Logo Passei Direto
Buscar

2 Italian Game Evans Gambit

breadcrumb-separator

UNINABUCO

User badge image
jr juninho

em

Ferramentas de estudo

Mostrar todas
Material
Buscar
páginas com resultados encontrados.
páginas com resultados encontrados.

Prévia do material em texto

<p>Jan Pinski</p><p>Italian game</p><p>and</p><p>Evans gambit</p><p>Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com</p><p>First published in 2005 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc),</p><p>Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EClV OAT</p><p>Copyright © 2005 Jan Pin ski</p><p>The right of Jan Pinski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in</p><p>accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.</p><p>All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval</p><p>system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic</p><p>tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.</p><p>British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data</p><p>A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.</p><p>ISBN 1 85744 373 X</p><p>Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,</p><p>246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.</p><p>All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,</p><p>10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT</p><p>tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708</p><p>email: info@everymanchess.com</p><p>website: www.everymanchess.com</p><p>Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this</p><p>work under licence from Random House Inc.</p><p>EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)</p><p>Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov</p><p>Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs</p><p>General editor: John Emms</p><p>Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.</p><p>Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.</p><p>Production by Navigator Guides.</p><p>Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.</p><p>CONTENTS I</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbt3 tbc6 3 i.c4</p><p>Part One: Italian Game</p><p>1 Introduction and the Italian Four Knights</p><p>2 The First Steps in the Italian Game</p><p>3 The Moller Attack and the Classical Italian Game</p><p>4 The Italian Regretted: White plays 5 d3</p><p>Part Two: Evans Gambit</p><p>5 The Evans Gambit Declined</p><p>6 The Evans Gambit with 5 ... i.e7</p><p>7 The Evans Gambit with 5 ... i.c5</p><p>8 The Evans Gambit: Introducing 5 ... i.a5</p><p>9 The Evans Gambit: The Main Line with 5 ... i.a5</p><p>Part Three: Other Lines</p><p>10 The Hungarian Defence and Other Sidelines</p><p>Index of Complete Games</p><p>5</p><p>1 1</p><p>23</p><p>40</p><p>57</p><p>75</p><p>88</p><p>103</p><p>120</p><p>140</p><p>159</p><p>CHAPTER ONE I</p><p>Introduction and the</p><p>Italian Four Knights</p><p>I will assume that the reader has already</p><p>made up his own mind on two of the</p><p>most common opening moves in the last</p><p>500 years of chess history, and jump</p><p>straight into the third move with ...</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tZ:lf3 tZ:lc6 3 .itc4</p><p>Grandmaster Paul Keres wrote about</p><p>this move: 'too calm to give White advan­</p><p>tage.' This can, of course, be discussed,</p><p>but more importantly we should remem­</p><p>ber that the opening is not played in or­</p><p>der to gain an advantage, but in order</p><p>build the foundation for a later (or occa­</p><p>sionally immediate) victory. A theoretical</p><p>plus is just one of many ways to gain a</p><p>practical advantage in a game of chess.</p><p>Another is familiarity with the different</p><p>typical positions. Yet another is simply</p><p>knowing the essential theory, or playing a</p><p>line with which your opponent is unfamil­</p><p>Iar.</p><p>Now let us not get lost in talk, and in­</p><p>stead allow Black to execute his move.</p><p>Now what about 3 ... �c5 here? Does it</p><p>not have the same defects as 3 �c4 - ?</p><p>Instead 3 ... CDf6 looks optically better, as it</p><p>is attacking the pawn on e4; but surely it</p><p>is more a matter of taste than of beauty</p><p>contests at such an early stage in the</p><p>game. 3 ... CDf6 would take us into the past</p><p>and my previous book on the Two</p><p>Knights Defence, while 3 ... �c5 leads to</p><p>the future and the following pages on the</p><p>Italian Game, one of the oldest chess</p><p>operungs.</p><p>3 . . . .itc5</p><p>In the diagram posltlon White has</p><p>many ideas and possibilities, but only two</p><p>give interesting play: 4 c3 with all the</p><p>main lines of the Italian Game, and the</p><p>5</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>19th century favourite 4 b4, the Evans</p><p>Gambit.</p><p>In this chapter we shall look at White's</p><p>less ambitious option, the Four Knights</p><p>Italian Game.</p><p>Gamet</p><p>N . Short-A .Aieksandrov</p><p>Izmir 2004</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 l2lf3 l2lc6 3 i..c4 .lieS 4</p><p>l2lc3</p><p>In this position White has also tried</p><p>some other moves:</p><p>The 4 d4? gambit was refuted a long</p><p>time ago with 4 ... .ixd4! 5 lllxd4 lllxd4 6</p><p>f4 d5 7 exd5 'i¥h4+ 8 g3 'i¥h3 9 i..f1 'i¥f5</p><p>10 i..d3 e4 and Black was much better,</p><p>H.Fahrni-R.Spielmann, Baden Baden</p><p>1914.</p><p>4 0-0 is completely toothless, and Black</p><p>can do as he pleases. Here we will look at</p><p>two options:</p><p>a) 4 ... lllf6 can be met with another silly</p><p>gambit: 5 d4?!, but after this risky move</p><p>White is likely to have to fight for equal­</p><p>ity, e.g. 5 ... i..xd4 6 lllxd4 lllxd4 7 f4 d6 8</p><p>fxe5 dxeS 9 i..gS 'fie7 (if 9 ... �e6 10 llla3</p><p>'i¥e7 11 c3 i..xc4 12 lllxc4llle6 13 i..xf6</p><p>gxf6 14 'it>h 1! with compensation for the</p><p>pawn) 1 0 lllc3 c6 11 'iV d3 i.e6 12 i.xe6</p><p>lllxe6 13 i.xf6 gxf6, and now Black is</p><p>better because the white knight has diffi­</p><p>culties fmding its way to fS.</p><p>b) 4 ... d6 5 c3 'i¥f6 (S ... �g4 is a sound</p><p>option given by Paul Keres; play might</p><p>very well continue 6 d4 exd4 7 'fib3 'i¥d7</p><p>8 i..xf7+ 'i¥xf7 9 'i¥xb 7 'it>d7 10 'i¥xa8</p><p>i..xf3 11 gxf3 lZ:leS 12 llld2 lllxf3+ 13</p><p>lllxf3 'fixf3 14 'fidS 'i¥g4+ with perpetual</p><p>check) 6 d3 h6 7 i.e3 lllge 7 8 b4 �xe3 9</p><p>6</p><p>fxe3 0-0 10 'ife1 �e6 11 ctJd4 'fig6 12</p><p>lllxe6 fxe6 13 l:i.xf8+ l:i.xf8 14 'ii"g3 with</p><p>equality, R.Rabiega-A.Yusupov, German</p><p>Championship 2001.</p><p>4 . . . lbf6 5 d3 d6</p><p>In positions like this you can beat even</p><p>grandmasters. Obviously before this can</p><p>happen, they will have to die from bore­</p><p>dom ...</p><p>6 Ji.g5</p><p>6 0-0 is another example of the non­</p><p>event we have before us, and then:</p><p>a) 6 ... �g4?! 7 h3 hS? is a distinctively</p><p>bad line (though 7 ... i.xf3 8 "ii'xf3 and</p><p>White is slightly better was not the idea) 8</p><p>hxg4 hxg4 9 lZ:lgS and it is hard for Black</p><p>to prove compensation for the piece.</p><p>b) 6 ... a6 7 h3 ctJaS 8 a3 lllxc4 9 dxc4</p><p>i.e6 10 'ifd3 lllhS 11 llldS?! (instead 11</p><p>l:i.d1 with equality) 11...c6 12 ctJc3 bS 13</p><p>cxbS axbS 14 .:d 1 �c4 and Black is</p><p>slightly better. T.Luther-F.Borkowski,</p><p>Naleczow 1987.</p><p>6 . . . h6 7 Ji.xf6</p><p>Or 7 i.h4 i..g4 8 h3 i.xf3 9 "iixf3</p><p>lZJd4 10 'ifdl c6 with equality.</p><p>7 . . .'�xf6 8 l2ld5 'iid8</p><p>8 ... "iig6? is refuted by 9 lllh4! (this is</p><p>better then 9 "iie2 as recommended in</p><p>In tro duc tion a n d the Italian Fo ur Kn igh ts</p><p>ECO) 9 ... 'ii'g5 10 lt:Jxc7+ �d8 11 lt:Jxa8</p><p>'ii'xh4 12 'ii'd2 a6 13 c3 bS 14 .tdS .tb7</p><p>15 b4 il..a7 16 a4 and White wins.</p><p>9 c3 a6</p><p>Black can easily drift into a worse posi­</p><p>tion here, e.g. 9 ... lt:Je7 10 d4 exd4 (or</p><p>10 ... lt:Jxd5 11 dxcS lt:Jf4 12 g3 lt:Jh3 13</p><p>cxd6 cxd6 14 'ili'a4+ �f8 15 'ili'b4 and</p><p>White is slightly better) 11 cxd4 Ji..b6 12</p><p>lt:Jxb6 axb6 13 0-0 dS 14 exdS lt:JxdS 15</p><p>Ir.e 1+ il..e6 16 lt:JeS 0-0 1 7 � f3 gives</p><p>White some plus, A.Horvath­</p><p>A.Aleksandrov, Izmir 2004.</p><p>1 0 d4 ..ia7</p><p>Better perhaps was 1 O ... exd4! 11 cxd4</p><p>.ta7 12 h3 lt:Je7 13 0-0 lt:JxdS 14 il..xdS</p><p>0-0 15 Ir.e1 c6 16 i.b3 Ir.e8 with equality</p><p>in B.Macieja-M.Adams, Calvia Olympiad</p><p>2004.</p><p>1 1 dxe5 lt:Jxe5 1 2 lt:Jxe5 dxe5 1 3</p><p>1Wh5 0-0 1 4 1Wxe5 lieS 1 5 '1i'f4 'it'd6</p><p>1 6 'i¥xd6 .l:lxe4+ 1 7 lt:Je3 cxd6</p><p>According to ECO this position 1s</p><p>equal.</p><p>1 8 ii.d5!</p><p>An unpleasant idea to have to face.</p><p>1 8 . . . .l:le5?</p><p>Once out of theory Black makes a mis­</p><p>take. Instead 18 ... Ir.e 7! 19 0-0-0 il..xe3+ 20</p><p>fxe3 Ji..g4 21 Ir.d4 Ji..e6 22 .txe6 Ir.xe6</p><p>would have kept equality.</p><p>1 9 0-0-0!</p><p>This is the surprise Black had most</p><p>likely underestimated. White sacrifices a</p><p>pawn and now Black has problems com­</p><p>pleting his development.</p><p>1 9 . . . .ixe3+ 20 fxe3 .l:lxe3 21 .l:lhf1</p><p>i.e6 22 .i.xb7 .l:!.a7 23 i.d5 a5 24</p><p>..ixe6 .l:!.xe6 25 .l:ld2</p><p>This ending is probably lost for Black.</p><p>He has two weaknesses (the d6- and aS­</p><p>pawns) and no sensible counterplay.</p><p>25 . . . a4 26 'it>c2 g5?!</p><p>In my opinion this just creates another</p><p>weakness. The passive 26 ... �£8 27 Ir.fS</p><p>�e7 etc. looks slightly better.</p><p>f6 1 -0</p><p>Th e Mol/er A t tack a n d th e Classical Italia n Game</p><p>Summary</p><p>As we have seen in the five games in this chapter Black has nothing to fear from the</p><p>classical lines of the Italian Game, short of a short draw that is. The various gambits,</p><p>the Moller and 6 0-0, are only dangerous for White and belong to the past. The main</p><p>line is also completely harmless and the only problem Black needs to worry about is</p><p>how to create winning chances.</p><p>For White, the idea of winning seems to be far away. If you want to play for a win in</p><p>the Italian Game, you need to play 5 d3, as presented in the next chapter.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 ltJc6 3 .ltc4 .ic5 4 c3 lLlf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4</p><p>6 0-0 lDxe4 7 cxd4 dS - Game 1 1</p><p>6 . . . .ib4+ (D) 7 i..d2</p><p>7 ltJc3 ltJxe4 8 0-0 .ii.xc3 9 dS (D)</p><p>9 .. . 4Je5 - Game 7</p><p>9 .. .iH6 - Game 8</p><p>7 . . . i..xd2+ 8 tLlbxd2 d5 9 exd5 ltJxd5 1 0 't!Vb3 (D)</p><p>10 . .. ltJce7 - Game 9</p><p>10 ... ltJa5 - Game 10</p><p>6 . . . i..b4 + 9 d5 1 0 "Wib3</p><p>3 9</p><p>CHAPTER FOUR I</p><p>The Italian Regretted :</p><p>White Plays 5 d3</p><p>As said in the previous chapter I do not</p><p>believe that there is anything dangerous</p><p>to White's play after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3</p><p>tt'lc6 3 jLc4 jLc5 4 c3 ttJf6 5 d3.</p><p>Black should always equalise without</p><p>any real effort. Actually the line reminds</p><p>me quite a bit of the 4 d3 line in the Ruy</p><p>Lopez; sometimes there arc eYen transpo­</p><p>sitions between the two openings.</p><p>Having stated once more that the line</p><p>is harmless, it is important for me to re­</p><p>peat the old Russian distinction between</p><p>drawn positions and equal positions.</p><p>There are players far stronger than me</p><p>4 0</p><p>who play this line regularly as White and</p><p>with good results.</p><p>In Games 12 and 1 3 below we shall</p><p>look at an early 5 . . . a6, where Black retains</p><p>the idea of playing .. . d7 -d5 in one move.</p><p>Black will always want to put his bishop</p><p>on a 7 in these quiet lines, so White some­</p><p>times pre-empts this early transposition</p><p>with a quick 5 b4!?. The resulting posi­</p><p>tions of this rapid queenside advance can</p><p>be seen in Games 14 and 1 5. In the next</p><p>game White plays a2-a4 without any ap­</p><p>parent plan beyond preventing Black</p><p>from exchanging the white bishop with a</p><p>quick .. . tt:Ja5.</p><p>Finally, in Games 1 7 and 1 8, we will</p><p>examine positions not too different from</p><p>the first two games in the chapter, where</p><p>we have the Italian with 5 d3 in its purest</p><p>form.</p><p>Game 12</p><p>S. Vysochin-S . Kapnisis</p><p>Corinth 2004</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 tt'lc6 3 jLc4 jLc5 4 c3</p><p>Th e Italian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>etJf6 5 d3 a6</p><p>Black should not overstate the harm­</p><p>lessness of 5 d3 with 5 . . . d5?!, as White can</p><p>then claim an advantage after 6 exd5</p><p>tLlxdS 7 'i¥b3! (this is stronger then theo­</p><p>retical 7 0-0 0-0 8 �e 1 after which</p><p>8 . . . tLlf6! leads to an unclear game) 7 . . . tLlf4</p><p>8 ii.xf4 exf4 9 ii.xf7+ �f8 10 0-0 'i¥xd3</p><p>1 1 �e1 and White is much better.</p><p>6 .1i.b3 .1i.a7 7 etJbd2 0-0 !?</p><p>Black's plan i s simple. He wants to play</p><p>.. . d7 -d5 in one move. Therefore White</p><p>should forget about his extravagant plans</p><p>and just castle.</p><p>8 h3 d5</p><p>8 . . . d6 transposes to the next game.</p><p>9 'iVe2</p><p>9 0-0 leaves us with two interesting op­</p><p>tions to analyse:</p><p>a) 9 . . . �e8?! makes little sense as the</p><p>ideal square for this rook is d8. Black</p><p>should focus on getting it there instead of</p><p>playing this kind of 'wrist-chess'. Now</p><p>after 10 �e1 dxe4 (if 10 .. . h6? 1 1 exd5</p><p>tLlxd5 12 d4 with a clear advantage) 1 1</p><p>tLlg5 �e7 1 2 tLldxe4 tLlxe4 1 3 tLlxe4 'i¥d7</p><p>(not 1 3 . . . h6? 14 'i¥h5! 'i¥f8 and White</p><p>wins after 1 5 ii.g5! �e8 1 6 tLlf6+ gxf6 1 7</p><p>ii.xh6) 1 4 ii.g5 �e8 1 5 �h5 �f8 1 6 d4</p><p>and White is much better.</p><p>b) 9 . . . dxe4 10 dxe4?! (the knight on d2</p><p>is unemployed after this move, and what</p><p>is more important White has already lost</p><p>his social insurance; instead 10 tLlxe4 h6</p><p>1 1 a4 tLlxe4 12 dxe4 'i¥f6 is just equal)</p><p>10 . . . �e7 1 1 tLlh2?! (White does not con­</p><p>trol the centre so the attack on the king­</p><p>side is condemned to defeat; more sensi­</p><p>ble was 1 1 'i¥c2 ii.e6 12 �d1 with good</p><p>chances for equality) 1 1 .. .�d8 1 2 �f3</p><p>ii.e6 13 ii.c2 �d6 14 �e1 'i¥d7 1 5 ttJdf1</p><p>tLle 7 1 6 b3 tLlg6 1 7 ii.g5 tLle8! 1 8 �ad 1</p><p>'i¥c6 19 tLlg4 h6 20 �xd6 tLlxd6 21 ii.d2</p><p>tLlb5 22 �c1 �d8 and Black is slightly</p><p>better, V.Bologan-M.Adams, German</p><p>Bundesliga 1 995.</p><p>9 . . . dxe4 1 0 dxe4</p><p>If 10 tLlxc4 tLlxe4 1 1 dxe4 'iV f6 with</p><p>equality.</p><p>1 0 . . . etJd7!?</p><p>Or 10 . . . 'i¥e7 1 1 tLlc4 ii.e6 12 tLlg5 ii.d7</p><p>13 0-0 �adS with equality, but not</p><p>1 1 .. .b5?! (the white knight wants to go to</p><p>e3, so why provoke this?) 1 2 tLle3 tLla5 13</p><p>ii.c2 tLlb7 14 g4! (an old idea by Wilhelm</p><p>Steinitz - White has a stable centre can</p><p>therefore start a kingside attack) 14 . . . g6 1 5</p><p>�g1 tLld6 16 g5 tLlh5 1 7 tLld5 'i¥d8 1 8</p><p>4 1</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>ctJxe5 with a clear advantage,</p><p>V.Komliakov-M.Marin, Rumanian Team</p><p>Championship 1993.</p><p>1 1 0-0 <8c5 1 2 .i.c2 <8e6 1 3 <8c4</p><p>'iVf6 1 4 g3 b5 1 5 <8e3</p><p>1 5 . . . <8g5?!</p><p>Black does not benefit from this ex­</p><p>change. Better was 15 .. .'�h6 16 h4 'i¥h5</p><p>17 ctJd5 �d8 18 a4 .td7 with an unclear</p><p>game.</p><p>1 6 <8xg5 "ikxg5 1 7 �g2</p><p>Now White is slightly better.</p><p>1 7 . . . "ikh6</p><p>After 17 ... i.e6 White puts pressure on</p><p>the queenside with 18 a4. Unfortunately</p><p>for Black he cannot simplify the position,</p><p>since if 18 ... i.xe3 19 i.xe3 'iig6 20 axb5</p><p>4 2</p><p>axb5 21 .l:1xa8 �xa8 22 'ii'xb5! .l:1b8 23</p><p>'ii'd3 .l:1xb2? 24 i.a4! and White wins.</p><p>1 8 .l:i:h1 "ikd6 1 9 .l:i:d1 "ike6 20 4'lf5</p><p><8e7 21 i..b3 "ikf6 22 <8e3 .i.b7?!</p><p>This allows White to simplify the posi­</p><p>tion himself and retain his agile knight.</p><p>Better was 22 ... �b8 23 ctJg4 i.xg4 24</p><p>hxg4 �fd8 25 �xd8+ �xd8 26 a4 and</p><p>White has some plus.</p><p>23 <8g4 'iVg6</p><p>24 f3! ?</p><p>Here White could have played 24</p><p>ctJxe5 'ifxe4+ 25 'ifxe4 i.xe4+ 26 f3 i.f5</p><p>27 a4 and in the endgame Black is under</p><p>pressure in the centre and on the queen­</p><p>side. White has the advantage in the game</p><p>as well though.</p><p>24 . . . <8c6 25 .i.d5 .l:i:fe8 26 a4! bxa4</p><p>Black has great problems organising his</p><p>pieces. He could quickly go wrong with</p><p>26 ... h5?! 27 axbS axbS 28 lL'le3 b4 29 liJfS</p><p>bxc3 30 bxc3 and White is much better</p><p>because 30 ... i.b6? does not work, i.e. 31</p><p>�xa8 ..txa8 32 'i¥a2 �f8 33 ctJh4 'iff6 34</p><p>i.g5 'ii'xg5 35 i.x£7 and White wins.</p><p>27 Itxa4 .i.b6 28 <8e3 a5 29 4'lf5</p><p>4'ld8</p><p>29 ... i.a6 is possible, but then 30 'ifd2</p><p>h6 31 b3 i.b5 32 �a2 �adS 33 c4 and</p><p>Th e Italian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>White retains the pressure.</p><p>30 .ixb7 tt'lxb7 31 �b5 'i!Ve6 32 �c4</p><p>�adS 33 �xd8 lt:Jxd8 34 .ie3</p><p>34 . . . g6?</p><p>Here Black misses his chance. After</p><p>34 ... c6! 35 'ifa4 ii.xe3 36 tt:'lxe3 'ifh6</p><p>Black has counterplay.</p><p>35 .ltxb6 cxb6 36 tt'le3 tt'lb7? !</p><p>This loses directly. Better was 36 ... �e7</p><p>37 tt:'ld5 �b7 38 .l:.c7 �xc7 39 tt:'lxc7 "i¥d6</p><p>40 tt:'ld5 and Black has some illusory</p><p>chances for a draw.</p><p>37 l:tc6 'ike7 38 l:!.xb6 tt'ld6 39 �xd6</p><p>1 -0</p><p>choose between the plan executed in the</p><p>game with 4:Jf1, or simply transpose to</p><p>Games 17 and 18 by castling. This is mat­</p><p>ter of taste as both variations are equal.</p><p>9 lt:Jf1</p><p>Against 9 'i!Ve2 then 9 ... 4:'ld7!? looks</p><p>good. Black wants to remove the white</p><p>bishop from the b3-g8 diagonal and per­</p><p>haps prepare ... f7-f5. After 10 tt:'lf1 tt:'lc5</p><p>11 ii.c2 tt:'le6 12 g3 b5 13 tt:'le3 tt:'le7 14 h4</p><p>b4 15 tt:'lg5 f6 16 'i¥h5 h6 17 ii.b3 d5 18</p><p>tt:'lxd5 bxc3 19 tt:'lxe6 ii.xe6 20 bxc3 gave</p><p>Black equality in Kolar-Straka, Czech Re­</p><p>public 2002. One possible continuation is</p><p>,...----------------. 20 ... 4:Jxd5 21 exd5 ii.xd5 22 ii.xh6 i.xb3</p><p>Game 13</p><p>V . lordachescu-Z . Gyimesi</p><p>Rumania 2004</p><p>(or 22 ... gxh6 23 "i¥g6+ with equality) 23</p><p>"i¥g6 �f7 24 axb3 "i¥d5 25 0-0 'ifxb3 26</p><p>'ife4 �d8 27 .l:.xa6 ii.b6 28 �a8 �xa8 29</p><p>._ ______________ _. 'ifxa8+ �f8 30 'ife4 and it is White who</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 lt:Jc6 3 .ltc4 .ltc5 4 c3</p><p>ctJf6 5 d3 a6!? 6 .ib3 d6</p><p>Black chooses a different strategy</p><p>based on</p><p>a solid centre and slow devel­</p><p>opment. In many ways this can be com­</p><p>pared to the last two games of this chap­</p><p>ter, if it was not for White delaying cas­</p><p>tling.</p><p>7 h3 .ia 7 8 lt:Jbd2 0-0</p><p>Another critical position. White has to</p><p>keeps the balance.</p><p>9 . . . d5!?</p><p>This is not illogical. White has played</p><p>the time-consuming CDfl and Black wants</p><p>to exploit this.</p><p>1 0 �e2 �e8 1 1 .ltg5 dxe4 1 2 dxe4</p><p>.lte6 1 3 lid1 �e7 1 4 tt'le3</p><p>Also after 14 tt:'lg3 ii.xb3 15 axb3 'ife6</p><p>16 0-0 h6 17 ii.xf6 'ifxf6 Black has</p><p>achieved equality.</p><p>4 3</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>14 . . ,j,xe3 1 5 'iVxe3 j,xb3 16 axb3</p><p>'iVe6 1 7 j,xt6</p><p>If 1 7 0-0 ttJh5! 18 ttJd2 h6 1 9 �h4</p><p>ttJf4 20 �g3 ttJh5 Black has achieved full</p><p>equality.</p><p>1 7 . . .'ifxf6 1 8 0-0 'iKe6</p><p>In a position like this a draw is the</p><p>natural result.</p><p>1 9 ltd5 f6 20 Itfd1 tiJe7 21 ltd7</p><p>'Y&'xb3 22 tiJh4</p><p>22 . . . Itac8</p><p>If Black takes another pawn with</p><p>22 . . . 'i¥xb2, White continues 23 ttJf5 'Llxf5</p><p>24 exf5 'i¥a3 25 �xc7 �e7 26 'i¥b6 �xc7</p><p>27 'i¥xc7 b5 28 �d7 and his counterplay</p><p>is good enough for a draw.</p><p>23 tiJf5 tiJxf5 24 exf5 Itf8 25 'iHc5 h6</p><p>4 4</p><p>26 c4</p><p>White could also try 26 'i¥e7!?, but af­</p><p>ter 26...�£7 27 'i¥e6 'i¥xe6 28 fxe6 �xd7</p><p>29 �xd7 b6 it is White who needs to</p><p>draw, which he can manage by 30 e7 �e8</p><p>31 �xc7 <J;;>f7 32 �b7 with equality.</p><p>26 . . . 'lt>h8 27 lt 1 d3 'Y&'xb2 28 ltg3 Itg8</p><p>29 'lt>h2</p><p>Or 29 'i¥e7 'iYcl+ 30 �h2 'iVf4 31 �g1</p><p>'iVcl+ 32 <J;;>h2 'i¥f4 with an equal posi­</p><p>tion.</p><p>29 . . . 'iVb6 30 'iYe7 'iVxf2 31 ltxg7</p><p>'iKf4+</p><p>32 'lt>h1</p><p>White could have set a trap with 32</p><p>�g1 'i¥e3+ 33 �f1 'i¥c1+ 34 �f2 'i¥c2+</p><p>35 �g3, with the idea of 35 . . . 'i¥xf5?? 36</p><p>�h4!! and White wins, a fantastic idea</p><p>mentioned by Gyimesi. Instead, after</p><p>35 . . . 'i¥xc4 36 �h2 'iVf4+ Black draws.</p><p>32 . . . 'iKf1 + 33 'lt>h2 'iHf4+ 34 'lt>h1</p><p>'iKf1 + % - %</p><p>Game 14</p><p>l. Yudasin-A . Lenderman</p><p>Philadelphia 2004</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tiJc6 3 j,c4 j,c5 4 c3</p><p>tiJt6 5 b4 j,b6 6 d3 d6 7 a4</p><p>Th e Italian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>This assault should not be dangerous</p><p>for Black. The attack on the a- and b-flles</p><p>is happening in too narrow an area to</p><p>create serious problems for Black. And</p><p>what is more important, White does not</p><p>have full stability and control over his</p><p>centre, which offers Black good chances</p><p>for counterplay exactly there.</p><p>7 . . . a5</p><p>5 d3 d6 6 b4 i..b6 7 a4 aS is the usual</p><p>move order to reach this position. Yu­</p><p>dasin chose a slightly different sequence</p><p>to avoid the possibility of s . . . a6, discour­</p><p>aging b2-b4, as the bishop can then re­</p><p>treat to a 7 in one go.</p><p>8 b5 tiJe7</p><p>8 .. .'�Jb8!? is less popular, though still</p><p>good, e.g. 9 0-0 0-0 10 i..gS h6 1 1 i..h4</p><p>gS 1 2 i..g3 i..g4 and the position is equal</p><p>according to Unzicker.</p><p>9 0-0</p><p>Against 9 CLJbd2, 9 ... c6! achieves equal­</p><p>ity directly, based on 10 bxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0</p><p>0-0 12 i..a3 !:l.b8 1 3 i..b3 ctJg6 and Black</p><p>is alright. The solid 9 ... 0-0 is also fine, e.g.</p><p>1 0 i..a2 ctJg6 1 1 ctJc4 i..cS 1 2 0-0 i..e6 1 3</p><p>d4 exd4 14 cxd4 i..b4 1 5 dS i..d7! (infe­</p><p>rior is 1 5 . . . i..g4 1 6 h3 i..xf3 1 7 �xf3 and</p><p>White was slightly better in L.Psakhis-</p><p>S.Skembris, Beersheba 1 993) 1 6 �d4 !:l.e8</p><p>1 7 i..gS i..cS 1 8 i..xf6 �xf6 1 9 �xf6</p><p>gxf6 20 !:!.fe1 CLJeS with equality.</p><p>9 . . . 0-0 1 0 tiJbd2</p><p>10 i..gS?! ctJg6 1 1 CLJh4 'iiih8 12 CLJxg6+</p><p>fxg6! is a useful trick to remember. We</p><p>learn that we should recapture towards</p><p>the centre in the middlegame, but when</p><p>you see an attacking chance, you should</p><p>not hesitate to use it. After 13 i..e3 c6 14</p><p>�e2 dS Black has an initiative.</p><p>1 0 . . . tiJg6 1 1 j,b3</p><p>1 1 i..a3?! would be a mistake, as Black</p><p>can exploit the absence of the bishop</p><p>from the kingside with 1 1 . . .CLJh5 1 2 d4</p><p>CLJhf4 1 3 dxeS, and now the aggressive</p><p>1 3 . . . i..g4! is strongest.</p><p>White has the following discouraging</p><p>opportunities:</p><p>a) 14 �c2 �d7 1 5 'iiih1 i..xf3 1 6 CLJxf3</p><p>�g4 1 7 CLJe 1 CLJxeS 1 8 f3 �h4 1 9 g3 �h3</p><p>and Black had an attack in V.Cordeiro­</p><p>J.Soberano, correspondence 1 996.</p><p>b) 14 g3 CLJxeS 15 gxf4 i..xf3 16 CLJxf3</p><p>CLJxc4 1 7 � dS CLJxa3 1 8 !:!.xa3 � f6 1 9 fS</p><p>g6 20 �xb7 gxfS 21 c4 'iiih8 22 'iiih1</p><p>!:l.ae8 23 exfS !:l.g8 and Black was much</p><p>better in the top level game, C.Lutz­</p><p>A.Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1 995.</p><p>4 5</p><p>Italian Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>c) 1 4 exd6 cxd6 15 �3 is probably</p><p>White's best option, though after 1 5 . . . iff6</p><p>Black has perfect compensation for the</p><p>pawn.</p><p>1 1 . . . .ie6?!</p><p>Seemingly a harmless developing</p><p>move, but in reality the position is sharper</p><p>than it appears at first sight. White is</p><p>coming round with his knight, causing</p><p>Black real concerns, and all Black can</p><p>think of is this simple automatic move,</p><p>with no plan or idea behind it. Or at least</p><p>that's what it looks like. Maybe Black was</p><p>surprised by the troubles he faced later</p><p>on, in the middlegame with opposite­</p><p>coloured bishops.</p><p>Instead:</p><p>a) 1 1 . . . d5!? directly could be an alterna­</p><p>tive. After something like 12 i.a3 .l::i.e8 1 3</p><p>exdS CZJxdS 1 4 CZJe4 h6 Black i s alright,</p><p>e.g. 1 5 g3 �g4 1 6 '2Jd6 cxd6 1 7 .ll.xd5</p><p>'iYd7 etc.</p><p>b) 1 1 .. .c6 is also better, when the posi­</p><p>tion after 1 2 bxc6 bxc6 13 d4 .ll.g4 1 4</p><p>ifc2 should be equal. Then Black can try</p><p>14 . . . '2Jf4!? 1 5 dxe5 dxe5 1 6 CZJxe5 �e2 1 7</p><p>4Jdf3 tD6h5 1 8 .l::i.e1 i.xf3 1 9 tDxf3 'iYd7</p><p>when he has compensation for the pawn</p><p>according to Greenfeld. I am a little sus-</p><p>4 6</p><p>picious about this, but maybe it is worth a</p><p>go?</p><p>1 2 lt'lc4 d5 1 3 exd5 'Llxd5 1 4 'ilfc2</p><p>A simple alternative here was 1 4</p><p>tDxb6!? cxb6 1 5 tDg5 tDgf4 1 6 tDxe6</p><p>tDxe6 1 7 .ll.a3 and White is better. But</p><p>Yudasin was no doubt looking forward to</p><p>skating around on the light squares.</p><p>14 . . . 'Lldf4 1 5 .ixf4 i.xc4 1 6 .txc4</p><p>'Llxf4</p><p>1 7 g3? !</p><p>This is slightly inaccurate. White is still</p><p>better after the text move, but more ener­</p><p>getic was 1 7 .l::i.fel ! �e8 1 8 d4 exd4 1 9</p><p>.l::i.xe8+ ifxe8 20 �e 1 and Black is in trou­</p><p>ble. After the only move 20 . . . 'iYf8 (if</p><p>20 . . . tDe6 21 cxd4 ifd7 22 'iYf5 and White</p><p>is much better) 21 iff5 tDe6 22 i.xe6</p><p>fxe6 23 ifxe6+ iff7 24 ife4 .l::i.d8 (not</p><p>24 .. . dxc3? 25 CZJg5! ! ifx£2+ 26 �hl g6 27</p><p>'iYe7 and White wins) 25 cxd4 White has</p><p>a clear advantage.</p><p>1 7 . . . 'Llg6 1 8 'ilfe2 'ilfd6 1 9 'i!Ve4 c6 20</p><p>l::!.ab 1 l::!.ab8 21 'ilff5 'ilff6?!</p><p>21 ...i.d8! was necessary; after 22 bxc6</p><p>bxc6 23 �xb8 ifxb8 24 d4 .ll.f6 White is</p><p>better, but Black can hold the position.</p><p>22 'ifh5</p><p>Or 22 ifxf6 gxf6 23 d4 and White is</p><p>Th e Italian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>much better. But White wants to keep the</p><p>queens and the pressure on.</p><p>22 . . . h6 23 lt:Jd2 Wh7 24 lt:Je4 �e7 25</p><p>�f5 �c7 26 �h5 �e7 27 h4 lt:Jh8 28</p><p>�f5 + g6??</p><p>A forgivable blunder, but also after</p><p>28 . . . �g8 29 �g2 White has a clear advan­</p><p>tage.</p><p>29 �d7 ! .idS</p><p>The point is 29 . . . �xd7 30 lLlf6+ �g7</p><p>31 tLlxd7 and White wins.</p><p>30 bxc6 �xd7 31 cxd7 Wg7 32 l:tb5</p><p>1 -0</p><p>8 �b3</p><p>I do not like this move too much. It is</p><p>hard to see what good the queen is doing</p><p>on b3 this early on, and later it might very</p><p>well flnd itself better placed somewhere</p><p>else. Simpler is 8 0-0 0-0 9 aS i.a 7, when</p><p>we have a branching:</p><p>a) 1 0 lLlbd2 tLle7 1 1 i..b3 lLlg6 1 2 lLlc4</p><p>l;!e8 1 3 l;!et h6 was played in C.Lutz­</p><p>P.Leko, Cap d'Agde 1 994, and now 14</p><p>lLle3 lLlf4 1 S l;!b1 gives White some ad­</p><p>vantage.</p><p>b) 1 0 l;!e1 h6 1 1 lZJbd2! (1 1 h3 is only</p><p>,....---------------.....,. required in this structure if you want to</p><p>Game 15</p><p>V . Nevednichy-Z . Gyimesi</p><p>Misko!c 2004</p><p>play d3-d4; here Black can reply 1 1 . ..tLlhS!</p><p>1 2 d4 �f6 13 i.e3 lLlf4 with unclear play,</p><p>G.Timoshenko-P.Jaracz, Koszalin 1 999)</p><p>,_ ____________ ...,. 1 1 . . .tLle7 1 2 lZJf1 lZJg6 13 tLlg3 and White</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbt3 lbc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ib6 5 a4 a6 6 c3 lbt6 7 d3 d6</p><p>This time the Italian Game has taken a</p><p>short trip through the Evans Gambit</p><p>De­</p><p>clined. Another move order can be seen</p><p>in the previous game. By the standard</p><p>route, 4 c3 lLlf6 S d3 d6 6 b4 i..b6 7 a4,</p><p>the move here would have been 7 . . . a6?!,</p><p>which in my opinion is weaker than 7 .. aS.</p><p>Black should not allow White to occupy</p><p>all this space on the queenside.</p><p>is slightly better.</p><p>8 i.gS?! is weaker, as it can be strongly</p><p>met by 8 ... h6! 9 i..h4 gS, where Black</p><p>exploits the fact that he has not yet cas­</p><p>tled kingside. After 10 i.g3 lZJhS 1 1 h4 g4</p><p>12 lLlh2 l';!g8 1 3 lZJfl �f6 Black was</p><p>much better in J .Timman-J .Smejkal, Wijk</p><p>aan Zee 1 97S.</p><p>8 . . . 0-0</p><p>8...�e7 9 0-0 aS!? is also interesting.</p><p>This seems reasonable even with a lost</p><p>4 7</p><p>Italian Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>tempo ( . . . a7-a6-a5), as the white queen solved this with an imaginative idea . . .</p><p>might not be too well placed on b3 here.</p><p>After 10 bS ti:Jd8 1 1 ti:Jbd2 0-0 we have</p><p>an unclear game, though \X'hite can avoid</p><p>it by flicking in 9 aS!?.</p><p>9 a5 iLa 7 1 0 0-0 tiJe 7 1 1 tiJg5</p><p>Also after 1 1 .ie3 c6!? 12 .ixa7 Mxa7</p><p>1 3 'i'c2 would White have no advantage.</p><p>1 1 . . .'iVe8 1 2 iLe3 c6 1 3 iLxa 7 'tlxa 7</p><p>14 d4</p><p>1 4 . . . exd4</p><p>Here Black can sharpen the game with</p><p>14 . . . ti:Jg6!? 1 5 dxeS tt:JxeS 1 6 f4 tt:Jxc4 1 7</p><p>'i'xc4 h6 1 8 'i'd4 Ma8 19 eS with an un­</p><p>clear position.</p><p>1 5 cxd4 h6 1 6 e5 hxg5 1 7 exf6 gxf6</p><p>1 8 tiJd2 d5 1 9 iLd3 tiJg6 20 iVc2 tiJf4</p><p>21 g3? !</p><p>\X'hite i s too optimistic here, hoping his</p><p>structure will prove superior. The simple</p><p>21 l'lfe1 'i'd7 22 Me3 was better, when</p><p>the position is unclear.</p><p>21 . . . tiJxd3 22 iVxd3</p><p>Here it looks as if White is much bet­</p><p>ter. His main plan is to play a game of</p><p>hide and seek and end up torturing Black</p><p>in a gruelling ending. Black is faced with</p><p>the question of how to defend the b 7-</p><p>pawn and get the Ma7 into play. He</p><p>4 8</p><p>22 . . . b5! ! 23 axb6</p><p>White needs to test Black's idea. After</p><p>23 l'lfel Me7 24 Me3 Mxe3 25 fxe3 'i'e6</p><p>26 ti:Jb3 Me8 27 Mel fS Black is at least</p><p>slightly better.</p><p>23 . . . .l':Ie7!</p><p>\X'hite can surely still save the game,</p><p>but now it is very difficult.</p><p>24 rlfc1 'i;g7</p><p>25 tiJf1 ?</p><p>This is too passive. White needs some</p><p>counterplay, which could be obtained</p><p>with 25 ti:Jb3!, even though after 25 . . . 'i'd7</p><p>26 ti:JcS 'i'h3 27 'i'f1 'i'hS 28 tDxa6 (28</p><p>f3!?, with the idea of 'i'f2, is probably</p><p>much better and should give \X'hite some</p><p>Th e Italian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>chances) 28 . . . l'Ih8 29 �g2 ii.h3 30 g4!</p><p>ii.xg4 31 ctJcS ii.f3 32 �g3 fS 33 ctJd3</p><p>ii.e4 34 ctJf4 �h4 Black's attack is very</p><p>unpleasant.</p><p>25 . . . iVd7 26 iVc3</p><p>Also after 26 l'Ie 1 l'Ixe 1 27 l'Ixe 1 �b 7</p><p>28 ctJe3 �xb6 29 �c3 ii.d7 30 l'Ia1 l'Ib8</p><p>31 ctJc2 ii.fS 32 ctJe3 ii.e4 Black would be</p><p>much better.</p><p>26 . . . .l:!.fe8! 27 iVxc6 iVh3</p><p>28 iVc3</p><p>White cannot play 28 bS? because of</p><p>28 .. . ii.f5! 29 b7 (or 29 bxa6 ii.e4)</p><p>29 . . . ii.e4 30 f3 ii.xf3 31 l'Ic2 l'Ie2 and</p><p>Black wins.</p><p>28 . . . i.g4 29 b7 i.e2 30 .l:!.c2 .l:!.xb7</p><p>31 .l:!.xe2?</p><p>White is falling over, but after 31 f3</p><p>l'Ibe7 Black would also be close to win­</p><p>rung.</p><p>31 . . . .l:!.xe2 32 .l:!.xa6 0-1</p><p>Since Black wins after both 32 . . . �f5 and</p><p>32 . . . l'Ic7.</p><p>Game 16</p><p>S. Movsesian-A .Morozevich</p><p>Prague (rapid) 2002</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 0-0</p><p>tt:lt6 5 d3 d6 6 c3 0-0</p><p>This is main position for the 5 d3</p><p>variation. Here Black cannot really refrain</p><p>from castling. The old idea of 6 .. . a6 7</p><p>ii.b3 ii.a7 8 ctJbd2 h6?! intending . . . g7-g5</p><p>has one major defect: Black will not man­</p><p>age to create an attack, but instead will</p><p>just weaken his own position, e.g. 9 l'Ie1</p><p>gS 10 ctJf1 g4 1 1 ctJ3d2 tt:lhS 12 tt:lc4 tt:lf4</p><p>1 3 ii.e3 bS 14 tt:la3 �f6 1 5 ii.dS ii.d7 1 6</p><p>tbc2 ii.xe3 1 7 ctJcxe3 h S 1 8 a4 and White</p><p>had the advantage in D.King-V.Hort,</p><p>Dortmund 1 988.</p><p>7 a4</p><p>This is a harmless sideline which gives</p><p>Black good chances.</p><p>7 . . . a6</p><p>7.. .a5!? is also flne, e.g. 8 ctJbd2 ii.a7 9</p><p>ii.b3 tZ:lhS 10 tt:lc4 �f6 1 1 tZ:lfxeS tZ:lxeS</p><p>1 2 tZ:lxeS �xeS 13 d4 �xe4 14 �xhS</p><p>ii.e6 with equality, J.Speelman-B.Gulko,</p><p>Novi Sad Olympiad 1 990.</p><p>8 tt:lbd2</p><p>White can exchange the strong dark­</p><p>squared bishop with 8 ii.e3, but after</p><p>8 .. . ii.xe3 9 fxe3 dS Black should be OK,</p><p>e.g. 1 0 exdS tZ:lxdS 1 1 �e2 ii.e6 1 2 tt:lbd2</p><p>�e7 1 3 ii.b3 l'Iae8 14 �f2 fS 1 5 l'Iae1</p><p>with unclear play in D.Barua-G.Milos,</p><p>4 9</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Moscow Olympiad 1994.</p><p>8 . . . .i.a7</p><p>9 �e1</p><p>9 aS t'De7 is a standard plan to remem­</p><p>ber. It is a very good way to get some</p><p>attacking chances as Black. Now after 10</p><p>�e1 t'Dg6 11 t'Dn �e8 12 i.b3 h6 13</p><p>..te3 i.e6 the position is equal.</p><p>In the game Black finds another way to</p><p>create attacking chances.</p><p>9 . . . ltJg4! 1 0 l:!.e2 'ii?h8 1 1 h3 l2lh6 1 2</p><p>ltJf1 f5 !</p><p>A critical position.</p><p>1 3 .i.xh6</p><p>This is probably the soundest decision</p><p>in this position. White has also tried:</p><p>a) 13 exfS?! t'DxfS 14 i.gS i¥e8 1S d4</p><p>5 0</p><p>"ii'g6 and Black is at least slightly better,</p><p>D.Barua-M.Adams, Bayswater 1989.</p><p>b) 13 d4? fxe4 14 �xe4 dS 1S .igS and</p><p>now L.Psakhis-J .Hector, Palma de Mal­</p><p>lorca 1989, continued 1S ... dxe4? 16 .ixd8</p><p>�xd8 17 t'DgS exd4 18 cxd4 �xd4 19</p><p>i¥e2 .ifS with an unclear game. For</p><p>some strange reason Black feared taking</p><p>the pieces. I have checked this position</p><p>with Fritz 8 for hours, and even though</p><p>we are talking about very strong players, I</p><p>cannot believe that White's compensation</p><p>is anything but an illusion after 1S ... i¥d7</p><p>16 t'DxeS t'DxeS 17 �xeS dxc4 18 .ixh6</p><p>gxh6 19 'ife2 'i:Vd6.</p><p>1 3 . . . gxh6 1 4 exf5 .i.xf5 1 5 .i.d5 .i.g6</p><p>1 6 'ifd2 'iff6 1 7 ltJg3 'iff4 1 8 \\i'xf4</p><p>l:.xf4</p><p>The poslt1on is more or less equal.</p><p>White has a better pawn structure, while</p><p>Black has the two bishops and control</p><p>over two half-open files. In positions like</p><p>this I usually prefer Black for practical</p><p>reasons, simply because it is easier to play</p><p>with the initiative than against it.</p><p>1 9 .i.e4?!</p><p>White goes wrong straight away! Better</p><p>was 19 t'De4!? .ihS 20 t'Ded2 �af8 21 b4</p><p>t'Dd8 22 bS c6 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 .ic4 aS</p><p>Th e I talian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>25 �b 1 with an unclear game.</p><p>1 9 . . . .if7</p><p>20 i.xc6</p><p>White opens another file for Black, but</p><p>this was the consequence of the previous</p><p>move.</p><p>20 . . . bxc6 2 1 d4 l:!.g8</p><p>Even stronger was 21...exd4 22 cxd4</p><p>.ixd4 23 'bxd4 �xd4 24 �e 7 .idS 25</p><p>�xc7 �f8 with the initiative.</p><p>22 Wh2 exd4 23 lt:'Jxd4 .ixd4 24</p><p>cxd4</p><p>24 . . . .id5?</p><p>Black seems to have missed 24 ... �xd4</p><p>25 'bfS .idS!, when after 26 g4 :r£4! he</p><p>keeps the pressure on.</p><p>28 l:!.e3 'it>f8 29 lt:'Je2 l:!.f7 30 lt:'Jc3</p><p>.ic4 31 g4 h5 32 Wg3</p><p>The tables have turned. It is White who</p><p>has some chances to play for the win.</p><p>32 . . . l:!.b4 33 f4 h4+ ? !</p><p>A very risky idea, which gambles with</p><p>life and death, and there is no middle</p><p>ground to be found after it. But Moro­</p><p>zevich likes to gamble like this, especially</p><p>when time trouble is approaching.</p><p>After the saner 33 ... hxg4 34 hxg4 .ib3</p><p>Black has good drawing chances.</p><p>34 Wf3 .it1 35 l:!.e1 ! .ic4</p><p>If 35 ... ihh3 36 �hl and White wins.</p><p>36 t5 .ib3 37 'it>t4</p><p>Here I think 37 �e4!? was stronger.</p><p>After 37 ... i.xa4 38 'bxa4 �xa4 39 dS</p><p>�xe4 40 �xe4 �e7+ 4 1 �f4 cxdS 42</p><p>�xdS �e2 43 �xaS Zlxb2 44 �a7 White</p><p>has some winning chances. Of course this</p><p>is a very difficult line to enter if you are</p><p>short of time, which I think Movsesian</p><p>probably was.</p><p>37 . . . c5 38 rJi>g5 cxd4?!</p><p>Simpler was 38 ... l:txd4 39 �de2 �g 7</p><p>40 �e7 h6+ 41 �xh4 �d2 42 �le2 �xe2</p><p>43 Zlxe2 dS where Black has counterplay.</p><p>39 tt:Je4 l:!.b8 40 l:!.xd4 �e8</p><p>25 l:!.d1 a5 26 f3 l:!.b8 27 �dd2 Wg8 41 l:!.e2??</p><p>5 1</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>This happens so often. Either White</p><p>made an extra move because he was un­</p><p>sure if he had made the time control at</p><p>move 40, or he did not take two minutes</p><p>rest to let the emotions cool after time</p><p>trouble. After something like 41 �e3 .i.c2</p><p>42 �e2 c5 43 �xc2 cxd4 44 ctJxd6 �g7+</p><p>45 �xh4 �d8 46 'Lle4 �e7 47 ctJcS only</p><p>White can win, though Black has decent</p><p>drawing chances as well.</p><p>41 . . . �fe 7 42 �e3 iL f7 43 �c3 �xe4</p><p>44 �xe4 �xe4 45 �xc7</p><p>A bishop is a bishop. \X-'hite has to put</p><p>his head on the block now.</p><p>45 . . . �e7 46 �c8+ .ie8 47 Wf6 d5</p><p>48 g5 d4 49 g6 d3 50 �d8 �d7 51</p><p>g7 + �xg7 52 �xd3 �g3 53 �d4</p><p>l:!.xh3 54 �g5 �b3 55 �xh4 0- 1</p><p>Game 1 7</p><p>S . Vysochin-J . Klovans</p><p>Cappelle Ia Grande 2005</p><p>Normally we would reach this posi­</p><p>tions via the move order 3 . . . .i.c5 4 c3</p><p>ctJf6 5 d3 d6 6 0-0 0-0 7 .i.b3 a6 8 ctJbd2</p><p>.i.a7.</p><p>9 h3 .ie6</p><p>1 0 �e1</p><p>Keeping the bishop with 10 .i.c2!? is</p><p>the most dangerous idea. Black's light­</p><p>squared bishop has no real scope, and</p><p>while the white bishop might also seem</p><p>._ ______________ _. buried at the moment, it can later prove</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 �c4 lbt6 4 d3</p><p>.ic5 5 c3 a6 6 0-0 d6 7 .ib3</p><p>The manoeuvre .i.c4-b3 is standard in</p><p>this position. Now the game is more or</p><p>less reminiscent of the Ruy Lopez.</p><p>7 . . . .ia 7 8 lbbd2 0-0</p><p>5 2</p><p>to be quite strong. Now we have the fol­</p><p>lowing practical examples:</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 �e1 dxe4 1 2 dxe4 ctJh5 1 3</p><p>ctJf1 �xd1 14 �xd1 �adS 1 5 .i.e3 f6 1 6</p><p>.i.xa7 'Llxa7 1 7 ctJe3 ctJf4 1 8 h4! and</p><p>White was slightly better, A.Karpov­</p><p>V.Korchnoi, Merano match 1 981 .</p><p>b) 10 . . . h6 1 1 �e1 'Lle7 1 2 d4 ctJg6 1 3</p><p>ctJf1 c6 1 4 'Llg3 �e8!? 1 5 ctJf5 �c7 1 6</p><p>.i.e3 d5! 1 7 exd5 (if 1 7 'Llxe5 dxe4 1 8</p><p>'Llxg6 .i.xf5 1 9 .i.f4 � 6 20 ctJe5 �xb2</p><p>and Black is a little better, H.Hamdouchi­</p><p>F.Braga, Mancha Real 2000) 1 7 . . . 'Llxd5!</p><p>(if 1 7 ... .i.xd5? 1 8 'Llxe5 'Llxe5 1 9 .i.f4 and</p><p>White has a clear advantage) 1 8 .i.d2</p><p>.i.xfS 1 9 .i.xf5 exd4 20 ctJxd4 .i.xd4 2 1</p><p>cxd4 with an unclear game.</p><p>1 0 . . . �e8</p><p>Th e Italia n Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>Black can also take the chance to ex­</p><p>change bishops with 10 .. . �xb3 1 1 �xb3</p><p>�d7 1 2 lbf1 (not 1 2 �xb7?? .Sfb8 1 3</p><p>�xa6 �xf2+ and wins) 12 .. . h 6 1 3 lbg3</p><p>.SfeS 14 lbh4 d5 1 5 liJhf5 dxe4 1 6 dxe4</p><p>lba5 and Black is at least equal, J.Hjart­</p><p>arson-A.Aleksandrov, Groningen 1 997.</p><p>1 1 ti'Jt1 h6 1 2 tt:lg3 d5 1 3 'Yi'e2 tt:la5</p><p>Black wants to keep the game compli­</p><p>cated, but it is White who turns out to be</p><p>better off.</p><p>1 4 ..ia4 b5 1 5 i.c2 tt:lc6 1 6 d4 dxe4</p><p>1 7 tt:Jxe4</p><p>1 7 . . . iH5? !</p><p>This just drops a pawn. Instead</p><p>1 7 ... exd4! looks good to start with, since</p><p>if 1 8 � d3 <Jif8 1 9 lbxf6 �xf6 20 �d2</p><p>�d5 21 �h7 g5 and Black is much bet­</p><p>ter, but after 1 8 lbxf6+! �xf6 1 9 �e4</p><p>White has some threats and probably the</p><p>advantage too; e.g. 1 9 . . . dxc3 20 bxc3</p><p>�xc3 21 �h7+ <Jif8 22 �d2 �c5 23</p><p>�e4! with a very strong initiative for the</p><p>pawn.</p><p>1 8 tt:lxf6 + 'Yi'xf6 1 9 ..ixf5 'Yi'xf5 20</p><p>dxe5 J:!.ad8 21 ..ie3 i.xe3 22 'Yi'xe3</p><p>White retains the pawn and has great</p><p>winning chances.</p><p>22 . . . J:!.d5 23 a4 b4</p><p>Or 23 . . . lbxe5 24 lbd4 �d7 25 axb5</p><p>axb5 26 f4 c5 27 lbb3 and White wins.</p><p>24 J:!.ac1 bxc3 25 bxc3 'Yi'd7 26 c4</p><p>J:i.d3 27 'Yi'e4 tLlb4 28 c5 a5</p><p>29 c6?</p><p>A tactical mistake. Here the elegant 29</p><p>e6! �xe6 30 �7 �cS 31 �b5 .Sxel+ 32</p><p>Mxe 1 would leave White close to winning.</p><p>29 . . . 'Yi'd5 30 'Yi'f5</p><p>After 30 �xd5 .Sxd5 31 Me3 Me6 32</p><p>Mec3 White does not have not real win­</p><p>ning chances.</p><p>30 . . . .l:!.e6 31 'Yi'g4 J:!.xc6?</p><p>Black misses his chance. After</p><p>31 ...Mxf3! 32 �xf3 �xf3 33 gxf3 liJd3 34</p><p>f4 lbxe1 35 .Sxe1 Mxc6 36 Me4 .Sb6 37</p><p><Jig2 the draw is certain.</p><p>5 3</p><p>Italian Game a n d E va n s Gambit</p><p>32 .llxc6 'it'xc6 33 'ifc8+ 'it>h7 34</p><p>'i!Vf5 + �g6 35 'i!Vf4?</p><p>Stronger was 35 'iVxg6+ fxg6 (if</p><p>35 ... 'lt>xg6? 36 e6 fxe6 37 lt:Je5+ 'lt>f6 38</p><p>lt:Jxd3 lt:Jxd3 39 l:i.d1 and White wins) 36</p><p>e6 l:i.d8 37 lt:Jd4 and White has great win­</p><p>ning chances.</p><p>35 . . . tt:ld5 36 'ife4 c6 37 tt:lh4 1 -0</p><p>White probably won on time, since af­</p><p>ter 37 ... 'iVxe4 38 �xe4 lt:Jc3 Black is</p><p>slightly better.</p><p>9 . . . tt:le7! ?</p><p>Black is aiming his knights towards f4,</p><p>which is a perfectly acceptable plan. Also</p><p>good here is 9 ... h6 10 l:i.e1 ii.e6 11 lt:Jf1</p><p>l:i.e8 12 .te3 i..xb3 (or 12 ... d5 13 i..xa7</p><p>l:i.xa 7 14 exd5 .txd5 15 i.xd5 'ii'xd5 16</p><p>lt:Je3 'iii c5 17 d4 exd4 18 cxd4</p><p>S.Fedorchuk-L.Vajda, Bar 2005, and now</p><p>after 18 ... 'ii'd6 Black keeps the balance)</p><p>13 axb3 i..xe3 14 lt:Jxe3 'ii'd7 15 lt:Jh4 d5</p><p>with equality in G.Kaidanov-V.Malaniuk,</p><p>r-----------------. Lucerne 1997.</p><p>Game 18</p><p>R. Felgaer-J . Hector</p><p>Copenhagen 2002</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .i.c4 tbt6 4 d3</p><p>.i.c5 5 c3 a6 6 0-0 .i.a 7 7 .ib3 d6 8</p><p>tt:lbd2 0-0 9 h3</p><p>After 9 lt:Jc4 Black can play similarly to</p><p>the current game with 9 ... lt:Je7 10 i.g5</p><p>lt:Jg6 11 lt:Jh4 'lt>h8! 12 a4 h6 13 lt:Jxg6+</p><p>fxg6! 14 i.e3 lt:Jh5 15 d4 with an unclear</p><p>position in E. Torre-I.Rausis, Yerevan</p><p>Olympiad 1996. Here I have analysed</p><p>15 ... lt:Jf4!? with the following idea: 16</p><p>.txf4 l:i.xf4 17 dxe5 'iVg5! 18 'ifd3 i.e6</p><p>19 exd6 l:i.af8! when Black has a strong</p><p>attack because of 20 d7? i..xd7!.</p><p>54</p><p>1 0 l:te 1 tt:lg6 1 1 tt:lf1 tt:lh5 1 2 d4</p><p>tt:lhf4 1 3 tt:lg3</p><p>1 3 . . . 'i!Vf6?</p><p>This is actually quite a common mis­</p><p>take, but then White's idea is quite</p><p>tricky ...</p><p>Black has naturally tried other moves</p><p>here. One game went 13 ... 'i'e7?! 14 i.e3</p><p>l:i.d8 15 i.c2 h6 16 lt:Jf5 'iff6 17 g3! lt:Je6</p><p>18 lt:Jh2 l:i.e8 19 "tiih5 and White had an</p><p>attack in V.Kramnik-D.Campora, Mos­</p><p>cow 1989.</p><p>In my opinion the simplest option for</p><p>Black is safe development with 13 ... i.d7</p><p>14 lt:Jf5 l:i.e8, when I do not see how</p><p>White can get an advantage. e.g. 15 dxe5</p><p>dxe5 16 i..e3 with equality.</p><p>Th e I ta lian Regre t ted: Wh ite Pla ys 5 d3</p><p>1 4 CDh5! �e7 1 5 �xf4 CiJxf4 1 6 CiJxf4</p><p>exf4</p><p>It is easy to compare White's situation</p><p>here with how a donkey might feel when</p><p>it has in front of it a tray with oats and</p><p>another with hay. The main problem is to</p><p>decide which one will taste better.</p><p>1 7 �d2</p><p>Also strong is 17 eS!? i..e6 18 exd6</p><p>�xd6 19 i..xe6 fxe6 20 �3 'ii'dS 21</p><p>Irxe6 �xb3 22 axb3 and White has a</p><p>technically winning position, E.Alekseev-</p><p>A.Mikhalevski, Tel Aviv 2001.</p><p>1 7 . . . �f6 1 8 e5 dxe5 1 9 �xe5 c6 20</p><p>Uae1 h6 21 l:.t 1 e4 �b8 22 .!:i.xf4</p><p>22 . . . �g6</p><p>After 22 ... i..xe5 White will not under­</p><p>take any adventures, but simply continue</p><p>23 lt:JxeS! 'ifgS 24 h4 'i'd8 25 lt:Jx£7 'Wie7</p><p>26 lt:Jxh6+ �h 7 27 lt:J£7 with a winning</p><p>position.</p><p>23 �xf7 .l:txf7 24 .!:i.e7 �b1 + 25 CDe1</p><p>�f4 26 'iWe2 i..f5 27 .:!.xf7 '>t>h8 28 g4</p><p>�d3 29 �xd3 �xe1 + 30 '>t>g2 1 -0</p><p>5 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>As we have seen, Black has two move orders at his disposal, and although neither of</p><p>them is inferior, 5 ... a6!? does have the advantage of limiting White's options. For his</p><p>part, White does not have to use the move order with 5 d3, but can start with 5 b4!?.</p><p>This queenside expansion does not strike me as dangerous, but as in most positions, it</p><p>is possible for Black to play badly and lose.</p><p>All in all \'Vhite can play these variations in different ways, but at the end of the day</p><p>Black has a sound, solid position, and when \'\'hite does not try to put pressure on it</p><p>straight away, he fails to utilise the advantage of the first move. (If you only start to</p><p>apply pressure at move 1 5, the difference between who moved first will have become</p><p>so small that in practice it is virtually gone) . Black should have a comfortable life in</p><p>these lines.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tt:Jc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 c3 tLlf6 5 d3</p><p>5 b4 �b6 6 d3 d6 7 a4 (D)</p><p>7 . . . a5 - Game 14</p><p>7 ... a6 - Game 15</p><p>5 . . . d6</p><p>5 . . . a6 6 �b3 i.a7 7 tt'lbd2 0-0 8 h3</p><p>8 . . . d5 - Game 12</p><p>8 ... d6 9 tt'lf1 d5 - Game 13</p><p>6 0-0</p><p>6 b4 �b6 - 5 b4</p><p>6 . . . 0-0 (D) 7 i.b3</p><p>7 a4 - Game 16</p><p>7 . . . a6 8 tLlbd2 1La7 9 h3 (D)</p><p>9...�e6 - Game 17</p><p>9 . . . tt'le7 - Game 18</p><p>7 a4</p><p>5 6</p><p>6 . . . 0-0 9 h3</p><p>CHAPTER FIVE I</p><p>The Evans Gambit Declined</p><p>In the second part of this book we will</p><p>look at the Evans Gambit, which arises</p><p>after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tt:lc6 3</p><p>.itc4 .itc5 4 b4!?</p><p>This romantic gambit has proven to be</p><p>greatly resilient to modern technology,</p><p>and while it is not generally thought of as</p><p>a path to advantage in the 21st century, it</p><p>clearly has not been refuted either. The</p><p>idea is to gain momentum for opening</p><p>the centre, even at the cost of a pawn or</p><p>two. for this reason the line has always</p><p>attracted agt,>ressive players and will</p><p>probably continue to do so in the years to</p><p>come. Even Garry Kasparov found the</p><p>opening worth playing a few times, and</p><p>has used to beat none other than Anand .</p><p>In this chapter we shall see his game</p><p>against a former Dutch No.1 , J eroen</p><p>Piket, who at the time of the game was</p><p>continually improving, with good chances</p><p>of reaching the world's elite. These days,</p><p>however, he has left chess for the less</p><p>demanding business of business.</p><p>The main move in this chapter is</p><p>4 ... 1i.b6, which is seen in the flrst flve</p><p>games, while in Game 24 we will give a</p><p>quick glance at the random-looking</p><p>4 . . . d5!?.</p><p>Game 19</p><p>E.Sveshnikov-Kir .Georgiev</p><p>Elz:rta 1998</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .itc4 .itc5 4 b4</p><p>'This brilliant attacking opening was</p><p>invented to make men understand that</p><p>chess is a gift from God,' wrote Saviely</p><p>Tartakower. The inventor of the gambit,</p><p>William Davies Evans, was born on the</p><p>5 7</p><p>I ta lian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>27th January 1790 in Pembrokeshire,</p><p>South Wales. From 1804 he served in the</p><p>navy, and in 1819 reached the rank of</p><p>captain. In 1824 Evans took command of</p><p>the steamer 'Oakland', which carried let­</p><p>ters and passengers between England and</p><p>Ireland. Evans was introduced to chess in</p><p>1818, and very quickly became a strong</p><p>player. In the 1820s he was one of best in</p><p>London. He beat Alexander McDonnell,</p><p>John Cochrane and several others among</p><p>the strongest players of the day. Evans</p><p>'invented' his gambit on a long haul on</p><p>the sea in 1824, though he did not have a</p><p>chance to play it in an actual game before</p><p>1827 against McDonnell.</p><p>The first mention of the 'Evans Gam­</p><p>bit' in print is found in Levison's Lessons</p><p>on the Game of Chess from 1832. It is not</p><p>unfair to say that the Evans Gambit was</p><p>the Ruy Lopez of the 19th century. It was</p><p>simply one of the most popular openings,</p><p>if not the most popular. At the turn of the</p><p>century, however, the Evans Gambit dis­</p><p>appeared from top chess for almost 100</p><p>years. First of all, because people became</p><p>tired of it and wanted to explore new</p><p>paths. Secondly, because strong defensive</p><p>players, such as World Champions</p><p>Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker,</p><p>found ways for Black to get a good game</p><p>against 4 b4!?.</p><p>Nevertheless, in the 21st century the</p><p>Evans has proven to be quite resilient to</p><p>the threats presented to different roman­</p><p>tic gambits by the silicon monsters.</p><p>4 . . . j.,b6!?</p><p>Black refuses the challenge and keeps</p><p>his bishop well placed. Though to some</p><p>extent a strategy for wimps, it cannot be</p><p>automatically ignored. As far as I can see</p><p>5 8</p><p>White can achieve an opening advantage</p><p>by transposing to the notes to Game 1S</p><p>from Chapter 4 (see the notes to move 6</p><p>below).</p><p>After the more passive 4 ... .te7 S bS</p><p>ctJaS 6 .te2 ctJf6 7 ctJc3, N.Minev­</p><p>Atanasov, Bulgaria 19SO, White is at least</p><p>slightly better because of the weak posi­</p><p>tion of the knight on aS.</p><p>5 a4</p><p>This is the standard move in this posi­</p><p>tion. White expands on the queenside,</p><p>relying on the fact that s . ..t2'lxb4 does not</p><p>work, since after 6 aS .tcS 7 c3 t2'lc6 8</p><p>0-0 White is much better; Black has great</p><p>problems developing and 9 d4 will come</p><p>with great force.</p><p>5 . . . a6</p><p>This is the main move. In Game 22 we</p><p>will look at S ... aS, which also seems to</p><p>give a slight advantage for White. The</p><p>safest way to gain an edge now is 6 aS,</p><p>but it is hard to continue like this when</p><p>playing a gambit.</p><p>6 j.,b2!?</p><p>The usual move here, 6 t2'lc3, can be seen</p><p>in the next two games. Besides these</p><p>White has also tried:</p><p>a) 6 0-0 d6 7 aS .ta7 8 bS axbS 9 .i.xbS</p><p>li:Jge7 10 d4 exd4 11 li:Jxd4 0-0 12 li:Jxc6</p><p>bxc6 13 i.d3 ti:Jg6, F.Marshall­</p><p>R.Teichmann, Hamburg 1910, and now</p><p>14 �h1 followed by f2-f4 is equal accord­</p><p>ing to Matsukevich. However, 6 0-0 can</p><p>transpose to the lines below, so it is not at</p><p>all stupid.</p><p>b) 6 aS i.a 7 when we have two op­</p><p>tions:</p><p>b 1) 7 bS does not inspire awe. After</p><p>7 .. . axb5 8 i.xbS Black has a wide range</p><p>of good moves. For instance 8 ... CLJge7</p><p>followed by ... d6 looks sound. However, I</p><p>have looked a little bit on sharper lines</p><p>such as 8 ... ti:Jf6 9 i.a3?! (White can</p><p>probably still keep the balance, but obvi­</p><p>ously he will have greater ambitions</p><p>around here) 9 ... li:Jxe4 10 'i'e2 i.xf2+! 11</p><p>�fl fS 12 c3 (if 12 d3 li:Jd4 13 li:Jxd4</p><p>i.xd4 14 I;!a2 li:Jc3 15 li:Jxc3 i.xc3 16 d4</p><p>'i'f6 and Black wins) 12 ... l;!xa5 13 d3</p><p>l;!xbS 14 dxe4 l;!xbl+ 15 l;!xb1 i.b6 16</p><p>exfS d6 and Black is much better.</p><p>b2) 7 c3! ti:Jf6 8 d3 is the correct strat­</p><p>egy. In this kind of position White has a</p><p>good chance for achieving a slight edge if</p><p>he develops normally and keeps the</p><p>queen away from b3 (see Game 15 in the</p><p>previous chapter for details). Then 8 ... d6</p><p>9 'iVb3 (Hey, what did I just say?!) 9 ... 0-0</p><p>10 i.gS h6 11 i.h4 'fie7 12 0-0 i.e6 13</p><p>ti:Jbd2 gS 14 i.g3 ti:JhS 15 bS axbS 16</p><p>'ifxbS was played in E.Sveshnikov­</p><p>Z.Gyimesi, Vienna 1996, and now after</p><p>16 ... l:tfb8 Black keeps the balance. As I</p><p>said, I dislike 9 'iVb3 for White.</p><p>6 . . . d6 7 b5 axb5 8 axb5 �xa1 9</p><p>..ltxa1 tt:la5</p><p>Black also has some alternatives here:</p><p>a) 9 ... ti:Jb8 looks passive, e.g . 10 d4</p><p>exd4 11 i.xd4 i.xd4 12 ifxd4 iff6 is</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e c lin e d</p><p>natural, and now White should play 13 eS!</p><p>dxeS 14 li:JxeS i.e6 15 i.xe6 ifxe6 16</p><p>0-0 ti:Jf6 17 lle1 0-0 18 ti:Jd3 when White</p><p>is slightly better according to Tartakower.</p><p>b) 9 .. .'�Jd4! is my preference.</p><p>White cannot prove an advantage now:</p><p>b1) 10 i.xd4 exd4 11 0-0 (if 11 c3?!</p><p>li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 13 0-0 dS 14 exdS i.g4</p><p>and Black is slightly better) 11...ti:Jf6 12 d3</p><p>0-0 13 ti:Jbd2 dS and Black is at least</p><p>equal.</p><p>b2) 10 li:Jxd4 exd4 11 c3 (or 11 0-0</p><p>li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 13 li:Jd2 dS with equality in</p><p>J.Palkovi-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1996)</p><p>11...ti:Jf6! 12 0-0 0-0 13 cxd4 (13 d3 dS! 14</p><p>exdS li:JxdS 15 'iff3 li:Jf6 16 cxd4 i.xd4 is</p><p>also equal) 13 ... li:Jxe4 14 li:Jc3 ti:Jf6 15</p><p>li:Ja4 i.a7 16 ifb3 dS with equality,</p><p>R.Nystrom-C.Hartman, Stockholm 1993.</p><p>1 0 .ia2</p><p>This should not give White an advan­</p><p>tage. The bishop does not look well</p><p>placed out here. Instead of trying for dy­</p><p>namics, White could play against the CLJaS.</p><p>Sveshnikov is the great expert of this line</p><p>and later he played 10 i.e2!?, with the</p><p>game E.Sveshnikov-A.Yashtylov, St. Pe­</p><p>tersburg 2000, continuing 10 ... ti:Jf6 11</p><p>li:Jc3 0-0 12 0-0 i.g4 13 d3 ifd7 14 'i'd2</p><p>59</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>.ic5 15 h3 .ixf3 1 6 .ixf3 b6 17 �b 1</p><p>.id4 1 8 fDd5 fDxd5 1 9 .ixd4 fDf6 20</p><p>.ic3 lDb7 21 .ie2 and White has a slight</p><p>enduring advantage which could last until</p><p>the end of the world.</p><p>1 0 . . .lt'lf6</p><p>Black should probably prefer 10 ... .ig4,</p><p>when after 1 1 d3 fDf6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 h3</p><p>.ie6! or 1 3 . . . .ih5!? he would be doing</p><p>just fine. However, he should avoid</p><p>1 3 . . . .id7?! 14 fDc3 �e8 1 5 �1 'lifh8?!</p><p>(instead 1 5 ... .ic5, but White still has the</p><p>advantage) 1 6 LDa4! and White was much</p><p>better, B.Kostic-F.Yates, Rotterdam 1 921 .</p><p>1 1 CZ'lc3 0-0 1 2 0-0 c6</p><p>with 13 d3 .ig4 14 h3 .ixf3 1 5 �xf3</p><p>.id4 1 6 LDe2 .ixa1 1 7 �xa1 and position</p><p>is more or less equal.</p><p>1 3 . . . exd4 14 CZ'lxd4 �e8 1 5 'i'd3</p><p>White needs to be careful. 1 5 �e 1 is</p><p>met strongly with 1 5 . . . t2Jg4! 1 6 t2Ja4 �h4!</p><p>when Black will have a very strong attack</p><p>for the piece. White might be able to sur­</p><p>vive it, but it will not be graceful, and</p><p>Black will eat enough pawns on his way</p><p>to secure his retirement in an at least even</p><p>ending.</p><p>1 5 . . . 'i'e7 1 6 CZ'lf3</p><p>Winning the two bishops with 1 6</p><p>t2Jf5?! .ixf5 1 7 exf5 might b e tempting,</p><p>but after 1 7 . . . d5! Black is slighdy better as</p><p>the white bishop is simply shut out.</p><p>1 6 . . . .l¥..e6 1 7 .l¥..xe6 'i'xe6 1 8 CZ'la4!</p><p>1 8 . . . .1¥..d8!</p><p>Black could easily get himself into</p><p>trouble. 1 8 .. . .ia 7? is met strongly by 1 9</p><p>b6 .ib8 20 .ixf6 �xf6 2 1 LDc3 �d8 22</p><p>�b 1 and �'bite is much better as Black</p><p>cannot get his bishop into play without</p><p>suffering serious structural or material</p><p>damage.</p><p>1 9 e5 dxe5 20 CZ'lxe5</p><p>1 3 d4 Also 20 .ixe5 cxb5 21 �xb5 �c6 22</p><p>�'bite can also play more cautiously �b 1 fDc4 23 .id4 lDa3 24 �xc6 bxc6 25</p><p>6 0</p><p>�bS .i.e7 26 �xeS+ Lt:lxeS leads to equal­</p><p>ity.</p><p>20 . . . i.c7 21 tt:lc5?!</p><p>This leads to a slightly inferior end­</p><p>game. After 21 Lt:lf3 Lt:ld5 22 lL'lc5 'i'g4 23</p><p>h3 'i'b4 the position is more or less bal­</p><p>anced.</p><p>21 . . . 'ifd5! 22 'i¥xd5 tt:lxd5 23 bxc6</p><p>i.xe5 24 i.xe5 l::txe5</p><p>Black accepts the piece, but fails to</p><p>find any advantage after this. Instead</p><p>24 ... t:bxc6!? 25 . .i.b2 b5 would give White</p><p>a few problems. His bishop cannot really</p><p>find scope and Black can possibly put</p><p>some pressure on c2.</p><p>25 cxb7 l::te8 26 g3 ttJf6 27 l::td 1 tt:lc6</p><p>28 tt:ld7!</p><p>White is desperately trying to assist his</p><p>b-pawn to come to greatness.</p><p>28 . . . tt:lb8!</p><p>Subtle play from Black. After</p><p>2S .. . t:bxd7 29 �xd7 'it>fS 30 �c7 lL'lbS 31</p><p>c4! Black faces a c-pawn racing up the</p><p>board. Nevertheless, 31 .. .�e7 32 �cS �eS</p><p>33 c5 'it>e7 34 c6 Lt:lxc6 35 �xc6 'it>d7</p><p>would still make the draw.</p><p>29 tt:lxf6+ gxf6 30 c4 �g7 31 c5</p><p>l::te7 32 l::tb1 l::tc7 33 l::tb5 f5 34 �g2</p><p>�f6 35 �h3 �g6 36 �h4 f6 37 f4</p><p>The Evans Gambit D e c lin ed</p><p>l::te7 38 l::tb2 l::tc7 39 l::tb5 �h6 40</p><p>�h3 �g7 41 �h4 �g6 42 �h3 �g7</p><p>%-%</p><p>Game 20</p><p>H .Stevic-D . Rogic</p><p>Vinkovci 199 5</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lt3 tt:lc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.b6 5 a4 a6 6 tt:lc3</p><p>The main move.</p><p>6 . . . tt:lf6</p><p>6 ... t:bxb4 7 Lt:lxe5 Vi'gS looks tempting,</p><p>but after S Vi'f3!? (not S Lt:lxf7? Vi'xg2 9</p><p>�fl d5! and Black is better) S ... t:bxc2+ 9</p><p>'it>d1 Vi'xe5 10 Vi'xf7+ 'it>dS 1 1 Vi'fS+ VieS</p><p>1 2 Vi'xeS+ 'it>xeS 1 3 'it>xc2 .i.xf2 1 4 Lt:ld5!?</p><p>.i.d4 1 5 t:bxc7+ 'it>dS 1 6 lL'lxaS .i.xa1 1 7</p><p>d3 .i.d4 1 S .i.f4, White has a clear advan­</p><p>tage.</p><p>7 ttJd5 tt:lxd5</p><p>7 ... t:bxe4 S 0-0 t:bd6?! (but if S ... d6 9 d3</p><p>lL'lf6 1 0 .i.g5 and White is slightly better,</p><p>I.Kan-M.Botvinnik, Odessa 1 929) 9 .i.b3</p><p>e4? (a standard mistake; Black starts to</p><p>attack before completing his development</p><p>and the punishment comes swiftly .. . ) 10</p><p>d3! 0-0? (lacking in consistency; this is</p><p>characteristic of correspondence games,</p><p>6 1</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>where you have time to realise when you</p><p>are on a wrong track; but 1 0 .. . 0-0 only</p><p>makes matters worse) 1 1 i..g5 'iVe8</p><p>12 tbf6+! (simple, but still nice)</p><p>1 2 .. . gxf6 1 3 i.xf6 h6 1 4 lbg5 i.d4 1 5</p><p>"i:Vh5 tbf5 1 6 'iVg6+ 1 -0 T.Harding­</p><p>P.Feher Polgar, correspondence 1 988.</p><p>Instead of 1 0 ... 0-0? Black could have</p><p>tried 10 .. . exf3 1 1 .l:.el+ �f8 1 2 tbxb6</p><p>cxb6 1 3 'iVxf3 h6! (if 13 ... 'iVf6? 1 4 'iVxf6</p><p>gxf6 1 5 i..h6+ �g8 16 l:Ie3, or 13 .. . tt:Jd4!?</p><p>1 4 'iVd5 tb4f5 1 5 ..tf4 'iVf6 1 6 g4 'iVg6 1 7</p><p>�h1 and White wins) 14 i..a3! b 5 (or</p><p>14 .. . 'iVf6 1 5 'iVxf6 gxf6 1 6 b5 and wins)</p><p>1 5 i.b2 bxa4 1 6 .U.xa4 and White has a</p><p>terrific attack, e.g. 1 6 .. . b5 1 7 'iVf4 bxa4 1 8</p><p>'iVxd6+ tbe7 1 9 i.d5 l:Ib8 20 'iVxb8</p><p>tbxd5 21 'iVd6+ tbe7 22 i.d4 and White</p><p>is close to winning.</p><p>8 exd5 CLJd4</p><p>Or 8 ... e4 9 dxc6 exf3 1 0 'iVxf3 'iVe7+</p><p>1 1 �d1 !? (1 1 'iVe2 dxc6 1 2 'iVxe7+ �xe7</p><p>1 3 ii.b2 ..te6 was equal in Y.Estrin­</p><p>G.Ravinsky, Moscow 1 956) 1 1 . ..dxc6 1 2</p><p>ii.b2 il.e6 1 3 li.xg 7 .l:.g8 14 i.f6 (if 1 4</p><p>i.xe6 fxe6 1 5 i.c3 'iVd7 and Black has</p><p>definite compensation) 14 ... i.g4 1 5 i.xe7</p><p>ii.xf3+ 1 6 gxf3 �xe 7 and the position is</p><p>more or less equal.</p><p>6 2</p><p>9 0-0</p><p>Alternatively:</p><p>a) 9 tbxeS?! 0-0 1 0 0-0 d6 1 1 tt:Jf3 i.g4</p><p>1 2 i.e2 tbxe2+ 1 3 'iVxe2 .l:.e8 14 'iVd3</p><p>'iVf6 and Black has the initiative,</p><p>J .Bednarski-N.Minev, Warsaw 1 961 .</p><p>b) 9 aS i.a7 10 d6!? (if 1 0 0-0 tbxf3+</p><p>1 1 'iVxf3 d6 12 d3 0-0 1 3 i.e3 i.xe3 1 4</p><p>'iVxe3 l:Ie8 i s equal) 1 0 ... 'iVf6 (or 1 0 .. . cxd6</p><p>1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 tbxd4 i.xd4 1 3 c3 i.a7 14</p><p>'iVf3) 1 1 c3 tbxf3+ 1 2 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 1 3 gxf3</p><p>cxd6 1 4 i.d5 and White has full compen­</p><p>sation for the pawn.</p><p>9 . . . CZJxf3+ 1 0 'ii!Vxf3</p><p>1 0 . . . d6</p><p>After 1 0 ... 'iVh4! Black gets equality by</p><p>keeping control over d4; e.g. 1 1 d3 d6 1 2</p><p>h3 0-0 etc.</p><p>1 1 a5 i.a7 1 2 i.b2 0-0? !</p><p>It was last chance to stop d2-d4 with</p><p>1 2 .. . 'ikh4!. Now White takes over.</p><p>1 3 d4! 'tWh4</p><p>Too late. But if 1 3 . . . i.xd4 1 4 .txd4</p><p>exd4 1 5 'iff4 l:te8 1 6 �ae1 i.d7 1 7 'ifxd4</p><p>and White is slightly better.</p><p>1 4 g3 'ii'f6?</p><p>The last chance was 14 . . . e4!? 1 5 'ife3</p><p>'ifh3 1 6 'ikxe4 i.f5 1 7 'ii'e2 .l:1ae8 1 8 'ilid2</p><p>'ilih5 when Black has compensation.</p><p>1 5 'ii'xf6 gxf6</p><p>Black must go through the rest of the</p><p>game asking about a draw, which is hu­</p><p>miliating, particularly when White does</p><p>not hear the question.</p><p>1 6 llfd1 ..ig4 1 7 .t:!.d2 .l:tfe8 1 8 ..ltf1</p><p>.t:!.e7 1 9 c4! .t:!.ae8 20 c5</p><p>Now Black has to play without the a7-</p><p>bishop. When it returns to the game,</p><p>pawn structure will decide.</p><p>20 . . . exd4 21 llxd4 i.f3</p><p>If 21 . . .f5 22 .l:1c4 dxc5 23 bxc5 i.f3 24</p><p>d6 .l::td7 25 �c3 il.e4 26 �d1 and White is</p><p>much better.</p><p>Th e E va n s Gambit De clin e d</p><p>22 . . . i.xd5 23 ..ltxf6 .lle4 24 .llf5 i.c6</p><p>25 f3 .t:!.4e6? !</p><p>Now Black could have made a draw</p><p>with 25 .. . l:txb4 26 �g5+ �f8 27 i.g7+</p><p>rJJe7 28 �e1+ 'li?d7 29 i.h3+ .l:1e6 30</p><p>�xe6+ fxe6 31 i.c3 .i.xc5+ 32 �g2 .l:1b3</p><p>33 l:tg 7+ �c8 34 .l::tg8+ �d7 35 .l::tg 7+.</p><p>26 ..ltc4 dxc5</p><p>26 ... h6? is met strongly by 27 �f4! dxc5</p><p>28 .l::tg4+ 'it>f8 29 J.g7+ rJJe7 30 i.xe6 h5</p><p>31 l:tf4 cxb4+ 32 'lt>g2 fxe6 33 ltd 1 i.d5</p><p>34 .l::txb4 and White is better.</p><p>27 bxc5 ..ltxc5+ 28 �f1 ! l:!.xf6! 29</p><p>.llxf6 i.d4 30 ..ltxf7+ �g7 31 .t:!.xc6</p><p>22 l:tf4? 31 . . . ..ixa 1 ??</p><p>Better was 22 �a3 dxc5 23 bxc5 .te4 Black could still have held with</p><p>24 �c3 and White keeps the pressure. 31 .. .bxc6 32 �a4 rJJx£7 33 .l:1xd4 �e5 34</p><p>63</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Md7+ �g8 35 Mxc7 Mxa5 36 Mxc6 Ma2</p><p>37 �g1 �g7 and game is drawn due to</p><p>the poor position of the white king.</p><p>32 .txc7 !</p><p>Now White wins.</p><p>32 . . . .te5 33 .ii.d5+ �f6 34 .ii.xb7 h6</p><p>35 .tc6+ �g7 36 .txa6 .ii.c3 37 .ii.e4</p><p>.txa5 38 .tg6+ �f7 39 .txh6 .ii.f6 40</p><p>�g2 .ta2+ 1 -0</p><p>Game 21</p><p>R . Ponomariov-G . Giorgadze</p><p>Krasnodar 199 7</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 CLJf3 lLJc6 3 .ii.c4 .ii.c5 4 b4</p><p>.ii.b6 5 a4 a6 6 lLJc3 CLJf6 7 d4! ?</p><p>An interesting gambit which, for no</p><p>apparent reason, is seldom played in</p><p>tournaments. Objectively \X'hite does not</p><p>get any advantage here, but the play is</p><p>interesting and complicated, so there are</p><p>practical chances.</p><p>7 . . . .ii.xd4</p><p>Probablv the best.</p><p>a) 7 ... exd4 8 4:Jd5 tt:Jxd5 9 exd5 �e7+</p><p>1 0 �f1 and White has serious attacking</p><p>possibilities. Here we should look at two</p><p>options:</p><p>a1) 10 . . . 4:Jxb4!? 11 il.g5 f6 1 2 �d2!</p><p>64</p><p>and Black is in trouble because the white</p><p>rook is heading for e1 . Maybe somehow</p><p>Black can survive; for instance 1 2 . . . �c5</p><p>1 3 �e2+ �e7! is worth a try, as 1 3 . . . �d8?</p><p>14 tt:Je5! � f8 1 5 Me 1 tt:Jxc2 leads to 1 6</p><p>d6!! d3 1 7 �e4 cxd6 1 8 4:Jt7+ �c7 1 9</p><p>il.f4 tt:Jxe1 20 �d5 �b8 21 il.xd6+</p><p>�xd6 22 CLJxd6 and \Xlhite wins. Whether</p><p>White can improve his attack after</p><p>1 3 . . . �e7 is hard to judge. But the pres­</p><p>sure is on Black all the same, and I do not</p><p>recommend it.</p><p>a2) 1 0 ... 4:Je5 1 1 d6 cxd6 12 il.d5 �f6</p><p>13 ctJg5 0-0 14 Ma3 h6 (after 1 4 . . . d3 1 5 f4!</p><p>ctJg6 1 6 �h5 h6 1 7 tt:Je4 �d4 1 8 �xg6</p><p>dxc2 1 9 'i.t>e2 and White wins, while if</p><p>1 5 . . . dxc2 1 6 �xc2 g6 1 7 Mh3 with a</p><p>strong attack) 1 5 tt:Je4 �f5 1 6 Mg3 CLJg6</p><p>1 7 c4 dxc3 1 8 h4 c2 1 9 �d2 �h5</p><p>Now White should continue 20 CLJf6+!!</p><p>(not 20 Mxg6? �d1+ 21 �el 'i.t>h8 22</p><p>Mg3</p><p>�xd5 23 il.b2 il.d4 24 il.xd4 �xd4</p><p>25 Mc3 Me8 26 f3 d5 0-1 S.Conquest­</p><p>L.Winants, Amsterdam 1 996) 20 ... gxf6 21</p><p>il.f3 �f5 22 h5 Me8 23 hxg6 fxg6 24</p><p>il.d5+ Me6 25 Mf3 �g5 26 il.xe6+ dxe6</p><p>27 �xc2 with a winning position.</p><p>b) 7 . . . CLJxd4 is so far untested, but</p><p>could prove to be playable. Still, White is</p><p>able to create real compensation for the</p><p>pawn after 8 .tg5! (but not 8 tL'lxe5? 'iVe7!</p><p>when Black is much better, e.g. 9 tL'lxf7?</p><p>Mf8, 9 tL'ld3 d5! 10 .txd5 c6 1 1 .tc4</p><p>tL'lxe4, or 9 a5 .ta7 10 iLld3 d5! 1 1 tL'lxd5</p><p>'iVxe4+ 1 2 tL'le3 .tg4) 8 ... d6 9 tL'ld5 and</p><p>now we have:</p><p>b 1) 9 . . . .tg4 10 c3 tL'lxf3+ 1 1 gxf3 .th3</p><p>1 2 'iVb3! and suddenly Black cannot pro­</p><p>tect himself without returning the pawn</p><p>in an inferior position.</p><p>b2) 9 . . . c6 10 .txf6 gxf6 1 1 tL'lxb6</p><p>'iVxb6 1 2 c3 tL'lxf3+ 1 3 'iVxf3 f5 14 0-0!?</p><p>with decent compensation for the pawn.</p><p>White is at least not worse.</p><p>8 4Jxd4 4Jxd4 9 f4 d6</p><p>1 0 0-0</p><p>The less ambitious 10 fxe5 dxe5 1 1</p><p>.tg5 has also been tried: 1 1 . . ..te6 1 2 iLld5</p><p>c6 1 3 tL'lxf6+ gxf6 14 .txe6 fxg5 1 5 .tc4</p><p>tL'le6!, and now instead of the sharp 1 6</p><p>iVh5? 0-0 1 7 c3 iLlf4 1 8 iVf3 b 5 1 9 .tb3</p><p>'i'd3 where Black is much better,</p><p>R.Leyva-F.De la Paz, Cienfuegos 1 997,</p><p>White should play the humble 1 6 .txe6</p><p>'i'xd1+ 1 7 Mxd1 fxe6 with good drawing</p><p>chances.</p><p>1 0 . . . h6</p><p>White is quite ready for 1 0 ... .te6 1 1</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e c lin e d</p><p>.txe6 (weaker is 1 1 tL'ld5?! tL'lxe4 1 2 'i!Vd3</p><p>c6 1 3 tL'le3 d5 14 fxe5 dxc4 1 5 'i'xe4</p><p>tL'le2+ 1 6 �h1 'i!Vd4 1 7 'iVxd4 tL'lxd4 1 8</p><p>.tb2 0-0-0 and Black i s better, R.Leyva­</p><p>J .Olivera, Holguin 1 999) 1 l . . . fxe6 1 2 .te3</p><p>tL'lc6 1 3 b5 axb5 14 axb5 Mxa1 1 5 'iVxa1</p><p>with the initiative.</p><p>1 1 fxe5</p><p>1 1 tL'ld5!? tL'lxd5 12 .txd5 0-0 13 c3</p><p>tL'lc6 was tried out in J.Palkovi-P.Acs,</p><p>Budapest 1 997, continuing 1 4 f5?! 'iVf6 1 5</p><p>'iVh5 tL'le 7 1 6 g4?! (instead 1 6 .tb3 and</p><p>Black is only slightly better) 1 6 . . . tL'lxd5 1 7</p><p>exd5 e4 1 8 g5 'iVe5 1 9 gxh6 g6 20 h7+</p><p>�h8 21 iVh4 .txf5 and Black had a clear</p><p>advantage. White should prefer 14 .txc6!</p><p>bxc6 1 5 fxc5 dxc5 16 'iVh5 'iV e 7 1 7 .te3</p><p>and White has some initiative here.</p><p>1 1 . . . dxe5 1 2 4Jd5 .ie6</p><p>12 . . . tL'lxd5?! 13 .txd5 gives Black some</p><p>trouble, e.g. 13 ... Mf8 14 iVh5 with an at­</p><p>tack and 13 . . . 0-0?! 14 iVh5 'iVe7 1 5 .txh6!</p><p>when White regains the material and still</p><p>has an attack.</p><p>1 3 tt:Jxf6 + gxf6 1 4 .id3</p><p>'W'hite should not force the play yet.</p><p>After 1 4 .txc6 tL'lxe6 1 5 'iV f3 tL'ld4 1 6</p><p>'iVxf6 'iVxf6 17 Mxf6 tL'lxc2 1 8 Mb1 tL'ld4</p><p>1 9 Mxh6 Mxh6 20 .txh6 �e7 Black is</p><p>6 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>perhaps slightly better because of the</p><p>powerful knight on d4.</p><p>1 4 . . . Lbb3</p><p>1 5 l::tb 1</p><p>1S cxb3? i s met by 1S ... 'i¥d4+ 16 .ie3</p><p>�xe3+ 17 �h1 0-0-0 18 .l:tf3 �d4 with a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>Black has now escaped from the open­</p><p>ing with a pleasant equality, but the game</p><p>is still going, and the two players are still</p><p>comparing their abilities.</p><p>1 5 . . . Lbxc1 1 6 'ili'xc 1 'i!i'd4+ 1 7 Wh1 f5</p><p>18 exf5 i..d5 1 9 i..e2 0-0-0 20 c3</p><p>�e4 21 i..f3 �d3 22 i..xd5 l::txd5 23</p><p>l::td 1 �xd1 + 24 it'xd1 l::txd1 + 25</p><p>l::txd1 l::td8</p><p>26 l::te 1 ? !</p><p>6 6</p><p>The pawn ending looks bad for White,</p><p>but it is a draw! See for yourself: 26</p><p>J!txd8+! �xd8 27 g4 �d7 28 �g2 �d6</p><p>29 �f3 bS 30 axbS axbS 31 h4 f6 32 �e4</p><p>c6 33 �f3 �dS 34 �e3 and Black cannot</p><p>make progress.</p><p>26 . . . f6 27 Wg1 l::tg8</p><p>27 ... i!td3 would allow 28 l:Ie4! (after the</p><p>passive 28 llc1 �d7 Black is much bet­</p><p>ter) 28 ... llxc3 29 .l:th4 .l::b3 30 llxh6</p><p>l:txb4 31 llxf6 llxa4 32 l:Ie6 .:.e4 33 g3</p><p>with enough counterplay for a draw.</p><p>28 .l:!e4 h5 29 h3 .l::tg5 30 g4 'it>d7 31</p><p>c;t>t2 hxg4 32 hxg4 c;t>d6 33 c;t>f3 l::tg7</p><p>34 l::te1 !</p><p>If 34 c4 aS! and Black has good win­</p><p>ning chances.</p><p>34 . . . 'it>d5 35 .l::th 1 �c4 36 llh6 l::tf7</p><p>37 c;t>e4 c;t>xc3</p><p>38 1:i.xf6! !</p><p>This is the beautiful idea White has</p><p>planned for some moves. Remember</p><p>Euwe's rule: when two connected passed</p><p>pawns have a total of four moves com­</p><p>bined to reach the back row, the rook is</p><p>no longer able to stop them on its own.</p><p>38 . . . llxf6 39 g5 llb6</p><p>The correct defence. If 39 ... llf8? 40</p><p>�xeS �xb4 41 f6 lieS+ 42 �fS �xa4 43</p><p>g6 and White wins.</p><p>40 f6 l:i.xb4+ 41 'it>xe5 l:i.g4!</p><p>Black flnds the draw. He is able to set</p><p>up a simple fortress that cannot be bro­</p><p>ken. In the remainder of the game he</p><p>needs to make one accurate move, but it</p><p>would not have been unfair had White</p><p>stopped playing for a win around here.</p><p>42 f7 l:i.xg5+ 43 'it>e4 ktg4+ 44 'it>e3</p><p>!i.xa4 45 f8"iV \t>b3 46 "it'c8 b5</p><p>This is the fortress.</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e c lin e d</p><p>jLb6 5 a4 a5!?</p><p>Though this move prevents the pleas­</p><p>ant transposition into the Italian Game, it</p><p>is still not an easy way to receive equality.</p><p>6 b5 l2:\d4</p><p>7 l2:\xd4</p><p>White has some interesting alternatives</p><p>here:</p><p>47 fixc7 .l:.c4 48 'ii'b6 l:i.c3+ 49 \t>d4</p><p>:r.c4+ 50 'it>d5 b4 51 "it'xa6 .l:i.c3 52</p><p>'ifa1 lieS 53 'ii'f 1 .:.c3 54 'it>d4 'it>a3</p><p>55 'ii'a6+ 'iit>b3 56 'i!Va5 l::tc1 57 'ii'd5+</p><p>�a3 58 �a5+ \t>b3 59 lit>d3 .l:i.c8 60</p><p>'ifa6 "fl.c7 61 'ii'e6+ lit>a3 62 �d2 .:.c5</p><p>63 'ii'd6 .l:tc3 64 'it'd5 .l:tc8 65 lit>d3</p><p>.l:tc1 66 'ii'a5+ �b3 67 \t>d4 l:i.c4+ 68</p><p>�d5 .l:f.c1 69 lit>d6 "fl.c2 70 'iia1 J!tc3</p><p>71 \t>d7 .l:tc5 72 Wd6 .l:.c3 73 Wd5</p><p>!Ic7 74 "ikd1 + 'iiia3 75 'ifa1 + 'iiib3 76</p><p>�d6 llc3 77 �e1 �a3 % -%</p><p>a) 7 i.x£7+?! 'it>xf7 8 tbxeS+ 'it>f8 9 c3</p><p>d6 1 0 i..a3 'Wie7 1 1 f4 i..h3!! 1 2 cxd4</p><p>i..xg2 1 3 .l:.g1 'i'h4+ 14 'it>e2 'i'xh2 and</p><p>,......--------------, Black has terrible attack for nothing.</p><p>b) 7 c3 tbxf3+ 8 'i'xf3 'i¥f6 9 'ifxf6</p><p>tbxf6 1 0 d3 with equality.</p><p>Game 22</p><p>G . Kasparov-J . Piket</p><p>Amsterdam 1995 c) 7 tbxeS? "i!VgS (7 . . . "i!Vf6 is met by 8</p><p>______________ _. tbf3 and White is much better according</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 l2:\f3 l2:\c6 3 jLc4 jLc5 4 b4 to Unzicker) 8 0-0 (White can die quickly</p><p>6 7</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>with 8 �xf7+ Wf8 9 0-0 "iVxe5 or 8 ctJxf7</p><p>"iYxg2 9 :n "iYxe4+ 10 �e2 ctJf3 mate!)</p><p>8 . . . "iYxe5 9 c3 ctJe6 1 0 :e1 . According to</p><p>Anatoly Matsukevich, \Vhite has some</p><p>compensation here, but I think this is</p><p>only enough for 3 minute blitz games.</p><p>After 10 ... �xf2+ 1 1 �xf2 "iYc5+ 1 2 d4</p><p>�xc4 1 3 �e3 ctJf8 1 4 'i¥g4 ctJg6 1 5 CLJd2</p><p>'i¥e6 Black wins.</p><p>7 . . . .i.xd4 8 c3 .i.b6</p><p>9 d4</p><p>9 0-0 has also been tried, which quite</p><p>naturally continues with 9 . . . d6 10 d4 "iYe7</p><p>1 1 f4 �e6 1 2 ctJa3 exd4 1 3 cxd4 0-0-0 (if</p><p>1 3 . . . ctJf6?! 1 4 f5 i.xc4 1 5 ctJxc4 ctJxe4 1 6</p><p>ctJxb6 cxb6 1 7 Vi' g4 and White has a</p><p>strong initiative) and now White has two</p><p>options:</p><p>a) 1 4 i.e2 ctJf6 1 5 �f3 d5 1 6 e5 ctJe4</p><p>1 7 ctJc2 h5 and the position is about</p><p>equal, J.Nunn-H.Hecht, Buenos Aires</p><p>Olympiad 1 978.</p><p>b) 14 f5!? seems to be more challeng­</p><p>ing: 1 4 . . . �xc4 1 5 ctJxc4 "iYxe4 1 6 �f4</p><p>'i¥e7 1 7 �d2 and Black has problems</p><p>keeping the position equal. One example</p><p>is 1 7 . . . ctJf6 1 8 :c1 �b8 1 9 CLJxa5 i.xa5</p><p>20 i.xa5 "iVe3+ 21 Wh1 ! and \Vhite has a</p><p>strong initiative.</p><p>6 8</p><p>9 . . . exd4? !</p><p>Black should not rush to give up the</p><p>centre. Here he should probably play</p><p>9 . . . 'i¥e7 1 0 0-0 (if 10 "iVg4 ctJf6 1 1 'i¥xg7</p><p>:g8 1 2 "iVh6 :g6 with unclear play in</p><p>B.Kantsler-V.11ikhalevsky, Ramat Aviv</p><p>1 998) 1 0 .. . d6 1 1 f4 �e6 1 2 ctJa3 exd4 13</p><p>cxd4 CLJf6 with an unclear game ahead.</p><p>Less reliable is 9 . . . Vi'h4 10 0-0 ctJf6 1 1</p><p>ctJd2 d6 1 2 ctJf3 "iVh5 1 3 dxe5 ctJxe4 (or</p><p>13 . . . dxe5 1 4 ctJg5 "iVxdl 1 5 :xd1 �e6 1 6</p><p>i.xe6 fxe6 1 7 c4 h6 18 ctJxe6 Wf7 1 9 cS</p><p>Wxe6 20 cxb6 cxb6 21 f3 with a clear</p><p>advantage) 1 4 "iYel d5 1 5 i.xd5 ctJc5 1 6</p><p>i.e3 i.e6 1 7 i.xe6 ctJxe6 1 8 i.xb6 cxb6</p><p>1 9 "iYe3 and \Vhite was better, S .Nadyr­</p><p>hanov-I.Komissarov, Smolensk 1 997.</p><p>1 0 0-0</p><p>White can also try to fight for the cen­</p><p>tre immediately with 10 cxd4!? dS 1 1</p><p>exdS! (after</p><p>1 1 ..ixdS ljje7 Black is proba­</p><p>bly alright) 1 1 . . .ljje7 1 2 ljjc3 0-0 1 3 0-0</p><p>{jjfs 14 ..ia3 �e8 1 5 ..icS and White</p><p>seems to be better.</p><p>1 0 . . . lt:Je7 1 1 i.g5 h6 1 2 i.xe7 'W/xe7</p><p>1 3 cxd4 'W/d6?</p><p>This leads to unwanted tactics. Three</p><p>alternatives spring to mind:</p><p>a) 1 3 .. . 0-0 14 ljjc3 c6 1 S �b1 ..ic7 1 6</p><p>e S d6 1 7 f4 ..ie6 1 8 ..ixe6 fxe6 1 9 ljje4</p><p>and White is better.</p><p>b) 13 . . . d6 14 ljjc3 ..ie6 1 S .idS �b8 1 6</p><p>�d3 0-0 1 7 �ae1 and White is better.</p><p>c) 1 3 . . . �b4!? 14 ljja3 0-0 1 S �d3 dS</p><p>1 6 exdS ..id7 1 7 ljjc2 �d6 1 8 ljje3 and</p><p>White has a slight advantage according to</p><p>Kasparov.</p><p>1 4 ctJc3! i.xd4</p><p>Kasparov gives the following explana­</p><p>tion behind Black's last move, i.e.</p><p>14 ... �xd4 is met with 1S ljjdS!! when</p><p>Black is faced with a horrible choice:</p><p>a) 1 S . . . �eS 1 6 �c1 0-0 n ljjxb6 cxb6</p><p>1 8 .idS White is much better.</p><p>b) 1 S . . . �xc4 1 6 �el l (not 1 6 ljjxb6?</p><p>cxb6 1 7 �d6 �e6 1 8 eS hS and the posi-</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e clin ed</p><p>tion is unclear) 16 . . . �a2 1 7 �xc7 ..ixc7</p><p>1 8 ljjxc7+ �d8 1 9 ljjxa8 d6 20 �cl and</p><p>White wins.</p><p>1 5 lt:Jd5! i.xa1 1 6 'W/xa1</p><p>1 6 . . . 0-0?</p><p>This only makes things worse. Now</p><p>the black queen gets trapped quite amus­</p><p>ingly. Sadly necessary was 1 6 . . . f6 1 7 b6!</p><p>cxb6 1 8 eS fxeS 19 �e 1 �d8 20 �xeS</p><p>and White is much better according to</p><p>Kasparov.</p><p>1 7 e5 'W/c5</p><p>1 8 .l::tc1 ! c6</p><p>Or 1 8 . . . d6 1 9 ..ia2 �a7 20 �xc7 ..ie6</p><p>21 b6 �b8 22 ljje7+ �h8 23 ..ixe6 fxe6</p><p>24 {jjg6+ �g8 2S exd6 and White wins.</p><p>1 9 i.a2 'ila3</p><p>69</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evan s Gambit</p><p>If 19 ... 'i'xcl+ 20 'ifxc1 cxdS 21 i.xdS equality is also possible, but Black wants</p><p>d6 22 exd6 lidS 23 VieS and White wins, more.</p><p>or 19 ... 'ifa7 20 b6 �8 21 tDc7 dS 22</p><p>exd6 i.fS 23 'ii'eS and Black's position is</p><p>very poor.</p><p>20 lbb6</p><p>The threat of 21 i.xf7+ decides the</p><p>game.</p><p>20 . . . d5 21 lbxa8 'it>h8 22 l2'lb6 i.e6</p><p>23 h3</p><p>Or 23 bxc6 bxc6 24 l':.c3 \i'b4 25 l':.xc6</p><p>.:tb8 26 �1 'i'd4 27 h3 i.d7 28 .:td6</p><p>and wins.</p><p>6 lbxe5</p><p>Well, this is why White has played 5</p><p>b5. Instead, after 6 i.e2?! d5! 7 tDc3 dxe4</p><p>8 tDxe4 fS 9 tDc3 e4 1 0 tDg 1 tDf6 11</p><p>tDh3 'i!Vd4 12 0-0 i.e6 13 ife1 tDc4 Black</p><p>has a dear advantage, R.Spielmann­</p><p>A.Burn, Carlsbad 1911, while after 6 tDa3</p><p>tDxc4 7 tDxc4 d6 8 d4 exd4 9 tDxd4 i.e6</p><p>10 tDe3 "iib4 Black is at least slightly bet­</p><p>ter.</p><p>6 . . . lbh6!</p><p>23 . . . J:.d8 24 bxc6 bxc6 25 l:rc3 'it'b4</p><p>26 l:.xc6 l:.b8 27 lbxd5 'i!Vxa4 28 �c1</p><p>\i'a3 29 i.c4 1 -0</p><p>The simplest and most defmitely the</p><p>coolest. Of course Black has a high num­</p><p>ber of likeable alternatives here. However,</p><p>r----------------- we will focus on the main move.</p><p>Game 23</p><p>J . Bademian Orchanian-R .Servat</p><p>Mar del Plata 1992</p><p>7 d4 d6 8 �xh6 dxe5!</p><p>8 ... gxh6?! would allow White to</p><p>unleash his idea: 9 i.xf7+! (not 9 tDxf7?</p><p>._ ____________ _. 'i'f6 10 tDxh8 tDxc4 11 c3 i.e6 12 0-0</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.c4 �c5 4 b4</p><p>�b6 5 b5?!</p><p>White should calm down a bit; i t is too</p><p>early for an attack. This game is a classic</p><p>example of why you should mobilise your</p><p>forces before attacking.</p><p>5 . . . lba5!</p><p>s ... tDd4 6 tDxd4 ii.xd4 7 c3 i.b6 with</p><p>7 0</p><p>0-0-0 and Black i s better, or 10 'i'hS? 0-0</p><p>1 1 tDxh6+ Wg7 12 tDg4 'i!Vf4! and Black</p><p>wins) 9 ... cJ:ile7 10 tDc3 dxeS 11 'i'f3 i.g4</p><p>12 'i'xg4 cJ:ilxf7 13 dxeS 'i'gS 14 'i'd7+</p><p>�fB 15 f4 1:1:d8 16 'i'h3 'i'g6 1 7 Zid1</p><p>Zixdl+ 18 �xd1 c6 and the position is</p><p>pleasantly unclear.</p><p>9 �xg7 �g8</p><p>Black could also play 9 ... 'ilfxd4 10</p><p>'ilfxd4 �xd4 11 �xh8 �xa1 12 i..d3</p><p>cJite7 with equality.</p><p>1 0 .i.xf7 + Wxf7 1 1 .i.xe5 'it'g5</p><p>According to some old analysis by</p><p>D.N.Pavlov, White is almost equal after</p><p>12 tbd2. Four pawns can be more than</p><p>enough to compensate for the piece.</p><p>However, the weak coordination of his</p><p>pieces is the lasting minus of White's po­</p><p>sition.</p><p>1 2 �f3+</p><p>If 12 tiJd2 'i!Vxg2 13 'ilfhS+ 'it>f8 14</p><p>0-0-0 'i!fh3 1 S "ifxh3 i.xh3 16 c4 l::i.e8 and</p><p>Black is just better.</p><p>1 2 . . . We8 1 3 tt'ld2</p><p>1 3 . . . .i.g4</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e c lin ed</p><p>Black needs to play energetically. If in­</p><p>stead 13 ... 'i'xg2?! 14 'ilfxg2 l::i.xg2 15 c4 cS</p><p>16 dS and White is better, because of the</p><p>weak position of the knight on aS.</p><p>1 4 'fif6 "ii'h5</p><p>Not 14 .. ."iixf6?! 15 .ixf6 .ie6 16 l::i.g1</p><p>tbc4 17 tbxc4 �xc4 18 c3 and White is at</p><p>least equal.</p><p>1 5 0-0??</p><p>This plays straight into Black's hands.</p><p>Better was 15 f3 i.d7 16 c4 (not 16 g4?</p><p>'i!Vh3 17 c4 �f8 18 'it' gS tbxc4 19 tbxc4</p><p>'i!Vxf3 and Black wins) 16 ... c6 17 g4 'i!Vh3</p><p>18 i.d6 �d8 19 'if eS+ 'it>f7 20 'i!f f4+ (or</p><p>20 0-0-0 cxbS 21 cS l::i.c8 22 'i!fg3 'irh6 23</p><p>h4 with an unclear game) 20 ... 'it>e8 21</p><p>'i'eS+ cJitf7 with equality.</p><p>1 5 . . J:td8</p><p>Or 15 ... �d7!? 16 i.g3 l::i.a£8 17 'i!Vh4</p><p>ifxh4 18 i.xh4 ..ixd4 19 l::i.ab 1 i.c3 20</p><p>f3 i.h3 21 �g3 �xd2 22 gxh3 tbc4 and</p><p>Black wins.</p><p>1 6 f3 .i.h3 1 7 l::tf2</p><p>1 7 . . . l::td7??</p><p>Black returns the favour. After</p><p>17 ... l::i.g6 18 'ilff4 (or 18 'i¥h8+ 'it>d7)</p><p>18 ... l::i.xd4! 19 .txd4 i.xd4 20 'it>h 1 i.x£2</p><p>21 gxh3 'ilfxbS Black is winning.</p><p>1 8 g4 l::tg6</p><p>7 1</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gamb i t</p><p>If 1 8 . . .'iVg6 1 9 c3 ¥i'xf6 20 �xf6 :It7 'X'hite is still fighting.</p><p>21 e5 h5 22 l£Je4 hxg4 23 f4 l£Jc4 24 f5</p><p>and 'X'hite is much better.</p><p>1 9 'i¥f5</p><p>19 Vi'hS+!? is a cute trap: 19 . . . 'iile7? 20</p><p>�f6+l 'iitt7 21 :Iel :Id6 22 e5 and White</p><p>wins. Black should reply 1 9. . .�t7 20 c3</p><p>c5 with unclear play.</p><p>1 9 . . . 'i¥h6 20 �f4 'i¥g7 21 �e5</p><p>Or 21 c3 :It7 22 Vi'eS+ ¥i'xc5 23 �xeS</p><p>h5 24 a4 c5 with an unclear game.</p><p>21 . . . 'i¥e7 22 c3 �g5</p><p>23 �f6?!</p><p>After the exchange of queens by 23</p><p>Vi'f6 ¥i'xf6 24 �xf6 :Ixb5 25 e5 l£Jc6 26</p><p>l£Jc4, it looks as if White is a little better.</p><p>23 . . . �xf5 24 �xe7 �xb5 25 �f6</p><p>\X'hite loses a tempo compared with 23</p><p>Vi'f6.</p><p>25 . . . c5! 26 c4?</p><p>Suddenly \X'hite is collapsing com­</p><p>pletely. Instead, after 26 dS c4 27 �d4</p><p>i,xd4 28 cxd4 c3 29 !£Jb1 Mc7 .30 !£Ja3</p><p>:Ib2 31 :Ic1 l£Jc4 32 d6 :Ic6 33 dS :IcS</p><p>34 l£Jxc4 Mxc4 35 Mfc2 \X'hite keeps</p><p>drawing chances.</p><p>26 . . . �b4 27 d5 Cbxc4 28 Cbxc4 �xc4</p><p>29 �e2 �c7 30 �d1 �f4 31 e5?</p><p>After 31 'iiif2 Black is much better, but</p><p>72</p><p>31 . . . l:'txd5!</p><p>Now everything becomes clear.</p><p>32 �de1</p><p>If 32 :IxdS :Ic1 + 33 'iiif2 :Ifl mate!</p><p>32 . . . l:tc3 33 �b2 b6 34 �b3 �c2 0-1</p><p>Game 24</p><p>S .Asker-K . Miettinen</p><p>Comspondence 1998</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 CZ'lf3 CZ'lc6 3 �c4 �c5 4 b4</p><p>d5!?</p><p>This move looks dangerous, but one</p><p>should not be lead astray by appearances.</p><p>In my opinion contemporary theory un­</p><p>derestimates this move. All the same, it is</p><p>probably not strong enough to equalise.</p><p>5 exd5</p><p>Note that 5 �xdS?! ti:Jxb4 6 �b3 ti:Jf6</p><p>7 'i¥e2 0-0 8 0-0 �g4 gives Black the bet­</p><p>ter chances.</p><p>5 . . .l2Jxb4 6 0-0 l2Jf6 7 l2Jxe5 0-0 8 d4</p><p>iLe7! 9 iLb3</p><p>The best option is 9 ti:Jc3! ti:JbxdS 10</p><p>ti:JxdS ti:JxdS 1 1 'i¥f3 �e6 1 2 �b1 �b8 13</p><p>�e 1 and White has some advantage.</p><p>9 . . . l2Jbxd5 1 0 c4 l2Jb6 1 1 i.b2</p><p>1 1 . . . c5!</p><p>A prepared improvement over 1 1 . . . c6?!</p><p>12 ti:Jd2 aS 13 a4 �b4 14 ti:Jdf3 �fS 1 5</p><p>'i¥e2 �e8 1 6 ti:JgS �e7 1 7 'i¥f3 'i¥c8 1 8</p><p>dS! and White was better, R.Felgaer-</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit D e c lin ed</p><p>J.Pierrot, Argentine Championship 2000.</p><p>1 2 d5 iLd6 1 3 l2Jd2 .Me8 1 4 t2:Jdf3</p><p>"iic7</p><p>Now White must start to play carefully</p><p>in order to keep the balance.</p><p>1 5 .Me 1 l2Jg4 1 6 l2Jxg4 i.xg4 1 7</p><p>.Mxe8 + .Mxe8 1 8 h3 iLh5 1 9 "iid3</p><p>iLg6 20 'Yi'c3 f6 21 .Me1 "iid7 22 "iia5</p><p>i.e4 23 'Yi'xa7 i.xf3 24 .Mxe8+ "fixeS</p><p>25 gxf3</p><p>25 . . . "iig6+</p><p>Or 2S . . . ti:Jxc4!? 26 �xc4 'i¥g6+ 27 'it>fl</p><p>'i¥b1+ 28 'lt>g2 'i¥g6+ with equality. Note</p><p>that 28 ... 'i¥xb2?! 29 'i¥a8+ 'lt>f7 30 �d3</p><p>gives White has some attacking chances.</p><p>26 'lt>f1 "iid3+ % - %</p><p>7 3</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>If the Evans Gambit can be challenged, it is not by declining the gambit. After 4 ... i.b6</p><p>5 a4! a6 6 aS! White should be a little better, as demonstrated in</p><p>Chapter 4. The alterna­</p><p>tive S ... aS, as in Kasparov-Piket, does not seem to equalise either. Finally, 4 ... d5!? can­</p><p>not be completely disregarded, but White should still flnd a way to keep the pressure</p><p>there, as seen on move 9 in Game 24.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 .Jic4 .Jic5 4 b4 (D) .Jib6</p><p>4 ... d5 - Game 24</p><p>5 a4 (D)</p><p>5 bS - Game 23</p><p>5 . . . a6</p><p>S ... aS - Game 22</p><p>6 'Llc3</p><p>6 i.b2 - Game 19</p><p>6 c3 lbf6 7 d3 d6 - Game 15</p><p>6 . . . 4:Jf6 (D)</p><p>7 4</p><p>7 lbdS - Game 20</p><p>7 d4 - Game 21</p><p>4 b4 5 a4 6 . . . 'Lif6</p><p>CHAPTER SIX I</p><p>The Evans Gambit</p><p>with 5 . . . i..e7</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 ltJc6 3 i.c4 .tc5 4 b4</p><p>.txb4 5 c3 i.e 7</p><p>In this chapter we shall examine a</p><p>slightly passive-looking bishop retreat,</p><p>which nevertheless holds great prospects</p><p>for counter-strikes in the centre. The key</p><p>idea is to answer White's logical follow-up</p><p>6 d4 with 6 ... tba5, in order to strip White</p><p>of the two bishops and, more impor­</p><p>tantly, to gain control over the dS-square</p><p>and thereby prepare ... d7 -d5. This is seen</p><p>after the logical moves 7 .Jte2 exd4 8</p><p>cxd4?! dS! and Black is doing absolutely</p><p>flne. It is for this reason that Kasparov</p><p>introduced (at the top level) 8 'iixd4!,</p><p>which is the subject of the ftrst three</p><p>games in this chapter.</p><p>In Game 28, we will look at 7 tbxeS</p><p>the move preferred before 1995, which</p><p>allows Black to obtain the two bishops</p><p>and strike in the centre. However, White</p><p>regains his pawn and also has a large cen­</p><p>tral presence. Finally, in Game 29 we will</p><p>see the ancient idea 6 "ifb3!?, which de­</p><p>serves mentioning, though is hardly criti­</p><p>cal.</p><p>Game 25</p><p>G . Kasparov-V .Anand</p><p>Riga 1995</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 ltJc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4</p><p>The principled reply.</p><p>5 c3 i.e7</p><p>Again a logical response. The bishop</p><p>tries to get out of harm's way and return</p><p>to a more modest accommodation, from</p><p>where it can assist with the protection of</p><p>the king.</p><p>6 d4 ltJa5</p><p>7 5</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>This has long been the main idea be­</p><p>hind Black's previous move. Instead of</p><p>trying to cling on to the extra pawn, Black</p><p>is aiming for the dangerous white bishop.</p><p>Black has some alternatives, but none that</p><p>deserves too much attention.</p><p>a) 6 . . . exd4 7 cxd4 tZ'la5 is just not the</p><p>same! After 8 i..d3 dS 9 exdS 'i'xdS 10</p><p>0-0 tZ'lf6 1 1 tZ'lc3 'i'h5 1 2 .l:tb 1 a6 1 3 i..f4</p><p>White has enough compensation for the</p><p>pawn.</p><p>b) 6 . . . d6?! also makes little sense, as</p><p>White retains the pawn without becoming</p><p>more peaceful. R.Fischer-O.Celle, Davis</p><p>(simul) 1 964, continued 7 dxe5 tZ'lxe5 8</p><p>etJxeS dxe5 9 "iih5 g6 10 "iixe5 tZ'lf6 1 1</p><p>lta3 .l:tf8 1 2 0-0 tZ'lg4 1 3 'i'g3 ltxa3 14</p><p>tbxa3 "iie7 1 5 ltb5+ c6 1 6 tZ'lc4! and</p><p>White had a strong attack.</p><p>7 .i.e2</p><p>The standard alternative 7 tZ'lxe5 is</p><p>considered below in Game 28. Apart</p><p>from the text move, White has also tried:</p><p>a) 7 i..x£7+!? (risky, but interesting)</p><p>7 . . . �xf7 8 tbxe5+ �e8! (the most testing;</p><p>also safe is 8 . . . �f8 9 "iif3+ tZ'lf6 1 0 g4 d6</p><p>1 1 g5 dxe5 1 2 gxf6 i..xf6 13 dxeS tZ'lc4 14</p><p>exf6 'i'xf6 15 "iixf6+ gxf6 with equality) 9</p><p>'i'hS+ g6 1 0 tZ'lxg6 etJf6 1 1 'i'xaS hxg6 12</p><p>e5 tZ'le4 1 3 'i' d5 tZ'lg5 14 tZ'ld2 d6 1 5 f4 c6</p><p>1 6 'i'b3 tZ'le6 1 7 tZ'lf3 dxe5 1 8 fxe5 "iib6</p><p>1 9 'i'c2 and White has some compensa­</p><p>tion, D.Sakellarakis-J.Carr, correspon­</p><p>dence 1 998.</p><p>b) 7 i..d3!? does not appear to have been</p><p>much tested. Here is one practical exam­</p><p>ple: 7 . . . exd4 8 cxd4 d5 9 e5 c5 1 0 dxc5</p><p>tZ'lc6 1 1 0-0 ltxc5 12 tZ'lc3 ltg4 1 3 lte2</p><p>tZ'lge7 1 4 etJa4 i..xf3 1 5 tZ'lxc5 ltxe2 1 6</p><p>"iixe2 when White has enough compen­</p><p>sation for the pawn, V.Vakulienko-</p><p>7 6</p><p>V.Smirnov, Minsk 1 976, though Black</p><p>can keep the balance with 1 6 . . . �c7 ac­</p><p>cording to Matsukevich. However, a lot</p><p>of moves from both sides might be dis­</p><p>cussed, so please do not take this as a</p><p>recommendation. I will only say that</p><p>there is nothing definitely wrong with 7</p><p>i..d3.</p><p>7 . . . exd4</p><p>7 ... d6 is a less well-known alternative,</p><p>when after 8 �a4+ c6 9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0</p><p>tZ'lxe5 tZ'lf6 1 1 0-0 b 5 1 2 �c2 0-0 1 3 a4</p><p>b4 14 cxb4 ltxb4 we have an unclear</p><p>game, T.Bullockus-M.Melts, correspon­</p><p>dence 1983.</p><p>8 'iVxd4!?</p><p>This was Kasparov's way of breathing</p><p>new life into this line.</p><p>8 . . . 'Llf6</p><p>8 . . . d6 and 8 . . . d5 are investigated in</p><p>Games 26 and 27 respectively. 8 . . . 'it>f8 has</p><p>also been tried, but it looks as if White</p><p>should have enough compensation for</p><p>the pawn after most normal moves. The</p><p>quality of the games has not been high</p><p>enough to give any practical and conclu­</p><p>sive evaluation, so I will leave it with just</p><p>this brief mention.</p><p>9 e5 'Llc6 1 0 'i'h4 'Lld5 1 1 'i'g3</p><p>1 1 . . . g6</p><p>Black does not have enough compen­</p><p>sation for the exchange after 1 1 . ..0-0 1 2</p><p>i.h6 g6 1 3 i.xf8 i.xf8 14 0-0 i.h6 1 5</p><p>Md1 i.f4 1 6 'iUh3 d6 1 7 �h4 �xh4 1 8</p><p>ctJxh4 i.e6 1 9 exd6 i.xd6 20 ctJf3 and</p><p>White is better.</p><p>1 2 0-0 'Db6</p><p>If 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 Md1 ctJb6 14 a4 ctJa5 1 5</p><p>i.h6 Me8 1 6 e6 i.f6 1 7 exf7+ 'it>xf7 1 8</p><p>i.d3 d5 1 9 ctJgS+ i.xgS 20 i.xg5 and</p><p>White has a powerful attack.</p><p>1 3 c4 d6 1 4 :l.d1 'Dd7</p><p>14 .. . i.d7!? was tried in the same year.</p><p>White continues with 1 5 i.h6 dxeS (if</p><p>1 5 . . . ctJxe5 1 6 ctJxe5 dxe5 1 7 'iUxeS f6 1 8</p><p>'iUe3 and White is much better) 1 6 ctJc3</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit with 5 . . . il. e 7</p><p>f6 1 7 ctJe4, and here we should look at:</p><p>a) 1 7 . . . ctJa4? 1 8 .Md5 and now after</p><p>1 8 . . . ctJb4? Black was sunk by 1 9 Mxe5!</p><p>with a decisive attack: 1 9 .. .fxe5 20 'iUxe5</p><p>.Mf8 21 i.xf8 ctJc6 (or 21 . . .'it>xf8 22 'iUh8+</p><p>'it>f7 23 ctJe5+ 'it>e6 24 i.g4 mate) 22 �g7</p><p>ctJc3 23 i.xe7 ctJxe2+ 24 'it>f1 'iUxe7 25</p><p>ctJf6+ 'it>d8 26 �h8+ i.e8 27 Mdl+ and</p><p>White was winning in R.Borngaesser­</p><p>M.Henk, Dusseldorf 1 995. Instead</p><p>1 8 . . . l::!.g8 is more solid, but even then</p><p>White can play 1 9 Mad 1 with a strong</p><p>attack.</p><p>b) 1 7 . . . i.f8!? is playable, though after</p><p>1 8 i.xf8 Mxf8 1 9 c5 ctJc8 and now 20</p><p>.Mab1 !?, 20 Md2!? or 20 h4!?, White has</p><p>compensation in all cases.</p><p>1 5 Jii.h6!</p><p>White cannot allow Black to castle. Af­</p><p>ter 1 5 i.f4 dxe5 1 6 ctJxe5 i.h4! 1 7 �e3</p><p>ctJcxeS 1 8 i.xe5 0-0 Black is consolidat­</p><p>mg.</p><p>1 5 . . . 'Dcxe5</p><p>Here Black should have considered</p><p>1 5 . . . dxe5, when White has the following</p><p>options:</p><p>a) 1 6 i.g 7!? .Mg8 1 7 i.xe5 ctJcxeS 1 8</p><p>ctJxeS i.d6 1 9 f4 'iUf6 20 ctJc3 i.xeS 2 1</p><p>fxe5 'iUxe5 2 2 �f3! (after 2 2 'iUxe5+</p><p>7 7</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>ctJxe5 23 ctJd5 �f8 24 ctJxc7 l:tb8 25 l:td5</p><p>White has only enough compensation to</p><p>draw) 22 ... 'iVc5+ 23 �h1 ctJe5 24 "fif6</p><p>with an attack.</p><p>b) 16 ctJc3 J:.f8 1 7 �g5 f6 18 ..te3</p><p>i.g7 1 9 c5 0-0 20 i..c4+ �h8 21 ctJh4</p><p>ctJe7 22 ctJd5! and White has an attack</p><p>once agam.</p><p>These lines shows the potential of</p><p>White's position, but should not be un­</p><p>derstood as conclusive in any way; they</p><p>are more illustrations to the dangers Black</p><p>is facing. I do not want to come with any</p><p>binding evaluation after 15 ... dxe5, as I</p><p>simply cannot think of a suitable one.</p><p>1 6 lbxe5 lbxe5 1 7 lbc3 f6 1 8 c5</p><p>1 8 . . . lbf7?</p><p>Now it goes wrong. Still, after 18 ... i.e6</p><p>1 9 l:tab 1 White keeps the pressure.</p><p>1 9 cxd6 cxd6</p><p>After 19 ... �xd6 20 i.b5+! Black can­</p><p>not hold, e.g. 20 ... .id7 2 1 l:tel+ i.e5 22</p><p>i.g7 l:tg8 23 i.xd7+ �xd7 24 'iVh3+ �e7</p><p>25 l;Iad1 l:txg7 26 l::txd8 Wxd8 27 "fle6</p><p>and White wins, or 20 ... c6 21 i.f4 cxb5</p><p>22 .ixd6 ctJxd6 23 l:txd6 "1i'a5 24 l:tel+</p><p>�f7 25 l:txf6+ �xf6 26 ctJd5+ �g 7 27</p><p>:e7+ �g8 28 'iVe5 and mates.</p><p>20 'ilfe3 lbxh6</p><p>78</p><p>If 20 ... i.d7? 21 i..g7 l:tg8 22 .txf6</p><p>with a strong attack.</p><p>2 1 'it'xh6 i.f8 22 'it'e3+ r:!?f7</p><p>22 ... "fle7 is answered by 23 ctJe4 'iVe5</p><p>24 ctJxf6+ �f7 25 ctJe4 ..te7 26 f4 and</p><p>Black is in difficulties.</p><p>23 lbd5 i.e6</p><p>23 ... .id7!? 24 ifb3 l:b8 25 l:tac 1 .ie6</p><p>was perhaps the last chance. Instead, after</p><p>23 ... i.g 7 24 �3 i..e6 25 i.c4 :cs 26</p><p>ctJb6 l:txc4 (if 26 ... i..xc4 27 ctJxc4 d5 28</p><p>ctJd6+ 'iYxd6</p><p>29 l:txd5 l:tc3 30 .l::i.xd6+</p><p>wins) 27 ctJxc4 �f8 28 'iYb4 White has a</p><p>big advantage.</p><p>24 lbf4 'W/e7</p><p>If 24 ... 'iVd7 25 i.b5! "fixb5 26 'ii"xe6+</p><p>�g 7 27 ctJd5 and White wins.</p><p>25 J::i.e1 1 -0</p><p>White wins in all lines, e.g. 25 ... J:.d7 26</p><p>.1c4+ �e8 27 "i¥d2, or 25 ... d5 26 ..tf3</p><p>l:te8 27 ctJxe6 "i¥xe6 28 'ifxe6+ lixe6 29</p><p>.ixd5, as well as 25 ... :es 26 ctJxe6 'iYxe6</p><p>27 'i:Vxe6+ �xe6 28 J:.b5+ etc.</p><p>Game 26</p><p>A.Shirov-J . Tim man</p><p>Bie/ 1995</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.c4 .il.c5 4 b4</p><p>i..xb4 5 c3 i.e 7 6 d4 lt:Ja5 7 .i.e2</p><p>exd4 8 'i!Vxd4 d6</p><p>Timman thinks it is more important</p><p>for Black to have some influence in the</p><p>centre than to retain the extra pawn.</p><p>9 'iWxg7 i.f6 1 0 'iWg3 'iWe7</p><p>1 0 .. .<:t:Je7 is answered strongly by 1 1</p><p>i.g5! ctJec6 1 2 'iff4 with an attack.</p><p>1 1 0-0?!</p><p>Recently, an improvement was found</p><p>on this game. Better here is 1 1 ctJg5 h6 1 2</p><p>ctJh3 'i'xe4 1 3 ctJf4 i.d7 14 0-0 0-0-0 1 5</p><p>ctJd2 'ifa4 1 6 ctJd5 i.h4 1 7 'i'd3 ctJe7 1 8</p><p>i. f3 ctJac6 1 9 l:tb 1 with compensation,</p><p>N.Short-Kir.Georgiev, Warsaw (rapid)</p><p>2004.</p><p>1 1 . . . .i.d7?!</p><p>1 L.'iVxe4! was mote testing, when</p><p>White needs to play precisely: 1 2 .l:.e1 ! (if</p><p>12 ctJd4 i.e5 13 'ifg5 ctJe7 and Black is</p><p>better) 12 ... �f8 13 ctJd4! (not 1 3 ctJg5?!</p><p>'ifg6 14 .id3 .if5 15 .ixf5 'ilfxf5 16 ctJa3</p><p>l:te8 17 .id2 .l:.xe 1+ 1 8 .l:.xe 1 ctJe 7 and</p><p>White has nothing for the pawn) 1 3 . . . i.e5</p><p>14 'i'g5 ctJe7 (if 14 ... ctJf6?! 1 5 'ilfh6+ cJ;e7</p><p>16 'i'd2 and White has great compensa­</p><p>tion) 1 5 'ifh6+ i.g7 1 6 'ilfd2 and White</p><p>has compensation for the pawn, e.g. he is</p><p>threatening ctJb5.</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i.e 7</p><p>1 2 lt:Jd4!?</p><p>Or 1 2 ctJg5 h6 1 3 ctJh7!? 0-0-0 (not</p><p>1 3 .. . 'ifxe4?? 14 'i¥xg8+ .l:.xg8 1 5 ctJxf6+</p><p>and wins) 1 4 ctJxf6 ctJxf6 1 5 ctJd2 and</p><p>White is slightly better.</p><p>1 2 . . . 0-0-0</p><p>Black can also try 12 ... 'i'xe4, but after</p><p>1 3 ctJd2 'i¥g6 14 'ife3+ ctJe7 1 5 i.d3 'ifg7</p><p>1 6 ctJe4 White has compensation.</p><p>1 3 lt:Jd2 lt:lc6</p><p>After 1 3 . . . h5 14 ltb1 h4 1 5 'iie3 h3 1 6</p><p>g3 White's attack looks much more dan­</p><p>gerous.</p><p>1 4 'iWe3 h5 1 5 .l:!.b1 lt:lh6</p><p>1 6 'it'd3! ?</p><p>True to his style Shirov i s more inter­</p><p>ested in attacking than in grabbing mate­</p><p>rial. After the long line 1 6 ctJxc6 i.xc6 1 7</p><p>'ifxa7 'ife5 1 8 .l:.b3 ctJg4 1 9 f4 'ifcS+ 20</p><p>'ifxcS dxcS 21 e5 i.e7 22 c4 .l:.hg8 23</p><p>i.f3 i.xf3 24 ctJxf3 ctJh6 Black has com­</p><p>pensation for the pawn.</p><p>1 6 . . . b6</p><p>With this move Black gives White a</p><p>point to attack, so although it seems</p><p>'normal', 1 6 .. . b6 might be questionable.</p><p>Instead, 1 6 ... ctJe5? 1 7 'ifa6! and White</p><p>wins is a trick worth remembering, but</p><p>1 6 . . . .l:.dg8 is a logical move, setting an</p><p>7 9</p><p>I talian Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>elegant trap at the same time: 1 7 Ilxb 7?</p><p>4::lxd4 1 8 'i¥a6 4::lxe2+ 1 9 'iith1 'i¥e6! 20</p><p>l:Ixa7+ 'iitd8 Black and wins. Better is 1 7</p><p>4J2f3 with a continuing struggle.</p><p>1 7 a4! �b8</p><p>Now after 1 7 ... l:Idg8 White has 1 8 aS</p><p>tLlxaS 1 9 'i¥a6+ 'iitd8 20 'i¥xa7 'iite8 21</p><p>tLlbS .ixbS 22 'i!Va8+ 'i!Vd8 23 .ixbS+</p><p>'iite7 24 'i!Vxd8+ Ilxd8 and the two bish­</p><p>ops gives him the better chances.</p><p>1 8 a5 tLlxa5 1 9 'iVa6 �aS?</p><p>Tllis is a fatal error. Black should play</p><p>19 . . . .ixd4 20 cxd4 'iita8 21 .ib2 .ic8 22</p><p>'iVbS, when White has compensation for</p><p>the material according to Shirov.</p><p>20 e5!</p><p>Opening the long diagonal for White's</p><p>light-squared bishop and starting one of</p><p>those classical all-destructive Shirov at­</p><p>tacks.</p><p>20 . . . ifxe5</p><p>In this kind of positions words can</p><p>only tell so much. \Ve need a few varia­</p><p>tions to understand what is really going</p><p>on here . . .</p><p>a) 20 .. . dxe5 21 .if3+ c6 (if 21 . . .'iitb8 22</p><p>'iYxaS exd4 23 'i¥xa7+ 'iitxa7 24 Ilal+ and</p><p>mates) 22 .ia3 .ic8 (if 22 ... 'i¥xa3 23</p><p>4Jb5) 23 'i¥xa5! 'i¥b7 24 'i¥a4 and wins.</p><p>8 0</p><p>b) 20 . . . .ixe5 21 .if3+ c6 22 Ilxb6</p><p>.ixh2+ 23 'iitxh2 'i¥h4+ 24 'iitgl 4::lg4 25</p><p>.ixc6+ .ixc6 26 4J2f3 wins. Instead</p><p>21 . . . d5! might have been Black's best</p><p>chance, though after 22 .ixd5+ c6 23</p><p>4::lc4 4::lxc4 24 4::lxc6 .ixc6 25 .ixc6+</p><p>'iitb8 26 'i!Vxc4 White still has a clear ad­</p><p>vantage.</p><p>21 i.f3+ d5 22 tLlc4! i.c8</p><p>22 .. . 4Jxc4 is strongly met by 23 Ilal !</p><p>4::la5 24 l:ha5 bxa5 2 5 4::lc6 .ixc6 2 6 .ie3</p><p>'i¥xe3 27 'i¥xc6+ 'iitb8 28 fxe3 Ild6 29</p><p>l:Ibl+ 'iitc8 30 'i¥b7+ 'iitd7 31 .ixd5 and</p><p>White is much better according to Shirov.</p><p>23 ifxa5! 'it'xd4</p><p>If 23 . . . bxa5? 24 4::lxe5 .ixe5 25 4Jc6</p><p>wms.</p><p>24 'iVa2</p><p>24 . . . 'it'xc3</p><p>White wins after 24 . . . 'i!Vh4 25 g3 �h3</p><p>26 4::lxb6+ cxb6 27 Ilxb6, or similarly</p><p>24 . . . 'i¥c5 25 .ie3! �c6 26 4::lxb6+ etc.</p><p>Black's last chance to stay in the game</p><p>was with 24 .. . 'i¥d3! 25 Ild1 (here 25 .ie3</p><p>'iitb8! is less clear; White has strong at­</p><p>tack, but Black is still alive) 25 ... 'i¥xd1+ 26</p><p>.ixd1 dxc4, although White maintains a</p><p>clear advantage after 27 .ie2 or 27 .if4.</p><p>25 i.e3! i.b7</p><p>Or 25 . . . \t>b8 26 l2Jxb6! cxb6 27 .ixb6</p><p>axb6 28 Mxb6+ .ib7 29 .ixd5 Md7 30</p><p>'i¥a6 and White wins.</p><p>26 .ixb6! cxb6 27 l2lxb6+ 'it>b8 28</p><p>4Jxd5 1 -0</p><p>Game 27</p><p>J . Gunnarsson-K .Sasikiran</p><p>Elista Ofympiad 1998</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ie7 6 d4 tZ'la5 7 .ie2</p><p>exd4 8 i¥xd4 d5!?</p><p>This aggressive counter-blow in the</p><p>centre is very typical of the young In­</p><p>dian's style.</p><p>9 exd5 tZ'lf6 1 0 i¥a4+ ? !</p><p>This only helps Black. White should go</p><p>for natural development with 1 0 c4, when</p><p>Black has two options:</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 l2Jc3 0-0 12 0-0 Me8 1 3</p><p>.ib2 .if8 1 4 Mfd1 and White is slightly</p><p>better L.Winants-M.Kremer, Amsterdam</p><p>1996.</p><p>b) 1 0 .. . 0-0 1 1 0-0 b5!? 1 2 cxb5 l2Jxd5</p><p>1 3 l2Jc3 .ib7 14 l2Jxd5 .ixd5 1 5 'ifa4 c6</p><p>1 6 Md1 .if6 1 7 Mb1 Me8 1 8 .ie3 'ifc7</p><p>(1 8 ... Me4 was agreed drawn in W.Lumley­</p><p>J.Soberano, correspondence 1 995, though</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . jj_ e 7</p><p>White is better after 1 9 'ifc2!) 1 9 .if4</p><p>'ifb6 20 bxc6 .ixc6 21 'ifa3 Mxe2!? 22</p><p>Mxb6 axb6 with sufficient compensation</p><p>to draw.</p><p>1 0 . . . c6</p><p>1 1 c4? !</p><p>White has more chances of equalising</p><p>after 1 1 dxc6 l2Jxc6 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 Md 1</p><p>'i¥b6 14 l2Jbd2.</p><p>1 1 . . . tZ'le4! 1 2 .id2</p><p>Or 12 .ib2 .if6 13 ifb4 .ixb2 14</p><p>'ifxb2 0-0 15 dxc6 l2Jxc6 16 0-0 Me8 and</p><p>Black is at least slightly better.</p><p>1 2 . . . tZ'lxd2 1 3 tZ'lbxd2 0-0 1 4 dxc6</p><p>tZ'lxc6 1 5 0-0 i¥c7</p><p>Black has the better pawn structure</p><p>and the two bishops as well. At grand-</p><p>8 1</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>master level White is in a lot of trouble.</p><p>1 6 .l:tfe1 i.f5 1 7 tt'lf1 i..c5 1 8 tt:Jg3</p><p>i.g6 1 9 a3 .l:tad8 20 "it'b5 l!Vb6 21</p><p>'iVxb6 axb6!?</p><p>This is rather too 'deep' for my taste. I</p><p>prefer the standard 2 1 .. ..txb6 when Black</p><p>is just better. However, Sasikiran is</p><p>probably targeting the white a-pawn and</p><p>certainly has some ideas behind his recap-</p><p>ture.</p><p>22 lled1 i..c2</p><p>23 .l:!.dc1 ?</p><p>23 �xd8 �xd8 24 �a2 was White's last</p><p>hope, e.g. 24 . . . i.b1 25 lib2 ii.g6 26 tbh4</p><p>with good drawing chances, though</p><p>24 . . . ii.a4! 25 tZ'lf5 �aS gives Black good</p><p>winning chances too.</p><p>23 . . . tt:Jd4 24 i..d 1 i..xd1 25 .l:txd1</p><p>tt:Jc2 26 .l:tac1 tt'lxa3 27 tt:Je4 i.b4 28</p><p>tt:Jd4 .l:.fe8 29 f3</p><p>Or 29 tbg3 ii.c5 30 tZ'ldf5 �xd 1+ 31</p><p>�xd 1 tZ'lxc4 and Black wins.</p><p>29 . . .lbe4 30 fxe4 i..c5 31 'it>f1 1Ixd4</p><p>32 .llxd4 j_xd4 33 'it>e2 f6 34 .l:td1</p><p>i.c5 35 l:!.d8+ 'it>f7 36 Wd3 b5 37</p><p>.l:td7 + �g6 38 cxb5 b6 39 e5 fxe5</p><p>40 .l:td5 tt:Jxb5</p><p>Now everything is clear. Black is win­</p><p>rung.</p><p>8 2</p><p>41 .l:txe5 tbd6 42 .l:td5 tt:Jf5 43 g3</p><p>tt:Je3 44 .l:.e5 ltJg4 45 .l:.e2 'it>f5 46</p><p>�c4 h5 47 .l:!.e1 tt:Je3+ 48 �d3 'it>g4</p><p>49 .l:th 1 'it>f3 50 .l:ta 1 ltJg4 51 'JJ.a 7 g6</p><p>52 'it>c4 tbxh2 53 .l:!.g7 tt:Jg4 54 'it>d5</p><p>�xg3 55 .l:!.xg6 'it>f4 0- 1</p><p>Game 28</p><p>E.Sveshnikov-A . Kharitonov</p><p>Russian Ch., Krasnqyarsk 2003</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jf3 tbc6 3 i..c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i..xb4 5 c3 i..e7 6 d4 tt:Ja5 7 tt:Jxe5! ?</p><p>This was the usual move before Kas­</p><p>parov played 8 'i'xd4!, thereby elevating 7</p><p>i.e2 to</p><p>27 .:.t5 cj;;g7 28 .l:lfd5 .l:la6 29 Wd3!</p><p>White's wants to eat the a4-pawn.</p><p>29 . . . f6 30 'iitc4 .l:lb6 31 l:Ia5 l:Ie4+ 32</p><p>'iitd3 l:Ig4 33 l:If2 'iitg6 34 h3 .l:!.h4 35</p><p>l:Iaf5 l:If4 36 .l:l5xf4 gxf4 37 'iite4 'iitg5</p><p>38 .l:ld2 f5+ 39 Wf3 .l:lc6 40 a3 .l:lb6</p><p>41 h4+ Wxh4?</p><p>The position is lost and Aleksandrov</p><p>commits suicide. Basic life functions</p><p>would have been kept operational with</p><p>41...�g6.</p><p>42 Wxf4 d5 43 l::i:d3 1 -0</p><p>7</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Game 2</p><p>B . Larsen-T .Ochsner</p><p>Danish Championship, Esbjerg 1997</p><p>position, so it becomes a little more inter­</p><p>esting.</p><p>7 iLb3</p><p>Another practical example: 7 CLld5</p><p>._ _____________ _. CLlxc4 8 dxc4 c6 9 CLlxf6+ gxf6 10 .ie3</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 3 tt:Jt3 tt:Jc6 4</p><p>iLc4 iLc5 5 d3 d6 6 iLg5</p><p>I know, I know, why do we have to</p><p>look at this boring line once again? Well,</p><p>although this is all rather harmless and</p><p>toothless, �nite still managed to win our</p><p>main games; and I also want to find space</p><p>to include a little more theory:</p><p>a) 6 .ie3 .ib6 (6 . . . CLld4!? gives interest­</p><p>ing play, as after 7 .ixd4 exd4 8 CLla4</p><p>.ib4+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 bxc3 il.a5 1 1 0-0 0-0</p><p>Black stands well) 7 Vi'd2 .ie6 8 .ib5 0-0</p><p>9 .ixc6 bxc6 10 0-0 CLld7 1 1 d4 f6 12 h3</p><p>'ife8 with equality.</p><p>b) 6 CDa4 .ib6 7 c3 il.e6 8 .ib5 0-0 9</p><p>il.xc6 bxc6 1 0 il.g5 Vi'e7 1 1 0-0 h6 12</p><p>.ih4 .ic8!. Black shrewdly avoids prob­</p><p>lems on the h4-e8 diagonal. Now after 1 3</p><p>h 3 'ife6 h e had equality in Y.Rantanen­</p><p>Y.Razuvaev, Helsinki 1 984.</p><p>c) 6 h3 il.e6 7 CLld5 h6 with equality.</p><p>6 . . . tt:Ja5</p><p>This is also good for Black. And more</p><p>importantly, it changes the nature of the</p><p>8</p><p>'ifb6 1 1 'ifd2 .ie6 (if 1 1 .. ..ixe3 12 fxe3</p><p>'ifxb2 1 3 0-0 with compensation) 12</p><p>0-0-0 0-0-0 with unclear play,</p><p>V.Korchnoi-D.Bronstein, USSR Cham­</p><p>pionship 1952.</p><p>7 . . . c6 8 0-0</p><p>\Vhite can also strike immediately in</p><p>the centre with 8 d4. Then after 8 ... CLlxb3</p><p>9 axb3 exd4 10 CLlxd4 h6 1 1 .ih4 0-0 12</p><p>0-0 g5 13 il.g3 l:te8 14 l:te 1 d5 1 5 e5 CLle4</p><p>1 6 Vi'd3, as m A.Morozevich­</p><p>Kir.GeorgieY, Tilburg 1994, Black should</p><p>play 1 6 . . . CLlxg3! 1 7 hxg3 'ifc7 with the</p><p>advantage, instead of 1 6 . . . .ixd4?! 1 7</p><p>'if xd 4 il. f5 1 8 CLlxe4 .ixe4 1 9 l:txa 7 l:txa 7</p><p>20 'ifxa7 .ixc2 21 'ifxb7 when it would</p><p>be White who is better.</p><p>8 . . . 0-0 9 tLle2 tLlxb3</p><p>Or 9 ... il.g4 10 CLlg3 h6 1 1 .ie3 with</p><p>equality.</p><p>1 0 axb3 h6 1 1 iLe3 iLb6 1 2 tt:Jg3</p><p>iLe6</p><p>Black is slowly getting into trouble</p><p>against his legendary opponent. Here</p><p>In tro duc tion a n d the I talian Fo ur Knigh ts</p><p>12 ... Me8! guaranteed equality, thanks to</p><p>the pressure against the e4-pawn.</p><p>1 3 �d2 Wh7?!</p><p>Black is apparently afraid of a sacrifice</p><p>on h6, but I cannot see how that would</p><p>ever work. Black can always play . . . 4Jg4 in</p><p>the end. Therefore 1 3 .. . Me8!? 14 �xb6</p><p>ifxb6 1 5 d4 �g4 16 dxe5 dxe5 1 7 ifc3</p><p>�xf3 1 8 ifxf3 ifb4 with equality was</p><p>better.</p><p>14 .ixb6 �xb6 1 5 d4 exd4 1 6 L'Llxd4</p><p>1 6 . . . .l:::i.fe8? !</p><p>Black is apparently too complacent,</p><p>while it was time to do something to stay</p><p>in the game; e.g. 1 6 . . . d5!? 1 7 i:Vd3 �h8 1 8</p><p>e5 4Jd7 1 9 f4 f6! with unclear play.</p><p>1 7 .l:::i.fe 1 g6?</p><p>This completely unnecessarily creates a</p><p>weakness. 1 7 ... d5 was better, when White</p><p>can reply 1 8 e5 4Jd7 19 iff4 with the</p><p>initiative.</p><p>1 8 .l:::i.ad1 Wg7 1 9 h4!</p><p>A typical move, using the g-pawn as a</p><p>hook.</p><p>1 9 . . . .l:::i.e7 20 L'Lldf5+ !</p><p>20 . . . .ixf5</p><p>The tactical justification for the knight</p><p>sacrifice was 20 . . . gxf5? 21 exf5 ifc5 22 b4</p><p>ifc4 23 fxe6 Mxe6 24 4Jf5+ �g8 25 b3</p><p>i:Vb5 26 i¥£4 and White wins.</p><p>21 exf5 .l:::i.ae8 22 .l:::i.xe7 .l:::i.xe7 23 fxg6</p><p>fxg6 24 h5! L'Llxh5 25 �c3+ Wh7 26</p><p>L'Llxh5 gxh5 27 .l:::i.xd6 �b5 28 .l:::i.xh6+</p><p>'lt>xh6 29 �f6+ 'lt>h7 30 �xe7+ lt>g6</p><p>31 �e3</p><p>In the end material superiority decides.</p><p>31 . . . �a5 32 'lt>h2 �a1 33 �e6+ lt>g7</p><p>34 �d7+ lt>f8 35 �c8+ lt>e7 36</p><p>�xb7+ 'it>d6 37 �b4+ 'lt>d5 38 �c4+</p><p>'lt>d6 39 �d4+ lt>c7 40 b4 'lt>b7 41 c4</p><p>�c1 42 b5 cxb5 43 �d7 + 'lt>b6 44</p><p>�xb5+ lt>c7 45 �c5+ 'lt>b7 46 b4</p><p>�f4+ 47 g3 �g4 48 b5 �e2 49</p><p>�d5+ Wb8 50 Wg2 �e8 51 �d3</p><p>Wc7 52 �e3 �a8+ 53 f3 a6 54 bxa6</p><p>1 -0</p><p>9</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>We have seen in the notes to the two games above that the Italian Four Knights is</p><p>theoretically completely harmless. At the same time we have also seen that stronger</p><p>players can outplay their opponents by simple means, if these opponents have little to</p><p>show on the day. But then we can lose against the London System as well. To battle</p><p>these lines it is more important to be in good form, than to know theoretical ideas and</p><p>moves.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 �c4 �c5 (D) 4 'Llc3 (D)</p><p>4 d4 - see Game 1</p><p>4 0-0 - see Game 1</p><p>4 . . . 'Llf6 5 d3 d6 6 �g5 (D)</p><p>6 ... h6- Game 1</p><p>6 .. .'=iJa5 - Game 2</p><p>3 . . . �c5</p><p>1 0</p><p>4 'Llc3 6 �g5</p><p>CHAPTER TWO I</p><p>First Steps in the</p><p>Italian Game</p><p>In this chapter we will take a flrst glance</p><p>at the position after 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 'beG</p><p>3 ii.c4 ii.c5 4 c3</p><p>This is the most interesting and strong­</p><p>est move; White is building up to enforce</p><p>5 d4, which will give him the superiority</p><p>in the centre. This is a strategically more</p><p>aggressive strategy than the symmetry of</p><p>the previous chapter, and the source from</p><p>which the need for real opening theory</p><p>on the Italian Game stems.</p><p>Black can meet 4 c3 is a variety of</p><p>ways, where 4 ... tt'lf6 is the strongest. Ac­</p><p>cording to current theory Black can also</p><p>equalise with 4 .. .'ife7, but I think this is</p><p>less than obviously certain. Actually, in</p><p>the games below, I will go as far as to</p><p>claim an advantage for White in all lines.</p><p>In this chapter we shall also have a</p><p>quick look at a line which, in grandmaster</p><p>play, achieves only equality, but is suc­</p><p>cessful lower down. After 4 c3 tt'lf6 5 d4</p><p>exd4 6 e5 many games have continued</p><p>with moves other than the absolutely es­</p><p>sential 6 ... d5!, which equalises at once.</p><p>But flrst let us examine 4 .. .'ife7.</p><p>Game 3</p><p>A .Aiekhine-S . Tarrasch</p><p>Mannheim 1914</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 'beG 3 .i.c4 .i.c5 4 c3</p><p>W/e7</p><p>According to standard theory this</p><p>move leads to equality. In my opinion</p><p>White is at least slightly better. Black has</p><p>also tried some alternative methods of</p><p>solving his opening problems at this early</p><p>stage, other than the sane development of</p><p>his knight. Though they have little theo-</p><p>1 1</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>retical importance, it would be wrong not</p><p>to have a glance at them.</p><p>a) 4 . . . 'i¥f6?! was once a frequent visitor</p><p>to international tournaments, but these</p><p>days we know that White can more or</p><p>less refute it brutally with S d4! i.b6 (if</p><p>S . . . exd4?! 6 eS 'i¥g6 7 cxd4 i.b4+ 8 ctJc3</p><p>and White is much better as the g2-pawn</p><p>is untouchable, i.e. 8 . . . 'i¥xg2? 9 .l:tg1 'i¥h3</p><p>1 0 i.xf7+! and Black is in real trouble) 6</p><p>0-0 h6 7 a4 a6 8 dxeS ctJxcS 9 ctJxeS</p><p>'iYxeS 1 0 'i¥f3 ctJf6 1 1 aS i.a7 12 .l:tel and</p><p>White has a clear advantage according to</p><p>Max Euwe.</p><p>b) 4 . . . fS?! looks very dubious. White</p><p>surely has a lot of sound options here, but</p><p>instead of looking for an refutation, I will</p><p>recommend the simple 5 d3, when play</p><p>can continue S . . . ctJf6 6 b4 i.b6 7 a4 a6</p><p>(7 ... fxe4? 8 dxe4 ctJxe4 9 0-0 aS 1 0 'iVdS</p><p>ctJd6 1 1 ctJxeS with a terrible attack) 8 0-0</p><p>d6 9 ctJbd2 and White is much better, as</p><p>Black has problems with his king.</p><p>c) 4 .. . d6 S d4 exd4 has been played</p><p>once in a while as well. Now after 6 cxd4</p><p>i.b4+ 7 ctJc3 i.g4 8 0-0 'i¥d7 9 dS ctJd8</p><p>10 h3 i.hS 1 1 'i¥d4 i.xc3 12 'i¥xc3 White</p><p>is slightly better according to ECO.</p><p>5 d4</p><p>1 2</p><p>5 . . . ii.b6</p><p>Black cannot give up the centre with</p><p>S . . . exd4?! . Strategically it is a catastrophe,</p><p>and it does not work out tactically either,</p><p>after the energetic 6 0-0! when we should</p><p>look at the following lines:</p><p>a) 6 . . . dxc3 7 '2lxc3 d6 8 ctJdS 'i¥d8 9</p><p>b4! i.xb4 1 0 ctJxb4 ctJxb4 1 1 'i¥b3 and</p><p>White is much better.</p><p>b) 6 . . . ctJeS 7 cxd4 ctJxc4 (or 7 . .</p><p>main line status.</p><p>7 . . . tt:Jxc4 8 tt:Jxc4</p><p>The outcome of the opening is already</p><p>quite clear. The position is relatively bal­</p><p>anced, with White having a strong centre</p><p>and Black having the two bishops. Now</p><p>Black needs to strike in the centre before</p><p>White takes complete control.</p><p>8 . . . d5 9 exd5 �xd5 1 0 tt'le3 �a5</p><p>Others:</p><p>a) 1 0 .. . 'ik'd8 1 1 0-0 lt:Jf6 12 c4 0-0 1 3</p><p>lbc3 c6 1 4 �b1 I:le8 1 5 i.b2 'ik'c7 1 6 'i!Vf3</p><p>i.d7 17 lbe2 i.d6 (1 7 .. . I:lad8 18 lt:Jg3</p><p>i.c8 1 9 d5! and White has some plus</p><p>here, G.Kasparov-N.Short, London</p><p>(rapid) 1 993) 1 8 lt:Jg3 i.xg3 1 9 fxg3 I:le7</p><p>20 d5 �ae8 21 i.xf6 �xe3 22 i.e5 l::i.xf3</p><p>23 i.xc7 l::i.xf1+ 24 �xf1 with equality.</p><p>b) 10 .. . 'i!Vd7 1 1 0-0 lt:Jf6 1 2 c4 0-0 1 3</p><p>lbc3 (if 1 3 i.b2?! b5! 14 lbc3 bxc4 1 5</p><p>lbxc4 l::i.b8 and Black is at least slightly</p><p>better) 1 3 .. . c6 14 'i!Vd3 lbg4 1 5 h3 lbxe3</p><p>1 6 fxe3 b6 1 7 i.b2 i.a6 1 8 l:tac1 l::i.ad8</p><p>1 9 l::i.f3 f5 20 lbe2 l::i.f7 21 'ik'b3 and game</p><p>is unclear, S.Ganguly-K.Sundararajan,</p><p>Indian Championship 2004.</p><p>1 1 0-0 tt'lf6 1 2 c4 c6 1 3 d5</p><p>1 3 . . . �d8?!</p><p>It is not really clear what the queen is</p><p>supposed to do from d8. Some alterna­</p><p>tives needed consideration:</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . fi. e 7</p><p>a) 1 3 .. . cxd5 is quite a risky move: 1 4</p><p>cxd5 0-0 1 5 d6 i.d8 1 6 i.b2 I:le8 1 7 lt:Jd2</p><p>i.d7 1 8 lt:Jdc4 'iV a6 1 9 lbe5 i.e6 20 a4!</p><p>i.b6 21 lb3g4 and White has a strong</p><p>attack. M.Rybak-Z.Necesany, correspon­</p><p>dence 2000, continued 21 . ..lt:Jd5? (instead</p><p>21 .. .lbxg4 22 lbxg4 'ik'c4! gives Black</p><p>chances for a defence, but not 22 .. . i.c5?</p><p>23 'ik'f3 'i!Vxd6 24 lt:Jf6+! gxf6 25 'ik'xf6</p><p>�f8 26 'iig7+ �e7 27 'i¥g5+ �d7 28</p><p>l::i.fd1 and wins) 22 l::i.a3! lt:Jf4 (if 22 .. .f6 23</p><p>lt:Jh6+ gxh6 24 �g3+ �f8 25 "iVh5 wins,</p><p>or 22 . . . I:led8 23 l::i.g3 f6 24 lt:Jh6+ �f8 25</p><p>i.a3 g6 26 lbxg6+ hxg6 27 l::i.xg6 l::i.d7 28</p><p>'i!Vg4!! forces mate) 23 l::i.g3 lbg6 24 d7</p><p>I:led8 25 lt:Jh6+!! 1 -0. If 25 . . . gxh6 26 "iVh5</p><p>'iVxa4 27 lt:Jxg6 hxg6 28 l:txg6+ �f8 29</p><p>i.f6 and White wins.</p><p>b) 1 3 .. .'iVc7! is the simplest. After 14</p><p>i.b2 0-0 1 5 lbc3 a6 1 6 'i!Vd4 c5 1 7 'ik'd3</p><p>i.d6 1 8 h3 �e8 19 lt:Jf5 i.xf5 20 'ik'xf5</p><p>l::i.e5 21 'i!Vd3 l::i.ae8 Black is alright,</p><p>O.Rajala-R.Pomell, correspondence 1 977.</p><p>1 4 �f3 cxd5 1 5 cxd5 0-0 1 6 tt'la3</p><p>1 6 . . . tt'le8?</p><p>Black is fighting for control of d6, but</p><p>he has only two minor pieces that can</p><p>help to cover, whereas White has three.</p><p>The coming exchanges only aid White.</p><p>8 3</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Instead:</p><p>a) 1 6 .. .l::tb8?! 1 7 l::td1 b5 has the minus</p><p>of weakening c6. After 1 8 Mb 1 a6 1 9</p><p>i.b2 'iVd6 20 tLlac2 Me8 2 1 tLld4 White is</p><p>much better.</p><p>b) 1 6 . . . Me8 17 tLlac4 i.c5 1 8 i.b2 tLle4</p><p>is a better defence, and while the position</p><p>might appear bad for Black after 1 9</p><p>Madl, he can use tactics to keep the bal­</p><p>ance: 1 9 . . . 'iVg5 20 d6 i.d7 21 Md5 'iVh6</p><p>22 tLle5 lL\g5! 23 'iVdl i.xe3 24 lLlxd7</p><p>lL\e4 25 fxe3 'iVxe3+ 26 �h 1 lLlf2+ 27</p><p>Mxf2 'iVxf2 28 i.c3 Me3 29 Mc5 Md8</p><p>with counterplay.</p><p>1 7 tt'iac4 tt'id6 1 8 J.b2 tt'ixc4 1 9</p><p>tt'ixc4 J.f6</p><p>This move does not look good, but</p><p>Black is getting guite desperate in his de­</p><p>fensive efforts.</p><p>20 J.xf6 -qwxf6 21 -qwxf6 gxf6</p><p>This ending should be more or less lost</p><p>for Black.</p><p>22 l:!.fd1 l:!.d8 23 l:!.d4 b5 24 tt'ie3 a5</p><p>25 �f1 l:!.a6 26 l:!.c1 J.d7 27 l:!.c7 b4</p><p>28 �e 1 �f8 29 l:!.dc4?</p><p>White fails to control his opponent's</p><p>only possible counterplay, the advance of</p><p>the b-pawn. The precise move was 29</p><p>�d2! when the king comes to the gueen-</p><p>8 4</p><p>side, allowing the rooks to go to the sev­</p><p>enth row; while after 29 . . . Mb6 30 lLlc4</p><p>and White wins.</p><p>29 . . . l:!.b6 30 rla7 a4 31 l:!.cc7</p><p>Or 31 �d2 b3 32 axb3 axb3 33 �c1</p><p>b2+ 34 �bl f5 35 Mcc7 f4 36 Mxd7 Mxd7</p><p>37 Mxd7 fxe3 38 fxe3 Mb3 and Black has</p><p>good drawing chances.</p><p>31 . . .b3 32 axb3 axb3 33 tt'ic4</p><p>If 33 M.cb 7 M.b8 34 M.xb6 M.xb6 35</p><p>lLlc4 i.b5! and Black is defending with­</p><p>out risks.</p><p>33 . . . l:!.b4?</p><p>Now Black is starting to drift. Instead,</p><p>the clever 33 ... i.e8! would have solved</p><p>most of his problems. After 34 Mcb 7</p><p>Mxb7 35 Mxb7 Mxd5 36 Mxb3 White has</p><p>only a spiritual advantage.</p><p>34 .Mab7 .Mxb7 35 .Mxb7 .ia4??</p><p>3S ... .if5 36 tZ'le3 .ic2 was necessary as</p><p>it's the only way Black stays alive, though</p><p>after 37 'i£id2 White still has good winning</p><p>chances.</p><p>36 .Mb4 .ie8 37 'Lle3 rj;;e7 38 .Mxb3</p><p>rj;;d6 39 rj;;e2 .id7 40 .Mb6 + rj;;e5 41</p><p>g3 .Mh8 42 .Mb7 .Md8 43 rj;;f3 h5 44</p><p>.Mb4 .ig4+ 45 rj;;g2 1 -0</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i. e 7</p><p>fxeS 14 dxe7 'ilxe7 1 S 'ilbS+ c6 1 6 'ilxeS</p><p>'ilxeS 1 7 dxeS �g8 1 8 tZ'ld2 .ifS and the</p><p>game was more or less equal in</p><p>V.Aronson-l\1. Umansky, correspondence</p><p>1 978.</p><p>8 . . . 'Llxc4 9 .ixh6 gxh6</p><p>Or 9 ... 4Jd6 10 'ilxeS tZ'lxe4 1 1 .ixg7</p><p>�g8 1 2 'ilxe4 (1 2 0-0 dS 1 3 tZ:lfd2 aS! is</p><p>good for Black, who threatens the</p><p>manoeuvre . . . �a6-g6 in some lines: 14</p><p>,....----------------. tZ'lxe4 cLxe4 1 S .ih6 .ih3 1 6 .ig 7 �a6! 1 7</p><p>Game 29 gxh3 �e6 1 8 �xaS �xg7+ and Black was</p><p>D . Pirrot-F .Jenni much better, G.Binder-M.Rocius,</p><p>Cappe!!e Ia Grande 2002 correspondence 2001) 1 2 . . . �xg7 1 3 0-0</p><p>._ ___________ __. dS 1 4 �e5 'i£if8 1 S �e1 'ild6 1 6 'ile2</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 i.c4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ie7 6 'i¥b3! ?</p><p>This was Labourdonnais ' novelty in</p><p>1 83S. It is interesting that it was almost</p><p>another 100 years before 6 'ilb3 was tried</p><p>again in a tournament game.</p><p>6 . . . 'Llh6 7 d4 'Lla5</p><p>8 'i¥b5</p><p>8 �a4 is strongly met by 8 ... tZ'lxc4 9</p><p>�xc4 d5! not (9 . . . exd4?! 1 0 .ixh6 gxh6</p><p>1 1 cxd4 dS 1 2 exdS �g8 1 3 g3 .ih3 14</p><p>tZ:leS .id6 1 S tZ:lc3 'i£if8 1 6 f4 f6 1 7 tZ:ld3</p><p>� e8+ 1 8 'i£if2 and White is better) 10</p><p>exdS e4 1 1 tZ:leS f6 1 2 .ixh6 gxh6 1 3 d6</p><p>.ih3 17 g3 f6 1 8 tZ'lbd2 'i£ig8 1 9 c4 c6</p><p>with a mess in A.Morozevich-E.Bacrot,</p><p>Sarajevo 2000 1 O'i¥xc4 exd4 11 cxd4 c6!</p><p>This is much better than 1 1 . . .d6?! 1 2</p><p>0-0 0-0 13 tZ:lc3 c 6 1 4 �ab 1 , which gives</p><p>White the superior game.</p><p>1 2 d5!</p><p>White has no choice here. This is</p><p>chess, and often you have to prevent your</p><p>opponent's ideas with simple moves. In­</p><p>stead after 12 0-0 dS! 13 exd5 �xdS 14</p><p>'ile2 .ig4 1 S tZ:lbd2 .ie6 16 �fcl 0-0</p><p>Black 1s slightly better, R.Zelcic­</p><p>D.Sermek, Pula 2001 .</p><p>8 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>12 . . . .if6 13 e5 ii.g7 two pawns. I do not want to give a more</p><p>conclusive evaluation than this, though it</p><p>seems likely to me that White could be a</p><p>little better.</p><p>1 4 . . . b5! 1 5 'it'g4 0-0 1 6 tt:lbd2</p><p>Also after 16 0-0 f6! 17 a4 fxe5 1 8 axb5</p><p>e4 1 9 lbd4 'ii'£6 20 lla4 e3 Black has a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>1 6 . . . 16! 1 7 0-0 fxe5</p><p>White does not have compensation for</p><p>the material. It is as simple as that.</p><p>1 8 l:Iae 1 'ii'f6 1 9 'ii'b4 a5 20 'ifc5</p><p>'Yi'e6 2 1 a4 bxa4 22 tt:lxe5 'it'd5 23</p><p>1 4 d6? 'it'xd5 + cxd5 24 f4 l:ta6 25 l:ta1 l:Ixd6</p><p>White needs to fight for control of the 26 nxa4 J:la6</p><p>centre and after this move he loses all his</p><p>flexibility. Probably he was afraid of</p><p>something like 14 0-0?! d6 1 5 dxc6 dxe5</p><p>1 6 lbxe5 0-0 1 7 c7 'ii'd6 1 8 f4 .te6 1 9</p><p>'flc3 'i!Vb6+ 20 �h1 llac8 and Black has</p><p>the advantage.</p><p>However, White had a stronger option</p><p>in 1 4 lbc3 f6 (if 1 4 .. . 0-0?! 1 5 0-0 d6 1 6</p><p>dxc6 dxe5 1 7 c7 "iff6 1 8 :ac1 or</p><p>1 6 .. . bxc6 1 7 .l:.fd1 i..e6 1 8 'ii'a4 d5 1 9</p><p>!'tac1 and White i s at least slightly better)</p><p>1 5 lbe4 'it'a5+ 1 6 �d1 "ifxd5+ (not</p><p>1 6 .. . cxd5? 1 7 lbci6+ �d8 1 8 "ifxc8+ .l::txc8</p><p>1 9 lbxb7+ or 1 7 ... �e7 1 8 'ii'g4! and</p><p>White wins) 1 7 "iixd5 cxd5 1 8 lLld6+ �e 7</p><p>(if 1 8 ... �f8 1 9 lle1 ! and White retains the</p><p>pressure) 1 9 fbf5+ �f7 20 lbxg7 �xg7</p><p>21 .:.e1 with fine compensation for the</p><p>8 6</p><p>Black i s winning.</p><p>27 tt:lb3 d6 28 lt:if3 .td7 29 lha5</p><p>!Ixa5 30 lt:ixa5 l:txf4 31 i:td1 d4 32</p><p>lt:ib3 .i.a4 33 .l:Id3 .i.b5 34 l:i.d2 d3 35</p><p>lt:ic1 .tc3 36 l:td1 d2 37 lbxd2 .i.xd2</p><p>0-1</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i. e 7</p><p>Summary</p><p>S ... i.e7 is a rather solid-looking move, but should not be disregarded for that. Rather it</p><p>is an attempt to return the pawn and fight for the centre. White can choose between</p><p>different ways of contesting this strategy, all leading to interesting play, but no clear</p><p>path to an advantage is apparent. 7 �e2 and 8 'ifxd4 is probably the most challenging</p><p>line, though it all depends on the White player's style and mood on the day.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lZ'lf3 lZ'lc6 3 i..c4 i..c5 4 b4 i..xb4 5 c3 i..e7 (D) 6 d4</p><p>6 'iYb3 - Game 29</p><p>6 . . . lZ'la5 (D) 7 i..e2</p><p>7 tt'lxeS - Game 28</p><p>7 . . . exd4 8 �xd4 (D)</p><p>8 .. . tt'lf6 - Game 25</p><p>8 .. . d6 - Game 26</p><p>8 .. . d5 - Game 27</p><p>5 . . . .i.e7 6 . . . lL'la5 8 "fixd4</p><p>8 7</p><p>CHAPTER SEVEN I</p><p>The Evans Gambit</p><p>with 5 . . . .i.c5</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 il.c4 il.c5 4 b4 d4, which gives Black the extra option of</p><p>il.xb4 5 c3 il.c5 7 ... ..tb6, transposing to one of the lines</p><p>The black bishop returns to its place of after S ... ..taS (see Game 41) .</p><p>origin, which somehow seems counter­</p><p>intuitive. Now White will be able to ad­</p><p>vance rapidly in the centre, gaining time</p><p>for his attack. Black has some ideas of his</p><p>own, of course; nevertheless, the coun­</p><p>terplay against the centre does not seem</p><p>sufficient to prefer this move to the more</p><p>flexible S ... ..taS, which is the subject of</p><p>the next two chapters.</p><p>After S . . . ..tcS play normally continues</p><p>6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8 cxd4 ..tb6, reaching</p><p>a standard position seen in all the games</p><p>in this chapter. Deviations from this se­</p><p>quence are covered in the notes to Game</p><p>30 below.</p><p>Came JO</p><p>G .Gielge-E . Poscher</p><p>Correspondence 199 2</p><p>6 . . . exd4</p><p>6 . . . ..tb6?! is inferior, transposing to</p><p>S . . . ..taS 6 d4 ..tb6?! (see the notes to</p><p>Game 42).</p><p>7 0-0</p><p>Instead, 7 tt:lgS?! is a violation of just</p><p>about all existing attacking principles. The</p><p>'--------------....1 following variation is simply good for</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 il.c4 il.c5 4 b4</p><p>.itxb4 5 c3 il.c5 6 d4</p><p>This is more accurate than 6 0-0 d6 7</p><p>88</p><p>Black: 7 . . . tt:lh6 8 tt:lxt7 tt:lxt7 9 ..txt7+</p><p>'it>xt7 10 'ifhS+ g6 1 1 'ifxcS dS! with the</p><p>initiative, e.g. 1 2 exdS �e8+ 13 'it>f1 �eS</p><p>14 c4 "i¥h4 1 S ctJd2 "iVhS and Black wins</p><p>because of 1 6 f3 i,h3!.</p><p>However, 7 cxd4!? is possible, and then</p><p>7 . . . i,b4+ 8 '.t>f1 (better than 8 i,d2 i,xd2</p><p>9 ctJxd2, since after 8 '.t>f1 Black must be</p><p>careful about the b4-bishop) ,</p><p>when we could imagine play continu­</p><p>ing like this:</p><p>a) 8 . . . ctJf6 9 dS ctJaS 10 "i¥c2 ctJxc4 (if</p><p>1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 eS ctJe8 1 2 i,d3 and White is</p><p>much better, due to the threat of "i¥a4) 1 1</p><p>"fixc4 aS 1 2 eS b6 1 3 '.t>g1 i,a6 1 4 "i¥b3</p><p>ttJg8 1 S ctJc3 and White has compensa­</p><p>tion for the pawn.</p><p>b) 8 .. . i,e7 9 dS i,f6 10 dxc6 i,xa1 1 1</p><p>"fHdS ctJh6 1 2 i,xh6 0-0 was played in</p><p>N.Doghri-N.Stevanovic, Yerevan Olym­</p><p>piad 1 996. Now White can keep the ad­</p><p>vantage with 13 cxd7 i,xd7 14 i,gS "i¥e8</p><p>IS ctJbd2 bS 16 i,d3 c6 1 7 "iVcS "i¥e6 1 8</p><p>ctJb3.</p><p>7 . . . d6</p><p>This is the best. Other moves are sim­</p><p>ply weaker:</p><p>a) 7 .. . ctJge7?! 8 cxd4 i,b6 9 ctJgS dS 10</p><p>exdS ctJaS 1 1 d6 ctJxc4 12 "i¥a4+ c6 1 3</p><p>"i¥xc4 "i¥xd6 1 4 "i¥xf7+ '.t>d7 1 S ctJc3 and</p><p>White stands much better.</p><p>b) 7 . . . d3?! 8 ctJgS! is a completely dif-</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . .i. c 5</p><p>ferent situation from on the previous</p><p>move. Now Black has an unpleasant</p><p>choice:</p><p>b1) 8 . . . ctJeS 9 ctJxf7! ctJxf7 10 i,xf7+</p><p>'.t>xf7 1 1 "iVhS+ '.t>f8 12 "iYxcS+ d6 13</p><p>"i¥c4 "i¥e7 14 i,a3 i,e6 1 S "i¥xd3 cS 16</p><p>ctJd2 l::l.e8 1 7 ktfe 1 ctJh6 1 8 c4 b6 19 i, b2</p><p>and White was much better in E.Moser­</p><p>P.Dumancic, Aschach 1999.</p><p>b2) 8 ... ctJh6 9 ctJxf7! ctJxf7 1 0 i,xf7+</p><p>'.t>xf7 1 1 "iVhS+ g6 (or 1 1 . . .'.t>f8 12 "iYxcS+</p><p>d6 1 3 "iVdS "i¥f6 14 "i¥xd3 i,e6 1 S f4 with</p><p>a clear adYantage) 12 "iYxcS d6 1 3 "i¥e3</p><p>(13 "iVdS+ i,e6 14 "i¥xd3 is also good)</p><p>1 3. .. "i¥e7 14 ctJd2 l::l.e8 1 S f4 '.t>g8 1 6</p><p>"i¥xd3 i,e6 17 i,b2 d S 1 8 c4! and White</p><p>was better in V.Ragozin-A.Ilyin Zhenev­</p><p>sky, Moscow 1 930.</p><p>8 cxd4 .ib6</p><p>This could be called the 'standard posi­</p><p>tion' in the Enns Gambit. Standard, that</p><p>is, for chess games played in the 1 9th cen­</p><p>tury. In the 20th century it has been lim­</p><p>ited more to correspondence games,</p><p>probably because these kind of romantic</p><p>openings were especially popular in the­</p><p>matic tournaments before the introduc­</p><p>tion of strong chess-playing programs.</p><p>Now Wnite has two main options: 9</p><p>89</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>dS and 9 ti:Jc3. The ftrst we shall look at</p><p>now, while the second will be covered in</p><p>Games 33-35.</p><p>9 d5</p><p>Adolf Anderssen, one of the strongest</p><p>players in the 1 9th century, has the copy­</p><p>right of this move. Unfortunately for his</p><p>family, chess players do not like to pay for</p><p>intellectual rights .. .</p><p>9 . . . ltJa5</p><p>Other moves are weaker (see the anno­</p><p>tations to move 9 in Game 31).</p><p>1 0 .i.b2 ltJe7</p><p>That we are dealing with really old stuff</p><p>can be seen from the next note:</p><p>a) 1 0 ... f6 1 1 i.d3 ti:Je7 1 2 ti:Jc3 cS 1 3 eS</p><p>dxeS 14 tt:JxeS 0-0 15 �5 fS 1 6 :tad 1</p><p>and White is better according to Bilguer's</p><p>Handbnch.</p><p>More interesting is:</p><p>b) 1 0 ... ti:Jf6 1 1 i.d3 0-0 12 ti:Jc3 c6 1 3</p><p>ti:Je2 i.g4, when White can try:</p><p>b1) 1 4 �d2 cxdS 1 5 exdS i.x£3 1 6</p><p>gxf3 ti:JxdS 1 7 .txh 7+ �xh 7 1 8 'iixdS</p><p>.l:Ic8 1 9 'ilVhS+ �g8 20 'iig4 and White</p><p>has some compensation for the material.</p><p>b2) 14 ti:Jg3! is probably stronger</p><p>though, and after 14 ... cxd5 1 5 exdS h6! (if</p><p>1 5 ... .l:Ic8 16 h3 i.d7 1 7 ti:JgS! and White is</p><p>better) 1 6 h3 i.d7 1 7 l:te1 White has</p><p>good compensation for the pawn. Basi­</p><p>cally it is hard to think up a situation</p><p>where Black's extra b 7 -pawn will be a real</p><p>asset before move 40.</p><p>1 1 .i.d3</p><p>Pawn grabbing can be bad for your</p><p>health: 1 1 ..txg7? l:tg8 1 2 i.f6 tt:Jxc4 1 3</p><p>'ifa4+ 'jid7 1 4 'jixc4 .l:Ixg2+!! 1 5 �xg2</p><p>�3+ 1 6 �h1 'jixf3+ 1 7 �g1 i..h3 and</p><p>Black wins, as given by Anderssen.</p><p>1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 ltJc3 ltJg6</p><p>9 0</p><p>Another chess legend, Johannes</p><p>Zukertort, gave the line 12 .. . c5?! 1 3 eS!</p><p>dxeS 14 ti:JxeS ti:Jg6 15 "iihS 'i!Vd6 1 6</p><p>:tael i.c7 1 7 tt:Je4 with a deadly attack.</p><p>1 3 lLle2 c5</p><p>After 13 .. .£6 14 ti:Jfd4 cS 15 ti:JfS ..txfS</p><p>1 6 exfS ti:JeS 1 7 ti:Jf4 White is better ac­</p><p>cording to Matsukevich.</p><p>The idea of the text move is simple:</p><p>Black wants to keep control over the d4-</p><p>square. Now White has two equally good</p><p>possibilities: 14 �c1 as in the next game,</p><p>and 1 4 'i'd2 as below .</p><p>14 'ii'd2 f6 1 5 �h1 i..c7 1 6 liac1</p><p>.Ub8 1 7 lLlg3 b5 1 8 ctJf5 :b7 1 9 g4!</p><p>Typical for this kind of position, White</p><p>has good play for the pawn, if nothing</p><p>more.</p><p>1 9 . . . .i.b8 20 .l:.g1 ltJe5 2 1 i..xe5?!</p><p>In this structure the dark-squared</p><p>bishop is very useful. It can attack the g7-</p><p>pawn and the knight on aS at the same</p><p>time. Better therefore was 21 tt:JxeS fxeS</p><p>22 f4 c4 23 i..e2 and White would have</p><p>had full compensation.</p><p>2 1 . . . fxe5 22 tt:lg5 .:tea 23 !Ig3 h6?!</p><p>Violating the old rule of not advancing</p><p>pawns where you are defending, which</p><p>seems to give White a helping hand here.</p><p>24 lZ'lf3 .i:i.f8 25 !Ih3</p><p>Black still has problems with his two</p><p>passive pieces: lLla5 and i.b8.</p><p>25 . . . lbc4?</p><p>25 .. . c4 26 i.e2 a6! was much stronger,</p><p>with the obvious plan of getting the</p><p>bishop back into play after something like</p><p>27 l:tg 1 i.a 7 28 i.d 1 b4 etc. Generally</p><p>after 25 .. . c4, Black should be better.</p><p>26 .ixc4 bxc4 27 .U.g1 ? !</p><p>Why not just take the pawn? After the</p><p>simple 27 lixc4 �b 1+ 28 'it>g2 �f7 29</p><p>l:tg3 White has the advantage.</p><p>27 . . . 'i¥e8</p><p>28 l'bxh6+ !</p><p>White has to time to lose and need to</p><p>act now. If 28 g5? h5 29 liJ3h4 g6 30</p><p>liJh6+ cJdg7 31 Ilf3 �xf3 32 ltJxf3 'ifa4</p><p>and Black is close to winning.</p><p>28 . . . �h7??</p><p>Black takes his opponent at his word</p><p>and declines the sacrifice. Actually, accep­</p><p>tance by 28 .. . gxh6 was</p><p>forced, and then</p><p>Black can put up an amazing defence to</p><p>keep the position unclear: 29 'ifxh6 (not</p><p>29 :xh6? �f4! 30 ltJh4 'iia4 31 lLlf5 c3</p><p>and Black wins) 29 ... 'ife7 30 'iVh8+ 'it>f7</p><p>3 1 l:th 7+ 'it>g6 32 lLlh4+!? (32 �h6+ cJd£7</p><p>is a draw by repetition) 32 .. . 'ifxh4 33</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i.. c 5</p><p>l:txh4 l:r.xh8 34 .l:lxh8 i.d7 35 h4 c3 36</p><p>llcl 'it>g7 37 l:th5 l:rb4 38 �xc3 �xe4 39</p><p>l:tb3 ltb4 40 l:tg5+ and Black should</p><p>probably allow the draw by 40 . . . �h 7 41</p><p>l:t.g5+ etc., rather than take a lot of</p><p>chances by running with the king.</p><p>29 l'bf5+ '.tg8 30 'Wg5 .ixf5 31 gxf5</p><p>1 -0</p><p>After 31. . ."iid8 White wins by 32 'iih5</p><p>etc.</p><p>Game 3 1</p><p>A .Salygo-Boshoer</p><p>Correspondence 1971</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lZ'lf3 lbc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ic5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6</p><p>8 cxd4 .ib6 9 d5</p><p>9 . . . lba5</p><p>As promised in the previous game, we</p><p>will give a large number of alternatives</p><p>here, though none of them seems espe­</p><p>cially appealing for Black:</p><p>a) 9 .. . ltJb8 10 i.b2 lLlf6 1 1 e5 dxe5 12</p><p>lbxe5 0-0 1 3 lbc3 tiJbd7 14 liJ£3! lieS 15</p><p>lLle2 lLlc5 1 6 lbg3 with good attacking</p><p>chances, A.Anderssen-C.Mayet, Berlin</p><p>match 1 865.</p><p>b) 9 ... ltJe5? 1 0 lLlxe5 dxe5 1 1 i.a3</p><p>9 1</p><p>I ta lian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>.id4 12 t2Jd2 .ixa1 13 �xa1 f6 14 f4</p><p>gave White a strong attack in Gon­</p><p>charenko-Osipjenko, Kiev 1 956, e.g.</p><p>14 . . . exf4 1 5 e5 f5 1 6 e6 tiJ£6 1 7 �xf4 a6</p><p>1 8 �xf5 b5 1 9 e7 �d7 20 �xf6 and wins.</p><p>c) 9 . . . t2Jce7 1 0 e5</p><p>Here again Black has a long list of un­</p><p>pleasant alternatives, probably making</p><p>him wish he had played 9 . . . t2Ja5 instead:</p><p>c1) 1 0 . . . dxe5 1 1 tbxe5 �d6 12 �e2 .id4</p><p>1 3 .i£4 .if5 14 .ib5+ c6 1 5 dxc6 0-0-0</p><p>1 6 cxb 7+ �xb 7 17 t2Jd2 with a decisive</p><p>attack for White, A.Anderssen-J.Kipping,</p><p>Manchester match 1 857.</p><p>c2) 10 .. . t2Jg6 1 1 e6 fxe6 12 dxe6 tb8e7</p><p>1 3 t2Jg5 0-0 14 tbc3 and White has a</p><p>strong attack according to Matsukevich.</p><p>c3) 10 . . . .ig4 1 1 'iVa4+ �d7 12 .ib5 c6</p><p>1 3 e6! .ixe6 (or 13 .. . fxe6 14 'iVxg4 cxb5</p><p>1 5 'iVxg7 tbg6 1 6 .ib2) 14 dxe6 fxe6 1 5</p><p>.id3 and White is much better.</p><p>c4) 1 0 . . . t2Jh6 is an old Steinitz idea. In</p><p>my opinion this gives White excellent</p><p>chances after 1 1 tbc3 0-0 12 .ixh6 gxh6</p><p>1 3 t2Je4 dxe5 14 tbxe5 t2Jf5 1 5 t2Jg4 �h8</p><p>1 6 �b1 'iVh4 1 7 �xb6 axb6 1 8 'iVa1+ f6</p><p>19 t2Jgxf6 tbg 7 and now, rather than 20</p><p>g3?! �h3 21 �e1 'iV£5 22 .ie2 h5 23</p><p>t2Jxh5 �g6 24 �cl �£7 25 t2Jhf6 �e7 26</p><p>9 2</p><p>f3 .if5 (when Black kept the balance in</p><p>G.Neumann-W.Steinitz, Paris 1 867),</p><p>White should play 20 �e1 ! (the white</p><p>rook wants to enter the game as soon as</p><p>possible!) 20 ... �f4 21 �e3 with a strong</p><p>attack.</p><p>1 0 .llb2 CZ'le 7 1 1 .lld3 0-0 1 2 CZ'lc3</p><p>CZ'lg6 1 3 CZ'le2 cS 1 4 l:c1</p><p>Instead of 14 �d2 as in Game 30.</p><p>1 4 . . J:tb8 1 5 e5</p><p>White can always return to the plan</p><p>seen in the previous game, i.e. 1 5 �d2 f6</p><p>1 6 �h1 .ic7 17 t2Jg3 b5 1 8 tiJf5 b4 19</p><p>�g1 .ib6 20 g4 with an attack in</p><p>A.Anderssen-J .Zukertort, Barmen 1 869.</p><p>1 5 . . . .\lc7</p><p>Black has options all over the place,</p><p>but they will hardly change the general</p><p>(and possibly slightly vague) evaluation,</p><p>e.g. 1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6 .ixg6 hxg6 1 7 .ixe5 �a8</p><p>1 8 h3 and White has compensation.</p><p>1 6 CZ'lc3 a6 1 7 CZ'le4!</p><p>White can also try 17 .ixg6!? (at some</p><p>levels seemingly anti-positional, but at</p><p>others quite attractive) which forces Black</p><p>into 1 7 . . . fxg6 (if 1 7 ... hxg6?! 1 8 exd6 .ixd6</p><p>1 9 tbe4 and White regains the material</p><p>while retaining a better position) 1 8 e6 b5</p><p>19 �e1 �e7 20 �c2 tbc4 21 .icl with an</p><p>unclear game. Nevertheless, the text</p><p>move seems to set Black sufficient prob­</p><p>lems.</p><p>1 7 . . . b6 1 8 tt'lfg5</p><p>1 8 . . . h6?</p><p>18 . . . dxe5 was necessary, when White</p><p>can try to develop an initiative in various</p><p>wavs:</p><p>�) 1 9 CDxh 7?! is probably questionable</p><p>after 1 9 . . . l::i.e8 20 CDhg5 (if 20 �b1 'i!?xh7</p><p>21 d6 'i!?g8 22 dxc7 'i¥xc7 23 l::i.e1 and</p><p>two pawns could be too big a price for</p><p>the attack, e.g. 23 CDd6? l::i.d8 24 i,xg6</p><p>l::i.xd6 Black even wins) 20 . . . CDf4 21 g3</p><p>CDxd3 22 'i¥xd3 i,f5 23 l::i.fd1 c4 24 'i¥f3</p><p>'i¥d7 25 h3 and White has some practical</p><p>compensation, though Black is for pref-</p><p>erence.</p><p>b) 1 9 Vi'h5 h6 20 d6 i,xd6 21 CDxf7</p><p>CDf4! 22 CDxh6+! (not 22 CDxd8? CDxh5 23</p><p>CDxd6 CDf4 24 CDxc8 CDxd3 25 CDe 7+ 'i!?h 7</p><p>26 CDdc6 CDxc6 27 CDxc6 l::i.bc8 28 CDxe5</p><p>CDxb2 and Black wins) 22 . . . gxh6 23 'i¥xh6</p><p>l::i.f5 24 l::i.fd1 �e6 25 CDxd6 'i¥g5 26</p><p>'i¥xg5+ l::i.xg5 27 g3 CDxd3 28 l::i.xd3 i,xa2</p><p>29 CDe4 l::i.f5 30 g4 and White remains</p><p>better, keeping some initiative.</p><p>1 9 tt'lf6 + ! gxf6 20 exf6!</p><p>Stronger than 20 'i¥h5 fxg5 (or</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . il.. c 5</p><p>20 . . . dxe5 2 1 'i¥xh6 fxg5 22 i,xg6 fxg6 23</p><p>Vi'xg6+) 21 �xg6 dxe5 22 'i¥xh6 fxg6 23</p><p>Vi'xg6+ with equality.</p><p>20 . . . tt'le5</p><p>20 ... CDf4! was a stronger defence,</p><p>though White can still go for it with 21</p><p>CDe6!! fxe6 (if 21 .. .i,xe6 22 Vi'd2! wins) 22</p><p>Vi'g4+ 'it'D 23 Vi'xf4! (23 Vi'g7+ 'i!?e8 24</p><p>i,g6+ CDxg6 25 'i¥xg6+ l::i.f7 26 Vi'g8+</p><p>goes nowhere) 23 . . . e5 24 'i¥e4 "i¥xf6 25 f4</p><p>with a close to winning attack.</p><p>21 i.xe5 dxe5 22 �f3 .S.e8</p><p>23 tt'le6?</p><p>Here 23 i,h7+! 'i!?f8 24 CDe4 'i¥d7 25</p><p>h3! wins comfortably. Black is unable to</p><p>bring any of his extra pieces to the de­</p><p>fence of the king. 23 Vi'g3 also wms,</p><p>9 3</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>though it requires a little technique.</p><p>23 . . . l:Ixe6 24 'i'g4+ '.t>f8 25 �g7 +</p><p>We8 26 dxe6 ..ltxe6 27 .l:fd1</p><p>White is still better here, but Black re­</p><p>tains some chances.</p><p>27 . . . i.d6 28 ..ltxa6 CfJc6 29 ..ltb5 Wd7</p><p>30 l:Id2 Wc7 3 1 ..ltxc6 '.t>xc6 32 l:Icd1</p><p>c4?</p><p>Black had drawing chances after</p><p>32 .. . �a8 33 f4 exf4 34 'ii'xh6 �xa2 35</p><p>!txd6+ 'ifxd6 36 l!xd6+ �xd6 37 'ifxf4+</p><p>�c6.</p><p>33 �xh6 c3 34 l:td3 b5 35 l:txc3+</p><p>Now the smoke has cleared.</p><p>35 . . . <;t>d7 36 �e3 b4 37 l:Ixd6+ 1 -0</p><p>And after 1 0 ... 'Lle7 1 1 !tel Black took the</p><p>bishop anyway: 1 1 . ..'Llxc4 12 'i!Ya4+ 'ifd7</p><p>1 3 'ifxc4 0-0 14 'Llc3 (weak is 14 .tgS?!</p><p>dxeS 1 5 'LlxeS 'iffS and Black was much</p><p>better, I.Kolisch-A.Anderssen, Paris</p><p>match 1 860) 14 ... dxe5 1 5 'LlxeS 'iffS 16</p><p>.ie3 'Llg6 1 7 'Llxg6 'ifxg6 18 .txb6 cxb6</p><p>1 9 !te7 and White retains some initiative.</p><p>1 1 �a4+ i.d7 1 2 �xc4 CfJe7</p><p>1 2 ... dxe5?! 1 3 'LlxeS "i¥f6 1 4 'Llxd7</p><p>�xd7 looks awkward, and this appears to</p><p>be the deeper truth as well, e.g. 1 5 Vi'g4+</p><p>�e8 1 6 .igS 'ifg6 1 7 'Llc3 'Llf6 1 8 llael+</p><p>�f8 1 9 "ifh4+ �g8 20 .txf6 'ifxf6 21</p><p>'Lle4 'ifg6 22 �h1 hS 23 f4 and White</p><p>.....--------------- was much better in P.Morphy-H.Bird,</p><p>Game 32</p><p>G . Coleman -N . Hawkins</p><p>Correspondence 199 3</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 CiJf3 CfJc6 3 ..ltc4 ..ltc5 4 b4</p><p>..ltxb4 5 c3 ..ltc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4</p><p>8 cxd4 i.b6 9 d5 CfJa5 1 0 e5!?</p><p>A risky and also somewhat underesti­</p><p>mated move. I do not find life easy for</p><p>Black in these lines.</p><p>1 0 . . . CfJxc4</p><p>It is hard to resist taking the bishop</p><p>(what else was the idea behind 9 .. . 'Lla5).</p><p>9 4</p><p>London match 1 858.</p><p>1 3 l:Ie1</p><p>Interesting is 13 e6!? fxe6 14 dxe6 .tc6</p><p>1 5 JigS! (but not 1 5 'LlgS 0-0 1 6 'i¥c2</p><p>'Llg6 1 7 h4 Vi'f6 1 8 i..b2 'ii'f4 and Black is</p><p>much better according to Geza Maroczy)</p><p>and now we should have a look at:</p><p>a) 1 5 .. . 0-0? 16 'iVh4 �e8 1 7 'Llbd2 h6</p><p>1 8 l!fe1 was played in H.Montgomery­</p><p>W.Allison, New York 1 857. It does not</p><p>look as if Black can escape from suffer­</p><p>ing. The game continued 18 .. . hxg5 19</p><p>'LlxgS 'i¥c8 20 'ifh7+ �f8 21 li"h8+ 'Llg8</p><p>22 e7+ !:txe7 23 .Uxe7 and White won,</p><p>while if 1 8 ... d5 1 9 il.xh6 gxh6 20 'i¥xh6</p><p>.Uf8 21 .Ue5 i.e8 22 .Ug5+ CLJg6 23 lii.xg6+</p><p>.txg6 24 'i¥xg6+ White is still much bet­</p><p>ter.</p><p>b) 1 5 .. . .txf3 1 6 gxf3 d5 is more sound,</p><p>e.g. 1 7 'i¥f4 lii.f8 1 8 'i¥h4 'i¥d6 1 9 lii.e1</p><p>lii.f5 20 CLJd2 with an unclear position.</p><p>1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 i.g5 f6</p><p>The most radical defence. Instead</p><p>14 ... dxe5 1 5 CLJxe5 gives Black problems</p><p>with the knight</p><p>on e7, while after 14 ... lii.e8</p><p>15 e6 fxe6 1 6 dxe6 .tc6 1 7 CLJbd2 Black</p><p>has problems with the safety of his king.</p><p>1 5 exf6 gxf6 1 6 i.h6 .l::te8 1 7 lt:Jc3</p><p>lt:Jg6 1 8 lt:Je4 'W/e7 1 9 �ac1 lt:Je5 20</p><p>lt:Jxe5 'ii'xe5 21 i.d2! �f5 22 �e2</p><p>.ib5</p><p>Black is defending quite well. If instead</p><p>22 ... a6 23 a4, then White can follow with</p><p>24 lic3, swinging the rook across into the</p><p>attack.</p><p>23 lt:Jxf6+ 'ii'xf6 24 Wkxb5 .:.xe2 25</p><p>'i¥xe2 l:U8 26 .te3 �e8 27 'i'g4+</p><p>'i¥g6 28 'i¥xg6+ hxg6 29 i.xb6 cxb6</p><p>30 �f1 �f7 31 �c7+ l:te7 32 .Uxe7+</p><p>�xe7 33 h4 b5 Yz - Yz</p><p>A draw cannot be avoided as each king</p><p>will have to keep watch on the opposing</p><p>The Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i.. c 5</p><p>pawns, with no time for aggression.</p><p>Game 33</p><p>Y. Estrin-P .Angelov</p><p>Comspondence 1970</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 ii..c4 .tc5 4 b4</p><p>Xi.xb4 5 c3 i.c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6</p><p>8 cxd4 ii.b6 9 lt:Jc3</p><p>This more elastic option is probably</p><p>also the strongest. I must admit that I am</p><p>quite comfortable sharing this opinion</p><p>with our great grandfathers Paul Morphy</p><p>and Mikhail Chigorin.</p><p>9 . . . .ig4</p><p>Besides this move and 9 ... CLJa5 (see the</p><p>next two games), Black also has the fol­</p><p>lowing options:</p><p>a) 9 .. . i.d7 is perfectly possible. One</p><p>could easily imagine play continuing 10 e5</p><p>dxe5 1 1 l:te1 ctJge7 12 'bg5!? (or 12 CLJxe5</p><p>CLJxe5 1 3 dxe5 i.e6 1 4 i.xe6 fxe6 1 5</p><p>'i¥b3 CLJd5 1 6 i.a3 with an unclear posi­</p><p>tion) 12 ... 0-0 1 3 'ifh5 .if5 14 i.xf7+ (not</p><p>14 dxe5? i.xf2+ 1 5 �xf2 'i¥d4+ and</p><p>Black wins) 1 4 ... �h8 1 5 d5 i.xf2+ 1 6</p><p>�xf2 .tg6 17 'iVh4 CLJxd5 1 8 �g 1 .l::i.x£7</p><p>19 'iVxh7+ i.xh7 20 CLJxf7+ �g8 21</p><p>CLJxd8 ktxd8 22 CLJxd5 l:txd5 23 i.e3 with</p><p>9 5</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>an unclear endgame.</p><p>b) 9 . . .'�Jf6?! looks dangerous because</p><p>of 10 e5 dxe5 1 1 iLa3!</p><p>when we can 1magme the following</p><p>lines:</p><p>bl) 1 1 . . .t2Ja5 (Unzicker's recommenda­</p><p>tion) 1 2 iLb5+ c6 13 dxe5 "iYxdl 1 4</p><p>.l:taxd1 t2Jd7 1 5 t2Je4 iLc5 1 6 iLxc5 t2Jxc5</p><p>1 7 iLxc6+ t2Jxc6 1 8 t2Jxc5 and White re­</p><p>tains some pressure.</p><p>b2) 1 1 .. .iLxd4 12 ¥i'b3 ¥i'd7 (not</p><p>12 .. . iLe6? 1 3 iLxe6 fxe6 14 ¥i'xe6+ t2Je7</p><p>1 5 t2Jxd4 exd4 1 6 �Je 1 t2Jfg8 1 7 t2Jd5 and</p><p>\X'hite won in the blindfold game,</p><p>P.Morphy-C.Stanley, New York 1 857) 1 3</p><p>t2Jxd4 t2Jxd4 1 4 ¥i'b2 with a strong attack.</p><p>1 0 .ib5</p><p>Weaker is 10 ¥i'a4?! iLd7 when White</p><p>has no really good options. After 1 1</p><p>¥i'b3? t2Ja5 1 2 iLxf7+ �f8 1 3 ¥i'c2 �xf7</p><p>\X'hite has no compensation for the piece,</p><p>e.g. 14 e5 t2Jh6 1 5 iLxh6 gxh6 1 6 .l:tfel</p><p>dxe5 17 dxe5 iLe6 1 8 .l:tad 1 "iV e8 19 t2Jd4</p><p>t2Jc6 20 t2Jxe6 ¥i'xe6 and Black won step</p><p>by step, A.Dambacher-M.Bock, corre­</p><p>spondence 2000. \'Vhite should probably</p><p>retreat again with 1 1 ¥i'd1 and then if</p><p>1 1 . . .t2Jf6 12 e5 dxe5 13 dxe5 t2Jg4 14 iLg5</p><p>¥i'c8 1 5 t2Jd5 iLe6 16 ¥i'a4 with some</p><p>9 6</p><p>compensation, though the position is not</p><p>desirable.</p><p>1 o . . . <;t>ta</p><p>This is the best way. Instead 1 O . . . iLxf3</p><p>1 1 gxf3 "iV f6 12 iLe3 0-0-0 1 3 t2Jd5 "iV g6+</p><p>1 4 �h 1 leaves \X'hite much better, while</p><p>after 10 . . . iLd7 1 1 e5 t2Jge7 12 iLg5 dxe5</p><p>13 t2Jd5 "iV c8 14 iLxe 7 t2Jxe 7 1 5 t2Jxe 7</p><p>�xe7 1 6 .l:tel iLxb5 1 7 Mxe5+ �f8 1 8</p><p>Mxb5 White has good compensation. It is</p><p>not easy to see how Black is going to get</p><p>his pieces to work together.</p><p>1 1 .ie3</p><p>\X'hite only got equality out of 1 1 iLxc6</p><p>bxc6 1 2 iLa3 iLxf3 1 3 gxf3 ¥i'g5+ 14</p><p>�hl t2Je7 1 5 t2Je2 t2Jg6 1 6 l'1g1 ¥i'f6 1 7</p><p>¥i'd3 �g8 1 8 iLcl h 6 in J.Blackburne­</p><p>W.Steinitz, London match 1 862.</p><p>1 1 . . . tt'lge7</p><p>This is the right knight. Black never got</p><p>his pieces to work after 1 1 . ..t2Jce7?! 1 2</p><p>iLc4 t2Jf6 1 3 ¥i'b3 iLxf3 14 gxf3 ¥i'e8 1 5</p><p>a4 iLa5 1 6 t2Je2 Mb8 17 �h1 c6 1 8 Mgl</p><p>d5 1 9 iLd3 h6 20 t2Jg3 g6 21 e5 t2Jd7 22</p><p>¥i'a3 and White had excellent compensa­</p><p>tion in C.Schlechter-Mainter, Vienna</p><p>1 898.</p><p>1 2 a4 a5 1 3 .ic4 'iVe8?!</p><p>This move contains a deep strategic</p><p>idea. Black is attempting to give mate</p><p>down the h-ftle. However, in the process</p><p>he will have to open up in front of his</p><p>king, which seems rather dubious. Better</p><p>was 13 . . . 1th5! 14 \th1 l2'lb4 1 5 d5 l2'lg6</p><p>1 6 1txb6 cxb6 1 7 .l::!.c1 when the game</p><p>remains unclear.</p><p>1 4 tt'lb5 f5? !</p><p>Black is following his plan consistently,</p><p>but it was still better to play 14 .. ."iVd7.</p><p>1 5 h3 h5</p><p>If the Romans had known chess, th€y</p><p>would characterise a position like this as</p><p>·panta rei' (everything flows). It is not yet</p><p>roo late to play 1 5 . . . 1th5 16 d5 1txf3 1 7</p><p>"iVxf3 l2'le5 1 8 "iV e2 "iY g6 19 1txb6 cxb6</p><p>20 exf5 l2'lxf5 21 1td3 l2'lxd3 22 "iYxd3,</p><p>though White is much better now.</p><p>1 6 hxg4</p><p>1 6 .l::!.e l ! was even stronger, e.g.</p><p>1 6 . . . l2Jb4 (if 1 6 ... 1txf3 1 7 "iYxf3) 1 7 hxg4</p><p>hxg4 1 8 l2'lg5 d5 19 exd5 "iYh5 20 l2'le6+</p><p>\tg8 21 \tn l2'lexd5 22 l2'lexc7 1txc7 23</p><p>l2'lxc7 .l::!.d8 24 .l::!.bl and White wins.</p><p>Over the following moves White has</p><p>so many wins available that there is no</p><p>reason to give them. Until suddenly</p><p>White suffers from a sensational break­</p><p>down.</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . 1i c 5</p><p>1 6 . . . hxg4 1 7 tt'lg5 d 5 1 8 exd5 Vih5</p><p>1 9 f4 tt'lb4 20 tt'lxc7 iLxc7 21 tt'le6+</p><p>'f!;f7 22 tt'lxc 7 tt'lc8 23 d6 + 'T!;g6</p><p>24 tt'lb5?</p><p>Here a number of moves would still</p><p>lead to a full point. The clearest line is 24</p><p>1tf7+! \txf7 25 "iYb3+ \tf8 26 d7 l2'ld6 27</p><p>l2'lxa8 \te7 (or 27 . . . "iVh2+ 28 \tf2 \te7 29</p><p>l2'lc7 "iVg3+!? 30 \te2 "iYxg2+ 31 .l::!.f2 "iVe4</p><p>32 .l::!.cl \txd7 33 l2'le6 and wins) 28</p><p>d8"iY + \txd8 29 \tf2 g3+ 30 \te 1 .l::!.e8 31</p><p>.l::!.cl "iVf7 32 "iYxf7 .l::!.xe3+ 33 \td2 .l::!.d3+</p><p>34 \te2 l2'lxf7 35 l2'lc7 .l::!.a3 36 .l::\.£3 .l::!.xa4</p><p>37 Mxg3 with a winning endgame.</p><p>24 . . . tt'lb6 25 .iLb3??</p><p>A complete meltdown. Some alterna­</p><p>tives need investigation:</p><p>a) 25 Mel Mae8 leaves White defence­</p><p>less as well.</p><p>b) 25 1te2 "iYh2+ 26 \tf2 .l::!.h3 is also</p><p>very bad for White. After 27 1txg4 "iYg3+</p><p>28 \tgl "iYxe3+ 29 .l::!.f2 l2'ld3 30 1txh3</p><p>"iYxf2+ 31 \th2 "iYxf4+ 32 \tgl "iYe3+ 33</p><p>\th2 .l::!.h8 Black is close to winning.</p><p>c) 25 1te6! l2'l6d5 26 Ma3 seems to be</p><p>the best chance, but Black still takes the</p><p>initiative. After 26 . . . Mae8 27 l2'lc7 l2'lxc7</p><p>28 1txf5! �xf5 29 dxc7 the position is</p><p>'equal' according to my computer, but in</p><p>9 7</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>reality it continues to be very compli­</p><p>cated. At least I have not found a dear</p><p>win for Black here.</p><p>25 . . . l2Jd3 26 'ii'xd3 g3 0-1</p><p>Now there was nothing to do but re­</p><p>slgn.</p><p>Game 34</p><p>M . Chigorin-W .Steinitz</p><p>London 1883</p><p>in these lines, Black can hardly flnd a bet­</p><p>ter move than this. Of course, this would</p><p>not stop people from trying, would it?</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . 'i¥d7 1 1 J.d3 h6 (if 1 1 ...f6 1 2</p><p>ii.h4 l:i'Je7 1 3 e S fxeS 14 dxeS 0-0 1 5 e6!</p><p>with better play for White) 1 2 J.h4 l:i'Je7</p><p>1 3 ii.xe7 �xe7 14 �e1 c6 1 5 dS .1i.g4 1 6</p><p>eS dxeS 1 7 'i'd2 .txf3 1 8 �xeS 'iixeS 1 9</p><p>�e1 'ifxel+ 20 'ifxel+ 'i.t> £8 21 gxf3 hS 22</p><p>'iii eS �h6 23 l:i'Je4 cxdS 24 l:i'JgS and</p><p>._ _____________ .. White maintained the initiative, ].Von</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 .ic4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4</p><p>8 cxd4 i.b6 9 l2Jc3 'Lla5</p><p>The knight attacks the most active</p><p>white piece, though the price for this is</p><p>pretty high: White retains an advantage in</p><p>time.</p><p>1 0 i.g5</p><p>The so-called Goring Attack. Another</p><p>interesting strategic idea is 10 .td3!? l:i'Je7</p><p>1 1 t'i'JdS 0-0 12 l:i'Jxb6 axb6 1 3 dS in order</p><p>to dominate the black knight on aS. After</p><p>1 3 .. . t'i'Jg6 14 'i'c2 cS 1 5 l:Ib1 J.g4 1 6 ii.e2</p><p>White had fair compensation for the</p><p>pawn in H.Bird-M.Chigorin, London</p><p>1 899.</p><p>1 0 . . . f6</p><p>As time is an important part of the play</p><p>9 8</p><p>Minckwitz-W.Steinitz, Baden Baden</p><p>1 870.</p><p>b) 1 0 ... t'i'Je7 leads to very violent play</p><p>after 1 1 t'i'JdS f6 1 2 .txf6 gxf6 1 3 l:i'Jxf6+</p><p>�£8 1 4 l:i'JgS l:i'Jxc4 1 5 'i'hS �g7 1 6 'i'f7+</p><p>�h6. Now White has to choose between</p><p>a draw</p><p>with 1 7 'iihS+ and different ways</p><p>to continue the attack. The direct 1 7</p><p>l:i'Jg4+?! ii.xg4 1 8 'i' f6+ �hS 1 9 t'i'Jf7 l:i'Jg8</p><p>20 'ilfxh8 'iVf6 21 ifxh7+ t'i'Jh6 22 t'i'Jxh6</p><p>'i'xh6 23 iff7+ 'iig6 24 'i'xc4 J.f3 25 g3</p><p>.txe4 seems to leave Black better. But</p><p>White might try 1 7 �ac1 ! and if 1 7 .. . t'i'Jg6</p><p>1 8 �xc4 dS 1 9 exdS �xgS 20 'i'g7! with a</p><p>strong attack.</p><p>1 1 .if4</p><p>1 1 . . . l2Jxc4</p><p>After this move Black must play very</p><p>carefully to keep the balance. 1 1 .. .lLle7 is</p><p>seen in the next game.</p><p>1 2 'ti'a4+ �d7 1 3 'it'xc4 'ti'f7? !</p><p>Black is losing time with this move, so</p><p>I have looked a bit at the alternatives:</p><p>a) 13 ... g5!? 14 i..g3 hS 1 5 h4 'iig7 16</p><p>lLldS .ig4 1 7 'iia4+ .id7 1 8 'iia3 �c8 19</p><p>�fe 1 g4 looked unclear, but these kinds</p><p>of position usually seem very dangerous</p><p>for Black. And here White can start a</p><p>winning attack with 20 eS!.</p><p>b) 13 .. . ltJe7 is the natural developing</p><p>move, and is what Black probably should</p><p>play here. I think unclear is the appropri­</p><p>ate evaluation.</p><p>1 4 tt:Jd5</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . i.. c 5</p><p>M.Vidmar-Poljanec, Ljubljana 1 901) 1 7</p><p>a4 .iaS 1 8 �eb1 and White is much bet­</p><p>ter.</p><p>1 5 .1i.g3 .1i.e6 1 6 'i!Va4+ i..d7 1 7 'ti'a3</p><p>.Uc8 1 8 �fe 1 g4 1 9 tt:Jxb6 axb6</p><p>20 tt:Jd2</p><p>Here it was interesting to sacrifice a</p><p>piece with 20 eS!?. After 20 .. . gxf3 21</p><p>exd6+ �f8 22 dxc7+ �g7 23 �e3 (if 23</p><p>�xf3 lLle7 24 �d6 liJdS and Black seems</p><p>to be out of the woods) 23 .. . fxg2 24 �ae1</p><p>�c4 25 i..d6 bS 26 l!g3+! White has a</p><p>very strong initiative.</p><p>20 . . . .1i.e6? !</p><p>20 . . . ltJe7 and . . . 0-0 was stronger,</p><p>though White continues to have compen-</p><p>1 4 . . . g5 sation.</p><p>14 .. . i..e6 leaves White with two ways</p><p>to keep up the pressure:</p><p>a) 1 5 �a4+ i..d7 1 6 �c2! �c8 17 a4</p><p>i.aS 1 8 �tb 1 and White had a strong</p><p>initiative in the game M.Chigorin-Dorrer,</p><p>correspondence 1 884.</p><p>b) 1 5 �fe1 .txdS 1 6 exdS+ lbe7 17 a4!</p><p>and White is much better. Black cannot</p><p>really improve on this. If 1 6 .. . �d8 1 7</p><p>�e6! gS 1 8 .txd6! with a clear advantage,</p><p>or 1 6. ..�d7 1 7 a4 a6 1 8 aS i.a7 1 9 �ab1</p><p>wins, while after 1 6 ... �f8 (as in</p><p>9 9</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>21 f4! gxf3 22 'Llxf3 'Lle7 23 e5?!</p><p>Stronger was 23 dS il.g4 24 tt:ld4 0-0</p><p>25 �a7!? and White is better.</p><p>23 . . .fxe5 24 dxe5 d5 25 .Mf1 'Llf5 26</p><p>'Lld4 Wilg6 27 'Llxf5 i.xf5 28 i.h4 c5</p><p>29 .Mf3 'lt>d7?</p><p>Black is losing precious time here and</p><p>gives White the chances to recapture the</p><p>initiative. After 29 . . . il.e4 30 Mg3 �e6</p><p>Black should not complain.</p><p>30 .Maf1 .Mhf8</p><p>30 . . . Mhg8 31 �b2! il.e6 32 Mg3 �hS</p><p>33 �xb6 �xeS 34 Mxg8 Mxg8 35 Mel</p><p>�d6 36 �xb7+ 'lt>e8 37 �xh7 and wins.</p><p>31 .Mg3 Wifh6</p><p>32 i.f6! i.e6?!</p><p>Black could offer more resistance with</p><p>32 . . . il.e4, but after 33 �a4+ '1t>c7 34 e6</p><p>J::!,xf6 35 �d7+ '1t>b8 36 �d6+ Mc7 37</p><p>i/id8+ Mc8 38 �xf6 �xf6 39 Mxf6 Me8</p><p>40 Mg 7 White wins.</p><p>33 Wiia1 'lt>c7 34 .Mb3 '1t>d7 35 Wifxb6</p><p>.Mc6 36 Wilxb7 + .Mc7 37 Wiia6 1 -0</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6</p><p>8 cxd4 i.b6 9 'Llc3 'Lla5 1 0 i.g5 f6</p><p>1 1 i.f4 'Lle7 1 2 h3</p><p>1 2 . . . c6</p><p>Also interesting is 12 .. .'�Jxc4 1 3 �a4+</p><p>c6 14 �xc4 dS 1 5 exdS, when we could</p><p>imagine lines like:</p><p>a) 1 5 .. . tt:lxd5 1 6 J::!,fe1+ 'lt>f7 1 7 tt:le4</p><p>il.c7 (after 17 . .J::i.f8 1 8 Me2 'lt>g8 1 9 Mael</p><p>White retains pressure) 1 8 il.xc7 ilixc7 1 9</p><p>tt:legS+!? fxgS 20 tt:lxgS+ 'it>f6 21 Me5!</p><p>gives White a strong attack, though the</p><p>outcome is rather unclear.</p><p>b) 1 5 . . . cxd5 16 �b3 0-0 1 7 Mfe 1 il.aS</p><p>1 8 Me2 'lt>h8 19 Mel il.xc3 20 Mxc3 b6 21</p><p>Mc7 tt:lg6 22 il.h2 with full compensation</p><p>in E.Schiffers-N.Kalinsky, correspon­</p><p>dence 1 890, but even stronger was 21</p><p>�a3! tt:lg6 22 il.c7 �d7 23 il.xb6 and</p><p>White retains the positive aspects of his</p><p>position, while regaining his pawn.</p><p>1 3 i.b3 'Llg6?!</p><p>This is not a good square for the</p><p>r-----------------, knight, and what is more important, Black</p><p>Game 35</p><p>M . Havulinna -J . Nissi</p><p>Correspondence 199 2</p><p>cannot find a safe square for his king.</p><p>Necessary was 1 3 . . . g5!? 1 4 il.g3 g4 1 5</p><p>hxg4 il.xg4 16 Mbl tt:lxb3 1 7 Mxb3 �d7</p><p>._ _____________ ...,. with an unclear game.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4 1 4 i.g3 Wife1 1 5 .Me1 'Llxb3? !</p><p>1 0 0</p><p>Here 1 5 . . . .te6 1 6 llJdS �d7 17 lbxb6</p><p>axb6 1 8 .txe6 �xe6 was better, when</p><p>Black would at least get a chance to castle.</p><p>1 6 'ii'xb3 .ite6 1 7 tt'ld5! 'ii'd8 1 8</p><p>tt'lc 7 + .itxc 7 1 9 'ii'xe6 + 'ii'e 7 20 'ii'b3</p><p>20 . . . 0-0-0?</p><p>Making things worse. 20 . . . .tb6 was</p><p>better, though after 21 a4 .taS 22 .l:.e3</p><p>.:!.c8 23 .l:.b1 .l:.c7 24 eS White has a clear</p><p>advantage.</p><p>21 J:tab1 .itb8 22 J:tec1</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit with 5 . . . � c 5</p><p>This position is winning for White.</p><p>22 . . . 'ii'd7 23 d5 c5 24 tt'ld4 J:tde8 25</p><p>tt'le6 b6 26 f3 tt'le5 27 a4 'ii'b7 28 a5</p><p>.itc7 29 .itf2 l:te7</p><p>30 tt'lxc5! dxc5 31 .itxc5 �d8</p><p>Or 31 ... .l:.d7 32 axb6 axb6 33 .txb6</p><p>lbg6 34 �a4 and White wins.</p><p>32 d6 .itxd6 33 .itxd6 l:td7 34 'ii'a3</p><p>�e8 35 axb6 axb6 36 'ii'a4 �f7 37</p><p>'ii'a2+ �e8 38 'ii'e6+ �d8 39 .itc5!</p><p>1 -0</p><p>1 0 1</p><p>I ta lian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>The 'standard position' covered in this chapter after 5 ... j_c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8 cxd4</p><p>j_b6 seems to be rather dangerous for Black. White can generate a real initiative with 9</p><p>ltlc3!, while also 9 dS seems to hold some venom. Eventually the theoretical conclusion</p><p>might settle with Black being OK, but for the practical player it is more important to</p><p>know that Black will always have to play very accurately to survive, while White's initia­</p><p>tive seems pretty natural. Not surprisingly Black scores a record low 37% with this line,</p><p>compared to the more average 44% with S . . . i.aS and 45% with S .. . i.e7.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 kc4 .i.c5 4 b4 .i.xb4 5 c3 .i.c5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8</p><p>cxd4 .i.b6 (D) 9 tt:lc3</p><p>9 dS ltlaS</p><p>1 0 eS - Game 32</p><p>1 0 j_b2 ltle7 1 1 j_d3 0-0 1 2 ltlc3 ltlg6 1 3 ltle2 cS (D)</p><p>1 4 'ifd2 - Game 30</p><p>1 4 !'tc1 - Game 3 1</p><p>9 . . . tt:la5</p><p>9 ... j_g4 - Game 33</p><p>1 0 .i.g5 f6 1 1 .i.f4 (D)</p><p>1 1 . . .ltlxc4 - Game 34</p><p>1 1 . . .ltle7 - Game 35</p><p>8 . . . kb6</p><p>102</p><p>13 . . . c5 1 1 i..f4</p><p>CHAPTER EIGHT I</p><p>The Evans Gambit :</p><p>Introducing 5 . . . i..a5</p><p>1 e4 e 5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ia5</p><p>The retreat with S ... ..taS is perhaps the</p><p>most natural answer to the Evans Gam­</p><p>bit. The bishop remains on the e1-a5 di­</p><p>agonal, pinning the c3 and d2 pawns for</p><p>the moment and, more importantly, is not</p><p>in any kind of trouble on aS. On the mi­</p><p>nus side White will be able to put pres­</p><p>sure on the black position with i.a3 later</p><p>on. Black is clearly planning to meet this</p><p>with ... d7 -d6. Black will establish a strong</p><p>point on eS and try to keep the centre</p><p>closed for as long as is reasonably possi­</p><p>ble.</p><p>The retreat S ... i.aS was apparently flrst</p><p>played in a not very correct correspon­</p><p>dence game back in 1826 between Evans</p><p>and McDonnell. This entertaining game</p><p>resulted in a win for White after the fol­</p><p>lowing:</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ia5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 .ig4 8</p><p>'iltb3 �d7 9 lt:Jg5 ctJd8 1 0 dxe5 dxe5</p><p>1 1 .ia3 lt:Jh6 1 2 f3 .ib6+ 1 3 'it>h1</p><p>.ih5 14 .l::i.d 1 �c8</p><p>1 5 .l::i.xd8+ ? �xd8 1 6 lt:Jxf7 �h4? 1 7</p><p>�b5 + c6 1 8 �xe5+ 'it>d7 1 9 �e6+</p><p>'it>c7 20 .id6 mate.</p><p>Instead the alternative 15 'iVbS+ would</p><p>have won very quickly for White, while</p><p>after the much better defence 16 ... Yi'f6!</p><p>Black would have survived and been in</p><p>the game.</p><p>In this chapter we shall look at S ... i.aS</p><p>lines where White refrains from 6 d4,</p><p>which is the subject of Chapter 9. Gener­</p><p>ally this means 6 0-0 which is covered in</p><p>Games 37-41), or 6 'i¥b3!? as in the flrst</p><p>game below.</p><p>1 03</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>..-----------------. the position is really not easy to assess.</p><p>Game 36 c2) 8 ttJxeS ttJxeS 9 dxeS d6! (Black</p><p>B.Jobava-L.Aronian needs to develop) 1 0 a4! (after 10 0-0?!</p><p>European Championship,</p><p>Antafya 2004 dxeS 1 1 .ta3 'iVf6 1 2 ttJd2 .td7 the white</p><p>._ _____________ ....,. attack is clearly not so dangerous) 10 .. . a6</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 lDc6 3 ..tc4 �c5 4 b4</p><p>..txb4 5 c3 ..ta5 6 "i¥b3</p><p>A sideline, but an interesting one. The</p><p>main lines here are 6 0-0 and 6 d4.</p><p>6 . . . "i¥e7 7 d4</p><p>7 . . . lDf6</p><p>Black has tried a few other moves here:</p><p>a) 7 . . . exd4 transposes to 6 d4 exd4 7</p><p>'iVb3!? 'iVe7 (see the notes to Game 42) .</p><p>b) 7 . . . 4Jxd4 8 ttJxd4 exd4 9 0-0 ttJf6</p><p>(9 .. . dxc3 1 0 .ta3 'iVf6 1 1 e5 'iVf5 12 ttJxc3</p><p>t,rives White an excellent attack) 1 0 .ta3</p><p>cS was played in J .Kipping-A.Anderssen,</p><p>J\Ianchester match 1 857. Now after 1 1</p><p>cxd4 lt'Jxe4 1 2 f3 ttJd6 1 3 .txc5 0-0 14</p><p>.td5 W'hite would have more than</p><p>enough compensation for the pawn.</p><p>c) 7 . . . .tb6 leaves us with:</p><p>c1) 8 dxe5!? ttJa5 9 'iVh5 a6 10 'iVd5 c6</p><p>1 1 'iVd3 'iVcS 1 2 .tb3 'iVxf2+ 13 �d1</p><p>'iVxg2 14 Mfl with unclear play, e.g.</p><p>1 4 . . . 'iVg6 1 5 'iVd6 ttJxb3 1 6 axb3 'iVxe4 1 7</p><p>.ta3 'iVd5+ 1 8 ttJbd2 'iVxd6 19 .txd6</p><p>ttJh6 20 ttJg5 .te3 21 ttJde4 b5 22 h4 and</p><p>1 04</p><p>1 1 aS .tcS 12 0-0 dxeS 1 3 Md1 .td6</p><p>(13 . . . ttJf6 would be met by 1 4 .txf7+!</p><p>�f8 1 5 .tc4 ttJxe4 1 6 Ma2 with a strong</p><p>initiative) 14 .ta3 and W'hite has suffi­</p><p>cient compensation for the pawn.</p><p>8 dxe5?!</p><p>This is heading for a position where</p><p>W'hite has won the pawn back, but his</p><p>game lost its momentum. A preferable</p><p>alternative was 8 .ta3!? d6 9 d5 ttJd4 10</p><p>ttJxd4 (an improvement over 10 'iVa4+?</p><p>.td7 1 1 'iVxa5 b6 1 2 'iVa6 ttJc2+ 1 3 �d1</p><p>ttJxa1 14 ttJbd2 0-0 15 �c1 c6! and Black</p><p>was much better, B .Lundgren-T.Wastfelt,</p><p>correspondence 1974) 10 ... exd4 1 1 'iVa4+</p><p>�d8 12 0-0 .tb6 1 3 .td3 (13 f3 is an-</p><p>swered with 1 3. .. ttJh5! intending . . . ttJf4</p><p>and . . . 'iVg5 with a deadly attack) 1 3 . . . 4Jxe4</p><p>14 Mel fS (or 14 . . . lt'Jc5 1 5 Mxe7 ttJxa4 16</p><p>Mxf7 g6 1 7 .tbS ttJxc3 1 8 ttJxc3 dxc3 1 9</p><p>.tb4 .td4 20 Mel with full compensa­</p><p>tion) 1 5 c4 'iVh4 16 'iVc2 Me8 17 Me2 Me5</p><p>1 8 ttJd2 and \'Vhite retains the initiative.</p><p>8 . . . lDxe5 9 lDxe5 i¥'xe5 1 0 ..txf7 + �e7</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit: In troducing 5 . . . il. a 5</p><p>Here we have a position similar to that</p><p>of the Traxler in the Two Knights De­</p><p>fence (i.e. 3 . . . ti:Jf6 4 tt:Jg5 ..tc5!?) . There is</p><p>only one small difference: Black is much</p><p>better here.</p><p>1 1 0-0?</p><p>1 1 f3!? was stronger, but Black can still</p><p>grab the initiative with 1 1 . . . d5! (1 1 . . . tt:Jxe4</p><p>1 2 fxe4 'i¥'xe4+ 1 3 'it>d1 'i¥'g4+ 14 'it>c2</p><p>·�e4+ 1 5 'it>d1 is a draw) 12 ..txd5 ti:Jxd5</p><p>1 3 'i¥'xd5 'i¥'xd5 14 exd5 'it>d6 1 5 ..td2</p><p>l::!.e8+ 16 'it>d1 ..td7 when Black's play is</p><p>more than enough for the pawn.</p><p>1 1 . . .l':!J8 1 2 i.d5 i.b6 1 3 h3 d6 1 4</p><p>ti:Ja3 i.xh3 1 5 c4</p><p>If 1 5 gxh3 'i¥'g3+ 1 6 'it>h1 'i¥'xh3+ 17</p><p>'it>g 1 tt:Jg4 wins.</p><p>1 5 . . . i.d7 1 6 c5</p><p>1 6 . . . i.xc5</p><p>Clearer and cleaner was 1 6 . . . tt:Jg4! 1 7</p><p>'i¥'h3 (or 1 7 g3 'i¥'h5) 1 7 . . . l::!.xf2 1 8 l::!.xf2</p><p>..txc5 1 9 l::!.b 1 ..txf2+ 20 'it>h 1 ..tc5 and</p><p>Black wins.</p><p>1 7 l2Jc4 'ifh5</p><p>Also possible was 1 7 ... ..txf2+!? 1 8</p><p>l::!.xf2 'i¥'xa1 1 9 l::!.fl b5 20 ti:Jxd6 cxd6 21</p><p>..txa8 'i¥'e5 22 ..td5 tt:Jg4 23 l::!.xf8 'i¥'h2+</p><p>24 'it>f1 'i¥'h1+ 25 'it>e2 'i¥'xg2+ 26 'it>el</p><p>'it>xf8 and wins.</p><p>1 8 'ifg3 'ifg4 1 9 'ifd3 c6 20 e5 lLlxd5</p><p>21 exd6 + 'it>d8 22 'ifb3 b5 23 tLle5</p><p>'ifh4 24 'ifc2 i.xd6 25 g3 'ifa4 26</p><p>'ifb2 'ifb4 27 l2Jxc6+ i.xc6 28 'ifxg7</p><p>'ife4 29 i.g5+ l2Je7</p><p>1 05</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>30 f3</p><p>White cannot struggle on for much</p><p>longer. After 30 'i¥xf8+ <;t>d7 31 �xe7+</p><p>i..xe7 32 .l:.ad1+ �c7 33 i.f4+ �b6 34 f3</p><p>i..c5+ Black wins.</p><p>30 . . Jbf3 31 ii.xe7+ 'it'xe7 0-1</p><p>material without repercussions) 9 .. . h6 10</p><p>dxe5 (here 1 0 tbxf7! 'it>xf7 1 1 �f3+ 'it>e6</p><p>1 2 i.a3 looks more dangerous) 1 0 ... hxg5</p><p>1 1 i.xd5 i.e6 1 2 i.xe6 �xdl 1 3 l:txd1</p><p>(risky is 1 3 i.xf7+?! 'it>xf7 1 4 .l:!xd1 .l::.ad8</p><p>1 5 .l:.e 1 .l:.he8 1 6 i.xg5 .l:!xe5 and Black</p><p>,...----------------. retains pressure) 1 3 .. .fxe6 14 i.xg5 tbxe5</p><p>Game 37</p><p>M . Chigorin-W .Steinitz</p><p>Telegraph match 189 1</p><p>1 e4 e 5 2 t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3 ii.c4 .ltc5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 0-0</p><p>6 . . . \Wf6?!</p><p>Please do not show moves like this to</p><p>innocent beginners or those under 1 6.</p><p>Especially not when they have been</p><p>played by our flrst World Champion. Ac­</p><p>tually this game is solid proof that the</p><p>motion picture 'You should not 'walk' the</p><p>queen in the opening' is based on a true</p><p>story .. .</p><p>Instead 6 .. . tbf6 is seen in the next</p><p>game, and the main move 6 .. . d6 in</p><p>Games 39-41 .</p><p>Also interesting is 6 .. . ltJge7 when play</p><p>could develop 7 tbg5 d5 8 exd5 ltJxd5 9</p><p>d4 (after 9 'i¥h5?! g6 10 'iff3 'it'xg5 1 1</p><p>i..xd5 0-0 1 2 d4 'ii'f5 Black retains the</p><p>1 06</p><p>and the position is more or less equal</p><p>according to Unzicker.</p><p>7 d4</p><p>7 . . . t2Jh6</p><p>a) 7 .. . h6 is met strongly with 8 dxe5!</p><p>tbxe5 9 tbxe5 'i¥xe5 10 'iib3 'iih5 1 1 e5</p><p>ltJe7 12 .l::te1 tbc6 13 i.a3 with the initia­</p><p>tive.</p><p>b) 7 .. . tbge7 8 d5 tbd8 9 'it'a4 (stronger</p><p>than 9 ii.g5 'ilfd6 10 'i¥a4 f6 1 1 ..icl i.b6</p><p>12 lba3, though here, too, White has</p><p>more than enough compensation)</p><p>9 .. . i.b6 10 i..g5 'i¥d6 1 1 ltJa3 c6 12 .l::tad1</p><p>'iib8 13 ii.xe 7 'it>xe 7 14 d6+ �f8 1 5 �4</p><p>f6 16 i..b3 was M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz,</p><p>Havana match (game 17) 1 889. White is</p><p>much better here and you sincerely won­</p><p>der why Steinitz chose to repeat the</p><p>queen move in our main game.</p><p>8 .ltg5</p><p>This is the most natural, though 8 d5!?</p><p>has also been tried: 8 ... tbe7 9 'ii'a4 i.b6</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: In trodu c ing 5 . . . i.. a 5</p><p>1 0 'Lla3 ctJg4 1 1 h3 h5 1 2 l':i.b 1 a6 1 3</p><p>.l:lxb6 cxb6 14 lld1 with full compensa­</p><p>tion for the exchange, J .Timman­</p><p>B.Kurajica, Wijk aan Zee 1 977.</p><p>8 . . . 'it'd6?!</p><p>Things are only getting worse for</p><p>Black. What is the queen supposed to do</p><p>here?! Steinitz is playing as if he is invent­</p><p>ing the basic principles of chess as he</p><p>goes along. Well he is... was, I mean .. .</p><p>well, never mind .. .</p><p>8 ... "iVg6 however also leads to trouble:</p><p>9 d5 ctJb8 (or 9 . . . ctJd8?! 1 0 ii.xd8 �xd8</p><p>1 1 'Llxe5 �xe4 1 2 �e1 'ifh4 1 3 d6 cxd6</p><p>14 �xd6 and White is better, E.Schiffers­</p><p>V.Yurevich, St. Petersburg 1 892. e.g.</p><p>14 ... ii.b6 1 5 lie2 'ilff6 1 6 'ilfd5! �e8 1 7</p><p>tbd2 il.xf2+ 1 8 <;t>h 1 with a strong attack)</p><p>10 ii.xh6 �xh6 1 1 'Llxe5 0-0 1 2 d6! tbc6</p><p>13 'Llg4 'iV g6 14 l::tel and White has the</p><p>advantage according to Matsukevich.</p><p>9 d5 l2Jd8 1 0 'it'a4 .ib6 1 1 l2Ja3 c6? !</p><p>1 1 .. .'ifg6 was better, though after 1 2</p><p>�xd8 <;t>xd8 1 3 'Llxe5 'i'xe4 14 l':i.ae 1</p><p>'i'f4 1 5 d6! White has a strong attack.</p><p>1 2 i.e2 i.c7 1 3 l2Jc4 'iff8 1 4 d6!</p><p>�xd6 1 5 l2Jb6 l;Ib8 1 6 'it' xa 7</p><p>Objectively speaking Black has already</p><p>lost the game, but we can still enjoy how</p><p>the first Russian grandmaster puts the</p><p>first world champion away.</p><p>1 6 . . . l2Je6 1 7 .tel ! l2Jg8</p><p>17 ... f5 is met strongly by 1 8 �d1 ii.c7</p><p>19 il.a3! and Black is on a lot of pain.</p><p>Slightly weaker is 1 9 'Llxc8 �xc8 20</p><p>il.xh6 gxh6 21 'ifxb7 �b8 22 "iVa7 'i'g7</p><p>23 i..c4 where White has the advantage,</p><p>but such stupid pieces as the c8-bishop</p><p>have disappeared, giving Black some</p><p>hope.</p><p>1 8 ii.a3</p><p>1 8 . . . c5</p><p>If 18 .. .'ife7 19 !:Ifd1 ! (not 19 il.xd6?</p><p>�xd6 20 l:tfd1 "iic7 21 ctJa8 �xa8 22</p><p>i¥xa8 tbf6 and unexpectedly Black sur­</p><p>vives) 1 9 .. . c5 20 �xd6 �xd6 21 �d1 Wic7</p><p>1 0 7</p><p>I ta lia n Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>22 ctJdS and White wins. his centre and remain more flexible.</p><p>1 9 ki.ad1 tbt6 20 i.c4 i.c7 21 lDd5</p><p>i.d6</p><p>22 lbh4</p><p>In a position like this all road leads to</p><p>Rome. Here 22 lDxf6+!? gxf6 23 i.xe6</p><p>fxe6 24 i.xcS i.xcS 25 �xb8 'it>f7 26</p><p>Md3 also wins.</p><p>22 . . . tbxd5 23 tbt5</p><p>Or 23 exdS!? liJf4 24 i.xcS b6 25</p><p>�xb8 i.xb8 26 i.xf8 'it>xf8 27 d6 and</p><p>WlnS.</p><p>23 . . . g6 24 tbxd6+ 'Yi'xd6 25 i.xd5</p><p>'Yi'c7 26 i.xe6 fxe6 27 i.xc5 .Ma8 28</p><p>'Yi'xa8 'Yi'xc5 29 'Yi'a4 'it>d8 30 ki.d2</p><p>'it>c7 31</p><p>.Mb1 .Md8 32 .Mb5 'Yi'c6 33</p><p>'Yi'b4 d6 34 a4 'Yi'e8 35 .Mb6 'Yi'f8 36</p><p>'Yi'a5 d5 37 exd5 'it>b8 38 d6 1 -0</p><p>Game 38</p><p>M . Chigorin-M .Shabelsky</p><p>Com.rpondence 1884</p><p>7 . . . tbxe4</p><p>a) 7 . . . exd4? is asking for trouble after 8</p><p>i.a3 d6 9 eS CLJe4 10 exd6 cxd6 (or</p><p>10 . . . CLJxd6 1 1 Mel+ CLJe7 1 2 ctJgS 0-0 1 3</p><p>"ilihS i.fS 14 CLJxf7 CLJxf7 1 5 i.xe 7 with a</p><p>clear advantage) 1 1 Mel dS 12 CLJbd2</p><p>i.xc3 (if 12 . . . f5 1 3 liJxd4 liJxd4 14 lDxe4</p><p>dxe4 1 5 Mxe4+! fxe4 1 6 "ilihS+ 'it>d7 1 7</p><p>"ilidS+ 'it>c7 1 8 "i�UeS+ 'it>c6 1 9 "ilicS+ wins)</p><p>1 3 tDxe4 i.xel , as in D.Rybak-J .Svoboda,</p><p>Plzen 1 999, then 14 "ilixe 1 ! i.e6 1 5 tiJd6+</p><p>'it>d7 16 i.bS "ilib6 1 7 Mb1 Mhb8 1 8</p><p>CLJeS+ 'it>c7 19 i.xc6 bxc6 20 Mxb6 is the</p><p>easiest way to win.</p><p>b) 7 . . . 0-0 was successful after 8 "ilic2</p><p>(or if 8 dS tDe7 9 lDxeS d6 1 0 tiJf3 lDxe4</p><p>1 1 "iii d3 fS 12 liJgS ctJxgS 1 3 i.xgS h6 14</p><p>i.d2 ctJg6 with the advantage) 8 .. . "ilie7 9</p><p>dxeS lDxeS 10 lDxeS �xeS 1 1 i.d3 t2Jg4</p><p>12 g3 i.b6 1 3 CLJa3 dS and Black was bet­</p><p>ter in J .Dufresne-A.Anderssen, Berlin</p><p>._ _____________ __. match 1 851 . But White can play more</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 tbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 0-0 tbt6 7 d4</p><p>After only six and a half moves in the</p><p>one of the oldest openings, we have</p><p>landed in a slightly unusual position.</p><p>Normally Black plays 6 . . . d6 to reinforce</p><p>1 08</p><p>strongly with 8 lDxeS! lDxeS 9 dxeS lDxe4</p><p>10 i.a3 transposing to the next note.</p><p>8 dxe5? !</p><p>This gives White an interesting, but in­</p><p>correct attack. The critical line runs 8</p><p>lDxeS! 0-0 (not 8 . . . d5? 9 lDxf7 'it>xf7 10</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit: In tro ducing 5 . . . i. a 5</p><p>'iVhS+ rJJe7 1 1 �xdS and White wins) 9</p><p>�a3 lDxeS (or 9 . . . d6 1 0 tt::Jxc6 bxc6 1 1</p><p>'iYa4 �xc3 1 2 4Jxc3 4Jxc3 1 3 'iYxc6 with</p><p>compensation) 1 0 dxeS d6 1 1 'iYf3 'iVh4</p><p>12 �dS tt:JgS 13 'iVd3 Md8 1 4 exd6 cxd6</p><p>1 S �c 1 tt::Je6 1 6 'iV f3 Me8 1 7 4Ja3 and</p><p>White has excellent compensation for the</p><p>pawn.</p><p>8 . . . 0-0</p><p>9 �d5</p><p>After 9 'iYc2?! Black should seize the</p><p>day with 9 . . . dS! 1 0 exd6 (if 10 Md1 �e6</p><p>1 1 �xdS �xdS 1 2 c4 tt::Jb4 1 3 'iVh2 �b6</p><p>14 �e3 �xe3 1 S fxe3 tt:JgS and Black is</p><p>better, as after 16 tt:Je 1 4Jh3+! 1 7 gxh3</p><p>'iVgS+ 1 8 rJJf2 'iVfS+ 19 cJJg1 �xc4 20</p><p>lDd2 t2Jd3 Black is completely dominant)</p><p>10 . . . 4Jxd6 1 1 Z:l:.d1 h6 12 �a3 �f6 1 3</p><p>�dS 4Je7, Z.Stojanovic-B.Pavlovic, Bor</p><p>1 983. White is facing a big challenge in</p><p>order to prove compensation here.</p><p>9 �a3!? d6 1 0 'iVc2 is the same idea in</p><p>a slightly different move order, and now</p><p>Black must play more carefully: 1 0 . . . 4JcS</p><p>1 1 4Jbd2 (or 1 1 �xeS!? dxcS 12 �d3</p><p>with compensation) 1 1 . . .Me8 1 2 Mad1</p><p>�b6 13 exd6 cxd6 14 �dS �e6 (the al­</p><p>ternatives do not work, e.g. 14 . . . �f6?! 1 S</p><p>tDe4 �fS 1 6 lDh4 �g4 1 7 tt::Jxd6 Me7 1 8</p><p>4JhfS �xfS 19 �xfS �xfS 20 tt:JxfS Mc7</p><p>21 Mfe1 and White is much better, or</p><p>14 . . . 4Je7? 1 S tt:JgS tt:JxdS 1 6 'iYxh7+ rJJf8</p><p>1 7 �h8+ rJJe7 1 8 �xg7 with a crushing</p><p>attack in S.Ratzmann-D.Rosner, corre­</p><p>spondence 2001) 1 S tt::Jc4 and White has a</p><p>decent initiatiYe.</p><p>9 . . . Cbc5</p><p>9 .. . 4Jxc3? 10 4Jxc3 �xc3 is worthless</p><p>as White has a strong attack after 1 1 tt:JgS</p><p>�xa1 (or 1 1 . . .4JxeS 12 'iYc2 4Jg6 1 3</p><p>�xc3 and wins) 12 �hS h6 1 3 4Jxf7</p><p>Mxf7 14 �xf7+ rJJf8 1 S �a3+ d6 1 6 exd6</p><p>cxd6 1 7 �b3 and White wins.</p><p>But 9 . . . �xc3 is a serious alternative.</p><p>After 10 �xe4 �xa1 1 1 �xh7+ we have:</p><p>a) 1 1 .. .rJJh8? 12 tt:JgS g6 1 3 'iVg4 �xeS</p><p>14 �h4 rJJg7 1 S tt::Je6+ dxe6 (1S ... fxe6? 1 6</p><p>'iYh6+ rJJf7 1 7 �xg6+ cJJe 7 1 8 �h4+ Mf6</p><p>1 9 �a3+ d6 20 �h 7+ cJJf8 21 �h8+ cJJe 7</p><p>22 �g7+ Mf7 23 'iYxf7 mate! was played</p><p>in l\1.Chigorin-S.Alapin, St. Petersburg</p><p>1 883) 1 6 �h6+ rJJf6 1 7 �gs+ rJJfs 1 8</p><p>�xd8 Mxd8 1 9 h4 with a dangerous at­</p><p>tack.</p><p>b) 1 1 . . .rJJxh7! 1 2 tt:JgS+ rJJg6 (after</p><p>12 . . . �xgS 13 �xgS �xeS 14 �e3 White</p><p>was better in l'vf.Chigorin-V.Manko, cor­</p><p>respondence 1900 and 1901)</p><p>1 09</p><p>Italian Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>and we have reached a new branching:</p><p>b 1) 1 3 'if d3+ fS 14 exf6+ 'it>xf6 1 5</p><p>t2Jh7+ 'it>f7 1 6 ltJgS+ <i;e7 (or 16 .. . 'it>f6</p><p>with equality) 1 7 �el+ ltJeS 1 8 l2Jc3 d6</p><p>1 9 �xeS+ dxeS 20 ltJdS+ 'it>d6 21 t2Jc3+</p><p>'it>e7 with a draw.</p><p>b2) 1 3 'i!Vg4!? ltJxeS 14 iVg3 'it>f6 1 5 f4</p><p>.id4+ 1 6 'it>h1 t2Jc4 1 7 t2Jh7+ 'it;e7 1 8</p><p>�el+ 'it>d6 1 9 t2Jxf8 c S (not 19 . . . 'i¥xf8? 20</p><p>�d1 'it>c6 21 �xd4 with an extremely</p><p>strong attack) 20 ltJh 7 with unclear play.</p><p>1 0 tt'lg5</p><p>1 0 . . . tt'le6?</p><p>Black is wasting precious time, merely</p><p>to replace one attacking white piece with</p><p>another.</p><p>Better was 1 0 .. .'ife7! (1 0 . . . t2Jxe5 1 1 f4!</p><p>looks dangerous for Black) 1 1 'i¥c2 (if 1 1</p><p>"ifhS h6 1 2 t2Jf3 d6 1 3 exd6 'ilfxd6 1 4</p><p>.ie3 .ib6 1 5 :.d1 .ie6 1 6 t2Ja3 .S:ad8 1 7</p><p>l2Jc4 'i¥e7 and White is fighting for a</p><p>draw) 1 1 ...g6 1 2 f4 .ib6 1 3 'it;h1 d6 1 4 fS</p><p>(or 1 4 exd6 cxd6 1 5 iVd2 .ifS with the</p><p>advantage) 14 ... t2Jxe5 1 5 f6 'ifd8 1 6 'ifd2</p><p>t2Jg4 and Black is much better here. One</p><p>example is 1 7 t2Jxh7 'it>xh7 1 8 iVgS 'ife8!</p><p>1 9 iVh4+ 'it>g8 20 .ih6 t2Jd3 21 t2Jd2</p><p>t2Jdf2+ 22 'it>g1 t2Jh3+ 23 �hl t2Jgf2+ 24</p><p>�xf2 l2Jxf2+ 25 'it>g1 l2Jg4+ 26 'it>h1 'ifeS</p><p>1 1 0</p><p>and Black is wmrung, E.Schiffers­</p><p>A.Romashkevich, correspondence 1 894.</p><p>1 1 "it'h5 tt'lxg5 1 2 .i.xg5 'ike8</p><p>1 3 .\tf6! tt'le7</p><p>If 13 .. . gxf6 14 .ie4 and White wins.</p><p>1 4 tt'ld2 d6</p><p>Black is now out of options. If</p><p>14 . . . t2Jxd5? 1 5 'ifgS t2Jxf6 1 6 exf6 g6 17</p><p>"ifb6 wins, or 1 4 . . . .ixc3 1 5 t2Je4 .ixa1 1 6</p><p>.ixg 7 'it>xg 7 1 7 t2Jf6 and White wins</p><p>agam.</p><p>1 5 exd6 tt'lxd5 1 6 'i!Vxd5 gxf6 1 7</p><p>'it'xa5 cxd6</p><p>Black has an extra pawn, but his posi­</p><p>tion is lost.</p><p>1 8 llae1 �c6 1 9 c4 "ifc5 20 �c3</p><p>.if5 2 1 tt'lb3 't!Vb6 22 tt'ld4!</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: In tro ducing 5 . . . il. a 5</p><p>This is stronger than 22 'Yi'xf6 i.g6 23</p><p>.:e7 .:ae8 24 .:fe1 when White only has a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>22 . . . .i.g6 23 f4 I:!fe8 24 f5 I:!xe1 25</p><p>I:!xe1 i..xf5 26 c5! 'ti'xc5 27 'ti'xc5</p><p>dxc5 28 tbxf5 h5 29 I:!e7 I:!d8 30</p><p>.l:!.xb7 1 -0</p><p>Game 39</p><p>A .Karpatchev-C . Renner</p><p>German Bundesliga 2003</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tZ'lf3 tbc6 3 .tc4 .i.c5 4 0-0</p><p>d6 5 b4 .txb4 6 c3 .ta5 7 d4</p><p>The move order with 4 0-0 d6 S b4!?</p><p>was rather unusual, but we have trans­</p><p>posed to a more normal position now.</p><p>In the current game Black plays</p><p>7 ... i.g4, while 7 ... i.d7 and 7 .. . i.b6 are</p><p>seen in Games 40 and 41 respectively.</p><p>From the diagram position we should</p><p>also have a look at:</p><p>a) 7 ... exd4 and now:</p><p>a1) 8 cxd4 lbf6?! (8 . . . i.b6! reaches the</p><p>standard position of Chapter 7) 9 'iia4</p><p>i.d7 1 0 dS CDeS 1 1 'Yi'xaS 'Llxc4 12 'Yi'b4</p><p>lbb6 1 3 a4 cS 14 'Yi'b3 'Yi'c7 (Pavlov &</p><p>Levitsky-W.Steinitz, Moscow 1 896) and</p><p>now after 1 S aS CDc8 1 6 i.b2 CDhS 1 7</p><p>CDfd2 White i s much better according to</p><p>Chigorin.</p><p>a2) 8 'Yi'b3!? (the Waller Attack)</p><p>8 ... 'iif6 9 eS dxeS 10 .:e1 CDge7 (better</p><p>than 10 ... i.b6?! 1 1..fi.gS 'iifS 12.CDxeS</p><p>lbxeS 1 3.f4 dxc3+ 14.�h1 i.d4 1 S.lbxc3</p><p>with a huge attack in P.Morphy-Kipping,</p><p>Birmingham 1 8S8; but 1 0 .. . i.d7!? is also</p><p>possible, e.g. 1 1 i.gS 'Yi'fS 1 2 'Yi'xb7 .:b8</p><p>13 .:xeS+ 'Yi'xeS 14 'ifxb8+ CDxb8 1 S</p><p>CDxeS i.e6 or 14 i.xf7+ �f8 1 S 'iixb8+</p><p>lbxb8 1 6 CDxeS i.b6 with an unclear end­</p><p>game) 1 1 i.gS 'iid6 (not 1 1 . ..'iig6? 1 2</p><p>i.xe7 �xe7 13 lbxeS 'Yi'b6 1 4 i.bS+ c6</p><p>1 S 'iixf7+ �d8 16 lbxc6+ and wins,</p><p>I.Kolisch-T.Barnes, London 1 860) 1 2</p><p>i.xf7+ �f8 is all rather unclear, e.g. 1 3</p><p>CDbd2 i.xc3 14 a3!? i.fS 1 S .:ac1 h6 1 6</p><p>CDc4 i.e6 1 7 i.xe6 'Yi'xe6 1 8 j_xe7+</p><p>�xe7 1 9 .:e4 'ifdS 20 �xb7 �xc4 21</p><p>'iixc7+ �f6?? (21 ...�£8 22 lbxd4 exd4 23</p><p>.:xc3 'iixc3 24 'iid6+ �g8 is a draw) 22</p><p>lbxeS lbxeS 23 'iYxeS+ �f7 24 .:xc3! and</p><p>wins, L.Oms Fuentes-F.Farran Martos,</p><p>Barcelona 2003.</p><p>b) 7 ... CDf6 8 'i¥a4!? and now:</p><p>b1) 8 .. . i.d7? 9 dS CDd4 10 'ifxaS 'Llc2</p><p>1 1 i.d3 'Llxa1 12 c4 and White is</p><p>much</p><p>better.</p><p>1 1 1</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>b2) 8 . . . a6? 9 d5? is naive after 9 . . . b5 10</p><p>i.xb5 axb5 11 'Mixb5 0-0 12 'Mixc6 i.a6,</p><p>J .Blackburne-H.Block, England (simul)</p><p>1 878, with a good game for Black, e.g. 1 3</p><p>c4 (if 1 3 :l.e1 ? 'Mib8! 14 a4 i.d3 and the</p><p>white queen has landed herself in a trap)</p><p>1 3 .. . lbxe4 14 i.e3 'Mic8 1 5 'Mia4 i.b7 16</p><p>�c2 f5 with a huge advantage. Instead</p><p>White should play 9 �d5! �b6 1 0 dxe5</p><p>dxeS 1 1 �xc6+ bxc6 12 .i::l.d1 ctJd7 13</p><p>�xc6 and White is much better.</p><p>b3) 8 . . . exd4! is the correct reaction,</p><p>when after the continuation 9 ctJxd4 (or 9</p><p>eS ctJd7 10 i.g5 ctJb6!) 9 . . . i.b6 10 i.b5</p><p>0-0 1 1 ctJxc6 bxc6 12 �xc6 :l.b8 Black is</p><p>at least equal.</p><p>7 . . . .ig4</p><p>8 1Va4?!</p><p>The queenside action does not seem to</p><p>be too dangerous.</p><p>a) 8 'Mib3? is also dubious, when after</p><p>8 . . . �xf3! 9 �xf7+ �f8 10 gxf3 i.b6 1 1</p><p>i.xg8 :l.xg8 1 2 d5 ctJe7 1 3 �c2 g5 Black</p><p>is much better according to Sokolsky.</p><p>b) 8 �b5!? is objectively the best</p><p>move. After 8 . . . exd4 9 cxd4 i.d7 10 i.b2</p><p>Black has two important lines to consider:</p><p>b1) 1 0 . . . ctJce7?! 1 1 �xd7+ �xd7 1 2</p><p>ctJa3 ctJh6 13 ctJc4 i.b6 14 a4 c6 1 5 e5 d5</p><p>1 1 2</p><p>1 6 ctJd6+ �f8 1 7 i.a3 �g8 1 8 .l::Ib 1 and</p><p>White was much better in l'vf.Chigorin­</p><p>W.Steinitz, Havana match (game 1) 1 892.</p><p>b2) 10 ... ctJf6 1 1 ctJa3 ctJxe4 (1 1 .. .0-0 Jed</p><p>to draws in games 3 and 5 of the match)</p><p>12 dS ctJe7 13 �a4? (13 i.xg7 is better)</p><p>1 3 . . . �c3! 14 Mab1 i.xb2 1 5 :!.xb2 ctJc5</p><p>16 �d4 0-0 and Black was t\vo pawns up</p><p>in l'vf.Chigorin-W.Steinitz, Havana match</p><p>(game 13) 1 892. As you can see Steinitz</p><p>gave up upon attacking with the queen</p><p>later on in his career, which was probably</p><p>quite wise.</p><p>8 . . . a6!</p><p>This puts the most pressure on \Xi'hite</p><p>to perform.</p><p>a) 8 .. . exd4 9 cxd4 a6 (9 . . . i.xf3 1 0 gxf3</p><p>is the next note) 1 0 i.dS i.b6 1 1 i.xc6+</p><p>bxc6 12 �xc6+ i.d7 1 3 'i¥c3 ctJe7 14</p><p>ctJa3 0-0 1 5 CLlc4 d5 16 exdS ctJxdS and</p><p>Black achieved equality, M.Chigorin­</p><p>W.Steinitz, Havana match (game 1 5)</p><p>1 892. But maybe he wants more?</p><p>b) 8 .. . i.xf3 9 gxf3 exd4 10 cxd4 a6?!</p><p>(more reliable is 10 ... 'i¥f6 1 1 �bS!? 'i¥xf3</p><p>12 �xc6+ bxc6 13 'i¥xc6+ �e7 14 'i¥xa8</p><p>'i¥g4+ with a draw - Chigorin) 1 1 �dS</p><p>l:i'Jge7 1 2 �xc6+ CLlxc6 1 3 d5 bS 1 4 'iVa3</p><p>l:i'Jb4 (or 14 . . . Ci'Jd4 1 5 'i¥xa5 'i¥f6 1 6 'iVa3</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: In tro ducing 5 . . . :1L a 5</p><p>b4 1 7 � d3 ltJxf3+ 1 8 \t>g2 ltJh4+ 1 9</p><p>\t>h3! tt:Jg6 20 �b3 and White is better</p><p>according to Chigorin) 1 5 �xaS �f6 1 6</p><p>�a3 tt:Jc2 (or 1 6 . . . ) 1 7 �d3 tt:Jxa1 1 8 �e2</p><p>0-0 1 9 .tb2 �h6 20 .txa1 with advan­</p><p>tage to White, M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz,</p><p>Havana match (game 1 7) 1 892.</p><p>9 t'Llg5</p><p>Incorrect is 9 dS?! bS 10 .txbS axbS 1 1</p><p>�xbS tt:Jge7 1 2 dxc6 0-0 and Black is just</p><p>better.</p><p>9 . . . t'Llh6 1 0 �d5</p><p>10 dS? is even worse this time around.</p><p>After 10 . . . b5 1 1 .txbS axbS 12 �xbS</p><p>�b8 1 3 �xc6+ .td7 14 �c4 J.bS 1 5</p><p>�b3 J.xf1 and Black is much better.</p><p>1 0 . . . �b6 1 1 dxe5</p><p>1 1 . . . 0-0?</p><p>An understandable decision, but there</p><p>was little reason not to recapture immedi­</p><p>ately. After 1 1 . . .dxe5! 1 2 J.xc6+ (Black is</p><p>also better after 12 h3 J.d7 1 3 tiJf3 �f6</p><p>or 12 tiJf3?! 0-0 1 3 J.xc6 .txf3 14 gxf3</p><p>bxc6) 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3 �xc6+ .td7 14 �dS</p><p>0-0 1 5 h3! (if 1 5 tiJf3? J.bS 1 6 l:i.e1 tt:Jg4</p><p>with a clear advantage) 1 S . . . .tbS 1 6 l:i.e1</p><p>l:i.e8 the two bishops give Black an excel­</p><p>lent game.</p><p>1 2 �xc6 bxc6 1 3 h3 �e2</p><p>This also looks a bit strange. Black</p><p>must have had some fantasy about attack­</p><p>ing f2, but surely the rook move is to</p><p>White's m·erall advantage?</p><p>1 4 �e1 �h5 1 5 t'Lla3</p><p>1 5 exd6 �f6 1 6 �c2 cxd6 1 7 eS .tg6</p><p>1 8 exf6 .txc2 1 9 ltJa3 J.g6 20 ltJc4 .tcS</p><p>21 fxg7 \t>xg7 22 .tf4 is also good for</p><p>White.</p><p>1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6 �xc6 �d3 1 7 �e3</p><p>�fd8 1 8 t'Llc4</p><p>1 8 . . . f6?</p><p>This is just complete capitulation.</p><p>White will happily use the e6-square to</p><p>create mayhem around the black king.</p><p>Necessary was something like 1 8 . . . �xc3</p><p>1 9 l:i.ac1 �b4 20 ltJxeS .txe3 21 l:i.xe3</p><p>�aS 22 �c3 �xc3 23 l:i.exc3 f6 24 g4</p><p>.te8 25 ltJe6 fxeS 26 ltJxd8 l:i.xd8 27</p><p>l:i.xc7 tt:Jf7 and Black still has some draw­</p><p>ing chances.</p><p>1 9 �xb6 cxb6 20 �e3 �c2 21 t'Lle6</p><p>�d1 +</p><p>Or 2 1 ...l:i.dc8 22 �d7 tt:Jf7 23 tt:Jxb6</p><p>and wins.</p><p>22 �xd1 �xd1 + 23 �h2 �a7</p><p>After 23 ... l:i.e8 24 l:i.g3 is another road</p><p>kill.</p><p>24 'il¥c8+ �f7 25 t'Lld8+ 1 -0</p><p>1 1 3</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>,.---------------. (Levenfish) and Black can hardly be</p><p>Game 40</p><p>M . Chigorin-5 .Aiapin</p><p>Vienna 1898</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lDf3 tbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 i.d7</p><p>This might look a litde passive, but at</p><p>the same time it is quite solid.</p><p>8 'i!Vb3</p><p>Instead, too much aggression can land</p><p>you in trouble ...</p><p>a) 8 CDg5?! CDh6 9 f4 exd4 10 e5 0-0 1 1</p><p>e6 fxe6 1 2 i.xe6+ i.xe6 1 3 ctJxe6 if f6 14</p><p>CDxfB �xf8 1 5 i.b2 i.b6 and Black is</p><p>much better.</p><p>However, too peaceful play can also</p><p>lessen your chances of winning ...</p><p>b) 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 CDbd2 �f6 10 .tdS</p><p>CiJge7 (after 1 0 ... i.xc3 1 1 .�b1 i.xd2</p><p>1 2.'ifxd2 �b8 13.CiJgS ctJh6 1 4.it.a3</p><p>iff4?! 1 S.ifxf4 exf4 1 6.�fc1 White was</p><p>clearly better in A.Lundqvist-S.Kjellander,</p><p>correspondence 19S9) 1 1 "iib3 0-0 1 2</p><p>l:iJc4 h6 1 3 a4 .tb6 14 i.a3 (or 14 aS</p><p>.tcS 1 S .txc6 l:iJxc6 1 6 �xb7 :fc8 1 7</p><p>"iibS with equal play) 14 ... ctJaS 1 S l:iJxaS</p><p>.txa5 1 6 .txe7 'Wfxe7 1 7 'ifxb7 a6 1 8</p><p>:fc1 :fb8 1 9 'ifxa8 !'ha8 20 .txa8</p><p>1 1 4</p><p>worse here.</p><p>8 . . . 'i!Ve7</p><p>Instead 8 ... 'ti'f6 9 dxeS dxeS 1 0 :d1 h6</p><p>1 1 .ta3 (here 1 1 i.xt7+?! 'iixt7 12 'ifxt7+</p><p>�xt7 1 3 �xd7+ looks tempting, but after</p><p>1 3 ... 'Llge7 1 4 �fl �e6 1 5 .l:td3 �ad8</p><p>Black is better) 1 1 .. .�d8 12 CiJbd2 i.b6</p><p>1 3 i.dS CiJaS 1 4 'Wib4 cS 1 5 "iih2 tbe 7 1 6</p><p>ctJb3 l:iJxb3 1 7 'ifxb3 0-0 1 8 .txb 7 ctJg6</p><p>1 9 c4 ctJf4 20 'Wfe3 i.g4 21 Jtd5 was un­</p><p>clear in M.Chigorin-W.Steinitz, Havana</p><p>match (game 7) 1 892 (another Evans</p><p>Gambit between the two gendemen!).</p><p>Now Black has to play sharply to stay</p><p>alive: 21 . . .i.h3! 22 g3 CiJxdS 23 exdS .tg4</p><p>24 �g2 'WifS 2S ctJh4 it'd7 26 �e1 .th3+</p><p>27 �g1 etc.</p><p>9 dxe5</p><p>White can also try a queenside offen­</p><p>sive with 9 a4!? it.b6 10 dxeS dxeS 1 1 aS</p><p>ctJxaS 1 2 �xaS!? .txa5 1 3 .ta3 cS 14</p><p>'ifxb7 �c8 1 5 i.bS �c7 1 6 "iib8+ 'Wid8</p><p>1 7 .txd7+ �xd7 1 8 'WfxeS+ it'e7 19 ifxg7</p><p>'iff6 20 'ifg3 it.b6 as in S.Winawer­</p><p>S.Alapin, Warsaw 1 890. Now White</p><p>should play 21 ctJbd2! with compensation</p><p>for the material investment according to</p><p>Matsukevich.</p><p>Th e E va n s Gambit: Introducing 5 . . . i.. a 5</p><p>9 i.a3?! is too sketchy, however. After</p><p>9.)bh6 1 0 dxeS tbxeS 1 1 tbxeS "ilfxeS 1 2</p><p>"ilfxb7 tbg4! Black is better, as 1 3 f4 "i!Vhs</p><p>14 h3 i..b6+ 15 �h1 0-0 allows him a</p><p>crushing attack.</p><p>9 . . . dxe5 1 0 .Ud1</p><p>Also interesting is 10 i..a3!? 'i¥f6 1 1</p><p>tbbd2 tbge7 (or 1 1 .. .i..b6 1 2 i.bS a6 1 3</p><p>i..xc6 i.xc6 14 tbc4 and White has fine</p><p>compensation) 12 i.bS 0-0 1 3 tbc4 i.b6</p><p>14 .ixc6 .ixc6 1 5 tbcxeS :fe8 with an</p><p>unclear game.</p><p>1 0 . . . i.b6</p><p>Here 10 .. . :d8! can be met in two in­</p><p>teresting ways (at least it has in practice) :</p><p>a) The first is the most controversial:</p><p>1 1 i.a3 'i¥f6 12 tbbd2 tbge7 1 3 .ibS 0-0</p><p>14 tbc4 .itb6 15 i..xc6 il.xc6 16 tbcxeS</p><p>il.xe4</p><p>when we have a position that was the</p><p>starting point of a quarrel between the</p><p>two Russian greats Alapin and Chigorin.</p><p>Alapin believed that Black has a better</p><p>game, while Chigorin thought that White</p><p>should come out on top. Chigorin was of</p><p>course the better chess player, but on this</p><p>occasion Alapin was right. Even in the</p><p>strongest line 1 7 .l::i.xd8 :xd8 1 8 'i¥xt7+</p><p>'i¥xf7 1 9 tbxt7 :eS! White needs to use</p><p>all his influence in heaven (or hell) to</p><p>even make a draw.</p><p>b) More sensible is 1 1 .l::i.dS!? i..b6 12</p><p>i..bS 'i¥e6 1 3 i.xc6 'i¥xc6 14 tbxeS 'i¥e6</p><p>1 5 :xd7 :xd7 1 6 'ifxe6+ fxe6</p><p>1 7 tbxd7</p><p>�xd7 1 8 �f1 tbf6 1 9 f3 lieS 20 tbd2</p><p>.itaS 21 J.b2 with plain equality, St. Pe­</p><p>tersburg-Paris, telegraph match 1 894.</p><p>1 1 .ia3 'ikf6 1 2 i.xf7 + 'f/xf7 1 3</p><p>'fixf7+ 'it>xf7 1 4 l:!.xd7+ ti:Jge7</p><p>14 ... �g6? 15 tbbd2 tbf6 runs into 1 6</p><p>tbh4+ �hS 17 lixg 7 ! 'lt>xh4 1 8 tbf3+</p><p>'lt>hS 1 9 ligS+ 'lt>h6 20 i.c1 and White</p><p>WlOS.</p><p>1 5 'it>t1 ? !</p><p>Not 1 5 tbxeS?! tbxeS 1 6 :xe7+ 'lt>f6</p><p>when 1 7 ... :ad8 gives Black strong coun­</p><p>terplay, but 1 5 .iLxe 7 '1t>e6 1 6 lidS 'lt>xe 7</p><p>1 7 tbxeS nets a pawn.</p><p>1 5 . . . l:!.ad8 1 6 l:!.xd8 l:!.xd8 1 7 ti:Jbd2</p><p>The position is more or less equal. The</p><p>white c3-pawn and the black eS-pawn</p><p>balance each other out.</p><p>1 7 . . . tt:Jg6</p><p>Not the best position for the knight.</p><p>1 8 g3 .ia5 1 9 l:!.c1 h6?!</p><p>Better was 1 9 . . . 'lt>f6 20 '1t>e2 tbh8 21</p><p>gb1 gS!? 22 h3 b6 23 i..b4 hS and Black</p><p>has nice play.</p><p>1 1 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>20 �e2 .a:d7 21 tt'lb3 �b6 22 �c5</p><p>�f6 23 .a:c2 tt'lh8 24 .a:d2 .a:xd2 + 25</p><p>tt'ltxd2 g5 26 tt'lc4</p><p>White has a small edge here, but did</p><p>not make anything of it in the game.</p><p>26 . . . tt'lf7 27 tt'le3 �e6 28 lLld5 �d7</p><p>29 tt'lf6+ �e6 30 tt'ld5 �d7 31 �d3</p><p>tt'lcd8 32 f3 �xc5 33 tt'lxc5 + �d6 34</p><p>tt'lb3 c6 35 tt'le3 b6 36 tt'lf5+ �e6 37</p><p>�e3 �f6 Y2 -Y2</p><p>Game 4 1</p><p>V . Skotoren ko-H .Ahman</p><p>Correspondence 19 7 6</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt'lt3 tt'lc6 3 �c4 �c5 4 b4</p><p>�xb4 5 c3 �a5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 �b6!?</p><p>1 1 6</p><p>This was Emanuel Lasker's idea and is</p><p>therefore known as the Lasker Defence.</p><p>Although in that case we should be able</p><p>to label all kinds of minor lines, which do</p><p>not deserve names of their own.</p><p>8 dxe5</p><p>8 a4 is an alternative, though not one</p><p>that I can recommend. I am not supersti­</p><p>tious, but Black has won all the games I</p><p>have seen from here. For example:</p><p>a) 8 .. ::t:Jf6 9 j,bS a6 10 j,xc6+ bxc6 1 1</p><p>aS j,a7 1 2 'ii'a4 exd4 1 3 cxd4 j,d7 1 4 eS</p><p>lLld5 1 5 j,a3 0-0 16 'iV c4 lLlf4 1 7 \t>h 1</p><p>(1 7 exd6, retaining the pressure, is prefer­</p><p>able according to Matsukevich) 1 7 .. . j,e6</p><p>1 8 'iV c 1 lLlxg2! 1 9 �xg2 j,dS 20 �g3 fS</p><p>21 lLlbd2 f4+ 22 �g2 'ii'gs+ 23 �h1 'ii'h5</p><p>24 'ii'c3 j,xd4 and Black won in St.</p><p>Petersburg-Vienna, telegraph match 1 898.</p><p>b) 8 ... exd4 9 cxd4 j,g4 10 j,bs a6 1 1</p><p>j,xc6+ bxc6 1 2 aS j,a 7 1 3 j,e3 lbe 7 14</p><p>lbc3 0-0 1 S 'iV c2 j,xf3 1 6 gxf3 fS and</p><p>Black was better, M.Chigorin-Em.Lasker,</p><p>St. Petersburg 1 897.</p><p>8 . . . dxe5 9 'ifb3</p><p>Others:</p><p>a) 9 j,x£7+? would only work in a</p><p>blitz-game with three minutes or less. It</p><p>certainly does not work in correspon­</p><p>dence chess: 9 ... �xf7 10 lLlxeS+ �e8! 1 1</p><p>'ii'h5+ g6 12 lLlxg6 lLlf6 13 'ii'h6 .Mg8 14</p><p>lLlh4 lLleS 15 g3 lLleg4 1 6 'iV f4 lLlh5 17</p><p>'ii'f3 'ii'xh4 0-1 Kopel-Grocescu, corre­</p><p>spondence 1989.</p><p>b) 9 'ii'xd8+ leads to an interesting end­</p><p>game after 9 . . . l2Jxd8 10 lLlxeS j,e6 1 1</p><p>lLJd2 lLJe7 and now we have:</p><p>a) 1 2 j,a3?! f6 1 3 lLld3 lLlg6 1 4 Mab1</p><p>�f7 1 S j,dS .Me8 1 6 c4 c6 1 7 j,xe6+</p><p>lLlxe6 and Black is at least slightly better,</p><p>M.Chigorin-H.Pillsbury, London 1 899.</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: In tro ducing 5 . . . Ji. a 5</p><p>b) 12 a4! (best) 1 2 . . .':tJg6 (not 12 . . . c6?!</p><p>13 i.a3 f6 1 4 lZ'lef3 �£7 15 l2Jd4 i.xc4</p><p>16 lZ'lxc4 i.c7 1 7 .l::i.fd1 g6 1 8 lZ'lf5! any­</p><p>way, and White was better in S.Holzner­</p><p>K.Elison, correspondence 1 997) 1 3 lZ'lxg6</p><p>hxg6 14 i.a3 i.d7 1 5 i.b3 lZ'le6 16 .l::i.fe1</p><p>.l::i.h5 1 7 i.d 1 .l::i.h4 1 8 lZ'lc4 i.c5 19 lZ'le5</p><p>i.xa3 20 .l::i.xa3 lZ'lc5 21 i.c2 i.e6 22 g3</p><p>.l::i.h5 23 lZ'lf3 0-0-0 with equality, J .Bohak­</p><p>S.Holzner, correspondence 1998.</p><p>9 . . J!Vf6</p><p>The normal move, though not the only</p><p>one. Alternatively:</p><p>a) 9 . . . 'ii'd7!? is an unusual transposition</p><p>to Game 47 in the next chapter.</p><p>b) 9 . . . 'ii'e7 is also possible, e.g. 1 0 i.a3</p><p>'ii'f6 1 1 lZ'lbd2 (after 1 1 lZ'lg5?! lZ'lh6 12 h4</p><p>lZ'la5 13 'ii'a4+ i.d7 14 i.b5 0-0-0 and</p><p>Black was more-or-less winning in</p><p>D.Kilgour-S.Mannion, Scottish Champi­</p><p>onship 1 985, or if 1 1 i.d5 lZ'la5 12 'ii'b4</p><p>lZ'lh6 13 lZ'lbd2 c6 and White's initiative is</p><p>gone) 1 1 . ..lZ'lge 7 12 i.d5 i.g4 (or</p><p>12 ... lZ'la5 immediately) 1 3 c4 lZ'la5 14 'ii'c3</p><p>i.xf3 1 5 lZ'lxf3 c6 1 6 c5 i.c7 1 7 i.b3 0-0</p><p>and Black was just a pawn up, J .Galiana</p><p>Salom-R.Calvo �iinguez, Palma de Mal­</p><p>lorca 1991 .</p><p>1 0 .tg5 'i'g6 1 1 Ji,d5</p><p>This indirect pressure on e5 is often a</p><p>very important tool for White in the Ev­</p><p>ans Gambit.</p><p>After the slower 1 1 lZ'lbd2?! lZ'lf6 12</p><p>'ii'a3 lZ'ld7 1 3 i.e3 'ii'd6 14 'ii'xd6 cxd6 15</p><p>i.xb6 lZ'lxb6 16 i.b3 lZ'la5 Black just kept</p><p>the pawn in V.Ciocaltea-G.Alexandrescu,</p><p>Bucharest 1954 .</p><p>1 1 . . .<�jge7 1 2 .txe7 �xe7 1 3 .txc6</p><p>'i'xc6 1 4 tt'lxe5 'i'e6 1 5 tt'lc4</p><p>If 1 5 'ii'a3+ 'ii'd6 and Black will keep</p><p>his position together.</p><p>1 5 . . . .tc5</p><p>15 ... .l::i.d8 1 6 lZ'lbd2 �f8 17 �h 1 i.c5</p><p>transposes to the game, while after 1 6</p><p>'ii'a3+ �e8 1 7 lZ'lxb6 cxb6 the position is</p><p>equal according to Yakov Estrin.</p><p>1 6 tt'lbd2 .Md8 1 7 �h1 �f8 1 8 f4</p><p>'i'e8 1 9 tt'lf3 b6</p><p>Or 1 9 .. . a6 20 .l::i.ae1 b5 21 lZ'lce5 i.e6</p><p>22 'ii'c2 i.d6 with an unclear position.</p><p>20 f5 h6 21 .Mfe1 a5 22 'i'c2 .ta6 23</p><p>tt'lce5</p><p>23 . . . �g8?</p><p>The most important thing in this posi­</p><p>tion is to keep control of the sixth rank.</p><p>Therefore 23 ... .l::i.d6! 24 .l::i.ad1 .l::i.ad8 was</p><p>correct, with an unclear game.</p><p>24 tt'lg4 .tf8 25 'i'f2 'i'd7? !</p><p>1 1 7</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>25 .. . h5? would be even worse after 26</p><p>'i*'h4! hxg4 27 tt:Jg5 i.c5 28 e5 J.b7 29 f6</p><p>and White wins, but with 25 ... c5 26 'Y!!Yg3</p><p>Wh8 27 e5 l:td3 Black still has chances of</p><p>creating counterplay.</p><p>26 'iVg3 �h7</p><p>If 26...Wh8 27 f6 c5 28 "i!Vh4 and White</p><p>is much better.</p><p>27 f6 i.c8 28 h3! c5 29 'ii'h4 "ikc7 30</p><p>tt'lg5+</p><p>White is also on top after 30 e5 i.xg4</p><p>31 'iixg4.</p><p>30 . . . �g6</p><p>1 1 8</p><p>3 1 tt'lxf7?</p><p>A real 'showing off' move, which is</p><p>quite empty too. In our age the use of</p><p>computers excludes this kind of mistake</p><p>from correspondence games. Instead</p><p>simply 31 tL!£3 'itth 7 32 e5 gives White</p><p>everything.</p><p>3 1 . . . �xf7</p><p>The point was 31 ...ii..xg4 32 tL!xd8</p><p>.id7 33 e5 �xd8 34 e6 and White wins.</p><p>32 fxg7 i.xg4??</p><p>This is very questionable. Here</p><p>32 .. . i.xg7 33 t2Jxh6+ i.xh6 34 'tixh6 may</p><p>look dangerous, but what about the main</p><p>game?! In fact, after 34 .. . �g8 35 "ii'g5+ (if</p><p>35 :e3? 'tig7 36 "ii'xb6 :d2 and Black is</p><p>better) 35 .. .'�h 7 36 "ii'hS+ White only has</p><p>a draw.</p><p>Whereas now White just wins.</p><p>33 gxf8'it' + Itxf8 34 'i!Vxg4 �e5 35</p><p>.l::tab1 .l::tab8 36 �f1 + �e7 37 lifd1</p><p>'ii'e6 38 'ii'g3 1 -0</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit: Introducing 5 . . . � a 5</p><p>Summary</p><p>The games presented in this chapter indicate that Black has several sound ways of</p><p>meeting 6 0-0, one of them being the 'Lasker Defence' with 6 ... d6 7 d4 .ib6. I believe</p><p>that the main reason for this is that the advantages for White of having castled are</p><p>slightly more long term than those of an immediate attack on the black centre with 6 d4</p><p>· as in the next chapter) . Therefore I do not feel that the lines with 6 0-0 are truly dan­</p><p>gerous for Black.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 i.c4 .ic5 4 b4 .ixb4 5 c3 .ia5 6 0-0 (D)</p><p>6 Vi'b3 (D) - Game 36</p><p>6 d4 - Chapter 9</p><p>6 . . . d6</p><p>6 ... Vi'f6 - Game 37</p><p>6 ... ctJf6 - Game 38</p><p>7 d4</p><p>7 ... exd4 8 cxd4 .ib6 - Chapter 7</p><p>7 . . . i.g4 - Game 39</p><p>7 .. . i.d7 - Game 40</p><p>7 ... .ib6 (D) - Game 4 1</p><p>6 0-0 6 �b3 7 . . . i.b6</p><p>1 1 9</p><p>CHAPTER NINE I</p><p>The Evans Gambit :</p><p>The Main Line with 5 . . . ila5</p><p>In this chapter we shall examine the posi­</p><p>tions arising after 1 e4 e5 2 tt'lf3 tt'lc6 3</p><p>.i.c4 .i.c5 4 b4 .i.xb4 5 c3 .i.a5 6 d4</p><p>This is Howard Staunton's idea, which</p><p>has the advantage that 'W'hite can avoid</p><p>Lasker's Defence (as seen in Chapter 8)</p><p>by answering 6 . . . d6 with something other</p><p>than 7 0-0. Basically 'W'hite is putting time</p><p>over material, which is of course a risky</p><p>strategy. But as they say ... he who risks</p><p>nothing gains nothing.</p><p>Game 42</p><p>A .Anderssen-J . Dufresne</p><p>Berlin</p><p>1852</p><p>tive as 'W'hite plays more strongly with 7</p><p>dxe5, and then:</p><p>al) 7 . . . h6?! 8 VlVd5 VlVe7 9 i.a3 VlVe6 10</p><p>._ ____________ ...,. VlVd3 CLJxe5 1 1 CLJxe5 VlVxe5 1 2 f4 �5 13</p><p>This is one of the most famous games</p><p>in chess history. It is known as the Ever­</p><p>green Game.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt'lf3 tt'lc6 3 .i.c4 .i.c5 4 b4</p><p>.i.xb4 5 c3 .i.a5 6 d4 exd4</p><p>The main alternative 6 ... d6 is seen in</p><p>Games 46-48. Black has also tried:</p><p>a) 6 .. . i.b6, with the idea of 7 0-0 d6</p><p>and Black welcomes himself to the</p><p>lounge of the Lasker Defence, is ineffec-</p><p>1 2 0</p><p>CLJd2 d6 14 i.b5+ i.d7 1 5 i.xd7+ �xd7</p><p>1 6 e5 .l.:!.e8 17 CLJf3 VlVg4 1 8 g3 �c8 19</p><p>0-0-0 and White had a strong initiative in</p><p>S.Tartakower-O.Chajes, Carlsbad 1 923.</p><p>a2) 7 ... CLJge7 8 i.f4 0-0 9 0-0 ctJg6 10</p><p>i.g3 VlVe7 1 1 VlVd5 with a bind, e.g.</p><p>1 1 ....l.:!.e8 12 CLJbd2 CLJcxe5 1 3 CLJxe5 CLJxeS</p><p>14 i.xe5 VlVxe5 1 5 VlVxf7+ �h8 1 6 CLJf3</p><p>VlVe7 1 7 ctJg5 g6 1 8 VlVf4 .l.:!.f8 1 9 VlVh4 c6</p><p>20 �h1 i.d8 21 f4 h5 22 .l.:!.ae1 �g7 23</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . i.. a 5</p><p>'i¥f2 il.c7 24 "ifd4+ 1 -0 W.Muir­</p><p>R.Peeples, correspondence 1983.</p><p>b) 6 .. . "ife7?! does not seem to work ei­</p><p>ther. After 7 0-0 iL b6 8 il.a3 "if f6 (or</p><p>8 . . . d6 9 il.bS il.d7 10 iLxc6 iLxc6 1 1</p><p>CUxeS il.bS 1 2 l:!.e1 "ife6 1 3 CUf3 0-0-0 14</p><p>il.b2 aS 1 S CUbd2 "ifd7 1 6 c4 and White</p><p>was much better in E.Sveshnikov­</p><p>A.Sofieva, Cappelle la Grande 199S) 9</p><p>dxeS CUxeS 1 0 CUxeS "if xeS 1 1 "i¥b3 ctJh6</p><p>12 CUd2 il.cs 1 3 cuf3 "ife7 1 4 iLc1 0-0,</p><p>V.Ragozin-G.Levenfish, USSR Champi­</p><p>onship 1 949, and now 1 S iLxh6 gxh6 1 6</p><p>eS d6 1 7 l:!.ae 1 Jl.g4 1 8 exd6 "ifxd6 1 9</p><p>CUeS il.hS 20 "ifxb 7 with the advantage.</p><p>c) 6 . . . bS!? is a strange counter-gambit.</p><p>After 7 il.xbS CUxd4 8 CUxd4 exd4 9</p><p>"ifxd4 "iff6 (or 9 . . . CUf6 10 il.a3) 10 eS</p><p>\'Vhite is better according to Matsukevitch</p><p>- and he really is!</p><p>7 0-0</p><p>7 "ifb3!? is an interesting alternative,</p><p>and then:</p><p>a) 7 .. . "iff6!? 8 0-0 il.b6 (8 . . . d3 would be</p><p>the Evergreen Game again, 8 . . . dxc3 is</p><p>Game 43, while 8 .. . d6 transposes to the</p><p>Waller Attack in the notes to Game 39) 9</p><p>eS "if g6 1 0 cxd4 CUaS (improving on</p><p>l O . . . CUxd4?! 1 1 CUxd4 il.xd4 12 CUc3</p><p>CUh6, H.Bird-1\f.Chigorin, Hastings 1 89S,</p><p>when 13 il.a3! would give White good</p><p>compensation for the pawn) 1 1 "i¥a4</p><p>CUxc4 12 "ifxc4 CUe7 1 3 il.a3 "ife6 14 dS</p><p>"ifxdS (if 14 . . . CUxdS 1 S CUgS! is strong) 1 S</p><p>"if e2 cug6 16 cuc3 cuf4 1 7 "ifb2 "if d3 1 8</p><p>l:!.ae1 "i¥g6 19 CUh4 "i¥g4 20 g3 ctJd3 21</p><p>"ifc2 CUxe1 22 l:!.xe1 �d8 23 CUdS l:!.e8,</p><p>N.Short-J .Piket, Zurich 2001 , and now</p><p>after 24 il.cS! 'W'hite would have main­</p><p>tained a dangerous initiative according to</p><p>Lukacs.</p><p>b) 7 . . . "ife7 (the main line, but not nec­</p><p>essarily stronger) 8 0-0 il.b6 9 cxd4 and</p><p>then:</p><p>b1) 9 . . . CUaS 10 "ifa4 CUxc4 1 1 "ifxc4 d6</p><p>12 a4 c6 13 CUc3 "ifd8 (or 1 3 . . . ctJf6 14 aS</p><p>iLc7 1 S dS with compensation) 14 aS</p><p>iLxaS 1 S il.gS f6 1 6 il.d2 CUe7 1 7 l:!.fe1</p><p>bS 1 8 "i¥b3 il.b6 19 eS! dS 20 exf6 gxf6</p><p>21 CUxbS 0-0 (not 2 1 . . .axbS? when 22</p><p>il.b4 wins) 22 il.b4 CUfS? (unnecessary;</p><p>22 . . . Mf7 23 CUd6 l:!.g 7 would have been</p><p>unclear) 23 iLxf8 "ifxf8 24 CUc3 and</p><p>'W'hite was clearly much better in</p><p>E.Sutovsky-S.Smagin, Essen 2001 .</p><p>b2) 9 . . . CUxd4 10 CUxd4 il.xd4 1 1 CUc3</p><p>(after 1 1 il.b2?! d6 12 CUc3 ctJf6 1 3 l:!.ad1</p><p>iLxc3 14 "ifxc3 "ifeS! and Black has no</p><p>1 2 1</p><p>I ta lian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>problems) 1 1 . . .'l::lf6 12 'l::lb5! d5 (if</p><p>12 . . . ..teS 1 3 i..a3 gives White good at­</p><p>tacking chances, e.g. 13 . . . d6 14 :ac1 c6</p><p>1 5 f4! or 1 3 . . . c5 14 �ac1 a6 1 5 .ltxc5 d6</p><p>1 6 i..xd6! i..xd6 1 7 'l::lxd6+ 'i!ixd6 1 7 e5</p><p>and White wins - Lukacs) 13 exdS i..xa 1</p><p>14 i..a3 'ife5 1 5 f4 i..d4+ 1 6 �h1 'ii'e3 1 7</p><p>lLlxd4! 'ifxb3 1 8 l:te1+ �d8 1 9 Jte7+</p><p>'iit>d7 20 'l::lxb3 (White has excellent com­</p><p>pensation even without the queens on)</p><p>20 . . . c6 21 d6 b6 22 i..xf7 c5? (22 .. . lt:ld5</p><p>was necessary) 23 'l::ld2 �c6 24 'l::lc4 i..f5</p><p>25 CDe5+ 'it>b 7 26 a4? (overlooking 26</p><p>l'!e3! intending .i:Ig3 and .l::txg 7 when</p><p>Black has hardly any defence) 26 . . . h5 27</p><p>i.xf6 gxf6 28 i.d5+ 'it>a6 29 i..c4+ 'it>b 7</p><p>30 i..d5+ 'iit>a6 with a draw by perpetual</p><p>check, N.Short-P.H.Nielsen, Skanderborg</p><p>2003.</p><p>7 . . . d3? !</p><p>7 .. . dxc3? 8 'ifb3 'ti'f6 9 e5 'ti'g6 1 0</p><p>'l::lxc3 CDge7 1 1 i.a3! has been tried nu­</p><p>merous times and, according to Garry</p><p>Kasparov, Black is in trouble (see the</p><p>next game) . The more prudent 7 . . . CDge7 is</p><p>considered in Games 44 and 45 below.</p><p>8 ..Wb3</p><p>White should build up his attack. 8</p><p>.l:.e1 i..b6 9 e5 h6 10 lLlbd2 CDge7 1 1 CDe4</p><p>1 2 2</p><p>was also strong in L.Prins-A.Fuderer,</p><p>Rogaska Slatina 1948. But 8 CDg5?! CDh6 9</p><p>eS 'l::lxeS! 1 0 !:tel (as in A.Anderssen­</p><p>C.Mayet, Berlin match 1851) is shown to</p><p>be too hasty after 1 0 .. . d6! 1 1 f4 CDhg4 12</p><p>CDh3 0-0 1 3 fxeS CDxe5 and Black is at</p><p>least slightly better here.</p><p>8 . . .'it'f6</p><p>9 e5</p><p>Also interesting is 9 .l:.e1 !? CDge7 1 0</p><p>i..g5 'i'g6 1 1 i.xe7 'iit>xe7 12 e 5 'it>f8?!</p><p>(better is 12 .. . .l:.e8 with an unclear posi­</p><p>tion) 1 3 CDbd2 .ltb6 14 lt:le4 lt:ld8? 1 5</p><p>'ti' a3+ 'iit>e8 1 6 CDf6+ gxf6 1 7 exf6+ 1 -0</p><p>A.Anderssen-S.Rosenthal, Vienna 1 873.</p><p>Black could have played more strongly</p><p>with 1 4 .. . d5, but after 1 5 i..xd5 i..g4 1 6</p><p>CDegS White still enjoys a wonderful at­</p><p>tack.</p><p>9 . . . ..Wg6 1 0 l:te1</p><p>This is better then 1 0 CDbd2?! CDge7 1 1</p><p>.l:.e1 0-0 1 2 'l::le4 dS 1 3 exd6 cxd6 1 4</p><p>i.xd3 d5 1 5 'l::lc5 'ti'h5 1 6 i.g5 'l::lg6 1 7</p><p>i.d2 i.b6 1 8 "ifh5 i.g4 1 9 lDg5 h 6 2 0 h3</p><p>hxg5 21 hxg4 'ti'xg4 22 i.e2 "iVf5 23 i..d3</p><p>'iff6 and Black had a big advantage in</p><p>S.Conquest-M.Narciso Dublan, Pam­</p><p>plana 2001 . Now why would anybody try</p><p>to improve on one of the greatest games</p><p>Th e E va n s Gambit: The Main L in e with 5 . . . � a 5</p><p>ever? Well, if you did not look, would you</p><p>remember the exact moves of this game?</p><p>1 0 . . .lbge7</p><p>After 10 ... i..b6 White responds 1 1</p><p>'ilfd1 ! tbh6 1 2 i..xd3 �h5 1 3 h3 with an</p><p>initiative according to Kasparov.</p><p>1 1 .ia3 b5?</p><p>The extra move does little good for</p><p>Black - in the coming play the white</p><p>queen seems better placed at a4 anyway.</p><p>Instead, after 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 "iYd1 White</p><p>would also have a strong initiative, but</p><p>1 1 ...d5! is interesting: 12 exd6 cxd6 1 3</p><p>ltd1 .i.g4 1 4 .i.xd3 �f6 1 5 i.e4 with an</p><p>unclear game ahead.</p><p>1 2 'ifxb5 l:Ib8 1 3 'iVa4 .ib6</p><p>14 tt:ibd2 .ib 7 1 5 tt:le4 'i�Vf5 1 6 J.xd3</p><p>'ii'h5 1 7 tt:if6 + !??</p><p>The beginning of one of the most</p><p>beautiful combinations in chess history.</p><p>Nevertheless, it is also entering com­</p><p>pletely unnecessary complications. White</p><p>could do much better with simple play: 1 7</p><p>tbg3 "iYh6 1 8 .i.c1 ! 'iY e6 19 i..c4 tbd5 20</p><p>tbg5 tbxc3 (or 20 .. . �g4 21 �e4 and</p><p>-wms) 21 'ii'b3 'if e 7 22 t2Jf5 t2Jd4 23</p><p>tbxg7+ �f8 24 'iVxc3 �xg7 25 'iig3 'lt>f8</p><p>26 tbxf7 and White wins easily.</p><p>1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8 exf6 l:tg8 1 9 l:Iad 1 ! ?</p><p>1 9 .te4! was Emanuel Lasker's rec­</p><p>ommendation, after which the position is</p><p>rather unclear. Again Anderssen seems to</p><p>be playing towards his combination, and</p><p>Black helpfully takes whatever is on offer.</p><p>Some people do not know that a lot of</p><p>these famous old games were friendly</p><p>games, played between the rounds of a</p><p>tournament, and that the defence was</p><p>therefore less proactive, more willing to</p><p>see whatever the sacrificing player was up</p><p>to on the board, than in advance in the</p><p>head.</p><p>1 9 . . .'iVxf3?</p><p>Better was 19 ... �g4! (Lipke) 20 �e4!?</p><p>.l::txe4 21 'ifxe4 d6 22 k!e1 'ilg6 and Black</p><p>should hold the position according to</p><p>Kasparov.</p><p>Now White plays his famous combina­</p><p>tion:</p><p>20 l:Ixe7+ ! tbxe7</p><p>If 20 ... 'lt>d8 21 �xd7+! 'lt>c8 22 �d8+</p><p>'lt>xd8 (if 22 ... tbxd8 23 'iid7+! leads to</p><p>mate as in the game) 23 .ie2+ tbd4 24</p><p>i.xf3 i.xf3 25 g3 .ixd1 26 'ifxd1 and</p><p>White has a winning endgame.</p><p>21 'ii'xd7 + ! ! 'it>xd7</p><p>. ctJxf3+</p><p>8 gxf3 i.b6 9 ctJc3 c6 10 .l:te1 with a clear</p><p>advantage) 8 'i¥c2! i.b6 9 'i¥xc4 d6 10</p><p>ctJc3 and White i s better.</p><p>6 0-0</p><p>6 i.gS!? is quite a tricky move, which</p><p>should probably be met with the anti­</p><p>structural 6 .. . f6!?. I have doubts about</p><p>Black's prospects after 6 . . . ctJf6, when I</p><p>would be quite tempted to go for the fol­</p><p>lowing pawn sacrifice, in order to get su­</p><p>preme control over the light squares in</p><p>the centre: 7 dS ctJd8 8 d6 cxd6 (Black</p><p>cannot stand the exchange of queens, as</p><p>his pawn structure is a total ruin after</p><p>8 . . . 'i¥xd6?! 9 'i¥xd6 cxd6 10 i.xf6 gxf6,</p><p>when 1 1 ctJh4 dS 12 i.xdS gives White a</p><p>clear advantage) 9 ctJa3</p><p>and here we should probably look at</p><p>the two lines separately:</p><p>a) 9 ... a6 10 .td5 CLle6 11 CLlc4 .tc7 12</p><p>CLle3 and White is just much better.</p><p>b) 9 ... .txf2+ 10 'Et>e2! d5 (I think this</p><p>might be forced; after 1 O ... .tc5 11 CLlh4</p><p>CLle6 12 CLlf5 'iV f8 13 .txf6 gxf6 14 b4</p><p>CLlf4+ 15 'Et>f3 White is much better) 11</p><p>'ii'xd5 CLlxd5 12 .txe7 'Et>xe7 13 .txd5</p><p>.tc5 14 b4 .td6 15 CLlc4 f6 16 CLle3 and</p><p>White has very good compensation for</p><p>the pawn.</p><p>6 . . . d6</p><p>As I said, I think this position is slightly</p><p>better for White.</p><p>7 a4</p><p>This is not too testing of course. In­</p><p>stead I will here risk my neck and dubious</p><p>reputation on the underestimated 7 d5!,</p><p>claiming it will guarantee White a small</p><p>advantage after 7 ... CLld8 8 .td3 CLlf6 9</p><p>CLlbd2 c6 (Black should of course avoid</p><p>9 ... CLlh5? 10 CLlxe5 'ii'xe5 when 11 CLlc4</p><p>wins) 10 CLlc4 .tc7</p><p>and now White has two interesting</p><p>possibilities to consider:</p><p>a) 11 .tc2!? h6 12 CLle3 0-0 13 h3 cxd5</p><p>14 exd5 CLlh 7 15 CLlf5 'iV f6 16 'iV d3 .txf5</p><p>17 'ii'xf5 'ii'xf5 18 .txf5 g6 19 .tc2 'Et>g 7</p><p>20 CLlh2 f5 21 l:!d1 CLlf6 22 CLlfl CLlf7 23</p><p>c4 and White was slightly better in</p><p>Firs t S t eps in the I talian Game</p><p>A.Tzermiadianos-M.Lazic, Kavala 1996.</p><p>b) 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 b3 .te6 13 'ii'e2</p><p>0-0 14 .ta3 and W'hite is slightly better,</p><p>A.Becker-C.Ahues, Munich Olympiad</p><p>1936.</p><p>So I have some confidence that White</p><p>is seriously fighting for an advantage here,</p><p>or let us say that Black is struggling to</p><p>equalise, and will probably have to come</p><p>up with something else on move 9, but I</p><p>am not really aware of what it would be.</p><p>7 . . . a6 8 il.e3</p><p>8 . . . il.g4? !</p><p>I do not see a great future for the</p><p>bishop on g4. Instead I would recom­</p><p>mend leaving the square vacant for the</p><p>knight. After 8 ... CLlf6 9 CLlbd2 CLlg4 10</p><p>'ii'e2 CLlxe3 11 fxe3 0-0 12 l:!f2 the posi­</p><p>tion is more or less equal.</p><p>9 d5 ll:lb8 1 0 a5 il.xe3 1 1 fxe3 ll:lf6</p><p>1 2 ll:lbd2 ll:lbd7 1 3 �e1 ll:lc5 1 4</p><p>�b1 !</p><p>White is not ashamed of regretting the</p><p>placement of the queen, as Black's knight</p><p>will shortly be driven back to the stables</p><p>with a stick. After something stupid like</p><p>14 'ii'g3?! h5! Black is better because of</p><p>the weakness of the e4-pawn. One line</p><p>goes 15 CLlg5 h4 16 'iV f2 h3 17 g3 l:!h5 18</p><p>1 3</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>b4 l:rxg5 19 bxc5 dxc5 and Black is clearly</p><p>better.</p><p>1 4 . . . ii.c8?!</p><p>Black obviously has trouble getting</p><p>something useful out of his bishop. This</p><p>total retreat, however, is not the best way</p><p>to deal with the issue. After the more re­</p><p>spectful 14 ... 0-0 it is true that 15 b4 li:Jcd7</p><p>16 j,d3 l:rfe8 17 c4 gives White better</p><p>play, but Black can still hold the position.</p><p>1 5 b4 tt'lcd7 1 6 tt'lh4! g6</p><p>This weakness is hard to avoid. After</p><p>16 ... lt:Jg4 17 li:JfS 'iVgS 18 li:Jf3 White is</p><p>better.</p><p>1 7 Vi'e 1 c6 1 8 tt'lhf3 cxd5 1 9 exd5 e4</p><p>20 tt'lg5!?</p><p>The knight begins a long JOurney,</p><p>1 4</p><p>eventually ending up at d4. Though there</p><p>is nothing wrong with this, it seems quite</p><p>logical also to consider going there di­</p><p>rectly. After 20 li:Jd4 li:JeS 21 l:rf4! White</p><p>is much better (but after 21 j,b3 i..d7 22</p><p>'iVe2l:rc8 Black would be able to keep the</p><p>position together), e.g. 21...�d8 (21...0-0?</p><p>22 'iVh4 and White wins) 22 'iVf2 lt:Jeg4</p><p>23 'iVe2 g5 24l:rff1 'iVeS 25 g3 etc.</p><p>20 . . . h6 21 tt'lh3</p><p>Here White should not fall for 21</p><p>'iVM?? li:Jh 7 and Black wins.</p><p>21 . . :�e5 22 �c1 tt'lg4 23 tt'lf4 g5 24</p><p>h3 tt'lgf6 25 tt'le2</p><p>The white knight is getting to the end</p><p>of its long journey, and will land on d4</p><p>and exploit the recent weakening of the</p><p>f5-square. Now Black should have util­</p><p>ised the weaknesses he has created on the</p><p>kingside to obtain counterplay. Instead he</p><p>fell pray to materialism.</p><p>25 . . . tt'lxd5?</p><p>Better was 25 ... g4, though after 26 'iVg3</p><p>'iVe7 27 li:Jd4 lt:JeS 28 hxg4 i.xg4 29 li:JfS</p><p>j_xfS 30 l:!.xfS l:!.g8 31 'iVf4 White has a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>26 ii.xd5 Vi'xd5 27 tt'ld4</p><p>27 . . . Vi'e5?</p><p>This is nothing but a stupid blunder.</p><p>Black should have played 27.Jbf8 28</p><p>'iff2 .l:th7 29CtJf5 'it'xf5 30 'ii'xf5 �xf5 31</p><p>.l:txf5 and White is much better.</p><p>28 lbc4 'i!Vd5 29 lLlf5 '>t>f8</p><p>30 lbfxd6</p><p>Now White wins.</p><p>30 . . . l:!.h7 31 l:!.d1 'ii'c6 32 l:!.d4 b6 33</p><p>axb6 ii.b 7 34 lba5 1 -0</p><p>Game 4</p><p>D . Tyomkin-I .Zugic</p><p>Montreal 2004</p><p>The following game shows another</p><p>way to battle for the advantage against</p><p>4 . . . 'ii'e7, and seems very convincing. With</p><p>simple play White breaks through on the</p><p>queenside before Black can create any</p><p>kind of counterplay on the kingside.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 .i.c4 ii.c5 4 0-0</p><p>d6 5 c3 'fiie7 6 d4 ii.b6 7 h3</p><p>Please note that 4 0-0 is principally harm­</p><p>less, and that 4 c3 'ii'e7 5 d4 �b6 6 0-0</p><p>d6 7 h3 is the more critical move order,</p><p>with which we would reach this position.</p><p>7 . . . lbf6 8 l:!.e1 h6</p><p>This is the beginning of an overopti­</p><p>mistic plan. Black apparently is in a very</p><p>aggressive mood, but his taste for vio-</p><p>Firs t S teps in the I talia n Game</p><p>lence was probably not meant to end in</p><p>the way it did. Sounder was something</p><p>like 8 . . . 0-0 9 a4 a6 10 CtJa3, and here we</p><p>should take a short look at the position</p><p>with Black and try to be reasonable.</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . 'i£th8?! 1 1 CtJc2 CtJg8?! 1 2 b4 f6</p><p>13 CtJe3 left White much better in</p><p>W.Heidenfeld-M.Euwe, Johannesburg</p><p>1 955. Black can improve with 1 1 .. .exd4</p><p>12 cxd4 h6, but after 1 3 e5 White still has</p><p>the advantage.</p><p>b) 10 . . . exd4 1 1 cxd4 'ii'd7 does not</p><p>look too appetising if we consider it as a</p><p>position to reach when we chose our 4th</p><p>move, but here it is appropriate. After</p><p>simple moves like 12 �a2 .l:te8 1 3 �b1</p><p>White is slightly better.</p><p>9 b4!</p><p>White is playing very fast on the</p><p>queenside and his initiative goes as</p><p>smoothly as a warm knife through butter.</p><p>This means that Black will have to defend</p><p>and does not have time to attack himself</p><p>with . . . g7-g5.</p><p>Another option here was 9 a4 a6 10</p><p>�e3, but then Black has some time on</p><p>his hands and can continue with 10 ... g5</p><p>1 1 dxe5 dxe5 12 �xb6 cxb6 1 3 CtJh2</p><p>�e6 with equality according to Unzicker.</p><p>1 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>9 . . . a6 10 a4 g5?!</p><p>Black is not really attuned into the finer</p><p>details of the position. His position was</p><p>still more or less sound if he had played</p><p>more calmly. After the sounder 1 0 . . . 0-0</p><p>1 1 i,a3 tbd7 12 b5 tba5 1 3 i,a2 �f6 1 4</p><p>�d3 Me8 1 5 tbbd2 \Xlhite was only</p><p>slightly better in E.TotTe-R.Ekstroem,</p><p>Lugano 1 989.</p><p>1 1 a5 Jia7 1 2 b5 ctJd8</p><p>It was probably around here that Black</p><p>started to come to his senses; but it is</p><p>already too late to find a decent position.</p><p>After the apparently logical 1 2 . . . axb5 1 3</p><p>i,xb5 i,d7, White can break through on</p><p>the queenside with 14 a6!, and on</p><p>14 . . . bxa6 1 5 Mxa6 tbb8 1 6 i,xd7+ �xd7</p><p>1 7 Ma3 White has a brilliant initiative on</p><p>the queenside, while Black's attack still</p><p>has to develop beyond biting his finger at</p><p>White.</p><p>1 3 .1ia3!</p><p>The breakthrough on the queenside in</p><p>this game is very instructive. White could</p><p>have gained a good position with simple</p><p>moves like 1 3 bxa6!? bxa6 14 �d3, but</p><p>this would give Black time to execute his</p><p>own plan, and after 14 . . . g4 1 5 hxg4 t!Jxg4</p><p>1 6 Me2 Mg8 1 7 4Jbd2 White is only</p><p>1 6</p><p>somewhat better.</p><p>1 3 . . . tt:Jd7</p><p>The idea</p><p>22 i.f5+ 'it>e8</p><p>Or 22 ... �c6 23 .td7 mate.</p><p>23 ii.d7 + 'it>f8</p><p>1 2 3</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>23 . . St>d8 24 iLxe7 mate.</p><p>24 �xe7 mate</p><p>Game 43</p><p>W . De Boer-J .Van der Kooij</p><p>Correspondence 199 2</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 tbc6 3 �c4 �c5 4 b4</p><p>�xb4 5 c3 �a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0</p><p>dxc3?</p><p>Taking this pawn resembles the sin of</p><p>gluttony.</p><p>8 'iY'b3 'iY'f6 9 e5 'iY'g6 1 0 tbxc3 tbge7</p><p>Black has some other experiences here,</p><p>but they are not positive:</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . iLb6 1 1 iLa3 lbaS 12 'i¥a4 lbxc4</p><p>1 3 'i¥xc4 'i¥e6 14 i¥h4 lbe7 1 5 lt:Jg5 lt:Jf5</p><p>1 2 4</p><p>1 6 lt:Jxe6 tLlxh4 1 7 tLlxg 7+ Wd8 1 8 tLldS</p><p>lbg6 1 9 Mad 1 (H onsor-Takacs) and</p><p>White maintains the pressure.</p><p>b) 10 . . . b5 1 1 tLlxbS Mb8 12 'i¥e3 tLlge7</p><p>13 'iW e2 'iVhS 1 4 iLa3 with a strong attack</p><p>in I .Kolisch-A.Anderssen, London 1 86 1 .</p><p>c) 1 0 . . . lt:Jh6 1 1 lt:Jds 0-0 12 iLd3 'i¥e6</p><p>13 tLlgS 'i¥xe5 14 iLf4 'i¥e8 15 lt:Jxh7 and</p><p>White was much better in F.Lee­</p><p>J .Blackburne, London 1906.</p><p>d) 10 ... iLxc3?! makes things even</p><p>worse. After 1 1 'i¥xc3 we could look at:</p><p>d1) 1 1 . ..b6 12 iLd3 'i¥g4 13 e6! and</p><p>White is much better.</p><p>d2) 1 1 . . .tLld8 12 iLe3 tLlh6 1 3 Mfel b6</p><p>14 tLlh4 'i¥g4 1 5 iLxh6 Mg8 1 6 iLd3 gxh6</p><p>1 7 iLxh 7 MgS 1 8 Me4 with an attack.</p><p>d3) 1 1 . . .lbge7 1 2 lbgS lt:Jd8 1 3 Mel h6</p><p>14 lt:Je4 0-0 15 iLa3 Me8 16 lt:Jf6+ gxf6 1 7</p><p>exf6 tLldc6 1 8 fxe7 with a clear advantage.</p><p>1 1 �a3!</p><p>This is a critical position for under­</p><p>standing the Evans Gambit. Black is in</p><p>serious trouble.</p><p>1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 .Uad1 .Ue8</p><p>After the sharp 12 . . . b5 1 3 iLd3 'i¥g4</p><p>White has to occupy h3, a great square</p><p>for the queen, with a pawn. But there are</p><p>other ways to make life miserable for</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . il. a 5</p><p>Black: 14 h3 �e6 15 i.xh7+ �h8 16</p><p>4.Jd5 f6 (or 1 6 .. . b4 1 7 i.cl 4.Jxd5 18</p><p>Mxd5 4.Je 7 1 9 i.e4 i. b 7 20 4.Jd4 i.xd5</p><p>21 �g3 i.xe4 22 4.Jxe6 fxe6 23 �h4+</p><p>�g8 24 �xe4 and White is better) 1 7</p><p>i.e4 b4 1 8 4.Jxe 7 �xb3 19 4.Jg6+ �g8 20</p><p>axb3 bxa3 21 i.d5+ .M.f7 22 i.xc6 Mb8 23</p><p>e6 dxe6 24 Md8+ �h 7 25 i.e4 f5 26</p><p>4.Jfh4 1 -0 N .Urusov-A.Romashkevich,</p><p>correspondence 1 893.</p><p>1 3 .id3 'iVh5 1 4 ti'Je4 tt'Jxe5 1 5 tt'Jxe5</p><p>'iVxe5 1 6 .ib2 'iVe6 1 7 'iVb5 'iVb6</p><p>If instead 17 ... i.b6 1 8 �h5 h6 1 9 4.Jg5</p><p>�xa2 20 i.h7+ �f8 21 i.b1 �c4 22</p><p>4.Jh7+ �g8 23 �e5! wins, or 1 7 . . . 4.Jc6 1 8</p><p>4.Jg5 �h6 19 i.h7+ �f8 20 i.e4 i.b6 21</p><p>Mfe1 with a very strong attack.</p><p>1 8 'iVh5 ti'Jg6</p><p>Or 1 8.. .�xb2 1 9 4.Jg5 4.Jg6 20 �xh7+</p><p>�f8 21 i.xg6 fxg6 22 �xg6 �xa2 23</p><p>Md4 and wins.</p><p>1 9 ttJg5 h6 20 ttJxf7 'lt>xf7 21 .id4</p><p>21 �f5+ is less clear after 21 . ..�e7! 22</p><p>i.xg7 d5.</p><p>21 . . . c5</p><p>After 21 . ..�e6 22 i.f5 �c6 23 Md3 or</p><p>21 . ..�c6 22 �xa5 �g8 23 Mfe1 White is</p><p>much better.</p><p>22 .ixc5 'iVf6 23 .ic4+ .Me6</p><p>If 23 . . . d5 24 .M.xd5 i.e6 25 .M.d7+ �g8</p><p>26 i.d4 wins.</p><p>24 .Md5 'lt>g8 25 .Mf5 ttJf4 26 'iVg4 1 -0</p><p>Game 44</p><p>A . Morozevich -M . Adams</p><p>Wgk aan Zee 2001</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ti'Jc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 b4</p><p>.ixb4 5 c3 .ia5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0</p><p>ti'Jge7</p><p>Normally we would expect the knight</p><p>to be at f6 in the Evans Gambit, but here</p><p>White is threatening e4-e5 and Black</p><p>would very much like to casde. So in</p><p>comes 7 .. . 4.Jge7! .</p><p>8 ti'Jg5</p><p>This kind of single horse action seems</p><p>a litde naive in most positions we have</p><p>covered, but here it is actually completely</p><p>prudent. The main point is that 8 . . . 0-0 is</p><p>now out of the question because of the</p><p>double threat to h7 and f7 after 9 �h5!.</p><p>Instead:</p><p>a) 8 �b3?! is weaker: 8 . . . 0-0 9 cxd4</p><p>4.Jg6 10 i.e3 i.b6. Here White should</p><p>play 1 1 �b5!, when he has some com­</p><p>pensation for the pawn; in some varia­</p><p>tions he is threatening �b5-h5 and 4.Jg5</p><p>1 2 5</p><p>I ta lia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>with an attack. Compared with something</p><p>like 1 1 'i:Vd1 d6 12 lL'lg5 'Wf6 1 3 lL'lc3</p><p>lL'lge 7 14 ii.d3 g6 where Black is much</p><p>better, White should count himself lucky.</p><p>b) 8 cxd4 seems unnatural because of</p><p>the reply 8 ... d5! 9 exd5 lL'lxd5, and then:</p><p>b1) 10 "ifb3 ii.e6 1 1 'iixb7 lL'ldb4 1 2</p><p>j_b5 .i.d5! 1 3 lL'le5 .l::tb8 14 ii.xc6+ (or 14</p><p>lL'lxc6 .l::txb 7 1 5 lL'lxd8+ .l::txb5 1 6 lL'lc3</p><p>lL'lc2! 1 7 lL'lxb5 lL'lxa1) 14 . . . lL'lxc6 1 5 'iVa6</p><p>.l::tb6 1 6 'iVd3 0-0 and Black was better in</p><p>the encounter K.Arakhamia Grant­</p><p>S.Mannion, Grangemouth 2000.</p><p>b2) 10 ..ta3 .i.e6 1 1 .i.b5 (now if 1 1</p><p>'iVb3 'iVd7! is strong, D.Markosian­</p><p>V.L.Ivanov, Moscow 1995) 1 1 . . ..i.b4 12</p><p>SLxc6+ bxc6 13 .i.xb4 lL'lxb4 14 'iVa4</p><p>'iVd6 1 5 lt:Jc3 0-0 16 lL'le4 and the position</p><p>is equal according to Levenfish.</p><p>8 . . . d5</p><p>Instead:</p><p>a) 8 . . . 0-0? was bad, as you probably</p><p>remember, due to 9 'iih5 h6 1 0 lt:Jx£7</p><p>.l::tx£7 1 1 SLx£7+ �h7 (or 1 1 . . .�f8 1 2</p><p>SLb3) 12 cxd4 and White i s just winning,</p><p>e.g. 1 2 . . . ..tb6 1 3 SLb2 lt:Jxd4 1 4 lt:Jd2 d6</p><p>1 5 lt:J£3 lt:Je2+ 1 6.�h1 lt:Jf4 1 7 lt:Jg5+</p><p>�h8 1 8 'iVxh6 mate, M.Jolowicz-Glunz,</p><p>b) 8 . . . ltJe5!? could be met by 9 lL'lx£7!?</p><p>lL'lx£7 1 0 j_x£7+ �x£7 1 1 'i¥h5+ lL'lg6 1 2</p><p>'it'd5+ � fS 13 'ifxa5 d 3 1 4 .l::td1 d6 1 5</p><p>.l::txd3 'i!He7 with equality. However, after</p><p>the more dangerous 9 ii.b3, we have</p><p>some things to ponder over:</p><p>b1) 9 .. . 0-0? 10 cxd4 lL'l5g6 1 1 'ifh5 h6</p><p>12 lL'lx£7 .l::tx£7 13 .i.x£7+ 'iilxfl 14 'ifxa5</p><p>and White is winning.</p><p>b2) 9 . . . f6?! 1 0 cxd4 fxg5 1 1 dxe5 lL'lc6</p><p>(after 1 1 .. .g6? 12 i..xg5 h5 13 .i.f6 .l::tfS 14</p><p>i..g7 and White was winning in M.Jaros­</p><p>P.Hubner, Svetla nad Sazavou 1 999) 1 2</p><p>'ifh5+ g6 1 3 'ii'xg5 'Wxg5 1 4 i..xg5 with a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>b3) 9 . . . d5! is correct, and if 1 0 cxd4</p><p>ltJg4!? with unclear play.</p><p>9 exd5 tt'le5 1 0 .ltb3</p><p>Weak is 10 'i!Hxd4?! f6 1 1 .l::te1 i..b6 12</p><p>'ife4 i..f5 1 3 'iVf4 'i!Hd7 14 lL'le6 ii.xe6 15</p><p>dxe6 'it'c6 16 .l::txe5 lL'lg6 1 7 j_b5 lL'lxf4 18</p><p>ii.xc6+ bxc6 1 9 .l::te4 0-0-0 and Black is</p><p>slightly better, J .Novosak-J.Sosna, Czech</p><p>Team Championship 1 996. White needs</p><p>to keep some kind of momentum.</p><p>1 0 . . . 0-0</p><p>For the greedy 1 O ... dxc3?! see the next</p><p>game.</p><p>Hamburg 1 971 . 1 1 cxd4</p><p>1 2 6</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . il.. a 5</p><p>After 1 1 lt:Jxh 7 �xh 7 1 2 �5+ �g8</p><p>13 �xeS White probably has enough</p><p>compensation to draw, but no more than</p><p>that, e.g. 1 3 .. .'=iJf5 14 i.d2 cS 1 5 clxc6</p><p>bxc6 16 �e1 i.c7 1 7 �e4 'iff6 1 8 i.f4</p><p>1/z-1/z N.Short-M.Adams, Sarajevo 2000.</p><p>1 1 . . . tt:\g4</p><p>1 2 'iff3</p><p>Maybe with 1 1 cxd4 White has already</p><p>lost the initiative? At least you should</p><p>know that 1 2 i.a3 can be met by</p><p>12 .. .'=iJxd5! 1 3 i.xf8 'ifxgS 14 i.xdS</p><p>'ifxdS 1 5 i.a3 .1d7 1 6 lt:Jd2 �e8, and</p><p>with a pawn for the exchange and a fully</p><p>mobilised army, Black is doing quite well</p><p>in A.Anderssen-S.Mieses, Breslau match</p><p>1867.</p><p>1 2 . . . tt:Jf6 !?</p><p>In D.Bronstein-A.Ivanov, Maidstone</p><p>1994, play continued 1 2 .. ."iVd6 1 3 i.f4</p><p>'i'f6 14 CLJc3 when White offered a draw</p><p>- possibly before his opponent had the</p><p>chance to notice 14 .. . lbxh2! and Black is</p><p>much better after both 1 5 �xh2 .1xc3 1 6</p><p>�ac1 i.xd4 and 1 5 'i'hS i.fS. Instead 14</p><p>tbe4! with unclear play was the way to</p><p>continue for White, though I am uncer­</p><p>tain whether there is any real chance for</p><p>an advantage here.</p><p>Anyway, the text move would appear</p><p>to present White with even more prob­</p><p>lems.</p><p>1 3 i.a3 h6</p><p>1 4 tt:\e4</p><p>If 1 4 'if e2 ltJfxdS 1 5 i.xdS CLJxdS 1 6</p><p>.1xf8 'ifxgS 1 7 .1c5 CLJf4 1 8 'ife8+ �h7</p><p>19 'ife4+ .tfS 20 'iff3 .1d3 Black is much</p><p>better.</p><p>1 4 . . . tt:Jxe4 1 5 'iixe4 .l:!.e8 1 6 i.b2 tt:Jt5</p><p>1 7 'iif4</p><p>1 7 . . . i.b4 1 8 tt:Ja3 i.d6 1 9 �d2 'ii'h4</p><p>20 g3 'ii'h3 21 tt:\c4 b5!</p><p>Better than 21 . ..lt:Jh4 22 f4 .1g4 23</p><p>CLJeS .1xe5 24 dxeS lt:Jf3+ 25 �xf3 i.xf3</p><p>26 e6 f6 27 �e 1 when White would have</p><p>strong counterplay.</p><p>1 2 7</p><p>I ta lia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>22 tt:Je5?</p><p>A bad mistake. After the line 22 CDxd6</p><p>cxd6 23 .l::l.ac1 .ib7 24 .l::l.c7 .l::l.e7 2S .l::l.fc1</p><p>White should be able to</p><p>hold the posi­</p><p>tion.</p><p>22 . . . i.b7 23 Itae1 aS! 24 a3 b4! 25</p><p>axb4?</p><p>The alternative 2S f3 would have of­</p><p>fered more resistance, though Black is still</p><p>much better after 2S . . . bxa3 26 .ic3 .ia6</p><p>27 .l::l.f2 .l::l.ab8.</p><p>25 . . . i.xb4 26 i.c3 i.xc3 27 iVxc3</p><p>27 . . . tt:Jh4! 0-1</p><p>Game 45</p><p>D.Bronstein -Comp. Heuristic Alpha</p><p>The Hague 1992</p><p>1 1 iVe2 f6</p><p>After 1 1 . . .h6 12 �xeS (not 12 CDe6?</p><p>fxe6 1 3 �xeS �d6 14 �xg7 .l::l.g8 1 S</p><p>�xh6 exdS 1 6 �xd6 cxd6 and Black was</p><p>much better in B.Blankenberg-W.Hort,</p><p>correspondence 2001) 12 . . . f6 (if 12 . . . hxgS</p><p>1 3 �xg7 .l::l.g8 1 4 �d4 c2 l S CDc3 .iLfS 16</p><p>.1La3 with a clear advantage) 1 3 �g3 hxgS</p><p>14 .ia3 c2 1 S CDc3 White has a dangerous</p><p>initiative.</p><p>1 2 tt:Je4</p><p>12 .ia3!? is also interesting, when we</p><p>could imagine:</p><p>a) 1 2 . . . .ig4 1 3 f3 .ifS 1 4 CDe4 .1Lxe4</p><p>1 S �xe4 �d7? (1 S . . . c2 was a better de­</p><p>fence) 16 f4 CDSg6 1 7 d6 cxd6 1 8 .ia4 bS</p><p>1 9 �xa8+ �f7 20 �f3 bxa4 21 CDxc3</p><p>._ ______________ _. .l::l.c8 22 CDe4 with a clear advantage to</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:Jt3 tt:Jc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0</p><p>tt:Jge 7 8 tt:Jg5 d5 9 exd5 tt:Je5 1 0 i.b3</p><p>dxc3?!</p><p>Taking the pawn is the most principled</p><p>continuation, but an extremely risky one.</p><p>It might be compared to dancing through</p><p>a minefield with your eyes closed. It can</p><p>be successful, of course, but only in the­</p><p>ory. In practice, you can expect to see</p><p>fireworks erupt all over your position.</p><p>1 2 8</p><p>White in R.Ovetchkin-A.Lastin, Russian</p><p>Championship 2003.</p><p>b) 12 ... c2!? 1 3 CDd2! .ixd2 14 �xd2</p><p>fxgS 1 S .l::l.fel CD7g6 1 6 .ib2 �f6 F</p><p>.iLxeS CDxeS 1 8 .l::l.xeS+ �xeS 1 9 .l::l.e1</p><p>�xel+ 20 �xel+ �d8 21 .1Lxc2 .l::l.e8 22</p><p>�c3 h6 23 h4 and White has some initia­</p><p>tive, though a draw is the most logic re­</p><p>sult.</p><p>1 2 . . . tt:Jxd5</p><p>After 12 . . . a6 1 3 .l::l.d 1 .ig4 14 f3 .ifS 1 5</p><p>Th e Eva n s Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . � a 5</p><p>lbbxc3 il.xc3 16 lbxc3 White has excel­</p><p>lent play for the pawn.</p><p>1 3 i,a3 c6</p><p>Another game saw 13 . . . c2 14 "iYxc2</p><p>lbb4 1 5 "iYe2? il.g4 16 f3 "iVd4+ 1 7 '>t>h1</p><p>il.d7 1 8 lbbd2 0-0-0 19 �ad1 "iVb6 20</p><p>lbc4 lbxc4 21 il.xc4 �he8 and Black was</p><p>much better in B.Boschma-C.Van Wier­</p><p>ingen, correspondence 1999.</p><p>White should have preferred 1 5 il.xb4,</p><p>when we could imagine play continuing</p><p>1 5 . . . il.xb4 1 6 lbbc3 "iVd3 1 7 "iVb2 c6 1 8</p><p>�ad1 "iVa6 1 9 �fe1 il.g4</p><p>and now 20 lbxf6+! gxf6 21 lbe4</p><p>il.xd1 22 lbxf6+ '>t>d8 (not 22 ... '>t>f8? 23</p><p>liJd7+! '>t>e8 24 "iYxe5+ and White wins)</p><p>23 �xdl+ liJd3 24 "iVd4+ '>t>c7 25 �xd3</p><p>"iVa3 (not 25 ... �ad8? 26 "iYe5+ il.d6? 27</p><p>�xd6 �xd6 28 "iYe7+ and White wins, or</p><p>26 ... '>t>b6 27 4:Jd7+ �xd7 28 �xd7 with a</p><p>deadly attack) 26 il.g8! "iVcl+ 27 �d1</p><p>"iVg5 28 h4 "iVf5 29 4:Jd5+!? (29 il.xh7 is</p><p>also promising) 29 . . . cxd5 30 "iYxh8 �f8</p><p>31 "iYxh7+ "iYxh7 32 il.xh7 and White has</p><p>good winning chances despite the oppo­</p><p>site-coloured bishops.</p><p>14 ctJd6+ ? !</p><p>I am ready to bet here that the knight is</p><p>singing the pop hit 'No Limit' in a very</p><p>dubious falsetto Gust imagine a horse</p><p>. . ') smgmg . .</p><p>Better was 14 f4 il.g4 (if 14 . . . il.b6+ 1 5</p><p>'>t>h1 il.g4 16 "iVe1 c2 1 7 fxe5 cxb1"iV 1 8</p><p>�xb1 with a clear advantage) 1 5 "iVe1 c2</p><p>1 6 lbbd2 "iVb6+ 1 7 '>t>h 1 4:Jd3 1 8 4:Jd6+</p><p>'>t>d7 1 9 "iVg3 and \'Vhite's attack is pretty</p><p>strong.</p><p>1 4 . . . '1t>d7 1 5 f4 ti:Jg6 1 6 i,xd5! iVb6+</p><p>Not 16 .. . cxd5? 17 "iVb5+ and White</p><p>WlnS.</p><p>1 7 �h1 cxd5</p><p>1 8 tt:Jxc3! !</p><p>\Xlhite rightly puts time before material;</p><p>there are limits to how much you can</p><p>hesitate when it comes to sacrificing a</p><p>inactive little pony.</p><p>1 8 . . . i,xc3 1 9 l:tab1 iVc6</p><p>After 1 9 . . . "iVa6 20 lbb5 il.a5 21 �bd1</p><p>"iYe6 22 "iVf3 lbe7 23 il.xe7 '>t>xe7 24</p><p>"iVa3+ '>t>f7 25 lbd6+ '>t>g8 26 f5 "iYe5 27</p><p>"iYxa5 W'hitc's superiority is overwhelm­</p><p>mg.</p><p>20 iVd3 d4</p><p>If 20 .. . 4:Je7 21 �fc1 d4 22 lbb5 4:Jd5</p><p>23 4:Jxd4 and White wins according to</p><p>Bronstein.</p><p>21 ti:Jb5 l:td8 22 tt:Jxc3 iVxc3 23</p><p>iVb5+ iVc6 24 iVb3</p><p>1 2 9</p><p>I talian Game a n d E va n s Gambit</p><p>24 . . . l:!.h8??</p><p>This is a typical mistake for the older</p><p>generation of computers. Straight talk</p><p>would be to say that their circuits melt</p><p>down from calculating too many varia­</p><p>tions. The move itself has no real idea (a</p><p>purely human concept of course) behind</p><p>it (other than to vacate d8 for the king),</p><p>and White wins without any problems.</p><p>Some further comments on this posi­</p><p>tion are, however, in order.</p><p>a) 24 .. J�:te8? loses fairly straightfor­</p><p>wardly to 2S .:bc1 'i'e6 26 'i'a4+ 'it>d8 27</p><p>"i¥xd4+ j,d7 28 fS ifeS 29 "i¥xd7+!!</p><p>'it>xd7 30 l::tfdl+ and White wins.</p><p>b) 24 . . . "i¥e6! was the only move and</p><p>should give Black a draw. Now White can</p><p>continue:</p><p>b 1) 2S 'iVa4+ 'iiic7 26 fS 'i¥d7 27 'i¥c4+</p><p>'it>b8! (stronger than 27 . . . 'ifc6?! 28 'iff7+</p><p>l::td7 29 'i'g8 tbe7 30 j_xe7 l::txe7 3 1</p><p>l::tbc1 h6 32 'i'dS aS 33 l::tfd1 l::td7 34</p><p>'i'e4 l::ta6 3S 'i'f4+ l::td6 36 'i'g3 j_xfS 37</p><p>"i¥xg7+ j,d7 38 'ifxh6 with advantage to</p><p>White, although Black still has good</p><p>counterplay) 28 fxg6 hxg6 29 l::tbc1 (or 29</p><p>l::tfe1 'ifc7 30 'i'b3 b6 31 l::te7 l::td7 32</p><p>l::txd7 .txd7 33 l::tc1 'i'eS, when the white</p><p>attack is over and Black is clearly better)</p><p>1 3 0</p><p>29 . . . aS! 30 l::tfe1 l:Ia6 31 l::te7 'i'c6 32 'i'd3</p><p>"iVdS and Black has defended successfully.</p><p>Now the hunter and the prey will change</p><p>seats.</p><p>b2) 2S �4! is much stronger, e.g.</p><p>2S ... aS 26 'i¥a4+ 'ifc6 27 'i¥b3 (not 27</p><p>l::tbS? 'iiie8 28 .l::l.el+ i.e6 29 l::txb7 l::td6</p><p>and White's attack is gone) 27 . . ."ife6 28</p><p>'iYbS+ 'i'c6 with a draw by repetition.</p><p>Black cannot sidestep with 28 . . . 'iiic7? as</p><p>29 l::tfcl+ 'iiib8 30 liVeS wins for White.</p><p>25 l:!.bc1 �e6 26 �c2 �b6 27 i.c5</p><p>�c6 28 �b3 'it>d8 29 i.xd4 �e4 30</p><p>"ifc3 i.e6 31 l:!.fe1 �d5 32 l:!.cd1 'it>e8</p><p>33 i.xf6 'iVxd1 34 l:!.xd1 gxf6 35</p><p>'iVxf6</p><p>And White is winning.</p><p>35 . . . i.f7 36 f5 .l:tg8 37 'iVd6 i..xa2 38</p><p>fxg6 l:!.xg6 39 �d7 + 'it>f8 40 'iixh7</p><p>l:!.g7 41 "i¥h8+ i..g8 42 l:!.f1 + .l:i.f7 43</p><p>�h6+ We8 44 .l:.e1 + .l:.e7 45 'iih5+</p><p>'it>f8 46 �h6+ '>t>e8 47 l:!.f1 l:!.f7 48</p><p>l:!.d1 l:!.h7 49 'ii'd6 .l:i.e7 50 h4 i.e6 51</p><p>'ii'e5 1 -0</p><p>Game 46</p><p>N .Short-R .Hubner</p><p>Dortmund 1997</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 CZ'lf3 CZ'lc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 b4</p><p>i.xb4 5 c3 i.a5 6 d4 d6</p><p>The Alapin Variation, named after the</p><p>famous Russian master, who published</p><p>his analysis in the German magazine</p><p>Schachfreund in 1 898. Alapin was the foun­</p><p>der of a fair amount of modern chess</p><p>theory, including the Alapin Opening 1 e4</p><p>eS 2 tbe2, which has more-or-less van­</p><p>ished from tournament play (even 2</p><p>'i'hS!? enjoys grandmaster support in</p><p>200S), while 1 e4 cS 2 c3 is usually un-</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . i. a 5</p><p>fairly referred to as the c3-Sicilian, when</p><p>again it should carry his name.</p><p>7 'i¥b3</p><p>Instead 7 0-0 would transpose to 6 0-0</p><p>d6 7 d4 in the previous chapter (see</p><p>Games 39-41). In particular, 7 ... ii..b6 leads</p><p>to the Lasker Defence (Game 41 ), which</p><p>\X!hite's 6 d4 move order was designed to</p><p>avoid. To that end 7 'i!Vb3 is the most</p><p>usual continuation here, though \X!hite</p><p>has tried other moves as well:</p><p>a) 7 d5?! Cjjce7 8 �a4+ c6 9 dxc6 bxc6 1 0</p><p>'i!Vb3 is not too impressive after 10 . . . f6!</p><p>(E.Trumpy-H.Grob, correspondence</p><p>1 841) 1 1 i.f7+ �f8 12 i.a3 d5 1 3 ii..xg8</p><p>lixg8 14 0-0 and, according to Matsuke­</p><p>vitch, \X!hite has no real compensation</p><p>for the pawn.</p><p>b) 7 �a4?! exd4 8 Cjjxd4 Cjje7 9 ..ig5</p><p>�d7! 10 ii..b5 (if 10 i.xe7 Cjjxd4 1 1</p><p>'iixa5 Cjjc6 1 2 'i'g5 'i'xe7 1 3 'i'xg7</p><p>'iVxe4+ 14 i.e2 'ife5 with a clear advan­</p><p>tage - Maroczy) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 i.xc6 Cjjxc6 12</p><p>lLlf5 f6 13 i.e3 b5 14 'ii'd1 'i'f7 1 5 0-0</p><p>i.xf5 1 6 exf5 0-0 and Black is much bet­</p><p>ter, G.Breyer-R.Reti, Baden 19 14.</p><p>c) 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 'i!Vb3 (if 8 'i!Vxd8+</p><p>tt:Jxd8 9 Cjjxe5 i.e6 and Black is at least</p><p>equal) 8 .. ."ife7 (8 .. .'i!fd7!? is the main line</p><p>in Games 47 and 48) 9 i.g5?! (instead 9</p><p>0-0 ..ib6 transposes</p><p>to 9 . . . 'i'e7 in the</p><p>notes to Game 41) 9 .. . f6 1 0 ii..h4 (if 10</p><p>i.xg8 fxg5 1 1 ..ixh7 'iVf6 and Black is</p><p>clearly better) 10 ... i.b6 1 1 ..ixg8 Cjja5 12</p><p>'iVd5 c6 13 'i¥d3 lixg8 and Black was</p><p>close to winning already, Leita­</p><p>A.Carrettoni, correspondence 1987.</p><p>d) 7 i.g5!? is more interesting, and</p><p>then:</p><p>d1) 7 . . . {jjf6 8 'i'a4 exd4 9 i.d5 i.xc3+</p><p>10 Cjjxc3 dxc3 1 1 ..ixf6 gxf6 12 ..ixc6+</p><p>bxc6 1 3 'iVxc6+ i.d7 14 'ilfxc3 with com­</p><p>pensation for the pawn.</p><p>d2) 7 .. .'ii'd7 8 0-0 h6 9 i.h4 {jjge7 10</p><p>d5 Cjjb8 1 1 i.xe7 �xe7 with unclear play,</p><p>e.g. 12 a4 'ifg4 1 3 'i¥c2 f5 14 kte1 and if</p><p>14 . . . fxe4?! 1 5 Cjjd4!.</p><p>d3) 7 ... f6 8 ..ie3! (not 8 'i'b3?! fxg5! 9</p><p>..ixg8 'iff6 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 0-0 ii..b6 and</p><p>Black is better) 8 .. . Cjjge7 9 0-0 and \X!hite</p><p>has compensation for the pawn.</p><p>7 . . . 'i¥d7</p><p>Here Black has many ways to make a</p><p>fool of himself:</p><p>a) 7 .. ."iif6? 8 d5 Cjjd4 9 Cjjxd4 exd4 10</p><p>'i'a4+ and White wins a piece.</p><p>b) 7 .. .'ilfe7?! 8 d5 Cjjd4 9 Cjjxd4 (9</p><p>i.b5+!? �d8! is not so clear) 9 .. . exd4 1 0</p><p>1 3 1</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>0-0 (if now 10 'Via4+ Wd8 11 ifxaS Black</p><p>has 1 1 .. .ifxe4+) 1 0 . . . Jkb6 1 1 .lkb2 with a</p><p>strong initiative.</p><p>c) 7 . ..lt:Jh6?! 8 .lkxh6 gxh6 9 .lkxf7+</p><p>Wf8 1 0 dxeS ife7 1 1 .lkdS CLJxeS 12</p><p>CLJxeS ifxeS 1 3 ifa3 .lkb6 14 CLJd2 and</p><p>White is better, V.Ragozin-D.Bronstein,</p><p>USSR Championship 1945.</p><p>d) 7 ... CLJxd4?! 8 CLJxd4 exd4 9 .ll.x£7+</p><p>'iii>f8 10 0-0 ife7 1 1 .lkc4 CLJf6 12 cxd4</p><p>CLJxe4 13 'Vif3+ CLJf6 14 ctJc3 with a strong</p><p>attack, A.R.Thomas-W.Unzicker, Hast­</p><p>ings 1 950/51 .</p><p>e) 7 . . . exd4?! 8 .ll.x£7+ We7? (8 . . . 'it>f8!? is</p><p>not so easily refuted) 9 eS! dxeS 1 0 0-0</p><p>.lkg4 1 1 .Mel with a crushing attack,</p><p>C.Alexander-F.Yates, Cambridge 1932.</p><p>8 dxe5</p><p>Almost always played, since the alter­</p><p>natives are only dangerous for White:</p><p>a) 8 a4 .lkb6 9 aS lt'lxaS 10 .M.xaS .lkxaS</p><p>1 1 dxeS ctJh6! and Black is certainly not</p><p>worse.</p><p>b) 8 0-0 .lkb6! 9 .lkbS (9 dxeS trans­</p><p>poses below) 9 . . . a6 10 .lka4 (or 10 .lkxc6</p><p>ifxe6 1 1 dxeS .lke6!) 1 0 ... .1ka7 1 1 lt'la3 (if</p><p>1 1 dS bS 1 2 dxc6 ifxc6) 1 1 . . .Mb8! 1 2 dS</p><p>bS 13 CLJxbS axbS 14 .lkxbS MxbS 1 5</p><p>ifxb5 CLJce7 when Black is better,</p><p>1 3 2</p><p>L.Ribeiro-C.Leite, Lisbon 1 999.</p><p>8 . . . Jib6!</p><p>The most testing move, planning</p><p>. . . tt:JaS to remove the dangerous light­</p><p>squared bishop. The alternative, 8 ... dxe5,</p><p>is seen in the next two games.</p><p>9 tZ'lbd2</p><p>Other moves seem weaker:</p><p>a) 9 ifc2?! Gust misplacing the queen)</p><p>9 . . . dxe5! 1 0 .lka3 tt:Jge7 1 1 ctJbd2 0-0 1 2</p><p>.lkb3 'iii>h8 1 3 0-0 f6 and Black i s better,</p><p>V.Ragozin-V.Mikenas, Leningrad 1 956.</p><p>b) 9 0-0?! tLlaS! (9 . . . dxe5 would trans­</p><p>pose to Game 47) 10 ifb4 CLJxc4 1 1</p><p>ifxc4 dxeS 12 lt'lxe5 ife6 1 3 ifa4+ c6</p><p>with a slight advantage to Black,</p><p>K.Kalashnikov-A.Lunev, St. Petersburg</p><p>2000.</p><p>c) 9 exd6?! lt'laS 1 0 ifbs CLJxc4 1 1</p><p>ifxc4 ifxd6 1 2 .lka3 .lke6 and Black is</p><p>better again, E.Mnatsakanian-A.Korelov,</p><p>USSR Championship 1962.</p><p>d) 9 .lkbS!? is playable, but rather dull,</p><p>e.g. 9 . . . a6 1 0 .lka4 (or 10 'Via4 .M.b8)</p><p>1 0 . . . .1kc5 1 1 c4 lt'lge7 12 tt:Jc3 0-0 1 3 0-0</p><p>dxeS 14 ctJxe5 'Vid6 1 5 CLJxc6 tt:Jxc6 with</p><p>a level position in J .Brenninkmeijer­</p><p>M.Kuijf, Groningen 1993.</p><p>So, after 9 tt:Jbd2 we have the key to posi-</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . � a 5</p><p>cion in the 8 . . . �b6 variation.</p><p>9 . . . tt:Ja5</p><p>The only consistent move. Instead</p><p>9 ... dxe5 1 0 �a3 transposes to Game 48,</p><p>while after 9 ... ctJh6?! 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 exd6</p><p>'i¥xd6 12 �d5 'i¥g6 1 3 ctJc4 �h3 14 ctJg5</p><p>�d7 1 5 a4 Mab8 1 6 ctJxb6 axb6 17 f4</p><p>White was better in E.Sveshnikov­</p><p>Y.Meister, Russian Championship 2000.</p><p>1 0 'ifb4</p><p>10 'i¥c2 is the main alternative:</p><p>a) 1 0 . . . ctJh6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 h3 (12 exd6!</p><p>cxd6 1 3 h3 was more accurate) 12 ... Me8</p><p>1 3 .l::!.d1 dxe5 (leading to an interesting</p><p>drawing variation; if 1 3 .. . ctJc6?! 14 �b5!</p><p>a6 15 �a4 �a7 1 6 exd6 cxd6 17 ctJc4 b5</p><p>1 8 ctJxd6 bxa4 1 9 ctJxe8 'i¥xe8 20 �xh6</p><p>gxh6 21 'i¥xa4 and White is much better)</p><p>14 ctJxe5 Mxe5 1 5 ctJf3 ctJxc4! 1 6 Mxd7</p><p>�xd7 1 7 'i¥d3 �e6 1 8 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 1 9</p><p>'i¥g3 ctJhg4! 20 hxg4 ctJxg4 21 �e3 ctJxe3</p><p>22 fxe3 Md8 and the fortress cannot be</p><p>breached, I.K.urnosov-A.Lastin, Russian</p><p>Championship 2003.</p><p>b) 10 . . . ctJxc4 1 1 ctJxc4 d5! is the stan­</p><p>dard equaliser; for example, after 12</p><p>ctJxb6 (instead 1 2 exd5 'i¥xd5 1 3 'i¥x4+</p><p>�d7 14 ctJxb6 cxb6 and 12 �g5!? h6 1 3</p><p>�h4 'i¥g4 1 4 0-0-0 g5 are pretty much</p><p>level) 1 2 . . . axb6 13 0-0 dxe4 14 'i¥xe4 'i¥g4</p><p>1 5 'i¥e3 ctJe7 1 6 ctJd4 0-0 1 7 h3 'i¥g6 1 8</p><p>f4 c5 White is the only one with prob­</p><p>lems, Y.Estrin-V.Palciauskas, correspon­</p><p>dence 1978.</p><p>1 0 . . . tt:Jxc4 1 1 tt:Jxc4 ii.c5 1 2 �b3</p><p>tt:Je7</p><p>Or 12 . . . 'i¥c6 1 3 ctJg5 ctJh6 14 0-0 0-0</p><p>1 5 exd6 cxd6 1 6 ctJe3 with an unclear</p><p>game.</p><p>1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 exd6 cxd6 1 5 ii.a3</p><p>�c 7 1 6 ti:Jd4 ii.xa3 1 7 tt:Jxa3</p><p>1 7 . . . tt:Jc6? !</p><p>Better was 1 7 . . . a6 1 8 Mab1 'i¥c5 with</p><p>equality.</p><p>Now \v'hite has the chance to create</p><p>problems for Black by 1 8 ctJab5 'i¥b6 19</p><p>'i¥d5. Instead he played . . .</p><p>1 8 .l:'!,fe1 ? ! 'ife7 1 9 .l:'!,ab1 tt:Je5 20 c4</p><p>a6 21 tt:Jac2 ii.e6 22 tt:Je3 b5 23</p><p>ti:Jd5?</p><p>Here 23 ctJxe6 fxe6 24 cxb5 axb5 was</p><p>necessary, e.g. 25 Med1 Ma4 26 f3 ctJf7</p><p>with equality.</p><p>23 . . . 1i.xd5?</p><p>Black plays to White's tune. Instead af­</p><p>ter 23 . . . 'i¥a7 24 ctJf5 �xf5 25 exf5 bxc4</p><p>26 'i¥g3 f6 Black is much better.</p><p>24 cxd5 �f6 25 ti:Jc6 .l:'!,fe8 26 .l:'!,bc1</p><p>1 3 3</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Now it is White who is slighdy better.</p><p>26 . . . g6 27 h3 h5 28 tZ'Ixe5 l:txe5 29</p><p>�c6 "ilie7 30 f3</p><p>30 . . . g5? !</p><p>Black was apparendy running short of</p><p>time. Here 30 ... f5! was better, and after 31</p><p>�4 fxe4 32 fxe4 l::i.e8 33 'ii'xd6 "Yi'xd6 34</p><p>.U.xd6 c;i;g7 35 �xa6 �xe4 36 �xe4 �xe4</p><p>Black should be able to save the game</p><p>according to Short.</p><p>3 1 "ilib4 l:td8 32 l:Ixa6 f5 33 "ilia5</p><p>fxe4 34 l:ta7 l:td7 35 .l:.xd7 "ii'xd7 36</p><p>fxe4 g4 37 hxg4 hxg4 38 "ii'c3?</p><p>After the strong 38 �e2 �e7 39 �f2!</p><p>Black is in trouble. e.g. 39 ... "iVg5 (or</p><p>39 . . . 'i'h4+ 40 c;i;e3 'tie7 41 �d3) 40 c;i;g3</p><p>.:te8 41 eS! :xeS 42 "ifxbS �xe2 43 �xe2</p><p>'i'xdS 44 �xg4+ with good wmrung</p><p>chances.</p><p>38 . . .'�Ya7+ 39 'tie3 fi'xe3+ ?</p><p>This is a time trouble mistake for cer­</p><p>tain. Black could have taken the pawn:</p><p>39...�xa2 since if 40 :n 'i!Va8 41 "ifh6</p><p>�a7+ 42 Wh2 "ifg7 defends.</p><p>40 .l:!.xe3</p><p>The rook endgame is winning for</p><p>White. The black rook is not very well</p><p>placed, so White has time to bring his</p><p>king to the best square f4. Note that</p><p>1 3 4</p><p>Black cannot go to eS with his king, as</p><p>�f2 with the idea of :rfs mate would be</p><p>decisive.</p><p>40 . . . �f7 41 '.t>f2 '.t>f6 42 .l:!.e2 .l:!.e8 43</p><p>�e3 g3 44 Wf4 .l:ta8 45 .l:tb2 .l:la5 46</p><p>a3 .l:lxa3 47 l:txb5 �a2 48 �b6 �xg2</p><p>49 l:txd6+ <Jitf7 50 'it>f3 l:tg1 51 l::te6</p><p>1 -0</p><p>Game 47</p><p>S . B . Hansen-H .Stefansson</p><p>Copenhagen 1994</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tZ'If3 tZ'Ic6 3 ii.c4 ii.c5 4 b4</p><p>ii.xb4 5 c3 ii.a5 6 d4 d6 7 't'Vb3 �d7</p><p>8 dxe5 dxe5 9 0-0</p><p>This move is more popular than 9</p><p>i.a3, which we will look at in the next</p><p>game.</p><p>9 . . . ii.b6 1 0 ltd1</p><p>The most obvious and best move. The</p><p>alternatives are not dangerous:</p><p>a) 10 i..bS regains the pawn, but noth­</p><p>ing more. After 10 ... "ife6 1 1 'i¥xe6+ i..xe6</p><p>12 .ixc6+ bxc6 1 3 lLlxeS tLle 7 14 i..a3 cS</p><p>1 5 t2Jd2 f6 16 ltJe£3 0-0-0 Black's game</p><p>was preferable in R.Duhrssen-P.Keres,</p><p>correspondence 1 935.</p><p>b) 10 i..a3 tLlaS 1 1 lLlxeS!? lLlxb3 12</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . il. a 5</p><p>axb3 �e6 (not 1 2 . . .'ifd8?? 1 3 .tx£7 mate)</p><p>1 3 i.xe6 .txe6 14 CLld2 a6 is just equal</p><p>according to Euwe.</p><p>1 0 . . . 'it'e7</p><p>1 1 a4?!</p><p>Black now has time to bring the dark­</p><p>squared bishop back into the game.</p><p>Therefore some alternatives seem to be</p><p>required:</p><p>a) 1 1 �dS?! is no help after 1 1 ...i.e6!</p><p>1 2</p><p>'i!Va4 (if 1 2 i.bS?! a6 1 3 .ta3 'iif6 and</p><p>White's attack has gone; if 14 i.a4 CLlge7</p><p>1 S i.xe7 �xe7 16 "ifc2 f6 17 .txc6+ bxc6</p><p>18 l::i.d1 0-0 and Black is clearly better)</p><p>12 ... i.d7 1 3 'i¥b3 CLlaS (1 3 ... .te6 repeats)</p><p>14 �xaS i.xaS 1 S �xb7 l::i.d8 16 .ta3 "iff6</p><p>17 "iidS i.b6 1 8 �xeS+ �xeS 1 9 CLlxeS</p><p>CLlh6 and only Black has chances to win,</p><p>e.g. 20 CLld2 .ta4 21 .tdS f6 22 CLlc6 i.xc6</p><p>23 .txc6+ �£7 24 .tdS+ 'lt>g6 2S CLlc4</p><p>CLlg4 and Black is better.</p><p>b) 1 1 i.a3! "ii'f6 1 2 i.bS seems to be</p><p>strongest here, e.g. 1 2 . . . CL:lge7 1 3 CLlbd2</p><p>i.e6 1 4 CLlc4 0-0 1 S i.xc6 bxc6 16 �a4</p><p>il.xc4 1 7 'ilfxc4 �fe8 1 8 i.xe 7 l1xe 7 1 9</p><p>�d3 and White has an edge, despite the</p><p>pawn nunus.</p><p>1 1 . . . ii.c5!</p><p>The bishop cleverly returns to fight for</p><p>the a3-f8 diagonal. Other moves have</p><p>been problematic for Black:</p><p>a) 1 1 . . .CLlaS?! 1 2 i.x£7+ 'ifx£7??</p><p>(12 . . . �f8 13 "iia2 was forced) 13 l1d8+</p><p>'lt>e7 14 i..gS+ CLlf6 1 S 'ifx£7+ 'lt>x£7 1 6</p><p>�xh8 won the exchange in M.Zulfugarli­</p><p>S.Dovliatov, Minsk 2000.</p><p>b) 1 1 . . .CLlh6 12 aS i..xaS 1 3 i.a3 'ii'f6</p><p>1 4 i..bS i..d7 1 S c4 and White has more</p><p>than enough compensation for the pawns</p><p>according to Keres, mainly because of the</p><p>poor position of the bishop on aS.</p><p>c) 1 1 . . . aS seems natural, but gives</p><p>White the tempo back, e.g. 1 2 i.dS i.g4</p><p>1 3 l:td3 0-0-0 14 .ta3 VWf6 1 S CLlbd2</p><p>CLlge7 1 6 c4 CLlxdS 1 7 cxdS CLld4 1 8 �c4</p><p>CLle2+ 1 9 �fl CLlf4 20 l::i.b3 �b8</p><p>(G.Tiedt-A.Sickfeld, correspondence</p><p>1 990) and now after 21 l1ab1 White has a</p><p>terrific attack.</p><p>d) 1 1 . . .a6 1 2 i..a3 �f6 1 3 aS (or 1 3</p><p>i..dS!? CLlge7 14 CLlbd2 intending CLlc4,</p><p>keeping up the pressure) 1 3 . . . i.a7 14</p><p>i.dS CLlge7 1S lta2 0-0 1 6 i.xc6 bxc6 17</p><p>.l::rad2 with good compensation for the</p><p>pawn according to Matsukevitch.</p><p>1 2 aS a6</p><p>If 1 2 . . . CLlf6 1 3 a6! bxa6 14 i.dS with</p><p>compensation.</p><p>1 3 5</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>1 3 ii,d5</p><p>If 13 �a3 �xa3 14 lL'lxa3 lL'lf6 1 5 �d5</p><p>0-0 1 6 �xc6 (or 1 6 lL'lc4 �d7 1 7 'iVxb7</p><p>�fb8 1 8 'iVxc 7 lL'le8 1 9 �xf7+ 'iVxf7 20</p><p>'iVxd7 'iVxc4) 1 6 . . . bxc6 1 7 'iVc4 (or 1 7</p><p>l2Jc4 �e6) 1 7.. .�g4 1 8 �d3 l2Jd7 and</p><p>Black's position is preferable.</p><p>1 3 . . . tt:Jf6 1 4 ii,g5?!</p><p>Better was the unattractive 14 �a3 0-0</p><p>1 5 j(xc6 bxc6 16 'iVc4 jtxa3 1 7 lL'lxa3</p><p>transposing to the previous note. Now</p><p>White is quickly getting into deep trouble.</p><p>14 . . . 0-0 1 5 lLlbd2?!</p><p>Or 1 5 jtxc6 bxc6 1 6 lL'lbd2 h6 and</p><p>Black is at least slightly better. Now Black</p><p>retains the knight and brings it to the very</p><p>useful f4-square.</p><p>1 5 . . . lLld8! 1 6 'i'a2 lLle6 1 7 ii,h4 lLlf4</p><p>1 8 Ji,c4 lLlg6 1 9 ii,g3 lLlh5</p><p>White's initiative is dead and buried,</p><p>while the extra black pawn is still alive</p><p>and kicking.</p><p>20 l"!.ab1 l1t>h8 2 1 l"!.e1 CDhf4 22 CDf1</p><p>'iif6 23 CDe3 b5 24 axb6 cxb6 25</p><p>'iic2 b5 26 �a2 �d7?!</p><p>26 . . . jtxe3 27 �xe3 jte6 28 jtxe6</p><p>'iVxe6 was simpler, when Black is just</p><p>technically winning.</p><p>27 l"!.bd1 Ji,e6 28 �xe6 'iixe6 29 CDd5</p><p>1 3 6</p><p>l"!.ad8 30 CDg5 'i'e8 31 Ji,xf4 exf4 32</p><p>e5? !</p><p>Better was 32 'iVe2 h6 33 'iVh5 �g8 34</p><p>lL'lf3 'iVe6 35 l2Jd4 and \x;'hite has serious</p><p>drawing chances.</p><p>32 . . . h6 33 lLlf3</p><p>�Also after 33 lL'le4 'iVc6 34 lL'lxc5 'iVxc5</p><p>35 'iVe4 �fe8 36 lL'lxf4 lL'lxe5 Black is</p><p>close to winning.</p><p>33 . . . 'i'c6</p><p>34 'iie4?</p><p>34 'iVa2 was a better try, though after</p><p>36 . . . 'iVe6 35 �d2 Md7 36 l2Jb4 �xd2 37</p><p>'iVxd2 �c8 Black should still win at the</p><p>end of ends.</p><p>34 . . . CDe7</p><p>Winning a piece.</p><p>35 CDf6 gxf6 36 'i'xf4 lLlg8 37 CDh4</p><p>l"!.xd 1 38 l"!.xd 1 'iie6 39 exf6 l"!.d8 40</p><p>l"!.a1 'i'xf6 0- 1</p><p>Game 48</p><p>A .Grosar-D .Gross</p><p>Buekfuerdo 199 5</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 CDf3 lLlc6 3 Ji,c4 Ji,c5 4 b4</p><p>Ji,xb4 5 c3 Ji,a5 6 d4 d6 7 'i'b3 'iid7</p><p>8 dxe5 dxe5 9 Ji,a3!?</p><p>An intrusive move.</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . .1L a 5</p><p>9 . . . i.b6 1 0 etJbd2 tt:Ja5</p><p>The alternative 10 .. . tLJh6?! would make</p><p>Dr. Tarrasch turn in his grave .. . at least a</p><p>little bit. Now White can consider:</p><p>a) 1 1 .l::l.d1 ?! LL:la5 12 �b4 c5 1 3 �b1</p><p>0-0 14 LL:lxe5 �e7 1 5 tLJdf3 LL:lxc4 1 6</p><p>LL:lxc4 i.g4 and Black is better.</p><p>H.Hoeksema-J .Brenninkmeijer, Gronin­</p><p>gen 1993.</p><p>b) 1 1 0-0! tLJa5 12 �b4 LL:lxc4 1 3 LL:lxc4</p><p>f6 14 .l::l.ad1 �e6 (not 14 . . . a5?! 1 5 �b3</p><p>�c6?! 1 6 tLJfxe5! fxe5 1 7 LL:lxe5 i.e6 1 8</p><p>c4 and White wins) 1 5 .l::l.d5 c5 (if</p><p>1 5 .. . i.d7 16 tLJg5! or 1 5 . . . 4Jf7 16 .l::l.fd1</p><p>and Black's position looks awful)</p><p>1 6.�a4+ i.d7 1 7 . .l::l.xd7 �xd7 1 8.tLJxb6</p><p>�xa4 1 9.tLJxa4 b6 20 . .l::l.d1 Md8 21 .Mxd8+</p><p>�xd8 22.c4 tLJ£7 23.tLJc3 and White was</p><p>clearly better, P.Rodriguez-L.Valdes,</p><p>Cuba 1 990.</p><p>c) 1 1 i.b5!? f6 12 0-0-0!, followed by</p><p>13 tLJc4, is also very dangerous for Black.</p><p>1 1 'ifb4</p><p>An interesting option is 1 1 LL:lxe5!?</p><p>tLJxb3 12 axb3! (the black queen is not a</p><p>hare, she will not run away) 12 . . . i.xf2+</p><p>(12 .. . tLJf6 is possibly better, but not</p><p>12 ... �d8?? 1 3 i.x£7 mate again) 1 3 �e2</p><p>i.h4 (or 1 3 ... i.b6 14 tLJxd7 i.xd7 1 5</p><p>tLJf3 with compensation) 14 tLJdf3 i.f6</p><p>1 5 tLJxd7 i.xd7 16 e5 i.e7 1 7 tLJd4 i.xa3</p><p>1 8 .l::l.xa3 �e7 19 b4 with excellent</p><p>compensation for the pawn in Y.Estrin­</p><p>M.Skrovina, correspondence 1 960</p><p>1 1 . . . c5!?</p><p>Black can defend his colours more eas­</p><p>ily by 1 1 ...�e7! 1 2 �b5+ (if 12 �2 �f6</p><p>or 12 LL:lxe5 LL:lxc4 1 3 tLJdxc4 �xb4 14</p><p>cxb4 i.e6) 12 . . . i.d7 1 3 i.xe7 i.xb5 1 4</p><p>i.xb5+ �xe 7 1 5 LL:lxe5 c6 with equality.</p><p>1 2 'ifb2 tt:Jxc4 1 3 tt:Jxc4</p><p>1 3 . . . 'ife6?</p><p>The beginning of a truly horrible game</p><p>for Black. 1 3 .. . �d3? would be even</p><p>worse, due to 14 tLJfxe5 �xe4+ 1 5 �f1</p><p>�d5 1 6 �b3 and Black is in big trouble.</p><p>1 3 7</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>But after simply 13. . . f6 14 l:!.d1 'iVc6 1 5</p><p>tt:'ld6+ �e7 1 6 0-0 (or 1 6 c4 .te6)</p><p>1 6 . . . tt:'lh6 1 7 c4 'bf7 1 8 tt:'lxc8+ �axeS 1 9</p><p>�d5 �hd8 White has nothing much to</p><p>show for the pawn, L.Christiansen­</p><p>H.Gretarsson, Yerevan Olympiad 1 996.</p><p>14 tt:Jtxe5 tt:Jf6 1 5 'i!Vb5+ ..id7 1 6</p><p>tt:Jxd7 'ifxe4+ 1 7 �d2</p><p>1 7 . . . 'i!Vd5+</p><p>17 . . .'iff4+ 1 8 �c2 i¥f5+ (if 1 8 . . .'iVxf2+</p><p>1 9 �b3 'bxd7 20 .l::i.hel+ just wins) 1 9</p><p>�b3 i¥xd7 20 �hel+ �f8 21 i.xc5+</p><p>i.xc5 22 i¥xc5+ �g8 23 l:i:ad1 is similar</p><p>to the game, and is much better for</p><p>White, because of his superior mobilisa­</p><p>tion. After 23 .. ."�g4 he would just cash in</p><p>with 24 jfxa 7!.</p><p>1 8 �c2 'i!Vxd7 1 9 .Uhe1 + �f8 20</p><p>..ixc5+ ..ixc5 21 �xc5+ �g8 22</p><p>.Uad1 'i!Va4+</p><p>Compared with the 1 7 ... i¥f4+ line</p><p>above, Black has this extra check avail</p><p>1 3 8</p><p>-able, but it does not really help at all.</p><p>23 Wb2 h6 24 lid4 'ikc6 25 'ifxc6</p><p>bxc6 26 .l:!.e7</p><p>Material is equal, but the position is</p><p>just lost for Black.</p><p>26 . . . tt:Jd5 27 .l:!.d7 Wh7</p><p>Or 27 ... 'bb6 28 .l:!c7 c5 29 'bxb6 axb6</p><p>30 l:tdd7 and White wins - something for</p><p>those who like to dominate.</p><p>28 .l:.xf7 .l:!.hf8 29 l:txf8 .i:'txf8 30 l:td2</p><p>.l:!.f7 31 tt:Je5 .l:!.b7 + 32 Wc2 .l:.b6?!</p><p>32 . . . l:tc7, followed by . . . g7-g5 and mov­</p><p>ing the king to the centre, might have</p><p>offered a faint prayer of a draw.</p><p>33 .l:!.d4 l:!:a6 34 a4 CL'lb6 35 Wb3 c5</p><p>36 .l::td6</p><p>Black's pieces are tragicomical. It's al­</p><p>most as if White has played the moves for</p><p>both sides.</p><p>36 . . Jla5 37 .i:'tc6 h5 38 f4 Wg8 39 g3</p><p>Wh7 40 h3 'lt>g8 41 g4 h4 42 g5 �f8</p><p>43 c4 �e7 44 f5 1 -0</p><p>Th e Evans Gambit: Th e Main L in e with 5 . . . .fi a 5</p><p>Summary</p><p>After S ... .taS, 6 d4 is the most dangerous line for Black, but it does not seem to gener­</p><p>ate enough pressure to guarantee White an advantage. Black should be able to hold his</p><p>own with both 6 .. . d6 and the slightly more adventurous 6 .. . exd4 7 0-0 tbge7!.</p><p>Nevertheless, I believe that there is plenty of room for improvements on both sides,</p><p>and that the Evans Gambit will prove a dangerous weapon into the 21st century. Espe­</p><p>cially when the opponents are not 2700+ super-grandmasters, and</p><p>have not checked</p><p>everything with a computer years in advance.</p><p>So, although the Spanish gives more promise of a theoretical advantage, the Evans</p><p>Gambit gives better chances of actually winning the game. It is the opening for those</p><p>players who hate to compromise.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .tc4 .tc5 4 b4 .txb4 5 c3 .ta5 6 d4 exd4</p><p>6 .. . d6</p><p>7 0-0 - Chapter 8</p><p>7 'ilfb3 'i!fd7 8 dxeS (D)</p><p>8 . . . .tb6 - Game 46</p><p>8 . . . dxe5</p><p>9 0-0 - Game 47</p><p>9 .ta3 - Game 48</p><p>7 0-0 (D) tt:lge7</p><p>7 ... d3 - Game 42</p><p>7 ... dxc3 - Game 4 3</p><p>8 tt:lg5 d5 9 exd5 tt:le5 1 0 .ltb3 (D)</p><p>1 0 .. . 0-0 - Game 44</p><p>10 ... dxc3 - Game 45</p><p>8 dxe5 7 0-0 1 0 JLb3</p><p>1 3 9</p><p>CHAPTER TEN I</p><p>The Hungarian Defence</p><p>and Other Sidelines</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tLlf3 tZ:lc6 3 .ic4</p><p>As this is my second book on 1 e4 e5 2</p><p>lZ'lf3 ctJc6 3 .tc4, I cannot honestly pre­</p><p>tend that no other moves than 3 . . . .tc5</p><p>and 3 ... ctJf6 exist. Hence this hidden</p><p>chapter on Black's various third move</p><p>alternatives, culminating in the respect­</p><p>able Hungarian Defence 3 . . . .te7.</p><p>This line is nothing but a stupid trap ...</p><p>which has, however, been successful in</p><p>many Jumor games.</p><p>4 tZ:lxd4!</p><p>The trap consists of 4 ctJxe5??, which</p><p>loses to 4 .. .'i¥g5! 5 ctJxf7 (5 .tx£7+ ctle7 6</p><p>0-0 is the best chance now, though Black</p><p>is still close to winning after 6 . . .'ifxe5)</p><p>r----------------. 5 .. ."i¥xg2 6 a:n 'iixe4+ 7 .te2 ctJf3 mate.</p><p>Game 49</p><p>C . Luciani-M . Petrovic</p><p>Nova Conca 2001</p><p>The number of people who missed the</p><p>mate is astonishing - and I do not mean</p><p>on the 4th move, but on the 7th! Still,</p><p>._ _____________ ...,. when people take the queen with</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 etJf3 tZ:lc6 3 .ic4 tLld4?</p><p>1 4 0</p><p>7 .. . ctJxc2+, they usually win too.</p><p>4 . . . exd4</p><p>Now we have a position from a dubi­</p><p>ous line in the Spanish with an extra</p><p>move for White. Somehow this is not</p><p>good news for Black.</p><p>5 c3!</p><p>\X'hite has a lead in development and</p><p>for this reason wants immediate confron­</p><p>tation.</p><p>5 . . . .ic5?</p><p>Another mistake. It is not easy to guess</p><p>that Black is rated 2210. Strongest was</p><p>Hungarian Th e S ·de fin es d O th e r ' D e fence an</p><p>ttJ 47 1 1 · · · 9 .</p><p>· his;J Now what ls t .</p><p>i.f4 .SJ8? ! 1 2 'Llxd5+ WeB 1 3</p><p>h cnfice. Anot er sa</p><p>�d2 l:!.xf4 14 tt'lxc7+ We7 1 5</p><p>And another one.</p><p>�f7 + Wd6 1 6 �xf4 i.e5 1 7</p><p>'Lle8 + Wc6 1 �0</p><p>Mate is cormng.</p><p>g. at .</p><p>erv stron ' this IS not v . Of course</p><p>. bv force. least it is not losmg -</p><p>S as they</p><p>4 d4!</p><p>ther move , I will ignore o</p><p>ell make sense. har v</p><p>�d4 5 'Llxd4</p><p>k most sense.</p><p>4 . . . e</p><p>e rna es . this mov Agam c</p><p>Others:</p><p>6 7 .1xd3 .1e 7 8 c4 3 d3 6 0-0 d</p><p>.</p><p>p Blatny,</p><p>a) 5 c ·</p><p>s P.SV!dler- · . .1f6 9 h3 tZ:lge 7 wa</p><p>l m not convmced 1992 and a Gausdal '</p><p>t all here. White is better a</p><p>lj lj M.Munoz</p><p>that</p><p>5 � xf7+ 'it>xf7 6 0-0</p><p>z-uilz 2003 was</p><p>b) ....,</p><p>G ·aq ' hez-J .Guerrero, uay</p><p>k but I don't</p><p>Sane</p><p>kind of JO e, probably some</p><p>.</p><p>3 d3 was also</p><p>get it...</p><p>5 .1c5 6 c c • 5 0-0 d6 ( . . .</p><p>. ·hen White</p><p>c)</p><p>t w times, w laved by Blatny a e</p><p>h ve real theory on</p><p>p</p><p>� li ht edge; to a</p><p>Jf':\ d4 .1e7 7</p><p>has a s g</p><p>: ) 6 '-LJX</p><p>.</p><p>this seems ri�culous</p><p>e 7' C.Schlingensle­Jf':\ 3 .1f6 8 .1e3 tZ:lg</p><p>Champwn-</p><p>1 8 '-LlC.</p><p>A trian T earn</p><p>k</p><p>p Blatnv, us</p><p>e for Blac ·,</p><p>pen- . ,</p><p>f course wors ship 1995, was o</p><p>1 4 1</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>though the grandmaster still made a full</p><p>point out of his favourite line.</p><p>5 . . . 'it'f6</p><p>This is apparently Blatny's idea, but</p><p>honestly . . .</p><p>6 Ae3</p><p>Natural, but rrusstng the option to</p><p>force an advantage. Here 6 ctJbS! looks</p><p>crushing!</p><p>a) 6 . . . i.c5 7 0-0 i.b6 8 i.e3 lt:JeS 9</p><p>i.b3 lt:Je7 10 a4! and Black is suffering.</p><p>b) 6 . . . i.b4+ is surprisingly hard to re­</p><p>fute, but I will try all the same: 7 i.d2</p><p>'ifeS 8 ctJ1c3! (with the plan of 9 ctJdS)</p><p>8 ... ctJd4 9 lt:Jxd4 'ifxd4 1 0 'ife2 lt:J£6 1 1</p><p>0-0-0 with a clear plus for White.</p><p>6 . . . Ac5 7 c3 'Lle5 8 Ae2 'it'g6?</p><p>1 4 2</p><p>I do not believe this. Instead 8 . . . d6 is</p><p>just a bit better for White.</p><p>9 0-0?</p><p>9 lt:JbS! again seems critical: 9 ... i.xe3</p><p>(9 ... 'ifxg2 1 0 l:':i.£1 ! i.xe3 1 1 lt:Jxc7+ �d8</p><p>12 ctJxa8 transposes) 10 lt:Jxc7+ �d8 1 1</p><p>ctJxa8 'ifxg2 1 2 l:':i.£1 i.f4 1 3 ctJd2 lt:Jf6 1 4</p><p>'ifa4 should favour White, although these</p><p>things are never entirely simple, e.g.</p><p>14 ... lt:Jfg4 1 5 'iVaS+ b6 1 6 'ifxa7 lt:Jxh2 1 7</p><p>'i¥xb6+ �e7 1 8 lt:Jc7 i.xd2+ 1 9 �xd2</p><p>ctJxf1 + 20 l:':i.x£1 'ifxe4 21 f4! and White</p><p>has a winning attack.</p><p>9 . . . 'Llf6 1 0 'Lld2</p><p>10 lt:JbS i.xe3 1 1 ctJxc7+ �d8 1 2</p><p>lt:Jxa8 i.f4 1 3 'ifa4!? again looks very du­</p><p>bious for Black.</p><p>1 0 . . . 0-0?</p><p>Instead 10 ... d5?! 1 1 i.f4 i.d6 12 exdS</p><p>was also good for White in M.Senff­</p><p>P.Blatny, Budapest 1 999. But 1 O . . . d6! is</p><p>probably not too bad anymore.</p><p>1 1 'Llf5 !</p><p>White is already winning.</p><p>1 1 . . .Ad6 1 2 f4 'Lleg4 1 3 Ad4! h5 1 4</p><p>h3 'Llh6 1 5 'Llxh6 + 'ii'xh6 1 6 e 5 'Lld5</p><p>1 7 exd6 'Llxf4 1 8 dxc7 'it'g5 1 9 l:!.xf4</p><p>1 9 i.f3!? lt:Jxh3+ 20 �h2 was obvi­</p><p>ously winning too.</p><p>Th e Hungarian D e fe n c e a n d O th e r Side lin es</p><p>1 9 . . . iixf4 20 .ixh5 d5 21 'ife2 iixc7</p><p>22 'iie5 'ifxe5 23 .ixe5 .tieS 24 .id4</p><p>.if5 25 .llf 1 .ig6 26 .ixg6 fxg6 27</p><p>�f3 .lle2 28 .llf2 .lle6 29 .lld2 .llae8</p><p>30 �f1 b6 31 .if2 .lld6 32 c4 .lled8</p><p>33 .ig3 .ll6d7 34 .ih4 1 -0</p><p>Game 5 1</p><p>J .Van der Wiei-U . Baumgartner</p><p>Holzoster am See 1981</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �c6 3 .ic4 g6</p><p>This semi-Philidor variation can also</p><p>be reached with 3 . . . d6, though there are</p><p>some marginal differences, as can be seen</p><p>from the notes.</p><p>4 d3</p><p>In this game we shall look at the more</p><p>quiet options. It does not seem logical to</p><p>allow Black to slowly build up his posi­</p><p>tion, as structurally he will be OK. In­</p><p>stead:</p><p>a) 4 d4! is considered in the next two</p><p>games.</p><p>b) 4 0-0 seems a bit slow. I flrmly be­</p><p>lieve that White's only chance for an ad­</p><p>vantage is to put pressure on the black</p><p>centre immediately. After 4 . . . i.g7 5 .l:!e1</p><p>d6 6 c3 lDf6 (the knight belongs here; e7</p><p>is for the queen now that no knight can</p><p>come to d5) 7 h3 0-0 8 .i.b3 tLla5 9 i.c2</p><p>c5 1 0 d4 'iVc7 R.Basirov-S.Voitsekhovsky,</p><p>Kstovo 1 994 had reached a Spanish style</p><p>position with approximately equal</p><p>chances.</p><p>c) 4 c3 leaves us with two main lines:</p><p>c1) 4 .. . i.g7 5 d4 d6 6 0-0 (after 6 dxe5</p><p>dxe5 7 'ilfb3 'iVe7 8 tLlg5 t2Jd8 9 0-0 h6 1 0</p><p>tt:Jf3 lDf6 1 1 .l:!e 1 0-0 Black had equalised</p><p>and later won in A.Shchekachev-Ye</p><p>Rongguang, Antwerp 1 996) and now:</p><p>c1 1) 6 ... tt:Jf6 (I cannot see any other</p><p>satisfactory moves here; it is difflcult for</p><p>Black to develop satisfactorily) 7 dxe5</p><p>tt:Jxe5 8 etJxe5 dxe5 9 'iixd8+ \t>xd8 1 0</p><p>i.x£7 tLlxe4 1 1 i.e3 with a slight White</p><p>advantage in the endgame. Of course it is</p><p>possible to play like this as Black. We all</p><p>know that you need two weaknesses to</p><p>win a game, and right now Black only has</p><p>one. But then again it is hardly advisable</p><p>to enter an endgame that is already 'half</p><p>lost'.</p><p>c12) 6 . . . h6?! does not make it easier for</p><p>Black: 7 i.e3 etJge7 (after 7 . . . etJf6 8 dxe5!</p><p>then 8 ... etJg4 is probably necessary and</p><p>following 9 exd6 etJxe3 1 0 fxe3 'ilfxd6 1 1</p><p>'ilfxd6 cxd6 1 2 etJa3, White's extra pawn</p><p>1 4 3</p><p>Italian Game a n d Eva n s Gambit</p><p>should count for something) 8 dxe5 dxe5</p><p>9 �e2 �e6?! (though if 9 . . . 0-0 10 J:id1</p><p>�e8 1 1 ctJbd2 and White is better) 10</p><p>�xe6 fxe6 1 1 J:id1 �c8 12 ctJa3 with a</p><p>clear advantage for W'hite in \'1/u Xibin­</p><p>Ye Rongguang, Chinese Team Champi­</p><p>onship 1 987.</p><p>c2) 4 . . . d6!? 5 d4 �e7! (played like this,</p><p>the variation seems like a sound version</p><p>of the Three Knights with 4 . . . h6 and later</p><p>. . . g 7 -g6; for those wanting to avoid the­</p><p>ory, this kind of position must be very</p><p>attractive) 6 dxe5 (6 d5 ctJdS! should give</p><p>Black a perfectly playable position; the</p><p>white pieces are not ideally placed, and</p><p>the black knight will go to f7 and support</p><p>. . . �g7-h6 later on) 6 . . . ctJxe5 7 ctJxe5 dxe5</p><p>8 0-0 ctJf6 9</p><p>�f3 �e6 10 �gS �g7</p><p>and the question is whether W'hite has</p><p>any advantage at all here. I doubt it.</p><p>E.Mednis-V.Korchnoi, Vienna 1 986, con­</p><p>tinued 1 1 ctJd2 h6 12 i,xf6 i,xf6 1 3</p><p>i,xe6 �xe6 1 4 ctJc4 i,g5 1 5 b3 0-0-0 1 6</p><p>liad1 c6 1 7 lixd8+ lixd8 1 8 J:id1 h 5 19</p><p>Mxd8+ �xd8?? (1 9 . . . �xd8 was quite</p><p>even) 20 �xf7! �xf7 21 ctJd6+ �c7 22</p><p>ctJxf7 i,f6 23 �f1 1 -0.</p><p>4 . . . d6</p><p>Or 4 ... i,g7 5 �g5 (5 ctJg5!? ctJh6 6 a3</p><p>1 4 4</p><p>is worth trying when W'hite might be a bit</p><p>better; instead 6 h4 ctJa5! is probably OK</p><p>for Black, if somewhat unconventional)</p><p>5 . . . ctJf6 6 ctJc3 h6 7 i,e3 d6 8 �d2 ctJa5</p><p>and there is no real argument to counter</p><p>the claim that Black is absolutely fine,</p><p>R.Greger-J .Hvenekilde, Danish League</p><p>1994.</p><p>5 c3</p><p>5 ctJg5 ctJh6 6 h4 (again 6 a3!?) 6 . . . ctJa5</p><p>does not appear to be too dangerous for</p><p>Black here either.</p><p>5 . . . .¥l.g7 6 h4! ?</p><p>6 . . . h6</p><p>6 . . . ctJf6 7 CDg5 0-0 8 h5! would give</p><p>W'hite a very strong attack, based on</p><p>8 . . . ctJxh5? 9 Mxh5! and wins.</p><p>7 h5 g5</p><p>This is a slight weakening of the king­</p><p>side pawn structure, of course, but there</p><p>are more important things in the position.</p><p>8 'bbd2 'Llf6</p><p>8 . . . ctJge7!? 9 ctJf1 ctJa5 10 i,b5+ i,d7</p><p>1 1 i,xd7+ �xd7 12 ctJe3 f5 with unclear</p><p>play was also interesting.</p><p>9 'Llf1 d5!? 1 0 exd5 'Llxd5 1 1 'iVb3</p><p>'Llce7</p><p>1 1 . . .CDa5 1 2 'il¥a4+ ctJc6 with approxi­</p><p>mately even chances was interesting too.</p><p>Th e Hungarian D e fe n c e a n d O th e r Sidelin es</p><p>1 2 Jii.e3</p><p>1 2 . . . Jii.e6</p><p>12 . . . c6!? was a good alternative, and if</p><p>13 0-0-0 b5 14 iLxd5 'il¥xd5 15 c4 bxc4</p><p>1 6 dxc4 'il¥a5 with good play for Black.</p><p>Probably 1 3 d4!? with unclear chances</p><p>would be the best way for White to re­</p><p>spond.</p><p>1 3 0-0-0 c6? !</p><p>Black is playing slowly, and sacrificing</p><p>a pawn at the same time. White should</p><p>just take it!</p><p>1 4 �xb7 ! 0-0 1 5 Jii.c5!</p><p>Now Black is tied up and White has a</p><p>clear advantage.</p><p>1 5 . . . .Mea 1 6 �a6 �c7 1 7 t'Llg3 Jii.c8</p><p>1 8 �a3 t'Llb6?! 1 9 Jii.d6!</p><p>Picking up another litde one.</p><p>1 9 . . . t'Llxc4 20 dxc4 �b7 21 Jii.xe5</p><p>Jii.xe5 22 t'Llxe5 t'Llf5 23 t'Llg4 '\t>g7 24</p><p>�c5 t'Llxg3 25 �d4+ '\t>f8 1 -0</p><p>Black resigned as 26 'il¥h8+! is mate in</p><p>four moves.</p><p>exd4</p><p>This is pretty much forced, as 4 . . . .1Lg7</p><p>5 dxe5 CLJxe5 6 CLJxe5 .1Lxe5 is very unfor­</p><p>tunate indeed: 7 i.xf7+! �xf7 S 'il¥d5+</p><p>�f6? 9 .1Lg5+! �xg5 1 0 'il¥xe5+ and</p><p>White wins.</p><p>5 Jii.g5!?</p><p>5 CLJxd4! iLg7 6 CLJxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 d6</p><p>transposes to the next game.</p><p>Instead 5 c3!? is the official ECO refu­</p><p>tation, but matters are actually less clear.</p><p>5 . . . dxc3 6 CLJxc3 d6! is probably the only</p><p>sensible way to continue, as most decent</p><p>players would see within a few minutes</p><p>that 6 . . . d6 is an absolutely necessary move</p><p>(here 6 . . . .1Lg7? 7 'il¥b3 'il¥e7 8 CLJd5 'il¥xe4+</p><p>9 iLe2 CLJaS 10 'il¥ d 1 is clearly better for</p><p>White, but 1 0 'il¥ d 1 does not deserve the</p><p>'!' in ECO, as 10 CLJxc7+ �d8 1 1 'il¥xf7</p><p>just wins) and then:</p><p>a) 7 'il¥b3 is less threatening now. After</p><p>7 . . . 'il¥d7! 8 CLJd5 iLg7 I do not see a path</p><p>leading to an advantage. 9 iLd2 and .1Lc3</p><p>r-----------------, is probably best, to get real compensation</p><p>Game 52</p><p>A . Deev-E . Polihroniade</p><p>10tsadasi 1990</p><p>for the pawn. The tactical line 9 0-0?!</p><p>CLJa5 10 'il¥b5 CLJxc4 1 1 CLJxc7+ �d8 12</p><p>'il¥xd7+ �xd7 13 CLJxa8 b6 is just bad for</p><p>,_ _____________ ...,. White, as the two bishops should eventu-</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 t'Llf3 t'Llc6 3 Jii.c4 g6 4 d4 ally tell.</p><p>1 4 5</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>b) 7 �gS! is the most annoying, when</p><p>7 . . . f6 is the logical reply (actually 7 . . . �e7</p><p>and 7 .. .'i¥d7!? also look playable; White</p><p>surely has compensation for the pawn,</p><p>but in these modern times defensive</p><p>methods have been refined, and a pawn</p><p>has somehow increased in value . . . ) 8 .5te3</p><p>lLlh6 9 h3 (not the most energetic, but</p><p>otherwise g4 might prove to be a good</p><p>stepping stone for the knight to go to eS)</p><p>9 . . . .i.g7 10 lLld4 (here 10 'ii'dS 'i'd7 1 1</p><p>0-0-0 looks aggressive, but after 1 1 . . .lLlf7</p><p>1 2 h4 hS 1 3 �b 1 0-0 Black is in the game</p><p>and still has the extra pawn; also 1 2</p><p>'i'xf7+? 'i'x£7 1 3 �xf7+ �x£7 1 4 lLldS is</p><p>not strong: 14 ... .i.d7! 1S 0.xc7 l:i.ac8 16</p><p>lLJdS lLlb4+ 1 7 �b 1 0.xdS 1 8 l:i.xdS .5tc6</p><p>and Black is better with the two bishops)</p><p>10 . . . lLJxd4 1 1 .5txd4 c6 1 2 0-0 "i¥e7 1 3 f4</p><p>with an unclear game in M.Reinert­</p><p>J.Hvenekilde, Allerod 1 984.</p><p>5 . . . .i.e7</p><p>6 .i.f4</p><p>6 .5txe 7 'i'xe 7 7 0-0 lLlf6 8 l:i.e 1 (8 eS</p><p>lLlg4 9 l:i.e 1 0-0 seems to be 0 K for</p><p>Black, e.g. after 1 0 0.bd2 d6!) 8.. .0-0 9</p><p>�b3 d6 (9 . . . Z:te8!? 10 lLlxd4 dS is also</p><p>interesting and sound for Black) 1 0 lLlxd4</p><p>was M.Kobalija-I.Polovodin, Novgorod</p><p>1 4 6</p><p>1 999, when Black should probably equal­</p><p>ise with 1 0 . . . 'i'eS! 1 1 c3 �d7 when the</p><p>0.b 1 cannot go to the dream square dS.</p><p>6 . . . d6</p><p>6 . . . lLlf6!? seems perfectly playable too:</p><p>a) 7 lLlxd4 should probably be met by</p><p>the greedy 7 . . . lL:lxe4!?. After 8 lLlbS �b4+</p><p>9 c3 (9 lL\1 c3 0-0 is fme for Black)</p><p>9 . . . .i.aS 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 .i.dS 0.£6 1 2 .i.gS</p><p>White has compensation for the pawn, of</p><p>course, but I still believe that the dangers</p><p>for Black are not too great.</p><p>b) 7 eS 0.hS 8 �h6 d6 9 exd6 'i¥xd6</p><p>1 0 0-0 �e6 1 1 �xe6 fxe6 1 2 �e 1 0-0-0</p><p>was at least fme for Black in O.Eismont­</p><p>S.Biro, Eger 1 993.</p><p>7 tt:Jxd4</p><p>7 0-0 .if6 8 c3 with unclear play was</p><p>also possible.</p><p>7 . . . ctJxd4 8 'it'xd4 i.f6 9 e5!</p><p>White does not really have an alterna­</p><p>tive here (if 9 'i'dS .i.e6 1 0 'i'bS+ c6 1 1</p><p>'i'xb7 .ixc4 1 2 'i'xc6+ �f8 and Black is</p><p>better) . Now Black loses this game very</p><p>quickly, but it is hard to believe that he is</p><p>at a serious disadvantage at the moment.</p><p>9 . . . dxe5</p><p>9 ... 'i'e7!? was interesting. After 10 'i'e3</p><p>�xeS 1 1 �xeS ifxeS 12 'iYxeS+ dxeS 1 3</p><p>Th e Hungarian D e fe n c e a n d O th e r Sidelin e s</p><p>tbc3 c6 the position is very similar to the 1 7 tt::ixf6 tt::ixg3</p><p>game.</p><p>1 0 �xd8 + '.txd8 1 1 i..g3 '.te 7</p><p>1 1 . . .h5!? was another possibility.</p><p>1 2 tt::ic3 c6 1 3 0-0-0</p><p>1 3 . . . tt::ih6</p><p>Alternatively:</p><p>a) 13 ... b5?! 14 .tb3 aS 15 a4 b4 is the</p><p>idea of Fritz 8, but after simple moves like</p><p>1 6 tbe4 J.g7 1 7 �he1 f6 1 8 f4 the ma­</p><p>chine's love for the extra pawn withers</p><p>away. Maybe one day the computers will</p><p>understand the difference between static</p><p>and dynamic features in a position - but</p><p>not yet.</p><p>13 . . . �e6! was the best try. After 14</p><p>�xe6 �xe6 1 5 ::i.he1 Black's position</p><p>might look pretty nasty, but maybe he can</p><p>hold on!? For example: 1 5 . . . h5!? 1 6 h4</p><p>(now White no longer has damaging</p><p>checks at h4) 1 6.. .ctJh6 1 7 CLJe4 ::i.hd8 and</p><p>although Black is worse, he has reasons to</p><p>hope for a draw.</p><p>1 4 .!:!.he 1 i..e6 1 5 i..xe6 '.txe6 1 6 tt::ie4</p><p>tt::if5??</p><p>Here 16 . . . ::i.ad8 was called for, with</p><p>some advantage for White after 1 7 tbxf6</p><p>::i.xdl+ 1 8 �xd1 ::i.d8+ 19 �cl �xf6 20</p><p>.txeS+.</p><p>1 8 tt::id7! 1 -0</p><p>Since 1 8 . . . tiJfS 19 ::i.xeS is mate.</p><p>Game 53</p><p>H . Odeev-V. Vorotnikov</p><p>Moscow 1999</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt::if3 tt::ic6 3 i..c4 d6!?</p><p>This might be the most sensible move</p><p>order, as Black is not yet committed to</p><p>. . . g 7 -g6 and might change course to</p><p>. . . �e7 and . . . tbf6, should White decide to</p><p>sacrifice a pawn with c2-c3. However,</p><p>White gets the advantage all the same.</p><p>4 d4 exd4 5 tt::ixd4 g6 6 tt::ixc6 bxc6 7</p><p>0-0 i..g7</p><p>1 4 7</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>8 f4!</p><p>Here White's advantage should be</p><p>based on a quick attack on Black's weak­</p><p>ened king's position.</p><p>Alternatively: 8 lt:Jc3 lDf6 (or 8 . . . lt:Je7 9</p><p>i.g5 0-0 1 0 'iff3 i.e6 1 1 i.b3 'ifd7 1 2</p><p>i.f6 was better for White in A.Hunt­</p><p>M.Houska, Witley 1 999) 9 i.g5 0-0?!</p><p>(9 ... h6!? is the move for the future,</p><p>though White should be a little better</p><p>after 1 0 i.h4) 1 0 'ifd2 i.e6 1 1 i.xe6 (1 1</p><p>i.b3?! 'ifb8 1 2 i.h6 .l:.e8 1 3 i.xg7 \t>xg7</p><p>1 4 .l:.ae1 'ifb4, M.Tonchev-Z.Jasnikowski,</p><p>could have proba­</p><p>bly made a draw all the way to the end.</p><p>Other options for White are:</p><p>20 �d2 "Vi'xf1 + 21 .l"txf1 1Le7 22 tt:Je4</p><p>.l"td8 23 g4 tiJd4 24 c3 tt:Je6 25 1Le3</p><p>.l"td3 26 .l"te1 .iLh4 27 .l"te2 tt:Jt4 28</p><p>1Lxf4 exf4 29 Wh2 f3 30 .l"td2 .l"te3 31</p><p>tt:Jg3 1Lg5 32 .l"td4 1Lf6 33 .l"te4 .l"td3</p><p>34 tt:Jt1 .l"td1 35 Wg 1 .l"tb1 36 b3</p><p>1Lxc3 37 .l"tf4 .l"tb2 38 .l"txf3 .iLd4+ 39</p><p>Wh 1 .l"txa2 40 tt:Jg3 g6 41 tt:Je4 .l"te2</p><p>42 tt:Jg5 f6 43 .l"td3 c5 44 tiJf3 .l"te3</p><p>45 .l"txe3 1Lxe3 46 Wg2 Wf7 47 Wf1</p><p>We6 48 We2 .iLh6 49 Wd3 b5 50 tiJh4</p><p>1Lg5 51 tt:Jt3 a5 52 h4 1Lf4 53 We4</p><p>.iLh6 54 Wd3 �d5 55 h5 gxh5 56</p><p>gxh5 f5 57 tt:Je1 c4+ 58 bxc4+</p><p>bxc4+ 59 Wc3 1Lg7+ 60 Wd2 �e4</p><p>61 We2 a4 62 tt:Jc2 f4 0-1 a) 7 i.bS i.d7 8 0-0 i.f6 9 c3 liJge7 1 0</p><p>r------------------. i.e3 liJcS 1 1 liJbd2 1/z-1/z R.Kuczynski­</p><p>Game 56</p><p>I . Rogers-B .Ivkov</p><p>Bor 1984</p><p>M.Krasenkow, Polish Championship</p><p>1996.</p><p>b) 7 liJgS i.xgS 8 i.xgS liJd4 9 liJa3</p><p>._ ____________ ...,. i.e6 1 0 0-0-0 i.xc4 1 1 liJxc4 f6 12 i.e3</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tiJf3 tLlc6 3 1Lc4 JLe 7 4 d4</p><p>d6</p><p>This is the other main line of the Hun­</p><p>garian Defence. Usually, books claim that</p><p>White has an advantage by entering the</p><p>endgame, but a closer look shows that the</p><p>1 5 2</p><p>0-0-0 1 3 c3 liJc6 14 �xd8+ liJxd8 1 5 a4</p><p>gave White a slight edge in L.Yudasin­</p><p>Y.Lapshun, New York (rapid) 2004, but</p><p>the a game ended in a draw. It is very</p><p>hard to win such a symmetrical position.</p><p>c) 7 liJc3! is clearly the main line, when</p><p>Th e Hungarian D e fe n c e a n d O ther Sidelin es</p><p>Black has tried a lot of different moves:</p><p>c1) 7 .. . ttJf6 8 .ie3! 0-0 (8 .. . ttJg4 9 .id2</p><p>0-0 10 h3 ttJf6 1 1 0-0-0 was better for</p><p>White in Y.Yakovich-A.Kovalev, Gistrup</p><p>1996; Black is not ready to face a lLld5</p><p>jump) 9 .ic5 l:re8 10 lbg5 .ie6 1 1 fDxe6</p><p>fxe6 12 .ib5 fDd7 13 .ixc6 bxc6 14 .ia3</p><p>lbb6 1 5 b3 White had an enjoyable ad­</p><p>vantage in E.Vasiukov-F.Gheorghiu, Ma­</p><p>nila 1 974.</p><p>c2) 7 ... f6 8 a3 lbge7 (generally I find</p><p>this way of developing dubious) 9 .ie3</p><p>.ig4 10 0-0-0 lbc8 1 1 l:rd3 ttJd6 12 .ia2</p><p>.ie 7 13 fDd2 0-0-0 14 f3 and White was</p><p>better and eventually won in D.Bron­</p><p>stein-V.Kozlov, Daugavpils 1 978.</p><p>c3) 7 . . . lbge7 8 .ie3 lbg6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10</p><p>h3 ttJa5 1 1 .ie2 .ie6 12 lbg5 .ic4, was</p><p>V.Stoica-V.Hort, Porz 1991 , and here</p><p>maybe 1 3 .ig4! gives White a real plus.</p><p>c4) 7 .. . .ig4!? looks respectable, e.g. 8</p><p>.ie3 fDf6 9 .ib5 fDd7 10 0-0-0 lbcb8 1 1</p><p>h3 .ixf3 1 2 .ixd7+ 1/2-1/2 A.Shirov­</p><p>D.Campora, Biel 1 995.</p><p>7. Jbge7 8 j,b3 f6 9 c3 tt:Ja5 1 0</p><p>j,a4+ cJi?f7 1 1 CDbd2 j,e6 1 2 b4!?</p><p>This move is rather committal and</p><p>doesn't really achieve a lot.</p><p>1 2 . . . tt:Jc4 1 3 tt:Jxc4 j,xc4 1 4 j,b3</p><p>1 4 . . . j,e6!?</p><p>Black does not want to open the a-file</p><p>for the white rooks. It is clear anyway that</p><p>Black is not worse.</p><p>1 5 j,xe6 + cJi?xe6 1 6 a4 CDc8 1 7 j,e3</p><p>a5!?</p><p>Black does not want White to advance</p><p>too far. On the minus side Black now has</p><p>some pawns on dark squares. The</p><p>chances are still level.</p><p>1 8 cJi?e2 j,e 7 1 9 .l:Ihb 1 CDd6 20 CDd2</p><p>b6 21 f3 g6 22 b5</p><p>Here 22 bxa5 l:rxa5 23 c4 l:rha8 24 c5</p><p>ttJc8 25 cxb6 ttJxb6 26 .ixb6 cxb6 27</p><p>l:rxb6+ �f7 is just a draw.</p><p>22 . . . .l:Ihd8 23 .l:Id1 CDb7 24 c4 .l:Iac8</p><p>24 ... .ic5!? was also possible.</p><p>25 CDb3 .l:Ixd 1 26 .l:Ixd 1 j,b4</p><p>Black is ready to advance the c-pawn,</p><p>and White will never be able to put a</p><p>knight on d5. Now White plays for a full</p><p>point (for the opponent!) .</p><p>27 c5? ! bxc5! 28 .l:Ic1 c6!</p><p>Suddenly \Xnite is in trouble.</p><p>29 b6 c4 30 CDd2?!</p><p>The white bishop is not very good and</p><p>Black takes this as an invitation to ex­</p><p>change into a promising endgame. In­</p><p>stead 30 l:rxc4 c5 was better for Black,</p><p>1 53</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>who will probably try to win the b6-pawn</p><p>very slowly.</p><p>30 . . . .ixd2</p><p>30 ... CLJd6!? was also promising.</p><p>31 i..xd2 c5 32 f4 .l:td8 33 fxe5 fxe5</p><p>34 .l:If1 ?</p><p>A blunder, probably made in severe</p><p>time trouble Oook at when White resigns) .</p><p>Black was also better after 34 i.c3 l;Id6</p><p>35 l;Ib 1 l:td3 36 !:tel , but White could still</p><p>offer some resistance.</p><p>34 . . . .l:!.d4 35 .tg5</p><p>If 3S �e3 �d3+ 36 'it>e2 l:ta3 37 .l:lf8</p><p>c3 and wins.</p><p>35 . . .lbe4+ 36 '.td1 c3 37 .l:.f6+ Wd5</p><p>38 l:tf7 tbd6 39 .l:i.xh7 .llxa4 40 i..d8</p><p>Ilb4 41 i.c7 0-1</p><p>Game 57</p><p>J .Mestel-V .Smyslov</p><p>Las Paimas Interzonal 1982</p><p>White was clearly better in J .Flis­</p><p>F.Borkowski, Polish Team Championship</p><p>1 981 .</p><p>6 il.d3 tbf6</p><p>Black has a reasonable score from this</p><p>position as well.</p><p>6 .. . i.g4 7 c4 CLJd7 8 CLJc3 CLJgf6 has also</p><p>been played a few times, though not</p><p>enough to give a real theoretical evalua­</p><p>tion. Generally I feel that White has good</p><p>chances of getting an advantage from the</p><p>operung.</p><p>7 c4</p><p>7 . . . 0-0</p><p>The most natural. The alternatives are</p><p>a little worse, I think:</p><p>a) 7 . . . cS!? 8 CLJc3 CLJbd7 has been played</p><p>once by Hort. This transposes to the</p><p>Czech Benoni (1 d4 CLJf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS</p><p>eS!?) and could prove a good idea against</p><p>players unfamiliar with these closed posi-</p><p>,_ _____________ _. tions.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 tbc6 3 i.c4 i.e 7 4 d4</p><p>d6 5 d5 lbb8</p><p>5 ... CLJa5 looks a little suspect. One ex­</p><p>ample: 6 i.d3 c5 7 c4 g6 8 0-0 hS?! (this</p><p>also seems a bit far out) 9 CLJc3 CLJh6 10</p><p>CLJe1 g5 11 a3 b6 12 b4 tbb7 1 3 i.c2!</p><p>�f8 14 CLJd3 ctJg7 1 5 i.a4 f5 1 6 i.c6 and</p><p>1 54</p><p>b) 7 ... CLJbd7 8 CLJc3 0-0 (or 8 .. . CLJcS 9</p><p>i.c2 aS 1 0 h3 CLJfd7 1 1 i.e3 i.f6 1 2 a3</p><p>CLJb6 1 3 b4 and White was better in</p><p>!.Rogers-P J agstaidt, Zurich 1 994) 9 l:tb 1</p><p>CLJcS 1 0 ..tc2 aS 1 1 a3 c6 12 0-0 cxdS 1 3</p><p>cxd5 ..tg4 1 4 h3 ..txf3 1 5 'iixf3 a4 16</p><p>i.e3 CLJfd7 17 'iig4 �h8 1 8 g3 h6 19 h4</p><p>Th e Hunga ria n D e fe n c e a n d O th e r Sidelin es</p><p>i.f6 20 '>i>g2 was also somewhat better</p><p>for White 1n Zhang Pengxiang­</p><p>M.Mancini, Cappelle la Grande 2002.</p><p>c) 7 . . . i.g4 8 h3 i.hS 9 tbc3 tLlbd7 10</p><p>i.e3 0-0 11 0-0 h6 12 g4 .ig6 1 3 a3 lLlh7</p><p>1 4 'lt>g2 and White had the advantage in</p><p>Z.Szabo-Z.Horvath, Gyongyos 1 994.</p><p>Black has no easy breaks on the kingside</p><p>to provide him with counterplay.</p><p>8 tt:Jc3</p><p>8 h3 has also been played, though</p><p>White has no reason to fear .. . i.g4. Then</p><p>Black's options are:</p><p>a) 8 .. . aS 9 tbc3 tLla6 1 0 .ie3 '>i>h8 1 1 a3</p><p>i..d7 12 �b1 tLlg8 1 3 g4 g6 14 .l::i.g1 'ifc8</p><p>1 S 'iY c2 b6 1 6 b4 was a little better for</p><p>White in R.Hubner-P.Herb, Swiss Team</p><p>Championship 1 999.</p><p>b) 8 .. . tLla6 9 tbc3 c6 10 i.e3 �e8 1 1 a3</p><p>h6 12 b4 tLlh7 1 3 'ifd2 tLlgS 14 lLlxgS</p><p>i..xgS did not quite equalise either in</p><p>S.Shivaji-R.De Guzman, San Francisco</p><p>2002.</p><p>c) 8 ... tLlbd7 9 tbc3 lLlhS 10 i..c2 g6 1 1</p><p>i..h6 �e8 1 2 'ifd2 i.f6 1 3 0-0-0 a6 14</p><p>iLgS bS was quite complicated and</p><p>probably absolutely fme for Black.</p><p>W.Mazul-F.Borkowski, Polish Champi­</p><p>onship 1 979.</p><p>8 . . . c6 9 0-0 liJbd7 1 0 .l:!.b1 ! ?</p><p>Or 1 0 i.e3 a6 1 1 h3 cxdS 1 2 cxdS</p><p>lLlhS (here 12 .. . bS 13 a4 b4 14 tLlb1 aS 1 S</p><p>tLlbd2 i.b7 1 6 �cl tLlb6 1 7 i.bS gave</p><p>White a clear plus in A.Ivanov­</p><p>A.Negulescu, Washington 1 998; Black's</p><p>advances on the queenside have only fur­</p><p>nished him with weaknesses) 1 3 'ifd2 g6</p><p>14 g4 tLlg7 1 S lLlh2 tLlcS 1 6 i.c2 aS 1 7 a3</p><p>fS with a very unclear game, B.Stein­</p><p>G.Scholz Solis, Hamburg 1 986.</p><p>1 o . . . .l:!.e8 1 1 b4 ltJf8 1 2 Ite1 ltJg6 1 3</p><p>..fi.f1 l:U8</p><p>1 4 �b3</p><p>14 dxc6!? bxc6 1 S bS should have been</p><p>inserted somewhere - just as Black</p><p>should probably should have played</p><p>.. .c6xdS sooner than he did in the game.</p><p>Now after 1 S .. . .ib7 1 6 a4!? (or most</p><p>other moves), White has a nice queenside</p><p>initiative and the dS-square to comfort</p><p>himself with.</p><p>1 4 . . . '.th8 1 5 ..fi.b2 cxd5</p><p>At last.</p><p>1 6 cxd5 ltJg4 1 7 h3 liJh6 1 8 l:tbc 1</p><p>f5!?</p><p>18 .. . i.d7! was probably more exact,</p><p>when White should play 1 9 l':i.c2!? with</p><p>chances for both sides.</p><p>1 5 5</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>19 tt'lb5</p><p>Heading for e6.</p><p>1 9 . . . fxe4 20 l:kxe4 i.f5</p><p>The immediate 20 ... CDh4! was much</p><p>stronger. After 21 CDxh4?!</p><p>S&xh4 22 g3</p><p>i&g5 White would be forced into 23 f4,</p><p>which is rather uncomfortable for his</p><p>king.</p><p>21 l:kec4 lt:Jh4 22 lt:Jxh4? !</p><p>White could have kept some advantage</p><p>with 22 �1c3! CDxf3+ 23 �xf3, when it is</p><p>not clear how Black should continue.</p><p>22 . . . i.xh4 23 g3? i.g5 24 l:kd1 'Yi'b6!</p><p>25 h4?!</p><p>This loses straight away, but White was</p><p>in deep trouble anyway. If 25 S&c1 i.xc1</p><p>26 �cxc1 i.d7 27 'iYe3 'iYxe3 28 fxe3</p><p>�xf1+ 29 �xf1 i.xb5, or 25 CDc7 �ac8</p><p>26 i.cl S&g6! 27 i.e3 S&xe3 28 'iYxe3</p><p>ifxe3 29 fxe3 CDf5 and Black has a clear</p><p>advantage.</p><p>25 . . . tt'lg4!</p><p>Now White is just lost.</p><p>26 l:kdd4 if.h6</p><p>26 . . . exd4 was also fine, of course.</p><p>27 tt'lc7 l:kac8 28 tt'le6 i.xe6 29 dxe6</p><p>SeeS 30 i.e2 lt:Jxf2 31 Sd5 'Llh3 + 32</p><p>Wg2 'Yi'g1 + 33 Wxh3 'Yi'h1 + 34 Wg4</p><p>'Yi'xd5 35 Sf4 Sxf4+ 0- 1</p><p>1 5 6</p><p>Game 58</p><p>E .Sveshnikov-R. Kholmov</p><p>Sochi 1974</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt'lf3 lt:Jc6 3 i.c4 i.e 7 4 d4</p><p>d6 5 'Llc3</p><p>5 . . . 'Llf6</p><p>5 ... exd4 6 CDxd4 CDf6 7 0-0 would</p><p>transpose to 4 . . . exd4 (see Games 54 and</p><p>55) .</p><p>Instead, 5 ... i.g4 does not seem too re­</p><p>liable: 6 h3 i&xf3 (6 . . . i.h5 7 d5! CDd4 8 g4</p><p>CDxf3+ 9 'iYxf3 i&g6 10 i&b5+ must be</p><p>better for White, or if 7 ... CDb8 8 i.e3</p><p>CDd7 9 a4 with a slight edge) 7 'iYxf3 CDf6</p><p>8 i.b5!? (8 d5 is good too) 8 . . . exd4 9 CDe2</p><p>CDd7 10 i.xc6 bxc6 1 1 CDxd4 CDe5 12</p><p>'iYe2 and White had a pleasant advantage</p><p>in A.Rutman-N.Segal, Ozery 1 997.</p><p>6 h3 0-0 7 0-0 a6</p><p>7 .. . CDxe4 8 CDxe4 d5 9 i.xd5 'iYxd5 10</p><p>CDc3 'iYa5 1 1 d5 �d8 seems to gives</p><p>Black reasonable counterplay, though</p><p>after 1 2 CDd2! (the best test) 1 2 . . . CDb4 1 3</p><p>a3! CDxd5 14 CDb3 CDxc3 1 5 �xd8+ i&xd8</p><p>1 6 CDxa5 CDe2+ 1 7 �h2 CLlxcl 1 8 �axel</p><p>and White is slightly better in the end­</p><p>game.</p><p>Th e Hungaria n D e fe n c e a n d O ther Sidelin es</p><p>8 a4 h6</p><p>9 l::te1</p><p>a) 9 i.e3 .l:'Ie8 10 �e2 i.f8 1 1 .l:'Iad1</p><p>i.d7 12 i.b3 exd4 13 ctJxd4 ctJxd4 14</p><p>i.xd4 i.e6 was also close to equality in</p><p>D.Barua-K.Mokry, Frunze 1983.</p><p>However, I believe \X'hite can prove an</p><p>advantage with . . .</p><p>b) 9 dS ctJaS 10 i.a2!? (10 i.d3 cS 1 1</p><p>ctJd2 i.d7 gives Black good counterplay)</p><p>1 0 . . . c5 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 12 b4 ctJb7 1 3 i.e3</p><p>�c7 14 �d3 and \X'hite looks better or­</p><p>ganised. A future b4-b5 will take control</p><p>over dS and hopefully leave some black</p><p>pawns weakened on the queenside.</p><p>9 . . . l::te8 1 0 b3 exd4</p><p>Or 10 ... i.f8 1 1 i.b2 i.d7 12 'ith2</p><p>exd4 13 ctJxd4 g6 14 ctJxc6 i.xc6 1 5 �£3</p><p>i.g7 with even chances, M.Corden­</p><p>J .Mestel, British Championship 1978.</p><p>1 1 tDxd4 �f8 1 2 �b2 lt:Jxd4</p><p>12 ... ctJe5!?, with chances for both sides,</p><p>looks more appealing.</p><p>1 3 �xd4 �e6 1 4 �xe6 l::txe6 1 5 tDd5</p><p>c6</p><p>1 5 ... ctJd7! with a slight disadvantage</p><p>was necessary.</p><p>1 6 lt:Jxf6+ l::txf6</p><p>1 6 . . . �xf6 1 7 �xf6 gxf6 1 8 f3 .l:'Iae8 1 9</p><p>'itf1 gives White a very promising end­</p><p>game. But objectively, this was Black's</p><p>best option.</p><p>1 7 �b4! d5 1 8 �xb7 l::tg6</p><p>1 9 l::te3??</p><p>An incredible blunder; only this move</p><p>loses the tempi required to drop the</p><p>game. Instead, after something like 1 9</p><p>exdS �xdS (or 1 9 .. . i.c5 20 dxc6 .l:'Ia7 2 1</p><p>c7!) 20 g4 .l:'Id8 21 �xa6 hS 22 .l:'Iad1</p><p>White is very close to winning.</p><p>1 9 . . . �c5 20 l::tf3 l::ta7! 0-1</p><p>The white queen is trapped.</p><p>1 5 7</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>On move three Black has two notable alternatives (to 3 ... .ic5 and 3 ... lt:Jf6) , which are</p><p>3 .. . g6 and 3 . . . .ie7. (3 . . . d6 will transpose to one or other, depending on where Black</p><p>puts the dark-squared bishop.) Of these, 3 . . . g6 seems frankly dubious because of 4 d4</p><p>exd4 5 lt:Jxd4 .ig 7 6 lt:Jxc6! and later on 8 f4! with the initiative for White. Black simply</p><p>cannot develop pleasantly.</p><p>The Hungarian Defence with 3 . . . .ie7 is another story. As can be seen above, after</p><p>the theoretical 4 d4 Black gets a reasonable game with both 4 . . . exd4 and 4 . . . d6. White</p><p>might be on the verge of an edge in some lines, but this is no worse than Black can</p><p>expect in other slightly passive systems. 3 ... .ic5 and 3 . . . lt:Jf6 are still the best moves, but</p><p>3 ... .ie7 is not trailing so far behind.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 'LJf3 'LJc6 3 .ic4 .ie 7</p><p>3 .. . lt:Jd4 - Game 49</p><p>3 ... h6 - Game 50</p><p>3 . . . g6</p><p>4 d3 - Game 51</p><p>4 d4 exd4 (D)</p><p>5 .ig5 - Game 52</p><p>5 lt:Jxd4 .ig 7 6 lt:Jxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 d6 - Game 53</p><p>4 d4 exd4</p><p>4 .. . d6 (D)</p><p>5 dxe5 - Game 56</p><p>5 d5 - Game 57</p><p>5 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 - Game 58</p><p>5 'LJxd4 d6 6 'LJc3 CLJf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 h3 (D)</p><p>8 . . . lt:Je5 - Game 54</p><p>8 . . . .id7 - Game 55</p><p>4 . . . exd4 4 . . . d6</p><p>1 5 8</p><p>8 h3</p><p>INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I</p><p>Alekhine.A-Tarrasch.S, Mannheim 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1</p><p>Anderssen.A-Dufresne.J, Berlin 1852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120</p><p>Asker.S-Miettinen.K, Comspondence 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72</p><p>Bademian Orchanian.J -Servat.R, Mar del Plata 199 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70</p><p>Bronstein.D-Comp. Heuristic Alpha, The Hague 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128</p><p>Chigorin.M-Alapin.S, Vienna 1898 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14</p><p>Chigorin.M-Shabelsky.M, Correspondence 1884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18</p><p>Chigorin.M-Steinitz.W, London 1883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98</p><p>Chigorin.M-Steinitz.W, Telegraph match 1891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106</p><p>Coleman.G-Hawkins.N, Comspondence 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94</p><p>Comp. Fritz 6-Anand.V, Man vs. Machine rematch, Frankfurl (rapid) 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23</p><p>De Boer.W-Van der Kooij.J, Comspondence 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124</p><p>Deev.A-Polihroniade.E, Kusadasi 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145</p><p>Estrin.Y-Angelov.P, Correspondence 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95</p><p>Fang.J-Ivanov.A, Manchester, USA 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28</p><p>Felgaer.R-Hector.J, Copenhagen 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54</p><p>Gielge.G-Poscher.E, Comspondence 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88</p><p>Grosar.A-Gross.D, Buekfuerdo 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136</p><p>Gunnarsson.J-Sasikiran.K, Elista Ofympiad 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</p><p>. . . . . . . . . . 8 1</p><p>Hansen.S.B.-Stefansson.H, Copenhagen 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134</p><p>Havulinna.M-Nissi.J, Comspondence 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100</p><p>Hergott.D-Garcia.G, Linares 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35</p><p>Iordachescu. V -Gyimesi.Z, Rumania 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3</p><p>Jobava.B-Aronian.L, European Championship, Antafya 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104</p><p>Kalashnikov.K-Grachev.J, Novosibirsk 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151</p><p>1 5 9</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Karpatchev.A-Renner.C, German Bundesliga 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1</p><p>Kasparov.G-Anand.V, f\Zga 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75</p><p>Kasparov.G-Piket.J, Amsterdam 199 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67</p><p>Larsen.B-Ochsner.T, Danish Championship, Esl:Jerg 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8</p><p>Luciani.C-.Petrovic.M, Noz1a Gorica 2001 . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140</p><p>Marsden.} -Sutton.J, Cotnrpondence 200 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34</p><p>Mestel.J-Smyslov.V, I _a.r Palma.r Jnterzona/ 198.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154</p><p>Morozevich.A-Adams.M, Wzjk aan Zee 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125</p><p>Movsesian.S-Morozevich.A, Prague (rapid) 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49</p><p>Nevednichy.V-Gyimesi.Z, Mi.rkolc 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47</p><p>Odeev.H-Vorotnikov.V, Moscou! 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147</p><p>Pieri.F-Chiburdanidze.M, Forli 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149</p><p>Pirrot.D-Jenni.F, Cappelle la Grande 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85</p><p>Ponomariov.R-Giorgadze.G, Krasnodar 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64</p><p>Rogers.I-Ivkov.B, Bor 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152</p><p>Salygo.A-Boshoer, Correspondence 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1</p><p>Shirov.A-Timman.J, Bie/ 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78</p><p>Short.N-Aleksandrov.A, Izmir 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6</p><p>Short.N-Hiibner.R, Dortmund 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130</p><p>Skotorenko.V-Ahman.H, Corre.rpondence 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 16</p><p>Stevic.H-Rogic.D, Vinkovci 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61</p><p>Sveshnikov.E-Dautov.R, Pinsk 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7</p><p>Sveshnikov.E-Georgiev.Kir, Elista 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57</p><p>Sveshnikov.E-Kharitonov.A, Russian Championship, Kramqyarsk 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82</p><p>Sveshnikov.E-Kholmov.R, Sochi 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156</p><p>Sveshnikov.E-Stefansson.H, Liepqya (rapid) 2004 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20</p><p>Tyomkin.D-Zugic.I, Afontreal 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15</p><p>Van den Doel.E-Sokolov.I, Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1</p><p>Van der Wiel.J-Baumgartner.U, Holzoster am See 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43</p><p>Velicka.P-Blatny.P, Czech Team Championship 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1</p><p>Vysochin.S-Kapnisis.S, Corinth 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40</p><p>Vysochin.S-Klovans.J, Cappelle la Grande 2005 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52</p><p>Yudasin.L-Lenderman.A, Philadelphia 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44</p><p>1 6 0</p><p>000</p><p>001</p><p>002</p><p>003</p><p>004</p><p>005</p><p>006</p><p>007</p><p>008</p><p>009</p><p>010</p><p>011</p><p>012</p><p>013</p><p>014</p><p>015</p><p>016</p><p>017</p><p>018</p><p>019</p><p>020</p><p>021</p><p>022</p><p>023</p><p>024</p><p>025</p><p>026</p><p>027</p><p>028</p><p>029</p><p>030</p><p>031</p><p>032</p><p>033</p><p>034</p><p>035</p><p>036</p><p>037</p><p>038</p><p>039</p><p>040</p><p>041</p><p>042</p><p>043</p><p>044</p><p>045</p><p>046</p><p>047</p><p>048</p><p>049</p><p>050</p><p>051</p><p>052</p><p>053</p><p>054</p><p>055</p><p>056</p><p>057</p><p>058</p><p>059</p><p>060</p><p>061</p><p>062</p><p>063</p><p>064</p><p>065</p><p>066</p><p>067</p><p>068</p><p>069</p><p>070</p><p>071</p><p>072</p><p>073</p><p>074</p><p>075</p><p>076</p><p>077</p><p>078</p><p>079</p><p>080</p><p>081</p><p>082</p><p>083</p><p>084</p><p>085</p><p>086</p><p>087</p><p>088</p><p>089</p><p>090</p><p>091</p><p>092</p><p>093</p><p>094</p><p>095</p><p>096</p><p>097</p><p>098</p><p>099</p><p>100</p><p>101</p><p>102</p><p>103</p><p>104</p><p>105</p><p>106</p><p>107</p><p>108</p><p>109</p><p>110</p><p>111</p><p>112</p><p>113</p><p>114</p><p>115</p><p>116</p><p>117</p><p>118</p><p>119</p><p>120</p><p>121</p><p>122</p><p>123</p><p>124</p><p>125</p><p>126</p><p>127</p><p>128</p><p>129</p><p>130</p><p>131</p><p>132</p><p>133</p><p>134</p><p>135</p><p>136</p><p>137</p><p>138</p><p>139</p><p>140</p><p>141</p><p>142</p><p>143</p><p>144</p><p>145</p><p>146</p><p>147</p><p>148</p><p>149</p><p>150</p><p>151</p><p>152</p><p>153</p><p>154</p><p>155</p><p>156</p><p>157</p><p>158</p><p>159</p><p>160</p><p>behind 'W'hite's last (prophy­</p><p>lactic) move is seen when Black tries to</p><p>carry out his desired 13 . . . g4. Now the</p><p>initiative explodes with 14 t!Jxe5! gxh3 1 5</p><p>bxa6 bxa6 1 6 �a4+ 4Jd7 17 4Jc6 �h4 1 8</p><p>g3 Mg8 19 �h2 �f6 20 Ma2 and 'W'hite is</p><p>much better.</p><p>1 4 dxe5</p><p>I really enjoy watching the simple, yet</p><p>strong exploitation of 'W'hite's advantage</p><p>in this game. I find it quite logical that</p><p>White should open the position for his</p><p>pieces here, where he is ahead in devel­</p><p>opment. NeYertheless, after something</p><p>like 14 b6 i,b8 1 5 �a4 c6 16 4Jbd2</p><p>'W'hite is also better.</p><p>1 4 . . . tt:Jxe5 1 5 tt:Jxe5 'Yi'xe5 1 6 b6 JibS</p><p>White has managed to reduce the black</p><p>pieces to chickens pushed against a wall,</p><p>and now only needs to activate his queen­</p><p>side to convert his advantage. With his</p><p>next six moves White manages to finish</p><p>his development and target the key weak­</p><p>nesses in the black position. To many</p><p>amateurs these moves might seem simple,</p><p>but to replicate these simple moves in</p><p>practice would be quite difficult, even for</p><p>experienced players.</p><p>1 7 bxc7 !</p><p>This is better then the artistic 1 7 .tc1</p><p>.l:Ig8 18 .te3 g4 19 h4 .te6 20 bxc 7 .txc 7</p><p>21 .tdS even though this also leaves</p><p>White with a big advantage.</p><p>1 7 . . . i.xc7 1 8 lLld2! 0-0</p><p>Black finally decides to do something</p><p>about his king. Although it would not</p><p>have been out of style to end the game</p><p>with something silly like 1 8 . . . .txa5? 1 9</p><p>CDf3 �xc3 20 �xd6 and White wins.</p><p>1 9 i.d5 l:!.e8 20 tt:Jc4 \\lff6 21 l:!.e3!</p><p>i.d7 22 \\lff3!</p><p>This is stronger than 22 �hS, although</p><p>after the following piece of analysis,</p><p>22 . . . .tbs 23 4Jb6 .l:Ib8 24 .l:If3 �g7 2s</p><p>.l:Ie1 CDe6 26 c4 .tc6 27 .tb2 �g6 28</p><p>�xg6+ fxg6 29 .l:If6 .txdS 30 cxdS CDf4</p><p>31 .td4, we can conclude that White is</p><p>much better too.</p><p>22 . . . \\!Vg6</p><p>Also after 22 . . . �xf3 23 .l:Ixf3 will Black</p><p>lose the d6-pawn.</p><p>23 \\!Vg3 tt:Jc6 24 i.xd6</p><p>And that's all folks!</p><p>24 . . . i.d8 25 lLlb6 i.xb6 26 axb6</p><p>�ac8 27 i.c7 �e6 28 ilxe6 i.xe6 29</p><p>�d1 �h7 30 f4 gxf4 31 \\lfxf4 \\!Vg5</p><p>Firs t S t eps in the I talian Game</p><p>32 \\!Vxg5 hxg5 33 �d6 tt:Ja5 34 �ed3</p><p>i.c4 35 �g3 �g8 36 i.d8 g4 37</p><p>hxg4 �g6 38 i.f6 i.e6 39 g5 �g8 40</p><p>�gd3 tt:Jc4 1 -0</p><p>Game 5</p><p>E .Sveshnikov-R . Dautov</p><p>Pinsk 1986</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 tt:Jc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 c3</p><p>lLlf6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5</p><p>As mentioned above, this is hardly</p><p>dangerous for Black if he knows what</p><p>he's doing. The important point here is</p><p>that Black is forced to counter-strike in</p><p>the centre without hesitation.</p><p>6 . . . d5! 7 i.b5 tt:Je4 8 cxd4</p><p>Now Black has three possibilities.</p><p>8 ... .tb6 and 8 .. .te7 are considered here,</p><p>while 8 . . . .tb4+ is investigated in the next</p><p>game.</p><p>8 . . . i.b6</p><p>8 ... .te7 might look a little passive at</p><p>first sight, but it is a completely viable</p><p>possibility. Then 9 CDc3 0-0 10 .te3!?</p><p>(this appears to be better than 1 0 .td3 fS</p><p>1 1 exf6 CDxf6 12 .te3 CDb4 1 3 .tb1 CDg4</p><p>with counterplay, W.Steinitz-Em.Lasker,</p><p>New York match 1 894) 1 0 . . . f5 1 1 exf6</p><p>1 7</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>ctJxf6 12 ctJeS was seen in the recent</p><p>game B.Macieja-C.Garcia Moreno, Span­</p><p>ish League 2004. Now, instead of</p><p>12 ... ctJb8 as played, I would suggest</p><p>12 .. .'�d6! 13 i.f4 ctJd8 14 0-0 ctJe6 15</p><p>i..e3 a6 16 i..e2 cS with counterplay as an</p><p>improvement.</p><p>9 '2Jc3</p><p>9 a4?! aS 10 i..e3 0-0 11 i.xc6 bxc6 12</p><p>0-0 was strategically dubious, and after</p><p>12 ... f5 13 exf6 'iVxf6 Black is at least</p><p>equal, A.Biro-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1985.</p><p>9 . . . 0-0</p><p>1 0 .ixc6</p><p>This exchange appears quite risky. It is</p><p>easy to end in a position where White is</p><p>under attack from the dynamic duo, aka</p><p>Black's bishop pair.</p><p>There is little need to exchange on c6</p><p>immediately. White would be better off</p><p>playing 10 i..e3!?, when play is likely to</p><p>continue 10 ... i.g4 11 'iVc2 i..xf3 12 gxf3</p><p>ctJgS 13 i..xc6 bxc6 14 0-0-0 ctJxf3, and</p><p>now GM Sveshnikov continues his analy­</p><p>sis with 15 'iVfSctJh4 16 'iVg4ctJg6 17 h4</p><p>fS 18 exf6 'iVxf6 19 hS ctJf4 20 .l::th4</p><p>where he claims that White has full com­</p><p>pensation for the pawn. Actually I fear</p><p>that White is fighting for a draw, and is</p><p>1 8</p><p>not guaranteed to succeed. A possible</p><p>continuation is 20 ... ctJe6 21 h6 g6 22 .l::thS</p><p>.l::tae8 23 .l::te5ctJd8 24 .:xe8 .l::txe8 25 'iVd7</p><p>'iVt7 etc.</p><p>However, White's play can be greatly</p><p>improved. After 15 'if e2! ctJh4 16 .l::thg 1</p><p>White has real threats coming up on the</p><p>kingside, and Black will not be able to</p><p>free himself as easily as in the other line.</p><p>It is hard to make a final conclusion, but</p><p>'with compensation' is not an unfair</p><p>evaluation.</p><p>1 0 . . . bxc6 1 1 .ie3?!</p><p>White is trying to play against the</p><p>bishop on b6, but it was better simply to</p><p>continue 11 0-0 i.g4 12 .l::te1 with equal­</p><p>ity.</p><p>1 1 . . .i.g4?</p><p>This does not really achieve anything.</p><p>Here Black had the chance to annoy the</p><p>bishop on e3, or if White wants to avoid</p><p>this, he will have to give up a lot of his</p><p>presence in the centre. After 11...f5! 12</p><p>exf6 'iVxf6, Black is just better. Strong</p><p>grandmasters have tried this out in two</p><p>recent games:</p><p>a) 13 'iVb3 'iV g6 14ctJe5 'ifxg2 15 0-0-0</p><p>ctJxf2 16 .l::thg 1 ctJxd 1 17 .l::txg2 ctJxe3 18</p><p>J::t.e2 i..xd4 19 ctJxc6 i.b6 20 ctJxdS J::t.fl+</p><p>21 �d2 �dl+ 22 �c3 �cl+ 23 �d2</p><p>�c2+ 24 �e 1 �xe2+ 25 �xe2 i.a6+ with</p><p>a dangerous 1n1t1at1ve, J .Rowson­</p><p>I.Sokolov, Selfoss 2003.</p><p>b) 13 lLlxe4 dxe4 14 lt:Jd2 i.a6! 15</p><p>lt:Jxe4 i.a5+ 16lt:Jc3 i.xc3+ 17 bxc3 'i¥g6</p><p>and again Black had a deadly initiative in</p><p>B.Macieja-G.Vescovi, Bermuda 2004.</p><p>1 2 �a4 c5?!</p><p>Black is entering a quagmire of bad tac­</p><p>tics. 12 ... i.xf3 was better, although after</p><p>13 gxf3 lLlxc3 14 bxc3 'i¥ e8 15 f4 'i¥ e6 16</p><p>�g1 �ae8 17 'i¥c2 'i¥h3 18 0-0-0! White</p><p>has some initiative, because of the weak</p><p>black bishop on b6.</p><p>1 3 dxc5 .ixf3</p><p>If 13 ... i.xc5?? 14 i.xc5 lt:Jxc5 15 'i¥xg4</p><p>and White wins.</p><p>1 4 gxf3 tt::lxc5 1 5 .ixc5 .ixc5</p><p>1 6 0-0-0!</p><p>Now Black has some problems with</p><p>the d-pawn and also, less obviously, with</p><p>his king, as the open g-flle can become an</p><p>engine for a dangerous white attack.</p><p>1 6 . . . �e8</p><p>Black has an unpleasant choice here.</p><p>He can play the text move, or 16 ... d4 17</p><p>lt:Je4 i.b6 18 �hg1 'i¥h4 19 �g4 when</p><p>White has an unpleasant attack, or</p><p>Firs t S teps in the I talian Game</p><p>16 ... 'i¥e7 17 �xd5 �ad8 18 �hd1 i.xf2</p><p>19 f4 where White is also better.</p><p>1 7 �a5 ..ll.xf2 1 8 'i!Vxd5 �e6 1 9 '.t>b1</p><p>White would, of course, not mind en­</p><p>tering the endgame. The black pieces</p><p>have difficulties working together; his</p><p>bishop especially is lacking a useful di­</p><p>agonal. Maybe Black has more chances in</p><p>the endgame, but it is understandable that</p><p>he chooses to avoid it, even though this is</p><p>probably mistaken.</p><p>1 9 . . . .l:.ac8 20 .l:!.hf1 .ib6 2 1 f4 'i!Vf5+</p><p>After the better try 21 ... 'ifxd5 22 lt:Jxd5</p><p>�fe8 23 �f3 c6 24 lLlxb6! (24 lLlc3 �cd8</p><p>25 �fd3 �xd3 26 �xd3 f6 would allow</p><p>Black to gain counterplay) 24 ... axb6 25</p><p>�d6 White still has some winning</p><p>chances. His advantage is not necessarily</p><p>that great, but it is a flrm and stable supe­</p><p>riority, that in practice will cost Black a</p><p>very tough defence in return for the draw.</p><p>22 \t>a 1 h6 23 tt::le4</p><p>White is just much better here.</p><p>23 . . . \t>h7 24 tt::lg3 �g4 25 a3 �h3 26</p><p>�e4+ \t>h8 27 f5 c6 28 f6 g6 29 .l:!.f4</p><p>.l:!.cd8 30 .l:.d6 i¥xh2 31 .l:!.h4 'i:Vg1 +</p><p>32 \t>a2 'i¥e3 33 'i!Vh1</p><p>33 �xc6!? is also possible, as after</p><p>33 ... �fe8 34 'i¥h1 �h7 35 �c2! White</p><p>1 9</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>wins. The ideas are 35 ... .l::!.xe5 36 .l::i.e2 or</p><p>35 ... ii'g5 36 .l::!.ch2 j,e3 37 lbe4. In both</p><p>cases White wins.</p><p>33 . . . �h7 34 l2Je4 l:t.h8 35 J:t.xc6?!</p><p>Simpler was 35 .l::i.xd8! j,xd8 36 e6 fxe6</p><p>37 ii'd1 and White wins.</p><p>35 . . . h5 36 e6 �h6 37 J:t.c3 't!Ve2 38</p><p>e7 l:t.d1 39 't!Vh2 't!Vxh2 40 l:t.xh2 .l:Ie1</p><p>41 ctJd6 l:t.b8 42 l2Jxf7 + �h 7 43 l:t.c6</p><p>�d4 44 l2Jg5 + 1 -0</p><p>li:Jbd2 j,d7 10 0-0 0-0 and now at least</p><p>two moves in his games:</p><p>a) 11 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 12 lt:Jg5 lt:Jxe5 13</p><p>ii'a4 j,xb5</p><p>14 ii'xb5 li:Jd3 15 ii.e3 ii'e7</p><p>16 f3 c6 17 ii'c4 b5! and Black is at least</p><p>equal, E.Sveshnikov-M.Krasenkow, Vil­</p><p>nius 1997.</p><p>b) 11 Si.d3 SLf5 12 ii'c2 Si.xd2 13</p><p>SLxd2 SLg6?! 14 SLc3 ii'e7 15 �ae1 gave</p><p>White a slightly advantage 1n</p><p>.-----------------, E.Sveshnikov-S.Azarov, Minsk 2000, but</p><p>Game 6</p><p>E.Sveshnikov-H .Stefansson</p><p>Liepqya (rapid) 200 4</p><p>surely he realised that it was easy for</p><p>Black to improve, as he deviated in the</p><p>current game. The improvement could be</p><p>._ ____________ ...,. 13 ... SLg4! 14 SLxe4 dxe4 15 ii'xe4 j,xf3</p><p>If you compare the dates of this game</p><p>with the previous one, you will see that</p><p>Grandmaster Sveshnikov has had a last­</p><p>ing passion for this rather harmless line.</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 t2Jf3 tt'lc6 3 �c4 i.c5 4 c3</p><p>tbt6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 �b5 l2Je4 8</p><p>cxd4 �b4+!?</p><p>This simple move (patzer sees a check,</p><p>patzer plays a check) gives Black a sound</p><p>and rather solid game.</p><p>9 �d2</p><p>White has no road leading to an advan­</p><p>tage. Sveshnikov has had to realise this in</p><p>his practical games, where he also tried 9</p><p>2 0</p><p>16 ii'xf3 ii'xd4 17 SLc3 ii'c4 with equal­</p><p>ity.</p><p>9 . . . t2Jxd2 1 0 �xc6+ bxc6 1 1 tL'lbxd2</p><p>c5</p><p>1 2 a3</p><p>12 dxcS has been played, but I prefer</p><p>not to go into the games and instead pre­</p><p>sent 12 ... 0-0!, which is a new idea. (Ok,</p><p>ok, here is some old stuff, but then you</p><p>have to eat your greens! 12 ... j,xc5 13</p><p>ii'c2 j,b6 14 ii'c6+ ii'd7 15 ii'xa8 0-0 16</p><p>�c1 c5 17 "i:Vb8 j,a6 18 iV d6 ii'b5 19</p><p>�d1 ii'e2+ 20 �c2 "i:Vd3+ with equality</p><p>according to Macieja, or 14 ... j,d7 15</p><p>'iixd5 0-0 1 6 0-0 .te6 17 'iV c6 'iV d3 with</p><p>some compensation) 1 3 'iia4 l:Ib8 14 0-0</p><p>.txc5 1 5 CLJb3 .tb6 1 6 l:Ifd1 c5 and as I</p><p>see it Black is slightly better.</p><p>1 2 . . . i.xd2+ 1 3 �xd2</p><p>1 3 . . . c4!</p><p>This move might seem surprising, but it</p><p>gives Black easy equality. Optically it looks</p><p>as if the pawn is placed on a wrong col­</p><p>oured square, given Black's light-squared</p><p>bishop, but if we look slightly further than</p><p>automatic dogmatism, we will see that the</p><p>pawns will actually support the bishop</p><p>rather than restrict it. Also, the f3-knight</p><p>was probably hoping to occupy one of the</p><p>dark squares in the centre, and this is now</p><p>nothing but a dream.</p><p>One practical example saw the reason­</p><p>able alternative 1 3 . . . .tg4 14 dxc5 .txf3 1 5</p><p>Firs t S t eps in the Italia n Game</p><p>gxf3 0-0. Here White went wrong with 16</p><p>c6?, as after 16 . . . Me8 17 f4, Black should</p><p>deviate from B.Macieja-A.Aleksandrov,</p><p>European Team Championship 2003,</p><p>with 1 7 ... 'iid6 1 8 0-0-0 'iixc6+ 19 �b1</p><p>Mab8 and be slightly better. If instead 16</p><p>0-0-0 'iie7! 1 7 'iid4 l:Iab8 1 8 l:Id2 l:Ib5</p><p>and Black has counterplay.</p><p>1 4 0-0 .l:tb8!</p><p>Black keeps an eye on the b2-pawn,</p><p>which gives him good counterplay.</p><p>1 5 .l:tfe1 0-0 1 6 �c2 g6 1 7 it:Jd2</p><p>�g5! 1 8 .l:te3 �g4 1 9 �c3 c5 20 it:Jt3</p><p>cxd4 21 it:Jxd4 .l:tb6</p><p>22 .l:tae1</p><p>Or 22 b4 cxb3 23 CLJxb3 .te6 24 CLJd4</p><p>Mfb8 with equality.</p><p>22 . .. i.e6 23 h3 �h4 24 .l:td1 .l:tfb8 25</p><p>.l:te2 .l:t8b7 %-%</p><p>2 1</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>Summary</p><p>To conclude quickly on the material in this chapter: after 4 c3 then 4 ... 'tlfe7 has a good</p><p>reputation, but probably unjustly. Games 3 and 4 contain some ideas leading to an ad­</p><p>vantage for White, which should be of practical importance to anyone playing the Ital­</p><p>ian Game.</p><p>In the last two games of the chapter we investigated Sveshnikov's pet line with 6 eS,</p><p>which is theoretically quite harmless. Obviously the Russian grandmaster plays this be­</p><p>cause he feels that he gets good practical chances, but against a well-prepared opponent</p><p>this is probably not the case. But then again, how many people are prepared for every</p><p>obscure line after 1 e4 eS-? Not many I suppose ...</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 tbc6 3 �c4 .ltc5 4 c3 (D) tbt6</p><p>4 ... 'iYe7 5 d4 .i.b6 6 0-0 d6 (D)</p><p>7 a4- Game 3</p><p>7 h3- Game 4</p><p>5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 Jtb5 tbe4 8 cxd4 (D)</p><p>8 ... i.b6- Game 5</p><p>8 ... i.b4+- Game 6</p><p>4 c3</p><p>2 2</p><p>Bcxd4</p><p>CHAPTER THREE I</p><p>The Moller Attack and the</p><p>Classical Italian Game</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �c4 �c5 4 c3</p><p>lbt6 5 d4 exd4</p><p>In this chapter we will look at the posi­</p><p>tions arising after 1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3</p><p>.i.c4 .i.c5 4 c3 ctJf6 5 d4 exd4. In the ftrst</p><p>two games we examine the Moller Attack</p><p>6 cxd4 .i.b4+ 7 ctJc3?!. This gambit is</p><p>over a hundred years old and is one of</p><p>those lovely antiques which are fragile</p><p>and break into pieces if you treat them a</p><p>little bit harshly. In this chapter we shall</p><p>see that Black equalises easily in Game 7,</p><p>where White afterwards fail to prove</p><p>equality; and in Game 8 we shall see the</p><p>offtcial refutation 13 ... h6! (but also</p><p>13 ... 0-0, which seems to lead to a draw by</p><p>force). Surely the Moller Attack is having</p><p>tough times in this computer age.</p><p>In Games 9 and 10 we shall examine 7</p><p>.i.d2, which is every bit as harmless as it</p><p>looks. We will see that Black can force</p><p>equality, but then will have to allow White</p><p>the chance of a draw by repetition; or</p><p>Black can accept a slightly worse position,</p><p>but play for a win. For tactical reasons</p><p>such a line can at times prove reasonable</p><p>for White. Van der Doel's weak play in</p><p>Game 9 failed to exploit the pay-offs of</p><p>this tactic, but the idea still works.</p><p>In Game 11 we shall look at another</p><p>dubious gambit, 6 0-0, which can be met</p><p>either by 6 ... ctJxe4 with simple equality (or</p><p>a little more), and the greedy 6 ... dxc3!?,</p><p>which in many sources is referred to as</p><p>bad, but actually gives Black reasonable</p><p>chances.</p><p>Gamel</p><p>Comp . Fritz 6-V.Anand</p><p>Man vs. Machine} Frankfurt (rapid) 1999</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 lLlf3 lt:Jc6 3 d4</p><p>This game has a slightly unusual move</p><p>order. Normally we reach the position at</p><p>move 5 by 3 .1c4 i.c5 4 c3 ctJf6 5 d4. By</p><p>the way, 5 d4 is the most logical move</p><p>here, since 5 0-0 leaves White struggling</p><p>to make sense of his position after the</p><p>equalising 5 ... ctJxe4. And 5 b4 does not</p><p>look right either, as it leads to a position</p><p>from the Evans Gambit, which is not</p><p>particularly good for White. This leaves</p><p>2 3</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>only 5 d3 as a serious alternative, which is</p><p>of practical value, though not really dan­</p><p>gerous for Black. We will examine this</p><p>move in the next chapter.</p><p>3 . . . exd4 4 ii.c4 ii.c5 5 c3 l2Jf6</p><p>These lines might look very sharp and</p><p>dangerous, but the reality is that the forc­</p><p>ing nature of the position quite often</p><p>leads them into a draw . . .</p><p>6 cxd4 ii.b4+</p><p>This check is highly logical, and other</p><p>moves are simply bad. For example:</p><p>6 . . . i.b6? 7 d5 ti'Je7 8 e5 ti'Jg4 9 d6 cxd6</p><p>10 exd6 ti'Jc6 11 i.g5 ti'Jf6 12 0-0 and</p><p>White is much better.</p><p>The main position. \X'hite has two sen­</p><p>sible moves here.</p><p>7 tLlc3?!</p><p>Objectively speaking, this move is</p><p>weak; but then objectivity has little to do</p><p>\vith the ways of the world, who is elected</p><p>president in the US, who is selected for</p><p>junior tournaments, and how an egg</p><p>should be prepared . . . 7 CDc3 is dangerous</p><p>in practice, if Black is not well prepared</p><p>for it.</p><p>White's third option, 7 '>i>fl ?!, is known</p><p>as the Krakow Variation. In 1 909, chess</p><p>players from Krakow played a thematic</p><p>2 4</p><p>tournament in this line, investigating</p><p>White's attacking chances. Now we know</p><p>that 7 �f1 is somewhat dubious, and that</p><p>with logical play Black should be able to</p><p>get a good opening. Let's look at two</p><p>typical options:</p><p>a) 7 ... ti'Jxe4?! might seem tempting, but</p><p>all White's play is based on this over­</p><p>optimistic move. Taking the pawn is un­</p><p>necessarily risky, and probably even plain</p><p>bad. White can now seize the initiative by</p><p>simple means: 8 d5 CDe7 9 'iVd4 CDf6 10</p><p>i.g5 ti'Jg6 1 1 ti'Jbd2 h6 12 lle 1 + �f8 13</p><p>i.d3 i.e7? (though 1 3 . . . i.xd2 1 4 i.xd2</p><p>with a clear advantage to White was not</p><p>particularly attractive either) 1 4 i.xg6!</p><p>hxg5 1 5 ti'Je5 and White was winning in</p><p>F.Marshall-A.Burn, Ostend 1905.</p><p>b) The logical reaction so often in</p><p>these classical positions is to strike in the</p><p>centre. Here 7 .. . d5! 8 exd5 CDxd5</p><p>is at least slightly</p><p>better for Black. e.g. 9</p><p>CDc3 i.e6 1 0 'iVe2 i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 CDxc3</p><p>12 'iVel ti'Jd5 13 i.a3 a6 14 llc1 'iVd7 and</p><p>the two bishops are insufficient</p><p>compensation for the pawn, Bartmansky­</p><p>Batik, correspondence 1 910.</p><p>7 . . . t2Jxe4 8 0-0 ii.xc3</p><p>Black needs to go directly for a refuta-</p><p>Th e Moller Attack a n d the Cla ssical Italia n Game</p><p>tion of the Moller, or he will quickly end</p><p>up in trouble.</p><p>Here 8 . . . 0�0? is weak because of 9 dS</p><p>�xc3 10 bxc3 ctJe 7 1 1 !:te 1 ctJf6 12 d6!</p><p>and \White is much better.</p><p>8 . . . ctJxc3 is possible though, and then 9</p><p>bxc3 leaves us with a branching:</p><p>a) 9 .. . �xc3 10 �a3! dS! (but not</p><p>10 ... d6? 1 1 !:tel �aS 12 'iUa4 a6 1 3 �dS</p><p>�b6 14 !:txc6! �d7 15 !:tel+ �f8 1 6</p><p>!:txd6 and \White wins according to Keres;</p><p>or if 10 ... 'iVf6?! 1 1 !:tel �b4 12 .txb4</p><p>ctJxb4 13 !:tel+ �d8 14 'iVd2 and \White</p><p>is just better) 1 1 .tbS .txal 12 !:tel+</p><p>.te6 13 'iUa4 !:tc8 14 ctJeS (White can</p><p>easily go wrong here, e.g. 14 !:txe6+? fxe6</p><p>15 ctJeS 'iVd6! 1 6 .txc6+ bxc6 1 7 .txd6</p><p>cxd6 18 l2Jxc6 !:tc7 and Black wins, while</p><p>after 14 !:txa1?! f6! White has problems to</p><p>prove compensation) 14 . . . 'iVf6 1 5 .txc6+</p><p>(if 1 5 !:txa1 �d7 1 6 !:tel �d8 1 7 l2Jxc6+</p><p>bxc6 1 8 �e7+ 'iUxe7 1 9 !:txe7 �xe7 20</p><p>�xc6 �xc6 21 'iUxc6 and White must</p><p>now fight for a draw) 1 5 . . . bxc6 1 6 ctJxc6</p><p>.tc3 1 7 ctJxa7+ �d8 1 8 l2Jc6+ with per�</p><p>petual check.</p><p>b) 9 . . . d5! is even simpler. After 1 0 cxb4</p><p>dxc4 1 1 !:tel+ ctJe7 12 'iVe2 .te6 13 .tgS</p><p>'iVdS (1 3 .. . c6 1 4 ctJeS 'iVdS 1 5 .txe7 �xe7</p><p>1 6 l2Jxc4 gives White compensation for</p><p>the pawn) 14 .txe7 �xe7 1 5 'iVc2 f6 16</p><p>lL:lgS! (White must play energetically to</p><p>keep the balance) 1 6 .. .fxg5 1 7 !:teS 'iU xd4</p><p>1 8 !:tae1 !:tae8 19 !:txe6+ �d7 20 !:td1</p><p>'iUxd1+ 21 'iVxd1+ �xe6 22 'iUg4+ �f6</p><p>23 h4 gxh4 24 'iVxh4+ �g6 25 'iUg4+ �f6</p><p>26 'iVf4+ �g6 with a draw in O.Gadia�</p><p>J .De Souza Mendes, Brazilian Champion�</p><p>ship 1 96 1 .</p><p>9 d5!?</p><p>This is Moller's idea; invented in 1 898.</p><p>After the rather pointless 9 bxc3?! dS</p><p>Black has a perfect game. Against Lasker,</p><p>in their 1 896 return match, Steinitz tried</p><p>to play without pieces. He also played</p><p>without any hint of success or indication</p><p>that he was a World Champion. Of</p><p>course he was also in the later part of his</p><p>life and surely without the energy of his</p><p>younger years. The game continued 10</p><p>�a3? dxc4 1 1 !:tel fS 12 ctJd2 �f7 13</p><p>ctJxe4 fxe4 14 !:txe4 'iVf6 and White does</p><p>not have any form of compensation for</p><p>the piece, \X'.Steinitz�Em.Lasker, Moscow</p><p>match 1 896.</p><p>9 . . . 'Lle5</p><p>This variation is not as well known in</p><p>the West as 9 . . . .tf6 (as seen in the next</p><p>2 5</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>game). Nevertheless, it is quite safe and</p><p>gives Black a very slight edge without any</p><p>risk at all. For those happy with a superior</p><p>position as Black within the first ten</p><p>moves, and who does not necessarily</p><p>have to refute their opponent's madness,</p><p>this is a very safe choice.</p><p>a) 9 .. .'�Je7? looks safe as well, but it</p><p>only takes a few moves to shatter the illu­</p><p>sion. After 10 bxc3 0-0 11 l:!e1 tZ'lf6 12 d6</p><p>cxd6 13 i.a3 White's attack is very</p><p>strong.</p><p>b) 9 ... i.a5 is also playable, though not</p><p>as good as the text move. Now 10 dxc6</p><p>bxc6 11 ctJe5 tbd6 gives us two interest­</p><p>ing options:</p><p>b1) 12 'ii'g4!? 'ii'f6 13 b4 Jixb4</p><p>(13 ... ctJxc4 14 tbxc4 i.xb4 15 i.b2 trans­</p><p>poses; not 14 ... 'ifxa1?? 15 l::i.el+ �f8 16</p><p>'ii'e2 and White wins) 14 i.b2 tbxc4 15</p><p>tbxc4 'Yi'g6 16 .l:.fel+ and, according to</p><p>Moller, White has a promising attack. The</p><p>analysis could continue 16 ... �£8 17 'ii'h4</p><p>f6 18 tbe5 fxe5 19 'ifxb4+ d6 20 l':txe5 c5</p><p>21 'i!Yb3 'ii'f7 22 .l:le3 'ii'xb3 23 axb3 and</p><p>White has compensation enough for</p><p>draw, but hardly anything more.</p><p>b2) The simple exchange 12 tbxf71?</p><p>ctJxf7 13 i.xf7+ �xf7 14 'ifh5+ <it>g8 15</p><p>2 6</p><p>'ilxa5 is more interesting. In m y opinion,</p><p>White has some advantage here. Black</p><p>has a pawn more, but also problems with</p><p>his king's position, while the opposite­</p><p>coloured bishops should help facilitate an</p><p>attack.</p><p>1 0 bxc3 lt::lxc4 1 1 'iVd4</p><p>1 1 . . . 0-0</p><p>Anand probably felt little doubt in the</p><p>practicality of this move. Black is safely</p><p>developed and White's initiative is already</p><p>stalling.</p><p>After 11...tZ'lcd6? Black would be made</p><p>suffer for his greed with the surprising</p><p>sequence 12 'i¥xg7 'Yi'f6 13 'ifxf6! (Black's</p><p>extra piece is doing little in the defence)</p><p>13 ... tbxf6 14 l:!.el+ tbfe4 (14 ... �£8? 15</p><p>i.h6+ �g8 16 l:!.e5 tbfe4 17 l:!.e 1 and</p><p>White wins) 15 tZ'ld2 f5 16 f3 0-0 17 fxe4</p><p>ctJxe4 18 ctJxe4 fxe4 19 l:!.xe4 and White</p><p>is at least slightly better here.</p><p>However, Black can choose which</p><p>knight White can take by protecting the</p><p>better placed of the two. I flrmly believe</p><p>that 11...f5! is the best way forward. Now</p><p>play could continue 12 'ii'xc4 d6 13 tbd4</p><p>0-0 14 f3 ctJc5 15 i.a3 b6 16 i.xc5 bxc5</p><p>17 ctJc6 'if f6 18 .l:lfe 1 i.d 7 19 l:!.e 7 l:!.f7</p><p>20 .l:.aell:!.xe7 21 l:!.xe7 .l:.d8! and Black is</p><p>Th e Moller Attack a n d the Cla ssical I talian Game</p><p>for preference.</p><p>1 2 'Yi'xe4 tZ'ld6</p><p>This is stronger than 12 ... b5?! when</p><p>White can play 13 a4 c6 14 dxc6 dS 15</p><p>'iid3 bxa4 16 ctJgS with the initiative.</p><p>1 3 'ikd3 b6 1 4 i.a3 'ikf6 1 5 'ikd4</p><p>White has probably enough compensa­</p><p>tion to make a draw, but he (it!) will also</p><p>have to prove it in practice, something</p><p>computers can have great difficulties do­</p><p>ing in this kind of position.</p><p>Instead after 15 l:lfe1 i.b7 16 ctJeS</p><p>.l:Iad8 17 'bg4 'iV f4 18 ctJeS .l:Ife8 19</p><p>.fi.xd6 cxd6 20 ctJf3 .l:Ic8 Black is slightly</p><p>better.</p><p>1 5 . . . iVxd4 1 6 tt:Jxd4 j,b7 1 7 i.xd6</p><p>cxd6 1 8 tt:Jt5 g6 1 9 tZ'lxd6 j,xd5 20</p><p>l:i.fe1 �e6 2 1 f4 a6 22 a4 l:ta7 23</p><p>J::!.eb1</p><p>White is unable to build a fortress. But</p><p>even if he was, this is a dark spot for</p><p>computers, which do not understand the</p><p>concept of fortresses at all, as their hori­</p><p>zon are too short. They cannot under­</p><p>stand that no improvements can be made</p><p>to the position, ever, as they cling to what</p><p>they can calculate. After 23 .l:Iab 1 ?! .l:Ib8</p><p>24 c4 .l:Ic7 25 .l:Ie4 .l:IcS 26 �f2 �f8 27</p><p>.l:Id4 the conquest of the fortress is easy:</p><p>27...�e7 28 �e3 i.dS! 29 .l:IxdS .l:IxdS 30</p><p>cxdS �xd6 and Black will win this ending</p><p>with the passed pawn and good position</p><p>of his rook.</p><p>23 . . Jlb8</p><p>24 a5?</p><p>The computer can see that he will win</p><p>back his pawn in the short term; but the</p><p>grandmaster understands that, in the long</p><p>term, Black will activate his rook, when</p><p>the white position is beyond salvation.</p><p>After the stronger 24 c4 :c7 25 aS .l:::tc6</p><p>26 .l:Ixb6 .l:Ibxb6 27 axb6 .l:::txb6 28 cS .l:Ic6</p><p>29 .l:IaS White would have kept good</p><p>drawing chances.</p><p>24 . . . b5 25 c4 b4 26 J::!.a4 b3 27 J::!.a3</p><p>l:tc7 28 l:taxb3 l:!.xb3 29 l:txb3 l:tc5 30</p><p>tZ'lb7?!</p><p>Now the white pieces will be lost in the</p><p>far corner of the board. Instead 30 �f2</p><p>would have offered more resistance.</p><p>30 ... .l:Ixa5 should be enough to win for</p><p>Black, but only after a hard fight.</p><p>30 . . . l:txc4 31 l:tb6 J::!.c2 32 tZ'ld6 'it>f8</p><p>33 J::!.xa6 j,d5!</p><p>The a-pawn is nothing but a dissident</p><p>under state control.</p><p>34 g3 l:tg2+ 35 'it>f1 llxh2 36 lla7</p><p>36 .l:Ib6 .l:Ia2 37 a6 �e7 and Black wins</p><p>2 7</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>as the a-pawn cannot escape.</p><p>36 . . . .ic6 37 Cbc8 .Mg2 38 Cbb6 .Mxg3</p><p>39 Cbxd7 + .ixd7 40 .Mxd7 .Ma3 41</p><p>.Ma7 .Mf3+ 42 'it>g2 .Mxf4 43 a6 .Ma4</p><p>44 .Ma8+ 'it>g7 45 'it>h2 h5 0-1</p><p>Game 8</p><p>J .Fang-A . Ivanov</p><p>Manchester, USA 1999</p><p>into the enemy posttlon like an avant­</p><p>garde soldier, who will clear the way for</p><p>the remains of the army. This is probably</p><p>the soundest strategy here.</p><p>A little sideline that sometimes is seen</p><p>at amateur level, and which can lead to</p><p>inspiring victories, is 12 g4?, but I do not</p><p>believe in it. This 'bayonet attack' is remi­</p><p>niscent of an infantry assault on a bunker</p><p>,_ ______________ _. in which everyone has a machine gun ...</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 Cbf3 Cbc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 c3</p><p>Cbf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 .ib4+</p><p>7</p><p>Cbc3?! Cbxe4 8 0-0 .ixc3 9 d5 .if6</p><p>Just as in the previous variation, White</p><p>has chances for equality. But this is as far</p><p>as it goes if Black plays correctly. 9 ... .tf6</p><p>has been the main line of the Moller At­</p><p>tack for more than a hundred years, and</p><p>despite short-lived resurrections of the</p><p>White initiative, Black has always been</p><p>able to solve his problems more than sat­</p><p>isfactorily.</p><p>1 0 .Me1 Cbe7</p><p>10 ... 0-0?l 11 z:t:xe4 tbe7 12 d6l is a the­</p><p>matic trick, when after 12 ... cxd6 13 .tg5</p><p>tbg6 14 'Ylid5 White is slightly better ac­</p><p>cording to grandmaster Unzicker.</p><p>1 1 .Mxe4 d6 1 2 .ig5</p><p>White is trying to 'launch' the knight</p><p>2 8</p><p>After normal moves for Black like</p><p>12 ... 0-0 13 g5 .te5 14 tbxe5 .tf5 15 z:t:e3</p><p>dxe5 16 z:t:xe5 'Ylid7 we can conclude that</p><p>the white king will have to surrender quite</p><p>soon.</p><p>1 2 . . . .ixg5</p><p>Black has no choice but to go into this</p><p>forcing line. On 12 ... .tf5?! White has an</p><p>annoying check in 13 .tb5+, and after</p><p>13 ... �f8 14 z:t:e3 .txg5 15 tbxg5 h6 16</p><p>tt:Jf3 the initiative looks truly dangerous.</p><p>1 3 Cbxg5</p><p>1 3 . . . h6!</p><p>This was the improvement for Black</p><p>that shifted the variation from 'not too</p><p>dangerous' to 'downright dubious'.</p><p>The other main line starts with 13 ... 0-0,</p><p>when 14 tbxh 71 is the only chance for a</p><p>real attack. So far it has been believed to</p><p>Th e M61/er Attack a n d the Cla ssical Italia n Game</p><p>force a draw, though as we shall see this is</p><p>not completely clear. 14 ... �xh7!? is the</p><p>sharpest reply and feels best (though</p><p>14 ... .if5 15 �xe7 'i¥xe7 16 CDxf8 �xf8</p><p>with equality is also possible). Now White</p><p>continues with 15 'i¥h5+ �g8 16 �h4,</p><p>and here Black has the choice between</p><p>16 ... f6 17 .id3 f5 18 .ie2 �e8 19 �e1</p><p>�f8 20 .ib5 .id7 21 �e6 .ixb5 22 �f6+</p><p>with equality according to Perez, or to</p><p>enter a much larger maze with 16 ... f5!</p><p>when we have the following options:</p><p>a) 17 �e 1 ?! has the idea of 17...�e8? 18</p><p>.Se6! �f8 19 �f4 .id7 20 �f3!! CDg8 (if</p><p>20 ... �g8 21 �g3 wins) 21 �xf5+ CDf6 22</p><p>.Sfxf6+ gxf6 (or 22 ... 'i¥xf6 23 �xf6+ gxf6</p><p>24 'i¥h8+ �e7 25 'i¥g7+ �d8 26 'i¥xf6+</p><p>�c8 27 h4 and White wins) 23 'i¥h8+</p><p>�£7 24 'i¥h7+ �f8 25 .ie2! .ixe6 26</p><p>dxe6 �xe6 27 'i¥h8+ �e7 28 'i¥g7+ �e8</p><p>29 .ih5 mate.</p><p>However, Black can play more strongly</p><p>with 17 ... CDg6! 18�h3�f6! 19�g3 (if 19</p><p>'i¥h7+ �£7 20 �e6 CD£8 21 'i¥h5+ g6 22</p><p>'i¥h8 .ixe6 23 dxe6+ �xe6 24 .ixe6+</p><p>�xe6 and Black wins) 19 ... CDe5 20 f4</p><p>CD£7 21 �e6, and now after 21....id7!</p><p>Black retains his material advantage, in­</p><p>stead of 21....ixe6? 22 dxe6 'i¥e7 23</p><p>ex£7+ �x£7 24 �h3 'i¥e1+ 25 .if1 �ff8</p><p>26 'i¥h7+ �£7 27 'i¥xf5+ �g8 1/z-1/z</p><p>A.N ogueira-M. Valverde Lopez, corre­</p><p>spondence 1977. So this line does not</p><p>seem to be playable for White.</p><p>b) 17 �h3? is Paul Keres' idea, but it does</p><p>not stand the test of our time: computer</p><p>analysis, e.g. 17 ... f4 18 'i¥h7+ �£7 19</p><p>'i¥h5+ g6! (if 19 ... �g8 20 'i¥h7+ with</p><p>equality) 20 'i¥h7+ �f6 21 'i¥h4+ g5 22</p><p>'i¥h6+ CDg6 23 �h5 �h8 24 'i¥xg5+ �g 7</p><p>25 .id3 'i¥xg5 26 �xg5 �h6 27 �c1 �f6</p><p>28 �xg6+ �xg6 29 .ixg6 �xg6 and</p><p>Black should win.</p><p>c) The best option by far is 17 'i¥h7+</p><p>�£7 18 �h6 �g8 19 �e1</p><p>when Black has:</p><p>c1) 19 ... i..d7?? loses to the fabulous 20</p><p>�ee6!! i..xe6 21 dxe6+ �e8 22 .l:l:.g6 d5 23</p><p>.l:l:.xg7 'i¥d6 24 .l:l:.xg8+ CDxg8 25 'i¥£7+</p><p>�d8 26 .ibS!? (or 26 'i¥xg8+ �e7 27</p><p>'i¥£7+ �d8 28 .ixd5 'i¥e7 29 'i¥g8+ 'i¥e8</p><p>30 'iVgS+ 'i¥e7 31 'i¥xf5) 26 ... c6 27 'i¥xg8+</p><p>�e7 28 'i¥xa8 cxbS 29 'i¥xb7+ �xe6 30</p><p>'i¥xb5 and White wins.</p><p>c2) 19 ... �f8 is met by 20 .l:l:.h3 .id7 21</p><p>.l:l:.he3 'Des 22 .id3 g6 23 h4 .l:l:.g 7 24</p><p>'i¥h8+ .l:l:.g8 with equality according to</p><p>Sozin.</p><p>2 9</p><p>Italia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>c3) 19 ... iff8! is the best chance accord­</p><p>ing to my analysis. Here White can try to</p><p>reorganise his troops with 20 .:h3 and</p><p>then:</p><p>c31) 20 ... i.d7?! (complicated but infe­</p><p>rior) 21 l:.he3 etJg6! (necessary if Black is</p><p>to play for a win; certainly not 21...l:.e8?</p><p>22 i.e2!! when Black has no decent de­</p><p>fence against 23 i.h5) 22 l:.e6! (appar­</p><p>ently forced; if 22 ifh5? l:.h8 23 I:te7+</p><p>¥i'xe7 24 l:.xe7+ �f6[! and Black wins, or</p><p>22 l:.g3 etJf4 23 ifh4 g5! 24 �xg5 l:.xg5</p><p>25 ifxg5 etJg6 and Black's advantage is</p><p>close to decisive) 22 ... i.xe6 23 dxe6+</p><p>�e7 24 ifxg6 l:.h8 25 �g3 c6 when</p><p>White retains some compensation.</p><p>c32) 20 ... �f6!! is one of those truly</p><p>stunning moves which a computer can</p><p>sometimes find. The idea is very simple:</p><p>White is not allowed a check on e7 in the</p><p>most forcing lines, e .g. if 21 l:i.he3? l:.h8!</p><p>and Black wins instantly. Instead White</p><p>can try 21 ifh4+ g5 22 't!fd4+ �g6 23</p><p>¥i'd1 g4 24 llhe3 l:.g7 25 �e2 etJg8 26</p><p>l:.e8 iff7 and here Black will win because</p><p>of 27 ... etJf6 and White has no counterplay</p><p>for the piece. I am not too eager to risk</p><p>my reputation by giving a clear evaluation</p><p>of this line, since maybe White has a way</p><p>to strengthen his attack earlier on? I be­</p><p>lieve in Black's position, but one unpre­</p><p>dictable tactic could turn everything up­</p><p>side down.</p><p>And anyway, White can possibly im­</p><p>prove earlier with 20 i.b5! :h8 21 �xh8</p><p>gxh6 22 ifh7+ �f6 23 llxe7 ¥i'xe7 24</p><p>ifxh6+ and equality according to Keres.</p><p>It looks as if the simple 20 ... a6!? questions</p><p>this, but here White can play 21 l:.ee6!</p><p>axb5 22 l:.hf6+ �e8 23 :t.xf8+ l:.xf8 24</p><p>�xe7+! rtJxe7 25 ifxg7+ l:.f7 26 ifg5+</p><p>3 0</p><p>�f8 27 ifd8+ �g7 28 iVg5+ �h7 29</p><p>ifh5+ �g8 30 iVg5+ l:.g7 31 ifd8+ �h7</p><p>32 �e8! and there is seemingly no way to</p><p>escape the perpetual check.</p><p>So maybe 13 ... 0-0 does give White a</p><p>draw after all.</p><p>1 4 'i¥e2</p><p>Alternatives:</p><p>a) 14 i.b5+?! i.d7 15 ife2 i..xb5 16</p><p>ifxb5+ ¥i'd7 17 �e2 �f8! 18 etJf3 etJxd5</p><p>and White has no compensation.</p><p>b) 14 iVh5 0-0 15 .:ae 1 etJ£5 (simpler is</p><p>15 ... etJg6! 16 etJf3 iff6 17 etJd4 i..d7</p><p>when a pawn is a pawn) 16 etJf3 (or 16</p><p>etJh3!? i.d7 17 etJf4 with the initiative,</p><p>e.g. 17 ... ifg5 18 ifxg5 hxg5 19 etJe6 fxe6</p><p>20 dxe6 i.e8 21 e7+ l:.f7 22 f4 etc.)</p><p>16 .. .'iVf6? (and here 16 ... g6! 17 'i¥g4 i.d7,</p><p>though White has some compensation</p><p>for the material after 18 .:4e2 'iY f6 19</p><p>i.d3 l:.ae8 20 'i¥b4 l:.xe2 21 l:.xe2) 17 g4</p><p>g6 18 'i¥h3 etJg7 19 ifxh6 'i¥xf3 20 l:.f4</p><p>etJf5 21 ifxf8+ �xf8 22 l:.xf3 and White</p><p>wins, J.Majewski-P.Bielak, correspon­</p><p>dence 1992.</p><p>c) 14 etJxf7?! �xf7 15 iff3+ etJf5 (not</p><p>15 ... �g8?? 16 l:.ae1 or 15 ... �g6?? 16</p><p>l:.xe7 and White wins, while if 15 ... i.f5?</p><p>16 l:.ae1 g6 17 g4 with a strong attack) 16</p><p>Th e Moller A t tack a n d the Cla ssical Italian Game</p><p>g4 �f8! (if 16 .. .'iYg5?! 17 �h1 �f8 18</p><p>gxf5 iLxf5 19 �g1 "fif6 20 �f4 g6 21</p><p>iLd3 �e7 22 i.xf5 gxf5 23 "fib3 b6 24</p><p>'iic2 and White has the initiative) 17 gxf5</p><p>�g8 and Black is better.</p><p>1 4 . . . hxg5 1 5 l:!e1 .te6 1 6 dxe6 f6</p><p>16 ... f5? 17 �d4 c6 gives equality ac­</p><p>cording to ECO, but after the not too</p><p>difficult 18 'iYd2! d5 19 'iYxg5 iVd6 20</p><p>�h4 0-0-0 2 1 i.d3 White is better.</p><p>1 7 l::te3 c6 1 8 l:!h3</p><p>If 18 iLd3 'ilfc7 19 h3 dS 20 b4 aS 2 1</p><p>b5 c5 and Black is much better.</p><p>1 8 . . . l:Ixh3 1 9 gxh3 g6 20 "ifd2</p><p>After 20 'iVf3 'i'ia5 21 l:i.d1 'ti'f5 22</p><p>'iib3 bS 23 i.f1 'iY e5 24 :td3 :d8 25</p><p>.l:.e3 'i'ic5 Black is close to winning.</p><p>20 . . . d5 2 1 'i¥c3 d4 22 'ti'f3 'ika5 23</p><p>Jle2 'i¥f5</p><p>Black is close to winning here too.</p><p>24 'i'a3 'ti'f4!</p><p>Stronger than 24 ... 'iVb 1 +?! which could</p><p>lead to 25 �g2 CDfS 26 f3 CDh4+? (here</p><p>26 .. .'iVc1 with an attack is still OK,</p><p>though not as good as the game move) 27</p><p>�f2 'iih1 28 'ikd6! with sudden counter­</p><p>play.</p><p>25 ji_d3 f5 26 'ikc5 b6 27 'iic4 0-0-0</p><p>28 a4 l:Ih8!</p><p>Now everything is over and done with.</p><p>29 a5 l:.xh3 30 �e1 b5 31 �c2</p><p>'i¥xh2+ 32 cJi>f1 'fi'h1 + 33 'it>e2 'iif3+</p><p>34 'itd2 'ti'xf2+ 35 Wd1 �xc2+ 36</p><p>'it>xc2 We 7 37 b4 'itd6 0-1</p><p>Game 9</p><p>E .Van den Doei-I .Sokolov</p><p>Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 2004</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 i..c4 ji_c5 4 c3</p><p>tt:lf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 i..b4+ 7 ji_d2</p><p>Natural and sound.</p><p>7 . . . i..xd2+</p><p>Though very logical, this is not Black's</p><p>only option in this position. He has also</p><p>tried:</p><p>3 1</p><p>Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>a) 7.. .CLJxe4 8 i.xb4 CLJxb4 9 i.xf7+</p><p>(otherwise White has nothing, e.g. 9 'i¥b3</p><p>dS 1 0 'i¥xb4 dxc4 1 1 0-0 'i¥d6 1 2 'i¥xc4</p><p>0-0 1 3 CLJc3 with equality, but even this is</p><p>not too dangerous) 9 . . Stxf7 10 'i¥b3+ dS</p><p>(Black can also try 10 ... <.!tf8 1 1 'i¥xb4+</p><p>'i¥e7 12 'i¥xe7+ <.!txe7 13 0-0 with equal­</p><p>ity) 1 1 CLJeS+ We6! (but not 1 1 . . .<.!tf6? 12</p><p>f3 CLJd6 1 3 'i¥xb4 i.fS 14 0-0 and White</p><p>is better) 1 2 'i¥xb4 cS 1 3 'i¥a3 cxd4 14</p><p>CLJf3 'i¥b6 1 5 0-0 <.!tf7 16 CLJeS+ (not 1 6</p><p>CLJbd2?! .l::l.e8 1 7 'i¥b3 CLJxd2 1 8 'i¥xd5+</p><p>i.e6 1 9 'i¥h5+ <.!tg8 20 CLJxd2 'i¥xb2 21</p><p>CLJf3 i.xa2 and Bl�ck is close to winning,</p><p>G.Lee-G.Flear, British Championship</p><p>2002) 1 6 . . . <.!te6 (again 1 6 .. . <.!tf6? is</p><p>strongly met by 1 7 f3! <.!txeS 1 8 fxe4 dxe4</p><p>19 'i¥e7+ <.!tdS 20 'i¥g5+ <.!td6 21 'i¥f4+</p><p><.!td7 22 'i¥xe4 and Black has a hard life,</p><p>while if 1 8 . . . d3+ 19 <.!th1 dxe4 20 'i¥e7+</p><p>i.e6 21 CLJc3 .l::l.hg8 22 .l::l.ae1 and White</p><p>wins)</p><p>and now White can choose between 1 7</p><p>CLJf3 with equality, and 1 7 CLJd3, which</p><p>gives compensation is the following way:</p><p>1 7 .. . .l::l.e8 1 8 .l::l.e 1 <.!tf7 19 f3 CLJd6 20 .l::l.xe8</p><p><.!txe8 21 CLJd2 iHS 22 .l::l.el+ <.!tf7 23 .l::l.eS.</p><p>b) 7 . . . d5!? is a little known, but decent</p><p>alternative. After 8 exdS i.xd2+ \X'hite</p><p>32</p><p>can vary from the standard 9 CLJbxd2 with</p><p>9 'i¥xd2, though after 9 . . . CLJxd5 10 0-0 0-0</p><p>1 1 CLJc3 ctJce 7 12 .l::l.fe 1 c6 1 3 ctJe4 h6 14</p><p>h3 i.fS Black has equality, A.Schwenk­</p><p>I.Krasenkova, Baden Baden 1993.</p><p>8 tt'lbxd2 d5</p><p>8 .. . CLJxe4 looks tempting, but White re­</p><p>acts energetically with 9 dS! CLJxd2 1 0</p><p>'i¥xd2 CLJe7 1 1 d 6 cxd6 12 'i¥xd6 b S (or</p><p>12 . . . CLJf5 1 3 'i¥e5+ 'i¥e7 14 0-0-0 with an</p><p>attack according to Makarychev) 1 3 i.b3</p><p>0-0 14 0-0 aS 1 5 .l::l.fe1 a4 16 i.c2 ctJg6 1 7</p><p>i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 'i¥g3 and White had com­</p><p>pensation m A.Tzermiadianos­</p><p>V.Kotronias, Athens 1 998. Also after the</p><p>even more tempting 1 8 .l::l.e 7!? .l::l.a6 1 9</p><p>'i¥b4 dS 20 .l::l.eS f6 21 .l::l.e3 'i¥a5 22 'i¥d4</p><p>.l::l.d8 23 .l::l.ae 1 White has compensation</p><p>for the pawn.</p><p>9 exd5 tt'lxd5</p><p>1 0 �b3</p><p>Some players are afraid of 10 0-0 0-0</p><p>1 1 CLJeS!?, but Black has two sensible</p><p>ways of ensuring himself an equal game:</p><p>a) 1 1 .. .CLJxe5 12 dxeS CLJf4 1 3 ctJe4 'i¥e7</p><p>14 'i¥d4 .l::l.d8 1 5 'i¥c5 'i¥xc5 1 6 CLJxcS b6</p><p>1 7 .l::l.ad1 i.fS 1 8 CLJa6 cS 19 CLJc7 .l::l.ab8</p><p>with equality, T.L0vholt-R.Monner Sans,</p><p>correspondence 1 995.</p><p>Th e M61/er A t tack a n d th e Class ic al Italia n Game</p><p>b) 1 1 .. .'Llxd4 12 'Llb3 'Llxb3 13 �xdS</p><p>�f6! (13 ... 'Llxa1 ? 14 �xt7+ \t>h8 1 5 �hS</p><p>is a famous attack that even defeated the</p><p>great Capablanca) 14 .i.xt7+ (not 14</p><p>'Llxt7 'Llxa1 ! and White has nothing)</p><p>14 . . . �xt7 1 5 �xb3 �xeS! and Black had</p><p>equalised in P.Figueiredo-A.Pereira, Vila</p><p>Nova de Gaia 2004, because of 1 6 �ae1</p><p>.i.e6!.</p><p>1 0 . . . tt:Jce7</p><p>This is a little bit passive, after which</p><p>White manages to organise some small</p><p>pressure. The stronger l O . . . 'LlaS! is inves­</p><p>tigated in the next game. However, the</p><p>text move does has the advantage of de­</p><p>nying White the possibility of repeating</p><p>the position, as he can after 10 . . . 'Lla5.</p><p>1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 .Mfe 1 c6 1 3 tt:Je4 tL'lb6</p><p>1 3. . . �b6 is best met by 14 'Llc3 (not 14</p><p>�a3 .i.g4 1 5 'Lle5 �xd4 16 'Lld6 .i.e6 17</p><p>'Llxb7 'Llg6 with equality, E.Sveshnikov­</p><p>V.Chekhov, Sochi 1983) 14 . . . �xb3 1 5</p><p>.i.xb3 il.g4 1 6 'LlxdS 'LlxdS 1 7 .i.xdS</p><p>cxdS 1 8 �e7 and White has a slight ad­</p><p>vantage according to Makarychev.</p><p>1 4 i.d3</p><p>White is slightly better here as the b6-</p><p>knight is passive.</p><p>1 4 . . . tt:Jed5 1 5 tt:Jc5 .Mb8 1 6 .Mac 1 ? !</p><p>This allows Black to become active a</p><p>bit too easily. I suggest 1 6 �c2!? as an</p><p>improvement. Then after 1 6 .. . h6 1 7 a3</p><p>'Llf4 1 8 .i.h7+ \t>h8 19 .i.e4 �f6 20 b4</p><p>�d8 21 �acl \\'hite keeps some pressure.</p><p>1 6 . . . tt:Jt4 1 7 i.b1</p><p>Or 17 il.e4 .i.g4 18 h3 .i.xf3 19 � xf3</p><p>�gS 20 \t>h2 �fd8 21 �cd1 with equality.</p><p>1 7 . . .'iYt6 1 8 tt:Je5 11Vg5 1 9 11Yt3 f6</p><p>Black is seemingly not completely fo­</p><p>cused on the need to secure counterplay</p><p>immediately. Best was 1 9 . . . .i.h3! 20 g3</p><p>'LlfdS and Black equalises. For example,</p><p>after the aggressive 21 g4 'Llf4 22 'Lle4</p><p>�h6 23 gS �h4 24 �g3 �xg3+ 25 hxg3</p><p>'Lle6 26 �c3 .i.fS and Black is fine.</p><p>20 tt:Jed3 tL'lbd5 21 tt:Jxf4 tt:Jxt4 22 h4</p><p>'i¥h6 23 g3 tt:Jd5 24 i.e4 tL'lb6 25</p><p>11Yb3+ Wh8 26 'i¥a3 .MaS</p><p>27 11Ye3?</p><p>A strange mistake. After 27 .i.f3!</p><p>\\'hite is much better, preparing the inva­</p><p>sion of the seventh rank, and keeping all</p><p>the black pieces tied down.</p><p>27 . . . 'i¥xe3 28 .Mxe3 .Me8 29 .Mce1</p><p>tt:Jc4 30 .M3e2 tL'ld6 31 i.d3 .Mxe2 32</p><p>.Mxe2 Wg8 33 i.c2</p><p>Now White is looking for a draw. In­</p><p>stead after 33 \t>g2 b6 34 'Lle6 .i.b7 Black</p><p>33</p><p>I talia n Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>has counterplay.</p><p>33 . . . b6 34 .ib3+ 'it>f8 35 tbe6+</p><p>.ixe6 36 l:txe6 tbf5 37 .!:Ixc6 tbxd4</p><p>38 'll.c7 tbxb3 39 axb3 'll.d8 40 'll.xa7</p><p>'ll.d3 41 'll.a3 b5 42 b4 I!.d4</p><p>You really need to try hard to lose an</p><p>ending like this. The inactive placement</p><p>of the rook is a good place to start.</p><p>43 .:Ib3 h5 44 'lt>g2 'lt>f7 45 'it>f3 'll.c4</p><p>46 'lt>e3 g5</p><p>47 f4?</p><p>This merely creates a lot of weaknesses</p><p>in his own camp. Instead after 4 7 hxg5</p><p>fxg5 48 �c3 �xb4 49 �c5 \t>f6 50 �c6+</p><p>\t>f5 51 �c5+ �g4 52 f3+ �xg3 53</p><p>�xg5+ �h4 54 �g1 �xb2 55 f4 �b3+ 56</p><p>�e4 White is safe.</p><p>47 . . . gxh4 48 gxh4 'lt>g6 49 'll.c3 'll.xb4</p><p>50 'll.c5 'll.b3+ 5 1 'lt>e4 'll.xb2 52 f5+</p><p>'lt>h6 53 'll.c6?</p><p>White could do much better with 53</p><p>�f3 �b4 54 �g3 �g4+ 55 �h3 b4 56</p><p>�c6 �g7 57 �c7+ �f8 58 .l:b7 �c4 59</p><p>�g3 �c3+ 60 Wf2 b3 6 1 �b6 We 7 62</p><p>�e6+ �f7 63 �b6 �h3 when he can fin­</p><p>ish up in the endgame with f- and h­</p><p>pawns, one that offers excellent drawing</p><p>chances.</p><p>53 . . . 'll.b4+ 54 'it>f3?</p><p>34</p><p>This makes it easier, but it was already</p><p>too late to save the game. If 54 �dS</p><p>�xh4 55 �xf6+ �g5 56 �f8 �h2 57 f6</p><p>�g6 58 �e5 �e2+ 59 �f4 b4 60 �f3</p><p>�e1 61 �b8 �b1 62 �b6 b3 63 �g3 h4+</p><p>64 �h3 b2 65 �h2 h3 66 f7+ �xf7 67</p><p>�b3 �f6 and Black wins.</p><p>54 . . .Ibh4 55 'll.xf6+ 'lt>g5 56 'll.g6+</p><p>'it>xf5 57 'll.b6 'll.b4 0-1</p><p>Game 10</p><p>J . Marsden -J . Sutton</p><p>Comspondence 2001</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 tbc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 c3</p><p>tbt6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 i.b4+ 7 .ltd2</p><p>.txd2 + 8 tbbxd2 d5 9 exd5 tbxd5 1 0</p><p>"iVb3</p><p>1 0 . . . tLla5!</p><p>This move secures Black equality, but</p><p>also allows White to repeat the position.</p><p>1 1 �a4+ tt:Jc6</p><p>Forced. After 11...c6?! 12 .i.xd5 'i¥xd5</p><p>13 �c1! Black i s in trouble, e.g. 13 ... 'ifb5</p><p>14 'i¥xb5 cxb5 15 d5 �e7 16 b4 etJc4 17</p><p>etJxc4 bxc4 18 �xc4 �d6 19 0-0 and</p><p>White has a clear advantage.</p><p>1 2 .ltb5</p><p>12 'i¥b3!? would repeat the position,</p><p>Th e Miiller A t tack a n d the Cla s sic al I ta lia n Game</p><p>but here White is looking for more.</p><p>1 2 . . . i.d7</p><p>After the anti-positional 12 ... 0-0?! 13</p><p>i.xc6 bxc6 14 0-0 ctJf4 15 .l:Ife 1 ii.e6 16</p><p>'ifxc6 White is much better, J.Bosch­</p><p>D.Pirrot, German Bundesliga 1997.</p><p>1 3 0-0</p><p>White needs to get his king into safety</p><p>before it is too late. After 13 'ifb3?! 'iie7+</p><p>14 'it>f1 ii.e6! White does not have com­</p><p>pensation for the bad position of his king,</p><p>E.Sveshnikov-E.Mortensen, Leningrad</p><p>1984.</p><p>1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 I:!.fe1 a6 1 5 i.f1 i.f5</p><p>This is better than 15 ... ctJcb4 16 'iib3</p><p>Ji.fS 17 .l:Iac1 aS 18 a3 a4 19 'ifc4 ctJc6 20</p><p>'iibs .1c8 21 ctJe4 .l:IaS 22 'i¥d3 .1f5 23</p><p>Vi' d2 and White has a small edge,</p><p>P.Morssink-E.Van der Bij, correspon­</p><p>dence 1990.</p><p>1 6 I:!.ac1</p><p>Also after 16 'iib3!? .l:Ib8 17 .l:Iad1 'i¥d6</p><p>18 a3 there is nothing but equality.</p><p>1 6 . . . tt:lb6</p><p>1 7 'ii'a3!</p><p>White tries to sacrifice a pawn to get</p><p>the initiative.</p><p>1 7 . . . tt:lxd4 1 8 tt:lxd4 'i¥xd4 1 9 tt:lb3</p><p>Maybe there was more play in 19 ctJf3!?</p><p>'i¥d6 20 'iYcS with compensation.</p><p>1 9 . . . 'i¥d6 20 'iVxd6 cxd6 21 .I:!.cd1 d5</p><p>22 tt:lc5 .I:!.fc8 23 tt:lxb7 .I:!.c2 24 I:!.e2</p><p>!:I.e 7 25 tt:la5</p><p>i.d7 26 tt:lb3 i.b5 %-%</p><p>Game 1 1</p><p>D .Hergott-G . Garcia</p><p>unares 1994</p><p>1 e4 e5 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 i.c4 i.c5 4 c3</p><p>tt:lf6 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0</p><p>This romantic gambit does not offer</p><p>White any chances for an advantage. Ac­</p><p>tually at times he needs to be careful not</p><p>to be worse.</p><p>6 . . . tt:lxe4</p><p>Others:</p><p>a) 6 ... d5?! is very dangerous. After 7</p><p>exdS ctJxdS 8 .l:Ie 1+ ii.e6 9 ctJgS White</p><p>has the advantage, e.g. 9 ... 0-0 10 'i¥d3 g6</p><p>11 .l:Ixe6! fxe6 12 'i'h3 "Vlie7 13 'ifxe6+</p><p>'i¥xe6 14 ctJxe6 and White was better in</p><p>Y.Estrin-S.Letic, correspondence 1967.</p><p>b) 6 ... d3 has been played in some re­</p><p>cent games, though mainly by players</p><p>wanting to avoid main lines they were</p><p>unfamiliar with . White has a slight plus</p><p>after almost any move. One line could be</p><p>7 eS dS 8 ii.xd3 ctJg4 9 'i¥e2 'ife7 10 i.f4</p><p>3 5</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>and Black has no easy way of improving</p><p>his position, as after the possibly best</p><p>1 0 ... f6 1 1 exf6 �xe2 12 i.xe2 ctJxf6</p><p>White should secure a clear edge with 1 3</p><p>i.xc7!.</p><p>c) 6 ... dxc3 looks risky, but after 7 eSl?</p><p>dSl Black is doing all right. 8 i.b3 can be</p><p>met strongly with 8 .. . c21 9 i.xc2 ctJe4 1 0</p><p>ctJc3 ctJxc3 1 1 bxc3 i.g4 when White's</p><p>compensation is in doubt, J .Blauert­</p><p>D.Belotelov, Budapest 1 997.</p><p>7 cxd4 d5!</p><p>The only move. 7 . . . i.e7?1 8 dS ctJb8 9</p><p>:e1 ctJd6 (or 9 . . . ctJf6? 10 d6 cxd6 1 1 i.gS</p><p>0-0 12 :xe71 �xe7 1 3 ctJc3 gives White a</p><p>whirlwind initiative) 10 i.d3 0-0 1 1 ctJc3</p><p>and White has very pleasant compensa­</p><p>tion for the pawn.</p><p>8 dxc5</p><p>No choice.</p><p>8 . . . dxc4</p><p>White has tried several moves in this</p><p>position, but none that leads to anything</p><p>better than a struggle (often successful)</p><p>for eguality.</p><p>9 'ik'xd8+</p><p>a) 9 �e2 �e71? (more ambitious than</p><p>the old move 9 . . . �d3, e.g. 1 0 :e1 fS 1 1</p><p>ctJc3 0-0 12 ctJxe4 fxe4 1 3 �xe4 .i.fS</p><p>3 6</p><p>lfz-1/z T.L.Petrosian-A.Grischuk, Internet</p><p>(blitz) 2004; White is certainly not better</p><p>here, but probably not worse either) 1 0</p><p>�xc4 (if 1 0 :e1 ctJxcS 1 1 �xc4 i.e61</p><p>and Black is better - Lukacs) 10 . . . ctJxcS</p><p>(or 10 ... f51? - Lukacs) and now 1 1 i.e31?</p><p>was suggested by Golod, intending</p><p>1 1 .. .ctJe6 12 ctJc3 with compensation, but</p><p>here 12 . . . �b41 seems to give White prob­</p><p>lems proving this. Black is a little better.</p><p>b) 9 �e1 �e7 10 ctJc3 ctJxc3 1 1 �xc3</p><p>0-0 12 �xc4 i.e6 was pleasantly egual</p><p>for Black in A.Pashikian-G.Sargissian,</p><p>Armenian Championship 2003. And</p><p>Black can probably create more problems</p><p>for White with more ambitious play.</p><p>9 . . . 'it'xd8</p><p>9 ... ctJxd8? is just wrong. After 10 :e1</p><p>fS 1 1 ctJgS 0-0 12 ctJxe4 fxe4 13 :xe4</p><p>i.e6 14 ctJc3 i.t7 1 5 i.f4 ctJe6 1 6 i.e3</p><p>White dominated in L.Barczay-L.Karsa,</p><p>Hungarian Championship 1 980.</p><p>1 0 l:!d1 +</p><p>White has also tried 1 0 ctJgS ctJxgS 1 1</p><p>i.xgS+ f6 1 2 :d1+ (after 1 2 i.f4 ctJb4 13</p><p>ctJa3 ctJd3 1 4 :fd1 .i.d7 1 5 .i.g3 ctJxb2</p><p>1 6 :d4 <Jitc8 1 7 ctJxc4 ctJxc4 1 8 :xc4 aS</p><p>19 :e 1 Me8 Black was a pawn up with</p><p>opposite-coloured bishops in D.Durni­</p><p>trache-Kr.Georgiev, Athens 1 992; with</p><p>accurate play and help from the oppo­</p><p>nent, Black managed to gain a full point)</p><p>12 .. . i,d7 1 3 i.f4 ctJb41 (the way to ensure</p><p>an advantage) 1 4 ctJc3 ctJd3 1 5 i,g3</p><p>ctJxcS 1 6 :d4 ctJe6 1 7 :xc4 was</p><p>J.Blauert-G.Von Bulow, German</p><p>Bundesliga 1 998, when Black has many</p><p>ways to try to win with his extra pawn.</p><p>1 0 . . . i..d7</p><p>10 . . . <Jife8 is met by 1 1 :e1 fS 12 ctJc3</p><p>and White is OK.</p><p>Th e Moller Attack a n d the Cla ssical I talian Game</p><p>1 1 .ie3</p><p>After 1 1 4Ja3 4Jxc5 Black is just a</p><p>pawn up, while 1 1 4Jg5 4Jxg5 12 .txg5+</p><p>�c8 13 4Ja3 i.e6 1 4 4Jb5 a6 1 5 4Jd4</p><p>4Jxd4 1 6 l:i.xd4 aS 1 7 l:i.ad1 f6 1 8 i.d2</p><p>l:i.a6 was J .Blauert-M.Hebden, London</p><p>Lloyds Bank 1 991 . Again Black managed</p><p>to convert his extra pawn to a full point</p><p>despite the opposite-coloured bishops. As</p><p>in the previous example, this can be at­</p><p>tributed to the fact that Black was the</p><p>stronger player, as well as to the position.</p><p>1 1 . . . �c8</p><p>Black can also play for an advantage</p><p>with 1 1 . . .�e7!? and then after 12 4Jbd2</p><p>(if 12 4Ja3 c3! 1 3 bxc3 4Jxc3 14 l:i.d3 4Je4</p><p>1 5 l:i.e1 i.e6 and Black had a slight edge</p><p>in K.Honfi-G.Sax, Hungary 1 970)</p><p>12 . . . 4Jxd2 1 3 4Jxd2 i.e6 14 l:i.dc1 (as in</p><p>F.Ramos Suria-A.Sorin, Seville 1 989)</p><p>14 .. . 4Je5 1 5 f4 4Jd3 1 6 l:i.c3 b5 1 7 cxb6</p><p>axb6 1 8 4Jxc4 i.xc4 1 9 l:i.xc4 c5 allows</p><p>White to regain his pawn, but his pieces</p><p>are very badly coordinated and his posi­</p><p>tion full of weaknesses.</p><p>1 2 llc1</p><p>1 2 4Ja3 is weaker, when 12 . . . c3 1 3 b3</p><p>l:i.e8 14 l:i.dc1 4Jb4 1 5 4Je1 4Jd5 1 6 i.d4</p><p>4Jf4 1 7 l:i.c2 i.f5 1 8 g3 4Je6 19 i.xc3</p><p>4J4xc5 gave Black a very clear edge in</p><p>P.Tishin-O.Karpeshov, Samara 2002.</p><p>1 8 . . . l:i.d8 was even stronger, when Black is</p><p>just winning.</p><p>1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3 lba3 c3 1 4 bxc3 b6</p><p>Although natural, this seems a bit too</p><p>early. Instead 14 .. . l:i.e8! was a useful wait­</p><p>ing move, when White is desperately</p><p>fighting for equality, and will probably be</p><p>unsuccessful.</p><p>1 5 lZ'ld4 i.d7 1 6 lbb3</p><p>1 6 f3 4Jxc5 was a little better for Black</p><p>in N.Kopylov-M.Govbinder, correspon­</p><p>dence 1 976.</p><p>1 6 . . . l!e8 1 7 l!ab 1 l!b8 1 8 lbb5 bxc5</p><p>1 9 lZ'la5?</p><p>19 4Jxc5! ctJxc5 20 i.xc5 was neces­</p><p>sary, when the game is level after 20 . . . .tf5</p><p>21 l:i.b3 i.c2 (21 . . .l:i.e2!? 22 4Jxa7+ 4Jxa7</p><p>23 .txa 7 l:i.a8 24 i.d4 l:i.axa2 gives a bit</p><p>more play, but it is still a dead draw) 22</p><p>4Jxa7+! 4Jxa7 23 i.xa7 i.xb3 24 i.xb8</p><p>i.xa2 25 i.a 7 with a draw.</p><p>1 9 . . . a6</p><p>1 9 . . . l:i.xb5! was very strong. White has</p><p>no choice but to enter a ridiculous end­</p><p>game with 20 l:i.xb5 a6 21 4Jxc6 axb5 22</p><p>4Ja5 when Black's extra pawn should tell.</p><p>20 lbxc6 i.xc6 21 lba3?!</p><p>3 7</p><p>I talian Game a n d Evans Gambit</p><p>White had to play 21 lt:Ja7+ �d7 22 56 '.t>e3 c4 57 l:!.c8+</p><p>�xb8 �xb8 23 f3 lt:Jd6 24 i.xc5 when</p><p>Black is better, but not too much.</p><p>21 . . . l:!.xb1 22 lL'lxb1 lL'ld6 23 c4 lL'lf5</p><p>24 il.xc5 l:!.e5 25 �f8 lL'lh4 26 il.xg7</p><p>l:!.g5 27 il.f6 l:!.xg2+ 28 '>iif 1 l:txh2 29</p><p>'>t>e2 lL'lf3 30 lL'lc3</p><p>30 i.c3 was slightly better, but the po­</p><p>sition is very bad for White anyway.</p><p>30 . . . l:!.h6! 3 1 il.h8 l'le6+ 32 '>t>d3 '.t>d7</p><p>33 lL'ld5 h5 34 l:th 1 h4 35 l:!h3 �xd5</p><p>36 cxd5 l:!.h6 37 �g7 l:!.h5!</p><p>Black has a lot of nice options, e.g.</p><p>37 ... lt:Jg5 38 �h2 �d6 with a clear extra</p><p>pawn. After the text White has no choice</p><p>but to enter a bad rook endgame.</p><p>38 !Ixf3 h3 39 �e5 lixe5 40 lixh3</p><p>l:!.xd5+ 41 '>t>c3</p><p>White has drawing chances, but in</p><p>practical terms, it is hard to defend.</p><p>41 . . .!lf5 42 .l:.d3+ '.t>c6 43 f3 '.t>b5 44</p><p>'>t>d2 c5 45 l:tb3+ '>t>a4 46 .l:!.c3 .l:.d5+</p><p>4 7 '>t>c2 l:!.f5 48 '>t>d2 aS 49 '.t>e3 '.t>b4</p><p>50 l:i.b3+ '>t>c4 51 l:!.a3 '.t>b5 52 .l:.b3+</p><p>'>t>c6 53 a4 .l:.e5+ 54 '.t>f4 .l:.d5 55</p><p>l:tb8 .l:.d7</p><p>Stronger was 55 ... �d4+ 56 �e5 �xa4</p><p>57 �f8 �d4 58 �xf7 �d7 59 �f6+ �b5</p><p>and Black should win.</p><p>38</p><p>57 . . . '.t>d5</p><p>Sacrificing the a-pawn seems a bit un­</p><p>necessary.</p><p>58 .l:.a8 '.t>c5 59 l:txa5 + Wb4 60 l:!.a8</p><p>c3 61 l:!.c8 Wb3 62 aS c2 63 a6 '.t>b2</p><p>64 l:!.b8+ '>t>c1 65 '>t>e2 l:ta7 66 .l:.b6</p><p>f5 67 '>t>e1 f4 68 We2 .l:.a8 69 '.t>e1</p><p>lieS+ 70 '>iif2 .liaS</p><p>70 ... �d8 71 �e1 .i::!.d3 72 a7 �e3+ 73</p><p>�f2 l::!.a3 7 4 .i::!.b 7 is also a draw.</p><p>7 1 �e1 l:ta7 72 �e2 .lie7 + 73 '>iif2</p><p>.l:.e3 74 a7 .l:.a3 75 l:.b7 �d2 76</p><p>.lid7+ '>t>c3 77 .lic7 + �b2 78 .l:.b7+</p><p>�a1 79 .lic7 �b1 80 l:tb7 + �a1 81</p><p>.l:.c7 .lia2?!</p><p>Why not just accept that the position is</p><p>now drawn?</p><p>82 a8'iV l:.xa8 83 l:txc2 �b1 84 l:.c4</p><p>.l:.a2+ 85 '.t>f1 '>t>b2 86 l:txf4 '>t>c3 87</p><p>l:tg4 �d3 88 l:!.g2 l:ta1 + 89 Wf2 �d4?</p><p>89 ... �a2+ 90 �g3 �a8 still draws. Af­</p><p>ter the text suddenly White is winning.</p><p>90 .l:.g5! l:!.a8 91 '.t>g3 '!J.a7 92 '.t>g4</p><p>l:!.a8 93 f4 .l:.a1 94 .l:.e5 .llg 1 + 95 '.t>f5</p><p>l:tg8 96 l:!.e6 .l:.f8+ 97 Wg5 l:!.g8+ 98</p><p>l:!.g6 l:tf8 99 f5 Wd5 1 00 .l:.e6 l:tg8+</p><p>1 0 1 �f6 .l:.f8+ 1 02 Wg6 l:tg8+ 1 03</p><p>Wf7 l:tg5 1 04</p>. . . . . . . . . . 8 1 
Hansen.S.B.-Stefansson.H, Copenhagen 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 
Havulinna.M-Nissi.J, Comspondence 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 
Hergott.D-Garcia.G, Linares 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
Iordachescu. V -Gyimesi.Z, Rumania 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 
Jobava.B-Aronian.L, European Championship, Antafya 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 
Kalashnikov.K-Grachev.J, Novosibirsk 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 
1 5 9 
Italian Game a n d Evans Gambit 
Karpatchev.A-Renner.C, German Bundesliga 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 
Kasparov.G-Anand.V, f\Zga 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 
Kasparov.G-Piket.J, Amsterdam 199 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 
Larsen.B-Ochsner.T, Danish Championship, Esl:Jerg 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 
Luciani.C-.Petrovic.M, Noz1a Gorica 2001 . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 
Marsden.} -Sutton.J, Cotnrpondence 200 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 
Mestel.J-Smyslov.V, I _a.r Palma.r Jnterzona/ 198.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 
Morozevich.A-Adams.M, Wzjk aan Zee 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 
Movsesian.S-Morozevich.A, Prague (rapid) 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 
Nevednichy.V-Gyimesi.Z, Mi.rkolc 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 
Odeev.H-Vorotnikov.V, Moscou! 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 
Pieri.F-Chiburdanidze.M, Forli 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 
Pirrot.D-Jenni.F, Cappelle la Grande 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 
Ponomariov.R-Giorgadze.G, Krasnodar 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 
Rogers.I-Ivkov.B, Bor 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 
Salygo.A-Boshoer, Correspondence 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 
Shirov.A-Timman.J, Bie/ 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 
Short.N-Aleksandrov.A, Izmir 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
Short.N-Hiibner.R, Dortmund 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 
Skotorenko.V-Ahman.H, Corre.rpondence 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 16 
Stevic.H-Rogic.D, Vinkovci 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 
Sveshnikov.E-Dautov.R, Pinsk 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 
Sveshnikov.E-Georgiev.Kir, Elista 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
Sveshnikov.E-Kharitonov.A, Russian Championship, Kramqyarsk 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 
Sveshnikov.E-Kholmov.R, Sochi 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 
Sveshnikov.E-Stefansson.H, Liepqya (rapid) 2004 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 
Tyomkin.D-Zugic.I, Afontreal 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
Van den Doel.E-Sokolov.I, Dutch Championship, Leeuwarden 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 
Van der Wiel.J-Baumgartner.U, Holzoster am See 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
Velicka.P-Blatny.P, Czech Team Championship 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1 
Vysochin.S-Kapnisis.S, Corinth 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 
Vysochin.S-Klovans.J, Cappelle la Grande 2005 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 
Yudasin.L-Lenderman.A, Philadelphia 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
1 6 0 
	000
	001
	002
	003
	004
	005
	006
	007
	008
	009
	010
	011
	012
	013
	014
	015
	016
	017
	018
	019
	020
	021
	022
	023
	024
	025
	026
	027
	028
	029
	030
	031
	032
	033
	034
	035
	036
	037
	038
	039
	040
	041
	042
	043
	044
	045
	046
	047
	048
	049
	050
	051
	052
	053
	054
	055
	056
	057
	058
	059
	060
	061
	062
	063
	064
	065
	066
	067
	068
	069
	070
	071
	072
	073
	074
	075
	076
	077
	078
	079
	080
	081
	082
	083
	084
	085
	086
	087
	088
	089
	090
	091
	092
	093
	094
	095
	096
	097
	098
	099
	100
	101
	102
	103
	104
	105
	106
	107
	108
	109
	110
	111
	112
	113
	114
	115
	116
	117
	118
	119
	120
	121
	122
	123
	124
	125
	126
	127
	128
	129
	130
	131
	132
	133
	134
	135
	136
	137
	138
	139
	140
	141
	142
	143
	144
	145
	146
	147
	148
	149
	150
	151
	152
	153
	154
	155
	156
	157
	158
	159
	160

Mais conteúdos dessa disciplina