
PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]
The July column had proposed a (slightly) offbeat treatment of 4Nf6. The
bishop move is even more popular. Another option for Black, 4Qh4, creates
positions that anyone inclined to unusual situations should enjoy anyway.
White should be warned, however, that 4Qh4 isn't the bad move that some
sources suggest. The jury is still out.
5 Be3 Qf6 6 c3 Nge7
One of the best-known positions of the Scotch Game. The "modern
continuation" 7 Bc4 is also the oldest: two games Perigal Walker are
published in Walker's Chess Studies. Gutman's book [5] discusses ten
continuations. Louis Paulsen introduced one of the minor ideas, 7 Be2, in
1864, and 7 Bb5 is named "Paulsen Attack" after him. Cook's The Evolution
of the Chess Openings, 1906, writes: "This is one of the strongest
continuations, first played in an unimportant game in 1866, but introduced
into master play by L. Paulsen v. Anderssen at the Leipsig Tourney (1877)."
If this wasn't enough, Paulsen introduced a third option for White, 7 Qd2, in
the game L. Paulsen Englisch, 1880.
7 Bb5!?
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
"The move [] is, we believe, the strongest at this juncture," Steinitz in [2].
70-0
The most important alternatives are as follows:
(a) 7Nd8 8 0-0 0-0 Gunsberg Blackburne, London 1881, is good for
White. Ranken [1] mentions that in a "subsequent partie" 9 Nd2 was played,
and this seems in fact more flexible: +/-. An alternative line: 8Qb6 9 Qe2 00 10 b4 Bxd4 11 cxd4 "with an excellent attack," Steinitz [2]. Yes, and
Rybka's 9 Bc4 isn't bad either.
(b) Against 7Qe5, Gutman recommends 8 Qd3!. It was analyzed in more
detail 1882 by Ranken [1]: 8d6 9 Nd2 0-0 10 f4 Qh5 11 0-0 f5 "even
game." The last move fails to 11 Nxf5 +/-, but if we replace it by 11Bd7
+=, the analysis comes close to the truth. I have tried 80-0 9 Nd2 a6 10 Bc4
d6 (10d5? 11exd5 Nxd5 12 N4f3) 11 0-0 Qh5 12 f4 Na5; White's
advantage is small.
(c) One little detail that I simply have to add. Recent books on the Scotch
rarely fail to mention that the early exchange of the white queen on f3 is an
excellent, modern idea, which apparently has revived the Scotch Opening, or
something like that. Here comes a variation from W. T. Pierce, 1892 [3]: 7
d6 8 Qf3
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1nppp/2np1q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1BQ2/PP3PPP/RN2K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]
His four variations indicate that he likes White's position. So what is so

special in Qd1-f3 that theoreticians of the nineteenth century should not be
able to see it?
(d) 7Bxd4?! 8 cxd4 Qg6 9 0-0 d5 (9Qxe4 10 Nc3 is too risky, as Pierce
[3] found out) happened in Blackburne Winawer, Berlin 1881 (continued 10
Nc3). 10 exd5! Nxd5 11 Qf3 (so far in [2], [5])) 11Be6 12 Nc3 and
according to Pierce [3] White is better; 11 Nc3 may be slightly more precise.
(e) 7Ne5, "given by Mr. Barnes in his notes to a game in the August
number of Brentano's Chess Monthly as the best, seems to us inferior to any
we have yet examined," C. E. Ranken 1882 [1]. The variation is similar to the
next, newer example.
(f) 7a6 is a natural and popular continuation, fifty-five games in my
database (score: 50%). 8 Ba4 Ne5 (8b5?! 9 Bc2 += Mieses Blackburne,
Hastings 1895; 8Bb6!?) 9 Qe2 N7g6 10 Nd2 Nf4 11 Bxf4 Qxf4 12 g3 Qg4,
Randviir Keres, Prnu 1947. Instead of 13 Qxg4, as in this game, White
should prefer 13 f3 Qh3 14 f4 Nc6 15 N4f3 h6 16 0-0-0 +=. The position after
8 Ba4 is about even and should be studied carefully.
8 0-0 Bb6
(a) Similar to the last note, Black can play: 8a6 9 Ba4 b5?! 10 Bc2 Bxd4 11
cxd4 d5 12 Nc3 +/- was given by Pierce as an improvement upon 12 e5, L.
Paulsen Fritz, Berlin 1880. White has indeed a strong attack: 12dxe4 13
d5 Ne5 14 Nxe4 Qg6 15 Bg5 Nf5 16 Bf4, and Black is in trouble.
(b) 8Bxd4 9 cxd4 d5 "= Keres," says ECO 1997 (third ed. Vol. C). Just as
in the first and second edition, by the way. But the software suggests 10 f3!
+= with a dynamic position. We already have a fresh example in our database:
Walbrodt Gunsberg, Hastings 1895.
The text move is a prophylactic continuation, which was criticized by Pierce
[3]. However, it directly prepares the later advance d7-d5. This advance
would be most effective, when White has already played f2-f4. Therefore, the
bishop move is more aggressive than 8d6 ("=" in Nunn's Chess Openings,
London 1999). It has been this strong continuation, I believe, which has led to
the decline of 7 Bb5.
9 a4!?
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppppnppp/1bn2q2/1B6/P2NP3/
2P1B3/1P3PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - a3 0 9"]
A new idea, perhaps an improvement. The main line used to be 9 f4 d5 (more

critical than 9d6 from the stem game L. Paulsen Anderssen,Leipsig 1877)
10 e5 (Pierce 1892 [3] stops here, assessing it as good for White) 10Qh6 11
Qd2 Nxd4 12 cxd4 Nf5 13 Nc3 c6 14 Be2 Nxe3 15 Qxe3 f6 16 Na4 Bc7 and
White won in Suesman Horowitz. New York 1946. Instead of 16Bc7,
Black has the stronger 16fxe5 17 Nxb6 axb6 18 dxe5 Ra4! =+.
By moving his a-pawn and postponing f2-f4, White assails the bishop on b6
and makes it more difficult for Black to "read" the position. He denies him the
information whether his plan involves f2-f4 or not. It is tempting for Black to
try and refute the text move, by playing d7-d5, as in this game. But White is
well prepared for this battle and in many cases the extra move a4 is useful,
particularly if Black's c-pawns are doubled after an exchange on c6.
9d5
An ambitious, but risky continuation. 9a5? would be a positional error. The
direct exchange on d4 isn't impressive either: 9Bxd4 10 cxd4 d5 11 Nc3!?
(or perhaps 11 f3) 11dxe4 (11a6 12. e5! Qg6 13 Be2 +=) 12 d5 a6 (12
Ne5? 13 Nxe4 Qg6 14 Bc5; 12Rd8? 13 Qc1!) 13 dxc6! axb5 14 cxb7 Bxb7
15 axb5 Rxa1 16 Qxa1 Ra8 17 Qd1 +=.
The main alternative is 9d6(!). It would be tempting to react with 10 f4, but
even a delayed d6-d5 is not completely harmless; or Black may prepare the
advance by means of Be6 or Rd8. More annoying is that Black can simplify:
10Nxd4 11 Bxd4 Bxd4+ 12 Qxd4 Qxd4+ 13 cxd4 c6 14 Be2 d5 =.
Therefore, subtler replies to 9d6 should be tested:
(a) 10 Kh1, 10 Bc4 (directed against d6-d5), or 10 Re1 come into
consideration.
(b) I'd recommend 10 Qd2, a set-up similar to Paulsen's second favourite, 7
Qd2.
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppp1nppp/1bnp1q2/1B6/P2NP3/
2P1B3/1P1Q1PPP/RN3RK1 b - - 0 10"]
The situation is complex. It wouldn't hurt to know more about the 7 Qd2 line,
or to study Meitner's 7 Nc2. The move a2-a4 is often useful: 10Qe5?! 11
Bf4 Qxe4? 12 Re1 Qg6 13 Bxc6 Nxc6 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 a5 +/-. Black should
adopt a strategy aiming at d7-d5; for example, 10h6 followed by Rd8, or
perhaps 10Qg6; e.g., 11 f3 d5 12 Bd3 dxe4 13 Bxe4 Nf5, which the
computer regards as roughly equal, even after the astonishing 14 g4!?. New
and good ideas are still needed in this variation, for both sides.
10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 a5 Bc5
The only alternative is to take on d4. It brings about a situation with bishops
on squares of opposite color, but other factors in the position, like Black's
weak a-pawn, may be more significant: 11Bxd4 12 Bxd4 Qg6 13 f3! (to
restrict Black's minor pieces)
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1p1nppp/2p3q1/P2p4/3BP3/
2P2P2/1P4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
A possible continuation is 13dxe4 14 fxe4 Ba6 15 Re1 Rfd8 16 Nd2 c5

(sacrifices a pawn, to free the suppressed knight) 17 Bxc5 Nc6 18 b4 Rd7 19
Qc2 Ne5 +=. Now Black's pieces are quite active, but White still seems to
have an advantage; e.g., 20 Bd4 Qg5 21 h4 Qh6 22 Nb3 Nd3 23 Red1 Nf4 24
Qf2 Rd6 25 Rf1.
12 Nd2 Bd6
12Qg6 13 Ne6!? Bxe6 14 Bxc5 Rfe8 15 f3 is similar to the last comment.
13 f4 Qh6 14 b4
14 Qf3 or 14 Qe2 also come into consideration. The text move aims at a
blockade on the dark squares, a serious positional threat. And it offers a pawn
sacrifice.
14f5?!
Too ambitious. Black could be satisfied with 14dxe4 15 Nxe4 Nd5 16 Bd2
and hope that his damaged pawn structure on the queenside may not be fatal.
For example, 16Re8 17 Qf3 Bd7 18 Rfe1 Rad8 19 Nxd6 Qxd6 20 Nb3 +=.
15 e5! Bxe5 16 Re1
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1p1n1pp/2p4q/P2pbp2/
1P1N1P2/2P1B3/3N2PP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 16"]
The point of White's last move: for the price of a pawn, he has established a
firm grip on the dark central squares and along the e-file. To exchange the
bishop e5 now would not be an improvement: 16Bxd4 17 Bxd4 Ng6 18 g3.
We all know the rule that when a king is under fire, bishops of opposite color
are no drawing factor, they increase the attacker's chances. Who will doubt
that in our case the menacing Bd4 is stronger than the Bc8?
15Bd6 17 N2f3 Bd7
The freeing 17c5 looks good at first sight, but it fails to 18 Nb5; e.g., 18
cxb4 19 Nxd6 Qxd6 (or 19cxd6? 20 Bf2 Be6 21 Ng5 +-) 20 cxb4 Qxb4? 21
Rc1 followed by 22 Bc5 +-.
18 g3
White can choose from several promising plans. A possible alternative is 18
Nb3 Ng6 19 Nc5 Be8 20 g3 Qh5 21 Bd4 Bf7 22 a6.
18Kh8
In a difficult situation, Black is lacking a good plan. To clear the square g8 for
a later Ne7-g8-f6-e4 could be useful.
19 Ne5 Be8
If 19Bxe5 20 fxe5 Qg6 21 e6 Bc8 22 Bf4, White wins the pawn c7, in a
great position.
20 a6!
Underlining White's intentions: the pawn a7 is designed to fall, sooner or later.
20Bh5 21 Qd2 Rae8 22 Bf2 Rg8
[FEN "4r1rk/p1p1n1pp/P1pb3q/3pNp1b/
1P1N1P2/2P3P1/3Q1B1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 23"]
Black hopes for 23 Nexc6 Nxc6 24 Nxc6 Bxf4 25 Qxf4 Qxc6 27 Bxa7 Be2,
conquering the white a-pawn. But instead of chasing for pawns White
increases the pressure:
23 Nd3! Qg6
Or 23Bf7 24 Rxe7! Bxe7 25 Ne5 Qf6 26 Ndxc6 and for the small price of
the exchange, White will enjoy a passed pawn on the a-file: +/-, at least. Even
worse is 23g5? 24 Ne6 +-.
24 Re6 Qf7 25 Ne5 Bxe5 26 Rxe5 c5
Not really a solution, but returning the pawn at least reduces the strength of
the bishop f2.
27 bxc5 Bg4 28 Rae1 Ng6 29 Re6!
[FEN "4r1rk/p1p2qpp/P3R1n1/2Pp1p2/
3N1Pb1/2P3P1/3Q1B1P/4R1K1 b - - 0 29"]
More effective than 29 Rxe8 Rxe8 30 c6, yet even here White has excellent
prospects to win. Black's weak a-pawn would remain a serious handicap for
the rest of the game.
29h6
29Rxe6 30 Nxe6 is hopeless. White threatens 31 Qxd5, and if 30c6 31
Qb2 Re8, the invasion 32 Qb7 +- decides the game.
30 Qe3 Rb8 31 Kg2 Rgf8 32 h3 Bh5 33 Qd3 Rb2 34 Rb1 Ra2 35 Rb7 Re8
Black's last chance is a counter.
36 Rxe8+ Qxe8 37 Rxc7
[FEN "4q2k/p1R3p1/P5np/2Pp1p1b/
3N1P2/2PQ2PP/r4BK1/8 b - - 0 37"]
37Qe1 38 Nc2 Qe4+

Or 38Qc1 39 Qd4 and wins.
39 Qxe4 dxe4 40 Nb4 Rb2 41 Nd5 1-0
Visibly shaken by the defeat, Black sighed: "The Open Games are simply too
open." But his fighting spirit will certainly be back in the next column.
Sources
[1] C. E. Ranken: "The Scotch Gambit," in: The British Chess Magazine
1882, pp. 90-95
[2] W. Steinitz: The Modern Chess Instructor, London 1889, pp. 62-63
[3] W. T. Pierce: "The Scotch Gambit," in: The British Chess Magazine 1892,
pp. 334-340
[4] P. R. v. Bilguer: Handbuch des Schachspiels (ed. by C. Schlechter), Berlin/
Leipsig 1922
[5] L. Gutman: Gewinnen mit Schottisch, Kassel 1992

[6] J. Nunn e. a.: Nunn's Chess Openings, London 1999

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com]
The Antique Attack in the Modern Defense
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Translate this page
After two losses with 1 e4 e5 in his little match with Attakinsky (see the July
and August columns), an exhausted Defendarov declared that he needed a
pause, apparently to prepare a more resilient first move. We take the
opportunity to discuss 1 e4 g6, a reply not to be expected from this orthodox
master. Many players find it difficult to prepare for flexible defenses such as
1g6, 1d6, 1b6, where a great number of move orders are possible, in
contrast to the more straightforward play in the Open Games; for example, in
the Marshall Gambit. By postponing to move his center pawns, Black often
keeps the option to transpose to other defenses. 1g6 and a later c7-c5 could
perhaps lead to a Modern Benoni, to an Open Sicilian or several other
systems. For our offbeat repertoire after 1 e4, the Modern Defense 1g6 is a
difficult response not because of its strength, but because of its flexibility. It
isn't easy to develop something unusual, a personal approach against 1g6, if
Black has so many different options.
My own early attempts with 1g6, based on the instructive work by Keene
and Botterill, The Modern Defence (London 1972), typically included the
pawn storm b7-b5, directed against the white knight on c3. This preference
explains why I felt uncomfortable, when White chose the solid c2-c3. Many
years later it seemed to be a useful weapon against the German fianchetto
expert Jrg Hickl. I liked my position, at least up to a point:
Purchases from our

accessible:
Modern Defence
by Jon Speelman
& Neil McDonald
Stefan Bcker (2345) Jrg Hickl (2480)

Bad Neuenahr 1991, German Championships
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d6 3 Bd3 e5 4 c3 Nf6 5 Ne2 g6
Starting Out: The Modern
by Nigel Davies

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3p1p/2pp1np1/4p3/3PP3/
2PB4/PP2NPPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
As mentioned above, all kind of move orders are possible. Whether the
opening should be called Modern Defense or Caro-Kann Defense or Pirc, I
leave to the reader.
6 0-0 Bg7 7 Nd2 0-0 8 h3 Nbd7 9 f4
This solid white set-up, with the knight on e2 and an eventual later f2-f4, can
still be recommended. It is relatively easy to handle. Of course it doesn't
refute 1g6, but in my opinion White keeps a lasting small advantage.
9Qe7 10 Qc2 exf4 11 Nxf4 b6 12 b4 Bb7 13 Bb2 c5 14 Rae1 Rae8 +=
The Black Lion

by Leo Jansen
& Jerry van Rekom
[FEN"4rrk1/pb1nqpbp/1p1p1np1/2p5/
1P1PPN2/2PB3P/PBQN2P1/4RRK1 w - - 0 15"]
White has more space. Black's position is sound, but his options are limited.
15 bxc5
15 b5 was preferable.
15bxc5 16 Qa4 a6 17 Qa5 Bh6 18 Bc1 Bg7 19 Qc7? Rb8 20 Nf3? (20
dxc5) 20...Rfc8 21 Qa5 cxd4 22 cxd4 Nxe4 23 Bxe4 Bxe4 -/+ and Black won
(0-1, 47), since 24 Nd5 Qe6 25 Nc7 fails to 25Qc4.
However, the set-up with c3 and Ne2 remained an exception in my games.
For an adherent of the Closed Sicilian it is more tempting to lure the opponent
into this familiar structure, by playing 2 Nc3 and leave the d-pawn on d2. Of
course Black doesn't have to accept the invitation by playing c7-c5. The
following game is an unusual mixture of a Pirc Defense and the Closed
Sicilian. The ChessBase software classifies it as a "Vienna Game". I agree
without much enthusiasm, since the situation is rather untypical for a Vienna
Game.
Stefan Bcker (2415) Stephan Ingenerf (2265)
Wittlich 1983
Vienna Game [C25]
1 e4 g6 2 Nc3 Bg7 3 g3 e5 4 Bg2 d6 5 d3 Ne7 6 f4 0-0 7 Nf3 Nbc6 8 0-0 f5
[FEN"r1bq1rk1/ppp1n1bp/2np2p1/4pp2/4PP2/
2NP1NP1/PPP3BP/R1BQ1RK1 w - f6 0 9"]
The position is almost symmetrical, only the king's knights are occupying
different squares. But it is White's turn, and some exchanges give him the
slightly better pawn structure.
9 fxe5 Nxe5?!
Better: 9dxe5 10 exf5 Bxf5, about =.
10 Nxe5 dxe5 11 exf5 gxf5 12 Qh5 c6 13 Bh6!?
White sacrifices a pawn.
13Qb6+ 14 Kh1 Qxb2
Played without hesitation.
[FEN"r1b2rk1/pp2n1bp/2p4B/4pp1Q/8/
2NP2P1/PqP3BP/R4R1K w - - 0 15"]
15 Ne4! fxe4
The computer suggests the defense: 15Qd4, intending 16 Ng5 Qg4!. But
after 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 the quiet continuation 17 Rab1! threatens g3-g4, while
the knight e4 is still taboo: 17fxe4 18 Rxf8! Kxf8 19 Rf1+, winning.
16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Rxf8 Qxa1+ 18 Rf1 Qxf1+ 19 Bxf1 Ng6 20 dxe4 Be6 21
Qg5 Rf8 22 Kg1 Bxa2 23 h4 h6 24 Qg4 Rf6 25 c4 Rxf1+ 26 Kxf1 Bxc4+ 27
Kf2 1-0
Gambit inventor:
Max Lange (1832-1899)
Searching for a more forcing sequence, or at least a trap, against the Modern
Defense, I detected the following exotic gambit in Max Lange's Der Meister
im Schachspiel, Weimar 1881, p. 204:
Steinitz Blackburne
Vienna 1873
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bd3?!
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3PP3/3B4/
PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 3"]
A surprising pawn sacrifice. It is even more surprising that Black doesn't take
on d4:
3c5 4 dxc5 Qc7 5 Ne2 Qxc5 6 Nbc3 Nc6 7 a3 d6 8 Be3 Qa5
(1-0, 39)
However, the diagrammed position didn't really occur in this final and
decisive game of the Vienna tournament. The tournament book gives this
sequence: 1 a3 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 e4 c5 4 dxc5 Qc7 5 Bd3 Qxc5 6 Ne2 Nc6 7
Be3 Qa5+ 8 Nbc3 d6, and via a completely different move order we have
finally returned to Max Lange's creative version. Max Lange was a well
known theoretician and had invented other gambit openings that were named
after him, but his "improved game version"(?) 3 Bd3?! seems difficult to
justify.
This example should be a warning. The King's Fianchetto or Modern Defense
is flexible enough to resist any premature attack. It is probably wiser to play a
solid set-up, usch as my first two examples, or another reliable system there
are many. But for those who still urge me to show something offbeat, I
propose the "Antique Attack":
1 e4 g6 2 c3!? Bg7 3 Qb3
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/8/4P3/1QP5/
PP1P1PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]
Intending 4 Bc4, to create a small weakness on the black squares (e7-e6 is

almost forced) in Black's camp.
3c5!?
Alternatives are playable, but in each case the resulting situations are
attractive:
(a) 3c6 4 d4 d5 5 Nd2 e6 (what else?) 6 h4!? Nd7 7 h5 +=.
(b) 3d6!? 4 Bc4 e6 5 d4 (5 Nf3 Nf6 6 e5 deserves attention) 5Nf6 6 e5!?
(6 Bd3 0-0 7 Nf3 c5 8 0-0 d5!, about =, resp. 8 dxc5 Nbd7!) 6dxe5 7 dxe5
Nd5 (7Nfd7 8 f4) 8 Nf3 0-0 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Bg5, unclear.
4 d4!?
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/pp1pppbp/6p1/2p5/3PP3/
1QP5/PP3PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq d3 0 4"]
A promising gambit, in the style of a Morra Gambit. In this concrete case,

Black's fianchetto may be a small handicap. The consequences are not entirely
clear, but White should get full compensation for the pawn, at least.
4cxd4 5 Nf3! Nc6 6 cxd4 Nxd4
6Bxd4?! is worse; e.g., 7 Bc4 e6 8 Nxd4 Nxd4 9 Qd3 +=.
7 Nxd4 Bxd4 8 Bc4 e6
8Kf8?! 9 Bxf7 Kg7 is slightly better for White.
[FEN"r1bqk1nr/pp1p1p1p/4p1p1/8/2BbP3/
1Q6/PP3PPP/RNB1K2R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 0-0
9 Nc3 also deserves attention: 9Ne7 10 0-0 a6 11 Bf4 0-0 12 Rad1 Nc6 13
Qa3Bg7 14 Bd6.
9Ne7
Looks more natural than 9Nf6 10 Qd3 Qb6 11 Nc3; for example, 11Ng4
12 Qe2, and White has the initiative.
10 Nc3 a6 11 Bf4 Nc6
[FEN"r1bqk2r/1p1p1p1p/p1n1p1p1/8/
2BbPB2/1QN5/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
White has sufficient compensation for the invested pawn. He can simply plant
his bishop on the vital square d6, which gives him a lasting grip on the
position. 12 a4 is also possible, to prevent b7-b5. Another ambitious idea is 12
Rad1 0-0 13 Bd6 Re8 14 Rxd4!? Nxd4 15 Qd1. Maybe not entirely correct,
but the long-term pressure may be worth the exchange.

How Safe is Fort Knox?
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Translate this page
We had begun our series of off-beat suggestions for White with the Open
Games 1 e4 e5, studied in July and August, and the Modern Defense 1 e4 g6
in September. Although the reply 1e5 is regarded as solid, there are more
than enough gambits for White to stir things up. You can either create a new
weapon, or repair a bomb from an ancient book. After his two losses with 1
e5, it was no surprise that Defendarov wanted a change and adopted the
French Defense. In the nineteenth century, 1e6 was seen as boring; a
reputation mainly caused by the main line at that time, the Exchange
Variation. Today the French Defense ranks only behind the Sicilian Defense.
The modern French players acclaim the firm pawn chain and the system's
reliability. Occasionally Black even manages to win a game.
The average French player isn't stronger than the average 1e5 or 1c5
player, but he has typically played the French Defense for decades. Instead of
entering the Winawer Variation or another line requiring knowledge of
French structures, I have always preferred rarer treatments with pawn
structures less familiar to French players. But even these side-lines are
relatively stable, and the "Fort Knox Variation," 4Bd7 followed by Bc6,
got its name for a reason. By the way, I don't know who invented the name. A
tip by a reader would be much appreciated.
Purchases from our

accessible:
How to Play against 1 e4

by Neil McDonald
Black Shockers
by Andrew Martin

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Grandmaster Neil McDonald recommends

the Fort Knox Variation
In [1] Neil McDonald called 4Bd7 "Black's universal system," and

continued (p. 72): "The Fort Knox is one of the greatest labour-saving devices
ever invented." Actually this system can become hyper-sharp, as we will see
in the following game.
French Defense, Fort Knox Variation [C10]
1 e4 e6 2 Nf3
Varying White's move order isn't very risky against a French player. Of
course, there is nothing wrong with 2 Nc3, and 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4
Bd7 5 Nf3 Bc6 would be the standard move order of the Rubinstein Variation,
sub-genre Fort Knox. However, the latter sequence allows 3Bb4, the
Winawer Variation.
2d5 3 Nc3
Fit for the French

by Victor Bologan
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3p4/4P3/
2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
By developing his two knights and postponing the advance d2-d4, White
avoids the Winawer Variation (2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4). If Black would insist in
3Bb4, the reply 4 a3 Bxc3 5 dxc3 dxe4?! 6 Qxd8+ Kxd8 7 Ng5 += is
sufficient to give White some advantage.
3dxe4
De facto transposing to the Rubinstein Variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 (or
Nd2) dxe4 4 Nxe4, an option which Black also would have had against the
standard move order. The Two Knights Variation has the potential
disadvantage to offer Black two additional options, namely 3d4, going into
positions known from the Van Geet Opening 1 Nc3, and 3Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5
d4 c5 6 dxc5. The latter is an interpretation of the Steinitz system that isn't as
popular as the Steinitz main lines with f2-f4. But I believe it is
underestimated.
4 Nxe4 Bd7
The manoeuvre Bd7-c6 is characteristic of the so-called Fort Knox Variation.
The bishop c6 is often exchanged for a white knight, followed by c7-c6 with a
solid formation. But White has his own ideas in the present game. Main
alternatives not considered here are 4Nd7, 4Nf6, 4Be7, and 4Qd5.
5 d4
The attempt 5 Ne5, to profit from the different move order, costs valuable
time: 5Nc6 =. After d2-d4, we have reached the Rubinstein Variation.
5Bc6 6 Neg5!?
[FEN"rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
Similar ideas, intending to sacrifice a knight on the vulnerable square f7, if

Black doesn't find the best reply, are better known from the Caro-Kann
Defense.
6Nd7!
According to theory an error, but the move seems quite playable.
(a) 6h6? is the "worst case": 7 Nxf7! Kxf7 8 Ne5+ Kf6 9 Qg4 +- (1-0, 19)
Janos Kirwald, corr. 1987 (EU-ch GT 270).
(b) 6Be7 7 Bc4 Bd5 8 Bxd5 is ECO's main line, but 8 Be2! at least
conquers the bishop-pair, as both 8Nd7 9 c4 Bc6? 10 d5 and 8Nf6 9 c4
Bc6 10 Ne5 Bxg2? 11 Rg1 fail. And 8h6? 9 Nxf7! is just as bad as "a." The
only question remains whether 8 Bb5+!? Bc6 (or 8c6 9 Bd3) 9 Qe2 may be
even stronger. Again 9Nf6? fails to 10 Nxf7. In other words: 6Be7 looks
anti-positional.
(c) Neil McDonald [1] calls 6Bd6 "the antidote." He continues ([1], p. 89):
"[7 Nxf7] 7Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8 doesn't give White anywhere near enough for
the piece; for example, 9 Nxe6 Qh4!?..." But someone noticed that the
grandmaster was wrong: "dmp4373" posted analysis [2] in the public section
of "Chesspublishing.com." Others contributed to the interesting thread, with
the final result that the text move, criticized in 1999 by John Nunn [3], may
well be the correct continuation. After 6Bd6 7 Nxf7! Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8
(Thomas Johansson's proposal 8Ke7 9 Bc4 Bd5 10 Bxd5 Bb4+ 11 c3
Qxd5! is unclear, but 11 Bd2! [instead of 11 c3] 11Bxd2+ 12 Qxd2 Qxd5
13 c4! += keeps the attack alive; e.g., 13Qxc4 14 Rc1 Qd5?! 15 Rc5! Qxg2
16 Qe2! +-) 9 Nxe6, White has indeed the better position:
[FEN"rn1qk1nr/ppp3pp/2bbN3/8/3P4/8/
PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQ - 0 9"]
(c1) 9Qh4 (!? McDonald) 10 Bd3! (improving upon 10 Nxg7+ Kd7 11 Nf5
Qe4+ 12 Ne3 Ne7 13 Be2 unclear [1-0, 43], Genocchio Foisor, Edoardo
Crespi Magistrale 2009) 10Bxg2 (or 10Qf6 11 0-0 Ne7 12 Re1
"dmp4373") 11 Bg5 Qh3 12 Qe2 +/- "dmp4373."
(c2) 9Qf6 10 Bc4 Qg6 (10b5 11 Bb3 Bxg2 12 Rg1 Qf3 13 Ng5! +/"ReneDescartes" [2]; or the analogous 10Bxg2 11 Rg1 Qf3 12 Ng5!) 11
Ng5 Nh6 12 0-0 Kd8 13 Bd3 Qf6 14 c4. So far the analysis in [2] by
"dmp4373," which results in a position slightly better for White. 13 Re1! Bd7
14 Bd3 Qf6 15 h3 Kc8 16 c3 might be stronger; for example, 16Nf5 17
Qh5 Qg6?! 18 Qxg6 hxg6 19 g4 Nh4 20 f4, followed by Kf2-g3, and Black is
in difficulties.
7 Nxf7!? Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8
8Ke7 fails to 9 Qe2! +-, while 9 Qg4?! in Marjanovic Skembris, Bela
Crkva 1983, left Black some hope. In fact the game ended with a draw.
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/8/
PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQ - 0 9"]
9 Bd3
A novelty suggested by "Djy" in the Chesspublishing thread [2].
(a) 9 Be2 is another untested idea and not easy to refute: 9Qf6 10 0-0 Rd8!
(but not 10Bd6? 11 Re1 Nf8 12 d5! Bxd5? 13 Qxd5!!) 11 Bd2 (aimed at
Black's good resource Nd7-c5, which is too effective against 11 Re1, 11 Bc4
and 11 Bg4) 11Bd6! 12 Re1 Nf8 13 Bh5+ g6 14 Bg4 Ne7 15 c3 (15
Bxe6!?) h6 16 Nxe6 Nxe6 17 Bxe6
[FEN"3rk2r/ppp1n3/2bbBqpp/8/3P4/
2P5/PP1B1PPP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
The cautious 17b6! =+ seems to secure an advantage. The hidden dangers

of the position are illustrated by the overoptimistic 17Qh4? 18 g3 Qh5 19
c4 Qxd1 20 Raxd1, when White stands better, although he has only two
pawns for the piece. For example, 20Bf3 21 Rc1 b6 22 Bc3 Rf8 23 b4 c6
24 Re3 and Black might already be lost.
(b) White can force a draw by means of 9 Nxe6 Qe7 10 Qe2 Kf7 11 Ng5+
Ke8 12 Ne6, as Neil McDonald had to learn in a game against a lower rated
White player.
(c) Most popular in practice was 9 Bc4!?, which scored six points out of nine.
It "gives White a highly dangerous initiative," writes McDonald [1]. The
critical continuation must be 9Bxg2 10 Rg1, when Black has a choice:
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/4p3/6N1/2BP4/8/
PPP2PbP/R1BQK1R1 b Q - 0 10"]
(c1) 10Bd5 11 Nxe6 Bxe6 (11Bb4+ 12 c3 Bxe6 13 Bxe6 Qe7 14 Rg3!

comp., and White won in Kotronias Franchini, Reggio Emilia 2005. 14 Kd2
also comes into consideration.) 12 Bxe6 Qe7 (perhaps more precise than 12
Ngf6 13 Qe2 Qe7 14 Bf4 Kd8 15 0-0-0 "etc.," McDonald, analysis in the
subscriber section of Chesspublishing.com) 13 Qe2 Kd8 14 Bf4 (or 14 Bg5)
14g6!? (hoping for 15 0-0-0 Bh6) 15 Bg5! Ngf6 16 0-0-0 Bg7 17 Rge1, and
White has compensation for the sacrificed piece.
(c2) 10Qe7!? 11 Bxe6 (the point of Black's last move is 11 Rxg2 Qb4+,
winning the bishop) 11Be4 (11Bd5 12 Rg3) 12 Qe2 Bg6 13 Bf4 Ngf6 14
0-0-0 h6 (another plausible variation: 14Kd8 15 Qb5 Qb4 16 Bxd7 Nxd7
17 Ne6+ Kc8 18 Qxb4 Bxb4 19 Nxc7 Rf8 20 Bg3 Rxf2! =) 15 Nf3 Bf5 (15...
Be4) and now either 16 Bxd7+ Bxd7 17 Qc4 or 16 d5!? Nxd5 17 Bxd7+
Bxd7 18 Be5 c6 19 Nh4, with heavy complications and chances for both
sides.
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/
3B4/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 0 9"]
9Qf6
9Ndf6!? 10 Qe2 (so far analysis by "Djy" in [2]) 10Ne7 is a serious
alternative: 11 Nxe6 (less convincing: 11 Bf4?! Qd7 12 0-0-0 h6 13 Nxe6 Kf7
14 Nxc7 Rc8 15 Nb5 Ned5 16 Be5 Re8) 11Qd7 12 0-0 Kf7 13 Re1 Bd5 14
Nc5 Qg4 15 Qxg4 Nxg4 16 c4 with compensation.
10 0-0 Bd6 11 Nxe6
The line suggested by "Djy" continues 11 c4, "but it's not a 'clear' way,"
writes "Djy." It seems that 11Nf8 12 Re1 (perhaps 12 Be3 h6 13 Nh3) 12
Ne7 is slightly better for Black.
11Qxe6 12 Re1
[FEN"r3k1nr/pppn2pp/2bbq3/8/3P4/
3B4/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 12"]
12Ne5
Black avoids the enormous complications after 12Be5, perhaps a wise
decision:
(a) 13 Bf4 (13 dxe5? Nc5 14 Bf1 Qg6 is harmless) 13Kf8 14 Bxe5 (14
dxe5 Ne7 15 b4 may be playable, but 14 c4?! Re8 15 dxe5 Nc5 16 Be2 Ne7
17 b4 Qg6 looks dubious) 14Nxe5 15 Rxe5 Qd6; for example, 16 Qe2!? h5
17 Re1 Nf6 18 Bc4 Re8 19 h3 Rh6 20 Bb3 b5 21 Qe3 Rg6 22 f3
[FEN"4rk2/p1p3p1/2bq1nr1/1p2R2p/3P4/
1B2QP1P/PPP3P1/4R1K1 b - - 0 22"]
The position seems roughly balanced, since none of the players can do much
without giving up the center.
(b) 13 c4 (to control the square d5) 13Kf7 14 Bf4! (14 d5? Bxd5 15 cxd5
Qd6 -/+; 14 dxe5?! Ne7 15 b4 b6 16 Qh5+ g6 17 Qh4 Nf5 =+) 14Rd8! 15
b4! (but not 15 dxe5? Nc5; the text move controls the square c5 and plans
dxe5) 15a6 (it isn't obvious whether the immediate 15Ngf6 is better or
worse; 15b6 also comes into consideration) 16 a4 Ngf6 (16...Qf6) 17 b5
(better than 17 dxe5) 17Qg4 18 Qxg4 Nxg4 19 dxe5 Nc5 20 Be2! Bd7 21
f3 Nh6 22 Be3 b6 (22Ne6 23 g4 c5 24 f4) 23 a5! Nf5 24 Bf2 axb5 25 cxb5
Nb3 26 axb6 Nxa1 27 bxc7 Rc8 28 b6 Nb3 29 Ba6 Be6 30 h3 g5 31 Re4 Na5
32 Ra4 Nc6 33 f4 gxf4 34 Rxf4 Ke8 35 Bxc8 Bxc8 36 Rxf5 Bxf5
[FEN"4k2r/2P4p/1Pn5/4Pb2/8/7P/5BP1/6K1 w - - 0 37"]
37 e6 Bxe6 38 b7 Kd7 39 Bg3 Bd5 40 b8Q Rxb8 41 cxb8Q Nxb8 42 Bxb8 =.

13 f4
13 Bf4 Kf7.
13Nh6 14 fxe5 Be7 15 Be3
After 15 c4 Qg4 16 Qxg4 Nxg4 17 Be2, Black's play is justified by the fine
reply 17Rd8! 18 Bxg4 Rxd4 19 Be6 Bc5 20 Be3 Ke7 21 Rad1 Rxd1 22
Bxc5+ Kxe6 23 Rxd1 Kxe5 =.
15Ng4 16 c4 Rf8 17 d5!
[FEN"r3kr2/ppp1b1pp/2b1q3/3PP3/2P3n1/
3BB3/PP4PP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
There is nothing better. The text move is based on a long combination:

17Nxe3 18 Rxe3 Bxd5 19 cxd5 Qb6 20 Qh5+
20 Qe2 Bc5 21 Qh5+ g6 22 Qxh7 has the same result.
20g6 21 Qh3 Bc5 22 Qxh7 Bxe3+ 23 Kh1 Kd8!
Not 23Bc5? 24 d6 Bxd6 25 Bxg6+ Kd8 26 Bf5 Rxf5 27 Qxf5 Qc5 28 Rf1
and wins.
24 Qg7 Bc5
[FEN"r2k1r2/ppp3Q1/1q4p1/2bPP3/
8/3B4/PP4PP/R6K w - - 0 25"]
25 Rf1!
25 d6? Bxd6 26 Be2? (26 exd6 Qxd6 -/+ would be the lesser evil) 26Qd4
27 Bg4 Bc5 28 h3 c6 29 Rd1 Qxd1+ 30 Bxd1 Rf1+ 31 Kh2 Rxd1 32 Qg8+
Kc7 33 Qxa8 Rd8! -+, finally trapping the queen.
25Rxf1+ 26 Bxf1 a6 27 Qg8+ Ke7 28 Qg7+
28 Qxa8 Qxb2! 29 Qh8 Qf2 =.
28Ke8
[FEN"r3k3/1pp3Q1/pq4p1/2bPP3/
8/8/PP4PP/5B1K w - - 0 29"]
29 d6!
A last attempt: if 29cxd6?? 30 e6 +-.
29Bxd6 30 Qxg6+
Black's king cannot escape the perpetual check. Draw agreed. Apparently the
Fort Knox Variation is just safe enough.
Sources
[1] N. McDonald: How to Play Against 1 e4, London 2008

[2] This sacrifice on f7 was discussed in the public section of the
"Chesspublishing.com."
[3] J. Nunn e. a.: Nunn's Chess Openings, London 1999 (John Nunn)

Steiner's Variation vs. the Caro-Kann
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Translate this page
In the history of our game, theoreticians have uttered bold claims: that 1 e4 e5
wins for White, that 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 undermines the Sicilian Defense, or about
the extreme risks of Alekhine's Defense. But have you ever heard serious
concerns about the soundness of the Caro-Kann Defense, 1 e4 c6? The move
only came into fashion around 1900, but then it was adopted by some of the
greatest positional players: Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, Karpov, to name only
three. Thus, it won't surprise anyone that the present article isn't meant to
refute the Caro-Kann. We all know that White doesn't win by force, but some
repertoire books want to make us believe that a "+=" can be achieved, if only
White follows the prescribed recommendations.
In this series of unusual suggestions for 1 e4 players, I do not promise a
significant white advantage, if the second player finds the best moves. The
last column in October saw us sacrificing a knight on f7 in the French
Defense, but the game ended in a draw. In spite of the result, the idea is
exciting enough and worth exploration. Specializing in rare opening systems
can be a successful venture. Your average opponent probably doesn't play like
Capablanca (translation for younger readers: he doesn't play like a computer).
A personal approach to the openings is often a success if Black can be lured
onto unfamiliar territory, maybe just by a slightly strange move order, and if
White has done his homework.
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Complete c3 Sicilian

by Evgeny Sveshnikov
The Caro-Kann
by Lars Schandorff

the games from
ChessBase Game Viewer.
Horatio Caro (1862-1920)

Source: Dt. Wochenschach 1894, p. 115
While that knight sacrifice in our last column denies Black the usual "French"
type of position and rather resembles sharp lines of the Caro-Kann, the
"advance" treatment 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 in the Caro-Kann creates a kind of
"French." Unless that the position is entirely different, of course: Black is still
able to develop his bishop to the active square f5, and will frequently do so.
Only a few decades ago such a position would have been regarded as
equalizing easily for Black. But Nigel Short has played 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nf3
followed by Be2 with success, apparently such treatments do contain some
poison. Players of the highest category (say, in the "K" class) won't be caught
on the wrong foot, but the lesser Caro-Kann players with limited experience
in the French may feel uncomfortable. In the following game, we see a
mixture of the Advance Variation 3 e5, and the Steiner Variation 2 c4, which
can only increase Black's confusion. If this were not enough, the ChessBase
software classifies it as Sicilian Defense, Alapin Variation 2 c3.
Play the Scandinavian

by Christian Bauer
Caro-Kann Defense / Sicilian 2 c3 [B22]

1 e4 c6 2 c4
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/2p5/8/2P1P3/8/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq c3 0 2"]
In the 1930s, Lajos Steiner published analyses claiming that 2 c4 refuted the
Caro-Kann. But in the case of d7-d5, he used to take twice on d5, instead of
the advance e4-e5 in the present game.
2d5
Older theoretical works were still looking at alternatives: 2e5, which can
result in Indian positions after 3 d4. Another reasonable option is 2e6 3 d4
(or 3 Nf3) d5 4 Nc3, transposing to the Slav Gambit, or 4 exd5 cxd5, the
Panov Attack, or 4 cxd5 cxd5 (4exd5 5 e5 Na6 6 Nc3 Nc7 7 Nge2 Ne7 8
Nf4, Tal Bisguier, Bled 1961, won by White only in a long ending) 5 e5,
with a French Defense type of position. However, newer repertoire books
prefer the text move, and it is by no means a bad move.
3 cxd5 cxd5 4 e5!?
An unusual attempt, played in 1951 by Bogolyubov. The common
continuation is 4 exd5, with roughly equal chances. Only a few books on the
Caro-Kann Defense mention the text move.
4Nc6
4d4 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3!? Bxf3 7 Qxf3 should not be underestimated; e.g., after
7Nc6 the sacrifice 8 e6!? fxe6 9 Bc4 Nf6 10 0-0 offers promising play for
the pawn.
5 d4
[FEN"r1bqkbnr/pp2pppp/2n5/3pP3/3P4/8/
PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq d3 0 5"]
The same position can arise via the Alapin Variation in the Sicilian Defense: 1
e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 e5?! Nc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4. Or even via the Scandinavian
Defense: 1 e4 d5 2 e5?! c5 3 c3 Nc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4. Neither of these
treatments is critical for those openings. For example, 3 e5?! in the first line is
ignored in Sveshnikov's The Complete c3 Sicilian. He doesn't need to feel
guilty about it, you cannot cover everything. Objectively, Black should have
equal chances in the diagrammed position. However, even in an equal

position a well prepared player has an advantage.
5Qb6
Looks good, but actually it may be an inaccuracy. The main alternative is 5
Bf5 (5g6 6 Nc3 Nh6 7 h3 is good for White) 6 Nc3 (better than 6 Bd3 from
Bogolyubov Pfeiffer, Dortmund 1951, a game lost by White) 6e6 7 Be3,
when White scored 7 points in twelve games in my database. I believe that
White hasn't much, if Black defends carefully. In any case it appears to be an
interesting situation, the better player should win. Or rather, perhaps, the
player who has a better understanding of French pawn formations.
6 Nc3! Qxd4?!
Black has quieter continuations, but in each case White seems to have an
edge:
(a) 6Bf5? 7 Nxd5 Qa5+ 8 Nc3 0-0-0 9 Be3 Nxe5 is too risky: 10 a3 Ng4 11
Bd2 +/-.
(b) 6e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 Na4 Qc7 9 Be2 Nf5 10 0-0 Be7 11 g4! Nh4 12 Nxh4
Bxh4 13 a3 +=, White won in Skibbe Gnther, German Bundesliga
(women) 1995/96. Perhaps 13 Be3 is even stronger, as a later Rc1 and b2-b4
might save the tempo a2-a3.
7 Qxd4 Nxd4 8 Nxd5 Nc2+
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/pp2pppp/8/3NP3/8/8/
PPn2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - 0 9"]
Here my database gives White a plus score: 7 out of thirteen games.

9 Kd2!
And now the score becomes a clean 3-0. In some lines the king marches to the
square c3, trapping the knight a1. Interestingly, the strong text move was
already played in the oldest game, Wiedmann Baumgartl, Pfarrkirchen
Open 1988, while the weaker 9 Kd1 happened in several later games.
9Nxa1
9Bf5 10 Nc7+ Kd7 11 Nxa8 Nxa1 12 Bb5+ Kc8 13 Bd3 is no
improvement:
(a) 13Nh6 14 Bxf5+ Nxf5 15 Nf3 e6 16 Kd3 Bc5 17 Bd2 Kb8 18 Rxa1 Rd8
+ 19 Ke4 Kxa8 20 Rc1 b6 21 b4! +/-.
(b) 13Be6!? 14 Ke2 Bxa2 15 Be3 Nb3 16 Nh3 Kb8 (16e6 17 Bxa7) 17
Rd1 e6 18 Bb1 Nd4+ (White was threatening checkmate on d8) 19 Rxd4 Bd5
20 Ng5 Nh6 21 Ra4 Kxa8 22 Bxa7 b5
[FEN"k4b1r/B4ppp/4p2n/1p1bP1N1/
R7/8/1P2KPPP/1B6 w - b6 0 23"]
White has a clear advantage; e.g., 23 Ra1 Kb7 24 Be3 Kb8 25 Ra7 +/-.
10 Nc7+ Kd8 11 Nxa8 Be6
Improving upon the earlier examples:
(a) 11Bf5? 12 Bd3 e6 (12g6 13 Bxf5 Bh6+ 14 Kc3 and soon 1-0,
Wiedmann Baumgartl, Pfarrkirchen Open 1988; or 12Be6 13 Kc3 Kc8 14
Be3 and White won in Zilch Koksch, Bad Zwesten 2000; or 12Nh6 13
Nf3, etc.) 13 Bxf5 exf5 14 Nf3 Kc8 15 Kd3 +/-.
(b) 11b6 12 Nf3 Bb7 13 Nxb6 axb6 14 Bd3 e6 15 Ke2 Ne7 16 Be3 Nd5 17
Rxa1 Nxe3 18 fxe3 +/-. White has a sound extra pawn and the better position.
12 Kc3 Bxa2 13 Nh3 e6 14 Ng5 Nh6 15 Be3
[FEN"N2k1b1r/pp3ppp/4p2n/4P1N1/
8/2K1B3/bP3PPP/n4B1R b - - 0 15"]
15Bb4+
The lesser of two evils: 15Nb3 16 Bc4 Bc5 17 Bxb3 Bxe3 18 fxe3 Bxb3 19
Kxb3 Ke7!? 20 Nc7 Rc8 21 Nb5 Rc5 22 Nc3! (much stronger than 22 Nxa7?)
22Rxe5 23 Nf3! +/-, when after 23Rxe3? 24 Ra1 a6 25 Kc2 the black
rook is in serious trouble; for example, 25Nf5 26 Kd2 h5 27 Ra5 f6 28
Nh4! Re5 29 Ng6+ and wins.
16 Kxb4 Nc2+ 17 Ka4 Nxe3 18 fxe3
[FEN"N2k3r/pp3ppp/4p2n/4P1N1/
K7/4P3/bP4PP/5B1R b - - 0 18"]
18f6
18Bd5 isn't better: 19 Kb4 Kc8 20 e4 Bc6 21 Bc4 Kb8 22 Rf1 Be8 23 Nb6
axb6 24 h3 +/-.
19 exf6 gxf6 20 Ka3!? fxg5
The only alternative was 20Bd5 21 e4 fxg5 22 exd5 exd5 23 Be2 Kd7 24
Rd1 Rxa8 25 Rxd5+ Kc7 26 Rc5+ Kd6 27 Rxg5 +/-, Black's h-pawn will fall.
21 Kxa2 Kc8 22 Bc4 Kd7 23 Bb5+ Kc8 24 e4!
[FEN"N1k4r/pp5p/4p2n/1B4p1/
4P3/8/KP4PP/7R b - - 0 24"]
Denying the knight the square f5. White's rook will soon infiltrate the
opponent's position, while Black cannot do much.
24Kb8 25 Bc4 Re8 26 Rf1 e5
If 26Kxa8, White wins the e-pawn: 27 Bxe6.
27 Bb5 Rc8 28 Bd7 Rd8 29 Rf6!
Again White profits from Black's weak eighth rank: 29Rxd7?? 30 Rf8+ and
mate next move.
29Kxa8 30 Be6 Ng8 31 Rf7 Re8 32 Bf5
[FEN"k3r1n1/pp3R1p/8/4pBp1/
4P3/8/KP4PP/8 b - - 0 32"]
White's pieces are dominating. The only question is whether the advantage is
sufficient for a win which seems to be the case.
32h6
A passive defense, but 32h5 33 Bg6 h4 34 Rf5 Rd8 35 Rxe5 Kb8 36 Rxg5
Ne7 37 Bf5 almost certainly wins for White, too.
33 Kb3 a6 34 Kc4 Ka7 35 Kd5 Ne7+ (desperation) 36 Kxe5 Nc6+ 37 Kf6
Re5 38 Rd7 Rb5
38Kb6 39 Rd5 Re8 40 Kf7 is also hopeless.

39 Rd2 Na5 40 Re2 Nc4 41 e5
[FEN"8/kp6/p4K1p/1r2PBp1/
2n5/8/1P2R1PP/8 b - - 0 41"]
This advance of the e-pawn decides the game.

41Nxe5
There is nothing better.
42 Rxe5 Rxb2 43 Be4 1-0

A Modest Novelty
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Translate this page
There is no forced win in chess, and if your opponent has done his homework,
he will achieve a decent position after the first ten or fifteen moves. Even if
your 1 e4 repertoire is a dangerous minefield, in which you have invested
hundreds of hours, there will remain a number of main lines that are fully
playable for both sides. Preparing something new in a well known position
can be risky if your novelty had any merit, it would probably have been
used before. Nevertheless, it can be advisable to leave the beaten track early.
If Black seems to possess a solid book knowledge, it is hardly in your interest
to follow an old grandmaster game. Fortunately, there often exists an
alternative that is either underestimated or new. It may not be the kind of idea
that you are willing to repeat in another game, but perhaps it is sound and
surprising enough to score one point.
French Defense [C11]
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Wonderful Winawer

1 e4 e6 2 Nf3
The "Two Knights Variation." The present game transposes to a Classical
French, but at least White has avoided the Winawer Variation 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3
Bb4.
2...d5 3 Nc3 Nf6
Our October column discussed 3...dxe4, resulting in a Fort Knox Variation.
4 e5 Nfd7 5 d4
The Flexible French

the games from
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppn1ppp/4p3/3pP3/3P4/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq d3 0 5"]
Another "Tarrasch Variation." Via a transposition of moves the players have

reached the variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nf3, introduced
by Siegbert Tarrasch in a game against M. Krschner (it continued 5...a6?! 6
Bd3 c5 7 dxc5 Bxc5 8 Qe2 Nc6 9 a3, and Tarrasch won in thirty-three
moves). In Dreihundert Schachpartien, Tarrasch comments on 5 Nf3: "ein
Versuch" [an experiment], and the game is vaguely dated: 1892-1894. It was
only after World War II that the doctor's idea became quite popular. Most
authors consider the chances about equal.
A Startling Chess
Opening Repertoire
by Chris Baker
Siegbert Tarrasch
One of the few authors who recommended White's set-up was Chris Baker, in
A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire, London 1998 [1]. He studied 5.Nf3 c5
6.dxc5 in great detail on thirteen pages, coming to the conclusion: "The Two
Knights' Variation [...] can lead to some exciting and original chess. It has
given me consistently good results against the French Defence over the years
and I have yet to be convinced that Black can demonstrate a clear route to
equality." In a theoretical competition that I started in 2009, members of
Chesspublishing.com improved upon several book lines [2]; the thread is
available online and contains some basic information on the theory of the line.
In my opinion, 5 Nf3 is quite promising for White.
5...c5 6 dxc5
[FEN"rnbqkb1r/pp1n1ppp/4p3/2PpP3/8/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
The key idea of Tarrasch's set-up: White is willing to exchange his pawns d4
and e5, so as to exploit these squares for his minor pieces.
6...Nc6 7 Bf4 Bxc5 8 Bd3 f6
8...0-0? fails to 9 Bxh7+ Kxh7 10 Ng5+.
9 exf6 Qxf6
[FEN"r1b1k2r/pp1n2pp/2n1pq2/2bp4/5B2/
2NB1N2/PPP2PPP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
9...Nxf6 is equally important, when White could castle long. Moskalenko
analyzed this sharp possibility in a chapter of his The Flexible French.

10 Bg3 0-0 11 0-0 a6
11...Nde5? loses a pawn: 12 Nxe5 Nxe5 13 Bxh7+ Kxh7 14 Qh5+ followed
by 15 Qxe5.
The immediate 11...Nd4 12 Nxd4 Bxd4 is a major alternative. Perhaps White
can try 13 Nb5 Bxb2 (13...Be5 Holzer Dckstein, Vienna 1994, 14 Qe2 +=)
14 Nc7! (better than 14 Rb1 the only move tested in practice) 14...Bxa1 15
Qxa1 Rb8 16 Qe1 Nc5 17 Nxd5 exd5 18 Bxb8 Nxd3 19 cxd3 Bf5 20 Be5 and
White has a slight edge. OK, it is very slight. A more ambitious attempt
would be 13 Rb1 a6 14 Ne2, transposing to the gambit 11...a6 12 Rb1 Nd4 13
Nxd4 Bxd4 14 Ne2 mentioned below. Unfortunately, it appears to peter out to
a draw.
12 Ne2!?
[FEN"r1b2rk1/1p1n2pp/p1n1pq2/2bp4/8/
3B1NB1/PPP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 12"]
Only a modest novelty, maybe not even the best move on the board. However,
it includes two little traps, and there is no clear refutation even if Black
finds a reasonable reply, it is still a game of chess. Black will still have his
"hanging pawns" on e6 and d5.
I had proposed a different continuation in [2]: 12 Rb1 Nd4 13 Nxd4 Bxd4 14
Ne2!? Bxb2 15 Bd6 Rf7 16 c3 Bxc3 17 Nxc3 Qxc3. It seems that 18 Rc1 fails
to 18...Qf6! (18...Qb2? 19 Rc7 Qb6 20 Bg3 Nf6 21 Rxf7 Kxf7 22 Be5 gives
White a plus), so White has to be satisfied with a draw: 18 Rb3 Qc6 19 Bxh7
+ Kxh7 20 Qh5+ Kg8 21 Rh3 and so on. A later attempt 14 Kh1!? Bxc3 15
bxc3 Qxc3 16 Rb3 Qf6 17 Bd6 Rf7 18 c4 dxc4 19 Bxc4 Ne5 (19...b5?! 20
Rf3 Qxf3 is dubious) 20 Bxe5 Qxe5 21 Rd3 += may or may not work in
practice, but Black can simply reply 14...Rf7, which is about equal.
12...Qxb2?
Too optimistic. Just as bad would be the "natural" 12...e5, since White's
knight returns to its square with devastating effect: 13 Nc3 Nb6 14 Nxd5
Nxd5 15 Bc4 Be6 16 Bxd5 +/- with a sound extra pawn and a positional
advantage. Am I nave to hope that someone might fall into this trap? Yet it is
very tempting to play e6-e5, to punish the "passive" move of White's knight,
and weird manoeuvres like Nc3-e2-c3 are sometimes overlooked. And a third
plan connected with 12 Ne2 is the advance c2-c4 to undermine the hanging
pawns; e.g., after 12...Ba7 or 12...Kh8.
The critical answer must be 12...Nde5 13 Nxe5 Nxe5 14 c3 Bd7 15 Nf4.
Objectively the position is probably equal. But the pawn structure hasn't
changed, Black still possesses his hanging pawns, and exchanging pieces
won't solve his problem. True, you shouldn't lose because of hanging pawns
alone. Anyway, the pawn structure requires careful play from both sides, and
the better player should win.
13 Ng5 Nf6
Black's position seems to hold, but new threats are on the way.
[FEN"r1b2rk1/1p4pp/p1n1pn2/2bp2N1/8/
3B2B1/PqP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Nf4 Nd8
14...Nd4 15 Rb1 Qa3 (15...Qxa2 16 c3 e5 17 Nh5 +/-) 16 Nh5! h6 (forced) 17
Nxf6+ Rxf6 18 Bh7+! Kf8 (18...Kh8 19 Be5! hxg5 20 Bxf6 Nf3+ 21 Kh1!
+/-; e.g., 21...gxf6 22 Rb3 or 21...Kxh7 22 Bb2 etc.) 19 Nh3 Rf7 (19...Qc3 20
Nf4 b5 21 Nd3) 20 Re1 Nf5 21 Be5 Qxa2 22 Rb3 +/- with a strong attack.
15 Rb1 Qa3
15...Qxa2? 16 Nh5 h6 17 Nxf6+ Rxf6 18 Be5 Qa5 (else 19 Ra1, winning the
queen) 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Nh7 f5 21 Nf6+ Kf7 22 Nh5 +/-.
16 c4 h6 17 Nf3 Qxa2
Or 17...dxc4 18 Bxc4 b5 19 Bb3 +/-, and Black suffers from the
misplacement of his queen.
18 cxd5 Nxd5
Maybe 18...exd5 19 Bc2 +/- was the lesser evil.
[FEN"r1bn1rk1/1p4p1/p3p2p/2bn4/5N2/
3B1NB1/q4PPP/1R1Q1RK1 w - - 0 19"]
19 Ng6! Nc3
Neither 19...Rf6 20 Be5 Qa5 21 Nd2 or 19...Re8 20 Rc1 Qa5 21 Nd2 seems
sufficient to defend the position.
20 Qe1 Nxb1
If 20...Rxf3, the reply 21 Qxc3 wins.
21 Nxf8
[FEN"r1bn1Nk1/1p4p1/p3p2p/2b5/8/
3B1NB1/q4PPP/1n2QRK1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Nd2
Desperation, but 21...Na3? 22 Qe4 Kxf8 23 Ne5! +- loses on the spot.
22 Nxd2 Kxf8 23 Nc4 Nf7
To prevent the menacing 24 Qe5 (or Qe4).
24 Qc3 Qa4
Else 25 Ra1.
[FEN"r1b2k2/1p3np1/p3p2p/2b5/
q1N5/2QB2B1/5PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 25"]
25 Bg6 Nh8 26 Bh7! Qd7 27 Be5! 1-0

Black can hardly move a piece.
Sources
[1] Chr. Baker: A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire, London 1998.
[2] Chesspub.com Forum Thread

More than a Footnote: 2Qa5

Over the last decades the theory of Alapin's Variation in the Sicilian Defense,
1 e4 c5 2 c3, has grown enormously. The main force behind this development,
in practical play as well as in his books, has been Evgeny Sveshnikov. An
earlier work by the Russian grandmaster [1] covered the topic in laconic ECO
style. Sveshnikov's new book The Complete c3 Sicilian [2] is good news for
his followers, since the 574 pages present the state of this complex line in a
more detailed manner: he explains important games in natural language,
accompanied by dozens of test questions and solutions.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Translate this page
With so much background, the move 2 c3 isn't exactly what I'd like to include
into our off-beat repertoire for 1 e4 players to be continued elsewhere. But
let us see what another GM author recommends against 2 c3, if only to
identify a reason why we should not play 2 c3. This part in Ftacnik's The
Sicilian Defence [3] comes with a promising title: "Forrest Gump The c3
Sicilian." Lubomir Ftacnik doesn't fear Sveshnikov's pet line: "The biggest
problem for Black is not so much finding a route to an acceptable position,
but rather to find a fully sound line that offers him enough chances to play for
a win. For this reason I decided to cover two options for Black, so that the
reader can choose one that suits his own attitude to risk as well as the specific
tournament or match situation that might arise on a given day."
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Complete c3 Sicilian

by Evgeny Sveshnikov
Chess Explained
The c3 Sicilian
by Sam Collins
Evgeny Sveshnikov

the games from
The two options that Ftacnik discusses on twenty-nine pages are 2d6 and
2d5. Reasonable replies, no doubt, but unfortunately neither of them "suits
my attitude to risk," to say it in Ftacnik's words. Repertoire works have their
limitations, and we often have to choose between an author's selection and our
own taste. I have played 2d5, but was never entirely happy with it. Let us
instead study the more entertaining 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Qa5, an unusual idea from
Alapin Tarrasch, Vienna 1898.
[FEN"rnb1kbnr/pp1ppppp/8/q1p5/4P3/2P5/
Sicilian Defense with 2 c3

Alapin Variation
by Sergei Tiviakov
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]
It was analyzed in the first footnote of Sveshnikov's work [1] as leading to

"+=." The move appears twice in his new book [2], earning two different
signs. The "?" in Alapin Tarrasch (p. 16) is justified by Sveshnikov's
comment: "It is amazing that it should be Tarrasch himself who made such a
move! A queen sortie like this will not even equalize, let alone refute the
system." On page 56 the text move gets a "?!." But perhaps the early activity
of Black's queen deserves more than a footnote or a question mark: Sergei
Movsesian has adopted it in eight of his games, according to the database
with perfect success.
3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4
Already the main line in [1]. Sveshnikov's new work gives it as "4 Bc4!" on p.
16, the move is mentioned again on p. 56: "The simple 4 Bc4!? also seems
quite good, followed by developing the pieces. In this case the position of the
queen on a5 is completely absurd."
Some alternatives
(a) 4 Na3 was played in the oldest game: 4e6 5 d4 (the move order in
Alapin Tarrasch, Vienna 1898, was 5 Nc4 (Sveshnikov likes 5 Be2 [2], but
Black has a convincing solution: 5d5 6 exd5 exd5 7 d4 c4 = Bedouin
Movsesian, Bourbon Lancy 1997) 5Qc7 6 d4 cxd4 7 Nxd4; here 6d5! 7
exd5 exd5 8 Nce5 Bd6 = must be simpler) 5cxd4 (not 5d5? 6 exd5 exd5
7 dxc5! followed by 8 Nb5 +/-) 6 Nc4 (6 b4 Qd8 7 b5 Na5 8 Qxd4 d5 9 exd5
Qxd5, about =) 6Qc7 (6Qd8!? is untested: 7 Nxd4 d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 Ne3
a6 10 g3 Nf6 11 Bg2 Bc5 12 0-0 Bxd4 13 cxd4 0-0 with a microscopic edge
for White) 7 Nxd4 (Sveshnikov [2] prefers 7 cxd4 d5 8 exd5 exd5 9 Nce5
with "a small, but stable advantage"; but 9Nf6 looks roughly equal)
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/ppqp1ppp/2n1p3/8/2NNP3/
2P5/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
(a1) 7a6 8 Nxc6 (more critical than 8 Bd3 b5 = Alapin Tarrasch, Vienna
1898) 8Qxc6 9 e5 b5 10 Nd6+ Bxd6 11 Qxd6 +=.
(a2) 7Nxd4 8 Qxd4 b5 9 Qe5 Qxe5 10 Nxe5 a6 +=.
(b) 4 a3 e6 5 d4 Nxd4 6 Nxd4 cxd4 7 b4 Qe5! (7Qc7 8 cxd4 Sveshnikov
Kupreichik, Kiev 1984) 8 cxd4 (8 Qxd4 Qxd4 9 cxd4 d5 = [2]) 8Qxe4+ 9
Be3 Qc6 10 d5!? is an interesting sacrifice analyzed by Sveshnikov in both
[1] and [2], but 9Nf6! 10 Nc3 Qc6 11 Rc1 Nd5 is an improvement. White
has no sufficient compensation.
(c) 4 d4 cxd4 (4Nxd4!?) 5 b4 Qc7 6 b5 Ne5 7 Nxe5 Qxe5 8 Qxd4 "+=
Makropoulos Ljubojevic, Athens 1981," is a variation from [1] not repeated
in [2]. Indeed Black can hardly be worse: 8Qc7 9 Be2 (9 a4 e5 = happened
in the game cited above) 9e5 10 Qd3 a6 11 bxa6 Nf6! 12 0-0 (12 axb7?
Bxb7 13 f3 d5! or 13 Nd2 Bc5, in each case with fine compensation for
Black) 12Rxa6 13 c4 Bb4 =. There is another sharp possibility: 5 Bd2
(instead of 5 b4) 5dxc3 (5Qb6 Kruchem Krger, corr. 1996) 6 Nxc3 e6
7 Bd3 d6 8 0-0 Qd8 9 Bf4 Nf6, and Black isn't worse.
4b5!
4d6, though played by Sergei Movsesian, seems dubious: 5 0-0 Nf6 6 Re1
b5 (or 6e5 7 d4 cxd4 8 Qb3 with a strong attack) 7 Bd5 Bd7
[FEN"r3kb1r/p2bpppp/2np1n2/qppB4/4P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQR1K1 w kq - 0 8"]
8 d4! (improving upon the unclear 8 b4 from Keitlinghaus Movsesian,

Lazne Bohdanec 1996) 8e6 9 Bxc6 Bxc6 10 d5 Bb7 (so far analysis by
Pavel Blatny in ChessBase MegaBase, given as unclear; note that 10Bd7 11
e5 Nxd5 12 exd6 Nf6 13 Ne5 +/- doesn't help) 11 Bg5 Be7 12 dxe6 fxe6 13
Nbd2 +/- with strong threats like a2-a4 or e4-e5.
5 Bb3
The most popular reply. Other options
(a) 5 Bd5 Nf6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 e5 Nd5 8 0-0 (Alikhanov Boris Ionov, St.
Petersburg 2002) 8Bf5 =+.
(b) 5 Be2 may be the best continuation: 5Nf6 6 d4!? (6 e5 Nd5 7 0-0 e6,
about =) 6Nxe4 7 d5 Nd8 8 0-0 Bb7
[FEN"r2nkb1r/pb1ppppp/8/qppP4/4n3/
2P2N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]
White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn: 9 Na3 (9 a4 e6 10

Bxb5 Qc7 11 Re1 Bxd5 12 c4 Bb7 13 Bf4 Nd6 unclear) 9a6 10 c4 e6 with
heavy complications and chances for both sides.
5c4 6 Bc2 b4!
Intending 7b3 (and 7 Qe2 b3! 8 Bd1 would fail to 8Qxa2!).
7 Ba4
Or 7 b3 (Liu Yung Hung Hamperl, Olympiad 2006) 7.cxb3 8 Bxb3 Ba6 =.
7 e5 Bb7 (but not 7b3?? 8 Be4 Qxa2?? 9 Rxa2 bxa2 10 Qa4 +-) 8 0-0 Nxe5
should be good for Black, or simply 8e6.
7e6
7Nf6 8 Bxc6 dxc6 (U. Schaffner A. Frank, Bern 1991) 9 cxb4 Qxb4 10
Qe2 would give White more to hope for. After the text move, Black can take
back on b4 with the Bf8, which saves time.
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/p2p1ppp/2n1p3/q7/Bpp1P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Black has equalized; for example, 8 b3!? Ba6 9 a3 Ne5! 10 Nxe5 (10 axb4?
Nd3+) 10Qxe5.
Thus Tarrasch's 2Qa5!? still deserves attention. After 3 Nf3 Nc6,
Sveshnikov's 4 Bc4 isn't necessarily better than Alapin's 4 Na3. In both cases
Black has reasonable chances.
Sources
[1] E. Sveshnikov: B22, Belgrade 1997
[2] E. Sveshnikov: The Complete c3 Sicilian, Alkmaar 2010
[3] L. Ftacnik: The Sicilian Defence, Glasgow 2010

Sicilian Defense: Myers Variation 2 a4
Over the
Horizons
Over the last months I have tried to draft an off-beat repertoire for the 1 e4
player. Certainly it would have been possible to give more shocking lines than
the Alapin Opening with 3 d4 (aka Scotch), 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 or 1 e4 c6 2 c4, but
I was eager to demonstrate that it is still possible to develop an original
repertoire without sacrificing soundness. Admittedly 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2 doesn't
look very adventurous at first sight no comparison to sacrificing a pawn on
move two or three, the romantic approach. But I'd claim that my suggestions,
while relatively solid, involve the element of surprise and offer a more
creative way to play for an advantage than devoting all your time on main line
developments. My key idea was to restrict the opponent's options in the first
moves as much as possible, create a slightly unusual position and prepare
surprises mainly between moves six and ten, to throw the defender off
balance.
Stefan Bcker
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Sicilian Defence

by Lubomir Ftacnik
Translate this page
Hugh Myers

the games from
Dangerous Weapons:
Anti-Sicilians
by Emms, Palliser,
& Peter Wells
In a way it is easier to build a repertoire for Black every forcing line that
leads to unclear complications can be regarded as a success. When you are
playing White, you rather hope to control the situation restrict Black's
options, avoid forcing lines, keep the tension, retain some initiative and
prospects for the future. Occasionally you might risk an attack that is not
entirely correct. But the basis of your repertoire for white should be like the
one described in my small repertoire: follow a modest, but clearly defined
strategy, bring your king into safety, and then start to undermine Black's
position. While the King's Gambit requires more knowledge of sharp
variations, over-the-board Black might suffer just as much under the milder,
but lasting pressure of the Scotch.
The repertoire is still sketchy. Interested readers might fill the gaps with their
own analyses. However, there is a major hole that needs to be addressed: the
Sicilian Defense 1 e4 c5. There is an armada of second moves for White, but
it isn't easy to prove an advantage:
Fighting the Anti-Sicilians

by Richard Palliser
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/4P3/8/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq c6 0 2"]
2 Nf3 is the popular choice. I can't believe that White has an edge, though.
For example, how should he treat the Sveshnikov Variation? Sure, there are
drawing lines (enough to let me avoid the Sveshnikov with both colors), but
none of the "critical" lines seems to give White a lasting advantage.
2 c3 Qa5!? seems quite reliable; cf., the January 2011 "Over the Horizons."
Additional feedback at the end of this column.
2 Nc3, the Closed Sicilian, is an old favorite of mine, but too complex for a
small repertoire. It is perhaps worth mentioning that Ftacnik [6] recommends
the treatment 2d6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 g6 5 d3 Bg7 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 0-0 00 on four pages (e.g., 9 Be3 b6!?), but ignores the more precise 8 Be3 0-0 9
Qd2, intending 9...b6 10 Rd1.
2 b4 is the topic of an ongoing series in Kaissiber. It is certainly playable,
since White gets sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. On the other
side, it isn't the kind of "solid surprise" that we are searching for our
repertoire.
2 a3, followed by b4, is no improvement; e.g., 2e6 3 b4 b6 =, when the
move a2-a3 is just a loss of time.
2 Bc4 (Anderssen) 2e6! is about =.
2 Na3 (Zviagintsev), the sensation of 2006, was covered in "A Knight on the
Edge," in May 2006 and June 2006. Best may be 2g6, when White hasn't
much. It is interesting to note that 2 Na3 has something in common with 2 a4,
the main topic of this column. In both cases there might follow 2Nc6 3
Bb5! Nd4 4 Nf3, because the bishop on b5 is protected either by the Na3 or
by the pawn on a4.
The move that I recommend is a rare alternative which is both sound and
surprising. In his book The Sicilian Defence [6] Ftacnik considered 2 Na3, but
not the following idea found by the American theoretician Hugh E. Myers
(more about him in [5]):
1 e4 c5 2 a4!?
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/P3P3/8/
1PPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq a3 0 2"]
Myers [2]: "No opening has been more analyzed than the Sicilian Defense,
but here is an immediate reply which everyone else has overlooked. One point
to it is that if 2d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7, White can transpose to a known variation
with 4 Nf3 (Larsen Olafsson and Larsen Bednarski, 1967; []) or try
something new, such as 4 f4, 4 d3 or 4 d4!?."
Another quote from Myers' last book, A Chess Explorer (page 115): "My
name, in books and magazines, has been attached to several openings. In my
mind, there's no better case for it than here, because of playing priority and
writing an explanation of its theory ..."
The inventor played 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7 4 a4 in a game against A.
Pichardo (Santo Domingo 1968), probably inspired by Bent Larsen's
successes with 4 a4. The more radical version 2 a4!?, illustrated in the
diagram, was introduced in Myers P, Neuer, Eastern Experts, New York
1971 (game four in [2]).
2d6
Other possibilities include the following:
(a) 2Nc6 3 Bb5 looks like an English Opening (1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Bb4) with
colors reversed and the additional move a4. Whether the extra move a2-a4
adds much to a defense regarded as equal is open for discussion.
(b) 2Nf6 3 e5 Nd5 4 Nc3 (or Nf3) can lead to a kind of Alekhine Defense.
In the position after 3Nd5 White scored heavily according to the database
(6 in eight games).
(c) 2g6 3 Nc3 (more convincing than 3 h4 in Myers Neuer, Eastern
Experts, New York 1971) 3Bg7 4 f4 Nc6 5 Bb5 d6 (5Nf6!?) 6 Nf3 Bd7 7
0-0 Nd4?! (7Nf6) 8 d3 e6 9 e5! += Welling Jasnikowski, Copenhagen
1980. Black's fianchetto Bg7 invites the advance of White's f-pawn, to delay
the decision what to do with the Bf1. If the defender wants to prevent the
exchange of the bishop for his knight, he might play the cautious 4a6,
which can result in a kind of Closed Sicilian (after 5 g3). However, plenty of
alternatives are available; for example, 5 Bc4 in the spirit of an (improved)
Anderssen Variation 2 Bc4.
(d) 2a6 3 Nc3 transposes to a situation discussed in "Paralyzing the
Sicilians" in April 2009. Or White can go into a King's Indian Attack: d3,
Nf3, g3 and so on.
(e) 2.e6 3 Nf3 Be7 (3d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bb5+ Nc6 6 d4 Bd6 7 dxc5 with
a slight edge; 3Nc6 4 Bb5 Nf6 and White can choose between 5 e5 Nd5 6 00 Be7 7 Nc3 and the more solid 5 Nc3 with a small plus) 4 Nc3! (the
consequent reply: White keeps an eye on Bb5) 4Nc6 (or 4a6) 5 Bb5 Qc7
6 0-0 Nf6 7 d3 d6; for example, 8 Re1 0-0 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 e5 and White is
slightly better.
3 Bb5+ Bd7
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp1bpppp/3p4/1Bp5/P3P3/
8/1PPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 4"]
If White plays 3 Nf3 or 4 Nf3, almost certainly the position will transpose to
the Rossolimo Variation (2 Nf3 followed by Bb5). It goes without saying that
both sides can vary their moves; in particular 3Nc6 is equally popular. Over
the years the Rossolimo Variation has grown from modest beginnings (in the
1950s) to impressive books, like the 350 pages work by Rainer Kraut [3].
That said, the lines involving an early a2-a4 represent a mere sub-set of the
Rossolimo theory. Thus, it seems still manageable to study the line in depth.
But as explained by Hugh Myers, you can also try f2-f4 instead of Nf3, or
invent something else, like (in the diagram position) 4 Ne2 or 4 d3, if you
prefer to avoid anything theoretical.
4 Nf3
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp1bpppp/3p4/1Bp5/P3P3/
5N2/1PPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4"]
Transposing to the Rossolimo Variation proper. Hugh Myers commented

upon the diagram position in [2], reaching the same position via 2 Nf3 d6 3
Bb5+ Bd7 4 a4: "The purpose of this is to have an open a-file and an
advanced pawn on b5 if Black plays Bxb5 (unlikely), or to hit the hole at b6
with a4-a5 if Black forces the exchange with a6. Larsen has scored well
with the move, but in his notes in Game 41 (!) of Larsen's Selected Games of
Chess 1948-69 (David McKay Co., New York, 1970) he said that he didn't
think that 4 a4 was very strong (maybe he would just like to keep it for
himself!). Larsen apparently credits Gurgenidze with the move while saying
that he thought of it independently. All I know is that Rossolimo discussed it
with me in 1959, and possibly in 1958."
Actually Larsen had explained in [1] why he didn't regard 4 a4 as very strong.
In his opinion the advance of the a-pawn was better motivated in the BogoIndian Defense 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Bb4+ 4 Bd2 a5!?, because after an
eventual later exchange (Nc3) Bxc3 and bxc3 there would be a weak pawn on
c4. In the diagram position, however, Black's d-pawn is still on d6, so that a
later exchange Bxc6 bxc6 would not produce a weakness in Black's pawn
structure. In spite of this vague idea Larsen concludes: "4 a4 is certainly
playable."
Had Larsen written his book a few decades later, he would surely have
mentioned the English Opening 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Bb4, which is a closer
comparison. It isn't clear whether White has an advantage the extra move a2a4 doesn't mutate the solid set-up into a killer. But there are many players
who are willing to defend with Bb4 against the English. The move a2-a4 may
or may not be useful, but it will hardly be a disadvantage.
4Nf6
We are following Larsen Bednarski, Havanna 1967. Another Larsen game
saw 4Nc6 5 0-0 Nf6 6 d3 g6 7 Nbd2 Bg7 8 Nc4 0-0 9 Re1 (1-0, in sixtysix) Larsen Olafsson, Dundee 1967.
5 d3
AA solid continuation. 5 e5? dxe5 6 Nxe5 Bxb5 7 axb5 Qd5! "is bad for
White," Larsen [1], but after 8 Nf3 Qe4+ the outcome is unclear: 9 Qe2 (or
even 9 Kf1 Qc4+ 10 d3 Qxb5 11 Na3) 9Qxc2 10 Nc3 Nbd7 11 Ne5; e.g.,
11Nxe5 12 Qxe5 Qd3 (so far analysis by Ubilawa in [3]) 13 Rxa7! =.
5e6
According to Larsen [1], 5Nc6 looks better and could transpose to Larsen
Olafsson, above.
6 0-0 Be7
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pp1bbppp/3ppn2/1Bp5/P3P3/
3P1N2/1PP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
7 e5! dxe5 8 Nxe5 a6

AAn unnecessary weakness, says Larsen [1], yet his recommendation 80-0
is met by 9 Qf3, when White is also somewhat better.
9 Bxd7+ Nbxd7 10 Nxd7 Qxd7 11 Nd2
"Probably 11 a5 is more natural," Larsen [1].
110-0 12 Nc4 Nd5 13 a5
[FEN "r4rk1/1p1qbppp/p3p3/P1pn4/2N5/
3P4/1PP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
"White's advantage is obvious," says Larsen [1]. Black's bishop is hampered

by the pawn c5.
13Rfe8 14 Re1 Bf8?
Too passive; 14Bf6 offers better chances for counterplay.
15 Bd2 Rad8 16 Re4 Qc7 17 Qf3 e5??
[FEN "3rrbk1/1pq2ppp/p7/P1pnp3/2N1R3/
3P1Q2/1PPB1PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 18"]
17Nb4 comes into consideration. The text move does not only look bad, it
is refuted by force.
18 Qe2! f6 19 f4 Be7 20 Re1 g6 21 Qf3 exf4
Or 21Nxf4 22 Bxf4 exf4 23 Qe2! (Larsen), and the pin on the e-file wins
for White.
[FEN "3rr1k1/1pq1b2p/p4pp1/P1pn4/2N1Rp2/
3P1Q2/1PPB2PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 22"]
22 Nb6!
After this exchange, the immobility of Black's bishop becomes a fatal
handicap.
22Nxb6 23 axb6 Qd7 24 Qxf4 f5
[FEN "3rr1k1/1p1qb2p/pP4p1/2p2p2/
4RQ2/3P4/1PPB2PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 25"]
25 Bc3!! fxe4 26 Qe5 Bf8 27 Qh8+ Kf7 28 Rf1+ Qf5 29 Rxf5+ gxf5
White's queen now harvests a number of pawns.
30 Qf6+ Kg8 31 Qg5+ Kf7 32 Qxf5+ Kg8 33 Qg5+ Kf7 34 Qf6+ Kg8 35
Qh8+ Kf7 36 Qxh7+ Ke6 37 Qxe4+ Kd6 38 Qxb7 Rd7 39 Qxa6 Ke6 40 b7
+ Bd6 41 Qc4+ 1-0
Correction
The last column had discussed 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Qa5 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 b5. One of
the lines went 5 Bd5 Nf6
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/p2ppppp/2n2n2/qppB4/4P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 e5 Nd5 8 0-0 (Alikhanov Boris Ionov, St. Petersburg 2002)
8Bf5 =+. But reader Michel Barbaut from France suggested that 6 0-0! e6
7 Bxc6 dxc6 8 Re1 may be stronger, adding that the idea was already given in
E. Rozentalis / A. Harley: Play the 2 c3 Sicilian (London 2002), with the
comment: "followed by 9 d4 gives White the better position." It seems to me
that after 8Qc7 9 d4 h6 Black is only slightly worse, yet these problems can
perhaps be avoided entirely. Instead of 5Nf6 (see diagram above) I now
prefer 5Bb7 6 d4 (or 6 d3 e6) 6cxd4 with equal chances.
Sources
[1] B. Larsen: Ich spiele auf Sieg, Zurich 1971
[2] H. Myers: Exploring the Chess Openings, Davenport 1978
[3] R. Kraut: Sizilianisch mit 3. Lb5(+), Schwieberdingen 1996
[4] H. Myers: A Chess Explorer, Davenport 2002
[5] E. Winter: Hugh Myers (1930-2008)
[6] L. Ftacnik: The Sicilian Defence, Glasgow 2010

We are pleased to announce that FM Charles Galofre has agreed to fill

in during Stefan Bucker's leave of absence. Galofre has been featured on
CNN and in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Miami
Herald for his participation in the final four of intercollegiate chess. He
is also a coach and lecturer, and has a popular online video column.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Botvinnik Variation 10...Be7!
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
I can only hope to entertain and instruct readers of Over the Horizons in the
same dedicated manner as Stefan Bcker. This month I would like to present
a special sideline in the Botvinnik System of the Semi-Slav that will certainly
rack up points for you! Let's get started.
Bartholomew, J (2440) Becerra Rivero, J (2598)
Philadelphia, 2008
Semi-Slav Defense [D44]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3
Translate this page
Latest Trends in the Semi-Slav

by Konstantin Sakaev
& Semko Semkov
Computers seem to favor 3.Nf3. However, if 3.Nc3, then Black has the
opportunity of playing the Winawer gambit of the Slav. 3.Nc3 e5!? 4.dxe5 d4
5.Ne4 Qa5+ unclear.
Slav and Semi-Slav Revisited

by Alexei Shirov
[FEN"rnb1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p5/q3P3/2PpN3/
8/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]

the games from
I was acquainted with the Winawer Gambit thanks to some games of Jan
Timman, only that Timman played the position differently after: 1.d4 d5 2.c4
c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 e5!? 5.dxe5 d4. An interesting way of breaking the
symmetry in the Exchange Slav.
3...Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5
9.exf6 gxh4 10.Ne5 Qxf6 these sidelines have proven to be more than
satisfactory for Black.
9...hxg5 10.Bxg5 Be7!?
Botvinnik and Moscow

Variations
by Loek van Wely
[FEN"rnbqk2r/p3bp2/2p1pn2/1p2P1B1/2pP4/
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
This is the variation we will be exploring this month. 10...Nbd7 leads to the
well-established mazes of the Botvinnik. In my database there are roughly
2,200 games with 10...Nbd7 (the mainline of the Botvinnik), but only 237
games with the interesting 10...Be7. The earliest elite grandmaster game with
this position is between none other than Garry Kasparov and Vassily
Smyslov, Candidates Final, 1984.
11.exf6
11.Bxf6 can transpose to the mainline after Black exchanges twice on f6.
However, Black can play ...Rh4 to target the d4-pawn: 11...Bxf6 12.exf6
Rh4!? (12...Qxf6 transposes.) 13.g3 Rxd4.
11...Bxf6 12.Bxf6
12.Be3 Nd7 13.Qf3 Bb7 14.Nxb5 Qa5+!? 15.Nc3 000 with an initiative in
Yermolinsky,A (2568)-Becerra Rivero,J (2537), San Diego 2004.
12...Qxf6
[FEN"rnb1k2r/p4p2/2p1pq2/1p6/2pP4/2N5/
PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 13"]
13.g3 Na6
The knight guards the important c5-square from any Ne4c5 ideas by white,
and also eyes the d3-square.
14.Bg2 Bb7
[FEN"r3k2r/pb3p2/n1p1pq2/1p6/2pP4/
2N3P1/PP3PBP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 15"]
A tabiya of this variation.

15.Ne4
15.a4 is a sharp way of playing the position for White:
[FEN"r3k2r/pb3p2/n1p1pq2/1p6/P1pP4/
2N3P1/1P3PBP/R2QK2R b KQkq a3 0 15"]
15...000 16.axb5
A) 16...Rxd4?! 17.Qe2 cxb5 (17...Nb4 18.00 Kb8+/=) 18.Bxb7+ Kxb7 19.
Nxb5 Rd5 20.Nc3 Re5 21.Ne4 Qe7 22.00+/=.
B) 16...cxb5 17.Bxb7+ Kxb7 18.Nxb5 One of the most significant theoretical
positions of the whole system. 18...e5!
[FEN"3r3r/pk3p2/n4q2/1N2p3/2pP4/
6P1/1P3P1P/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 19"]
(18...Nb4; 18...Qf5)
B1) 19.00 exd4 (19...Qc6).
B2) 19.Qa4.
B3) 19.d5 Most common reply. 19...Nb4.
B3a) 20.00 White castling here truly leads to a memorable finish! 20...Qh6!
21.Kg2 only move (21.h4 Qxh4!!+ 22.gxh4 Rdg8+ 23.Qg4 Rxg4+ 24.Kh1
Rhxh4#) 21...Qxh2+ 22.Kf3 Qh5+ 23.Ke4 f5++.

B3b) 20.Rxa7+ Kb6 21.Qa4 (21.00 Qh6 22.h4 Qxh4) 21...Nd3+ 22.Kd2
Qxf2+ 23.Kc3 Qxb2+ 24.Kxc4 Rc8+ 25.Kxd3 e4+ 26.Ke3 Rc3+! 27.Nxc3
Qxc3+ 28.Kxe4 (28.Ke2) 28...f5+ 29.Kf4 Qd2+
[FEN"7r/R7/1k6/3P1p2/Q4K2/6P1/
3q3P/7R w - - 0 30"]
Here, Ehlvest,Jaan (2465) - Ivanchuk,Vassily (2475), URS-ch otbor Pinsk,

1986 ended in a draw. The rest is purposeful analysis verifying the result. 30.
Kf3 Qd3+ 31.Kf4 (31.Kf2 Qd2+ 32.Kf1 Qd3+ 33.Kf2 Qd2+ 34.Kf1 Qd3+ 35.
Ke1 Qe3+ 36.Kd1 Qd3+ 37.Kc1 Rc8+) 31...Qd2+ 32.Ke5 Qe3+; 15.Nxb5
The majority of your games will fall under this variation. Luckily, this forced
sequenced of moves is favorable for Black and in reality is a trap. Its very
difficult to spot in practice.
A) 15...000 The modern way of playing.
A1) 16.Nc3 c5 17.Bxb7+ Kxb7 18.00 cxd4 19.Ne4 Qf5 20.f3 Qd5 01,
Cooke,E (2253)-Ernst,S (2539), Groningen 2007 (Better is 20...Qb5!).
A2) 16.Qa4 cxb5 17.Bxb7+ Kxb7 18.Qxb5+ Ka8 19.Qc6+ Kb8 20.Qb5+
, Leitao,R (2590)-Fier,A (2581), Porto Alegre 2008.
A3) 16.Nxa7+ Kb8 17.Nxc6+ Bxc6 18.Bxc6 Nb4 with initiative.
A3a) 19.Qf3 Nc2+ (19...Qxf3 20.Bxf3 Nc2+ 21.Kd2) 20.Kd2 Qxf3 (20...Qg6
unclear) 21.Bxf3 Nxd4 22.Be2 c3+! 23.bxc3 (23.Kd3) 23...Nb3+ 24.Ke3
Nxa1 25.Rxa1 Rxh2.
A3b) 19.00 Nxc6.
A3c) 19.Bf3 Nc2+!.
A3c1) 20.Kf1 Rxd4 (20...Nxa1?! 21.Kg2) 21.Qxc2 Qxf3 22.Rg1 Rxh2+ 1.43/0.
A3c2) 20.Qxc2 Qxf3 21.Rg1 Rxd4-/+.
B) 15...cxb5!? This is the old way of playing this line. Apparently, the
contemporary interpretation of the position is to castle long for black after
White captures on b5. The analysis is also included. 16.Bxb7 Nb4!
[FEN"r3k2r/pB3p2/4pq2/1p6/1npP4/6P1/
PP3P1P/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 17"]
17.Bxa8? (17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Rd8=/+ After everything clears on d4, Black
will have his majority more advanced and will therefore maintain the
initiative and the better prospects in the game.; 17.00 Rd8 unclear) 17...Nd3
+ 18.Kd2 Qxd4+.
15...Qe7 16.00 000 17.a4 f5!
[FEN"2kr3r/pb2q3/n1p1p3/1p3p2/P1pPN3/
6P1/1P3PBP/R2Q1RK1 w - f6 0 18"]
17...Kb8? 18.Qd2 b4 19.Rac1 f5 20.Ng5 e5 21.Rxc4 c5 22.Bxb7 Qxb7 23.

Qe3 exd4 24.Qe5+ Ka8 25.Ne6 Qh7 26.h4 Rhe8 27.Qe2 Rd6 28.Qf3+ Qb7
29.Qxb7+ Kxb7 30.Nxc5+ Nxc5 31.Rxc5 d3 32.Rd1 Re2 33.Rb5+ Ka6 34.
Rxb4 d2 35.Kf1 Rde6 36.Kg2 Rd6 , Kasparov,G (2710)-Smyslov,V
(2600), Vilnius 1984.
18.Nc3
18.axb5 cxb5 19.Rxa6 Bxa6 20.Nc5 Qxc5! 21.dxc5 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 b4!
unclear (Kasparov).
18...b4 (18...Kb8!?) 19.Ne2 Nc5 20.Qc2 Nb3 21.Rad1 Ba6 22.Rfe1 Kb8 23.
Nf4
[FEN"1k1r3r/p3q3/b1p1p3/5p2/PppP1N2/
1n4P1/1PQ2PBP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 23"]
23...Nxd4 24.Rxd4 Rxd4 25.Rxe6 Qh7 26.h3 Rxf4 27.gxf4 Rg8
[FEN"1k4r1/p6q/b1p1R3/5p2/Ppp2P2/
7P/1PQ2PB1/6K1 w - - 0 28"]
28.Qe2 Qc7 29.Re8+ Rxe8 30.Qxe8+ Bc8 31.a5 c3 32.bxc3 bxc3 33.Qe3
Qxa5
[FEN"1kb5/p7/2p5/q4p2/5P2/2p1Q2P/
5PB1/6K1 w - - 0 34"]
34.Qd4 Kc7 35.Qc4 Bd7 36.h4 c5 37.Qd5 c2 38.Qe5+ Kc8 39.Qh8+ Kc7
40.Qe5+ Kc8 41.Qh8+ Kc7
Charles welcomes your questions; currently he is a full-time instructor and is

available for lessons. Contact him directly at charles.galofre@gmail.com.

We are pleased to announce that FM Charles Galofre has agreed to fill

in during Stefan Bcker's leave of absence. Galofre has been featured on
CNN and in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Miami
Herald for his participation in the final four of intercollegiate chess. He
is also a coach and lecturer, and has a popular online video column.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Sicilian Alapin Three Pawns Gambit
Over the
Horizons
This month I will show you a remarkable gambit in the Sicilian Alapin that is
fundamentally sound, being played by none other than Karpov himself, and
also incredibly interesting to be acquainted with, because there are so many
pitfalls for Black to avoid already starting at move four!
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3
Charles Galofre
ECO B
by Chess Informant
Translate this page
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/3p4/2p5/4P3/2P2N2/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
According to my recently updated database (now 2011), out of 14,000 games

this move is third in relevance, or significance, for a player of the black pieces
to expect. The idea of this quiet move is to ambitiously take over the center.
White is now threatening to set up a "classical center" (pawns on e4 and d4).
In the main lines of the Alapin (1.e4 c5 2.c3), Black has the opportunity to
immediately challenge White's intention of establishing a pawn center. Black
will either play ...d5, or ...Nf6 and an interesting struggle ensues. In this
variation, a move such as ...d5 will simply seem illogical for Black, as it will
lead to an Alapin where White's Nf3, is qualitatively a much better move,
over Black's ...d6 and ...d5 advance. An Improved Alapin then, perhaps!?
the games from
Alapin Variation
by Sergei Tiviakov
3...Nf6
This is essentially Black's best reply. All other moves allow White to play d4
without any trouble, granting him a space advantage. Now, as is the case
when one side is statically at a disadvantage, this side will fight at all cost for
dynamic possibilities to maintain the "equilibrium" in the position.
Consequently, allowing White to gambit material for superiority in time. An
interesting battle is ahead.
4.Be2
This is the main move here.
4.Bd3 is what is referred to as the Kopec System, named after international
master Dr. Danny Kopec. The idea is to play a Ruy Lopez-like position.
4.h3 is a quiet sideline, preventing Black from playing Bg4, a move that is
common played in these positions, allowing Black to give way with his
bishop and fight for the d4-square. All Sicilian players should be well versed
NIC Yearbook #93

by Genna Sosonko
with this plan, Black will play ...g6, ...Bg7, and expand on the queenside,
attempting to seize the initiative on the dark squares.
4...Nc6
This is Black's first choice. He now threatens to capture the pawn on e4.
The other major alternative here is 4...g6; against this I recommend White to
play 5.00, followed by Bb5+ and d4.
If you play this position long enough, you are bound to catch someone in this
line by 4...Nxe4.
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/2p5/4n3/2P2N2/
PP1PBPPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
And no, if you're wondering this is not the gambit. I played this position
reversed (with black) versus an expert in a tournament game and the expert
captured the pawn and after an eventual check by the queen (here Qa4+, but
in that game Qa5+) I was up a piece. After the game, the player told me, I
thought this was a gambit of some sorts. Chess jokes.
5.d4!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2np1n2/2p5/3PP3/
2P2N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq d3 0 5"]
5...cxd4
5...Nxe4? 6.d5+- Ne5 7.Qa4+ and the knight on e4 falls.
6.cxd4 Nxe4
If Black does not play this move, he is ceding the game to White without a
proper fight. For instance, 6...e6 and now
A) 7.Nc3 here it is appropriate to say that White has established his spatial
advantage. 7...d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.00
B) 7.d5!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp3ppp/2nppn2/3P4/4P3/
5N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
A novel approach to the position. The idea is to force the knight to an inferior
square. If Black plays ...Ne5, then White will achieve a better pawn structure,
otherwise, the knight will take a step backwards, granting White that extra
time. 7...Ne5 (7...Nb8 8.Nc3 Be7 9.00 00 10.h3 +/=) 8.dxe6 +/=).
6...d5 This is certainly the most traditional way of playing versus the center.
Unfortunately, in this position, as in similar variations of the Alapin, Black
will have problems with the development of the bishop on c8. 7.e5 Ne4 8.00
and now
A) 8...e6 Limiting the scope of the bishop on c8.
B) 8...Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 (9...Bf5 10.Nh4 Be6 +/=; 9...Bxf3? 10.gxf3 +-) 10.e6!!
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp2pppp/2n1P3/3p3b/3Pn3/
5N1P/PP2BPP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
This phenomenal sacrifice not only delays Black's development but

additionally splits the board in half, making the communication between the
pieces on both flanks difficult. Not to mention, creating targets for White on
e6 and e8. 10...fxe6 (10...Nd6 11.Nc3 fxe6) 11.Nc3 with compensation.
7.d5 Qa5+ (only move) 8.Nc3 Nxc3
441 games out of 505. Let's consider the alternatives:
8...Nb8 9.00 Nxc3 10.bxc3 with compensation. This transposes to the
mainline, but with the knight on b8.
8...Ne5 9.Nxe5! dxe5 (9...Nxc3? 10.Nc4! Qxd5 11.bxc3+-) 10.Bb5+ A
thematic move in this variation. Bb5+ typically causes disharmony in Black's
army. 10...Bd7 (10...Kd8 11.Qb3 Nc5 12.Qc2 with compensation) 11.Bxd7+
Kxd7 12.Qg4++-.
8...Nb4 9.Bd2+/= (9.Nxe4+/= Nc2+).
9.bxc3
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/2np4/q2P4/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
Here one could say that we have reached the critical position of this variation:
the tabiya. Black has three moves: 9...Ne5, 9...Nb8, and 9...Nd8. 9...Qxc3 is
omitted as Bd2 wins a piece on c6. Before going into variations, it's important
to understand the spirit of the position. Essentially, White is a pawn down, but
chess theory states that a pawn is typically worth three tempi. By taking this
into account, without factoring the current development advantage for White,
we could establish that it will take Black three moves to simply castle his king
to safety. This, with the addition that White has open b- and e-files for his
rooks should help us create a picture of White's compensation. Let's move
forward and explore some of the possibilities.
9...Ne5
Blacks most common response (275/441). He is placing the knight on its best
square and at the same time initiating exchanges in pieces to neutralize
White's advantage in development. Now there are two approaches for White.
Usually, it's been considered that Nxe5 is best. But current analysis suggests
that the move 10.00 might be better, even scoring higher in the percentage of
wins (75% compared to 67.9% for 10.Nxe5). We will look at some common
lines for White after 10.Nxe5 so that this line could also be added to your
gambit repertoire.
9...Nb8 (102/441) This move is considered to be too slow. The idea is to
play ...Nd7 and ...Nf6. 10.00 with compensation.
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2P4/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
A) 10...g6 11.Qd4!with initiative 11...f6 (11...Rg8 12.Re1 Qc5 13.Qh4) 12.

Rb1 Bg7 (12...a6 13.Ng5; 12...Qc5 13.Qa4+ Bd7 14.Qb3) 13.Bb5+.
B) 10...e5 11.dxe6 Bxe6 (11...fxe6 12.Bf4) 12.Rb1 Nd7 13.Nd4.
C) 10...Nd7 11.Re1
C1) 11...g6 12.Qd4 Nf6 13.Bb5+! Qxb5 14.c4!? (14.Qxf6 Rg8 15.c4 Qxc4 16.
Bh6 Be6 17.Rxe6 fxe6 18.Qxe6 Bxh6 19.Qxg8+ Bf8 20.Qxh7 Qd3 21.Rc1
Qf5 22.Nd4 Qf7 23.Qxf7+ Kxf7 24.Rc7 b6 25.Ne6 a6 26.f4 b5+/- 0.89/14).
C2) 11...Nf6 12.Qb3!!
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/q2P4/8/
1QP2N2/P3BPPP/R1B1R1K1 b kq - 0 12"]
Karpov-Kveinys, Riga 2002 saw 12.Rb1 a6 13.Be3 b5 14.c4 Bf5 15.cxb5 Bg7
16.Rb2 axb5 17.Bxb5+ Kf8 18.Bc6 Rc8 19.g4 e4 20.Rc2 1-0.
C2a) 12...Nxd5?! 13.Bb5+
C2a1) 13...Kd8 14.Qxd5+ (14.Ng5).
C2a2) 13...Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.Qxb7++.
C2b) 12...Qxd5 13.Bb5+ (13.Bc4 Qh5) 13...Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.c4! Qc6
16.c5! Qd5 17.Qb2 with attack.
C2c) 12...a6 13.c4! followed by Be3 and Bb6.
9...Nd8 64/441 The idea of this move is to later play e5 and capture the pawn
with the knight on e6. It was considered to be an improvement in the 1990's
but today the games show the line is clearly favorable for white. Black is
positionally forced to play e5 otherwise the knight is cut off from the game at
d8. 10.00
[FEN "r1bnkb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2P4/8/
A) 10...e5 11.dxe6 Nxe6 12.Nd4 with compensation

A1) 12...a6 13.Bf3 Qxc3 14.Be3 Be7 15.Nxe6 Bxe6 16.Bd4+/-.
A2) 12...Nxd4 opening the e-file, and bringing the white queen to the best
square on the board. 13.Qxd4 Qe5 14.Re1! Bd7 (14...Qxd4 15.Bb5+ Kd8 16.
Re8+ Kc7 17.cxd4 a6 18.Bc4 Rb8 19.Bxf7 Bf5 20.Re2+/=) 15.Qb4 Be7 16.
Qxb7 Rd8 17.Bd2 Qc5 18.Bg4+/-.
A3) 12...Be7 13.Bb5+ Kf8 (13...Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.Qf3+/-) 14.Rb1
[FEN "r1b2k1r/pp2bppp/3pn3/qB6/3N4/
2P5/P4PPP/1RBQ1RK1 b - - 0 14"]
White is only down a pawn, and Black will not be able to castle. This line is
clearly favorable for White.
B) 10...g6 11.Qd4 with attack
B1) 11...f6 12.Rb1 Bg7 (12...Qxa2 13.Bd2) 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Re1 with
compensation (14.Bd2).
B2) 11...Rg8 12.Re1 Bg7 (12...Qc5) 13.Qh4 Bf6 14.Qxf6!! exf6 15.Bb5++.
C) 10...Qxc3? 11.Bb5++.
9...Qxc3+? 10.Bd2+.
10.Nxe5!?
Historically, there are more recorded games in this variation.
10.00!?
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2Pn3/8/
The most recent grandmaster game here is Erenburg-Mamedyarov 2003.

White wants to keep the tension in the position. By not capturing on e5 he
keeps his pawns and the trumps in his position. As previously stated, this is
the latest development in this line, and more than likely, favorable over our
mainline. Once again, seventy-five percent for White after 10.00
A) 10...g6 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Qb3! These positions are similar to the ones we
were looking at before. White applies pressure on the queenside and the
themes are the same: Bb5+, Be3 and Bb6 with a queenside bind. And Ba3 and
d6! with the initiative. (12.Rb1 a6 13.Be3 b5 14.c4 Bf5 15.cxb5 Bg7 16.Rb2
axb5 17.Bxb5+ Kf8 18.Bc6 Rc8 19.g4 e4 20.Rc2 10, Karpov-Kveinys, Riga
2002.)
A1) 12...Bg7 13.Ba3 Qd8 (13...Bf6 14.d6 Kf8; 13...00 14.Bxe7+-) 14.Rad1
with initiative.
A2) 12...a6 13.Be3 with initiative.
A3) 12...Bd7 13.Qxb7 Rd8 +/-.

A4) 12...Qc7 13.Ba3 Bd7 14.Rab1 b6 15.Rfe1 with compensation.
B) 10...Qxc3? This move is no longer correct, White wins with 11.Nxe5!+.
C) 10...e6 Opening the position with which White complies. 11.dxe6 with
compensation.
D) 10...Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3
D1) 11...Bd7 12.Bb2 Rc8 13.Re1 Rg8 (13...b5).
D2) 11...Qxc3 12.Bd2.
D2a) 12...Qa3 13.Qb1 g6 (13...Qa6) 14.Qb5+ Bd7 (14...Kd8) 15.Qxb7 Rd8
16.Bb4 with initiative.
D2b) 12...Qb2 13.Rc1 with compensation.
D2c) 12...Qc4?! 13.Rc1 Qxa2 14.Rc7 Rb8 15.Qc1 Bd7 16.Qc3 Qa4 17.Be2 f6
18.Bd3 a6 19.Rb1 g6 20.Rc4 Qa2 21.Ra1 Qxa1+ 22.Qxa1+.
D3) 11...Bf5 12.Qb3 000 13.Re1 Kb8 14.Be3 b6 15.c4.
D4) 11...g6 12.Qd4 with initiative 12...Rg8 (12...f6 13.Re1 Kf7 14.Bd2 Bg7
15.c4) 13.Re1.
10...Qxc3+
This is mainline.
10...dxe5 11.Qb3!
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/8/q2Pp3/8/1QP5/
P3BPPP/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 11"]
A) 11...a6 Generally, when Black plays ...a6, White goes for Be3 and Bb6
binding the queenside. 12.00
A1) 12...g6 13.Be3 Qc7 (13...b5 14.a4!) 14.Bb6 Qd7 15.c4! With a bind on
the queenside. 15...Bg7 (15...e6 this move doesnt make much sense, opening a
file for White. 16.Rad1) 16.Rae1.
A2) 12...Qc7 13.Be3 g6 14.Bb6 if ...Qd6, then c4!, followed by c5!, with
complete dominion over the board. Otherwise, ...Qd7 will lock two major
pieces and a bishop in the queen's flank.
A3) 12...e6 13.Bc4! Novelty. 13...exd5 14.Bxd5 with initiative; Whites pieces
excert too much pressure in the position. His ideas include Be3 and Bb6, as
well as f4! opening more files.
B) 11...Qc7 12.00
B1) 12...a6 13.Be3 g6 14.Bb6 with compensation.
B2) 12...g6 13.Ba3 Bf5 (13...Bd7 14.Rab1 b6 15.Rfe1 White has an

overwhelming position. Every single one of his pieces are in play, and there
are many themes present in the position.) 14.Bb5+ Bd7.
B3) 12...Bd7 13.Rb1 b6 14.Ba3 with compensation.
B4) 12...e6 13.Bb5+ Bd7 14.dxe6+/-.
C) 11...g6 12.Bb5+ Kd8 13.00+/-.
11.Bd2 Qxe5 12.Rb1!
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/3Pq3/8/8/
P2BBPPP/1R1QK2R b Kkq - 0 12"]
A novel approach to this position, which has only been played a handful of
times. Rb1 is more precise, threatening the thematic Bb5+.
12...f6!
Black's most resilient way to play this position. This defensive method has
been employed by Julian Hodgson in a similar position. That game went 12.00 Qxd5 13.Rb1 f6 14.Re1 e5 15.Bf3 Qf7 16.Bb4 Be6 17.Bxd6 Bxd6 18.Qxd6
Rd8 19.Qa3 b6 20.Bc6+ Bd7 21.Be4 Be6 22.Bc6+ Bd7 23.Be4 b5 24.Red1
Qc4 25.Bd5 Qc7 and Hodgson won against Garcia at move sixty-three at the
World Open in 2000.
White keeps plenty of pressure, and things are far from clear. 12...Bg4 13.f3
Bf5 14.Rxb7 and White is just better.
12...g6 13.00 (13.Rxb7!? this move is thematic. Only that in this position,
not best. I include it for your attacking reference. 13...Bg7 14.Rc7 00 15.00
Qb2 16.Rxe7 Qxa2 17.Bf4 Rd8 Black has untangled his pieces, White no
longer exerts pressure, and there is a lingering a pawn that soon will be
pushed giving Black the initiative.) 13...Bg7 (13...Qxd5 14.Bb5+!+/-; 13...a6
14.Rxb7!!
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1R2pp1p/p2p2p1/3Pq3/
8/8/P2BBPPP/3Q1RK1 b kq - 0 14"]
14...Bxb7 15.Qa4+ Kd8 16.Ba5+ Kc8 17.Qe8#) 14.Qa4+ Kf8 15.Qa5!+/- Bf5
(15...f5 16.Rfe1 Qd4 17.Bg5 Bf6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Rbc1 b6 20.Qa4 Bb7 21.
Bf3 Rc8 22.Qxa7 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Qb2 24.Rf1+/-) 16.Rxb7 Qxe2 17.Qc7 Re8
18.Re1 Qxe1+ only move (18...Qxd2? 19.Qxe7+! Rxe7 20.Rb8+ Re8 21.
Rbxe8#) 19.Bxe1+/- Bf6 20.Bd2 h6 21.Qa5 Rc8 22.Qxa7 Rc2.

12...Qxd5 This could be our candidate, most forced as it leads to more
material for Black, nonetheless, not the best. 13.Bb5+ Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.
Qa4+ Ke6 16.00!
[FEN "r4b1r/pp2pppp/3pk3/3q4/Q7/
8/P2B1PPP/1R3RK1 b - - 0 16"]
16...f6 only move (16...Qxd2 17.Rfd1+/-) 17.Rb5 Qd3 18.Rd1 Rc8 19.Rxb7
with attack.
13.Be3 and the position is unclear.

available for lessons. Contact him directly via his Chess Training School.

A Latvian Specialty: The Baltic Defense
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Translate this page
The Baltic Defense is an ambitious system that tries to immediately solve the
classical problem of the QGD: how to develop the black light-squared bishop.
This system is a Latvian specialty; Shirov has made contributions to it during
his career and it is a extended part of Rausis repertoire. The move 2...Bf5 is
bold because it leaves the center unprotected and weakens the b7-pawn. You
can see how White tries to take advantage of this with either capturing on d5
immediately, granting White a greater presence in the center (the pawn on
d4), or by playing the traditional response, 3.Qb3, pressuring the mutual
points on b7 and d5. Having said that, the opening leads to a variety of
positions and can be favored by highly original players. The positions can be
solid or full of tactics. The opening should lead to an advantage to White; but
because it is not frequently played, Black is always comfortable in the arising
struggle.
Babu, N (2365) Prasad, D (2415)
Kolkata 1992
The Baltic Defense [D11]
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Baltic Defense Easily

Explained
by Andrew Martin
1.d4
It is common knowledge that the classical problem in the QGD is how to
develop the light-squared bishop. Sometimes, in the Tartakower it goes to b7,
other times in the Slav it is played to f5 after an exchange on c4. Black is
always trying to make way for this piece in the opening and an interesting
theoretical debate arises.
1...d5 2.c4 Bf5
ChessBase Magazine #90
by ChessBase

the games from
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/
8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]
3.Nc3
This is the move that is played the most in practice.
3.cxd5 This line gives White a greater presence in the center. Black can
therefore fight for equality by gambiting a pawn (the c6!? Lines), or he will
reach a Caro-Slav structure where White has the bishop-pair, but Black has a
solid structure. 3...Bxb1
Play the Slav

by James Vigus
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3P4/3P4/8/
PP2PPPP/RbBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
A) 4.Rxb1 Qxd5
A1) 5.e3 Nc6 (5...Qxa2)
A2) 5.a3 Nc6 6.Nf3 000
A2a) 7.e3 e5 8.Qc2 exd4 9.Bc4 d3 10.Qb3 Qe4 11.Bd2 Be7 (11...Nh6 01,
Wichmann,D (2255)-Vorobyov,Y (2245) Gotha 2005).
A2b) 7.Qc2 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Be3 unclear.
B) 4.Qa4+
B1) 4...Qd7
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pppqpppp/8/3P4/Q2P4/8/
PP2PPPP/RbB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is a new try here for Black. It has been played by Miladinovic, who is a
creative player. White can easily get a better position; for example, 5.Qxd7+
Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6 7.Nf3 (7.Bd2 Nb6 8.f3 Nfxd5 9.e4 Nf6 10.d5! 000 11.
Nh3 h6 12.Rc1+/=) 7...Nb6 8.e3 Nbxd5 9.Bd3 Nb4 10.Bc4 e6 11.a3 Nc6
12.00+/=.
B2) 4...c6!?
B2a) 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rxb1 e5
[FEN "r2qkbnr/pp3ppp/2n5/4p3/Q2P4/8/
PP2PPPP/1RB1KBNR w Kkq e6 0 7"]
7.Bd2 Qxd4 8.Qxd4

B2a1) 8...Nxd4 9.e3 (9.Nf3) 9...Nc6 10.Bb5 Bd6 11.Nf3 (11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.
Nf3 Ne7 13.Ba5+/=) 11...Rc8 12.Bc3 f6 13.Rd1+/=.
B2a2) 8...exd4 Played by Rausis, and with simple play for Black. 9.Nf3 Nf6
10.b4 a6 11.a4 (11.g3) 11...Ne4 12.b5 axb5 13.axb5 Nb4! 14.Nxd4 Ra2 15.
Bc1 Bc5 16.f3 Nc2+ 17.Nxc2 Bf2+ 18.Kd1 Nc3+ 19.Kd2 Nxb1+ 20.Kd3 Ke7
21.e3 Rc8 01, Ivanov,V (2415)-Rausis,I (2490) Daugavpils 1992.
B2b) 5.Rxb1 Qxd5
B2b1) 6.f3 e5 7.dxe5 b5 Novelty. (7...Qxe5).
[FEN "rn2kbnr/p4ppp/2p5/1p1qP3/Q7/
5P2/PP2P1PP/1RB1KBNR w Kkq b6 0 8"]
B2b2) 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.e3 (7.a3 Ngf6 8.g3 Qe4 9.Ra1 e5 10.Bg2 Nc5 11.Qc4
exd4 -, Van Wely,L (2632)-Eliet,N (2408) France 1999; 7.b4 e5 8.e3 exd4
9.Nxd4 Ngf6 10.b5 c5 11.Nf3 Nb6 12.Qc2 Rd8 -, Rashkovsky,N (2550)Rausis,I (2495) Cappelle la Grande 1995) 7...Nb6 (7...Ngf6 8.Be2) 8.Qc2
Qxa2 9.Bd3 e6 10.00 Qd5 11.e4 Qd8 12.b4 a6 13.Be3 Nf6 14.h3 Be7 -,
Onischuk,A (2585)-Sakovich,I (2290) Lubniewice 1994.
3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5 transposes.
3.Qb3 This is White's most challenging move, he will gain a pawn, but Black
will gain plenty of activity. The positions are highly unclear. 3...e5!?
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3ppb2/2PP4/
1Q6/PP2PPPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq e6 0 4"]
A) 4.Qxb7 Nd7
A1) 5.Nf3 Rb8.
A2) 5.Qxd5 Bxb1 6.Rxb1 Bb4+ 7.Kd1 (7.Bd2 Ngf6) 7...Ne7 with
compensation.
A3) 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd5 (6.Nb5 Bb4+) 6...Bd6 7.e4 Nc5 (better is 7...dxe3 8.
Bxe3) 8.Qc6+ Bd7 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7 10.Qxa8+ Ke7 11.Qd5 Nf6 with
compensation 12.Qxd4 Ncxe4 13.Nf3 Rd8 14.Be2 Be6 15.Kf1 Bg3 16.Qe3 1
0, Miles,A (2610)-Gobet,F (2360)/Geneve 1986/EXT 2001 (34) 16...Nxf2
unclear An improvement over the game.
B) 4.dxe5 d4 5.Qxb7 Nd7 6.Nf3 (6.Nd2 Ne7 7.g4 Bxg4 8.Qe4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6
10.Qe5 Kf7 11.Ngf3 Ng6 12.Qxd4 Bxf3 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Nxf3 Bb4+ -,
Bu Xiangzhi (2630)-Eid,F (2332) Dubai 2005) 6...Rb8
B1) 7.Qc6 Bb4+ with compensation.
B2) 7.Qxa7 Nc5 8.Nxd4 (8.Qa5 Nd3+-/+) 8...Ra8-/+.
B3) 7.Qa6 unclear.
C) 4.cxd5 exd4 5.Nf3 (5.Qxb7 Nd7 with compensation) 5...Bc5 6.Nxd4 (6.
Qc4 Nd7 7.Nxd4 Qh4 8.Be3 Bxb1 9.Rxb1 Ngf6 10.Rc1 00 11.Nf5 Bb4+ 12.
Kd1 Qxc4 13.Rxc4 Nxd5 14.Bd4 Rfd8 15.e4 N5f6 16.Rxb4 c5 17.Rxb7 cxd4
18.f3 d3 19.Rc7 Ne5 20.Ne7+ Kf8 21.Nf5 a5 22.Rc5 Neg4 01, Dyachkov,S
(2520)-Rowson,J (2400) /Halle 1995/CBM 048 ext (53)) 6...Bxd4 7.Qa4+
Nc6 8.dxc6 b5
[FEN "r2qk1nr/p1p2ppp/2P5/1p3b2/Q2b4/
8/PP2PPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq b6 0 9"]
9.Qxb5 Ne7 10.e3 Rb8 11.Qe2 00 12.Nc3 (12.exd4) 12...Nxc6 13.g4 Bxc3+
14.bxc3 Be4 15.Rg1 Ne5 16.Bg2 Nd3+ 17.Kf1 Nxc1 01, Ward, C (2440)Rausis,I (2490) Le Touquet 1992.
3...e6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pp3ppp/1qp1p3/2Pp1b2/
3P4/1QN2N2/PP2PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
Now Black has an option: to play the "solid" line as described by Shirov or
Kramnik in one of the commentated games (Qc7) or to exchange on b3.
Exchanging on b3 is played more often, and it should lead to a position with
easier play for Black, because White has a harder time consolidating his
advantage and the play is more casual and not precise where Black with the
right play can sometimes get the upper hand.
6.Qxb6 In case you were wondering about the best play after the exchange of
queens. Generally, this exchange is better for the side that gets the open file.
Sometimes, even doubled isolated pawns are OK, given the counterplay
granted from the file. 6...axb6 7.Nh4 Bc2!
A) 8.e3 Be7 9.Nf3 Nf6 with a lead in development Black should be better. (9...
dxc4.)
B) 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bf4 h6 10.Rc1 Bh7 White will play Nf3 and Black will be
in a good position, he can play for the initiative with b5-b4 on the queenside.
6...Qxb3
6...Qc7 If you are a Shirov fan, the first diagram in his book Fire on Board
shows the move 31...Re4!! from a game that was played in this variation. It is
included in the notes below. 7.Bf4 Qc8 (7...Qxf4 8.Qxb7)
A) 8.e4
[FEN "rnq1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/2Pp1b2/
3PPB2/1QN2N2/PP3PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq e3 0 8"]
A beautiful line, White is trying at all cost to take advantage of his lead in
development. 8...Bxe4 (8...dxe4 9.Nh4) 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Nd2 Nf6 11.Nc4 (11.
Qc2) 11...Nbd7 12.Be2 Nd5 13.Nd6+ Bxd6 14.Bxd6 f5 15.g4 -, Bacrot,E
(2691)-Nikolaidis,I (2516)/Kallithea 2008/CBM 125 Extra (51).
B) 8.e3 Nf6 9.Qa4 Nbd7 10.b4 a6 11.h3 Be7 12.Qb3 00 13.Be2 Be4 14.00
Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Bd8 16.a4 Bc7 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.b5 e5 20.b6 Bb8 21.
a5 exd4 22.exd4 Bf4 23.Qc2 Qd7 24.g3 Qxh3 25.Bg2 Qh5 26.gxf4 Ng4 27.
Rfd1 Rae8 28.Rd3 Qh2+ 29.Kf1 f5 30.Qd2 Rf6 31.f3
[FEN "4r1k1/1p4p1/pPp2r1p/P1Pp1p2/
3P1Pn1/2NR1P2/3Q2Bq/R4K2 b - - 0 31"]
31...Re4 01, Kramnik,V (2710) -Shirov,A (2705) Linares 1994

C) 8.Nh4
[FEN "rnq1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/2Pp1b2/
3P1B1N/1QN5/PP2PPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
With this simple move, White, statically, will get a better position. He will
have the bishop-pair, better development, and the queenside.
7.axb3 Nd7
7...Na6 Black has played this more often, but after the thematic e4, White will
get the upper hand. 8.e4
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp3ppp/n1p1p3/2Pp1b2/3PP3/
1PN2N2/1P3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq e3 0 8"]
(8.Bf4) 8...Nb4
A) 9.exf5 Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.b4
A1) 12...a5 13.bxa5 Nb3 14.a6 Nxc1 (14...bxa6) 15.axb7 Rb8 16.Kxc1 Rxb7
17.Bd3+/- (Shirov) (17.Kc2) 17...g6 18.Re1 Bh6+ 19.Kc2 Ke7 (19...Ne7) 20.
b4 Nf6 21.Ne5 Rc7 22.b5 cxb5 23.Nxb5 Rb7 24.Nc6+ Kd7 25.Ne5+ Ke7 26.
Nd6 Rc7 27.Ndf7 Bg7 28.Nxh8 Bxh8 29.f4 Nd7 30.Ra1 Bf6 31.Ra8 10,
Shirov,A (2615)-Svidler,P (2480)/ Gausdal 1991/TD.
A2) 12...Nh6 This novelty is an improvement on Svidler's play.
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp4pp/2p1p2n/2Pp4/1P1P4/
2N2N2/1P3PPP/n1BK1B1R w kq - 0 13"]
B) 9.Ra4 dxe4 (9...Nc2+ 10.Kd2 dxe4 11.g4 Bg6 12.Ne5 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 Bxc5
14.Rc4 Bxf2 10, Atalik,S (2619)-Grigoriev,A (2336) 2007) 10.Rxb4 exf3 11.
Rxb7+/-.
8.b4
8.Bf4 a6 9.e3 (9.b4 f6 10.e3) 9...Ne7 10.h3 f6 11.g4 Bg6 12.b4 Rc8 13.Bg3
h5 14.Rg1 hxg4 15.hxg4 Kf7 16.Be2 Ng8 17.Nd2 Be7 18.Nb3 Bd8 19.Na5
Bxa5 20.Rxa5 Ne7 21.Kd2 Rh3 22.Na2 e5 23.Nc1 exd4 24.exd4 Nf8 25.Bf1
Rh8 26.Bg2 Ne6 -, Andersson,U (2590) -Larsen,B (2585) Tilburg 1980.
8...a6 9.b5 [9.h3] 9...cxb5 10.Nxb5 Rc8 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.Bf4
12.b4 Nc6 13.b5 axb5=/+ Black is better developed and will open the
queenside with b6.
12...Nc6 13.e3 e5!?
[FEN "2r1kb1r/1p1n1ppp/p1n5/2Pppb2/
3P1B2/2N1PN2/1P3PPP/R3KB1R w KQk - 0 14"]
A fine interpretation of the position from the Indian player.

14.Bg3
14.dxe5 Nxc5 15.Nxd5 Nb4 16.Nxb4 (16.Nd4 Nxd5 17.Nxf5 Nb3 18.Rd1 Bb4
+ 19.Ke2 Rc2+) 16...Nb3 17.Ra4 b5 18.e4 bxa4 19.exf5 Bxb4+; 14.Nxe5
Ndxe5 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxc5 17.Nxd5 00 with compensation 18.b4
Rfd8 19.Rd1 Be6=/+.
14...Be4= exd4 15.Nxd4 Be6 16.Nxc6 Rxc6 17.b4 Be7 18.Ne2 00 19.Nd4
Rcc8 20.Be2 Nb8 21.00 Nc6 22.Nxc6 Rxc6 23.Be5 Rcc8 24.Rfd1 Rfd8 25.
Rd4 f6 26.Bg3 Rd7 27.Bd1 Kf7 28.Ba4 Rdd8 29.Bb3 g6 30.h3 f5 31.Be5
Ra8 32.Ra5 Rac8 33.Kh2 Rd7 34.g4 Bd8 35.gxf5 Bxa5 36.fxe6+ Kxe6 37.
Bd6 Bc7 38.Bxd5+ Kf6 39.Bxb7 Bxd6+ 40.Rxd6+ Rxd6 41.Bxc8 Rd2 42.
Kg3 Ra2 43.c6 Ke7 44.c7 Rc2 45.Bxa6 Rxc7 -


The Lazard Gambit

This month we will take a look an interesting alternative in the Chigorin
Defense that can certainly come as a surprise to many.
Purchases from our

accessible:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3

The main move in this position according to my database.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Translate this page
3.cxd5 Because this is a possibility, I decided to include the following model

game, which is a gift to go over for every chess fan. Morozevich shows us
how to play the Chigorin in a compelling attacking game versus Veselin
Topalov: 3...Qxd5 4.e3 e5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 exd4 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.
f3 000 10.Nxd4 Nf6 11.Qa4 Qg5 12.Nxc6 Qxe3+ 13.Be2 Rhe8 10,
Topalov,V (2700)-Morozevich,A (2723), Frankfurt 1999/CBM 072 (54).
3.Nc3 There are many sub-variations in this Nc3 line, for both White and
Black, once again for thoroughness, this following game between two topranked players is included: 3...dxc4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 exf6 7.e3 Bd6
8.Bxc4 00 9.Qc2 Ne7 10.00 c6 11.h3 Bf5 12.e4 Bg6 13.a4 a5 14.Rad1 Qb6
15.Rfe1 Rad8 16.Ba2 Bb4 17.Qb3 Qc7 18.e5 Nd5 19.Rc1 Nf4 20.exf6 Nd3
21.Nd5 Rxd5 22.Qxd5 Bxe1 23.fxg7 Bxf2+ 24.Kf1 Rd8 01, Carlsen,M
(2801)-Ivanchuk,V (2739), Moscow 2009/EXT 2010.
The Chigorin Defence

by Martin Breutigam
Untamed Chigorin
by Nigel Davies
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp1pppp/2n5/3p4/2PP4/
5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
3...e5!?
the games from
This bold move is called the Lazard Gambit. It brings about positions that
resemble the Albin Counter Gambit, as well as positions similar to the
Chigorin Defense. The idea behind the move is to immediately play the key
thematic freeing move of the Chigorin the ...e5 manouevre. Here exchanges
on d5 help Black by improving his position (the capture and activation of the
queen), while a capture on e5 leads to a imbalanced position where Black has
a majority on the queenside and White has a majority on the kingside. This is
all made possible thanks to the intermediate move (intermezzo) 4...Bb4+,
giving Black the chance to capture on c4, regaining his pawn without a
forceful simplification of the position through an exchange of queens. The
line has been played by some grandmasters, but it has not been picked up with
serious enthusiasm. Let's look at some of the lines, and improvements for
Black to include it to our repertoire. 3...Bg4 is the most common move taking
us to the mainlines of the Chigorin.
4.dxe5
After 4.cxd5, we once again get either a Chigorin, or positions similar to the
Goring Gambit Declined. 4...Qxd5
Unusual Queen's Gambit

Declined
by Chris Ward
A) 5.dxe5 White gains a pawn, but Black gets the initiative in return and will
immediately build a formidable position. 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 Bg4 7.Nc3 000
+ (7...Bc5 8.Ke1) 8.Kc2 Nge7 9.e4 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nd4+ 11.Kb1 Nxf3
[FEN "2kr1b1r/ppp1nppp/8/4P3/4P3/
2N2n2/PP3P1P/RKB2B1R w - - 0 12"]
12.Be3 Nxe5 13.Be2 N7c6 14.Nd5 f6 15.f4 Nf7 16.Rc1 Kb8 17.a3 Nd6.
B) 5.e3 Bg4.
C) 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 (7.bxc3 e4 8.Ng1 Nf6 9.e3 00 10.c4 Qg5)
7...e4
C1) 8.Ne5 e3 9.fxe3 (9.f3 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ne7) 9...Nf6 (9...Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ne7
11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qa3 Qe6 13.000 00 14.g4 Bc6 15.Rg1 Rfd8 16.Bh3 Nd5
17.Bd4 a5 18.Rd2 Nb4 19.b3 Be4 20.Qb2 c5 21.Bc3 Nd5 22.Rg3 b5 23.g5
Qg6 24.e6 fxe6 25.Bf6 Re8 26.Qe5 Kh8 27.Bxg7+ Qxg7 28.Qxe4 a4 29.Qb1
axb3 30.e4 bxa2 31.Rxa2 Nc3 32.Rxa8 Rxa8 33.Qb2 Nxe2+ 34.Qxe2 Qa1+
35.Kd2 Ra2+ 36.Ke3 Qd4+ 37.Kf3 Rxe2 38.Kxe2 Qxe4+ 39.Re3 Qc4+ 40.
Kf3 Qd5+ 41.Kf4 Qd4+ 42.Re4 Qf2+ 43.Kg4 Qf5+ 01, Dobrev,N (2407)Karpatchev,A (2521), Marseille 2006/EXT 2007).
C2) 8.Nd2 e3
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3q4/3P4/2B1p3/
PP1NPPPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
A thematic pawn sacrifice delaying the development of whites pieces. The

bishop on f1 will have a hard time coming in to play and the communication
of whites pieces on the king and queenside will be hampered as a result.Black
has excellent play. 9.fxe3 Nf6 10.e4 (10.Nf3 00 11.Qb3 Re8) 10...Nxe4 11.
Nxe4 Qxe4 12.d5 Ne7 13.Bxg7 Rg8 14.Qd4 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.Be5
Ne3 17.Rc1 c6 18.g3 Be6 , Bauer,C (2614)-Miladinovic,I (2604), Nancy
2008/CBM 122 Extra.
4.Nxe5 a direct move, which transposes to the Albin. 4...Nxe5 5.dxe5 d4 (5...
dxc4)
A) 6.e4 Ne7 7.Bd3 (7.Bg5 c6) 7...Ng6 8.f4 (8.00 Nxe5) 8...Bb4+ 9.Bd2 (9.
Kf2) 9...Nxf4!
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/8/4P3/1bPpPn2/
3B4/PP1B2PP/RN1QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
10.Bxb4 Nxg2+ 11.Kf2 Qh4+ 12.Kg1 Qg5 13.Qf3 Ne1+ 14.Qg3 Qxg3+ 15.
hxg3 Nxd3 16.Ba3 Nxe5 17.Nd2 Be6 18.b3 a5 19.Kg2 Bg4 20.Rhf1 f6 21.
Rh1 Kd7 22.Bc5 Nc6 23.Nf3 b6 24.Ba3 Rae8 25.Rhe1 Bxf3+ 26.Kxf3 h5 27.
Re2 h4 28.c5 Ne5+ 29.Kg2 hxg3 30.Kxg3 Rh5 31.cxb6 Rg5+ 32.Kf2 Rh8 0
1 Kibbermann,F-Keres,P, Tallinn 1935/EXT 2001.
B) 6.g3 Ne7 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.00 (8.f4 h5; 8.Bxc6+) 8...Nxe5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp2ppp/8/4n3/2Pp4/6P1/
PP2PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]
9.b3 Bc5 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 Nxc4 12.Bxd4 00 13.Qd3 Be6 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.
Bg2 Rxb4 16.Bc3 Rb6 , Grachev,B (2510)-Morozevich,A (2721),
Moscow 2006/EXT 2007 (43).
4.e3 Bg4 5.Qb3 Bxf3 6.gxf3 Nge7
[FEN "r2qkb1r/ppp1nppp/2n5/3pp3/2PP4/
1Q2PP2/PP3P1P/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
A) 7.cxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 (8.Bc4 Qxf3) 8...Nxd5 9.dxe5 Ndb4 10.Na3 Nxe5 11.
Ke2 (11.f4 Ned3+ 12.Ke2) 11...000 12.f4.
B) 7.Nc3 exd4 8.Nxd5 Na5 9.Qa4+ Nac6; 4.Nc3 exd4 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 6.Qxd4
dxc4 7.Qxd8+ (7.Qxc4 c6) 7...Kxd8; 4.Bg5 f6 5.cxd5.
4...Bb4+
4...d4 d4 transposes to the Albin.
5.Bd2
5.Nbd2 dxc4 6.Qc2 Nge7 7.a3 (7.e3 Bg4 8.Qxc4 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Qd7 10.f4 00
0 11.Qc2 g5
[FEN "2kr3r/pppqnp1p/2n5/4P1p1/1b3P2/
4P3/PPQN1P1P/R1B1KB1R w KQ - 0 12"]
12.a3 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qf5 14.Qc3 gxf4 15.Bd2 Nd5 16.Qb3 fxe3 17.fxe3
Qf3 18.Rg1 Nd4 19.Qa4 Nxe3 20.Rc1 Qe4 21.Bh3+ Nef5+ 01, Candela
Perez,J (2435)-Carretero Ortiz,F (2158), Sevilla 2004/CBM 101 ext).
5...dxc4
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/2n5/4P3/1bp5/5N2/
PP1BPPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6.e3
6.Qa4 Qe7 7.e3 (7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Bd7 9.Qxc4 Nxe5 10.Qc3 Nxf3+ 11.
Nxf3 Nf6 12.e3 00 13.Be2 c5 14.00 Ne4 15.Qe5 Rfe8
[FEN "r3r1k1/pp1bqppp/8/2p1Q3/4n3/
P3PN2/1P2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16.Qxe7 Rxe7 17.Rac1 b6 18.Bc4 Kf8 19.h3 a5 20.Rfd1 Ba4 21.b3 Bc6 22.a4
Ke8 23.Nd2 Nd6 24.Bf1 Rd8 25.Nc4 Nxc4 26.Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Bxc4 Rd7 28.
f3 f6 29.Rc2 Kc7 30.Kf2 g5 31.g3 Rd1 32.h4 h5 33.e4 g4 34.fxg4 hxg4 35.
Ke3 Rd4 36.Bd3 Kd6 37.Rf2 Ke7 38.Rc2 Ke6 39.Rf2 Bd7 40.Rf5 Rb4 41.
Bc2 Ke7 42.Rd5 Bc6 43.Rf5 c4 44.bxc4 Rxc4 45.Kd2 Rxc2+ 01, Cramling,
P (2545)-Bauer,C (2465), Cap d'Agde 1996/CBM 055 ext) 7...Bd7 8.Bxc4
Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 Nxe5 10.Qb3 Nxf3+ 11.Nxf3; 6.Nc3 Nge7 7.a3 (7.e3 Be6 8.
a3 Ba5 9.Rc1 00 10.Qa4 a6 11.Ng5 b5 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.e4 Bc8 14.Rd1 Nd4
15.Qb1 Nec6 16.Be3 h6 17.Nf3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 Qe7 19.Rg1 Nxe5 20.Be2
Qh4 21.f4 Qxh2 22.Kd2 Nd3 23.Bxd3 Rd8 24.Kc2 cxd3+ 25.Rxd3 Rxd3 26.
Kxd3 Bb7 27.Bd4 Rd8 28.Ke3 Rxd4 29.Kxd4 Qxf2+ 30.Kd3 c5 01,
Miljkovic,M (2130)-Petronijevic,Z (2430), Nis 1997/EXT 2002) 7...Bxc3.
6.g3 Be6 7.Qa4.
6...Be6!?
Better is 6...Qe7
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/ppp1qppp/2n5/4P3/1bp5/4PN2/
PP1B1PPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
This is an improvement, but it leads to a much more tranquil position and

most players would rather play Be6 which is the most natural and fighting
alternative. 7.Bxc4 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Qxe5 10.Qb3 Nh6 11.00
00 12.Nf3 Qh5 13.Rfd1 c6 14.Rd4 Bg4 15.Be2 Rab8 16.Rad1 Nf5 17.Rf4
Ne7 18.Qa4 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 Qc5 20.Qb3 Ng6 21.Rfd4 Ne5 22.Be2 Qe7 23.f4
Ng6 24.Rd7 Qc5 25.Bc4 Nxf4 26.Bxf7+ Kh8 27.Kh1 Nh5 28.Rxb7 Rxb7 29.
Qxb7 Nf6 30.Qb3 Ng4 31.Ra1 Qd6 32.g3 Qd2 01, Tishin,D (2343)Kovalenko,I (2270), Dnepropetrovsk 2005/EXT 2006.
7.Qa4
7.Qc2 Qd5 8.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.Qa4+ Nc6
A) 10.Na3 c3 11.bxc3 Qc5 12.Rc1 000 (12...Nge7 13.Nb5 000 14.Be2
Ng6 15.00 Bd7 16.Qb3 Ngxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Nd4 Rhf8 19.Rb1 b6 20.c4
Nc6 10, Leitao,R (2515)-Vescovi,G (2480), Americana 1997/CBM 061
(33)).
B) 10.Nc3 Qc5 11.Nd4 Bd7 12.Qb5 Qxb5 13.Ncxb5 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 c5 15.
Nf3 b5 16.a4 bxa4 17.Bxc4 Ke7 18.Ng5 Nh6 19.000 Rab8 20.Rd6 Rb4 21.
Ba2 Rhb8 22.Rhd1 Bf5
[FEN "1r6/p3kppp/3R3n/2p1PbN1/pr6/
4P3/BP3PPP/2KR4 w - - 0 23"]
23.e4 Rxb2 24.exf5 Rxa2 25.Rd7+ Ke8 26.Rxa7 a3 27.Rd3 Ra1+ 28.Kd2 a2
29.Ke2 Nxf5 30.e6 f6 31.Ne4 Nd4+ 32.Rxd4 cxd4 33.Nd6+ Kf8 34.e7+ Kg8
35.Kf3 Re1 36.Rxa2 Rxe7 37.Nf5 Rd7 38.Rd2 Rbd8 39.Ke4 d3 40.Ne3 g6 41.
g4 Rd4+ 42.Kf3 Kf7 43.h3 Ke6 44.Kg3 Ke5 45.Kf3 Rc8 46.Ra2 Rc1 47.Ra5
+ Ke6 48.Ra6+ Rd6 49.Ra7 d2 01, Cvitan,O (2500)-Godena,M (2430), Biel
1988/EXT 2002; 7.a3 Ba5 (7...Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 b5 9.a4 a6 10.Rc1 Na5 11.
Nd4 c5 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 Qe7 14.Ne4 Nh6 15.Qf3 Rb8 16.Nd6+ Kd7 17.
axb5 axb5 18.Ra1 Nc6 19.Qe4 Nf7 20.f4 Nxd6 21.Rd1 Rb6 22.Be2 g6 23.
Rxd6+ Kc7 24.00 Nb4 25.Ra1 Rhb8 26.Bf3 Nd5 27.Rxd5 exd5 28.Qxd5
Kc8 29.Ra7 R8b7 30.Qg8+ Kc7 31.Qa8 10, Apsenieks,F-Lazard,F, Paris
1924/HCL) 8.Qc2 Qd5 9.Nc3 Bxc3 10.Bxc3; 7.Be2 Nge7 8.00 00 9.Bxb4
Nxb4 10.Na3 Ng6.
7...Bxd2+
7...Qe7 8.a3 Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 a6 10.Nxc4.
8.Nbxd2 a6 9.Nd4 b5 10.Nxc6 [10.Nxe6 fxe6] 10...Qd7 11.Nb8 [11.Qb4
Qxc6] 11...Qxd2+N
[FEN "rN2k1nr/2p2ppp/p3b3/1p2P3/Q1p5/
4P3/PP1q1PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 12"]
This novelty is an improvement over other tries in the position.

11...Rxb8 12.Qxa6 (12.Qc2 Ne7) 12...Ne7.
11...Qc8 12.Qc2 Qxb8 13.b3
A) 13...c5 14.f4 (14.bxc4 Qxe5 15.Rd1 b4 16.Qe4 Qxe4 17.Nxe4 Nf6 18.
Nxc5 a5 19.Bd3 Ke7 20.Ke2 Bxc4 21.Bxc4 Rac8 22.Nb7 Rxc4 23.Nxa5 Rc2
+ 24.Kf3 Ra8 25.Nb3 Raxa2 26.Rhf1 Rc4 27.Rc1 Rc3 28.Rxc3 bxc3 29.Rc1
Nd5 30.Nd4 Kf6 31.e4 Rd2 32.exd5 Rxd4 33.Rxc3 , Matamoros Franco,
C (2430)-Arencibia Rodriguez,W (2515), Santa Clara 1996/EXT 1999).
B) 13...cxb3.
12.Kxd2 bxa4 13.Nc6 Ne7=

A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.

A Botvinnik Variation Sideline

Opening surprises are a rare find these days. Recently, I was impressed by a
game I witnessed featuring the delayed Budapest: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 (a
fun spoiler for players of the black pieces) and now came 3...e5!? (?!). This
month, I will show you a line that can be just as shocking. We will alternate
the move-order in a common position of the Botvinnik Variation, the result of
which can be to rack up points on the wall chart.
Over the
Horizons
Purchases from our

accessible:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.
Nxg5 Nd5
Charles Galofre
Botvinnik and Moscow

Variations
by Loek van Wely
Translate this page
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/p4p2/2p1p2p/1p1nP1N1/
2pP3B/2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
Being 167 games "young," this is a rare move in practice.

10.Nxf7!
Play the Semi-Slav
by David Vigorito

the games from
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/p4N2/2p1p2p/1p1nP3/2pP3B/
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 10"]
The bullet. White cashes in at a early stage, but Black creates quick chaos in
return, where the unaware white player can quickly fall victim to a quagmire
of complications. Black is playing on both flanks now.
10.Nf3 Common, yet a passive response to Black's onslaught on the
queenside. The characteristics of the position remain the same as a true
Botvinnik. Only here, Black gets a free hand on the queen's flank with a
couple of bold moves that hand him the initiative on the wing 10...Qa5=!
Slav and Semi-Slav Revisited

by Alexei Shirov
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/p4p2/2p1p2p/qp1nP3/2pP3B/
2N2N2/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
A) 11.Rc1 Bb4
A1) 12.Qc2?! Qxa2!
A1a) 13.Qd2 Nxc3.
A1b) 13.Be2 Bxc3+! 14.bxc3 Qxc2 15.Rxc2 Nf4 16.g3+ (16.Bg3 01,
Wornath,K-Seidel,A/Hofheim 1995/GER (72)).
A1c) 13.Nd2 Nxc3 14.bxc3 , Davidovic,M (2051)-Kopcak,S/Bratislava
2004/EXT 2006 (58).
A2) 12.Qd2 Nd7 13.Be2
A2a) 13...Bb7 14.00 c5 15.Rc2! (15.Rfd1 , Gavrikov,V (2485)Nogueiras Santiago,J (2485)/Tbilisi 1983/MCL (23)).
A2b) 13...N7b6!
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1p2p/qp1nP3/1bpP3B/
2N2N2/PP1QBPPP/2R1K2R w Kkq - 0 14"]
A2b1) 14.00 Na4

A2b11) 15.a3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Naxc3 17.Ra1 Nf4 (17...Qb6 , Lilienthal,AAlatortsev,V/Leningrad/Moscow 1939/HCL (70)) 18.Kh1 Nfxe2 19.Ng1
Nxg1 20.Rxg1 b4 21.axb4+; A2b12) 15.Bf6 01, Rietze,C (2128)-Muse,D
(2369)/Berlin 2008/CBM 126 Extra (56).
A2b2) 14.Bd1 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Ba3
A2b21) 16.Rc2?! b4!
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1p2p/q3P3/1ppP3B/
b1P2N2/P1RQ1PPP/3BK2R w Kkq - 0 17"]
17.Bf6 (17.00 b3 18.axb3 cxb3 19.Rc1 01, Garber,V-Korstin,M (2219)/

Estonia 2000/EXT 2003 (57)) 17...Rf8 18.Qxh6 b3 19.Rd2 b2 20.Qh7 Qxc3
21.00 Qb4 22.Be2 c3 23.Rdd1 Nd5 24.Bg7 Bb7 25.Bxf8 Qxf8 26.h4 000
27.Ng5 Qe7 28.Bd3 Qd7 29.Qe4 Nb4.
A2b22) 16.Bf6! Bxc1 17.Qxc1 with compensation 10, Lund,L-Reti,R/
Kristiania 1920/EXT 1999 (33).
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1pB1p/qp2P3/2pP4/
2P2N2/P4PPP/2QBK2R b Kkq - 0 17"]
B) 11.Qd2 b4
B1) 12.Ne4 c3 13.bxc3 bxc3 14.Qc2
B1a) 14...Na6?! 15.a3! (15.Bc4 10, Krausser,H (2185)-Sulava,N (2390)/
Velden 1995/EXT 1997 (25)).
B1b) 14...Nd7! ;
B2) 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 (13.Bf6 Rg8=/+)
B2a) 13...Nc6!? 14.00 unclear (14.Bf6 Rg8 unclear) 14...Qb6 01, Budo,ABastrikov,G/Leningrad 1938/HCL (66).
B2b) 13...c3 14.bxc3 (14.Qc1 Ba6=/+) 14...bxc3 unclear 10, Flohr,SStahlberg,G/Zuerich 1934/HCL (39); 10.Qh5 The rather auto-pilot response
succumbs to the capture of the minor pieces for a rook 10...hxg5+ 01,
Letelier Martner,R (2215)-Michel Yunis,C (2370)/Santiago de Chile 1993/
EXT 1998 (37); 10.Nxd5 Rather, an unnatural response. Black threatens a
deadly check on b4... he has a hard time dealing with the threat as follows:
10...Qxd5 11.Qd2 (11.Nf3 Bb4+ 12.Nd2 Qe4+ 13.Qe2 Bxd2+ 14.Kxd2 Qxd4
+ 15.Kc1 Qxh4+) 11...hxg5+.
10...Qxh4 11.Nxh8
11.g3 Nxc3+ with queen e4 to follow. (11...Ne3 01, Sroka,D-Junker,R/
Germany 1992/EXT 2004 (19)).
11...Bb4 (with attack) 12.Rc1 c5!?
[FEN "rnb1k2N/p7/4p2p/1ppnP3/1bpP3q/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQKB1R w Kq - 0 13"]
Now Black is playing in three flanks... the center, the king side and the queen
side....He will have the initiative for some time. In a practical game the
complications are immense and a experienced player can easily be rewarded.
12...Qe4+!?
[FEN "rnb1k2N/p7/2p1p2p/1p1nP3/1bpPq3/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQKB1R w Kq - 0 13"]
A) 13.Qe2 Qxd4 14.Qh5+ Kd7!

A1) 15.Qf7+ Kd8 16.Qg8+=/+ (16.Be2 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Bxc3+ 18.Kf1 Bd2-/+).
A2) 15.Be2 Nxc3 16.bxc3 (16.Qf7+ Kd8 17.bxc3 Bxc3+ 18.Kf1 Bd2-/+) 16...
Bxc3+ 17.Kf1 Kc7=/+ (17...Bd2 18.Rc2 c3 19.Nf7 01, Costianosky,R-Hefty
Hilardo,J/St Rosa 1983/EXT 2010 (24)).
B) 13.Be2
B1) 13...Kf8 14.00 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Kg7 16.Bf3 Qf5 17.Re1 (17.Bxd5) 17...
Qd3 18.Qxd3 cxd3 19.Red1 (19.Rcd1 10, Matthiesen,M (2365)-Kristensen,
K (2325)/Silkeborg 2008/CBM 123 Extra (40)) 19...Nf4.
B2) 13...Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Kf8 15.00 Kg7 16.Bf3 Qf5 17.Bxd5.
B3) 13...Nf4 14.Qd2
B3a) 14...Qxg2 15.Qxf4.
B3b) 14...Nxg2+ 15.Kd1 Ne3+ 16.Qxe3 Qxh1+ 17.Kc2 Qg2 (17...Qxh2 18.
Bf3 Qh4 19.Nxb5 Kd8 20.Rg1 Qe7 21.Rg8+ Kd7 22.Qxh6 10, Plischki,S
(2347)-Mikulas,D (2210)/Plzen 2009/CBM 133 Extra) 18.Qxh6.
B3c) 14...Nd3+ 15.Kf1 Nxc1 16.Qxc1 Qxd4 17.Qxh6 Kd8 (17...Bxc3 18.
bxc3 10, Lastin,A (2552)-Sveshnikov,E (2541)/Vrnjacka Banja 1999/EXT
2000 (27)).
13.dxc5 Nd7
13...Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Qe4+ (14...Qg5 15.Be2 Bb7 16.00 Nf4 17.Bf3 Nc6 18.
h4 Qxh4 19.g3 Qg5 20.Nf7 Kxf7 21.Qd7+ Ne7 22.Qxb7 Rg8 23.Rce1 h5 24.
Bg2 Nxg2 25.Kxg2 h4 26.Re3 Rg7 27.Rh1 Kg6 28.Qe4+ Nf5 29.Rxh4 Kf7
30.Rf3 10, Nikolic,P (2655)-Timman,J (2630)/Wijk aan Zee 1997/CBM 057/
[Lutz]).
14.Be2 Nxe5
Blacks knights and bishops are the envy of the board... pay close attention to
the h8 knights for how long it remains in it commencing square.
15.00
15.Bh5+ Ke7 16.00 (16.Qe2 Nf4) 16...Bb7.
15...Bb7 16.Bh5+
16.Nxb5 Bxc5 17.Ng6 Nxg6 18.Rxc4 Ndf4 19.Rxc5 Rd8 20.Nd6+ Kf8 (20...
Rxd6 21.Bb5+ Kf7 22.Qxd6 Qg4 23.Qc7+ Kg8 24.Qxb7 Nh3+ 25.Kh1 Nxf2
+ 26.Rxf2 10, Nielsen,P (2500)-Sveshnikov,E (2580)/Kemerovo 1995/CBM
050/[Ftacnik]) 21.Nxb7 Rxd1 22.Bxd1 Nxg2 23.Rc8+ Kg7.
16...Ke7
[FEN "r6N/pb2k3/4p2p/1pPnn2B/1bp4q/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 17"]
16...Kd7 17.Ng6.
17.Nxd5+
17.Re1 Rg8 18.Rxe5 (18.Ng6+ Rxg6 19.Bxg6 Bxc5 20.Ne4 Nd3 21.g3
1.65/7 ) 18...Rxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Nf4+ 20.Kf1 Qh3+ 21.Ke1 Ng2+ 22.Ke2 Nf4+
23.Ke1 Ng2+ 24.Ke2 Nf4+ 25.Ke1 Ng2+ 26.Ke2 Nf4+; 17.Qe2 Rg8 18.Qxe5
Rxg2+ 19.Kh1 Nf4 20.Ng6+ Rxg6+ 21.f3 Qg5 (21...Nxh5 22.Qc7+ Kf8 23.
Qb8+ Kg7 24.Qxb7+ Kh8 25.Ne2 Qf6 26.Qxb5 Bd2 27.Qe8+ Kh7 28.Qd7+
Ng7 29.Qxd2 Qf5 30.Qc2 Qh3 31.Qxg6+ 10, San Segundo Carrillo,P (2523)Vera Gonzalez Quevedo,R (2544)/Benidorm 2002/CBM 093/[Lutz]) 22.Qc7+.
17...Bxd5 18.f4
18.Ng6+ Nxg6 19.Bxg6 Rg8 20.Qc2 Qg4+.
18...Bxc5+
18...Rg8 19.Rc2 Qh3 20.Qe2 Bxc5+ 21.Kh1 Rxg2 22.Qxg2 Qxh5 23.fxe5
Bd4 24.Rd2 Bxg2+ 25.Rxg2 Bxe5.
19.Kh1 Rg8!
[FEN "6rN/p3k3/4p2p/1pbbn2B/2p2P1q/
8/PP4PP/2RQ1R1K w - - 0 20"]
20.Rc2 Nd3 21.Ng6+ Rxg6 22.Bxg6 Nxf4!

Two plus two is not four here.
23.Rxf4 Qxf4 24.Bh5 Be4 25.Rc3 Bd4 26.Rg3 Bxb2 27.Rg8 Qc1 28.Rg7+
Kf6 29.Rxa7 c3 30.Qxc1 Bxc1 31.Bd1 Bf4 32.Ra5 c2 33.Bxc2 Bxc2 34.
Rxb5 e5 35.Rb2 Bd3 36.g3 Be3 37.Kg2 e4 38.a4 Bd4 39.Ra2 Ke5 40.a5
Bc4 41.Ra4 Ba6 42.Ra2 Bc3 43.Ra4 Bd2 44.Kf2 Bb5 45.Ra3 Kd4 01
As in Zagorskis,D (2510)-Vera Gonzalez Quevedo,R (2530), Elista 1998.


A Portuguese Jungle
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Translate this page
When I was young my favorite opening as black, against any starting move,
was 1...Nc6!?. This move captured my imagination and I went ahead to
construct an interesting repertoire with formidable replies to every move that
White could play. The most interesting of which was 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 and
now, the patented Nimzo-Scandinavian 2...d5!?. I developed this idea based
on material by IM Nikolay Vlassov published on a now-defunct website. (It
was also featured in Kingpin magazine #28.) However, my intention today is
to examine the Portuguese Variation of the Scandinavian Defense, which can
be considered a cousin of the Nimzo-Scandinavian.
I recommend this opening to all players below the 2400 mark, because it is
easy to reach the position over the board and the chances of a player knowing
the absolute correct replies to gain an advantage are incredibly limited. This
presents an interesting risk-reward scenario, where the reward is definitely
worth the risk; after all, we attain our favorite opening and increase our
chances of winning the game. In chess, we can call this a practical advantage.
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Scandinavian
by John Emms
With that said, allow me to present some illuminating examples to arouse

your interest in the opening and allow you to begin to employ the opening in
practice. I have purposely avoided including all the variations, as it would be
too exhausting to memorize everything!
Montalvo, A (2250) Laylo, D (2522)
Khanty Mansiysk 2010
Scandinavian Defense [B01]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4
3.c4 This overly ambitious reply is very natural, but in this case, the initiative,
and all elements of time make themselves felt.. 3...e6 4.dxe6 (4.d4 leads to a
position from the Exchange French, where Black is in no way inferior, if he
plays correctly. Black should avoid playing slowly with c6, and further
exchanging on c4. He should play "fast" with Bb4+ followed by 00, and
Nc6. GM Miezes plays it incessantly with White after the moves 1.c4 e6 2.e4
d5 etc. 4...exd5=) 4...Bxe6

the games from
Play the Semi-Slav

by David Vigorito
Scandinavian Defence
by Curt Hansen
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/ppp2ppp/4bn2/8/2P5/8/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 5"]
A) 5.Nf3 The strongest reply here, there have been different opinions on how
to play the following position. I prefer an early Qe7 followed by Bg4. 5...Qe7
(5...c5!? 01, Laurent,B (2337)-Okhotnik,V (2470)/Agneaux 2006 (29)
interesting, yet it might be too slow, nonetheless, its a positional approach, we
are looking for tactics;)) 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.d4 Bg4!? (7...Bf5 this move, which
leads to simplifications, might seem a little shocking, yet apparently Black is
trying to prove his development advantage in the queenless middlegame
phase of the game. 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Na3 Ne4 10, Pruess,D
(2402)-Gareev,T (2551)/Cappelle la Grande 2007 (44))
A1) 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Be3 (9.Be2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nxd4 01, Suarez Calvo,AMenendez Villar,J/Aviles 2001 (49)) 9...000 10.d5 Nb4 11.Na3 Rhe8 12.
Be2 (12.Nd4 Nbxd5) 12...Bxf3 (12...Nd7 01, Tate,A (2030)-Bryson,D
(2371)/Oban 2005 (68));
A2) 8.d5 Bxf3 9.gxf3 (9.Qxe7+) 9...Nd4 10.Qxe7+ Bxe7 with compensation
-, Waldschmidt,G (2218)-Heinzel,O (2392)/Oberhausen 2008 (52);
A3) 8.Be3 000
A3a) 9.Nc3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nxd4 -, Stevens,T (1753)-Ly,M (1881)/Mount
Buller 2005 (37);
A3b) 9.Nbd2 Nb4 10.Kd1 with compensation (10.Rc1 Bf5 11.Ne5 Nc2+ 12.
Rxc2 Bxc2 01, Churm,R (2115)-Ryan,J (2210)/Isle of Man 1995 (48));
A3c) 9.d5 Ne5 10.Nc3 Nfd7 11.000 Qf6 12.h3 Bxf3+/= (12...Bh5 01, De
Silva,N (2236)-Eid,F (2392)/Bled 2002 (36));
B) 5.d4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qe7 7.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 8.Qd2 Nc6
B1) 9.Qxb4 Nxb4 10.Na3 000 11.d5 Bf5 12.f3 c6! with compensation
[FEN "2kr3r/pp3ppp/2p2n2/3P1b2/1nP5/
N4P2/PP4PP/R3KBNR w KQ - 0 13"]
13.Ne2 (13.Kd2 cxd5 14.c5 a6 15.Ne2 Nc6 16.Ng3 Bg6 17.h4 h5 18.Bd3
Bxd3 19.Kxd3 01, Niedermaier,H (2250)-Dutschak,H (2280) /Germany
1997/GER-chT2 (30); 13.Kf2 cxd5 14.g4 Bg6 15.Kg3 d4 01, Purdy,J (2250)Wohl,A (2255)/ Sydney 1990 (39));
B2) 9.d5 000 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.f3 Rhe8+ unclear 12.Be2 Bf5 13.000 Na5
14.b3 (14.g4 Bg6 15.Nh3 Nd7 16.Nb1 Qb3
[FEN "2krr3/pppn1ppp/6b1/n2P4/2P3P1/
1q3P1N/PP1QB2P/1NKR3R w - - 0 17"]
17.Bd3 Qxa2 18.Qb4 Re2 19.Bxe2 Nb3+ 20.Qxb3 Qxb3 21.Rd2 Qe3 01,
Kuijf,M (2485)-Hodgson,J (2545)/Wijk aan Zee 1989) 14...Qa3+ 15.Qb2.
3...Bg4
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/5n2/3P4/3P2b1/
8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
4.f3 Bf5 5.g4

5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.c4
A) 6...e6 this is an alternative way of playing the position. 7.dxe6 Bxe6 8.d5
Bf5 9.Nc3 Bd6 10.g4 (10.Bg5 01, Lengyel,B-Bruned,Y/Oropesa del Mar
1999 (21));
B) 6...a6 7.Bxd7+ Qxd7 8.Ne2 b5!?
B1) 9.cxb5 axb5 (9...Bxb1 -, Ralphs,N (2038)-Sparkes,D (2030)/West
Bromwich 2006 (50)) 10.00 with compensation, White's pawn structure
should be taken into account, as should Black's development advantage and
his bishop-pair. Additionally, it seems that White's pieces will be pushed
around; for instance, Nc3 ...b4!;
B2) 9.b3 c6 10.dxc6 Qxc6 with compensation, -, Rada Equiza,M-Argaya
Urdaniz,M/Subijana de Alava 2001 (23) Black will target the hanging pawns
and make use of his time. There is enough counterplay to keep White tied
down for more than three tempi worth of moves.; 5.c4 Holding on to the pawn
is a worry-free scenario for Black, he will develop very fast. For instance, 5...
e6
A) 6.Qb3 challenging, but the e-file is about to be open, and the game will get
a dynamic character where Black is too many tempi ahead. 6...exd5 7.Qxb7
Nbd7 8.c5 (8.Nc3 Rb8) 8...Rb8 with compensation (8...Bxc5 01, Dutreeuw,
M (2321)-Vayserberg,T (1901)/Dos Hermanas 2004 (30)) 9.Qxa7 Be7 10.Nc3
00 11.Qa3 Re8 12.Kf2 Ra8 13.Qb4 Rb8 14.Qa5=;
B) 6.dxe6 Nc6!
[FEN "r2qkb1r/ppp2ppp/2n1Pn2/5b2/2PP4/
5P2/PP4PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 7"]
A Portuguese jungle.
B1) 7.exf7+ Kxf7
B1a) 8.Be3 A very natural response, but Black has jet-speed. 8...Bb4+
B1a1) 9.Nc3 Re8 10.Qd2 (10.Kf2 Rxe3! 11.Kxe3 Bc2!!; 10.a3 Rxe3+) 10...
Qxd4-/+;
B1a2) 9.Kf2 Re8 10.Nc3 (10.Ne2 Rxe3 11.Kxe3 Qe7+ 12.Kf2 Re8 13.Qc1
Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Be1+ 15.Kg1 Qc5 16.Qd1 Bc2 01, Dimitrov,V (2460)-Rivera
Kuzawka,D (2375)/Lalin 1994; 10.a3 Bc5 11.b4 Rxe3 12.bxc5 Rd3 13.Bxd3
Qxd4+ 14.Ke1 Bxd3 15.Ra2 Re8+ 16.Ne2 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxc4) 10...Rxe3
[FEN "r2q4/ppp2kpp/2n2n2/5b2/1bPP4/
2N1rP2/PP3KPP/R2Q1BNR w - - 0 11"]
11.Kxe3 Bc2 12.Qd2 Ng4+ 13.Kf4 (13.fxg4 Qg5+) 13...Bd6+ 14.Kxg4 Qd7+
15.Kh4 g5+ 16.Kh5 Bg6+ 17.Kxg5 Qf5+ 18.Kh4 Qh5# 01, Novruzova,NNeuhauser,S (1827)/ Herceg Novi 2006;
B1b) 8.Ne2 Nb4
B1b1) 9.Ng3 Bc2 (9...Nc2+ 10, Pelikan,K-Vesely,J/Brno 2002 (26)) 10.Qd2
Bc5-/+;
B1b2) 9.Kf2 Bc5 10.Qd2 Nd3+-/+
[FEN "r2q3r/ppp2kpp/5n2/2b2b2/2PP4/
3n1P2/PP1QNKPP/RNB2B1R w - - 0 11"]
B1c) 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Nc3 Re8+ 10.Kf1 (10.Nge2 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nxd4 01,
Thorel,P (1430)-Delannoy,F (1760)/Bethune 2004 (14)) 10...Qxd4 11.Be2-/+
(11.Bxf5 01, Nemeth,G (1835)-Boguszlavszkij,J (2254)/Zalakaros 2010
(14));
B1d) 8.d5 Nb4 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Be2 (10.Qb3) 10...Re8 11.Kf1 Kg8 In all these
positions, there are constant themes. Black has a development advantage,
White's king is having a hard time finding shelter, Black has serious pressure
down the e- and d-files, White's center will collapse after an eventual c6 and,
lastly, the a3-knight is a spectator in the game. (11...Qd6 01, Bilic,I (2204)Ljubicic,F (2384)/Pula 2000 (16) 12.g4 Bg6 13.f4 Rxe2 14.Nxe2 Nxg4 15.
Ng3 Nd3 16.Qf3 01, Bilic,I (2204)-Ljubicic, F (2384)/Pula 2000);
B2) 7.d5 Nb4
B2a) 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Bd2 (10.Be3) 10...Qe7 with compensation;
B2b) 8.exf7+ Kxf7 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Be2 (10.Qb3 Re8+) 10...Re8 11.Kf1
[FEN "r2qr3/ppp2kpp/5n2/2bP1b2/1nP5/
N4P2/PP2B1PP/R1BQ1KNR b - - 0 11"]
11...Kg8 with compensation;

B2c) 8.Na3 fxe6 9.Qa4+ c6 10.Bd2 Qb6 with compensation (10...a5 01,
Trnovec,M (2074)-Adam,Z (2500)/Zalakaros 2000 (26));
B3) 7.Be3 Nb4 8.Na3 Qe7
B3a) 9.Qb3 Qxe6 10.Kf2 (10.000 000) 10...Be7 with compensation
(10...000 01, Spirou,P (2090)-Konstantinidis,L (1953)/Chalkidiki 2007
(25));
B3b) 9.Qa4+ c6 with compensation 01, Jakel,W (2280)-Feist,P (2275)/
Germany 2007 (34).
5...Bg6 6.c4 e6 7.Nc3
7.dxe6 Nc6 8.Be3 fxe6 (8...Qe7 9.g5).
7...Be7
[FEN "rn1qk2r/ppp1bppp/4pnb1/3P4/2PP2P1/
2N2P2/PP5P/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 8"]
7...exd5 8.g5 Nfd7 9.Nxd5 Nc6 10.h4 Nb6.

8.dxe6 Nc6 9.Be3 fxe6 10.a3 Nd7 11.Nge2 00 12.Kf2 Bg5 13.Qd2 Nde5 14.
dxe5 Qxd2 15.Bxd2 Bxd2 16.Rd1 Rad8 17.Nd5 Bh6 18.Ndc3 Rxd1 19.
Nxd1 Nxe5 20.Nec3 Rxf3+ 21.Kg2 Rf4 22.h3 Nxc4 23.Kg3 Rd4 24.Bxc4
Rxc4 25.Re1 Kf7 26.h4 Bd2 27.Re2 Bf4+ 28.Kf3 h5 29.Nf2 Bc1 01


A Scotch Gambit Repertoire

This month we will look at a variation that caught my attention while putting
together a gambit repertoire for my live blitz chess videos for YouTube and
chessvideos.tv. (You can search for me on YouTube as
"chesstrainingschool.") The concept behind the series is that a titled player
builds a repertoire and teaches how to play it via live game demonstrations
that the audience can follow.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Purchases from our

accessible:
The first thing I noticed about this variation is its simplicity. I was under the
assumption that it would never lead to much for White, and that it would be
too slow-going for my taste. Nevertheless, my interest was piqued upon
reviewing some of the lines. The basic position may be theoretically equal,
but there are plenty of opportunities for Black to go wrong. This presents
White with an invaluable practical opportunity, so let's get to it.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
Play the Open Games as Black

by John Emms
This is the most straightforward way of playing the gambit. 3.Bc4 is another
option.
Translate this page
3...exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.00
Play 1 e4 e5!
by Nigel Davies
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/8/2BpP3/
5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 5"]
5.e5 is White's major alternative here, leading to a positional struggle. GM

Roman Dzindzichashvili devoted quite a few of his DVDs to the intricacies of
the variation.
the games from
5...Nxe4
Against 5...Bc5 in our "gambit repertoire," we are planning to play the Max
Lange Attack.
6.Re1 d5
Here we will look at the sober 7.Bxd5. The Canal variation, 7.Nc3 dxc3 8.
Bxd5 f5 9.Ng5 Bd6 10.bxc3, holds plenty of surprise value; however, it has
been meticulously refuted by theory. It can be said about certain lines in a
gambit repertoire that "they might not be correct, but you can play them
correctly."
If 6...f5, casting a shadow over the idea of castling kingside, Black's strong
point on e4 will be removed after a couple of precise moves, and White will
find himself with a large advantage: 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bxe7.
7.Bxd5
ECO C
by Chess Informant
We proceed to open lines in exchange for our valued bishop.

7...Qxd5 8.Nc3
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2ppp/2n5/3q4/3pn3/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 8"]
Now it is Black's turn to make a significant decision. He has three defenses to

choose from: ...Qh5, ...Qa5, or ...Qd8. In Botvinnik's Best Games, Volume 1,
Botvinnik calls the latter two "roughly equivalent." Though I have never been
fond of ...Qa5, because White will chase the queen away anyway. When I first
encountered this position, ...Qh5 seemed to be the most natural move.
8...Qa5
8...Qh5 9.Nxe4
A) 9...Be7 10.Bg5
A1) 10...Bg4 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 (11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 Nxe7 13.Qxd4 00 14.Nf6+
gxf6 15.Rxe7= Qxf3) 12.Qe2 Qg6 13.Qb5+ with a plus for White.
A2) 10...f6 11.Bxf6+-.
B) 9...Be6 10.Bg5
B1) 10...h6 was suggested by John Emms in Play the Open Games as Black.
However, the move is now considered to lead to an advantage for White. 11.
Bf6! keeps Black from developing harmoniously:
[FEN "r3kb1r/ppp2pp1/2n1bB1p/7q/3pN3/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 11"]
B1a) 11...Be7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 (12...Nxe7 13.Qxd4 00 14.Qc5+/=) 13.Nxd4

Qxd1 14.Nxc6+ bxc6 15.Raxd1 Rad8 16.Nc5 (16.b3) 16...Rd5 17.Nxe6 fxe6
18.Rd3 Rhd8 19.Rde3 R8d6 20.f3+/-.
B1b) 11...Qg6 The most common move. 12.Nh4!
B1b1) 12...Qh7 13.Qd3 Bb4 14.c3 dxc3 15.bxc3 with compensation Ba5 (15...
Ba3 16.Re3 Kf8 17.Qb5 Rb8 18.f4 a6) 16.Qg3 Kf8 17.Be5 Nxe5 (17...Re8 18.
Bxc7 Bxc7 19.Qxc7 Re7 20.Qd6 g5 21.Nf3 Kg7 22.Nd4).
B1b2) 12...Qg4 13.Qd3 Rg8 Black now has to be careful about f3-f4-f5 and
Qh7 ideas from White. He is under considerable pressure and completely
frozen on both wings because of the bishop on f6 (13...Qh5 14.f4).
B2) 10...Bb4 11.Nxd4 These lines fizzle out to being slightly better for White.
11...Qxd1 12.Rexd1 Nxd4 13.Rxd4
B2a) 13...c5 14.Nd6+ (14.Rdd1) 14...Kd7.
B2b) 13...Be7 14.Re1 Rd8 15.Ra4 a6 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.Rb4.
B2c) 13...Ba5 14.Nc5 00 (14...Bb6 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Rd2) 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.
Rad1+/=.
B3) 10...Be7 11.Bxe7 Kxe7 (11...Nxe7 12.Nxd4 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 000 14.
Ng5 g6+/=) 12.Neg5 (12.Nxd4 Qxd1 13.Nxc6+ bxc6 14.Raxd1 Rhd8 15.
Rxd8 Rxd8 16.f3 c5 17.Kf2 Rb8 18.b3 c4 19.Nc5 Rb5 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Re4
cxb3 22.axb3 Rc5 23.Re2 Kd6 24.f4 Rf5 25.Ke3 e5 26.Rd2+ Ke6 ,
Frolov,D (2401)-Onischuk,A (2652)/Sochi 2004) 12...Rhd8+/=
[FEN "r2r4/ppp1kppp/2n1b3/6Nq/3p4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 13"]
White can now capture twice on e6; i.e., Nxe6 and Rxe6.
B4) 10...f6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6.
B5) 10...Bd6 This is one way to equality. 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13.c3
[FEN "r3k2r/pp3ppp/2npb3/3q4/3p1B2/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 13"]
We have a position that will eventually simplify into an opposite-colored

bishop endgame with major pieces.
B5a) 13...00 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 (15.Qxd4 Qxd4 16.cxd4 d5 17.Rac1= ).
B5b) 13...d3 14.Re3 Qb5 15.Bxd6+-.
B5c) 13...Kd7 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 Rhc8 16.Qa4++/=.
B5d) 13...Qf5 14.cxd4 Qxf4 15.d5 00 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.Rxe6 Ne5 18.Nxe5
Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 dxe5 20.Rxe5 Rad8 21.Qb3+ Kh8 22.h3 Rd2=.
B5e) 13...Rc8 14.b3 00 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.cxd4 Rc2= (17...
d5)
8...Qd8 As in Perfiliev-Botvinnik, Leningrad 1925. There is a lot of venom in
this line for both sides. 9.Rxe4+
A) 9...Be6
A1) 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Rxd4 Qf6 12.Qd3 (12.Be3 Be7 13.Nb5).
A2) 10.Nb5 Bd6 (10...Qd7 11.Bf4).
B) 9...Be7 10.Nxd4
B1) 10...00 11.Bf4 (11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qxd8 Bxd8 13.Rc4 Rb8 14.b3+/=) 11...
Bf6 (11...f5 12.Nxc6 bxc6) 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qxd8+/=.
B2) 10...f5 this was his idea.
B2a) 11.Bh6 00 (11...fxe4 12.Bxg7 Rf8) 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Rd4 Qe8 14.Bf4.
B2b) 11.Rf4 00 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qxd8 (13.Be3 Bd6).
B2c) 11.Rxe7+
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp1R1pp/2n5/5p2/3N4/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQ2K1 b kq - 0 11"]
Botvinnik does not mention this shocking move. This is a serious alternative
that puts White in the driver's seat. Let's see how White gets compensation:
B2c1) 11...Qxe7 12.Nd5 (with initiative) 12...Qf7 (12...Qd8 13.Nb5 00 14.
Nbxc7 Rb8 15.Qh5 (with initiative)) 13.Qe2+ Kf8 14.Qb5 with compensation.
B2c2) 11...Nxe7 12.Qh5+ (12.Bg5 00 13.Ndb5 Qxd1+ 14.Rxd1 Ng6 15.
Nxc7 Rb8 16.Rd4 f4 17.N3d5 f3 18.g3 Bf5 19.c4 Rf7 20.Nb5 Rd7 21.c5 Be6
22.Ndc3 Rxd4 23.Nxd4 Bg4 24.Ncb5 Ne5) 12...g6 13.Qh4
B2c21) 13...00 14.Bg5 Re8 (14...f4 15.Bxe7 Qxd4 16.Bxf8 Kxf8 17.Rd1
Qe5 18.Qh6+ Ke8 19.Qxh7+-) 15.Rd1!!+-.
B2c22) 13...Nc6 14.Bg5!!
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp4p/2n3p1/5pB1/3N3Q/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R5K1 b kq - 0 14"]
14...Qxd4 15.Re1+!
B2c221) 15...Kf7 16.Re7+ Kg8 (16...Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.Qxd4 Nxd4 19.
Nd5 Ne2+ 20.Kh1 Ng3+ 21.fxg3+-) 17.Re8+ Kf7 18.Qxd4 Nxd4 19.Rxh8
Ne6 20.h4+-.
B2c222) 15...Be6 (only move) 16.Rxe6+ Kd7 (16...Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.
Qxd4 Nxd4 19.Re7 Rd8 20.Rxc7 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 Nxc3 22.bxc3 b6 23.Rxa7+-;
16...Kf7 17.Rxc6 Qxh4 18.Rxc7+ Ke6 19.Bxh4+-) 17.Re7+! Kc8 18.Rxc7+!
[FEN "r1k4r/ppR4p/2n3p1/5pB1/3q3Q/
2N5/PPP2PPP/6K1 b - - 0 18"]
18...Kb8 19.Bf4 Re8 20.Rxc6++- A complete sweep.

8...Qd7 9.Nxe4 Be7 10.Bg5 00 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Qxd4+/=.
8...Qf5 9.Nxe4 Be7 10.Bg5 f6 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4+/-
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1b1pp/5p2/5qB1/3QN3/
8/PPP2PPP/R3R1K1 b kq - 0 12"]
12...fxg5 13.Qxg7 Qf8 14.Nf6+ Kd8 15.Rad1+ Bd6 16.Qxg5 h6 17.Qh4 Bd7
18.Nh7++-.
9.Nxe4 Be6
9...Be7 10.Bg5
A) 10...f6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bxf6+/- Rf8 (12...00 13.Bxe7 Rf7 14.Bh4 Bg4
15.Re4 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Raf8 17.Bg3 Qd5 18.Qd2) 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Qxd4 Qb6
15.Qc3 (15.Qe5 Qd6 16.Qe4 c6 17.Rad1 Qf6 18.Qb4 Rg8 19.Rd6 Qg7 20.g3
Rf8 21.Ne5 Rf6 22.Qd4 Rxd6 23.Qxd6 Bf5 24.Nxc6 bxc6 25.Qxc6+ Kf7 26.
Qxa8 Qxb2 27.Qxa7)
A1) 15...Rg8 16.Rad1 Bd7 (16...Qg6 17.g3 Bg4).
A2) 15...Be6.
B) 10...Be6 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Qxd4 00 13.Qc5+/= Nc6 14.Qxa5.
C) 10...00 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Nxd4
C1) 12...Ng6 13.c3 Qb6 (13...Bd7 14.b4 Qb6 15.a4) 14.Qa4.

C2) 12...Qb6 13.Qd3=.
9...Bb4 10.Nd6+ Kd7 11.Nc4 Qd5 12.Nce5+ Ke8 13.Nxc6+ Bxe1 14.Qxe1+
Qe6 15.Qxe6+ Bxe6 16.Ncxd4+/-.
10.Neg5 000 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Bd6 13.Bg5=
[FEN "2kr3r/ppp3pp/2nbR3/q5B1/3p4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2Q2K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Rde8
13...Rdf8 14.Qe2 Kd7 (14...Kb8 15.Re4 a6 16.Bd2 Qd5 17.Qd3) 15.Re1
Qxa2 16.Qe4 Qa5 (16...Kc8 17.Nxd4) 17.Be7 Bxe7.
13...Qf5 14.Qe2 Rdf8 15.Rd1 h6 16.Bh4 g5 (16...Kd7) 17.Bg3 Bxg3 18.hxg3
Qc5 19.Ne5
13...Qd5 14.Qe2
A) 14...Kd7 15.Rxd6+ (15.Re1 Rdf8 16.Bh4).
B) 14...Rdf8 15.Re4 Kb8 16.Bd2 a6 17.Qd3.
13...Rd7 14.Qe2 h6 15.Re8+.
14.Qe2 Kd7
14...Rxe6 15.Qxe6+ Kb8 16.Re1 a6 17.a3 Qb5=.
15.Rxe8 Rxe8 16.Qd3 h6 17.Bd2 Qh5
White has targeted the d-pawn and has weakened the kingside. 17...Qb6 18.b3.
18.h3+/= Ne5 19.Qb5+!
[FEN "4r3/pppk2p1/3b3p/1Q2n2q/3p4/
5N1P/PPPB1PP1/R5K1 b - - 0 19"]
19...Kc8 20.Nxd4 Bc5 21.Nf5! Bxf2+ 22.Kh1 a6 23.Nxg7 axb5 24.Nxh5

Nc4 25.Bxh6! Rh8 26.Nf6 Rxh6 27.Ng4 Rc6 28.Nxf2 Nxb2 29.h4 Kd7 30.
h5 Rxc2 31.Kg1 Ke6 32.h6 Rc4
As you can see, a "mild variation," but with some hidden spice. I like the
practical side of this gambit. You are playing towards equality, but if your
opponent decides to get creative, you have opportunities to gain the upperhand.
Next time, we might talk about the Max Lange. If you look for me on
YouTube, please subscribe to my channel.


A Moscow Sicilian Gambit

Typically, I like playing thematic openings that allow me to reach similar
positions in most of my games no matter how they begin. Sometimes I go as
far as having a recurring theme with both colors. For instance, there was a
time when I had a strictly-endgame repertoire. Every position was played with
the goal of reaching an endgame position from the opening. I achieved my
aim in about eighty percent of games; the remaining positions reached were
rather simplistic.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Purchases from our

accessible:
Lately, its been an all gambit repertoire. This month, we will look at the
Moscow Variation versus the Sicilian Defense. Of course, playing it from a
more aggressive perspective, where we attempt to gambit a pawn at every
opportunity.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+
How to Beat the Sicilian

Defence
by Gawain Jones
Translate this page
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/3p4/1Bp5/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 3"]
The beginning of one of the most highly-praised Anti-Sicilians. Everyone has

played it at some point: Kasparov, Shirov, Adams, Kramnik, Anand, and so
forth. For those who are devoted to the game, or newly passionate souls, there
are some ardent followers of this line, including Baklan, Rublevsky, and
others.
The Sicilian Rossolimo

for White
by Victor Bologan
3...Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7

the games from
Experts on the Anti-Sicilian
by Aagaard & Shaw
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pp1qpppp/3p4/2p5/4P3/5N2/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is more precise than 4...Nxd7. Mikhail Botvinnik would say that
capturing with the queen is preferable because you are missing your lightsquared bishop and the queen will complement those colors.
4...Nxd7 The knight is a little misplaced here, which is why this move is not
as common. 5.00 Ngf6

A) 6.d4
A1) 6...e6 7.e5 Nd5 8.c4.
A2) 6...cxd4 7.Qxd4 (7.Re1 e5 8.c3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 10, Flaquer,L (2274)Fekadu,D (2204)/Khanty Mansiysk 2010.
A3) 6...Nxe4 7.Re1 Nef6.
B) 6.Qe2 g6 (6...e6 7.b3 Be7 8.Bb2 00 9.c4 , Anand,V (2798)-Carlsen,
M (2775)/Mainz 2008 (56)) 7.c3 Bg7 8.d4 10, Bhat,V (2415)-Bu Xiangzhi
(2558)/Seattle 2001 (32).
5.00 Nc6
5...Nf6 is a positional mistake. White gets a couple of free things here after 6.
e5!+/=: he gains a pawn majority of four vs. three on the queenside, and, more
importantly, when Black exchanges and White recaptures, his knight is wellplaced on e5 and threatens the black queen, which gains a tempo. If you are
just picking up this system, study this line deeply so you know how to punish
Black for being imprecise.
[FEN "rn2kb1r/pp1qpppp/3p1n2/2p1P3/8/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...dxe5 7.Nxe5 Qc7 (7...Qc8 8.Qf3 e6 9.Re1 Be7 10.Na3; 7...Qd6 8.Qe2
Nbd7 9.Nc4 Qc6 10.Nc3 e6 11.a4; 7...Qd5 8.Re1; 7...Qd8 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Nc4
Nb6 10.d3) 8.d4 e6 (8...cxd4 9.Bf4 Qb6 10.Nd2 Nc6 11.Ndc4 Qc5 12.Qf3 e6
13.Rad1 Rd8 14.Rfe1 Be7 15.Qb3 Qb4 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Ne5 Rc8 18.Qg3
Nh5 19.Qf3 Nxf4 20.Qxf4 00 21.Qxd4 c5 22.Qd7 Bf6 23.Nxf7 Bd4 24.Qxe6
Bxf2+ 25.Kh1 Rc7 26.Nd8+ Kh8 27.Qd6 Kg8 28.Qe6+ Kh8 29.Qd6 Kg8 30.
Rf1 Qb6 31.Qxb6 axb6 32.Ne6 10, Volokitin,A (2558)-Ivanchuk,V (2709)/
Warsaw 2002) 9.Bf4 Bd6 10.Na3
[FEN "rn2k2r/ppq2ppp/3bpn2/2p1N3/3P1B2/
N7/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...a6 11.Nac4 Nc6 12.c3 (12.Bg3 10, Zubarev,A (2514)-Kurenkov,N

(2455)/Voronezh 2005 (22).
6.c3 Nf6 7.d4!
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2np1n2/2p5/3PP3/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]
This is the beginning of the gambit, and it is completely sound! In order to

fight for the initiative, we are trying to open the position and stir up some
complications.
7...Nxe4
They say you have to accept a gambit in order to refute it, but let's be more
objective. There are only two natural moves in the position: 7...Nxe4 and 7...
cxd4, followed by ...Nxe4. 7...cxd4 is inferior because the exchange of pawns
opens more lines, and White can take advantage of this. Any other move in
the position from Black, say ...e6 or ...g6, is too timid and neglects White's
dominance in the center, when Black will be susceptible to an e5 push by
White.
7...cxd4 8.cxd4
A) 8...Nxe4 This has to be better for White: more open lines, more
opportunities. 9.d5
A1) 9...Nb8 10.Re1 Nf6 11.Bg5 h6 (11...Na6 12.Nc3 000 13.Be3 Kb8 14.
Ng5) 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nc3.
A2) 9...Nd8 10.Re1 Nf6 11.Bg5.
A3) 9...Na5 10.b4.
A4) 9...Ne5 Any other move immediately gives White compensation for the
pawn. If Black retreats to an inferior square (d8, b8), he will then spend
another move redeploying it. White is also about to gain a tempo by attacking
the knight on e4 with Re1. That's a total of three tempi, which is equivalent to
a pawn.
10.Re1
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/3p4/3Pn3/4n3/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 b kq - 0 10"]
A4a) 10...Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Nf6 12.Nc3 with compensation

A4a1) 12...e6 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bg5.
A4a2) 12...000 13.a4! (with initiative) Kb8 14.Be3 Rc8 (14...Qg4 15.Bxa7
+!! Kxa7 16.Nb5+ Kb8 17.Qe3; 14...e6 15.Rac1 a6) 15.Qd1.
A4a3) 12...h6 13.Bd2 000 with compensation.
A4a4) 12...Qg4 13.Qd3 with compensation.
A4a5) 12...e5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Rad1 00 (15...Rc8 16.Qe3) 16.
Qh3 h6 17.Bh4 Rad8 18.Qxe6++/-.
A4b) 10...Qg4 11.Qa4++-.
A4c) 10...Nf6 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Rxe5+/- g6 (12...Rd8 13.Nc3 g6 14.Bg5 Bg7
15.Qe2 h6 16.Re1 00; 12...e6 13.Nc3 Bd6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Re1 00 16.Bg5)
13.Bg5.
B) 8...d5 This is possibly the second most important position of the opening.
It is a very tranquil way for Black to play for equality. I use to capture on d5
(!?-?!) thinking that I could push through quickly by playing Qb3, but 9.exd5
leads to equality. The better move is 9.e5!+/= Or to be clearer, it is the best
way to play the position. To put it simply, Black has a problem with his
knight. Where does he put it? Moreover, White keeps the possibility of
playing on both flanks: via the c-file or with f3-f4-f5.
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2n2n2/3pP3/3P4/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]
B1) 9...Ng8 10.Nc3 e6 11.Ne2!!+/= Positionally brilliant. White is trying to

reroute the knight to the kingside where it will cause disharmony in Black's
position by threatening to go to h5 and prevent Black from playing Nge7-f5
because an exchange on f5 jeopardizes the pawn structure. 11...Nge7 (11...
Bb4 12.a3 Ba5; 11...Be7 12.Qd3) 12.Ng3
B1a) 12...h5 13.Bg5 Ng6 (13...000 14.Qd2 Kb8 15.b4 b6) 14.Rc1 h4 (14...
Be7) 15.Ne2 Be7.
B1b) 12...g6 13.Bg5! Bg7 14.Qd2 00 (14...h6 15.Be3 a5+/=; 14...Nf5 15.
Nxf5) 15.Bf6+/=.
B2) 9...Nh5 10.Nc3+/=.
B3) 9...Ne4 The most natural. 10.Ne1! Another mysterious knight move. This
is how we cause Black problems with his development. Let's pay close
attention:
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2n5/3pP3/3Pn3/
8/PP3PPP/RNBQNRK1 b kq - 0 10"]
B3a) 10...f6 11.f3 Ng5 12.Bxg5 fxg5 13.Nc3 (13.Nc2) 13...e6 14.f4 gxf4 15.
Rxf4 000 16.Nc2 Kb8 The f-file is an asset here. Additionally, White can
probe the kingside with moves such as Qg4-h5.
B3b) 10...h6 11.Be3 e6 (11...Rc8 12.Nd3 e6 13.f3 Ng5 14.Qe1 Qc7 15.Nc3
Qb6 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Nxb4) 12.Nd3+/= From here on, Black has problems
with his knight. It is hard to tell where the knight will find a purpose in this
game. After the move f3 by White, it will go to g5, where its obviously
misplaced. And then where?
B3b1) 12...f5 13.a3.
B3b2) 12...Be7 13.Qg4 h5 (13...g6 14.Qe2 00; 13...Bg5 14.Qe2) 14.Qe2 Rc8
(14...h4 15.f3).
B3b3) 12...Ne7.
B3b4) 12...Nb4 13.f3.
B3b5) 12...Rc8 13.f3 Ng5 14.Qe1 Qc7 15.Nc3 Qb6 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Nxb4
Bxb4 (17...Qxb4 18.Qf2).
8.d5 Ne5
The most natural move.
8...Nb8 9.Qd3 (9.Re1) 9...Nf6 10.Bg5 Na6 11.Bh4 000 This unclear
position needs more research.
8...Nd8 9.Re1 Nf6 10.Bg5 with justifiable compensation.
9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Re1 Nd6
10...Nf6 11.Rxe5 e6 (11...000 12.c4 e6 13.Bg5; 11...g6 12.Bg5 Bg7 13.c4
00 14.Nc3 Rfe8 15.Qf3) 12.c4
A) 12...000 13.Bg5 Bd6 (13...Qc7 14.Bxf6; 13...h6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rh5)
14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rh5.
B) 12...Be7 13.Nc3 exd5 (13...000 14.Bf4 Rhe8; 13...00 14.dxe6 Qxd1+
15.Nxd1) 14.Bg5 000 (14...d4 15.Ne4 000 16.Nxc5 Qc7 17.Nd3 Bd6).
C) 12...Bd6 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Re1; 10...f5 11.f3 Nf6 (11...Nd6 12.Rxe5) 12.
Rxe5.
11.Rxe5 g6
11...000 12.Re1.
12.Re2
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpp1p/3n2p1/2pP4/8/
2P5/PP2RPPP/RNBQ2K1 b kq - 0 12"]
This is a mysterious rook move. To understanding the position, one has to

grasp the importance of the c- and d-pawns for White. The c-pawn is
important because it restricts the black pieces. The bishop won't find an active
diagonal, and the knight cannot access d4. The d-pawn is important because it
makes the "partially backward" e7-pawn a target. Yet there is more to the
mystery of this rook move. There is an idea: instead of playing Rae1 (which is
desirable), White plays Rd2!, together with Bf4 and Na3, when the threat is to
push d6. This isn't much, but it's something. Another thing to consider is that
that an exchange of the c1-bishop for Black's knight is favorable for White.
12...Bg7
12...000 13.Na3.
13.Be3
Better is 13.Na3+/=, which, together with Nc4-Bf4-Rd2, should give White a
pull. If Black ever plays b5 to push the knight away, White plays Na5 going
towards c6. 13...Nf5.
13...b6 14.Na3 00 15.Qd3 Rad8 16.Rd1 Rfe8 17.Bf4 Nf5 18.Red2 Bf6 19.
Qc4 g5 20.Bg3 h5 21.Qe2 g4 , Bisguier,A-Reshevsky,S, Palma de
Mallorca 1971.


A Rossolimo Sicilian Gambit
Over the
Horizons
In recent months we've discussed an all gambit repertoire including the

Moscow Sicilian Gambit (December 2011) and a Scotch Gambit Repertoire
(November 2011). This month we will talk about the Rossolimo. I like this
gambit because it comes in a line commonly played by Black. This means you
will reach this position in a majority of your games, making it a wise practical
choice; thus, an advantage of some sorts. The line I'm recommending is one
of the most aggressive, where we give a center pawn to try to accelerate our
initiative and advantage in time. It is an unclear gambit but it leads to
interesting play.
Purchases from our

accessible:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
Charles Galofre
How to Beat the Sicilian

Defence
by Gawain Jones
Translate this page
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1ppppp/2n5/1Bp5/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 3"]
The Rossolimo Variation.

The Sicilian Rossolimo
for White
by Victor Bologan
3...g6
Black's most common response.
4.00 Bg7 5.c3 Nf6
This is how the majority of games proceed. In the current position, a range of
moves have been tried: 6.Re1 (classical), 6.e5 (natural), and 6.d4 (ambitious).
The latter is my recommendation.
the games from
6.d4
The Rossolimo Sicilian

by Victor Bologan
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n2np1/1Bp5/3PP3/
6...cxd4
This natural-looking move is the most inferior response. True, the exchange
of pawns leaves White with an isolated pawn, but it opens the position, giving
White the c3-square for the knight and the c-file for the rooks.
After 6...Nxe4, White gets compensation with 7.d5:
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n3p1/1BpP4/4n3/
We can appreciate that White has positional compensation in that he will

acquire two tempi: one by attacking the c6-knight and the next with Re1
attacking the e4-knight. And if Black moves the knight from c6, it may prove
to be misplaced. It is already a highly complex and interesting position.
7...Nb8 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Bd3 White will play Bg5 and continue developing
harmoniously. Meanwhile, Black has to resolve the development of the knight
on b8.
7...Na5 8.Re1 Nd6 9.Bf1 00 10.Bg5 Re8 11.Nbd2 Black is lagging in
development. If 11..h6, then 12.Bf4. In general, Black lacks squares for his
pieces The misplaced knight takes away a5 from the queen, and the diagonal
for the dark-squared bishop is blocked.
7...Nd6 8.Bd3
A) 8...Nb8 9.Re1 00 10.Bf4 (10.Na3 Na6) with concrete play for White.
B) 8...Na5 9.Bf4 00 10.Na3 b6 11.Rc1 with the idea of b4 and White will
gain the initiative.
C) 8...Ne5 The most natural move, towards the center and exchanging pieces.
9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Re1 A small step that leads to big things.
C1) 10...Bf6 11.Bh6 and the black king will remain in the center. 11...Nf5
(11...Qb6 12.Qd2; 11...b5 12.Qf3 Nf5) 12.Bxf5 gxf5 13.Qh5 Rg8+/-.
C2) 10...Bg7 11.Qe2 and Black still has trouble castling. The white pieces
develop with threats. 11...e6 (11...f6 12.Bf4; 11...e5 12.Bh6 00) 12.Bf4 Qe7
13.Na3 00 14.Rad1 A beautiful snapshot of the position. 14...e5 (14...Ne8)
15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qxe5 Bxe5 17.Rxe5 Rb8.
7.cxd4 Nxe4
7...d5 is a typical break for Black in the Sicilian, and here is no exception.
However, White has an elegant way of playing against this plan. By
advancing his pawn, he gains space; and by retreating his knight, followed by
f3, he brilliantly causes disharmony in Black's position. Moreover, material is
even here, and White's advantage is tangible.
A) 8.e5!+/= Ne4 (8...Ng8 9.Nc3) 9.Ne1!
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp2ppbp/2n3p1/1B1pP3/
3Pn3/8/PP3PPP/RNBQNRK1 b kq - 0 9"]
A1) 9...h6 10.f3 Ng5 11.Nc3 00 (11...Ne6 12.Nc2 00 13.Be3; 11...Bd7 12.
Be3) 12.Be3 Ne6 White has a space advantage and all his pieces are more
purposely placed.(12...Qb6 13.Ba4).
A2) 9...f6 10.f3 Ng5 11.Bxg5 fxg5 12.Nc3 00 (12...Bd7 13.Rf2) 13.Rc1 Na5
b4 and White is just clearly better. (The threat is Nxd5.)
A3) 9...Qb6 10.a4
A3a) 10...00 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.a5 Qb5 (12...Qc7 13.f3 Ba6+/-) 13.Na3 Qxa5
+/=.
A3b) 10...a6 11.Bxc6+ bxc6+/=.
B) 8.Ne5!? Qb6 9.Qa4 Nxe4 10.Nxc6.
8.d5
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n3p1/1B1P4/4n3/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 8"]
This is the purest form of the gambit. With all lines open, it is an interesting,
complex position.
8...Nd6 9.Na3 a6
9...Ne5 is natural: 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.Re1
A) 11...Nxb5 12.Rxe5 gives White a clear advantage. 12...f6 (12...d6) 13.
Nxb5! fxe5 14.d6!+/-.
B) 11...Bg7 12.Bg5 f6 compensation.
C) 11...Bf6 12.Bh6.
10.Bd3
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1p1pppbp/p1nn2p1/3P4/8/
N2B1N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...Ne5
10...Na7 11.Re1 00 12.Nc4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 b5 (13...d6 14.Bg5) 14.Bb3 d6
(14...Re8) 15.Bg5 Re8 16.Qd2 Bf6 17.Bxf6 exf6 18.Rxe8+ Qxe8 19.Re1 Qd8
20.Nd4 Bd7 21.Ne6.
11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Re1 Bf6 13.Qb3
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1p1ppp1p/p2n1bp1/3P4/8/
NQ1B4/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 b kq - 0 13"]
The position is unclear.



S. Bücker & C. Galofre - Chess Cafe - Over The Horizons - 1-74

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. Bücker & C. Galofre - Chess Cafe - Over The Horizons - 1-74

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker, born 1959, won the

Vulture's Wing Play

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (1 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

1 d4 is considered to be safer than 1 e4, because the e4-pawn can be

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (2 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

The starting point of the Vulture.

Over the Horizons

6 b3? is refuted tactically: 6...Nf5! 7 Bb2 (7 e4? Ne3 +; 7 Kf2? Qc3 8

Over the Horizons

L. Esposito (2155) M. Popchev (2419)

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (5 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

Tournament book Venice 1948

G. Timoshenko (2510) H. Suradiradia (2240)

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (7 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

White threatened 11 e5, winning the

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (8 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

13...Be6 14 Bd5 Bf5 15 e4 Be6 16

Over the Horizons

Raetsky & Chetverik [7] dont know my work.

Over the Horizons

Send your games or comments to redaktion@kaissiber.de

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (11 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (12 of 12) [9/20/2005 8:20:44 PM]

Over the Horizons

Stefan Bcker, born 1959, won the

Vulture's Wing Play

Over the Horizons

Lets begin with two games,

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (2 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]

Over the Horizons

Over the Horizons

in [5]) I preferred 6...g6, but this isnt fully

Or 8 h4 Bg7 9 Bxg7 Rxg7 10 h5 Rg8 11

Over the Horizons

21 Rg3 Kg8 22 h4 e5 23 hxg5?

5...Nf6 A Courageous Loss of Time

Over the Horizons

M. Loemker (2096) St. Bcker (2349)

5...Nf6: The Analysis

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]

Over the Horizons

8 e5 (8 fxg5 Ng4 9 Qb3 Rg8 10

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (7 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]

Over the Horizons

In the style of a Modern Benoni.

file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (8 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]

Over the Horizons

Over the Horizons

a) 19 Nd1 (19 exf5 Nxc4) fxe4 20 Ne3 Bg5 21 Qxe4 Bxe3 22

Over the Horizons

refutation may not be far over the horizon.

Send your games or comments to redaktion@kaissiber.de

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]