The

lbumarnent
P layer's
Repertoire of
Albin
Counter-Gambit
Openings
series editc>d hy
g G W.1dc1

Pau I Lamford
The Albin Counter-Gambit
To my parents
THE TOURNAMENT PLAY ER'S REPERTO I R E O F O PEN INGS
Series edited by R . G . W ade OBE

The Albin
Counter-Gambit
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5!?

PAUL LAMFORD

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1 983
Paul Lamford 1 9 8 3

I S B N 0 7 1 34 4005 8 (limp)

Photoset by Andek Printing, London

and printed in Great Britain by
Billing & Sons Ltd,
London , Guildford & Worcester
for the publishers
B.T. Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W l H OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R . G . Wade
Technical Editor: P. A.Lamford
Contents

Acknowledgments VI

Preface vii
Bibliography Vlll

l Introduction and Layout

2 Early Divergences 6
3 Spassky's 4 e4 15
4 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 22
5 5 lll b d2 i.g4 35
6 5 lll b d2 f6 44
7 5 lLlbd2 others 49
8 5 g3 i.g4 57
9 5 g3 i.e6 ! ? 68
IO 5 g3 others 79
Index of Variations 84
Inde x of Complete Games 87
Symbols 88
Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to Bob Wade,

whose library, hospitality and advice proved invaluable in writing this
book.
I a m also grateful to G M Ray Keene fo r helpful suggestions, and to
other leading players, Nigel Davies, Ken Harman, Andrew Law and
Malcolm Pein, who assisted with analysis.
Bob Long's Chess A tlas and Francis Meinsohn's Le Gambit A lbin
also provided useful material, while Graham Hillyard deserves thanks
for producing such excellent proofs .
Preface

The Albin Counter-Gambit, I d4 d5 2 c4 e5, is a sharp early attempt

to wrest the initiative from White. Players unfamiliar with it will find
difficulty keeping control of the game. Positions can become extremely
complex, particularly in those lines involving castli ng on opposite sides
in which White attacks with a3 and b4 while Black counters with . . . h5
and . . . h4.
Is the Albin sound? My research led me to hundreds of magazines,
tournament books and b ulletins. I found Black scoring about 45% ,
a respectable result in comparison with other queenside openings .
'Which variation should one play?' is an obvious question. The author
strongly recommends, after 5 g3, the lines leading from the currently
popular 5 . . . i.e6! (Chapter 9). A nd after 5 lll b d2, I would also adopt
5 . . . i.e6, either covered within Chapter 7 or transposing after 6 g3 into
Chapter 9 again. Of course the reader will need to know more , for
example Spassky's 4 e4 (Chapter 3 ) .
The I ntroduction i s designed t o provide an overall picture o f the plans
for both sides.

Paul Lamford
London, April 1983
Bibliography

The following publications were of particular use in writing this boo k :

Books
A /bins Motgambit S. Jonasson (Schaakbulletinens Gambit-Serie,
Uppsala 1970)
Contragambitos Benito Lopez Esnaola (Ricardo Aguilera,
Madrid 1957)
Countergambits T . D . Harding (British Chess Magazine, 1 974)
El Contragambito A lbin Eduardo J. Marchisotti (Editorial Grabo,
Buenos Aires 1 950)
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, D08-09 A . Matanovic et al
(B.T.Batsford/Sahovski I nformator, London 1 976)
Periodicals
British Chess Magazine
Chess A tlas (USA)
Chess Life
The Chess Player 1 -16 and The New Chess Player 1 -9
Cuadernos Teoricos de la revista Ajedrez 69-71
Fernschach
Le Gambit Albin
Magyar Sakkelet
Sahovski Informator
Shakhma tny Byulletin
Shakhmatny Listok
Shakhmatny v SSSR
Wiener Schachzeitung (1 924)
 1 Introduction and Layout

Although the Queen's Gambit Kupreichik and Mosionzhik have

was first mentioned by Polerio as contributed new and interesting
long ago as the end of the ideas.
sixteenth century, a game with . . . After
e 5 did not make a n appearance 1 d4 d5
until as late as 1 8 8 l in Salvioli 2 c4 e5
Calvalotti at Milan, while the first the normal move is
game between two masters occurred 3 de (I)
when Adolf Albin played it against
Lasker in New York , 1 89 3 .
Albin w a s born in Bucharest in
1 847, but later moved to Austria,
living in Vienna. A chess journalist
by profession, he achieved his best
result at New York 1 893, coming
second to Lasker, ahead of Pillsbury
and Showalter.
The theory of the opening was
still in an embryonic stage, how Most of the alternatives , dealt
ever, and Mieses, Tartakower and with in Chapter 2, allow easy
Marshall later made significant equality.
contributions to its development, 3 d4
even if Tartakower did have some 3 . de, which leads to an
. .

disasters with the line l d4 d5 2 c4 inferior ending for Black , is also

e5 3 de d4 4 ll:\f3 c5? ! . Yugoslav
grandmaster Boris Kostic and
the Soviet grandmaster Mikenas
played the opening frequently,
while the correspondence master
Dr Balogh was a regular exponent.
Of the modern players , Forintos,
covered in Chapter 2.
4 'bf3
The important alternative 4 e4,
which is the subject of Chapter 3,
has been tried on a number of
occasions by Spassky. However,
cu rrent theory is that Black gets a
2 Introduction and Layout
good game after 4 . . . ll'ic6 5 f4 by
both 5 . . . f6 or 5 . . . g 5 . The
position below, after 19 . . . l:le8
in Spassky-Lutikov, 3 l st USSR
Ch 1 963, is an exa mple of the
correct treatment for Black.
Black has a clear advantage ,
because even though the extra
pawn is not too significant, the
possession of the two bishops as
well makes White's task very
difficult. Spassky managed to
draw (see p. 20) but Black could
h ave made more of his chances.
4 . . . lLlc6 (4)
The most frequently played
reply; Tartakower's 4 . . . c5 is an
unsatisfactory alternative because
Black's pawn centre is too rigid
and W hite obtains the better game
by undermining it with e 3 . The
diagram below gives a typical
position.
This arose after 16 i.f4!
in Tarrasch-Tartakower, Berlin
1 920 (see p. 1 3). The exchange of
W hite's e-pawn for Black's
d-pawn has accentuated the weak-
nesses around Black's king.
Black attempted to relieve the
pressure by 1 6 . . . i.d6 17 SLxc6 be
18 i.xd6 l:lxd6 but now 19 lLld2!
followed by lLle4 would have
given W h ite a winning attac k .
4 :I .tLj-
w i . ,.,
-- . .
D .
--
.lll.
[ [
l1' - l1' [
l1'
lllm-II
This is the basic position of the
Alb i n . Both sides have a pawn
wedge in the oppon ent's position ,
but White is a /pawn up. The
struggle usually centres around
these pawns and the basic strategies
can be summarised as follows:
Plans for White
l. To play g3, g2 and 0-0
followed by expansion on the
queenside with a3 and b4 or a
 Introduction and Layout 3

6 :S: L
Bi .,.,

.
. a .

9 , --
, ,

--
,,

" - -""
"" [
,,, , ,, ,,,

.,.,,,,

This position was reached
in Polugayevsky-Vasyukov after
12 lld 1 (see p. 59). Black has
played lt:Je7-c8, threatening to trap
the queen with . . . lll b 6, but
Polugayevsky prevented this by
playing c5 . Black has no coun ter
play o n the h-file and he will find it
difficult to regain the e5 pawn.
In addition, his own d4 pawn is
weak and the best Black could
find was to reach a poor ending
after 1 2 . . . i.. x f3 13 ef lt:J xe 5 1 4
m [
6 i.-
,,,, 7, -
has prematurely given up the two
bishops in order to regain his
e-pawn. White is better developed
and after 10 . . . 'f!! e 7 1 1 0-0-0! 0-0-0
12 f4 lll c 6 1 3 g3 f5 14 b5 lll b8
15 i.. h 3 the bishops became very
strong and Fine went on to win an
impressive game (see p. 5 2) .
3. A n early e3, liquidating the
centre , usually with a preparatory
a3 to prevent . . . i.. b 4+. This will
usually result in an exchange of
queens and the diagram below
illustrates a typical ending which
could arise.

:.T.&Ta
'f!! x d7 llxd7 which h e managed to
draw, but the opening was clearly

unsatisfactory. %,,,,

2. A plan involving lll b d2,

a 3 , b4 and i.. b 2, backed up by B B:s:D. R

,,,
,

lllb 3 if necessary. The pressure on

the d4 pawn will often force Black Mlbm
to give up one or both bishops, WM
,,,,,,,: - Wi.
-
i_WM l\ W
Cl
-
.
m ,, ,-
nu?.

D
?:uu
unless he gets counterplay, either
against the c4 pawn or down the

h-file with . . . h 5 and . . . h4. ,,, ,,,
Taimanov-Mi kenas, USSR Ch
This position was reached in 1 949 , reached this position (see p .
Fine-Adams, US Ch 1 944. Black 29) . Black h a s wasted time with . . .
4 Introduction and Layout

h6 and . . . a6 and conceded the two play h4 to hold up Black's

bishops . He will still have trouble attack .
in winning the e-pawn and White
9 1)) -
can consolidate his advantage by
..tc4 followed by 'i!;>e2.
B . ... .... .
:.-,,,,,,,x - , .
;.-,,,,,,,, r, ,,

4. Finally, a m ore recent plan BliB B B

of delaying lll b d2 and co mpleting B B D B
the kingside development. White
can then play 't!fb3 which will
B B- BlDD
'if- . W .
indirectly protect the e-pawn -
A m,
- A W ...
_t
om :o f
'?/,,,,, ,.,,,,,,,;!, ,..,,,,,,;/,
because of the pressure against b7.
11
- ,.,.. , 11

s L,,
-w. -w.
B -w.
[i[\i'ai[ i
This wild position was reached
in Vladimirov-Volfson , Trud Ch
BliB B B 1 969 . Black correctly sacrificed
B B D B material with 1 1 . . . hg 1 2 i::i'. xb4
- llixb4 13 l!fxb4 ..th3 with a

BB-BlDD ....
D BD.t . llige7-g6 or . . . l!fe7 . This would
D.ttJl]11B m
This position was reached in
Korchnoi-Veinger, Beersheva 1 978,
after 9 :!.i:d l . The threat of lll x d4
practically forces Black to give up
the two bishops , but after 9 . . .
..txf3 I O l!fxf3 llig6 1 1 l!fh 5 'i!;>b8
12 ..tf4 Black was unable to
regain his pawn (see p . 66).
dangerous attack (see p . 6 1 ).
2. To regain the pawn with ...
give Black a fine position if it
could be achieved without White
winning the d-pawn , but Black
usually has to give up the two /
bishops with . . . ..txf3 to achieve
this. The position below illustrates
Black avoiding such concessions.

Plans for Black

1. To play . . . ..te6 or . . . ..tg4
followed by . . . 't!fd7 and . . . 0-0-0
and then to attack down the h-file
with . . . h5 and . . . ..th3 or . . . h4.

The play becomes extremely sharp
and White will either play l!fb3 or
b4 to attack on the queenside or

Black's pressure against e2 and
his control of e4 make it difficult
for White to break through on
the queenside. Portisch-Forintos,
Hungarian Ch 1 964, continued 1 4
b4 lll e4 1 5 j_e 1 f5 1 6 d3 f6
with a sa tisfac. t ory position for
Black and he eventually won (see
p. 3 8).
3. To sacrifice a pawn with . . .
f6 and gain active play o n the
e- and f-file s. White can usually
consolidate against an early . . . f6
and Black needs to have other
threats.
This position was reached in
Yuferov-Kupreichik, Byelorussian
Ch 1 972 (see p. 65). White has
wasted time with his queen and
In troduction and Layout 5
Black has opened files against her.
After 15 .tg5 lihe8 1 6 c2 j_xg5
1 7 lll xg5 g4 18 d2 h6 19 lll f3 ,
Black broke open the position
with 19 . . . d3 with crushing effect.
4. Finally, Black often meets
a3 with . . . a5, restraining White's
queenside e xpansion. He must be
prepared to castle kingside if
necessary , but will find it easier to
regain the e5 pawn because he can
defend his d4 pawn with . . . j_c5 .
12 :I .*. -
B R .t. ... R .t. .t.
-- --
wM
- [
-- R R
D R DlDD
B
H &.W
fa
e'lS 'ii ;'--"'" 'if
From the diagram Black
was able to reach a satisfactory
ending in Nikolayevsky-Bernstein,
Ukraine 1 97 5 , after 9 . . . de 1 0
xd7+ .txd7 1 1 .txe3 lll g xe5 1 2
lll xe5 lll xe5 . He has regained his
pawn without conceding any
weaknesses (see p. 25).
2 Early Divergences
I d4 dS
2 c4 es
White has a couple of ways to
decline the gambit and there are a
variety of odds and ends which do
not follow the normal sequence 3
de d4 4 lt:\f3 lllc 6. We examine:
A 3 e3
B 3 lll c 3
C 3 de
3 cd 'ti'xd 5 4 e3 did not prove
trou blesome for Black after 4 . . . ed
5 'ti'xd4 'ti'xd4 6 ed lll c6 7 i.e3 lll f6
8 lll c 3 i.b4 9 i.d3 0-0 1 0 lbe2 i.g4
1 1 f3 life8 1 2 i.f2 i.e6 1 3 0-0 tll e 7
with a comfortable game in Bot
Rojahn, Moscow 01 1 956.
A 4 'ti'xd4? proved a loss of time
3 e3 (13)
3 ed
Alternatives are:
a) 3 . . . de 4 i.xc4 ed 5 ed
transposes into a variation of the
French Defence normally reached
by I e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ed ed 4 c4 de 5
i.xc4.
b) 3 . .. tllc6 proved successful in
Pillsbury-Exner, blindfold game,
Hanover 1 902, after 4 de de 5
'ti'a4?! (5 'ti'xd8+ t) 5 . . . 'ti'd5 6
'ti'xc4 'ti'xc4 7 i.xc4 tll xe 5 8 J.e2
i.f5 9 tllc 3 0-0-0 with a good
position for Black.
c) 3 . . . e4?! 4 cd 'ti'xd5 5 lbe2 tllf6 6
tll b c3 i.b4 7 i.d2 i.xc3 8 tll x c3
. Black has lost time with his
queen and his e-pawn is weak.
4 ed
after 4 ... tll f6 5 lbc3 tll c 6 6 'ti'd I
i.f5 7 f3 tll b 4 8 'ti'a4+ 'ti'd7 9
'ti'xd7+ @xd7 with a winning
ending for Black. A game Dodge
Houghteling, Chicago 1 906, now
concluded amusingly: 1 0 e4 de 1 1
fe lb xe4 1 2 li b l tll c 2+ 1 3 @di
lll f2 + 1 4 \t>e2 i.c5 1 5 tllf3? i.d3+
16 @d2 i.e3 mate.
4 . . . tll f6
4 . . . i.e6 is also possible: 5 tll c3
tll f6 6 cd tll x d5 7 tll f3 i.e7 8 i.e2
0-0 9 0-0 tlld 7 IO lbxd5 i. xd5 1 1
 Early Divergences 7

.tf4 Iie8 1 2 c2 c6 1 3 Iiad l tbf8 8 tbf3 0-0 9 lt:le5 (avoiding . . .

14 b3 lt:le6 15 i.e5 f6 16 .tg3 .tg4; 9 3 ! ? attacking f7) 9 . . .
it.b4(?) 1 7 .td3 tbf8 18 ll:ih4 g6 1 9 tbc6 ! 1 0 tb xc6 be 1 1 0-0 Iib8
f4 .ta5 2 0 f 5 g5 2 1 tbf3 .tb6 22 12 h3 ( 1 2 .tb3 i.e6 13 i.e3 was
'it'h l h6 23 .tf2? ! d7? ! 24 Iife l better) 1 2 . . . tbd5, Black has
and Yi - Yi; 5 2 , after further errors, sufficient compensation for his
Rubinstein-Levitsky, Kiev 1 90 3 . pawn weaknesses. After 1 3 tb xd5
5 tbc3 .te7 cd 14 .tb3 .te6 1 5 .te3?! ( 1 5 iL f4
5 ... c6 6 tbf3 is also playable, .td6 = ) 1 5 . . . .td6 1 6 Iiac l h4 1 7
and now: f3 'it' h 8 ! Black stood well
a) 6 ... .te7 7 i.d3 0-0 8 0-0 de 9 in Walter-Kostic, Trencianske
.txc4 lbbd7 1 0 Iie 1 lb b6 1 1 .tb3 Teplice 1 926.
lbbd5 12 .td2 .te6 13 Iicl Iie8 1 4
14 -A, ;
tba4 tbd7 1 5 h 3 Iic8 1 6 .tc2 g 6 1 7
B W}.- A -. -
?,,,,?;, :?, f WJ1
?,m
a3 (Kashdan-Maroczy, Bled 1 93 1 )
a n d now 1 7 . . . .tf6! would have m m
. . r' m
- '. .
given Black a satisfactory position. . . ,
b) 6 ... .tb4?! is too ambitious. mt3l D m m
After 7 a3 .txc3+ 8 be a5 9 cd!

- ttJ
- -
0-0 (9 ... xc3+? 10 .td2 b2 1 1 AW
o ?.a W
?. AWM
o g?.
, ,,rillh rfit"m'i?"
Iib l a2 1 2 e2+ .te6 1 3 Iixb7 ;
9 . . . ll:ixd5 !?) 10 i.d2 ;j:: Aloni
.....

Heidenfeld, Netanya 1 96 1 ( 1 -0,
27).
c) 6 ... .te6! and if 7 3 lt:la6! =
Tartakower.
6 tb f3 (14)
The attempt to undermine
the d5 square by 6 cd lt:lxd5
7 .tc4 is not dangerous for
Black:
a) 7 . . . lt:lb6?! 8 .tb3 tbc6 9 .te3 0-0
10 tbge2 .tf5 1 1 0-0 lt:la5 1 2 .tc2
d7 1 3 .txf5 xf5 14 tbg3 g6
15 f3 Iifc8 16 Iiac l tlJ 5c4 17 b 3 !
Tartakower-Balogh, Bartfield
1926.
b) 7 ... tbf6 is a better retreat. After
g.-.-
6 0-0
7 .te2
Another idea is 7 cd tb xd5 8
.te2 lt:lc6 9 0-0 i.f6 1 0 tbe4 .te7
1 1 tbe5 lt:ldb4 12 tbxc6 ll:ixc6 1 3
d5 lbb4 1 4 .tc4 .tf5 1 5 f3
(Tekavcic-Kostic, Yugoslav Ch
1 946) and now 15 ... 't!Vd7 ! would
have given Black a satisfactory
position .
7 .te6
s tLJgS!? .trs
So far Tarrasch-Alekhine, St
Petersburg 1 9 1 4, which continued
9 0-0 lt:lc6 10 .te3 lbb4 1 1 Iic l
de 1 2 .txc4 c6 1 3 tbf3 lbbd5 14
8 Early Divergences

lll e 5 lll xc3 1 5 be i.d6 1 6 ll:e 1 'JJJ/ c 7 Keres's move , but 7 . . . .ltc5 also
17 J.f4 lll d 5 1 8 i.g3 ll:ae8 = gives Black good play after 8
( Yi- Yi , 36). e3 'i!Vf6 9 lll f3 0-0-0 1 0 i.d2 lll h6
B 1 1 ll:d l lll g4 with more than
3 lll c3 (15) enough for the pawn , Mes-Iler
Kozelek, corres 1 93 1 .
8 J.d2
Alternatives are :
a) 8 e3 i.xc3+ is good for Blac k ,
Marshall-Duras, Carlsbad 1 907 .
b) 8 a3 loses to 8 . . . b5 ! 9 cb lll d 4 1 0
b a + c6.
8 . . . J.xc4 (16)

This quiet move allows Black to

liquidate the centre and reach at
least equality.
3 . . . ed
3 . . . i.b4? ! is an inferior attempt
to complicate the game: 4 a3
i.xc3+ 5 be de (5 ... e4?! 6 e3 lll f6 7
cd 'JJJ/xd5 8 'JJJ/c 2 Baylin-Guerrero,
San Sebastian 1 949) 6 e4 lbc6 7
i.xc4 ed 8 'JJJ/b3 'JJJ/ e 7 9 lll e 2 de 1 0 Black has regained his pawn
0-0 lll f6 1 1 a 4 lll x e4 1 2 i.a3 'JJJ/ f6 with a fine position. Karu-Keres,
1 3 lll x c3 with a strong attack for Estonian Corres Ch 1 93 1 -2, con
the pawns, Quillen-Croy, Los tinued 9 a3 b5 10 'i!Vc2 lll d 4 1 1
Angeles 1 946. 'i!Ve4+ i.e7 1 2 lll f3 c5 1 3 ll: c l lll f6
4 \!Yxd4 lll c 6 14 'i!Vb l 'i!Vd6! 1 5 lll xd4 cd 1 6 lll e4
5 \!YxdS i.e6 lll x e4 1 7 1!fxe4 0-0 ! 1 8 .if4 1!fd8 1 9
6 'JJJ/ b S Ii d l .if6 20 1!ff3 Ii e 8 2 1 b 3 d3 ! 2 2
6 'JJJ/ x d8+? llxd8 7 e3 lll b 4 is e 4 i.c3+ 2 3 i. d 2 1!fd 4 2 4 i.xc3
winning for Black. 'i!Vxc3+ 25 ll:d2 ll xe4+ 0- 1 .
6 . . . a6 c
7 'JJJ/ a 4 3 de (17)
If 7 1Wxb7? lll d 4 is very strong. The normal move , played in
7 . . . i.b4 over 95% of all Albins.

3 d4
The logical reply , establishing a
pawn wedge in White's position.
Black gets some disadvantage in
the endgame after Mieses' 3 .:. de 4
'ti'xd8 + 'it>xd8 and now:
a) 5 lL!c 3 lbc6 (5 . . . c6 !? - Howson)
6 i.g5+ J;..e 7 7 0-0-0+ .lid7 8 i.f4
a6 9 lbd 5 (intending 10 e6 fe 1 1
lll x c7) 9 . . . !i'.c8 1 0 lll f3 b 5 1 1 e 3
lll b 4? ( I I . . . 'it>e8 ti) 1 2 lLlxb4
i.xb4 1 3 e6 fe 14 lll e 5 ++ ( 1 -0, 26)
Pillsbury-Mieses, Monte Carlo 1 903.
b) 5 ..tgS+ i.e7 6 i.. x e7+ lll x e7
causes Black less problems. After
7 lLla3 lLlg6 8 lll f3 i.e6 9 e3 lbc6 1 0
i.xc4 i.xc4 1 1 lll xc4 !i'.e8 1 2 'it>e2
lll g xe5 1 3 lll x e5 lll xe5 14 !i'.hd l +
'it>c8 1 5 lLlxe5 !i'.xe5 1 6 !i'.d2 b 6 1 7
!i'.ad l !i'.e7 the draw was agreed in
Atkins-Mieses , Hanover 1 902.
c) 5 e4?! .i.e6! 6 lbf3 lll d 7 7 i.f4
i.b4+ 8 lLlc3 lll e 7 9 0-0-0 c6 1 0
lll d4 b 5 1 1 lLlce2 'it>c7 = G ortz
Fleischmann, Hanover 1 902.
d) 5 lLlf3 i. b4+ 6 .lid2 lLlc6 7 e 3
i.g4 8 .i xb4 lll xb4 9 lll a 3 ;\; Flohr
Holmov, USSR Ch 1 949.
Early Divergences 9
Now White has:
Cl 4 e3?
C2 4 a3
C3 4 lLlf3 c5? !
For Spassky's 4 e4 see Chapter 3 .
Three alternatives which are
even less trouble to meet are :
a ) 4 .if4?! g5 ! 5 ..id2 lLlc6 6 g3
lllx e5 7 iLg2 c6 8 'ti'c l h6 9 lbf3
lll xf3+ 1 0 .ixf3 iLh3 + Wellner
Bun t, Groningen 1948.
b) 4 iL d2 lLlc6 5 lll f3 .lig4 6 'ti'b3
'ti'd7 7 lll a 3 .ixa3 8 'ti'xa3 lL!ge7 9
g3 d3 ! 1 0 !i'.d 1 ..ixf3 I I ef lLlxe5 1 2
i.g2 lll xc4 1 3 1i!fr'b3 'ti'e6+ 1 4 i.e3
lll x e3 15 fe xe3+ 16 'it>fl !i'.d8
++ Duffo-Calduch, Barcelona
1935.
c) 4 f4?! lL!e7 5 e4 c5 6 i.d3 lLlbc6 7
a3 g5 8 lLlf3 gf 9 i.xf4 i.g4 1 0 ..tg3
lllg 6 1 1 e6 ..ixe6 1 2 h3 ..tg7 1 3
lllb d21i!Ve7 1 4 'ti'c2 lll ce5 1 5 0-0-0?!
lll xd3+ 1 6 1i!fr'xd3 0-0 1 7 h4 h 5 1 8
!i'.dfl b 5 ! with a strong attack for
Black, O'Neil-Larzelere, corres
1 967 (0- 1 , 29).
Cl
4 e3? (18)
I 0 Early Divergences

It seems surprising that this This wins by force. 7 . . . \!h4

move has acquired a fair body of also leaves White in a terrible
theory, particularly as its score of position after 8 lt:Je2 ''xf2+ 9 @d l
0-8 does nothing to inspire White .i.g4. Falk & Boyarkov v Lasker,
to play the line ! Moscow (consultation game) 1 899,
4 i.b4+ ! continued 10 lt:Jc3 0-0-0+ 1 1 .i.d6
5 .i.d2 cd 12 e6 fe 1 3 @c l lll f6 14 b4
5 lll d2 is also terrible for White d5 1 5 b5 lt:Je5 16 cd lll x d5 1 7
after 5 . . . de 6 fe \!h4+ 7 g3 ''e4 8 ''c2 lll b4 1 8 lt:Jd l + lll xc2 l 9 lll x f2
''f3 ''xe5 9 a3 .txd2+ 1 0 @xd2 ll:d2 0- 1 . This was the game
.i.e6 + Garrido-Diaz Barcenas, which caused 4 e3? to be k nown as
Marianao 1 946. Lasker's trap.
If 5 @e2 lt:Jc6 6 ed lll x d4+ 7 @e3 8 @xf2 ''h4+ (1 9)
.i.c5 +.
1 9 :i ..t. -
5 de w ,,,.1, ..&
& 1 &
... ,,,,, ..
6 ''a4+
If 6 .i.xb4 ef+ 7 @e2 fg lll + -- . .
. . .

(0- l Korody- Balogh , 1 933). White
struggled on by 8 @e l ''h4+ 9 [!:, - ..
. .... . '" "

@d2 lll c 6 1 0 .i.c3 .i.g4 0- 1 i n

Biever-Cassidy, Junior World

[!:, . [!:,
Ch 1959.
6 fe is relatively best but after 6 ,q;T,e;(iit
;-,.,,.., - 4&
. . . ''h4+ 7 g3 ''e4 8 ''f3 .i.xd2+ 9 9 g3
lll x d2 ''xe5 Black has a huge 9 @e3 ''d4+ 1 0 @f3 .i.g4+ 1 1
advantage. White's e-pawn is @g3 lll h 6 1 2 h3 lll f5+ 1 3 @h2
chronically weak. ''f4+ was the punishment meted
6 lll c6 ! out in Linse- Kjelberg, Malmo
The simplest. 6 . . . i.d7?! 7 1 9 1 7.
''xb4 lll c 6 8 1i'c3 ed+ 9 lll x d2 9 ''d4+
''e7 10 lll f3 0-0-0 1 1 0-0-0 .i.g4 1 2 10 @g2
.i.e2 lll h 6 1 3 .i.d3 ( 1 3 c 5 o r 1 3 @b l 1 0 Resigns was preferred in
were better) 1 3 . . . lll b 4 1 4 .i.b 1 Edwards-Whittaker, Pennsylvania
ll:d3 ! + was played in Rivero 1 92 1 .
Perret Gentil, Venezuela 1 907. 10 ''xb2+
Black still won in 37 moves but the 11 lll d 2 ''xal
text is much stronger. 12 lll gf3 ''b2 13 a3 i.g4 0-1 Petrov
7 .i.xb4 er+! Pantaleev, Bulgaria 1 973.

C2
4 a3 (20)
This move was first analysed
in Deutsches Wochenschach in
1 9 1 9 . It will probably transpose to
Chapter 4, var. A, but may have
independent significance .
4 . . . lt:ic6
Almost always played but 4 . . .
c5 !?, attempting t o obtain a more
favourable line than Tartakower's
4 ll:i f3 c5 (var. C3), is also
possible. After 5 e3 lLic6 6 ed
lLixd4 7 .ie3 ll:ie7 8 .id3 ll:iec6 9
ll:ie2 ll:ixe5 10 i.xd4 cd 1 1 0-0
.ie7 1 2 f4 lLic6 1 3 .ie4 .if6
14 'it'd3 g6 1 5 ll:id2 i.g4 1 6 lt:if3
the position offered chances for
both sides in B oyarkov-Solvchov,
Moscow 1 9 04.
5 e3
5 ll:if3! transposes to Chapter 4,
var. A (p. 22).
5 f4?! .ie6 6 e4 is overambitious :
6 . . . f6 7 f5 ef 8 fe? 'it'h4+ 9 Wd2
'it'xe4 10 lLif3?! .ib4+! 0- 1
H.A.Shearer-C.G.Shearer, Sydney
1939.
Early Divergences 1 1
5 ll:ige7
The latest idea. Alternatives are
also satisfactory:
a) 5 . . . U5 6 lLif3 de 7 'it'xd8+
.
lhd8 8 .ixe 3 ll:ige7 9 lLic3 lt:i g6 10
.ie2 a6 = ( Black will soon regain
the e-pawn ) Cohn-Wolf, M unich
1 900.
b) 5 ... i.c5!? 6 b4 ll:i xb4! 7 ab
i.xb4+ 8 .id2 de ! 9 fe ! 'it'h4+ 10
g3 'it'e4 1 1 'iff3 'it'xe5 12 :i:ia2
.ixd2+ 13 lLixd2 lLie7 14 lt:ie2 i.d7
15 .ig2 0-0 16 0-0 .ic6 1 7 'it'f4
'it'h5 1 8 .txc6 ll:ixc6 1 9 'it'f3 'it'e5
20 'it'f4 'it'h 5 Vi- Vi Elliot-Marshall,
simultaneous 1 9 1 4.
c) 5 . . . a5 6 ll:if3 .ic5 7 .ie2 ( 7 ed
.ixd4 ! 8 i.e2 .ie6 9 ll:ixd4 'it'xd4
+) 7 . . . ll:i ge7 8 0-0 (8 ed ll:i xd4 9
i.g5 lt:ixf3 + ! 10 .ixf3 'it'xd l + 1 1
.ixd l ll:ig6 1 2 0-0 .id4! +) 8 . . .
ll:ig6 9 ed lt:ixd4 1 0 ll:ic3 0-0 with
a good game for Black - analysis
by Bardeleben m Deutsches
Wochenschach.
6 lLif3 .ig4
7 .ie2 ll:if5
8 e4? ! (21 )
12 Early Divergences
8 lt:lxd4 .ixe2 9 !kxe2 ll:lfxd4 1 0
e d ll:l xd4 1 1 !N d 1 = - Bozic.
8 d3! +
9 i.xd3 (9 ef de 1 0 'ikxd8+ llxd8
+; IO !kxe 2 ll:ld4 + Bozic) 9 . . .
- Haifa 1 976.
i.xf3 I O g f ( I O !kxf3 lt:\xe5 +) I O
. . . ll:lxe5 1 1 0-0 ll:l h4 1 2 i.e2 'ikf6
1 3 'it>h 1 ll:lhxf3 1 4 .ixf3 !kxf3+ 1 5
!kxf3 ll:l xf3 1 6 .ie3 ( 1 6 lt:ld2 was
better) 16 . . . i.d6 17 'it>g2? lt:lxh2
+ (0- 1 , 29) Toth-Petrovic,
Yugoslavia 1 967. Not a very
convincing game, but it did
illustrate that Black has nothing
to fear in the 4 a3 line and White
has to play accurately to hold the
balance .
C3
4 lt:lf3 cS?! (22)
Tartakower's move, with which
he had little success. Black's
position becomes too static and
can easily be undermined by e 3 .
The normal m o v e , 4 . . . lt:\c6, i s
covered in Chapters 4 - I O .
4 . . . .ib4+ is t h e o nly other
move to h ave been tried. After 5
.id2 (5 lt:ld2 ! ?) 5 . . . ll:lc6 6 g3?! (6
i.xb4 ll:lxb4 7 'ika4+ looks better)
6 . . . i.g4 7 .ig2 'ike7 8 0-0 0-0-0 oo
Elder-Svensson, Women's 01,
5 e3 lLJc6
6 ed
6 i.d3 .ig4 7 ed was played in
Kutrum-Bulchau, West Germany
1 9 5 5 . Now 7 . . . cd would
transpose to n ote d) to Black's
7th below, but Black tried 7 ...
.ixf3? 8 !kxf3 Wxd4 9 0-0 0-0-0 1 0
iid l !kxe5 1 1 .if5+ Wc7 1 2 .if4
iixd l + 1 3 'ikxd l !kxf4 14 'ikd7+
wb6 1 5 tl:lc3 lt:lf6 1 6 lll a4+ wa6 1 7
'ikd3 ++.
6 i.e2 was recommended by
Lasker in De Telegraaf in 1 920,
and if 6 . . . lll ge 7 7 0-0 ll:lg6 8 l:Ie 1
i.e7 9 ll:la3 lt:\gxe5 I O ll:l xe5 lt:\xe5
1 1 ed cd 1 2 lt:lb5 .
6 cd
7 .id3 lll ge7 (23)
Alternatives are no better:
a) 7 ... lL:lxeS? 8 'ike2 f6 9 .if4 (9
lt:\xe5 'ika5+ IO Wd 1 is even
stronger) 9 . . . .id6 IO tl:lbd2 !ke7
1 1 i.xe5 fe 12 0-0 .ig4 13 c5! .ic7
14 .ib5+ P.Johner-Duras,
Carlsbad 1 907.
b) 7 ... i.cS 8 0-0 lLJge7 9 a3 a5 IO
lLJbd2 0-0 1 1 ll:l g5 ! ? h6 12 lLJh7
lLJxe5 13 ll:l xf8 lLJxd3 1 4 ll:le4 lt:lc6
1 5 'ikxd3 .ixf8 16 lLJg3 .ie6 1 7
Il e 1 'ti'f6 1 8 ll:l h 5 'ikb4 when the
two bishops gave Black compen
sation for the e xchange but he

eventually lost in Dus-Hotimirsky
Tartakower, Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 .
c) 7 ... i.b4+ 8 i.d2 li:::.ge7 9 0-0
ll:ig6 1 0 i.xb4 ll:i xb4 1 1 i.xg6 hg
12 llJ xd4 'ti'h4 1 3 ll:if3 'ti'xc4 1 4
ll:ibd2 - Bogoljubow.
d) 7 ... i.g4 8 0-0 (8 i.f4 is also
strong: 8 . . . 'ti'c7 9 i.g3 0-0-0 1 0
0-0 ll:i h 6 1 1 ll:ibd2 ll:if5 1 2 i.. xf5+
i.xf5 1 3 a3 d3 14 b4 ll:id4 1 5 llJ xd4
lhd4 16 'ti'a4 'it>b8, Takacs
Tartakower, Vienna 1 922, and
now 17 c 5 ! ) 8 . . . 'ti'c7 9 h3 i.xf3
IO 'ti'xf3 ll:i xe5? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 ::e l
:t) 1 1 lle l i.d6 ( 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2
l:ixe5 'ti'xe5 1 3 .U5+ 'it>b8 1 4 i.f4
wins) 1 2 i.f4 ll:ie7 1 3 i.xe5 i.xe5
14 ll:ia3 a6 15 c5 ! i.f6 16 llJc4!
'ti'xc5 I 7 'ti'xb 7 0-0 18 ll:ib6 !
Grtinfeld-Tartakower, Carlsbad
1 923 ( I -0, 29).
8 0-0
8 llJbd2 is also good for White :
8 . . . i.g4 9 'ti'b3 'fic7 1 0 0-0 0-0-0
I I lie I llJg6 I2 h3 ( 1 2 i.xg6 keeps
the pawn but gives Black
compensation in two bishops and
Early Divergences 1 3
a n open h-file) I 2 . . . i.e6 (if I 2 . . .
i.xf3 1 3 i.xg6 ! hg I 4 ll:ixf3) 1 3
i.e4 ! liJ gxe5 (if I 3 . . . i.e7 I 4 i.d5 !
i.xd5 1 5 cd ll:icxe5 1 6 ll:ixe5 llJ xe5
I 7 li:::.f3 li:::. xf3+ I 8 'ti'xf3 -
Tartakower) 1 4 ll:ixe5 'fixe5 { 1 4 . . .
ll:ixe5 1 5 'ti'xb7+ 'fixb7 1 6 i.xb7+
'it>xb7 17 l:Ixe5 - Bogolj ubow)
15 llJf3 'ti'c5 1 6 i.f4! i.d6 1 7 J.xc6
be 1 8 i.xd6 llxd6 1 9 ll:ie5? ! ( 1 9
ll:id2 ! 'ti'b6 20 'ti'a3 c 5 2 1 ll.e5 llc6
22 llJe4 would have given White a
winning attack - Tarrasch) 1 9 . . .
llhd8? ( 1 9 . . . 'ti'b6 2 0 'fla3 c5 2 1
ll:id3 l::t c 6 22 llac l 'it>b7 oo -
Tarrasch) 20 'ti'a4! Tarrasch
Tartakower, Berlin 1 920.
8 ll:ig6
Also inadequate is 8 . . . i.g4 9
lle l ll:ig6 1 0 h3 Reti-Tartakower,
Amsterdam 1 9 20.
9 h3 i.e7
10 lle 1 0-0 1 1 ll:ibd2 i.b4 12 a3
i.xd2 1 3 i.xd2 lle8 14 'ti'c2 i.e6
1 5 b4 'ti'd7 16 llad l Heinig
Stark , East German Ch 1 978
( 1-0, 26). White retained the extra
pawn and the two bishops .
Conclusion
3 e3 allows Black easy equality,
while 3 llJc3 may give Black even
more with the promising pawn
sacrifice in variation B .
After the normal continuation 3
de d4, the bl under 4 e3? practically
14 Early Divergences

loses by force , while 4 a3 is undermi ned with a good game for

innocuous. White should play 4 White. Black should play 4 . . .
lt'if3 when Tartakower's 4 lLic6 whic h , o f course , transposes
c5?! allows Black's centre to be to later chapters .
3 Spassky's 4 e4
1 d4 dS
2 c4 eS
3 de d4
4 e4 (24)
Although this move was played
in the first recorded Albin in
Milan 1 88 1 , it was Spassky who
demonstrated the attacking possi
bilities behind the move in games
against Mikenas and Belyavsky.
However Black has several lines
which give him good counterplay
and the variation now has a poor
reputation.
From the diagram we consider:
A 4 . . . ll:ic6
B 4 . . . f6 !?
4 . . . .tc5 !? 5 f4 f6 was tried in
Berger-Krejcik, Vienna 1 907,
which continued 6 ef ll:i xf6 7 .td3
lll c 6 8 a3 a5 9 lll f3 0-0 IO 0-0 l:le8
1 1 e5 ll:i g4 12 I!e I ? i.f5 ! 1 3 .txf5
d3+ 1 4 <Jtfl 'ii'h 4! 15 't!t'd2 't!t'xh2 !
1 6 .txd3 't!t'h I + 1 7 <Jte2 't!t'xg2+ 1 8
<Jtd I 't!t'xf3+ and Black soon won .
4 . . . .tb4+ i s a n untested
suggestion of Panov.
A
5 f4
The thematic move. The alter
native methods of defending the
e-pawn have proved unsuccessful:
a) 5 .tf4 ll:ige7 6 i.g3 (6 lllf3 lll g6
7 i.g3 .tg4 8 i.e2 i.b4+ 9 <Jtfl 0-0
IO a3 .te7 1 1 't!t'b3 .txf3 1 2 gf
lll g xe5 1 3 f4 lt:la5 14 't!t'b5 d3 !
1 5 fe de+ 16 <Jtxe2 c6 1 7 't!t'a4
't!t'b6 1 8 ll:id2 l:lad8 1 9 't!t'c2 l:l xd2+
20 't!t'xd2 ll:i xc4 21 't!t'c3 't!t'a6! 22
cJtf3 f5 with a good attack for
the exchange, Senchovici-Ianovici,
16 Spassky's 4 e4
corres 1 9 34-5) 6 . . . h5 7 h3?! (7 h4
tt:lg6 8 f4 - 8 0./3 il.g4 9 i.. e 2
il.xf3! Meinsohn - 8 . . . i.. e 7 9 0.f3
i..g4 10 lt:ibd2 d3 1 1 'iWb3 lt:ib4 1 2
0-0-0 a 5 + ) 7 . . . g5! 8 h4 g4 9 lt:i bd2
tt:lg6 1 0 f4 i.. e 7 1 1 i..d 3 lt:ixh4 1 2
'iWe2 lt:ig6 1 3 e6! h4! 1 4 'iWxg4
i.. xe6 15 f5 i.. c 8 ! 1 6 i..h 2 tt:l ge5 1 7
'iWe2 0.xd3+ 1 8 'iWxd3 lt:ib4 1 9
'iWb3 a 5 2 0 ll:ih3?! (20 a3) 2 0 . . . a4
21 'it'd l lt:id3+ 22 \t>fl lt:i xb 2 23
'it'g4 l:la6! + Janowski-Maroczy,
Munich 1 900 (0- 1 , 35).
b) 5 lt:if3 if.g4 ( 5 . . . i.. b 4+ 6 if.d2
'it'e7 intending . . . if.g4 and . . . 0-0-0
- Panov) 6 'iWb3 (6 i.. f4 f6? ! - 6 . . .
i..b4+ 7 l0d2 'it'e7! - 7 ef lt:ixf6 8
i.. d 3 i..b 4+ 9 if.d2 0-0 1 0 0-0 i.. x d2
1 1 lt:ibxd2 tt:le5 12 c5 t Salvioli
Calvalotti, Milan 1 8 8 1 , 1-0, 38 -
the first ever Albin ! ) 6 . . . i.. b 4+
(also good is 6 . . . i.. xf3 7 gf lL:ixe5
e.g. 8 'iWb5+ lL:id7 9 'iWxb7?! i.. c 5 1 0
i..h3 tt:Jgf6 1 1 i.. xd7+ lt:Jxd7 1 2 i..g 5
'it'xg5 13 'iWxa8+ \t>e7 14 'iWxh8
'it'c l+ 1 5 \t>e2 d3+ with a mating
attack, Brandt-Sotela, 1 937) 7
lll fd2 'iWh4 8 a3 i..x d2+ 9 lL:ixd2
0-0-0 10 g3 'iWh5 1 1 f4 d3 with
a strong initiative fo r Black,
Janowski-Marshall, match 1 908.
Now material divides:
A l 5 . . . g5
A2 5 . . . f6 !
5 .. . i..c 5 is not sufficiently
aggressive . After 6 a3 a5 7 lL:if3
i..g4 (7 . . . lbh6 8 h 3 ! Aloni
Thiellment, Tel Aviv 01 1 964.
White has prevented the plan of . . .
0.g4 and . . . lt:ie3) 8 i..d 3 f6 9 e f
ll:ixf6 1 0 h 3 .i.xf3 1 1 'iWxf3 0-0 1 2
0-0 'iWe7 1 3 lLid2 0.d7 1 4 'iWe2 'iWh4
15 e5 and Black had nothing to
show for his pawn in Burn-Cohn,
M unich 1 900.
Al
5 . . . gS (26)
Schlechter's move . Now White
can choose between:
A l l 6 lt:Jf3
A l 2 6 f5
Alternatives are also satisfactory
for Black:
a) 6 i.. d3 gf 7 J.xf4 lt:Jge7 8 i.. g 3
lll g 6 9 'iWh5 i.. b 4+ 10 \t>e2 i.. e 6 1 1
lll f3 'iWd7 1 2 h 3 i.. e 7 1 3 a3 lt:Ja5 1 4
lllb d2 c 5 1 5 Ii hc l ll:ic6 1 6 \t>f2 Iig8 !
+ ( 1 7 \t>g l i.. x h3 !) Bum-Schlechter,
Munich 1 900.
b) 6 fg i..b4+ ( 6 ... lt:ixe5 + Minev,
-
ECO) 7 i.. d 2 'iWxg5 8 lt:if3 'iWg6 9
'iWc2 i.. g4 1 0 i.. e 2 0-0-0 + Pomar
Medina, Madrid 1 943.
c) 6 g3? gf 7 J.xf4 i.. g 7 8 lt:Jf3 i.. g4
+ Minev, ECO.
 Spassky's 4 e4 17

All 18 llld 5 hg ! ! 0- 1 (if 19 lLib6+

6 lll f3 (27) 'it>c7 ! 20 lllx d7 ::xh 2+ 2 1 lLixh2
E:h8 - Fernschach) K opacka
Sapundziev, Czechoslovak corres
1 960 .
Al2
6 rs (28J

6 gf
7 .i.xf4 .ig4
8 .i.d3
A game Kersev-Il kov saw 8
.i.e2 i.. b 4+ 9 'it>f2 .ic5 IO .i.d3
li:Jge 7 1 1 'iVd2 .ixf3 12 gf lLig6 1 3
a3? lll c xe5 1 4 'it>e2 lll x d3 1 5 'it>xd3
'iVf6 ! 0- 1 .
8 li:Jge7
9 0-0 lll g 6
1 0 i,g3?
This concedes the c l -h6 diagonal;
better was 10 'iVc l .ixf3 1 1 l:l: xf3
lll c xe5 1 2 .ixe5 lll x e5 1 3 l:l:g3, but
13 . . . 'iVf6 intending . . . 0-0-0 still
6 . . . lll xe5
7 lllf3 lll xf3+ !
7 . . . .ib4+?! occurred in two of
Spassky's games . They continued
8 lll b d2 (8 'it>f2 ! lll g4+ 9 'it>g l ..tc5
10 b4 - Spassky) 8 . . . lbc6 9 i.d3
(9 a3 i.d6 oo A.Geller-Mikenas,
44th USSR Ch 195 1 ) 9 . . . g4 IO 0-0!
gf 1 1 lLi xf3 and now:
a) 11 . . ..td6 12 e5 ! lllx e5 ( 1 2 . . .
.

gives Black the advantage - i.xe5 1 3 ::e l f6 1 4 b 4 with good

Fernschach. chances for White - Cafferty) 1 3
10 i.h6! l:le l f{j 1 4 c5 ! i.e7 1 5 lLixe5 ( 1 5
11 'iVb3 'iVd7 E:xe5 fe 1 6 lLixe5 lllf6 1 7 .ic4
12 e6 ! i.xe6 .i.xc 5 oo) 1 5 . . . fe 1 6 l:l: xe5 lLif6 1 7
13 lll a3? i.. g 5 0-0 1 8 "i!b3+ Wh8 1 9 l:l:ae I
1 3 'iVxb 7 had to be tried. () 1 9 . . . i.xc5 20 l:l:xc5 'iVd6 2 1
13 . . . 0-0-0! + E:ce5 lllg4 22 i..f4 i.. d 7 2 3 .ig3
1 4 'iVa4 i.e3+ 1 5 Wh l (if 1 5 .if2 Ji.c6? 24 l:l:5e4 l -0 Spassky-Mikenas,
lll f4 1 6 i.xe3 de 1 7 i.. c 2 lllx g2) Riga 1 9 59 .
15 . . . h5 16 lll b 5? a6 17 lll xc7 h4! b) 1 1 ... 'iVe7 1 2 e 5 a 5 1 3 a3 .i. c 5 1 4
18 Spassky's 4 e4
b4 ! ab 1 5 i.g5 f6 1 6 ef f7 1 7 ab
with a strong attack for the
sacrificed piece, Spassky-Belyavsky,
Leningrad 1 9 5 5 .
c ) 1 1 . . . f6 1 2 a3 i.d6 1 3 b 4 lLie5 14
c5 - S passky, e.g. 1 4 ... tLixf3+
15 Il:xf3 i.e5 16 i.c4 (intending
l:id3 , i.b2) 16 . .. lLie7 17 l:ih3 with
good chances - Spassky.
8 xf3 (29)
Black now has the following
possibilities:
a) 8 . . . f6? ! 9 i.d3 i.d6 l O e 5 !
i.xe5 ( l O . . . xe5+ 1 1 c;.t>d l ) 1 1
lll d 2 e7 1 2 0-0 f6 ( 1 2 . . . g4)13 c 5 !
Korchnoi-Shapkin, USSR Junior
Teams 1 949.
b) 8 . . . i.d7!? 9 e 5 !? i.c6 l O g3
d3! and now:
b l ) 11 xd3 'it'xd3 12 i.xd3 0-0-0
with a fine position for Black.
b2) 1 1 i.xd3 'it'd4 intending . . .
0-0-0 and Black stands well.
b3) 11 .txg5 i.b4+ and again
Black's plan of . . . d4 and . . . 0-0-0
gives him a good game - analysis
by the author and N . R . Davies .
c) 8 . . . .i.d6!? - Minev in ECO.
d) 8 ... .tg7 9 .i.d3 h5 lO lll d 2 lL'if6
+ - Le Gambit A lbin, and if 1 1 e5?
lll g4 1 2 e6 fe 1 3 lll e4 lll e 5 14 'it'e2
ef 15 .i.xg5 fe 16 .i.xd8 lll x d3+ 1 7
c;.t>d2 e3+! 1 8 c;.t>c2 ( 1 8 c;.t>xd3 .i.f5
mate) 1 8 . . . .if5 ++ .
e) 8 . . . h5 9 i.d3 (9 e5 e7 + -
Minev, ECO) 9 . . . f6 l O h4 g4 1 1
'it'g3 .i.d6 + Halprin-Lapiken ,
USA 1953, which continued 1 2
.i.f4 .i.xf4 1 3 xf4 e7 1 4 0-0
lll h 6 15 lll d2 lll f7 + .
A2
5 f6 ! (30)
Black sacrifices a pawn for a
lead in development. The e-pawn
comes under immediate attack
and the manoeuv re . . . lll g4-e3 will
be threatened.
A2 1 6 ef
A22 6 lll f3
A21
6 ef lll xf6
Minev suggests 6 . . . i.b4+ 7
i.d2 lll x f6 .
7 .td3 .tb4+
7 . . . .tc5 transposes into the
ga me Berger-Krejcik, p . 1 5 .

More forcing than 8 . . 0-0 9 .
lll f3 (9 a 3 !?) 9 e7 I O 0-0 lll g4
.
I I a3 lll e3 I 2 e2 i.xd2 I 3 .ixd2
lll xfl I 4 l:l:xfl a5 I 5 f5 a4,
although Black stood well in
Vasyukov-Gusev, Moscow 1959,
but I -0 , 43 after many ups and
downs.
8 .. e7 9 e2 .ig4 is a good
. a3 gf! I I ab fe I 2 l:l: e I ef! I 3 xf3
alternative. After I 0 lll f3 lll h5 I I
g3 g5 I 2 a3 gf! I 3 ab fg I 4 hg lll xg3
I5 g2 .ixf3 I6 lt:J xf3 lll xh I I 7
xh I 0-0-0 with a strong attack
for Black, Grizza-Rubinraut,
Haifa 01 I 976.
9 a3 lt:Je3
I O e2 i.g4 I I lt:Jf3 (I I f2 !?) I I
. . . i.. xf3 I 2 xf3 (if I 2 gf h4+
I3 f2 lt:Jg2+) I 2 . . . 0-0 ! I 3 g3 ( I 3
ab l:l:xf4 ! I 4 e2 lt:J xb4 with too
many threats for Black) 1 3 . . .
lll e 5 I 4 e2 l:ixf4! I 5 a b ( 1 5 gf?
Spassky's 4 e4 19
h4+ ++- ) I 5 . . . f6 1 6 l:l: f l l:l:xfl +
I7 lll xf I lll f3+ + Osipov-Zhuravlev,
Yif Latvian Ch I 972. After I 8 \t>f2
lt:Jxh2+ I 9 \t>e I lt:Jhxfl Black had
a winning advantage (0- I , 43).
A22
6 lt:Jf3 (32)
6 . . . fe
7 i..d3
Alternatives are also satisfactory
for Black:
a) 7 rs proved a waste of time after
7 . . . i.b4+ 8 \t>f2 lt:Jf6 9 i.d3 g6 I 0
lt:Jg4+ I4 \t>g3 l:l:g8 I 5 h3 lll e3+ 1 6
\t>h2 l:l: xg2+ I 7 \t>h I .ig4 ! I 8
i.xe3 i. xf3 I9 l:l:xf3 e4 ! 20 i.xe4
l:i:e2 0- I Szilagyi-Forintos, Buda
pest Ch I 963/ 4. An entertaining
miniature .
b) 7 a3 and now:
bI) 7 ... i.g4?! 8 i.e2 i.xf3 9 i.xf3
ef IO .ixf4 i.d6 I I e5 ! ( I I d2?
lt:Je5 ! i ntending . . . lt:J xf3+ and . . .
h4+) I I . .. lt:Jxe5 I 2 i.xe5 .ixe5
1 3 .ixb7 Le Gambit A lbin.
-
b2) 7 . . . ef?! 8 b4!? (8 .i.xf4 a5 oo) .
20 Spassky's 4 e4
b3) 7 ... as 8 f5 ( 8 .id3 ef 9 .ixf4
l:i:Jge7 1 0 e5 ltif5 =; 8 fe .ig4 9 .tf4
- 9 .ie2 .txf3 1 0 .ixf3 l:i:Jxe5 + - 9
. . . l:i:Jge7 1 0 h3 .ixf3 1 1 ''xf3 lti g6
1 2 'iWh5 il.. e 7 intending 1 3 . . . 0-0
+) 8 . . . g6 9 .i.d3 .i.e7 ! 1 0 0-0 l:i:Jf6
l l l:i:Jg5 h6 1 2 l:i:Jf3 g5 1 3 h4 l:i:Jg4 +
Le Gambit A lbin .
7 .ib4+ ! (33)
7 . . . .ig4 was tried in Tal
Springall , England 1 964. White
soon obtained the upper hand
after 8 0-0 i.d6? ! (better was 8 . . .
l:i:Jge7) 9 c5 ! .i.xc5 10 't!Vb3 ''d7 1 1
l:i:Jxe5 l:i:Jxe5 1 2 fe 0-0-0 1 3 l:i:Jd2
l:i:Je 7 14 l:i:Jc4 l:idf8 1 5 i.f4 i.e2
(better was 1 5 . . . .ie6) 1 6 e6 !
't!Vd8 (if 1 6 . . . 't!Vxe6 17 ltid6+ is
crushing) 1 7 l:i:Je5 ! and White won
in 25 moves .
8 l:i:Jbd2 ef
9 0-0 ltif6
10 l:i:Jb 3
1 0 a3 .ixd2 l l .ixd2 is probably
better, but Black still stands well .
10 0-0
11 cS 'iWe7
Spassky-Lutikov, Vif 3 1 st USSR
Ch, Kharkov 1 963. Black already
stands slightly better and after 1 2
'i!'c2 l:i:Jd7 1 3 i.b5 .ixc5 1 4 @ h I
.ib6 1 5 i.xc6 be 1 6 l:i:Jfxd4 l:i:Jf6 1 7
.ixf4 't!Vxe4 1 8 'i!'xe4 l:i:Jxe4 1 9 i.e3
l:ie8 the endgame was clearly
in Black's favour. Spassky man
aged to draw after 20 i.g l c5 2 1
l:i:Jf3 c4 22 ltibd2 l:i:Jxd2 23 l:i:Jxd2
.ib7 24 .i.xb6 ab 25 l:if2 b 5 26
@g l l:iad 8 27 l:ic l l:id3 28 a 3
l:ide3 2 9 l:i:Jf3 i.xf3 30 gf lie I + 3 1
Iixe l lixe l + 3 2 @g2 l:Ic l 33
l:Id2 @f8 34 l:id7 c3 35 be l:Ixc3 36
h4 h5 37 <;t>g3 c6 38 l:ic7 l:Ic4 39
@f2 @g8 40 @e3 @h7 41 @d3 lie !
42 @d4 @h 6 43 @e5 lic4 44 f4
Vi- Vi .
B
4 f6 !? (34)
A recent idea which rs an
accelerated form of variation A2
above. Black aims for rapid
development and play down the
e- and f-files.
5 ef l:i:Jxf6
6 .id3 l:i:Jc6
7 l:i:Je2
 Spassky's 4 e4 21

7 f4 would transpose to var. A2 1 ll:xf4 1 4 lt:\xf4 'i!fxf4 15 f3 i.d6

and may be best. ++; 13 i.xe5 lLixe5 14 f4 'i!fxh3 1 5
7 . . . i.b4+ fe ll xf l + 1 6 'i!fxfl xd3 ++
8 i.d2 Joks ic) 1 3 . . . xh3 14 f4 lt:lg4 1 5
If 8 lt:l d2 0-0 9 0-0 lt:le5 + - l:If2 ( 1 5 b3 llf6! intending . . .
Joks ic. llh6 ++ ) 1 S . . . lLice5 with a
8 0-0 crushing attack for Black.
9 0-0 lt:lg4
10 h3 lt:l ge5 +1+ Conclusion
11 i.f4
If 1 1 i.c l i.xh 3 ! ++ - Joksic. Spassky's 4 e4 is currently
11 i.xh3!! (35) under a cloud with Black having
a choice of satisfactory replies.
35.E ;. - After 4 . . . lbc6 S f4, the pawn
w - -'?a
[.I .. sacrifice S . . f6 seems somewhat
1a better than 5 . . . g5, although the
.
. 4Ji .
latter is also quite satisfactory for
lSlS/ ;
, .,,.; ,.....>.
Black . After the former move ,
the game Spassky-Lutikov is
..t .... a particularly instructive e xample
t!:. RttJ t!:.R of how Black can seize the
ltj-
ll
,.....>. initiative .
Dj uric-J o ksic, Vrnjacka Banja An accelerated form of this
1 978. White was torn to shreds variation with 4 . . . f6 (var. B) has
after 1 2 gh "it'h4 1 3 i.g3 ( l 3 h2 recently been tried and the attempt
Ir. xf4 14 lt:\xf4 'i!fxf4+ 1 5 \t>g2 Ir.f8 by White to avoid transposition to
intending . . . lt:\g6 ++; 1 3 g2 Spassky-Lutikov was punished.
4 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves

I d4 dS Two other moves which have

2 c4 es been tried:
3 de d4 a) 5 b3?! unnecessarily weakens
4 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 (36) the queenside: 5 . . . ..tg4! 6 tt:Jbd2
i.b4 7 a 3 (7 i.b2 .txf3 8 gf
lt:Jxe5 + - Meinsohn) 7 . . . i.c3
8 E:a2 '!ie7 9 .ib2 0-0-0 1 0 '!Jc !
.txf3 1 1 .txc3 lt:Jxe5 ! 1 2 i.b4
'!ie6 + Neumann-Reiber, Hamburg
1 974.
b) 5 '!ib3 has more point: 5 . . . i.c5
6 g3 lt:Jge7 7 i.g2 ..tb4+? ! (7 . . 0-0
.

is fine for Black) 8 ..td2 a5 9 0-0

.US I 0 a3 a4 1 1 '!id l ..tcS 1 2 .ib4
This is the normal position of b6 13 lt:Jbd2 '!id7 14 lt:Jh4 i.h3
the Albin Counter Gambit and 15 ..txc5 i.xg2 16 lt:Jxg2 be 17 f4
the most frequently played moves lt:Ja5 with compensation for the
are 5 lt:Jbd2 (dealt with in Chapters pawn in Sapi-Besztercsenyi, Buda
5-7) and 5 g3 (covered in Chapters pest Ch 1 964.
8- 1 0). A
This chapter covers other 5th 5 a3 (37)
moves, unless they subsequently
transpose to a later c hapter in
which case they will be cross
referenced. By far the most
common of these is 5 a3 .
Our material divides as follows :
A 5 a3
B 5 ..tf4
C 5 ..tgS
D 5 e3?!

White both prevents . . . J.b4+
a nd prepares queenside expansion
with b4. In addition the manouevre
lll b d2-b 3 , together with .ib2, will
often win the d-pawn . Black now
has a choice of plans. He can
prevent White's expansion by . . .
a5. A n alternative i s t o offer a
gambit with . . . f6, arguing that a3
is not going to be relevant. Finally,
both . . . .ie6 and . .. i.g4 slow
White down by threatening to win
the c- and e-pawns respectively.
Al 5 . . . a5
A2 5 ... f6
A3 5 . . . i.e6
A4 5 . . . i.g4
5 . . . lt:Jge7 is interesting:
a) 6 g3 lt:Jg6 7 J.g2 .ig4 8 0-0
'it'd7 9 'it'c2 (an unnatural move;
9 lb bd2 was stronge r and if 9 . . .
lt:Jgxe5 1 0 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jxe5 1 1 J. xb7 or
9 . . . J.xf3 10 ef lt:Jgxe5 1 1 f4 are
both a little better for White -
Barden and Heidenfeld) 9 . . . J.e7
10 b4 lid8 1 1 b5 lt:Jcxe5 1 2 lt:Jxe5
lt:Jxe5 13 J.f4 ( 1 3 J.xb7 should
have been tried) 1 3 . . . d3 !
and Black had a fine game
in Woolverton-Pritchard, British
Team Ch 1 959, which continued
14 ed lbxd3 1 5 J.xb7? lb xf4
1 6 J.c6 lll e2+ 1 7 g2 (if 1 7 h i
'it'xc6 1 8 be J.O mate) 1 7 . . .
'it'xc6+ ! 1 8 b e J.f3+ 1 9 h 3 lid6
20 'it'd2 g5 ! 0- 1 .
b) 6 e3 lt:Jf5 7 ed lt:Jfxd4 8 lll xd4
'it'xd4 9 'it'xd4 ll:ixd4 1 0 d 1 J.f5
5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 23
1 1 lll d 2 (Black threatened . . . lll b 3)
1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 b4 f6 ! + Beers
Mengarini, Brooklyn 1 967.
c) 6 lll bd2 .ie6 (6 . . . lll g6 !?) 7 b4
lll g 6 8 .ib2 lt:Jgxe5 9 b5 lll xf3+
10 ef lt:Ja5 1 1 J.d3 - Bogoljubow.
Al
5 a5 (38)
Black thus prevents the plan of
b4-b5 , but effectively loses the
possibility of queenside castling.
Now:
A l 1 6 g3
A l 2 6 e3
A 13 6 lll bd2!
Three o ther possibilities are less
dangerous:
a) 6 .i.f4 was harmless after 6 ... f6
(6 . . . lll ge7 7 'it'd3 - 7 lll bd2
transposes to Chapter 7 var. E -
7 . . . lll g 6 8 i.g3 - if 8 J.g5 J.e7
9 J.xe 7 xe7! - 8 . . . h 5 9 h4
J.c5 ! - preventing e3 - 10 lt:Jbd2
'it'e7 1 1 lll e 4 ll:icxe5 12 lt:Jxe5 lt:J xe5
13 .ixe5 'it'xe5 14 ll:ixc5 'it'xc5
15 0-0-0 J.e6 16 'it'xd4 t - Le
Gambit A lbin) 7 ef lll xf6 8 'it'd3
(8 g3 intending J.g2, 0-0 - Euwe)
24 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves
8 . . . .tc5 9 ll:lbd2 e7 1 0 ll:lb3
when Black seized t he initiative by
10 . . . ll:le4 ! 1 1 lll b xd4 .ltxd4
12 ll:l xd4 ll:lc5 1 3 e3 ll:lxd4
14 xd4 ll:lb3 ++ Batick-Macht,
corres 1 927.
b) 6 d3!? (a suggestion of
Ulvestad's) 6 . . . .tc5 (6 . . . ll:lge7
threatening . . . i.f5 and if 7 .ig5 h6
8 i.h4 g5 9 i.g3 i.. g 7 is stro nger)
7 ll:lbd2 a4 8 g3 ll:lge7 9 ll:le4 .ib6
10 i.g2 0-0 1 1 0-0 lb g6 1 2 .tg5
d7 1 3 .if6 f5 1 4 c5 1ia7
1 5 lll xd4 ll:lxd4 1 6 xd4 gf
17 ll:l xf6+ gave White three pawns
and a strong attack for the piece in
Mayer-Jones, Washington 1 980
( 1 -0, 26).
c) 6 h3 (preventing . . . i.g4) 6 . . .
i.c5 (6 . . . ll:lge7 ! ? intending . . .
ll:lg6 again co mes into con
sideration) 7 i.g5 ll:l ge7 8 ll:lbd2
h6 9 ..th4 ..te6 10 l:lc l a4 1 1 g4
'ifd7 12 i.g2 ll:lg6 13 .i.g3 h5
(Black has the initiative for the
pawn) 14 gh l:l:xh5 1 5 h4 ll:lgxe5
16 ll:lxe5 ll:lxe5 1 7 ll:le4 .i.b6
18 ..txe5 l:l:xe5 19 c5 .i.a5+
20 @fl .i.b3 2 1 d3 l:l:a6
22 lll g 5 oo Janowski-Tarrasch,
Monte Carlo 1 902.
All
6 g3 ll:lge7 (39)
6 . . . it.e6 was popular with
Weaver Adams. White has the
following possibilities:
a) 7 'ifd3! ? ..tc5 8 .i.g2 ll:lge7
9 ..tg5 h6 1 0 i.xe7 'ifxe7 1 1 0-0 0-0
1 2 ll:lbd2 ll:fd8 1 3 ll:ad l a4 1 4 'ife4
ll:a5 1 5 ll:le I 'ifd 7 1 6 lll d 3 .U5
1 7 f4 .ie7 1 8 .txc6 be 1 9 ll:lf3
c5 20 h4 ll:a6 2 1 'it>h2 ll:b6 22 ll:b I
l:l:db8 23 'ifd2 'ife6 2 4 ll:fc l g5
25 ll:c2 g6 + Rossetto-Adams ,
Hollywood (Pan A m e rican Ch)
1 945 .
b) 7 b3 .ic5 8 i.. g2 ll:l ge7 9 0-0 ll\g6
10 i.b2 ll:lgxe5 1 1 lll xe5 lll xe5
12 e3 ! ? i.g4 1 3 f3? ( 1 3 'ifd2! ) 1 3
. . . d e 1 4 'ife2 ll:lxf3 + ! 1 5 @h i
( 1 5 i.xf3 fails to 1 5 . . . .ixf3
16 ll:xf3 di+) 15 . . . lll xh2 +
Marchand-Adams, St. Louis 1 94 1 .
A n inconclusive game.
c) 7 ll:lbd2 ! (the most natural way
of defending c4) 7 ... .ic5 ( 7 . . .
d 7 also fai led t o equalise in
Eks trom-Mieses, Hastings 1 945,
after 8 i.g2 i.c5 9 0-0 ll:l ge 7 1 0 b3
ll:lg6 1 1 .ib2 ll:lgxe5 12 lll xe5
lll xe5 1 3 ..txb7 ) 8 i.g2 lll g e7
9 0-0 0-0 10 c2 ll:lg6 1 1 lLib3 i.a7
12 i.. g 5 'ifd 7 13 ll:ad 1 lll g xe5
14 ll:l xe5 ll:l xe5 15 c5 ! Fine
Adams, New York 1 939-40.
6 . . . it.c5 !? 7 ll:lbd2 i.. g4 8 it.g2
i.a7 9 0-0 lll ge7 =is recommended
by Wiener Schachzeitung, b ut there
are no practical examples.
Finally, 6 ... i.g4 ! ? is a nalysed
extensively in Le Gambit A lbin:
7 i.g2 ..tc5 8 lll b d2 lll g e7 9 h3
..tf5 ! (9 . . . Jl.e6? 10 lLi g5 lll xe5?
1 1 it.xb7 ll:b8 1 2 ..tg2 0-0 1 3 ll:l xe6
fe 14 lLie4 i.a7 1 5 lLig5! ) I O g4
( 1 0 0-0 d7 ! ; 10 lLib3 i.. a 7 1 1 c5

7 i.g2 lLig6
The difference between this
position and the li nes after 6 . . .
i.e6 above i s apparent: Black's
b-pawn is defended and he thus
threatens to take on e5.
8 i.g5 d7
9 e3 de
1 0 xd 7+ i.xd7
Black has at least an equal
ending. The game Nikolayevsky
Bernstein , U kraine ( Sp artak Ch)
1 9 7 5 , continued 1 1 i.xe3 lligxe5
12 lLi xe5 llixe5 1 3 i.d4 lll d 3+
14 @d2 llic5 15 @c3 llie6
1 6 i.e3 i.e7 17 @c2 i.f6 1 8 llic3
0-0-0 19 :tihd 1 lll d 4+ ! +.
Al2
6 e3 i.c5 (40)
The ending after 6 . . . de 7 xd8+
is m uch better for White, the move
. . . a5 having done nothing to help
Black's position.
7 ed i.xd4
7 . . . llixd4? ! 8 i.e3 i.g4 9 i.e2
llixf3+ 1 0 gf i.xe3 1 1 xd8+
5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 25
l:l:xd8 12 fe i.e6 1 3 lLic3 was
clearly better for White in Ah ues
Mieses, match 1 929 .
8 llixd4
8 i.e2 allowed Blac k to regain
his pawn with a fine game after
8 . . . .ll e 6 9 0-0 i.xe5 10 llixe5
llixe5 1 1 c2 llic6 1 2 i.e3 lll d4
1 3 i.xd4 xd4 14 lld l e5 ,
Pruun-Keres , Parnu 1 9 3 3 .
8 xd4
9 e2
The ending after 9 xd4 lLi xd4
is better for Black: I 0 l:l:a2 (what
else? - if 10 @d 1? i.g4+ 1 1 f3 lll xf3 !
1 2 h3 0-0-0+ or 1 2 .td3 lLib3) 1 0 . . .
.U5 1 1 llic3 llic2+ (the immediate
. . . 0-0-0 is also good) 1 2 @e2 0-0-0
with a clear advantage in Brody
Lennsen , Hanover 1 902.
9 i.g4
IO f3 0-0-0
11 fg lll f6
1 2 .td2 llixe5 1 3 llic3 lLi fxg4 1 4
0-0-0 lLi f2 oo Tarkanov-Syavlyu k ,
Vif U S S R Corres C h 1 96 1 .
Al3
6 lll bd2 ! (41)
26 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves

7 i.xf3
41 :I .lLJ ... . Not 7 . . . i.e6?! (Harding gives
sn1m n1m1 an ! ) 8 g3 'Ylt'd7 9 i.. g 2 i.. c5
..... . . 1 0 ll:J g5 ! Pachman-Plachetka,
.. .
,,,,,,7, .. .. .
,,,,,,7, Czechoslovakia 1 968.
-
.. -
,,,,,,7, ..
.. 8 ll:Jxf3 i.c5
9 g3 tt:Jge7
Bf"'BlDB
?&f%
[ ?&f% [ ?&f%
10 i.g2
[ Also playable is 10 i.. g5
D
,,,,,,,, mJl.
,.,,., 'ga
,,, -
h6 1 1 i.xe7 'Y!t'xe7 1 2 i.g2 t
6 i.g4 - Rompteau-Henrikson, corres
This position may also be 1 946-7.
reached by the move order 5 lbbd2 10 0-0
i.g4 6 a3 a5, If 1 0 . . . ll:Jg6 1 1 h4 ! ? ( 1 1 0-0 ll:b8
6 , , . i.f5 has no point here as 12 'Ylt'c2'Y!t'e7 - 12 . . . lbgxe5 13 lLlxe5
. . . lb b4 is never a threat. lbxe5 14 iJ..xb7 :iixb7 15 'Y!t' e4+
6 . . . i.e6!? (suggested by - 1 3 i.d2 t) 1 1 . . . 'Y!t'c8 (also
Kmoch) 7 lbb3 .bc4 8 tt:Jbxd4 i.c5 inadequate is 1 1 . . . ll:b8 1 2 i.g5!
9 il.. e 3 (9 e3 i.xf l 1 0 ll:xfl 'Ylt'd7 ! i.e7 1 3 i.xe7 xe7 1 4 ll:Jxd4 !
intending . . . 0-0-0 + ) 9 . . . 'Ylt'd5 l:ld8 1 5 i.xc6+ be 1 6 tt:Jxc6 ! 1 -0
10 ll:J xc6 iixe3 1 1 fe 'Y!t'xc6 1 2 ll:c l Mengarini-Byland, Milwaukee 1 953)
ll:d8 ! = Shak ma tny Listok. A 1 2 i.h3 'Ylt'd8 1 3 i..g5 il..e 7 1 4 i.. f4
variation which needs practical ll:a6 1 5 e6 f6 1 6 h5 ll:Jge5 1 7 il.. x e5
tests. fe 18 i.f5 il..f6 19 'Y!t'c2 h6 20
7 h3 il..g 6+ e7 2 1 i.f7 Marshall
7 lbb3 proved less successful in Cohn, Hanover 1 902.
Alapin-Marshall, Monte Carlo 11 0-0
1 90 1 , after 7 . . . .txf3 8 ef a4 9 ll:Jd2 1 1 b3?! is too slow. Black has
ll:Jxe5 IO f4 ll:Jc6 1 1 il..d 3 'Y!t'e7+ sufficient time to regain the
12 f l tt:Jf6 13 g3 'Ylt'd7 14 g2 e-pawn by 1 1 . . . ll:Jg6 12 i.b2
i.c7 1 5 lbf3 0-0 = . ll:Jgxe5 1 3 lb xe5 lbxe5 1 4 i.xb7
7 g3 i.c5 8 .1ig2 ll:Jge 7 9 h3 i.e6! l:lb8 15 i.d5 c6 16 i.e4 lb xc4
I O 0-0 h 6 1 1 lbe4 il..a 7 12 'Ylt'd3 17 'Ylt'c2 lb xb2 18 xc5 l:l xb3
ll:Jg6 1 3 i.f4'Y!t'e7 ! 1 4 h 2 ( 1 4'Ylt'b3 19 'Y!t'xc6 d3 ! and Black had a fine
ll:b8 intending . . . 0-0) 1 4 . . . liad8 position in Martin-Adams, New
1 5 'Ylt'b3 i.. c 8 gave Black a good England Ch 1 945. Black soon won
ga me in Toth-Balogh, Budapest after 20 0-0 de 21 l:lfe l 'Ylt'd4
Ch 1 964. 22 'Y!t'c2 l:l xg3+ 23 i.g2 lbd3

24 Ii: xe2 1!fxa l + 0- 1 .
11 lt:lg6
12 1!fa4 1!fc8
1 3 Ii:d l Ii:e8 14 ..\td2 lligxe5
l 5 lt:lxe5 Ii:xe5 1 6 i.f4 Collins
Santasiere, USA 1 952.
A2
5 f6 (42)
Surprisingly this idea of the
Norwegian IM Rojahn is not
mentioned by ECO, although it
does seem a more favourable
position to play . . . f6, as opposed
to the more constructive moves
5 llibd2 or 5 g3 . With accurate
pla y , however, it does not prove
quite sufficient.
6 ef 1!fxf6
Inadequate is 6 . . . lt:lxf6 7 e3
(7 llibd2 is var. Al, Chapter 6)
7 . . . .ig4 8 i.e2 1!fd7 9 ed
i.xf3 l 0 .ixf3 llixd4 1 1 0-0 0-0-0
1 2 lt:lc3 i.d6 1 3 g3 'it'f5 1 4 1!fxd4
'it'xf3 1 5 1!fxa 7 llig4 1 6 1!f a8+ and
White's attack proved the quicker
in the game Dalko-Monostori,
corres 1 939-40.
7 llibd2
5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 27
Alternatives:
a) 7 ..\tgS?! loses time after 7 . . .
1!fg6 8 i.f4 'it'f7 9 i.g3 .ig4
1 0 llibd2 0-0-0 1 1 b4 lt:lf6 1 2 b5
lt:la5 1 3 lt:le5 'it'e6 1 4 'it'a4 b6 1 5 f3
.if5 1 6 lt:lb3 .ic2 1 7 lt:lc5 'it'f5 1 8 e4
de 1 9 i.d3 1!fxd3 20 lt:lcxd3 with
the better ending for Black. Tatayev
N aglis, Makhachkala 1 964, con
tinued 20 . . . i.xa4 21 lt:lb2 .ib3
22 lt:lf7 Ii:d2 23 llixh8 Ii:xb2 24 0-0
i.xc4 0- 1 .
b) 7 g3 is also strong: 7 . . . .if5
8 i.g2 h6 9 0-0 0-0-0 1 0 lt:lbd2 g5
1 1 Ii: a2 h5 1 2 b4 h4 1 3 b5
(Lundholm- Rojahn, S weden v
Norway 1 948) and now according
to Jonasson Black should play
1 3 . . . lt:lce7 (intending . . . @b8 , . . .
llic8). Harding analyses further
with 1 4 1!fa4 '\t>b8 1 5 c 5 ! lt:lc8
1 6 lt:lc4 (threatening i.xg5 ) 1 6 . . .
Ii: h 5 1 7 c 6 llib6 1 8 lt:lxb6 cb 1 9 lliel
hg 20 fg 'it'e6 2 1 Ii:c2 ! .
7 i.fS
8 g3 (43)
This position has often been
reached by the move order 5 llibd2
28 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves
f6 6 ef xf6 7 g3 .U5 8 a 3 .
8 0-0-0
9 j,,g2
The most natural. The attempt
to a ttack the bishop with 9 l'Lih4
failed after 9 . . . j,,g4 10 f3 j,, e 7!
1 1 tl\e4 ( 1 1 fg xh4! ) 1 1 . . . e6
12 lL'ig5 j,, x g5 1 3 j,,x g5 tl\f6 1 4 fg
d3 1 5 b3 tl\e4 1 6 0-0-0 lL'id4
17 a4 b5 1 8 b4 c5 1 9 e l
xc4+ 20 'it>b l c2+ 2 1 'it>a l
lL'ib3+ 0- 1 Pedersen-Rojahn, corres
193 1 -2. If 22 'it>a2 d2 ++ .
9 gS
9 . . . d 3 ! ? is also insuffi cient:
1 0 e3 g5 and now:
a) 11 E'.a2 (? ! - Spielmann) 1 1 . . . h5
1 2 b4 j_g7 13 i.b2 e7 1 4 b5!
tl\a5 ( 1 4 . . . tl\e5 15 l'Lixe5 j,,x e5
1 6 j,, xe 5 xe5 17 f3 ) 1 5 j,, x g7
xg7 16 a l tl\f6 17 e5 ( 1 7 c3
b6 1 8 e5 was better) 1 7 . . . g6
18 lL'id4 j,, d 7 19 lL'ie4 l'Lig4ooPost
Spielmann, Berlin 1 907 (0- 1 , 3 1 ).
b) 11 ::bl!? j_g7 1 2 b4 e7
1 3 j,,b 2 j,, x b2 1 4 lixb2 h 5 1 5 h4
lL'id4? 1 6 lL'ixd4 l'Ixd4 17 f3 1 -0
Hargita y- 8 . S zabo, corres 1 967-8.
10 0-0
"l 0 lia2 allowed Black to seize
the initiative by 10 . . . h5 1 1 h4 gh
12 l hh4 tl\ge7 1 3 lL'ie4 e6
14 l'Lieg5 xc4 1 5 b3 d5 1 6 lid2
j,,g4 17 lld3 tl\g6 18 l'Ih2 d7
19 b2 j_g7 20 lL'ih4 l'Lixh4 2 1 gh
llhf8! + Halvorsen-Rojahn, corres
1945.
10 g6
1 1 b4 c2 12 e l g7 13 b2
l'Ie 8 1 4 b 5 l'Lie5 15 tl\xe5 xe5
16 lL'if3 Goransson-Rabe n ,
Kiruna 1 960.
A3
5 e6 !? (44)
6 e3
An attempt to gain a slight
endgame advantage . Alternatives
are:
a) 6 c2 is unclear after 6 . . . d7
7 f4 h6 8 h 3 g5 9 h2 l'Lige7
10 lL'ibd2 g7 oo Najdorf-Kostic,
Yugoslavia 1 950.
b) 6 lL'ibd2 and now:
b l ) 6 . . . aS is var. A l 3 of this
chapter.
b2) 6 ... l'Lige7 is Chapter 7, var. A l .
b3) 6 ... d7! is Chapter ?, var. A2.
6 de
Not 6 . . . c5? 7 b4 .
7 xd8+ lixd8
8 xe3 lL'ige7!?
The alternative 8 ... h6 fails to
equalise :
a) 9 b 4 is n o t dangerous: 9 . . . g5
10 b5 l'Lixe 5 ! 1 1 lL'ixe5 j_g7 1 2 f4 gf
1 3 j,,xf4 l'Id4 ! 14 j,,g 3 xe5

1 5 i.xe5 :i:l:e4+ 1 6 @f2 ll:xe5
17 ltid2 ltif6 18 .i.e2 @e7 =
Furman-Mikenas, Vif USSR Ch
1949.
b) 9 lLic3! is the correct plan: 9 . . .
a 6 1 0 ltid5 ! i.xd5 1 1 c d lixd5
12 i.c4 l:fa5 ( 1 2 . . . Il.d8 13 @e2
ltige 7 14 l:iac l ltig6 1 5 e6 is still
good for White) 13 @e2 !
Taimanov-Mi kenas, USSR Ch
1 949 .
9 i.f4
a) 9 ltic3 (a suggestion of Euwe) 9 . . .
ltif) is fine fo r Black. After I 0 i.e2
lLixe3 1 1 fe ltia5 the weakness of
the doubled e-pawns gave him a
slight edge in Opocensky-Pelikan,
Prague 1933.
b) 9 i.gS h6 1 0 i.xe7 i.xe7
1 1 ltibd2 f6! 1 2 ef i.xf6 gave
Black enough compensation for
the pawn in Tyroler-Balogh, Jassy
1 929.
c) 9 ltigS!? is untested.
9 ltig6
10 i.g3 hS
So far Simmonson-Opocensky,
Folkestone 01 1 9 3 3 . N ow M inev's
suggestion of 1 1 h3 is met by 1 1 . . .
h4! 1 2 i.h2 l:ih5 1 3 .i.e2 l:if5
which looks cumbersome but Black
seems to regain his pawn with a
good position - analysis.
A4
5 i.g4 (45)
Now 6 ltibd2 is dealt with in
Chapter 5, var. A. Besides this
White has tried:
5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 29
45:I t j . . ... .
w ., ,
. ... . . .
D .
- - . ... .
D ttJ B
D DD
m- A
D lb ;'ti'
,,,,,,
Bn
A4 1 6 b4
A42 6 i.f4
A43 6 h3
Two other possibilities worth
noting:
a) 6 b3!? d7 (White can now
safely take the pawn; 6 . . . llb8
7 ltibd2 ltige7 8 g3 ltig6 9 i.g2
d7 1 0 0-0 i.e7 I I e3 d3 ( I I . . .
0-0) 1 2 c3 f6 1 3 e 6 i.xe6 1 4 lLld4
ll:d8 1 5 lLlxe6 xe6 16 b4 f5
1 7 i.b2 i.f6 1 8 b3 Ardiansyah
Handoko, Indonesia 1 982) 7 xb7
l'lb8 8 a6 f6 9 e6 xe6
10 lti bd2 ltige7 1 1 a4 @f7 1 2 h3
i.h5 (if 12 . . . i.f5 1 3 b4! ) 1 3 g4
i.g6 1 4 i.g2 i.d3 1 5 0-0 i.xe2
16 II.e l d3 17 lLle4 Bogolj ubow
Helling, Berlin 1 93 7 .
b ) 6 i.gS i.e7 7 i.xe7 xe7 only
helps Black develop. After 8 lL:ibd2
0-0-0 9 a4 @b8 1 0 0-0-0 f6 1 1 ef
lLlxf6 12 h3 i.h5 1 3 g4 i.e8
14 b3 lLld7 1 5 lLie 1 lLlc5 Black
had enough for the pawn in Hodges
Lasker, Cambridge Springs 1 904.
A41
6 b4 (46)
30 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves

1 4 e3 lll h 6 1 5 f3 'iWc8 1 6 .ie2 with

46 :! -- - L
B W?;
&
- B & W &
t
Black having nothing for the
pawn.
- - . . 7 'iWa4 0-0-0
9 . Balogh suggests 7 . . . .i xf3 8 gf
- . ... . 'iWxe5 as being satisfactory for
Black.
. ltJ .
. -
- -
8 i.f4
'? r.... W'..m \lXIJM 'i"i'
,,,,,, ,,,,
,, ,,
Not 8 b5? .ixf3 9 be .ixc6
B
t.ll.J 'EI' - 10 'iWxa7 'iWxe5 + - ECO.
6 'iWe7!? 8 .ixf3
Probably the best try . White's 9 gf '.!7b8
plan of .ib2 and b5 will put 10 lLld2 lll x e5
pressure on the d-pawn and Black 11 'iWb3 lllg 6?!
must win back the e-pawn quickly. Euwe recommends 1 1 ... lLl f6
Alternatives seem worse: followed by . . . ll:\h5. The text
a) 6 ... a5 7 b5 .ixf3 8 ef lLl xe5 9 f4 move was played in Petrosian
lll g6 1 0 g3 .ic5 1 1 .ig2 'iWe7+ Porreca, Belgrade 1 954, which
12 Wfl (if 12 'iWe2 'iWxe2+ the continued 12 i.g3 f5 13 f4 lLl f6
ending is satifactory for Black) 14 'iWd3 lLle4 1 5 i.h3 lll xd2
1 2 . . . llb8 (not 12 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 Wxd2 lll xf4 17 .ixf4 g5
13 'iWf3 ++ ) 1 3 lla2 intending 18 .ixc7+ 'iWxc7 19 i.xf5 ;!;.
J.3, Wg2 Flohr-Benko, Moscow A42
1949 ( l -0, 23). 6 .if4 (47)
b) 6 ... 'iWd7 7 lll b d2 0-0-0 8 .ib2
and now:
47 E t - t
b l ) 8 ... 'iWe6 9 g3 lll x e5 10 lll xe5
B [i l. [i . , . ,
'iWxe5 1 1 .ig2 lll f6 12 lll f3 .ixf3 -- .
13 .ixf3 'iWe6 14 0-0 h5 1 5 'iWa4 9 .
Wb8 1 6 c5 lll g4 1 7 liad 1 h4 m .t. m
18 .ixg4 'iWxg4 19 l:lxd4 l:l xd4
9 E E tD m
20 'iWe8+ 'iWc8 2 1 'iWxc8+ Wxc8 -'11. wi

- -"

'11.
?..,.,.,,z ?..,.,.,,::;

l......,.,.
22 .ixd4 with a won ending -
Kuuskmaa-Zlotnik, corres 1 970- 1 . D lD
,,,,,,7, JL
:,, . n
b2) 8 ... f6 9 'iWa4 ! '.!7b8 1 0 0-0-0 Much less effective than 6 b4, a s
with a clear advantage for White. t h e bishop is e xposed to attack by
Furman-Klaman, USSR Team Ch . .. lll ge7 and . . . lll g 6.
1 954, continued 1 0 ... .if5 1 1 b5 6 lllg e7
lll x e5 12 lll xd4 .ig6 13 lll 2 b3 'iWg4 7 ll:lbd2

7 't!Vb3 't!Vd7 8 lLibd2 lLig6 9 .ig3
0-0-0 gives Black good play. The
entertaining miniature Jurinvic
Maistorovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 949,
continued 10 0-0-0 f6 l l ef gf 1 2 e4
.ih6 1 3 'it>b l d3 1 4 h3 t'Lld4!
15 't!Vxd3 't!Va4 ! 1 6 .ie2 lLi xf3 0- 1 .
7 t'Ll g6
8 .ig3 't!Ve7
Preparing queenside castling
and more direct than 8 . . . a5 9 h3
.ixf3 10 t'Ll xf3 .ic5 1 1 't!Vd3 0-0
1 2 h4 't!Ve7 1 3 't!Vf5 f6 ( 1 3 . . . llae8
1 4 h 5 t'Llgxe5 15 t'Llg5 ) 1 4 ef
Ii xf6 15 't!Vd3 lLige5 16 t'Llxe5
lLixe5 1 7 't!Ve4 Pillsbury-Mieses,
Monte Carlo 1 902.
9 't!Va4 0-0-0
10 0-0-0 f6 +
Uj telky-Puc, Spindleruv Mlyn
1948, which continued 1 1 ef gf
12 h3 .if5 1 3 lLih4 t'Ll xh4 1 4 .ixh4
.ih6 15 g4 .ig6 16 .ig2 't!Vxe2
17 .i xf6? .if4 ! 1 8 't!Vb3 t'Lla5
1 9 't!Va2 't!Vd3 0- 1 .
A43
6 h3 (48)
5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 3 1
The alternative recapture is
weaker: 7 ef t'Ll xe5 8 f4 lll g 6 9 e2
't!Vf6 1 0 0-0 t'Llxf4 1 1 f3 0-0-0
1 2 l'Lld2 g5 13 't!Va4 \tib8 14 't!Vb5 c6
1 5 't!Va5 lle8 + Marshall-Mieses,
Monte Carlo 190 l .
7 lLixeS
8 f4
Lasker-Albin, New York 1 893.
Minev now recommends 8 . . .
lLig6 00 .
B
5 .if4 (49)
'
Recommended by Fine, this
m ove avoids a lot of the com
plications, but the bishop is
exposed on this square and Black
can gain time by attacking it.
5 lLige7
This logical move is not the only
one to have been tried . Others:
a) 5 ... .ib4+ !? 6 lt::i b d2 .ie6
(weaker is 6 . . . lt::i g e7 7 a3 .ixd2+
8 't!Vxd2 lt::i g6 9 .ig5 ! ) 7 e3 d3?!
(7 . . . de ! 8 .ixe3 .ig4 9 .ie2 't!Ve7
1 0 0-0 0-0-0 + Radulescu) 8 't!Vb3
-
b5 9 .ixd3 llb8 1 0 .ie4 lll ge7
1 1 't!Vc2 .ixc4 1 2 0-0-0! .i xd2+
1 3 ll xd2 t'Llb4!? 1 4 't!Vd l ! (if
32 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves
14 l:l: xd8+ l:l:xd8 and White has to
give back the queen) 14 . . . 'IS1c8
15 .ig5 lll xa2+ 16 @b I 'IS1e6
17 i.xe7 'ii' x e7 (if 17 . . . xe7 1 8
lll d4) 1 8 i.c6+ @f8 1 9 l:l:d7 'IS1e6
20 l:l:xc7 ( 1-0, 3 1 ) Ragozin
Krilenko, corres 1927.
b) S . . . US 6 a3 f6 (6 . . . a5 7 lll b d2
. had n o thing for the pawn in
a4 8 h 3 i.c5 9 g4 i.g6 10 .1&.g2 h5
1 1 e 6 t Araiza-Adams , Pan
American Ch 1 945) 7 lll b d2 'ifd7
8 e4 de 9 fe 0-0-0 10 ef lll xf6 1 1 i.e2
lll h 5 ( 1 1 . . . i.c5 !? 1 2 b4 .ixe3 !
1 3 i.xe3 lihe8) 1 2 .ig5 i.e7
13 i.xe7 'ii'x e7 1 4 'ii'b 3 .id3 !? oo
Harald-Giersing, Malmo 1 920 (0- 1 ,
24) .
c) S . . . i.g4 6 lll b d2 lll ge7 7 a3
ll\g6 8 .1&.g3 a5 9 h3 i.xf3 10 lll xf3
i.c5 1 1 lLid2 lll g xe5 1 2 'IS1c2 e7
and Black had regained his pawn
with a good position in Herman n
Steinkohl , Bad Aibling 1 966.
d) S . h6 (a suggestion of Panov,
. .
intending . . . g5) 6 h3 i.b4+ 7 lll b d2
i.e6 8 a3 t.
6 lll b d2
6 g3 lll g 6 7 a3 i.e6 8 'ifa4 'ifd7
9 lll b d2 i.e7 1 0 lid l 0-0 1 1 .ig2
liad8 1 2 b4 f6 was slightly better
for Black in Maderna-Gra u ,
Buenos Aires 1 943.
If 6 a3 lll g6 7 i.g3 (7 .ig5 is met
by 7 . . . i.e7) 7 . . . h5 8 h4 a 5 ( b4 was
threatened) 9 lll b d2 J.g4 and
White has problems developing his
light-squared bishop - Meinsohn.
6 lll g6
7 i.. g3 .tcS !
Stronger than 7 . . . .ig4?! 8 'i!k'a4
'IS1d7 9 0-0-0 Ji.e7 10 lll b 3 (also
good wa s 1 0 h3 i.h5 1 1 .ih2
followed by g4) l 0 . . . .ixf3 1 1 gf
!l:d8 1 2 e3 0-0 1 3 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jcxe5
14 'ifxd7 l:l:xd7 15 f4 and Black
Zelikoff-Rosenkrantz, USSR 1 925 .
7 ... .trs 8 a3 'ie7 9 'IS1b3 0-0-0
10 e4 lt:Jgxe 5 1 1 lll x e5 lLixe5
1 2 0-0-0 .ig4 13 ll:e l g6 14 h3 .id7
15 f4 lt:Jc6 16 .id3 g5 17 lLif3 f6
1 8 e 5 ! was also to White's
advantage in Kieninger-Engels,
Bad Oeynhausen 1 939.
8 a3 as
9 'ic2 'ii'e 7 l 0 'i!k'e4 a4 1 1 h4 h5
1 2 e3 de 1 3 fe .i.b6 and Black had
good compensation for the pawn
in Laurenti us-K ostic, Munich 01
1 936, which continued 14 .id3
Ita5 15 0-0 lll cxe5 1 6 b4? ab
17 lll x b3 f5 0- 1 .
c
s i.gS (50)
 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves 33

pawn sacrifice 5 . . . f6 is also 1 0 0-0 lll g xe5 according to

promising: 6 ef lll xf6 7 e4 ( 7 lll b d2 Meinsohn, e.g. 1 1 lll xe5? lll x e5
was played in NN-Hartlaub , 12 i.xb7 ll:b8 1 3 i.g2 ll:xb2 etc.
H anover 1 9 1 3 , but Black had a fine 8 lll b3 lll fS
posi tion after 7 . . . .tf5 8 a4 .te7 9 d2
9 b5 .id7 1 0 .ixf6 i.. xf6 9 h4!? intending g4 is an untried
1 1 h 5+ g6 1 2 d 5 e7 1 3 e4 suggestion of Minev.

i.e6 - White has wasted too 9 'it'e7
much time with his queen) 7 . . . 9 . . . a5 may be less accurate :
i.b4+ 8 lll b d2 0-0 9 3 a5 1 0 a 3 10 ll d l a4 1 1 lll bxd4 lll fxd4
a4 ! 1 1 c2 i.xd2+ 1 2 lll xd2 'it'e7 1 2 liJ xd4 lll xe5 1 3 e3? ! ( 1 3 'it'c3
1 3 i.xf6 'it'xf6 + Jaffe-Marshall, 'i!ff6 1 4 g3 - ECO) 1 3 . . . f6
1 904. 1 4 .ie2 g6 1 5 Ilg ! ooBorisenko
5 ... .ib4+ has less point; after Simagi n , USSR Ch 1 9 5 5 .
6 lll bd2 White has not blocked in 1 0 lll bxd4 liJfxd4
the queen's bishop and now 6 . . . 11 lll xd4 liJxeS
f6 turned out badly i n Mhaiskov 12 e3 ll:d8 (5 /)
Schneider, Moscow 01 1 956,
after 7 ef lll xf6 8 a3 i.e7 9 lll b 3 0-0 s1 E i. t
w m mu
ii'%f% f%
10 lll b xd4 ! -++ . 6 . . . liJge7 is .a, .
'"'""
-a'
'""'" m
'" " '"--"

also inadequate after 7 a3 .ixd2+

8 'it'xd2 - Minev.
g
. r
. - g
.
6 J.. x e7
If 6 .if4 g5 7 i.g3 g4 8 liJfd2 h5 . -
- ?,,Ji
.
9 h4 liJh6 intending 10 . . . lll f5 . . .
gives Black the advantage -
Bi;,,,,.L -?:iii

Meinsohn.
6 lll g xe7 ,,,,,,,, ,i
7 lll bd2 0-0 Black has sufficient compen
The immediate 7 ... lll g 6 is less sation for the pawn. Borisenko
flexible. After 8 liJb3 ! Black has M osionzhik, USSR Profsoyuz Ch
lost the option of . . . lll f5 and 1 9 6 8 , continued 1 3 c3 i.g4 1 4 f4
White gained the upper hand after ( 1 4 i.e2 c5 1 5 lll f3 i.xf3 1 6 gf
8 . . . 0-0 9 lll b xd4 lll c xe5 1 0 e3 c5 g5 ! threatening . . . g2; 1 4 h3
1 1 liJxe5 lll x e5 1 2 liJ b 5 in Kozlov c5 oo - ECO) 14 . . . lll g6 15 c;!if2
M osionzhik, Urozhai Ch 1 975. lll x f4 ! 1 6 h3 .ih5 1 7 lll f5 'it'g5
7 . . . i.g4!? gives Black a good 1 8 't!t'xg7+ xg7 1 9 liJxg7 lll d 3+
ga me after 8 g3 0-0 9 .ig2 lll g6 with a good ending for Black.
34 5 a3 & Miscellaneous 5th Moves

D 10 e4 .i.g6 1 1 lll c 3 0-0 1 2 a3 a 5

5 e3?! (52) 1 3 0-0-0 oo Fleckner-Spielmann,
Not as disastrous as 4 e3? Wilrzburg 1 9 1 2.
(see var. C l , p. 9) but again the 8 lll bxd2 f6
doubling of the e-pawns gives 8 . . . lt:\ge7 intending . . . ll:J g6 also
Black a fine position. looks fine.
9 ef ll:Jxf6
52 :I .t L. .ai t,
8 . ... . . . . ... 1 0 i.e2 i.f5 1 1 0-0 lll g 4 1 2 'it'b3
'it'd7 13 h3 h5 14 'it'c3 0-0-0 with a
a .ai a R R strong attac k , Correa-Morreira
R R H Lima , C urityba 1 929.
-
- , . -

,,,,,y,.
R R liJ H Conclusion
/\
0 Qx

B A W,
Qx 0

Qz
,,,,,,,,
D ltJ . .... . ,;, i.. B
ll 5 a3 is one of the most important
5 .i.b4+ ! lines of the Albin as White has the
Again White is forced to possibility of immediate queenside
undefend e 3 . 5 . . . .i.g4 is less expansion. After 5 . . . a5, 6 lt::i b d2 is
strong after 6 .i.e2 d3 7 xd3 best, when Black may have to try
xd3 8 .i.xd3 i.xf3 9 gf ll:l xe5 Kmoch's suggestion of 6 . . . i.e6.
10 i.e2 0-0-0 1 1 ll:Jc3 lll f6 12 J.d2 5 . . . f6 is an interesting but
lll fd7 1 3 f4 lll c 6 oo Collij n probably unsound pawn sacrifice,
Rosendahl, Stockholm 1 897 ( Yi- Yi , while 5 . . . .i.g4 6 lll bd2 transposes
68) . to a favourable line of Chapter 8 .
6 .i.d2 5 . . . i.e6 ! ? may well b e best, as
6 \t>e2 !? .tg4 7 a3 .i.c5 8 b4 de White still has to prove an endgame
9 be lll d4+ 10 \t>xe3 lll f5+ was advantage after 6 e3 de 7 'it'xd8+
drawn by perpetual check in Vela :E:xd8 .
Cohn, Guatemala 1 937. Of the infrequent 5th moves,
6 de 5 .i.g5 and Fine's 5 J.f4 do not
7 fe .i.xd2+ give Black any problems, while
Stronger than 7 . . . .i.c5 8 i.e2 (if 5 e3?! 3i.b4+! is somewhat better
8 i.c3 ll:Jh6 ! ) 8 . . . ll:Jge7 9 c2 .U5 for Blac k .
5 5 lbbd2 Ag4
This chapter is concerned only
with those lines where White
refrains from an early g3, which
will normally transpose to lines
discussed in Chapter 8 , and be
dealt with under the move order
5 g3 i.g4 6 lll b d2.
By playing 5 lLibd2 instead of 5
g3 , White can im mediately put the
question to Black's light-squared
bishop by 6 h3 and capture back
on f3 with the knight. In addition,
White has the possibility ofa3, b4,
lll b 3 and J.b2 giving Black
problems with the defence of his
d-pawn. The alternatives to 5 . . .
i.g4 are covered i n Chapters 6
and 7 .
From the diagram White has a
choice between:
A 6 a3
B 6 h3
6 g3 is Chapter 8 , var. A .
6 'ti'b3 can b e m e t by either:
a) 6 ... lll ge7 7 h3 J.f5 8 a3 Iib8 9
g4 i.g6 1 0 e4 h5 1 1 g5 h4 1 2 'ti'd3
.ih 5 1 3 b4 lt:Jg6 and Black will
regain the e-pawn, e .g. 14 i.b2
.ixf3 1 5 lt:lxf3 lll g xe5 1 6 lt:J xe5
lll xe5 17 'ti'b3 'ti'xg5 1 8 i. xd4 lt:lc6
1 9 J.e3 'ti'e5 20 0-0-0 a 5 2 1 b5 a4
22 'ti'b2 'ti'xb2+ 23 ..t>xb2 oo ( Yi- Yi ,
58) lvanovic-Tarasevic, Burevestnik
Club Ch 1 965, or:
b) 6 ... i.b4 7 a 3 i.xd2+ 8 lll xd2
lll ge7 9 ti'g3 'ti'd7 1 0 h3 J.e6 1 1
'ti'xg7 0-0-0 12 'ti'f6 lLif5 1 3 g4 lt:Je3
14 fe de 15 'tlt'f4 lLid4 1 6 'ti'e4 ed+
1 7 i.xd2 ltJ b3 1 8 lad 1 lLixd2 1 9
'ti'c2 'ti'c6 0- 1 Grekov-Nenarokov,
M oscow Ch 1 922.
6 lll b 3 is an interesting try: 6 . . .
.txf3 7 ef and now:
a) 7 ... lt:Jxe5 g 'ti'xd4 i.b4+ 9 i.d2
i.xd2+ 10 'ti'xd2 ;\; - Wiener
Schachzeitung.
b) 7 .. a5 8 f4 i.b4+ 9 J.d2 a4 1 0
."
36 5 t'iJbd2 i.g4
i.xb4 t'iJxb4 1 1 lbc l a3 1 2 b3 lt::i e 7
13 liJd3 t'iJec6 1 4 lt::i xb4 t'iJ xb4 1 5
i.d3 0-0 1 6 0-0 f6 1 7 'it'd2 c 5 1 8
l::r. ae l 'it'c7 1 9 lie2 :!Iae8 2 0 life l
lbc6 2 1 i.e4 fe 22 fe h8 23 f4
Salwe-Spielmann, Osten d 1 907.
c) 7 ... 'it'e7 8 f4 0-0-0 9 i.d3 f6 I O
0-0 fe 1 1 i.e4 'it'f6 1 2 i.xc6 't!rxc6
1 3 fe 't!rxc4 14 't!rg4+ c.!;>b8 and
Black had a satisfacto ry position
in G urwitsch-Arnstam , corres
1972-3 , although Black unneces
sarily weakened his queenside
by . . . c5 and eventually lost.
A 7
6 a3 (54)
White both prevents . . . i.b4
and prepares queenside expansion
with b4.
6 'it'e7
Alternatives :
a) 6 ... a5 is dealt with in Chapter 4,
var. A l 3 .
b) 6 . . . f6 7 ef t'iJxf6 transposes to
Chapter 6, var. A l .
c ) 6 ... t'iJge7 looks too slow in this
line. After 7 't!rb3 (7 lbb3 t'iJf5 8
i.f4 a5 9 't!rd3 is less active: 9 . . . a4!
I O lbbd2 liJfe7 l l e3 lbg6 and
Black stood well in Cohen
Mengarini, Manhattan 1 976) Black
has problems developing and the
attempt to sacrifice the b-pawn
failed after 7 . . . 't!rd7 8 't!rxb7 :S:b8
9 't!ra6 lt::i g 6 I O g3 lib6 1 1 't!ra4
t'iJgxe5 1 2 i.g2 i.e7 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4
b 4 Fuderer-Toth, Yugoslav C h
195 l .
d) 6 . . . 't!rd7 allows White to
expand with 7 b4 :S:d8 8 i.b2
t'iJge7 9 b5 ltJa5 IO 't!ra4
Koltanowski-Steckel, Hazleton 1 940.
h3
7 g3 is the main alternative:
a) 7 ... i.xf3?! 8 t'iJxf3 lt::i xe5 9
t'iJxe5 't!rxe5 and Black has un
necessarily surrendered the two
bishops. Lovdki-Kulozmin, Kiev
1903, continued IO i.g2 c6 1 1 0-0
liJf6 1 2 e3 0-0-0 13 't!ra4 ( 1 3 ed
't!rxd4 14 't!ra4 't!rb6 1 5 b4 was
better) 1 3 . . . d3 14 i.d2 a6 1 5 i.a5
:S:e8 1 6 l:iad l t'iJe4 1 7 i.b6 i.c5
1 8 i.xc5 ( l 8 i.xe4 i.xb6 19 i.xc6
leads to a draw) 18 . . . lb xc5 1 9
't!ra5 I!d8 2 0 b4 t'iJd7 2 1 't!ra4 .
b) 7 . . . lbxe5 ! 8 t'iJxe5 't!rxe5 and
now:
b l ) 9 h3 i.h5 I O i.g2 0-0-0 1 1 t'iJ f3
't!ra5 1 2 t'iJd2 't!ra6 1 3 0-0 t'iJ f6 1 4 b4
lbe4 1 5 c5 d3 ooNiemela-Spassky,
Riga 1 959.
b2) 9 't!ra4+ i.d7 1 0 't!rb3 i.c6 1 1
lbf3 't!rh5 1 2 i.g2 0-0-0 1 3 t'iJh4
i.xg2 14 t'iJ xg2 i.d6 oo Cassidy
Thiellement, Tel Aviv 01 1 964.

b 3 ) 9 i.g2 0-0-0 1 0 lll f3 'f:Ve6 1 1 0-0
i.xf3? ( 1 1 . . . f:Vxc4!?) 1 2 i.xf3 f:Vxc4
1 3 i.f4 'f:Ve6 14 li c l lid7 1 5 f:Va4
a6 16 lixc7+! lixc7 1 7 i.g4 Timet
Siska, Yugoslav C h 1 947.
After 7 h3 Black can exchange
or retreat.
A l 7 . . . i.xf3
A2 7 . . . i.hS
Al
7 i.xf3
8 ll:Jxf3 0-0-0
9 'f:Vd3 (55)
Lasker's move which seems to
guarantee White an advantage .
White defends the e-pawn indirectly
as 9 . . . ll:Jxe5 allows 10 'f:Vfs+ lll d 7
1 1 lll xd4.
9 g3 is also interesting: 9 . . .
ll:ixeS 1 0 lll x eS f:VxeS 1 1 'f:Vd3 fS
( 1 1 . . . lllf6 !? - Marie) 1 2 i.g2 lll f6
1 3 0-0 g6? (Marie suggests 1 3 . . .
ll:i e4 14 b 4 g 5 oo) and now White
seized the initiative on the queen
side by 14 b4! i.g7 1 5 cS ! lihe8 1 6
lie l lll e4 ( 1 6 . . . lll d 5!? intending
. . . f4 - Harding; 1 6 . . . c6? 17 i.xc6 !
be 1 8 f:Va6+ \t>d7 1 9 i.f4 'f:Ve7 20
5 lb bd2 i.g4 37
i.d6! f:Vf7 21 bS cb - 21 ... @e6 22
be! - 22 'f:VxbS+ @e6 23 f:Vc4+
lbd5 24 e4 de 25 li xe3+ \t>f6
26 'f:Vd4+ @g5 27 'f:Vh4 mate -
Lilienthal) 1 7 i.f4 'f:Ve6 1 8 c6! be
1 9 liac l \t>b7 ( 1 9 . . . @b8 20 Iii c S!
ll:i xc S 21 be lid5 22 'f:Va6 ; 1 9 . . .
@d7 2 0 b 5 intending f3 ; 1 9 . . . ll:Jc3
20 i.f3 @b8 21 'f:Va6 intending
i.xc6, bS - Lilienthal) 20 b S ! cS 2 1
lixc5 lid7 2 2 'f:Vc2 li ee7 2 3 li c l
f:Vf7 2 4 f:Va4 \t> b 8 2 5 b 6 ! 1 -0
M alich-Millier, East German Ch
1 97 2 . After 25 . . . ab 26 liaS! ba 27
f:VbS+ forces mate.
9 . . . h6
Notwithstanding the last note,
Black has also tried 9 . . . ll:ixeS 10
'f:VfS+ ll:id7 1 1 ll:ixd4 g6 1 2 f:Vc2 ( 1 2
f:VaS ll:ib6 m Lilienthal-Hildebrand,
Uppsala 1 964) 1 2 . . . i.g7 13 ll:if3
lbc5 14 e3 fS 1 5 i.e2 ll:if6 1 6 0-0
ll:ife4 1 7 lll e 1 g5 1 8 lll d 3 hS 19
lb xc5 f:VxcS 20 i.d3 f:VeS 21 lib l
g4 22 f3 lll g3 23 f4 'f:Vf6 24 lif2
@b8 25 i.d2 f:Vg6 26 i.e l lihg8?
(26 .. . lidg8 ! 00) 27 hg hg 28 lid2
t ( 1-0, 56) Goransson-Jonasson ,
Uppsala 1 964.
9 . . . f6!? 1 0 ef ll:i xf6 1 1 g3 h6 1 2
i.g2 g S with some compensation
for the pawn, but probably not
enough.
10 g3 g6
1 0 . . . gS 1 1 i.g2 i.g7 1 2 0-0
lll xe S 1 3 lll x eS i. xe 5 allowed
White a strong attack after 14 b4
ll:if6 15 a4! c6 16 a5 ( 1-0, 23)
38 5 li'ibd2 .ig4
Nikitin-K upreichik, USSR 1 96 8 .
11 i.g2 .ig7
1 2 0-0 liJ xe5
13 li'ixe5 .i xe5
14 b4 f5
If 1 4 . . . Ji.g7 1 5 c5 c6 1 6 li b l ! .
Klochan-Costain, corres 1 959-60
continued 16 . . . li'if6 1 7 b5 cb 1 8
xb5 li'id5 1 9 c 6 li'ib6 20 cb+ 1 -0.
15 c5
White has a strong attack . The
column is the famous game Lasker
Alekhine, St Petersburg 1 9 1 4,
which continued 1 5 . . . e6 1 6 c6
li:Je7 1 7 cb+ @b8 1 8 .ib2 l'ld6 1 9
li ac l li hd8 20 li c 2 f4 2 1 g f .ixf4
22 lid l li'if5 23 Ji.c l li:Je3 ! 24 lic5 !
(not 24 fe? de winning) 24 . . . f6
25 e4! li'ixd l 26 .ixf4 li:Jc3 27
.ixd6 ! xd6 (if 27 . .. li:J xe4 28
.ixc7+ @xb7 29 .ixe4+ @c8 30
.ie5+ wins) 28 e5 b6 29 e7
d6 30 lie5 d3 3 1 ed xd3 32
lie3 d i + 33 @h2 li'ib5 34 lie6
li:Jxa3 35 lif6 1 -0.
A2
White can now choose between:
A2 1 8 g3
A22 8 g4
A23 8 a4!
A21
8 g3 0-0-0
The i m mediate 8 . . . li:J xe 5 9
li'ixe 5 xe5 I O .ig2 0-0-0 1 1 li'if3
a5+ 1 2 .id2 a6 1 3 0-0 li:Jf6 was
also fine for Black in Portisch
Forintos, H ungarian Ch 1 964.
The game continued 14 b4 li'ie4
1 5 .ie l f5 1 6 d3 f6 1 7 c5 i.e7
18 llc l c6 19 b5 li'ixc5 20 b l
.ie8 ! 2 1 li'id2 @b8 22 a4 l:l:c8
(Black has consolidated his extra
pawn and White finds it h ard to
break through on the queenside)
23 li'i c4 cb 24 ab li'ie4 25 Ji. xe4 fe
26 xe4 .i.g6 27 g2 e6 28 li'ia5
.ie4 29 l:l: xc8+ :ilxc8 30 f3 .i.d5 3 1
.if2 .ib4 3 2 lll x b7 @xb7 3 3 i.xd4
lic2 0- l .
9 .ig2 li'i xe5 ! (57)
Weaker is 9 . . . d3 I O 0-0! lll x e5
1 1 li e l ! de 1 2 a4 .ixf3 1 3 lll xf3
lid l 1 4 lixd l ed+ 1 5 xd l lll f6
1 6 li:Jxe5 Heinrich-Eisinger,
Villingen 1 9 3 7 .
 5 lll bd2 .ig4 39

10 0-0 li.Jf6 .ie7 20 lt.Je l b6 2 1 ll:\c2 i..d 6

1 1 lt.J xeS xeS 22 lid l lt.Je7 23 c5! Jeney-Daniel,
1 2 'i!b3?! H ungary 1942.
1 2 lt.Jf3 = - Minev. 9 . . . 0-0-0
12 c6 10 b4
1 3 a4 i.. x e2 Alternatives are also adequate
14 b4 i.. xfl for Black:
1 5 ll:\xfl d3! a) 10 !a4 f6 1 1 b4 @b8 12 ef lt.Jxf6
The position is assessed as by 1 3 0-0 h5 + Petrovay-Balogh,
ECO, which appears to be an erro r Budapest 1 936.
for + . Kogan-Zakharov, Ukraine b) 10 'i!b3 h5 1 1 g5 h4 12 0-0-0 f6
Ch 1 963 , continued 1 6 li b l lt.Je4 1 3 ef gf 1 4 e3 de oo Makogonov
1 7 i.. b 2 !f5 1 8 !xa 7 .id6 1 9 :!Id 1 Kogan, Burevestnik Ch 1 963 .
.ib8 20 6 li he 8 2 1 .ixg7 f6 22 10 hS
b 5 .ic7 23 !a7 c5 24 f4 .ib8 25 11 gS lt.JxeS
!a8 !g6 26 ll:\d2 !xg3 27 .ixf6 12 lll x eS !xe5
!e3+ 28 \t>h l !xf4 0- 1 . 13 lt.Jf3 !e6 14 .if4 .id6 15 .ixd6
A22 li xd6 16 c5 Iid8 1 7 ll:\xd4 't!Ke5 1 8
8 g4 (58) e 3 .ie4! ( 1 8 . . . !xg5? 1 9 't!Kf3 c6 20
ll:\xc6! - Suetin) 1 9 .ixe4 !xe4
20 \t>e2 lt.Je7 2 1 !d3 't!Kd5 22 h4
lid7 23 liad I lihd8 24 3 !e4
= Kaminsky-Mosionzhik, USSR
Profsoyuz Ch 1 97 1 .
A23
8 't!Ka4! (59)

8 . . . .ig6
9 .ig2
9 !a4 was successful after 9 . . .
0-0-0 1 0 b 4 \t>b8 1 1 .ib2 f6?
(better was 1 1 . . . h 5 as in Hodos
Mosionzhik in A23 below) 1 2
.ig2 ! .ie8 1 3 b 5 ll:\xe5 1 4 .ixd4
li.Jd3+ 1 5 \t>fl ll:\c5 1 6 'i!b4 h5 1 7
.ixc5 !xc5 1 8 !xc5 .ixc5 1 9 lll b 3
40 5 li:Jbd2 i.g4
Or 9 b4 wb8 1 0 g4 i.g6 1 1 J.g2
h5 1 2 i.b2 ( 1 2 gh li xh 5 oo Kogan
Livshits, USSR 1 963) 1 2 . . . hg 1 3
hg lhh l + 1 4 J.xh l tDh6 1 5 0-0-0
tbxg4 16 li:Jb3 li:Jxf2 1 7 lDbxd4 i..e4
1 8 ll:\xc6 i.xc6 1 9 l hd8+ 'ff/x d8 oo
Hodos-Mosionzhik, N ovosibirsk
1 962.
9 . . . g6
1 0 .i.g2 h5 1 1 b4 hg 1 2 hg llxh l +
1 3 .i.xh l ..t>b8 1 4 .i.b2 li:Jh6 1 5
ll:\b3 ! ? ( 1 5 0-0-0 transposes into
H odos-Mosionzhik in the last
n ote) 15 . . . .i.c2 (better seems to
be 1 5 . . . li:Jxg4 1 6 ll:\ bxd4 i.e4
which neutralises the white bishop
on h 1 , while 1 6 li:Jfxd4 ll:\cxe5
threatens . .. li:Jd3+) 16 ll c l !
.i.xb3 1 7 'i!Vxb3 ll:\xg4 1 8 lid 1
ll:\gxe5 1 9 lt:lxd4 ll:\xd4 20 .i.xd4
'i!Vh4 2 1 .i.xa7+ wxa7 22 'ff/a 4+
Wb8 23 Itxd8+ 'i!Vxd8 24 'i!Vb5
S uetin-Mosionzhik , USSR Team
Ch 1 962.
B Itxd3 1 6 'ff/xd3 If.d8 1 7 'ff/b l li:Jb4
6 h3 (60)
As i n variatio n A , Black now
has the choice between exchanging
or retreating:
B l 6 . . . i.xf3
B2 6 . . . i.h5
Bl
6 . . . i.xf3
7 li:Jxf3 J.b4+ ! (61)
This move , which is not possible
in variation A, is the strongest.
Alternatives are :
a) 7 . . . f6 8 ef li:Jxf6 9 g3 .i.b4+ I O
.i.d2 'ff/e 7 1 1 a3 i.xd2+ 1 2 'ff/x d2
0-0-0? ( 1 2 . . . lt:le4 ! 1 3 d3 li:Jc5; 1 3
c2 0-0-0 1 4 Itd l d 3 1 5 Itxd3
1 8 e3 ll:\xg3 ! ) 13 'ff/d 3 ! a nd White
is better, Capablanca-Aurbach,
Paris (match) 1 9 1 4.
b) 7 . . . 'ff/e 7 8 a3 0-0-0 9 i.g5 f6 I O
e f g f 1 1 .i.f4 e4 1 2 'ff/d 2 d3? 1 3
e 3 ! 'ff/xc4 1 4 e d !f7 1 5 .i.e2
li:Jge7 16 0-0 li:Jd5 17 d2 Itg8
1 8 llac l li:J xf4 1 9 'ff/xf4 'ff/e 6 20
'ff/c 4 Itd5 2 1 li:Jd4! Marshall
Showalter, Lexington 1 909.
c) 7 . .i.c5 and now:
..
c l ) 8 g3 li:Jge7 9 .i.g2 0-0 1 0 0-0
ll:\g6 1 1 a3 a5 1 2 'ff/b 3 b6 1 3 .i.g5
 5 lt:Jbd2 i.g4 41

't!fc8 14 l::t a c l a4 1 5 't!fc2 i.c5 1 6 b) 9 a3 i.xd2+ l 0 't!fxd2 0-0-0 1 1

lt:Jd2 lie8 1 7 lt:J e4 ..if8 1 8 i.d2 0-0-0 ( 1 1 f4 f6 1 2 ef l2Jxf6 gives
l2Jgxe5 1 9 l2Jg5 g6 20 f4 d3 oo Black enough compensation for
(0- 1 , 29) Broderman-Adams, Pan the pawn , according to ECO) 1 1
American Ch 1 945. . . . l2J xe5 1 2 l2Jxe5 't!fxe5 1 3 e3 c5 1 4
c2) 8 a3 ! a5 transposes to var. A I e d lixd4 1 5 i. d 3 lt:Je7 1 6 Iihe l
of Chapter 4, p . 26. 't!fd6 1 7 't!t'g5 i::i: x d3 1 8 E:. xd3 't!fxd3
8 i.d2 't!t'e7! 1 9 't!fxe7 xc4+ 20 b l 't!t'f4 2 1
This idea of the H ungarian 't!fxc5+ b8 2 2 g 3 't!t'f6 = Toth
master Krenosz assures Black a Balogh, corres 1 943-4.
satisfactory position. If 8 . . . i.c5 9 9 0-0-0
a3 a5 I 0 g3 llJge 7 1 1 i.g2 l2Jg6 1 2 1 0 ..ig2 l2J xe5
't!t'a4 ( - Grti nfeld) e.g. 1 2 . . . 0-0 11 llJxeS i.xd2+
1 3 't!t'b5 e7 ( 1 3 . . . i.b6 14 c5 d5 12 't!fxd2 't!fxe5
1 5 1:1.c l i.a7 1 6 l2Jh4 xe5 1 7 xb7 13 0-0 l2Jf6 (62)
) 1 4 i.g5 f6 1 5 ef gf 16 i.h6 lie8
62
1 7 0-0 with a clear advantage for w ., ,.,
White Wiener Schachzeitung,
P&<i
-

1 924. a
9 g3 . .
L. .

The most recent try. White also -- . .
failed to get an advantage after:
n n u
a) 9 i.xb4 't!t'xb4+ IO 't!fd2 xd2+ "' w
o
Cl ----,, Cl"' wirCI
-


1 1 xd2 lt:Jge 7 1 2 e3 de+ ( l 2 . . . ,.,,,,,,,7. -
% . . 7. ;.-,,,,,,7.

0-0-0 ! 1 3 e d lt:J xd4 may be even D . .

better) 13 xe3 lt:Jg6 and now:
a l ) 14 e6 fe 15 lid l e7 1 6 i.d3
l2Jge5 17 l2J xe5 lt:Jxe5 18 f4 l2Jxd 3
1 9 Iixd3 li a d 8 = was Szabo
Krenosz, Budapest 1 939.
a2) In Flister-Balogh, corres 1942-3,
the same position was reached by
the route 1 2 e4 de+ (avoiding the
note to Black's 1 2th move in a)
above). Black again equalised
after 14 i.d3 lt:Jgxe5 15 l2Jxe5
lt:Jxe5 1 6 f4 l2J xd3 1 7 xd3
0-0-0+ = .
,,,,,,
g !I Zl1
Black has regained his pawn
with a satisfactory position, e . g . :
1 4 l:l:ac l l2Je4 1 5 't!fd3 f5 1 6 c5 ('oo'
- Cuardernos Teoricos, quoting a
game Fuster-Balogh, corres 1 944)
16 . . . c6 1 7 b4 lt:J c 3 1 8 1k2 l:l:he8
19 i.f3 b8 20 a4 a6 21 li a l <! :;7
22 lab2 lia8 23 lid2 laed8
= Zilberstein-Vasyukov, USSR
Armed Forces Team Ch, Riga
1 964.
B2
6 . . . i.hS?! (63)
42 5 ti:Jbd2 i..g4

after 9 g3 ti:J c8 10 1Wb5 .i.xf3 l l

ti:J xf3 lLib6 1 2 i.g5 1Wd7 1 3 h4 ti:Ja7
l 4 1Wxd7+ ti:Jxd7 1 5 e6 fe 16 ti:Jxd4
\t>f7 1 7 ti:Jxe6! ++ Furman-Bivshev,
Yi[ USSR Ch 1 949 ( l -0 , 39).
9 1Wb5
Threatening 10 e6.
9 . . . i,g6
10 g3
Taking the b-pawn allows Black
In view of the ease with which to draw: lO 1Wxb7 I!b8 l l 1Wa6
Black equalises in variation B l , :!:lb6 etc .
this seems ill-advised. 10 ti:J ge7
7 a3 11 ti:Jb3 a4
After 7 g3 a5?! 8 1Wa4 1Wd7 9 l l . . . I!d8 was better, but not l l
i.g2 f6 l O e6 1Wd6 l l ti:J xd4 ti:Je7 1 2 . . . i.e4 1 2 !i:Jc5 1Wf5 l 3 g4 1Wg6 1 4
lt:Jb5 1Wd8 l 3 g4 i.g6 1 4 0-0 h 5 1 5 !i:J h 4 trapping the queen .
li: d l lt:Jc8 1 6 ti:Jfl ti:Jd6 1 7 c 5 hg 1 2 ti:Jc5! (64)
1 8 cd ++ Ilivitsky-Vasiliev, Yi f
RSFSR Ch 1 960, b u t 7 . . . 1We7
would have been better, with a
similar line to variation A2 l .
7 . . . a5
7 . . . 1We7 transposes t o variation
A2.
7 ... 1Wd7 has less point as White
is able to complete his development
without worrying about his
e-pawn, e.g.: 8 g3 0-0-0 9 i.g2 f6 l O 1 2 lt::i bxd4? I!a5 ! l 3 1Wxb7 ti:Jxd4
e f gf l l b 4 f5 1 2 1Wa4 'i.t>b8 1 3 b5 14 1Wb8+ ti:Jc8 1 5 ti:J xd4 i.e4 1 6
ti:Jce7 1 4 ti:Jb3 ti:Jc8 1 5 c5 d3 16 e3 lt:Jf3 i.xf3 ! 1 7 e f I!xe5+ 1 8 i.e3
1Wd5 17 !i:Jh4 d2+ 18 !i:Jxd2 1Wd3 1 9 i.c5 1 9 I!d l 1We6 20 :i:ld3 .i.xe3 2 1
g4 i.g7 2 0 lla2 i.f7 2 1 lk2 ti:Jh6 li: xe3 :!:lxe3+ 2 2 fe 1Wxe3+ 23
22 ti:J xf5 ti:Jxf5 23 i.e4 1Wd7 24 i.xe2 0-0 ++ .
i.xf5 ( l -0, 46) Niklasson-Haik, 12 1Wc8
Reggio Emilia 1 977-8 . 13 i.d2!
8 1Wa4 1Wd7 Again 1 3 ti:Jxb7 I!b8 and 1 3
8 . . . ti:Jge7 was also inadequate 1Wxb7 1Wxb7 1 4 lt:J xb7 lt:Jc8 are
 5 l'Llbd2 .tg4 43

both good for Black. to Chapter 8 . Of the alternatives,

13 b6 6 h3 is best met by 6 .. . .txf3
14 l'Llxd4! 7 l'Llxf3 i.b4+, which is satisfactory
D us-Hotimirsky-Marshall, Ham for Black. 6 a3 prevents this line
b urg 1 9 1 0 . and after 6 . . . 'f!/e7 7 h3 the critical
variation is 7 . . i.h5 8 'f!/a4! . If
.

the line is to be viable for Black,

Conclusion he will have to improve on Suetin
Mosionzhik in var. A23 and the
After 5 l'Llbd2 .tg4, the simplest suggestions on move 1 5 are worth
choice for White is 6 g3, transposing investigating.
6 5 lbbd2 f6

1 d4 d5 Recommended by Tartakower.
2 c4 e5 White can now choose between:
3 de d4 A l 7 a3
4 lt:lf3 ll:lc6 A2 7 g3
5 lt:lbd2 f6 (65) 7 ll:lb3 is best met by 7 . . . .i.b4+
8 .i.d2 .i.e7! 9 .i.f4 .i.b4+ I O lt:lbd2
65:I .t. t . ; - t ( 1 0 .i.d2 .i.e7 =) l O . . . .i.e6 with a
w . ... . good game for Black - Meinsohn.
- . . Al

-
- n -
,,,,,,7,
7 a3 (66)
- --
>:,,,, ..
. lb .
p, [WM
o m p, p, W.l\f:'
'.f, o o [l;f
a mtvm a n
This pawn sacrifice, first tried
by Janowski against Bernstein at
Barmen 1 905, is now regarded as
inadequate and is rarely played.
Black tries for a rapid kingside
attack along the e- and f-files, but 7 . . . .i. g4
White can consolidate the extra To meet the threat of ll:lb3,
pawn by quickly completing his attacking the d-pawn.
kingside development. 7 . . . a5 is a luxury in this sharp
6 ef line: 8 ll:lb3 .i.e6 9 'ti'd3 'ti'd7 I O
Black now has two ways to ll:lbxd4 .i.c5 l l e 3 .i.g4 1 2 .i.e2
recapture: .i.xf3 13 .i.xf3 Samisch-Becker,
A 6 . . . lt:lxf6 Mittweida 1 927.
B 6 . . . 'ti'xf6 7
... .i.f5 8 lt:lb3 'ti'e7 9 ll:lbxd4
A 0-0-0 (intending . . . ll:lxd4 and
6 . . . lt:Jxf6 . . . c 5 ) is a possible plan which has
 5 lDbd2 f6 45

not yet been tested.

67 ... .
, .r
f%

8 h3!
B f!
The safest treatment. 8 g3 allowed .., %

Black to stir up some tactics after --

. . -
8 . . . 'it'e7 ! (8 . . . 'it'd? 9 h3 .tf5 1 0 b4
a6 1 1 lDb3 .i xb4+ 1 2 ab lDxb4 1 3 ts .
d d -
,,
ll\fxd4 0-0-0 1 4 .ib2 lDc2+ 1 5
m m ---,ttJ D
r% rn -
[r,.
lD xc2 'it'c6 1 6 ll\cd4 'it'xh I 1 7
lD xf5 llxd l + 1 8 ll xd l Palm
Brun, corres 1 978-9) 9 i.g2 d3 I O : i
e 3 lDd4 ! 1 1 0-0 ll\e2+ 1 2 @h i 0-0-0 .ih3 1 1 lDb3 .i xg2 1 2 @xg2
1 3 b4 h5 1 4 b3 h4 1 5 gh lDe4 1 6 0-0-0 1 3 i.d2 h5 ! 1 4 lDxa5? ( 1 4
lD xe4 i.xf3 1 7 ll\g5? 'it'xg5 ! ! 1 8 hg .ig5 was necessary - Fernschach)
l:i xh2+ 19 @xh2 i.d6+ 20 @h I 14 . . . h4 15 lD xh4 ll\ xa5 16 i.xa5
l:ih8 mate Lignell-Niemela, Finland g5 1 7 lfjf3 3+ 1 8 ..t>g l lDg4! 1 9
1 94 1 . A well-conducted attack but d3 (if 1 9 lle l ll\ x h 2 20 lDxg5
White contributed to his own ll\f3+ etc) 19 . . . ll\xh2 20 llfd I
downfall. ll\fl ! ! 0- l Schiede-Geier, corres
8 b4!? is an u ntested alternative. 1 9 26.
8 . . . i.xf3 8 .tb4+
Possibly 8 . . . i.h5!? should be 9 i.d2 .ie7
tried. 10 lDcl 0-0? !
9 lDxf3 ltJe4 I O . . . d7 intending . . . 0-0-0
9 . . . a5!? I O e 3 i.c5 1 1 ed i.xd4 was a better plan.
12 lDxd4 'it'xd4 gives Black some 1 1 i.g2 'it'd7
compensation for the pawn accord 12 0-0 .ih3
ing to Meinsohn. 1 3 ll\d3 i.xg2 1 4 ..t>xg2 lDe4 1 5
1 0 'it'c2 e7 .ie l llf5 1 6 ll h l llaf8 1 7 'i!Vc2
11 e3 0-0-0 'it'e6 18 b4 Kellner-Palda, Vienna
1 2 .td3 lDg5 1 3 lD xg5 't!t'xg5 1 4 1 947.
i.e4 de 1 5 .if5+ @b8 1 6 i.xe3 B
Dyckhoff-Pedersen, corres 1 930. 6 . . . 'it'xf6 (68)
A2 The more p opular recapture.
7 g3 (67) Black now intends an early . . .
7 i.f5 .ig4/ . . . i.f5 followed b y . . . 0-0-0.
8 lDb3 White is able to ward off
8 a3 a5 9 .ig2 d7 I 0 0-0 gives Black's threats , but care must
Black attacking chances after I O be exercised.
46 5 lb.bd2 f6
7 g3
7 a3 transposes to C hapter 4,
var. A2.
7 lb.b3 is an independent idea : 7
. . . i.g4 (7 . . . i.f5 !? - ECO) 8 a3
(not 8 lb.xd4? 0-0-0) 8 . . . h6 9 g3
0-0-0 1 0 i.g2 d 3 ! 1 1 0-0 ! ( l l ed?
lb.e5 ! - Bernstein) 1 1 . . . lL:Je5
12 i.f4 lLJg6 ( 1 2 . . . de? 13 'ti'e2
lLJxf3+ 14 i.xf3 i.xf3 15 xf3 g5 1 6
'ig4+ -++ - ECO) 1 3 i.e3 lLJ e 5 14
i.[4 (Bernstein-Janowski, Barmen
1 905) and now Bernstein recom-
mended 14 . . . lL:Jg6 ! 1 5 e3 ( 1 5 i.e3
llie5 = ) 15 . . . lll x f4 16 ef g5! oo.
Now Black can choose between:
B l 7 ... i.f5
B2 7 . . . i.g4
Bl
1 . . ..trs (69J
8 i.g2
8 lll b 3 has little point in this
position; after 8 . . . ..tb4+ 9 i.d2
0-0-0 Black stood well in Alexander
Jackson, corres 1 93 1 .
8 a3 transposes to the 5 a3 f6
variation of Chapter 4 .
Th e text move avoids the possible
loss of tempo involved with a3 and
prepares immediate castling.
8 . . . 0-0-0
Black can attempt to take
advantage of the omission of a3 by
8 . . . llib4, but after 9 0-0 lb.c2 (9 . . .
i.c2 1 0 'ife l i.g6 1 1 lLl b 3 lli c 2 1 2
'ifa5 lb.xa l 1 3 lll b xd4 also gives
White a strong attack according
to B ogolj ubow) 10 l:ib l llib4 ( 1 0
. . . d 3 1 1 e4 i.g4 1 2 h 3 i.h5 1 3
llib3 ;!; ) 1 1 a 3 i.xb l 1 2 lll xb l lll c6
1 3 b4 with a strong attack for
the sacrificed exchange , Soininen
Svensson, corres 1 947.
9 0-0 (70)
Grilnfeld's 9 lli h4 is also strong:
9 . . . llige7 (9 . . . i.g4 10 h 3 i.h5 1 1
llie4 ..tb4+ 1 2 '47fl is good for
White) 10 lLlxf5 lLJ xf5 1 1 0-0 and
now:
a) 11 . . . h6 12 lll e 4 'ife6 13 a4
Grilnfeld-Lenz, corres 1 9 1 7/8.
b) 11 . . . h5 12 lbe4 'ifg6 1 3 i.g5 !
..te7 ( 1 3 . . . lie8 1 4 h4 lb. h 6 1 5 'ifd3
lllb 8 1 6 a3 Grii nfeld-Schonrnann,
corres 1 9 1 9-20) 14 ..txe7 lb.fxe7 1 5
h4 lbe5 1 6 'ifa4 '47b8 1 7 lll c5 lll 7 c6
 5 tiJbd2 f6 4 7

1 8 1!fb5 b6 1 9 f4 1 -0 Griinfeld A recommendation o f Panov.

S karszewski, corres 1 9 1 7 . 8 J.g2 0-0-0
The immediate 8 .. . d3 is
70 - - J inadequate. After 9 ed J.b4 10 0-0
B f
& W - W &
, ,, - . - - 0-0-0 1 1 GiJe4 'it'f5 1 2 J.f4 h6 13 h 3

-- .
b, .
J.xh3 14 J.xh3 'it'xh 3 1 5 c 5 l:l:d5
m .t m 16 llc l g5 17 i.e3 g4 18 GiJh4 tJe5
m 1 9 d4 White stood better in
Ancin-Fodor, H ungary 1 96 1 .
lb
[r}d;tg;l
m f% -%
f% 9 h3!
Alternatives are less strong:
g- a) If 9 a3 Black can play 9 . . . d3 !
9 . . . g5 and now l 0 0-0 de 1 1 'it'xe2 liJd4
9 . . . tJge7 also proved inadequate 12 'it'e5? ( 12 'it'e4 ..tf5 1 3 'it'e5 was
after 10 'it'a4 g5 1 1 lbb3 h6 1 2 tJ c5 better - Jonasson) 1 2 . . . J.xf3 0- 1
lbg6 1 3 t:Dxb7 ! '.t>xb7 1 4 'it'b5+ Elsas-Ernst, Wiedenau 1 947.
'.t>c8 15 'it'a6+ '.t>d7 1 6 tJxd4 'it'xd4 b) 9 0-0 tiJge7 10 'it'b3 ( 1 0 h3! -
1 7 J.e3 'it'f6 1 8 ll ad l + Busch Euwe) 10 . . . tJg6 1 1 a4 J.b4 1 2 a5
Schonmann, corres 1 9 1 9 . J.xa5 13 'it'a4 Ii: he 8 ! 1 4 liJb3 li xe2
1 0 'it'a4 '.t>b8 15 GiJxa5 ( 1 5 J.g5 is met by 15 . . .
11 lbb3 h6 'it'f5 1 6 J.xd8 J.xf3 1 7 J.xa5 J.xg2
12 J.d2 tJge7 18 '.t>xg2 tJf4+ ! 19 gf 'it'g4+) 15 . . .
The column is O ' H anlon-Euwe , J.xf3 1 6 J.h3+ li d 7 1 7 'it'b5 tJe5
H olland 1 92 1 , which continued 1 3 18 J.xd7+? ! ( 1 8 ll a3 a6! 19 'it'g5
e 3 J.d3 ( 1 3 . . . d e 1 4 J.c3 ++ - 'it'xg5 20 J.xg5 lbe5 oo) 1 8 . . .
ECO) 14 llfe l . liJxd7 + Emmrich-Moritz, Oeyn
B2 hausen 1922 . A very i nconclusive
7 . . . J.g4 (71) game with improvements available
for both sides .
9 . . . J.h5
9 .. . J.f5 is similar to B l , except
White has the extra tempo h3
which can pro ve useful. After l 0
0-0 g5 1 1 'it'a4 h5 1 2 liJe l tJge7 1 3
lbd3 g4 1 4 h 4 J.xd3 1 5 ed 'it'f5 1 6
lbe4 '.t>b8 1 7 f4 Teichmann
Mieses, match (3) 1 9 1 0 , White has
succeeded in blocking the kingside.
48 5 li:Jbd2 /6

10 0-0 d3
If I O . . . g5 1 1 !t'a4 ! - El Contra
Gambito A lbin.
11 ed
1 1 e3 also gives White the
advantage: 1 1 . . . .ltb4? ! (better is
1 1 . . . t2Je5 12 g4 .ig6 1 3 t2Jxe5
!t'xe5 14 t2Jf3 ) 12 !t'a4 .txd2 1 3
li:J xd2 .lte2 1 4 l:i:e l li:Jge7 1 5 t2Je4
!t'f7 16 i.d2 t2Je5 17 !t'xa 7 t2Jf3+
1 8 .i.xf3 !t'xf3 19 li:Jc5 ! - which continued 1 6 tLlb3 h5 1 7
Shakmatny Listok. ll:Jc5 h g 1 8 !t'b5 gh 1 9 i.g5 ! !t'e5
11 xd3 20 .lt xe 7 t2J xe7 2 1 .ltxb7+ '.t>d8 22
12 g4 t2J xd3 !t'xb5 23 cb .ltxd3 24 llfd 1
12 !t'e2? (Harris-Butcher, ++ .
Birmingham 1 949) should have 16 g5 !t'd6
been met by 12 . . . ll: xd 2 ! ++ . 1 7 lLJf3 .te4
12 .i. g 6 1 8 .te3 t2Jge7 19 I Hd l i.xf3 20
1 3 !t'a4 .i.b4 i.xf3 a6 21 ll:xd3 !t'xd 3 22 !t'd l
If 1 3 . . . h5 14 g5 !t'f5 1 5 ll:Jh4 !t'xc4 23 .ltxh5 t2Je5 24 .i.g4+
!t'xg5 16 lll 2f3 !t'f6 17 .ig5 li:J xg4 25 !t'xg4 !t'xg4 26 hg
intending liad l . Radulescu-Ivanovic, corres 1 935-6.
14 a3 .ixd2
14 . . . .id6 15 ll:J e l li:Jge7 1 6
ll:Jdf3 ! ll:f8 1 7 li:J xd3 .t xd 3 1 8 Conclusion
.ie3 ! gave White a strong attack
in Griinfeld-Schonmann, corres 5 . . . f6 seems inadequate against
1 9 1 8-9. best play. After 6 ef, !t'xf6 is the
15 lll x d2 (72) more popular recapture, when 7 g3
15 h5 leaves Black with the choice
An unsuccessful attempt to between 7 . . . .U5 and 7 . . . .ig4,
improve on the 15 . . . ll:Jge7 of neither of which is adequate against
Millier-Balogh , corres 1 932-3 , correct defence.
7 5 tbbd2 others

1 d4 dS o nly quote an old analysis of

2 c4 eS Bogolj ubow.
3 de d4 6 a3
4 ll:i f3 lll c6 Alternatives :
5 lt:Jbd2 a) 6 g3 transposes to Chapter 9 ,
Now, apart from 5 . . . .ig4, dealt var. D.
with in Chapter 5, and 5 . . . f6, b) 6 b3, overprotecting the c-pawn,
covered in Chapter 6, Black has a is too slow; after 6 . . . fi/d7 ( 6 . . . f6 7
number of other tries, the most ef fi/xf6 gives Black a strong
important of which is 5 . . . .i.e6. attack - Alexander) 7 lt:Je4 Iid8
The material divides as follows : 8 a3 i.e7 9 lt:Jg3? f6 10 ef lt:J xf6
A 5 . . . .te6!? I I fi/d3 lt:Jg4 I 2 e3 0-0 1 3 h 3?
B 5 . . . .tb4 lLixf2! I 4 @xf2 de+ I 5 .txe3 fi/xd3
c 5 . . . .tf5 I 6 .txd3 Iixd3 1 7 Iihb l .th4
D 5 . . . fi/e7 1 8 .tc5 Iif5 ! Black soon won
E 5 . . . lt:Jge7 in Lamerat-Angiares , French Ch
A 1 930.
5 .te6 !? (73) c) 6 lll b 3 is interesting :
c l ) 6 ... .txc4? ! 7 lll bxd4 fi/d5 (7 . . .
lLixd4 8 fi/xd4 fi/xd4 9 lll xd4 ll:d8
1 0 lt:Jc2 lLie7 1 1 e 3 .txfl 12 li xf l
lb c 6 1 3 f4 .te7 1 4 @ e 2 0-0 1 5 .td2
Ild7 16 i.c3 1: - Krause) 8 lt:Jxc6
fi/xc6 9 .td2! 'ifb6 (9 . . . .tc5
1 0 Ik l fi/b6 1 1 'ifa4+ .tb5 1 2 'ifb4
a5 1 3 e6! lLif6 1 4 ef+ @xf7
1 5 lLig5+ 'i!tg8 1 6 e3 .txfl
17 l::i'. x fl - Fernschach) 10 fi/a4+
( 10 'ifc2 .td5 ! ) 1 0 . . . .tb5 1 1 'ifa5 !
Curiously this move receives 0-0-0 1 2 fi/xb6 ab 1 3 e3 .tc6
little attention in ECO, who 14 .tc4 Chaiupetsky-Bauer,
50 5 l'i:Jbd2 others

1 93 8 . 13 g3 Napier-Tarrasch, Monte
c 2 ) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 .i d 2 'f!Je7 8 l'i:Jbxd4 Carlo 1 902.
li:Jxd4 9 l'i:J xd4 0-0-0 1 0 li:Jf3 ( 1 0 e3 7 . . . li:Jg6
i. xd2+ 1 1 'f!ixd2 c5 12 0-0-0 cd 7 . . . 1!t'd7 ! transposing to A2 is
1 3 ed with sufficient compensation best, which suggests White would
for the piece - Chalupetsky, but do better to put immediate pressure
10 . . . c5 l l l'i:Jf3 .ig4 wins - on the d-pawn with 7 l'i:Jb3 as in
Alexander) 1 0 . . . .i. xc4 ( 1 0 . . . the note above .
li:Jh6? 1 1 'i!fc 2 li:Jg4 1 2 .ic3 'i!fc5 8 i.b2 li:JgxeS
1 3 e3 i.xc4 14 .ixc4 'f!Jxc4 1 5 h3 9 bS li:Jxf3+
l'i:Jh6 16 lie l lid7 17 .ixb4 'i!fxb4+ 10 ef li:J aS
1 8 'f!ic3 'i!fb5 1 9 e6! Isaksson If 1 0 . . . l'i:Je5 1 1 f4 li:Jg6 1 2 1!t'f3
M uir, 3rd Corres 01 1960-2) is very strong.
1 1 'i!fa4 .ixd2+ 1 2 li:Jxd2 .ia6 11 .id3
1 3 e3 .ixfl 14 ll: xf l 'f!Jxe5 1 5 0-0-0 Recommended by Bogolj ubow.
'i!f c5+ 1 6 'i!fc4 1!f xc4+ 1 7 l'i:Jxc4 11 cs
li:Je7 = analysis by Krause. 12 'i!fc2 1!fc7 1 3 0-0 i.d6 14 g3
Now Black has: 0-0-0 15 l'i:Je4 i.e7 16 i.c l ! h6
A l 6 . . . l'i:Jge7 17 il:e I lihe8 (if 17 . . . g5 1 8 .id2)
A2 6 . . . 'i!fd7 ! 18 i.f4 1!t'd7 19 i.d2! b6 20 i.xa5
Al ba 2 1 1!t'a4 1!t'c7 22 li:Jd2! lid6
6 . . . li:J ge7 (74) 23 li:Jb3 .id7 24 1!fxa5 ( 1 -0, 52)
Brilla-Banfalvi - Muir, 3rd Corres
01 1 960-2.
A2
6 . . . 1!t'd7! (75)

7 b4
Regarded by theory as the most
energetic. Also strong is 7 l'i:Jb3
li:Jf5 8 h 3 ! h5 9 i.g5 i.e7 10 .ixe7
1!fxe7 1 1 1!t'd3 0-0-0 1 2 h4 a5
 5 lLlbd2 others 5 1

7 b4
76 :!
-
-,
7 g3 transposes to Chapter 9 ,
B
var. 03 1 . ,,,,,,?, ,,,,,,r,

Also possible are: . . ... . .

a) 7 lt:lb3 lld8 (7 . . . 0-0-0? ! -, ,-
, ,,,, , .. , :
.. . . .
. .
8 e3 d3 9 il:ibd4 i.c5 1 0 lt:\ xc6 . ,,J
- - . - [
'it'xc6 1 1 ..txd3 ;!: - Pillsbury

,, ,
,,,,
- - ,, , lb , ,,,
J anowski, Cambridge Springs
1 904) 8 e3 d3 9 lt:lbd4 ..txc4 m, -
I 0 i.xd3 .ixd3 1 1 't!Vxd3 J.. c 5 Dr- i. m :s:
1 2 0-0 lt:lge7 1 3 Iid l 0-0 1 4 't!Vc2 13 . . . ''d6
( 1 4 b4 !?) 14 . . . i.. b 6 15 b4 lt:lg6 1 6 14 i.. g2 Iid8
i.. b 2 lt:lcxe5 = . If 1 4 . . . i.. x a3 1 5 i.. x a3 'it'xa3
b) 7 't!Va4!? il:ige7? ! (7 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 0-0 intending il:ig5 and White
intending . . . 'it>b8 and .. . lt:\ xe 5 stands better.
looks better) 8 g3 il:ig6 9 i.. g 2 i.e7 15 0-0 0-0
10 0-0 0-0-0 1 1 b4 @b8 12 i.b2 16 't!Vd3 rs
.th3 1 3 b 5 il:icxe5 1 4 i.. xd4 il:i xf3 + 17 h5?!
1 5 lt:lxf3 and Black h a d nothing to Better was 1 7 il:ig5 i.. f7 ( 1 7 . . .
show for his pawn in Heigl i..d 7 1 8 i.. d 5+) 1 8 il:ixf7 @xf7 oo.
Schmieders, corres 1 964. 17 . . . ll:le7
7 lt:lge7 18 Iicdl f4!
8 i.. b 2 lt:lg6 Black stands well. Lundholm
9 lkl a5 Spielmann , Stockholm 1 940, con
Also strong is 9 . . . lld8 ! ? 10 b5 tinued 19 il:ixd4 fg 20 ll:l xe6 gf+
lt:lcxe5 1 1 lt:lxd4 i.. x a3 1 2 i.. x a3 21 @h i 't!Vxe6 2 2 'f!t'g3 il:if5 23 't!Vg4
't!Vxd4 1 3 i.. b 4 il:i xc4 14 i..c 3 't!Vb6 't!Vxe2 ! ! 24 i.. d 5+ lixd5! (24 . . .
1 5 e3 0-0 1 6 't!Vc2 lt:lxe3 1 7 fe @h8 allows 2 5 i.. x g7+) 2 5 't!Vxe2
't!Vxe3+ 1 8 i.. e 2 lt:lf4 1 9 'f!t'e4 ll:lg3+ 26 @g2 il:i xe 2 27 cd ll:lf4+
lt:ld3+ 0- 1 Noteboom-Helling, 28 'it>g3 lll x h5+ 29 @h4?! (29 @g2
Berlin 1 93 1 . Not, however, 9 . . . Iif4 +) 29 . . . li f4+ 30 @xh5 i.. e 7
lt:lgxe5 1 0 i.. xd4 . 3 1 lih l g6+ 3 2 'it>h6 lif5 0- 1 .
10 b5 ll:lcxe5 B
11 g3 ll:lxf3+ 5 . . . i.. b4
12 il:ixf3 i.. c5 6 a3 (77)
13 h4 (76) The most direct attempt at a
Not 1 3 lt:l xd4 lid8 . refutation, although the quieter
52 5 t'i:Jbd2 others

6 g3 also seems good : 6 . .. i.e6 1 1 . . . t'i:Jg6 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 ef t'i:Jgxe5

7 i.g2 i.xc4 8 0-0 .id5 9 lll b3 't!Nd7 1 4 f4 t - Griinfeld.
IO t'i:Jbxd4 0-0-0 I I i.e3 t'i:Jge7 1 2 b2) 9 ... d3! IO h3 i.xf3 1 1 ef t'i:J xe5
lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 1 3 't!Na4! .ia5 1 4 l:iac l 12 i.g2 t'i:J7c6 13 f4 t'i:Jd4 1 4 't!Nxb7
(threatening l:txc6) 1 4 . . . i.b6 t'i:Jc2+ 1 5 @d i ll:b8 1 6 't!Ne4 0-0
1 5 i.xb6 ab 16 e6!? 't!Nxe6 ( 1 6 . . . 1 7 i::i'. a 2 't!Nd7 ! ! 1 8 a4 l:i xb2! 0- 1
i.xe6 o r 1 6 . . . fe are met by Bernhardt-Heller, co rres 1 9 1 2-3
17 t'i:Je5 ! ) 17 lt:lg5 't!Ne7 1 8 e4 't!Nxg5 ( 1 9 ll:xb2 't!Nxa4 20 l::l'. b l 't!Na2
19 ed lt:lb8 20 i.h3+ f5 2 1 't!Nc2 ! 2 1 l:ic l - 21 @c l t'i:Ja3! - 2 1 . . .
Staldi-Anglares, M unich Ol 1 936. t'i:Jxc4 threatening 22 . . . lt:\2e3+
and 22 . . . lll b 2 mate; 20 't!Nxe5
n E .*. L. 11\ t,,
w ., ,., lt:ld4+ ! 2 1 @c l 't!Na l + 22 ll b l
lt:lb3+ ++ - Fernschach).
R#l\ R R M b3) Also good is 9 ... i.xf3 I O 't!Nxf3
R M M lll g 6 1 1 .llg2 lt:lgxe5 - Fernschach.
rl ts R M 7 . . . i.g4
8 b4
M RlD R
WM ?ffl A WM A W/W 8 't!Nf4!? 't!Nd7 9 b4 0-0-0 IO i.b2
L,J. 0 [ 0 [Qz lt:lge7 1 1 0-0-0 t'i:Jg6 1 2 't!Ng3 't!Ne6
U
,,,,,,/, m
, .,,, , ,;, A
. IJ: 1 3 e3 de 14 .ll e 2 i.xf3 15 gf lt:lcxe5
6 . . . .ixd2+ 16 f4! t Sturm-Young, Trinidad
7 't!Nxd2! 1 947.
7 .txd2, as recommended by 8 i.xf3
ECO, seems less strong: 9 ef t'i:Jxe5
a) 7 ... lt:lge7!? 8 g3 0-0 9 i.g2 lll g6 10 .ll b2 t
I O i.g5 't!Nd7 1 1 't!Nc2 lt:lcxe5 Fine-Adams, US Ch 1 944,
12 ll:ad l ? d3 ! 1 3 ed? lll x f3+ continued 1 0 . . . 'it'e7 1 1 0-0-0
14 i.xf3 't!Nf5 0- 1 Wolliston-Adams, 0-0-0 1 2 f4 lt:lc6 1 3 g3 f5 1 4 b5 lt:lb8
US Ch 1 940. 15 i.h3 lt:lh6 1 6 ll:he l 't!Nf7 1 7 't!Nb4
b) 7 . . . i.g4 8 't!Nb3 lt:lge7 9 g3 and a5 1 8 't!Nb3 l::l'. h e8 1 9 l::l'. xe8 l::l'. x e8
now: 20 i. xd4 't!Nh5 21 i.g2 't!Ne2 22 c5
b I) 9 ... 0-0?! IO i.g2 ll:b8 1 1 0-0 c6 23 be lt:lxc6 24 J.e5 't!Na6
( 1 1 e3 lll g6 1 2 lt:lxd4 lt:l xd4 1 3 ed 25 A xg7 lll g 8 26 'it'f7 1 -0 .
't!Nxd4 14 f4? - 14 i.c3 - 14 . . . c
lt:lxe5! 1 5 fe l:ife8 1 6 i.f4 l::l'. x e5+ 5 . . . i.f5 (78)
17 i.xe5 l::l'. e 8 1 8 @fl l::l'. x e5 19 ll:e l Wolfs move. Black has tactical
l::l'. f5+ 20 i.f3 i.h3+! 0- l - threats based on .. . t'i:Jb4 in this
Spielberger-Wysowski , corres 1 946) line.

;,i i,;
-
A l 2 't!fxc5 lll c xe5 l3 lll x e5 lll x e5
. -
- - . .
-
- n .t.
-,,,,,;z
-
-
-
- 1 939.
& lb &
7.
- ..
n y, ,.,....z
- n
!f i..
6 lll b 3
Preparing to develop the bishop
from c l . Alternatives give Black
adequate counterplay:
a) 6 g3 ll:ib4 (6 , , . f6!? 7 ef ll:ixf6
8 i.g2 8 lbb3? i.e4! 9 i.g2 'f!/d7
- i.g4 1 2 f3 i.c5! with a n unclear
JO 0-0 0-0-0 - 8 . . . 'f!/d7 9 0-0
0-0-0 1 0 'f!/b 3 - threatening ll:ie5
1 0 . . . ll:e8! oo - Meinsohn) 7 'f!/a4+
c6 !? (7 . . . b5 8 cb ll:ic2+ 9 \t>d l
lt:\xa I I 0 lll xd4 i.g6 l l i.g2 i.c5
12 b6+ <J;>f8 13 b7 l:Ib8 14 lll c6
i.c2+ 1 5 'f!/xc2 ll:i xc2 16 ll:ixd8
ll:ie3+ 17 fe lhd8 1 8 \t>c2 ll:ih6
19 lll c 4 i.b6 20 b3 g6 21 i.a3+
Kogan - Javad-Zade, Azerbaidzhan
Ch 1 963) 8 lll h 4 'f!/d7 ! oo -
Minev, ECO.
b) 6 a3 and now:
b l ) 6 . . . 'f!/d7 7 g3 (7 h3 i.e7 8 'f!/a4
f6 9 g4 i.e6 10 ef gf I I b4 h5 1 2 b5
lll e 5 l3 g5 lll xf3+ 1 4 lll xf3 c 5 oo
Sorokin-Solntsev, Burevestnik Ch
1 960) 7 ... lll g e7 (7 ... d3? ! 8 e 3 f6 9
ef lll xf6 1 0 i.g2 Samisch
Richter, Berlin 1 940) 8 lll b 3 0-0-0
9 lll c 5 't!fe8 1 0 'f!/a4 ( 1 0 i.g5 h6
1 1 't!fa4 hg l 2 't!Vb5 lll a 5 ! l 3 'f!/xa5
5 lbbd2 others 53
lll c 6!) 10 . . . lll g 6 l l 'f!/b5 i.xc5
14 \t>d2 'f!/e6 15 b3 d3 16 e3 lllf3+
1 7 \t>d I d2 1 8 i.b2 'f!/e4 19 \t>e2
lll g l +! 0- 1 Teschner-Wolf, Berlin
b2) 6 ... f6 7 ef 'f!/xf6 8 b4 0-0-0 (not
8 . . . d3? 9 l:Ib l intending i.b2)
9 lll b 3 (if 9 'f!/a4 'Ot>b8 or 9 b5 lll e 5
I 0 lll x e5 'f!/xe5 l l ll:i f3 'f!/e4! i n
both cases with a fine position
for Black) 9 . .. h6 10 b5 lll e 5
1 1 lll fxd4 ( l l i.b2 is risky: l l . . .
lll xf3+ 1 2 g f 'f!/g6! 1 3 ll:ixd4 i.c5
with good play for Black) 1 1 . . .
position - Meinsohn.
- 6 . . . f6 !? (79)
A recommendation of Meinsohn
in Le Gambit A lbin. Other possi
bilities seem to give White the
advantage :
a) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 i. d 2 i.e7 ( 7 . . . 'f!/e7
8 lll b xd4 lll x e5 9 'f!/a4+ i.d7 was
untested in Finn-Palmer, Plymouth
1 903, because W hite blundered
with 10 'f!/xb4?? lll d 3+ 0- 1 ) and
now:
a l ) 8 a3 is innocuous: 8 . . . f6 9 i.f4
fe 10 lll x e5 i.f6 1 1 lll x c6 be l 2 lll c 5
'f!/e7 1 3 lll a 6 g5 1 4 i.d2 \t> f7 1 5
i.b4 'f!/d7 1 6 'f!/d2 lll e 7 l 7 0-0-0 c5
18 lll xc5 't!fc6 1 9 g4 a5 20 i.xa5
'f!/xc5 21 gf l:I xa5 22 e4 de 23 'f!/xe3
'f!/xe3+ 24 fe with a good ending
for Black in Schechtman-Solntsev,
Moscow 1 964 (0- 1 , 42).
a2) 8 i.f4! is stronger: 8 . . . i.b4+
54 5 lDbd2 others

9 lDbd2 lDge7 1 0 a3 i.xd2+ 1 1 7 . . . i.b4+ 8 i.d2 \!t'xf6 9 i.xb4

\!t'xd2 \!t'd7 ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 lid 1 ; lD xb4 10 lDbxd4 0-0-0 1 1 \!t'b3 c5
1 1 . . . ll:\g6 12 :ild 1 ) 12 li: d 1 0-0-0 1 2 a3 ll:\d3+ 1 3 ed cd 1 4 0-0-0
1 3 b4 - analysis by Minev. Klir-Zapletal, corres 1 969-70.
b) 6 ... \!t'd7 7 a3 0-0-0 8 i.f4 lDge7 8 a3
9 ll:\c5 'ii'e 8 IO b4 lDg6 1 1 g3 i.xc5 The immediate 8 lD bxd4 allows
1 2 be lDgxe5 1 3 lDxe5 lDxe5 8 . . . i.b4+ ! 9 i.d2 lD xd4 10 lD xd4
14 i.g2 lDg6 1 5 1 ll:\xf4 16 gf 'ti'xd4 1 1 i.xb4 \!t'xb2 1 2 i.d2
i.e4 1 7 i.h3+ ..tib8 1 8 lig l g6 0-0--0 with strong threats for Black.
1 9 lig3 \!t'e7 20 lib3 lihe8 8 . . . h6
21 :il ab I ! i.xb 1 ( 2 1 . . . \!t'xc5 was 9 lDfxd4
better) 22 lixb7+?! ..tixb7?? (22 . . . 9 g3 is met by 9 . . . 0-0-0 I O i.g2
..tia8 = ) 2 3 'ti'xb I + 1 -0 Junge g5!
W olf, German Club Ch 1 939. 9 . . . 0-0-0
IO e3 lDxd4
79 t ;. 1a
w ., ,
Not 10 . . . i.c5 1 1 lDxc5 ll:\xd4
1 2 ed :il xd4 1 3 'ii'e 2! .
- . . 11 ed \!t'g6 (80)
B m O .t. B
-- . .
m ttJ m B lD B
80
'1}, ,
w. t

.
t!
- . . ... .
,,,C;;y, - 7,"8
o r. 'ti' -n
;..';,m;

. . .... .
i
,,,,,,7,
BD B B
7 ef
O tD m B B
Alternatives are satisfactory for m%
[ . m%
[ m%
[
Black:
a) 7 lDbxd4? i.b4+ ! 8 i.d2 lDxd4 m'ifm m n
9 lD xd4 (9 'i!Va4+ i.d7 etc) 9 . . . According to Meinsohn, Black
\!t'xd4 1 0 i.xb4 \!t'xb2 1 1 i.d2 has enough compensation for the
'ti'xe5 with advantage to Black - sacrificed pawns, e.g. 1 2 \!ff3 i.c2
M einsohn. 1 3 d5 lie8+! 14 .i.e2 i.xb3
b) 7 e6 i.xe6 8 ll:lbxd4 lD xd4 1 5 'ti'xb3 'i!Vxg2 1 6 lifl \!t'xh2 or
9 'ti'xd4 (9 lDxd4 i.b4+ ! IO i.d2 1 2 d5 c6 ! or, finally, 1 2 i.e3? i.c2 !
i.xd2+ l l 'i!Vxd2 i.xc4 1 2 lic l A variation which n eeds some
i.f7 1 3 'ii'e 3+ ..tif8! = ) 9 . . . 'i!Vxd4 m ore practical tests.
1 0 lD xd4 i.xc4 = - Meinsohn. D
7 . . . 'ifxf6 5 . . . 'i!Ve7 (81)

Recommended by the corre
spondence master Dr Balogh . T he
line is similar to the variation
5 lll b d2 i.g4 6 a3 't!fe7 (p. 36).
Black attempts to regain t he
e-pawn immediately, but his own
d-pawn can become weak.
6 g3
Also good is 6 lt:lb3 i.g4 7 i.f4
0-0-0 8 a3 i.xf3 9 gf g5 1 0 i.g3
h5 1 1 h3 tlJ xe5 1 2 i.xe5 't!fxe5
1 3 't!fd3 f5 14 0-0-0 .
6 . . . i.g4
6 . . . i.f5 7 i.g2 0-0-0 8 0-0 was
also good for White in Griinfeld
Balogh, corres 1 9 3 8 .
7 i.g2 0-0-0
8 0-0
8 h3 i.h5 9 0-0 is also quite
playable: 9 . . . d3 10 ed I1.xd3
1 1 't!fa4! 't!fd7 1 2 a3 tlJge7 13 b4!
@b8 14 b5 tlJ d4 15 tlJ xd4 't!fxd4
1 6 tlJb3 i.d l !? 1 7 tlJxd4 i.xa4
18 i.b2 ;!:: Mendes-Duarte, Rio de
Janeiro v Sao Paulo (telephone
match) 1 944.
8 'ifb3 is less accurate : 8 . . . 't!fb4
9 't!fd3 g6 1 0 0-0 i.g7 00.
5 tlJbd2 others 55
8 d3
8 . . . f6 !? is an untried suggestion
of Gereben.
8 ... tlJxe5 fails to 9 tlJxe5 't!fxe5
1 0 't!fb3 b6 1 1 lll f3 't!fc5 1 2 't!fa4!
@b8 13 tlJe5! ++- Samisch-Maroczy,
Dresden 1 936.
9 ed tlJxe5? !
Better was 9 . . ll xd 3 , but even
then Black has practically nothing
for his pawn.
1 0 't!fa4
10 Ii. e l f6 1 1 h3 i.xf3 1 2 tlJxf3
is also to White's advantage: 1 2 . . .
lhd3 1 3 i.d2 lll xf3+ 1 4 i.xf3
't!fd7 1 5 i.d5 ! @d8 ( 1 5 . . . c6
1 6 i.e6) 1 6 l::t e3 I1.d4 ( 1 6 . . . I1.xe3
1 7 i.xe3 b6 1 8 i.xg8 I1.xg8
1 9 't!fb3 ) 1 7 't!fe l Malgrem
Heinrich , corres 1 93 8 .
10 . . . a6
1 1 tlJxe5 't!fxe5 1 2 c5 l::t d 4
1 3 tlJc4 't!ff6 14 i.e3 l hd 3?
1 5 't!fe8+! l -0 Samisch-Rathai,
Berlin 1 94 1 .
E
6 tlJb3
56 5 Ci:Jbd2 o thers

6 g3 is covered in Chapter I O , 1 965, continued 1 1 . . . .ig4 1 2 h3

var. A, while 6 a3 is Chapter 4 , .ixf3 1 3 Ci:Jxf3 lLig6 1 4 .ixg6 hg
var. A . 1 5 e2 0-0-0 1 6 b3 lLib4 1 7 .ib2
6 lLif5 lLid3 1 8 .id4 lLic5 1 9 4Jg5 lld7
7 e4 and Black managed to draw in
Yielding White a tiny endgame 70 moves.
advantage. Also playable is 7 .id2
.ie6 8 1Wc2 a5 9 lld I a4 IO lbc I
lLib4 l l 1Wb I .ic5 1 2 a3 Ci:J a6 Conclusion
1 3 Ci:Jd3 .ie7 1 4 Ci:Jf4 1Wc8
1 5 Ci:Jd5 t - Neumann-Brody, 5 . . . .ie6!? may well be Black's
Hanover 1 902. best reply to 5 Ci:Jbd2, because 6 g3
7 de transposes to a satisfactory line of
8 1Wxd8+ lLixd8 Chapter 9, while after 6 a3 1Wd7 !
Also possible is 8 . . . xd8 9 fe Black obtained a satisfactory
i.b4+ I O f2 .ie7 1 1 Ci:Jbd4 position in Lundholm-Spielmann,
.td7 1 2 i.d3 Ci:Jh4 1 3 lLi xc6 i.xc6 var. A2.
14 Ci:Jd4?! .txg2 1 5 l:ig l c5! 16 Ci:Jb3 5 . . . .tb4 concedes the two
.tc6 ! + Pillsbury-Brody, Hanover bishops without adequate com
1 902. pensation, while Wolfs 5 . . . i.f5 ,
9 fe lLic6 recommended i n Le Gambit A lbin,
I O .id3 lLife7 is difficult to refute . However,
11 lLibd4 t 5 . . . 1We7 and 5 . . . lLige7 seem to
Lehmann-Smederevac, Beverwijk l eave White with the advantage .
8 5 g3 g4

1 d4 dS A 6 ll:lbd2
2 c4 es B 6 i.g2
3 de d4 Insufficiently tested is 6 'tlfb3 !?
4 lll f3 ll:lc6 d3 (6 . . . 'tlfd7 !? - Clarke) 7 ll:lbd2
5 g3 .\t g4 (83) i.b4 8 a3 i.a5 9 h3 de IO ..txe2
i.xf3 1 1 'tlfxf3 'tlfd4 12 lib I ll:lxe5
83 I: L -
w , 13 'tlfxb 7 i.xd2+ 1 4 i.xd2 Jld8
15 i.e3 - Rivas-Conquest,
RR R R Hastings I I 1 980- 1 .
R R 0 R A
R m R .t R 6 ll:lbd2 (84)

R R R 'D O
u u o
!!';-., W'..m illlr 'H'
13' -
One of the most frequently
reached positions of the Albin
Counter Gambit; Black prepares
. . . 'ild7 and . . . 0-0-0, followed by
. . . h 5 or . . . i.h3. However,
compared to the positions in the
next chapter, White has greater This position is just as often
flexibility in that he can often omit reached by th e move order 5 ll:lbd2
ll:lbd2 and play for a quick i.g4 6 g3.
queenside advance with a3 and b4, 6 'tlfd7
or even b4 without a preparatory 6 . . . f6 7 ef 'tlfxf6 transposes
a3. Black also has to contend with into Chapter 6 , var. 82, while 6 . . .
a timely h3 and be careful that e6 'tlfe7 is dealt with i n Chapter 7 ,
doesn't happen at an unfortunate var. D, under t h e move order
moment as in variation 823. 5 ll:lbd2 'tlfe7 6 g3 i.g4.
The material now divides: 6 ... ll:lge7!? 7 i.g2 (7 ll:lb3?
58 5 g3 i.g4

.txf3 8 ef ll:lxe5 9 ll:l xd4? 't!Vxd4 ! -

Mengarini) 7 . . ll:lg6 8 0-0 't!Vd7 9
.

't!Va4 li:d8 ! 1 0 1:1.e l i.e7 1 1 b3

lbb4 co Taylor-Mengarini, Con
tinental Open 1 9 7 5 .
7 i.g2
7 h 3 makes it difficult fo r White
to castle after 7 . . . i.f5 8 a3 a5 9 b3
(9 .ig2 .ic5 10 ll:lb3 .ta7 1 1 .if4
lbge7 1 2 ll:l h4 i.e6 1 3 't!Vc2 h6
1 4 ll:lf3 i.f5 ro Klugman-Mengarini, A l l 8 0-0
Philadelphia 1 953) 9 . . . i.c5 I O A l 2 8 h3!
i. b 2 f6 1 1 e f ll:lxf6 1 2 i.g2 0-0 1 3 8 a3 f6 ( 8 . . . h 5 ! ) 9 ef ll:lxf6 1 0
g4 i.g6 1 4 ll:l h4 lbe5 1 5 ll:ldf3 't!Va4 d3 1 1 e 3 i.c5? 1 2 0 -0 h5 1 3 b4
lb xf3+ 16 lt:Jxf3 i.e4 (oo - Minev) i.e7 1 4 b5 ll:lb8 1 5 't!Vxa7 't!Vd6
1 7 't!Vd2 'it'd6 1 8 0-0 li:ad8 1 6 ll:ld4 ! Muller-Reick, corres
19 't!Vxa5? ! d3 ! 20 ed i.xf3 2 1 i.xf3 1 974-5. An unconvincing example.
't!Vg3 + 22 i.g2 lb xg4 23 i.e5 't!Vxe5 All
24 i.d5+? ll xd5 0- 1 Chukayev 8 0-0
Mikenas, Vilnius 1 952. With a final sub-division:
Now there is a further A l l i 8 . ll:lge7
. .

division: A l l2 8 ... h5!

A l 7 . . . 0-0-0 Alll
A2 7 . . . i.h3 8 . . . lbge7 (86)
The plan of immediately trying
to regain the e-pawn by 7 . . . ll:lge7
8 0-0 ll:lg6 failed after 9 a3 0-0-0
10 b4 h5 ( 1 0 . . . lbgxe5? l l b5
i.xf3 1 2 ef ) 1 1 't!Va4 Wb8 1 2 h4
i.h3 1 3 e6 i.xe6 1 4 i.b2 i.h3
15 i.xh3 't!Vxh 3 1 6 ll:lg5 't!Vf5 1 7
ll:ldf3 i.e7 1 8 b5 ! Barkhatov
Syavlyuk, Yi f Central Chess Cl ub
Ch 1 9 60.
Al The old move and now considered
7 0-0-0 (85) too slow.
White now has the choice 9 't!Va4 !
between: This is probably the stronge st.
 5 g3 i.g4 5 9

Alternatives are: lbc6 1 6 lla4 b 5 1 7 cb cb 1 8 b5

a) 9 lbb3 ll'ig6 10 i.g5 i.e7 1 1
i.xe7 'ii'x e7 1 2 'ii'd 2 llhe8 1 3 ll fe l
b8 1 4 c5 i.c8 1 5 l:lac 1 tt:\gxe5 1 6
lt:Jfxd4 lt:J xd4 1 7 lt:Jxd4 'ii'f6 1 8 e3
Kozlovskaya-Saakova, Yi f USSR
Women's Ch 1 969) 1 1 . . . lbcxe 5
1 2 .ib2 ll'i xf3 + ( 1 2 . . . .ixf3 !?)
13 ef .f5 1 4 ll'ib3 i.c2 1 5
.

g5 19 f4 gf 20 gf lt:Jg4 21 l:ic4 ::!:: 1!t'a5 d3 1 6 lll d 4 i.c5 1 7 ll'i xc2 de

Goldberg-Mikenas, V:!-f 23rd USSR 18 il:ac l Korchnoi-Mosionzhik,
Ch 1 9 5 5 . USSR TU Ch 1 966.
b ) 9 a 3 tt:lg6 I O 'i!fa4 ( IO b4 h5 1 1
ll'ib3?! d3 1 2 i.b2 't!t'f5 1 3 e4 'ii' x e4
87 -"
B ."&
,,,.. Nillb -- ...- -.' &
- 1!I' .. ,,,,
14 h3 oo Ermenkov-Merdinian,
Bulgarian C h 1 973) I O . . ..t>b8 1 1
. - - . .
b4 lt:Jcxe5 ( 1 1 . . . h5?! 1 2 c5 i.h3
13 e6! i.xe6 14 b5 lll ce5 15 c6 tvm ts m
- Koslovska-Mosionzhik, USSR
Team Ch 1 97 1 ) 12 'i!fxd7 l:i xd7
m llJ R m D
ts O R D ..t
.g
1 3 i.b2 lll x f3+ 14 i.xf3 i.xf3
1 5 lll xf3 c5 1 6 l:ifd 1 ::!:: Ojanen B
'"'"
.. -
.. -
Scham mo, S kopje 01 1 972. IO tt:\c8
9 . . . 'i;>b8 11 cS .ie7
10 lll b 3 (87) 12 l:Idl ::!::
Polugayevsky's choice, but other Polugayevsky-Vasyukov, USSR
moves are also better for White: Team Ch 1 964, continued 1 2 . . .

a) IO l:idl 'i!ff5 1 1 tt:lb3 i.xf3 1 2 .ixf3 1 3 ef ll'i xe5 1 4 'i!fxd7 :ilxd7

i.xf3 'ii'x e5 1 3 i.f4 'ii'f6 1 4 lbc5 1 5 f4 lt:Jc6 16 i.xc6 be 17 :il xd4
ll'ic8 1 5 tt:\a6+ ! ba 16 i.g5 ll:lb6 with the better e nding for White.
17 'i!fxa6 'ii'e 6 18 i.xd8 ll'i xd8 All2
19 l:i xd4 lt:Jc6 20 i.xc6 1!t'xc6 8 hS! (88)
2 1 l:id8+ 1-0 was an i mpressive
attack in Zagoryansky-Pan ov,
training game, M oscow 1 942.
b) 10 ll'ie4 ll:lg6 1 1 i.g5 tt:lcxe5 1 2
'ii'b 3 i. xf3 1 3 ef f6 1 4 i.d2 lbc6
1 5 f4 ::!:: Shamkovich-Mosionzh i k ,
USSR Tea m C h 1968.
c) I O b4 tt:\g6 1 1 b5 ( 1 1 c5 is also
good: 1 1 . . . lt:Jcxe5 12 'tfxd7
l:ixd7 1 3 i.b2 a5 14 a3 ab 1 5 ab
60 5 g3 i..g4

In view of the difficulties Black lifl + 49 e4 lie I + 50 f4 lig4+

experiences in var. A 1 1 1 , this 0- 1 Browne-Mestel, Las Palmas IZ
sharp move, which begins Black's 1982.
counterplay on the kingside as 9 . . . .i..x b4
early as possible, i s very logical. Forced, as 10 b5 was threatened.
9 b4 10 libl
This pawn sacrifice is the most IO 't!fa4 should be met by 10 . . .
aggressive reply. Alternatives: h4! when White hardly has anything
a) 9 't!fb3?! h4 ! 10 ltlxh4 i.. x e2 better than 1 1 lib I transposing to
1 1 lle l d3 1 2 lt:lhf3 't!ff5 1 3 h4 the text. Instead 1 0 .. . i.. h 3?!
g5 + Formanek-Oshana, USA 1 970. allowed a thematic 1 1 e6! i.. x e6 1 2
b ) 9 l1el is again met by 9 . . . h4! 10 lib ! lt:lf6 1 3 ltle5 lLixe5 1 4 .i.. x b7+
a3 hg 1 1 hg 't!ff5 ( 1 1 . . . d 3 1 2 b4 b8 1 5 't!fxb4 c5 1 6 't!fxc5 't!fxb 7 1 7
't!ff5 1 3 e4 't!fh5 also gives good 't!fxe5+ Vladimirov-Arseniev,
attacking chances for Black, Kan Yif RSFSR Ch 1 9 5 5 .
Simagin, USSR Ch 1 952) 1 2 lt:lfl 10 . . . h4
( 1 2 b4 lt:lxe5 13 ltlxe5 't!fxe5 1 4 i.. b2 1 1 't!fa4
't!fh5 1 5 lt:lf3 ltlf6 +; 1 2 lt:lh2 1 1 lt:lxh4? i.. h 3 ! intending . . .
llxh2 ! 13 xh2 d3 14 g l i.. c 5 lixh4 + - Minev.
15 lt:lf3 lt:lxe5 +) 1 2 . . . f6 1 3 ef lt:lxf6 11 hg
1 4 b4 lt:le4 + Minev.
- 12 lixb4
c) 9 h4 lt:lge7 10 't!fa4 lLig6 1 1 lt:lb3 Again White has to enter the
b8 12 lt:la5 lt:l xa 5 1 3 't!fa5 't!ff5 1 4 complications as after 1 2 hg i.h3
lie I f6 1 5 't!t'b5 c6 1 6 't!t'b3 i.. c 5 ( 1 6 Black's attack is the stronger -
. . . i.. xf3 1 7 i.. xf3 lt:lxe5 oo) 1 7 Minev.
ef g f 1 8 't!fd3 't!fxd3 1 9 e d i.. b4 20 12 lt:lxb4
.i.. d 2 i.. xf3 2 1 .i.. x b4 lt:lxh4 22 .i.. h 3 1 3 't!fxb4 i.. h 3
ltlg6 23 i..f5 ll hg8 (23 . . . lidg8) 14 e6 (89)
24 Ii e6 h4 25 ll xf6 lLie5 26 li e !
lLig4 2 7 i.. xg4 .i.. x g4 28 f3 .i.. h 5
29 g4 .i.. g6 30 lld l c7 31 f2
b6 32 i..d 2 lidf8 33 .i..g 5 h3 34
g3 c5 35 xh3 ( ) lie8 36
lld2 b7 37 .i.. f4 a6 38 g3
lie ! 39 a3?? a5 40 f2 ll h l
4 1 g2 Ii b l 4 2 .i.. d 6 a4 43 g3
b3 44 f4 lig l + 45 f2 lixg4
46 f3 li g l 47 f5 .i.. h 5+ 48 f4

1 4 fg xg2 1 5 xg2 1!t'h3+ 1 6
@g l llJh6 intending . . . ll:lf5/g4
gives Blac k a strong attack.
14 . . . 1!xe6 oo
Vladimirov-Volfson, Trud Ch 1 969,
continued 1 5 fg xg2 1 6 'i.t>xg2
llJf6 1 7 lie 1 llJg4 1 8 llJfl 1!t'e4 1 9
1!t'c5 b 6 2 0 1!b5 f6 2 1 c 5 li h 5 with
chances for both sides.
A12
8 h3! (90)
White drives away the bishop,
so that if it retreats to h5, B lack
will have no play down the h-file .
s . . . rs
Or 8 . . . e6 9 a3 llJge7 1 0 b4
lbg6 1 1 b2 llJgxe5 1 2 lic l e7
13 b5 lbxf3+ 1 4 llJxf3 llJa5 1 5 1!t'a4
b6 16 llJe5 Podolny-Mikenas,
Vi f 1 7th USSR Ch, Vilnius 1 949.
9 a3 f6
If 9 . . . lbge7 I O b4 llJg6 1 1 b2
lbgxe5 ( 1 1 . . . d3 12 e3 lie8 1 3 1!t'a4
@b8 1 4 b5) 1 2 b5 llJxf3+ 1 3 llJxf3
lba5 14 1!a4 - Minev.
10 ef
I 0 1!t'a4 was tried in Simagin
Gereben, Moscow 1 949, which
5 g3 g4 61
continued 10 . . . b8 ( I O . . . fe ! 1 1
llJh4 or 1 1 ll:lg5 co Magyar Sakkelet)
1 1 llJh4 e6 1 2 xc6 be ( 1 2 . . .
1!xc6 1 3 1!xc6 b e 14 e f llJ xf6 oo -
Minev) 1 3 llJb3 c5 1 4 1!t'a6 1!t'c8 1 5
1!b5+ 1!t'b7 1 6 1!t'xb7+ xb7 1 7 ef
lbxf6 1 8 g5 @b6! 19 xf6 gf 20
llJd2 g8 (oo - Magyar Sakkelet)
and Vi - Vi , 3 8 .
10 . . . llJxf6
11 b4 lie8
1 1 . . . llJe4!? - Minev.
12 b2! d3
Korn recommends 1 2 . . . d 3 ! ? 1 3
e3 d6.
1 3 0-0! :t
Bondarevsky-Mikenas, 1 8th USSR
Ch 1 9 50, continued 13 . . . xe2 14
1!t'a4 xfl 15 lixfl @b8 16 b5
llJd8 1 7 llJxd4 c5 18 lb2b3 xd4
19 xd4 b6 20 c5 lie7? (20 . . . lie4
was better; 20 . . . lie6 2 1 cb cb 22
e3 li xe3 23 fe lle8 24 1!e4 -
Minev) 2 1 cb cb 22 xb6 ++ .
A2
7 . . . h3 (91)
This position can also be reached
by the sequence 5 g3 e6 6 llJbd2
62 5 g3 i.g4
\!t'd7 7 i.g2 i.h3 ; cf Chapter 9,
var. 032. Black attempts to
transpose into favo urable lines of
var. Al 1 2.
8 0-0
8 i.xh3 helps Black; after 8 . . .
\!t'xh3 9 a3, h e has two very
playable lines:
a) 9 . lbh6 IO 'ti'c2 lll g4 1 1 'ti'e4
..
i.e7 1 2 b4 0-0 1 3 i.b2 liae8 1 4
i.xd4 J.f6 1 5 i.c3 lll g xe5 1 6 lbxe5
J.xe5 17 'ti'f3 li e6 1 8 li e I i.xc3
19 \!t'xc3 life8 and Black stood
very well in O'Kelly-Forintos,
Bordeaux 1 964.
b) 9 ... aS!? I O 'ti'a4 g5 1 1 lbxd4
lbge7 12 lbe4 0-0-0 1 3 lbxc 6 lbxc6
14 lbxg5 \!t'g2 1 5 I:Ifl lbxe5 1 6
i.f4! i.g7 ! 1 7 'ti'xa5 b6! 1 8 \!t'b5
llhe8 1 9 J.e3 h6 20 lbf3? ill xf3+
2 1 ef lixe3+ 22 fe 'ti'd2 mate
Rethati-Krenosz, B udapest 1 949 .
8 . . . 0-0-0
Thematic, but 8 . . . h5 intending
. . . i.xg2 and . .. h4 deserves
attention. The i m mediate 8 . . .
i.xg2 9 @xg2 h 5 failed after I O h4
lll h 6 1 1 lbe4 lbg4 12 i.f4 0-0-0 1 3
ll c I 'ti'e8 1 4 lbeg5 11d7 1 5 'ti'a4 f6
1 6 ef gf 1 7 ill h 3 'ti'xe2 1 8 llfe l
'ii'x b2 1 9 I! b I 'ti'a3 20 'ti'b5 i.b4
2 1 I!e6 a6 22 'ti'f5 Ghe orghiu
Horvath , Romania 1 960.
9 'ii'a 4
Maybe a better choice is 9 lbb3
i.xg2 I O @xg2 \!t'e6 1 1 'ii'd 3 lbxe5
12 lbbxd4 'iWf6 1 3 'ti'e4 lb xf3 14
lL!xf3 'ti'e7 15 'ii' x e7 J.. x e7 16 lbe5
with a better ending for White,
Korchnoi-Mosionzhik, Yzf Lenin
grad Spartakiad 1 969.
9 hS
10 b4
If IO a3 h4 oo - Minev, e.g. 1 1 b4
J.. x g2 12 @xg2 hg with good
attacking chances - analysis.
10 J.. x g2
Here IO . . . J.. x b4 1 1 I:Ib I h4
could be tried; after 1 2 lixb4
lll x b4 13 'iWxb4 hg Black has a
dangerous attack for a small
material investment.
11 @xg2 i.xb4
12 libl J..e 7
Again 12 . . . h4 comes into
consideration. The text move was
played in Anishenko-Kupreichik,
Byelorussian Ch 1 964, which con
tinued 1 3 \!t'b5 b6 1 4 a4 h4 1 5
a 5 h g 1 6 fg f6 1 7 lL!e4 l:if8 1 8
a b c b 1 9 lbd6+ , but 0- 1 , 40.
B
6 J.g2 (92)
Generally if White plays lbbd2
in the next few moves he will
 5 g3 i.g4 63

transpose to var. A. However, he 'ft'xc2 i.f5 19 'ft'c3 Wf8 20 lt:lh4

can often omit this move and take Uhlmann-Breustedt, Gotha 1 957
advantage of the saved tempo. ( 1 -0, 32).
Now: 8 0-0 0-0-0
B l 6 ... i.b4+ 9 a3 i.xd2
B2 6 . . . 'ft'd7 10 i.xd2 lt:lxeS
Bl 10 .. . d3?! proved unsuccessful
6 . . . i. b4+ after 1 1 i.c3 f6 1 2 'ft'b3 de 1 3 E:fe 1
7 lll bd2 E:d3 1 4 E:xe2 i.xf3 1 5 ef! 'ft'xe2 1 6
7 i.d2 is less clear: 7 . . . 'it'e7 8 fg lt:ld4 1 7 i.xd4 ll: xb3 1 8 gh'ft'
0-0 0-0-0! (8 . . . i.xd2 9 lt:l xd2 0-0-0 'ft'e6 19 i.c3 i.xg2 20 Wxg2 E: b6
10 'ft'a4 Wb8 1 1 a3 ::!:: Muit 2 1 'ft'xh 7 ++ Belistri-Santha,
Mitchell, Atlanta 1 949) 9 i.g5 f6 Buenos Aires 1 979.
10 ef lll xf6 1 1 a3 i.c5 1 2 b4 d3 1 3 11 ltxeS 'ft'xeS
e3 h 6 oo Gerero-Cassidy, Tel Aviv 1 2 'ft'b3 c6
01 1 964. 13 i.f4 ::!::
7 . . . 'ft'e7 (93) Analysis by Euwe .
B2
93 I:
W & -& .- &
- - ?: ,,,,
-- . .
B B D B
f
7,
. ... .

B B B tLJ D
4JtJ-%llJrlJ
r' - -
g ;<, El .E:
Alternatives are good for White:
a) 7 .. . lll g e7 8 0-0 i.xd2 9 i.xd2
lt:lg6 10 h 3 i.f5 (if 10 . . . i.xf3 1 1 The normal line . A s in var. A ,
ef lt:lgxe5 1 2 f4 lll g6 1 3 l:le l + etc) Black prepares queenside castling
1 1 e3 de 12 i.xe3 0-0 1 3 lbd4 followed by . . . h 5 .
Cantero-Thiellement, Lugano 01 7 0-0
1 968. 7 a3, delaying castling in order
b) 7 .. . 'ft'd7 8 0-0 f6 9 ef lt:l xf6 1 0 a3 to play b4 and i.b2 is an interesting
i.e7 1 1 b4 d3 1 2 ed 'ft'xd3 1 3 l:l e l but untested plan .
lt:ld4 1 4 I!. e 3 'ft'g6 1 5 i.b2 lll c 2 1 6 Now Black has tried four
lixe7+ Wxe7 1 7 l:lc l E:hd8 1 8 moves:
64 5 g3 il..g4

B2 1 7 ... tt:lge7? !
96 :E - "1 t
B22 7 ... h5 *' .& tif
w - \\IJJ
-- &
-- -
,, ..
B23 7 ... ii.h3
B24 7 ... 0-0-0 B "1 B B B
B21 . ...
7 . . . tt:lge7?! (95) - - B .t. B
lb
- Jl.
tb 1!
8 a3
8 tt:lbd2 0-0-0 ! transposes to
var. A 1 1 2 of this chapter.
8 .ig5 is playable, preventing . . .
h4. After 8 . . . i.e7 9 d2 0-0-0 1 0
lt:i a 3 i.xf3 1 1 e f tt:lxe5 1 2 .txe7
8 b4! tt:lxb4 tt:lxe7 1 3 f4 tt:lg4 14 l:l: he l h4? ( 1 4
9 e6! . . . tt:lc6) 1 5 .txb 7+ xb7 1 6 b4+
With this forceful move, White c8 1 7 lixe7 d6 1 8 xd6 lixd6
exploits Black's omission of castling. 19 h3 Serebriisky-Havin, Ukraine
9 . . . xe6 Ch 1 954.
10 a4+ 8 h4
IO tt:le5 is also strong. After I O 9 .tf4 hg
. . . c8 1 1 a4+ tt:lbc6 1 2 tt:l.xc6 I O .txg3 tt:lge7 1 1 b4 lt:if5 1 2 tt:lbd2
lt:i xc6 1 3 .txc6+ be 14 xc6+ tt:l xg3 1 3 fg i.h3 14 l:l: f2 .ixg2 1 5
.td7 1 5 e4+ .te 7 1 6 i.a3 0-0 1 7 lixg2 0-0-0 1 6 a4 d 3 1 7 ed xd3
xe7 l:ie8 1 8 h4 lhe2 1 9 xd4 18 :i::i'. e l .te7 1 9 l:l:ge2 llh6 20 b3
Tolush-Horne, Hastings 1 95 3-4 a5 2 1 xd3 l:l:xd3 22 :i::i'. e 3 t
( 1 -0, 29). Sokolsky-Simagin, 2 1 st USSR Ch
10 . . . tt:le c6 1953.
1 1 tt:l xd4 xc4 1 2 lt:ixc6 .td7 1 3 a3 823
b5 1 4 tt:la5! ++- Thivel-Phillipp, 7
. i.h3?! (97)
corres 1 978-9. 8 e6 !
822 This move of Radashkovich's
7 . . . hS (96) seems to refute 7 ... i.11 3 . However,
Black u ndertakes active measures Kupreichik repeated the variation
before White advances on the two years later against Yuferov
queenside . who preferred 8 d3 0-0-0 9 .txh3

!fxh 3 1 0 ll'ibd2 li:Jge7 1 1 li d 1 ? ! ( 1 1
li:Jg5 ! !t'h5 1 2 f4 li:Jxe5 1 3 fe !fxg5
1 4 ltJf3 intending 15 li:Jg5 ! ;!;) 1 1 . . .
li:Jg6 1 2 !t'e4? ! (again 1 2 li:Jg5 was
better) 12 . . . .ie7 13 li:Jb3 f5 ! 14 ef
.bf6 (oo) 1 5 .ig5 l:ihe8 1 6 !fc2
.ixg5 1 7 li:J xg5 !t'g4 1 8 !t'd2 (If
18 li:Jf3 li:Jf4 ! 19 li:Jbxd4 li:J xd4 20
li:Jxd4 Iixd4 21 Iixd4 li:Jxe2+) 18 . . .
h 6 1 9 li:Jf3. d 3 + Yuferov
Kupreichik, Byelorussian Ch 1972.
One wonders what improvement
Kupreichik had against 8 e6.
8 . . . .ixe6
9 !t'a4 0-0-0
9 . . . .ic5 also fared badly in the
aforementioned Radashkovich
Kupreichi k , USSR Student Ch
1 970, which continued 10 a3
.ib6 1 1 ltJbd2 li:Je5 12 !fxd7+ li:Jxd7
1 3 b4 c5 14 lLig5 a5 1 5 li:Jxe6 fe 1 6
b e .ixc5 1 7 llb l llb8 1 8 l0 b 3
( 1 -0, 58).
10 lldl
The column is Dzhindzhihashvili
Manievich, Israel Ch 1 97 8 , which
continued 10 . . . a6 1 1 li:Jc3 ! li:Jf6 1 2
.ig5 .ie7 1 3 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 4 li:Jd5
5 g3 .ig4 65
li:Je5 ( 1 4 . . . .ixd5 15 cd 'tWxd5 1 6
li:Jxd4 !fa5 1 7 li:Jxc6! ! !fxa4 1 8 .ih3+
Ir.d7 19 .ixd7 m ate - Liberzon) 1 5
'tWxd7+ !I.xd7 16 lLixd4 li:Jxc4 1 7 li:Jxf6
gf 1 8 e3 ( 1 -0, 35).
824
7 0-0-0 (98)
8 !t'b3!
Stronger than 8 llel and now:
a) 8 . ll'i ge7 9 .ig5 (9 a3? ! li:Jg6 1 0
..
!fa4 'it>b8 intending . . . tb ce5 =
- Minev) 9 . . . h6 10 .ixe7 .ixe 7 1 1
li:Jbd2 llhe8 1 2 a3 ( 1 2 llc l ? ! .ib4
1 3 a3 .ixd2 14 !t'xd2 li:Jxe5 15 lLixe5
1ixe5 16 c5 !t'e7 ! 17 'it'b4 c6 18 e3
a5 ! 19 !t'xa5 d 3 20 !t'd2 ll xc5 +
Seoyev-Mikenas, USSR Spartakiad
1 959) 12 . . . .if8 13 'fi'b3 a6 ( 1 3 . . .
li:Ja5? 1 4 !fb5 - Minev) 1 4 llac l
li:Ja5 1 5 'ti'a2 li:Jc6 1 6 b4 lLixe5
1 7 li:J xe 5 Ii xe5 18 li:Jf3 .ixf3 1 9
.ixf3 ;!; - Minev.
b) 8 ... 'it>b8 9 a3 li:Jge 7 10 b4 ltJ g6
1 1 .ib2 .t xf3 1 2 ef li:Jcxe5 1 3 'ffr'b 3
c5 14 b5 f5 1 5 f4 ll'ig4 1 6 a4 .td6 1 7
li:Jd2 llhe8 1 8 'tWf3 li:Jf6 1 9 a5
llxe l + 20 llxe l Shipov-Shatskes,
66 5 g3 .ig4
Moscow 1 965 .
c) 8 ... h5 9 h4 f6 I O ef lLixf6 1 1
.if4 .id6 1 2 .i xd6 't!fr'xd6 1 3
lt:Jbd2 llhe8 1 4 a 3 ;!:: Barendregt
Cortlever, Netherlands 1 974.
8 't!fr'd3 .ih3 transposes to the
game Yuferov-Kupreichik in the
first note of var. B23 .
8 lLige7
Alternatives:
a) 8 . .ih3 9 e6! .ixe6 I O lLie5
't!fr'd6 1 1 lLixc6 be 12 't!fr'a4 't!fr'c5
( 1 2 . . . 't!fr'b4 13 't!fr'xa7 'ffr'b 7 14 't!fr'a4
li:Je 7 1 5 lid 1 'ffr'b 6 1 6 li:Jc3 !
Leontxo-Teulats, Spanish Ch 1 978)
13 li:Ja3! 't!fr'b6 14 .i xc6 .ixa3 1 5
ba Spassky- Forintos, Sochi
1 964.
b) 8 ... h5 9 lid l b6 I O .if4 h4 1 1
lLic3 .ixf3 1 2 .i xf3 g5 1 3 'ffr'b 5 ( 1 3
.ixg5 li:Jxe5! oo - Minev) 1 3 . . . li:Jb8
1 4 't!fr'xd7+ l:l:xd7 15 e6 fe 16 .ie5
.ig7 17 .ixg7 li xg7 18 li xd4 hg
19 hg li:Jf6 20 li:Jb5 c6 21 li:Jd6+
<tic? 22 l:l:ad l l:l:d7 23 lLie4 lt:Jxe4 24
lixd7+ li:J xd7 25 .ixe4 Silakov
Haunin, Leningrad Spartakiad 1 964.
c) 8 ... .ic5 9 lt:Jbd2 .ih3? I O e6!
.ixe6 1 1 lt:Je5 ( ) 't!fr'd6 12 lt:J xc6 be
1 3 't!fr'a4 liJe7 ( 1 3 . . . .id7 1 4 b4 ! ; 1 3
. . . <tid7 1 4 li:Jb3 ! ) 1 4 liJe4 't!fr'e5 1 5
't!fr'a5 .id6 1 6 c 5 liJg6 1 7 't!fr'a6+
Wd7 1 8 cd 1 -0 Dalko-Da Rocha,
corres 1 968-9.
d) 8 ... li:Ja5 9 't!fr'd3 .if5 (9 . . . c5 I O
lt:Jg5 ! ) I O e 4 d e 1 1 't!fr'xe3 -
Fernschach.
e) 8 ... 't!fr'f5 !? 9 l:l:d l li:Jge7 I O liJg5
't!fr'g6 1 1 li:Jf3 't!fr'f5 1 2 li:Ja3? ! li:Jg6 1 3
lt:Jc2 .ixf3 1 4 .i xf3 lt:J gxe5 1 5 .id5
.ic5 16 li:Je l d3!? 1 7 e3 h5 18 liJxd3
llxd5! 19 cd 'ffr'b 3 20 f4 lt:Jd4 with
a winning attack, Bogovac
Dzieniszewski, Jeleni Gora 1 977.
A variation which needs further
tests.
9 lidl .ixf3
10 't!fr'xf3 lt:Jg6
1 1 't!fr'h5
Threatening .i h 3 .
11 <tlb8
12 .if4 (99)
White stands clearly better,
Korchnoi-Veinger, Beersheva 1 978.
Conclusion
In the main lines after 5 g3 .ig4,
White's attack seems the stronger,
especially in the lines where White
avoids li:Jbd2. Variation A2 and
the suggested improvements on
Anishenko-Kupreichik may render
lines with li:Jbd2 playable, but in
 5 g3 i.g4 67

the main line of variation B, it probably play 5 i.e6 to force

. . .

seems hard to improve on ll:ibd2 and transpose into the next

Korchnoi-Veinger and Black should chapter.
9 5 g3 Ae6 !?

1 d4 d5 A 6 b3
2 c4 e5 B 6 i.g2!?
3 de d4 C 6 1Wa4
4 lt:\f3 lt:\c6 D 6 lll bd2!
5 g3 i.e6!? (100) An alternative method of defend
ing the c-pawn 6 c2 proved
h armless after 6 . . . h6 7 a3 a5 8
i.g2 i.c5 9 0-0 lt:\ge7 1 0 ltJbd2
i.f5 1 1 lll e 4 i.a7 12 i.f4 c8 1 3
liad l 1We6 1 4 i.c l 0-0 1 5 e 3 i.g4
16 lll xd4 i.xd l 17 ll: xd l xe5 +
Gordon-Adams, U S Open 1 947.
A
6 b3 (10 1)

A move popularised by Kostic.

In comparison with Chapter 8,
Black restricts White's choice by
attacking the c-pawn . Another
factor of importance is that in the
variation 6 lll b d2 d7 7 i.g2 0-0-0
the move 8 h3, attacking the
bishop, was strong in var. A l 2 of
Chapter 8 but here it is ineffective. 6 . . . i.b4+ !
Black can often transpose to The most energetic. Alternatives:
favourable lines of the previous a) 6 ... f6!? also looks good: 7 ef
chapter by a timely . . . i.h3, but xf6 8 i.b2 i.b4+ 9 lll bd2 i.c3
again he must be on the lookout 10 i.xc3 de 1 1 lll e 4 g6 12 lllx c3
for the reply e6. lll b 4 12 ll: c l ll: d8 + Hossell
Material divides as follows: Hunter, corres 1 945.

b) 6 . . . l!t'd7 is less exact after 7
J.g2 and now:
b 1) 7 ... lLige7 8 tt:\a3?! (8 J.a3 ! t -
Minev) 8 . . . tt:\g6 9 tt:\c2 1id8 l O
J.b2 J. c 5 l l 0-0 0-0 1 2 lic l J.h 3
1 3 b4? J.xg2 14 <t>xg2 tLixb4 1 5
tt:\xb4 J.xb4 1 6 txd4 tc6! 1 7 tg4
1Id2 M ilic-Kostic, Zagreb 1 950
and now ECO assesses the position
as which seems a misprint for +.
b2) 7 . . . 1id8 8 0-0 lLige7 9 J.a3
tt:\g6 l O J.xf8 tt:\xf8 1 1 tt:\a3 lLig6
12 tLic2 0-0 1 3 'td2 J.h3 ( 1 3 . . .
te 7 1 4 liad I tt:\cxe5 1 5 tLi xe5
tLixe5 16 'it'f4 tt:\g6 1 7 te4
Germek-Toth, Yugoslav C h 1 95 1 )
1 4 liad l J.xg2 1 5 <t>xg2 te7 t -
Minev.
b3) 7 ... f6 !? (again this gambit
looks promising) 8 ef tt:\ xf6 9 0-0
0-0-0 l O lLibd2 .i.h3 1 1 a3 .txg2 1 2
<t>xg2 h 5 1 3 h4 tt:\g4 1 4 b 4 J.e7 1 5
tt:\e4 lihf8 1 6 b 5 tt:\ce5 1 7 ta4
ct>b8 1 8 tLixe5 tt:\xe5 l 9 f3 te6 20
c5 d3 2 1 ed 1ixd3 22 .i.f4 1ixf4 23
gf lLig6 ++ Weisbergen-Schunter,
M unich Ol 1 936. White's play
could b e improved but Black still
seems to have sufficient compen
sation for the pawn .
7 J.d2 .txd2+ !
7 . . . .i.c5 is less strong: 8 J.g2
td7 9 0-0 h6 1 0 tt:\e l 0-0-0 1 1 lLid3
.tf8 12 'tVe l ! g5 1 3 a4 1ie8 1 4 a 5
.i.f5 1 5 a6 Radzikowska
Prokopovic, Piatigorsk Women's
1978.
8 tLibxd2 tt:\ge7
5 g3 J.e6!? 69
9 tt:\e4 lLig6
10 tt:\cS
Here White is not getting the
two bishops and this manoeuvre is
a waste of time.
10 te7
11 tt:\ xe6 fe
1 2 a3 lLigxe5 1 3 tt:\xe5 tLixe5 1 4
't!xd4 'tf6 ! (+) 1 5 'iVd l 1i d 8 1 6
't!c 1 0-0 1 7 f4? tt:\g4 1 8 1ia2 'td4
19 e3 tt:\xe3 20 .i.e2 tt:\g2+ 2 1 ct>fl
tt:\xf4 ! 0- l Schadlich-Tain, corres
1980.
B
6 .tg2!? (102)
White sacrifices the c-pawn for
a lead in development.
6 J.xc4
Ignoring the c-pawn will prob
ably transpose to other lines . Of
independent significance is 6 . . .
't!d7 7 't!a4 ( 7 lLibd2 transposes to
variation 032 on page 75; if 7 b3
0-0-0 Black's plan of . . . h5 and
. . . .i.h3 has gained a tempo over
other lines) 7 . . . .tc5 (7 . . . tLi xe 5 8
't!xd7+ tLixd7 9 tt:\ xd4 J.xc4 l O
.i.xb7 1ib8 1 1 .i.gH - Tartakower)
70 5 g3 i.e6!?

8 lLig5 (8 a3! - Rabinovich ; not so i.xd3 1 1 e f is very strong) 1 1 ef

clear after 8 . . . a5 intending to i.xf7 1 2 ll:\g5 M inev.
-

castle kingside) 8 . . . ll:\ xe 5 b) 9 ... xd l 10 ef+ i.xf7 1 1 llxd l

9 xd7+ i.xd7 1 0 0-0 ( 1 0 i.xb7 - Minev.
i.b4+ ! - Tartakower) 10 . . . h6 1 1 Black has a satisfactory position.
ll:\e4 i.e7 1 2 i.f4 f6 1 3 ll:\bd2 0-0-0 c
= Rabinovich-Tartakower, Baden 6 a4 ! ? (1 04)
1 925.
7 0-0 d3! (103)
Clearly best. The alternatives
are good for White:
a) 7 ... d7? 8 lLibd2 i.e6 9 ll:\b3 !
Reca-Tartakower, Buenos Aires
1 93 1 .
b) 7 . i.e6? 8 a4 d7 9 l:ld l !
..

Kondratiev-Gasic, Olomouc 1975.

/03 E - - 6\ 6 d7
w ..
... i -% m
-i - i r. 7 i.g2 d3!
B6\ B B B Again this move which prevents
. . . White from castling is best.
. ... . . . 8 ed ti'xd3
9 ll:\d4 ! ?
lb 9 ll:\fd2!? i. d 7 ( Yi- Yi Law
8.,,, - 8 J
- ,Qy, ..t ;,'
n;u
Lamford, London 1 9 80) 10 3
t
If';\ g
"l..J +- \lll
gl- n
m -i m,
'H' l',i

.,,,.,,,,,/)'. ' : ... z
lbxe5 oo .
8 ed xd3 9 . . . i.b4+ !
8 . . . i.xd3 9 lle l intending e6, 1 0 i.d2 0-0-0
a4 - Minev. Black h as an excellent position .
9 e6!? Sadovich-Fedyashin, Central Chess
9 a4 i.b5 ! 1 0 ti'f4 ti'c4! is fine Club Corres Ch 1 979-80, continued
for Black; 9 xd3 i.xd3 10 lie 1 wildly 1 1 ll:\ xc6 i.xd2+ 12 ll:\xd2
oo. Once Black exchanges queens ti'xd2+ 13 <Ml xb2 14 ll:\ xa7+
he should have a satisfactory @b8 15 lle l lld2 16 llic6+! be 1 7
position . i.xc6 ll xf2+ 1 8 @g l llg2+! 1 9
9 . . . fe! i.xg2 ti'd4+ 2 0 ll e 3 ti'xe3+ 2 1
But not: <Ml oo . Black has a t least a draw
a) 9 . . 0-0-0 10 ti'xd3 llxd3 ( 1 0 . . .
. and he eventually won after White
 5 g3 .i.e6!? 71

misdefended.
10 6:I L ... .
D w & W m a a
- - - - - 1 -
6 i!l:ibd2! (105)
. ... . .i.
B B D B
, .,., ,
- ., .
.
B B B ttJ D
fl w. fl w.
o f.. k o f.. w.fb
,. ... ,. .., mif'
B ....". i. :"m'
mi
7 .ig2 !
White does best ignoring the
attack on the c-pawn . Attempts to
defend i t give Black adequate
The most popular move . Black counterplay:
now has a choice between a) 7 1Wb3 b5 8 a3 .i.xc4 9 1Wc2
DI 6 . . . .i.b4 .i.xd2+ I 0 .i.xd2 1Wd5 1 1 .i.g2
D2 6 . . . i!l:ige7 i!l:ige 7 is satisfactory for Black.
D3 6 . . . 1Wd7 ! b) 7 1Wc2 !Oge7 and now:
Neither of the following moves b l ) 8 .i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 i!l:ig6 10 !Oe4
is particularly apposite. i!l:igxe5 1 1 liJ xe5 i!l:ixe5 12 i!l:ig5
a) 6 ... g6?! 7 .ig2 .i_g7 8 lt:\b3 d3 13 ed 1Wxd3 14 1Wxd3 i!l:i xd3
.i.xc4 9 lt:\ bxd4 liJxd4 10 lt:\ xd4 15 liJxe6 fe 16 .i.xb7 llab8 1 7
.i.d5 1 1 1Wa4+ c6 12 e4 .i.e6 1 3 .i.e4 lt:\ xf2! + Kowalsky-Adams,
liJxe6 fe 1 4 0-0 .ixe 5 1 5 3 ! New York 1 946.
Marshall-Napier, Hanover 1 902. b2) 8 a3 .i.xd2+ 9 .i.xd2 .i.f5 1 0
b) 6 ... h6? ! 7 .i.g2 1Wd7 8 0-0 0-0-0 3?! ( 1 0 1Wa4 i!l:ig6 1 1 .i.g2 0-0 1 2
9 1Wa4 'it>b8 10 lid l g5 1 1 lt:\b3 0-0 - Minev; 1 2 0-0-0! ? - Korn)
liJxe5 12 1Wxd7 liJ xf3+ 13 .i. xf3 1 0 . . . .i.e4 ! 1 1 ilg l ( 1 1 0-0-0! ?) 1 1
lixd7 1 4 li xd4 lixd4 1 5 lt:\ xd4 . . . d 3 ! 1 2 1Wc3 0-0 1 3 .i.g5 h6 1 4
hc4 1 6 b3 with the better ending .i.xe7 1Wxe7 1 5 lLld2 .i.h7 ! +
for White. Eliskases-Enevoldsen, Roberts-Sturm, corres 1 95 4-5
Austria v Denmark 1935, con 0- 1 , 23).
tinued 16 . . . .i.a6 17 .i.b2 f6 1 8 7 . . . .i.xc4
lid l .i.d6 1 9 i!l:if5 with a clear 8 0-0 .i.dS
advantage to White. 8 . . . .i.xd2 9 .i.xd2 leaves White
Dl with the two bishops and an a ctive
6 .i.b4 (1 06) positio n .
72 5 g3 .ie6!?

9 lUb3 'tWd7 h l h5 0- 1 Vidmar-Kostic,

10 lll b xd4 0-0-0 1 1 lll x c6 'tWxc6 1 2 Bled 1923 .
i.h3+ i.e6 1 3 i.xe6+ 'tWxe 6 1 4 7 lll g6
'tWa4 ! i.c5 1 5 lt:\g5 'tWe7 1 6 'tWc4 8 0-0 'ti'd 7
lUh6 (If 16 . . . l:If8 17 b4 ! .ixb4 1 8 9 ltib3 i.h3?!
llb l i.c5 1 9 lt:\e4 i.b6 20 lUd6+ 9 . . . .ixc4 was better b u t White
b8 2 1 .ta3 'tWe6 22 l hb6 ! ! ab 23 still has a slight advantage.
'it'a4 ! c 6 24 ll b l ++ - Fernschach) 10 lll fxd4 ir.xg2
1 7 ltie4 i.b6 ( 1 7 . . . lld4 1 8 'tit'xc5 ) 11 xg2 0-0-0
1 8 i.g5 'it'xe5 1 9 .ixd8 Il:xd8 2 0 1 2 e3 ll:icxe5 1 3 't!fe2 c5 1 4 lll b 5 h5
li.'.ad l li.'.d4 2 1 ll xd4 i. xd4 2 2 lld l 15 h3 a6 1 6 ltic3 ;!; Wade-Perez,
lUf5 23 'it'd3 1 -0 O'Kelly-S t urm, Barcelona 1 946.
Masters Invitation Corres 1955-6. D3
D2 6 . . . 't!fd7 (108)
6 . . . lUge7 (1 0 7)

/0 7 Iii i.. ;.
I. ,,,,,,}.

w .,
, ,,r. ...' .r.

. . . ,,,,,,

8.
ttJD
A R
o d li [
ffl op,
B ; i.R
.,,,,,,7, - ll
Black plans an im mediate
lbg6 t o regain the e-pawn .
7 i.g2
7 a3 lll g6 (7 . . 'it'd7 transposes
. The play becomes very sharp
to var. 03 1 ) 8 i.g2 i.e7 9 0-0 d7
1 0 b4 l:id8 1 1 i.b2 0-0 1 2 a4 b6
13 b5 lticxe5 14 lUxd4 i.h3 1 5
J;lad 1 i.xg2 1 6 xg2 g4 1 7 f3
'tWh5 1 8 'tWc2 l:Id7 1 9 lt:\2b3 lifd8
20 lbc6 lUxc6 2 1 be li d6 22 lixd6
li xd6 23 lid 1 lhc6 24 ltid4 Il:c5
25 'tWe4 Ii xc4 26 'it'b7 h6 27 'it'xa7
'it'd5 2 8 'it'a6 i.f6 29 e4 Il:c2+ 30
The most flexible move. Black
postpones the manoeuvre . . . ltige7-
g6 and prepares queenside castling,
followed by . . . i.h3 and ... h 5 .
with attacks on opposite wings.
White now has a choice between
0 3 1 7 a3
032 7 i.g2
031
7 a3 (1 09)
This move is not absolutely
necessary and Black does best by
immediately attacking the e-pawn .

7 . . . ll:ige7!
7 . . . 0-0-0 allows 8 b4 when 8 . . .
t?Jge7 i s met b y 9 b5 ! .
8 g2
8 'i!lfa4 t?Jg6 9 .ig2 transposes
into the column. 8 l?J gS t?Jxe5 9
ll'lxe6 'i!lfxe6 I 0 g2 0-0-0 1 1 0-0 h5
12 ll'lf3 ll'l xf3+ 1 3 ef 'i!lfxc4 1 4 i.g5
f6 I 5 .i.d2 h4 oo Tatayev
Krase n k ov, Burevestnik Ch 1 9 8 1 .
8 ll'lb3 lll g 6 9 lll b xd4 0-0-0 ( 9 . . .
ll'lxd4? 1 0 'i!lfxd4 Foisor-Lamford,
Lucerne 01 1 982) 10 i&.e3 lll g xe5
I I lll xe5 ll'l xe5 12 .,tg2 ( f 2 ll:i xe6
'i!lfxe6 1 3 'i!lfc2 .tc5 ! + - Foisor;
1 2 b3 ll:ig4 - BCM) 1 2 . . . .i. xc4 I 3
'i!lfc2 i.c5 14 lll f5 ( 1 4 lid l ) I 4 . . .
i.xe2 ! 1 5 .i.xc5 ( 1 5 '.t>xe2 'i!lfb5+
followed by 16 . . . lll d 3+ - BCM)
1 5 . . . .i.a6 1 6 lll d6+ @b8 1 7 0-0-0
cd!? 1 8 .ixd6+ 'i!lfxd6 1 9 li xd6
li xd6 20 'i!lfa4 lihd8 2 1 @b l ll:ic4
22 :: c l l:ld4 23 Wa l f6 24 'i!lfc2
lid2 25 'iVf5 lll e 5 26 .th3 b6 27
'iVxh 7 i. c4 ! 28 b3 (28 'iVxg7 ll d l !
29 l:i: b l :i:i xb l + 30 \t>xb l .i.b3 ;
29 'iVh6 li xc l + 3 0 'iVxc l .i.b3)
28 . . . il.xb3 29 'iVxg7 lll c 4 3 0 ll xc4
5 g3 il.e6!? 73
i.xc4 3 I .ig4 Ire8 0- 1 Levitt
Speelman , British Ch 1 9 8 2 .
8 lll g 6
9 'iVa4
Alternatives yield no advantage :
a) 9 0-0 and now:
a 1 ) 9 ... 0-0-0?! 10 b4 ! ll:icxe5 1 1
ll:ixe5 lll xe5 1 2 'iVc2 d3 1 3 ed ll:i xd 3
I 4 lll b 3 ll:i xc l 1 5 Iraxc I ..f5 1 6
'iVb2 h 5 1 7 c 5 c6 1 8 b 5
Lilienthal-Tartakower, Paris 1 93 3 .
a2) 9 . h S ! ? I O h 4 i.e7 l l 'i!lfa4
0-0 1 2 b4 .i.h3 13 l:ld l .i xg2 1 4
'it> xg 2 'iVg 4 with attacking chances
for both sides, Marshal l-Kostic,
Cologne 1 9 1 1 .
a3) 9 . . . .te7 I O b 4 l:ld8 ! ( I O . . .
0-0-0 1 1 il.b2 .i.h3 1 2 b 5 ll:icxe5 1 3
'iVa4 i.. x g2 I 4 itx g 2 lll xf3 I 5 ef
i.c5 16 l:lad I 'iVf5 17 lll b3? lad6
18 lll d 2 ll'lf4+ 19 gf E:h6! 0- 1
Samisch-Medina, Madrid 1 943)
1 1 .ib2 0-0 1 2 l: k l i.h3 ( 1 2 . . .
lll g xe5 I 3 lll xe5 ll:ixe5 i s about
equal, O' Hanlon-Kostic, Nice
193 1 ) 13 ll'lb3 .ixg2 1 4 \t>xg2 'iVg4
1 5 lll bxd4 lll xd4 l 6 lll xd4 ll:ixe5 1 7
f4 c5 ! oo R . Byrne-Kostic, USA v
Yugoslavia I 950.
b) 9 'i!lfc2 0-0-0 (9 ... i.e7 IO 0-0
.ih3 1 1 b4 .i.xg2 1 2 \t>xg2 h5 1 3
'iVe4 0-0-0 1 4 h 3 a 5 1 5 g4 'iVe6 1 6
.i.b2 :il hf8 1 7 lll xd4 ll:i xd4 1 8
.ixd4 i.g5 I 9 e 3 l hd4 2 0 'iVxd4
l:ld8 2 1 'iVc3 ll'l xe5 oo Newmann
Medina, London 1946) 1 0 b4
lbcxe5 1 1 0-0 d3! 12 ed ll'l xd3 1 3
.i.b2 .i. h 3 1 4 .i.d4 lll df4 1 5 .ie 3
74 5 g3 i.e6!?
i.xg2 I 6 i.xf4 lll xf4 0- I Erdelyi
Nielsen, Warsaw 01 I 9 3 5 .
9 i.e7
10 b4
I O lll b 3 is an interesting alter
native : I O . . . 0-0-0 (safer was I O . . .
0-0 I I lll fxd4 lll xd4 1 2 xd7
lbc2+ I 3 @d I i.xd7 I 4 @xc2
lll x e5! = ) I I i.g5 @b8 12 i.xe7
xe7 I3 0-0 i.d7 ! ( 1 3 . . . 'bgxe5?
I4 lll x e5 lll xe5 1 5 i.xb7 ! ++) I 4
lll a 5 ! lll x a5 ( I 4 . . . 'bcxe5 I 5 b 3
lll x f3+ I 6 xf3 c6 I 7 b3 gives
White a clear advantage ) I5 xa 5
i.c6 I 6 ::fe I d 3 ! (again b e s t ; I 6
. . . i.xf3 i s well met by I 7 e f! ) I 7
d2 ! ( l 7 ed is weake r) 1 7 . . . c5
I 8 ed i.xf3 I 9 i.xf3 lll x e5 20 If.e3
llhe8 (20 ... lll xc4? loses to 2 I
c3 ) 2 I l:l:ae I with j ust a small
edge for White, Marshall-Janowski,
Havana I 9 I 3 .
10 l:l:d8
11 i.b2 0-0
12 0-0 (1 10)
ba I 8 c5 d3 I 9 xg4 lll xg4 20 e3
lld5 2I i.d4 f5 22 llc3 llb8 =
Prainfalk-Kostic, Y ugoslav Ch
I 94 5 .
T h e position i n diagram I I O
c a n be reached by a variety of
sequences of moves IO to I 2.
12 . . . i.h3!
The most direct line. I2 . . . b6 is
too slow after I 3 llac I a5 I 4 b5
(not I4 ba lla8 I 5 lll xd4 lll x d4 I 6
xd7 lll x e2+ I 7 'it>h I i.xd7 I 8
lice I lll xg3+ +) I 4 . . . 'bcxe5 I 5
i.xd4 i.f6 I 6 ll fd I e7 I 7 c5
'bd7 I 8 cb cb 1 9 lll e 4! i.e5
(Spielmann-Kostic, Bled I 93 I ,
Vi- Vi , 45 ) and now White sho uld
have pushed home his queenside
initiative with 20 'bxe5 ! .
13 b5
I 3 ll:ad I gave Black too much
play in Joksic-Buean, Vrnj ac ka
Banja I 970, which continued I 3 . . .
i.xg2 I 4 @xg2 g4! I 5 b 5 lll c xe5
I 6 lll xe5 lll xe5 I 7 lll f3 lll g6 I 8
xa7? lll f4+ I 9 @h I d3 0- l .
13 lll c xe5 !
M uch stronger than 1 3 . . . i.xg2
I4 @xg2 lll c xe5 I 5 i.xd4 lll xf3+
1 6 lll xf3 g4 I 7 i.e3 ! Pi rc
Kostic, Zagreb 1 947 .
14 i.xd4 lll f4 !
15 i.xh3 xh3
16 gf lll g4
17 c5 l:ld5 00
The column is Rabar-Smederevac,
Yugoslav Ch 1 955, which continued
1 8 lll e4 lll x h2 ! 1 9 'bg3 lll xf3+ 20

ef .ih4 2 1 ll:a2 l:i:fd 8 22 i.. e 3 lld3
23 'tie4 l:id I 24 lia I i.xg3 25
llfxd l i.. h 2+ 26 @h i i.. g 3+ 27
@g l with a draw by repeti tion.
D32
7 i.. g 2 (1 1 1)
The most popular and flexible
move ; White defers a3 and prepares
to castle . We now consider:
0 3 2 1 7 . . . l'Dge7
0322 7 . . . f6? !
0323 7 . . . 0-0-0
7 . . . i.. h 3 transposes to Chapter
8, var. A2.
7 . . . lid8 with the idea of
castling kingside is too slow.
Kindij -Bidev, Yugoslav Ch 1 946,
continued 8 0-0 l'Dge7 9 'tia4 li:Jg6
10 b 3 i.. e 7 1 1 i.a3 0-0 12 lUd l a6
13 c5 'ti'c8 14 lrac I .id7 15 li:Jxd4
( ) 1 5 . . . b5 1 6 cb l'D xd4 1 7 'ti'xd4
i.. x a3 1 8 li xc7 .ib5 1 9 Ihc8
lhd4 20 b7 l:i:4d8 2 1 .ih3 f5 22
.ixf5 l'De7 23 i.e6+ @h8 24 b81!'
1 -0 .
D32 1
7 . li:J ge 7 (1 12)
5 g3 i.. e 6!? 75
8 0-0 li:J g6
8 . . . l::i: d8 transposes to the game
Kindij -Bidev in the last note.
9 'fi'a4
a) The i mmediate 9 l'Dg5 is also
strong: 9 . . . l'Dgxe5 (9 . . . i.. f5 IO e6
- J O f4 f6 11 ef gf 12 l'Df3 h5! oo; J O
'ti'b3!? - 1 0 ... J.xe6 J O . fe 1 1
- .
l'Db3 l'De4 1 1 l'D xe6 'fi'xe6 1 2
-
'ti'b3 - Minev) I O li:Jxe6 'fi'xe6
1 1 l'Df3 (also good is 1 1 'ti'a4 l'Dd7
12 'fi'b5 l'Db6 13 c5 a6 14 'fi'b3
i.xc5 1 5 'fi'xe6+ fe 1 6 l'Db3 li:Ja4 1 7
l'Dxc5 li:J xc 5 1 8 J.f4 li:Jd7 1 9 .ixc7
l::i: c 8 20 i.. d 6 @f7 21 llad I li:Jf6 22
i.xc6 be 23 lixd4 Stahlberg
Longobuco, Rosario 1 940) 1 1 . . .
0-0-0 1 2 'ti'b3 l'Da5 1 3 'tib5 ( ) 1 3
. . . li:Jxf3+ 1 4 i.xO li:Jc6 1 5 .id5
'fi'd7 1 6 ll d l a6 17 'ti'b3 .ic5 1 8
'tif3 @b8 1 9 .if4 f6 20 b4 .id6 2 1
b 5 a b 2 2 c b l'Da5 2 5 i.d2 .ic5 26
i.e4 b6 2 5 lidc l i.d6 26 .ixa5 ba
27 l:ic6 1 -0 Hort-Gasic, S arajevo
1 972.
b) 9 'fi'b3 , recommended by ECO,
is less clear: 9 . . . 0-0-0 (9 . . . l::i: b8?!-
9 . . . li::i a 5 1 0 'ti'b5 Minev I O -
76 5 g3 i.e6!?

ll:lg5 ! ll:lgxe5 1 1 ll:lxe6 fe - 11 ... 12 . . . li:lgxe5

'ffxe6 12 i.d5 Minev - 1 2 f4 Also inadequate is 1 2 . . . li:lcxe5
ll:lg4 1 3 ll:le4 i.e7 1 4 i.h3 ll:lh6 1 5 13 1!fxd7 llxd7 14 i.xe7 llxe7 1 5
i.d2 0-0 1 6 llad 1 b 6 1 7 1!fa4 li:lf5 ll:lfxd4 ll:lxc4 1 6 li:l c5 c 6 1 7 b 3 ll:lb6
1 8 b4 ll:le5 1 9 1!fxd7 ll:lxd7 20 g4 18 ll:ldxe6 fe 19 lld6 llf6 20 llad l
with m uch the better ending li:ld5 2 1 i.h3 Frydmann-Raud,
for White, Smyslov-Smederevac, Mar del Plata 1 94 1 .
Polanica Zdroj 1 966) 10 li:lg5 1 3 li:lxe5 ll:lxe5
ll:lgxe5 1 1 ll:l xe 6 1!fxe6 12 a 3 h5 1 3 1 4 'it'xd7 llxd7
ll:lf3 ll:lxf3 + ! (not 1 3 . . . 1!fxc4? 1 4 15 i.xe7 ll xe7
1!fxc4 li:lxc4 1 5 ll:lg5! nor 1 3 . . . 16 ll:lxd4 i.xc4
ll:lxc4 1 4 ll:lg5 ! - Fernschach) 1 4 17 ll ac l
i.xf3 h4 1 5 lle l hg 1 6 hg i.d6 1 7 White has much the better
'ffb 5 'ffh 3 1 8 i.g2 'it'h2+ 1 9 @fl ending. Meduna-M . M ihailcisin,
llh5 20 'ffb 3 f5 2 1 c5 ! i.e5 22 e3 Prague 1980, continued 1 7 ... c5 1 8
i.xg3 ! oo Shestakov-Sorensen, ll:lf5 lle6 1 9 lld2 g6 2 0 ll:ld6 i.xa2
corres 1 978-9 (0- 1 , 36). 21 ll:lxb7 c4 22 ll:lc5 lie7 23 f4 lk8
9 . .. i.e7 24 fe 1-0.
9 . . . 0-0-0 10 li:lb3 @b8 1 1 i.g5 D322
i.e7 12 llfd l ! i.xg5 13 li:lxg5
ll:lcxe5 1 4 'it'xd7 lixd7 15 li:lc5!
- Alexander.
10 ll:lb3 0-0
11 lldl llad8
If 1 1 . . . llfd8 12 i.g5 i.g4 1 3
i.xe7 ll:lgxe7 1 4 li:lc5 'it'c8 1 5 b4
Jongsma-Smederevac, Beverwij k
1 966.
1 2 i.g5 (1 13)

A move which Lj ubojevic has

recently tried to revive without
success. Play is similar to Chapter 6.
8 ef lt:ixf6
9 0-0 i.h3
9 . . . OO led to White's advantage
after IO a3 h6 1 1 b4 g5 1 2 i.b2
i.g7 13 b5 ll:lb8 14 ll:l xd4 i.h3 1 5
ll:l2b3 i.xg2 1 6 @xg2 ll:le4 1 7 f3

lLid6 1 8 'ti'c2 'ti'f7 1 9 :!Iac l h5 20 c5
lLie8 2 1 lifd l g4 22 'ti'f5+ 'ti'xf5 23
lLixf5 li xd l 24 lixd l fg+ 25 ef 1 -0
Wood-Gonzalez, Gijon 1 948.
10 lLib3
1 0 a3 .ixg2 1 1 '<t>xg2 a5 1 2 lLi b3
is a less accurate sequence. After
1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 e3 d3 14 lLibd4 'ti'g4
1 5 llJ xc6 (if 1 5 h3 'ti'e4 1 6 '<t>h2 h5
17 llJg5 'ti'g6 is fine for Black) 15
. . . be 1 6 'ti'a4 'ti'e4 ! + Palme
Schuster, Stuttgart 1 943 (0- 1 , 22).
10 0-0-0
11 .igS
Intending 1 2 e 3 .
11 'ti'g4
12 'ti'd2 .id6
1 3 .ixf6 gf 14 'ti'h6 .ixg2 1 5 '<t>xg2
mte8 1 6 liad l (Gligoric-Ljubojevic,
Portoroz-Lj ubljana 1975) 1 6 . . .
l:i:xe2 1 7 lLibxd4 lLi xd4 1 8 l hd4
'ti'f5 - Pirc.
0323
7 0-0-0
In view of the difficulties Black
experiences in variations 0 3 2 1
and 0322, this move seems best.
Black delays the manoeuvre . . .
lLige7-g6 and prepares t o attack
down the h-file.
8 0-0 hS!?_ (1 15)
This line has affinities with var.
A l 12 of Chapter 8 , the difference
being that Black's bishop is on e6
rather than g4. This makes g4
available to the black knight and
prevents White prefacing 0-0 with
h 3 , driving away the bishop. Play
is very sharp and Black must often
5 g3 .ie6!? 77
give up material to prevent White
winning on the b-file.
9 h4!?
The natural move, preventing
Black opening the h-file. Other
moves give Black enough compen
sation for the pawn:
a) 9 'ti'b3 h4 10 lLi xh4 .ih3 1 1
lLidf3 .ie7 and Black's plan of
12 . . . .ixh4 1 3 lLixh4 .ixg2 1 4
'<t>xg2 lLi xe5 gives him good attack
ing chances.
b) 9 liel h4 1 0 a3 hg 1 1 hg .ih3 oo
- ECO.
c) 9 b4 .ixb4 1 0 lib l h4 1 1 'ti'a4
( 1 1 llJxh4 J.. e 7 1 2 'ti'b3 b6 1 3 lLi df3
.ih3 1 4 'ti'b5 .ixh4 1 5 lLixh4 J.. xg2
16 '<t>xg2 oo C. Chandler-Lamford,
London 1 982) 1 1 . . . hg 1 2 li xb4
lLi xb4 1 3 'ti'xb4 .ih 3 ! oo . Black has
transposed to Vladimirov-Volfson
of Chapter 8, var. A l 1 2, p. 59.
d) 9 'ti'a4 '<t>b8 1 0 b4 ( 1 0 lid l lLixe5
gives Black an equal endgame )
1 0 . . . llJxe5! 1 1 'ti'xd7 lLi xf3+ 1 2
.ixf3 .ixd7 = R.O'Kelly-Lamford,
Londo n 1 9 8 1 .
e ) 9 llJgS!? h4 (9 . . . lLi xe 5 oo -
Andruet) 1 0 lLixe6 'ti'xe6 1 1 'ti'a4
78 5 g3 i.e6!?

hg 12 hg 't!fxe5 1 3 lbb3 't!fxe2! 1 4 Black has enough compensation

i.xc6 't!fh5 1 5 i.xb7+ 'it>xb7 1 6 for the pawn - analysis by the
't!fb5+ = Andruet-Lamford, Euro author and Andrew Law.
pean Team Ch 1 9 82.
9 lbh6
IO lb g5!? Conclusion
Two alternatives fail to give
Black any proble ms: The lines after 5 g3 .ie6 !? seem
a) I O a3 lbg4 1 1 't!fb3?! ( 1 1 b4? to give Black good counterchances.
lbe 3) 1 1 . . . it.e7 1 2 lld l lll a 5 1 3 6 b3 is too slow to cause Black
't!fc2 lbe3 ! + Perkins-Lamford , any problems , while after 6 .llg 2
English Counties Ch 1 9 8 1 . Black should accept the offered
b) I O 't!fa4 'it>b 8 1 1 b 3 i.h3 1 2 li d I pawn and head for a satisfactory
i.xg2 1 3 'it>xg2 't!fg4 = Perkins ending. 6 't!fa4, while very sharp ,
Lamford, Lo ndon 1 9 8 1 . is at least equal for Black.
IO i.g4! 6 lbbd2 is the most testing
Much stronger than 10 . . . lbxe5? continuation and after 6 . . . 't!fd7
1 1 lbxe6 fe 12 't!fb3 Law 7 i.g2 0-0-0 8 0-0 Black should
Lamford, London 198 1 . play 8 . . . h5! with a similar position
11 lll d f3 f6 ! to var. A l 12 of Chapter 8 , but
12 ef gf with g4 available, if necessary, for
13 lt:ie4 't!fe6! oo a black knigh t .
1 0 5 g3 others

1 d4 dS After 6 i.. d 2 (6 ll:ibd2! i.. g4 7 i.. g2

2 c4 es transposing to Chapter 8 , var.
3 de d4 B l , seems the best course) 6 . . .
4 ll:if3 ll'ic6 ll:ige7 7 i.. x b4 ll:ixb4 8 'Y!t'a4+ ll:i bc6
5 g3 (1 16) 9 i.. g 2 0-0 IO ll:ibd2 d3 Black had
good counterplay in Mirotkovsky
u6 K .t. t -
Soultanbeiff, corres 1 9 ??.
s i Rii
A
RR R R 5 . . . ll:ige7 (117)
R R R
-
a ,.-
.

R R R tb
-
tb

..,,,u.-7. - E:
.i B
Apart fro m 5 . , , i..g 4 and 5 , , .
i..e 6, dealt with i n C hapters 8 and
9 respectively, Black has tried the
following m oves:
A 5 . , , ll'ige7 6 i.. g 2
B 5 . , , i.. f5 !? The most natural and strongest
c 5 '" f6 move . Other moves fail to yield
D 5 . , , i..c 5 White any advantage :
Two other alternatives are: a) 6 i.. g S i.. f5 7 ll:ibd2 'ti'd7 8
a) 5 h6?! 6 ll:ibd2 i.. g 4 7 a3 a5
... i.. x e7 ? ! (8 tll b 3 looks better) 8 . . .
8 h 3 i.. h 5 9 !fa4 ll:i ge7 IO i.. g2 i.. x e7 9 'ti'a4 0-0 I O i.g2 f6 l l ef
i..g 6 l l 0-0 i..f5 1 2 ll'i b 3 i.. d 7 i.xf6 1 2 0-0 ll fe 8 1 3 IHe l :S:e7
1 3 ll:\c5 Tanin-Phillipp, corres 14 ll:ib3 ll ae8 15 ll:ic5 'ti'c8 1 6 i.fl
1 978-9. The move . . . h6 has done ll:i e 5 ! 1 7 ll:i xd4 b6! 1 8 ll:ib3 c5 1 9
nothi ng to help Black's position. ll:i xf5 'Y!t'xf5 2 0 ll:id2 ll:ig4 with a
b) 5 . . . i.. b4+ ! ? has m ore point. good game for Blac k , I livich-
80 5 g3 others
Shamkovich , Tano Gork I 945 .
b) 6 llibd2 llig6 7 lll b 3 (7 ..ig2!?)
7 . . . i.b4+ 8 i.d2 'fie7 9 i.g2
llicxe5 IO llixe5 llixe5 1 1 i.xb4
'fixb4+ I 2 'fid2 'fixd2+ I 3 lli xd2
i.d7 1 4 0-0 0-0-0 with an excellent
ending fo r Black in Warren
Mengarini, New York Ch I 96 1 .
c) 6 e3 .i.g4 7 ed i.xf3 8 'fixf3
'fixd4 9 i.e2 'fixe 5 IO llic3 lll f5? !
( I O . . . llid4 ! 1 1 'fid3 - 1 1 'fixb 7
'f1.d8- 1 1 . . . lli xe2 etc) l I .i.f4
llifd4 I 2 i.xe5 llixf3+ 1 3 i.xf3
llixe5 1 4 .i.xb7 1l:b8 I 5 0-0-0
Matera-Mengarin i , USA (Easte rn
Ch) I 9 7 8 .
d) 6 llia3 ! ? lli g 6 7 llic2 lligxe5 8
llixe5 llixe5 9 'fixd4 'fixd4 I O
llixd4 lli xc4 = Chess A tlas.
6 llig6
6 . . . .i.f5 is not in keeping
with Black's p revious move . After
7 0-0 'fid7 (again 7 . . . llig6 is better)
8 'fib3 0-0-0 9 llibd? llig6 10 a3
11..e 7 1 1 'fie l .i.h3 1 2 .i.h l h 5 1 3 e 3
h4 1 4 ed hg I 5 hg 'fif5 I 6 d 5 lll a5
1 7 'fie3 b6 1 8 b4 llib7 1 9 llih2 'fih7
20 .i.e4 'fih5 2I .i.f3 'fif5 22 'fie4
1l:dh8 23 'fixf5+ Peev-lvanovic,
Plovdiv 1 97 7 .
7 .i.gS
a) 7 0-0 is also playable and now:
a 1) 7 ... .i.g4?! 8 'fib3 (8 llibd2 also
gives White the advantage after 8
. . . 'fid7 9 'fia4 .i.e7 I O ll:e l 0-0 I I
5 a6 I 2 'fid 5 'fic8 I 3 lli xd4 lld8
I4 llixc6 1l:xd5 1 5 ltixe7+ ltixe7 I 6 cd
R. Hernandez-Dzhigdzhidsuren ,
Skopje 01 1 9 7 2) 8 . . . 'fid7 9 'fixb7
I!b8 IO llixd4 ! I!xb7 l I .i.xc6
llixe5 12 i.xd7+ xd7 13 llid2
i.b4 1 4 f4 llig6 I 5 lli 2f3 I!e8 1 6
Wf2 i.c5 1 7 I! d I 1-0 Nevednichaya
Hannula, corres 1 978-9.
a2) 7 . lligxeS !? 8 llixe5 lli xe5 9
. .
'fib3 c 5 ! ? (9 . . . llid7 IO e3 de I I
11.. x e3 .i.e 7 1 2 lll c3 c6 1 3 llad 1
'fia5 14 l:ife l 0-0 1 5 i.d2 ;!;
Wikstrom-Erikson, Swedish Corres
Ch 1 980- 1 ) I O i.f4 llic6 1 1 llia3
.id6 1 2 .ixd6 'fixd6 13 llib5 'fie 7
14 E:fe l oo Meyer-Mengarini , US
Open I 97 8 .
b) The immediate 7 'fib3 is weaker;
7 . . . i.. e 7 8 0-0 0-0 9 llibd2 (if 9
i.. f4 f6 ! ? or 9 . . . a5 intending . . . a4 -
Mengarini) 9 . . . l2:lgxe5 I O lli xe5
lli xe5 1 1 llif3 lli xf3+ 12 i.xf3 a5
(+) 13 ll:d I a4 1 4 'fid3 i.c5 15 i.f4
( 1 5 e3? 'fif6 1 6 ed i.xd4! ; 1 5 i.. e 3?
de! - Mengarini) 15 ... 'fie7 1 6 h4 h6
17 l:i ac l lle8 (inte nding . . . g5-g4)
18 h5 1l:a6 I 9 'fi e l l:if6 (intending
20 . . . i.. f5 2 1 'fid2 a3) 20 a3 llb6 2 1
'fid2 1l:b3 + Dunning-Mengarini,
Massachusetts 1 979.
c) 7 i.. f4 .i.e7 ( 7 . . . i.. e 6 8 'fic2!? -
Mengari n i ) 8 0-0 0-0 9 e3 (9 ltibd2
f6 IO ef .i.xf6 1 1 lll b 3 llixf4 12 gf
'fid6 ! + - Mengarini) 9 . . . de I O
.i.xe3 ltigxe5 1 1 llixe5 llixe5 +
Litvinchuk-Mengarini, Marshall
Grand Prix 1 979 .
7 . . . 'fid7
7 . . . i.. e 7 is also good for White
after 8 .i.xe7 'fixe7 9 ltixd4 lticxe5
 5 g3 others 81

I O 0-0 0-0 1 1 'tlf c2 lad8 1 2 lll f3 only occasion on which C higorin

c6 1 3 lll b d2 i.e6 1 4 lll x e5 lbxe5 ever played I d4.
15 b3 Henneberke-Sarik, Dutch 6 a3
Ch 1 963 . The aforementioned Chigorin
8 0-0 lll g xe5 Albin game went 6 j_g2 d3?! (6 . . .
9 lll b d2 .te7 lll b4 i s su rely the logical m ove - if
If 9 . . . f6 1 0 i.f4 g5 1 1 lbe4 i.e7 7 lll x d4? 'tlfxd4 wins, so 7 0-0 !
12 ..txe5 lll x e5 13 lll xe5 fe 1 4 e3! is best when 7 . . . lll c2? is met by
h 5 1 5 ed Fernschach.
- 8 lll h4 ! but 7 . . . d3 ! ? can be tried ;
10 i.xe7 'tlfxe7 alternatively 6 . . . 'tlfd7 7 0-0 0-0-0
11 lll b3 lll xc4 is reco m mended by Meinsohn
12 lll fxd4 lll 6 e5 who an alyses 8 a3 ..th3 9 b4 i.xg2
Also inadequate is 12 . . . lll xd4 1 3 1 0 \t>xg2 h 5 I I b5 lll c e7 1 2 'tlt'a4
'tlfxd4 lll e5 1 4 f4 Fernschach.
- \t>b8 1 3 c5 c6! 14 b6 a6 1 5 .tf4 \t>a8
1 3 'tlfcl ! lLib6 =; White may well have i mpro ve
14 a4 a5 15 'tlfc3 lll e c4 16 lll c 6! ments in this line) 7 e3 t'Ll h 6 (7 . . .
S m it-Balogh, European Team lll g e7 8 0-0 lll g6 9 t'Lld4! -
Corres Ch 1 97 5 . Minev) 8 0-0 i.e7 9 lll c 3 0-0 1 0 b3
B 'tlfd7 1 1 i.b2 il ae8?! (much better
5 i.f5!? (1 18) was 1 1 . . . l:l fe8!?) 12 lbd5 .td8? !
( 1 2 . . . .tc5 1 3 a3 a5 1 4 ..tc3 is
11s:I L -
w i .t. i better for White, but W h ite now
gets a strong initiative) 1 3 i.a3 !
-- . . ii.e7 1 4 ll:i xe7+ ll:ixe7 1 5 t'Lld4 c6
m m D .t. m 1 6 i.d6 i.g6 1 7 c5 ! . However

-- this game from the last century is

far fro m conclusive and improve
m m m ttJ D ments on move 6 should render
[\ ,,,,
- [\ ,,n}
,,,,%
the line playable.
g ttJ m i. Jl 6 'tlt'd7
This variation has received few An alternative treatment is 6 . . .

practical tests, but Black's chances a5 ! ? 7 .tg2 .tc5 8 0-0 'tlt'd7 9 b4 ab

based on threats of . . . lll b 4 seem
no worse than in other lines. The
variation has gained a bad reputa
tion from the game Chigo rin
Albin, N uremberg 1 896, which,
incidentally, was reputed to be the
IO .tb2 ba 1 1 lll x a3 ll:ige7 1 2 ll:ib5
ild8 1 3 'tlt'a4 0-0 with a satisfactory
position for Black, according to
Pova h , Botterill-Povah , London
1 980, but 1 -0, 4 1 .
7 i.g2
82 5 g3 others
The i mmediate 7 b4 is also
possible: 7 . . . lid8 (7 . . . 0-0-0! ?) 8
lll b d2 i.xb4? ! (an unsound
sacrifice . 8 . . . tt:lge7 was better) 9
ab tt:lxb4 1 0 e 6 ! fe ( 1 0 . . . 1!xe6 1 1
1lt'a4+ - Brinckmann) 1 1 ll:\e5
1lt'd6 ( 1 1 . . . tt:lc2+ fails to 1 2
1!xc2) 1 2 lll d 3 c5 1 3 :i:i'. xa7 b 5 ! ? 1 4
tt:lxb4 c b 1 5 i.g2 ll:\f6 1 6 0-0 and
Black had insufficient compen
sation for the piece in Engels
Richter, Bad Oeynhausen 1 93 9 .
7 0-0-0
8 0-0 i.h3
9 b4 h5
Black's initiative compe nsates
for the sacrificed pawn. Solokina
Borisenko, RSFSR Team Ch 1 9 5 8 ,
continued 1 0 b5 lll ce7 1 1 e6 i.xe6
12 1!t'a4 @b8 1 3 tt:le5 1lt'c8 14 c5 f6
1 5 b6 a6 1 6 c6 i.d5 1 7 be+ 1!xc7
18 i.f4 fe 19 cb ef 20 lll d 2 i. xg2 2 1
l:Ifc l 1lt'd6 2 2 @xg2 't!fd5+ 2 3 @g l
lih6 + (0- 1 , 34).
c 8 lll b d2! is probably best, trans
5 f6!? (1 1 9)
Another idea of Kostic , this
move has occurred less often
against 5 g 3 than against 5 tt:lbd2.
White can h o we ver transpose to
favourable lines of Chapter 6 .
6 ef 't!fxf6
6 . . . lll xf6 7 i.g2 i.f5 8 0-0 't!fd7
9 tt:lbd2 (9 a 3 i.h3 10 't!fa4 i.xg2
1 1 @xg2 0-0-0 1 2 b4 oo) 9 . . . 0-0-0
1 0 a3 i.h3 1 1 b4 i. xg2 1 2 @xg2 g5
1 3 tt:lb3? ( 1 3 ll:\ xg5 lll e 5 ! oo -
Fernschach) 1 3 . . . g4 ! 1 4 tt:l e l ll:\ e 5
1 5 c 5 ( 1 5 ll:\d3 w a s better) 1 5 . . .
d 3 ! + Barbara-Bensch , corres
1 980- 1 .
7 i.g2 i.g4
The interpolation of 7 . . . i.b4+
8 lll b d2 has little point: 8 . . . i.g4 9
0-0 0-0-0 1 0 h 3 i.h5 1 1 a 3 ! i.xd2
12 i.xd2 d3 1 3 i.c3 de 14 1!xe2
tt:ld4 1 5 i. xd4 i. xf3 1 6 i.xf6 i.xe2
17 i.xg7 i.xf l 18 'i!lxfl tt:le7 1 9
i.xh8 1 -0 Zamecnik-Pospisil,
corres 1 9 80.
8 0-0
posing to Chapter 6, var. B2,
p . 47.
8 h6
9 ll:\ bd2 0-0-0
10 'it'a4 't!fe6!?
oo
Bjorkan der-Kostic, Stockholm
1 9 1 3 , continued 1 1 b4 i.xb4 1 2
tt:lxd4 l:Ixd4 1 3 i.xc6 't!fxc6 1 4
1!t'xb4 tt:lf6 1 5 i. b 2 lid7 1 8 i.xf6 gf
17 f3 i.e6 1 8 c5 l:Ihd8 19 tt:lb3 'it'a6
20 c6 1!xc6 2 1 ll:\c5 lid4 22 1!t'a5
b 6 ! 23 1!t'a6+ @b8 24 ll:\xe6 1!xe 6
2 5 a 4 1lt'e3+ ! +.
 5 g3 o thers 83

D 7 i.g2 .i.fS
5 i.cS?! (120) 8 0-0 a4 9 lll e l h5 1 0 lll e4 ( ) 1 0 . . .
The bishop is exposed on this i.e7 1 1 lll d 3 h 4 1 2 f4 'i!fc8 1 3 lll df2
square and White can gain time 'i!fe6 1 4 g4 i.xg4 1 5 lll xg4 'i!fxg4 1 6
with lbbd2-b3 . e3 'it'xd I 1 7 lixd I and Black had
an i nferior ending, Zamikhovsky
E .i. t . ----
1 20
Havin, Ukraine Ch 1 9 54. Too much
w m .t. -, - .l
.t. -7.
:.-... .........;.:;
. r,,,,,7.. playing on the flanks !
-- .
.. . ..
. . ---- ,,,,,,

-- -
- - ,,,,,,y,
Conclusion
m m m ttJ D
.. -
ff':\ \Ull m m
,,,,. , , ,,,,
o;::;i
,,, , ,,, ,. ,,
The lines in this chapter have
t.tz-1 13' - received less attention than 5 . . .
6 lll b d2 i.g4 o r 5 . . . i.e6 and there i s more
Also good is 6 i.f4 lb ge7 7 i.g2 scope for original analysis. 5 .. .

lbg6 8 lll bd2 f6 9 ef lbxf4 10 f7+ lll g e7 seems too slow, while 5 . . .
'it>xf7 1 1 gf h6 12 lb b 3 ! 'i!fd6 1 3 i.c5? ! misplaces the bishop. 5 . . . f6
lbe5+ ! ++ Sterk-Adams, V entor is only good if White avoids
City 1 94 3 ( 1 3 . . . lll xe5 14 fe 'it'xe5 transposition to Chapter 6 . H ow
1 5 i.d5+ i.e6 1 6 lll xc5 c6 1 7 ever, 5 . . . i.f5 !? seems playable
lll d 3 winning). but has occurred too infrequently
6 aS for a final judgement.
Index of Variations

1 d4 d5
2 c4 e5
3 de
3 cd 6
3 e3 6
3 lLic3 8
3 . . d4
.

3 . . . de 9
4 f3
4 e3 9
4 a3 1 1
4 e 4 lt:lc6 5 f4 g 5 6 f3 1 7
6 f5 1 7
5 . . . f6 6 ef 1 8
6 f3 18
4 e4 f6 20
4 others 9
4 ... lLic6
4 . . . c5 1 2
4 . . . .ib4+ 1 2

A
5 bd2
5 a3 ge7 23
5 . . a5 6 g3 24
.

6 e3 25
6 bd2 25
6 others 23
5 . . . f6 27
5 ... .ie6 28
 lndex of Variations 85

5 . . . .tg4 6 lDbd2 3 6
6 b 4 29
6 .tf4 30
6 h3 31
5 i.f4 31
5 i.g5 32
5 e3 34
5 others 22
5 . . . i.g4
5 . .. f6 6 ef xf6 7 a3 44
7 g3 45
6 ef 'ti'xf6 7 a3 27
7 b3 46
7 g3 .tf5 46
7 . . . i.g4 47
5 . . . .te6 ! ? 6 a3 (6 others 49) 6 . . . ge7 50
6 . . . 'ti'd7 50
5 . . . .tf5 52
5 . . . 'ti'e7 54
5 . . . lDge7 55
6 a3
6 g3 - see B
6 h3 .txf3 40
6 . . . .th5 42
6 . . . 'ti'e7
6 . . . others 36
7 h3
7 . . . .txf3 37
7 . . . .th5 8 g3 38
8 g4 39
8 'ti'a4 39

B
5 g3 i.g4
5 . . . lDge7 79
5 . . . .tf5 81
5 . . . f6 82
86 Index of Variations

5 . . . i.c5 83
5 . . . i.e6 6 b3 68
6 i.g2 69
6 a4 70
6 lll b d2 i.b4 7 1
6 ... lll g e7 72
6 ... d7 7 a 3 72
7 i.g2 75
6 lLlbd2
6 i.g2 i.b4+ 63
6 ... d7 7 0-0 lll g e7 64
7 . . . h5 64
7 . . . i.h3 64
7 ... 0-0-0 65
6 . . . d7
6 others 57
. . .

7 i. g2
7 h3 58
7 .. 0-0-0
7 . . . i.h3 61
8 0-0
8 h3 6 1
8 . hS 59
8 . . . lll g e7 58
Index of Complete Games

Atkins-Mieses 9 Malich-Muller 37
Bernhardt-Heller 52 Martin-Adams 26
Biever-Cassidy JO Meduna-M. Mihailcis in 76
B rowne-Mestel 60 Mengarini-Byland 26
Chukayev-Mikenas 58 N evednichaya-Hann ula 80
Dalko-Da Rocha 66 Noteboom-Helling 51
Dodge-Houghteling 6 O' Kelly-Sturm 72
Edwards-Whittaker JO Petrov-Pantaleev 10
Elliot-Marshall 11 Pedersen-Roj ahn 28
Elsas-Ernst 47 Portisch-F orintos 38
Erdelyi-Nielsen 74 Rabar-Smederevac 75
Falk & Boyarkov-Lasker JO Rethati-Krenosz 62
Fine-Adams 52 Samisch-Medina 73
Finn-Palmer 53 Samisch-Rathai 55
Grekov-Nenarokov 35 Schadlich-Tain 69
Griinfeld-Skarszewski 47 Schiede-Geier 45
Hargitay-B.Szabo 28 Shearer,H.A.-Shearer,C . G . 11
H ort-Gasic 75 Spass ky-Lutikov 20
Junge-Wolf 54 Spassky-Mikenas 17
J urinvic-Maistorovic 31 Spielberger-Wysowski 52
Karu-Keres 8 Szilagyi- F orintos 19
Kindij-Bidev 75 Tatayev-Naglis 27
Klochan-Costain 38 Teschner-Wolf 53
Kogan-Zakharov 39 Uj telky-Puc 31
Lasker-Alekhine 38 Vela-Cohn 34
Laurentius-Kostic 32 Vidmar-Kostic 72
Law-Lamford 70 Wood-Gonzalez 77
Levitt-Speelman 73 Woolverton-Pritchard 23.
Lignell-Niemela 45 Zagoryansky-Panov 59
Lundholm-Spielmann 51 Zamecnik-Pospisil 82
Symbols

+ Check
t + Slight advantage to White (Black)
+ White (Black) has a clear advantage
++ White (Black) is winning
Level position
co Unclear position
co With compensation for the material
Strong move
!! Excellent move
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
? Weak move
?? Blunder
Yi - Yi Draw agreed
1 -0 Black resigns
0-1 White resigns
Ch Championship
corres Postal game
OL Olympiad
IZ lnterzonal
L League
Yi f Semi.:final
var. Variation
The Albin Counter-Gambit, 1 d4 d5 Paul Lam ford, a n editor of chess books,
2 c4 e5. allows Black to seize the initiative is a \\elsh In tern ational and was a
early in the game and creates a sharp member of the 1982 0lympiad team .
struggle with attacking chances for both
sides .
120 diagram s
This thoroughl y researched work
provides deta iled coverage of the main
lines and incorporates many new ideas
and original analysis. An i ntroduction ,
explaining the strategic aims. allows the
reader to understand the plans for both
sides. For the average club and
tournament player, this opening.
starting at move 2, will prove a d an ge rous
and successful weapon . A BATSFORD C H E S S B O O K

Oth e r ope n ing books in th is sen.es Sicilian Defence

F(fftm.n e A lge b raic Notation. E Gufeld

The Benoni for the Tournament Player Sicilian: ... e6 and . . . d6 Systems
J D M Nunn G Kasparov & A N i k i tin

French Defence: Tarrasch Variation Sicilian : Keres Attack

R D Keene & S M Tau lbut .J K i nlay

King's Indian Defence: 4 e4 Sicilian : Lines with . . . e5

E Geller T D Harding & P R Markland

King's Indian Defence: g3 Systems Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation

E Gc l l cr .J D M Nunn & M F Stean

Sicilian 2 c3
Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack
R D Keene M G Chandler

The Pirc for the Tournament Player Spanish: Schliemann (Jaenisch )

.J D M Nunn L Shamkovich & E Schiller

Queen's Gambit : Chigorin Defence Trompowski Opening and Torre Attack

.J L Watson R Bellin

Queen's Pawn: Veresov System

R Bellin For a complete list of B atsford books
Reti Opening please write to B . T. Batsford
V \' Osnos 4 Fitzhacdinge Street, London WlH OAH

ISBN 0 7134 4005 8